text:
# Evolution of entanglement for spin-flip dynamics

## 1 Introduction

Entanglement111We refer the reader not familiar with the notion of entanglement to Appendix A, where some basic facts and definitions concerning separable and entangled states has been collected first noted by Schrödinger and von Neumann as the characterictic trait of quantum mechanics , and by Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen  as a quantum superposition of two distinct states of physical systems with the great impact on our understanding of the notion of reality in the atomic scale, is undoubtedly an essential feature of quantum mechanics. That concept can be relatively easy treated for the hamiltonian type evolution. Namely, writing the full Hamiltonian of a composite system, one should specify the interaction part explicitly. We want to emphasize that it is exactly that part of hamiltonian, which is responsible for the evolution of entanglement in the following sense: it is impossible that all factorizable states remain factorizable during the interaction unless the interaction part of the hamiltonian is trivial.

The question of the evolution of entanglement for quantum stochastic semigroups is much harder task. To explain that point in detail, we recall that in recent papers, B. Zegarlinski and one of us, proposed a general scheme for a quantization of stochastic dynamics which describe interacting classical particles -. In that scheme, guided by classical theory (cf. ), a general recipe for quantum stochastic dynamics of jump type and diffusive type was given (see also ,,,). In particular, to define the infinitesimal generators of Markov semigroups, the theory of generalized conditional expectations (in the Accardi-Cechnini sense) in the framework of quantum $`L_p`$-spaces was used. In that way, a general scheme to produce, describe and analyze dynamical systems with evolution originating from quantization of stochastic processes and such that their equilibrium states are prescribed (quantum) Gibbs states, was established.

Having such a general plan of quantization of stochastic dynamics one may pose a natural question about its nontriviality. Under this notion we understand, first of all, that infinitesimal generator of such dynamics is not a function of the hamiltonian which can be extracted from the given Gibbs state. This requirement arises in a natural way from the methodology of construction of quantum stochastic dynamics sketched in the preceding paragraph. In fact, it has been shown  that generators defined within the presented $`L_p`$-space setting satisfy the above specification. On the other hand, the genuine quantum map should produce quantum correlations besides being well defined in non-commutative structures. The important point to note here is the idea of quantum correlations. Recently, the concept of coefficient of quantum correlations was introduced  and it was shown that such coefficient is not equal to zero only for non-separable states. In other words the entanglement is closely related to non-classical correlations between two subsystems of a composite system and such correlations arise from nontrivial interactions between the subsystems. Therefore, to have nontrivial quantum dynamics one should show that the dynamical maps under considerations are able to increase entanglement.

The main difficulty in showing an increment of quantum correlations stems from the fact that the explicit form of interactions responsible for the transition rates used in the definition of quantum Markov generator is not known. Consequently, the present case is much more difficult from the hamiltonian one. To start a general analysis of evolution of entanglement for quantum stochastic dynamics, we begin with the block-spin flip type dynamics, which is the main object of interest in this paper. Let us add that this dynamics can serve as a paradigm for a quantization of Glauber dynamics. Thus, we will be concerned with evolution of entanglement in concrete finite dimensional model of quantum block-spin flip dynamics.

In order to carry out the analysis of entanglement we use two different approaches. Having fixed notations and given preliminaries (Section II), in Section III we consider an explicit example of low-dimensional jump-type system, showing that the block spin flip dynamics leads to the entanglement of the initial separable quantum state. In Section IV we study some properly chosen correlation functions and show that an enhancement of quantum correlation is typical for the considered dynamics (see Proposition 4.5). Finally, in Section V we will comment the obtained results.

## 2 Quantum block spin-flip dynamics

In the general approach to quantum jump-type dynamics of quantum systems on a lattice it is convenient to consider firstly the finite volume case - a system associated with a finite region $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and then to perform the thermodynamic limit with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ going to $`𝐙^d`$, where $`𝐙^d`$ denotes $`d`$-dimensional lattice (for mathematical details of algebraic description of quantum statistical mechanics see ). However, as we have mentioned, the main scope of the paper is the analysis of evolution of entanglement and increment of entanglement is taken as a signature of nontrivial interactions between two subsystems. This phenomenon should be present both for finite and infinite subsystems. To simplify our exposition as much as possible we restrict to the essential ingredients of the finite volume case (for a general description see ,,). Thus, we shall consider a composite system $`I+II`$ associated with a region $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_I\mathrm{\Lambda }_{II}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$, $`i=I,II`$ are disjoint finite subregions of the lattice $`𝐙^d`$. To have a concrete dynamical system we will describe the construction of the block spin-flip dynamics related to the region $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. To this end, we associate with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_I`$ ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{II}`$) the finite dimensional Hilbert space $`_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_I}_1`$ ($`_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{II}}_2`$) as the space of its pure states, the set of density matrices $`S_1`$ ($`S_2`$) as the space of all mixed states, and the set of all bounded linear operators $`(_1)`$ ($`(_2)`$) as the algebras of observables. Thus, the composite system $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is described by $`_1_2`$, $`S_1S_2`$ and $`(_1)(_2)(_1_2)`$, respectively.

The reference state, playing the crucial role for classical and quantum case, is given here by the Gibbs state, i.e. with each region $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_I,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{II}`$, respectively) we associate the Hamiltonian $`H_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_I},H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{II}}`$, respectively) and subsequently the corresponding Gibbs state $`\omega _\mathrm{\Lambda }()=Tr\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }()`$ with $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }={\displaystyle \frac{e^{\beta H_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{Tre^{\beta H_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}\rho `$, etc.

Guided by the classical theory (cf. ), where conditional expectations serve for the construction of jump type stochastic processes, we use their non-commutative generalizations (in the Accardi-Cechini sense) to define the infinitesimal generator $`_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_I}`$ of the corresponding quantum spin-flip semigroup where the ”block spin flip” is carried out on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_I`$ ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$). Therefore let us introduce a map $`E_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_I}(E):(_1_2)(_1_2)`$ defined as follows:

$`E(A)=Tr_1(\gamma ^{}A\gamma )`$ (1)
where

$`\gamma =\rho ^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(Tr_1\rho \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$
with $`Tr_1`$ denoting the partial trace (over the Hilbert space $`_1`$). Let us remark, that for infinite region case, $`\gamma `$ is defined as analytic extension of non-commutative Radon-Nikodym cocycles (cf. ). Using the above defined generalized conditional expectation $`E`$ we can introduce the following operator $``$ defined on $`(_1_2)`$ by

$`(A)=E(A)A`$
for $`A(_1_2)`$. The important point to note here is the form of the infinitesimal Markov generator $``$: there is no explicit term describing the interactions between regions $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_I`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{II}`$ and this is the origin of difficulties in the presented analysis. Given a state $`\omega _\rho `$, defined by a density matrix $`\rho `$, $`\omega _\rho =Tr(\rho ())`$, one can define on $`(_1_2)`$ the following scalar product

$`A,B_{\omega _\rho }Tr\left(\rho ^{\frac{1}{2}}A^{}\rho ^{\frac{1}{2}}B\right)`$
Then, one can verify that $`((_1_2),,_{\omega _\rho })`$ is the non-commutative Hilbert space (which can be called the quantum Liouville space). It will be denoted by $`L_2((_1_2),\rho )`$. Moreover, one can show that $``$ is a well defined bounded Markov generator such that

$`(A),B_{\omega _\rho }=A,(B)_{\omega _\rho }`$
It easily follows that the following semigroup $`T_t^\mathrm{\Lambda }(T_t)=\mathrm{exp}(t)`$ is a well defined Markov uniformly continuous semigroup such that it is self-adjoint on the non-commutative Hilbert space, the state $`\omega _\rho `$ is invariant (with respect to $`T_t`$) and $`T_t`$ can be represented as the sum of the following convergent series:

$`+t+{\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{2!}}^2+\mathrm{}`$
with $``$ being the identity operator.

## 3 Evolution of entanglement

In the next two sections we will look more closely at the time evolution of quantum correlations. Here, we will present the simplest nontrivial example clearly showing that quantum dynamics can produce this type of correlations. We will analyze a $`2\times 2`$ system with block spin-flip dynamics. Thus, $`_1=\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{C}^2=_2`$ and the Hilbert space of the composite system is given by $`\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{C}^2\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{C}^2\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{C}^4`$. Let $`\{\xi _1,\xi _2\}`$ be an orthonormal basis in $`\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{C}^2`$. We define:

$`x_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\xi _1\xi _1+\xi _2\xi _2\right)`$
$`x_2=\xi _1\xi _2`$
$`x_3=\xi _2\xi _1`$ (2)
$`x_4={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\xi _1\xi _1\xi _2\xi _2\right)`$
One can easily check that $`\{x_i\}_{i=1}^4`$ forms the orthonormal basis in$`\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{C}^4`$. Let us define a faithful density matrix $`\rho `$ on$`\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{C}^4`$ which is given by the formula:

$$\rho :=\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\lambda _i|x_ix_i|\lambda _i>0,\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\lambda _i=1$$
(3)
The just defined $`\rho `$ will play the role of the reference state (cf. Introduction). We will need the following the well known fact which can be verified by straightforward calculation.

###### Proposition 3.1

Let $`_1,_2`$ be Hilbert spaces. For every $`x,v_1`$ and $`y,z_2`$ we have: $`Tr_1\left(|xyvz|\right)=(x,v)|yz|`$, where $`Tr_1`$ is the partial trace over $`_1`$ in $`_1_2`$ and $`(,)`$ denotes the scalar product (in $`_1`$).

In the sequel we shall identify $`Tr_1()`$ with its embedding into $`_1_2`$, defined as $`\mathrm{𝟏}Tr_1()`$. Now, let us consider the quantum spin-flip type dynamics $`T_t`$ for our model. Its infinitesimal generator is defined as (cf. Section II):

$`(f)=E(f)f`$
where $`f(_1_2)`$, while $`E`$ was defined in the previous section.

The dynamical semigroup $`T_t`$ has the additional property: as $`𝒜L_2(𝒜,\rho )`$, we have $`T_t𝒜𝒜`$ (Feller property), where $`𝒜=(_1_2)`$, $`L_2(𝒜,\rho )`$ is the non-commutative Hilbert space.

It follows that the Feller property allows to study the following duality problem: We may consider the time evolution $`T_t`$ as the family of maps $`T_t:𝒜𝒜`$, then we can apply the standard equivalence between Schrödinger and Heisenberg picture to determine the evolution $`T_t^d`$ of a state $`\sigma `$. To this end we define:

$`Tr\left(T_t^d(\sigma )f\right):=Tr\left(\sigma T_t(f)\right)`$
for any state $`\sigma `$ and any observable $`f`$. Therefore, we are able to describe explicitly the time evolution of states for that type of dynamics, which is given by the following mapping:

$$\sigma T_t^d(\sigma )=\sigma +t\left(E^d(\sigma )\sigma \right)+\mathrm{}$$
(4)
where the dual $`E^d`$ of the infinitesimal generator $`E`$ is defined by the equality:

$`Tr\left(E^d(\sigma )f\right)=Tr\left(\sigma E(f)\right)`$
and the series in the right hand side of (4) is convergent. Using (1) we can write:

$`Tr\left(E^d(\sigma )f\right)=Tr\left(\sigma Tr_1(\gamma ^{}f\gamma )\right)=Tr\left(Tr_1(\sigma )\gamma ^{}f\gamma \right)=Tr\left(\gamma Tr_1(\sigma )\gamma ^{}f\right)`$
Thus, we get:

$$E^d(\sigma )=\gamma Tr_1(\sigma )\gamma ^{}=\rho ^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(Tr_1\rho \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}Tr_1\sigma \left(Tr_1\rho \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\rho ^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(5)
Let us put $`\sigma =\sigma ^I\sigma ^{II}`$, and recall that $`\rho `$ was defined by (3). Obviously

$$Tr_1\sigma =\mathrm{𝟏}_I\sigma ^{II}$$
(6)
Using Proposition 3.1 we can easily calculate $`Tr_1(\rho )=_{i=1}^4\lambda _iTr_1|x_ix_i|`$. We have

$`Tr_1|x_1x_1|={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Tr_1|\xi _1\xi _1+\xi _2\xi _2\xi _1\xi _1+\xi _2\xi _2|=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[Tr_1|\xi _1\xi _1\xi _1\xi _1|+Tr_1|\xi _1\xi _1\xi _2\xi _2|+`$
$`+Tr_1|\xi _2\xi _2\xi _1\xi _1|+Tr_1|\xi _2\xi _2\xi _2\xi _2|]=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\mathrm{𝟏}_I\left(|\xi _1\xi _1|+\xi _2\xi _2|\right)\right]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\mathrm{𝟏}_{II}\right]`$
For simplicity, we will denote $`\mathrm{𝟏}_I`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏}_{II}`$ briefly by $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ when no confusion can arise. Analogously:

$`Tr_1|x_2x_2|=Tr_1|\xi _1\xi _2\xi _1\xi _2|=\mathrm{𝟏}|\xi _2\xi _2|`$
$`Tr_1|x_3x_3|=Tr_1|\xi _2\xi _1\xi _2\xi _1|=\mathrm{𝟏}|\xi _1\xi _1|`$
$`Tr_1|x_4x_4|={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Tr_1|\xi _1\xi _1\xi _2\xi _2\xi _1\xi _1\xi _2\xi _2|={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}\right]`$
Eventually, we obtain:

$`Tr_1\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1}{2}}\mathrm{𝟏}+\lambda _2\mathrm{𝟏}|\xi _2\xi _2|+\lambda _3\mathrm{𝟏}|\xi _1\xi _1|+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _4}{2}}\mathrm{𝟏}=`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1+\lambda _4}{2}}+\lambda _3\right)\mathrm{𝟏}|\xi _1\xi _1|+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1+\lambda _4}{2}}+\lambda _2\right)\mathrm{𝟏}|\xi _2\xi _2|`$ (7)
We introduce the following notation:

$`\chi _1=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1+\lambda _4}{2}}+\lambda _3\right)^1\chi _2=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1+\lambda _4}{2}}+\lambda _2\right)^1`$
Inserting (3), (6), and (7) into (5) we get:

$`E^d(\sigma )=({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\lambda _i^{\frac{1}{2}}|x_ix_i|)(\mathrm{𝟏}[\chi _1^{\frac{1}{2}}|\xi _1\xi _1|+\chi _2^{\frac{1}{2}}|\xi _2\xi _2|])`$
$`\left(\mathrm{𝟏}\sigma ^{II}\right)\left(\mathrm{𝟏}\left[\chi _1^{\frac{1}{2}}|\xi _1\xi _1|+\chi _2^{\frac{1}{2}}|\xi _2\xi _2|\right]\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\lambda _i^{\frac{1}{2}}|x_ix_i|\right)`$
Now, suppose that $`\sigma ^{II}=a|\xi _1\xi _1|+b|\xi _2\xi _2|`$ with $`a0,b0,a+b=1`$. Then,

$`E^d(\sigma )=\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\lambda _i^{\frac{1}{2}}|x_ix_i|\right)\left(\mathrm{𝟏}a\chi _1|\xi _1\xi _1|+\mathrm{𝟏}b\chi _2|\xi _2\xi _2|\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\lambda _i^{\frac{1}{2}}|x_ix_i|\right)`$
Using (2) and performing some lengthy calculation one can obtain:

$`E^d\left(\sigma ^I(a|\xi _1\xi _1|+b|\xi _2\xi _2|)\right)=\left[a\chi _1\left(\lambda _1^{\frac{1}{2}}+\lambda _4^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)^2+b\chi _2\left(\lambda _1^{\frac{1}{2}}\lambda _4^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)^2\right]|\xi _1\xi _1||\xi _1\xi _1|+`$
$`+\left(a\chi _1+b\chi _2\right)\left(\lambda _1\lambda _4\right)|\xi _1\xi _2||\xi _1\xi _2|+\left(a\chi _1+b\chi _2\right)\left(\lambda _1\lambda _4\right)|\xi _2\xi _1||\xi _2\xi _1|+`$
$`+\left[a\chi _1\left(\lambda _1^{\frac{1}{2}}\lambda _4^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)^2+b\chi _2\left(\lambda _1^{\frac{1}{2}}+\lambda _4^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)^2\right]|\xi _2\xi _2||\xi _2\xi _2|+`$
$`+a\chi _1\lambda _3|\xi _2\xi _2||\xi _1\xi _1|+b\chi _2\lambda _2|\xi _1\xi _1||\xi _2\xi _2|`$
Now, we assume that $`\lambda _2=\lambda _3`$ which implies $`\chi _1=\chi _2=\chi `$. Then,

$`E^d(\sigma ^I(a|\xi _1\xi _1|+b|\xi _2\xi _2|))=\chi [[a(\lambda _1^{\frac{1}{2}}+\lambda _4^{\frac{1}{2}})^2+b(\lambda _1^{\frac{1}{2}}\lambda _4^{\frac{1}{2}})^2]|\xi _1\xi _1||\xi _1\xi _1|+`$
$`+\left(\lambda _1\lambda _4\right)|\xi _1\xi _2||\xi _1\xi _2|+\left(\lambda _1\lambda _4\right)|\xi _2\xi _1||\xi _2\xi _1|+`$
$`+\left[a\left(\lambda _1^{\frac{1}{2}}\lambda _4^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)^2+b\left(\lambda _1^{\frac{1}{2}}+\lambda _4^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)^2\right]|\xi _2\xi _2||\xi _2\xi _2|+`$
$`a\lambda _2|\xi _2\xi _2||\xi _1\xi _1|+b\lambda _2|\xi _1\xi _1||\xi _2\xi _2|]`$
Performing some easy but tedious calculations we arrive at the following decomposition:

$`E^d(\sigma )={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_i|y_iy_i|`$
with

$`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_1=\chi \lambda _+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_2=\chi b\lambda _2\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_3=\chi a\lambda _2\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_4=\chi \lambda _{}`$
where

$`\lambda _\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{A+C\pm X}{2}}X=\sqrt{(AC)^2+4B^2}`$
and

$`A:=a\left(\lambda _1^{\frac{1}{2}}+\lambda _4^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)^2+b\left(\lambda _1^{\frac{1}{2}}\lambda _4^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)^2B:=\lambda _1\lambda _4C:=a\left(\lambda _1^{\frac{1}{2}}\lambda _4^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)^2+b\left(\lambda _1^{\frac{1}{2}}+\lambda _4^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)^2`$
while $`\{y_i\}_{i=1}^4`$ is the orthonormal basis defined as below:

$`y_1=\eta _+\xi _1\xi _1+\kappa _+\xi _2\xi _2`$
$`y_2=\xi _1\xi _2`$
$`y_3=\xi _2\xi _1`$
$`y_4=\eta _{}\xi _1\xi _1+\kappa _{}\xi _2\xi _2`$
where

$`\eta _\pm :={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}B}{\sqrt{X^2(AC)X}}}\kappa _\pm :={\displaystyle \frac{(AC)\pm X}{\sqrt{2}\sqrt{X^2(AC)X}}}`$
The above decomposition of $`E^d(\sigma )`$ is well defined for $`\lambda _1>\lambda _4`$. In particular, we have $`\lambda _\pm >0`$, $`\eta _\pm ,\kappa \pm 0`$.
Now, we are in position to examine the separability of the state $`E^d\left(\sigma ^I(a|\xi _1\xi _1|+b|\xi _2\xi _2|)\right)`$. We will use the simple argument presented in . Define:

$`E_0^d(\sigma )=\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_1|y_1y_1|+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_4|y_4y_4|`$
We observe

$`E_0^d(\sigma )y_2=0=E_0^d(\sigma )y_3`$
and

$`(E_0^d(\sigma )\xi _1\xi _1,\xi _2\xi _2)=\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_1\eta _+\kappa _++\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_4\eta _{}\kappa _{}A`$
Let us put

$`S={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}A_jB_j`$
where $`A_j`$ ($`B_j`$) are positive operators in $`(_1)`$ ($`(_2)`$). Then,

$`E_0^d(\sigma )SA{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}A_j^{^{\frac{1}{2}}}\xi _1B_j^{^{\frac{1}{2}}}\xi _2A_j^{^{\frac{1}{2}}}\xi _2B_j^{^{\frac{1}{2}}}\xi _1`$
Hence,

$`E_0^d(\sigma )S{\displaystyle \frac{A}{2}}>0`$
Consequently, $`E_0^d(\sigma )`$ is not an element of the closure of separable states. To show that $`(1t)\sigma +tE^d(\sigma )`$ is an entangled state we start with recalling some well known facts from the theory of partially ordered topological spaces. Let us consider $`𝒜_{sa}=\{a𝒜:a=a^{}\}`$, where $`𝒜=(_1_2)=(_1)(_2)`$ as a real finite dimensional Banach space ($`_1`$ and $`_2`$ were assumed to be finite dimensional Hilbert spaces). The set $`\{conv(_+(_1)_+(_2))\}^{closure}`$ will be denoted by $`V`$. Clearly, $`V`$ is a proper generating cone in $`𝒜`$. Further, by general argument (or by direct proof) one can note that $`\text{int}V\varphi `$ (where int stands for interior of the set). Define $`V_1=VK(0,1)`$, where $`K(0,1)=\{x𝒜:x1\}`$. One can verify that $`V_1`$ is convex, compact subset with non-empty interior. Therefore, it is homeomorphic to unit ball, while its boundary $`V_1`$ is homeomorphic to unital sphere. Thus, it follows that, in general, a convex combination of $`\rho _1V_1`$ and $`\rho _2V_1`$ is not in $`V_1`$. By applying the above facts to the case $`\rho _1=(1t)\sigma `$, $`\rho _2=tE^d(\sigma )`$, and taking into account the equivalence of the trace and operator norms in finite dimensional case, one can draw the conclusion that within the perturbation calculus in the first order a separable state $`\sigma `$ evolves to the entangled state $`(1t)\sigma +tE^d(\sigma )`$.

## 4 Factorization of two-points correlation functions

In this section we will proceed with analysis of factorization of certain correlation functions. To clarify the relation of that topic to evolution of entanglement we start with establishing the relation between factorization and existence of non-quantum correlation between two subsystems $`𝒜_1,𝒜_2`$. Having this as well as the relation between quantum correlations and entanglement, we give a detailed analysis of factorization of two-point correlation functions.

Let us begin with a classical case, i.e. let $`𝒜_i`$, $`i=1,2`$, be two abelian $`C^{}`$-algebras with identities. Consider $`𝒜_{cl}=𝒜_1𝒜_2`$ and let $`\omega :𝒜_{cl}\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{C}`$ be a state. The abelianess of $`𝒜_i`$, $`i=1,2`$, implies

$`𝒜_{cl}𝒞(\mathrm{\Omega }_1)𝒞(\mathrm{\Omega }_2)=𝒞(\mathrm{\Omega }_1\times \mathrm{\Omega }_2),`$
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$, $`i=1,2`$ are compact Hausdorff topological spaces. By Markov-Riesz theorem there exists a probability measure $`\mu `$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1\times \mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ such that

$`\omega (a_1a_2)=\mu (\widehat{a}_{12}),`$
with $`\widehat{a}_{12}=i(a_1a_2)`$ and $`i`$ being an isomorphism between $`𝒞(\mathrm{\Omega }_1)𝒞(\mathrm{\Omega }_2)`$ and $`𝒞(\mathrm{\Omega }_1\times \mathrm{\Omega }_2)`$. Consider the truncated correlation (or equivalently the second Ursell function)

$`C_{\omega ,a_1,a_2}\omega (a_1\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}a_2)\omega (a_1\mathrm{𝟏})\omega (\mathrm{𝟏}a_2)`$
for $`a_i𝒜_i`$, $`i=1,2`$. Due to the fact that each (classical) measure can be -weakly approximated by finitely supported probability measures one has

$`C_{\omega ,a_1,a_2}=\underset{n}{lim}\left[\mu _n(\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_2)\mu _n(\widehat{a}_1)\mu _n(\widehat{a}_2)\right],`$
where for each $`n`$, $`\mu _n=_{i=1}^{N_n}\lambda _i^{(n)}\delta _{\omega _i^{(n)}}`$, and $`\delta _{\omega _i^{(n)}}`$ is a Dirac (point) measure on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1\times \mathrm{\Omega }_2`$. Therefore $`\delta _{\omega _i^{(n)}}=\delta _{\omega _i^{(n,1)}}\times \delta _{\omega _i^{(n,2)}}`$, where we have used the following notation: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1\times \mathrm{\Omega }_2\omega _i^n=(\omega _i^{(n,1)},\omega _i^{(n,2)})`$. Consequently

$`C_{\omega ,a_1,a_2}=\underset{n}{lim}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N_n}{}}}\lambda _i^{(n)}\delta _{\omega _i^{(n,1)}}(\widehat{a}_1)\delta _{\omega _i^{(n,2)}}(\widehat{a}_2)\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N_n}{}}}\lambda _i^{(n)}\delta _{\omega _i^{(n,1)}}(\widehat{a}_1)\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N_n}{}}}\lambda _i^{(n)}\delta _{\omega _i^{(n,2)}}(\widehat{a}_2)\right)\right].`$
Thus, each classical truncated correlation $`C_{\omega ,a_1,a_2}`$ can be approximated by a difference of ”separable states” and product of one-point functions. The important point to note here is that from the very beginning it is necessary to determine subalgebras (here $`𝒜_1,𝒜_2`$) - then we can define correlations with respect to this fixed partition. We recall that we are studying block spin-flip dynamics, where the spin-flip is carried out over the region $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_I`$. Thus, the partition was fixed. Moreover, by definition, a separable state has the factorization property!

Now, let $`𝒜_i`$ be arbitrary (non-commutative) $`C^{}`$-algebras with identities. Let $`\omega `$ be a separable state on $`𝒜=𝒜_1𝒜_2`$, where in our case $`𝒜=(_1)(_2)`$, $`𝒜_i=(_i)`$, $`i=1,2`$. Then, guided by the above general observation concerning classical systems, we say that a separable state $`\omega =_i\lambda _i\rho _i^I\rho _i^{II}`$ encodes classical correlations with respect to the partition of $`𝒜=<𝒜_1\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏}𝒜_2>`$, a $`C^{}`$-algebra generated by $`𝒜_1\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏}𝒜_2`$.

Again, let $`\omega `$ be a separable state with respect to the partition $`𝒜=<𝒜_1\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏}𝒜_2>`$ and $`T_t:𝒜𝒜`$ be a spin-flip type dynamics. We wish to consider the truncated correlation (now for our quantum dynamical system)

$`C_{\omega ,g,f}^{q,T}=\omega (gT_t(f))\omega (g)\omega (T_t(f))`$
with $`gid__1𝒜_2`$, $`f𝒜_1id__2`$. Throughout the rest of the paper we shall assume that observables $`f`$ and $`g`$ are of the form:

$`f=Fid__2,g=id__1G`$
with $`F(_1)`$ and $`G(_2)`$, i.e. $`f`$ ($`g`$) is an element of the subsystem $`I`$ ($`II`$ respectively). We observe:

$`C_{\omega ,g,f}^{q,t}=\omega (gT_t(f))\omega (g)\omega (T_t(f))=\omega (gf)+t\omega (g(f))+{\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{2!}}\omega (g((f)))+\mathrm{}\omega (g)\omega (f)`$
$`=C_{\omega ,g,f}^q+tC_{\omega ,g,f}^{L,1}+{\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{2!}}C_{\omega ,g,f}^{L,2}+{\displaystyle \frac{t^3}{3!}}C_{\omega ,g,f}^{L,2}+\mathrm{}`$
where

$`C_{\omega ,g,f}^q=\omega (gf)\omega (g)\omega (f)`$
$`C_{\omega ,g,f}^{L,1}=\omega (g(f))\omega (g)\omega ((f)),C_{\omega ,g,f}^{L,2}=\omega (g((f)))\omega (g)\omega (((f))),\mathrm{}`$
We observe:

i) $`C_{\omega ,g,f}^q`$ measures the ”classical” correlations between $`g`$ and $`f`$ with respect to the partition $`𝒜_1`$, $`𝒜_2`$, for time equal to $`0`$.

ii) We can not say the same for $`C_{\omega ,g,f}^{L,1}`$, $`C_{\omega ,g,f}^{L,2}`$, etc., since $`\omega `$ is separable with respect to the partition $`𝒜_1\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟏}𝒜_2`$, while $`g𝒜_2`$ but $`(f)𝒜`$! We would have ”classical” correlations if $`\omega `$ was of the form $`\omega =_i\lambda _i\omega _i^I\omega _i^{II}`$, where $`\omega _i^I`$ is a state on a $`C^{}`$-subalgebra containing $`(f)`$ while $`\omega _i^{II}`$ is a state on $`𝒜_2`$, and similarly for higher order terms. In other words, the evolution (its infinitesimal generator) leads to a deviation from the original partition of the composite system and the new partition does not fit to our definition of the spin-flip operation over the region $`I`$. In particular, the given separable decomposition of $`\omega `$ is not adapted to be a measure of classical correlations between $`g`$ and $`(f)`$.

Therefore, nonzero value of $`\omega (G(F))C_{\omega ,g,f}^{L,1}`$ can be taken as an indicator for the increment of non-classical correlations (with respect to the partition $`<𝒜_1\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏}𝒜_2>`$).

To elaborate that point a little bit further let the state $`\omega `$ be given by the density matrix $`\rho `$ of the form

$`\rho ={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\lambda _i\rho _i^I\rho _i^{II}.`$ (8)
with $`\rho _i^I`$ and $`\rho _i^{II}`$ being the states of the subsystem $`I`$ and $`II`$, respectively. Consider $`\omega (GE(F))=_i\lambda _iTr\left(\rho _i^I\rho _i^{II}GE(F)\right)`$ with $`G𝒜_2`$, $`F𝒜_1`$ (with a natural embedding of $`𝒜_1`$ and $`𝒜_2`$ into $`𝒜`$). Assume $`G=HH^{}`$ with $`[H,\rho _i^{II}]=0`$. Then,

$`\omega (GE(F))={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\lambda _iTr\rho _i^IH\rho _i^{II}H^{}E(F)={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\lambda _i\rho _i^{II}(HH^{})Tr\rho _i^I\rho _i^{II,H}E(F)=`$
$`=TrE^d\left({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\lambda _i\rho _i^{II}(HH^{})\rho _i^I\rho _i^{II,H}\right)F`$
with $`\rho _i^{II,H}=\rho _i^{II}/\rho _i(H^{}H)`$. We know, by Section III, that $`E^d\left(_i\lambda _i\rho _i^{II}(HH^{})\rho _i^I\rho _i^{II,H}\right)`$ is not, in general, a separable state. In other words, any reasonable factorization does not hold. In particular,

$`E^d\left({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\lambda _i\rho _i^{II}(HH^{})\rho _i^I\rho _i^{II,H}\right)(Fid__2){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\lambda _i\rho _i^{II}(HH^{})\rho _i^I(F)`$
We can summarize the above consideration as follows:

An entangled state encodes non-classical correlations. Even in the simplest case of $`2\times 2`$ system the spin-flip dynamics can lead to entangled state (cf. Section III). Moreover, in general, for the entangled state, the second Ursell function fails to have the factorization property.

Before performing the promised analysis we want to make an additional observation, which justifies our assumption that it is enough to consider only observables from subalgebras while considering correlation function $`\omega (GE(F))`$.

###### Remark 4.1

We note that the equality

$`0=\omega (G(F))=\omega (GE(F))\omega (GF)`$ (9)
for all $`G𝒜`$ and $`F𝒜_2`$ is a very strong condition, since it implies $`E=id`$, so the spin-flip dynamics would be a trivial one. Therefore we restrict ourselves to study much weaker condition

$`\omega (GE(F))\omega (GF)`$
for $`G𝒜_1`$, $`F𝒜_2`$ and a separable state $`\omega `$ on $`𝒜_1𝒜_2`$.

Consequently, we shall analyze conditions under which the function $`<G,F>\omega (GE(F))`$ does not factorize, i.e. (9) does not hold for $`G𝒜_1`$, $`F𝒜_2`$. Again, we assume that the state $`\rho `$ is of the form (8). From now on we make the assumption that the density matrix $`\rho `$ is an invertible one. This assumption stems from the general strategy of constructing quantum maps. Namely, we associate with the quantum system the quantum Hilbert space $`L_2(𝒜,\rho )`$ with a given reference Gibbs state. Obviously, any Gibbs state has the assumed property. We also note that if $`\rho `$ is an invertible density matrix, then $`Tr_1(\rho )`$ has this property too. This observation will be used throughout this section.

As a result of longish (however not difficult) calculations we get the following characterization of the considered correlation functions:
*Let $`\{\phi _i\varphi _j\}`$ be the orthonormal basis of $`_1_2`$, where $`\{\phi _i\}`$ is arbitrary orthonormal basis of $`_1`$ while the basis $`\{\varphi _j\}`$ in $`_2`$ is such that $`Tr_1(\rho )`$ is diagonal. Then we have:*

$`E(f)g_\rho ={\displaystyle \underset{klji}{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{pq}{}}\rho _{pkjq}^{\frac{1}{2}}\rho _{lpqi}^{\frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{a}_j}{\stackrel{~}{a}_i}}}\right)\phi _k\left|F\right|\phi _l\varphi _i\left|G\right|\varphi _j`$ (10)
*where*

$`\stackrel{~}{a}_j={\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}\rho _{rrjj}`$
*and the matrix elements in the basis $`\{\phi _i\varphi _j\}`$ are:*

$`\rho _{pqrs}:=\phi _p\varphi _r\left|\rho \right|\phi _q\varphi _s\rho _{pqrs}^{\frac{1}{2}}:=\phi _p\varphi _r\left|\rho ^{\frac{1}{2}}\right|\phi _q\varphi _s`$ (11)
*Moreover, $`\stackrel{~}{a}_j`$ are the eigenvalues of $`Tr_1(\rho )`$.*

### 4.1 General characterization of factorization

In order to examine the just described correlation functions, we assume as before that $`\rho `$, $`\rho ^I`$ and $`\rho ^{II}`$ (with or without indexes) denote states on $`_1_2`$, $`_1`$ and $`_2`$, respectively.

It is evident from the definition of $`C_{\omega ,f,g}^{L,1}`$ that the factorization of the correlation function $`E(f)g_\rho `$ is not dependent on a particular choice of the decomposition of $`\rho `$. This allows us to examine the factorization for any decomposition of $`\rho `$ with conclusions valid for any other decomposition. As the next step of mathematical framework for characterizing of correlation functions, we want to give the necessary and sufficient condition for the factorization of such functions.

###### Proposition 4.1

Let $`\rho =_i\lambda _i\rho _i^I\rho _i^{II}`$ and $`f=Fid__2`$, $`g=id__1G`$, $`dim_1=n`$, $`dim_2=m`$. Let $`\{\phi _i\}_{i=1}^n`$ be arbitrary orthonormal basis of $`_1`$ and $`\{\varphi _j\}_{j=1}^m`$ be orthonormal basis of $`_2`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }Tr_1\rho `$ is diagonal. Then the following conditions are equivalent:
(i) correlation function can be factorized, i.e.

$`E(f)g_\rho ={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\lambda _iF_{\rho _i^I}G_{\rho _i^{II}}`$
(ii) for every $`k,l\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and $`j,i\{1,2,\mathrm{},m\}`$ the following equality holds:

$`\rho _{lkji}={\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{q=1}{\overset{m}{}}}\rho _{pkjq}^{\frac{1}{2}}\rho _{lpqi}^{\frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{_{r=1}^n\rho _{rrjj}}{_{v=1}^n\rho _{vvii}}}}`$ (12)
where $`\rho _{lkji}:=\phi _l\varphi _j\left|\rho \right|\phi _k\varphi _i`$.
If the condition (ii) holds for some basis $`\{\phi _i\}`$ then it holds also for any other basis $`\{\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i\}`$ (basis $`\{\varphi _j\}`$ unchanged!). Conversely, if (ii) does not hold for given basis $`\{\phi _i\}`$ then it does not hold for any other basis $`\{\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i\}`$.

*Proof.* Take the bases $`\{\phi _k\}`$, $`\{\varphi _j\}`$ such as described in the proposition. Calculate $`_i\lambda _iF_{\rho _i^I}G_{\rho _i^{II}}`$ in the basis $`\{\phi _k\varphi _j\}`$. Using (11), we get:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\lambda _iF_{\rho _i^I}G_{\rho _i^{II}}={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\lambda _i{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\phi _l\left|\rho _i^IF\right|\phi _l{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\varphi _j\left|\rho _i^{II}G\right|\varphi _j={\displaystyle \underset{kljr}{}}\rho _{lkjr}\phi _k\left|F\right|\phi _l\varphi _r\left|G\right|\varphi _j`$
From the general form of the considered correlation function (cf. (10)) we have:

$`E(f)g_\rho ={\displaystyle \underset{kljr}{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{pq}{}}\rho _{pkjq}^{\frac{1}{2}}\rho _{lpqr}^{\frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{a}_j}{\stackrel{~}{a}_r}}}\right)\phi _k\left|F\right|\phi _l\varphi _r\left|G\right|\varphi _j\text{where}\stackrel{~}{a}_j={\displaystyle \underset{v}{}}\rho _{vvjj}`$
Substituting $`F=|\phi _k\phi _l|`$ and $`G=|\varphi _j\varphi _i|`$ with $`k,l,j,i`$ arbitrary, it is easy to verify that the right-hand sides of the last two expressions equal if and only if (12) holds.

### 4.2 Factorization and quasi-classicality

It turns out that the sufficient conditions for factorization of correlation function can be connected to the ’quasi-classicality’ of the considered state - the notion to be precised in the following definition. If $`\rho =_i\lambda _i\rho _i^I\rho _i^{II}`$ is given decomposition of a separable density matrix, then $`\rho `$ can be considered as classical if $`\{\rho _i^I\}`$ and $`\{\rho _i^{II}\}`$ are abelian families of density matrices. Below, we define weaker conditions for families of density matrices, which are essential for the subsequent considerations.

###### Definition 4.1

Let $``$ be the Hilbert space, $`dim=n`$. Let $`\{\rho _i\}_{i=1}^N`$ be a family of density matrices on $``$ and $`\{\lambda _i\}_{i=1}^N`$ be (strictly) positive numbers $`(\lambda _i>0)`$, such that $`_{i=1}^N\lambda _i=1`$. Define $`\rho _0:=_i\lambda _i\rho _i`$. Let $`\{\varphi _j\}_{j=1}^n`$ \- orthonormal basis consisting of eigenvectors of $`\rho _0`$ and $`\{c_j\}_{j=1}^n`$ \- corresponding eigenvalues. We will say that the family $`\{\rho _i\}`$ is K-quasi-abelian ($`1Kn`$) if and only if the following condition holds: there exists the partition $`\{A_p\}_{p=1}^K`$ of $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$, $`|A_p|1`$ (where $`|A|`$ denotes the cardinality of the set $`A`$), such that:
(i) for any $`p\{1,\mathrm{},K\}`$ and $`r,sA_p`$ we have $`c_r=c_s`$ and for any $`rA_p,sA_q`$ if $`pq`$ then $`c_rc_s`$
(ii) for any $`k,l\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and $`i\{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$ if $`c_kc_l`$ then $`\varphi _k\left|\rho _i\right|\varphi _l=0`$

###### Remark 4.2

Definition 4.1 can be rephrased in a simple way as follows. The family $`\{\rho _i\}`$ is K-quasi-abelian if and only if $`\rho _i`$ commutes with spectral projectors of $`\rho _0`$ (so with $`\rho _0`$ itself) for each $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$. However, we shall use properties (i) and (ii) in the sequel, so the original formulation is more convenient.

It is an easy observation that if $`|A_p|=1`$ for some $`p`$, then the corresponding vector $`\varphi _p`$ is the common eigenvector for all the matrices $`\rho _i`$. This means that the number of sets $`A_p`$ in the partition $`\{A_p\}`$ with the cardinality one equals the number of common eigenvectors for all the matrices $`\rho _i`$. In particular, if $`\{\rho _i\}`$ is $`K`$-quasi-abelian for $`K=n`$, then it is abelian in the traditional sense.
On the basis of the above definition we can formulate the sufficient conditions for factorization of the correlation function using the above type of commutativity properties of the families $`\{\rho _i^I\}`$ and $`\{\rho _i^{II}\}`$.

###### Proposition 4.2

Let $`\rho =_i\lambda _i\rho _i^I\rho _i^{II}`$ be a separable density matrix and $`f=Fid__2`$, $`g=id__1G`$, $`dim_1=n`$, $`dim_2=m`$. Then the following implication holds:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\text{ There exists decomposition }\rho =_{j=1}^{\stackrel{~}{N}}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_j\stackrel{~}{\rho }_j^I\stackrel{~}{\rho }_j^{II}\text{ such that one of the conditions is satisfied:}\hfill \\ (i)\{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_j^{II}\}\text{ is K-quasi-abelian }(K<n)\text{ and }\{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_j^I\}\text{ is abelian }\hfill \\ (ii)\{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_j^{II}\}\text{ is abelian }\hfill \end{array}\right)$$

$$\text{then}\left(\begin{array}{c}E(f)g_\rho =_i\lambda _iF_{\rho _i^I}G_{\rho _i^{II}}\text{ (factorization of the correlation function)}\hfill \end{array}\right)$$

*Proof.* We will prove the implication assuming (i). One can prove the statement under (ii) by similar reasoning. Let us first prove that (12) holds. To this end let us take the bases $`\{\phi _i\}`$ and $`\{\varphi _j\}`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_j^I`$ are diagonal in the basis $`\{\phi _i\}`$ and $`_j\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_j\stackrel{~}{\rho }_j^{II}Tr_1(\rho )`$ is diagonal in the basis $`\{\varphi _j\}`$. Then, the matrix elements $`\rho _{lkij}=0`$ whenever $`lk`$. The same is true for $`\rho _{lkij}^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. Note that also $`_{pq}\rho _{pkjq}^{\frac{1}{2}}\rho _{lpqi}^{\frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{a}_j/\stackrel{~}{a}_i}=0`$ for $`lk`$ since for every $`p,i,j`$ and $`q`$ either $`\rho _{pkjq}^{\frac{1}{2}}=0`$ or $`\rho _{lpqi}^{\frac{1}{2}}=0`$. Hence, for $`lk`$ (12) holds. Now, let $`l=k`$. Writing $`_{pq}\rho _{pkjq}^{\frac{1}{2}}\rho _{lpqi}^{\frac{1}{2}}=_p\left(_q\rho _{pkjq}^{\frac{1}{2}}\rho _{lpqi}^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)`$, we see that it can differ from zero if and only if $`p=k(=l)`$. Taking into account that due to our specific choice of the bases, the equality $`_q\rho _{kkjq}^{\frac{1}{2}}\rho _{kkqi}^{\frac{1}{2}}=\rho _{kkji}`$ holds, we can write (12) for $`l=k`$ in the form $`\rho _{kkji}=\rho _{kkji}\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{jj}/\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{ii}}`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{jj}:=\varphi _j\left|\stackrel{~}{\rho }\right|\varphi _j`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }=_s\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_s\stackrel{~}{\rho }_s^{II}(Tr_1(\rho ))`$. Note that because of the choice of $`\{\varphi _j\}`$, elements $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{jj}`$ are the eigenvalues of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$. By assumption, the family $`\{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_j^{II}\}`$ is K-quasi-abelian. This means that either $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{jj}=\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{ii}`$ ((12) is then satisfied in an obvious way) or $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{jj}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{ii}`$. In the latter case we have $`\varphi _j\left|\stackrel{~}{\rho }_s^{II}\right|\varphi _i=0`$ (cf. Def. 4.1), which implies $`\rho _{kkji}=_s\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_s\phi _k\left|\stackrel{~}{\rho }_s^I\right|\phi _k\varphi _j\left|\stackrel{~}{\rho }_s^{II}\right|\varphi _i=0`$ and, of course, (12) holds. We have shown that (i) implies 0(12). By Proposition 4.1 we have $`E(f)g_\rho =_j\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_jF_{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_j^I}G_{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_j^{II}}`$ and thus, by equivalence of the decompositions of $`\rho `$, we get $`E(f)g_\rho =_i\lambda _iF_{\rho _i^I}G_{\rho _i^{II}}`$ which ends the proof.

The implication in Proposition 4.2 can be partially inverted. We have

###### Proposition 4.3

Let $`\rho =_i\lambda _i\rho _i^I\rho _i^{II}`$, $`f=Fid__2`$, $`g=id__1G`$, $`dim_1=n`$, $`dim_2=m`$. Assume that there exists decomposition $`\rho =_j\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_j\stackrel{~}{\rho }_j^I\stackrel{~}{\rho }_j^{II}`$ such that $`\{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_j^I\}`$ is abelian. Then the following conditions are equivalent:
(i) For some decomposition $`\rho =_j\widehat{\lambda }_j\widehat{\rho }_j^I\widehat{\rho }_j^{II}`$ we have:

$`\{\widehat{\rho }_j^I\}\text{is abelian and}\{\widehat{\rho }_j^{II}\}\text{is K-quasi-abelian }(Km\text{)}`$
(ii) $`E(f)g_\rho =_i\lambda _iF_{\rho _i^I}G_{\rho _i^{II}}`$

*Proof.* $`((i)(ii))`$ This implication follows from Proposition 4.2.
$`((ii)(i))`$ Let $`\{\phi _i\}`$ be the orthonormal basis of $`_1`$, in which $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_j^I`$ are diagonal and $`\{\varphi _j\}`$ be the orthonormal basis consisting of eigenvectors of the reduced density matrix $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }=Tr_1(\rho )`$. Then there exists decomposition $`\rho =_j\widehat{\lambda }_j\widehat{\rho }_j^I\widehat{\rho }_j^{II}`$ such that $`\widehat{\rho }_j^I=|\phi _j\phi _j|`$ (the family $`\{\widehat{\rho }_j^I\}`$ is abelian). The matrix elements of $`\rho `$ are $`\rho _{kluw}=_i\lambda _i\eta _{ikl}\xi _{iuw}`$ with $`\eta _{ikl}=\phi _k|\widehat{\rho }_i^I|\phi _l=\delta _{ik}\delta _{il}`$ and $`\xi _{iuw}=\varphi _u|\widehat{\rho }_i^I|\varphi _w`$. Obviously, $`E(f)g_\rho =_i\lambda _iF_{\rho _i^I}G_{\rho _i^{II}}`$ implies $`E(f)g_\rho =_j\widehat{\lambda }_jF_{\widehat{\rho }_j^I}G_{\widehat{\rho }_j^{II}}`$. By Proposition 4.1 it means that

$$\rho _{lkji}=\underset{p=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{q=1}{\overset{m}{}}\rho _{pkjq}^{\frac{1}{2}}\rho _{lpqi}^{\frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{\frac{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{jj}}{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{ii}}}$$
(13)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{jj}`$ is eigenvalue of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ corresponding to $`\varphi _j`$. Since $`\rho _{klji}=0`$ if $`lk`$ (which implies $`\rho _{klji}^{\frac{1}{2}}=0`$ for $`lk`$), (13) reduces to $`\rho _{kkji}=_{q=1}^m\rho _{kkjq}^{\frac{1}{2}}\rho _{kkqi}^{\frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{jj}/\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{ii}}`$, and $`_q\rho _{kkjq}^{\frac{1}{2}}\rho _{kkqi}^{\frac{1}{2}}=\rho _{kkji}`$. Hence, if (13) holds, then for every $`j,i\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$ such that $`ji`$ we have: if $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{jj}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{ii}`$ then $`\rho _{kkji}=0`$ for $`k=1,\mathrm{},n`$. But $`\rho _{kkji}=0`$ means $`_l\lambda _l\eta _{lkk}\xi _{lji}=0`$. Since $`\eta _{ikl}=\delta _{ik}\delta _{il}`$, we have $`0=_l\lambda _l\eta _{lkk}\xi _{lji}=_l\lambda _l\delta _{lk}\xi _{lji}=\lambda _k\xi _{kji}\xi _{kji}=0`$ as from the definition of decomposition $`_l\lambda _l>0`$. Thus, the set $`\{\widehat{\rho }_i^{II}\}`$ has the following property: if $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{jj}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{ii}`$ then for every $`k\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ we have $`(\widehat{\rho }_k^{II})_{ji}\xi _{kji}=0`$. From Definition 4.1 it follows that the set $`\{\rho _i^{II}\}`$ is K-quasi-abelian for some $`Km`$.

### 4.3 Factorization and nondegeneracy of density matrix

The next result provides a criterion for the factorization of correlation functions under the nondegeneracy condition specified below. To show this equivalence we need the following result:

###### Lemma 4.1

Let $`\rho =_i\lambda _i\rho _i^I\rho _i^{II}`$, $`dim_1=n`$, $`dim_2=m`$ and the matrix elements $`\rho _{klji}`$ satisfy in some product basis $`\{\phi _i\varphi _j\}`$ the following condition $`\rho _{klji}=0`$ whenever $`kl`$ ($`\rho _{klji}=0`$ whenever $`ji`$). Then there exists decomposition $`\rho =_j\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_j\stackrel{~}{\rho }_j^I\stackrel{~}{\rho }_j^{II}`$ such that $`\{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_j^I\}`$ is abelian ($`\{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_j^{II}\}`$ is abelian).

*Proof.* Let us consider the matrix representation of $`\rho `$, i.e. $`\rho =\left[\rho _{klji}\right]_{k,l=1,\mathrm{},n;j,i=1,\mathrm{},m}`$ (cf. (11)). Suppose that $`\rho _{klji}=0`$ whenever $`kl`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_s:=_{p=1}^m\rho _{sspp}`$. Consider the following decomposition of $`\rho `$:

$$\rho =\underset{s=1}{\overset{n}{}}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_s\stackrel{~}{\rho }_s^I\stackrel{~}{\rho }_s^{II}$$
(14)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }_s^I=|\phi _s\phi _s|\left[\stackrel{~}{\rho }_s^{II}\right]_{ji}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_s}\left[\rho _{ssji}\right]_{j,i=1}^m\hfill & \text{ if }\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_s>0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ if }\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_s=0\hfill \end{array}$$

One can easily check that (14) is a well defined decomposition of $`\rho `$ (in particular if $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_s=0`$ then $`\rho _{ssji}=0`$ for $`j,i=1,\mathrm{},m`$). Of course $`\{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_s^I\}`$ is abelian. The proof of the second statement is similar.

Now we are in position to give the promised result which shows a relation between factorization of correlation function and the spectral properties (nondegeneracy) of density matrix.

###### Proposition 4.4

Let $`\rho =_i\lambda _i\rho _i^I\rho _i^{II}`$, $`f=Fid__2`$, $`g=id__1G`$, $`dim_1=n`$, $`dim_2=m`$. Assume that the reduced density matrix $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }=_i\lambda _i\rho _i^{II}(Tr_1(\rho ))`$ has nondegenerated eigenvalues. Then the following conditions are equivalent:

$$\begin{array}{c}(i)\text{ there exists decomposition }\rho =\underset{j}{}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_j\stackrel{~}{\rho }_j^I\stackrel{~}{\rho }_j^{II}\text{ such that }\{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_j^{II}\}\text{ is abelian}\hfill \\ (ii)\text{ correlation function can be factorized, i.e. }E(f)g_\rho =_i\lambda _iF_{\rho _i^I}G_{\rho _i^{II}}\hfill \end{array}$$

*Proof.* $`((i)(ii))`$ This implication follows from Proposition 4.2.
$`((ii)(i))`$ Let $`\{\phi _i\}_{i=1}^n`$ be arbitrary orthonormal basis of $`_1`$ and $`\{\varphi _j\}_{j=1}^m`$ be orthonormal basis of $`_2`$ consisting of eigenvectors of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$. If the correlation function factorizes, then from Proposition 4.1 we have $`\rho _{lkji}=_{p=1}^n_{q=1}^m\rho _{pkjq}^{\frac{1}{2}}\rho _{lpqi}^{\frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{jj}/\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{ii}}`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{ii}`$ \- the eigenvalue of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ corresponding to $`\varphi _i`$. This equality and self-adjointness of $`\rho `$ imply:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{pq}{}}\rho _{pkjq}^{\frac{1}{2}}\rho _{lpqi}^{\frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{jj}}{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{ii}}}}=\overline{{\displaystyle \underset{rs}{}}\rho _{rlis}^{\frac{1}{2}}\rho _{krsj}^{\frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{ii}}{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{jj}}}}}={\displaystyle \underset{rs}{}}\overline{\rho _{rlis}^{\frac{1}{2}}}\overline{\rho _{krsj}^{\frac{1}{2}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{ii}}{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{jj}}}}={\displaystyle \underset{rs}{}}\rho _{rkjs}^{\frac{1}{2}}\rho _{lrsi}^{\frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{ii}}{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{jj}}}}`$
Multiplying the above equality by $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{jj}}{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{ii}}}\right)`$ gives:

$`\underset{\rho _{lkji}}{\underset{}{{\displaystyle \underset{pq}{}}\rho _{pkjq}^{\frac{1}{2}}\rho _{lpqi}^{\frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{jj}}{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{ii}}}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{jj}}{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{ii}}}=\underset{\rho _{lkji}}{\underset{}{{\displaystyle \underset{rs}{}}\rho _{rkjs}^{\frac{1}{2}}\rho _{lrsi}^{\frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{jj}}{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{ii}}}}}}\rho _{lkji}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{jj}}{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{ii}}}\right)=\rho _{lkji}\rho _{lkji}\left(\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{jj}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{ii}\right)=0`$
By the assumption $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{jj}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{ii}`$, hence $`\rho _{lkji}=0`$ whenever $`ji`$. Our Proposition follows then from Lemma 4.1.

The results of this section provide a natural and intrinsic characterization of the two-points correlation function for block spin-flip dynamics and for the initial separable state. But one question still unanswered is whether the factorization or non-factorization of such functions is a genuine property for the considered dynamics. To answer this question we want to show that there are a lot of separable density matrices for which the correlation function $`E(f)g_\rho `$ can not be factorized. Namely, we have the following:

###### Proposition 4.5

The set of density matrices such that the equality $`E(f)g_\rho =_i\lambda _iF_{\rho _i^I}G_{\rho _i^{II}}`$ does not hold, is dense in $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{sep}`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{sep}=\{\rho S_{sep}:Tr_1\rho \text{is invertible}\}`$.

The proof of Proposition 4.5 is given in Appendix B.
We want to complete this section with the observation that there exists a strict connection between the problem of factorization of the correlation function and the separability of the square root $`\rho ^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. Namely:

###### Proposition 4.6

Let $`\rho =_i\lambda _i\rho _i^I\rho _i^{II}`$. If there exists decomposition $`_j\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_j\stackrel{~}{\rho }_j^I\stackrel{~}{\rho }_j^{II}`$ such that one of the following conditions is satisfied:

$$\begin{array}{c}(i)\{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_j^I\}\text{ is abelian }\hfill \\ (ii)\{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_j^{II}\}\text{ is abelian }\hfill \end{array}$$

then $`\rho ^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ is separable.

*Proof.* Suppose that there exists decomposition $`_j\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_j\stackrel{~}{\rho }_j^I\stackrel{~}{\rho }_j^{II}`$ such that $`\{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_j^I\}`$ is abelian (the proof for the case when (ii) holds is similar). Let $`\{\phi _i\}`$ be the orthonormal basis of $`_1`$, in which $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_j^I`$ are diagonal. Then, there exists decomposition $`\rho =_k\widehat{\lambda }_k\widehat{\rho }_k^I\widehat{\rho }_k^{II}`$ such that $`\widehat{\rho }_k^I=|\phi _k\phi _k|`$. Define matrix $`\overline{\rho }`$ as follows:

$`\overline{\rho }:={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\widehat{\lambda }_k^{\frac{1}{2}}\widehat{\rho }_k^I\left(\widehat{\rho }_k^{II}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$
Note that $`\overline{\rho }`$ is a linear combination with positive coefficients and matrices $`\widehat{\rho }_k^I`$ and $`\widehat{\rho }_k^{II}`$ are positive operators. To complete the proof we must show that $`\overline{\rho }`$ is the square root of $`\rho `$. We have:

$`\overline{\rho }\overline{\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\widehat{\lambda }_k^{\frac{1}{2}}\widehat{\rho }_k^I\left(\widehat{\rho }_k^{II}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\widehat{\lambda }_l^{\frac{1}{2}}\widehat{\rho }_l^I\left(\widehat{\rho }_l^{II}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)={\displaystyle \underset{kl}{}}\widehat{\lambda }_k^{\frac{1}{2}}\widehat{\lambda }_l^{\frac{1}{2}}\widehat{\rho }_k^I\widehat{\rho }_l^I\left(\widehat{\rho }_k^{II}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\widehat{\rho }_l^{II}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{kl}{}}\widehat{\lambda }_k^{\frac{1}{2}}\widehat{\lambda }_l^{\frac{1}{2}}\widehat{\rho }_k^I\delta _{kl}\left(\widehat{\rho }_k^{II}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\widehat{\rho }_l^{II}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\widehat{\lambda }_k\widehat{\rho }_k^I\widehat{\rho }_k^{II}=\rho `$
Note that the above sufficient conditions for the separability of the square root of $`\rho `$ are essentially weaker than those for factorization of the correlation function.

## 5 Conclusions

Our analysis yields new information about the nature of quantum spin-flip dynamics. It was shown that this type of evolution can lead to entangled states, so to the family of states encoding quantum correlations. Furthermore, the detailed analysis of factorization property of the Ursell functions clearly shows that this is an expected phenomenon. It would be desirable to have the full description of evolution of entanglement but we have not been able to do this. The main difficulty in carrying out such a description is that we do not know the general characterization of interactions causing the spin-flip operation. However, we were able to give a detailed analysis of factorization of two-point correlation functions. We should also emphasize that in our case there is no point in considering such notions as decoherence. Although the region $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_I`$ over which we perform a local operation (e.g. a block-spin flip) can be macroscopic, we do not deal with the collective observables. This means that studying the evolution of entanglement as well as the correlation functions is the proper tool in investigating genuine microscopic properties of the considered quantum dynamics. These two approaches, studied in Section III and IV, respectively, are not equivalent. It is well known that if at least one of the two subsystems is a classical system (i.e. the underlying algebra of operators is commutative), there is no entanglement, even if the second subsystem is a purely quantum one . On the other hand, studying the correlation functions allows us to ”detect” quantum properties of the block-spin flip dynamics also when either of the two subsystems is a classical one (cf. Proposition 4.3). Thus, in that aspect, the correlations based approach is a more ”subtle” tool as far as we examine the problem of the considered dynamics being the genuine quantum map or not. However, even the detailed analysis of the second Ursell function (the analysis of the third, fourth, … Ursell functions is a very difficult task) can not supply enough information about the time evolution of states of the system. From this point of view the approach given in Section III is much more fruitful.

Turning back to the block-spin flip dynamics, we pointed out that its Markov generator should encode coupling between the region $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_I`$ and its environment $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{II}`$. Indeed, the results of Section III and IV say that the considered dynamics leads to enhancement of correlations. This means that the effect caused by the block-spin flip operation is strong, and it leads to coupling between two subsystems, therefore to nontrivial interactions. This enables us to interpret our result as another evidence that $`L_p`$-approach to quantum dynamics is working well in the sense that it leads to a fruitful recipe for explicit construction of interesting genuine quantum counterparts of classical dynamical maps.

Finally, we would like to remark that our results have been obtained for a low-dimensional model. Therefore, the expected and described properties of block-spin flip type dynamics follow exclusively from the noncommutativity of the underlying algebra of operators and have nothing to do with any transition from a finite to an infinite model via thermodynamic limit. Furthermore, we would like to emphasize that the presented theory has a fairly straightforward generalization to the infinite dimensional case as well as to other quantum jump processes.

Acknowledgement: It is a pleasure to thank M. Marciniak for inspiring discussions. The work of (W.A.M) has been supported by KBN grant PB/0273/PO/99/16.

Appendix A

For the convenience of the reader we recall the definition of separable and entangled states in the general setting of Hilbert spaces. The density matrix $`\rho `$ (state) on the Hilbert space $`_1_2`$ is called separable if it can be written or approximated (in the norm) by the density matrices (states) of the form:

$`\rho ={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}p_i\rho _i^1\rho _i^2,\left(\omega ()={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}p_i(\omega _i^1\omega _i^2)()\right)`$
where $`p_i0`$, $`_ip_i=1`$, $`\rho _i^\alpha `$ are density matrices on $`_\alpha `$, $`\alpha =1,2`$, and $`(\omega _i^1\omega _i^2)(AB)\omega _i^1(A)\omega _i^2(B)(Tr\rho _i^1A)(Tr\rho _i^2B)Tr\{\rho _i^1\rho _i^2AB\}`$.

###### Definition 6.1

Let $`\rho `$ be the separable state on $`_1_2`$. We say that every finite sum of the form $`\rho =_i\lambda _i\rho _i^1\rho _i^2`$ is a decomposition of the state $`\rho `$ iff

$`(i)`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\lambda _i=1_i\lambda _i>0`$
$`(ii)`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\lambda _i\rho _i^1\rho _i^2=\rho `$
The state which is not separable is called non-separable. Denote by $`S`$ the set of all states on $`_1_2`$.

###### Definition 6.2

Non-separable states are called entangled states. The set of entangled states is defined by

$`S_{entangled}S\backslash S_{sep}`$
where $`S_{sep}`$ stands for the set of separable states.

For a discussion of physical aspects of that concept see , , .

Appendix B

In this appendix we give the proof of Proposition 4.5. Let us introduce the following notation: $`S_{nd}\stackrel{~}{S}_{sep}`$, $`\rho S_{nd}`$ if and only if the eigenvalues of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }=Tr_1(\rho )`$ are not degenerated, $`S_{nf}\stackrel{~}{S}_{sep}`$, $`\rho S_{nf}`$ if and only if $`E(f)g_\rho `$ can not be factorized, $`S_{ndf}:=S_{nd}S_{nf}`$.

###### Lemma 7.1

Let $`dim_1,dim_2<\mathrm{}`$. Then the set $`S_{nd}`$ is dense in $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{sep}`$ in uniform topology (equivalently, it is dense in any operator topology).

*Proof.* Let $`\rho \stackrel{~}{S}_{sep}`$ and $`\rho =_{i=1}^N\lambda _i\rho _i^I\rho _i^{II}`$ be some decomposition of $`\rho `$. Let $`\{\varphi _j\}_{j=1}^m`$ be the orthonormal basis of $`_2`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }=Tr_1(\rho )`$ is diagonal. Denote by $`e_i`$ the eigenvalue of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ corresponding to eigenvector $`\varphi _i`$. Of course, we have $`e_i:=\varphi _i\left|\stackrel{~}{\rho }\right|\varphi _i`$. Without loss of generality we can assume that only one eigenvalue is degenerated. In particular, we can assume that $`e_1=e_2`$. Let $`ϵ>0`$. We will show that there exists $`\widehat{\rho }S^{nd}`$ such that $`\rho \widehat{\rho }<ϵ`$. Take $`\eta `$ such that $`0<\eta <\frac{1}{2}min\{ϵ,\left|e_3e_1\right|,\mathrm{},\left|e_me_1\right|\}`$. Define:

$`_{i=1,\mathrm{},N}\widehat{\lambda }_i:=\lambda _i\left(1\eta \right),\widehat{\rho }_i^I:=\rho _i^I,\widehat{\rho }_i^{II}:=\rho _i^{II}`$
$`\widehat{\lambda }_{N+1}:=\eta ,\widehat{\rho }_{N+1}^I:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{dim_1}}id__1,\widehat{\rho }_{N+1}^{II}:=|\varphi _1\varphi _1|`$
and

$`\widehat{\rho }:={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N+1}{}}}\widehat{\lambda }_i\widehat{\rho }_i^I\widehat{\rho }_i^{II}`$
Note that $`\widehat{\rho }`$ is a well defined density matrix on $`_1_2`$. Moreover, the reduced density matrix $`Tr_1(\widehat{\rho })=_{i=1}^{N+1}\widehat{\lambda }_i\widehat{\rho }_i^{II}=\stackrel{~}{\rho }\left(1\eta \right)+\eta |\varphi _1\varphi _1|`$ has only nondegenerated eigenvalues $`\widehat{e}_1=e_1`$, $`\widehat{e}_2=e_2(1\eta ),\mathrm{},\widehat{e}_m=e_m(1\eta )`$, so $`\widehat{\rho }S_{nd}`$. The lack of degeneracy stems from the choice of $`\eta `$ because for all $`i=3,\mathrm{},m`$ we have $`\left|e_ie_1\right|>2\eta `$ and, evidently, $`\left|e_i\eta \right|\eta `$. Now, suppose that $`\widehat{e}_1=\widehat{e}_j`$ for some $`j\{3,\mathrm{},m\}`$. We have:

$`\widehat{e}_1=\widehat{e}_j`$ $``$ $`e_1=e_j\left(1\eta \right)e_1e_j=e_j\eta `$
$``$ $`\left|e_1e_j\right|=\left|e_j\eta \right|2\eta <\eta \eta <0`$
which yields a contradiction, since $`\eta `$ was assumed to be positive.
To complete the proof we must check that the inequality $`\rho \widehat{\rho }<ϵ`$ holds. Indeed:

$`\rho \widehat{\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\lambda _i\rho _i^I\rho _i^{II}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N+1}{}}}\widehat{\lambda }_i\widehat{\rho }_i^I\widehat{\rho }_i^{II}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\lambda _i\rho _i^I\rho _i^{II}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(1\eta )\lambda _i\rho _i^I\rho _i^{II}\eta \widehat{\rho }_{N+1}^I\widehat{\rho }_{N+1}^{II}`$
$`=`$ $`\eta {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\lambda _i\rho _i^I\rho _i^{II}\eta \widehat{\rho }_{N+1}^I\widehat{\rho }_{N+1}^{II}`$
$`=`$ $`\eta \rho \widehat{\rho }_{N+1}^I\widehat{\rho }_{N+1}^{II}\eta \left(\rho +\widehat{\rho }_{N+1}^I\widehat{\rho }_{N+1}^{II}\right)2\eta <ϵ`$
###### Lemma 7.2

Let $`dim_1,dim_2<\mathrm{}`$. Then the set $`S_{ndf}`$ is dense in $`S_{nd}`$ in uniform topology (equivalently, it is dense in any operator topology).

*Proof.* Let $`\rho S_{nd}`$ and $`dim_2=m`$. Suppose that $`E(f)g_\rho `$ can be factorized. Then, from the relation between factorization and nondegeneracy of density matrix (see section 4.3) there exists decomposition $`\rho =_{i=1}^N\lambda _i\rho _i^I\rho _i^{II}`$ such that $`\{\rho _i^{II}\}`$ is abelian. We can assume that $`N`$ equals $`dim_2`$ and $`\rho _i^{II}=|\varphi _i\varphi _i|`$, where $`\{\varphi _j\}`$ is the orthonormal basis of $`_2`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }=Tr_1(\rho )`$ is abelian. Denote by $`e_i`$ the eigenvalue of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ corresponding to the eigenvector $`\varphi _i`$ (we have $`e_i=\varphi _i\left|\stackrel{~}{\rho }\right|\varphi _i`$). Without loss of generality we can assume that eigenvalues of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ are ordered decreasingly, i.e. $`e_1>e_2>\mathrm{}`$.
Let $`ϵ>0`$. We will show that there exists $`\widehat{\rho }S_{ndf}`$ such that $`\rho \widehat{\rho }<ϵ`$. Take $`\eta `$ such that $`0<\eta <ϵ/2`$. Let $`\{\phi _i\}_{i=1}^n`$ be arbitrary but fixed orthonormal basis of $`_1`$. Define:

$`_{i=1,\mathrm{},N}\widehat{\lambda }_i:=\lambda _i\left(1\eta \right),\widehat{\rho }_i^I:=\rho _i^I,\widehat{\rho }_i^{II}:=\rho _i^{II}`$
$`\widehat{\lambda }_{N+1}:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta ,\widehat{\rho }_{N+1}^I:=|\phi _1\phi _1|,\widehat{\rho }_{N+1}^{II}:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|\phi _1\phi _1\left|+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right|\phi _2\phi _2\left|+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\right|\phi _1\phi _2\left|{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\right|\phi _2\phi _1|`$
$`\widehat{\lambda }_{N+2}:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta ,\widehat{\rho }_{N+2}^I:=|\phi _2\phi _2|,\widehat{\rho }_{N+1}^{II}:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|\phi _1\phi _1\left|+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right|\phi _2\phi _2\left|{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\right|\phi _1\phi _2\left|+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\right|\phi _2\phi _1|`$
and

$`\widehat{\rho }:={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N+2}{}}}\widehat{\lambda }_i\widehat{\rho }_i^I\widehat{\rho }_i^{II}`$
Note that $`\widehat{\rho }`$ is well defined density matrix on $`_1_2`$. Moreover, $`Tr_1(\widehat{\rho })=_{i=1}^{N+2}\widehat{\lambda }_i\widehat{\rho }_i^{II}=\stackrel{~}{\rho }\left(1\eta \right)+\frac{1}{2}\eta \left(|\varphi _1\varphi _1|+|\varphi _2\varphi _2|\right)`$ has only nondegenerated eigenvalues $`\widehat{e}_1=e_1\left(1\frac{1}{2}\eta \right)`$, $`\widehat{e}_2=e_2\left(1\frac{1}{2}\eta \right)`$, $`\widehat{e}_3=e_3(1\eta ),\mathrm{},\widehat{e}_m=e_m(1\eta )`$, so $`\widehat{\rho }S_{nd}`$.
Now we aim at showing that $`\widehat{\rho }S_{ndf}`$. It is enough to show that there is no decomposition $`\widehat{\rho }=_{i=1}^{\stackrel{˘}{N}}\stackrel{˘}{\lambda }_i\stackrel{˘}{\rho }_i^I\stackrel{˘}{\rho }_i^{II}`$ for which $`\{\stackrel{˘}{\rho }_i^{II}\}`$ is abelian, since due to the relation between factorization and nondegeneracy of density matrix (cf. section 4.3) it is equivalent to the fact that $`E(f)g_{\widehat{\rho }}`$ does not factorize. Suppose that there exists such a decomposition with $`\{\stackrel{˘}{\rho }_i^{II}\}`$ abelian. We can assume that $`\stackrel{˘}{N}`$ equals $`dim_2`$ and $`\stackrel{˘}{\rho }_i^{II}=|\varphi _i\varphi _i|`$. Then, we have:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{\stackrel{˘}{N}}{}}}\stackrel{˘}{\lambda }_i\stackrel{˘}{\rho }_i^I\stackrel{˘}{\rho }_i^{II}={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N+2}{}}}\widehat{\lambda }_i\widehat{\rho }_i^I\widehat{\rho }_i^{II}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}}\stackrel{˘}{\lambda }_i\stackrel{˘}{\rho }_i^I|\varphi _i\varphi _i|={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}}\widehat{\lambda }_i\widehat{\rho }_i^I|\varphi _i\varphi _i|+\widehat{\lambda }_{N+1}\widehat{\rho }_{N+1}^I\widehat{\rho }_{N+1}^{II}+\widehat{\lambda }_{N+2}\widehat{\rho }_{N+2}^I\widehat{\rho }_{N+2}^{II}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}}\left(\stackrel{˘}{\lambda }_i\stackrel{˘}{\rho }_i^I\widehat{\lambda }_i\widehat{\rho }_i^I\right)|\varphi _i\varphi _i|=\widehat{\lambda }_{N+1}\widehat{\rho }_{N+1}^I\widehat{\rho }_{N+1}^{II}+\widehat{\lambda }_{N+2}\widehat{\rho }_{N+2}^I\widehat{\rho }_{N+2}^{II}`$
Since $`(\stackrel{˘}{\lambda }_i\stackrel{˘}{\rho }_i^I\widehat{\lambda }_i\widehat{\rho }_i^I)|\varphi _i\varphi _i|`$ are linearly independent, we have $`\stackrel{˘}{\lambda }_i\stackrel{˘}{\rho }_i^I=\widehat{\lambda }_i\widehat{\rho }_i^I`$ for $`i=3,\mathrm{},m`$, which leads to the following equality:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\left(\stackrel{˘}{\lambda }_i\stackrel{˘}{\rho }_i^I\widehat{\lambda }_i\widehat{\rho }_i^I\right)|\varphi _i\varphi _i|=\widehat{\lambda }_{N+1}\widehat{\rho }_{N+1}^I\widehat{\rho }_{N+1}^{II}+\widehat{\lambda }_{N+2}\widehat{\rho }_{N+2}^I\widehat{\rho }_{N+2}^{II}`$
Denote the left-hand side and the right-hand side of the above equality by $`L`$ i $`P`$, respectively, we have:

$`\phi _1\varphi _1\left|L\right|\phi _1\varphi _2=0\text{and}\phi _1\varphi _1\left|P\right|\phi _1\varphi _2={\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}\eta 0`$
which yields a contradiction. Thus, $`\widehat{\rho }S_{ndf}`$.
To complete the proof we must check that the inequality $`\rho \widehat{\rho }<ϵ`$ holds. Indeed:

$`\rho \widehat{\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\lambda _i\rho _i^I\rho _i^{II}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N+2}{}}}\widehat{\lambda }_i\widehat{\rho }_i^I\widehat{\rho }_i^{II}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\lambda _i\rho _i^I\rho _i^{II}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(1\eta )\lambda _i\rho _i^I\rho _i^{II}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta \widehat{\rho }_{N+1}^I\widehat{\rho }_{N+1}^{II}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta \widehat{\rho }_{N+2}^I\widehat{\rho }_{N+2}^{II}`$
$`=`$ $`\eta {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\lambda _i\rho _i^I\rho _i^{II}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta \widehat{\rho }_{N+1}^I\widehat{\rho }_{N+1}^{II}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta \widehat{\rho }_{N+2}^I\widehat{\rho }_{N+2}^{II}`$
$`=`$ $`\eta \rho {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{\rho }_{N+1}^I\widehat{\rho }_{N+1}^{II}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{\rho }_{N+2}^I\widehat{\rho }_{N+2}^{II}`$
$``$ $`\eta \left(\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{\rho }_{N+1}^I\widehat{\rho }_{N+1}^{II}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{\rho }_{N+2}^I\widehat{\rho }_{N+2}^{II}\right)2\eta <ϵ`$
*Proof (of Proposition 4.5).* The following inclusions hold: $`S_{ndf}S_{nd}\stackrel{~}{S}_{sep}`$. According to Lemma 7.1 and Lemma 7.2, $`S_{nd}`$ is dense in $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{sep}`$ and $`S_{ndf}`$ is dense in $`S_{nd}`$, respectively. It means that $`S_{ndf}`$ is dense in $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{sep}`$. Moreover, we have: $`S_{ndf}S_{nf}\stackrel{~}{S}_{sep}`$ which implies that $`S_{nf}`$ is dense in $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{sep}`$. The proof is completed.


format: text

text:
# Radial Oscillations of Neutron Stars in Strong Magnetic Fields

## 1 introduction

It is well known that intense magnetic fields(B$``$$`10^{1213}`$G) exist on the surface of many neutron stars.Objects with even higher magnetic fields have been surmised and detected recently.Recent observational studies and several independent arguments link the class of soft $`\gamma `$-ray repeaters and perhaps certain anomalous X-ray pulsars with neutron stars having ultra strong magnetic fields, the so called magnetars. Kuoveliotou et al(1998) found a soft $`\gamma `$-ray repeater SGR 1806-20 with a period of 7.47 seconds and a spin down rate of 2.6$`\times `$$`10^3`$$`syr^1`$ from which they estimated the pulsar age to be about 1500 years and field strength of $``$ 8$`\times `$$`10^{14}`$G.Since the magnetic field in the core,according to some models,could be $`10^310^5`$ times higher than its value on the surface, it is possible that ultra strong magnetic fields of order $`10^{18}10^{19}`$G or even $`10^{20}`$G exist in the core of certain neutron stars. The virial theorem, it is usually argued,gives an upper bound of about $`10^{18}`$G for the field inside a neutron star(Lai and Shapiro 1991). However it has also been claimed that this cannot be taken as the last word on the subject, since at the super high density inside the star core,general relativistic corrections to the virial theorem could increase the upper limit on the maximum allowed magnetic fields substantially (Hong 1998). According to Kuoveliotou,a statistical analysis of the population of soft $`\gamma `$-ray repeaters indicates instead of being just isolated examples, as many as 10$`\%`$ of neutron stars could be magnetars. It is therefore of interest to study the equation of state of nuclear matter and various properties of neutron stars under such magnetic fields. In this paper we study the radial oscillations of neutron stars in the presence of super strong magnetic fields. Studies of radial oscillations is of interest since Cameron suggested (1965) more than three decades ago that vibrations of neutron stars could excite motions that can have interesting astrophysical applications. X-ray and $`\gamma `$-ray burst phenomenon are clearly explosive in nature. These explosive events probably perturb the associated neutron star and the resulting dynamical behaviour may eventually be deduced from such observations. Observations of quasi-periodic pulses of pulsars have also been associated with oscillations of underlying neutron stars (Chandrasekhar 1964 a, b, Cutler et al 1990).
The EOS is central to the calculation of most neutron star properties as it determines the mass range, the red shift as well as mass-radius relationship for these stars. Since neutron stars span a very wide range of densities, no one EOS is adequate to describe the properties of neutron stars. In the low density regions from the neutron drip density ($``$4$`\times `$$`10^{11}`$) and upto $`\rho _n`$$``$3.0$`\times `$$`10^{14}`$gm/cc the density at which the nuclie just begin to dissolve and merge together, the nuclear matter EOS is adequately described by the BPS model (Bayam, Pethick and Sutherland, 1971) which is based on the semi-empirical nuclear mass formula. We adopt this BPS EOS and its magnetised version as given by Lai and Shapiro(1991)in this density range. In the high density range above the neutron drip density$`\rho _n`$, the physical properties of matter are still uncertain. Many models for the description of nuclear matter at such high densities have been proposed over the years. One of the most studied models is the relativistic nuclear mean field theory, in which the strong interactions among various particles involved are mediated by a scalar field $`\sigma `$, an isoscalar-vector field $`\omega `$ and an isovector-vector field $`\rho `$. Along with scalar self-intercation terms it can reproduce the values of experimentally known quantities revelant to nuclear matter, viz. the binding energy per nucleon, the nuclear density at saturation, the asymmetry energy,the effective mass and the bulk modulus and provides a good description 0f nuclear matter for densities upto a few times the saturation density $`\rho _c`$. In our study, we have used this nuclear mean field theory and its modification in the presence of a magnetic field.
In section 2 a brief discussion of the EOS is given at zero temperature.In section 3 we present the formalism for pulsations of the neutron star models computed here as a result of integration of the relativistic equations. Section 4 deals with results and discussions.

## 2  The Equation of State (EOS) for Nuclear Matter

We shall describe nuclear matter at high densities by the relativistic nuclear mean field model, including the $`\rho `$-contribution, as extended to include strong interactions. For densities less than the neutron drip density we adopt the BPS model in the presence of magnetic field as developed by Lai and Shapiro.

### 2.1 The Nuclear Mean Field EOS at High Densities

We consider the charge neutral nuclear matter consisting of neutrons, protons and electrons in $`\beta `$-equilibrium in the presence of a magnetic field and at zero temperature ($`T=0`$). The expression for the various quantities like, number density, the scalar number density and energy-pressure etc in the $`\left[B=0\right]`$ case are well known. In the presence of magnetic field these expressions for charged particles are modified in a straight forward way, viz

$$\underset{spin}{}d^3p=eB\underset{\nu =0}{\overset{\nu _{max}}{}}\left(2\delta _{\nu 0}\right)𝑑p_z$$
(1)
in the integrals appearing in the expressions for the various quantities listed above. The total pressure P and the mass energy density ($`\rho `$) of the system are given by

$`P`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=p,n,e}{}}P_i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_\omega }{m_\omega }}\right)^2<\omega _0>^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_\sigma }{m_\sigma }}\right)^2\left(g_\sigma \sigma \right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}bm_n\left(g_\sigma \sigma \right)^3`$ (2)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}c\left(g_\sigma \sigma \right)^4+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_\rho }{m_\rho }}\right)^2<\rho _0>^2`$
$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=p,n,e}{}}\rho _i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_\omega }{m_\omega }}\right)^2<\omega _0>^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_\sigma }{m_\sigma }}\right)^2\left(g_\sigma \sigma \right)^2`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}bm_n\left(g_\sigma \sigma \right)^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}c\left(g_\sigma \sigma \right)^4+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_\rho }{m_\rho }}\right)^2<\rho _0>^2`$
In the above

$`P_n={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mu _n^{}p_{fn}^{}\left(2p_{fn}^23m_n^2\right)+m_n^4ln\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _n^{}+p_{fn}^{}}{m_n^{}}}\right)\right]`$ (4)
$`P_p={\displaystyle \frac{eB}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =0}{\overset{\nu _{max}}{}}}\left(2\delta _{\nu 0}\right)\left[\mu _p^{}p_{fp}^{}m_P^2ln\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _p^{}+p_{fp}^{}}{m_p^{}}}\right)\right]`$ (5)
$`P_e={\displaystyle \frac{eB}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =0}{\overset{\nu _{max}}{}}}\left(2\delta _{\nu 0}\right)\left[\mu _ep_{fe}m_e^2ln\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _e+p_{fe}}{m_e}}\right)\right]`$ (6)
$`\rho _n={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}\left[\mu _n^{}p_{fn}^{}\left(2\mu _{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}m_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)m_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}ln\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _n^{}+p_{fn}^{}}{m_n^{}}}\right)\right]`$ (7)
$`\rho _p={\displaystyle \frac{eB}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =0}{\overset{\nu _{max}}{}}}\left(2\delta _{\nu 0}\right)\left(\mu _{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{}p_{fp}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+m_{p,\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}ln\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+p_{fp}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}{m_{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}}\right)\right)`$ (8)
$`\rho _e={\displaystyle \frac{eB}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =0}{\overset{\nu _{max}}{}}}\left(2\delta _{\nu 0}\right)\left(\mu _ep_{fe}+m_{e}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}ln\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _e+p_{fe}}{m_e}}\right)\right)`$ (9)
$$m_{p,\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=m_{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2\nu eB$$
(10)
$$m_{e,\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=m_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2\nu eB$$
(11)
$$p_{fp}^{}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\mu _{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}m_{p\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}$$
(12)
$$p_{fn}^{}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\mu _{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}m_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}$$
(13)
$$p_{fe}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\mu _{e}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}m_{e}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}2\nu eB$$
(14)
$$m_p^{}m_p=m_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{}m_n=\left(\frac{g_\sigma }{m_\sigma }\right)^2n_s$$
(15)
$$n_s=n_p^s+n_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{s}$$
(16)
$$n_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{s}=\frac{m_n^{}}{2\pi ^2}\left(\mu _{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{}p_{fn}m_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}ln\left(\frac{\mu _{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+p_{fn}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}{m_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}\right)\right)$$
(17)
$$n_p^s=\frac{eBm_p^{}}{2\pi ^2}\underset{\nu =0}{\overset{\nu _{max}}{}}\left(2\delta _{\nu ,0}\right)ln\left(\frac{\mu _{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+p_{fp}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}{m_{p,\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{}}\right)$$
(18)
$$n_B=n_p+n_n$$
(19)
$$n_n=\frac{p_{fn}^{}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}}{3\pi ^2}$$
(20)
$$n_p=\frac{eB}{2\pi ^2}\underset{\nu =0}{\overset{\nu _{max}}{}}\left(2\delta _{\nu ,0}\right)p_{fp}^{}{}_{}{}^{}$$
(21)
$$n_e=\frac{eB}{2\pi ^2}\underset{\nu =0}{\overset{\nu _{max}}{}}\left(2\delta _{\nu ,0}\right)p_{fe}$$
(22)
$$n_p=n_e$$
(23)
$$<\rho _0>=\frac{1}{2}\left(n_Pn_n\right)$$
(24)
$$<\omega _0>=n_B$$
(25)
$$\mu _i^{}=\mu _i\left(\frac{g_\omega }{m_\omega }\right)^2<\omega _0>I_{3i}\left(\frac{g_\rho }{m_\rho }\right)^2<\rho _0>$$
(26)
for i=n,p

$$\mu _n=\mu _p+\mu _e$$
(27)
For a given value of $`\mu _e`$ and B we can find self consistently the values of $`m_p^{}`$, $`\mu _p^{}`$, $`\mu _n^{}`$ and so the pressure and mass energy can be computed. This helps us to compute the equation of state in the mean field approximation as a function of $`\mu _e`$ or $`n_B`$.

### 2.2 The Magnetic BPS model

The total pressure of the hadron matter below the neutron drip is given by

$$P=P_e\left(n_e\right)+P_L=P_e\left(n_e\right)+\frac{1}{3}\epsilon _L(Z,n_e)$$
(28)
where $`\epsilon _L`$ is the bcc coulomb lattice energy and $`P_e`$ the pressure of the electrons in the presence of the magnetic field is given by

$`P_e`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{eB}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =0}{\overset{\nu _{max}}{}}}(2\delta _{\nu 0})[\mu _e\sqrt{\mu _e^2m_e^22\nu eB}`$ (29)
$``$ $`(m_e^2+2\nu eB)ln\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _e+\sqrt{\mu _e^2m_e^22\nu eB}}{\sqrt{m_e^2+2\nu eB}}}\right)]`$
$$P_L=1.444Z^{\frac{2}{3}}e^2e^2n_{e}^{}{}_{}{}^{\frac{4}{3}}$$
(30)
$$n_e=\frac{eB}{4\pi ^2}\underset{\nu =o}{\overset{\nu _{max}}{}}\left(2\delta _{\nu 0}\right)\left[\mu _{e}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}m_e^22\nu eB\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(31)
Consider matter condensing into a perfect crystal lattice with a single nuclear species(A,Z) at the lattice sites.The energy density is

$$\epsilon =\frac{n_e}{Z}W_N(A,Z)+\epsilon _e^{^{}}\left(n_e\right)+\epsilon _L(Z,n_e)$$
(32)
where $`W_N`$ is the mass-energy of the nucleus(including the rest mass of nucleons and Z electrons) $`\epsilon _e^{^{}}`$ is the free electron energy including the rest mass of electrons.Following Lai and Shapiro we use for $`W_N`$, the experimental values for laboratory nuclei as tabulated by Wapastra and Bos(1976,1977). The elements taken in this paper are given below in the table along with their mass energy $`W_N(A,Z)`$. At a given pressure P,the equilibrium values of A and Z are determined by minimising the Gibbs free energy per nucleon,

$$g=\frac{\epsilon +P}{n}=\frac{W_N(A,Z)}{A}+\frac{Z}{A}\left(\mu _em_ec^2\right)+\frac{4\epsilon _L}{3An_e}$$
(33)
The neutron drip point is determined by the condition

$$g_{min}=m_nc^2$$
(34)
Knowing A and Z the energy can be determined from Eq.(32)

## 3 Radial Pulsations of a Non-Rotating Neutron Star

The equations governing infinitesimal radial pulsations of a non-rotating star in general relativity were given by Chandrasekhar(1964). The structure of the star in hydrostatic equilibrium is described by the Tolman-Openheimer- Volkoff equations

$$\frac{dp}{dr}=\frac{G\left(p+\rho c^2\right)\left(m+\frac{4\pi r^3p}{c^2}\right)}{c^2r^2\left(1\frac{2Gm}{c^2r}\right)}$$
(35)
$$\frac{dm}{dr}=4\pi r^2\rho $$
(36)
$$\frac{d\nu }{dr}=\frac{2Gm\left(1+\frac{4\pi r^3p}{mc^2}\right)}{c^2r\left(1\frac{2Gm}{c^2r}\right)}$$
(37)
Given an equation of state $`p\left(\rho \right)`$,equations (35)-(37) can be integrated numerically for a given central density to obtain the radius R and gravitational mass $`M=M\left(R\right)`$ of the star. The metric used is given by

$$ds^2=e_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{\nu }c^2dt^2+e_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{\lambda }dr^2+r^2\left(d\theta ^2+sin^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)$$
(38)
If $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ is the radial displacement

$$\xi =\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }r}{r}$$
(39)
$$\zeta =r^2e_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }\xi $$
(40)
and the time dependence of the harmonic oscillations is written as $`exp\left(i\sigma t\right)`$,one gets the equation governing radial adiabatic oscillations(Chandrasekhar 1964,Datta etal 1998,Anand etal 2000)

$$F\frac{d^2\zeta }{dr^2}+G\frac{d\zeta }{dr}+H\zeta =\sigma ^2\zeta $$
(41)
where

$$F=\frac{e^{2\nu 2\lambda }\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }p\right)}{p+\rho c^2}$$
(42)
$$G=\frac{e^{2\nu 2\lambda }}{p+\rho c^2}\left[\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }p\right)\left(\lambda +3\nu \right)+\frac{d}{dr}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }p\right)\frac{2}{r}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }p\right)\right]$$
(43)
$$H=\frac{e^{2\nu 2\lambda }}{p+\rho c^2}\left[\frac{4}{r}\frac{dp}{dr}+\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}e_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{\lambda }p\left(p+\rho c^2\right)\frac{1}{p+\rho c^2}\left(\frac{dp}{dr}\right)^2\right]$$
(44)
$$\lambda =ln\left[1\frac{2Gm}{rc^2}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(45)
In the above equations $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the adiabatic index given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{p+\rho c^2}{c^2p}\frac{dp}{d\rho }$$
(46)
The boundary conditions to solve equation (41) are

$`\zeta \left(r=0\right)=0`$
$`\delta p\left(r=R\right)=0`$ (47)
The expression for $`\delta p`$ as given by Chandrasekhar(1964) is

$$\delta p\left(r\right)=\frac{dp}{dr}\frac{e^\nu \zeta }{r^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }pe^\nu }{r^2}\frac{d\zeta }{dr}$$
(48)
All these equations are totally model independent and are infact the same whether we are considering neutron stars, quark stars or any other dense stellar object. The nature of the object being considered and the particular model affects the structure of the star and the frequency of radial pulsations only through the EOS. Notice that in Chandrasekhar (1964) and Datta etal (1998) the pulsation equations were written in terms of $`\xi `$ instead of $`\zeta `$. Equation (42) along with the boundary conditions represent a Sturm-Liouville eigenvalue problem for $`\sigma ^2`$. From the theory of such equations we have the well known results: (i) Eigenvalues $`\sigma ^2`$ are all real, and (ii) They form an infinite discreet sequence
$`\sigma _0^2<\sigma _1^2<\sigma _2^2`$ ….
An important consequence of (ii) is that if the fundamental radial mode of a star is stable $`\left(\sigma _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}>0\right)`$, then all the radial modes are stable.

## 4 Results and Discussions

To study the structure and radial oscillations of neutron stars in the presence of a strong magnetic field we have employed the BPS model with its generalization in a magnetic field given by Lai and Shapiro(1991) below the neutron drip and the RMF theory above it. We have used the values of various couplings fixed by Ellis et al(1991) which provide the known values of various nuclear matter parameters :

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_\sigma }{m_\sigma }}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0.01525Mev^1`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_\omega }{m_\omega }}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0.011Mev^1`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_\rho }{m_\rho }}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0.011Mev^1`$
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`0.003748`$
$`c`$ $`=`$ $`0.01328`$
As explained in section 2.1 and 2.2, for the RMF theory the equations are solved in a self-consistent manner for the effective masses and chemical potentials ,and hence the EOS. Below the neutron drip, the EOS is obtained by the minimization of Gibb’s free energy as functions of A and Z. For this purpose we have employed 14 nuclei listed in the table. The problem is solved seprately for $`B=0`$ and $`B0`$. For each B this gives the EOS in the form $`P\left(n_B\right)`$ and $`\rho \left(n_B\right)`$. The structure of the neutron star is then obtained from the integration of the oppenheimer-Volkoff equations. This then gives the profile of m,p and $`\nu `$ as a function of r for each star. One more quantity that is required is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which is then calculated directly from the EOS for all densities by using a quadratic difference formula for the derivative $`\frac{dp}{d\left(\rho c^2\right)}`$.
Along with the M-R relationship, one also obtains the gravitational red shift

$$Z=\left[1\frac{2Gm}{c^2r}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}1$$
(50)
which can in principle be observed experimentally.
The procedure to obtain the eigen frequencies is simple. We guess a value for $`\sigma `$ and integrate the equation outword from the centre upto the surface. The guessed value of $`\sigma `$ is varied till the boundary condition
$`\delta p\left(r\right)=0`$ at $`r=R`$
is satisfied.

In figure 1. we plot mass in solar mass unit vs radius in Kms. for magnetic fields 0, 1$`\times `$$`10^3`$, 5$`\times `$$`10^4`$, 1$`\times `$$`10^5`$ $`MeV^2`$ $`(1MeV^2=1.69\times 10^{14}`$G) represented by the curves A, B, C and D respectively. It is worthwile to note that the magnetised neutron stars support higher masses. For very high magnetic fields the stars become relatively more compact. In figure 2. we present mass vs central energy density and in figure 3. we have plotted gravitational red shift vs mass. In figure 4. a plot of time period of fundamental mode vs gravitational red shift is given for the same magnetic fields as in figure 1. It is interesting to note that for the observed neutron star mass(1.4 $`M_{}`$), the magnetic field has pratically no influence on radial stability. Similar trend is seen for the first excited mode as shown in figure 5.

TABLE: BPS Equilibrium Nuclei Below Neutron Drip

| Element | BPS MASS-ENERGY |
| --- | --- |
|  | (in units of $`10^4`$ Mev) |
| $`Fe_{26}^{56}`$ | 5.2103 |
| $`Ni_{28}^{62}`$ | 5.7686 |
| $`Ni_{28}^{64}`$ | 5.9549 |
| $`Ni_{28}^{66}`$ | 6.1413 |
| $`Kr_{36}^{86}`$ | 8.0025 |
| $`Se_{34}^{84}`$ | 7.8170 |
| $`Ge_{32}^{82}`$ | 7.6316 |
| $`Zn_{30}^{80}`$ | 7.4466 |
| $`Ni_{28}^{78}`$ | 7.2621 |
| $`Ru_{44}^{126}`$ | 11.7337 |
| $`Mo_{42}^{124}`$ | 11.5495 |
| $`Zr_{40}^{122}`$ | 11.3655 |
| $`Sr_{38}^{120}`$ | 11.1818 |
| $`Sr_{38}^{122}`$ | 11.3655 |
| $`Kr_{36}^{118}`$ | 10.9985 |