1: \documentclass[prl,twocolumn,showpacs]{revtex4}
2:
3: \usepackage{amsfonts}
4: \usepackage{amssymb}
5: \usepackage{graphicx}
6: \usepackage{pstricks}
7: %\usepackage{axodraw}
8:
9: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
10:
11: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
12: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
13: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
14: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
15: \newcommand{\bpi}{\begin{picture}}
16: \newcommand{\bce}{\begin{center}}
17: \newcommand{\epi}{\end{picture}}
18: \newcommand{\ece}{\end{center}}
19:
20: \def\chic#1{{\scriptscriptstyle #1}}
21: \def\r#1{(\ref{#1})}
22:
23: \begin{document}
24:
25: \title{Novel type of CPT violation for correlated EPR states}
26: %\date{\today}
27:
28: \author{J. Bernab\'eu$^a$}
29: \author{N.E. Mavromatos$^{a,b}$}
30: \author{J. Papavassiliou$^a$}
31: \affiliation{$^a$Departamento de F\'\i sica Te\'orica and IFIC, Centro Mixto,
32: Universidad de Valencia-CSIC,
33: E-46100, Burjassot, Valencia, Spain. \\
34: $^b$King's College London, University of London, Department of Physics,
35: Strand WC2R 2LS, London, U.K.}
36:
37: \begin{abstract}
38:
39: We discuss modifications to the
40: concept of an ``antiparticle'', induced by a breakdown of the CPT symmetry
41: at a fundamental level, realized within an
42: extended class of quantum gravity models.
43: The resulting loss of particle-antiparticle
44: identity in the neutral-meson system
45: induces a breaking of the EPR correlation imposed by Bose statistics.
46: The latter is parametrized by a complex parameter controlling
47: the amount of contamination by the ``wrong'' symmetry state.
48: The physical
49: consequences are studied, and
50: novel observables of CPT-violation
51: in $\phi$ factories are proposed.
52:
53: \end{abstract}
54:
55: \pacs{11.30.Er; 13.25.Es; 03.65.Ud}
56:
57: \preprint{FTUV-03-1015, IFIC/03-45}
58:
59: \maketitle
60:
61: %\vspace{1.cm}
62:
63: The CPT theorem is one of the most profound results of quantum field
64: theory~\cite{cpt}. It is a consequence of Lorentz invariance,
65: locality, as well as quantum mechanics (specifically unitary evolution
66: of a system).
67: One implication of CPT invariance is the equality of the masses
68: between
69: particles and antiparticles.
70: In this respect,
71: the best experimental tests of the CPT symmetry so far
72: have been in the neutral Kaon system, where the equality of
73: particle -- antiparticle masses has been confirmed to better than one part in $10^{17}$~\cite{pdg}.
74: However, this is not the end of the story, given that CPT violation
75: may manifest itself in many subtle ways, thus motivating
76: further experimental searches in various directions.
77:
78: The possibility of a violation of CPT invariance has been considered in a
79: number of theoretical contexts that go beyond conventional local
80: quantum field theory. In several models of
81: quantum gravity (QG), for example,
82: the axioms
83: of quantum field theory, as well as conventional quantum mechanical
84: behaviour, may not be maintained~\cite{hawking} in
85: the presence of special field configurations, such as
86: wormholes, microscopic (Planck size) black holes,
87: and other topologically non-trivial solitonic objects, such as
88: {\it geons}~\cite{geons}.
89: Such configurations are collectively referred to as
90: {\it space time foam}, a terminology coined by
91: J.A. Wheeler~\cite{wheeler}, who first conceived
92: the idea that
93: the structure of {\it quantum} space-time at Planckian scales ($10^{-35}$ m)
94: may actually be fuzzy,
95: characterised by a ``foamy'' nature.
96: Given that such ``objects''
97: cannot be accessible to low-energy observers,
98: it has been argued that
99: a mixed state description must be
100: employed ({\it QG-induced decoherence})~\cite{hawking,ehns},
101: ``tracing'' over them in the context of an effective field theory.
102: In the case of microscopic black holes, for example,
103: the decoherence arises due to the loss of information across microscopic
104: event horizons, leading to complications in defining
105: proper asymptotic state-vectors and thus
106: a Heisenberg scattering matrix.
107: As a corollary of this, it has been argued~\cite{wald}
108: that, in general, CPT invariance in its strong form
109: must be abandoned in quantum gravity.
