since any experiment on a superfluid fermi gas is done in trap potential@xcite , it is interesting to explore physical phenomena originating from this spatial inhomogeneity .
an example is surface oscillations observed in a @xmath2li superfluid fermi gas@xcite .
another example is the phase separation observed in a @xmath2li fermi gas with spin imbalance@xcite , where the spin - balanced superfluid region in the trap center is spatially surrounded by excess atoms .
in addition to these macroscopic phenomena , the spatial inhomogeneity can also affect microscopic superfluid properties .
noting that a trap potential breaks the spatial inversion symmetry when the inversion center is taken to be away from the trap center , we expect that the parity becomes no longer a good quantity to classify the spatial structure of a cooper pair , leading to the admixture of even and odd parity symmetry . since a pair wavefunction is always antisymmetric with respect to the exchange of two fermions , this naturally leads to the mixing of spin - singlet and spin - triplet state . when this phenomenon occurs , the @xmath0-wave superfluid state is accompanied by a triplet cooper pair amplitude , in addition to the ordinary singlet component .
( the cooper pair amplitude is symbolically written as @xmath3 , where @xmath4 is an annihilation operator of a fermi atom with pseudospin @xmath5 . )
the purpose of this paper is to theoretically explore this possibility in a trapped @xmath0-wave superfluid fermi gas .
using symmetry considerations , we prove that this phenomenon may occur , when a spin rotation symmetry of this system is also broken , in addition to the broken inversion symmetry by a trap potential . in a two - component fermi gas , this additional condition is realized , when two species feel different trap potentials or chemical potentials , or when they have different atomic masses .
although this is a necessary condition , we numerically confirm that a triplet pair amplitude is really induced under this condition , within the mean - field theory for a model two - dimensional lattice fermi superfluid in a harmonic trap .    in considering a triplet pair amplitude
, one should note that the appearance of this quantity does not immediately mean the realization of a triplet superfluid state .
actually , the system is still in the @xmath0-wave superfluid state , as far as the system only has an @xmath0-wave interaction .
this is simply because the symmetry of a fermi superfluid is fully determined by the symmetry of the superfluid order parameter , which is essentially given by the product of a pairing interaction and a pair amplitude .
for example , an @xmath0-wave superfluid fermi gas with a contact type @xmath0-wave pairing interaction @xmath6 ( @xmath7 is characterized by the ordinary @xmath0-wave superfluid order parameter , @xmath8 which is finite when the pair amplitude @xmath9 has the @xmath0-wave component .
the odd - parity component does not contribute to @xmath10 in eq .
( [ eq.1 ] ) .    however , for an @xmath0-wave superfluid fermi gas with both the singlet and triplet pair amplitude , when one suddenly changes the @xmath0-wave pairing interaction to a triplet ( and odd parity ) one @xmath11 , while the @xmath0-wave superfluid order parameter in eq .
( [ eq.1 ] ) immediately vanishes due to the vanishing @xmath0-wave interaction ( @xmath12 ) , the product of the triplet interaction and the triplet component in the pair amplitude @xmath9 ( which is assumed to have already existed in the @xmath0-wave state ) immediately gives a finite triplet superfluid order parameter , @xmath13 when the triplet interaction @xmath11 is chosen so that the momentum summation in eq .
( [ eq.2 ] ) can be finite . in an ultracold fermi gas ,
the change of the interaction is possible by using a tunable interaction associated with a feshbach resonance@xcite .
then , by definition , one obtains a triplet superfluid fermi gas characterized by the superfluid order parameter @xmath14 in eq .
( [ eq.2 ] ) , at least just after this manipulation .
this makes us expect that , when one can induce a @xmath1-wave pair amplitude in an @xmath0-wave superfluid fermi gas , a @xmath1-wave superfluid fermi gas may be realized .
this possibility has recently been discussed by one of the authors@xcite , where a @xmath1-wave pair amplitude is induced by a synthetic spin - orbit interaction@xcite .
the present paper provides another source of @xmath1-wave pair amplitude , without using an artificial gauge field .
the admixture of singlet and triplet cooper pairs has recently attracted much attention in the field of non - centrosymmetric superconductivity@xcite , where a crystal lattice with no inversion center causes this phenomenon . in this field , it has been pointed out that this admixture may be the origin of the anomalous temperature dependence of the penetration depth observed in li@xmath15pt@xmath16b@xcite .
thus , an @xmath0-wave superfluid fermi gas with a triplet pair amplitude would be also helpful to the study of this electron system .
this paper is organized as follows . in sec.ii
, we clarify the necessary condition for a triplet cooper pair amplitude to appear in a trapped @xmath0-wave superfluid fermi gas . in sec.iii
, we numerically evaluate how large a triplet pair amplitude is induced under the condition obtained in sec.ii . in this section ,
we treat a superfluid fermi gas loaded on a two - dimensional square lattice , within the mean - field theory . throughout this paper ,
we take @xmath17 , for simplicity .
we consider a three - dimensional @xmath0-wave superfluid fermi gas , described by the hamiltonian , @xmath18 .
\label{eq.3}\ ] ] here , @xmath19 is a fermion field operator with pseudospin @xmath5 , describing two atomic hyperfine states .
@xmath6 @xmath20 is a contact - type @xmath0-wave pairing interaction .
@xmath21 is a one - particle hamiltonian density , consisting of a kinetic term and a potential term , detailed expression of which will be given later .
we assume that the system is in the ordinary @xmath0-wave superfluid state with the @xmath0-wave superfluid order parameter , @xmath22 we also assume that any other spontaneous symmetry breaking is absent ( such as the triplet superfluid state ) .    in this model superfluid
, we consider the spin - triplet cooper - pair amplitude , given by @xmath23 & ~~(s_z=0 ) , \\
\langle\psi_\downarrow({\bm r})\psi_\downarrow({\bm r}')\rangle & ~~(s_z=-1 ) , \end{array } \right .
\label{eq.6}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath24 denotes the @xmath25-component of the total spin of each pair amplitude .
the triplet pair amplitude in eq .
( [ eq.6 ] ) does not contribute the @xmath0-wave superfluid order parameter @xmath26 in eq .
( [ eq.4 ] ) , because @xmath27 .
the spin - singlet pair amplitude , @xmath28 , \label{eq.5}\ ] ] only contributes to eq .
( [ eq.4 ] ) .
we first prove that the broken spatial inversion symmetry is necessary for a triplet pair amplitude to appear in an @xmath0-wave superfluid fermi gas . for this purpose
, we conveniently introduce the inversion operator @xmath29 with respect to the inversion center @xmath30 .
the field operator is transformed under this operation as @xmath31 where @xmath32 .
the inverted hamiltonian @xmath33 is then given by @xmath34 .
\label{eq.8}\end{aligned}\ ] ] when the one - particle hamiltonian density @xmath21 has the symmetry @xmath35 , this system is invariant ( @xmath36 ) under this symmetry operation . on the other hand , the triplet pair amplitude @xmath37 in eq .
( [ eq.6 ] ) with the center of mass position @xmath38/2 $ ] is transformed as , @xmath39 where @xmath40 is the relative coordinate .
we also find @xmath41 .
that is , the triplet pair amplitude @xmath42 vanishes , when the system has the inversion symmetry ( @xmath36 ) with respect to the inversion center @xmath38/2 $ ] .
thus , the broken inversion symmetry is necessary for a triplet pair amplitude to appear .    for the singlet pair amplitude in eq .
( [ eq.5 ] ) , this symmetry operation simply gives @xmath43 .
as expected , this quantity may be finite .
the one - particle hamiltonian density @xmath21 in the ordinary uniform fermi gas has the form @xmath44\delta_{\alpha,\alpha ' } , \label{eq.10}\ ] ] where @xmath45 , @xmath46 is an atomic mass , and @xmath47 is the fermi chemical potential
. equation ( [ eq.10 ] ) has the symmetry property , @xmath35 , with respect to @xmath48 for an arbitrary @xmath30 . to conclude ,
any triplet pair amplitude is not induced .    in the presence of a harmonic trap ,
the one - particle hamiltonian density becomes inhomogeneous as @xmath49 \delta_{\alpha,\alpha ' } , \label{eq.11}\ ] ] so that it does not have the inversion symmetry except at @xmath50 .
however , when we consider the @xmath0-wave superfluid state in this trapped case , any triplet pair amplitude is not actually induced ( although we do not explicitly show the result here ) . of course
, since the condition obtained from the inversion symmetry is a _ necessary _ condition , the broken inversion symmetry does not guarantee the appearance of a triplet pair amplitude .    in this regard
, we point out that the vanishing triplet pair amplitude in the trapped case is due to the fact that this system still has a rotation symmetry in spin space . to see this ,
we next consider the spin rotation of the field operator , given by @xmath51 here , @xmath52 describes the spin rotation around the unit vector @xmath53 with the angle @xmath54 , and @xmath55 , where @xmath56 ( @xmath57 are pauli matrices .
( as usual , we take the spin quantization axis in the @xmath58-direction . ) for the three  @xmath59 rotations " specified by @xmath60 , @xmath61 , @xmath62 , eq .
( [ eq.12 ] ) can be written as , @xmath63 where we have used the formula @xmath64 . under the @xmath59-rotation , the hamiltonian in eq .
( [ eq.3 ] ) is transformed as @xmath65 \nonumber \\ & = & \int d{\bm r } \bigl [ \sum_\alpha \psi^\dagger_\alpha({\bm r } ) \left ( \sigma_j{\hat h}({\bm r})\sigma_j \right)_{\alpha,\alpha ' } \psi_{\alpha'}({\bm r } ) -u_s \psi^\dagger_\uparrow({\bm r } ) \psi^\dagger_\downarrow({\bm r } ) \psi_\downarrow({\bm r } ) \psi_\uparrow({\bm r } ) \bigr ] .
\label{eq.14}\end{aligned}\ ] ] here , @xmath66 .
thus , one has @xmath36 , when @xmath67=0 \label{eq.15}\ ] ] is satisfied .    while the singlet pair amplitude in eq .
( [ eq.5 ] ) remains unchanged under these @xmath59-rotations , the triplet component is transformed as @xmath68 for example , when we set @xmath69 , eq .
( [ eq.16 ] ) means that @xmath70 , when @xmath71=0 $ ] .
( the other two components with @xmath72 are not excluded in this case . ) when the system invariant under all the @xmath59-rotations ( @xmath73 ) , any triplet pair amplitude is not induced .    to conclude , the broken spin rotation symmetry characterized by @xmath74 is necessary for a triplet pair amplitude to be induced in a trapped @xmath0-wave superfluid fermi gas .
this is the reason why the model case described by eqs .
( [ eq.3 ] ) and ( [ eq.11 ] ) is not accompanied by any triplet pair amplitude .    the broken spin rotation symmetry is realized , when the strength of trap potential @xmath75 in eq .
( [ eq.11 ] ) depends on spin ( @xmath76 ) . in this case , the one - particle hamiltonian @xmath66 can be written as @xmath77 + { k_\uparrow - k_\downarrow \over 4}r^2\sigma_z .
\label{eq.17}\ ] ] equation ( [ eq.15 ] ) is then satisfied only when @xmath78 .
thus , we find from the last line in eq .
( [ eq.16 ] ) that only the triplet pair amplitude with @xmath79 may be induced .
since the last term in eq .
( [ eq.17 ] ) works as an external magnetic field , this phenomenon is also expected in the presence of spin imbalance@xcite , where two species feel different fermi chemical potentials @xmath80 .
another possibility is a trapped hetero superfluid fermi gas@xcite , where two species have different atomic masses @xmath81 . in sec .
iii , we will numerically examine these cases .    before ending this section
, we briefly note that the broken inversion symmetry , as well as the broken spin rotation symmetry , are also realized in a spin - orbit coupled @xmath0-wave superfluid fermi gas@xcite .
indeed , refs.@xcite predict that a @xmath1-wave pair amplitude is induced in this case .
although we do not deal with this case in sec.iii , we explain in appendix a how to apply the present symmetry consideration to this case .
to examine whether or not a triplet pair amplitude is induced under the condition obtained in sec .
ii , we consider a model @xmath0-wave fermi superfluid loaded on a @xmath82 two - dimensional square lattice , within the mean - field approximation .
although this simple model can not be directly applied to a real continuum fermi gas , it is still helpful to grasp basic characters of this phenomenon .
the hamiltonian is given by @xmath83 + \sum_i\delta_s({\bm r}_i ) \bigl [ c^\dagger_{{\bm r}_i,\uparrow}c^\dagger_{{\bm r}_i,\downarrow}+{\rm h.c . }
\bigr ] \nonumber \\ & + & \sum_{i,\alpha } \bigl [ v_\alpha({\bm r}_i)-\mu_{\alpha}-u_s n_{-\alpha}({\bm r}_i ) \bigr]c_{{\bm r}_i,\alpha}^\dagger c_{{\bm r}_i,\alpha}. \label{eq.18}\end{aligned}\ ] ] here , @xmath84 is a creation operator of a fermi atom at the lattice site @xmath85 , with pseudospin @xmath5 , and the fermi chemical potential @xmath86 . @xmath87
describes a particle hopping between the nearest neighbor sites , and @xmath88 means the summation over the nearest neighbor pairs . in eq .
( [ eq.18 ] ) , the @xmath0-wave superfluid order parameter @xmath89 , as well as the hartree potential @xmath90 , are obtained from the mean - field approximation for the on - site hubbard interaction @xmath91 , where @xmath6 ( @xmath92 ) is the interaction strength .
@xmath93 is a harmonic trap potential , where @xmath94 is the strength of a trap potential which @xmath95-spin atoms feel . here
, the spatial position @xmath96 is measured from the center of the @xmath82 square lattice , and @xmath97 is the distance between the trap center and the edge of the system . for simplicity , we take the lattice constant @xmath98 to be unity .    in the present model , the spatial inversion symmetry is broken by the trap potential except at the trap center . for the spin rotation symmetry ,
it is broken when one of @xmath99 , @xmath86 , and @xmath94 , depends on pseudospin @xmath5 .
since all these cases satisfy eq .
( [ eq.15 ] ) only when @xmath78 , eq .
( [ eq.16 ] ) indicates that one may only consider the possibility of the triplet pair amplitude with @xmath79 .
in the present model , this component is given by @xmath100 .
\label{eq.25}\end{aligned}\ ] ] for comparison , we also consider the ordinary singlet component , given by @xmath101 .
\label{eq.26}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    besides the superfluid order parameter , the condensate fraction is also a fundamental quantity in the superfluid phase@xcite , which physically describes the number of bose - condensed cooper pairs . in an ordinary @xmath0-wave superfluid state , it has the form , @xmath102 where the local condensate fraction @xmath103 is directly related to the singlet pair amplitude in eq .
( [ eq.26 ] ) as @xmath104 in addition to the singlet component of the condensate fraction @xmath105 in eq .
( [ eq.26b ] ) , the present system may also have the spin - triplet component@xcite , @xmath106 , where @xmath107 the total condensate fraction is given by @xmath108 . in
what follows , we simply call @xmath105 and @xmath109 the singlet and triplet condensate fraction , respectively .     along the @xmath110-axis ( @xmath111 ) in an @xmath0-wave superfluid fermi gas with trap - potential difference .
( b ) @xmath0-wave superfluid order parameter @xmath112 .
( c ) density profile @xmath113 .
we take @xmath114 , @xmath115 , and @xmath116 .
this parameter set is also used in figs .
[ fig2]-[fig4 ] . ]
we note that the square lattice in our model does not affect the symmetry consideration in sec .
this is because the square lattice is invariant under the spatial inversion with respect to the center of mass position @xmath117/2 $ ] of a triplet pair amplitude @xmath118 .
in addition , since the spin rotation symmetry is also unaffected by the crystal lattice , the necessary condition obtained in sec .
ii is still valid for the present case .    as usual , we diagonalize the mean - field hamiltonian @xmath119 in eq .
( [ eq.18 ] ) by the bogoliubov transformation@xcite .
since this is a standard procedure@xcite , we do not explain the detail here , but summarize the outline in appendix b. we numerically carry out the bogoliubov transformation , to self - consistently determine @xmath120 , @xmath121 , and @xmath86 .
we then evaluate the triplet pair amplitude @xmath122 in eq .
( [ eq.25 ] ) .
in numerical calculations , we take the lattice size @xmath123 , and @xmath124 , where @xmath125/2 $ ] . to avoid lattice effects , we consider the low density region , by setting @xmath126 in the absence of spin imbalance ( where @xmath127 is the number of fermi atoms in the @xmath95-spin component ) .
the total number @xmath128 of fermi atoms then equals @xmath129 .
in this case , the particle density is at most @xmath130 even in the trap center .
we take a small but finite temperature @xmath131 , in order to suppress effects of discrete energy levels associated with the finite system size .     in an singlet superfluid fermi gas with trap - potential difference .
( a ) @xmath132 .
( b ) @xmath133 .
( c ) @xmath134 .
( d ) singlet pair amplitude @xmath135 . ]
figure [ fig1](a ) shows the evidence that the triplet pair amplitude with @xmath79 is induced in the @xmath0-wave superfluid state , when both the spatial inversion symmetry and the spin rotation symmetry are broken by the trap potential @xmath136 . from the comparison of this figure with figs.[fig1](b ) and ( c )
, one finds that @xmath137 appears everywhere in the gas cloud where the @xmath0-wave superfluid order parameter @xmath138 , as well as the atom density @xmath139 , are finite , except at the trap center . since the system still has the spatial inversion symmetry at the trap center , the node structure seen in fig .
[ fig1](a ) agrees with the symmetry consideration in sec .
we emphasize that the triplet pair amplitude is not induced when @xmath140 , although we do not explicitly show the result here .
figure [ fig2](a ) shows that the point node seen in fig.[fig1](a ) is actually a line node along the @xmath141-axis .
this node structure comes from the symmetry property that , while the present square - lattice model has the reflection symmetry with respect to the @xmath141 axis , the triplet pair amplitude @xmath118 behaves as , @xmath142 when @xmath117/2=(0,r_y)$ ] and @xmath143
. since the present lattice model is also invariant under the reflections with respect to the @xmath110 axis , as well as the lines along @xmath144 , the triplet pair amplitude @xmath118 , with the relative vector @xmath145 being perpendicular to one of them , has the line node along the reflection line .
( see figs . [ fig2](b ) and ( c ) . ) in a continuum system with no lattice , the triplet pair amplitude is expected to always have the line node , which is perpendicular to the relative vector of the pair amplitude .
we briefly note that such a node is not obtained in the singlet component , as shown in fig .
[ fig2](d ) .    , as a function of the relative coordinate @xmath145 .
we take @xmath114 . for each center of mass position
@xmath117/2 $ ] ( open square ) , the pair amplitude is plotted inside the region between two dashed line , by taking @xmath30 as the origin .
( b ) spatial variation of synthesized @xmath1-wave superfluid order parameter @xmath146 . in this panel ,
the @xmath147-dependence of @xmath146 is schematically shown , being centered at @xmath30 ( open square ) . ]
figure [ fig3](a ) shows the spatial structure of the triplet pair amplitude @xmath122 with respect to the relative coordinate @xmath145 . noting that the pairing symmetry is determined by the angular dependence in relative - momentum space , we find that the induced pair amplitude has the @xmath1-wave symmetry .
that is , the pair amplitude has the @xmath148-wave ( @xmath149-wave ) symmetry , when the center of mass position is on the @xmath110-axis ( @xmath141-axis ) .
an advantage of the cold fermi gas system is that one can tune the pairing interaction by adjusting the threshold energy of a feshbach resonance .
although this technique is usually used to adjust the interaction strength for a fixed interaction channel , one may also use this technique to change the interaction channel from the @xmath0-wave one to a @xmath1-wave one . in an @xmath0-wave superfluid fermi gas with triplet pair amplitude shown in fig .
[ fig3](a ) , when one suddenly change the @xmath0-wave interaction to the @xmath1-wave one@xcite , @xmath150 the @xmath1-wave superfluid order parameter , @xmath151 would immediately become finite . here , @xmath152 is the fourier - transformed triplet pair amplitude with respect to the relative coordinate @xmath153 .
we emphasize that this triplet pair amplitude has already existed before the change of the interaction .
thus , just after this manipulation , we expect the spatial structure of the induced @xmath1-wave superfluid order parameter schematically shown in fig . [ fig3](b ) .
the @xmath0-wave superfluid order parameter immediately disappears because of the vanishing @xmath0-wave interaction ( @xmath12 ) , and the @xmath0-wave pair amplitude @xmath154 only remains .
thus , at least just after this manipulation , by definition , the system is in the @xmath1-wave superfluid state with the synthesized @xmath1-wave superfluid order parameter in eq .
( [ eq.26e ] )
. this unconventional superfluid phase would be in the non - equilibrium state , so that we need further analyses on the time evolution of this state .
however , the combined feshbach technique with the induced triplet pair amplitude is an interesting idea to realize a @xmath1-wave superfluid fermi gas .
-wave superfluid fermi gas with trap - potential difference .
( a ) triplet component @xmath155 .
the intensity is magnified to ten times .
( b ) singlet component @xmath103 . ]
figure [ fig4 ] shows the local condensate fraction @xmath156 in an @xmath0-wave superfluid fermi gas with trap - potential imbalance . in panel
( a ) , the triplet component @xmath155 is enhanced around @xmath157 , as well as the region near the trap center ( except at @xmath50 , where the triplet condensate fraction vanishes ) . on the other hand , panel ( b )
shows that the singlet component @xmath103 monotonically decreases , as one goes away from the trap center .
the latter behavior is consistent with the spatial variation of the @xmath0-wave superfluid order parameter @xmath120 shown in fig . [
fig1](b ) .
in an @xmath0-wave superfluid fermi gas with trap - potential difference .
( a ) triplet component @xmath109 .
( b ) singlet component @xmath105 .
( c ) @xmath109 and @xmath105 , as functions of the interaction strength @xmath158 , when @xmath114 . in panels
( a ) and ( b ) , the region above the solid line is in the superfluid state within our numerical accuracy .
( note that we take @xmath159 in our numerical calculations . )
the region between the solid line and the dashed line is in the fflo phase , being characterized by a spatially oscillating superfluid order parameter @xmath120 .
these lines are also drawn in fig.[fig6 ] . ]
the large triplet condensate fraction @xmath155 near the trap center seen in fig .
[ fig4](a ) is due to the spin imbalance ( @xmath160 ) in the trap center .
( see fig . [
fig1](c ) . )
this naturally leads to the broken spin rotation symmetry through the fermi chemical potential @xmath86 , as well as the hartree potential @xmath161 in eq .
( [ eq.18 ] ) .
thus , although two spin components feel almost the same trap potential ( @xmath162 ) around the trap center , the triplet condensate fraction is enhanced there ( except at @xmath50 ) .
while the difference @xmath163 becomes remarkable as one goes away from the trap center , the spin imbalance ( @xmath164 ) becomes small to eventually vanish at @xmath165 .
( see fig . [
fig1](c ) . ) in the outer region , the spin imbalance again occurs as @xmath166 .
these enhance @xmath167 , as shown in fig .
[ fig4](a ) .     in a trapped @xmath0-wave superfluid fermi gas in the presence of mass imbalance @xmath168 .
( a ) triplet component @xmath109 .
( b ) singlet component @xmath105 .
( c ) @xmath109 and @xmath105 , as functions of the interaction strength @xmath169 , when @xmath170 . ]    summing up the local condensate fraction @xmath156 in the gas cloud , one obtains the condensate fraction @xmath171 in fig .
as expected , panel ( a ) shows that the triplet component @xmath109 is enhanced when @xmath172 .
we also find that @xmath109 becomes large in the intermediate coupling regime but becomes small when @xmath173 . in the strong coupling regime ,
most fermi atoms form singlet molecules , which suppresses effects of broken inversion and spin rotation symmetry . indeed ,
[ fig5](b ) shows that the singlet component @xmath105 monotonically increases with increasing the interaction strength @xmath158 . to clearly see the difference between @xmath109 and @xmath105 , fig .
[ fig5](c ) shows these quantities as functions of the interaction strength @xmath158 .    in figs .
[ fig5](a ) and ( b ) , one sees the fflo ( fulde - ferrell - larkin - ovchinnikov ) phase@xcite . in this regard , since we are dealing with a two - dimensional lattice model within the simple mean - field theory , it is unclear whether or not the fflo phase still remains in a realistic three - dimensional continuum fermi gas@xcite .
however , since fig .
[ fig5](a ) indicates that the triplet condensate fraction is also induced in the ordinary bcs region , we find that the fflo state is not necessary for the triplet pair amplitude to appear .     in a trapped @xmath0-wave superfluid fermi gas with spin imbalance @xmath174 .
( a ) triplet component @xmath109 .
( b ) singlet component @xmath105 . ( c )
@xmath109 and @xmath105 , as functions of the interaction strength @xmath169 , when @xmath175/n=0.17 $ ] ( @xmath176 ) . in panels ( a ) and ( b )
, the region above the solid line is in the superfluid phase . in the superfluid region shown in this figure , the superfluid order parameter in the outer region of the gas cloud always exhibits a fflo - type oscillation in the radial direction . ]     and the triplet condensate fraction @xmath177 in a trapped @xmath0-wave superfluid fermi gas with spin imbalance .
( a ) @xmath178 .
( b ) @xmath179 .
we set @xmath180 . ]
figure [ fig6 ] confirms that the triplet pair amplitude @xmath122 is also induced , when the spin rotation symmetry is broken by mass imbalance ( @xmath168 ) .
in addition , fig .
[ fig7 ] shows that this phenomenon also occurs in a trapped @xmath0-wave superfluid fermi gas with spin imbalance ( @xmath174)@xcite . in the latter case , the fermi chemical potential @xmath86 depends on pseudospin @xmath5 , which breaks the spin rotation symmetry@xcite .    in the presence of spin imbalance
, the phase separation is known to occur@xcite , where the superfluid region in the trap center is surrounded by excess atoms .
figure [ fig8](a ) shows this case . in this panel , since the spin imbalance is almost absent around the trap center , the triplet condensate fraction is suppressed there , compared to the case when the phase separation does not occur ( panel ( b ) ) .
in addition , the region around the edge of the gas cloud is highly spin polarized , so that the triplet pair amplitude is also suppressed there . as a result ,
when the phase separation occurs , the triplet pair amplitude is localized around the edge of the gas cloud of the minority component ( @xmath181 ) , as shown in fig . [ fig8](b ) .
to summarize , we have discussed the possibility of inducing a triplet pair amplitude in a trapped @xmath0-wave superfluid fermi gas . using symmetry considerations
, we clarified that both the broken spatial inversion symmetry and a broken spin rotation symmetry are necessary for this phenomenon to occur .
we numerically confirmed that a triplet pair amplitude is induced when this condition is satisfied , within the mean - field theory for a two - dimensional lattice model . in this confirmation , we considered the three cases with ( 1 ) trap - potential difference , ( 2 ) mass imbalance , and ( 3 ) spin imbalance . in the first case
, we showed that the induced triplet pair amplitude is dominated by a @xmath1-wave symmetry . among the above three cases ,
a trapped @xmath0-wave superfluid fermi gas with spin imbalance has been realized@xcite .
thus , our results imply that a triplet pair amplitude is already present in this system , although there is no experimental evidence yet .    since the symmetry of a fermi superfluid is fully determined by the symmetry of the superfluid order parameter , the induction of a triplet pair amplitude does not immediately mean the realization of a triplet fermi superfluid .
in the present case , the system is still in the @xmath0-wave superfluid state which is characterized by the @xmath0-wave superfluid order parameter , even in the presence of a triplet pair amplitude .
under this situation , however , when one suddenly changes the @xmath0-wave pairing interaction to an appropriate @xmath1-wave one , the product of the @xmath1-wave interaction and the triplet pair amplitude that has been induced before this manipulation may immediately give a finite @xmath1-wave superfluid order parameter . since the @xmath0-wave superfluid order parameter vanishes
, by definition , we have a @xmath1-wave superfluid state , characterized by this @xmath1-wave superfluid parameter .
the change of the interaction would be possible by using the feshbach resonance technique .    in cold fermi gas physics
, although the realization of a @xmath1-wave superfluid state is a crucial challenge , current experiments are facing various difficulties originating from a @xmath1-wave interaction , such as three particle loss@xcite , as well as the dipolar relaxation@xcite . in this regard , the above idea may avoid these difficulties to some extent , because the triplet pair amplitude is prepared in an @xmath0-wave superfluid fermi gas with no @xmath1-wave interaction .
in addition , since we can start from a finite value of the @xmath1-wave superfluid order parameter , the system would be in the @xmath1-wave superfluid state for a while , until it is strongly damaged by the particle loss and dipolar relaxation after the @xmath1-wave interaction is introduced . in this sense ,
the induction of a triplet pair amplitude discussed in this paper is important , not only as a fundamental physical phenomenon , but also on the viewpoint of the challenge toward the realization of a @xmath1-wave superfluid fermi gas .    in this paper , we have treated a lattice model to simply confirm the induction of a triplet pair amplitude . to quantitatively evaluate this quantity
, we need to extend the present analyses to a realistic continuum fermi superfluid .
to assess the idea that one produces a @xmath1-wave superfluid fermi gas from the induced triplet pair amplitude , it is also important to clarify the time evolution of the @xmath1-wave superfluid order parameter after the @xmath0-wave interaction is replaced by a @xmath1-wave one .
these problems remain as our future problems .
since the pair amplitude always exists in a fermi superfluid , our results would be useful for the study of this fundamental quantity in cold fermi gas physics .
yo thanks n. yamamoto for useful comments .
this work was supported by kipas project in keio university .
ye and rh were supported by a grant - in - aid for jsps fellows .
yo was supported by grant - in - aid for scientific research from mext in japan ( 25105511 , 25400418 , 15h00840 ) .
we consider a uniform @xmath0-wave superfluid fermi gas with a spin - orbit interaction .
the model hamiltonian is given by @xmath182 here , @xmath183 is a creation operator of a fermi atom with the kinetic energy @xmath184 , measured from the chemical potential @xmath47 .
the antisymmetric spin - orbit interaction @xmath185 has the form@xcite , @xmath186 where @xmath187 is assumed as @xmath188+\lambda_z\sigma_z . \label{eq.a3}\ ] ] here , @xmath189 and @xmath190 are spin - orbit couplings .
we assume that the system is in the @xmath0-wave superfluid state with the superfluid order parameter @xmath191 , we also assume that any other spontaneous symmetry breaking is absent .    in momentum space , the spatial inversion @xmath192 is described as @xmath193 . under this operation , each term in eq .
( [ eq.a1 ] ) is invariant , except for the spin - orbit interaction , which is transformed as @xmath194 thus , the spin - orbit interaction @xmath185 in eq . ( [ eq.a2 ] )
breaks the inversion symmetry .
when @xmath208 , the spin - orbit interaction @xmath185 is not invariant under any @xmath59 rotations @xmath209 . within this analysis ,
one concludes that all the triplet pair amplitudes in eq .
( [ eq.a7 ] ) may be induced . however , within the mean - field theory , ref.@xcite shows that the component with @xmath79 is not induced when @xmath208 and @xmath210 .
this is because , in this two - component case , the mean - field bcs hamiltonian , @xmath211 , \label{eq.a9}\ ] ] is invariant under the momentum dependent @xmath59 spin - rotation which is followed by the @xmath212 gauge transformation , given by @xmath213 where @xmath214 . in this case , the triplet pair amplitude with @xmath79 is transformed as @xmath215 , so that one finds @xmath216 , as obtained in ref.@xcite .
the mean - field bcs hamiltonian in eq .
( [ eq.18 ] ) can be diagonalized by the bogoliubov transformation in real space , given by @xmath217 here , @xmath218 is a @xmath219 orthogonal matrix , which is chosen so that @xmath119 in eq .
( [ eq.18 ] ) can be diagonalized as @xmath220 where @xmath221 is a bogoliubov single - particle excitation energy . after the diagonalization , the superfluid order parameter @xmath120 , as well as the number density @xmath222 ,
are evaluated as , respectively @xmath223 @xmath224 @xmath225 where @xmath226 $ ] is the fermi distribution function .
the number @xmath127 of fermi atoms in the @xmath95-spin component is given by @xmath227 we numerically calculate eqs .
( [ eq.19 ] ) , and ( [ eq.21])-([eq.24 ] ) , to self - consistently determine @xmath120 , @xmath121 , and @xmath86 .
the triplet pair amplitude @xmath122 in eq .
( [ eq.25 ] ) , as well as the singlet pair amplitude @xmath154 in eq .
( [ eq.26 ] ) , are then calculated as , respectively , @xmath228 , \label{eq.25a}\end{aligned}\ ] ] @xmath229 .
\label{eq.26a}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    99 c. a. regal , m. greiner , and d. s. jin , phys
92 * , 040403 ( 2004 ) .
m. w. zwierlein , c. a. stan , c. h. schunck , s. m. f. raupach , a. j. kerman , and w. ketterle , phys .
lett . * 92 * , 120403 ( 2004 ) .
j. kinast , s. l. hemmer , m. e. gehm , a. turlapov , and j. e. thomas , phys .
lett . * 92 * , 150402 ( 2004 ) .
m. bartenstein , a. altmeyer , s. riedl , s. jochim , c. chin , j. h. denschlag , and r. grimm , phys .
lett . * 92 * , 203201 ( 2004 ) .
m. w. zwierlein , a. schirotzek , c. h. schunck , and w. ketterle , science , * 311 * , 492 ( 2006 ) .
g. b. partridge , w. li , r. i. kamar , y .- a .
liao , and r. g. hulet , science * 311 * , 503 ( 2006 ) . y. shin , c. h. schunck , a. schirotzek , and w. ketterle , nature ( london ) * 451 * , 689 ( 2008 ) . for a review ,
see , c. chin , r. grimm , p. julienne , and e. tiesinga , rev .
phys . * 82 * , 1225 ( 2010 ) . c. a. regal , c. ticknor , j. l. bohn , and d. s. jin , phys .
* 90 * , 053201 ( 2003 ) . c. ticknor , c. a. regal , d. s. jin , and j. l. bohn , phys .
a * 69 * , 042712 ( 2004 ) .
j. zhang , e. g. m. van kempen , t. bourdel , l. khaykovich , j. cubizolles , f. chevy , m. teichmann , l. tarruell , s. j. j. m. f. kokkelmans , and c. salomon , phys .
a * 70 * , 030702(r ) ( 2004 ) .
t. nakasuji , j. yoshida , and t. mukaiyama , phys .
a * 88 * , 012710 ( 2013 ) .
j. p. gaebler , j. t. stewart , j. l. bohn , and d. s. jin , phys .
* 98 * , 200403 ( 2007 ) .
y. inada , m. horikoshi , s. nakajima , m. kuwata - gonokami , m. ueda , and t. mukaiyama , phys .
* 101 * , 100401 ( 2008 ) .
j. fuchs , c. ticknor , p. dyke , g. veeravalli , e. kuhnle , w. rowlands , p. hannaford , and c. j. vale , phys .
a * 77 * , 053616 ( 2008 ) t. yamaguchi and y.ohashi , arxiv:1504.03835 . for a review , see , j. dalibard , f. gerbier , g. juzeli@xmath230nas , and p. hberg , rev .
mod . phys . * 83 * , 1523 ( 2011 ) .
lin , r. l. compton , a. r. perry , w. d. phillips , j. v. porto , and i. b. spielman , phys .
lett . * 102 * , 130401 ( 2009 ) .
lin , r. l. compton , k. jimnez - garca , j. v. porto , and i. b. spielman , nature * 462 * , 628 ( 2009 ) .
lin , r. l. compton , k. jimnez - garca , w. d. phillips , j. v. porto , and i. b. spielman , nat .
* 7 * , 531 ( 2011 ) .
lin , k. jimnez - garca , and i. b. spielman , nature * 471 * , 83 ( 2011 ) .
l. w. cheuk , a. t. sommer , z. hadzibabic , t. yefsah , w. s. bakr , and m. w. zwierlein , phys . rev . lett . * 109 * , 095302 ( 2012 ) .
p. wang , z .- q .
yu , z. fu , j. miao , l. huang , s. chai , h. zhai , and j. zhang , phys .
lett . * 109 * , 095301 ( 2012 ) .
j. d. sau , r. sensarma , s. powell , i. b. spielman , s. dassarma , phys .
b * 83 * , 140510(r ) ( 2011 )
. b. m. anderson , i. b. spielman , and g. juzelinas , phys .
lett . * 111 * , 125301 ( 2013 ) .
e. bauer , g. hilscher , h. michor , ch .
paul , e. w. scheidt , a. gribanov , yu .
seropegin , h. nol , m. sigrist , and p. rogl , phys .
* 92 * , 027003 ( 2004 ) . v.
p. mineev and m. sigrist , in _ non - centrosymmetric superconductors _ , edited by e. bauer and m. sigrist ( springer - verlag , berlin , 2012 ) chapter 4 .
h. q. yuan , d. f. agterberg , n. hayashi , p. badica , d. vandervelde , k. togano , m. sigrist , and m. b. salamon , phys .
. lett . * 97 * , 017006 ( 2006 ) .
s. nascimbne , n. navon , s. pilati , f. chevy , s. giorgini , a. georges , and c. salomon , phys .
lett . * 106 * , 215303 ( 2011 ) .
t. kashimura , r. watanabe , and y. ohashi , phys .
a * 86 * , 043622 ( 2012 ) , _ ibid _ , * 89 * , 013618 ( 2014 ) .
m. taglieber , a .- c .
voigt , t. aoki , t. w. hnsch , and k. dieckmann , phys .
lett . * 100 * , 010401 ( 2008 ) .
e. wille , f. m. spiegelhalder , g. kerner , d. naik , a. trenkwalder , g. hendl , f. schreck , r. grimm , t. g. tiecke , j. t. m. walraven , s. j. j. m. f. kokkelmans , e. tiesinga , and p. s. julienne , phys .
lett . * 100 * , 053201 ( 2008 ) .
f. m. spiegelhalder , a. trenkwalder , d. naik , g. hendl , f. schreck , and r. grimm , phys .
* 103 * , 223203 ( 2009 ) .
n. takemori and a. koga j. phys .
. jpn . * 81 * , 063002 ( 2012 ) .
lin , w. yi and l. -m .
duan , phys .
a * 74 * , 031604(r ) ( 2006 ) .
dao , a. georges , and m. capone , phys . rev .
b * 76 * , 104517 ( 2007 ) .
m. a. cazalilla , a. f. ho , and t. giamarchi , phys .
95 * , 226402 ( 2005 ) .
r. hanai , t. kashimura , r. watanabe , d. inotani , and y. ohashi , phys .
a * 88 * , 053621 ( 2013 ) .
r. hanai and y. ohashi , phys .
a * 90 * , 043622 ( 2014 ) .
l. jiang , x. j. liu , h. hu , and h. pu , phys . rev .
a * 84 * , 063618 ( 2011 ) .
h. hu , l. jiang , x .- j .
liu , and h. pu , phys .
* 107 * , 195304 ( 2011 ) . c. n. yang , rev .
phys . * 34 * , 694 ( 1962 ) .
l. salasnich , n. manini , and a. parola , phys . rev . a * 72 * , 023621 ( 2005 )
. g. e. astrakharchik , j. boronat , j. casulleras , and s. giorgini , phys .
95 * , 230405 ( 2005 ) . n. fukushima , y. ohashi , e. taylor , and a. griffin , phys .
a * 75 * , 033609 ( 2007 ) .
p. g. de gennes , _ superconductivity of metals and alloys _
( addison - wesley , new york , 1989 ) . y. ohashi , phys . rev .
a * 83 * , 063611 ( 2011 ) .
y. ohashi , phys .
* 94 * , 050403 ( 2005 ) .
ho and r. b. diener , phys . rev .
* 94 * , 090402 ( 2005 ) .
p. fulde , and r. a. ferrell , phys .
rev . * 135 * , a550 ( 1964 ) .
a. i. larkin , and yu .
n. ovchinnikov , sov .
jetp * 20 * , 762 ( 1965 ) .
s. takada , and t. izuyama , prog .
. phys . * 41 * , 635 ( 1969 ) .
t. mizushima , m. ichioka , and k. machida , j. phys .
76 * , 104006 ( 2007 ) .
y. ohashi , j. phys .
. jpn . * 71 * , 2625 ( 2002 ) .
the oscillating behavior of the phase boundary ( solid line ) in figs .
[ fig7](a ) and ( b ) is due to discrete energy levels in a harmonic trap potential . to explain this in a simple manner , when we consider a two - dimensional harmonic potential @xmath231 ,
one particle energy is given by @xmath232 $ ] ( @xmath233 ) .
in this case , the degeneracy of an eigen - energy @xmath234 $ ] equals @xmath235 .
when degenerate energy levels below @xmath236 are fully occupied by @xmath237-spin atoms or @xmath238-spin atoms , the energy gap @xmath239 suppresses the superfluid phase transition to some extent , leading to the oscillation of the phase boundary in figs . [ fig7](a ) and ( b ) .
the situation , @xmath80 , actually occurs also in the case with trap - potential difference , as well as the case with mass imbalance .
figure [ fig7 ] indicates that a triplet pair amplitude is induced even when the difference of the chemical potentials only exists .
j. levinsen , n. r. cooper , and v. gurarie , phys .
lett . * 99 * , 210402 ( 2007 ) .
m. jona - lasinio , l. pricoupenko , and y. castin , phys .
a * 77 * , 043611 ( 2008 ) .
j. levinsen , n. r. cooper , and v. gurarie , phys .
a * 78 * , 063616 ( 2008 ) .
j. p. gaebler , j. t. stewart , j. l. bohn , and d. s. jin , phys .
98 * , 200403 ( 2007 ) .


the radio - loud gravitational lenses b1600 + 434  and b1608 + 656  were discovered in the cosmic lens all sky survey @xcite . b1608 + 656  was also discovered independently by @xcite .
b1600 + 434  is a two image system separated by 14 with source redshift @xmath9 @xcite .
the lens galaxy of b1600 + 434  is an edge - on early - type spiral galaxy at @xmath10 @xcite .
b1608 + 656  is a four image system about 21 across with a source redshift at @xmath11 @xcite and a lens redshift at @xmath12 @xcite .
the lens of b1608 + 656  consists of two interacting elliptical galaxies within the einstein ring .
in addition , _ hst _
observations have detected extended images of the agn host galaxies in both systems @xcite .
one of the important applications of gravitational lenses is to constrain the hubble constant @xcite or alternatively , the dark matter distribution in the lens galaxy , through time - delay measurements between the lensed images .
the time - delays in both b1600 + 434  and b1608 + 656  have been measured @xcite .
modeling of the two gravitational lenses has been carried out by several studies ( e.g. , koopmans & fassnacht 1999 ; koopmans et  al .
2003 ; kochanek 2002 , 2003 ) . in most studies
, there are model degeneracy problems in that a number of models can reproduce the limited number of constraints and predict different hubble constant values based on each time delay measurement .
therefore , it is important to map the mass distribution close to the lens galaxy with other independent methods to better constrain the lens models . in many lenses ,
galaxy groups or clusters close to the lenses provide non - negligible contribution to the lens potential @xcite .
x - ray observations are particularly important in this respect because they can accurately constrain the positions and masses of the galaxy groups or clusters . in particular , the centroid of the x - ray emission from the intracluster gas provides a more accurate measurement of the cluster s position than optical studies .
x - ray clusters or groups have been observed in the lenses rx  j0911.4 + 0551 , q0957 + 561 , b1422 + 231 , and pg  1115 + 080 @xcite .
the superb angular resolution of _ chandra _  also allows us to resolve the lensed quasar images if they are separated by more than 05 .
thus , besides constraining the properties of galaxy groups or clusters , x - ray observations of gravitational lenses can also be used to constrain the sizes of quasar x - ray emission regions @xcite , to measure ultra - short time delays between lensed images @xcite , and to study the interstellar medium of the lens galaxies ( e.g. , dai et  al .
in addition , the flux magnification provided by gravitational lensing facilitates studies of objects that are intrinsically x - ray faint , such as broad absorption line quasars @xcite and high redshift quasars @xcite .    in this paper
, we present results from _ chandra _  observations of b1600 + 434  and b1608 + 656 .
we discuss the data acquisition and processing in @xmath132 , the spectral properties of the lensed quasars in @xmath133 , our limits on the presence of x - ray luminous groups or clusters in @xmath134 , and the serendipitous sources in the fields in @xmath135 .
we assume cosmology with @xmath14 , @xmath15 , and @xmath16 throughout the paper .
we observed b1600 + 434  and b1608 + 656  with the advanced ccd imaging spectrometer ( acis ; garmire et  al .
2003 ) onboard _ chandra _
@xcite for @xmath17  ks and @xmath18  ks on 2003
october 7 , and 2003 september 21 , respectively .
the data were taken continuously with no interruptions during each observation , and there were no significant background flares during the observations .
both gravitational lenses were placed on the back - illuminated acis - s3 chip , where the aim points of the observations are located , and the data were taken in the timed / vfaint mode .
b1600 + 434  was placed near the aim point of the observation ( @xmath198  off - axis ) and b1608 + 656  was placed much further from the aim point about @xmath1975  off - axis .
the latter lens was shifted off - axis to ensure a galaxy clump in the _ hst _
images would stay in the field .
this configuration was used to maximize the sensitivity for detecting nearby galaxy groups or clusters that might contribute to the lensing and affect estimates of the hubble constant .
the data were reduced with the ` ciao 3.1 ` software tools provided by the _ chandra x - ray center _ ( cxc ) .
we improved the image quality of the data by removing the pixel randomization applied to the event positions in the cxc processing and by applying a subpixel resolution technique @xcite . in the data analysis ,
only events with standard _ asca _  grades of 0 , 2 , 3 , 4 , and 6 were used .
we first discuss the x - ray properties of the lensed quasars in both lens systems .
the imaging and spectral analysis are discussed in @xmath13[sec : img ] and @xmath13[sec : spec ] and the x - ray flux ratios of the lensed images are estimated in @xmath13[sec : fr ] .
we analyzed images limited to the 0.28 kev band where we detected a total of 332 and 84 net events for b1600 + 434  and b1608 + 656 , respectively .
the raw and smoothed _ chandra _
images of b1600 + 434  and b1608 + 656  are shown in figure  [ fig : img ] .
both of the raw images are binned with a bin size of 015 .
the smoothed images are generated by binning the images with a bin size of 01 for both lenses and then were smoothed with gaussians of width @xmath20  02 and @xmath20  03 for b1600 + 434  and b1608 + 656 , respectively .    in
b1600 + 434  we detected both lensed images .
the measured image separation ( 135@xmath21005 ) is consistent with the separation measured in the cfa - arizona space telescope lens survey ( castles ) _ hst
_  observations .
the situation is more complicated in b1608 + 656  due to the large number of images with smaller minimum separations , but also because the count rate of the lens is lower .
the relatively larger off - axis angle does not degrade the point spread function ( psf ) very much .
we simulated the psf using the ` chart ` @xcite and ` marx ` @xcite tools and found the 50% encircled energy contour is of @xmath1905 radius as opposed to @xmath1904 on axis .
three out of four lensed images are clearly detected .
image b is well separated , but images a and c are merged .
we fit the image assuming there are three point images of a , b , and c constraining the relative quasar position to match the castles @xmath22-band relative position and using the above mentioned psf model .
however , we are unable to obtain a stable solution . this may be due to the low count - rate of the source or it may indicate that the images are not point sources .
we note that there are some x - ray events about 1  northwest to image a and we are unable to determine whether these events belong to image a or from other unidentified sources .
the _ hst _
images do not show any source at the corresponding position other than part of the einstein ring image of the host galaxy .
image d is not detected by the _
chandra _  observation .
the non - detection of image d could be caused by small number statistics
additional absorption is not required to mask the image .
we extracted spectra for each quasar using the ` ciao ` tool ` psextract ` and fit them using ` xspec v11.3.1 ` @xcite within the 0.48 kev observed energy range .
we note that in ` ciao 3.1 ` the recently observed decline in the low energy quantum efficiency of acis , possibly caused by molecular contamination of the acis filters , is already accounted for by the ` psextract ` tool .
therefore , we did not perform any other corrections beyond that .
we extracted both the combined spectrum of both images within a circle with 5  radius about the centroid of the combined image and individual spectra of images within 07 radius circles about the centroids of images a and b , respectively .
we extracted the background spectrum within an annulus with inner and outer radii of 10  and 30 .
we fitted the spectra of b1600 + 434  with a series of models summarized in table  [ tab : spec ] .
we first modeled the spectrum as a power - law modified by galactic absorption .
this model gives a reasonable fit with @xmath23 for 18 degrees of freedom ( dof ) .
however , the column density obtained for galactic absorption ,  @xmath24  @xmath25 , is much higher than the expected  @xmath26  @xmath25 @xcite .
this exercise indicates that additional absorption components are needed to interpret the spectrum .
these additional absorption components can be either intrinsic to the quasar , located in the quasar host galaxy , or in the lens galaxy .
we found that adding a neutral absorption component at the redshift of either the quasar or the lens can produce an acceptable fit with @xmath27 for 18 dof and @xmath28 for 18 dof , respectively , for absorption at the quasar and lens redshifts .
the absorption column densities obtained are  @xmath29  @xmath25 and  @xmath30  @xmath25 for absorption at the quasar or lens redshift , respectively . the combined spectrum and the best fit model with absorption at the lens redshift
are shown in figure  [ fig : spec]a .
the estimate of the intrinsic photon index is around @xmath31 for both models with observed 0.48 kev band flux of @xmath3210@xmath33  , and lensed , unabsorbed x - ray luminosities in the 210 kev and 120 kev band rest frame of @xmath3410@xmath35 and @xmath410@xmath5  , respectively .
we note that the lensing magnification must be included in order to obtain the unlensed luminosity .
@xcite interpreted the wavelength dependence of the image flux ratios as due to @xmath8 of differential extinction obscuring image b. we also see in the spectra of the image that image b has proportionally less soft x - ray emission so that differential absorption must be intrinsic to the lens . to estimate this differential absorption we simultaneously fit the individual spectra of images a and b constrained to have the same intrinsic power - law photon index and galactic absorption column density but allowed to have different absorption column densities at the redshift of the lens .
the best fit model is shown in figure  [ fig : spec]b .
this model also results in acceptable fit with a @xmath36 for 12 dof as compared to @xmath37 for 13 dof if we do not allow for differential absorption .
the improvement of the fit by allowing for differential absorption is significant at the 90% confidence level according to the f - test indicating that the x - ray data are consistent with , but do not require , column density variations .
the photon index obtained in this fit is slightly steeper than for the previous fits in part because the small extraction regions used to obtain individual spectra of the images to the loss of some hard x - ray photons .
the absorption column densities at the lens for images a and b are  @xmath38  @xmath25 and  @xmath39  @xmath25 , respectively , and the differential absorption between the two images is @xmath7 as shown in figure  [ fig : con ] .
this indicates that the  determined from the two spectra are different at the 90% confidence level with higher  for image b. this is consistent with the lens configuration , where the lens galaxy is much closer to image b than to image a. comparing with the estimated differential extinction of @xmath8  mag between images a and b @xcite , we obtained a dust - to - gas ratio of @xmath40 within a factor of five from the galactic value , @xmath41 @xcite .
we extracted the combined spectrum of all the images of b1608 + 656  within a 5  radius circle centered on the source .
we extracted the background spectrum within an annulus with inner and outer radii of 10  and 18 .
the background subtracted spectrum consists of only 86 net events with a count - rate of 2.9@xmath4210@xmath43  count  s@xmath44 , making a spectral analysis of the individual images impossible .
we modeled the spectrum with a power - law modified by galactic absorption .
this simple model fits the spectrum quite well , with @xmath45 for 3 dof .
the parameters are presented in table  [ tab : spec ] and the spectrum and the best fit model are shown in figure  [ fig : spec]c .
the power - law photon index and galactic  are constrained to be @xmath3 and  @xmath46  @xmath25 consistent with the expected galactic column density of  @xmath47
@xmath25 @xcite .
if we fix the galactic absorption to this value the fits are consistent with no additional absorption at either the lens or quasar redshift with upper limits on absorption column of  @xmath48 and @xmath49  @xmath25 at the redshift of lens or quasar , respectively .
there is differential extinction in b1608 + 656  as well , but it is most significant for image d which we failed to detect .
our upper limit on the flux of d is not strong enough to estimate a dust - to - gas ratio .
the x - ray flux in the observed 0.48 kev band is @xmath5010@xmath33  , and the lensed , unabsorbed x - ray luminosities in the 2 - 10 kev and 119 kev band rest frame are @xmath5110@xmath35 and @xmath5210@xmath35  , respectively .
cccccccc    1 & b1600 + 434 & total & @xmath53 & @xmath54 & & @xmath55 & 16.3(18 ) + 2 & b1600 + 434 & total & @xmath56 & 1.29 ( fixed ) & @xmath57 @xmath58 & @xmath59 & 16.1(18 ) + 3 & b1600 + 434 & total & @xmath56 & 1.29 ( fixed ) & @xmath60 @xmath61 & @xmath62 & 15.8(18 ) + 4 & b1600 + 434 & a & @xmath63 & 1.29 ( fixed ) & @xmath64 @xmath61 & @xmath65 & 13.1(12 ) + & & b & & & @xmath66 @xmath61 & @xmath67 & + 5 & b1608 + 656 & total & @xmath68 & @xmath69 & & @xmath70 & 3.3(3 ) +      we estimated the absorption corrected flux ratio between images a and b of b1600 + 434  using ` xspec ` in the 0.48 kev band and obtained a flux ratio of b / a = @xmath71 .
we compare this to the time delay corrected flux ratios obtained for the optical and radio bands @xcite in table  [ tab : frzero ] . for b1608 + 656
we estimated the flux ratios based on the image count rates because of the low s / n of individual images .
in addition , we estimated the count rate of combined images a and c since it is difficult to resolve the two images .
the result for b1608 + 656  is listed in table  [ tab : freight ] .
the flux ratios in x - rays are consistent with the time delay corrected flux ratio in the radio band in b1608 + 656  @xcite .    cc    x - ray ( 0.48 kev ) & @xmath71 + optical ( i ) & 0.67 + radio ( 8.5 ghz ) & 0.825 +    ccc    x - ray ( 0.48 kev ) & @xmath72 & @xmath73 + radio ( 8.5 ghz ) & 0.325 & 0.114 +
it is important to constrain the mass and central location of any nearby groups or clusters to construct a better lens model .
we performed source detection on the two _ chandra _  observations over the full acis fields using the ` ciao ` tool ` wavdetect ` @xcite provided by cxc and did not find significant extended x - ray emission in either field .
we also smoothed the image with the ` csmooth ` @xcite software tool to detect any extended sources within 4  of the lens galaxies in the acis - s3 and s2 fields in both observations .
we removed the point sources detected by ` wavdetect ` before the smoothing process .
however , the smoothed images do not show significant ( above @xmath74 ) extended emission close to the lens galaxies in either field .
we also smoothed the soft x - ray band images between ( 0.42 kev ) to increase the signal - to - noise ratio , as the x - ray emission from the cluster or group is expected to be stronger in the soft x - ray band , and did not find significant extended emission above @xmath74 .
we note that there are two low significance extended sources ( about @xmath75 ) present close the lenses at r.a .
= 16@xmath76 1@xmath77 359 and decl .
= 43  17  27  ( j2000 ) with a @xmath78 contour radius of @xmath1911  in the field of b1600 + 434 , and at r.a .
= 16@xmath76 9@xmath77 113 and decl .
= 65  32  7  ( j2000 ) with a @xmath78 contour radius of @xmath195  in the field of b1608 + 656 . however , these sources have low signal - to - noise ratios and could be simply be background fluctuations .
in addition , many events in these peaks have energies below 0.4 kev where the calibration uncertainty is large .
a longer observation would be required to have any confidence in their existence , so we proceed on the assumption that they are background fluctuations .
we used the background count rates to estimate upper limits on the fluxes of any group / cluster in the two fields .
we assumed gas temperature of @xmath191 kev when converting from count rates to flux .
this temperature consistent with the upper limits of x - ray luminosities obtained from our analysis .
the background count rate in the 0.42 kev band for b1600 + 434  is @xmath79 . in the analysis
, we used an aperture size of 100 kpc radius to limit the effects of any systematic errors in the background estimate .
this aperture size is large enough for the groups with luminosities below @xmath80 @xcite . for a 100 kpc radius at the redshift of the lens ( @xmath10 ) , the @xmath74 upper limit of the x - ray flux
is @xmath81 , which corresponds to an x - ray luminosity of @xmath82 the background flux in the 0.42 kev band for b1608 + 656  is @xmath83 . for a 100 kpc radius at the redshift of the lens ( @xmath12 ) , the @xmath74 upper limit of the x - ray flux
is @xmath84 , which corresponds to an x - ray luminosity of @xmath85    we used the standard @xmath86@xmath87 , @xmath88@xmath87 , and @xmath88@xmath86 relations ( e.g. , girardi et  al .  1996 ; helsdon & ponman 2000 ; xue & wu 2000 ; mahdavi & geller 2001 ; kochanek et  al .
2003 ; osmond & ponman 2004 ) for groups and clusters to estimate upper limits for the velocity dispersion of any cluster of @xmath89 and @xmath90  for b1600 + 434  and b1608 + 656  respectively .
the large scatter of the relations were considered when estimating the upper limits . considering a singular isothermal sphere model for the group or cluster , the lens potential , @xmath91 , from the group / cluster is @xmath92 where @xmath93 and @xmath94 are angular diameter distances from the lens to source and observer to source , and
@xmath95 is the angular distance from the lens to the group / cluster .
thus , the lens strength , b , is constrained to have upper limits of @xmath9630 and @xmath9732 for b1600 + 434  and b1608 + 656  respectively .
we also cataloged the serendipitous point sources in the two fields using the ` ciao ` tool ` wavdetect ` .
the source detection was performed on each ccd separately with a detection threshold of @xmath98 .
the detection threshold was set as the inverse of the total number of pixels in the binned images .
we detected 75 and 82 serendipitous sources in the b1600 + 434  and b1608 + 656  fields , respectively .
the detection threshold corresponds to a flux limit of roughly @xmath99  and the numbers of sources are consistent with standard estimates for the source numbers at this flux limit ( e.g. , * ? ? ? * and references there in ) .
the _ chandra _  field of b1600 + 434  is included in dr3 of the sloan digital sky survey ( sdss , * ? ? ?
we searched for optical counterparts of the x - ray sources within a 2  radius , which corresponds to the largest error bars for the _ chandra _  positions , and allows the inclusion of counterparts that have slight offsets between the optical and x - ray centroids , such as the ultra - luminous x - ray sources seen in nearby galaxies .
we found counterparts for 27 of the 75 x - ray sources , 13 of which are flagged as quasar candidates in the sdss catalogs .
the properties of the serendipitous sources and the optical counterparts are listed in table  [ tab : szero ] .
b1608 + 656  field is not covered by sdss , and so we used the palomar digital sky survey ( dposs , * ? ? ?
* ) survey to identify the counterparts .
the lens position in the _ chandra _  and dposs images are offset by approximately 15 , so we used a slightly larger radius to identify optical counterparts .
we found 27 optical counterparts out of the 82 x - ray sources .
the properties of the serendipitous sources and the optical counterparts in b1608 + 656  field are listed in table  [ tab : seight ] .
we present results from _ chandra _  observations of the gravitational lenses b1600 + 434  and b1608 + 656 .
we resolved the two lensed images in b1600 + 434  and three of four images in b1608 + 656 .
we did not detect the faintest image d in b1608 + 656 .
the analysis of b1608 + 656  was complicated by the small minimum image separation and the low count - rate of the lensed image d. we could not find a stable solution for the x - ray flux ratios even if we fixed the image positions to those inferred from _ hst
_  observations . a longer observation would be needed to constrain the flux ratios of the individual x - ray images of b1608 + 656 .
we also performed a spectral analysis of the lensed quasar images and detected differential absorption column density of @xmath7 between the two images of b1600 + 434 .
the improvement of the fit by allowing differential absorption is significant at the 90% confidence level indicating that the x - ray data are consistent with , but do not require , column density variations . comparing with the estimated differential extinction of @xmath8  mag between images a and b @xcite
, we obtained a dust - to - gas ratio of @xmath40 within a factor of five from the galactic value .
considering the patchiness of the interstellar medium , a factor of five difference may not be significant enough to conclude that the dust - to - gas ratio of the lens galaxy in b1600 + 434  is higher than that of the milky way .
however , this trend is consistent with the cases in b0218 + 357 ( @xmath100 ) and pks  1830211 ( @xmath101 , * ? ? ?
* ) , where the estimated dust - to - gas ratios in the lens galaxies were higher than the galactic value .
it is , however , the opposite of the situation found in q2237 + 0305 ( @xmath102 , * ? ? ?
a larger sample is needed to investigate the average dust - to - gas ratios in high redshift ( @xmath103 ) galaxies .
there is differential extinction in b1608 + 656  as well , but it is most significant for image d which we failed to detect . our upper limit on the flux of d is not significant enough to estimate a limit on the dust - to - gas ratio .
the differential absorption measured between different images in gravitational lenses may serve as a convenient probe to study the gas content in high redshift galaxies since it can separate the absorbing column originated from the lens galaxy and those intrinsic to quasars .
we did not detect significant x - ray emission from nearby galaxy groups or clusters associated with the lens galaxies .
we found upper limits on the x - ray luminosity of any cluster at the lens redshift and within 4  from the lenses of @xmath0 and @xmath1  for b1600 + 434  and b1608 + 656 , respectively .
considering standard cluster relations between x - ray luminosity , temperature , and velocity dispersion and assuming a singular isothermal sphere model for the group / cluster , we obtained upper limits of the lens strength parameter , @xmath104 , of 30 and 32 for b1600 + 434  and b1608 + 656  respectively .
with such a tight limit , only the poor groups to which each lens belongs could be contributing to the lens potential .
cccccccccccc cxo j160022.5 + 431521 & 240.09376 & 43.256002 & 0.7 & 0.5 & 152@xmath21 16 & 13.6 & & & & & + cxo j160041.2 + 431544 & 240.17168 & 43.262303 & 1.0 & 0.8 & 10@xmath21 4 & 2.8 & & & & & + cxo j160044.4 + 430842 & 240.18509 & 43.145258 & 0.6 & 0.2 & 26@xmath21 7 & 4.4 & & & & & + cxo j160045.3 + 431433 & 240.18909 & 43.242736 & 1.1 & 0.8 & 13@xmath21 4 & 3.8 & 240.18867 & 43.242565 & 1.3 & 22.7490 & `` + cxo j160047.0 + 431354 & 240.19615 & 43.231796 & 0.5 & 0.6 & 7@xmath21 3 & 2.4 & & & & & + cxo j160049.2 + 431433 & 240.20518 & 43.242667 & 0.4 & 1.0 & 10@xmath21 4 & 3.3 & & & & & + cxo j160051.2 + 431431 & 240.21355 & 43.242076 & 1.0 & 0.7 & 26@xmath21 6 & 6.3 & & & & & + cxo j160053.8 + 430932 & 240.22429 & 43.159003 & 1.2 & 0.7 & 28@xmath21 7 & 5.3 & & & & & + cxo j160054.8 + 431528 & 240.22854 & 43.258031 & 0.9 & 0.4 & 14@xmath21 4 & 4.6 & 240.22871 & 43.257572 & 1.7 & 15.9220 & `` + cxo j160055.4 + 431052 & 240.23113 & 43.181337 & 0.8 & 0.5 & 6@xmath21 3 & 2.4 & & & & & + cxo j160056.4 + 431151 & 240.23515 & 43.197578 & 1.0 & 0.4 & 9@xmath21 3 & 3.1 & & & & & + cxo j160100.8 + 431055 & 240.25354 & 43.182145 & 0.7 & 0.6 & 11@xmath21 4 & 3.5 & & & & & + cxo j160101.6 + 430108 & 240.25677 & 43.019044 & 2.0 & 0.8 & 12@xmath21 4 & 3.5 & & & & & + cxo j160104.8 + 431115 & 240.27041 & 43.187527 & 0.9 & 0.3 & 8@xmath21 3 & 2.9 & & & & & + cxo j160105.0 + 431850 & 240.27114 & 43.314013 & 0.5 & 0.9 & 4@xmath21 2 & 1.7 & & & & & + cxo j160110.8 + 431139 & 240.29526 & 43.194329 & 0.2 & 0.1 & 299@xmath21 18 & 51.1 & 240.29534 & 43.193954 & 1.4 & 17.1220 & ` target_galaxy ` + cxo j160113.2 + 431803 & 240.30505 & 43.300870 & 0.3 & 0.2 & 8@xmath21 3 & 3.4 & & & & & + cxo j160114.4 + 430717 & 240.31025 & 43.121493 & 0.8 & 0.9 & 9@xmath21 4 & 2.7 & & & & & + cxo j160116.3 + 431740 & 240.31819 & 43.294634 & 0.4 & 0.2 & 11@xmath21 3 & 4.3 & & & & & + cxo j160116.8 + 431834 & 240.32011 & 43.309628 & 0.2 & 0.3 & 14@xmath21 4 & 5.7 & & & & & + cxo j160116.9 + 431949 & 240.32073 & 43.330454 & 0.5 & 0.2 & 10@xmath21 3 & 4.1 & 240.32050 & 43.330372 & 0.7 & 21.8080 & `` + cxo j160117.1 + 432129 & 240.32156 & 43.358059 & 0.4 & 0.2 & 53@xmath21 8 & 14.9 & & & & & + cxo j160120.8 + 431827 & 240.33669 & 43.307585 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 59@xmath21 8 & 22.9 & 240.33658 & 43.307536 & 0.3 & 20.2470 & ` target_qso_faint ` + cxo j160121.0 + 430936 & 240.33777 & 43.160101 & 0.3 & 0.5 & 5@xmath21 2 & 2.1 & & & & & + cxo j160122.8 + 431522 & 240.34521 & 43.256365 & 0.3 & 0.2 & 6@xmath21 2 & 2.7 & & & & & + cxo j160125.6 + 431337 & 240.35703 & 43.227171 & 0.2 & 0.2 & 3@xmath21 2 & 1.5 & & & & & + cxo j160125.9 + 431832 & 240.35828 & 43.308986 & 0.2 & 0.1 & 24@xmath21 5 & 11.4 & 240.35824 & 43.308991 & 0.1 & 21.6330 & `` + cxo j160126.5 + 431704 & 240.36068 & 43.284556 & 0.2 & 0.1 & 8@xmath21 3 & 3.9 & & & & & + cxo j160126.6 + 431313 & 240.36091 & 43.220496 & 0.3 & 0.2 & 11@xmath21 3 & 5.0 & & & & & + cxo j160128.9 + 430519 & 240.37078 & 43.088780 & 1.0 & 0.6 & 11@xmath21 4 & 3.4 & & & & & + cxo j160129.2 + 430748 & 240.37185 & 43.130045 & 0.7 & 0.5 & 17@xmath21 4 & 5.9 & & & & & + cxo j160129.5 + 431940 & 240.37294 & 43.327784 & 0.2 & 0.2 & 7@xmath21 3 & 3.4 & 240.37304 & 43.327680 & 0.5 & 14.1040 & `` + cxo j160129.8 + 431533 & 240.37433 & 43.259386 & 0.2 & 0.1 & 9@xmath21 3 & 4.3 & & & & & + cxo j160130.3 + 431711 & 240.37637 & 43.286424 & 0.0 & 0.2 & 2@xmath21 1 & 1.0 & & & & & + cxo j160131.1 + 431814 & 240.37993 & 43.304018 & 0.2 & 0.2 & 9@xmath21 3 & 4.1 & & & & & + cxo j160132.7 + 431309 & 240.38644 & 43.219338 & 0.1 & 0.2 & 5@xmath21 2 & 2.4 & 240.38645 & 43.219297 & 0.2 & 22.9010 & `` + cxo j160135.3 + 431333 & 240.39740 & 43.226067 & 0.1 & 0.0 & 330@xmath21 18 & 114.4 & 240.39737 & 43.226019 & 0.2 & 20.4010 & ` target_qso_faint ` + cxo j160136.2 + 431353 & 240.40113 & 43.231525 & 0.1 & 0.3 & 4@xmath21 2 & 2.0 & & & & & + cxo j160136.4 + 432107 & 240.40199 & 43.352020 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 71@xmath21 9 & 28.2 & 240.40162 & 43.352124 & 1.0 & 22.3800 & ` target_qso_reject ` + cxo j160137.2 + 431609 & 240.40509 & 43.269321 & 0.1 & 0.0 & 39@xmath21 6 & 18.5 & & & & & + cxo j160137.3 + 432236 & 240.40543 & 43.376842 & 0.2 & 0.2 & 23@xmath21 5 & 8.5 & & & & & + cxo j160138.6 + 432204 & 240.41088 & 43.367895 & 0.4 & 0.3 & 6@xmath21 3 & 2.6 & & & & & + cxo j160141.8 + 431453 & 240.42440 & 43.248288 & 0.4 & 0.1 & 5@xmath21 2 & 2.5 & 240.42461 & 43.248106 & 0.9 & 20.9150 & ` target_qso_faint ` + cxo j160141.9 + 431453 & 240.42459 & 43.248073 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 23@xmath21 5 & 11.8 & 240.42458 & 43.248080 & 0.0 & 20.9290 & ` target_qso_faint ` + cxo j160143.5 + 431858 & 240.43147 & 43.316195 & 0.2 & 0.1 & 7@xmath21 3 & 3.3 & 240.43154 & 43.316113 & 0.4 & 25.7410 & `` + cxo j160143.7 + 431126 & 240.43234 & 43.190683 & 0.3 & 0.4 & 18@xmath21 4 & 7.1 & 240.43238 & 43.190730 & 0.2 & 23.3230 & `` + cxo j160144.6 + 431936 & 240.43594 & 43.326831 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 9@xmath21 3 & 4.4 & & & & & + cxo j160146.4 + 431419 & 240.44346 & 43.238879 & 0.2 & 0.3 & 7@xmath21 3 & 3.5 & & & & & + cxo j160146.8 + 431334 & 240.44529 & 43.226177 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 223@xmath21 15 & 79.9 & 240.44533 & 43.226154 & 0.1 & 21.1140 & `` + cxo j160147.5 + 430907 & 240.44803 & 43.152111 & 0.6 & 0.9 & 12@xmath21 4 & 3.7 & & & & & + cxo j160147.9 + 432006 & 240.44998 & 43.335108 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 19@xmath21 4 & 8.8 & & & & & + cxo j160149.6 + 430836 & 240.45684 & 43.143382 & 0.6 & 0.3 & 24@xmath21 5 & 7.0 & & & & & + cxo j160152.6 + 430915 & 240.46947 & 43.154196 & 0.5 & 0.5 & 49@xmath21 8 & 10.9 & 240.46913 & 43.153922 & 1.3 & 20.5530 & ` target_qso_faint ` + cxo j160153.7 + 431817 & 240.47391 & 43.304920 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 510@xmath21 23 & 173.3 & 240.47392 & 43.304845 & 0.3 & 18.8240 & ` target_qso_faint ` + cxo j160154.5 + 431519 & 240.47735 & 43.255280 & 0.3 & 0.1 & 3@xmath21 2 & 1.5 & 240.47692 & 43.255471 & 1.3 & 20.6500 & ` target_qso_faint ` + cxo j160154.6 + 431147 & 240.47791 & 43.196539 & 0.5 & 0.5 & 6@xmath21 3 & 2.5 & & & & & + cxo j160154.7 + 431019 & 240.47811 & 43.172163 & 0.2 & 0.6 & 3@xmath21 2 & 1.6 & 240.47841 & 43.172037 & 0.9 & 22.8610 & `` + cxo j160156.8 + 431125 & 240.48683 & 43.190556 & 0.2 & 0.2 & 128@xmath21 12 & 32.4 & 240.48681 & 43.190463 & 0.3 & 19.7180 & ` target_qso_faint ` + cxo j160158.0 + 431145 & 240.49198 & 43.195840 & 0.5 & 0.4 & 13@xmath21 4 & 5.3 & & & & & + cxo j160200.1 + 431228 & 240.50070 & 43.207905 & 0.5 & 0.3 & 7@xmath21 3 & 3.3 & & & & & + cxo j160203.4 + 431808 & 240.51433 & 43.302496 & 0.2 & 0.3 & 3@xmath21 2 & 1.5 & & & & & + cxo j160203.9 + 431733 & 240.51654 & 43.292745 & 0.2 & 0.3 & 6@xmath21 2 & 3.0 & & & & & + cxo j160204.2 + 431558 & 240.51789 & 43.266260 & 0.2 & 0.2 & 41@xmath21 6 & 16.8 & 240.51805 & 43.265916 & 1.3 & 20.7600 & `` + cxo j160204.3 + 431556 & 240.51823 & 43.265618 & 0.2 & 0.1 & 26@xmath21 5 & 12.2 & 240.51809 & 43.265900 & 1.1 & 20.9400 & `` + cxo j160208.0 + 431357 & 240.53357 & 43.232582 & 0.4 & 0.3 & 9@xmath21 3 & 4.1 & & & & & + cxo j160209.8 + 431208 & 240.54096 & 43.202248 & 0.5 & 0.5 & 9@xmath21 3 & 3.3 & & & & & + cxo j160210.8 + 430500 & 240.54508 & 43.083499 & 0.7 & 0.6 & 96@xmath21 15 & 7.5 & 240.54492 & 43.083590 & 0.5 & 21.1700 & ` target_qso_faint ` + cxo j160213.0 + 431212 & 240.55434 & 43.203367 & 0.7 & 0.5 & 19@xmath21 5 & 5.4 & 240.55386 & 43.203749 & 1.9 & 21.2800 & ` target_qso_faint ` + cxo j160217.9 + 430659 & 240.57464 & 43.116569 & 0.5 & 0.4 & 62@xmath21 12 & 6.4 & & & & & + cxo j160218.1 + 430928 & 240.57562 & 43.157988 & 0.8 & 0.6 & 62@xmath21 9 & 11.5 & & & & & + cxo j160221.4 + 430800 & 240.58931 & 43.133401 & 0.7 & 0.6 & 58@xmath21 12 & 5.9 & 240.58890 & 43.133187 & 1.3 & 22.0480 & `` + cxo j160221.5 + 431227 & 240.58993 & 43.207556 & 0.8 & 0.6 & 21@xmath21 5 & 5.9 & & & & & + cxo j160221.6 + 430319 & 240.59001 & 43.055445 & 0.3 & 0.2 & 903@xmath21 41 & 30.6 & 240.59003 & 43.054918 & 1.9 & 17.2630 & ` target_galaxy target_qso_cap ` + cxo j160232.1 + 431039 & 240.63379 & 43.177725 & 0.9 & 0.6 & 24@xmath21 7 & 4.0 & & & & & + cxo j160235.5 + 430813 & 240.64792 & 43.136956 & 0.6 & 0.5 & 162@xmath21 20 & 9.9 & 240.64794 & 43.137232 & 1.0 & 20.8500 & ` target_qso_faint ` +    ccccccccccc cxo j160713.3 + 652929 & 241.80581 & 65.491391 & 2.0 & 0.9 & 32@xmath21 8 & 4.4 & 241.80481 & 65.491737 & 1.9 & 21.67 + cxo j160719.3 + 652459 & 241.83052 & 65.416517 & 0.9 & 0.4 & 311@xmath21 22 & 22.3 & 241.83031 & 65.416038 & 1.8 & 19.44 + cxo j160727.2 + 653314 & 241.86370 & 65.553915 & 1.9 & 1.0 & 21@xmath21 6 & 4.2 & & & & + cxo j160739.8 + 652040 & 241.91592 & 65.344505 & 2.2 & 1.1 & 20@xmath21 6 & 3.9 & & & & + cxo j160740.4 + 652817 & 241.91870 & 65.471505 & 0.9 & 0.4 & 121@xmath21 12 & 19.8 & 241.91879 & 65.470879 & 2.3 & 21.82 + cxo j160741.5 + 653017 & 241.92300 & 65.504803 & 2.0 & 0.6 & 14@xmath21 5 & 3.6 & & & & + cxo j160747.1 + 652610 & 241.94660 & 65.436200 & 3.1 & 0.8 & 26@xmath21 7 & 5.0 & 241.94743 & 65.435570 & 2.6 & 21.08 + cxo j160803.3 + 652522 & 242.01387 & 65.422904 & 1.5 & 0.3 & 7@xmath21 3 & 2.4 & & & & + cxo j160804.4 + 652540 & 242.01872 & 65.427796 & 2.0 & 0.6 & 14@xmath21 5 & 3.8 & & & & + cxo j160806.5 + 652204 & 242.02720 & 65.367868 & 2.3 & 0.4 & 15@xmath21 5 & 4.2 & & & & + cxo j160807.6 + 652828 & 242.03167 & 65.474558 & 0.4 & 0.2 & 7@xmath21 3 & 2.7 & & & & + cxo j160812.0 + 652054 & 242.05015 & 65.348453 & 1.7 & 0.6 & 12@xmath21 4 & 3.7 & 242.05020 & 65.347809 & 2.3 & + cxo j160813.0 + 652319 & 242.05442 & 65.388855 & 1.8 & 0.6 & 16@xmath21 5 & 4.8 & 242.05438 & 65.389442 & 2.1 & 21.08 + cxo j160816.7 + 652528 & 242.06963 & 65.424496 & 1.3 & 0.7 & 13@xmath21 4 & 4.1 & & & & + cxo j160816.9 + 652453 & 242.07071 & 65.414763 & 1.7 & 0.9 & 10@xmath21 4 & 3.3 & & & & + cxo j160822.0 + 652245 & 242.09175 & 65.379180 & 1.6 & 0.7 & 20@xmath21 5 & 5.2 & & & & + cxo j160823.1 + 652328 & 242.09637 & 65.391192 & 1.2 & 0.4 &
35@xmath21 7 & 8.3 & 242.09776 & 65.390694 & 2.8 & + cxo j160826.7 + 653546 & 242.11160 & 65.596178 & 1.0 & 0.2 & 46@xmath21 8 & 10.5 & 242.11134 & 65.595993 & 0.8 & 21.84 + cxo j160827.3 + 652445 & 242.11378 & 65.412762 & 0.5 & 0.2 & 8@xmath21 3 & 3.4 & & & & + cxo j160831.3 + 652423 & 242.13047 & 65.406416 & 1.2 & 0.7 & 16@xmath21 4 & 5.2 & & & & + cxo j160832.8 + 652255 & 242.13706 & 65.381987 & 1.3 & 0.5 & 11@xmath21 4 & 3.6 & & & & + cxo j160835.1 + 653605 & 242.14658 & 65.601453 & 0.7 & 0.3 & 11@xmath21 4 & 3.9 & & & & + cxo j160835.8 + 653137 & 242.14931 & 65.527038 & 0.7 & 0.2 & 6@xmath21 2 & 2.7 & 242.15018 & 65.527252 & 1.5 & 16.37 + cxo j160836.5 + 652236 & 242.15214 & 65.376812 & 1.2 & 0.7 & 12@xmath21 4 & 3.9 & & & & + cxo j160840.9 + 653523 & 242.17070 & 65.589992 & 0.7 & 0.3 & 9@xmath21 3 & 3.3 & & & & + cxo j160843.8 + 653245 & 242.18292 & 65.546039 & 0.2 & 0.1 & 89@xmath21 10 & 35.4 & 242.18413 & 65.545868 & 1.9 & 19.86 + cxo j160844.1 + 653246 & 242.18413 & 65.546163 & 0.2 & 0.1 & 95@xmath21 10 & 39.3 & 242.18413 & 65.545868 & 1.1 & 19.86 + cxo j160849.1 + 653358 & 242.20462 & 65.566266 & 0.3 & 0.1 & 30@xmath21 6 & 13.4 & & & & + cxo j160850.7 + 653707 & 242.21163 & 65.618791 & 0.8 & 0.4 & 8@xmath21 3 & 3.4 & & & & + cxo j160850.8 + 653220 & 242.21187 & 65.539142 & 0.1 & 0.0 & 617@xmath21 25 & 207.9 & 242.21214 & 65.538887 & 1.0 & 19.78 + cxo j160854.0 + 653338 & 242.22506 & 65.560669 & 0.4 & 0.1 & 12@xmath21 3 & 5.7 & & & & + cxo j160855.0 + 652738 & 242.22933 & 65.460712 & 0.3 & 0.3 & 3@xmath21 2 & 1.5 & & & & + cxo j160858.9 + 652816 & 242.24561 & 65.471199 & 0.6 & 0.2 & 9@xmath21 3 & 4.5 & & & & + cxo j160859.4 + 653225 & 242.24789 & 65.540349 & 0.2 & 0.0 & 69@xmath21 8 & 30.0 & 242.24838 & 65.540154 & 1.0 & 21.07 + cxo j160900.4 + 653445 & 242.25186 & 65.579230 & 0.4 & 0.1 & 19@xmath21 4 & 8.7 & & & & + cxo j160901.6 + 653744 & 242.25685 & 65.629054 & 1.3 & 0.3 & 21@xmath21 5 & 6.5 & & & & + cxo j160902.1 + 653216 & 242.25881 & 65.537796 & 0.7 & 0.1 & 4@xmath21 2 & 1.9 & & & & + cxo j160903.9 + 653040 & 242.26625 & 65.511286 & 0.4 & 0.2 & 8@xmath21 3 & 3.6 & & & & + cxo j160904.8 + 652737 & 242.27018 & 65.460319 & 0.2 & 0.1 & 25@xmath21 5 & 11.8 & & & & + cxo j160905.2 + 653655 & 242.27176 & 65.615366 & 1.0 & 0.2 & 13@xmath21 4 & 4.6 & & & & + cxo j160905.5 + 652400 & 242.27325 & 65.400242 & 1.6 & 0.4 & 6@xmath21 3 & 2.3 & & & & + cxo j160906.1 + 652700 & 242.27560 & 65.450274 & 0.7 & 0.4 & 14@xmath21 4 & 5.7 & & & & + cxo j160907.1 + 653126 & 242.27985 & 65.524103 & 0.3 & 0.0 & 6@xmath21 2 & 2.9 & 242.28047 & 65.523933 & 1.1 & 20.14 + cxo j160907.9 + 652626 & 242.28297 & 65.440657 & 0.5 & 0.3 & 16@xmath21 4 & 7.0 & 242.28284 & 65.440109 & 2.0 & 21.62 + cxo j160909.1 + 652559 & 242.28817 & 65.433131 & 0.8 & 0.3 & 6@xmath21 2 & 2.7 & & & & + cxo j160909.6 + 653252 & 242.29026 & 65.547984 & 0.3 & 0.1 & 17@xmath21 4 & 8.1 & & & & + cxo j160911.0 + 653008 & 242.29611 & 65.502295 & 0.4 & 0.1 & 5@xmath21 2 & 2.4 & & & & + cxo j160913.0 + 653432 & 242.30456 & 65.575761 & 0.2 & 0.1 & 92@xmath21 10 & 38.9 & 242.30478 & 65.575493 & 1.0 & + cxo j160913.1 + 652457 & 242.30483 & 65.415846 & 1.3 & 0.3 & 5@xmath21 2 & 2.3 & & & & + cxo j160913.1 + 653020 & 242.30487 & 65.505795 & 0.3 & 0.2 & 6@xmath21 2 & 2.8 & & & & + cxo j160913.4 + 652827 & 242.30590 & 65.474394 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 82@xmath21 9 & 36.7 & 242.30664 & 65.474052 & 1.7 & 20.42 + cxo j160914.1 + 653700 & 242.30883 & 65.616860 & 0.7 & 0.3 & 18@xmath21 5 & 6.5 & & & & + cxo j160914.4 + 653206 & 242.31012 & 65.535131 & 0.2 & 0.1 & 39@xmath21 6 & 17.8 & 242.31021 & 65.534958 & 0.6 & + cxo j160916.8 + 652852 & 242.32012 & 65.481128 & 0.2 & 0.1 & 8@xmath21 3 & 4.1 & & & & + cxo j160917.4 + 653021 & 242.32254 & 65.506092 & 0.2 & 0.1 & 29@xmath21 5 & 13.9 & & & & + cxo j160917.4 + 652925 & 242.32268 & 65.490353 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 2@xmath21 1 & 1.0 & & & & + cxo j160917.7 + 653104 & 242.32390 & 65.517999 & 0.3 & 0.1 & 7@xmath21 3 & 3.4 & & & & + cxo j160919.6 + 652915 & 242.33176 & 65.487717 & 0.5 & 0.1 & 7@xmath21 3 & 3.5 & 242.33199 & 65.487556 & 0.7 & 18.87 + cxo j160919.9 + 653552 & 242.33310 & 65.597953 & 0.4 & 0.1 & 29@xmath21 6 & 11.2 & & & & + cxo j160921.4 + 652243 & 242.33930 & 65.378676 & 1.4 & 0.6 & 11@xmath21 4 & 3.4 & 242.34024 & 65.378616 & 1.4 & 17.14 + cxo j160925.2 + 653421 & 242.35506 & 65.572583 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 36@xmath21 6 & 17.0 & & & & + cxo j160926.6 + 653844 & 242.36086 & 65.645732 & 0.6 & 0.2 & 180@xmath21 14 & 32.6 & 242.36060 & 65.645737 & 0.4 & 20.59 + cxo j160927.2 + 653247 & 242.36361 & 65.546655 & 0.3 & 0.1 & 5@xmath21 2 & 2.4 & 242.36388 & 65.546600 & 0.4 & 21.39 + cxo j160930.8 + 652810 & 242.37839 & 65.469570 & 0.3 & 0.0 & 4@xmath21 2 & 2.1 & & & & + cxo j160936.4 + 652906 & 242.40200 & 65.485094 & 0.3 & 0.1 & 6@xmath21 2 & 3.0 & & & & + cxo j160938.3 + 653447 & 242.40970 & 65.579868 & 0.2 & 0.1 & 79@xmath21 9 & 30.2 & 242.40987 & 65.579842 & 0.3 & 20.33 + cxo j160939.7 + 653235 & 242.41543 & 65.543118 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 105@xmath21 10 & 44.3 & 242.41559 & 65.542908 & 0.8 & 20.73 + cxo j160940.1 + 653313 & 242.41720 & 65.553738 & 0.3 & 0.0 & 4@xmath21 2 & 1.9 & & & & + cxo j160941.5 + 652813 & 242.42317 & 65.470465 & 0.4 & 0.3 & 7@xmath21 3 & 3.3 & & & & + cxo j160943.6 + 653317 & 242.43203 & 65.554966 & 0.4 & 0.2 & 16@xmath21 4 & 7.6 & 242.43243 & 65.554749 & 1.0 & + cxo j160943.8 + 652700 & 242.43287 & 65.450271 & 0.8 & 0.0 & 2@xmath21 1 & 1.0 & & & & + cxo j160948.2 + 653330 & 242.45110 & 65.558338 & 0.6 & 0.1 & 6@xmath21 2 & 2.7 & & & & + cxo j160950.9 + 652922 & 242.46227 & 65.489607 & 0.3 & 0.0 & 4@xmath21 2 & 2.0 & & & & + cxo j160953.0 + 653155 & 242.47116 & 65.531966 & 0.4 & 0.2 & 4@xmath21 2 & 1.8 & & & & + cxo j160956.5 + 652824 & 242.48574 & 65.473340 & 0.9 & 0.1 & 7@xmath21 3 & 3.1 & & & & + cxo j160957.6 + 652129 & 242.49040 & 65.358242 & 0.6 & 0.2 & 18@xmath21 7 & 2.8 & & & & + cxo j161001.4 + 652845 & 242.50600 & 65.479256 & 0.4 & 0.2 & 71@xmath21 9 & 24.3 & 242.50522 & 65.479378 & 1.3 & 18.89 + cxo j161004.8 + 652454 & 242.52003 & 65.415231 & 0.6 & 0.9 & 3@xmath21 2 & 1.5 & & & & + cxo j161010.8 + 652719 & 242.54515 & 65.455479 & 0.4 & 0.0 & 5@xmath21 2 & 2.1 & & & & + cxo j161016.6 + 652354 & 242.56936 & 65.398384 & 1.6 & 0.8 & 8@xmath21 3 & 2.7 & & & & + cxo j161029.9 + 652405 & 242.62477 & 65.401536 & 0.9 & 0.5 & 142@xmath21 14 & 17.7 & 242.62561 & 65.401230 & 1.7 & 20.03 + cxo j161052.3 + 651833 & 242.71824 & 65.309300 & 1.2 & 0.8 & 83@xmath21 14 & 7.5 & & & & +                  chartas , g. , dai , x. , & garmire , g. p. 2004 , in measuring and modeling the universe , edited by w. l. freedman ( pasadena : carnegie obs . ) , http://www.ociw.edu/ociw/symposia/series/symposium2/proceedings.html                                            jackson , n. , de bruyn , a. g. , myers , s. , bremer , m. n. , miley , g. k. , schilizzi , r. t. , browne , i. w. a. , nair , s. , wilkinson , p. n. , blandford , r. d. , pearson , t. j. , & readhead , a. c. s. 1995 , , 274 , l25              kochanek , c. s. , falco , e. e. , impey , c. d. , lehr , j. , mcleod , b. a. , & rix , h .- w . 1999 , in aip conf .
470 , after the dark ages : when galaxies were young ( the universe at @xmath105 ) , ed . s. holt & e. smith ( new york : aip ) , 163                  mori , k. , tsunemi , h. , miyata , e. , baluta , c. , burrows , d. n. , garmire , g. p. , & chartas , g. 2001 , in asp conf .
251 , new century of x - ray astronomy , ed .
h. inoue & h. kunieda ( san francisco : asp ) , 576    myers , s. t. , fassnacht , c. d. , djorgovski , s. g. , blandford , r. d. , matthews , k. , neugebauer , g. , pearson , t. j. , readhead , a. c. s. , smith , j. d. , thompson , d. j. , womble , d. s. , browne , i. w. a. , wilkinson , p. n. , nair , s. , jackson , n. , snellen , i. a. g. , miley , g. k. , de bruyn , a. g. , & schilizzi , r. t. 1995 , , 447 , l5