1: \documentstyle[preprint,floats,pra,aps,psfig]{revtex}
2: %\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}\newline\vspace{0.25cm}\noindent}
3:
4:
5: %\documentstyle[12pt,aps]{revtex}%
6:
7: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
8: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
9: %TCIDATA{OutputFilter=Latex.dll}
10: %TCIDATA{LastRevised=Tue Dec 07 15:56:54 1999}
11: %TCIDATA{<META NAME="GraphicsSave" CONTENT="32">}
12: %TCIDATA{CSTFile=revtex.cst}
13:
14: %\tightenlines \pagestyle{empty} \thispagestyle{empty}
15: \newcommand{\doublespace}{
16: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.6}\large\normalsize}
17:
18: \newcommand{\mc}{\multicolumn}
19: \newcommand{\bce}{\begin{center}}
20: \newcommand{\ece}{\end{center}}
21: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
22: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
23: \newcommand{\bea}{\vspace{0.25cm}\begin{eqnarray}}
24: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
25: \def\NCA{{Nuovo Cimento } A }
26: \def\NIM{{Nucl. Instrum. Methods}}
27: \def\NPA{{Nucl. Phys.} A }
28: \def\PLA{{Phys. Lett.} A }
29: \def\PLB{{Phys. Lett.} B }
30: \def\PRL{{Phys. Rev. Lett.} }
31: \def\PRA{{Phys. Rev.} A }
32: \def\PRC{{Phys. Rev.} C }
33: \def\PRD{{Phys. Rev.} D }
34: \def\ZPC{{Z. Phys.} C }
35: \def\ZPA{{Z. Phys.} A }
36: \def\PTP{{Progr. Th. Phys. }}
37: \def\LNC{{Lett. al Nuovo Cimento} }
38: \doublespace
39:
40: \begin{document}
41:
42:
43: \title{{\LARGE {\bf Can experimental tests of Bell inequalities performed
44: with pseudoscalar mesons be definitive? }}}
45:
46: \doublespace
47:
48:
49:
50: \author{M.Genovese \footnote{ genovese@ien.it. Tel. 39 011 3919234, fax 39
51: 011 3919259}, C.Novero}
52: \address{Istituto Elettrotecnico Nazionale Galileo Ferraris, Str. delle Cacce
53: 91,\\I-10135 Torino, }
54: \author{E. Predazzi}
55: \address{Dip. Fisica Teorica Univ. Torino and INFN, via P. Giuria 1,
56: I-10125 Torino }
57: \maketitle
58:
59: \vskip 1cm
60: {\bf Abstract}
61: \vskip 0.5cm
62: We discuss if experimental tests of Bell inequalities performed with
63: pseudoscalar mesons (K or B) can be definitive. Our conclusion is that this
64: is not the case, for the efficiency loophole cannot be eliminated.
65:
66: \vskip 1.5cm
67:
68: \vskip 2cm
69: PACS: 13.20.Eb, 03.65.Bz
70:
71: Keywords: neutral kaons, Bell inequalities, Pseudoscalar mixing,
72: non-locality, hidden variable theories
73:
74: \vspace{8mm}
75:
76:
77: The idea that Quantum Mechanics (QM) could be an incomplete theory,
78: representing a statistical approximation of a complete deterministic theory
79: (where observable values are fixed by some hidden variable) appeared
80: already in 1935 thank to the celebrate Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paper
81: \cite{EPR}.
82:
83: A fundamental progress in discussing possible extensions of QM was the
84: discovery of Bell \cite{Bell} that any realistic Local Hidden Variable LHV
85: theory must
86: satisfy certain inequalities which can be violated in QM leading in
87: principle to a possible experimental test of the validity of QM as
88: compared to LHV.
89:
90: Since then, many interesting experiments (in practice all based on
91: entangled photon pairs) have been devoted to a test of Bell inequalities
92: \CITE{Mandel,asp,franson,type1,type2}, leading to a substantial agreement
93: with standard quantum mechanics (SQM) and strongly disfavouring LHV
94: theories, but, so far, no experiment has yet been able to exclude
95: definitively such theories. In fact, so far, one has always been forced to
96: introduce a further additional hypothesis \CITE{santos}, due to the low
97: total detection efficiency, stating that the observed sample of particle
98: pairs is a faithful subsample of the whole. This problem is known as { \it
99: detection or efficiency loophole}. The search for new experimental
100: configurations able to overcome the detection loophole is of course of the
101: greatest interest.
