text:
# Supernova data may be unable to distinguish between quintessence and 𝑘-essence

## Abstract

We consider the efficacy of using luminosity distance measurements of deep redshift supernovae to discriminate between two forms of dark energy, quintessence (a scalar field with canonical kinetic terms rolling down a potential) and $`k`$-essence (a scalar field whose cosmic evolution is driven entirely by non-linear kinetic terms). The primary phenomenological distinction between the two types of models that can be quantified by supernova searches (at least in principle) is that the equation of state $`wp/\rho `$ of quintessence is falling today while that of $`k`$-essence is rising. By simulating $`10^5`$ possible datasets that SNAP could obtain, we show that even if the mass density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ is known exactly, an ambiguity remains that may not allow a definitive distinction to be made between the two types of theories.

preprint:   MADPH–00-1192 astro-ph/0009256

Introduction. Mounting evidence indicates that the universe is in an accelerating phase . A phenomenological way to describe this is to postulate the existence of energy (called dark energy) with negative pressure. A popular form of dark energy that was suggested a decade ago  and has received considerable attention recently is that of an evolving scalar field that couples minimally to gravity . It has become standard to call this field, quintessence . Since quintessence rolls down a potential, its equation of state is a function of redshift $`p_Q(z)=w_Q(z)\rho _Q(z)`$, where $`1w_Q(0)<1/3`$ so as to explain the accelerated expansion of the universe. The cosmological constant is a special case corresponding to $`w_Q(z)=1`$. However, quintessence models do not explain why the dark energy component dominates the universe only recently (the cosmic coincidence problem). The concept of $`k`$-inflation  when applied to quintessence  addresses this problem; $`k`$-essence  is a scalar field whose action has non-linear kinetic terms and no potential term. The non-linear kinetic terms lead to dynamical attractor behavior that serves to avoid the cosmic coincidence problem. This class of models preserves the welcome feature of tracker quintessence models  in that cosmic evolution is insensitive to initial conditions. Indubitably, it is important to distinguish between different models of quintessence as characterized by their potentials, but it is even more urgent to discriminate between different kinds of theories (like quintessence and $`k`$-essence) that seek to explain the acceleration of the universe.

Current luminosity distance $`(d_L)`$ measurements of type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) at redshift $`z<1`$ , though providing direct evidence of cosmic acceleration, are unable to establish with a reasonable degree of certitude whether a cosmological constant or an evolving scalar field is responsible for this acceleration. Numerous studies using supernova data (real or simulated) have considered the feasibility of determining the equation of state and reconstructing the potential assuming that the dark energy is quintessence . With the possibility  of obtaining a large dataset of supernova luminosity distance measurements to deep redshifts from a satellite such as SNAP  or a dedicated dark matter telescope , this line of investigation becomes all the more pertinent. There have been conflicting interpretations of how useful SNAP-data would be in determining $`w_Q(z)`$. It was emphasized in  that due to the lack of precision in existing measurements of the current mass density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, the value of $`w_Q(0)`$ would be uncertain to 40$`\%`$ and absolutely nothing could be learned about the redshift dependence of $`w_Q`$. Focusing instead on the rapid improvement expected in the observational determination of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, the authors of  show that various models of quintessence can be distinguished provided $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ is sufficiently accurately measured.

In this Letter we take a broader view and allow for the possibility of dark energy other than quintessence. Throughout, we assume the universe to be flat as predicted by inflation and supported by measurements of the cosmic microwave background . We demonstrate that even if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ is precisely known, it might still be possible to mistake $`k`$-essence for quintessence and vice-versa. The principal feature that would enable supernova data to distinguish between the two theories is that $`k`$-essence generically has $`dw_k/dz<0`$Henceforth, we use the subscripts $`k`$ and $`Q`$ for $`k`$-essence and quintessence, respectively., whereas for most quintessence models $`dw_Q/dz>0`$ . To fit the supernova data, a choice of a model-independent fitting function for the relative magnitude $`m(z)`$ is required, and we prefer the most physically transparent function derived using the expansion $`w(z)=w_0+w_1z+\mathrm{}`$, introduced in Refs. . We analyze simulated datasets that SNAP could obtain in the case of the two theories for different values of $`w_1dw/dz`$ and show that the best fit could provide misleading indications about the type of theory.

Within the context of the two classes of theories under consideration, we would like to draw model-independent conclusions. Consequently, we do not assume the existence of a prototypical or natural model of quintessence or $`k`$-essence, but instead let data be the arbiter. In this approach we must sacrifice some predictivity for the sake of model-independence. Consider for example, the quintessence model defined by the potential $`V(Q)1/Q^\alpha `$ . The equation of state $`w_Q(z)`$ is then a function of only one parameter, $`\alpha `$, and by making use of say, the linear expansion $`w(z)=w_0+w_1z`$, we are effectively requiring the data to constrain one additional parameter, which is clearly more difficult.

Quintessence vs $`k`$-essence. In quintessence models the equation of state is given by

$$w_Q(z)=\frac{p_Q(z)}{\rho _Q(z)}=\frac{\frac{1}{2}\dot{Q}^2V(Q)}{\frac{1}{2}\dot{Q}^2+V(Q)}.$$
(1)
As the universe evolves, $`V`$ dominates over the slowly-varying $`\dot{Q}^2`$ and eventually $`\dot{Q}^2V(Q)`$ leads to $`w_Q(0)1`$. In most theoretically well-motivated models the equation of state of quintessence tracks that of matter in the matter-dominated epoch  and only recently falls from $`w_Q0`$ to $`1`$ (i.e. $`dw_Q/dz>0`$), thus triggering the accelerating phase.

The evolution of the universe is more involved in the case of $`k`$-essence , and we briefly describe its features relevant to our study; $`k`$-essence is a scalar field $`\varphi `$ that (like quintessence) is minimally coupled to gravity, but has only (non-linear) kinetic terms in its action,

$$S_k=d^4x\sqrt{g}\{\frac{R}{2\kappa ^2}+\frac{\stackrel{~}{p}(X)}{\varphi ^2}\},$$
(2)
where $`\kappa ^2=8\pi G`$ and $`X=\dot{\varphi }^2/2`$. The pressure of $`k`$-essence is identical to the Lagrangian, $`p_k(z)=\stackrel{~}{p}(X)/\varphi ^2`$, and its energy density is given by $`\rho _k(z)=(2X\stackrel{~}{p}(X)/X\stackrel{~}{p}(X))/\varphi ^2`$. Note that $`2X_X\stackrel{~}{p}>\stackrel{~}{p}`$ is required for $`\rho _k`$ to be positive definite. Because the kinetic term is non-canonical, the speed of sound $`c_s^2=_Xp_k/_X\rho _k`$ is no longer unity and a constraint has to be placed to ensure that it be real.

Actions of the above type are standard in string and supergravity theories. Usually the non-linear terms become negligible when attractor solutions that do not permit their damping are absent. When this is not the case, the non-linear dynamics can have profound consequences. The most pleasing aspect of Eq. (2) is the dynamical attractor behavior emerging from it. Because of this property equipartition initial conditions are easily accommodated. Moreover, $`k`$-essence can be made to transit from one attractor to another in a manner that mimics cosmic evolution. If the attractor solutions of $`k`$-essence track the dominant energy component they are called trackers (the radiation and dust trackers). There are two types of non-tracking attractors corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ being close to $`0`$ or $`1`$. A “de Sitter” attractor is one with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k0`$ and $`w_k1`$ while a “$`k`$-attractor” has $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k1`$ and $`w_k>1`$. A realistic model of cosmic evolution would be one in which $`k`$-essence has a radiation tracker solution which may or may not be followed by a dust tracker solution, but must necessarily reach either very close to a de Sitter attractor or have a $`k`$-attractor solution recently. It has been shown that if a dust tracker exists, a $`k`$-attractor cannot. It is still possible to generate an accelerating phase (by approaching a de Sitter attractor) before $`k`$-essence approaches the dust tracker, in the so-called “late dust tracker” scenario. However, to achieve this a fine-tuning is required making it less natural. If a dust tracker does not exist, after the radiation-dominated epoch, the $`k`$-field approaches the de Sitter attractor (during which $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k0`$), and after $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ increases sufficiently, it moves to the $`k`$-attractor. This triggers cosmic acceleration. Let us call this the “$`k`$-attractor” scenario. This model is natural and elegant. It is crucial to note that in both cases, $`w_k`$ rises from $`1`$ to its value today; from $`w_k1`$ close to the de Sitter attractor to a larger value as $`k`$-essence makes its way either to the dust tracker or the $`k`$-attractor. Thus, in $`k`$-essence models it is generic that $`dw_k/dz<0`$.

As far as luminosity distance data from SNe Ia is concerned, the only distinguishing feature between quintessence and $`k`$-essence is that for quintessence $`dw_Q/dz>0`$, and for $`k`$-essence $`dw_k/dz<0`$. With this in mind we model the equations of state of quintessence and $`k`$-essence with the expansions

$$w_Q(z)=w_{Q}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}+w_{Q}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}z,w_{Q}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}>0$$
(3)
$$w_k(z)=w_{k}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}+w_{k}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}z,w_{k}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}<0,$$
(4)
respectively. In principle there is no reason to terminate the expansions at linear order, but by doing so we are implicitly considering models with the least degeneracy while still permitting a redshift-dependent $`w`$. We find that even this oversimplification proves insufficient to alleviate the strong parameter correlations that make it difficult to tell the two theories apart.

Modeling the luminosity distance. The distance modulus is related to the luminosity distance $`d_L`$ as

$$m(z)M=5\mathrm{log}d_L+25,$$
(5)
where

$$d_L(z)=c(1+z)_0^z\frac{dz^{}}{H(z^{})}$$
(6)
and $`m`$ and $`M`$ are the apparent and absolute magnitudes of the source, respectively. Because of the plenitude of possible models that need comparison to a given $`m(z)`$ dataset, it is useful to adopt an appropriate fitting function in terms of whose parameters the dataset may be described without recourse to a specific theory. Several fitting functions for $`d_L`$ have been suggested and applied to existing and simulated data . As shown in  the fitting function with the best fit (among the aforementioned suggestions) to existing models happens to be the one that lends its parameters to the clearest physical interpretation. It is derived by expanding $`w`$ in a power series in $`z`$ ,

$$w(z)=w_0+w_1z+w_2z^2+\mathrm{}.$$
(7)
Since we assume the universe to be flat, we have, in terms of the one additional parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$,

$$H_0d_L(z)=c(1+z)_0^z𝑑z^{}[\mathrm{\Omega }_m(1+z^{})^3+(1\mathrm{\Omega }_m)e^{3w_1z^{}}(1+z^{})^{3(1+w_0w_1)}]^{1/2},$$
(8)
where we have retained terms in $`w(z)`$ to linear order in the power expansion. Then the parameters of the fitting function and those of the theories under consideration are in a one-to-one correspondence. The Hubble constant $`H_0`$ on the right will not participate in fitting to data because a corresponding term in the fiducial model cancels it out. Note that $`w_0=w(0)`$ defines the equation of state of dark energy today, and $`w_1=dw/dz`$ is the quantity whose sign will help in discriminating between quintessence and $`k`$-essence.

Simulating SNAP data. We construct $`10^5`$ possible datasets that SNAP  could record. Each dataset contains 1915 supernovae with 50, 1800, 50 and 15 supernovae in the redshift intervals (0,0.2), (0.2,1.2), (1.2,1.4) and (1.4,1.7), respectively. We bin with 50 supernovae except for the last high redshift bin which consists of 15 observations. The statistical error enters in the peak-brightness uncertainty and is assumed to be 0.15 mag per supernova. We conservatively neglect systematic errors. All the theoretical models we consider have $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$ and $`w(0)=0.7`$. We will present our results as deviations from a fiducial model defined by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$ and $`w(z)=0.7`$ thus emphasizing the effect of a non-zero $`w_1`$. In the $`\chi ^2`$-analysis we suppose that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ has been measured exactly to be $`0.3`$. In doing so, we eliminate one parameter in the fitting function (8) and reduce the space of degenerate models considerably. Moreover, now all the degeneracy resides in the parameters of the dark energy theory; no degeneracy arises from the lack of precision in the measurement of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$. Despite the truncation of $`w(z)`$ to linear order, the neglect of systematic errors, and the elimination in degeneracy arising from an imprecisely known $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, we will find that it will not be possible to establish that dark energy is either quintessence or $`k`$-essence with much conviction. If we relax these assumptions the situation gets worse.

In Figs. 1 and 2 we display examples of datasets for which the best fit curves agree remarkably well with that of the input theory. The difference in distance modulus is plotted relative to our fiducial model. Figure 1 illustrates a $`k`$-essence model with $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,w_{k}^{}{}_{0}{}^{},w_{k}^{}{}_{1}{}^{})=(0.3,0.7,0.1)`$. A $`\chi ^2`$ analysis with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ held fixed at 0.3 gives the best-fit parameters $`(w_0,w_1)=(0.7,0.12)`$ which agrees very well with the theoretical expectation. The $`w_0w_1`$ plane shows the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=6.17`$ contour corresponding to a 95.4% confidence level. The theoretical parameters are almost at the center of the ellipse. In Fig. 2 we make similar plots for a quintessence model with parameters $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,w_{Q}^{}{}_{0}{}^{},w_{Q}^{}{}_{1}{}^{})=(0.3,0.7,0.1)`$. For this dataset $`\chi ^2`$ is minimum at $`(w_0,w_1)=(0.72,0.16)`$ where we have not allowed $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ to vary.

Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the crux of our findings that it is also possible for SNAP to obtain datasets that give misleading evidence. Figure 3 shows data generated using a $`k`$-essence model with $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,w_{k}^{}{}_{0}{}^{},w_{k}^{}{}_{1}{}^{})=(0.3,0.7,0.17)`$. We chose $`w_{k}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}=0.17`$ so as to allow the equation of state to have the steepest gradient (with $`w_{k}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}=0.7`$) without violating the dominant energy condition $`|w_k|<1`$ for $`z<1.7`$. Note that $`w_k(1.7)=0.99`$. The dashed line is the theoretical prediction and the solid line is the best fit with parameters $`(w_0,w_1)=(0.79,0.19)`$. In minimizing $`\chi ^2`$ we have fixed $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ at 0.3. We see that the $`k`$-essence model resembles a quintessence model. It is noteworthy from the $`w_0w_1`$ plane in Fig. 3 that most of the 95.4% confidence contour lies in the region $`w_1>0`$ even though the true model is $`k`$-essence with $`w_1<0`$. In fact, the contour entirely misses the input theoretical parameters $`(w_{k}^{}{}_{0}{}^{},w_{k}^{}{}_{1}{}^{})=(0.7,0.17)`$.

Figure 4 shows results for a quintessence model that looks like a $`k`$-essence model. The theoretical parameters are $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,w_{Q}^{}{}_{0}{}^{},w_{Q}^{}{}_{1}{}^{})=(0.3,0.7,0.2)`$ and the best-fit parameters are $`(w_0,w_1)=(0.63,0.14)`$ keeping $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$ during minimization. The 95.4% confidence level excludes the theoretical model $`(w_{Q}^{}{}_{0}{}^{},w_{Q}^{}{}_{1}{}^{})=(0.7,0.2)`$ and lies mainly in the lower half-plane.

Although Figs. 3 and 4 present a discouraging situation, the probability of a dataset conspiring to create the confusion that we have illustrated is not very large. In Fig. 5 we show the percentage of datasets simulated using a given theoretical model as defined by $`w_{k}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}`$ or $`w_{Q}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$ and $`w(0)=0.7`$ for all models) that have best fits (keeping $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$ fixed) that conflict with the type of input theory. In making these plots we generated $`10^5`$ datasets for each $`w_1`$ subject only to the assumptions that the dominant energy condition $`|w(z)|<1`$ be satisfied out to redshift 1.7, and that the value of the equation of state today be less than $`0.6`$. The datasets of Figs. 3 and 4 have less than a 1% chance of occurring. However, this does not mean that this sort of misrepresentation by the data is that unlikely to occur. If the equation of state of dark energy does not have a steep gradient, as is necessary if the dark energy is $`k`$-essence and $`w(0)`$ is say $`0.8`$, then to distinguish between the two theories becomes more difficult than in the examples considered. Moreover, additional degeneracy entering via uncertainties on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ will contribute to confusion in the interpretation of SNAP data. It has been argued  that the inability to discriminate between the theories is a consequence of an inefficient fitting function, but the ambiguity is theoretical and cannot be evaded. As shown in Ref. , $`d_L(z)`$ depends on $`w(z)`$ through a multiple-integral relation thus precluding the possibility of a very precise measurement of $`d_L`$ leading to an accurate determination of $`dw/dz`$.

Even though supernova data may find it difficult to differentiate between quintessence and $`k`$-essence, CMB anisotropy may be able to detect a smoking-gun signal for $`k`$-essence because the speed of sound of $`k`$-essence is not unity as in quintessence models and may lead to peculiarities in the power spectrum not considered so far .

Acknowledgments: This work was supported in part by a DOE grant No. DE-FG02-95ER40896 and in part by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation.


format: text

text:
# TUM-HEP-393/00 ROME1-1301/00 𝜀'/𝜀 and Rare 𝐾 Decays in the Standard Model and Supersymmetry

## 1 Introduction

After the new measurements of $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ provided by the KTeV and NA48 collaborations,

$`\mathrm{Re}\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ $`=`$ $`\left(28.0\pm 4.1\right)\text{[1]},`$
$`\mathrm{Re}\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ $`=`$ $`\left(14.0\pm 4.3\right)\text{[2]},`$ (1)
some very interesting theoretical questions have arisen: i) Does the Standard Model (SM) prediction for $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ agree with the above experimental results? ii) What kinds of new physics can improve the agreement with the experiment? iii) In particular, in the framework of SUSY models, in what region of SUSY parameter space can large contributions to $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ arise? iv) What is the impact of $`(\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon )_{\mathrm{exp}}`$ on predictions for rare $`K`$ decays, both in the SM and beyond?

In this talk, I will briefly discuss the above questions. Unfortunately, most of them depend very strongly on poorly understood hadronic dynamics. Therefore, for most of the above questions no conclusive answers can be provided at present.

## 2 A quick look at $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ in the SM

The basic formula for $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ is given by

$$\frac{\epsilon ^{}}{\epsilon }=\mathrm{Im}\lambda _tF_\epsilon ^{},$$
(2)
where

$$F_\epsilon ^{}=\left[P^{(1/2)}P^{(3/2)}\right],$$
(3)
with

$`P^{(1/2)}`$ $`=`$ $`r{\displaystyle y_iQ_i_0(1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\eta +\eta ^{}})},`$ (4)
$`P^{(3/2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r}{\omega }}{\displaystyle y_iQ_i_2},`$ (5)
and we have neglected the small phase difference between $`\epsilon `$ and $`\epsilon ^{}`$. Here

$`Q_i_I(\pi \pi )_I|Q_i|K,`$
$`r={\displaystyle \frac{G_\mathrm{F}\omega }{2|\epsilon |\mathrm{Re}A_0}}\mathrm{and}\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Re}A_2}{\mathrm{Re}A_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{22}}`$ (6)
(see however ref.  for possible isospin breaking effects in $`\omega `$). The complete listing of the four-fermion operators $`Q_i`$ is given for example in . The Wilson coefficient functions $`y_i(\mu )`$ were calculated including the complete next-to-leading order (NLO) corrections in . The details of these calculations can be found there and in the review .

It is customary (and convenient) to write $`Q_i_I(Q_i_I)_{\mathrm{VIA}}B_i^{(I)}`$, where the $`B_i^{(I)}`$ parameterize the deviation of the full matrix elements from the Vacuum Insertion Approximation (VIA). However, by doing so one introduces a strong dependence on the mass of the strange quark $`m_s`$, which could be avoided if one were able to compute directly the full matrix element .

The sum in (4) and (5) runs over all contributing operators. $`P^{(3/2)}`$ is fully dominated by electroweak penguin contributions. $`P^{(1/2)}`$ on the other hand is governed by QCD penguin contributions. Isospin breaking in the quark masses ($`m_um_d`$) induces a further $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=3/2`$ contribution. The latter effect is described by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\eta +\eta ^{}}`$.

The dominant contributions in the SM come from the QCD-penguin operator $`Q_6`$ and from the electroweak-penguin operator $`Q_8`$, as discussed in refs. , where further details as well as the full expressions for $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ can be found. $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ can then be written as

$$\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon =\mathrm{Im}\lambda _tF_\epsilon ^{}(m_t,\alpha _s,m_s,B_6^{(1/2)},B_8^{(3/2)},\mathrm{\Omega }_{\eta +\eta ^{}}),$$

where only the main dependencies have been shown. $`\mathrm{Im}\lambda _t\mathrm{Im}V_{td}V_{ts}^{}`$ has to be determined using the information on the Unitarity Triangle (UT) coming from $`V_{ub}`$, $`V_{cb}`$, $`\epsilon _K`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{B_{d,s}}`$. Since the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ contribution of $`Q_6`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=3/2`$ contribution of $`Q_8`$ have opposite signs and cancel each other to a large extent, the final result for $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ depends very strongly on $`B_6^{(1/2)}`$ and $`B_8^{(3/2)}`$. Unfortunately, while $`B_8^{(3/2)}`$ can be reliably computed with lattice QCD (see ref.  for an up-to-date review), at present there is no computation of $`B_6^{(1/2)}`$ from first principles. Although some suggestions on how to compute $`B_6^{(1/2)}`$ on the lattice, including Final State Interactions (FSI), have been recently made , we have to face the fact that no reliable prediction for $`B_6^{(1/2)}`$ is currently available. This precludes to a large extent the possibility of a precise computation of $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ in the SM. If the value of $`B_6^{(1/2)}`$ is close to unity, then the SM prediction is smaller than the experimental value of $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$. For instance, using $`\widehat{B}_K=(0.80\pm 0.15)`$, $`m_s(m_c)=(130\pm 25)`$ MeV, $`B_6^{(1/2)}=(1.0\pm 0.3)`$, $`B_8^{(3/2)}=(0.8\pm 0.2)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\eta +\eta ^{}}=(0.16\pm 0.03)`$ as recently obtained in ref.  (see however  for an estimate of the uncertainties in isospin breaking effects), one gets the following prediction for $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ :

$`(\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon )_{\mathrm{NDR}}`$ $`=`$ $`(9.2_{4.0(6.2)}^{+6.8(19.3)})\times 10^4,`$
$`(\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon )_{\mathrm{HV}}`$ $`=`$ $`(6.4_{3.1(4.9)}^{+5.3(14.8)})\times 10^4.`$ (7)
Since $`B_6^{(1/2)}`$ is certainly the less known ingredient in (7), it is instructive to compute $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ leaving $`B_6^{(1/2)}`$ as a free parameter. One gets, with the same choice of parameters as above,

$$(\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon )_{\mathrm{NDR}}=(16.2_{5.1}^{+8.9}B_6^{(1/2)}7.8_{2.2}^{+2.0})\times 10^4.$$
(8)
Other recent theoretical estimates of $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ are reported in table 1. They differ in the evaluation of the relevant hadronic matrix elements. The Rome group is using lattice results wherever they are available . Their results are in good agreement with the estimates in eq. (7). The Dortmund group is computing higher order terms in the chiral and $`1/N`$ expansions, which unfortunately contain quadratic divergences. This makes it very difficult to reliably match their estimates of the hadronic matrix elements with the short distance computation . The difficulty in the matching with the short distance part is also a limitation for Chiral Quark Model computations such as the one performed by the Trieste group . The same problems arise in the Extended Nambu-Jona-Lasinio Model used by the Dubna group . The Taipei group has applied generalized factorization to the computation of $`K\pi \pi `$ amplitudes . Being just a general parameterization of nonleptonic decay amplitudes, generalized factorization provides no dynamical information. In order to obtain predictions for $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$, some simplifying assumptions have to be made in order to reduce the number of unknown parameters. Unfortunately, these assumptions cannot be justified from first principles, nor can they be verified experimentally. QCD sum rules have been used in the Montpellier estimate of $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ . The Granada-Lund group has used the X-boson method to match the short-distance computation to an estimate of the matrix elements performed at the NLO in the $`1/N`$ expansion in the chiral limit .

What can we learn from the results in table 1? First of all, one should stress that, although quite improbable, it is not impossible to obtain $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon 2\times 10^3`$ using the Munich and Rome analyses. However, clearly a larger value of $`B_6^{(1/2)}`$ would improve the agreement with the experimental data. It is tempting to suppose that there is a common origin for the large value of $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ rule. However, to relate these two quantities one has to make some dynamical assumption  or to use some model, such as the ones discussed above. It is quite interesting that most of the model-dependent computations presently available, in which a connection between $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ rule is established, find central values for $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ in the ballpark of the experimental value. However, more theoretical progress is needed to put this connection on solid grounds. Another interesting possibility, recently proposed in ref. , is that the large FSI in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ channel enhances the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ matrix elements and effectively gives $`B_6^{(1/2)}1.5`$. Unfortunately, a reliable quantitative evaluation of FSI effects in $`Q_6_{(1/2)}`$ is not available yet, since the method applied in ref.  to resum the pion bubble diagrams suffers from systematic uncertainties and only applies to the lowest order in the $`1/N`$ expansion (see refs.  for further details and different opinions on this subject).

## 3 $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ and Rare $`K`$ Decays in SUSY with Minimal Flavour Violation

From the above discussion, it is clear that there is certainly still room for a large New Physics contribution to $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$. It is therefore worthwhile to explore possible SUSY effects in $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$. Let us start by considering a very constrained class of SUSY models, the MSSM with Minimal Flavour Violation (MFV), where no new phase and no new source of Flavour Violation is introduced. In this kind of extensions of the SM, all flavour and CP violation is governed by the CKM matrix. Rare $`K`$ decays and $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ can then be affected by SUSY in two ways. First of all, new contributions to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=2`$ amplitude, which in this class of models turn out to be always positive, modify the UT fit, resulting in smaller values for $`\mathrm{Im}\lambda _t`$ and $`\mathrm{Re}\lambda _t`$, and therefore suppressing $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ and rare $`K`$ decays. Then, there are new contributions to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=1`$ amplitudes. In a few cases, these can enhance the SM amplitudes and overcompensate the suppression due to $`\mathrm{Im}\lambda _t`$ and $`\mathrm{Re}\lambda _t`$, resulting in larger values of $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ and larger BR’s for rare $`K`$ decays. In most cases, however, the net effect is a suppression with respect to the SM. I summarize here the results of a recent detailed analysis in this class of models , taking into account all the available constraints (direct searches of SUSY particles, BR$`(bs\gamma )`$, precision electroweak data, lower bounds on the neutral Higgs mass):

* In most of the allowed parameter space, the overall effect is a suppression of $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$, mainly due to the positive contributions to $`\epsilon `$, as already found in ref. ;
* The strongest suppression of $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$, of about a factor of two, is obtained for low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, low $`m_{H^\pm }`$, for a light, mainly right-handed stop and for large splitting between the stops;
* A modest ($`7\%`$) enhancement of $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ can be obtained for relatively large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`m_{H^\pm }`$ and for a light chargino;
* The same pattern emerges for rare $`K`$ decays: $`\mathrm{BR}(K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu })`$, $`\mathrm{BR}(K_\mathrm{L}\pi ^0\nu \overline{\nu })`$ and $`\mathrm{BR}(K_\mathrm{L}\pi ^0e^+e^{})`$ are mainly suppressed with respect to the SM prediction, up to approximately a factor of two, while only very modest enhancements are possible.111Here and in the following, I indicate by $`\mathrm{BR}(K_\mathrm{L}\pi ^0e^+e^{})`$ the direct CP violating contribution to this decay.

The minimal and maximal values of the ratios $`T`$, defined as the prediction in the MSSM with MFV normalized to the SM central value, are reported in table 2 (see ref.  for details).

## 4 $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ and Rare $`K`$ Decays in General SUSY Models

The situation drastically changes when one abandons the assumption of MFV and allows for the most general flavour and CP structure in the soft SUSY breaking terms. In this case, there are in general new independent contributions to $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=1`$ transitions, with arbitrary phases. Furthermore, the so-called magnetic moment and chromomagnetic operators, negligible in the SM, can give large contributions to $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ and $`K_\mathrm{L}\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$. The new flavour and CP violating parameters introduced in these models are subject to quite stringent constraints coming from the available FCNC data . However, it is interesting that, compatibly with these tight constraints, large contributions to $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ and rare $`K`$ decays are still possible . A combined analysis shows that interesting correlations can be established between these new contributions . In the rest of this talk, I will briefly review three possible scenarios in which large SUSY contributions to $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ and rare $`K`$ decays are present.

### 4.1 Scenario I: Enhanced $`Z^0`$ Penguins

Colangelo and Isidori pointed out some time ago that a large $`\overline{s}dZ`$ vertex can be induced in the presence of large $`\stackrel{~}{t}_R`$-$`\stackrel{~}{s}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}_R`$-$`\stackrel{~}{d}_L`$ mixings . The $`\overline{s}dZ`$ vertex has a strong impact not only on the decays $`K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$, $`K_\mathrm{L}\pi ^0\nu \overline{\nu }`$ and $`K_\mathrm{L}\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$, but also on $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ . The experimental results on $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ then constrain the possible enhancement of rare decays. The effective $`\overline{s}dZ`$ vertex can be written as

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}^{sdZ}=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{e}{\pi ^2}M_Z^2\frac{\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_W}{\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_W}Z_{ds}\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu Z^\mu d_L+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$

where

$$Z_{ds}=\lambda _tC_0(x_t)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_t.$$
(9)
Here the first term on the r.h.s is the Standard Model contribution (evaluated in the ’t Hooft-Feynman gauge) and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$ is an effective SUSY coupling, whose definition is given in ref. , where further details can be found. Since $`Z_{ds}`$ gives a negative contribution to $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$, a large value of $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ favours negative values of $`Z_{ds}`$ (i.e. with the opposite sign compared to the SM). In table 3, we report the upper bounds on rare decays for $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon =2\times 10^3`$ . The upper bounds depend on the sign of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$ and on the value of the SM coupling $`\lambda _t`$.

### 4.2 Scenario II: Enhanced Chromomagnetic Penguin

Another interesting possibility arises in models in which there is a sizable $`\stackrel{~}{s}_R`$-$`\stackrel{~}{d}_L`$ mixing. In this kind of models, a large contribution is induced to the magnetic and chromomagnetic operators

$`Q_\gamma ^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q_de}{16\pi ^2}}\left(\overline{s}_L\sigma ^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }d_R\pm \overline{s}_R\sigma ^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }d_L\right),`$
$`Q_g^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{16\pi ^2}}\left(\overline{s}_L\sigma ^{\mu \nu }t^aG_{\mu \nu }^ad_R\pm \overline{s}_R\sigma ^{\mu \nu }t^aG_{\mu \nu }^ad_L\right).`$
The chromomagnetic contribution to $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ is unfortunately affected by a large uncertainty in the evaluation of the hadronic matrix element. However, it is interesting to notice that in SUSY models with non-abelian flavour symmetries a chromomagnetic contribution to $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ in the ball-park of $`2\times 10^3`$ can naturally arise . Large contributions of this kind can also arise in Left-Right SUSY models . In some models, a large contribution to $`Q_g^{}`$ corresponds to a large contribution to $`Q_\gamma ^+`$. In this case, BR$`(K_\mathrm{L}\pi ^0e^+e^{})`$ can be sizably enhanced over the SM prediction, up to one order of magnitude (see ref.  for a detailed analysis).

### 4.3 Scenario III: Isospin Breaking in Squark Masses

Finally, let me briefly mention an interesting possibility proposed by Kagan and Neubert . In SUSY models in which there is a sizable $`\stackrel{~}{d}_L`$-$`\stackrel{~}{s}_L`$ mixing, and in which isospin is broken in the squark masses $`(m_{\stackrel{~}{u}}m_{\stackrel{~}{d}})`$, large contributions to $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ arise. The reason is that, due to the isospin breaking in squark masses, SUSY-QCD box diagrams give rise to $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=3/2`$ transitions, which, as discussed in Sect. 2, enter in $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ with the enhancement factor $`1/\omega 22`$. The $`\stackrel{~}{d}_L`$-$`\stackrel{~}{s}_L`$ mixing is needed in order to generate $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=1`$ transitions with this kind of diagrams.

## 5 Conclusions

Comparing the recent measurements of $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ in eq. (1) with the theoretical estimate of the Munich group in eq. (7), it is clear that, for the range of parameters used in the Munich analysis in ref. , the SM prediction is somewhat lower than the experimental average. Within the framework of the SM, many suggestions have been recently made that bring the theoretical predictions closer to the experimental value. As I discussed in Sect. 2, most of model-dependent estimates of $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ suggest a connection between the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ rule and the large value of $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$. However, more theoretical work is needed to put this intriguing possibility on solid grounds. On the other hand, a lot of room is still available for large SUSY contributions to $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$. The possibility of SUSY effects in $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ is certainly very exciting, in a world in which all other FCNC observables perfectly agree with SM predictions. If one considers the “simplest” SUSY extension of the SM, the MSSM with MFV, the results are however not so encouraging: for both $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ and rare $`K`$ decays, in most of the allowed parameter space the net effect is a depletion of all these observables with respect to the SM prediction. More interesting possibilities arise in those SUSY extensions of the SM in which new sources of flavour and CP violation are introduced. Remarkably, in most of these models the potentially large contributions to $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ are accompanied by even larger contributions to rare $`K`$ decays, which can for example enhance BR$`(K_\mathrm{L}\pi ^0\nu \overline{\nu })`$ and BR$`(K_\mathrm{L}\pi ^0e^+e^{})`$ one order of magnitude above the SM upper bound. We therefore eagerly await for future progress both on the theoretical side, with improved estimates of hadronic matrix elements, and on the experimental side, with improved measurements of $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ and more stringent upper bounds and measurements of rare $`K`$ decays.

