format: text

text:
# Hermite functions and uncertainty principles for the Fourier and the windowed Fourier transforms

## 1. Introduction and Notations.

Uncertainty principles state that a function and its Fourier transform cannot be simultaneously sharply localized. To be more precise, let $`d1`$ be the dimension, and let us denote by $`.,.`$ the scalar product and by $`.`$ the Euclidean norm on $`^d`$. Then, for $`fL^2(^d)`$, define the Fourier transform of $`f`$ by

$$\widehat{f}(y)=_^df(t)e^{2i\pi t,y}𝑑t.$$

The most famous uncertainty principle, due to Heisenberg and Weil, can be stated in the following directional version :

Heisenberg’s inequality. Let $`i=1,\mathrm{},d`$ and $`fL^2(^d)`$. Then

(1)
$$\underset{a}{inf}\left(_^d(x_ia)^2\left|f(x)\right|^2𝑑x\right)\underset{b}{inf}\left(_^d(\xi _ib)^2\left|\widehat{f}(\xi )\right|^2𝑑\xi \right)\frac{f_{L^2}^4}{16\pi ^2}.$$

Moreover (1) is an equality if and only if $`f`$ is of the form

$$f(x)=C(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{i1},x_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_n)e^{2i\pi bx_i}e^{\alpha (x_ia)^2}$$

where $`C`$ is a function in $`L^2(^{d1})`$, $`\alpha >0`$, and $`a`$ and $`b`$ are real constants for which the two infimums in (1) are realized.

The usual non-directional uncertainty principle follows easily from this one. We refer to the recent survey articles by Folland and Sitaram \[FS\] and Dembo, Cover and Thomas \[DCT\] as well as the book of Havin and Jöricke \[HJ\] for various uncertainty principles of different nature which may be found in the literature. One theorem stated in \[FS\] is due to Beurling. Its proof has been written much later by Hörmander in \[HB\]. Our first aim is to weaken the assumptions so that non zero solutions given by Hermite functions are also possible. More precisely, we will prove the following theorem :

###### Theorem 1.1 (Beurling-Hörmander type).

Let $`fL^2(^d)`$ and $`N0`$. Then

(2)
$$_{^d\times ^d}\frac{|f(x)||\widehat{f}(y)|}{(1+x+y)^N}e^{2\pi \left|x,y\right|}𝑑x𝑑y<+\mathrm{}$$

if and only if $`f`$ may be written as

$$f(x)=P(x)e^{\pi Ax,x},$$

where $`A`$ is a real positive definite symmetric matrix and $`P`$ is a polynomial of degree $`<\frac{Nd}{2}`$.  In particular, for $`Nd`$, the function $`f`$ is identically $`0`$. Beurling-Hörmander’s original theorem is the above theorem for $`d=1`$ and $`N=0`$. An extension to $`d1`$ but still $`N=0`$ has been given, first by S.C. Bagchi and S. K. Ray in \[BaSw\] in a weaker form, then very recently by S. K. Ray and E. Naranayan in the present form. Their proof, which relies on the one dimensional case, uses Radon transform \[RN\].

Let us remark that it is easy to adapt the usual proof of Hardy’s Theorem to allow Hermite functions (see for instance \[Pfann\]), while the proof given here for integrability conditions uses new ingredients. At the same time, it simplifies Hörmander’s argument for the case $`N=0`$, $`d=1`$, in such a way that the proof can now be given in any textbook on Fourier Analysis. We give the simplified proof in the Appendix, since it may be useful in this context.

The previous theorem has as an immediate corollary the following characterization.


text:
# References

## Abstract

It is shown that, if isospin is not conserved in $`a_0^0`$\- and $`f_0`$-meson mixing, forward-backward asymmetry arises in the reaction $`pnda_0^0`$. This effect increases near the reaction threshold. The asymmetry is estimated within the framework of a model in which the $`a_0^0`$$``$$`f_0`$ mixing is due to the virtual $`\pi ^0`$$``$$`\eta `$ transition and the difference in masses of the charged and neutral kaons in decay channels. The angular asymmetry near the threshold of the $`pnda_0^0`$ reaction was found to be large, of the order of $`8÷15`$ %.
PACS: 13.60.Le, 13.75.-n, 14.40.Cs

On The Possibility of Observation of $`a_\mathrm{𝟎}`$-$`f_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ Mixing

in the $`pn\mathbf{}da_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ Reaction111 This is the modified version of the paper published in JETP Lett. 72 (2000) 410.

A.E.Kudryavtsev, V.E.Tarasov

Institut of Theoretical and Experimental Physics

B.Cheremushkinskaya 25, 117259 Moscow, Russia

e-mail: kudryavtsev@vxitep.itep.ru, tarasov@vxitep.itep.ru

The origin of the lightest, virtually mass-degenerate, scalar mesons $`a_0`$ (980) ($`I^GJ^{PC}=1^{}0^{++}`$) and $`f_0`$ (980) ($`0^+0^{++}`$) is one of the most important problems of hadron physics. Different assumptions exist about the structure of these mesons, from the standart $`q\overline{q}`$ states  and their modifications (see, e.g.,  and reference therein) to the 4-quark configurations  and the lightest scalar mesons as ”minions” in the Gribov confinement model . The problem of the structure of $`a_0`$ and $`f_0`$ mesons is closely related to the problem of $`a_0`$-$`f_0`$ mixing. The dynamical mechanism of this mixing was suggested around 20 years ago in Ref. . The first evidence of this phenomena came from the recent data of the WA102 collaboration at CERN . These data on the central production of $`a_0`$ and $`f_0`$ in the reaction $`ppp_sMp_f`$ were interpreted in Ref.  as the evidence of the $`a_0`$-$`f_0`$ mixing.

If the $`a_0`$ and $`f_0`$ mesons have close structures, then the mixing with violation of isospin conservation could be large. Along with the direct $`a_0^0`$$``$$`f_0`$ transition due to isospin violation in the quark sector, these mesons can mix due to isospin-violating interaction in the decay channels. Different mixing mechanisms are illustrated in Fig. 1. Note that the vertex of the direct $`a_0^0`$$``$$`f_0`$ interaction in Fig. 1a depends on the quark content of scalar mesons and should be extracted from the experiment. At the same time, the mixing due to the decay processes presented in Fig. 1b and 1c can be estimated rather reliably.

It is convenient to examine $`a_0^0`$$``$$`f_0`$ mixing in the reaction of production of a neutral $`a_0`$ meson:

$$pnda_0^0.$$
(1)
Note that the forward-backward asymmetry in reaction (1) is absent if the isospin is conserved . As will be shown below, observation of this asymmetry would testify to the presence of isospin-violating $`a_0^0`$$``$$`f_0`$ mixing, and the asymmetry effect should be stronger near the threshold of the reaction (1).

If isospin is conserved, an isovector $`a_0`$ meson can be produced near the threshold of the reaction (1) only in the $`p`$ wave with respect to the deutron. At the same time, if an isoscalar $`f_0`$ meson is produced in the reaction

$$pndf_0,$$
(2)
the final orbital angular momentum $`L`$ of the $`df_0`$ system may be zero. This conclusion follows from the isospin ($`I`$), parity ($`P`$), and angular momentum ($`J`$) conservation laws. The possible quantum numbers for reactions (1) and (2) yielding final systems with the smallest orbital angular momenta ($`p`$ and $`s`$ waves for the $`da_0^0`$ and $`df_0`$ systems, respectively) are listed in the table. The total spin of the system is denoted by $`S`$. The quantum numbers presented in the table are consistent with the requirement for antisymmetry of the system with respect to the initial fermions.

| Table | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`pnda_0`$ | | $`pndf_0`$ | |
| I | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| S | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| L | 1, 3 | 1 | 0, 2 | 0 |
| P | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 |

Thus, if isospin is conserved, reactions (1) and (2) should have different energy and angular dependences. In particular, for the near-threshold production of stable mesons, one has

$$\sigma (pnda_0^0)Q^{3/2},\sigma (pndf_0)Q^{1/2}(Q=\sqrt{s}m_d\overline{m}),$$
(3)
where $`Q`$ is the energy release in the respective reaction; $`\sqrt{s}`$ is the total CM energy; and $`m_d`$ and $`\overline{m}`$ are the deutron and meson masses, respectively.

Let us assume that the $`f_0a_0^0`$ transition can proceed without isospin conservation. Then, the $`a_0`$ meson in reaction (1) can be produced in the $`s`$ wave with respect to the final deutron. As is seen from the table, the initial spin state of nucleons in both reactions $`pnda_0^0`$ and $`pndf_0da_0^0`$ is the same ($`S=1`$). Therefore, the $`p`$-wave amplitude of the main process (1) interferes with the $`s`$-wave amplitude of the isospin-violating process $`pndf_0da_0^0`$. Due to this interference, an asymmetry arises in the forward-backward escape of the $`a_0`$ meson in reaction (1). In this case, the process with isospin conservation is energetically suppressed in the range of low $`Q`$ values, as follows from Eqs. (3). For this reason, the angular asymmetry in the $`a_0`$-meson production may be large near the threshold.222 Note that, for the $`pnd\pi ^0`$ reaction discussed in , the angular asymmetry of the near-threshold cross section is suppressed. This is due to the fact that the process with isospin conservation yields the $`d\pi ^0`$ system in the $`s`$ wave.

The asymmetry $`A`$ for reaction (1) is defined as

$$A=\frac{\sigma _+\sigma _{}}{\sigma _++\sigma _{}},\sigma _\pm =\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}(z=\pm 1),z=\mathrm{cos}\theta ,$$
(4)
where $`\theta `$ is the polar CM angle of $`a_0^0`$-meson escape, with the polar axis coinciding with the initial beam.

For the numerical estimations of asymmetry $`A`$, we first consider the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{af}`$ vertex determined by the diagram in Fig. 1b for the $`a_0^0f_0`$ transition. The $`\lambda _{\pi \eta }`$ vertex corresponding to the $`\pi ^0`$$``$$`\eta `$ transition in this diagram is known from the theoretical analysis of the $`\eta 3\pi ^0`$ reaction  (see also ). We take $`\lambda _{\pi \eta }5000`$ MeV2 as an estimate, which is the average of the theoretical values given in . Direct calculation of the diagram in Fig. 1b yields the following result for the contribution $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\pi \eta }`$ of the process indicated in Fig. 1b to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{af}`$:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\pi \eta }=\frac{\lambda _{\pi \eta }g_{a\pi \eta }g_{f\pi ^0\pi ^0}}{16\pi ^2\overline{m}^2}\left(\frac{\overline{m}^2}{m_\eta ^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\overline{m}^2m_\eta ^2}{\overline{m}^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\overline{m}^2m_\eta ^2}{m_\eta ^2}+i\pi \right)(118186i)\mathrm{MeV}^2$$
(5)
Here, $`m_\eta `$ is the $`\eta `$ mass, $`\overline{m}=`$980 MeV/$`c^2`$ is the mass of the $`a_0`$ and $`f_0`$ mesons, and $`g_{a\pi \eta }`$ and $`g_{f\pi ^0\pi ^0}`$ are the vertices of the $`a_0\pi \eta `$ and $`f_02\pi ^0`$ decays. Estimate (5) was obtained with zero pion mass $`m_\pi =0`$ and under the assumption that the width of the $`a_0`$ and $`f_0`$ mesons with nominal mass $`\overline{m}`$ are $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{m})\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=50`$ MeV/$`c^2`$ and determined only by the decays through the $`\pi \eta `$ and $`\pi \pi `$ channels, respectively. Then, $`g_{a\pi \eta }^2=8\pi \overline{m}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_0/q_{\pi \eta }`$, $`g_{f\pi \pi }^2=8\pi \overline{m}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_0/q_{\pi \pi }`$ and $`g_{f\pi ^0\pi ^0}=g_{f\pi \pi }/\sqrt{3}`$, where $`q_{\pi \eta }`$ and $`q_{\pi \pi }`$ are the relative momenta in the $`\pi \eta `$ and $`\pi \pi `$ systems. For the $`a_0^0`$$``$$`f_0`$ mixing angle, Eq. (5) gives the estimate $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{af}|\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\pi \eta }/\overline{m}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0|0.0045`$.

The mechanism of external mixing due to the $`K\overline{K}`$ decay channel, discussed in Ref.  and in recent paper , shows that the kinematic isospin violation due to the difference in masses of the $`K^\pm `$ and $`K^0`$ mesons is large and considerably stronger than that due to the $`\pi `$$``$$`\eta `$ mixing. At the same time, the strong isospin violation is concentrated in a narrow range of the $`a_0`$-meson masses near the thresholds of the decays through the $`K\overline{K}`$ channels.

The vertex $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{K\overline{K}}`$ corresponding to the $`a_0^0`$$``$$`f_0`$ transition (Fig. 1c) has the form

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{K\overline{K}}(\overline{m})=\frac{g_{aK\overline{K}}g_{fK\overline{K}}}{32\pi }i\left(\sqrt{\frac{\overline{m}2m_{K^+}}{m_K}+i0}\sqrt{\frac{\overline{m}2m_{K^0}}{m_K}+i0}\right),$$
(6)
where $`m_{K^+}=493.7`$ MeV/$`c^2`$ and $`m_{K^0}=497.7`$ MeV/$`c^2`$ are the masses of, respectively, charged and neutral kaons ; $`m_K=(m_{K^+}+m_{K^0})/2`$; and $`g_{aK\overline{K}}`$ and $`g_{fK\overline{K}}`$ are the vertices of the $`a_0K\overline{K}`$ and $`f_0K\overline{K}`$ decays, respectively. In addition, $`g_{aK\overline{K}}^2=2g_{aK^+K^{}}^2`$, $`g_{fK\overline{K}}^2=2g_{fK^+K^{}}^2`$, $`g_{aK^0\overline{K}^0}=g_{aK^+K^{}}`$, and $`g_{fK^0\overline{K}^0}=g_{fK^+K^{}}`$. To numerically estimate Eq. (6), we set $`g_{aK\overline{K}}=g_{a\pi \eta }`$, in agreement with the experimental restriction $`g_{aK\overline{K}}^2/g_{a\pi \eta }^2=0.91\pm 0.11`$ . We also assume that $`g_{fK\overline{K}}^2=g_{aK\overline{K}}^2`$ and $`g_{aK^+K^{}}=g_{fK^+K^{}}`$ (the relative signs of the $`a_0`$\- and $`f_0`$-meson decay vertices are consistent with the predictions of SU(3) symmetry).333 It is assumed that the $`a_0`$ isotriplet and $`f_0`$ isosinglet belong to the same scalar meson octet. The function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{K\overline{K}}(m)`$ is shown in Fig. 2. This function sharply changes near the thresholds of the $`K^+K^{}`$ and $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ systems within the mass intervals comparable to the $`2m_{K^0}2m_{K^+}8`$ MeV/$`c^2`$ difference, which is considerably smaller than the width of the $`a_0`$ and $`f_0`$ mesons. It is seen that $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }_{K\overline{K}}||\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\pi \eta }|`$ near the $`K\overline{K}`$ thresholds.

Let us assume that the signal from the $`a_0^0`$-meson production is detected by identifying the $`\pi ^0\eta `$ final state. In this case, the use of perturbation theory for the isospin-violating interaction gives three diagrams dominating the cross section for the process. They are shown in Fig. 3. The $`M_1`$ diagram corresponds to the process with isospin conservation. The $`M_2`$ and $`M_3`$ diagrams are first-order corrections in the isospin-violating interaction to the diagram $`M_1`$. The $`M_2`$ diagram is irrelevant the $`a_0`$-meson production but does contribute to the $`s`$$``$$`p`$ interference under discussion. This contribution corresponds to the interference of diagrams $`M_2`$ and $`M_1`$ through the $`a_0^0`$$``$$`f_0`$ mixing mechanism (Fig. 1b). The respective amplitudes $`M_{1,2,3}`$ are

$$M_1=M_aG_ag_{a\pi \eta },M_2=M_fG_f\frac{g_{f\pi ^0\pi ^0}\lambda _{\pi \eta }}{m_\eta ^2m_\pi ^2},M_3=M_fG_f\mathrm{\Lambda }_{af}G_ag_{a\pi \eta },$$
(7)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{af}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{dir}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\pi \eta }+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{K\overline{K}}`$ is the vertex corresponding to the $`a_0^0`$$``$$`f_0`$ transition. The vertex $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{dir}`$ of direct interaction (Fig. 1a) was not taken into account; i.e., $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{af}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\pi \eta }+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{K\overline{K}}`$. In Eqs. (7), $`G_a`$ and $`G_f`$ are the propagators of the $`a_0`$ and $`f_0`$ mesons, respectively:

$$G_a=G_f=\frac{1}{2\overline{m}}\frac{1}{m\overline{m}+i\mathrm{\Gamma }(m)/2},\mathrm{\Gamma }(m)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0+\frac{g_{aK\overline{K}}^2}{8\pi \overline{m}^2}\sqrt{m_K(m2m_K)+i0},$$
(8)
where the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(m)`$ takes into account that the resonances may decay through the $`K\overline{K}`$ channel  and $`m`$ is the mass of the $`\pi \eta `$ system. In Eqs. (7), $`M_a`$ and $`M_f`$ denote the amplitudes of production of the $`a_0`$ and $`f_0`$ mesons in reactions (1) and (2), respectively. These amplitudes can be estimated from the diagrams of the impulse approximation (Fig. 4). With allowance made only for the $`s`$-wave component of the deuteron wave function (WF), the expressions for $`M_a`$ and $`M_f`$ antisymmetrized over the initial nucleons have the form

$$M_a=g_{aNN}\sqrt{m_N}\left(u(q_1)u(q_2)\right)X,M_f=g_{fNN}\sqrt{m_N}\left(u(q_1)+u(q_2)\right)X.$$
(9)
Here, $`g_{aNN}`$ and $`g_{fNN}`$ are the vertices for the $`a_0`$\- and $`f_0`$-meson coupling to the nucleon; $`m_N`$ is the nucleon mass; $`u(q)`$ is the deuteron WF; $`q_1`$($`q_2`$) is the relative momentum in the deuteron vertex corresponding to the emission of an $`a_0^0`$ or $`f_0`$ meson by the initial proton (neutron); and $`X=\phi _p^T\sigma _2\mathit{ϵ}𝝈\phi _n`$ is the spin factor, where $`\phi _p`$ and $`\phi _n`$ are the proton and neutron spinors, respectively, and $`\mathit{ϵ}`$ is the deuteron polarization vector. Let $`𝐩`$ and $`𝐤`$ be the CM 3-momenta of the initial proton and the final $`\pi \eta `$ system, respectively. For $`m\overline{m}`$, one has $`kp`$ and $`q_{1,2}^2p^2\pm (E_N/m_N)(𝐩𝐤)`$ near the threshold $`Q=\sqrt{s}m_d\overline{m}0`$ of the reaction (1), where $`E_Nm_N+\overline{m}/2`$ is the total nucleon CM energy. Then, Eqs. (9) take the form

$$M_a=2g_{aNN}\sqrt{m_N}\frac{du(p)}{dp^2}\frac{E_N}{m_N}(𝐩𝐤)X,M_f=2g_{fNN}\sqrt{m_N}u(p)X.$$
(10)
It follows from these expressions that at small $`k`$ values the amplitude $`M_a`$ of $`a_0`$-meson production is much smaller than the amplitude $`M_f`$ of $`f_0`$-meson production. Note that the relative contributions of the $`p`$\- and $`s`$-wave amplitudes $`M_a`$ and $`M_f`$ to the cross section for reaction (1) depend on the width of the $`a_0`$ and $`f_0`$ mesons and on the restrictions on the mass range of the final $`\pi \eta `$ system. In what follows, we set $`g_{aNN}g_{fNN}`$ in Eq. (10). For the deuteron WF with momenta $`p1`$ GeV/c, we take $`u(p)p^n`$. The Hulthen WF corresponds to $`n=4`$; i.e., $`du(p)/dp^2=2p^2u(p)`$. This approximation for the deuteron WF and the impulse approximation for the amplitudes $`M_a`$ and $`M_f`$ cannot give reliable estimates for the absolute values of the cross sections and are used only for estimating the asymmetry $`A`$. The differential cross section for the reaction $`pnd\pi ^0\eta `$ can be written as

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=N\underset{m_{min}}{\overset{m_{max}}{}}|M_1+M_2+M_3|^2k𝑑m.$$
(11)
The $`m`$ dependence of the amplitudes $`M_{1,2,3}`$ (7) is taken into account for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{K\overline{K}}`$ (Eq.(6)); $`G_a`$, $`G_f`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(m)`$ (Eqs.(8)); and for the relative momentum $`k`$=$`\sqrt{2\mu (Q+\overline{m}m)}`$, where ($`\mu =m_d\overline{m}/(m_d+\overline{m})`$). To a common factor, the amplitudes $`M_a`$ and $`M_f`$ (10) for the unpolarized particles can be written as $`M_a=2(E_N/m_N)(k/p)z`$ and $`M_f=1`$. The normalization constant $`N`$ in Eq. (11) contains weakly varying factors, and its magnitude is of no interest to us. The quantities $`p`$ and $`E_N`$ are calculated at the threshold; i.e., $`E_N=m_N+\overline{m}/2`$ and $`p=\sqrt{\overline{m}(m_N+\overline{m}/4)}1`$ GeV/c.

