text:
# Untitled Document

Reinterpretation of Matter-Wave Interference Experiments

Based on the Local-Ether Wave Equation

Ching-Chuan Su

Department of Electrical Engineering

National Tsinghua University

Hsinchu, Taiwan

Abstract – Based on the local-ether wave equation for free particle, the dispersion of matter wave is examined. From the dispersion relation, the angular frequency and wavelength of matter wave are derived. These formulas look like the postulates of de Broglie in conjunction with the Lorentz mass-variation law. However, the fundamental difference is that for terrestrial particles their speeds are referred specifically to a geocentric inertial frame and hence incorporate the speed due to earth’s rotation. Thus the local-ether model predicts an east-west directional anisotropy both in mass and wavelength. Meanwhile, in spite of the restriction on reference frame, the local-ether model can account for the matter-wave interference experiments of the Bragg reflection and the Sagnac effect. For electron wave, the effects of earth’s rotation are negligible and the derived Bragg angle is actually in accord with the Davisson-Germer experiment, as examined within the present precision. On the other hand, the local-ether model leads to a directional anisotropy in the Bragg angle in neutron diffraction. The predicted anisotropy due to earth’s rotation then provide a means to test the local-ether wave equation.

1. Introduction

The wave nature of particle has been initiated by de Broglie in 1924 by postulating that a particle is associated with a matter wave of which the angular frequency and the wavelength are related to the energy and the momentum of the particle, respectively . The energy and momentum in turn are associated with the speed-dependent mass which was first introduced by Lorentz in 1904 . Shortly, the matter wavelength has been demonstrated in the Bragg reflection of electron beam from a crystal by Davisson and Germer in 1927 . Furthermore, based on the phase difference between two coherent beams of electron, neutron, or atom, various matter-wave interference experiments have been reported to demonstrate the Bragg reflection, the double-slit diffraction, the gravitational effect, and the Sagnac effect.

Recently, we have presented the local-ether model of wave propagation . That is, electromagnetic wave can be viewed as to propagate via a medium like the ether. However, the ether is not universal. It is supposed that in the region under sufficient influence of the gravity due to the Earth, the Sun, or another celestial body, there forms a local ether which in turn moves with the gravitational potential of the respective body. For earthbound waves, the medium is the earth local ether which as well as earth’s gravitational potential is stationary in an ECI (earth-centered inertial) frame, while the sun local ether for interplanetary waves is stationary in a heliocentric inertial frame. It has been shown elaborately that the propagation of earthbound electromagnetic waves is referred specifically to an ECI frame, as demonstrated in the high-precision experiments of GPS (global positioning system), the intercontinental microwave link, and of the Sagnac loop interferometry .

Further, matter wave is supposed to follow the local-ether model. Thereby, we have presented a wave equation for a particle of charge $`q`$ and natural frequency $`\omega _0`$ in the presence of the gravitational and the electrical scalar potentials \[4-6\]. Under the ordinary condition of low particle speed, the local-ether wave equation has been shown to lead to a unified quantum theory of gravitational and electromagnetic forces . Furthermore, it is found that the gravitational mass associated with the gravitational force and the inertial mass under the influence of the electromagnetic force are identical to the natural frequency, aside from a common scaling factor. Thereby, the local-ether wave equation leads to the important consequence of the identity of gravitational and inertial mass and their physical origin. When the restriction on the particle speed is removed, the local-ether wave equation leads to the east-west directional anisotropy in mass, quantum state energy, and hence in clock rate which in turn has been demonstrated in the Hafele-Keating experiment with circumnavigation atomic clocks .

In this investigation, we explore more consequences of the local-ether wave equation. From the wave equation for a free particle, the dispersion of matter wave is derived. Then, from the dispersion relation, the angular frequency and wavelength of matter wave and the associated speed-dependent mass of particle are derived. According to the local-ether model, the velocity of earthbound particles that determines the mass and the wave properties is referred specifically to an ECI frame and hence incorporates the linear velocity due to earth’s rotation. Accordingly, the matter-wave interference experiments of the Bragg reflection, the double-slit diffraction, and of the Sagnac effect are reexamined, particularly the effects of earth’s rotational and orbital motions.

2. Local-Ether Wave Equation for Free Particle

It is supposed that a free particle is represented by a wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ which in turn is governed by the nonhomogeneous wave equation proposed to be

$$\left\{^2\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{^2}{t^2}\right\}\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫,t)=\frac{\omega _0^2}{c^2}\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫,t),$$
$`(1)`$
where $`c`$ is the speed of light and $`\omega _0`$ is the natural frequency associated with the particle. This equation is a simplified form of the local-ether wave equation presented in \[4-6\] by dropping the gravitational and the electric scalar potentials. For the case where the natural frequency is zero, the equation reduces to the homogeneous wave equation governing electromagnetic wave in free space. Further, by replacing $`c`$ with another speed, the equation reduces to the wave equation governing a mechanical wave.

The natural frequency is a constant and has been found to be the origin of the rest mass of the particle associated with wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. It has been shown from the local-ether wave equation under the gravitational and the electric potential potentials that the natural frequency $`\omega _0`$ is related to the gravitational and the inertial mass $`m_0`$ of a low-speed particle by the familiar form of \[4-6\]

$$m_0=\frac{\mathrm{}}{c^2}\omega _0,$$
$`(2)`$
where $`\mathrm{}`$ is Planck’s constant divided by $`2\pi `$. This relation states that the rest mass of a particle is just its natural frequency, aside from the scaling factor $`\mathrm{}/c^2`$.

Since matter wave is supposed to follow the local-ether model, the time derivative in the proposed wave equation is referred specifically to an ECI frame for earthbound particles. As the time derivative is referred to a particular frame, its value remains unchanged when observed in different reference frames. This feature is identical to that in a mechanical wave motion. The proposed wave equation looks like the free-space Klein-Gordan equation  and like the equation dealing with spin given in , except the fundamental difference in the reference frame of the time derivative.

From the wave equation, it is seen that the wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ oscillates at the natural frequency when its spatial variations vanish. As the wavefunction starts to vary spatially, its temporal variation will increase accordingly. The spatial and the temporal variations of a wavefunction are important characteristics of wave motion and are expected to play an important role in determining the physical properties of the particle associated with the wavefunction.

3. Dispersion of Matter Wave

Suppose that the wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a wave packet composed of plane waves of a narrow bandwidth. Each component of the plane waves is of the form $`\psi _0e^{ikx}e^{i\omega t}`$, where $`\omega `$ is the angular frequency, $`k`$ the propagation constant, and $`\psi _0`$ an arbitrary constant. Then, for each of the plane waves, the wave equation leads to an algebraic equation

$$\omega ^2c^2k^2=\omega _0^2.$$
$`(3)`$
It is seen that the angular frequency and the propagation constant are related to each other. Further, owing to the presence of the natural frequency $`\omega _0`$, the relation between $`\omega `$ and $`k`$ becomes nonlinear and hence the matter wave is dispersive. For electromagnetic wave with a zero natural frequency, the dispersion then vanishes. On the other hand, the dispersion relation is important in determining the properties of matter wave.

It is known that the peak of a wave packet moves at its group velocity. Thus the speed $`v`$ of a particle can be given by the group speed $`v_g`$ of the associated wave packet, that is, $`v=v_g=d\omega /dk`$. Then, from the preceding dispersion relation, one has $`\omega d\omega =c^2kdk`$ which in turn yields the propagation constant-speed relation

$$k=\frac{\omega }{c^2}v.$$
$`(4)`$
It is noted that the propagation constant $`k`$ is proportional to the speed $`v`$ with the angular frequency $`\omega `$ as a ratio.

On substituting this relation back into the dispersion relation, it is seen that the frequency $`\omega `$ in turn depends on the speed $`v`$ as

$$\omega =\frac{\omega _0}{\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}}.$$
$`(5)`$
In terms of the natural frequency $`\omega _0`$, the propagation constant-speed relation becomes

$$k=\frac{\omega _0}{c^2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}}v.$$
$`(6)`$
Since wavelength is inversely proportional to propagation constant, the wavelength of a harmonic-like matter wave packet also depends on the particle speed.

In terms of the rest mass $`m_0`$, the angular frequency and the propagation constant take the form of

$$\mathrm{}\omega =\frac{m_0c^2}{\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}}$$
$`(7)`$
and

$$\mathrm{}k=\frac{m_0v}{\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}},$$
$`(8)`$
respectively. It is of essence to note that the preceding two formulas look like the postulates of de Broglie. However, the fundamental difference is that the particle speed here is referred specifically to the local-ether frame, which is an ECI frame for earthbound particles. Ignoring this difference in reference frame, the famous postulates of de Broglie are then consequences derived from the dispersion of matter wave.

From the frequency-speed relation (5), one immediately has

$$v=c\sqrt{1\omega _0^2/\omega ^2}.$$
$`(9)`$
It is seen that the particle speed $`v`$ increases monotonically with the angular frequency $`\omega `$. Further, the speed of a free particle is then limited to $`c`$, as referred to the local-ether frame. For this limiting case, the propagation constant $`k`$ and hence the angular frequency $`\omega `$ are large enough, such that the natural frequency $`\omega _0`$ in the dispersion relation (3) can be neglected. As a result, the propagation characteristics of such a matter wave are close to those of electromagnetic wave. For terrestrial high-energy electrons emitted spontaneously from radiative elements or accelerated in a synchrotron, the limiting speed is expected to be referred to an ECI frame. However, as the linear speed due to earth’s rotation is relatively low, it makes no substantial difference in measurement if the speed is referred instead to a geostationary laboratory frame, as done tacitly in common practice.

A dispersion relation quite similar to (3) can be found in the plane wave propagating in a plasma, with the natural frequency $`\omega _0`$ being replaced with the plasma frequency . Another similar dispersion can be found in the guided mode propagating in a waveguide, with the natural frequency $`\omega _0`$ being replaced with the cutoff frequency . Hence a frequency-speed relation similar to (5) or (9) can be found in a plasma or a waveguide.

4. Mass, Energy, and Momentum

The formulas of angular frequency and propagation constant can be written in a more compact way by introducing the speed-dependent mass $`m`$ defined in terms of the rest mass $`m_0`$ in a familiar form of

$$m=m_0\frac{1}{\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}}.$$
$`(10)`$
Then we have the frequency-mass relation

$$\mathrm{}\omega =mc^2$$
$`(11)`$
and the propagation vector-velocity relation

$$\mathrm{}𝐤=m𝐯.$$
$`(12)`$
This speed-dependent mass looks like the famous Lorentz mass-variation law. However, the fundamental difference is that the particle speed $`v`$ in (10) is referred specifically to the local-ether frame, rather than a laboratory frame or any other. Thus the speeds of terrestrial particles incorporate the one due to earth’s rotation, while the corresponding wave properties are entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around the Sun or others.

