text:
# QUANTUM MEASUREMENTS, INFORMATION AND DUAL STATES REPRESENTATIONS

## 1  Introduction

Despite that Quantum Mechanics (QM) describe perfectly most of experimental effects in microscopic domain there still some difficult questions and ’dark spots’ connected with its foundations and in particular Quantum Measurement Theory. Of them the problem of the state vector collapse or the objectification in general seems most remarkable and it’s still unresolved despite the multitude of the proposed solutions ( for the review see ). Eventually the measurements and collapse studies can help us to select the true QM interpretation out of many proposed. This paper analyses the information transfer to observer in the measurement and the collapse theory which is prompted by this considerations. We regard the microscopic dynamical model of measurements in which the evolution of the measuring system (MS) described from the first QM principles. In our approach MS in general includes the measured state (particle) S, detector D amplifying S signal and observer $`O`$ which processes and stores the information. Under observer we mean information gaining and utilizing system (IGUS) of arbitrary structure . It can be human brain or some automatic device processing the information , but in both cases practically it’s the system with many internal degrees of freedom (DF) on which the large amount of information can be memorized. In general the computer information processing or perception by human brain is the physical objects evolution which on microscopic level supposedly obeys to QM laws .

Standard Copenhagen QM interpretation divide our physical world into microscopic objects which obeys to QM laws and macroscopic objects , including observers which supposedly are classical. This artificial partition was much criticized, first of all because it’s not clear where to put this quantum/classical border. Moreover there are strong experimental evidences that at the dynamical level no such border exists and QM successfully describes large, complicated systems including biological ones.

The possible role of observer in quantum measurements was discussed for long time , but now it attracts the significant attention also due to the the progress of quantum information studies . The class of microscopic measurement theories which attempts to describe observer quantum effects sometimes called Relational QM ( for the review see ). In general Relational QM concedes that QM description is applicable both for microscopic states and macroscopic objects including observer $`O`$ (he, Bob) which Dirack state vector $`|O`$ ( or density matrix $`\rho `$ for more realistic cases) can be defined relative to some other observer $`O^{}`$ (she; Alice), which is also another quantum object. Of course this assumption it’s not well founded and real $`O`$ state can be much more complicated, but it’s reasonable to start from that simple case. Consequently the evolution of any complex system C described by Schrodinger equation and for any C the superposition principle holds true at any time. MS measurement description by $`O`$ formally must include evolution of $`O`$ own internal DFs which participate in the interaction with S .

The role of observer in the measurement and its selfdescription called also selfmeasurement often regarded as the implication of the general algebraic and logical problems of selfreference . Following this approach Breuer derived the general selfmeasurement restrictions for classical and quantum measurements . This formalism don’t resolve the measurement problem completely, but results in some important restrictions on its possible solution. From this analysis we propose modification of standard QM Hilbert space formalism which aim is to describe measurement process consistently. Its main feature is the extension of QM states manifold permitting to account observer selfmeasurement features. Of course if some correction to quantum dynamics like in GRW model exist  then the state collapse can occur in macroscopic detectors. But until such effects would be found and the standard QM Hamiltonian can be regarded well established, we must inspect in detail observer properties in search of collapse.

In chap. 2 we describe our measurement model in detail. We argue that collapse description demands to change standard QM formalism and propose the particular variant of its modification. In chap. 3 we’ll discuss $`gedankenexperiments`$ which help to interpret our formalism and discuss its meaning. In chap. 4 physical and philosophical implications of this results and interpretation discussed.

Here it’s necessary to make some technical comments on our model premises and review some terminology. In our model we’ll suppose that MS always can be described completely (including Environment E if necessary) by some state vector $`|MS`$ relative to $`O^{}`$ or by density matrix if it’s in the mixed state. MS can be closed system , like atom in the box or open pure system surrounded by electromagnetic vacuum or E of other kind. We don’t assume in our work any special dynamical properties of $`O`$ internal states beyond standard QM.

In this paper the brain-computer analogy used without discussing its reliability and philosophical implications . We’ll ignore here quantum computer options having in mind only the standard dissipative computers. We must stress that throughout our paper the observer consciousness never referred directly. Rather in our model observer can be regarded as active reference frame (RF) which interacts with studied object. Thus S state description ’from the point of view’ of the particular $`O`$ described by the terms ’S in $`O`$ RF’ or simply ’for $`O`$’. The terms ’perceptions’, ’impressions’ used by us in a Wigner sense  of observer subjective description of experimental results and can be defined in strictly physical and Information theory terms ( more discussion given in Conclusion).

## 2 Selfmeasurement and Weak Collapse

To perform the measurement one needs detector D and IGUS $`O`$ each of them in practice have many internal DFs. In elementary measurement model the detector D and observer $`O`$ only with one DF regarded corresponding to Von Neuman scheme. Account of many DFs for D and $`O`$ doesn’t change principally the results obtained below , but in addition it resolves the problem of ’preferred basis’ arising for one DF detector model . The example of dynamical model with many DFs gives Coleman-Hepp model described in .

Let’s consider in this one DF ansatz $`O^{}`$ description of the measurement performed by $`O`$ of binary observable $`\widehat{Q}`$ on S state :

$$\psi _s=a_1|s_1+a_2|s_2$$

, where $`|s_{1,2}`$ are $`Q`$ eigenstates with values $`q_{1,2}`$. For the simplicity in the following we’ll omit detector D in MS chain assuming that S directly interacts with $`O`$. It’s possible for our simple model because if to neglect decoherence the only D effect is the amplification of S signal to make it conceivable for O. Initial $`O`$ state is $`|O_0`$ relative to $`O^{}`$ RF and MS initial state is :

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}^0=(a_1|s_1+a_2|s_2)|O_o$$
(1)
We assume that S-$`O`$ measuring interaction starts at $`t=t_0`$ and finished at some finite $`t_1`$. From the linearity of Schrodinger equation for suitable interaction Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_I`$ for some $`t_1`$ at $`t>t_1`$ the state of MS system relative to $`O^{}`$ observer will be

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}=a_1|s_1^f|O_1+a_2|s_2^f|O_2$$
(2)
to which corresponds the density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }_{MS}`$. Here $`|O_{1,2}`$ are $`O`$ state vectors obtained after the measurement of particular $`Q`$ eigenstate $`|s_{1,2}`$ and are the eigenstates of $`Q_O`$ ’pointer’ observable. In most cases one can take for the simplicity $`|s_i^f=|s_i`$ without influencing main results.

All this states including $`|O_i`$ belongs to Hilbert space $`^{}`$ defined in $`O^{}`$ RF and Hilbert space $``$ in $`O`$ RF can be obtained performing unitary $`^{}`$ transformation $`\widehat{U}^{}`$ to $`O`$ c.m.s.( below state vectors with $`n>2`$ components used with the same notations). $`\widehat{U}^{}`$ can be neglected if only internal or RF independent discrete states regarded permitting to take $`=^{}`$. We suppose that for $`t>t_1`$ measurement definitely finished which simplifies all the calculations , but in fact that’s fulfilled exactly only for the restricted class of models like Coleman-Hepp.

Thus QM predicts at time $`t>t_1`$ for external observer $`O^{}`$ MS is in the pure state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}`$ of (2) which is superposition of two states. Yet we know from the experiment that macroscopic $`O`$ observes some definite random $`Q_O`$ value $`q_{1,2}^O`$ from which he concludes that S final state is $`|s_1`$ or $`|s_2`$. In standard QM with Reduction Postulate MS final state coincides with the statistical ensemble of such individual final states for $`O`$ described by density matrix of mixed state $`\rho _m^s`$ which presumably means the state collapse:

$$\rho _m^s=\underset{i}{}|a_i|^2|s_is_i|$$
(3)
In our ansatz where where $`O`$ regarded as quantum object interacting with S we can ascribe to MS the corresponding mixed state :

$$\rho _m=\underset{i}{}|a_i|^2|s_is_i||O_iO_i|$$
(4)
Normally the states in two RFs are connected by some unitary transformation , but no such transformation between (4) in $`O`$ RF and (2) in $`O^{}`$ RF is possible . It’s quite difficult to doubt both in correctness of $`O^{}`$ description of MS evolution by Schrodinger equation and in collapse experimental observations. If observers regarded as quantum objects and accounted in measurement chain then this contradiction constitutes famous Wigner dilemma or ’Friend Paradox’ for $`O,O^{}`$ . From $`O`$ ’point of view’ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}`$ describes superposition of two contradictory impressions : $`Q=q_1`$ or $`Q=q_2`$ percepted simultaneously. This paradox prompts to investigate possible QM formalism modifications and first one should investigate QM formalism of system description ’from inside’.

For realistic IGUS $`|O_{1,2}`$ can correspond to some excitations of $`O`$ internal collective DFs like phonons, etc., which memorize this $`Q`$ information, but we don’t consider its particular physical mechanism here. It’s necessary to formulate in our theory some minimal assumptions about relation between the observer states and his perception of the input quantum signal. We’ll suppose that for any Q eigenstate $`|s_i`$ after S measurement finished at $`t>t_1`$ and $`O`$ state is $`|O_i`$ observer $`O`$ have the impression that the measurement event occurred and the value of outcome is $`q_i`$. If S state is the superposition $`\psi _s`$ then we’ll suppose that its measurement also result in appearance of some arbitrary $`O`$ impression which properties will be discussed below. We stress that we don’t suppose any special properties of biological systems. The simplest $`O`$ toy-model of information memorization is hydrogen-like atom for which $`O_0`$ is ground state and $`O_i`$ are the metastable levels excited by $`s_i`$, resulting into final S - $`O`$ entangled state. This considerations have little importance for the following formalism rather they explain our philosophy of impressions-states relation.

Here we assumed that at $`t>t_1`$ measurement finished with probability $`1`$, but for realistic measurement Hamiltonians it’s only approximately true, because transition amplitudes have long tails. This assumption exactly fulfilled only for some simple models like Coleman-Hepp, but we’ll apply it here to simplify our analysis. The more subtle question of exact time at which $`O`$ percepts its own final state $`O_j`$ isn’t important at this stage. We’ll assume that after S-$`O`$ interaction S leaves $`O`$ volume, which can be regarded as MS ’self-decoherence’. Thus final MS state quantum phase becomes unavailable for $`O`$. The practical decoherence mechanisms and their effects will be discussed in final chapter .

To discuss $`O`$ selfdescription let’s start with Breuer selfmeasurement theorem which is valid both for classical and quantum measurements . Any measurement of studied system MS is the mapping of MS states set $`N_S`$ on observer states set $`N_O`$. For the situations when observer $`O`$ is the part of the studied system MS \- measurement from inside, $`N_O`$ is $`N_S`$ subset and $`O`$ state in this case is MS state projection on $`N_O`$ called MS restricted state $`R_O`$. From $`N_S`$ mapping properties the principal restrictions for $`O`$ states were obtained in Breuer theorem. It proves that if for two arbitrary MS states $`S_{MS},S_{MS}^{}`$ their restricted states $`R_O,R_O^{}`$ coincide then for $`O`$ this MS states are indistinguishable. The origin of this effect is easy to understand : $`O`$ has less number of DFs then MS and so can’t describe completely MS state. For quantum measurements $`O`$ restricted state can be the partial trace of complete MS state (2) :

$$R_O=Tr_s\widehat{\rho }_{MS}=|a_i|^2|O_iO_i|$$
(5)
$`R_O`$ can be interpreted as $`O`$ subjective state which describe his subjective perception. Note that for MS mixed state $`\rho _m`$ of (4) the corresponding restricted state is the same $`R_O^m=R_O`$. This equality doesn’t mean collapse of MS state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}`$, because it holds for statistics of quantum ensembles, but collapse appearance also must be tested specially for individual events states. Such restricted $`R_O`$ form assumes that O can percept only his internal excitations independently of quantum correlations with S state. This assumption can be wrong for quantum systems due to well known quantum entanglement and in fact its study shows that from equality of restricted states doesn’t follows the transition of pure system state to mixed one.

Exploring individual events it’s important to note that for mixed incoming state S MS individual state in event $`n`$ differs from statistical state (4) and is equal to :

$$\rho _n^m=|O_lO_l||s_ls_l|$$

with arbitrary, random $`l(n)`$ which in standard QM objectively exists in event $`n`$, but can be initially unknown for $`O`$ . Its restricted state is $`R_O^n=|O_lO_l|`$ and so differs always from $`R_O`$ of (5). Due to it main condition of Breuer Theorem violated and so this theorem isn’t applicable for this situation and $`O`$ can differentiate pure/mixed states ’from inside’. It means that the restricted states ansatz doesn’t prove the collapse appearance in standard QM formalism even with inclusion of observer quantum effects in the measurement models. The analogous conclusions follows from the critical analysis of Witnessing interpretation . As we noticed already statistical restricted states for mixed and pure states $`R_O^m,R_O`$ coincide, but it doesn’t mean as Breuer claims that in ensemble observer $`O`$ can’t differ pure and mixed state. The reason is that $`O`$ can analyse ensemble properties not only statistically, but on event by event basis regarding $`N`$-events restricted state which is tensor product of $`N`$ $`R_O^n`$ states which all components differ from $`R_O`$. Really it would be strange otherwise if in each event pure and meixed state differs, but ensemble of events don’t reveal any difference.

Additional arguments in favor of this conclusion reveals MS interference term observable :

$$B=|O_1O_2||s_1s_2|+j.c.$$
(6)
being measured by $`O^{}`$ gives $`\overline{B}=0`$ for mixed MS state (4) , but in general $`\overline{B}0`$ for pure MS state (2). It evidences that even for statistical ensemble the observed by $`O^{}`$ effects differentiate pure and mixed MS states. Note that $`B`$ value principally can’t be measured by $`O`$ directly, because $`O`$ performs $`Q`$ measurement and $`[Q,B]0`$ .

Breuer analysis is quite useful, because in fact it prompts the minimal modification of MS states set $`N_S`$ which can describe MS state collapse. Here we’ll demand that QM modification in our theory satisfy to two main operational conditions :
i) if S (or any other system) don’t interact with $`O`$ then for $`O`$ this system evolves according to Schrodinger equation dynamics (SD) (for example GRW theory brokes this condition ).
ii) If S interacts with $`O`$ (measurement) SD can be violated for $`O`$ so that he percepts random events, but in the same time as $`O^{}`$ doesn’t interact with S or $`O`$ i) condition settles that in $`O^{}`$ RF MS must be described by SD. It means that in such formalism MS final states relative to $`O`$ and $`O^{}`$ are nonequivalent . We’ll call this phenomena the weak (subjective) collapse which obviously has looser conditions then standard QM Reduction Postulate. We attempt to satisfy to both this conditions performing minimal modification of QM states set - which in standard QM is Hilbert space. This modified set must incorporate simultaneously both linear states evolution and random events observed by $`O`$, but Schrodinger dynamics must be conserved copiously if interaction with observer absent. It’s worth to remind that Hilbert space is in fact empirical construction which choice advocated by fitting most of QM data, and so QM states set modification isn’t unthinkable in principle. Such attempts were published already and most famous is Namiki-Pascazio many Hilbert spaces formalism . In standard QM formalism all its states manifold representations are unitarily equivalent, but observers interactions and evolution aren’t considered in it. It will be shown that our new formalism in some sense is analog of the nonequivalent representations of states manifold. Analogous superselection systems are well studied for nonperturbative Field theory (QFT) with infinite DF number . This approach was applied for measurement problem, but it’s not clear its applicability for finite systems .

Remind that experimentalist never observes state vector directly, but his data consists of individual random events like detector counts and the state vector reconstructed from observed random events statistics. Following this notion we’ll suppose that the perception by $`O`$ of individual events to large extent is independent of system state vector $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}(t)`$. This prompts to regard QM dual representations, in which state vector and observer information presented simultaneously by independent entities. To illustrate the formalism features and introduce its terminology let’s describe as example how such formalism describes $`O`$ measurement of some parameter $`q`$ with probabilistic distribution $`P^c(q)`$ which describe the classical statistical ensemble. For such $`P^c(q)`$ distribution (or $`P_l^c`$ array for discrete $`q`$ ) when $`O`$ measures $`q`$ he acquires instantly information about $`q`$ value and initial $`O_0`$ state changes to some $`O_j`$ correlated with measured $`q_j`$. Formally at this moment $`P^c(q)`$ collapses to delta-function, but in classical case this effect reflects only $`O`$ information change. For $`q`$ discrete the observer information $`O(n)=O_i`$ in given event $`n`$ presented by 1-dimensional matrix $`V_l^O=\delta _{li}O_i`$. For complete system description we can use formally the dual event-state as $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{clas}=P^cV^O`$. It incorporates statistical state of ensemble $`P^c`$ and $`O`$ information in the individual event $`n`$. and such dual form acquires nontrivial meaning for our modified QM states set. Note that $`V^O`$ by itself is unavailable to other $`O^{}`$, which can get this information only via signalling between this two observers, i.e. their interaction whcih in principle must be accounted.

To explain the main idea for the beginning we regard this new formalism applied to our MS system evolution. $`O`$ and $`O^{}`$ Hilbert spaces $`,^{}`$ will be our initial basis, and QM density matrices manifold $`L_q=(\rho 0,Tr\rho =1)`$ constructed of $``$ state vectors will be used. Analogously to classical example $`\rho `$ is one component of our dual state $`\mathrm{\Phi }(n)=\rho V^O(n)`$ and $`V^O`$ describes the outcome of individual event. Alike in standard QM $`\rho `$ obeys always including measurement process to Schrodinger-Liouville equation for arbitrary MS Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_c`$ :

$$\dot{\rho }=[\rho ,\widehat{H}_c]$$
(7)
which for pure states is equivalent to Schrodinger equation. Initial $`\rho (t_0)`$ states defined also by standard QM rules. Inside $`L_q`$ we extract $`O`$ restricted states analogously to (5) $`R_O=Tr_s\rho `$ and calculate in $`O`$ basis weights matrix

$$P_j(t)=Tr(\widehat{P}_j^OR_O)=Tr(\widehat{P}_j^O\rho (t))$$
(8)
where $`\widehat{P}_j^O`$ is $`O_j`$ projection operator. For (2) and $`t>t_1`$ it gives $`P_j=|a_j|^2`$ equal to standard QM reduction probabilities. We suppose that $`P_j`$ is the probabilistic distribution which describes individual events outcomes $`O_j`$ percepted by $`O`$ after S-$`O`$ interaction. In distinction from standard QM this subjective $`O`$ information in the individual event is only statistically correlated with final $`\rho (t)`$ at $`t>t_1`$ and described by random vector $`V^O=|O_jO_j|`$ in the individual event corresponding to observation of random $`Q`$ value $`q_j`$. Despite that $`O`$ percepts some random outcome $`O_j`$ due to regarded $`V^0`$ independence $`\rho (t)`$ evolves all the time according to Schrodinger-Liouville equation and doesn’t suffers the abrupt state collapse to $`\psi _j`$. Thus our dual state or event-state, which due to $`j(n)`$ randomness differs for each individual event $`n`$ for $`O`$ is doublet of dynamical and information component :

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_n=|\varphi _D,\varphi _I=|\rho ,|O_jO_j|$$
(9)
$`V^O`$ has the special ’information’ dynamics regarded below and only statistically correlated with $`\varphi _D`$. Before measurement starts $`O`$ state is $`|O_0`$ and the dual state is $`\mathrm{\Phi }=|\rho _{MS}(t_0),V_0^O`$ where $`V_0^O=|O_0O_0|`$, so that initial $`O`$ information described both by $`V_0^O`$ and $`\rho _{MS}(t_0)=|\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}^0\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}^0|`$ The time of $`V_0^OV_j^O`$ transition for $`O`$ is between $`t_0`$ and $`t_1`$ and can’t be defined in the current formalism with larger accuracy, but it doesn’t seems very imortant at this stage. $`O^{}`$ doesn’t interact with MS and due to it MS final state for her is $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}`$ of (2) as regarded in detail below.

Probabilities $`P_j`$ coincides with corresponding standard QM probabilities $`P_j^Q=Tr(\widehat{P}_{Sj}|\psi _s\psi _s|)`$ of particular outcome $`q_j`$. . If we restricts only to statistical ensemble description and aren’t interested in particular event outcome then statistical dual state can be defined :

$$|\mathrm{\Theta }^s)=\rho \{V^P\}$$

where $`\{V^P\}`$ is $`V_j^P=P_j`$ vector, describing probabilistic distribution of$`V^O=|O_jO_j|`$ outcomes in $`L_V`$ subset.

Complete manifold in $`O`$ RF for this event-states is $`N_T=L_qL_V`$ i.e direct product of dynamical and subjective components. $`L_V`$ is the linear space of diagonal positive matrices or vectors $`V^O`$ with $`trV^O=1`$ and consequently $`|\mathrm{\Phi }|=1`$ for all such states. If we restrict our consideration only to pure states as we do below then $`N_T`$ is equivalent to $`L_V`$ and the state vector can be used as the dynamical component $`\varphi _D`$. $`O_j`$ entangled with $`s_j`$ and in place of $`V^O`$ equivalent to it MS subjective dual state component $`V^{MS}=|O_jO_j||s_js_j|`$ can be used.

Naturally in this formalism $`O^{}`$ has her own subjective space $`L_V^{}`$ and in her RF the events states manifold is $`N_T^{}=^{}L_V^{}`$ for pure states. From the described features it’s clear that subspace $`L_V`$ is principally unobservable for $`O^{}`$ (and vice versa for $`L_V^{},O`$), because in this formalism only the measurement of $`\varphi _D`$ component described by eq. (7) permitted for $`O^{}`$. But $`V^O,V^O`$ can be correlated statistically via special measurement by $`O^{}`$ of dynamical component $`\varphi _D`$. For this purpose $`O^{}`$ can measure $`Q_O`$ on $`O`$ getting the information on $`V^O`$ content, which mechanism we’ll discuss in next chapter. Formally $`O^{}`$ also can ascribe to MS $`V^O`$ internal coordinate but $`j`$ value is uncertain for her in $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}`$ final state and so it has little sense. It means that $`O^{}`$ is sure that $`O`$ knows $`q_j`$ value, but $`O^{}`$ don’t know this value. In general if in the Universe altogether N observers exists then the complete states manifold described in $`O`$ RF is $`L_T=L_VL_V^{}\mathrm{}L_V^N`$ of which only first two subsets are observed by $`O`$ directly and all others available only indirectly via $``$ substates.

Standard QM reduction postulate also describes how the state vector correlates with the changes of observer information in the measurement. The main difference is that in place of abrupt and irreversible state vector $`\psi _s`$ reduction to some random state vector $`\psi _j`$ in standard QM in our formalism the dynamical component $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}`$ of MS event-state evolves linearly and reversibly in accordance with (7). It’s only subjective component which changes abruptly and probabilistically describing $`O`$ subjective information about $`S`$. We must stress that subjective or informational $`V^O`$ component of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ isn’t the new degree of freedom, but $`O`$ internal coordinate $`Q_O`$ which (self)description relative to $`O`$ doesn’t covered by MS Hilbert space $``$ vector $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ only. $`Q`$ information for $`O^{}`$ which don’t interact with S completely described by $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}`$, which means uncertainty $`q_{min}<Q<q_{max}`$. $`V^O`$ substate contains additional information $`Q=q_j`$ available for $`O`$ only. In such theory $`O`$ can percept only (random) part of the full state vector $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}`$ which continue to exist. Schrodinger dynamics and collapse coexist, by the price that S signal perception by $`O`$ occurs via this new stochastic mechanism. Despite we use term ’perception’ in our model it doesn’t referred to human brain specifically. We believe that as $`O`$ can be regarded any system which can produce the stable entanglement of its internal state and measured state S. As we mentioned already it can be even hydrogen-like atom in the simplest model for which $`O_i`$ can be different atomic levels. Perception corresponds to $`V^O`$ component presence which means that in such formalism $`O`$ states completely described only by $`O`$ ’from inside’ and not by any other $`O^{}`$.

Now let’s describe dual formalism for pure states in details. If S don’t interact with $`O`$ (no measurement) then $`V^O`$ is time invariant and one obtains standard QM evolution for event-state dynamical component $`\varphi _D=\mathrm{\Psi }`$ \- state vector. Thus our dual states are important only for measurement-like processes with direct $`O`$ interactions, but in such case it’s always the analog of regarded MS system. Its dual state is $`|\mathrm{\Phi }=|\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS},V^O`$ and its evolution defined by initial $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}(t_0)`$ and the formal system of equations :

$`i\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{MS}=\widehat{H}_c\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}`$
$`P_j=Tr(\widehat{P}_j^O|\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}|)`$ (10)
$`l=Rnd(P)`$
$`V^O=|O_lO_l|`$
where $`Rnd(P)`$ is the random numbers generator for $`P`$ distribution producing random index $`l(n)`$ in the individual event $`n`$. . The statistical dual state $`|\mathrm{\Theta }^s)`$ evolution defined by first two equations. The first equation of (10) is Schrodinger equation which becomes here the analog of master equation for probabilities $`P_j`$ describing $`V^O`$ probabilistic distribution.

Due to independence of MS dynamical state component $`\varphi _D`$ of internal parameter $`j`$ of $`V^O`$ this $`O`$-S $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ evolution is reversible. Thus in dual formalism no experiment performed by $`O^{}`$ on MS wouldn’t contradict to standard SD. If $`O`$ perform selfmeasurement experiment on MS the situation is more subtle and will be discussed in the next chapter. Note that in this formalism parameter $`j`$ don’t existed before S-$`O`$ interaction starts.

Above $`L_V`$ corresponds to the simplest measurement and in general it will can have much more complicated form corresponding to $`O`$ information channels and $`O`$ structure. As we noticed their parameters must correlate to the complex probabilities of standard QM . For example 2-dimensional values correlation measurement by $`O`$ has the distribution :

$$P_{ij}=Tr(\rho \widehat{P}_{1i}^O\widehat{P}_{2j}^O)$$
(11)
where $`\widehat{P}^O`$ are projectors on $`O`$ memory states $`|O_i^1,|O_j^2`$. Corresponding set structure is $`L_V=V^{O1}V^{O2}`$.

Extension of dual formalism on completely mixed states is obvious and here it presented only for the states interested for measurements of the kind (4). For them from eq. (8) naturally follows $`P_j=|a_j|^2`$ which gives $`V^O`$ distribution. In dual formalism the restricted MS state $`R^V=|O_lO_l|`$ where $`l(n_1)`$ in the individual event $`n_1`$ defined by (10). It differs from restricted state $`R_O`$ in standard QM given by (5), but coincide with restriction of mixed state $`\rho _n^m`$ in the individual event $`n`$ if $`l(n_1)=l(n)`$. Thus Breuer theorem condition fulfilled in dual formalism as expected.

Obviously in this formalism $`\overline{Q}`$ coincide both for $`O`$ and $`O^{}`$. If one interested only to calculate $`\overline{Q}`$ after S measurement by $`O`$ or any other expectation values ignoring event structure it’s possible to drop $`V^O`$ component and to make standard QM calculations for $`\rho `$. If one regards the statistical results for quantum ensembles then statistics in $`L_V`$ subspace corresponds to $`|a_j|^2`$ the probabilities of particular $`O`$ observation. Note that their meaning differs from $`O^{}`$ representation where they can’t be regarded as probabilities but only like some weights. Because $`O`$ observes random $`Q`$ values then if in addition to demand that $`\overline{Q}`$ coincide both for $`O`$ and $`O^{}`$ then one obtains that $`Q`$ distribution for $`O`$ described by $`|a_j|^2`$. Thus dual formalism gives naturally the values of outcome probabilities $`|a_i|^2`$ which is quite difficult to obtain in some theories explaining state collapse like Many Worlds Interpretations (MWI) .

To exclude spontaneous $`V^O`$ jumps without effective interactions with external world we introduce additional $`O`$ identity condition : if S and O don’t interact then the same random parameter j of $`V^O`$ conserved. We extend it to more general condition : if different $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}`$ $`O_j`$ branches don’t intersects i.e. $`O_i|\widehat{H}|O_j=0,ij`$ then $`V_J^O`$ conserved. As we noted it means that $`O`$ observes constantly only $`|s_j`$ branch of S state. Note that this condition doesn’t influence on MS dynamics defined by $`\rho `$, but only on dynamics of $`O`$ information $`V^O`$. Such condition is natural if $`P_i`$ can be regarded as transition probabilities $`V_0^OV_i^O`$ resulting from action of $`\widehat{H}_I`$. Really $`P_i`$ can be rewrited as :

$$P_i=|\mathrm{\Psi }_i|U(t_1t_0)|\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}^0|^2$$

where $`\widehat{U}`$ unitary trasformation in time. In this case if S-$`O`$ stops to interact $`\widehat{H}_I(t)=0`$ then all $`P_{ij}=0`$ and it’s compatible with absense of such jumps.

Note that in general the theory can be formulated even without this condition, because $`O`$ or any other observer can’t indicate that such jumps occurs. The reason is that in our model $`O`$ memory described by $`V^O`$ and if the jump $`ji`$ occurs no memory about previous state can be conserved. For more complicated memory structure such jumps should occurs simulteneosly in many cells with entangled states. Thus this condition simplifies the theory and make it more reasonable but in general isn’t necessary.

In our formalism parameter $`j`$ of $`V^O`$ defined at random with probabilities $`P_j=|a_j|^2`$ in S measurement. In general to calculate $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ evolution for arbitrary complex system MS equations (10) for MS Hamiltonian can be used and $`P_j(t)`$ found. Then from $`P_j(t)`$ at the time when S-$`O`$ interaction finished we find random $`V^O`$ which constitute stochastic component of our quantum dynamics. So if we have several S-$`O`$ rescatterings each time after the interaction finished we get new $`V^O`$ state component which effect in details will be discussed below. Note that practically we must be interested only in final $`O`$ state, because in this model $`O`$ has no memory about intermediate states.

We noticed already that in standard QM formalism in MS state (4) $`Q,Q_O`$ aren’t objectively existing for $`O^{}`$ which is serious argument against Witnessing interpretation . That’s true also in our ansatz, but in its framework in the same time $`Q`$ and $`Q_O`$ have objective values $`Q_j,Q_{Oj}`$ in $`O`$ RF. Note that the physical meaning of Hilbert space $``$ in our formalism differs from standard QM, because in it all its Hermitian operators are $`O`$ observables, but the operator $`B`$ of (7) isn’t observable for $`O`$. Due to it we can speculate that $`B`$ observable for $`O`$ transformed into stochastic parameter $`V_j^O`$, which seems natural generalization of standard QM on observer evolution. Really $`B`$ describes observer $`O`$ internal state parameters, and so such transformation don’t contradicts to standard QM applicability for any external objects. Realistic $`O`$ has many internal DFs practically unobservable for him and previously we assumed that they are responsible for randomness in the quantum measurement .

## 3 Collapse and Quantum Memory Eraser

To discuss measurement dynamics in our formalism for more subtle situations let’s consider several $`gedankenexperiments`$ for different selfmeasurement effects, the first one means ’Undoing’ the measurement. Such experiment was discussed by Vaidman  and Deutsch  for many worlds interpretation (MWI), but we’ll regard its slightly different version. Its first stage coincides with regarded S state (1) measurement by $`O`$ resulting in the final state (2). This S measurement can be undone or reversed with the help of auxiliary devices - mirrors, etc., which come into action at $`t>t_1`$ and reflects $`S`$ back in $`O`$ direction and make them reinteract. It permit for the final state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}`$ obtained at time $`t_1`$ at the later time $`t_2`$ to be transformed backward to MS initial state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}^0`$. In any realistic layout to restore state (1) is practically impossible but to get the arbitrary S-$`O`$ factorized state by means of such reversing is more simple problem and that’s enough for such tests. Despite that under realistic conditions the decoherence processes make this reversing immensely difficult it doesn’t contradict to any physical laws.

If we consider this experiment in standard QM from $`O`$ point of view we come to some nontrivial conclusions. When memorization finished at $`t_1`$ in each event MS collapsed to some arbitrary state $`|s_i|O_i`$. Then at $`t_2`$ $`O`$ undergoes the external reversing influence, in particular it can be the second collision with S during reversing experiment and its state changes again and such rescattering leads to a new state correlated with $`|s_i`$ :

$$|s_i|O_i|s_i^{}|O_0$$

It means that $`O`$ memory erased and he forgets Q value $`q_i`$, but if he measure S state again he would restore the same $`q_i`$ value. Its statistical state is

$$\rho _m^{}=|O_0O_0||a_i|^2|s_i^{}s_i^{}|$$

But this S final state differs from MS state (1) predicted from MS linear evolution observed by $`O^{}`$ and in principle this difference can be tested on S state without $`O`$ measurement. In our doublet formalism it’s necessary also to describe subjective event-state component $`V^O`$ which after measurement becomes some random $`V_j^O`$. But after reversing independently of $`j`$ it returns to initial value $`V_0^O`$ , according to evolution ansatz ( 10) described in previous chapter. If such description of this experiment is correct, as we can believe because its results coincides with Schrodinger evolution in $`O^{}`$ it follows that after $`q_i`$ value erased from $`O`$ memory it lost unrestorably also for any other possible observer. If after that $`O`$ would measure Q again obtained by $`O`$ new value $`q_j`$ will have no correlation with $`q_i`$, but $`O`$ can’t make this comparison in principle.

Of course one should remember that existing for finite time intermediate $`O`$ states are in fact virtual states and differ from really stable states used here, but for macroscopic time intervals this difference becomes very small and probably can be neglected.

The analogy of ’undoing’ with quantum eraser experiment is straightforward : there the photons polarization carry the information which can be erased and so change the system state . The analogous experiment with information memorization by some massive objects like molecules will be important test of collapse models.

Note that observer $`O^{}`$ can perform on $`O`$ and S also the direct measurement of interference terms for (2) without reversing MS state. Such experiment regarded for Coleman-Hepp model in  doesn’t introduces any new features in comparison with ’Undoing’ and so we don’t discuss it here.

The second experiment is the comparison of two independent measurements. In first one at the initial stage $`O`$ measures $`Q`$ value of S at $`t_1`$ which results in MS state (2) for $`O^{}`$, but after it $`Q`$ is measured again by observer $`O^{}`$ at $`t_2>t_1`$. The interaction of $`O^{}`$ with MS results in entangled state of S,$`O`$ and $`O^{}`$ and so both observers acquire some information about S state. This state vector in our formalism is:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}^{}=|a_1|s_1|O_1|O_1^{}+a_2|s_2|O_2|O_2^{}$$
(12)
Such experiments discussed frequently due to its relation to EPR-Bohm correlations and here we regard only its time evolution aspects. Our question is : at what time $`Q`$ value becomes certain and S state collapse occurs for $`O^{}`$ ? In our formalism at $`t_1<t<t_2`$ observer $`O`$ already acquired the information that Q value is some $`q_i`$, reflected by $`\varphi _I=|O_iO_i|`$. In the same time Q value stays uncertain for $`O^{}`$, because relative to her MS state vector is (4) ,and $`O^{}`$ dual state is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=|\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS},|O_0^{}O_0^{}|$$

When at $`t>t_2`$ measurement by $`O^{}`$ finished Q value measured by $`O^{}`$ coincides with $`q_i`$. To check that Q value coincides for $`O^{}`$ and $`O`$, $`O^{}`$ can perform measurement both Q and $`Q_O`$ which is described by (11) and gives the same result as in standard QM. It don’t contradicts to the previous assumption that for $`O^{}`$ before $`t_2`$ $`Q`$ was principally uncertain. The reason is that in between $`O^{}`$ interacts with S and it makes Q value definite for him. This measurement demonstrates the subjective character of collapse, which happens only after S interaction with particular observer occurs. It contradicts with standard QM reduction postulate which states that if Q acquired the definite value relative to $`O`$ then its objectively exists also for $`O^{}`$ or any other observer. Then at $`t>t_1`$ MS state relative to $`O^{}`$ must be the mixture $`\rho _m`$ of (4). In our formalism at that time MS state vector relative to $`O^{}`$ is pure state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}`$ of (2) which isn’t $`Q`$ eigenstate. To test it experimentally $`O^{}`$ can measure $`\widehat{B}`$ on MS which don’t commute with Q. If our theory is correct then $`\overline{B}0`$ and thus MS state collapse doesn’t occurs at $`t=t_1`$.

It’s worth to remind that the state vector has two aspects : dynamical and informational in which $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is $`O`$ maximal information about the studied object S. Our formalism extends this aspect on the case when $`O`$ measures S and can have more information about S then ’stand-by’ $`O^{}`$. In its framework the state collapse directly related with $`O`$ information acquisition via interaction with S. The same information can be send by $`O`$ to another $`O^{}`$ by some material signal, for example photons bunch. When it measured by $`O^{}`$ it result for her into the entangled state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}`$ collapse to one of its components. Remind that in standard QM with reduction when $`O`$ measures S he also must send material signal to $`O^{}`$ which she must measure to acquier information on $`Q`$ value. So despite the formal difference between two theories is large the operational difference isn’t so significant.

Relativistic analysis of EPR-Bohm pairs measurement also indicates subjective character of state vector and its collapse . It was shown that the state vector can be defined only on space-like hypersurfaces which are noncovariant for different observers. This results correlate with nonequivalence of different observers in our nonrelativistic formalism. Hence we believe EPR-Bohm correlations deserve the detailed study in this dual framework.

## 4 Discussion

In this paper the measurement models which accounts observer (IGUS) information processing and memorization regarded. Real IGUSes are very complicated systems with many DFs, but the main quantum effects are supposedly the same for large and small systems and can be studied with the simple models. In our approach observers are material local objects which are nonequivalent in a sense that the physical world description can be principally different for each of them . Breuer theorem shows that inclusion of observer as quantum object into measurement model doesn’t explains collapse appearance. To obtain it it’s neccessary also to modify the quantum states set which makes it nonequivalent for different observers but conserves Schrodinger dynamics for each state.

Our doublet formalism demonstrates that probabilistic represention is generic and unavoidable for QM and without it QM can’t acquire any observational realization. Wave-particle dualism was always regarded as characteristic QM feature, but in our formalism it has straightforward description. This dual theory in its present form is the essencially phenomenological one. It don’t answers: ’ why state collapse exists in QM ?’, but describes for which quantum states set it can be done compatible with MS Schrodinger evolution observed by external $`O^{}`$. In our opinion its results evidences that the quantum state by its nature is closer to classical probabilistic distribution then to De Brogile wave, despite it doesn’t mean hidden parameters existence. To investigate its physical meaning we propose Information Causality Interpretation which we’ll be reported in forcoming paper . Here we note only that the key problem becomes the existence of the objective reality of any physical values i.e values independent of particular observer. Our formalism hints that no such reality is possible and any value has only subjective reality relative to particular observer.

Note that our formalism is principally different from Hidden Parameters theories where this stochastic parameters influence Quantum state dynamics and so differs from SD. In our model $`V^O`$ internal parameter $`j`$ is on the opposite controlled by evolution equation for quantum state, but don’t exists objectively before S starts to interact with $`O`$.

In dual formalism $`O`$ percepts only $`O_j`$ component of complete state vector $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}`$ and it’s not clear why other components aren’t observed. The tempting explanation can be related to Breuer theorem result which shows that $`O`$ selfmeasurement is always noncomplete. It’s possible to assume that in individual event $`O`$ can percept only random part $`O_j`$ of his effective physical state. Thus $`V^O(n)`$ information loss can be regarded as the consequence stochastic degeneration of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}`$ and to get more clear picture one should consider statistical state $`R_O`$. But it also doesn’t give complete MS description as was shown in Breuer papers . In addition remind that S initial state vector describes $`Q`$ fundamental uncertainty for $`O`$ i.e. its subjective information on S. When S-$`O`$ interacted corresponding $`O`$ internal DFs excited and its internal state correlated with S. It’s possible to assume that for $`O`$ internal states any uncertainty is excluded - i.e. $`O`$ knows his own state due to continuous interactions inside $`O`$ and initially uncertain $`Q`$ percepted as random but certain value. $`O`$ is the ’last ring’ of measurement chain and such singularity can appear.

It’s widely accepted now that decoherence effects are very important in measurement dynamics . But the frequent claim that collapse phenomena can be completely explained in its framework was shown to be incorrect at least for simple models . But in our model some kind of decoherence is also present in the form of self-decoherence when S departs from $`O`$ volume after interaction. In our model additional decoherence effects must appear via account of the interaction of $`O`$ with its environment E and its effects can be importatnt. Our approach to collapse is close to the decoherence attitude, where also any additional collapse postulate don’t used. The main difference is that Decoherence theory claims the collapse is objective phenomena which was proved to be true only in some crude approximation . We suppose that collapse has relational or subjective character and observed only by observer inside decohering system, while for external $`O`$ this system including E is pure.

As we proposed in the introduction our theory doesn’t need any addressing to to human observer consciousness (OC). Rather in this model $`O`$ is active RF which internal state excited by the interaction with the studied object. The situation with the measurement problem for two quantum observers has much in common with Quantum reference frames introduced by Aharonov .

Historically the possible influence of observer on measurement process was discussed first by London and Bauer . They supposed that OC due to ’introspection action’ violates in fact Schrodinger equation for MS and results in state reduction. This idea was critisized in detail by Wigner . In distinction in our dual theory OC perception doesn’t violate MS Schrodinger evolution from $`O^{}`$ point of view. But measurement subjective perception in it also performed by OC and its results partly independent of dynamics due to its dependence on stochastic $`V^O`$. This effect deserves further discussion, but we believe that such probabilistic behavior is general IGUS property not related to OC only.

Dual formalism deserves detailed comparison with formalisms of different MWI variants, due to their analogy - both are the theories without dynamical collapse . In Everett+brain QM interpretations eq. (4) describes so called observer $`O`$ splitting identified with state collapse . In this theory it’s assumed that each $`O`$ branch describes the different reality and the state collapse is phenomenological property of human consciousness. Obviously this approach has some common points with our models which deserve further analysis. In general all our experimental conclusions are based on human subjective perception. Assuming the computer-brain perception analogy in fact means that human signal perception also defined by $`\overline{Q}_O`$ values. Despite that this analogy looks quite reasonable we can’t give any proof of it. In our model in fact the state collapse have subjective character and occurs initially only for single observer $`O`$ . Copenahgen interepretation based heavily on the micro/macro world partition. Our theory indicates that if it’s sensible to discuss any world partition prompted by QM results it seems to be the division between the subject and the objects. Here subject is observer $`O`$ which collect information about surrounding world and the objects can include other observer $`O^{}`$.


format: text

text:
# SEARCH FOR “LARGE” EXTRA DIMENSIONS AT THE TEVATRON

## 1 Introduction

Many particle physicists have become convinced that the unification of particle interactions will require the presence of a total of ten spatial dimensions, three of which are within the reach of our senses and the others compactified at inconceivably small radii corresponding to the Planck length ($`R_P`$) of $`\mathrm{}/M_Pc10^{33}`$ cm, where $`(M_P)`$ is the Planck mass. Because it is unlikely that our governments will ever provide accelerators that can challenge the Planckian regime, it was therefore exciting to learn of the possibility of sensing the impact of strings and quantum gravity at far lower energies.

It is commonly accepted that the Standard Model (SM) is a low-energy approximation to a more complete theory, the impact of which should become apparent at a scale of the order of the Higgs mass, i.e., $``$ 1 TeV. The two most popular candidates for such a theory have been based on supersymmetry and on strong dynamics. More recently, Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos and Dvali (ADD), suggested that there may be only a single scale in particle phenomena, that being the electroweak scale, which also corresponds to the effective Planck scale $`M_S`$ 1 TeV, provided that there exist extra dimensions compactified at far larger radii than the Planck length. This exciting idea has inspired experimenters and phenomenologists to search for such large extra spatial dimensions, and for the effect of quantum gravity in particle interactions.

The basic notion requires the particles of the SM to be localized to our four-dimensional world, but allows gravitons to propagate in all the large extra dimensions. In the presence of $`n`$ such dimensions, the potential in Newtons Law changes from its characteristic $`r^1`$ dependence to a steeper form:

$$V(r)=\frac{\mathrm{}c}{M_P^2}\frac{M_1M_2}{r}\frac{\mathrm{}c}{(M_P^{})^{n+2}}\frac{M_1M_2}{r^{n+1}}$$

where $`M_P^{}`$ is the Planck mass corresponding to $`(n+3)`$ spatial dimensions, and Newtons gravitational constant is $`G_N=\mathrm{}c/M_P^2`$. Clearly, the lack of departure from $`r^1`$ behavior for distances greater than $``$ 1 cm rules out the possibility that any of these extra dimensions are of macroscopic size. But for $`n`$ extra dimensions, compactified on sufficiently small (and same size) radii $`R`$, the gravitational energy for $`r>>R`$ retrieves its acceptable $`r^1`$ dependence, with $`M_P^2(M_P^{})^{n+2}(Rc^2/\mathrm{}c)^n`$. Hence, choosing $`R>>R_P`$, can effectively reduce $`M_P^{}`$, and thereby increase the strength of the gravitational coupling to $`\mathrm{}c/M_P^2`$ for the larger compactified dimensions. If $`M_P^{}`$ is taken as the electroweak scale $`M_S`$ 1 TeV, then its value becomes coupled to the compactification radius and to the number of such compactified dimensions of size $`R=(\mathrm{}/2\sqrt{\pi }M_Sc)(M_P/M_S)^{2/n}`$, where the extra factor $`2\sqrt{\pi }`$ is a consequence of applying Gausss Law on an $`n`$-torus.

Thus, for $`n=1,R8\times 10^{14}`$ cm; for $`n=2,R0.07`$ cm; and, for $`n=3,R3\times 10^7`$ cm. On the basis of the agreement of Newtons law with the $`r^1`$ dependence for gravitational interactions at macroscopic distances, we can exclude $`n=1`$. Using cosmological arguments (and recent measurements of the gravitational force at distances of the order of 0.02 cm ), ADD exclude a scale as small as $``$ 1–10 TeV for only two compactified dimensions. However, scales in this range cannot be excluded for 3 or more compactified dimensions, and they can be probed only through elementary particle interactions at high energies, where gravity is enhanced.

Compactified dimensions greatly increase the effective strength of gravitational interactions through Kaluza-Klein $`(G_{KK})`$ modes of gravitons. From the perspective of our (3+1) space-time dimensions, the $`G_{KK}`$ modes correspond to massive gravitons, with excitations spaced at $`\mathrm{}c/R`$. Each mode couples with strength $`G_N`$, but, because of the large number of modes at high energies, gravitational coupling is greatly increased (to the order of $`\mathrm{}c/M_S^2)`$.

Kaluza-Klein gravitons couple to the energy-momentum tensor, and signatures for large extra dimensions depend on whether the $`G_{KK}`$ in particle interactions are real (emitted in collisions) or whether they are virtual (and do not leave our SM world). Thus, the impact of virtual $`G_{KK}`$ can be observed in reactions such as $`q\overline{q}G_{KK}\gamma \gamma `$ , or $`ggG_{KK}e^+e^{}`$, etc. $`G_{KK}`$ emission can lead to apparent violation of energy and momentum (as well as of angular momentum) conservation when the graviton has components in the bulk that escape the brane of the SM, e.g., $`q\overline{q}G_{KK}+g`$, or $`e^+e^{}G_{KK}+\gamma `$, etc. The characteristic signatures for contributions from virtual $`G_{KK}`$ correspond to yields of massive systems beyond rates expected on the basis of the SM, while direct emission of $`G_{KK}`$ results in an increase of the yield of events with large apparent imbalance in transverse momentum (or “missing $`E_T\mathrm{"}`$, $`\overline{)}E_T`$), in particular, mono-jet events.

Limits on $`M_S`$ of $``$ 1 TeV have already been reported from LEP, and somewhat weaker limits (from searches for virtual graviton contributions) have been published by experiments at HERA.

## 2 Virtual Graviton Effects

In this paper, we focus on virtual $`G_{KK}`$ effects, primarily because the analyses of direct emission have not as yet been completed at the Tevatron. Also, since the results on virtual $`G_{KK}`$ emission from CDF will not become available before Spring 2001, we report only on the work from DØ.

For the case of virtual graviton contributions, the amplitude for $`G_{KK}`$ exchange has to be added coherently to that from the SM, because processes such as $`q\overline{q}\gamma ^{}e^+e^{}`$ and $`q\overline{q}G_{KK}e^+e^{}`$ can provide important interference terms.

Three phenomenological formulations of the problem have appeared in the literature. These are equivalent, and differ only in their definitions of $`M_S`$. DØ follows the more sophisticated phenomenology, which contains a dependence of the cross section on $`n`$. The correspondence between the three definitions of scale is that $`M_S(n=5)M_S(\lambda =+1)`$ of Hewett, and $`M_S(n=4)\mathrm{\Lambda }_T`$ of Giudice et al.

## 3 Analysis at DØ

DØ bases its analysis on both di-electron and di-photon signals. Since DØ did not have a central magnetic field in Run-1, the analysis ignores electric charge, and the cross section is therefore examined as a function of $`M_{ee}`$ or $`M_{\gamma \gamma }`$, and $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|`$, where $`\theta ^{}`$ is the angle of the $`e`$ or $`\gamma `$ relative to the line of flight of the $`ee`$ or $`\gamma \gamma `$ system (helicity frame). The analysis follows the Cheung-Landsberg extension of previous studies that were based on the use of only the mass variable in the problem.

Because the instrumental background (e.g., a jet mimicking a photon or an electron) in this search is small at large $`E_T`$, the signals for $`ee`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ are added together in the comparison of data to theory. This maximizes the reach of the experiment to highest mass scales because it allows a loosening of the usual strict electromagnetic (EM) shower requirements on both photons and electrons. The analysis ignores charged-particle tracking information in the detector, and relies purely on the observation of di-EM systems of high invariant mass ($`M_{_{EM,EM}}`$). The theory used to describe contributions from the SM and virtual gravitons is a leading-order (LO) calculation, and therefore is not affected by the summing of the $`ee`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ components. Nevertheless, the expected yields are corrected for higher-order effects through an application of a common “K-factor” of 1.3 (this probably underestimates the expected yield from gravitons at largest ($`M_{_{EM,EM}}`$). The criteria for the final 1250 candidate events require only two acceptable EM showers, each with $`E_T>45`$ GeV, and no missing transverse momentum ($`\overline{)}E_T<25`$ GeV). There are no requirements placed on jets. In addition, there is a less restrictive sample of di-EM events, that requires $`E_T>25`$ GeV, which is used to check EM efficiencies through a comparison to $`Zee`$ events.

The data are compared to the LO parton generator of Cheung and Landsberg, augmented with a parametrized DØ detector simulation package that models the acceptance, resolution, vertex smearing, and the impact of having additional vertexes from overlapping multiple interactions. As indicated above, the calculation applies a uniform K-factor correction to all SM and virtual-graviton cross sections, and even introduces a transverse impact to the di-EM system (assuming that it is the same as in the inclusive $`Z`$ data of DØ ). The corrections used to account for higher-order (incident gluon Bremsstrahlung) effects are relatively unimportant. The $`CTEQ4LO`$ parton distribution functions ($`PDF`$) are used to integrate the matrix elements over the incident parton distributions (with checks performed using other $`PDF`$s).

Most of the di-EM events arise from prompt di-photon, and, to a lesser extent, from $`e^+e^{}`$ production (usual SM processes). The background from more exotic channels, such as $`W+`$jets, $`W+\gamma ,WW,t\overline{t}`$, etc, is miniscule. The largest instrumental background ($`7\%`$ of the di-EM signal) is from multijet production, where two jets are misidentified as EM showers.

## 4 Comparison of Data with Monte Carlo

Figure 1 displays a comparison of data with the Monte Carlo model. The pseudorapidities and the $`E_T`$ of the two EM objects are in excellent agreement with expectations from the SM. A two-dimensional comparison between data and Monte Carlo is given in Fig. 2 in the ($`M_{_{EM,EM}},|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|`$) plane, and shows again the good agreement with expectations. Projections onto the $`M_{_{EM,EM}}`$ and cos$`\theta ^{}`$ axes are given in Fig 3, and confirm the qualitative features displayed in Fig. 2.

With no excess apparent beyond expectations of the SM, DØ proceeds to calculate a lower limit on the graviton contribution to the di-EM cross section. The cross section as a function of $`M_{_{EM,EM}}`$ and $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|`$ can be written as:

$$\sigma =\sigma (SM)+\eta \times \sigma _4+\eta ^2\times \sigma _8$$

where $`\eta =F/M_{S}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}`$, and $`F=2/(n2),`$ for $`n>2`$, and where $`\sigma (SM)`$ represents the cross section for the SM, $`\sigma _8`$ the pure graviton contribution, and the term linear in $`\eta `$ is the interference between the two. (The Monte Carlo does not include the $`gg\gamma \gamma `$ source of the SM, because it is quite small at large $`M_{_{EM,EM}}`$.) The three contributions to the Monte Carlo are displayed in Fig. 4, along with the impact on the total $`\sigma `$ of a contribution from $`G_{KK}`$ for $`M_S`$= 1 TeV and $`n=4`$. It is clear that the addition of $`G_{KK}`$ increases the yield at large $`M_{_{EM,EM}}`$, especially for small values of $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|`$.

The expected sensitivity to $`\eta `$ is obtained from a fit of the above formula for the cross section ($`\sigma `$) to Monte Carlo samples that do not contain graviton components, and have statistics appropriate to the DØ data, which corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 127 events/pb. Such fits yield an expected sensitivity of $`\eta <0.44`$ TeV-4. The DØ fits are performed using a Bayesian formalism that yields the likelihood for $`\eta `$, and the expected limit of $`0.44`$ TeV-4 corresponds to an upper limit at 95% confidence. (The procedure is also checked using a frequentist maximum likelihood.)

The result of a similar fit to the data rather than to Monte Carlo, yields an upper limit of $`0.46`$ TeV-4, which provides a lower limit on the value of $`M_S`$ that depends somewhat on the value of $`n`$. In particular, $`M_S>1.44`$ TeV for $`n=3`$, and $`M_S>0.97`$ TeV for $`n=7`$. The case for $`n=2`$ is more delicate, but not of great interest, considering our previous remarks on this issue.

## 5 Summary

In summary, DØ has presented first results of a search for contributions of virtual gravitons to production processes at the Tevatron. Based on an analysis of massive e-pairs and di-photons, in the context of the ADD scenario of large extra dimensions and a single mass scale in the domain of particle interactions, that mass scale must be greater than 1.0–1.5 TeV. These 95% confidence limits are comparable to the final results anticipated from LEP. Because of the ambiguities inherent in the definition of $`M_S`$, e.g., from the cut-off required on the effective theory, it is important to check the scales under different conditions. More studies are forthcoming from CDF and D0 on real graviton emission (mono-jet events), as well as on virtual graviton exchange, which by the end of Run-2, should be sensitive to scales of 3-4 TeV. Beyond that lies the LHC, with sensitivity up to 10 TeV, beyond which the ADD idea, if not confirmed, will likely lose much of its intriguing appeal.

## 6 Acknowledgements

I thank Greg Landsberg and my colleagues at DØ for providing me the material I presented at Cairo, and also Landsberg for his comments on this manuscript. Finally, I wish to thank Shaaban Khalil for organizing this conference at such a wonderful location, and for allowing speakers from the Tevatron to infiltrate the program.


text:
# Nucleon Decay Matrix Elements from Lattice QCD

## 1 Introduction

Nucleon decay is one of the most exciting predictions of grand unified theories (GUTs) regardless of the existence of supersymmetry (SUSY). Although none of the decay modes have been detected up to now, experimental efforts over the years have pushed the lower limit on the partial lifetimes of the nucleon$`^\mathrm{?}`$, which can give a constraint on (SUSY-)GUTs. Moreover, exciting plans for the next generation of the Super-Kamiokande experiment to search the nucleon decay events are proposed in this conference$`^\mathrm{?}`$.

On the theoretical side predictions of the nucleon partial lifetimes suffer from various uncertainties. In general the partial lifetime of the nucleon decay process $`NPS+\overline{l}`$, where $`N`$, $`PS`$ and $`\overline{l}`$ denote nucleon, pseudoscalar meson and antilepton respectively, is given by

$$\tau |PS|𝒪^{B/}|N|^2|F_{\mathrm{GUT}}|^2,$$
(1)
with $`𝒪^{B/}`$ the baryon number violating operator that appears in the low-energy effective Lagrangian of (SUSY-)GUTs. $`F_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ denotes some function in terms of parameters defined in the (SUSY-)GUT models. Although the precise numbers of the nucleon partial lifetimes depend on the details of the theories beyond the standard model, which contain many unknown parameters, another main source of uncertainty is found in the evaluation of the hadronic part $`PS|𝒪^{B/}|N`$ in eq. (1). The matrix elements have been estimated by employing various QCD models. Their results, however, scatter over the range whose minimum and maximum values differ by a factor of ten$`^\mathrm{?}`$. Therefore, a precise determination of the nucleon decay matrix elements from the first principles using lattice QCD is of extreme importance.

Most important feature of our calculation is GUT model independence. All dimension-six operators associated with baryon number violating processes are classified into four types under the requirement of SU(3)$`\times `$SU(2)$`\times `$U(1) invariance at low-energy scales$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. If one specifies the decay processes of interest, namely the processes among (proton,neutron)$``$($`\pi ,K,\eta `$) +($`\overline{\nu },e^+,\mu ^+`$), we can list a complete set of independent matrix elements in QCD, and we calculate all the matrix elements.

We employed two methods to evaluate the nucleon decay matrix elements in lattice QCD. One is the indirect method in which the matrix element $`PS|𝒪^{B/}|N`$ is estimated from $`0|𝒪^{B/}|N`$ measured on the lattice employing the tree-level results of chiral Lagrangian. The other is the direct method which directly measures $`PS|𝒪^{B/}|N`$ on the lattice. In the previous lattice QCD studies the indirect method$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ gave values of the matrix elements 2 or 3 times smaller than those obtained by the direct method$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. Recently, however, we pointed out$`^\mathrm{?}`$ that the nucleon decay matrix elements $`PS|𝒪^{B/}|N`$ allow the contributions of two form factors for general lepton momentum, which should be disentangled in the direct method, and this explains the discrepancy between the direct and indirect estimations of the matrix elements found in the previous studies$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ where the separation was not made.

In this report we first formulate the method to calculate the nucleon decay matrix elements using the lattice QCD in Sec. 2. Our results and conclusions are given in Secs. 3 and 4. More details are found in Ref. 10.

## 2 Formulation of the method

### 2.1 Independent matrix elements for nucleon decays

The low energy effective theory in the baryon number violating processes is described in terms of SU(3)$`\times `$SU(2)$`\times `$U(1) gauge symmetry based on the strong and the electroweak interactions, which enables us to make a GUT-model-independent analysis. Our interest is focused on the dimension-six operators which are the lowest dimensional ones in the low energy effective Hamiltonian: operators must contain at least three quark fields to form SU(3) color singlet, and then an additional lepton field is required to construct a Lorentz scalar. Higher-dimensional operators are suppressed by inverse powers of heavy particle mass characterized by the theory beyond the standard model.

All dimension-six operators are classified into the four types under the requirement of SU(3)$`\times `$SU(2)$`\times `$U(1) invariance $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$:

$`𝒪_{abcd}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{D}_{iaR}^cU_{jbR})(\overline{Q}_{\alpha kcL}^cL_{\beta dL})ϵ_{ijk}ϵ_{\alpha \beta },`$ (2)
$`𝒪_{abcd}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{Q}_{\alpha iaL}^cQ_{\beta jbL})(\overline{U}_{kcR}^cL_{dR})ϵ_{ijk}ϵ_{\alpha \beta },`$ (3)
$`𝒪_{abcd}^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{Q}_{\alpha iaL}^cQ_{\beta jbL})(\overline{Q}_{\gamma kcL}^cL_{\delta dL})ϵ_{ijk}ϵ_{\alpha \delta }ϵ_{\beta \gamma },`$ (4)
$`𝒪_{abcd}^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{D}_{iaR}^cU_{jbR})(\overline{U}_{kcR}^cL_{dR})ϵ_{ijk},`$ (5)
where $`\overline{\psi }^c=\psi ^TC`$ with $`C=\gamma _4\gamma _2`$ the charge conjugation matrix; $`i`$, $`j`$ and $`k`$ are SU(3) color indices; $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$ and $`\delta `$ are SU(2) indices; $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$ and $`d`$ are generation indices; $`L_L`$ and $`Q_L`$ are generic lepton and quark SU(2) doublets with the left-handed projection $`P_L=(1\gamma _5)/2`$; $`L_R`$, $`U_R`$, and $`D_R`$ are generic charged lepton and quark SU(2) singlets with the right-handed projection $`P_R=(1+\gamma _5)/2`$. Fierz transformations are used to eliminate all the vector and tensor Dirac structures in eqs. (2)$``$(5).

Our interest exists in the decay processes from the nucleon to one pseudoscalar meson: (proton,neutron)$``$($`\pi ,K,\eta `$) +($`\overline{\nu },e^+,\mu ^+`$). Once these decay modes are specified, we can list the set of independent matrix elements in QCD from the operators of eqs. (2)$``$(5):

$`\pi ^0|ϵ_{ijk}(u_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{T}CP_{R,L}d^j)P_Lu^k|p,`$ (6)
$`\pi ^+|ϵ_{ijk}(u_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{T}CP_{R,L}d^j)P_Ld^k|p,`$ (7)
$`K^0|ϵ_{ijk}(u_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{T}CP_{R,L}s^j)P_Lu^k|p,`$ (8)
$`K^+|ϵ_{ijk}(u_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{T}CP_{R,L}s^j)P_Ld^k|p,`$ (9)
$`K^+|ϵ_{ijk}(u_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{T}CP_{R,L}d^j)P_Ls^k|p,`$ (10)
$`K^0|ϵ_{ijk}(u_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{T}CP_{R,L}s^j)P_Ld^k|n,`$ (11)
$`\eta |ϵ_{ijk}(u_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{T}CP_{R,L}d^j)P_Lu^k|p,`$ (12)
where we assume SU(2) isospin symmetry $`m_u=m_d`$ and use the relations

$`PS|𝒪_{LR}|N`$ $`=`$ $`PS|𝒪_{RL}|N,`$ (13)
$`PS|𝒪_{RR}|N`$ $`=`$ $`PS|𝒪_{LL}|N,`$ (14)
due to the parity invariance. All we have to calculate in lattice QCD are these 14 matrix elements. Other matrix elements can be obtained by using the exchange of the up and down quarks and the relations of eqs. (13) and (14).

### 2.2 Form factors in nucleon decay matrix elements

Under the requirement of Lorentz and parity invariance, the matrix elements between the nucleon and the pseudoscalar meson in eqs. (6)$``$(12) can have two form factors:

$$PS(\stackrel{}{p})|𝒪_L^{B/}|N^{(s)}(\stackrel{}{k})=P_L(W_0(q^2)W_q(q^2)iq/)u^{(s)},$$
(15)
where $`𝒪_L^{B/}`$ represents the three-quark operator projected to the left-handed chiral state, $`u^{(s)}`$ denotes the Dirac spinor for nucleon with either the up ($`s=1`$) or down ($`s=2`$) spin state, and $`q^2`$ is the momentum squared of the out-going antilepton. The contribution of the $`W_q`$ term in eq.(15) is negligible in the physical decay amplitude, because its contribution is of the order of the lepton mass $`m_l`$ after the multiplication with antilepton spinor. However, since the relative magnitude of the two form factors $`W_0`$ and $`W_q`$ is a priori not known, we have to disentangle these two form factors in the lattice QCD calculation. Hereafter we refer to $`W_0`$ and $`W_q`$ as relevant and irrelevant form factor respectively.

In our lattice QCD calculation we choose $`\stackrel{}{k}=\stackrel{}{0}`$ for the nucleon spatial momentum and $`\stackrel{}{p}=\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{0}`$ for the PS meson. In this case the Dirac structure of the right hand side in eq. (15) is given by

$`(W_0W_qiq/)u^{(s)}`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}W_0iq_4W_q& W_q\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\\ W_q\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{\sigma }& W_0+iq_4W_q\end{array}\right)u^{(s)}`$
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}W_0+(m_N\sqrt{m_{PS}^2+\stackrel{}{p}^2})W_q& W_q\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\\ W_q\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{\sigma }& W_0(m_N\sqrt{m_{PS}^2+\stackrel{}{p}^2})W_q\end{array}\right)u^{(s)},`$ (21)
where $`W_0W_qiq/`$ is expressed by a $`2\times 2`$ block notation; $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ are the Pauli matrices, and $`u_{}^{(s)}{}_{}{}^{T}=(1,0,0,0)`$ or $`(0,1,0,0)`$. Using the $`(1,1)`$ and $`(2,1)`$ components in the $`2\times 2`$ block notation of eq. (18), where the other components vanish, we can extract the relevant form factor $`W_0`$.

The need for the separation of the contribution of the irrelevant form factor was not recognized in the previous studies with the direct method$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. The values found in these studies correspond to $`W_0iq_4W_q`$ instead of $`W_0`$. We examine how much this affects the estimate of the matrix elements in Sec. 3.

### 2.3 Calculational methods

The nucleon decay matrix elements of eq. (15) are calculated with two methods referred to as the direct and the indirect ones. The former is to extract the matrix elements from the three-point function of the nucleon, the PS meson and the baryon number violating operator. The latter is to estimate them with the aid of chiral Lagrangian, where we have two unknown parameters to be determined by the lattice QCD calculation.

In the direct method we calculate the following ratio of the hadron three-point function divided by the propagators of the pseudoscalar meson and the nucleon:

$`R(t,t^{})`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_{\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{x}^{}}\mathrm{e}^{i\stackrel{}{p}(\stackrel{}{x}^{}\stackrel{}{x})}J_{PS}(\stackrel{}{x}^{},t^{})\widehat{𝒪}_{L,\gamma }^{B/}(\stackrel{}{x},t)\overline{J}_{N,s}(0)}{_{\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{x}^{}}\mathrm{e}^{i\stackrel{}{p}(\stackrel{}{x}^{}\stackrel{}{x})}J_{PS}(\stackrel{}{x}^{},t^{})J_{PS}^{}(\stackrel{}{x},t)_\stackrel{}{x}J_{N,s}(\stackrel{}{x},t)\overline{J}_{N,s}(0)}}\sqrt{Z_{PS}}\sqrt{Z_N}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L_xL_yL_z}}PS(\stackrel{}{p})|\widehat{𝒪}_{L,\gamma }^{B/}|N^{(s)}(\stackrel{}{k}=\stackrel{}{0})t^{}t0.`$
Here $`\widehat{𝒪}_{L,\gamma }^{B/}`$ denotes the renormalized operator in the naive dimensional regularization(NDR) with the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ subtraction scheme, and $`J_{PS}`$ and $`J_{N,s}`$ are interpolating fields for the PS meson and the nucleon, respectively. The subscripts $`\gamma `$ and $`s`$ are spinor indices; we can specify the spin state of the initial nucleon at rest by choosing $`s=1`$ or $`2`$. $`Z_{PS}`$ and $`Z_N`$ represent the residues of the PS meson propagator and the nucleon propagator. $`L_xL_yL_z`$ is the spatial volume of the lattice. In lattice QCD calculation we evaluate the Green functions numerically by the Monte Carlo method with supercomputer. We move the baryon number violating operator $`\widehat{𝒪}_{L,\gamma }^{B/}`$ in terms of $`t`$ between the nucleon source placed at $`t=0`$ and the PS meson sink fixed at some $`t^{}`$ well separated from $`t=0`$. Under the condition that the baryon number violating operator is sufficiently distanced from both the PS meson field and the nucleon field, which is required to avoid excited state contaminations, we can extract the matrix elements normalized by the spatial volume of the lattice.

The indirect method uses the tree-level results of chiral Lagrangian, which are given by

$`\pi ^0|(ud_R)u_L|p`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha P_Lu_p\left[1+D+F\right]/(\sqrt{2}f),`$ (23)
$`\pi ^0|(ud_L)u_L|p`$ $`=`$ $`\beta P_Lu_p\left[1+D+F\right]/(\sqrt{2}f),`$ (24)
$`\pi ^+|(ud_R)d_L|p`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha P_Lu_p\left[1+D+F\right]/f,`$ (25)
$`\pi ^+|(ud_L)d_L|p`$ $`=`$ $`\beta P_Lu_p\left[1+D+F\right]/f,`$ (26)
$`K^0|(us_R)u_L|p`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha P_Lu_p\left[1(DF)m_{N/B}\right]/f,`$ (27)
$`K^0|(us_L)u_L|p`$ $`=`$ $`\beta P_Lu_p\left[1(DF)m_{N/B}\right]/f,`$ (28)
$`K^+|(us_R)d_L|p`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha P_Lu_p\left[2Dm_{N/B}\right]/(3f),`$ (29)
$`K^+|(us_L)d_L|p`$ $`=`$ $`\beta P_Lu_p\left[2Dm_{N/B}\right]/(3f),`$ (30)
$`K^+|(ud_R)s_L|p`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha P_Lu_p\left[3+(D+3F)m_{N/B}\right]/(3f),`$ (31)
$`K^+|(ud_L)s_L|p`$ $`=`$ $`\beta P_Lu_p\left[3+(D+3F)m_{N/B}\right]/(3f),`$ (32)
$`K^0|(us_R)d_L|n`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha P_Lu_n\left[3(D3F)m_{N/B}\right]/(3f),`$ (33)
$`K^0|(us_L)d_L|n`$ $`=`$ $`\beta P_Lu_n\left[3(D3F)m_{N/B}\right]/(3f),`$ (34)
$`\eta |(ud_R)u_L|p`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha P_Lu_p\left[1(D3F)\right]/(\sqrt{6}f),`$ (35)
$`\eta |(ud_L)u_L|p`$ $`=`$ $`\beta P_Lu_p\left[3(D3F)\right]/(\sqrt{6}f),`$ (36)
where $`f`$ is the pion decay constant; $`F`$ and $`D`$ parameters are determined from experimental results of the semileptonic baryon decays; $`m_{N/B}=m_N/m_B`$ with $`m_Bm_\mathrm{\Sigma }m_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We use $`PS|(\psi _1\psi _{2}^{}{}_{R,L}{}^{})\psi _{3}^{}{}_{L}{}^{}|N`$ as a shortened form of $`PS|ϵ_{ijk}(\psi _{1}^{i}{}_{}{}^{T}CP_{R,L}\psi _2^j)P_L\psi _3^k|N`$.

The expressions in eqs. (23)$``$(36) contain two unknown coefficients $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, which are to be determined by lattice QCD calculation. The definitions of $`\alpha `$ and$`\beta `$ parameters are given by

$`0|ϵ_{ijk}(u_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{T}CP_Rd^j)P_Lu^k|p^{(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha P_Lu^{(s)},`$ (37)
$`0|ϵ_{ijk}(u_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{T}CP_Ld^j)P_Lu^k|p^{(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta P_Lu^{(s)},`$ (38)
where operators are renormalized in the NDR scheme. $`p`$ denotes the proton state. These matrix elements are obtained from the ratio of two-point functions:

$`R^{\alpha \beta }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_\stackrel{}{x}ϵ_{ijk}(u_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{T}CP_{R,L}d^j)P_Lu^k(\stackrel{}{x},t)\overline{J}_{p,s}(0)}{_\stackrel{}{x}J_{p,s}(\stackrel{}{x},t)\overline{J}_{p,s}(0)}}\sqrt{Z_N}`$ (39)
$``$ $`0|ϵ_{ijk}(u^iCP_{R,L}d^j)P_Lu^k|p^{(s)}t0.`$
Incorporating the $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ values determined by the lattice calculation into the tree-level results of chiral Lagrangian, we can obtain the values of the nucleon decay matrix elements in eqs. (6)$``$(12).

## 3 Results

### 3.1 Details of numerical simulation

Our calculation is carried out with the Wilson quark action in quenched QCD at $`\beta =6.0`$ on a $`28^2\times 48\times 80`$ lattice. Gauge configurations are generated with the single plaquette action separated by 2000 pseudo heat-bath sweeps. We analyzed 100 configurations for the calculation of the nucleon decay matrix elements after the thermalization of 22000 sweeps. The four hopping parameters $`K=0.15620`$, $`0.15568`$, $`0.15516`$ and $`0.15464`$ are adopted such that the physical point for the $`K`$ meson can be interpolated. The critical hopping parameter $`K_c=0.15714(1)`$ is determined by extrapolating the results of $`m_\pi ^2`$ at the four hopping parameters linearly in $`1/2K`$ to $`m_\pi ^2=0`$. The $`\rho `$ meson mass at the chiral limit is used to determine the inverse lattice spacing $`a^1=2.30(4)`$GeV with $`m_\rho =770`$MeV as input. The strange quark mass $`m_sa=0.0464(16)`$($`K_s=0.15488(7)`$), which is estimated from the experimental ratio $`m_K/m_\rho =0.644`$, is in the middle of $`K=0.15516`$ and $`K=0.15464`$.

We calculate the ratio of eq. (22) with the nucleon field fixed at $`t=0`$ and the PS meson field at $`t=29`$. Four spatial momenta $`\stackrel{}{p}a=(0,0,0)`$, $`(\pi /14,0,0)`$, $`(0,\pi /14,0)`$ and $`(0,0,\pi /24)`$ are imposed on the PS meson in the final state. For the $`\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{0}`$ cases we provide different quark masses for the valence quark connecting $`J_{PS}`$ and $`\widehat{𝒪}_{L,\gamma }^{B/}`$ and the other valence quarks: $`m_2`$ is for the former and $`m_1`$ for the latter. By this assignment we can distinguish the strange quark mass from the up and down quark mass.

### 3.2 Nucleon decay matrix elements with direct and indirect methods

We first present the results of the nucleon decay matrix elements obtained by the direct method. In Fig. 2 we show time dependence of $`R(t,t^{}=29)`$ with $`|\stackrel{}{p}|a=\pi /14`$ for the matrix element $`\pi ^0|ϵ_{ijk}(u_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{T}CP_Rd^j)P_Lu^k|p`$ as a representative case. The result of constant fit is depicted by the set of three horizontal lines. We choose the fitting range to be $`8t16`$ for all the matrix elements of eqs. (6)$``$(12) such that the excited state contaminations in the nucleon and PS meson states can be avoided simultaneously.

Figure 2 shows $`q^2a^2`$ dependence of the relevant form factor $`W_0(q^2)`$ in the matrix element $`\pi ^0|ϵ_{ijk}(u_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{T}CP_Rd^j)P_Lu^k|p`$, where the operators are renormalized with the NDR scheme at $`\mu =1/a`$. The fitting result in Fig. 2 corresponds to the data at $`q^2a^2=0.0259(22)`$ in Fig. 2. The combination $`W_0iq_4W_q`$ is also plotted in Fig. 2 for comparison, which is obtained by following the method in Ref. 8. The magnitude of $`W_0(q^2)`$ is more than two times larger than that of $`W_0(q^2)iq_4W_q(q^2)`$.

To interpolate the relevant form factor $`W_0`$ to $`q^2=0`$, which is the on-shell point of outgoing antilepton, we employ the following fitting function:

$$c_0+c_1(q^2)+c_2(q^2)^2+c_3m_1+c_4m_2,$$
(40)
where we assume that the form factor could have the $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ dependences through the nucleon and PS meson masses. We extrapolate $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ to the chiral limit for the matrix elements of eqs. (6), (7) and (12), while $`m_2`$ is interpolated to the physical strange quark mass with $`m_1`$ taken to the chiral limit for the matrix elements of eqs. (8)$``$(11). The solid line and the open circle at $`q^2a^2=0`$ in Fig. 2 denote the fitting result of the data employing the function of eq. (40), where we find that the charged lepton masses $`m_e^2a^2=4.9\times 10^8`$ and $`m_\mu ^2a^2=2.1\times 10^3`$ are negligible in the current numerical statistics. The solid line expresses the function $`c_0+c_1(q^2)+c_2(q^2)^2`$ employing the fitting results of $`c_0`$, $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$.

Let us turn to the results obtained by the indirect method, which uses the tree-level results of chiral Lagrangian in eqs. (23)$``$(36). The $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ parameters at each hopping parameter are extracted from a constant fit of the ratio of eq. (39). Applying linear fits to the data as a function of quark mass $`m_qa=(1/K1/K_c)/2`$, we obtain $`\alpha (\mathrm{NDR},1/a)=0.015(1)`$GeV3 and $`\beta (\mathrm{NDR},1/a)=0.014(1)`$GeV3 in the chiral limit with the use of $`a^1=2.30(4)`$GeV.

In phenomenological GUT model analyses of the nucleon decays, the values $`|\alpha |=|\beta |=0.003`$GeV$`^3`$$`^\mathrm{?}`$ are conservatively taken as these are the smallest estimate among various QCD model calculations$`^\mathrm{?}`$. The previous lattice calculations, however, indicated values of these parameters considerably larger than the minimum model estimate above$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. Our results, significantly improved over the previous ones due to the use of higher statistics, larger spatial size, lighter quark masses and smaller lattice spacing, have confirmed this trend: the values we obtained are about five times larger than $`|\alpha |=|\beta |=0.003`$GeV3.

In Fig. 3 we compare the nucleon decay matrix elements obtained by the direct method with those by the indirect one using the tree-level results of chiral Lagrangian (squares), where we employ the expressions of eqs. (23)$``$(36) with $`\alpha (\mathrm{NDR},1/a)=0.015(1)`$GeV3, $`\beta (\mathrm{NDR},1/a)=0.014(1)`$GeV3, $`f_\pi =0.131`$GeV, $`m_N=0.94`$GeV, $`m_B=1.15`$GeV, $`D=0.80`$ and $`F=0.47`$$`^\mathrm{?}`$. We observe that the two set of results are roughly comparable. This leads us to consider that the large discrepancy between the results of the two methods found in Refs. 8,9 is mainly due to the neglect of the $`W_q(q^2)`$ term in eq. (15).

It is also intriguing to compare our results with the tree-level predictions of chiral Lagrangian with $`|\alpha |=|\beta |=0.003`$GeV3 (crosses). Our results with the direct method are $`35`$ times larger than the smallest estimates except $`\eta |(ud_R)u_L|p`$. Hence they are expected to give stronger constraints on the parameters of GUT models.

## 4 Conclusions

In this article we have reported progress in the lattice study of the nucleon decay matrix elements. In order to enable a GUT-model-independent analysis of the nucleon decay, we have extracted the form factors of all the independent matrix elements relevant for the (proton,neutron)$``$($`\pi ,K,\eta `$) +($`\overline{\nu },e^+,\mu ^+`$) decay processes without invoking chiral Lagrangian.

We have also pointed out the necessity of separating out the contribution of an irrelevant form factor in lattice calculations for a correct estimate of the matrix elements at the physical point. With this separation, the matrix elements obtained from the three-point functions are roughly comparable with the tree-level predictions of chiral Lagrangian with the $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ parameters determined on the same lattice. The magnitude of the matrix elements, however, are 3 to 5 times larger than those with the smallest estimate of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ among various QCD model calculations. Our results would stimulate phenomenological interests as the larger values of the nucleon decay matrix elements can give more stringent constraints on GUT models.

Major systematic errors conceivably affecting our present results are the scaling violations and the quenching effects. The former can be investigated by repeating the simulation at several lattice spacings; the latter is eliminated once configurations are generated with dynamical quarks, where it is straightforward to apply our method. We leave these points to future studies.

## Acknowledgments

This work is supported by the Supercomputer Project No.45 (FY1999) of High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), and also in part by the Grants-in-Aid of the Ministry of Education (Nos. 09304029, 10640246, 10640248, 10740107, 10740125, 11640294, 11740162).

## References