I am much indebted to A.J. Buras, G. Colangelo, P. Gambino, M. Gorbahn, G. Isidori, S. Jäger and A. Romanino for a most enjoyable collaboration. It is a pleasure to thank the organizers for the very nice atmosphere, and in particular V. Gimenez for his warm hospitality. I also thank A. Pich for discussions, I. Scimemi for showing to me the best of Valencia and M. Ciuchini and E. Franco for valuable comments and suggestions.


text:
# Néel state of antiferromagnet as a result of a local measurement in the distributed quantum system

## Abstract

Single-site measurement in a distributed macroscopic antiferromagnet is considered; we show that it can create antiferromagnetic sublattices at macroscopic scale. We demonstrate that the result of measurement depends on the symmetry of the ground state: for the easy-axis case the Néel state is formed, while for the easy-plane case unusual “fan” sublattices appear with unbroken rotational symmetry, and a decoherence wave is generated. For the latter case, a macroscopically large number of measurements is needed to pin down the orientation of the sublattices, in spite of the high degeneracy of the ground state. We note that the type of the final state and the appearance of the decoherence wave are governed by the degree of entanglement of spins in the system.

The ordered antiferromagnetic (AFM) state has been extensively discussed since the experimental discovery of antiferromagnetism . The conventional picture, associated with L. Néel, represents a macroscopic antiferromagnet as consisting of two sublattices, each possessing a macroscopically large total spin $`𝐒_A`$. This picture agrees with the experiments on macroscopic antiferromagnets , but serious conceptual problems arise. The ground state of a Heisenberg magnet with AFM exchange interactions should be a nondegenerate singlet with zero total magnetization of each sublattice. Moreover, the AFM ground state should be time-reversal invariant, while the Néel state is obviously not. For a long time, it was commonly believed that the difficulty can be resolved by recognizing that due to very high (quasi)degeneracy of the AFM ground state (the separation between the lowest levels is of order $`1/N`$, where $`N`$ is the total number of spins in the sample), “extremely weak forces can pin down the orientation” (quote from Ref. ) of the sublattices thus breaking the rotational and time-reversal symmetries and leading to the Néel state. Latter advances in quantum measurement theory  demonstrated that it is not the interaction strength itself that matters, but its ability to build up quantum correlations (entanglement) between the system and its environment, so that the system decoheres and the initial symmetry breaks. In many realistic situations, the process of decoherence is extremely fast, and can be considered as a quantum measurement in the von Neumann’s sense , i.e. as an instantaneous projection of the system’s initial state onto the final state with broken symmetry.

However, in the present paper, we show that building the argument upon quasidegeneracy is intrinsically misleading. We present two situations, realistically modeling easy-plane and easy-axis antiferromagnets, which have the same quasidegeneracy (with the lowest levels separation $`1/N`$), and we show that the impact of environmental measurement on each of the systems is drastically different: although time-reversal symmetry breaks in both cases, this is not so for the rotational symmetry, i.e. sublattices can emerge without formation of the Néel state, leaving the orientation of sublattices magnetization indeterminate. We show that the different scenarios take place because of different degrees of entanglement between the individual spins in an antiferromagnet.

Appearance of the AFM sublattices due to environmental “measurement” has been studied  for the case of very small antiferromagnetic particles using the method of collective coordinate, by mapping of the low-energy part of the antiferromagnet’s spectrum onto a two-state system . Such a mapping is valid when all the excited states are well-separated from the doublet of lowest levels, and the non-collective dynamics can be neglected, i.e. in the case of easy-axis antiferromagnet with noticeable anisotropy. But in macroscopic samples the well-separated ground doublet can be absent (e.g., the long-wavelength magnons in the easy-plane antiferromagnet are gapless, and corresponding excitations can be very close to the ground state), and the mapping onto a two-state system is not legitimate. Also, measurement in a distributed quantum system often generates a decoherence wave  which can not be described by the collective coordinate method. Furthermore, in reality, the interactions with dissipative degrees of freedom, such as nuclear spins, are short-ranged, so that corresponding measurements are essentially local. Locality of the measurement, which discriminates the given site (belonging, to the sublattice A) from its neighbors (belonging to the sublattice B), is crucial; the global measurement which does not distinguish sites from different sublattices can not resolve the Néel state and can not cause the formation of sublattices .

Therefore, to describe the appearance of sublattices, we have to consider local measurement in a distributed quantum spin system. To our knowledge, this problem has never been applied before to the study of antiferromagnets. In this paper, we show that even the microscopic single-site measurement can create sublattices in the macroscopically large antiferromagnet which was initially in the time-reversal-symmetric state. We study this process in detail and show that it can be very different from what is suggested by the collective coordinate method or similar models.

Let us consider the Heisenberg antiferromagnet containing $`N`$ sites with the spin $`S`$ at each site; the isotropic exchange part of its Hamiltonian is

$$_0=\underset{𝐪}{}J_𝐪(S_𝐪^+S_𝐪^{}+S_𝐪^zS_𝐪^z),$$
(1)
where $`S_𝐪^+=(1/\sqrt{N})_js_j^+\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐪𝐫}_j)`$, and, similarly, $`S_𝐪^{}`$ and $`S_𝐪^z`$, are the Fourier transforms of the single-site spin operators: $`s_j^+`$ and $`s_j^{}`$ are the ladder spin operators for the site $`j`$, and $`s_j^z`$ is the operator of the $`z`$-projection of the spin at the site $`j`$. Analogously, $`J_𝐪`$ is the Fourier transform of the exchange integral, where $`_𝐪J_𝐪=0`$. If the exchange integrals are such that $`\mathrm{max}_𝐪J_𝐪=J_𝐐`$ and $`2𝐐`$ coincides with the vector of the reciprocal lattice, then the AFM ordering appears along the vector $`𝐐`$; we assume infinite correlation length since the finite-temperature effects are beyond the scope of this paper.

As will be shown below, it is important to take into account the symmetry of the ground state imposed by the anisotropic interactions, so we assume a very small anisotropy term $`^{}`$, e.g., of the form $`^{}=D_j(s_j^z)^2`$, also present in the system’s Hamiltonian. It can be seen that for very small $`D`$ the analysis given below does not depend on the specific form of the anisotropy, nor on its magnitude: symmetry of the ground state is predominant, so we assume $`D\pm 0`$ below.

First, let us consider the case of easy-plane anisotropy, $`D+0`$. Exact eigenstates of the system are not known, except for some very special situations. To describe AFM states in the general case, the following family of time-reversal-symmetric (TRS) states has been proposed :

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_M=\left[\frac{N^M(2NSM)!}{M!(2NS)!}\right]^{1/2}\left(S_𝐐^{}\right)^M|0$$
(2)
where $`M=0,\mathrm{},2NS`$ is an integer, and $`|0`$ is the ferromagnetic state (all spins up). The state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_M`$ is an eigenstate of the $`z`$-projection of the operator of the total system’s spin with the eigenvalue $`𝒮_z=NSM`$, so the AFM ground state corresponds to $`M=NS`$. The state (2) can be considered as the time-reversal-symmetric counterpart of the Néel state: both of them have the same energy, the same correlation functions, etc., and they can not be distinguished by conventional experimental means (such as neutron scattering or NMR). Moreover, the energy of the TRS-state is very close to the energy of the exact AFM ground state: they differ by terms of order of $`1/(zS)`$ where $`z`$ is the coordination number  which is often large (e.g., $`z=8`$ for bcc lattice). For simplicity, below we consider only the case $`S=1/2`$, so that our treatment can be considered as formally rigorous in the limit $`z\mathrm{}`$, i.e. for infinite-dimensional space. Note that the difference in energy between the states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_M`$ with $`M`$ close to $`NS`$ is of order $`1/N`$, i.e. the ground state is highly (quasi)degenerate.

Below, to characterize the states of the antiferromagnet, it is convenient to use the correlation functions $`K^{\alpha \beta }(𝐪)=Tr[\rho S_𝐪^\alpha S_𝐪^\beta ],`$ where $`\rho `$ is the density matrix. For the state (2) we have

$`K_i^+(𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`S_𝐪^+S_𝐪^{}=NS^2\delta _{\mathrm{𝐪𝐐}}+S/2,`$ (3)
$`K_i^{zz}(𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`S_𝐪^zS_𝐪^z=S/2,`$ (4)
where the subscript $`i`$ stands for the initial state, and this state can be imagined as a state with all the spins aligned antiferromagnetically along some AFM axis (note the delta-functional singularity in $`K^+`$), but the axis itself is uniformly smeared in the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane, see Fig. 1a. Obviously, in this state the sublattices are absent.

Now, suppose that we perform a local measurement of the spin $`x`$-projection at the site $`0`$. In reality, no conscious effort is needed for that, since the electronic spin at every site interacts with its environment (e.g., a nuclear spin at this site), so the initial state of the electronic spin decoheres , i.e., the environment acts as a measuring apparatus. Decoherence of the single spin by its environment can be described following the Ref. ; in many realistic cases this process is very fast, so we describe it using von Neumann’s theory, as a projection of the initial state onto the eigenstates of the operator $`s_0^x`$. Therefore, the system occurs in a mixed quantum state which is described by the density matrix

$`\rho _f`$ $`=`$ $`\left(|\mathrm{\Phi }^+\mathrm{\Phi }^+|+|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}|\right),`$ (5)
$`|\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`W^\pm |\mathrm{\Psi }_M=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pm s_0^x\right)|\mathrm{\Psi }_M,`$ (6)
where, for $`S=1/2`$, $`W^+`$ and $`W^{}`$ are the projectors onto the eigenstates of $`s_0^x`$ with the eigenvalues $`+1/2`$ and $`1/2`$ respectively. The function $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$ ($`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$) describes the state of the sample after the measurement, provided that the measurement gave the result $`+1/2`$ ($`1/2`$). Note that the norm of both $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ is $`1/2`$, i.e. each state appears with the probability 1/2. The calculations give the explicit form:

$`|\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{coh}}^\pm +|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{inc}}^\pm ,`$ (7)
$`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{coh}}^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_M\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\alpha _M|\mathrm{\Psi }_{M1}+\alpha _{M+1}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{M+1}\right),`$ (8)
$`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{inc}}^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪𝐐}{}}S_𝐪^{}\left(|\mathrm{\Psi }_M\gamma _M|\mathrm{\Psi }_{M2}\right),`$ (9)
where $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{coh}}^\pm `$ represents contributions from the states with $`𝐪=𝐐`$, while $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{inc}}^\pm `$ corresponds to the excitations with $`𝐪𝐐`$, and $`\alpha _M=\sqrt{M(NM+1)/N^2}`$, $`\gamma _M=\sqrt{M(M1)/[(NM+1)(NM+2)]}`$.

The initial AFM ground state is invariant with respect to rotations in the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane, and so is the final state produced by the measurement:

$`K_f^+(𝐐)`$ $`=`$ $`K_f^{xx}(𝐐)+K_f^{yy}(𝐐)=N/4,`$ (10)
$`K_f^{}(𝐐)`$ $`=`$ $`K_f^{xx}(𝐐)K_f^{yy}(𝐐)=1/16,`$ (11)
for $`N1`$, where we took into account that $`M=NS`$ for the AFM ground state. Only the direction of the measured spin at the site $`j=0`$ is fixed, while for the rest of the sample the AFM axis in the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane is not fixed. This is quite different from what is predicted by the collective coordinate approach  or other models such as the classical $`\sigma `$-model.

However, in spite of the indeterminate AFM axis, sublattices are created in the sample. Indeed, for every site $`j`$ ($`j0`$):

$$s_j^x_\pm =\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm |s_j^x|\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm }{\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm |\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm }=\pm \frac{1}{4}\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐐𝐫}_j)$$
(12)
i.e., for each result of the measurement, the $`x`$-component of the spin at every site is nonzero, although twice smaller than for the Néel state, and the spins are ordered antiferromagnetically. This state can be interpreted in quasiclassical terms as an AFM “fan” structure, where due to the measurement the spins at the sites $`j0`$ are localized essentially within the semicircles, but their direction inside the semicircles is not fixed (see Fig. 1b). This picture can be confirmed by calculation of other quantities (the amplitude $`S_𝐐^x`$ of the mode $`𝐪=𝐐`$, single-spin density matrix, etc.).

Now, let us consider the case of the easy-axis anisotropy, assuming that the easy axis is directed along the $`x`$-axis. The TRS ansatz for the corresponding AFM ground state is

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{L=0}{\overset{2NS}{}}u_L|\mathrm{\Psi }_{2L},\underset{L=0}{\overset{2NS}{}}u_L^2=1,$$
(13)
where $`u_L=\mathrm{exp}[\varphi (L)/2]`$, and $`\varphi (L)`$ is some real function, whose explicit form is immaterial in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ provided that it has a well-pronounced maximum in the neighborhood of $`L_0=NS`$. It has been shown  that this state corresponds to the AFM state without sublattices, but with the AFM ordering axis directed along the $`x`$-axis. As above, we consider the state of the system after the measurement made on the $`x`$-component of the spin at the site $`j=0`$. The resulting density matrix is $`\rho _f=|\mathrm{\Phi }^+\mathrm{\Phi }^+|+|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}|`$, and in the thermodynamic limit

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm =\frac{1}{2}\underset{L}{}u_L\left[|\mathrm{\Psi }_{2L}\pm \alpha _{2L+1}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{2L+1}\pm \alpha _{2L}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{2L1}\right]$$
(14)
while the excitations with $`𝐪𝐐`$ are negligible. It can be checked that the resulting state is, in fact, the Néel state: e.g., the $`x`$-component of the spin at the site $`j`$ is $`s_j^x_\pm =\pm (1/2)\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐐𝐫}_j)`$, exactly as in the Néel state (see Fig. 1d).

Therefore, for the antiferromagnet which is initially in the TRS-state, even the single site measurement can create sublattices over the whole sample. However, these sublattices have the usual Néel form only for the easy-axis antiferromagnet. For the easy-plane antiferromagnet, the “fan” sublattices appear, where the AFM axis is indeterminate in the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane, and each spin is directed up or down only in average, being localized essentially in the semicircle. Our conclusions do not depend on the specific form of the anisotropic term in the Hamiltonian, and are based only on the use of the TRS-states for description of the AFM ground state. This description is expected to be valid for small anisotropy with accuracy of order $`1/(zS)`$. As a rule, this approximation works well .

To produce the Néel state in the easy-plane case, a macroscopically large number of further measurements are necessary. Indeed, every measurement admixes to the initial state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_M`$ the states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{M\pm 1}`$, so that to encompass all values of $`M`$ and fix the direction of the AFM axis, we need of order of $`N/2`$ measurements. Informally, it can be understood by taking into account the uncertainty relation for the $`z`$-projection of the total spin $`𝒮_z`$ and the angle $`\varphi `$ of AFM axis in the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane: $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮_z\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi 1`$. The value of $`\varphi `$ becomes certain when $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮_z`$ is maximal. This situation is analogous to the case of Bose-Einstein condensate, where the well-defined phase is built up by increasing uncertainty in the number of particles .

Nevertheless, appearance of the sublattices is not the whole story. It has been shown  that the local measurement in a distributed quantum system creates a decoherence wave propagating in the system. In the antiferromagnet, the decoherence wave can be created only by the contributions with $`𝐪𝐐`$: the excitations with $`𝐪=𝐐`$ are static (have zero frequency). For example, in the easy-plane case $`s_j^x(t)=\pm Res_j^+(t)s_0^{}`$, i.e. the local spin measurement induces the decoherence wave, and its dynamics is governed by the Green’s function $`G(𝐫_{jk},t)=s_j^+(t)s_k^{}s_j^+s_k^{}`$. For the easy-plane TRS-state $`G(𝐫,t)`$ can not be calculated exactly, but estimates based on the magnon picture give $`G(𝐫,t)=(4N)^1_𝐪\mathrm{exp}[i\mathrm{𝐪𝐫}i\omega _𝐪t]`$, where $`\omega _𝐪=\sqrt{(J_𝐐J_𝐪)(J_𝐐J_{𝐪𝐐})}`$ is the frequency of antiferromagnons. It is worth noting that the decoherence wave appears only in the easy-plane case, where the localization of the AFM axis is incomplete. In the easy-axis case the AFM axis is localized completely but the incoherent contribution in the wave function is negligible in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$, so the decoherence wave is absent. This corroborates the conjecture  that the decoherence wave is the result of incomplete entanglement between the entities comprising the system. Indeed, in the easy-axis case the entanglement is complete, and measurement of the direction of one spin determines the direction of every other spin in the sample. In the easy-plane case, the entanglement is not so constraining, so that the excitations with $`𝐪𝐐`$ emerge, making the AFM axis indeterminate and giving rise to the decoherence wave.

Results of the present paper can have also experimental importance. At present, there is a growing interest in antiferromagnetic systems of significant size which, nonetheless, demonstrate quantum coherence. Mention can be made of the single-molecule antiferromagnets  Fe10, Fe6, etc. Another relevant class of experimentally interesting systems is the artificial spin rings made of paramagnetic atoms to form a “quantum corral” . Noticeable AFM interactions can exist between the spins in this system, while major sources of decoherence, nuclear spins and conduction electrons , can be avoided, e.g., by using iron atoms and silicon substrate at low temperatures. The spin state of the atoms in the ring can be probed by scanning tunneling microscopy which can provide  the spatial resolution of ca. 10 Å and sensitivity of order of few Bohr’s magnetons, or by magnetic resonance force microscopy . But development and analysis of realistic experimental schemes constitutes a distinct problem, requiring separate detailed study, and we do not discuss it here.

Summarizing, we have shown that the local measurement in a distributed macroscopic antiferromagnet can create sublattices in the whole sample. Therefore, considering the sublattices as a result of decoherence, it is not necessary to presume a measurement embracing the whole macroscopic sample at once. We show that the result of measurement depends on the symmetry of the ground state. For the easy-axis case the collective coordinate approach gives essentially the complete picture, with both time-reversal and rotational symmetries broken. For the easy-plane case, unusual “fan” sublattices appear, i.e. only time-reversal symmetry breaking takes place while rotational symmetry is preserved (in spite of high degeneracy of the ground state); moreover, in this case a decoherence wave is generated by measurement. We conclude that both the certainty of the final state and the appearance of the decoherence wave are governed by the degree of entanglement of spins in the system.

This work was partially carried out at the Ames Laboratory, which is operated for the U. S. Department of Energy by Iowa State University under Contract No. W-7405-82 and was supported by the Director for Energy Research, Office of Basic Energy Sciences of the U. S. Department of Energy.


text:
# AC DRIVEN JUMP DISTRIBUTIONS ON A PERIODIC SUBSTRATE

## Abstract

A driven Brownian particle (e.g. an adatom on a surface) diffusing on a low-viscosity, periodic substrate may execute multiple jumps. In the presence of an additional periodic drive, the jump lengths and time durations get statistically modulated according to a synchronization mechanism reminiscent of asymmetric stochastic resonance. Here, too, bistability plays a key role, but in a dynamical sense, inasmuch as the particle switches between locked and running states.

Keywords: Diffusion and migration, Equilibrium thermodynamics, Friction, Surface diffusion

Corresponding author: Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Perugia, I-06123 Perugia (Italy); Tel: +39 075 5853033; Fax: +39 075 44666; E-mail: marchesoni@pg.infn.it

The diffusion of a forced Brownian particle on one- or two-dimensional periodic substrates provides an archetypal model of relaxation in condensed phase with application to adsorbates on crystal surfaces , transport in superionic conductors , acoustoelectric currents in one-dimensional channels , dispersion of particles in optical traps , or rotation of molecules in solids . The diffusive process from this category best studied in the current literature - is the Brownian motion in a one-dimensional washboard potential

$$\ddot{x}=\gamma \dot{x}\omega _0^2\mathrm{sin}x+F+\xi (t)$$
(1)
(in rescaled units), where the force terms on the r.h.s. represent, respectively, a viscous damping with constant $`\gamma `$, a spatially periodic, tilted substrate modeled by the potential

$$V(x,F)=\omega _0^2(1\mathrm{cos}x)Fx,$$
(2)
and a stationary Gaussian noise with zero mean $`\xi (t)=0`$ and autocorrelation function $`\xi (t)\xi (0)=2\gamma kT\delta (t)`$.

In the low damping limit, $`\gamma \omega _0`$, (strictly speaking it would suffice that $`\gamma <1.2\omega _0`$ ) the Brownian particle executes multiple jumps, namely over many a lattice spacing $`a=2\pi `$, both in the forward and in the backward direction ; with increasing $`F`$ the length- and time-distributions of such multiple jumps, denoted, respectively, by $`N(X)`$ and $`N(T_x)`$, change from an almost exponential curve (locked regime, $`F<F_1(4/\pi )\gamma \omega _0`$ ) to a kind of bimodal curve with a slow exponential tail (running regime $`F>F_23.36\gamma \omega _0`$ , see also Fig. 1). To a good approximation $`N(X)`$ and $`N(T_x)`$ are related by the scaling law $`X=(F/\gamma )T_x`$ , where $`F/\gamma `$ is the average velocity of the particle in the running regime .

In a recent paper Talkner et al.  addressed the effects of a weak periodic drive on the jump statistics in the intermediate regime with $`kTF\omega _0^2`$ (exponential hopping regime ): An enhancement of the multiple jumping probability has been predicted in the adiabatic limit of very low modulation frequencies. Taking on their challenge to a full investigation, we have simulated numerically the Langevin equation (LE) (1) with the dependent drive

$$FF(t)=F_0+\mathrm{\Delta }F\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }t),$$
(3)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }F>0`$. Note that the time origin has been set to zero without loss of generality and the modulation amplitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ has been kept small compared to the dc term $`F_0`$ in all simulation runs.

In the present report we focus on the time distributions $`N(T_x)`$ of the multiple jumps at the crossover between the locked and the running regime: A significant synchronization mechanism takes place reminiscent of stochastic resonance (SR) in a bistable system .

At low temperatures $`kT\omega _0^2`$, and in the exponential hopping regime, $`\gamma \omega _0^2`$ and $`F_0<F_1`$, jumps are thermally activated and, therefore, relatively short; their direction (either forwards or backwards) is controlled by the intensity of the dc drive $`F_0`$ relative to $`F_1`$ . Under such conditions, the Brownian particle sits in a locked state with low mobility, namely $`\gamma \mu \gamma \dot{x}/F_01`$. On raising $`F_0`$ above the threshold value $`F_23.36\gamma \omega _0`$ ($`F_2`$ depends weakly on the temperature) $`\gamma \mu `$ jumps abruptly up to close to unity, thus signalling that the particle has switched into the running state with average velocity $`\dot{x}=F_0/\gamma `$. As the particle flies over the washboard potential it executes sporadic, short stops at the bottom of some potential well. For numerical purposes the diffusing particle is deemed as locked (or retrapped) any time it sojourns within two adjacent $`V(x,F)`$ barriers for a time interval longer than $`(2\gamma )^1`$ – the characteristic relaxation time of the energy variable. In Fig. 1 we display the normalized distributions of the jump time durations, $`N(T_x)`$, for different values of $`F_0`$, ranging from the locked, well into the running regime. As expected, all of our distributions exhibit exponential tails with time constant $`\overline{T}_x`$, termed from now on the average jump duration, that increases exponentially with $`F_0`$ . No dramatic change in the $`N(T_x)`$ profile occurs in the vicinity of the thresholds $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$.

The effect of the weak periodic modulation (3) on the jump statistics is illustrated in Fig. 2, where $`N(T_x)`$ is plotted for the same ac drive, but increasing values of $`F_0`$ (across the threshold $`F_2`$). For $`F_0<F_2`$ the distribution of the jump durations is well reproduced by an exponential function; for $`F_0F_2`$ the curve bends to form a broad hump around $`T_x=T_\mathrm{\Omega }/2`$ (here $`T_\mathrm{\Omega }=2\pi /\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the modulation period); finally, for $`F_0>F_2`$ the distribution develops a full-blown peak structure, with maxima centered at $`T_n=nT_\mathrm{\Omega }`$, with $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ superimposed on a slowly decaying exponential tail. On a closer look one recognizes that even for $`F_0=F_2`$ the jump distribution is multi-peaked; however, the first peak dominates apparently over the others, thus indicating a strong drive-jump synchronization . More remarkably, the positions of the $`N(T_x)`$ maxima shift from $`T_n=(n1/2)T_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ at $`F_0F_2`$ to $`nT_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for $`F_0F_2`$ .

The qualitative interpretation of these results is simple. For $`F_0<F_2`$ the length and, therefore, the time duration of the multiple jumps is relatively short, – we recall that $`kT\omega _0^2`$, – anyway, shorter that the modulation period $`T_\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We are dealing with an adiabatic situation, where the slowly varying external parameter $`F(t)`$ during the jump process can be regarded as constant; the ensuing distribution $`N(T_x;t)`$ is expectedly exponential  at any times, so that $`N(T_x)=N(T_x,t)`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ denoting the average over a modulation cycle. To this purpose, it should be remembered that the jump rate, namely the number of jumps per unit of time, is maximum at $`F_0F_2`$ and decays exponentially with $`F_0`$ above threshold . For $`F_0F_2`$ the system operates at the unlocking threshold; a small ac drive amplitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ suffices to modulate the system, alternately, from the locked to the running state and vice versa. No surprise that most jumps last the order of one half forcing period, hence the appearance of a bump in the $`T_x`$ distribution at $`T_\mathrm{\Omega }/2`$. For $`F_0>F_2`$ the Brownian particle is in the running state most of the time, so that only infrequent, very long, jumps may take place. Clearly, chances are that rare relocking events may happen mostly as $`F(t)`$ hits a minimum $`F_0\mathrm{\Delta }F`$. As a consequence, we expect that $`T_x`$ are kind of ”multiple” of $`T_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (jump-drive phase-locking). Notice that at the threshold the average residence time in the locked state $`\overline{T}_r`$ equals the running time $`\overline{T}_x`$, whereas in the running regime $`\overline{T}_r`$ becomes negligible .

The dependence of the jump synchronization mechanism on the amplitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ of the ac drive is displayed in Fig. 3. After subtracting the exponential background due to the random jumps, we concluded that in the weak drive regime, $`\mathrm{\Delta }FF_0`$, the fraction of the synchronized jumps (of any duration $`T_n`$) grows quadratically with $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$. As a matter of fact, changing the ac drive amplitude affects the background decay constant, as well. At finite $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ values the background seems to fall off faster than in the absence of modulation. This suggests that increasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ has a twofold effect: It modulates more and more effectively the jump lengths and, simultaneously, diminishes the effective dc drive ($`\overline{F}_0`$, to be defined in the following) below the input value $`F_0`$ by an amount that depends on the forcing period.

Finally, in Fig. 4 we show the dependence of the jump distribution $`N(T_x)`$ on the modulation period. Note that all distributions plotted here have been normalized to unity after rescaling $`T_x`$ to $`T_x/T_\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The overall $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ dependence of the synchronization mechanism is apparent: For short modulation periods the jump-drive phase-locking is hardly detectable; on increasing $`T_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the $`N(T_x)`$ peak structure reaches first its maximum and, eventually, merges into the background for exceedingly long forcing periods. The qualitative interpretation of these results is also straightforward. The case of large $`T_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ corresponds to the adiabatic situation illustrated above, when we discussed the distributions of Fig. 2 with $`F_0<F_2`$; the case of small $`T_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ values represents the opposite situation, where the external time-dependent parameter $`F(t)`$ varies so fast in time, that the diffusing particle only responds to its effective average value $`\overline{F}_0`$ insensitive to its temporal modulation – technically speaking, also an adiabatic limit; in the intermediate regime $`T_\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{T}_x`$ the synchronization mechanism becomes more efficient, due to the interplay between externally driven and thermally activated locked-to-running transitions . The apparent increase of the background steepness with $`T_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a graphic artifact introduced by rescaling the units of $`T_x`$; when plotted versus molecular dynamics time-units all curves of Fig. 4 decay with time constants corresponding to an effective tilt $`\overline{F}_0`$ such that $`F_0\mathrm{\Delta }F<\overline{F}_0<F_0`$.

We attempt now at interpreting the numerical results reported so far as a manifestation of stochastic resonance (SR), – an intriguing phenomenon of nonlinear physics, where an optimal amount of noise has the capability of enhancing the rate of synchronous switches between the local minima of a (possibly, asymmetric) bistable system driven by a weak periodic modulation. Stochastic resonance rests upon a noise controlled phase-locking mechanism which can be vividly illustrated in term of switch-time distributions . A convenient choice is provided by the distributions $`N_1(T_\pm )`$ of the residence times $`T_\pm `$ of the system in either state (denoted by $`\pm `$, respectively). As the modulation forces the switch events by perturbing the symmetry of the system, $`N_1(T_\pm )`$ peak respectively at $`T_n=T_\pm ^{(0)}+nT_\mathrm{\Omega }`$, with $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ and $`T_+^{(0)}+T_{}^{(0)}=T_\mathrm{\Omega }`$. For a symmetric system, $`T_\pm ^{(0)}=T_\mathrm{\Omega }/2`$. An optimal input-output synchronization sets in when the first peak of $`N_1(T_\pm )`$ at $`T_\pm ^{(0)}`$ dominates over the remaining peaks and the exponential random switch background .

In the system at hand all ingredients of the synchronization-based (or bona-fide) SR  are easily recognizable: (i) bistability occurs at the threshold $`F_2`$, where the particle mobility switches between two dynamical states, namely the locked state with $`\gamma \mu =0`$ and the running state with $`\gamma \mu =1`$. The residence times in the two states are denoted here by $`T_r`$ and $`T_x`$, respectively; (ii) the noise control parameter is the equilibrium temperature $`T`$. Note that SR may occur even at low damping ; (iii) the external periodic drive, $`\mathrm{\Delta }F\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }t)`$, Eq. (3), tilts the system towards either dynamically stable state, alternately, thus determining the multi-peaked $`T_x`$ distributions of Figs. 2-4.

A few well-known SR features are apparent: (1) The $`N(T_x)`$ distributions develop their first (and strongest) peak for $`T_\mathrm{\Omega }2\overline{T}_x`$ (see Figs. 2 and 4); (2) The first peak, at $`T_x=T_x^{(0)}`$, shifts from close to $`T_\mathrm{\Omega }/2`$ in the symmetric case, $`F_0=F_2`$, to $`T_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in the running regime, $`F_0>F_2+\mathrm{\Delta }F`$. This is a typical asymmetry effect , as on raising $`F_0`$ above $`F_2`$, $`\overline{T}_r`$ gets smaller than $`\overline{T}_x`$; (3) The peak structure grows sharper on increasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$, according to a characteristic SR quadratic law .

Peculiar to our model are the properties following: (4) On increasing $`F_0`$ at $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$, $`T`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ constant, more and more peaks shoot up from the background, thus reducing the input-output synchronization (see Fig. 2). The explanation in terms of the SR phenomenology is simple: The jump times $`T_x`$ coincide with the residence times in the running state, which for $`F_0>F_2`$ gets more stable than the locked state; accordingly, $`\overline{T}_x`$ grows much longer than $`T_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ or, equivalently, relative to the directed running-to-locked transition, the noise intensity is too low for SR to take place; hence the multi-peaked structures plotted in Figs. 2\- 4 ; (5) Contrary to most SR studies, here the background constant depends on the ac drive, namely on $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ and, though to a smaller extent, on $`T_\mathrm{\Omega }`$. A pictorial explanation of such a property is provided by Fig. 11.24 of Ref. . Consider the most symmetric case with $`F_0=F_2`$; adding $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ to $`F_2`$ makes the running state more stable than the locked state and, vice versa, subtracting $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ from $`F_2`$ makes the running state less stable; however, the imbalance toward the locked state at $`F_0=F_2\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ is not compensated by the imbalance towards the running state at $`F_0=F_2+\mathrm{\Delta }F`$; therefore, an ac drive contributes to the effective static tilt $`\overline{F}_0`$, with $`\overline{F}_0<F_2`$, defined implicitly through the average jump duration as $`\overline{T}_x(F_0,\mathrm{\Delta }F,\mathrm{\Omega })\overline{T}_x(\overline{F}_0)`$.


text:
# References

UR-1613

ER/40685/951

TOP MASS MEASUREMENT

AND BOTTOM FRAGMENTATION AT THE LHC ***Talk given at DPF 2000, Meeting of the Division of Particle and Fields of the American Physical Society, Columbus, Ohio, U. S. A., 9-12 August 2000.

G. CORCELLA

Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester

Rochester, NY 14627, U.S.A.

We show some recent HERWIG results related to the top quark mass reconstruction at the LHC and discuss possible improvements for studies of the bottom quark fragmentation function in the top decay.

The large amount of $`t\overline{t}`$ pairs which are expected at the future experiments at the LHC1 will allow precise measurements of the top-quark properties. For the sake of an improved measurement of the top mass $`m_t`$, a new approach has been recently suggested2, which consists of using the invariant-mass distributions of $`J/\psi `$ \+ $`\mathrm{}`$ pairs, where the $`J/\psi `$ is produced by the decay of a $`b`$-flavoured hadron and $`\mathrm{}`$ is the lepton coming from the $`W`$ produced in the top decay $`tbW`$. Even though the branching ratio for the process $`BJ/\psi `$ is small, it has been shown that it provides a clean signal at the LHC and about $`10^3`$ well-reconstructed final states are expected in one year of high luminosity. The $`m_{J/\psi \mathrm{}}`$ distributions can then be compared with a template of shapes parametrized by the top mass and $`m_t`$ can be fitted. The expected experimental uncertainty, which is dominated by the statistical error, has been estimated to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_t1`$ GeV. This is a method which crucially relies on the Monte Carlo description of top production and decay and on the model which is used to simulate the $`b`$-quark hadronization.

Standard Monte Carlo algorithms3,4 simulate multiparton radiation in the soft or collinear approximation and leave regions of the phase space completely empty (‘dead zones’). In particular, HERWIG simulates the top decay in the top rest frame. We do not have any soft-gluon radiation from the top quark, while the $`b`$ quark is allowed to radiate gluons in the ‘forward’ hemisphere $`0<\theta _g<\pi /2`$, with $`\theta _g`$ being the emission angle of the soft gluon with respect to the $`b`$ direction5. The following parton cascade satisfies the prescription of angular ordering6. The total energy loss due to gluon radiation is roughly correct, as the collinear singularity $`\theta _g0`$ is correctly taken into account; nevertheless problems are expected in the angular distributions, since the $`W`$ ‘backward’ hemisphere $`\pi /2<\theta _g<\pi `$ is a dead zone for the shower.

The new version HERWIG 6.17 allows gluon radiation in the backward hemisphere via the implementation of matrix-element corrections8: the dead zone is populated according to the $`𝒪(\alpha _S)`$ matrix element (‘hard correction’) and the parton cascade in the already-populated region is corrected by the use of the exact amplitude any time an emission is the ‘hardest so far’ (‘soft correction’)9.

We wish to use HERWIG 6.1 to study invariant-mass distributions which are relevant to extract $`m_t`$ at the LHC10,11. For simplicity, we study the spectra $`m_B\mathrm{}`$, which must be convoluted with the $`BJ/\psi `$ decay spectra to obtain the $`m_{J/\psi \mathrm{}}`$ distributions. In Fig. 1 we show the $`m_B\mathrm{}`$ distributions at the LHC according to HERWIG before (6.0) and after (6.1) matrix-element corrections to top decays, for $`m_t=175`$ GeV; we observe a shift towards lower values of $`m_B\mathrm{}`$ after the inclusion of hard and large-angle gluon radiation. In Table 1 we show results for the average values $`m_B\mathrm{}`$ for different values of $`m_t`$ and observe that the shift induced by matrix-element corrections is of about 800-900 MeV. If we parametrize the relation between $`m_B\mathrm{}`$ and $`m_t`$ according to a straight line, we find, by means of the least-square method:

$`6.1:m_B\mathrm{}`$ $`=`$ $`0.568m_t6.004\mathrm{GeV},ϵ(\mathrm{GeV})=0.057;`$ (1)
$`6.0:m_B\mathrm{}`$ $`=`$ $`0.559m_t3.499\mathrm{GeV},ϵ(\mathrm{GeV})=0.052,`$ (2)
$`ϵ`$ being the mean square deviation in the fit.

Inverting the above relations, we find that the values of $`m_t`$ extracted using the two versions HERWIG 6.0 and 6.1 differ by about 1.5 GeV, a value which is larger than the expected uncertainty. This implies that, for an accurate reconstruction of the top mass, the corrections to the top decay must be applied. If we set a cut $`m_B\mathrm{}>50`$ GeV to reduce the effect of possible backgrounds on the low-mass tails, the impact of matrix-element corrections to top decays is reduced to 1 GeV, but it is still competitive with respect to the expected uncertainty11.

The next step of the presented analysis is a more detailed study of the $`b`$ fragmentation in the top decay12. Another possible approach to obtain the $`m_B\mathrm{}`$ distributions is to perform an exact next-to-leading order calculation of the decay rate $`tbW(g)`$ and convolute the result with the $`b`$ fragmentation function, taken from some LEP or SLD data13. It will be very interesting to compare the HERWIG results to the ones of this calculation. In order for such a comparison to be trustworthy, we have to tune the parameters of the HERWIG cluster model to fit the $`e^+e^{}`$ data. We have a recent tuning by the OPAL collaboration14, after which the agreement of HERWIG to the LEP data is considerably improved. However, even after such a tuning, problems have been found in the comparison to the SLD data15, which was not taken into account as an input for the OPAL tuning. The tuning of the HERWIG hadronization model using both LEP and SLD data is in progress12.

In summary, we reviewed some HERWIG results which are relevant to the top mass determination at the LHC using final states with leptons and $`J/\psi `$ and found that the effect of matrix-element corrections to top decays is $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_t1.5`$ GeV. We also reported on further studies for a deeper understanding of the $`b`$ fragmentation in the top decay, using data from the $`e^+e^{}`$ machines.

Acknowledgements

The presented results have been obtained in collaboration with M.L. Mangano and M.H. Seymour. We acknowledge A. Kharchilava and R. Hemingway for useful discussions and correspondance. This work was supported by grant number DE-FG02-91ER40685 from the U.S. Department of Energy.

References


text:
# Gravitational waves, baryogenesis, and dark matter from primordial black holes.

## I Introduction

After the pioneering papers  several possible mechanisms of primordial black hole production were described in the literature, for a review see e.g. the book . Normally such black holes are sufficiently light so that they evaporated by the Hawking mechanism  leaving behind relativistic products of evaporation that subsequently thermalized with the primeval plasma. The ultimate fate of these evaporating black holes is unknown, the calculations are made in quasiclassical approximation when effects of quantum gravity are not essential. The latter must come into play when the mass of black holes drops down to the Planck magnitude, $`M_{BH}=m_{Pl}=1.22\times 10^{19}`$ GeV. Our present knowledge does not permit to conclude whether the evaporation stops at $`M_{BH}m_{Pl}`$ and a stable remnant would survive or black hole would disappear completely decaying into usual elementary particles. The resolution of this problem depends upon the ultraviolet behaviour of quantum gravity and if the latter is asymptotically free the hypothesis of stable remnants of evaporation with the Planck mass looks quite probable. We will assume that it is true throughout this paper.

We will consider here the following scenario. Primordial black holes have been produced in the early universe by one or other mechanism which we do not specify. Their life-time with respect to evaporation is assumed to be sufficiently long so that the universe became dominated by the gas of non-relativistic black holes prior to their decays. After black hole evaporation a new relativistic epoch is created by the thermalized products of the evaporation. Baryon asymmetry of the universe can be created at this stage through the mechanism outlined by Hawking  and Zeldovich . The Planck mass remnants of the evaporation survive to the present day and form the cold dark matter of the universe. Gravitons emitted by the black holes did not thermalize and at the present time create a high frequency gravitational radiation with a rather large cosmological energy density. Collisions of the Planck mass mini-black-holes may create a black holes with a masse higher then a stable remnant. This leads to the evaporation and may produce rare events of high energy cosmic rays.

## II Thermal history of the universe early dominated by primordial black holes.

At the end of inflation the universe became radiation dominated by mostly light products of the inflaton decay. However some fraction of matter could form primordial black holes -. Let us denote this initial fraction as $`ϵ_i=\rho _{BH}/\rho _{tot}`$. For simplicyty we suppose that all primordial black holes have the same mass $`M_{BH}`$. The relative role of non-relativistic black hole matter was increasing in the course of expansion and when the scale factor rose by $`1/ϵ_{BH}`$ black holes became the dominant cosmological matter. This should happen before their evaporation so the relative initial mass fraction of black holes must satisfy the condition:

$`ϵ_i>\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{t_i}{\tau }}}0.03\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{Pl}}{M_{BH}}}\right)^{3/2}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{Pl}}{T_i}}`$ (1)
where $`T_i`$ is the initial plasma temperature after the end of inflation and $`t_i`$ is the “initial” time related to the initial energy density through

$`\rho _i={\displaystyle \frac{3}{32\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{Pl}^2}{t_i^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{30}}g_{}T_i^4`$ (2)
The factor $`g_{}100`$ is the number particle species in thermalized plasma. The black hole life time, $`\tau `$, is given by the expression :

$`\tau 3\times 10^3N_{eff}^1M_{BH}^3m_{Pl}^4`$ (3)
where $`N_{eff}100`$ is the effective number of particle species with masses smaller than the black hole temperature

$`T_{BH}={\displaystyle \frac{m_{Pl}^2}{8\pi M_{BH}}}`$ (4)
As we have found below $`M_{BH}10^{11}m_{Pl}`$. Since normally $`ϵ_i`$ should be much smaller than unity, the validity of the condition (1) implies that the (re)heating temperature after inflation should be sufficiently high, $`T_i10^{18}m_{Pl}`$. This is rather a mild condition.

As we mention above we assume that the mass distribution of black holes is strongly peaked near some mass value $`M_{BH}=M_0`$ to be determined in what follows. In particular the model of an early black hole formation suggested in ref.  predicts the log-normal mass distribution, $`dN/dM\mathrm{exp}(\gamma \mathrm{log}^2M/M_0)`$, that may be a justification of the above assumption. We will also adopt the instant decay approximation for the black hole evaporation. According to that, all black holes decayed instantly at the same time $`t=\tau `$ and this led to an instant change of the matter dominated expansion to the relativistic one. The cosmological energy density at that time was

$`\rho _d={\displaystyle \frac{m_{Pl}^2}{6\pi \tau ^2}}=6\times 10^5\left({\displaystyle \frac{N_{eff}}{100}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_{Pl}^{10}}{M_{BH}^6}}`$ (5)
The number density of the black holes can be found from assumption that all or predominant part of dark matter in the universe consists of the Planck mass mini-black holes that are the remnants of the evaporation of their large parents that took place at $`t=\tau `$. It means in particular that the comoving number density of the parent black holes at the moment of their evaporation is equal to the comoving number density of their Planck mass remnants at the present time. The latter is equal to:

$`n_{BH}^{(0)}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{DM}}{m_{Pl}}}=10^{25}\mathrm{cm}^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{DM}}{0.3}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{h}{0.65}}\right)^2`$ (6)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{DM}=\rho _{DM}/\rho _c`$ is the relative mass fraction of the dark matter now and $`h=H/100\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{sec}/\mathrm{Mpc}`$.

We can estimate the characteristic mass that black holes should have in order to satisfy the conditions considered above from the following considerations. The number density of the black holes at the moment of their decay is given by

$`n_{BH}^{(d)}=(z_d+1)^3n_{BH}^{(0)}`$ (7)
where $`z_d=a_0/a_d`$ is the red-shift at the moment of the decay and $`a`$ is the cosmological scale factor. The cosmological energy density at the moment of the decay is given by eq. (5) on one hand side and by the evident expression

$`\rho _d=M_{BH}n_{BH}^{(d)},`$ (8)
on the other. For the first approximate estimate we assume that the energy density of relativistic matter decrease as $`1/a^4`$. This is true if no entropy is released in the plasma (e.g. by annihilation of massive particles). In this case $`\rho _d/\rho _0=(z_d+1)^4`$, where $`\rho _0=0.44\mathrm{eV}/\mathrm{cm}^3`$ is the energy density of relativistic matter now (photons plus three neutrino species). From this approximate relation and equations (7,8) follows

$`M_{BH}n_{BH}^{(0)}=\rho _d^{1/4}\rho _0^{3/4}`$ (9)
and after a simple algebra we obtain

$`M_{BH}=7.6\times 10^{10}m_{Pl}\left({\displaystyle \frac{N_{eff}}{100}}\right)^{1/5}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{DM}}{0.3}}\right)^{2/5}\left({\displaystyle \frac{h}{0.65}}\right)^{4/5}`$ (10)
A more accurate result for $`M_{BH}`$ can be obtained if entropy release is taken into account. Assuming that the thermalization of the evaporation products is fast on the cosmological time scale we can obtain the plasma temperature immediately after the black hole decays from the equality:

$`\rho _d={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{30}}g_{}^{(d)}T_d^4`$ (11)
where $`g_{}^{(d)}100`$ is the number of relativistic degrees of freedom in the cosmic plasma at $`T=T_d`$ and $`\rho _d`$ is given by eq. (5). For the case of adiabatic expansion (which is true if there are no strong first order phase transitions) the entropy in coming volume is conserved, so that

$`g_{}a^3T^3=const`$ (12)
This condition is fulfilled if the species are in thermal equilibrium and if chemical potentials are vanishingly small (see e.g. the book ). Thus we may expect that down to temperatures of the order of a few MeV when neutrinos, electron/positrons, and photons were in thermal equilibrium, the red-shift and temperature evolution satisfy the relation:

$`g_{}^{(d)}T_d^3a_d^3=g_{}^{(W)}T_W^3a_W^3`$ (13)
where $`g_{}^{(W)}=10.75`$ is the number of species at $`TT_W(\mathrm{a}\mathrm{few}\mathrm{MeV})`$. Below $`T_W`$ neutrinos drop out of thermal contact with the rest of the plasma and their temperature evolves simply as $`T_\nu 1/a`$. Thus the red-shift corresponding to the decay of the black holes is given by

$`z_d+1\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_0}{a_d}}\right)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_{}^{(d)}}{g_{}^{(W)}}}\right)^{1/3}{\displaystyle \frac{T_d}{T_\nu ^{(0)}}}`$ (14)
where $`T_\nu ^{(0)}`$ is the present day temperature of the cosmic neutrino background; in the standard cosmological model it is $`T_\nu ^{(0)}=(4/11)^{1/3}T_\gamma ^{(0)}=1.9\mathrm{K}=1.66\times 10^4`$ eV.

Using the presented above expressions we obtain for the mass of the black holes

$`M_{BH}=5.7\times 10^{10}m_{Pl}\left({\displaystyle \frac{100}{g_{}^{(d)}}}\right)^{1/10}\left({\displaystyle \frac{N_{eff}}{100}}\right)^{1/5}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{DM}}{0.3}}\right)^{2/5}\left({\displaystyle \frac{h}{0.65}}\right)^{4/5}`$ (15)
The temperature of plasma after the products of the evaporation were thermalized can be found from eq. (5,11), $`T_d30`$ GeV, while the black hole temperature according to eq. (4) is

$`T_{BH}=8.4\times 10^6\mathrm{GeV}`$ (16)
## III Thermalization and gravitational radiation.

All particles with the mass smaller than $`3T_{BH}`$ are efficiently produced in the process of evaporation. Their initial spectrum was thermal on the horizon but in the process of their propagation in the gravitational field of the parent black hole the spectrum was somewhat distorted. This distortion was calculated in ref.  but in our approximate estimates we neglect this distortion. Since the black hole temperature is inversely proportional to $`M_{BH}`$ the evaporation has an explosive character and one may assume that all black holes disappeared instantly at $`t=\tau `$. The average number density of the produced particles was

$`n_{part}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{BH}}{3T_{BH}}}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{BH}}{\tau ^2}}`$ (17)
The rate of thermalization is equal to

$`\dot{n}_{part}/n_{part}=\sigma n_{part}N_{eff}`$ (18)
where $`\sigma `$ is the the particle interaction cross-section; it is typically equal to $`\sigma \alpha ^2/E^2\alpha ^2/T_{BH}^2`$ and $`\alpha `$ is the characteristic value of the coupling constant. At high temperatures or energies given by eq. (4) its value is about 1/50, approximately twice bigger than at low energies due to logarithmic renormalization.

Thermal equilibrium is established when this rate is larger than the universe expansion rate given by the running value of the Hubble parameter. To the moment of the decay of the black holes the latter is approximately equal to the inverse life-time of the black holes, $`H1/\tau `$. The condition of equilibrium at $`t=\tau `$ reads:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2^8\times 10^4\pi ^2\alpha ^2}{3^3\times 10^3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{N_{eff}}{100}}\right)^2>1`$ (19)
However for $`\alpha =0.02`$ and $`N_{eff}=100`$ the l.h.s. of this inequality is only 0.37, so the equilibrium is not immediately established. However it would be established a little later at $`t>\tau `$. This would not lead to any significant change of the results presented in the previous section.

Of all the particles produced by the evaporation gravitons were definitely not thermalized. Their interaction with the cosmic plasma is too weak so that they would arrive to our time undisturbed and only red-shifted. Initially gravitons carry about 1% of the total evaporated energy and to the present day this fraction decreases approximately by factor 3 due to entropy release. Thus at the present time the energy density of gravitons is about 0.1 eV/cm3 and their average energy is $`3T_{BH}/(z_d+1)10^2`$ eV or the frequency (a few)$`\times 10^{16}`$ Hz. Unfortunately this frequency range is far outside the sensitivity of the existing and proposed detectors of gravitational radiation.

## IV  Baryon asymmetry.

The reheating temperature after black hole evaporation is quite low, about 30 GeV, (see the end of sec. 1) and generation of cosmological baryon asymmetry could meet some difficulties. There are two possible ways out. Baryon asymmetry might be generated prior thermalization of the plasma when the particle energies were quite high, of the order of black hole temperature. Another, and more attractive for the considered model, way is to generate baryon asymmetry in the process of evaporation itself. The possibility that black hole evaporation could create an excess of baryon over anti-baryons was noticed in refs.  and detailed calculations were done in papers . The idea was criticised in ref.  because the black hole evaporation produces a thermal equilibrium state and in thermal equilibrium no asymmetry between particles and anti-particles can be developed. This is indeed true for particle emission at the black hole horizon, however after that they interact between themselves and with the gravitational field of the parent black hole. These interactions cold permit to develops a considerable asymmetry. A concrete model discussed in refs.  was the following. A heavy unstable neutral particle $`\chi `$, emitted at the black hole horizon, decayed in the gravitational field of the black hole into two channels:

$`\chi B_1\overline{B}_2,B_2\overline{B}_1,`$ (20)
where $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$ are some particles with an equal and non-zero baryonic charges and with different masses. For example the particle $`\chi `$ could be a neutralino decaying into a heavy squark, $`B_1`$ and a much lighter quark, $`B_2`$. Due to C and CP breaking the probability of these two decay channels could be different, so for example, more quarks are produced by the decay than anti-quarks. The probability of the inverse capture of the produced particles by the parent black hole is larger for heavier particles. Thus more squarks and anti-squarks are back-captured by the black hole. As a result a non-zero flux of baryonic charge into external space would be created.

It is worth noting that the underlying microscopic theory may conserve baryonic charge. An effective non-conservation of baryons are induced by the interaction with disappearing black holes. In this model anti-baryons are accumulated inside evaporating black hole that disappears into nothing or, as we assume here, into astrophysically light Planck mass remnants with a gigantic anti-baryonic charge. Thus according to the discussed here scenario of baryogenesis, the universe has net zero baryonic charge but it is carried by different particles: baryonic charge is carried by the usual baryonic matter, protons and neutrons, while anti-baryonic charge is concealed inside the Planck mass mini-black holes. It is similar to distribution of electric charge: positive charge is carried by protons, negative charge is carried by electrons and the total electric charge of the universe is identically zero. However in contrast to the baryon asymmetry, no electric asymmetry can be generated by the described here mechanism because there is the long range electromagnetic interaction associated with electric charge, so that black holes have electric hairs, while we believe that baryonic hairs are absent. The upper limit on the possible long-range forces induced by baryonic charge has been found from the validity of equivalence principle in ref.  (for a recent review see ): $`\alpha _B<10^{46}`$, to be compared with the coupling strength of electromagnetic interaction, $`\alpha _{em}=1/137`$.

Rather lengthy calculations of ref.  give the following result for the cosmological baryon asymmetry (entropy per baryon)

$`\beta 0.1N_{eff}^{1/4}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{BH}}{\rho _{tot}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\chi }{m_\chi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{Pl}}{M_{BH}}}\right)^{1/2}`$ (21)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\chi =\mathrm{\Gamma }_\chi (\chi B_1\overline{B}_2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\chi (\chi B_2\overline{B}_1)`$ is the difference between the widths of the two charge conjugated decay channels. Since the effects of C and CP violation can be observable only if the re-scattering of the decay products is taken into account, the difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\chi `$ is non-vanishing only in the second order in the coupling constant, that in the considered energy range is about 1/50. Thus, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\chi m_\chi \alpha ^24\times 10^4`$. This result would be somewhat larger if several decay channels of this kind are open. Since the black holes dominated the cosmological energy density at the moment of their evaporation, the ratio $`\rho _{BH}/\rho _{tot}`$ is close to unity and we obtain $`\beta 10^{10}`$. This is very close to the observed value.

## V Conclusion

We have examined how relatively small PBHs could create cosmologically interesting cold dark matter, baryon asymmetry, and the entropy of the Universe. The crucial assumption for creation of the cosmological dark matter is connected with the the final stage of the PBHs evaporation when the black hole masses reach the Planck limit $`M_{BH}m_{Pl}`$. It is assumed usually that the evaporation does not stop at $`M_{BH}m_{Pl}`$ so that the black hole disappears completely due to the Hawking process, though strongly modified by quantum gravity effects. However the physical reason for such extrapolation of the quasiclassical Hawking’s analysis is unclear and it is possible that the evaporation switches off at the Planck scale. We cannot prove that this conjecture is true but it is very attractive and has at least the same right to exist as the assumption of the complete disappearance of evaporating black holes. To resolve the problem one has to understand the ultraviolet behaviour of quantum gravity.

We have shown that the products of the evaporation of light black holes with $`M_{BH}10^6`$ g could have generated the 3 K background radiation in initially warm or cold Universe after inflation. This idea is not new, but a new point is a possible cold dark matter formation by this mechanism. We have predicted the spectrum and characteristic energy of a new possible relic of the entropy epoch formation, namely, the energetic gravitons from PBHs evaporation with $`E100`$ eV. An observation of such gravitons would be a critical test of our hypothesis. Some argument in favour of the presented model is that the baryon asymmetry of the universe that could be created by evaporating PBHs, even if baryonic charge is strictly conserved, is of the right magnitude.

## Acknowledgement

A. Dolgov is grateful to the Theory Division of CERN for the hospitality during the period when this work was completed.

This investigation was supported in part by a grant RFBR 17625, by a grant INTAS 97-1192, by the Danish Natural Science Research Council through grant No 9701841 and by Danmarks Grundforskningsfond through its support for the establishment of the Theoretical Astrophysics Center.