text:
# A new interpretation of one CPT violation test for 𝐾₀-𝐾̄₀ system.

## 1 Introduction

CPT symmetry is a fundamental theorem of axiomatic quantum field theory which follows from locality, Lorentz invariance, and unitarity . Many tests of CPT–invariance consist in searching for decay of neutral kaons. The proper interpretation of them is crucial. All known CP– and hypothetically possible CPT–violation effects in neutral kaon complex are described by solving the Schrödinger–like evolution equation  (we use $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$ units)

$$i\frac{}{t}|\psi ;t>_{}=H_{}|\psi ;t>_{}$$
(1)
for $`|\psi ;t>_{}`$ belonging to the subspace $`_{}`$ (where $``$ is the state space of the physical system under investigation), e.g., spanned by orthonormal neutral kaons states $`|K_0>\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}|\mathrm{𝟏}>,|\overline{K}_0>\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}|\mathrm{𝟐}>`$, and so on, (then states corresponding to the decay products belong to $`_{}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}_{}`$). The nonhermitian effective Hamiltonian $`H_{}`$ acts in $`_{||}`$ and

$$H_{}M\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma },$$
(2)
where $`M=M^+,\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$, are $`(2\times 2)`$ matrices.

Relations between matrix elements of $`H_{}`$ implied by CPT–transformation properties of the Hamiltonian $`H`$ of the total system, containing neutral kaon complex as a subsystem, are crucial for designing CPT–invariance and CP–violation tests and for the proper interpretation of their results.

The eigenstates of $`H_{}`$, $`|K_l>`$ and $`|K_s>`$, for the eigenvalues $`\mu _l`$ and $`\mu _s`$ respectively ,

$$\mu _{l(s)}=h_0(+)hm_{l(s)}\frac{i}{2}\gamma _{l(s)},$$
(3)
where $`m_{l(s)},\gamma _{l(s)}`$ are real, and

$`h_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(h_{11}+h_{22}),`$ (4)
$`h`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{h_z^2+h_{12}h_{21}},`$ (5)
$`h_z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(h_{11}h_{22}),`$ (6)
$`h_{jk}`$ $`=`$ $`<𝐣|H_{}|𝐤>,(j,k=1,2),`$ (7)
correspond to the long (the vector $`|K_l>`$) and short (the vector $`|K_s>`$) living superpositions of $`K_0`$ and $`\overline{K_0}`$.

Using the eigenvectors

$$|K_{1(2)}>\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}2^{1/2}(|\mathrm{𝟏}>+()|\mathrm{𝟐}>),$$
(8)
of the CP–transformation for the eigenvalues $`\pm 1`$ (we define $`𝒞𝒫|\mathrm{𝟏}>=|\mathrm{𝟐}>`$, $`𝒞𝒫|\mathrm{𝟐}>=|\mathrm{𝟏}>`$), vectors $`|K_l>`$ and $`|K_s>`$ can be expressed as follows

$$|K_{l(s)}>(1+|\epsilon _{l(s)}|^2)^{1/2}[|K_{2(1)}>+\epsilon _{l(s)}|K_{1(2)}>],$$
(9)
where

$`\epsilon _l`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{h_{12}h_{11}+\mu _l}{h_{12}+h_{11}\mu _l}}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{21}h_{22}+\mu _l}{h_{21}+h_{22}\mu _l}},`$ (10)
$`\epsilon _s`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{h_{12}+h_{11}\mu _s}{h_{12}h_{11}+\mu _l}}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{21}+h_{22}\mu _s}{h_{21}h_{22}+\mu _s}},`$ (11)
This form of $`|K_l>`$ and $`|K_s>`$ is used in many papers when possible departures from CP– or CPT–symmetry in the system considered are discussed.

One can easily verify that if $`\mu _l\mu _s`$ then:

$$h_{11}=h_{22}\epsilon _l=\epsilon _s.$$
(12)
The experimentally measured values of the parameters $`\epsilon _l,\epsilon _s`$ are very small for neutral kaons. Assuming

$$|\epsilon _l|1,|\epsilon _s|1,$$
(13)
one can, e.g. find:

$$h_{11}h_{22}(\mu _s\mu _l)(\epsilon _s\epsilon _l).$$
(14)
Keeping in mind that $`h_{jk}=M_{jk}\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk},M_{kj}=M_{jk}^{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kj}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^{}`$ (where $`M_{jj}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}M_j,(j=1,2)`$) and using (14) one can find, among others that

$`\mathrm{}(h_{11}h_{22})M_1M_2`$ $``$ $`(\gamma _s\gamma _l)[\mathrm{tan}\varphi _{SW}\mathrm{}({\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _s\epsilon _l}{2}})`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{}({\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _s\epsilon _l}{2}})],`$
where $`\mathrm{}(z)`$ denotes the real part, $`\mathrm{}(z)`$ \- the imaginary part of a complex number $`(z)`$, and

$$\mathrm{tan}\varphi _{SW}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\frac{2(m_lm_s)}{\gamma _s\gamma _l}.$$
(16)
Usually it is assumed that $`M_1,M_2`$ denote the masses of the particle ”1” and its antiparticle ”2” ).

One should remember that relations (14), (15) are valid only if condition (13) holds. On the other hand it is appropriate to emphasize at this point that all relations (9) — (15) do not depend on the specific form of the effective Hamiltonian $`H_{}`$ and that they do not depend on the approximation used to calculate $`H_{||}`$ . They are induced by geometric relations between various base vectors in two–dimensional subspace $`_{}`$ but the interpretation of the relation, eg., (15), depends on properties of the matrix elements $`h_{jk}`$ of the effective Hamiltonian $`H_{}`$. This means that, if for example, $`H_{}H_{LOY}`$, where $`H_{LOY}`$ is the Lee–Oehme–Yang effective Hamiltonian, then the interpretation of the relation (15), e.g., as the CPT symmetry test, and other similar relations need not be the same for $`H_{}`$ and for $`H_{LOY}`$.

The aim of this note is to analyze the interpretation of the test based on the relation (15) which is commonly considered as the CPT violation test , . Such an interpretation follows from the properties of the matrix elements of $`H_{LOY}`$.

In the kaon rest frame, the time evolution is governed by the Schrödinger equation

$$i\frac{}{t}U(t)|\varphi >=HU(t)|\varphi >,U(0)=I,$$
(17)
where $`I`$ is the unit operator in $``$, $`|\varphi >|\varphi ;t_0=0>`$ is the initial state of the system:

$$|\varphi >|\psi >_{}q_1|\mathrm{𝟏}>+q_2|\mathrm{𝟐}>_{||}$$
(18)
(in our case $`|\varphi ;t>=U(t)|\varphi >`$), $`H`$ is the total (selfadjoint) Hamiltonian, acting in $``$. Thus the total evolution operator $`U(t)`$ is unitary.

Starting from the Schrödinger equation and using the Weisskopf–Wigner method Lee, Oehme and Yang derived the following formula for the matrix elements $`h_{jk}^{LOY},(j,k=1,2)`$ of their effective Hamiltonian $`H_{LOY}`$ (see ):

$`h_{jk}^{LOY}`$ $`=`$ $`m_0\delta _{j,k}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{jk}(m_0)`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`M_{jk}^{LOY}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^{LOY},(j,k=1,2),`$ (20)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{jk}(ϵ)=<𝐣|\mathrm{\Sigma }(ϵ)|𝐤>,(j,k=1,2)`$, and

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(ϵ)=PHQ\frac{1}{QHQϵi0}QHP=\mathrm{\Sigma }^R(ϵ)+i\mathrm{\Sigma }^I(ϵ),$$
(21)
and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^R(ϵ=ϵ^{})=\mathrm{\Sigma }^R(ϵ=ϵ^{})^+,\mathrm{\Sigma }^I(ϵ=ϵ^{})=\mathrm{\Sigma }^I(ϵ=ϵ^{})^+`$, $`P`$ is the projector operator onto the subspace $`_{||}`$:

$$P|\mathrm{𝟏}><\mathrm{𝟏}|+|\mathrm{𝟐}><\mathrm{𝟐}|,$$
(22)
$`Q`$ is the projection operator onto the subspace of decay products $`_{}`$:

$$QIP,$$
(23)
and vectors $`|\mathrm{𝟏}>`$, $`|\mathrm{𝟐}>`$ considered above are the eigenstates of the free Hamiltonian, $`H^{(0)}`$, ( here $`HH^{(0)}+H^I`$), for 2-fold degenerate eigenvalue $`m_0`$:

$$H^{(0)}|𝐣>=m_0|𝐣>,(j=1,2),$$
(24)
$`H^I`$ denotes the interaction which is responsible for the decay process. This means that

$$[P,H^{(0)}]=0.$$
(25)
The condition guaranteeing the occurrence of transitions between subspaces $`_{}`$ and $`_{}`$, i.e., the decay process of states in $`_{}`$, can be written as follows

$$[P,H^I]0,$$
(26)
that is

$$[P,H]0,$$
(27)
The operator $`H_{LOY}`$ has the following form

$$H_{LOY}=PHP\mathrm{\Sigma }(m_0)PHP\mathrm{\Sigma }(m_0),$$
(28)
where $`PHPPH^{(0)}P+PH^IP`$, and, in the considered case

$$PH^{(0)}Pm_0P,$$
(29)
and (see )

$$PH^IP0.$$
(30)
Following the method used by LOY, assumption (30) may be either kept or dropped. This has no effect on the CP– and CPT–transformation properties of the matrix elements of $`H_{LOY}`$ and conclusions derived in this paper. The assumption (30) is a reflection of the opinion of physicists following the ideas of  and deriving and then applying $`H_{LOY}`$ that matrix elements of $`H^I`$ are too small in comparison with $`m_0`$ in order to have any measurable effect on time evolution in $`_{||}`$ (see ). Indeed, in some papers (see, eg., ), instead of (30) the assumption that $`PH^IP0`$ is introduced by hand into formulae for matrix elements of $`H_{LOY}`$ without verifying whether it results in the final form of $`H_{LOY}`$ or not. It appears that the properties of such $`H_{LOY}`$ do not differ from the properties of the LOY effective Hamiltonian derived within the use of the assumption (30). In other words, the approximation applied by LOY in  leads to the operator $`H_{LOY}`$ whose CP– and CPT–transformation properties do not depend on whether $`PH^IP0`$, that is $`H_{12}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}<\mathrm{𝟏}|H|\mathrm{𝟐}>0`$, or not. (Note that within the LOY assumptions $`H_{12}<\mathrm{𝟏}|H^I|\mathrm{𝟐}>`$). This property of the LOY approximation means that, for example, the verification of the presence (or absence) of the hypothetical superweak interactions causing the direct, first order $`K_0\overline{K}_0`$, $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=2`$, transitions  in experiments designed within use of the LOY theory is very difficult and that the interpretation of results of such experiments can not be considered as definitive. The same refers to the problem of how to identify within the LOY theory effects caused by such hypothetical interactions and similar effects predicted by the Standard Model (SM) . In this place, in order to avoid possible misunderstandings, one should explain that from the point of view of the problems discussed in this paper, SM effective Hamiltonians, $`H_{eff}`$, for the problem under consideration, should be identified with $`H_{||}`$ (or $`H_{LOY}`$) but they can not be identified with the operator $`PHP`$.

Usually, in LOY and related approaches, it is assumed that

$$\mathrm{\Theta }H^{(0)}\mathrm{\Theta }^1=H_{}^{(0)}{}_{}{}^{+}H^{(0)},$$
(31)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the antiunitary operator :

$$\mathrm{\Theta }\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}𝒞𝒫𝒯.$$
(32)
The subspace of neutral kaons $`_{}`$ is assumed to be invariant under $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$:

$$\mathrm{\Theta }P\mathrm{\Theta }^1=P^+P.$$
(33)
Now, if in addition to (31) $`\mathrm{\Theta }H^I\mathrm{\Theta }^1=H^I`$, that is if

$$[\mathrm{\Theta },H]=0,$$
(34)
then using, e.g., the following phase convention

$$\mathrm{\Theta }|\mathrm{𝟏}>\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}e^{i\alpha _\mathrm{\Theta }}|\mathrm{𝟐}>,\mathrm{\Theta }|\mathrm{𝟐}>\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}e^{i\alpha _\mathrm{\Theta }}|\mathrm{𝟏}>,$$
(35)
and taking into account that $`<\psi |\phi >=<\mathrm{\Theta }\phi |\mathrm{\Theta }\psi >`$, one easily finds from (19), (21) that

$$h_{11}^{LOY}h_{22}^{LOY}=0$$
(36)
in the CPT–invariant system. This is the standard result of the LOY approach and this is the picture which one meets in the literature , . Property (36) leads to the conclusion that (see (12))

$$\epsilon _l\epsilon _s=0.$$
(37)
Therefore the tests based on the relation (15) are considered as the test of CPT–invariance and the results of such tests are interpreted that the masses of the particle ”1” (the $`K_0`$ meson) and its antiparticle ”2” (the $`\overline{K}_0`$ meson) must be equal if CPT–symmetry holds. Parameters appearing in the right side of the relation (15) can be extracted from experiments in such tests and then these parameters can be used to estimate the left side of this relation. The estimation for the mass difference obtained in this way with the use of the recent data  reads

$$\frac{|M_1M_2|}{m_{K_0}}=\frac{|m_{K_0}m_{\overline{K}_0}|}{m_{K_0}}10^{18},$$
(38)
and this estimation is considered as indicating no CPT–violation effect. This interpretation follows from the properties of the $`H_{LOY}`$.

Note that in fact the above interpretation of the relation (38) could be considered as the confirmation of the CPT invariance only if the property (36) were the exact relation. The accuracy of the LOY approximation was discussed, eg., in . According to these and other papers one can determine all parameters needed for the time evolution formulae in LOY theory up to the accuracy of $`\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_X}{m_X}10^{15}`$, where $`X=K_s,K_l`$, in terms of known quantities. In Khalfin’s papers , where the exact theory of time evolution in neutral $`K`$ complex was discussed, one meets an opinion that the magnitude of some ”new effects” predicted within such an approach can even be of the order $`\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_l}{m_sm_l}10^3`$. In  the same Khalfin’s ”new effect” was estimated to be of order $`<10^{11}`$. All these estimations and obtained in  rigorous result that $`h_{11}`$ can not be equal to $`h_{22}`$ in CPT invariant and CP noninvariant system show that the interpretation of test for neutral $`K`$ subsystem within the LOY theory can have more than one meaning and it can not be considered as crucial. This remark concerns especially tests of type (15) (where the result is of order given in (38)). So one should look for much more accurate approximations describing the time evolution in neutral $`K`$ complex and should try to interpret results of tests, eg., of type (15) within the use of this more accurate approximation and of the exact theory.

## 2 Beyond the LOY approximation

The more exact approximate formulae for $`H_{||}`$ than those obtained within the LOY approach (i.e. than $`H_{LOY}`$) can be derived using the Krolikowski–Rzewuski (KR) equation for the projection of a state vector , , . KR equation results from the Schrödinger equation (17) for the total system under consideration  (see also, e.g., ) and it is the exact evolution equation for the subspace $`_{||}`$. In the case of initial conditions of the type (18), KR equation takes the following form

$$(i\frac{}{t}PHP)U_{}(t)|\psi >_{||}=i_0^{\mathrm{}}K(t\tau )U_{}(\tau )|\psi >_{||}𝑑\tau ,$$
(39)
where $`U_{||}(t)PU(t)P`$ is the nonunitary evolution operator for the subspace $`_{||}`$, $`U_{||}(t)|\psi >_{||}`$ $`=|\psi ;t>_{||}_{||}`$, $`U_{}(0)=P`$, and

$`K(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(t)PHQ\mathrm{exp}(itQHQ)QHP,`$ (40)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\{1\mathrm{for}t0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}\mathrm{for}t<0\}.`$
The integro–differential equation (39) can be replaced by the following differential one (see , , )

$$(i\frac{}{t}PHPV_{||}(t))U_{}(t)|\psi >_{||}=0.$$
(41)
This equation has the required form of the Schrödinger–like equation (1) with the effective Hamiltonian $`H_{||}`$, which in general depends on time $`t`$ ,

$$H_{||}H_{}(t)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}PHP+V_{}(t).$$
(42)
In the case (27), to the lowest nontrivial order, the following formula for $`V_{||}(t)`$ has been found in

$$V_{}(t)V_{}^{(1)}(t)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}i_0^{\mathrm{}}K(t\tau )\mathrm{exp}[i(t\tau )PHP]𝑑\tau .$$
(43)
All steps leading to the approximate formula (43) for $`V_{}^{(1)}(t)`$ are well defined (see ).

We are rather interested in the properties of the system at long time period, at the same for which the LOY approximation was calculated, and therefore we will consider the properties of

$$V_{||}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}V_{||}^{(1)}(t),$$
(44)
instead of the general case $`V_{||}(t)V_{||}^{(1)}(t)`$.

For simplicity we assume that the CPT–symmetry is conserved in our system, that is that the condition (34) holds. The consequence of this assumption is that

$$H_{11}=H_{22}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}H_0,$$
(45)
where

$$H_{jk}=<𝐣|H|𝐤>,$$
(46)
and $`(j,k=1,2)`$. In this case the matrix elements of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(ϵ)`$ have the following properties

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}(ϵ=ϵ^{})\mathrm{\Sigma }_{22}(ϵ=ϵ^{})\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(ϵ=ϵ^{}).$$
(47)
So, in the case of the projector $`P`$ given by the formula (22) for

$$PHPH_0P,$$
(48)
that is for

$$H_{12}=H_{21}=0,$$
(49)
one finds that

$$V_{||}=\mathrm{\Sigma }(H_0).$$
(50)
This means that in the case (48)

$$H_{||}=H_0P\mathrm{\Sigma }(H_0),$$
(51)
(where $`H_{||}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}lim_t\mathrm{}H_{||}(t)PHP+lim_t\mathrm{}V_{||}(t)`$), that is exactly as in the LOY approach (see (28)). This also means that in such a case simply $`(h_{11}h_{22})=0`$ when CPT symmetry is conserved.

On the other hand, in the case

$$H_{12}=H_{21}^{}0,$$
(52)
and conserved CPT, one obtains

$`V_{||}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }(H_0+|H_{12}|)\left[\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{|H{}_{12}{}^{}|}}\right)P+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|H_{12}|}}PHP\right]`$ (53)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }(H_0|H_{12}|)\left[\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{|H{}_{12}{}^{}|}}\right)P{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|H_{12}|}}PHP\right].`$
Matrix elements $`v_{jk}=<𝐣|V_{||}|𝐤>,(j,k=1,2)`$ of this $`V_{||}`$ we are interested in take the following form

$`v_{j1}=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j1}(H_0+|H_{12}|)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j1}(H_0|H_{12}|)`$ (54)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{H_{21}}{|H_{12}|}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j2}(H_0+|H_{12}|){\displaystyle \frac{H_{21}}{|H_{12}|}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j2}(H_0|H_{12}|)\},`$
$`v_{j2}=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j2}(H_0+|H_{12}|)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j2}(H_0|H_{12}|)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{H_{12}}{|H_{12}|}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j1}(H_0+|H_{12}|){\displaystyle \frac{H_{12}}{|H_{12}|}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j1}(H_0|H_{12}|)\}.`$
The form of these matrix elements is rather inconvenient for searching for their properties depending on the matrix elements $`H_{12}`$ of $`PHP`$. It can be done relatively simply assuming

$$|H_{12}||H_0|.$$
(55)
Within such an assumption one finds

$$v_{j1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j1}(H_0)H_{21}\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j2}(x)}{x}\begin{array}{c}\\ x=H_0\hfill \end{array},$$
(56)
$$v_{j2}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j2}(H_0)H_{12}\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j1}(x)}{x}\begin{array}{c}\\ x=H_0\hfill \end{array},$$
(57)
where $`j=1,2`$. One should stress that due to the presence of resonance terms, derivatives $`\frac{}{x}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{jk}(x)`$ need not be small, and so the products $`H_{jk}\frac{}{x}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{jk}(x)`$ in (56), (57).

From this formulae we conclude that, e.g., the difference between the diagonal matrix elements which plays an important role in designing tests of type (15) for the neutral kaons system, equals to the lowest order of $`|H_{12}|`$,

$$h_{11}h_{22}H_{12}\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{21}(x)}{x}\begin{array}{c}\\ x=H_0\hfill \end{array}H_{21}\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}(x)}{x}\begin{array}{c}\\ x=H_0\hfill \end{array}0.$$
(58)
So, in a general case, in contradiction to the property (36) obtained within the LOY theory, one finds for diagonal matrix elements of $`H_{}`$ calculated within the above described approximation that in CPT–invariant system the nonzero matrix elements, $`H_{12}0`$, of $`PHP`$ cause that $`(h_{11}h_{22})0`$.

From the formula (58) it follows that the left side of the relation (15) takes the following form in the case of very weak interactions allowing for the nonzero first order transitions $`|\mathrm{𝟏}>|\mathrm{𝟐}>`$

$$M_1M_2=\mathrm{}(h_{11}h_{22})=2\mathrm{}\left(H_{21}\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}^I(x)}{x}\text{ }_{x=H_0}\right)+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(59)
(Note that as a matter of fact assuming (24) one has $`H_{21}<\mathrm{𝟐}|H^I|\mathrm{𝟏}>`$ in (59)). Thus taking into account this result and the implications of the assumptions (48), (49) one can conclude that

$$\mathrm{}(h_{11}h_{22})=0|H_{12}|=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}$$
(60)
within the considered approximation. Finally, using result (59) one can replace the relation (15) by the following one:

$`2\mathrm{}\left(<\mathrm{𝟐}|H^I|\mathrm{𝟏}>{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}^I(x)}{x}}_{x=H_0}\right)`$ $``$ $`(\gamma _s\gamma _l)[\mathrm{tan}\varphi _{SW}\mathrm{}({\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _s\epsilon _l}{2}})`$ (61)
$`\mathrm{}({\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _s\epsilon _l}{2}})].`$
## 3 Discussion

The results (58) and (59) are in full agreement with the conclusions drawn in  on the ground of basic assumptions of quantum theory. Note that similar relation to (58) was obtained for CPT invariant system in  by means of another, more accurate than LOY, approximation. In  it has been shown that the diagonal matrix elements of the exact effective Hamiltonian governing the time evolution in the subspace of states of an unstable particle and its antiparticle can not be equal at $`t>t_0=0`$ ($`t_0`$ is the instant of creation of the pair) when the total system under consideration is CPT invariant but CP noninvariant. The proof of this property is rigorous. The unusual consequence of this result is that in such a case, contrary to the properties of stable particles, the masses of the unstable particle ”1” and its antiparticle ”2” need not be equal for $`tt_0`$. In fact there is nothing strange in this conclusion. From (34) (or from the CPT theorem  of axiomatic quantum field theory) it only follows that the masses of particle and antiparticle eigenstates of $`H`$ (i.e., masses of stationary states for $`H`$) should be the same in the CPT invariant system. Such a conclusion can not be drawn from (34) for particle ”1” and its antiparticle ”2” if they are unstable, ie., if states $`|\mathrm{𝟏}>,|\mathrm{𝟐}>`$ are not eigenstates of $`H`$. There is no axiomatic quantum field theory of unstable particles.

In this place one should explain that the property $`H_{12}=H_{21}=0`$, which according to (58) implies that $`(h_{11}h_{22})=0`$ in the considered approximation, does not mean that the predictions following from the use of the exact effective Hamiltonian (or the more accurate effective Hamiltonian than the LOY theory) should lead to the the same masses for $`K_0`$ and for $`\overline{K}_0`$. This does not contradict the above mentioned conclusion about masses of unstable particles drawn in  for the exact $`H_{||}`$: Simply, in the case $`H_{12}=H_{21}=0`$ the mass difference is very, very small and should arise at higher orders of the more accurate approximation described in Sec.2.

Using the above, briefly described formalism, one can find $`(h_{11}h_{22})`$ for the generalized Fridrichs–Lee model . Within this toy model one finds

$`\mathrm{}(h_{11}h_{22})\stackrel{\mathrm{df}}{=}\mathrm{}(h_{11}^{FL}h_{22}^{FL})`$ $``$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{m_{21}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}m_{12}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}}{4(m_0\mu )}}`$ (62)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}(m_{12}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21})}{2(m_0\mu )}}.`$
This estimation has been obtained in the case of conserved CPT–symmetry for $`|m_{12}|(m_0\mu )`$, which corresponds to (55). In (62) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}`$ can be identified with those appearing in the LOY theory, $`m_0H_{11}=H_{22}`$ can be considered as the kaon mass , $`m_{jk}H_{jk}(j,k=1,2)`$, $`\mu `$ can be treated as the mass of the decay products of the neutral kaon .

For neutral $`K`$-system, to evaluate $`(h_{11}^{FL}h_{22}^{FL})`$ one can follow, e.g.,  and one can take $`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}^{}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_s5\times 10^{10}\mathrm{sec}^1`$ and $`(m_0\mu )=m_K2m_\pi 200`$ MeV $`3\times 10^{23}\mathrm{sec}^1`$ . Thus

$$\mathrm{}(h_{11}h_{22})\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_s}{4(m_K2m_\pi )}\mathrm{}(H_{12}),$$
(63)
that is,

$$|\mathrm{}(h_{11}^{FL}h_{22}^{FL})|1,7\times 10^{13}|\mathrm{}(m_{12})|1,7\times 10^{13}|\mathrm{}(H_{12})|.$$
(64)
Note that the relation (63) is equivalent to the following one

$$\mathrm{}(h_{11}h_{22})i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_s}{4(m_K2m_\pi )}<\mathrm{𝟏}|H_{}|\mathrm{𝟐}>,$$
(65)
where $`H_{}`$ is the CP odd part of the total Hamiltonian $`HH_++H_{}`$. There are $`H_{}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\frac{1}{2}[H(𝒞𝒫)H(𝒞𝒫)^+]`$ and $`H_+\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\frac{1}{2}[H+(𝒞𝒫)H(𝒞𝒫)^+]`$ (see ). $`H_+`$ denotes the CP even part of $`H`$. We have $`<\mathrm{𝟏}|H_{}|\mathrm{𝟐}>i\mathrm{}(<\mathrm{𝟏}|H|\mathrm{𝟐}>)`$$`=i\mathrm{}(H_{12})`$. According to the literature, in the case of the superweak model for CP violation it should be $`<\mathrm{𝟏}|H_{}|\mathrm{𝟐}>i\mathrm{}(H_{12})`$ $`0`$ to the lowest order and $`<\mathrm{𝟏}|H_{}|\mathrm{𝟐}>=0`$ in the case of a miliweak model .

For the Fridrichs–Lee model it has been found in  that $`h_{jk}(t)h_{jk}`$ practically for $`tT_{as}\frac{10^2}{\pi (m_0|m_{12}|\mu )}`$. This leads to the following estimation of $`T_{as}`$ for the neutral $`K`$–system: $`T_{as}10^{22}`$ sec.

Dividing both sides of (64) by $`m_0`$ one arrives at the relation corresponding to (38):

$$\frac{|\mathrm{}(h_{11}^{FL}h_{22}^{FL})|}{m_0}1,7\times 10^{13}\frac{|\mathrm{}(m_{12})|}{m_0}1,7\times 10^{13}\frac{|\mathrm{}(H_{12})|}{m_0}.$$
(66)
So, if we suppose for a moment that the result (38) is the only experimental result for neutral $`K`$ complex then it is sufficient for $`\frac{|\mathrm{}(H_{12})|}{m_0}`$ to be $`\frac{|\mathrm{}(H_{12})|}{m_0}<10^5`$ in order to fulfil the estimation (38). Of course this could be considered as the upper bound for a possible value of the ratio $`\frac{|\mathrm{}(H_{12})|}{m_0}`$ only if there were no other experiments and no other data for the $`K_0,\overline{K}_0`$ complex. Note that form such a point o view the suitable order of $`\frac{|\mathrm{}(H_{12})|}{m_0}`$ is easily reached by the hypothetical Wolfenstein superweak interactions , which admits first order $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=2`$ transitions $`K_0\overline{K}_0`$, that is, which assumes a non–vanishing first order transition matrix $`H_{12}=<\mathrm{𝟏}|H^I|\mathrm{𝟐}>gG_F0`$ with $`gG_F`$. The more realistic estimation for $`\frac{|\mathrm{}(H_{12})|}{m_0}`$ can be found using the property $`\frac{|\mathrm{}(H_{12})|}{m_0}\frac{|<\mathrm{𝟏}|H_{}|\mathrm{𝟐}>|}{m_0}`$. One can assume that $`\frac{|<\mathrm{𝟏}|H_{}|\mathrm{𝟐}>|}{m_0}\frac{H_{}}{H_{strong}}`$. There is $`\frac{H_{}}{H_{strong}}10^{14}|\epsilon |`$ for the case of the hypothetical superweak interactions (see , formula (15.138)) and thus $`\frac{|\mathrm{}(H_{12})|}{m_0}10^{14}|\epsilon |`$. (Using this last estimation one should remember that it follows from the LOY theory of neutral $`K`$ complex). This estimation allows one to conclude that

$$\frac{|\mathrm{}(h_{11}^{FL}h_{22}^{FL})|}{m_0}1,7\times 10^{27}|\epsilon |.$$
(67)
This estimation is the estimation of type (38) and it can be considered as a lower bound for $`\frac{|\mathrm{}(h_{11}h_{22})|}{m_0}`$. (see also ).

Note that contrary to the approximation described in Sec. 2, the LOY approximation, as well as the similar approximation leading to the Bell–Strinberger unitary relations  are unable to detect and correctly identify effects caused by the existence (or absence) of the superweak interactions (the interactions for which $`H_{12}0`$) in the system.

Let us analyze some important observations following from (59), (61) and from the rigorous result obtained in . The non–vanishing of the right hand side of the relation (15) can not be considered as the proof that the CPT–symmetry is violated. So, there are two general conclusions following from (59), (60), (61) and . The first one: the tests based on the relation (15) can not be considered as CPT–symmetry tests and this is the main conclusion of this paper. The second one: such tests should rather be considered as the tests for the existence of new hypothetical (superweak (?)) interactions allowing for the first order $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=2`$ transitions.

On the other hand, one should remember that the non–vanishing right hand side of the relations (15), (61) can be considered as the conclusive proof that new interactions allowing for the first order $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=2`$ transitions $`K_0\overline{K}_0`$ exist only if another experiment, based on other principles, definitively confirms that the CPT–symmetry is not violated in $`K_0\overline{K}_0`$ system.

Unfortunately the accuracy of the today’s experiments is not sufficient to improve the estimation (38) to the order required by (66). This especially concerns the accuracy required by our ”more realistic estimation” for $`\frac{|\mathrm{}(H_{12})|}{m_0}`$. Simply it is beyond today’s experiments reach. In the light of the above estimations, keeping in mind (59), only much more accurate tests based on the relation (15) can give the answer whether the superweak interactions exists or not.

Last remark, other results  obtained within the approximation described in Sec. 2 suggest also that the form of other parameters usually used to describe properties of $`K_0\overline{K}_0`$ system is different for the case $`H_{12}0`$ and for the case $`H_{12}=0`$. This can be used as the basis for designing other tests for the hypothetical superweak interactions.