text:
# Numerical study of the SK Model in magnetic field

## 1 Introduction

The Sherrington–Kirkpatrick (SK) model was introduced some time ago  as a mean field model for spin glasses. Its analytical, replica symmetry breaking (RSB), solution  displays in the glassy phase intriguing features such as an infinite number of pure states, described by an order parameter which is the non-trivial probability distribution of the overlap between two of them, $`P(q)`$.

The applicability of the mean field picture to short range spin glasses  is however still debated, and an alternative (family of) scenario called the droplet model has been put forward by several authors. One may in principle distinguish between these two theories of finite dimensional spin glasses by looking at the fate of the glassy phase for non-zero magnetic field. In the SK model (and accordingly in the mean field picture) one finds  that a magnetic field (of absolute value) lower than the critical De Almeida Thouless (AT) value $`h_{AT}(T)`$  does not destroy the spin glass ordering, since the number of states is still infinite. On the other hand, in the droplet picture one has only two states at $`h=0`$, related by the global inversion symmetry of the spins, and any small magnetic field makes the system paramagnetic -.

It turned out unfortunately - that strong finite size corrections make difficult to obtain a clear answer from equilibrium simulations in magnetic field (of the system sizes that can currently be handled). Very recently, for example, the authors of a study of the local excitations of the Edwards–Anderson model (EA)  claim that there is no transition whereas results on the out-of-equilibrium behavior of this model  appear in good agreement with the mean field picture. On the theoretical side, it has been recently proposed  that the transition below the upper critical dimension $`d_u=8`$ is governed by a fixed point different from the AT mean-field fixed point.

This state of affairs motivated us to revisit the case of the SK model in magnetic field. There have been indeed few numerical studies of the SK model in magnetic field at fixed $`h`$ , -, and the behavior of the system as a function of the magnetic field at fixed $`T`$ has never been numerically investigated to our knowledge.

We present results on the spin glass susceptibility and different dimensionless ratios of $`P(q)`$ moments, looking for the quantities that are most appropriate for obtaining numerical evidence of the transition on the AT line. We will show in particular that finite size effects are strongly reduced if one consider the probability distribution of the absolute value of the overlap, and not the overlap itself.

We moreover consider the overlaps between three and four replicas, checking the validity of some relations (the so called stochastic stability sum rules) which are an evident manifestation of the non-self-averageness of $`P(q)`$  that have been recently derived under very general properties -.

Finally we present data for $`P(q)`$ in magnetic field, where the shape predicted by the solution of the model, with two peaks separated by a continuum is visible, for the first time. All simulations presented up to now show only a broad peak around $`q_{EA}`$. Both large system sizes (we have $`N=3200`$), and low temperature (we go down to $`T=0.4`$) are needed to see this asymptotic shape.

## 2 Model and Observables

The Sherrington–Kirkpatrick spin glass model with $`N`$ sites  is described by the Hamiltonian

$$_J=\underset{1i<jN}{}J_{ij}\sigma _i\sigma _jh\underset{1iN}{}\sigma _i,$$
(1)
here $`\sigma _i=\pm 1`$ are Ising spins. The sum runs over all spin pairs and $`J_{ij}`$ are quenched identically distributed independent random variables with mean value $`\overline{J_{ij}}=0`$ and variance $`1/N`$. We take $`J_{ij}=\pm N^{1/2}`$.

In order to sample the probability distribution of the overlap $`P(q)`$, one usually considers two independent replicas $`\{\sigma _i\}`$ and $`\{\tau _i\}`$ evolving contemporaneously and independently:

$`𝒬`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\sigma _i\tau _i`$ (2)
$`P(q)`$ $``$ $`\overline{P_J(q)}\overline{\delta (q𝒬)},`$ (3)
where the thermal average $``$ corresponds to the time average during the simulation, whereas $`\overline{()}`$ stands for the average over the $`J_{ij}`$ realizations. This is the order parameter of the model, which in the thermodynamic limit behaves like

$$P(q)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\delta (qq_{EA})\hfill & & |h|>h_{AT}(T)\hfill \\ x_m\delta (qq_m)+\stackrel{~}{P}(q)+x_M\delta (qq_{EA})\hfill & & 0<|h|<h_{AT}(T)\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}\left[\stackrel{~}{P}(q)+\stackrel{~}{P}(q)\right]+\frac{x_M}{2}\left[\delta (qq_{EA})+\delta (q+q_{EA})\right]\hfill & & h=0,T<T_c\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
where $`h_{AT}(T)`$ is the critical value of the magnetic field on the AT line, with $`h_{AT}(T)(4/3)^{1/2}(T_cT)^{3/2}`$ for $`TT_c^{}`$ ($`T_c=1`$ in this model) . For $`TT_c^{}`$ one finds that $`x_mq_mh^{2/3}`$, and $`(q_{EA}q_m)(x_Mx_m)(h_{AT}(T)h)`$. Note that at $`h=0`$ the function $`P(q)`$ is symmetric, reflecting the global flip $`\{\sigma _i\}\{\sigma _i\}`$ symmetry of the system, and the $`\delta `$-function at $`q_m`$ disappears. As we are going to discuss in detail, this implies a singular behavior for different quantities in the $`h0`$ limit, which is among the main sources of difficulties in finding evidence for the phase transition in magnetic field.

In order to locate numerically phase transitions, in our case the AT line, it is common practice to consider dimensionless ratios of moments of $`P(q)`$, which are expected to have a fixed point (with respect to $`N`$) at the critical point, like the (connected) Binder parameter

$$B(h,T)=\frac{1}{2}\left(3\frac{\overline{(q\overline{q})^4}}{\overline{(q\overline{q})^2}^2}\right),$$
(5)
and the skewness

$$S(h,T)=\frac{\overline{(q\overline{q})^3}}{\overline{(q\overline{q})^2}^{3/2}}.$$
(6)
Here $`B(h,T)`$ is defined in such a way that it is zero for a Gaussian distribution and one for a two equal weights $`\delta `$-function distribution, whereas the skewness is a measure of $`P(q)`$ asymmetry, which is non-zero in our case of non-zero magnetic field.

Further evidence for the presence of a phase transition should come from the behavior of the spin glass susceptibility

$$\chi _{SG}(h,N)N\left(\overline{q^2}\overline{q}^2\right),$$
(7)
which is expected to diverge, in the thermodynamic limit, when entering in the spin glass phase, like

$$\chi _{SG}(h,\mathrm{})\frac{1}{hh_{AT}}hh_{AT}^+,T\mathrm{fixed}.$$
(8)
According to usual finite size scaling arguments, the finite size behavior is (for $`h`$ near to $`h_{AT}`$):

$$\chi _{SG}(h,N)=N^{1/3}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{SG}\left[N^{1/3}(hh_{AT})\right],T\mathrm{fixed}.$$
(9)
The finite size behavior of the spin glass susceptibility in the SK model on the AT line was numerically studied in , and the scaling $`N^{1/3}`$ was checked.

The non-self-averageness of $`P(q)`$ is among the many fascinating features of the SK model. For instance, considering four replicas of the system, one finds  that $`\overline{P_J(q_{12})P_J(q_{34})}P(q_{12})P(q_{34})`$, whereas the following relations hold:

$`P(q_{12},q_{34})`$ $``$ $`\overline{P_J(q_{12})P_J(q_{34})}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}P(q_{12})P(q_{34})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}P(q_{12})\delta (q_{12}q_{34})`$ (10)
$`P(q_{12},q_{13})`$ $``$ $`\overline{P_J(q_{12})P_J(q_{13})}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}P(q_{12})P(q_{13})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}P(q_{12})\delta (q_{12}q_{13}).`$ (11)
These kind of relations, which are non-trivially verified if the replica symmetry is broken ($`P(q)\delta (qq_{EA})`$), were recently derived under very general conditions -, such as stochastic stability . Infinitely many sum rules follow. We consider in particular the relations:

$`R_{1234}^a(h,T)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{q_{12}q_{34}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\overline{q}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\overline{q^2}=0`$ (12)
$`R_{1234}^b(h,T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q_{12}q_{34}}\overline{q}^2}{\overline{q^2}\overline{q}^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\chi _{SG}^{1234}(h,T)}{\chi _{SG}(h,T)}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}`$ (13)
$`R_{1213}^a(h,T)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{q_{12}q_{13}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{q}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{q^2}=0`$ (14)
$`R_{1213}^b(h,T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q_{12}q_{13}}\overline{q}^2}{\overline{q^2}\overline{q}^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\chi _{SG}^{1213}(h,T)}{\chi _{SG}(h,T)}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ (15)
$`R_{1234}^2(h,T)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{q_{12}^2q_{34}^2}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\overline{q^2}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\overline{q^4}=0`$ (16)
$`R_{1213}^2(h,T)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{q_{12}^2q_{13}^2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{q^2}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{q^4}=0`$ (17)
Relations $`R_{1234}^{a,b}(h,T)`$ and $`R_{1213}^{a,b}(h,T)`$, which have to our knowledge never been previously investigated numerically, are expected to be verified only at non-zero magnetic field, since these relations are not invariant under a global flip, and an infinitesimal magnetic field was implicit in the derivation of equations (10-11). On the other hand, relations $`R_{1234}^2(h,T)`$ and $`R_{1213}^2(h,T)`$ are valid for zero magnetic field also, and were already studied (for $`3d`$ and $`4d`$ Ising spin glasses at zero magnetic field ).

We measured also the following ratios of moments which are non-zero when the system is non-self-averaging, and have been introduced for locating the transition point :

$`G(h,T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q^2^2}\overline{q^2}^2}{\overline{q^4}\overline{q^2}^2}}`$ (18)
$`G_c(h,T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{(qq)^2^2}\overline{(qq)^2}^2}{\overline{(qq)^4}\overline{(qq)^2}^2}}`$ (19)
$`A(h,T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q^2^2}\overline{q^2}^2}{\overline{q^2}^2}}`$ (20)
$`A_c(h,T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{(qq)^2^2}\overline{(qq)^2}^2}{\overline{(qq)^2}^2}}`$ (21)
In the infinite volume limit, $`G(h,T)`$ is expected to take the constant value $`1/3`$ in the glassy phase, because of relation (10), whereas $`G_c(h,T)`$, $`A(h,T)`$ and $`A_c(h,T)`$ are non-trivial function of $`h`$ and $`T`$, that are zero in the whole paramagnetic phase.

These parameters should be particularly useful when the Binder parameter behaves non monotonically, taking both positive and negative values, as it is found to happen when there is no time-reversal symmetry in the Hamiltonian  (like in our case of non-zero magnetic field) and in systems where the mean field solution is one step replica symmetry breaking . Their behavior has been extensively studied and they have been applied to a number of models .

The study of $`A`$ and $`A_c`$ allows to check if the numerator in $`G`$ and $`G_c`$ is really non zero or if it is approaching zero for increasing volumes together with (or more slowly than) the denominator . This is obviously not expected to happen in the glassy phase of the SK model. As a matter of fact, it was shown  that $`G`$ and $`G_c`$ should take the universal values 1/3 and 13/31 respectively at zero temperature for any finite volume Ising system under quite general hypothesis, i.e. even if the order parameter is self-averaging.

The connected parameter $`G_c`$ should be the most effective quantity to look at for locating the transition point, since it seems to be the one less affected by finite size corrections to scaling .

Relations $`R_{1234}^b`$, $`R_{1213}^b`$ should behave as $`G`$ and are in principle good candidates for obtaining evidence of the transition. Nevertheless we will show that their finite size behavior, as well as the one of $`G`$ itself, is definitely different from that of $`G_c`$ (at least for the considered $`N`$ values) and that they do not help to locate the transition point.

The main source of finite size effects is the global reversal of all spins. It does not occur in the thermodynamic limit, but when $`h`$ is exactly zero. It does occur however in a finite volume, and as a consequence $`P(q)`$ develops a tail in the $`q<0`$ region. This tail is significant  even for a size as large as $`N=1024`$ and a magnetic field value $`h=0.3`$ (at temperature $`T=0.6`$). This was observed also in finite dimensional systems  and it is expected to strongly affect the scaling of different quantities. In order to reduce its importance, one may use  the “absolute” spin glass susceptibility defined as

$$\chi _{SG}^{abs}(h,N)=N\left(\overline{q^2}\overline{|q|}^2\right).$$
(22)
More generally, one can define “absolute” variants of all quantities defined in Equations (5-6),(12-21). In the following we will systematically study the differences between usual quantities and “absolute” ones (that will be labeled by the superscript $`abs`$), trying to clarify which are the most appropriate to look at in order to get evidence for the transition.

## 3 Simulations

We fixed the temperature at $`T=0.6`$, where the AT line corresponds to the critical value $`h_{AT}(T=0.6)0.382`$ . We use the magnetic Parallel Tempering algorithm (h-PT), described in details in our previous paper . We consider $`n=49`$ replicas, each one at a different magnetic field $`h`$ from a set of $`n`$ different values both within and without the AT lines, from $`h_{min}=0.6`$ to $`h_{max}=0.6`$ at equally spaced intervals of $`\delta h=0.025`$. Exchange of $`h`$ values between nearest neighbor replicas are allowed with the usual Monte Carlo acceptance probability. Moreover the sign of all spins of a replica at $`h=0`$ can be reversed with probability 1/2. This makes easier the passage from negative to positive $`h`$ values and vice-versa.

This h-PT algorithm is ideally suited to obtain the behavior of quantities as function of the magnetic field at fixed temperature. However it was found  that its efficiency rapidly decreases when simulating large systems, most probably because of chaos with magnetic field. At variance with the case of temperature chaos, the effect of chaos with magnetic field becomes evident already on a size of order $`N=1024`$ and $`\delta h0.15`$. This means that the phase spaces explored by the system at equilibrium at $`h`$ and $`h+\delta h`$ become quite different when $`\delta h0.15`$. Therefore $`N=1024`$ is the largest size we could thermalize with this method.

We perform 50000+50000, 100000+100000 and 300000+300000 h-PT sweeps for $`N=64`$, $`256`$ and $`1024`$ respectively, the first half of each run being discarded from the statistics. Thermalization was checked by comparing the data obtained in the second part with the ones of the second quarter. We simulated four sets of replicas evolving contemporaneously and independently (i.e. $`49\times 4=196`$ replicas). Data are averaged over $`256`$ disorder configurations for each system size. Statistical errors are evaluated from (disorder) sample-to-sample fluctuations by using the Jack-knife method.

Looking for evidences of the shape of $`P(q)`$ with $`h0`$ predicted by the solution of the model (Equations (4)), we performed a large scale simulation for a system of $`N=3200`$ spins, with the usual PT in temperature algorithm, taking $`n=38`$ equally spaced temperature values between $`T_{min}=0.4`$ and $`T_{max}=1.325`$, at magnetic field $`h=0.3`$. Results were averaged over 128 different disorder realization and we performed $`400000+400000`$ PT steps for each sample, checking thermalization by comparing the $`P(q)`$ obtained in the second half and in the second quarter of the run.

## 4 Results and Discussion

### 4.1 Energy, magnetization and magnetic susceptibility

We plot in \[Fig. 1\] the energy density and the magnetization as a function of $`h`$ for the different sizes considered. In the same figure, we also present data on the mean overlap $`\overline{q}`$ and on the mean absolute value of the overlap $`\overline{|q|}`$. It is evident from these data that the two quantities definitely differ for $`h`$ as large as $`h0.4`$ (i.e. larger than $`h_{AT}`$) for $`N=64`$ and up to $`h0.2`$ for $`N=1024`$.

In \[Fig. 2\] we plot the magnetic susceptibility computed as

$$\chi (h,N)=\frac{\overline{m}}{h},$$
(23)
and as

$$\chi (h,N)=N\beta (\overline{m^2}\overline{m^2}).$$
(24)
Excellent agreement111Although formula 23 and 24 are identical mathematically, their Monte Carlo estimates can disagree, if the sampling is bad, or if $`\delta h`$ (we use finite difference to estimate 23) is too large. is observed between the two estimates, showing that good sampling has been achieved. We also plot the analytical estimate  (obtained in the so-called Parisi approximation for the Landau potential, and for $`TT_c^{}`$):

$$\chi (h,\mathrm{})=1(3/4)^{2/3}h^{4/3},$$
(25)
which is in quite good agreement with the data for $`h`$ not too small222A different formula appears in  and e.g. , with the order $`h^{4/3}`$ term multiplied by $`7/3`$.. In the thermodynamic limit, $`\chi =\beta (1\overline{q})=\beta /\beta =1`$ in the whole spin glass phase for $`h0`$. On a finite system however one must take into account the symmetry with respect to the flip of all the spins and $`\chi (h=0,\mathrm{})=\beta (1\overline{q})=\beta 1.666`$. Our data for $`\chi `$ show clearly the crossover between these $`h=0`$ and $`h0`$ regimes. Figure 2 shows that finite size effects are positive for low $`h`$, and negative for larger $`h`$. This change of sign must happen since the susceptibility has sizable finite size corrections whereas the magnetization is (trivially) size independent for $`h=0`$, and very weakly size dependent for large $`h`$.

In order to better clarify the situation, we consider also the “absolute” magnetic susceptibility $`\chi ^{abs}`$ (see the same figure on the right), obtained from the probability distribution of the absolute value of the magnetization. Note that for the “absolute” susceptibility the estimates of equations (23) and (24) do not coincide, but when finite size effects are negligible.

### 4.2 On the critical behavior at the AT line

Let us now look at the dimensionless ratios of $`P(q)`$ moments which should intersect at $`h_{AT}(T)`$ giving evidences for the phase transition (Here $`h_{AT}0.382`$). We present in \[Fig. 3\] the behavior of the Binder parameter and of the skewness. The original $`B`$ and $`S`$ of Equation (5) and (6) on the left of the figure, the “absolute” variants on the right. We see that in all cases it would be a hard task to get a clear unambiguous determination of the critical point from the data. At variance with the behavior of the $`h=0`$ Binder parameter which is always positive and increases continuously for decreasing $`T`$’s, all four quantities in \[Fig 3\] (the absolute value does not help) display a non-monotonic behavior, taking negative values on a large part of the interval. For $`B`$ and $`S`$, the intersection between $`N=256`$ and $`N=1024`$ happens at a definitely too small $`h0.2`$, showing the presence of strong finite size scaling corrections (In all cases the value $`N=64`$ turns out to be too small to give interesting results). The effect of the absolute value is strong, particularly for $`N=64`$ and $`256`$. It goes in the right direction since comparing data for $`N=64`$, $`256`$ and $`1024`$, we now find a monotonous crossing point behavior which approach $`h_{AT}`$ from above, with the intersection between $`N=256`$ and $`1024`$ data happening (within the error) at the correct value $`h_{AT}`$, the agreement being best in the case of the skewness.

Next we consider in \[Fig. 4\] the parameters based on $`P(q)`$ glassy phase non-self-averageness. The first observation is that in order to obtain some information one has to look at connected quantities, since $`G`$ and $`A`$ have a definitely different behavior from the others and do not cross as one could expect. More in detail, curves for $`G`$ corresponding to $`N=64`$ and $`256`$ are nearly constant (within the errors) in the whole considered $`h`$-range. For $`N=1024`$, $`G`$ is in agreement within errors with the thermodynamic limit value $`1/3`$ in the glassy phase, and is smaller in the paramagnetic phase. For $`h`$ as large as $`0.6`$ one still finds $`G0.28`$. In the case of the EA model at fixed magnetic field the parameter $`G`$ was found  less appropriate than $`G_c`$. It decreases more slowly when entering in the paramagnetic region and curves for different sizes cross at definitely too large temperatures (here quite small sizes with $`N`$ between 5 and 64 were considered).

Curves for $`A`$ are monotonic and approach zero (though with strong finite size corrections) at large $`h`$, making evident that $`P(q)`$ is self-averaging in the paramagnetic phase, but they do not cross correctly and in particular at $`h=0`$ one finds $`A(N=1024)A(N=256)<A(N=64)`$.

The connected parameters display a more interesting behavior and they do indeed cross. We find a qualitative similar behavior near the transition point for $`G_c`$ and $`A_c`$. Our statistical errors are quite large and do not allow a precise determination of the crossing points, nevertheless curves for the two smaller sizes seem to roughly intersect at the correct value $`h0.4h_{AT}`$, whereas data for $`N=256`$ and $`1024`$ appear to cross at a lower $`h`$-value, this being more evident in the case of $`A_c`$. The behavior seems still better when looking at the corresponding “absolute” parameters. In particular, there is no irregular behavior for $`h0`$ and the statistical errors are definitely smaller, allowing a more precise evaluation of the crossing points. Curves corresponding to $`N=64`$ and $`256`$ intersect at $`h0.6`$ whereas $`N=256`$ and $`1024`$ are clearly crossing at the right value, $`h0.4h_{AT}`$.

To conclude the discussion on these parameters, we note that although $`G_c`$ and $`A_c`$ are certainly interesting to look at for getting evidences of the transition (and of non-self-averaging), one should not overlook their large statistical fluctuations, much larger than the fluctuations of the usual Binder parameter or the skewness, therefore a larger number of samples would be required in order to obtain precise measures.

An even better evidence for the presence of a phase transition comes from the behavior of the spin glass susceptibility which is clearly diverging (see \[Fig. 5\]) when entering in the spin glass phase. We see that the behavior of $`\chi _{SG}^{abs}`$ (plotted in the same \[Fig. 5\]) is definitely different for the largest size considered $`N=1024`$ also. Here the susceptibility seems to approach a constant in the small field region, i.e. for $`hh_{min}(N)`$. Nevertheless $`h_{min}(N)`$ is clearly approaching zero for increasing sizes and also in this case one gets evidence for a diverging spin glass susceptibility.

The importance of considering both the usual $`\chi _{SG}`$ and the corresponding “absolute” quantity $`\chi _{SG}^{abs}`$ becomes evident when looking at the scaling plot presented in \[Fig. 5\]. We find strong corrections to scaling in the glassy phase, such that it would be hard to evaluate the correct critical point and exponents from these data. On the other hand, corrections to $`\chi _{SG}`$ are in the opposite direction than those on $`\chi _{SG}^{abs}`$, and therefore it is useful to look at both quantities for understanding the true scaling behavior. We also note that data for $`\chi _{SG}`$ and $`\chi _{SG}^{abs}`$ are nearly coincident in the whole relevant interval (i.e. down to $`h0.3`$) for $`N=1024`$, which means that when looking at sizes of this order or larger one can expect to find not too important corrections to scaling.

### 4.3 The sum rules

Our next aim is to investigate the validity of the stochastic stability sum rules (10-17). Some are supposed to be non-trivially valid for $`h<h_{AT}`$, and trivially valid for $`h>h_{AT}`$, namely $`R_{1234}^a`$, $`R_{1213}^a`$, $`R_{1234}^2`$ and $`R_{1213}^2`$. On the other hand relations $`R_{1234}^b`$ and $`R_{1213}^b`$, that are ratio of moments, are supposed to be only valid below the AT line. We will also consider relations $`R_{1234}^{a,abs}`$ and $`R_{1234}^{b,abs}`$, obtained from the probability distribution of the absolute values of the overlap.

We first look at the behavior, as function of the magnetic field, of the different terms entering the sum-rules, considering the case of $`N=1024`$, where finite size corrections are less important. We see from \[Fig. 6\] that

$$\overline{q_{12}q_{34}}\overline{|q|^2}\overline{q_{12}q_{13}}\overline{q}^2\overline{q^2}$$
(26)
for $`h0.4`$, which is quite reasonable since this is the replica symmetric region where $`P(q)`$ is self-averaging. The tail of $`P(q)`$ in the negative overlap region has practically disappeared for $`N=1024`$, so that $`q|q|`$, and we have moreover (assuming a Gaussian distribution with variance $`\sigma ^2`$):

$$\overline{q^2}=\sigma ^2+q_{EA}^2q_{EA}^2=\overline{q}^2.$$
(27)
On the other hand, these quantities are different when entering into the glassy phase, though the differences appear small.

We plot in the same \[Fig. 6\] relations $`R_{1234}^a`$, $`R_{1234}^{a,abs}`$ and $`R_{1213}^a`$. In order to show that they are non-trivially verified we plot also, following , the relations

$`T_{1234}(h,T)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{q_{12}q_{34}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{q}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{q^2}=0`$ (28)
$`T_{1234}^{abs}(h,T)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{|q|^2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{|q|}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{q^2}=0`$ (29)
$`T_{1213}(h,T)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{q_{12}q_{13}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\overline{q}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\overline{q^2}=0.`$ (30)
which should also be verified if $`R_{1234}^a`$, $`R_{1234}^{a,abs}`$ and $`R_{1213}^a`$ where trivial. They are clearly not verified in the spin-glass phase and accordingly $`R_{1234}^a`$ and $`R_{1213}^a`$ are non-trivial in this phase. We moreover note that to look at the probability distribution of the absolute value overlap is very useful also in this case, since as we already pointed out these relations are derived assuming an infinitesimal magnetic field which breaks the global symmetry for inversion of all the spins. As a matter of fact, relations $`R_{1234}^a`$ and $`R_{1213}^a`$ are no more verified as soon as $`h\stackrel{<}{}0.15`$, where the tail of $`P(q)`$ in the negative overlap region becomes important also for $`N=1024`$ (we do not present data for $`h0.1`$). On the other hand, relation $`R_{1234}^{a,abs}`$ appears very well satisfied within the errors down to $`h=0`$.

In \[Fig. 7\] we present our data for relations $`R_{1234}^a`$, $`R_{1234}^{a,abs}`$ and $`R_{1213}^a`$ with a finer vertical scale than in \[Fig. 6\], together with data for $`R_{1234}^b`$, $`R_{1234}^{b,abs}`$ and $`R_{1213}^b`$. The situation is quite clear: for $`N=1024`$ relations $`R_{1234}^b`$, $`R_{1234}^{b,abs}`$, $`R_{1213}^b`$ are not verified above the AT line, whereas they are satisfied within the statistical error below (up to crossover effects for small $`h`$’s for the non “absolute” quantities) .

In any event, the change of behavior in the sum rules when going from the $`h0.4`$ region to the other side of the AT line is small. This is trivial in the case of relations $`R_{1234}^a`$, $`R_{1234}^{a,abs}`$ and $`R_{1213}^a`$ since all terms become very similar (see \[Fig. 6\]) as we already discussed. This can be understood  for $`R_{1234}^b`$, $`R_{1234}^{b,abs}`$ and $`R_{1213}^b`$ (i.e. the ratios $`\chi _{SG}^{1234}/\chi _{SG}=\chi _{SG}^{abs,1234}/\chi _{abs,SG}=1/3`$ and $`\chi _{SG}^{1213}/\chi _{SG}=1/2`$ respectively), using the results of . This $`R^b`$’s can be calculated from the masses $`r_R`$, $`r_L`$ and $`(r_Lr_A)/n`$ computed in this paper. Rather surprisingly, the ratio condition becomes true again in the high field limit, and the $`R^b`$’s gain back their $`1/2`$ and $`1/3`$ values. This means that these $`R^b`$’s have only a very slight variation in the RS phase, with probably a minimum, and they are continuous at the AT-line. We note that their behavior is very similar to the behavior of $`G`$, further confirming that appropriate parameters for getting evidence for the transition are the ones which involve connected quantities, such as $`G_c`$ and $`A_c`$.

In \[Fig. 6\] we also present the behavior of the different terms entering the relations $`R_{1234}^2`$ and $`R_{1213}^2`$. $`\overline{q^2^2}`$ is definitely different from the other terms, and quite surprising remains clearly different also on the other side of the AT line, which is to be interpreted as a reminiscence of non-self-averageness due to finite size effects.

Finally we plot in \[Fig. 8\] relations $`R_{1234}^2`$ and $`R_{1213}^2`$. Here finite size effects are less important because these relations are valid also in the $`h0`$ limit. Nevertheless these quantities are compatible with zero within our statistics for $`h\stackrel{<}{}0.3`$ only for $`N=1024`$. Also in this case we find only a small difference between the $`h<0.4`$ behavior and the one outside the glassy phase. From this point of view it should be recalled that $`\overline{q^2^2}`$ is definitely different from the other terms in the whole $`h`$ range, which means that data for $`h>0.4`$ are far from being in the asymptotic self-averaging regime in which these sum rules should be trivially satisfied. As a last remark, we note that from relation $`R_{1234}^2`$ immediately follows the expected behavior of the parameter $`G`$ and that the small differences we observe here between the behaviors inside and outside the glassy phase do indeed reflect the fact that $`G`$ is not an appropriate observable to look at for obtaining evidence of the transition.

### 4.4 On $`P(q)`$ for a large size

Our data for $`P(q)`$ at $`h=0.3`$ for a system of $`3200`$ spins can be found in \[Fig 9\] for $`T=0.4`$, $`0.5`$ and $`0.6`$. The corresponding values of $`q_{EA}`$ are $`0.759`$, $`0.640`$ and $`0.505`$ respectively. We have been very careful in checking that thermalization is achieved for all values of the temperature. It is clear from the figure why the asymptotic behavior of this distribution has escaped observation up to now. At $`T=0.6`$ only a single peak (corresponding to $`q_{EA}`$) is visible, with substantial asymmetry (the distribution is wider in the low $`q`$ side). The asymmetry is stronger for $`T=0.5`$, but there is still no sign of the low $`q`$ peak333This result disagree with , where a low $`q`$ peak is found, using the Metropolis algorithm with $`100000`$ sweeps for equilibrium and only $`20`$ disorder samples.. Only for $`T=0.4`$ does one see the expected continuum on the left of the self-overlap peak, with some indication of the low $`q`$ peak at a location in agreement with the value  $`q_{min}0.44`$. It should be noted that the peak corresponding to $`q_{min}`$ is predicted to be broader than the one corresponding to $`q_{EA}`$ . This explains why we do not observe this minimum overlap peak.

## 5 Conclusions

We performed numerical simulations of the SK model in a magnetic field at temperature $`T=0.6`$, both in the glassy phase and above the AT line. We used a modified version of the PT algorithm in which the system is allowed to move between a chosen set of magnetic field values, an algorithm well suited for our purpose.

We measured quantities such as the magnetic susceptibility, which turns out to be in agreement with the predicted analytical behavior of  as function of $`h`$.

Dimensionless ratios of $`P(q)`$ moments such as the Binder parameter and the skewness display a non-monotonic behavior making difficult to get a clear determination of the transition point on the AT line. Also $`adhoc`$ parameters for locating replica symmetry breaking transitions, based on the non-self-averageness of the order parameter, are considered. The connected ones turn out to be effective for locating the transition.

An even better evidence for the transition comes from the divergence of the spin glass susceptibility, though its scaling behavior is affected by strong finite size corrections.

We also investigate the behavior of various quantities defined in term of the probability distribution of the absolute value of the overlap. This allows to reduce the finite size effects due to the long tail of $`P(q)`$ in the negative overlap region. As a matter of fact, the dimensionless parameters turn out to behave better in this case, the crossing points being nearer to the correct critical value. It is interesting to note that the usual and “absolute” susceptibilities have corrections of opposite signs.

Moreover we studied the behavior of some sum rules (related to stochastic stability) involving overlaps between three and four replicas. We found strong finite size corrections particularly for those sum rules that are valid only at non-zero magnetic field, and it turns out to be particularly appropriate to look at “absolute” quantities in this case. They are satisfied within our statistical accuracy for $`N=1024`$ in the glassy phase. On the other hand, they would not be good indicators for the transition, since their behavior change very slightly when crossing the AT line, being still nearly verified also for $`h>h_{AT}`$, some trivially (all the terms become very similar) others non-trivially.

Finally we presented data for $`P(q)`$ in magnetic field, which show how slowly the shape predicted by the RSB solution develops on a large system.

## Acknowledgments

We are particularly grateful to Giorgio Parisi for many interesting discussions and useful suggestions. We would like to thank Tamas Temesvári for pointing to us an error in the original manuscript and for many discussions. We also acknowledge discussions with Andrea Crisanti, Cirano De Dominicis, Enzo Marinari, Felix Ritort, Tommaso Rizzo, and Peter Young. B. C. is supported by a Marie Curie (EC) fellowship (contract HPMF-CT-2001-01504). We thank Andrea Crisanti and Tommaso Rizzo for providing us with their unpublished results on the $`h0`$ SK model.


format: text

text:
# The Method

## The Method

The starting point of our method is a set of HF+BCS wave functions $`|q`$ generated by self-consistent mean-field calculations with a constraint on a collective coordinate $`q`$. Such mean-field states break several symmetries of the exact many-body states. Wave functions with good angular momentum and particle numbers are obtained by restoration of rotational and particle-number symmetry on $`|q`$:

$$|JMq=\frac{1}{𝒩}\underset{K}{}g_K^J\widehat{P}_{MK}^J\widehat{P}_Z\widehat{P}_N|q,$$
(1)
where $`𝒩`$ is a normalization factor. $`\widehat{P}_{MK}^J`$, $`\widehat{P}_N`$, $`\widehat{P}_Z`$ are projectors onto angular momentum $`J`$ with projection $`M`$ along the laboratory z-axis, neutron number $`N`$ and proton number $`Z`$ respectively. We impose here axial symmetry and time reversal invariance on the intrinsic states $`|q`$. Therefore, $`K`$ can only be 0 and we shall omit the coefficient $`g_K^J=\delta _{K0}`$. A variational configuration mixing on the collective variable $`q`$ is then performed for each $`J`$

$$|JMk=\underset{q}{}f_k^{JM}(q)|JMq.$$
(2)
The weight functions $`f_k^{JM}(q)`$ are determined by requiring that the expectation value of the energy

$$E_k^{JM}=\frac{JMk|\widehat{H}|JMk}{JMk|JMk},$$
(3)
is stationary with respect to an arbitrary variation $`\delta f_k^{JM}(q)`$. This prescription leads to the discretized Hill-Wheeler equation. Collective wave functions in the basis of the intrinsic states are then obtained from the set of weight functions $`f_k^{JM}(q)`$ by a basis transformation . In $`|JMk`$, the weight of each mean-field state $`|q`$ is given by:

$$g_k^{JM}(q)=JMk|q.$$
(4)
Since the collective states $`|JMk`$ have good angular momentum, quadrupole moments and transition probabilities can be directly determined in the laboratory frame of reference without further approximations. For further details on the evaluation of overlaps and matrix elements see .

The same effective interaction is used to generate the mean-field wave functions and for the configuration mixing calculation. We have chosen the Skyrme interaction SLy6 in the mean-field channel  and a density-dependent zero-range force as defined in  in the pairing channel.

## An illustrative example: 186Pb

We discuss 186Pb as an example for the results that can be obtained with the method; see ref.  for more details. On figure 1 is plotted the deformation energy of 186Pb before and after projection on angular momentum. All curves are drawn versus the intrinsic axial quadrupole moment of the unprojected mean-field states. As projected $`J=0`$ states are spherical, this “quadrupole moment” is only a convenient way to label the projected states. The curve labeled “mean-field” plots the deformation energy after particle-number projection only. It exhibits a spherical global minimum as well as local minima at prolate and oblate deformations. While the deformation energy of the prolate minimum fortuitously reproduces the experimental value of 0.650 MeV for the prolate $`0^+`$ state, the 1.1 MeV deformation energy of the oblate minimum overestimates the experimental value of 0.532 MeV for the oblate $`0^+`$ state.

The energy curves obtained after angular momentum projection are also shown on figure 1. The spherical mean-field state is rotationally invariant and therefore contributes to $`J=0`$ only. Two minima appear at small deformations around $`\beta _2=\pm 0.1`$. They do not correspond to two different states, but to the correlated spherical state (see below).

