text:
# UNITARITY AND INTERFERING RESONANCES IN 𝜋𝜋 SCATTERING AND IN PION PRODUCTION 𝜋𝑁→𝜋𝜋𝑁.

## I Introduction

In 1930’s, Breit and Wigner introduced a parametrization of resonances observed in the energy dependence of integrated and differential cross-sections of nuclear reactions. The original Breit-Wigner formula was only a one-resonance approximation and its justification was initially only phenomenological. A theoretical justification for Breit-Wigner formula later emerged from quantum collision theory. The evident existence of multiple and overlapping resonances in nuclear reactions led to two distinct generalizations of the Breit-Wigner formula for an isolated resonance to multiresonance description of the scattering process.

One generalization was undertaken by Feshbach, Humblet and McVoy who used the analyticity properties of the $`S`$-matrix to show that the transition matrix can be written as a coherent sum of Breit-Wigner terms with complex coefficients and a coherent background. Since the transition matrix must satisfy unitarity, the parameters and coefficients of this multiresonance parametrization are not independent. In principle it is possible to use the methods of nonlinear programming and constrained optimization with computer programs such as MINOS developed at Stanford University to impose the conditions of unitarity in fitting the experimental data.

Another approach to multiresonance description of scattering process was proposed by Hu in 1948. He observed that the Breit-Wigner contribution of an isolated resonance to the $`S`$-matrix is unitary and proposed to describe the multiresonance contributions in the $`S`$-matrix by the product of isolated Breit-Wigner contributions for each resonance. Since each term is unitary, the product also satisfies unitarity. The partial wave phase shift is then a sum of Breit-Wigner phases of contributing resonances and a background phase. As a result, the expressions for partial wave amplitudes involve products of Breit-Wigner amplitudes. This method has been recently used by Bugg et al and by Ishida et al in their analyses of $`\pi \pi `$ phase shift data.

Up to now the connection between these two descriptions of multiresonance contributions (interfering resonances) has not been clarified. In this work we show that the Hu description is a special case of a more general description based on analyticity. We show that the Hu method also leads to a coherent sum of Breit-Wigner amplitudes with complex coefficients and a complex coherent background for any partial wave as expected from the analyticity of the $`S`$-matrix. However, the complex coefficients have a very specific form in terms of resonance parameters of all contributing resonances. The assumption of additivity of Breit-Wigner phases is a new constraint that restricts the partial waves to analytical functions with these specific residues of Breit-Wigner poles. Furthermore we show that the additivity of Breit-Wigner phases is an assumption entirely independent of the unitarity property of partial wave amplitudes which is a condition imposed on their inelasticity.

Since there is no physical reason why the physical partial waves must have the form of a coherent sum of Breit-Wigner amplitudes with the specific complex coefficients required by the additivity of Breit-Wigner phases, we conclude that the general form imposed by the analyticity is more appropriate for fits to data to determine resonance parameters. This conclusion is particularly relevent for analysis of interfering resonances in the mass spectra in production processes such as $`\pi N\pi \pi N`$ or $`pp\pi \pi pp`$. Using analyticity in the invariant mass variables we justify the common practice of parametrizing the production amplitudes in terms of a coherent sum Breit-Wigner amplitudes with free complex coefficients and a complex coherent background.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section II we briefly review the unitarity and the problem of interfering resonances in potential scattering since it motivates the analysis in hadronic reactions. In Section III we review the two-body partial wave unitarity in $`\pi \pi `$ scattering and its relation to the general form of isospin partial waves. In Section IV, we introduce the assumption of additivity of Breit-Wigner phases in the $`\pi \pi `$ scattering and show that it leads to partial waves in a form of a coherent sum of Breit-Wigner amplitudes with specific complex coefficients and a coherent background. In Section V we generalize dispersion relations for partial wave amplitudes in $`\pi \pi `$ scattering to Breit-Wigner poles and show that the form obtained from the additivity of Breit-Wigner phases is a special case. In Section VI we focus the discussion of the two methods to a finite energy interval and argue that the addition of Breit-Wigner phases imposes an unjustified constraint on fits to data. In Section VII we formulate unitarity for production amplitudes in $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^{}\pi ^+n`$ reaction and contrast it with partial wave unitarity in $`\pi \pi `$ scattering. In Section VIII we show that the method of addition of Breit-Wigner phases can be generalized to production amplitudes. We also use analyticity in the invariant mass to obtain a more general form for production amplitudes in terms of a coherent sum of Breit-Wigner amplitudes with free complex coefficients (pole residues) and a complex coherent background. We argue that this general form is more appropriate in fits to measured mass spectra. Although the discussion is confined to pion production amplitudes in $`\pi N\pi \pi N`$, the conclusions have general validity. We also comment on determination of $`\pi \pi `$ partial wave amplitudes from resonance parameters determined in measurements of production amplitudes in $`\pi N\pi \pi N`$ reactions. The paper closes with a summary in Section IX.

## II Unitarity and interfering resonances in potential scattering.

### A Unitarity

We will consider the scattering of a spinless particle of mass $`m`$ by a real, central potential $`V(r)`$. In the asymptotic form of the stationary scattering wave function, the outgoing wave is characterized by the scattering amplitude $`f(k,\theta )`$ where $`k`$ is the wave number of the particle related to its energy by

$$E=\frac{p^2}{2m}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2k^2}{2m}$$
(1)
and $`\theta `$ is the scattering angle. In the units $`\mathrm{}=1`$ the wave number $`k`$ has the meaning of momentum $`p`$. The scattering amplitude can be written in the form

$$f(k,\theta )=\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(2\mathrm{}+1)T_{\mathrm{}}(k)P_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )$$
(2)
The partial wave amplitudes $`T_{\mathrm{}}`$ are given by

$$T_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{1}{2ik}[S_{\mathrm{}}(k)1]$$
(3)
where $`S_{\mathrm{}}(k)`$ is called $`S`$-matrix. For elastic scattering

$$S_{\mathrm{}}=e^{2i\delta _{\mathrm{}}(k)}$$
(4)
where the phase-shifts $`\delta _{\mathrm{}}`$ describe the interaction and are related to the potential $`V(r)`$. For elastic scattering $`|S_{\mathrm{}}|=1`$ which is the condition of elastic unitarity.

When a particle collides with a target, non-elastic processes are possible and particles are removed from the incident (elastic) channel. Since the interaction can alter only the outgoing part of the wave function, we require that the amplitude of the outgoing wave be reduced if non-elastic processes occur. The reduction of scattering amplitudes leads to conditions of inelastic unitarity

$$|S_{\mathrm{}}|1$$
(5)
This suggests that we write

$$S_{\mathrm{}}=\eta _{\mathrm{}}(k)e^{2i\delta _{\mathrm{}}(k)}$$
(6)
where $`\eta _{\mathrm{}}`$ is called inelasticity and has values

$$0<\eta _{\mathrm{}}1$$
(7)
The partial wave then has a general form

$$T_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{1}{2ik}[\eta _{\mathrm{}}e^{2i\delta _{\mathrm{}}}1]$$
(8)
¿From (2.8) it follows that

$$ImT_{\mathrm{}}=k|T_{\mathrm{}}|^2+\frac{1}{4k}(1\eta _{\mathrm{}}^2)$$
(9)
This equation expresses the unitarity condition on the partial waves $`T_{\mathrm{}}`$.

### B Interfering Resonances.

In the following we will work with partial wave amplitudes

$$t_{\mathrm{}}=kT_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{1}{2i}[\eta _{\mathrm{}}e^{2i\delta _{\mathrm{}}}1]$$
(10)
and the energy $`E`$ instead of $`k`$. A detailed study of the potential scattering shows that the phase shift may be decomposed as $`\delta _{\mathrm{}}=\xi _{\mathrm{}}+\rho _{\mathrm{}}`$ where $`\xi _{\mathrm{}}`$ is the background phase which does not depend on the shape and depth of the interaction potential $`V(r)`$ while the part $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}`$ does depend on the details of the potential. Near resonant energy $`E_r`$

$$\mathrm{tan}\rho _{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)}{2(E_rE)}$$
(11)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)`$ is the width of the resonance. We introduce a Breit-Wigner resonance phase $`\delta _{\mathrm{}}^r`$

$$\delta _{\mathrm{}}^r=\mathrm{tan}^1\{\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)}{2(E_rE)}\}=\mathrm{arg}[E_rE+i\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)]$$
(12)
such that in the energy interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ centered about $`E_r`$ we have $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}\delta _{\mathrm{}}^r`$ and

$$\delta _{\mathrm{}}\xi _{\mathrm{}}+\delta _{\mathrm{}}^r$$
(13)
From (2.12) it follows that

$$e^{2i\delta _{\mathrm{}}^r}=\frac{EE_r\frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Gamma }}{EE_r+\frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Gamma }}=1+2ia_{\mathrm{}}$$
(14)
where

$$a_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }}{EE_r+\frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Gamma }}$$
(15)
is the Breit-Wigner amplitude of the resonance $`r`$. For an isolated resonance we then obtain

$$t_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{1}{2i}(\eta _{\mathrm{}}e^{2i\xi _{\mathrm{}}}1)+\eta _{\mathrm{}}e^{2i\xi _{\mathrm{}}}(\frac{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }}{EE_r+\frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Gamma }})$$
(16)
If $`N`$ resonances contribute over an interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ then, following Hu and references, we can write

$$e^{2i\delta _{\mathrm{}}^r}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{EE_r^{(n)}\frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}}{EE_r^{(n)}+\frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}(1+2ia_{\mathrm{}}^{(n)})$$
(17)
The prescription (2.17) clearly satisfies unitarity but seems to lead to a complicated expression for partial waves $`t_{\mathrm{}}`$ in terms of Breit-Wigner amplitudes $`a_{\mathrm{}}^{(n)}`$.

On the other hand, analyticity of $`S`$-matrix was used by Feshbach, Humblet and McVoy to derive a general form for $`t_{\mathrm{}}`$

$$t_{\mathrm{}}=B_{\mathrm{}}(E)+\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{A_{\mathrm{}}^{(n)}(E)}{EE_r^{(n)}+\frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}(E)}$$
(18)
where $`B_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a background term and $`A_{\mathrm{}}^{(n)}(E)`$ are complex coefficients. The sum in (2.18) can be written as a coherent sum of Breit-Wigner amplitudes

$$t_{\mathrm{}}(E)=B_{\mathrm{}}(E)+\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}R_{\mathrm{}}^{(n)}(E)\frac{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}(E)}{EE_r^{(n)}+\frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}(E)}$$
(19)
In Section IV we show that the prescription (2.17) leads to the analytical form (2.19) with specific expressions for the coefficients $`R_{\mathrm{}}^{(n)}`$ and the background $`B_{\mathrm{}}`$.

## III Isospin amplitudes and unitarity in $`\pi \pi \pi \pi `$ scattering.

Hadron resonances have definite values of spin and isospin. It is therefore necessary to express the amplitudes for charged pion processes $`\pi \pi \pi \pi `$ in terms of isospin amplitudes $`T^I(E,\theta )`$ with definite isospin $`I=0,1,2`$ and work with partial wave amplitudes $`T_{\mathrm{}}^I(E)`$. At first we will work with the center-of-mass energy $`E=\sqrt{s}`$ to pursue the analogy with the potential scattering.

The partial wave amplitudes $`T_{\mathrm{}}^I`$ satisfy partial wave unitarity equations

$$ImT_{\mathrm{}}^I=q|T_{\mathrm{}}^I|^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}^I$$
(20)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}^I`$ are the contributions from inelastic channels, such as $`\pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi `$, $`K\overline{K}`$, $`N\overline{N}`$, and $`q=\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}(s4\mu ^2)}`$ is c.m. momentum where $`\mu `$ is the pion mass.. Let us write $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}^I`$ in the form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}^I=\frac{1}{4q}(1(\eta _{\mathrm{}}^I)^2)$$
(21)
Then the unitarity equation (3.1) has the same form as (2.9) and the partial waves $`T_{\mathrm{}}^I`$ can be written as

$$T_{\mathrm{}}^I=\frac{1}{2iq}\{\eta _{\mathrm{}}^Ie^{2i\delta _{\mathrm{}}^I}1\}$$
(22)
where the $`\delta _{\mathrm{}}^I(E)`$ are phase shifts and the inelasticity

$$\eta _{\mathrm{}}^I(E)=\sqrt{14q\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}^I(E)}$$
(23)
is given by the inelastic unitarity contributions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}^I`$. In analogy with potential scattering we expect that $`0<\eta _{\mathrm{}}^I1`$. As we shall see later, the descriptions of interfering resonances in $`\pi \pi `$ scattering do not depend on the condition that $`\eta _{\mathrm{}}^I1`$.

The positivity of inelasticity $`\eta _{\mathrm{}}^I`$ in (3.4) imposes a constraint

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}^I\frac{1}{4q}$$
(24)
We can now show that the unitarity equation (3.1) admits no solution for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}^I>1/4q`$. If the inelastic unitarity contributions satisfy this condition we can write

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}^I=\frac{1}{4q}(1+(\eta _{\mathrm{}}^I)^2)$$
(25)
where $`(\eta _{\mathrm{}}^I)^2>0`$. Setting $`T_{\mathrm{}}^I=V_{\mathrm{}}^I/2q`$ we get from the unitarity equation (3.1)

$$(ReV_{\mathrm{}}^I)^2+(ImV_{\mathrm{}}^I1)^2=(\eta _{\mathrm{}}^I)^2$$
(26)
which is not possible. Thus the conditions (3.5) represent genuine constraints on the inelastic unitarity contributions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}^I`$ and the parameterization (3.3) of partial wave amplitudes with (3.4) is the most general solution of the unitarity equation (3.1) for all $`E`$.

Since the values of inelastic terms $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}^I`$ in the partial wave unitarity equations (3.1) are not known, we constrain the partial waves $`T_{\mathrm{}}^I`$ by inequalities imposed by the unitarity. From the positivity of $`\eta _{\mathrm{}}^I`$ and the condition (3.5) we obtain

$$ImT_{\mathrm{}}^Iq|T_{\mathrm{}}^I|^2+\frac{1}{4q}$$
(27)
If we add the requirement that $`\eta _{\mathrm{}}^I1`$, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}^I0`$ from (3.2), and we also have the usual unitarity constraint

$$ImT_{\mathrm{}}^Iq|T_{\mathrm{}}^I|^2$$
(28)
The inequality (3.9) implies positivity

$$ImT_{\mathrm{}}^I0$$
(29)
at all energies.

Finally we note the following observation. Let $`f(z)`$ be any complex function. Then $`1+2if(z)`$ is a complex function that can be written as

$$1+2if(z)=\eta (z)e^{2i\delta (z)}$$
(30)
where $`\eta >0`$ and $`\delta `$ is real. Thus any complex function can be written in the form

$$f(z)=\frac{1}{2i}(\eta e^{2i\delta }1)$$
(31)
and satisfies the equation

$$Imf=|f|^2+\frac{1}{4}(1\eta ^2)$$
(32)
We see that the unitarity equations (3.1) are a special case of (3.13) with $`\eta `$ given by (3.4).

## IV Interfering resonances in $`\pi \pi `$ scattering using the addition of Breit-Wigner phases.

The general form of phase shift parametrization of partial wave amplitudes $`T_{\mathrm{}}^I`$ is

$$T_{\mathrm{}}^I=\frac{1}{2iq}[\eta _{\mathrm{}}^Ie^{2i\delta _{\mathrm{}}^I}1]$$
(33)
with inelasticity $`\eta _{\mathrm{}}^I`$ determined by unitarity via (3.4). In the following we will omit the indices $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`I`$ for simplicity. In analogy with potential scattering, we decompose the phase shifts $`\delta `$ into two parts

$$\delta =\xi +\delta ^r$$
(34)
where $`\xi `$ is the nonresonant background phase and $`\delta ^r`$ is the phase due to physical particle resonances occurring in the partial wave $`T_{\mathrm{}}^I`$. The phase of a single isolated resonance is given by the Breit-Wigner formula

$$e^{2i\delta ^r}=\frac{EE_r\frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)}{EE_r+\frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)}$$
(35)
Let us consider that $`N`$ resonances contribute to the partial wave amplitude $`T_{\mathrm{}}^I`$. Following ref. \[12–14\] we now assume, that the resonant phase shift $`\delta ^r`$ is given by the sum of the Breit-Wigner phases of the contributing resonances

$$\delta ^r=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\delta _n^r$$
(36)
We assume that $`N`$ is finite. Then

$$e^{2i\delta ^r}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}e^{2i\delta _n^r}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{EE_n\frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}{EE_n+\frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}$$
(37)
We can write for each Breit-Wigner phase

$$e^{2i\delta _n^r}=1+2ia_n$$
(38)
where $`a_n`$ is the Breit-Wigner amplitude

$$a_n=\frac{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}{EE_n+\frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}$$
(39)
Then we can write

$$e^{2i\delta ^r}=1+2iT_{res}$$
(40)
where $`T_{res}`$ is given in terms of products of Breit-Wigner amplitudes $`a_n`$ The partial wave amplitude $`T_{\mathrm{}}^I`$ then has a general form

$$T=\frac{1}{2iq}(\eta e^{2i\xi }1)+\frac{1}{q}e^{2i\xi }\eta T_{res}$$
(41)
Let us consider the case $`N=2`$. Then the resonant part of the amplitude $`T_{\mathrm{}}^I`$ is

$$T_{res}=a_1+a_2+2ia_1a_2$$
(42)
where the interference term

$$a_1a_2=\frac{(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_1)(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)}{(EE_1+\frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Gamma }_1)(EE_2+\frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)}$$
(43)
With a notation

$$z_k=E_k\frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Gamma }_k$$
(44)
we write

$$\frac{1}{(Ez_1)(Ez_2)}=[\frac{A}{Ez_1}+\frac{B}{Ez_2}]\frac{1}{C}$$
(45)
The requirement that this equality holds leads to relation

$$(A+B)E(Az_2+Bz_1)=C$$
(46)
Next we require that $`A=B`$ to eliminate the $`E`$ dependent term, and get $`C=A(z_1z_2)`$. Then (4.13) has the form of a sum

$$\frac{1}{(Ez_1)(Ez_2)}=\frac{1}{z_1z_2}[\frac{1}{Ez_1}\frac{1}{Ez_2}]$$
(47)
and we can write the resonant part (4.10) of the partial wave amplitude as the sum of two Breit-Wigner amplitudes

$$T_{res}=C_1^{(2)}\frac{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}{EE_1+\frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}+C_2^{(2)}\frac{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}{EE_2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}$$
(48)
where the complex coefficients

$$C_1^{(2)}=12i\frac{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}{z_1z_2}$$
(49)
$`C_2^{(2)}=1+2i{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}{z_1z_2}}`$

are exactly such that the unitarity condition

$$|e^{2i\delta ^r}|=|1+2iT_{res}|=1$$
(50)
is satisfied for all $`E`$. The energy dependence of the widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(E)`$ introduces energy dependence in $`C_n(E),n=1,2`$.

Consider now the case of three interfering resonances $`N=3`$. Then

$$T_{res}=a_1+a_2+a_3+2i(a_1a_2+a_1a_3+a_2a_3)+(2i)^2a_1a_2a_3$$
(51)
We can write the last term as a sum

$$\frac{1}{(Ez_1)(Ez_2)(Ez_3)}=[\frac{A}{Ez_1}+\frac{B}{Ez_2}+\frac{C}{Ez_3}]\frac{1}{D}$$
(52)
Requiring that the terms proportional to $`E^2`$ and $`E`$ in the numerator on r.h.s. of (4.20) vanish, we obtain a sum

$$\frac{K_1}{Ez_1}+\frac{K_2}{Ez_2}+\frac{K_3}{Ez_3}$$
(53)
where

$$K_1=\frac{A}{D}=\frac{z_3z_2}{X}$$
(54)
$`K_2={\displaystyle \frac{B}{D}}={\displaystyle \frac{z_3z_1}{X}}`$

$`K_3={\displaystyle \frac{C}{D}}={\displaystyle \frac{z_1z_2}{X}}`$

with

$$X=z_1z_2(z_1z_2)+z_3z_1(z_3z_1)+z_3z_2(z_3z_2)$$
(55)
The resonant part of the partial wave amplitude is again a coherent sum of the Breit-Wigner terms with complex coefficients

$$T_{res}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{3}{}}C_n^{(3)}\frac{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}{EE_n+\frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}$$
(56)
where

$$C_1^{(3)}=12i\frac{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}{z_1z_2}2i\frac{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_3}{z_1z_3}+(2i)^2(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_3)K_1$$
(57)
$`C_2^{(3)}=1+2i{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}{z_1z_2}}2i{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_3}{z_2z_3}}+(2i)^2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_1)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_3)K_2`$

$`C_3^{(3)}=1+2i{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}{z_1z_3}}+2i{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}{z_2z_3}}+(2i)^2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_1)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)K_3`$

This procedure is general and valid for any finite $`N`$. Assuming that the resonant phase $`\delta ^r`$ can be separated from the phase shift $`\delta `$ and is given by the sum of Breit-Wigner phases, we will always get the resonant part $`T_{res}`$ of the partial wave amplitudes $`T_{\mathrm{}}^I`$ in (4.9) as a sum of Breit-Wigner amplitudes

$$T_{res}(E)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}C_n^{(N)}(E)\frac{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(E)}{EE_n+\frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(E)}$$
(58)
In (4.26) the complex coefficients $`C_n^{(N)}`$ have an explicit form in terms of resonance parameters $`E_n,\mathrm{\Gamma }_n,n=1,\mathrm{},N`$ such that $`T_{res}`$ satisfies the unitary condition (4.18). The form of coefficients $`C_n^{(N)}`$ depends on the number of resonances contributing to the partial wave $`T_{\mathrm{}}^I`$.

As the result of (4.26) we can conclude that the multiresonance parametrization of partial wave amplitudes based on additivity of Breit-Wigner phases has a general form of a coherent sum of Breit-Wigner amplitudes $`a_n`$ with complex coefficients and a complex coherent background

$$T=\frac{1}{q}[B(E)+\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}R_n^{(N)}(E)\frac{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}{EE_n+i\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}]$$
(59)
where

$$B=\frac{1}{2i}[\eta e^{2i\xi }1]$$
(60)
$`R_n^{(N)}=e^{2i\xi }\eta C_n^{(N)}=(1+2iB)C_n^{(N)}`$

Comparing (4.27) with expression (2.19), we see that the description of multiresonance contributions using the addition of Breit-Wigner phases leads to the same form of partial wave amplitudes as the analyticity of the $`S`$-matrix. However, the complex background $`B`$ and the complex coefficients $`R_n^{(N)}`$ in (4.27) have the explicit form (4.28) imposed by the additivity of Breit-Wigner phases.

Note that in the derivation of (4.26) for $`T_{res}`$, and in the resultant form (4.27) with (4.28), we have not needed or used the assumption that inelasticity $`\eta 1`$. The Hu method is based on the unitarity of $`1+2iT_{res}`$ and is not related to the unitarity of the whole partial wave amplitude $`T_{\mathrm{}}^I`$.

Finally we give a relativistic form for the multiresonance description of partial wave amplitudes. The relativistic form of Breit-Wigner amplitudes (4.7) is given by

$$a_n=\frac{m_n\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(s)}{s^2m_n^2+im_n\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(s)}$$
(61)
where we have used $`m_n`$ instead of $`E_n`$ to emphasize that $`E_n`$ is the mass of the resonance. To obtain the corresponding coefficients $`C_n^{(N)}`$, we make replacements in (4.17) or (4.25)

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_nm_n\mathrm{\Gamma }_n$$
(62)
$`z_n=E_n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}i\mathrm{\Gamma }_nz_n=m_n^2im_n\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$

The partial wave amplitudes then have the relativistic form

$$T(s)=\frac{1}{q}[B(s)+\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}R_n^{(N)}(s)a_n(s)]$$
(63)
where $`B`$ and $`R_n^{(N)}`$ are still given by (4.28) with replacements (4.30) to satisfy the unitarity of $`T_{res}`$.

## V Generalized dispersion relations for partial wave amplitudes and interfering resonances in $`\pi \pi `$ scattering.

In this section we shall relate the multiresonance parametrization (4.31) of partial wave amplitudes $`T_{\mathrm{}}^I`$ with a multiresonance parametrization obtained from analyticity. To this end we shall use generalized dispersion relations for the amplitudes

$$t_{\mathrm{}}^I(s)=qT_{\mathrm{}}^I(s)$$
(64)
where $`s`$ is the Mandelstam energy variable.

Our starting point is the well-known dispersion respresentation of a complex function $`f(z)`$ with simple poles at $`z_n,n=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$ in the complex plane $`z`$, a branch cut along a positive real axis from $`\alpha `$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ and with asymptotic property $`|z|f(z)0`$ as $`|z|\mathrm{}`$. We shall also assume that the function $`f(z)`$ is a real function $`f(z^{})=f^{}(z)`$. Using Cauchy’s integral theorem and the process of contour deformation, it can be shown that

$$f(z)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{R_n}{zz_n}+\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{\alpha }{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{Imf(x^{})dx^{}}{x^{}z}$$
(65)
A remarkable feature of the proof of (5.2) is that it takes place for a fixed value of $`z`$. As the result, the dispersion relation (5.2) is also valid for moving poles for which $`z_n=z_n(z)`$. In such a case the residues $`R_n`$ in (5.2) also depend on $`z`$, i.e. $`R_n=R_n(z)`$. Furthermore, the dispersion relation (5.2) is easily generalized to include a left-hand cut and for functions that are not real. In the latter case $`Imf(x^{})`$ in (5.2) is replaced by a discontinuity function along the cut(s).

In $`\pi \pi `$ scattering, the partial wave amplitudes $`t_{\mathrm{}}^I(s)`$ have a right-hand cut for $`s4\mu ^2`$ (where $`\mu `$ is the pion mass), and a left-hand cut for $`s0`$ due to Mandelstam analyticity. Let us assume that the amplitude $`t_{\mathrm{}}^I`$ has a finite number $`N_{\mathrm{}}^I`$ of complex poles

$$s_n=m_n^2im_n\mathrm{\Gamma }(s),n=1,\mathrm{},N_{\mathrm{}}^I$$
(66)
corresponding to the resonances in $`t_{\mathrm{}}^I`$. Note that the imaginary part of the poles depends on the energy variable $`s`$. In principle, the mass $`m_n`$ could also depend on the energy $`s`$. This possibility has been recently considered by Pennington. Omitting the indices $`I`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$, the generalized dispersion relations for the partial wave amplitude $`t_{\mathrm{}}^I`$ read

$$t(s)=I(s)+\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{R_n(s)}{ss_n(s)}$$
(67)
where $`I(s)`$ are the dispersion integrals over the left-hand and right-hand cuts and $`R_n(s)`$ are the pole residues. It is convenient to rewrite (5.4) in a form using Breit-Wigner amplitudes $`a_n(s)`$

$$t(s)=I(s)+\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}R_n(s)a_n(s)$$
(68)
where we have redefined the pole residues with

$$a_n(s)=\frac{m_n\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(s)}{sm_n^2+im_n\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(s)}$$
(69)
The representation (5.5) is valid for all $`s4\mu ^2`$. The representation (5.5) of partial waves $`t_{\mathrm{}}^I`$ coincides with the parametrization (4.31) provided that

$$I(s)B(s)=\frac{1}{2i}[\eta (s)e^{2i\xi (s)}1]$$
(70)
$`R_n(s)R_n^{(N)}(s)=\eta (s)e^{2i\xi (s)}C_n^{(N)}(s)`$

$`=(1+2iB)C_n^{(N)}`$

We see that the multiresonance parameterization based on additivity of Breit-Wigner phases (4.4) imposes a special form on the dispersion integrals and pole residues given by (5.7).

In general, a partial wave $`t_{\mathrm{}}^I`$ can be written in two forms

$$t=\frac{1}{2i}[\eta e^{2i\delta }1]=I+\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}R_na_n$$
(71)
Apart from the partial wave unitarity equations (3.1) and (3.4) and the analyticity assumptions, there are no constraints on the partial waves. The assumption of additivity of Breit-Wigner phases (4.4) is a new constraint that restricts the partial waves to analytical functions that satisfy the conditions (5.7). We find no physical justification for such a restriction and no advantage in using it in phenomenological fits to data to determine resonance parameters.

## VI Interfering resonances in a finite energy interval.

In the previous two sections we have assumed that $`N`$ is the total number of resonances contributing to a partial wave. The parametrizations (4.31) and (5.5) were valid for all energies $`s4\mu ^2`$. In practice $`N`$ is not known and fits to data are done in a finite energy interval. Such is the case e.g. of analyses . In this Section we develop parametrizations of partial waves appropriate for analyses in a finite energy interval where only a few resonances contribute. The parametrizations will be based both on additivity of Breit-Wigner phases and analyticity and we shall compare their use in practical fits to data. The results will be used in the Section VIII.

Let us consider energy interval $`4\mu ^2ss_M`$ where $`M`$ resonances contribute. In the framework of the assumption of additivity of Breit-Wigner phases we will assume that the resonant phases of resonances outside of this energy interval are absorbed in the background phase. The total phase shift then is

$$\delta =\xi ^{(M)}+\delta _M^r$$
(72)
where

$$\delta _M^r=\underset{n=1}{\overset{M}{}}\delta _n^r$$
(73)
$$\xi ^{(M)}=\xi +\underset{n=M+1}{\overset{N}{}}\delta _n^r$$
(74)
The partial wave then takes the form

$$t=\frac{1}{2i}(\eta e^{2i\xi ^{(M)}}1)+\eta e^{2i\xi ^{(M)}}T_{res}^{(M)}$$
(75)
where the resonant part

$$T_{res}^{(M)}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{M}{}}C_n^{(M)}a_n$$
(76)
is unitary

$$e^{2i\delta _M^r}=1+2iT_{res}^{(M)}$$
(77)
Alternatively we can rewrite (4.31) in the form

$$t=B^{(MN)}+\underset{n=1}{\overset{M}{}}R_n^{(N)}a_n$$
(78)
where

$$B^{(MN)}=\frac{1}{2i}(\eta e^{2i\xi }1)+\underset{m=M+1}{\overset{N}{}}R_m^{(N)}a_m$$
(79)
is the background term. Note that the sum in (6.7) is not unitary. We cannot compare the coefficients of Breit-Wigner amplitudes $`a_n,n=1,\mathrm{},M`$ in (6.4) with those in (6.7) since $`\xi ^{(M)}`$ in (6.4) contains the terms $`a_m,m=M+1,\mathrm{},N`$ but the sum in (6.7) does not.

If we look at the general form (5.5) from analyticity, then for $`s<s_M`$ we can write

$$t=B^{(M)}+\underset{n=1}{\overset{M}{}}R_na_n$$
(80)
where the background term

$$B^{(M)}=I+\underset{m=M+1}{\overset{N}{}}R_ma_m$$
(81)
In (6.9) the residues $`R_n`$ are not constrained by the conditions (5.7).

In fitting data using the parametrization (6.4) we explicitly make use of the assumption of additivity of Breit-Wigner phases. This is also the case when we use (6.7) if $`N`$ is known and the coefficients $`C_n^{(N)}`$ in $`R_n^{(N)}`$ can be calculated. In general $`N`$ is not known, and the background $`B^{(MN)}`$ and residues $`R_n^{(N)}`$ are free parameters. Then there is no difference in using (6.7) or the general form (6.9) from analyticity alone, since in (6.9) the background $`B^{(M)}`$ and residues $`R_n`$ are not constrained except for unitarity. In all cases we use constrained optimization of the $`\chi ^2`$ function. In the case of (6.4) we require that inelasticity function $`\eta 1`$. In the case of (6.7) or (6.9) we require that $`Imt|t|^2`$ and use programs such as MINOS for constrained optimization.

It is not obvious that the use of parametrization (6.4) from additivity of Breit-Wigner phases and the parametrization (6.9) from analyticity alone, will lead to the same resonance parameters in both cases. The use of parametrization (6.4) confers no phenomenological or computational advantage over the parametrization (6.9). The assumption of additivity of Breit-Wigner phases restricts the background and the complex coefficients multiplying the Breit-Wigner amplitudes $`a_n,n=1,\mathrm{},M`$ in the parametrization (6.4) to specific forms. Since there is no physical justification for such a restriction and the parametrization (6.9) is free from such constraints, we suggest that the use of parametrization (6.9) is more appropriate in determining resonance parameters in $`\pi \pi `$ scattering.

## VII Unitarity in pion production $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^{}\pi ^+n`$

It is a common misconception to identify the partial wave production amplitudes in reaction $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^{}\pi ^+n`$ with partial waves $`T_{\mathrm{}}^I`$ in $`\pi \pi `$ scattering and demand that the partial wave production amplitudes also satisfy the partial wave unitarity (3.1). In this Section we clarify the distinction between the two kinds of amplitudes and the associated unitarity relations.

The production process $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^{}\pi ^+n`$ is described by production amplitudes

$$T_{\lambda _n,0\lambda _p}(s,t,m^2,\theta ,\varphi )$$
(82)
where $`\lambda _p`$ and $`\lambda _n`$ are proton and neutron helicities, s is the c.m.s. energy squared, t is the momentum transfer between the incident pion and the dipion system $`(\pi ^{}\pi ^+)`$, $`m^2`$ is the dipion mass squared, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=(\theta ,\varphi )`$ is the solid angle of the final $`\pi ^{}`$ pion in the dipion rest frame. The dipion state does not have a definite spin. The production amplitudes (7.1) can be expressed in terms of partial wave production amplitudes $`M_{\lambda ,\lambda _n,0\lambda _p}^J(s,t,m^2)`$ corresponding to definite dimeson spin $`J`$ using the angular expansion

$$T_{\lambda _n,0\lambda _p}=\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{\lambda =J}{\overset{+J}{}}(2J+1)^{1/2}M_{\lambda \lambda _n,0\lambda _p}^J(s,t,m^2)d_{\lambda 0}^J(\theta )e^{i\lambda \varphi }$$
(83)
where $`J`$ is the spin and $`\lambda `$ the helicity of the $`(\pi ^{}\pi ^+)`$ dimeson system.

It is evident from (7.2) that the partial wave production amplitudes $`M_{\lambda ,\lambda _n,0\lambda _p}^J(s,t,m^2)`$ cannot be identified with the $`\pi \pi `$ partial wave amplitudes $`T_J^I(m^2)`$. The amplitudes $`M_{\lambda ,\lambda _n,0\lambda _p}^J(s,t,m^2)`$ can be thought of as two-body helicity amplitudes for a process $`\pi ^{}+pM(J,m)+n`$ where the ”particle” $`M(J,m)`$ has spin J and mass $`m`$.

The production amplitudes $`T_{\lambda _n,0\lambda _p}`$ satisfy the unitarity condition

$$i(T_{\lambda _n,0\lambda _p}T_{0\lambda _p,\lambda _n}^{})=\underset{n}{}T_{0\lambda _p,n}T_{\lambda _n,n}^{}𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }_n$$
(84)
where $`d\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ is the $`n`$-body Lorentz invariant phase space of the intermediate state $`n`$. Since the initial state in $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^{}\pi ^+n`$ is a two-body state and the final state is a three-body state, the amplitude $`T_{\lambda _n,0\lambda _p}`$ enters the unitarity integral only linearly. This occurs only when the intermediate state is $`\pi ^{}p`$ or $`\pi ^{}\pi ^+n`$. However the three-body intermediate state involves a $`33`$ amplitude and a three-body phase space integral. Separating the two-body intermediate states $`\pi ^{}p`$ and $`\pi ^0n`$, we can write (7.3) in the form

$$i(T_{\lambda _n,0\lambda _p}T_{0\lambda _p,\lambda _n}^{})=\underset{\lambda _p^{}}{}T_{0\lambda _p,0\lambda _p^{}}T_{\lambda _n,0\lambda _p^{}}^{}𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }_2+\underset{\lambda _n^{}}{}T_{0\lambda _p,0\lambda _n^{}}T_{\lambda _n,0\lambda _n^{}}^{}𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }_2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\lambda _n,0\lambda _p}$$
(85)
where $`T_{0\lambda _p,0\lambda _p^{}}`$ and $`T_{0\lambda _p,0\lambda _n^{}}`$ are helicity amplitudes of reactions $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^{}p`$ and $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^0n`$, respectively. The amplitude $`T_{\lambda _n,0\lambda _n^{}}^{}`$ corresponds to process $`\pi ^0n\pi ^{}\pi ^+n`$. The inelastic unitarity contribution $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\lambda _n,0\lambda _p}(s,t,m^2,\theta ,\varphi )`$ can be expanded in the form analogous to (7.2)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\lambda _n,0\lambda _p}=\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{\lambda =J}{\overset{+J}{}}(2J+1)^{1/2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\lambda \lambda _n,0\lambda _p}^J(s,t,m^2)d_{\lambda 0}^J(\theta )e^{i\lambda \varphi }$$
(86)
Using expansions (7.2) and (7.5) in (7.4) we get unitarity relations for partial wave production amplitudes

$$i(M_{\lambda \lambda _n,0\lambda _p}^JM_{0\lambda _p,\lambda \lambda _n}^J)=\underset{\lambda _p^{}}{}T_{0\lambda _p,0\lambda _p^{}}M_{\lambda _n,0\lambda _p^{}}^J𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }_2+\underset{\lambda _n^{}}{}T_{0\lambda _p,0\lambda _n^{}}M_{\lambda _n,0\lambda _n^{}}^J𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }_2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\lambda _n,0\lambda _p}^J$$
(87)
Using time-reversal relations for two-body helicity amplitudes

$$M_{0\lambda _p,\lambda \lambda _n}^J=(1)^{\lambda _n\lambda _p\lambda }M_{\lambda \lambda _n,0\lambda _p}^J$$
(88)
we see that the left hand side of the partial wave unitarity relation (7.6) does not simplify to $`2ImM_{\lambda \lambda _n,0\lambda _p}^J`$ as is the case for the partial waves $`T_{\mathrm{}}^I`$ in $`\pi \pi `$ scattering. The right hand side of (7.6) involves $`M_{\lambda \lambda _n,0\lambda _p}^J`$ only linearly and not quadratically as is the case in $`\pi \pi `$ scattering. Futhermore, the right hand side of unitarity relation (7.6) includes (linearly) partial wave production amplitudes for the process $`\pi ^0n\pi ^{}\pi ^+n`$. We conclude that the unitarity relations (7.6) for partial wave production amplitudes $`M_{\lambda \lambda _n,0\lambda _p}^J`$ are complex relations that do not have the simple form

$$ImT_{\mathrm{}}^I=q|T_{\mathrm{}}^I|^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}^I$$
(89)
of the partial wave unitarity relations in $`\pi \pi `$ scattering.

For brevity let us define $`M_\mathrm{\Lambda }^JM_{\lambda \lambda _n,0\lambda _p}^J`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ stands for the helicities. The amplitude $`M_\mathrm{\Lambda }^J`$ is a complex function and so is the function $`1+2iqM_\mathrm{\Lambda }^J`$. In analogy with (3.12) and (3.3) we can write

$$M_\mathrm{\Lambda }^J=\frac{1}{2iq}(\eta _\mathrm{\Lambda }^Je^{2i\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }^J}1)$$
(90)
where $`\eta _\mathrm{\Lambda }^J(s,t,m^2)`$ is the ”inelasticity” and $`\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }^J(s,t,m^2)`$ is the ”phase shift”. The amplitude $`M_\mathrm{\Lambda }^J`$ satisfies relation similar to (3.13)

$$ImM_\mathrm{\Lambda }^J=q|M_\mathrm{\Lambda }^J|^2+\frac{1}{4q}(1(\eta _\mathrm{\Lambda }^J)^2)$$
(91)
Unlike in $`\pi \pi `$ scattering, the form of the equation (7.10) does not coincide with the form of partial wave unitarity (7.6) and the ”inelasticity” $`\eta _\mathrm{\Lambda }^J`$ cannot be related to the inelastic unitarity contributions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^J`$, in contrast to (3.4).

## VIII Interfering resonances in production processes.

The amplitudes describing the production processes such as $`\pi N\pi \pi N`$, $`pp\pi \pi pp`$ or $`p\overline{p}3\pi `$ are far more complex than the isospin amplitudes in the $`\pi \pi `$ scattering. As an example, consider pion production in $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^{}\pi ^+n`$. The angular distribution of the dipion $`\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$ state is described by partial wave production amplitudes $`M_{\lambda \lambda _n,0\lambda _p}^J(s,t,m^2)`$ defined in the previous Section with eq. (7.2). The measurements of $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^{}\pi ^+n`$ on polarized target actually determine the moduli of nucleon transversity amplitudes  which are linear combinations of helicity amplitudes $`M_{\lambda \lambda _n,0\lambda _p}^J`$. For masses $`m`$ $`<`$$``$1000 MeV, the pion production is described by two $`S`$-wave $`(J=0)`$ nucleon transversity amplitudes $`S`$ and $`\overline{S}`$, and by six $`P`$-wave $`(J=1)`$ nucleon transversity amplitudes $`L,\overline{L},N,\overline{N},U,\overline{U}`$. The amplitudes $`\overline{A}=\overline{S},\overline{L},\overline{N},\overline{U}`$ correspond to nucleon transversity “up” while the amplitudes $`A=S,L,N,U`$ correspond to nucleon transversity “down”. The amplitudes $`L,\overline{L}`$ correspond to dimension helicity $`\lambda =0`$ while $`N,\overline{N}`$ and $`U,\overline{U}`$ are natural and unnatural parity amplitudes corresponding to combinations of $`\lambda =\pm 1`$.

The measurements of pion production on polarized targets enable to advance hadron spectroscopy from the level of spin-averaged cross-sections to the level of spin-dependent production amplitudes. These measurements determine the mass spectra $`|A|^2`$ and $`|\overline{A}|^2`$ of spin-dependent production amplitudes. Measurements of $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^{}\pi ^+n`$ on transversely polarized targets were done at CERN at 17.2 GeV/c and at ITEP at 1.78 GeV/c. Measurements of $`\pi ^+n\pi ^+\pi ^{}p`$ and $`K^+nK^+\pi ^{}p`$ at 5.98 and 11.85 GeV/c on transversely polarized deuteron target were also done at CERN. More recently it has been shown that mass spectra of production amplitudes can be obtained in measurements of $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^0\pi ^0n`$, $`\pi ^{}p\eta \eta n`$ and $`\pi ^{}p\eta \pi ^{}n`$, $`\pi ^{}p\eta \pi ^0n`$ on transversely polarized targets allowing for amplitude spectroscopy of these interesting processes.

The analysis of mass spectra measured in production processes requires a parametrization of the production amplitudes in terms of the Breit-Wigner amplitudes to identify contributing resonances and to determine their parameters. Here we discuss two approaches, one based on the additivity of Breit-Wigner phases and the other on analyticity of production amplitudes $`A(s,t,m^2)`$ in the mass variable at fixed $`s`$ and $`t`$.

First we note that the unitarity equation (7.6) for the partial wave production amplitudes in $`\pi N\pi \pi N`$ is a complex relation and that the helicity amplitudes $`M_\mathrm{\Lambda }^J`$ or the transversity amplitudes $`A`$ and $`\overline{A}`$ do not satisfy the two-body partial wave unitarity equation (3.1) with (3.4). Nevertheless, the experimentally measured production amplitudes $`A(s,t,m^2)`$ are complex functions and as such can be written in the form

$$A(s,t,m^2)=\frac{1}{2i}[\eta _Ae^{2i\delta _A}1]$$
(92)
where the “inelasticity” $`\eta _A=\eta _A(s,t,m^2)`$ and “phase shift” $`\delta _A=\delta _A(s,t,m^2)`$ depend also on the helicities or transversities of the amplitude $`A`$. Obviously,

$$ImA=|A|^2+\frac{1}{4}(1\eta _A^2)$$
(93)
However, there is no requirement now that $`\eta _A1`$ since $`\eta _A`$ has no relation to unitarity as in (3.4).

We can pursue the analogy with the $`\pi \pi `$ scattering, and impose an assumption that the “phase shift”

$$\delta _A(s,t,m^2)=\xi _A(s,t,m^2)+\delta ^r(m^2)$$
(94)
where $`\delta ^r`$ is the sum of Breit-Wigner phases of the $`N`$ resonances contributing to the amplitude $`A`$ and $`\xi _A`$ is the “background” phase. If we restrict ourselves to a finite mass interval $`4\mu ^2m^2m_M^2`$ with $`M`$ resonances, we can write

$$\delta _A(s,t,m^2)=\xi _A^{(M)}(s,t,m^2)+\delta _M^r(m^2)$$
(95)
$$A(s,t,m^2)=\frac{1}{2i}(\eta _Ae^{2i\xi _A^{(M)}}1)+\eta _Ae^{2i\xi _A^{(M)}}T_{res}^{(M)}(m^2)$$
(96)
in analogy with (6.4) for $`\pi \pi `$ scattering.

A more general approach is to use analyticity of $`A(s,t,m^2)`$ in $`m^2`$ with $`s`$ and $`t`$ fixed. We can assume that kinematical singularities have been removed from the production amplitudes $`A(s,t,m^2)`$. Assuming that there are $`N`$ Breit-Wigner poles in the amplitude $`A(s,t,m^2)`$ in the mass variable $`m^2`$, we can use the generalized dispersion relations for the variable $`m^2`$ with $`s`$ and $`t`$ fixed to get

$$A(s,t,m^2)=I(s,t,m^2)+\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}R_n(s,t,m^2)a_n(m^2)$$
(97)
where $`I`$ is the contribution of dispersion integrals, $`R_n`$ are complex pole residues, and $`a_n`$ are the Breit-Wigner amplitudes (5.6). In a finite mass interval $`4\mu ^2m^2m_M^2`$ with $`M`$ resonances we can write

$$A(s,t,m^2)=B^{(M)}(s,t,m^2)+\underset{n=1}{\overset{M}{}}R_n(s,t,m^2)a_n(m^2)$$
(98)
where the background

$$B^{(M)}(s,t,m^2)=I+\underset{m=M+1}{\overset{N}{}}R_ma_m$$
(99)
We note that for $`M=N`$ we get back the constraints (5.7) with replacements $`\eta \eta _A`$ and $`\xi \xi _A`$. Again, the assumption of additivity of Breit-Wigner phases restricts the production amplitudes to analytical functions that satisfy the constraints (5.7).

The measured mass spectra $`|A|^2`$ can now be fitted either with the parametrization (8.5) or with the more general parametrization (8.7). There are no unitarity constraints to be imposed on the production amplitudes $`|A|^2`$ during the fits since the right hand side of the unitarity relation (7.6) is not known and the partial wave unitarity (3.1) or (7.8) for $`\pi \pi `$ amplitudes $`T_{\mathrm{}}^I(s)`$ does not apply to the production amplitudes $`A(s,t,m^2)`$. The unitarity constraint (3.1) or (7.8) can be imposed only in the analysis of data on the $`\pi \pi \pi \pi `$ reaction and below we discuss its effect on $`\pi \pi `$ amplitudes.

Since there is no physical justification for the assumption of additivity of Breit-Wigner phases in (8.3) and since the form (8.5) confers no phenomenological or computational advantage over the more general analytical form (8.7) , we conclude that the use of the form (8.7) is more appropriate in fits to mass spectra in production processes to determine the resonance parameters of interfering resonances.

The parametrization of production amplitudes in terms of a coherent sum with complex coefficients and a complex coherent background as in (8.7) has been an accepted practice for a long time. Such parametrizations first appeared in connection with the possible double-pole character of the $`A_2`$ meson and the splitting of the $`Q`$ resonance in $`K^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$ mass spectrum. Recently such parametrization has been used in the study of $`\sigma (750)f_0(980)`$ interference in $`S`$-wave production amplitudes in $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^{}\pi ^+n`$ measured on polarized target at CERN and in the study of $`\sigma f_0(980)`$ interference in the central collision $`pp\pi ^0\pi ^0pp`$. More recently, an analysis of $`S`$-wave production amplitudes from threshold to 2 GeV in $`pp\pi ^0\pi ^0pp`$ was made using three and four interfering Breit-Wigner amplitudes and a coherent background. The GAMS collaboration used four interfering Breit-Wigner amplitudes and a coherent background in their fit of $`S`$-wave mass spectrum from threshold to 3 GeV in $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^0\pi ^0n`$ measured at 100 GeV. Also recently, the Fermilab E791 Collaboration used the form (8.7) to fit Dalitz plot of $`D^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ decays in their search for a scalar resonance $`\sigma `$.

Finally we comment on the determination of $`\pi \pi `$ partial wave amplitudes from measurements of $`\pi N\pi \pi N`$. The resonance parameters from the fits to mass spectra such as those measured in $`\pi N\pi ^+\pi ^{}N`$ on polarized targets or in $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^0\pi ^0n`$ must be the same in $`\pi \pi `$ partial waves. However, the $`\pi \pi `$ partial wave amplitudes are expected to satisfy the partial wave unitarity constraints (3.1) and (3.4), or rather the inequalities (3.8) and (3.9) which for the amplitudes $`t_{\mathrm{}}^I`$ defined in (5.1) read

$$|t_{\mathrm{}}^I|^2Imt_{\mathrm{}}^I|t_{\mathrm{}}^I|^2+\frac{1}{4}$$
(100)
The unitarity conditions (8.9) can always be satisfied by an appropriate choice of background and complex residues $`R_n(s)`$ in the general parametrization (6.9) based on analyticity. Although the $`\pi \pi `$ partial waves and production amplitudes in $`\pi N\pi \pi N`$ with the same spin and isospin share the same Breit-Wigner poles, they are different analytical functions and thus the residues of the poles and the backgrounds are different. In particular, the residues in production amplitudes A depend on particle helicities and kinematic variables $`s`$ and $`t`$. Accepting the resonance parameters obtained from the fits to the mass spectra $`|A|^2`$ measured in $`\pi N\pi \pi N`$ to describe the resonances in $`\pi \pi \pi \pi `$ scattering, the effect of the unitarity conditions (8.9) is to constrain the residues $`R_n(s)`$ and the background term in the general parametrization (6.9) of the $`\pi \pi `$ amplitudes.

It is also possible to use the resonance parameters determined from measurements of $`\pi N\pi \pi N`$ to calculate the resonant part $`T_{res}^{(M)}`$ and to define the $`\pi \pi `$ partial waves using the parametrization (6.4) with free background and inelasticity functions $`\xi ^{(M)}(s)`$ and $`\eta (s)`$. The unitarity can be satisfied by imposing the condition $`\eta 1`$.

The unitarity constraints (8.9) may not uniquely determine the background and pole residues in the parametrization (6.9) from analyticity and the use of parametrization (6.4) from additivity of Breit-Wigner phases is questionable. We conclude that the resonance parameters determined from mesurements of $`\pi N\pi \pi N`$ alone may not determine the $`\pi \pi `$ partial wave amplitudes without additional assumptions or direct measurements of $`\pi \pi \pi \pi `$ reactions.

## IX Summary.

We have shown in the case of $`\pi \pi `$ scattering that the assumption of additivity of Breit-Wigner phases in a partial wave amplitude leads to a sum of Breit-Wigner amplitudes with complex coefficients and a coherent background (4.31). The coefficients have a specific form (4.28) in terms of resonance parameters of all contributing resonances. The form (4.31) is a special case of the general form (5.5) based on analyticity and it is not related to the unitarity property of partial waves ((3.1) and (3.4)). The claims that the additivity of Breit-Wigner phases provides the correct description of interfering resonances in $`\pi \pi `$ scattering are not justified since there is no physical reason why the Breit-Wigner poles must have the specific residues imposed by this assumption. We found that the Breit-Wigner phases of interfering resonances are not necessarily additive. We suggest that the general form (5.5) from analyticity is more appropriate in fits to data. The unitarity conditions (8.9) $`|t_{\mathrm{}}^I|^2Imt_{\mathrm{}}^I|t_{\mathrm{}}^I|^2+\frac{1}{4}`$ can be effectively imposed using the modern methods of constrained optimization.

Mass spectra in production processes are described by production amplitudes. We used the case of $`\pi N\pi ^+\pi ^{}N`$ reaction to illustrate the complexity of production amplitudes. Specifically, the production amplitudes do not satisfy the two-body partial wave unitarity equation (3.1), depend of particle helicities and on several kinematic variables in addition to the invariant mass. We have used analyticity of production amplitudes in the invariant mass variable to justify the common practice of writing the production amplitudes as a coherent sum of Breit-Wigner amplitudes with free complex coefficients and a complex coherent background in fits to measured mass spectra to determine the resonance parameters of interfering resonances. The two-body unitarity constraints on the $`\pi \pi `$ partial wave amplitudes with the same resonances can be satisfied by an appropriate choice of complex residues of the contributing Breit-Wigner poles. This reflects the fact that the $`\pi \pi `$ partial wave amplitudes and production amplitudes while sharing the same resonances are different analytical functions.

###### Acknowledgements.

I wish to thank Taku Ishida for helpful discussions and e-mail correspondence.


format: text

text:
# Testing Bell’s Inequality with Ballistic Electrons in Semiconductors

## Abstract

We propose an experiment to test Bell’s inequality violation in condensed-matter physics. We show how to generate, manipulate and detect entangled states using ballistic electrons in Coulomb-coupled semiconductor quantum wires. Due to its simplicity (only five gates are required to prepare entangled states and to test Bell’s inequality), the proposed semiconductor-based scheme can be implemented with currently available technology. Moreover, its basic ingredients may play a role towards large-scale quantum-information processing in solid-state devices.

The introduction of Quantum Information Processing (QIP) QIP  has led, on the one hand, to unquestionable intellectual progress in understanding basic concepts of information/computation theory; on the other hand, this has stimulated new thinking about how to realize QIP devices able to exploit the additional power provided by quantum mechanics. Such novel communication/computation capabilities are primarily related to the ability of processing entangled states QIP . To this end, one should be able to perform precise quantum-state synthesis, coherent quantum manipulations (gating) and detection (measurement). The unavoidable interaction of any realistic quantum system with its environment tends to destroy coherence between quantum superpositions. Thus, decoherence modifies the above ideal scenario and imposes further strong constraints on candidate systems for QIP. Indeed, mainly due to the need of low decoherence rates, the only experimental realizations of QIP devices originated in atomic physics AP  and in quantum optics QO . It is however generally believed that any large-scale application of QIP cannot be easily realized with such quantum hardware, which does not allow the scalability of existing microelectronics technology. In contrast, in spite of the relatively strong decoherence, a solid-state implementation of QIP can benefit synergistically from the recent progress in single-electron physics set  as well as in nanostructure fabrication and characterization NANO .

As already mentioned, the key ingredient for computational speed-up in QIP is entanglement. Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) pairs epr  and three-particle Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) states ghz  are at the heart of quantum cryptography, teleportation, dense coding, entanglement swapping and of many quantum algorithms. Experimentally, two-particle entangled states have been prepared using photons aspect  and trapped ions cat\_ion ; only recently a photonic three-particle entangled state (GHZ) has been also measured ghz-photon . A few proposals for the generation of entangled states in solid-state physics have been recently put forward ddv1 -barnes , but up to date there are no experimental implementations.

In this Letter we propose an experiment to test Bell’s inequality violation in condensed-matter physics. More specifically, we shall show how to generate, manipulate and measure entangled states using ballistic electrons in coupled semiconductor quantum waveguides (quantum wires). As we shall see, our scheme allows for a direct test of Bell’s inequality in a solid-state system. To this end, a relatively simple gating sequence (five gates only) is identified.

The proposed experimental setup is based on the semiconductor quantum hardware of the earlier proposal for quantum computation with ballistic electrons by Ionicioiu et al. quputer . We summarize in the following the main features of this proposal, which has been recently analyzed and validated through numerical simulations by Bertoni et al. bertoni .

The main idea is to use ballistic electrons as flying qubits in semiconductor quantum wires (QWRs). In view of the nanometric carrier confinement reached by current fabrication technology NANO , state-of-the-art QWRs behave as quasi one-dimensional (1D) electron waveguides. Due to the relatively large intersubband energy splittings as well as to the good quality of semiconductor/semiconductor interfaces, electrons within the lowest QWR subband at low temperature may experience extremely high mobility. In such conditions their coherence length can reach values of a few microns; therefore, on the nanometric scale electrons are in the so-called ballistic regime and the phase coherence of their wave functions is preserved. This coherent-transport regime is fully compatible with existing semiconductor nanotechnology NANO  and has been the natural arena for a number of interferometric experiments with ballistic electrons yacoby ,schuster . Such fully coherent regime is the basic prerequisite for any QIP.

The building block of our quantum hardware is a pair of adjacent QWR structures. The qubit state is defined according to the quantum-mechanical state of the electron across this two-wire system. More precisely, we shall use the so-called dual-rail representation for the qubit: we define the basis state $`|0`$ by the presence of the electron in one of the wires (called the 0-rail) and the basis state $`|1`$ by the presence of the electron in the other one (the 1-rail). Saying that the electron is in a given wire we mean that: (i) its wave-function is localized on that QWR and (ii) its free motion along the wire is well described in terms of a quasi-monoenergetic wave-packet within the lowest QWR electron subband (with central kinetic energy $`E`$ and central wave-vector $`k=\sqrt{2m^{}E}/\mathrm{}`$).

An appealing feature of the proposed scheme is the mobile character of our qubits: using flying qubits we can transfer entanglement from one place to another, without the need to interconvert stationary into mobile qubits. In the case of stationary qubits (e.g. electron spins in quantum dots) this is not easily done.

Any QIP device can be built using only single- and two-qubit gates gates . We choose the following set of universal quantum gates: $`\{H,P_\phi ,P_\pi ^C\}`$, where $`H=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right)`$ is a Hadamard gate, $`P_\phi =\text{diag}(1,e^{i\phi })`$ is a single-qubit phase shift, and $`P_\pi ^C`$ is a controlled sign flip. We shall use the more general two-qubit gate $`P_\phi ^C=\text{diag}(1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},e^{i\phi })`$.

We now briefly describe the physical implementation of the universal quantum gates in terms of the previously introduced dual-rail representation. The Hadamard gate can be implemented using an electronic beam-splitter, also called waveguide coupler alamo ; tsukada ; resonant\_ws . The idea is to design the two-wire system in such a way to spatially control the inter-wire electron tunneling. For a given inter-wire distance, a proper modulation (along the QWR direction) of the inter-wire potential barrier can produce a linear superposition of the basis states $`|0`$ and $`|1`$. More specifically, let us consider a coupling window, i.e. a tunneling-active region, of length $`L_c`$ characterized by an inter-wire tunneling rate $`\omega =2\pi /\tau `$. As it propagates, the electron wave-packet oscillates back and forth between the two waveguides with frequency $`\omega `$. Let $`v=\mathrm{}k/m^{}`$ be the group velocity of the electron wave-packet along the wire; then, the state $`|0`$ goes into the superposition $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha |0+\mathrm{sin}\alpha |1`$ with $`\alpha =\omega t=2\pi \frac{L}{v\tau }`$. Let $`L_t`$ be the length necessary for the complete transfer of the electron from one wire to the other, $`\alpha =\pi ,L_t=v\tau /2`$. For a transfer length $`L_c=L_t/2`$ the device is equivalent to a beam-splitter and hence, up to a phase shift, to a Hadamard gate. By a proper modulation of the inter-wire potential barrier we can vary the tunneling rate $`\omega `$ and therefore the rotation angle $`\alpha `$. As a result, this structure can operate as a NOT gate by adjusting the inter-wire potential barrier such that $`L_c=L_t`$ ($`\pi `$-rotation). Similarly, the gate can be turned off by an appropriate potential barrier for which the electron wave-packet undergoes a full oscillation period, returning back to its original state ($`L_c=2L_t`$, $`2\pi `$-rotation). Another way of turning the $`H`$ gate off is to suppress inter-wire tunneling by applying a strong potential bias to the coupled QWR structure.

The phase shifter $`P_\phi `$ can be implemented using either a potential step (with height smaller than the electron energy $`V<E`$) or a potential well along the wire direction; the well is preferred since the phase-shift induced is more stable under voltage fluctuations. In order to have no reflection from the potential barrier, the width $`L`$ of the barrier should be an integer multiple of the half wavelength of the electron in the step/well region, $`L=n\lambda /2,n\mathrm{I}\mathrm{N}`$.

We finally describe the two-qubit gate. In our scheme the controlled phase shifter $`P_\phi ^C`$ is implemented using a Coulomb coupler c\_coupler . This quantum gate exploits the Coulomb interaction between two single electrons in different QWR pairs (representing the two qubits). The gate is similar in construction to the beam splitter previously introduced. In this case the multi-wire structure (see Fig. 4) needs to be tailored in such a way (i) to obtain a significant Coulomb coupling between the two 1-rails only and (ii) to prevent any single-particle inter-wire tunneling. Therefore, only if both qubits are in the $`|1`$ state they both experience a phase shift induced by the two-body Coulomb interaction. In contrast, if at least one qubit is in the $`|0`$ state, then nothing happens.

The proposed quantum hardware has some advantages. Firstly, the QIP device needs not to be “programmed” at the hardware level (by burning off the gates), as it may appear. Programming is done by switching on/off the gates and this way any quantum algorithm can be implemented applied-fields . Secondly, we use cold programming, i.e., we set all the gates before “launching” the electrons, so we do not need ultrafast (i.e. subdecoherent) electronics for gate operations. This property is essential and is a distinct advantage of the proposed quantum architecture over other solid-state proposals stationary-qubits . Therefore, the gating sequence needed for the proposed experiment can be pre-programmed using static electric fields only.

One important requirement of our quantum hardware is that electrons within different wires need to be synchronized at all times in order to properly perform two-qubit gating (the two electron wave-packets should reach simultaneously the Coulomb-coupling window). It is thus essential to have highly monoenergetic electrons launched simultaneously. This can be accomplished by properly tailored energy filters and synchronized single-electron injectors at the preparation stage.

We now turn to the proposed experimental setup for testing Bell’s inequality. Two-particle entangled states (Bell states) can be generated using three Hadamard gates and a controlled-sign shift (see dashed box in Fig. 1; the controlled sign shift plus the lower two Hadamards form a CNOT gate). Consider the correlation function for two (pseudo)spins $`P(𝐚,𝐛)=\sigma _𝐚^{(1)}\sigma _𝐛^{(2)}`$ (here, $`\sigma _𝐚=\sigma _ia_i`$ is the pseudo-spin projection along the unit vector $`𝐚`$) spin . Any local, realistic hidden-variable theory obeys the Bell-CHSH bell ; chsh  inequality:

$$|P(𝐚,𝐛)+P(𝐚^{},𝐛)+P(𝐚^{},𝐛^{})P(𝐚,𝐛^{})|2$$
(1)
This inequality is violated in quantum mechanics. For the singlet $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$, a standard calculation gives the result

$$P(𝐚,𝐛)\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|\sigma _𝐚^{(1)}\sigma _𝐛^{(2)}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=𝐚.𝐛$$
(2)
Choosing $`𝐚.𝐛=𝐛.𝐚^{}=𝐚^{}.𝐛^{}=𝐛^{}.𝐚=\sqrt{2}/2`$, we obtain $`2\sqrt{2}2`$, violating thus Bell inequality (1).

Let us now focus on the correlation function $`P(𝐚,𝐛)`$. In the EPR-Bohm gedankenexperiment we need to measure the spin component of one particle along a direction $`𝐧`$. However, in our setup this is not possible directly, since we can measure only $`\sigma _z`$, i.e., whether the electron is in the 0\- or in the 1-rail. The solution is to do a unitary transformation $`|\psi |\psi ^{}=U|\psi `$, such that the operator $`\sigma _𝐧`$ is diagonalized to $`\sigma _z`$, $`\psi |\sigma _𝐧|\psi =\psi ^{}|\sigma _z|\psi ^{}`$. We are looking for a unitary transformation $`U`$ which satisfies $`U^+\sigma _zU=\sigma _𝐧`$, with $`𝐧=(\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\phi ,\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\phi ,\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ a unit vector. In terms of our elementary gates we obtain $`U(\theta ,\phi )=HP_\theta HP_{\phi \pi /2}`$.

Thus, measuring the spin (in the EPR-Bohm setup) along a direction $`𝐧`$ is equivalent to performing the unitary transformation $`U(\theta ,\phi )`$ followed by a measurement of $`\sigma _z`$. Going back to our entangled pair, we now apply on each qubit a local transformation $`U(\theta _1,\phi _1)`$ and $`U(\theta _2,\phi _2)`$, respectively. Here, $`𝐚=(\theta _1,\phi _1)`$ and $`𝐛=(\theta _2,\phi _2)`$ are the two directions discussed above; at the very end, we measure $`\sigma _z`$ (i.e., electron in 0\- or 1-rail; see Fig.1).

For the singlet $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ the correlation function depends only on the scalar product of the two directions (2), and hence only on the angle between them. Without loss of generality we can choose $`\phi _1=\phi _2=\pi /2,\theta _1=0`$ and relabel $`\theta =\theta _2`$. Since $`H^2=1\mathrm{l}`$, the gating sequence simplifies to only five gates, as shown in Fig. 2.

With this simple network we can measure the correlation function (2) which violates Bell’s inequality (1). To perform an Aspect-type experiment aspect , we have to choose independently the directions of measurement for each qubit after the electrons are entangled. In this case we need three more gates (after the $`P_\pi ^C`$ gate) $`HP_{\theta _1}H`$ on the upper qubit in Fig. 2.

In practice the situation is more complex. The essential ingredient for producing entanglement is the controlled-sign shift gate $`P_\pi ^C`$ which involves an interaction between the two qubits. Experimentally this requires a good timing of the two electrons (they should reach simultaneously the two-qubit gating region). Suppose that instead of having an ideal $`P_\pi ^C`$ gate preparing an ideal singlet (dashed box in Fig. 1), in practice we realize a $`P_\alpha ^C`$ gate (possible with unknown phase $`\alpha `$). In this case, instead of preparing the singlet $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$, we end up with the following state:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha =|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}+e^{i\alpha /2}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\alpha }{2}\frac{|1(|0|1)}{\sqrt{2}}$$
(3)
which is a superposition of the singlet and of a separable state.

Let us now consider the experimental setup discussed above, with $`𝐚=(0,\mathrm{sin}\theta _1,\mathrm{cos}\theta _1)`$ and $`𝐛=(0,\mathrm{sin}\theta _2,\mathrm{cos}\theta _2)`$, both in the $`Oyz`$ plane. For the correlation function of the imperfect singlet $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha `$ we obtain

$$S(\alpha ,\theta )\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha |\sigma _𝐚^{(1)}\sigma _𝐛^{(2)}|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha =\mathrm{sin}\frac{\alpha }{2}\mathrm{sin}\left(\theta +\frac{\alpha }{2}\right)$$
(4)
with $`\theta =\theta _2\theta _1`$. For $`\alpha =\pi `$ we recover the correlation function of the singlet, $`S(\theta )S(\pi ,\theta )=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$. The two functions are plotted in Fig.3; $`S(\theta )`$ can be identified by noting that there is no $`\alpha `$ dependence.

Experimentally, since the one-qubit gate $`P_\theta `$ is easier to control, we can measure the coupling $`\alpha `$ of the Coulomb coupler $`P_\alpha ^C`$ by measuring the dependence of the correlation function $`S(\alpha ,\theta )`$ on the phase shift $`\theta `$ (which can be accurately determined). This procedure can be used to determine the purity of the singlet, and hence to test/calibrate the Coulomb coupler.

We are now interested to see how small the coupling $`\alpha `$ can be in order to still have a violation of Bell’s inequality. The question we ask is: For what values of $`\alpha `$ the correlation function $`S(\alpha ,\theta )`$ in eq.(4) violates Bell’s inequality in (1)? To this end, we have found a numerical solution: the inequality (1) is violated for $`\alpha (\pi /2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}\pi /2)`$.

A schematic representation of the proposed experimental setup for measuring Bell’s inequality violation is presented in Fig.4. It is possible to reduce the number of gates on the $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$-rail by using a phase shifter on the $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$-rail $`P_\theta ^\mathrm{𝟎}\text{diag}(e^{i\theta },\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})`$ instead of the $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$-rail one used so far $`P_\theta ^\mathrm{𝟏}\text{diag}(1,e^{i\theta })`$, since the two are equivalent (up to an overall phase) $`P_\theta ^\mathrm{𝟏}=e^{i\theta }P_\theta ^\mathrm{𝟎}`$.

In our setup there are two different ways of producing a phase shift $`P_\theta `$: (i) electrically, with a potential applied on top of the $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$-rail (the quantum well described above); (ii) magnetically, via the Aharonov-Bohm effect, by applying locally a magnetic field on the area between the lower two beam-splitters (this can be done since the $`P_\theta `$ and $`P_\alpha ^C`$ gates commute). The second method has the advantage of avoiding the no-reflection condition for the potential well (the length of the gate should be a half integer multiple of the electron wavelength). Either way can be used experimentally.

We stress that Aharonov-Bohm rings and quantum interference experiments with ballistic electrons are standard tools in mesoscopic physics. A two-slit experiment with an Aharonov-Bohm ring having a quantum dot embedded in one arm has been reported in yacoby ,schuster . This experiment is similar to the layout of the lower qubit in Fig.4, but the authors do not use beam splitters and Coulomb couplers. In the experimental setup presented here the more difficult part will be to implement the Coulomb coupler (CC) and to perform the experiment at the single electron level. In our case preparation and measurement of the states are done using single electron pumps (SEPs) and single electron transistors (SETs) measure-set , respectively.

In conclusion, we have proposed the first measurement of Bell’s inequality violation in coupled semiconductor nanostructures using ballistic electrons. Due to the relative simplicity of the proposed experimental setup (only five gates are needed to produce entanglement and to test Bell’s inequality) this measurement scheme is potentially feasible in terms of current semiconductor nanotechnology.

R.I. is grateful to G. Amaratunga, F. Udrea and A. Popescu for stimulating discussions and financial support.


text:
# 𝜀'_𝐾/𝜀_𝐾 IN THE CHIRAL LIMIT USING LARGE 𝑁_𝑐

## 1 Introduction

We present our calculation of $`\epsilon _K^{}`$/$`\epsilon _K`$ in the chiral limit. Its experimental observation is the first new major CP-violation result since the original discovery.

This calculation uses the large $`N_c`$ approach pioneered by Bardeen et al.. We used this method previously to calculate $`B_K`$, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$-rule, the muon $`g2`$ and electromagnetic mass differences. Similar recent work is

## 2 Short-distance and $`X`$-boson or fictitious gauge boson scheme

$`\mathrm{\Delta }S=1`$ weak decays are produced by the exchange of $`W`$-bosons. The resulting effective action, resumming $`\alpha _S\mathrm{log}(M_X/\nu )`$ to two-loops, is now standard. An introduction and references can be found in the lectures by Buras. The resulting effective action, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Delta }S=1}_{i=1}^{10}C_i(\nu )\mathrm{d}^4xQ_i(x)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$ with $`Q_i(x)`$ four-quark operators, is dependent on the various schemes chosen in its definition. This dependence should disappear in the matrix-elements of this effective action which are usually calculated in a different way.

Because currents and densities can be matched more easily across theories, we first replace the effective four-quark operator action by an equivalent one. For instance, the effective action reproducing $`Q_1(x)=\left[\overline{s}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)d\right]\left[\overline{u}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)u\right](x)`$ by the exchange of the heavy fictitious $`X_1`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_Xg_1(\mu _c,\mathrm{})\mathrm{d}^4yX_1^\mu \left\{\left[\overline{s}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)d\right](x)+\left[\overline{u}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)u\right](x)\right\}.$$
(1)
The constants, like $`g_1(\mu _c,\mathrm{})`$, are determined unambiguously from matching conditions in the perturbative regime, removing the scheme-dependence.

## 3 Long-distance and results

We calculate the matrix-elements of $`X`$-boson exchange by integrating over its momentum $`p_X`$ in the Euclidean. The short-distance contribution, $`p_X^2>\mu ^2`$, is, to NLO in $`1/N_c`$, calculable using perturbative QCD and factorization. The long-distance part, small $`p_X^2`$, can be calculated with Chiral Perturbation Theory, also done by. This fails at fairly low $`p_X^2`$ and we have chosen a reasonable hadronic model, the ENJL model, to extend the range to higher values. We find good matching for the isospin zero amplitude $`a_0`$ and for all the imaginary parts. Another improvement route is the LMD method.

We obtain, to NLO in $`1/N_c`$ and in the chiral limit, $`a_0`$ within errors and

$`B_{6\chi }^{(1/2)NDR}(2\mathrm{GeV})=2.5\pm 0.4B_{8\chi }^{(3/2)NDR}(2\mathrm{GeV})=1.35\pm 0.20`$
$`\left|\epsilon _K^{}/\epsilon _K\right|=(60\pm 30)10^4.`$ (2)
Including the main isospin breaking effect and final state interactions gives

$`\left|\epsilon _K^{}/\epsilon _K\right|`$ $`=`$ $`(34\pm 18)10^4`$ (3)
in reasonable agreement with the experimental value $`(19.3\pm 2.4)10^4`$.

## Acknowledgments

Work partially supported by NFR, Sweden, EU TMR Network EURODAPHNE (Contract No. ERBFMX-CT98-0169), CICYT, Spain (Grant No. AEN-96/1672) and the Junta de Andalucía (Grant No. FQM-101).


text:
# The kinematics of 3:1–merger remnants and the formation of low–luminosity elliptical galaxies

## 1 Introduction

Elliptical galaxies can be divided into two classes according to their morphology and kinematic properties. The giant ellipticals are generally boxy (probably triaxial) with shapes supported by anisotropy. They have slow rotation on the major axis with often comparable minor axis rotation, and occasionally kinematically decoupled cores. The intermediate and low-luminosity ellipticals are usually disky, isotropic rotators. They are mostly supported by rotation and have little minor axis velocities (Bender 1988; Bender, Döbereiner & Möllenhoff 1988; Kormendy & Bender 1996; Rix et al. 1999). These two families also show correlations with the inner slope of the surface brightness profile: galaxies with steep inner cusps are on average small disky objects and galaxies with shallow or constant cores are the giant boxy ellipticals (Jaffe et al. 1994, Faber et al. 1997, Carollo et al. 1997).

Barnes (1998) proposed that fast rotating elliptical galaxies could originate from collisionless merger of unequal–mass disks. On the other hand, equal–mass mergers lead to slowly rotating, pressure supported objects resembling giant elliptical galaxies (Barnes 1992). Recently Naab, Burkert & Hernquist (1999, hereafter NBH) took Barnes’ idea one step further and showed that equal and unequal–mass mergers could reproduce most of the observed correlations mentioned above if one would analyse projections of the merger remnants using many random viewing angles (see their figure 3). They showed that the boxy family of galaxies could be explained by equal–mass mergers of disk galaxies (with bulges and dark halos), whereas the disky family was originating from 3:1 mergers, i.e., in which the big disk galaxy is 3 times more massive than the small one.

However, NBH’s conclusion is based only on global properties (average $`a_4`$, ellipticity measured at one radius, or central velocity dispersion) and does not compare kinematic quantities as function of radius. In this paper, we perform such a comparison, using a setup similar to the one used during the observations of Rix et al. 1999 (hereafter R99), where kinematics along the principal axes were obtained, extending well beyond $`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. R99 selected these elliptical galaxies only on the basis of their low–luminosities ($`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{B}19.5`$), i.e., no prior kinematic information or degree of diskiness was used.

In section 2, we summarize our merger models and their initial conditions. In section 3, we describe how we extract the kinematic quantities of the merger remnants. We discuss the results of a small survey of 16 different merger remnants in section 4. We perform a comparison between models and observations using the rotational support (i.e., $`v/\sigma `$ along the major axis, the amount of minor to major axis rotation and the Gauss-Hermite moment $`h_3`$ along the major axis. All these quantities are compared as function of distance from the center. The edge–on and inclined merger models fail to match the observed quantities of the R99 sample.

In a similar study, Bendo & Barnes (2000, hereafter BB) examined 8 equal–mass merger remnants and 8 unequal–mass (3:1) merger remnants. Their unequal–mass merger models display similar major axis kinematic profiles than ours. However, the authors reach different conclusions from the comparison with the R99 data set, namely that ”unequal–mass merger mergers can produce the same relations between $`v/\sigma `$ and radius”. In this paper, we do a more direct comparison of N–body merger remnants with this data set. We compare not only edge–on but also inclined remnants that match the apparent ellipticities of the observed galaxies. We conclude that, on average, the kinematics of the simulated 3:1 mergers do not reproduce those of low–luminosity galaxies. Therefore we suggest that the 3:1 collisionless mergers are probably not a major mechanism responsible for the bulk formation of these objects.

## 2 The merger models

We briefly summarize some properties of the initial disk model (see Hernquist 1993 and NBH for more details). Each disk galaxy consists of an exponential disk, a Hernquist (1990) spherical bulge and a pseudo–isothermal spherical dark halo with 5.8 times the mass of the disk. In our ”low–resolution” simulations, the more massive galaxy has 6666 bulge particles, 20000 disk particles and 40000 dark halo particles, while the less massive galaxy has a third of the number of particles in each component. In two ”high–resolution” cases, we rerun models with three times as many particles. The N–body computations were performed using a direct summation code on the special purpose hardware GRAPE–3 AF (GRavity PipE, Sugimoto et al. 1990).

Before the encounter, the two disk galaxies follow a quasi–parabolic orbit with an initial separation of 30 scale–lengths of the massive exponential disk. The pericentric approach is taken as 2 disk scale–lengths. Once the orbits and the masses of the two initial spiral galaxies are fixed, we still have 2 free parameters for each galaxy: the inclination between the galaxy orbital plane and its spin plane (angle $`i`$) and the argument of pericenter (angle $`\omega `$), i.e., the angle between the line of nodes and the pericentric distance (see Figure 6a of Toomre & Toomre, 1972). Table 1 summarizes our choice for these angles: $`i_1`$, $`\omega _1`$ for the more massive spiral galaxy and $`i_2`$, $`\omega _2`$ for the less massive one.

## 3 Observing the merger remnant

We analyse the kinematic structure of the merger remnants 10 dynamical times after the merger has been completed, so that they had enough time to settle into an equilibrium state. We plot the kinematic quantities of the remnant in units of the half–light radius $`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, i.e., the projected radius on the plane of the sky of the circle containing half of the luminous particles. The average $`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ of the R99 data set is $`13^{\prime \prime }`$, corresponding to 3.34 kpc. In the merger remnants, 1 $`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is 3.5 kpc: this distance is chosen to be $`10^{\prime \prime }`$ for the comparison with observations. We use a slit width of $`2.5^{\prime \prime }`$, i.e., 0.875 kpc. After binning, we have 21 pixels on the major axis and 16 on the minor axis. The bin size increases with distance from the center, according to the observations of R99.

In each binned pixel, we construct the histograms of the line–of–sight velocities ($`v_{\mathrm{los}}`$) of all the luminous particles whose projected coordinates on the sky ($`x^{}`$ and $`y^{}`$) fall within the pixel boundaries. This quantity is called the velocity profile (VP). Subsequently, we parametrize the VPs using Gauss–Hermite series (van der Marel & Franx 1993, Gerhard 1993). We checked that the kinematic parameters of each VP ($`v,\sigma ,h_3`$ and $`h_4`$) do not depend on the choice of the velocity bin size. Furthermore, to increase the signal to noise and since most remnants are close to an axisymmetric shape (in the equatorial plane, the average axis ratio at 1$`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is roughly 0.8–0.9), we average the results over 10 different position angles of the slit between $`0^^\mathrm{o}`$ and $`90^^\mathrm{o}`$ in the equatorial plane. Figure The kinematics of 3:1–merger remnants and the formation of low–luminosity elliptical galaxies and The kinematics of 3:1–merger remnants and the formation of low–luminosity elliptical galaxies demonstrate that the results of this paper still hold if we considered individual projected profiles, rather than averaging 10 position angles together.

We estimate the errors on each kinematical quantities by bootstrapping. For each spatial bin, we generate 100 bootstrapped VPs and recompute the GH–decomposition. The error bar is then estimated as the variance amongst the 100 bootstrapped results.

In Figure The kinematics of 3:1–merger remnants and the formation of low–luminosity elliptical galaxies, we show the basic kinematic output of our simulations, the first four moments of the VPs, i.e., $`v,\sigma ,h_3,h_4`$ and the degree of ordered motion $`v/\sigma `$ on the major axis for the high resolution simulation (266666 luminous and dark particles) of case 1 (see table 1). The initial inclination angles of the two disk galaxies are $`[i_1,\omega _1,i_2,\omega _2]=[30,30,30,30]`$. The curves have been folded onto the positive side of the major axis (with a sign change for the odd moments $`v`$ and $`h_3`$) . In this way, we can estimate the left/right asymmetries. In most geometries analysed in this paper, the left and right side of the major axis are similar within the errors. For this model, the mean velocity increases linearly until 1 $`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and then rises more slowly to reach 150 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ at 3 $`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. In other geometries, the rise is more monotonic but reaches the same value at 3 $`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. The velocity dispersion decreases from central values of 140–160 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ to 80–100 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ at 3 $`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. The innermost point shows a lower value (by $`20\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$) compared to its immediate neighbors. BB observed the same behavior in their simulations and interpreted it as follows: all the merger remnants have a large fractions of particles from the Hernquist bulges of their progenitors in their inner regions. These particles still follow a $`r^1`$ density profile at small radii and therefore have velocity dispersion that scale as $`r^{1/2}`$, producing the central dip.

In Figure The kinematics of 3:1–merger remnants and the formation of low–luminosity elliptical galaxies and The kinematics of 3:1–merger remnants and the formation of low–luminosity elliptical galaxies, we show the $`v/\sigma `$ and $`h_3`$ profiles of two cases, where each simulation was rerun with three times more particles. The low resolution simulations (with 88887 particles) do not show significantly different results compared to the high resolution cases. In case 1, the low resolution models have more left/right asymmetry, but if one takes the average between the two sides, then the $`v/\sigma `$ and $`h_3`$ profiles are very similar. Therefore in the remainder of this paper, we will explore various initial conditions using only low resolution simulations. Similarly, Figure The kinematics of 3:1–merger remnants and the formation of low–luminosity elliptical galaxies displays the $`h_3`$–profiles for the high/low resolution simulations: $`h_3`$ is typically zero or positive inside 1 $`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ (see also BB).

## 4 Discussion

### 4.1 Edge-on remnants

Figure The kinematics of 3:1–merger remnants and the formation of low–luminosity elliptical galaxies overplots the observed $`v/\sigma `$ profiles of the R99 sample and the $`v/\sigma `$ profiles of all our merger models (see table 1) when viewed edge–on. In the models, the left and the right sides have been averaged. The $`v/\sigma `$ profiles of the remnants can reach values between 1 and 2.2 in the very outer parts i.e., at 3 $`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. At smaller radii, e.g., at 1 $`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, they attain only \[0.1, 1.0\], depending on the geometry. BB find similar results for their 3:1 merger remnants, as indicated by the shaded region in Figure The kinematics of 3:1–merger remnants and the formation of low–luminosity elliptical galaxies. The R99 data set shows higher values of $`v/\sigma `$ at all radii: at 1 $`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`v/\sigma _{\mathrm{observed}}`$ covers the range \[0.8, 2.0\] and \[1.4, 3.5\] at 2 $`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. Note also the sharp increase in $`v/\sigma _{\mathrm{observed}}`$ at small radii (R $`0.5\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$). Furthermore the merger simulations do not reproduce the central peak in $`\sigma `$ observed by R99 (see their Figure 1). From this comparison alone we could conclude that dissipationless simulations can not reproduce the observed kinematics of the R99 sample. In the next section, we will also use the GH–moment $`h_3`$ and the minor axis rotation to compare with the observations.

### 4.2 Inclined remnants

When viewed edge-on, our merger remnants have an apparent ellipticity $`ϵ_{\mathrm{remnant}}0.50.6`$ at 1 $`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, much more flattened than the objects of R99 with $`ϵ_{\mathrm{observed}}=0.3`$ (see their Figure 3). In order to make a fair comparison to this dataset, we need to incline our merger remnants such that they have the same ellipticity $`ϵ_{\mathrm{remnant}}0.3`$ at 1 $`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. As can be expected, the mean line–of–sight velocity is lowered (compared to the edge–on case). The velocity dispersion is also diminished, but not as much as the velocity. Therefore the $`v/\sigma `$ profiles of the inclined cases do not rise as fast as the edge–on cases (Figure The kinematics of 3:1–merger remnants and the formation of low–luminosity elliptical galaxies).

The $`h_3`$–profiles are less sensitive to inclination, i.e., they are similar to those of the edge-on case. In Figure The kinematics of 3:1–merger remnants and the formation of low–luminosity elliptical galaxies, we only show the $`h_3`$ values of the merger remnants in the inclined case. These profiles are essentially zero (or slightly positive) inside 1 $`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, whereas the observed $`h_3`$ values show an outward decline towards $`h_3=0.06`$ within the same radial interval. The model values reach –0.1 only at very large radii (3 $`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$). Bender, Saglia & Gerhard (1994) observed a sample of 44 elliptical galaxies and found $`h_3=0.1`$ for the disky ($`a_4/a=0.02`$) objects (see their Figure 14a). We choose the disky subsample, since they correlate with the low–luminosity ellipticals. Their low values of $`h_3`$ is roughly consistent with the R99 profiles, since Bender, Saglia & Gerhard obtained spectra only inside $`1/2\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$.

### 4.3 Minor axis rotation

We have computed the normalized minor axis rotation, defined as $`v_{\mathrm{min}.\mathrm{norm}.}=`$
$`v_{\mathrm{minor}}/\sqrt{v_{\mathrm{major}}^2+\sigma _{\mathrm{major}}^2}`$ for all merger models and observations. Note that the normalization by the total kinetic energy avoids a division by zero in the center. We find that both the merger remnants and the galaxy sample observed by R99 have only a small amount of minor axis rotation: $`v_{\mathrm{min}.\mathrm{norm}.}_{\mathrm{merger}}=0.04`$ and $`v_{\mathrm{min}.\mathrm{norm}.}_{\mathrm{R99}}=0.08`$. The spatial average has been done inside 2 $`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$.

### 4.4 Comparison with S0 galaxies

Fisher (1997) observed a sample of 18 S0 galaxies and derived GH–moments along their major and minor axis. In most cases, these major axis $`h_3`$ profiles show a similar behavior than observed in our merger remnants: going from the center to the outer parts, $`h_3`$ values increase from zero to some positive values, then decrease and change sign to finally remain negative. The maximum value of $`h_3`$ reached by the data is in the range 0.05–0.1. However, the change of sign occurs at (or within) 1 $`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ for these S0s, whereas it is between 1 and 2 $`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ for the merger remnants. Furthermore, the shape of the S0s velocity curves is very different compared to the one of the merger remnants (see Figure 10 of Fisher) and their $`v/\sigma `$ values are even higher than the low–luminosity ellipticals.

### 4.5 Kinematic temperature of the initial galaxy disk

The merging process heats up the disks (i.e., increases $`\sigma `$), decreases $`v`$ and therefore lowers the $`v/\sigma `$ profile. Among other comparisons in this paper, we reject the merging scenario because we were unable to reproduce the observed $`v/\sigma `$ values, but this scenario might be viable if the initial disks were colder. Therefore it is interesting to know the initial temperature of the disk before the merger. In Figure The kinematics of 3:1–merger remnants and the formation of low–luminosity elliptical galaxies (bottom panel), we show this initial $`v/\sigma `$ profile of the largest disk galaxy. It rises linearly with radius and reaches $`v/\sigma `$ = 7.5 at 3 disk scale length along the major axis (edge–on view). The initial disk galaxy has a bulge to disk mass ratio of 1/3, so it compares to a Sb galaxy (see e.g., Figure 4.51 of Binney & Merrifield 1998). For comparison, the old stellar population of Milky Way galaxy (SBb) reaches $`v/\sigma 4`$ at the Sun position (2.5 disk scale length). We computed the $`v/\sigma `$ profile for six Sa galaxies from Corsini et al. (1999); they reach $`v/\sigma =2`$ at one disk scale length $`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{exp}}`$ and $`v/\sigma =4`$ at two $`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{exp}}`$ with large error bars in the outer parts. The inclination $`i`$ does not play a role here since $`v/\sigma `$ is almost independent of $`i`$, when $`i50`$ away from edge–on. Bottema (1999) has measured velocity and velocity dispersion for the Sb galaxy NGC 7331 up to 3 $`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. The $`v/\sigma `$ profile of that galaxy reaches values around 8 at 3 $`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, but has a steeper inner slope: at 1 $`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, NGC 7331 has $`v/\sigma =4`$ already. We have started a merger simulation with a colder initial disk using the geometry of case 1 (see table 1). We find virtually the same $`v/\sigma `$ profile in the remnant of the merger simulation (see Figure The kinematics of 3:1–merger remnants and the formation of low–luminosity elliptical galaxies, top panel). We conclude that our choice of initial galaxy disk is not an artificial cause for the low $`v/\sigma `$ profile found in our merger remnants.

## 5 Could small ellipticals still be merger products?

In this section, we speculate on some possible scenarii that could still save the 3:1 merger of disks as a viable route for the formation of fast rotating ellipticals. In addition, one (non–merger) mechanism is mentioned that could also lead to the formation of similar objects.

If we start with a sub–maximal initial disks, a weaker bar instability occurs since massive dark halos tend to stabilize disks against bars. Therefore the disks are less heated during the merger and could produce a remnant with a higher $`v/\sigma `$ profile, in agreement with the R99 sample. Using a fast–rotating bulge in the initial spiral galaxy could increase the $`v/\sigma `$ profile of the remnant in the inner parts. Finally, the inclusion of a dissipative component in the merger is also likely to increase the amount of ordered motion: in gas–rich 3:1 merger simulations, large ($`1\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$) gaseous disks form in the remnant (Naab 2000). If new stars are subsequently formed in such disks, the final rotational support is increased. It is however not clear what fraction of the gas is turned into stars (and under what conditions and timescale).

In a cluster environment, mergers occur rarely since the velocity dispersion is too high. However, galaxy harassment is likely to play a significant role. According to Moore, Lake & Katz (1998) disks galaxies in rich clusters undergo a complete morphological transformation from ”disks” to ”spheroidals”. These objects probably retain a large amount of rotation and may therefore have a high $`v/\sigma `$.

Finally, we have compared our merger remnants with the low–mass end of the elliptical sequence. Intermediate ellipticals ($`19<\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{B}<20`$) show more modest $`v/\sigma `$ profiles. The kinematics of these objects may still be explained by 3:1 collisionless mergers.

## 6 Conclusions

We have compared various kinematic characteristics of a limited sample of 3:1 N–body merger remnants with observations of low–luminosity elliptical galaxies in order to test if the collisionless merger of disk galaxies (with mass ratio of 3:1) are a likely formation mechanism for such objects. The simulated merger remnants and the observed galaxies both show rapid rotation along the major axis and little rotation along the minor axis. A detailed comparison between simulations and data shows, however, that on average, the rotational support $`v/\sigma `$ of the simulated remnants is too small compared to the observed galaxies. A comparison of the line–of–sight VP, quantified by $`h_3`$, reveals that the merger remnants have VPs with zero or positive $`h_3`$ inside 1 $`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, whereas the observed VPs have $`h_30.06`$ in the same interval. These more direct comparisons with the data support the conclusion of R99 based on simpler models, i.e., the low–luminosity galaxies have a different dynamics than the 3:1 merger remnants. In particular they have, on average, more ordered motion. These conclusions differ from the ones reached by BB, even though the results of our simulations agree with theirs. The difference can be traced to the more detailed and rigorous data model comparison performed here.

At face value this suggests that either the last merger that this class of small ”ellipticals” experienced had a mass ratio $`>`$ 3:1, or that a substantial stellar disk formed by gas dissipation after the last major merger. Note that we have been conservative by looking at 3:1 mergers in the sense that the 3:1 remnants are the most likely objects to look like an elliptical and have a high rotation support: 1:1 mergers lead to boxy objects with far less rotation support and 5:1 mergers (or higher) do not form an elliptical because the large disk mostly survive the interaction. It is not clear quantitatively what is the effect of the inclusion of gas and star formation in the kinematics of the remnant. Furthermore, adding gas might not be the only way to save the merging scenario. For example, starting the merger with a sub–maximal disk could produce a remnant with a higher $`v/\sigma `$ profile. On the other hand, galaxy harassment is a plausible mechanism to heat the disk of spirals, while keeping some degree of ordered motion. However harassment is mainly operating in rich clusters, whereas mergers are ubiquitous in a hierarchical formation scenario.

We thank Josh Barnes for his constructive comments on the manuscript.