text:
# Dynamical analysis of the buildup process near resonance

\[

## Abstract

The time evolution of the buildup process inside a double-barrier system for off-resonance incidence energies is studied by considering the analytic solution of the time dependent Schrödinger equation with cutoff plane wave initial conditions. We show that the buildup process exhibits invariances under arbitrary changes on the system parameters, which can be successfully described by a simple and easy-to-use one-level formula. We find that the buildup of the off-resonant probability density is characterized by an oscillatory pattern modulated by the resonant case which governs the duration of the transient regime. This is evidence that off-resonant and resonant tunneling are two correlated processes, whose transient regime is characterized by the same transient time constant of two lifetimes.

\]

The buildup process of electrons inside the quantum well of a double barrier (DB) resonant structure has been one of the most important problems under investigation since it governs the ultimate speed of high frequency tunneling devices . Although the first theoretical efforts to estimate the relevant time scales for this mechanism were based on stationary approaches , it has been widely recognized that this process is of a dynamical nature ; hence, the solution of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation provides the most reliable way to tackle this fundamental problem.

In this letter we provide a full quantum dynamical study of the buildup process at resonance and off-resonance incidence energies, based on an exact analytical solution. We show that within the complexity of the process, underlying invariances can be found in the time evolution of the probability density. Important conclusions on the relevant time scale that characterizes both the resonant and off-resonant buildup are brought out from such invariances.

Our analysis deals with the analytic solution of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation for a finite range potential $`V(x)`$ that vanishes outside the region $`0xL`$, with a cutoff plane initial condition,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }\left(x,k;t=0\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}e^{ikx}e^{ikx},& \mathrm{}<x0,\\ 0,& x>0,\end{array}$$
(1)
which refers to a perfect reflecting shutter . The solution for the internal region  reads,

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,k;t)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi (x,k)M(0,k;t)\varphi ^{}(x,k)M(0,k;t)`$ (3)
$`i{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\varphi _nM(0,k_n;t),`$
where $`\varphi (x)`$ stands for the stationary solution, and $`\varphi _n=2ku_n(0)u_n(x)/(k^2k_n^2)`$ is given in terms of the resonant states, $`\{u_n(x)\}`$, and the $`S`$matrix poles, $`\{k_n\},`$ of the system. The index $`n`$ runs over the complex poles $`k_n`$, distributed in the third and fourth quadrants in the complex $`k`$-plane. In the above equation the Moshinsky functions $`M(0,q;t)`$ are defined in terms of the complex error function $`w(z)`$, as $`M(0,q;t)M(y_q)=w(iy_q)/2`$, where the argument is given by $`y_q=exp(i\pi /4)(m/2\mathrm{})^{1/2}\left[(\mathrm{}q/m)t^{1/2}\right]`$, and $`q`$ stands either for $`\pm k`$ or $`k_{\pm n}`$.

The formal solution for the internal region, Eq. (3), allows us to study both the spatial behavior and the time evolution of the probability density for any incidence energy $`E=\mathrm{}^2k^2/2m`$. The main ingredients of Eq. (3) are the stationary wavefunction $`\varphi (x,k)`$, the resonance parameters {$`E_n=\epsilon _ni\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/2=\mathrm{}^2k_n^2/2m`$} and the corresponding resonant eigenfunctions $`\{u_n(x)\}`$. The latter can be obtained by a straightforward calculation using the transfer matrix method adapted to the complex eigenvalue problem . For systems with isolated (non-overlapping) resonances, the single-resonance term approximation to Eq. (3) gives an excellent description, except for very short times ($`t\mathrm{}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$) in which one has to consider contributions from additional resonance terms. In all the numerical examples presented here the single term approximation applies.

As a first example, let us consider the DB structure (system A) with parameters: barrier heights $`V_1=V_2=0.23`$ $`eV`$, barrier widths $`b_1=b_2=5.0`$ $`nm`$, well width $`\omega _0=5.0`$ $`nm`$, and effective mass for the electron $`m=0.067m_e`$. The resonance parameters for the first resonant state are: energy position, $`\epsilon _1=80.11`$ $`meV`$, and resonance width, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=1.03`$ $`meV`$. In Fig. 1 (a) we plot $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$, calculated from Eq. (3), as a function of the position $`x`$ along the internal region, for specific times $`\{t_i\}`$whose increasing values are given in the figure. Here, the incidence energy is chosen below resonance, at $`E=75.0`$ $`meV`$. Note that the off-resonant buildup occurs in such a way that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$ is found sometimes above or below the asymptotic value $`|\varphi |^2`$. This behavior is dramatically different from the monotonic growth that characterizes the special case of incidence at resonance, see Fig. 4 of Ref. 8. In order to show the time dependence of the probability density for a fixed position $`x_0`$, we plot in part (b) $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(x_0,k;t)|^2`$ versus $`t`$ for different deviations from resonance $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=|E\epsilon _1|`$. Note that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$ fluctuates around its asymptotic value $`|\varphi |^2`$, and exhibits an oscillatory behavior not present in the resonant case, as shown in Fig. 1 (b).

Up to here, we have illustrated the behavior of the off-resonance buildup only for a particular potential profile. It is clear that any changes in either the incident energy or the potential profile parameters will affect the solution $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,k;t)`$ since the relevant input to Eq. (3), namely, $`\varphi (x,k)`$, $`u_n\left(x\right)`$ and $`E_n`$, strongly depends on the potential parameters. For instance, let us consider two additional DB systems with potential profiles quite different from system A; the first corresponds to the symmetrical structure (system B) with parameters: barrier heights $`V_1=V_2=0.5`$ $`eV`$, barrier widths $`b_1=b_2=3.0`$ $`nm`$ and well width $`\omega _0=10.0`$ $`nm`$; the second corresponds to an asymmetrical structure (system C), whose parameters are: $`V_1=0.45`$ $`eV,`$ $`V_2=0.35`$ $`eV`$, $`b_1=3.0`$ $`nm`$, $`b_2=10.0`$ $`nm`$ and $`\omega _0=8.0`$ $`nm`$. The resonance parameters for the first eigenstate are: $`\epsilon _1=37.80`$ $`meV`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0.12`$ $`meV`$ (system B); and $`\epsilon _1=51.29`$ $`meV`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0.17`$ $`meV`$ (system C). The value of the transmission peak $`T(\epsilon _1)`$ is unity for A and B; for system C, $`T(\epsilon _1)<1`$, since it is asymmetric. We choose here the incidence energies $`E=\epsilon _1\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ such that the ratio $`\gamma =T(E)/T(\epsilon _1)`$ is the same for A, B, and C. For example, if we choose $`E`$ such that $`T(E)`$ is $`1.0`$ $`\%`$ of $`T(\epsilon _1)`$, from numerical inspection from a $`T`$ versus $`E`$ plot (not shown here), the incidence energies for A, B, and C, must be $`74.97`$, $`37.20`$ and $`50.44`$ ($`meV`$), respectively. The results of the comparison of the time evolution of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$ for this selection ($`\gamma =.01`$), are shown in Fig. 2 (a). The three curves are strongly different, as expected. Thus, the complete characterization of the buildup process for a broad range of potential geometries seems to be a too involved task; however, one of the purposes of this work is to show that despite this complex situation, the probability density has striking invariances under changes in the potential profiles. To illustrate the above let us consider a more suitable representation for the probability density i. e. $`|\mathrm{\Psi }/\varphi |^2`$ as a function of $`\tau `$, which is the time normalized to lifetime units. We find a striking result: all curves coincide exactly for the three different systems, see Fig. 2 (b). This result suggests the existence of an underlying invariance in the process.

In order to show the existence of such invariance, we derive a one-level formula for the normalized probability density starting from the formal solution (3). We proceed along the same lines discussed in our recent work , but considering incidence energies different from resonance ($`E\epsilon _n`$). Following such a procedure we obtain,

$$\left|\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\tau \right)/\varphi \right|^2=1+e^\tau 2e^{\tau /2}\mathrm{cos}\left[\omega _n\tau \right],$$
(4)
where $`\omega _n=(\epsilon _nE)/\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$ is a dimensionless frequency. The reliability of this one-level formula is shown in a plot of Eq. (4) included in Fig. 2 (b), and we see an excellent agreement. Furthermore, note that Eq. (4) depends in general on the system parameters through the frequency $`\omega _n`$; however, it can be shown straightforwardly that the condition previously imposed on the ratio $`T(E)/T(\epsilon _n)`$ guarantees the independence of Eq. (4) on the potential profile. Consider the Breit-Wigner expression for the transmission coefficient ,

$$T(E)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^0\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^L}{(E\epsilon _n)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^2/4},$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^L`$ are the partial decay widths of the system which satisfy $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n=\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^0+\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^L`$. This formula of $`T(E)`$ is valid for isolated non-overlapping resonances, that is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n|\epsilon _n\epsilon _{n\pm 1}|`$, which is the case of a broad range of typical DB structures. From Eq. (5) we can easily calculate the ratio $`\gamma =T(E)/T(\epsilon _1)`$ and obtain an expression for the frequency $`\omega _1=\left(\gamma ^11\right)^{1/2}/2`$. As a consequence, Eq. (4) is no longer dependent on the system parameters since it only depends on $`\gamma `$. Note that the frequency $`\omega _1`$ also measures the deviations of the incidence energy $`E`$ from the resonance $`\epsilon _1`$ in multiple numbers of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=\omega _1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$. In other words, different systems share the same curve of the probability density provided that deviations from resonance are the same in units of the corresponding resonance width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$. Note also that Eq. (4) is independent of the choice $`\pm \omega _n`$, which implies that deviations above and below resonance give the same result. Since in our example $`\gamma =0.01`$, we have that $`\omega _15.0`$; this can also be verified by computing the values of $`\omega _1=|\mathrm{\Delta }E|/\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ from the incidence energies used in Fig. 2.

Note another interesting regularity of $`\left|\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\tau \right)/\varphi \right|^2`$; the damped oscillatory behavior in Eq. (4) is modulated by the lower envelope

$$\left|\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\tau \right)/\varphi \right|^2=\left(1e^{\tau /\tau _0}\right)^2,$$
(6)
which is exactly the capacitor-like buildup law obtained for the special case of incidence at resonance , where the transient time constant $`\tau _0`$ of the process is exactly two lifetimes, $`\tau _0=2`$. A plot of Eq. (6) is included in Fig. 2 (b). This result is relevant from a physical point of view, since it is a manifestation of the subtle interplay between the incident off-resonant carriers and the quasibound state of the system: resonant and off-resonant buildup, although different processes, are not uncorrelated at all, the latter is governed by the former in the way exhibited in Fig. 2(b). As a consequence, the transient regime for both situations is characterized by the same transient time constant $`\tau _0`$. The above mentioned quantity is relevant for the design and optimization of resonant tunneling diodes; in this respect, a detailed discussion can be found in a recent work by Luryi and Zaslavsky , in which the distinction between capacitive and quantum contributions to an effective time constant is analyzed.

In conclusion, the dynamics of the buildup mechanism at off-resonance incidence energies has been explored in typical DB resonant structures. We have shown that, despite the complexity that characterizes the dynamical process, the time evolution of the probability density exhibits invariances under arbitrary changes on the system parameters. From such invariances we conclude that the transient regime in both resonant and off-resonant processes is characterized by the same transient time constant of two lifetimes. Our results are valid for any DB system with isolated resonances and incident plane wave initial condition.

