1: % 1) latex apssamp.tex
2: % 2) bibtex apssamp
3: % 3) latex apssamp.tex
4: % 4) latex apssamp.tex
5: %
6:
7:
8: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs]{revtex4}
9:
10: % Some other (several out of many) possibilities
11: %\documentclass[preprint,eqsecnum,aps]{revtex4}
12: %\documentclass[eqsecnum,aps,draft]{revtex4}
13: %\documentclass[prb]{revtex4} % Physical Review B
14:
15: \usepackage{graphicx}
16: \usepackage{dcolumn}
17: \usepackage{amsmath}
18:
19:
20:
21: % NOTICE: the following definitions are only for the sake of formatting
22: % the LaTeX commands incorporated into this particular document.
23: % You will not need them for a typical Physical Review paper;
24: % you should *not* include them in your own documents.
25: \makeatletter
26: \def\btt#1{\texttt{\@backslashchar#1}}%
27: \DeclareRobustCommand\bblash{\btt{\@backslashchar}}%
28: \makeatother
29:
30: %\nofiles
31:
32: \begin{document}
33:
34: %\preprint{SdL/0901}
35:
36: \title[Timelapse]{TIMELAPSE}
37:
38: \author{Stefano De Leo}
39: \email{deleo@ime.unicamp.br}
40: %\homepage{http://www.ime.unicamp.br/~deleo}
41: %\thanks{Partially supported by FAEP.}
42: \affiliation{Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Campinas\\
43: PO Box 6065, SP 13083-970, Campinas, Brazil\\
44: }
45:
46: \author{Pietro Rotelli}
47: \email{rotelli@le.infn.it}
48: \affiliation{Department of Physics and INFN, University of Lecce\\
49: PO Box 193, I 73100, Lecce, Italy}
50:
51: \date{November 29, 2001}
52: % It is always \today, today, but you may specify any date with \date.
53:
54: \begin{abstract}
55: \vspace*{0.5cm}
56: We discuss the existence in an arbitrary frame of a finite time for the
57: transformation of an initial quantum state into another e.g. in a decay.
58: This leads to the introduction of a timelapse $\tilde{\tau}$ in analogy with
59: the lifetime of a particle. An argument based upon the Heisenberg uncertainty
60: principle suggests the value of $\tilde{\tau}=1 / M_0$. Consequences for the
61: exponential decay formula and the modifications that $\tilde{\tau}$ introduces
62: into the Breit-Wigner mass formula are described.
63: \end{abstract}
64:
65: \pacs{03.64.-w; 13.90.+i}
66: % PACS, the Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme.
67: %\keywords{Suggested keywords}%Use showkeys class option if keyword
68: %display desired
69: \maketitle
70:
71: %\tableofcontents
72:
73: %\section{First-level heading:\protect\\
74: %The line break was forced via \bblash}
75: %\label{sec:level1}
76:
77: %\subsection{Second-level heading:\protect\\
78: %The line break was forced via \bblash}
79: %\label{sec:level2}
80:
81: The subject of this paper concerns the exponential decay law and the
82: Breit-Wigner (BW) mass distribution formula. These formulas are a standard
83: part of particle physics and can indeed be connected by a simple transform,
84: as is taught in many undergraduate physics courses~\cite{HM}.
85: In recent years the
86: validity of the B-W has been demonstrated to an unprecedent degree by the
87: LEP data
88: and analysis upon the Z gauge particle~\cite{DRE}.
89: After substantial theoretical
90: corrections for radiative effects the predicted theoretical widht
91: (assuming three light neutrinos) and the experimental value,
92: {\em based upon a B-W fit}, agree to better than one per cent. We will be
93: interested later in the small discrpancy but our first observation is that
94: the agreement is quit impressive.
95: These facts are somewhat surprising because neither the exponential
96: decay law nor the B-W mass curve is predicted rigorously within
97: Quantum Mechanics (QM). On the contrary we have precise QM objections to
98: the former~\cite{KHA,SW} and only approximate derivations of the
99: latter~\cite{WW,COH}.
100: Nor does a field theoretical treatment change
101: the situation. To some these QM results relegate our two formulas to
102: little more than phenomenological games. We in the other hand start from
103: these two formulas and argue for a modification which will in part
104: reconcile the decay law with QM, and provide an explanation for the
105: discrpancy in the Z widht described above.
106:
107: One of the implicit assumptions in particle physics is that decays occur
108: instantaneously. However, as Einstein has taught us, istantaneity,
109: for anything other than a point, can
110: at best be valid in a single
111: Lorentz frame. Thus even if, say in its rest frame, a particle decayed
112: instantaneously, a general observer would find different times for decays at
113: different points within the wave packet. Of course, this could only be
114: determined in a statistical sense since the wave function is not an
115: observable. Thus, in general, there will
116: exist times during which the quantum state is neither the initial nor the
117: final state but a {\it linear combination} of both which tends towards the
118: later with increasing time. We shall call a measure of this time interval
119: the ``timelapse''.
120:
121: There is only one exception to the above
122: observations, a measurement process may involve (ideally) the localization
123: in space and time of a particle. This collapse of the wave function is
124: instantaneous for all observers (it defines the corresponding event in
125: each frame) and is fundamentally irreversible since the creation of a
126: particle at a given space time point cannot instantaneously inflate to
127: finite space regions without violating the limiting velocity of
128: light. The collapse of the wave function is a subject of great
129: interest in itself but will not concern us further in this paper.
130:
131: Why cannot we avoid the discussion of
132: timelapse by considering particle or state creation to be a delta
133: function in space and time? Firstly because in many practical problems
134: we know this not to be the case, such as for a particle {\it trapped}
135: within a potential well e.\,g. a muon within a muonic atomic state.
136: Secondly because we often know or desire to
137: study particles which approximate energy-momentum eigenstates and this
138: implies {\it large} spatial dimensions.
139:
140: An earlier introduction of a type of timelapse is contained in the book
141: of Jackson~\cite{JAC}. In one of the classical derivations of essentially
142: quantum effects, Jackson
143: introduces the ``formation time'' of the electron in nuclear beta
144: decay. Arguing that the outgoing energetic electron could be
145: considered to have been accelerated from rest to its final velocity
146: over a finite formation time, he calculates the induced
147: spectrum of radiation by the electron, the {\it inner
148: bremsstrahlung}. Jackson also notes that the same effect would result if
149: the charge were {\it created} over the same time interval. Invoking the
150: uncertainty principle, he evaluates this time interval $\Delta t$
151: as
152: \begin{equation}
153: \label{dtde}
154: \Delta t \sim 1 / E~,
155: \end{equation}
156: where $E$ is the electron's energy. Now, while acknowledging precedence
157: for the idea of a formation time to Jackson, his approach is
158: significantly different from ours. The use of the particles energy in
159: Eq.~(\ref{dtde}) implies that different particles take different times
160: for acceleration. Of course,
161: the antineutrino does not contribute to the inner bremsstrahlung and
162: the heavy nucleon contributions are negligible, so
163: this may appear an academic question.
164: However, to us, it is obvious that the same timelapse must occur for
165: each of the particles in the final state, independent of their final
166: energy or momentum. It is not conceivable that the outgoing electron has
167: been created with certainty close to one while the antineutrino is
168: perhaps to all extents still to be created.
169: We shall take
170: care to define for {\it each decay} a common timelapse that depends
171: at most upon the kinematics of the initial system
172: in a preferential Lorentz frame. Of course, one must
173: also guarantee
174: that the timelapse of the outgoing state coincides with that of
175: the vanishing incoming state.
176:
177: Is the timelapse a function of the
178: spatial localization of the quantum state?
179: We believe not. There {\it is} a $\Delta t$ directly connected to $\Delta x$
180: but this is what we might call ``passage time''. Consider a single
181: particle with a sufficiently large $\Delta x$ to be an approximate
182: $(E,p,0,0)$ eigenstate (for simplicity we take its momentum to be
183: along the $x$ axis). Using the uncertainty principle
184: $\Delta x \Delta p \sim 1$ and the Einstein relation $E^2 = p^2 + M^2$,
185: we find
186: \[
187: \Delta x \rightarrow \Delta p \rightarrow \Delta E = p \Delta p / E \sim
188: v / \Delta x
189: \]
190: hence
191: \begin{equation}
192: \Delta t \sim \Delta x /v~,
193: \end{equation}
194: where $v$ is the velocity of the particle. Thus $\Delta t$ is for our
195: wave packet a measure of the time it takes to pass a given $y$-$z$
196: plane, hence the name passage time.
197: This $\Delta t$ obviously has nothing to do with a timelapse, and
198: indeed becomes infinite in the particle rest frame. On the other hand,
199: we expect, from the approximate validity of the exponential decay law,
200: that timelapse
201: must be small compared to the lifetime of a particle in
202: any frame, see below.
203:
204: We believe that timelapse must be a close relative to lifetime. As for
205: lifetime, we will define it in the rest frame of an initial single
206: particle state, or more precisely the frame in which the average
207: velocity is null.
208: In analogy with the lifetime $\tau$,
209: we shall denote the timelapse for a process by $\tilde{\tau}$.
210: What does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
211: tell us? Well, we have excluded a connection to $\Delta E$ and we can
212: also exclude the half width $\Delta M$ for a decay particle since this is
213: reserved for $\tau$
214: \begin{equation}
215: \label{dm}
216: \tau = 1 / \Delta M~.
217: \end{equation}
218: %Indeed, we would be hard put to interpret or extend $\Delta M$
219: %to a multiparticle interaction.
220: This leaves us with essentially only one choice
221: \begin{equation}
222: \label{m0}
223: \tilde{\tau} = 1 / M_0
224: \end{equation}
225: for a decaying particle with central mass $M_0$.
226:
227: Now a decay of a composite particle such as a $J/\psi$ may be considered an
228: annihilation and/or interaction at the quark level. Thus, timelapses for
229: interactions should also be defined. The natural choice for $\tilde{\tau}$
230: in these cases is
231: \begin{equation}
232: \label{ecm}
233: \tilde{\tau} = 1 / E_{CM}~,
234: \end{equation}
235: where $E_{CM}$ is the center of mass energy.
236: Equation (\ref{ecm}) would automatically include Eq.~(\ref{m0})
237: if it where not for the fact that a given decay may occur at a mass
238: diverse from $M_0$ due to the existence of mass curves. To reconcile
239: the two, we should modify Eq.~(\ref{m0}) to read
240: \begin{equation}
241: \label{m}
242: \tilde{\tau} = 1 / M~,
243: \end{equation}
244: but in the subsequent applications, in this paper
245: we will employ Eq.~(\ref{m0}) for simplicity.
246:
247: How does the existence of a $\tilde{\tau}$ modify the
248: exponential decay law? This can easily
249: be derived after assuming a given analytic form for a state during
250: timelapse. For simplicity and in analogy with the original decay law,
251: we shall assume this to be an exponential form. Exponential decreasing
252: $\exp [- t / \tilde{\tau}]$ for the incoming state and its complement,
253: $1 - \exp [- t / \tilde{\tau}]$, for the corresponding outgoing
254: state.
255: Thus when we consider an ensemble of $N(t)$ particles with a given
256: lifetime $\tau$ and timelapse $\tilde{\tau}$ we must divide them into
257: two classes: $N_u$, the number of undecayed particles, and $N_d$,
258: those that have begun the decay process but have still a residual probability
259: of being found in a measurement of $N(t)$. $N_d$ would be zero if
260: instantaneous decay ($\tilde{\tau}=0$) were valid.
261:
262: The differential equation that governs $N_u (t)$ is the standard one
263: \begin{equation}
264: \label{nu}
265: \mbox{d} {N}_{u}(t) = - \, \frac{1}{\tau} \, N_{u}(t) \, \mbox{d}t
266: \end{equation}
267: while that for $N_d (t)$ must allow for a source term proportional to
268: d$N_u (t)$,
269: \begin{equation}
270: \label{nd}
271: \mbox{d} {N}_{d}(t) = - \, \frac{1}{\tilde{\tau}} \, N_{d}(t) \, \mbox{d} t
272: - \mbox{d}{N}_{u}(t)
273: \end{equation}
274: the negative sign in front of the last term is the correct one since
275: $\mbox{d}{N}_u (t) < 0$ for $\mbox{d}t > 0$.
276:
277: Now solving these coupled equations and using as initial condition
278: $N_{d}(0)=0$, we find
279: \begin{equation}
280: \label{mdl}
281: N(t) = \frac{N(0)}{ \tau - \tilde{\tau}} \, \, \left[ \, \tau
282: \, \exp \left( - \, \frac{t}{\tau} \, \right) - \tilde{\tau}
283: \, \exp \left( - \, \frac{t}{\tilde{\tau}} \, \right) \right] ~.
284: \end{equation}
285: This is the modification of the standard exponential decay law that
286: our timelapse $\tilde{\tau}$ introduces. Note that for
287: $\tilde{\tau}=0$
288: we obtain the single exponential form and
289: the limit $\tau = 0$ yields an exponential decay with
290: lifetime $\tilde{\tau}$. Whence $\tilde{\tau}=1/M_0$ sets a lower limit to
291: the effective lifetime and hence an upper limit to the half width.
292:
293: A simple calculation yields for the effective lifetime $\tau_{eff}$
294: \begin{equation}
295: \label{elfa}
296: \tau_{eff} = \left( \tau^{3} - \tilde{\tau}^{3} \right) /
297: \left( \tau^{2} - \tilde{\tau}^{2} \right)~.
298: \end{equation}
299: For $\tilde{\tau} \ll \tau$, we can write
300: \begin{equation}
301: \label{elf}
302: \tau_{eff} = \tau \, \left[ 1 + \epsilon^2 +
303: \mbox{O} \left( \epsilon^3 \right) \right]~,
304: \end{equation}
305: where $\epsilon=\tilde{\tau}/ \tau$.
306: However, we note that the decay rate $\Gamma$ remains
307: connected to $\tau$, $\Gamma = 1 / \tau$. This follows from our
308: assumption that $\tilde{\tau} \sim 1 / M_0$ and hence is {\it
309: independent} of any interaction coupling constants in contrast to
310: $\Gamma$ and $\tau$ which obviously are directly dependent.
311:
312: Another, very interesting, observation is that, for very small $t$,
313: Eq.~(\ref{mdl}) has no linear term in $t$. Indeed for $t \ll
314: \tilde{\tau} \, , \, \tau$
315: \begin{equation}
316: \label{mdl2}
317: N(t) = N(0) \left[ 1 - \frac{\, t^2}{2 \tau \tilde{\tau}} +
318: \mbox{O}\left(t^3 \right) \right]~.
319: \end{equation}
320: This reconciles, for short times, our modified decay law (no longer a single
321: exponential) with basic quantum mechanical arguments~\cite{NAM,ARN,TQM} which
322: have led,
323: amongst other things, to the so called quantum Zeno effect~\cite{ZEN,ZEN2}.
324: This at least in principle allows
325: $\tilde{\tau}$ to be calculated, from Eq.~(\ref{mdl2}) and the quantum
326: mechanical result $P(t) = 1 - t^2 ( \Delta H )^2 + ...$~\cite{TQM2},
327: specifically $\tilde{\tau} = 1 / \left[ 2 \tau ( \Delta H )^2 \right] =
328: \Gamma / \left[ 2 ( \Delta H )^2 \right]$.
329:
330: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
331:
332: \begin{figure}
333: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm, height=10cm, angle=0]{tlf1.ps}
334: \caption{The decay law $N(t)/N(0)$ versus $t/\tau$ for various values
335: of $\epsilon$.}
336: \label{fig_1}
337: \end{figure}
338:
339: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
340:
341:
342: In Fig.~(\ref{fig_1}), we show the modification of
343: $| \psi(t)|^2\equiv P(t)$ for various $\epsilon$
344: values. In this
345: plot the increase of the effective lifetime is evident, as is the
346: annulment of $\mbox{d}{P}(t) / \mbox{d}t$ (insert)
347: for $t \rightarrow 0$, source of
348: the quantum Zeno effect.
349: The direct measurement of
350: $| \psi(t) |^2$ is often
351: possible (e.g. in muon decay). However, for muons
352: $\epsilon \sim 3 \times 10^{-16}$ so that no
353: effect due to $\tilde{\tau}$ could ever be detected.
354:
355:
356:
357: Let us now calculate the modification in the standard Breit-Wigner
358: mass formula produced by Eq.~(\ref{mdl}). We have
359: \[
360: | \psi(t) | \propto \exp \left( - \, \frac{t}{2 \tau} \, \right) \,
361: \left\{ 1 - \epsilon \, \exp \left[ \, \frac{t \left( \epsilon -
362: 1 \right)}{ \epsilon \tau} \, \right] \right\}^{1/2}~.
363: \]
364: Hence,
365: \begin{eqnarray*}
366: \chi(x) & = & \int_{0}^{\infty} \, \mbox{d}t \, \exp
367: \left( i \, \frac{x}{2 \tau} \, t
368: \right) \, | \psi(t) |\\
369: & \propto & \frac{1}{x + i} - \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \, \frac{\, n!!}{2^n \, n!}
370: \, \frac{\epsilon^n}{x + i \, a_n}
371: \end{eqnarray*}
372: where $x=2 \tau (M-M_0)$ and $a_n=1+ 2n ( 1-\epsilon) / \epsilon$.
373: Treating $\epsilon$ as a small quantity, we may perform an
374: analytic calculation of $\left| \chi(x) \right|^2$
375: to lowest order in $\epsilon$. We find for our modified Breit-Wigner ($MBW$)
376: \begin{widetext}
377: \begin{equation}
378: \label{mbw}
379: MBW \equiv \left| \chi(x) \right|^2
380: = BW \, \left\{ 1
381: - \epsilon \, \, \frac{x^2+a_1}{x^2+a_1^2} + \frac{\, \epsilon^2}{4} \, \left[
382: \, \frac{7}{2} +
383: \frac{x^2+1}{x^2+a_1^2} - \frac{x^2+a_2}{x^2+a_2^2} \right] + \mbox{O} \left(
384: \epsilon^3 \right)
385: \right\}
386: \end{equation}
387: \end{widetext}
388: where
389: $BW = 2 \tau M_0 / \left\{
390: \left[ \pi /2 + \arctan \left( 2 \tau M_0 \right) \right]
391: \left(x^2 + 1 \right) \right\}$ is the standard Breit-Wigner.
392:
393:
394: Now $\epsilon$ is so small for almost all weak or electromagnetic decays that
395: one might think to pass directly to the strong decays in the search of
396: evidence for a $MBW$. However,
397: of all the weak processes a special role is played by the decays of the heavy
398: intermediate vector bosons $W$ and $Z$. These have widths of {\it several GeV}
399: and thus correspond to
400: $\epsilon$ of a few $\%$. Furthermore, the data upon
401: the $Z$ is particularly precise with errors in $M_{Z}$ and $\Gamma_Z$ of order
402: $10^{-5}$. The LEP data have yielded such precise results that there is even
403: a two standard deviation from theory in $\Gamma_Z$. This is expressed
404: by two equivalent numbers~\cite{DRE}
405: \[
406: \Gamma_{inv} = - 2.7^{\, +1.7}_{\, -1.5} ~ \mbox{MeV}
407: \]
408: and/or
409: \[
410: N_\nu = 2.9841 \pm 0.0083
411: \]
412: Now for the $Z$ we can apply the small $\epsilon$ formula given above since
413: $\epsilon_Z=2.7 \%$.
414: From this formula (see also Fig.~\ref{fig_2} below) we readily see that:\\
415: (1) The maximum modification to the {\em underlying}
416: Breit-Wigner ($\tilde{\tau}=0$)
417: is at $M=M_{0}$ i.e. at the peak. This effect is an increase of the peak
418: value by $1 + 3 \epsilon^2 / 8$. Note, however, that this underlying
419: Breit-Wigner must not be
420: confused with the {\em best fit} Breit-Wigner need
421: to the data in the presence of a
422: non negligible $\tilde{\tau}$.
423: \\
424: (2) The halfwidth of the underlying Breit-Wigner and the modified
425: Breit-Wigner are almost the same for small $\epsilon$. That of the $MBW$
426: is reduced by a factor of order
427: $\epsilon^3$ and not $\epsilon^2$ as might have been expected from
428: Eq.(\ref{elf}) for the lifetime modification.
429:
430: The smallest errors of the curve are around the peak value $M=M_0$.
431: In a fit with a Breit-Wigner to data in accord with our modified curve one
432: would be inclined to raise the peak value with consequently the same
433: decrease in percentage of the halfwidth. Hence, we expect the {\em fitted
434: Breit-Wigner} to yield a width lower than ours by, at most, the factor
435: $1 - 3 \, \epsilon^2 / 8$. Hence our estimate of $\Gamma_{inv}$ is
436: \[ - 0.7 \, \mbox{MeV} \le \Gamma_{inv} < 0 \]
437: less than $1/4$ of the measured central value. It is amusing to note that
438: using the
439: result $\Gamma_{eff}=(1+ \epsilon^2) \, \Gamma$ one might have expected an
440: effect on
441: $\Gamma_{inv}$ in good agreement with
442: the experimental value.
443:
444:
445:
446: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
447:
448: \begin{figure}[bp]
449: \includegraphics[width=8.8cm, height=10cm, angle=0]{tlf2.ps}
450: \caption{Numerical calculation of the ratio of the modified and
451: standard Breit-Wigner mass formulas
452: $MBW/BW$ versus $M/M_0$ for different values of $\epsilon$.}
453: \label{fig_2}
454: \end{figure}
455:
456: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
457:
458:
459:
460:
461: The modified Breit-Wigner can also be calculated numerically for any
462: $\epsilon$ and in Fig.~(\ref{fig_2}) we show the ratio of this with
463: the underlying Breit-Wigner for various $\epsilon$ values. The width is
464: indeed reduced.
465: From Fig.~(\ref{fig_2}), we see that, for $\epsilon \leq 0.3$ and such that
466: $ 1.4 > M/M_0 > 0.6$, the main modification indeed occurs at $M=M_0$ and is an
467: increase of the order of a few \% or less. This means that no significant
468: evidence for the existence of $\tilde{\tau}$ from mass curves is possible
469: until the individual errors of the data points are of this order or better.
470:
471:
472: Obviously in looking for evidence for our modified Breit-Wigner we
473: are led to consider the
474: largest $\epsilon$ values available. This means particles
475: with strong interaction decays. For example the $\rho(770)$ where
476: $\epsilon \sim 20 \%$.
477: However, the best data points for the $\rho$~\cite{CAP}
478: are somewhat dated and are not
479: yet precise enough to yield evidence for a $\tilde{\tau}$.
480:
481: It is natural to extend the concept of timelapse, from the realm of decays to
482: interactions in general. We have already anticipated that in theses cases
483: $\tilde{\tau}=1/E_{CM}$. However what is $\tilde{\tau}$ to be compared with.
484: What plays here the role of $\tau$? The only thing available is
485: $\sqrt{\sigma}$ the square root of the cross-section. For numerical
486: comparisons, we recall that $\sqrt{60 \, \mbox{mb}} \sim 10^{-23} \, \mbox{s}$
487: while $1 \, \mbox{Gev} \sim 6.6 \, 10^{-25} \, \mbox{s}$.
488:
489:
490:
491: Finally, we wish to discuss briefly our stimulus for this investigation,
492: which seems at first sight far removed from the content of this
493: paper. In {\em oscillation studies} some authors insist that a single time
494: interval is involved. The argument is essentially that both the
495: creation of say a flavor neutrino and its detection, possible as a
496: different flavor, occur at fixed times. Now, as we explained in our
497: introduction, such a situation, {\it instantaneous creation}, could at most
498: be valid in a unique Lorentz frame which improbably coincides with
499: the laboratory. However, the existence of an
500: intrinsic timelapse $\tilde{\tau}$ would imply that instantaneous creation
501: is a myth {\em in any frame}. In practice this means that in interference
502: studies we must deal with multiple times in a similar way that the
503: {\it slippage} of interfering wave packets obliges us to consider
504: multiple distance intervals between creation and observation.
505:
506:
507: In conclusion, we have argued that in an arbitrary frame a wave packet
508: will take a finite time to ``grow'' to, or decay from, its full normalized
509: value. This
510: encouraged us to postulate the existence in the preferential center of
511: mass frame of an intrinsic timelapse $\tilde{\tau}$ in analogy with
512: $\tau$. Such an assumption leads to a modification of the decay
513: formula and consequently of the Breit-Wigner mass formula. We have also
514: suggested that $\tilde{\tau}=1 / E_{CM}$ on the basis of the Heisenberg
515: uncertainty principle. In practice the modification of the decay
516: formula is not experimentally detectable. However, it has, as an aside,
517: reconciled for small times the decay
518: law with basic quantum mechanical arguments ( at
519: least within the hypothesis of an exponential dependence upon
520: $\tilde{\tau}$). The Breit-Wigner mass formula is a more practical
521: tool for detecting a $\tilde{\tau}$.
522: Comparing the fits to the data upon $\rho$ decay suggest that
523: with improved experiments (precision of the order of $10^{-3}$) we could
524: distinguish between the standard and modified Breit-Wigner. Note that
525: with $\epsilon = \Delta M / M_0$ the modified version has no extra free
526: parameters. We may simply compare the best $\chi^2$ fits of both
527: to the data. At the moment the most promising source for evidence of a
528: $\tilde{\tau}$ appears to be in the $Z$ decay. Timelapse provides a
529: justification for the existence of a negative $\Gamma_{inv}$. But
530: we must remember that this is experimentally only a two sigma effect.
531:
532:
533: We thank R.~Anni and G.~Co' for interesting discussions. One of the
534: authors (SdL) is grateful for the kind hospitality at the Physics
535: Department of Lecce University, where the paper was written. This work
536: was partially supported by the FAEP (UniCAMP).
537:
538:
539: %\newpage %Just because of unusual number of tables stacked at end
540:
541: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
542:
543: \bibitem{HM}
544: F. Halzen and A. D. Martin,
545: {\it quarks and Leptons: An Introductory Course in Particle Physics}
546: (John Wiley \& Sons, New York, 1984).
547:
548: \bibitem{DRE}
549: J. Drees,
550: {\it Review of Final LEP Results or A Tribute to LEP}, hep-ex/0110077.
551:
552: \bibitem{KHA}
553: L. A. Khalfin,
554: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 112}, 223 (1982).
555:
556: \bibitem{SW}
557: Y. N. Srivastava and A. Widom,
558: Lett. Nuovo Cimento {\bf 37}, 267 (1983).
559:
560:
561: \bibitem{WW}
562: V. F. Weisskopf and E. Wigner,
563: Z. Physik {\bf 63}, 54 (1930).
564:
565:
566: \bibitem{COH}
567: C. Cohen-Tannoudji, B. Diu and F. Lalo\''e,
568: {\it Quantum Mechanics},
569: (John Wiley \& Sons, New York, 1977), Chap. 13.
570:
571:
572: \bibitem{JAC}
573: J. D. Jackson,
574: {\it Classical Electrodynamics}
575: (John Wiley \& Sons, New York, 1975), Chap. 15.
576:
577: \bibitem{NAM}
578: M. Namiki and N. Mugibayashi,
579: Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 10}, 474 (1953).
580:
581: \bibitem{ARN}
582: E. Arnous and S. Zienau,
583: Helv. Phys. Acta {\bf 34}, 279 (1951).
584:
585: \bibitem{TQM}
586: H. Nakazato, M. Namiki and S. Pascazio,
587: Int. J. Mod. Phys. B {\bf 10}, 247 (1996).
588:
589: \bibitem{ZEN}
590: B. Misra and E. C. G. Sudarshan,
591: J. Math. Phys. {\bf 18}, 756 (1977).
592:
593:
594: \bibitem{ZEN2}
595: P. Facchi, H. Nakazato and S. Pascazio,
596: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 2699 (2001).
597:
598: \bibitem{TQM2}
599: P. Facchi and S. Pascazio,
600: Physica A {\bf 271}, 133 (1999).
601:
602:
603: \bibitem{CAP}
604: L. Capraro {\it et al.},
605: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B288}, 659 (1987).
606:
607: %\bibitem{PDG}
608: %D. E. Groom {\it et al.},
609: %Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 15}, 1 (2000).
610:
611:
612: \end{thebibliography}
613:
614: %\bibliography{_tlapse}% Produces the bibliography via BibTeX.
615:
616: \end{document}
617:
618:
619: % ****** End of file ******
620:
621:
622:
623:
624:
625:
626:
627:
628:
629:
630:
631:
632: