format: text

text:
# Allowed Gamow-Teller Excitations from the Ground State of ¹⁴𝑁

## I Introduction

Much attention has been given over the past several decades to the fact that the Gamow-Teller ($`GT`$) matrix element between the $`J^\pi =1^+T=0`$ ground state of $`{}_{}{}^{14}N`$ and the $`J^\pi =0^+T=1`$ ground state of $`{}_{}{}^{14}C`$ (or that of its mirror nucleus $`{}_{}{}^{14}O`$) is very close to zero, despite the fact that all the quantum numbers are right for an allowed Gamow-Teller transition. Of particular interest is the early work of Inglis  who showed that in the simplest shell model space (2 holes in the $`0p`$ shell), it is $`not`$ possible to get this $`GT`$ matrix element to vanish if the residual nucleon-nucleon ($`NN`$) interaction consists of only a central part and a spin-orbit part. Inglis then commented upon the possibility that $`A(GT)`$ might vanish with only these two interactions if higher shells were included. He himself did not carry out such a calculation, but an attempt to do so was made a few years later by Baranger and Meshkov . They concluded that it was possible that configuration mixing was the sole agent to cause $`A(GT)`$ to vanish; however, they had to speculate on the signs of certain matrix elements.

Following Inglis’ work, Jancovici and Talmi  showed that if one also had a tensor component present in the interaction one $`could`$ get the $`GT`$ matrix element to vanish. Thus, the $`A=14`$ system affords us one of the few instances where one can study the elusive effects of the tensor interaction in nuclear structure . Visscher and Ferrel  plotted the strength parameters of the spin-orbit and tensor interactions for which one could get the $`GT`$ matrix element to vanish. They noted that if the spin-orbit interaction is too weak then they cannot get the $`GT`$ matrix element to vanish for $`any`$ value of the tensor interaction strength parameter.

Zamick showed, in Ref. , that the $`GT`$ matrix element comes out too large when one uses the non-relativistic $`G`$matrix elements which Kuo  obtained from the Hamada-Johnston interaction . However, if the spin-orbit interaction was increased by about 50%, he could get this matrix element to vanish.

Whereas most early calculations were carried out in the model space of two holes in the $`0p`$ shell, more recently, Fayache, Zamick and Müther have reconsidered this issue by performing no-core shell model calculations ($`NCSM`$) in the larger model space ($`[(0p)^2]`$ \+ 2$`\mathrm{}\omega `$). First they used an interaction previously constructed by Zamick and Zheng :

$$V_{zz}=V_c+xV_{so}+yV_t,$$
(1)
where $`c`$=central, $`so`$=two-body spin-orbit, and $`t`$=tensor. For $`x`$=$`y`$=1, the matrix elements of $`V_{zz}`$ are in approximate agreement with those of the non-relativistic OBE potential Bonn A of . They then studied the effects of the spin-orbit and tensor components of the $`NN`$ interaction on the $`GT`$ matrix element by varying the strength parameters $`x`$ and $`y`$. They found the interesting result that in the small model space (2 holes in the $`0p`$ shell) they could (for the standard value $`x=1`$ of the spin-orbit interaction strength parameter) find a value of $`y`$ for which the $`GT`$ matrix element vanishes. However, in a larger model space which also included 2$`\mathrm{}\omega `$ excitations and still using the standard value $`x=1`$, they could not get the $`GT`$ matrix element to vanish for $`any`$ value of the tensor interaction strength parameter $`y`$. Thus they reached the opposite conclusion to that of Baranger and Meshkov. However, if the spin-orbit interaction was enhanced by 50% (to $`x=1.5`$), then they could find a reasonable value of $`y`$ for which the $`GT`$ matrix element vanishes (but not for $`y=0`$). Furthermore, using a relativistic Bonn A $`G`$matrix with a Dirac effective mass $`m_D=0.6m`$ ($`m`$ being the mass of the free nucleon), they found that they can make the $`GT`$ matrix element vanish in both the small and large model spaces. It is known that the spin-orbit interaction gets enhanced by a factor $`m/m_D`$ in relativistic calculations .

In the above discussion, we have focused on the ground-state-to-ground-state transition $`{}_{}{}^{14}N(J^\pi =1_1^+,T=0){}_{}{}^{14}C(J^\pi =0_1^+,T=1)`$. But in a proposed experiment ($`{}_{}{}^{14}N(d,{}_{}{}^{2}He)^{14}C`$) , one can reach excited $`T=1`$ states as well with spins $`J^\pi =0^+,1^+`$ and $`2^+`$ via the allowed $`GT`$ mechanism. In section II, we shall present the results of theoretical calculations of the $`GT`$ reduced transition probability

$$B(GT)=(\frac{g_A}{g_V})^2\frac{1}{2J_i+1}|A(GT)|^2,$$
(2)
as well as the summed strengths $`B(GT)`$ to these states. In Eq. 2, $`\frac{g_A}{g_V}=1.251`$ is the ratio of the Gamow-Teller to Fermi coupling constants introduced here for convenience . The $`GT`$ matrix element itself, denoted as $`A(GT)`$, is given by the expression

$$|A(GT)|^2=\underset{M_i,M_f,\mu }{}\psi _f^{J_f,M_f,T_f,T_{fz}}|\underset{k=1}{\overset{A}{}}\sigma _\mu (k)t_+(k)|\psi _i^{J_i,M_i,T_i,T_{iz}}^2.$$
(3)
We perform our calculations with a variety of realistic interactions in both the small and large model spaces. In light of the fact that in Ref.  there were such drastic differences between the results obtained in the small and large model spaces for the $`GT`$ transition from $`J^\pi =1_1^+`$ to $`J^\pi =0_1^+`$, we should also investigate the effects of going from small to large model spaces for the other allowed transitions, namely from $`J^\pi =1_1^+`$ to $`J^\pi =1^+`$ and to $`J^\pi =2^+`$. This is one of the main points of the present work. Furthermore, we will do these calculations using both a phenomenological approach as in  and a purely theoretical one in which a modern realistic $`NN`$ effective interaction is used in larger and larger model spaces.

The results of our calculations are presented in section II. Section III deals with the interpretation of the results, followed by concluding remarks.

## II Results of the Calculations

We first show in Table I results of calculations of the $`GT`$ ground-state-to-ground-state transition strength $`B(GT):{}_{}{}^{14}N(J^\pi =1_1^+,T=0){}_{}{}^{14}C(J^\pi =0_1^+,T=1)`$, followed by the $`summed`$ strengths of the $`GT`$ transition from the ground state of $`{}_{}{}^{14}N`$ to the $`J^\pi =0^+,1^+`$ and $`2^+`$ ($`T=1`$) states of $`{}_{}{}^{14}C`$, using the interaction $`V_{zz}`$ (Eq. 1) of Zamick and Zheng . Note that we never introduce a single-particle spin-orbit term, since in our case the average one-body spin-orbit interaction is implicitly generated by our two-body spin-orbit interaction $`xV_{so}`$ in our no-core shell-model ($`NCSM`$) calculations, which we performed using the nuclear shell model code $`OXBASH`$ .

First, let us compare the small- and large-space results for $`J^\pi =0^+`$ final states obtained with the standard two-body spin-orbit strength $`x=1`$. As we vary the strength parameter $`y`$ of the tensor interaction in the small model space calculation, we see that for $`y=0.5`$ $`B(GT)`$ becomes vanishingly small. Indeed, for $`y=1.0x=1`$ $`A(GT)`$ has an opposite sign to that for $`y=0x=1`$. This verifies the contention of Jancovici and Talmi that one can get $`A(GT)`$ to vanish with a suitable tensor interaction.

However, when we go to the $`large`$ (0+2)$`\mathrm{}\omega `$ model space, we see that $`B(GT)`$ for $`J^\pi =0_1^+`$ does $`not`$ go to zero for any value of $`y`$ when $`x=1`$, and we no longer get the Jancovici-Talmi behaviour.

The situation is restored if a combination of a weaker strength of the tensor interaction and an enhanced strength of the spin-orbit interaction ($`i.e.x=1.5`$ and $`y=0.75`$) is applied. In that case we get $`B(GT)`$ to vanish in both the $`small`$ and $`large`$ model spaces.

We next come to one of the main points of the paper: a comparison of the $`GT`$ summed strengths to the $`J^\pi =1^+`$ and $`J^\pi =2^+`$ ($`T=1`$) final states in $`{}_{}{}^{14}C`$. We see consistently that the excitation strengths to the $`J^\pi =2^+`$ states are much larger than to the $`J^\pi =1^+`$ states. For example, in the large space with $`x=1.5y=0.75`$, the values of the summed strength to the $`1^+`$ states is only 0.193, but to the $`2^+`$ states it is 3.113. We will discuss this further in the next section.

Table II presents results of calculations done with the relativistic Bonn A interaction of Müther $`et.al.`$ . In this approach, one has a Dirac effective mass $`m_D`$ such that $`m_D/m`$ is typically less than one with $`m_D/m=1`$ corresponding to the non-relativistic limit. In our case, the value of $`m_D/m=0.6`$ seems to work best in as far as achieving a vanishing $`GT`$ transition between the ground states of the $`A=14`$ system. This is true in both the small and the large model spaces.

In Table III, we present the results of calculations done with the Argonne V8’ effective interaction in four model spaces: 0$`\mathrm{}\omega `$, (0+2)$`\mathrm{}\omega `$, (0+2+4)$`\mathrm{}\omega `$ and (0+2+4+6)$`\mathrm{}\omega `$, all performed with the Many-Fermion Dynamics code of . For this set of calculations, we followed the procedure described in Refs  in order to construct the two-body effective interaction. Note that in Tables I-III we give the ground-state-to-ground-state transition $`B(GT):{}_{}{}^{14}N(J^\pi =1_1^+,T=0){}_{}{}^{14}C(J^\pi =0_1^+,T=1)`$, as well as the summed strength $`B(GT)`$, $`i.e.`$ summing the $`B(GT)`$ values starting from the $`{}_{}{}^{14}N(J^\pi =1_1^+,T=0)`$ ground state to all final $`0^+,1^+`$ and $`2^+`$ $`T=1`$ states in $`{}_{}{}^{14}C`$. In the smallest model space, the Argonne V8’ interaction gives a poor result for the ground-state-to-ground-state $`B(GT)`$, a value of 2.518 which is far from the desired result of $`zero`$. When the model space is enlarged to (0+2)$`\mathrm{}\omega `$, the $`B(GT)`$ to the $`0_1^+`$ state obtained with the Argonne V8’ interaction goes down to 1.403, then it goes further down to 0.430 in the larger model space (0+2+4)$`\mathrm{}\omega `$, and in the yet larger model space (0+2+4+6)$`\mathrm{}\omega `$ it goes way down to 0.164. This shows that the results are quite sensitive to the model space used, but overall they are rather encouraging in the sense that one seems to be converging to the desired result that the ground-state-to-ground-state $`B(GT)`$ vanishes in the limit that the model space becomes sufficiently large. Indeed, it is clear that the many-body correlations in the large model spaces are causing the decrease in the transitions to the $`0^+`$ states and their increase for $`2^+`$ states.

## III Interpretation of the Results

### A The $`LS`$ picture

We can make sense of the results obtained in the small model space 0 $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ by following the approach of Zheng and Zamick  and use an $`LS`$ representation ($`{}_{}{}^{2S+1}L_{J}^{}`$) for the two-hole $`A=14`$ system. For instance, the ground state ($`J^\pi =1_1^+,T=0`$) wavefunction of $`{}_{}{}^{14}N`$ ($`i.e.`$ the initial state) is represented as follows:

$$\psi _i=C_i^S|{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}+C_i^P|{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}+C_i^D|{}_{}{}^{3}D_{1}^{},$$
(4)
whereas for final $`J^\pi =0^+,T=1`$ states the wavefunctions are of the form

$$\psi _f=C_f^S|{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}+C_f^P|{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}.$$
(5)
The expression for the transition amplitude $`A(GT)`$ (see Eq. 3) is then

$$A(GT)=\sqrt{6}[C_f^SC_i^SC_i^PC_f^P/\sqrt{3}].$$
(6)
It should be noted that if the $`{}_{}{}^{14}N`$ ground-state wavefunction had a pure $`{}_{}{}^{3}D_{1}^{}`$ configuration then the Gamow-Teller transition amplitude $`A(GT)`$ to $`J^\pi =0^+`$ and $`1^+`$ states would vanish. The reason for this, of course, is that the $`GT`$ operator $`_k\sigma _\mu (k)t_+(k)`$ cannot change the orbital quantum number $`L`$. But from the above expression for $`A(GT)`$, it is not a necessary condition to have $`C_i^D=1`$ and $`C_i^S=C_i^P=0`$ in order for $`A(GT)`$ to vanish. Interference from the $`L=1`$ contributions can and does make $`A(GT)`$ vanish before $`C_i^D=1`$. Nevertheless, $`C_i^D`$ is very close to one at the point where $`A(GT)`$ vanishes.

In Table IV, we present the values of the coefficients $`C_i^S`$, $`C_i^P`$ and $`C_i^D`$ related to the 0$`\mathrm{}\omega `$ model space calculations done with various interactions considered earlier in Tables I, II and III, as well as the corresponding $`A(GT)`$. By comparing the values of the $`LS`$ coefficients shown in the upper half of this table to those in the lower one, it becomes clear that the argument presented above, about the crucial role of the $`{}_{}{}^{3}D_{1}^{}`$ component in the $`J^\pi =1^+T=0`$ $`{}_{}{}^{14}N`$ ground-state wavefunction in insuring the vanishing of $`A(GT)`$, holds for the other interactions as well.

We can also see why the $`2^+`$ final states are more strongly excited than the $`J^\pi =1^+`$ final states. In the two-hole model space, and by virtue of the generalized Pauli exclusion principle, there is only $`one`$ $`J^\pi =1^+,T=1`$ final state, corresponding to $`L=1S=1T=1`$ and denoted by $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{}`$. It can be excited by the $`GT`$ mechanism only via the $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}`$ component of the $`{}_{}{}^{14}N`$ $`J^\pi =1_1^+T=0`$ ground-state wavefunction. We see from Table IV that the $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}`$ component $`C_i^P`$ is rather small when $`A(GT)`$ vanishes. It is possible, however, to form two $`J^\pi =2^+T=1`$ states in the two-hole model space (corresponding to $`L=2S=0`$ and $`L=1S=1`$), and the first one of these two configurations ($`{}_{}{}^{1}D_{2}^{}`$) will carry most of the strength of the $`GT`$ excitation emanating from the dominantly $`{}_{}{}^{3}D_{1}^{}`$ $`{}_{}{}^{14}N`$ ground-state wavefunction ($`C_i^D0.96`$ when $`A(GT)`$ vanishes).

### B Renormalization of the spin-orbit interaction

As mentioned in the introduction, it has been noted in the past  that the vanishing of the ground-state-to-ground state $`GT`$ matrix element in the $`A=14`$ system as calculated in the valence space ($`i.e.`$ 0$`\mathrm{}\omega `$ model space) requires either an enhancement of the two-body spin-orbit interaction and/or a weakening of the tensor interaction -see the lower half of table IV. In a different but somewhat related context, Fayache $`et.al.`$ had come to a similar conclusion in their study of $`M1`$ excitation rates in the $`0p`$ and $`1d0d`$ shells . It is useful to note here, as pointed out by Wong , that the tensor interaction in an open-shell acts to some extent like a spin-orbit interaction of the opposite sign of the basic spin-orbit interaction, so that these two types of adjustments to the $`NN`$ interaction are really equivalent for our purpose.

In the present work, we have shown in table III that, using a modern realistic effective $`NN`$ interaction and performing no-core shell-model calculations with it in progressively larger and larger model spaces, we were able to obtain the desired vanishing of the ground-state-to-ground-state $`GT`$ matrix element in a natural way, $`i.e.`$ without having to adjust any parameters. This suggests that some renormalization of the effective spin-orbit interaction coupling strength (in the sense of an enhancement of the latter relative to its strength in the 0$`\mathrm{}\omega `$ model space) must be taking place as one works in larger and larger model spaces.

In Table V, we present results of calculations that further corroborate the interpretation just given. Loosely speaking, the $`J^\pi =2_1^+`$ state is mainly a $`(p_{1/2}^1)(p_{3/2}^1)`$ two-hole state, so that its excitation energy scales mainly as the spin-orbit splitting $`E(3/2^{})E(1/2^{})`$ in the $`A=15`$ system. Evidently, the latter can be thought of as a measure of the strength of the effective two-body spin-orbit interaction as calculated in a given model space. A striking systematics then emerges when one combines the results of tables III and V. Clearly, there is a one-to-one correlation between the re-distribution of the $`GT`$ strength in the $`A=14`$ system (table III) and the effective spin-orbit strength as the size of the shell-model space is varied (table V). Indeed, there is a clear trend taking place in the sense that, as the size of the shell-model space gets larger, the calculated excitation energy $`E_x(2_1^+)`$ in $`{}_{}{}^{14}C`$ as well as the calculated energy splitting $`E(3/2^{})E(1/2^{})`$ in $`{}_{}{}^{15}N`$ are increasing, and all the while a re-distribution of the $`A=14`$ $`GT`$ strength is taking place, with all the combined results becoming in better agreement with experiment.

## IV Concluding Remarks

We have performed theoretical calculations of the allowed Gamow-Teller transitions from the ground state of $`{}_{}{}^{14}N`$ to the lowest lying states in $`{}_{}{}^{14}C`$ in anticipation of a proposed experiment involving the reaction $`{}_{}{}^{14}N(d,{}_{}{}^{2}He)^{14}C`$. We discussed the problem of the near vanishing of the $`GT`$ transition to the $`J^\pi =0_1^+,T=1`$ ground state of $`{}_{}{}^{14}C`$, but principally focused on the transitions to the final states with angular momenta $`1^+`$ and $`2^+`$.

In calculations limited to a 0 $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ model space, it is necessary to effect a phenomenological enhancement of the $`NN`$ two-body spin-orbit interaction in order to obtain a vanishing ground-state-to-ground-state $`GT`$ matrix element in the $`A=14`$ system. We have found that this in turn results in the $`GT`$ strength going overwhelmingly to the lowest $`2^+`$ state. Such a result can be easily accounted for by the fact that the $`{}_{}{}^{14}N`$ $`J^\pi =1_1^+T=0`$ ground state wavefunction is predominantly composed of an $`LS`$ component $`{}_{}{}^{3}D_{1}^{}`$.

Using an effective interaction theoretically derived from the realistic $`NN`$ Argonne V8’ interaction, and performing shell-model calculations in progressively larger and larger model spaces (with up to 6 $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ excitations), we were able to achieve a similar degree of success in agreement with experiment as that obtained phenomenologically earlier in the 0$`\mathrm{}\omega `$ model space calculations, but this time without any adjustments of parameters. We have interpreted this as an indication of a natural renormalization of the effective two-body spin-orbit interaction affected by the many-body correlations taking place in the larger model spaces.

In concluding, we note that, when only the charge-symmetry-conserving strong interactions are taken into account (as we did in this paper), the matrix element for the transition from $`{}_{}{}^{14}N`$ to $`{}_{}{}^{14}C`$ is the same as that from $`{}_{}{}^{14}N`$ to $`{}_{}{}^{14}O`$. However, since the transitions to the $`J=0^+`$ states are strongly suppressed, large charge-symmetry effects can be induced by the Coulomb interaction. Indeed the $`ft`$ values in the decays of $`{}_{}{}^{14}C`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{14}O`$ to the ground state of $`{}_{}{}^{14}N`$ are respectively $`1.110^9`$ and $`210^7`$, quite different values indeed. Talmi  was able to verify that indeed the Coulomb interaction could explain this difference to a large extent. It will be interesting in the near future to see the effects of other charge-symmetry-breaking interactions.

## V Acknowledgements

K. Heyde thanks D. De Frenne for discussions on the relevance of the $`(d,{}_{}{}^{2}He)`$ reaction in order to study the Gamow-Teller strength in light nuclei. L. Zamick ackowledges support by DOE Grant No. DE-FG02-95ER-40940. M.S. Fayache and B.R. Barrett acknowledge partial support from NSF Grants No. PHY0070858 and INT-0096785. B.R. Barrett thanks I. Talmi for useful discussions. This work was performed in part under the auspices of the U. S. Department of Energy by the University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract No. W-7405-Eng-48. P.Navratil received support from LDRD contract 00-ERD-028. N. Smirnova and K. Heyde thank the DWTC for the grant IUAP #P5/07 and the ”FWO-Vlaanderen” for financial support. Finally, M.S. Fayache is grateful for the hospitality of the High-Energy Section of the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, where part of this work was done.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

There is a growing interest for continuous variable (CV) quantum information processing, in particular for implementations based on manipulations of Gaussian states of light in optical circuits. Several quantum protocols , including teleportation, error correction, cloning and entanglement purification have been extended to CV systems, which may be easier to manipulate than quantum bits in order to accomplish the desired tasks .

In optical implementations, quantum information is encoded in values of a single-mode field quadrature, say $`x=1/2(a^{}+a)`$, $`[a,a^{}]`$=1 being the mode operators. Therefore, in principle, the most relevant measurement for quantum protocols is provided by homodyne detection. However, the usual implementation of homodyning corresponds to a destructive detection, such that after the measurement we have no longer at disposal a quantum signal for further manipulations and/or measurements. It is thus of interest to devise a scheme for quantum nondemolition (QND) measurements of a field quadrature, in particular for tunable QND measurements, in which the trade-off between information and disturbance may adjusted according to different needs.

In this paper we suggest an all-optical scheme to realize the whole class of QND measurements of a field quadrature , from Von Neumann projective measurement to fully non-demolitive, non-informative one. The setup involves only linear optical components (including squeezers) and also allows an optimal QND measurement, which minimizes the information gain versus state disturbance trade-off.

The next section is devoted to the abstract description of a quantum measurement, and to introduce two fidelities in order to quantify the state disturbance and the information gain due to a measurement. In Section 3 we analyze with some details the setup for QND measurements of a field quadrature. Section 4 closes the paper with some concluding remarks.

## 2 Quantum measurements

A generic quantum measurement is described by a set of measurement operators $`\{M_k\}`$, with the condition $`_kM_k^{}M_k=\mathrm{I}`$. The POVM of the measurement is given by $`\{E_kM_k^{}M_k\}`$ whereas its quantum operation is expressed as $`\varrho _kM_k\varrho M_k^{}`$. This means that, if $`\varrho `$ is the initial quantum state of the system under investigation, the probability distribution of the outcomes is given by $`p_k=\text{Tr}[\varrho E_k]=\text{Tr}[\varrho M_k^{}M_k]`$, whereas the conditional output state, after having detected the outcome $`k`$, is expressed as $`\sigma _k=M_k\varrho M_k^{}/p_k`$, such that the overall quantum state after the measurement is described by the density matrix $`\sigma =_kp_k\sigma _k=_kM_k\varrho M_k^{}`$.

Suppose you have a quantum system prepared in the state $`\varrho `$, and that you are interested in measuring the observable $`K`$. The so-called Von-Neumann (VN) measurement of $`K`$ is described by the operators $`\{M_k=|kk|\}`$, where the $`|k`$’s are the eigenstates of $`K`$. Following the above prescription we have for VN measurements $`p_k=k|\varrho |k`$, $`\sigma _k=|kk|`$ and $`\sigma =_kp_k|kk|`$. As a matter of fact, VN measurement (also called projective measurement) provides the maximum accessible information about the quantity $`K`$, at the price of erasing the quantum information of the state being investigated, which is no longer at disposal for further investigations or manipulations.

In opposition to projective measurement one may conceive a nondemolitive measurement of $`K`$, which preserves the quantum state. This kind of measurement is described by the operators $`\{M_kI\}`$, proportional to the identity operator. We have uniform $`p_k`$ and $`\sigma =\varrho `$, i.e. the quantum state is preserved, however the measurement is completely non informative. Overall, such kind of measurement may be viewed as a blind quantum repeater, which re-prepares any quantum state received at the input, without giving any information on its characteristics.

Between these two extrema there is a complete class of intermediate cases, i.e. quantum measurements providing only partial information about the distribution $`\{p_k\}`$ while partially preserving the quantum state of the system. These schemes are sometimes referred to as QND measurements of the quantity $`K`$.

Let us now consider a generic quantum measurement $`\{Q_k\}`$ aimed to provide information about the quantity $`K`$. Two questions naturally arise about the characterization of its operation:
i) How much information is provided by the measurement ? Or, in other words, how close are the probability distributions $`q_k=\text{Tr}[\varrho Q_k^{}Q_k]`$ and $`p_k=k|\varrho |k`$ ? In order to quantify this resemblance we remind that the space of probability distributions $`\{p_k\}_{k=1,\mathrm{},M}`$ is the M-simplex, where a privileged metric (the Fisher metric) exists and induces a distance between probabilities  given by $`G=\left(_k\sqrt{p_kq_k}\right)^2`$ which represents a measure of the statistical distinguishability between the two distributions.
ii) How destructive is the measurement ? I.e. how far is the output state $`\sigma `$ to the input state $`\varrho `$ ? The geometric distance between two density matrices is given by $`F=\left(\text{Tr}\left[\sqrt{\sqrt{\varrho }\sigma \sqrt{\varrho }}\right]\right)^2`$. This quantity is the proper generalization to mixed states of the standard quantum overlap used to quantify the (statistical, i.e. by measurements) distinguishability of pure states . F is also characterized by Uhlman theorem, which states that if $`\varrho `$ and $`\sigma `$ are density matrices on a given Hilbert space $``$, then $`F=\mathrm{max}_{\psi ,\phi }\left|\psi |\phi \right|^2`$, where $`|\phi `$ and $`|\psi `$ are generic purification of $`\varrho `$ and $`\sigma `$, i.e. pure states on $``$ which have $`\varrho `$ and $`\sigma `$ as partial traces. If either $`\varrho `$ or $`\sigma `$ is pure F reduces to the standard overlap. For example, if $`\varrho =|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|`$ then we have $`F=\mathrm{\Psi }|\sigma |\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

## 3 QND measurements of a field quadrature

Our proposal to realize the whole class of QND measurements of a field quadrature is depicted in Fig. 1. At first, the signal beam is mixed with a probe beam (which will be excited in squeezed vacuum state) in beam splitter of tunable transmissivity $`\tau _1`$ ($`BS_1`$ in the figure). A tunable beam splitter can be easily implemented by a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. In the following we will write the transmittivity in the form $`\tau _1=\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi `$. For the sake of simplicity, we consider the measurements of the zero-phase quadrature $`x=1/2(a^{}+a)`$; however, the same analysis is valid for the generic $`\theta `$-quadrature $`x_\theta =1/2(a^{}e^{i\theta }+ae^{i\theta })`$.
Fig. 1: Schematic diagram of the setup for QND measurements of a field quadrature. The signal is mixed with a squeezed vacuum probe in a beam splitter ($`BS_1`$) of tunable transmittivity $`\tau _1`$. The probe beam is then revealed by homodyne detection, whereas the signal beam is firstly displaced according to the value of the homodyne outcome, and then squeezed according to the transmittivity $`\tau _1`$ (see text). The local oscillator and the pumps for the displacing and squeezing stages are provided by a common laser source.
After the beam splitter, the probe beam is revealed by homodyne detection. Taking into account the reflectivity amplitude of $`BS_1`$, from an outcome $`X`$ from the homodyne we infer a value $`x=X/\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ for the quadrature of the signal beam. The signal is then displaced by an amount $`\alpha ^{}=X\mathrm{tan}\varphi =x\mathrm{tan}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\varphi `$, by feedback of the outcome of the homodyne detector, and finally squeezed by an amount $`r^{}`$ such that $`\mathrm{exp}\{r^{}\}=\sqrt{\tau _1}=\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$. The displacement transformation $`D(\alpha ^{})=\mathrm{exp}\{\alpha ^{}a^{}\overline{\alpha }^{}a\}`$ can be obtained by mixing the signal with a strong pump beam excited in strong coherent state $`|z`$ $`|z|\mathrm{}`$ (which may be by the local oscillator of the homodyne detector) in a beam splitter ($`BS_3`$ in the figure) with transmittivity approaching unit value $`\tau _31`$ such that $`\alpha ^{}=z\sqrt{1\tau _3}`$. The squeezing transformation is obtained with a degenerate optical parametric amplifier (DOPA), where the pump mode is again provided by the common laser source providing the homodyne LO. Since the cosine is smaller than one, $`r^{}`$ is negative, and this means that we are squeezing the signal in a direction orthogonal to the quadrature we are going to measure.

The probability density for the inferred values of the signal quadrature is given by

$`p(x)=\mathrm{sin}\varphi q(X)=\mathrm{tan}\varphi {\displaystyle 𝑑y|\psi _\mathrm{s}(y)|^2\left|\psi _\mathrm{p}\left[\mathrm{tan}\varphi (yx_0)\right]\right|^2},`$ (1)
where $`q(X)=\text{Tr}[|\psi _\mathrm{s},\psi _\mathrm{p}\psi _\mathrm{p},\psi _\mathrm{s}|I|XX|]`$ is the probability density for the homodyne outcomes, and $`\psi _j(x),j=\mathrm{s},\mathrm{p}`$ are the signal and probe wave-functions in the quadrature representation, i.e. $`|\psi _j=𝑑x\psi _j(x)|x`$. The conditional output state, after having inferred the value $`x`$ for the signal quadrature, is given by

$`|\psi _x=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{p(x)}}}S(r^{})D(\alpha ^{})x\mathrm{sin}\varphi |V_\varphi |\psi _\mathrm{s},\psi _\mathrm{p},`$ (2)
where $`V_\varphi =\mathrm{exp}\{i\varphi (a^{}b+b^{}a)\}`$ is the evolution operator of the beam splitter $`BS_1`$. For a probe mode excited in a squeezed vacuum we have $`\psi _\mathrm{p}(x)=(2\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }^2)^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{x^2}{4\sigma _\mathrm{p}^2}\}`$, where the variance is given by $`\sigma _\mathrm{p}^2=1/4\mathrm{exp}\{\pm 2r\}`$ according to the direction of squeezing. We refer to as a squeezed probe for the minus sign (squeezing in the direction of the quadrature to be measured) and to as an antisqueezed probe for the plus sign (squeezing in the orthogonal direction). The average number of photons carried by the probe is given by $`N_\mathrm{p}=\mathrm{sinh}^2r`$ in either cases. After minor algebra we get

$`p(x)`$ $`=`$ $`|\psi _\mathrm{s}(y)|^2G(y,x,\sigma _\mathrm{p}^2/\mathrm{tan}^2\varphi )`$ (3)
$`|\psi _x(y)|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p(x)}}|\psi _\mathrm{s}(y)|^2G(y,x,\sigma _\mathrm{p}^2/\mathrm{tan}^2\varphi ),`$ (4)
where $``$ denotes convolution and $`G(y;x,\sigma ^2)`$ a Gaussian of mean $`x`$ and variance $`\sigma ^2`$.

For $`\sigma _\mathrm{p}^2/\mathrm{tan}^2\varphi 0`$ i.e. either for strongly squeezed probe or for an almost transparent $`BS_1`$ we have $`p(x)|\psi _\mathrm{s}(x)|^2`$ and $`|\psi _x(y)|^2\delta (yx)`$, which means that we are approaching a projective VN measurement of the quadrature. On the other hand, for $`\sigma _\mathrm{p}^2/\mathrm{tan}^2\varphi \mathrm{}`$ (strongly antisqueezed probe or an almost opaque $`BS_1`$) we may write $`p(x)`$ as a very broad Gaussian, and we have $`|\psi _x(y)|^2|\psi _\mathrm{s}(y)|^2`$, that is we are approaching a non-informative blind quantum repeater. By tuning either the probe squeezing parameter or the transmittivity of $`BS_1`$ we may also realize the whole class of intermediate QND measurements of the quadrature.

For Gaussian signals the two fidelities $`F`$ and $`G`$, which measure that state disturbance and the information gain respectively, may be easily evaluated in terms of the single variable $`x=\sigma _\mathrm{p}/(\sigma _\mathrm{s}\mathrm{tan}\varphi )`$, $`\sigma _\mathrm{s}^2`$ being the variance of the signal’ wave-function. We have

$$F=\frac{\sqrt{2}x}{\sqrt{1+2x^2}}\text{and}G=2\frac{\sqrt{1+x^2}}{2+x^2}.$$

Of course we have $`F0`$ and $`G1`$ for $`x0`$, and vice-versa for $`x\mathrm{}`$. However, in general the quantity $`F+G`$ is not constant, and this means that by varying the squeezing of the probe we obtain different trade-off between information gain and state disturbance. An optimal choice of the probe, corresponding to maximum information and minimum disturbance, maximizes $`F+G`$. The maximum is achieved for $`xx_\mathrm{m}1.2`$, corresponding to fidelities $`F[x_\mathrm{m}]86\%`$ and $`G[x_\mathrm{m}]91\%`$. Notice that for a chosen signal, the optimization of the QND measurement can be achieved by tuning the internal phase-shift of the interferometer, without the need of varying the squeezing of the probe. For a nearly balanced interferometer we have $`\mathrm{tan}\varphi 1`$: in this case the optimal choice for the probe is a state slightly anti-squeezed with respect to the signal, i.e. $`\sigma _\mathrm{p}1.2\sigma _\mathrm{s}`$. Finally, the fidelities are equal for $`xx_\mathrm{e}1.3`$, corresponding to $`F[x_\mathrm{e}]=G[x_\mathrm{e}]88\%`$. For non Gaussian signals the behavior is similar though no simple analytical form can be obtained for the fidelities. In this case, in order to find the optimal QND measurement, one should resort to numerical means.

## 4 Conclusions

In conclusions, we have suggested a novel scheme assisted by squeezing and linear feedback to realize an arbitrary QND measurement of a field quadrature. Compared to previous QND proposals  the main features of our setup can be summarized as follows: i) it involves only linear coupling between signal and probe, ii) only single mode transformations on the conditional output are needed.

The present setup permits, in principle, to achieve both a projective and a fully non-destructive quantum measurement of a field quadrature. In practice, however, the physical constraints on the maximum amount of energy that can be impinged into the optical channels pose limitations to the precision of the measurements. This agrees with the facts that both an exact repeatable measurement and a perfect state preparation cannot be realized for observables with continuous spectrum .

Compared to a vacuum probe, the squeezed/anti-squeezed meters suggested in this paper provide a consistent noise reduction in the desired fidelity figure already for moderate input probe energy. In addition, by varying the squeezing of the probe an optimal QND measure can be achieved, which provides the maximum information about the quadrature distribution of the signal, while keeping the conditional output state as close as possible to the incoming signal.

In order to tune the setup and achieve the whole class of QND measurements we have two independent parameters at disposal: the probe squeezing parameter and the transmittivity of $`BS_1`$. This is a another relevant feature of the scheme, since a too large squeezing would increase too much the energy impinged into the apparatus, whereas a tuning based only on the transmittivity would largely affect the detection rate.

## Acknowledgments

This work has been cosponsored by the INFM through the project PRA-2002-CLON, and by EEC through the TMR project IST-2000-29681 (ATESIT).