From the preceding relations, it is seen that the rest mass $`m_0`$ and the speed-dependent mass $`m`$ of a particle are just the natural frequency and the angular frequency of the associated matter wave, respectively, aside from the common scaling factor $`\mathrm{}/c^2`$. Thereby, based on the local-ether wave equation, the mass originates from the temporal variation of matter wave. And the mass variation originates from the dispersion of matter wave, which in turn is due to the natural frequency. On the other hand, it is noticed that the standard derivation of the mass variation is through a quite indirect way by dealing with a case associated with an elastic or inelastic collision between two identical particles \[11-13\].

For a high-speed terrestrial particle, it may make no substantial difference whether the particle speed is referred to an ECI frame or to the ground. Nevertheless, one consequence of the local-ether model is that the speed-dependent mass $`m`$ as well as the matter wavelength is expected to possess an east-west directional anisotropy due to earth’s rotation. That is, for a given ground speed, the earthbound particles moving eastward have the highest speed with respect to an ECI frame and hence have the heaviest mass, while those moving westward, the lightest. This anisotropy in mass in conjunction with the mass-dependence of quantum energy of the matter wave bounded in atoms has been adopted to account for the east-west directional anisotropy in the clock rate observed in the Hafele-Keating experiment with circumnavigation atomic clocks .

Similar to those in quantum mechanics, the momentum and the energy of a particle are defined as the expectation values of the spatial and the temporal derivatives, $`i\mathrm{}`$ and $`i\mathrm{}/t`$, respectively, where the expectation value of an operator $`O`$ is evaluated in terms of the wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ as $`O=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}O\mathrm{\Psi }𝑑𝐫`$. Thus, for a space-harmonic wave, the momentum is given by $`𝐩=\mathrm{}𝐤`$. Then, according to the propagation vector-velocity relation (12), the momentum becomes a familiar form of $`𝐩=m𝐯`$. However, the particle velocity $`𝐯`$ is referred specifically to the local-ether frame. From the local-ether wave equation, a first-order time evolution equation, similar to Schrödinger’s equation, has been derived. From this equation it has been shown that the velocity of a particle defined as the time derivative of expectation value of the position vector corresponds to the expectation value of a spatial derivative as $`𝐯=i\mathrm{}/m_0`$, where the velocity is referred to the local-ether frame and the corresponding speed is supposed to be much lower than $`c`$ \[4-6\]. It is of interesting to note that for a wave packet, the particle speed derived from the evolution equation is identical to the aforementioned group velocity derived from the dispersion relation.

Furthermore, for a time-harmonic wave, the energy is given by $`=\mathrm{}\omega `$. Then, according to the frequency-mass relation (11), the energy becomes a familiar form of

$$=mc^2.$$
$`(13)`$
Ignoring the difference in reference frame of the particle speed, this is just the famous energy-mass relation first introduced by Poincaré in 1900 . For a low-speed particle, the mass-variation law (10) leads to

$$\mathrm{}\omega \mathrm{}\omega _0=mc^2m_0c^2=\frac{1}{2}m_0v^2.$$
$`(14)`$
Thus, due to the dispersion of matter wave, the variation in the angular frequency or in the mass corresponds to the kinetic energy for a low-speed particle. When the spatial variation of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is weak, the temporal variation of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is close to the harmonic $`e^{i\omega _0t}`$ and then the wavefunction can be given as $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫,t)=\psi (𝐫,t)e^{i\omega _0t}`$, where the temporal variation of the wavefunction $`\psi `$ is weak. The aforementioned evolution equation derived from the wave equation is expressed in terms of this reduced wavefunction $`\psi `$. It is seen that the energy and the kinetic energy are associated with the expectation values of the time derivative $`i\mathrm{}/t`$ evaluated in terms of wavefunctions $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\psi `$, respectively.

As the particle velocity is referred to a specific frame, all the values of the angular frequency, the propagation vector, the energy, the kinetic energy, and of the momentum remain unchanged when observed in different reference frames. For earthbound particles, the momentum and the kinetic energy are then referred specifically to an ECI frame. This differs from the common understanding, since the conventional momentum and kinetic energy are not attached to a specific frame and hence are different in different frames. However, in what follows we show that the local-ether momentum and kinetic energy indeed comply with the conservation laws of the conventional momentum and kinetic energy.

Consider the collision between two low-speed particles of rest masses $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$. It is supposed that the sum of the propagation constants and the one of the angular frequencies of the two particles remain fixed during the collision. Thus

$$m_1𝐯_1+m_2𝐯_2=m_1𝐯_3+m_2𝐯_4$$
$`(15)`$
and

$$m_1v_1^2+m_2v_2^2=m_1v_3^2+m_2v_4^2,$$
$`(16)`$
where $`𝐯_1`$ and $`𝐯_3`$ are the velocities of the particle of $`m_1`$ before and after the collision, respectively, $`𝐯_2`$ and $`𝐯_4`$ are those of the particle of $`m_2`$, and all the velocities are referred to the local-ether frame.

Then, for an arbitrary velocity $`𝐯_0`$, one immediately has

$$m_1(𝐯_1𝐯_0)+m_2(𝐯_2𝐯_0)=m_1(𝐯_3𝐯_0)+m_2(𝐯_4𝐯_0).$$
$`(17)`$
This relation can be interpreted in the way that based on Galilean transformations the conventional momentum conserves as observed in a laboratory frame moving at the velocity $`𝐯_0`$ with respect to the local-ether frame. Further, by a direct expansion and by a use of (15), one has

$$m_1(𝐯_1𝐯_0)^2+m_2(𝐯_2𝐯_0)^2=m_1(𝐯_3𝐯_0)^2+m_2(𝐯_4𝐯_0)^2.$$
$`(18)`$
Therefore, it is seen that the conventional momentum and kinetic energy conserve in any laboratory frame, in spite of the situation that their values of respective particles are different in different frames. That is, the conservation laws of conventional momentum and kinetic energy are invariant under Galilean transformations and have no preferred frame, as expected in classical mechanics. Thus the local-ether model leads to consequences in accord with the conservation laws in classical mechanics and with Galilean relativity.

For the case with $`m_2m_1`$ and $`𝐯_2=𝐯_0`$, it is seen that $`𝐯_4𝐯_0`$ and then $`(𝐯_3𝐯_0)^2=(𝐯_1𝐯_0)^2`$. Thus the particle speed, the magnitude of momentum, and the kinetic energy of a particle remain substantially unchanged before and after its collision with a rigid plane, when observed in the laboratory frame with respect to which the reflecting plane is stationary. Meanwhile, these two particle speeds in general are different when referred to the local-ether frame. Thus the wavelength of the reflected matter wave is different from that of the incident one. Since the difference between $`𝐯_3`$ and $`𝐯_1`$ is parallel to the normal $`\widehat{n}`$ of the reflecting plane, it can be shown that

$$𝐯_3=𝐯_12(𝐯_1𝐯_0)\widehat{n}\widehat{n}.$$
$`(19)`$
Moreover, one has $`\widehat{n}(𝐯_3𝐯_0)=\widehat{n}(𝐯_1𝐯_0)`$. When the reflecting point is fixed on a rigid plane, the directions of the beams formed by the incident and the reflected particles are determined by the particle velocities with respect to the plane. Then the preceding relations lead to that the angle of reflection of a particle beam from the plane is equal to the angle of incidence, as observed in the laboratory frame. This consequence is simply in accord with the famous Snell’s law of reflection.

5. Reexamination of Matter-Wave Interference Experiments

In this section, we discuss the matter-wave interferometry, where two matter waves are coherently split from a particle beam, propagate respectively along two separate paths, and then are combined to cause an interference depending on the phase difference. It is supposed that the phase variation $`\varphi `$ of a matter wave over a differential path of directed length $`d𝐥`$ along the particle beam is given by

$$\varphi =𝐤d𝐥,$$
$`(20)`$
where the particle velocity $`𝐯`$ associated with the propagation vector $`𝐤`$ ($`=m𝐯/\mathrm{}`$) is referred specifically to the local-ether frame, while the directed length $`d𝐥`$ is invariant in different reference frames. This expression is identical to the one adopted in , except the reference frame of the particle velocity $`𝐯`$. Thereby, we reexamine the matter-wave interference experiments reported in the literature demonstrating the Bragg reflection, the double-slit diffraction, and the Sagnac effect, particularly the reference frame of particle velocity and the effects of earth’s motions.

5.1. Bragg reflection and Young’s slit diffraction of matter wave

The Bragg reflection from a crystal is due to the constructive interference among various reflected waves from successive lattice planes in parallel. Analogous to the Bragg reflection of x-ray from a crystal, the wavelength and the propagation constant of a matter wave can be determined from the scattering from the surface of lattice planes of a known spacing by measuring the Bragg angle $`\theta _B`$, the reflection angle corresponding to the constructive interference.

For a crystal of lattice spacing $`d`$, the path-length difference between two waves either incident upon or reflected from two consecutive lattice planes is $`d\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}`$, where $`\theta ^{}`$ is the angle of incidence and reflection measured from the normal $`\widehat{n}`$ of the reflecting lattice plane when observed in the laboratory frame in which the crystal is stationary. Then, according to the aforementioned Snell’s law of reflection, the Bragg condition of constructive reflection is given by

$$m(v_p+𝐯_0𝐭)d\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}=n\pi \mathrm{},$$
$`(21)`$
where $`𝐯_p`$ ($`=𝐯𝐯_0`$) represents the particle velocity with respect to the laboratory frame which in turn moves at the velocity $`𝐯_0`$ with respect to the local-ether frame, $`𝐭`$ is one half of the sum of the unit vectors $`\widehat{v}_p`$ representing the directions of the incident and the reflected beams, and $`n`$ is a positive integer. It is noted that the direction of $`𝐭`$ is parallel to the lattice planes and its magnitude $`t=\mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}`$. It is seen that the Bragg angle depends on the laboratory speed and the orientation of the lattice planes with respect to the laboratory velocity.

Consider the ordinary case where the particle speed $`v`$ is much lower than the speed of light and hence the particle mass is substantially identical to its rest mass $`m_0`$. In the mean time, the particle speed is supposed to be high enough such that $`v_0v_pc`$. Thus the Bragg condition reduces to

$$m_0v_pd\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}=n\pi \mathrm{}.$$
$`(22)`$
As the laboratory speed $`v_0`$ is omitted, this formula becomes invariant under Galilean transformations. The preceding formula is identical to the one given in , if the matter wavelength therein is understood to be associated with the particle speed referred to the laboratory frame.

The matter wavelength has been demonstrated in the Davisson-Germer experiment, where the scattering of accelerated electron beams from the surface of a metal crystal was measured. Similarly, the matter wavelength has also been demonstrated in the diffraction ring pattern of a high-speed electron beam passing through a thin foil of polycrystalline gold . More direct evidence for matter wavelength can be provided by the diffraction from macroscopic objects, such as Young’s double slit. It is well known in optics that the period in the interference fringe pattern is proportional to the wavelength and to the inverse of the slit separation. Single-, double-, or multiple-slit diffraction of matter wave has been demonstrated for electron , neutron , and atom .

In these various experiments demonstrating the matter wavelength, the reference frame of the particle velocity is not explicitly specified and is supposed to be a geostationary laboratory frame. In what follows, we discuss the issue of reference frame and the effects of earth’s rotation. Consider the isotropic case where the speed of the particles with respect to the ground is independent of the beam direction, such as the root-mean-square speed in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature. However, it is expected that for a given ground speed, the earthbound particles moving eastward will have the highest speed with respect to an ECI frame and hence have the shortest wavelength, while those moving westward, the longest. Thus the matter wavelength is expected to possess an east-west directional anisotropy due to earth’s rotation, aside from the speed-dependence in the mass. In order to acquire a matter wavelength of one angstrom (the order of lattice spacing), the speed for electrons is $`7.4\times 10^6`$ m/sec. This speed is much higher than the linear speed due to earth’s rotation. Obviously, it makes no substantial difference whether the speed is referred to an ECI frame or to the ground. Therefore, the local-ether model is actually in accord with the Davisson-Germer experiment and others dealing with electron wave, as examined within the present precision.

On the other hand, for heavier particles, such as neutron and atoms, the effects of earth’s rotation would be more appreciable. For example, in order to acquire a matter wavelength of one angstrom, the speed for neutrons is $`4\times 10^3`$ m/sec, which is higher than the linear speed due to earth’s rotation merely by a factor of about 10. In the Bragg reflection by a geostationary crystal, the ground speed of the reflected particles is identical to that of the incident ones. However, the wavelength of the reflected matter wave is expected to be different from that of the incident one, except when the Bragg angle is very small as measured from the crystal plane. Moreover, the Bragg angle and the fringe period in Young’s slit diffraction are expected to depend on the orientation of the experimental setup with respect to the ground, even when the ground speed of the incident particles is identical.

5.2. Predicted anisotropy in Bragg angle due to earth’s rotation

We then proceed to examine the minute effect due to the laboratory velocity. Suppose the Bragg angle $`\theta _B`$ is measured from the lattice plane (represented by the vector $`𝐭`$) to the reflected beam. Then the deflection angle of the particle beam measured from incidence to reflection is $`2\theta _B`$. For a given incident beam with an incident angle $`\theta ^{}`$, there are two values for the Bragg angle $`\theta _B`$, one positive and one negative, which are associated with two orientations of the crystal symmetric with respect to the incident beam, where $`\theta _B=\pm (\pi /2\theta ^{})`$ and $`0<\theta ^{}<\pi /2`$. Consider the case where the direction of the laboratory velocity $`𝐯_0`$ lies in the plane of incidence. Suppose the incident beam makes an angle $`\alpha `$ as measured from the direction of $`𝐯_0`$. Thus the vector $`𝐭`$ makes an angle $`\alpha +\theta _B`$ from that direction. Then the Bragg condition is given by

$$m_0[v_p+v_0\mathrm{cos}(\alpha +\theta _B)\mathrm{cos}\theta _B]d|\mathrm{sin}\theta _B|=n\pi \mathrm{}.$$
$`(23)`$
It is seen that the laboratory velocity complicates the dependence on angle $`\theta _B`$.

Consider the Bragg reflection of neutron wave from a pyrolytic graphite crystal briefly reported in , where the laboratory is geostationary and the incident neutron beam is directed due south ($`\alpha =90^{}`$). Then the Bragg condition becomes

$$|\mathrm{sin}\theta _B|\left\{1(v_0/v_p)\mathrm{sin}\theta _B\mathrm{cos}\theta _B\right\}=n\pi \mathrm{}/m_0v_pd.$$
$`(24)`$
The lattice constant is reported to be $`d=6.708`$ angstrom with $`n=4`$; the neutron wavelength is estimated to be $`\lambda =1.134`$ angstrom and hence it is understood that $`v_p=3490`$ m/sec; and the laboratory is located at a latitude of $`38.63^{}`$ and hence $`v_0=362`$ m/sec . Then, according to the preceding formula, the predicted Bragg angles are $`\theta _a=20.48^{}`$ and $`\theta _b=19.11^{}`$. A positive or negative Bragg angle corresponds to the situation that the beam is reflected toward west or east, respectively. It is noted that the beam reflected toward west deflects more in magnitude than the one toward east. The difference in magnitude between the two Bragg angles is associated with the speed ratio $`v_0/v_p`$ and presents an anisotropy due to earth’s rotation.

The constructive reflection at the Bragg angle results in a minimum transmission which in turn can be detected by a counter. The measured results of the crystal rotation angle for minimum transmission are $`\theta _1=19.14^{}`$ and $`\theta _2=159.63^{}`$ , where the orientation corresponding to the starting value of the crystal rotation angle is not specified explicitly. It is understood to correspond to the orientation at which the normal of the reflecting crystal surface is directed due west. Thus $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _3`$ ($`=\theta _2180^{}=20.37^{}`$) should be identical to $`\theta _a`$ and $`\theta _b`$, respectively. It is seen that the two Bragg reflections are asymmetric, as predicted by the local-ether model. However, the agreement is not good quantitatively. The discrepancies in the Bragg angles might be due to that the incident beam is not exactly directed due south or that the crystal rotation angle should be understood otherwise. Anyway, the predicted directional anisotropy in the Bragg angle due to earth’s rotation provides a means to test the local-ether wave equation.

5.3. Matter-wave Sagnac effect in rotating loop

By using the Bragg reflection from multiple crystals to form a closed path for the particle beam, the loop interferometry of matter wave can be achieved. We discuss the Sagnac effect of matter wave associated with the rotation of an interferometer which has a closed path formed by a series of reflecting planes of suitable orientations. Consider two coherently split particle beams form two paths $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ which in turn form a coplanar closed contour $`L`$ of arbitrary shape. Suppose the loop $`L`$ is rotating about an axis at an arbitrary location with an arbitrary directed rotation rate $`\overline{\omega }_I`$ with respect to the laboratory frame which in turn is rotating in an ECI frame. Thus the velocity $`𝐯_l`$ of the various reflecting planes forming the path is not uniform and is given by $`𝐯_l=𝐯_0+(\overline{\omega }_I+\overline{\omega }_E)\times (𝐫𝐫_0)`$ with respect to the local-ether frame, where $`𝐫`$ and $`𝐫_0`$ denote the position vectors of the planes and of a suitable reference point at which the laboratory velocity $`𝐯_0`$ is defined, respectively, and $`\overline{\omega }_E`$ is the directed rate of earth’s rotation.

The direction of the particle beam around the loop is determined by the propagation vector $`𝐤_p`$ ($`=m𝐯_p/\mathrm{}`$), where $`𝐯_p`$ ($`=𝐯𝐯_l`$) is the particle velocity with respect to the associated reflecting plane. For the trivial case with $`\omega _I=0`$, the path velocity $`𝐯_l`$ is substantially uniform among the planes, as $`\omega _E`$ is quite small. Thus the particle velocity $`𝐯_p`$, the propagation vector $`𝐤_p`$, and the particle beam traveling between two consecutive planes are all along the directed linear segment $`𝐥`$ joining the reflecting point on one of the two planes to that on the other. Consequently, the term $`𝐤_p𝐥`$ incorporated in the phase variation $`𝐤𝐥`$ over the path segment $`𝐥`$ is then equal to the scalar product $`k_pl`$. Furthermore, the particle speed $`v_p`$ and the propagation constant $`k_p`$ are always fixed while the particle beam is traveling around the loop. On the other hand, for the case with $`\omega _I0`$, the path velocity $`𝐯_l`$ is varying among the planes. Thus the direction of the particle beam, as well as those of the particle velocity $`𝐯_p`$ and of the propagation vector $`𝐤_p`$, tends to deviate from the path segment $`𝐥`$. However, the effect of these deviations on the phase variation is small if the rotation rate $`\omega _I`$ times the segment length $`l`$ is much smaller than the particle speed $`v_p`$. Actually, it is merely of the second order of the speed ratio $`\omega _Il/v_p`$, since the velocity difference between two consecutive planes under rotation is perpendicular to the segment $`𝐥`$. Similarly, the fractional variation in the magnitude $`k_p`$ around the loop is also of this order.

Thereby, for a loop formed by closely spaced reflecting planes or undergoing a slow rotation such that the condition $`\omega _Ilv_p`$ is met for every segment, the phase difference between the coherent beams along the two paths can be given by the path integral

$$\mathrm{}\varphi =_{L_1}𝐤\widehat{l}_1𝑑l+_{L_2}𝐤\widehat{l}_2𝑑l=_L𝐤𝑑𝐥,$$
$`(25)`$
where $`d𝐥=\widehat{l}_1dl`$ and $`\widehat{l}_2dl`$ on paths $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$, respectively. Further, as the differential phase variation $`𝐤_pd𝐥`$ can be given by the scalar product $`k_pdl`$ in conjunction with $`k_p`$ being a constant value around the loop, the phase difference becomes

$$\mathrm{}\varphi =k_p(l_2l_1)+\frac{m_0}{\mathrm{}}_L𝐯_l𝑑𝐥,$$
$`(26)`$
where $`l_1`$ and $`l_2`$ are the lengths of paths $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$, respectively. In deriving the preceding formula, the ordinary condition $`vc`$ is assumed such that the speed-dependent mass $`m`$ is substantially identical to the rest mass $`m_0`$.

For the case where the path is suitably structured such that $`l_1=l_2`$, the phase difference then takes the form of

$$\mathrm{}\varphi =\frac{2\omega _0}{c^2}(\overline{\omega }_I+\overline{\omega }_E)𝐒,$$
$`(27)`$
where $`𝐒`$ ($`=\frac{1}{2}_L𝐫\times 𝑑𝐥`$) is the directed area enclosed by the loop $`L`$ and we have made use of a vector identity, the relation $`\mathrm{}\omega _0=m_0c^2`$, and of the result that the integration of a constant vector $`𝐯_0`$ or $`𝐫_0`$ around an arbitrary loop is zero. It is seen that earth’s rotation as well as the rotation of the loop with respect to the ground contributes to the phase difference, as the path velocity $`𝐯_l`$ is referred to an ECI frame for terrestrial experiments and hence incorporates the linear velocity due to earth’s rotation. The phase-difference formula (27) with either $`\overline{\omega }_I`$ or $`\overline{\omega }_E`$ looks like the matter-wave Sagnac effect derived in \[15, 20-22\] from various different approaches. The matter-wave Sagnac effect associated with the rotation-induced quantum interference has been demonstrated with a particle beam of electron , neutron , or of atom . In these experiments, the loop can be rotating on a turntable  or simply be geostationary with variable orientation . For a geostationary loop with a specific structure, the phase difference due to earth’s rotation together with that due to earth’s gravity has also been derived from the local-ether model , which agrees with the experimental results with neutron beam reported in .

It is noted that the phase difference (27) is identical to the one for optical wave when the natural frequency $`\omega _0`$ is replaced with the angular frequency of an optical wave, aside from a factor of 2 due to a difference in the path structure . As the natural frequency of matter wave is much higher than an optical frequency, the loop area required for the matter-wave interference can be much smaller. By using the geostationary loop interferometer with neutron wave, the phase difference (27) due to earth’s rotation alone has been demonstrated with a high precision. It is noticed that the loop area employed for the detection of earth’s rotation with neutron wave is about $`10^3`$ m<sup>2</sup> in , which is much smaller than $`2\times 10^5`$ m<sup>2</sup> in the Michelson-Gale experiment for the same purpose with optical wave . By using cesium atomic beam, earth’s rotation has also been detected with the Sagnac loop interferometry .

Meanwhile, in as early as 1904 Michelson supposed that the Sagnac effect due to the orbital motion of the Earth around the Sun might be detectable , although the angular speed of the orbital motion is about 1/365 times that of the rotation. If this orbital effect does exist, it could be demonstrated with matter wave of neutron or atom by constructing a path of area of $`0.2`$ m<sup>2</sup> or smaller. However, the orbital effect is never observed in terrestrial interferometers either with electromagnetic or matter wave, to our knowledge. In some earthbound experiments with electromagnetic wave, this effect has been assumed to be null by resorting to the principle of local Lorentz invariance (see  for a discussion). Anyway, according to the local-ether propagation model, the particle velocity which determines the propagation vector $`𝐤`$ of matter wave is referred uniquely to an ECI frame, rather than to a heliocentric inertial, the ECEF (earth-centered earth-fixed), or any other frame. Thus earthbound experiments can depend on earth’s rotation but are entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around the Sun or whatever. Thereby, the local-ether model unambiguously predicts a discrepancy between the effects of the rotational and the orbital motions of the Earth in the Sagnac loop interferometry as well as in many other earthbound experiments discussed in , which provides a means to test its validity. Moreover, the phase-difference formula (27) is not expected to hold for an interferometer with a high rotation rate, especially when the particle speed $`v_p`$ is low. This restriction provides another means to test the local-ether wave equation.

6. Conclusion

The local-ether wave equation for a free particle looks like the free-space Klein-Gordan equation, except the reference frame of the time derivative. By virtue of the natural frequency, the wave equation leads to a dispersion relation for a harmonic-like wave packet. From the dispersion relation, the angular frequency and wavelength of matter wave and the speed-dependent mass of particle are derived, which look like the postulates of de Broglie and the Lorentz mass-variation law, respectively, except the reference frame of the particle velocity. For a harmonic matter wave, the angular frequency and the propagation vector are associated with the energy and the momentum of the particle, respectively, as the energy and the momentum are given by the expectation values of the temporal and the spatial derivatives evaluated in the wavefunction, respectively. As the phase variation of a particle beam is given by the propagation vector and the path length along the beam, a shift in these quantities leads to a phase difference between two coherent beams. From the difference in the path length, the Bragg condition of constructive reflection from a crystal is derived. Moreover, from the shift in the propagation vector due to earth’s rotation, the rotation of the interferometer, or to the gravity, the phase differences in the loop interferometry are derived.

As the velocity of earthbound particles is referred uniquely to an ECI frame, rather than a laboratory frame or any other, it is predicted that earth’s rotation leads to an east-west directional anisotropy both in mass and wavelength. Moreover, the particle velocity involved in the matter-wave interferometry incorporates the laboratory velocity with respect to an ECI frame for terrestrial experiments. For electrons, the mass is light and the speed is normally high. The anisotropy due to earth’s rotation or the effect due to the laboratory velocity is then negligibly small. Thereby, the local-ether model for electron wave is actually in accord with the Davisson-Germer experiment and Young’s slit diffraction as examined within the present precision. Further, the effect of the laboratory velocity can cancel out in a loop interferometer. Consequently, in spite of the restriction on the reference frame of particle velocity, the derived interference formulas for the Bragg reflection or for the loop interferometry can be independent of the laboratory velocity and then comply with Galilean relativity.

On the other hand, for heavier particles of neutron or atom, the effects of earth’s rotation on matter wavelength are expected to be more appreciable. It is predicted that the Bragg angle and the fringe period in Young’s slit diffraction depend on the orientation of the experimental setup with respect to the ground. For a given incident neutron beam, it is analyzed that the Bragg angle can deviate by an amount of about one degree between two symmetric orientations of the crystal. The predicted directional anisotropy in the Bragg angle and in the fringe period, the slow-rotation restriction on the famous formula of matter-wave Sagnac effect, and the discrepancy between the effects of earth’s rotational and orbital motions provide different approaches to test the local-ether wave equation.

References

* See, for example, R.M. Eisberg, Fundamentals of Modern Physics (Wiley, New York, 1961), chs. 3 and 6.
* H.A. Lorentz, in The Principle of Relativity (Dover, New York, 1952), p. 11.
* C.C. Su, Eur. Phys. J. C 21, 701 (2001); Europhys. Lett. 56, 170 (2001).
* C.C. Su, Eur. Phys. J. B 24, 231 (2001).
* C.C. Su, J. Electromagnetic Waves Applicat. 16, 403 (2002).
* C.C. Su, “A local-ether wave equation and the consequent electromagnetic force law,” J. Electromagnetic Waves Applicat. (in press); in IEEE Antennas Propagat. Soc. Int. Symp. Dig. (2001), vol. 1, p. 216; in Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. (Mar. 2001), p. 1144.
* J.D. Bjorken and S.D. Drell, Relativistic Quantum Mechanics (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1964); A.A. Sokolov, I.M. Ternov, and V. Ch. Zhukovskii, Quantum Mechanics (Mir Publishers, Moscow, 1984), sect. 17; F. Gross, Relativistic Quantum Mechanics and Field Theory (Wiley, New York, 1993), ch. 4.
* H. Kragh, Am. J. Phys. 52, 1024 (1984).
* E.P. Battey-Pratt and T.J. Racey, Int. J. Theoret. Phys. 19, 437 (1980). (In this paper, the mass of a particle is ascribed to the spin.)
* See, for example, S. Ramo, J.R. Whinnery, and T. Van Duzer, Fields and Waves in Communication Electronics (Wiley, New York, 1965), pp. 341 and 384.
* J.D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics (Wiley, New York, 1975), ch. 11.
* P. Lorrain and D.R. Corson, Electromagnetic Fields and Waves (Freeman, San Francisco, 1972), ch. 5.
* L.C. Baird, Am. J. Phys. 48, 779 (1980); P.D. Gupta, Am. J. Phys. 49, 890 (1981).
* L.B. Okun, Phys. Today 42, 31 (1989).
* J.-L. Staudenmann, S.A. Werner, R. Colella, and A.W. Overhauser, Phys. Rev. A 21, 1419 (1980).
* K.C. Littrell, B.E. Allman, and S.A. Werner, Phys. Rev. A 56, 1767 (1997).
* C. Jönsson, Am. J. Phys. 42, 4 (1974).
* A. Zeilinger, R. Gähler, C.G. Shull, W. Treimer, and W. Mampe, Rev. Mod. Phys. 60, 1067 (1988).
* O. Carnal and J. Mlynek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 2689 (1991).
* M. Dresden and C.N. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 20, 1846 (1979).
* L.A. Page, Phys. Rev. Lett. 35, 543 (1975).
* F. Hasselbach and M. Nicklaus, Phys. Rev. A 49, 143 (1993).
* A. Lenef, T.D. Hammond, E.T. Smith, M.S. Chapman, R.A. Rubenstein, and D.E. Pritchard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 760 (1997).
* T.L. Gustavson, P. Bouyer, and M.A. Kasevich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2046 (1997).
* C.C. Su, “Reinterpretation of the effects of earth’s rotation and gravity on the neutron-interferometry experiment,” Europhys. Lett. (in press).
* R. Anderson, H.R. Bilger, and G.E. Stedman, Am. J. Phys. 62, 975 (1994).


format: text

text:
# Stability of rotating spherical stellar systems

## 1 Introduction

Dynamical instabilities in spherically symmetric stellar systems have been investigated for more than four decades. In a seminal work, Antonov (antonov60 (1960, 1962)) used a variational principle to demonstrate that non-rotating spherical models with a phase-space distribution function $`f`$ depending only on the energy $`E`$ are stable to non-radial perturbations if $`df/dE<0`$. Subsequent works showed that this condition is also a sufficient condition for stability to radial perturbations (Dorémus et al. doremus71 (1971); Sygnet et al. sygnet84 (1984); Kandrup & Sygnet kandrup85 (1985)). In general, non-rotating spherical stellar systems are described by distribution functions $`f`$ that depend on both the energy $`E`$ and the magnitude of the angular momentum $`L`$. In such systems only the stability to radial modes can be tested by using the sufficient condition $`f/E<0`$ (Dorémus & Feix doremus73 (1973); Dejonghe & Merritt dejonghe88 (1988)). For this reason, numerical simulations have been an indispensable tool to investigate the stability of anisotropic spherical models.

Several classes of instabilities have been discovered in non-rotating spherical models with anisotropic velocity distributions (e.g., Hénon henon73 (1973); Merritt & Aguilar merritt85a (1985); Barnes et al. barnes86 (1986); see Merritt merritt99 (1999) for a recent review). For example, models dominated by stars on radial or eccentric orbits can be unstable to forming a triaxial bar (Polyachenko polyachenko81 (1981); Merritt & Aguilar merritt85a (1985); Meza & Zamorano meza97 (1997)), while models composed mainly of stars on circular orbits can exhibit quadrupole-mode oscillations (Barnes et al. barnes86 (1986)).

In contrast to non-rotating spherical models, comparatively little work has been done to investigate the stability of rotating spherical stellar systems. Miller & Smith (miller80 (1980)) employed several methods to introduce rotation in a spherical $`n=3`$ polytrope with isotropic velocity distribution. In all cases, they found that the addition of rotation does not affect the stability of their models; indeed, they found that even rapidly rotating systems remain spherically symmetric. More recently, Alimi et al. (alimi99 (1999)) showed that rotating isotropic spherical $`n=4`$ polytropes, which were made to rotate by changing the sign of the $`z`$-component of the angular momentum for a fraction of the particles, were dynamically stable.

On the other hand, Allen et al. (allen92 (1992)) reported the existence of a “tumbling bar instability” in a set of rotating spherical models with different degrees of velocity anisotropy, ranging from completely circular to entirely radial (see also Papaloizou et al. papaloizou91 (1991); Palmer 1994a ; 1994b ). In particular, they suggested that the introduction of a small amount of rotation in the isotropic spherical $`n=2`$ polytrope induces a bar instability in this otherwise stable system. However, Sellwood & Valluri (sellwood97 (1997)) using the same files of initial conditions but a different N-body code, showed that these models are actually stable; the instability appears do not exist. They suggested that the evolution observed by Allen et al. (allen92 (1992)) was, probably, caused by an improper treatment of variable time steps in their N-body code.

Most of the previous results have been obtained for rotating spherical models with somewhat unrealistic properties. Indeed, most of these works have employed spherical polytropes with finite radius (e.g., Alimi et al. alimi99 (1999)) or models with unrealistic velocity distributions (e.g., Allen et al. allen92 (1992)). Therefore, they cannot be considered as general. To investigate the influence of rotation on the stability of spherical stellar systems, it is necessary to consider models with more realistic density profiles and velocity distributions. In this paper, the results of a series of N-body simulations for four of such models are presented. These isotropic spherical models are: the Plummer (plummer11 (1911)) model, the Hernquist (hernquist90 (1990)) model, the Jaffe (jaffe83 (1983)) model, and the $`\gamma =0`$ model (Dehnen dehnen93 (1993); Tremaine et al. tremaine94 (1994)). Different degrees of rotation were introduced in these models by using the so-called Lynden-Bell’s (lynden-bell60 (1960, 1962)) demon to reverse the sense of rotation along the $`z`$-axis of a given fraction of the particles. Numerical simulations show that all these rotating models are stable, regardless of their degree of rotation.

This paper is organized as follows. The method employed to introduce net rotation in these models and the N-body code used to follow their dynamical evolution are described in Sect. 2. The main results of the numerical simulations are summarized in Sect. 3. Finally, a brief discussion of the results is given in Sect. 4.

## 2 Numerical simulations

### 2.1 Rotating models

The spherical models studied in this paper are: the Plummer (plummer11 (1911)) model,

$$\rho =\frac{3}{4\pi }\frac{Ma^2}{(a^2+r^2)^{5/2}},$$
(1)
the Jaffe (jaffe83 (1983)) model,

$$\rho =\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{Ma}{r^2(a+r)^2},$$
(2)
the Hernquist (hernquist90 (1990)) model,

$$\rho =\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{Ma}{r(a+r)^3},$$
(3)
and the $`\gamma =0`$ model (Dehnen dehnen93 (1993); Tremaine et al. tremaine94 (1994)),

$$\rho =\frac{3}{4\pi }\frac{aM}{(a+r)^4}.$$
(4)
In all these cases, $`M`$ is the total mass and $`a`$ is the scale radius. Hereafter, all quantities are expressed in units such that $`M=a=G=1`$, where $`G`$ is the gravitational constant. Some parameters for these models are summarized in Table 1, where $`r_h`$ is the half-mass radius and $`t_h`$ is the dynamical time evaluated at $`r_h`$.

The Plummer model fits the light distribution of globular clusters (see e.g., Spitzer spitzer87 (1987)), while the remaining three density profiles provide good approximations to the surface brightness of elliptical galaxies (see Dehnen dehnen93 (1993)). Several intrinsic properties and projected quantities of these models can be obtained analytically, e.g., the velocity dispersions, the surface brightness profile and the mass distribution. In particular, the phase-space distribution function $`f(E)`$ can be obtained analytically by using the Eddington’s inversion formula (see e.g., Binney & Tremaine binney87 (1987)). For all these non-rotating models, the distribution function satisfies the sufficient condition for stability $`df/dE<0`$. Therefore, the models are stable to both radial and non-radial perturbations (Antonov antonov62 (1962); Doremus et al. doremus71 (1971); Sygnet et al. sygnet84 (1984); Kandrup & Sygnet kandrup85 (1985)).

Initial conditions for the simulations were derived from the density profile and the distribution function by using the following scheme. The radial coordinate of each particle is assigned by inverting the equation $`M(r)=x`$, where $`M(r)`$ is the total mass inside the radius $`r`$ and $`x`$ is a uniform random variable in the range $`[0,1)`$. Then, the coordinates of the position vector $`𝐱`$ are chosen at random from a sphere with radius $`r`$. The distribution function $`f(E)`$ and the gravitational potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }(r)`$ evaluated at the particle position define the distribution of velocities, which is sampled by an acceptance-rejection technique to assign the modulus of the velocity $`v`$ of each particle (see e.g., Press et al. press92 (1992)). Finally, the coordinates of the velocity are chosen at random from a sphere with radius $`v`$.

The distribution function $`f(E)`$ does not depend on the sign of the $`z`$-component of the angular momentum $`L_z`$ (or equivalently on the sign of $`v_\varphi `$), therefore the models have no net streaming. Different amounts of rotation can be introduced in these models by reversing the sense of rotation about some axis, here taken to be the $`z`$-axis, of a given fraction of the particles (Lynden-Bell lynden-bell60 (1960, 1962)). In a non-rotating model, there are equal number of particles with $`v_\varphi `$ going in opposite directions, while for a maximally streaming model the sign of $`v_\varphi `$ is the same for all particles. All intermediate cases have varying fractions of particles with $`v_\varphi `$ going in opposite directions. This scheme preserves the position and the norm of the velocity of each particle, then the systems are put in rotation without modifying their total kinetic and potential energy. Therefore, the resulting rotating models are also in dynamical equilibrium (see Lynden-Bell lynden-bell60 (1960)).

This flipping rule introduces a discontinuity in the distribution function across $`L_z=0`$, which, in principle, can enhance the strength of the bar mode (Kalnajs kalnajs77 (1977)). However, as it is shown below, no signs of bar instabilities are observed in these rotating models. Therefore, no special procedure was necessary to taper this flipping rule when $`|L_z|`$ is small.

The degree of rotation in these models can be measured by the parameter (see e.g., Sellwood & Valluri sellwood97 (1997))

$$\eta =\frac{_{i=1}^NL_{z_i}}{_{i=1}^N|L_{z_i}|},$$
(5)
which varies from $`\eta =0`$ for a non-rotating model to $`\eta =1`$ for a model with all particles orbiting in the same sense around the $`z`$ axis. When $`\eta =0.5`$ the system has half the maximum possible total angular momentum; in this case, 75% of the particles are orbiting in the direct sense and the remaining 25% are retrograde.

Alternatively, the amount of rotation can also be given in terms of the following parameter (see Navarro & White navarro93 (1993))

$$\mu =\frac{K_{\mathrm{rot}}}{K},$$
(6)
where $`K`$ is the total kinetic energy and $`K_{\mathrm{rot}}`$ is the rotation kinetic energy defined by

$$K_{\mathrm{rot}}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{m_i(𝐋_i\widehat{𝐋}_{\mathrm{tot}})^2}{r_i^2(𝐫_i\widehat{𝐋}_{\mathrm{tot}})^2}$$
(7)
In order to exclude counterrotating particles, the sum in equation (7) is carried out only over particles that satisfy the condition $`(𝐋_i\widehat{𝐋}_{\mathrm{tot}})>0`$, where $`\widehat{𝐋}_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ is a unit vector in the direction of the total angular momentum of the system, in this case, along the $`z`$-axis. Therefore, this parameter measures the kinetic energy in the rotational motion around the $`z`$-axis. It varies from $`\mu =1/6`$ for a non-rotating model to $`\mu =1/3`$, the maximum value allowed for the virial theorem, for a model with all particles rotating in the same sense around the $`z`$-axis. Table 2 summarizes the values of $`\eta `$ and the associated values of $`\mu `$ employed in the simulations.

Figure 1 shows the mean streaming velocity for Plummer models with different degrees of rotation. To measure this quantity, the systems were first projected along the $`y`$-axis and, then, a slit was placed along the projected $`x`$-axis. The slit width was set at $`r_h`$, the half-mass radius, and the bin size along the projected axis was varied such that each bin contains the same number of particles ($`n_{\mathrm{bin}}=1000`$). In all the rotating models, the velocity curve reaches the maximun at $`Rr_h`$ and then decreases slowly (models with $`\eta 0.6`$) or remains practically flat (models with $`0<\eta 0.6`$). As expected, the mean streaming velocity of the non-rotating model ($`\eta =0`$) is nearly zero; the observed fluctuations reflect the discreteness of the models. The velocity curves for the other models are very similar.

### 2.2 N-body code

The stability of these models was investigated by using an N-body code based on the self-consistent field method described by Hernquist & Ostriker (hernquist92 (1992)). This scheme consists of solving the Poisson equation by expanding the density and the gravitational potential using a biortoghonal set of basis functions. For spherically symmetric systems, it is natural to employ spherical harmonics to expand the angular dependence. Then, the density and potential expansions become

$`\rho (𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{nlm}{}}A_{nlm}\rho _{nl}(r)Y_{lm}(\theta ,\phi ),`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{nlm}{}}A_{nlm}\mathrm{\Phi }_{nl}(r)Y_{lm}(\theta ,\phi ).`$ (9)
In practice, these expansions are truncated at some values $`n_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and $`l_{\mathrm{max}}`$ for the radial and angular functions, respectively.

The choice of the radial basis functions $`\{\rho _{nl},\mathrm{\Phi }_{nl}\}`$ is not unique; in fact, several sets have been proposed (e.g., Clutton-Brock clutton-brock73 (1973); Allen et al. allen90 (1990); Zhao zhao96 (1996)). However, the efficiency of this method relies upon the ability to represent the density profile of the initial system and its subsequent evolution with the first few terms of the basis set. Therefore, it is generally desirable to select a set of basis functions such that their lowest order terms provide a good approximation to the density profile of the system under study.

In these simulations, the Clutton-Brock (clutton-brock73 (1973)) basis set is used for the Plummer model, while the Hernquist-Ostriker (hernquist92 (1992)) basis set is employed for the other three models. The zeroth-order terms of these basis sets are, respectively, the Plummer model and the Hernquist model. The $`\gamma =0`$ model can be recovered by a linear combination of only two terms of the Hernquist-Ostriker basis functions (see Hernquist & Ostriker hernquist92 (1992)). Therefore, these basis sets provide exact representations for three of the models here studied. On the other hand, the Jaffe model can only be approximated by using a finite number of terms of the Hernquist-Ostriker basis set; in this case, good accuracy can be obtained with $`10`$ terms (see e.g., Meza & Zamorano meza97 (1997)).

All simulations employed $`N=10^5`$ equal-mass particles and potential expansions up to $`n_{\mathrm{max}}=10`$ for the radial functions and $`l_{\mathrm{max}}=2`$ for the angular functions. Nonzero $`m`$ terms were also included to allow the development of any non-axisymmetric instabilities. Time integration was performed using a second order scheme with a fixed time step $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, given by

$`𝐱_{i+1}`$ $`=`$ $`𝐱_i+\mathrm{\Delta }t𝐯_i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }t^2𝐚_i,`$ (10)
$`𝐯_{i+1}`$ $`=`$ $`𝐯_i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }t(𝐚_i+𝐚_{i+1}),`$ (11)
where the subscript identifies the iteration (see e.g., Hut et al. hut95 (1995)). The total elapsed time for all these simulations was $`T_{\mathrm{end}}=50t_h`$, where $`t_h`$ is the dynamical time evaluated at the half-mass radius of the respective model. The time step used for each model is shown in Table 1. With these parameters, the total energy was conserved to better than 0.01% for the Plummer, Hernquist and $`\gamma =0`$ models, while for the Jaffe models the conservation of energy was only about 4%.

With the adopted value $`l_{\mathrm{max}}=2`$ for the potential expansions, these simulations are designed for searching radial ($`m=0`$), lopsided ($`m=1`$), and bar ($`m=2`$) instabilities. A test particularly sensitive to the bar instability is the evolution of the axis ratios of the particle distribution. For each simulation, the axial ratios inside a given radius were obtained by using an iterative algorithm similar to that used by Dubinski & Carlberg (dubinski91 (1991)). In this scheme, initial values for the inertia tensor

$$I_{ij}=\frac{x_ix_j}{|𝐱|^2}.$$
(12)
are computed for all particles inside a sphere of radius $`r_m`$. The eigenvalues and eigenvectors of $`I_{ij}`$ provide an approximation to the axis ratios and the orientation of the fitting ellipsoid. Then, the modified inertia tensor is evaluated only for particles inside that ellipsoid, which gives an improved approximation to their axis ratios and orientation. This process is repeated until the axis ratios converge to a value within a pre-established tolerance.

## 3 Results

A total of 24 simulations were performed. The main result of these simulations is that all the rotating models are dynamically stable. This is illustrated by displaying the evolution of some of them. The results for other models are similar.

The evolution of the axis ratios $`b/a`$ and $`c/a`$, where $`abc`$, for the $`\gamma =0`$ models with different degrees of rotation is shown in Figure 2. These axis ratios were measured at radius $`r_m=8`$, which encloses $`70\%`$ of the total mass. For all values of $`\eta `$, the axis ratios remains essentially equal to their initial values. The fluctuations reflect the discreteness of the models and are consistent with the number of particles employed in the simulations. Similar behavior is observed for the axis ratios measured at other radii.

A more sensitive test for the existence of possible instabilities is provided by the analysis of the individual expansion coefficients $`A_{nlm}`$, which is straightforward in the self-consistent field method because the coefficients are evaluated at each time step in order to compute the forces. The evolution of the amplitude of several expansion coefficients $`A_{nlm}`$ for the rotating Hernquist model with $`\eta =1`$ is shown in Figure 3. These coefficients were calculated using the Hernquist & Ostriker (hernquist92 (1992)) basis functions. As expected, the zeroth-order coefficient $`A_{000}1`$, while the higher order coefficients are closer to zero and fluctuate around their initial values with amplitude consistent with the noise induced by the number of particles used in these simulations. In particular, there are no signs of radial ($`m=0`$), bar ($`m=2`$), or lopsided ($`m=1`$) instabilities. Other coefficients show the same qualitative behavior.

## 4 Conclusions

The stability of four rotating isotropic spherical models was investigated by using N-body simulations. The density profiles of these models provide good approximations to the mass distribution of globular clusters and elliptical galaxies. Different degrees of rotation were introduced in these models by reversing the sense of rotation along the $`z`$-axis of a given fraction of the particles (Lynden-Bell lynden-bell62 (1962)). Simulations show that all these rotating models are dynamically stable, irrespective of their degree of rotation. No signs of radial, lopsided, or bar instabilities were observed. If some of them exist their growth rate is larger than $`50t_h`$, the time elapsed for these simulations.

These simulations show that spherical stellar systems can rotate very rapidly without becoming oblate. This result contrasts with the suggestion of Alimi et al. (alimi99 (1999)) that there do not exist spherical stellar systems in fast rotation (i.e., with $`\mu 0.1`$). However, their conclusions were based on a series of simulations for spherical $`n=4`$ polytropes with isotropic velocity distributions, which were made to rotate by using a procedure that modifies their initial velocity anisotropy. Therefore, their conclusions are not strictly applicable to the isotropic models studied in this paper. But, they could still be valid for anisotropic spherical models. In fact, there are several other ways to construct rotating spherical models. For example, one could construct a system containing only circular orbits and then reverse a half of them (see Lynden-Bell lynden-bell60 (1960)). Clearly, such a model would exhibit stronger rotation that the models here analyzed and surely might be unstable.

###### Acknowledgements.

I am grateful to the referee for providing comments which improved the presentation of this paper. I thank Andreas Reisenegger and Nelson Zamorano for helpful suggestions and comments on the manuscript. I also thank the hospitality of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Victoria where the final version of this paper was written. This work was partially supported by FONDECYT grant 3990031.


text:
# The Orbit of the High-Mass X-Ray Binary Pulsar 1E 1145.1-6141

## 1 Introduction

It is a remarkable coincidence that there are two unrelated X-ray pulsars in Centaurus with nearly identical spin periods separated by only 15′ on the sky (White et al., 1978; Lamb et al., 1980). One of the sources is the 292 s transient X-ray pulsar 2S 1145$``$619, which is associated with the main sequence Be V companion Hen 715 (HD 102567) (Dower et al., 1978) and is 1.5 kpc distant. The pulsar exhibits periodic outbursts at 186.5 d intervals, which are believed to occur during periastron passage in the neutron star’s eccentric orbit. The X-ray flux in quiescence is typically $``$ 3 mcrab but the periastron flares reach a flux of several hundred mcrab.

The second source is the 297 s X-ray pulsar 1E 1145.1$``$6141, which is associated with the B2 Iae supergiant companion V830 Cen (Hutchings et al., 1981; Densham & Charles, 1982) and is $`8.5\pm 1.5`$ kpc distant. The pulsar appears to be persistent and steady, with a typical X-ray flux of a few mcrab, corresponding to a luminosity of order $`10^{36}`$ erg s-1. Such a low luminosity is inconsistent with Roche-lobe overflow and indicates that the pulsar is almost certainly accreting from the wind of V830 Cen. A binary period of $`6`$ d is required for the B supergiant to fit within the pulsar’s orbit (Densham & Charles, 1982), and previous authors have proposed periods ranging from 5.6 d to 12.1 d based on optical photometric and spectroscopic studies (Ilovaisky et al., 1982; Hutchings et al., 1987).

For supergiant X-ray binaries with orbital period $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}20`$ d, there is a significant a priori probability of an X-ray eclipse (corresponding to a critical binary inclination) given approximately by

$$\mathrm{Pr}0.38\left(\frac{P_{\mathrm{orb}}}{\text{15 d}}\right)^{2/3}\left(\frac{M_c}{15M_{}}\right)^{1/3}\left(\frac{R_c}{24R_{}}\right),$$
(1)
where $`M_c`$ and $`R_c`$ are the companion’s mass and radius, and we have assumed a circular orbit. Eclipsing X-ray pulsars provide important constraints on the neutron star mass range (van Kerkwijk et al., 1995). Since only 8 such systems are known (Chakrabarty et al., 2002; Corbet & Mukai, 2002), it is of significant interest to increase the sample. Thus motivated, we observed 1E 1145.1$``$6141 with the Rossi X-Ray Timing Explorer (RXTE) in an effort to determine the pulsar’s orbital period and search for X-ray eclipses. In this paper, we report our discovery of the 14.4 d orbit of 1E 1145.1$``$6141. We found no evidence for an X-ray eclipse.

## 2 Observations

Our observations were made using the Proportional Counter Array (PCA) on RXTE (Jahoda et al., 1996). This detector consists of five identical proportional counter units (PCUs), each containing a propane anticoincidence layer followed by several xenon/methane layers. It operates in the 2–60 keV range and has an effective area of $``$6500 cm2 and a 1 field of view. In addition to the standard data modes, data were also collected in GoodXenon mode, which records the arrival time (1 $`\mu `$s resolution) and energy (256-channel resolution) of every non-vetoed event. To maximize the signal-to-noise ratio, we confined our analysis to events in the top xenon layer of each PCU and restricted the energy range to 2.5–10 keV.

We observed 1E 1145.1$``$6141 on multiple occasions between 1997 June and 2000 February. Our 1997 observations were each 20 ks long, while the 1998–2000 observations were short 3 ks observations at roughly daily intervals. A summary of these observations is given in Table 1. In all cases, the observation epochs were selected to avoid periastron passages of 2S 1145$``$619 in order to prevent contamination by bright outbursts of this source. It is important to note that non-imaging timing observations can only resolve the coherent pulsations of 1E 1145.1$``$6141 and 2S 1145$``$619 into separate Fourier bins for observations lengths $`20`$ ks. Based on our long observations where the two nearby periodicities can be distinguished, in quiescence (i.e., away from its periastron), 2S 1145$``$619 does not interfere significantly with observations of 1E 1145.1$``$6141. The PCA energy spectrum for 1E 1145.1$``$6141 during the various observations was well fitted by an absorbed, cutoff power law spectral model. Using our 1997 June 30 observation (14.6 ks) as a typical example, the best-fit spectral parameters were: photon index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.24`$, cutoff energy $`E_c=6.4`$ keV, $`e`$-folding energy $`E_f=18`$ keV, and equivalent hydrogen column density $`N_\mathrm{H}=3.3\times 10^{22}`$ cm-2. These values are typical of the rest of our observations, but the source flux was variable by a factor of $``$2.

## 3 Timing Analysis

We binned the 2–10 keV events from each observation into a time series at 1 s resolution and converted to barycentric dynamical time (TDB) at the solar system barycenter. We folded the time series from each observation at a nominal pulse period of 296.5 s to form a 64-bin pulse profile and then cross-correlated each pulse profile with a high signal-to-noise template (see Figure 1) in order to derive a pulse arrival time for each observation. These arrival times can be compared to the time predicted by a constant-period model, using the best-fit pulse period determined for each of the four observation epochs. The resulting arrival time residuals are shown in Figure 2. There is clearly a roughly sinusoidal variation in the residuals with a period of about 14 days in the residuals, which we presume is due to orbital motion. We determined an initial orbital period using the measured minima in the arrival time residuals in Figure 2. Assuming a constant orbital period $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$, these five minima must be separated by integer multiples of $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$. The best-fit orbital period is thus $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}=14.37\pm 0.02`$ d.

In order to derive the remaining binary parameters and refine the orbital period determination, the effects of the binary motion must be decoupled from intrinsic changes in the pulsar’s spin period due to accretion torques. We perfomed a combined fit of all of the arrival time measurements shown in Figure 2. Because of the effect of accretion torque during the time between observations we could not produce a fully phase-connected orbital fit. Instead, we used a model where the frequency and phase of the pulsar were allowed to jump discontinuously between each epoch of observation, while the orbital parameters applied globally. We performed this fit using the TEMPO pulsar timing package (see http://pulsar.princeton.edu/tempo). No frequency derivatives within each observation epoch were included in the model since local accretion torques seem to dominate on a timescale of days.

Our best-fit binary parameters are given in Table 2. This fit is shown in Figure 3. The errors quoted in Table 2 are statistical errors only; any biases introduced from the accretion torque are not included. However, these systematic errors should be reasonably small since the data cover more than six cycles of the binary orbit and such effects can be expected to average out.

With the orbit determined, we can determine the best fit pulsar spin frequency at each epoch with the orbital effects removed. These determinations are shown in Table 3, and Figure 4. In each case, we have fit a constant frequency model to determine the best average frequency for the epoch. In all cases there are significant deviations from this model. The errors shown are the single parameter standard deviations not including coupling to the other parameters which were held constant. For completeness, the historical measurements of the pulsar period are also included in the table. However, it should be noted that they are not corrected for the Doppler effect of the pulsar orbit and may be inconsistently corrected to the solar system barycenter. The pulsar projected orbital velocity is 150 km/s so the reported periods could differ from the intrinsic spin period by as much as 0.002 mHz.

The pulsar has shown significant spin up since its discovery in 1978. Fitting the frequencies to a straight line yields an average frequency derivative of $`1.2\times 10^{14}`$ Hz/s. This implies a spin up timescale of $`9\times 10^3`$ y, which is well within the range of the known supergiant X-ray pulsars. For observers, the predicted pulse frequency of 1E 1145.1$``$6141 is

$$\nu (\mathrm{mHz})=3.36+1.0\times 10^9T,$$
(2)
where $`T`$ is the desired JD - 2440000.0.

## 4 Discussion

We have found that the supergiant X-ray pulsar 1E 1145.1$``$6141 is in a moderately eccentric 14.4 d orbit. On a $`P_{\mathrm{spin}}`$-$`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ diagram, the system resides among the wind-fed supergiant X-ray binaries (Corbet, 1986; Waters & van Kerkwijk, 1989; Bildsten et al., 1997), as expected from its low X-ray luminosity. The absence of an X-ray eclipse may be used to constrain the binary inclination (and hence the supergiant mass) for a given companion radius $`R_c`$. Neglecting the moderate orbital eccentricity, the no-eclipse condition is $`R_c/(a_x\mathrm{sin}i)<\mathrm{cot}i`$, where we have assumed that the companion mass is much larger than the pulsar mass. For the range of radii consistent with a B2 Ia supergiant (30–60 $`R_{}`$; see de Jager & Nieuwenhuijzen 1987), this gives a maximum inclination angle ranging from 55 to 40. Assuming a neutron star mass of 1.4 $`M_{}`$, this implies a minimum companion mass of 11–22 $`M_{}`$.

Pfahl et al. (2002) have noted that massive X-ray binaries can be divided into three broad groups: (i) moderately wide ($`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ 20–100 d) binaries with a significant ($`e>0.3`$) eccentricity caused by a neutron star “kick” at birth; (ii) short-period, ($`P_{\mathrm{orb}}10`$ systems in which tidal circularization has resulted in low-eccentricity ($`e0.1`$) orbits; and (iii) wide ($`P_{\mathrm{orb}}>30`$ d) binaries with low ($`e<0.2`$) eccentricities, which may have experienced a weaker kick at birth. We note that 1E 1145.1$``$6141 does not fit comfortably into any of these categories, although it appears to be intermediate between groups (i) and (ii). As a 14.4-d binary, it is possible that tidal torques have played some role in reducing the eccentricity caused by the neutron star birth, although this is unlikely to have been a strong effect. It would be interesting to identify more binaries in the 10–20 d range, in order to better understand at what point tidal torques play a substantial role.

Basic research in X-ray astronomy at NRL is funded, in part, by the Office of Naval Research. This work was partially supported by NASA DPR No. S-42631-F.


text:
# 𝐶𝑃-Violation in the decay {𝐵⁰,(𝐵⁰)̄}→𝜋⁺𝜋⁻𝛾

## 1 Introduction

In this paper, we analyse the reaction $`\overline{B^0}(B^0)\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$, with the aim of finding new ways of probing $`CP`$ violation in the non-leptonic Hamiltonian, and in particular to test current assumptions about the weak and strong phases in the amplitude for $`\overline{B^0}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. We will focus on observables that can be measured in an untagged $`\overline{B^0},B^0`$ beam, which are complementary to the time-dependent asymmetries in channels such as $`\overline{B^0},B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ which are currently under study.

The amplitude for the decay of $`\overline{B^0}`$ into two charged pions and a photon can be written as

$$𝒜(\overline{B^0}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma )=𝒜_{brems}+𝒜_{dir}$$
(1)
where $`𝒜_{brems}`$ is the bremsstahlung amplitude and $`𝒜_{dir}`$ is the direct emission amplitude. Our main interest will be in the continuum region of $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ invariant masses (large compared to the $`\rho `$-mass), and the possible interference of the two terms in Eq. (1).

The bremsstrahlung amplitude is directly proportional to the amplitude for a $`\overline{B^0}`$ decaying into two pions, the modulus of which is determined by the measured branching ratio . Theoretically, the $`\overline{B^0}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay amplitude can be written as

$$𝒜(\overline{B^0}\pi ^+\pi ^{})V_{ub}V_{ud}^{}T+V_{cb}V_{cd}^{}Pe^{i\gamma }+\frac{P_{\pi \pi }}{T_{\pi \pi }}$$
(2)
where $`\gamma =\mathrm{arg}(V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}/V_{cd}V_{cb}^{})`$, and $`T`$ and $`P`$ denote the tree- and penguin-amplitudes, which can possess strong phases. (We follow the notation of Ref. , in which the phase of $`\frac{P_{\pi \pi }}{T_{\pi \pi }}`$ is estimated to be $`10^{}`$). The $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ amplitude is obtained by taking the complex conjugate of the CKM factors in Eq. (2), leaving possible strong phases unchanged. In the experiments , one measures the time-dependent $`CP`$ asymmetry

$$A(t)=S\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_Bt)+C\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_Bt)$$
(3)
where

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}\lambda }{1+|\lambda |^2}},C={\displaystyle \frac{1|\lambda |^2}{1+|\lambda |^2}},`$ (4)
$`\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p}{q}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜(\overline{B^0}\pi ^+\pi ^{})}{𝒜(B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})}}=e^{i2\beta }{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\gamma }+\frac{P_{\pi \pi }}{T_{\pi \pi }}}{e^{i\gamma }+\frac{P_{\pi \pi }}{T_{\pi \pi }}}}`$
In the limit of neglecting the penguin contribution, $`P_{\pi \pi }0`$, $`\lambda =\mathrm{exp}[i2(\beta +\gamma )]=e^{2i\alpha }`$, so that $`S=\mathrm{sin}2\alpha `$, $`C=0`$. Theoretical considerations  suggest $`\left|\frac{P_{\pi \pi }}{T_{\pi \pi }}\right|0.28`$. Present measurements of $`S`$ and $`C`$ are yet inconclusive .

The direct emission amplitude $`𝒜_{dir}`$ is determined by the Hamiltonian

$$H_{peng}=V_{td}^{}V_{tb}c_7𝒪_7.$$
(5)
This is the interaction which also leads to the exclusive decay $`B\rho \gamma `$ . Here, however, we will be interested in the decay $`\overline{B^0}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ for $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ masses in the continuum region, especially for large $`s`$ (or low photon energy). The Hamiltonian $`H_{peng}`$ leads to

$`𝒜_{dir}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{E}_{dir}(\omega ,\mathrm{cos}\theta )[ϵp_+kp_{}ϵp_{}kp_+]`$
$`+i\overline{M}_{dir}(\omega ,\mathrm{cos}\theta )ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }ϵ^\mu k^\nu p_+^\rho p_{}^\sigma `$
where the electric ($`\overline{E}_{dir}`$) and magnetic ($`\overline{M}_{dir}`$) amplitudes depend on the two Dalitz plot coordinates: the photon energy $`\omega `$ in the $`\overline{B^0}`$-meson rest frame and $`\theta `$, the angle of the $`\pi ^+`$ relative to the photon in the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ c.m. frame.

As long as the photon polarization is not observed, only the electric component of the direct amplitude interferes with the bremsstrahlung amplitude. This interference is in principle sensitive to the relative phase of $`T\lambda _u+P\lambda _c`$ and $`\lambda _t`$ ($`\lambda _i=V_{ib}V_{id}^{}`$) and therefore could serve as a probe of the phase of $`𝒜(\overline{B^0}\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$.

## 2 Differential Decay Rate

In accordance with the Low theorem the bremsstrahlung matrix element is directly proportional to the amplitude of $`\overline{B^0}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ on the mass shell:

$$𝒜_{brems}=\frac{e𝒜(\overline{B^0}\pi ^+\pi ^{})}{(kp_+)(kp_{})}\left[(ϵp_+)(kp_{})(ϵp_{})(kp_+)\right]$$
(7)
To obtain the direct amplitude $`𝒜_{dir}`$, we observe first that the operator $`𝒪_7\overline{d}\sigma _{\mu \nu }(1+\gamma _5)F^{\mu \nu }b`$, and the identity $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }=\frac{i}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }\gamma _5`$ enables one to write $`\overline{E}_{dir}(\omega ,\mathrm{cos}\theta )=\overline{M}_{dir}(\omega ,\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$. One can write a multipole expansion for these direct amplitudes in the form

$`\overline{B^0}:\overline{E}_{dir}(\omega ,\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`E^{(1)}(\omega )+\mathrm{cos}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\beta \omega }{m_B}}E^{(2)}(\omega )+\mathrm{}`$ (8)
$`B^0:E_{dir}(\omega ,\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`E^{(1)}(\omega )\mathrm{cos}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\beta \omega }{m_B}}E^{(2)}(\omega )+\mathrm{}`$
The simplest assumption is the dipole approximation

$$\overline{E}_{dir}(\omega ,\mathrm{cos}\theta )=E^{(1)}(\omega )$$
(9)
in which $`\overline{E}_{dir}`$ is independent of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$. In Section 4 we will consider also consequences arising from a quadrupole term.

To get a dimensionless decay distribution we introduce

$`x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\omega }{m_B}}`$ (10)
$`0<`$ $`x`$ $`<1{\displaystyle \frac{4m_\pi ^2}{m_B^2}}`$
Then the differential branching ratio for the process $`\overline{B^0}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ is:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dBr}{dxd\mathrm{cos}\theta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{512\pi ^3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_B}{2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{2}}\right)^3\beta _\pi ^3(1x)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$
$`\times \left[2|\overline{E}_{dir}|^2+|\overline{E}_{brems}|^2+2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}(\overline{E}_{dir}^{}\overline{E}_{brems})\right]`$
where

$`|\overline{E}_{brems}|`$ $`=`$ $`e\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{m_B}}}{\displaystyle \frac{64}{x^2(1\beta _\pi ^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )}}\sqrt{Br(\overline{B^0}\pi ^+\pi ^{})}`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{arg}(\overline{E}_{brems})`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _{eff}=\mathrm{arg}\left(e^{i\gamma }+{\displaystyle \frac{P_{\pi \pi }}{T_{\pi \pi }}}\right)`$ (13)
$`\mathrm{arg}(\overline{E}_{dir})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}(V_{tb}V_{td}^{})=\beta `$ (14)
$`\beta _\pi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{4m_\pi ^2}{s}}`$ (15)
$`s`$ $`=`$ $`m_B^2(1x)`$ (16)
where $`Br(\overline{B^0}\pi ^+\pi ^{})=5.1\times 10^6`$ , $`\beta =24^{}`$  and $`P_{\pi \pi }/T_{\pi \pi }=0.28`$, with a negligible strong phase .

The bremsstrahlung part of the decay distribution populates preferentially the region of small $`x`$ and $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |1`$. Far from this region, the spectrum is determined by the direct term $`|\overline{E}_{dir}|^2`$. In principle, a fit to the Dalitz plot can determine the scale and the shape of the direct amplitude.

Fig. 1 shows the two-dimensional decay distribution, for an assumed direct branching ratio $`Br_{dir}=10^6`$ and two choices of form factor $`E^{(1)}=const.`$ and $`E^{(1)}1/s`$. In the dipole approximation the distribution is symmetric with respect to $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ and identical for $`\overline{B^0}`$ and $`B^0`$ decay.

## 3 Photon Energy Spectrum

Integrating over the variable $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, the branching ratio, for small energies $`x`$, can be written in the form:

$$\frac{dBr}{dx}=\frac{a}{x}+b+c_1x+c_2x^2+\mathrm{}$$
(17)
In agreement with the Low theorem, the coefficients $`a`$ and $`b`$ are determined entirely by bremsstrahlung whereas $`c_1`$, $`c_2`$ depend on the interference of bremsstrahlung and direct emission and therefore contain information about the relative phase of $`T\lambda _u+P\lambda _c`$ and $`\lambda _t`$ given by $`\beta +\gamma _{eff}\pi \alpha _{eff}`$. Higher order terms in $`x`$ ($`c_i`$, $`i=3,4,\mathrm{}`$) contain pure direct emission, in addition to interference terms involving higher multipoles. Numerical estimates of the expansion parameters are given in table 1.

In figure 2 we show typical photon energy spectra, for direct branching ratios $`10^6`$ or $`10^7`$, and two choices of the form factor in $`\overline{E}_{dir}`$. The phase $`\alpha `$ is allowed to vary between $`60^{}`$ and $`120^{}`$. As expected, the sensitivity to $`\alpha `$ depends on the degree of overlap between the bremsstrahlung and direct amplitudes. The expansion in Eq. (17) turns out to be a good description in the region $`x0.25`$. (Note that the resonant contribution $`\overline{B^0}\rho \gamma \pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ would appear as a spike in $`\frac{dBr}{dx}`$ at $`x=1\frac{m_\rho ^2}{m_B^2}`$.)

In the absence of strong phases, the photon energy spectrum (17) holds for $`B^0`$ as well as $`\overline{B^0}`$ decay, and the results in table 1 and figure 2 are, in that limit, valid for an untagged $`B^0`$, $`\overline{B^0}`$ beam as well.

## 4 Asymmetry in the Angular Distribution

In the dipole approximation, the angular distribution is the same for $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B^0}`$ decay and is symmetric in $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ (c.f. Eq. (2)). In the presence of an additional quadrupole term in the direct emission amplitude the multipole expansion for $`\overline{B^0}`$ and $`B^0`$ differs by a sign, as shown in Eq. (8). For a numerical estimate of $`E^{(2)}/E^{(1)}`$, we take

$$\frac{Br(B\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma ;E^{(2)})}{Br(B\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma ;E^{(1)})}\frac{Br(BK_2\gamma )}{Br(BK^{}\gamma )}0.25$$
(18)
The result is plotted in fig. 3, which is obtained from Eq. (2) after integrating over photon energies $`\omega >50MeV`$. While the distribution $`\frac{dBr}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }`$ is symmetric in a dipole approximation, it develops a forward-backward asymmetry in the presence of a quadrupole term.

Comparing $`\overline{B^0}`$ to $`B^0`$ we see that as long as strong phases are absent,

$$\frac{dBr(B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma )}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }=\frac{dBr(\overline{B^0}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma )}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }(\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta ),$$
(19)
so that the decay of an untagged beam would be symmetric in $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$.

This conclusion changes, however, if strong phases are not negligible. Let us associate strong phases $`\delta _0`$, $`\delta _1(s)`$ and $`\delta _2(s)`$ with the bremsstrahlung, direct dipole, and direct quadrupole terms. Notice that the bremsstrahlung phase $`\delta _0`$ is the phase of the $`\overline{B^0}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ amplitude, and therefore describes a $`2\pi `$ state with $`L=0`$ and invariant mass $`m_B`$. By contrast, the phases $`\delta _1(s)`$ and $`\delta _2(s)`$ describe $`L=1`$ and $`L=2`$ states of a $`2\pi `$ system with invariant mass $`s`$. As a net result, the relative phase of the bremsstrahlung and direct amplitudes in Eq. (2) may be written as $`\pi \alpha _{eff}+\delta _{str}`$ in $`\overline{B^0}`$ decay, and $`\pi +\alpha _{eff}+\delta _{str}`$ in $`B^0`$ decay, where $`\delta _{str}`$ denotes some effective combination of $`\delta _0`$, $`\delta _1`$ and $`\delta _2`$.

Defining

$`(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dBr}{dxd\mathrm{cos}\theta }}d\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ (20)
$`(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _1^0}{\displaystyle \frac{dBr}{dxd\mathrm{cos}\theta }}d\mathrm{cos}\theta `$
we obtain the forward-backward asymmetry in a mixture of $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B^0}`$:

$$Asy(x)=\frac{}{+}=f(x)\mathrm{sin}\delta _{str}\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{eff}$$
(21)
Note, that the forward-backward asymmetry in (untagged) $`\overline{B^0},B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ decay is equivalent to an asymmetry in the energy spectrum of $`\pi ^+`$ and $`\pi ^{}`$ in the $`B`$ meson rest frame. The function $`f(x)`$ is plotted in figure 4. Thus $`Asy(x)`$ is a signal of $`CP`$-violation, that is present even in an untagged $`\overline{B^0}/B^0`$ mixture, and requires $`\alpha _{eff}0`$ and $`\delta _{str}0`$, in addition to a quadrupole term in the direct electric amplitude.

## 5 Summary

We have studied observables in the decay $`B^0,\overline{B^0}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ that do not require tagging or measurement of time-dependence, but which nevertheless probe weak and strong phases appearing in the decay amplitude. Interference of the bremsstrahlung and direct components affects the linear and quadratic terms in the photon energy spectrum Eq. (17), with potential sensitivity to the phase $`\mathrm{arg}[(V_{tb}V_{td}^{})^{}𝒜(\overline{B^0}\pi ^+\pi ^{})]`$. In the presence of non-trivial strong phases, there is a difference in the $`\pi ^+`$ and $`\pi ^{}`$ energy spectra even for an untagged $`B^0/\overline{B^0}`$ beam, or, equivalently, a forward-backward asymmetry of the $`\pi ^+`$ relative to the photon direction.