The width of the mass interval $`(m_{min},m_{max})`$ of the $`\pi ^0\eta `$ system (more precisely, its lower limit $`m_{min}`$), in which the $`a_0`$ mesom is detected, is an important factor for estimating asymmetry $`A`$ (4). When the mass of $`\pi ^0\eta `$ system decreases (below the nominal mass $`\overline{m}`$), the momentum $`k`$ increases, resulting in both the enhancement in the $`p`$-wave amplitude $`M_a`$, as compared to the $`s`$-wave amplitude $`M_f`$, and the dependence of the asymmetry $`A`$ on $`m_{min}`$. In what follows, we specify integral (11) between the limits $`m_{max}=Q+\overline{m}`$ (kinematic boundary) and $`m_{min}=\overline{m}C(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0/2)`$, where $`C`$ is a variable parameter. The calculated (by Eqs. (4) and (11)) asymmetry $`A`$ of the $`\pi ^0\eta `$-system production is shown in Fig. 5 as a function of energy release $`Q`$ (3). The calculations were carried out for two lower limits (corresponding to $`C=1`$ and $`C=2`$) on the mass of the $`\pi ^0\eta `$ system. A decrease in the effect with increasing parameter $`C`$ is due to the increase in the role of the main (isospin-concerving) process of $`a_0`$-meson production in the $`p`$ wave. Note that the contribution of the $`p`$-wave amplitude to the cross section dominates over the $`s`$-wave contribution in both variants if the $`a_0`$-meson width is taken into account. For this reason, the relative contribution of the $`s`$$``$$`p`$ interference and, hence, the asymmetry, decrease upon enhancing the $`p`$ wave. The dashed (dotted) curves in Fig. 5 correspond to the asymmetry calculations taking account of only one mixing mechanism given by the diagram in Fig. 1b (Fig. 1c), i.e., for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{af}`$=$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\pi \eta }`$ ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{af}`$=$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{K\overline{K}}`$). The diagram $`M_2`$ (Fig. 2) is automatically ignored in calculating the dotted curves.

As is seen from our calculations in Fig. 5, the asymmetry in the nearthreshold $`a_0`$-meson production is rather large (about $`8÷15`$ %), which enables one to believe that it can be experimentally observed. Note that nonresonance production of the $`\pi ^0\eta `$ system in the reaction $`pnd\pi ^0\eta `$ looks like a background to the reaction $`pnda_0^0d\pi ^0\eta `$. Fortunately this background gives no contribution to the discussed asymmetry $`A`$, see, e.g. Ref.  for more details.

Note in conclusion that our estimates of the asymmetry may be improved. This is primarily true for the calculation of the amplitudes $`M_a`$ and $`M_f`$ of the $`a_0`$\- and $`f_0`$-meson production. An approach with the inclusion of diagrams describing intermediate rescattering processes (see, e.g., ) seems to be more reliable than the inclusion of the pole diagrams (Fig. 4) that depend on the behavior of the deuteron WF at high momenta $`1`$ GeV/c, where the WF is poorly known.

There is also a possibility to test the $`a_0^0`$$``$$`f_0`$ mixing in the reaction $`dda_0^0^4`$He, which is forbidden by isospin conservation. Note that the analogous forbidden reaction $`dd\pi ^0^4`$He was not observed. However, it could proceed through $`\eta `$\- and $`\eta ^{}`$-production reactions due to $`\pi `$-$`\eta `$\- and $`\pi `$-$`\eta ^{}`$-mixing mechanisms . We expect that the $`a_0`$-production process in the nearthreshold region has some privelegies in comparison to the $`\pi ^0`$ production. Note that the final $`a_0^0`$ meson may be produced in $`s`$ wave with respect to 4He from the initial $`s`$-wave $`dd`$ state. That is why the formation of 4He wave function should not be accompanied by the rearangement of the orbital motion of nucleons. In the case of $`\pi ^0`$ production the situation is opposite: $`\pi ^0`$ meson is produced in $`s`$ wave, initial $`dd`$ system is in $`p`$ wave. That is why the formation of 4He wave function from initial $`dd`$ state is accompanied by rearangement of the orbital motion of nucleons. Thus, the process of $`\pi ^0`$ production is dynamically suppressed versus $`a_0`$ case.

We are grateful to all participants of the Workshop on the ANKE-Spectrometer Program held at the ITEP (July 2000) and particularly to K.G.Boreskov and V.P.Chernyshev for helpful discussions and interest in this study. We also thank N.N. Achasov for useful discussion and information about his recent papers, related to this subject.

Figure captions

Fig. 1. Different types of interactions resulting in the $`a_0^0`$$``$$`f_0`$ mixing: (a) direct (or contact), (b) due to the virtual $`\pi ^0`$$``$$`\eta `$ transition, and (c) due to the mass difference between $`K^\pm `$ and $`K^0`$ mesons.

Fig. 2. Vertex function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{K\overline{K}}`$ (6) vs. $`a_0`$-meson mass $`m`$. The solid, dashed and dotted curves correspond to its absolute value, real part, and imaginary part, respectively. The dashed (dotted) curve coincides with the solid curve for $`m<2m_{K^+}`$ ($`m>2m_{K^0}`$).

Fig. 3. Zero- and first-order isospin-violating diagrams of the $`pnd\pi ^0\eta `$ process.

Fig. 4. Diagrams for the $`a_0`$($`f_0`$)-meson production in impulse approximation.

Fig. 5. Plots of the asymmetry $`A`$ of $`a_0^0`$-meson production in reaction (1) vs. the energy release $`Q`$ (3). Curves 1 and 2 correspond to two lower limits (specified by $`C`$$`=`$$`1`$ and $`C`$$`=`$$`2`$ (see text)) on the interval of $`a_0^0`$ masses. The dashed (dotted) curves are calculated by taking account of the $`a_0^0`$$``$$`f_0`$ mixing through only the $`\pi ^0`$$``$$`\eta `$ transition ($`K\overline{K}`$ decay channel). The solid curves are obtained with allowance made for both mixing mechanisms.


text:
# Strange Magnetism and the Anapole Structure of the Proton

The violation of mirror symmetry in the weak force provides a powerful tool to study the internal structure of the proton. Experimental results have been obtained that address the role of strange quarks in generating nuclear magnetism. The measurement reported here provides an unambiguous constraint on strange quark contributions to the proton’s magnetic moment through the electron-proton weak interaction. We also report evidence for the existence of a parity-violating electromagnetic effect known as the anapole moment of the proton. The proton’s anapole moment is not yet well understood theoretically, but it could have important implications for precision weak interaction studies in atomic systems such as cesium.

In 1933 the German physicist Otto Stern discovered that the magnetism of the proton was anomalously large, a factor of three larger than expected from the basic theory of quantum mechanics. This experiment turned out to be the first glimpse of the internal structure of the constituents of the atomic nucleus, and a tantalizing hint at the existence of quarks. Widespread applications of the proton’s magnetic properties, such as the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques used in biology and medicine, have been developed despite a lack of fundamental understanding of the basic dynamics that generates this magnetism. After the key discovery of internal structure in the proton in a high energy electron scattering experiment at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in the late 1960’s (1), the theory of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD), which describes the interaction between quarks and the gluons that bind the quarks into the atomic nuclei observed in the periodic table, was developed. Despite almost 30 years of intense theoretical effort, QCD has been unable to produce numerical predictions for the basic properties of nucleons such as their degree of magnetism.

In 1988, Kaplan and Manohar (2) proposed that the study of the weak magnetic force (analogous to the usual magnetic force associated with electromagnetism) would allow a separation of the proton’s magnetism into the three contributing flavors of quarks: up, down and strange. Measuring the contribution from strange quark-antiquark pairs is of special interest because it relates directly to the “sea” of virtual quark-antiquark pairs in the proton, a phenomenon predicted by QCD. In 1989, it was noted that the weak magnetic force could be isolated using its unique property of lack of mirror symmetry, or parity violation (3). The basic idea was to study the preference for the proton’s interaction with electrons that have spin counterclockwise, over those with clockwise spin, relative to their direction of travel. We report data obtained using this method that, when combined with our previously published results (4,5), allow the first unambiguous determination of the proton’s weak magnetism. We also report a measurement of a parity-violating, time-reversal-even electromagnetic contribution to proton structure, referred to in the literature as the proton’s anapole moment.

The weak magnetic moment of the proton, designated as $`\mu _Z`$, is associated with the interaction due to exchange of the weak neutral $`Z`$ particle. The weak and electromagnetic forces are related through the mixing angle $`\theta _W`$, a fundamental parameter of the standard model of electroweak interactions that relates the $`Z`$ boson to its charged counterparts, the $`W^\pm `$ (we use $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$=$`0.23117\pm 0.00016`$ (6) in our analysis). As a result, one can write $`\mu _Z`$ as

$`\mu _Z=(\mu _p\mu _n)4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\mu _p\mu _s`$ (1)
where $`\mu _{p(n)}`$ are the usual magnetic moments of the proton (neutron) (2.97$`\mu _N`$ and $``$1.91$`\mu _N`$, respectively, where $`\mu _N=e\mathrm{}/2m_p=3.152451238(24)\times 10^{14}`$ MeV-T (6)). The individual contributions of up, down and strange quark-antiquark pairs to the proton’s magnetic moment, $`\mu _u`$, $`\mu _d`$, and $`\mu _s`$, are defined by the relation $`\mu _p=\frac{2}{3}\mu _u\frac{1}{3}\mu _d\frac{1}{3}\mu _s`$. The neutron’s magnetic moment is similarly constructed, interchanging only $`\mu _u`$ and $`\mu _d`$. Thus, a measurement of $`\mu _Z`$ combined with the known $`\mu _p`$ and $`\mu _n`$, provides the third observable required to uniquely determine the $`u`$, $`d`$ and $`s`$ quark pieces of the proton’s magnetic moment. The study of parity-violating electron-nucleon ($`e`$-$`N`$) scattering enables a determination of the weak magnetic form factor $`G_M^Z(Q^2)`$, and as a result the equivalent strange piece $`G_M^s(Q^2)`$, the momentum-dependent counterpart of $`\mu _Z`$, where $`Q^2`$ is the relativistic four-momentum transfered to the proton by the electron. The $`Q^2`$ dependence of these quantities is sensitive to their spatial variation inside the proton.

Whereas the weak magnetism discussed above is a vector $`e`$-$`N`$ interaction, an axial vector $`e`$-$`N`$ coupling also exists, which is related to the proton’s intrinsic spin. The parity violating $`e`$-$`p`$ interaction depends on both of these quantities, and it is essential to determine the axial vector $`e`$-$`N`$ form factor $`G_A^e`$ in order to reliably extract $`G_M^s`$. In general, $`G_A^e`$ may be written as $`G_A^e=G_A^Z+\eta F_A+R^e`$, where $`G_A^Z`$ is the contribution from a single $`Z`$-exchange as would be measured in neutrino-proton elastic scattering (Fig. 1A), $`F_A`$ is the nucleon anapole moment (7), and $`R^e`$ is a radiative correction (Fig. 1C). The constant $`\eta `$ is $`\frac{8\pi \sqrt{2}\alpha }{14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}=3.45`$ where $`\alpha `$ is the fine structure constant. The anapole moment $`F_A`$ is identified as the parity-violating coupling of a photon to the nucleon (Fig. 1B) and is expected to be the largest of a class of higher order interactions, or radiative corrections(8). It can arise as a result of, for example, a weak interaction between two quarks inside the nucleon. It is analogous to the nuclear anapole moment recently measured in atomic cesium (9), which is enhanced by parity violating interactions between nucleons in the cesium nucleus (10). Technically, the theoretical separation of the anapole moment from other radiative corrections $`R^e`$ is gauge dependent, so the terminology associated with these amplitudes varies in the literature, and $`F_A`$ itself is not cleanly defined theoretically. However, because the anapole moment is an electromagnetic interaction, it does not contribute to neutrino scattering, and is unique to parity-violating interactions with charged particles like electrons. Here we identify the observed difference as due to the anapole contribution (11).

We performed a measurement of the parity violating asymmetry in the scattering of longitudinally polarized electrons from neutrons and protons (nucleons) in deuterium using the SAMPLE apparatus at the MIT/Bates Linear Accelerator Center. The apparatus was that used in our previously reported measurement on hydrogen (4,5). In the deuterium experiment, the hydrogen target was replaced with deuterium, and borated polyethylene shielding was installed around the target to reduce background from low energy neutrons knocked out of the deuterium. Combining this measurement with the previously reported results allows an unambiguous determination of both the axial $`e`$-$`N`$ form factor $`G_A^e`$ and the contribution of strange quarks to the proton’s magnetic form factor $`G_M^s`$. When presented in the context of the electron-quark couplings predicted by the standard model for electroweak interactions, our result also places new limits on the electron-quark axial couplings $`C_{2u}`$ and $`C_{2d}`$.

Parity violating electron scattering generally involves scattering of a longitudinally polarized electron beam from an unpolarized target. The change in the count rate resulting from reversal of the beam polarization indicates a parity nonconserving effect. For elastic electron scattering from a proton, the asymmetry in the count rate can be written as

$$A_{PV}=\left(\frac{G_F}{4\pi \alpha \sqrt{2}}\right)\frac{\epsilon G_E^pG_E^Z+\tau G_M^pG_M^Z\epsilon ^{}\left(14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\right)G_M^pG_A^e}{\epsilon \left(G_E^p\right)^2+\tau \left(G_M^p\right)^2}.$$
(2)
The three terms in $`A_{PV}`$ reflect the fact that it arises as a result of an interference between the electromagnetic and weak interactions, where $`G_{E,M}^p`$ are the ordinary form factors associated with the proton’s charge and magnetic moment. An equivalent expression can be written for electron-neutron scattering. The kinematic factors $`\tau =\frac{Q^2}{4M_p^2}`$, $`\epsilon =\left[1+2(1+\tau )\mathrm{tan}^2(\theta _e/2)\right]^1`$ and $`\epsilon ^{}=\sqrt{(1\epsilon ^2)\tau (1+\tau )}`$ can be adjusted to enhance the relative sensitivity of the experiment to the three contributions to $`A_{PV}`$.

In the SAMPLE experiment (12), the beam is generated from circularly polarized laser light incident on a bulk GaAs crystal, resulting in an electron beam with an average polarization of 36%. The electrons are then accelerated in durations of 25 $`\mu `$sec to an energy of 200 MeV before encountering a liquid hydrogen (or deuterium) target. The polarization of the laser light is reversed at the accelerator repetition rate of 600 Hz. After encountering the hydrogen target, the scattered electrons are detected in a large solid angle air Čerenkov detector covering angles between 130 and $`170^{}`$. Figure 2 depicts 1 of 10 detector modules placed symmetrically about the beam axis. All backward scattered electrons with energies above 20 MeV travel faster than the speed of light in air and generate Čerenkov light that is focussed onto a photomultiplier tube by an ellipsoidal mirror. The integrated photomultiplier current is proportional to the scattered electron rate, which is about 108 s-1 during the beam pulse. A shutter in front of the photomultiplier tube allows measurement of background coming from neutrons and charged particles. As described in ref. (4), the pulse-height spectrum of the light-producing portion of the signal is characterized with dedicated runs using very low current beam. From these two pieces of information we determine the fraction of the signal due to the Čerenkov yield, which varies from mirror to mirror, but is typically 60%. Several feedback systems are used to minimize the dependence of the properties of the electron beam, such as position, angle and energy, on its polarization state.

The parity-violating asymmetry measured in SAMPLE is dominated by scattering from the neutrons and protons rather than the deuterium nucleus as a whole, and for our incident electron energy of 200 MeV it can be written as

$$A_d=\left[7.27+1.78G_A^e(T=1)+0.75G_M^s\right]\mathrm{p}pm$$
(3)
(where “ppm” stands for “part per million”). The analogous expression for elastic electron scattering on the proton is

$$A_p=\left[5.72+1.55G_A^e(T=1)+3.49G_M^s\right]\mathrm{p}pm.$$
(4)
In these expressions we retain explicitly the isovector (T=1, or proton $``$ neutron) component of $`G_A^e`$. The small isoscalar component (proton + neutron) has been absorbed into the first constant term. The combined measurements allow an independent experimental determination of both quantities.

The raw measured deuterium asymmetry is $``$1.41$`\pm `$0.14 ppm, with a contribution due to helicity correlated beam parameters of 0.06$`\pm `$0.06 ppm. The measured background contribution to the raw asymmetry is 0.17$`\pm `$0.18 ppm, consistent with zero as expected. The dominant source of background is from photoproduced neutrons, which is known to have a parity-violating asymmetry of less than 1.5% of our measurement (13). In our analysis we assume the background asymmetry is negligible. Removal, on a detector-by-detector basis, of all dilution factors (mostly due to the beam polarization but also from background yields) and application of small corrections for contributing physics processes yields a value for the physics asymmetry of

$$A_d=6.79\pm 0.64(stat)\pm 0.55(sys)\mathrm{ppm}.$$
(5)
The dominant sources of systematic error are the beam parameter corrections (5%), determination of the beam polarization (4%), and determination of the signal-to-background ratio (4%). Uncertainties due to our lack of knowledge of the deuterium nuclear structure are about 3% (14).

Combining this measurement with the previously reported hydrogen asymmetry (5) and with the expressions in equations (3) and (4) leads to the two sets of diagonal bands in Fig. 3. The inner portion of each band corresponds to the statistical error, and the outer portion corresponds to statistical and systematic errors combined in quadrature. Our best experimental value of $`G_M^s`$ is

$$G_M^s(Q^2=0.1)=0.14\pm 0.29(stat)\pm 0.31(sys).$$
(6)
In order to quote a result for the static contribution $`\mu _s`$ it is necessary to know the momentum dependence of $`G_M^s`$. We use the calculation of (15), resulting in

$$\mu _s=[0.01\pm 0.29(stat)\pm 0.31(sys)\pm 0.07(theor.)]\mu _N$$
(7)
where we have added an additional third uncertainty (theor.) to account for error in the extrapolation coming from the range of the theoretical prediction. Combining this result with the known magnetic moments of the neutron and proton implies that the contribution of strange quarks to the proton’s magnetic moment is $`0.1\pm 5.1`$ %.

The allowed region in Fig. 3 also provides a determination of the isovector axial $`e`$-$`N`$ form factor. From a theoretical standpoint, the most uncertain contribution to $`G_A^e`$ is the anapole term. The dominant contribution is expected to come from Fig. 1A, and at the kinematic conditions of the SAMPLE experiment would result in a value of $`G_A^e(T=1)`$=$``$1.071$`\pm `$0.005 (6,16). This value is analogous to that which would be measured in neutrino scattering. Anapole effects have been estimated to substantially reduce the magnitude of $`G_A^e(T=1)`$ (17), and a recent update of that theoretical treatment yields an expected value $`G_A^e(T=1)=0.83\pm 0.26`$ (18). This latter value is shown as the vertical band in Fig. 3.

Our experimental result is

$$G_A^e(T=1)=+0.22\pm 0.45(stat)\pm 0.39(sys)$$
(8)
indicating that the substantial modifications of $`G_A^e`$ predicted in (18) are not only present, but with an even larger magnitude than quoted. The deviation of our measured value of $`G_A^e`$ from $`1.071`$ can be interpreted as a large anapole moment of the nucleon. In the case of cesium, the anapole moment is enhanced by collective nuclear effects that are not present for a single nucleon. Understanding these higher order electroweak processes is essential to reliably interpret precision studies of atomic parity violation and other tests of the electroweak theory.

If further theoretical work fails to produce agreement with this experimental result, it may be necessary to consider the possibility that the discrepancy is due to new physics not contained in the standard model of electroweak interactions. In that regard, we can recast our result in terms of the electron-quark axial coupling parameters $`C_{2u}`$ and $`C_{2d}`$ (6). Present limits on these quantities are from the first parity violating electron scattering experiment (19) and from a measurement performed at the Mainz electron accelerator (20). The form factor $`G_A^e(T=1)`$ is related to the combination $`C_{2u}C_{2d}`$, resulting in our new experimental value of

$$C_{2u}C_{2d}=+0.015\pm 0.032(stat)\pm 0.027(sys).$$
(9)
This represents a factor of three improvement over the precision of the Mainz measurement. In the Standard Model, the dominant contribution of Fig. 1A would result in

$$C_{2u}C_{2d}=(14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)=0.075.$$
(10)
Adding in the corrections associated with the amplitudes displayed in Figs. 1B and 1C changes the value to $`0.058\pm 0.02`$. Unless additional contributions to $`G_A^e(T=1)`$ are identified that can improve the agreement, our measurement is in disagreement with the present standard electroweak prediction at the 1.5 $`\sigma `$ level.

An improved determination of $`G_A^e`$ will be provided with a new measurement of parity-violating quasielastic electron-deuteron scattering at a lower beam energy. The spatial dependence of the strange quark contributions and $`G_A^e`$ will be studied in detail in an upcoming program of parity violation measurements at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility.

References

1. G. Miller, et al., Phys. Rev. D5, 528 (1972).
2. D. Kaplan, A. Manohar, Nucl. Phys. B310, 527 (1988).
3. R. D. McKeown, Phys. Lett. B219, 140 (1989).
4. B. A. Mueller, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 3824 (1997).
5. D. T. Spayde et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1106 (2000).
6. Particle Data Group, D. E. Groom, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C15, 1 (2000).
7. I. Zel’dovich, JETP Lett. 33, 1531 (1957).
8. Note that our definition of $`F_A`$ differs from that used in the atomic physics literature by a factor of $`m^2G_F`$ (where $`G_F`$=1.16639(2)$`\times `$10-5 GeV-2 is the muon decay constant and $`m`$ is the proton mass in units of (GeV/c2)), with the result that we expect the value of $`F_A`$ to be of order unity.
9. C. S. Wood, et al.,, Science 275 1759 (1997). See also W. Haxton, Science 275 1753 (1997).
10. W.C. Haxton, E.M. Henley, M.J. Musolf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 949 (1989).
11. The contributions to the radiative corrections in parity-violating electron scattering ($`R^e`$) compared to neutrino scattering ($`R^\nu `$) are not quite the same, but the differences are calculated to be small compared to our measurement. Calculations were presented in ref. 16 below, but anapole-type contributions are not specifically identified. For a breakdown into anapole contributions compared with other terms, see M. Musolf, Ph.D. thesis, Princeton University, 1989.
12. The authors here, and those in (4) and (5), constitute the SAMPLE collaboration. As stated in the text, the apparatus used here was identical to that used in (4) and (5) with the exception of the target fluid and some supplementary neutron shielding.
13. T. Oka, Phys. Rev. D27, 523 (1983).
14. E. Hadjimichael, G. I. Poulis, T. W. Donnelly, Phys. Rev. C45, 2666 (1992).
15. T. R. Hemmert, U.-G. Meissner, S. Steininger, Phys. Lett. B437, 184 (1998).
16. A. Liesenfeld, et al., Phys. Lett. B468, 19 (1999).
17. M. J. Musolf, B. R. Holstein, Phys. Lett. B242, 461 (1990).
18. S.-L. Zhu, et al., Phys. Rev. D62, 033008 (2000).
19. C. Y. Prescott et al., Phys. Lett. B84, 524 (1979).
20. W. Heil et al., Nucl. Phys. B327, 1 (1989).
21. The skillful efforts of the staff of the MIT/Bates facility to provide high quality beam and improve the experiment are gratefully acknowledged. Supported by NSF grants PHY-9420470 (Caltech), PHY-9420787 (Univ. of Illinois), PHY-9457906/PHY-9971819 (Univ. of Maryland), PHY-9733772 (Virginia Polytechnic Institute) and DOE cooperative agreement DE-FC02-94ER40818 (MIT-Bates) and contract W-31-109-ENG-38 (Argonne National Laboratory), and the Jeffress Memorial Trust (William and Mary, grant no. J-503).


text:
# Static and Dynamic Properties of Stretched Water

## I Introduction

Water is an important liquid in nature, and is also fundamental in chemical and technological applications. Although the individual water molecule has a simple chemical structure, water is considered a complex fluid because of its anomalous behavior debe96 ; ange82 ; four97 ; sta97a ; lan82 . It expands on freezing and, at a pressure of 1 atm, the density has a maximum at 4C. Additionally, there is a minimum of the isothermal compressibility at 46C and a minimum of the isobaric heat capacity at 35C dou98 . These anomalies are linked with the microscopic structure of liquid water, which can be regarded as a transient gel—a highly associated liquid with strongly directional hydrogen bonds geig79 ; Stanley80 . Each water molecule acts as both a donor and an acceptor of bonds, generating a structure that is locally ordered, similar to that of ice, but maintaining the long-range disorder typical of liquids. Despite the extensive work that has been done on water, many aspects of its behavior remain unexplained.

Several scenarios have been proposed to account for the the anomalous behavior of the thermodynamic response functions on cooling, each predicting a different behavior for the liquid spinodal, the line of the limit of stability separating the region where liquid water is metastable from the region where the liquid is unstable. (i) According the stability-limit conjecture spe82b ; spe87 , the pressure of the spinodal line should decrease on cooling, become negative, and increase again after passing through a minimum. It reenters the positive pressure region of the phase diagram at a very low temperature, thereby giving rise to a line of singularities in the positive pressure region, and consequently the increase in the thermodynamic response functions on cooling in the anomalous region is due to the proximity of this reentrant spinodal. (ii) The critical point hypothesis pses ; mishima94 ; critical-point ; ms98 ; tana96 ; t35 , proposes a new critical point at the terminus of a first-order phase transition line separating two liquid phases of different density. The anomalous increases of the response functions, compressibility, specific heat, and volume expansivity, is interpreted in terms of this critical point. (iii) The singularity-free hypothesis Stanley80 ; sas96 ; sas98  proposes that actually there is no divergence close to the anomalous region; the response functions grow by lowering temperature but remain finite, attaining maximum values. Both hypotheses are consistent with a non-reentrant spinodal, and so unambiguously identifying the spinodal can rule out at least on scenario.

Water properties and anomalies can be strongly influenced by the physical or chemical properties of the medium debe96 ; ange82 ; four97 ; sta97a ; net98a ; koga98 . The effect not only of applied pressure, but also of negative pressure (“stretching”) is remarkable. The study of the behavior of this fluid under negative pressures is relevant not only from the academic point of view, but also for realistic systems. For example, negative pressures are observed poc95 , and seem to play an important role in the mechanism of water transport in plants. Therefore, properties that modify the structure of water, especially if this modification is similar to the effect of stretching (as is the case in some hydrogels net98a ), also influence its dynamical behavior.

Dynamic properties, such as the diffusion constant, have been studied in detail for water systems at atmospheric and at high positive pressures, both experimentally jon76 ; pri87  as well as by computer simulations ram87 ; sci91 ; bae94 ; har97 ; francesco ; sta99e ; scala . The increase of pressure increases the presence of defects and of interstitial water molecules in the network sci91 . They disrupt the tetrahedral local structure, weakening the hydrogen bonds, and thus increasing the diffusion constant sta99e ; scala . However, a further increase in the pressure leads to steric effects which works in the direction of lowering the mobility. The interplay of these factors leads to a maximum in the diffusion constant sta99e ; scala  at some high density $`\rho _{\text{max}}`$. Above this density (or corresponding pressure), the diffusion of water is in some sense like that of a normal liquid, controlled by hindrance, with the hydrogen bonds playing a secondary role. However, the behavior at very low $`\rho `$ is less well understood.

In this paper, we study how the thermodynamics and the dynamics of low-temperature water are affected by the decrease of the density. We perform molecular dynamics (MD) simulations of the SPC/E model of water in the range 210 K $`<T<`$ 280 K and 0.825 g/cm$`{}_{}{}^{3}<\rho <`$ 0.95 g/cm3. State points in this range have negative pressure, and are either a metastable stretched liquid, or a phase separated liquid-gas mixture. Additional details of the simulation procedure can be found in ref. sta99e . Table 1 shows the thermodynamic and dynamic properties of the simulated state points as well as the time needed for equilibration and production runs. At the lowest $`T`$ studied, the production runs are not long enough to reliably estimate $`D`$.

## II Location of the Spinodal

The effect of negative pressure is still not fully understood, and only a few experimental works hen80 ; GDWA90  and simulations pses ; tana96 ; francesco ; vai93 ; sta99e ; ge94 ; err00  have been performed on transport properties of stretched water. In this negative pressure region of the phase diagram the system is metastable, and becomes unstable beyond the spinodal line, so locating the spinodal we can ensure that our simulated state points lie in the metastable and not in the unstable region. Moreover, the shape of the spinodal can test the stability-limit conjecture against the critical point hypothesis and the singularity-free interpretation, so we first locate the density and pressure of the spinodal, which we denote $`\rho _{\text{sp}}(T)`$ and $`P_{\text{sp}}(T)`$, respectively.

We consider the the $`P`$-$`\rho `$ behavior along isotherms. For each $`T`$, there is a minimum in $`P`$ at $`\rho 0.86`$ g/cm3. At lower $`\rho `$, $`P`$ increases, signaling cavitation of the liquid. For densities below $`\rho _{\text{sp}}`$, $`K_T\rho ^1(\rho /P)_T`$ becomes negative, so the liquid is unstable with respect to the vapor phase. Therefore, the locus of infinite compressibility locates the spinodal line, and sets the density below which our simulated state points are no longer thermodynamically stable.

We confirm which state points are “single phase” and which are “phase separated” by calculating the oxygen-oxygen partial structure factor

$$S(q)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{j,k}{\overset{N}{}}e^{i𝐪(𝐫_j𝐫_k)}$$
(1)
Figure 2 shows $`S(q)`$ at the the lowest $`T`$ ($`T=210`$ K) for each density simulated. At the lowest density, $`\rho =0.85`$ g/cm3, $`S(q)`$ for $`q10`$ nm-1 increases significantly, signaling the presence of large-scale structure in the system due to phase separation of liquid and gas. Similar behavior is observed for other state points that would appear to be in the unstable regime from Fig. 1 g(r)note .

To test whether the minima in the $`P`$-$`\rho `$ isotherms arise from cavitation of the liquid, we fit at each $`T`$ a 5th-order polynomial to the $`P`$-$`\rho `$ isotherms, and estimate $`P_{\text{sp}}(T)`$ and $`\rho _{\mathrm{sp}}(T)`$ by the minimum of the polynomial fit. We find that $`\rho _{\mathrm{sp}}(T)`$ occurs in the narrow range $`0.853<\rho _{\mathrm{sp}}<0.874`$, and so the spinodal density is nearly $`T`$ independent. Our results indicate that $`P_{\mathrm{sp}}(T)`$ decreases monotonically with decreasing $`T`$ (Fig. 3), ruling out the possibility of a re-entrant spinodal in the temperature range studied.

We also compare our estimate of the spinodal with estimates from two other sources for the SPC/E potential: (i) an estimate of the upper bound on $`P_{\text{sp}}(T)`$ har97 , and (ii) the spinodal estimated by an approximate analytic equation of state (EOS) t35 . Figure 3 shows that our estimate of $`P_{\text{sp}}(T)`$ is less than (and hence consistent with) the upper bound estimate of Ref. har97 . The spinodal obtained from the EOS in Ref. t35  is quantitatively reasonable for $`T280`$ K, but decreases far more quickly with decreasing $`T`$ (reaching $`2`$ GPa at $`T=210`$ K) than our simulations indicate. This dramatic decrease likely results from the fact that the fitting procedure requires $`P`$ along a reference isotherm, which was performed at $`T=300`$ K in the density range $`0.95<\rho <1.4`$ g/cm3. This fit is not reliable outside of this density range, where the spinodal lies, causing an erroneous spinodal estimate. These errors are compounded as the fit is pushed further from the reference $`T`$. To improve the estimate, we repeat the fitting procedure using a new reference isotherm $`T=210`$ K, and expand the density range down to $`\rho =0.85`$ g/cm3. The results of this fit are shown in Fig. 3, and we obtain more reasonable agreement with our direct simulation results. Ref. t35  also used this EOS to predict a liquid-liquid phase transition for $`T130`$ K; this prediction should not be affected by using data at lower $`\rho `$, since the transition lies within the density range of the original fits.

## III Dynamic Properties

Having established the limit of stability at negative pressures, we next analyze the dynamics of stretched water. The effect of extreme conditions on the flow of the liquid we assess by calculating the diffusion constant $`D`$, defined by the asymptotic value, obtained by linear regression, of the slope of the mean square displacement versus time. We show $`D`$ along isotherms in Fig. 4. For $`T260`$ K, $`D`$ has a minimum value at $`\rho 0.9`$ g/cm3, which becomes more pronounced at lower $`T`$ (Fig. 4b). This behavior can be understood considering the structural changes that occur with decreasing density. At low $`T`$, the decreased density enhances the local tetrahedral ordering, which leads to a decrease in $`D`$. Further decreases in density reduces the stability of the tetrahedral structure and causes an increase of $`D`$.

The location of the minimum is near the ice Ih density $`0.915`$ g/cm3, which is the density where the perfect tetrahedral order occurs. The behavior of the minimum of $`D`$, $`D_{\mathrm{min}}(T)`$, complements the known behavior of $`D_{\mathrm{max}}(T)`$ for the same model sta99e ; scala ; err00 , where a maximum occurs due to breaking hydrogen bonds at high pressure; the density of the $`D_{\mathrm{min}}(T)`$ increases slightly with increasing $`T`$, while the density of $`D_{\mathrm{max}}(T)`$ decreases with increasing $`T`$ scala . This is expected, since the range of densities where anomalous behavior occurs expands with decreasing $`T`$. We show the loci of $`D_{\mathrm{min}}(T)`$, $`D_{\mathrm{max}}(T)`$, along with the spinodal and the temperatures of maxima density, $`T_{MD}(P)`$ in Fig. 5.

## IV Conclusions

Water exhibits a very complex structure and its properties and anomalies are strongly influenced by variations of pressure. For high densities ($`\rho >\rho _{\text{max}}`$), water behaves as a normal liquid and the decrease of $`D`$ with increasing pressure is governed by steric effects. For $`\rho _{\text{min}}<\rho <\rho _{\text{max}}`$, as the pressure is decreased, the presence of defects and interstitial water decrease, the tetrahedral structure dominates, with stronger hydrogen bonds. This process reaches its maximum at $`\rho =\rho _{\text{min}}\rho _{\text{ice}}`$. Further stretching destabilizes the hydrogen bond network, leading to an increase in mobility. The locus of $`D_{\mathrm{min}}`$ roughly tracks the spinodal, not surprising since the same breakdown of tetrahedral order that gives rise to $`D_{\mathrm{min}}`$ also facilitates cavitation.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Technologico (CNPq), the Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Rio Grande do Sul (Fapergs) for financial support. FWS thanks the National Research Council for financial support.


text:
# Nonlinear Dynamics of Quasiclassical Spin Moment in a Swept Field

thanks: This work was partially supported by RFBR (N99-02-17830) and INTAS (N99-1839)

## Abstract

Quantum dynamics of anisotropic spin system with large spin moment in a swept magnetic field is theoretically investigated. Magnetic field of this type induces vortex static electrical field, that breaks down the axial symmetry and induces new coherent quantum phenomena: the occurrence of band energy spectrum with continuous spin states, Bloch-type oscillations and interband Zener tunnelling effect. These quantum phenomena display themselves, in particular, in magnetization jumps and susceptibility peaks in the investigated spin system.

1. The problems concerning to quantum dynamics of spin systems have aroused considerable interest in recent years (see referencesbar ; fri ; ses ; dob ; gar ; har ). In many respects it is interlinked with recent discoveries of the macroscopic quantum tunnelling of magnetization bar ; fri ; ses ; dob ; gar , quantum hysteresis, molecular bystability, novel type of magnetic oscillations associated with Berri phase appearance. These mesoscopic phenomena were discovered in so called “giant spin moment systems” – in the magnetic nanoclusters Mn12, Fe8 with large spin moment in the ground state ($`S=10`$). Some mesoscopic spin phenomena are likely to be discovered in the rare-earth ions with large angular momentum (Dy3+, Tb3+, Ho3+, Er3+). Of particular interest are problems pertaining to the macroscopic quantum coherence, quantum measurements in spin systems and the quantum correlations violation due to interaction with environment and especially quantum to classical behavior transition. It should be stressed that the observing conditions of these coherent phenomena are more strict than that for above-listed. Therefore it is seemed to be of importance to explore the novel situations when quantum coherence phenomena appear. This problem is of practical concern for magnetic nano-electronics (spintronics) and quantum computer science. One of the most intriguing ideas in spintronics is the “giant-spin”-nanocluster usage as a bistable unit for further generation of the molecular memory. These nanoclusters may be interesting as a promising realization of qubits in quantum computing los ; dob2 ; zvezdin1 ; bur .

The aim of the paper is quantum dynamics investigation of the large spin moment quantum system in a swept magnetic field. Such a field produces a torque on the spin system inducing the spin precession and thus, displays new effects in the dynamics of the spin system. The present paper develops the ideas surveyed by author earlier as applied to the antiferromagnetic nanoclusters zvezdin2 , metal rings and ring-like molecules zvezdin3 .

2. We consider a quantum system (ion, molecule, cluster) under the swept magnetic field. The Hamiltonian of the system is taken to be

$$=g\mu _B\stackrel{}{J}\stackrel{}{B}(t)+V_{CF},$$
(1)
where $`V_{CF}`$ is the crystalline field operator. It is suggested that $`J1`$, thus in order to describe the quantum dynamics of the investigated system the quasiclassical approach will be used.

The crystalline field is represented as

$$V_{CF}=V_{CF}^0+V_{CF}^{},$$

where $`V_{CF}^0`$ is the crystalline field with “easy plane” symmetry and $`V_{CF}^{}`$ creates the anisotropy in plane; in so doing $`|V_{CF}^{}||V_{CF}^0|`$. Let $`z`$ axis of the Cartesian coordinate system be perpendicular to the “easy plane” which contains 2-nd order axis selected as $`x`$-axis.111The generalization for situations with the anisotropy in plane being characterized by other symmetry elements, for example $`4_z`$, $`3_z`$, $`6_z`$, is not a particular problem.

Assume that the magnetic field is $`\stackrel{}{B}=(0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},B_z)`$ with $`B_z`$ being time-dependent. Let $`B(t)=B_1t/\tau `$, where $`B_1`$ and $`\tau `$ are the characteristics of the field increase (decrease) process. According to the well-known analogy let designate the $`j_m=B_1/4\pi \tau `$ as a “magnetic current”.

3. To describe the spin dynamics the coherent quantum states technique $`|\theta ,\phi `$ per ; fra  will be employed with $`\theta `$ and $`\phi `$ being polar and azimuthal angles of the angular momentum. These angles are measured from the $`z`$ and $`x`$ axes respectively.

The Lagrangian of the system can be represented as:

$$=\frac{M}{\gamma }\left(cos\theta 1\right)\dot{\phi }E,$$
(2)
$$\begin{array}{cc}& E=K_1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +K_2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\phi MB(t)\mathrm{cos}\theta ,\hfill \\ & |K_2||K_1|,K_1>0,B||z.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
This Lagrangian can be deduced with conventional coherent quantum states technique fra . All terms in (2) are of apparent physical meaning. The first and the second terms in (2) are: the so called Wess-Zumino term (kinetic energy) appeared because of the nonorthogonality of the coherent states at $`t`$ and $`t+\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and the total energy $`E`$. The first and the second terms in (3) are the anisotropy energy (crystalline field). The $`\theta `$ and $`\phi `$ functional dependences of $`E`$ are chosen in the simplest but sufficient way to elucidate the principle aspects of the problem. The last term in (3) is Zeeman energy. The Euler-Lagrange equations for Lagrangian (2) are equivalent to the Landau-Liphshits equations (without attenuation).

4. The partition function of the quantum system can be represented as the functional integral in the Eucledian space ($`\tau =it`$)

$$𝒵=D\mathrm{cos}\theta D\phi e^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}_0^\mathrm{}\beta 𝑑\tau (\theta ,\phi )},$$
(4)
where $`\beta =\frac{1}{T}`$, $`\theta =\theta (\tau )`$, $`\phi =\phi (\tau )`$. As $`|K_2||K_1|`$ one can suppose that in moderately high magnetic fields $`\theta \pi /21`$. Then integrating the partition function expression (4) upon $`\theta `$ yields 222The calculation procedure can be reduced to the following. It is not difficult to see that value $`\theta =\pi /2`$ is the extremum point of the Eucledian action of the functional $`S_E=_0^\mathrm{}\beta 𝑑\tau (\theta ,\phi )`$ (at $`B=0`$). From the stationarity action condition (Saddle-point) $`\delta S_E=0`$ it follows (at $`B0`$):
$$\frac{\pi }{2}\theta _M\frac{M}{2K_1}\left(B(t)\frac{i}{\gamma }\dot{\phi }\right),$$
($`4^{}`$)  Substituting ($`4^{}`$) to (4), then expanding $`S_E`$ about $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta =(\theta \theta _M)`$ to second order, and calculating, if need be, the Gaussian integral upon $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$, equations (5) and (6) can be obtained. In equation (5) the Gaussian integral is omitted for simplification of the formula because of being further unessential.:

$$𝒵=D\phi e^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}_0^\mathrm{}\beta 𝑑\tau _{eff}(\phi )},$$
(5)
where

$$_{eff}=\frac{I\dot{\phi }^2}{2}U_A(\phi )\gamma I+iB(t)\dot{\phi },$$
(6)
where $`I=\frac{M^2}{2K_1\gamma ^2}`$ is the moment of inertia of the system, $`U_A=K_2\mathrm{sin}^2\phi `$. The last term in (6) is defined as the Zeeman energy contribution.
The Lagrangian (6) can be presented (in the real time) as following:

$$_{eff}=\frac{I\left(\dot{\phi }\gamma B\right)^2}{2}K_2\mathrm{sin}^2\phi \frac{\gamma ^2IB^2}{2},$$
(7)
which is convenient for the gauge transformation performance and for making analogies with other quantum systems (the Josephson junction ave ; sch , mesoscopic conducting ring or ring-like molecule zvezdin3 ; eck , antiferromagnetic nanocluster zvezdin2 ). One can readily see that the Lagrangian (7) can be recast with an accuracy of the total time derivative as (see also zvezdin4 ; zvezdin5 )

$$_{eff}=\frac{I\dot{\phi }^2}{2}+\frac{K_2}{2}\mathrm{cos}2\phi +\gamma I\dot{B}\phi .$$
(8)
It should be specially noted that the variable $`\phi `$ is defined here not on the $`S^1`$ $`(0\phi <2\pi )`$ set as it usually assumed in the theory of angular momentum but on the real numbers $`𝒫`$ set $`(\phi R^1)`$. The latter in the present problem represents a product bundle of the $`S^1`$ set. $`S^1`$ plays a role of the base of this fiber set $`𝒫`$. This remark is obviously important in the given context as presence of the swept field $`B_z(t)`$ breaks down the symmetry $`\phi \phi +2\pi n`$ transformation, where $`n`$ is integer, therefore, $`S^1`$ set, commonly used in such problems, must be enlarged up to the $`𝒫`$. The axial symmetry violation is apparent because the swept field $`B_z(t)`$ generates the electrical axially symmetrical field $`\stackrel{}{E}_\phi `$, by virtue of Maxwell equation $`\frac{1}{c}\dot{\stackrel{}{B}}=curl\stackrel{}{E}`$.

Systems with potential energy of the “tilted washing board ” type $`U(x)=U_0(x)+cx`$, where $`U_0(x)`$ is the periodical function of $`x`$, $`c`$ is constant value, were already investigated earlier. As for example it is possible to mention the electron motion in electrical field in a crystal wan ; bloch  or Josephson junction dynamics when direct current flowing ave ; sch . Therefore one can expect the manifestation of some properties in the spin momentum dynamics which are similar to that of above discussed systems. Such characteristic properties are the band energy spectrum occurrence, the Bloch oscillations wan ; bloch  and the interband Zener tunnelling effect zen ; kel ; eil . Let’s consider these issues in more detail.

5. The generalized momentum appropriate to the coordinate $`\phi `$ equals to $`p_\phi =\frac{_{eff}}{\dot{\phi }}=J\dot{\phi }=I(\dot{\phi }\gamma B)`$. Then the Hamiltonian of the system $`=p_\phi \dot{\phi }_{eff}`$ can be represented as

$$=\frac{1}{2I}\left(P_\phi \gamma IB\right)^2+U_A(\phi ),$$
(9)
where $`P_\phi =\frac{\mathrm{}}{i}\frac{}{\phi }`$.
The gauge transformation $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1(\phi )\mathrm{\Psi }(\phi )e^{\theta (\phi ,t)}`$, where $`\theta =\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}I\gamma B\phi `$ (the label “1” of the function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ will be further omitted), transfers the Schroedinger equation to the following type:

$$i\mathrm{}\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\left[\frac{\widehat{p}_\phi ^2}{2I}+U_a(\phi )I\gamma \dot{B}\phi \right]\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(10)
At first let’s consider the eigenvalue problem of the Hamiltonian (9) at $`B=0`$ . The eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (9) are the Bloch functions

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_s(\phi +2\pi )=e^{i\pi m}\mathrm{\Psi }_s(\phi ),$$
(11)
where $`m`$ is an arbitrary real number, $`s`$ is the energy band number. It would appear reasonable to designate the parameter $`m`$ as quasispin, (compare with the quasimomentum for a band electron). By analogy with the term – “charge states”– for similar states in the theory of Josephson effect it is possible to call the states (11) as the “continuous spin states”. It is common knowledge for the spin moment component to be quantized at the fixed direction. In the case being considered the “quasispin” is a arbitrary real number $`(mR^1)`$

The difference between these two types of states can be explained as follows. The quantized spin states are specified at $`S^1`$ set $`(0\phi <2\pi )`$, in so doing the spin moment quantization is clearly associated with the axial symmetry of the system, in other words, with the boundary conditions $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\phi +2\pi )=\pm \mathrm{\Psi }(\phi )`$. The absence of this symmetry in the dynamic symmetry group of the Lagrangian (2) cancels the quantization of a spin moment. Instead of this the “continuous spin states” i.e. Bloch functions (11), are achieved in the fiber set $`𝒫`$ $`(\mathrm{}<\phi <\mathrm{})`$.

Let $`U_A(\phi )=(1/2)K_2\mathrm{cos}2\phi `$, where $`K_2`$ is a constant. Then the Schroedinger equation for the Hamiltonian (9) is reduced to the Mathieu equation from the theory of which it follows that the energy spectrum of the Hamiltonian (9) has a band structure, i.e. the eigenvalues of (9) $`E_n(m)`$ are the functions defined in the appropriate Brillouin zones. At $`K_20`$ the band structure corresponds to the approximation of “free electrons” type:

$$E_s(m)=\frac{\mathrm{}^2m^2}{2I}$$
(12)
with the forbidden bands at the boundaries of the Brillouin zones: $`m_B=s(s=\mathrm{}2,1,0,1,2,\mathrm{})`$ which are narrow in accordance with $`K_2K_1`$.

Near the Brillouin zone boundary, for example, near $`m_B=1`$, the wave function can be represented as follows

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\phi )=u(\phi )e^{iEt},$$
(13)
where $`u(\phi )=A_1e^{im\phi }+A_2e^{i(m+2)\phi }`$. The Schroedinger equation for the Hamiltonian (9) can be written as (the Mathieu equation)

$$\begin{array}{cc}& u^{\prime \prime }+\left(\mu 2d\mathrm{cos}2\stackrel{~}{\phi }\right)u=0,\hfill \\ \hfill \text{where}& \mu =\frac{2IE}{\mathrm{}^2},d=\frac{IK_2}{2\mathrm{}^2}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
Used here is a new variable $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }=\phi +\pi /2`$. The sign “$``$” will be further omitted. Substituting (13) to (14) yields

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \left(\mu m^2\right)A_1dA_2=0,\hfill \\ & dA_1+\left(\mu (m+2)^2\right)A_2=0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
whence it follows that

$$\mu =\left(\frac{m^2+(m+2)^2}{2}\pm \sqrt{\frac{\left(m^2(m+2)^2\right)^2}{4}+d^2}\right).$$
(16)
In particular from the expression (16) it is clear that at $`m_B=1`$ the forbidden band width (i.e. between allowed zones with $`s=0`$ and $`s=1`$) equals

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_{10}=\frac{2\mathrm{}^2d}{I}=K_2.$$
(17)
The allowed zone widths of the zero, first and third zones are $`E_0\frac{2\mathrm{}^2}{I},E_1\frac{6\mathrm{}^2}{I}`$ and $`E_2\frac{10\mathrm{}^2}{I}`$, respectively, whereas the forbidden band widths rapidly decrease (at $`K_2K_1`$) when going to the higher energy bands. Then

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{\Delta }E_{21}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{I}\left(\frac{IK_2}{2\mathrm{}^2}\right)^2,\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Delta }E_{32}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{16I}\left(\frac{IK_2}{2\mathrm{}^2}\right)^2,\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Delta }E_{43}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{576I}\left(\frac{IK_2}{2\mathrm{}^2}\right)^2\text{etc.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(18)
The equations (12)(14), (16), (17) determine with sufficient accuracy the energy spectrum in the limit of first two Brillouin zones.

6. Let’s discuss effects of the swept magnetic field $`B_z(t)`$ effects that as mentioned above can be considered as a classical gauge field in equations (9,10). The last term $`\gamma I\dot{B}\phi `$ in equation (10) is playing the same role as the energy – $`eFx`$ ($`F`$ characterizes the electrical field and $`x`$ is the electron coordinate) in the well-known problem of the dynamics of the Bloch electron in an electrical field.

Let consider the momentum $`p_\phi `$ dynamics in the case of magnetic field varying adiabatically slowly:

$$\left|I\gamma \dot{B}\right|K_2.$$
(19)
To describe the dynamics of a spin under the action of “magnetic current” $`j_m=\dot{B}/4\pi `$ let’s consider a wave packet of the Bloch functions (11). Let $`\overline{m}`$ and $`\overline{\phi }`$ be the mean values of the quasispin and the coordinate of the wave packet center and the values $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi `$ $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m\mathrm{\Delta }\phi 1)`$ determine the corresponding uncertainties. Under influence of “magnetic current” $`j_m`$ the wave packet formed at $`t=0`$ moves to the boundary (for example, right, i.e. $`m_B=1`$) of the Brillouin zone where Bragg reflection takes place. Here the wave packet velocity changes its sign to an opposite and the wave packet appears at the left boundary ($`m_B=1`$), after that it moves again to the right boundary of Brillouin zone $`(m_B=1)`$ then reflects again and so on. This process is called the Bloch oscillations. It is described by the following equations for $`\overline{m}`$ and $`\overline{\phi }`$ mean values:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \dot{\overline{m}}=\frac{I\gamma B_1}{\mathrm{}\tau },\hfill \\ & \dot{\overline{\phi }}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\frac{E_s(\overline{m})}{\overline{m}}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
During this (adiabatic) process the system remains in the state with the definite $`s`$ and its physical properties as, for example, the magnetic moment, are the oscillating functions of time with the frequency

$$f_{Bloch}=\frac{I\gamma B_1}{\mathrm{}\tau }$$
(21)
If the external magnetic field has the harmonic contribution i.e.

$$B=B_1t/\tau +w\mathrm{sin}2\pi ft,$$
(22)
then the resonances on the frequences $`f=f_{Bloch}`$ and $`f=rf_{Bloch}`$, where $`r`$ is a rational number, are available (the Stark ladder-like resonances).

When the “magnetic current” increases

$$\left|\gamma I\dot{B}\right|K,$$
(23)
the Zener tunneling effect occurs between adjacent zones. In particular, the probability of the tunnel transition in a unit time between zones with $`s=0`$ and $`s=1`$ equals

$$g_{01}=f_{Bloch}e^\beta ,$$
(24)
where $`\beta =\frac{\pi K_2^2\tau }{\mathrm{}^2\gamma B_1}`$, $`\gamma =\frac{e}{mc}`$.

7. Let us consider the average magnetic moment behaviour of the considered spin system qualitatively. The magnetic moment $`z`$-axis component is

$$M_z=M\mathrm{cos}\theta M\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\theta \right)=\frac{M^2}{2K_1}\left(B_z\frac{\dot{\phi }}{\gamma }\right).$$
(25)
Averaging (25) with the corresponding wave function yields

$$M_z=\chi _{}\left(B_z\frac{\dot{\phi }}{\gamma }\right),$$
(26)
where $`\chi _{}=\frac{M^2}{2K_1}`$.

Two limiting cases have to be considered: a) $`K_2=0`$ therewith $`g_{n,n\pm 1}=1`$ and b) $`g_{01}=0`$. The first case can be defined as a free precession of the spin system and the second one is a Bloch oscillations case.
At $`K_2=0`$ expressions (20) give

$$\dot{\phi }=\gamma \left(B(t)+c\right),$$
(27)
where $`c`$ is a constant value determined by initial conditions. Substituting (27) to (26) yields

$$M=M_0,$$
(28)
where $`M_0\chi _{}c`$ is the system magnetic moment at $`t=0`$. Thus, the distinctive property of the free precession case is that the accelerated spin precession influenced by increasing (decreasing) magnetic field screens the ion paramagnetic susceptibility contribution ($`\chi _{}B_z)`$ so the average magnetic moment is field undependent.

In the case of the Bloch oscillations the situation changes drastically. Here the $`M_z`$ versus $`B_z`$ dependence represents the sum of “ordinary” linear $`(\chi _{}B_z)`$ term and the periodical curve $`\dot{\phi }`$ with the period of

$$\mathrm{\Delta }B=B_1\left(\tau f_{Bloch}\right)^1=\mathrm{}/\gamma I.$$
(29)
At $`K_2K_1`$ this periodical function is rather close to “Saw-type” with the amplitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }\dot{\phi }2I/\mathrm{}`$:

$$\gamma ^1\dot{\phi }=\{\begin{array}{cc}B,\hfill & 0Bb,\hfill \\ B2b,\hfill & bB<3b,\hfill \\ B4b,\hfill & 3bB5b\hfill \\ \text{etc.},\hfill & \end{array}$$
(30)
where $`b\frac{\mathrm{}}{\gamma I}`$.

Generally, the $`M_z(B_z)`$ dependence contains the characteristic features of both limiting processes.
Actually, as it was shown above (see (16)) at $`K_2/K_11`$ the forbidden band $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{21}`$ width falls far short of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{10}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{32}\mathrm{\Delta }E_{21}`$ etc. Therefore as a first approximation it is possible to put $`g_{12}=g_{23}=g_{34}=\mathrm{}=1`$, i.e. to neglect the Bloch oscillations in the first and following excited bands. It means that the precession in all bands except ground one (i.e. $`s=0`$) can be considered as free. The precession influenced by $`B_z(t)`$ as a whole can be assumed as following: the wave packet formed at $`t=0`$ slightly spreading out reaches the edge of a Brillouin zone, then partially reflects with probability $`1g_{01}`$ and partially tunnels (with probability $`g_{01}`$) to the next zone where it freely precessing. With this considerations and the equations (24),(30) the $`M_z(B)`$ dependence can be presented as follows:

$$\chi _{}^1M_z=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & 0B<b,\hfill \\ 2b(1p),\hfill & bB3b,\hfill \\ 4b(1p)^2,\hfill & 3bB5b,\hfill \\ 6b(1p)^3,\hfill & 5bB7b\hfill \\ \text{etc.},\hfill & \end{array}$$
(31)
where $`p=e^\beta `$, $`\beta `$ is determined in (24). It is easy to verify that the magnetic moment step $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_z`$ magnitudes decrease as the number of the step increases. So, at $`B=b`$ $`(\mathrm{\Delta }M_z)_{10}=\chi _{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}b(1p)`$; at $`B=3b`$ $`(\mathrm{\Delta }M_z)_{21}=\chi _{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}b(1p)(12p)`$; at $`B=5b`$ $`(\mathrm{\Delta }M_z)_{32}=\chi _{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}b(1p)^2(13p)`$ etc. This means that the $`M_z(B)`$ dependence tends to saturation when $`B`$ increases.

All above mentioned considerations are concerning to the case of $`T=0`$ K. Obviously, the thermal fluctuations (at $`T0`$K) and dissipation (i.e. dissipative environment interaction) breaks down the studied quantum coherent effects. Taking into account the case of finite temperatures is worth another look. Here we shall restrict by only pointing out that the “$`T=0`$ K”–theory is valid when $`TK_1`$ and $`T_2b\tau /B_1`$, where $`T_2`$ is spin relaxation time of the system. At $`K_1`$1 cm-1333It is worth to note that equation (3) looks realistic for a triplet ground state originating from the crystalline field splitting of the ground multiple of the spin system. and $`B_1/\tau 10^4`$ Oe/s we have $`T`$2 K, $`T_2`$0.04 s. These limitations appears as quite executable for modern low temperature experiments.

It should be stressed that the neglected above Bloch oscillations in the bands $`s=1`$, $`s=2`$, etc. and the Bragg reflections at the corresponding Brillouin boundaries give the additional periodical terms into the $`M_z(B)`$ and $`\chi (B)`$ dependences. So, the Bragg reflections at the boundary ($`s=1,s=2`$) give the additional intermediate peaks of $`\chi `$ at the fields $`B=2b,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}b`$ etc. The reflection at the boundary ($`s=1,s=0`$) decreases the peak amplitude at the field $`B=3b`$. The Zener tunnelling at the boundary ($`s=1,s=0`$) even more complicates this picture due to an interference of the tunnelling wave function ($`s=1s=0`$) with the main wave function ($`s=0`$). These questions are worth to be further investigated in more detail.

In conclusion, it was shown that the external time dependent magnetic field induces new coherent quantum effects of the anisotropic spin system dynamics. They are: the occurrence of band energy spectrum with continuous spin states, quasibloch oscillations and interband Zener tunnelling effect. These quantum effects manifest themselves as magnetizaion jumps and susceptibility peaks in the investigated spin system.