text:
# Exploiting environmental resonances to enhance qubit quality factors

## Abstract

We discuss dephasing times for a two-level system (including bias) coupled to a damped harmonic oscillator. This system is realized in measurements on solid-state Josephson qubits. It can be mapped to a spin-boson model with a spectral function with an approximately Lorentzian resonance. We diagonalize the model by means of infinitesimal unitary transformations (flow equations), and calculate correlation functions, dephasing rates, and qubit quality factors. We find that these depend strongly on the environmental resonance frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$; in particular, quality factors can be enhanced significantly by tuning $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to lie *below* the qubit frequency $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

Introduction.– A key feature in qubit design is to gain good control of dephasing induced by the environment. A much-studied model that has yielded considerable insight into the dephasing of qubits (more generally, 2-state systems) is the spin-boson model weiss . Most studies of this model assume a spectral function $`J(\omega )`$ that has a power law form. However, several qubit systems of current interest are coupled to an environment which features rather strong resonances, which would correspond to a spectral function $`J(\omega )`$ with well-defined peaks at characteristic frequencies. A prominent example is the case of flux-qubits van der Wal et al. (2000) which are read out using a SQUID, which has a characteristic resonance frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (of order $`3`$ GHz), which in order of magnitude is comparable to the characteristic qubit energy scales ($`10`$ GHz) van der Wal et al. (2003); chiorescu:03 .

The presence of environmental resonances raises several interesting questions with both fundamental and practical implications: How is the qubit dynamics influenced by the presence of environmental resonances? Can the latter be used to indirectly tune qubit properties such as the tunneling rate or q-factor? Is it more advantageous to have the resonance frequency higher or lower than the characteristic qubit energies?

In this Letter, we explore these questions in the framework of a model that has been used with great success to describe and optimize recent generations of flux qubits van der Wal et al. (2003): it involves a spin degree of freedom (qubit) coupled to a harmonic oscillator with frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (modeling the environmental resonance), which in turn is coupled to a bath of harmonic oscillators (to provide damping) other . It can be mapped Garg et al. (1985) onto a regular spin-boson model with a spectral function $`J(\omega )`$ featuring an almost Lorentzian resonance peak near $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We are interested not only in the regime where the qubit tunneling rate $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is much smaller than $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (which would correspond to the standard spin-boson model, with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ playing the role of the bath cut-off frequency) but also in the hitherto unexplored regime $`\mathrm{\Delta }>\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Here standard weak-coupling, poor man scaling approach that predicts a downward renormalization of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is insufficient; instead, we need a method sufficiently powerful to deal with all ratios of $`\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{\Omega }`$. To this end, we use the flow-equation renormalization group (FER) approach of Wegner Wegner (1994) and of Glazek and Wilson glazek:93 . Interestingly, we find that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is renormalized *upwards* if the initial $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is greater than $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and that correspondingly, the dephasing times and q-factors are strongly *increased*. These results have the very important implication that *by appropriately tuning the environmental resonance frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, significant additional control of the qubit dynamics can indeed by obtained.*

Spin-boson-model.– We consider the Hamiltonian

$`\stackrel{~}{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}\sigma _\mathrm{x}+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2}}\sigma _\mathrm{z}+(B^{}+B)\left[g\sigma _\mathrm{z}+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{k}}{}}\kappa _\mathrm{k}^{}(\stackrel{~}{b}_\mathrm{k}^{}+\stackrel{~}{b}_\mathrm{k}^{})\right]`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }B^{}B+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{k}}{}}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_\mathrm{k}^{}\stackrel{~}{b}_\mathrm{k}^{}\stackrel{~}{b}_\mathrm{k}^{}+(B^{}+B)^2{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{k}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _\mathrm{k}^2}{\stackrel{~}{\omega }_\mathrm{k}}},`$
which describes a 2-state-system with asymmetry energy $`\epsilon `$ and tunneling matrix element $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, coupled linearly with strength $`g`$ to a harmonic oscillator with frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, which is itself linearly coupled with strengths $`\kappa _\mathrm{k}`$ to a bath of harmonic oscillators. The coupling to the environment is completely defined by the spectral function $`\stackrel{~}{J}(\omega )_\mathrm{k}\kappa _\mathrm{k}^2\delta (\omega \stackrel{~}{\omega }_\mathrm{k})=\mathrm{\Gamma }\omega \mathrm{\Theta }(\omega _c\omega )`$, which is as usual taken to be of ohmic form to model the dissipative environment. This system can be mapped to a spin-boson model of the form Garg et al. (1985)

$$=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}\sigma _\mathrm{x}+\frac{\epsilon }{2}\sigma _\mathrm{z}+\frac{1}{2}\sigma _\mathrm{z}\underset{\mathrm{k}}{}\lambda _\mathrm{k}^{}(b_\mathrm{k}^{}+b_\mathrm{k}^{})+\underset{\mathrm{k}}{}\omega _\mathrm{k}^{}b_\mathrm{k}^{}b_\mathrm{k}^{},$$

where spin dynamics depends only on the structured spectral function $`J(\omega )_\mathrm{k}\lambda _\mathrm{k}^2\delta (\omega \omega _\mathrm{k})`$ given by van der Wal et al. (2003)

$$J(\omega )=\frac{2\alpha \omega \mathrm{\Omega }^4\mathrm{\Theta }(\omega _c\omega )}{(\mathrm{\Omega }^2\omega ^2)^2+(2\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }\omega \mathrm{\Omega })^2},\text{ with }\alpha =\frac{8\mathrm{\Gamma }g^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}.$$
(2)
Flow equation renormalization.– Flow equation renormalization (FER) is based on infinitesimal unitary transformations of the Hamiltonian Wegner (1994). We follow the approach of Ref. Kehrein and Mielke (1997), and mention only the main steps here:

(a) In order to decouple the two-level system from its environment we apply a sequence of unitary transformations $`U(l)`$ to Eq.(Exploiting environmental resonances to enhance qubit quality factors): $`(l)=U(l)U^{}(l)`$. Here $`(l=0)=`$ is the initial Hamiltonian, $`(l=\mathrm{})`$ is the final, diagonal Hamiltonian and $`l`$ denotes the flow parameter, which characterizes the square of the inverse energy scale being decoupled. In differential formulation this transformation reads

$$\frac{d(l)}{dl}=[\eta (l),(l)]\text{with}\eta (l)=\frac{dU(l)}{dl}U^1(l).$$
(3)
(b) The canonical choice for the generator $`\eta `$ suggested by Wegner is $`\eta _c=[_0,]`$ with $`H_0=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}\sigma _\mathrm{x}+\frac{\epsilon }{2}\sigma _\mathrm{z}+_\mathrm{k}\omega _\mathrm{k}^{}b_\mathrm{k}^{}b_\mathrm{k}^{}`$ Wegner (1994). However, since $`\eta _c`$ generates new coupling terms (originally not present in the Hamiltonian) it is advisable to modify our generator. For $`\epsilon 0`$ we choose zerobias

$`\eta `$ $`=`$ $`i\sigma _\mathrm{y}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{k}}{}}\eta _\mathrm{k}^\mathrm{y}(b_\mathrm{k}^{}+b_\mathrm{k}^{})+\sigma _\mathrm{z}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{k}}{}}\eta _\mathrm{k}^\mathrm{z}(b_\mathrm{k}^{}b_\mathrm{k}^{})`$
$`+`$ $`\sigma _x{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{k}}{}}\eta _\mathrm{k}^\mathrm{x}(b_\mathrm{k}^{}b_\mathrm{k}^{})+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{kq}}{}}\eta _{\mathrm{kq}}^{}(b_\mathrm{k}^{}+b_\mathrm{k}^{})(b_q^{}b_q^{}),`$
for which Eq.(3) closes for terms linear in bosonic operators. We neglect small higher-order terms in $`[\eta ,]`$ that contain a coupling of the system to two bosonic modes. The parameters $`\eta _\mathrm{k}`$ and $`\eta _{\mathrm{kq}}`$ in Eq.(Exploiting environmental resonances to enhance qubit quality factors) are given by $`\eta _\mathrm{k}^\mathrm{x}=(\lambda _\mathrm{k}/2)(\epsilon \mathrm{\Delta }/\omega _\mathrm{k})f(\omega _\mathrm{k},l)`$, $`\eta _\mathrm{k}^\mathrm{y}=(\lambda _\mathrm{k}/2)\mathrm{\Delta }f(\omega _\mathrm{k},l)`$, $`\eta _\mathrm{k}^\mathrm{z}=(\lambda _\mathrm{k}/2)[(\omega _\mathrm{k}^2\epsilon ^2)/\omega _\mathrm{k}]f(\omega _\mathrm{k},l)`$, and $`\eta _{\mathrm{kq}}=\mathrm{\Delta }^2/(2\mathrm{\Delta }_\epsilon )\mathrm{tanh}(\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_\epsilon /2)\lambda _\mathrm{k}\lambda _\mathrm{q}\omega _\mathrm{q}/(\omega _\mathrm{k}^2\omega _\mathrm{q}^2)[f(\omega _\mathrm{k},l)+f(\omega _\mathrm{q},l)]`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\epsilon =\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\epsilon ^2}`$. We choose $`f(\omega _\mathrm{k},l)=\left[\omega ^2(\omega _\mathrm{k}\mathrm{\Delta }_\epsilon )\right]/\left[\mathrm{\Delta }_\epsilon ^2(\omega _\mathrm{k}+\mathrm{\Delta }_\epsilon )\right]`$. By comparing numerical results for the $`\epsilon =0`$ (see zerobias ) and the $`\epsilon 0`$ Ansatz we see that for $`\epsilon 0`$, due to our particular choice of $`f(\omega _\mathrm{k},l)`$, we are restricted to couplings $`\alpha 0.02`$ which is a reasonable bound for experimental realizations. For an alternative Ansatz (for $`\epsilon 0`$) see also Ref. stauber:02 .

(c) Eqs.(3) and (Exploiting environmental resonances to enhance qubit quality factors) give us a set of differential equations (flow equations) for the parameters in the Hamiltonian, namely $`\epsilon (l)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(l)`$, and $`\lambda _\mathrm{k}(l)`$ \[respectively $`J(\omega ,l)`$\]:

$`_l\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega \mathrm{coth}\left[\frac{\beta \omega }{2}\right]J(\omega ,l)f(\omega ,l)},_l\epsilon =0,`$ (5)
$`_lJ(\omega ,l)`$ $`=`$ $`2f(\omega ,l)(\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{\epsilon }^{}{}_{}{}^{2})J(\omega ,l)+\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_\epsilon }{2}}\times `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_\epsilon }}`$ $`J`$ $`(\omega ,l){\displaystyle 𝑑\omega ^{}\frac{\omega ^{}J(\omega ^{},l)}{\omega ^2\omega _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}[f(\omega ,l)+f(\omega ^{},l)]}.`$ (6)
Note that according to (5) the bias $`\epsilon `$ is not renormalized. The renormalization of the bath frequencies $`\omega _\mathrm{k}`$ vanishes in the thermodynamic limit of infinitely many modes.

(d) Observables such as $`\sigma _\mathrm{z}`$ have to be subject to the same sequence of infinitesimal transformations as the Hamiltonian: $`d\sigma _\mathrm{z}(l)/dl=[\eta (l),\sigma _\mathrm{z}(l)]`$. For the flow of $`\sigma _\mathrm{z}`$ we make the Ansatz zerobias

$`\sigma _\mathrm{z}(l)`$ $`=`$ $`h(l)\sigma _\mathrm{z}+s(l)\sigma _\mathrm{x}+r(l)+i\sigma _\mathrm{y}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{k}}{}}\mu _\mathrm{k}^\mathrm{y}(l)(b_\mathrm{k}^{}b_\mathrm{k}^{})`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{k}}{}}\left[\sigma _\mathrm{x}\chi _\mathrm{k}^\mathrm{x}(l)+\sigma _\mathrm{z}\chi _\mathrm{k}^\mathrm{z}(l)\right](b_\mathrm{k}^{}+b_\mathrm{k}^{})`$
We neglect (small) terms in $`[\eta ,\sigma _\mathrm{z}]`$ which contain a coupling to two bosonic modes. The calculation of the flow equations for the six parameters $`h`$, $`s`$, $`r`$, $`\chi _\mathrm{k}^\mathrm{x}`$, $`\chi _\mathrm{k}^\mathrm{z}`$, and $`\mu _\mathrm{k}^\mathrm{y}`$ in Eq.(7) is straightforward Kleff et al. (a).

(e) To calculate correlation functions of the form $`C(t)=\frac{1}{2}\sigma _\mathrm{z}(t)\sigma _\mathrm{z}(0)+\sigma _\mathrm{z}(0)\sigma _\mathrm{z}(t)`$ we use the decoupled Hamiltonian $`(\mathrm{})=[\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{})/2]\sigma _\mathrm{x}+[\epsilon /2]\sigma _\mathrm{z}+_\mathrm{k}\omega _\mathrm{k}^{}b_\mathrm{k}^{}b_\mathrm{k}^{}`$, and Eq.(7) for $`l=\mathrm{}`$. For $`T=0`$ the Fourier transform $`C(\omega )`$ of $`C(t)`$ then takes the form (here all parameters are taken at $`l=\mathrm{}`$): zerobias

$`C(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon s}{\mathrm{\Delta }_\epsilon }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }h}{\mathrm{\Delta }_\epsilon }}\right]^2\delta (\omega \mathrm{\Delta }_\epsilon )+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon h}{\mathrm{\Delta }_\epsilon }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }s}{\mathrm{\Delta }_\epsilon }}r\right]^2\delta (\omega )`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{k}}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{\mathrm{\Delta }_\epsilon }}\chi _\mathrm{k}^\mathrm{x}\mu _\mathrm{k}^\mathrm{y}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{\Delta }_\epsilon }}\chi _\mathrm{k}^\mathrm{z}\right]^2\delta (\omega [\omega _\mathrm{k}+\mathrm{\Delta }_\epsilon ])`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{k}}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{\mathrm{\Delta }_\epsilon }}\chi _\mathrm{k}^\mathrm{z}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{\Delta }_\epsilon }}\chi _\mathrm{k}^\mathrm{x}\right]^2\delta (\omega \omega _\mathrm{k}).`$
Numerically, one finds that $`h(\mathrm{})=s(\mathrm{})=0`$ and i) $`r(\mathrm{})=0`$ for $`ϵ=0`$ or ii) $`r(\mathrm{})0`$ for $`ϵ0`$. Therefore, of the terms in the first line of (8) only $`\delta (\omega )`$ remains and describes the nonzero expectation value of $`\sigma _\mathrm{z}`$ for systems with asymmetry.

In order to obtain quantitative results for the correlation function $`C(\omega )`$, we numerically integrate the flow equations up to some value $`l_0`$, which is taken sufficiently large that the final results do not depend on it.

From the numerical results for $`C(\omega )`$, which reflects the dynamics of the two-level system, we extract “dephasing times”, defined as the widths at half maximum of the resonances occurring in $`C(\omega )`$ (as depicted in the inset of Fig. 1). For zero bias ($`\epsilon =0`$) a sum rule of the form $`_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega C(\omega )=1`$ should hold Kehrein and Mielke (1997).

Ohmic bath: We start by comparing our results for the dephasing time for a spin-boson model with an ohmic bath, $`J(\omega )=2\alpha \omega \mathrm{\Theta }(\omega _c\omega )`$, with results from real-time renormalization group (RTRG) Keil and Schoeller (2001) and weak coupling calculations (WCC) Grifoni et al. (1999). Figure 1 shows the dephasing time $`\tau `$ as a function of the coupling strength $`\alpha `$. For weak coupling the dephasing time (at $`T=0`$) is given by Grifoni et al. (1999)

$$\tau _\mathrm{w}=4/J[\mathrm{\Delta }_\epsilon (\mathrm{})].$$
(9)
We find very good agreement with RTRG and WCC.

Structured bath/weak coupling: We now turn to the structured spectral density given by Eq.(2). The main features of the corresponding system \[Eq.(1)\] can already be understood by analyzing only the coupled two-level-harmonic oscillator system (without damping, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$). For $`\epsilon =0`$ this system exhibits two characteristic frequencies, close to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, associated with the transitions $`1`$ and $`2`$ in Fig. 2(c). These should also show up in the correlation function $`C(\omega )`$; and indeed Fig. 2(a) displays a double-peak structure with the peak separation somewhat larger than $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega })`$, due to level repulsion. The coupling to the bath will in general lead to a broadening of the resonances and an enhancement of the repulsion of the two energies. Due to the very small coupling ($`\alpha =0.0006`$) peak positions of $`C(\omega )`$ in Fig. 2 can with very good accuracy be derived from a second order perturbation calculation for the coupled two-level-harmonic oscillator system, yielding the following transition frequencies \[depicted in inset (c) of Fig. 2\]: $`\omega _{1,+}\omega _{0,+}=\mathrm{\Omega }g^22\mathrm{\Delta }(0)/[\mathrm{\Delta }^2(0)\mathrm{\Omega }^2]0.987\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\omega _{0,}\omega _{0,+}=\mathrm{\Delta }(0)+g^22\mathrm{\Delta }(0)/[\mathrm{\Delta }^2(0)\mathrm{\Omega }^2]1.346\mathrm{\Omega }`$. With the two peaks we associate two different dephasing times, $`\tau _\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\tau _\mathrm{\Delta }`$, as shown in inset (a) and (b) of Fig. 2.

In Fig. 3(a) both these dephasing times are shown as functions of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for $`\alpha =0.0006`$. Moreover, $`\tau _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is compared to the WCC result $`\tau _\mathrm{w}`$ of Eq.(9). This comparison is expected to work well for $`J(\mathrm{\Omega })/\mathrm{\Omega }1`$, and indeed it does \[here $`J(\mathrm{\Omega })/\mathrm{\Omega }0.08`$\]. Due to the small coupling between two-level-system and harmonic oscilltor, $`g0.06\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the dependence of $`\tau _\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)`$ is very weak.

For $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)`$ close to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the two resonances in $`C(\omega )`$ merge to a symmetric double-peak structure as shown in the inset of Fig. 3(a). Here a characterization by two different time scales becomes difficult. Therefore the corresponding data points in Fig. 3(a) have not been included.

Stronger coupling to bath: Figure 3(b) shows $`\tau _\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\tau _\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and $`\tau _\mathrm{w}`$ for a larger coupling strength of $`\alpha =0.01`$. Figure 4(a) shows one of the calculated correlation functions. Note that the stronger coupling $`\alpha `$ leads to a larger separation, or “level repulsion”, between the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$\- and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-peaks than in Fig. 2. The inset of Fig. 3(b) shows the renormalized tunneling matrix element $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{})`$ as a function the initial matrix element $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)`$. Very importantly, for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ increases during the flow, whereas for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)\mathrm{\Omega }`$, it decreases Kleff et al. (b). This behavior can be understood from the fact that $`f(\omega ,l)`$ in Eq.(5) changes sign at $`\omega =\mathrm{\Delta }`$: If the weight of $`J(\omega )`$ under the integral in (5) is larger for $`\omega >\mathrm{\Delta }(0)`$, which is the case if $`\mathrm{\Delta }<\mathrm{\Omega }`$, then positive values of $`f(\omega ,l)`$ dominate and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(l)`$ decreases \[$`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{})<\mathrm{\Delta }(0)`$\]; conversely if the weight is larger for $`\omega <\mathrm{\Delta }(0)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(l)`$ increases \[$`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{})>\mathrm{\Delta }(0)`$\]. Note also, that the upward renormalization towards larger $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{})`$ in the inset of Fig. 3(b) is stronger than the downward one towards smaller values, i.e., the renormalization is not symmetric with respect to $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)=\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The reason for this asymmetry lies in the fact that $`f(\omega ,l)`$ has a larger weight for $`\omega <\mathrm{\Delta }`$ than for $`\omega >\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Also $`\tau _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and even $`\tau _\mathrm{w}=1/J[\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{})]`$ in Fig. 3(b) show an asymmetric behavior with a steep increase at $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)\mathrm{\Omega }`$: dephasing times for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)>\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are larger than for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)<\mathrm{\Omega }`$. That this happens, although $`J`$ is more or less symmetric around its maximum, is a direct consequence of the stronger renormalization of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for the latter case. Also the quality factor \[$`q`$-factor, see inset in Fig. 3(b)\] defined as $`q=\tau _\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{})/2`$ shows this asymmetric behavior (being larger for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)>\mathrm{\Omega }`$ than for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)<\mathrm{\Omega }`$) with a steep increase at $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)=\mathrm{\Omega }`$ from $`8`$ to $`43`$, i.e., by a remarkably large factor of $`5`$. We consider the asymmetry of the renormalized tunneling matrix element, the dephasing time and the quality factor as the central results of this Letter: By tuning $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)>\mathrm{\Omega }`$, dephasing times can be significantly enhanced (as compared to $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)<\mathrm{\Omega }`$). Note also that $`\tau _\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in Fig. 3(b) shows a much stronger dependence on $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)`$ than in Fig. 3(a). This is due to the stronger coupling ($`g0.3\mathrm{\Omega }`$) of the two-level system to the harmonic oscillator in (b).

Nonzero bias: We now turn to the case of nonzero bias, $`\epsilon 0`$. A second order perturbation calculation, analogous to the zero bias case, shows that a third resonance in $`C(\omega )`$ is expected to show up at an energy scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\epsilon +\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Indeed it does, as exemplified in Figure 4(b), which shows a typical result for $`C(\omega )`$ for nonzero bias note1 . With every resonance we associate a dephasing time (analogous to the zero bias case). Figure 5(a) shows all three dephasing times ($`\tau _\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\tau _\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and $`\tau _{\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Omega }}`$) as a function of $`\epsilon `$. $`\tau _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is compared to the weak coupling result $`\tau _\mathrm{w}`$. As expected, $`\tau _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ shows a minimum at $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{min}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2(0)}`$, which corresponds to the maximum of $`J(\omega ,l=0)`$. Beyond $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{min}}`$, $`\tau _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ increases whereas $`\tau _\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\tau _{\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ decrease. This is the expected behavior: In the limit $`\epsilon \mathrm{}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$), $`C(t)`$ respectively $`C(\omega )`$ should become independent of all bath characteristics, i.e., $`C(t)1`$ and $`C(\omega )\delta (\omega )`$. In this limit the dephasing times should show the following behavior: $`\tau _\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}`$, $`\tau _\mathrm{\Omega }0`$ and $`\tau _{\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Omega }}0`$. In Fig. 5(b) and (c) the renormalized tunneling matrix element and the quality factor are shown as function of the bias. Note that since $`\epsilon `$ is not renormalized \[see Eq.(5)\], $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\epsilon (\mathrm{})`$ as a function of $`\epsilon /\mathrm{\Omega }`$ does not show a strong asymmetry, in contrast to the case $`\epsilon =0`$. As a direct consequence, dephasing times and quality factors do not change much at $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{min}}`$. Finally, $`\tau `$ and $`q`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)`$ for fixed $`\epsilon `$ can be shown Kleff et al. (a) to show a qualitatively similar behavior to Fig. 3.

Summary – We used flow equation renormalization to study a 2-level-system coupled to a damped harmonic oscillator for arbitrary ratios of $`\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We find that by tuning the system into the regime $`\mathrm{\Delta }>\mathrm{\Omega }`$, which is studied here for the first time, dephasing times and q-factors can be significantly enhanced.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors are very grateful to F. Wilhelm and M. Thorwart for interesting discussions. S. Kehrein acknowledges support by the SFB 484 of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.


format: text

text:
# Chandra reveals a black-hole X-ray binary within the ultraluminous supernova remnant MF 16

## 1 Introduction

An observational definition of ultraluminous X-ray sources (ULX) is those X-ray sources detected coincident with nearby galaxies, that are both located outside the galactic nucleus and display an observed luminosity in excess of $`10^{39}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$. There has recently been a lot of attention paid to this class of object based on the argument that if they are accretion-powered systems, then in many cases the observed X-ray luminosity exceeds the Eddington luminosity for a 10 M black hole. Explanations for this apparent breach of the Eddington limit include accretion on to a new class of $`10^210^5`$ M intermediate-mass black hole (e.g. Colbert & Mushotzky 1999; Miller & Hamilton 2002), super-Eddington radiation from bloated accretion discs in X-ray binaries (Begelman 2002), and anisotropic emission from X-ray binaries (e.g. King et al. 2001; Körding, Falcke & Markoff 2002; King 2002).

However, not all ULX are accreting systems. A minority are actually recent supernovae, such as SN 1986J (Bregman & Pildis 1992), SN 1979C (Immler, Pietsch & Aschenbach 1998), SN 1978K (Ryder et al. 1993) and SN 1995N (Fox et al. 2000) to name but four. Such objects have been observed to reach X-ray luminosities of $`10^{41}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (e.g. SN 1988Z, Fabian & Terlevich 1996) and are thought to be the result of the supernova exploding into a dense circumstellar environment. The ULX phase for young supernova remnants can be short, however, with many (though not all) showing steep X-ray flux decay curves (Immler & Lewin 2002). Reports of much older, evolved supernova remnants with ULX-like fluxes, for instance the “hypernova” remnants of M101 (Wang 1999), have since turned out to be mis-identifications of X-ray binaries (Snowden et al. 2001).

One supernova remnant that appears to have remained unusually X-ray luminous whilst becoming quite evolved is the remnant MF 16 in NGC 6946 (nomenclature from Matonick & Fesen 1997). Though the X-ray source was detected in an Einstein IPC observation of NGC 6946 (Fabbiano & Trinchieri 1987), it was first identified as an extremely X-ray luminous supernova remnant (L$`{}_{\mathrm{X}}{}^{}3\times 10^{39}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ at 5.1 Mpc, placing it firmly in the ULX regime) on the basis of ROSAT PSPC data (Schlegel 1994). The X-ray data appeared consistent with a young supernova remnant, but optical data revealed the remnant to be evolved, possibly $`3500`$ years old (Blair & Fesen 1994). The remnant appears extraordinarily luminous in X-rays, optical line emission and radio continuum emission (van Dyk et al. 1994) for a supernova remnant of this age. Subsequent HST observations revealed MF 16 to have a physical size of $`34\times 20`$ pc, and a distinct morphology characterised by three “loops” apparent in narrow-band H$`\alpha `$ and \[SII\] images (Blair, Fesen & Schlegel 2001; hereafter BFS01), though an \[OIII\] image suggested a more elliptical structure with a possible young star at the heart of the nebula. In conjunction with optical spectral data, BFS01 suggest that the extraordinary luminosity of this remnant is due to the blast wave of a young supernova impacting on the dense shell of an older remnant. ROSAT and ASCA data were used to investigate the X-ray emission in detail by Schlegel, Blair & Fesen (2000), who found the spectral data to fit well to a dual Raymond-Smith thermal plasma model. This is consistent with the HST data if the hot component comes from the interaction zone and the soft component from within the supernova bubble. An alternate view is offered by Dunne, Gruendl & Chu (2000), who propose that the remnant originates in the interaction of a single supernova blast wave with a dense circumstellar nebula ejected from a massive progenitor star. They suggest that a hard component in the ROSAT PSPC spectral data may orginate in a pulsar wind nebula.

The first of the two Chandra observations reported in this letter has been presented by Holt et al. (2003). They conclude that the featureless X-ray spectrum of MF 16 excludes the interaction of a blast wave with circumstellar matter, and does not appear to fit to a pulsar wind nebula model either. They suggest that the X-ray emission may originate in an unusual, if not unique, set of circumstances. Here, we re-analyse this data in tandem with a later public observation of NGC 6946, and demonstrate that the X-ray source associated with MF 16 is in fact a black-hole X-ray binary (BHXRB), explaining the apparent dichotomy of an evolved remnant with a young supernova-like X-ray flux.

## 2 Observations & data reduction

NGC 6946 has been observed by Chandra on two separate occasions. The details of the observations are given in Table 1. Both observations were pointed at its nuclear region, though the target of the latter observation was the recent supernova SN2002HH, and the large majority of the area of the galaxy falls on the ACIS-S3 chip. MF 16 lies about 2.5 arcmin north-east of the observation aimpoint, fortuitously on the S3 chip in both datasets.

The data was reduced and subsequently analysed using the CIAO v2.3 and HEAsoft v5.2 packages. The level 2 event lists were initially filtered down to an energy range of 0.3 – 10 keV, and images were created at the full detector spatial resolution (1 pixel $`0.492`$ arcsec). Source spectra and lightcurves were then extracted using the PSEXTRACT and LIGHTCURVE tools respectively, from within a 10-pixel radius circular aperture set to encompass the full point spread function of the X-ray source. Background regions were extracted from a similar-size aperture displaced by $`10`$ arcsec from MF 16. Neither event list was time-filtered for background flaring, as the total background measured from the unfiltered background regions amounted to less than 0.5% of the counts accumulated from the source in either observation, allowing us to exploit the full exposure time.

## 3 Evidence that MF 16 contains an X-ray binary system

The X-ray counterpart of MF 16 (hereafter NGC 6946 X-11, after Roberts & Warwick 2000) was detected in both observations as the brightest X-ray source on the Chandra ACIS-S3 chip, at a position $`20^h35^m00.75^s,+60^{}11^{}30.9^{\prime \prime }`$111This is an average of the two positions from the separate observations, though the difference between the measured positions was a mere $`0.4^{\prime \prime }`$.. A total of $`8585\pm 94`$ and $`3838\pm 63`$ counts were detected from the source in the 2001 September and 2002 November observations respectively. This is currently amongst the largest datasets for an ULX in the Chandra era. In the following sections we present the details of its X-ray characteristics.

### 3.1 Spatial

We test whether NGC 6946 X-11 is spatially extended by comparing its radial profile from the 2001 September observation to a modelled point spread function (PSF) for a point-like X-ray source at the same detector position and off-axis angle222Combining the data from both observations to produce a higher quality radial profile is not an option, since the source is at different off-axis angles and detector positions in the two observations.. The model is interpolated from a library of model PSFs using the MKPSF tool, at an energy of 1.5 keV. We account for known residual aspect correction errors (c.f. section 2.2 of Zezas et al. 2002) by convolving the model PSF with a 2-D Gaussian function of HWHM $`=0.75`$ arcsec. Radial profiles for the model and source data were extracted in one-pixel width annuli around the source centroid, and the model PSF was normalised to the same central peak as the source. Approximating the PSF shape by a Gaussian function showed the source data and the modelled PSF to match extraordinarily well, with the best fit to each giving a HWHM of $`1.31\pm 0.02`$ arcsec for the data, and $`1.33\pm 0.02`$ arcsec for the model (the fitting was performed using a $`\chi ^2`$ minimization algorithm, and the errors quoted are 90% errors for one interesting parameter). The observed X-ray emission is therefore fully consistent with originating in a point-like source. However, by comparison with Roberts et al. (2002) we note that on-axis Gaussian fits to point-like sources give a HWHM of $`1`$ arcsec for a spatial resolution of 0.5 arcsec. Scaling this to our observation implies it is sensitive to structure on scales of $`>0.7`$ arcsec, ruling out extended X-ray emission on the full scale of MF 16 ($`1.4\times 0.8`$ arcsec2; BFS01), though some spatial extension on scales less than this cannot be excluded.

### 3.2 Spectral

Before undergoing spectral analysis, the auxilliary response files for both datasets were corrected for the known quantum efficiency degradation of the ACIS-S3 chip using the CORRARF tool. The extracted source spectra were binned to a minimum of 20 counts per bin before analysis in XSPEC v11.2, and only data in bins located above an energy of 0.5 keV were considered. The observed 0.3 – 10 keV count rates of $`0.120.14\mathrm{count}\mathrm{s}^1`$ were accumulated in a full-frame exposure mode in both observations which, even allowing for their off-axis positions, implies that the source data will have suffered from a moderate level ($`1015\%`$) of pile-up. We account for this in the following analysis using the XSPEC v11.2 parameterisation of the Davis (2001) CCD pile-up mitigation algorithm.

Neither dataset was well-fit by a variety of single-component simple models, with an absorbed powerlaw continuum the only model to have a reduced-$`\chi ^2`$ value below 2 for both datasets. We note that in both cases a correction for pile-up was justified since it provided an improvement to the fit at a significance of $`>99.8\%`$ for one extra degree of freedom, though the resulting fits were still poor ($`\chi ^2`$/dof = 239.8/157 and 159.2/114 for the 2001 September and 2002 November observations respectively).

The fits to the data were greatly improved by the addition of a second spectral component to the absorbed powerlaw continuum model. We show the models and best fit parameters in Table 2. All errors are quoted as the 90% error for one interesting parameter. The additional component required to improve the fit turned out in all cases to be a very soft component, which could be modelled by either a multicolour disc blackbody (hereafter MCDBB; Mitsuda et al. 1984) with an inner-disc temperature of $`kT_{in}0.15`$ keV, a classical blackbody emission spectrum of temperature $`kT0.12`$ keV, or a MEKAL optically thin thermal plasma model with $`kT0.7`$ keV. The resulting goodness of fit (as measured by the $`\chi ^2`$/dof) was remarkably similar for all three models in each epoch, with the model containing the MCDBB component marginally preferred in the first epoch, and the model including the MEKAL in the second. We show the data and the corresponding best-fitting model for both observations in Figure 1. We note, however, that to constrain a best fit using the MEKAL plus powerlaw model the line-of-sight column densities had to be fixed to a minimum value equal to the foreground column through our own galaxy ($`2\times 10^{21}\mathrm{atoms}\mathrm{cm}^2`$; interpolated from the HI maps of Stark et al. 1992). This seems physically implausible, since the observation of no absorption intrinsic to MF 16 is at odds with the total extinction of $`E(BV)=0.65`$ observed for its optical emission lines (BFS01). This extinction converts to a column of $`4.3\times 10^{21}\mathrm{atoms}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ (c.f. Zombeck 1990).

On the other hand, the MCDBB or classical blackbody plus powerlaw continuum model fits are consistent with the inferred column to the central regions of MF 16. Crucially, the MCDBB plus powerlaw continuum model has recently been found to describe the Chandra or XMM-Newton X-ray spectra of several ULX that are known or suspected BHXRB (e.g. Miller et al. 2003). Furthermore, the derived parameters, and in particular the inner-disc temperature and normalisation (constrained at $`870_{170}^{+660}`$ and $`1600_{1300}^{+1700}`$ km-2 (10 kpc)-2 in epochs A and B respectively) of the MCDBB appear extraordinarily similar when our fits are compared to the ULX studied by Miller et al. (2003). This suggests that the X-ray emission processes in NGC 6946 X-11 are those of a BHXRB. The data also suggest that the spectrum changes between observations, though as the error ranges for each of the parameters overlap none of the changes are very statistically significant. This tentative suggestion of spectral variation is also indicative of BHXRB behaviour. We note that the observed 0.5 – 8 keV luminosity of NGC 6946 X-11 from this model is $`2.5\times 10^{39}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$, of which $`20\%`$ originates in the MCDBB component.

Finally, we also fit a dual MEKAL model to the data, similar to the dual Raymond-Smith plasma model used to provide a fit to the combined ROSAT PSPC/ASCA spectral data (Schlegel, Blair & Fesen 2000). We are again required to constrain the absorption column to the foreground galactic value. Our fits provide reasonably similar results to the low-Z ROSAT PSPC/ASCA fit, albeit with our substantially lower fit abundances allowing the temperatures of both components to be lower in the Chandra data. However, this model is clearly the least preferred of the four two-component spectral models for both Chandra datasets, arguing that the blast wave interaction interpretation of Schlegel, Blair & Fesen (2000) is not favoured by the Chandra data.

### 3.3 Temporal

Previous analyses of this object have suggested that the X-ray flux remains constant over a timescale of years (e.g. Holt et al. 2003), as would be expected for the X-ray emission from an object up to 30 pc in diameter. Here, we detect a drop of $`13\%`$ in the 0.3 – 10 keV count rate over a year, from $`0.144\mathrm{count}\mathrm{s}^1`$ to $`0.125\mathrm{count}\mathrm{s}^1`$, clearly inconsistent with such an extended X-ray source. However, the Chandra CCDs have a known problem with their quantum efficiency, and hence effective area to incoming photons, degrading with time. This could lead to drops in the detected count rate for separate observations of constant X-ray fluxes, particularly for sources with soft X-ray spectra. We checked this by running simulations in XSPEC, using the best fit model to the 2001 September data, and the auxiliary response file (corrected to the degraded area) from the 2002 November observation. An overall drop of $`3\%`$ in the count rate was predicted, clearly smaller than the observed deficit, implying that the source displays at least small amplitude variability on long timescales.

The X-ray variability was further investigated by deriving short-term lightcurves from both observations. Both lightcurves were extracted in the full 0.3 – 10 keV range and binned to a temporal resolution equivalent to 25 counts per bin for a constant source count rate, in order to maximise the temporal resolution whilst maintaining a reasonable average signal-to-noise ratio of five per bin. Two simple tests for variability were then applied to these lightcurves. Firstly, a classic standard deviation of the count rate per bin from the mean count rate over the course of the observation was calculated, and then compared to the expected deviation of $`\pm 20\%`$ expected from Gaussian counting noise. Secondly, a $`\chi ^2`$ test was performed against the hypothesis that the source count rate remained constant during the observation. The results of these tests, including a probability that the data is variable, $`P`$(var), shown for the cases where it exceeds 90%, and the binning of the lightcurves are reported in Table 3. They show that the full band lightcurve for the 2002 November observation was statistically consistent with a flat count rate. However, both a large excess in the standard deviation and in the $`\chi ^2`$ statistic show the 2001 September data to be variable to very high probabilities (99.7 and $`>99.9\%`$ likelihood, repectively). We investigated this variability further by splitting each dataset into two arbitrary energy bands containing approximately the same number of counts, a 0.3 – 1.1 keV “soft” band and a 1.1 – 10 keV “hard” band. The lightcurves for these bands are shown in Figure 2, again binned to the equivalent of an average of 25 counts per bin (c.f. Table 3 for actual bin sizes). Both the tests on the binned lightcurves show no strong evidence for variability in the soft band. However, strong evidence for variability is present in the hard band lightcurve in the 2001 September observation (at over 99.9% likelihood in both tests), and may also be present in the 2002 November observation ($`96\%`$ likelihood according to the $`\chi ^2`$ test).

In order to provide a separate test of the variability free of any gross photon binning effects we employed a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, in which we compared the cumulative photon arrival times to the expected cumulative arrival times for a constant-flux source333Though note that the data is strictly limited by the 3.24104 s temporal resolution (which is the sum of the exposure time plus the frame readout time) of the ACIS-S3 chip in the course of performing this test.. This provided separate confirmation of the strong variability in the 2001 September hard band data, and possible variability in the 2002 November hard data. Interestingly, it also showed the 2002 November soft data to be variable at very high significance ($`>99\%`$), which was not picked up by any other test. An examination of the photon arrival time distribution for the data shows this result is due to a very slight increase in the average soft count rate over the latter stages of the 2002 November observation, when compared to the earlier stages, which the standard deviation and $`\chi ^2`$ tests were insensitive to. The actual average count rate change was from $`(5.25\pm 0.17)\times 10^2`$ count s-1 in the first 18.5 ks to $`(5.61\pm 0.22)\times 10^2`$ count s-1 in the latter 11.5 ks. We note this is probably a real change, and is certainly not due to a change in the background count rate for the source, which remains at $`10^4`$ count s-1 in the soft band throughout the observation.

Our statistical tests, and the amplitude of the variability shown by Figure 2, demonstrate that the majority of the hard X-ray emission of NGC 6946 X-11 is varying at least on the timescale of the binning size we use to maximise our statistics, $`330350`$ s. The hard X-ray emission is therefore originating in a region with a light crossing time of less than six minutes ($`10^8`$ km). This is consistent with a compact accretion-driven X-ray source such as an X-ray binary, and not with a spatially-extended supernova remnant. Note, however, that we cannot currently exclude the majority of the soft X-ray emission from originating in a more widespread component.

## 4 Discussion

NGC 6946 X-11 is a point-like X-ray source, its X-ray spectrum is well-fit by models used to describe ultraluminous BHXRB, and its hard X-ray emission varies on timescales of less than six minutes. The simplest interpretation of this evidence is that the extraordinary X-ray luminosity of NGC 6946 X-11 originates in the accretion of matter in a BHXRB system, and not from the interaction of supernova blast waves with circumstellar material, or a pulsar wind nebula, as previously suggested. Of course, we cannot exclude some spatial extension in the X-ray source, which the lightcurves tell us would have to be soft X-ray emission. If we ignore for a moment the unrealistically low column to the MEKAL plus powerlaw continuum model, the MEKAL could still describe the hot gas phase of a supernova remnant. However, the spectral modelling implies that only $`<10\%`$ of the observed flux originates in the MEKAL component, implying that the contribution to the observed luminosity from a hot plasma is limited to $`2.5\times 10^{38}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$.

If we are dealing with an ultraluminous BHXRB, it appears quite typical for the limited knowledge we have of this exotic class of object. A similar spectral model has been derived for the few other ULX with reasonable quality X-ray spectral data (Miller et al. 2003; Krauss et al. 2003; Kaaret et al. 2003), with the low inner-disc temperatures for the MCDBB component interpreted as possible evidence for the presence of intermediate-mass black holes. We also note that the dominant powerlaw continuum component has a value very similar to that observed for Galactic BHXRBs in the high state ($`2.5`$; c.f. Ebisawa, Titarchuk & Chakrabati 1996). One curious feature we have identified is that the X-ray variability in this ULX is predominantly above 1.1 keV, implying that it is the powerlaw continuum spectral component that is varying, and not the thermal emission from the accretion disc. This exclusively hard X-ray variability could quite conveniently explain the observed spectral hardening with increased flux seen in many ULX (e.g. Fabbiano et al. 2003). However, the scenario they describe where the hardening is due to a hotter inner accretion disc at higher accretion rates may not be consistent with our observations, due to the short variability timescales and the softness of the thermal disc component in the X-ray spectrum. The rapid variation of the hard X-rays may instead originate in other physical mechanisms, for instance variations at the base of a jet (c.f. Georganopoulos, Aharanion & Kirk 2002), or magnetic reconnection events in the accretion disc corona (c.f. Reeves et al. 2002 for a discussion of the latter mechanism applied to the quasar PDS 456).

Now that we have identified the X-ray emission from MF 16 with a BHXRB, where does this leave the physical models for the extreme radio and optical luminosity of the supernova remnant? It may be possible that the radio emission could originate from the BHXRB in a relativistically-beamed jet, similar to that reported for an ULX in NGC 5408 by Kaaret et al. (2003). It is also quite possible that the optical line emission may be a result of the presence of the BHXRB; we note that nebulae have been reported to be present at or around the positions of several ULX by Pakull & Mirioni (2003a,b). Some of these nebulae are present as giant ($`d100400`$ pc) bubbles encircling the ULX position; they may be supernova remnants related to the birth of the ULX, as could be the case around IC 342 X-1 (see also Roberts et al. 2003), or may be inflated by the winds from young stars or relativistic jets from the BHXRB. Other nebulae, such as that present near the Holmberg II ULX, shows signs of X-ray ionization. We note that two of the key diagnostics of X-ray ionization, the presence of a He II $`\lambda 4686`$ emission line (c.f. Pakull & Angebault 1986) and an abnormally high \[OIII\]/H$`\beta `$ ratio (Remillard, Rappaport & Macri 1995) are present in the optical spectrum of MF 16 presented by BFS01. The similarity between MF16 and other ULX nebulae is noted by Pakull & Mirioni (2003b); we suggest here that at least some of the extraordinary optical emission-line luminosity of MF 16 may originate in X-ray excitation. Furthermore, we speculate that the nebula itself may be a young precursor of the giant bubbles seen by Pakull & Mirioni (2003a,b) around other ULX systems. Further studies of MF 16 in this context would be of great interest. Finally, we note that the HST images of MF 16 suggest the presence of a young stellar object at the centre of the nebula. Young stars or stellar clusters have been discovered coincident with at least two other ULX (Goad et al. 2002; Liu et al. 2002), hence it is possible that this object may be the optical counterpart of the BHXRB itself.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors the referee, Eric Schlegel, for his useful comments that helped to improve this paper. We also thank Andy Ptak for assisting us in the use of XASSIST. TPR thanks Bob Warwick and Graham Wynn for useful discussions, and PPARC for financial support.


text:
# Note on the Orthogonal Set in Six Kinds of Boson Operators

In recent paper referred to as (I), we presented a possible form of the orthogonal set for description of many-body systems in six kinds of bosons. The reason why such orthogonal set is necessary was already mentioned in (I) and, then, in this paper, we do not repeat the reason. Its basic idea comes from the paper by the present authors, in which the Schwinger boson representation of an extended $`(M+1)(N+1)`$-dimensional algebra containing the $`su(M+1)`$\- and the $`su(N,1)`$-algebras was formulated. In (I), the case $`(M=1,N=2)`$ was treated and the $`su(2)`$-algebra in six kinds of bosons is the object of the investigation. In this note, we treat the case $`(M=2,N=1)`$, in which the $`su(1,1)`$-algebra in six kinds of bosons can be formulated. Combining with the deformed boson scheme proposed by the present authors, both cases may be helpful for analyzing more realistic systems than those treated in Ref. ?.

First, let us recapitulate the $`su(1,1)`$-algebra in six kinds of bosons in a form slightly different from that developed by the present authors in Ref. ? including the notations. In the same notations as those in (I), the six kinds of bosons are denoted as $`(\widehat{a}_i,\widehat{a}_i^{})`$ and $`(\widehat{b}_i,\widehat{b}_i^{})`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$). In terms of these bosons, the following operators are defined :

$$\widehat{T}_{\pm ,0}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\widehat{T}_{\pm ,0}(i),$$
(1)
$$\widehat{T}_+(i)=\widehat{b}_i^{}\widehat{a}_i^{},\widehat{T}_{}(i)=\widehat{a}_i\widehat{b}_i,\widehat{T}_0(i)=(1/2)(\widehat{b}_i^{}\widehat{b}_i+\widehat{a}_i^{}\widehat{a}_i+1).$$
(2a)
The set $`(\widehat{T}_{\pm ,0})`$ obeys the $`su(1,1)`$-algebra. Associating with the operators $`\widehat{T}_{\pm ,0}`$, we introduce the operators defined by

$$\widehat{T}(i)=(1/2)(\widehat{b}_i^{}\widehat{b}_i\widehat{a}_i^{}\widehat{a}_i+1).(i=1,2,3)$$
(2b)
Three sets $`(\widehat{T}_{\pm ,0}(i);i=1,2,3)`$ form the independent $`su(1,1)`$-algebras in the Schwinger boson representation and $`\widehat{T}(i)`$ denotes the magnitude of the $`i`$-th $`su(1,1)`$-spin. The set $`(\widehat{T}_{\pm ,0})`$ in this paper plays the same role as that of the set $`(\widehat{S}_{\pm ,0})`$, which obeys the $`su(2)`$-algebra, in (I). It should be noted that $`\widehat{T}(i)`$ is not positive-definite.

The set $`(\widehat{T}_{\pm ,0})`$ forms the addition of these three $`su(1,1)`$-spins. Main aim of this paper is to give the eigenstate of $`(\widehat{𝑻}^2,\widehat{T}_0)`$ without the limits of the conventional manner, i.e., successive addition of the $`su(1,1)`$-spins. Here, $`\widehat{𝑻}^2`$ denotes the Casimir operator of the $`su(1,1)`$-algebra :

$$\widehat{𝑻}^2=\widehat{T}_0^2(1/2)(\widehat{T}_+\widehat{T}_{}+\widehat{T}_{}\widehat{T}_+)=\widehat{T}_0(\widehat{T}_01)\widehat{T}_+\widehat{T}_{}.$$
(3)
The eigenstate of $`(\widehat{𝑻}^2,\widehat{T}_0)`$ with the eigenvalues $`(t(t1),t_0)`$ satisfies the relation

$`\widehat{𝑻}^2|(\gamma );t,t_0=t(t1)|(\gamma );t,t_0,`$
$`\widehat{T}_0|(\gamma );t,t_0=t_0|(\gamma );t,t_0.`$ (4)
Here, $`(\gamma )`$ denotes a set of four quantum numbers. Solutions of the eigenvalue equation (Note on the Orthogonal Set in Six Kinds of Boson Operators) are classified into two groups :

$`t=+3/2,+2,5/2,\mathrm{},t_0=t,t+1,t+2,\mathrm{},`$ (5a)
$`t=1/2,1,3/2,\mathrm{},t_0=1t,2t,3t,\mathrm{}.`$ (5b)
In this paper, we treat the case (5a). In this case, $`|(\gamma );t,t_0`$ can be expressed in the form

$$|(\gamma );t,t_0=(\widehat{T}_+)^{t_0t}|(\gamma );t.$$
(6)
Here, we call the state $`|(\gamma );t`$ the intrinsic state and it should satisfy the condition

$$\widehat{T}_{}|(\gamma );t=0,\widehat{T}_0|(\gamma );t=t|(\gamma );t.$$
(7)
In this paper, we omit any numerical factor appearing in any state such as normalization constant.

In associating with the operators $`\widehat{T}_{\pm ,0}`$, we introduce two $`su(3)`$-algebras in the following form :

$`\widehat{S}_+(2)=\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{b}_3\widehat{a}_3^{}\widehat{b}_2,\widehat{S}_+(1)=\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{b}_3\widehat{a}_3^{}\widehat{b}_1,`$
$`\widehat{S}_{}(2)=\widehat{b}_3^{}\widehat{a}_2\widehat{b}_2^{}\widehat{a}_3,\widehat{S}_{}(1)=\widehat{b}_3^{}\widehat{a}_1\widehat{b}_1^{}\widehat{a}_3,`$ (8a)
$`\widehat{S}_2^1=\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_2\widehat{b}_2^{}\widehat{b}_1,\widehat{S}_1^2=\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_1\widehat{b}_1^{}\widehat{b}_2,`$ (8b)
$`\widehat{S}_2^2=(1/2)(\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_2\widehat{b}_2^{}\widehat{b}_2)+(1/2)(\widehat{a}_3^{}\widehat{a}_3\widehat{b}_3^{}\widehat{b}_3),`$
$`\widehat{S}_1^1=(1/2)(\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_1\widehat{b}_1^{}\widehat{b}_1)+(1/2)(\widehat{a}_3^{}\widehat{a}_3\widehat{b}_3^{}\widehat{b}_3),`$ (8c)
$`\widehat{R}_+(2)=\widehat{a}_3^{}\widehat{a}_2\widehat{b}_2^{}\widehat{b}_3,\widehat{R}_+(1)=\widehat{b}_1^{}\widehat{b}_3\widehat{a}_3^{}\widehat{a}_1,`$
$`\widehat{R}_{}(2)=\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_3\widehat{b}_3^{}\widehat{b}_2,\widehat{R}_{}(1)=\widehat{b}_3^{}\widehat{b}_1\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_3,`$ (9a)
$`\widehat{R}_2^1=\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_2\widehat{b}_2^{}\widehat{b}_1,\widehat{R}_1^2=\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_1\widehat{b}_1^{}\widehat{b}_2,`$ (9b)
$`\widehat{R}_2^2=(1/2)(\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_2\widehat{b}_2^{}\widehat{b}_2)(1/2)(\widehat{a}_3^{}\widehat{a}_3\widehat{b}_3^{}\widehat{b}_3),`$
$`\widehat{R}_1^1=(1/2)(\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_1\widehat{b}_1^{}\widehat{b}_1)(1/2)(\widehat{a}_3^{}\widehat{a}_3\widehat{b}_3^{}\widehat{b}_3).`$ (9c)
The sets (Note on the Orthogonal Set in Six Kinds of Boson Operators) and (Note on the Orthogonal Set in Six Kinds of Boson Operators) obey the $`su(3)`$-algebras, respectively, but, they are not mutually commutable. An important relation is shown as follows :

$$[\text{any of }(\widehat{T}_{\pm ,0})\text{ ,  any of the }su(3)\text{-generators (}\text{Note on the Orthogonal Set inSix Kinds of Boson Operators}\text{) and (}\text{Note on the Orthogonal Set inSix Kinds of Boson Operators}\text{)}]=0.$$
(10)
With the use of the generators (Note on the Orthogonal Set in Six Kinds of Boson Operators) and (Note on the Orthogonal Set in Six Kinds of Boson Operators), we define the following two sets of the operators :

$`\widehat{M}_+`$ $`=`$ $`+[\widehat{S}_+(1),\widehat{S}_{}(2)]=+[\widehat{R}_+(2),\widehat{R}_{}(1)]=\widehat{S}_2^1=\widehat{R}_2^1=\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_2\widehat{b}_2^{}\widehat{b}_1,`$
$`\widehat{M}_{}`$ $`=`$ $`[\widehat{S}_{}(1),\widehat{S}_+(2)]=[\widehat{R}_{}(2),\widehat{R}_+(1)]=\widehat{S}_1^2=\widehat{R}_1^2=\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_1\widehat{b}_1^{}\widehat{b}_2,`$
$`\widehat{M}_0`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{S}_1^1\widehat{S}_2^2=\widehat{R}_1^1\widehat{R}_2^2`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`(1/2)(\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_1\widehat{b}_1^{}\widehat{b}_1)(1/2)(\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_2\widehat{b}_2^{}\widehat{b}_2),`$
$`\widehat{L}_+`$ $`=`$ $`+[\widehat{S}_+(2),\widehat{R}_{}(1)]=\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{b}_1\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{b}_2,`$
$`\widehat{L}_{}`$ $`=`$ $`[\widehat{S}_{}(2),\widehat{R}_+(1)]=\widehat{b}_1^{}\widehat{a}_2\widehat{b}_2^{}\widehat{a}_1,`$
$`\widehat{L}_0`$ $`=`$ $`(1/2)(\widehat{S}_1^1+\widehat{S}_2^2)+(1/2)(\widehat{R}_1^1+\widehat{R}_2^2)`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`(1/2)(\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_1\widehat{b}_1^{}\widehat{b}_1)+(1/2)(\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_2\widehat{b}_2^{}\widehat{b}_2).`$
Two sets $`(\widehat{M}_{\pm ,0})`$ and $`(\widehat{L}_{\pm ,0})`$ obey the $`su(2)`$-algebras independently :

$$[\text{any of }(\widehat{M}_{\pm ,0})\text{ ,  any of }(\widehat{L}_{\pm ,0})\text{ }]=0.$$
(13a)
Further, from the relation (10) and the definitions (11) and (12), we have

$$[\text{any of }(\widehat{M}_{\pm ,0})\text{ and }(\widehat{L}_{\pm ,0})\text{ ,  any of }(\widehat{T}_{\pm ,0})\text{ }]=0.$$
(13b)
The Casimir operators $`\widehat{𝑴}^2`$ and $`\widehat{𝑳}^2`$ are given by

$`\widehat{𝑴}^2=\widehat{M}_0^2+(1/2)(\widehat{M}_+\widehat{M}_{}+\widehat{M}_{}\widehat{M}_+),`$ (14)
$`\widehat{𝑳}^2=\widehat{L}_0^2+(1/2)(\widehat{L}_+\widehat{L}_{}+\widehat{L}_{}\widehat{L}_+).`$ (15)
Definitions of $`(\widehat{M}_{\pm ,0})`$ and $`(\widehat{L}_{\pm ,0})`$ shown in the relations (11) and (12), respectively, give us

$$\widehat{𝑳}^2=\widehat{𝑴}^2.$$
(16)
Hereafter, we call the sets $`(\widehat{M}_{\pm ,0})`$ and $`(\widehat{L}_{\pm ,0})`$ the $`M`$\- and $`L`$-spin, respectively.

Our next task is to investigate properties of the operators $`\widehat{S}_+(2)`$, $`\widehat{S}_+(1)`$, $`\widehat{R}_+(1)`$ and $`\widehat{R}_+(2)`$ with respect to the $`M`$\- and the $`L`$-spin. For this aim, the following commutation relations are helpful :

$`[\widehat{M}_+,\widehat{S}_+(2)]=\widehat{S}_+(1),[\widehat{M}_{},\widehat{S}_+(2)]=0,[\widehat{M}_0,\widehat{S}_+(2)]=1/2\widehat{S}_+(2),`$
$`[\widehat{M}_+,\widehat{S}_+(1)]=0,[\widehat{M}_{},\widehat{S}_+(1)]=\widehat{S}_+(2),[\widehat{M}_0,\widehat{S}_+(1)]=+1/2\widehat{S}_+(1),`$
$`[\widehat{M}_+,\widehat{R}_+(1)]=\widehat{R}_+(2),[\widehat{M}_{},\widehat{R}_+(1)]=0,[\widehat{M}_0,\widehat{R}_+(1)]=1/2\widehat{R}_+(1),`$
$`[\widehat{M}_+,\widehat{R}_+(2)]=0,[\widehat{M}_{},\widehat{R}_+(2)]=\widehat{R}_+(1),[\widehat{M}_0,\widehat{R}_+(2)]=+1/2\widehat{R}_+(2),`$ (17)
$`[\widehat{L}_+,\widehat{R}_+(1)]=\widehat{S}_+(2),[\widehat{L}_{},\widehat{R}_+(1)]=0,[\widehat{L}_0,\widehat{R}_+(1)]=1/2\widehat{R}_+(1),`$
$`[\widehat{L}_+,\widehat{S}_+(2)]=0,[\widehat{L}_{},\widehat{S}_+(2)]=\widehat{R}_+(1),[\widehat{L}_0,\widehat{S}_+(2)]=+1/2\widehat{S}_+(2),`$
$`[\widehat{L}_+,\widehat{R}_+(2)]=\widehat{S}_+(1),[\widehat{L}_{},\widehat{R}_+(2)]=0,[\widehat{L}_0,\widehat{R}_+(2)]=1/2\widehat{R}_+(2),`$
$`[\widehat{L}_+,\widehat{S}_+(1)]=0,[\widehat{L}_{},\widehat{S}_+(1)]=\widehat{R}_+(2),[\widehat{L}_0,\widehat{S}_+(1)]=+1/2\widehat{S}_+(1).`$ (18)
The relation (17) tells us that the sets $`(\widehat{S}_+(2),\widehat{S}_+(1))`$ and $`(\widehat{R}_+(1),\widehat{R}_+(2))`$ are spherical tensors with rank 1/2, respectively, for the $`M`$-spin. In the same meaning as that of the above, the relation (18) shows that the sets $`(\widehat{R}_+(1),\widehat{S}_+(2))`$ and $`(\widehat{R}_+(2),\widehat{S}_+(1))`$ are spherical tensors with rank 1/2, respectively, for the $`L`$-spin. As is later shown in the relation (Note on the Orthogonal Set in Six Kinds of Boson Operators), this point is useful for constructing the intrinsic state $`|(\gamma ),t`$. Further, we note that the operator $`\widehat{P}_+`$ defined in the following is a scalar with respect to both the $`M`$\- and the $`L`$-spins :

$`\widehat{P}_+`$ $`=`$ $`(1/2)[\widehat{S}_+(2)\widehat{R}_+(2)\widehat{S}_+(1)\widehat{R}_+(1)]`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`\widehat{a}_3^{}\widehat{b}_3[1+(1/2)(\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_1+\widehat{b}_1^{}\widehat{b}_1)+(1/2)(\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_2+\widehat{b}_2^{}\widehat{b}_2)]`$
$`(\widehat{b}_1^{}\widehat{a}_1^{}+\widehat{b}_2^{}\widehat{a}_2^{})(1/2)\widehat{b}_3^2(1/2)\widehat{a}_3^2(\widehat{a}_1\widehat{b}_1+\widehat{a}_2\widehat{b}_2).`$
The operator $`\widehat{P}_+`$ commutes with $`\widehat{S}_+(2)`$, $`\widehat{S}_+(1)`$, $`\widehat{R}_+(2)`$ and $`\widehat{R}_+(1)`$.

Finally, we contact with the Casimir operator, which we denote as $`\widehat{𝑺}^2`$, for the $`su(3)`$-algebra defined in the relation (Note on the Orthogonal Set in Six Kinds of Boson Operators). The operator $`\widehat{𝑺}^2`$ is given in the following form :

$`\widehat{𝑺}^2`$ $`=`$ $`(4/3)[(\widehat{S}_1^1)^2\widehat{S}_1^1\widehat{S}_2^2+(\widehat{S}_2^2)^2]+(1/2)(\widehat{S}_2^1\widehat{S}_1^2+\widehat{S}_1^2\widehat{S}_2^1)`$
$`+(1/2)[\widehat{S}_+(1)\widehat{S}_{}(1)+\widehat{S}_{}(1)\widehat{S}_+(1)]+(1/2)[\widehat{S}_+(2)\widehat{S}_{}(2)+\widehat{S}_{}(2)\widehat{S}_+(2)].`$
The above expression can be rewritten as

$$\widehat{𝑺}^2=(1/3)\widehat{S}_0(\widehat{S}_03)+\widehat{𝑴}^2+[\widehat{S}_+(1)\widehat{S}_{}(1)+\widehat{S}_+(2)\widehat{S}_{}(2)].$$
(21)
Here, $`\widehat{S}_0`$ is defined in the form

$`\widehat{S}_0`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{S}_1^1+\widehat{S}_2^2`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`(1/2)(\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_1\widehat{b}_1^{}\widehat{b}_1)+(1/2)(\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_2\widehat{b}_2^{}\widehat{b}_2)+(\widehat{a}_3^{}\widehat{a}_3\widehat{b}_3^{}\widehat{b}_3).`$
The above is our framework for the later discussion.

From the above framework, we have four mutually commutable hermitian operators, $`\widehat{𝑴}^2`$, $`\widehat{M}_0`$, $`\widehat{𝑺}^2`$ and $`\widehat{S}_0`$, which are also commuted with $`\widehat{T}_{\pm ,0}`$. They are expressed in terms of the $`su(3)`$-generators defined in the relation (Note on the Orthogonal Set in Six Kinds of Boson Operators). The eigenvalue equations for these operators determine the set of four quantum numbers $`(\gamma )`$ appearing in the intrinsic state shown in the relation (6). The idea presented in (I) helps us to determine $`|(\gamma );t`$ in the following form :

$`|(\gamma );t`$ $`=`$ $`|k,l,m,m_0;t`$ (23a)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k_0l_0}{}}C(k,k_0;l,l_0|m,m_0)\widehat{S}_+(k,k_0)\widehat{R}_+(l,l_0)(\widehat{b}_3^{})^{2t3}|0,`$
$`\widehat{S}_+(k,k_0)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\sqrt{(k+k_0)!(kk_0)!}\right)^1(\widehat{S}_+(1))^{k+k_0}(\widehat{S}_+(2))^{kk_0},`$ (23b)
$`\widehat{R}_+(l,l_0)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\sqrt{(l+l_0)!(ll_0)!}\right)^1(\widehat{R}_+(2))^{l+l_0}(\widehat{R}_+(1))^{ll_0},`$ (23c)
In the same meaning as that shown in (I), $`\widehat{S}_+(k,k_0)`$ and $`\widehat{R}_+(l,l_0)`$ are spherical tensors with rank $`k`$ and $`l`$, respectively. Of course, $`k_0`$ and $`l_0`$ denote the $`k_0`$-th and the $`l_0`$-th components, respectively. The quantities $`C(k,k_0;l,l_0|m,m_0)`$ is the Clebsch-Gordan(CG)-coefficient. The form (Note on the Orthogonal Set in Six Kinds of Boson Operators) gives us the eigenvalues of $`\widehat{𝑴}^2`$ and $`\widehat{M}_0`$, $`(𝑴^2)_{\mathrm{ev}}`$ and $`(M_0)_{\mathrm{ev}}`$ :

$`(𝑴^2)_{\mathrm{ev}}=m(m+1),`$
$`(M_0)_{\mathrm{ev}}=m_0.`$ (24)
Further, the eigenvalue of $`\widehat{S}_0`$, $`(S_0)_{\mathrm{ev}}`$, is obtained in the form

$$(S_0)_{\mathrm{ev}}=3k(2t3l).$$
(25)
For the derivation of the above result, the following relation is useful :

$`[\widehat{S}_0,\widehat{S}_+(1)]=3/2\widehat{S}_+(1),[\widehat{S}_0,\widehat{S}_+(2)]=3/2\widehat{S}_+(2),`$
$`[\widehat{S}_0,\widehat{R}_+(1)]=1/2\widehat{R}_+(1),[\widehat{S}_0,\widehat{R}_+(2)]=1/2\widehat{R}_+(2).`$ (26)
The eigenvalue of $`\widehat{𝑺}^2`$, $`(𝑺^2)_{\mathrm{ev}}`$, is given as

$$(𝑺^2)_{\mathrm{ev}}=(1/3)(2t3l)(2tl)+l(l+1).$$
(27)
The above result is obtained through the relations

$`\widehat{𝑺}^2|(\gamma );t={\displaystyle \underset{k_0l_0}{}}C(k,k_0;l,l_0|m,m_0)\widehat{S}_+(k,k_0)\widehat{𝑺}^2|l,l_0;t,`$ (28)
$`|l,l_0;t=\widehat{R}_+(l,l_0)(\widehat{b}_3^{})^{2t3}|0,`$ (29)
$`\widehat{S}_{}(1)|l,l_0;t=\widehat{S}_{}(2)|l,l_0;t=0,`$ (30)
$`\widehat{S}_0|l,l_0;t=(2t3l)|l,l_0;t,`$ (31)
$`\widehat{𝑴}^2|l,l_0;t=l(l+1)|l,l_0;t.`$ (32)
As is shown in the relation (16), $`\widehat{𝑳}^2=\widehat{𝑴}^2`$ and, then, the state (Note on the Orthogonal Set in Six Kinds of Boson Operators) is an eigenstate of $`\widehat{𝑳}^2`$ with the eigenvalue $`m(m+1)`$. Further, the state (Note on the Orthogonal Set in Six Kinds of Boson Operators) is an eigenstate of $`\widehat{L}_0`$ with the eigenvalue $`(L_0)_{\mathrm{ev}}`$ :

$$(L_0)_{\mathrm{ev}}=kl.$$
(33)
The state (23a) is of the polynomial form and, therefore, from the reason mentioned in (I), it may be interesting to give the form in terms of the monomial. For this aim, first, we define the following state :

$$|n,m;t=(\widehat{P}_+)^n|m,m;t.$$
(34)
Here, $`\widehat{P}_+`$ and $`|m,m;t`$ are defined in the relations (19) and (29), respectively. The state $`|n,m;t`$ satisfies

$`\widehat{M}_{}|n,m;t=\widehat{L}_{}|n,m;t=0,`$ (35)
$`\widehat{M}_0|n,m;t=\widehat{L}_0|n,m;t=m|n,m;t.`$
Next, we introduce the state

$$|n,kl,m,m_0;t=(\widehat{M}_+)^{m_0+m}(\widehat{L}_+)^{kl+m}|n,m;t.$$
(36)
With the help of the relation (35), we can show that the state (36) is an eigenstate of $`\widehat{𝑴}^2(=\widehat{𝑳}^2)`$, $`\widehat{M}_0`$ and $`\widehat{L}_0`$ with the eigenvalues $`m(m+1)`$, $`m_0`$ and $`kl`$, respectively. These are identical with the eigenvalues shown in the relations (Note on the Orthogonal Set in Six Kinds of Boson Operators) and (33), respectively. The quantum number $`n`$ can be determined in the process mentioned below. We can prove the relation

$$\widehat{S}_0|n,kl,m,m_0;t=[(kl)+2(m+n)(2l3)]|n,kl,m,m_0;t.$$
(37)
Then, equating the eigenvalue (37) with $`[3k(2t3l)]`$ shown in the relation (25), we have

$$n=k+lm.$$
(38)
Thus, we are able to rewrite the state (23a) in terms of the monomial shown in the following form :

$$|k,l,m,m_0;t=(\widehat{M}_+)^{m_0+m}(\widehat{L}_+)^{kl+m}(\widehat{P}_+)^{k+lm}(\widehat{R}_+(1))^{2m}(\widehat{b}_3^{})^{2t3}|0.$$
(39)
It can be proved that the state (39) is an eigenstate of $`\widehat{𝑺}^2`$, the eigenvalue of which is given in the relation (27). This state can be rewritten as

$$|k,l,m,m_0;t=(\widehat{M}_+)^{m_0+m}(\widehat{S}_+(2))^{kl+m}(\widehat{R}_+(1))^{lk+m}(\widehat{P}_+)^{k+lm}(\widehat{b}_3^{})^{2t3}|0.$$
(40)
The quantities $`(kl+m)`$, $`(lk+m)`$ and $`(k+lm)`$ in the state (40) should be positive and we have

$$mlk,mkl,mk+l,$$

that is,

$$|kl|mk+l.$$
(41)
Further, as is proved at the end of this paper, the state (39) obeys the condition

$$k+l+m2t3.$$
(42)
Of course, concerning $`m`$, $`m_0`$, $`t`$ and $`t_0`$, we have the relations

$`mm_0+m,`$ (43)
$`t_0t,t3/2.`$ (44)
In principle, the normalization constant can be calculated, but, practically, it may be not necessary to give it.

Our next problem is to investigate successive addition of three $`su(1,1)`$-spins. First, we note that there exist six mutually commutable hermitian operators : $`\widehat{𝑻}^2`$, $`\widehat{T}_0`$, $`\widehat{T}(1)`$, $`\widehat{T}(2)`$, $`\widehat{T}(3)`$ and $`\widehat{𝑻}_{12}^2`$. Here, $`\widehat{𝑻}^2`$, $`\widehat{T}_0`$, $`\widehat{T}(1)`$, $`\widehat{T}(2)`$ and $`\widehat{T}(3)`$ are given in the relations (3), (1) and (2b), respectively. The operator $`\widehat{𝑻}_{12}^2`$ denotes the Casimir operator of the $`su(1,1)`$-algebra composed of the two $`su(1,1)`$-spins specified by the indices 1 and 2 :

$`\widehat{𝑻}_{12}^2`$ $`=`$ $`(\widehat{T}_0(1)+\widehat{T}_0(2))^2`$
$`(1/2)[(\widehat{T}_+(1)+\widehat{T}_+(2))(\widehat{T}_{}(1)+\widehat{T}_{}(2))+(\widehat{T}_{}(1)+\widehat{T}_{}(2))(\widehat{T}_+(1)+\widehat{T}_+(2))].`$
The four operators except for $`(\widehat{𝑻}^2,\widehat{T}_0)`$ can be expressed as follows :

$`\widehat{T}(1)=(1/2)(\widehat{L}_0+\widehat{M}_01),\widehat{T}(2)=(1/2)(\widehat{L}_0\widehat{M}_01),`$
$`\widehat{T}(3)=+(1/2)(\widehat{L}_0\widehat{S}_0+1),`$ (46a)
$`\widehat{𝑻}_{12}^2=\widehat{𝑴}^2(=\widehat{𝑳}^2).`$ (46b)
Here, for $`\widehat{M}_0`$, $`\widehat{L}_0`$ and $`\widehat{S}_0`$, the relations (11), (12) and (22) were used. The relation (46b) is given by the straightforward calculation.

The state (39) is the eigenstate of $`\widehat{M}_0`$, $`\widehat{L}_0`$, $`\widehat{S}_0`$ and $`\widehat{𝑴}^2`$. Therefore, the state (39) is also the eigenstate of $`\widehat{T}(1)`$, $`\widehat{T}(2)`$, $`\widehat{T}(3)`$ and $`\widehat{𝑻}_{12}^2`$, the eigenvalues of which we denote as $`t_1`$, $`t_2`$, $`t_3`$ and $`t_{12}(t_{12}1)`$, respectively :

$`t_1=(1/2)(kl+m_01),t_2=(1/2)(klm_01),`$
$`t_3=t1(k+l),`$ (47a)
$`t_{12}(t_{12}1)=m(m+1).`$ (47b)
The relation (47a) is solved inversely :

$`k=(1/2)(tt_1t_2t_3),k+l=tt_31,`$
i.e., (48)
$`l=(1/2)(t+t_1+t_2t_3)1,kl=1(t_1+t_2),`$
$`m_0=t_2t_1.`$
The relation (47b) gives us the following relation :

$`m=t_{12}1,`$ (49a)
$`m=t_{12}.`$ (49b)
Substituting the relation (Note on the Orthogonal Set in Six Kinds of Boson Operators) and (49a) into the inequality (41)$``$(43), we have the inequality

$`t_{12}|t_11/2|+|t_21/2|+1,`$
$`t|t_{12}1|+|t_31/2|+3/2.`$ (50a)
The relations (Note on the Orthogonal Set in Six Kinds of Boson Operators) and (49b) also give us the inequality

$`t_{12}(|t_11/2|+|t_21/2|),`$
$`t|t_{12}|+|t_31/2|+3/2.`$ (50b)
The relations (Note on the Orthogonal Set in Six Kinds of Boson Operators) and (Note on the Orthogonal Set in Six Kinds of Boson Operators) show the coupling rule for two and three $`su(1,1)`$-spins. Since $`m0`$, we have $`|t_{12}1|=t_{12}10`$ and $`|t_{12}|=t_{12}0`$. Substitution of the relations (Note on the Orthogonal Set in Six Kinds of Boson Operators) and (Note on the Orthogonal Set in Six Kinds of Boson Operators) into the state (40) leads us to

$`|t_1,t_2,(t_{12}),t_3;t`$ $`=`$ $`(\widehat{M}_+)^{(t_{12}1)(t_11/2)+(t_21/2)}`$ (51a)
$`\times (\widehat{S}_+(2))^{(t_{12}1)(t_11/2)(t_21/2)}(\widehat{R}_+(1))^{(t_{12}1)+(t_11/2)+(t_21/2)}`$
$`\times (\widehat{P}_+)^{(t3/2)(t_{12}1)(t_31/2)}(\widehat{b}_3^{})^{2t3}|0.(t_{12}10)`$
$`|t_1,t_2,(t_{12}),t_3;t`$ $`=`$ $`(\widehat{M}_+)^{(t_{12})(t_11/2)+(t_21/2)}`$ (51b)
$`\times (\widehat{S}_+(2))^{(t_{12})(t_11/2)(t_21/2)}(\widehat{R}_+(1))^{(t_{12})+(t_11/2)+(t_21/2)}`$
$`\times (\widehat{P}_+)^{(t3/2)(t_{12})(t_31/2)}(\widehat{b}_3^{})^{2t3}|0.(t_{12}0)`$
Here, the state $`|t_1,t_2,(t_{12}),t_3;t`$ is relabeled from $`|k,l,m,m_0;t`$. The above is the formalism in terms of the addition of three $`su(1,1)`$-spins.

This paper closes with proving the inequality (42). For this aim, we take up the following state which is related with the state (40) :

$$|s,r,p;T=(\widehat{S}_+(2))^s(\widehat{R}_+(1))^r(\widehat{P}_+)^p(\widehat{b}_3^{})^T|0.$$
(52)
The state (40) can be expressed as

$$|k,l,m,m_0;t=(\widehat{M}_+)^{m_0+m}|kl+m,lk+m,k+lm;2t3.$$
(53)
The definition of $`\widehat{P}_+`$ shown in the relation (19) gives us the relation

$`(\widehat{P}_+)^p(\widehat{b}_3^{})^T|0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{p}{}}}D(p,q)(T!/(Tpq)!)`$ (54)
$`\times (\widehat{b}_1^{}\widehat{a}_1^{}+\widehat{b}_2^{}\widehat{a}_2^{})^q(\widehat{a}_3^{})^{pq}(\widehat{b}_3^{})^{Tpq}|0.`$
Here, $`D(p,q)`$ obeys the recursion formula

$$D(p,q)=(1/2)D(p1,q1)+(q+1)D(p1,q)(1/2)(q+1)(q+2)D(p1,q+1).$$
(55)
Of course, we have

$$D(0,0)=1,D(p,q)=0\text{for}q1\text{and}qp+1.$$
(56)
Some examples are given in the following numbers :

$`D(1,0)=1,D(1,1)=1/2,`$
$`D(2,0)=3/2,D(2,1)=3/2,D(2,2)=1/4,`$
$`D(3,0)=3,D(3,1)=9/2,D(3,2)=3/2,D(3,3)=1/8.`$ (57)
Further, we rewrite the state (52) under the relation

$$\widehat{b}_1^{}\widehat{a}_1^{}+\widehat{b}_2^{}\widehat{a}_2^{}=\widehat{T}_+\widehat{b}_3^{}\widehat{a}_3^{},[\widehat{T}_+,\widehat{b}_3^{}\widehat{a}_3^{}]=0.$$
(58)
Then, the binomial theorem gives us

$$(\widehat{b}_1^{}\widehat{a}_1^{}+\widehat{b}_2^{}\widehat{a}_2^{})^q=\underset{v=0}{\overset{q}{}}()^{qv}(q!/v!(qv)!)(\widehat{T}_+)^v(\widehat{b}_3^{}\widehat{a}_3^{})^{qv}.$$
(59)
Substituting the relation (59) into the form (54), we have

$`(\widehat{P}_+)^p(\widehat{b}_3^{})^T|0={\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{p}{}}}C(p,q)(\widehat{T}_+)^q(\widehat{a}_3^{})^{pq}(\widehat{b}_3^{})^{Tpq}|0,`$ (60)
$`C(p,q)={\displaystyle \underset{v=0}{\overset{p}{}}}D(p,v)(T!/(Tpv)!)()^{vq}(q!/(vq)!v!).`$ (61)
Next, with the aid of the form (60), we rewrite the state (52). First, the following relation should be noted :

$$[\widehat{S}_+(2),\widehat{T}_+]=[\widehat{R}_+(1),\widehat{T}_+]=0.$$
(62)
Then, under the definitions of $`\widehat{S}_+(2)`$ and $`\widehat{R}_+(1)`$ shown in the relations (8a) and (9a), respectively, we have

$`|s,r,p;T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{p}{}}}C(p,q)(\widehat{T}_+)^q(\widehat{S}_+(2))^s(\widehat{R}_+(1))^r(\widehat{a}_3^{})^{pq}(\widehat{b}_3^{})^{Tpq}|0`$ (63)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{p}{}}}C(p,q)(\widehat{T}_+)^q(\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{b}_3)^s(\widehat{b}_1^{}\widehat{b}_3)^r(\widehat{a}_3^{})^{pq}(\widehat{b}_3^{})^{Tpq}|0`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{p}{}}}C(p,q)((Tpq)!/(Tpqsr)!)`$
$`\times (\widehat{T}_+)^q(\widehat{a}_2^{})^s(\widehat{b}_1^{})^r(\widehat{a}_3^{})^{pq}(\widehat{b}_3^{})^{(Tpsr)q}|0.`$
For the expression (63), let us impose the condition

$$Tpsr1.$$
(64)
Under the condition (64), the state $`|s,r,p;T`$ cannot exist independently of any other condition. Therefore, we can conclude that the condition supporting the existence of the state $`|s,r,p;T`$ is expressed as

$$Tpsr0.$$
(65)
If $`s=kl+m`$, $`r=lk+m`$, $`p=k+lm`$ and $`T=2t3`$, the condition (65) is rewritten in the form

$$k+l+m2t3.$$
(66)
The condition (66) is identical with the inequality (42).

Thus, we can conclude that the orthogonal set in six kinds of bosons can be formulated in relation to the $`su(1,1)`$-algebra in six kinds of bosons.