text:
# ALGORITHM OF REDUCTION

## I INTRODUCTION

The old question of the quantum theory on the reduction of a quantum system and on the decoherence of an observable subsystem (transition from a pure state to a mixed state) due to its interaction with an unobservable subsystem and the measurement is formulated anew in quantum optics klysh ; men . This process is initiated by problems of quantum computing kilin , by hope to clarify the quantum nature of the irreversibility prigog ; men  and, mainly, by the new experimental potentials to check consequences of axioms of quantum mechanics accepted previously. The qualitatively new experiments allow one to observe dynamics of subsystems of simple quantum systems (e.g., the dynamics of a pair of correlated photons emitted in a nonlinear process, or the dynamics of a single two-level atom in the course of its interaction with the resonant field of extremely small intensity klysh ; men ; kilin ; haroche ). The mathematical operation of reduction defines the rule of calculating the density operator of an observable subsystem from the known density operator of a closed quantum system. By the von Neumann’s postulate, this rule consists in calculating the partial trace of the density matrix of a closed quantum system over the unobservable subsystem von ; dirac ; fano ; blum . Though this nonunitary operation has been universally accepted to account for the influence of the classical measuring device on the result of measurement, to realize the transition from the closed system to the open one, and to introduce the irreversibility into the dynamics of an observable subsystem prigog ; von ; dirac ; blum ; men , the algorithm of accounting for the interaction of the closed quantum system with a measuring device remains in so doing reduction implicit. Moreover, when calculating the mean values of observables of subsystems, the realization of reduction is implicit (”disguised”) by itself.

The initial point of the our treatment lies in the identity of the mathematical formulation of the reduction (other than the interpretation!) with the formulation of the quantum relaxation theory problem fano ; blum . In both cases the closed composite quantum system is considered. Consequently the unitary time evolution of the system is described by the density operator $`\rho (t)`$, which may be approximately calculated (basically in general case). In both cases the dynamics, i.e. the density operator, of one subsystem $`\widehat{\rho }_\alpha (t)`$ of the system should be calculated. This extraction of the one subsystem implies implicitly the separation of the system into two parts: the observable subsystem $`\alpha `$ and the unobservable subsystem $`\beta `$. In general case the subsystems of the arbitrary closed system are equal in rights. Let us suppose the dynamics of the subsystem $`\beta `$ has described by some density operator $`\widehat{\rho }_\beta (t)`$. The exact representation of the density operator of the closed system through the density operators of subsystems is known for the noninteracting subsystems only: $`\widehat{\rho }(t)=\widehat{\rho }_\alpha (t)\widehat{\rho }_\beta (t)`$ fano ; blum . The considered problem consist in calculating of the density operator of one subsystem in the general case of interacting or interacted previously (entangled) subsystems.

In the quantum relaxation theory the ”unobservable” subsystem is believed to be the thermostat at a temperature of $`T`$ from physical reasons. Consequently its density operator supposed to be known and stationary: $`\widehat{\rho }_\beta (T)`$. The desired density operator $`\widehat{\rho }_\alpha (t)`$ next is calculated to some approximation from the approximate equation $`\widehat{\rho }(t)\widehat{\rho }_\alpha (t)\widehat{\rho }_\beta (T)`$, where two operators $`\widehat{\rho }(t)`$ and $`\widehat{\rho }_\beta (T)`$ are known. In the reduction problem the state of the unobservable subsystem is believed unknown. The algorithm was instead postulated to calculate $`\widehat{\rho }_\alpha (t)`$ from $`\widehat{\rho }(t)`$. The question is arises then: is this postulation equivalent to some approach on the state of unobservable subsystem? As a matter of fact this question is identical with the mathematical problem of the quantum relaxation theory: how the density operator of subsystem $`\widehat{\rho }_\beta (t)`$ should be approximately calculated from the known density operators $`\widehat{\rho }(t),\widehat{\rho }_\alpha (t)`$?

We apply the method similar to used by von Neumann for demonstrating the correlation (the one-to-one correspondence) between the physically observables of the different interacting subsystems of the closed quantum system von . In this way the approximate equation system demonstrating the mutual relations between the density operators of subsystems and the density operator of the closed system was deduced. This equation system reveals that given in some way the density operator of one subsystem, the density operator of the other subsystem can be calculated approximately. We prove that the von Neumann’s algorithm of reduction is identical to the approximation when the subsystem $`\beta `$ is constantly in the state of minimum information $`\widehat{\rho }_{\beta min}`$ (identical with the state of infinite temperature von ; fano ). It should emphasize this approximation is solely employing when the reduction carring out, other than when the $`\widehat{\rho }(t)`$ calculating!

By this means the von Neumann’s reduction is mathematically equivalent to the replacement $`\widehat{\rho }(t)\widehat{\rho }_\alpha (t)\widehat{\rho }_{\beta min}`$ with exactly defined operators $`\widehat{\rho }_\alpha (t),\widehat{\rho }_{\beta min}`$. This replacement corresponds on other hand to the changing of the considered quantum system and to the traditional interpretation of reduction as the transition from the closed to an open system or the accounting for the measurement. The state of minimum information (of infinite temperature) corresponds to the complete absence of the quantum coherence in the subsystem $`\beta `$. This implicit approach leads to some decoherence of the observable subsystem although all the calculations are done in framework of the closed quantum system.

We get the conclusion that any one of the possible algorithms of reduction is mathematically equivalent to the replacement $`\widehat{\rho }(t)\widehat{\rho }_\alpha (t)\widehat{\rho }_\beta (t)`$, i.e. to the approximate representation of the closed quantum system as two quasy-independent subsystems with the definite dynamics. This raises the question of whether the accepted algorithm of reduction (i.e. the corresponding replacement of the density operator) corresponds to the initial assumption of the closed quantum system. Or mathematically: how much would this replacement be in error with the believed to be true $`\widehat{\rho }(t)`$?

As it is evident from ours consideration, the generally accepted von Neumann’s algorithm of reduction is self-contradictory: on the one hand the closed quantum system is assumed, and on the other the infinite temperature of the subsystem is taken implisitly. It is possible to perfect the algorithm of reduction: for example, to accept some more reasonable state of the unobservable subsystem (the thermostat, as in the quantum relaxation theory, or one of eigenstates, as in the theory of quantum nondemolition measurements of photons imoto ; fucuo , or any intermediate variant). But in any case this step corresponds to the changing of the considered system and to the coming to the new system with the new dynamics, what is customary interpreted as the coming to the open system.

If the both subsystems of the considered system are the essentially quantum systems and the approximation of the closed system is believed true, it seems reasonable to use the principle of the interchangeability of subsystems von  to make the reduction. We use the mutual relations between the density operators $`\widehat{\rho }(t),\widehat{\rho }_\alpha (t),\widehat{\rho }_\beta (t)`$ to calculate the correlated density operators $`\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha C}(t),\widehat{\rho }_{\beta C}(t)`$ simultaneously by the self-congruent procedure of the successive approximations. In this way the reduction making the minimum (the vanishing in the limit) changing of $`\widehat{\rho }(t)`$ is obtainable. In other words, the correlated reduction procedure is most consistent with the initial approximation of the closed quantum system or to the quantum nondemolition measurement.

The structure of the paper is as follows: in Sec. II we demonstrate that the von Neumann’s reduction corresponds to the approximation of the steady state of minimum information of the unobservable subsystem and formulate the generalized reduction algorithm as an approximation of a given state of the unobservable subsystem of a closed quantum system. Sec. III contains the algorithm of correlated reduction that defines the procedure of calculating self-congruent density operators of subsystems of a closed quantum system in the limit of the quantum nondemolition measurement. In Sec. IV we use the correlated reduction technique to consider three known problems of quantum optics: 1) the separable representation of the entangled EPR(Einshtein-Podolsky-Rosen) state, 2) the dynamics of a pair of interacting two-level atoms, 3) the dynamics of a two-level atom interacting with the resonant single-mode electromagnetic field (the model of cavity quantum electrodynamics).

Designations and definitions von ; dirac ; fano ; blum :

1. $`\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_\alpha +\widehat{H}_\beta +\widehat{H}_{\alpha \beta }`$ is a hamiltonian of a closed quantum system, $`\widehat{H}_\alpha `$ and $`\widehat{H}_\beta `$ are hamiltonians of uncoupled subsystems $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, respectively, $`\widehat{H}_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the interaction hamiltonian of subsystems; $`\widehat{A}`$ and $`\widehat{B}`$ are operators of observables of subsystems $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, respectively.

2. $`\widehat{\rho }(t)=\widehat{U}(t)\widehat{\rho }(0)\widehat{U}^{}(t)`$ is the solution of the Schrödinger equation determining the dynamics of the system $`\widehat{H}`$, $`\widehat{U}(t)=\mathrm{exp}[(it/\mathrm{})\widehat{H}]`$ is the operator of evolution.

3. Operators $`\widehat{H}_\alpha ,\widehat{A}`$ and $`\widehat{H}_\beta ,\widehat{B}`$ are determined in spaces of subsystems $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, respectively; operators $`\widehat{H},\widehat{H}_{\alpha \beta },\widehat{\rho }(t),\widehat{U}(t)`$ are determined in the complete space that is the direct (exterior $``$) product of spaces $`\alpha ,\beta ;`$ $`\widehat{A}^{}=\widehat{A}\widehat{1}_\beta ,\widehat{B}^{}=\widehat{1}_\alpha \widehat{B}`$ are extended operators of subsystems in the complete space; $`\widehat{1}_{\alpha (\beta )}`$ are unity operators in spaces of subsystems, $`\widehat{1}_\alpha \widehat{1}_\beta =\widehat{1}`$ is the unity operator of the complete space; $`a_{ij},b_{i^{}j^{}}`$ are matrix elements of the operators $`\widehat{A},\widehat{B}`$; $`o_{\{ii^{}\}\{jj^{}\}}`$ are matrix elements of operators ($`\widehat{O}`$) of the closed system, a pair of subscripts $`\{ii^{}\}`$ designates basis state of the closed system.

4. The von Neumann’s algorithm of calculating the reduced density operator of the observable subsystem is determined by:

$$\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha N}(t)=Sp_\beta \widehat{\rho }(t),\text{or}\widehat{\rho }_{\beta N}(t)=Sp_\alpha \widehat{\rho }(t),$$
(1)
where $`Sp_{\alpha (\beta )}`$ means the partial trace over the subsystem $`\alpha (\beta )`$, the subscript $`N`$ hereinafter designates quantities calculated in accordance with the von Neumann’s algorithm of reduction.

## II THE THEOREM ON THE CORRELATION OF SUBSYSTEMS

Theorem

The reduction $`(\text{1})`$ of the closed quantum system $`\widehat{H}`$ for the observable subsystem $`\alpha `$ corresponds to the approximation at which: i) the closed system is represented as two uncoupled correlated subsystems, and ii) the unobservable subsystem $`\beta `$ is supposed to be in the steady state of minimum information.

Proof.

i). Let us suppose that the dynamics of the closed system $`\widehat{H}`$ is approximately represented as the dynamics of two uncoupled subsystems. It means fano ; blum  that there are such density operators $`\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha C}(t)`$ and $`\widehat{\rho }_{\beta C}(t)`$ ($`Sp_\alpha \widehat{\rho }_{\alpha C}(t)=Sp_\beta \widehat{\rho }_{\beta C}(t)=1`$) of subsystems for which

$$\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha C}(t)\widehat{\rho }_{\beta C}(t)\widehat{\rho }(t).$$
(2)
We transform (2) in much the same way as von Neumann did to prove the mutual correlation of mean values $`\widehat{A}(t),\widehat{B}(t)`$ ( see (von, , Ch.6.2)). If we multiply (2) on both sides by $`\widehat{\rho }_{\beta C}^{^{}}(t)=\widehat{1}_\alpha \widehat{\rho }_{\beta C}(t)`$ or $`\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha C}^{^{}}(t)=\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha C}\widehat{1}_\beta `$ and take partial traces over the subsystem $`\beta `$ or $`\alpha `$ we obtain the system of two connected equations solo ; soloann :

$$\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha C}(t)\frac{Sp_\beta \widehat{\rho }(t)\widehat{\rho }_{\beta C}^{^{}}(t)}{Sp_{\alpha \beta }\widehat{\rho }(t)\widehat{\rho }_{\beta C}^{^{}}(t)},$$
(3)
$$\widehat{\rho }_{\beta C}(t)\frac{Sp_\alpha \widehat{\rho }(t)\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha C}^{^{}}(t)}{Sp_{\alpha \beta }\widehat{\rho }(t)\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha C}^{^{}}(t)}.$$
(4)
The right-hand sides of (3),(4) represent the normalized quantum averaging of the density operator of the closed system over one of the subsystems. Each equation determines the density operator of one subsystem through the density operator of the closed system and density operator of another subsystem. From (2) and (3),(4), it is evident that density operators $`\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha C}(t),\widehat{\rho }_{\beta C}(t)`$ are correlated, that is why we may call i) the approximation of correlated subsystems (is marked by a subscript C).

ii). Let us suppose that the unobservable subsystem $`\beta `$ is in the steady state of minimum information, i.e. its density operator equals von ; fano :

$$\widehat{\rho }_{\beta C}(t)=\widehat{\rho }_{\beta min}=\left(1/N_\beta \right)\widehat{1}_\beta ,$$
(5)
where $`N_\beta `$ is the dimension (number of eigenstates) of the subsystem $`\beta `$. The theorem then follows if we insert (5) into the right-hand side of (3):

$$\widehat{\rho }_\alpha (t)\frac{Sp_\beta \widehat{\rho }(t)(1/N_\beta )\left(\widehat{1}_\alpha \widehat{1}_\beta \right)}{Sp_{\alpha \beta }\widehat{\rho }(t)(1/N_\beta )\left(\widehat{1}_\alpha \widehat{1}_\beta \right)}=Sp_\beta \widehat{\rho }(t)=\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha N}(t).$$
(6)
Consequence 1

By (2)-(5), the von Neumann’s algorithm of reduction (1) is equivalent to the replacement of the density operator $`\widehat{\rho }(t)`$ with the reduced density operator $`\widehat{\rho }_{RN}(t)`$ according to the rule:

$$\widehat{\rho }(t)\widehat{\rho }_{RN}(t)=\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha N}(t)\widehat{\rho }_{\beta min}=\left[Sp_\beta \widehat{\rho }(t)\right]\left(1/N_\beta \right)\widehat{1}_\beta .$$
(7)
The relation (7) agrees in form with ” the basic equation of irreversibility ” or ”the first assumption” of the quantum relaxation theory ( see, e.g. (blum, , Ch.7)):

$$\widehat{\rho }(t)\left[Sp_\beta \widehat{\rho }(t)\right]\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(1/k_BT\right)\widehat{H}_\beta \right]}{Sp_\beta \mathrm{exp}\left[\left(1/k_BT\right)\widehat{H}_\beta \right]},$$
(8)
that redefines $`\widehat{\rho }(t)`$ in a case, when the unobservable subsystem is taken to be the thermostat at a temperature of $`T`$ ($`k_B`$ is the Boltzmann constant). It follows from the comparison of (7) with (8) that the approximation ii) within the quantum relaxation theory corresponds to the representation of the unobservable subsystem by the thermostat at the infinite temperature, no matter of actual physical properties of the unobservable subsystem.

Consequence 2

i), and ii) represent qualitatively distinct approximations. The first approximation (i) represents a closed quantum system as two of such quasi-uncoupled correlated subsystems with mean values of all observables of the closed system being approximately correct. The second approximation (ii) describes the action of the measurement on the state of the observable subsystem and implicitly carries out the transition from a closed system to an open one. By Consequence 1, the model of measurement (1)$``$(7) used in the von Neumann’s reduction may be considered as the identification of the classical measuring device with a thermostat of the infinite temperature and the measurement with the ideal thermal contact of the unobservable subsystem with this device. The limited applicability of such model and hence the von Neumann’s reduction seems physically evident.

In the form similar to ii), the model of measurement was included into the algorithm of reduction in the theory of quantum nondemolition measurements of quantum optics imoto ; fucuo . The ”probe” (unobservable) subsystem $`\beta `$ was postulated to be determined with certainty in its eigenstate $`|j^{}`$ at the measurement point of time $`t`$, i.e. the probe subsystem density operator is to be presented by a projector $`\widehat{\rho }_{\beta j^{}}(t)=\widehat{P}_{\beta j^{}}|j^{}j^{}|.`$ The equation of such ”projective” reduction (is marked by the subscript $`P`$) was determined by imoto ; fucuo :

$$\widehat{\rho }(t)\widehat{\rho }_{RPj^{}}(t)=\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha j^{}}(t)\widehat{P}_{\beta j^{}}=\frac{Sp_\beta \widehat{\rho }(t)\widehat{P}_{\beta j^{}}^{}}{Sp_{\alpha \beta }\widehat{\rho }(t)\widehat{P}_{\beta j^{}}^{}}\widehat{P}_{\beta j^{}},$$
(9)
being the special case of the equation (3a).

Uniting (7) $``$ (1) and (9), it is possible to formulate the generalized algorithm of reduction as the procedure of calculating the density operator of an observable subsystem in the approximation of a given state of the unobservable subsystem in the form of two consecutive operations:

1. A model of interaction of a closed quantum system with a measuring device is postulated from physical reasons and is expressed mathematically in the form of the approximation of a given state of an unobservable subsystem.
2. The density operator of the observable subsystem is calculated from equation (3) of correlated quasi-uncoupled subsystems of a closed quantum system.

In (7) and (9) two special approximations of the given state of the subsystem $`\beta `$ are realized. In (7) the subsystem $`\beta `$ is permanently in each of eigenstates with equal probability and in (9) it is with certainty in one of them at the time $`t`$.

Consequence 3

It is known fano ; blum  that calculating the mean value of the observable of a closed system described by the operator $`\widehat{A}^{}`$, the von Neumann’s reduction of a closed system is carried out implicitly:

$$\widehat{A}^{}(t)=Sp_{\alpha \beta }\widehat{\rho }(t)\widehat{A}^{}=Sp\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha N}(t)\widehat{A}=\widehat{A}(t)_N.$$
(10)
In doing so not the state of the subsystem $`\beta `$ is postulated but the operator of the closed system that corresponds to the observable $`\widehat{A}`$ of the independent subsystem $`\alpha `$ ($`\widehat{A}^{}\widehat{A}`$) (see (von, , Ch. 6.2)). Hence, by Theorem and Consequence 2, the choice of the required operator as $`\widehat{A}^{}`$ is equivalent to realization of both approximations i) and ii).

Such equivalence becomes evident by considering the correlator of observables $`\widehat{A}`$ and $`\widehat{B}`$ of subsystems $`\left(\widehat{A}\widehat{B}\right)(t)=Sp_{\alpha \beta }\widehat{\rho }(t)\left(\widehat{A}\widehat{B}\right)`$. If we use the obvious identity $`\widehat{A}\widehat{B}=\left(\widehat{A}\widehat{1}_\beta \right)\left(\widehat{1}_\alpha \widehat{B}\right)`$, the commutativity $`[\widehat{A}^{},\widehat{B}^{}]=0`$ and the interchangeability of partial traces $`Sp_{\alpha \beta }=Sp_{\beta \alpha }`$, the correlator can be presented in two forms symmetric relative to subsystems:

$$\left(\widehat{A}\widehat{B}\right)(t)=Sp_{\alpha \beta }\rho (t)\left(\widehat{A}\widehat{B}\right)=\{\begin{array}{c}\widehat{A}(t)_B\widehat{B}(t)_N,\\ \widehat{A}(t)_N\widehat{B}(t)_A,\end{array}$$
(11)
where

$$\widehat{A}(t)_B=Sp_\alpha \widehat{\rho }_{\alpha B}(t)\widehat{A},\widehat{B}(t)_A=Sp_\beta \widehat{\rho }_{\beta A}(t)\widehat{B},$$
(12)
$$\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha B}(t)=\frac{Sp_\beta \widehat{\rho }(t)\widehat{\rho }_{\beta B}^{}}{Sp_{\alpha \beta }\widehat{\rho }(t)\widehat{\rho }_{\beta B}^{}},\widehat{\rho }_{\beta A}(t)=\frac{Sp_\alpha \widehat{\rho }(t)\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha A}^{}}{Sp_{\alpha \beta }\widehat{\rho }(t)\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha A}^{}}.$$
(13)
$$\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha A}=\widehat{A}/Sp_\alpha \widehat{A},\widehat{\rho }_{\beta B}=\widehat{B}/Sp_\beta \widehat{B},$$
(14)
It is supposed here for simplicity that $`\widehat{A}(t)_N0,\widehat{B}(t)_N0,`$ and $`\widehat{A},\widehat{B}`$ are the nonnegative operators.

The expressions (2.10)-(2.13) are the exact equations for arbitrary Hermitian $`\widehat{A},\widehat{B}`$. The meaning of values $`\widehat{A}(t)_B`$ and $`\widehat{B}(t)_A`$ is clear from the comparison of (13) with (3),(4). For example, the operator $`\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha B}(t)`$ is the reduced density operator of the subsystem $`\alpha `$ in the approximation of the given state $`\widehat{\rho }_{\beta B}`$ of the subsystem $`\beta `$ in accordance with Consequence 2. Accordingly, $`\widehat{A}(t)_B`$ is the mean value of the observable $`\widehat{A}`$ of the subsystem $`\alpha `$ if the subsystem $`\beta `$ is in the state $`\widehat{\rho }_{\beta B}`$. Thus, (11) shows that the correlator $`\left(\widehat{A}\widehat{B}\right)(t)`$ of the closed system $`\widehat{H}`$ is equal to the product of mean values of observables of subsystems calculated for the system $`\widehat{H}`$ reduced in the different ways. Namely: 1) the reduced state of a subsystem $`\alpha `$ is defined at the given $`\widehat{\rho }_\beta =\widehat{\rho }_{\beta B}`$, but the reduced state of the subsystem $`\beta `$ is defined simultaneously at the given $`\widehat{\rho }_\alpha =\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha min}`$; or, leading to the same result, 2) the reduced state of the subsystem $`\alpha `$ is defined at the given $`\widehat{\rho }_\beta =\widehat{\rho }_{\beta min}`$ but that of the subsystem $`\beta `$ at $`\widehat{\rho }_\alpha =\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha A}`$.

In the specific case $`\widehat{B}=\widehat{1}_\beta `$ we have $`\widehat{\rho }_{\beta B}=\widehat{\rho }_{\beta min},`$ $`\widehat{B}(t)_N=\widehat{B}(t)_A=1,`$ $`\widehat{A}(t)_B=\widehat{A}(t)_N`$ and (11) = (10).

For this axiomatic choice of the operator of an observable of the closed system $`\widehat{A}^{}\widehat{A}`$, commonly accepted in the quantum mechanics, in the limits of uncoupled subsystems ($`\widehat{H}_{\alpha \beta }=0`$) the expression of the observable $`\widehat{A}^{}(t)=\widehat{A}(t)`$ is exact. But at $`\widehat{H}_{\alpha \beta }0`$ the mathematically exact equality (10) is the physical approximation as it contains implicitly approximations i) and ii). One can see from (7), (9) - (14) and Consequence 2 that depending on a choice of a model of measurements (or of an algorithm of reduction) the calculated mean value of the observable described by the same operator $`\widehat{A}`$ and the same density operator of the closed system $`\widehat{\rho }(t)`$ is different: $`\widehat{A}(t)_N\widehat{A}(t)_{Pj^{}}\widehat{A}(t)_B.`$ The physical reason of this difference is obvious — a choice of a model of measurement (of a algorithm of reduction) corresponds to a choice of the back effect of the measuring device on the state of the observable subsystem and, hence, on the result of measurement. Or, alternatively, it is possible to say following (11) that each choice of the model of measurement corresponds to the calculation of different observables of the closed quantum system.

## III ALGORITHM OF THE CORRELATED REDUCTION

If the approximation of the closed system is true, it seems reasonable to seek the algorithm of reduction such that minimize the changing of $`\widehat{\rho }(t)`$.

Let us consider expressions:

$$\widehat{A}(t)_C=Sp\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha C}(t)\widehat{A},\widehat{B}(t)_C=Sp\widehat{\rho }_{\beta C}(t)\widehat{B};$$
(15)
$$\left(\widehat{A}\widehat{B}\right)(t)_C=\left[Sp\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha C}(t)\widehat{A}\right]\left[Sp\widehat{\rho }_{\beta C}(t)\widehat{B}\right].$$
(16)
The equalities (15) define mean values of observables $`\widehat{A}`$ and $`\widehat{B}`$ of independent subsystems with the correlated density operators $`\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha C}(t)`$ and $`\widehat{\rho }_{\beta C}(t)`$, respectively. But these correlated density operators of subsystems can be determined only approximately for the lack of the exact expression of $`\widehat{\rho }(t)`$ in the form of (2) at $`\widehat{H}_{\alpha \beta }0`$. Let us calculate $`\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha C}(t),\widehat{\rho }_{\beta C}(t)`$ from the system of equations (3),(4) by the successive approximation method solo ; soloann :

$$\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha C}(t)=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\widehat{\rho }_\alpha ^{(n+1)}(t)=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{Sp_\beta \widehat{\rho }(t)\widehat{\rho }_\beta ^{(n)}(t)}{Sp_{\alpha \beta }\widehat{\rho }(t)\widehat{\rho }_\beta ^{(n)}(t)},$$
(17)
$$\widehat{\rho }_{\beta C}(t)=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\widehat{\rho }_\beta ^{(n+1)}(t)=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{Sp_\alpha \widehat{\rho }(t)\widehat{\rho }_\alpha ^{(n)}(t)}{Sp_{\alpha \beta }\widehat{\rho }(t)\widehat{\rho }_\alpha ^{(n)}(t)},$$
(18)
where, for an example, the von Neumann’s reduced density operators $`\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha N}(t),\widehat{\rho }_{\beta N}(t)`$ may be used as a zeroth-order (n=0) iteration. For the convergent sequences (17),(18), the calculated self-congruent density operators of subsystems most closely correspond to (2). It means that the mathematical operation of reduction (17),(18) does not change approximately the state of the closed quantum system and hence may be considered to correspond to the quantum nondemolition measurement.

A matter of principle is if (10) or (15) describes observables of subsystems of a closed system more properly.

The expression (10) is the mathematical equality but the physical approximation by Consequences 1-3. Each of (15) is the physical equality but mathematical approximation by (2) and (17), (18). The accuracy of (15) or (17),(18) can be estimated by a comparison of matrix elements at the left-hand and right-hand sides of (2) or by a comparison of mean values at the left-hand and right-hand sides of (16). It should be particularly emphasized that the correlated reduction (17),(18) seems to be more appropriate to the equivalency of subsystems of the closed system than the reduction (1) including the physically impossible property ($`T=\mathrm{}`$) of the unobservable subsystem. Therefore we expect that the correlated self-congruent density operators (17), (18) would more properly describe the dynamics of subsystems in experimental cases when the approximation of the closed system holds.

Let us consider the previous procedure of a correlated reduction and its physical consequences on model problems of quantum optics.

## IV DYNAMICS OF A PAIR OF CORRELATED TWO-LEVEL SUBSYSTEMS

Two coupled two-level subsystems constitute the compound closed quantum system now in use to describe many basic problems of quantum optics and quantum informatics klysh ; men ; kilin . Let us look after the dynamics of such simplest correlated subsystems. To visualize the distinction in the dynamics of subsystems described by the traditional reduction (1),(7), and by the correlated reduction (3),(4),(17),(18) we present at first the consideration in general.

Let us designate eigenstates of uncoupled subsystems $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ by $`|2_\alpha ,|1_\alpha `$ and $`|2_\beta ,|1_\beta `$, respectively. Operators of the closed system are represented by matrices of the fourth order, each element of which is designated by two pairs of subscripts (see, e.g., (blum, , Appendix A)). The first subscript of each pair is attributed to a subsystem $`\alpha `$ and second subsctipt to a subsystem $`\beta `$. The general expression of the density matrix of the considered closed system is then:

$$\left(\widehat{\rho }\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\rho _{22,22}& \rho _{22,21}& \rho _{22,12}& \rho _{22,11}\\ \rho _{21,22}& \rho _{21,21}& \rho _{21,12}& \rho _{21,11}\\ \rho _{12,22}& \rho _{12,21}& \rho _{12,12}& \rho _{12,11}\\ \rho _{11,22}& \rho _{11,21}& \rho _{11,12}& \rho _{11,11}\end{array}\right).$$
(19)
For an observable subsystem $`\alpha `$ the reduced von Neumann’s density matrix in accordance with (1) is defined by expression:

$$\left(\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha N}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\rho _{22,22}+\rho _{21,21}& \rho _{22,12}+\rho _{21,11}\\ \rho _{12,22}+\rho _{11,21}& \rho _{12,12}+\rho _{11,11}\end{array}\right).$$
(20)
Accordingly, for an observable subsystem $`\beta `$:

$$\left(\widehat{\rho }_{\beta N}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\rho _{22,22}+\rho _{12,12}& \rho _{22,21}+\rho _{12,11}\\ \rho _{21,22}+\rho _{11,12}& \rho _{21,21}+\rho _{11,11}\end{array}\right).$$
(21)
In accordance with (7), such definition of the operation of reduction is equivalent to the replacement of (19) by expressions:

$`\left(\widehat{\rho }\right)`$ $`\left(\widehat{\rho }_{R\alpha N}\right)=\left(\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha N}\right)\left(\widehat{\rho }_{\beta min}\right)`$ (26)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\rho _{22,22}+\rho _{21,21}& 0& \rho _{22,12}+\rho _{21,11}& 0\\ 0& \rho _{22,22}+\rho _{21,21}& 0& \rho _{22,12}+\rho _{21,11}\\ \rho _{12,22}+\rho _{11,21}& 0& \rho _{12,12}+\rho _{11,11}& 0\\ 0& \rho _{12,22}+\rho _{11,21}& 0& \rho _{12,12}+\rho _{11,11}\end{array}\right),`$
or

$`\left(\widehat{\rho }\right)`$ $`\left(\widehat{\rho }_{R\beta N}\right)=\left(\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha min}\right)\left(\widehat{\rho }_{\beta N}\right)`$ (31)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\rho _{22,22}+\rho _{12,12}& \rho _{22,21}+\rho _{12,11}& 0& 0\\ \rho _{21,22}+\rho _{11,12}& \rho _{21,21}+\rho _{11,11}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \rho _{22,22}+\rho _{12,12}& \rho _{22,21}+\rho _{12,11}\\ 0& 0& \rho _{21,22}+\rho _{11,12}& \rho _{21,21}+\rho _{11,11}\end{array}\right).`$
For comparison, we write the system of equations (3),(4) determining correlated reduced density matrices of subsystems of the closed system (19):

$`\left(\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha C}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha _{22}& \alpha _{21}\\ \alpha _{12}& \alpha _{11}\end{array}\right)`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\begin{array}{c}(\rho _{22,22}\beta _{22}+\rho _{21,21}\beta _{11}+\\ +\rho _{22,21}\beta _{12}+\rho _{21,22}\beta _{21})\end{array}\begin{array}{c}(\rho _{22,12}\beta _{22}+\rho _{21,11}\beta _{11}+\\ +\rho _{22,11}\beta _{12}+\rho _{21,12}\beta _{21})\end{array}& \\ \begin{array}{c}(\rho _{12,22}\beta _{22}+\rho _{11,21}\beta _{11}+\\ +\rho _{12,21}\beta _{12}+\rho _{11,22}\beta _{21})\end{array}\begin{array}{c}(\rho _{12,12}\beta _{22}+\rho _{11,11}\beta _{11}+\\ +\rho _{12,11}\beta _{12}+\rho _{11,12}\beta _{21})\end{array}& \end{array}\right)`$ (45)
$`\times (\rho _{22,22}\beta _{22}+\rho _{21,21}\beta _{11}+\rho _{22,21}\beta _{12}+\rho _{21,22}\beta _{21}`$
$`+\rho _{12,12}\beta _{22}+\rho _{11,11}\beta _{11}+\rho _{12,11}\beta _{12}+\rho _{11,12}\beta _{21})^1,`$
$`\left(\widehat{\rho }_{\beta C}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\beta _{22}& \beta _{21}\\ \beta _{12}& \beta _{11}\end{array}\right)`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\begin{array}{c}(\rho _{22,22}\alpha _{22}+\rho _{12,12}\alpha _{11}+\\ +\rho _{22,12}\alpha _{12}+\rho _{12,22}\alpha _{21})\end{array}& \begin{array}{c}(\rho _{22,21}\alpha _{22}+\rho _{12,11}\alpha _{11}+\\ +\rho _{22,11}\alpha _{12}+\rho _{12,21}\alpha _{21})\end{array}\\ \begin{array}{c}(\rho _{21,22}\alpha _{22}+\rho _{11,12}\alpha _{11}+\\ +\rho _{21,12}\alpha _{12}+\rho _{11,22}\alpha _{21})\end{array}& \begin{array}{c}(\rho _{21,22}\alpha _{22}+\rho _{11,11}\alpha _{11}+\\ +\rho _{21,11}\alpha _{12}+\rho _{11,21}\alpha _{21})\end{array}\end{array}\right)`$ (59)
$`\times (\rho _{22,22}\alpha _{22}+\rho _{12,12}\alpha _{11}+\rho _{22,12}\alpha _{12}+\rho _{12,22}\alpha _{21}`$
$`+\rho _{21,21}\alpha _{22}+\rho _{11,11}\alpha _{11}+\rho _{21,11}\alpha _{12}+\rho _{11,21}\alpha _{21})^1.`$
It is seen that in the general case the mutual correlation of subsystems (45) and (59) as distinct from (20) and (21) implies the following.
1) The possibility of the simultaneous existence of quantum coherence, i.e. nonzero nondiagonal elements of reduced density matrices of both subsystems $`(\alpha _{12}0,\beta _{12}0)`$.
2) The inequality of probabilities to find the subsystems in their eigenstates $`(\alpha _{11}\alpha _{22},\beta _{11}\beta _{22})`$.

Let us use (19)-(59) in considering two known physical problems.

### IV.1 Representation of an entangled EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) pair of photons as the superposition of separated correlated photons

The model of the entangled EPR state is of considerable current use in the description of experiments on the correlation of photons klysh ; men ; kilin . The density matrix of such closed quantum system of two noninteracting but correlated photons in designations (19) is of the form klysh ; men ; kilin :

$$\left(\widehat{\rho }_S\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(60)
States of subsystems (i.e. individual photons) by the von Neumann’s reduction (1),(20), (21) are:

$$\left(\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha N}\right)=\left(\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha min}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),\text{or}\left(\widehat{\rho }_{\beta N}\right)=\left(\widehat{\rho }_{\beta min}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(61)
By (7),(26),(31), for both subsystems it is equivalent to the replacement of the density matrix (60) by the reduced density matrix

$$\left(\widehat{\rho }_S\right)\left(\widehat{\rho }_{SRN}\right)=\widehat{\rho }_{min}=\frac{1}{4}\widehat{1}.$$
(62)
The expressions (61) and (62) show that each photon can be registered in any eigenstate with equal probability (1/2) but they do not determine the mutual correlation of results of simultaneous or consecutive measurements of both photons. The approximate nature of the von Neumann’s reduction makes itself evident in the nonequality (60)$``$(62). On the other hand, as photons in the pure state (60) are noninteracting, one might expect the exact expression of the system (60) through correlated subsystems in terms similar to (17),(18) to exist. With (45) and (59) for (60) the iterative procedure (17),(18) converges already in the first iteration for the arbitrary zeroth-order iteration and results in the following relations between the elements of correlated reduced density matrices of subsystems: $`\alpha _{22}=\beta _{11},\alpha _{21}=\beta _{21}`$, in addition to usual relations of normalizing and of hermiticity: $`\alpha _{11}=1\alpha _{22},\alpha _{12}=\alpha _{21}^{}`$. With these correlation conditions, let us write down the system of equations for calculating the elements $`\alpha _{22},\alpha _{21}`$ from (2). This system is separated into three groups of equations: for diagonal elements, nondiagonal elements and equations of their relation:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\alpha _{22}\beta _{22}0=:\alpha _{22}(1\alpha _{22}),\hfill & \alpha _{21}\beta _{12}1/2=:|\alpha _{21}|^2,\hfill & \alpha _{22}\beta _{21}0=:\alpha _{22}(\alpha _{21}),\hfill \\ \alpha _{22}\beta _{11}1/2=:\alpha _{22}^2,\hfill & \alpha _{21}\beta _{21}0=:(\alpha _{21})^2,\hfill & \alpha _{21}\beta _{22}0=:\alpha _{21}(1\alpha _{22}),\hfill \\ \alpha _{11}\beta _{22}1/2=:(1\alpha _{22})^2,\hfill & & \alpha _{21}\beta _{11}0=:\alpha _{21}\alpha _{22},\hfill \\ \alpha _{11}\beta _{11}0=:(1\alpha _{22})\alpha _{22},\hfill & & \alpha _{11}\beta _{21}0=:(1\alpha _{22})\alpha _{21}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(63)
The system (63) is obviously incompatible as an algebraic system of equation, but it is a compatible system of statistical equations that we have designated by ”$`=:`$” instead of ”$`=`$”. For example, the system of four equations from the first column of (63) is compatible, if it is granted that $`\alpha _{22}`$ takes two values: $`\alpha _{22}^{(1)}=1`$ and $`\alpha _{22}^{(2)}=0`$ with equal probability (1/2), and each equation is considered as a result of statistical averaging. In this way, for the first equation of the first column from (63) we have: $`0=(1/2)\left[\alpha _{22}^{(1)}(1\alpha _{22}^{(1)})+\alpha _{22}^{(2)}(1\alpha _{22}^{(2)})\right].`$ For the second equation: $`1/2=(1/2)\left[\left(\alpha ^{(1)}\right)^2+\left(\alpha ^{(2)}\right)^2\right]`$. In solving the system (63) as a system of the statistical equations, we obtain within the arbitrary phase factor ($`\mathrm{exp}(i\theta )`$):

$`\left(\widehat{\rho }_S\right)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}p_i\left\{\left(\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha C}^{(i)}\right)\left(\widehat{\rho }_{\beta C}^{(i)}\right)\right\}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i\theta }\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i\theta }& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i(\theta +\pi )}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i(\theta +\pi )}& 1\end{array}\right)`$ (68)
$`+\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i(\theta +\pi )}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i(\theta +\pi )}& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i\theta }\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i\theta }& 1\end{array}\right)`$ (73)
$`+\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i(\theta +\pi /2)}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i(\theta +\pi /2)}& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i(\theta +3\pi /2)}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i(\theta +3\pi /2)}& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (78)
$`+\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i(\theta +3\pi /2)}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i(\theta +3\pi /2)}& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i(\theta +\pi /2)}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i(\theta +\pi /2)}& 0\end{array}\right)\}.`$ (83)
Consequently, the entangled pure EPR state is exactly represented as a sum of four hidden equiprobable ($`p_i=const=1/4`$) states of separated but correlated ($`\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha C}^{(i)},\widehat{\rho }_{\beta C}^{(i)}`$) subsystems. Each of summands presents by itself the distinct state of EPR pare. Each of $`\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha C}^{(i)},\widehat{\rho }_{\beta C}^{(i)}`$ corresponds to the existence of the subsystem in one of eigenstates: the diagonal elements of density matrices are 1 and 0 only. Note simultaneously the unusual nonzero values of nondiagonal elements. Nondiagonal elements of this type reflect not the usual superposition of eigenstates of one subsystem but the correlation in phase of the eigenstates of the correlated subsystems.

The considered model of a pair of noninteracting two-level subsystems is the elementary example of the compound closed quantum system. The obvious next step of the generalization of the model is taking into account the interaction between subsystems.

### IV.2 Dynamics of a pair of interacting two-level atoms

The interaction of a pair of two-level subsystems was in detail considered in the theory of magnetic resonance, therefore it is convenient to take advantage of designations accepted there. The hamiltonian of a pair of identical spins-1/2 in an external d-c magnetic field with a simple form of the spin-spin interaction is abragam :

$$\left(\widehat{H}\right)=\mathrm{}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\omega +J& 0& 0& d\\ 0& J& c& 0\\ 0& c& J& 0\\ d& 0& 0& \omega +J\end{array}\right),$$
(84)
where $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ is the Zeeman energy of a single spin-1/2 in an external d-c magnetic field, parameters $`J,c,d`$ characterize the energy of the spin-spin interaction, which for definiteness is believed to be rather weak $`(\omega >J,c,d)`$. Designations of basic states accepted in (19) are used, i.e. $`|2,|1`$ are eigenstates of a single spin-1/2 in the d-c magnetic field with higher and lower energies, respectively.

The operator of evolution of quantum system (84) results in:

$`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{it}{\mathrm{}}}\widehat{H}\right)=\left\{\begin{array}{c}\widehat{U}(t)\\ \widehat{U}^{}(t)\end{array}\right\}=`$ (87)
$`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}e^{iJt}\left[C(\mathrm{\Omega }t)\frac{i\omega }{\mathrm{\Omega }}S(\mathrm{\Omega }t)\right]& 0& 0& (id/\mathrm{\Omega })e^{iJt}S(\mathrm{\Omega }t)\\ 0& e^{\pm iJt}\mathrm{cos}(ct)& ie^{\pm iJt}\mathrm{sin}(ct)& 0\\ 0& ie^{\pm iJt}\mathrm{sin}(ct)& e^{\pm iJt}\mathrm{cos}(ct)& 0\\ (id/\mathrm{\Omega })e^{iJt}S(\mathrm{\Omega }t)& 0& 0& e^{iJt}\left[C(\mathrm{\Omega }t)\pm \frac{i\omega }{\mathrm{\Omega }}S(\mathrm{\Omega }t)\right]\end{array}\right),`$ (92)
where $`C(\mathrm{\Omega }t)=\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }t),S(\mathrm{\Omega }t)=\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }t)`$. Thus, the density matrix $`(\widehat{\rho }(t))`$, i.e. the dynamics of the system (84) at the given initial condition $`(\widehat{\rho }(0))`$ is known exactly. To describe the dynamics of each spin one should calculate correlated reduced density matrices of spin-1/2 subsystems according to Sec. III. Let the initial state of the system (84) be:

$$\left(\widehat{\rho }(0)\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{cos}^2\phi & \mathrm{sin}\phi \mathrm{cos}\phi & 0\\ 0& \mathrm{sin}\phi \mathrm{cos}\phi & \mathrm{sin}^2\phi & 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(93)
For example, the initial condition of a radical pair born during photosynthesis is described in this form salikh . Similarly to the consideration of Subsec. IV.1, this initial density matrix is presented as:

$`\widehat{\rho }(0)\widehat{\rho }_{RC}(0)`$
$`=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}^2\phi \left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)+\mathrm{sin}^2\phi \left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),& |\mathrm{tan}\phi |>1,\\ \mathrm{cos}^2\phi \left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)+\mathrm{sin}^2\phi \left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),& |\mathrm{tan}\phi |<1,\\ \widehat{\rho }_\text{S},& \mathrm{tan}\phi =1,\\ \widehat{\rho }_\text{T},& \mathrm{tan}\phi =1,\end{array},`$ (114)
where

$`\left(\widehat{\rho }_\text{T}\right)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i\theta }\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i\theta }& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i\theta }\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i\theta }& 1\end{array}\right)`$ (138)
$`+\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i(\theta +\pi /2)}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i(\theta +\pi /2)}& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i(\theta +\pi /2)}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i(\theta +\pi /2)}& 0\end{array}\right)`$
$`+\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i(\theta +\pi )}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i(\theta +\pi )}& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i(\theta +\pi )}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i(\theta +\pi )}& 1\end{array}\right)`$
$`+\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i(\theta +3\pi /2)}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i(\theta +3\pi /2)}& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i(\theta +3\pi /2)}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i(\theta +3\pi /2)}& 0\end{array}\right)].`$
Unlike (83) expression (114) is exact only for $`|\mathrm{tan}\phi |=1`$ (i.e. for the last two rows in (114)).

As a result of correlated reduction (17),(18) the density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }(t)`$ is represented at any time as follows:

$`\left(\widehat{\rho }(t)\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& P(\phi ,t)& i\mathrm{cos}(2\phi )\mathrm{sin}(2ct)\mathrm{sin}(2\phi )& 0\\ 0& i\mathrm{cos}(2\phi )\mathrm{sin}(2ct)\mathrm{sin}(2\phi )& M(\phi ,t)& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)(\widehat{\rho }_{RC}(t)`$ (143)
$`=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}\left[P(\phi ,t)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)+M(\phi ,t)\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)\right],& C(\phi ,t)>0,\\ \frac{1}{2}\left[P(\phi ,t)\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)+M(\phi ,t)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\right],& C(\phi ,t)<0,\\ \widehat{\rho }_\text{S},& \mathrm{tan}(\phi )=1,\\ \widehat{\rho }_\text{T},& \mathrm{tan}(\phi )=1,\end{array}`$ (164)
where $`C(\phi ,t)=\mathrm{cos}(2\phi )\mathrm{cos}(2ct),P(\phi ,t)=1+C(\phi ,t),M(\phi ,t)=1C(\phi ,t)`$.

Thus, the dynamics of the closed system of two interacting spins-1/2 (84), according to the initial state (the value of $`\phi `$), may be of two types. For $`|\mathrm{tan}\phi |=1`$ the system is in the stable statistically defined state S$``$(83) or T$``$(138). For $`|\mathrm{tan}\phi |1`$ there are the harmonic oscillations of probabilities to detect spins in basic states opposite in phase. At $`t_n=(2n+1)\pi /8c,(n=0,1,2,\mathrm{})`$ for an arbitrary initial state these probabilities are the same and equal 1/2.

## V DYNAMICS OF A TWO-LEVEL ATOM IN A RESONANT FIELD

To demonstrate the decoherence phenomenon, the model problem of quantum optics on the dynamics of the inversion of a two-level atom interacting with a resonant electromagnetic field of a single-mode cavity (see, e.g., men ; haroche ) is used traditionally. It is attractive due to the existence of the experimental setup of the cavity quantum electrodynamics entangling machine haroche  and the existence of the exact solution of the theoretical Janes-Cummings model (JCM) louis ; allen .

Let us trace basic distinctions in the dynamics of atom and field following from definitions (1)$``$(7) and (3),(4)$``$(17),(18).

The hamiltonian of the resonant JCM looks like louis ; allen ; yoo ; acker ; optacta ; demid :

$$\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_a+\widehat{H}_f+\widehat{H}_{af}=\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2}\left(\widehat{P}_{22}\widehat{P}_{11}\right)+\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2}\left(\widehat{a}^+\widehat{a}+\widehat{a}\widehat{a}^+\right)+\frac{i\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}\left(\widehat{P}_{21}\widehat{a}\widehat{P}_{12}\widehat{a}^+\right),$$
(165)
where $`\widehat{H}_a,\widehat{H}_f,\widehat{H}_{af}`$ are hamiltonians of the atom, field and atom-field interactions, $`\omega `$ is the resonant frequency of the field, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the constant of the atom-field interaction, $`\widehat{P}_{ij}`$ are projection atomic operators representing square matrices of the second order, the $`ij`$-th element of which is equal to 1, others are equal to 0, $`i,j=1,2`$ and the subscript 2 corresponds to the level with the higher energy.

It is convenient to write down the solution of the JCM (obtained in a general form in the Heisenberg picture in Ref. acker ) in the Schrödinger picture in the form of expression for the operator of evolution optacta ; demid :

$`\left\{\begin{array}{c}\widehat{U}(t)\\ \widehat{U}^{}(t)\end{array}\right\}=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{it}{\mathrm{}}}\widehat{H}\right)=\widehat{P}_{22}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\omega t\widehat{a}\widehat{a}^+\right)\mathrm{cos}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }t}{2}}\left(\widehat{a}\widehat{a}^+\right)^{1/2}\right]`$ (168)
$`+\widehat{P}_{11}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\omega t\widehat{a}^+\widehat{a}\right)\mathrm{cos}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }t}{2}}\left(\widehat{a}^+\widehat{a}\right)^{1/2}\right]\pm \widehat{P}_{21}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\omega t\widehat{a}\widehat{a}^+\right)\mathrm{exp}(i\widehat{\phi })\mathrm{sin}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }t}{2}}\left(\widehat{a}^+\widehat{a}\right)^{1/2}\right]`$
$`\widehat{P}_{12}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\omega t\widehat{a}^+\widehat{a}\right)\mathrm{exp}(i\widehat{\phi })\mathrm{sin}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }t}{2}}\left(\widehat{a}\widehat{a}^+\right)^{1/2}\right],`$ (169)
where $`\mathrm{exp}(\pm i\widehat{\phi })=\left\{\begin{array}{c}\left(\widehat{a}^+\widehat{a}+1\right)^{1/2}\widehat{a}\\ \widehat{a}^+\left(\widehat{a}^+\widehat{a}+1\right)^{1/2}\end{array}\right\}`$ is the operator of a phase of a field loudon . Use of the operators $`\mathrm{exp}(\pm i\widehat{\phi })`$ and $`\widehat{P}_{ij}`$ (instead of more widespread Pauli operators) allows us to write down the operator of evolution in the symmetric compact form (169), convenient for the further analysis.

The elementary example (traditionally used in educational purposes louis ; allen ) is the consideration of the dynamics of the inversion of the atom, if the initial condition was $`\widehat{\rho }(0)=\widehat{\rho }_a(0)\widehat{\rho }_f(0)=\widehat{P}_{22}|00|`$, i.e. the atom was in the excited state $`|2`$ and the field was in the vacuum state. The known result, at once following from (169) and (1), consists in oscillations with the frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of the inversion of the atom or the probability of the existence of the photon in the cavity (vacuum Rubi oscillation haroche ):

$$\widehat{\rho }_{aN}(t)=\widehat{P}_{22}\mathrm{cos}^2(\mathrm{\Omega }t/2)+\widehat{P}_{11}\mathrm{sin}^2(\mathrm{\Omega }t/2),$$
(170)
or

$$\widehat{\rho }_{fN}(t)=\mathrm{sin}^2(\mathrm{\Omega }t/2)|11|+\mathrm{cos}^2(\mathrm{\Omega }t/2)|00|.$$
(171)
At $`t2\pi l/\mathrm{\Omega },(l=0,1,2,\mathrm{})`$ the atom and the field are in a mixture state corresponding to decoherence of the observed subsystem.

It is easy to notice that expressions (170) and (171) are incompatible for the system (3),(4). We search for the correlated reduced density operators of the atom and the field with (17),(18), using (170) and (171) as the zeroth-order iteration. As a result, we obtain:

$$\widehat{\rho }_a(t)=C(t)\widehat{P}_{22}+S(t)\widehat{P}_{11},\widehat{\rho }_f(t)=S(t)|00|+C(t)|11|,$$
(172)
where $`S(t)=1C(t),s=\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }t/2),c=\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }t/2)`$,

$$C(t)=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{c^{2n}}{c^{2n}+s^{2n}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,& [(4l1)\pi ]/2\mathrm{\Omega }<t<[(4l+1)\pi ]/2\mathrm{\Omega },\\ 1/2,& t=[(2l+1)\pi ]/2\mathrm{\Omega },\\ 0,& [(4l+1)\pi ]/2\mathrm{\Omega }<t<[(4l+3)\pi ]/2\mathrm{\Omega }.\end{array}$$
(173)
According to (172) and (173), probabilities to find the atom and the field in their eigenstates are stepwise periodic functions of time with the period $`\pi /\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Practically all time the atom and the field are in pure states and only at the discrete moments of time they are in a mixture state equiprobable for two probable pure states.

The expression (170) is employed at once to describe the experimentally observed vacuum Rubi oscillations haroche ; brune . We call attention to the experimental ”dead time” prior to the first-time photon emission in these experiments. The authors of haroche ; brune  included the effective interaction time taking into account the spatial variation of the atom-field coupling when atom moves across the cavity. It seems us unreasonable for the initially vacuum field up to the first photon emission. All the space: the interior-space and the outer-space of the cavity, is uniform for the vacuum field. Thus all the atom way after the excitation must be included into consideration and not just the interior of the cavity. Then the experimental results haroche ; brune  contain the dead time when atom is in the excited state and there is not spontaneous emission that corresponds qualitatively to the time interval $`(0\pi /2\mathrm{\Omega })`$ of (172),(173).

The other experimental result corresponding qualitatively to (172),(173) consist in the observing of the omnidirectional superfluorescense hartmann ; lvovsky . There is the well-known experimental situation, when each atom of the system of many uncoupled two-level atoms for a short (in comparison with $`\pi /\mathrm{\Omega }`$) time interval is transferred into the excited state and the spontaneous emission of the inverted system of atoms is investigated without cavity. The pulse of radiation experimentally observed in this case after a time interval $`\tau `$ is traditionally interpreted, after the authors of first observation skrib , as a pulse of superradiation or superfluorescence dicke . And $`\tau `$ is considered to be defined by the time of self-organization in the system of atoms at the expense of their interaction through a common radiation field skrib .

According to (173), each atom emits a photon at the same time $`\tau =\pi /2\mathrm{\Omega }`$ if at $`t=0`$ each atom was in the excited state, i.e. the pulsed emission of spontaneous radiation by the system of noninteracting atoms may be due to the correlation of each atom with the initially vacuum field. And for the gaseous spherical sample hartmann ; lvovsky  the directions of the spontaneous emission of photons are equiprobable.

## VI CONCLUSION

Results of the present work may be formulated as the following assertions:

1. The identification of an operator of an observable of a subsystem of a closed quantum system with the appropriate extended operator of the independent observable subsystem ($`\widehat{A}^{}\widehat{A}`$) corresponds to the physical approximation, at which this obserable is calculated provided that the unobservable subsystem is in the steady state of minimum information (infinite temperature).
2. The known algorithms of reduction correspond to the approximation of a given state of the unobservable subsystem.
3. The algorithm of correlated reduction that most corresponds to the ideal quantum measurement of observables of subsystems of the closed quantum sistem may be presented as the self-congruent calculation of mutually correlated reduced density operators of subsystems $`\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha C}(t),\widehat{\rho }_{\beta C}(t)`$ by the successive approximation method (17),(18). The mean values of observebles of subsystems at the ideal quantum measurements are defined by expressions $`\widehat{A}(t)_C=Sp\widehat{\rho }_{\alpha C}(t)\widehat{A},\widehat{B}(t)_C=Sp\widehat{\rho }_{\beta C}(t)\widehat{B}.`$
4. The correlations in the dynamics of subsystems are demonstrated with examples of simple compound quantum systems: 1) the pair of the coupled two-level atoms (spins-1/2), and 2) the two-level atom in a single-mode resonant field.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author acknoledge numerous discussions with V. N. Lisin.


format: text

text:
# Disentangling microlensing and differential extinction in the double QSO HE~0512–3329

## 1 Introduction

HE~0512–3329 was discovered as a probable lensed quasar in the course of a snapshot survey with the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS). It is a doubly imaged QSO with a source redshift of $`z=1.58`$ and an image separation of $`0\stackrel{}{.}644`$. The lensing galaxy has not been detected yet, but strong metal absorption lines with a redshift of $`z=0.93`$ identified in the integrated spectrum provide good evidence that a damped Ly$`\alpha `$ (DLA) system intervenes at this redshift. This system is very probably associated with the lensing galaxy (Gregg et al. 2000).

The absorption lines provide the possibility to study the interstellar matter (ISM) of the lensing galaxy along the two lines of sight, separated by 5.1 kpc at the proposed lens redshift,111We assume a low-density flat universe with $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.3`$, $`\lambda =0.7`$ and $`H_0=70\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ throughout this paper. which allows us to learn more about the nature of the DLA absorber by comparing column densities of hydrogen and metals as well as kinematic profiles along both lines of sight. HE~0512–3329 is especially well suited for such investigations because of the wealth of absorption features and the close image separation.

The propagation effects of microlensing and extinction in the lensing galaxy can be studied by using the fact that we see two images *of the same source*. In singly imaged sources, it is not possible to uniquely identify microlensing or extinction effects because the true source fluxes and spectra are not a priori known. In the case of multiply imaged sources, this problem can be circumvented by using only differences of the individual images as diagnostic. These differences are independent of the true source spectrum and flux and therefore allow the examination of differential propagation effects.

An additional complication arises from possible variability of the source. Because of the time-delay, observations of both components taken at the same time are really snapshots of the source at different epochs. To correct for this effect (which is thought to be negligible for the emission lines because of the longer variability time scale), (spectro)photometric monitoring is necessary to determine the time-delay and obtain measurements at the same source epoch.

It has been known from earlier photometric observations that the flux ratio A$`/`$B in HE~0512–3329 shows a strong dependence on wavelength. In the $`R`$ and $`I`$ bands, A is brighter than B by about 0.45 mag while the two are almost equal in $`B`$ (Gregg et al. 2000). A natural explanation for this effect is differential reddening caused by different extinction effects in the two lines of sight. This scenario is supported by the strong metal lines already visible in the integrated spectrum of HE~0512–3329 (Gregg et al. 2000) which make the existence of significant amounts of dust very likely. Under this assumption, Gregg et al. (2000) estimated a relative visual extinction of $`A_V=0.34\mathrm{mag}`$ by fitting galactic extinction curves with $`R_V=E(BV)/A_V=3.1`$ on both lines of sight to the photometric data. We will see later that this approach is not appropriate in the case of HE~0512–3329.

The other possible explanation is microlensing by stars and other compact objects in the lensing galaxy. Since the lines of sight cross different star fields in the lens, the microlensing effect is independent for A and B and can be observed in the difference. The lensing effect itself is an achromatic process, but chromatic effects are nevertheless expected if different parts of the source, which are influenced by different microlensing amplifications, have different colours. Since the microlensing amplification pattern has a high contrast on very small scales, the effectively observed total amplification of the integrated source depends significantly on the size of the source. The effect is maximal for point sources but is smoothed out and thus reduced for larger sources.

Standard models of QSOs consist of different emitting regions of very different sizes (see e.g. Krolik 1999). Smallest is the continuum region, which itself scales with wavelength. Broad line regions are expected to be much larger than the continuum region but smaller than the narrow line regions. The whole range of scale lengths covers several orders of magnitude. This means that the microlensing signal should be strongest for the continuum, only very weak at most for the broad emission lines and absent for narrow lines.

This size-dependent behaviour of microlensing gives a possible clue to separate the effect from differential extinction and study the two processes separately. Microlensing is smeared out in the emission lines whose fluxes are thus only influenced by the differential extinction. The continuum, on the other hand, is also affected by microlensing. The extinction itself is a smooth function of wavelength but does not depend on the source size. We can therefore use the emission lines to study the extinction directly without worrying about microlensing and correct the continuum for extinction to study the pure differential microlensing in the remaining differences.

The spectra we use to follow this approach were obtained with STIS on board the HST in the optical and near UV covering the QSO emission lines of Ly $`\beta `$, Ly $`\alpha `$, Si iv, C iv and C iii\] with the goal to study the differential extinction by comparing the continua of the A and B images.

The results of these observations are presented in this paper. We show the first *separate* spectra of the A and B images and use the similarity of these to confirm the nature of the object as a gravitational lens system. We use the combination of continuum and emission lines to disentangle the effects of extinction and microlensing as described above. We see that microlensing actually does influence the flux ratio significantly and that the continuum cannot be used to study the extinction directly.

To analyse the differential extinction we will fit empirical extinction laws to our emission line data and discuss the results. The microlensing data will be used to estimate an upper limit of the source size using the assumption that variability and time-delay effects can be neglected.

This is the first time that such a detailed attempt to separate the effects of differential extinction and microlensing has been successfully performed for any lens system.

## 2 Observations and initial data reduction

To cover a sufficiently large spectral range, we used the CCD for the optical and the near UV MAMA detector for the UV part. The slit was positioned along the line connecting the two QSO components.

The CCD spectra were taken on 13 August 2001 with the G430L grating and 52x0.5 aperture, covering a spectral range from 2900 to $`5700\text{Å}`$ (Leitherer et al. 2001). With a spectral element size of $`2.73\text{Å}`$, the resolution is about $`3.8\text{Å}`$. Three exposures with total integration time of 2266 sec and a standard dithering pattern were used.

Data reduction started with a standard 2-dimensional reduction including flat-fielding, flux and wavelength calibration with the CALSTIS software Version 2.10 (Brown et al. 2002) in IRAF V2.12 with STSDAS Version 2.3. Cosmic ray rejection could not be performed in a standard way because the individual exposures were not done in CR-SPLIT mode. We therefore used our own software, developed specifically for this task, to apply the shifts, reject cosmic ray events and combine the images.

We then used the CALSTIS task X1D to extract the spectra of both QSO components separately. A smaller than standard extraction width was used to minimize the fraction of measurements being rejected due to flagged bad pixels or cosmic rays.

The three resulting extracted spectra were finally combined and cleaned of still remaining cosmic rays and otherwise deviant pixels with our own software.

The MAMA spectra were taken with the G230L grating and 52x0.2 aperture, covering a range from 1570 to $`3180\text{Å}`$ with an element size of $`1.58\text{Å}`$ and a resolution of $`3.3\text{Å}`$. The six exposures of a total of 16588 sec were taken on 15 August 2001, only two days after the CCD spectra. Since the MAMA detector is not sensitive to cosmics, a standard CALSTIS reduction could be used to calibrate the 2-dimensional images. To extract the two QSO components separately, X1D was used with a slightly smaller than standard extraction width and with background regions adapted to the situation of two closely separated but well resolved spectra. The six MAMA spectra were then combined with the same algorithm as the CCD spectra.

For the analysis, we did not use the short wavelength end of the combined CCD spectrum ($`<3020\text{Å}`$) and the long wavelength end of the MAMA spectrum ($`>3120\text{Å}`$). In these regions, the $`S/N`$ is not optimal and calibration uncertainties are expected to be worst. In the remaining overlapping region, the two spectra agree very well and a simple averaging combination was used for the final spectrum.

The typical error per spectral element of the final combined spectrum is 1–$`210^{17}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2\text{Å}^1`$, except near $`\lambda 3100\text{Å}`$ and for $`\lambda <1700\text{Å}`$. This is equivalent to a $`S/N`$ of 30 per element in the optical and about 15 in the UV region.

## 3 The spectra

### 3.1 First view

Figure 1 shows the combined spectra from all CCD and MAMA exposures. These comprise the first separate spectra of the two QSO components in HE~0512–3329. The general features of A and B look very similar. The relative strength of the emission lines, their profiles (see also Fig. 4 and discussion below) and redshifts agree very well which strongly confirms the interpretation as two lensed images of one source. The continua, on the other hand, show similarities as well as significant differences which will be discussed in detail in the later parts of this paper.

The wealth of absorption features seen in both images can provide important information about column densities of both hydrogen and metals and will be discussed in detail in another publication. The spectra confirm the existence of a DLA system at a redshift of $`z=0.933`$ which was already proposed by Gregg et al. (2000) to explain the strong low-ionization metal lines in the (then still combined A+B) spectrum. Our estimate of the redshift differs only slightly from the former measurement by Gregg et al. (2000) of $`z=0.9313\pm 0.0005`$. Figure 1 identifies the anticipated DLA line as well as a high number of metal absorption features at the same redshift in both components. The break at about $`2000\text{Å}`$, which is especially prominent in B due to the higher continuum there, does *not* correspond to this already known system at $`z=0.93`$ but is caused by a second intervening Lyman limit system at a redshift of about $`z=1.137`$. This system is much weaker than the lower redshift one but nevertheless shows some metal lines which are also identified in Fig. 1. Weak Mg ii absorption at a very similar redshift ($`z=1.1346`$) was already noticed by Gregg et al. (2000). Finally we detect galactic Mg i+ii absorption at a redshift consistent with zero.

A quantitative analysis of the absorption features, combined with high resolution UVES spectra, will be published in an upcoming paper (Lopez et al., in prep.). Especially important is the analysis of the DLA lines in our spectra which provide the H i column density needed to determine metalicities in both lines of sight.

### 3.2 Differences in the global shape of A and B

Although the two spectra have many features in common, there are some highly significant differences. Most prominent is the very different behaviour of the continuum flux on large wavelength scales. On the red side of $`\lambda 4600\text{Å}`$, the A component is brighter than B. For smaller wavelengths, especially close to the limit near 2000 Å, B becomes much brighter than A. This effect has already been described by Gregg et al. (2000) using photometric data in $`B`$, $`V`$, $`R`$ and $`I`$. While A is brighter by about 0.45 mag in $`I`$ and $`R`$, the difference starts to decrease in $`V`$ and is compatible with zero in the $`B`$ band.

Given the similarities of the spectra, the differences have to be interpreted in a lensing context. As discussed in the introduction, two possible explanations will be discussed here. One is differential reddening by different amounts of dust along both lines of sight in the lensing galaxy, the other is microlensing which by different amplification patterns for the two images in combination with a colour gradient of the source can also result in chromatic effects.

To separate these effects, we use the assumption that the regions causing the emission lines are much larger than the continuum region so that the microlensing signal is smeared out in the emission lines. We can thus use the emission lines to study the pure extinction signal. In the next step we correct the continuum (which is affected by extinction *and* microlensing) for extinction to study the microlensing effect. To accomplish these tasks, we have to fit the continuum and determine the flux ratios of the continuum-subtracted emission lines.

### 3.3 Global continuum fit

We first flagged the regions of the five strong emission lines of both spectra and kept only the continuum which is still covered with many absorption lines. We tried two approaches to fit the global continuum. One is a global fit of a polynomial of degree 4 to the logarithmic flux. The other is a smoothing algorithm which works by fitting a quadratic function to the spectrum for each wavelength, using a Gaussian weighting with FWHM of 300 Å to effectively include only nearby data points. The central value of this local fit is taken as the result for the central wavelength and the procedure is repeated for each wavelength. This algorithm is more appropriate than a simple Gaussian convolution filter because it can follow local slopes and curvatures more accurately. In particular it avoids any edge effects. In both algorithms we allowed for a certain fraction of pixels to deviate in a negative direction from the model to avoid absorption lines affecting the fit. These pixels were then discarded in the $`\chi ^2`$ summation. We started with this fraction set to zero and then increased it slowly until a level of 30 % was reached. This value was chosen to obtain a final normalized $`\chi ^2`$ close to unity. It is equivalent to a final effective (one-sided) clipping limit of about 1.5–$`1.7\sigma `$.

The global continuum fits are shown in Fig. 2 together with the observed spectrum. In the comparison, the locally smoothed continuum follows the spectrum more closely while the global polynomial fit is slightly smoother on large scales. Both curves look like good continuum fits to the eye, and the small differences are not significant for the further analysis which was performed with both fits. We have to keep in mind, however, that the continuum short-wards of the Ly $`\beta `$ emission line might still be significantly contaminated by the Lyman forest. This should not be a problem in the continuum subtraction of the emission line, because the broad emission lines are affected by the Lyman forest as well. The shape of the continuum near the short wavelength end itself should nevertheless be interpreted with caution. Figure 3 shows the continuum of A and B (top) as well as the ratio of the two (bottom) as a function of $`\lambda `$.

### 3.4 Emission line fluxes

The main problem in calculating the emission line fluxes is the continuum subtraction. We used three different estimates for the continuum to get a feeling for the accuracy. The first two are the global polynomial fit and the smoothed continuum as discussed before. The third method uses local linear trends with fitting regions on both sides and directly next to the emission lines. After subtracting the continuum, different methods were used to measure the emission line flux. The simplest one uses weighted averaging over two different apertures, one narrow (27–59 Å) and one relatively wide (74–261 Å). The widths of these windows were adapted ‘by eye’ to the individual emission lines. The narrow windows just enclose the core of the lines while the wide ones are chosen in a way to include the complete emission lines. We also performed Gaussian fits and a local quadratical smoothing (as explained before, Gaussian FWHM=100 Å) of the flux, also with wide and narrow fitting regions. The values at the nominal line centre of these fits were then used as the maximal line flux.

A byproduct of the Gaussian fits is the QSO redshift. For the five emission lines, we obtain a mean value of $`z=1.582`$ with a rms scatter of $`0.008`$ which is dominated by the different line shapes. The statistical error is much smaller, of the order 0.001. This compares moderately well with the result from Gregg et al. (2000) for the combined spectrum of $`z=1.565`$ for C iv and C iii\]. There is no noticeable difference in the results for A and B.

Figure 3 (bottom) shows the resulting emission line flux ratios compared with the continuum ratio. The plotted values are the mean results from our different estimates. As error bars we used the formal statistical error added in quadrature to the internal scatter of all methods to include possible systematics. There seems to be almost no variation for the lines C iv, Si iv, Ly $`\alpha `$ and Ly $`\beta `$. All of these are compatible with their mean of $`\mathrm{log}(f_\mathrm{A}/f_\mathrm{B})=0.04`$. Only for C iii\] we notice a deviation from the other values. The photometric $`BVRI`$ measurements in that plot are from Gregg et al. (2000), $`H`$ is from a deep 2400 sec VLT/ISAAC exposure (details will be published elsewhere).

Figure 4 shows the emission line profiles after subtraction of the local linear continuum fit and rescaling with the estimated emission line flux ratio. Apart from subtle differences in absorption features, the emission line profiles of A and B are remarkably similar. The remaining differences seem to be largest in $`Si\text{iv}`$ but this is a result of the weakness of this line which also leads to the relatively large photometric uncertainty shown in Fig. 3.

The differences of the absorption left of Ly $`\beta `$ are a result of the very different relative strength of the absorption systems in A and B. Altogether the profiles are highly consistent, leaving very little doubt about the lensed nature of the two images.

The emission line ratios determined from the wide (complete line) and narrow (line core) windows are also compatible with each other. This means that the microlensing signal is the same for the broad and narrow line regions. Since the two are expected to be very different in size, the effect would be different if there is any effect at all. This means that microlensing seems to be absent already for the broad lines. Using emission lines therefore seems a reasonable way to measure extinction curves which are unaffected by microlensing, at least in HE~0512–3329.

## 4 Differential extinction

To analyse the differential extinction, we fitted different empirical extinction laws to the emission line data and the photometric data in $`I`$ and $`H`$, assuming that microlensing is affecting these bands only weakly as indicated from the similarity of the extrapolated continuum and the photometric data (Fig. 3 bottom). To take into account the residual microlensing effects and flux ratio changes by variability within the time-delay, we used an error of $`\sigma =0.05`$ mag for the photometric data points instead of the formal error or 0.02 mag. The results are not very sensitive to this exact value.

The first extinction law is the galactic curve from Cardelli et al. (1989) which has a 2175 Å feature whose strength is correlated to the far-UV behaviour (CCM). Alternatively we used the parametrisation from Fitzpatrick & Massa (1990) once with the Drude term describing the 2175 Å bump (FM bump) and once without it (FM nobump). The strength of the bump is a free parameter independent of the global shape of the extinction law, but we fixed its position and width ($`x_0=4.6\mathrm{\mu }\mathrm{m}^1`$, $`\gamma =0.95\mathrm{\mu }\mathrm{m}^1`$). We neglected the far-UV term $`c_4F(x)`$ (Fitzpatrick & Massa 1990, eq. 2) because it becomes important only at shorter wavelengths and is thus only very weakly constrained. The inclusion would actually increase the normalized $`\chi ^2`$ of the fits. The strength of the 2175 Å feature does not depend on the far-UV term. Although the FM models are valid only for $`\lambda ^13.3\mathrm{\mu }\mathrm{m}^1`$, we included the $`H`$ and $`I`$ data in the fit using an extrapolation. The FM plots should therefore only be seen as illustrations and not as physical models. Without $`H`$ and $`I`$ these curves would rise on the left to match C iii\] more closely, without changing the 2175 Å bump very much. As a second extragalactic model we used the functional form from Calzetti et al. (2000) (CAB) without a 2175 Å feature. All extinction law fits are shown in Fig. 5.

We see that all of these models fit the data relatively well; the normalized $`\chi ^2`$ values are all close to unity. To follow the slightly deviating value from the C iv line more closely, however, the 2175 Å bump has to be included which also shows in improved residuals for the CCM and FM bump models. Since the C iv line lies in a region of the spectrum were the continuum is very well defined, there is no reason to trust this data point less than the others. Our result can therefore be seen as a marginal detection of the 2175 Å feature in the spectrum of HE~0512–3329. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the free fit of the absorption feature in the FM bump model favours a strength almost exactly equal to the galactic CCM model.

For the physical interpretation we only consider the galactic CCM law

$$\frac{A(\lambda )}{A(V)}=a(\lambda ^1)+\frac{b(\lambda ^1)}{R_V}$$
(1)
with $`R_V=A(V)/E(BV)`$. The functions $`a`$ and $`b`$ are defined piecewise over a region $`0.3\mathrm{\mu }\mathrm{m}^1\lambda ^110\mathrm{\mu }\mathrm{m}^1`$ (Cardelli et al. 1989). For the differential extinction law for $`\mathrm{A}\mathrm{B}`$ we obtain

$$A^\mathrm{A}(\lambda )A^\mathrm{B}(\lambda )=p_aa(\lambda ^1)+p_bb(\lambda ^1)$$
(2)
with the two independent parameters

$`p_a`$ $`=`$ $`A^\mathrm{A}(V)A^\mathrm{B}(V)`$ (3)
$`p_b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A^\mathrm{A}(V)}{R_V^\mathrm{A}}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^\mathrm{B}(V)}{R_V^\mathrm{B}}}\text{.}`$ (4)
The first parameter $`p_a`$ is the differential visual extinction, the second one is the differential colour excess $`p_b=E^\mathrm{A}(BV)E^\mathrm{B}(BV)`$. The difference of measured magnitudes is equal to the difference in intrinsic brightness (caused by different amplification and variability in combination with the time-delay) $`p_0`$ plus the difference in extinction. We therefore have three free parameters.

The parameters of the best fit are shown in Table 1. We see that the visual extinction $`A(V)`$ has to be higher in B by 0.07 mag but the reddening $`E(BV)`$ is higher in A by 0.04 mag. Recall that $`A(V)`$ and $`E(BV)`$ are not measured directly in $`V`$ and $`B`$ but are merely used as parameters to describe and fit the UV extinction law. Figure 6 shows residuals of fits with different fixed values of $`p_a`$ and $`p_b`$. The data are only marginally compatible with only one value of $`R_V`$ (same value in both images or extinction in only one of the images) in the realistic region of $`2.2<R_V<5.8`$. The best effective $`R_V=p_a/p_b`$ is $`2.00`$ which can only be explained with a combination of extinction both in A and B with different $`R_V`$. To explain the measurements with the smallest possible visual extinction, $`R_V^\mathrm{A}`$ must be at its lower and $`R_V^\mathrm{B}`$ at its upper limit. For $`R_V^\mathrm{A}=2.2`$ and $`R_V^\mathrm{B}=5.8`$ we get $`A^\mathrm{A}(V)=0.177\mathrm{mag}`$ and $`A^\mathrm{B}(V)=0.251\mathrm{mag}`$. For more similar extinction laws, the total extinction has to be higher, e.g. $`A^\mathrm{A}(V)=0.668\mathrm{mag}`$ and $`A^\mathrm{B}(V)=0.742\mathrm{mag}`$ for $`R_V^\mathrm{A}=3`$ and $`R_V^\mathrm{B}=4`$. Such values are not atypical for galactic extinction. Even with more similar $`R_V`$ the total extinction does not become unrealistically high.

The highly significant differences between continuum and emission line ratios (Fig. 3) show the importance of microlensing when studying differential extinction curves. Using photometric data points without correcting for microlensing like in Falco et al. (1999) would in the case of HE~0512–3329 lead to highly incorrect results.

An important result for lens models is the true amplification ratio which corresponds to $`p_0=\mathrm{A}\mathrm{B}=0.49\pm 0.11\mathrm{mag}`$ ($`1\sigma `$ error bar). The amplification ratio is thus $`|\mu _\mathrm{A}/\mu _\mathrm{B}|=1.57\pm 0.17`$. Note how different this value is from the continuum or emission line ratio in the UV (Fig. 3). The combination of extinction and microlensing changes the continuum flux ratio at the short wavelength end by almost 2 magnitudes. One should therefore be very careful when using optical flux ratios as constraints for the amplification ratio in lens modelling if no correction for microlensing and differential extinction can be applied. The result for $`|\mu _\mathrm{A}/\mu _\mathrm{B}|`$ depends on the emission lines only. Variations of the *continuum* during the time-delay (see estimate below) would not change this ratio. Variations of the emission lines are still a possible source of error here but are expected to be much smaller because of the much larger size of the emitting regions.

## 5 The lensing galaxy

The available observational data are quite insufficient to constrain realistic lens models to a satisfying degree. Since not even an estimate of the galaxy position is available, the best we can do at the moment is to use the simplest model, a singular isothermal sphere without external perturbations, and estimate the mass with this approach. In contrast to the time-delay, the mass depends only weakly on the exact galaxy position or asymmetries of the mass distribution.

With the source redshift $`z_\mathrm{s}=1.58`$ and a proposed lens redshift $`z_\mathrm{d}=0.933`$, this leads to an expected radial velocity dispersion of $`\sigma _v=192\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and an enclosed mass within the Einstein radius of $`M_\mathrm{E}=6.810^{10}M_{\mathrm{}}`$. Using the Tully-Fisher relation for late-type galaxies at intermediate redshift (Ziegler et al. 2002), we obtain an absolute luminosity of $`M_B=22\mathrm{mag}`$ using an equivalent circular velocity of $`v_c=330\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. This corresponds to an apparent $`I`$ magnitude of $`21.5\mathrm{mag}`$, about 4.5 mag weaker than each QSO component. Direct images taken with STIS in the same campaign do not show any obvious sign of the core of the lensing galaxy after applying a standard subtraction of the two QSO images. We are currently working on new methods to optimize this PSF subtraction process.

The maximal time-delay would be reached if the lens is located very close to one of the images, leading to a limiting value of 170 days. For this scenario a very high ellipticity of the mass distribution would be required. More realistic values are $``$1–2 months. A spherically symmetric lens with a true amplification ratio of 1.57 (the result of the previous section and assuming negligible variability) would lead to a time-delay of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=38`$days with A leading. Even a moderate ellipticity or external shear could change this number (even its sign) considerably.

## 6 Microlensing

With the measurement of the emission line flux ratios, we were able to obtain estimates of the differential extinction. Since the continuum is affected by extinction *and* microlensing, we have to remove the extinction effect to study the microlensing signal alone. Figure 7 shows the continuum flux ratio corrected for differential extinction as determined from the emission lines. Given the high uncertainties in estimating the extinction law, we do not show the estimated global microlensing function but only the values for the wavelengths of the emission lines which have been measured directly and which are thus not model dependent.

These data points should be flat zero in the absence of microlensing. We see that in reality either B is amplified and/or A is de-amplified with a strength increasing for smaller wavelengths.

An additional complication is the possibility of variability. Because of the time-delay, the two components are observed in two different epochs in the source plane. If the source brightness or spectrum changes significantly over this time-delay, the measured ratio would not reflect the true ratio anymore. Assuming that this effect is negligible in our observations of HE~0512–3329, we can use the magnitude of the differential microlensing to estimate an upper limit for the source size in terms of the Einstein radius using the recipe of Refsdal & Stabell (1991). If the observed differential microlensing signal of $`\delta m=0.5\mathrm{mag}`$ is typical for the microlensing variance, a conservatively estimated upper limit of 4 Einstein radii can be derived. The Einstein radius in our case is $`\theta _\mathrm{e}=1.2\mathrm{\mu }\mathrm{arcsec}\sqrt{M/M_{\mathrm{}}}`$ for microlenses of mass $`M`$, corresponding to $`0.01\mathrm{pc}`$ ($`2200`$AU) in the source plane for $`M=M_{\mathrm{}}`$.

We also tried to fit the parameters of more specific physical scenarios like isolated caustic crossings of a standard accretion disk model to the data, only to learn that (although this should be a powerful method in principle) the available data are not sufficient to obtain any conclusive results.

## 7 Summary

We presented the first separate spectra of both components of the doubly lensed QSO HE~0512–3329. The similarity of the optical and near UV spectra strongly suggest the lens nature of this object.

The known optical colour differences of the images, which (together with the metal absorption lines) were the main motivation to start this project, extend to the near UV and become even stronger in this range. While A is brighter than B by about 0.5 mag in $`R`$ and $`I`$ band, this relation is more than inverted in the continuum near $`2000\text{Å}`$ where B is brighter by about 1.3 mag.

We used the continuum subtracted emission line flux ratios to study the differential extinction in both images. The line emitting regions of the QSO are confirmed to be so large that any residual microlensing effects on their fluxes is insignificant so that the extinction can be studied unambiguously. We fitted several empirical extinction laws from the literature and found that curves with a significant 2175 Å bump (CCM: Cardelli et al. 1989; FM bump: Fitzpatrick & Massa 1990) reproduce the data better than typical extragalactic curves without this feature (FM nobump: Fitzpatrick & Massa 1990; CAB: Calzetti et al. 2000). Although the differences are not highly significant, this provides at least evidence that the 2175 Å feature can also be present in high redshift galaxies (compare Motta et al. 2002).

From the difference between the emission line and continuum ratios we learned that microlensing contributes significantly to the variations of flux ratio with wavelength. On the short wavelength end, the microlensing signal is actually much stronger than the differential reddening. While the emission lines have almost the same flux in A and B there, the continuum is brighter in B by up to 1.3 mag (see Fig. 3 bottom). For our study it was therefore absolutely essential to use the emission line fluxes for the extinction analysis. Analysing the continuum or broad band photometry like in Falco et al. (1999) without correcting for microlensing would have led to highly incorrect results in the case of HE~0512–3329.

The analysis of galactic extinction law fits showed that the data are only marginally consistent with the same extinction law in A and B with only different strength. The best fit has a higher total visual extinction $`A(V)`$ in B but a higher reddening $`E(BV)`$ in A.

Using the image separation, we were able to estimate the mass within the Einstein radius to be $`M_\mathrm{E}=6.810^{10}M_{\mathrm{}}`$. The expected radial velocity dispersion of an isothermal model is $`\sigma _v=192\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, equivalent to a circular velocity of $`v_c=330\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. The time-delay is expected to be of the order 1–2 months.

In the last part we used the differential extinction measurement from the emission lines to correct the continuum flux ratio at five wavelengths for this effect. The remaining ratio is a direct measurement of the microlensing signal alone. This is the first time that such a study is carried out to separate the two effects and discuss them individually.

The microlensing data are not sufficient to determine the parameters of physically motivated source models accurately but could be used to estimate an upper limit for the effective source size using the assumption that variability over a scale of the time-delay does not change the observed flux ratio significantly. To test this assumption and to determine the time-delay, photometric monitoring of this system should be performed in the future. The information gained by our work (spectral microlensing measurements at one epoch) is complementary to the more common light-curve analysis technique (photometric measurements at many epochs, see e.g. Shalyapin et al. 2002 for recent results). A combination of both methods by using spectrophotometric monitoring data has the potential to lead to more valuable constraints than both methods alone by breaking degeneracies inherent in the individual approaches. It will then be possible to determine brightness profiles in all of the measured wavelengths which can be combined to a relatively model-independent measurement of the source’s temperature profile, allowing to test different physical QSO models.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors like to thank P. Schechter for helpful discussions. This work was supported by the Verbundforschung under grant 50 OR 0208. SL acknowledges support from the Chilean Centro de Astrofísica FONDAP No. 15010003, and from FONDECYT grant N$`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{o}}\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}000\hspace{0.17em}001}`$.