The authors acknowledge financial support from Conacyt, México, through Contract No. 431100-5-32082E. The authors also thank G. García-Calderón for useful discussions.


format: text

text:
# Radio Pulsars in the Magellanic Clouds

## 1. Introduction

The Magellanic Clouds contain the most distant population of radio pulsars observable with current technology. Since the distances to the Magellanic Clouds are large, only the most luminous pulsars are detectable. However, despite the small number of pulsars currently known, these pulsars are among the most interesting in the pulsar population. Of the six pulsars discovered previously, one is in an unusual binary system and two are younger than 10 kyr. For comparison, of over 700 Galactic pulsars cataloged prior to the commencement of the Parkes Multibeam Pulsar Survey (see below), only one is in a similar binary system, and only five Galactic pulsars are younger than 10 kyr.

Surveying the Magellanic Clouds for radio pulsars is difficult due to the large surface area to be covered and their large distances. Long integrations using a telescope with a large collecting area are needed. With its southern latitude, the Parkes 64-meter radio telescope in NSW, Australia is the most appropriate telescope for conducting such searches.

The difficulty of obtaining sufficient sensitivity has been somewhat alleviated by the installation of the 20-cm multibeam receiver at Parkes (Staveley-Smith et al. (1996)). This receiver is simultaneously sensitive to 13 distinct locations on the sky which can be interleaved in separate pointings to give complete and efficient spatial coverage of large regions. The Parkes Multibeam Pulsar Survey is currently using this receiver to search for pulsars in the Galactic plane, and that survey has discovered 580 pulsars to date (Camilo et al. 2000a ; Manchester et al. (2000); Lyne et al. (2000)). This demonstrates that the multibeam system is capable of finding faint pulsars and is an appropriate instrument to search for pulsars in the Magellanic Clouds.

Only one full-scale pulsar survey of the Magellanic Clouds has been conducted previously. McConnell et al. (1991) searched for pulsars using Parkes at a wavelength of 50 cm. This survey effort was split into three phases with different observing parameters used for each phase of the survey. Although the region surveyed in each phase was not described, the third phase of the survey was used for five of the seven years of the effort, and we use this phase for a sensitivity comparison with our survey. In this phase, they used a center frequency of 610 MHz with a total bandwidth of 60 MHz split into 24 2.5-MHz contiguous frequency channels. Two orthogonal polarizations were used with a sampling time of 5 ms and a 5000 s dwell time for each pointing. The second phase of their survey had a comparable sensitivity to the third phase, but the first phase had significantly reduced sensitivity to fast pulsars due to the much larger sampling time of 40 ms used.

In their data reduction procedure, McConnell et al. (1991) assumed a dispersion measure (DM) of 100 pc cm-3 in an initial sub-band dedispersion in their analysis. Magellanic Cloud pulsars found to date have DMs which are roughly centered on this value, but the observed DM range is from about 70 pc cm-3 to 150 pc cm-3. Thus, their sensitivity to pulsars with DMs far from 100 pc cm-3 was significantly reduced. McConnell et al. (1991) also targeted the optical bar and the southern and western parts of the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC) (see their Figure 1). Our survey had more complete coverage in the northern and eastern regions of the SMC. McConnell et al. (1991) reported the discovery of four pulsars, three in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) and one in the SMC.

We report the results of a more sensitive and complete survey for pulsars in the SMC in which we have discovered one new SMC pulsar and one foreground pulsar. Below we describe the observations and data reduction procedure for our survey and the subsequent timing observations. We also report on the serendipitous discovery of a pulsar in the 30 Doradus region of the LMC, as well as on timing observations of three previously known LMC pulsars. We discuss our results and summarize the currently known Magellanic Cloud pulsar population. The two new Magellanic Cloud pulsars found in our survey, combined with the four pulsars found by McConnell et al. (1991) and the two known X-ray pulsars in the LMC, bring the total number of known rotation-powered pulsars in the Magellanic Clouds to eight.

## 2. Observations and Data Reduction

### 2.1. Survey Observations and Data Reduction

The multibeam receiver is capable of simultaneously observing 13 separate regions on the sky and has been designed to interleave pointings in such a way that clusters can be formed from each set of four pointings, thereby offering efficient and complete sky coverage. System and observing details can be found elsewhere in descriptions of the Parkes Multibeam Pulsar Survey (Lyne et al. (2000); Camilo et al. 2000b ; Manchester et al. (2001)). The receiver for each beam is a dual-channel cryogenically-cooled system sensitive to orthogonal linear polarizations. A 288-MHz bandwidth is centered on a frequency of 1374 MHz. Each beam has a full-width half-power diameter of $``$ 14 with an average system noise temperature of 21 K (33 Jy) on cold sky. A filterbank system covering the 288-MHz bandwidth which has 96 separate 3-MHz channels for each polarization for each beam was used.

During observing, detected signals from each channel were square-law detected and added in polarization pairs before undergoing high-pass filtering. The signals were then one-bit digitized every 0.25 ms and recorded on magnetic tape for processing and analysis. We observed each of a total of 12 pointings (156 separate beams) for 8400 s, providing a limiting flux density sensitivity of $``$ 0.08 mJy for most of the pulsar period range. The total area surveyed was $``$ 6.7 sq. deg., corresponding to an area of $``$ 6.6 kpc2 for an assumed distance to the SMC of 57 kpc (Cole (1998)). Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of beams in our survey overlaid on an IRAS 60-$`\mu `$m image111http://www.ipac.caltech.edu. of the emission in the region in grayscale.

Off-line processing was conducted on Sun workstations. Each beam was dedispersed for 191 trial values of DM varying from 0 to 442 pc cm-3, a much greater range than that of the DMs of the known Magellanic Cloud pulsars. The dedispersed data for each DM trial were high-pass filtered before an amplitude spectrum was formed using a 225-point FFT. Portions of the spectrum (typically a few percent) were masked for each DM trial according to whether radio-frequency interference appeared significantly in the zero-DM spectrum. Higher sensitivity to narrow pulses was achieved through incoherent addition of up to 16 harmonics (including the fundamental).

The strongest candidates in each DM trial were recorded if they had a signal-to-noise ratio greater than 7 and appeared in at least 6 of the DM trials (in order to avoid an excess of spurious candidates). The original data were then reprocessed by dedispersing and folding the data over a small range of DMs and periods centered on the candidate values. Follow-up confirmation observations were undertaken in the half-dozen cases where the resulting folded data showed a pulsar-like signature (i.e., in cases where a signal was well-localized in period/DM phase space).

The relatively high frequency of the multibeam receiver compared to the lower frequency used in the McConnell et al. (1991) survey is an advantage since dispersive smearing and interstellar scattering are greatly reduced at this frequency, thereby allowing the detection of fast, distant, and highly scattered pulsars which may have been previously missed.

Since our survey was conducted at a different frequency than the McConnell et al. (1991) survey, we must scale the sensitivity of each survey in order to compare them. We have scaled each survey to a 400-MHz luminosity ($`L_{400}`$), assuming a distance to the SMC of 57 kpc (Cole (1998)) and a typical pulsar spectral index $`\alpha `$ = $``$1.6 in each case (Lorimer et al. (1995)), where $`\alpha `$ is defined according to $`S\nu ^\alpha `$. Figure 2 shows a comparison of the sensitivity of the two surveys for a variety of pulsar periods and DMs. Our survey is significantly more sensitive to fast young pulsars (with $`P{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}100`$ ms) and is the first survey of the SMC which has any sensitivity to millisecond pulsars.

### 2.2. Timing Observations and Data Reduction

New pulsars discovered in our survey were timed regularly for about a year following their discovery. The observing system used for timing these pulsars at Parkes is identical to that used in the survey with the exception that the data were only recorded from the center beam of the multibeam receiver. Several additional timing observations were made at 70 cm. The start time of each observation was recorded and was synchronized with an observatory time standard, and data were usually recorded on magnetic tape. After dedispersion, the resulting time series was then folded at the topocentric rotation period of the pulsar, generating a single pulse profile for each observation. A topocentric pulse time-of-arrival (TOA) was obtained for each timing observation by cross-correlating the pulse profile with a high signal-to-noise template profile. Spin and astrometric parameters were then determined using the TEMPO software package,222http://pulsar.princeton.edu/tempo. and the JPL DE200 planetary ephemeris (Standish (1990)). The TEMPO package converts each TOA to the solar system barycenter and refines the estimated spin and astrometric parameters by minimizing the residual differences between measured and model TOAs over the span of observations. Timing data for three known pulsars in the LMC were previously obtained at several observing frequencies at Parkes with an observing system described elsewhere (Kaspi (1994); Johnston et al. (1995)). These data were reprocessed to obtain refined timing parameters.

## 3. Results

We have discovered two new pulsars in our survey of the SMC. One pulsar, PSR J0057$``$7201, has a significantly smaller DM than the population of known Magellanic Cloud pulsars, and therefore we believe it is a foreground Galactic object. The other new pulsar, PSR J0113$``$7220, has a DM of 125 pc cm-3, a value which is somewhat larger than the only previously discovered SMC pulsar, PSR J0045$``$7319, indicating that it is located within the SMC.

As part of an ongoing campaign to search for radio pulsations from X-ray targets in the LMC, while pointing at the X-ray pulsar PSR J0537$``$6910 (Marshall et al. (1998); Crawford et al. (1998)), we have serendipitously discovered one new pulsar, PSR J0535$``$6935, in one of the outlying beams of the multibeam receiver. With a DM of 89 pc cm-3, this pulsar almost certainly lies in the LMC, making it the sixth LMC rotation-powered pulsar known.

The measured parameters for the three newly discovered pulsars are given in Table 1, and integrated 20-cm profiles are given in Figure 3. Flux densities at 1374 MHz were estimated for these pulsars from the detection strengths in the discovery observations. The results of timing measurements of the previously known pulsars are given in Table 2. Table 3 summarizes the general characteristics of the eight pulsars now known in the Magellanic Clouds, and we briefly describe each of these in turn below, as well as the new Galactic pulsar PSR J0057$``$7201.

### 3.1. PSR J0045$``$7319

PSR J0045$``$7319 was discovered in the SMC in the previous survey of the region by McConnell et al. (1991). Timing observations subsequently showed it to be in a 51-day binary orbit around a B1 class V star with a mass of 9 $`M_{}`$ (Kaspi et al. (1994)). Of over 700 pulsars cataloged by Taylor, Manchester, & Lyne (1993)333The Public Pulsar Catalogue containing entries for 772 pulsars can be found at http://www.atnf.csiro.au/research/pulsar/psr. prior to the start of the Parkes Multibeam Pulsar Survey, only one other pulsar, PSR B1259$``$63, has been shown to be in a similar system (Johnston et al. (1992)). The large $`\mathrm{DM}`$ $`\mathrm{sin}|b|`$ of PSR J0045$``$7319 (Figure 4) suggests that it is in the SMC. Its location in the SMC was confirmed by its association with the B star companion, which was known to be in the SMC.

We detected PSR J0045$``$7319 in several diagnostic observations in the survey. We notice an unusual broadband ($`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{>}300`$ MHz) effect at 20 cm in which large amplitude fluctuations occur on time-scales of tens of minutes. In some timing observations, the pulsar is not detectable at all at 20 cm. It is possible that this behavior is an unusual form of refractive scintillation, perhaps related to the binary nature of the pulsar, but a detailed study of this behavior is beyond the scope of this paper.

### 3.2. PSR J0057$``$7201

PSR J0057$``$7201 is a 738-ms pulsar that was discovered in our survey. From its DM of 27 pc cm-3, which is significantly smaller than the lowest known DM for a suspected Magellanic Cloud pulsar (69 pc cm-3 for PSR J0502$``$6617), we conclude that it is a foreground object. The Taylor & Cordes (1993) DM-distance model indicates that the distance to PSR J0057$``$7201 is greater than 2.5 kpc, which is the limit of the Galactic plasma in the direction of this pulsar. However, the value of $`\mathrm{DM}`$ $`\mathrm{sin}|b|`$ for PSR J0057$``$7201 is 19 pc cm-3, still well within the distribution of Galactic pulsars (Figure 4). Thus we cannot conclude that it is located within the SMC. The pulsar exhibits significant scintillation on time-scales comparable to the length of the timing observations ($``$ 1 h) and was only detectable in about half of the 20-cm timing observations and in none of the 70-cm observations.