102:
103: In the 90's big progresses in this direction have been obtained by using
104: parametric down conversion (PDC) processes for generating entangled photon
105: pairs with high angular correlation.
106: The generation of entangled states by parametric down conversion (PDC) has
107: replaced other techniques, such as the radiative decay of excited atomic
108: states, as it was in the celebrated experiment of A. Aspect et al.
109: \CITE{asp}, for it overcomes some former limitations. Many interesting
110: experiments have been realised using such a technique. The first
111: experiments had, by construction, a limited total efficiency
112: \cite{franson,type1,ou} and were far from eliminating the detection
113: loophole \cite{santos}.
114: More recently, an experiment, based on Type II PDC \cite{type2}, has
115: obtained a much higher total efficiency than the previous ones (around
116: $0.3$), which is, however, still far from the required value of $0.81$.
117: Also, some recent experiments studying equalities among correlations
118: functions rather than Bell inequalities \cite{dem} are far from solving
119: these problems \cite{garuccio}. A large interest remains therefore for new
120: experiments increasing total quantum efficiency in order to reduce and
121: finally overcome the efficiency loophole.
122:
123: Some years ago, a very important theoretical step in this direction was
124: performed recognising that, while for maximally entangled pairs a total
125: efficiency larger than to 0.81 is required to obtain an efficiency-loophole
126: free experiment, for non maximally entangled pairs this limit is reduced to
127: 0.67 \cite{eb} (in the case of no background). An experiment addressed to
128: test Bell inequalities using non-maximally entangled photon pairs has been
129: recently realised \cite{nos}. Work is in progress for obtaining an
130: efficiency above $0.67$ with this kind of set-ups.
131:
132: Even if relevant progresses toward the elimination of the detection
133: loophole have been obtained using entangled photon pairs, nevertheless the
134: total efficiency is strongly dominated by the quantum efficiency of
135: photodetectors.
136: Nowadays efficiencies for commercial photodetectors are around 70 \%.
137: Prototypes already reach much higher efficiencies \cite{Yam}, but at the
138: prize of high background which also limits the possibility of a loophole
139: free test \cite{Tho}. Thus, in summary, the use of entangled photon pairs
140: has led to very important tests of Bell inequalities, but at the moment
141: does not allow to eliminate the detection loophole.
142:
143: On the other hand, a recent experiment \cite{Win} performed using Be ions
144: has reached very high efficiencies (around 98 \%), but in this case the two
145: subsystems (the two ions) are not really separated systems and the test
146: cannot be considered a real implementation of a detection loophole free
147: test of Bell inequalities \cite{Vai}, even if constitutes a relevant
148: progress in this sense.
149:
150: Even if little doubts remain on the validity of the standard quantum
151: mechanics, considering the fundamental importance of the question, the
152: search for other experimental schemes for a definitive test of Bell
153: inequalities is therefore of the largest interest.
154:
155: In the last years many papers have been devoted to study the possibility of
156: realising such a test by the use of pseudoscalar meson pairs as $K \bar{K}$
157: or $B \bar{B}$. If the pair is produced by the decay of a particle at rest
158: in the laboratory frame (as the $\phi$ at Daphne), the two particles can be
159: easily separated to a relatively large distance allowing an easy space-like
160: separation of the two subsystems and permitting an easy elimination of the
161: space-like loophole, i.e. realising two completely space-like separated
162: measurements on the two subsystems (where the space-like separation must
163: include the setting of the experimental apparata too). A very low noise is
164: expected as well.
165:
166: The idea is to use entangled states of the form:
167: \bea
168: |\Psi \rangle = { | K_0 \rangle | \bar K_0 \rangle - | \bar K_0 \rangle |
169: K_0 \rangle \over \sqrt{2} } = & \cr
170: = { | K_L \rangle | K_S \rangle - | K_S \rangle | K_L \rangle \over
171: \sqrt{2} } & \cr
172: \label{psi}
173: \eea
174:
175:
176: Claims that these experiments could allow the elimination of the detection
177: loophole for the high efficiency of particles detectors, have also been
178: made. In this letter we study critically this statement.
179:
180:
181: The main caveat derives from the fact that in any experimental test
182: proposed up to now one must tag the $P$ or $\bar{P}$ trough its decay. This
183: requires the selection of $\Delta S = \Delta Q$ semileptonic decays, which
184: represent only a fraction of the total possible decays of the meson, e.g
185: $BR(K^0_S \rightarrow \pi^{+} e^{-} \nu_e) = (3.6 \pm 0.7)
186: 10^{-4}$,$BR(K^0_L \rightarrow \pi^{+} e^{-} \nu_e) = 0.1939 \pm 0.0014$,
187: $BR(K^0_L \rightarrow \pi^{+} \mu^{-} \nu_{\mu}) = 0.1359 \pm 0.0013 $,
188: $BR(B^0 \rightarrow l^{+} \nu_{l} X) = 0.105 \pm 0.008 $ \cite{PDB}).
189: Furthermore, experimental cuts on the energies of the decay products will
190: inevitably reduce further this fraction and part of the pairs could be lost
191: by decays occurring before the region of observation. Finally, most of
192: these proposals involve the regeneration phenomenon, which introduces
193: further strong losses. Thus, one is led to subselect a fraction of the
194: total events. As one cannot exclude a priori hidden variables related to
195: the decay properties of the meson, one cannot exclude the sample to be
196: biased and thus the detection loophole pops out again.
197: This is in analogy to the photon experiments, where the detection loophole
198: derives by the fact that one cannot exclude losses related to the values
199: of hidden variables which determine if the photon passes or not a
200: polarisation (or another) selection. Namely, in a local realistic model
201: its properties are completely specified by the hidden variables. Also
202: decays, in a deterministic model, can happen according to the values of the
203: hidden variables (both in a deterministic or in a probabilistic way). Thus,
204: states with different hidden variables can decay in different channels,
205: with the condition that the branching ratios {\it averaged } on the hidden
206: variables distribution reproduce the quantum mechanics predictions.
207:
208: For the experiments based on Bell inequalities measurements \cite{BellK},
209: the limits discussed before for the total efficiency remain valid. As the
210: total branching ratio in $\Delta S = \Delta Q$ semileptonic decays is much
211: smaller than 0.81 (the eventual use of non-maximally entangled states,
212: lowering the efficiency threshold to 0.67, does not change the situation),
213: this inevitably implies that a loophole free test of Bell inequalities
214: cannot be performed in this case (even neglecting other problems
215: \cite{gh}). It must be noticed that this problem does not appear in Ref.
216: \cite{BF}, however other additional hypotheses are needed (see Eq. 15 and
217: discussion after Eq. 18 of \cite{BF}), and thus this proposal does not
218: allow a general test of HVT as well.
219:
220:
221: It must also be noticed that the only observation of interference between
222: the two term of the entangled wave function, Eq. \ref{psi}, as in Ref
223: \cite{CLEO}, does not exclude general HVT, for this feature can be
224: reproduced in an general class of local realistic theories.
225:
226: Let us then consider other proposals not based on a Bell inequalities
227: measurement. Two proposals of this kind have been recently advanced by F.
228: Selleri and others concerning a $K \bar{K}$ \cite{Sel1} or a $B \bar{B}$
229: \cite{Sel2} system respectively.
230:
231: Let us begin analysing the $K \bar{K}$ case (the $B \bar{B}$ one follows
232: with small modifications.)
233:
234: In the model of Ref. \cite{Sel1}, the $K \bar{K}$ pair is
235: local-realistically described by means of two hidden variables, one
236: ($\lambda_1$) determining a well defined CP value, the other ($\lambda_2$)
237: a well defined strangeness $S$ value for the $K$ (and related to this for
238: the $\bar K$). This second variable cannot be a time independent property,
239: but is subject to sudden jumps. If locality must be preserved the time of
240: this jump must already be fixed ab initio by a hidden variable (which
241: represents the real second hidden variable of the model) and the two
242: subsystems must not influence each other while they are flying apart,
243: namely $\lambda_2$ is not the true hidden variable, but a parameter driven
244: by the true hidden variable (see appendix of Ref. \cite{Sel1}).
245:
246: Let us denote by $K_1$ the state with CP=1, S=1, $K_2$ the state with CP=1,
247: S=-1,
248: $K_3$ the state with CP=-1, S=1 and
249: $K_4$ the state with CP=-1, S=-1.
250:
251: The initial state can be, with probability $1/4$, in anyone of the states
252: $CP= \pm 1$, $S=\pm 1$. Each of these pairs give, in the local-realistic
253: model (LRM), a certain probability of observing a $\bar K_0 \bar K_0$ pair
254: at proper times $t_a$ and $t_b$ ($\ne t_a$) of the two particles. These
255: probabilities are (in a somehow simplified form, see eq. 62-70 of Ref.
256: \cite{Sel1}):
257: \bea
258: P_1[t_a,t_b]=[E_S(t_a) Q_-(t_a) - \rho(t_a)] \cdot E_L(t_a) p_{43}(t_b |
259: t_a) & \cr
260: P_2[t_a,t_b]=[E_S(t_a) Q_+(t_a) + \rho(t_a)] \cdot E_L(t_a) p_{43}(t_b |
261: t_a) & \cr
262: P_3[t_a,t_b]=[E_L(t_a) Q_-(t_a) + \rho(t_a)] \cdot E_S(t_a) p_{21}(t_b |
263: t_a) & \cr
264: P_4[t_a,t_b]=[E_L(t_a) Q_+(t_a) - \rho(t_a)] \cdot E_S(t_a) p_{21}(t_b |
265: t_a) \, \,
266: \label{P}
267: \eea
268: corresponding to an initial state with $K_1$ on the left and $K_4$ on the
269: right,
270: $K_2$ on the left and $K_3$ on the right, $K_3$ on the left and $K_2$ on
271: the right and $K_4$ on the left and $K_1$ on the right respectively.
272:
273: In Eq. \ref{P}, we have introduced $ E_S(t) = exp(- \gamma_S t)$ and $
274: E_L(t) = exp(- \gamma_L t)$, where $\gamma_{S}=(1.1192\pm 0.0010) 10^{10}
275: s^{-1}$
276: and $\gamma_{L}=(1.934 \pm 0.015) 10^{7} s^{-1}$ denote the decay rate of
277: $K_S$ and $K_L$ \cite{PDB}.
278: $Q_{\pm} ={ 1 \over 2} \left[ 1 \pm {2 \sqrt{E_L E_S} \over E_L + E_S}
279: \cos( \Delta m t) \right]$, where $\Delta m = M_L -M_S = (0.5300 \pm
280: 0.0012) 10^{10} s^{-1}$.
281: Furthermore, we have defined $ p_{21}(t_b | t_a) = E_S^{-1}(t_a)
282: [p_{21}(t_b | 0) - p_{21}( t_a | 0) \cdot E_S(t_b-t_a)]$
283: and
284: $ p_{43}(t_b | t_a) = E_L^{-1}(t_a) [p_{43}(t_b | 0) - p_{43}( t_a | 0)
285: \cdot E_L(t_b-t_a)]$
286: where $ p_{21}(t | 0) = E_S(t) Q_-(t) - \rho(t)$ and $ p_{43}(t | 0) =
287: E_L(t) Q_-(t) + \rho(t)$.
288: Finally, $\rho(t)$ is a function not perfectly determined in the model (see
289: discussion in Ref. \cite{Sel1}), but which is limited by
290: \bea
291: -E_S Q_+ \le \rho \le E_S Q_- \cr
292: -E_L Q_- \le \rho \le E_L Q_+ \cr
293: \label{ro}
294: \eea
295:
296:
297: If the total efficiency is 1, the LRM probability of observing a $\bar K_0
298: \bar K_0$ pair is given by the sum of the four probabilities of Eq. \ref{P}
299: multiplied for $1/4$. It is rather different from the quantum mechanical
300: prediction and thus represents a good test of the LRM (see fig. 1, where $
301: P[\bar{K_0}(t_a), \bar{K_0}(2 t_a)]$ is reported in analogy to Table 1 of
302: Ref. \cite{Sel1}). Nevertheless, when the total efficiency is lower than 1,
303: the different probabilities can contribute in different way as the hidden
304: variables, which determines the passing or not the test, could also be
305: related to the decay properties of the meson pair. As discussed
306: previously, the specific property of the meson is not being or not a $\bar
307: K_0$ at a certain proper time, but the hidden variables values characterise
308: it completely, and thus, in principle, even its decay properties.
309: If this is the case, different coefficients $a_i$ can multiply the four
310: probabilities. One has therefore:
311: \bea
312: P[\bar{K_0}(t_a), \bar{K_0}(t_b)]= 1 / 4 \cdot \left[ a_1 P_1 [t_a,t_b] +
313: a_2 P_2 [t_a,t_b] + a_3 P_3 [t_a,t_b] + a_4 P_4 [t_a,t_b] \right]
314: \eea
315:
316: The freedom of the choice of this parameters allow to reproduce the quantum
317: mechanical prediction.
318: In figure 2 we report the case corresponding to a total efficiency of 0.3
319: (other values can be obtained by scaling): the lowest limit curve of local
320: realism can easily reproduce or be lower than the quantum mechanics
321: prediction when different weights multiply the four probabilities, due to
322: different branching ratios for the 4 cases.
323: As an example, the curve corresponding to LRM with weights $a_1=1$,$a_2=
324: 0.07$,$a_3= 0.03$ and $a_4=0.1$ is shown. For the sake of simplicity, in
325: this example the values of $a_i$ are chosen such that their sum is the
326: total efficiency, but the value of the $a_i$ are substantially very little
327: constrained as they can depend on the time: only the total fraction of
328: observed decays should be reproduced.
329: Furthermore, the result is obtained with $\rho=0$. Thanks to the large
330: arbitraryness of $\rho$, other choices would even allow to reproduce
331: easier the quantum mechanics result (as we have calculated for a lot of
332: different choices of $\rho$). It must be emphasised that the LRM curve in
333: fig.2 is not a fit to the quantum mechanics curve, but only a simple
334: choice showing the effect we are discussing. Considering the large
335: arbitrary of a general HVT, our purpose is only to show a counterexample,
336: which proves that observation of the curve predicted by SQM cannot exclude
337: {\it every } HVT. Of course, as all Bell inequalities tests performed up to
338: now, a result in agreement with SQM will further reduce the space for the
339: existence of a realistic HVT, even if unable to obtain the general result
340: of eliminating the possible existence of HVT.
341:
342: Let us notice that situation 1 and 4, 2 and 3 are symmetric under the
343: exchange of left and right, however the decay probabilities need not to be
344: the same. Furthermore, let us emphasise again that, in principle, inside
345: this model the coefficients could even be function of the time $a_i(t)$,
346: like the value for the hidden variable $\lambda_2$. This property of course
347: makes easier to reproduce the quantum mechanics prediction.
348: Thus, when only a subsample is selected (semileptonic $\Delta S = \Delta
349: Q$ decays must be observed for tagging a $\bar K_0 \bar K_0$ state and cuts
350: must be introduced) the result of this analysis shows that detection
351: loophole appears also in this case. Of course we are not discussing how the
352: local realistic model should be, or if its complexity makes it
353: unpalatable, we are simply investigating if every local realistic model
354: could be excluded without any doubt by such experiments and we conclude
355: that one is focused to introduce the additional hypothesis that the
356: observed sample is unbiased concerning the hidden variables values.
357: Even if for some specific function $\rho(t)$, it could not be possible, for
358: time independent decay properties, to obtain
359: a perfect agreement between LRM and SQM, for the function $\rho(t)$ is not
360: fixed for a general LRM, this does not modify our conclusions.
361:
362: Exactly the same considerations apply for what concerns the $B_0
363: \bar{B_0}$ case.
364: A first set of papers \cite{BF} consider the possibility to test SQM
365: measuring the term deriving by interference between the two terms in the
366: entangled wave function of Eq. \ref{psi}. However, this effect is also
367: reproduced in any reasonable HVT \cite{Sel2} and thus cannot be considered
368: a general test of local realism, but can only allow to eliminate some
369: specific class of hidden variable theories.
370: As the model of Ref. \cite{Sel2} is, with small changes due to the same
371: decay time for both the CP eigenstates, equivalent to the one we have
372: discussed in the previous paragraph, the same conclusions hold.
373:
374: In conclusion, even if tests of local realism using pseudoscalar mesons
375: represent an interesting new way of investigating quantum non-locality in a
376: new sector, it still appears to us that none of the proposed schemes
377: permits a conclusive test of local realism, for the impossibility of
378: eliminating the detection loophole.
379:
380:
381:
382: \vfill \eject
383:
384: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
385:
386: \bibitem{EPR} A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 47 (1935) 77.
387:
388: \bibitem{Bell} J.S. Bell, Physics 1 (1965) 195.
389:
390: \bibitem{Mandel} see L. Mandel, and E. Wolf, Optical Coherence and Quantum
391: Optics,
392: Cambridge University Press, 1995 and references therein.
393:
394: \bibitem{asp} A. Aspect et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 49 (1982) 1804.
395:
396: \bibitem{franson} J. P. Franson, {Phys. Rev. Lett.} 62 (1989) 2205.
397:
398: \bibitem{type1} J. G. Rarity and P. R. Tapster, {Phys. Rev. Lett.} 64
399: (1990) 2495;
400: J. Brendel et al., Eur.Phys.Lett. 20 (1992) 275; P. G. Kwiat et al., {Phys.
401: Rev.} A 41 (1990) 2910; W. Tittel et al, quant-ph 9806043.
402:
403: \bibitem{type2} T.E. Kiess et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 71 (1993) 3893; P.G.
404: Kwiat et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 4337.
405:
406: \bibitem{ou} Z.J. Ou and L. Mandel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61 (1988) 50;
407: Y.H.Shih et al., Phys. Rev. A 47 (1993) 1288.
408:
409: \bibitem{santos} E. Santos, Phys. Lett. A 212 (1996) 10; L. De Caro and A.
410: Garuccio, {Phys. Rev.} A 54 (1996) 174 and references therein.
411:
412:
413: \bibitem{eb} P. H. Eberhard, {Phys. Rev.} A 47 (1993) R747.
414:
415: \bibitem{dem} J.R.Torgerson et al., {Phys. Lett.} A 204 (1995) 323; G.Di
416: Giuseppe, F.De Martini and D.Boschi, Physical Review A 56 (1997) 176;
417: D.Boschi,
418: S.Branca, F.De Martini and L.Hardy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1998) 2755.
419:
420: \bibitem{garuccio} A. Garuccio, {Phys. Rev.} A 52 (1995) 2535.
421:
422: \bibitem{nos} M. Genovese, G. Brida, C. Novero and E. Predazzi, \PLA 268
423: (2000) 12.
424:
425:
426: \bibitem{Yam} S. Takeuchi et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 74 (1999) 1.
427:
428: \bibitem{Win} M. A. Rowe et al., Nature 409 (2001) 791.
429:
430: \bibitem{Vai} L. Vaidman, quant-ph 0102139.
431:
432: \bibitem{Tho} C. Thompson, quant-ph/9611037, 9711044, 9903066 and 9912082.
433:
434: \bibitem{BellK} P.H. Eberhard, Nucl. Phys. B 398 (1993) 155; A. Di
435: Domenico, Nucl. Phys. B 450 (1995) 293; B. Ancochea, \PRD 60 (1999)
436: 094008; A. Bramon and M. Nowakowski, \PRL 83 (1999) 1; N. Gisen and A. Go,
437: quant-ph 0004063; B.C. Hiesmayr, hep-ph0010108.
438:
439: \bibitem{gh} G.C. Ghirardi et al., The DA$\Phi$NE Physical handbook, edited
440: by L. Maiani, G. Pancheri and N. Paver (INFN, Frascati 1992) Vol. I.
441:
442: \bibitem{Sel1} P. Privitera and F. Selleri, \PLB 296 (1992) 261; F.
443: Selleri, \PRA 56 (1997) 3493.
444:
445: \bibitem{Sel2} A. Pompili and F. Selleri, Eur. Phys. Journ. C 14 (2000) 469.
446:
447: \bibitem{PDB} Particle data book, D.E. Groom et al., Eur. Phys. Journ. C 15
448: (2000) 1.
449:
450: \bibitem{BF} R.A. Bertlmann and W. Grimus, \PLB 392 (1997) 426; \PRD 58
451: (1998) 034014; G.V. Dass and K.V.L. Sarma, Eur. Phys. J. C5 (1998) 283.
452:
453: \bibitem{CLEO} A. Apostolakis et al., \PLB 422 (1998) 339.
454:
455: \end{thebibliography}
456:
457: \vskip 1cm
458: {\bf Figures Captions}
459:
460: Fig.1 The SQM and the minimal LRM predictions for $ P[\bar{K_0}(t_a),
461: \bar{K_0}(2 t_a)]$ ($\rho=0$). The minimal LRM is largely above the SQM
462: prediction. For the sake of completeness we report the four probabilities
463: $P_i$ in function of the proper time $t_a$ ($t_b = 2 t_a$) as well. The
464: dashing of the curves diminishes in this order.
465:
466: Fig.2 The SQM (dashed) and the minimal LRM, $\rho=0$, (thick) predictions
467: for $ P[\bar{K_0}(t_a), \bar{K_0}(2 t_a)]$ keeping into account a total
468: detection efficiency of 0.3. With the choice $a_1=1, a_2=0.07, a_3=0.03,
469: a_4= 0.1$ the two curves substantially coincides. For other choices of the
470: parameters the lower bound of LRM can be easily taken largely under SQM
471: prediction.
472: \end{document}
473: