text:
# New Physics and Future B Factories

## I Introduction

All existing measurements of flavor and CP violation are consistent with the CKM framework. In particular, the two recent measurements of CP violation in $`B`$ decays  have provided the first precision test of CP violation in the Standard Model. Since the model has passed this test successfully, we are able, for the first time, to make the following statement: The Kobayashi-Maskawa phase is, very likely, the dominant source of CP violation in low-energy flavor-changing processes.

Still, further experimental and theoretical investigations of flavor and CP violation are well motivated. Here are some of the reasons for the interest in these aspects of high energy physics:

(i) The flavor puzzle. The flavor parameters of the Standard Model, that is the fermion masses and mixing angles, are small (except for $`m_t`$ and $`\delta _{\mathrm{KM}}`$) and hierarchical. The Standard Model offers no explanation for these puzzling features. Perhaps the special structure of the Yukawa couplings is a hint of new physics.

(ii) The supersymmetric flavor puzzle. Flavor changing neutral current processes are highly suppressed in Nature. This experimental fact is nicely accounted for within the Standard Model, where flavor changing neutral currents are absent at tree level. They appear at the loop level, but then they are suppressed very effectively by the small CKM angles and the GIM mechanism. Various extensions of the Standard Model need to have very special flavor structures in order to achieve similarly effective suppression mechanisms. The most striking example is supersymmetry. While tree level FCNC can be forbidden (together with baryon and lepton number violations) by imposing an $`R_p`$ symmetry, there is no similarly natural and generic way to suppress the loop contributions to flavor and CP violating processes. Experimental studies of flavor physics are then crucial for understanding the mechanism of dynamical supersymmetry breaking.

(iii) New sources of CP violation. Almost any extension of the Standard Model provides new sources of CP violation. These sources often allow for significant deviations from the Standard Model predictions. Moreover, various CP violating observables can be calculated with very small hadronic uncertainties. Consequently, CP violation provides an excellent probe of new physics.

(iv) The strong CP problem. It is presently not understood why CP violation is so small in the strong interactions. The upper bound on the electric dipole moment of the neutron constrains nonperturbative CP violating QCD effects to be at least ten orders of magnitudes below naive expectations.

(v) Baryogenesis. The observed baryon asymmetry of the universe requires that CP is violated, but quantitatively it cannot be accounted for by the Kobayashi-Maskawa mechanism. It is clear then that new sources of CP violation must exist in Nature.

The experimental program of $`B`$ physics has just entered a new era in precision, in sensitivity and in probing time-dependent CP asymmetries. We are trying to overconstrain the CKM parameters, and to test the Standard Model correlations and (approximate) zeros. Experimental studies of $`B`$ decays are guaranteed to enrich our understanding of flavor and CP physics:

(i) At the very least, these experiments will significantly improve the determination of the CKM parameters.

(ii) If low-energy supersymmetry is realized in Nature then, as explained above, the study of flavor physics (whether consistent or inconsistent with the Standard Model predictions) will provide unique information about high scale physics. We explain the relations between the mechanism of dynamical supersymmetry breaking and the flavor and CP physics in the next section.

(iii) At best, measurements of rare $`B`$ decays and related CP violation will allow us to make progress on the road to solving the flavor puzzle and/or the puzzle of baryogenesis. It is important, however, to realize that, in contrast to the fine-tuning problem of electroweak symmetry breaking, here there is no analogous argument that says that the relevant new physics must appear at a scale that is not too far above $`m_Z`$. The scale of new flavor or CP violating physics may be very high, well beyond the reach of $`B`$ factories.

## II The Supersymmetric Framework

Supersymmetry solves the fine-tuning problem of the Standard Model and has many other virtues. But at the same time, it leads to new problems: baryon number violation, lepton number violation, large flavor changing neutral current processes and large CP violation. The first two problems can be solved by imposing $`R`$-parity on supersymmetric models. There is no such simple, symmetry-related solution to the problems of flavor and CP violation. Instead, suppression of the relevant couplings can be achieved by demanding very constrained structures of the soft supersymmetry breaking terms. There are two important questions here: First, can theories of dynamical supersymmetry breaking (for a review, see ) naturally induce such structures? Second, can measurements of flavor changing and/or CP violating processes shed light on the structure of the soft supersymmetry breaking terms? Since the answer to both questions is in the affirmative, we conclude that flavor changing neutral current processes and CP violating observables will provide clues to the crucial question of how supersymmetry breaks.

### A Flavor and CP Problems

A generic supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model contains a host of new flavor and CP violating parameters. (For reviews of CP violation in supersymmetry see .) In fact, the Lagrangian of the minimal supersymmetric Standard Model has 124 physical parameters: 80 real ones and 44 imaginary ones . Most of these parameters are related to flavor changing couplings. In addition to the Yukawa terms of the Standard Model, we now have flavor violation in trilinear scalar couplings ($`A`$-terms) and scalar mass-squared matrices ($`\stackrel{~}{m}^2`$-matrices). In contrast to the SM, we now have also flavor diagonal phases, coming from the bilinear Higgsino coupling (the $`\mu `$-term), the bilinear Higgs coupling (the $`B`$-term) and gaugino masses ($`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}_a}`$). Supersymmetry provides an impressive demonstration that low energy flavor physics might be richer than the CKM framework.

The requirement of consistency with experimental data provides strong constraints on many of these parameters. For this reason, the physics of flavor and CP violation has had a profound impact on supersymmetric model building. The supersymmetric flavor problem and the supersymmetric CP problem are well represented by the predictions for the mass difference ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K`$) and CP violation ($`\epsilon _K`$) in $`K^0\overline{K^0}`$ mixing and by the electric dipole moment of the neutron ($`d_N`$).

The supersymmetric contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K`$ is dominated by diagrams involving $`Q`$ ($`SU(2)_\mathrm{L}`$ doublet) and $`\overline{D}`$ (down singlet) squarks in the same loop. To simplify our presentation, we assume that there is a single scale $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ that characterizes all supersymmetry breaking terms, that is, $`\stackrel{~}{m}m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}m_{\stackrel{~}{D}}`$ (our results depend only weakly on this assumption). We focus on the contribution from the first two squark families (see, for example, ):

$$\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }m_K)^{\mathrm{SUSY}}}{(\mathrm{\Delta }m_K)^{\mathrm{EXP}}}10^5\left(\frac{300GeV}{\stackrel{~}{m}}\right)^2\left(\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}_2}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}_1}^2}{\stackrel{~}{m}^2}\right)\left(\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{D}_2}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{D}_1}^2}{\stackrel{~}{m}^2}\right)\text{Re}\left[(K_L^d)_{12}(K_R^d)_{12}\right],$$
(1)
where $`K_L^d`$ ($`K_R^d`$) are the mixing matrices in the gluino couplings to left-handed (right-handed) down quarks and their scalar partners. The constraint from $`\epsilon _K`$ can be obtained by replacing $`10^5\text{Re}\left[(K_L^d)_{12}(K_R^d)_{12}\right]`$ with $`10^7\text{Im}\left[(K_L^d)_{12}(K_R^d)_{12}\right]`$. In a generic supersymmetric framework, we expect $`\stackrel{~}{m}=𝒪(m_Z)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{Q},\stackrel{~}{D}}^2/\stackrel{~}{m}^2=𝒪(0.1)`$ and $`(K_{L,R}^d)_{ij}=𝒪(1)`$. (The approximate degenracy in squark masses is induced by RGE if the soft breaking terms are all induced close to the Planck scale with comparable size.) Then the constraint (1) is generically violated by about three orders of magnitude. Eq. (1) also suggests three possible ways to solve the supersymmetric flavor problems:

(i) Heavy squarks: $`\stackrel{~}{m}300GeV`$;

(ii) Universality: $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{Q},\stackrel{~}{D}}^2\stackrel{~}{m}^2`$;

(iii) Alignment: $`|(K_M^d)_{12}|1`$;

In addition, the related CP problems are alleviated if the relevant phases fulfill $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi 1`$.

Supersymmetry predicts also flavor preserving CP violation. For simplicity, we describe this aspect in a supersymmetric model without additional flavor mixings, i.e. the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) with universal sfermion masses and with the $`A`$-terms proportional to the corresponding Yukawa couplings. In such a constrained framework, there are two new physical phases : $`\varphi _A`$, which is related to the relative phase between the $`A`$-terms and the gaugino masses, and $`\varphi _B`$, which is related to the relative phase between the $`\mu `$-term and the $`B`$-term. The most significant effect of $`\varphi _A`$ and $`\varphi _B`$ is their contribution to electric dipole moments (EDMs). For $`d_N`$, we obtain (see, for example, ):

$$\frac{d_N}{6.3\times 10^{26}e\mathrm{cm}}300\left(\frac{100GeV}{\stackrel{~}{m}}\right)^2\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{A,B},$$
(2)
where the denominator on the left hand side gives the present experimental upper bound. In a generic supersymmetric framework, we expect $`\stackrel{~}{m}=𝒪(m_Z)`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{A,B}=𝒪(1)`$. Then the experimental bound is generically violated by about two orders of magnitude. This is the Supersymmetric CP Problem. Eq. (2) shows two possible ways to solve the supersymmetric CP problem:

(i) Heavy squarks: $`\stackrel{~}{m}\text{ }>1TeV`$;

(ii) Approximate CP: $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{A,B}1`$

### B Supersymmetry Breaking and Universality

Two scales play an important role in our discussion of supersymmetry: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_S`$, where the soft supersymmetry breaking terms are generated, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_F`$, where flavor dynamics takes place. When $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_F\mathrm{\Lambda }_S`$, it is possible that there are no genuinely new sources of flavor and CP violation. This leads to models with exact universality. When $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_F\text{ }<\mathrm{\Lambda }_S`$, we do not expect, in general, that flavor and CP violation are limited to the Yukawa matrices. This leads to models without universality. In some special cases of supersymmetry breaking with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_F\text{ }<\mathrm{\Lambda }_S`$, it is possible that the leading contributions to supersymmetry breaking are universal. But it is difficult to avoid subdominant flavor-dependent contributions. Then we expect approximate universality.

#### 1 Exact Universality: Gauge Mediated Supersymmetry Breaking

If at some high energy scale squarks are exactly degenerate and the $`A`$ terms proportional to the Yukawa couplings, then the contributions to FCNC come from RGE and are GIM suppressed, for example,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_K\text{Re}[(V_{td}V_{ts}^{})^2]Y_t^4\left[\frac{\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_S/m_W)}{16\pi ^2}\right]^2.$$
(3)
This contribution is negligibly small.

In models of Gauge Mediated Supersymmetry Breaking (GMSB) , superpartner masses are generated by the SM gauge interactions. These masses are then exactly universal at the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_S`$ at which they are generated (up to tiny high order effects associated with Yukawa couplings). Furthermore, $`A`$ terms are suppressed by loop factors. The only contribution to FCNC is then from the running, and since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_S`$ is low it is highly suppressed. Similarly to $`K\overline{K}`$ mixing, the supersymmetric contribution to $`D\overline{D}`$ mixing is small and we expect no observable effects. Supersymmetric contributions to $`B\overline{B}`$ mixing are, at most, 20% of the SM one and usually much smaller. Such deviations are too small to be signalled by $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B`$ but can perhaps give observable effects in the CP asymmetries in $`B\psi K`$ decays.

More generally, in any supersymmetric model where there are no new flavor violating sources beyond the Yukawa couplings, FCNC and CP violation in meson decays are hardly modified from the SM predictions .

#### 2 Approximate Universality: Gravity, Anomaly and Gaugino Mediation

If different moduli of string theory obtain supersymmetry breaking $`F`$ terms, they would typically induce flavor-dependent soft terms through their tree-level couplings to Standard Model fields. There are however various scenarios in which the leading contribution to the soft terms is flavor independent. The three most intensively studied frameworks are dilaton dominance, anomaly mediation and gaugino mediation.

Dilaton dominance assumes that the dilaton $`F`$ term is the dominant one. Then, at tree level, the resulting soft masses are universal and the $`A`$ terms proportional to the Yukawa couplings . Both universality and proportionality are, however, violated by string loop effects. These induce corrections to squark masses of order $`\frac{\alpha _X}{\pi }m_{3/2}^2`$, where $`\alpha _X=[2\pi (S+S^{})]^1`$ is the string coupling. There is no reason why these corrections would be flavor blind. The effect of these terms is, however, somewhat suppressed by RGE effects which enhance the universal part of the squark masses by roughly a factor of five, while leaving the off-diagonal entries essentially unchanged. The flavor suppression factor is then

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2}{\stackrel{~}{m}^2}\frac{m_{12}^{2\mathrm{one}\mathrm{loop}}}{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2}\frac{\alpha _X}{\pi }\frac{1}{25}4\times 10^4.$$
(4)
Dilaton dominance relies on the assumption that loop corrections are small. This probably presents the most serious theoretical difficulty for this idea, because it is hard to see how non-perturbative effects, which are probably required to stabilize the dilaton, could do so in a region of weak coupling. In the strong coupling regime, these corrections could be much larger. However, this idea at least gives some plausible theoretical explanation for how universal masses might emerge in hidden sector models. Given that dilaton stabilization might require that non-perturbative effects are important, the flavor suppression might in reality be weaker than the estimate of eq. (4).

Anomaly mediation (AMSB) provides another approach to solving the flavor problems of supersymmetric theories, as well as to obtaining a predictive spectrum. The conformal anomaly of the Standard Model gives rise to soft supersymmetry breaking terms for the Standard Model fields . These terms are generated purely by gravitational effects and are universal. In general, naturalness considerations suggest that couplings of hidden and visible sectors should appear in the Kahler potential, leading to soft masses for scalars already at tree level, and certainly by one loop. As a result, one would expect the anomaly-mediated contributions to be irrelevant. However, in “sequestered sector models” , in which the visible sector fields and supersymmetry breaking fields live on different branes separated by some distance, the anomaly mediated contribution could be the dominant effect. This leads to a predictive picture with universal scalar masses. It has been realized, however, that within the framework of string/M theories, the separation of branes is, by itself, not enough to avoid tree-level, non-universal squark and slepton masses . Only under special conditions, such as compactification to pure five-dimensional supergravity with end of the world branes, is the anomaly-mediated contribution dominant. Quite generically, however, sub-dominant effects give deviations from universality, e.g.

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2}{\stackrel{~}{m}^2}=𝒪\left(\frac{T}{S}\right),$$
(5)
where $`S`$ is the dilaton and $`T`$ is some modulus. On both theoretical and phenomenological grounds, one expects that the ratio $`T/S`$ is not much smaller than unity, perhaps $`T/S1/3`$. Such non-universal contributions may easily violate the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K`$ and $`\epsilon _K`$ constraints . (Another difficulty of this framework is related to the fact that slepton masses-squared are negative, so modification is required.) Similar comments apply to the framework of gaugino mediation ($`\stackrel{~}{g}`$MSB) . These models also suppress dangerous tree level contact terms by invoking extra dimensions, with the Standard Model matter fields localized on one brane and the supersymmetry breaking sector on another brane. In this case, however, the Standard Model gauge fields are in the bulk, so gauginos get masses at tree level, and as a result scalar masses are generated by running. Again, however, non-universal tree and one loop contributions to scalar masses are generic and significant violations of degeneracy and proportionality are expected.

#### 3 No Universality: Supersymmetric Horizontal Symmetries

Various frameworks have been suggested in which flavor symmetries, designed to explain the hierarchy of the Yukawa couplings, impose at the same time a special flavor structure on the soft supersymmetry breaking terms that helps to alleviate the flavor and CP problems.

Alignment models do not assume any squark degeneracy. Instead, flavor violation is suppressed because the squark mass matrices are approximately diagonal in the quark mass basis. This is the case in models of Abelian flavor symmetries, in which the off-diagonal entries in both the quark mass matrices and in the squark mass matrices are suppressed by some power of a small parameter, $`\lambda `$, that quantifies the breaking of some Abelian flavor symmetry. A natural choice for the value of $`\lambda `$ is $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _C`$, so we will take $`\lambda 0.2`$. One would naively expect the first two generation squark mixing to be of the order of $`\lambda `$. However, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K`$ constraint is not satisfied with the ‘naive alignment’, $`K_{12}^d\lambda `$, and one has to construct more complicated models to achieve the required suppression . As concerns $`D\overline{D}`$ mixing, models of alignment are very predictive. It is unavoidable in this framework that, to a very good approximation,

$$|(K_L^u)_{12}|=\mathrm{sin}\theta _C.$$
(6)
Consequently, the supersymmetric contributions to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_D`$ are close to the present experimental bound. Furthermore, there is no reason for the related CP violating phase to be small. Thus, large CP violating effects could be observed in the doubly-Cabibbo-suppressed $`DK\pi `$ decays. The effects in $`B\overline{B}`$ mixing are smaller: one expects $`|(K_L^d)_{13}||V_{ub}|`$, leading to a few percent effects on CP asymmetries in neutral $`B`$ decays. We conclude that one can construct models in which an Abelian horizontal symmetry solves the supersymmetric problems of flavor and CP. These models are however not the generic ones in this framework. They can be tested through measurements of mixing and CP violation in the neutral $`D`$ system and searched for through small but perhaps non-negligible effects in CP violation in neutral $`B`$ decays.

Non-Abelian horizontal symmetries can induce approximate degeneracy between the first two squark generations, thus relaxing the flavor and CP problems . (A review of $`\epsilon _K`$ in this class of models can be found in .) The approximate degeneracy between the first two squark generations suppresses also the supersymmetric contributions to $`D\overline{D}`$ mixing. Small but perhaps observable deviations from the Standard Model predictions for CP asymmetries in $`B`$ decays are possible. Similar to models of Abelian flavor symmetries, one can construct models of non-Abelian symmetries in which the symmetry solves both the $`\epsilon _K`$ and the $`d_N`$ problems. These models are however not the generic ones in this framework.

Finally, one can construct models of heavy first two generation squarks. Here, the basic mechanism to suppress flavor changing processes is actually flavor diagonal: $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_{1,2}}20\mathrm{TeV}`$. Naturalness does not allow higher masses, but this mass scale is not enough to satisfy even the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K`$ constraint , and one has to invoke alignment, $`K_{12}^d\lambda `$. This is still not enough to satisfy the $`\epsilon _K`$ constraint, and a somewhat small phase is required. Two more comments are in order: First, in this framework, gauginos are significantly lighter than the first two generation squarks, and so RGE cannot induce degeneracy. Second, the large mass of the squarks is enough to solve the EDM related problems, and so it is only the $`\epsilon _K`$ constraint that motivates a special phase structure.

### C Flavor and CP Violation as a Probe of Supersymmetry

We have seen that supersymmetric flavor models can be roughly divided to three classes:

(i) Models of exact universality, where the only effects of flavor violation and CP violation come from the Yukawa sector and enter through RGE.

(ii) Models of approximate universality, where there are genuinely new sources of flavor and CP violation which are, however, subleading to the dominant universal structure.

(iii) Models without universality, where horizontal symmetries (or large masses) suppress flavor and CP violation.

The latter class is the easiest to explore through flavor and CP violation, since it gives the largest effects. With more precise measurements we can probe stronger degrees of universality.

We would like to emphasize the following points:

(i) For supersymmetry to be established, a direct observation of supersymmetric particles is necessary. Once it is discovered, then measurements of CP violating observables will be a very sensitive probe of its flavor structure and, consequently, of the mechanism of dynamical supersymmetry breaking.

(ii) It seems possible to distinguish between models of exact universality and models with genuine supersymmetric flavor and CP violation. The former tend to give $`d_N\text{ }<10^{31}`$ e cm while the latter usually predict $`d_N\text{ }>10^{28}`$ e cm.

(iii) The proximity of $`a_{\psi K}`$ to the SM predictions is obviously consistent with models of exact universality. It disfavors models of heavy squarks such as that of ref. . Models of flavor symmetries allow deviations of order 20% (or smaller) from the SM predictions. For such new physics to be convincingly established, the hadronic uncertainties that affect the SM allowed range of $`a_{\psi K}`$ will be required to be reduced well below this level .

(iv) Alternatively, the fact that $`K\pi \nu \overline{\nu }`$ decays are not affected by most supersymmetric flavor models  is an advantage here. The Standard Model correlation between $`a_{\pi \nu \overline{\nu }}`$ and $`a_{\psi K}`$ is a much cleaner test than a comparison of $`a_{\psi K}`$ to the CKM constraints.

(v) The neutral $`D`$ system provides a stringent test of alignment. Observation of CP violation in the $`DK\pi `$ decays will make a convincing case for new physics.

## III Highlights of Higher Luminosity B Factories

Considering possible outcomes of future measurements, there are different time-scales to look at. Until 2005 or so, BABAR  and BELLE expect to collect $`0.5\text{ab}^1`$ of data each. On this timescale the Tevatron  will also yield important information, most crucially $`B_s`$ mixing. In the second half of the decade dedicated hadronic $`b`$ factories will start to operate, and the $`e^+e^{}`$ machines may undergo upgrades to luminosities in the $`10^{35}10^{36}\text{cm}^2\text{sec}^1`$ range .

We remind the reader that the cross section of $`B`$ production in the $`e^+e^{}`$ machines is 1.2 nb, so that a luminosity of $`3\times 10^{33}\text{cm}^2\text{sec}^1`$ gives $`1.8\times 10^7`$ $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ pairs (and a similar number of $`B^+B^{}`$ pairs) in a year. For comparison, the corresponding cross section in BTeV is about 100 $`\mu `$b, so that a luminosity of $`2\times 10^{32}\text{cm}^2\text{sec}^1`$ gives $`2\times 10^{11}`$ $`b\overline{b}`$ pairs. In LHC-B the cross section is even larger.

### A $`𝑩_𝒔`$ mixing and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$

In the Standard Model these measurements will determine the two sides of the unitarity triangle. Soon after $`B_s`$ mixing is observed, the experimental error on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d/\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ is expected to be reduced below the 1% level. Thus, the uncertainty of $`|V_{td}/V_{ts}|`$ will be dominated by the error of $`(f_{B_d}/f_{B_s})\sqrt{B_{B_d}/B_{B_s}}`$ from lattice QCD. This is presently at the $`45\%`$ level in unquenched calculations with two light quark flavors , and it is important to reduce this source of uncertainty using simulations with three light flavors.

For the determination of $`|V_{ub}|`$ from inclusive semileptonic $`B`$ decays, the reconstruction of $`q^2`$ and $`m_X`$ (lepton–neutrino invariant mass and hadronic invariant mass) offers probably the smallest theoretical error . The error in determining $`|V_{ub}|`$ from exclusive semileptonic $`B`$ decays will be controlled by the accuracy of unquenched lattice calculations. With $`0.5\text{ab}^1`$, a determination of $`|V_{ub}|`$ at the $`510\%`$ level should be possible. Confidence in such a precision will come from consistency between different model independent determinations.

### B $`𝒂_{𝝅𝝅}`$ and $`𝒂_{𝝆𝝅}`$

Measuring the CP asymmetries in $`bu\overline{u}d`$ transitions will add a significant constraint on the unitarity triangle. The simplest process involving a final CP eigenstate is $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. The problem here is that the penguin contribution is nonnegligible compared to the tree contribution, $`r_{PT}^{\pi \pi }P_{\pi \pi }/T_{\pi \pi }=𝒪(0.3)`$, where $`P_{\pi \pi }`$ and $`T_{\pi \pi }`$ are defined through the CKM decomposition,

$$A(B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})=T_{\pi \pi }V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}+P_{\pi \pi }V_{tb}^{}V_{td}.$$
(7)
One needs to know $`r_{PT}^{\pi \pi }`$ to extract the value of the CP violating phase from the CP asymmetry in $`B\pi \pi `$. This is the problem of penguin pollution.

A variety of solutions to this problem have been proposed. One type of approach is to exploit the fact that the (strong) penguin contribution to $`P_{\pi \pi }`$ is pure $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{1}{2}`$, while the tree contribution to $`T_{\pi \pi }`$ contains a piece which is $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{3}{2}`$. Isospin symmetry allows one to form a relation among the amplitudes $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`B^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$, and $`B^+\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ and another one for the charge conjugate processes. A simple geometric construction then allows one to disentangle the unpolluted $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{3}{2}`$ amplitudes, from which the CP violating phase may be extracted cleanly . The key experimental difficulty is that one must measure accurately the flavor-tagged rate for $`B^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$. Since the final state consists of only four photons, and the branching fraction is expected to be of $`𝒪(10^6)`$, this is very hard.

Second, one might attempt to calculate the penguin matrix elements. Model-dependent analyses are not adequate for this purpose, since the goal is the extraction of fundamental parameters. Precise calculations of such matrix elements from lattice QCD are far in the future, given the necessity for a treatment allowing for final state interactions, the large energies of the $`\pi `$’s, and the need for an unquenched calculation. Recently, new QCD-based analyses of the $`B\pi \pi `$ matrix elements have been proposed .

The third type of approach is to use measurements of $`BK\pi `$ decays to determine $`|P_{K\pi }|`$. Once $`|P_{K\pi }|`$ is known, flavor $`SU(3)`$ is used to relate $`|P_{K\pi }|`$ to $`|P_{\pi \pi }|`$. It may also be possible to relate $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ to $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ (which is expected to be measured at the Tevatron) using $`SU(3)`$ . The problem with these approaches is that some $`SU(3)`$ breaking corrections remain a source of irreducible uncertainty.

An alternative is to perform an isospin analysis of the process $`B^0\rho \pi \pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ . Here one must study the time-dependent asymmetry over the entire Dalitz plot, probing variously the intermediate states $`\rho ^\pm \pi ^{}`$ and $`\rho ^0\pi ^0`$. The advantage here is that the final states with two $`\pi ^0`$’s need not be considered. On the other hand, thousands of cleanly reconstructed events would be needed. It is yet unclear how well this can be done. With integrated luminosity of 0.5 ab<sup>-1</sup>, it is possible that a meaningful measurement will be achieved.

### C $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑫𝑲`$ and $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑫^{\mathbf{}}𝝅`$

One method of extracting the CP violating phase $`\gamma `$ that seems theoretically clean involves $`BKD^0(\overline{D}^0)`$ decays . The relevant quark transitions are $`bc\overline{u}s`$ and $`b\overline{c}us`$. The method requires high statistics and is probably realistic with 10 ab<sup>-1</sup>.

The final state $`D^+\pi ^{}`$ is common to $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B^0}`$ decays. Therefore, the decay rates are sensitive to interference effects between the direct decay and the first-mix-then-decay paths, which in turn have interesting dependence on CP violating phases . By measuring the four time-dependent decay rates, $`B^0,\overline{B^0}D^\pm \pi ^{}`$ one can determine the amplitude ratio and the CP violating phase $`2\beta +\gamma `$ in a theoretically clean way.

The problem in this measurement is that

$$\frac{A(\overline{b}\overline{u}c\overline{d})}{A(\overline{b}\overline{c}u\overline{d})}\frac{V_{ub}^{}V_{cd}}{V_{cb}^{}V_{ud}}\lambda ^2.$$
(8)
Thus the interference effects are small and hard to measure. Despite this difficulty, its theoretical cleanliness makes this a potentially very important measurement. With integrated luminosity of 0.5 ab<sup>-1</sup> the error of $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta +\gamma )`$ is expected to be $`0.150.20`$ . A similar measurement of the four time dependent rates $`B_s,\overline{B}_sD_s^\pm K^{}`$ measures $`2\beta _s+\gamma `$. The advantage of this mode is that, unlike Eq. (8), the two amplitudes are comparable in size. The disadvantage is that because the large Cabibbo allowed $`B_sD_s\pi `$ background must be suppressed, this measurement will probably only be doable at LHCB/BTeV.

An interesting, related proposal was made in ref. . The idea is to measure the angle $`\gamma `$ using CP tagged decays, $`B_{\mathrm{CP}}DK_S`$. Such a measurement can only be done in a very high luminosity $`e^+e^{}`$ $`B`$ factory. If such a future collider also operates at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(5S)`$ resonance, it may be possible to cleanly determine $`\gamma `$ from time-integrated measurements of CP tagged $`B_sD_sK`$ decays as well .

### D $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝝍\mathit{\varphi }`$ and $`𝝍𝜼^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{)}}`$

The CP asymmetry in these processes is the analog of $`a_{\psi K_s}`$ and measures the relative phase between $`B_s`$ mixing and $`bc\overline{c}s`$ decay. This is $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta _s`$, which is presently constrained in the SM to be between 0.026 and 0.048 ; a larger asymmetry would be a clear sign of new physics. The expected error at CDF is about $`1.6`$ times that of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$, further diluted by one minus twice the $`CP`$-odd fraction the $`\psi \varphi `$ final state. Although this $`CP`$-odd contribution is expected to be small, it can be avoided by using the decay modes $`B_s\psi \eta ^{()}`$, which are pure $`CP`$-even.

### E $`𝒂_{\mathit{\varphi }𝑲_𝑺}`$

Within the Standard Model, where the Kobayashi-Maskawa phase is the only source of CP violation in meson decays, there are strong correlations between various CP asymmetries. One of the best known examples is that of the CP asymmetries in $`B\psi K_S`$ and $`B\varphi K_S`$. The two decays proceed via different quark transitions, $`bc\overline{c}s`$ for the first, and $`bs\overline{s}s`$ for the latter. Yet, the Standard Model predicts that the two CP asymmetries are equal to within a few percent. This is a result of the fact that $`V_{cb}V_{cs}^{}`$ and $`V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}`$ are almost aligned. Within extensions of the Standard Model, the correlation can often be lost due to significant new contributions to the $`bs\overline{s}s`$ transition. For example, in supersymmetric models there could be squark-gluino penguin diagrams that compete with the SM quark$`W`$ diagrams. The comparison of the two CP asymmetries can therefore cleanly signal new physics .

While $`a_{\psi K_S}`$ has already been measured, this is not the case for $`a_{\varphi K_S}`$. The problem here is the small branching ratio ,

$$(B\varphi K_S)=(8.1_{2.5}^{+3.1}\pm 0.8)\times 10^6.$$
(9)
With 0.5 ab<sup>-1</sup>, the accuracy in the CP asymmetry is expected to be $`\delta a_{\varphi K_S}0.25`$ . The theoretical uncertainty in $`a_{\varphi K_S}a_{\psi K_S}`$ is of order $`\lambda ^20.04`$. Measuring $`a_{\varphi K_S}`$ with such a small uncertainty requires $`20\text{ab}^1`$, or about two years at a $`10^{36}`$ cm<sup>-2</sup> sec<sup>-1</sup> $`e^+e^{}`$ machine. This measurement may also be done at hadron colliders, but no detailed study is available.

This test of new physics would benefit from measurements of $`B^+\varphi \pi ^+`$ and $`B^+K^{}K^+`$ which will constrain rescattering effects .

Before there is sufficient data for measuring $`a_{\varphi K_S}`$, comparison of $`a_{\psi K_S}`$ with the asymmetry measured in $`bc\overline{c}d`$ modes, such as $`BD^{()}D^{()}`$, is also interesting. The sensitivity to new physics contributions to the decay amplitude is, however, smaller.

### F $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}}`$

CP violation in $`B`$ mixing can be measured, for example, in semileptonic decays: $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}=[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0}(t)\mathrm{}^+)\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^0(t)\mathrm{}^{})]/[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0}(t)\mathrm{}^+)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^0(t)\mathrm{}^{})]`$ is proportional to the relative phase between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}`$ and $`M_{12}`$, analogous to $`\text{Re}(\epsilon _K)`$ in the kaon sector. The SM predicts the relative phase to be small, suppressed by $`m_c^2/m_W^2`$ in $`B_d`$ mixing, and by an additional factor of $`\lambda ^2`$ in $`B_s`$ mixing. The best present constraint, based on $`20\text{fb}^1`$ data, is $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}=(0.48\pm 1.85)\times 10^2`$ , while the SM prediction is at the $`10^3`$ level ,

$$1.3\times 10^3<A_{\mathrm{SL}}(\mathrm{SM})<0.5\times 10^3.$$
(10)
While measuring $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$ at the SM level seems impossible even at a very high luminosity $`B`$ factory, new physics could significantly enhance the asymmetry and make it observable. A model independent analysis (with the only assumption that tree level decays are dominated by SM processes) yields

$$0.004<A_{\mathrm{SL}}(\mathrm{NP})<+0.04.$$
(11)
### G $`𝑫^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\overline{𝑫^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ mixing

Time dependent measurements of $`DK\pi `$ decays are sensitive to $`D^0\overline{D^0}`$ mixing. It is expected that, with an integrated luminosity of 0.5 ab<sup>-1</sup>, one can be sensitive to the mixing parameters $`x=\mathrm{\Delta }m/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`y=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }/2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ at the level of $`x^2+y^210^5`$. We emphasize that a signal at that level, that is, $`x,y0.003`$, may come from the Standard Model long distance contributions (see, e.g. ). To disentangle new physics from Standard Model contributions, it is crucial to measure separately $`x`$, $`y`$, the relevant strong phase and, most important for this purpose, CP violation . Such a program may require a high luminosity $`B`$-factory.

### H Rare Decays

Various rare decays provide useful measurements of the CKM parameters as well as possible probes of new physics. At present, inclusive rare decays are under better theoretical control than the exclusive ones, and Table I summarizes some of the most interesting modes. A clean theoretical interpretation of the latter requires that we know the corresponding form factors. (Note, however, that CP asymmetries are independent of the form factors.) While useful relations between various form factors can be derived from heavy quark symmetry, ultimately unquenched lattice calculations will be needed for a clean theoretical interpretation of exclusive decays. Rare $`bs`$ and $`bd`$ decays are sensitive in the SM to $`|V_{td}V_{tb}|`$ and $`|V_{ts}V_{tb}|`$, respectively. Thus the $`bd`$ rates are expected to be about a factor of $`|V_{td}/V_{ts}|^2\lambda ^2`$ smaller than their $`bs`$ counterparts. As a guesstimate, in $`bql_1l_2`$ decays one expects $`1020\%`$ $`K^{}/\rho `$ and $`510\%`$ $`K/\pi `$.

In our introduction we highlighted the fact that with the measurement of $`a_{\psi K}`$ the KM mechanism of CP violation has passed its first precision test. We should emphasize that in the last year we have been learning that the CKM contributions to rare decays are also likely to be the dominant ones. Support to this statement comes, for example, from the measurement of $`(BX_s\gamma )`$ which agrees with the SM at the 15% level , the measurement of $`BK\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ which is in the ballpark of the SM expectation , and the non-observation of direct CP violation in $`bs\gamma `$ at the 0.2 level . These new results make it less likely that we will observe orders-of-magnitude enhancement of rare $`B`$ decays. It is more likely that only precision measurements and a broad program will be able to find signals of new physics.

$`(i)`$ $`BX_{s,d}\gamma `$ or $`BK^{}\gamma `$: provide strong limits on $`m_{H^\pm }`$ in 2HDM models, and constrain various supersymmetric models. The CP asymmetry provides additional constraints on new phyics. The best limits are $`0.27<A_{CP}(BX_s\gamma )<0.10`$  and $`0.17<A_{CP}(BK^{}\gamma )<0.08`$  at the 90% CL. In the former case the SM prediction is firmly below 0.01. The photon spectrum, which is not sensitive to new physics, is important for determinations of $`|V_{ub}|`$ and the $`b`$ quark mass.

$`(ii)`$ $`BX_{s,d}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ or $`BK^{()}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$: sensitive probes of new physics that modifies the $`bsZ`$ coupling. Of particular interest are the forward-backward asymmetry, the forward-backward CP asymmetry and the CP asymmetry in the rate. Remarkably, the location where the forward-backward asymmetry in $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ vanishes (near $`q^2=4\text{GeV}^2`$ in the SM) also provides model independent information on short distance parameters .

$`(iii)`$ $`BX_{s,d}\nu \overline{\nu }`$ or $`BK^{()}\nu \overline{\nu }`$: probe new physics that modifies the $`bsZ`$ coupling, or contain unconstrained couplings between three 3rd generation fermions . This mode is particularly clean (in some sense the $`B`$ physics analog of $`K\pi \nu \overline{\nu }`$) but experimentally very challenging.

$`(iv)`$ $`B\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$: measures $`f_B|V_{ub}|`$ in the SM and is sensitive to new physics, such as charged Higgs.

$`(v)`$ There are many additional useful probes of new physics, such as direct CP violation, lepton number or lepton flavor violation, $`B\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, etc.

## IV New Physics and Future B Factories

There are three important goals that can be achieved with future $`B`$-factories and will make flavor violating and/or CP violating processes excellent probes of new physics:

(i) Better precision in the measurements of processes related, for example, to the determination of $`|V_{ub}|`$ or of $`|V_{td}/V_{ts}|`$, will allow to observe small deviations from the Standard Model predictions.

(ii) Higher statistics will allow the measurement of (or improved upper bounds on) rare decays.

Within the framework of supersymmetry, the improvement in precision and sensitivity means that we will be able to explore stronger levels of universality. Models without universality, such as alignment models, may give effects of $`𝒪(\lambda )`$ and are already being probed by present measurements. Models of approximate universality, such as dilaton dominance (or $`U(2)`$ models for the first two generations), may induce effects of $`𝒪(\alpha _s/\pi )`$ (or $`𝒪(\lambda ^2)`$), and will begin to be probed when the experimental and theoretical accuracy reaches the few percent level. Models of exact universality, such as GMSB, give only small and calculable deviations and in large parts of their parameter space give predictions that are similar to the SM.

(iii) A Broad program will allow to learn detailed features of new physics and consequently to distinguish between various models within each class.

For example, the information from $`D\overline{D}`$ mixing and $`B\overline{B}`$ mixing probes whether the effects of new physics are restricted to either of the up or down sectors. The comparison of $`a_{\varphi K_S}`$ and $`a_{\psi K_S}`$ probes whether the effects of new physics are restricted to either of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=2`$ processes. The information from $`K\pi \nu \overline{\nu }`$ decays can be confronted with that from $`B`$ factories to teach us whether the effects are largest for the third generation or significant also for the first two generations. The information from electric dipole moments can be added to that from $`B`$ factories to reveal whether new CP violation is flavor diagonal or flavor changing or both.

A new era in the study of flavor physics and CP violation has just begun. The coming decade is expected to significantly enrich our understanding of these aspects and hopefully teach us about new physics.

###### Acknowledgements.

Y.N. Thanks the organizers for their hospitality. We thank Adam Falk for helpful discussions and Michael Dine and Yael Shadmi for comments on the manuscript. Z.L. was supported in part by the Director, Office of Science, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Division of High Energy Physics, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC03-76SF00098. Y.N. is supported by the Israel Science Foundation founded by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.


format: text

text:
# Two-dimensional few electron systems in high magnetic fields: Composite-fermion or rotating-electron-molecule approach?

## Abstract

A new class of analytic and parameter-free, strongly correlated wave functions of simple functional form is derived for few electrons in two-dimensional quantum dots under high magnetic fields. These wave functions are constructed through breaking and subsequent restoration of the circular symmetry, and they offer a natural alternative to the Laughlin and composite-fermion functions. Underlying our approach is a collectively-rotating-electron-molecule picture. The angular momenta allowed by molecular symmetry correspond to the filling-factors’ hierarchy of the fractional quantum Hall effect.

Two-dimensional (2D) $`N`$-electron systems in strong magnetic fields have been the focus of extensive theoretical investigations in the last twenty years . The reasons are twofold: (I) The early realization  that few electron systems are relevant to the physics of the fractional quantum Hall effect (FQHE) observed in the infinite 2D electron gas, and (II) The recent progress in nanofabrication techniques that has allowed experiments on 2D circular quantum dots (QD’s) containing a finite number of electrons .

Among the many theoretical methods for studying such systems, two approaches have become well established, i.e., exact diagonalization techniques  and consideration of appropriate classes of strongly correlated, analytic trial wave functions in the complex plane . The trial wave functions proposed todate have been based on physical intuition, and their justification has been inferred a posteriori through comparisons with exact numerical calculations and/or with the phenomenology of the FQHE.

In this paper, we use a systematic, microscopic approach and derive a new class of strongly correlated, analytic wave functions for the $`N`$-electron problem in strong magnetic fields . Our analytic wave functions have a simple functional form which differs from that of the familiar composite-fermion (CF)  and Jastrow-Laughlin (JL)  functions, and they are associated with a physical picture of a collectively rotating electron molecule (REM). Guiding the synthesis of the states of the system, our approach consists of two steps: First the breaking of the rotational symmetry at the single-determinantal unrestricted Hartree-Fock (UHF) level yields states representing electron molecules (EM’s, or finite crystallites). Subsequently the rotation of the electron molecule is described through restoration of the circular symmetry via post Hartree-Fock methods, and in particular Projection Techniques (PT’s) . Naturally, the restoration of symmetry goes beyond the mean-field and yields multi-determinantal wave functions. Earlier we demonstrated that this method (generalized to include in addition the breaking of the total-spin symmetry) can describe accurately two-electron systems in molecular  and single  QD’s at zero magnetic field .

In general, the symmetry-broken UHF  orbitals need to be determined numerically . However, in the case of an infinite 2D electron gas in strong magnetic fields, it has been found  that such UHF orbitals  can be approximated by analytic Gaussian functions centered at different positions $`Z_jX_j+ıY_j`$ and forming an hexagonal Wigner crystal (each Gaussian representing a localized electron). The specific expression for these displaced Gaussians is

$`u(z,`$ $`Z_j)=(1/\sqrt{\pi })`$ (2)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}[|zZ_j|^2/2]\mathrm{exp}[ı(xY_j+yX_j)],`$
where the phase factor is due to the gauge invariance. $`zxıy`$, and all lengths are in dimensionless units of $`l_B\sqrt{2}`$ with the magnetic length being $`l_B=\sqrt{\mathrm{}c/eB}`$.

In the case of a Coulombic finite $`N`$-electron system, it has been found  that the UHF orbitals arrange in concentric rings forming EM’s (referred to also as Wigner molecules, WM’s) . The UHF results for the formation of WM’s are in agreement with the molecular structures obtained via the conditional probability distributions (CPD’s) which can be extracted from exact numerical wave functions . For $`N4`$, the electrons are located at the apexes of a regular polygon situated on a single ring, while for $`5N7`$ both the single-ring structure and an isomeric one with one electron at the center come into play. We will denote the former arrangement as $`(0,N)`$ and the latter as $`(1,N1)`$. The electrons of the $`(0,N)`$ ring are located at

$$Z_j=Z\mathrm{exp}[ı2\pi (1j)/N],\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}1}jN,$$
(3)
and those participating in a $`(1,N1)`$ arrangement are located at

$$Z_1=0;Z_j=Z\mathrm{exp}[ı2\pi (2j)/(N1)],\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}2}jN.$$
(4)
Before proceeding further, we need to expand the displaced Gaussian (2) over the Darwin-Fock single-particle states. Due to the high magnetic field, only the single-particle states,

$$\psi _l(z)=\frac{z^l}{\sqrt{\pi l!}}\mathrm{exp}(zz^{}/2),$$
(5)
of the lowest Landau level (LLL) are needed (observe that the angular momentum of this state is $`l`$ due to the definition $`zxıy`$). Then a straightforward calculation  yields

$$u(z,Z)=\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_l(Z)\psi _l(z),$$
(6)
with $`C_l(Z)=(Z^{})^l\mathrm{exp}(ZZ^{}/2)/\sqrt{l!}`$ for $`Z0`$. Naturally, $`C_0(0)=1`$ and $`C_{l>0}(0)=0`$.

Since electrons in strong magnetic fields are fully polarized, only the space part of the many-body wave functions needs to be considered; for the symmetry-broken UHF determinant describing the WM, it is given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\text{UHF}}^N=\text{det}[u(z_1,Z_1),u(z_2,Z_2),\mathrm{},u(z_N,Z_N)].$$
(7)
Using (6) one finds the following expansion (within a proportionality constant)

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\text{UHF}}^N=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l_1=0,\mathrm{},l_N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_{l_1}(Z_1)C_{l_2}(Z_2)\mathrm{}C_{l_N}(Z_N)}{\sqrt{l_1!l_2!\mathrm{}l_N!}}}`$ (9)
$`\times D(l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_N)\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}z_iz_i^{}/2),`$
where $`D(l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_N)\text{det}[z_1^{l_1},z_2^{l_2},\mathrm{},z_N^{l_N}]`$.

The UHF determinant \[Eq. (7) or Eq. (9)\] breaks the rotational symmetry and thus it is is not an eigenstate of the total angular momentum $`\mathrm{}\widehat{L}=\mathrm{}_{i=1}^N\widehat{l}_i`$. However, one can restore the rotational symmetry by applying onto the UHF determinant the following projection operator

$$2\pi 𝒫_L_0^{2\pi }𝑑\gamma \mathrm{exp}[i\gamma (\widehat{L}L)],$$
(10)
where $`\mathrm{}L=\mathrm{}_{i=1}^Nl_i`$ are the eigenvalues of the total angular momentum.

It is advantageous to operate with $`𝒫_L`$ on expression (9), which is an expansion in a basis consisting of products of single-particle eigenstates with good angular momenta $`l_i`$. Indeed in this case the projection operator acts as a Kronecker delta: from the unrestricted sum (9), it picks up only those terms having a given total angular momentum $`L`$. As a result, after taking into consideration the specific electron locations (3) associated with the $`(0,N)`$ WM, one derives  the following symmetry-preserving, many-body correlated wave functions (within a proportionality constant),

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_L^N`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{0l_1<l_2<\mathrm{}<l_N}{\overset{l_1+\mathrm{}+l_N=L}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}l_i!\right)^1`$ (13)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \underset{1i<jN}{}}\mathrm{sin}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{N}}(l_il_j)\right]\right)`$
$`\times D(l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_N)\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}z_iz_i^{}/2).`$
In deriving (13), we took into account that for each determinant $`D(l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_N)`$ in the unrestricted expansion (9) there are $`N!1`$ other determinants generated from it through a permutation of the indices $`\{l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_N\}`$; these determinants are equal to the original one or differ from it by a sign only. In the case of an $`(1,N1)`$ WM, the corresponding correlated wave functions are given by,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_L^N`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{0l_2<l_3<\mathrm{}<l_N}{\overset{l_2+\mathrm{}+l_N=L}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{N}{}}}l_i!\right)^1`$ (17)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \underset{2i<jN}{}}\mathrm{sin}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{N1}}(l_il_j)\right]\right)`$
$`\times D(0,l_2,\mathrm{},l_N)\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}z_iz_i^{}/2).`$
We call the correlated wave functions \[Eq. (13) and Eq. (17)\] the electron-molecule wave functions (EMWF’s). We stress that the EMWF’s have good total angular momenta, unlike the UHF determinant from which they were projected out. The projection operator (10) acts on a single UHF determinant, but yields a whole rotational band of the WM. The states in this band are those with the lowest energy for a given angular momentum $`L`$, and in addition they are purely rotational, i.e., they carry no other internal excitations; in analogy with the customary terminology from the spectroscopy of rotating nuclei , we designate this band as the “yrast band”.

Furthermore, if instead of electrons the displaced Gaussians (2) describe bosonic particles forming a molecule, the corresponding  many-body correlated wave functions will be given by expressions similar to Eq. (13) and Eq. (17), but with the following two important differences: (I) The product of sine functions will be replaced by a sum over cosines, and (II) The determinants $`D(l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_N)`$ will be replaced by permanents  $`P(l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_N)\text{perm}[z_1^{l_1},z_2^{l_2},\mathrm{},z_N^{l_N}]`$.

Among the properties of the EMWF’s specified by Eq. (13) and Eq. (17), we mention the following:

1) The EMWF’s lie entirely within the Hilbert subspace spanned by the lowest Landau level and, after expanding the determinants , they can be written in the form (within a proportionality constant),

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_L^N[z]=P_L^N[z]\mathrm{exp}(\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}z_iz_i^{}/2),$$
(18)
where the $`P_L^N[z]`$’s are order-$`L`$ homogeneous polynomials of the $`z_i`$’s.

2) The polynomials $`P_L^N[z]`$ are divisible by

$$P_V^N[z]=\underset{1i<jN}{}(z_iz_j),$$
(19)
namely $`P_L^N[z]=P_V^N[z]Q_L^N[z]`$. This is a consequence of the antisymmetry of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_L^N[z]`$. $`P_V^N[z]`$ is the Vandermonde determinant $`D(0,1,\mathrm{},N)`$. For the case of the lowest allowed angular momentum $`L_0=N(N1)/2`$ (see below), one has $`P_{L_0}^N[z]=P_V^N[z]`$, a property that is shared with the Jastrow-Laughlin  and composite-fermion  trial wave functions.

3) Upon the introduction of the Jacobi coordinates, the center-of-mass separates from the internal variables in complete analogy with the exact solution.

4) The coefficients of the determinants \[i.e., products of sine functions, see Eq. (13 and Eq. (17)\] dictate that the EMWF’s are nonzero only for special values of the total angular momentum $`L`$ given by,

$$L=N(N1)/2+Nk,k=0,1,2,3,\mathrm{},$$
(20)
for the $`(0,N)`$ configuration, and

$$L=N(N1)/2+(N1)k,k=0,1,2,3,\mathrm{},$$
(21)
for the $`(1,N1)`$ one. The minimum angular momentum $`L_0=N(N1)/2`$ is determined by the fact that the $`D`$ determinants \[see Eq. (13) and Eq. (17)\] vanish if any two of the single-particle angular momenta $`l_i`$ and $`l_j`$ are equal. In plots of the energy vs. the angular momenta, derived from exact-diagonalization studies , it has been found that the special $`L`$ values given by Eq. (20) and Eq. (21) exhibit prominent cusps reflecting enhanced stability; as a result these $`L`$ values are often referred to as “magic angular momenta”. We stress that the angular momenta associated with the EMWF’s correspond precisely to the magic $`L`$’s of the exact-diagonalization studies . In the thermodynamic limit , one can relate the total $`L`$ to a fractional filling through the relation $`\nu =N(N1)/(2L)`$, and thus the EMWF angular momenta (20) and (21) correspond to all the fractional filling factors associated with the FQHE, including the even-denominator ones, i.e., $`\nu =`$ 1, 3/5, 3/7, 5/7, 2/3, 1/2, 1/3, etc…

5) For the case of two electrons $`(N=2)`$, the EMWF’s reduce to the Jastrow-Laughlin form, namely

$$P_L^2[z]=\underset{1i<jN}{}(z_iz_j)^L,$$
(22)
where $`L=1`$, 3, 5, … However, this is the only case for which there is coincidence between the EMWF’s and the JL wave functions. For higher numbers of electrons, $`N`$, the EMWF polynomials $`P_L^N[z]`$ (apart from the lowest-order Vandermonde $`P_{L_0}^N[z]`$ ones) are quite different from the corresponding JL or composite-fermion polynomials. In particular, the familiar factor $`_{1i<jN}(z_iz_j)^{2p}`$, with $`p`$ an integer , (which reflects multiple zeroes) does not appear in the EMWF’s (see, e.g., Table I which contrasts the $`Q_9^3[z]`$ polynomials corresponding to the EMWF’s and JL functions).

6) For the case of three electrons $`(N=3)`$, after transforming to the Jacobi coordinates $`\overline{z}=(z_1+z_2+z_3)/3`$, $`z_a=(2/3)^{1/2}((z_1+z_2)/2z_3)`$, $`z_b=(z_1z_2)/\sqrt{2}`$ (and dropping the center-of-mass exponential factor), the EMWF’s can be written as (again within a proportionality constant),

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_L^3[z_a,z_b]=`$ $`[(z_a+ız_b)^L(z_aız_b)^L]`$ (24)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}[(1/2)(z_az_a^{}+z_bz_b^{})],`$
with $`L=3m`$, $`m=1`$, 2, 3, 4, … being the total angular momentum. Again the wave functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_L^3[z_a,z_b]`$ are very different from the three-electron JL ones; e.g., they are nonvanishing for even $`m`$ values, unlike the three-electron JL functions. However, the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_L^3[z_a,z_b]`$’s coincide with the functions $`|m,0`$ derived in Ref. . We notice that, although it was found  that these wave functions exhibited behavior expected of fractional quantum Hall ground states, the generalization of them to a higher number of electrons did not follow.

Several publications  have applied the composite fermion picture (the JL functions are a special case of the CF’s) to single QD’s in strong magnetic fields. In particular, it has been shown  that CF wave functions can be constructed with angular momenta coinciding with the magic ones. However, it has also been found  that several discrepancies exist, i.e., some of the larger magic angular momenta are not reproduced by the CF picture. As a consequence of the above, the REM description with the EMWF’s derived here offers a natural alternative for interpreting the physics of electrons in QD’s in high magnetic fields. This proposition is further supported by inspection of the overlaps between the EMWF’s and the exact many-body eigenstates, and their comparison with the corresponding overlaps for the JL states; see Table II, where in some instances (i.e., $`N=4`$, $`L=10`$ and 14) we list energies of the EM, CF, and exact states instead of the overlaps. Indeed the agreement between the EM states and the exact ones is of comparable quality as in the case of the CF and JL wave functions.

In summary, we have developed a new class of analytic and parameter-free, strongly correlated wave functions of simple functional form, which accurately describe the physics of electrons in QD’s under high magnetic fields. The thematic basis of our approach is built upon the intuitive picture of collectively rotating electron molecules, and the synthesis of the many-body EMWF’s involves breaking of the circular symmetry at the UHF level with subsequent restoration of this symmetry via a projection technique. While we focus here on the strong magnetic-field regime, we note that the REM picture unifies the treatment of strongly correlated states of electrons in QD’s over the whole magnetic-field range . We also remark that our analysis, aimed here mainly at treating finite electron systems (i.e., QD’s) with an arbitrary number of electrons, points to the remarkable conclusion that the observed FQHE hierarchy of filling factors may be viewed as an experimental signature of the yrast band (see above) of the REM.

This research is supported by the U.S. D.O.E. (Grant No. FG05-86ER-45234).


text:
# 1 Basics on causal relations

## 1 Basics on causal relations

In this section the definitions of the basic concepts and the notation to be used throughout this contribution shall be presented. Differentiable manifolds are denoted by italic capital letters $`V,W,U,\mathrm{}`$ and, to our purposes, all such manifolds will be connected causally orientable Lorentzian manifolds of dimension $`n`$. The signature convention is set to $`(+\mathrm{})`$. $`T_x(V)`$ and $`T_x^{}(V)`$ will stand respectively for the tangent and cotangent spaces at $`xV`$, and $`T(V)`$ (resp. $`T^{}(V)`$) is the tangent bundle (cotangent bundle) of $`V`$. Similarly the bundle of $`j`$-contravariant and $`k`$-covariant tensors of $`V`$ is denoted $`𝒯_k^j(V)`$. If $`\phi `$ is a diffeomorphism between $`V`$ and $`W`$, the push-forward and pull-back are written as $`\phi ^{^{}}`$ and $`\phi ^{}`$ respectively. The hyperbolic structure of the Lorentzian scalar product naturally splits the elements of $`T_x(V)`$ into timelike, spacelike, and null, and as usual we use the term causal for the vectors (or vector fields) which are non-spacelike. To fix the notation we introduce the sets:

$`\mathrm{\Theta }^+(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\stackrel{}{X}T_x(V):\stackrel{}{X}\text{is causal future directed}\},`$
$`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+(x)\mathrm{\Theta }^{}(x),\mathrm{\Theta }^+(V)={\displaystyle \underset{xV}{}}\mathrm{\Theta }^+(x)`$
with obvious definitions for $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{}(x)`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{}(V)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }(V)`$. Before we proceed, we need to introduce a further concept taken from .

###### Definition 1.1

A tensor $`𝐓𝒯_r^0(x)`$ satisfies the dominant property if for every $`\stackrel{}{k}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{k}_r\mathrm{\Theta }^+(x)`$ we have that $`𝐓(\stackrel{}{k}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{k}_r)0`$.

The set of all $`r`$-tensors with the dominant property at $`xV`$ will be denoted by $`𝒟𝒫_r^+(x)`$ whereas $`𝒟𝒫_r^{}(x)`$ is the set of tensors such that $`𝐓𝒟𝒫_r^+(x)`$. We put $`𝒟𝒫_r(x)𝒟𝒫_r^+(x)𝒟𝒫_r^{}(x)`$. All these definitions extend straightforwardly to the bundle $`𝒯_r^0(V)`$ and we may define the subsets $`𝒟𝒫_r^+(𝒰)`$, $`𝒟𝒫_r^{}(𝒰)`$ and $`𝒟𝒫_r(𝒰)`$ for an open subset $`𝒰V`$ as follows:

$$𝒟𝒫_r^\pm (U)=\underset{x𝒰}{}𝒟𝒫_r^\pm (x),𝒟𝒫_r(𝒰)=𝒟𝒫_r^+(𝒰)𝒟𝒫_r^{}(𝒰).$$

The simplest example (leaving aside $`^+`$) of causal tensors are the causal 1-forms ($`𝒟𝒫_1(V)`$) 111See also Bergqvist’s and Senovilla’s contributions to this volume., while a general characterization of $`𝒟𝒫_r^+𝒟𝒫_r^+(V)`$ is the following (see  for a proof)1:

###### Proposition 1.1

$`𝐓𝒟𝒫_r^+`$ if and only if the components $`T_{i_1\mathrm{}i_r}`$ of $`𝐓`$ in all orthonormal bases fulfill $`T_{0\mathrm{}0}|T_{i_1\mathrm{}i_r}|`$, $`i_1\mathrm{}i_r`$, where the $`0`$-index refers to the temporal component.

We are now ready to present our main concept, which tries to capture the notion of some kind of relation between the causal structure of $`V`$ and $`W`$.

###### Definition 1.2

Let $`\phi :VW`$ be a global diffeomorphism between two Lorentzian manifolds. We shall say that $`W`$ is properly causally related with $`V`$ by $`\phi `$, denoted $`V_\phi W`$, if for every $`\stackrel{}{X}\mathrm{\Theta }^+(V)`$ we have that $`\phi ^{^{}}\stackrel{}{X}`$ belongs to $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+(W)`$. $`W`$ is said to be properly causally related with $`V`$, denoted simply as $`VW`$, if $`\phi `$ such that $`V_\phi W`$.

Remarks

1. This definition can also be given for any set $`\zeta V`$ by demanding that $`(\phi ^{^{}}\stackrel{}{X})_{\phi (x)}\mathrm{\Theta }^+(\phi (x))\stackrel{}{X}\mathrm{\Theta }^+(x)`$, $`x\zeta `$.
2. Two diffeomorphic Lorentzian manifolds may fail to be properly causally related as we shall show later with explicit examples.

###### Definition 1.3

Two Lorentzian manifolds $`V`$ and $`W`$ are called causally isomorphic if $`VW`$ and $`WV`$. This shall be written as $`VW`$.

We claim that if $`VW`$ then their causal structure are somehow the same.

Let $`𝐠`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝐠}`$ be the Lorentzian metrics of $`V`$ and $`W`$ respectively. By using

$$\stackrel{~}{𝐠}(\phi ^{^{}}\stackrel{}{X},\phi ^{^{}}\stackrel{}{Y})=\phi ^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐠}(\stackrel{}{X},\stackrel{}{Y}),$$
(1)
we immediately realize that $`V_\phi W`$ implies that $`\phi ^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐠}𝒟𝒫_2^+(V)`$. Conversely, if $`\phi ^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐠}𝒟𝒫_2^+(V)`$ then for every $`\stackrel{}{X}\mathrm{\Theta }^+(V)`$ we have that $`(\phi ^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐠})(\stackrel{}{X},\stackrel{}{X})=\stackrel{~}{𝐠}(\phi ^{^{}}\stackrel{}{X},\phi ^{^{}}\stackrel{}{X})0`$ and hence $`\phi ^{^{}}\stackrel{}{X}\mathrm{\Theta }(W)`$. However, it can happen that $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+(V)`$ is actually mapped to $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{}(W)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{}(V)`$ to $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+(W)`$. This only means that $`W`$ with the time-reversed orientation is properly causally related with $`V`$. Keeping this in mind, the assertion $`\phi ^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐠}𝒟𝒫_2^+(V)`$ will be henceforth taken as equivalent to $`V_\phi W`$.

## 2 Mathematical properties

Let us present some mathematical properties of proper causal relations.

###### Proposition 2.1

If $`V_\phi W`$ then:

1. $`\stackrel{}{X}\mathrm{\Theta }^+(V)`$ is timelike $``$ $`\phi ^{^{}}\stackrel{}{X}\mathrm{\Theta }^+(W)`$ is timelike.
2. $`\stackrel{}{X}\mathrm{\Theta }^+(V)`$ and $`\phi ^{^{}}\stackrel{}{X}\mathrm{\Theta }^+(W)`$ is null $``$ $`\stackrel{}{X}`$ is null.

Proof : For the first implication, if $`\stackrel{}{X}\mathrm{\Theta }^+(V)`$ is timelike we have, according to equation (1), that $`\phi ^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐠}(\stackrel{}{X},\stackrel{}{X})=\stackrel{~}{𝐠}(\phi ^{^{}}\stackrel{}{X},\phi ^{^{}}\stackrel{}{X})`$ which must be a strictly positive quantity as $`\phi ^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐠}𝒟𝒫_2^+(W)`$ . For the second implication, equation (1) implies $`0=\phi ^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐠}(\stackrel{}{X},\stackrel{}{X})`$ which is only possible if $`\stackrel{}{X}`$ is null since $`\phi ^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐠}𝒟𝒫_2^+(V)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{X}\mathrm{\Theta }^+(V)`$ (see again ).

###### Proposition 2.2

$`V_\phi W\phi ^{^{}}\stackrel{}{X}\mathrm{\Theta }^+(W)`$ for all null $`\stackrel{}{X}\mathrm{\Theta }^+(V)`$.

Proof : For the non-trivial implication, making again use of (1) we can write:

$$\phi ^{^{}}\stackrel{}{X}\mathrm{\Theta }^+(W)\stackrel{}{X}\text{null in}\mathrm{\Theta }^+(V)\phi ^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐠}(\stackrel{}{X},\stackrel{}{Y})0\stackrel{}{X},\stackrel{}{Y}\text{null in}\mathrm{\Theta }^+(V)$$

which happens if and only if $`\phi ^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐠}`$ is in $`𝒟𝒫_2^+(V)`$ (see  property 2.4).

###### Proposition 2.3 (Transitivity of the proper causal relation)

If $`V_\phi W`$ and $`W_\psi U`$ then $`V_{\psi \phi }U`$

Proof : Consider any $`\stackrel{}{X}\mathrm{\Theta }^+(V)`$. Since $`V_\phi W`$, $`\phi ^{^{}}\stackrel{}{X}\mathrm{\Theta }^+(W)`$ and since $`W_\psi U`$ we get $`\psi ^{^{}}[\phi ^{^{}}\stackrel{}{X}]\mathrm{\Theta }^+(U)`$ so that $`(\psi \phi )^{^{}}\stackrel{}{X}\mathrm{\Theta }^+(U)`$ from what we conclude that $`V_{\psi \phi }U`$.

Therefore, we see that the relation $``$ is a preorder. Notice that if $`VW`$ (that is $`VW`$ and $`WV`$) this does not imply that $`V=W`$. Nevertheless, one can always define a partial order for the corresponding classes of equivalence.

Next, we identify the part of the boundary of the null cone which is preserved under a proper causal relation. A lemma is needed first. Recall that $`\stackrel{}{X}`$ is called an “eigenvector” of a 2-covariant tensor $`𝐓`$ if $`𝐓(,\stackrel{}{X})=\lambda 𝐠(,\stackrel{}{X})`$ and $`\lambda `$ is then the corresponding eigenvalue.

###### Lemma 2.1

If $`𝐓𝒟𝒫_2^+(x)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{X}\mathrm{\Theta }^+(x)`$ then $`𝐓(\stackrel{}{X},\stackrel{}{X})=0\stackrel{}{X}`$ is a null eigenvector of $`𝐓`$.

Proof : Let $`\stackrel{}{X}\mathrm{\Theta }^+(x)`$ and assume $`0=𝐓(\stackrel{}{X},\stackrel{}{X})=T_{ab}X^aX^b`$. Then since $`T_{ab}X^b𝒟𝒫_1^+(x)`$  we can conclude that $`X_a`$ and $`T_{ab}X^b`$ must be proportional which results in $`X^a`$ being a null eigenvector of $`T_{ab}`$. The converse is straightforward.

###### Proposition 2.4

Assume that $`V_\phi W`$ and $`\stackrel{}{X}\mathrm{\Theta }^+(x),xV`$. Then $`\phi ^{^{}}\stackrel{}{X}`$ is null at $`\phi (x)W`$ if and only if $`\stackrel{}{X}`$ is a null eigenvector of $`\phi ^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐠}(x)`$.

Proof : Let $`\stackrel{}{X}`$ be in $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+(x)`$ and suppose $`\phi ^{^{}}\stackrel{}{X}`$ is null at $`\phi (x)`$. Then, according to proposition 2.1, $`\stackrel{}{X}`$ is also null at $`x`$. On the other hand we have $`0=\stackrel{~}{𝐠}(\phi ^{^{}}\stackrel{}{X},\phi ^{^{}}\stackrel{}{X})=\phi ^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐠}(\stackrel{}{X},\stackrel{}{X})`$ and since $`\phi ^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐠}|_x𝒟𝒫_2^+(x)`$, lemma 2.1 implies that $`\stackrel{}{X}`$ is a null eigenvector of $`\phi ^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐠}`$ at $`x`$.

The vectors which remain null under the causal relation $`\phi `$ are called its canonical null directions. On the other hand, the null eigenvectors of $`𝐓𝒟𝒫_2^+`$ can be used to classify this tensor, as proved in . As a result we have

###### Proposition 2.5

If the relation $`V_\phi W`$ has n linearly independent canonical null directions then $`\phi ^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐠}=\lambda 𝐠`$.

Proof : If there exist $`n`$ independent canonical null directions, then $`\phi ^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐠}`$ has $`n`$ independent null eigenvectors which is only possible if $`\phi ^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐠}`$ is proportional to the metric tensor $`𝐠`$ (.)

Proposition 2.5 has an interesting application in the following theorem

###### Theorem 2.1

Suppose that $`V_\phi W`$ and $`W_{\phi ^1}V`$. Then $`\phi ^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐠}=\lambda 𝐠`$ and $`(\phi ^1)^{}𝐠=\frac{1}{(\phi ^1)^{}\lambda }\stackrel{~}{𝐠}`$ for some positive function $`\lambda `$ defined on $`V`$.

Proof : Under these hypotheses, using proposition 2.1, we get the following intermediate results

$`\phi ^{^{}}\stackrel{}{X}\mathrm{\Theta }^+(W)\text{null and }\stackrel{}{X}\mathrm{\Theta }^+(V)\stackrel{}{X}\text{is null,}`$
$`(\phi ^1)^{^{}}\stackrel{}{Y}\mathrm{\Theta }^+(V)\text{null and }\stackrel{}{Y}\mathrm{\Theta }^+(W)\stackrel{}{Y}\text{is null.}`$
Now, let $`\stackrel{}{X}\mathrm{\Theta }^+(V)`$ be null and consider the unique $`\stackrel{}{Y}T(V)`$ such that $`\stackrel{}{X}=(\phi ^1)^{^{}}\stackrel{}{Y}`$. Then $`\stackrel{}{Y}=\phi ^{^{}}\stackrel{}{X}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{Y}\mathrm{\Theta }^+(W)`$ as $`\phi `$ sets a proper causal relation and $`\stackrel{}{X}`$ is in $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+(V)`$. Hence, according to the second result above $`\stackrel{}{Y}`$ must be null and we conclude that every null $`\stackrel{}{X}\mathrm{\Theta }^+(V)`$ is push-forwarded to a null vector of $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+(W)`$ which in turn implies that $`\phi ^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐠}=\lambda 𝐠`$. In a similar fashion, we can prove that $`(\phi ^1)^{}𝐠=\mu \stackrel{~}{𝐠}`$ and hence $`(\phi ^1)^{}\lambda =1/\mu `$.

###### Corollary 2.1

$`V_\phi W`$ and $`W_{\phi ^1}V\phi `$ is a conformal relation.

## 3 Applications to causality theory

In this section we will perform a detailed study of how two Lorentzian ma-
nifolds $`V`$ and $`W`$ such that $`V_\phi W`$ share common causal features. To begin with, we must recall the basic sets used in causality theory, namely $`I^\pm (p)`$ and $`J^\pm (p)`$ for any point $`pV`$ (these definitions can also be given for sets). One has $`qJ^+(p)`$ (respectively $`qI^+(p)`$) if there exists a continuous future directed causal (resp. timelike) curve joining $`p`$ and $`q`$. Recall also the Cauchy developments $`D^\pm (\zeta )`$ for any set $`\zeta V`$ . Another important concept is that of future set: $`\text{A}V`$ is said to be a future set if $`I^+(\text{A})\text{A}`$. For example $`I^+(\zeta )`$ is a future set for any $`\zeta `$. All these concepts are standard in causality theory and are defined in many references, see for instance .

###### Proposition 3.1

If $`V_\phi W`$ then, for every set $`\zeta V`$, we have $`\phi (I^\pm (\zeta ))I^\pm (\phi (\zeta ))`$ and $`\phi (J^\pm (\zeta ))J^\pm (\phi (\zeta ))`$.

Proof : It is enough to prove it for a single point $`pV`$ and then getting the result for every $`\zeta `$ by considering it as the union of its points. For the first relation, let $`y`$ be in $`\phi (I^+(p))`$ arbitrary and take $`xI^+(p)`$ such that $`\phi (x)=y`$. Choose a future-directed timelike curve $`\gamma `$ joining $`p`$ and $`x`$. From proposition 2.1, $`\phi (\gamma )`$ is then a future-directed timelike curve joining $`\phi (p)`$ and $`y`$, so that $`yI^+(\phi (p))`$. The second assertion is proven in a similar way using again proposition 2.1. The proof for the past sets is analogous.

The converse of this proposition does not hold in general unless we impose some causality conditions on the spacetime.

###### Definition 3.1

A Lorentzian manifold $`V`$ is said to be distinguishing if for every neighbourhood $`U_p`$ of $`pV`$ there exist another neighbourhood $`B_pU_p`$ containing $`p`$ which intersects every causal curve meeting $`p`$ in a connected set.

We need some concepts of standard causality theory. For any $`pV`$ one can introduce normal coordinates in a neighbourhood $`𝒩_p`$ of $`p`$ (see, e.g. ). Then the exponential map provides a diffeomorphism $`\mathrm{exp}:𝒪T_p(V)𝒩_p`$ where $`𝒪`$ is an open neighbourhood of $`\stackrel{}{0}T_p(V)`$. The interior of the future (past) light cone of $`p`$ is defined by $`C_p^\pm =\mathrm{exp}(\text{int}(\mathrm{\Theta }^\pm (p))𝒪)`$, and obviously $`C_p^\pm I^\pm (p)`$ . Other important issue deals with the chronology relation $`<<`$ between two points. We have $`p<<q`$ if there exist a future timelike curve joining $`p`$ and $`q`$. See  for an axiomatic study of this relation.

###### Proposition 3.2

Let $`\gamma `$ be a piecewise continuous curve of a distinguishing Lorentzian manifold $`(V,𝐠)`$. Then, $`\gamma `$ is total with respect to $`<<`$ if and only if $`\gamma `$ is timelike.

Proof : Clearly if $`\gamma `$ is timelike then $`\gamma `$ must be a total set for the relation $`<<`$ (this is true for every spacetime). For the converse consider a curve $`\gamma `$ which is total with respect to $`<<`$ and let $`q\gamma `$ be an arbitrary point of the curve. If we take a normal neighbourhood of $`q`$, $`𝒩_q`$ then we can find a neighbourhood $`U_q`$ of $`q`$ which is intersected in a connected set by every causal curve meeting $`q`$. Now, if we pick up a point $`z\gamma U_q`$ we have that either $`q<<z`$ or $`z<<q`$. Assuming the former we deduce that there exists a timelike curve $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ joining $`q`$ and $`z`$ which implies that $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }U_q`$ is a connected set. This property together with the distinguishability of $`V`$ implies that $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ must be a subset of $`U_q`$ and hence $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }𝒩_q`$ from what we conclude that $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }C_p`$ () and hence $`zC_p`$ $`z\gamma U_q`$ which is only possible if $`\gamma U_q`$ is timelike. By covering $`\gamma `$ with sets of the form $`\gamma U_q`$, $`q\gamma `$ we arrive at the desired result.

###### Proposition 3.3

Let $`\phi :VW`$ be a diffeomorphism with the property $`\phi (I^+(p))I^+(\phi (p))pV`$. Then if $`W`$ is distinguishing, $`\phi `$ is a proper causal relation. A similar result holds replacing $`I^+`$ by $`I^{}`$.

Proof : From the statement of this proposition is clear that $``$ $`p,q`$ of $`V`$ such that $`p<<q`$ then $`\phi (p)<<\phi (q)`$. Therefore every timelike curve $`\gamma `$ of $`V`$ is mapped onto a continuous curve in $`W`$ total with respect to $`<<`$ and hence timelike due to the distiguishability of $`W`$. Furthermore if the curve $`\gamma `$ is future directed then $`\phi (\gamma )`$ must be also future directed since $`<<`$ is preserved which is only possible if every timelike future-pointing vector is mapped onto a future-pointing timelike vector. As a consequence, if $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ is a null vector, $`\phi ^{^{}}\stackrel{}{k}`$ must be a causal vector (to see it just construct a sequence of timelike future directed vectors converging to $`\stackrel{}{k}`$) which proves that $`\phi `$ is a proper causal relation.

The results for the Cauchy developments are the following:

###### Proposition 3.4

If $`V_\phi W`$ then $`D^\pm (\phi (\zeta ))\phi (D^\pm (\zeta )),\zeta V`$.

Proof : It is enough to prove the future case. Let $`yD^+(\phi (\zeta ))`$ arbitrary and consider any causal past directed curve $`\gamma _{\phi ^1(y)}^{}V`$ containing $`\phi ^1(y)`$. Since the image curve by $`\phi `$ of $`\gamma _{\phi ^1(y)}^{}`$ is a causal curve passing through $`y`$, ergo meeting $`\phi (\zeta )`$, we have that $`\gamma _{\phi ^1(y)}^{}`$ must meet $`\zeta `$ from what we conclude that $`y\phi (D^+(\zeta ))`$ due to the arbitrariness of $`\gamma _{\phi ^1(y)}^{}`$.

###### Corollary 3.1

If $`\mathrm{\Sigma }W`$ is a Cauchy hypersurface then $`\phi ^1(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is also a Cauchy hypersurface of $`V`$.

Proof : If $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a Cauchy hypersurface then $`D(\mathrm{\Sigma })=W`$, and from proposition 3.4 $`D(\mathrm{\Sigma })\phi (D(\phi ^1(\mathrm{\Sigma })))`$. Since $`\phi `$ is a diffeomorphism the result follows.

One can prove the impossibility of the existence of proper causal relations sometimes. For instance, from the previous corollary we deduce that $`VW`$ is impossible if $`W`$ is globally hyperbolic but $`V`$ is not. Other impossibilities arise as follows. Let us recall that, for any inextendible causal curve $`\gamma `$, the boundaries $`I^\pm (\gamma )`$ of its chronological future and past are usually called its future and past event horizons, sometimes also called particle horizons . Of course these sets can be empty (then one says that $`\gamma `$ has no horizon).

###### Proposition 3.5

Suppose that every inextendible causal future directed curve in $`W`$ has a non-empty $`I^{}(\gamma )`$ ($`I^+(\gamma )`$). Then any V such that $`VW`$ cannot have inextendible causal curves without past (future) event horizons.

Proof : If there were a future-directed curve $`\gamma `$ in $`V`$ with $`I^{}(\gamma )=\mathrm{}`$, $`I^{}(\gamma )`$ would be the whole of $`V`$. But according to proposition 3.1 $`\phi (I^{}(\gamma ))I^{}(\phi (\gamma ))`$ from what we would conclude that $`I^{}(\phi (\gamma ))=W`$ against the assumption.

The class of future (or past) sets characterize the proper causal relations for distinguishing spacetimes as it is going to be shown next (every statement for future objects has a counterpart for the past).

###### Lemma 3.1

If A is a future set then $`p\overline{\text{A}}I^+(p)\text{A}`$.

Proof : Suppose $`I^+(p)A`$. Then since $`C_p^+I^+(p)`$ and $`p\overline{C_p^+}`$ we have that $`U_pC_p^+\mathrm{}`$ for every neighbourhood $`U_p`$ of $`p`$ which in turn implies that $`U_p\text{A}\mathrm{}`$ and hence $`p\overline{\text{A}}`$. Conversely, let $`p`$ be any point of $`\overline{\text{A}}`$ then $`I^+(p)I^+(\overline{A})=I^+(A)A`$.

###### Theorem 3.1

Suppose that $`(W,\stackrel{~}{𝐠})`$ is a distinguishing spacetime. Then a diffeomorphism $`\phi :(V,𝐠)(W,\stackrel{~}{𝐠})`$ is a proper causal relation if and only if $`\phi ^1(\text{A})`$ is a future set for every future set. $`\text{A}W`$.

Proof : Suppose $`\text{A}W`$ is a future set, $`V_\phi W`$ and take $`\phi ^1(\text{A})V`$. Proposition 3.1 implies $`\phi (I^+(\phi ^1(\text{A})))I^+(\phi (\phi ^1(\text{A})))=I^+(\text{A})\text{A}`$ which shows that $`I^+(\phi ^1(\text{A}))\phi ^1(\text{A})`$. Conversely, for any $`pV`$ take the future set $`I^+(\phi (p))`$ and consider the future set $`\phi ^1(I^+(\phi (p)))`$. As $`\phi (p)\overline{I^+(\phi (p))}`$ then $`p\overline{\phi ^1(I^+(\phi (p)))}`$ and according to lemma 3.1 $`I^+(p)\phi ^1(I^+(\phi (p)))`$ so that $`\phi (I^+(p))I^+(\phi (p))`$. Since this holds for every $`pV`$ and $`W`$ is distinguishing, proposition 3.3 ensures that $`\phi `$ is a proper causal relation.

This theorem has important consequences.

###### Proposition 3.6

If $`VW`$ and both manifolds are distinguishing, then there is a one-to-one correspondence between the future (and past) sets of $`V`$ and $`W`$.

Proof : If $`VW`$ then $`V_\phi W`$ and $`W_\mathrm{\Psi }V`$ for some diffeomorphisms $`\phi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. By denoting with $`_V`$ and $`_W`$ the set of future sets of $`V`$ and $`W`$ respectively, we have that $`\phi ^1(_W)_V`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^1(_V)_W`$, due to theorem 3.1. Since both $`\phi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ are bijective maps we conclude that $`_V`$ is in one-to-one correspondence with a subset of $`_W`$ and vice versa which, according to the equivalence theorem of Bernstein , implies that $`_V`$ is in one-to-one correspondence with $`_W`$.

## 4 Causal transformations

In this section we will see how the concepts above generalize, in a natural way, the group of conformal transformations in a Lorentzian manifold $`V`$.

###### Definition 4.1

A transformation $`\phi :VV`$ is called causal if $`V_\phi V`$.

The set of causal transformations of $`V`$ will be denoted by $`𝒞(V)`$. This is a subset of the group of transformations of $`V`$ which is closed under the composition of diffeomorphisms, due to proposition 2.3, and contains the identity map. This algebraic structure is well-known, see e.g. , and called subsemigroup with identity or submonoid. Thus, $`𝒞(V)`$ is a submonoid of the group of diffeomorphisms of $`V`$. Nonetheless, $`𝒞(V)`$ usually fails to be a group. In fact we have,

###### Proposition 4.1

Every subgroup of causal transformations is a group of conformal transformations.

Proof : Let $`G𝒞(V)`$ be a subgroup of causal transformations and consider any $`\phi G`$, so that both $`\phi `$ and $`\phi ^1`$ are causal transformations. Then $`\phi `$ is necessarily a conformal transformation as follows from Theorem 2.1.

From standard results, see , we know that $`𝒞(V)𝒞(V)^1`$ is just the group of conformal transformations of $`V`$ and there is no other subgroup of $`𝒞(V)`$ which contains $`𝒞(V)𝒞(V)^1`$. The causal transformations which are not conformal transformations are called proper causal transformations.

It is now a natural question whether one can define infinitesimal generators of one-parameter families of causal transformations which generalize the “conformal Killing vectors”, and in which sense. Notice, however, that if $`\{\phi _s\}_s`$ is a one-parameter group of causal transformations, from the previous results the only possibility is that $`\{\phi _s\}`$ be in fact a group of conformal motions. On the other hand, things are more subtle if there are no conformal transformations in the family $`\{\phi _s\}`$ other than the identity, in which case it is easy to see that the ‘best’ one can accomplish is that either $`G^+\{\phi _s\}_{s^+}`$ or $`G^{}\{\phi _s\}_s^{}`$ is in $`𝒞(V)`$. If this happens one talks about maximal one-parameter submonoids of proper causal transformations. Of course, it is also possible to define local one-parameter submonoids of causal transformations $`\{\phi _s\}_{sI}`$ for some interval $`I=(ϵ,ϵ)`$ of the real line assuming that $`\{\phi _s\}_{s(0,ϵ)}`$ consists of proper causal transformations. In any of these cases, we can define the infinitesimal generator of $`\{\phi _s\}`$ as the vector field $`\stackrel{}{\xi }=d\phi _s/ds|_{s=0}`$. Given that $`\phi _s^{}𝐠𝒟𝒫_2`$ for all $`s0`$ (or for all non-positive $`s`$), one can somehow control the Lie derivative of $`𝐠`$ with respect to $`\stackrel{}{\xi }`$. For instance, it is easy to prove that $`\mathrm{\pounds }_\stackrel{}{\xi }𝐠(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k})0`$ (or $`0`$) for all null $`\stackrel{}{k}`$, clearly generalizing the case of conformal Killing vectors. An explicit example of this will be shown in the next section.

## 5 Examples

Example 1 Einstein static universe and de Sitter spacetime. Let us take $`V`$ as the Einstein static universe  and $`W=\mathrm{SS}`$ as de Sitter spacetime. In both cases the manifold is $`\times S^3`$ and hence they are diffeomorphic. By proposition 3.5 we know that $`VW`$ because every causal curve in de Sitter spacetime possesses event horizons. However, the proper causal relation in the opposite way does hold as can be shown by constructing it explicitly. The line element of each spacetime is (with the notation $`d\mathrm{\Omega }^2=d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2`$):

$`V:`$ $`ds^2=dt^2a^2(d\chi ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\chi d\mathrm{\Omega }^2)`$
$`W:`$ $`d\stackrel{~}{s}^2=d\overline{t}^2\alpha ^2\mathrm{cosh}^2(\overline{t}/\alpha )(d\overline{\chi }^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\overline{\chi }d\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2)`$
where $`\chi ,\theta ,\varphi `$ (and their barred versions) are standard coordinates in $`S^3`$ and $`a,\alpha `$ are constants. The diffeomorphism $`\mathrm{\Psi }:WV`$ is chosen as $`\{t=b\overline{t},\chi =\overline{\chi },\theta =\overline{\theta },\varphi =\overline{\varphi }\}`$ for a constant $`b`$. One can readily get $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}𝐠`$

$`(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}𝐠)_{ab}dx^adx^b=b^2d\overline{t}^2a^2(d\overline{\chi }^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\overline{\chi }d\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2)`$
which on using proposition 1.1 shows that $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}𝐠𝒟𝒫_2^+(W)`$ if $`b^2a^2/\alpha ^2`$ and therefore $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is proper causal relation for those $`b`$.

Example 2 Consider the following spacetimes: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$ is the region of Lorentz-Minkowski spacetime with $`R>a>0`$ in spherical coordinates $`\{T,R,\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Phi }\}`$; $`W_c`$ is the outer region of Schwarzschild spacetime with $`r>c2M`$ in Schwarzschild coordinates $`\{t,r,\theta ,\varphi \}`$. Define the diffeomorphism $`\phi :\mathrm{\Lambda }_aW_c`$ given by $`\{t=bT,r=Ra+c,\theta =\mathrm{\Theta },\varphi =\mathrm{\Phi }\}`$ for an appropriate positive constant $`b`$, so that we have

$$(\phi ^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐠})_{ab}dx^adx^b=b^2(1\frac{2M}{Ra+c})dT^2\frac{dR^2}{1\frac{2M}{Ra+c}}(Ra+c)^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2.$$

By choosing $`b`$ and $`a`$ one can achieve $`\phi ^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐠}𝒟𝒫_2^+(V_a)`$ whenever $`c>2M`$, while for $`c=2M`$ $`\phi `$ fails to be a proper causal relation. Actually $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_aW_{2M}`$ due to corollary 3.1 as $`W_{2M}`$ is globally hyperbolic but $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$ is not.

Take now the diffeomorphism $`\mathrm{\Psi }:W_c\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$ defined by $`\{T=t,R=r,\mathrm{\Theta }=\theta ,\mathrm{\Phi }=\varphi \}`$, so that $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}𝐠`$ reads $`(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}𝐠)_{ab}dx^adx^b=dt^2dr^2r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ from where we immediately deduce that $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}𝐠𝒟𝒫_2^+(V)`$ for every $`c2M`$ as long as $`a2M`$. We have thus proved that $`W_c\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ if $`c>2M`$, but not for $`c=2M`$. This is quite interesting and clearly related to the null character of the event horizon $`r=2M`$ in Schwarzschild’s spacetime.

Example 3 (Friedman cosmological models with $`p=\gamma \rho `$.) Let us take as $`(W,\stackrel{~}{𝐠})`$ the flat Friedman-Robertson-Walker (FRW) spacetimes in standard FRW coordinates $`\{t,\chi ,\theta ,\varphi \}`$ with line element given by

$`ds^2=dt^2a^2(t)(d\chi ^2+\chi ^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2)`$
and assume that the source of Einstein’s equations is a perfect fluid with equation of state given by $`p=\gamma \rho `$ ($`p=`$ pressure, $`\rho =`$ density, $`\gamma (1,1)`$ constant). Then the scale factor is $`a(t)=Ct^{\frac{2}{3(1+\gamma )}}`$ with constant $`C`$. By straightforward calculations, it can be proven the following causal equivalences:

$`W\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\text{for }\gamma =1/3\text{ where }\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\text{ is the whole Minkowski spacetime}`$
$`WV\text{for }\gamma 1/3\text{ where }(V,𝐠)\text{ is the steady state part of }\mathrm{SS}\text{}\text{[3]}\text{.}`$
These causal equivalences are rather intuitive if we have a look at the Penrose diagram of each spacetime (figure 1).

Example 4 (Vaidya’s Spacetime.) Let us show finally an example of a submonoid of causal transformations. Consider the Vaidya spacetime whose line element is

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{2M(t)}{r}\right)dt^22dtdrr^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,\mathrm{}<t<\mathrm{},0<r<\mathrm{}$$

where $`t`$ is a null coordinate (that is, $`dt`$ is a null 1-form), and $`M(t)`$ is a non-increasing function of $`t`$ interpreted as the mass. Take the diffeomorphisms $`\phi _s:tt+s`$. Then $`\phi _s^{}𝐠`$ can be cast in the form

$$\phi _s^{}𝐠=𝐠\frac{2}{r}(M(t+s)M(t))dtdt.$$

Hence, $`\phi _s^{}𝐠𝒟𝒫_2^+(V)`$ iff $`M(t+s)M(t)0`$, which implies that $`\{\phi _s\}_{s0}`$ are causal transformations, so that $`\{\phi _s\}_s`$ is a maximal submonoid of causal transformations. The differential equation for the infinitesimal generator $`\stackrel{}{\xi }=/t`$ of this submonoid is easily calculated and reads

$$\mathrm{\pounds }(\stackrel{}{\xi })𝐠=\frac{2}{r}\dot{M}(t)dtdt.$$

This is a particular case of a proper Kerr-Schild vector field, recently studied in . Notice that Schwarzschild spacetime is included for the case $`M=`$const., in which case $`\stackrel{}{\xi }`$ is a Killing vector. This may lead to a natural generalization of symmetries.

## 6 Conclusions

In this work a new relation between Lorentzian manifolds which keeps the causal character of causal vectors has been put forward. With the aid of this relation, we have introduced the concepts of causal relation and causal isomorphism of Lorentzian manifolds which allow us to establish rigorously when two given Lorentzian manifolds are causally indistinguishable regardless their metric properties. This tools could be also useful in order to find out the global causal structure of a given spacetime by just putting it in causal equivalence with another known spacetime.

Finally a new transformation for Lorentzian manifolds, called causal transformation has been defined. These transformations are a natural generalization of the group of conformal transformations and their actual relevance is one of our main lines of future research.

## 7 Acknowledgements

This research has been carried out under the research project UPV 172.310-G02/99 of the University of the Basque Country.