text:
# Universal unitary gate for single-photon 2-qubit states

## I Introduction

Entangled qubits are central to most schemes that have been proposed for quantum communication, quantum information processing, and quantum cryptography (secure key distribution). The basic unit consists of an entangled qubit pair.

Any binary quantum alternative can serve as a qubit and, therefore, different degrees of freedom of one physical object can represent several qubits. One could, for instance, encode some qubits in the motional degrees of freedom of a trapped ion and other qubits in its internal degrees of freedom. In our scheme, both qubits of an entangled pair are physically realized by a single photon: The photon’s polarization is one qubit — the “polarization qubit” — and the motional alternative of traveling to the right or to the left is the second qubit — the “spatial qubit.”

It is our objective to present an optical model that facilitates experimental studies of qubit pairs as realized by single photons. Such single-photon 2-qubit states were used in a few recent experiments, including a variant of quantum teleportation , a remote state preparation , demonstrations of simple quantum algorithms , a quantitative study of wave-particle duality , and a test of non-contextual hidden variable theories . Here we go beyond these special applications and consider arbitrary manipulations of such states.

Studying qubit pairs extensively amounts to measuring observables of all kinds. The basic measurement is the detection of the photon in one of four standard states given by combinations of traveling to the right or left and polarized vertically or horizontally. This measurement is easily done, and experimental limitations are only due to imperfections of optical elements (such as polarizing beam splitters) and the efficiency of the single-photon detection. More complicated observables are measured by first transforming the respective four eigenstates to the standard basis states, and then detecting those. Accordingly, being able to perform arbitrary unitary transformations on 2-qubit states is tantamount to being able to measure arbitrary 2-qubit observables.

How this challenge is met, is shown in Sec. II, where we present experimental set-ups that realize universal unitary gates — for either one of the qubits itself and for both of them jointly. Then, in Sec. III, we turn to basic applications that include controlled-not gates and the measurement of the Bell basis. Advanced applications are discussed in Sec. IV: After dealing with the diagnosis of 2-qubit states and the Grover search, we describe a proposal for a laboratory version of a thought experiment invented by Vaidman, Aharonov, and Albert in 1987. Indeed, their intriguing puzzle largely motivated the work reported here. We close with a summary and outlook. An appendix contains technical material of a more mathematical nature.

## II Universal unitary gates

### A Gates for the spatial qubit

The spatial qubit consists of the binary alternative of moving to the right ($`𝖱`$) or to the left ($`𝖫`$), as indicated in the Mach-Zehnder geometry of Fig. 1. As usual, we use analogs of Pauli’s spin operators,

$`\tau =|𝖫𝖱|,\tau ^{}=|𝖱𝖫|,`$ (1)
$`\tau _1=\tau +\tau ^{},\tau _2=i\tau i\tau ^{},\tau _3=\tau ^{}\tau \tau \tau ^{},`$ (2)
$`𝟙_\tau =\tau ^{}\tau +\tau \tau ^{},`$ (3)
so that the unitary action of a symmetric beam splitter is given by

$`U_{\mathrm{BS}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|𝖱𝖱|+|𝖫𝖫|+i|𝖱𝖫|+i|𝖫𝖱|)`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(𝟙_\tau +𝕚\tau _\mathrm{𝟙}\right).`$ (5)
Likewise, the joint action of the mirrors inside the Mach-Zehnder set-up is accounted for by the unitary operator

$$U_{\mathrm{mirr}}=i(|𝖫𝖱|+|𝖱𝖫|)=i\tau _1,$$
(6)
where the inclusion of a phase factor $`i`$ is a convenient convention because it gives $`U_{\mathrm{BS}}U_{\mathrm{mirr}}U_{\mathrm{BS}}=𝟙_\tau `$; and phase shifters in the $`𝖱`$ and $`𝖫`$ branches amount to

$`U_\mathrm{R}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`|𝖱\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi }𝖱|+|𝖫𝖫|=\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi \tau ^{}\tau },`$ (7)
$`U_\mathrm{L}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`|𝖱𝖱|+|𝖫\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi }𝖫|=\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi \tau \tau ^{}}.`$ (8)
Putting these pieces together, one gets

$$(|𝖱,|𝖫)(U_{\mathrm{MZ}}|𝖱,U_{\mathrm{MZ}}|𝖫)=(|𝖱,|𝖫)𝒰_{\mathrm{MZ}}$$
(9)
for the whole Mach-Zehnder interferometer of Fig. 1. The unitary operator

$`U_{\mathrm{MZ}}`$ $`=`$ $`U_\mathrm{R}(\varphi _2)U_{\mathrm{BS}}U_\mathrm{R}(\phi _1)U_\mathrm{L}(\phi _2)U_{\mathrm{mirr}}U_{\mathrm{BS}}U_\mathrm{R}(\varphi _1)`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{i}{2}}(\varphi _1+\varphi _2+\phi _1+\phi _2)}`$ (12)
$`\times \mathrm{e}^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{i}{2}}\varphi _2\tau _3}\mathrm{e}^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{i}{2}}(\phi _1\phi _2)\tau _2}\mathrm{e}^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{i}{2}}\varphi _1\tau _3}`$
is represented by the numerical $`2\times 2`$ matrix

$`𝒰_{\mathrm{MZ}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{i}{2}}(\phi _1+\phi _2)}`$ (16)
$`\times \left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{e}^{i(\varphi _1+\varphi _2)}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\phi _1\phi _2}{2}& \mathrm{e}^{i\varphi _2}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\phi _1\phi _2}{2}\\ \mathrm{e}^{i\varphi _1}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\phi _1\phi _2}{2}& \mathrm{cos}\frac{\phi _1\phi _2}{2}\end{array}\right)`$
that multiplies the 2-component row $`(|𝖱,|𝖫)`$ in (9). This matrix is slightly more general than the one in Eq. (1) of Ref. .

The latter form in (12), which is a parameterization in terms of three Eulerian angles $`\varphi _1`$, $`\phi _1\phi _2`$, and $`\varphi _2`$ combined with an over-all phase factor, makes it obvious that any unitary operator for the $`𝖱/𝖫`$ qubit can be realized by a Mach-Zehnder set-up of the kind shown in Fig. 1. Note that $`U_{\mathrm{MZ}}=𝟙_\tau `$ if $`\varphi _1=\varphi _2=\phi _1=\phi _2=0`$, which is the reason for the conventional phase factor in (6).

### B Polarization gates

We regard vertical ($`𝗏`$) and horizontal ($`𝗁`$) polarization as the basic alternatives of the polarization qubit, and the corresponding Pauli operators are

$`\sigma =|𝗁𝗏|,\sigma ^{}=|𝗏𝗁|,`$ (17)
$`\sigma _1=\sigma +\sigma ^{},\sigma _2=i\sigma i\sigma ^{},\sigma _3=\sigma ^{}\sigma \sigma \sigma ^{},`$ (18)
$`𝟙_\sigma =\sigma ^{}\sigma +\sigma \sigma ^{}.`$ (19)
The photon’s polarization is manipulated with the aid of wave plates. A quarter-wave plate (QWP), with its major axis at an angle $`\theta `$ to the vertical direction, effects the transition

$`(|𝗏,|𝗁)`$ $``$ $`(U_{\mathrm{QWP}}(\theta )|𝗏,U_{\mathrm{QWP}}(\theta )|𝗁)`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`(|𝗏,|𝗁)𝒰_{\mathrm{QWP}}(\theta ),`$ (21)
where the unitary operator $`U_{\mathrm{QWP}}`$ is given by

$`U_{\mathrm{QWP}}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{i\theta \sigma _2}\mathrm{e}^{i{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\pi }{4}}\sigma _3}\mathrm{e}^{i\theta \sigma _2}`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{i{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\pi }{4}}[\sigma _1\mathrm{sin}(2\theta )+\sigma _3\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )]}`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[𝟙_\sigma 𝕚\sigma _\mathrm{𝟙}\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{𝟚}\theta )𝕚\sigma _\mathrm{𝟛}\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{𝟚}\theta )\right],`$ (24)
and its $`2\times 2`$ matrix representation reads

$$𝒰_{\mathrm{QWP}}(\theta )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1i\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )& i\mathrm{sin}(2\theta )\\ i\mathrm{sin}(2\theta )& 1+i\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )\end{array}\right).$$
(25)
Likewise, the action of a half-wave plate (HWP) is accounted for by the unitary operator

$`U_{\mathrm{HWP}}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\left[U_{\mathrm{QWP}}(\theta )\right]^2=`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{i\theta \sigma _2}\mathrm{e}^{i{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\sigma _3}\mathrm{e}^{i\theta \sigma _2}`$ (27)
$`=`$ $`i\left[\sigma _1\mathrm{sin}(2\theta )+\sigma _3\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )\right],`$ (28)
represented by the matrix

$$𝒰_{\mathrm{HWP}}(\theta )=\left[𝒰_{\mathrm{QWP}}(\theta )\right]^2=i\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )& \mathrm{sin}(2\theta )\\ \mathrm{sin}(2\theta )& \mathrm{cos}(2\theta )\end{array}\right).$$
(29)
Particular polarization changes can be done with a single QWP, or a single HWP, or with a QWP and a HWP in succession, and it is familiar  that the configuration of Fig. 2, where a HWP is sandwiched by two QWP’s, enables one to perform arbitrary changes of the photon’s polarization state. This is most easily seen by expressing the net unitary operator in terms of three Eulerian angles,

$`U_{\mathrm{pol}}`$ $`=`$ $`U_{\mathrm{QWP}}(\gamma )U_{\mathrm{HWP}}(\beta )U_{\mathrm{QWP}}(\alpha )`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{i(\gamma +{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3\pi }{4}})\sigma _2}\mathrm{e}^{i(\alpha 2\beta +\gamma )\sigma _3}\mathrm{e}^{i(\alpha {\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\pi }{4}})\sigma _2}.`$ (31)
We do not get an over-all phase factor here as there is in (12), but that does not matter. For example, $`U_{\mathrm{pol}}=𝟙_\sigma `$ obtains for $`\alpha =\beta \pm \pi /2=\gamma `$ since $`U_{\mathrm{QWP}}(\beta \pm \pi /2)=\left[U_{\mathrm{QWP}}(\beta )\right]^1`$, and $`\alpha =\beta =\gamma `$ gives $`U_{\mathrm{pol}}=𝟙_\sigma `$. A polarization dependent phase shifter, that is

$$U_{\mathrm{pol}}=|𝗏\mathrm{e}^{i\vartheta }𝗏|+|𝗁\mathrm{e}^{i\vartheta }𝗁|,$$
(32)
is realized by the setting $`\alpha =\gamma =\frac{1}{4}\pi `$, $`\beta =\frac{1}{2}\vartheta \frac{1}{4}\pi `$.

### C Arbitrary 2-qubit gates

Unitary gates $`U_{\mathrm{MZ}}`$ and $`U_{\mathrm{pol}}`$ for manipulations of the $`𝖱/𝖫`$ qubit and the $`𝗏/𝗁`$ qubit individually are thus at hand. We now combine them to construct universal gates that process arbitrary 2-qubit states unitarily. This is achieved by a modification of the Mach-Zehnder set-up of Fig. 1. In addition to the polarization-independent phase shifters already in place, we let the photon pass through wave-plate combinations of the kind depicted in Fig. 2. The entire set-up is then as shown in Fig. 3.

Where we had $`U_\mathrm{R}`$ and $`U_\mathrm{L}`$ in the product giving $`U_{\mathrm{MZ}}`$ in (12), we now have corresponding factors in which the phase factors of (8) are replaced by unitary operators that affect the polarization — denoted by $`V_1`$, $`V_2`$ for the entry and exit ports, and by $`V_\mathrm{R}`$, $`V_\mathrm{L}`$ inside the interferometer. Each of them represents a phase shifter and a set of wave plates, and is therefore of the form (31) multiplied by a phase factor. Thus, the unitary operator $`S`$ associated with the 2-qubit gate of Fig. 3 is given by

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\tau ^{}\tau V_2+\tau \tau ^{}\right)U_{\mathrm{BS}}`$ (35)
$`\times \left(\tau ^{}\tau V_\mathrm{R}+\tau \tau ^{}V_\mathrm{L}\right)U_{\mathrm{mirr}}`$
$`\times U_{\mathrm{BS}}\left(\tau ^{}\tau V_1+\tau \tau ^{}\right),`$
or

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`\tau ^{}\tau S_{\mathrm{RR}}+\tau \tau ^{}S_{\mathrm{LL}}+\tau S_{\mathrm{LR}}+\tau ^{}S_{\mathrm{RL}}`$ (36)
$`\widehat{=}`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}S_{\mathrm{RR}}& S_{\mathrm{RL}}\\ S_{\mathrm{LR}}& S_{\mathrm{LL}}\end{array}\right)_\tau ,`$ (39)
where the $`2\times 2`$ matrix refers to the spatial $`𝖱/𝖫`$ alternative, and the entries of this matrix are

$`S_{\mathrm{RR}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}V_2(V_\mathrm{R}+V_\mathrm{L})V_1,`$ (40)
$`S_{\mathrm{LL}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(V_\mathrm{R}+V_\mathrm{L}),`$ (41)
$`S_{\mathrm{RL}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}V_2(V_\mathrm{R}V_\mathrm{L}),`$ (42)
$`S_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(V_\mathrm{R}V_\mathrm{L})V_1.`$ (43)
The physical significance of these polarization operators is immediate: $`S_{\mathrm{LR}}`$, for instance, accounts for the polarization change associated with photons entering the $`𝖱`$ port and leaving the $`𝖫`$ port.

There are no phase shifters or wave plates in the entry and exit $`𝖫`$ ports. Indeed, one does not need them because the various combinations shown in Fig. 4 are perfectly equivalent. Further configurations become possible when using polarizing beam splitters in the Mach-Zehnder set-up. Of course, when it comes to actual experimental realizations, one variant could be more advantageous, for technical reasons, than the others and then the freedom to choose freely among them is handy. For the more theoretical purposes of the present discussion, however, we’ll confine ourselves to set-ups of the kind depicted in Fig. 3.

The four operators in (43) need not be unitary themselves (and as a rule they aren’t), but their form is much restricted by the unitary property of $`S`$, which implies the identities

$`S_{\mathrm{RR}}^{}S_{\mathrm{RR}}^{}+S_{\mathrm{LR}}^{}S_{\mathrm{LR}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`𝟙_\sigma ,`$ (44)
$`S_{\mathrm{RL}}^{}S_{\mathrm{RL}}^{}+S_{\mathrm{LL}}^{}S_{\mathrm{LL}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`𝟙_\sigma ,`$ (45)
$`S_{\mathrm{RR}}^{}S_{\mathrm{RL}}^{}+S_{\mathrm{LR}}^{}S_{\mathrm{LL}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (46)
$`S_{\mathrm{RL}}^{}S_{\mathrm{RR}}^{}+S_{\mathrm{LL}}^{}S_{\mathrm{LR}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (47)
the last two being adjoints of each other. Since $`V_1`$, $`V_2`$, $`V_\mathrm{R}`$, $`V_\mathrm{L}`$ are unitary themselves, Eqs. (47) hold for the operators in (43) by construction.

The reverse is also true: For any given unitary 2-qubit operator $`S`$ one can find four unitary polarization operators $`V_1`$, $`V_2`$, $`V_\mathrm{R}`$, $`V_\mathrm{L}`$ such that $`S`$ is of the form (39) with (43). To prove this assertion, we must show that Eqs. (43) can be solved for $`V_1`$, $`V_2`$, $`V_\mathrm{R}`$, $`V_\mathrm{L}`$ provided that the conditions (47) are obeyed.

A first technical step of this proof is given in the Appendix, where we establish that $`S^{}S=SS^{}=𝟙_\sigma 𝟙_\tau 𝟙`$ implies that the matrix entries of (39) are of the general form

$`S_{\mathrm{RR}}`$ $`=`$ $`|\overline{\psi }_1\mathrm{cos}\vartheta \psi _1|+|\overline{\psi }_2\mathrm{cos}\theta \psi _2|,`$ (48)
$`S_{\mathrm{LL}}`$ $`=`$ $`|\overline{\chi }_1\mathrm{cos}\vartheta \chi _1|+|\overline{\chi }_2\mathrm{cos}\theta \chi _2|,`$ (49)
$`iS_{\mathrm{RL}}`$ $`=`$ $`|\overline{\psi }_1\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \chi _1|+|\overline{\psi }_2\mathrm{sin}\theta \chi _2|,`$ (50)
$`iS_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`|\overline{\chi }_1\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \psi _1|+|\overline{\chi }_2\mathrm{sin}\theta \psi _2|,`$ (51)
where the kets and bras stand for particular sets of polarization states, each set being orthonormal,

$$\psi _j|\psi _k=\overline{\psi }_j|\overline{\psi }_k=\chi _j|\chi _k=\overline{\chi }_j|\overline{\chi }_k=\delta _{jk},$$
(52)
but with no other a priori relation among them. Each set is specified by four parameters, two of them phases that do not enter the basic projectors. Since only states with the same subscript are paired in (51), six relative phases are relevant, so that two of the eight phases can be fixed by a convenient convention. In other words, 14 parameters are needed to specify the various ket-bra products in (51). Together with the values of $`\vartheta `$ and $`\theta `$, there is thus a total of 16 parameters, as there should be.

For given left-hand sides in (51), one determines the eigenvalues and eigenstates of $`S_{\mathrm{RR}}^{}S_{\mathrm{RR}}^{}`$ to find $`\vartheta `$, $`\theta `$ and the $`\psi `$ states (with arbitrary phases). The eigenstates of $`S_{\mathrm{RR}}^{}S_{\mathrm{RR}}^{}`$ then supply the $`\overline{\psi }`$ states with well-defined phases relative to the $`\psi `$ states, and the eigenstates of $`S_{\mathrm{LL}}^{}S_{\mathrm{LL}}^{}`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{LL}}^{}S_{\mathrm{LL}}^{}`$ yield the $`\chi `$ and $`\overline{\chi }`$ states, respectively.

As soon as the ingredients of the right-hand sides of (51) are at hand, one constructs the four $`V`$ operators in accordance with

$`V_1`$ $`=`$ $`|\chi _1(i)_1\psi _1|+|\chi _2(i)_2\psi _2|,`$ (53)
$`V_2`$ $`=`$ $`|\overline{\psi }_1(\pm i)_1\overline{\chi }_1|+|\overline{\psi }_2(\pm i)_2\overline{\chi }_2|,`$ (54)
$`V_\mathrm{R}`$ $`=`$ $`|\overline{\chi }_1\mathrm{e}^{(i)_1\vartheta }\chi _1|+|\overline{\chi }_2\mathrm{e}^{(i)_2\theta }\chi _2|,`$ (55)
$`V_\mathrm{L}`$ $`=`$ $`|\overline{\chi }_1\mathrm{e}^{(\pm i)_1\vartheta }\chi _1|+|\overline{\chi }_2\mathrm{e}^{(\pm i)_2\theta }\chi _2|,`$ (56)
where one must use consistently the upper or lower signs of $`i`$ in $`()_1`$ and $`()_2`$, but either one of the four possible sign choices will do.

## III Basic applications

### A Controlled-not gate

As a first application, a warm-up problem, we consider controlled-not gates. If the $`𝖱/𝖫`$ qubit controls the $`𝗏/𝗁`$ qubit, such a gate does nothing to the $`𝖱`$ input, but interchanges $`𝗏𝗁`$ on the $`𝖫`$ branch,

$`S_{\mathrm{cnot},\tau \sigma }(|\mathrm{𝖱𝗏},|\mathrm{𝖱𝗁},|\mathrm{𝖫𝗏},|\mathrm{𝖫𝗁})`$ (57)
$`=(|\mathrm{𝖱𝗏},|\mathrm{𝖱𝗁},|\mathrm{𝖫𝗁},|\mathrm{𝖫𝗏}),`$ (58)
where the subscript $`\tau \sigma `$ indicates which is the control qubit ($`\tau `$) and which the target qubit ($`\sigma `$). Equivalently, we have

$`S_{\mathrm{cnot},\tau \sigma }=\tau ^{}\tau 𝟙_\sigma +\tau \tau ^{}\sigma _\mathrm{𝟙},`$ (59)
$`S_{\mathrm{RR}}=𝟙_\sigma ,𝕊_{\mathrm{LL}}=\sigma _\mathrm{𝟙},𝕊_{\mathrm{RL}}=𝕊_{\mathrm{LR}}=\mathrm{𝟘}.`$ (60)
One possibility has the upper signs in (56), combined with $`\vartheta =\theta =0`$ and

$`|\overline{\chi }_1=|\chi _2=i|\psi _1=i|\overline{\psi }_1=|𝗏,`$ (61)
$`|\overline{\chi }_2=|\chi _1=i|\psi _2=i|\overline{\psi }_2=|𝗁,`$ (62)
so that

$$V_1=V_\mathrm{R}=V_\mathrm{L}=\sigma _1=iU_{\mathrm{HWP}}(\pi /4),V_2=𝟙_\sigma ,$$
(63)
which are easily realized with three HWP’s and phase shifters that provide the factor of $`i`$. We note that for a controlled-not gate, which interchanges $`𝗏𝗁`$ on the $`𝖱`$ input but leaves the $`𝖫`$ input unchanged, a single HWP for $`V_1`$ is sufficient. No other polarization changing elements are needed ($`V_2=V_\mathrm{R}=V_\mathrm{L}=𝟙_\sigma `$) and thus the Mach-Zehnder interferometer isn’t even necessary. This is due to the specific configuration chosen in Fig. 3 where the $`𝖫`$ input is empty by convention and, accordingly, for the gate defined by (58) a single HWP (plus phase shifter) in the $`𝖫`$ input suffices, too.

If, however, the $`𝖱/𝖫`$ qubit is controlled by the $`𝗏/𝗁`$ qubit,

$`S_{\mathrm{cnot},\sigma \tau }=𝟙_\tau \sigma ^{}\sigma +\tau _\mathrm{𝟙}\sigma \sigma ^{},`$ (64)
$`S_{\mathrm{RR}}=S_{\mathrm{LL}}=\sigma ^{}\sigma ,S_{\mathrm{RL}}=S_{\mathrm{LR}}=\sigma \sigma ^{},`$ (65)
the Mach-Zehnder set-up is needed. Here one could use

$`V_1=i𝟙_\sigma ,𝕍_\mathrm{𝟚}=𝕚𝟙_\sigma ,`$ (66)
$`V_\mathrm{R}=𝟙_\sigma ,𝕍_\mathrm{L}=\sigma _\mathrm{𝟛}=𝕚𝕌_{\mathrm{HWP}}(\mathrm{𝟘}),`$ (67)
that is: phase shifters in the entry and exit $`𝖱`$ ports, nothing in the $`𝖱`$ branch of the interferometer, and a phase shifter plus a HWP in the $`𝖫`$ branch.

### B Swapping gate

The defining property of a swapping gate is its effect on a product state,

$`(|𝖱R+|𝖫L)(|𝗏v+|𝗁h)`$ (68)
$``$ $`(|𝖱v+|𝖫h)(|𝗏R+|𝗁L),`$ (69)
where $`R,L`$ and $`v,h`$ are arbitrary probability amplitudes, so that

$$S_{\mathrm{swap}}(|\mathrm{𝖱𝗏},|\mathrm{𝖱𝗁},|\mathrm{𝖫𝗏},|\mathrm{𝖫𝗁})=(|\mathrm{𝖱𝗏},|\mathrm{𝖫𝗏},|\mathrm{𝖱𝗁},|\mathrm{𝖫𝗁}),$$
(70)
or

$`S_{\mathrm{swap}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(𝟙+\tau _\mathrm{𝟙}\sigma _\mathrm{𝟙}+\tau _\mathrm{𝟚}\sigma _\mathrm{𝟚}+\tau _\mathrm{𝟛}\sigma _\mathrm{𝟛}\right),`$ (71)
$`S_{\mathrm{RR}}=\sigma ^{}\sigma ,S_{\mathrm{LL}}=\sigma \sigma ^{},S_{\mathrm{RL}}=\sigma ,S_{\mathrm{LR}}=\sigma ^{}.`$ (72)
That $`S_{\mathrm{swap}}`$ interchanges the roles of the qubits is compactly stated by

$$S_{\mathrm{swap}}\tau _k=\sigma _kS_{\mathrm{swap}}\text{for }\text{k=1,2,3}\text{,}$$
(73)
which can serve as an alternative definition. The choice

$`V_1`$ $`=`$ $`i\sigma _1=U_{\mathrm{HWP}}(\pi /4),`$ (74)
$`V_2`$ $`=`$ $`i\sigma _1=U_{\mathrm{HWP}}(\pi /4),`$ (75)
$`V_\mathrm{R}`$ $`=`$ $`𝟙_\sigma ,𝕍_\mathrm{L}=\sigma _\mathrm{𝟛}=𝕚𝕌_{\mathrm{HWP}}(\mathrm{𝟘}),`$ (76)
(HWP’s at the entry and exit, nothing in the $`𝖱`$ branch, phase shifter and HWP in the $`𝖫`$ branch) realizes the swapping gate.

### C Walsh-Hadamard gate

A Walsh-Hadamard gate turns the states of the standard basis into equal-weight superpositions,

$`S_{\mathrm{WH}}(|\mathrm{𝖱𝗏},|\mathrm{𝖱𝗁},|\mathrm{𝖫𝗏},|\mathrm{𝖫𝗁})`$ (77)
$`=(|\mathrm{𝖱𝗏},|\mathrm{𝖱𝗁},|\mathrm{𝖫𝗏},|\mathrm{𝖫𝗁}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\end{array}\right)`$ (82)
so that

$`S_{\mathrm{WH}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\tau _1+\tau _3\right)\left(\sigma _1+\sigma _3\right),`$ (83)
$`S_{\mathrm{RR}}=S_{\mathrm{LL}}=S_{\mathrm{RL}}=S_{\mathrm{LR}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\sigma _1+\sigma _3\right).`$ (84)
A simple realization is specified by

$`V_1`$ $`=`$ $`𝟙_\sigma ,𝕍_\mathrm{𝟚}=𝟙_\sigma ,`$ (85)
$`\begin{array}{c}\hfill V_\mathrm{R}\\ \hfill V_\mathrm{L}\end{array}\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\pm i}{2}}\left(\sigma _1+\sigma _3\right)=i\mathrm{e}^{\pm i\pi /4}U_{\mathrm{HWP}}(\pi /8).`$ (88)
This choice needs nothing in the entry port, a phase shifter in the exit port, and HWP plus phase shifter in each arm of the interferometer.

### D Bell basis measurement

Another simple application is the measurement of the Bell basis, where we find the 2-qubit photon in one of the four entangled superpositions

$`|\mathrm{b}_1`$ $`=`$ $`2^{\frac{1}{2}}(|\mathrm{𝖱𝗏}|\mathrm{𝖫𝗁}),`$ (89)
$`|\mathrm{b}_2`$ $`=`$ $`2^{\frac{1}{2}}(|\mathrm{𝖱𝗁}|\mathrm{𝖫𝗏}),`$ (90)
$`|\mathrm{b}_3`$ $`=`$ $`2^{\frac{1}{2}}(|\mathrm{𝖱𝗁}+|\mathrm{𝖫𝗏}),`$ (91)
$`|\mathrm{b}_4`$ $`=`$ $`2^{\frac{1}{2}}(|\mathrm{𝖱𝗏}+|\mathrm{𝖫𝗁}).`$ (92)
Since one can detect the states of the standard basis — viz. $`|\mathrm{𝖱𝗏}`$, $`|\mathrm{𝖱𝗁}`$, $`|\mathrm{𝖫𝗏}`$, and $`|\mathrm{𝖫𝗁}`$ — with the aid of polarizing beam splitters (PBS’s), see Fig. 5, all one needs is a 2-qubit gate that turns the Bell basis into the standard one,

$`S_{\mathrm{Bell}}(|\mathrm{b}_1,|\mathrm{b}_2,|\mathrm{b}_3,|\mathrm{b}_4)`$ (93)
$`=(|\mathrm{𝖱𝗏},|\mathrm{𝖱𝗁},|\mathrm{𝖫𝗏},|\mathrm{𝖫𝗁}).`$ (94)
Thus the ingredients

$`S_{\mathrm{Bell}}=2^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(𝟙_\tau 𝟙_\sigma 𝕚\tau _\mathrm{𝟚}\sigma _\mathrm{𝟙}\right),`$ (95)
$`S_{\mathrm{RR}}=S_{\mathrm{LL}}=2^{\frac{1}{2}}𝟙_\sigma ,𝕊_{\mathrm{LR}}=𝕊_{\mathrm{RL}}=\mathrm{𝟚}^{\frac{\mathrm{𝟙}}{\mathrm{𝟚}}}\sigma _\mathrm{𝟙}`$ (96)
are required. They are supplied by $`V_1=V_2=𝟙_\sigma `$ in conjunction with

$`V_\mathrm{R}`$ $`=`$ $`2^{\frac{1}{2}}(𝟙_\sigma 𝕚\sigma _\mathrm{𝟙})=𝕌_{\mathrm{QWP}}(\pi /\mathrm{𝟜}),`$ (97)
$`V_\mathrm{L}`$ $`=`$ $`2^{\frac{1}{2}}(𝟙_\sigma +𝕚\sigma _\mathrm{𝟙})=𝕌_{\mathrm{QWP}}(\pi /\mathrm{𝟜}),`$ (98)
for example, where one has just two QWP’s inside the interferometer, one in each branch, and nothing in the entry and exit ports.

We note that an alternative way — one of many — of measuring the Bell basis is stated by

$`2^{\frac{1}{2}}(\tau _1+\tau _3)S_{\mathrm{swap}}S_{\mathrm{cnot},\sigma \tau }(|\mathrm{b}_4,|\mathrm{b}_3,|\mathrm{b}_1,|\mathrm{b}_2)`$ (99)
$`=(|\mathrm{𝖱𝗏},|\mathrm{𝖱𝗁},|\mathrm{𝖫𝗏},|\mathrm{𝖫𝗁}),`$ (100)
where the permutation of the Bell states is irrelevant in the present context. This measurement could be realized by a sequence of unitary transformations: first a controlled-not gate (with $`𝗏/𝗁`$ controlling $`𝖱/𝖫`$), then a swapping gate, finally a Walsh-Hadamard gate acting solely on the $`𝖱/𝖫`$ qubit; each of the three gates would require a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. But rather than having three successive interferometers we can equivalently use a single one, because *any* unitary 2-qubit gate can be realized by the set-up of Fig. 3, as shown in Sec. II C.

## IV Advanced applications

### A State diagnosis

As pointed out in the Introduction, we can measure any given 2-qubit observable if we manage to detect its eigenstate basis, consisting of the mutually orthogonal 2-qubit states $`|a`$, $`|b`$, $`|c`$, $`|d`$, say. This is done, see Fig. 5, by mapping it onto the standard basis. And, of course, it doesn’t matter if this mapping involves additional phase factors. All one needs are transitions such as $`|aa||\mathrm{𝖱𝗏}\mathrm{𝖱𝗏}|`$. In this context it is expedient to introduce two 2-qubit operators in accordance with

$`A`$ $``$ $`|aa|+|bb||cc||dd|,`$ (101)
$`B`$ $``$ $`|aa||bb|+|cc||dd|,`$ (102)
so that $`|a`$, …, $`|d`$ are the joint eigenkets of $`A`$ and $`B`$ with eigenvalues $`A^{}=B^{}=+1`$, …, $`A^{}=B^{}=1`$, respectively. The essential property of the unitary gate in Fig. 5 is then the mapping of $`A`$ and $`B`$ onto $`\tau _3`$ and $`\sigma _3`$,

$`SA=\tau _3S,SB=\sigma _3S.`$ (103)
For example, the operators $`A=\tau _1\sigma _1`$ and $`B=\tau _2\sigma _2`$ are associated with the Bell basis (92), and one verifies (103) for $`S_{\mathrm{Bell}}`$ of (94) easily.

Permutation of the basis states $`|a`$, …, $`|d`$ have no effect on the basis as a whole. Therefore, one can interchange the roles of $`A`$ and $`B`$ in (103), or replace either one of them by their product $`AB=BA`$. The respective gates are equivalent — either one can be used to measure the basis in question — but some may be simpler to set up than others. This is illustrated by the unitary transformation of (100), which corresponds to $`A=\tau _1\sigma _1`$ and $`B=\tau _3\sigma _3=(\tau _1\sigma _1)(\tau _2\sigma _2)`$.

The statistical operator of a general 2-qubit state needs 15 real parameters for its specification (see , for example). The measurement of the probabilities associated with one 2-qubit basis supplies three of the 15 parameters. Accordingly, the full diagnosis of the 2-qubit state of interest requires the measurement of at least five suitably chosen bases.

A convenient set of such bases is reported in Table I, where each basis is characterized by its $`A,B`$ pair. These pairs identify five 2-qubit observables that are pairwise complementary and thus optimal in the sense of Wootters and Field . In the terminology of Brukner and Zeilinger , the five $`A,B`$’s are “a complete set of five pairs of complementary propositions.”

Rather than using a minimal set of this kind, one could of course measure a larger set of observables. This was done by White et al. , who produced and studied polarization-entangled photon pairs — two qubits of the $`𝗏/𝗁`$ kind. To our knowledge, theirs was the first experiment in which a complete characterization of an entangled 2-qubit state was achieved.

### B Grover search

In the present context of entangled 2-qubit states, Grover’s problem  amounts to the following; see Fig. 6. Grover’s gate applies either one of the four unitary operators

$`G_1`$ $`=`$ $`𝟙\mathrm{𝟚}|\mathrm{𝖱𝗏}\mathrm{𝖱𝗏}|={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟙}}{\mathrm{𝟚}}}(𝟙\tau _\mathrm{𝟛}𝟙_\sigma 𝟙_\tau \sigma _\mathrm{𝟛}\tau _\mathrm{𝟛}\sigma _\mathrm{𝟛}),`$ (104)
$`G_2`$ $`=`$ $`𝟙\mathrm{𝟚}|\mathrm{𝖱𝗁}\mathrm{𝖱𝗁}|={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟙}}{\mathrm{𝟚}}}(𝟙\tau _\mathrm{𝟛}𝟙_\sigma +𝟙_\tau \sigma _\mathrm{𝟛}+\tau _\mathrm{𝟛}\sigma _\mathrm{𝟛}),`$ (105)
$`G_3`$ $`=`$ $`𝟙\mathrm{𝟚}|\mathrm{𝖫𝗏}\mathrm{𝖫𝗏}|={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟙}}{\mathrm{𝟚}}}(𝟙+\tau _\mathrm{𝟛}𝟙_\sigma 𝟙_\tau \sigma _\mathrm{𝟛}+\tau _\mathrm{𝟛}\sigma _\mathrm{𝟛}),`$ (106)
$`G_4`$ $`=`$ $`𝟙\mathrm{𝟚}|\mathrm{𝖫𝗁}\mathrm{𝖫𝗁}|={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟙}}{\mathrm{𝟚}}}(𝟙+\tau _\mathrm{𝟛}𝟙_\sigma +𝟙_\tau \sigma _\mathrm{𝟛}\tau _\mathrm{𝟛}\sigma _\mathrm{𝟛})`$ (107)
to any 2-qubit state, and one has to find out which one is actually acting without using the gate more than once.

The solution consists of three steps. First, we send a $`\mathrm{𝖱𝗏}`$ photon through the Walsh-Hadamard gate of Sec. III C to produce the superposition

$$\frac{1}{2}(|\mathrm{𝖱𝗏}+|\mathrm{𝖱𝗁}+|\mathrm{𝖫𝗏}+|\mathrm{𝖫𝗁}).$$
(108)
Second, this is used as input for Grover’s gate, and the output is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{1}{2}(|\mathrm{𝖱𝗏}+|\mathrm{𝖱𝗁}+|\mathrm{𝖫𝗏}+|\mathrm{𝖫𝗁})\text{for}& G_1,\\ \hfill \frac{1}{2}(|\mathrm{𝖱𝗏}|\mathrm{𝖱𝗁}+|\mathrm{𝖫𝗏}+|\mathrm{𝖫𝗁})\text{for}& G_2,\\ \hfill \frac{1}{2}(|\mathrm{𝖱𝗏}+|\mathrm{𝖱𝗁}|\mathrm{𝖫𝗏}+|\mathrm{𝖫𝗁})\text{for}& G_3,\\ \hfill \frac{1}{2}(|\mathrm{𝖱𝗏}+|\mathrm{𝖱𝗁}+|\mathrm{𝖫𝗏}|\mathrm{𝖫𝗁})\text{for}& G_4.\end{array}$$
(109)
Third, since these are four mutually orthogonal states, they can be mapped onto the standard basis states, as in Fig. 5, here with the unitary 2-qubit gate appropriate for $`A=\tau _3\sigma _1`$ and $`B=\tau _1\sigma _3`$ in (103), viz.

$$S_\mathrm{G}=\frac{1}{2}(𝟙\tau _\mathrm{𝟙}𝟙_\sigma 𝟙_\tau \sigma _\mathrm{𝟙}\tau _\mathrm{𝟙}\sigma _\mathrm{𝟙}).$$
(110)
Thus, a click of the $`\mathrm{𝖱𝗁}`$ detector, say, would tell us that $`G_2`$ was the case.

The choice

$$iV_1=iV_2=V_\mathrm{L}=𝟙_\sigma ,𝕍_\mathrm{R}=\sigma _\mathrm{𝟙}$$
(111)
realizes $`S_\mathrm{G}`$ and thus offers a rather simple single-photon implementation of Grover’s search among four possibilities.

We note that Kwiat et al. have already performed an experiment of this kind . These authors also discuss extensions to Grover searches among more than four possibilities.

### C Vaidman-Aharonov-Albert puzzle

Fitting to the present context, we rephrase the intriguing puzzle introduced by Vaidman, Aharonov, and Albert (VAA) in Ref.  (and subsequently generalized by Ben-Menahem  and Mermin ): Chuck invites Doris to prepare two photons for him, photon 1 vertically polarized and photon 2 in any polarization state she’d like. He’ll then perform a polarization measurement on photon 2, thereby measuring either one of the three Pauli operators $`\sigma _1`$, $`\sigma _2`$, or $`\sigma _3`$, without, however, telling Doris which one of the three complementary measurements is actually done. Since Chuck’s measurement destroys photon 2, he promises to mimic an ideal von Neumann measurement by turning the polarization of photon 1 from vertical to the one detected for photon 2. Thereafter, Doris can measure any property of photon 1 allowed by quantum mechanics. Only after she did the measurement of her choosing, Chuck will tell Doris which one of the three polarization measurements he had performed, and he challenges her to tell him then the outcome of his measurement.

Readers who don’t know as yet how Doris can meet Chuck’s challenge — thereby doing the seemingly impossible: ascertain the values of three mutually complementary measurements — should try to figure it out themselves before reading on. There is a lesson here about the wonderful things entanglement can do for you.

Doris prepares the two photons in the entangled state

$$2^{\frac{1}{2}}(|(\mathrm{𝖱𝗏})_1𝗏_2+|(\mathrm{𝖫𝗏})_1𝗁_2).$$
(112)
As shown in Fig. 7, this is achieved by processing one photon of a polarization-entangled pair emitted by a suitable source  in the polarization state

$$2^{\frac{1}{2}}(|𝗏_1𝗏_2+|𝗁_1𝗁_2).$$
(113)
Upon sending photon 1 through a polarizing beam splitter and rotating the transmitted $`𝗁`$ polarization to $`𝗏`$, the polarization entanglement is turned into an entanglement between the $`𝖱/𝖫`$ degree of freedom of photon 1 and the $`𝗏/𝗁`$ degree of freedom of photon 2, as described by the ket vector of (112). All of this happens during the first stage of the experiment sketched in Fig. 7.

At the second stage, Chuck does one of the three polarization measurements. If he measures $`\sigma _1`$, say, finding $`\pm 1`$ leaves photon 1 in the state

$$2^{\frac{1}{2}}(|\mathrm{𝖱𝗏}\pm |\mathrm{𝖫𝗏}),$$
(114)
and the subsequent change of its polarization from $`𝗏`$ to $`𝗏\pm 𝗁`$ puts photon 1 into

$$|\mathrm{𝟣}_\pm \frac{1}{2}(|\mathrm{𝖱𝗏}\pm |\mathrm{𝖱𝗁}\pm |\mathrm{𝖫𝗏}+|\mathrm{𝖫𝗁}).$$
(115)
Likewise, if Chuck measures $`\sigma _2`$, photon 1 will emerge from the second stage in one of the states

$$|\mathrm{𝟤}_\pm \frac{1}{2}(|\mathrm{𝖱𝗏}\pm i|\mathrm{𝖱𝗁}i|\mathrm{𝖫𝗏}+|\mathrm{𝖫𝗁}),$$
(116)
and a measurement of $`\sigma _3`$ will produce

$$|\mathrm{𝟥}_+|\mathrm{𝖱𝗏}\text{or}|\mathrm{𝟥}_{}|\mathrm{𝖫𝗁}.$$
(117)
Note that these six states are simply related to the Bell states of (92),

$`|\mathrm{𝟣}_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`2^{\frac{1}{2}}(|\mathrm{b}_4\pm |\mathrm{b}_3),`$ (118)
$`|\mathrm{𝟤}_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`2^{\frac{1}{2}}(|\mathrm{b}_4\pm i|\mathrm{b}_2),`$ (119)
$`|\mathrm{𝟥}_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`2^{\frac{1}{2}}(|\mathrm{b}_4\pm |\mathrm{b}_1).`$ (120)
At the third stage, Doris measures the VAA basis that consists of the states defined by

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{vaa}_1|\\ \mathrm{vaa}_2|\\ \mathrm{vaa}_3|\\ \mathrm{vaa}_4|\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 1& \hfill i& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill i& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill i& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill i& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{b}_1|\\ \mathrm{b}_2|\\ \mathrm{b}_3|\\ \mathrm{b}_4|\end{array}\right).$$
(121)
The corresponding $`A,B`$ pair of observables and their product,

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`|\mathrm{b}_1\mathrm{b}_4|+i|\mathrm{b}_2\mathrm{b}_3|i|\mathrm{b}_3\mathrm{b}_2|+|\mathrm{b}_4\mathrm{b}_1|`$ (122)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\tau _3𝟙_\sigma +𝟙_\tau \sigma _\mathrm{𝟛}+\tau _\mathrm{𝟙}\sigma _\mathrm{𝟚}\tau _\mathrm{𝟚}\sigma _\mathrm{𝟙}\right),`$ (123)
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`i|\mathrm{b}_1\mathrm{b}_2|+i|\mathrm{b}_2\mathrm{b}_1|+|\mathrm{b}_3\mathrm{b}_4|+|\mathrm{b}_4\mathrm{b}_3|`$ (124)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\tau _1𝟙_\sigma +𝟙_\tau \sigma _\mathrm{𝟙}\tau _\mathrm{𝟚}\sigma _\mathrm{𝟛}+\tau _\mathrm{𝟛}\sigma _\mathrm{𝟚}\right),`$ (125)
$`AB`$ $`=`$ $`|\mathrm{b}_1\mathrm{b}_3|+i|\mathrm{b}_2\mathrm{b}_4|+|\mathrm{b}_3\mathrm{b}_1|i|\mathrm{b}_4\mathrm{b}_2|`$ (126)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\tau _2𝟙_\sigma +𝟙_\tau \sigma _\mathrm{𝟚}+\tau _\mathrm{𝟙}\sigma _\mathrm{𝟛}+\tau _\mathrm{𝟛}\sigma _\mathrm{𝟙}\right)=𝔹𝔸,`$ (127)
permute the states of the Bell basis. The measurement of the VAA basis could, for example, employ a 2-qubit gate $`S_{\mathrm{VAA}}`$ that maps $`A`$ on $`\tau _3`$ and $`B`$ on $`\sigma _3`$, as in (103). One realization of this VAA gate is specified by

$`V_1`$ $`=`$ $`i\sigma _1=U_{\mathrm{HWP}}(\pi /4),`$ (128)
$`V_2`$ $`=`$ $`𝟙_\sigma ,`$ (129)
$`V_\mathrm{R}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1i}{\sqrt{8}}}\left(𝟙_\sigma +𝕚\sigma _\mathrm{𝟙}+𝕚\sigma _\mathrm{𝟚}𝕚\sigma _\mathrm{𝟛}\right)`$ (130)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{i\pi /4}U_{\mathrm{QWP}}(0)U_{\mathrm{QWP}}(\pi /4),`$ (131)
$`V_\mathrm{L}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(𝟙_\sigma +𝕚\sigma _\mathrm{𝟚}\right)`$ (132)
$`=`$ $`U_{\mathrm{QWP}}(\pi /4)U_{\mathrm{QWP}}(0)U_{\mathrm{QWP}}(\pi /4),`$ (133)
which would need a HWP at the $`𝖱`$ entry, a phase shifter and two QWP’s in one arm, three QWP’s in the other arm, and nothing at the exit.

The probabilities listed in Table II are crucial in understanding how Doris infers the result of Chuck’s polarization measurement. Suppose, for instance, that the $`\mathrm{𝖫𝗏}`$ detector clicked, so that Doris found photon 1 in state $`\mathrm{vaa}_3|`$. Then Chuck must have found $`+1`$ if he measured $`\sigma _1`$, and $`1`$ if he measured $`\sigma _2`$ or $`\sigma _3`$. The VAA basis (121) is, of course, chosen such that there are enough entries ‘$`0`$’ in Table II.

## V Summary and outlook

We showed how one can manipulate, and thus study, entangled qubit pairs that are physically represented by single photons. One qubit is encoded in the polarization, the other in a spatial alternative of the photon. By purely optical means, one can perform arbitrary unitary transformations on the qubit pair, so that any 2-qubit observable can be measured. Potential applications include the complete diagnosis of the entangled 2-qubit state supplied by some source and the experimental realization of a laboratory version of the Vaidman-Aharonov-Albert thought experiment.

The combined possibilities of performing any desired unitary transformation and of measuring any observable of one’s liking enables one to use qubit pairs for other purposes as well. In particular, any unitary 2-qubit gate is equivalent to a four-way interferometer with certain relative phases between the four partial amplitudes of certain strengths. Therefore, a systematic quantitative study of four-way interferometers — that might ask questions concerning wave-particle duality, for example — could be done with single photons and 2-qubit gates of the kinds we discussed above.

Finally, we note that the set-up of Fig. 7 — the optical realization of the VAA thought experiment — could be used for the purposes of quantum cryptography. Chuck, who would now control stages 1 and 2, sends single photons to Doris, each photon in one of the six 2-qubit product states of Eqs. (118) (which, incidentally, could be produced by different methods as well). Doris, whose equipment would consist of the VAA gate and the photon detectors in stage 3 of Fig. 7, measures the VAA basis for each photon. After receiving public word from Chuck which one of the three measurements he performed at stage 2a, Doris infers his measurement results. In this way, a random bit sequence is established that can serve as a cryptographic key. These matters are beyond the scope of the present paper and will be discussed elsewhere .

## Acknowledgments

BGE would like to thank Y. Aharonov for highly stimulating and most enjoyable discussions. We are grateful for the insights gained in conversations with H.-J. Briegel.

## A Concerning Eqs. (51)

Equations (47) state $`S^{}S=𝟙`$ more explicitly. Likewise $`SS^{}=𝟙`$ requires

$`S_{\mathrm{RR}}^{}S_{\mathrm{RR}}^{}+S_{\mathrm{RL}}^{}S_{\mathrm{RL}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`𝟙_\sigma ,`$ (A1)
$`S_{\mathrm{LR}}^{}S_{\mathrm{LR}}^{}+S_{\mathrm{LL}}^{}S_{\mathrm{LL}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`𝟙_\sigma ,`$ (A2)
$`S_{\mathrm{RR}}^{}S_{\mathrm{LR}}^{}+S_{\mathrm{RL}}^{}S_{\mathrm{LL}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (A3)
$`S_{\mathrm{LR}}^{}S_{\mathrm{RR}}^{}+S_{\mathrm{LL}}^{}S_{\mathrm{RL}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (A4)
of which the last two are adjoints of each other. We recall that, in a finite-dimensional Hilbert space as is the case here, the selfadjoint products $`X^{}X`$ and $`XX^{}`$ are unitarily equivalent for any operator $`X`$. When applied to $`X=S_{\mathrm{LR}}`$, the first line in (47) and the second line in (A1) imply that $`S_{\mathrm{RR}}^{}S_{\mathrm{RR}}^{}`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{LL}}^{}S_{\mathrm{LL}}^{}`$ are unitarily equivalent. Upon denoting their common eigenvalues by $`\left(\mathrm{cos}\vartheta \right)^2`$ and $`\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)^2`$, the eigenkets of $`S_{\mathrm{RR}}^{}S_{\mathrm{RR}}^{}`$ by $`|\psi _{1,2}`$ and those of $`S_{\mathrm{RR}}^{}S_{\mathrm{RR}}^{}`$ by $`|\overline{\psi }_{1,2}`$, the eigenkets of $`S_{\mathrm{LL}}^{}S_{\mathrm{LL}}^{}`$ by $`|\chi _{1,2}`$ and those of $`S_{\mathrm{LL}}^{}S_{\mathrm{LL}}^{}`$ by $`|\overline{\chi }_{1,2}`$, we then arrive at the first two lines of (51). In doing so, some relative phases have been absorbed in the global phases of the various kets and bras, but there remains the option to redefine them in accordance with

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}\hfill |\psi _k& & |\psi _k\mathrm{e}^{i\phi _k},\hfill & \hfill |\overline{\psi }_k& & |\overline{\psi }_k\mathrm{e}^{i\phi _k},\hfill \\ \hfill |\chi _k& & |\chi _k\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi _k},\hfill & \hfill |\overline{\chi }_k& & |\overline{\chi }_k\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi _k},\hfill \end{array}$$
(A5)
for $`k=1,2`$, without affecting the first two lines of (51).

Next, the second line of (51) and the first line of (A1) tell us that

$`S_{\mathrm{RL}}^{}S_{\mathrm{RL}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`𝟙_\sigma 𝕊_{\mathrm{LL}}^{}𝕊_{\mathrm{LL}}^{}`$ (A6)
$`=`$ $`|\chi _1\left(\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \right)^2\chi _1|+|\chi _2\left(\mathrm{sin}\theta \right)^2\chi _2|,`$ (A7)
$`S_{\mathrm{RL}}^{}S_{\mathrm{RL}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`𝟙_\sigma 𝕊_{\mathrm{RR}}^{}𝕊_{\mathrm{RR}}^{}`$ (A8)
$`=`$ $`|\overline{\psi }_1\left(\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \right)^2\overline{\psi }_1|+|\overline{\psi }_2\left(\mathrm{sin}\theta \right)^2\overline{\psi }_2|,`$ (A9)
with the consequence that $`S_{\mathrm{RL}}`$ must be of the form

$$iS_{\mathrm{RL}}=|\overline{\psi }_1\mathrm{e}^{i\alpha }\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \chi _1|+|\overline{\psi }_2\mathrm{e}^{i\beta }\mathrm{sin}\theta \chi _2|,$$
(A10)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are phases that are undetermined as yet. Analogously, the first line of (51) and the second line of (A1) establish

$$iS_{\mathrm{LR}}=|\overline{\chi }_1\mathrm{e}^{i\alpha }\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \psi _1|+|\overline{\chi }_2\mathrm{e}^{i\beta }\mathrm{sin}\theta \psi _2|,$$
(A11)
where the phase factors are fixed by the third and fourth equations in (51) and (A1).

Now, the substitutions (A5) amount to

$$\alpha \alpha +\phi _1\varphi _1,\beta \beta +\phi _2\varphi _2,$$
(A12)
in (A10) and (A11). Therefore, the phase factors $`\mathrm{e}^{i\alpha }`$ and $`\mathrm{e}^{i\beta }`$ can be removed by a suitable redefinition of the kets and bras, and this turns (A10) and (A11) into the last two lines of (51).


format: text

text:
# SCIENCE PROSPECTS FOR SPI

## 1 Design considerations for SPI

The successful Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory (CGRO) provided a brilliant demonstration of the great scientific potential promised by the field of gamma-ray line astronomy. The COMPTEL telescope established the first all-sky map in the light of the 26Al decay line at 1.809 MeV, revealing diffuse structured emission from the entire galactic plane arising from massive star nucleosynthesis (e.g. Plüschke et al., these proceedings). The detection of the 1.157 MeV line towards Cas A (Iyudin et al., 1994) was the first observation of radioactive 44Ti decay related to a young supernova remnant, and the following possible detection of 1.157 MeV line emission towards Vela (Iyudin et al., 1998) triggered for the first time the discovery of a new young supernova remnant (RX J0852.0-4622). OSSE provided the first maps in the 511 keV line and positronium continuum emissions, identifying at least two galactic emission components (extended bulge and disk) with indications for a possible third component situated above the galactic plane (see Milne et al., these proceedings). Although OSSE observed SN 1987A more than 4 years after explosion, it still was capable to detect the 57Co decay line at 122 keV, leading together with the 56Co observations by SMM to the first determination of an isotopic abundance ratio through gamma-ray line measurements.

All these discoveries confirmed that gamma-ray line observations are a powerful probe of nuclear astrophysics, and the experience gained from the observations sets the design guideline for the spectrometer SPI on INTEGRAL. First, the most prominent gamma-ray lines (1.809 MeV and 511 keV) turned out to be extended over angular scales of $`10`$ degrees, hence an instrument was needed that provides good sensitivity to extended emission features. Second, gamma-ray line fluxes showed to be quite low – a few $`10^5`$ ph cm-2s-1 at maximum – requiring an instrument that is sensitive to fluxes well below that level. And third, emission regions are often quite confused, asking for sufficient angular resolution to spatially resolve the emission, allowing for an adequate identification of candidate sources. Additionally, the CGRO instruments did not provide sufficient spectral resolution to resolve gamma-ray line profiles and to determine line centroids, hence an instrument was needed that can also access this extremely valuable complementary information.

Having these considerations in mind, the following design was chosen for SPI:

* a coded mask to modulate the gamma-ray emission, allowing for good angular resolution ($`2^{}`$) and source localisation throughout the field-of-view,
* a wide fully coded field-of-view of $`16`$ degrees ($`34^{}`$ partially coded), allowing for imaging of extended emission regions,
* the use of cooled Germanium detectors for good gamma-ray line sensitivity by effectively reducing the number of background counts thanks to an excellent energy resolution (2 keV at 1 MeV), which also allows studies of line shifts and line profiles.

It has to be emphasised that the sensitivity to detect gamma-ray lines is determined by the instrumental background underlying the line. Based on Monte-Carlo simulations of the instrumental background, the narrow-line sensitivity of SPI has been estimated to better than $`\mathrm{8\hspace{0.17em}10}^6`$ ph cm-2s-1 above 200 keV (Jean et al., 1996). Since a broadened line includes more background counts than a narrow line, the sensitivity of SPI is effectively reduced for lines that are broader than the detector spectral resolution. As a rule of thumb one can estimate the sensitivity to broad lines (expressed as the minimum detectable flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{broad}}`$) using

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{broad}}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{narrow}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\text{broad}}/\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\text{GeD}}},$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{narrow}}`$ is SPI’s narrow line sensitivity, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\text{broad}}`$ is the line width, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\text{GeD}}`$ is the instrumental line width (this formula is of course only valid for $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\text{broad}}\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\text{GeD}}`$). For a more detailed description of the expected SPI performances, the reader is referred to Mandrou et al. (1997).

## 2 Radioactivities

### 2.1 The gamma-ray line menu

From the roughly 2500 isotopes that are known today, only about $`1/10`$ are stable while all others decay radioactively or undergo spontaneous fission. Many of the decays are accompanied by gamma-ray line emission due to nuclear de-excitations of the daughter nuclei, but only few isotopes are indeed accessible to gamma-ray astronomy. In fact, there are three basic conditions that have to be fulfilled for the detectibility of a radioisotope. First, a hot and dense medium with sufficiently low entropy is required to allow for the synthesis of fresh radioisotopes. Such a medium can be found in stellar interiors, at the base of the accreted envelope of white dwarfs in close binary systems, or even in accretion disks around compact objects. The nuclear reaction networks in operation are characteristic for the composition, density, and temperature at the burning site, hence the observation of isotopic abundance patterns provide direct insight into the nucleosynthesis conditions. Second, the fresh radioisotopes have to be removed quickly from the formation site to prevent destruction by nuclear reactions or natural decay. This generally implies convection followed by mass ejection, either in form of stellar winds or explosions, and requires lifetimes of at least several days, better several months. Additionally, nucleosynthesis sites are generally optically thick to gamma-rays, hence escape of the radioisotopes to optically thin regions is mandatory for gamma-ray line observations. Consequently, radioisotopes can probe stellar convection and ejection processes, providing important information about the involved stellar physics. Third, the lifetime has to be short enough and the abundance of the isotope has to be high enough to assure a sufficient radioactive decay activity that is in reach of modern gamma-ray telescopes.

These constraints result in a list of candidate isotopes that may actually be accessible to gamma-ray line astronomy (cf. Table 1). The observation of radioactivity lines implies various time-scales. For lifetimes that are short compared to the event frequency (57Ni \- 57Co), individual transient gamma-ray line sources are expected, mainly in form of supernovae or novae. The observation of gamma-ray line lightcurves provides then an important complementary information for studying the physics of these explosive events (e.g. Leising & Share, 1990). For lifetimes of the order of the event frequency (22Na \- 44Ti) several rather steady (over the lifetime of a typical gamma-ray mission) gamma-ray line sources are expected in form of supernova remnants or recent nova events. For lifetimes that are long compared to the event frequency (26Al \- 60Fe) the superposition of numerous individual sources will lead to a diffuse glow of gamma-ray line emission along the galactic plane. Additionally, the longlived radioisotopes may travel considerable distances away from the production sites before they decay ($`10100`$ pc), leading to intrinsically extended sources.

Some of the most prominent radioactive isotopes (56Co, 22Na, 44Ti, and 26Al) are also positron emitters, and the annihilation of the positrons with electrons in the interstellar medium (ISM) may lead to 511 keV line emission, accompanied by a positronium continuum emission below 511 keV due to 3 photon decays. The typical lifetime for positrons in the ISM is of the order of $`10^5`$ yr (Guessoum et al., 1991), hence the annihilation radiation provides a long-lasting reverberation of the short-lived radioisotopes. In particular, since the positron lifetime considerably exceeds the period of supernova or nova events, numerous sources should contribute to the annihilation radiation, leading to a diffuse glow of extended emission.

Note that event frequencies depend of course on the volume that is accessible to the gamma-ray telescope, making the above considerations mainly valid for galactic nucleosynthesis events. If the accessible volume is extended to the entire Universe, diffuse gamma-ray emission is even expected from such short-lived radioisotopes as 56Co. In this case, however, the cosmological redshift will smear-out the lines, leading to continuum emission that could well explain the cosmic gamma-ray background radiation in the 100 keV - 1 MeV energy range (Watanabe et al., 1999; Lichti et al., these proceedings).

### 2.2 26Al – studying the recent galactic star-formation history

With the detection and the mapping of the 1.809 MeV gamma-ray line from 26Al, gamma-ray line astronomy has made important progress during the last 15 years. 26Al produced in type II supernova explosion has been proposed by Arnett (1977) and Ramaty & Lingenfelter (1977) as the most promising gamma-ray line emitter, and indeed, only few years later, the HEAO 3 experiment discovered the characteristics 1.809 MeV line emission from the general direction of the galactic centre at a level of $`5\sigma `$ (Mahoney et al., 1984). The intensity of the emission, however, turned out to be in excess of the nucleosynthesis calculations at that time, pushing theoreticians to look for other 26Al sources. As a consequence, many candidate 26Al sources, such as novae, red giants, Wolf-Rayet stars, or energetic cosmic-ray particle interactions have been proposed to fill the gap (see Prantzos & Diehl (1996) for a review). Others suggested more extreme scenarios to resolve the puzzle, such as the explosion of a high-metallicity supermassive star near the galactic centre (Hillebrandt et al., 1987), or a nearby recent supernova explosion (Morfill & Hartquist, 1995).

These extreme scenarios are now clearly excluded by the first all-sky map of the 1.809 MeV gamma-ray line which shows the galactic disk as the most prominent emission feature (Oberlack et al., 1996). Hence, 26Al production is clearly a galaxywide phenomenon and is not dominated by a single and possibly nearby object. Additionally, the observed intensity profile along the galactic plane shows asymmetries and localised emission enhancements, which should be characteristic for a massive star population that follows the galactic spiral structure (Prantzos, 1991). Thus, 26Al production seems related to the massive star population. Correlation studies using tracer maps for various source candidate populations strongly support this suggestion. Knödlseder et al. (1999a) demonstrated that the 1.809 MeV gamma-ray line emission follows closely the distribution of galactic free-free emission which is powered by the ionising radiation of stars with initial masses $`>20`$ $`M_{}`$. This suggests that explosive 26Al production in supernovae may be less important than previously thought (e.g. Timmes et al., 1995), and hydrostatic nucleosynthesis in massive mass-losing stars may possibly be the primary production channel for galactic 26Al. Although still a hypothesis, this suggestion is substantiated by the correlation of one of the most prominent 1.809 MeV emission features in the all-sky map with an agglomeration of young massive star associations in the Cygnus region which are lacking recent supernova activity (Knödlseder et al., these proceedings).

Having established the correlation between 1.809 MeV emission and massive star populations, 26Al becomes an excellent tracer of recent galactic star formation. By refining the knowledge about the 1.809 MeV emission distribution, SPI will provide a unique view on the star formation activity in our Galaxy, supplementing information obtained at other wavelengths. To illustrate this potential, the radial 26Al mass density distribution as derived from COMPTEL 1.809 MeV observations is shown in Fig. 1 (Knödlseder, 1997). Apparently, the bulk of galactic star formation occurs at distances of less than 6 kpc from the galactic centre. Star formation is also present within the central 3 kpc of the Galaxy, although at a poorly determined rate. There are indications for enhanced star formation between $`36`$ kpc, coinciding with the molecular ring structure as seen in CO data (Dame et al., 1987). Enhanced star formation is also seen in the solar neighbourhood ($`89`$ kpc) which probably corresponds to the local spiral arm structure.

The radial 26Al profile is probably not directly proportional to the radial star formation profile since 26Al nucleosynthesis may depend on metallicity (e.g. Meynet, 1994). It will be important to determine this metallicity dependence in order to extract the true star formation profile from gamma-ray line data. Valuable information about the metallicity dependence will come from a precise determination of the 1.809 MeV longitude profile by SPI, and the comparison of this profile to other tracers of star formation activity, such as galactic free-free emission. Additionally, observations of gamma-ray lines from 60Fe, an isotope that is mainly believed to be produced during supernova explosions (see Section 2.3), may help to distinguish between hydrostatically and explosively produced 26Al, and therefore may allow disentangling the metallicity dependencies for the different candidate sources.

A precise determination of the 1.809 MeV latitude profile by SPI will provide important information about the dynamics and the mixing of 26Al ejecta within the interstellar medium. High velocity 26Al has been suggested by measurements of a broadened 1.809 MeV line by the GRIS spectrometer (Naya et al., 1996), although this observation is at some point inconsistent with the earlier observation of a narrow line by HEAO 3 (Mahoney et al., 1984). In any case, the propagation of 26Al away from its origin should lead to a latitude broadening with respect to the scale height of the source population, and the observation of this broadening may allow the study of galactic outflows and the mass transfer between disk and halo of the Galaxy. Actually, COMPTEL 1.809 MeV observations restrict the scale height of the galactic 26Al distribution to $`z<220`$ pc (Knödlseder, 1997; Oberlack, 1997; Diehl et al., 1997), which certainly excludes a ballistic motion of 26Al at a speed of 500 km s-1 (as suggested by GRIS), and which could even be in conflict with the reacceleration scenario, discussed by Sturner (these proceedings) to explain the GRIS observations. The excellent energy resolution of SPI will easily allow to decide whether the 1.809 MeV line is broadened or not, and the improved angular resolution and sensitivity with respect to COMPTEL will allow to determine the scale height of the galactic 26Al distribution much more precisely.

The expected energy resolution of SPI of $`2.5`$ keV at 1.809 MeV converts into a velocity resolution of $`400`$ km s-1, allowing for line centroid determinations of the order of $`50`$ km s-1 for bright emission features. Thus, in the case of an intrinsically narrow 1.809 MeV line, line shifts due to galactic rotation should be measurable by SPI (Gehrels & Chen, 1996). Although this objective figures certainly about the most ambitious goals of SPI observations, a coarse distance determination of 1.809 MeV emission features based on the galactic rotation curve seems in principle possible.

Complementary to the study of the large-scale distribution of the 1.809 MeV emission by SPI will be observations of nearby, localised 1.809 MeV emission regions, such as Vela, Cygnus, Carina, or Orion. The aim of these observations will be the identification of emission counterparts at other wavelengths in order to associate the nucleosynthesis activity to individual objects or specific groups such as OB associations or young open clusters. Already with COMPTEL data, such studies have proven to provide important insights in the nature of the 26Al progenitor sources, and in constraining nucleosynthetic yields for individual objects (del Rio et al., 1996; Oberlack et al., 2000, Diehl et al.; Knödlseder et al.; Lavraud et al.; Plüschke et al., these proceedings).

To illustrate the potential of SPI, a contour map of the 1.809 MeV emission in the Vela region obtained by COMPTEL is shown in Fig. 1. There is a wealth of potential 26Al sources in this field, but the limited angular resolution of COMPTEL does not allow for a clear identification of the dominant contributors. Additionally, the sensitivity of COMPTEL is not sufficient to clearly separate diffuse from point-like emission (Knödlseder et al., 1999b), leading to an additional uncertainty in the association of emission structures with 26Al sources. With improved sensitivity and angular resolution, SPI will help to overcome this problem. Deep exposures of localised emission features will sufficiently constrain the 1.809 MeV morphology to associate the structure with candidate sources in the field. In the Vela region, which is part of the INTEGRAL core program, a detection of the Wolf-Rayet star $`\gamma `$-Vel is awaited, and the contributions of the Vela SNR, the new RX J0852.0-4622 supernova remnant, and OB star associations should be measurable. In the Cygnus region, the young globular cluster Cyg OB2 should be detectable by SPI, allowing the study of nucleosynthesis in an individual massive star association (Knödlseder et al., these proceedings). In Carina, the point-like 1.809 MeV emission feature detected by COMPTEL (Knödlseder et al., 1996) may be resolved, and the contributions from individual young massive star clusters identified. And in Orion, hints for 1.809 MeV emission from a nearby OB association (Oberlack, 1997) may be confirmed, enabling the study of nucleosynthesis in one of the closest and best studied star forming regions in the Milky Way.

### 2.3 60Fe – supernova nucleosynthesis ?

Although the 1.173 and 1.332 MeV gamma-ray lines from radioactive decay of 60Fe produced in core-collapse supernovae were predicted by (Ramaty & Lingenfelter, 1977) at an intensity comparable to the 1.809 MeV line, no detection of these lines has been reported so far. The most stringent limits actually come from SMM (Leising & Share, 1994) and GRIS (Naya et al., 1998) observations which constrain the $`\text{60}\text{Fe}/\text{26}\text{Al}`$ flux ratio to less than $`0.15`$, corresponding to less than $`1.7`$ $`M_{}`$ of 60Fe in the present interstellar medium.

Theoretical nucleosynthesis calculations, however, are still quite uncertain, and yield determinations for particular isotopes may vary by large factors (up to 10) when the input physics are changed (Woosley & Heger, 1999). For 26Al and 60Fe, the biggest uncertainties come from poorly known stellar physics, such as convection, mass loss, and rotation, since the majority of both isotopes is produced hydrostatically prior to the supernova explosion. Indeed, modern nucleosynthesis calculations for core collapse supernovae predict $`\text{60}\text{Fe}/\text{26}\text{Al}`$ flux ratios of only $`0.16\pm 0.10`$, similar but still compatible to the observed upper limit (Timmes et al., 1995). Note that the lower flux ratio (with respect to Ramaty and Lingenfelter, 1977) is primarily due to enhanced 26Al production in modern models, and not so much due to reduced 60Fe yields.

From a comparison of the abundances of isotopes that are co-produced with 60Fe, Leising & Share (1994) estimate the galactic 60Fe mass to $`0.9`$ $`M_{}`$ (irrespectively of the production site), which implies a $`\text{60}\text{Fe}/\text{26}\text{Al}`$ flux ratio of $`0.08`$. At this level, the 60Fe lines should be clearly detectable by SPI. Traditionally, 60Fe is only considered as a product of core-collapse supernova nucleosynthesis (e.g. Diehl & Timmes, 1998), hence the detection of the 60Fe lines would provide a unique tracer to study the galactic supernova activity and distribution. The comparison of 60Fe with 26Al observations would then allow to separate supernova 26Al production from stellar-wind ejection, answering the question about the origin of 26Al. However, as for 26Al, other 60Fe nucleosynthesis sites are also in discussion. Woosley (1997) studied carbon deflagration of type Ia supernovae that produce significant amounts of 60Fe in the neutron-rich central zones, Gallino et al. (1999) propose intermediate mass AGB star as a serious concurrent for galactic 60Fe production, and Arnould et al. (1997) discuss 60Fe production by hydrostatic helium burning in Wolf-Rayet stars. Thus, once detected, the 60Fe story may become more complex than actually thought.

### 2.4 511 keV annihilation radiation

The 511 keV gamma-ray line due to annihilation of positrons and electrons in the interstellar medium has been observed by numerous instruments (see Harris et al. (1998) and references therein). At least two galactic emission components have been identified so far: an extended bulge component and a disk component. Indications of a third component situated above the galactic centre have been reported (Purcell et al., 1997; Harris et al., 1998), yet still needs confirmation by more sensitive instruments (see also Milne et al., these proceedings).

The galactic disk component may be explained by radioactive positron emitters, such as 26Al, 44Sc, 56Co, and 22Na (Lingenfelter & Ramaty, 1989). Although all these isotopes are also gamma-ray line emitters, only 26Al will lead to correlated gamma-ray line and 511 keV emission since the typical annihilation time scale of some $`10^5`$ yrs considerably exceeds the lifetime of the other isotopes. Consequently, 511 keV line-emission is a potential tracer of extinct short-lived galactic radioactivities.

The origin of the galactic bulge component is much less clear. The observation of an abrupt turn off of the 511 keV emission from the galactic centre by HEAO 3 at the beginning of the eighties has led to the idea that a compact object might be responsible for the galactic bulge emission (Riegler et al., 1981). However, a re-analysis of the same data by Mahoney et al. (1994) has shown that the reported flux variation is not significant. Also, contemporaneous observations with the SMM satellite (Share et al., 1988) and latest observations by OSSE (Purcell et al., 1993) and TGRS (Teegarden et al., 1996) show no evidence for any time-variability. Lingenfelter & Ramaty (1989) therefore proposed a two component model for the galactic bulge emission which is composed of a variable compact source near the galactic centre and a steady diffuse interstellar annihilation source. The flux level of the variable point source, however, is limited by the observations to less than $`\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}10}^4`$ ph cm-2s-1, and indeed, time-variability is not required by the data (Share et al., 1990; Purcell et al., 1993; Teegarden et al., 1996). On the other hand, the observation of broadened and red-shifted annihilation features from 1E 1740.7-2942 (Bouchet et al., 1991) and Nova Muscae (Goldwurm et al., 1992) has been considered as evidence for positron production in compact objects (but see Section 2.8). However, the contemporaneous observation by OSSE and SIGMA of an outburst of 1E 1740.7-2942 in September 1992 gave contradictory results (Jung et al., 1995), casting some doubt on the contribution of compact objects to the galactic positron budget.

The origin of the galactic bulge positrons will be one of the key-questions addressed by SPI. Narrow-line transient features with fluxes of $`\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}10}^4`$ ph cm-2s-1 should be detectable by SPI within less than one hour. If the feature is broadened by 300 keV (as observed for example in 1E 1740.7-2942) the required observation time $`t_{\text{broad}}`$ increases like $`t_{\text{broad}}=t_{\text{narrow}}\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\text{broad}}/\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\text{GeD}}`$, resulting in a detection within $`12`$ hours.111The expected narrow line sensitivity of SPI at 511 keV is limited by a strong instrumental line to $`\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}10}^5`$ ph cm-2s-1 for an observation time of $`10^6`$ seconds; however, if the line is substantially broadened, the sensitivity of $`\mathrm{7\hspace{0.17em}10}^6`$ ph cm-2s-1 that is found adjacent to 511 keV energies should be applied. Hence, the weekly galactic plane scan together with the central radian deep exposure performed during the INTEGRAL core program (Winkler, these proceedings) will provide a unique survey of the galactic bulge, capable of detecting even faint transient 511 keV emission events.

In addition to the detection of transient events, SPI will also provide a detailed map of 511 keV emission from the Galaxy. Using this map, the morphology of the galactic bulge can be studied in detail, and the question on the contribution of point sources to the galactic bulge emission can be addressed. In particular, the ratio between bulge and disk emission, which is only poorly constrained by existing data (see Milne et al., these proceedings), will be measured more precisely, allowing for more stringent conclusions about the positron sources of both components. The 511 keV map will also answer the question about the reality of the positive latitude enhancement, which may provide interesting clues on the activity near to the galactic nucleus (Dermer & Skibo, 1997).

Additionally, the 511 keV line shape carries valuable information about the annihilation environment which will be explored by SPI. The dominant annihilation mechanism sensitively depends on the temperature, the density, and the ionisation fraction of the medium, and the measurement of the 511 keV line width allows the determination of the annihilation conditions (Guessoum et al., 1991). Observations of a moderately broadened 511 keV line towards the galactic centre indicate that annihilation in the bulge mainly occurs in the warm neutral or ionised interstellar medium (Harris et al., 1998). By making spatially resolved line shape measurements, SPI will allow to extend such studies to the entire galactic plane, complementing our view of galactic annihilation processes.

With its good continuum sensitivity, SPI will also be able to detect the galactic positronium continuum emission below 511 keV. The intensity of this component with respect to that of the 511 keV line carries complementary information about the fraction $`f`$ of annihilations via positronium formation, probing the thermodynamic and ionisation state of the annihilation environment (Guessoum et al., 1991).

### 2.5 Observation of novae

Novae explosions are potential sources of various radioactivities, of which the nuclei 7Be, 13N, 18F, 22Na, and 26Al are the most important ones (Gómez-Gomar et al., 1998a). 7Be decays by electron capture into 7Li, and the observation of the accompanying decay line at 478 keV will be an irrefutable prove of cosmic 7Li enrichment by novae (Starrfield et al., 1978). Although 13N and 18F are no gamma-ray emitters they decay under positron emission, and their annihilation in the nova envelope may lead to a prominent 511 keV line feature accompanied by a low-energy Compton continuum (Hernanz et al., 1997). 22Na maybe produced in the subclass of oxygen-neon (ONe) rich novae, and the observation of the 1.275 MeV gamma-ray decay line holds valuable information about the dredge-up of white-dwarf core matter during the explosion (Weiss & Truran, 1990). Finally, 26Al produced in ONe novae may contribute to the galactic 26Al budget, although both theory and observations do not suggest a large contribution (Kolb & Politano, 1997; Knödlseder, 1999).

Neither of the nova lines has been detected so far (Harris et al., 1991; Iyudin et al., 1995; Harris et al., 1999), hence any positive detection by SPI would be a great piece of information for understanding the nova phenomenon and the implied nucleosynthesis processes. Observationally, novae are situated at the border between diffuse and point-like emission sources. Assuming a galactic nova rate of $`35`$ yr-1 (Shafter, 1997) and an ONe type proportion of 22% (Livio & Truran, 1994), an average of 29 such objects should be visible during one lifetime of the 22Na isotope. For carbon-oxygen (CO) novae, which are the dominant sources of 7Be, an average of 6 objects emitting the 478 keV line should be always present in the Galaxy. Since novae are believed to occur dominantly in the inner Galaxy, the limited angular resolution of SPI will recognise them as diffuse emission from the central galactic radian (Jean et al., 2000). After two years of operations, the core programme exposure of the central radian will allow SPI to detect diffuse 478 keV and 1.275 MeV fluxes of about $`10^5`$ ph cm-2s-1, considerably fainter than actual upper limits (Harris et al., 1991; Iyudin et al., 1995; Leising et al., 1998).

The detectibility of individual novae by SPI will, of course, depend on the ejected masses of radioisotopes, and the intrinsic width of the decay lines (see Eq. 1). Classical CO novae show ejection velocities of $`2502500`$ km s-1, corresponding to Doppler-broadenings of $`0.88`$ keV (FWHM) at 478 keV (Cohen, 1985). ONe novae explode more violently, with ejection velocities ranging from $`10005000`$ km s-1, leading to line-widths of $`1040`$ keV (FWHM) at 1.275 MeV (Smits, 1991; Hayward et al., 1991). However, the ejecta may considerably slow-down during the lifetime of 22Na (e.g. Austin et al., 1996), and the most opportune situation for SPI to detect the 1.275 MeV line may occur only $`12`$ years after the actual nova explosion.

Estimates of nova nucleosynthetic yields by Hernanz et al. (1999a) suggest that 7Be decay from individual CO novae within 500 pc should be detectable by SPI, 22Na in ONe novae may be visible out to 2 kpc, and the 511 keV line from 13N and 18F positrons could be observed for novae within 3 kpc from the Sun. Within the quoted distances, the expected event frequencies are $`0.01`$, $`0.2`$, and $`0.6`$ yr-1 for 478 keV, 1.275 MeV, and 511 keV line detections, respectively. Note, however, that the 511 keV emission lasts only for about one day (Hernanz et al., 1997), hence despite the relatively high event frequency, a direct detection within the field-of-view of SPI would be extremely fortuitous.

However, the short-lasting 511 keV emission with the accompanied Compton-continuum from novae could be detected as an increase in the counting rate of the SPI BGO collimator and anticoincidence shield (Jean et al., 1999). In fact, the 91 BGO crystals (making a total detector mass of 512 kg), which define the SPI field-of-view and shield the detector array against background radiation, provide a formidable large-area detector, that will also be inserted in the third interplanetary network to allow burst localisations to within $`10`$ arcmin (Hurley, these proceedings). Estimations based on the revised 13N and 18F yield predictions by Hernanz et al. (1999b) suggest that SPI should be able to detect massive ONe novae up to distances of $`78`$ kpc, leading to an event frequency of $`3`$ yr-1. However, only limited localisation capabilities are provided by the BGO shield, and the search for a counterpart in the visible or the near-infrared will be challenging.

### 2.6 44Ti – unveiling recent supernova

Until recently, the census of recent galactic supernova events was exclusively based on historic records of optical observations and amounted to 6 events during the last 1000 years. Due to galactic absorption and observational bias, this census is by far not complete. Gamma-ray line observations of the 44Ti isotope have the potential to considerably increase the statistics. 44Ti is believed to be exclusively produced by $`\alpha `$-rich freeze-out in supernova events, and the existence of its decay product 44Ca makes this production mandatory. Due to the penetrating power of gamma-rays, 44Ti lines from recent supernova events throughout the Galaxy can reach the Earth, and therefore, unveil yet unknown young supernova remnants.

The prove of principle was achieved by the observation of a 1.157 MeV gamma-ray line from the 320 years old Cas A supernova remnant using the COMPTEL telescope (Iyudin et al., 1994). Evidence for another galactic 44Ti source was found in the Vela region where no young supernova remnant was known before (Iyudin et al., 1998). Triggered by this discovery, unpublished ROSAT X-ray data showing a spherical structure at the position of the new 44Ti source were reconsidered and lead to the discovery of a new supernova remnant, now called RX J0852.0-4622 (Aschenbach, 1998). In the meanwhile, the remnant has also been discovered at radio wavelengths (Combi et al., 1999; Duncan & Green, 2000). Although the 44Ti observation is only marginal (Schönfelder et al., 1999), it is the first time that gamma-ray line observations triggered the discovery of a new supernova remnant. From the X-ray data, an age of less than 1500 yrs and a distance $`<1`$ kpc has been inferred. Adding the 44Ti observations further constrains the age and distance to $`680`$ yrs and $`200`$ pc, respectively (Aschenbach et al., 1999). Interestingly, nitrate abundance data from an Antarctic ice core provide evidence for a nearby galactic supernova $`680\pm 20`$ yrs ago, compatible with the 44Ti data (Burgess & Zuber, 1999).

Given the marginal detection of the 1.157 MeV line from RX J0852.0-4622, a confirmation of 44Ti decay by SPI will be crucial for the further understanding of this object. Recall, however, that the SPI sensitivity limit depends on the intrinsic line width, and substantial Doppler-broadening could hamper a convincing detection. On the other side, the hard X-ray lines at 68 and 78 keV may also be detected by IBIS and possibly SPI (Iyudin et al., these proceedings), and indeed, detecting 44Ti may be more easily achieved in these lines in case of substantial broadening (Georgii et al., these proceedings). Finally, 44Ti line-profile measurements will provide complementary information on the expansion velocity and dynamics of the most inner layers of the supernova ejecta.

The regular galactic plane scans and the deep exposure of the central radian will lead to a substantial exposure build-up, enabling the detection of further hidden young galactic supernova remnants through 44Ti decay. The observed supernova statistics may then set interesting constraints on the galactic supernova rate and the 44Ti progenitors. Indeed, actual observations already indicate that some of the galactic 44Ca may have been produced by a rare type of supernova (e.g. Helium white dwarf detonations) which produces very large amounts of 44Ti (The et al., 1999).

Finally, we want to mention that a detection of the 44Ti lines from SN 1987A could be feasibly, and any non-detection will impose interesting constrains on $`\alpha `$-rich freeze-out nucleosynthesis in this event (Woosley & Hoffman, 1991). Fits to the bolometric light curve indicate the presence of $`10^4`$ $`M_{}`$ of 44Ti in SN 1987A (Fransson & Kozma, 1998), and values twice as high are not excluded by nucleosynthesis theory (Woosley & Hoffman, 1991) and probably also not by the observations. Thus, assuming a high 44Ti yield of $`\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}10}^4`$ $`M_{}`$ and a distance of $`45`$ kpc to the LMC (as suggested by recent observations of eclipsing binaries; Guinan et al., 1998; Fitzpatrick et al., 2000), a 1.157 MeV line flux of $`\mathrm{8\hspace{0.17em}10}^6`$ ph cm-2s-1 is expected, of the same order as the SPI sensitivity limit for a narrow line. Again, line-broadening will worsen the detectibility, but the possibility of a detection is certainly worth a deep exposure of the LMC by INTEGRAL.

### 2.7 Type Ia supernovae

The possibility of detecting gamma-ray lines from supernova remnants has been first suggested by Clayton & Craddock (1965) to identify transbismuth radioactivity as tracer of spontaneous 254Cf fission, capable to explain the light-curves of type Ia supernovae. After realising that the subsequent radioactive decays of 56Ni and 56Co may also explain the light-curves, Clayton et al. (1969) suggested that gamma-ray telescopes should search for their decay lines from type Ia supernovae within a few Mpc. Observationally, type Ia events are favoured over the other supernova classes because they produce an order of magnitude more radioactive 56Ni than the other types, and they expand rapidly enough to allow the gamma-rays to escape before all the fresh radioactivity has decayed. Nevertheless, the first and only direct prove of 56Co and 57Co radioactivities in a supernova were obtained from observations of SN 1987A in the LMC, a type II event. However, it must be clear that such a nearby event is extremely rare, and the chance of observing a type II supernova during the INTEGRAL lifetime is extremely low (Timmes & Woosley, 1997).

From the SPI sensitivity and the observed type Ia supernova rates together with standard models of type Ia nucleosynthesis, one may estimate the maximum detectable distance for a type Ia event to about $`15`$ Mpc,222Again, the expected line-broadening in type Ia supernova will reduced the SPI sensitivity with respect to the narrow-line performances (Gómez-Gomar et al., 1998b). and the event frequency to one event each 5 years (see also Timmes & Woosley, 1997). Hence, during an extended mission lifetime of 5 years, SPI has statistically spoken the chance to detect one such event.

Nevertheless, CGRO observations have taught us that supernovae are intriguing objects, and even at the detection threshold, their observation may provide interesting implications on the progenitor nature or explosion mechanism. For example, Morris et al. (1995, 1997) report the detection of the unusually bright SN 1991T in NGC 4527 (at a distance between $`1317`$ Mpc) by COMPTEL, implying a 56Ni mass of $`1.32.3`$ $`M_{}`$, although an earlier analysis of COMPTEL data by Lichti et al. (1994) and a search of Leising et al. (1995) in OSSE data gave only upper limits. Assuming that COMPTEL indeed detected SN 1991T, the derived 56Ni mass exceeds all theoretical expectations, requiring possibly a super-Chandrasekhar scenario to explain the observations. Indeed, high ($`1`$ $`M_{}`$) 56Ni masses have also been inferred by Spyromilio et al. (1992) from the strength of forbidden transitions of Fe II and Fe III in late-type spectra, by Mazzali et al. (1995) from modelling early-type spectra with a Monte Carlo code, and by Cappellaro (1997) from fitting the long term luminosity evolution by a Monte-Carlo light curve model. Using premaximum spectra, Ruiz-Lapuente (1992) inferred a peculiar chemical composition structure where a shell of intermediate-mass elements is sandwiched between a core and an outer-layer composed of Fe-peak elements. In addition, Fisher et al. (1999) recognised that the Fe-rich core and outer layer are moving faster than the intermediate unburned carbon-rich region, a chemico-dynamical configuration that can not be reconciled with classical type Ia supernova models. They suggest that SN 1991T was the result of a white-dwarf merger, which exploded by the action of huge tidal forces at the onset of the merger due to synchronous rotation (Iben, 1997), which eventually may lead to a super-Chandrasekhar 56Ni mass. Although this scenario is certainly quite speculative, it illustrates that gamma-ray line observations of type Ia supernova may play a decisive role in identifying such peculiar events.

Another interesting example is SN 1998bu in M96, which shows the characteristics of a rather typical type Ia event at a distance of about $`11`$ Mpc. Theoretical nucleosynthesis models predict that the radioactive decay of 56Co in SN 1998bu should lead to a peak flux of $`(15)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^5`$ ph cm-2s-1 in the 847 keV line, where the upper value corresponds to Helium detonation models and the lower value represents deflagration models (Gómez-Gomar et al., 1998b; Höflich et al., 1998). However, SN 1998bu was observed by OSSE for over 140 days and by COMPTEL for almost 90 days without any positive detection (Leising et al., 1999; Georgii et al., 2000). The upper time-averaged 847 keV flux limit of OSSE amounts to $`\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}10}^5`$ ph cm-2s-1, the COMPTEL limit of $`\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}10}^5`$ ph cm-2s-1is comparable. For the 1.238 MeV line, COMPTEL imposes an even more stringent flux limit of $`\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}10}^5`$ ph cm-2s-1. Thus, the observations start to constrain type Ia supernova models, excluding for example the Helium cap model for SN 1998bu (Georgii et al., 2000).

Observing SN 1998bu by SPI would probably have been a major breakthrough for observational gamma-ray line astrophysics. Even if the 847 keV line would have been broadened to $`50`$ keV, which is probably rather pessimistic (Isern et al., 1997), SPI would have achieved a sensitivity of $`10^5`$ ph cm-2s-1 within a comparable exposure time ($`100`$ days). At this level, either SN 1998bu would have been clearly detected or the non-detection would have ruled out all existing thermonuclear supernova models. Assuming that SN 1998bu was indeed close to detection (at a 847 keV flux of say $`\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}10}^5`$ ph cm-2s-1), SPI would have detected the 847 keV line at a significance of about $`10\sigma `$, allowing for valuable line profile studies.

### 2.8 Radioactivities from Accretion Disks around Black Holes

Another interesting site of nucleosynthesis has been proposed by Chakrabarti (1986) who considers the formation of elements in sub-Keplerian thick disks around black holes. Prantzos (1999) recently presented exploratory calculations for nucleosynthesis of radioactive isotope in thick disk models with viscosity parameter $`\alpha `$ in the $`10^210^4`$ range. The short timescale of a few $`10^3`$ s and the relative low temperatures of a few $`10^8`$ K allow for only limited Hydrogen burning to take place through the hot CNO, NeNa and MgAl chains. In such conditions, radioactive isotopes familiar from e.g. nova nucleosynthesis (7Be, 22Na, 26Al) are produced, along with the release of positrons by 13N and 15O. Assuming that $`50\%`$ of the accretion flow is ejected upon arrival in the inner disk (by e.g. radiation pressure or some other mechanism), he derived SPI detection distances of 2 kpc, 100 pc, and 1 kpc for 7Be, 22Na, and 26Al for a $`10`$ $`M_{}`$ black hole that is fed by a massive companion at a rate of $`\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}10}^5`$ $`M_{}`$/yr for $`10^6`$ yrs.

Indeed, observations of high Li abundances in the secondaries of black hole binaries may indicate nucleosynthesis during explosive accretion events. Martín et al. (1996) suggest that the transient emission line observed by SIGMA during the 1991 outburst of Nova Muscae (Goldwurm et al., 1992) may be due to de-excitation of 7Li following the radioactive decay of freshly produced 7Be. Although it remains difficult to explain the high observed flux in the 478 keV feature (Yi & Narayan, 1997) and the short duration of the event ($`13`$ hours; Goldwurm et al., 1992), the search for signposts of nucleosynthesis in accretion disks around black holes presents an exciting exploratory field for SPI (see also Isern, these proceedings).

## 3 Interaction lines

The second fundamental process (after radioactive decay) that leads to gamma-ray line emission is nuclear de-excitation following energetic particle reactions (Ramaty et al., 1979). These gamma-rays exhibit a great wealth of spectral features, ranging from very narrow lines to broad features, depending on the composition and energy spectrum of the energetic particles, and on the composition and physical state of the ambient medium. Observable gamma-ray line emission is expected from many astrophysical sites, including solar flares, the interstellar medium, neutron stars and black holes, supernova remnants, and active galactic nuclei (see Bykov, these proceedings).

Ramaty et al. (1979) calculated detailed gamma-ray spectra arising from energetic particle interactions with the interstellar medium for various abundance compositions. The most prominent features they predict are a broadened line at 4.438 MeV from excited states in 12C and 11B, a broadened line with a narrow component at 6.129 MeV from excited 16O, and a number of narrow or very narrow lines at lower energies, among which is the 847 keV line from excited 56Fe. They estimated 4.438 MeV and 6.129 MeV line fluxes from the central radian of the Galaxy of the order of $`10^510^4`$ ph cm-2s-1rad-1, rather optimistic for the potential detection with existing gamma-ray telescopes (or with SPI). However, the normalisation of the spectra was rather arbitrary, and indeed, observations by SMM (Harris et al., 1995) and OSSE (Harris et al., 1996) suggest that the line fluxes should be below $`10^4`$ ph cm-2s-1rad-1.

Relying on the observation that the Be/Fe abundance ratio is independent of metallicity, Ramaty et al. (1997) proposed to use the current epoch galaxywide Be production rate to normalise the gamma-ray line intensities. With this approach, they predict that the nuclear line emission in the energy interval $`37`$ MeV from the central radian of the Galaxy should not exceed $`\mathrm{2.5\hspace{0.17em}10}^5`$ ph cm-2s-1rad-1. From a similar calculation, Tatischeff et al. (1999) find an upper limit of $`\mathrm{5\hspace{0.17em}10}^5`$ ph cm-2s-1rad-1 (see also Tatischeff et al., these proceedings).

Can SPI detect gamma-ray lines at this level? Following the discussion of Jean et al. (2000), the SPI sensitivity to diffuse emission may be estimated by multiplying the point-source sensitivity by $`\sqrt{2}`$. Assuming that the galactic plane emission has a latitude extent of less than $`\pm 8^{}`$ (i.e. it fits entirely in the SPI fully-coded field of view), SPI is able to observe $`0.28`$ radians of the galactic ridge within the fully coded field-of-view of $`16^{}`$ with a single pointing. Thus, the SPI sensitivity in units of ph cm-2s-1rad-1 for diffuse galactic plane emission is obtained by multiplying the point-source sensitivity by a factor of 5. For narrow lines in the $`37`$ MeV range, a sensitivity of $`\mathrm{2.5\hspace{0.17em}10}^5`$ ph cm-2s-1rad-1 seems feasible.

If the excited nuclei are in the gas phase of the interstellar medium, the recoil following excitation will lead to a considerable Doppler-broadening of typically $`100`$ keV (FWHM). Following Eq. 1 it seems unrealistic that such lines are detectable by SPI. If, however, a large fraction of nuclear de-excitations appear within interstellar grains, the nuclei may lose their recoil energy before emitting gamma-rays, leading to much narrower lines (Lingenfelter & Ramaty, 1977). The best candidate for such narrow line emission is the refractory isotope 56Fe (with a line at 847 keV) which is expected to show a line width inferior to the spectral resolution of SPI (Tatischeff, private communication). However, flux expectations of the order of $`10^6`$ ph cm-2s-1rad-1 would make the detection of these line a great surprise.

Another site of nuclear excitation may be superbubbles where shock acceleration of metal-rich stellar ejecta could lead to gamma-ray line emission. Of course, this scenario was primarily proposed to explain the observation of excitation lines in the Orion region (Bloemen et al., 1994), which now after the withdrawal of the results (Bloemen et al., 1999) seems less promising. Nevertheless, gamma-ray line fluxes of $`10^5`$ ph cm-2s-1 from nearby superbubbles, such as the Orion-Eridanus superbubble, seem possible (Parizot & Knödlseder, 1999), hence the search for gamma-ray line emission from such objects is still an interesting goal for SPI.

## 4 Neutron capture signatures

Nuclear reactions within the accretion flow of compact objects may not only produce radioisotopes (see Section 2.8), but can also release neutrons that may subsequently be captured by protons to form 2H (Deuterium). The neutron capture is accompanied by emission of a 2.223 MeV photon that eventually may be observable by gamma-ray telescopes (Brecher & Burrows, 1980). The detection of the 2.223 MeV line would provide evidence for this nuclear reactions, and would allow for a detailed study of the heating processes within the accretion flow. Note, however, that the line may eventually be broadened or shifted (Brecher & Burrows, 1980; Aharonian & Sunyaev, 1984) and emission at 2.223 MeV is only expected if the neutrons can encounter a medium that is denser and cooler than the hot accretion disk plasma (Guessoum, 1989).

With the aim of testing this hypothesis, McConnell et al. (1998) assembled an all-sky map for 2.223 MeV line emission from 5 years of COMPTEL data. However, instead of detecting signatures from X-ray binaries within the galactic plane, they found only one significant ($`3.7\sigma `$) point-like source located at $`(l,b)=(300.5^{},29.6^{})`$ with a 2.223 MeV flux of $`\mathrm{1.7\hspace{0.17em}10}^4`$ ph cm-2s-1. Among the 11 objects catalogued by the ROSAT all-sky survey that coincide with the $`3\sigma `$ localisation error box of this source, none corresponds to any known X-ray binary, cataclysmic variable, or active galactic nucleus. The most interesting of the ROSAT sources is RE J0317-853, which is identified as a nearby ($`35`$ pc) peculiar white dwarf. RE J0317-853 is one of the hottest known white dwarfs ($`\mathrm{50\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ K) and shows a magnetic field between 180-800 MG, one of the strongest known for white dwarfs. Regular white light variations indicate an anomalous high rotation period of 12 minutes, which is difficult to explain for an isolated white dwarf (indicating either an unidentified binary companion or a white dwarf merger).

McConnell et al. (1998) suggest flaring activity on RE J0317-853 may lead to 2.223 MeV line emission, similar to the processes observed in solar flares. Indeed, a strong, highly polarised radio flare has been observed from this object in 1996, but more recent radio observations did not show evidence for any flaring activity (Barrett et al., 1999). Also optical spectroscopy showed no flaring behaviour or evidence for a low mass companion, hence Barrett et al. (1999) conclude that RE J0317-853 is not a strong candidate for the 2.223 MeV counterpart.

In any case, the 2.223 MeV emission feature remains intriguing, and SPI observations should shed new light on the nature of this object. SPI should easily allow to detect the 2.223 MeV line, even if it would be broadened to $`1`$ MeV (FWHM) – which however is excluded by the COMPTEL observations. Even IBIS should detect the 2.223 MeV source if the flux is as high as reported by McConnell et al. (1998), and the good angular resolution should allow to improve the counterpart identification considerably.

## 5 Conclusions

With this review, we tried to illustrate that SPI has been designed to address an extremely wide range of research topics, reaching from massive star nucleosynthesis over supernova physics to accretion flows in compact objects. Since SPI is the spectrometer on INTEGRAL we deliberately excluded topics related to continuum emission – those will be addressed by the corresponding paper of the IBIS collaboration (Ubertini, these proceedings). Nevertheless, topics like the diffuse gamma-ray background (Lichti et al., these proceedings), the diffuse galactic gamma-ray emission (Valinia et al., these proceedings), pulsars (Dyks et al., these proceedings), active galactic nuclei (Collmar, these proceedings), or gamma-ray bursts (Mereghetti et al., these proceedings), are equally important for SPI, which has a continuum sensitivity comparable to IBIS, but which is optimised for large-scale emission (IBIS provides a much better angular resolution but is less sensitive to extended emission features). On the other hand, IBIS may also detect gamma-ray lines and can help to identify counterparts by means of the high localisation accuracy. Thus, SPI and IBIS are complementary instruments on INTEGRAL, which, when combined, will explore the gamma-ray sky far beyond the established horizon.

## Acknowledgments

The authors want to thank M. Hernanz, P. Jean, G. Meynet, N. Mowlavi, N. Prantzos, and V. Tatischeff for helpful discussions.