The excitation energies $`E_k^{JM}`$ of the collective states $`|JMk`$ obtained from the configuration mixing calculation are shown in figure 2. Each of these states is represented by a bar drawn at the average intrinsic deformation of the mean-field states it is built from. The excitation spectrum is divided into bands corresponding to different deformations. Configuration mixing lowers the energy of the lowest collective states with respect to the projected energy curves; the energy gain is the largest for the ground state. The available data are plotted on the right panel of figure 2. The calculated energy of the prolate $`0^+`$ state is very close to the experimental energy contrary to the excitation energy of the oblate $`0^+`$ state which is largely overestimated.

The corresponding collective wave functions $`g_k^{JM}(q)`$ are plotted in figure 3. The ground state wave-function is spread in a similar way on both oblate and prolate sides with a zero average quadrupole deformation. The wave functions of the first two excited $`0^+`$ states are strongly peaked at either prolate or oblate deformations, with their tails extending into the spherical well. Starting with $`J=4`$, states are localized and are predominantly either prolate or oblate. The shapes of the $`0_4^+`$, $`2_3^+`$, and $`4_3^+`$ wave functions suggests their interpretation as a rotational band built onto a $`\beta `$ vibration within the prolate well.

Calculated transition probabilities for $`J>2`$ states confirm the separation of the excited states into rotational bands with very small $`B(E2)`$ transitions between bands, while the large branching of $`E2`$ strength for the in and out of bands $`2^+0^+`$ transitions reflects that the low-lying $`0^+`$ states are mixed.

## Systematics

The systematics of the potential energy surfaces for the Pb isotopes with $`A=182192`$ is shown in the left panel of figure 4. It can be clearly seen that the oblate minimum is pushed up in energy and disappears below $`A=184`$, while a prolate minimum develops below $`A=192`$. Various superdeformed structures can be seen at large deformation. The pattern is reflected in the systematics of the excitation energies of the $`0^+`$, $`2^+`$ and $`4^+`$ states in the three lowest rotational bands obtained from the configuration mixing for $`A=184190`$, see the right panel of figure 4. Calculated oblate and prolate bands cross for 188Pb, at slightly larger neutron number than suggested by experiment . For the three heavier isotopes, the third band has a similar structure as the one obtained for 186Pb, while for 184Pb it corresponds to the superdeformed minimum around $`\beta _2=1.0`$.

## Conclusions

Systematic calculations of spectroscopic properties of very heavy nuclei based on self-consistent mean-field methods have become feasible, as has been shown on the example of low-lying excited states in neutron-deficient Pb isotopes. Our results strongly support the interpretation of the Pb spectra as a manifestation of shape coexistence. There remains, however, a significant over-estimation of the oblate band’s excitation energy in some of the nuclei, which can be due to the one or the other ingredient of the model: (1) the effective mean-field interaction (as surface tension, spin-orbit splitting, etc), (2) the strength and the form factor of the pairing interaction, (3) missing collective modes in the configuration mixing, or (4) a necessary generalization of the density dependence of the effective interaction for calculations beyond mean field as suggested in ref. . The effective interactions clearly deserve future reexamination. Various generalizations of the model are underway.

Acknowledgments. This research was supported in part by the PAI-P5-07 of the Belgian Office for Scientific Policy, and by the US Department of Energy (DOE), Nuclear Physics Division, under contract no. W-31-109-ENG-38. We thank M. Huyse, R. V. F. Janssens, R. Julin, G. Neyens, and P. Van Duppen for inspiring discussions. M. B. acknowledges support through a European Community Marie Curie Fellowship.


text:
# Simple applications of Noether’s first theorem in quantum mechanics and electromagnetism

## 1 Introduction

A deep insight in physics concerns the connection between continuous symmetry principles of the ‘global’ variety and conservation laws, famously treated—though not discovered—by Emmy Noether in her 1918 work111See Noether ; an English translation is found in Tavel , and a nice historical analysis of Noether’s 1918 work in Kastrup . in the calculus of variations. Noether’s study of course dealt with dynamical systems susceptible to a Lagrangian formulation, and in 1954, Eugene Wigner warned against a “facile identification” of symmetry and conservation principles, his main argument being that not all interesting dynamical systems are of this kind.222See Wigner .

It is worth emphasizing that even when the dynamics are Lagrangian–which is ususally the case—the significance of Noether’s ‘first’ theorem, the one dealing with global symmetries, can be quite a subtle issue. First, not all such symmetries are Noetherian, in the sense of meeting the conditions normally laid down for a Noether-type theorem to hold (examples are found in section 4 below). Second, even when the symmetries are Noetherian, there are ways in which they may not lead to equations of continuity at all—let alone conserved charges.333See, for example, Trautman  sections 5-2 and 5-3, and Brown and Brading  section II. But, most significantly for our purposes, even when a connection with continuity equations does hold, the following points are pertinent.

(i) The continuity equations may be trivial in the light of the equations of motion (the Euler-Lagrange equations): the two sets of equations may indeed coincide.

(ii) The continuity equation may not lead to the existence of conserved Noether charges.

(iii) Neither the Lagrangian nor the conserved charges need be real-valued.

(iv) The Noether symmetry transformation may not have an ’active’ interpretation. In particular it may not carries states of the dynamical system into states.

The main point of this paper is to illustrate points (i) to (iv) by way of simple examples involving the non-relativistic Schrödinger dynamics of a free particle and classical electrodynamics. It is noteworthy that the full space-time symmetry group associated with the former was only demonstrated many years after the development of quantum mechanics.444See Niederer  and Jahn and Sreedhar . In the present note, the Noether charges associated with unfamiliar *internal* symmetries will be exhibited—one of these symmetries being a non-relativistic analogue of a non-unitarily implementable Noetherian symmetry in relativistic field theory.

## 2 Noether’s first theorem for internal symmetries

We begin by considering a Lagrangian density $``$ depending on a system of $`N`$ non-relativistic fields $`\psi _k`$ ($`k=1,\mathrm{},N`$) and their first derivatives. The Lagrangian $`L`$ for this system of fields, defined relative to some (possibly time-dependent) compact, bounded region of space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, is

$$L=_\mathrm{\Omega }𝑑𝐱.$$
(1)
and the action defined relative to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the two times $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ is

$$S=_{t_1}^{t_2}_\mathrm{\Omega }𝑑𝐱𝑑t.$$
(2)
We refer to the space-time region defined by $`R`$, $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ as $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and simply write

$$S=_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝑑𝐱𝑑t.$$
(3)
If now we introduce infinitesimal variations in both the fields $`\psi _k`$ (the dependent variables) and the coordinates $`𝐱,t`$ (the independent variables), then the corresponding first-order variation in $`S`$ can be written as the sum of two terms. The first, still an integral over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, has as its integrand the sum $`_k_{\psi _k}\overline{\delta }\psi _k`$ where $`\overline{\delta }\psi _k`$ denotes the ‘total’ variation, or Lie drag of $`\psi _k`$ (the definition of which need not concern us), where the $`_{\psi _k}`$ are the Euler expressions

$$_{\psi _k}=\frac{}{\psi _k}\frac{}{(\psi _k)}_t\frac{}{\dot{\psi _k}},$$
(4)
and where $`_t=/t`$ and $`\dot{\psi _k}=\psi _k/t`$. The second term in the first variation of $`S`$ takes the form of the integral of a divergence. Hence by Gauss’s theorem it is a surface term, i.e. an integral over the three-dimensional boundary $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ of the space-time region $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

If we apply Hamilton’s principle in relation to arbitrary infinitesimal variations of a specific field $`\psi _k`$ that vanish on the boundary $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, this means that the action is stationary under such variations for arbitrary choice of the spacetime region $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.555For a detailed treatment of Hamilton’s principle in the context of non-relativistic fields, see Doughty , pp. 207–209, Cohen-Tannoudji et al.  pp. 92-93, and José and Saletan  pp. 557–561. So the second term in the first variation of $`S`$ automatically vanishes and as is well-known, for the first term to vanish on its own it must be the case that the Euler-Lagrange equation for $`\psi _k`$ holds:

$$_{\psi _k}=\frac{}{\psi _k}\frac{}{(\psi _k)}_t\frac{}{\dot{\psi _k}}=0.$$
(5)
Noether’s concern in 1918 was with a different stationarity problem, one defined for specific infinitesimal transformations in (possibly) both the dependent and the independent variables, which do not necessarily vanish on the boundary $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ (so in the first instance both of the above-mentioned terms feature in the first variation of the action). Noether was interested in those transformations for which the first variation in the action strictly vanishes, but since 1918 it has long been recognised that “quasi-invariance” of the action is sufficient for the transformations in question to count as symmetry transformations. By this is meant that the corresponding first variation in the Lagrangian density vanishes only up to a ‘four-divergence’ term:

$$\delta =𝚲+\frac{d\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}{dt},$$
(6)
where $`𝚲`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ are some infinitesimal vector and scalar fields respectively,666A common misunderstanding about the nature of $`𝚲`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ is discussed in point (ii) in the Appendix below. and the derivatives are understood to be total derivatives. (In the case of particles, only the total time derivative features.) Because any two Lagrangian densities that are equal up to such a four-divergence give rise to the same Euler-Lagrange equations on the application of Hamilton’s principle (a point we will return to in the next section and in the Appendix), it is straightforward to show that Noether transformations that leave the action quasi-invariant in turn leave the explicit form of the Euler-Lagrange equations unchanged. It is in this sense that they represent symmetry transformations.777More detailed examinations of this point are found in Brading and Brown  and particularly . (It is worth clarifying that there are symmetries in this sense that are non-Noetherian symmetries, and for which there may be no associated conserved charges. We shall see examples in section 4.)

Noether’s first 1918 theorem relates to Lie groups of symmetry transformations of the dependent and/or independent variables that depend on a family of $`M`$ constant parameters $`\epsilon _a`$ ($`a=1,\mathrm{},M`$). There are in the literature many good accounts of this theorem, generalised to the case of quasi-invariance, for both particles and fields,888See, for instance, Hill , Doughty  pp. 219–222, Barbashov and Nesterenko  and José and Saletan  pp. 565–567. There is a misprint in equation (9.34) in the last treatment; the $`\delta `$ (variation) symbol is missing in front of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha `$. and we shall restrict ourselves to giving the result—without proof—for the special case of ’internal’ symmetries. Here, the infinitesimal ‘global’ transformations affect only the fields, and not the space-time coordinates.

If it is assumed that all the fields $`\psi _k`$—or at least the ones involved in the symmetry transformations—are dynamical and satisfy Hamilton’s principle, then we expect the explicit variation in the action for each of the infinitesimal parameters $`\epsilon _a`$ to consist solely of a surface term, equal to the space-time integral of the four-divergence given in equation 6. This result can be expressed as a continuity equation:

$$\frac{d\rho _a}{dt}+𝐣_a=0$$
(7)
where

$$\rho _a=\underset{k}{}\frac{}{\dot{\psi }_k}\frac{\left(\delta \psi _k\right)}{\epsilon _a}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}{\epsilon _a},$$
(8)
and

$$𝐣_a=\underset{k}{}\frac{}{\left(\psi _k\right)}\frac{\left(\delta \psi _k\right)}{\epsilon _a}\frac{𝚲}{\epsilon _a}.$$
(9)
The term $`\delta \psi _k`$ denotes the infinitesimal variation in $`\psi _k`$ ($`\psi _k\psi _k+\delta \psi _k`$), and it will be recalled that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ and $`𝚲`$ are infinitesimal functions.

Now from equation 7 we have using Gauss’s theorem

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }\left[\rho _a(t_2)\rho _a(t_1)\right]𝑑𝐱+_{t_1}^{t_2}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Omega })}𝐣_a𝑑𝐧=0$$
(10)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is the two-dimensional surface bounded by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`𝐧`$ is the normal to the surface element on this boundary. Now $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ grows as $`|𝐱|^2`$, so if we assume that $`|𝐣_a|`$ decreases faster than $`|𝐱|^2`$, then the second integral in equation 10 can be made arbitrarily small by making $`|𝐱|`$ sufficiently large. For large enough $`R`$, then, one obtains

$$\frac{d}{dt}_R\rho _a𝑑𝐱\frac{dQ_a}{dt}=0$$
(11)
where $`Q_a`$ is the conserved Noether charge associated with the internal symmetry.

## 3 Noether charges for the free Schrödinger particle

The standard Lagrangian density for the free particle in non-relativistic quantum mechanics is given by

$$_{free}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\psi ^{}\psi +\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}\left(\psi ^{}\dot{\psi }\dot{\psi }^{}\psi \right)$$
(12)
where $`\psi (\psi ^{})`$ is the wavefunction (complex conjugate) associated with the particle. Applying Hamilton’s principle for variations in $`\psi ^{}`$ leads to the well-known free Schrödinger equation via equation 5:

$$i\mathrm{}\dot{\psi }=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}^2\psi .$$
(13)
The corresponding equation for $`\psi ^{}`$ is obtained by applying Hamilton’s principle with respect to variations in $`\psi `$.

There are two remarkable features of the derivation of this equation from the standard Lagrangian density.

1. The fields $`\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ are treated as independent variables, when they clearly are not.999It is claimed in Doughty  pp. 216 and 351, that the trick works because of the hermiticity of the Lagrangian density.
2. It is prima facie surprising that the Euler-Lagrange equation 13 is not second order in both spatial and temporal derivatives, given the form of the Lagrangian density. The implication must be that the latter contains redundant dynamical variables.101010See Cohen-Tannoudji et al p. 157.

An arguably more transparent application of Hamilton’s principle in this case involves not the usual wavefunction and its complex conjugate but the real fields $`\psi _R`$ and $`\psi _I`$, where

$$\psi =\psi _R+i\psi _I;\psi ^{}=\psi _Ri\psi _I.$$
(14)
The second term in the standard Lagrangian density in equation 12 can be rewritten in terms of these real fields:

$$\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}\left(\psi ^{}\dot{\psi }\dot{\psi }^{}\psi \right)=\mathrm{}\left(\dot{\psi }_R\psi _I\psi _R\dot{\psi }_I\right).$$
(15)
If we then similarly re-arrange the first term and add the total time derivative

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\mathrm{}\psi _R\psi _I\right)=\frac{d}{dt}\left[\frac{\mathrm{}}{4i}\left(\psi ^2(\psi ^{})^2\right)\right]$$
(16)
we obtain an equivalent Lagrangian density

$$_{free}^{}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\left[\left(\psi _R\right)^2+\left(\psi _I\right)^2\right]+2\mathrm{}\dot{\psi }_R\psi _I.$$
(17)
Note that this Lagrangian density depends on the time derivative of $`\psi _R`$ but not of $`\psi _I`$.111111See Cohen-Tannoudji et al.  p. 159. (We could have subtracted the derivative in equation 16 instead of adding it, thereby reversing the role of $`\psi _R`$ and $`\psi _I`$.)

It is seen from equation 5 that the Euler-Lagrange equation defined with respect to variations of $`\psi _R`$ is

$$\mathrm{}\dot{\psi }_I\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}^2\psi _R=0,$$
(18)
and that for variations of $`\psi _I`$ is

$$\mathrm{}\dot{\psi }_R+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}^2\psi _I=0.$$
(19)
Appropriate linear combinations of equation 18 and equation 19 give rise to the usual Schrödinger equation 13 and its conjugate counterpart.

### 3.1 First symmetry

Let us now consider the global infinitesimal transformations

$$\psi _R\psi _R^{}=\psi _R+\epsilon _R;\psi _I\psi _I^{}=\psi _I+\epsilon _I$$
(20)
where the arbitrary parameters $`\epsilon _{R(I)}`$ do not depend on space or time. Note that in this case the number $`M`$ of parameters equals the number $`N`$ of fields: both indices $`k`$ and $`a`$ range over the set {$`R,I`$}. From equations 17 and 20 we have that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0=2\mathrm{}\epsilon _I\psi _R`$ and $`𝚲=0`$. It can now readily be confirmed from equations 8, 9 and 17 that the equations of continuity 7 for $`a=R`$ and $`a=I`$ have precisely the form of the Euler-Lagrange equations 18 and 19 respectively. The Noether equations of continuity in this case coincide with the equations of motion.

Assuming that $`\psi _{R(I)}`$ decreases faster than $`𝐱^2`$, we obtain for sufficiently large $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ our two conserved Noether charges

$$Q_{R(I)}=_\mathrm{\Omega }\psi _{R(I)}𝑑𝐱.$$
(21)
The existence of these charges implies that

$$Q=_\mathrm{\Omega }\psi 𝑑𝐱.$$
(22)
and its complex conjugate are also conserved charges. This result is to be compared with the more familiar derivation of the conserved Noether charge $`\left|\psi \right|^2𝑑𝐱`$ resulting from the internal symmetry associated with global gauge (phase) tranformations of the wavefunction for the general Schrödinger equation (involving possible external potentials).121212For this derivation, see, for instance, Doughty  pp. 222–223. This charge is of course real and gauge independent; the charges 21 are real but gauge dependent and charge 22 is complex and gauge dependent.131313Gauge dependent Noether charges are familiar in the case of non-abelian gauge fields in relation to the global SU(2) symmetry; see Barbashov and Nesterenko , section 12.

It should be noted finally that the above results can also be obtained by applying Noether’s theorem in the case of the standard Lagrangian 12 and the transformation

$$\psi \psi ^{}=\psi +\epsilon $$
(23)
and its conjugate,141414The local transformation $`\psi (𝐱,t)\psi ^{}(𝐱,t)=\alpha (𝐱,t)\psi (𝐱,t)+\beta (𝐱,t)`$ is mentioned in an unworked exercise in Doughty , p. 223, designed to show that the full Schrödinger equation—with scalar but no vector potential—has no local gauge freedom in $`\psi `$. Doughty does not refer to the special case above of $`\alpha =0`$ and $`\beta `$ global in relation to the free particle dynamics, nor the case of $`\beta =0`$ and $`\alpha `$ global, which we discuss briefly in section 4 below. where $`\epsilon =\epsilon _R+i\epsilon _I`$, etc. Here the Noether equations of continuity are just the usual Schrödinger equation 13 and its conjugate counterpart. (In the Appendix, we examine other possible forms of the Lagrangian density, including complex-valued ones, for the free particle.) In this case it is more obvious that the internal transformations do not preserve the square integrability of the wavefunction. But this is no impediment to applying the machinery of Noether’s theorem. Indeed the symmetry 23 is a non-relativistic analogue of the ‘translation’ symmetry for the real massless scalar field studied in connection with the spontaneous breaking of symmetry in relativistic field theory—a Noetherian symmetry which is not unitarily implementable (see section 5 below).

### 3.2 Second symmetry

Consider now the infinitesimal transformations

$$\psi _R\psi _R^{}=\psi _R+\stackrel{}{\epsilon }_R𝐱;\psi _I\psi _I^{}=\psi _I+\stackrel{}{\epsilon }_I𝐱$$
(24)
where the arbitrary vectors $`\stackrel{}{\epsilon }_{R(I)}`$ again do not depend on space or time. In this case, the parameter index $`a`$ ranges over the six values of the ordered pairs {$`R(I),j`$}, and we have that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0=2\mathrm{}\psi _R\stackrel{}{\epsilon _I}𝐱`$ and $`𝚲=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}\left(\psi _R\stackrel{}{\epsilon }_R+\psi _I\stackrel{}{\epsilon }_I\right)`$. The density and 3-current associated with the choice of parameter $`\epsilon _{Rl}`$, for example, are, given equations 8 and 9,

$$\rho ^{Rl}=2\mathrm{}\psi _Ix_l;j_k^{Rl}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}\left(\frac{\psi _R}{x_k}x_l\psi _R\delta _l^k\right).$$
(25)
These expressions, when applied in 7, lead to an equation of continuity which, as the reader will quickly confirm, reduces to the Euler-Lagrange equation 18. The corresponding argument based on the choice of parameter $`\epsilon _{Il}`$ likewise leads to the equation 19. But now our Noether charges are, for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ sufficiently large,

$$Q_k^{R(I)}=_\mathrm{\Omega }\psi _{R(I)}x_k𝑑𝐱;Q_k=_\mathrm{\Omega }\psi x_k𝑑𝐱;Q_k^{}=_\mathrm{\Omega }\psi ^{}x_k𝑑𝐱$$
(26)
if $`j_k^{R(I)l}`$ in 25 falls off sufficiently fast with distance.

We note finally that as with the first symmetry, all these results are also derivable by considering, in relation to the standard Lagrangian 12, the symmetries for $`\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ that are the consequences of 24.

## 4 Aside: non-Noetherian continuous symmetries

Consider multiplication of the wavefunction (complex conjugate) by a complex constant $`c`$ ($`c^{}`$). The form of the general Schrödinger equation is clearly unaffected by this transformation, but the standard Lagrangian density 12 is not quasi-invariant in the sense of equation 6. Rather, the transformed Lagrangian density is just the original times $`|c|^2`$; or $`\delta _{free}=(|c|^21)_{free}`$. The transformed Lagrangian density is equivalent to the original in the sense that the Euler-Lagrange equations are insensitive to such multiplicative constants in the Lagrangian. But no continuity equation is implied by the existence of this kind of internal symmetry, unless $`|c|=1`$—which is the familiar case of global gauge transformations.

It might be of interest to note that the symmetry introduced in the last paragraph corresponds to the transformations

$$\psi _R\psi _R^{}=c_R\psi _Rc_I\psi _I;\psi _I\psi _I^{}=c_R\psi _I+c_I\psi _R,$$
(27)
where $`c=c_R+ic_I`$, etc. Under these transformations, $`\delta _{free}^{}=(c_R^2+c_I^21)_{free}^{}`$ up to a divergence, where $`_{free}^{}`$ is given in equation 17.

A final remark in this context concerns the possible generalization of the global transformation 23 to a local transformation, in which $`\epsilon `$ depends on the space-time location. It is obvious that this transformation is no longer a symmetry in relation to the Schrödinger equation 13. Consider, however, the amusing case where the function $`\epsilon `$ is itself a solution of this equation. Then if $`\psi `$ in 23 is itself a solution, so is $`\psi ^{}`$: this is just the superposition principle! Indeed the linearity of the Schrödinger equation (free or otherwise) ensures that superposing is a symmetry transformation.

Does this mean that we can apply to quantum mechanics the lessons of Noether’s second 1918 theorem, which is concerned with the connection between local symmetries and certain off-shell ‘identities’?151515For discussions of Noether’s second theorem see, e.g., Trautman  and Brading and Brown  and . Not in this case. As in the previous example of an internal symmetry, the superposition symmetry is not a Noetherian symmetry; the Lagrangian is not quasi-invariant under the transformation.

## 5 Analogous Noetherian symmetries in electrodynamics

For systems of relativistic fields $`\varphi _k`$ in Minkowski space-time associated with the Lagrangian density $``$, the relativistic generalizations of equations 7 and 8, 9 are

$$_\mu j^{\mu a}=0;j^{\mu a}=\underset{k}{}\frac{}{(_\mu \varphi _k)}\frac{\left(\delta \varphi _k\right)}{\epsilon _a}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu }{\epsilon _a}$$
(28)
(We henceforth use the Einstein convention for summing over repeated Greek indices; $`\mu =0,1,2,3`$). In the case of the massless scalar field $`\varphi `$ with $`=\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi `$, the infinitesimal global transformation

$$\varphi (x)\varphi ^{}(x)=\varphi (x)+\epsilon $$
(29)
is a Noetherian symmetry with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu =0`$. Such non-unitarily implementable symmetries are called “hidden” or “spontaneously broken”; in this particular case the continuity equation once again coincides with the equation of motion, $`_\mu ^\mu \varphi =0`$.161616See Aitchison , sections 5.4, 5.5. We have seen a non-relativistic analogue for a complex field in section 3.1; there is a relativistic analogue for vector fields in classical electromagnetism, as we now see.