110: Since in such models the breakdown
111: of the CPT symmetry happens at a fundamental
112: level, it would imply
113: that a proper CPT operator is {\it ill defined}. This in turn would
114: lead to possible deviations from standard quantum mechanical evolution of states~\cite{lopez},
115: which may not be necessarily associated with the mass difference between particle and antiparticle.
116:
117: In addition to such effects on the quantum mechanical evolution of a state, however,
118: the violation of CPT invariance leads to a modified concept of
119: what one calls an {\it antiparticle state}. This is an aspect that has not been
120: discussed previously, and, as we shall argue in the present article, leads to novel
121: observables that could parametrize the CPT violation.
122: Usually the antiparticle
123: is defined as the state with quantum numbers such that, upon
124: interaction with the corresponding particle it produces
125: a state with the quantum numbers of the {\it vacuum} (annihilation).
126: If the CPT operator is well defined, such a state is obtained by the
127: action of this operator on the corresponding particle state. If, however, the operator
128: is ill defined, the particle and antiparticle spaces
129: should be thought of as
130: {\it independent} subspaces of matter states.
131: In this case, the usual assumption for {\it identical states},
132: when supplemented by particle-antiparticle conjugation,
133: in the case of
134: the electrically neutral mesons $K^0$ and ${\overline K}^0$
135: (or $B^0$ and ${\overline B}^0$),
136: which requires their
137: symmetry under the exchange operator ${\cal P}$
138: as a natural consequence of Bose statistics, {\it is relaxed}. This,
139: in turn, modifies the description of (neutral) meson entangled states,
140: and may bring about significant deviations to their EPR correlations.
141: The purpose of this paper is to explore these issues,
142: and propose novel CPT-violating observables for the $\phi-$ and $B-$ factories.
143:
144: In conventional
145: formulations of {\it entangled} meson
146: states~\cite{dunietz,botella,bernabeu}
147: one imposes the requirement of {\it Bose statistics}
148: for the state $K^0 {\overline K}^0$ (or $B^0 {\overline B}^0$),
149: which implies that the physical neutral meson-antimeson state
150: must be {\it symmetric} under the combined operation $C{\cal P}$,
151: with $C$ the charge conjugation and
152: ${\cal P}$ the operator that permutes the spatial coordinates.
153: Specifically, assuming
154: {\it conservation} of angular momentum, and
155: a proper existence of the {\it antiparticle state} (denoted by a bar),
156: one observes that,
157: for $K^0{\overline K}^0$ states which are $C$-conjugates with
158: $C=(-1)^\ell$ (with $\ell$ the angular momentum quantum number),
159: the system has to be an eigenstate of
160: ${\cal P}$ with eigenvalue $(-1)^\ell$.
161: Hence, for $\ell =1$, we have that $C=-$, implying ${\cal P}=-$.
162: As a consequence
163: of Bose statistics this ensures that for $\ell = 1$
164: the state of two identical bosons is forbidden~\cite{dunietz}.
165: As a result, the initial entangled state
166: $K^0{\overline K}^0$ produced in a $\phi $ factory
167: can be written as:
168: {\small
169: \begin{equation}
170: |i> = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|K^0({\vec k}),{\overline K}^0(-{\vec k})>
171: - |{\overline K}^0({\vec k}),{K}^0(-{\vec k})>\right)
172: \label{bbar}
173: \end{equation}}
174: This is the starting point
175: of all formalisms known to date, either
176: in the $K$-system~\cite{dunietz,botella} or
177: in the $B$-system~\cite{bernabeu},
178: including those~\cite{huet}
179: where the evolution
180: of the entangled state is described by non-quantum
181: mechanical terms, in the formalism of \cite{ehns}.
182: In fact, in all these works it has been claimed
183: that the expression in Eq.(\ref{bbar})
184: is actually independent of any assumption about CP, T or CPT symmetries.
185:
186: However, as has been alluded above,
187: the assumptions leading to
188: Eq.(\ref{bbar}) may not be valid if CPT symmetry is violated.
189: In such a case
190: ${\overline K}^0$ cannot be considered
191: as identical to ${K}^0$, and thus the requirement of $C {\cal P} = +$, imposed
192: by Bose-statistics, is relaxed.
193: As a result, the initial entangled state (\ref{bbar})
194: can be parametrised in general as:
195: {\small
196: \begin{eqnarray}
197: |i> &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|K^0({\vec k}),{\overline K}^0(-{\vec k})>
198: - |{\overline K}^0({\vec k}),{K}^0(-{\vec k})> \right) \nonumber \\
199: &+& \frac{\omega}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|K^0({\vec k}),{\overline K}^0(-{\vec k})>
200: + |{\overline K}^0({\vec k}),{K}^0(-{\vec k})> \right)
201: \label{bbarcptv}
202: \end{eqnarray}}
203: where $\omega = |\omega| e^{i\Omega}$
204: is a {\it complex} CPT violating (CPTV) parameter,
205: associated with the non-identical particle nature
206: of the neutral meson
207: and antimeson states. This parameter describes a {\it novel} phenomenon,
208: not included in previous analyses.
209:
210: Notice that an equation such as the one given in
211: (\ref{bbarcptv}) could also be produced as a result
212: of deviations from the laws of quantum mechanics,
213: during the initial decay of the $\phi$ or
214: $\Upsilon$ states. Thus, Eq.(\ref{bbarcptv})
215: could receive contributions from two different effects,
216: and can be thought off as simultaneously parametrizing
217: both of them.
218: In the present article we will assume that Eq.(\ref{bbarcptv})
219: arises solely due to deviations from the identical-particle
220: nature of the neutral Kaon and Antikaon states, while
221: the Hamiltonian evolution of the entangled state is governed entirely
222: by the laws of quantum mechanics. Of course,
223: in an actual QG decoherening
224: situation one may have to invoke non-quantum-mechanical, open-system
225: evolution a\' la \cite{ehns,lopez,huet}; however, this lies beyond
226: the scope of the present work, and will be addressed elsewhere.
227:
228: We now proceed to study the possible consequences of Eq.(\ref{bbarcptv}).
229: To this end, we should first express the initial state in terms of
230: CP eigenstates, and also in terms of mass eigenstates, which will be useful
231: when we discuss decays. In terms of CP eigenstates $K_{\pm} =
232: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left( |K^0> \pm |{\overline K}^0> \right)$,
233: the initial entangled state (\ref{bbarcptv}) reads
234: (for definiteness we concentrate from now on on the $\phi$/Kaons case, although our
235: formalism is generic and applies equally to $B^0$-mesons, {\it etc}):
236: {\small
237: \begin{eqnarray}
238: |i> &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|K_-({\vec k}),K_+(-{\vec k})>
239: - |K_+({\vec k}),K_-(-{\vec k})> \right) \nonumber \\
240: &+& \frac{\omega}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|K_+({\vec k}), K_+(-{\vec k})>
241: - |K_-({\vec k}),K_-(-{\vec k})> \right)
242: \label{bpm}
243: \end{eqnarray}}
244: Notice the appearance of $K_+K_+$ or $K_-K_-$ combinations,
245: as a result of the CPTV parameter $\omega$, which would not exist if the conventional expression
246: (\ref{bbar}) had been used instead of (\ref{bbarcptv}).
247:
248: Let us express now (\ref{bbarcptv}) in terms of
249: physical (mass) eigenstates, defined as
250: $K_S = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + |\epsilon_1^2|}}\left(|K_+>
251: + \epsilon_1 |K_->\right)$,
252: $K_L =
253: \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + |\epsilon_2^2|}}\left(|K_-> + \epsilon_2 |K_+>\right)$,
254: where $\epsilon_1, \epsilon_2$ are complex parameters, and such that,
255: if CPT invariance of the Hamiltonian is assumed (within a quantum mechanical
256: framework), $\epsilon_1=\epsilon_2$, otherwise the quantity
257: $\delta \equiv \epsilon_1 - \epsilon_2$ parametrizes the CPT violation
258: within quantum mechanics. It is convenient to use
259: the CP-violating parameters $\delta$ and
260: $\epsilon \equiv |\epsilon|e^{i\phi_\epsilon} =
261: \frac{\epsilon_1 + \epsilon_2}{2} $
262: to parametrize CPT and
263: T violation in a quantum mechanical framework.
264:
265:
266: \begin{figure}[b]
267: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{ampl.eps}
268: \caption{A typical amplitude corresponding to the decay
269: of, say, a $\phi$ state into final states $X,Y$; $t_i, i=1,2$ denote the
270: corresponding time scales for the appearance of the final products of the
271: decay.}
272: \label{amplitude}
273: \end{figure}
274:
275: In terms of such physical eigenstates, the state (\ref{bbarcptv})
276: is written as (we keep linear terms in the small parameters $\omega$,
277: $\delta$, i.e. in the following we ignore higher-order terms
278: $\omega \delta$, $\delta^2$ {\it etc.})
279: {\small
280: \begin{eqnarray}
281: |i> &=&
282: C \bigg[ \left(|K_S({\vec k}),K_L(-{\vec k})>
283: - |K_L({\vec k}),K_S(-{\vec k})> \right)\nonumber \\
284: &+& \omega \left(|K_S({\vec k}), K_S(-{\vec k})>
285: - |K_L({\vec k}),K_L(-{\vec k})> \right)\bigg]
286: \label{bph}
287: \end{eqnarray}}
288: with $C = \frac{\sqrt{(1 + |\epsilon_1|^2)
289: (1 + |\epsilon_2|^2 )}}{\sqrt{2}(1-\epsilon_1\epsilon_2)}
290: \simeq \frac{1 + |\epsilon^2|}{\sqrt{2}(1 - \epsilon^2)}$.
291: Notice again the presence of combinations $K_S K_S$ and $K_L K_L$ states,
292: proportional to the novel CPTV parameter $\omega$.
293: As we will see,
294: such terms become important when one considers decay channels.
295:
296: Specifically, consider the decay
297: amplitude corresponding to the appearance of a final state $X$
298: at time $t_1$ and $Y$ at time $t_2$, as illustrated in fig. \ref{amplitude}.
299: One assumes (\ref{bph}) for the initial two-Kaon system,
300: after the $\phi$ decay. The time is set $t=0$ at the moment of the decay.
301: Denoting the corresponding amplitude by $A(X,Y)$ we have~\cite{dunietz,botella,bernabeu}:
302: \be
303: A(X,Y) = \langle X|K_S\rangle \langle Y|K_S \rangle \, \cal C \,\left( A_1 + A_2 \right)
304: \label{axy}
305: \ee
306: with
307: \begin{eqnarray}
308: A_1 &=& e^{-i(\lambda_L+\lambda_S)t/2}
309: [\eta_X e^{-i \Delta\lambda \Delta t/2}
310: -\eta_Y e^{i \Delta\lambda \Delta t/2}]\nonumber \\
311: A_2 &=& \omega [ e^{-i \lambda_S t} -
312: \eta_X \eta_Y e^{-i \lambda_L t}]
313: \end{eqnarray}
314: the CPT-allowed and CPT-violating parameters respectively,
315: and
316: $\eta_X = \langle X|K_S\rangle/\langle X|K_L\rangle$ and
317: $\eta_Y =\langle Y|K_S\rangle/\langle Y|K_L\rangle$.
318: Next, one integrates
319: the square of the amplitude
320: over all accessible times $t= t_1 + t_2$,
321: keeping the difference $\Delta t = t_2 - t_1$ as constant.
322: This defines the ``intensity'' $I(\Delta t)$:
323: \begin{eqnarray}
324: I (\Delta t) \equiv \frac{1}{2} \int_{|\Delta t|}^\infty dt\, |A(X,Y)|^2
325: \label{intensity}
326: \end{eqnarray}
327: In what follows we concentrate on identical final states $X=Y=\pi^+\pi^-$,
328: because as we shall argue they are the most sensitive channels to probe
329: the novel effects associated with the CPTV parameter $\omega$.
330: Indeed~\cite{pdg} the amplitudes
331: of the
332: CP violating decays $K_L \to \pi^+\pi^-$ are
333: suppressed by factors of order ${\cal O}(10^{-3})$,
334: as compared to the principal
335: decay mode of $K_S \to \pi^+\pi^-$.
336: In the absence of CPTV $\omega$, (\ref{bbar}), due to the
337: $K_SK_L$ mixing, such decay rates would be suppressed. This would not
338: be the case, however, when the CPTV $\omega$ (\ref{bbarcptv}) parameter
339: is non zero, due to the existence
340: of a separate $K_SK_S$ term in that case ((\ref{bph})).
341: This implies that the
342: relevant parameter for CPT violation
343: in the intensity is $\omega/\eta_X$, which enhances
344: the potentially observed effect.
