text:
# Electron-Ion Recombination Rate Coefficients and Photoionization Cross Sections for Astrophysically Abundant Elements. VII. Relativistic calculations for O VI and O VII for UV and X-ray modeling

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Li-like and He-like Oxygen are among the most important atomic species in UV and X-ray plasma diagnostics of astrophysical sources. For example, there is considerable current interest in O VI and O VII as a possible reservoir of ‘missing baryons’ in the warm/hot intergalactic medium in the present universe (Cen et al. 2001, Fang and Canizares 2000, Yoshikawa et al. 2003). In addition to global ionization balance models that require O VI/O VII photoionization and recombination rates, specific spectroscopic diagnostics of both of these ions are related in an interesting but intricate manner. Outflows observed from the ‘warm absorber’ in active galactic nuclei exhibit absorption/emission lines in the X-ray from KLL resonant photoabsorption in O VI, and excitation/recombination of O VII lines. This phenomenon was investigated theoretically by Pradhan (2000) who pointed out that the observed spectra of the well known AGN NGC 5548 shows these features (Kaastra et al. 2000). Recently Arav et al. (2003) have further pursued this suggestion to infer large discrepancies in the UV and X-ray O VI column densities in the outflow from NGC 5548. Ionization balance and spectral formation of O VI and O VII are crucial factors in all such studies.

The inverse atomic processes of photoionization and electron-ion photorecombination of Li-like and He-like ions are also of particular interest in X-ray astronomy to analyze new observations by space based observatories such as the Chandra X-ray Observatory and and XMM-Newton, at photon energies and temperatures prevalent in high-temperature sources such as AGB, supernova remnants, hot stellar coronae etc. (e.g. Canizares et al. 2000, in Proceedings of the NASA workshop on Atomic data needs in X-ray astronomy 2000). X-ray emission in the K$`\alpha `$ complex comprising of the ‘triplet’ feature of resonance (w), intercombination (x,y), and forbidden (z) lines in He-like ions, corresponding to the 4 transitions from the $`n`$ = 2 levels to the ground level $`1s^2(^1S_0)1s2p(^1P_1^o),1s2p(^3P_{2,1}^o),1s2s(^3S_1)`$ respectively, yields valuable spectral diagnostics of temperature, density, ionization balance, and abundances in the plasma source. Calculations of the recombination-cascade contributions for these important lines requires accurate atomic parameters for fine structure levels up to fairly high $`n`$ levels, as presented in this report.

In the Present work we report new results for self-consistent data sets for photoionization and recombination for (e + O V) $``$ O VI and (e + O VI) $``$ O VII, using a unified theoretical method that takes account of both radiative and di-electronic recombination processes (RR and DR). Although treated separately in other previous treatments, both recombination processes, RR and DR, are inseparable in nature. A unified treatment is therefore not only theoretically and computationally more accurate, it is also more practically convenient for applications since a single recombination rate coefficent takes account of both RR and DR in an ab initio manner. For highly charged ions it is important to consider relativistic fine structure explicitly in the theoretical formulation, in addition to the electron correlation effects. Previous results for O VI (Nahar 1998, 1999) were obtained in a non-relativistic LS coupling approximation; relativistic effects were partially included for O VII. To further improve the accuracy, as well as to provide extensive sets of data for astrophysical models, we have re-calculated all photoionization cross sections, electron-ion recombination cross sections, and rate coefficients using the relativistic Breit-Pauli R-matrix (BPRM) method. Similar calculations have previously been reported for He- and Li-like ions C V and C IV (Nahar et al. 2000), and Fe XXV and Fe XXV (Nahar et al. 2001).

## 2 THEORY

The unified method of electron-ion recombination (Nahar and Pradhan 1992) yields self-consistent sets of atomic paramters for photoionization and recombination for atoms and ions (e.g. Nahar and Pradhan 1997, Paper I of this series). Relativistic extension using the BPRM method is described in Zhang and Pradhan (1997), Pradhan and Zhang (1997) and Zhang et al. (1999). Photorecombination of an incident electron with the target ion may occur through (i) non-resonant, background continuum, or radiative recombination (RR),

$$e+X^{++}h\nu +X^+,$$
(1)
which is the inverse process of direct photoionization, or (ii) through a two-step recombination process via autoionizing resonances, i.e. dielectronic recombination (DR):

$$e+X^{++}(X^+)^{}\{\begin{array}{c}(i)e+X^{++}\\ (ii)h\nu +X^+\end{array},$$
(2)
where the quasi-bound doubly-excited autoionizing state may lead either to (i) autoionization, a radiation-less transition to a lower target state with the electron going into a continuum, or (ii) radiative stabilization to a recombined bound state via decay of the ion core (usually to the ground state) with the electron captured.

The extension of the R-matrix method to electron-ion recombination calculations entails close coupling calculations for photoionization and electron-ion scattering. Identical eigenfunction expansion for the target (core) ion is employed for both processes, enabling inherently self-consistent results in an ab initio manner for a given ion. We consider photoionization from, and recombination into, the infinity of levels of the (e + ion) system. These are divided into two groups of bound levels: (A) with $`\nu \nu _o`$ and all possible fine structure $`J\pi `$ symmetries, and (B) $`\nu _o<\nu \mathrm{}`$; where $`\nu `$ is the effective quantum number relative to the target threshold(s). Photoionization and recombination calculations are carried out in detail for all group A levels, while group (B) levels are treated through quantum defect theory of DR within close the coupling approximation (Bell and Seaton 1985, Nahar and Pradhan 1994). A generally valid approximation made in recombination to group (B) levels is that the background contribution is negligible, and DR is is the dominant process in the region below the threshold of convergenece for high-$`n`$ resonances.

In the close coupling (CC) approximation the target ion (core) is represented by an $`N`$-electron system. The total wavefunction, $`\mathrm{\Psi }(E)`$, of the ($`N`$+1) electron-ion system of symmetry $`J\pi `$ is represented in terms of an expansion of target eigenfunctions as:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(E)=A\underset{i}{}\chi _i\theta _i+\underset{j}{}c_j\mathrm{\Phi }_j,$$
(3)
where $`\chi _i`$ is the target wavefunction in a specific level $`J_i\pi _i`$ and $`\theta _i`$ is the wavefunction for the ($`N`$+1)-th electron in a channel labeled as $`S_iL_i(J_i)\pi _ik_i^2\mathrm{}_i(J\pi ))`$; $`k_i^2`$ being its incident kinetic energy. $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j`$’s are the correlation functions of the ($`N`$+1)-electron system that account for short range correlation and the orthogonality between the continuum and the bound orbitals. In relativistic BPRM calculations the set of $`SL\pi `$ are recoupled for $`J\pi `$ levels of (e + ion)-system, followed by diagonalisation of the Hamiltonian,

$$H_{N+1}^{BP}\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{E}\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(4)
where the BP Hamiltonian is

$$H_{N+1}^{\mathrm{BP}}=H_{N+1}^{NR}+H_{N+1}^{\mathrm{mass}}+H_{N+1}^{\mathrm{Dar}}+H_{N+1}^{\mathrm{so}}.$$
(5)
The first term, $`H_{N+1}^{NR}`$, is the nonrelativistic Hamiltonian,

$$H_{N+1}^{NR}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N+1}{}}\left\{_i^2\frac{2Z}{r_i}+\underset{j>i}{\overset{N+1}{}}\frac{2}{r_{ij}}\right\},$$
(6)
and the additional one-body terms are the mass correction term, $`H^{\mathrm{mass}}=\frac{\alpha ^2}{4}_ip_i^4`$, the Darwin term, $`H^{\mathrm{Dar}}=\frac{Z\alpha ^2}{4}_i^2(\frac{1}{r_i})`$. and the spin-orbit interaction term, $`H^{\mathrm{so}}=Z\alpha ^2_i\frac{1}{r_i^3}𝐥_𝐢.𝐬_𝐢.`$, respectively.

The positive and negative energy states (Eq. 4) define continuum or bound (e + ion) states, such that, $`E=k^2>`$ 0 for continuum (scattering) channels and $`E=\frac{z^2}{\nu ^2}<`$ 0 for bound states, where $`\nu `$ is the effective quantum number relative to the core level. If $`E<`$ 0 then all continuum channels are ‘closed’ and the solutions represent bound states. The matrix element for the bound-free transition, $`<\mathrm{\Psi }_B||𝐃||\mathrm{\Psi }_F>`$, can be obtained from the continuum wavefunction ($`\mathrm{\Psi }_F`$) and the bound wavefunction ($`<\mathrm{\Psi }_B`$). D is the dipole operator, $`𝐃_L=_ir_i`$, in length form and $`𝐃_V=2_i\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ in velocity form, the sum being the number of electrons.

Photoinization cross sections of all possible states with $`nn_{\mathrm{max}}10`$ – are obtained as in the CC approximation as in the Opacity Project (Seaton 1987, The Opacity Project 1995, 1996), extended to include the relativistic effects under the Iron Project (Hummer et al. 1993). The photoionization cross section is obtained as

$$\sigma _{PI}=\frac{1}{g}\frac{4\pi ^2}{3c}\omega 𝐒,$$
(7)
where $`g`$ is the statistical weight factor of the bound state and $`𝐒`$ is the dipole line strength, $`𝐒=|<\mathrm{\Psi }_B||𝐃||\mathrm{\Psi }_F>|^2`$. For highly charged H- and the He-like ions, the probability of radiation decay of an autoionizing state is usually comparable to that of autoionization as discussed in Nahar et al. (2000). With strong dipole allowed $`2p1s`$ and $`1s2p(^1P_1^o)1s^2(^1S_0)`$ transitions autoionizing resonances are radiatively damped to a significant extent. The radiative damping effect of all near-threshold resonances, up to $`\nu 10`$, is included using a resonance fitting procedure (Sakimoto et al. 1990, Pradhan and Zhang 1997, Zhang et al. 1999).

The photo-recombination cross section, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{RC}}`$, is related to photoionization cross section, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{PI}}`$, through principle of detailed balance (Milne relation) as

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{RC}}(ϵ)=\frac{\alpha ^2}{4}\frac{g_i}{g_j}\frac{(ϵ+I)^2}{ϵ}\sigma _{\mathrm{PI}}$$
(8)
in Rydberg units; $`\alpha `$ is the fine structure constant, $`ϵ`$ is the photoelectron energy, and $`I`$ is the ionization potential. $`\sigma _{\mathrm{RC}}`$ are computed from the photoionization cross sections at a sufficiently large number of energies to delineate the non-resonant background and the autoionizing resonances, thereby representing both radiative and the dielectronic recombination (RR and DR) processes. In the unified treatment the photoionization cross sections, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{PI}}`$, of a large number of low-$`n`$ bound states – all possible states with $`nn_{\mathrm{max}}10`$ – are obtained as described above. It is assumed that the recombining ion is in the ground state, and recombination can take place into the ground or any of the excited recombined (e+ion) states.

Recombination rate coefficients of individual levels are obtained by convolving recombination cross sections over Maxwellian electron distribution $`f(v)`$ at a given temperature,

$$\alpha _{RC}(T)=_0^{\mathrm{}}vf(v)\sigma _{RC}𝑑v.$$
(9)
Contribution of these low-$`n`$ group (A) bound states to the total $`\sigma _{\mathrm{RC}}`$ is obtained by summing over all low-$`n`$ group (A) states. $`\sigma _{\mathrm{RC}}`$ thus obtained from $`\sigma _{\mathrm{PI}}`$, including the radiatively damped autoionizing resonances (Eq. (8)), corresponds to the total (DR+RR) unified recombination cross section.

Recombination into the high-$`n`$ states, $`n_{\mathrm{max}}<n\mathrm{}`$, (Fig. 1 of Nahar & Pradhan 1994) are included separately. To each excited threshold of the core, $`J_i\pi _i`$, belongs an infinite series of ($`N`$+1)-electron levels, $`J_i\pi _i\nu \mathrm{}`$, to which recombination can occur. For the high $`\nu `$ levels DR dominates while the background RR is negligibly small. The contributions from these levels are added by calculating the DR collision strengths, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DR}}`$, employing the precise theory of radiation damping by Bell and Seaton (1985; Nahar & Pradhan 1994). The recombination cross section, $`\sigma _{RC}`$ in Megabarns (Mb), is related to the collision strength, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{RC}}`$, as

$$\sigma _{RC}(ij)(Mb)=\pi \mathrm{\Omega }_{RC}(i,j)/(g_ik_i^2)(a_o^2/1.\times 10^{18}),$$
(10)
where $`k_i^2`$ is the incident electron energy in Rydbergs. As $`\sigma _{RC}`$ diverges at zero-photoelectron energy, the total collision strength, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, is used in the recombination rate calculations. Background photoionization cross sections for the high-$`n`$ group (B) levels are computed hydrogenically, which is referred to as the “high-$`n`$ top-up” (Nahar 1996).

## 3 COMPUTATIONS

Relativistic BPRM calculations in intermediate coupling are carried out in the close coupling approximation using the $`R`$-matrix package of codes. These codes are extensions of the Opacity Project codes (Berrington et al. 1987) to include relativistic effects (Scott & Burke 1980, Scott & Taylor 1982, Berrington et al. 1995), as implemented under the Iron Project (Hummer et al. 1993). The calculations span several stages of computation using one-electron orbital wavefunctions for the core or target ion from an updated version of the atomic structure code SUPERSTRUCTURE, using a scaled Thomas-Fermi-Dirac potential (Eissner et al. 1974).

The wavefunction expansion for O VI consists of 17 fine structure levels of configurations $`1s^2`$, $`1s2s`$, $`1s2p`$, $`1s3s`$, $`1s3p`$, and $`1s3d`$ of O VII. The levels, along with their relative energies, are given in Table 1. The set of correlation configurations in the atomic structure calculations and the Thomas-Fermi scaling paramenter ($`\lambda _{nl}`$) for each orbital are also given in Table 1. The second term in Eq. (3), with bound state correlation functions for O VI, includes all possible ($`N`$ \+ 1)-particle configurations with 0 to maximum orbital occupancies: 2s2, 2p2, 3s2, 3p2, 3d2, $`4s`$ and $`4p`$.

For O VII, the wavefunction expansion consists of 16 fine structure levels of O VIII of $`1s`$, $`2s`$, $`2p`$, $`3s`$, $`3p`$, $`3d`$, $`4s`$, $`4p`$, $`4d`$ and $`4f`$, as given in Table 1. The bound state correlation functions included all configurations from 0 to maximum orbital occupancies: $`1s^2`$, 2s2, 2p2, 3s2, 3p2, 3d2, $`4s^2`$ and $`4p^2`$, $`4d`$ and $`4f`$. The energies in Table 1 are observed values (from the NIST website: www.nist.gov). Although calculated energies are less than one percent of the observed ones, the latter are used in the computations to obtain more accurate positions of resonances. Radial integrals for the partial wave expansion in Eq. 3 are specified for orbitals $`0\mathrm{}9`$, with a R-matrix basis set 40 ‘continuum’ functions (NRANG2) for O VI, and 30 for O VII.

Both the partial and the total photoionization cross setions are obtained for all bound levels. Coupled channel calculations for $`\sigma _{\mathrm{PI}}`$ include both the background and the resonance structures (due to the doubly excited autoionizing states) in the cross sections. Radiation damping of resonances up to $`n=10`$ are included through use of the extended codes STGF and STGBF ( Nahar and Pradhan 1994, Zhang et al. 1999). The BPRM calculations are carried out for each total angular momentum symmetry $`J\pi `$, corresponding to a set of fine structure target levels $`J_t`$. Radiation damping of resonances within the close coupling BPRM calculations are described in Zhang et al. (1999, and references therein). The program PBRRAD is used to extend the total photoionization cross sections in the high energy region, beyond the highest target threshold in the close coupling wavefunction expansion of the ion, by a ‘tail’ using Kramers formula $`\sigma _{PI}(E)=\sigma PI^o(E^o/E)^3`$ where $`E^o`$ is the last tabulated energy above all target thresholds.

Level-specific recombination cross sections $`\sigma _{\mathrm{RC}}(i)`$, into bound levels $`i`$ $`n`$ (SLJ) of the recombined (e + ion) system, are obtained from partial photoionization cross sections $`\sigma _{\mathrm{PI}}(i,g)`$ of the level $`i`$ into the ground level $`g`$ of the recombining ion. These detailed photo-recombination cross sections are calculated in the energy region from the threshold energy up to $`E(\nu =\nu _o10.0)`$, where $`\nu `$ is the effective quantum number relative to the target level of the recombining ion. The resonances up to $`\nu \nu _o`$ are delineated with a fine energy mesh. The electrons in this energy range generally recombine to a large number of final (e + ion) levels. Recombination cross sections are computed for all coupled symmetries and levels, and summed to obtain the total $`\sigma _{\mathrm{RC}}`$. Level specific recombination rate coefficients are obtained using a new computer program, BPRRC (Nahar et al 2000). The level specific rates are obtained for energies going up to infinity. These rates include both non-resonant and resonant contributions up to energies $`z^2/\nu _o^2`$; Contributions from all autoionizing resonances up to $`\nu \nu _o10`$ are included.

In the higher energy region, $`\nu _o<\nu <\mathrm{}`$, below each target threshold where the resonances are narrow and dense and the background is negligible, we compute detailed and resonance averaged DR cross sections. The BPRM DR collision strengths are obtained using extensions of the $`R`$-matrix asymptotic region code STGF (Nahar & Pradhan 1994, Zhang et al. 1999). It is necessary to use a very fine energy mesh in order to delineate the resonance structures.

The program BPRRC sums up the level specific rates, which is added to the contributions from the resonant high-n DR, from resonances with $`\nu _o<\nu <\mathrm{}`$, to obtain total recombination rates. As an additional check on the numerical calculations, the total recombination rate coefficients, $`\alpha _R`$, are also calculated from the total recombination collision strength, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{RC}`$, obtained from all the photoionization cross sections, and the DR collision strengths. The agreement between the two numerical approaches is within a few percent.

Finally, the small background (non-resonant) contribution from the high-$`n`$ states ($`10<n\mathrm{}`$) to total recombination is also included as the ”top-up” part, computed in the hydrogenic approximation (Nahar 1996). This contribution is important at low temperatures, but negligible at high temperatures. At low temperature, recombination rate is dominated by the RR into the infinite number of high-$`n`$ states, as electron energies are not usually high enough for resonant excitations and DR, and causes a rapid rise in $`\alpha _R`$(T) towards low temperatures.

## 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results are presented for photoionization and recombination of O VIII \+ e $``$ O VI, and O VIII + e $``$ O VII. Odd and even parity energy levels $`n`$ (SLJ) of total angular momentum symmetries $`1/2J17/2`$ are considered for O VI, and $`0J4`$ for O VII, all bound levels with $`n`$ $`10`$.

Photoionization cross sections $`\sigma _{PI}`$ include both the total cross section, leaving the core (residual) ion in the ground and excited levels, as well as the partial cross sections, leaving the core ion in the ground level only. The total cross sections are needed in astrophysical applications, such as in ionization balance calculations while parital cross sections are needed for applications such as for recombination rate coefficients. (Both the total and the partial cross sections are available electronically.)

Level-specific and total recombination rate coefficients using the BPRM unified treatment, $`\alpha _i`$ ($`n`$ SLJ, $`n`$ $``$ 10) and $`\alpha _{RC}(T)`$ respectively, are presented for O VI and O VII. In the following subsections we describe salient features pertaining to $`\alpha _{RC}(T)`$ in numerical form and in figures. Total $`\alpha _{RC}(T)`$ are computed two different ways to enable numerical checks: (i) from the sum of the level-specific rate coefficients and the high-n DR contribution, and (ii) from total collision strengths calculated from photoionization cross sections directly, and the DR contribution. The differences between the two are typically within a few percent, thus providing a numerical and self-consistency check particularly on the resolution of resonances. We also present total recombination rate coefficients for the hydrogenic ion O VIII for completeness.

### 4.1 O VI

#### 4.1.1 Photoionization

Figs. 1(a) and (b) show the ground state photoionization cross section for O VI ($`1s^22s^2S_{1/2}`$). The top panel (a) presents the total photoionization cross section summed over the various target thresholds for ionization, and the bottom panel (b) presents the partial cross sections of the ground level into the ground $`1s^2(^1S)`$ level of residual ion O VII. The resonances at high energies belong to Rydberg series converging $`n=2,3`$ levels. These are the well known KLL, KLn ($`n`$ $`>`$ 2) as, for example, discussed by Pradhan (2000) and Nahar et al. (2001). Since the first excited levels of n=2 thresholds of the core ion O VII lie at high energies, the cross sections decrease monotonically over a large energy range before the Rydberg series of resonances appears. The total and the partial cross sections are identical below the first excited level of the residual ion beyond which total $`\sigma _{PI}`$ increases due to added contributions from excited channels, as shown in the figures. A distinct difference between the total and partial cross sections Fig. 1 comes from the contribution of channels with excited n=2 thresholds. The K-shell ionization jump at the n = 2 target levels in total $`\sigma _{PI}`$ is due to inner-shell photoionization:

$$h\nu +OVI(1s^22s)e+OVII(1s2s,1s2p).$$

In X-ray photoionization models inner-shell edges play an important role in overall ionization rates.

Fig. 2 presents partial photoionization cross sections of the Rydberg series of levels $`1s^2ns`$, 2 $`n`$ 10. As noted in earlier works, photoionization cross section of Rydberg levels exhibit wide resonances known as photoexcitation-of-core (PEC) resonances at energies associated with dipole transitions in the core ion. We see such PEC resonances in in cross sections of all bound levels of O VI, as in Fig. 2 at photon energies 41.788, 42.184, 48.804 and 48.922 Ry due to core excitations to levels $`1s2p(^3P_1^o)`$, $`1s2p(^1P_1^o)`$, $`1s3p(^3P_1^o)`$, and $`1s3p(^1P_1^o)`$ of O VII. At these energies the core ion goes through an allowed transition, while the outer electron remains a ‘spectator’ in a doubly-excited resonance state, followed by autoionization of the O VI resonance into the ground level of O VII. The effect gets more distinct for cross sections of higher excited levels. For low charge ions, PEC resonances are usualy wider. These resonances in O VI depict the behavior of cross sections that determine corresponding features in level-specific recombination rates.

#### 4.1.2 Recombination cross sections and rate coefficients

The results consist of the total and 98 level-specific ($`n`$ 10) recombination rate coefficients $`\alpha _R(T)`$ and $`\alpha _i(T)`$ respectively. Total recombination rates are given in Table 2. The main features are illustrated and compared with previously available data for RR and DR rates in Fig. 3. The solid curve is the BPRM total unified $`\alpha _R(T)`$ and shows typical features. The high values at very low temperature are due to the dominance of RR into an infinity of high-$`n`$ levels. $`\alpha _R(T)`$ decreases with increasing T until high temperatures where it rises due to the dominance of DR, followed by a monotonous decrease. The dotted curve in Fig. 3 is the total rate in LS couplig (Nahar 1999). The difference between the LS coupling $`\alpha _R(T)`$ and the present BPRM rate is due to relativistic effects and radiation damping of low-$`n`$ resonances. Both effects can be important for highly charged ions. The dashed curve is the RR rate by Pequignot et al (1991) obtained by smoothing of OP data over resonances, and hydrogenic approximation. The agreement is good in the low region since non-resonant cross sections dominate the low energy region. The dot-dashed curve is the DR rate by Badnell et al. (1990) using the isolated resonance approximation. The sum of previous RR and DR rates agrees with the present unified rates to about 10-20%, as expected for highly charged ions.

The 98 level-specific recombination rate coefficients $`\alpha _i(T)`$ for O VI are for $`in(SLJ)`$, n $``$ 10 and $`\mathrm{}9`$, and associated $`J\pi `$ levels. Fig. 4 presents $`\alpha _i(T)`$ into eight $`n`$ = 2 and 3 levels with $`n`$ (SLJ): $`2s{}_{}{}^{2}S_{0}^{}`$, $`2p{}_{}{}^{2}P_{1/2,3/2}^{o}`$, $`3s{}_{}{}^{2}S_{0}^{}`$, $`3p{}_{}{}^{2}P_{1/2,3/2}^{o}`$, and $`3d{}_{}{}^{2}D_{3/2,5/2}^{}`$. These rates are relatively smooth except for a small and diffuse DR ‘bump’. The levels correspond to the prominent 1032 and 1038 $`\AA `$ UV doublet lines respectively in O VI spectra arising due to strong dipole transitions $`{}_{}{}^{2}P_{3/2,1/2}^{o}^2S_{1/2}`$.

Total photorecombination cross sections $`\sigma _{RC}`$ show features similar to photoionization cross sections $`\sigma _{PI}`$ — smooth decay with energy, before the resonance complexes begin to emerge at high energies. However, ($`\sigma _{RC}`$ are more complicated than $`\sigma _{PI}`$ since all levels contribute to the total $`\sigma _{RC}`$, shown in Fig 5(a) for O VI. The resonance complexes are marked as KLL, KLM, KLN etc. For heavier high-Z elements than oxygen (Z $`>`$ 10) these manifest themselves as di-electronic satellite lines observed in tokamaks, Electron-Beam-Ion-Traps (EBIT), ion storage rings and astrophysical sources. The KLL complexes have been well studied in previous works (e.g. Gabriel 1972, Bely-Dubau et al. 1982, Pradhan and Zhang 1997, Zhang et al. 1999), Beiersdorfer et al. 1992, Oelgoetz and Pradhan 2001), for various ions.

### 4.2 O VII

#### 4.2.1 Photoionization

Total and partial photoionization cross sections $`\sigma _{PI}`$ for 116 levels $`n`$ (SLJ) ( $`n`$ 10) are computed (the partial cross sections are for ionization into the ground level 1s($`{}_{}{}^{2}S_{1/2}^{}`$) of O VIII). Illustrative results are presented in Fig. 6. Fig. 6(a) shows the photoionization cross section of the ground level $`(1s^2{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{})`$ of O VII. Similar to O VI, the Rydberg series of resonances, KL and K$`n`$ ($`n>2`$), begins at fairly high energies owing to the high $`n=2`$ excitation thresholds of O VIII. However, the ground level $`\sigma _{PI}`$ of O VII does not show a significant K-shell jump at $`n=2`$ threshold, as seen in O VI. Nonetheless the feature is prominent in the excited $`n`$ = 2 level cross sections as seen in Figs. 6(b)-(e). These excited levels are responsible for the formation of the important X-ray diagnostic lines, w, x, y, z, from the allowed and forbidden transitions $`1s^2(^1S_0)1s2p(^1P_1^o),1s2p(^3P_2^o),1s2p(^3P_1^o),1s2s(^3S_1)`$, respectively. The K-shell ionization jump at the n = 2 target levels

$$h\nu +OVII(1s2s,1s2p)e+OVIII(2s,2p).$$

can be seen clearly in the photoionization cross sections.

#### 4.2.2 Recombination cross sections and rate coefficients

Total recombination rate coefficients for O VII over a wide temperature range are presented in Table 3. In Fig. 7 the solid curve is the present total recombination rate coefficients, including relativistic effects in BPRM approximation and radiation damping of low-n ($`n10`$) resonances. The solid curve has the same general shape typical of unified recombination rates - the high rate at low temperature deceases until the recombination is dominated by DR forming a hump at high temperature. The dotted curve in the figure is the earlier total unified rate (Nahar 1999) where a part of the rates, the resonances $`2\mathrm{}n\mathrm{}`$ converging on to the $`n=2`$ thresholds of O VIII, were also computed using the BPRM method including radiation damping (Zhang et al. 1999); the remainder was in LS coupling. Both results show very close agreement since the main $`n=2`$ resonant contributions are the same. However, present rates also include $`n=3,4`$ resonant contributions $`3\mathrm{}n\mathrm{},4\mathrm{}n\mathrm{}`$. The dashed curve is the RR rate obtained by Verner and Ferland (1996), which agrees well with the present one in the region where DR is small. The dot-dashed curve is the DR rate calculated by Savin (1999) from experimentally measured recombination cross sections by Wolf et al. (1991). As is discernible from Fig. 7, the sum of the previous RR and the experimental DR rates (RR+DR) is significantly lower than the present unified rate for O VII. At the temperature of peak DR contribution Log T = 6.6, the unified rate is about 20% higher the RR+DR value. This is most likely because the experimental DR measurements cover a smaller energy range and do not include all contributions.

Level-specific recombination rate coefficients are obtained for 116 levels $`n`$ (SLJ) with 0 $`J`$ 4 and $`n`$ $``$ 10. These rates for fine structure levels were not obtained in our earlier work (Nahar 1999). Fig. 8 presents level specific rates for the $`n=2`$ levels corresponding to the X-ray w, x, y, and z lines of O VII. The rates show a relatively smooth decay with temperature except for the high temperature DR bump for $`1s2p(^1P_1^o)`$ and $`1s2s(^3S_1)`$ levels.

The total recombination cross sections $`\sigma _{RC}`$, summed over recombination cross sections of individual fine structure levels up to n = 10 of O VII and high-n contributions are presented in Fig. 5(b). The resonance complexes LL, LM, LN, MM etc. of n = 2 and 3 thresholds of the core are specified in the figure. The $`n=4`$ resonances are too low for any significant contributions. These complexes are seen at high energies near the high lying O VIII thresholds.

As mentioned above, as a numerical check on the calculations we verify that the sum of the level-specific rate coefficients and the DR contribution agrees within a few percent with the total recombination rate coefficient obtained from total collision strengths obtained from $`\sigma _{RC}`$ in Fig. 5 for both O VI and O VII.

#### 4.2.3 Ionization fractions in coronal equilibrium

Using the present total unified recombination rates, $`\alpha _R(T)`$, for O VI and O VII we calculate ionization fractions of oxygen ions in coronal (collisional) equilibrium,

$$N(z1,g)S(z1,g)=N(z,g)\alpha (z,g),1zz_{max},$$
(11)
where $`S`$ is the rate coefficient for electron impact ionization and total element density $`N_T=_{z=0}^{z_{max}}N(z,g)`$. The ionization fractions in $`log[N(z)/N_T]`$ are given in Table 3. However, present fractions show very little difference from earlier values (Nahar 1999). Most of the differencs are in the third significant digit and do not show up in Table 3.

## 5 CONCLUSION

Extensive results from relativistic calculations for total and level-specific photoionization and recombination cross sections and rates are presented for O VI and O VII. These are of general interest in UV and X-ray spectroscopy of laboratory and astrophysical sources, especially the formation due to recombination of important lines such as the $`\lambda \lambda `$ 1032,1038 fine structure doublet in O VI, and the ‘triplet’ X-ray features in O VII.

A discussion of some of the important atomic effects such as resolution and radiation damping of resonances, interference between non-resonant (RR) and resonant (DR) recombination, comparison with experimental data and uncertainties, and general features of the unified (e + ion) recombination rates, has also been given in the first paper on the new BPRM calculations – paper IV in the present series (Nahar et al. 2000).

Di-electronic satellite rates for the KLL, KLM, etc, complexes of several ions have earlier been shown to be in very good agreement with experiments and other theoretical calculations (Pradhan and Zhang 1997; Zhang et al. 1999), to about 10-20%; it is therefore expected that the present rates should be definitive, with similar uncertainties.

The present level-specific data can be used to construct recombination-cascade matrices for O VI and O VII, to obtain effective recombination rates into specific fine structure levels $`n`$ (SLJ) with $`n10`$ and $`\mathrm{}n1`$ (e.g. Pradhan 1985). The present data is more than sufficient for extrapolation to high-n,$`\mathrm{}`$ necessary to account for all cascade contributions.

The available data includes: (A) Photoionization cross sections, both total and partial, for bound fine structure levels of O VI and O VII up to the $`n=10`$ levels. (B) Total unified recombination rates for O VI and O VII, and level-specific recombination rate coefficients for levels up to $`n=10`$. Further calculations for other He-like and Li-like ions are in progress. All photoionization and recombination data are available electronically at: nahar@astronomy.ohio-state.edu. The total recombination rate coefficients are also available from the Ohio State Atomic Astrophysics website at: www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/$``$pradhan.

This work was supported partially by NSF and NASA. The computational work was carried out on the Cray SV1 at the Ohio Supercomputer Center in Columbus, Ohio.


format: text

text:
# Interaction-free generation of entanglement

## 1 Introduction

As a lot of researchers study quantum information processing (QIP) (for example, the quantum teleportation, quantum computational algorithms, and so on), they recognize entanglement to be important . At the same time, experimental methods to generate entanglement are investigated. The entanglement is a quantum mechanical correlation between two systems that can be separated from each other locally. For simplicity, let us think only about pure states in quantum mechanics here. If we cannot describe a whole state of systems $`A`$ and $`B`$ as a simple product of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}=|\psi _A|\varphi _B`$, we say that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}`$ is entangled or the systems $`A`$ and $`B`$ have entanglement. When the two systems are entangled, we cannot create them by classical communication between $`A`$ and $`B`$ and arbitrary local operations to each of $`A`$ and $`B`$. Therefore, an entangled state has a correlation that cannot be explained by the classical probability theory.

Entanglement is considered to be an essential resource for QIP. In QIP, we often consider qubits that are two-state quantum systems. The Bell states are typical entangled states, each of which consists of two qubits. We define $`\{|0,|1\}`$ as an orthonormal basis of a two-dimensional Hilbert space where a qubit is defined. The Bell states are given by

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm =(1/\sqrt{2})(|00\pm |11),|\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm =(1/\sqrt{2})(|01\pm |10).$$
(1)
Because $`\{|\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm ,|\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm \}`$ form an orthonormal basis of a four-dimensional Hilbert space where two qubits are defined, we call them the Bell basis.

The Bell state plays an important role in the quantum teleportation. Besides, it is shown that if we can prepare a four-qubit entangled state,

$$|\chi =(1/2)[(|00+|11)|00+(|01+|10)|11],$$
(2)
carry out the quantum teleportation (measurement of all two qubits by the Bell basis), and execute arbitrary one-qubit unitary transformations, we can construct the controlled-NOT gate, which is one of the fundamental gates. Hence, generating the Bell states and the Bell measurement are milestones for QIP.

A pair of photons in the Bell state can be generated by pumping ultraviolet pulses into a nonlinear crystal (for example, BBO (beta-barium borate) and $`\text{LiIO}_3`$). Applying the pulses, the parametric down-conversion is caused and pairs of polarization-entangled photons are created. Because a rate of the parametric down-conversion depends on the second order of the nonlinear susceptibility $`\chi ^{(2)}`$, creation of Bell pairs is in a low rate and we have to supply the pulses to the crystal with strong intensity in the laboratory. Although some experimental methods of cavity quantum electrodynamics (cavity QED) are proposed to construct a two-qubit gate (for example, the controlled-NOT gate), the realization of it is considered to be in the distinct future because of technical difficulties. The perfect Bell measurement is considered to be a hard goal to achieve as well because it requires a two-qubit gate in general.

In this paper, we study how to generate the Bell state using interaction-free measurement (IFM). Kwiat et al.’s IFM changes a photon’s trajectory according to whether an absorptive object exists or not in a interferometer. This implies that information of the absorptive object is transmitted to the photon. Hence, this is a kind of two-particle quantum gate operation. Regarding the absorptive object as quantum rather than classical, we construct the Bell state from the absorptive object and the photon by Kwiat et al.’s interferometer. We also study how to carry out the Bell measurement and the controlled-NOT operation using IFM process. We evaluate the success probability for generating the Bell state by our method under noise. (We estimate the success probability of IFM under imperfect interaction.)

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we discuss how to generate the Bell state from an electron and a positron with Kwiat et al.’s interferometer. In section 3, we discuss how to generate the Bell state from a pair of photons. In section 4, we consider how to carry out the Bell measurement and construct the controlled-NOT gate. In section 5, we estimate the success probability for generating the Bell state by our procedure (the success probability of IFM) under imperfect interaction. In section 6, we give brief discussion.

In the rest of this section, we give a short review of IFM. IFM originates from Elitzur and Vaidman’s following problem. ‘Let us assume there is an object that absorbs a photon with strong interaction if the photon approaches the object close enough. Can we examine whether the object exists or not without its absorption?’ The reason that we do not want to let the object absorb the photon is that it might lead an explosion, for example. Elitzur and Vaidman themselves present a method of IFM that is inspired by the Mach-Zehnder interferometer. Then, more refined one is proposed by Kwiat et al.. We introduce the latter here. (Kwiat et al.’s method is implemented with high efficiency in experiments.)

We consider an interferometer that consists of $`N`$ beam splitters as Figure 1. We describe the upper paths as $`a`$ and the lower paths as $`b`$, so that beam splitters form the boundary line between paths $`a`$ and paths $`b`$ in the interferometer. The interferometer has two input ports that are the upper left port of $`a`$ and the lower left port of $`b`$, and two output ports that are upper right port of $`a`$ and the lower right port of $`b`$. We describe a state that there is one photon on the paths $`a`$ as $`|1_a`$, and a state that there is not a photon on the paths $`a`$ as $`|0_a`$. We assume a relation of $`{}_{a}{}^{}i|j_{a}^{}=\delta _{ij}`$ $`i,j\{0,1\}`$. These things are applied to the paths of $`b`$ as well. The beam splitter $`B`$ works as follows:

$$B:\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill |1_a|0_b& \hfill & \hfill \mathrm{cos}\theta |1_a|0_b\mathrm{sin}\theta |0_a|1_b,\\ \hfill |0_a|1_b& \hfill & \hfill \mathrm{sin}\theta |1_a|0_b+\mathrm{cos}\theta |0_a|1_b.\end{array}$$
(3)
Let us throw a photon into the lower left port of $`b`$. If there is not the object on the paths, a wave function of the photon that comes from the $`k`$th beam splitter is given by

$$\mathrm{sin}k\theta |1_a|0_b+\mathrm{cos}k\theta |0_a|1_b\text{for }k=0,1,\mathrm{},N\text{.}$$
(4)
Assuming $`\theta =\pi /2N`$, the wave function of the photon that comes from the $`N`$th beam splitter is equal to $`|1_a|0_b`$. Hence, if there is not the object on the paths, an incident photon from the lower left port of $`b`$ goes to the upper right port of $`a`$.

Then, we consider the case where the object is on the paths of $`a`$ in the interferometer. We assume that the object is put on every path of $`a`$ that comes from each beam splitter, and all of these $`N`$ objects are the same one. The photon thrown into the lower left port of $`b`$ cannot go to the upper right port of $`a`$ because the object absorbs it. If the incident photon goes to the lower right port of $`b`$, it has not passed through paths $`a`$ in the interferometer. So that, the probability that the photon goes to the lower right port of $`b`$ is equal to a product of beam splitters’ reflection rates, and it is given by $`P=\mathrm{cos}^{2N}\theta `$. In the large $`N`$ limit, we obtain

$`\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}P`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{cos}^{2N}({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2N}})=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}[1{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{4N}}+O({\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^2}})]`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`1.`$
Let us give a summary of the above discussion. Kwiat et al.’s interferometer directs the incident photon from the lower left port of $`b`$ with the probability of $`P`$ at least as follows:

* if there is not the absorptive object in the interferometer, the photon flies away to the upper right port of $`a`$,
* if there is the absorptive object in the interferometer, the photon flies away to the lower right port of $`b`$.

Furthermore, if we take large $`N`$, we can put $`P`$ arbitrarily close to one.

## 2 Generation of the Bell state from an electron and a positron

Kwiat et al.’s IFM directs an outgoing photon from the interferometer to the ports of $`a`$ and $`b`$ in Figure 1 according to whether the absorptive object exists or not on the paths $`a`$. It admits an interpretation that information of the object is written in the photon. Moreover, because there is no annihilation of the photon under the limit of $`N\mathrm{}`$, the reduction of the state does not occur in Kwiat et al.’s IFM. (That is, there is no dissipation and the system keeps coherence.) Because the quantum state is never destroyed during the IFM process under $`N\mathrm{}`$, we can consider the object to be quantum rather than classical. In section 1, we have regarded the object as a classical one that can take only one of two cases: the case where the object exists and the case where it does not exist. However, in this section, we think that the object can take a superposition of two orthogonal states that the object exists and it does not exist, and we throw it into the interferometer. (A similar idea is mentioned by Kwiat et al.. Hardy investigates the case where quantum object, rather than classical one, is thrown into Elitzur and Vaidman’s IFM interferometer.)

Because of the above considerations, we can expect Kwiat et al.’s IFM interferometer to work as a kind of a quantum gate. Hence, we describe the interferometer of Figure 1 as a symbol of Figure 2. In Figure 2, $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$ stand for paths of ports that the absorptive object comes from and goes to. $`a`$, $`b`$, $`a^{}`$, and $`b^{}`$ represent paths of ports for a photon. $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$ stand for paths of the upper left and the upper right ports in Figure 1, and $`b`$ and $`b^{}`$ stand for paths of the lower left and the lower right ports in Figure 1. As we have explained in section 1, we never throw the photon into the port of $`a`$ for the IFM process, so that we draw $`a`$ as a dashed line and put a black rectangle on the port of $`a`$ in the symbol of the gate in Figure 2. From now on, we call the symbol of Figure 2 the IFM gate. Table 1 gives a truth table of the IFM gate under the limit of $`N\mathrm{}`$. In the table, a symbol of ‘1’ represents that there is the incident particle (the object or the photon) on a path, and a symbol of ‘0’ represents that there is nothing on a path. If the object is thrown into the path of $`x`$ as a superposition of ‘0’ and ‘1’, the IFM gate works linearly according to Table 1. (We pay attention to the following things. If we throw a photon into the port of $`a`$ in Figure 2, it is absorbed and the whole process is not reversible. Hence, strictly speaking, the IFM gate is not unitary.)

For simplicity, in the following discussion, we replace the photon with an electron $`e^{}`$ and replace the object with a positron $`e^+`$. If the electron and the positron approach each other close enough, they are annihilated together and a photon is created. Here, we assume that this phenomenon occurs with the probability of one. We can consider it to be that the positron absorbs the electron. We can make beam splitters and mirrors for the electron and the positron from plates that have suitable potential barriers. Thus, we can construct the interferometer of Figure 1 for the electron and the positron in the laboratory.

We pay attention to the following things. To construct the IFM gate with an electron and a positron, we have to adjust velocities and trajectories of them so that they approach each other around circles of Figure 3, which represents Kwiat et al.’s interferometer for $`e^{}`$ and $`e^+`$. The electron and the positron considered here are quantum particles and we have to regard them as wave packets that have fluctuations of $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒙`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒑`$. $`|\mathrm{\Delta }𝒙|`$ is a typical size of the particle. Because of uncertainty, $`|\mathrm{\Delta }𝒙||\mathrm{\Delta }𝒑|\mathrm{}`$ is satisfied. Let us suppose that a distance between the electron and the positron has to be less than $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ at time $`t`$ for their annihilation. (We suppose that $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ is a characteristic length of the interaction.) In our discussion, we assume $`|\mathrm{\Delta }𝒙|\mathrm{\Delta }r`$. Hence, when we think about two particles’ access to each other, we do not need to consider quantum fluctuation of their wave packets.

Let us consider a network in Figure 4. Because it is a combination of quantum gates as shown in Figure 4, we call it a quantum circuit. $`H`$ stands for a beam splitter and it works as follows:

$$H:\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill |0_x|1_y& \hfill & \hfill (1/\sqrt{2})(|0_x|1_y+|1_x|0_y),\\ \hfill |1_x|0_y& \hfill & \hfill (1/\sqrt{2})(|0_x|1_y|1_x|0_y).\end{array}$$
(6)
$`H`$ is called the Hadamard transformation. The beam splitter $`H`$ transforms an incident positron from the path $`y`$ to a superposition of two paths with amplitude of $`1/\sqrt{2}`$ each.

We throw the positron into the path $`y`$ and the electron into the path $`b`$ as an initial state. In Figure 4, time proceeds from the left side to the right side and the whole state varies as follows:

$`|0_x|1_y|0_a|1_b`$ (7)
$`\stackrel{H}{}`$ $`(1/\sqrt{2})(|0_x|1_y+|1_x|0_y)|0_a|1_b`$
$`\stackrel{\text{The IFM gate}}{}`$ $`(1/\sqrt{2})(|0_x|1_y|0_a|1_b+|1_x|0_y|1_a|0_b).`$
We define logical ket vectors of the electron and the positron as follows:

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill |\overline{0}_+& \hfill =& \hfill |0_x|1_y\\ \hfill |\overline{1}_+& \hfill =& \hfill |1_x|0_y\end{array},\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill |\overline{0}_{}& \hfill =& \hfill |0_a|1_b\\ \hfill |\overline{1}_{}& \hfill =& \hfill |1_a|0_b\end{array},$$
(8)
where $`{}_{\alpha }{}^{}\overline{i}|\overline{j}_{\beta }^{}=\delta _{\alpha \beta }\delta _{ij}`$ $`\alpha ,\beta \{+,\}`$ $`i,j\{0,1\}`$. Then, we can rewrite the transformation of Eq. (7) as

$$|\overline{0}_+|\overline{0}_{}|\mathrm{\Phi }^+=(1/\sqrt{2})(|\overline{0}_+|\overline{0}_{}+|\overline{1}_+|\overline{1}_{}).$$
(9)
This implies that we make the Bell state from a product state.

As shown in Eq. (8), we construct the logical ket vectors $`\{|\overline{0},|\overline{1}\}`$ of a qubit from two paths, so that this method is called a dual-rail representation. In this representation, only one particle must be always on either of two paths. Besides, putting a beam splitter between two paths such as $`B`$ of Figure 1 and $`H`$ of Figure 4, we can carry out an arbitrary unitary transformation on a two-dimensional Hilbert space that is generated by $`\{|\overline{0},|\overline{1}\}`$. Applying a beam splitter to each pair of paths that represents each qubit, we can generate $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm `$ from $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$ generated in Eq. (9).

In the quantum circuit of Figure 4, the number of electrons and that of positrons are preserved during whole process, so that pair annihilation never occurs. Hence, generation of the Bell state in Eqs. (7) and (9) is interaction-free process.

In a similar way, we can construct Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) state
$`(1/\sqrt{2})(|\overline{0}\overline{0}\overline{0}+|\overline{1}\overline{1}\overline{1})`$. A quantum circuit shown in Figure 5 causes the following transformation,

$$|\overline{0}_+|\overline{0}_{}|\overline{0}_+|\mathrm{\Phi }^+=(1/\sqrt{2})(|\overline{0}_+|\overline{0}_{}|\overline{0}_++|\overline{1}_+|\overline{1}_{}|\overline{1}_+).$$
(10)
If we can create a positron with an accelerator, we can construct the quantum circuit shown in Figure 4 in a vacuum chamber.

## 3 Generation of Bell state from a pair of photons

Let us consider how to create the Bell state from a pair of photons, which are not annihilated by their accession to each other, rather than an electron and a positron. In this case, we need an atom that absorbs the photons. For a while, we use only the Rabi oscillation and beam splitters for photons as apparatus because they are popular for cavity QED experiments.

We consider an atom that has three energy levels as shown in Figure 6: the ground state $`g_0`$, the first excited state $`e_1`$, and the second excited state $`e_2`$. We assume that a difference of energy between $`e_1`$ and $`g_0`$ is equal to $`\mathrm{}\omega _1`$, and a difference of energy between $`e_2`$ and $`g_0`$ is equal to $`\mathrm{}\omega _2`$. We also assume that $`\omega _2>\omega _1`$, and $`\mathrm{}\omega _1`$, $`\mathrm{}\omega _2`$, and $`\mathrm{}(\omega _2\omega _1)`$ are large enough. Besides, we assume that a transition between $`e_1`$ and $`e_2`$ is forbidden by some selection rule although transitions between $`g_0`$ and $`e_1`$ and between $`g_0`$ and $`e_2`$ are admitted. Defining a life time of spontaneous emission $`e_1g_0+\mathrm{}\omega _1`$ as $`\tau _1`$ and a life time of $`e_2g_0+\mathrm{}\omega _2`$ as $`\tau _2`$, we assume $`\tau _1\tau _2`$.

If we supply an electric field (a laser pulse) detuned slightly from the frequency $`\omega _1`$ to the atom, it causes the Rabi oscillation between the ground state $`g_0`$ and the first excited state $`e_1`$. (The frequency of the pulse is given by $`\omega =\omega _1\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$, where $`0<|\mathrm{\Delta }\omega |\omega _1`$.) We regard a photon whose frequency is equal to $`\omega _2`$ as a qubit. The atom of $`g_0`$ can absorb the photon $`\omega _2`$, and the atom of $`e_1`$ cannot absorb the photon $`\omega _2`$. We use this fact for the IFM process. We assume that if we apply the photon $`\omega _2`$ to the atom of $`g_0`$, it is absorbed with the probability of one.

Let us consider a quantum circuit shown in Figure 7. We throw the atom of $`|g_0`$ into the path of $`x`$ and the photons of $`\omega _2`$ into paths of $`b`$ and $`d`$. We rewrite states of the atom on the path $`x`$ as

$$|0_x=|e_1,|1_x=|g_0.$$
(11)
Applying a combination of some laser pulses to the atom and causing the Rabi oscillations, we can construct the Hadamard transformation $`H^{}`$ given by

$$H^{}:\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill |0_x& \hfill & \hfill (1/\sqrt{2})(|0_x+|1_x)\\ \hfill |1_x& \hfill & \hfill (1/\sqrt{2})(|0_x|1_x)\end{array}.$$
(12)
In the quantum circuit of Figure 7, the whole state varies as follows:

$`|0_x|0_a|1_b|0_c|1_d`$ (13)
$`\stackrel{H^{}}{}`$ $`(1/\sqrt{2})(|0_x+|1_x)|0_a|1_b|0_c|1_d`$
$`\stackrel{\text{The 1st IFM gate}}{}`$ $`(1/\sqrt{2})(|0_x|1_a|0_b+|1_x|0_a|1_b)|0_c|1_d`$
$`\stackrel{\text{The 2nd IFM gate}}{}`$ $`(1/\sqrt{2})(|0_x|1_a|0_b|1_c|0_d+|1_x|0_a|1_b|0_c|1_d)`$
$`=(1/\sqrt{2})(|0_x|\overline{1}|\overline{1}+|1_x|\overline{0}|\overline{0})`$
$`\stackrel{H^{}}{}`$ $`(1/2)[|0_x(|\overline{0}|\overline{0}+|\overline{1}|\overline{1})|1_x(|\overline{0}|\overline{0}|\overline{1}|\overline{1})].`$
Finally, we measure the atom by the orthonormal basis $`\{|0_x,|1_x\}=\{|g_0,|e_1\}`$. If we obtain $`|0_x=|e_1`$, the two photons are projected to the state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^+=(1/\sqrt{2})(|\overline{0}\overline{0}+|\overline{1}\overline{1})`$. On the other hand, if we obtain $`|1_x=|g_0`$, they are projected to the state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=(1/\sqrt{2})(|\overline{0}\overline{0}|\overline{1}\overline{1})`$. Hence, we obtain the Bell state of two photons.

Some methods that use technique of cavity QED are proposed for generating entanglement between two systems. Our method is essentially different from them.

## 4 The Bell measurement and construction of the <br>controlled-NOT gate

Let us consider how to distinguish two-qubit states $`\{|\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm ,|\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm \}`$ that consist of an electron and a positron with the IFM gate. We put one of $`\{|\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm ,|\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm \}`$ into a quantum circuit shown in Figure 8. Although we have not thrown any particle into the path $`a`$ of the IFM gate in the former sections, we consider the case where an electron is thrown into the path $`a`$ in this section. If we throw a positron into the path $`x`$ and throw an electron into the path $`a`$, pair annihilation of them occurs and a photon $`\gamma `$ is created ($`e^+e^{}\gamma `$). In this case, the system suffers dissipation (or decoherence) and it cannot work as a reversible quantum gate.

Table 2 is a truth table of the quantum circuit of Figure 8 for the inputs of two-qubit states $`\{|\overline{0}_+|\overline{0}_{},|\overline{0}_+|\overline{1}_{},|\overline{1}_+|\overline{0}_{},|\overline{1}_+|\overline{1}_{}\}`$, where $`|\overline{0}_+=|0_x|1_y`$, $`|\overline{1}_+=|1_x|0_y`$, $`|\overline{0}_{}=|0_a|1_b`$, and $`|\overline{1}_{}=|1_a|0_b`$. (In Table 2, we take the limit of $`N\mathrm{}`$, where $`N`$ is the number of the beam splitters.) A symbol of $`\gamma `$ in the fourth row of Table 2 represents the pair annihilation of the electron and the positron. Because we assume that we put one of $`\{|\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm ,|\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm \}`$ into the quantum circuit, we obtain $`|0_b`$ for $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm `$ and $`|1_b`$ for $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm `$ from the measurement of the path $`b^{}`$. (We remember that $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm `$ are superpositions of $`|\overline{0}_+|\overline{0}_{}`$ and $`|\overline{1}_+|\overline{1}_{}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm `$ are superpositions of $`|\overline{0}_+|\overline{1}_{}`$ and $`|\overline{1}_+|\overline{0}_{}`$.) Hence, we can distinguish $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm `$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm `$ by a result of the measurement for the path $`b^{}`$ by the basis of $`\{|0_b,|1_b\}`$.

Then, we consider the case where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm `$ is thrown into the circuit of Figure 8. If we obtain $`|1_b`$ as a result of measurement for the path $`b^{}`$, the state has varied through the circuit as follows:

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm =(1/\sqrt{2})(|\overline{0}_+|\overline{1}_{}\pm |\overline{1}_+|\overline{0}_{})`$ (14)
$`=(1/\sqrt{2})(|0_x|1_y|1_a|0_b\pm |1_x|0_y|0_a|1_b)`$
$`\stackrel{\text{The IFM gate}}{}`$ $`(1/\sqrt{2})(|0_x|1_y\pm |1_x|0_y)|0_a|1_b`$
$`\stackrel{\text{The measurement of }b^{}}{}`$ $`(1/\sqrt{2})(|0_x|1_y\pm |1_x|0_y)|0_a`$
$`=(1/\sqrt{2})(|\overline{0}_+\pm |\overline{1}_+)|0_a.`$
Then, we apply the beam splitter of $`H`$ defined in Eq. (6) to the positron’s paths of $`x`$ and $`y`$. A function of $`H`$ in the logical ket vectors is given by

$$H:\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill |\overline{0}& \hfill & \hfill (1/\sqrt{2})(|\overline{0}+|\overline{1})\\ \hfill |\overline{1}& \hfill & \hfill (1/\sqrt{2})(|\overline{0}|\overline{1})\end{array}.$$
(15)
Hence, the incident $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm `$ is transformed as

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill |\mathrm{\Psi }^+& \hfill & \hfill |\overline{0}_+|0_a\\ \hfill |\mathrm{\Psi }^{}& \hfill & \hfill |\overline{1}_+|0_a\end{array}.$$
(16)
Therefore, we can distinguish $`\{|\mathrm{\Psi }^+,|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\}`$ by the measurement of the paths $`x`$ and $`y`$ with the basis of $`\{|\overline{0}_+,|\overline{1}_+\}`$.

If $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm `$ are thrown into the quantum circuit, dissipation (or decoherence) is caused in the system by annihilation of the electron and the positron, and we cannot apply quantum operations any more to the system. Hence, if we obtain $`|0_b`$ for the measurement of the path $`b^{}`$, we decide whether $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$ or $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ at random by tossing a coin.

In summary, we can distinguish $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^+`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ perfectly, and we can distinguish $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ with the probability of $`1/2`$. In the quantum teleportation, we need to distinguish the four basis vectors $`\{|\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm ,|\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm \}`$ in the following state,

$`|\psi |\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$ $`=`$ $`(1/2)[|\mathrm{\Phi }^+|\psi +|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\sigma _z|\psi `$ (17)
$`+|\mathrm{\Psi }^+\sigma _x|\psi i|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\sigma _y|\psi ],`$
where $`|\psi `$ is an arbitrary one-qubit state. The above equation is a superposition of the four Bell states with equal probabilistic amplitude. Hence, if we carry out the Bell measurement with the IFM gate in the way we discussed above, we can execute the quantum teleportation with the probability of $`3/4`$ at the maximum.

Next, we consider how to carry out the Bell measurement to an arbitrary two-qubit state,

$$|\mathrm{\Sigma }=c_{00}|\mathrm{\Phi }^++c_{01}|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+c_{10}|\mathrm{\Psi }^++c_{11}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{},$$
(18)
where $`c_{ij}𝑪`$(complex) $`i,j\{0,1\}`$, $`_{i,j\{0,1\}}|c_{ij}|^2=1`$. We can distinguish $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm `$ perfectly and we can distinguish $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm `$ with the probability of $`1/2`$ by the method explained above. Hence, if we permute $`\{|\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm ,|\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm \}`$ at random and measure them, we can distinguish the Bell basis vectors with the probability of $`3/4`$ at the maximum on the average.

Let us consider the following permutation of the Bell basis. We define one-qubit rotational operators around $`x`$, $`y`$, and $`z`$ axes as

$$R_k(\theta )=\mathrm{exp}[i(\theta /2)\sigma _k],k\{x,y,z\},0\theta <4\pi ,$$
(19)
where $`\sigma _k`$ is the Pauli matrix given by

$$\sigma _x=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),\sigma _y=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right),\sigma _z=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(20)
The following relations are satisfied,

$$R_k(\pi /2)=(1/\sqrt{2})(Ii\sigma _k),R_k(\pi )=i\sigma _k,$$
(21)
where

$$I=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(22)
and $`k\{x,y,z\}`$. Because of

$$[R_x(\pi /2)R_x(\pi /2)][R_y(\pi )I]|\mathrm{\Psi }^+=|\mathrm{\Phi }^{},$$
(23)
we obtain the following relation,

$$[R_x(\pi /2)R_x(\pi /2)][R_y(\pi )I]:\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill |\mathrm{\Phi }^+& \hfill & \hfill |\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\\ \hfill |\mathrm{\Phi }^{}& \hfill & \hfill i|\mathrm{\Phi }^+\\ \hfill |\mathrm{\Psi }^+& \hfill & \hfill |\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\\ \hfill |\mathrm{\Psi }^{}& \hfill & \hfill i|\mathrm{\Psi }^+\end{array}.$$
(24)
We show six permutation operators in Table 3, where we omit phase factors. These six operations permute the two sets of vectors, $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm \}`$ and $`\{\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm \}`$, to arbitrary combinations. We take one integer $`k\{1,\mathrm{},6\}`$ at random and apply the $`k`$th operator in Table 3 to $`|\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Because all of the operators in Table 3 can be constructed by combinations of one-qubit unitary transformations, we can make them with beam splitters. After these procedures, we carry out the Bell measurement with the IFM gate.

Then, we consider how to construct the controlled-NOT gate by the IFM process. The IFM gate defined in Figure 2 seems to be a kind of controlled operation. The path $`x`$ is a control part and the paths $`a`$ and $`b`$ make up a target part. Let us look at Table 1. If the control part is set to $`|0_x`$, the target part is flipped from $`|0_a|1_b`$ to $`|1_a|0_b`$. If the control part is set to $`|1_x`$, the target part of $`|0_a|1_b`$ is unchanged. However, we cannot throw a photon into the path $`a`$ when there is an absorptive object on the path $`x`$. From this consideration, we notice that it is difficult to construct the controlled-NOT gate that can be applied to arbitrary input states from the IFM gate directly.

Gottesman and Chuang show that the controlled-NOT gate can be constructed by preparing a four-qubit entangled state,

$$|\chi =(1/2)[(|00+|11)|00+(|01+|10)|11],$$
(25)
and executing the Bell measurement (the quantum teleportation) twice as shown in Figure 9. Using this method, we can construct the controlled-NOT gate that can be applied to arbitrary input states with a certain probability from the IFM gate. Thus, we discuss how to construct $`|\chi `$ by the IFM gate.

Making the GHZ state by the quantum circuit in Figure 5, we put it into the upper three pairs of paths (three qubits) of a quantum circuit shown in Figure 10. Then, we apply the Hadamard transformation defined in Eq. (15) to each of the three qubits by a beam splitter as

$`(1/\sqrt{2})(|\overline{0}_+|\overline{0}_{}|\overline{0}_++|\overline{1}_+|\overline{1}_{}|\overline{1}_+)`$ (26)
$`\stackrel{HHH}{}`$ $`(1/\sqrt{2})[(|\overline{0}_+|\overline{0}_{}+|\overline{1}_+|\overline{1}_{})|\overline{0}_++(|\overline{0}_+|\overline{1}_{}+|\overline{1}_+|\overline{0}_{})|\overline{1}_+].`$
Then, we add $`|\overline{0}_{}`$ as the forth qubit and apply the IFM gate to the third and forth qubits as follows:

$`(1/\sqrt{2})[(|\overline{0}_+|\overline{0}_{}+|\overline{1}_+|\overline{1}_{})|\overline{0}_+`$ (27)
$`+(|\overline{0}_+|\overline{1}_{}+|\overline{1}_+|\overline{0}_{})|\overline{1}_+]|\overline{0}_{}`$
$`\stackrel{\text{The IFM gate}}{}`$ $`(1/\sqrt{2})[(|\overline{0}_+|\overline{0}_{}+|\overline{1}_+|\overline{1}_{})|\overline{0}_+|\overline{0}_{}`$
$`+(|\overline{0}_+|\overline{1}_{}+|\overline{1}_+|\overline{0}_{})|\overline{1}_+|\overline{1}_{}]`$
$`=|\chi .`$
(We use the fact that the IFM gate transforms $`|\overline{0}_+|\overline{0}_{}|\overline{0}_+|\overline{0}_{}`$ and $`|\overline{1}_+|\overline{0}_{}|\overline{1}_+|\overline{1}_{}`$ when $`e^+`$ is a control qubit and $`e^{}`$ is a target qubit. We can derive it from Table 1.)

Therefore, if we can prepare the ideal IFM gate under $`N\mathrm{}`$, we can construct $`|\chi `$ with the probability of one. The success probability of the Bell measurement by our method is equal to $`3/4`$ at the maximum, and we have to carry out the Bell measurement twice for the controlled-NOT gate by Gottesman and Chuang’s method. Hence, the success probability of the controlled-NOT operation is given by $`(3/4)^2=4/9`$ at the maximum.

## 5 Interaction-free process under imperfect interaction

The IFM gate discussed in the former sections are constructed with beam splitters (one-qubit operations) and interaction between a photon and an absorptive object. In this section, we consider the case where the interaction is not perfect. (We regard the beam splitters as accurate enough.) We assume that the photon is absorbed with the probability of $`(1\eta )`$ and it passes by the object without being absorbed with the probability of $`\eta `$ when it approaches the object close. We estimate the success probability of the IFM gate under these assumptions. It implies that we evaluate the success probability for generating the Bell state by the IFM process.

We assume the following transformation in Figure 1. The photon that comes from each beam splitter to the upper path $`a`$ suffers

$$|\overline{1}\sqrt{\eta }|\overline{1}+\sqrt{1\eta }|\text{absorption},$$
(28)
where $`0<\eta <1`$ and $`|\overline{1}=|1_a|0_b`$. $`|\text{absorption}`$ is a state that the object absorbs the photon. We assume that it is normalized and orthogonal to $`\{|\overline{0},|\overline{1}\}`$, where $`|\overline{0}=|0_a|1_b`$ and $`|\overline{1}=|1_a|0_b`$. (If we think about the interferometer with an electron and a positron, it represents the state that a photon $`\gamma `$ is created by pair annihilation of them.)

From now on, for simplicity, we describe the transformations that are applied to the photon as matrices by the basis of $`\{|\overline{0},|\overline{1}\}`$. Writing

$$|\overline{0}=|0_a|1_b=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\end{array}\right),|\overline{1}=|1_a|0_b=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right),$$
(29)
we can describe the beam splitter $`B`$ defined in Eq. (3) as

$$B=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta & \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right),$$
(30)
where $`\theta =\pi /2N`$ and the absorption process defined in Eq. (28) as

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& \sqrt{\eta }\end{array}\right),$$
(31)
where $`0<\eta <1`$. The matrix $`A`$ is not unitary because the process defined by Eq. (28) causes the absorption of the photon (dissipation or decoherence).

The probability that an incident photon from the lower left port of $`b`$ passes through the $`N`$ beam splitters and is detected in the lower right port of $`b`$ in Figure 1 is given by

$$P=|\overline{0}|(BA)^{N1}B|\overline{0}|^2.$$
(32)
We plot results of numerical calculations of the success probability $`P`$ as a function of $`N`$ and $`\eta `$ with Eqs. (30), (31), and (32) and link them together by solid lines in Figure 11. In Figure 11, four cases of $`\eta =0`$, $`0.05`$, $`0.1`$, and $`0.2`$ are shown in order from the top to the bottom.

We want to investigate how a variation of the noise $`\eta `$ affects the success probability $`P`$ of the IFM gate. Fixing $`\eta `$ to some finite value, we evaluate $`P`$ under the limit of $`N\mathrm{}`$. When we try to estimate $`P`$ defined in Eq. (32) under $`N\mathrm{}`$, we meet the following difficulty. $`P`$ depends on $`N`$ from both $`\theta =\pi /2N`$ of the matrix $`B`$ given by Eq. (30) and an exponent $`N`$ of $`(BA)^{N1}`$ in Eq. (32).

We can treat the dependence of $`\theta =\pi /2N`$ with expanding $`P`$ by the order of $`\theta `$ and neglecting the higher order terms. On the other hand, we treat the exponent of $`(BA)^{N1}`$ by the following way. If we regard matrix elements of $`BA`$ as single terms, each matrix element of $`(BA)^{N1}`$ is given by a sum of $`2(N2)`$ terms. Hence, estimating each matrix element of $`BA`$ up to the order of $`\theta ^2`$ (that is, up to the order of $`1/N^2`$), we can evaluate each matrix element of $`(BA)^{N1}`$ up to the order of $`O(1/N^2)\times 2(N2)=O(1/N)`$.

Let us estimate matrix elements up to the order of $`\theta ^2`$ with fixing $`\eta `$ $`(0<\eta <1)`$ and taking $`\theta =\pi /2N0`$. Because we can expand $`B`$ as

$$B=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1(\theta ^2/2)& \theta \\ \theta & 1(\theta ^2/2)\end{array}\right)+O(\theta ^3),$$
(33)
we obtain

$`(BA)^k`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\theta ^2[_{l=1}^{k1}l\sqrt{\eta }^{kl}+(k/2)]& \theta _{l=0}^{k1}\sqrt{\eta }^{l+1}\\ \theta _{l=0}^{k1}\sqrt{\eta }^l& \sqrt{\eta }^k\theta ^2[_{l=1}^{k1}l\sqrt{\eta }^l+(k/2)\sqrt{\eta }^k]\end{array}\right)`$ (37)
$`+O(\theta ^3),`$
by the induction, where $`k=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, and $`_{l=1}^0`$ means we do not take summation. Hence, amplitude of the photon of the lower right port of $`b`$ that passes $`N`$ beam splitters is given by

$`\overline{0}|(BA)^{N1}B|\overline{0}`$ (38)
$`=`$ $`1\theta ^2({\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}+{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{N2}{}}}\sqrt{\eta }^{l+1}+{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{N2}{}}}l\sqrt{\eta }^{N1l})+O(\theta ^3)`$
$`=`$ $`1\theta ^2({\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}+N{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\sqrt{\eta }^l{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}l\sqrt{\eta }^l)+O(\theta ^3)`$
$`=`$ $`1({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})^2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}})[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\eta }(1\sqrt{\eta }^{N1})}{1\sqrt{\eta }}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\eta }[1N\sqrt{\eta }^{N1}+(N1)\sqrt{\eta }^N]}{(1\sqrt{\eta })^2}}]+O({\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^2}}),`$
where $`N=2,3,\mathrm{}`$. In the derivation of the above, we use the following formulas,

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}x^k=x(1x^N)/(1x),$$
(39)
$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}kx^k=x[1(N+1)x^N+Nx^{N+1}]/(1x)^2.$$
(40)
Eq. (38) gives an approximation of $`\overline{0}|(BA)^{N1}B|\overline{0}`$ up to the order of $`O(1/N)`$ in the large $`N`$ limit. We plot results of numerical estimation of $`P=|\overline{0}|(BA)^{N1}B|\overline{0}|^2`$ as a function of $`N`$ and $`\eta `$ up to the order of $`O(1/N)`$ with Eq. (38) and link them together by dashed lines in Figure 11. In Figure 11, four cases of $`\eta =0`$, $`0.05`$, $`0.1`$, and $`0.2`$ are shown in order from the top to the bottom. We can find that estimation of $`P`$ by Eq. (38) is a good approximation of exact numerical calculations in the large $`N`$ limit.

Besides, we notice the following things from Eq. (38). Even if we fix $`\eta `$ to any value of $`0<\eta <1`$, we can put $`|\overline{0}|(BA)^{N1}B|\overline{0}|^2`$ arbitrarily close to one by taking large $`N`$. To put it in precise words, if $`0<\eta <1`$ and $`0<ϵ<1`$ are given, we can take large $`N_0`$ so that $`[1\overline{0}|(BA)^{N1}B|\overline{0}]<ϵ`$ can be satisfied for all $`N>N_0`$.

This implies that if there is no limitation on the number of beam splitters, we can always overcome the noise given by Eq. (28). If we let the transmission rate of the beam splitter be small enough (take the large $`N`$ limit or take the small $`\theta `$ limit), the probability that the photon approaches the absorptive object close gets smaller. Hence, we can suppress the contribution of the probability $`\eta `$ that the object fails in absorbing the photon. If we take extremely large $`N`$, the transmission rate of the beam splitter $`T=\mathrm{sin}^2(\pi /2N)`$ takes a very small value. This requires a beam splitter that has high precision of $`T=\mathrm{sin}^2(\pi /2N)O(1/N^2)`$. Hence, we can obtain an interpretation that the accuracy of the beam splitter compensates the imperfect interaction between the photon and the absorptive object.

We estimate how many beam splitters do we need to let the success probability of the IFM gate reach some given value $`P`$ $`(0<P<1)`$ as an function of $`\eta `$. If $`N`$ increases extremely as $`\eta `$ increases from zero, we cannot say that the IFM gate is tolerant of imperfect interaction. Let us assume that $`\eta `$ is comparatively small and $`N\sqrt{\eta }^N1`$ is satisfied for large $`N`$. From Eq. (38), the simple representation of $`P`$ is given by

$$P1\frac{\pi ^2}{2N}(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\sqrt{\eta }}{1\sqrt{\eta }})+O(\frac{1}{N^2}).$$
(41)
We obtain

$$N(\frac{\pi }{2})^2\frac{1}{1P}\frac{1+\sqrt{\eta }}{1\sqrt{\eta }}.$$
(42)
Eq. (42) is valid when $`P`$ is close to one enough (or $`N`$ is large enough). In Eq. (42), $`N`$ gets larger extremely as $`\eta `$ increases and $`lim_{\eta 1}N=\mathrm{}`$.

## 6 Discussion

In this paper, we study how to generate the Bell state with interaction-free process. As far as we use only a finite number of beam splitters, the success probability of the IFM gate is lower than one. Hence, our method for generating the Bell state is probabilistic in the laboratory. If we want to let the success probability of the gate get close to one, we need to prepare a large number of beam splitters and let the transmission rate of them get smaller. Besides, accuracy of the beam splitters compensates the imperfect interaction. Hence, although our method has simple mechanism as shown in this paper, it requires a lot of highly accurate beam splitters.

In section 2, we discuss the quantum circuit that generates the Bell state from an electron and a positron. We may construct it in a semiconductor using a hole and a conductive electron.

E. Knill et al. propose schemes of non-deterministic quantum gates with linear optical devices. Motivation of their work is similar to ours. P. Horodecki investigates the dynamical evolution of the IFM process, where the absorptive object is replaced with the atom evolving coherently.

Acknowledgements

We thank M. Okuda for helpful discussion about section 3. We also thank L. Vaidman and P. Horodecki for useful comments about references.