### 3.3. PSR J0113$``$7220

PSR J0113$``$7220 was first discovered in our SMC survey and has a 326-ms period. The pulsar shows no noticeable scintillation, consistent with the known population of luminous LMC pulsars. Its DM of 125 pc cm-3 is larger than that of PSR J0045$``$7319, the only other known SMC pulsar, and implies that it is also located within the SMC. Radio timing results for PSR J0113$``$7220 (Table 1) reveal a characteristic age of $``$ 1 Myr. PSR J0113$``$7220 is also very luminous with a narrow profile peak. It is the most luminous pulsar currently known in either of the Magellanic Clouds.

### 3.4. PSR J0535$``$6935

PSR J0535$``$6935 was discovered serendipitously in the 30 Doradus region of the LMC in one of the outlying beams of the multibeam receiver during a deep search for radio pulsations from PSR J0537$``$6910 with the center beam (Crawford et al. (1998)). Figure 5 shows an 843-MHz radio image of the 30 Doradus region from the Sydney University Molonglo Sky Survey444http://www.astrop.physics.usyd.edu.au/SUMSS., with the locations of the three known pulsars in that region indicated. PSR J0535$``$6935 proved too faint for regular timing, so an estimate of $`\dot{P}`$ was made by comparing the barycentric period in observations obtained one year apart. Table 1 lists the result. The positional uncertainty remains large ($``$ 7, the radius of the detection beam). The pulsar was detected in observations of length 21600 s and 17200 s and would have been too faint to detect in our standard 8400 s integrations in the SMC survey.

### 3.5. PSR J0537$``$6910

PSR J0537$``$6910 is a 16-ms X-ray pulsar in the 30 Doradus region of the LMC (Figure 5). This Crab-like pulsar was first detected in X-rays (Marshall et al. (1998)) and is associated with the plerionic supernova remnant (SNR) 0538$``$69.1 (N157B) in the LMC. The pulsar has a characteristic age of $``$ 5 kyr, making it the fastest young rotation-powered pulsar currently known and one of the few pulsars with a confirmed SNR association. Efforts to find a radio counterpart to this X-ray pulsar have so far been unsuccessful at both 50 cm and 20 cm (Crawford et al. (1998)), but constraints on the radio luminosity are poor due to the large distance.

### 3.6. PSR J0540$``$6919 (B0540$``$69)

PSR J0540$``$6919 (B0540$``$69) is a 50-ms Crab-like pulsar in the 30 Doradus region of the LMC (Figure 5) which was first discovered in X-rays (Seward, Harnden, & Helfand (1984)) and subsequently detected at radio wavelengths (Manchester et al. (1993)). The pulsar is associated with the composite SNR 0540$``$69.3 in the LMC and is very young, with a characteristic age of 1.7 kyr, making this system a twin of the Crab system. The measured DM of 146 pc cm-3 for PSR J0540$``$6919 is the largest yet measured for any pulsar in the Magellanic Clouds. An electron density of $`n_e2`$ cm-3 has been estimated for the 30 Doradus region in the direction of SNR 0538$``$69.1 (N157B) (Lazendic et al. 2000). The excess DM of $`50`$ pc cm-3 for PSR J0540$``$6919 relative to other known LMC pulsars would suggest a characteristic size of $``$ 25 pc for a region with a similarly enhanced plasma density. This is significantly larger than the $``$ 1 pc size of SNR 0540$``$69.3 ($`0.1^{}`$ at 50 kpc) and suggests that the larger DM of PSR J0540$``$6919 could be accounted for by a region of enhanced plasma density extending well beyond SNR 0540$``$69.3 itself.

### 3.7. PSR J0455$``$6951, PSR J0502$``$6617, and PSR J0529$``$6652

These three pulsars were first discovered in the 50-cm survey of the Magellanic Clouds by McConnell et al. (1991) but were not subsequently timed by them. Timing results were first obtained by Kaspi (1994) but not published elsewhere. In Table 2 we present updated and refined timing results for these pulsars which we obtained by reprocessing the timing data.

## 4. Discussion

### 4.1. Dispersion Measures

The Taylor & Cordes (1993) model of the electron distribution in the Galaxy incorporates layers of electrons in which the density decreases with increasing $`z`$-distance from the Galactic plane. This clearly limits the Galactic contribution to the DM as a function of Galactic latitude. One reason that pulsars are believed to be in the Magellanic Clouds is their large DMs, which exceed those expected for Galactic pulsars at that Galactic latitude. The quantity $`\mathrm{DM}`$ $`\mathrm{sin}|b|`$ is a measure of the $`z`$-contribution to the DM and can be used to distinguish Galactic from extragalactic pulsars. Figure 4 shows a histogram of the measured DM $`\mathrm{sin}|b|`$ values for 681 Galactic pulsars. There is a clear dropoff close to zero at about 27 pc cm-3 with several pulsars between 30 pc cm-3 and 35 pc cm-3. The $`\mathrm{DM}`$ $`\mathrm{sin}|b|`$ values of Magellanic Cloud pulsars range from 40 pc cm-3 to about 90 pc cm-3, a much larger range than the Galactic population itself. One reason for this is that the projected $`z`$-contribution of electrons from the Magellanic Clouds is not a flat disk (like our Galaxy), but rather is extended in the line of sight.

One interesting question to ask is whether the spread in DM seen in the known pulsar population can reveal anything about the Magellanic Clouds themselves. The observed range for the two SMC pulsars is 105 pc cm-3 to 125 pc cm-3. The observed range in the LMC (where there are more known pulsars) is about 80 pc cm-3, from the smallest value of about 70 pc cm-3 to the largest value of about 150 pc cm-3. Assuming an electron density of 0.03 cm-3 for the Magellanic Clouds which is comparable to estimated mean Galactic values (Manchester & Taylor (1977); Spitzer (1978); Taylor & Cordes (1993)), the DM spread corresponds to a distance range of 0.7 kpc and 2.7 kpc for the SMC and LMC respectively.

From distance measurements of 161 Cepheids in the SMC, Mathewson (1985) has estimated that the depth of the SMC is between 20 kpc and 30 kpc, much larger than the projected size of the SMC on the sky of $``$ 4 kpc ($``$ 4). The observed DM spread for pulsars in both Magellanic Clouds indicates line-of-sight depths that are much smaller than this, as indicated above. In fact, for an SMC depth of 20-30 kpc, the implied mean electron density from the pulsar DM distribution (assuming that the pulsars are separated by a significant fraction of the SMC size) would be $`n_e{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}0.001`$ cm-3, much smaller than Galactic values. Our survey is sensitive to high-DM pulsars and our data processing includes DM $`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}`$ 450 pc cm-3, but we did not detect any pulsars with DM $`>`$ 125 pc cm-3. Our results are more consistent with the suggestion of Zaritsky et al. (2000) that the inner part of the SMC is roughly spherical in morphology, though a comparison of the older population of Cepheids with the younger population of pulsars may not account for systematic differences in their distributions due to their ages. Should a significant number of additional SMC pulsars be found in the future in this same DM range, this will be at odds with an elongated line-of-sight morphology for the SMC.

### 4.2. Expected Number of Detectable Pulsars in the Magellanic Clouds

Establishing formation rates of neutron stars and determining the beaming fraction and luminosity characteristics of pulsars is important for understanding the birth and emission characteristics of the pulsar population. Although the Galactic pulsar population currently provides a much larger sample of pulsars with which to model these parameters, it suffers from selection effects and distance uncertainties. The Magellanic Clouds suffer much less from these effects. Here we compare the observed number of pulsars in the SMC with the number predicted from several methods using different model assumptions.

We follow the method of McConnell et al. (1991) to estimate the number of SMC pulsars expected to be detectable in our survey. The number of potentially observable pulsars in the SMC, $`N_{\mathrm{SMC}}`$, can be estimated using the number of potentially observable pulsars in our solar neighborhood which is defined as a cylinder with a base area of 1 kpc2 in the Galactic disk. We scale this number by a factor which includes the mass ratio of the SMC and the solar neighborhood and their relative star formation rates,

$$N_{\mathrm{SMC}}=R\frac{N_{\mathrm{SN}}M_{\mathrm{SMC}}}{M_{\mathrm{SN}}}.$$
(1)
Here $`R`$ is the star formation rate in the SMC relative to the solar neighborhood, $`N_{\mathrm{SN}}`$ is the number of potentially observable pulsars in the solar neighborhood, and $`M_{\mathrm{SMC}}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{SN}}`$ are the masses of the SMC and solar neighborhood respectively.

Lequeux (1984) indicates that the star formation rate per unit total mass in the SMC is greater than the solar neighborhood, yielding $`R`$ = 1.6. The total masses of the solar neighborhood and SMC are estimated to be $`9\times 10^7M_{}`$ and $`1.8\times 10^9M_{}`$, respectively (Vangioni-Flam et al. (1980)). The number of potentially observable pulsars with $`L_{400}>1`$ mJy kpc2 in the solar neighborhood has been estimated by Lyne et al. (1998). They derive a local space density of 30 $`\pm `$ 6 kpc-2 and 28 $`\pm `$ 12 kpc-2 for non-recycled and millisecond pulsars respectively above this luminosity limit. These estimates include beaming effects and hence are a fraction of the true underlying pulsar population. Putting these numbers in Equation 1 gives 1000 $`\pm `$ 200 and 900 $`\pm `$ 400 for the number of potentially observable non-recycled and millisecond pulsars respectively in the SMC with $`L_{400}>1`$ mJy kpc2.

We can convert this result into an estimate of the number of pulsars detectable in our survey, which is sensitive to pulsars with $`L_{400}>1950`$ mJy kpc2 for most periods. We assume that the Galactic and SMC luminosity distributions are similar. Lorimer et al. (1993) show that for the Galactic population, the number of pulsars above a luminosity threshold $`L_0`$ scales as the inverse of $`L_0`$. Thus, the expected number of pulsars above our detection limits in the SMC is 0.5 $`\pm `$ 0.1 non-recycled pulsars and 0.5 $`\pm `$ 0.2 millisecond pulsars. The number of detectable millisecond pulsars is an upper limit since this number may be overestimated for two reasons. First, our survey sensitivity begins to significantly decrease at millisecond periods (see Figure 2), and second, the younger age of the oldest star clusters in the SMC relative to the Galaxy (Olszewski, Suntzeff, & Mateo (1996)) may indicate that the SMC presently contains fewer old recycled pulsars. In any case, with two known SMC pulsars, both of which are non-recycled, and assuming Poisson statistics, the prediction is consistent with our results.

We can also estimate the number of pulsars detectable in our survey using the supernova rate for irregular galaxies, of which the SMC is one. Turatto (2000) estimates that the Type II supernova rate for irregular galaxies is 0.65 $`\pm `$ 0.39 SNu, where SNu is a unit defined as

$$\mathrm{SNu}=\frac{1}{100\mathrm{yr}}\frac{1}{10^{10}L_{}^B}$$
(2)
where $`L_{}^B`$ is the bolometric luminosity of the galaxy in solar units and where $`H_0=75`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 is assumed.

Vangioni-Flam et al. (1980) estimate the SMC bolometric luminosity to be 7.8 $`\times `$ $`10^8`$ $`L_{}`$, implying a Type II supernova rate of (5 $`\pm `$ 3) $`\times `$ 10-4 per year. We assume that all compact objects formed in these supernovae are NSs, and that all NSs formed are active pulsars with $`L_{400}>`$ 1 mJy kpc2 with a mean lifetime of 10 Myr. This yields 5100 $`\pm `$ 3600 active pulsars in the SMC. We apply the Biggs (1990) beaming fraction of 0.3 for non-recycled pulsars in the range 0.1 s $`<`$ $`P`$ $`<`$ 1 s to get 1520 $`\pm `$ 1070 potentially observable pulsars in the SMC. Scaling this to the number expected to be detectable in our survey using the luminosity law of Lorimer et al. (1993) gives 0.8 $`\pm `$ 0.5 for the predicted number of detectable non-recycled pulsars in our survey. Our observed sample of two is consistent with this prediction.

### 4.3. The Magellanic Cloud Pulsar Luminosity Distribution on the $`P`$-$`\dot{P}`$ Diagram

Distances to pulsars in our Galaxy are generally determined by the DM-distance model of Taylor & Cordes (1993) which has large uncertainties. This unfortunately introduces large uncertainties in pulsar luminosity estimates. The Magellanic Clouds have more accurately determined distances than Galactic pulsars, and therefore their pulsars have better known luminosities. Since only the upper end of the luminosity function is detectable in the Magellanic Clouds, we can use luminosity estimates of their pulsars to compare the high end of the Magellanic Cloud pulsar luminosity function with that of the Galaxy.

Table 3 lists radio luminosities for the seven known radio pulsars in the Magellanic Clouds using flux density estimates from several sources. Taylor, Manchester, & Lyne (1993) have shown that Galactic pulsars older than $``$ 5 Myr have significantly lower luminosities than younger pulsars. Figure 6 shows a $`P`$-$`\dot{P}`$ diagram for the seven Magellanic Cloud radio pulsars and Galactic pulsars with cataloged radio luminosities. The distribution of the Magellanic Cloud pulsars is consistent with the Galactic distribution of luminous pulsars and supports the suggestion of Taylor, Manchester, & Lyne (1993).

## 5. Conclusions

We have conducted a survey of the SMC for radio pulsars and have discovered two new pulsars, one of which is located within the SMC. We present timing results for both of these pulsars as well as refined values for three previously known LMC pulsars. We have also discovered serendipitously a new pulsar in the LMC, bringing the total number of known rotation-powered pulsars in the Magellanic Clouds to eight. The results of our survey are consistent with the expected number of detectable SMC pulsars estimated using several methods. However, the small number of pulsars currently known in the SMC prevents significant constraints on the parameter assumptions made in these estimates. The luminosity distribution of the Magellanic Cloud pulsar population on the $`P`$-$`\dot{P}`$ diagram is consistent with the Galactic distribution of luminous pulsars and supports the conclusion of Taylor, Manchester, & Lyne (1993) that pulsars younger than $``$ 5 Myr are more luminous on average than older pulsars. The DM distribution of the newly discovered pulsars is consistent with the known pulsar population in the Magellanic Clouds. Both of the known SMC pulsars are in a narrow DM range, and if additional SMC pulsars are found in the future which are also confined to this narrow range, this will be at odds with the SMC depth estimated from Cepheid observations. Significantly increasing the sensitivity of searches for pulsars in the Magellanic Clouds is not practical with current technology given constraints on telescope time, etc. However, next-generation instruments such as a square-kilometer array should greatly increase the number of known pulsars in the Magellanic Clouds and will enhance and refine the conclusions drawn in this paper.

We thank members of the Parkes Multibeam Pulsar Survey team for assistance with the observations and the dedicated staff at Parkes for their support during this project. The Parkes radio telescope is part of the Australia Telescope, which is funded by the Commonwealth of Australia for operation as a National Facility managed by CSIRO. This work was supported by an NSF Career Award to VMK (AST-9875897) and NASA grant NAG 5-3229 to F. Camilo.


text:
# Contents

## 1 Introduction

During my talk I want to focus on three topics, namely

* the exciting developments in heavy flavour physics of the last two years and what can be expected in the foreseeable future,
* the lessons on T and CPT invariance learnt from CPLEAR as well as KTeV and NA48 including some comments on a program for the AD program at CERN, and
* other non-mainstream trends.

More specifically my talk will be organized as follows: after reminding you of why CP violation represents such a fundamental phenomenon and sketching the CP phenomenology as it existed in 1998 in Sect.2, I will describe the new insights and developments since then and what can be expected in the next decade or so in Sect.3; in Sect.4 I discuss T and CPT invariance and what has been learnt about it from CPLEAR with some additional information from $`K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}e^+e^{}`$; in Sect.5 I comment on ‘exotica’, namely direct CP violation in hyperon decays, on $`K_{\mu 3}`$ decays, electric dipole moments and CP violation in charm transitions before presenting an outlook in Sect.6.

## 2 CP invariance and its limitations through 1998

### 2.1 CP violation as a fundamentally new paradigm

The discovery in 1957 that parity was broken in weak decays certainly caused a shock in the community. Yet the latter recovered remarkably fast largely due to arguments put forward by leading physicists like Landau. They suggested one had been hasty in requiring full invariance under parity. Invoking somewhat obliquely Mach’s principle they instead argued in favour of CP symmetry pairing left-handed neutrinos with right-handed antineutrinos; ‘left’ and ‘right’ is then defined in terms ‘positive’ and ‘negative’. 222This is similar to a German saying that the thumb is ‘left’ on the ‘right’ hand: it is as factually correct as it is useless since circular. A world of left-handed fermions and right-handed antifermions is thus a completely symmetric one. Indeed it was found that maximal parity violation in weak interactions is balanced by maximal violation of charge conjugation. This might remind you of the literary figure of ‘a man without a future and a woman without a past’.

The observation of $`K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ in 1964 was totally unexpected by almost all theorists, and they did not give up without a fight. Interpretations other than CP violation were entertained: the existance of a particle $`U`$ escaping detection in $`K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}[U]`$ was postulated 333It is an argument analogous to Pauli’s introduction of neutrinos into $`\beta `$ decay: an ‘invisible’ particle is postulated to save a conservation law, namely that of energy-momentum there and CP here. While this idea worked there, it failed here. ; cosmological background fields were invoked and even the idea of nonlinear effects in quantum mechanics were floated  – to no avail! The fact that CP invariance appeared to be a ‘near-miss’ – BR$`(K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{})0.0021`$ in contrast to maximal P violation – made it even harder to accept. Nevertheless the whole community soon came around to accept CP violation as an empirical fact .

I am telling this story not to poke fun at my predecessors. There were very good reasons for theorists’ slowness in embracing CP violation. For it was clearly realized that CP violation represented a more fundamental and radical shift to a new paradigm than parity violation.

* CP violation means that ‘left’- and ‘right’-handed can be distinguished in an absolute way, independant of any convention concerning the sign of charges. This is most obvious from the observation on semileptonic $`K_L`$ decays:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_Ll^+\nu _L\pi ^{})>\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_Ll^{}\overline{\nu }_R\pi ^+).$$
(1)
* Due to CPT symmetry CP violation implies T violation, i.e. that nature distinguishes between ‘past’ and ‘future’ on the microscopic level.
* One can add (at least in retrospect) that CP violation is a necessary ingredient in any effort to understand the baryon number of the Universe as a dynamically generated quantity rather than as a parameter reflecting initial conditions.
* On a more technical level one can point out that CP violation represents the smallest observed violation of a symmetry: Im$`M_{12}1.110^8`$ eV or Im$`M_{12}/m_K2.210^{17}`$.
* The peculiar role of T violation surfaces also through Kramers’ Degeneracy . With the time reversal operator $`T`$ being antiunitary, $`T^2`$ has eigenvalues $`\pm 1`$ meaning the Hilbert space has two distinct sectors. It is easily shown that each energy eigenstate in the sector with $`T^2=1`$ is at least doubly degenerate. This degeneracy is realized in nature through fermionic degrees of freedom. I find it quite remarkable that the operator $`T`$ anticipates this option (and the qualitative difference between fermions and bosons) through $`T^2=1`$ without any explicit reference to spin.

### 2.2 Basic CP \[& T\] phenomenology

Due to CPT symmetry CP and T violation can enter through complex phases only. For them to become observable, one needs two different amplitudes to contribute coherently. This can be realized in different ways:

* Particle-antiparticle oscillations followed by a decay into a common final state:

Such asymmetries are often referred to – with less than Shakespearean flourish – as indirect CP violation. The decay rate evolution in proper time then differs from a pure exponential, and the difference between CP conjugate transitions becomes a nontrivial function of time. Well-known examples are $`K^0(t)\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ vs. $`\overline{K}^0(t)\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ or $`B_d(t)\psi K_S`$ vs. $`\overline{B}_d(t)\psi K_S`$ with

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_d(t)[\overline{B}_d(t)]\psi K_S)e^{t/\tau (B_d)}\left(1[+]A\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_dt)\right)$$
(2)
Final state interactions (FSI) in general will affect the signal, although not for $`B_d\psi K_S`$. On the other hand they are not required and they cannot fake a signal.
* Direct CP violation:

Within the SM it can occur in CKM suppressed modes only. There are several classes of such effects differing in the role played by final state interactions; they all share the feature that the signal is independant of the time of decay.

+ Partial width differences: The prime example is provided by comparing the strength of the two CP violating transitions $`K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0`$:

    $`\eta _+`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T(K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{})}{T(K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{})}}ϵ+ϵ^{}`$ (3)
    $`\eta _{00}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T(K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0)}{T(K_S\pi ^0\pi ^0)}}ϵ2ϵ^{}`$ (4)
    While the quantity $`ϵ`$ characterizes the decaying state $`K_L`$, $`ϵ^{}`$ differentiates between the CP properties of the final states $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ versus $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$. Its value can be determined from decay rates:

    $$\mathrm{Re}\frac{ϵ^{}}{ϵ}=\frac{1}{6}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{})/\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_S\pi ^0\pi ^0)}1\right]$$
    (5)
    This situation can be generalized. If the final state consists of two pseudoscalar mesons or one pseudoscalar and one vector meson, then CP violation can manifest itself only in a partial width difference. FSI are necessary to transform CP violation into an observable. While they cloud the numerical interpretation of a signal (or its absence), they cannot fake a signal.
    + Final state distributions: If a final state is more complex, i.e. consists of at least three pseudoscalar mesons not forming a resonance or of two vector mesons etc., then there are several potential layers of dynamical information. There could be asymmetries in subregions of a Dalitz plot that are substantially larger than when integrated over the whole Dalitz plot.

    Going one step further one can study decays of a particle P into four pseudoscalar mesons: $`Pa+b+c+d`$. Such a final state allows to construct non-trivial T-odd correlations:

    $$C_T\stackrel{}{p}_a(\stackrel{}{p}_b\times \stackrel{}{p}_c)$$
    (6)
    with $`C_TC_T`$ under time reversal. T violation can produce $`C_T0`$ irrespective of FSI; yet $`C_T0`$ does not necessarily establish T violation. Since T is described by an antiunitary operator, FSI can induce $`C_T0`$ with T-invariant dynamics. In contrast to the situation with partial widths where FSI play the role of a necessary evil, here they can act as an imposter. Yet comparing this observable for particle and antiparticle decays and finding $`C_T+\overline{C}_T0`$ establishes CP violation.

    The muon polarization transverse to the decay plane in $`K^+\mu ^+\pi ^0\nu `$ represents such a T-odd correlation: $`P_{}(\mu )=\stackrel{}{s}(\mu )(\stackrel{}{p}(\mu )\times \stackrel{}{p}(\pi ))/|\stackrel{}{p}(\mu )\times \stackrel{}{p}(\pi )|`$, which in this case could not be faked realistically by final-state interactions and would reveal genuine T violation.
    + The leading, namely linear term for the energy shift of a system inside a weak electric field $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ is described by a static quantity, the electric dipole moment $`\stackrel{}{d}`$:

    $$\mathrm{\Delta }=\stackrel{}{d}\stackrel{}{E}+𝒪(E^2)$$
    (7)
    For a non-degenerate system with spin $`\stackrel{}{s}`$ one has $`\stackrel{}{d}\stackrel{}{s}`$; therefore $`\stackrel{}{d}0`$ reveals T (and P) violation.

### 2.3 Theory of CP violation

Initially it had been suggested that electrodynamics might violate CP invariance; yet it was soon cleared of that suspicion. There was then no theory of CP violation till 1972. The community can be forgiven for not being overly concerned about explaining BR$`(K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{})0.002`$ when there are still infinities arising in the theoretical description of weak decays. Yet I find it highly remarkable that even after the SM had been formulated as a renormalizable theory by the late 1960’s the lack of a theory for CP violation was not noticed till 1972 . It is often said in response:”Well, we had the superweak model put forward by Wolfenstein already in 1964”. However I view the superweak model  as a classification scheme for theories rather than a theory itself. Whenever one suggests a theory of CP violation, one has to analyze whether it provides a dynamical implementation of the superweak scenario or not, and to which accuracy it does so.

In 1973 the celebrated paper by Kobayashi and Maskawa appeared in print . It pointed out that the electroweak SM with two full families – i.e. charm included – conserves CP; secondly it demonstrated how different types of New Physics – more families, more Higgs doublets, right-handed currents – allow CP breaking 444It had been noted first by Mohapatra that the SM with two families conserves CP. He suggested right-handed currents as the origin of CP violation . 555One can point out that Kobayashi and Maskawa benefitted from some ‘insider’ information: both were working in the Physics Department of Nagoya University at that time where, due to Sakata and his school, the notion of quarks as real rather than merely mathematical objects had been readily accepted, as had been the existence of charm due to the discovery of Niu .. Only one of these variants, namely the one with (at least) three families is now referred to as KM ansatz.

This KM ansatz removes the mystery from the apparent ‘near miss’ of CP invariance in $`K_L\pi \pi `$: this transition requires the interplay between three families; yet the third family is almost decoupled from the first two – not surprisingly (again at least in retrospect) considering its much heavier masses.

A second milestone was reached in the 1970’s when the relevance of the so-called Penguin operators was realized, first in the context of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ rule , then also for allowing for $`ϵ^{}/ϵ0`$ . Since then the treatment of Penguin operators and operator renormalization has reached a high level of sophistication .

A third milestone is represented by the formulation of the ‘Strong CP Problem’; it still awaits its resolution !

Another milestone was the realization in 1980 that the KM ansatz unequivocally predicts large CP asymmetries in some nonleptonic decay channels of neutral $`B`$ mesons like $`B_d\psi K_S`$ . It was stated explicitely that asymmetries could be 1- 20 % and possible larger – at a time when neither the ‘long’ $`B`$ lifetime nor the large $`B_d\overline{B}_d`$ oscillation rate nor the huge top mass were known; at that time a top mass exceeding 60 GeV would have been seen as a frivolous notion!

With only three families the unitarity constraints of the CKM matrix are conveniently expressed through triangle relations in the complex plane. The one most relevant for $`B`$ physics is given by

$$V^{}(tb)V(td)+V^{}(cb)V(cd)+V^{}(ub)V(ud)=0$$
(8)
Various CP asymmetries are described in terms of the angles of this triangle; an ecumenical message in PDG2000 endorses two different notations, namely

$$\varphi _1\beta =\pi \mathrm{arg}\left(\frac{V(tb)^{}V(td)}{V(cb)^{}V(cd)}\right),\varphi _2\alpha =\mathrm{arg}\left(\frac{V(tb)^{}V(td)}{V(ub)^{}V(ud)}\right),$$

$$\varphi _3\gamma =\mathrm{arg}\left(\frac{V(ub)^{}V(ud)}{V(cb)^{}V(cd)}\right).$$
(9)
### 2.4 The ‘unreasonable’ success of the CKM description

The observation of the ‘long’ $`B`$ lifetime of about 1 psec together with the dominance of $`bc`$ over $`bu`$ revealed a hierarchical structure in the KM matrix that is expressed in the Wolfenstein representation in powers of $`\lambda =\mathrm{tg}\theta _C`$. The triangle defined by Eq.(8) then takes on a very special form: its three sides are all of order $`\lambda ^3`$ and its angles therefore of order unity – as are the CP asymmetries they describe! Details are given in Sect.2.6.

We often see plots of the CKM unitarity triangle where the constraints coming from various observables appear as broad bands. While the latter is often bemoaned, it obscures a more fundamental point: the fact that these constraints can be represented in such plots at all is quite amazing! The quark box without GIM subtraction yields a value for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K`$ exceeding the experimental number by more than a factor of thousand; it is the GIM mechanism that brings it down to within a factor of two or so of experiment. The GIM subtracted quark box for $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_B`$ coincides with the data again within a factor of two. Yet if the beauty lifetime were of order $`10^{14}`$ sec while $`m_t180`$ GeV it would exceed it by an order of magnitude; on the other hand it would undershoot by an order of magnitude if $`m_t40`$ GeV were used with $`\tau (B)10^{12}`$ sec; i.e., the observed value can be accommodated because a tiny value of $`|V(td)V(ts)|`$ is offset by a large $`m_t`$.

This amazing success is repeated with $`ϵ`$. Over the last 25 years it could always be accommodated (apart from some very short periods of grumbling mostly off the record) whether the correct set \[$`m_t=180`$ GeV with $`|V(td)|\lambda ^3`$, $`|V(ts)|\lambda ^2`$\] or the wrong one \[$`m_t=40`$ GeV with $`|V(td)|\lambda ^2`$, $`|V(ts)|=\lambda `$\] were used. Yet both $`m_t=180`$ GeV with $`|V(td)|=\lambda ^2`$, $`|V(ts)|=\lambda `$ as well as $`m_t=40`$ GeV with $`|V(td)|=\lambda ^3`$, $`|V(ts)|=\lambda ^2`$ would have lead to a clear inconsistency!

Thus the phenomenological success of the CKM description has to be seen as highly nontrivial or ‘unreasonable’. This cannot have come about by accident – there must be a profound reason.

### 2.5 New QCD technologies of the 1990’s

Since we have to study the decays of quarks bound inside hadrons, we have to deal with nonperturbative dynamics 666Since top quarks decay before they can hadronize, their interactions can be treated perturbatively . – a problem that in general has not been brought under theoretical control. Yet we can employ various theoretical technologies that allow to treat nonperturbative effects in special situation:

* For strange hadrons where $`m_s\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ one invokes chiral perturbation theory.
* For beauty hadrons with $`m_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ one can employ $`1/m_b`$ expansions in various incarnations; they should provide us with rather reliable results, whenever an operator product expansion can be applied .
* It is natural to extrapolate such expansions down to the charm scale; this has to be done with considerable caution, though: while the charm quark mass exceeds ordinary hadronic mass scales, it does not do so by a large amount.
* Lattice QCD on the other hand is most readily set up at ordinary hadronic scales; from those one extrapolates down towards the chiral limit (which represents a nontrivial challenge) and up to the charm scale and beyond.

Let me add a few more specific comments:

Lattice QCD, which originally had been introduced to prove confinement and bring hadronic spectroscopy under computational control is now making major contributions to heavy flavour physics. This can be illustrated with very recent results on decay constants where the first unquenched results (with two dynamical quark flavours) have become available .

* $$f(D_s)=\{\begin{array}{c}240\pm 4\pm 24,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}275}\pm 20\mathrm{MeV},\mathrm{lattice}\mathrm{QCD}\hfill \\ 269\pm 22\mathrm{MeV},\mathrm{world}\mathrm{average}\mathrm{of}\mathrm{data}\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
* $`f(B)`$ $`=`$ $`190\pm 6\pm 20_0^{+9}\mathrm{MeV},\mathrm{lattice}\mathrm{QCD}`$ (11)
$`f(B_s)`$ $`=`$ $`218\pm 5\pm 26_0^{+9}\mathrm{MeV},\mathrm{lattice}\mathrm{QCD}`$ (12)

The $`1/m_Q`$ expansions have become more refined and reliable qualitatively as well as quantitatively:

* The $`b`$ quark mass has been extracted from data by different groups; their findings, when expressed in terms of the socalled ‘kinetic’ mass (which is distinct from both the pole as well as $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass), read as follows:

$$m_b^{\mathrm{kin}}(1\mathrm{GeV})=\{\begin{array}{c}4.56\pm 0.06\mathrm{GeV}\text{[19]},\hfill \\ 4.57\pm 0.04\mathrm{GeV}\text{[20]},\hfill \\ 4.59\pm 0.06\mathrm{GeV}\text{[21]}\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
The error estimates of 1 - 1.5 % might be overly optimistic (as it often happens), but not foolish. Since all three analyses use basically the same input from the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ region, they could suffer from a common systematic uncertainty, though.
* For the form factor describing $`Bl\nu D^{}`$ at zero recoil one has the following results:

$$F_D^{}(0)=\{\begin{array}{c}0.89\pm 0.08\text{[22]},\hfill \\ 0.913\pm 0.042\text{[23]},\hfill \\ 0.935\pm 0.03\text{[18]}\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
where the last number has been obtained in lattice QCD.

There is a natural feedback between lattice QCD and $`1/m_Q`$ expansions: by now both represent mature technologies that are defined in Euclidean rather than Minkowskian space; they share some expansion parameters, while differing in others; lattice QCD can evaluate hadronic matrix elements that serve as input parameters to $`1/m_Q`$ expansions.

It has been accepted for a long time now that heavy flavour decays can serve as high sensitivity probes for New Physics. I feel increasingly optimistic that our tools are and will be such that that they will provide us even with high accuracy probes!

### 2.6 Expectations and predictions 1998

The observed hierarchy in the CKM parameters

$$|V(ub)|^2|V(cb)|^2|V(cd)|^2$$
(15)
tells us that the CKM matrix can conveniently be described by the Wolfenstein parametrization in powers of $`\lambda =\mathrm{tg}(\theta _C)`$:

$$V_{CKM}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}V(ud)& V(us)& V(ub)\\ V(cd)& V(cs)& V(cb)\\ V(td)& V(ts)& V(tb)\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 𝒪(\lambda )& 𝒪(\lambda ^3)\\ 𝒪(\lambda )& 1& 𝒪(\lambda ^2)\\ 𝒪(\lambda ^3)& 𝒪(\lambda ^2)& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(16)
More specifically PDG2000 states as 90% C.L. ranges

$$|V_{CKM}|=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.9750\pm 0.0008& 0.223\pm 0.004& 0.003\pm 0.002\\ 0.222\pm 0.003& 0.9742\pm 0.0008& 0.040\pm 0.003\\ 0.009\pm 0.005& 0.039\pm 0.004& 0.9992\pm 0.0002\end{array}\right)$$
(17)
Without imposing three-family unitarity that is implicit in the Wolfenstein representation PDG2000 lists numbers that in particular for the top couplings are much less restrictive:

$$|V_{CKM}|=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0.9735\pm 0.0013& 0.220\pm 0.004& 0.003\pm 0.002& \mathrm{}\\ 0.226\pm 0.007& 0.880\pm 0.096& 0.040\pm 0.003& \mathrm{}\\ 0.05\pm 0.04& 0.28\pm 0.27& 0.5\pm 0.49& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right)$$
(18)
I would like to add three comments here:

* The brandnew CLEO number for $`|V(cb)|`$ from $`Bl\nu D^{}`$$`|V(cb)F_D^{}(0)|=(42.4\pm 1.8\pm 1.9)\times 10^3`$  – falls outside the 90% C.L. range stated by PDG2000 for the expected values of $`F_D^{}(0)`$.
* The OPAL collaboration has presented a new direct determination of $`|V(cs)|`$ from $`WH_cX`$: $`|V(cs)|=0.969\pm 0.058`$ .
* Using these values one finds

$$|V(ud)|^2+|V(us)|^2+|V(ub)|^2=1.000\pm 0.003,$$
(19)
which is perfectly consistent with the unitarity of the CKM matrix. Yet using instead $`|V(ud)|=0.9740\pm 0.0005`$ as extracted from nuclear $`0^+0^+`$ transitions, one obtains

$$|V(ud)|^2+|V(us)|^2+|V(ub)|^2=0.9968\pm 0.0014,$$
(20)
i.e., a bit more than a 2 $`\sigma `$ deficit in the unitarity condition.

With these input values one can make predictions on CP asymmetries, at least in principle and to some degree. I will confine myself to a few more qualitative comments.

* If there is a single CP violating phase $`\delta `$ as is the case in the KM ansatz one can conclude based on the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ rule: $`ϵ^{}/ϵ1/20`$. The large top mass – $`m_tM_W`$ – enhances the SM prediction for $`ϵ`$ considerably more than for $`ϵ^{}`$ for a given $`\delta `$ and therefore on quite general grounds

$$ϵ^{}/ϵ1/20$$
(21)
* Of course the KM predictions made employed much more sophisticated theoretical reasoning. Before 1999 they tended to yield – with few exceptions  – values not exceeding $`10^3`$ due to sizeable cancellations between different contributions.
* Once the CKM matrix exhibits the qualitative pattern given in Eq.(16), it neccessarily follows that certain $`B_d`$ decay channels will exhibit CP asymmetries of order unity. To be more specific one can combine what is known about $`V(cb)`$, $`V(ub)`$, $`V(ts)`$ and $`V(td)`$ from semileptonic $`B`$ decays, $`B_d\overline{B}_d`$ oscillations and bounds on $`B_s\overline{B}_s`$ oscillations with or without using $`ϵ`$ to construct the CKM unitarity triangle describing $`B`$ decays. A crucial question to which I will return later centers on the proper treatment of theoretical uncertainties. A typical example is :

$`\mathrm{sin2}\varphi _1[\beta ]`$ $`=`$ $`0.716\pm 0.070`$ (22)
$`\mathrm{sin2}\varphi _2[\alpha ]`$ $`=`$ $`0.26\pm 0.28`$ (23)

### 2.7 Status of the data in 1998

The relevant data read as follows in 1998:

* $`\mathrm{BR}(K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ $``$ $`2.310^30`$ (24)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{BR}(K_Ll^+\nu \pi ^{})}{\mathrm{BR}(K_Ll^{}\nu \pi ^+)}}`$ $``$ $`1.0060`$ (25)
* $$\mathrm{Re}\frac{ϵ^{}}{ϵ_K}=\{\begin{array}{c}(2.30\pm 0.65)10^3NA\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}31}\hfill \\ (0.74\pm 0.59)10^3E\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}731}\hfill \end{array}$$
(26)
* The muon transverse polarization in $`K^+\mu ^+\nu \pi ^0`$:

$$\mathrm{Pol}_{}(\mu )=(1.85\pm 3.6)10^3$$
(27)
* Electric dipole moments for neutrons and electrons

$`d_N`$ $`<`$ $`9.710^{26}ecm`$ (28)
$`d_e`$ $`=`$ $`(0.3\pm 0.8)10^{26}ecm`$ (29)
To get an intuitive understanding about the sensitivity achieved one can point out that the uncertainty in the electron’s magnetic moment is about $`210^{22}`$ e cm and thus several orders of magnitude larger than the bound on its EDM! The bound on the neutron’s EDM is smaller than its radius by 13 orders of magnitude. This corresponds to a relative displacement of an electron and a positron spread over the whole earth by less than 1 $`\mu `$ – much less than the thickness of human hair!

The situation in 1998 can then be described as follows: after 34 years of dedicated experimental work CP violation could still be described by a single number, namely $`ϵ`$, the situation concerning direct CP violation was in limbo, see Eq.(26), and no other manifestation had been seen.

## 3 New insights from 1999 and future developments

Direct CP violation has been established in $`K_L`$ decays:

$$\mathrm{Re}\left(\frac{ϵ^{}}{ϵ^{}}\right)=\{\begin{array}{c}(2.80\pm 0.41)10^3\mathrm{KTeV},\hfill \\ (1.40\pm 0.43)10^3\mathrm{NA48};\hfill \end{array}$$
(30)
its exact size, however, is still uncertain. It is a discovery of the first rank irrespective of what theory says or does not say.

Our theoretical interpretation of the data is very much in limbo. As I had argued before a rather small, but nonzero value is a natural expectation of the KM ansatz. To go beyond such a qualitative statement, one has to evaluate hadronic matrix elements; apparently one had underestimated the complexities in this task. One intriguing aspect in this development is the saga of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ rule: formulated in a compact way  it was originally expected to find a simple dynamical explanation; several enhancement factors were indeed found, but the observed enhancement could not be reproduced in a convincing manner; this problem was then bracketed for some future reconsideration and it was argued that $`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$ could be predicted while ignoring the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ rule. Some heretics – ‘early’ ones  and ‘just-in-time’ ones  – however argued that only approaches that reproduce the observed $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ enhancement can be trusted to yield a re alistic estimate of $`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$. In particular it had been suggested that the scalar $`\pi \pi `$ resonance called $`\sigma `$ plays a significant role here .

In all fairness one should point out that due to the large number of contributions with different signs theorists are facing an unusually complex situation . One can hope for lattice QCD to come through, yet it has to go beyond the quenched approximation, which will require more time.

The second new element in 1999 was the start-up of the new asymmetric $`B`$ factories BaBar and BELLE. Their first results again leave us in limbo :

$`\mathrm{sin2}\varphi _1[\beta ]`$ $`=`$ $`0.45_{0.440.09}^{+0.43+0.07}\mathrm{BELLE}`$ (31)
$`\mathrm{sin2}\varphi _1[\beta ]`$ $`=`$ $`0.12\pm 0.37\pm 0.09\mathrm{BaBar}`$ (32)
to be compared with the earlier data

$$\mathrm{sin2}\varphi _1[\beta ]=0.79\pm 0.44\mathrm{CDF}$$
(33)
It is natural to ask what we would learn from a ‘Michelson-Morley outcome’, if, say, $`|\mathrm{sin2}\varphi _1|<0.1`$ were established. Firstly, we would know that the KM ansatz would be ruled out as a major player in $`K_L\pi \pi `$ – there would be no plausible deniability! Secondly, one would have to raise the basic question why the CKM phase is so suppressed, unless there is a finely tuned cancellation between KM and New Physics forces in $`B\psi K_S`$; this would shift then the CP asymmetry in $`B\pi \pi ,\pi \rho `$.

I expect those $`B`$ factories to have established CP violation in at least one $`B`$ decay mode by 2002. Yet that will not be the end of it – far from it! Experiments at the upgraded $`B`$ factories at KEK and SLAC together with new experiments at the LHC – LHC-B – and at FNAL – BTeV – are expected to achieve experimental accuracies of a few percent, and they will measure many more observables. At the same time I expect that over the next five years or so we will be able to predict Standard Model effects with a few percent accuracy due to the improved theoretical tools sketched above and new measurements of CP insensitive rates. We will then face the following type of challenge: how confident will we be in inferring the intervention of New Physics based on a difference between data and predictions?

In principle there are precedents for establishing the presence of New Physics in such an indirect way in heavy flavour decays: based on the apparent absence of flavour changing neutral currents some courageous souls  postulated the existence of charm quarks; the occurance of $`K_L\pi \pi `$ lead to the conjecture that even a third family of quarks had to exist . However in all those cases we could rely on a qualitative discrepancy; i.e., the difference between observed and predicted rate amounted to several orders of magnitude or the predicted rate was zero – as for $`K_L\pi \pi `$. In the decays of beauty hadrons we predict many large or at least sizeable effects, and realistically in most cases we can expect differences well below an order of magnitude only! E.g., one predicts an asymmetry of, say, 40 %, but observe -40%: will we all be confident enough to claim the presence of New Physics then? What about 40% vs. 60 % or even vs. 50%? This would represent a novel challenge not encountered before; it will require that we gain quantitative control over that most evasive class of entities – theoretical uncertainties. I am confident we will make great progress in that respect. My optimism is not based on hoping that novel theoretical breakthroughs will occur although they might. But what will empower us is the fact that so many different types of observables can be measured in beauty decays. There are actually six KM unitarity triangles , and several of their angles can be measured in the dedicated and comprehensive research program that is being undertaken world-wide. Our analysis will then be able to invoke overconstraints – the most effective weapon in our arsenal against systematic uncertainties in general!

## 4 Status of T and CPT Invariance

It is often alleged that CPT invariance can boast of impressive experimental verification as expressed through the bound $`|M(K^0)M(\overline{K}^0)|/M(K)=(0.08\pm 5.3)10^{19}`$. However one might as well have divided this difference by the mass of an elephant since intrinsically the kaon mass is only marginally more related to the $`K\overline{K}`$ mass splitting than the elephant’s mass.

To put it differently: since this CPT breaking is expressed through a mass difference, one needs another dimensional quantity as yardstick. This can be provided by Im$`M_{12}`$ expressing CP violation in the mass matrix:

$$|M(K^0)M(\overline{K}^0)|<2.510^{10}\mathrm{eV}\mathrm{Im}M_{12}10^8\mathrm{eV};$$
(34)
i.e., CPT breaking still could be as ‘large’ as a few percent of the observed CP violation!

I have similar reservations about expressing bounds on the mass difference between protons and antiprotons relative to the proton mass etc.

Similarly I find statements relating bounds on the mass difference between protons and antiprotons to the proton mass as merely mathematical and largely devoid of physical meaning.

I want to emphasize that our belief in CPT invariance is based much more on ‘dogma’, i.e. theory, than empirical facts. For it is an almost inescapable consequence of local quantum field theories based on canonized assumptions like Lorentz invariance, the existence of a unique vacuum state and weak local commutativity obeying the ‘right’ statistics. Some explicit examples of CPT breaking theories have been given, but they are highly contrived and unattractive .

The new interest in experimental studies of CPT symmetry is fed by two more recent developments :

* Novel tests of CPT as well as linear quantum mechanics can be performed at the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and beauty factories DA$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$NE, BABAR and BELLE respectively by harnessing EPR correlations .
* Superstring theories are intrinsically nonlocal thus vitiating one of the central axioms of the CPT theorem. Furthermore gravity could induce CPT breaking either as a true symmetry violation or as a background effect due to the preponderance of matter over antimatter in our corner of the universe. Then it would be not unreasonable to expect CPT asymmteries to scale like a positive power of $`E/M_{Planck}`$. If that power were unity one would guestimate $`|M(K^0)M(\overline{K}^0)|M(K)/M_{Planck}10^{19}`$; yet the main argument in favour of such a scenario is ‘why not?”.

Unfortunately these suggestions do not yield any reliable benchmark figures for CPT violations. Searches for them still represent shots in the dark, although there is a wide field for them .

In this context there might be more interest in the even more unorthodox suggestion that the extra dimensions required by superstring theories are larger than the Planck length by many orders of magnitude . This leads to the intriguing scenario where the Planck scale is actually a derived rather than a fundamental one; that role is played by a much lower energy scale $`M_X`$. It was noticed that the $`1/r^2`$ force law for gravity had not been tested in the sub-millimeter domain. With gravity (unlike gauge forces) operating in all dimensions, their dynamics would undergo a great qualitative change at distances comparable to the size of the extra dimensions. More specifically the $`1/r^2`$ law would change to $`1/r^{2+n}`$ with the natural number $`n`$ depending on the number of extra dimensions and the new fundamental unification scale $`M_X`$. In such a case it just might be conceivable that studying the spectra of anti-protonic atoms could reveal an apparent violation of CPT symmetry. The picture I have in mind without having done a calculation that is certainly doable is the following: in an anti-protonic atom where the antiproton is as close to the nucleus as possible without entering the meson cloud around the latter the orbiting antiproton would experience a gravitational force exceeding the canonical one by many orders of magnitude if $`n`$ were sufficiently large. Its gravitational mass could then differ significantly from the mass of protons determined at larger distances.

Although CP violation implies T violation due to the CPT theorem (and despite my skepticism concerning the observability of the latter), I consider it highly significant that more direct evidence has been obtained through the ‘Kabir test’: CPLEAR has found

$$A_T\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^0\overline{K}^0)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{K}^0K^0)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^0\overline{K}^0)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{K}^0K^0)}=(6.6\pm 1.3\pm 1.0)10^3$$
(35)
versus the value $`(6.54\pm 0.24)10^3`$ inferred from $`K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. Of course, some assumptions still have to be made, namely that semileptonic $`K`$ decays obey CPT or that the Bell-Steinberger relation is satisfied with known decay channels only. Avoiding both assumptions one can write down an admittedly contrived scheme where the CPLEAR data are reproduced without T violation; the price one pays is a large CPT asymmetry $`𝒪(10^3)`$ in $`K^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^0`$ .

KTeV and NA48 have analyzed the rare decay $`K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}e^+e^{}`$ and found a large T-odd correlation between the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`e^+e^{}`$ planes in full agreement with predictions . Let me add just two comments here: (i) This agreement cannot be seen as a success for the KM ansatz. Any scheme reproducing $`\eta _+`$ will do the same. (ii) The argument that strong final state interactions (which are needed to generate a T odd correlation above 1% with T invariant dynamics) cannot affect the relative orientation of the $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ planes fails on the quantum level .

The effect found represents a true CP asymmetry. Yet if one is sufficiently determined, it still could be attributed to CP and CPT breaking that leaves T invariant. A more detailed discussion of these subtle points is given in .

## 5 Beyond the Mainstream

Considerable circumstantial evidence has been accumulated that the SM is incomplete. There are (at least) four central mysteries at the basis of flavour dynamics:

* Why is there a family structure relating quarks and leptons?
* Why is there more than one family, why three, is three a fundamental parameter?
* What is the origin of the observed pattern in the quark masses and the CKM parameters? This pattern can hardly have come about by accident.
* Why are neutrinos massless – or aren’t they?

To a large degree studying flavour dynamics represents an indirect or high sensitivity search for New Physics, as already stressed in my discussion of $`B`$ physics. Yet we have to be sufficiently openminded in where we look; i.e., search also in areas where the Standard Model does not predict observable effects.

One such area is represented by searching for direct CP asymmetries in hyperon decays where the SM effects are below the sensitivity level of the ongoing HyperCP experiment.

Others are even more radical and can be characterized as a ‘King Kong’ scenario: ”One might be unlikely to encounter King Kong; yet once it happens there can be no doubt that one has come across someting out of the ordinary”. Such a situation can be realized for $`K_{\mu 3}`$ decays and EDMs – as introduced in Sect. 2.2 – and to some degree for charm transitions.

### 5.1 $`P_{}(\mu )`$ in $`K^+\mu ^+\pi ^0\nu `$

With $`P_{}(\mu )10^6`$ in the SM, it would also reveal New Physics that has to involve chirality breaking weak couplings: $`P_{}(\mu )\mathrm{Im}\xi `$, where $`\xi f_{}/f_+`$ with $`f_{}[f_+]`$ denoting the chirality violating \[conserving\] decay amplitude. There is an on-going experiment at KEK (KEK-E 246) aiming at a sensitivity for $`P_{}(\mu )`$ of $`10^3`$ or better.

### 5.2 EDM’s

With the KM scheme predicting unobservably tiny effects (with the only exception being the ‘strong CP’ problem) – namely $`d_{N,e}<10^{30}`$ e cm – and many New Physics scenarios yielding $`d_N`$, $`d_e`$ $`10^{27}`$ ecm, this is truly a promising zero background search for New Physics! The next round of experiments is aiming at $`10^{28}`$ e cm for $`d_N`$ and $`10^{30}`$ e cm for $`d_e`$ .

The game one is hunting is actually much more numerous, since many effects from the domain of nuclear physics can be employed here .

### 5.3 $`D^0`$ Oscillations & CP Violation

It is often stated that $`D^0`$ oscillations are slow and CP asymmetries tiny within the SM and that therefore their analysis provides us with zero-background searches for New Physics.

Oscillations are described by the normalized mass and width differences: $`x_D\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }M_D}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_D}`$, $`y_D\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_D}`$. A conservative SM estimate yields $`x_D`$, $`y_D`$ $`𝒪(0.01)`$. Stronger bounds have appeared in the literature, namely that the contributions from the operator product expansion (OPE) are completely insignificant and that long distance contributions beyond the OPE provide the dominant effects yielding $`x_D^{SM}`$, $`y_D^{SM}`$ $`𝒪(10^410^3)`$. A recent detailed analysis  revealed that a proper OPE treatment reproduces also such long distance contributions with

$$x_D^{SM}|_{OPE},y_D^{SM}|_{OPE}𝒪(10^3)$$
(36)
and that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, which is generated from on-shell contributions, is – in contrast to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_D`$ – insensitive to New Physics while on the other hand more susceptible to violations of (quark-hadron) duality.

Four experiments have reported new data on $`y_D`$:

$`y_D`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{c}(0.8\pm 2.9\pm 1.0)\%\mathrm{E791}\hfill \\ (3.42\pm 1.39\pm 0.74)\%\mathrm{FOCUS}\hfill \\ (1.0_{3.52.1}^{+3.8+1.1})\%\mathrm{BELLE}\hfill \end{array}`$ (40)
$`y_D^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(2.5_{1.6}^{+1.4}\pm 0.3)\%\mathrm{CLEO}`$ (41)
E 791 and FOCUS compare the lifetimes for two different channels, whereas CLEO fits a general lifetime evolution to $`D^0(t)K^+\pi ^{}`$; its $`y_D^{}`$ depends on the strong rescattering phase between $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ and $`D^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ and therefore could differ substantially from $`y_D`$ if that phase were sufficiently large. The FOCUS data contain a suggestion that the lifetime difference in the $`D^0\overline{D}^0`$ complex might be as large as $`𝒪(1\%)`$. If $`y_D`$ indeed were $`0.01`$, two scenarios could arise for the mass difference. If $`x_D\mathrm{few}\times 10^3`$ were found, one would infer that the $`1/m_c`$ expansion yields a correct semiquantitative result while blaming the large value for $`y_D`$ on a sizeable and not totally surprising violation of duality. If on the other hand $`x_D0.01`$ would emerge, we would face a theoretical conundrum: an interpretation ascribing this to New Physics would hardly be convincing since $`x_Dy_D`$. A more sober interpretation would be to blame it on duality violation or on the $`1/m_c`$ expansion being numerically unreliable. Observing $`D^0`$ oscillations then would not constitute a ‘King Kong’ scenario.

Searching for direct CP violation in Cabibbo suppressed $`D`$ decays as a sign for New Physics would also represent a very complex challenge: within the KM description one expects to find some asymmetries of order 0.1 %; yet it would be hard to conclusively rule out some more or less accidental enhancement due to a resonance etc. raising an asymmetry to the 1% level.

The only clean environment is provided by CP violation involving $`D^0`$ oscillations, like in $`D^0(t)K^+K^{}`$ and/or $`D^0(t)K^+\pi ^{}`$. For the asymmetry would depend on the product sin$`(\mathrm{\Delta }m_Dt)\mathrm{Im}[T(\overline{D}f)/T(D\overline{f})]`$: with both factors being $`𝒪(10^3)`$ in the SM one predicts a practically zero effect. Yet New Physics scenarios can induce signals as large as order 1 percent for $`D^0(t)K^+K^{}`$ and even larger for $`D^0(t)K^+\pi ^{}`$.

## 6 Outlook

I want to start with a statement about the past: The comprehensive study of kaon and hyperon physics has been instrumental in guiding us to the Standard Model.

* The $`\tau \theta `$ puzzle led to the realization that parity is not conserved in nature.
* The observation that the production rate exceeded the decay rate by many orders of magnitude – this was the origin of the name ‘strange particles’ – was explained through postulating a new quantum number – ‘strangeness’ – conserved by the strong, though not the weak forces. This was the beginning of the second quark family.
* The absence of flavour-changing neutral currents was incorporated through the introduction of the quantum number ‘charm’, which completed the second quark family.
* CP violation finally led to postulating yet another, the third family.

All of these elements which are now essential pillars of the Standard Model were New Physics at that time!

I take this historical precedent as clue that a detailed, comprehensive and thus neccessarily long-term program on the dynamics of heavy flavours – on the quark as well as lepton side – in general and on CP violation in particular will lead to a new paradigm, a new Standard Model. For we are addressing the problem of fermion mass generation – a central mystery in our present SM. Such studies are of fundamental importance, they will teach us lessons that cannot be obtained any other way and cannot become obsolete.

It will not be an easy journey on a straight path, nor will it be short, nor can we anticipate where we will end up. Yet we know that we are at the beginning of an truly exciting adventure.

Finally we should never loose sight of the fact that by any historical standard we are generously supported by the public. Therefore we better appreciate how highly privileged we are in participating in this adventure. I do not know of a sufficient justification for this privilege, only of a necessary one: to work with as much dedication as we can possibly muster and never be satisfied with a second-best effort!

Acknowledgements

While I have enjoyed meetings at many beautiful places in the world, I have to say that San Servolo is second to none. Its setting in the laguna of Venice, the views and sunsets it offers, how it combines its own tranquility with the nearby vibrancy of Venice, its sparkling light – all of this is beyond description, it has to be experienced. Prof. Faessler deserve our enthusiastic thanks for introducing this jewel into the conference scene of particle physics. This work has been supported by the NSF under the grant PHY 96-05080.


text:
# On the Doubling Phenomenon in Lattice Chern-Simons Theories Presented by P. Sodano at Lattice ’00, Bangalore, India. †Supported by a Swiss National Science Foundation fellowship. DFUPG-53-00

## 1 Introduction

In odd space-time dimensions, there is the possibility of adding a gauge invariant, topological Chern-Simons (CS) term to the gauge field action. The CS term breaks both the parity and time-reversal symmetries and, when coupled with a Maxwell or Yang-Mills term, leads to massive gauge excitations . For an Abelian model in three space-time dimensions, the pure CS Lagrangian is defined as

$$_{CS}=\frac{k}{2}A_\mu ϵ^{\mu \alpha \nu }_\alpha A_\nu ,$$
(1)
where $`k`$ is a dimensionless coupling constant.

The pure CS theory is a topological field theory . Being dominant at large distances, the CS action may be used as a low energy effective field theory for condensed matter systems.

While in the continuum the pure CS theory is exactly solvable, things are quite different on the lattice: in fact the kernel defining the CS action exhibits a set of zeroes which are not due to gauge invariance  and the theory is not integrable even after gauge fixing. The action (1) is of first order in the derivatives, and the appearence of extra zeros in its lattice formulation is reminescent of the “doubling” of fermions on the lattice . Doubling phenomena for bosonic degrees of freedom have been already evidenced in Euclidean lattice gravity  and in the analysis of the coupling of gravity to matter on the lattice .

Previous studies of pure CS theory on the lattice have been carried out using the Hamiltonian formalism in , by introducing a mixed CS action with two gauge fields with opposite parity or by means of two gauge fields living on the links of two dual lattices (thereby obtaining in both cases a parity even action) .

Here we shall evidence that as a result of the theorem proved in  the non-integrability of the CS kernel is a general feature of any gauge-invariant, local, parity odd and cubic symmetric gauge theory on an infinite Euclidean lattice provided that under parity $`A_\mu (\stackrel{}{x})A_\mu (\stackrel{}{x}\widehat{\mu })`$ and $`A_\mu (\stackrel{}{p})A_\mu (\stackrel{}{p})`$. Since the addition of a Maxwell term regularizes the CS action, the presence of the extra zeros in the CS action did not cause any problem in previous investigations of the Maxwell-CS action on the lattice . Although in physical applications one is naturally lead to study the dynamics of gauge models described by a Maxwell-CS action, the proper definition of a pure CS action on the lattice is an interesting problem in its own right since it could open the way to a lattice evaluation of topological invariants .

The question naturally arises if it is possible to define a parity on the lattice so that the Chern-Simons term is parity odd but the kernel is integrable.

## 2 Euclidean Chern-Simons theory on the lattice

We consider an infinite Euclidean cubic lattice with lattice spacing $`a`$, which we set to unity ($`a=1`$). We shall denote a lattice site by the vector $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ and a link between $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{x}+\widehat{\mu }`$ ($`\mu =0,1,2`$) by $`(\stackrel{}{x},\widehat{\mu })`$. Forward and backward difference operators are given by $`d_\mu f(\stackrel{}{x})=f(\stackrel{}{x}+\widehat{\mu })f(\stackrel{}{x})=(S_\mu 1)f(\stackrel{}{x})`$ and $`\widehat{d}_\mu f(\stackrel{}{x})=f(\stackrel{}{x})f(\stackrel{}{x}\widehat{\mu })=(1S_\mu ^1)f(\stackrel{}{x})`$, where $`S_\mu f(\stackrel{}{x})=f(\stackrel{}{x}+\widehat{\mu })`$, $`S_\mu ^1f(\stackrel{}{x})=f(\stackrel{}{x}\widehat{\mu })`$ are the forward and backward shift operators respectively. Summation by parts on the lattice interchanges the forward and backward derivatives: $`_\stackrel{}{x}f(\stackrel{}{x})d_\mu g(\stackrel{}{x})=_\stackrel{}{x}\widehat{d}_\mu f(\stackrel{}{x})g(\stackrel{}{x})`$.

The lattice Fourier transformation of the gauge field $`A_\mu `$ is given by

$$A_\mu (\stackrel{}{x})=_{}\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}e^{i\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{x}}e^{ip_\mu /2}A_\mu (\stackrel{}{p}).$$
(2)
Due to the phase factor $`e^{ip_\mu /2}`$, $`A_\mu (\stackrel{}{p})`$ is antiperiodic if $`p_\mu p_\mu +2\pi (2n+1)`$, with $`n`$ integer. The integration over momenta in eq.(2) is restricted to the Brillouin zone $`=\left\{p_\mu \right|\pi p_\mu \pi ,\mu =0,1,2\}`$. Under parity, which on an Euclidean cubic lattice corresponds to the simultaneous inversion of all three directions,

$$A_\mu (\stackrel{}{x})A_\mu (\stackrel{}{x}\widehat{\mu })$$
(3)
and

$$A_\mu (\stackrel{}{p})A_\mu (\stackrel{}{p}).$$
(4)
The CS action on an Euclidean lattice derived by Frölich and Marchetti  is:

$$S=\underset{\stackrel{}{x}}{}A_\mu (\stackrel{}{x})\stackrel{~}{K}_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})A_\nu (\stackrel{}{y}),$$
(5)
where $`\stackrel{~}{K}_{\mu \nu }=K_{\mu \nu }+\widehat{K}_{\mu \nu }`$, and

$`K_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})`$ $`=`$ $`S_\mu ^\stackrel{}{y}ϵ_{\mu \alpha \nu }d_\alpha ^\stackrel{}{y}\delta _{\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y}},`$ (6)
$`\widehat{K}_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})`$ $`=`$ $`S_\nu ^{1,\stackrel{}{y}}ϵ_{\mu \alpha \nu }\widehat{d}_\alpha ^\stackrel{}{y}\delta _{\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y}}.`$ (7)
$`K`$ and $`\widehat{K}`$ are exchanged by summation by parts.

Although both $`K`$ and $`\widehat{K}`$ define a gauge invariant and parity odd kernel, Bose symmetry  requires that only the linear combination $`\stackrel{~}{K}=K+\widehat{K}`$ respects this symmetry and thus provides an acceptable definition of the lattice CS action. The operator $`\stackrel{~}{K}(p)=K(p)+\widehat{K}(p)`$ has, apart from the zero mode associated with gauge invariance, eigenvalues given by

$$\stackrel{~}{\lambda }(p)=\pm 2\sqrt{1+\mathrm{cos}\underset{\mu =0}{\overset{2}{}}p_\mu }\sqrt{3\underset{\mu =0}{\overset{2}{}}\mathrm{cos}p_\mu }$$
(8)
and thus $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=0`$ whenever $`\mathrm{cos}_{\mu =0}^2p_\mu =1`$, $`i.e.`$ when $`_{\mu =0}^2p_\mu =(2n+1)\pi `$. The CS action (5) is therefore not integrable.

The properties of $`K`$ and $`\widehat{K}`$ parallel the ones of the forward and backward derivatives, which in momentum space read $`d_\mu e^{ip_\mu /2}\widehat{p}_\mu `$ and $`\widehat{d}_\mu e^{ip_\mu /2}\widehat{p}_\mu `$ with $`\widehat{p}_\mu =2\mathrm{sin}p_\mu /2`$: they do not have extra zeroes inside the Brillouin zone, but their linear combination $`d+\widehat{d}2\mathrm{cos}(p_\mu /2)\widehat{p}_\mu `$ has zeros at the border of the Brillouin zone $`p_\mu =\pm \pi `$.

The appearance of the extra zeroes is not due to the specific form of the kernel in (5). In fact, as proven in , if the action

$$S=\underset{\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y}}{}A_\mu (\stackrel{}{x})G_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})A_\nu (\stackrel{}{y})$$
(9)
i) is local on the lattice;

ii) is gauge invariant: $`\widehat{d_\mu ^x}G_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})=\widehat{d_\nu ^y}G_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})=0`$;

iii) is odd under parity;

(9) is not integrable.

The proof of the theorem is easier in momemtum space. Bose symmetry and parity oddness imply that the kernel $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p})=e^{ip_\mu /2}G_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p})e^{ip_\nu /2}`$ (no sum over $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$) is antisymmetric:

$$\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p})=\stackrel{~}{G}_{\nu \mu }(\stackrel{}{p}).$$
(10)
The Poincaré lemma  then enable us to rewrite $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p})`$ in term of a scalar function $`f(\stackrel{}{p})`$: $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p})=ϵ_{\rho \mu \nu }\widehat{p}_\rho f(\stackrel{}{p})`$. Making use of the fact that $`G_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p})`$ must be a periodic function of the momenta, it is easy to see that for $`p_0=p_1=p_2=\pm \pi `$ one gets

$$f(\pm \pi ,\pm \pi ,\pm \pi )=f(\pm \pi ,\pm \pi ,\pm \pi )=0.$$
(11)
Since the spectrum of $`G_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p})`$ is given by $`G(\stackrel{}{p})=\pm |f(\stackrel{}{p})|\sqrt{_{\mu =0}^2\widehat{p}_\mu ^2}`$, eq.(11) implies that the kernel $`G(\stackrel{}{p})`$ exhibits extra zeroes at the edges of the Brillouin zone and is thus not integrable.

Relaxing the assumption iii) one may study the general form of a gauge invariant local action in three dimensions. With the help of the Poincaré lemma  it is easy to show that the kernel $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p})`$ can be divided into the sum of parity even and parity odd terms. Since, due to locality, $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p})`$ is an analytic function of $`\stackrel{}{p}`$, it may be expanded in Taylor series: all the terms having even power of the momenta are parity even, while the terms with odd power of the momenta are parity odd. The terms with the lowest number of derivatives in this expansion are the CS term defined in  and the Maxwell term, whose kernel on the lattice is:

$$M_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{}\delta _{\mu \nu }+d_\mu \widehat{d}_\nu =K_{\mu \rho }\widehat{K}_{\rho \nu },$$
(12)
where $`\mathrm{}=_{\mu =0}^2d_\mu \widehat{d}_\mu `$ is the Laplacean in three dimensions. Since all the parity odd terms fullfill the assumptions of the theorem they generate extra zeroes in the spectrum. The only gauge invariant way to regularize the CS action is then the addition of a parity even term such as the Maxwell term.

For the Maxwell-CS theory on the lattice the kernel $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }`$ may be written as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{4e^2}M_{\mu \nu }+ikG_{\mu \nu }.$$
(13)
In (13) $`k`$ is dimensionless and $`e^2`$ has the dimension of a mass; the Maxwell term is an irrelevant operator and the CS action dominates in the infrared region. The Fourier transform of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }`$, apart from a zero mode due to gauge invariance, has eigenvalues given by

$$\lambda _{MCS}(\stackrel{}{p})=\frac{1}{2e^2}\underset{\mu =0}{\overset{2}{}}(1\mathrm{cos}p_\mu )+ikG(\stackrel{}{p}),$$
(14)
and, as it stands, it is free from extra zeroes in the Brillouin zone since the first term in (14), which is the Fourier transform of the Maxwell kernel, is zero only at zero momentum, and at the corners of the Brillouin zone, $`p_\mu =\pm \pi ,\mu =0,1,2`$, takes the value $`\lambda _{MCS}(\stackrel{}{p})=3/e^2`$.

Since the CS action is purely immaginary, the addition of the Maxwell term is used also in the continuum theory to provide a proper definition of the functional integral in the partition function of the pure CS theory. The CS limit is reached also there by taking the limit $`e^2\mathrm{}`$ after Gaussian integration.

The regularization of the extra zeros in the CS action by adding a Maxwell term and thereby opening a gap in the fermion spectrum is similar to the mechanism of the Wilson fermion where a gap is opened and the energy does not have secondary minima at the non-zero corners of the Brillouin zone. As in the case of the Wilson fermions , the regularization is done by means of an irrelevant operator and the continuum limit $`a0`$ is not changed by this addition. Moreover, as the Wilson action explicitly breaks chiral symmetry, the action obtained after the addition of the Maxwell term is not anymore defined under parity.

## 3 Concluding remarks

In  we pointed out a no-go theorem in the lattice regularization of the pure CS theory, if one requires locality, gauge invariance and parity oddness on the lattice. As we already pointed out in the introduction, a doubling phenomenon has been already advocated for bosonic theories on the lattice  . In particular the authors of  and  found a doubling phenomenon for a class of lattice formulations of gravity and in the presence of a gravitational background all matter fields exhibit the same degeneracy as the graviton and the chiral fermion. This doubling phenomenon makes ill defined all matter fields in a gravitational background and it can be removed just in the flat space limit in the case of scalar and gauge bosonic fields. However, in  we found a doubling phenomenon for gauge fields completely independent from the metric of the manifold on which the fields live, since the pure CS theory is a topological theory. Our analysis evidences explicitly that doubling phenomena for fields defined on a discrete space-time manifold are a very general phenomena due more to the linearity of the field action in the derivatives than to the curvature of the manifold.

The no-go theorem demonstrated in  strongly relies on the definition of the parity transformation for the gauge field $`A_\mu (\stackrel{}{x})A_\mu (\stackrel{}{x}\widehat{\mu })`$. If one could define a new parity on the lattice so that the CS term is still odd but the kernel is integrable, then the new definition of parity should play a role analogous to the Ginsparg-Wilson relation  for lattice fermionic theories. For these theories the Ginsparg-Wilson relation hints to a new definition of chiral symmetry on the lattice, a generalization of the usual continuum chiral symmetry that is exactly recovered in the naive continuum limit.