text:
# Symplectic evolution of Wigner functions in Markovian open systems

## I Introduction

The correspondence between classical and quantum mechanics of closed dynamical systems is most perfect for quadratic Hamiltonians. In this case, the classical evolution is linear, like its quantum counterpart, and generates an orbit within the group of symplectic (linear, canonical) transformations in phase space . These are directly linked to the corresponding quantum metaplectic group . Indeed, the evolution operator in any of the usual representations is merely the complex exponential of the classical generating function . Of course, quadratic Hamiltonians are a very special case, but they include the ubiquitous harmonic oscillator, the parabolic potential barrier and the free particle, which form adequate starting points for the analysis of more complex motion.

The Weyl representation of an arbitrary quantum operator $`\widehat{A}`$ is

$$A(𝐱)𝑑q^{}q+\frac{q^{}}{2}|\widehat{A}|q\frac{q^{}}{2}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{pq^{}}{\mathrm{}}\right),$$
(1)
that is, $`\widehat{A}`$ is represented in phase space, $`𝐱=(p,q)`$, by the Weyl symbol $`A(𝐱)`$. The Wigner function $`W(𝐱)`$ is then the Weyl symbol for $`\widehat{\rho }/2\pi \mathrm{}`$, where $`\widehat{\rho }`$ is the density operator. Like all Weyl symbols, the Wigner function propagates classically under the action of a quadratic Hamiltonian :

$$\frac{}{t}W_t(𝐱)=\{H(𝐱),W_t(𝐱)\},$$
(2)
introducing the classical Poisson bracket on the right side  and $`H(𝐱)=𝐱\mathrm{𝐇𝐱}`$, the Weyl symbol of the quadratic Hamiltonian. The symbol $``$ stands for the inner scalar product. Hence one has $`W_t(𝐱)=W_0(𝐑_t𝐱)`$, where

$$𝐑_t=\mathrm{exp}\left(2\mathrm{𝐉𝐇}t\right)$$
(3)
is the $`2\times 2`$ matrix giving the classical Hamiltonian time evolution of a phase space point $`𝐱`$. Actually, this propagation is also shared by the Fourier transform of $`W_t(𝐱)`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{A}(\xi )=\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}𝑑𝐱\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\xi 𝐱\right)A(𝐱),$$
(4)
i.e. it is also true that

$$\frac{}{t}\stackrel{~}{W}_t(\xi )=\{H(\xi ),\stackrel{~}{W}_t(\xi )\}.$$
(5)
Note that $`H(\xi )`$ must be read literally as the classical Hamiltonian $`H(𝐱)`$ taken at the point $`\xi =(\xi _p,\xi _q)`$, which is in general different from the chord transform $`\stackrel{~}{H}(\xi )`$ of $`H(𝐱)`$. In other words, one has also $`\stackrel{~}{W}_t(\xi )=\stackrel{~}{W}_0(𝐑_t\xi )`$. Above we have made use of the wedge product,

$$\xi 𝐱\xi _pq\xi _qp(𝐉\xi )^T𝐱𝐉\xi 𝐱,$$
(6)
also defining the transpose of a vector $`(.)^T`$ and the matrix $`𝐉`$. The semiclassical background for the symplectic invariance of both the Wigner function and its Fourier transform is that the Weyl phase space coordinate $`𝐱`$ may be associated to pairs of points in phase space, $`𝐱_\pm `$, by $`𝐱=(𝐱_++𝐱_{})/2`$. The conjugate variable to this centre is the chord $`\xi =𝐱_+𝐱_{}`$. The linear motion of both the chord $`\xi `$ and the center $`𝐱`$ is the same as for each individual phase space point $`𝐱_+`$ or $`𝐱_{}`$. We will refer to $`\stackrel{~}{W}(\xi )`$ as the chord function as in , though it is also known as the characteristic function in quantum optics.

The question that we address is to what extent can the simplicity and generality of symplectic motion of closed quantum systems be incorporated within the description of systems whose coupling to the environment cannot be ignored. In this case the evolution is no longer unitary, unless the full Hamiltonian of the system combined with the environment is taken into account. All the same, a certain measure of generality is restored by the assumption that the density operator is governed by a Markovian master equation ,

$$\frac{\widehat{\rho }}{t}=\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}[\widehat{H},\widehat{\rho }]\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}\underset{j}{}2\widehat{L}_j\widehat{\rho }\widehat{L}_j^{}\widehat{L}_j^{}\widehat{L}_j\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\rho }\widehat{L}_j^{}\widehat{L}_j.$$
(7)
If the further assumption is made that each Lindblad operator, $`\widehat{L}_j`$, is a linear function of $`\widehat{p}`$ and $`\widehat{q}`$, we will show that the evolution of $`\stackrel{~}{W}_t(\xi )`$ is the product of the classically evolved $`\stackrel{~}{W}_0(\xi )`$ with $`g_t(\xi )`$, a Gaussian centred on $`\xi =\mathrm{𝟎}`$ that has diminishing width. One can then generalize in a straightforward way the exact solution given by Agarwal  for the Wigner function. This is a convolution of the Fourier transform of $`g_t(\xi )`$ with the classically evolved $`W_0(𝐱)`$. In other words the Wigner function is coarse-grained by a widening Gaussian window.

A simple example of symplectic evolution of an open quantum system is that of a dust particle interacting with air molecules, or radiation, so that in the absence of gravity, $`\widehat{H}=\widehat{p}^2/2m`$ and the interaction with the environment depends basically on the particle’s position: $`\widehat{L}=\eta \widehat{q}`$, where $`\eta `$ is the coupling parameter. This example is discussed by Giulini et al. in . Another important example is that of an optical field, say an arbitrary superposition of coherent states interacting with thermal photons. In terms of real variables, the internal Hamiltonian is just $`\widehat{H}=\omega (\widehat{p}^2+\widehat{q}^2)/2`$, i.e. the harmonic oscillator. The Lindblad operators in this case are known to be $`\gamma (\overline{n}+1)\widehat{a}/2`$ and $`\gamma \overline{n}\widehat{a}^{}/2`$, where $`\widehat{a}^{}`$ and $`\widehat{a}`$ are the usual creation and annihilation operators, $`\overline{n}`$ is the average number of thermal photons at the frequency $`\omega `$ of the cavity mode at temperature $`T`$ and $`\gamma `$ is the decay rate .

Recently Diósi and Kiefer  (hereafter labeled DK) showed in the case of the first example that the Wigner function of any pure state becomes positive within a definite time. Thus the Markovian interaction with the environment has the effect of erasing the interference fringes characteristic of quantum coherence and from then on the effect of coarse-graining on the Wigner function is not distinguishable from that of a classical Liouville distribution. How general is the DK scenario? In section $`II`$ we present the exact solution of the Lindblad equation for general quadratic $`\widehat{H}`$ and arbitrary complex linear Lindblad operators $`\widehat{L}_j=\lambda _j\widehat{q}+\mu _j\widehat{p}`$. In section $`III`$ we explicit the underlying classical structure of the solution. Then, in section $`IV`$, we use the properties of the convolution to generalize the positivity time of DK in the case of arbitrary quadratic Hamiltonian and nonhermitian Lindblad operators. Furthermore we make the much stronger statement that the Wigner function cannot be positive before this threshold, unless the initial distribution is a Gaussian. We discuss the consequences of this statement through the example of a bath of photons. In section $`V`$ we specify the behaviour of the positivity threshold for each type of quadratic Hamiltonian. It turns out that a nonzero dissipation coefficient implies that positivity is reached exponentially fast. The positivity threshold is in general inversely proportional to the dissipative coefficient. However it becomes inversely proportional to the Lyapunov exponent if the latter is greater than this coefficient, that is in the case of a hyperbolic system (i.e. the inverted oscillator) in the weak coupling limit. Then positivity can be reached much faster than in the corresponding elliptic case (i.e. the harmonic oscillator with the same coupling constants). Though all the formulae presented here are appropriate for a single degree of freedom, the generalization to higher dimensions is discussed in this section. In section $`VI`$ we derive a general formula for the growth of the linear entropy $`(1Tr\widehat{\rho _t}^2)`$, with respect to the initial density operators, for each choice of the quadratic master equation. We also show that for long times the growth of linear entropy attains a universal form. Finally in section $`VII`$ we point out that this general solution is obviously reversible, giving a very synthetic inversion formula which generalizes previous work about quantum state reconstruction .

The generalization of the convolution as exact solution of the master equation (7) when $`\widehat{H}`$ is not quadratic, or for nonlinear $`\widehat{L}_j`$, is not obvious. However, the approximate semiclassical theory developed by one of the present authors  has no such constraint. Its compatibility with the present theory is the subject of a companion paper . A simpler version of the present work, for the restricted case of hermitian $`\widehat{L}_j`$, can be accessed in .

## II Exact Solution in the quadratic case with dissipation

We derive here the exact solution of the Lindblad equation in the case where the Hamiltonian is quadratic and the Lindblad operators are complex linear forms in $`\widehat{q}`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$.

Taking the Weyl-Wigner transform of equation (7), i.e. associating the Weyl symbol $`A(𝐱)`$ to each operator $`\widehat{A}`$, as defined in (1), and using the product rules  for operators, we obtain,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{W_t}{t}}(𝐱)`$ $`=`$ $`\{H(𝐱),W_t(𝐱)\}+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}(\mathrm{𝐉𝐥}_j^{\prime \prime }𝐥_j^{})\left[𝐱{\displaystyle \frac{W_t}{𝐱}}(𝐱)+2W_t(𝐱)\right]+`$ (9)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\left\{\mathrm{𝐉𝐥}_j^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2W_t}{𝐱^2}}(𝐱)\right)\mathrm{𝐉𝐥}_j^{}+\mathrm{𝐉𝐥}_j^{\prime \prime }\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2W_t}{𝐱^2}}(𝐱)\right)\mathrm{𝐉𝐥}_j^{\prime \prime }\right\}.`$
Here the $`L_j(𝐱)=𝐥_j^{}𝐱+i𝐥_j^{\prime \prime }𝐱`$ are the Weyl symbols of the nonhermitian linear Lindblad operators. We use the notation

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}𝐱\hfill & =\hfill & \left(\begin{array}{c}p\\ q\end{array}\right)\hfill & \text{a}nd\hfill & 𝐥^{}\hfill & =\hfill & \left(\begin{array}{c}\lambda ^{}\\ \mu ^{}\end{array}\right),\hfill & 𝐥^{\prime \prime }\hfill & =\hfill & \left(\begin{array}{c}\lambda ^{\prime \prime }\\ \mu ^{\prime \prime }\end{array}\right)\hfill & \end{array}.$$
(10)
It is well known that in this case $`H(𝐱)`$ and $`L_j(𝐱)`$ can be identified as the classical variables corresponding to $`\widehat{H}`$ and $`\widehat{L_j}`$. Note that if $`𝐥^{\prime \prime }=0`$ then the second term in (9) cancels. It will become clear that this term is responsible for dissipation in the evolution of $`W_t(𝐱)`$ and we define the dissipation coefficient, $`\alpha =_j(\mathrm{𝐉𝐥}_j^{\prime \prime }𝐥_j^{})`$, which is zero in .

It is actually easier to solve the evolution equation for the chord function $`\stackrel{~}{W}(\xi )`$,

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{W}_t}{t}(\xi )=\{H(\xi ),\stackrel{~}{W}_t(\xi )\}\alpha \xi \frac{\stackrel{~}{W}_t}{\xi }(\xi )\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}\underset{j}{}\left[\left(𝐥_j^{}\xi \right)^2+\left(𝐥_j^{}\xi \right)^2\right]\stackrel{~}{W}_t(\xi ),$$
(11)
as derived in the appendix A. We guess a solution of the form

$$\stackrel{~}{W}_t(\xi )=\stackrel{~}{W}_0(\xi _t)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}\underset{j}{}_0^t\left[\left(𝐥_j^{}\xi _{t^{}t}\right)^2+\left(𝐥_j^{\prime \prime }\xi _{t^{}t}\right)^2\right]𝑑t^{}\right),$$
(12)
where $`\xi _t`$ is a linear evolution of $`\xi `$, which will be explicited a posteriori, such that

$$\xi _0=\xi .$$
(13)
Then, inserting the form (12) of $`\stackrel{~}{W}_t`$ in equation (11) and dividing both sides by the exponential of (12) leads to the following left part,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{W}_0}{\xi }}(\xi _t)\dot{\xi }_t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\left[\left(𝐥_j^{}\xi \right)^2+\left(𝐥_j^{\prime \prime }\xi \right)^2\right]\stackrel{~}{W}_0(\xi _t)`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}}\stackrel{~}{W}_0(\xi _t){\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle _0^t}\left[2\left(𝐥_j^{}\xi _{t^{}t}\right)𝐥_j^{}\left(\dot{\xi }_{t^{}t}\right)+2\left(𝐥_j^{\prime \prime }\xi _{t^{}t}\right)𝐥_j^{\prime \prime }\left(\dot{\xi }_{t^{}t}\right)\right]𝑑t^{},`$
which must equal the right part

$`2\mathrm{𝐉𝐇}\xi _t{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{W}_0}{\xi }}(\xi _t)\alpha \xi _t{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{W}_0}{\xi }}(\xi _t){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\left[\left(𝐥_j^{}\xi \right)^2+\left(𝐥_j^{\prime \prime }\xi \right)^2\right]\stackrel{~}{W}_0(\xi _t){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}}\stackrel{~}{W}_0(\xi _t){\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle _0^t}2\left[\left(𝐥_j^{}\xi _{t^{}t}\right)𝐥_j^{}\left(2\mathrm{𝐉𝐇}\xi _{t^{}t}\alpha \xi _{t^{}t}\right)+\left(𝐥_j^{\prime \prime }\xi _{t^{}t}\right)𝐥_j^{\prime \prime }\left(2\mathrm{𝐉𝐇}\xi _{t^{}t}\alpha \xi _{t^{}t}\right)\right]𝑑t^{}.`$
We have used

$$\xi \frac{}{\xi }\left(\stackrel{~}{W}_0(\xi _t)\right)=\xi _t\frac{\stackrel{~}{W}_0}{\xi }(\xi _t),$$
(18)
and

$$\{H(\xi ),\stackrel{~}{W}_t(\xi )\}=2\mathrm{𝐉𝐇}\xi \frac{\stackrel{~}{W}_t}{\xi }(\xi ).$$
(19)
Hence the ansatz (12) is a solution of (11) if $`\xi _t`$ fulfills

$$\dot{\xi }_t=2\mathrm{𝐉𝐇}\xi _t+\alpha \xi _t.$$
(20)
Thus, we can write explicitly,

$$\xi _t=e^{\alpha t}𝐑_t\xi ,$$
(21)
where $`𝐑_t`$, defined in (3), gives the purely Hamiltonian evolution and the dissipation term $`\alpha `$ leads to a classical nonhamiltonian expansion ($`\alpha >0`$) or contraction ($`\alpha <0`$) of the chord variable $`\xi `$. One should be aware that although the Hamiltonian part of the evolution of $`\xi `$ is shared with the one of the phase space point $`𝐱`$, the effect of dissipation is inverted, as it will be explicited soon.

The argument of the exponential in (12) is a quadratic form in $`\xi `$, so the solution can be written

$$\stackrel{~}{W}_t(\xi )=\stackrel{~}{W}_0(\xi _t)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}\xi 𝐌(t)\xi \right),$$
(22)
with $`𝐌(t)`$ a real, time dependent $`2\times 2`$ matrix, which can naturally be decomposed into

$$𝐌(t)=\underset{j}{}M_j(t)=\underset{j}{}_0^t𝑑t^{}e^{2\alpha (t^{}t)}𝐑_{t^{}t}^T𝐥_j𝐥_j^T𝐑_{t^{}t},$$
(23)
so that each Lindblad operator contributes a Gaussian to (22).

Now, back into the Weyl-Wigner representation by using (4), one obtains the solution of (9),

$$W_t\left(𝐱\right)=\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}e^{2\alpha t}W_0\left(e^{\alpha t}𝐑_t(𝐱𝐲)\right)\frac{1}{\sqrt{det𝐌_J(t)}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}𝐲𝐌_J(t)^1𝐲\right)𝑑𝐲,$$
(24)
where we have defined

$`𝐌_J(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{𝐉𝐌}(t)𝐉`$ (25)
$`𝐌_J(t)^1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{𝐉𝐌}(t)^1𝐉,`$ (26)
with the symplectic matrix $`𝐉`$ defined in (6). $`W_0(𝐱)`$ is the initial Wigner function and the convolution Gaussian turns into a Dirac $`\delta `$ function as $`t`$ goes to $`0`$. We have equivalently,

$`W_t\left(𝐱\right)`$ $`=`$ $`w_t(𝐱_t)`$ (27)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}\sqrt{det𝐌_J(t)}}}{\displaystyle W_0\left(𝐲\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}(𝐲𝐱_t)\stackrel{~}{𝐌}(t)^1(𝐲𝐱_t)\right)𝑑𝐲},`$ (28)
with

$$𝐱_t=e^{\alpha t}𝐑_t𝐱$$
(29)
and

$$\stackrel{~}{𝐌}(t)=e^{2\alpha t}𝐑_t^T𝐉M(t)\mathrm{𝐉𝐑}_t=𝐌_J(t).$$
(30)
Hence the solution is a convolution with a Gaussian which broadens in time, composed with a backwards nonhamiltonian evolution of the phase space variable $`𝐱`$. As mentioned earlier, the Hamiltonian part of this classical evolution is the same as in the chord space, whereas the dissipative part has the opposite effect: dissipation ($`\alpha >0`$) will shrink the phase space variable, and thus expand the distribution $`W_t`$.

This solution, which has been derived in the case of an homogeneous quadratic Hamiltonian, can be generalized easily to a quadratic Hamiltonian with a linear part. One then has to be aware that the matrix $`𝐑_t`$, which appears in the exponential Lindbladian damping, strictly corresponds to the classical motion of the chord, which is determined by the homogeneous part of the Hamiltonian $`H`$. This remark is important, for instance, in the parabolic case, say a particle with a linear potential, where the motion of the chord disregards the potential.

Since $`|det\stackrel{~}{𝐌}(t)|`$ grows with time, one can conclude, following DK , that the solution (24) becomes positive after a certain time. Indeed it is, after rescaling the variable, the convolution of the initial Wigner function with a Gaussian of broadening size, which smoothes out oscillations around zero. It is the property of symplectic invariance of the Wigner function that DK employ to prove strict positivity in a specific case that is now extended to its broader context. Moreover we shall give in section $`IV`$ the much stronger result that the Wigner function cannot be positive before the DK time, which does not depend on the initial pure state, unless it is a coherent state. We then give in section $`V`$ the general behaviour of this positivity threshold for different dynamics, namely when $`𝐇`$ is elliptic, as for the harmonic oscillator, hyperbolic, as for the scattered particle, or in the parabolic intermediate case which includes the system studied in DK. The next section explicits the formal correspondence between this problem and a classical Brownian motion described by a Langevin equation, as also did Agarwal  for his solution.

## III Classical correspondence

Since Eq. (9) is a Fokker-Planck equation, it can be interpreted as the evolution equation for the probability distribution of a classical Brownian motion defined by a Langevin equation. This correspondence gives a simple classical interpretation of the problem. Hence the decoherence may be seen as a diffusion induced by some random force, and dissipation can be interpreted as a classical viscosity, although it is always accompanied by another diffusive term. The only feature which cannot be assigned a classical meaning is the Wigner function itself, which, as a pseudo-probability distribution, can have negative values.

One can check easily, see for instance , that the following Langevin equation,

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\dot{p}\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{H}{q}(𝐱)\alpha p+\sqrt{\mathrm{}}_m\left(\lambda _m^{}f_m(t)+\lambda _m^{\prime \prime }g_m(t)\right)\hfill \\ \dot{q}\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{H}{p}(𝐱)\alpha q+\sqrt{\mathrm{}}_m\left(\mu _m^{}f_m(t)+\mu _m^{\prime \prime }g_m(t)\right)\hfill \end{array},$$
(31)
induces equation (9) as a Fokker-Planck counterpart. The “Brownian forces” $`f_m(t)`$ and $`g_m(t)`$ verify

$$\begin{array}{ccc}f_m(t^{})f_n(t^{\prime \prime })\hfill & =\hfill & \delta _{m,n}\delta (t)\hfill \\ g_m(t^{})g_n(t^{\prime \prime })\hfill & =\hfill & \delta _{m,n}\delta (t)\hfill \\ f_m(t^{})g_n(t^{\prime \prime })\hfill & =\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}.$$
(32)
The $`f_m(t)`$ correspond to the diffusion induced by the nondissipative real part of the Lindblad operators, whereas the $`g_m(t)`$ correspond to the diffusion induced by dissipation. It can easily be verified that the Fokker-Planck equation is symplectically invariant, so one is allowed to perform the following change of coordinates,

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{p}\hfill & =\hfill & p\frac{\alpha }{2𝐇_{11}}q\hfill \\ \overline{q}\hfill & =\hfill & q\hfill \end{array},$$
(33)
to the above Langevin equation, which then turns into the following more intuitive form, where the dissipation depends only on the momentum:

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\dot{p}\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{\overline{H}}{q}(𝐱)\overline{\alpha }p+\sqrt{\mathrm{}}_m\left(\overline{\lambda }_m^{}f_m(t)+\overline{\lambda }_m^{\prime \prime }g_m(t)\right)\hfill \\ \dot{q}\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{\overline{H}}{p}(𝐱)+\sqrt{\mathrm{}}_m\left(\mu _m^{}f_m(t)+\mu _m^{\prime \prime }g_m(t)\right)\hfill \end{array}.$$
(34)
Here, the matrix for the transformed Hamiltonian $`\overline{H}`$ is

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝐇_{11}& 𝐇_{12}\\ 𝐇_{12}& 𝐇_{22}+\frac{\alpha ^2+4\alpha 𝐇_{12}}{4𝐇_{11}}\end{array}\right),$$
(35)
$`\overline{\lambda }_m^{}=\lambda _m^{}\frac{\alpha }{2𝐇_{11}}\mu _m^{}`$ and respectively for $`\overline{\lambda }_m^{\prime \prime }`$, and $`\overline{\alpha }=2\alpha `$.

From this classical picture we can interpret the general behaviour of the solution of the Lindblad equation. In the case of a closed system, remember that the Wigner function undergoes a Liouville, unitary, propagation. Now the system is coupled to an environment, i.e. there are nonzero Lindblad operators. If dissipation of energy is neglected, these operators are Hermitian, so there is no imaginary part of the vectors $`𝐥`$. Then the effect of the environment over the system can be interpreted as a diffusion process corresponding to random forces in the Langevin equation. Formally, it corresponds to the initial Wigner function being convoluted with a Gaussian which broadens with time. If one now takes into account the dissipation induced by the environment, allowing the Lindblad operator to be non-hermitian, a viscous term appears in (32) and (34), meaning that the classical trajectories on which the distribution travels are drifted to lesser or higher energy, according to the sign, $`+`$ or $``$, of the “viscosity” $`\alpha `$. Indeed, the dissipative linear motion governed by the nonrandom terms of (32) is just that of (29). One should be aware that it is only a formal classical scheme, and that the viscous term might have a purely quantum origin. For instance, in the case of photons in a cavity with dissipation, whose Lindblad operators are explicited in section $`VA`$, the viscosity is related to spontaneous emission, which breaks the symmetry between emission and absorption. Then the classical trajectories of the above equation spiral in towards the origin, although a semiclassical theory would lead to no dissipation. The opposite case would be an amplified cavity, where the trajectories would spiral out. Notice that this viscous term always goes along with a supplement of diffusion, which can be interpreted as a consequence of the fluctuation-dissipation “theorem” .

## IV Unique positivity time for any initial state

We have seen in section $`II`$ that, because of the Lindbladian part of the master equation, the pure state Wigner function is convoluted with a Gaussian whose width grows with time. It has been pointed out by DK that at the time $`t_p`$ at which the width of the Gaussian reaches $`\mathrm{}`$, that is when it becomes the Weyl representation of some coherent or squeezed state, then its convolution with the initial Wigner function, $`W_0(𝐱)`$, is a Husimi function  of the initial state, or a $`Q`$ function in the language of quantum optics. It is a well known property that the Husimi function is positive, so we have $`W_{t_p}0`$, and obviously, since the Gaussian is strictly broadening, $`W_t>0`$ for $`t>t_p`$. It has already been emphasized by Leonhardt et al.  that the form of the Wigner function after interaction with a dissipative environment can be read as an intermediate phase space distribution $`W(𝐱,t=0,s)`$, with an $`s`$ which depends on the dissipation rate. Thus $`s=0`$ corresponds to the (initial) Wigner function and $`s=1`$ to the Husimi function of DK (in  the role of the environment is played by the imperfections of a beam separator).

We shall now prove that the Wigner function can never be positive before the positivity threshold $`t_p`$, unless it is positive from the beginning, that is, unless the initial state is a Gaussian state. Indeed, if an initial pure state $`|\psi _0`$ is not a Gaussian, then it was shown by Tatarskiĭ  that the initial Wigner function $`W_0(𝐱)`$ has negative parts. But it is also true that nongaussian Husimi functions necessarily have zeroes, as shown in the appendix B. Since $`W_{t_p}`$ is, up to a symplectic transform, a Husimi function, there exists $`𝐱_0`$ such that

$$W_{t_p}(𝐱_0)=0.$$
(36)
Let us now investigate the case $`t<t_p`$. Then $`W_t(𝐱)`$ given by (28) is a convolution of $`W_0(𝐱_t)`$ with a Gaussian of width smaller than $`\mathrm{}`$. The point is that one can then convolute again with $`\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\kappa }{\mathrm{}}𝐱_t\stackrel{~}{𝐌}(t)^1𝐱_t\right)`$, with the real parameter $`\kappa `$ chosen so that the output is also a Husimi function $`Q(𝐱_t)`$. To show this we refer to the simple general relation:

$$𝑑𝐲\mathrm{exp}\left((𝐱𝐲)𝐌(𝐱𝐲)\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(𝐲\kappa \mathrm{𝐌𝐲}\right)=\frac{\pi }{(1+\kappa )\sqrt{det𝐌}}\mathrm{exp}\left(𝐱\frac{\kappa }{1+\kappa }\mathrm{𝐌𝐱}\right).$$
(37)
This Husimi function can be identified with $`W_{t_p}`$ through a symplectic transform $`𝐱_t𝐱^{}`$, so we have

$$Q(𝐱_0^{})=𝑑𝐲w_t(𝐱_0^{}𝐲)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\kappa }{2\mathrm{}}𝐲\stackrel{~}{𝐌}(t)^1𝐲\right)=0.$$
(38)
Now it is obvious from (38) that $`w_t`$, hence $`W_t`$, must have a negative part for all $`t<t_p`$.

Let us emphasize the striking consequence of this result: the positivity time does not depend on the initial distribution, as long as it is not a Gaussian one. The following example shall illustrate this remarkable property in a more transparent way.

### A Example

We start from the familiar superposition of two coherent states, i.e. ground states of the harmonic oscillator, displaced to the phase space points $`𝐱_\zeta =(0,\pm \zeta )`$: $`|\psi _0=(|\zeta +|\zeta )/\sqrt{(}2)`$, in the context of photons in a cavity with dissipation. The Wigner function, which is a particular case of Eq. (24), is the sum of three terms; two of these correspond to the coherent states taken independently, and the third term comes from their interference:

$$W_t(𝐱)=W_\zeta (𝐱)+W_\zeta (𝐱)+W_i(𝐱),$$
(39)
with

$$W_\zeta (𝐱)=\frac{2N}{\pi \beta _t}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2}{\beta _t}p^2\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2}{\beta _t}(qe^{\gamma t/2}\zeta )^2\right)$$
(40)
and

$$W_i(𝐱)=\frac{4N}{\pi \beta _t}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2}{\beta _t}(p^2+q^2)\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(2(1\frac{e^{\gamma t}}{\beta _t})\zeta ^2\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{4e^{\gamma t/2}}{\beta _t}\zeta p\right),$$
(41)
where $`\gamma `$, defined in the introduction, corresponds to $`2\alpha `$, and $`\beta _t=2\overline{n}(1\mathrm{exp}\left(\gamma t\right))+1`$. The function is normalised by $`N=\left(1+\mathrm{exp}(\zeta ^2/\mathrm{})\right)^1`$. Obviously the minimum values are concentrated on the line $`q=0`$, where the expression simplifies into

$$W_t(p,q=0)=\frac{4N}{\pi \beta _t}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2}{\beta _t}p^2\right)\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(2(1\frac{e^{\gamma t}}{\beta _t})\zeta ^2\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{4e^{\gamma t/2}}{\beta _t}\zeta p\right)+\mathrm{exp}\left(2\frac{e^{\gamma t}}{\beta _t}\zeta ^2\right)\right].$$
(42)
The Wigner function becomes positive when

$$1\frac{e^{\gamma t}}{\beta _t}=\frac{e^{\gamma t}}{\beta _t},$$
(43)
that is at $`t_p=1/\gamma \mathrm{log}\left(1+1/(2\overline{n}+1)\right)`$, which indeed does not depend on the initial spacing $`\zeta `$ of the two coherent states. On the other hand, the position $`(p_m,0)`$ of the closest zero, given by the first minimum of the cosine at that time,

$$p_m=\frac{\beta _t}{4\sqrt{2}\zeta },$$
(44)
gets further away as $`\zeta `$ becomes smaller. This shows that the negative regions that remain until $`t_p`$ may be so shallow as to be practically irrelevant.

The chord representation reveals how the positivity threshold is related to a more reasonable estimate of the decoherence time. The expression of the chord function in our example is

$$\stackrel{~}{W}_0(\xi )=\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\xi ^2}{4\mathrm{}}\right)2\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\xi 𝐱_\zeta }{\mathrm{}}\right)+\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{(\xi 𝐱_\zeta )^2}{4\mathrm{}}\right)+\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{(\xi +𝐱_\zeta )^2}{4\mathrm{}}\right).$$
(45)
The first two terms, distributed around the origin, correspond to the two coherent states taken separately, whereas the last two terms, distributed around $`𝐱_\zeta `$ and $`𝐱_\zeta `$, describe the quantum interference between them. The positivity time corresponds to the moment when the Gaussian in (22) damps everything outside a region of size $`\mathrm{}`$ in the chord space. However, both interference terms in this example will be damped much sooner if $`\zeta `$ is large enough, indicating an overall loss of coherence.

It should be remarked that one just has to study a specific example, here the twin coherent states, to get the positivity time for any nongaussian initial pure state.

## V Behaviour of the positivity threshold

Positivity is attained when the determinant of the matrix $`\stackrel{~}{𝐌}(t)`$, that is the determinant of $`𝐌(t)`$, is equal to $`1/4`$. Then the expression of the solution (28) is indeed a Husimi function. The matrix $`𝐌`$ is defined by (23), so, to calculate it, we notice that $`\mathrm{𝐉𝐇}`$, in the expression (3) of $`𝐑_t`$, can be diagonalized in most cases, that is when its two eigenvalues are finite and different. We then define the matrix $`𝐏`$ such that

$$2\mathrm{𝐉𝐇}=𝐏^1\mathrm{𝐃𝐏},$$
(46)
with

$$𝐃=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sigma & 0\\ 0& \sigma \end{array}\right),$$
(47)
and $`\sigma =2\sqrt{det𝐇}`$. Notice that since $`𝐇`$ is symmetric, then $`\mathrm{𝐉𝐇}`$ has a null trace, and so has $`𝐃`$. The dissipation parameter, $`\alpha `$, and $`\sigma `$ are basic elements for the description of the evolution of Markovian quadratic open systems.

Then, using (23) one can easily derive the expression of $`𝐌`$,

$$𝐌(t)=𝐏^T\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1e^{2(\sigma +\alpha )t}}{2(\alpha +\sigma )}𝐀_{11}& \frac{1e^{2\alpha t}}{2\alpha }𝐀_{12}\\ \frac{1e^{2\alpha t}}{2\alpha }𝐀_{21}& \frac{1e^{2(\sigma \alpha )t}}{2(\alpha \sigma )}𝐀_{22}\end{array}\right)𝐏,$$
(48)
where $`𝐀`$ is defined by

$$𝐀=(𝐏^1)^T\underset{j}{}\left(𝐥_j^{}(𝐥_j^{})^T+𝐥_j^{\prime \prime }(𝐥_j^{\prime \prime })^T\right)𝐏^1.$$
(49)
The corresponding quadratic form actually depends on the classical motion of the chord, determined by the homogeneous part $`𝐱\mathrm{𝐇𝐱}`$ of the Hamiltonian. One then has to separate different cases: the elliptic case, $`det𝐇>0`$, the parabolic case, $`det𝐇=0`$, and the hyperbolic case, $`det𝐇<0`$.

Since the Wigner function is symplectically invariant, one just has to treat the simplest expression in each case, respectively the harmonic oscillator, $`H(𝐱)=p^2/2+q^2/2`$, the particle in a linear potential, $`H(𝐱)=p^2/2+q`$, and the scattered particle, $`H(𝐱)=pq`$, which is symplectically equivalent to $`p^2/2q^2/2`$ The reduction of a linear Lindblad operator under a symplectic transformation, $`𝐱^{}=\mathrm{𝐂𝐱}`$, is especially simple in the Wigner or in the chord representation. If, instead of (10), we set $`L_j(𝐱)=ł_j𝐱`$, then the invariance is obtained by taking $`ł_j^{}=𝐂ł_j`$. Of course, one must also use the invariance of the classical Hamiltonian $`H(𝐱^{})=H(𝐱)`$..

### A Harmonic oscillator

In this case, the Hamiltonian reads

$$H(𝐱)=\omega \left(\frac{p^2}{2}+\frac{q^2}{2}\right)$$
(50)
and the matrix $`𝐏`$ is

$$𝐏=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& i\\ i& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(51)
Then the determinant of $`𝐌(t)`$ reads

$$det𝐌(t)=\frac{e^{4\alpha t}2e^{2\alpha t}\mathrm{cos}2\omega t+1}{4(\alpha ^2+\omega ^2)}𝐀_{11}𝐀_{22}\frac{e^{4\alpha t}2e^{2\alpha t}+1}{4\alpha ^2}𝐀_{12}𝐀_{21},$$
(52)
where in this case the matrix $`𝐀`$ is complex:

$$𝐀=\frac{1}{2}\underset{j}{}\left(\begin{array}{cc}(\lambda _j^{})^2(\mu _j^{})^2+2i\lambda _j\mu _j& i(\lambda _j^{})^2i(\mu _j^{})^2\\ i(\lambda _j^{})^2i(\mu _j^{})^2& (\lambda _j^{})^2+(\mu _j^{})^2+2i\lambda _j\mu _j\end{array}\right)+\left(\text{idem with}\lambda _j^{\prime \prime }\text{and}\mu _j^{\prime \prime }\right),$$
(53)
using (10).

In the dissipative case, that is for $`\alpha >0`$, this determinant diverges exponentially fast, and positivity is attained in a time of the order of $`1/|\alpha |`$. Let us take for instance the bath of photons, then the coefficients of the Lindblad operators are

$$\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}𝐥_1^{}& =& \left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ \sqrt{\frac{\gamma (\overline{n}+1)}{2}}\end{array}\right),& 𝐥_1^{\prime \prime }& =& \left(\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{\frac{\gamma (\overline{n}+1)}{2}}\\ 0\end{array}\right),& 𝐥_2^{}& =& \left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ \sqrt{\frac{\gamma \overline{n}}{2}}\end{array}\right),& 𝐥_2^{\prime \prime }& =& \left(\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{\frac{\gamma \overline{n}}{2}}\\ 0\end{array}\right),\end{array}$$
(54)
and the friction $`\alpha =\gamma /2`$. Then

$$det𝐌(t)=\frac{(e^{\gamma t}1)^2}{4}(2\overline{n}+1)^2,$$
(55)
which equals $`1/4`$ at $`t=1/\gamma \mathrm{log}\left(1+1/(2\overline{n}+1)\right)`$, as was previously mentioned. Notice that, although the coarse-graining grows for ever, the size of the Wigner distribution reaches a finite limit, for the rescaled function (28) is the expression of $`W(𝐱)`$ and not $`W(𝐱_t)`$.

If, on the other hand, $`\alpha <0`$ then the determinant reaches its limit in a time also of the order of $`1/|\alpha |`$. We conjecture that this limit has a lower bound greater than $`1/4`$. Here rescaling $`𝐱_t𝐱`$ now implies that $`W_t(𝐱)`$ spreads with no bound.

### B Scattered particle

The simplest form of the Hamiltonian for a particle scattered by a parabolic barrier is

$$H(𝐱)=\omega pq.$$
(56)
Then the matrix $`𝐏`$ is just identity and the matrix $`𝐀`$ is real, so the determinant reads

$$det𝐌(t)=\frac{e^{4\alpha t}2e^{2\alpha t}ch2\omega t+1}{4(\alpha ^2\omega ^2)}𝐀_{11}𝐀_{22}\frac{e^{4\alpha t}2e^{2\alpha t}+1}{4\alpha ^2}𝐀_{12}𝐀_{21},$$
(57)
As long as $`\alpha >\omega `$ it grows exponentially, so positivity is always reached. When $`\alpha <\omega `$ the determinant has again a finite asymptotic value. Then the positivity threshold is of the order of $`1/(|\alpha |\omega )`$, which is greater than the corresponding elliptic case, with identical Lindblad operators.

The main difference with the elliptic case appears in the weak coupling limit $`|\alpha |\omega `$. Whereas positivity of the elliptic system will then be attained in a time which is still inversely proportional to the coupling with the environment, the positivity threshold of the hyperbolic system will saturate at $`1/\omega `$. We conjecture that this will also be the case in a more general chaotic system.

### C Particle in a linear potential

We now study the intermediate case, which can be represented by the Hamiltonian

$$H(𝐱)=\frac{p^2}{2}+q.$$
(58)
This degenerate case does not follow our general form for the matrix $`𝐌`$, so one has to treat it separately, taking care of the linear term (cf. remark of section $`II`$). One should remember here that the motion of the chord is given by the free motion of the particle, which corresponds to

$$𝐑_t=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ t& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(59)
Then the damping matrix is

$$𝐌(t)=t\underset{j}{}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{e^{2\alpha t}}{2\alpha }Q_{11}^{(2)}\frac{1}{2\alpha }Q_{11}^{(0)}& \frac{e^{2\alpha t}}{2\alpha }Q_{12}^{(1)}\frac{1}{2\alpha }Q_{12}^{(0)}\\ \frac{e^{2\alpha t}}{2\alpha }Q_{12}^{(1)}\frac{1}{2\alpha }Q_{12}^{(0)}& \left(\frac{e^{2\alpha t}}{2\alpha }\frac{1}{2\alpha }\right)Q_{22}^{(0)}\end{array}\right),$$
(60)
where the $`Q_{ij}^{(d)}`$ are polynomials of degree $`d`$ in $`t`$ and of degree $`2`$ in the coupling constants, say $`(\lambda _j^{},\lambda _j^{\prime \prime },\mu _j^{},\mu _j^{\prime \prime })`$. Let us take for instance one Lindblad operator with $`(𝐥^{})^T=(0,\sqrt{D^{}})`$ and $`(𝐥^{\prime \prime })^T=(ϵ\sqrt{D^{\prime \prime }},0)`$, with $`ϵ=\pm 1`$. Then one has

$$det𝐌(t)=\frac{1}{4}\left[e^{4ϵ\overline{D}t}\left(1+\frac{1}{4(D^{\prime \prime })^2}\right)e^{2ϵ\overline{D}t}\left(\frac{D^{}}{D^{\prime \prime }}t^2+\frac{1}{2(D^{\prime \prime })^2}+2\right)+1+\frac{1}{4(D^{\prime \prime })^2}\right],$$
(61)
with $`\overline{D}=\sqrt{D^{}D^{\prime \prime }}`$. The limit is always greater than $`1/4`$, with the usual exponential contrast between the dissipative case ($`ϵ=1`$) and the excited case ($`ϵ=1`$). In , DK study this example with no dissipation, and they find a positivity time of the order of $`1/\sqrt{D^{}}`$. On the following table, one can read different values of the positivity threshold for $`D^{}=2`$, and check that the limit $`D^{\prime \prime }0`$ is attained gradually:

D′′
0
0.1
1
10
100ϵ=10.9300.6400.2440.0770.022ϵ=10.9301.0401.0250.7520.400.fragments
D′′
0
0.1
1
10
100fragmentsϵ10.9300.6400.2440.0770.022fragmentsϵ10.9301.0401.0250.7520.400\begin{tabular}[]{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}$D^{\prime\prime}$&$0$&$0.1$&$1$&$10$&$100$\\
\hline\cr$\epsilon=-1$&0.930&0.640&0.244&0.077&0.022\\
$\epsilon=1$&0.930&1.040&1.025&0.752&0.400\\
\end{tabular}. (62)
However for large values of $`D^{\prime \prime }`$, the positivity threshold will behave like $`1/\sqrt{D^{}D^{\prime \prime }}`$.

So far the discussion has been restricted to the case of a single degree of freedom. Besides trivial changes of factors of $`2\pi \mathrm{}`$, the basic form of the solutions of the Lindblad equation in the chord representation (22) and for the Wigner function (24) remain unchanged in the case of $`n`$ degrees of freedom. The evolution matrix $`𝐑_t`$ now has the dimension $`(2n)\times (2n)`$, but it can again be simplified by symplectic transformations. It will often decompose into blocks corresponding to the above examples. If every Lindblad vector $`𝐥_j`$ is defined for a single block, then its contribution to $`𝐌(t)`$ will be of the same form as that for a single degree of freedom, but otherwise each case must be examined separately. Also, $`4`$dimensional blocks may arise, corresponding to hyperbolic spiral motion, as well as singular cases analyzed by Arnold .

## VI The growth of linear entropy

Besides considering the positivity of the Wigner function, we can use the exact solution (22) to investigate the growth of linear entropy

$$S_t=1Tr\widehat{\rho _t}^2.$$
(63)
This is only zero for a pure state, just as for the Von Neumann entropy

$$𝕊_t=Tr\widehat{\rho _t}\mathrm{ln}\widehat{\rho _t}.$$
(64)
Since the solution is simpler in the chord representation, we make use of the following relations<sup>§</sup><sup>§</sup>§Note that there is a misprint in formula (6.24) of  for operators $`\widehat{A}`$, $`\widehat{B}`$,…represented by chord functions $`\stackrel{~}{A}(\xi )`$, $`\stackrel{~}{B}(\xi )`$

$$\widehat{A}\stackrel{~}{A}(\xi ),$$
(65)
$$\widehat{A}^{}\stackrel{~}{A}(\xi )^{},$$
(66)
$$Tr\widehat{A}=\stackrel{~}{A}(\xi =0),$$
(67)
$$Tr\widehat{A}\widehat{B}=\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}𝑑\xi \stackrel{~}{A}(\xi )\stackrel{~}{B}(\xi ).$$
(68)
Therefore, using $`\widehat{\rho }^{}=\widehat{\rho }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_t(\xi )=2\pi \mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{W}_t(\xi )`$, we obtain

$$Tr\widehat{\rho _t}=2\pi \mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{W}_t(\xi =0)=1,$$
(69)
and

$$Tr\widehat{\rho _t}^2=2\pi \mathrm{}𝑑\xi |\stackrel{~}{W}_t(\xi )|^2.$$
(70)
In the case of the solution (22) of the Lindblad equation, we thus have

$$\stackrel{~}{W}_0(\xi =0)=\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}$$
(71)
and

$$2\pi \mathrm{}𝑑\xi |\stackrel{~}{W}_0(\xi )|^2=1$$
(72)
if the initial state is pure.

After changing the variables of integration in (70), replacing $`\xi _t`$ in (22) by the initial chord $`\xi ^{}`$, we obtain

$$Tr\widehat{\rho _t}^2=2\pi \mathrm{}e^{2\alpha t}𝑑\xi ^{}|\stackrel{~}{W}_0(\xi ^{})|^2\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\xi ^{}𝐌(t)\xi ^{}\right),$$
(73)
where $`𝐌(t)`$, defined in (23), is negative definite.

Thus $`Tr\widehat{\rho _t}^2`$ is just the average of a rescaled Gaussian whose width narrows in time in a manner that depends exclusively on the particular form of $`H(𝐱)`$ and the linear Lindblad operators $`L_j(𝐱)`$. The initial state merely determines the probability density employed in the calculation of the average. A general asymptotic behaviour can be predicted for this formula, because the width of the Gaussian generally shrinks as $`t`$ grows. If the contraction is sufficient, the expression (73) will tend to

$$Tr\widehat{\rho _t}^22\pi \mathrm{}e^{2\alpha t}|\stackrel{~}{W}_0(\mathrm{𝟎})|^2𝑑\xi \mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\xi 𝐌(t)\xi \right]=\frac{\pi \mathrm{}e^{2\alpha t}}{\sqrt{det𝐌(t)}},$$
(74)
by using (71). It can be explicited, using (47) and (48), in terms of the dissipation, $`\alpha `$, and the basic Hamiltonian parameter, $`\sigma `$:

$$Tr\widehat{\rho _t}^2\frac{\pi \mathrm{}}{\sqrt{\frac{e^{4\alpha t}2e^{2\alpha t}\left(\frac{e^{2\sigma t}+e^{2\sigma t}}{2}\right)+1}{4(\alpha ^2+\sigma ^2)}𝐀_{11}𝐀_{22}\frac{e^{4\alpha t}2e^{2\alpha t}+1}{4\alpha ^2}𝐀_{12}𝐀_{21}}}.$$
(75)
If the underlying classical system is elliptic, $`\mathrm{Re}\left(\sigma \right)=0`$, one can distinguish two situations. In the excited case, $`\alpha <0`$, $`Tr\widehat{\rho _t}^2`$ converges to zero. In the dissipative case, $`\alpha >0`$, it converges to a finite value, which is not surprising since the system then reaches a thermal equilibrium . For instance in the case of a bath of photons, one has

$$Tr\widehat{\rho _t}^2\frac{4\pi \mathrm{}}{2\overline{n}+1}.$$
(76)
If the system is hyperbolic, the “Lyapunov exponent” $`\omega =\mathrm{Re}\left(\sigma \right)0`$. The consequence is to shift the definition of the above dichotomy. Indeed, $`Tr\widehat{\rho _t}^2`$ has a nonzero limit in the more restricted range $`\alpha >\omega `$.

The decoherence time, for the decay of $`Tr\widehat{\rho _t}^2`$, is in general inversely proportional to the coupling strength. However in the weak coupling limit $`|\alpha |\omega `$ it is $`1/\omega `$ in the hyperbolic case, whereas it is $`1/|\alpha |`$ in the elliptic one. Hence the decoherence time defined by the linear entropy is here consistent with the positivity threshold. This is a strong support to the thesis that positive Lyapunov exponents accelerate decoherence .

The asymptotic formula (74) holds only for those cases where all the eigenvalues of $`𝐌(t)`$ tend to infinity. Counterexamples are the elliptic case with $`\alpha <0`$, since the determinant then has a finite limit, and the hyperbolic case, for $`\alpha <\omega `$. Moreover, though $`\omega <\alpha <\omega `$ leads to a determinant which tends to infinity, one of the eigenvalues will indeed diverge whereas the other one, corresponding to the unstable direction, will have a finite limit.

## VII Reversibility of the solution

Although decoherence is usually associated with a loss of information, which goes along with the growth of entropy, several techniques have been developed in quantum optics to recover the initial information after interaction of the system with the environment. In general these consist of reconstructing the quantum state of a lossy cavity by using mathematical inversion formulas  or directly by experimental processes . We show here that the reversibility of the Wigner function results from the deconvolution of its evolution (28), or, even simpler, as a division (22) in the chord space. Indeed, one has

$$\stackrel{~}{W}_t(\xi )=\stackrel{~}{W}_0(e^{\alpha t}𝐑_t\xi )\stackrel{~}{G}_t(\xi ),$$
(77)
which can easily be inverted as

$$\stackrel{~}{W}_0(\xi )=\frac{\stackrel{~}{W}_t(e^{\alpha t}𝐑_t\xi )}{\stackrel{~}{G}_t(e^{\alpha t}𝐑_t\xi )}.$$
(78)
This is a generalization and a simplification of the inversion formula of  since the loss induced by beam splitter is a particular case of our general formalism.

## VIII Conclusion

The exact solution of the Markovian master equation for quadratic Hamiltonians and linear complex Lindblad operators has been derived in the form of a convolution for the Wigner function. This involves the classical evolution of the initial Wigner function for the closed system with a phase space Gaussian that is independent of this initial condition, while its width expands in time, depending only on the Hamiltonian and the Lindblad operators. This simple solution allows for the generalization of Diósi and Kiefer’s proof that the Wigner function becomes positive within a definite time $`t_p`$. Furthermore we support the much stronger statement that, unless the initial distribution is already a coherent state, the Wigner function must have negative regions before that time $`t_p`$, which then does not depend on the initial state. In section $`V`$ we have given the behaviour of $`t_p`$ for three basic types of motion of the quadratic Hamiltonian, namely the elliptic, the hyperbolic and the parabolic case, verifying that positivity is always reached exponentially fast. The positivity threshold is generally of the order of $`1/|\alpha |`$, except in the weak coupling regime $`|\alpha |\omega `$ of a hyperbolic system, where it is of the order of $`1/\omega `$. One should note that the threshold becomes independent on the Planck constant, if the Lindblad equation is appropriately scaled.

The Fourier transform of the exact solution, the chord function, is even simpler. This is the product of two terms: one is just the nonhamiltonian classical evolution of the initial chord function with dissipation and the other is again a Gaussian, but with narrowing width. This leads to a simple formula for $`Tr\widehat{\rho }^2`$ as an average of a shrinking Gaussian, where the probability distribution used to calculate the mean is just the square modulus of the initial chord function. For long times, we use the normalization condition that the chord function is unity at the origin to derive simple rules for the asymptotic growth $`Tr\widehat{\rho }^2`$ for a general quadratic Hamiltonian. This decays exponentially fast in a time which is of the same order as the positivity threshold. This result is compatible with the arguments presented by Zurek and Paz  for exponential growth of linear entropy for chaotic systems. These are classically characterized by local hyperbolicity, where the Lyapunov exponent describes the average effected by a typical orbit that approaches many hyperbolic points. In contrast, the hyperbolic quadratic Hamiltonian defines a linear classical motion, but both will exponentially stretch the Wigner function. Of course, in a chaotic system, the result must be analyzed more deeply since the phase space volume remains finite, which leads to a saturation of entropy even with no dissipation.

We finally point out a very simple inversion formula which allows one to retrieve the initial state of the system, which seems a very transparent way to deal with the topics of quantum state reconstruction.

We thank Luiz Davidovich, Ruinet Matos Filho and Fabricio Toscano for helpful discussions. We acknowledge financial support from Faperj, CNPq, Pronex and the Instituto do Milênio for Quantum Information.

## A Lindblad equation in the chord space

From the definition (4) of the chord transform,

$$\stackrel{~}{W}(\xi )=\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}𝑑𝐱\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\xi 𝐱\right)W(𝐱),$$
(A1)
applied to the derivatives of $`W`$ and the product of $`W`$ with $`q`$ or $`p`$, we set the following transformation rules by using integration by parts:

$`W`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ (A2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{W}{𝐱}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}𝐉\xi \stackrel{~}{W}`$ (A3)
$`𝐱W`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{i}}𝐉{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{W}}{\xi }}`$ (A4)
$`𝐱{\displaystyle \frac{W}{𝐱}}`$ $``$ $`2\stackrel{~}{W}\xi {\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{W}}{\xi }}.`$ (A5)
By applying these rules on the following Poisson bracket,

$$\{H(𝐱),W(𝐱)\}=2(𝐇_{12}p+𝐇_{22}q)\frac{W}{p}(𝐱)2(𝐇_{11}p+𝐇_{12}q)\frac{W}{q}(𝐱),$$
(A6)
we get

$$\{H(𝐱),W(𝐱)\}2(𝐇_{12}\xi _p+𝐇_{22}\xi _q)\frac{\stackrel{~}{W}}{\xi _p}(𝐱)2(𝐇_{11}\xi _p+𝐇_{12}\xi _q)\frac{\stackrel{~}{W}}{\xi _q}(𝐱),$$
(A7)
that is

$$\{H(𝐱),W(𝐱)\}\{H(\xi ),\stackrel{~}{W}(\xi )\}.$$
(A8)
In the same way we get

$$\lambda ^2\frac{^2W}{q^2}(𝐱)+\mu ^2\frac{^2W}{p^2}(𝐱)2\lambda \mu \frac{^2W}{pq}(𝐱)\frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}\left(𝐥\xi \right)^2\stackrel{~}{W},$$
(A9)
hence the final equation (11) for $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$, with the help of the last line of (A5).

## B Zeroes of the Husimi function

Defining the complex variable $`z(𝐱)=(q+ip)/\sqrt{2\mathrm{}}`$, we may express the coherent state $`|z`$  as

$$|z=e^{|z|^2/2}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{z^n}{\sqrt{n!}}|n,$$
(B1)
where $`|n`$ are the eigenstates of the harmonic oscillator. Hence, the coherent state representation of any pure state $`|\psi `$ can be expressed as

$$z|\psi =e^{|z|^2/2}F(z^{}),$$
(B2)
where

$$F(z)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{z^n}{\sqrt{n!}}n|\psi $$
(B3)
is an entire function, known as the Bargmann function . Since the Husimi function is the square modulus of the coherent state representation, we obtain

$$Q(𝐱)=|z(𝐱)|\psi |^2=e^{|z|^2}|F(z)|^2.$$
(B4)
Thus the zeroes of the Husimi function coincide with the zeroes of an analytic function. Indeed, we may define the state $`|\psi `$ by its Bargmann representation $`F(z)`$. An important a priori restriction is that $`F(z)`$ is at most of order $`r=2`$.

To see this, recall that $`F(z)`$ is of finite order if

$$|F(z)|<e^{|z|^\mu }$$
(B5)
for all sufficiently large $`|z|`$ and the order of this function is $`r=inf\mu `$ for which (B5) holds. But if we use the fact that $`|z|\psi |^21`$ in (B4), we obtain

$$|F(z)|e^{|z|^2/2}<e^{|z|^2},$$
(B6)
so $`r2`$.

We now make use of the following

Theorem : If $`F(z)`$ is an entire function of finite order with no zeroes on the plane, then its order is necessarily an integer and $`F(z)=e^{P_r(z)}`$ where $`P_r(z)`$ is a polynomial of order $`r`$.

In the case of the Bargmann function, then $`P_r(z)`$ is at most of second order and hence $`Q(𝐱)`$ given by (B4) must be a Gaussian in $`p`$ and $`q`$ if it represents a normalized function.

Thus, only Gaussian Husimi functions have no zeroes in the phase plane. To a great extent, positions of the isolated zeroes of the Husimi function also restrict the class of admissible pure states through the factorization theorems of Weierstrass and Hadamard . The characterization of the pure states as chaotic or regular by the pattern of zeroes has been extensively studied for the case where the phase space is a torus, because the restriction is then more severe .


format: text

text:
# Lens or Binary? Chandra Observations of the Wide Separation Broad Absorption Line Quasar Pair UM 425

## 1 Introduction

An important question in current quasar research is whether powerful mass outflows persist in all quasars throughout their active lifetimes. Perhaps only some quasars host these outflows, which may be characteristic of an early phase of high activity and accretion rates, possibly triggered by galaxy interactions and mergers.

Mass outflows can be studied in detail through intrinsic quasar absorption lines that hold great promise for revealing the conditions near the supermassive black holes. The richest and most extreme absorption lines are found in quasars with broad absorption lines (BALs). About 10 - 15% of optically-selected QSOs have restframe ultraviolet spectra showing these BALs - deep absorption troughs displaced blueward from the corresponding emission lines in the high ionization transitions of C IV, Si IV, N V, and O VI (hiBALs hereafter). About 10% of BALQSOs also show broad absorption in lower ionization lines of Mg II or Fe II (loBALs). BALQSOs in general have higher optical/UV polarization than non-BAL QSOs, but the loBAL subsample tends to have particularly high polarization (Schmidt & Hines, 1999) along with signs of reddening by dust (Sprayberry et al., 1992; Egami et al., 1996). Large samples of BALQSOs from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) show BAL fractions of about 1/3 at the redshift of peak selection efficiency, and increasing reddening in the sequence non-BAL, hiBAL, loBAL has now been verified (Reichard et al., 2003). All the BALs are attributed to material along our line of sight flowing outward from the nucleus with velocities of up to $`50,000`$ km s$`^1`$. Emission line flux is not observed at comparable velocity widths, so if flux is scattered from the BAL material, its must cover $`<20\%`$ of the BAL region (Hamann & Ferland, 1993). Together with the similar fraction of QSOs showing BALs, this suggests that most or possibly all QSOs contain BAL-type outflows, which are only seen along sightlines traversing the BAL clouds. In this orientation scenario, BALQSOs provide a unique probe of conditions near the nucleus of most QSOs. If so, we expect that their intrinsic X-ray emission should be consistent with those of normal QSOs. Recent studies with Chandra (Green et al., 2001; Gallagher et al., 2002a) support this orientation interpretation; once absorption columns of $`N_H^{intr}10^{22}\mathrm{atoms}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ are accounted for, the underlying X-ray power-law continuua appear to have typical slopes and normalizations.

An important alternative interpretation is that BALQSOs are instead adolescent quasars in an outburst or transition phase, expelling a cocoon of circumnuclear gas and dust while evolving from active high $`L/L_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ (high Eddington fraction) QSOs toward normal QSOs (Hazard et al., 1984; Gregg et al., 2002). Links between low-ionization BALQSOs and IR-luminous mergers (Canalizo & Stockton, 2001; Fabian, 1999), and similarities between BALQSOs and and narrow line Seyfert 1 galaxies (Mathur, 2000; Brandt & Gallagher, 2000) support this scenario. Furthermore, since the outflows are thought to contain high metallicity gas (Hamann & Ferland, 1999; Arav et al., 2001), BALQSOs may be relevant to studies of the formation and early (high redshift) evolution of galactic nuclei. It is intriguing that approximately half of the $`z5`$ QSOs found so far in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey show BALs (Zheng et al., 2000; Fan et al., 2003).

BALQSOs that occur in multiples hold particular interest. Those that are gravitationally lensed may be magnified, and possibly microlensed, providing an opportunity for study of the quasars’ intrinsic absorbers along slightly different sightlines (e.g. Lewis et al., 2002). Several lensed BALQSOs are known, but differential absorption studies are difficult, especially in X-rays, due to their close (typically $`1\mathrm{}`$) spacing. Several multiple BALQSOs with wider separations ($`3\mathrm{}`$) lack clear lens candidates. If they are lensed, they provide a wider binocular view of the intrinsic absorbers. If not, then as binary pairs their ($``$ tens of kpc) linear separations allow practical study of the dynamical interactions proposed to spur high activity and mass outflow phases.

UM 425 is a pair of BALQSOs at redshift $`z=1.465`$ discovered by Meylan & Djorgovski (1989) in a search for lenses using selection of bright, high redshift (presumably magnified) quasars. Separated by 6.5″, the 2 brightest images have nearly identical optical/UV spectra and close velocities: $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_{AB}=200\pm 100`$ km s$`^1`$ from Meylan & Djorgovski (1989); and $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_{AB}=630\pm 130`$ km s$`^1`$ from Michalitsianos, Falco, Munoz, & Kazanas (1997). Deep imaging to $`R24`$ reveals no deflector, arcs, or arclets (Courbin et al., 1995), whereas a massive lens should be present to cause the large separation. We observed UM 425 with Chandra on 2000-Apr-07 as part of an X-ray snapshot survey of BALQSOs. In that survey, we found that as a class BALQSOs are heavily obscured, but otherwise normal radio-quiet quasars (Green et al., 2001). Citing the relatively high count rate (0.04 cts/sec) for a BALQSO and the unique binary/lens nature of the of UM 425 system, we proposed for 120 ksec of followup imaging spectroscopy in Chandra cycle 3. In this paper we describe the results of this observation, including spectral, timing, and image analysis of the data. We also marshall evidence from previously unpublished archival HST data taken with STIS, WFPC2, and NICMOS.

## 2 Observation and data reduction

UM 425 was observed for 110 ksec on 2001-Dec-13 (ObsId 3013) at the nominal aimpoint of ACIS-S3 using 3.14 second full-frame readouts in timed very faint mode. A net of 4927 counts between 0.3 keV and 8.0 keV were detected for UM 425A, and 28.3 counts for UM 425B. The soft-band image (0.3-3.0 keV) of UM 425 is shown in Figure 1, with 0.5″ spatial binning corresponding to the ACIS CCD pixel size. The pixel intensities have been scaled logarithmically. The X-ray celestial coordinates match the optical counterpart coordinates to within $`1\mathrm{}`$, so there is no ambiguity about identification. Furthermore the relative separation of the X-ray A and B components matches the optical separation to within 0.3″. In addition to the two point sources associated with UM 425, we also see evidence for faint diffuse emission which could be associated with a foreground cluster or group of galaxies. This emission is significant at the 4.2-$`\sigma `$ level, and is discussed in Section 5. Finally, there is a noticable extended linear feature approximately 25″ N-NW of UM 425A that coincides with a bright foreground galaxy in the field.

The Chandra X-ray observation data was produced by the CXCDS automatic processing pipeline, version 6.4.0. To take advantage of subsequent improvements in the ACIS response and gain calibration files, we used the CIAO tool acis\_process\_events to update the event file. At the same time, pixel randomization was turned off in order to allow spatial analysis at the finest level of detail. CIAO version 2.3 and CALDB version 2.10 were used in all data analysis and processing tasks.

The spectral data reduction followed the standard CIAO 2.3 thread to extract an ACIS spectrum for UM 425A: (1) Extract source events within a 4.0″ radius, using a background annulus spanning 8 to 30″; (2) Create the aspect histogram file; (3) Create the RMF and ARF files appropriate to the time-dependent source position on chip. The ARF was corrected for the ACIS time-dependent quantum efficiency degradation using the corrarf program111http://cxc.harvard.edu/cal/Acis/Cal\_prods/qeDeg/index.html. In addition to the standard thread, the event data were filtered on energy to use the range 0.3-8.0 keV and they were grouped to an average of 30 counts per bin.

It should be be noted that the region used to extract the spectrum for component A includes some of the extended emission discussed in Section 5. However, this component contributes fewer than $`10`$ counts, and therefore does not noticably affect the spectral fitting.

## 3 Spectral Modeling

We carried out spectral modeling of sources in the UM 425 field using Sherpa, a generalized modeling and fitting environment within CIAO. We fit using $`\chi ^2`$ data-variance statistics with Marquardt-Levenberg optimization. The energy range used for fitting was 0.5-8 keV, which avoids the region below 0.5 keV that is not well calibrated.

### 3.1 UM 425A

The results of spectral modeling of the UM 425A spectrum are given in Table 1. After taking account of the Galactic column of $`N_H^{Gal}=4.1\times 10^{20}`$ atoms cm-2, the X-ray spectrum of UM 425 is well-fit with either a partially-covered neutral absorber or a highly-ionized warm absorber. For neutral absorption, partial covering is required. The best fit neutral absorption model and residuals are shown in Figure 2. The underlying spectrum of UM 425 is consistent with the spectrum of a normal radio-quiet quasar at $`z1.5`$ absorbed by an intrinsic column of $`3.8\times 10^{22}`$ cm-2. The power-law index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2.0`$ for UM 425 agrees with the value of $`1.9`$ seen with ASCA for RQQs at redshifts $`1.5<z<2.5`$ (Reeves & Turner, 2000). Confidence contours for powerlaw slope $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and partial covering fraction are shown plotted against intrinsic absorbing column $`N_{H,z}`$ in Figure 3.

Given the observed count rate of 0.045 cts s-1 and the frame read time of 3.1 sec, we estimate (using PIMMS222http://asc.harvard.edu/toolkit/pimms.jsp) a pileup fraction of approximately 6%. Using the `jdpileup` model (Davis, 2001), we verify that this level of pileup does not have a statistically significant impact on our best-fit spectral model parameters.

The unabsorbed 0.5-2 keV flux is $`1.13\times 10^{13}`$ erg cm-2 s-1. Using that de-absorbed X-ray flux, the optical to X-ray flux ratio333$`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ is the slope of a hypothetical power-law from 2500 Å to 2 keV; $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}=0.384\mathrm{log}\frac{L_{2500}}{L_{2\mathrm{k}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}}`$ is $`\alpha _{ox}=1.6`$, which is consistent with values for normal (non-BAL) QSOs at this redshift (Green et al., 1995). A trend of increasing $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ with luminosity has been noted by many authors (e.g., Avni & Tananbaum 1982; Green et al. 1995), but most recently by Vignali et al. (2003). With its apparently large optical luminosity (log $`L_\nu =32.18`$ erg s-1 Hz-1 or log $`\nu L_\nu =46.60`$ erg s-1, see Figure 9), the de-absorbed $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ for UM 425A falls well within the rather large dispersion in this relationship.

Distinguishing between neutral and ionized absorption is not possible at this time due to systematic uncertainties in the ACIS response calibration in the critical region between 0.2-0.5 keV. An additional obstacle is the unfortunate coincidence between the expected location of O vii absorption and the instrumental Carbon edge (284 eV).

### 3.2 Iron lines and edges in a BALQSO spectrum

Chartas et al. (2002) found strong relativistic broad absorption lines (at rest energies 8.1 and 9.9 keV) in the ACIS-S spectrum of the $`z`$=3.91 BALQSO APM 08279+5255. With XMM data for this same source, Hasinger, Schartel, & Komossa (2002) found instead an edge at rest energy 7.7 keV. In both cases these features were attributed to highly ionized Fe associated with the BAL outflow. In UM 425A we find no evidence for such features, nor do we see any residuals that are inconsistent with the systematic uncertainties in the ACIS response calibration. If the same absorption troughs or edges were present UM 425A with a similar strength, we would have detected them at 3 to 5-$`\sigma `$ confidence.

### 3.3 UM 425B

The observed ratio of broadband (0.3-8 keV) source counts for the A and B components of UM 425 is 175. If UM 425 is truly a lensed system, this ratio would be well above the naively expected value of $`60`$ based on the 4.5 mag difference in R magnitude (Courbin et al., 1995). However, this does not account for the possibility of differing absorbing columns and/or dust-to-gas ratios along the two sightlines, especially considering that the X-ray emission region is much smaller than the optical. In fact, if we consider only the hard band counts (2.5-8 keV), which are largely unaffected by absorption, the ratio is $`70\pm 20`$.

Even though UM 425B has only 29 counts, we can test for the presence of differing absorption by fixing its X-ray power-law slope to the best-fit value for UM 425A. Using the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2.0`$ partial covering model in Table 1 and freezing all parameters except for $`N_{H,z}`$ and Amplitude, we find a best fit column of $`N_{H,z}=2.0_{1.1}^{+2.6}\times 10^{23}`$cm-2 (90% confidence). With the assumption of the same underlying continuum, we find that UM 425B has a factor of 5 larger intrinsic absorbing column than UM 425A, and that the two spectra are inconsistent at approximately 3-$`\sigma `$ confidence. The implications of this difference are discussed further in Section 8.

If UM 425 is not lensed, then this analysis only applies to the extent that a power law spectrum with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2.0`$ is typical of QSOs at $`z1.5`$. However, with just 29 counts, we cannot usefully constrain both $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`N_{H,z}`$.

### 3.4 Hardness ratio

An independent, model-free measure of spectral similarity is afforded by comparing the hardness ratio

$$\mathrm{HR}=\frac{HS}{H+S}$$

of the two X-ray images. We perform photometry in 3 energy bands: soft ($`S`$; 0.3-2.5keV), hard ($`H`$; 2.5-8keV), and broad ($`B`$; 0.3-8keV). We extract 4927 $`B`$ band counts from UM 425A, and 28 from B. Given the low background count rate in the ($`B`$ band) image of $`5\times 10^7`$pixel-1sec-1, errors may be considered as strictly $`\sqrt{B}`$. UM 425A has 3929 $`S`$ and 998 $`H`$ counts, so $`\mathrm{HR}_A=0.59\pm 0.01`$. Since UM 425B has 14 counts in both $`S`$ and $`H`$ bands for $`\mathrm{HR}_B=0.0\pm 0.2`$, it is harder at the $`3\sigma `$ level.444The uncertainties were calculated using standard error propogation assuming gaussian errors. For the UM 425B values (14 counts in the $`S`$ and $`H`$ bands) the error distribution deviates slightly from gaussian. However, we have verified by direct Monte-Carlo simulation that the standard deviation of HRB is 0.2, and that the hardness ratios HRA and HRB are inconsistent at approximately 99.7% (3-$`\sigma `$) confidence. This is consistent with our results from fitting of a power law spectral model.

## 4 Variability

Temporal variability is a potentially key diagnostic for constraining the absorber geometry for BALQSOs. Gallagher et al. (2002b) discovered hard-band variability at the 45% level on a timescale of 20 ksec in the nearby loBAL QSO Mkn 231. From this they inferred an absorbing geometry in which only indirect, scattered X-rays from multiple lines of sight are observed, with a small Compton-thick absorber blocking the direct X-rays.

UM 425A shows no significant short-term variability in either the broad, soft, or hard bands. Figure 4 shows the count rate as a function of time. The upper panels show the soft and hard bands for 16 equally spaced time bins covering the 110 ksec observation, and the lower panels show the broadband count rates, where the left panel has 16 bins and the right panel has 32 bins. The error bars are simply the square root of the number of counts in each bin. In all cases if we fit the data with a constant value (no variability) we find $`\chi _\nu ^21`$. Furthermore, over the much longer timescale of 1.7 years spanning the two Chandra observations, the count rates in the energy band 1.5-8 keV are consistent to within 1-$`\sigma `$. Within this energy band there is negligible change in effective area due to the ACIS quantum efficiency degradation over 1.7 years, and we can simply compare count rates.

As another test for variability, we used the Bayesian block method555http://astrophysics.arc.nasa.gov/$``$jeffrey,666S-lang implementation of the algorithm kindly provided by M. Nowak (CXC/MIT) (Scargle, 2003, 1998) to characterize the lightcurve of UM 425A. This algorithm searches the unbinned event data for statistically significant changes in the event rate. We set the detection threshold to 2-$`\sigma `$ confidence and the code found no rate changes above that significance level (for broad, soft, and hard band events).

## 5 Diffuse emission

In Figure 5 we show an adapatively smoothed image of the soft photons in the UM425 field, where we have subtracted the central bright point source UM 425A. The image was created in the following manner: We first filtered the event list to include only photons in the 0.3-3.0 keV range, then used the CIAO tool csmooth to adaptively smooth with a minimum significance level of 3-$`\sigma `$. We calculated the exposure map, adaptively smoothed it with the same smoothing scale map, and divided so as to create a flattened exposure-corrected image. Next we used our best fit (partial covering) spectral model as input to ChaRT777http://asc.harvard.edu/chart/ and MARX888http://space.mit.edu/CXC/MARX/ to create a simulated PSF at the position of UM 425A. This PSF image was scaled to the same flux, smoothed with the original smoothing scale map, aligned with the centroid of UM 425A, and subtracted from the exposure-corrected UM 425A image. Due to the slight pileup (estimated at 6%) in our observation, the core flux may slightly underpredict the true incident flux. We estimate this could contribute a residual of no more than 11 photons outside of a 3″ radius in the smoothed image of Figure 5. Within about 3″ of the core of UM 425A the residuals are large compared to the faint diffuse flux (due to a combination of counting noise, pileup, and a slight mismatch in shape), but outside this radius the PSF subtraction effectively removes the contribution from UM 425A. Note that within the 3″ radius the residuals are no more than 3-$`\sigma `$, and the net subtracted counts are consistent with zero.

Faint diffuse emission is clearly evident in the smoothed images. This emission extends at least 20″ and is elliptical, centered about 5″ to the west of UM 425A. While the extended emission is highly significant, determining the net diffuse flux requires some care because of the very bright ($``$4100 photons between 0.3-3 keV) point source. Due to small imperfections in the HRMA, we can expect about 30-60 photons from UM 425A to be scattered outside a 10″ radius.999http://cxc.harvard.edu/cal/Hrma/psf/PSF\_wings\_3c273/psf\_wings.html Using the PSF-subtracted smoothed image may therefore give unreliable results when the diffuse component itself has only $`50`$ photons. Instead, we can estimate a lower limit on the net diffuse flux by considering only the elliptical core of emission and carefully subtracting the background from thin concentric annuli centered on UM 425A (see Figure 6). This analysis is done on the filtered event data, and allows us to determine the excess without relying on complex PSF models. Instead we make use of the axial symmetry of the on-axis PSF. We find that in the soft band between 0.3-3.0 keV, there is an excess of $`51\pm 12`$ counts. In contrast, between 3.0-8 keV, the extended elliptical region has a net of $`4\pm 9`$ counts, consistent with zero. Looking in more detail within the soft band, we find the counts are split roughly evenly between the energy bands 0.3-0.8 keV and 0.8-3 keV.

If these 51 photons originate in a Raymond-Smith plasma with a rest frame temperature $`kT=1.5`$ keV, the observed flux $`f=1.5\pm 0.4\times 10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 (in either a 0.3-3.0 keV or 0.1-2.4 keV band). This model is fully consistent with the broadband energy distribution of counts. At a redshift of 0.6 this model and flux correspond to an X-ray luminosity of $`L_X`$(0.1-2.4 keV)$`=2.7\times 10^{42}`$ erg s-1.101010We use a $`H_0=70`$ km s-1 Mpc-1, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3`$ cosmology throughout. The luminosity and assumed plasma temperature we derive is consistent with values for groups of galaxies measured by Mulchaey & Zabludoff (1998) using ROSAT, but a factor of $`5`$ below the expected value for a cluster of galaxies massive enough to cause the observed image separation (discussed further in § 8).

The intriguing possibility remains111111Thanks to the anonymous referee for suggesting we add this discussion. that the diffuse emission originates from a cluster at the redshift of UM 425, as discussed by Mathur & Williams (2003). This would make this candidate cluster among the most distant known, second only to the vicinity of 3C 294 at $`z=1.786`$ (Fabian et al., 2001), where a small excess of emission is detected, associated with the southern radio hotspots. For the diffuse emission near UM 425, further observations and analysis are needed to determine the redshift of the candidate cluster, which if coincident with UM 425 has luminosity $`L_X`$(0.1-2.4 keV)$`=2.8\times 10^{43}`$ erg s-1. Similar diffuse emission around bright quasars is detected around serendipitous Chandra quasars in Green et al. (2003).

## 6 UV spectra

UM 425A and UM 425B were observed using HST/STIS (PI T. Gull) with the G230LB grating for a total of 11800 sec on 1998-Mar-10. The observations were done at a roll angle of 197.3 so that both objects would fall in the $`52\times 2`$″ slit. The results from this observation have not been previously published, so we retrieved the data from the HST archive and extracted spectra for the A and B components of UM 425. The first step in our data reduction was using the STSDAS ocrreject task to reject cosmic rays and combine the five CCD exposures into a single image. The final spectral extraction was then done with a custom IDL code which filtered out the bad pixels which remained after running ocrreject.

In Figure 7 we show an overlay of the STIS spectra for UM 425A (heavy line) and UM 425B (light line). The spectra have been normalized to have the same mean flux in the rest wavelength range 1070 - 1180 Å, which is devoid of strong absorption and emission features. In this range we find a flux ratio A/B of 102, consistent with the ratio of $`100`$ seen by Meylan & Djorgovski (1989) in the 1500 - 2400 Å rest wavelength range. In the plot the wavelength of the UM 425B spectrum has been shifted by 8.8 Å (observed frame) so that the difference in redshift (based on the peak of Ly-$`\alpha `$) is equal to the value of $`z_Az_B=0.006`$ found by Michalitsianos, Falco, Munoz, & Kazanas (1997). This offset in the relative wavelength calibration for the B component is not excessive given the 2″ wide slit which was used. For this instrument configuration, an 8.8 Å wavelength offset would result if the B component were off-center in the slit by 0.325″.

The plot shows that both UM 425A and UM 425B have broad absorption lines due to O VI, H I Ly-$`\alpha `$, and N V. The absorption for O VI appears to extend to about 13000 km s-1 in both UM 425A and UM 425B, although with the limited S/N in UM 425B the presence of absorption beyond 5000 km s-1 is less certain. Near the Ly-$`\alpha `$ emission line, however, both the emission line and absorption profiles are strikingly different. The sightline to UM 425B has a larger absorbing column density and/or a higher covering fraction in H I and N V. The Ly-$`\alpha `$ emission line in UM 425B is at least a factor of two greater in equivalent width than in UM 425A.

Large spectral differences have been noted in accepted lensed systems, so do not rule out the lens hypothesis. SBS 1520+530 is a lensed BALQSO with a detected lens galaxy and time delay, and the two components show significantly different emission line equivalent widths (Burud et al., 2002b). This could be due to differential amplification of the continuum emitting region caused by microlensing. HE 2149-2745 (Burud et al., 2002a) is another lensed BALQSO system with a detected time-delay; it also shows large equivalent width differences in the emission lines, but none in the BALs. The continuum slopes are different, due either to microlensing or reddening by the (as-yet unidentified) lens galaxy.

Within the lens hypothesis, spectral differences could also be caused by pathlength time-delays combined with spectral variability. In this case we are effectively viewing one quasar at two epochs, so this difference could plausibly be explained by a combination of intrinsic emission line variability (see e.g. O’Brien & Gondhalekar, 1991; Small, Sargent, & Steidel, 1997) coupled with different, possibly variable, absorption profiles (Michalitsianos, Oliversen, & Maran, 1996).

Under the binary hypothesis, the different Ly-$`\alpha `$ equivalent widths should be consistent with the global Baldwin effect (an anti-correlation of line equivalent width with luminosity observed in quasar samples; Baldwin, 1977). From the slope of $`\beta =0.14\pm 0.02,`$ (where $`W_\lambda `$(Ly$`\alpha `$) $`L_{\lambda 1450}^\beta `$) derived by Dietrich et al. (2002), the factor of $``$100 difference in brightness corresponds to an expected equivalent width that is about twice as large in UM 425B. Within the uncertainties caused by the strong absorption bands and the large scatter in the Baldwin relationship, this ratio is consistent with the observed STIS spectra.

## 7 HST imaging

The UM 425 field was imaged with HST/WFPC2 (PI J. Westphal) on 1995-May-01 for 600 sec with the F555W filter and for 1400 sec with the F814W filter. On 1998-May-28, the field was imaged in the infrared for 2560 sec using HST/NICMOS (imaged as part of the CASTLES project; Muñoz et al., 1998) with the F160W filter. We retrieved the data from the HST archive and used the standard IRAF tasks mscimage and imcombine to align and combine the individual exposures into a single final image. For the NICMOS data we removed a pedestal bias variation using the STSDAS tool pedsky. The reduced WFPC2 and NICMOS images are shown in Figure 8. The left panel shows the WFPC2 image overlayed with contours from our PSF-subtracted ACIS image (Figure 5), while in the right panel we show the NICMOS image.

In both panels the object labels A to E correspond to those defined in Meylan & Djorgovski (1989) and Courbin et al. (1995). The faint objects F and G are also seen in the the WFPC2 image, but were not previously identified in ground-based imaging. The contours show the X-ray emission, including the diffuse component centered about 5″ west of UM 425A, the point-like emission from UM 425B, emission to the north from a bright foreground galaxy ($`V17.8`$) at $`z=0.1265`$ (Meylan & Djorgovski, 1989), and possible optical blank-field sources about 10″ to the east.

The NICMOS and WFPC images immediately confirm that the objects C, D, and E are extended. Object C has a notably disturbed morphology and is likely in the process of a merger. Meylan & Djorgovski (1989) noted the large number of faint galaxies in the field, which taken together with the slight spectroscopic difference of UM 425A and UM 425B, led them to postulate the existence of cluster at $`z0.6`$. Within a radius of 10″ of UM 425A we see no fewer than 10 confirmed sources which appear in both the NICMOS and WFPC images. This stands in stark contrast to another well-studied wide separation quasar pair Q1634+267A,B in which NICMOS imaging (2560 sec with the F160W filter) revealed no non-stellar sources within 8″ of the pair (Peng et al., 1999).

To estimate the significance of the apparent overdensity of sources in the NICMOS image, we have calculated $`H`$ band magnitudes for all sources within a 16″$`\times `$16″ box centered on UM 425A. This was done using aperture photometry to calculate the net counts (DN s-1) for all sources which were detected in both the WFPC and NICMOS images. We converted the net count rate to a flux at 1.6$`\mu `$m using the inverse sensitivity factor $`2.406\times 10^{19}`$ ergs cm-2 Å-1 DN-1 supplied in the calibrated NICMOS image FITS file header. Finally, the flux was converted to an $`H`$ magnitude using the NICMOS Units Conversion Form121212http://www.stsci.edu/hst/nicmos/tools/conversion\_form.html. For the two quasars UM 425A and UM 425B we find $`H`$ magnitudes of 14.1 and 18.6 mag, respectively. The magnitude difference of 4.5 mag is consistent with the average R-band difference of 4.4 mag seen by Courbin et al. (1995).

A total of 11 objects were processed in this way, with $`H`$ magnitudes as faint as 22.7 mag. Excluding UM 425A and UM 425B (since they are known background objects and the field was selected for their presence), there are 6 objects brighter than $`H=22.0`$. At levels fainter than this our source detection becomes incomplete. We calculate the expected number of sources by using the NICMOS H-band number count versus magnitude given by Yan, McCarthy, Storrie-Lombardi, & Weymann (1998). Integrating the number count relation up to a faint limit of 22.0 mag gives a value of 20.3 sources per square arcmin. In our 16″$`\times `$16″ box, with a 2″ radius around UM 425A excluded, we therefore expect 1.38 sources. The probability of seeing 6 or more sources is 0.0030, implying that there is an overdensity of galaxies in the UM 425 field at approximately 3-$`\sigma `$ confidence. For UM 425 the combination of diffuse X-ray emission and a rich field of galaxies strongly suggests the presence of a galaxy group or cluster in this direction. We discuss this possibility further in § 8.

If UM 425 were lensed, a lensing galaxy would be expected nearer the faint component. We see no evidence for a possible lensing galaxy near UM 425B. Taking the image of UM 425A to define the instrument PSF, we used the CIAO Sherpa fitting program to subtract the PSF from the image of UM 425B. Outside a core radius of 0.15″ we saw no significant residuals. We then created simulated images by adding the source counts from one of the faint ($`H=21.7`$ mag) galaxies in the field to the UM 425B image. This was done for several positions on the line between UM 425B and UM 425A, and we found we would clearly detect such a galaxy at a distance greater than 0.3″ from UM 425B. A bright galaxy such as the $`H=19.9`$ galaxy in the field would be detected even if it were exactly coincident with UM 425B.

## 8 Discussion

### 8.1 A Galaxy Group or Cluster as a Lens Candidate

If a wide-separation quasar pair (WSQP) is produced by a lens mass modeled as a simple, singular isothermal sphere (SIS, see Schneider, Ehlers, & Falco, 1992), the most conservative flux limits are derived by assuming the lens lies at the “minimum flux redshift,” the redshift that would minimize the observed X-ray flux. If we neglect K-corrections, the flux from the lens is

$$F=\frac{L}{4\pi D_{OL}^2(1+z_l)^2}\left[\frac{D_{OS}r_H}{D_{OL}D_{LS}(1+z_l)}\right]^2$$
(1)
where $`r_H`$ is the Hubble radius $`c/H_0`$. For our assumed cosmology, the flux is minimized at a lens redshift of $`z_l=0.6`$.

The image separation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta =8\pi (\sigma _v/c)^2D_{LS}/D_{OS}`$ depends only on the velocity dispersion of the potential $`\sigma _v`$ and the ratio of the comoving distances131313We calculate angular size distances in our cosmological model using the ANGSIZ code of Kayser, Helbig, & Schramm (1997). between the lens and the source, $`D_{LS}`$, and the observer and the source, $`D_{OS}`$. In the SIS model for the lensing mass, and using the minimum flux redshift for $`z_l`$, the observed image separation of 6$`\mathrm{}`$.5 implies a cluster velocity dispersion of $`\sigma _v=480\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. This corresponds to a minimum enclosed cluster mass of $`5.4\times 10^{13}M_{}`$ to induce the observed pair separation. Combining the $`L_X\sigma _v`$ relation from, e.g., Mulchaey & Zabludoff (1998) and the $`L_XT`$ relation from, e.g., Markevitch (1998), and neglecting any possible cosmological evolution of these relations for a qualitative estimate, we obtain $`L_X(0.12.4\mathrm{keV})1.5\times 10^{43}`$ erg s-1 and $`kT1.5`$ keV for such a cluster. At $`z=0.6`$, this corresponds to $`f_X(0.12.4\mathrm{keV})10^{14}`$ erg cm-2 s-1. The flux we observe is about 6 times fainter than this, so we detect no normal cluster or group that could be solely responsible for the observed image splitting in a lens scenario.

Do the galaxies detected in the WFPC2 and NICMOS images suggest the existence of a group at the minimum flux redshift? We use the public HyperZ photometric redshift code of Bolzonella, Miralles, & Pello (2000), where an E/S0 spectral energy distribution yields $`HK=0.7`$. Together with a characteristic magnitude of $`M_K^{}=24.75`$ (Gardner et al., 1997; Glazebrook et al., 1995) we take $`M_H^{}=24.05`$. The brightest galaxy in the near field (marked E in Figure 8) has $`H=19.9`$, which if at $`z0.6`$ corresponds to 0.3$`L_H^{}`$, a fairly bright galaxy. Most of the objects detected near the NICMOS flux limit correspond to about 0.04$`L_H^{}`$, and would be small galaxies at this redshift. Therefore, these objects are plausible members of a group or small cluster at $`z0.6`$. If these objects are galaxies in a lensing group at a higher redshift, then its X-ray flux is more than a factor $`5`$ lower for its mass than seen in nearby groups, which could imply a baryon fraction at most half normal.

In lenses clearly due to a combination of a cluster and a galaxy (particularly Q0957+561; Keeton et al., 2000), a massive, luminous lens galaxy dominates the image splitting. Here we see no such candidate galaxy, even in the infrared, to a limit of approximately $`L_{}/20`$. Such a galaxy, unless completely different from all other known lens galaxies (e.g., Rusin et al., 2003; Kochanek et al., 2000; Xanthopoulos et al., 1998), must make a negligible contribution to the overall image separation.

### 8.2 Optical Brightness Argues for a Lens

UM 425A is about an order of magnitude brighter (in the optical) than quasars at comparable redshifts. Figure 9 compares its luminosity to 27,000 quasars and AGN from Veron-Cetty & Veron (2001). This observation would suggest that UM 425A might be magnified by a lens; anomalous brightness was exactly the criterion that (Meylan & Djorgovski, 1989) used originally to select the object as a lens candidate (Meylan & Djorgovski, 1989). UM 425A is especially bright for a BALQSO. Based on polarization studies (Goodrich, 1997), BALQSO fluxes may be attenuated by a factor of about 5, which contributes to their diminished representation in flux-limited optical surveys (Hewett & Foltz, 2003). Figure 9 shows BALQSOs from the Large Bright Quasar (Hewett, Foltz, & Chaffee, 1995), the SDSS (Reichard et al., 2003), and FIRST Bright Quasar (Becker et al., 2000) surveys.

Figure 9 also shows that UM 425B is underluminous for a BALQSO. This further supports a lensing interpretation because to date, because strong BALs like these are found only in luminous QSOs. This is partly a selection effect, because CIV BALs do not enter the observed-frame optical bandpass until $`z1.3`$ and a CIV BALQSO as faint as UM 425B would only have been detected in a ground-based optical survey if it extended to $`B22`$. To find CIV BALs in nearby low-luminosity AGN, a large dedicated UV spectroscopic survey is required (e.g., GALEX; Martin et al. 1997). However, among the hundreds of existing UV spectra of lower luminosity ($`M_B>23`$) AGN, not a single example of a strong BAL is known.

The lowest luminosity BAL analogs have been found from space-based UV spectra of known AGN, or from the less common low-ionization Mg II BALs which enter the optical band for $`z\stackrel{>}{}0.3`$. A thorough search of the literature reveals just a handful of $`z\stackrel{<}{}1`$ objects with broad absorption lines. The low redshift BAL AGN are shown as open triangles in Figure 9. We could find only 3 BALQSOs less luminous than UM 425B, all at $`z<0.2`$. All these indeed fall into two classes. (1) The loBAL QSOs. These loBALs constitute a much higher fraction (27%) of IR-selected than optically-selected QSOs (1.4%; Boroson & Meyers 1992), and are thought to provide evidence for a link between interaction/merger processes and accretion (Canalizo & Stockton, 2001). The FeloBALs like IRAS07598+6508 (Hines & Wills, 1995) or SDSS 173049.10$`+`$585059.5 (Hall et al., 2002) are particularly highly reddened and polarized and show absorption from excited fine-structure levels or excited atomic terms of Fe II or Fe III (Becker et al., 1997). However, UM 425B shows neither spectroscopic (see Figure 7) nor photometric evidence for being a loBAL since the colors of UM 425A and UM 425B are identical within the errors (Meylan & Djorgovski, 1989). (2) The so-called ’mini-BALs’ such as PG 1115+080, PG 1411+442, RX J0911.4+0551, or NGC3516 (e.g., Kraemer et al. 2002). These may be the low luminosity analogs of BALQSOs, but have weaker BALs. From the accepted CIV ‘balnicity’ test of Weymann, Morris, Foltz, & Hewett (1991) might also classify UM 425, as a miniBAL, but the low S/N blueward of CIV in the spectrum of Michalitsianos, Falco, Munoz, & Kazanas (1997), makes it difficult to tell. The balnicity test is not well-defined for lines other than CIV, but the Ly$`\alpha `$ and NV absorbers in Figure 7 are impressive enough (we measure equivalent widths of $`32\pm 5`$ and $`42\pm 5`$Å, respectively).

True BALs are virtually unknown in low-luminosity quasars. Correlations in absorbed (soft X-ray weak) quasars between luminosity and CIV absorption (both equivalent width and maximum outflow velocity) suggest that this trend may hold up in future samples as well (Laor & Brandt, 2002).

UM 425A is quite bright for a QSO, and especially for a BALQSO, so may be magnified by a lens. UM 425B is quite dim for a BALQSO, so may be demagnified by a lens. In summary, the anomalous brightnesses of both UM 425A and UM 425B argue for the lens interpretation.

### 8.3 Implications of Lensing for BAL structure

Standard lensing models may not be easily applicable in the case of BALQSOs, if there is structure to the outflowing clouds on angular scales similar to the image separation. For instance, direct application of the observed optical flux ratios may be misleading, since our Chandra observation already demonstrates the likelihood of significantly different absorbing columns along the line of sight, and the relative fractions of transmitted, obscured, and reflected light are unknown.

If UM 425 is lensed, then the two components image slightly different sightlines from the lens to the QSO central continuum source, probing potentially different absorbing material. If the lens is roughly half the proper distance to the quasar, the sightlines will be be separated by $`6`$″.5. At a radius of 5 pc, the sightlines would have a transverse separation of $`5\times 10^{14}`$ cm. Probing the structure of the BAL medium at this size scale is quite interesting in the context of quasar structure, and particularly for recent multiphase models for the BAL outflow, such as the model proposed by Everett, Königl, & Arav (2002). These authors are able to fit high-resolution optical spectroscopic data for the BALQSO FIRST J1044+3656 with a dense cloud ($`n=10^{8.5}`$ cm-3) at a distance of $`r4`$ pc, embedded in a warm outflowing medium. If a similar physical situation applies for UM 425, and the differential X-ray absorbing column $`N_{H,\mathrm{UM425B}}N_{H,\mathrm{UM425A}}=1.5\times 10^{23}`$ cm-2 were due to a single cloud, then that cloud would have a linear dimension a roughly $`5\times 10^{14}`$ cm. This nicely matches the transverse separation of the two sightlines.

A complication to this reasoning is that the gravitational time delay of at least 1.7 years (e.g. Michalitsianos, Falco, Munoz, & Kazanas, 1997) means that we are viewing the two sightlines at different epochs. In that time (observed frame) an absorbing cloud would travel $`2.1\times 10^{16}`$ cm along the line of sight, assuming an outflowing velocity of 10000 km sec-1. Unless the absorbing cloud velocities are directed very nearly toward our line of sight, the geometric distance between the two lines of sight is overwhelmed by the effective temporal distance due to the outflow velocity and the lens time delay. Nevertheless, it should be noted that BAL models which assume a wind that is radiatively-driven from the central source will naturally produce velocities that are primarily radial. The magnitude of the residual transverse component (e.g. if the wind is launched from the disk) is model dependent. It could be the case that the geometric and temporal distances are of comparable size.

### 8.4 Interaction/Merger Hypothesis

The a priori odds of finding a BALQSO pair such as this seems low even using more recent estimates of the true fraction of BALQSOs of 20-33% (Hewett & Foltz, 2003; Reichard et al., 2003). However, the close interaction or ongoing merger of such a close pair may enhance the probability if outflow (BAL) activity is triggered in both nuclei. If not lensed, UM 425 would represent evidence for merger-induced BALQSO activity, giving strength to arguments that the BAL phenomenon may be an evolutionary phase of QSO activity. A large sample of WSQPs could serve to constrain the lifetimes of triggered activity. As an example, the projected linear separation of the pair is $`40`$ kpc. Assuming they have relative velocities of about 600 km s$`^1`$(Michalitsianos, Falco, Munoz, & Kazanas, 1997), the induced activity has already lasted of order 70 Myr.

## 9 Summary

In summary, the arguments for a lens interpretation are:

* similar redshift, colors, and spectral type of UM 425A and UM 425B
* anomalous brightness of UM 425A for a quasar at $`z=1.465`$
* anomalous faintness of UM 425B for a BALQSO
* some X-ray and $`H`$-band evidence for an intervening galaxy group

The arguments for the binary hypothesis are:

* significantly different X-ray absorption
* any putative intervening galaxy group is $`6\times `$ X-ray underluminous for the required lensing mass
* significantly different UV emission line profiles
* emission line equivalent widths consistent with the Baldwin Effect for the apparent luminosity differences

Unfortunately, while the evidence weighs toward the binary hypothesis, resolution of the debate is not final. The UV spectroscopic differences are similar to those seen in some definitively lensed quasars, and larger absorption column differences in X-rays than UV are quite plausible given that the size, placement and ionization state of quasar X-ray and UV absorbing regions probably differ (e.g., Krolik & Kriss 2001; Hamann, Netzer, & Shields 2001). As often noted, the most definitive test is detection of a time delayed variability between the image components. For a given image separation in the lens scenario, the time delay depends strongly on the asymmetry $`(r_Ar_B)/(r_A+r_B)`$ of the images with respect to the lens, with the time delay smallest for a symmetric system. Here the lens position is unknown. For large flux ratios, the asymmetry is assumed to be large so that the asymmetry factor goes to unity, and the time delay is maximized (its value depending mostly on the image separation $`r_{AB}`$). If the maximal delay of $`10`$ years holds (Courbin et al., 1995), photometric variability studies are prohibitively difficult. A more efficient method for proving the existence of lensing is near infrared imaging detection of the quasar host galaxy morphology with sufficient resolution and signal to see shear (e.g., FSC10214+4724; Evans et al. 1999, B0712+472; Jackson, Xanthopoulos, & Browne 2000).

We wish to thank Aneta Siemiginowska for helpful discussions on lensing and the extended emission, and Smita Mathur for comments on and contributions to the original Chandra proposal. Thanks to Chris Kochanek and Josh Winn for guidance and comments. This work was supported by CXO grant GO2-3132X and NASA grant NAS8-39073. PJG and TLA gratefully acknowledge support through NASA Contract NASA contract NAS8-39073 (CXC).