text:
# Conclusive tests of local realism and pseudoscalar mesons

Abstract

Many beautiful experiments have been addressed to test standard quantum mechanics against local realistic models. Even if a strong evidence favouring standard quantum mechanics is emerged, a conclusive experiment is still lacking, because of low detection efficiencies. Recently, experiments based on pseudoscalar mesons have been proposed as a way for obtaining a conclusive experiment. In this paper, we investigate if this result can effectively be obtained. Our conclusions, based on a careful analysis of the proposed set ups, are that this will not be possible due to intrinsic limitations of these kind of experiments.

PACS: 03.65.Bz

Keywords: Bell inequalities, Pseudoscalar mixing, non-locality, hidden variables theories

I. INTRODUCTION

Quantum Mechanics (QM) is one of the pillar of modern physics and no doubt can remain on its validity, thanks to the huge amount of experimental results confirming many its predictions (often to an extremely precise level). Nevertheless, some doubt could persist if a general local realistic theory could include QM as a statistical limit.

This idea appeared already in 1935 in the famous Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paper .

For this purpose, the authors introduced the concept of element of reality according to the following definition: If, without disturbing in any way a system, I can predict without any uncertainty the value of a physical quantity, then there is an element of physical reality corresponding to this quantity. They formulated also the reasonable hypothesis (in the light of special relativity) that any non-local action was forbidden.

They concluded that either one of their hypothesis was wrong or Quantum Mechanics was not a complete theory, in the sense that not every element of physical reality had a counterpart in the theory.

With the purpose of elucidating their arguments, we will follow their discussion, but with the physical system introduced by Bohm, which allows a clearer comprehension of the problem.

Let us thus consider a singlet state of two spin 1/2 particles

$$|\psi =\frac{|1|1|1|1}{\sqrt{2}}$$
(1)
where $`|\pm 1`$ represents a single particle of spin up and down states, respectively. This is an example of an entangled state, namely of a state of two or more particles which cannot be factorised in single-particle states.

Let the two particles separate and then measure the z component of the spin of the first particle; this permits us to know immediately the z spin component of the particle 2 (which is opposite) without disturbing in any way the second particle. Thus the z component of the spin of the second particle is an element of reality according to the previous definition.

But, since the singlet state is invariant under rotations, we could refer to any other axis (as x or y etc.): thus we can argue that any other spin component of particle 2 is an element of reality. However, spin components on different axis are incompatible variables in Standard Quantum Mechanics (SQM), for which one cannot assign definite values at the same time: for this reason it follows that Quantum Mechanics cannot be a complete theory, for it does not allow a prediction of all elements of reality.

This statement was somehow the starting point of development of the so-called Local Realistic Models (LRM or hidden variables theory): it exists a deterministic (and local) theory describing nature and Quantum Mechanics is only a statistical approximation of this theory.

In particular in any hidden variable theory every particle has a perfectly assigned value for each observable, determined by a hidden variable $`x`$. A statistical ensemble of particles has a certain distribution $`\rho (x)`$ of the hidden variable and thus the average value of an observable A is given by:

$$<A>=𝑑x\rho (x)A(x)$$
(2)
Of course, considering the great success of SQM in predicting many different experimental data, the average $`<A>`$ given by (2) must reproduce the SQM predictions.

Historically, the quest for hidden variable theories stopped when von Neumann published a theorem asserting the impossibility of constructing a hidden variable theory reproducing all the results of SQM. For long time, his prestige led to an acritical acceptation of this theorem, but it was then discovered that one of his hypotheses was too restrictive so that the program of a hidden variable theory was still possible.

The fundamental progress in discussing possible extensions of SQM was Bell’s proof  that any realistic Local Hidden Variable LRM theory must satisfy certain inequalities which can be violated in QM. This allows, in principle, testing experimentally the validity of SQM against LRM.

Various different forms of these inequalities have been proposed. All of them are equivalent by the Fine theorem (see e.g. Ref. ). For the sake of exemplification let us show one of them. Let us consider a source of entangled particles emitting a pair, where the first particle goes to detector 1 and the second to detector 2, and suppose that before the detector i we select a certain property $`\theta _i`$. For example, if the particles are entangled in spin, then $`\theta _i`$ is the angle defining the direction (respect to the z-axix) along which we are going to measure the spin. The Clauser-Horne sum then reads:

$$CHS=P(\theta _1,\theta _2)P(\theta _1,\theta _2^{})+P(\theta _1^{},\theta _2)+P(\theta _1^{},\theta _2^{})P(\theta _1^{})P(\theta _2)$$
(3)
where $`P(\theta _1,\theta _2)`$ represents the joint probability of observing a particle in 1 with the selection $`\theta _1`$ and, in coincidence, a particle in 2 with the selection $`\theta _{2.}`$ On the other hand, $`P(\theta _i)`$ represents the probability of observing a single particle at i with selection $`\theta _i`$.

Clauser and Horne  have shown that CHS is always smaller than zero for every LRM, but it can be larger than zero for a suitable choice of parameters in SQM.

Many interesting experiments have been performed to test Bell inequalities. Most of them were based on entangled photon pairs produced in positronium decays, atomic decays and in non-linear crystals. Only few exceptions were performed with other systems . All of them led to a substantial agreement with quantum mechanics , bar one  not confirmed by similar ones . Thus LRM theories are disfavoured (see ref.s  for reviews), but, so far, no experiment has yet been able to exclude definitively such theories. In fact, so far, one has always been forced to introduce a further additional hypothesis , due to the low total detection efficiency, stating that the observed sample of particle pairs is a faithful subsample of the whole. This problem is known as detection or efficiency loophole. For example, in Eq. 3 this reflects into the fact that, because of losses, single particle probabilities $`P(\theta _i)`$ are always much larger than joint probabilities $`P(\theta _i,\theta _j)`$ and thus in real experiments must be substituted with joint probabilities without selection on one arm. The research for new experimental configurations able to overcome the detection loophole is of course of the greatest interest.

Since the beginning of 90’s, big progresses in this direction have been obtained by using parametric down conversion (PDC) processes for generating entangled photon pairs with an high angular correlation.

The generation of entangled states by parametric down conversion (PDC) has replaced other techniques for it overcomes some former limitations. In particular, having angular correlations better than 1 mrad, it overcomes the poor angular correlation of atomic cascade photons, as it was in the celebrated experiment of A. Aspect et al. . This was at the origin of the small total efficiency of this type of experiments in which one is forced to select a small subsample of the produced photons, leading inevitably to the detection loophole. Furthermore, a good polarisation selection can be done using visible light, at variance with the case of positronium decay, where this was not possible for high energy gamma rays (in spite of a very high detection efficiency).

The first experiments using this technique were performed with type I PDC, which gives phase and momentum entanglement and can be used for testing Bell inequalities using two spatially separated interferometers , as realised by . The use of beam splitters, however, strongly reduces the total quantum efficiency.

Alternatively, one can generate a polarisation entangled state . However, the first experiments for the creation of couples of photons entangled from the point of view of polarisation, still suffered severe limitations, as it was pointed out in Ref. . The essence of the problem is that in generating this state, half of the initial photon flux was lost, and one was, of necessity, led to assume that the photons’ population actually involved in the experiment to be a faithful sample of the original one, i.e. falling on the efficiency loophole.

More recently, experiments have been realised using Type II PDC , where a polarisation entangled state is directly generated. This scheme has permitted, at the price of delicate compensations for having identical arrival time of the ordinary and extraordinary photon, a much higher total efficiency than the previous ones (up to about $`0.3`$), even though this is still far from the required value of $`0.81`$. In addition, some recent experiments studying equalities among correlations functions of two  or three photons  rather than Bell inequalities are far from solving these problems . A large interest remains therefore for new experiments increasing total quantum efficiency in order to reduce and finally overcome the efficiency loophole.

Some years ago, a very important theoretical step in this direction has been performed recognising that, while for maximally entangled pairs a total efficiency larger than to 0.81 is required to obtain an efficiency-loophole free experiment, for non maximally entangled pairs this limit is reduced to 0.67  (in the case of no background). However, it must be noticed that, for non-maximally entangled states, the largest discrepancy between quantum mechanics and local hidden variable theories is reduced: thus a compromise between a lower total efficiency and a still sufficiently large value of this difference will be necessary when realising an experiment addressed to overcome the detection loophole.

An experiment devoted to test Bell inequalities using non-maximally entangled photon pairs has been recently realised . In this scheme the non-maximally entangled states of photons in polarisation were obtained superimposing through an optical condenser the parametric down conversion produced by two type I crystals, separated of a distance much smaller than the coherence one of the pump laser. This scheme allows to obtain a very good superposition, not possible in the scheme of Ref. , and a good spatial separation of the two substates, not possible with the very recent scheme of Ref. .

Even if relevant progresses toward the elimination of the detection loophole have been obtained using entangled photon pairs, nevertheless the total efficiency is strongly dominated by the quantum efficiency of photodetectors. Nowadays efficiencies for commercial photodetectors are under 75 %. Prototypes already reach much higher efficiencies , but at the prize of an high background which also limits the possibility of a loophole free test .

Thus, in summary, the use of entangled photon pairs has led to very important tests of Bell inequalities, but at the moment cannot allow to eliminate the detection loophole.

On the other hand, a recent experiment  performed using Be ions has reached very high efficiencies (around 98 %), but in this case the two subsystems (the two ions) are not really separated systems and the test cannot be considered a real implementation of a detection loophole free test of Bell inequalities , even if it constitutes a relevant progress in this sense.

II. BELL INEQUALITIES AND KAONS

Even if little doubts remain on the validity of the standard quantum mechanics, considering the fundamental importance of the question, the quest for other experimental schemes for a definitive test of Bell inequalities is therefore of the largest interest.

Many theoretical investigations have been recently devoted to find new schemes eventually suitable for a loophole free experiment . In particular, in the last years, a considerable effort has been addressed to investigate the possibility that the use of entangled pseudoscalar meson pairs as $`K\overline{K}`$ or $`B\overline{B}`$ ($`D`$ mesons decay rapidly through Cabibbo allowed channels and therefore do not represent an interesting situation) might lead to a conclusive test of local realism. Effectively, this solution presents some evident advantages: if the pair is produced by the decay of a particle at rest in the laboratory frame (as the $`\varphi `$ at Daphne), the two particles can be easily separated at a relatively large distance allowing an easy space-like separation of the two subsystems and permitting an easy elimination of the space-like loophole, i.e. realising two completely space-like separated measurements on the two subsystems. Let us notice that for a complete elimination of this loophole, the space-like separation must include the setting of the experimental selections as well (for photons this could be performed with large separations and/or acousto-optical devices for polarisation selection, but introducing big losses which make impossible a contemporary elimination of the detection loophole). Moreover, in these experiments based on pseudoscalar pairs a very low noise is expected.

These proposals are based on the use of entangled states of the form (analogous to the singlet state of Eq. 1):

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }={\displaystyle \frac{|K_0|\overline{K}_0|\overline{K}_0|K_0}{\sqrt{2}}}=`$ (4)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{|K_L|K_S|K_S|K_L}{\sqrt{2}}}`$ (5)
(6)
where $`|K_0`$ and $`|\overline{K}_0`$ are the particle and antiparticle related by charge conjugation and composed by a quark $`d`$ with an anti-strange $`\overline{s}`$ and a $`\overline{d}`$ with a $`s`$ respectively. Whilst the CP (charge conjugation and parity) eigenstates

$$|K_L=\frac{|K_0|\overline{K}_0}{\sqrt{2}}$$
(7)
and

$$|K_S=\frac{|K_0+|\overline{K}_0}{\sqrt{2}}$$
(8)
are the long living (CP=-1, forbidding the 2 pions decay) and the short living (CP=+1, allowing the 2 pions decay) states. Here and in the following small effects due to CP violation in weak interactions are neglected, not being relevant for our discussion.

The high efficiency of particles detectors has led to the claim that tests of local realism realised with pseudoscalar mesons pairs could allow the elimination of the detection loophole. The purpose of this article is a critical analysis of this statement.

First of all it must be noticed that a simple test based on a correlation function defined such that it takes the value 1 when two or none $`\overline{K}_0`$ are identified and -1 otherwise, would not lead to a violation of Bell inequalities due to the specific values of $`K_0\overline{K}_0`$ mixing parameters, as shown in Ref. . Also, a simple hypothesis  where the state (6) collapses shortly after its production in two factorised states

$$|K_S|K_L,|K_L|K_S$$
(9)
is already excluded . Anyway, other Bell inequalities and hidden variable schemes can be considered .

Our main concern about the statement that detection efficiency is high for mesons comes from the fact that in any experimental test proposed up to now one must tag the $`P`$ or $`\overline{P}`$ through its decay. This requires the selection of $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=\mathrm{\Delta }Q`$ semileptonic decays, which represent only a fraction of the total possible decays of the meson. From Ref.  one derives the following branching ratios:

$`BR(K_S^0\pi ^+e^{}\nu _e)=(3.6\pm 0.7)10^4`$ (10)
$`BR(K_L^0\pi ^+e^{}\nu _e)=0.1939\pm 0.0014`$ (11)
$`BR(K_L^0\pi ^+\mu ^{}\nu _\mu )=0.1359\pm 0.0013`$ (12)
$`BR(B^0l^+\nu _lX)=0.105\pm 0.008`$ (13)
$`BR(B^0l^+\nu _l\rho ^{})=(2.6\pm 0.7)10^4`$ (14)
$`BR(B^0l^+\nu _l\pi ^{})=(1.8\pm 0.6)10^4`$ (15)
where $`X`$ means anything.

Besides this problem, one has to consider experimental cuts on the energies of the decay products, which inevitably further reduce this fraction. Moreover, a fraction of the pairs will be lost by decays occurring before the region of observation. Finally, most of these proposals involve the regeneration phenomenon, which introduces further strong losses; on the other hand if no choice of the measurement set up (e.g. the presence of the regeneration slab) is introduced, the space-like loophole cannot be really eliminated.

The result of these considerations is that one is unavoidably led to subselect a fraction of the total events. As one cannot exclude a priori hidden variables related to the decay properties of the meson and losses, one cannot exclude the sample to be biased and thus the detection loophole appears here too. This is analogous to the photons experiments, where the detection loophole derives by the fact that one cannot exclude losses related to the values of hidden variables which determine if the photon passes or not a polarisation (or another) selection. Namely, in a local realistic model the properties of a particle are completely specified by the hidden variables. Also decays, in a deterministic model, can happen according to the values of the hidden variables (both in a deterministic or in a probabilistic way). Thus, states with different hidden variables can decay in different channels, with the condition that the branching ratios averaged  over the hidden variables distribution reproduce the quantum mechanics predictions. Analogously, any other loss can depend on hidden variables as well.

For what concerns the experiments based on Bell inequalities , the same limits for the total efficiency previously discussed remain valid. As the total branching ratio in $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=\mathrm{\Delta }Q`$ semileptonic decays is much smaller than 0.81, this unavoidably implies that a loophole free test of Bell inequalities cannot be performed in this class of experiments. The eventual use of non-maximally entangled states, lowering the efficiency threshold to 0.67, does not change the situation. This problem does not appear in Ref. , however other additional hypotheses are needed (see Eq. 15 and discussion after Eq. 18 of ), and thus this proposal does not allow a general test of LRM as well.

It must also be noticed that the only observation of interference between the two terms of the entangled wave function, Eq. 6, as in Ref , does not exclude general LRM, for this feature can be reproduced in a general class of local realistic theories.

In summary, we conclude that Bell inequalities measurement on kaons pairs will not allow a definitive test of local realism.

III. OTHER TESTS OF LOCAL REALISM WITH KAONS

Let us then consider other proposals for testing local realism, not based on a Bell inequalities measurement. Two proposals of this kind have been recently advanced by F. Selleri and others concerning a $`K\overline{K}`$  (very lately further developed in Ref. ) or a $`B\overline{B}`$  system respectively.

In order to show how the problem previously discussed appears for these proposals as well, let us analyse in details the $`K\overline{K}`$ case as discussed in Ref. . The $`B\overline{B}`$ one will follow with small modifications.

In the model of Ref. , the $`K\overline{K}`$ pair is local-realistically described by means of two hidden variables, one ($`\lambda _1`$) determining a well defined CP value, the other ($`\lambda _2`$) a well defined strangeness $`S`$ value for the $`K`$ (and related to this for the $`\overline{K}`$). This second variable cannot be a time independent property, but is subject to sudden jumps. If locality must be preserved the time of this jump must already be fixed ab initio by a hidden variable $`\lambda _3`$ (which represents the real second hidden variable of the model) and the two subsystems must not influence each other while they are flying apart, namely $`\lambda _2`$ is not the true hidden variable, but a parameter driven by $`\lambda _3`$ (see appendix of Ref.  and Ref. ).

Following Ref. , we denote by $`K_1`$ the state with CP=1, S=1, $`K_2`$ the state with CP=1, S=-1, $`K_3`$ the state with CP=-1, S=1 and $`K_4`$ the state with CP=-1, S=-1.

The initial state can be, with probability $`1/4`$, in anyone of the states $`CP=\pm 1`$, $`S=\pm 1`$. Each of these pairs give, in the local-realistic model (LRM), a certain probability of observing a $`\overline{K}_0\overline{K}_0`$ pair at proper times $`t_a`$ and $`t_b`$ ($`t_a`$) of the two particles. These probabilities are (in a somehow simplified form, see eq. 62-70 of Ref. ):

$`P_1[t_a,t_b]=[E_S(t_a)Q_{}(t_a)\rho (t_a)]E_L(t_a)p_{43}(t_b|t_a)`$ (16)
$`P_2[t_a,t_b]=[E_S(t_a)Q_+(t_a)+\rho (t_a)]E_L(t_a)p_{43}(t_b|t_a)`$ (17)
$`P_3[t_a,t_b]=[E_L(t_a)Q_{}(t_a)+\rho (t_a)]E_S(t_a)p_{21}(t_b|t_a)`$ (18)
$`P_4[t_a,t_b]=[E_L(t_a)Q_+(t_a)\rho (t_a)]E_S(t_a)p_{21}(t_b|t_a)`$ (19)
corresponding to an initial state with $`K_1`$ on the left and $`K_4`$ on the right, $`K_2`$ on the left and $`K_3`$ on the right, $`K_3`$ on the left and $`K_2`$ on the right and $`K_4`$ on the left and $`K_1`$ on the right respectively.

In Eq. 19, we have introduced $`E_S(t)=exp(\gamma _St)`$ and $`E_L(t)=exp(\gamma _Lt)`$, where (in units $`c=\mathrm{}=1`$) $`\gamma _S=(1.1192\pm 0.0010)10^{10}s^1`$ and $`\gamma _L=(1.934\pm 0.015)10^7s^1`$ denote the decay rate of $`K_S`$ and $`K_L`$ .

Furthermore, the function $`Q_\pm `$ are defined through:

$$Q_\pm =\frac{1}{2}\left[1\pm \frac{2\sqrt{E_LE_S}}{E_L+E_S}\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }mt)\right]$$
(20)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=(0.5300\pm 0.0012)10^{10}s^1`$ is the mass difference $`M_{K_L}M_{K_S}`$. We have also introduced the symbol $`p_{ij}(t_a|t_b)`$ for denoting the probability of having a $`K_i`$ at time $`t_b`$ conditioned to have had the state $`K_i`$ at time $`t_a`$. From Ref.  one has:

$$p_{21}(t_b|t_a)=E_S^1(t_a)[p_{21}(t_b|0)p_{21}(t_a|0)E_S(t_bt_a)]$$
(21)
and

$$p_{43}(t_b|t_a)=E_L^1(t_a)[p_{43}(t_b|0)p_{43}(t_a|0)E_L(t_bt_a)]$$
(22)
where

$$p_{21}(t|0)=E_S(t)Q_{}(t)\rho (t)$$
(23)
and

$$p_{43}(t|0)=E_L(t)Q_{}(t)+\rho (t).$$
(24)
Finally, $`\rho (t)`$ is a function not perfectly determined in the model (see discussion in Ref. ), but which is limited by

$`E_SQ_+\rho E_SQ_{}`$ (25)
$`E_LQ_{}\rho E_LQ_+`$ (26)
(27)
If we had a total efficiency of 1, the LRM probability of observing a $`\overline{K}_0\overline{K}_0`$ pair is given by the sum of the four probabilities of Eq. 19 multiplied by $`1/4`$. It is rather different from the quantum mechanical prediction

$$P_{QM}[\overline{K_0}(t_a),\overline{K_0}(t_b)]=\frac{1}{8}\left[e^{[(\gamma _St_a+\gamma _Lt_b)]}+e^{[(\gamma _Lt_a+\gamma _St_b)]}2e^{[(1/2)(\gamma _S+\gamma _L)(t_a+t_b)]}\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m(t_at_b))\right]$$
(28)
and thus represents a good test of the LRM. This is shown in fig. 1, where $`P[\overline{K_0}(t_a),\overline{K_0}(2t_a)]`$ is reported in analogy with Table 1 of Ref. .

However, when the total efficiency is lower than 1, the different probabilities can contribute in different ways as the hidden variables, which determine the passing or not the test, could also be related to the decay properties of the meson pair and losses. As discussed previously, the specific property of the meson is not being or not a $`\overline{K}_0`$ at a certain proper time, but the hidden variables values characterise it completely, and thus, in principle, even its decay properties. If this is the case, different coefficients $`a_i`$ can multiply the four probabilities. One has therefore:

$$P[\overline{K_0}(t_a),\overline{K_0}(t_b)]=1/4\left[a_1P_1[t_a,t_b]+a_2P_2[t_a,t_b]+a_3P_3[t_a,t_b]+a_4P_4[t_a,t_b]\right]$$
(29)
The freedom of the choice of these parameters allows to reproduce the quantum mechanical prediction. In figure 2, we show how the lower limit of the LRM can be smaller than the SQM curve, when this effect is considered for the curves of fig.1. We have chosen the parameters set: $`a_1=1`$,$`a_2=0.07`$,$`a_3=0.03`$ and $`a_4=0.1`$. This corresponds to values of $`a_i`$ such that their sum is the total efficiency chosen to be 0.3 (other values can be obtained by scaling). Nevertheless, it must be noticed that the values of the $`a_i`$ are substantially very little constrained. Besides, they can depend on the times $`t_a`$ and $`t_b`$, like the value of the hidden variable $`\lambda _2`$: this property, obviously, makes the quantum mechanics prediction more reproducible. Let us also notice that situation 1 and 4, 2 and 3 are symmetric under the exchange of left and right, although the decay probabilities do not need to be the same. The only real constraint on $`a_i`$ is that the total fraction of observed decays should be reproduced. For example, a trivial solution which reproduces SQM predictions is $`a_i(t_a,t_b)=P_{QM}(t_a,t_b)/P_i(t_a,t_b)`$. Of course, the same discussion can be exactly enforced to other correlation probabilities as $`P[\overline{K_0}(t_a),K_0(t_b)]`$ etc.

The previous results are obtained with $`\rho =E_sQ_{}`$, similarly to fig.1, in order to allow a direct comparison with the results of Ref. . However, according to the discussion of Ref. , the value $`\rho =0`$ is the favoured. We present the results for the case $`\rho =0`$ in figure 3. A total efficiency of 0.3 is considered. In this case the two curves (SQM and LRM) are very similar, for other choices of the parameters the lowest limit of the LRM could be easily reduced further. It may be interesting to notice that similar results are obtained also with other choices of $`\rho [t]`$, compatible with Eq. 27.

Altogether, these results show that the lowest limit curve of local realism can easily reproduce or be lower than the quantum mechanics prediction when different weights multiply the four probabilities, due to different branching ratios and losses for the 4 cases. It must be emphasised that our purpose is only to show a counterexample, which proves that observation of the curve predicted by SQM cannot exclude every  LRM. Our results show unequivocally that such a counterexample exists.

It must also be noticed that if not only the decay (and losses) properties were related to the hidden variables, but also the decay time were determined by them, then the scheme we have discussed should be substantially modified leaving a even larger space for agreement between SQM and LRM.

Of course, as all LRM tests performed up to now, a result in agreement with SQM, will further reduce the space for the existence of a LRM, even if unable to obtain the general result of eliminating the possible existence of LRM.

In conclusion, when only a subsample is selected (semileptonic $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=\mathrm{\Delta }Q`$ decays must be observed for tagging a $`\overline{K}_0\overline{K}_0`$ state and cuts must be introduced) the result of this analysis shows that detection loophole appears also in this case. Of course we are not discussing how the local realistic model should be, or if its complexity makes it unpleasant, we are simply investigating if such experiments allow to exclude without any doubt every local realistic model: our conclusion is that one is obliged to introducing the additional hypothesis that the observed sample is unbiased concerning the hidden variables values, i.e. the efficiency loophole reapers.

IV. TESTS OF LOCAL REALISM WITH $`B_0`$

Precisely the same considerations can be carried out for entangled $`B_0\overline{B_0}`$ pairs (produced, for example, in $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ decays).

A first set of papers  consider the possibility to test SQM measuring the term deriving from interference between the two terms in the entangled wave function (6). However, this effect is also reproduced in any reasonable LRM  and thus cannot be considered a general test of local realism, but can only allow to eliminate some specific class of hidden variable theories.

For what concerns Bell inequalities, exactly the same discussion of paragraph II applies: also in this case one will have to tag the $`\overline{B}_0`$ by semileptonic decays (see the branching ratios of Eq. 15) and the detection efficiency is expected to be around $`45\%`$ . Therefore we conclude that for $`B`$ pairs as well no definitive test of Bell inequalities is possible.

The same conclusions are reached for tests of local realism without inequalities, for the scheme of Ref.  is equivalent to the one we have discussed in the previous paragraph, a part small changes due to the same decay width $`\gamma =(0.646\pm 0.013)10^{12}s^1`$  for both the CP eigenstates. More in details the SQM prediction simplifies into:

$$P_{QM}[\overline{B_0}(t_a),\overline{B_0}(t_b)]=\frac{1}{4}\left[e^{[\gamma (t_a+t_b)]}[1\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m(t_at_b))]\right]$$
(30)
Also the probabilities $`P_i`$ simplifies analogously. For example the functions $`Q_\pm `$ become:

$$Q_\pm [t]=\frac{1}{2}[1\pm \mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }mt)]$$
(31)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=(0.472\pm 0.017)10^{12}s^1`$ .

The SQM prediction and the LRM ($`\rho =0`$) one are compared in fig.4 in analogy to fig.3 for the kaon case, both for the cases of detection efficiency equal to one and when the discussed effect is introduced. The figure exemplifies as the same results of the $`K\overline{K}`$ case keep their validity: in presence of a detection efficiency smaller than 1, LRM results can simulate SQM ones. Of course, as for some LRM the probabilities $`P[\overline{B_0}(t_a),\overline{B_0}(t_b)]`$ and $`P[B_0(t_a),\overline{B_0}(t_b)]`$ can reproduce the SQM result, also the asymmetry

$$A[t_a,t_b]=\frac{P[\overline{B_0}(t_a),\overline{B_0}(t_b)]P[B_0(t_a),\overline{B_0}(t_b)]}{P[\overline{B_0}(t_a),\overline{B_0}(t_b)]+P[B_0(t_a),\overline{B_0}(t_b)]}$$
(32)
discussed in Ref. , and the ratio

$$R=\frac{P[\overline{B_0},\overline{B_0}]+P[B_0,B_0]}{P[\overline{B_0},B_0]+P[B_0,\overline{B_0}]}$$
(33)
suggested in Ref.  (where time integrated probabilities appear), could be equal to the SQM ones for some LRM, and therefore cannot be used for a conclusive test of local realism.

Altogether, our conclusion is therefore that the $`B_0\overline{B}_0`$ case does not allow an experiment free of the detection loophole as well.

V. CONCLUSIONS

In summary, the result of this analysis shows that the detection loophole appears in a unavoidable way in experiments addressed to test local realism by the use of pseudoscalar mesons entangled pairs.

This is due to the fact that losses and decay properties might be related to the value of the hidden variables and therefore the selected subsample of the initial pairs might be biased, leading to the so called detection loophole.

This is a general problem, which is unavoidable every time the particle must be identified by using a particular decay channel (which does not have a branching ratio above 81 %). This is the case for $`K_0`$ or $`B_0`$ tagging, where semileptonic channels are considered.

Therefore, even if these experiments represent an interesting new approach for investigating quantum non-locality in a new sector, nevertheless they cannot lead to a conclusive test of local realism, for the impossibility of eliminating the detection loophole.

Also other tests of local realism in particle physics would be affected by the same problem, if based on unstable particles which must be tagged using some specific decay channel. On the other hand, this problem would not appear if one considers tests based on entangled pairs of stable particles, which can be identified without strong losses, as, for example, a singlet pair of $`e^+e^{}`$ produced in the decay of a scalar particle. Anyway, these tests must be performed  using measurement of non-commuting variables (as different components of spin) and not only a commuting set (as in Ref.s ) and thus a practical realisation will be far from being trivial.

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge support of ASI under contract LONO 500172, of MURST via special programs ”giovani ricercatori” Dip. Fisica Teorica Univ. Torino and of Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare.

Figures Captions

Fig.1 The SQM (thick) and the minimal LRM (dashed) predictions for $`P[\overline{K_0}(t_a),\overline{K_0}(2t_a)]`$. The result is shown for $`\rho [t]=E_S[t]Q_{}[t]`$, as in table I of Ref. . The minimal LRM is largely above the SQM prediction.

Fig.2 The SQM (thick) and the minimal LRM (dashed) predictions for $`P[\overline{K_0}(t_a),\overline{K_0}(2t_a)]`$, as in fig.1 but keeping into account a total detection efficiency of 0.3. With use of the choice $`a_1=0.5,a_2=0.13,a_3=0.5,a_4=0.07`$.

Fig.3 The SQM (thick, labelled with A) and the minimal LRM, $`\rho =0`$, (dot-dashed, B) predictions for $`P[\overline{K_0}(t_a),\overline{K_0}(2t_a)]`$ keeping into account a total detection efficiency of 0.3. With the choice $`a_1=1,a_2=0.13,a_3=0.03,a_4=0.04`$ the two curves substantially coincides. For other choices of the parameters the lower bound of LRM is well under SQM prediction. The four probabilities $`P_i[t_a,2t_a]`$ are shown for the sake of completeness, with dashing decreasing in order of the suffix $`i`$ and labelled by C,D,E,F respectively.

Fig.4 The SQM (thick) and the minimal LRM, $`\rho =0`$, (dashed) predictions for $`P[\overline{B_0}(t_a),\overline{B_0}(2t_a)]`$, without (upper curves) and with (lower curves) keeping into account a total detection efficiency of 0.3 (with the choice $`a_1=0.52,a_2=0.08,a_3=0.52,a_4=0.08`$).


format: text

text:
# Homogeneity, Flatness and “Large” Extra Dimensions

## Abstract

We consider a model in which the universe is the direct product of a (3+1)-dimensional Friedmann, Robertson-Walker (FRW) space and a compact hyperbolic manifold (CHM). Standard Model fields are confined to a point in the CHM (i.e. to a brane). In such a space, the decay of massive Kaluza-Klein modes leads to the injection of any initial bulk entropy into the observable (FRW) universe. Both Kolmogoro-Sinai mixing due to the non-integrability of flows on CHMs and the large statistical averaging inherent in the collapse of the initial entropy onto the brane smooth out any initial inhomogeneities in the distribution of matter and of 3-curvature on any slice of constant 3-position. If, as we assume, the initial densities and curvatures in each fundamental correlation volume are drawn from some universal underlying distributions independent of location within the space, then these smoothing mechanisms effectively reduce the density and curvature inhomogeneities projected onto the FRW. This smoothing is sufficient to account for the current homogeneity and flatness of the universe. The fundamental scale of physics can be $`<1`$TeV. All relevant mass and length scales can have natural values in fundamental units. All large dimensionless numbers, such as the entropy of the universe, are understood as consequences of the topology of spacetime which is not explained. No model for the origin of structure is proffered.

preprint: SU-GP-01/5-1
May 2001

The notion  that space has more than three space and one time dimensions, and thus that our $`3+1`$ dimensional universe is merely a subspace (“the brane”) on which ordinary Standard Model (SM) fields are confined inside a higher dimensional space (“the bulk”) in which gravitational degrees of freedom propagate, offers new perspectives for cosmology . A simple realization is a space-time which factorizes into an ordinary dynamical (3+1)-dimensional Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universe $`_{FRW}`$ and a static extra-dimensional spatial manifold, $`_{\mathrm{extra}}`$; so that $`=_{FRW}\times _{\mathrm{extra}}`$. The brane on which standard model fields are localized is taken to be stationary at a point in $`_{\mathrm{extra}}`$. Previously, we showed  that if $`_{extra}`$ has hyperbolic, rather than flat, geometry, then the dynamics of the very early universe alleviate some standard cosmological problems. In this letter we argue that the homogeneity and local flatness of the universe are consequences of a broad class of initial conditions for such a universe, assuming that $`_{extra}`$ is sufficiently topologically complex and that the fundamental laws of physics are universal.

The principal motivation for large extra dimensions was to solve the gauge hierarchy problem. For an extra dimensional manifold of volume $`V_{\mathrm{extra}}`$, the force due to massless gravitons will, by Gauss’s law, follow an inverse square law with an effective coupling of

$$M_{\mathrm{pl}}^2=M_F^{(d+2)}V_{\mathrm{extra}}^1$$
(1)
where $`M_F`$ is the fundamental scale of gravity. The graviton in these theories is a mode which is homogeneous on $`_{\mathrm{extra}}`$. Contributions to the gravitational potential due to excitations of the extra-dimensional geometry (Kaluza-Klein (KK) modes) are Yukawa-like and important only at distances short compared to the inverse mass of the associated KK mode.

For $`d=2`$ and $`3`$, most compact manifolds admit only a hyperbolic homogeneous geometry. CHMs are obtained from their universal covering space $`H^d`$, by “modding-out” by a (freely-acting) discrete subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the isometry group $`SL(d,1)`$ of $`H^d`$. If the extra dimensions comprise a CHM  then all experimental constraints are met by $`M_FTeV`$ and a maximum spatial extent of the CHM of only $`𝒪(30)M_F^1`$.

An important property of CHM’s is the dependence of their volume on linear size: $`Vb_c^de^\beta `$ for a given curvature radius $`b_c`$, with $`\beta b_c`$ proportional to the maximum linear dimension of the manifold. Crucially, for a homogeneous geometry, $`e^\beta `$ is a topological invariant of the manifold; in $`d=2`$, it is proportional to the Euler characteristic. In $`d=2`$ and $`3`$, there is a countable infinity of CHMs with volumes distributed approximately uniformly from a finite minimum value to infinity (in units of the curvature scale $`b_c`$). In large volume CHM’s there is generically a gap in the spectrum of the Laplacian between the zero mode (the graviton) and the next lowest mode. A theorem due to Sarnak in $`d=2`$ and a conjecture due to Brooks in $`d3`$ state (approximately) that for large volumes characteristically $`m_{\mathrm{gap}}=𝒪(b_c^1)`$. The natural value for $`b_c`$ is $`𝒪(M_F^1)`$. One therefore expects

$$M_{KK}>M_F.$$
(2)
The solution to the gauge hierarchy problem in this model is therefore at least technically natural, corresponding to the combination of a large, but topological, value of $`e^\beta `$ and the natural value $`b_cM_f=𝒪(1)`$.

Aside from its attractive particle-physics features, this construction has important cosmological implications. In the balance of this letter we show how the large scale homogeneity and local flatness of our universe emerge essentially automatically from relatively generic local initial conditions and a specific choice for the topology of spacetime, and hence for $`e^\beta `$.

We imagine that the universe appears, in that its geometry can first be treated classically, at a time $`t_1`$. We assume that any initial evolution of the geometry of $`_{\mathrm{extra}}`$ is brief and ignorable. This assumption is likely justified if, as we assume, the mechanism stabilizing the radius of curvature of $`_{\mathrm{extra}}`$ yields $`b_c(t_1)=𝒪(M_F^1)`$. The volume of $`_{\mathrm{extra}}`$ is given by (1) with $`e^\beta =𝒪\left(M_{Pl}^2/M_F^2\right)`$. We do not explain this large value of $`e^\beta `$, but note that it is a topological invariant of $`_{extra}`$.

We assume further that $`_{FRW}`$ is expanding for $`tt_1`$ with massive KK modes dominating the energy density of the universe. We assume that these KK modes have initial number density of $`g_1T_1^{3+d}`$ ($`g_1`$ here being some slowly changing multiplicity factor, and $`T_1M_F`$ some effective temperature), with energy density $`g_1T_1^{3+d}M_{KK}`$.

As $`_{FRW}`$ expands, the KK modes are out of thermal equilibrium and eventually decay, ultimately into light modes – gravitons and standard model particles. We show below that in this process most of the entropy in the universe moves from the bulk to the brane. We assume for simplicity that the KK decay is instantaneous, occurring at $`t_2\tau _{KK}=M_{Pl}^2/(g_{KK}M_{KK}^3)`$ ($`g_{KK}`$ quantifies the multiplicity of KK decay channels). With this approximation, we may equate the total energy content of the comoving 3-volume before and after the decay:

$$e^\beta b_1^da_1^3g_1T_1^{3+d}M_{KK}=g_2T_2^4a_2^3$$
(3)
where $`a_{1,2}`$ are the FRW scale factors at time $`t_{1,2}`$. Assuming that the universe was effectively matter dominated from $`t_1=[8\pi g_1T_1^{4+d}/(3M_F^{2+d})]^{1/2}`$ to $`t_2`$, i.e. $`\left(a_2/a_1\right)=\left(t_2/t_1\right)^{2/3}`$ we obtain

$`T_2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(3/(8\pi )\right)^{1/4}g_{KK}^{1/2}g_2^{1/4}M_{Pl}^{1/2}M_{KK}^{7/4}T_1^{1/4}.`$ (4)
If $`T_2>1MeV`$, which can easily be realized, nucleosynthesis is unaffected. For example with $`d=3`$, $`g_1g_2g_{KK}100`$, $`M_{KK}=3M_F`$, $`M_F=5`$TeV, we find $`T_2>1`$MeV. For a consistent cosmology, baryogenesis probably must occur during or prior to the decay of the KK modes.

The decay of the KK modes leads to the usual radiation dominated era, from $`t_2`$ to $`t_3`$, followed by a matter dominated era, from $`t_3`$ to today.

We next calculate the level of residual inhomogeneity we expect in our universe today. We assume that at $`t_1`$, when the initial distribution of KK modes is set, there exists some correlation scale $`\xi M_F^1`$, below which fluctuations in all quantities are highly correlated, but above which all fluctuations are completely uncorrelated. We assume further that on this scale there are $`𝒪(1)`$ fluctuations about a well defined mean density $`\overline{\rho }=𝒪(M_F^{4+d})`$. Most importantly, we assume the universality of the underlying distribution from which the $`\rho `$ in each correlation volume is drawn.

In momentum space, these fluctuations correspond to a gas of massive KK modes populating the bulk. As $`_{FRW}`$ expands, the gas cools, and the KK modes decay via a cascade into massless modes (i.e. $`mM_F`$). However, the massive KK modes cannot decay purely into gravitons (or gravitinos) because both KK modes and gravitons are eigenmodes of the generalized wave operator for spin-2 particles on the CHM and are therefore orthogonal on the CHM. Furthermore, since the graviton is the zero-mode of this operator on the CHM, the product of the wavefunctions of any number of gravitons will still be homogeneous. The decay rate for a massive KK state to pure gravitons will involve an overlap integral between the KK wavefunction and the multi-graviton wavefunction and will therefore vanish at lowest order in perturbation theory. This can also be understood in terms of a residual discrete isometry of the CHM, inherited from $`H^d`$, under which the KK modes carry non-zero charges while gravitons are scalars. (The need to prevent KK decay to multi-gravitons may constrain deviations from factorizability of $``$ which break the discrete isometry.)

The brane, however, breaks the residual symmetry. KK modes can decay into Standard model particles which are confined to the brane, and thus are not eigenmodes of the same operator. The coupling of KK modes to Standard Model modes is typically unsuppressed, compared to the coupling between KK modes, except for the wave-function overlap suppression. The KK modes therefore preferentially decay to Standard Model particles propagating on the brane, or to these plus gravitons. Since there are many light non-gravitational modes on the brane, and only one massless gravitational mode in the bulk, we expect most decays of KK modes to deposit their energy and entropy in SM fields on the brane.

Entropy injection into the brane is a powerful homogenizing processes in this cosmology. Consider a primordial fluctuation $`\delta \rho /\rho (\xi ,t_1)`$. So long as the underlying distribution of initial perturbations has sufficiently compact support, the central limit theorem ensures that the magnitude of this fluctuation at some length scale $`\lambda `$ at some time $`t`$ is suppressed by a huge number $`𝒪\left(\sqrt{n}\right)`$, where $`n`$ is the number of appropriately redshifted initial correlation volumes ($`\xi ^{3+d}`$) which project into the 3-volume $`\lambda ^3`$:

$$n\frac{e^\beta b_c^d\lambda ^3}{\xi ^{3+d}(a(t)/a_1)^3}.$$
(5)
The growth of density fluctuations in time partially balances this statistical averaging. Primordial fluctuations grow as $`t^{2/3}`$ in the matter dominated era while in the radiation dominated era are frozen . Thus, the density fluctuations at some late time ($`t>t_3`$) at the scale $`\lambda `$ are related to the initial ones by:

$$\frac{\delta \rho }{\rho }(\lambda ,t)\frac{\xi ^{(3+d)/2}(a(t)/a_1)^{3/2}}{e^{\beta /2}b_c^{d/2}\lambda ^{3/2}}\left(\frac{t_2}{t_1}\right)^{2/3}\left(\frac{t}{t_3}\right)^{2/3}\frac{\delta \rho }{\rho }(\xi ,t_1)$$

At the time of last scattering $`t_{ls}`$, for the fluctuations at the apparent horizon scale, $`\lambda =\lambda _{ls}`$, we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \rho }{\rho }}(\lambda _{ls},t_{ls})2.6\times g_1^{5/6}g_{KK}^{11/12}g_2^{3/8}M_{Pl}^{19/12}\xi ^{(d+3)/2}`$ (6)
$`\times T_1^{(20d+71)/24}T_3M_F^{(d+2)/3}M_{KK}^{19/8}T_4^{5/2}\lambda _{ls}^{3/2}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \rho }{\rho }}(\xi ,t_1)`$ (7)
Here $`T_3=5.5\mathrm{\Omega }_0h^2`$eV is the temperature at the beginning of the matter dominated era, $`T_4=0.3`$eV is the temperature of the CMB at last scattering and we take $`\lambda _{ls}3\times t_{ls}`$, with $`t_{ls}=180000(\mathrm{\Omega }_0h^2)^{1/2}`$yrs. We assume $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1`$, $`h=0.7`$. It is easy to see that the homogeneity of the universe ($`\delta \rho /\rho (3t_{ls})<10^5`$) can be achieved for reasonable values of parameters. For example, to keep $`T_2>1`$MeV we use the values of the relevant parameters given below eq. (4) for which we find $`\delta \rho /\rho 410^{19}`$ (assuming $`\frac{\delta \rho }{\rho }(\xi ,t_1)`$ of order one). Thus homogeneity is achieved without fine tuning of the initial parameters.

Since the power spectrum of fluctuations behaves as $`\lambda ^{3/2}`$, the scale at which fluctuations become large (of order one) is safely small — of order $`4\times 10^9`$m.

It is of interest to note that even prior to the homogenization that occurs due to the decay of the KK modes and the injection of the associated entropy into the brane, an additional homogenization mechanism is at work – mixing due to the non-integrability of flows in the CHM, i.e. chaos. CHMs are the paradigmatic arena for chaotic dynamics. Ignoring the effects of gravitational feedback, these dynamics cause gradients in the energy-density to be reduced as $`e^{\kappa d}`$, where $`\kappa `$ is the Kolmogorov-Sinai (K-S) entropy  of the flow, and $`d`$ is the distance the flow travels. It has been shown  that $`\kappa V_{CHM}^{(1/d)}\mathrm{log}2`$. Using $`d\tau _{KK}M_{Pl}^2/M_{KK}^3`$ and $`M_{KK}M_F`$, we find

$`\kappa d\left(M_{Pl}/M_F\right)^{2(11/d)}\mathrm{log}2/(M_Fb_c)`$This is a huge factor, which suggests that by the time of KK decay, at any given point in $`_{FRW}`$, the density is incredibly homogeneous across $`_{extra}`$. Note that these flows are effective at eliminating only those gradients of the density which are in the extra-dimensional directions – ordinary gradients are mostly unaffected by this effect, unless $`_{FRW}`$ is also a CHM. Nevertheless, this mechanism assures that the full $`\sqrt{n}`$ suppression of density fluctuations is realized. (This homogenizing effect of flows has been pointed out in a cosmological context, but with ordinary three-space as the CHM, by other authors looking for alternatives to inflation , or at least alternative solutions to the homogeneity problem .)

What then of the flatness problem – the fact that the universe today is so very close to flat, with curvature radius $`a_c\frac{3000h^1Mpc}{\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Omega }_0}}`$ ? We must separate this problem into two pieces:
a) The Global Flatness Problem: Is the manifold of three-dimensional space-time one with a topology that admits a flat homogeneous metric, or one with a topology that admits a curved (spherical or hyperbolic) homogeneous metric, or neither? We do not solve this problem, but rather assume that the global topology of space time is consistent with Euclidean geometry and a trivial topology (infinite extent in all directions). This is at least a technically natural assumption, i.e. it is topological invariant unchangeable by cosmological dynamics absent the formation of a singularity.
b) The Local Flatness Problem: Given that the global topology is what it is, why have fluctuations in the local curvature on cosmological scales not caused either the recollapse of the visible universe, or its runaway expansion – i.e. why does the universe look so flat?

In the context of this scenario, the flatness problem is just the homogeneity problem applied to gravity – the effective three-curvature in a particular domain in the FRW dimensions is obtained by averaging over many independent domains in the bulk. The curvature can be either positive or negative on a given domain of radius $`\xi `$. If the distribution around zero curvature is symmetric, then by the central limit theorem, the mean 3-curvature today will be given by:

$$\frac{1}{\overline{a}_4^2}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\frac{1}{a_4^2}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\frac{1}{a_1^2}\left(\frac{a_1}{a_2}\right)^2\left(\frac{a_2}{a_3}\right)^2\left(\frac{a_3}{a_4}\right)^2$$
(8)
where $`n`$ is calculated at the scale of the visible universe, i.e. the Hubble distance $`cH_0^1`$. Expressed in fundamental units, the initial energy density of the universe is

$$G_{4+d}\rho _1=\frac{g_1}{M_F^{d+2}}T_1^{4+d},$$
(9)
where $`G_{4+d}`$ is the fundamental (4+d dimensional) gravitational constant and $`g_1`$ is the density of states. The appropriately redshifted energy density today is

$$G_{4+d}\rho _4=\frac{g_1}{M_F^{d+2}}T_1^{4+d}\left(\frac{a_1}{a_2}\right)^3\left(\frac{a_2}{a_3}\right)^4\left(\frac{a_3}{a_4}\right)^3,$$
(10)
where we have used correspondingly redshifted powers in the matter and radiation dominated eras.

The flatness problem is the smallness of the ratio between $`G_{4+d}\rho _4`$ and $`1/\overline{a}_4^2`$; but now

$`{\displaystyle \frac{G_{d+4}\rho _4}{1/\overline{a}_4^2}}`$ $``$ $`\lambda ^{3/2}M_{Pl}^{7/12}M_F^{(2d+4)/3}M_{KK}^{9/8}T_1^{(4d+37)/24}T_3`$ (11)
$`\times `$ $`T_4^{5/2}a_1^2\xi ^{(d+3)/2}g_{KK}^{1/12}g_1^{1/6}g_2^{7/8}`$ (12)
$`T_3`$ is, as before, the temperature at the beginning of the matter dominated era, $`T_4=310^4`$eV is the temperature today while $`\lambda =cH_0^1=9.78h^110^9`$lyrs. This ratio is much greater than unity for any reasonable values of parameters. To keep $`T_2>1`$MeV, we use the values of the relevant parameters as given below (4) for which $`T_2>1`$MeV giving $`10^8`$. Thus, the curvature term today in Einstein’s equation is negligible with respect to the energy density term which achieves flatness without fine tuning of the initial parameters.

The Kolmogorov-Sinai smoothing will play the same role as in the homogeneity problem.

The net effect of these mechanisms is to solve the local aspect of the entropy problem. The entropy within the horizon at some earlier time (say CMBR) was much smaller than the entropy within the horizon today, thus implying that the horizon today consists of many causally disconnected regions, and yet the universe appears uniform. In the context of our homogenization mechanism (and its assumptions about the topology of $`M_{\mathrm{extra}}`$), this is no longer a problem. We should note that, since we assumed global Euclidean geometry and trivial topology of the 3-space, the global entropy problem (the existence of the huge dimensionless number of $`10^{88}`$, as discussed in ) is equivalent to the global flatness problem — why the universe is so big (infinite in extent). As we stated earlier, we do not solve this problem.

We have thus shown that, under certain assumptions, the homogeneity and local flatness of the visible universe is a generic feature of a universe with large extra dimensions and factorizable geometry. To do so we have had to assume that the underlying distribution functions from which density and curvature are drawn are homogeneous. Additionally, the scenario places certain demands on the topology of space-time – it must be factorizable $`=_{FRW}\times _{extra}`$, with $`_{FRW}`$ homeomorphic to $`R\times E^3`$, and the topology of $`_{extra}`$, as quantified by $`e^\beta `$, sufficiently complex. Moreover, it is apparent that the topology of $`_{extra}`$ must not vary, or at least not by a lot, from point to point in $`_{FRW}`$. We make no attempt here to quantify the limits on how much the topology may vary, for it clearly depends on whether the only effect will be a change in the volume, and hence the value of the effective gravitational coupling $`G_N`$. In that case the limits are likely quite weak since we know only that $`\mathrm{\Delta }G_N/G_N<0.1`$ over the relevant length and time scales. However, if other constants of nature, such as fermion masses, or $`\alpha _{EM}`$ are very sensitive to changes in the topology, then more restrictive limits may apply.

We have not asserted any solution for the origin of structure – though we may hope that fluctuations of the brane might be the source – nor have we addressed the issue of baryogenesis – though we note that the decay of the KK modes is out of equilibrium and could be baryon-number and CP violating. Further, we acknowledge that there are difficulties for proton stability, though these have been previously discussed in the context of the canonical scenario .

In summary, while we do not claim at present that this is a complete alternative view of a universe with neither fine-tunings nor inflation, we have demonstrated some interesting cosmological consequences of large extra dimensions, warranting further detailed study.

This work was supported by NSF grant PHY-0094122 (MT) and by the DOE (GDS and DS).


text:
# Untitled Document

Reduced Symmetry of Heterointerfaces and Orientational Pinning of Quantum Hall Stripe Phase

E.E. Takhtamirov and V.A. Volkov

Institute of Radioengineering and Electronics of RAS

Mokovaya 11, 101999, Moscow, Russia

E-mail: takhtam@cplire.ru

Abstract

In a 2D electron system in (001) GaAs/AlGaAs upon filling high Landau levels, it was recently observed a new class of collective states, which are recognized now to relate to the spontaneous formation of a charge density wave (“stripe phase”). Here we analyze one of the possible mechanisms of the stripe pinning along the crystallographic direction —the native effective mass anisotropy of 2D electrons. It is shown that for a symmetric quantum well this anisotropy is a linear function of applied perpendicular-to-plane electric field. So, if it is the anisotropy that defines the direction of the stripes, the critical in-plane magnetic field, when the stripes rotate, will strongly depend on the bias. The proper experiment will answer the question whether the native anisotropy of the effective mass is the mechanism of the pinning.

Introduction

The experiments by Lilly, et al. and Du, et al.  revealed a new class of collective states of 2D electron system in excited Landau levels in the single heterojunction (001) GaAs/AlGaAs. Now it is generally accepted that these states are related to spontaneous formation of the unidirectional charge density wave (quantum Hall stripe phase) predicted and calculated earlier . This point of view was primarily based on the observation of a giant resistance anisotropy in this system. The ratio of resistances along the crystallographic directions $`[1\overline{1}0]`$ and $`[110]`$ reaches the values of $`R_{xx}/R_{yy}5`$-$`3500`$, depending on the sample geometry, where $`[110]`$ is the “easy” conductivity direction. Moreover, the behavior of all conductivity tensor components qualitatively agrees with the theory .

It was shown that the in-plane magnetic field $`B_{}1`$ T can change the direction of easy conductivity . It was made a conclusion that, at high enough $`B_{}`$, the direction of easy conductivity is perpendicular to the $`𝐁_{}`$ direction. The theoretical analysis  of the influence of $`𝐁_{}`$ carried out in the Hartree-Fock approximation partially explained the results. But among researchers still there is no agreement on the native mechanism that makes the stripes be pinned coherently across the sample along the crystallographic direction $`[110]`$ at $`B_{}=0`$.

It was supposed by Kroemer  that the reduced symmetry $`C_{2v}`$ of the heterojunction composed of III-V semiconductors might be the origin of the orientational pinning of the quantum Hall stripe phase. Adopting this idea we have recently showed  that for a typical single-interface structure the effective masses along $`[110]`$ and $`[1\overline{1}0]`$ directions differ by about $`0.1\%`$ (“native” anisotropy). The in-plane magnetic field $`𝐁_{}`$ leads to the “magnetic” anisotropy of the effective mass ($`B_{}^2`$). The 2D electron system with the anisotropic mass and isotropic Coulomb interaction is equivalent to that one with the isotropic (cyclotron) mass and anisotropic Coulomb interaction. We supposed that it was the effective anisotropic interaction that pinned the orientation of the stripes and allowed to detect the phase in the magnetotransport experiments. The interplay of the native and magnetic contributions to the effective mass anisotropy leads at $`B_{}0.5`$ T to the isotropic electron spectrum if $`𝐁_{}`$ along $`[110]`$. As a result, the direction of the stripes becomes chaotic and the conductivity turns isotropic. Further increase of $`B_{}`$ makes magnetic anisotropy dominate and the stripes align along $`[1\overline{1}0]`$ (perpendicular to $`𝐁_{}`$ for the one-subband case, and parallel to $`𝐁_{}`$ for the two-subband case). The results seem to be in quantitative agreement with the experimental findings.

Here we will consider the orientational pinning of the stripe phase in a square quantum well. The goal of the paper is to find a procedure that will unambiguously give the answer on the question whether the native anisotropy of the effective mass is the mechanism of pinning of the quantum Hall stripe phase.

Symmetric quantum well in perpendicular electric field

For a symmetric quantum well in the perpendicular-to-plane magnetic field the crystallographic directions $`[110]`$ and $`[1\overline{1}0]`$ are mutually equivalent. The system has $`D_{2d}`$ symmetry, and the conductivity should be anisotropic only as an in-plane magnetic field is applied. This is in agreement with the recent data by Pan, et al. .

We analyse the single-particle Hamiltonian for electron in a square quantum well with heterointerfaces at $`z=0`$ and $`z=L`$. Let us assign $`x[1\overline{1}0]`$, $`y[110]`$ and $`z[001]`$, and introduce magnetic field $`𝐁`$ in the vector-potential gauge $`𝐀=(B_yz,B_xz+B_zx,0)`$. Following Refs.  we may obtain the orbital part of the 3D Hamiltonian:

$`H_{3D}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_z^2}{2m^{}}}+V(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m^{}}}\alpha _1\delta \left(z\right)+\alpha _2\delta \left(zL\right)\right)\left(p_x+{\displaystyle \frac{e}{c}}B_yz\right)^2`$ (1)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m^{}}}+\alpha _1\delta \left(z\right)\alpha _2\delta \left(zL\right)\right)\left(p_y{\displaystyle \frac{e}{c}}B_xz+{\displaystyle \frac{e}{c}}B_zx\right)^2.`$
Here, $`𝐩`$ is the momentum operator, $`m^{}`$ is the band edge effective mass, $`V(z)`$ is the effective potential of the conduction band edge, $`e`$ is the elementary charge, $`c`$ is the speed of light, $`\delta (z)`$ is the Dirac $`\delta `$-function. If the quantum well is true symmetric, symmetric is the potential $`V(z)`$, and the interface parameters $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$, see Ref. , are equal, $`\alpha _1=\alpha _2=\alpha `$. Generally these parameters may differ as different are the growth conditions for the direct, AlGaAs/GaAs, and inverted, GaAs/AlGaAs, heterointerfaces.

For a 2D layer of finite thickness the in-plane component of magnetic field can be treated perturbatively. To the second order in $`B_{}`$ this procedure brings about a diamagnetic shift of 2D subband energies, shift of the center of the Landau orbit in 2D quasi-momentum space, and an increase (for the lowest subband) in the effective mass in the direction perpendicular to $`𝐁_{}`$. The terms proportional to $`\alpha _i`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$) in Eq. (1) also can be treated perturbatively. For simplicity, we assume that $`𝐁_{}`$ is parallel to either $`[1\overline{1}0]`$ or $`[110]`$, so that $`B_xB_y=0`$. Collecting all terms second-order in $`B_{}`$ and first-order in $`\alpha _i`$, and one obtains the following expression for 2D Hamiltonian of the ground subband :

$`H_{2D}^1=E_1+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2m^{}c^2}}\left(B_x^2+B_y^2\right)\left(1z^211z1^2\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m^{}}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{nat}}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_y^2}{B_{}^2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{B}\right)\left(p_x+{\displaystyle \frac{e}{c}}B_y1z1\right)^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m^{}}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{nat}}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_x^2}{B_{}^2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{B}\right)\left(p_y+{\displaystyle \frac{e}{c}}B_zx{\displaystyle \frac{e}{c}}B_x1z1\right)^2.`$ (2)
Here $`m=\mathrm{\Phi }_m(z)`$ is $`z`$-motion envelope function of $`m`$th subband, it is taken to be real. The parameters of the natural anisotropy of effective mass and its anisotropy induced by the magnetic field are

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{nat}}=2m^{}1\alpha _1\delta (z)\alpha _2\delta (zL)1,\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{B}={\displaystyle \frac{2e^2B_{}^2}{m^{}c^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1zm^2}{E_mE_1}},`$ (3)
where $`E_m`$ is the energy of the bottom of the $`m`$th subband at $`B=0`$.

For a symmetric quantum well $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{nat}}=0`$. Nevertheless, when the perpendicular-to-plane electric field $`𝐅`$ is applied, the system gets $`C_{2v}`$ symmetry and should behave like a single-interface one. That means $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{nat}}0`$ being a linear function of $`F`$. It is the consequence of the linear Stark effect, which arise as the Hamiltonian (1) does not possess the symmetry $`H_{3D}(z)=H_{3D}(Lz)`$. Consider the energy $`eFz`$ as a perturbation; $`\mathrm{\Phi }_m`$ will be unperturbed wave functions. Then

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{nat}}=4m^{}\alpha eF{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1zm}{E_mE_1}}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_1(0)\mathrm{\Phi }_m(0)\mathrm{\Phi }_1(L)\mathrm{\Phi }_m(L)\right).`$ (4)
Generally, for any structure $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{nat}}=C+DF`$, where $`C`$ and $`D`$ are some parameters. For a symmetric quantum well $`C=0`$.

Let us analyze some recent experimental results by Cooper, et al. . In particular, for a formally symmetric quantum well (001) $`\mathrm{GaAs}/\mathrm{Al}_{0.24}\mathrm{Ga}_{0.76}\mathrm{As}`$ they found that the resistance was anisotropic even without the in-plane magnetic fieled. This result is in contrast with data by Pan, et al. . Two possible explanations of the contradictory may be given. The first one relates to the difference of the interface parameter $`\alpha `$ for the direct and inverted heterointerfaces in the sample of Ref. , albeit the quantum well was intended to be grown symmetric. Another explanation is based on existence of unintentional perpendicular-to-plane electric field, which pushes the electron wave function onto one of the heterointerfaces and induces the effective mass anisotropy (4).

We present some results of the selfconsistent Shrödinger-Poisson computing and comparison with the experiment, Ref. . For the heterojunction $`\mathrm{GaAs}/\mathrm{Al}_{0.3}\mathrm{Ga}_{0.7}\mathrm{As}`$ from comparison with the experiments we obtained the value $`\alpha =1.110^{20}`$ cm/g . The linear interpolation for the symmetric quantum well GaAs with bariers $`\mathrm{Al}_{0.24}\mathrm{Ga}_{0.76}\mathrm{As}`$ gives $`\alpha _1=0.8810^{20}`$ cm/g. Assume the heterointerfaces in the sample of Ref.  not equivalent, and no unintentional perpendicular-to-plane electric field presents. Then from the condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{nat}}=\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{B}`$ at critical magnetic field $`B_{}=0.24`$ T, when the resistance becomes isotropic, we get $`\alpha _2=3.110^{20}`$ cm/g. This value looks strange, but no one can exclude such a case. Suppose now the quantum well microscopically symmetric, $`\alpha _1=\alpha _2=0.8810^{20}`$ cm/g. Then the electric field $`F=1.510^4`$ V/cm is able to induce the effective mass anisotropy that will be cancelled in the magnetic field $`B_{}=0.24`$ T. Note, that the sum in (3) rapidly diminishes with decreasing the width of the quantum well (while $`L=300`$ Å in Ref. ). If the native anisotropy of the effective mass exists, the critical in-plane magnetic field will be higher for narrower quantum wells.

Conclusion

We analyzed the possible mechanisms of the quantum-Hall stripe pinning along the crystallographic direction —the native effective mass anisotropy of 2D electrons. It was shown that for a symmetric quantum well this anisotropy was a linear function of applied perpendicular-to-plane electric field. If it is the anisotropy that defines the direction of the stripes, the critical in-plane magnetic field, when the resistance goes isotropic, will strongly depend on the bias. The proper experiment will answer the question whether the native anisotropy of the effective mass is the mechanism of the pinning.

The work was supported by RFBR (99-02-17592 and 01-02-06476), Federal Programs FTNS and PAS. Besides, E.E.T. was supported in part by the Young Scientists Support Program of RAS (Grant #43).

References

* M.P. Lilly, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 394 (1999); R.R. Du, et al., Solid State Commun. 109, 389 (1999).
* M.M. Fogler, et al., Phys. Rev. B 54, 1853 (1996); M.M. Fogler and A.A. Koulakov, ibid 55, 9326 (1997); R. Moessner and J.T. Chalker, ibid 54, 5006 (1996).
* G.R. Aizin and V.A. Volkov, Sov. Phys. JETP 60, 844 (1984); ibid 65, 188 (1987); A.H. MacDonald and M.P.A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B 61, 5724 (2000); F. von Oppen, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2937 (2000).
* W. Pan, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 820 (1999); M.P. Lilly, et al., ibid 83, 824 (1999).
* T. Jungwirth, et al., Phys. Rev. B 60, 15574 (1999); T.D. Stanescu, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1288 (2000).
* H. Kroemer, cond-mat/9901016.
* E.E. Takhtamirov and V.A. Volkov, JETP Lett. 71, 422 (2000), cond-mat/0006226.
* W. Pan, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3257 (2000).
* E.E. Takhtamirov and V.A. Volkov, JETP 89, 1000 (1999).
* K.B. Cooper, et al., cond-mat/0104243.


text:
# The imprint of presupernova evolution on supernovae remnants

## 1 Introduction

The evolution of type Ia supernova (SNIa) binary system progenitors is highly uncertain. Although there is consensus that the exploding star is a white dwarf made of carbon and oxygen, the nature of the companion star, the observational counterpart of the binary, and the detailed evolutionary phases of the system prior to SN explosion are currently the matter of strong debate (see, for instance, Canal, Méndez, & Ruiz-Lapuente 2001, and references therein). Those uncertainties raise doubts about the use of high-redshift SNIa for cosmological purposes, especially as their calibration is only based on the properties of local SNIa. One way to discern among the various presupernova models is to look for their consequences on supernova remnant evolution.

Models of supernovae remnants (SNR) originated by a SNIa usually assume either a uniform density interstellar medium (ISM) or a $`\rho r^2`$ circumstellar medium (CSM), produced by a constant mass loss rate wind (Dwarkadas & Chevalier, 1998, for instance). This assumption, together with an appropriate choice of the SN ejecta profile, allows for the existence of similarity solutions that describe the early evolution of the SNR (Chevalier, 1982; Truelove & McKee, 1999). Detailed models of pre-SNIa binary system evolution, however, point to a time varying mass loss rate (Hachisu, Kato, & Nomoto, 1996; Langer et al., 2000), which is expected to lead to ambient medium (AM) density profiles very different from a power law.

Very few observations have been made during the initial phase of formation of supernovae remnants, when the interaction of supernova ejecta with presupernova wind could be tested. Schlegel & Petre (1993) used ROSAT to search for X-ray emission from the type Ia SN1992A 16 days after visual maximum, and derived an upper limit for the presupernova mass-loss rate of less than a few times $`10^6M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$. Cumming et al. (1996) looked for narrow H$`\alpha `$ in a high-resolution spectrum of SN1994D, another SNIa, and derived an upper limit for the mass loss rate of $`1.5\times 10^5M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$. These observations have in common that they were made at a very early phase in the supernova ejecta evolution, implying that they only probed the CSM very close to the progenitor. The AM region up to a few parsecs can be probed by the evolution of young SNR.

Here we present hydrodynamical simulations of supernova ejecta interaction with an AM modified by presupernova wind. We have worked out simple models of time dependent wind, devised to reproduce the history of wind given by pre-SNIa binary system evolutionary models. The main results of the simulations are presented and the compatibility of each wind model with known SNR from SNIa is discussed, based on the different outcomes of the calculations (mainly, expansion parameters, velocity of the ejecta at the reverse shock, and radius of the SNR).

## 2 Hydrodynamical simulations of wind interaction with ambient medium and SN ejecta

### 2.1 Wind models

Current models of presupernova binary evolution describe wind ejection as a subproduct of matter accretion on the primary star, once it has become a white dwarf. In the last years, there has been a wide interest on the possibility (Hachisu, Kato, & Nomoto, 1996) that an optically thick wind stabilizes the mass transfer in the binary system, thus opening a new channel for the white dwarf to grow up to the Chandrasekhar mass and explode as a SNIa (Li & van den Heuvel, 1997; King & van Teeseling, 1998; Hachisu, Kato, & Nomoto, 1999). The time history of wind is complex, and depends on orbital parameters as well as on the capability of the white dwarf to quietly accrete the matter transferred from the secondary star. An important characteristic of the wind history is whether the wind is active up to the time of SN explosion or, on the contrary, the binary has a time extended phase of conservative evolution prior to white dwarf ignition. Another important parameter is the velocity of the wind. Here we explore the effects of the wind on the SNR evolution, and compare with the results obtained on the assumption that there is no significant presupernova wind.

We have worked out simple models of time dependent wind, devised to reproduce the gross features of the wind history predicted by binary system evolutionary models. In all our wind models the rate at which mass is lost by the binary system as a wind, $`\dot{M}_\mathrm{w}`$, has a linear time dependence: $`\dot{M}_\mathrm{w}=abt`$, with $`a`$, $`b`$ two positive parameters, and the wind velocity, $`v_\mathrm{w}`$, remains constant with time. The wind can either be active until the moment of supernova explosion, as in models C (fast wind) and D (slow wind), or it can decrease to zero, leaving the system in a phase in which there is no wind ejection until the explosion ensues, as in models A (fast wind) and B (slow wind). The parameters for the models are given in table 1 and figure 1.

### 2.2 Wind interaction

We have studied the hydrodynamical processes induced by the wind ejection: first, its interaction with the AM and, second, the formation and evolution of the SNR. The simulations were performed with a standard one dimensional hydrodynamical code similar to that described in Truelove & McKee (1999), with the equations modified to include a source of mass and momentum at the center, to simulate wind ejection. The ISM density was set to $`10^{24}`$ g cm-3 in all cases.

The resulting AM density profiles at the time of SN explosion are shown in figure 2. The interaction of the wind ejected by the progenitor system and the surrounding ISM follows a mechanism very similar to that at work in SNR: high speed ejecta flow into a uniform, stationary medium and push it away resulting in a doubly-shocked structure with a contact discontinuity between the wind and the ISM. A forward shock (prominent in all the profiles shown in figure 2) propagates into the ISM, heating, compressing and accelerating it, while a reverse shock propagates inward, heating, compressing and decelerating the inner wind material. The kinetic energies involved, however, are four to seven orders of magnitude lower than those characteristic of SN explosions, and therefore the involved shock velocities and temperatures are far below those typically found in SNR. This kind of interaction between the wind and the ISM is not expected to produce significant observational counterparts given the density and temperature ranges involved.

The models with the highest wind velocity (A and C) produce a very large bubble of low density AM around the SN. Model C presents the largest bubble, because the time elapsed between the beginning of the wind and SN explosion is the largest of the four models. One should expect this feature to have a major impact on the evolution of the young SNR, delaying the formation of the radiation emitting structures of the remnant. Model D (low velocity wind) is the only one in which a power law structure can be identified close to the center. In this model, the reverse shock formed by the interaction of the wind with the ISM lies at a radius of 3 pc, being the only model in which the reverse shock has not reached the center at the time of SN explosion. Model B, characterized by a low velocity wind with a high mass loss rate, does not show a circumstellar region near to the center because the wind stops blowing long before SN explosion. This model presents the smoother density structure, broken only by the presence of a contact discontinuity.

Once the SN explodes, and after the SNR characteristic doubly-shocked structure is formed, the forward shock propagation, and therefore the whole dynamical evolution of the SNR (shock velocities, expansion parameters, etc.) will depend on the AM density gradient encountered. We have performed hydrodynamical simulations of SNR evolution assuming an exponential model for the SN ejecta density profile (Dwarkadas & Chevalier, 1998), with a total mass $`1.4M_{}`$ and a kinetic energy $`K=0.98\times 10^{51}`$ erg, and with the AM structures obtained previously for the four wind models.

In figure 3 we show the density profile at the age of Tycho’s SNR for wind model A (other wind models look similar, although details vary from case to case, especially the time scale), together with the SNR obtained for the same exponential SN ejecta evolving into a constant density AM (i.e. with no wind, henceforth EXPNW). The influence of the wind on the SNR is clearly seen: the location of the doubly-shocked structure is farther away (and, for model A, clearly inconsistent with Tycho’s SNR) and its density is two orders of magnitude lower than in the EXPNW model. We stress that the structures that appear outside the region delimited by the forward and the reverse shocks would remain undetectable due to the low temperatures involved.

The evolution of the SNR in presence of the AM modified by the wind is far from being self-similar. For instance, once the forward shock runs into the contact discontinuity between the wind and the ISM, it will experience a dramatic change of behavior due to the strong positive density gradient. Another change should be expected when the SNR forward shock runs into the wind forward shock. We emphasize that, depending on the wind model adopted, these interactions can occur very early in the evolution of the SNR.

## 3 Discussion and conclusions

We now proceed to analyze the implications of the computed hydrodynamical evolutions on the observational properties of SNRs. We will concentrate on a few relevant characteristics of SNRs: expansion parameters, velocity at the reverse shock, and radius of the forward shock.

Figure 4a shows the temporal evolution of the expansion parameter of the SNR forward shock, which reflects the complexity of the AM structure found by the SN ejecta. It is evident that the interaction of the wind with the ISM influences the evolution of the SNR during several thousands of years. At the end of the simulations ($`4\times 10^{10}`$ s after SN explosion) only model EXPNW and wind model B are close to the Sedov phase (forward shock expansion parameter $`\eta _\mathrm{f}=0.4`$). The evolution of wind models A and D is similar: they experience a phase of rapid expansion, with values of $`\eta _\mathrm{f}`$ comparable to the EXPNW model, until the forward shock reaches the end of the low-density bubble, which causes the shock to slow down. There follows a long phase in which $`\eta _\mathrm{f}=0.20.3`$ remains nearly constant with slight speed ups. The passage of the SNR forward shock through the wind-AM contact discontinuity produces a reflected component that rebounds at the ejecta-wind contact discontinuity and overcomes the forward shock itself at $`t2.3\times 10^{10}`$ s in models A and D, producing the first speed ups. The speed up at $`t3\times 10^{10}`$ s (model D) is produced when the SNR forward shock overcomes the wind forward shock (this feature is out of the figure time range for model A). The speed up experienced by model B at $`t1.8\times 10^{10}`$ s is also due to the coalescence of the forward shock of the SNR with that due to the interaction of the wind with the ISM. The simulation corresponding to model C was ended when the SNR forward shock arrived to the end of the low-density bubble, due to the strong density contrast found there.

Figure 4b shows the temporal evolution of the expansion parameter of the SNR reverse shock. As with the forward shock, in the wind models there are several secondary, transmitted and reflected, shock waves that affect the evolution of the SNR reverse shock, a feature that is not present in model EXPNW and that is less evident in wind model B, due to the relative smoothness of its density profile. The sudden decrease of the expansion parameter found in models A and D is caused by the arrival of the secondary shock wave generated when the forward shock reaches the end of the low-density bubble. Starting from the forward shock slow down discussed earlier, this reflected wave travels rapidly down the negative density gradient of shocked wind, overcomes the ejecta-wind contact discontinuity and, finally, coalesces with the SNR reverse shock, giving it a push that drives $`\eta _\mathrm{r}`$ into negative values.

The location of the reverse shock in lagrangian coordinate is better seen in figure 5a, where the velocity of the SN ejecta just ahead of the innermost shock is shown and compared to the EXPNW model. The presence of low-density bubbles in all wind models has two consequences. First, the build-up of the SNR shocks is delayed, because the matter found by the expanding SN ejecta is so thin that it takes a lot more time to influence the hydrodynamic evolution of the ejecta. This causes a delay in the penetration of the SNR reverse shock into the SN ejecta (and, therefore a larger velocity compared to the EXPNW model at the same epoch). Second, when the SNR reverse shock has already been created, the density of SN ejecta that it encounters is lower in the wind models, due to the longer expansion time. This results in a more efficient inwards propagation of the reverse shock, which finally converges with that of the EXPNW model. In this figure, a change of the behavior of the SNR reverse shock in models A and D can also be seen, which is due to the coalescence of this shock and the one reflected in the density barrier found at the end of the low-density bubble that we have already mentioned.

Although we have made no attempt to fit the parameters of the wind models to reproduce the properties of any particular SNR, the comparison of our results with the well known SNR from Tycho’s SN and SN1006 can be instructive. When comparing our models to real SNRs, it should be kept in mind that the details of the wind and SNR evolution depend on the precise value chosen for the ISM density at the beginning of the simulations (for instance, a value of the ISM density lower than we have chosen would result in a larger low-density bubble and, thus, in a longer phase of high expansion parameter, but also in larger velocities at the reverse shock and larger radius of the SNR).

The average expansion parameter of Tycho’s SNR has been determined in radio and visible wavelengths to be in the range $`0.40.5`$. Hughes (2000) used ROSAT X-ray data fitted to analytic models of Truelove & McKee (1999) to obtain $`\eta _\mathrm{f}=0.64`$ and $`\eta _\mathrm{r}=0.49`$. While the reverse shock expansion parameter is not particularly constraining with respect to the different wind models, the high value found by Hughes (2000) for the forward shock expansion parameter can only be reproduced by wind models A and C (i.e., those with the largest bubble) and, marginally, by the EXPNW model (we note that Hughes found that his data could only be fitted by a model based on a uniform density ejecta, but such a SN model is not realistic). However, inspection of figure 5b shows that Tycho’s SNR radius is indeed too small when compared to models A and C. A decrease in the initial value of the ISM density would lead to a larger expansion parameter but also to a larger SNR radius. A spectral analysis of X-ray data does also pose constraints on the state of the SNR. Dwarkadas & Chevalier (1998) suggested the existence of a CSM with $`\rho r^2`$ up to 0.67 pc from the center merging smoothly into a uniform density AM, in order to explain the spectroscopic features produced by Si, S and Fe. However, such a smooth structure is in fact ruled out by our simulations of interaction of the wind with the ISM.

With respect to SNR1006, the X-ray data point to a forward shock expansion parameter $`\eta _\mathrm{f}=0.5`$, and a velocity of the SN ejecta ahead of the reverse shock of the order of $`v=45006300`$ km s-1. Measurements in the visible range give a lower $`\eta _\mathrm{f}`$ of 0.33 (Long, Blair & van den Bergh, 1988). The only model compatible with the large value of $`v`$ is wind model A, which also gives a reasonable size for SNR1006. On the other hand, wind model A is marginally compatible with the expansion parameter found in the visible. One intriguing feature of SNR1006 is the acceleration of cosmic rays up to the TeV energy range. We suggest the possibility that the presence and interaction of several secondary shock waves, due to a low-density bubble produced by a wind could be relevant to the explanation of the mechanism of acceleration of cosmic rays in SNRs.

To conclude, we have shown that the wind ejected by the progenitor system of a SNIa has a dramatic influence on the evolution of the corresponding SNR, which is not correctly represented by the current assumption of a CSM described by a simple power law and smoothly continued by a uniform density AM. If current models of pre-SNIa binary evolution are correct, the early evolution of their SNR cannot be described by any kind of similarity solution. On the other hand, a few restrictions can also be put on presupernova evolution. None of the wind models explored here is compatible with the known properties of Tycho’s SNR, whereas wind model A (characterized by a high velocity wind lasting for about $`2\times 10^5`$ yr, followed by a phase of conservative evolution) gives results consistent with several features of SNR1006. It is clear that a more complete exploration of the space of parameters describing pre-supernova wind is of high interest.

This work has been supported by the MCYT grants ESP98-1348 and AYA2000-1785, and by the DGES grant PB98-1183-C03-02. CB is very indebted for a CIRIT grant.