The standard Lagrangian density of the source-free electromagnetic field in Minkowski space-time is

$$_{EM}=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }$$
(30)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$ and $`A_\mu `$ is the electromagnetic 4-potential. As is well-known, applying Hamilton’s principle with respect to variations in $`A_\mu `$ leads to the field equations

$$_\mu F^{\mu \nu }=0$$
(31)
Let us now consider an infinitesimal transformation in the potential analogous to the transformations 20, 23 and 29

$$A_\mu A_\mu ^{}=A_\mu +\epsilon _\mu $$
(32)
where $`\epsilon _\mu `$ is an arbitrary infinitesimal constant co-vector field. Under this transformation, the Lagrangian 30 is obviously strictly invariant ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu =0`$).

Now from 34 we have

$$_\mu j^{\mu \nu }=0$$
(33)
and

$$j^{\mu \nu }=\frac{_{EM}}{(_\mu A_\sigma )}\frac{\left(\delta A_\sigma \right)}{\epsilon _\nu }=\frac{1}{4}F^{\mu \sigma }\delta _\sigma ^\nu =\frac{1}{4}F^{\mu \nu }.$$
(34)
So it is seen that again the equations of continuity coincide with the equations of motion 31.

For $`\nu =1,2,3`$, these equations have as their 1+3 formulation

$$\frac{𝐄}{t}+\times 𝐁=0$$
(35)
where $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐁`$ are the electric and magnetic field vectors respectively. Integrating this equation over space, and recalling

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }\times 𝐁𝑑𝐱=_{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Omega })}𝐁\times 𝑑𝐧$$
(36)
then it is seen that $`_\mathrm{\Omega }𝐄𝑑𝐱`$ is conserved over time for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ sufficiently large, if $`𝐁0`$ as $`|𝐱|\mathrm{}`$. It should be noted that these boundary conditions are highly non-trivial for the propagating free field; in general there is no Noether charge associated with the symmetry 32.

For the electromagnetic analogue of the second quantum symmetries 24 consider the following equivalent transformations

$`F_{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`F_{\mu \nu }+\epsilon _{\mu \nu }`$ (37)
$`A_\mu A_\mu ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`A_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\epsilon _{\nu \mu }x^\nu `$ (38)
where $`\epsilon _{\mu \nu }`$ is an arbitrary constant antisymmetric second-rank tensor field. In this case, the electromagnetic Lagrangian density 30 is quasi-invariant, and it can easily be shown that for infinitesimal $`\epsilon _{\mu \nu }`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu =\frac{1}{4}A_\nu \epsilon ^{\mu \nu }`$. In this case the parameter index $`a`$ corresponds to the brace of indices $`\sigma `$, $`\rho `$ and we have as the equation corresponding to 34

$`j^{\mu \sigma \rho }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_{EM}}{(_\mu A_\nu )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\delta A_\nu \right)}{\epsilon _{\sigma \rho }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu }{\epsilon _{\sigma \rho }}}`$ (39)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F^{\mu \rho }x^\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F^{\mu \sigma }x^\rho \eta ^{\mu \sigma }A^\rho +\eta ^{\mu \rho }A^\sigma ,`$ (40)
where $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$ is the Minkowski metric tensor. Given that $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ is built out of first derivatives of $`A_\mu `$, the structural similarity with equation 25 is striking. We see at any rate that these four-currents are gauge dependent, and that now the equations of continuity

$$_\mu j^{\mu \sigma \rho }=\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(_\mu F^{\mu \rho }\right)x^\sigma \left(_\mu F^{\mu \sigma }\right)x^\rho \right]=0$$
(41)
which follow from the quasi-invariance of the Lagrangian density do not coincide with the field equations 31.

## 6 Appendix: Alternative Lagrangians

Besides the free Lagrangian densities that we have already encountered in equations 12 and 17, we might consider a further five distinct but equivalent ones. We get these from the standard one 12 by allowing the first term to be replaced by either $`(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m})\psi ^2\psi ^{}`$ or $`(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m})\psi ^{}^2\psi `$, and allowing the second term to be replaced by $`i\mathrm{}\dot{\psi }^{}\psi `$. All these Lagrangian densities differ from one another by scalar terms of the form $`()`$ and/or $`d/dt()`$. All give rise to the same Euler-Lagrange equations associated with variations in $`\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$.

Some remarks related to specific cases may be helpful to the reader.

(i) Consider two of these Lagrangian densities

$`\stackrel{~}{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}\psi ^2\psi ^{}i\mathrm{}\dot{\psi }^{}\psi `$ (42)
$`\overline{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}\psi ^2\psi ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}}\left(\psi ^{}\dot{\psi }\dot{\psi }^{}\psi \right)`$ (43)
Given that $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ and $`\overline{}`$ depend on second order space derivatives, the Euler-Lagrange equation defined relative to variations in $`\psi `$, for example, is now (compare with 5)

$$\frac{}{\psi }\frac{}{(\psi )}+^2\frac{}{(^2\psi )}_t\frac{}{\dot{\psi }}=0.$$
(44)
This equation follows from Hamilton’s principle relative to arbitrary variations in $`\psi `$ only if it assumed that the variations both in $`\psi `$ and its first space derivatives vanish on the boundary $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$.

(ii) It is striking that the Schrödinger equation 13, which is only second order in space derivatives, is derivable from $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ and $`\overline{}`$, which are second order in these derivatives. This is reminiscent of the situation in the general theory of relativity concerning the Hilbert Lagrangian density $`R\sqrt{g}`$, where $`R`$ is the curvature scalar and $`g`$ the determinant of the metric field $`g^{\mu \nu }`$. This functional depends on second order derivatives of $`g^{\mu \nu }`$, but gives rise to the Einstein field equations that contain no higher than second derivatives. A simple way to see how this can happen is by considering Einstein’s own lesser-known 1916 gravitational Lagrangian density (the so-called $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ Lagrangian), which is first-order. Both actions give rise to the same Euler-Lagrangian equations, because they differ only by a total divergence. In relation to Einstein’s action, the second-order terms in Hilbert’s action are all contained in this total divergence.171717For a fuller discussion of this point, see Brown and Brading . In quantum mechanics the standard free Lagrangian density in equation 12 is related to each of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ and $`\overline{}`$ in the same way.

Note that these cases provide counterexamples to a common claim in the literature concerning dynamically equivalent Lagrangians, which has ramifications for the notion of quasi-invariance of the Lagrangian. The claim is that two Lagrangian densities differing by a total divergence are dynamically equivalent only when they are of the same order in the derivatives—so that when a Lagrangian density is first order, and a divergence is added to it, the resulting Lagrangian density is dynamically equivalent only when the argument of the divergence can contains no derivatives of the fields.181818This claim is found in, for example, Hill , Doughty  pp. 178, 218, Cohen-Tannoudji et al.  p. 83, and José and Saletan , pp. 67–68. (In relation to the last treatment, it is correctly pointed out in the comments on p. 68 that are bounded by vertical rules that it is not necessary for two Lagrangians to yield the same dynamics that they differ by a divergence term; but the preceding argument in the same section seems to contradict this.) It is also worth noting that each of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ and $`\overline{}`$ and the density to be introduced in the next remark are complex-valued, in defiance of the occasional claim that the action must be real-valued.191919For this claim see Cohen-Tannoudji et al.  p. 87.

(iii) The standard Lagrangian density in 12 is only quasi-invariant with respect to the complex conjugate of the global transformation in equation 23, but it is clearly the case that $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ is invariant, and the same goes for another of the above-mentioned densities

$$\widehat{}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\psi ^{}\psi i\mathrm{}\dot{\psi }^{}\psi .$$
(45)
The situation is partly reversed with respect to the Galilean coordinate transformations (boosts), which are of course a symmetry of the Schrödinger equation 13.202020For a recent discussion of the Galilean covariance of quantum mechanics see Brown and Holland . It can be shown that the standard Lagrangian density is strictly Galilean invariant, but $`\widehat{}`$ in equation 45, for instance, is only quasi-invariant. It is recalled that the standard Lagrangian for a free non-relativistic classical particle $`m\dot{q}^2/2`$ is likewise only quasi-invariant with respect to Galilean boosts.212121An unfamiliar example of quasi-invariance under spatial translations for a classical non-relativistic particle in free fall is found in José and Saletan , p. 128.

## 7 Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Ian Aitchison for pointing out the analogy between the symmetry in 3.1 and the internal ‘translation’ symmetry for the relativistic massless scalar field. One of us (H.R.B.) wishes to gratefully acknowledge extensive and enlightening discussions over several years with Katherine Brading, on matters Noetherian.


text:
# Gold-plated Mode of CP-Violation in Decays of 𝑩_𝑐 Meson from QCD Sum Rules

## I Introduction

The $`B_c`$ meson first observed by the CDF collaboration at FNAL cdf  is expected to be copiously produced in the future experiments at hadron colliders revbc  with facilities oriented to the study of fine effects in the heavy quark interactions such as the parameters of CP-violation and charged weak current mixing111See, for instance, the program on the B physics at Tevatron BRunII .. So, one could investigate the spectroscopy, production mechanism and decay features of $`B_c`$ Bj ; OPEBc ; QCDSRBc  with the incoming sample of several billion events. In such circumstances, in addition to the current success in the experimental study of decays with the CP-violation in the gold-plated mode of neutral $`B`$-meson by the BaBar and Belle collaborations BB  allowing one to extract the CKM-matrix angle $`\beta `$ in the unitarity triangle, a possible challenge is whether one could get an opportunity to extract some information about the CKM unitarity triangle from the $`B_c`$ physics in a model independent way or not. The theoretical principal answer is one can do it. Indeed, there is an intriguing opportunity to extract the angle $`\gamma `$ in the model-independent way using the strategy of reference triangles Gronau  in the decays of doubly heavy hadrons. This ideology for the study of CP-violation in $`B_c`$ decays was originally offered by M.Masetti Masetti , independently investigated by R.Fleischer and D.Wyler FW  and extended to the case of doubly heavy baryons222A review on the physics of doubly heavy baryons is given in revqq . in QQCP .

Let us point out necessary conditions to extract the CP-violation effects in the model-independent way.

1. Interference. The measured quantities have to involve the amplitudes including both the CP-odd and CP-even phases.
2. Exclusive channels. The hadronic final state has to be fixed in order to isolate a definite flavor contents and, hence, the definite matrix elements of CKM matrix, which can exclude the interference of two CP-odd phases with indefinite CP-even phases due to strong interactions at both levels of the quark structure and the interactions in the final state.
3. Oscillations. The definite involvement of the CP-even phase is ensured by the oscillations taking place in the systems of neutral $`B`$ or $`D`$ mesons, wherein the CP-breaking effects can be systematically implemented.
4. Tagging. Once the oscillations are involved, the tagging of both the flavor and CP eigenstates is necessary for the complete procedure.

The gold-plated modes in the decays of neutral $`B`$ mesons involve the oscillations of mesons themselves and, hence, they require the time-dependent measurements. In contrast, the decays of doubly heavy hadrons such as the $`B_c`$ meson and $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{bc}`$ baryons with the neutral $`D^0`$ or $`\overline{D}^0`$ meson in the final state do not require the time-dependent measurements. The triangle ideology is based on the direct determination of absolute values for the set of four decays, at least: the decays of hadron in the tagged $`D^0`$ meson, the tagged $`\overline{D}^0`$ meson, the tagged CP-even state333The CP-odd states of $`D^0`$ can be used, too. However, their registration requires the detection of CP-even state of $`K^0`$, which can be complicated because of a detector construction, say, by a long base of $`K^0`$ decay beyond a tracking system. of $`D^0`$, and the decay of the anti-hadron into the tagged CP-even state of $`D^0`$. To illustrate, let us consider the decays of

$$B_c^+D^0D_s^+,\text{and}B_c^+\overline{D}^0D_s^+.$$

The corresponding diagrams with the decay of $`\overline{b}`$-quark are shown in Figs. 1 and 2. We stress that two diagrams of the decay to $`D^0`$ have the additional negative sign caused by the Pauli interference of two charmed quarks, which, however, completely compensated after the Fierz transformation for the corresponding Dirac matrices.

The exclusive modes make the penguin terms to be excluded, since the penguins add an even number of charmed quarks, i.e. two or zero, while the final state contains two charmed quarks including one from the $`\overline{b}`$ decay and one from the initial state. However, the diagram with the weak annihilation of two constituents, i.e. the charmed quark and beauty anti-quark in the $`B_c^+`$ meson, can contribute in the next order in $`\alpha _s`$ as shown in Fig. 2 for the given final state. Nevertheless, we see that such the diagrams have the same weak-interaction structure as at the tree level. Therefore, they do not break the consideration under interest. The magnitude of $`\alpha _s`$-correction to the absolute values of corresponding decay widths is discussed in Section II.

Thus, the CP-odd phases of decays under consideration are determined by the tree-level diagrams shown in Figs. 1 and 2. Therefore, we can write down the amplitudes in the following form:

$$𝒜(B_c^+D^0D_s^+)\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}𝒜_D=V_{ub}^{}V_{cs}_D,𝒜(B_c^+\overline{D}^0D_s^+)\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}𝒜_{\overline{D}}=V_{cb}^{}V_{us}_{\overline{D}},$$
(1)
where $`_{\overline{D},D}`$ denote the CP-even factors depending on the dynamics of strong interactions. Using the definition of angle $`\gamma `$

$$\gamma \stackrel{\text{def}}{=}\mathrm{arg}\left[\frac{V_{ub}V_{cs}^{}}{V_{cb}V_{us}^{}}\right],$$

for the CP-conjugated channels444For the sake of simplicity we put the overall phase of arg $`V_{cb}V_{us}^{}=0`$, which corresponds to fixing the representation of the CKM matrix, e.g. by the Wolfenstein form Wolf . we find

$$𝒜(B_c^{}\overline{D}^0D_s^{})=e^{2\mathrm{i}\gamma }𝒜_D,𝒜(B_c^{}D^0D_s^{})=𝒜_{\overline{D}}.$$
(2)
We see that the corresponding widths for the decays to the flavor tagged modes coincide with the CP-conjugated ones. However, the story can be continued by using the definition of CP-eigenstates for the oscillating $`D^0\overline{D}^0`$ system555The suppressed effects of CP-violation in the oscillations of neutral $`D`$ mesons are irrelevant here, and we can neglect them in the sound way.,

$$D_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(D^0\pm \overline{D}^0),$$

so that we straightforwardly get

$`\sqrt{2}𝒜(B_c^+D_s^+D_1)\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}\sqrt{2}𝒜_{D_1}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒜_D+𝒜_{\overline{D}},`$ (3)
$`\sqrt{2}𝒜(B_c^{}D_s^{}D_1)\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}\sqrt{2}𝒜_{D_1}^{\text{cp}}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2\mathrm{i}\gamma }𝒜_D+𝒜_{\overline{D}}.`$ (4)
The complex numbers entering (3) and (4) establish two triangles with the definite angle $`2\gamma `$ between the vertex positions as shown in Fig. 3.

Thus, due to the unitarity, the measurement of four absolute values

$`|𝒜_D|=|𝒜(B_c^+D_s^+D^0)|,`$ $`|𝒜_{\overline{D}}|=|𝒜(B_c^+D_s^+\overline{D}^0)|,`$
$`|𝒜_{D_1}|=|𝒜(B_c^+D_s^+D_1)|,`$ $`|𝒜_{D_1}^{\text{cp}}|=|𝒜(B_c^{}D_s^{}D_1)|,`$ (5)
can constructively reproduce the angle $`\gamma `$ in the model-independent way.

The above triangle-ideology can be implemented for the analogous decays to the excited states of charmed mesons in the final state.

The residual theoretical challenge is to evaluate the characteristic widths or branching fractions. We address this problem and analyze the color structure of amplitudes. So, we find that the matrix elements under interest have the different magnitudes of color suppression, so that at the tree level we get $`𝒜_DO(\sqrt{N_c})`$ and $`𝒜_{\overline{D}}O(1/\sqrt{N_c})`$, while the ratio of relevant CKM-matrix elements,

$$\left|\frac{V_{ub}V_{cs}^{}}{V_{cb}V_{us}^{}}\right|O(1)$$

with respect to the small parameter of Cabibbo angle, $`\lambda =\mathrm{sin}\theta _C`$, which one can easily find in the Wolfenstein parametrization

$$V_{\text{ckm}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}V_{ud}& V_{us}& V_{ub}\\ V_{cd}& V_{cs}& V_{cb}\\ V_{td}& V_{ts}& V_{tb}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^2& \lambda & A\lambda ^3(\rho \mathrm{i}\eta )\\ \lambda & 1\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^2& A\lambda ^2\\ A\lambda ^3(1\rho \mathrm{i}\eta )& A\lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right).$$

Nevertheless, the interference of two diagrams in the decays of $`B_c^+`$ to the $`D^0`$ meson is destructive, and the absolute values of the amplitudes $`𝒜_D`$ and $`𝒜_{\overline{D}}`$ become close to each other. Thus, we expect that the sides of the reference-triangles are of the same order of magnitude, which makes the method to be an attractive way to extract the angle $`\gamma `$.

In Section II we classify the diagrams for the decays of doubly heavy meson $`B_c^+`$ by the color and weak-interaction structures. Section III is devoted to the numerical estimates in the framework of QCD sum rules. The results are summarized in Conclusion.

## II Color structures

In the framework of $`1/N_c`$-expansion we have got the following scaling rules of color structures in the processes with the hadrons composed of the quark and anti-quark:

1. The meson wavefunction

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_M\frac{1}{\sqrt{N_c}}\delta _{}^{i}{}_{j}{}^{}.$$
2. The coupling constant

$$\alpha _s\frac{1}{N_c}.$$
3. The Casimir operators

$$C_A=N_c,C_F=\frac{N_c^21}{2N_c}O(N_c).$$
4. The Fierz relation for the generators of SU($`N_c`$) group in the fundamental representation

$$t_{}^{Ai}{}_{j}{}^{}t_{}^{Ak}{}_{m}{}^{}=\frac{C_F}{N_c}\delta _{}^{i}{}_{m}{}^{}\delta _{}^{k}{}_{j}{}^{}\frac{1}{N_c}t_{}^{Ai}{}_{m}{}^{}t_{}^{Ak}{}_{j}{}^{}.$$

Next, the non-leptonic weak Lagrangian has a form typically given by the following term BBL :

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{G_F}{2\sqrt{2}}V_{cb}(\overline{b}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu c_j)V_{us}^{}(\overline{u}^k\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu s_l)C_\pm \left(\delta _{}^{i}{}_{j}{}^{}\delta _{}^{k}{}_{l}{}^{}\pm \delta _{}^{i}{}_{l}{}^{}\delta _{}^{k}{}_{j}{}^{}\right)+\mathrm{}$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu =\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)`$, and the Wilson coefficients

$$C_\pm O(1)$$

in the $`1/N_c`$-expansion.

Then, we can proceed with the analysis of decays under interest.

Two diagrams shown in Fig. 1 scale with the different order in $`1/N_c`$, so that

$$𝒜_{1D}\frac{1}{\sqrt{N_c}},𝒜_{2D}\sqrt{N_c}.$$

More definitely we get the color factors

$$_{1D}^c=\sqrt{N_c}a_2,_{2D}^c=\sqrt{N_c}a_1,$$
(7)
where

$`a_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N_c}}\left[C_+(N_c+1)+C_{}(N_c1)\right],`$ (8)
$`a_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N_c}}\left[C_+(N_c+1)C_{}(N_c1)\right].`$ (9)
Nevertheless, we have to calculate both diagrams in order to take into account their interference which is not suppressed by any kinematical factors except the color factor of $`1/N_c`$.

Two diagrams shown in Fig. 2 also scale with the different order in $`1/N_c`$, so that

$$𝒜_{1\overline{D}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{N_c}},𝒜_{2\overline{D}}\sqrt{N_c}.$$

More definitely we get the color factors

$$_{1\overline{D}}^c=\sqrt{N_c}a_2,_{2\overline{D}}^c=\sqrt{N_c}a_1C_F\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pi \alpha _s,$$
(10)
where we have explicitly included the $`\alpha _s`$ correction. However, we can easily find that due to the virtualities of quarks and gluons the kinematical suppression of second diagram in Fig. 2 is given by the factor of

$$𝒮|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(0)|^2\frac{\alpha _s(k_g^2)}{k_g^2}\frac{N_c}{\mathrm{\Delta }E_q},$$

where

$$|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(0)|^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{qcd}}^3$$

is the characteristic value of wavefunction, the gluon virtuality is determined by the expression

$$k_g^2=m_c^2(v_2+v_D)^2=m_c^2\frac{M_1^2(M_2M_3)^2}{M_2M_3}(m_b+m_c)^2+O(m_{s,d}/m_{c,b})\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{qcd}}^2,$$

with $`M_{1,2,3}`$ being the masses of the mesons in the initial and final states, respectively, and the virtuality of quark line connected to the virtual gluon is of the order of

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_qm_c.$$

Therefore,

$$𝒮\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{qcd}}^3}{m_{c,b}^3}\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}m_{c,b}/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{qcd}}}1.$$

Therefore, the above $`\alpha _s`$-corrections can be neglected to the leading order in the $`1/m_Q`$-expansion.

Finally, in this section we have analyzed the color and weak-interaction structures of decay amplitudes and isolate those of the largest magnitude, while the numerical estimates are presented in the next section.

## III Numerical estimates

In this section we use the machinery of QCD sum rules QCDSR ; SR3pt  in order to calculate the widths and branching ratios for the gold-plated modes under study.

The calculations of exclusive non-leptonic modes usually involves the approximation of factorization fact , which, as expected, can be quite accurate for the $`B_c`$, since the quark-gluon sea is suppressed in the heavy quarkonium. Thus, the important parameters are the factors $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ in the non-leptonic weak lagrangian, which depend on the normalization point suitable for the $`B_c`$ decays. In this way, we, first, calculate the form factors in the semileptonic transitions KT ; KLO ; KKL  and, second, evaluate the non-leptonic matrix elements in the factorization approach.

We accept the following convention on the normalization of wave functions for the hadron states under study, i.e. for the pseudoscalar ($`P`$) and vector ($`V`$) states:

$`0|𝒥_\mu |P=\mathrm{i}f_Pp_\mu ,`$ (11)
$`0|𝒥_\mu |V=ϵ_\mu f_VM_V,`$ (12)
where $`f_{P,V}`$ denote the leptonic constants, so that they are positive,

$$f_{P,V}>0,$$

$`p_\mu `$ is a four-momentum of the hadron, $`ϵ_\mu `$ is a polarization vector of $`V`$, $`M_V`$ is its mass, and the current is composed of the valence quark fields constituting the hadron

$$𝒥_\mu =\overline{q}_1\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)q_2.$$

In this respect we can easily apply the ordinary Feynman rules for the calculations of diagrams, so that the quark-meson vertices in the decay channel are chosen with the following spin structures:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_P=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\sqrt{2}}\gamma _5,\mathrm{\Gamma }_V=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}ϵ_\mu .$$

Then, we get general expressions for the hadronic matrix elements of weak currents in the exclusive decays of $`PP^{}`$ and $`PV`$ with the definitions of form factors given by the formulae

$`P^{}(p_2)|𝒥_\mu |P(p_1)`$ $`=`$ $`f_+p_\mu +f_{}q_\mu ,`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{i}}}V(p_2)|𝒥_\mu |P(p_1)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}F_Vϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }ϵ^\nu p^\alpha q^\beta +F_0^Aϵ_\mu ^{}+F_+^A(ϵ^{}p_1)p_\mu +F_{}^A(ϵ^{}p_1)q_\mu ,`$ (14)
where $`q_\mu =(p_1p_2)_\mu `$ and $`p_\mu =(p_1+p_2)_\mu `$. The form factors $`f_\pm `$ are dimensionless, while $`F_V`$ and $`F_\pm ^A`$ has a dimension of inverse energy, $`F_0^A`$ is of the energy dimension. In the case of nonrelativistic description for both initial and final meson states we expect that

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill f_+>0,& \hfill f_{}<0,& \hfill F_V>0,\\ \hfill F_0^A>0,& \hfill F_+^A<0,& \hfill F_{}^A>0.\end{array}$$

It is important to note that for the pseudoscalar state the hermitian conjugation in (11) does not lead to the change of sign in the right hand side of equation because of the prescription accepted, since the conjugation of imaginary unit takes place with the change of sign for the momentum of meson (the transition from the out-state to in-one). The same speculations show that the spin structure of matrix element in the quark-loop order does not involve a functional dependence of form factors on the transfer momentum squared except of $`F_0^A`$, so that we expect that the simplest modelling in the form of the pole dependence can be essentially broken for $`F_0^A`$, while the other form factors are fitted by the pole model in a reasonable way.

Following the standard procedure for the evaluation of form factors in the framework of QCD sum rules SR3pt , in the $`B_c`$ decays we consider the three-point functions

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu (p_1,p_2,q^2)=\mathrm{i}^2{\displaystyle dxdye^{\mathrm{i}(p_2xp_1y)}0|T\{\overline{q}_2(x)\gamma _5q_1(x)𝒥_\mu (0)\overline{b}(y)\gamma _5c(y)\}|0},`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^𝒥(p_1,p_2,q^2)=\mathrm{i}^2{\displaystyle dxdye^{\mathrm{i}(p_2xp_1y)}0|T\{\overline{q}_2(x)\gamma _\mu q_1(x)𝒥_\mu (0)\overline{b}(y)\gamma _5c(y)\}|0},`$ (16)
where $`\overline{q}_2(x)\gamma _5q_1(x)`$ and $`\overline{q}_2(x)\gamma _\nu q_1(x)`$ denote the interpolating currents for the final states mesons.

The standard procedure for the evaluation of correlators and form factors is described in KT ; KLO ; KKL ; exBc . The most important notes are the following KT ; KLO ; KKL ; exBc :

* For the heavy quarkonium $`\overline{b}c`$, where the relative velocity of quark movement is small, an essential role is taken by the Coulomb-like $`\alpha _s/v`$-corrections.
* We have found that the normalizations of leptonic constants for the heavy quarkonia are fixed by the appropriate choice of effective constant for the coulomb exchange $`\alpha _s^𝒞`$, while the stability is very sensitive to the prescribed value of heavy quark mass. Thus, these parameters of sum rules are extracted from the two-point QCD sum rules with a quite good accuracy.
* In the framework of two-point sum rules for the heavy-light channel the fixed value of threshold energy $`E_c`$ determines the binding energy of heavy quark in the meson, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}0.63`$ GeV, which yields the same value of mass for the beauty quark, $`m_b4.6`$ GeV, as it was determined from the analysis of two-point sum rules in the $`\overline{b}b`$ channel. However, taking into account the second order corrections in $`1/m_c`$, we find that the mass of charmed quark is shifted to the value of $`m_c1.2`$ GeV in the heavy-light channel in comparison with the $`\overline{c}c`$ states. Thus, in the transition of $`B_c`$ to the charmed meson we put the mass of spectator charmed quark equal to $`m_c1.2`$ GeV.
* In the framework of the effective theory of heavy quarks with the expansion in the inverse masses of the heavy quarks HQET ; NRQCD ; pNRQCD ; vNRQCD , the spin symmetry relations between the form factors in the soft limit of zero recoil momentum can be derived KKL .
* We take the following ordinary ratios of leptonic constants for the vector and pseudoscalar states and for the heavy-strange mesons:

$$\frac{f_B^{}}{f_B}\frac{f_D^{}}{f_D}1.11,\frac{f_{B_s}}{f_B}\frac{f_{D_s}}{f_D}1.16,$$

which agree with both the lattice computations latt  and the estimates in the framework of potential models taking into account relativistic corrections Faust' .
* The leptonic constant of $`B_c`$ is taken from a scaling relation for the heavy quarkonia scale .

Our estimates are summarized in Table 1 extracted from exBc , where for the sake of comparison we expose the results obtained in the potential model PMK , which parameters are listed in Appendix B of ref.KKL . In the potential model the most reliable results are expected at zero recoil of meson in the final state of transition, since the wave functions are rather accurately calculable at small virtualities of quarks composing the meson. We take the predictions of the potential model at zero recoil and evolve the values of form factors to zero transfer squared in the model with the pole dependence

$$F_i(q^2)=\frac{F_i(0)}{1q^2/M_{i,\mathrm{pole}}^2},$$

making use of numerical values of $`M_{i,\mathrm{pole}}`$ shown in Table 2. We stress the fact that the potential model points to the approximately constant value of the form factor $`F_0^A`$ because of additional kinematical dependence in the transition of $`B_cD^{}`$ and $`B_cD_s^{}`$.

Next, we investigate the validity of spin-symmetry relations in the $`B_c`$ decays to $`D^{()}`$ and $`D_s^{()}`$. The results of estimates for the $`f_\pm `$ evaluated by the symmetry relations with the inputs given by the form factors $`F_V`$ and $`F_0^A`$ extracted from the sum rules are presented in Table 3 in comparison with the values calculated in the framework of sum rules.

We have found that the uncertainty in the estimates is basically determined by the variation of pole masses in the $`q^2`$-dependencies of form factors, which govern the evolution from the zero recoil point to the zero transfer squared. So, the variation of $`M_{\mathrm{pole}}[f_\pm ]`$ in the range of $`4.85`$ GeV for the transitions of $`B_cD^{()}`$ and $`B_cD_s^{()}`$ results in the 30%-uncertainty in the form factors presented in Table 3.

The QCD SR estimates for the non-leptonic decays of $`\overline{b}`$-quark in $`B_c`$ as obtained in exBc  and the present work give the widths represented in Tables 4 and 5 in comparison with the values calculated in the potential models. The sum rule predictions are significantly greater than the estimates of the potential models for the transitions with the color permutation, i.e. for the class II processes666The class I processes, which amplitudes are proportional to the factor of $`a_1`$, without the color permutations in the effective lagrangian are not involved in the modes under consideration. with the factor of $`a_2`$.

Further, for the transitions, wherein the interference is significantly involved, the class III processes, we find that the absolute values of different terms given by the squares of $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ calculated in the sum rules are greater than the estimates of potential models. We stress that under fixing the definitions of hadron state phases as described in the beginning of section III, we have found that the Pauli interference has determined the negative sign of two amplitudes with $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$, however, the relevant Fierz transformation has led to the complete cancellation of the Pauli interference effect, and the relative sign of two amplitudes in the modes under consideration is positive in agreement with the results of potential models listed in Table 5. Taking into account the negative value of $`a_2`$ with respect to $`a_1`$, we see that all of decays shown in Table 5 should be suppressed in comparison with the case of the interference switched off. The characteristic values of effects caused by the interference is presented in Table 6, where we put the widths in the form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=x_1a_1^2+x_2a_2^2,\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }=za_1a_2.$$

Then, we conclude that the interference can be straightforwardly tested in the listed decays, wherein its significance reaches about 40%.

The predictions of QCD sum rules for the exclusive decays of $`B_c`$ are summarized in Table 7 at the fixed values of factors $`a_{1,2}`$ and lifetime. For the sake of completeness and comparison we show the estimates for the channels with the neutral $`D`$ meson and charged one $`D^+`$ as well as for the vector states in addition to the pseudoscalar ones.

First, we see that the similar decay modes without the strange quark in the final state can be, in principle, used for the same extraction of CKM angle $`\gamma `$, however, this channels are more problematic from the methodic point of view, since the sides of reference-triangles significantly differ from each other777The ratio of widths is basically determined by the factor of $`|V_{cb}V_{ud}a_2|^2/|V_{ub}V_{cd}a_1|^2110`$, if we ignore the interference effects., so that the measurements have to be extremely accurate in order to get valuable information on the angle. Indeed, we should accumulate a huge statistics for the dominant mode in order to draw any conclusion on the consistency of triangle with a small side.

Second, the decay modes with the vector neutral $`D`$ meson in the final state are useless for the purpose of the CKM measurement under the approach discussed. However, the modes with the vector charged $`D^{}`$ and $`D_s^{}`$ mesons can be important for the procedure of $`\gamma `$ extraction. This note could be essential for the mode with $`D^+D^0\pi ^+`$ and $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$, but, in this case, the presence of neutral charmed meson should be carefully treated in order to avoid the misidentification with the primary neutral charmed meson. In other case, we should use the mode with the neutral pion $`D^+D^+\pi ^0`$, which detection in an experimental facility could be problematic. The same note is applicable for the vector $`D_s^+`$ meson, which radiative electromagnetic decay is problematic for the detection, too, since the photon could be loosed. However, the lose of the photon for the fully reconstructed $`D_s^+`$ and $`B_c^+`$ does not disturb the analysis.

In the above estimates we put the following values of parameters:

* the leptonic constants: $`f_D=0.22\text{GeV},f_D^{}=0.24\text{GeV},f_{D_s}=0.24\text{GeV},f_{D_s^{}}=0.27\text{GeV};`$
* the CKM elements: $`|V_{ub}|=0.003,|V_{cb}|=0.04,|V_{cs}|=0.975,`$

so that the numbers can be appropriately scaled at other values of input parameters.

In the BTeV BRunII  and LHCb LHCB  experiments one expects the $`B_c`$ production at the level of several billion events. Therefore, we predict $`10^410^5`$ decays of $`B_c`$ in the gold-plated modes under interest. The experimental challenge is the efficiency of detection. One usually get a 10%-efficiency for the observation of distinct secondary vertices outstanding from the primary vertex of beam interaction. Next, we have to take into account the branching ratios of $`D_s`$ and $`D^0`$ mesons. This efficiency crucially depends on whether we can detect the neutral kaons and pions or not. So, for the $`D_s`$ meson the corresponding branching ratios grow from 4% (no neutral $`K`$ and $`\pi `$) to 25%. The same interval for the neutral $`D^0`$ is from 11 to 31%. The detection of neutral kaon is necessary for the measurement of decay modes into the CP-odd state $`D_2`$ of the neutral $`D^0`$ meson, however, we can omit this cross-check channel from the analysis dealing with the CP-even state of $`D_1`$. The corresponding intervals of branching ratios reachable by the experiment are from 0.5 to 1.3% for the CP-even state and from 1.5 to 3.8% for the CP-odd state of $`D^0`$. The pessimistic estimate for the product of branching ratios is about $`210^4`$, which results in $`220`$ reconstructed events. Thus, an acceptance of experimental facility and an opportunity to detect neutral pions and kaons as well as reliable estimates of total cross section for the $`B_c`$ production in hadronic collisions are of importance in order to make expectations more accurate.

## IV Conclusion

In this work we have shown how the reference-triangle ideology can be used for the model-independent extraction of CKM-matrix angle $`\gamma `$ from the set of branching ratios of doubly heavy meson $`B_c`$ exclusively decaying to the neutral $`D`$ mesons. Tagging the flavor and CP-eigenstates of such the $`D`$ mesons allows one to avoid the uncertainties caused by the QCD dynamics of quarks.

We have estimated the characteristic branching ratios in the framework of QCD sum rules, which yields the values of the order of

$$[B_c^+D_s^+\overline{D}^0]510^6.$$

Accepting the above value, and putting the efficiency of tagging procedure equal to 0.5% for the neutral charmed meson and 4% for the charmed strange meson in the final state as well as the vertex reconstruction efficiency equal to 10%, we can expect the observation of about 10 reconstructed events per year at the LHC collider in such the experiment like LHCB or in BTeV experiment at FNAL.

The author thanks Prof. R.Dzhelyadin for the possibility to visit CERN in collaboration with the LHCB group, to which members I express a gratitude for a hospitality. I am grateful to Profs. A.K.Likhoded and M.A.Ivanov for clarifications and a cooperation, to Prof. V.F.Obraztsov, Yu.Gouz, O.Yushchenko and V.Romanovsky for useful discussions and valuable remarks.

This work is in part supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, grants 01-02-99315, 01-02-16585.