1: %\documentstyle [12pt,epsfig,citesort]{article}
2: \documentstyle[preprint,tighten,eqsecnum,floats,epsfig,aps]{revtex}
3: \font\myit=cmti10
4:
5: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
6: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
7: \newcommand{\mc}{\multicolumn}
8: \newcommand{\lsim}{\mathrel{\mathop{\kern 0pt \rlap
9: {\raise.2ex\hbox{$<$}}}
10: \lower.9ex\hbox{\kern-.190em $\sim$}}}
11: \newcommand{\gsim}{\mathrel{\mathop{\kern 0pt \rlap
12: {\raise.2ex\hbox{$>$}}}
13: \lower.9ex\hbox{\kern-.190em $\sim$}}}
14:
15: \begin{document}
16: \draft
17:
18: \title{Local Realistic Theories and Quantum Mechanics for the
19: two--neutral--kaon system}
20: \author{R. H. Dalitz$^{\mathrm{a}}$ and G. Garbarino$^{\mathrm{a,b}}$}
21: \address{{\myit $^{\mathrm{a}}$Department of Theoretical Physics, University of Oxford \\
22: 1 Keble Rd, Oxford OX1 3NP, UK} \\
23: {\myit $^{\mathrm{b}}$Grup de F\'{\i}sica Te\`{o}rica,
24: Universitat Aut\`{o}noma de Barcelona \\
25: 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain}}
26: \date{\today}
27: \maketitle
28:
29: \begin{abstract}
30: The predictions of local realistic theories for the
31: observables concerning the evolution of a
32: $K^0\bar{K}^0$ quantum entangled pair
33: (created in the decay of the $\phi$--meson) are discussed.
34: It is shown, in agreement with Bell's theorem,
35: that the most general local hidden--variable model fails in
36: reproducing the whole set of quantum--mechanical joint probabilities.
37: We achieve these conclusion by employing two different approaches.
38: In a first one the local realistic observables are deduced
39: from the most general premises concerning locality and realism,
40: and Bell--like inequalities are not employed.
41: The other approach makes use of Bell's inequalities.
42: Within the former scheme, under particular conditions for
43: the detection times, the discrepancy between
44: quantum mechanics and local realism for the time--dependent asymmetry
45: turns out to be not less than 20\%.
46: The same incompatibility can be made evident by means of a Bell--type test
47: by employing both Wigner's and (once properly normalized probabilities
48: are used) Clauser--Holt--Shimony--Holt's inequalities.
49: Because of the relatively low experimental accuracy,
50: the data obtained by the CPLEAR collaboration for the asymmetry
51: parameter do not allow for a decisive test of local realism. Such a test,
52: both with and without the use of Bell's inequalities, should be feasible in the
53: future at the Frascati $\Phi$--factory.
54: \end{abstract}
55: \pacs{3.65.Bz}
56:
57: \newpage
58: \pagestyle{plain}
59: \baselineskip 16pt
60: \vskip 48pt
61:
62: \newpage
63: %\doublespace
64: %*****************************************************************
65: % 1. Introduction
66: %*****************************************************************
67: \section{Introduction}
68: \label{intro}
69: In 1935 Einstein Podolsky and Rosen (EPR in the following) \cite{Ei35} advanced a
70: strong criticism concerning the interpretation of quantum theory.
71: They arrived at the conclusion that the description of
72: physical reality given by the quantum wave function is not complete.
73: EPR's argumentation was based on a condition for a {\it complete theory}
74: ({\it every element of physical reality must have a counterpart in the physical theory})
75: and on a criterion which defines {\it physical reality}
76: ({\it if, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty
77: (i.e., with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists
78: an element of physical reality corresponding to this quantity}). They
79: also assumed the quantum world to be {\it local}: this requirement was
80: introduced in order to express
81: relativistic causality, which prevents any action--at--a--distance.
82: Starting from these premises,
83: by considering the behaviour of a correlated and non--interacting
84: system composed by two separated entities, EPR arrived at the following conclusion:
85: contrary to what the indetermination principle states,
86: two non--commuting observables can have simultaneous physical reality,
87: then the description of physical reality given
88: by Copenhagen's interpretation, which does not permit such a simultaneous
89: reality, is incomplete.
90: At the very heart of their logical conclusion is the following
91: fact: their assumption, according with a quantum system has real and well defined
92: properties also when does not interact with other systems
93: (including a measuring apparatus), is contradicted by quantum mechanics.
94:
95: This was the point attached by Bohr in his famous replay \cite{Bo35} to EPR's
96: paper. Here he noticed that EPR's criterion of
97: reality contained an ambiguity if applied to quantum phenomena.
98: Starting from the complementarity point of view, Bohr stated that {\it quantum
99: mechanics within its scope {\rm [namely, in its form restricted to human knowledge]}
100: would appear as a completely rational description of the physical phenomena}.
101: In the opinion of Bohr the conclusion of EPR was not
102: justified since they contradicted quantum theory at the beginning, through
103: their criterion of physical reality: following Copenhagen's interpretation,
104: quantum reality has to be defined by the experimental observation of phenomena.
105:
106: The probabilistic meaning of the quantum wave function is the main
107: assumption that originated criticisms and debate for
108: a broader interpretation of quantum theory. In fact, the wave function
109: provides a description of the microscopic world in accordance with the laws of
110: chance, namely it is non--deterministic:
111: the actual result of a measurement is selected from the set of
112: possible outcomes at random. It is this interpretation of the quantum state
113: that led Einstein to pronounce the historical sentence: {\it God does not play dice}.
114:
115: Within Copenhagen's interpretation, the measurement process changes
116: the state of the measured system through the reduction of the wave packet.
117: The description of this (non--deterministic and non--local) process given
118: by the {\it hermitian} operator associated to the observable
119: one measures is mathematically different from the
120: (deterministic) evolution of the statistical predictions of
121: the wave function, which is accounted for by the
122: Schr\"{o}dinger equation and its {\it unitary} time evolution operator.
123: This matter of fact is also the origin of different paradoxical conclusions of quantum
124: mechanics. It is important to stress that the collapse of the wave function
125: is a non--local aspect of quantum mechanics. It
126: arises from the fact that the theory does not provide
127: a causal explanation of the anti--correlations which exist between
128: the probabilities of finding a system (say a particle) in two separated regions of space.
129: The EPR--type correlations of two--particle entangled states clearly
130: exhibits a non--locality. To avoid this feature, interpretations
131: of quantum mechanics which do not incorporate
132: the reduction of the wave packet have been introduced
133: (see for instance Bohmian mechanics \cite{Bo52} and Everett's
134: many--world interpretation \cite{Ev57}). However, we have to stress that the
135: non--local features exhibited by EPR's states
136: do not contradict the theory of relativity, since they do not allow
137: for faster--than--light communications \cite{Sh84}.
138:
139: %Since in Copenhagen's interpretation the
140: %{\it elements of reality} of quantum systems are our {\it knowings} (and not
141: %elements concerning the actual behaviour of matter),
142: %this interpretation only provides an {\it incomplete} description of the {\it dynamics} of
143: %quantum world. Indeed, each knowing originates a collapse of the wave function, and
144: %this process affects the future behaviour of the system,
145: %randomly selecting among different and alternative possibilities, whose
146: %only known characteristic is the statistical distribution.
147:
148: Another puzzling question concerns the subdivision of
149: the physical world into {\it quantum system} and
150: {\it classical apparatus}, the latter being directly controllable and needed to define
151: (through the measurement process) the properties of quantum phenomena.
152: Actually, strictly speaking, real physical properties are possessed only by the
153: combined system of quantum object plus measuring device.
154: This dualistic approach, which leaves the measuring devices out of the world treated by
155: the mathematical formalism of the theory, leads to a description of the
156: physical universe which is not unified, namely to a theoretical framework
157: which is not fully coherent.
158:
159: The first hypothesis for the solution of the paradoxical conclusion of EPR
160: concerning quantum correlations was proposed by Furry \cite{Fu36} in 1935. He assumed that
161: the quantum--mechanical description of many--body systems could break--down
162: when the particles are sufficiently distant one from another
163: (practically when their wave functions do not overlap any more). This means
164: that in presence of EPR correlations between two quantum subsystems
165: which are very far away one from each other, the state
166: of the global system is no longer given by a superposition
167: of tensorial products of states but it is simply
168: represented by a statistical mixture of products of states (namely it is factorizable).
169: However, Furry's hypothesis revealed to be incorrect: an old experiment concerning
170: polarization properties of correlated photons \cite{Wu50,Bm57}, as well as
171: more recent tests \cite{Ap98,Ze99,Ti98}, excluded a possible separability of the
172: many--body wave function even in the case of space--like separated particles.
173:
174: In 1952 Bohm \cite{Bo52} suggested an interpretation of quantum theory
175: in terms of {\it hidden--variables}, in which the general mathematical
176: formulation and the empirical results of the theory remained unchanged.
177: In Bohm's interpretation
178: the paradoxical behaviour of correlated
179: and non--interacting systems revealed by EPR find an explanation.
180: However, for such systems Bohm's theory exhibits a
181: non--local character, which cannot be reconciled with relativity theory.
182:
183: This result is consistent with what Bell obtained in
184: 1964 \cite{Be64}. He proved that any {\it deterministic local
185: hidden--variable theory} is incompatible with some statistical
186: prediction of quantum mechanics. This is the content of Bell's theorem
187: in its original form, which has been then generalized \cite{Be71}
188: to include {\it non--deterministic theories}.
189: EPR's paradox was interpreted as the need for the introduction
190: of additional variables, in order to restore {\it completeness},
191: {\it relativistic causality} (namely {\it locality}) and {\it realism} in the theory
192: (the point of view of realism asserts that quantum systems have intrinsic and
193: well defined properties even when they are not subject to measurements).
194: In line with this requirement, Bell and other
195: authors \cite{CHSH69,Wi70,CH74,Cl78} derived different inequalities suitable for
196: testing what has been called {\it local realism}.
197:
198: Once established the particularity of Bell's local
199: realism in connection with the predictions
200: of quantum mechanics, different experiments have been designed
201: and carried out to test these theories. The oldest ones \cite{Cl78,As82} measured the
202: linear polarization correlations of photon pairs created in radiative
203: atomic cascade reactions or in electron--positron annihilations,
204: whereas, more recently, parametric
205: down--conversion photon sources have been employed \cite{Ze99,Ti98,We98}.
206: Essentially all the experiments performed until now (in optics and atomic physics)
207: have proved that the class of theories governed by Bell's
208: theorem are unphysical: they showed the violation of Bell's inequalities
209: and were in good agreement with the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics.
210: Actually, to be precise, because of apparata non--idealities
211: and other technical problems,
212: supplementary assumptions are needed in the interpretation of the experiments,
213: and, consequently, no test employed to refute local realism
214: has been completely loophole free \cite{Ti98,Cl78,CaSa94}.
215: It is then important to continue performing experiments on
216: correlation properties of many particle systems, possibly in new
217: sectors, especially in particle physics, where entangled $K^0\bar{K}^0$ and $B^0\bar{B}^0$
218: pairs are considerable examples. If future investigations will confirm
219: the violation of Bell's inequalities,
220: it is clear that, under the philosophy of realism,
221: the locality assumption would be incompatible with experimental evidence.
222: Then, if this were the case, maintaining realism one should
223: consider as a real fact of Nature a non--local behaviour of quantum phenomena.
224: This fact is not in conflict with the theory of relativity. Actually, there is no
225: way to use quantum non--locality for faster--than--light communication: for a correlated
226: system of two separated entities, according to
227: quantum mechanics, the result of a measurement on
228: a subsystem is always independent of the experimental setting used to measure
229: the other subsystem.
230:
231: In this paper we discuss the predictions of
232: local realistic schemes for a pair of correlated neutral kaons created in the decay
233: of the $\phi$--meson. The two--neutral--kaon system is the most interesting example
234: of massive two--particle system that can be employed to discuss descriptions of
235: microscopic phenomena alternative to quantum mechanics (for a discussion concerning
236: possible violations of quantum mechanics in the $K^0$--$\bar{K}^0$
237: system see ref.~\cite{Pe95}). Unlike photons, kaons are detectable with high
238: efficiency (by observing $K_S$ and $K_L$ decays or
239: $K^0$ and $\bar{K}^0$ strong interactions with the nucleons of absorbers).
240: Moreover, for $K^0\bar{K}^0$ pairs, which can be copiously produced at a high
241: luminosity $\Phi$-factory, additional assumptions regarding detection
242: not implicit in local realism
243: (always implemented in the interpretation of experiments with
244: photon pairs \cite{Cl78}) are not necessary to derive Bell's inequalities suitable
245: for experimental tests of local realism \cite{Se90}. Finally, the two--kaon
246: system offers the possibility
247: for tests on unexplored time and energy scales.
248: A correlation experiment discriminating between local realism
249: and quantum mechanics could be performed at the Frascati $\Phi$-factory
250: in the future \cite{Frasc}. Indeed, being designed to measure direct $CP$ violation
251: in the $K^0$--$\bar{K}^0$ system, such a factory employs high precision
252: detectors. Unlike the other papers in the literature
253: \cite{Gh91,Eb93,DD95,Uc97,BF98,Br99,Se97,Gi00} which treated the
254: two--kaon correlated system within local realistic models,
255: we shall discuss tests of local realism both with
256: and without the use of Bell's inequalities.
257:
258: The work is organized as follows. In section~\ref{localrealism} we introduce,
259: starting from the original EPR's program, the point of view of
260: local realism for the two--kaon system. The quantum--mechanical expectation
261: values relevant for the evolution of the system are briefly summarized
262: in section~\ref{qmp}. Section~\ref{lrp} is devoted to the presentation of the
263: local realistic scheme we use to describe the observable behaviour of the
264: pair: the philosophy of realism is implemented in our discussion by
265: means of the most general hidden--variable interpretation of the two--kaon evolution.
266: Then, in section~\ref{comp} we study the compatibility among the local realistic
267: expectation values and the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics.
268: In agreement with Bell's theorem, we show how any local hidden--variable
269: theory for the two--kaon entangled state
270: is incompatible with certain predictions of quantum mechanics.
271: In section \ref{imposs} the difficulties of testing local realism
272: for the $K^0$--$\bar{K}^0$ state
273: by employing Bell--type inequalities are discussed. We show that,
274: contrary to what is generally believed in the literature,
275: a Bell--type test at a $\Phi$--factory is possible.
276: Our conclusion are given in section~\ref{concl}.
277:
278: %*****************************************************************
279: % From EPR's argument to Local Realism
280: %*****************************************************************
281: \section{From EPR's argument to Local Realism}
282: \label{localrealism}
283: The starting point of EPR's argumentation was the following
284: condition for a \underline{complete theory}:
285: {\it every element of physical reality must have a counterpart in the physical theory}.
286: They defined the \underline{physical reality} by means of the following sufficient
287: criterion: {\it if, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty
288: (i.e., with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists
289: an element of physical reality corresponding to this quantity}.
290: In addition, for a system made of two correlated, spatially separated
291: and non--interacting entities,
292: EPR introduced the following \underline{locality} assumption:
293: {\it since at the time of measurement the two systems no longer interact, no real
294: change can take place in the second system in consequence of anything that may
295: be done to the first system}.
296:
297: EPR assumed that the physical world is analyzable in terms of
298: distinct and separately existing elements of reality, which are represented,
299: in the supposed complete theory, by well defined mathematical entities.
300: The previous criterion of reality supports the anthropocentric
301: point of view nowadays called {\it realism}: it asserts that quantum systems have
302: intrinsic and well defined properties even when they are not subject to
303: measurements. Under this philosophy, the existence of quantum world is
304: (as in classical physics) objective:
305: thus, any measurement performed on a quantum system must produce a result with a
306: definite and predetermined value.
307:
308: To exemplify EPR's argumentation, consider the case of a particle with
309: total angular momentum zero which decays, at rest, into two spin $1/2$ particles,
310: 1 and 2, with zero relative orbital angular momentum,
311: which fly apart with opposite momenta. After a certain time
312: (when the particles are separated by a macroscopic distance)
313: suppose they do not interact any
314: more (this situation corresponds to the EPR--Bohm's gedanken experiment
315: \cite{Bm51,Bm57}).
316: At this time, the normalized spin wave function of the global system,
317: which does not depend (because of the spherical symmetry of the singlet state)
318: on the quantization direction of the spin, is:
319: \beq
320: \label{spin0}
321: |S=0,S_z=0\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[|+\rangle_1|-\rangle_2
322: -|-\rangle_1|+\rangle_2\right] .
323: \eeq
324: For particles 1 and 2, $|+\rangle$ and $|-\rangle$ represent spin--up and spin--down states,
325: respectively, along a direction chosen as $z$--axis. Because of the entangled nature
326: of this wave function, the two particles
327: do not have definite values of the spin component along any direction. The superposition
328: of two product states (\ref{spin0}) produces then non--factorizable joint probabilities.
329: The paradoxical behaviour of correlated and non--interacting
330: systems originates from the fact that
331: the wave function of the global system is not a tensorial product
332: of superpositions of states of the component systems.
333:
334: When 1 and 2 do not interact any more,
335: a measurement of the spin component of one particle produces a given outcome
336: [which is not predetermined by the quantum state (\ref{spin0})] and
337: forces, {\it immediately}, the spin of the other particle along the opposite direction;
338: notice that this is independent of whether or not any measurement is
339: then performed on the other particle. For instance, if the result of a measurement along
340: the $z$--axis finds particle 1 in the spin--up state, we conclude
341: that at the same time particle 2 (which is supposed not to interact with particle 1 nor with
342: the measuring device) has spin--down along $z$; the wave packet reduction has led
343: to the disentanglement of the superposition (\ref{spin0}):
344: \beq
345: |S=0,S_z=0\rangle\to |+\rangle_1|-\rangle_2 ,
346: \eeq
347: and the total angular momentum of the pair is indefinite after the measurement.
348: The instantaneous response (due to the collapse
349: of the wave function) of the particle which is not observed is what Einstein
350: called {\it spooky action--at--a--distance}.
351:
352: The two particles of Bohm's gedanken experiment
353: are perfectly correlated, and, following EPR, the spin component
354: of particle 2 is an element of physical reality, since it is predicted
355: {\it with certainty} and {\it without in any way disturbing} particle 2. Moreover,
356: in order to fulfil the locality assumption (no action--at--a--distance),
357: EPR assumed that such an element of reality existed independently of any measurement
358: performed on particle 1. Following EPR's argumentation,
359: the interpretation of the above experiment by means of quantum mechanics
360: lead to a difficulty. In fact, if we had performed a measurement of the spin component of
361: particle 1 along another direction, say along the $x$-axis, this would have defined
362: the $x$ component of the spin of particle 2 as another element of reality,
363: again independent of measurement. Obviously, this is also
364: valid for any spin component, then it should be possible, in the supposed complete
365: theory, to assign different spin wave functions
366: to the same physical reality. Therefore, one arrives at the conclusion that two or more physical
367: quantities, which correspond to non--commuting quantum operators, can have simultaneous reality.
368: However, in quantum mechanics two observables corresponding to
369: non-commuting operators cannot have simultaneous reality.
370: Therefore, there exist elements of physical reality for which quantum
371: mechanics has no counterpart, and, according to EPR's completeness definition,
372: quantum theory cannot give a complete description of reality.
373:
374: Actually, one could object, with Bohr \cite{Bo35}, that
375: in connection with a correlated system of non--interacting
376: subsystems [described, in quantum mechanics, by eq.~(\ref{spin0})], EPR's reality criterion
377: reveals the following weak point: it is not correct to assert that the measurement on
378: subsystem 1 does not disturb system 2; in fact, in quantum mechanics
379: the measurement do separate systems
380: 1 and 2, which are not separated entities before the reduction of the wave
381: packet. It is the measurement on system 1 that fixes
382: (in a way that, however, does not depend only on the experimental
383: setting one uses but contains an element of randomness) the quantum state
384: (before undetermined) of system 2. Any measurement on system 1 is therefore a
385: measurement on the entire system 1+2.
386: Moreover, in quantum mechanics
387: two or more physical quantities can be considered as simultaneous elements
388: of reality only when they can be simultaneously measured. Then, from the point of view
389: of orthodox quantum mechanics, EPR's argumentation ceases to be a paradox:
390: EPR's proof of incompleteness is mathematically correct but is founded on premises which are
391: inapplicable to microphenomena.
392:
393: However, one has to remind that, since in quantum mechanics the
394: {\it elements of reality} of quantum systems are our {\it knowings} (and not elements
395: concerning the actual behaviour of matter),
396: this interpretation only provides an {\it incomplete} description of the {\it dynamics} of
397: quantum world, because each knowing originates a collapse of the wave function;
398: this process affects the future behaviour of the system and
399: randomly selects among different and alternative possibilities, whose
400: only known characteristic is the statistical distribution. Thus,
401: in quantum mechanics the reality
402: of two non--commuting observables, which cannot be defined simultaneously,
403: depends on the measurement one performs. In this way, reality is in part
404: created by the observer.
405:
406: EPR's paradox was interpreted as the need for the introduction,
407: in quantum mechanics, of additional variables, in order to restore
408: {\it completeness}, {\it causality} and {\it realism}.
409: Then, Bell and other authors developed different
410: inequalities suitable for testing what has been called
411: \underline{local realism}.
412:
413: %*****************************************************************
414: % Local Realism for the two--neutral--kaon system
415: %*****************************************************************
416: \subsection{Local Realism for the two--neutral--kaon system}
417: \label{localrealismkappa}
418: Now we come to the entangled system of two neutral kaons. In this paper we neglect the effects
419: of $CP$ violation. Then, the $CP$ eigenstates are identified with the short and
420: long living kaons (mass eigenstates): $|K_+ \rangle \equiv |K_S \rangle$ ($CP=+1$),
421: $|K_- \rangle \equiv |K_L \rangle$ ($CP=-1$). In this approximation the strong
422: interaction eigenstates $|K^0 \rangle$ and $|\bar{K}^0 \rangle$ are given by:
423: \begin{eqnarray}
424: \label{s-eig}
425: |K^0 \rangle& = & \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}\left[|K_S\rangle + |K_L\rangle\right] , \\
426: |\bar{K}^0 \rangle& = & \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}\left[|K_S\rangle - |K_L\rangle\right] .
427: \nonumber
428: \end{eqnarray}
429: The time evolution of the mass (weak interaction) eigenstates is:
430: \beq
431: \label{time}
432: |K_{S,L}(\tau) \rangle=e^{-i\lambda_{S,L}\tau}|K_{S,L}\rangle ,
433: \eeq
434: where $|K_{S,L}\rangle\equiv |K_{S,L}(0)\rangle$,
435: $\tau= t \sqrt{1-v^2}$ is the kaon proper time
436: [$t$ ($v$) being the time (kaon velocity) measured in the laboratory frame] and:
437: \beq
438: \lambda_{S,L}=m_{S,L}-\frac{i}{2}\Gamma_{S,L} ,
439: \eeq
440: $m_{S,L}$ denoting the $K_S$ and $K_L$ masses and $\Gamma_{S,L}$ the
441: corresponding decay widths: $\Gamma_{S,L}\equiv 1/{\tau_{S,L}}$
442: (we use natural units: $\hbar =c=1$).
443:
444: Consider now the strong decay of the $\phi(1020)$--meson, whose relevant quantum numbers are
445: $J^{PC}=1^{--}$, into $K^0\bar{K}^0$ [$BR(\phi\to K^0\bar{K}^0)\simeq 34.1\%$].
446: With good approximation the process is non--relativistic:
447: in the center of mass system, the kaons correspond to a Lorentzian
448: factor $\gamma \simeq 1.02$. Just after the decay, at proper time $\tau=0$,
449: the quantum--mechanical state is given by the following superposition:
450: \begin{eqnarray}
451: \label{kkk}
452: |\phi(0)\rangle & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}\left[
453: |K^0\rangle_1 |\bar{K}^0\rangle_2 - |\bar{K}^0\rangle_1 |K^0\rangle_2\right] \\
454: & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}\left[
455: |K_L\rangle_1 |K_S\rangle_2 - |K_S\rangle_1 |K_L\rangle_2\right] , \nonumber
456: \end{eqnarray}
457: written in both bases we have introduced. Since the kaon is a spinless particle
458: and the $\phi$ has spin 1, angular momentum conservation requires
459: the kaons to be emitted in a spatially antisymmetric state. The state is also
460: antisymmetric under charge conjugation. The second equality in (\ref{kkk}) is only approximated
461: when one includes the (small) effects of $CP$ violation. Moreover, in the above equation, $1$ and $2$
462: denote the directions of motion of the two kaons. From eqs.~(\ref{s-eig}) and
463: (\ref{time}) the time evolution of state (\ref{kkk}) is obtained in the
464: following form:
465: \begin{eqnarray}
466: \label{qm2k}
467: |\phi(\tau_1,\tau_2)\rangle & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}\left\{
468: e^{-i(\lambda_L\tau_1+\lambda_S\tau_2)}|K_L\rangle_1|K_S\rangle_2
469: -e^{-i(\lambda_S\tau_1+\lambda_L\tau_2)}|K_S\rangle_1|K_L\rangle_2\right\} \\ \nonumber
470: & = & \frac{1}{2\sqrt 2}\left\{
471: \left[e^{-i(\lambda_L\tau_1+\lambda_S\tau_2)}+
472: e^{-i(\lambda_S\tau_1+\lambda_L\tau_2)}\right]
473: \left[|K^0\rangle_1 |\bar{K}^0\rangle_2 - |\bar{K}^0\rangle_1 |K^0\rangle_2\right]\right. \\
474: \nonumber
475: & & \left. +\left[e^{-i(\lambda_L\tau_1+\lambda_S\tau_2)}-
476: e^{-i(\lambda_S\tau_1+\lambda_L\tau_2)}\right]
477: \left[|K^0\rangle_1 |K^0\rangle_2 - |\bar{K}^0\rangle_1 |\bar{K}^0\rangle_2\right]
478: \right\} .
479: \end{eqnarray}
480:
481: In the following we introduce, within local realism,
482: the elements of physical reality for the two--kaon system.
483: Before doing this, it is important to remind once again that
484: within the philosophy of realism, quantum systems have
485: intrinsic and well defined properties, even when they are not subject to
486: measurements. The existence of quantum world is then
487: (like in classical physics) objective and independent of our observations.
488: As a consequence, any measurement performed on a quantum system produces a
489: result with a definite and predetermined value. We shall assume locality by requiring that
490: physical phenomena in a space--time region
491: cannot be affected by what occurs in all space--time regions which are
492: space--like separated from the first one. This means that
493: when the two kaons are space--like separated, the elements of reality
494: belonging to one kaon cannot be created nor
495: influenced by a measurement made on the
496: other kaon. This amounts to express relativistic causality, which
497: prevents any {\it action--at--a--distance}. Implicit in our
498: description is also the
499: inexistence, in any reference frame, of influences acting backward in time:
500: a measurement performed on one kaon cannot influence the elements of reality
501: possessed by this kaon for times preceding the measurement.
502:
503: Quantum mechanics predicts (and we know it is a well tested property)
504: a perfect anti--correlation in strangeness and $CP$ values
505: when both kaons are considered at the same time [see eq.~(\ref{qm2k})].
506: If an experimenter observes, say along direction 1, a $K^0$ ($K_L$), at the same time
507: $\tau_1$, along direction 2, because of the instantaneous collapse of the two--kaon wave function,
508: one can predict the presence of a $\bar{K}^0$ ($K_S$). Thus, at time $\tau_1$ to the kaon
509: moving along direction 2 we assign an element of reality
510: (since, following EPR's reality criterion the value of the corresponding physical quantity
511: is predicted {\it with certainty} and {\it without in any way disturbing}
512: the system), the value $-1$ ($+1$) of strangeness ($CP$).
513: The same discussion is valid when the state observed
514: along direction 1 is $\bar{K}^0$ (or $K_S$) as well as when one exchanges the kaon
515: directions: $1\leftrightarrow2$. For times $\tau_2$ successive the observation at time $\tau_1$
516: along direction 1 of a $K_L$ ($K_S$), a $CP$
517: measurement on the other kaon will give with certainty the same result
518: $CP=+1$ ($CP=-1$) one expects at time $\tau_1$. This expresses $CP$ conservation.
519: Obviously, because of the instability of the $K_L$ and $K_S$
520: components, along direction 2 the experimenter could observe
521: either $CP=+1$ or $CP=-1$ decay products at time $\tau_2$, but what is important
522: in the present discussion is
523: that for any pair of times $(\tau_1,\tau_2)$ these exists perfect anti--correlation on $CP$.
524: In the case in which both kaons are undecayed, when the kaon detected at time $\tau_1$
525: is $K^0$ ($\bar{K}^0$), at times $\tau_2>\tau_1$ along direction 2 quantum
526: mechanics predicts the possibility to observe a
527: $\bar{K}^0$ ($K^0$) as well as a $K^0$ ($\bar{K}^0$):
528: since strangeness is not conserved during the evolution
529: of the system (governed by the weak interaction), perfect anti--correlation
530: on strangeness only exists
531: when both particles are considered at the same time.
532:
533: Following EPR's argument,
534: in the local realistic approach one then associates to both kaons of the pair,
535: at any time, two elements of reality, which are not created by
536: measurements eventually performed on the partner when the
537: particles are space--like separated (locality): one determines the
538: kaon $CP$ value, the other one supplies the kaon strangeness $S$.
539: They are both well defined also when the meson is not observed (realism)
540: and can take two values, $\pm 1$, which appear at random with the same
541: frequency in a statistical ensemble of kaons. Because of the strangeness
542: non--conservation, a particular value of the element of reality $S$ is
543: defined instantaneously (in fact, instantaneous oscillations between $S=\pm 1$
544: and $S=\mp 1$ occur), but what is important in the realistic approach is that
545: $S$ has objective and well defined existence at any instant time. For a pair,
546: the instantaneous and simultaneous $|\Delta S|=2$ oscillations are compatible with locality
547: only if one introduces a hidden--variable interpretation of the pair evolution
548: which predetermines the times of the strangeness jumps.
549:
550: In conclusion, neglecting $CP$ violation, within local realism a kaon is
551: characterized by two different elements of physical reality,
552: which can both take two values with equal frequency;
553: thus, four different single kaon states can
554: appear just after the $\phi$ decay, with the same
555: frequency (25\%). They are quoted in table \ref{loc-rea}.
556: \begin{table}[t]
557: \begin{center}
558: \caption{Kaon realistic states.}
559: \label{loc-rea}
560: \begin{tabular}{c|c c}
561: \mc {1}{c|}{State} &
562: \mc {1}{c}{Strangeness} &
563: \mc {1}{c}{CP} \\ \hline
564: $K_1\equiv K^0_{S}$ & $+1$& $+1$ \\
565: $K_2\equiv \bar{K}^0_S$ & $-1$& $+1$ \\
566: $K_3\equiv K^0_L$ & $+1$& $-1$ \\
567: $K_4\equiv \bar{K}^0_L $ & $-1$& $-1$ \\
568: \end{tabular}
569: \end{center}
570: \end{table}
571: It is clear that this classification is incompatible with
572: quantum mechanics: in fact, under local realism a kaon has, simultaneously,
573: defined values of strangeness and $CP$, whereas in quantum mechanics these
574: quantities are described by non--commuting operators, then they cannot
575: be measured simultaneously.
576:
577: %********************************************************************
578: \section{Quantum--mechanical expectation values}
579: %********************************************************************
580: \label{qmp}
581:
582: By introducing the shorthand notation:
583: \beq
584: E_{S,L}(\tau)=e^{-\Gamma_{S,L}\tau} ,
585: \eeq
586: and the mass difference:
587: \beq
588: \Delta m=m_L-m_S ,
589: \eeq
590: from eq.~(\ref{qm2k}) the quantum--mechanical (QM) probability
591: $P_{QM}[K^0(\tau_1),\bar{K}^0(\tau_2)]\equiv |_1\langle K^0|_2\langle \bar{K}^0|
592: \phi(\tau_1,\tau_2)\rangle|^2$ ($P_{QM}[\bar{K}^0(\tau_1),K^0(\tau_2)]\equiv
593: |_1\langle \bar{K}^0|_2\langle K^0|\phi(\tau_1,\tau_2)\rangle|^2$)
594: that a measurement detects a $K^0$ ($\bar{K}^0$) at time
595: $\tau_1$ along direction $1$ and a $\bar{K}^0$ ($K^0$) at time
596: $\tau_2$ along direction $2$ is:
597: \begin{eqnarray}
598: \label{kkb}
599: & &P_{QM}[K^0(\tau_1),\bar{K}^0(\tau_2)]=P_{QM}[\bar{K}^0(\tau_1),K^0(\tau_2)] \\
600: & & \nonumber \\
601: & &= \frac{1}{8}\left[E_L(\tau_1)E_S(\tau_2)+E_S(\tau_1)E_L(\tau_2)+
602: 2\sqrt{E_L(\tau_1+\tau_2)E_S(\tau_1+\tau_2)}{\rm cos}\,\Delta m(\tau_2-\tau_1)\right] .
603: \nonumber
604: \end{eqnarray}
605: The other probabilities relevant for our discussion are the following ones:
606: \begin{eqnarray}
607: \label{kk}
608: & &P_{QM}[K^0(\tau_1),K^0(\tau_2)]=P_{QM}[\bar{K}^0(\tau_1),\bar{K}^0(\tau_2)] \\
609: & & \nonumber \\
610: & &= \frac{1}{8}\left[E_L(\tau_1)E_S(\tau_2)+E_S(\tau_1)E_L(\tau_2)-
611: 2\sqrt{E_L(\tau_1+\tau_2)E_S(\tau_1+\tau_2)}{\rm cos}\,\Delta m(\tau_2-\tau_1)\right] ,
612: \nonumber
613: \end{eqnarray}
614: \begin{eqnarray}
615: \label{ls}
616: P_{QM}[K_L(\tau_1),K_S(\tau_2)]&=&\frac{1}{2}E_L(\tau_1)E_S(\tau_2) , \\
617: \label{sl}
618: P_{QM}[K_S(\tau_1),K_L(\tau_2)]&=&\frac{1}{2}E_S(\tau_1)E_L(\tau_2) , \\
619: \label{ss}
620: P_{QM}[K_S(\tau_1),K_S(\tau_2)]&=&P_{QM}[K_L(\tau_1),K_L(\tau_2)]=0 , \\
621: \label{skappa}
622: P_{QM}[K_S(\tau_1),K^0(\tau_2)]&=&P_{QM}[K_S(\tau_1),\bar{K}^0(\tau_2)]
623: =P_{QM}[K^0(\tau_1),K_L(\tau_2)] \\
624: &=&P_{QM}[\bar{K}^0(\tau_1),K_L(\tau_2)]=\frac{1}{4}E_S(\tau_1)E_L(\tau_2) , \nonumber \\
625: \label{lkappa}
626: P_{QM}[K_L(\tau_1),K^0(\tau_2)]&=&P_{QM}[K_L(\tau_1),\bar{K}^0(\tau_2)]
627: =P_{QM}[K^0(\tau_1),K_S(\tau_2)] \\
628: &=&P_{QM}[\bar{K}^0(\tau_1),K_S(\tau_2)]=\frac{1}{4}E_L(\tau_1)E_S(\tau_2) , \nonumber
629: \end{eqnarray}
630: the fourth equation expressing $CP$ conservation.
631:
632: In the particular case of $\tau_1=\tau_2\equiv \tau$:
633: \begin{eqnarray}
634: P_{QM}[K^0(\tau),\bar{K}^0(\tau)]&=&P_{QM}[\bar{K}^0(\tau),K^0(\tau)]
635: =\frac{1}{2} E_L(\tau)E_S(\tau) , \\
636: \label{anti-corr}
637: P_{QM}[K^0(\tau),K^0(\tau)]&=&P_{QM}[\bar{K}^0(\tau),\bar{K}^0(\tau)]=0 .
638: \end{eqnarray}
639: These relations, together with eq.~(\ref{ss}),
640: show the perfect anti--correlation of the quantum-mechanical state
641: (\ref{qm2k}) concerning strangeness and $CP$.
642: %during the propagation, if an experimenter
643: %detects, along one direction, a $K^0$ ($K_L$), at the same time, along the other direction
644: %one can predict, with certainty, the presence of a $\bar{K}^0$ ($K_S$). To be precise,
645: %since we assumed $CP$ conservation, the correlation
646: %on $CP$ is also valid for different detection times [see eq.~(\ref{ss})].
647:
648: Starting from probabilities (\ref{kkb}) and (\ref{kk}) it is useful to introduce
649: a time--dependent asymmetry parameter, defined by the following
650: relation for a generic theory:
651: \beq
652: \label{asimm}
653: A(\tau_1,\tau_2)\equiv \frac{P[K^0(\tau_1),\bar{K}^0(\tau_2)]+
654: P[\bar{K}^0(\tau_1),K^0(\tau_2)]-
655: P[K^0(\tau_1),K^0(\tau_2)]-P[\bar{K}^0(\tau_1),\bar{K}^0(\tau_2)]}
656: {P[K^0(\tau_1),\bar{K}^0(\tau_2)]+P[\bar{K}^0(\tau_1),K^0(\tau_2)]
657: +P[K^0(\tau_1),K^0(\tau_2)]+P[\bar{K}^0(\tau_1),\bar{K}^0(\tau_2)]} .
658: \eeq
659: The quantum--mechanical expression of this quantity
660: is a function of $\tau_2-\tau_1$ only:
661: \beq
662: \label{qmasymm}
663: A_{QM}(\tau_1,\tau_2)=2\frac{\sqrt{E_L(\tau_2-\tau_1)E_S(\tau_2-\tau_1)}}
664: {E_L(\tau_2-\tau_1)+E_S(\tau_2-\tau_1)}{\rm cos}\, \Delta m (\tau_2-\tau_1) ,
665: \eeq
666: and measures the interference term appearing in like--strangeness ($K^0K^0$ or $\bar{K}^0\bar{K}^0$)
667: and unlike--strangeness ($K^0\bar{K}^0$ or $\bar{K}^0K^0$) events.
668:
669: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
670: \section{Local realistic expectation values}
671: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
672: \label{lrp}
673:
674: In this section we discuss the widest class of
675: local hidden--variable models for the two--kaon state
676: and their predictions for the observables
677: provided, in quantum mechanics, by eqs.~(\ref{kkb})--(\ref{lkappa}).
678: Following the derivation of ref.~\cite{Se97}, we start considering
679: how the quantum--mechanical expectation values for the single kaon evolution
680: can be reproduced by a realistic approach.
681: Then, we extend the description to the interesting case of an entangled kaon pair.
682:
683: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
684: \subsection{Evolution of a single kaon}
685: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
686: \label{singlek}
687: In the realistic approach one introduces the four kaonic
688: states of table~\ref{loc-rea}. $K_1$ is a state with defined
689: strangeness ($+1$) and $CP$ ($+1$), and the same is true for the other states.
690:
691: Introduce the notation:
692: \beq
693: p_{ij}(\tau|0)\equiv p[K_j(0)\to K_i(\tau)] ,
694: \eeq
695: for the {\it conditional} probability that a state $K_i$ is present at time $\tau$
696: if the original state at time $\tau=0$ was $K_j$. It is immediate
697: to write down the time $\tau=0$ probabilities; they are:
698: \beq
699: \label{timezero}
700: p_{11}(0|0)=p_{22}(0|0)=p_{33}(0|0)=p_{44}(0|0)=1 , \hspace{0.3cm} p_{ij}(0|0)=0
701: \hspace{0.2cm} {\rm for} \hspace{0.2cm} i\neq j .
702: \eeq
703: When the evolution of the four states is considered, $CP$ conservation requires
704: that, for all times:
705: \begin{eqnarray}
706: \label{cp-cons}
707: p_{13}(\tau|0)&=&p_{14}(\tau|0)=p_{23}(\tau|0)=p_{24}(\tau|0)=p_{31}(\tau|0) \\
708: &=&p_{32}(\tau|0)=p_{41}(\tau|0)=p_{42}(\tau|0)\equiv 0 . \nonumber
709: \end{eqnarray}
710: In quantum mechanics, assuming $CP$ conservation, the mass eigenstates $|K_L \rangle$
711: and $|K_S \rangle$ are perfectly orthogonal to each other, then:
712: \beq
713: \langle K_L(0)|K_S(\tau)\rangle = \langle K_S(0)|K_L(\tau)\rangle =0 .
714: \eeq
715: During the time evolution, strangeness jumps between $S=+1$ ($-1$) and $S=-1$ ($+1$) states occur.
716: Thus, only transitions $K_1\leftrightarrow K_2$ and $K_3\leftrightarrow K_4$ are permitted,
717: and eq.~(\ref{cp-cons}) is valid.
718:
719: In order to fix the time evolution of the four states
720: of table~\ref{loc-rea} we have to determine 8 probabilities $p_{ij}(\tau|0)$.
721: As we are going to show, it is possible to fix these quantities and reproduce all the
722: quantum--mechanical predictions relevant for the single kaon
723: propagation \cite{Se97}.
724:
725: From quantum mechanics [eqs.~(\ref{s-eig}), (\ref{time})] one obtains:
726: \begin{eqnarray}
727: |\langle K^0(0)|K_S(\tau)\rangle|^2&=&|\langle \bar{K}^0(0)|K_S(\tau)\rangle|^2=
728: |\langle K_S(0)|K^0(\tau)\rangle|^2 \\
729: &=&|\langle K_S(0)|\bar{K}^0(\tau)\rangle|^2=\frac{1}{2}E_S(\tau) , \nonumber
730: \end{eqnarray}
731: where the different terms have obvious significance.
732: This restrictions correspond to require the following equalities,
733: that we write in the same order as before, among the realistic probabilities:
734: \begin{eqnarray}
735: \frac{1}{2}[p_{11}(\tau|0)+p_{12}(\tau|0)]&=&\frac{1}{2}[p_{21}(\tau|0)+p_{22}(\tau|0)]=
736: \frac{1}{2}[p_{11}(\tau|0)+p_{21}(\tau|0)] \\
737: &=&\frac{1}{2}[p_{12}(\tau|0)+p_{22}(\tau|0)]= \frac{1}{2}E_S(\tau) , \nonumber
738: \end{eqnarray}
739: which correspond to fix:
740: \begin{eqnarray}
741: \label{21}
742: p_{21}(\tau|0)&=&p_{12}(\tau|0) , \\
743: \label{22}
744: p_{22}(\tau|0)&=&p_{11}(\tau|0) , \\
745: \label{prima}
746: p_{11}(\tau|0)+p_{12}(\tau|0)&=&E_S(\tau) ,
747: \end{eqnarray}
748: the first two equalities being compatible with time--reversal invariance, which follows from
749: $CPT$ theorem, having adopted $CP$ conservation.
750: In the same way, the equalities:
751: \begin{eqnarray}
752: |\langle K^0(0)|K_L(\tau)\rangle|^2&=&|\langle \bar{K}^0(0)|K_L(\tau)\rangle|^2=
753: |\langle K_L(0)|K^0(\tau)\rangle|^2 \\
754: &=&|\langle K_L(0)|\bar{K}^0(\tau)\rangle|^2= \frac{1}{2}E_L(\tau) , \nonumber
755: \end{eqnarray}
756: require:
757: \begin{eqnarray}
758: \label{43}
759: p_{43}(\tau|0)&=&p_{34}(\tau|0) , \\
760: \label{44}
761: p_{44}(\tau|0)&=&p_{33}(\tau|0) , \\
762: \label{seconda}
763: p_{33}(\tau|0)+p_{34}(\tau|0)&=&E_L(\tau) .
764: \end{eqnarray}
765: At this point, two of the 8 $p_{ij}$'s are independent.
766: However, other constraints come from quantum mechanics.
767: In fact, one can write:
768: \begin{eqnarray}
769: |\langle K^0(0)|K^0(\tau)\rangle|^2&=&\frac{1}{4}\left[E_L(\tau)+E_S(\tau)
770: +2\sqrt{E_L(\tau)E_S(\tau)}{\rm cos}\,\Delta m \tau\right] \\
771: & = & \frac{1}{2}[p_{11}(\tau|0)+p_{33}(\tau|0)] , \nonumber
772: \end{eqnarray}
773: where the first (second) equality follows from quantum mechanics (realism),
774: and, analogously:
775: \begin{eqnarray}
776: |\langle \bar{K}^0(0)|K^0(\tau)\rangle|^2&=&\frac{1}{4}\left[E_L(\tau)+E_S(\tau)
777: -2\sqrt{E_L(\tau)E_S(\tau)}{\rm cos}\,\Delta m \tau\right] \\
778: & = & \frac{1}{2}[p_{12}(\tau|0)+p_{34}(\tau|0)] , \nonumber
779: \end{eqnarray}
780: where, in the last equality, we have taken into account of eqs.~(\ref{21}) and
781: (\ref{43}). The other equations one gets for the quantities
782: $|\langle K^0(0)|\bar{K}^0(\tau)\rangle|^2$,
783: $|\langle \bar{K}^0(0)|\bar{K}^0(\tau)\rangle|^2$,
784: $|\langle K_S(0)|K_S(\tau)\rangle|^2$ and
785: $|\langle K_L(0)|K_L(\tau)\rangle|^2$ do not supply new constraints but
786: are compatible with the conditions written above. Thus, assuming
787: eqs.~(\ref{21}), (\ref{22}), (\ref{43}) and (\ref{44}),
788: among $p_{11}$, $p_{12}$, $p_{33}$ and $p_{34}$ we have the system of equations:
789: \beq
790: \left\{\begin{array}{l}
791: \label{1112}
792: p_{11}(\tau|0)+p_{12}(\tau|0)=E_S(\tau) \\
793: p_{33}(\tau|0)+p_{34}(\tau|0)=E_L(\tau) \\
794: p_{11}(\tau|0)+p_{33}(\tau|0)=[E_L(\tau)+E_S(\tau)]Q_+(\tau) \\
795: p_{12}(\tau|0)+p_{34}(\tau|0)=[E_L(\tau)+E_S(\tau)]Q_-(\tau) ,
796: \end{array}\right.
797: \eeq
798: where the shorthand notation:
799: \beq
800: Q_{\pm}(\tau)=\frac{1}{2}\left[1\pm 2\frac{\sqrt{E_L(\tau)E_S(\tau)}}
801: {E_L(\tau)+E_S(\tau)}{\rm cos}\,\Delta m \tau \right]
802: \eeq
803: has been employed. Since $Q_+(\tau)+Q_-(\tau)=1$, in eq.~(\ref{1112})
804: only three conditions out of four are independent.
805: A symmetrical choice of $p_{11}$, $p_{12}$, $p_{33}$ and $p_{34}$
806: leads to the following realistic probability matrix \cite{Se97}:
807: \begin{eqnarray}
808: \label{matrix}
809: &&{\bf p}(\tau|0) \\
810: &&=\left(\begin{array}{c c c c}
811: E_S(\tau)Q_+(\tau) + \delta(\tau) & E_S(\tau)Q_-(\tau) - \delta(\tau) & 0 & 0 \\
812: E_S(\tau)Q_-(\tau) - \delta(\tau) & E_S(\tau)Q_+(\tau) + \delta(\tau) & 0 & 0 \\
813: 0 & 0 & E_L(\tau)Q_+(\tau) - \delta(\tau) & E_L(\tau)Q_-(\tau) + \delta(\tau) \\
814: 0 & 0 & E_L(\tau)Q_-(\tau) + \delta(\tau) & E_L(\tau)Q_+(\tau) - \delta(\tau)
815: \end{array}\right), \nonumber
816: \end{eqnarray}
817: where the degree of freedom is given by the function $\delta(\tau)$.
818: The requirement that all the matrix elements are well defined
819: ($0\leq p_{ij}(\tau|0)\leq 1$) can be satisfied if one
820: chooses properly the function $\delta(\tau)$.
821: A particular solution correspond to keep $\delta(\tau)\equiv 0$. Actually,
822: as we shall see in section \ref{evalprob}, an identically vanishing
823: $\delta(\tau)$ function is the only solution compatible with
824: the local realistic evolution of a correlated pair of kaon.
825:
826: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
827: \subsection{Evolution of a correlated kaon pair}
828: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
829: \label{pair}
830: Now we come to the time evolution of a correlated
831: and non--interacting $K^0\bar{K}^0$ pair emitted in the
832: decay of a $\phi$--meson.
833:
834: From quantum theory [eq.~(\ref{qm2k})] we know that for any time the joint
835: observation of the mesons finds them perfectly correlated.
836: %if one experimenter, measuring along direction $1$, observes at time $\tau$ a
837: %$K^0$ ($K_S$), another experimenter along direction
838: %$2$, at the same time, would observe a $\bar{K}^0$ ($K_L$).
839: At time $\tau =0$, immediately after the $\phi$ decay, in the realistic
840: picture there are four possible states for the kaon pair, each appearing
841: with a probability equal to $1/4$: they are listed in table~\ref{corr0}.
842: \begin{table}[t]
843: \begin{center}
844: \caption{Realistic states for the kaon pair at initial time $\tau =0$.}
845: \label{corr0}
846: \begin{tabular}{c c}
847: \mc {1}{c}{Direction 1} &
848: \mc {1}{c}{Direction 2} \\ \hline
849: $K_1\equiv K^0_{S}$ \hspace{0.4cm} ($S=+1$, $CP=+1$) &
850: $K_4\equiv \bar{K}^0_{L}$ \hspace{0.4cm} ($S=-1$, $CP=-1$) \\
851: $K_2\equiv \bar{K}^0_S$ \hspace{0.4cm} ($S=-1$, $CP=+1$) &
852: $K_3\equiv K^0_L$ \hspace{0.4cm} ($S=+1$, $CP=-1$) \\
853: $K_3\equiv K^0_L$ \hspace{0.4cm} ($S=+1$, $CP=-1$) &
854: $K_2\equiv \bar{K}^0_S$ \hspace{0.4cm} ($S=-1$, $CP=+1$) \\
855: $K_4\equiv \bar{K}^0_L$ \hspace{0.4cm} ($S=-1$, $CP=-1$) &
856: $K_1\equiv K^0_S$ \hspace{0.4cm} ($S=+1$, $CP=+1$) \\
857: \end{tabular}
858: \end{center}
859: \end{table}
860: Kaon $K_1$ is created together with a $K_4$: we assume,
861: as in quantum mechanics, since it is a well tested property,
862: a perfect anti--correlation in strangeness and $CP$
863: when both kaons are considered at equal time.
864: The other three initial states show, obviously, the same correlation property.
865:
866: When the system evolves, the kaons fly apart from each other,
867: and at two generic times $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$
868: (corresponding to opposite directions of propagation labeled 1 and 2, respectively)
869: the kaon pair is in one of the states reported in table~\ref{corrt}.
870: \begin{table}[t]
871: \begin{center}
872: \caption{Local realistic states for the kaon pair at times $\tau_2\geq \tau_1$.}
873: \label{corrt}
874: \begin{tabular}{l | c c}
875: \mc {1}{c |}{Probabilities}&
876: \mc {1}{c}{Direction 1 (Left) \hspace{0.2cm}Time $\tau_1$} &
877: \mc {1}{c}{Direction 2 (Right)\hspace{0.2cm}Time $\tau_2$} \\ \hline
878: $P_1(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda)$ & $K_1\equiv K^0_{S}$ & $K_4\equiv \bar{K}^0_L$ \\
879: $P_2(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda)$ & $K_1\equiv K^0_{S}$ & $CP=-1$ DP \\
880: $P_3(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda)$ & $CP=+1$ DP & $K_4\equiv \bar{K}^0_L$ \\
881: $P_4(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda)$ & $K_1\equiv K^0_{S}$ & $K_3\equiv K^0_L$ \\
882:
883: $P_5(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda)$ & $K_2\equiv \bar{K}^0_S$ & $K_3\equiv K^0_L$ \\
884: $P_6(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda)$ & $K_2\equiv \bar{K}^0_S$ & $CP=-1$ DP \\
885: $P_7(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda)$ & $CP=+1$ DP & $K_3\equiv K^0_L$ \\
886: $P_8(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda)$ & $K_2\equiv \bar{K}^0_S$ & $K_4\equiv \bar{K}^0_L$ \\
887:
888: $P_9(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda)$ & $K_3\equiv K^0_L$ & $K_2\equiv \bar{K}^0_S$ \\
889: $P_{10}(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda)$ & $K_3\equiv K^0_L$ & $CP=+1$ DP \\
890: $P_{11}(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda)$ & $CP=-1$ DP & $K_2\equiv \bar{K}^0_S$ \\
891: $P_{12}(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda)$ & $K_3\equiv K^0_L$ & $K_1\equiv K^0_S$ \\
892:
893: $P_{13}(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda)$ & $K_4\equiv \bar{K}^0_L$ & $K_1\equiv K^0_S$ \\
894: $P_{14}(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda)$ & $K_4\equiv \bar{K}^0_L$ & $CP=+1$ DP \\
895: $P_{15}(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda)$ & $CP=-1$ DP & $K_1\equiv K^0_S$ \\
896: $P_{16}(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda)$ & $K_4\equiv \bar{K}^0_L$ & $K_2\equiv \bar{K}^0_S$ \\
897: $P_{17}(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda)$ & $CP=+1$ DP & $CP=-1$ DP \\
898: $P_{18}(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda)$ & $CP=-1$ DP & $CP=+1$ DP \\
899: \end{tabular}
900: \end{center}
901: \end{table}
902: The first row refers to the state with a $K_1$ at time $\tau_1$ along direction
903: $1$ (which we define as left direction)
904: and a $K_4$ at time $\tau_2$ along direction $2$ (right direction;
905: we have in mind, here, the kaon pair propagation
906: in the center of mass system). Given the classification of the table,
907: in our discussion we consider $\tau_2\geq\tau_1$: the isotropy of space
908: guarantees the invariance of the two--kaon states by exchanging the directions 1 and 2.
909: In the second row the state corresponds to a left going $K_1$ at time $\tau_1$
910: and $CP=-1$ decay products (DP) at time $\tau_2$ on the right.
911: These decay products originate from the instability
912: of the $K_3$ and $K_4$ pure states, which are both long living kaons, namely
913: $CP=-1$ states (the corresponding physical processes are:
914: $K_L\to 3\pi, \pi \mu \nu_{\mu}, \pi e \nu_e$). At time $\tau_1$ the state correlated
915: with a left going $K_1$ is necessarily either a $K_4$ or a state containing
916: $CP=-1$ decay products, $K^{DP}_3$ or $K^{DP}_4$.
917: Then, at time $\tau_2$ ($> \tau_1$) on the right we can have:
918: i) a $K_4$ (state in the first row), ii) $CP=-1$ decay products (state in
919: the second row) or iii) a $K_3$ (state in the fourth row). The former case refers to the
920: transition $K_4(\tau_1)\to K_4(\tau_2)$, the latter to
921: $K_4(\tau_1)\to K_3(\tau_2)$, both along direction 2.
922: Occurrence ii) takes contributions
923: from the following transitions: $K^{DP}_3(\tau_1)\to K^{DP}_3(\tau_2)$,
924: $K^{DP}_4(\tau_1)\to K^{DP}_4(\tau_2)$,
925: $K_4(\tau_1)\to K^{DP}_4(\tau_2)$ and $K_4(\tau_1)\to K_3(\tau_1<\tau<\tau_2)
926: \to K^{DP}_3(\tau_2)$. The other states in table~\ref{corrt} have similar meaning,
927: the last two rows corresponding to the situation in which both left and right going kaons
928: are decayed at times $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$, respectively.
929:
930: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
931: \subsubsection{Interpretation of the states with local hidden--variables}
932: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
933: \label{lrstates}
934: At this point it is important to stress that the states listed in
935: table~\ref{corrt} are assumed to be well defined
936: for all times $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ with $\tau_1\leq \tau_2$:
937: this is the main requirement of the
938: realistic approach (analogous discussion is valid for states in tables~\ref{loc-rea}
939: and \ref{corr0}). For a given kaon pair we assume that
940: only one of the 18 possibilities of table~\ref{corrt} really occurs
941: for fixed $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$. This means that we are making the
942: hypothesis (realism) that there exist additional variables, usually called
943: {\it hidden--variables} (with respect to orthodox quantum mechanics these
944: variables are hidden in the sense that they are uncontrollable), that provide a
945: complete description of the pair, which is viewed as really existing
946: and with well defined properties independently of any observation.
947: The state representing the meson pair for given times $(\tau_1,\tau_2)$
948: is completely defined by these hidden--variables:
949: they are supposed to determine in advance (say when
950: the two kaons are created) the future behaviour of the pair. Thus,
951: the times in correspondence of which the instantaneous $|\Delta S|=2$ jumps and the decay
952: occur for a given kaon are predetermined by its hidden--variables.
953: Under this hypotheses there is no problem concerning a possible causal influence
954: acting among the different entities of entangled systems when a measurement
955: takes place on one subsystem.
956: However, the new variables, which we denote with the compact symbol $\lambda$, are
957: unobservable because they are averaged out in the measuring processes, and
958: unobservable are the states of table~\ref{corrt}.
959: In principle, also the measuring apparata could be
960: described by means of hidden--variables, which influence the results of measurement.
961: Besides, hidden--variables associated to the kaon pair could show a non--deterministic
962: behaviour.
963: It is important to stress that in the approach with hidden--variables, the probabilistic
964: character of quantum mechanics is viewed as a practical necessity
965: for treating problems at the observation level, but
966: (and this is a strong difference compared to the orthodox interpretation)
967: does not originate from the intrinsic
968: behaviour of microphenomena: the indetermination principle is supposed
969: to act only during the observation process.
970:
971: The realistic probabilities listed in table \ref{corrt}:
972: \beq
973: P_i(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda)\equiv P_i(\tau_1,\tau_2|\lambda)\rho(\lambda) ,
974: \eeq
975: correspond to the situation in which a single meson pair, described by the value $\lambda$
976: of the hidden--variables, is considered. Once $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ are fixed,
977: the {\it state} of the kaon pair $\lambda$ (we can think it is fixed at the time of the
978: pair creation) can take values in the set $\{\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_i;\; i=1,..,18\}$
979: (however, we stress again, $\lambda$ is fixed when a single pair
980: is considered), and for a deterministic theory we have:
981: \beq
982: \label{hv-prob}
983: P_i\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_j\right)=
984: \delta_{ij}\rho\left(\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_i\right) .
985: \eeq
986: In the previous relations, $\rho$ is the probability distribution of the
987: kaon pair hidden--variables and $P_i(\tau_1,\tau_2|\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_j)$
988: ($=\delta_{ij}$) is the probability of the $i$--th state of table
989: \ref{corrt} {\it conditional} on the
990: presence of a pair in the state $\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_j$.
991: For a single meson pair, only one of the probabilities of table \ref{corrt}
992: is different from zero at instants $(\tau_1,\tau_2)$
993: in a deterministic model:
994: if $\lambda\equiv \lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_k$, the non--vanishing
995: probability is the $k$--th of the table.
996: As far as different times $\tau'_1$ and $\tau'_2$ are considered, eq.~(\ref{hv-prob})
997: is valid for the same set of hidden--variables, but in general with
998: the variables appearing in a different permutation,
999: $\{\lambda^{[\tau'_1,\tau'_2]}_i\}\equiv {\cal P}\{\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_j\}$
1000: (indexes $i$ and $j$ always refer to the classification of table~\ref{corrt}).
1001: Therefore, in the model we are describing the pair can be created in 18 different
1002: realistic states, namely with 18 different values of the hidden--variables.
1003: We stress again: the hidden--variable sets at different pair of times contain
1004: the same objects, but in one of the 18! different orderings,
1005: and notation used in eq.~(\ref{hv-prob})
1006: does not mean that the hidden--variables are time--dependent.
1007: From eq.~(\ref{hv-prob}) it follows that in a model with deterministic
1008: kaon pair hidden--variables, the normalization of the local realistic probabilities
1009: corresponds to that of the hidden--variables:
1010: \beq
1011: \sum^{18}_{i=1} P_i\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_i\right)
1012: =\sum^{18}_{i=1}\rho\left(\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_i\right)=1 .
1013: \eeq
1014:
1015: In the realistic interpretation, the quantum state (\ref{qm2k}) corresponds to a
1016: statistical ensemble of meson pairs, which are
1017: further specified by different values of the hidden--variables.
1018: To exemplify,
1019: let us consider such a (large) ensemble of identical kaon pairs specified by
1020: different $\lambda$'s (which we suppose now to be continuous variables),
1021: whose distribution $\rho$ we assume to be independent of the {\it apparatus parameters}
1022: $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$, the kaons being emitted in a way which does not depend
1023: on the adjustable times $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ (we assume, here, no retroactive causality).
1024: We can give a statistical characterization of this ensemble by means of the
1025: set of observables (\ref{kkb})--(\ref{lkappa}). Considering, as an example,
1026: $P[K^0(\tau_1),\bar{K}^0(\tau_2)]$, within a general
1027: deterministic local hidden--variable interpretation:
1028: \begin{eqnarray}
1029: \label{hv}
1030: P_{LR}[K^0(\tau_1),\bar{K}^0(\tau_2)]&\equiv &\int d\lambda \rho(\lambda)
1031: P(K^0, \tau_1; \bar{K}^0, \tau_2|\lambda) \\
1032: &=&\int d\lambda \rho(\lambda)
1033: P^{\rm Left}(K^0,\tau_1|\lambda)P^{\rm Right}(\bar{K}^0,\tau_2|\lambda) , \nonumber
1034: \end{eqnarray}
1035: where $LR$ stands for local realism. The joint probability
1036: $P(K^0, \tau_1; \bar{K}^0, \tau_2|\lambda)$, which is conditional on the presence
1037: of the particular value $\lambda$ of the hidden--variables, has been assumed to be locally
1038: explicable, then it appears in the factorized form in the last
1039: equality. The function $P^{\rm Left}(K^0,\tau_1|\lambda)$
1040: [$P^{\rm Right}(\bar{K}^0,\tau_2|\lambda)$]
1041: is the conditional probability that, once fixed $\lambda$,
1042: the left (right) going kaon at time $\tau_1$ ($\tau_2$), which is fully
1043: specified by $\lambda$, is $K^0$ ($\bar{K}^0$). As required by locality,
1044: given $\lambda$ and the apparatus parameters $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$,
1045: $P^{\rm Left}$ and $P^{\rm Right}$ are independent.
1046: They only take two values:
1047: \beq
1048: \label{hv2}
1049: P^{\rm Left}(K^0,\tau_1|\lambda)=\left\{\begin{array}{l}
1050: 1 , \hspace{0.25cm}{\rm when\; the\; state\; at\; time\;} \tau_1\; {\rm is\;} K^0 \\
1051: 0 , \hspace{0.25cm}{\rm when\; the\; state\; at\; time\;} \tau_1\;
1052: {\rm is\; not\;} K^0 \end{array}\right. .
1053: \eeq
1054: The knowledge (impossible, we emphasize again)
1055: of the hidden--variables associated to an individual kaon pair
1056: emission would permit to determine the precise instants the $K_S$ and $K_L$
1057: components decay, then eq.~(\ref{hv2}) follows.
1058: The locality condition is motivated by the requirement of relativistic causality,
1059: which prevents faster--than--light influences
1060: between space--like separated events. In the present case, assuming there is no delay among
1061: the times at which the experimenters choose to perform their observations and the real
1062: kaon measurement times $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$, the locality requirement is fulfilled when
1063: the two observation events are separated by a space--like interval [see eq.~(\ref{loc-exp})].
1064: However, to be precise, as we shall explain in section \ref{comp}, a
1065: loophole that is impossible to
1066: block exists and could permit, in principle and without requiring the existence of
1067: action--at--a--distance, an information to reach both the measuring devices for any choice of the
1068: detection times $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$.
1069:
1070: In the above we have restricted our argumentation to
1071: deterministic theories only, but it is possible to extend the same description
1072: given by eq.~(\ref{hv}) to non--deterministic
1073: (namely stochastic) theories as well as to deterministic theories in which additional
1074: hidden--variables correspond to the measurement devices \cite{Cl78}.
1075: Let us make the hypothesis that also the experimental apparata are described in
1076: terms of hidden--variables, which influence the measurement outcomes.
1077: In this case, denoting with $\lambda'$ ($\lambda''$)
1078: the hidden--variables specifying the behaviour of the apparatus measuring
1079: on the left (right), in the new local hidden--variable
1080: theory the expectation value of eq.~(\ref{hv}) is given by:
1081: \begin{eqnarray}
1082: \label{hv3}
1083: P_{LR}[K^0(\tau_1),\bar{K}^0(\tau_2)]&\equiv &\int d\lambda\, d\lambda'\, d\lambda''
1084: \rho(\lambda,\lambda',\lambda'') P(K^0, \tau_1; \bar{K}^0, \tau_2|
1085: \lambda,\lambda',\lambda'') \\
1086: &=&\int d\lambda\, d\lambda'\, d\lambda'' \rho(\lambda)p(\lambda'|\lambda)p(\lambda''|\lambda)
1087: P^{\rm Left}(K^0,\tau_1|\lambda,\lambda')
1088: P^{\rm Right}(\bar{K}^0,\tau_2|\lambda,\lambda'') , \nonumber
1089: \end{eqnarray}
1090: where:
1091: \beq
1092: \label{rhorho}
1093: \rho(\lambda,\lambda',\lambda'')\equiv p(\lambda',\lambda''|\lambda)\rho(\lambda)=
1094: p(\lambda'|\lambda)p(\lambda''|\lambda)\rho(\lambda) .
1095: \eeq
1096: In the second equality of eq.~(\ref{hv3}),
1097: locality has been assumed for both kaon pair and apparata hidden--variables;
1098: $p(\lambda'|\lambda)$ [$p(\lambda''|\lambda)$] is the conditional probability that,
1099: when the kaon pair is specified by the variables $\lambda$, the
1100: device measuring the left (right) going kaon
1101: is described by the variables $\lambda'$ ($\lambda''$).
1102: Since the distribution $\rho(\lambda)$ of the kaon pair hidden--variables is
1103: normalized to unity, the same occurs for
1104: $p(\lambda'|\lambda)$ and $p(\lambda''|\lambda)$ for any $\lambda$.
1105: It is than clear, by comparing eqs.~(\ref{hv}) and (\ref{hv3}), that:
1106: \beq
1107: \label{non-det}
1108: P(K^0, \tau_1; \bar{K}^0, \tau_2|\lambda)=\int d\lambda'\, d\lambda''
1109: p(\lambda',\lambda''|\lambda)
1110: P(K^0,\tau_1;\bar{K}^0,\tau_2|\lambda,\lambda',\lambda'') ,
1111: \eeq
1112: and when one implements locality for the kaon pair
1113: and apparata hidden--variables, equality (\ref{hv2}) is replaced by:
1114: \beq
1115: \label{non-det2}
1116: 0\leq P^{\rm Left}(K^0,\tau_1|\lambda)\equiv\int d\lambda'\, p(\lambda'|\lambda)
1117: P^{\rm Left}(K^0,\tau_1|\lambda,\lambda') \leq 1 .
1118: \eeq
1119: The difference compared to the deterministic case without apparata hidden--variables
1120: is now clear, and in the new picture an equality like (\ref{hv2}) is valid for
1121: $P^{\rm Left}(K^0,\tau_1|\lambda,\lambda')$. It is important to stress
1122: here that for the most general
1123: non--deterministic local hidden--variable theory, elements of randomness
1124: entering the probabilities $P^{\rm Left}(K^0,\tau_1|\lambda)$ and
1125: $P^{\rm Right}(\bar{K}^0,\tau_2|\lambda)$
1126: could be related not only to apparata hidden--variables, but to other
1127: unknown mechanisms. Nevertheless, the above
1128: discussion that have led to eqs.~(\ref{hv3})--(\ref{non-det2}) also applies for
1129: the most general non--deterministic local hidden--variable theory.
1130:
1131: In our local realistic theory (table \ref{corrt})
1132: the set of hidden--variables describing the kaon pair
1133: forms a discrete set, and eq.~(\ref{hv})
1134: reduces to:
1135: \begin{eqnarray}
1136: \label{ourhv}
1137: P_{LR}[K^0(\tau_1),\bar{K}^0(\tau_2)]&=&\rho\left(\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_1\right)
1138: P\left(K^0_S, \tau_1;\bar{K}^0_L,\tau_2|\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_1\right) \\
1139: &&+ \rho\left(\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_9\right)
1140: P\left(K^0_L, \tau_1;\bar{K}^0_S, \tau_2|\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_9\right) \nonumber \\
1141: &\equiv &P_1\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_1\right)+
1142: P_9\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_9\right) , \nonumber
1143: \end{eqnarray}
1144: where in the last line the notation of table \ref{corrt} has been introduced.
1145: It is important to stress that,
1146: contrary to what occurs for quantum--mechanical probabilities, in the description
1147: with hidden--variables of
1148: eqs.~(\ref{hv}) and (\ref{ourhv}) the transitions that lead to
1149: two--kaon states which contribute to
1150: $P_{LR}[K^0(\tau_1),\bar{K}^0(\tau_2)]$ do not interfere with one another.
1151:
1152: Within the scheme of table~\ref{corrt} it is easy to obtain the predictions
1153: of local realism for measurements concerning an individual kaon. For instance, the
1154: probability to observe a left going $K^0$ at time $\tau_1$ is given by:
1155: \beq
1156: \label{ourhv2}
1157: P^{\rm Left}_{LR}[K^0(\tau_1)]=\sum_{i=1,2,4,9,10,12}
1158: P_i\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_i\right) .
1159: \eeq
1160:
1161: The hidden--variable interpretation of the observables we have discussed in
1162: this section has also been assumed,
1163: even if not explicitly declared, when, in section~\ref{singlek}, we treated the
1164: propagation of a single kaon from the point of view of realism.
1165:
1166: %*****************************************************************
1167: % Evaluation of the observables
1168: %*****************************************************************
1169: \subsubsection{Evaluation of the observables}
1170: \label{evalprob}
1171:
1172: Now we proceed discussing the range of variability of the
1173: meson pair observables compatible with the most general local realistic model.
1174: We shall use the rules of classical probability theory.
1175:
1176: Start considering the probabilities of table~\ref{corrt}. In particular,
1177: we concentrate on the state in the fourth row.
1178: At time $\tau_1$ the left going kaon is $K_1$, then, requiring $CP$ conservation,
1179: at time $\tau=0$ the initial state was either a $K_1$ or a $K_2$.
1180: Since either a $K_1$ or a $K_2$ must be present as initial state for the
1181: left going kaon (both with equal frequency $1/4$), from matrix~(\ref{matrix})
1182: the probability that at time $\tau_1$ the state is $K_1$ equals to
1183: $[p_{11}(\tau_1|0)+p_{12}(\tau_1|0)]/4=E_S(\tau_1)/4$.
1184: Correlated with this $K_1$, at the same time $\tau_1$ on the right
1185: there is either a $K_4$ or $CP=-1$ decay products. Since the two--kaon state
1186: we are considering corresponds to a $K_3$ at time $\tau_2$, at time $\tau_1$
1187: we must require the presence of a $K_4$: the probability that at this time
1188: a $K_4$ is not decayed is $p_{43}(\tau_1|0)+p_{44}(\tau_1|0)=E_L(\tau_1)$.
1189: Finally, from $\tau_1$ the $K_4$ must evolve into $K_3$ at time $\tau_2$.
1190: This transition occurs with (conditional) probability that we denote:
1191: \beq
1192: p_{34}(\tau_2|\tau_1)\equiv p[K_4(\tau_1)\to K_3(\tau_2)] .
1193: \eeq
1194: Then, probability $P_4$ of table~\ref{corrt} is given by:
1195: \beq
1196: \label{setprob0}
1197: P_4\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_4\right)=
1198: \frac{1}{4}E_S(\tau_1)E_L(\tau_1)p_{34}(\tau_2|\tau_1) .
1199: \eeq
1200: By using the same line of reasoning one obtains the other probabilities.
1201: They have the following expressions:
1202: \begin{eqnarray}
1203: \label{setprob}
1204: P_1\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_1\right)&=&
1205: \frac{1}{4}E_S(\tau_1)E_L(\tau_1)p_{44}(\tau_2|\tau_1) , \\ \nonumber
1206: P_2\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_2\right)&=&
1207: P_6\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_6\right)=\frac{1}{4}E_S(\tau_1)[1-E_L(\tau_2)] , \\ \nonumber
1208: P_3\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_3\right)&=&
1209: \frac{1}{4}[1-E_S(\tau_1)]E_L(\tau_1)
1210: [p_{43}(\tau_2|\tau_1)+p_{44}(\tau_2|\tau_1)] ,\\ \nonumber
1211: P_5\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_5\right)&=&
1212: \frac{1}{4}E_S(\tau_1)E_L(\tau_1)p_{33}(\tau_2|\tau_1) ,\\ \nonumber
1213: P_7\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_7\right)&=&\frac{1}{4}[1-E_S(\tau_1)]E_L(\tau_1)
1214: [p_{33}(\tau_2|\tau_1)+p_{34}(\tau_2|\tau_1)] ,\\ \nonumber
1215: P_8\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_8\right)&=&
1216: \frac{1}{4}E_S(\tau_1)E_L(\tau_1)p_{43}(\tau_2|\tau_1) ,\\ \nonumber
1217: P_9\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_9\right)&=&
1218: \frac{1}{4}E_S(\tau_1)E_L(\tau_1)p_{22}(\tau_2|\tau_1) ,\\ \nonumber
1219: P_{10}\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_{10}\right)&=&
1220: P_{14}\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_{14}\right)=
1221: \frac{1}{4}E_L(\tau_1)[1-E_S(\tau_2)] ,\\ \nonumber
1222: P_{11}\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_{11}\right)&=&
1223: \frac{1}{4}E_S(\tau_1)[1-E_L(\tau_1)]
1224: [p_{21}(\tau_2|\tau_1)+p_{22}(\tau_2|\tau_1)] ,\\ \nonumber
1225: P_{12}\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_{12}\right)&=&
1226: \frac{1}{4}E_S(\tau_1)E_L(\tau_1)p_{12}(\tau_2|\tau_1) ,\\ \nonumber
1227: P_{13}\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_{13}\right)&=&
1228: \frac{1}{4}E_S(\tau_1)E_L(\tau_1)p_{11}(\tau_2|\tau_1) ,\\ \nonumber
1229: P_{15}\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_{15}\right)&=&
1230: \frac{1}{4}E_S(\tau_1)[1-E_L(\tau_1)]
1231: [p_{11}(\tau_2|\tau_1)+p_{12}(\tau_2|\tau_1)] ,\\ \nonumber
1232: P_{16}\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_{16}\right)&=&
1233: \frac{1}{4}E_S(\tau_1)E_L(\tau_1)p_{21}(\tau_2|\tau_1) ,\\ \nonumber
1234: P_{17}\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_{17}\right)&=&
1235: \frac{1}{2}[1-E_S(\tau_1)][1-E_L(\tau_2)] , \\ \nonumber
1236: P_{18}\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_{18}\right)&=&
1237: \frac{1}{2}[1-E_L(\tau_1)][1-E_S(\tau_2)] . \nonumber
1238: \end{eqnarray}
1239:
1240: The description of eqs.~(\ref{ourhv}) and (\ref{ourhv2}) and table
1241: \ref{corrt} corresponds to the most general hidden--variable theory.
1242: Actually, the local realistic probabilities of eqs.~(\ref{setprob0}), (\ref{setprob})
1243: must be interpreted by means of equations like (\ref{non-det}),
1244: namely they contain elements of randomness related both to apparata
1245: hidden--variables and, in general, to other unknown mechanisms:
1246: $P_i(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_i)=
1247: P_i(\tau_1,\tau_2|\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_i)\rho(\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_i)$,
1248: where $0\leq P_i(\tau_1,\tau_2|\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_i)\leq 1$.
1249:
1250: When $\tau_1=\tau_2=0$, only the probabilities for the four states of table~\ref{corr0}:
1251: \beq
1252: P_1\left(0,0;\lambda^{[0,0]}_1\right)=P_5\left(0,0;\lambda^{[0,0]}_5\right)=
1253: P_9\left(0,0;\lambda^{[0,0]}_9\right)=P_{13}\left(0,0;\lambda^{[0,0]}_{13}\right)=\frac{1}{4} ,
1254: \eeq
1255: are non--vanishing. Moreover, for $\tau_1=\tau_2\equiv \tau \neq0$, four probabilities of our
1256: set are still zero:
1257: \beq
1258: P_4\left(\tau,\tau;\lambda^{[\tau,\tau]}_4\right)=P_8\left(\tau,\tau;\lambda^{[\tau,\tau]}_8\right)=
1259: P_{12}\left(\tau,\tau;\lambda^{[\tau,\tau]}_{12}\right)=
1260: P_{16}\left(\tau,\tau;\lambda^{[\tau,\tau]}_{16}\right)=0 ,
1261: \eeq
1262: because of the requirement of perfect anti--correlation on strangeness at equal times.
1263:
1264: Consider now the contribution to $P_1(\tau,\tau;\lambda^{[\tau,\tau]}_1)$
1265: coming from the transitions $K_1(0)\to K_1(\tau)$ on the left and
1266: $K_4(0)\to K_4(\tau)$ on the right. It can be written in the following two
1267: equivalent ways: 1) the probability that the left going kaon is
1268: created in the state $K_1$ and is then subject to the
1269: transition $K_1(0)\to K_1(\tau)$ is $p_{11}(\tau|0)/4$; in order to obtain the
1270: required probability we have to multiply this quantity by the probability
1271: $E_L(\tau)$ that the right going kaon at time $\tau$, that is correlated with
1272: the left going $K_1$, is an undecayed $K_4$; 2) the probability that
1273: the right going kaon is created in the state $K_4$ and is then
1274: subject to the transition $K_4(0)\to K_4(\tau)$ is
1275: $p_{44}(\tau|0)/4$; to obtain the required
1276: probability we have to multiply this quantity by the probability
1277: $E_S(\tau)$ that the left going kaon at time $\tau$ is an undecayed $K_1$.
1278: Therefore, the following equality is valid:
1279: \beq
1280: p_{11}(\tau|0)E_L(\tau)=p_{44}(\tau|0)E_S(\tau) ,
1281: \eeq
1282: and from eq.~(\ref{matrix}) we obtain that it is verified only when $\delta(\tau)\equiv 0$.
1283: This property can also be proved starting from the other probabilities of
1284: eqs.~(\ref{setprob0}), (\ref{setprob})
1285: which are non--vanishing when $\tau_1=\tau_2$.
1286:
1287: The independent observables relevant for the problem
1288: [given, in quantum mechanics, by eqs.~(\ref{kkb})--(\ref{sl})] can be written,
1289: within local realism, as follows:
1290: \begin{eqnarray}
1291: \label{lr1}
1292: P_{LR}[K^0(\tau_1),\bar{K}^0(\tau_2)]&\equiv & P_1\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_1\right)+
1293: P_9\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_9\right) \\ \nonumber
1294: &=&\frac{1}{4}E_S(\tau_1)E_L(\tau_1)[p_{22}(\tau_2|\tau_1)+p_{44}(\tau_2|\tau_1)] , \\ \nonumber
1295: P_{LR}[\bar{K}^0(\tau_1),K^0(\tau_2)]&\equiv & P_5\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_5\right)+
1296: P_{13}\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_{13}\right) \\ \nonumber
1297: &=&\frac{1}{4}E_S(\tau_1)E_L(\tau_1)[p_{11}(\tau_2|\tau_1)+p_{33}(\tau_2|\tau_1)] , \\ \nonumber
1298: P_{LR}[K^0(\tau_1),K^0(\tau_2)]&\equiv & P_4\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_4\right)+
1299: P_{12}\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_{12}\right) \\ \nonumber
1300: &=&\frac{1}{4}E_S(\tau_1)E_L(\tau_1)[p_{12}(\tau_2|\tau_1)+p_{34}(\tau_2|\tau_1)] , \\ \nonumber
1301: P_{LR}[\bar{K}^0(\tau_1),\bar{K}^0(\tau_2)]&\equiv &
1302: P_8\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_8\right)+
1303: P_{16}\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_{16}\right) \\ \nonumber
1304: &=&\frac{1}{4}E_S(\tau_1)E_L(\tau_1)[p_{21}(\tau_2|\tau_1)+p_{43}(\tau_2|\tau_1)] , \\ \nonumber
1305: P_{LR}[K_L(\tau_1),K_S(\tau_2)]&\equiv & P_9\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_9\right)+
1306: P_{12}\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_{12}\right) \\ \nonumber
1307: &&+P_{13}\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_{13}\right)+
1308: P_{16}\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_{16}\right) \\ \nonumber
1309: &=&\frac{1}{4}E_S(\tau_1)E_L(\tau_1)
1310: [p_{11}(\tau_2|\tau_1)+p_{12}(\tau_2|\tau_1)+p_{21}(\tau_2|\tau_1)+p_{22}(\tau_2|\tau_1)] , \\ \nonumber
1311: P_{LR}[K_S(\tau_1),K_L(\tau_2)]&\equiv & P_1\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_1\right)+
1312: P_4\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_4\right) \\ \nonumber
1313: &&+P_5\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_5\right)+
1314: P_8\left(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_8\right) \\ \nonumber
1315: &=&\frac{1}{4}E_S(\tau_1)E_L(\tau_1)
1316: [p_{33}(\tau_2|\tau_1)+p_{34}(\tau_2|\tau_1)+p_{43}(\tau_2|\tau_1)+p_{44}(\tau_2|\tau_1)] .
1317: \end{eqnarray}
1318: The probabilities of eqs.~(\ref{skappa}) and (\ref{lkappa}) do not supply new
1319: information since they are not independent of the other ones just considered,
1320: whereas eq.~(\ref{ss}), which ensures $CP$ conservation, was assumed,
1321: in section \ref{localrealismkappa} and then in table~\ref{corrt},
1322: when we introduced local realism for the two--kaon system.
1323:
1324: In order to determine the observables of eq.~(\ref{lr1}), we now ask whether it
1325: is possible to derive useful relations
1326: among the $p_{ij}(\tau_2|\tau_1)$'s and the probabilities $p_{ij}(\tau|0)$
1327: of matrix (\ref{matrix}). By introducing three--time probabilities:
1328: \beq
1329: \label{three}
1330: p_{ijk}(\tau_2,\tau_1,0)=p_{ijk}(\tau_2,\tau_1|0)p_k(0)=
1331: p_{ijk}(\tau_2|\tau_1,0)p_{jk}(\tau_1|0)p_k(0) ,
1332: \eeq
1333: and using the multiplication theorem,
1334: $p_{11}(\tau_2|\tau_1)$, $p_{12}(\tau_2|\tau_1)$, $p_{21}(\tau_2|\tau_1)$
1335: and $p_{22}(\tau_2|\tau_1)$ can be written as follows:
1336: \begin{eqnarray}
1337: \label{p11d}
1338: p_{11}(\tau_2,\tau_1)\equiv p_{11}(\tau_2|\tau_1)p_1(\tau_1)
1339: &=&\frac{1}{4}\left[p_{111}(\tau_2,\tau_1|0)+p_{112}(\tau_2,\tau_1|0)\right] , \\
1340: \label{p12d}
1341: p_{12}(\tau_2,\tau_1)\equiv p_{12}(\tau_2|\tau_1)p_2(\tau_1)
1342: &=&\frac{1}{4}\left[p_{121}(\tau_2,\tau_1|0)+p_{122}(\tau_2,\tau_1|0)\right] . \\
1343: \label{p21d}
1344: p_{21}(\tau_2,\tau_1)\equiv p_{21}(\tau_2|\tau_1)p_1(\tau_1)
1345: &=&\frac{1}{4}\left[p_{211}(\tau_2,\tau_1|0)+p_{212}(\tau_2,\tau_1|0)\right] , \\
1346: \label{p22d}
1347: p_{22}(\tau_2,\tau_1)\equiv p_{22}(\tau_2|\tau_1)p_2(\tau_1)
1348: &=&\frac{1}{4}\left[p_{221}(\tau_2,\tau_1|0)+p_{222}(\tau_2,\tau_1|0)\right] .
1349: \end{eqnarray}
1350: In the previous relations,
1351: $p_1(\tau_1)=[p_{11}(\tau_1)+p_{12}(\tau_1)]/4=E_S(\tau_1)/4$
1352: ($p_2(\tau_1)=[p_{21}(\tau_1)+p_{22}(\tau_1)]/4=E_S(\tau_1)/4$)
1353: is the probability to observe a $K_1$ ($K_2$) along direction 1 at time $\tau_1$
1354: (analogous relations are valid for $CP=-1$ states, and $p_3(\tau)=p_4(\tau)=E_L(\tau)/4$),
1355: the $p_{jk}(\tau|0)$'s are given in eq.~(\ref{matrix}) with $\delta(\tau)\equiv 0$,
1356: whereas $p_{ij}(\tau_2,\tau_1)$ denote standard
1357: (namely non--conditional) two--times probabilities.
1358: Moreover, $p_{ijk}(\tau_2,\tau_1,0)$ is the probability to have states $K_k$, $K_j$ and $K_i$
1359: at times $0$, $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$, respectively, $p_{ijk}(\tau_2,\tau_1|0)$
1360: is the probability that at times $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ the states are
1361: $K_j$ and $K_i$, respectively, if the state at time $0$ was $K_k$, and,
1362: finally, $p_{ijk}(\tau_2|\tau_1,0)$ is the probability of a $K_i$ at time
1363: $\tau_2$ conditional on the presence of a $K_k$ at time $0$ and a $K_j$ at $\tau_1$.
1364: It is then clear that, in eqs.~(\ref{p11d})--(\ref{p22d}), the two--times probabilities
1365: $p_{ij}(\tau_2,\tau_1)$ are obtained by summing over the possible states
1366: appearing at time $\tau=0$.
1367:
1368: Let us now consider probability $p_{11}(\tau_2|0)$.
1369: Introduce a time $\tau_1$ in the interval $[0,\tau_2]$:
1370: at instant $\tau_1$ the state can be
1371: either a $K_1$ or a $K_2$, then the contributions to $p_{11}(\tau_2|0)$ come from
1372: two transitions with different intermediate state. They are
1373: $K_1(0)\to K_1(\tau_1)\to K_1(\tau_2)$ and
1374: $K_1(0)\to K_2(\tau_1)\to K_1(\tau_2)$, thus:
1375: \beq
1376: \label{p11}
1377: p_{11}(\tau_2|0)=p_{111}(\tau_2,\tau_1|0)+p_{121}(\tau_2,\tau_1|0) ,
1378: \eeq
1379: for any $\tau_1\in [0,\tau_2]$.
1380: Limiting again the discussion to probabilities relevant for the evolution of $CP=+1$
1381: states, one obtains the remaining relations:
1382: \begin{eqnarray}
1383: \label{p12}
1384: p_{12}(\tau_2|0)&=&p_{112}(\tau_2,\tau_1|0)+p_{122}(\tau_2,\tau_1|0) , \\
1385: \label{p21}
1386: p_{21}(\tau_2|0)&=&p_{211}(\tau_2,\tau_1|0)+p_{221}(\tau_2,\tau_1|0) , \\
1387: \label{p22}
1388: p_{22}(\tau_2|0)&=&p_{212}(\tau_2,\tau_1|0)+p_{222}(\tau_2,\tau_1|0) .
1389: \end{eqnarray}
1390:
1391: Now, the sum of two three--times probabilities corresponding to the same states at times
1392: $0$ and $\tau_1$ but with different states at $\tau_2$ provides a known result; in fact:
1393: \begin{eqnarray}
1394: \label{cp11}
1395: p_{111}(\tau_2|\tau_1,0)+p_{211}(\tau_2|\tau_1,0)&=&E_S(\tau_2-\tau_1) , \\
1396: \label{cp12}
1397: p_{112}(\tau_2|\tau_1,0)+p_{212}(\tau_2|\tau_1,0)&=&E_S(\tau_2-\tau_1) , \\
1398: \label{cp21}
1399: p_{121}(\tau_2|\tau_1,0)+p_{221}(\tau_2|\tau_1,0)&=&E_S(\tau_2-\tau_1) , \\
1400: \label{cp22}
1401: p_{122}(\tau_2|\tau_1,0)+p_{222}(\tau_2|\tau_1,0)&=&E_S(\tau_2-\tau_1) .
1402: \end{eqnarray}
1403: Each of these equalities accounts for the contributions to
1404: transitions into final states $K_1$ and $K_2$ once the kaonic states
1405: at times $0$ and $\tau_1$ are fixed: these probabilities equal
1406: the probability $E_S(\tau_2-\tau_1)$ that a $CP=+1$ kaon does not decay during
1407: the time interval between $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$.
1408:
1409: By using the shorthand notation $p_{ijk}\equiv p_{ijk}(\tau_2,\tau_1|0)$,
1410: it follows from (\ref{matrix}) that the
1411: above equations (\ref{p11})--(\ref{cp22}) can be written in the equivalent form:
1412: \begin{eqnarray}
1413: \label{primap}
1414: p_{111}+p_{121}&=&p_{222}+p_{212}=E_S(\tau_2)Q_+(\tau_2) \\
1415: p_{112}+p_{122}&=&p_{221}+p_{211}=E_S(\tau_2)Q_-(\tau_2) \\
1416: p_{111}+p_{211}&=&p_{222}+p_{122}=E_S(\tau_2)Q_+(\tau_1) \\
1417: \label{quarta}
1418: p_{112}+p_{212}&=&p_{221}+p_{121}=E_S(\tau_2)Q_-(\tau_1) .
1419: \end{eqnarray}
1420: These conditions on the 8 $CP=+1$ three--times probabilities
1421: supplies two system of equations:
1422: \begin{equation}
1423: \label{sistema1}
1424: \left\{\begin{array}{l}
1425: p_{111}+p_{121}=E_S(\tau_2)Q_+(\tau_2) \\
1426: p_{221}+p_{211}=E_S(\tau_2)Q_-(\tau_2) \\
1427: p_{111}+p_{211}=E_S(\tau_2)Q_+(\tau_1)
1428: \end{array}\right. ,
1429: \end{equation}
1430: \begin{equation}
1431: \label{sistema2}
1432: \left\{\begin{array}{l}
1433: p_{222}+p_{212}=E_S(\tau_2)Q_+(\tau_2) \\
1434: p_{112}+p_{122}=E_S(\tau_2)Q_-(\tau_2) \\
1435: p_{222}+p_{122}=E_S(\tau_2)Q_+(\tau_1)
1436: \end{array}\right. ,
1437: \end{equation}
1438: each containing three independent conditions and four unknown probabilities.
1439:
1440: From previous results one obtains:
1441: \beq
1442: \label{11-12}
1443: p_{11}(\tau_2|\tau_1)+p_{12}(\tau_2|\tau_1)=\frac{1}{4}\left[
1444: \frac{p_{111}+p_{112}}{p_1(\tau_1)}+\frac{p_{121}+p_{122}}{p_2(\tau_1)}\right]=
1445: E_S(\tau_2-\tau_1) .
1446: \eeq
1447: Analogously:
1448: \beq
1449: \label{altre}
1450: p_{21}(\tau_2|\tau_1)+p_{22}(\tau_2|\tau_1)=
1451: p_{11}(\tau_2|\tau_1)+p_{21}(\tau_2|\tau_1)
1452: =p_{12}(\tau_2|\tau_1)+p_{22}(\tau_2|\tau_1)
1453: =E_S(\tau_2-\tau_1) ,
1454: \eeq
1455: thus:
1456: \begin{eqnarray}
1457: p_{21}(\tau_2|\tau_1)&=&p_{12}(\tau_2|\tau_1) ,\\
1458: \label{ultima}
1459: p_{22}(\tau_2|\tau_1)&=&p_{11}(\tau_2|\tau_1) .
1460: \end{eqnarray}
1461: Exactly the same derivation can be repeated for the $CP=-1$ probabilities:
1462: the relations valid in this case are obtained from (\ref{p11d})--(\ref{ultima})
1463: simply by replacing $E_S$ with $E_L$ and
1464: $1\to 3$, $2\to 4$ for the state indexes. Obviously,
1465: the normalization of the local realistic probabilities (\ref{setprob0}) and (\ref{setprob}),
1466: $\sum_{i=1}^{18}P_i(\tau_1,\tau_2;\lambda^{[\tau_1,\tau_2]}_i)=1$,
1467: is automatically ensured by the above results.
1468:
1469: From eqs.~(\ref{lr1}) and previous analysis one thus obtains the following
1470: expression for the observables within the local realistic approach:
1471: \begin{eqnarray}
1472: %\begin{array}{l l l}
1473: \label{lr00b}
1474: P_{LR}[K^0(\tau_1),\bar{K}^0(\tau_2)]&=&P_{LR}[\bar{K}^0(\tau_1),K^0(\tau_2)]
1475: =\displaystyle\frac{1}{8}[E_S(\tau_1)E_L(\tau_2)+ E_L(\tau_1)E_S(\tau_2)] \\
1476: &&\times [1+A_{LR}(\tau_1,\tau_2)] , \nonumber \\
1477: \label{lr00}
1478: P_{LR}[K^0(\tau_1),K^0(\tau_2)]&=&P_{LR}[\bar{K}^0(\tau_1),\bar{K}^0(\tau_2)]
1479: =\displaystyle\frac{1}{8}[E_S(\tau_1)E_L(\tau_2)+ E_L(\tau_1)E_S(\tau_2)] \\
1480: &&\times [1-A_{LR}(\tau_1,\tau_2)] , \nonumber \\
1481: \label{lrls}
1482: P_{LR}[K_L(\tau_1),K_S(\tau_2)]&=&\displaystyle\frac{1}{4}E_L(\tau_1)E_S(\tau_2) , \\
1483: \label{lrsl}
1484: P_{LR}[K_S(\tau_1),K_L(\tau_2)]&=&\displaystyle\frac{1}{4}E_S(\tau_1)E_L(\tau_2) ,
1485: %\end{array}
1486: \end{eqnarray}
1487: written directly in terms of the asymmetry parameter [see definition (\ref{asimm})]:
1488: \begin{eqnarray}
1489: \label{lr-asimm}
1490: A_{LR}(\tau_1,\tau_2)&=&2\frac{\left[p_{11}(\tau_2|\tau_1)+p_{33}(\tau_2|\tau_1)\right]}
1491: {E_S(\tau_2-\tau_1)+E_L(\tau_2-\tau_1)}-1 \\
1492: &=&2\frac{(p_{111}+p_{112})/E_S(\tau_1)+(p_{333}+p_{334})/E_L(\tau_1)}
1493: {E_S(\tau_2-\tau_1)+E_L(\tau_2-\tau_1)}-1 ,
1494: \nonumber
1495: \end{eqnarray}
1496: where, compatibly with constraints (\ref{sistema1}) and (\ref{sistema2}),
1497: the three--times probabilities can vary in the following intervals:
1498: \begin{eqnarray}
1499: \label{intervalli}
1500: {\rm Max}\{0;Q_+(\tau_2)-Q_-(\tau_1)\} &\leq&
1501: \frac{p_{111}}{E_S(\tau_2)} ,\; \frac{p_{333}}{E_L(\tau_2)}\leq {\rm Min}\{Q_+(\tau_1);Q_+(\tau_2)\} , \\
1502: {\rm Max}\{0;Q_-(\tau_1)-Q_+(\tau_2)\} &\leq&
1503: \frac{p_{112}}{E_S(\tau_2)} ,\; \frac{p_{334}}{E_L(\tau_2)}\leq {\rm Min}\{Q_-(\tau_1);Q_-(\tau_2)\} .
1504: \nonumber
1505: \end{eqnarray}
1506:
1507: %*****************************************************************
1508: % Compatibility between local realism and quantum mechanics
1509: %*****************************************************************
1510: \section{Compatibility between local realism and quantum mechanics}
1511: \label{comp}
1512: From eqs.~(\ref{ourhv2}), (\ref{setprob0}), (\ref{setprob}), (\ref{11-12}), and (\ref{altre})
1513: we obtain that local realism reproduces the single kaon quantum--mechanical
1514: expectation values:
1515: \begin{eqnarray}
1516: \label{comp-single}
1517: P_{LR}[\bar{K}^0(\tau)]\equiv P_{QM}[\bar{K}^0(\tau)]&=&
1518: \frac{1}{4}[E_S(\tau)+E_L(\tau)] , \\
1519: P_{LR}[K^0(\tau)]\equiv P_{QM}[K^0(\tau)]&=&\frac{1}{4}[E_S(\tau)+E_L(\tau)] , \nonumber \\
1520: P_{LR}[K_S(\tau)]\equiv P_{QM}[K_S(\tau)]&=&\frac{1}{2}E_S(\tau) , \nonumber \\
1521: P_{LR}[K_L(\tau)]\equiv P_{QM}[K_L(\tau)]&=&\frac{1}{2}E_L(\tau) . \nonumber
1522: \end{eqnarray}
1523: This result is of general validity \cite{Be64}: for all EPR--like particle pairs it is always possible
1524: to take into account of the single particle observables by employing a local hidden--variable model.
1525:
1526: Results (\ref{lrls}) and (\ref{lrsl}) reproduce the quantum--mechanical predictions
1527: (\ref{ls}) and (\ref{sl}); it is easy to see that
1528: expectation values (\ref{skappa}) and (\ref{lkappa}) are obtained too.
1529: The same conclusion would be true for the
1530: joint observables (\ref{lr00b}) and (\ref{lr00})
1531: involving $K_S$--$K_L$ mixing if the time--dependent local realistic
1532: asymmetry parameter had the same expression it has in quantum mechanics. Thus:
1533: \beq
1534: \label{lr-eq-qm}
1535: {\rm Local\; Realism\; equivalent\; to\; Quantum\; Mechanics}\hspace{0.2cm}
1536: \Longleftrightarrow
1537: \hspace{0.2cm}A_{LR}(\tau_1,\tau_2)\equiv A_{QM}(\tau_1,\tau_2) .
1538: \eeq
1539: From eqs~(\ref{lr-asimm}) and (\ref{intervalli}) it follows that
1540: the asymmetry corresponding to the most general local realistic theory
1541: satisfies the following inequality:
1542: \beq
1543: \label{interval}
1544: 2|Q_+(\tau_2)-Q_-(\tau_1)|-1\leq A_{LR}(\tau_1,\tau_2)\leq 1-2|Q_+(\tau_2)-Q_+(\tau_1)| .
1545: \eeq
1546:
1547: If one considers the special case in which $\tau_2=\tau_1\equiv \tau$, local realism
1548: is compatible with quantum mechanics: in fact,
1549: $A_{LR}^{\rm Min}(\tau,\tau)\leq A_{QM}(\tau,\tau)=A_{LR}^{\rm Max}(\tau,\tau)\equiv 1$ for all times.
1550: This is obvious, since within the class of local realistic theories supplying asymmetry
1551: parameters in the interval (\ref{interval}), a model that reproduces the perfect anti--correlation
1552: properties of the two--kaon state at equal times must exist.
1553: When $\tau_1=0$, both descriptions supplies the same asymmetry:
1554: $A_{LR}(0,\tau)= A_{QM}(0,\tau)\equiv Q_+(\tau)-Q_-(\tau)$.
1555: Another special case is when, for instance, $\tau_2=1.5\tau_1$: in this situation,
1556: the local realistic asymmetry does not satisfy
1557: the compatibility requirement (\ref{lr-eq-qm}). This is depicted in figure~\ref{inc1}.
1558: \begin{figure}[thb]
1559: \begin{center}
1560: \input{asimmetria.tex}
1561: \end{center}
1562: %\mbox{\epsfig{file=asimmetria1_5.eps,width=.8\textwidth}}
1563: \vskip 1.5mm
1564: \caption{Local realistic and quantum--mechanical asymmetry parameters for $\tau_2=1.5\tau_1$
1565: plotted vs $\tau_1/\tau_S$.}
1566: \label{inc1}
1567: \end{figure}
1568: The maximum values of the local realistic asymmetry stands below the
1569: quantum--mechanical ones for $0< \tau_1\lsim 2.3\tau_S$.
1570: The largest incompatibility corresponds to $\tau_1\simeq 1.5\tau_S$, where
1571: $[A_{QM}-A_{LR}^{\rm Max}]/A_{QM}\simeq 20$\%.
1572: In general, local realism and quantum mechanics are incompatible
1573: when $\tau_2=\alpha\tau_1$ with $\alpha> 1$. The degree of incompatibility
1574: increases for increasing $\alpha$. For instance, when $\tau_2=2\tau_1\simeq 2.4\tau_S$,
1575: $A_{QM}$ is 27~\% larger than $A_{LR}^{\rm Max}$. The large differences among
1576: quantum--mechanical and local realistic predictions justify our approach,
1577: which neglected $CP$ violation.
1578:
1579: However, it is important to stress the following restriction concerning the
1580: choice (which must be at free will) of the detection times $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$.
1581: In order to satisfy the locality condition, namely to make sure that the measurement
1582: event on the right is causally disconnected from that on the left,
1583: these events must be space--like separated. For a two--kaon system
1584: in which the kaons fly back--to--back in the laboratory frame system,
1585: this requirement corresponds to choose detection times which satisfy the
1586: inequality \cite{DD95}:
1587: \beq
1588: \label{loc-exp}
1589: 1\leq \frac{\tau_2}{\tau_1}< \frac{1+v}{1-v}=1.55 ,
1590: \eeq
1591: where $v\simeq 0.22$ is the kaon velocity (in units of $c$) in the laboratory frame system.
1592: Nevertheless, concerning the locality assumption, a loophole that is impossible to avoid
1593: could allow, in principle (it is completely unknown, however, in which way), an information to reach
1594: both devices at the instants of measurement, whatever the choice of these times is.
1595: In fact, events in the overlap region of the two backward light--cones corresponding
1596: to the measurements at $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ might be responsible for the choice of the
1597: times $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ as well as for the experimental outcomes. If this were the actual case,
1598: even for causally disconnected measurement events one could not infer that the non--occurrence
1599: of action--at--a--distance implies locality. Thus, a non--local behaviour of microscopic
1600: phenomena could be still compatible with relativistic causality.
1601:
1602: An experiment that measured the asymmetry parameter
1603: was performed by the CPLEAR collaboration at CERN \cite{Ap98}.
1604: The $K^0\bar{K}^0$ pairs were produced by proton--antiproton
1605: annihilation at rest, while the kaon strangeness was detected through
1606: kaon strong interactions with bound nucleons of absorber materials.
1607: The data, corrected for a comparison
1608: with pure quantum--mechanical predictions [eq.~(\ref{qmasymm})], are reported in table \ref{cplear}.
1609: \begin{table}[t]
1610: \begin{center}
1611: \caption{Asymmetry parameter measured by CPLEAR collaboration \protect\cite{Ap98}.}
1612: \label{cplear}
1613: \begin{tabular}{c|c c c}
1614: \mc {1}{c|}{Time difference: $\tau_2-\tau_1$} &
1615: \mc {1}{c}{Experiment} &
1616: \mc {1}{c}{Quantum Mechanics} &
1617: \mc {1}{c}{Local Realism} \\ \hline
1618: $0$ &$0.88\pm 0.17$ &$1$ & $0.86\div 1$ \\
1619: $1.37\tau_S$ &$0.56\pm 0.12$ &$0.64$ & $0.34\div 0.48$ \\
1620: \end{tabular}
1621: \end{center}
1622: \end{table}
1623: The temporal uncertainty of data is not considered here.
1624: Asymmetry values compatible with local realism depend on the detection
1625: times $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ separately: the CPLEAR set--up corresponds to
1626: the following corrected times: $\tau_1=\tau_2=0.55\tau_S$ when $\tau_2-\tau_1=0$
1627: and $\tau_1=0.55\tau_S$, $\tau_2=1.92\tau_S$ when $\tau_2-\tau_1=1.37\tau_S$.
1628: We notice that also in the second case the
1629: two observation events were space--like separated:
1630: in fact, $\tau_2/\tau_1=3.5$ (also when uncorrected times
1631: are considered), and, since the kaon velocity in the center of mass system
1632: for $p\bar{p}\to K^0\bar{K}^0$
1633: is $v\simeq 0.85$, condition (\ref{loc-exp}) gives $1\leq \tau_2/\tau_1< 12.2$.
1634: It is evident from table \ref{cplear} that the data are in agreement, within one
1635: standard deviation, with both quantum mechanics and local realism.
1636: For a decisive test of local realistic theories more precise data are needed.
1637: %It is important to note that, if an experiment using proton--antiproton annihilation
1638: %were performed with detection times corresponding to a ratio $\tau_2/\tau_1=10$,
1639: %then for $\tau_1=.......\tau_S$ one would be favoured by a very large incompatibility
1640: %between local realism and quantum mechanics: $A_{QM}=...$, $A_{LR}=...$.
1641: %In this situation, assuming an experimental precision on the asymmetry measurements
1642: %of about 20/% (see table \ref{cplear}), such a test could easily discriminate
1643: %between quantum mechanics and local realism.
1644:
1645: In agreement with Bell's theorem, in this section we have seen that
1646: local realism contradicts some statistical
1647: predictions of quantum mechanics concerning the evolution of the
1648: two--neutral--kaon system. Local realism has already been tested against quantum mechanics
1649: (by employing Bell--type inequalities)
1650: in optics and atomic physics: neglecting existing loopholes,
1651: apart form some irrelevant exception,
1652: all the experimental results
1653: revealed incompatible with the local realistic
1654: viewpoint and were in good agreement with quantum mechanics.
1655: For the two--kaon correlated system one avoids the detection loophole and,
1656: in particular situations, the differences among the predictions
1657: of local realism and quantum mechanics are so evident that a future measurement
1658: at the Frascati $\Phi$--factory
1659: (say for $\tau_2=1.5\tau_1$, with $\tau_1$ around $1.5\tau_S$) should
1660: be able to confirm one of the two pictures.
1661:
1662: %*****************************************************************
1663: % on the possibility .....
1664: %*****************************************************************
1665: \section{On the possibility to test local realism with Bell's inequalities
1666: for the two--neutral--kaon system}
1667: \label{imposs}
1668: When $CP$ non--conservation is taken into account, a Bell's inequality violated
1669: by quantum mechanics has been derived in the special case of a gedanken experiment \cite{Uc97}.
1670: Unfortunately, the magnitude of violation of this
1671: inequality is very small, of the order of the $K^0$--$\bar{K}^0$
1672: $CP$ violating parameter, $\epsilon$,
1673: thus representing a problem from the experimental point of view.
1674: A similar inequality, which is violated by a non--vanishing value of the direct $CP$
1675: and $CPT$ violating parameter, $\epsilon^{\prime}$, is discussed in ref.~\cite{BF98}.
1676: Moreover, experimental set--up exploiting $K_S$--$K_L$ regeneration processes have
1677: also been proposed in order to formulate
1678: Bell's inequalities that show incompatibilities with some statistical
1679: predictions of quantum theory \cite{Eb93,DD95,Br99}. Unfortunately,
1680: in order to avoid a tiny violation of the inequalities that one obtains for thin
1681: regenerators, this kind of Bell--type test requires large amount of regenerator materials.
1682: Moreover, the test proposed in ref.~\cite{Eb93} can be performed only
1683: at asymmetric $\Phi$--factories.
1684:
1685: In ref.~\cite{Gh91} the authors concluded that, under the hypothesis of $CP$ conservation,
1686: because of the specific properties of the kaon, it is impossible to test local realism
1687: by using Bell's inequalities, since whatever inequality one considers,
1688: a violation by quantum--mechanical expectation values cannot be found.
1689: In this section we consider again this question in order
1690: to prove how such a test is actually feasible with Wigner's inequalities \cite{Wi70}.
1691: Moreover, in agreement with the discussion of ref.~\cite{Gi00}, we shall also show that
1692: a Bell--test is possible when properly normalized observables and Clauser--Horne--Shimony--Holt's
1693: (CHSH's) inequalities \cite{CHSH69,CH74} are employed.
1694:
1695: The two--kaon system presents some analogies but also a significant difference
1696: compared to the case of the singlet state of two spin--$1/2$ particles
1697: (\ref{spin0}).
1698: The (free) choice of the times $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ at which
1699: a strangeness measurements on the kaon pair (\ref{qm2k}) is performed
1700: is analogous to the (free) choice of the orientation along which the spin
1701: is observed in the case of the singlet state (\ref{spin0}).
1702: If we consider the ideal limit in which the weak interaction eigenstates $K_S$ and $K_L$
1703: are stable ($\Gamma_L=\Gamma_S=0$), quantum--mechanical kaon
1704: probabilities (\ref{kkb}) and (\ref{kk})
1705: have exactly the same expressions (proportional to $1\pm {\rm cos}\, \theta_{12}$)
1706: of the spin--singlet case, provided one replaces the
1707: angle between the two spin analyzers with $\theta_{12}\equiv \Delta m(\tau_2-\tau_1)$. Then,
1708: a strangeness measurement on the two--kaon system is perfectly equivalent to a
1709: spin measurement on the singlet state (\ref{spin0}).
1710: It is then obvious that if the above hypothesis were
1711: realized in Nature, one could find violations of Bell's inequalities of the same magnitude
1712: of the ones that characterize the spin system.
1713:
1714: However, this hypothesis is far from being realistic, and the kaon joint probabilities
1715: decreases with time because of the $K_S$ and $K_L$ weak decays. This leads to an important
1716: difference with respect to the spin case. Because of the particular
1717: values of the kaon lifetimes ($\Gamma_S$ and $\Gamma_L$)
1718: and of the quantity $\Delta m\equiv m_L-m_S$, which controls the
1719: quantum--mechanical interference term
1720: (i.e., the $K_S$--$K_L$ mixing), ref.~\cite{Gh91} concluded
1721: that no choice of the detection times is able to show a violation, by quantum mechanics,
1722: of Bell's inequalities. The authors of ref.~\cite{Gh91} reached this conclusion on the
1723: basis of CHSH's inequalities.
1724:
1725: Actually, the interplay between kaon exponential damping and strangeness oscillations
1726: only makes it more difficult (but not impossible) a Bell--type test.
1727: The reason of this behaviour lies in the very short $K_S$ lifetime
1728: ($\tau_S$) compared with the typical time ($2\pi/\Delta m\simeq 13 \tau_S$) of the strangeness
1729: oscillations. The situation would be different (namely the discrimination between
1730: quantum mechanics and local realistic theories would be easier)
1731: if one treated the $B^0$--$\bar{B}^0$ system (this is due to the fact that
1732: the states analogous to $K_S$ and $K_L$ for the $B^0$--meson have the same
1733: lifetime).
1734:
1735: We start discussing Wigner's inequalities. We must recall that
1736: these inequalities
1737: are derivable for deterministic theories only, therefore
1738: %Actually, in order to obtain
1739: %such inequalities one must require the joint probabilities to satisfy the perfect
1740: %anti--correlation property concerning strangeness measurements at equal times:
1741: %$P[K^0(\tau),K^0(\tau)]=P[\bar{K}^0(\tau),\bar{K}^0(\tau)]=0$,
1742: %$P[K^0(\tau),\bar{K}^0(\tau)]=P[\bar{K}^0(\tau),K^0(\tau)]=E_L(\tau)E_S(\tau)/2\neq 0$.
1743: %For a generic EPR--pair, this requirement is a well known experimental fact,
1744: %but, within a hidden--variable interpretation, it is only fulfilled when
1745: %eqs.~(\ref{hv}) and (\ref{hv2}) (and similar ones when
1746: %additional deterministic apparata hidden--variables
1747: %are present), which correspond to deterministic models,
1748: %are valid.
1749: they are less general than CHSH's.
1750: Let us consider the following Wigner's inequality involving $K_S$--$K_L$
1751: mixing:
1752: \beq
1753: \label{wigin}
1754: P_{LR}[\bar{K}^0(\tau_1),\bar{K}^0(\tau_2)]\leq P_{LR}[\bar{K}^0(\tau_1),\bar{K}^0(\tau_3)]+
1755: P_{LR}[\bar{K}^0(\tau_3),\bar{K}^0(\tau_2)] ,
1756: \eeq
1757: where $\tau_1\leq \tau_3\leq \tau_2$. It has been written for $\bar{K}^0\bar{K}^0$
1758: joint detection since $\bar{K}^0$ states
1759: are easier to detect than $K^0$ states. Obviously, the same conclusions
1760: that we shall obtain in the following
1761: are valid for the inequality corresponding to $K^0K^0$ detection. Inequalities
1762: that contain $K^0\bar{K}^0$ joint probabilities turn out to be useless
1763: for Bell-type tests.
1764:
1765: In the limit $\Gamma_S=\Gamma_L=0$, eq.~(\ref{wigin})
1766: reduces to the analogous inequality for the spin--singlet case:
1767: \beq
1768: \label{wigin1}
1769: P_{LR}(s_a=-,s_b=-)\leq P_{LR}(s_a=-,s_c=-)+P_{LR}(s_c=-,s_b=-) .
1770: \eeq
1771: Since:
1772: \beq
1773: P_{QM}(s_{\alpha}=-,s_{\beta}=-)=\frac{1}{4}(1-{\rm cos}\, \theta_{\alpha \beta}) ,
1774: \eeq
1775: $\theta_{\alpha \beta}$ being the angle between the spin measurement
1776: directions characterized by the unitary vectors $\vec \alpha$ and $\vec \beta$,
1777: inequality (\ref{wigin1}) is violated by quantum mechanics
1778: when one chooses $\theta_{ab}=2\theta_{ac}=2\theta_{cb}\equiv 2\theta$ with
1779: $\theta$ in the interval $[0,\pi/2]$ (see figure \ref{wig}). The greatest violation
1780: of eq.~(\ref{wigin1}) ($0.375>0.250$) is for $\theta=\pi/3$ and is significant, since
1781: it corresponds to $P_{QM}(s_a=-,s_b=-)=0.375$ and
1782: $P_{QM}(s_a=-,s_c=-)=P_{QM}(s_c=-,s_b=-)=0.125$.
1783: \begin{figure}[thb]
1784: \begin{center}
1785: \input{prima.tex}
1786: \end{center}
1787: %\mbox{\epsfig{file=wigner.eps,width=.6\textwidth}}
1788: \vskip 1.5mm
1789: \caption{Violation of Wigner's inequality (\ref{wigin1}) for the spin--singlet state
1790: (\ref{spin0}). The function $W_{QM}(\theta)\equiv P_{QM}(s_a=-,s_b=-)-P_{QM}(s_a=-,s_c=-)-
1791: P_{QM}(s_c=-,s_b=-)$ is plotted versus $\theta$
1792: ($\theta\equiv \theta_{ab}/2=\theta_{ac}=\theta_{cb}$). The inequality
1793: is violated by quantum mechanics when $\theta$ is in the interval $[0,\pi/2]$.}
1794: \label{wig}
1795: %\end{center}
1796: \end{figure}
1797:
1798: Coming back to the two--kaon system in the real case with $\Gamma_S/\Gamma_L\simeq 579$,
1799: we must require the three detection times of inequality (\ref{wigin}) to
1800: satisfy restriction (\ref{loc-exp}), dictated by the necessity
1801: to avoid any causal connection between the measurements
1802: that could be present if the two observation events would not be space--like separated.
1803: By introducing the relation:
1804: \beq
1805: \tau_2-\tau_1=2(\tau_3-\tau_1)=2(\tau_2-\tau_3) \equiv (p-1)\tau
1806: \eeq
1807: among the observation times and choosing $\tau_1=\tau$, one obtains
1808: $\tau_2=p\tau$ and $\tau_3=(p+1)\tau/2$, and the locality
1809: requirement (\ref{loc-exp}) is fulfilled when $1\leq p< 1.55$. Apart form
1810: the case with $p=1$, for all values of $p$ in this range,
1811: inequality (\ref{wigin}) is incompatible with quantum mechanics at small $\tau$:
1812: in figure \ref{wig2} this is shown for $p=1.5$, $1.3$, and $1.1$.
1813: \begin{figure}[thb]
1814: \begin{center}
1815: \input{seconda.tex}
1816: \end{center}
1817: %\mbox{\epsfig{file=wigner2.eps,width=.6\textwidth}}
1818: \vskip 1.5mm
1819: \caption{Violation of Wigner's inequality (\ref{wigin})
1820: for $\tau_1=\tau_2/p=2\tau_3/(p+1)\equiv \tau$. The function $W_{QM}(\tau)\equiv
1821: P_{QM}[\bar{K}^0(\tau_1),\bar{K}^0(\tau_2)]- P_{QM}[\bar{K}^0(\tau_1),\bar{K}^0(\tau_3)]-
1822: P_{QM}[\bar{K}^0(\tau_3),\bar{K}^0(\tau_2)]$ is plotted versus $\tau/\tau_S$.
1823: From the top to the bottom the curves correspond to
1824: $p=1.5$, $1.3$, and $1.1$, respectively.}
1825: \label{wig2}
1826: %\end{center}
1827: \end{figure}
1828: In the case with $p=1.5$, the largest violation
1829: of eq.~(\ref{wigin}) ($0.0051>0.0026$) corresponds to
1830: $\tau \simeq 1.6\tau_S$, $P_{QM}[\bar{K}^0(\tau_1),\bar{K}^0(\tau_2)]=0.0051$,
1831: $P_{QM}[\bar{K}^0(\tau_1),\bar{K}^0(\tau_3)]=0.0016$ and
1832: $P_{QM}[\bar{K}^0(\tau_3),\bar{K}^0(\tau_2)]=0.0010$.
1833: An experimental test of a tiny violation like this one
1834: is difficult to perform since, relatively to the typical experimental accuracy,
1835: the function $W_{QM}(\tau)$ of figure~\ref{wig2} is too close to 0 in the
1836: region of maximum violation.
1837: In particular, a precision like that of the CPLEAR
1838: experiment (see table \ref{cplear}) is insufficient to achieve this purpose, since
1839: $W(\tau)$ would be measured with an error larger than the maximum violation shown in
1840: figure \ref{wig2}.
1841:
1842: When one considers joint probabilities normalized to undecayed kaon pairs:
1843: \begin{eqnarray}
1844: \label{replace-prob}
1845: P[\bar{K}^0(\tau),\bar{K}^0(\tau')]\to
1846: P^{\rm ren}[\bar{K}^0(\tau),\bar{K}^0(\tau')]&\equiv&
1847: \frac{P[\bar{K}^0(\tau),\bar{K}^0(\tau')]}{P[-(\tau),-(\tau')]} \\
1848: &=&\frac{1}{4}[1-A(\tau,\tau')] , \nonumber
1849: \end{eqnarray}
1850: since these quantities are less damped than the original ones,
1851: a Bell--type test can be performed also with CHSH's inequalities.
1852: In the previous equation, the probability that at times $\tau$ (on the left)
1853: and $\tau'$ (on the right) both kaons are undecayed is:
1854: \begin{eqnarray}
1855: P[-(\tau),-(\tau')]&=&P[\bar{K}^0(\tau),\bar{K}^0(\tau')]+
1856: P[\bar{K}^0(\tau),K^0(\tau')]+P[K^0(\tau),\bar{K}^0(\tau')] \\
1857: &&+P[K^0(\tau),K^0(\tau')]=
1858: \frac{1}{2}[E_S(\tau)E_L(\tau')+E_L(\tau)E_S(\tau')] , \nonumber
1859: \end{eqnarray}
1860: the last equality being valid both in the local realistic description
1861: [eqs.~(\ref{lr00b}), (\ref{lr00})] and in
1862: quantum mechanics [eqs.~(\ref{kkb}), eqs.~(\ref{kk})], since it is
1863: independent of the $K^0$--$\bar{K}^0$ oscillations.
1864: The same derivation that supplies the CHSH's inequality in the unrenormalized
1865: case can be applied to the renormalized
1866: observables of eq.~(\ref{replace-prob}). By introducing four detection times
1867: ($\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ for the left going meson,
1868: $\tau_3$ and $\tau_4$ for the right going meson),
1869: the CHSH's inequality for strangeness $-1$ detection is then:
1870: \beq
1871: \label{chsh}
1872: -1\leq S_{LR}(\tau_1,\tau_2,\tau_3,\tau_4)\leq 0 ,
1873: \eeq
1874: with:
1875: \begin{eqnarray}
1876: \label{chsh1}
1877: S_{LR}(\tau_1,\tau_2,\tau_3,\tau_4)&\equiv&
1878: P_{LR}^{\rm ren}[\bar{K}^0(\tau_1),\bar{K}^0(\tau_3)]-
1879: P_{LR}^{\rm ren}[\bar{K}^0(\tau_1),\bar{K}^0(\tau_4)]
1880: +P_{LR}^{\rm ren}[\bar{K}^0(\tau_2),\bar{K}^0(\tau_3)] \\
1881: &&+P_{LR}^{\rm ren}[\bar{K}^0(\tau_2),\bar{K}^0(\tau_4)]-
1882: P_{LR}^{\rm ren}[\bar{K}^0(\tau_2)]-P_{LR}^{\rm ren}[\bar{K}^0(\tau_3)] , \nonumber
1883: \end{eqnarray}
1884: where the single meson observables are given by [see eq.~(\ref{comp-single})]:
1885: \beq
1886: P_{LR}^{\rm ren}[\bar{K}^0(\tau)]\equiv \frac{P_{LR}[\bar{K}^0(\tau)]}
1887: {P_{LR}[-(\tau)]}=\frac{1}{2} .
1888: \eeq
1889: Consider the special case in which the four times are related by:
1890: \beq
1891: \label{timerel}
1892: \tau_3-\tau_1=\tau_2-\tau_3=\tau_4-\tau_2=\frac{1}{3}(\tau_4-\tau_1)\equiv \tau .
1893: \eeq
1894: Thus, in quantum mechanics quantity (\ref{chsh1}) reduces
1895: to [see eq.~(\ref{replace-prob})]:
1896: \beq
1897: \label{chsh2}
1898: S_{QM}(\tau)=\frac{1}{4}\left[2-3A_{QM}(\tau)+A_{QM}(3\tau)\right]-1 .
1899: \eeq
1900:
1901: If we choose $\tau_1\equiv \tau$, the other times become:
1902: $\tau_2=3\tau$, $\tau_3=2\tau$ and $\tau_4=4\tau$, and,
1903: in the limit of stable kaons, both side of inequality
1904: (\ref{chsh}) are violated by quantum mechanics in periodical intervals of $\tau$
1905: (see curve marked {\it spin} in figure \ref{chshfig}):
1906: the largest violations are: $-1.21<-1$, $0.21>0$.
1907: \begin{figure}[t]
1908: \begin{center}
1909: \input{terza.tex}
1910: \end{center}
1911: %\mbox{\epsfig{file=chsh.eps,width=.8\textwidth}}
1912: \vskip 1.5mm
1913: \caption{Violation of CHSH's inequality (\ref{chsh})
1914: for $\tau_1/p=\tau_2/(p+2)=\tau_3/(p+1)=\tau_4/(p+3)\equiv \tau$.
1915: The function $S_{QM}$ of eq.~(\ref{chsh2}) is plotted versus $\tau$.
1916: The curve {\it unren} corresponds to the case employing unrenormalized
1917: probabilities and $p=1$: the inequality is not violated by quantum--mechanical
1918: observables. Values of $p$ compatible with the locality assumption
1919: ($p>5.45$) provide unrenormalized functions $S_{QM}$ more damped. Both curves valid
1920: in the limit $\Gamma_S=\Gamma_L=0$ ({\it spin}) and in the real case of
1921: unstable kaons with probabilities normalized to undecayed kaons ({\it ren})
1922: violate CHSH's inequality and are independent of $p$.}
1923: \label{chshfig}
1924: %\end{center}
1925: \end{figure}
1926:
1927: As far as the real case for kaons is considered, quantum mechanics does not
1928: violate inequality (\ref{chsh}) when unrenormalized expectation values
1929: are used (see curve {\it unren} in figure \ref{chshfig}). The conclusion is
1930: different once one employs probabilities normalized
1931: to undecayed kaon pairs: as it is shown
1932: in figure \ref{chshfig} (curve {\it ren}), for $0< \tau\lsim 1.4\tau_S$
1933: quantum--mechanical expectation values are incompatible with the left hand side of
1934: inequality (\ref{chsh}). The largest violation of the inequality
1935: ($-1.087<-1$) corresponds to $\tau\simeq 0.81\tau_S$ and
1936: $P_{QM}^{\rm ren}[\bar{K}^0(\tau_1),\bar{K}^0(\tau_3)]\simeq 0.036$,
1937: $P_{QM}^{\rm ren}[\bar{K}^0(\tau_1),\bar{K}^0(\tau_4)]\simeq 0.195$.
1938:
1939: With the previous choice of the four detection times the locality condition
1940: (\ref{loc-exp}) is not satisfied, since: $\tau_4/\tau_1=4>1.55$. In order to
1941: fulfil this requirement when relation (\ref{timerel}) is used, one can introduce
1942: times $\tau_1=p\tau$, $\tau_2=(p+2)\tau$, $\tau_3=(p+1)\tau$ and $\tau_4=(p+3)\tau$
1943: ($p\geq 0$) and require $\tau_4/\tau_1=(p+3)/p< 1.55$, thus $p> 5.45$.
1944: However, since the renormalized quantum--mechanical probabilities
1945: only depend on the difference between the observation times
1946: [see eqs.~(\ref{replace-prob}), (\ref{qmasymm})],
1947: the result {\it ren} of figure \ref{chshfig}
1948: is independent of $p$, and the locality condition is satisfied.
1949: Thus, experimentally one could choose to use, for instance,
1950: $p=6$, namely $\tau_1=6\tau$, $\tau_2=8\tau$, $\tau_1=7\tau$,
1951: $\tau_4=9\tau$, and the largest violation of the inequality would be again
1952: for $\tau\simeq 0.81\tau_S$. However, as $p$ increases, even if the renormalized
1953: probabilities are unchanged, the strangeness
1954: detection becomes more and more difficult, because of the kaon decays, thus
1955: small $p$ are preferable.
1956: Also the curve corresponding to the limit $\Gamma_S=\Gamma_L=0$ is the same for any $p$.
1957: Of course, the curve corresponding to the inequality
1958: that makes use of unrenormalized probabilities depends on $p$, but this case
1959: is not interesting since it cannot be used
1960: for a discriminating test whatever the choice of $p$ is.
1961:
1962: Assuming the same relative error in the measurement of all joint
1963: probabilities appearing in
1964: eq.~(\ref{chsh1}) and disregarding the uncertainties on the single kaon detection,
1965: the need for an error on $S_{\rm Exp}$ {\it much smaller} than the maximum violation
1966: (0.087) of figure \ref{chshfig} is satisfied if the joint probabilities
1967: of (\ref{chsh1}) can be determined with an accuracy
1968: $\delta P^{\rm ren}_{\rm Exp}/P^{\rm ren}_{\rm Exp}<< 40$\%. The CPLEAR data did not
1969: fulfil this condition. The experimental accuracy required to perform a conclusive test
1970: of local realism with CHSH's inequality (\ref{chsh}) is of the same order of magnitude
1971: of that needed in the use of Wigner's inequality (\ref{wigin}).
1972: To give an idea of the comparison between the potentialities of
1973: a test with Bell's inequalities and a test through
1974: the measurement of the asymmetry parameter, let us consider the following
1975: hypothetical case in the situation of figure \ref{inc1}
1976: with $\tau_2=1.5\tau_1\simeq 2.3\tau_S$.
1977: By assuming a relative precision on the measurement of $\bar{K}^0\bar{K}^0$ pairs five
1978: times better than the one for $K^0\bar{K}^0$ detection, the requirement
1979: $\delta P^{\rm ren}_{\rm Exp}/P^{\rm ren}_{\rm Exp}<< 40$\%
1980: for the joint observables of (\ref{chsh1}) corresponds to
1981: an accuracy on the asymmetry, $\delta A_{\rm Exp}/A_{\rm Exp}<< 20$\%,
1982: that would allow a clear test of local realism.
1983:
1984:
1985: %*****************************************************************
1986: % Conclusions
1987: %*****************************************************************
1988: \section{Conclusions}
1989: \label{concl}
1990: In agreement with Bell's theorem, in this paper we have shown that
1991: quantum mechanics for the two--neutral--kaon system cannot be completed by a
1992: theory which is both local and realistic: the separability assumed
1993: in Bell's local realistic theories for the joint probabilities contradicts the
1994: non--separability of quantum entangled states. Although both the locality condition
1995: and the realistic viewpoint seem reasonable, they are not prescribed by any first
1996: principle.
1997: Any local realistic approach is only able to reproduce the non--paradoxical
1998: predictions of quantum mechanics like the
1999: perfect anti--correlations in strangeness and $CP$ and the single meson observables.
2000: On this point it is important to recall that
2001: the authors of ref.~\cite{Gr90} showed how for entangled systems of three or more particles
2002: the incompatibility between local realism and quantum mechanics is even deeper:
2003: in fact, for these systems, a contradiction already arises at the level of
2004: perfectly correlated quantum states,
2005: the premises of local realism being in conflict with the non--statistical
2006: predictions of quantum mechanics. For EPR's pairs,
2007: maintaining the realistic viewpoint, in order to reproduce the
2008: prediction of quantum mechanics (which, up to now, have been strongly
2009: supported by experimental evidence), one is forced to consider
2010: as a real fact of Nature a non--local behaviour of microscopic phenomena.
2011:
2012: In the present paper,
2013: the incompatibility proof among quantum mechanics and local realistic models
2014: has been carried out by employing two different
2015: approaches. We started discussing the variability of the
2016: expectation values deduced from the general premises
2017: concerning locality and realism. The realistic states have been interpreted
2018: within the widest class of hidden--variable models.
2019: As far as the process $e^+e^-\to \phi \to K^0\bar{K}^0$ is considered,
2020: under particular conditions
2021: for the experimental parameters (the detection times), the discrepancies
2022: among quantum mechanics and local realistic models for the
2023: time--dependent asymmetry are not less than
2024: 20\%. The data collected by the CPLEAR collaboration
2025: (which used the reaction $p \bar{p}\to K^0\bar{K}^0$ ) do not allow
2026: for conclusive answers concerning a refutation of
2027: local realism: these data are compatible
2028: not only with quantum--mechanical asymmetries, but
2029: with the range of variability of local realistic predictions.
2030: Therefore, a decisive test of local realism needs for more precise data.
2031:
2032: The other approach we followed in this paper makes use of Bell--like inequalities
2033: involving $K_S$--$K_L$ mixing.
2034: Contrary to what is generally believed in the literature, we have shown that a Bell--type
2035: test is feasible at a $\Phi$--factory, both with Wigner's and
2036: (once probabilities normalized to undecayed kaons are used)
2037: CHSH's inequalities.
2038: For an experiment at a $\Phi$--factory, the degree of
2039: inconsistency between quantum mechanics and local realism shown by a Bell test
2040: is of the same order of magnitude of that obtained in the first part of the paper
2041: through the comparison of the asymmetry parameters.
2042:
2043: Concluding, by employing an experimental accuracy for joint kaon detection
2044: considerably higher than that corresponding to the CPLEAR measurement,
2045: a decisive test of local realism vs quantum mechanics
2046: both with and without the use of Bell's inequalities will be feasible in the
2047: future at the Frascati $\Phi$--factory.
2048:
2049: \acknowledgments
2050: We are grateful to Albert Bramon for many valuable discussions.
2051: One of us (G.G.) acknowledge financial support by the EEC through
2052: TMR Contract CEE--0169.
2053:
2054: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
2055: \bibitem{Ei35} A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf 47} (1935) 777.
2056: \bibitem{Bo35} N. Bohr, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf 48} (1935) 696.
2057: \bibitem{Bo52} D. Bohm, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf 85} (1952) 166; ibid. 180.
2058: \bibitem{Ev57} H. Everett, {\em Rev. Mod. Phys.} {\bf 29} (1957) 454.
2059: \bibitem{Sh84} A. Shimony, in {\em Proceedings of the International Symposium
2060: on Foundation of Quantum Mechanics} (Physical Society of Japan, Tokyo, 1984), p.25.
2061: \bibitem{Fu36} W. H. Furry, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf 49} (1936) 393; ibid. 476.
2062: \bibitem{Wu50} C. S. Wu and I. Shaknov, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf 77} (1950) 136.
2063: \bibitem{Bm51} D. Bohm, {\em Quantum Theory}, (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
2064: N.J., 1951) p.614.
2065: \bibitem{Bm57} D. Bohm and Y. Aharanov, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf 108} (1957) 1070.
2066: \bibitem{Ap98} A. Apostolakis et al., {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 422} (1998) 339.
2067: \bibitem{Ze99} D. Bouwmeester, J.-W. Pan, M. Daniell, H. Weinfurther and
2068: A. Zeilinger, {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 82} (1999) 1345.
2069: \bibitem{Ti98} W. Tittel, J. Brendel, H. Zbinden and N. Gisin, {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}
2070: {\bf 81} (1998) 3563; {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf A 59} (1999) 4150.
2071: \bibitem{Be64} J. S. Bell, {\em Physics} {\bf 1} (1964) 195.
2072: \bibitem{Be71} J. S. Bell, Proceedings of the {\em International School of Physics `Enrico
2073: Fermi'}, Course XLIX, ed B. d'Espagnat (Academic, New York, 1971) p.171;
2074: reprinted in J. S. Bell,
2075: {\em Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics}, (Cambridge U. P., Cambridge, 1987) p.29.
2076: \bibitem{CHSH69} J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony and R. A. Holt,
2077: {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 23} (1969) 880.
2078: \bibitem{Wi70} E. P. Wigner, {\em Am. J. Phys.} {\bf 38} (1970) 1005.
2079: \bibitem{CH74} J. F. Clauser and M. A. Horne, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 10} (1974) 526.
2080: \bibitem{Cl78} J. F. Clauser and A. Shimony, {\em Rep. Prog. Phys.} {\bf 41} (1978) 1881.
2081: \bibitem{As82} A. Aspect, P. Grangier and G. Roger, {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 47}
2082: (1981) 460; ibid. {\bf 49} (1982) 91;
2083: A. Aspect, J. Dalibard and G. Roger, {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 49} (1982) 1804.
2084: \bibitem{We98} G. Weihs, T. Jennewein, C. Simon, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger,
2085: {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 81} (1998) 5039.
2086: \bibitem{CaSa94} E. Santos, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf A 46} (1992) 3646;
2087: {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf A 212} (1996) 10;
2088: L. De Caro and A. Garuccio, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf A 46} (1994) R2803.
2089: \bibitem{Pe95} P. Huet and M. E. Peskin, {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 434} (1995) 3.
2090: \bibitem{Se90} V. L. Lepore and F. Selleri, {\em Found. Phys. Lett.} {\bf 3} (1990) 203.
2091: \bibitem{Frasc} Proceedings of the {\em Workshop on Physics and Detectors for Da$\Phi$ne},
2092: edited by G. Pancheri (INFN, LNF, 1991); {\em The Da$\Phi$ne Handbook},
2093: edited by L. Maiani, G. Pancheri and N. Paver (INFN, LNF, 1992);
2094: {\em The Second Da$\Phi$ne Physics Handbook},
2095: edited by L. Maiani, G. Pancheri and N. Paver (INFN, LNF, 1995).
2096: \bibitem{Gh91} G. C. Ghirardi, R. Grassi and T. Webern, Proceedings of the
2097: {\em Workshop on Physics and Detectors for Da$\Phi$ne},
2098: edited by G. Pancheri (INFN, LNF, 1991) p.261;
2099: G. C. Ghirardi, R. Grassi and R. Regazzon, {\em The Da$\Phi$ne Handbook},
2100: edited by L. Maiani, G. Pancheri and N. Paver (INFN, LNF, 1992) p.283.
2101: \bibitem{Eb93} P. H. Eberhard, {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 398} (1993) 155;
2102: {\em The Second Da$\Phi$ne Physics Handbook}, edited by L. Maiani, G. Pancheri and
2103: N. Paver (INFN, LNF, 1995) p.99.
2104: \bibitem{DD95} A. Di Domenico, {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 450} (1995) 293.
2105: \bibitem{Uc97} F. Uchiyama, {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf A 231} (1997) 295.
2106: \bibitem{BF98} F. Benatti and R. Floreanini, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 57} (1998) R1332.
2107: \bibitem{Br99} A. Bramon and M. Nowakowski, {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 83}
2108: (1999) 1; B. Ancochea, A. Bramon and M. Nowakowski, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 60} (1999) 094008.
2109: \bibitem{Se97} F. Selleri, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf A 56} (1997) 3493;
2110: R. Foadi and F. Selleri, {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 461} (1999) 123;
2111: {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf A 61} (2000) 012106.
2112: \bibitem{Gi00} N. Gisin and A. Go, {\bf quant-ph/0004063}.
2113: \bibitem{Gr90} D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony and A. Zeilinger,
2114: {\em Am. J. Phys.} {\bf 58} (1990) 1131.
2115:
2116:
2117: %\bibitem{He58} W. Heisenberg, {\em Daedalus} {\bf 87} (1958) 95.
2118: %\bibitem{St99} H. P. Stapp, {\bf quant-ph/9909053}
2119: %\bibitem{Ne55} J. von Neumann, {\em Mathematical Foundation of Quantum Mechanics},
2120: %Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1955.
2121: %\bibitem{Bo51} D. Bohm, {\em Quantum Theory}, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1951.
2122: %\bibitem{St85} H. P. Stapp, {\em Am. J. Phys.} {\bf 53} (1985) 306.
2123: \end{thebibliography}
2124:
2125: \vfill\eject
2126: \end{document}
2127: