text:
# Continuous measurement with traveling wave probes

## I  Introduction

Current research to create quantum information processors has forced a reëxamination of the underlying description of these devices. In order for us to gain information about quantum systems they must be measured. Whereas the standard picture of such measurements involves the “collapse of the wave function” following Von Neumann’s projection postulate, such strongly measuring probes are rarely implemented in the laboratory. More typically, a continuous probe interacts with the system which is then detected as a macroscopic signal. Examples include the probing of a quantum dot with a single electron transistor (SET) Devoret2000  and the measurement of the position of a micro-mechanical cantilever by monitoring the modulation of a reflected laser beam Milburn1994 . The formalism of quantum mechanics provides a number of different approaches for analyzing such situations. Scattering theory employs Green’s function input-output relations to describe the evolution of the probe asymptotically, both before and after its interaction with the system under examination. Alternatively, the theory of quantum trajectories Carmichael1993  provides a dynamical description of the quantum system being measured, conditioned on the continuous information being collected via the probe. As laboratory developments give us access to the control and manipulation of quantum systems these descriptions become ever more relevant. The quantum trajectory approach has the advantage of directly tying the dynamics of the system’s evolution to the measurement record. The ability to do this is essential when implementing adaptive measurement and control strategies employing feedback Wiseman1994 ; Doherty1999 ; Smith2002 ; Morrow2002 .

The standard paradigm for continuous measurement is cavity QED. The dynamics of a cavity mode of the electromagnetic field (perhaps coupled to an atom) are monitored by a partially transmitting mirror Mabuchi1999 ; Foster2000 . Input-output scattering theory, suited specifically to the language of optical elements Gardiner1985 , is used to connect the intracavity dynamics with those of the traveling signal. In order to translate the typically discrete information of the individually transmitted photons into continuous information one considers a homodyne or heterodyne measurement, in which the signal is mixed with a macroscopic local oscillator. The result is a stochastic Schrödinger equation which describes both the localization of the quantum state conditioned on the measurement and also the effect of quantum “back-action noise” Gardiner2000 .

In many applications, there is no confining cavity to set the interaction strength between the system under observation and the probe. Though a “quantization volume” may be employed as a calculational tool, its imagined characteristics should not determine physically relevant quantities. For example, Milburn et al. Milburn1994  modelled continuous observation of a moving cantilever monitored by the modulation of a reflected laser beam. They considered the cantilever to be a mirror, which, partnered with an imagined partially transmitting surface, formed a leaky optical cavity. Under the assumption that the transmission rate of light through the fictitious mirror is much faster than the characteristic rate at which the cantilever moves, the cavity could be adiabatically eliminated from the dynamics. This led to a stochastic Schrödinger equation for the continuously observed cantilever alone. The unphysical quantization volume, however, still appeared implicitly in this equation.

The key parameter that characterizes the dynamics of a continuously observed system is the “measurement strength”, which we will denote $`\kappa `$. It determines the rate at which information is gathered about the system and consequently sets the scale at which effects such as quantum back-action become significant. For example, Bhattacharya et al. Bhattacharya2000  have shown that for sufficiently macroscopic systems there is a window of values for $`\kappa `$ such that continuous observation can localize the probability distribution to a quantum trajectory that faithfully tracks the classically predicted trajectory, with minimal quantum noise. Another example is the continuous measurement of ensembles of atoms, controlled through their collective interaction with a common probe, to produce nonclassical spin squeezed states Kuzmich2000 ; Julsgaard2001 . These effects depend crucially on $`\kappa `$ and its relation to the other rates governing the system dynamics.

In this article we formulate the problem of continuous measurement by a traveling wave probe. We derive a master equation describing the situation in which the system is monitored by the probe, but the measurement result is not recorded. This allows us to to identify the important characteristic scales of the problem without reference to a particular measurement scheme. We begin in Sec. II by establishing the necessary formalism for treating propagating fields in quantum optics, in contrast to the more familiar closed cavity problems. We apply this formalism in Sec. III to the fundamental problem of a two-level atom interacting with a resonant laser field. When the field is treated classically this leads to Rabi flopping, but when treated quantum mechanically the laser not only manipulates the atom but also acts to continuously measure it. We determine the rate at which the measurement back-action leads to decoherence in the atomic system. This is contrasted with the evolution when the atom is coupled to a resonant electromagentic pulse with a fixed photon number $`n`$. In particular, we explore the circumstances under which we can recover the usual Jaynes-Cummings solution for a two-level atom coupled to a single mode Scully1997  and show how the behavior for a single photon diverges from this solution. In Sec. IV we consider continuous measurement of an atomic spin through the Faraday rotation of an off-resonant laser field. This process has been used to generate spin-squeezed states in atomic ensembles Kuzmich2000 ; Julsgaard2001 . We conclude and summarize our results in Sec. V.

## II  Quantum description of propagating fields

Classically, when considering quasimonochromatic propagating fields, it is natural to model the evolution of the system as a function of the propagation direction, $`z`$. The field at $`z`$ can then be decomposed into a complete set of orthonormal temporal modes which act locally. One might be tempted to describe the quantum fields in an analogous manner by quantizing the temporal modes at fixed position, $`[\widehat{a}(t),\widehat{a}^{}(t^{})]=\delta (tt^{})`$. The field operator could then be decomposed into a complete set of orthonormal mode functions, $`\varphi _i(t)`$, so that $`\widehat{a}(t)=_i\varphi _i(t)\widehat{c}_i`$, with $`[\widehat{c}_i,\widehat{c}_j^{}]=\delta _{ij}`$. Boundary conditions at some initial plane could then used to restrict the mode content, possibly to a single temporal mode.

This approach was taken by van Enk and Kimble vanEnk2001a  and also by Gea-Banacloche Banacloche2002  who considered an analogous problem to the one we address here . They studied how errors were generated in quantum logic operations due to the fact that control pulses are not truly classical and can become entangled with the atoms with which they are interacting. Their analysis led to an effective single temporal mode theory. Though some of their conclusions are correct, one must take great care to understand the regimes under which this formalism is applicable. Consider, for example, a single photon pulse interacting with a localized two-level atom. Let us suppose that the duration of the pulse is short compared to the natural lifetime of the atom in its excited state but sufficiently long to be considered quasimonochromatic and on resonance. Defining creation and annihilation operators for the single temporal mode associated with this pulse, the Hamiltonian, in the rotating wave approximation, appears to have the familiar Jaynes-Cummings form,

$$\widehat{H}=\mathrm{}g\left(\widehat{a}\widehat{\sigma }_++\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{\sigma }_{}\right),$$
(1)
where $`\widehat{\sigma }_\pm `$ are the usual raising and lowering operators associated with the two-state atom. Given the atom initially in its ground state, the solution leads to quantum Rabi oscillations,

$$|\psi (t)=\mathrm{cos}(gt)|g|1i\mathrm{sin}(gt)|e|0.$$
(2)
This falsely predicts the possibility of a single photon $`2\pi `$-pulse in free space, whereby the photon is perfectly absorbed and then reëmitted into the original mode. In reality once the atom has absorbed the photon it will reëmit into a mode consistent with its radiation pattern, not into the initial packet mode. That is, the single photon will be scattered. This emission must also obey causality; no information about the emitted photon can register on a distant detector at a space-like separated point. In the solution above, however, the atom both absorbs from and emits into a spatially delocalized photon mode in free space, violating causality.

The problems with causality arise from the faulty quantization procedure outlined above. Quantum fields must be defined over all space at an initial time (more generally on an initial space-like surface). Unitarity then ensures that equal-time, not equal-space, commutation relations are preserved. Nonequal-time commutation relations cannot generally satisfy the canonical commutation relations, being inconsistent with Poincaré invariance Bjorken . The exception is for free fields, or fields that behave like them (e.g. fields traveling through matter whose response is approximately linear, or asymptotic “in” and “out” fields as used in scattering theory).

We review here a formalism appropriate for treating the quantum optics of paraxial propagating fields Deutsch1991a . Consider a quasimonochromatic paraxial beam with frequency $`\omega _0`$ and wave number $`k_0`$. We write the positive frequency component,

$$E^{(+)}(𝐱,t)=(z,t)\varphi _T(x,y)e^{i(k_0z\omega _0t)},$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{exp}[i(k_0z\omega _0t)]`$ is the “carrier wave”, $`\varphi _T(x,y)`$ is the “transverse mode” (e.g. Gaussian), and $`(z,t)`$ is the slowly varying envelope, meaning its spatio-temporal variation is much slower than the carrier wavelength/frequency. We have ignored both diffraction and the vector nature of the field. It is easy to show that the free space wave equation becomes,

$$\left(\frac{}{t}+c\frac{}{z}\right)(z,t)=0$$
(4)
for the envelope, whose solution is $`(z,t)=(zct,0)`$, i.e. propagation of the pulse envelope. We quantize by replacing the field envelope with a scaled operator,

$$(z,t)\sqrt{2\pi \mathrm{}\omega _0}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}(z,t),$$
(5)
which satisfies the canonical equal-time commutation relation Deutsch1991a ,

$$[\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}(z,t),\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}(z^{},t)]=\delta (zz^{}).$$
(6)
This commutator is equivalent to that of a nonrelativistic massive Bose gas in one dimension. Here the carrier wave plays the role of the rest mass and the slowly varying envelope plays the role of small fluctuations around the mass shell. The free field Hamiltonian (removing the carrier wave energy) takes the form,

$$\widehat{H}_F=c𝑑z\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}(z)\left(i\mathrm{}\frac{}{z}\right)\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}(z),$$
(7)
whose Heisenberg equation of motion gives the wave equation above. This Hamiltonian is nothing but the second quantized version of the energy of a photon $`E=cp`$.

Consider an atom interacting with the field. In the electric-dipole and rotating wave approximation the interaction Hamiltonian is,

$$\widehat{H}_{AF}=d^3x\left|\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐱)\right|^2d\left(\widehat{E}^{(+)}(𝐱)\widehat{\sigma }_++\widehat{E}^{()}(𝐱)\widehat{\sigma }_{}\right),$$
(8)
where $`d`$ is the dipole matrix element and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐱)`$ is the atom’s center of mass wave function. We take the atom to be trapped, having center of mass wave function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐱)=f_T(x,y)f_L(z)`$ Coherence . Then the interaction Hamiltonian becomes,

$$\widehat{H}_{AF}=d\sqrt{\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}\omega _0}{A}}𝑑z\left|f_L(z)\right|^2\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}(z)\widehat{\sigma }_++\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}(z)\widehat{\sigma }_{}\right)$$

$$\text{where }𝑑x𝑑y\left|f_T(x,y)\right|^2\varphi _T(x,y)\frac{1}{\sqrt{A}},$$
(9)
$`A`$ being the effective area of the mode interacting with the atom. Let us go to the interaction picture by including the free evolution of the atom and field in the interaction Hamiltonian. Assuming the carrier wave is on resonance,

$`\widehat{H}_{AF}(t)=d\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \mathrm{}\omega _0}{A}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑z\left|f_L(z)\right|^2}`$ $`(\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}(zct)\widehat{\sigma }_+`$ (10)
$`+\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}(zct)\widehat{\sigma }_{}).`$
Finally, given a set of orthonormal functions (“ longitudinal modes”) $`\left\{\varphi _i(z)\right\}`$, chosen to be real without loss of generality,

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}(z)=\underset{i}{}\varphi _i(z)\widehat{a}_i,$$
(11)
$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{H}_{AF}(t)=d\sqrt{\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}\omega _0}{A}}\underset{i}{}𝑑z\left|f_L(z)\right|^2\hfill \\ \hfill \varphi _i(zct)\left(\widehat{a}_i\widehat{\sigma }_++\widehat{a}_i^{}\widehat{\sigma }_{}\right).\end{array}$$
(12)
The Hamiltonian in Eq. (12) describes the interaction of each longitudinal mode as it propagates past the atom(Fig. 1). Assuming this time scale is much shorter than any other dynamical scale in the problem, it is appropriate to make the Markov approximation, whereby one coarse grains over the time scale over which the system and reservoir retain “memory”. To this end, we break up the $`z`$-axis into slices of size $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$, each the extent of the atom wave packet (e.g. the rms of the probability density). The Markov approximation will hold if the transit time of the field across the atomic packet, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=\mathrm{\Delta }z/c,`$ is much smaller than any time scale over which the atom changes. This is certainly an excellent approximation. Since we will not consider dynamics on a time scale smaller than $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, we can approximate the set of atomic wavepackets, centered at each coarse grained slice, as a complete orthonormal set. That is, each slice is an approximate delta function. Then normalization of both the atomic wave packet and mode functions combine to give

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑z\left|f_L(z)\right|^2\varphi _i(zct)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }z}}}\mathrm{\Theta }_i(t)`$ (13a)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }_i(t)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & (i1)\mathrm{\Delta }t<ti\mathrm{\Delta }t\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}`$ (13b)
Under this approximation the Hamiltonian takes the form,

$`\widehat{H}_{AF}(t)=\mathrm{}g{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{\Theta }_i(t)\left(\widehat{a}_i\widehat{\sigma }_++\widehat{a}_i^{}\widehat{\sigma }_{}\right)`$ (14)
$`\text{where }\mathrm{}g=dE_{\text{vac}}=d\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \mathrm{}\omega _0}{Ac\mathrm{\Delta }t}}}`$
This result has a clear interpretation. The traveling wave configuration is effectively multimode, with each member of the set being a traveling packet “mode-matched” to the atom. The coupling constant $`g`$ depends on this mode volume. This picture is equivalent to a model of decoherence discussed by Brun Brun2002  in which a “flying qubit” passes over a “system qubit”, the former acting as an irreversible reservoir (through its continuous spatial degrees of freedom) to carry information away from the system, thereby leading to decoherence. In our problem a given harmonic oscillator (mode of the electromagnetic field) flies over the qubit, becomes entangled with it, and then flies away. This too leads to decoherence, as we describe in the next section.

## III  The Rabi interaction for traveling waves

### III.1  Interaction with a laser beam

We consider first the case of a resonant laser beam interacting with a trapped two-level atom. The state of the field is described by a tensor product of identical coherent states for each traveling mode packet,

$$|\psi _{\text{beam}}=\underset{i}{}|\alpha _i,$$
(15)
where the amplitude is given by the mean number of photons in time slice $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, $`\left|\alpha \right|^2=P\mathrm{\Delta }t/(\mathrm{}\omega _0)`$, with $`P`$ the power of the laser beam. More precisely, the state of the beam is a statistical mixture of states of the form above, averaged over the common, but unknown, phase of the complex amplitude $`\alpha `$, as described by van Enk and Fuchs vanEnk2002 . The actual value of the phase plays no role in the analysis to follow, so we choose it to be fixed with no loss of generality. In order to distinguish coherent effects from decoherence we transform by a unitary displacement of the field states to the vacuum,

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }\widehat{D}^1\left(\{\alpha \}\right)|\mathrm{\Psi },\widehat{A}\widehat{D}^1\left(\{\alpha \}\right)\widehat{A}\widehat{D}\left(\{\alpha \}\right).$$
(16)
In this picture,

$`H_{AF}(t)`$ $`=\mathrm{}g\alpha \left(\widehat{\sigma }_++\widehat{\sigma }_{}\right)+\mathrm{}g{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{\Theta }_i(t)\left(\widehat{a}_i\widehat{\sigma }_++\widehat{a}_i^{}\widehat{\sigma }_{}\right)`$
$`=H_{\text{coh}}+H_{\text{AV}}.`$ (17)
The coherent term is classical Rabi flopping at a frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }=2g\alpha =d\sqrt{8\pi I/\mathrm{}^2c}`$, with $`I`$ the beam intensity (cgs units, as used throughout). The second term is the atom-vacuum coupling for the traveling wave modes only (i.e. the paraxial modes of the beam) Itano2002 .

We can now proceed with the standard Markov analysis to derive the Master equation. The initial atom-vacuum state is uncorrelated. After a time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, one of the modes becomes entangled with the atom through the atom-vacuum coupling. The Linblad (“jump”) operator, $`\widehat{L}`$, is defined by Brun2002 ,

$$1\left|\widehat{U}_{\text{AV}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)\right|0=\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Delta }t1\left|\widehat{H}_{\text{AV}}\right|0=\widehat{L}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }t}.$$
(18)
Plugging in the Hamiltonian from Eq. (III.1), we arrive at,

$`\widehat{L}=g\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }t}\widehat{\sigma }_{}=d\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \mathrm{}\omega _0}{Ac}}}\widehat{\sigma }_{}\sqrt{\kappa }\widehat{\sigma }_{}`$ (19)
$`\text{where }\kappa =d^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi k_0}{\mathrm{}A}}\right)=\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{2k_0^2A}}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{\text{eff}}}{A}}\right),`$
is the measurement strength, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the spontaneous emission rate and $`\sigma _{\text{eff}}`$ the effective cross section for scattering out of the paraxial modes. By determining these jump operators, we compactly derive the master equation, equivalent to that obtained using a the usual system-reservoir approach after tracing over the unmeasured bath Scully1997 ; Gardiner2000 ; Preskill1998 ,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{\rho }}{dt}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}[H_{\text{coh}},\widehat{\rho }]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\widehat{L}^{}\widehat{L},\widehat{\rho }\}+\widehat{L}\widehat{\rho }\widehat{L}^{}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}[H_{\text{coh}},\widehat{\rho }]{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}\{\widehat{\sigma }_+\widehat{\sigma }_{},\widehat{\rho }\}+\kappa \widehat{\sigma }_{}\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\sigma }_+.`$ (20)
This equation has a familiar and appealing form. It is none other than the master equation for a decaying laser-driven atom Scully1997 , but with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\kappa `$. The decay rate is due to the entanglement between the atom and the laser modes. Note, $`\kappa `$ is independent of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, which acts as a fictitious “quantization volume” and so must be absent from any physical quantities such as the measurement strength.

The measurement strength is also independent of the laser power $`|\alpha |^2`$. In particular we may turn off the laser ($`\alpha 0`$), and the measurement strength will remain the same. The ratio $`\kappa /\mathrm{\Gamma }=\sigma _{\text{eff}}/A`$ may thus be interpreted as the fraction of spontaneous emission into the paraxial modes. In support of this interpretation note that the mode area $`A`$ can never be made smaller than the diffraction limit $`A1/k_0^2`$, so at most $`\kappa \mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Moreover, once the beam becomes focused to such a small spot size, one can no longer neglect the vector nature of the atom field coupling which further decreases the measurement strength vanEnk2001b .

From Eq. (19) we can determine how continuous measurement by the laser beam acts to decohere the atom. For a paraxial beam we require that $`\sigma _{\text{eff}}/A1`$, so that diffraction effects are minor. Then decay due to entanglement with the laser modes is small compared to decay due to spontaneous emission into $`4\pi `$ steradians. In agreement with the conclusions of vanEnk2001a ; Banacloche2002 , errors in coherent control pulses due to the quantum nature of the interaction can be neglected if spontaneous emission is also negligible during the duration of the interaction.

### III.2  Interaction with a single photon

In Sec. II we showed how a quantization procedure in terms of nonequal-time commutators can lead to a false prediction of single photon coherent Rabi flopping in free space. In this subsection we use our formalism to show how a quasimonochromatic and paraxial propagating single photon wave packet drives a two-level atom.

We take the initial state of the system to be a single photon wave packet with the atom in its ground state,

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=\widehat{a}^{}[f]|\text{vac}|g_\text{A}.$$
(21)
The operator $`\widehat{a}^{}[f]=𝑑z\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}(z)f(z)`$ creates a delocalized single photon state with slowly varying pulse envelope $`f(z)`$ Deutsch1991b . For simplicity we use a square pulse of duration $`\tau =N\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. In this case we can expand $`f(z)`$ in a symmetric sum of coarse-grained modes each having length $`\mathrm{\Delta }z=\mathrm{\Delta }t/c`$,

$$\widehat{a}^{}[f]=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{i=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\widehat{a}_i^{}.$$
(22)
The state will evolve according to the Hamiltonian in Eq. (14) which commutes with the total number of excitations in the system. Neglecting, for now, the possibility of spontaneous emission into other transverse field modes, the total number of excitations will be preserved. The state at all times must then have the form

$$|\psi (t)=\left(\underset{j}{}A_j(t)\widehat{a}_j^{}+A_e(t)\widehat{\sigma }_+\right)|\text{vac},g.$$
(23)
Consider the evolution of the system over the short interval $`(t_k,t_k+\mathrm{\Delta }t]`$, where $`t_k=k\mathrm{\Delta }t,0kN1`$. We can define a map for the state between two successive time steps,

$$|\psi (t_k)=e^{i\widehat{H}_k\mathrm{\Delta }t/\mathrm{}}|\psi (t_{k1}),$$
(24)
where $`\widehat{H}_k=\mathrm{}g\left(\widehat{a}_k\widehat{\sigma }_++\widehat{a}_k^{}\widehat{\sigma }_{}\right).`$ Using ansatz (23) we are led to the recursion relations,

$`A_{jk}(t_k)`$ $`=A_j(t_{k1}),`$ (25a)
$`A_k(t_k)`$ $`=A_k(t_{k1})ciA_e(t_{k1})s,`$ (25b)
$`A_e(t_k)`$ $`=A_e(t_{k1})ciA_k(t_{k1})s.`$ (25c)
Here $`s\mathrm{sin}\sqrt{\kappa \mathrm{\Delta }t}`$ and $`c\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{\kappa \mathrm{\Delta }t}`$. The measurement strength $`\kappa =g\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }t}`$ is the same as in Eq. (19).

These coupled algebraic equations can be solved for the amplitudes. Repeated application of the Eq. (25a) at all times $`t_k<t_j`$, shows that $`A_k(t_{k1})=A_k(0)=N^{1/2}`$. Inserting this result into Eq. (25c),

$$A_e(t_k)=A_e(t_{k1})c\frac{is}{\sqrt{N}}.$$
(26)
This equation admits a simple series solution,

$$A_e(t_k)=\frac{is}{\sqrt{N}}\frac{1c^k}{1c}.$$
(27)
Assuming $`\sqrt{N}1`$, i.e. the envelope $`f(z)`$ is much broader than the coarse graining, we may take the limit of $`A_e(t)`$ as $`N\mathrm{}`$ holding $`\tau =N\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. This yields,

$$A_e(t)\frac{2i}{\sqrt{\kappa \tau }}\left[1e^{\kappa t/2}\right].$$
(28)
The solution given in Eq. (28) is based on the fundamental assumption that the evolution of the state is unitary, i.e. we consider a closed quantum system consisting of the atom and paraxial field modes. In the continuum limit, this yields an effective decay due to emission into the included paraxial modes at rate $`\kappa `$, but it excludes decay into all others modes which, taken together, give a total spontaneous emission rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Since we showed in Sec. (III.1) that $`\kappa \mathrm{\Gamma }`$, this solution is not self-consistent. To rectify this, during the time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ we must allow for a small probability of spontaneous emission, $`P_{\text{spont}}`$, into non-paraxial modes. By not including these modes in our system, the state ket $`|\psi `$ evolves according to an effective non-Hermitian Hamiltonian Gardiner2000  with decaying norm, $`\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }=1P_{\text{spon}}`$. Eq. (25c) then reads,

$$A_e(t_k)=A_e(t_{k1})ce^{\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }t/2}iA_k(t_{k1})s,$$
(29)
where $`\gamma `$ is the spontaneous emission into all non-paraxial modes. Employing the initial condition and taking the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }t0,N\mathrm{\Delta }t=\tau `$ yields,

$$\frac{d}{dt}A_e(t)=\frac{1}{2}(\gamma +\kappa )A_e(t)i\sqrt{\frac{\kappa }{\tau }}.$$
(30)
Solving this equation with $`\gamma =0`$, using the initial condition $`A_e(0)=0`$, will give the same result as in Eq. (28).

Before considering the solution to this differential equation, consider the slightly altered situation in which the field starts in the vacuum state, and the atom in the excited state. In this case it is easy to see that the second term on the right side of Eq. (30) will vanish. Then the equation becomes,

$$\frac{d}{dt}A_e(t)=\frac{1}{2}(\gamma +\kappa )A_e(t),$$
(31)
with the initial condition $`A_e(0)=1`$. This must give the standard exponential decay due to spontaneous emission in the vacuum

$$A_e(t)=e^{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }t}.$$
(32)
This allows us to equate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\gamma +\kappa `$, where $`\kappa `$ is again seen to be the spontaneous emission rate due to the contribution of the modes in the paraxial beam.

The general solution to Eq. (30) is,

$$A_e(t)=\frac{2i}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\sqrt{\frac{\kappa }{\tau }}\left(1e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t/2}\right),$$
(33)
holding for times $`0t\tau `$. The probability of the atom being in the excited state is then,

$$P_e(t)=4\frac{\kappa }{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\tau }\left(1e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t/2}\right)^2,$$
(34)
during the same interval. This is a monotonically increasing function of $`t`$, and so achieves its maximum at the upper limit $`t=\tau `$, after which the excitation probability can only decay(Fig. 2). Then the maximum probability for any $`\tau `$ can be found by solving,

$$\frac{d}{d\tau }P_e(\tau )=0\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau 2.5.$$
(35)
At this point the probability is $`P_e.8\kappa /\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, which is necessarily less than 1 given that $`\kappa /\mathrm{\Gamma }<1`$ as previously discussed. Thus, in the paraxial approxiamtion, no single photon pulse can be constructed that excites an atom with certainty.

This result is, of course, not surprising. Symmetry ensures that the only single photon pulse capable of exciting an atom with unit probability is the time reversal of a spontaneously emitted packet Chan2002 . Such a pulse represents the vector spherical harmonic associated with the atomic radiation pattern (assuming emission on a transition with well defined angular momentum), a field not captured in the scalar paraxial approximation. Moreover, even including the vector nature of the field beyond paraxial will not be sufficient to yield high excitation probability. The field must be well “mode matched” to the the atom’s radiation pattern to give strong coupling between the atom and a single photon in free space vanEnk2001b .

### III.3 Interaction with a large $`n`$-Photon Fock Pulse

In the last subsection we showed that in free space the coupling of a single photon to an atom will not lead to coherent Rabi oscillations. In contrast, for an $`n`$-photon Fock state with a large $`n`$, we expect the system to be dominated by stimulated emission. A rigorous treatment of this probem using the Bethe-Ansatz was given by V. I. Rupasov and V. I. Yudson Rupasov1984 . We show here how this phenomenon is recovered simply in the present formalism.

In general, an arbitrary division may be envisioned in Hilbert space that separates system from reservoir. In Sec. II the system was chosen to be the paraxial field modes plus the atom. Alternatively we may take the system to consist of the atom interacting with the single pulse mode defined by creation operator $`\widehat{a}^{}[f]`$ in Eq. (22), with all other modes making up the environment. Such a choice can always be made, and cannot change the physics. We may then choose to ignore all environmental modes if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau 1`$, with the caveat that any effects that occur in the system must be have scales much larger than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau `$ in order to be considered valid.

Consider a pulse of length $`\tau `$ such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau 1`$. Further, take the state of the system to only have excitations in this pulse mode such that,

$$|\psi (0)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}!}\left(\widehat{a}^{}[f]\right)^n|0,g=|n,g.$$
(36)
The rest of the modes are in the vacuum state and are treated as an environment. Ignoring terms of order $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau `$ the system evolves under the single mode Hamiltonian

$$\widehat{H}=\mathrm{}g_{\text{eff}}\left(\widehat{a}[f]\widehat{\sigma }_++\widehat{a}^{}[f]\widehat{\sigma }_{}\right),$$
(37)
This is none other that the Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian restricted to an initial manifold with $`n`$ excitations and having effective coupling constant $`\mathrm{}g_{\text{eff}}=d\sqrt{2\pi \mathrm{}\omega _0/V_{\text{pulse}}}`$ , where $`V_{\text{pulse}}=Ac\tau `$ is the pulse volume. The system undergoes the familiar coherent Rabi flopping within the two dimensional manifold, as in Eq. (2),

$$|\psi (t)=\mathrm{cos}(g_{\text{eff}}\sqrt{n}t)|g|ni\mathrm{sin}(g_{\text{eff}}\sqrt{n}t)|e|n1.$$
(38)
This solution applies to the single photon case as well. The probability amplitude from Eq. (33) limits to,

$$A_e(t)ig_{\text{eff}}t\left(1+O(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)\right),$$
(39)
which is the correct limit of sinusoidal Rabi oscillation. However during the pulse duration not even a single oscillation can occur since $`g_{\text{eff}}=\sqrt{\kappa /\tau }1/\tau `$ . Thus, for true oscillations to occur, one must have

$$g_{\text{eff}}\sqrt{n}\frac{1}{\tau }\text{or}n\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau \frac{A}{\sigma _{\text{eff}}}.$$
(40)
The last inequality can be interpreted as saying that the mean number of photons emitted via stimulated emission into the pulse must dominate over spontaneous emission, even when the spontaneous photons are paraxial. When these conditions hold we may consistently ignore all initially unoccupied modes, yet still recover dynamics in agreement with the usual Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian. The multimode description of the field becomes superfluous.

Finally, what is the measurement strength associated with probing an atom using a large photon number Fock state pulse? Unlike the coherent state case, the field does not factorize into uncorrelated temporal slices. In fact, when viewed in terms of the coarse grained modes, the Fock pulse in highly entangled. Detection of photons at the leading edge of the pulse will introduce new fluctuations in the trailing edge, which has yet to interact with the atom. This implies that the usual Markov approximations do not hold. The Fock pulse is most naturally treated as part of the “system” rather than an “environment” which continuously carries information away from the atom.

## IV  QND Measurement via Faraday Polarization Spectroscopy

The resonant interaction considered up to this point, though fundamental in nature, has little practical application to the problem of continuous measurement in free space since the measurement strength is always bounded from above by the spontaneous emission rate. We thus turn our attention to an off-resonant interaction. In particular, we consider the problem of measuring a spin component of an atom through the Faraday effect wherein the linear polarization of a probe laser rotates by an amount proportional to the magnetization of the sample. This interaction provides for a “quantum nondemolition measurement” (QND) of the atom, i.e. the probe measures an observable (here the atomic spin along the laser propagation direction) without perturbing that observable Kuzmich1998 ; Takahashi1999 . Such an interaction has been applied to ensembles of atoms to produce spin squeezed states Kuzmich2000  and to demonstrate entanglement between two spatially separated ensembles Julsgaard2001 .

We review here the basic physics associated with this measurement scheme. The interaction energy is that of an electric-polarizable particle in a vector field whose Hamiltonian may be written as,

$$\widehat{H}_{\text{int}}=\widehat{𝐄}^{()}\widehat{\stackrel{}{\alpha }}\widehat{𝐄}^{(+)},$$
(41)
where $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{\alpha }}`$ is the atomic polarizability tensor and $`𝐄`$ is the complex electric field amplitude. Expressing this equation in terms of irreducible tensor components, the interaction can be decomposed into an effective scalar, vector, and symmetric rank-2 contribution. We consider here the case of alkali atoms probed on the so-called $`D2`$ line $`S_{1/2}P_{3/2}`$, for which the ground state atomic polarizability operator is Deutsch1998

$$\stackrel{}{\alpha }=\alpha _{\text{lin}}\left(\widehat{1}+\frac{1}{2}\left(𝐞_+𝐞_+^{}𝐞_{}𝐞_{}^{}\right)\widehat{\sigma }_z\right).$$
(42)
Here $`𝐞_\pm `$ are the right and left helicity vectors relative to the quantization axis along the probe propagation direction, $`\widehat{\sigma }_z=||||`$ is the Pauli spin operator for the ground state electron, and $`\alpha _{\text{lin}}`$ is the atomic polarizability for fields with linear polarization. This equation has a simple interpretation. The first “scalar term” gives rise to an effect that depends solely on the field intensity whereas the term proportional to $`\widehat{\sigma }_z`$ depends on the field elipticity. Clearly the irreducible rank-2 component vanishes here Happer1967 ; Deutsch1998 ; BiggerF .

Under the paraxial approximation we take the field to be approximately a plane wave with two polarization vectors. The quantum field associated with the complex amplitude is

$$\widehat{𝐄}^{(+)}=\sqrt{\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}\omega }{V}}\left(\widehat{a}_{}𝐞_{}+\widehat{a}_+𝐞_+\right)e^{ikz},$$
(43)
where $`V`$ is the effective quantization volume for the propagating mode. Substituting this into Eq. (41), the quantum Hamiltonian becomes,

$$\widehat{H}_{\text{int}}=\frac{2\pi \alpha _{\text{lin}}}{V}\mathrm{}\omega \left[\left(\widehat{N}_++\widehat{N}_{}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\left(\widehat{N}_+\widehat{N}_{}\right)\widehat{\sigma }_z\right],$$
(44)
where $`\widehat{N}_\pm `$ is the number operator for photons in the positive or negative helicity states. The scalar term gives rise to an overall phase shift (index of refraction) and thus can be absorbed into the free field Hamiltonian. The vector term gives rise to the Faraday effect. Recognizing $`\widehat{J}_z=(\widehat{N}_+\widehat{N}_{})/2`$ as the total field helicity, the effective interaction Hamiltonian takes the QND form,

$$\widehat{H}_{\text{int}}=\frac{2\pi \alpha _{\text{lin}}}{V}\mathrm{}\omega \widehat{J}_z\widehat{\sigma }_z.$$
(45)
Under this Hamiltonian the photon spin becomes correlated with the atom’s magnetic moment and thus the laser polarization may act as a meter for the atomic spin. Since $`\widehat{\sigma }_z`$ also commutes with the system-meter Hamiltonian it is clearly a QND variable Scully1997 .

Our Hamiltonian still contains the undefined quantization volume $`V`$. To rectify this we follow the formalism introduced in Sec. II. Introducing propagating modes of duration $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ so that $`VAc\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ the Hamiltonian becomes,

$$\widehat{H}_{\text{int}}=\underset{i}{}2\frac{\mathrm{}\chi }{\mathrm{\Delta }t}\mathrm{\Theta }_i(t)\widehat{J}_z\widehat{\sigma }_z,$$
(46)
where $`\chi =\pi \alpha _{\text{lin}}\omega /(cA)(\sigma _0/A)[\mathrm{\Gamma }/(2\mathrm{\Delta })]`$. Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the (far)detuning from the atomic resonance with linewidth $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and $`\sigma _0`$ is the on resonance absorption cross-section for linear polarization.

With the Hamiltonian so defined, the evolution of the system may be calculated. The system shall consist of an atom interacting with a laser beam that is linearly polarized in the $`x`$-direction. The initial state of the laser is then,

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{probe}}=_i\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\right|\alpha _{ix}|0_{iy}),$$
(47)
where $`x`$ and $`y`$ label the two orthogonal linear polarization modes. As in Sec. (III.1) $`|\alpha |^2=P\mathrm{\Delta }t/\mathrm{}\omega _0`$, with $`P`$ the power in the beam. Given this initial state for the field, we may define the marginal density operator for the atom alone by tracing over the field at time $`t`$. Since the Hamiltonian (41) only couples the atom to the $`k`$’th field mode in time interval $`(t_k,t_k+\mathrm{\Delta }t]`$, the reduced atomic state evolves during this interval as,

$$\widehat{\rho }(t_k+\mathrm{\Delta }t)=\text{Tr}_k\left[\widehat{U}_i|\alpha _{ix}\alpha |_{ix}|0_{iy}0|_{iy}\widehat{\rho }(t_k)\widehat{U}_i^{}\right].$$
(48)
In the interaction picture the unitary evolution becomes,

$`\widehat{U}_i|\alpha _{ix}|0_{iy}`$ $`=e^{i\chi \widehat{\sigma }_z(\widehat{N}_{+i}\widehat{N}_i)}|\alpha _{ix}|0_{iy},`$
$`=|\alpha \mathrm{cos}(\chi \widehat{\sigma }_z)_{xi}|\alpha \mathrm{sin}(\chi \widehat{\sigma }_z)_{yi}.`$ (49)
This expression should be interpreted in the context of a matrix element, given that atomic operators appear in the labels for the field kets. Clearly, the field and atomic states will generally become entangled by the interaction.

The map in Eq. (48) constitutes a continuous measurement on the field. To see this explicitly, we must expand in powers of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, and since $`|\alpha |^2\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, this is equivalent to an expansion of the state kets in Eq. (49) in powers of $`\alpha `$. In the Fock (photon number) basis we have,

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{U}_i|\alpha _{ix}|0_{iy}(1\frac{|\alpha |^2}{2})\left[\right|0_{xi}|0_{yi}\hfill \\ \hfill +\alpha \mathrm{cos}(\chi \widehat{\sigma }_z)|1_{xi}|0_{yi}\\ \hfill \alpha \mathrm{sin}(\chi \widehat{\sigma }_z)|0_{xi}|1_{yi}]\end{array}$$
(50)
Substituting this back into Eq. (48) one finds,

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{\rho }(t_k+\mathrm{\Delta }t)=\rho (t_k)+|\alpha |^2[\rho (t_k)\hfill \\ \hfill +\mathrm{sin}(\chi \widehat{\sigma }_z)\rho (t_k)\mathrm{sin}(\chi \widehat{\sigma }_z)\\ \hfill +\mathrm{cos}(\chi \widehat{\sigma }_z)\rho (t_k)\mathrm{cos}(\chi \widehat{\sigma }_z)].\end{array}$$
(51)
This form may be further simplified since $`\chi 1`$ for a single atom probed by a far off resonance laser. Taking the limit, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t0`$, and keeping terms to second order in $`\chi `$ gives the master equation,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{\rho }}{dt}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{P\chi ^2}{\mathrm{}\omega _0}}\left[\widehat{\sigma }_z\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\sigma }_z{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\widehat{\sigma }_z^2,\widehat{\rho }\}\right]`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}[\widehat{\sigma }_z,[\widehat{\sigma }_z,\widehat{\rho }]],`$ (52)
where the measurement strength can be easily identified from the familiar Linblad form of the mater equation Gardiner2000  as,

$$\kappa =\frac{P\chi ^2}{\mathrm{}\omega _0},$$
(53)
Note that the steady state solutions to Eq. (IV) are the Dicke states, so this technique provides a QND measurement of spin. This expression was also derived by Thomsen and Wiseman in the context of control of atom-laser coherence Thomsen2002 .

The physics of the continuous measurement under consideration here differs substantially from that of the resonant Jaynes-Cummings interaction studied in Sec. III. Here the measurement strength depends upon the power in the beam, whereas the previous result had no such dependence. For the resonant case, $`\kappa `$ could be explained as arising from those spontaneous photons emitted into paraxial modes. In contrast, the dependence of the QND measurement on the laser power indicates that the measurement strength is due to the coherent redistribution of photons between the polarization modes in a manner depending on the atomic state.

## V  Summary and Discussion

Continuous quantum measurement, once studied only in gedanken experiments, can now be realized in laboratory applications Mabuchi1999 ; Reiner2001 . Such applications utilize the ability to continuously gather information from a probe coupled to a quantum system. The system state then evolves under a stochastic master equation, characterized by the measurement strength. In this article we examined how one may derive the measurement strength for paraxial laser probes in free space by considering two examples.

We considered first the fundamental system of an atom coupled to a laser beam. Classically the atom-laser interaction leads to Rabi flopping which is often used to manipulate coherent superpositions of atomic states. In particular laser control pulses can be used to implement quantum logic gates Wineland1998 . Quantum mechanically continuous measurement of the atom by the quantum laser pulse can lead to entanglement between the system and the probe, inducing errors in logic gate operation. We found that this is not a concern as the measurement strength is bounded from above by the total spontaneous emission rate and can thus be neglected for short interaction times. In fact, the measurement rate may be attributed to spontaneous emission into the paraxial modes, which will always be small compared to emission into $`4\pi `$ steradians with the appropriate vector field. We also studied the distinction between continuous observation by a coherent beam and by a pulse with well defined photon number. In the latter case correlations between the quantum fluctuations at different points in the pulse disallow a clean separation between system and probe. Instead, the entire atom-field system will coherently Rabi flop if the number of photons is sufficiently large. For a single photon, however, we showed that Rabi flopping cannot occur in free space. Such a result is essential lest a distant detector be able to instantly sense the presence of the atom. This highlights the need to treat the propagation of quantum fluctuations in a traveling wave geometry with great care to avoid contradictions with causality.

Another mechanism allowing for continuous measurement of an atom is the Faraday rotation of an off-resonant polarized beam, induced by the atom’s magnetic moment. This interaction produces a QND measurement of the atomic spin. The measurement is due to stimulated redistribution of photons between pairs of occupied modes, in contrast to the resonant Rabi interaction where measurement results from spontaneous emission. Since the measurement strength is proportional to the laser intensity it can be made much larger than the spontaneous emission rate. Of course spontaneous emission is not the only source of noise. In order to see the effects of quantum back-action the quantum “projection” noise Itano1993  must be large compared all other noise sources, such as those due to photo-detection. This implies that an experiment in which the back-action is important must enhance the coupling constant without increasing the shot-noise, possibly through the use of an optical cavity or by maintaining a large ensemble of atoms collectively coupled to the probe. The latter approach has led to the observation of spin squeezing Kuzmich2000  and ensemble entanglement Julsgaard2001 . In such a situation it would be interesting to understand the effective measurement strength by the probe on any one member of the ensemble. Exploring this question will require us to consider how quantum correlations are shared within a multipartite system interacting with a probe. We plan to address this question in future work.

###### Acknowledgements.

IHD acknowledges extremely useful discussions about the problem of single photon Rabi flopping with Ken Brown, Bill Wootters, and David DiVincenzo while in residence at the IPT, Fall 2001, with support from the ITP’s NSF Grant No. PHY99-07949. We thank also Poul Jessen for discussions relating to quantum projection noise and measurement back-action. IHD and AS were supported under the auspices of NSF Grant No. PHY-009569 and the ONR Grant No. N00014-00-1-057.


format: text

text:
# Antimatter regions in the baryon-dominated Universe

## 1 Introduction

The whole set of astrophysical observations $`^\mathrm{?}`$ prefers that our Universe be globally matter/antimatter asymmetrical. This statement comes mostly from the fact that equal amounts of matter and antimatter domains, coexisting with each other, would annihilate on their borders, consequently disturbing the observed diffused $`\gamma `$-ray background $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. A closed contact of coexisting matter and antimatter at the early epochs is almost unavoidable $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The $`\gamma `$-ray flux at $`100`$ MeV range caused by this kind of annihilation would be below the observable one only in the case when the characteristic size of domains exceeds $`10^3`$ Mpc $`^\mathrm{?}`$. This fact requires baryon domination over the whole volume of the Universe.

However, the above mentioned arguments cannot exclude the Universe composed almost entirely of matter, with relatively small insertions of antimatter regions. The fate of such antimatter regions depends on their size. If the physical size of some of them is larger than the critical surviving size $`L_c=8h^2`$ kpc $`^\mathrm{?}`$, they survive annihilation with surrounding matter. It is very likely that the dense fraction of the antimatter domains out of the preserved population evolve into condensed antimatter astrophysical objects $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

In this report we consider the model of inhomogeneous baryogenesis $`^\mathrm{?}`$ based on the inflationary evolution of the baryon charged scalar field. This scenario makes it reasonable to discuss the existence of an antistar globular cluster (GC) in our Galaxy, preventing at the same time large-scale isocurvature fluctuations, which could be imprinted into CMB anisotropy. The main experimental signature of the discussed scenario is indicated in the expected fluxes of $`\overline{{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}}`$ and $`\overline{{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}}`$, which are accessible for the sensitivity of AMS–02 detector $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

## 2 Scenario of inhomogeneous baryogenesis with antimatter generation

Our approach $`^\mathrm{?}`$ is based on the spontaneous baryogenesis mechanism $`^\mathrm{?}`$, which implies the existence of a complex scalar field $`\chi =(f/\sqrt{2})\mathrm{exp}(\theta )`$ carrying the baryonic charge. The $`U(1)`$ symmetry, which corresponds to the baryon charge, is broken spontaneously and explicitly. The explicit breakdown of $`U(1)`$ symmetry is caused by the phase-dependent term

$$V(\theta )=\mathrm{\Lambda }^4(1\mathrm{cos}\theta ),$$
(1)
which results in the pseudo Nambu–Goldstone (PNG) potential of Fig. 1. The possible lepton-number violating interaction of the field $`\chi `$ with matter fields can have the following structure $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$

$$=g\chi \overline{Q}L+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(2)
where fields $`Q`$ and $`L`$ represent a heavy quark and lepton, coupled to the ordinary matter fields. In the early Universe, at a time when the friction term, induced by the Hubble constant, becomes comparable with the angular mass $`m_\theta =\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{f}`$, the phase $`\theta `$ starts to oscillate around the minima of the PNG potential and decays into matter fields according to (2). The coupling (2) gives rise to the following $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$: as the phase starts to roll down in the clockwise direction during the first oscillation (Fig. 1), it preferentially creates baryons over antibaryons, while the opposite is true as it starts to roll down in the opposite direction. The baryon/antibaryon number, created in these oscillations, is given by $`^\mathrm{?}`$

$$N_{B(\overline{B})}\frac{g^2f^2m_\theta }{8\pi ^2}𝒲_{\theta _i}\theta _i^2\underset{\theta _i/2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\omega \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\omega }{\omega ^2},$$
(3)
where $`𝒲_{\theta _i}`$ is the volume, in which the phase has the value $`\theta _i`$. Thus, the distribution of the resulting baryon charge reflects the primordial distribution of the phase $`\theta `$ in the early Universe.

We suppose $`^\mathrm{?}`$ that the radial mass $`m_\chi `$ of the field $`\chi `$ is larger than the Hubble constant $`H_{infl}`$ during inflation, while for the angular mass of $`\chi `$ just the opposite condition, $`m_\theta H_{infl}`$, is satisfied in that period. Thus $`U(1)`$ symmetry is already broken spontaneously on the energy scale $`f`$ at the beginning of inflation, whereas the phase $`\theta `$ behaves like a massless scalar field. This means that the quantum fluctuations of $`\theta `$ at the de Sitter background $`^\mathrm{?}`$ will define the primordial phase distribution in the early Universe. Thus to have a globally baryon-dominated Universe one must have the phase sited in the range $`[\pi ,0]`$ (Fig. 1), just at the beginning of inflation aaaWe put the duration of the inflation period to 60 e-folds. (when the size of the modern Universe crosses the horizon). Then quantum fluctuations in some regions move the phase to the values $`\overline{\theta }_i`$ in the range $`[0,\pi ]`$ (Fig. 1, right panel) where a successive antibaryon excess gets produced. If a domain with $`\overline{\theta }_i`$ leaves the horizon $`H_{infl}^1`$ before the 45th e-fold $`^\mathrm{?}`$, it becomes biger than the critical survival size $`L_c`$ and survives annihilation.

Since baryon/antibaryon numbers are produced by the out-of-equilibrium decay of non-inflaton field $`\chi `$, the isocurvature perturbations $`^\mathrm{?}`$ will be imprinted in baryons, giving rise to the effect on the CMB angular power spectrum. The size of the effect is defined dispersion by the $`\delta \theta =H_{infl}/(2\pi f)`$ and diminished by a factor $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B/\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}`$. At the large scales corresponding to the first 6 e-folds of inflation, the measured CMB anisotropy does not allow to be the dispersion larger, than $`\delta \theta 10^3`$, while at the $`N_c`$ e-fold corresponding to $`L_c`$ one needs to get the phase already to the antibaryon production region of vacuum manifold, which requires quite a large magnitude of dispersion $`\delta \theta 10^2`$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$. An outcome of this disagreement could be found by making the dispersion $`\delta \theta `$ dynamically changing with respective to the current e-fold. One assumes a vacuum that dynamics makes the energy scale of $`U(1)`$ symmetry breaking $`f`$ variable during inflation. Phenomenologicaly the requirement dynamics can be obeyed by the potential with the following couplings bbbThe coupling in (4) can be generated by SUSY/SUGRA potentials (see for details $`^\mathrm{?}`$) of inflaton $`\varphi `$ to $`\chi `$

$$V(\varphi ,\chi )=\frac{1}{2}m_\varphi \varphi ^2+\lambda \left(\chi \chi ^{}\frac{f^2}{2}\right)^2g_{\varphi \chi }\chi \chi ^{}(\varphi cM_{Pl})^2.$$
(4)
The radius of phase vacuum manifold becomes e-fold dependent, making the effective dispersion $`\delta \theta _{eff}`$ small at the beginning of inflation, thereby suppressing the magnitude of large-scale isocurvature fluctuations

$$f_{eff}(N)=f\sqrt{1+\frac{g_{\varphi \chi }M_{Pl}}{12\pi \lambda }(N_cN)};\delta \theta _{eff}=\frac{H_{inf}}{2\pi f_{eff}}.$$
(5)
The dispersion grows up to its maximun value, when inflantion reachs the $`N_c`$th e-fold. Then it decreases again to a negligible value. Such dynamics allows to generate an above-critical size progenitor of antimatter region in every volume box corresponding to each galaxy, preserving at the same time the general barion asymmetry of the Universe as a whole (see Fig. 2).

Fig.2. The evolution of created baryon number density is straightforward $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The other advantage of mechanism (4), (5) is to make the antimatter domain size distribution almost independent of the initial position of the phase at the beginning of inflation, requiring only that it be located somewhere in the baryon-production region of the vacuum manifold.

## 3 Evolution and observational signature of antimatter domains

The antibaryon number (3) in progenitors shows a strongly rising dependence on the initial value of the phase $`\overline{\theta }_i`$, which makes sense to discuss the possibility of having high density antimatter region in every galaxy. Let us consider the evolution of such a high density antimatter region in the surrounding matter.

It is well known $`^\mathrm{?}`$ that a cloud of mass $`10^5M_{}`$$`10^6M_{}`$, which has temperature near $`10^4`$ K and a density several tens of times that of the surrounding hot gas, is gravitationally unstable. This object is identified as a proto-object of GC and reflects the Jeans mass at the recombination epoch. Thus if the phase $`\overline{\theta }_i`$ inside an antimatter region progenitor was in a position to generate an antimatter density higher than the surrounding matter density by one order of magnitude, it is very likely that the region evolves into an antimatter GC $`^\mathrm{?}`$. GCs are the oldest galactic star systems to form in the Universe, and contain stars of the first population. Thereby a GC at large galactocentric distance is the ideal astrophysical object that could be made out of antimatter. The $`\overline{p}`$ releasing from such an antistar GC by the stellar wind and anti-supernova explosions will be collected in our Galaxy and annihilate with $`p`$ giving a contribution into GeV range diffused $`\gamma `$-ray background $`^\mathrm{?}`$. This contribution, being compared with the $`\gamma `$– ray background measured by EGRET sets the upper limit on the mass of antistar GC in our galaxy to $`10^5M_{}`$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$, while $`L_c`$ defines the lower mass limit $`10^3M_{}`$ on a possible antistar GC.

The most important experimental signature of the existence of an antistar GC in our Galaxy, would be the observation of antinuclei in the cosmic rays near the Earth’s orbit $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The expected fluxes of $`\overline{{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}}`$ and $`\overline{{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}}`$ (Fig. 2) from such an antimatter object $`^\mathrm{?}`$ are only a factor of 2 below the limit of the AMS–01 (STS–91) experiment $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and definitely accessible for the sensitivity of the coming AMS–02 experiment $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

Acknowledgement The speaker, A. Sakharov, is grateful to the Organizing Committe of the conference for their invitation and financial support.

## References


text:
# Hyperspherical partial wave theory applied to electron hydrogen-atom ionization calculation for equal energy sharing kinematics

## I. INTRODUCTION

In the study of electron hydrogen atom ionization collision, the simplest three-body ionization problem in atomic physics, there are many attempts for a complete solution but all of these face tremendous difficulties and have only limited success. Except for one or two attempts all use time-independent framework. For accurate information regarding scattering events, one may solve accurately the Schrödinger equation for the scattering states $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{(+)}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Psi }_f^{()}`$ \[see Newton  for their definition\] given by

$$H\mathrm{\Psi }_{i,f}^{(\pm )}=E\mathrm{\Psi }_{i,f}^{(\pm )}$$
(1)
taking account of the appropriate boundary conditions.

Ionization amplitudes may then be obtained either from the flux condition at infinity or from appropriate projections. In the literature both $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{(+)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_f^{()}`$ have been widely used. There are a large number of attempts which strives to solve for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{(+)}`$. Among these the most successful attempts are the various close-coupling calculations \[2-4\]. In these calculations $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{(+)}`$ are expanded in terms of basis functions and ionization information are extracted from a solution of the unknown expansion functions. Another possibility is to expand $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{(+)}`$ in terms of a complete set of functions in the angular variables. In these regards the attempts of Kato and Watanabe  are remarkable. They used hyperspherical co-ordinates and expanded $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{(+)}`$ in terms of hyper-radius dependent angular functions. Matching with a wave function, which satisfies an approximately correct boundary condition, they obtained with remarkable success, the total ionization cross sections down to the threshold. However, differential cross section results of this theory are not known. Very recently Rescigno and associates made  a breakthrough calculation and reproduced for equal energy-sharing and constant angular separation $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{ab}`$ of the outgoing electrons, the cross section results, at low energies, with surprising success. In these calculations they expanded $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{(+)}`$ in terms of spherical harmonics in four angular variables. Then they converted the resultant differential equations for the radial functions, in two radial variables, into a set of difference equations over a large network in the radial variables-plane. They used a novel technique. Using a complex scaling procedure they converted the scattering problem as if into a bound state problem. Then they solved a huge set (several million) of linear equations using very special techniques. Ultimately they obtained ionization amplitudes using the flux condition. Later  they confirmed their results using projection technique. Although the ECS approach reproduced the equal-energy-sharing, constant-$`\mathrm{\Theta }_{ab}`$ results perfectly well, results of this approach for unequal-energy-sharing kinematics are not known. There are also large number of attempts of using $`\mathrm{\Psi }_f^{()}`$ in extracting ionization information. In such cases projection approach has been generally used. There the ionization amplitudes are calculated from

$$T_{fi}^s=\mathrm{\Psi }_{fs}^{()}|V_i|\mathrm{\Phi }_i.$$
(2)
Brauner, Briggs and Klar  and later Berakdar  and Berakdar et al  made use of this approach. They used $`\mathrm{\Psi }_f^{()}`$ which are asymptotically correct (or nearly so) but are unlikely to be correct at finite distances. As a consequence results of these calculations are only moderately accurate. Moreover there are no systematic tractable way of improving the results.

An alternative approach for determining the electron atom collision cross sections is to solve a coupled set of integral equations for the off-shell T-matrix elements. Das and associates \[14-16\] have used this approach in the study of various electron hydrogen atom and electron helium atom scattering problems by solving the resultant equations in a rather crude manner. However, they always obtained moderately good results. There are also attempts \[17-24\] to improve the calculations. Along these lines the most successful calculations are the convergent close coupling (CCC) calculations of Bray et al \[25-30\]. In many contexts they applied the CCC method with surprising success. Their latest results  claim accuracies comparable with the ECS results at low energies.

Another promising approach for the electron hydrogen atom ionization problem is the hyperspherical partial wave approach \[33-34\]. Details of this approach are given in . In section II we also present important features of this approach. Earlier with an additional approximation of neglecting the coupling effects, some results were obtained  which are qualitatively not very bad. Recently this approach has been used  retaining fully the coupling effects. In solving the relevant coupled set of radial wave equations over an initial interval $`[0,\mathrm{\Delta }]`$, R-matrix  approach had been used. Although the results were always found to be of the correct magnitude, pseudo-resonance type behaviour gave much troubles in extracting correct cross section results. To avoid this problem we use a new approach. This appears to be very successful and leads to very interesting results both for equal-energy-sharing constant-$`\mathrm{\Theta }_{ab}`$ kinematics, equal-energy-sharing asymmetric kinematics, and also for unequal-energy-sharing kinematics . Thus it appears that hyperspherical partial wave theory is quite appropriate for the study of ionization problems of electron-hydrogen type systems.

Most recently two very broad-based theories have been proposed. One of these is the time-dependent close coupling theory  and the other is the hyperspherical R-matrix theory . Positions of these theories are not yet very clear.

## II.  HYPERSPHERICAL PARTIAL WAVE THEORY

In the hyperspherical partial wave theory one uses the time-independent framework. In the time-independent framework the T-matrix element is given by expression (2) or alternatively by

$$T_{fi}=\mathrm{\Phi }_f|V_f|\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{(+)}.$$
(3)
In these expressions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_f`$ are the unperturbed initial and final channel wave functions, satisfying certain exact boundary condition at infinity and that $`V_i`$ and $`V_f`$ are the corresponding perturbation potentials. For the case of ionization of hydrogen atoms expression (2) is more appropriate for use, since in this case asymptotically correct $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ is easily available. Many use expression (3), including ECS  by projection method, but inappropriately, since the corresponding $`\mathrm{\Phi }_f`$’s they use do not satisfy the correct boundary condition. In the hyperspherical partial wave theory $`\mathrm{\Psi }_f^{()}`$ is expanded in terms of hyperspherical harmonics, which are functions of five angular variables. The corresponding radial waves are functions of one radial variable, the hyperradius $`R`$ only. This proves to be advantageous in numerical computations, since then the five angular variables range over a bounded compact domain, while only one variable $`R`$ ranges over a semi-infinite domain $`[0,\mathrm{})`$. It may be noted here that so far nobody could take account of the exact boundary condition in the asymptotic domain for the accurate solution of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_f^{()}`$. Here we aspire to take account the exact boundary condition at infinity, in the limit. This is the most novel feature in the hyperspherical partial wave theory. Here we may note that two plane waves $`exp(i\stackrel{}{p_a}\stackrel{}{r_1})/(2\pi )^{3/2}`$ and $`exp(i\stackrel{}{p_b}\stackrel{}{r_2})/(2\pi )^{3/2}`$ may be decomposed in partial waves as usual and then these may be combined (using a formula in Erdélyi ) to obtain an expansion in terms of hyperspherical harmonics $`\varphi _\lambda (\omega )`$, in five angular variables $`\omega =(\alpha ,\theta _1,\varphi _1,\theta _2,\varphi _2)`$. A symmetrized two-particle plane wave has the expansion \[Das, 34\]

$`[exp(i\stackrel{}{p_a}\stackrel{}{r_1}+i\stackrel{}{p_b}\stackrel{}{r_2})+(1)^sexp(i\stackrel{}{p_b}\stackrel{}{r_1}+i\stackrel{}{p_a}\stackrel{}{r_2})]/(2\pi )^3`$ (4)
$`=2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}i^\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{j_{\nu _\lambda }(\rho )}{\rho ^{\frac{3}{2}}}}\varphi _\lambda ^s(\omega _0)\varphi _\lambda ^s(\omega ),`$
where $`\nu _\lambda =\lambda +\frac{3}{2}`$ and $`\lambda =l_1+l_2+2n`$ ($`\lambda `$ also denotes the multiplet $`(l_1,l_2,n)`$ depending on the context). Here $`R=\sqrt{r_1^2+r_2^2}`$, $`\alpha =atan(r_2/r_1)`$, $`\stackrel{}{r_1}=(r_1,\theta _1,\varphi _1)`$, $`\stackrel{}{r_2}=(r_2,\theta _2,\varphi _2)`$. Similarly $`P=\sqrt{p_a^2+p_b^2}`$, $`\alpha _0=atan(p_b/p_a)`$, $`\stackrel{}{p_a}=(p_a,\theta _a,\varphi _a)`$, $`\stackrel{}{p_b}=(p_b,\theta _b,\varphi _b)`$, and $`\rho =PR`$, and $`\omega _0=(\alpha _0,\theta _a,\varphi _a,\theta _b,\varphi _b)`$,

$`\varphi _\lambda ^s(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\{P_{l_1l_2}^n(\alpha )𝒴_{l_1l_2}^{LM}(\widehat{r_1},\widehat{r_2})+(1)^{l_1+l_2L+S+n}P_{l_2l_1}^n(\alpha )𝒴_{l_2l_1}^{LM}(\widehat{r_1},\widehat{r_2})\},l_1l_2`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{1+(1)^{L+S+n}\}P_{ll}^n(\alpha )𝒴_{ll}^{LM}(\widehat{r_1},\widehat{r_2})\},\mathrm{for}l_1=l_2=l,`$
and a corresponding expression for $`\varphi _\lambda ^s(\omega _0)`$ (similar expressions may be easily derived for product of more than two plane waves).

Now the symmetrized wave $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{fs}^{()}`$ may be expanded in terms of symmetrized hyperspherical harmonics $`\varphi _\lambda ^s`$’s as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{fs}^{()}(R,\omega )=2\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}\underset{\lambda }{}\frac{F_\lambda ^s(\rho )}{\rho ^{\frac{5}{2}}}\varphi _\lambda ^s(\omega ),$$
(6)
where $`F_\lambda ^{(s)}`$ satisfy an infinite coupled set of equations

$$\left[\frac{d^2}{dR^2}+P^2\frac{\nu _\lambda (\nu _\lambda +1)}{R^2}\right]F_\lambda ^{(s)}(R)+\underset{\lambda ^{}}{}\frac{2P\alpha _{\lambda \lambda ^{}}^s}{R}F_\lambda ^{}^{(s)}(R)=0,$$
(7)
for each symmetry s ($`s=0`$ for singlet and $`s=1`$ for triplet)and for each total angular momentum $`L`$ (and its projection $`M`$, and so also for a definite parity $`\pi `$). In the above expression

$$\alpha _{\lambda \lambda ^{}}^s=\varphi _\lambda ^s|C|\varphi _\lambda ^{}^s/P,\mathrm{and}$$

$$C=\frac{1}{cos\alpha }\frac{1}{sin\alpha }+\frac{1}{|\widehat{r_1}cos\alpha \widehat{r_2}sin\alpha |}.$$

The equations (7) have to be solved over the semi-infinite domain $`[0,\mathrm{})`$. Solution in the asymptotic domain is simple. The equations have nice asymptotic solutions. One may note that because of conservation rules the equations (7) are decoupled into sets for fixed $`\mu =(L,S,\pi )`$ and different $`N=(l_1,l_2,n)`$. So we set $`F_\lambda ^{(s)}f_N^\mu `$ and, for the set with fixed $`\mu `$ (and dropping $`\mu `$ from $`f_N^\mu `$) we can write equations (7) as

$$\left[\frac{d^2}{dR^2}+P^2\frac{\nu _N(\nu _N+1)}{R^2}\right]f_N+\underset{N^{}}{}\frac{2P\alpha _{NN^{}}}{R}f_N^{}=0,$$
(8)
for a solution over the finite domain and

$$\left[\frac{d^2}{d\rho ^2}+1\frac{\nu _N(\nu _N+1)}{\rho ^2}\right]f_N+\underset{N^{}}{}\frac{2\alpha _{NN^{}}^s}{\rho }f_N^{}=0,$$
(9)
for solution over an asymptotic domain, say $`[R_0,\mathrm{})`$. Next we consider the solution problem first over an asymptotic domain $`[R_0,\mathrm{})`$ and then over the finite domain $`[0,R_0]`$.

A. Solution in an asymptotic domain

The equations (9) have two sets of solutions  in an asymptotic domain $`[R_0,\mathrm{})`$ of the form given by

$$f_{snN}^{(k)}(\rho )=\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{a_{kN}^{(\mathrm{})}sin\theta _k}{\rho ^{\mathrm{}}}+\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{b_{kN}^{(\mathrm{})}cos\theta _k}{\rho ^{\mathrm{}}},$$
(10)
$$f_{csN}^{(k)}(\rho )=\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{c_{kN}^{(\mathrm{})}sin\theta _k}{\rho ^{\mathrm{}}}+\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d_{kN}^{(\mathrm{})}cos\theta _k}{\rho ^{\mathrm{}}},$$
(11)
where $`\theta _k=\rho +\alpha _kln\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\rho `$ and $`\alpha _k`$ is the k-th eigen value of the charge matrix $`A=(\alpha _{NN^{}})`$ and that the coefficients $`a_{kN}^{(l)},b_{kN}^{(l)},c_{kN}^{(l)}\mathrm{and}d_{kN}^{(l)}`$ are determined from recurrence relations. Thus the coefficients $`a_{kN}^{(l)}`$ and $`b_{kN}^{(l)}`$ are determined from the relations -

$`2[(A_k)^2+l^2I]𝐗_k^{(l)}`$ $`=`$ $`[A_k\mathrm{\Lambda }_kl(l1)A_kl(2l1)\alpha _kI]𝐗_k^{(l1)}`$ (12)
$`[(2l1)\alpha _kA_k+l\mathrm{\Lambda }_kł^2(l1)I]𝐘_k^{(l1)}`$
and

$`2[(A_k)^2+l^2I]𝐘_k^{(l)}`$ $`=`$ $`[A_k\mathrm{\Lambda }_kl(l1)A_kl(2l1)\alpha _kI]𝐘_k^{(l1)}`$ (13)
$`+[(2l1)\alpha _kA_k+l\mathrm{\Lambda }_kł^2(l1)I]𝐗_k^{(l1)}`$
where the N-th components of vectors $`𝐗_k^{(l)}`$ and $`𝐘_k^{(l)}`$ are given by

$$(𝐗_k^{(l)})_N=a_{kN}^{(l)},(𝐘_k^{(l)})_N=b_{kN}^{(l)}$$

and where

$$A_k=A\alpha _kI,(\mathrm{\Lambda }_k)_{NN^{}}=[\alpha _{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\nu _N(\nu _N+1)]\delta _{NN^{}}.$$

The initial vectors $`𝐗_k^{(0)}`$ and $`𝐘_k^{(0)}`$ are given by

$$𝐗_k^{(0)}=𝐗_k,𝐘_k^{(0)}=0,$$

$`𝐗_k`$ being the k-th eigen vector of the charge matrix $`A`$ and $`I`$ is the identity matrix. Solution for $`c_{kN}^{(l)}`$’s and $`d_{kN}^{(l)}`$’s are similarly obtained from the above recurrence relations after setting $`𝐗_k^{(0)}=0`$ and $`𝐘_k^{(0)}=𝐗_k`$. In this way we get solution vectors $`𝐟_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐧𝐍}}^{(𝐤)}`$ and $`𝐟_{\mathrm{𝐜𝐬𝐍}}^{(𝐤)}`$ of equations (10) and (11).

B. Solution over a finite domain

Here we consider the solution of equations (8) over a finite domain $`[0,R_0]`$. Away from the origin, solution of the equations is easy. A Taylors series expansion method suffices for getting arbitrarily accurate solutions. The main difficulty is in starting the solution from the origin. Near origin the equations have analytic solutions ( Fock  )but these are too complicated to be useful in numerical computations. In our earlier calculations  we used R-matrix approach for getting solutions over an initial interval $`[0,\mathrm{\Delta }]`$ (with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ suitably chosen). But this approach faces difficulties as pseudo-resonance type behavior appears giving much troubles in determining appropriate solutions. To avoid such difficulties we consider here a new approach. For the interval $`[0,\mathrm{\Delta }]`$ we consider a boundary value problem . The solution vector $`𝐟_\mathrm{𝟎}^{(𝐤)}(𝐑)`$ is assumed to have a value $`0`$ at the origin and the k-th column of the $`N_{mx}\times N_{mx}`$ identity matrix at $`R=\mathrm{\Delta }`$. We divide the interval $`[0,\mathrm{\Delta }]`$ into $`m`$ subintervals and use a five-point difference formula

$`f_N^{^{\prime \prime }}(R_k)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{12h^2}}[f_N(R_{k2})+16f_N(R_{k1})30f_N(R_k)`$ $`+`$ $`16f_N(R_{k+1})f_N(R_{k+2})]`$ (14)
$`+\{{\displaystyle \frac{h^4}{90}}f_N^{(vi)}(\xi )\}`$
for $`k=2,3,\mathrm{},m2`$, and a formula

$`f_N^{^{\prime \prime }}(R+h^{})`$ $`=`$ $`2f_N^{^{\prime \prime }}(R+2h^{})f_N^{^{\prime \prime }}(R+3h^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{h^2}}[f_N(R)4f_N(R+h^{})+6f_N(R+2h^{})`$ (15)
$`4f_N(R+3h^{})+f_N(R+4h^{})]+\{{\displaystyle \frac{h^4}{12}}f^{(vi)}(\xi )\}.`$
with $`R=R_0`$, $`h^{^{}}=h`$ for the equation at $`R=R_1`$ and $`R=R_m`$ , $`h^{^{}}=h`$ for the equation at $`R=R_{m1}`$.For continuing solutions from $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ onward we need first order derivatives at $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. For this we use the simple formula

$`f_N^{^{}}(R_m)`$ $`=`$ $`[f_N(R_{m4})+24f_N(R_{m2})128f_N(R_{m1})+105f_N(R_m)]/(84h)`$ (16)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2h}{7}}f_N^{^{\prime \prime }}(R_m)+\{{\displaystyle \frac{4h^4}{105}}f_N^{(v)}(\xi )\}.`$
The resultant linear set of equations ultimately take the form

$$S𝐘^{(𝐤)}=𝐛,$$
(17)
where $`S`$ is a sparse matrix. We solve these equations by the biconjugate gradient method  using routines given in . With a suitable choice of a preconditioner the iterations smoothly converge (with a few hundred iterations or even less) to five or six decimal places for a suitable choice of error limit (say, 1 in $`10^7`$ parts). In this way $`N_{mx}`$ solution vectors $`𝐟_\mathrm{𝟎}^{(𝐤)}`$ are determined over $`[0,\mathrm{\Delta }]`$. The solutions are next continued over $`[\mathrm{\Delta },R_0]`$ by Taylors expansion method with stabilization  after suitable steps, giving solution vectors $`𝐟_\mathrm{𝟎}^{(𝐤)}`$ over $`[0,R_0]`$.

C. Matching of the solutions: Determination of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_f^{()}`$

For finding the physical solution vectors $`𝐟_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐡}}`$ and the scattering state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{fs}^{()}`$ we first define solution matrices $`\mathrm{f}_0`$, $`\mathrm{f}_{\mathrm{sn}}`$ and $`\mathrm{f}_{\mathrm{cs}}`$, by putting side by side the corresponding solution vectors $`𝐟_\mathrm{𝟎}^{(𝐤)}`$, $`𝐟_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐧}}^{(𝐤)}`$, $`𝐟_{\mathrm{𝐜𝐬}}^{(𝐤)}`$, for $`k=1,2,\mathrm{},N_{mx}`$. Then the physical solution vector $`𝐟_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐡}}`$ may be defined over $`[0,R_0]`$ by

$$𝐟_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐡}}(R)=\underset{k=1}{}^{N_{mx}}g_k𝐟_\mathrm{𝟎}^{(𝐤)}(R)$$
(18)
and over $`[R_0,\mathrm{})`$ by

$$𝐟_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐡}}(R)=\underset{k=1}{}^{N_{mx}}c_k𝐟_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐧}}^{(𝐤)}(\rho )+\underset{k=1}{}^{N_{mx}}d_k𝐟_{\mathrm{𝐜𝐬}}^{(𝐤)}(\rho ).$$
(19)
$`2N_{mx}`$ of the $`3N_{mx}`$ unknown coefficients are now determined by matching values (and first order derivatives) of the two sets of solutions at a point $`R_0`$ where all the solutions are valid. The remaining $`N_{mx}`$ unknown coefficients are then determined from the demand that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{fs}^{()}`$ actually satisfies the appropriate boundary condition. To facilitate the computations we first define the K-matrix through the relation

$$f_0B=f_{sn}+f_{cs}K$$
(20)
where B is some unknown constant matrix. (The K-matrix thus defined is a little different from the one usually defined. But in any case it should be symmetric.) The K-matrix is then determined by matching values and first order derivatives of the two sides of equation (20). Then in the asymptotic domain one has

$`𝐟_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐡}}`$ $`=`$ $`(f_{sn}+f_{cs}K)𝐜`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`f_{sn}𝐜+f_{cs}𝐝,`$
where

$$𝐝=K𝐜.$$
(22)
Finally $`𝐟_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐡}}`$ is completely determined once the vector c is determined. Now c is determined from the consideration that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{fs}^{()}`$ is asymptotically a distorted plane wave (representing the two outgoing electrons) plus incoming waves only. So we equate coefficients of the outgoing wave $`exp(i\rho )`$ of both $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{fs}^{()}`$ and the symmetrized plane wave (4) (except for the distorting terms $`exp(i\alpha _kln2\rho )`$. This gives

$$𝐜=\left[I+iK\right]^1𝐏$$
(23)
where

$$𝐏=e^{\frac{i\pi }{4}}X^1𝚽^{(s)}(\omega _0),$$

where $`X`$ is the matrix consisting of eigen vectors of the charge matrix $`A`$ (and is non-singular) and $`𝚽^{(s)}(\omega _0)`$ is given by

$$𝚽^𝐬(\omega _\mathrm{𝟎})=\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _{}^{s}{}_{1}{}^{}(\omega _0)\\ \mathrm{}\\ \varphi _{}^{s}{}_{N_{mx}}{}^{}(\omega _0)\end{array}\right).$$
(24)
In this way the physical radial vectors $`𝐟_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐡}}(R)`$ are determined for each $`\mu =(L,S,\pi )`$ and ultimately the full (but approximate) scattering state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{fs}^{()}`$ is obtained.

Substituting this expression in equation (2) one obtains the scattering amplitude in the form

$$f^s(\omega _0)=\frac{1}{2\pi }T_{fi}^s=\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{N}{}^{N_{mx}}C^s(N)\varphi _N^s(\omega _0)$$
(25)
The triple differential cross section is then given by

$$\frac{d^3\sigma }{dE_ad\mathrm{\Omega }_ad\mathrm{\Omega }_b}=\frac{(2\pi )^4p_ap_b}{p_i}\left\{\frac{1}{4}|T_{fi}^{(0)}|^2+\frac{3}{4}|T_{fi}^{(1)}|^2\right\}.$$
(26)
By increasing the number of channels $`N_{mx}`$ for each $`\mu =(L,S,\pi )`$ one may expect to obtain converged cross section results.

## III. PRESENT CALCULATION

In our present calculation there are two important parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`R_0`$ which are needed to be judiciously chosen. The parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the initial interval \[0, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$\], for a solution of the radial equations (8), has been chosen to be 5 a.u. for all the energies considered here. The results do not depend on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for small variations (of a few a.u.) about this value. On the other hand the choice of the parameter $`R_0`$, the asymptotic range parameter, is very crucial. Without its appropriate choice the asymptotic series solutions (10) and (11) are unlikely to converge. Here it is found that for convergent asymptotic series solutions $`R_0`$ is needed to be such that $`R_0\frac{1}{\sqrt{E}}`$, where E is the energy in the final channel. Thus for energies of 30 eV, 25 eV, 19.6 eV, 17.6 eV, and 15.6 eV this range parameter $`R_0`$ may be chosen greater than the values 60 a.u., 70 a.u., 90 a.u., 120 a.u. and 150 a.u. respectively. We have chosen $`R_0`$ around these values in our calculations. However for the computation of single differential cross section (SDCS) it is necessary for converged results to vary $`R_0`$, and extrapolate, as in ECS calculation  for $`R_0\mathrm{}`$. Our limited computational resources restrict us to take single $`R_0`$ value for each energy.Moreover for arbitrary large $`R_0`$ unwanted errors are likely to make the results erroneous. So some optimum choice of $`R_0`$ has to be made for each energy with a few trials. In our present computations this has been done. Next we consider the choice of L values for inclusion in the calculations for different energies. For 15.6 eV energy, values of L upto 5 proved sufficient. For 17.6 eV calculations values of L upto 7 are found to be necessary. For the other energies considered here, values of L upto 9 have been included. For fixed ($`L,S,\pi `$) the number of channels, the number of states with different ($`l_1,l_2,n`$) triplets, which have been included, were chosen suitably for fairly converged results. In any case for fixed ($`l_1,l_2`$) pairs n was varied from 0 to 9. In this way convergence with respect to n is obtained. The number of ($`l_1,l_2`$) pairs, which have been included, are somewhat less for $`L2`$ compared to those in the ECS calculation . These pairs are chosen more or less in the order as in ECS calculations (a little different from those of hyperspherical calculations of Kato and Watanabe ). However there could be some better choice. For lower energies convergence with respect to the increase in channel size is rather smooth. It is not so for relatively higher energies of 25 eV or 30 eV. Nevertheless we have obtained nearly converged results in the cases considered. All the results presented here are more or less based on 50 channels calculations. Most of the calculations, reported here, were done on Pentium -III PCs. Calculations for 15.6 eV energy could not be done on PCs. Thus the results for 15.6 eV and 17.6 eV, which are presented here, have been derived from calculations on a SUN server. It may be further added here that for 15.6 eV the SDCS results show that for equal energy sharing case the calculated SDCS value is about twice the expected value, although the calculated total cross section appears correct (see table I). This is unacceptable. In any case the various cross section results for this energy have been multiplied by a factor 0.5 before presentation in the figures. For other energies, however, we have nearly the correct SDCS values for equal energy sharing situations. Calculation on a larger scale with larger values of $`R_0`$, and with more precise solution of the equations (17), may decide absolutely the normalization question of the measured results of Röder et al  for 15.6 eV energy. Cross section results for 15.6 eV energy have been included here for the sake of completeness.

## IV. RESULTS

A. Triple Differential Cross Section for Constant $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{ab}`$Geometry

The triple differential cross section results for equal-energy-sharing constant $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{ab}`$ geometries are presented in figures 1(a) for 15.6 eV energy, in figure 2(a) for 17.6 eV energy and in figures 3, 4 and 5 for energies of 19.6 eV, 25 eV and 30 eV. In these figures we have presented the theoretical results of CCC calculations  and of ECS calculations . Here we have also included the absolute measured values of Röder et al  for 15.6 eV and the most recent re-measured (with necessary inter-normalization) values of Röder et al  for 17.6 eV energy. For other energies the measured results  are only relative and are normalized as in . Our results are generally comparable with the ECS results in magnitude. For 17.6 eV our present results appear most interesting. These are even somewhat better compared to the ECS and CCC results for $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{ab}`$ = $`150^0`$ and $`180^0`$. For these values of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{ab}`$, the 15.6 eV results also appear good , particularly in shapes, but confirmation by larger scale calculation is necessary. The 19.6 eV results also appear to be very good. For other energies our results appear less satisfactory in comparison with the ECS and CCC results.

B. Triple Differential Cross Sections for Fixed $`\theta _a`$ Geometry

In figures 1(b) and 2(b) we have compared our results for equal-energy-sharing asymmetric geometries with absolute measured values of Röder et al  for 15.6 eV and Röder et al  for 17.6 eV, in which one of the outgoing electrons is observed in a fixed direction while that of the other one is varied. In these cases we again compare our results with the calculated results of ECS and CCC theories. Here our results also appear to be quite good, particularly for 17.6 eV in view of the most recent measurements. For $`\theta _a`$ = $`30^o`$ at 15.6 eV, the peak position of our calculated curves are little shifted to the right. Otherwise all the results of the present calculation appear satisfactory.

C. Triple Differential Cross Sections for Symmetric Geometry
In figures 1(c) and 2(c) we have presented TDCS results for symmetric appearance of the two outgoing electrons relative to the incident electron direction, for 15.6 eV and 17.6 eV incident electron energies, for which there are again absolute measured results . For 15.6 eV energy our results agree qualitatively with the experimental results. Here a 70-channel calculation has been found to be necessary. For 17.6 eV our results do not appear very good. For 15.6 eV energy both the ECS and CCC theories underestimate the cross section results considerably. For 17.6 eV energy, however, both ECS and CCC theories give good overall representation.

D. Integrated Cross Sections and the Spin Asymmetry Parameter
The parabolic fitted curves to our computed single differential cross sections data are generally close to the ECS extrapolated curves but our raw data which could be calculated, as in ECS flux method, away from the two ends of the energy intervals widely differ from ECS or CCC (wherever available) curves. However, the computed total integrated cross sections, with suitable extrapolation from these are generally good. Here in table I we have presented values of integrated cross sections $`\sigma _I=(\sigma _s+3\sigma _t)`$/4 and the spin asymmetry parameter A = ($`\sigma _s\sigma _t`$)/($`\sigma _s+3\sigma _t`$) where $`\sigma _s`$ and $`\sigma _t`$ are the singlet and the triplet cross sections, together with values of ECS theory by flux approach  and those of CCC theory and the experimental values . The integrated cross sections agree with the experimentally measured values of Shah et al  within about $`20\%`$ . The spin asymmetry parameter A agrees, however, excellently with the measurements .

Next we note down the shortcomings and difficulties associated with the present approach. The first point to note is that it may not be possible in this approach to get reliable cross section results for extreme asymmetry, as in ECS flux approach, for one of the outgoing electrons sharing very small energy values compared to the other. ’Contamination with high Rydberg states’, as in ECS calculation  gives wrong results for finite values of $`R_0`$ in such cases. Extrapolation to $`R_0=\mathrm{}`$ may only lead to reliable results in those cases. This may require larger computational resources. Another difficulty to be noted is the appearance of a few large eigen-values of the charge matrix for large-channel calculations. In such cases computational strategies are needed to be reviewed. In our calculations this has occurred in a few cases. In such cases we simply cut-short in magnitude these one or two large eigen values to the neighboring ones. However a better approach may be necessary to tackle such problems. No other difficulties appear worth mentioning. For a fully converged results inclusion of more channels (about 100 or a little more) may be required with appropriate choice of ($`l_1,l_2`$) pairs (say, as in ECS calculation) and with further stabilization. However these are subjects of further studies requiring more computational resources and time.

## V. CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present calculation fairly display the capability of the hyperspherical partial wave theory in representing results for equal-energy-sharing kinematical conditions at low energies. The new approach that has been used in the implementation of the hyperspherical partial wave theory appears very appropriate. The computed cross section results are observed to be very satisfactory. If one recalls the capability of the theory to describe the ionization collisions for unequal-energy-sharing asymmetric kinematic conditions (as indicated in ) also then the capability of the hyperspherical partial wave theory towards a complete description of the electron \- hydrogen - atom ionization problem is well demonstrated. Considering the computational facilities used (Pentium - III PCs and a SUN Enterpriser 450 server) success of the present calculation is appreciable. For fully converged results better computational facilities may be required. The theory may easily be applied in the study of ionization of hydrogen-like ions with a little change in the definition of the wave function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ and the interaction potential $`V_i`$. The theory may also be extended for application to the double-ionization of helium atom or helium-like ions or to other multi electron ionization processes.

## VI. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors are grateful to Igor Bray for providing them with the CCC results, the experimental results of Röder et al and preprints of relevant papers in electronic form. They are grateful to T. N. Rescigno and M. Baertschy for sending the ECS results electronically. Special thanks are also due to M. Baertschy for providing Matlab scripts which helped in drawing the figures. S. Paul is grateful to CSIR for providing a research fellowship.

References

 R. G. Newton, Scattering Theory of Waves and Particles, McGraw-Hill, NY (1966).

 E. P. Curran and H. R. J. Walters, J. Phys. B20, 337 (1987); see also E. P. Curran, C. T. Whelan and H. R. J. Walters, J. Phys. B24, L19(1991).

 K. Bartchat, E. T. Hudson, M. P. Scott, P. G. Burke, and V. M. Burke, J. Phys. B 29, 115 (1996).

 K. Bartschat and I. Bray, J. Phys. B29, L577 (1996).

 D. Kato and S. Watanabe, Phys. Rev. Lett 74, 2443 (1995).

 D.Kato and S Watanabe, Phys. Rev.A 56, 3687 (1997).

 T. N. Rescigno, M. Baertschy, W. A. Isaacs, and C. W. McCurdy, Science 286, 2474 (1999).

 M. Baertschy, T. N. Rescigno, W. A. Isaacs, X. Li, and C. W. McCurdy, Phys. Rev. A 63, 022712 (2001).

 M. Baertschy, T. N. Rescigno, and C. W. McCurdy, Phys. Rev. A64, 022709 (2001).

 M. Brauner, J. S. Briggs, and H. Klar, J. Phys. B 22, 2265 (1989).

 J. Berakdar, Phys. Rev. A 53, 2314(1996).

 J. Berakdar, J. Röder, J. S. Briggs, and H. Ehrhardt, J. Phys. B29, 6203(1996).

 J. Berakdar, J. S. Briggs, I. Bray, and D. V. Fursa, J. Phys. B32, 895 (1999).

 J. N. Das, J. Phys. B 11, L195 (1978).

 J. N. Das, Phys. Lett A 69, 405 (1979); ibid 83, 428 (1981).

 J. N. Das, R.K.Bera, and B. Patra, Phys. Rev. A 23, 732 (1981).

 J. N. Das and A. K. Biswas, Phys. Lett A 78, 319 (1980).

 J. N. Das and A. K. Biswas, J. Phys. B 14 ,1363 (1981).

 J. N. Das and P. K. Bhattacharyya, Phys. Rev. A 27, 2876 (1983).

 J. N. Das and N. Saha, J. Phys. B14, 2657 (1981).

 J. N. Das and N. Saha, Pramana- J. Phys. 18, 397 (1982).

 J. N. Das, A. K. Biswas, and N. Saha, Aust. J. Phys. 35, 393 (1982).

 J. N. Das and A. K. Biswas, Czeck. J. Phys. B 38, 1140 (1988).

 S. P. Khare and Kusum Lata, Phys. Rev. A 29, 3137 (1984); S. P. Khare and Satya Prakash, Phys. Rev. A 32, 2689 (1985).

 I. Bray, D. A. Konovalov, I. E. McCarthy, and A. T. Stelbovics, Phys. Rev. A50, R2818 (1994).

 I. Bray, J. Phys. B 32, L119(1999) ; J. Phys. B 33, 581 (2000).

 I Bray, Aust. J. Phys. 53, 355 (2000).

 I Bray, D. V. Fursa, A. S. Kheifets, and A. T. Stelbovics J. Phys. B35, R117 (2002).

 J. Röder, M. Baertschy, and I Bray, Phys. Rev. A (2002) (to be published).

 I Bray, Phys. Rev. Lett. (2002) (to be published).

 G. Bencze and C. Chandler, Phys. Rev. A 59, 3129 (1999).

 S. Jones and D. H. Madison, Phys. Rev. A 63, 042701 (2000).

 J. N. Das, Aust. J. Phys. 47, 743 (1994).

 J. N. Das, Pramana- J. Phys. 50, 53 (1998).

 J. N. Das and K. Chakrabarti, Pramana- J. Phys. 47, 249 (1996).

 J. N. Das and K. Chakrabarti, Phys. Rev. A 56, 365 (1997).

 J. N. Das, Phys. Rev. A 64, 054703 (2001).

 J. N. Das, J. Phys. B 35, 1165(2002).

 P. G. Burke and W. D. Robb, Adv. At. Mol. Phys. 11, 143 (1975).

 M. S. Pindzola and F Robicheaux, Phys. Rev. A 55, 4617 (1997); ibid 57, 318 (1998); ibid 61, 052707 (2000).

 L. Malegat, P. Selles, and A. Kazansky, Phys. Rev. A 60, 3667 (1999).

 A. Erdelyi, Higher Transcendental Functions, Vol.II, p.99. McGraw-Hill, NY (1953).

 V. Fock, K. Norske Vidensk. Selsksk. Forh 31, 138 (1958).

 R. Fletcher, Numerical Analysis Dundee, 1975, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 506, Eds. A. Dold and B. Eckmann, Springer- Verlag, Berlin, pp 73-89 (1976).

 W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vellering, and B. P. Flannery, Numerical Recipes in Fortran, p77, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press (1992).

 B. H. Choi and K. T. Tang, J. Chem. Phys. 63, 1775 (1975).

 J. Röder, J. Rasch. K. Jung, C. T. Whelan, H. Ehrhardt, R. J. Allan, H. R. J. Walters, Phys. Rev. A 53, 225 (1996).

 J. Röder, H. Ehrhardt, C. Pan, A. F. Starace, I. Bray, and D. Fursa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1666 (1997).

 I. Bray, private communications.

 M. Baertschy and T. N. Rescigno, private communications.

 J. Röder, M. Baertschy and I. Bray, Phys. Rev A 45, 2951(2002).

 M. B. Shah, D. S. Elliot, and H. B. Gilbody, J. Phys. B 20, 3501(1987).

 D. M. Crowe, X. Q. Guo, M. S. Lubell, J. Slevin, and M. Eminyan, J. Phys. B 23, L325(1987).

 G. D. Fletcher, M. J. Alguard, T. J. Gray, P. F. Wainwright, M. S. Lubell, W. Raith and V. W. Hughes, Phys. Rev. A 31, 2854(1985).

TABLE

Table I. Total integrated ionization cross sections (a.u.) and the spin asymmetry parameter. The experimental values of cross sections are those of Shah et al  (the starred numbers are from extrapolation). ECS results are from  and the CCC results are from . In the experimental results of the asymmetry parameter of Crowe et al  and Fletcher et al  presented here, the numbers with superscript + or $``$ denote the available result just a little above or below the energy considered (for the exact energy values the corresponding references are to be seen). For 15.6 eV energy,ECS results of earlier calculation  are not available. So for this energy we present results from  and indicate it so in the table.
E<sub>i</sub>(eV) 30 25 19.6 17.6 15.6  Total Integrated Cross Sections       Present: 2.13 1.82 1.14 0.83 0.49  ECS: 1.79 1.62 1.09 0.80 0.36   CCC: 1.92 1.57 1.01 0.75 0.38  Expt.: 1.81 1.55 1.00 0.74 0.39  Spin Asymmetry       Present: 0.31 0.41 0.47 0.55 0.48  ECS: 0.42 0.45 0.51 0.51 0.52   CCC: 0.41 0.43 0.50 0.51 0.53  Expt.:       Crowe 0.28 0.39<sup>-</sup> 0.42<sup>-</sup> 0.47<sup>-</sup> 0.50<sup>-</sup>  Fletcher 0.31 0.41<sup>-</sup> 0.40<sup>+</sup> 0.50<sup>-</sup> 0.48<sup>-</sup>

Figure Captions

Figure 1(a). TDCS in coplanar equal-energy-sharing constant angular separation $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{ab}`$ of the outgoing electrons for incident electron energy $`E_i=15.6`$ eV vs. ejection angle $`\theta _a`$ of the slow outgoing electron. Continuous curves, present results ; dashed-curves, ECS results ; dash-dotted curves, CCC results . The experimental results are the absolute measured values of Röder et al . Present results have been multiplied by a factor 0.5 (see text).
Figure 1(b). TDCS in coplanar equal-energy-sharing geometry for incident electron energy $`E_i=15.6`$ eV for fixed $`\theta _a`$ and variable $`\theta _b`$ of the out going electrons. Continuous curves, present results ; dashed-curves, ECS results ; dash-dotted curves, CCC results . The experimental results are the absolute measured values of Röder et al . Present results have been multiplied by a factor 0.5 (see text).
Figure 1(c). TDCS in coplanar equal-energy-sharing with two electrons emerging on opposite sides of the direction of the incident electron with equal angle $`\theta _a`$ and energy $`E_i=15.6`$ eV . Continuous curves, present results ; dashed-curves, ECS results ; dash-dotted curves, CCC results . The experimental results are the absolute measured values of Röder et al . Present results have been multiplied by a factor 0.5 (see text).

Figure 2(a). Same as in figure 1(a) but for 17.6 eV incident electron energy. The experimental results are the recent absolute measured values of Röder et al and the CCC results are as in . Here the present results are free from any multiplicative factor.
Figure 2(b). Same as in figure 1(b) but for 17.6 eV incident electron energy. The experimental results are the recent absolute measured values of Röder et al and the CCC results are as in  . Here the present results are free from any multiplicative factor.
Figure 2(c). Same as in figure 1(c) but for 17.6 eV incident electron energy. The experimental results are the recent absolute measured values of Röder et al and the CCC results are as in . Here the present results are free from any multiplicative factor.

Figure 3. Same as in figure 2(a) but for 19.6 eV incident electron energy. The relative measured results of Röder et al \[47-49\] are normalized as in .

Figure 4. Same as in figure 3 but for 25 eV incident electron energy. The CCC results are from

Figure 5. Same as in figure 3 but for 30 eV incident electron energy.