text:
# Bounds on 𝛾 from CP violation measurements in 𝐵→𝜋⁺𝜋⁻ and 𝐵→𝜓𝐾_𝑆

## I Introduction

The Standard Model (SM) of electroweak interactions has been so successful that increasingly detailed probes are required in order to uncover possible new physics effects. CP violation seems to provide a particularly promising probe, because it appears in the SM through one single irremovable phase in the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix CKM . As a result, the measurements of any two CP-violating experiments must be related through CP-conserving quantities. In principle, this makes the SM a very predictive theory of CP violation. In practice, however, the CP-conserving quantities required to extract weak interaction parameters from experiment usually involve the strong interaction, are difficult to calculate, and the interpretations of the experiments in terms of parameters of the original Lagrangian are plagued by hadronic uncertainties.

One notable exception occurs with the determination of $`\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })`$ from the time dependent asymmetry in $`B\psi K_S`$. In the SM, and with the usual phase convention, $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }\beta `$ is the phase of $`V_{td}^{}`$. The current world average is Browder

$$\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })=0.736\pm 0.049,$$
(1)
based on the very precise measurements by Babar Babar  and Belle Belle . In this article, we will also consider the possibility that there might be new physics contributions affecting the phase of $`B\overline{B}`$ mixing note-magnitude-BBbar . In that case, the phase $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ measured in $`B\psi K_S`$ decays does not coincide with the phase $`\beta `$ of $`V_{td}^{}`$.

The current measurement of $`\beta `$ is in agreement with measurements based on $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{Bs}`$, and CP violation in the $`K\overline{K}`$ system, although each of these is plagued by hadronic uncertainties.

So, we would like to constrain the CKM source of CP violation in as many ways as possible, in the hope of uncovering new physics effects. One possibility arises in the time-dependent asymmetry in $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays. If there were only contributions from tree level diagrams, this would provide a clean measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta }+2\gamma )`$ BLS . Unfortunately, the presence of penguin contributions with a different weak phase imply that this measurement is plagued by hadronic uncertainties. One way out of this problem consists in estimating this penguin pollution in some way (see section II). Recently, Buchalla and Safir (BS) have proposed a different approach BS . In their method, a mild assumption is made about the needed theoretical input in order to derive a bound on $`\gamma `$, which is valid provided the interference CP violation observable in $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ (S) lies above $`\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })`$. Their bound holds within the SM (although this is not obvious from their article) and can be obtained in the limit of no penguin pollution that corresponds to setting the direct CP violation observable in $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ (C) to zero.

In this article, we extend their result by studying which bounds occur when $`C0`$ and when there are new physics in $`B\overline{B}`$ mixing (that is, when $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }\beta `$). Because we do not go through the Wolfenstein’s parameters $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$ Wolf , we obtain, as a particular case, an easier derivation of the BS result. Our analysis will allow us to state what types of new physics effects are subject to these new bounds and how they change from $`C=0`$ to $`C0`$. In particular, we will stress the very important impact that an eightfold discrete ambiguity has on such bounds.

Although that is not the main point of this article, we will also comment briefly on how one can perform the precise determination of $`\gamma `$, once a specific value for the relevant hadronic quantity is taken. In doing so, we differ from previous analysis in that we start from the experimental values for $`C`$ and $`S`$ (using only the one piece of theoretical input required) rather than plot “predictions” for $`C`$ and $`S`$ given a number of theoretical inputs. The end result is the same, but this is closer in spirit to what one really wishes to do; we wish to use experimental results in order to learn about theoretical parameters and not the converse.

Our article is organized as follows. In section II, we set the notation, introducing the relevant experimental and theoretical quantities involved in $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays. In section III we develop the two formulas which will guide our analysis of the bounds on $`\gamma `$ discussed in section IV. We draw our conclusions in section V and include a trivial but useful inequality in the appendix.

## II Experimental observables versus Theoretical parameters

The time-dependent CP asymmetry in $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays may be written asBLS

$`A_{CP}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }[B(t)\pi ^+\pi ^{}]\mathrm{\Gamma }[\overline{B}(t)\pi ^+\pi ^{}]}{\mathrm{\Gamma }[B(t)\pi ^+\pi ^{}]+\mathrm{\Gamma }[\overline{B}(t)\pi ^+\pi ^{}]}}`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`S\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }m_Bt+C\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }m_Bt,`$
where

$$S=\frac{2\text{I}m\lambda }{1+|\lambda |^2}C=\frac{1|\lambda |^2}{1+|\lambda |^2}.$$
(3)
Clearly $`S^2+C^21`$. The corresponding experimental results are Babar-pipi ; BELLE-pipi

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}0.40\pm 0.22\pm 0.03\hfill & (\text{Babar})\hfill \\ 1.23\pm 0.41_{0.07}^{+0.08}\hfill & (\text{Belle})\hfill \end{array}`$ (6)
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}0.19\pm 0.19\pm 0.05\hfill & (\text{Babar})\hfill \\ 0.77\pm 0.27\pm 0.08\hfill & (\text{Belle})\hfill \end{array}`$ (9)
which the Heavy Flavour Averaging Group combines into $`S=0.58\pm 0.20`$ and $`C=0.38\pm 0.16`$ HFAG . Eqs. (3) and (9) imply that $`\lambda `$ is a quantity accessible experimentally, up to a twofold discrete ambiguity Dun95  in its real part:

$$\pm \sqrt{1C^2S^2}=\frac{2\text{R}e\lambda }{1+|\lambda |^2}.$$
(10)
On the other hand, $`\lambda `$ may be written in terms of theoretical parameters as

$$\lambda =\frac{q}{p}\frac{\overline{A}}{A},$$
(11)
where $`q/p`$ reflects the $`B\overline{B}`$ mixing, and $`A`$ ($`\overline{A}`$) is the amplitude for the $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ ($`\overline{B}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$) decay. With the usual phase convention for the CKM parameters, these quantities may be written in terms of weak and strong interaction parameters as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{q}{p}}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2i\stackrel{~}{\beta }},`$
$`A=V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}T+V_{cb}^{}V_{cd}Pe^{i\delta }`$ $`=`$ $`|V_{ub}V_{ud}T|\left(e^{i\gamma }+z\right),`$
$`\overline{A}=V_{ub}V_{ud}^{}T+V_{cb}V_{cd}^{}Pe^{i\delta }`$ $`=`$ $`|V_{ub}V_{ud}T|\left(e^{i\gamma }+z\right),`$ (12)
where $`P`$ and $`T`$ are magnitudes of hadronic quantities, $`\delta `$ is a strong phase difference, and

$$z=\frac{P/T}{R_b}e^{i\delta }=re^{i\delta }$$
(13)
includes a dependence on the weak parameter $`R_b=|V_{ub}V_{ud}|/|V_{cb}V_{cd}|=\sqrt{\rho ^2+\eta ^2}`$. The weak phase $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ coincides with the CKM parameter $`\beta `$, if one stays within the framework of the SM; but $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ may differ from $`\beta `$, if there are new physics contributions affecting the phase in $`B\overline{B}`$ mixing note-magnitude-BBbar .

Substituting Eqs. (12) in Eq. (11), we obtain

$$\lambda =e^{2i\stackrel{~}{\beta }}\frac{e^{i\gamma }+z}{e^{i\gamma }+z}.$$
(14)
This equation relates the measurable quantity on the LHS with the theoretical quantities on the RHS. In some sense, these two sides are usually kept apart. (As we shall see in section III, great simplifications occur if we subvert this standard practice.) One may now substitute Eq. (14) in Eqs. (3) to find note2

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta }+2\gamma )+2r\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta }+\gamma )\mathrm{cos}\delta +r^2\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })}{1+2r\mathrm{cos}\gamma \mathrm{cos}\delta +r^2}},`$ (15)
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2r\mathrm{sin}\gamma \mathrm{sin}\delta }{1+2r\mathrm{cos}\gamma \mathrm{cos}\delta +r^2}},`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\text{R}e\lambda }{1+|\lambda |^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta }+2\gamma )+2r\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta }+\gamma )\mathrm{cos}\delta +r^2\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })}{1+2r\mathrm{cos}\gamma \mathrm{cos}\delta +r^2}}.`$ (17)
If there were no penguin amplitudes ($`r=0`$), then $`\lambda `$ would be given by the pure phase $`2\stackrel{~}{\beta }2\gamma `$, which is by definition equal do $`2\alpha `$ (mod. $`2\pi `$). In that case, $`C`$ would vanish and $`S`$ would provide a clear determination of the phase $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }+\gamma `$, which in the SM coincides with $`\beta +\gamma `$. As is well know, the presence of the “penguin pollution” spoils this determination. In fact, since $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ has been determined in $`B\psi K_S`$ decays, there are two experimental observables ($`C`$ and $`S`$) and three unknowns ($`r`$, $`\delta `$, and the weak phase $`\gamma `$). One needs some extra piece of information about the hadronic parameters $`r`$ and $`\delta `$ in order to determine the weak phase $`\gamma `$.

This extra information may be achieved in a variety of ways. Gronau and London GL  used isospin to relate $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{},\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ and $`B^+\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ decays. Their method has received renewed life from the recent announcements by Babar Babar-pi0pi0  and Belle BELLE-pi0pi0  of a large branching ratio for the $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ final state. Silva and Wolfenstein SW94  proposed an estimate of the penguin contribution through an SU(3) relation between $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`BK^+\pi ^{}`$. Chiang, Gronau and Rosner CGR  used SU(3) to estimate P/T from a variety of observables. Alternatively, one may estimate $`r`$ and $`\delta `$ directly from theory, within QCD factorization BBNS ; Buchalla and Safir quote $`rR_b=0.107\pm 0.031`$ and $`\delta =0.15\pm 0.25`$ BS .

One could try to proceed without the extra piece of information. Working within the SM, one could substitute $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }=\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ by $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$ on the RHS of Eq. (15), which would lead to a rather complicated expression. (Notice that this substitution is only possible within the SM, since, in general, $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ is not related to $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$.) Such work has been done recently by Buchalla and Safir BS , who point out that a lower bound on $`\eta `$ (and, thus, $`\gamma `$) can be achieved with a mild assumption on the hadronic parameters, as long as $`S>\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )`$. The value of that lower bound is equal to the value that one would obtain for $`\eta `$ ($`\gamma `$) in the limit of vanishing penguin amplitude (that is, with C=0). In what follows, we will recover their result in a much simpler way, by evading any mention of $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$. This will allow us to generalize their result for $`C0`$ and to discuss how such bounds are affected by possible new physics contributions to the $`B\overline{B}`$ mixing phase.

## III Two master formulae

We start from Eq. (14), and multiply both sides by the denominator of the RHS. Reordering the terms, we obtain

$$\lambda e^{i\gamma }e^{2i\stackrel{~}{\beta }}e^{i\gamma }=z(e^{2i\stackrel{~}{\beta }}\lambda ).$$
(18)
Equating the real and imaginary parts

$`\text{Re}(\lambda e^{2i\stackrel{~}{\beta }})\mathrm{cos}\gamma \text{Im}(\lambda +e^{2i\stackrel{~}{\beta }})\mathrm{sin}\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`\text{Re}\left[z(e^{2i\stackrel{~}{\beta }}\lambda )\right],`$
$`\text{Im}(\lambda e^{2i\stackrel{~}{\beta }})\mathrm{cos}\gamma +\text{Re}(\lambda +e^{2i\stackrel{~}{\beta }})\mathrm{sin}\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`\text{Im}\left[z(e^{2i\stackrel{~}{\beta }}\lambda )\right],`$ (19)
we find

$`\mathrm{cos}\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`\text{Re}(z){\displaystyle \frac{2\text{Im}(\lambda e^{2i\stackrel{~}{\beta }})}{1|\lambda |^2}}\text{Im}(z),`$
$`\mathrm{sin}\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1+|\lambda |^2)2\text{Re}(\lambda e^{2i\stackrel{~}{\beta }})}{1|\lambda |^2}}\text{Im}(z).`$ (20)
Using Eqs. (3) and (10), we may rewrite Eqs. (20) as

$`\mathrm{cos}\gamma _\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\text{Re}(z){\displaystyle \frac{I_\pm }{C}}\text{Im}(z),`$
$`\mathrm{sin}\gamma _\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1R_\pm }{C}}\text{Im}(z),`$ (21)
where

$`R_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\text{Re}(\lambda e^{2i\stackrel{~}{\beta }})}{1+|\lambda |^2}}=\pm \sqrt{1C^2S^2}\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })S\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta }),`$
$`I_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\text{Im}(\lambda e^{2i\stackrel{~}{\beta }})}{1+|\lambda |^2}}=S\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })\pm \sqrt{1C^2S^2}\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta }),`$ (22)
are determined exclusively from experiment, with the discrete ambiguity present in Eq. (10). It is easy to show (c.f. the appendix) that $`|R_\pm |`$ and $`|I_\pm |`$ are bounded by $`\sqrt{1C^2}`$.

Eqs. (21) depend on two different combinations of hadronic parameters, which we may choose as $`\{\text{Re}(z),\text{Im}(z)\}`$ or as $`\{r,\delta \}`$. As we know from the parameter counting of the previous section, one combination of hadronic parameters will always remain. The other combination may be eliminated in a variety of ways. For example,

$$\mathrm{tan}\gamma _\pm =\frac{1+R_\pm }{C\mathrm{cot}\delta +I_\pm },$$
(23)
or

$$I_\pm \mathrm{sin}\gamma _\pm +(1R_\pm )(\mathrm{cos}\gamma _\pm +Q)=0,$$
(24)
with

$$Q=r\mathrm{cos}\delta $$
(25)
A few comments are in order. First, Eq. (23) has a form which will allow us to derive a bound on $`\gamma `$ which generalizes the results of BS in a very clear way. Second, for a given set of experimental values for $`\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })`$, $`C`$, and $`S`$, the theoretical parameter $`\delta `$ cannot take an arbitrary value. For example, if $`C0`$ then $`\delta `$ cannot vanish, as is easily seen from Eq. (16). Third, we have found numerically that, even if one takes a value of $`\delta `$ consistent with the experimental observables, Eq. (23) is very sensitive to the exact value chosen for $`\delta `$. For the previous reasons, and although Eq. (23) is so well suited to study the bounds on $`\gamma `$, Eq. (24) is more useful when studying the dependence of $`\gamma `$ on the theoretical parameters (through $`Q`$). Finally, for a given set of experimental values of $`\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })`$, $`C`$, and $`S`$, and for the same $`\mathrm{cot}\delta `$, there is an eightfold ambiguity in the determination of $`\gamma `$. A twofold ambiguity arises from the existence of two values of $`\mathrm{tan}\gamma `$ ($`\mathrm{tan}\gamma _+`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\gamma _{}`$) which satisfy Eq. (23). This is related to the $`\text{R}e\lambda `$ in Eq. (10), whose measurement would remove this twofold ambiguity, and implies that $`\lambda _+=\lambda _{}^{}`$. Of course, this is obtained for different values of $`r`$. Another twofold ambiguity arises from the unknown sign of $`\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })`$. The compound transformation $`\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })`$ and $`\mathrm{cot}\delta \mathrm{cot}\delta `$ leads to $`\mathrm{tan}\gamma _\pm \mathrm{tan}\gamma _{}`$. The final twofold ambiguity arises from the inversion of the function $`\mathrm{tan}\gamma `$, and corresponds to a symmetry $`\gamma \pi +\gamma `$. If there is no new physics in the $`K\overline{K}`$ system, and if we trust the sign of the bag parameter, then this ambiguity is removed since $`\gamma `$ cannot lie outside $`(0,\pi )`$.

In the next section, we will use Eqs. (23) and (24) together with mild assumptions on the hadronic parameters $`\delta `$ and $`Q`$ (respectively), in order to provide model independent bounds on the CKM phase $`\gamma `$.

## IV Bounds on $`\gamma `$

### IV.1 Bounds on $`\mathrm{tan}\gamma _\pm `$

We will now study Eq. (23) in more detail. Every quantity on the RHS of that equation is determined from experiment, aside from $`\mathrm{cot}\delta `$. It would be nice to be able to relate $`\mathrm{tan}\gamma _\pm `$ to the value

$$L_\pm =\frac{1+R_\pm }{I_\pm }=\frac{1\pm \sqrt{1C^2S^2}\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })S\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })}{S\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })\pm \sqrt{1C^2S^2}\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })}$$
(26)
obtained from Eq. (23) by suppressing the $`C\mathrm{cot}\delta `$ term. If we knew, for example, that $`C\mathrm{cot}\delta `$ were positive, then we might be able to derive a bound on $`\mathrm{tan}\gamma _\pm `$. Notice that, using Eq. (16), $`C\mathrm{cot}\delta \mathrm{cos}\delta `$. Therefore, within the current range for $`\gamma `$, $`C\mathrm{cot}\delta >0`$ as long as $`\pi /2\delta \pi /2`$, which is a very mild constraint on $`\delta `$. Indeed, $`\delta `$ is expected to be small on general grounds; BS quote $`\delta =0.15\pm 0.25`$ based on QCD factorization BS .

To proceed we note that, because $`|R_\pm |\sqrt{1C^2}`$, the numerator in Eq. (23) cannot be positive; $`1+R_\pm 0`$. As for the denominator, if $`C\mathrm{cot}\delta 0`$, then $`C\mathrm{cot}\delta +I_\pm I_\pm `$. But, the sign of this inequality upon invertion depends on the sign of $`(C\mathrm{cot}\delta +I_\pm )I_\pm `$. When all is taken into account, we obtain:

$`\mathrm{tan}\gamma _\pm L_\pm \text{if}C\mathrm{cot}\delta (C\mathrm{cot}\delta +I_\pm )I_\pm >0,`$ (27)
$`\mathrm{tan}\gamma _\pm L_\pm \text{if}C\mathrm{cot}\delta (C\mathrm{cot}\delta +I_\pm )I_\pm <0.`$ (28)
These equations generalize the bound of Buchalla and Safir and constitute the main result of this article. (We note that the $`(C\mathrm{cot}\delta +I_\pm )I_\pm `$ piece of the conditions on the right-hand-side of these equations arise from the $`\mathrm{arctan}x`$ function going through $`\pm 90^{}`$, and not from a change from an upper to a lower bound on $`\gamma `$. This clear from Eqs. (23) and (26) and will also become apparent from the figures in the next section.)

These bounds enclose many important features. First, they depend only on $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ and not on $`\beta `$. This is obvious from Eq. (14), but would be hidden if we were to use $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$ in our analysis, as done in BS , since it is $`\beta `$ (not $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$) which is related to those Wolfenstein parameters. Second, the sign of $`\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ enters crucialy into the bounds through Eq. (26), and this sign cannot be determined from the usual experiments with $`B\psi K_S`$ decays sign-of-cosbeta . Third, because of the $`\pm `$ discrete ambiguity, one must analyze what happens to both solutions; $`\mathrm{tan}\gamma _+`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\gamma _{}`$. This will depend on the exact values for $`I_\pm `$. Fourth, it is in principle possible that $`\gamma _+`$ satisfies Eq. (28), while $`\gamma _{}`$ satisfies Eq. (27).

The third point has one crucial consequence. Imagine that we have measured values for $`\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })`$, $`C`$, and $`S`$, and that we assume that $`\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })`$ is positive. Imagine also that these conditions allow us to establish that $`\mathrm{tan}\gamma _{}L_{}`$. This will still not provide us with an absolute lower bound on $`\gamma `$, unless we can ensure (either because $`\mathrm{tan}\gamma _+>\mathrm{tan}\gamma _{}`$ or because we have some theoretical reason to exclude the possibility that $`\gamma =\gamma _+`$) that $`\gamma _+`$ is not below $`\gamma _{}`$. The biggest problems occur when $`\gamma _+\gamma _{}`$, which, given that

$$\mathrm{tan}\gamma _+\mathrm{tan}\gamma _{}\sqrt{1C^2S^2}\left[S+\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })+C\mathrm{cot}\delta \mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })\right],$$
(29)
occurs when $`S=\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })C\mathrm{cot}\delta \mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })`$. This will be clear from the figures in the next section.

### IV.2 A simple example

Let us consider $`\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })=0.736`$, $`C=0.0528`$, and $`S=0.585`$. (These putative experimental results can be “fabricated” with the values $`R_b=0.4`$, $`rR_b=0.11`$, $`\delta =0.15`$, and $`\gamma =60^{}`$.) To start, let us take the positive $`\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })=+0.677`$. The “experimental” observables become $`I_+=0.195`$, $`L_+=0.11`$, $`I_{}=0.992`$ and $`L_{}=1.12`$. In order to turn these experiments into a bound on $`\gamma `$, we need some assumption about $`C\mathrm{cot}\delta `$. Assuming that $`C\mathrm{cot}\delta 0`$, we obtain from Eq. (27) that $`\mathrm{tan}\gamma _{}L_{}=1.12`$, meaning that $`\gamma _{}48^{}`$ is guaranteed with a rather mild theoretical assumption. This lower bound on $`\gamma _{}`$ can be seen clearly in FIG. 1.

Unfortunately, we must contend with the discrete ambiguities. First we notice that, due to the twofold discrete ambiguity in the inversion of the function $`\mathrm{tan}\gamma _{}`$, $`L_{}`$ also produces the bound $`\gamma _{}132^{}`$, for $`\gamma _{}`$ in the range $`180^{}\gamma _{}<0^{}`$. We can exclude solutions with negative $`\gamma `$ if we assume that there is no new physics in the $`K\overline{K}`$ system (and trust the sign of the relevant hadronic matrix element).

We must also consider the bound from $`L_+`$. Since both $`C\mathrm{cot}\delta `$ and $`I_+`$ are positive, we obtain $`\mathrm{tan}\gamma _+L_+`$. This means that $`\gamma _+174^{}`$, for $`\gamma (0^{},180^{})`$; or $`\gamma _+6^{}`$, if we take $`\gamma (180^{},0^{})`$. In both ranges of $`\gamma `$, the bound from $`L_+`$ is much tighter than the bound from $`L_{}`$. We conclude that $`\gamma `$ is constrained by the bound from $`L_{}`$.

We can see from FIG. 1 that our assumption of positive $`C\mathrm{cot}\delta 0`$ plays a crucial role. Indeed, when we cross $`C\mathrm{cot}\delta =0`$ the lower bounds become upper bounds. Moreover, in the region of negative $`C\mathrm{cot}\delta `$, $`\gamma _+`$ goes through a region of vary rapid variation and it even crosses $`\gamma _{}`$. This occurs for

$$C\mathrm{cot}\delta =\frac{S+\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })}{\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })}=0.223,$$
(30)
as can be seen in the figure and understood from Eq. (29). The usual assumption that $`C\mathrm{cot}\delta `$ (which is proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}\delta `$) is positive, hinges on the belief that the magnitude of $`\delta `$ should be small and that the corresponding matrix element should have the sign obtained from factorization. However, it could be that the ratio of “penguin to tree” has a sign opposite to that taken from factorization, in which case $`\delta 180^{}`$ and $`C\mathrm{cot}\delta `$ would be negative Wolf-sign . We have shown that, if that is the case, this analysis can still be performed, but with the lower bounds becomming upper bounds. Unfortunately in this case $`L_+`$ will provide the effective upper bound $`\gamma 174^{}`$, which is useless. It is important to stress that, for $`\gamma `$ negative, the assumption consistent with QCD factorization is $`C\mathrm{cot}\delta <0`$, as is evident from the $`\mathrm{sin}\gamma `$ term in Eq. (16) and from the previous discussion.

The problem of $`\gamma _+`$ crossing $`\gamma _{}`$, seen in FIG. 1 for $`C\mathrm{cot}\delta <0`$, will come back to haunt us when we consider the possibility that $`\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })<0`$, because of the $`\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })`$, $`\mathrm{cot}\delta \mathrm{cot}\delta `$, $`\mathrm{tan}\gamma _\pm \mathrm{tan}\gamma _{}`$ symmetry we alluded to at the end of section III. This symmetry is clear from the comparizon of FIG. 1 with FIG. 2, drawn for the same $`\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })=0.736`$, $`C=0.0528`$, and $`S=0.585`$ “experimental” observables, but assuming the negative $`\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })=0.677`$ possibility.

For $`\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })=0.677`$, we obtain $`I_+=0.992`$, $`L_+=1.12`$, $`I_{}=0.195`$ and $`L_{}=0.11`$. (This was to be expected from the fact that $`\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })`$ leads to $`L_\pm L_{}`$.) If we keep our assumption that $`C\mathrm{cot}\delta 0`$, then $`\mathrm{tan}\gamma _+L_+`$, meaning that $`\gamma _+132^{}`$, if we take $`\gamma (0^{},180^{})`$, or $`\gamma _+48^{}`$, if we take $`\gamma (180^{},0^{})`$. Again, we may assume the SM in the $`K\overline{K}`$ system to exclude the last possibility.

Unfortunately, $`L_{}`$ only provides the very poor bound $`\mathrm{arctan}L_{}=6^{}`$. It is true that this problem can be avoided by ignoring the $`\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })<0`$ solution. But, if we are assuming new physics, we should not discard this possibility in an ad-hoc way (as is sometimes done). Amusingly, when $`\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })<0`$, it is the assumption that factorization yields the wrong sign for $`\delta `$ (and, thus, that $`C\mathrm{cot}\delta <0`$) that provides us with bounds on $`\gamma `$ in the $`(0^{},180^{})`$ region.

The previous case was motivated by the theoretical expectations $`rR_b=0.11`$, $`\delta =0.15`$, and $`\gamma =60^{}`$. FIG. 3 shows the same analysis performed for $`\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })=0.736`$, $`\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })`$ positive, and assuming the current Babar central values $`C=0.19`$, and $`S=0.40`$ Babar-pipi .

The solution with $`\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })`$ negative can be obtained through the symmetry already described. We find that $`\gamma 55^{}`$, if we take $`C\mathrm{cot}\delta 0`$ and $`\gamma (0^{},180^{})`$.

### IV.3 Recovering the Buchalla-Safir bound

Buchalla and Safir BS  have considered a particular case of the bounds in Eq. (23), which corresponds to setting $`C=0`$ and assuming the SM. Indeed, they argue that the current (SM) constraints on $`\gamma `$ eliminate all solutions except the one arising from the canonical inversion of $`L_{}`$. Indeed, restricting $`\gamma `$ to $`(0,\pi )`$ eliminates four solutions; assuming the SM eliminates the possibility that $`\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })<0`$; and the other current bounds on $`\gamma `$ eliminate $`\gamma _+`$.

Taking $`C\mathrm{cot}\delta (C\mathrm{cot}\delta +I_{})I_{}>0`$, we obtain

$$\mathrm{tan}\gamma _{}L_{}.$$
(31)
This would be the simple generalization of the BS bound to the $`C0`$ case, if we were to ignore all the discrete ambiguities.

Their (lowest) bound is obtained by setting $`C`$ to zero in Eq. (26):

$`L_{}^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\sqrt{1S^2}\mathrm{cos}(2\beta )S\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )}{S\mathrm{cos}(2\beta )\sqrt{1S^2}\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )}},`$ (32)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(2\beta )\sqrt{1S^2}+1+S\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )+\mathrm{cos}(2\beta )\sqrt{1S^2}}{S\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )S\mathrm{cos}(2\beta )+\sqrt{1S^2}\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )}},`$ (33)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(2\beta )+\sqrt{1S^2}}{\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )S}}.`$ (34)
Eq. (32) results directly from Eq. (26); Eq. (33) is a slightly rewritten version of the expression in BS . They are both equal to the simplest form in Eq. (34). Now,

$$L_{}L_{}^0=\frac{(\sqrt{1S^2}\sqrt{1C^2S^2})(S+\mathrm{sin}(2\beta ))}{\left[S\mathrm{cos}(2\beta )\sqrt{1C^2S^2}\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )\right]\left[S\mathrm{cos}(2\beta )\sqrt{1S^2}\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )\right]}.$$
(35)
Since $`\sqrt{1C^2S^2}\sqrt{1S^2}`$, the numerator is positive whenever $`S\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )`$. It is true that the denominator will be negative when the two terms between the square brackets have opposite signs. But that only occurs because $`\mathrm{arctan}L_{}`$ goes through $`90^{}`$ before $`\mathrm{arctan}L_{}^0`$, and it does not affect the order of the bounds on $`\gamma `$ explain . As a result, eliminating all the discrete ambiguities, we recover the BS bound

$$\mathrm{tan}\gamma _{}L_{}^0,$$
(36)
which is valid for $`S\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )`$ BS .

FIG. 4 compares the bounds on $`\gamma `$ obtained from $`L_{}`$ as a function of $`S`$, for different choices of $`|C|`$ (notice that the value of $`L_{}`$ does not depend on the sign of $`C`$).

We have taken $`\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })=0.736`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })=+0.677`$. The vertical line corresponds to $`S=\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )`$. To the right of it, the solid line (which corresponds to $`C=0`$) lies below all other lines, in accordance with the BS bound. The dotted line immediately above was obtained with $`|C|=0.2`$ and the others correspond to $`|C|=0.4`$, $`|C|=0.6`$, $`|C|=0.8`$, and $`|C|=0.9`$, respectively. FIG. 4 shows that our $`L_{}`$ bound improves on the BS bound, and that its impact becomes more relevant for large $`|C|`$ values.

We can now understand why Buchalla and Safir required the constraint $`S\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )`$. They did so for two reasons. First, because the BS bound ($`C=0`$) only lies below the lines with $`C0`$ in that case, as seen clearly in FIG. 4. Second because, for $`\gamma (0^{},180^{})`$, $`L_+`$ lies below $`L_{}`$ if $`S<\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )`$. This can be understood from Eq. (29), recalling that the expressions for $`L_\pm `$ are obtained from those of $`\mathrm{tan}\gamma _\pm `$ by setting $`C\mathrm{cot}\delta `$ to zero. But this means that there in nothing fundamental about Buchalla and Safir’s restriction that $`S\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )`$. Indeed, for $`S\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )`$, the bound from $`L_{}`$ with $`C=0`$ provides the (lowest) lower bound on $`\gamma `$. But, for $`S<\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )`$, the bound from $`L_{}`$ with $`C=0`$ is still useful since it provides the (highest) upper bound on $`\gamma `$.

### IV.4 Dependence of the analysis on the theoretical parameter $`Q`$

In the previous sections we have used $`C\mathrm{cot}\delta `$ as the one piece of theoretical input required to extract $`\gamma `$ from the $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays. This was choosen in order to compare our new constraints based on $`L_\pm `$ (valid for any $`C`$ and for $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }\beta `$) with that obtained by Buchalla and Safir in the limit $`C=0`$. However, the quantity $`Q=r\mathrm{cos}\delta `$ is easier to constrain theoretically and also allows the extraction of $`\gamma `$. Indeed, one can show that Eq. (24) yields

$$\gamma _\pm =\mathrm{arctan}\left[\frac{1R_\pm }{I_\pm }\right]+\mathrm{arcsin}\left[\frac{Q(R_\pm 1)}{\sqrt{I_\pm ^2+(1R_\pm )^2}}\right].$$
(37)
For the “-” sign, the first term reproduces the BS bound, while the second term shows the correction for $`Q0`$.

Given a set of experimental values for $`\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })`$, $`S`$, and $`C`$, the theoretical parameter $`Q`$ cannot take any value at random. Fortunately, the limits that those experiments place on $`Q`$ are built into Eq. (37), since the magnitude of the argument of the function $`\mathrm{arcsin}`$ cannot exceed unity. Therefore

$$Q^2\frac{I_\pm ^2+(1R_\pm )^2}{(1R_\pm )^2}=\frac{2(1R_\pm )C^2}{(1R_\pm )^2}.$$
(38)
FIG. 5 shows the dependence of $`\gamma _\pm `$ on $`Q`$ for the same “experimental” values used in FIG. 3. Namely, $`\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })=0.736`$, $`\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })`$ positive, and assuming the current Babar central values $`C=0.19`$, and $`S=0.40`$ Babar-pipi .

The solution with $`\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })`$ negative is easily obtained through the transformations $`\gamma _\pm \gamma _{}`$, as can be seen directly in Eq. (24). As in FIG. 3, we find that $`\gamma 55^{}`$, if we take $`Q0`$ and $`\gamma (0^{},180^{})`$.

Incidentally, Eq. (38) gives for $`|Q|`$ the upper bounds of $`1.2`$ and $`4.1`$, for the $`\gamma _{}`$ and $`\gamma _+`$ branches, respectively, in accordance with FIG. 5.

## V Conclusions

The extraction of the CKM angle $`\gamma `$ from the time-dependent decay $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ requires one piece of external input. Here we have studied the depedence of that analysis on the theoretical parameters $`C\mathrm{cot}\delta `$ or $`r\mathrm{cos}\delta `$. Of course, a similar analysis can be performed with any other input information, such as experimental input from the isospin analysis GL  or the SU(3) relation with $`BK^+\pi ^{}`$ SW94 . The novelty introduced by Buchalla and Safir, is that a mild assumption about the theoretical parameters already allows interesting bounds to be placed on $`\gamma `$ BS .

We have extended their result in several ways: i) we have provided a simpler derivation of their bound, which avoids the Wolfenstein parameters $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$; ii) we have pointed out that the restriction to $`S\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })`$ is not fundamental in the sense that, for $`S<\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })`$, the only change is that the “lowest” bound becomes a “highest” bound; iii) we have highlighted the impact that new physics phases in the $`B\overline{B}`$ mixing have, discussing, in particular, the possibility that $`\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta })`$ might be negative; iv) we have extended their bounds to the case $`C0`$. Naturally, the methods applied here can be used in other decays us .

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to G. C. Branco and L. Wolfenstein for discussions and to L. Lavoura for carefully reading and commenting on this manuscript. This work was supported by the Portuguese Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) under the contract CFIF-Plurianual (2/91). In addition, F. J. B. is partially supported by by FCT under POCTI/FIS/36288/2000 and by the spanish M. E. C. under FPA2002-00612, and J. P. S. is supported by FCT under POCTI/FNU/37449/2001.

*

## Appendix A A useful inequality

Consider the function

$$f(\theta )=A\mathrm{sin}\theta +B\mathrm{cos}\theta .$$
(39)
Its derivative is zero when

$$\mathrm{sin}\theta =\frac{\pm A}{\sqrt{A^2+B^2}},\mathrm{cos}\theta =\frac{\pm B}{\sqrt{A^2+B^2}}.$$
(40)
At these points, $`f(\theta )`$ takes the extremum values $`\pm \sqrt{A^2+B^2}`$. Therefore,

$$\sqrt{A^2+B^2}A\mathrm{sin}\theta +B\mathrm{cos}\theta \sqrt{A^2+B^2}.$$
(41)


format: text

text:
# Coherent Quantum Tunneling of Bose-Einstein Condensates in Optical Lattices.

## Abstract

We study inter-well coherent quantum tunneling of Bose-Einstein condensates (BEC’s) in optical lattices. Irrespective of whether the BEC is a superfluid in the whole lattice, it may or may not be a superfluid within each well of the lattice depending on whether the ratio of the well kinetic energy to the interaction energy is small or large. When the bosons in each well are superfluid, we have Josephson tunneling among the wells driven by the phase difference between the superfluids in the different wells. For typical lattice parameters the Josephson tunneling rate will be somewhat enhanced from the naive estimate of (tunneling energy scale)$`/\mathrm{}`$. Whether it is enhanced or not will depend on lattice parameters, but it can never be zero. When the bosons in each well are not superfluid, there is coherent quantum tunneling of essentially free bosons between the wells. This tunneling is proportional to the boson number difference between the wells.

In the present note we will study Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) tunneling in an optical lattice. It has been verified experimentally in one dimensional optical lattices that there is coherent quantum tunneling in BEC’sbecj . We will try to take an in-depth look at tunneling in optical lattices in 3 dimensions. We take the well tunneling amplitude, or hopping, to be $`t`$. In order for the tunneling to be relevant, this energy scale needs to be larger than the kinetic energy scale for the whole lattice:

$$T_L=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m\mathrm{\Omega }^{2/3}}$$
(1)
where $`m`$ is the mass of the bosons and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the volume of the whole lattice. If the kinetic energy of the lattice overwhelms the hopping, the tight-binding approximation with bosons hopping from lattice site to lattice site with tunneling $`t`$ is no longer valid.

On dimensional grounds one expects the tunneling rate to be proportional to $`t/\mathrm{}`$. On the other hand, the proportionality factor should be a universal dimensionless function of the number of lattice sites $`N_L`$, the number of bosons $`N`$ and/or the number of bosons in the condensate $`N_0`$, and the different energy scales in the problem. Besides $`t`$ and $`\mathrm{}^2/2m\mathrm{\Omega }^{2/3}`$, there is the on-site repulsion at each well $`U`$, the well depth $`\epsilon `$, and the kinetic energy scale of each well:

$$T_w=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2mV^{2/3}}$$
(2)
where $`V`$ is the volume of each well $`a^3`$ with $`a`$ the interlattice spacing. We, of course, have $`N_LV=\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Thus the tunneling rate or “Josephson” current is

$$J=\frac{t}{\mathrm{}}F(N_0,N_L,\frac{t}{\epsilon },\frac{t}{U},\frac{T_w}{U})$$
(3)
The universal function $`F`$ will behave differently in different physical regimes. For example, if the wells are very deep, $`\epsilon t`$, the tunneling rate should be exponentially suppressed $`J\mathrm{exp}(\alpha \epsilon /t)`$ with $`\alpha `$ a positive numerical constant. Such a case is uninteresting for the collective lattice dynamics of the boson system and will not be considered here. Hence we will never write the dependence of the function $`F`$ on $`t/\epsilon `$. We will study tunneling when there are a large number of bosons in the adjacent sites between which tunneling is occurring. This can correspond to the case where there is a very large number of bosons in the whole lattice or when the condensate is placed at two sites and its tunneling behavior monitored.

The BEC on an optical lattice can be described by the Bose Hubbard Hamiltonian. Since we have a large number of bosons per well, there will be a BEC in each well with its own Bose Hubbard Hamiltonian. There will be a tunneling term $`t`$ between adjacent wells. We then have

$``$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}}ϵ_\stackrel{}{k}a_\stackrel{}{k}^{}a_\stackrel{}{k}+{\displaystyle \frac{U}{N_L}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}_1\stackrel{}{k}_2\stackrel{}{q}}{}}a_{\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{q}}^{}a_{\stackrel{}{k}_2\stackrel{}{q}}^{}a_{\stackrel{}{k}_1}a_{\stackrel{}{k}_2}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}}ϵ_\stackrel{}{k}\overline{a}_\stackrel{}{k}^{}\overline{a}_\stackrel{}{k}+{\displaystyle \frac{U}{N_L}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}_1\stackrel{}{k}_2\stackrel{}{q}}{}}\overline{a}_{\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{q}}^{}\overline{a}_{\stackrel{}{k}_2\stackrel{}{q}}^{}\overline{a}_{\stackrel{}{k}_1}\overline{a}_{\stackrel{}{k}_2}`$
$`t{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}}\left(a_\stackrel{}{k}^{}\overline{a}_\stackrel{}{k}+\overline{a}_\stackrel{}{k}^{}a_\stackrel{}{k}\right)`$ (4)
where $`a_\stackrel{}{k}^{},a_\stackrel{}{k}`$ are bosonic creation and destruction operators with momentum $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ on the right well, while the “barred” operators correspond to the left well. $`ϵ_\stackrel{}{k}`$ is the kinetic energy of a boson within each well. The wells are taken as large boxes. This approximation is valid as wells in optical lattices are fairly large ($`a100`$’s of nm) in typical latticesari1 .

As long as the bosons within each well are Bose condensed, the individual well Hamiltonian can be diagonalized by the Bogolyubov methodbog . If we keep the leading term in the interactions, we obtain the reduced Bogolyubov Hamiltonian

$``$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_\stackrel{}{k}a_\stackrel{}{k}^{}a_\stackrel{}{k}+{\displaystyle \frac{UN_0}{N_L}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}}a_\stackrel{}{k}^{}a_\stackrel{}{k}^{}a_\stackrel{}{k}a_\stackrel{}{k}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_\stackrel{}{k}\overline{a}_\stackrel{}{k}^{}\overline{a}_\stackrel{}{k}+{\displaystyle \frac{UN_0}{N_L}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}}\overline{a}_\stackrel{}{k}^{}\overline{a}_\stackrel{}{k}^{}\overline{a}_\stackrel{}{k}\overline{a}_\stackrel{}{k}`$
$`t{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}}\left(a_\stackrel{}{k}^{}\overline{a}_\stackrel{}{k}+\overline{a}_\stackrel{}{k}^{}a_\stackrel{}{k}\right)`$ (5)
with $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_\stackrel{}{k}=ϵ_\stackrel{}{k}+2UN_0/N_L`$. The number in the condensate, $`N_0`$, is determined uniquely by the number of bosons in each well, $`N`$, and the repulsion $`U`$. We see that the relevant parameter that sets the scale for the interaction for the BEC is the combination $`UN_0/N_L`$. Hence the universal dimensionless function that determines the tunneling current enhancement does not depend on $`U,N_0`$ and $`N_L`$ independently, but rather

$$F(N_0,N_L,\frac{t}{U},\frac{T_w}{U})=F(\frac{tN_L}{UN_0},\frac{T_wN_L}{UN_0})$$
(6)
The reduced Bogolyubov Hamiltonian (5) is diagonalized by the Bogolyubov canonical transformation

$$b_\stackrel{}{k}=u_\stackrel{}{k}a_\stackrel{}{k}+v_\stackrel{}{k}a_\stackrel{}{k}^{}b_\stackrel{}{k}^{}=u_\stackrel{}{k}a_\stackrel{}{k}^{}+v_\stackrel{}{k}a_\stackrel{}{k}$$
(7)
$$\overline{b}_\stackrel{}{k}=u_\stackrel{}{k}\overline{a}_\stackrel{}{k}+v_\stackrel{}{k}e^{i\theta }\overline{a}_\stackrel{}{k}^{}\overline{b}_\stackrel{}{k}^{}=u_\stackrel{}{k}\overline{a}_\stackrel{}{k}^{}+v_\stackrel{}{k}e^{i\theta }\overline{a}_\stackrel{}{k}$$
(8)
where $`\theta `$ is the relative phase between the superfluid order parameters, which is in general nonzero, and

$$u_\stackrel{}{k}^2=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\frac{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_\stackrel{}{k}}{E_\stackrel{}{k}}\right)v_\stackrel{}{k}^2=\frac{1}{2}\left(1\frac{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_\stackrel{}{k}}{E_\stackrel{}{k}}\right)$$
(9)
with

$$E_\stackrel{}{k}\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_\stackrel{}{k}^2\frac{4U^2N_0^2}{N_L^2}}=\frac{\mathrm{}k}{\sqrt{2m}}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}^2k^2}{2m}+\frac{4UN_0}{N_L}}$$
(10)
being the dispersion of the quasiparticle-like excitations of the system with $`ϵ_\stackrel{}{k}=\mathrm{}^2k^2/2m`$. As $`k0`$ the dispersion becomes phononic, which leads to dissipationless flow, i.e. superflow, by the Landau argumentlandau . We note that atomic BECs are superfluids as they have a nonzero sound speedbecs  and reduced scattering at long wavelengthsscat1 ; scat2 ; scat3 . The dispersion at large $`k`$ becomes $`\mathrm{}^2k^2/2m`$, which leads to dissipative flow. Notice that the crossover between dissipative and nondissipative flow happens at $`k\sqrt{8mUN_0/\mathrm{}^2N_L}`$. This defines the coherence length of the superfluid $`\xi \sqrt{\mathrm{}^2N_L/8mUN_0}`$.

When the system is probed at length scales $`L>\xi `$ it responds collectively as a superfluid, while at length scales $`L<\xi `$ it behaves like a gas of independent bosonic particles, thus responding dissipatively. We note that an infinite system would become superfluid for any $`U`$ no matter how small, as one can always go to a long enough length scale to see the system respond collectively as a superfluid. In here we do not have in mind infinite systems but finite wells of superfluid. In this case of finite systems, if the kinetic energy scale of the well, $`T_w`$, is greater than the effective interaction, $`UN_0/N_L`$, the system will not be a superfluid as the linear size of the system, $`V^{1/3}`$, is less than the coherence length of the superfluid. Independent of whether the bosons are superfluid in each well, the system could still be a superfluid within the whole lattice.

For the full lattice, when the kinetic energy scale is set by tunneling between sites ($`ϵ_\stackrel{}{k}tk^2a^2`$), the coherence length is $`\xi a\sqrt{N_Lt/4N_0U}`$. The size of the lattice is, of course, $`L=N_La`$ and the condition for superfluidity ($`\xi <L`$) is $`U/t>1/4N_0N_L`$. We see that either for a very large system or very large number of bosons, it becomes arbitrarily easy to become superfluid in the sense that an arbitrarily small $`U`$ will order the boson fluid into a superfluid at low enough temperature. Conversely, as we make the system small, or we reduce the number of bosons, it becomes harder to order into a superfluid, which will show up experimentally as increased dissipation rates.

Even though a high enough $`U`$ can order the system into a superfluid, too high a $`U`$ will make it into a Mott insulatorfisher ; us . The transition to the Mott insulator can be continuousfisher  or discontinuousus . The continuous transition occurs when there is a superfluidfisher  in each well and $`U`$ prevents Josephson tunneling between wells. The continuous transition only happens for a commensurate number of bosons per site. When the bosons in the wells are not superfluid within wells the transition is discontinuous and happens irrespective of whether the number of bosons per site is integer or notus . The second transition always happens when the number of bosons per site or $`U/t`$ are suffciently small as in these cases $`\xi >a`$.

We now proceed to evaluate the current operatorjoseph

$`\widehat{J}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dT}}(N\overline{N})={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}[N\overline{N},H_t]`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2it}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}}\left(a_\stackrel{}{k}^{}\overline{a}_\stackrel{}{k}\overline{a}_\stackrel{}{k}^{}a_\stackrel{}{k}\right)`$ (11)
where $`H_t=t_\stackrel{}{k}\left(a_\stackrel{}{k}^{}\overline{a}_\stackrel{}{k}+\overline{a}_\stackrel{}{k}^{}a_\stackrel{}{k}\right)`$ is the tunneling part of the Hamiltonian and $`T`$ denotes time. We note that the ground state of the reduced Hamiltonian (5) when $`t=0`$ is an outer product of the Bogolyubov ground states for each well, which we denote as our “vacuum” state $`|0`$. The excited states of such a system are denoted by $`|n`$ and are constructed by applying any number of Bogolyubov creation operators to the vacuum state. The energies of such states, $`E_n`$, will be the sum of the energies of each of the operators. When $`t0`$ there will be tunneling between the two wells, which can be calculated accurately from linear response theory as long as the number of atoms within the wells is large. For such a calculation the only relevant excited states are two quasiparticle states, one in each well, with opposite momenta, i.e. $`|n=\overline{b}_\stackrel{}{k}^{}b_\stackrel{}{k}^{}|0`$, with energies $`E_n=2E_\stackrel{}{k}`$. This calculation was first done by B. D. Josephson for Cooper paired fermionic superconductorsjoseph . We will follow his calculation closely. When the wells are superfluid, the tunneling current is dominated by coherent tunneling of Bogolyubov correlated pairs.

In order to calculate in linear response theorypines , we turn on $`H_t`$ adiabatically from time $`T=\mathrm{}`$, starting from the ground state of the noninteracting system at such a time. If we expand the wavefunction in terms of the noninteracting eigenstates $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=_na_n(T)\mathrm{exp}(iE_nT/\mathrm{})|n`$, we obtain the well known formula $`a_n(T)=\delta _{n,0}i\mathrm{exp}(iE_nT/\mathrm{})n|H_t|0/(iE_n+ϵ)`$, where the vacuum state energy $`E_0`$ has been chosen to be 0. The parameter $`ϵ`$ was introduced to control the adiabatic switching of the interaction. The causal limit $`ϵ0^+`$ should be always understood. Our interaction is turned on fully at time $`T=0`$ and the wavefunction of the interacting system is given by $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=|0+|\delta \phi `$ wherepines

$$|\delta \phi =\underset{n0}{}\frac{|nn|H_t|0}{E_niϵ}$$
(12)
The Josephson current is given by $`\mathrm{\Psi }(0)|\widehat{J}|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=0|\widehat{J}|\delta \phi +`$ complex conjugate. With

$$|\delta \phi =t\underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}\frac{u_\stackrel{}{k}v_\stackrel{}{k}}{2E_\stackrel{}{k}iϵ}\left(e^{i\theta }b_\stackrel{}{k}^{}\overline{b}_\stackrel{}{k}^{}+b_\stackrel{}{k}^{}\overline{b}_\stackrel{}{k}^{}\right)$$
(13)
we obtain

$$J=\frac{2t^2}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}\frac{u_\stackrel{}{k}^2v_\stackrel{}{k}^2}{E_\stackrel{}{k}}$$
(14)
analogous to the fermionic superconducting casejoseph . We note that if the phase difference between the order parameters, $`\theta `$, is 0 there is no Josephson tunneling. Since $`u_\stackrel{}{k}v_\stackrel{}{k}=UN_0/E_\stackrel{}{k}N_L`$, we obtain for the enhancement factor $`F=J\mathrm{}/t`$

$$F=\frac{2tU^2N_0^2}{N_L^2}\mathrm{sin}\theta \underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}\frac{1}{E_\stackrel{}{k}^3}$$
(15)
In order to estimate this quantity we approximate the quasiparticle dispersion as phononic, $`E_\stackrel{}{k}^22UN_0\mathrm{}^2k^2/mN_L`$, and we cut off the high momenta at $`k_c`$ of the order of the inverse coherence length. Converting the sum into an integral

$$\underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}\frac{1}{E_\stackrel{}{k}^3}\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}\left(\frac{mN_LV^{2/3}}{2UN_0}\right)^{3/2}_{k<k_c}\frac{d^3\stackrel{}{k}}{k^3}$$
(16)
Note that this integral is infrared divergent but the divergence gets cut-off by the inverse linear well size $`V^{1/3}`$. We finally obtain for the enhancement

$$F=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\frac{tN_L}{UN_0}\left(\frac{UN_0}{T_wN_L}\right)^{3/2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{4UN_0}{T_wN_L}$$
(17)
In order for the system to be superfluid at all within a well we must have $`V^{1/3}>\xi `$, otherwise there will not be Josephson tunneling per se and the calculation of tunneling will have to be done for noninteracting bosons trapped in wells. This condition implies that $`UN_0/T_wN_L>1`$. Therefore, $`F>tN_L/16\pi ^2UN_0`$. For typical latticesari1 , $`t`$ is of the order of around kHz’s. $`N_L`$ is about 50, the number of bosons is about 5000, so that the number of Bose condensed atoms per well $`N_0N`$ and thus $`N_0/N_L100`$. Values of $`U`$ are more uncertain, but they range from tens to a hundred Hz, so that $`t/U>10`$. We finally obtain $`F>2`$. Therefore, when we have few hundred bosons per site, Josephson tunneling will be enhanced from the single particle tunneling value $`t/\mathrm{}`$. Of course, for other values of the lattice parameters, it need not be enhanced. In extreme cases, it can be enhanced quite a bit. Since the logarithm in expression (17) can never be negative due to the precondition for Josephson tunneling to be possible at all ($`V^{1/3}>\xi `$), $`F`$ is single valued. We then see that measurements of the Josephson “enhancement” $`F`$ can be used to estimate the values of the on-site repulsion $`U`$ if the other experimental parameters are known.

We now study the case when the linear size of the wells is too small ($`V^{1/3}<\xi `$). In this case the interaction cannot order the system into a superfluid, and its only effect is a renormalization of the mass of the bosons. Hence the system is described by the Hamiltonian (4) with $`U=0`$ and $`m`$ the renormalized mass of the bosons. There is no Josephson tunneling per se as the system is not superfluid. On the other hand, there can be coherent quantum tunneling of the (nonsuperfluid) boson liquid between wells.

The Hamiltonian (4) with $`U=0`$ is diagonalized by the canonical operators

$$A_\stackrel{}{k}=\frac{a_\stackrel{}{k}+\overline{a}_\stackrel{}{k}}{\sqrt{2}}\overline{A}_\stackrel{}{k}=\frac{a_\stackrel{}{k}\overline{a}_\stackrel{}{k}}{\sqrt{2}}$$
(18)
to yield

$$=\underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}\left\{(ϵ_\stackrel{}{k}t)A_\stackrel{}{k}^{}A_\stackrel{}{k}+(ϵ_\stackrel{}{k}+t)\overline{A}_\stackrel{}{k}^{}\overline{A}_\stackrel{}{k}\right\}$$
(19)
The Heisenberg equations of motion lead to the following time dependent operators $`A_\stackrel{}{k}(T)=A_\stackrel{}{k}\mathrm{exp}[i(ϵ_\stackrel{}{k}t)T/\mathrm{}]`$ and $`\overline{A}_\stackrel{}{k}(T)=\overline{A}_\stackrel{}{k}\mathrm{exp}[i(ϵ_\stackrel{}{k}+t)T/\mathrm{}]`$. The common phase factor $`iϵ_\stackrel{}{k}T/\mathrm{}`$ will be dropped as only phase differences affect the physics. From these time dependent operators one immediately obtains the operators into which $`a_\stackrel{}{k}`$ $`\overline{a}_\stackrel{}{k}`$ and their conjugates develop under Hamiltonian evolution:

$`a_\stackrel{}{k}(T)=\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{tT}{\mathrm{}}}\right)a_\stackrel{}{k}+i\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{tT}{\mathrm{}}}\right)\overline{a}_\stackrel{}{k}`$
$`\overline{a}_\stackrel{}{k}(T)=\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{tT}{\mathrm{}}}\right)\overline{a}_\stackrel{}{k}+i\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{tT}{\mathrm{}}}\right)a_\stackrel{}{k}`$
$`a_\stackrel{}{k}^{}(T)=\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{tT}{\mathrm{}}}\right)a_\stackrel{}{k}^{}i\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{tT}{\mathrm{}}}\right)\overline{a}_\stackrel{}{k}^{}`$
$`\overline{a}_\stackrel{}{k}^{}(T)=\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{tT}{\mathrm{}}}\right)\overline{a}_\stackrel{}{k}^{}i\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{tT}{\mathrm{}}}\right)a_\stackrel{}{k}^{}`$ (20)
The “barred” and “unbarred” operators are orthogonal raising and lowering operators as unitary Hamiltonian evolution is a canonical transformation thus preserving the commutation relations of the operators at time zero.

We can now calculate the coherent tunneling current between two wells. We take the right well to have $`(N+M)/2`$ bosons and the left well with $`(NM)/2`$ bosons. The initial wavefunction is then

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=\left[\frac{(a_0^{})^{(N+M)/2}(\overline{a}_0^{})^{(NM)/2}}{(N/2+M/2)!(N/2M/2)!}\right]|0$$
(21)
where the subscript $`0`$ means the smallest momentum state into which the bosons condensed. The wavefunction at time $`T`$, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(T)`$, has the exact same dependence on the operators $`a_0^{}(T)`$, $`\overline{a}_0^{}(T)`$ that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)`$ has on $`a_0^{}`$, $`\overline{a}_0^{}`$. In order to obtain the coherent tunneling current $`J`$ we need to evaluate $`\mathrm{\Delta }N(T)\mathrm{\Psi }(T)|\mathrm{\Delta }N|\mathrm{\Psi }(T)`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }Na_0^{}a_0\overline{a}_0^{}\overline{a}_0`$ counting the excess number of bosons in the right well. Using

$`\mathrm{\Delta }N=\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2tT}{\mathrm{}}}\right)(a_0^{}(T)a_0(T)\overline{a}_0^{}(T)\overline{a}_0(T))`$
$`+i\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2tT}{\mathrm{}}}\right)(\overline{a}_0^{}(T)a_0(T)a_0^{}(T)\overline{a}_0(T))`$ (22)
we obtain the tunneling current

$$J=\frac{d}{dT}\mathrm{\Delta }N(T)=\frac{2t}{\mathrm{}}M\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{2tT}{\mathrm{}}\right)$$
(23)
where the periodicity is an artifact of having a two site system. The proportionality of the tunneling current on the initial number difference of bosons between the sites, $`M`$, is not an artifact. Hence the tunneling current could be quite large if the number of bosons is very different between the different sites. The current can also be zero if the number of bosons is equal between wells. The fact that the current goes to zero for short times $`T0`$ is also not an artifact since, for short times, the system cannot know if it is a closed two site system or a large system.

In the present note we studied quantum tunneling of BEC’s in optical lattices. For the case when bosons within each well are superfluid, we have Josephson tunneling among the wells For typical lattice parameters the Josephson current will be somewhat enhanced from $`t/\mathrm{}`$, but this need not be so. The enhancement factor will depend on lattice parameters. When the bosons in each well are not superfluid, there is coherent quantum tunneling of essentially free bosons between the wells. This tunneling is proportional to the boson number difference between the wells essentially due to Bose statistics.

Acknowledgements: We thank Ari Tuchman and Mark Kasevich for numerous and stimulating discussions. Zaira Nazario is a Ford Foundation predoctoral fellow. She was supported by the Ford Foundation and by the School of Humanities and Science at Stanford University. David I. Santiago was supported by NASA Grant NAS 8-39225 to Gravity Probe B.


text:
# Rotation curves of galactic disks for arbitrary surface density profiles: a simple and efficient recipe

## 1 Introduction. Statement of the problem

One of the oldest problem in galactic dynamics is the determination of the mass distribution in the stellar and gaseous disk from observed velocities. Observationally, noisy measurements along with a certain velocity dispersion makes this inverse problem difficult to solve (Beauvais & Bothum, 2001). From a theoretical point of view, various levels of approximation are possible. For instance, the inversion is straightforward if the disk is considered as a flattened spheroid, since the surface density is simply obtained by an inverse Abel transform over the velocity field (Brandt, 1960). Flattened spheroids are however a poor representation of real disks (e.g. Kochanek 2001). Another, more intuitive way to proceed is to generate a collection of surface density profiles, then to determine the corresponding potential or gravitational field, and find only those which model the velocity data at best. For a razor-thin axi-symmetrical disk, only one numerical quadrature over its radial extent must be performed to obtain the potential or the field, which is a priori very convenient because time in-expansive. Meanwhile, this operation is commonly believed to be numerically uncomfortable when using elliptic integrals (Binney & Tremaine, 1987, Cuddeford, 1993, Kochanek, 2001). The reason is that these functions contain a singularity everywhere in the source. As suggested by Binney & Tremaine (1987), this drawback can be simply avoided by considering field points located just above/below the equatorial plane. Even if the potential and its radial derivative do generally not exhibit strong variations slightly off the mid-plane, such a vertical shift introduces an inconsistency or a bias. As a matter of fact, instead of elliptic integrals, most authors work with Bessel functions which have finite amplitudes (Toomre, 1963). But their oscillatory behavior and specially their spatial extension (the infinite range) are a severe disadvantage from a numerical point of view (Cuddeford, 1993; Cohl & Tohline 1999).

In this paper, we show that point mass singularities can be properly and easily handled numerically from elliptic integrals by density splitting. For the case of a disk with zero thickness as considered here, the gravitational potential and field can be determined exactly in the equatorial plane without any shift, and whatever the surface density profile (provided it vanishes at the inner and outer edges of the disk). The extension to tri-dimensional disks is possible.

## 2 The surface density splitting method

For a disk with zero thickness, the expression for the radial gravitational field in the equatorial plane is known in a closed form. Using cylindrical coordinates, this reads (e.g Durand, 1964):

$$g_r(r)=\frac{G}{r}_{r_{\mathrm{in}}}^{r_{\mathrm{out}}}\sqrt{\frac{a}{r}}k\mathrm{\Sigma }(a)\left[\frac{𝐄(k)}{\varpi }𝐊(k)\right]𝑑a,$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the total surface density, $`r`$ is the field point, $`a`$ refers to the material distribution, $`r_{\mathrm{in}}`$ and $`r_{\mathrm{out}}`$ are respectively the inner and the outer radius of the disk, and $`k`$ and $`\varpi `$ are respectively defined by

$$k=\frac{2\sqrt{ar}}{(a+r)}$$
(2)
and

$$\varpi =\frac{ar}{a+r}$$
(3)
Finally, $`𝐊`$ (respectively $`𝐄`$) is the complete elliptic integral of the first (resp. second) kind. Note that the integrand of equation (1) diverges as the modulus $`k1`$, namely when $`ar`$. The nature of the singularity is twofold: a logarithmic singularity due to the $`𝐊`$-function, and a hyperbolic one due to the term $`1/\varpi `$. However, this singularity is integrable. There are different ways to estimate improper integrals. Here is a simple and efficient recipe. Let us write the surface density as

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(a)=\mathrm{\Sigma }(r)+\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }(a,r),$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(r)`$ is the surface density at the field point and $`\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }(a,r)`$ is the “residual” surface density which, by construction, equals zero when $`a=r`$. Thus, equation (1) can be written as the sum of two contributions, namely:

$$g_r(r)=g_r^{\mathrm{homo}.}(r)+g_r^{\mathrm{res}.}(r),$$
(5)
where

$$g_r^{\mathrm{homo}.}(r)=\frac{G\mathrm{\Sigma }(r)}{r}_{r_{\mathrm{in}}}^{r_{\mathrm{out}}}\sqrt{\frac{a}{r}}k\left[\frac{𝐄(k)}{\varpi }𝐊(k)\right]𝑑a$$
(6)
is the radial gravitational field due to a radially homogeneous disk and

$$g_r^{\mathrm{res}.}(r)=\frac{G}{r}_{r_{\mathrm{in}}}^{r_{\mathrm{out}}}\sqrt{\frac{a}{r}}k\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }(a,r)\left[\frac{𝐄(k)}{\varpi }𝐊(k)\right]𝑑a$$
(7)
corresponds to the residual profile. The point is that the expression for $`g_r^{\mathrm{homo}.}`$ also exists in a closed analytical form (see Appendix A). This quantity is finite everywhere inside the disk, even at the disc edges provided that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(r)`$ vanishes continuously there. It is important to mention that this restriction is no more necessary if we consider the disk as a tri-dimensional system. Besides, $`g_r^{\mathrm{res}.}`$ can be easily computed numerically because both $`\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }(a,r)𝐊(k)`$ and $`\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }(a,r)𝐄(k)/\varpi `$ are fully regular whatever $`a`$ and $`r`$, and especially for $`a=r`$ (see Appendix B for a proof). As a consequence, the accuracy on $`g_r^{\mathrm{res}.}`$ (and subsequently on the total field $`g(r)`$) depends only on the performance of the quadrature scheme used to performed the radial integral in equation (7).

In figure 1, we illustrate this simple and efficient technique by considering a disk with inner edge $`r_{\mathrm{in}}=1`$, outer edge $`r_{\mathrm{out}}=100`$ and surface density $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(r)\mathrm{exp}(r/r_{\mathrm{out}})`$ as commonly used to model spiral galaxies (Freeman, 1970). The graph shows the residual profile $`\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }(a,r)`$, as well as the two regular functions $`\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }(a,r)𝐊(k)`$ and $`\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }(a,r)𝐄(k)/\varpi `$. Here, the field point where stands the singularity is arbitrarily set to $`r=50`$ (about the middle of the disk).

## 3 Rotation curve of the disk

We can now apply this method to compute the rotation law $`\mathrm{\Omega }(r)`$ of any disk, whatever its size and surface density profile. Here, we simply assume that the contribution to the rotation is only gravitation (and neglect pressure and viscosity effects111According to Sofue & Rubin (2001), this is a good approximation because of the small velocity dispersion of interstellar gas.). Thus, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(r)`$ is defined by the relation $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2(r)=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{homo}.}^2(r)+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{res}.}^2(r)`$ where:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{homo}.}^2(r)=\frac{g_r^{\mathrm{homo}.}}{r}$$
(8)
and

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{res}.}^2(r)=\frac{g_r^{\mathrm{res}.}}{r}$$
(9)
Using the previous expressions for the radial field, these two terms respectively read:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{homo}.}^2(r)=\frac{4G\mathrm{\Sigma }(r)}{r}\left\{\frac{r_{\mathrm{out}}}{r}\left[𝐄\left(\frac{r}{r_{\mathrm{out}}}\right)𝐊\left(\frac{r}{r_{\mathrm{out}}}\right)\right]𝐄\left(\frac{r_{\mathrm{in}}}{r}\right)+𝐊\left(\frac{r_{\mathrm{in}}}{r}\right)\right\}$$
(10)
and

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{res}.}^2(r)=\frac{G}{r^2}_{r_{\mathrm{in}}}^{r_{\mathrm{out}}}\sqrt{\frac{a}{r}}k\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }(a,r)\left[\frac{𝐄(k)}{\varpi }𝐊(k)\right]𝑑a$$
(11)
These two expressions are easy to compute numerically, for reasons mentioned above. Let us remind that at the edges, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{res}.}^2(r)`$ vanishes because $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(r)=0`$ as assumed (see above).

## 4 Concluding remarks

We have reported a simple and efficient method to compute the radial field and the rotation curve of any razor-thin axi-symmetric disk in the mid-plane, using complete elliptic integrals. As a matter of fact, a similar treatment can be considered for the gravitational potential. Even, this splitting technique can be employed to disks with finite (non-zero) thickness as suggested in Huré (2003), and to the fully tri-dimensional systems as well (Pierens & Huré 2004).

## Appendix A Radial field due to a a razor-thin disk with constant surface density

Let us begin with the expression for the radial field due to a disk with constant surface density, i.e. equation (6). This expression can be written as follows:

$$g_r^{\mathrm{homo}.}(r)=\frac{G\mathrm{\Sigma }(r)}{r}\left\{_{r_{\mathrm{in}}}^r\sqrt{\frac{a}{r}}k\left[\frac{𝐄(k)}{\varpi }𝐊(k)\right]𝑑a+_r^{r_{\mathrm{out}}}\sqrt{\frac{a}{r}}k\left[\frac{𝐄(k)}{\varpi }𝐊(k)\right]𝑑a\right\}$$
(A1)
We can now set $`u=\frac{a}{r}`$ in the first integral and $`v=\frac{r}{a}`$ in the second one. Changing the modulus in the elliptic integrals according to (Gradshteyn & Ryzhik, 1980):

$$𝐊\left(\frac{2\sqrt{u}}{1+u}\right)=(1+u)𝐊(u),$$
(A2)
and

$$𝐄\left(\frac{2\sqrt{u}}{1+u}\right)=\frac{1}{1+u}\left[2𝐄(u)u_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}𝐊(u)\right]$$
(A3)
with $`u_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=1u^2`$ and $`u<1`$, then equation (A1) becomes:

$$g_r^{\mathrm{homo}.}(r)=4G\mathrm{\Sigma }\left[_{r_{\mathrm{in}}/r}^1\frac{u𝐄(u)}{u_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}𝑑u+_1^{r/r_{\mathrm{out}}}\frac{𝐄(v)v_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}𝐊(v)}{v^2v_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}𝑑v\right]$$
(A4)
Each integral in this expression is known. Actually, we have (Gradshteyn & Ryzhik, 1980):

$$\frac{u𝐄(u)}{u_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}𝑑u=𝐊(u)𝐄(u)$$
(A5)
and

$$\frac{𝐄(v)v_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}𝐊(v)}{v^2v_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}𝑑v=\frac{𝐊(v)𝐄(v)}{v}$$
(A6)
Inserting these relations into equation (A4) and re-arranging terms yields the formula

$$g_r^{\mathrm{homo}.}=4G\mathrm{\Sigma }\left\{\frac{r_{\mathrm{out}}}{r}\left[𝐄\left(\frac{r}{r_{\mathrm{out}}}\right)𝐊\left(\frac{r}{r_{\mathrm{out}}}\right)\right]𝐄\left(\frac{r_{\mathrm{in}}}{r}\right)+𝐊\left(\frac{r_{\mathrm{in}}}{r}\right)\right\}$$
(A7)
## Appendix B Singularity removal

In order to compute numerically equations (7) and (11), we have to check that $`\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }(a,r)𝐊(k)`$ and $`\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }(a,r)𝐄(k)/\varpi `$ remain finite when $`ar`$, which is not obvious at first glance. Since $`\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }(r,r)=0`$ by construction, a Taylor expansion of $`\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ around $`a=r`$ yields:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \delta \mathrm{\Sigma }(a,r)& =(ar)\left(\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }}{a}\right)_{a=r}+𝒪\left((ar)^2\right)\hfill \\ & =(ar)\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{a}\right)_{a=r}+𝒪\left((ar)^2\right)\hfill \\ & =(a+r)\varpi \left(\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{a}\right)_{a=r}+𝒪\left((ar)^2\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(B1)
where $`\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{a}\right)_{a=r}`$ is in general finite everywhere. Since $`𝐄(k)`$ is bounded, this expansion shows that $`\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }(a,r)𝐄(k)/\varpi `$ is finite at the field point (see also figure 1), namely

$$\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }(r,r)\frac{𝐄(1)}{\varpi }=(a+r)\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{a}\right)_{a=r}$$
(B2)
Besides, since $`𝐊(k)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(16/\varpi ^2)`$ as $`k1`$ (Abramowitz & Stegun, 1970), we have $`\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }(r,r)𝐊(1)=0`$ for $`a=r`$ (see figure 1 again).


text:
# Comment on ‘Quantum entropy and special relativity’ by A. Peres, P. F. Scudo, and D. R. Terno, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 230402 (2002).

Peres, Scudo, and Terno (PST) point out in PST  that the entropy of relativistic qubits is not a relativistic scalar. The crucial element of the construction is the reduced density matrix of ‘spin degrees of freedom’ defined by a partial trace over momenta of a full 1-particle density matrix of a massive spin-1/2 particle. I understand that the Authors have in mind an experiment where detectors are blind to the particle momentum and distinguish only different polarizations. In this context I want to point out two elements that have led to some controversies concerning the physical meaning of the phenomenon.

If the momentum operator has spectral representation $`𝑷=𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒑)𝒑|𝒑𝒑|`$ then the helicity operator $`W_0=𝑱𝑷`$ reads $`W_0=_{s=\pm 1/2}s𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒑)\mathrm{\Pi }(𝒑,s)|𝒑𝒑|=_ss\mathrm{\Pi }_s`$. If $`u(𝒑,s)`$ is an eigenvector of $`\mathrm{\Pi }(𝒑,s)`$ then a general state is $`|\psi =_s𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒑)\psi (𝒑,s)u(𝒑,s)|𝒑`$. A probability that the particle has helicity $`s`$ is given by $`p_s=\psi |\mathrm{\Pi }_s|\psi =𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒑)|\psi (𝒑,s)|^2`$. Elliptic polarizations correspond to observables $`UW_0U^{}`$ where $`U`$ may be momentum dependent. If $`U`$ is momentum independent then the probabilities associated with $`U\mathrm{\Pi }_sU^{}`$ can be computed in terms of the PST density matrix $`\rho _{ss^{}}=𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒑)\psi (𝒑,s)\overline{\psi (𝒑,s^{})}`$ and certain new ‘reduced’ projectors $`\pi _r`$.

The bad news is that observables with momentum-dependent $`U`$ need new PST-type density matrices. For this reason the PST reduced state does not describe all the possible polarization experiments, even if measurements are blind to momenta. An interesting class of such momentum-dependent polarizations is produced by Lorentz boosts. Unitary representations of the Poincaré group map $`W_0`$ into $`_{s=\pm 1/2}s𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒑)D(𝒑)\mathrm{\Pi }(𝒑,s)D(𝒑)^{}|𝚲^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}𝒑𝚲^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}𝒑|`$. $`D(𝒑)`$ is unitary. For $`m=0`$ it commutes with $`\mathrm{\Pi }(𝒑,s)`$ and depends on $`𝒑`$ only via $`𝒑/|𝒑|`$. Lorentz transformations change momenta (Doppler effect) and map circular polarizations into combinations of linear polarizations (unless $`m=0`$) with different polarization planes for different momenta. This is why the PST $`\rho _{ss^{}}`$ changes its entropy: Some information escapes into polarizations that have been tossed out with the bathwater of the traced-out ‘momentum bath’. There is no problem if one works with the full state $`\rho _{ss^{}}(𝒑,𝒑^{})`$. This full state may be regarded as collection of all the possible reduced PST states. The PST analysis provides us with an interesting argument supporting earlier claims that relativistic qubits are inherently momentum dependent, and thus one should expect a kind of relativistic noise MC-PRA ; SPIE .

Now, the good news is that if instead of $`W_0`$ one takes $`t_\mu W^\mu `$ with $`t_\mu `$ chosen to be an eigenvector of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, then the unitary matrix $`D(𝒑)`$ is momentum independent MC ; MCMW . Accordingly, the entropy of the PST density matrix is unchanged by the boost. For the same reason there is no change of entanglement, in the PST sense, between appropriate qubits in multiparticle states if the qubits correspond to projections of $`W_\mu `$ in an eigendirection of the Lorentz transformation. Eigenvectors of boosts are null (i.e. $`t_\mu t^\mu =0`$) and it is an experimental challenge how to measure such observables. A hint that may help is that the ‘gauge transformation’ $`t_\mu ^{}=t_\mu +\theta P_\mu `$ does not change the product $`t_\mu W^\mu `$ since $`P_\mu W^\mu =0`$, and thus the resulting eigenvectors are unchanged. For example, the null $`t_\mu `$ can be replaced by a spacelike, momentum dependent direction with $`\theta =t_\mu P^\mu /m^2`$, $`t_\mu ^{}P^\mu =0`$. It can be guaranteed that a given $`\rho _{rs}`$ can be written in terms of such PST-type qubits that its entropy will be left unchanged by a given boost. In principle, there exist an error-correcting procedure that allows to eliminate the leak-out of information from the PST state: For any motion one has to appropriately adjust the spin quantization axis. One may regard it as a sort of relativistic analogue of a decoherence-free subspace.

My work on relativistic aspects of qubits was supported by the KBN Grant No. PBZ-Min-008/P03/2003.


text:
# Metrological constraints on the variability of the fundamental constants 𝑒, ℏ, and 𝑐

## Abstract

We set up a framework for a model-independent analysis of the time variation of $`e`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, and $`c`$ individually. It is shown that the time-evolution of each constant can be determined uniquely from the time evolution of the fine structure constant $`\alpha `$ provided that the choice of basic time-independent units (i.e., the clock and ruler) is fixed. Realistic systems of units are considered as examples and implications for metrology are discussed.

Recently evidence has been reported for a possible time evolution of the fine structure constant on the cosmological time scale. The study of absorbtion spectra of distant quasars yields $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha 10^4`$ over the redshift range $`0.5<z<3.5`$ webb1  111In the latest study the range is $`0.2<z<4.2`$ mur .. Preliminary results of a new study based on a larger sample support the earlier results webb2 . However, a similar analysis performed by a different group finds no evidence for the evolution of $`\alpha `$: $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha =(0.06\pm 0.06)\times 10^5`$ over the redshift range $`0.4<z<2.3`$ sri . Also, the variation of the fine structure constant in $`{}_{}{}^{187}Re`$ decay over the age of the solar system (corresponding to $`0<z0.4`$) has been found consistent with zero at the level of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha 10^7`$ oli . The source for these discrepancies is yet to be understood.

The constancy of the proton-to-electron mass ratio $`\mu =m_e/m_p`$ is also being investigated iva .

Motivation for possible variability of fundamental constants appears within different contexts such as Kaluza-Klein theories, superstring theories and other models. We will not go into theoretical discussion of what would be a microscopic model that could explain why fundamental constants change ( see e.g. uzan ; mag ; we ; tob  and references therein 222Mota and Barrow recently proposed the important idea of considering the effect of inhomogeneity on the evolution of the fundamental constants mb1 ; mb2 ; mb3 .). Apart from specific model building, a more general type of analysis is needed which would start with kinematical (i.e., metrological) considerations. The role of the metrological approach is to complement and clarify the specific models (rather than to substitute them).

The question arises: if the fine structure constant does indeed evolve with time then which of the constants $`e`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, and $`c`$ are evolving and how? This question has been at the centre of recent debate duff1 ; duff2 ; mof ; uzan ; mag ; nat ; fla  and is the main topic of this paper. Another issue of contention is the variation of dimensional quantities, where on one hand it is claimed that time variation of dimensional constants is a meaningless concept. On the other hand, a number of theories have been proposed in which one (or more) dimensional constants (such as $`G`$, $`e`$ or $`c`$) are varying.

Our analysis will explicitely show in what sense and to what extent the time evolution of dimensional constants is meaningful and when it becomes misleading; hence bringing the two points of view closer to each other and eliminating some controversy in this area.

Fundamental constants and basic units form an interdependent system. This is because the modern definitions of basic units (metre, second etc.) are given in terms of processes controlled by the magnitudes of the fundamental constants ($`\alpha `$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`c`$ etc.). If fundamental constants would change with time then, generally, so would the basic units.

Consequently, we face the following problem: how to define the basic units in such a way that they stay invariant even though the fundamental constants (which are involved in their definitions) may change? This problem should arise in any specific theory of $`\alpha `$ variation at the stage when the contact with experiment is made; it is therefore desirable to perform a model-independent analysis first.

The purpose of the this paper is to propose a possible solution to this problem and to discuss some of its implications. In particular, we will show that the time-dependence of $`\mathrm{}`$, $`c`$, and $`e`$ can be reconstructed uniquely from the time dependence of $`\alpha `$ provided that the choice of basic units is fixed.

As a basis for our study we employ the standard methods of dimensional and metrological analysis supplemented by an additional postulate requiring that the fundamental units should be time-independent. In other words, we require that the units should be fixed even though constants can vary. Although it is possible, in principle, to use the system of time-dependent units that would greatly complicate both theory and experiment. Theoretically, one would have to keep track of time derivatives of units in all equations making them much longer; the number of experimental parameters to be measured would also greatly increase.

For simplicity and correspondence with the previous literature, the centimetre-gram-second (CGS) system of units will be used. (This assumption, however, is not important for the essence of our argument.) Also, as there is no strong observational or experimental evidence for the time-dependence of the fundamental constants apart from $`\alpha `$, such as the mass ratios ($`m_e/m_p`$, $`m_e/m_{Nucl}`$, …) and $`g`$-factors it will be assumed here that they do not vary with time (for theoretical discussions see,e.g., cal ; lan ; dent ).

To start with, our units of time, length and mass can be defined in the same way as the SI units (with proper scaling if necessary). Thus $`1cm`$ is the length travelled by light in a vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 45800 of a second, the second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom and $`1g`$ is 1/1000 part of the mass of the international platinum-iridium prototype of the kilogram.

These definitions imply that the magnitudes of 1 second ($`s`$), 1 centimetre ($`\underset{¯}{cm}`$) and 1 gram ($`g`$) depend on the magnitudes of the fundamental constants as follows:

$$s\frac{1}{m_e\alpha ^4}\frac{\mathrm{}}{c^2},$$
(1)
$$\underset{¯}{cm}cs\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_e\alpha ^4c},$$
(2)
$$gm_e.$$
(3)
It will be shown that the time evolution of $`c`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`e`$ crucially depend on the definitions of the centimetre and the second. To illustrate this point, several alternative definitions of the centimetre and second (see e.g. coh ) are introduced in the following way.

A “bar centimetre” is 1/100 of the length of the international platinum-iridium prototype of the metre. Its dependence on the fundamental constants is controlled by the Bohr radius:

$$\underset{¯}{cm}\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_e\alpha c}(bar).$$
(4)
The “krypton centimetre” is the length equal to the 16507.6373 wavelengths of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the levels $`2p_{10}`$ and $`5d_5`$ of krypton-86; this length depends on the fundamental constants as the inverse Rydberg constant:

$$\underset{¯}{cm}\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_e\alpha ^2c}(krypton).$$
(5)
(Both “bar” and “krypton” definitions of the metre were used by the SI system in the past.)

In addition, the second can be defined by choosing among different types of clocks other than cesium-133 clock adopted by the SI system; the ammonia clock (a representative of molecular clocks) measures time in terms of molecular vibration frequencies coh :

$$\nu _{NH_3}\sqrt{\frac{m_e}{m_p}}\frac{m_e\alpha ^2c^2}{\mathrm{}}.$$
(6)
An oscillator placed inside a superconducting cavity forms a high-stability device called a SCSO clock. The frequency of such a device is inversely proportional to the size of the superconductive cavity and therefore to the Bohr radius coh

$$\nu _{SCSO}m_e\frac{\alpha c^2}{\mathrm{}}.$$
(7)
Correspondingly, the “ammonia second” depends on the fundamental constants as

$$s\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_e\alpha ^2c^2}(NH_3),$$
(8)
while the “SCSO second” has this dependence:

$$s\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_e\alpha c^2}(SCSO).$$
(9)
Thus the three different definitions of the second are described by

$$s_n\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_e\alpha ^nc^2},$$
(10)
where $`n=1,2,4`$ corresponds to the SCSO, ammonia and cesium clock, respectively fn .

Similarly, the three different definitions of the centimetre can be combined as

$$\underset{¯}{cm}_l\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_e\alpha ^lc}$$
(11)
with $`l=1,2,4`$ for the bar, krypton and light definitions of unit of length, correspondingly.

From dimensional considerations it follows that an arbitrary system of units, $`S_{nl}`$, can be characterized by Eq.(10) and (11) with a suitable choice of clock and ruler indices $`n`$ and $`l`$. While theoretically all these $`S_{nl}`$ systems are equivalent, only a small number of them can be of interest for the past and future high-precision experiments. The nine systems considered in this paper form a representative sample of such realistic systems of units.

Requiring that the centimetre, second and gram do not depend on time, we obtain

$`c`$ $`\alpha ^{ln}`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{}`$ $`\alpha ^{2ln}`$ (13)
$`e`$ $`\alpha ^{\frac{1+3l2n}{2}}.`$ (14)
These can be conveniently rewritten as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }c}{c}}`$ $`(ln){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }{\alpha }}`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{}}}`$ $`(2ln){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }{\alpha }}`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }e}{e}}`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+3l2n}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }{\alpha }}.`$ (17)
Thus, if time dependence of $`\alpha `$ is experimentally measured and units are fixed, there is no further choice on how $`e,c,\mathrm{}`$ depend on time and no extra measurements are required. The results are presented in Table 1.

How many dimensional constants vary? In all cases except one, at least two constants must vary. These varying constants cannot be set equal to 1 and treated as mere conversion factors. The exceptional case is $`l=1,n=2`$, i.e. the “bar” ruler plus the ammonia clock. In this case $`c1/\alpha `$ while $`e`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ stay constant, which allows one to use the system $`e=1`$, $`\mathrm{}=1`$ (Hartree units). In other words, in this case $`e`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ can be treated as mere conversion factors.

Is the speed of light constant? For the case of the “light centimetre” (i.e., SI-like definition), $`c`$ remains constant automatically; however, in general, $`c`$ varies. Interestingly, for any choice of the centimetre there exists a ”matching choice” of the second (i.e., $`n=l`$) so that the speed of light remains constant. Furthermore, if we adopt a system with $`l=n`$ (in such systems $`c`$ is constant) then it follows that a) both $`e`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ were smaller in the past, and b) the SCSO clock minimizes the time dependence of $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`e`$ (because this clock has lower $`n`$ than other clocks).

In theoretical papers aimed at explaining the $`\alpha `$ variation in the context of quantum field theory the choice $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$ is frequently made. Consequently, it is implicitely assumed that both $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`c`$ do not depend on time. From Eq.(15) and (16) it follows then that the only possible choice for $`n`$ and $`l`$ is $`n=0`$ and $`l=0`$, i.e. the system of units must be of $`S_{00}`$-type. This system differs from the systems of units used in actual experiments (such as systems in Table 1 – e.g., the SI system is of $`S_{44}`$-type). In other words, the theorist’s units would appear time-dependent from the point of view of the experimenter (and the other way round). Therefore the translation from one system to the other should be done explicitely in order to make the contact between the theory and observations.

An interesting question is whether or not one can design a high-precision clock with $`n=0`$ or $`n=1`$. Such clocks would be useful in removing the time dependence of $`c`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$, or $`c`$ and $`e`$ respectively.

These results should be taken into account while comparing the predictions of $`\alpha `$ varying theories and the forthcoming experiments on high-precision clock comparison. Particular attention should be taken to ensure that the theoretical and experimental results are expressed in the same system of units. In the case that experiment finds a discrepancy between the readings of two different clocks, and thus confirms the variability of $`\alpha `$, the problem will arise as to which clock shows the “true” time. Our discussion would help in making this choice.

A topic of active debate in recent literature has been whether or not it is meaningful to talk about the time evolution of dimensional fundamental constants. The discussion presented in this paper goes some way in resolving this problem by demonstrating a framework in which time dependence of dimensional constants becomes a well defined concept. Such frameworks require a set of basic assumptions to be fixed (in this particular case, that the units of length, time and mass remain constant.) This can be compared to gauge-dependent quantities and gauge fixing in quantum field theory.

In summary, the time evolution of the three fundamental constants $`e`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ , and $`c`$ has been studied from a metrological perspective. Assuming that $`\alpha `$ evolution is known from observation, and the choice of time-independent units is fixed, it has been shown that the three separate evolution laws of $`e`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, and $`c`$ can be found explicitely for a generic system of units. As an application of these findings, nine specific unit systems of interest for experiment and theory, based on different realistic choices of clocks and rulers, have been considered. Time variations of $`e`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, and $`c`$ in these nine cases are found and compared, and their significance to the forthcoming experimental tests of $`\alpha `$ variation are discussed.

We are grateful to G.C.Joshi, W.McBride, B.H.J.McKellar and R.R.Volkas for stimulating discussions and to T.Dent and D.F.Mota for valuable comments.