345:
346:
347: \begin{figure}[tb]
348: \includegraphics[width=4.2cm]{fig2.eps}
349: \includegraphics[width=4.2cm]{fig4.eps}
350: \includegraphics[width=4.2cm]{fig1.eps}
351: \includegraphics[width=4.2cm]{fig3.eps}
352: \caption{Characteristic cases of the intensity $I(\Delta t)$,
353: with $|\omega|=0$ (solid line) vs $I(\Delta t)$
354: (dashed line) with (from top left to right): (i) $|\omega|=|\eta_{+-}|$,
355: $\Omega = \phi_{+-} - 0.16\pi$, (ii) $|\omega|=|\eta_{+-}|$,
356: $\Omega = \phi_{+-} + 0.95\pi$, (iii) $|\omega|=0.5|\eta_{+-}|$,
357: $\Omega = \phi_{+-} + 0.16\pi$, (iv) $|\omega|=1.5 |\eta_{+-}|$,
358: $\Omega = \phi_{+-}$. $\Delta t$ is measured in units of $\tau_S$ (the
359: mean life-time of $K_S$) and
360: $I(\Delta t)$ in units of
361: $|C|^2 |\eta_{+-}|^2 |\langle\pi^{+}\pi^{-}|K_S\rangle|^4 \tau_S$.}
362: \label{intensityfigure}
363: \end{figure}
364: Substituting in Eq.(\ref{intensity})
365: $|A(\pi^{+}\pi^{-},\pi^{+}\pi^{-})|^2 =
366: |\langle\pi^{+}\pi^{-}|K_S\rangle|^4
367: ( |A_1|^2 + |A_2|^2
368: + 2 \Re e \{A_1 A_2^{*}\} )$
369: and integrating over $t$ we obtain
370: \be
371: I(\Delta t) = |\langle\pi^{+}\pi^{-}|K_S\rangle|^4
372: |C|^2 |\eta_{+-}|^2 \bigg[
373: I_1 + I_2 + I_{12} \bigg]
374: \ee
375: with
376: \begin{eqnarray}
377: I_1 (\Delta t) &=&
378: \frac{e^{-\Gamma_S \Delta t} + e^{-\Gamma_L \Delta t}
379: - 2 e^{-(\Gamma_S+\Gamma_L) \Delta t/2} \cos(\Delta M \Delta t)}
380: {\Gamma_L+\Gamma_S}
381: \nonumber \\
382: I_2 (\Delta t) &=& \frac{|\omega|^2 }{|\eta_{+-}|^2}
383: \frac{e^{-\Gamma_S \Delta t} }{2 \Gamma_S}
384: \nonumber \\
385: I_{12} (\Delta t) &=& - \frac{4}{4 (\Delta M)^2 +
386: (3 \Gamma_S + \Gamma_L)^2}
387: \frac{|\omega|}{|\eta_{+-}|}\times
388: \nonumber \\
389: &&\bigg[ 2 \Delta M
390: \bigg( e^{-\Gamma_S \Delta t} \sin(\phi_{+-}- \Omega) -
391: \nonumber \\
392: && e^{-(\Gamma_S+\Gamma_L) \Delta t/2}
393: \sin(\phi_{+-}- \Omega +\Delta M \Delta t)\bigg)
394: \nonumber \\
395: && - (3 \Gamma_S + \Gamma_L)
396: \bigg(e^{-\Gamma_S \Delta t} \cos(\phi_{+-}- \Omega) -
397: \nonumber \\
398: && e^{-(\Gamma_S+\Gamma_L) \Delta t/2}
399: \cos(\phi_{+-}- \Omega +\Delta M \Delta t)\bigg)\bigg]
400: \nonumber
401: \end{eqnarray}
402: where we have
403: set $\Delta M = M_S - M_L$ and $\eta_{+-}= |\eta_{+-}| e^{i\phi_{+-}}$.
404:
405: The effects of the CPTV $\omega$ on such
406: intensities $I(\Delta t)$ are indicated in figure
407: \ref{intensityfigure}. The order of the CPTV effect
408: is highly model dependent, and hard to evaluate.
409: In line with other generic approaches to QG-decoherening
410: evolution~\cite{ehns,lopez,huet}, which is also
411: associated with an ill definition of the concept of a $CPT$ operator,
412: and thus of the
413: antiparticle,
414: in view of the lack of a well-defined scattering matrix~\cite{wald},
415: one might expect situations in which $\omega$ is of similar order
416: as, say, the QG-decoherening (dimensionless) parameters~\cite{ehns,lopez}
417: ${\widehat \alpha},{\widehat \beta}, {\widehat \gamma}$,
418: where the ${\widehat \dots}$ implies division of the corresponding parameter
419: (with dimensions of energy) with $\Delta \Gamma = \Gamma_S - \Gamma_L$.
420: In optimistic scenaria of QG-induced decoherening situations,
421: the relevant effects are of order $E^2/M_{QG}$,
422: where $E$ a typical average energy of the Kaon system (or rest-mass,
423: in the Lorentz-invariant case),
424: and $M_{QG}$ the QG scale (which could be taken to be
425: the Planck scale $M_P \sim 10^{19}$ GeV). For Kaons, such effects
426: imply that the dimensionless (hatted) quantities are expected to be of
427: order $10^{-3}-10^{-4}$, thereby being well within the sensitivity of
428: $\phi$ factories~\cite{dafne}. Indeed,
429: with $|\omega|\sim 10^{-3}-10^{-4}$
430: the new CPTV effects become comparable to
431: those associated with
432: $|\eta_{+-}| \sim 10^{-3}$; therefore, a precision of $10^{-3}$
433: in $I(\Delta t)$, which is needed in order
434: to observe $\epsilon'$ effects, would probe sensitivities up to
435: $|\omega|\sim 10^{-6}$. It is understood that a similar analysis
436: can be done for the $X=Y=\pi^0\pi^0$ case.
437:
438:
439: We continue with a brief discussion concerning the distinguishability
440: of the $\omega$ effect (\ref{bbarcptv}),(\ref{bph}) from
441: non-quantum mechanical effects associated with the evolution, as
442: in \cite{ehns}.
443: The $\omega$ effect
444: can be distinguished from those
445: of the QG-decoherening evolution parameters $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$, when the formalism
446: is applied to the entangled states $\phi$~\cite{huet,benatti}.
447: A non-quantum mechanical evolution of the entangled Kaon state
448: with $\omega =0$ has been considered in \cite{huet}.
449: In such a case the resulting density-matrix $\phi$ state
450: $\tilde{\rho}_{\phi} ={\rm Tr}|\phi><\phi|$ can be written as
451: \begin{eqnarray}
452: \tilde{\rho}_{\phi} &=&
453: \rho_{S} \otimes \rho_{L} +
454: \rho_{L} \otimes \rho_{S}
455: - \rho_{I}\otimes \rho_{{\overline I}}
456: - \rho_{{\overline I}}\otimes \rho_{I}
457: \nonumber\\
458: &-& \frac{2\beta}{d} (\rho_I \otimes \rho_S + \rho_S \otimes \rho_I )
459: - \frac{2\beta}{d^*} (\rho_{{\overline I}} \otimes \rho _S +
460: \rho_S \otimes \rho_{{\overline I}} )
461: \nonumber\\
462: &+& \frac{2\beta}{d} ( \rho_{{\overline I}} \otimes \rho_L +
463: \rho_L \otimes \rho_{{\overline I}}) +
464: \frac{2\beta}{d^*} ( \rho_I \otimes \rho_L + \rho_L \otimes \rho_I )
465: \nonumber\\
466: &-& \frac{i\alpha}{\Delta M}
467: ( \rho_{I}\otimes \rho_I - \rho_{{\overline I}}
468: \otimes \rho_{{\overline I}})
469: -\frac{2\gamma}{\Delta \Gamma}
470: (\rho_S \otimes \rho_S - \rho_L \otimes \rho_L)
471: \nonumber
472: \end{eqnarray}
473: where the standard notation $\rho_{S} = |S><S|, ~\rho_L = |L><L|,
474: ~\rho_I = |S><L|, ~\rho_{{\overline I}} = |L><S|$ has been employed,
475: $d = -\Delta M + i \Delta \Gamma/2$,
476: and an overall multiplicative factor of
477: $\frac{1}{2}
478: \frac{(1 + 2|\epsilon|^2)}
479: {1 - 2|\epsilon|^2{\rm cos}(2\phi_\epsilon)}$ has been suppressed.
480: On the other hand, the corresponding density matrix description
481: of the $\phi$ state (\ref{bph}) in our case reads:
482: \begin{eqnarray}
483: \rho_\phi &=&
484: \rho_S \otimes \rho_L + \rho_L \otimes \rho_S
485: - \rho_{I}\otimes \rho_{{\overline I}} - \rho_{{\overline I}}\otimes \rho_I
486: \nonumber\\
487: &-& \omega (\rho_I \otimes \rho_S - \rho_S \otimes \rho_I )
488: - \omega^* (\rho_{{\overline I}} \otimes \rho _S -
489: \rho_S \otimes \rho_{{\overline I}} )
490: \nonumber\\
491: &-&
492: \omega ( \rho_{{\overline I}} \otimes \rho_L -
493: \rho_L \otimes \rho_{{\overline I}})
494: - \omega^* ( \rho_I \otimes \rho_L - \rho_L \otimes \rho_I )
495: \nonumber\\
496: &-& |\omega|^2 ( \rho_{I}\otimes \rho_I + \rho_{{\overline I}}
497: \otimes \rho_{{\overline I}}) +
498: |\omega|^2 (\rho_S \otimes \rho_S + \rho_L \otimes \rho_L)
499: \nonumber
500: \end{eqnarray}
501: with the same multiplicative factor suppressed.
502: It is understood that the evolution of both $\tilde{\rho}_{\phi}$
503: and $\rho_\phi$ is governed by the rules given in ~\cite{ehns,lopez,huet}.
504: As we can see by comparing the two equations,
505: the terms linear in $\omega$ in our case
506: are {\it antisymmetric} under the exchange of particle states
507: $1 $ and $2$, {\it in contrast} to the {\it symmetry}
508: of the corresponding terms linear in $\beta$ in the case of \cite{huet}.
509: Similar differences characterize the terms proportional
510: to $|\omega|^2$, and those proportional to $\alpha$ and $\gamma$,
511: which involve $\rho_I \otimes \rho_I$,
512: $\rho_{\overline I} \otimes \rho_{\overline I}$,
513: $\rho_S\otimes \rho_S$, $\rho_L\otimes \rho_L$.
514: Such differences are therefore important
515: in disentangling the $\omega$ CPTV effects proposed here
516: from non-quantum mechanical evolution effects~\cite{ehns,lopez,huet,benatti}.
517:
518: We next comment on the distinguishability
519: of the $\omega$ effect from conventional background effects.
520: Specifically, the mixing of the initial state due to
521: the non-identity of the antiparticle to
522: the corresponding
523: particle state
524: has similar form
525: to that induced by a non-resonant background
526: with $C=+$~\cite{dunietz}. This latter effect is known to have a small size;
527: estimates based on unitarity bounds give a size
528: of many orders of magnitude smaller than the
529: $C=-$ effect in the $\phi$ decays ~\cite{dunietz,dafne}.
530: Terms of the type $K_S K_S$ (which dominate over $K_L K_L$) coming from
531: the $\phi$-resonance as a result
532: of CPTV
533: can be distinguished from those coming from the $C=+$ background
534: because they interfere differently
535: with the regular $C=-$ resonant
536: contribution (i.e. Eq.(\ref{bph}) with $\omega=0$). Indeed,
537: in the CPTV case, the $K_L K_S$ and $\omega K_S K_S$ terms
538: have the same dependence on the center-of-mass energy $s$
539: of the colliding particles producing the
540: resonance,
541: because both terms originate from the $\phi$-particle. Their
542: interference, therefore, being proportional to the real part of the
543: product of the corresponding amplitudes, still displays a peak at the
544: resonance.
545: On the other hand, the amplitude of the $K_S K_S$ coming from the $C=+$ background
546: has no appreciable dependence on $s$ and has practically vanishing imaginary part.
547: Therefore, given that the real part of a Breit-Wigner amplitude vanishes at the
548: top of the resonance, this implies that the
549: interference of the $C=+$ background with the regular $C=-$ resonant contribution
550: vanishes at the top of the resonance,
551: with opposite signs on both sides of the latter.
552: This clearly distinguishes experimentally the two cases.
553:
554:
555: Finally we close with a comment on the
556: application of this formalism to the $B$ factories.
557: Although, formally, the situation is identical to the one discussed above, however
558: the sensitivity of the CPTV $\omega$ effect for the $B$ system is much smaller.
559: This is due to
560: the fact that
561: in $B$ factories there is no particularly ``good''
562: channel $X$ (with $X=Y$) for which
563: the corresponding $\eta_X$ is small.
564: The analysis in that
565: case may therefore be performed in
566: the equal sign
567: dilepton channel, where the
568: branching fraction is more important, and a high statistics
569: is expected. Results will
570: appear in future work.
571:
572:
573: {\it Acknowledgments:} This work has been supported by the
574: CICYT Grant FPA2002-00612
575: and by the European Union (contract HPRN-CT-2000-00152).
576:
577:
578: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
579:
580:
581: \bibitem{cpt}
582: G.~Lueders,
583: %``Proof Of The Tcp Theorem,''
584: Annals Phys.\ {\bf 2}, 1 (1957)
585: [Annals Phys.\ {\bf 281}, 1004 (2000)].
586: %%CITATION = APNYA,2,1;%%
587: R.F. Streater and A.S. Wightman, {\it PCT, Spin and Statistics, and All That}, p. 207 (Redwood City, USA: Addison Wesley (1989)).
588:
589: \bibitem{pdg} K.~Hagiwara {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group Collaboration],
590: %``Review Of Particle Physics,''
591: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 010001 (2002).
592: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D66,010001;%%
593:
594:
595:
596: \bibitem{hawking} S. Hawking, Comm. Math. Phys. {\bf 43}, 199 (1975);
597: {\it ibid.} {\bf 87}, 395 (1982); J. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. {\bf D12},
598: 3077 (1975).
599:
600:
601: \bibitem{geons} J.L. Freedman and R. Sorkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 44},
602: 1100 (1980); Gen. Rel. Grav. {\bf 14}, 615 (1982).
603:
604:
605: \bibitem{wheeler} see for instance: J.A. Wheeler nd K. Ford, {\it Geons, Black Holes
606: and Quantum Foam: A life in Physics} (New York, USA: Norton (1998)).
607:
608:
609: \bibitem{ehns} J. Ellis, J. Hagelin, D.V. Nanopoulos and M. Srednicki,
610: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B241}, 381 (1984).
611:
612: \bibitem{wald} R. Wald, Phys. Rev. {\bf D21}, 2742 (1980).
613:
614: \bibitem{lopez} J.~R.~Ellis, N.~E.~Mavromatos and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,
615: %``Testing quantum mechanics in the neutral kaon system,''
616: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 293}, 142 (1992);
617: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 11} (1996) 1489
618: [arXiv:hep-th/9212057];
619: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9212057;%%
620: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9207268];
621: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9207268;%%
622: J.~R.~Ellis, J.~L.~Lopez, N.~E.~Mavromatos and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,
623: %``Precision tests of CPT symmetry and quantum mechanics in the neutral kaon system,''
624: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53}, 3846 (1996).
625: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9505340];
626: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9505340;%%
627:
628:
629: \bibitem{dunietz} H.~J.~Lipkin,
630: Phys.\ Rev. {\bf 176}, 1715 (1968);
631: %``Simple Symmetries In Epr Correlated Decays Of Kaon And B Meson Pairs With CP Violation,''
632: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 219}, 474 (1989);
633: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B219,474;%%
634: I.~Dunietz, J.~Hauser and J.~L.~Rosner,
635: %``An Experiment Addressing CP And Cpt Violation In The K0 Anti-K0 System,''
636: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 35}, 2166 (1987);
637: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D35,2166;%%
638:
639:
640: \bibitem{botella}
641: J.~Bernabeu, F.~J.~Botella and J.~Roldan,
642: %``Epsilon-Prime / Epsilon And Coherent Decay Of The K0 Anti-K0 System,''
643: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 211}, 226 (1988);
644: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B211,226;%%
645: %``Coherent Decay Of (K0 Anti-K0): CP Effects And K(S) Decays,''
646: %FTUV/89-35
647: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?r=ftuv\%2F89-35}{SPIRES entry}
648: {\it Proc. 25th Anniversary of the Discovery of CP Violation, Blois, France, May 22-26, 1989},
649: Blois CP Violations 1989:0389-400 (QCD161:I44:1989).
650:
651:
652: \bibitem{bernabeu} L.~Wolfenstein, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B246}, 45 (1984);
653: M.~C.~Banuls and J.~Bernabeu ;
654: %``CP, T and CPT versus temporal asymmetries for entangled states of the B/d system,''
655: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 464}, 117 (1999);
656: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9908353].
657: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9908353;%%
658: %``Studying indirect violation of CP, T and CPT in a B factory,''
659: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 590}, 19 (2000).
660: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0005323];
661: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0005323;%%
662:
663: \bibitem{huet} P.~Huet and M.~E.~Peskin,
664: %``Violation of CPT and quantum mechanics in the K0 - anti-K0 system,''
665: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 434}, 3 (1995).
666: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9403257];
667: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9403257;%%
668:
669: \bibitem{dafne} {\it The Second DAFNE Physics Handbook} (Eds L. Maiani, G. Pancheri and N. Paver, 1995).
670:
671: \bibitem{benatti}
672: F.~Benatti and R.~Floreanini,
673: %``Complete positivity and correlated neutral kaons,''
674: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 468} (1999) 287.
675: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9910508].
676: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9910508;%%
677:
678:
679:
680:
681: \end{thebibliography}
682: \end{document}
683:
684: