text:
# Measurement of the 𝐵⁰ Lifetime with Partially Reconstructed 𝐵⁰→𝐷^{∗-}ℓ⁺𝜈_ℓ Decays

BABAR-PUB-02/02

SLAC-PUB-9128

The BABAR Collaboration

## Abstract

The $`B^0`$ lifetime has been measured with a sample of 23 million $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs collected by the BABAR detector at the PEP-II $`e^+e^{}`$ storage ring during 1999 and 2000. Events from the semileptonic decay $`B^0D^{}\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ have been selected with a partial reconstruction method in which only the charged lepton and the slow $`\pi `$ from the $`D^{}\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{0}\pi _{}^{}`$ decay are reconstructed. The result is

$$\tau _{B^0}=1.529\pm 0.012(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.029(\mathrm{syst})\mathrm{ps}.$$

preprint: BABAR-PUB-02/02preprint: SLAC-PUB-9128

The technique of partial reconstruction of $`D^{}`$ mesons (charge conjugate states are always implied), in which only the slow pion from the $`D^{}\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{0}\pi _{}^{}`$ decay is required, has been widely used in the past INCL  to select large samples of reconstructed $`B`$ mesons. This technique provides a way to measure the combination of CKM angles $`(2\beta +\gamma )`$ with $`B^0D^{}\pi ^+`$ decays PhBook . The application of this method to the semileptonic decay $`B^0D^{}\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ allows the method’s validation, while providing a tool for precise measurements of several properties of the $`B^0`$, including its lifetime, $`\tau _{B^0}`$ , and the $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing parameter, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$. A precise measurement of $`\tau _{B^0}`$ is presented herein.

The data used in this analysis, recorded by the BABAR detector at the PEP-II storage ring during 1999-2000, correspond to an integrated luminosity of 20.7 $`\text{ fb}^1`$ collected on the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance (on-peak events) and 2.6 $`\text{ fb}^1`$ collected 40 MeV below the resonance (off-peak) for background studies. Samples of simulated $`B\overline{B}`$ events were analyzed through the same analysis chain as the real data. The equivalent luminosity of the simulated data is approximately equal to the on-peak data.

A detailed description of the BABAR detector and the algorithms used for track reconstruction, particle identification, and selection of $`B\overline{B}`$ events is provided elsewhere ref:babar ; a brief summary is given here. Particles with momenta $`p>170\mathrm{MeV}/c`$ are reconstructed by matching hits in the silicon vertex tracker (SVT) with track elements in the drift chamber (DCH). Since lower momentum tracks do not leave signals on many wires in the DCH due to the bending induced by the magnetic field, they are reconstructed by the SVT alone. Electrons are identified with the ratio of the track momentum to the associated energy deposited in the calorimeter (EMC), the transverse profile of the shower, the energy loss in the drift chamber, and the information from the Cherenkov detector (DIRC). The efficiency for electron identification in the acceptance of the electromagnetic calorimeter is about $`90\%`$, with a hadron misidentification probability equal to $`0.15`$%. Muon candidates are required to have a path length and hit distribution in the instrumented flux return and energy deposition in the EMC consistent with that expected for a minimum-ionizing particle. The Cherenkov light emission in the DIRC is then employed to further reject kaons misidentified as muons, by requiring muon candidates to have a kaon hypothesis probability less than 5%. These criteria yield $`74\%`$ muon efficiency with $`2.6\%`$ hadron misidentification probability.

Semileptonic $`B^0`$ decays are then selected by searching for the high momentum charged lepton ($`\mathrm{}=e,\mu `$) from the $`B^0`$ decay and the slow pion ($`\pi _s`$) from the $`D^{}\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{0}\pi _{s}^{}`$ decay. To reject leptons from semileptonic charm decay and misidentified hadrons, the momentum of the lepton candidate in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ rest frame ($`p_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$) is required to be in the range $`1.4<p_{\mathrm{}}^{}<2.3\mathrm{GeV}/c`$; that of the $`\pi _s`$ ($`p_{\pi _s}^{}`$) has to be less than 0.19 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$. The kinematics of the decay are exploited for further background suppression as follows. As a consequence of the limited phase space available in the decay $`D^{}\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{0}\pi _{s}^{}`$, the $`\pi _s`$ is emitted within a one-radian wide cone centered about the $`D^{}`$ direction in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ rest frame. The $`D^{}`$ four-momentum can therefore be computed by approximating its direction as that of the $`\pi _s`$, and parameterizing its momentum as a linear function of the $`\pi _s`$ momentum, with parameters obtained from the simulation. The neutrino invariant mass can be computed from the four-momenta of the $`B^0`$, $`D^{}`$, and $`\mathrm{}`$ with the relation

$$M_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=(P_{B^0}P_D^{}P_{\mathrm{}})^2.$$

The momentum of the $`B^0`$ in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ rest frame, on average 0.34 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$, is neglected. $`M_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ peaks approximately at zero for signal events, whereas background events are spread over a wide range.

The $`B^0`$ decay point is determined from a vertex fit of the $`\pi _s`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ tracks, constrained to the beam spot position in the plane perpendicular to the beam axis (the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane). The beam spot is determined on a run-by-run basis using two-prong events ref:babar . Its size in the horizontal direction is 120 $`\mu `$m. Although the beam spot size in the vertical ($`y`$) direction is only 5.6 $`\mu `$m, a beam spot constraint of 50 $`\mu `$m is applied to account for the flight of the $`B^0`$ in the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane. Only events for which the $`\chi ^2`$ probability of the vertex fit, $`𝒫_V`$, is greater than 0.1% are retained.

A selection is applied on the combined likelihood for $`p_{\mathrm{}}^{},p_{\pi _s}^{}`$, and $`𝒫_V`$, which results in a signal-to-background ratio of about one to one in the signal $`M_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ region, defined as $`M_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}>2\mathrm{GeV}^2/c^4`$. Figure 1 shows the $`M_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ distribution of data events used to measure $`\tau _{B^0}`$ when the $`\mathrm{}`$ and the $`\pi _s`$ have opposite-sign charges. Same-sign events are used as a background control sample. The individual distributions shown in Fig. 1 are obtained by fitting to the data the contributions from continuum events, obtained from the off-peak data, and from $`B\overline{B}`$ combinatorial background, $`B^0`$ signal, and $`B^+`$ resonant background, as predicted by the simulation. The $`B^+`$ resonant background is due to intermediate production of higher mass charm resonances (denoted as $`D^{}`$). The fit determines the composition of the selected sample, which is reported in Table 1 for the events in the signal region.

The PEP-II collider produces $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs moving along the beam axis ($`z`$ direction) with an average Lorentz boost of $`\beta \gamma =0.55`$. Hence, the two $`B`$ decay vertices are separated on average by $`\mathrm{\Delta }z255\mu `$m. The position of the $`B^0D^{}\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ (“decay”) vertex is reconstructed as described above. The decay point of the other $`B`$ is determined from a selection of the remaining tracks in the event using the following criteria. In events that have another lepton with momentum $`p^{}>1.1\mathrm{GeV}/c`$, the other $`B`$ vertex is computed with only this lepton track constrained to the beam-spot in the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane. Otherwise, all the tracks with a center-of-mass angle greater than 90 with respect to the $`\pi _s`$ direction are considered. This requirement is used to remove most of the tracks from the decay of the $`\overline{D}^0`$ daughter of the $`D^{}`$, which would otherwise bias the reconstruction of the other $`B`$ vertex position. Simulation shows that in about 75% of signal events the other vertex has no tracks from the $`\overline{D}^0`$ decay. The selected tracks are then constrained to the beam-spot in the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane. The track with the largest contribution to the vertex $`\chi ^2`$, if greater than 6, is removed and the fit iterated until no track fails this requirement. Vertices composed of just one track that is not a high momentum lepton are rejected in order to reduce the number of poorly measured vertices. The lifetime is determined by measuring the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }z=z_{\mathrm{decay}}z_{\mathrm{other}}`$, where $`z_{\mathrm{decay}}(z_{\mathrm{other}})`$ is the position along the beam line of the decay (other) vertex. The proper time difference is then computed with the relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=\mathrm{\Delta }z/(c\beta \gamma )`$. A fit with a double Gaussian to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ residuals in the Monte Carlo simulation shows that one half of the events are contained in the narrower Gaussian, which has a width of 0.7 $`\mathrm{ps}`$. To remove badly reconstructed vertices, all events for which either $`|\mathrm{\Delta }z|>3`$ mm or $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }z}>500\mu `$m are rejected, where $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }z}`$ is the uncertainty on $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ computed for each event.

$`\tau _{B^0}`$ is obtained from a binned maximum likelihood fit to the two-dimensional $`\mathrm{\Delta }t,\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }t}`$ distribution. To save computation time events are grouped in a two-dimensional space consisting of 100 $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and 25 $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }t}`$ bins. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distribution of signal events, $`(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }t},\tau _{B^0})`$, is described by the convolution of the decay probability distribution

$`f(\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mathrm{true}}|\tau _{B^0})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\tau _{B^0}}}exp(|\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mathrm{true}}|/\tau _{B^0}),`$
with the experimental resolution function, which is parametrized by the sum of three Gaussian distributions. The two narrow Gaussians, which account for more than 99% of the events, have the form

$`𝒢(\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }t),\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }t}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }S\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }t}}}exp({\displaystyle \frac{(\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }t)b)^2}{2S^2\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }t}^2}}),`$
where $`\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }t)=\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mathrm{true}}`$ is the difference between the measured and the true value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, $`b`$ is a bias due to the charm tracks in the other vertex and resolution effects, and the scale factor $`S`$ is introduced to account for possible misestimation of the calculated error $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }t}`$ on the proper time difference. The third Gaussian of fixed bias ($`2\mathrm{ps}`$) and width ($`8\mathrm{ps}`$) is added to account for badly measured events (“outliers”).

$`B^+`$ background events that peak in the $`M_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ signal region are described by an identical function, with the same resolution parameters as for the $`B^0`$ signal events, and an effective $`B^+`$ lifetime of 1.57 $`\mathrm{ps}`$. This value, obtained by fitting simulated $`B^+`$ events, is smaller than the value of 1.655 $`\mathrm{ps}`$ generated in the simulation due to $`\overline{D}^0`$ tracks from the decay vertex being included in the other vertex.

The $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distribution of continuum background events is modeled as the sum of two components, one with non-zero lifetime and the other with zero lifetime, convolved with the same single Gaussian resolution function. The parameters of the resolution function, as well as the lifetime and the fraction of events with non-zero lifetime, are all determined with the off-peak events that satisfy the selection criteria.

The $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distribution of the combinatorial $`B\overline{B}`$ background is modeled as the sum of a non-zero and a zero-lifetime component, with a resolution function that is the sum of three Gaussians. All parameters are determined from the data by fitting the measured $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distribution of the events in the sideband region, defined by $`10<M_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}<4\mathrm{GeV}^2/c^4`$. The Monte Carlo simulation shows, however, that there are small differences in the lifetime and in the fraction of events with non-zero lifetime between the signal region and the sideband. These differences are also observed in the data by separately fitting signal region and sideband events in the same sign $`\mathrm{}\pi _s`$ background control sample. The results from the like-sign fits are used to scale the two background parameters from the sideband to the signal region.

The function used to fit the data is the weighted sum of the four contributions:

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }t}|\tau _{B^0})`$ $`=`$ $`[1f_{B^+}(M_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{2})f_c(M_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{2})f_{B\overline{B}}(M_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{2})]_{B^0}(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }t},\tau _{B^0})+f_{B^+}(M_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{2})_{B^+}(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }t})+`$
$`f_c(M_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{2})_c(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }t})+f_{B\overline{B}}(M_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{2})_{B\overline{B}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }t}),`$
where the functions $`_{B^0},_{B^+},_c`$ and $`_{B\overline{B}}`$ describe the measured decay time difference distributions for the signal, peaking $`B^+`$, continuum, and $`B\overline{B}`$ combinatorial background, respectively. $`f_{B^+},f_c`$ and $`f_{B\overline{B}}`$ are the probabilities that the event is from the $`B^+`$, continuum, or $`B\overline{B}`$ background, computed for each event on the basis of the measured value of $`M_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$. Simultaneously with $`\tau _{B^0}`$, the following parameters of the signal resolution function are fitted: the scale factor of the first Gaussian, $`S_1=1.02\pm 0.02`$, the scale factor of the second Gaussian, $`S_2=2.4\pm 0.1`$, the bias of the first Gaussian, $`b_1=0.120\pm 0.009`$, and the fraction of outliers, $`f_o=(0.2\pm 0.1)\%`$. The fraction of events contained in the second Gaussian, $`f_2`$, and its bias $`b_2`$ are fixed to $`7\%`$ and $`0.85`$ $`\mathrm{ps}`$, respectively.

The result of the fit is $`\tau _{B^0}^{\mathrm{raw}}=1.482\pm 0.012\mathrm{ps}`$, where the error is statistical only. Figure 2 shows the comparison between the measured $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distribution and the fit result. The probability of obtaining a lower likelihood, evaluated with a Monte Carlo technique, is 18%.

This raw lifetime must be corrected for the bias induced by the tracks from the $`\overline{D}^0`$ that are not rejected by the $`\pi _s`$ cone cut. A multiplicative correction factor of $`_{\overline{D}^0}=1.032\pm 0.007(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.007(\mathrm{syst})`$ is computed from the simulation. The statistical error arises from the number of simulated events. The dominant systematic uncertainty corresponds to the full variation in $`_{\overline{D}^0}`$ (0.66%) obtained by smearing the $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ resolution in the simulation to match that in the data. A second systematic uncertainty is computed by comparing in data and simulation the fraction of charged tracks from $`\overline{D}^0`$ decays outside the $`\pi _s`$ cone for a subset of events in which the $`\overline{D}^0`$ is fully reconstructed in the $`K^+\pi ^{}`$, $`K^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$, and $`K^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ final states. The maximum discrepancy between data and simulation corresponds to a variation of $`\pm 0.24\%`$ in the value of $`_{\overline{D}^0}`$. The corrected value of the $`B^0`$ lifetime is then

$`\tau _{B^0}=\tau _{B^0}^{\mathrm{raw}}_{\overline{D}^0}=1.529\pm 0.012\mathrm{ps}.`$
The systematic error on $`\tau _{B^0}`$ is computed by adding in quadrature the contributions from several sources, described below and summarized in Table 2.

The fractions of $`B^+`$, continuum, and combinatorial $`B\overline{B}`$ events are varied by the uncertainties obtained from the $`M_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ fit (see Table 1). The parameters of the continuum and combinatorial $`B\overline{B}`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distributions are varied by their uncertainties, accounting for their correlations. As described above, the fraction of events with non-zero lifetime and the lifetime of the combinatorial $`B\overline{B}`$ background computed from the sideband are corrected with the same-sign control sample. This method is validated by a simulation study, and the statistical error of the validation is included in the background systematic error. The effective $`B^+`$ lifetime is varied by $`\pm 3\%`$, which is the sum in quadrature of the world average error on the $`B^+`$ lifetime and the statistical and systematic uncertainties of the $`\overline{D}^0`$ bias correction.

The parameters of the signal resolution function that are not determined in the fit to the data are varied within conservative ranges ($`f_2`$ between 0.03 and 0.13, and $`b_2`$ between $`1.5`$ and 0 $`\mathrm{ps}`$). Several different analytical expressions are used to represent the small fraction of outliers. The fit is also performed by allowing the scale factor and the bias of the narrow Gaussians to depend linearly on $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }t}`$ or on the lepton polar angle. The maximum change with respect to the result with fixed parameters is taken as the systematic error due to the parametrization of the resolution function.

The bias due to the event selection is found to be compatible with zero by fitting with an exponential function the true proper time difference of signal events selected in the simulation. The statistical error of this test is added to the systematic error.

The statistical and systematic errors on $`_{\overline{D}^0}`$ are propagated to the final error. A possible bias induced by the presence of tracks from charm decays produced by the other $`B`$ meson is investigated in the simulation by varying within their uncertainties the relative fractions of charmless, single charm, and double charm events, and also by varying the relative fractions of $`D^+,D^0,D_s`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ hadrons. The $`z`$ length scale is determined with an uncertainty of 0.4% from secondary interactions with a beam pipe section of known length. The dependence of the result on several different variables (angular width of the $`\pi _s`$ cone used to reject $`\overline{D}^0`$ tracks, soft pion momentum, lepton momentum, polar and azimuthal angle, alignment conditions) is carefully inspected; no statistically significant effect is found. No difference in the result is observed if $`\tau _{B^0}`$ is determined with an unbinned maximum likelihood fit. A final relative error of $`\pm 1.9\%`$ is found by adding in quadrature the uncertainties from the above sources, as listed in Table 2.

In conclusion, a sample of about 92000 $`B^0D^{}\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ decays is selected by partial reconstruction of the $`D^{}\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{0}\pi _{}^{}`$  decay. It is used for a measurement of the $`B^0`$ lifetime. The value obtained,

$`\tau _{B^0}=1.529\pm 0.012(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.029(\mathrm{syst})\mathrm{ps},`$
is consistent with a recent BABAR measurement tauBabar  and with the world average PDG . It is currently the most precise single measurement of this quantity.

We are grateful for the excellent luminosity and machine conditions provided by our PEP-II colleagues. The collaborating institutions wish to thank SLAC for its support and kind hospitality. This work is supported by DOE and NSF (USA), NSERC (Canada), IHEP (China), CEA and CNRS-IN2P3 (France), BMBF (Germany), INFN (Italy), NFR (Norway), MIST (Russia), and PPARC (United Kingdom). Individuals have received support from the Swiss NSF, A. P. Sloan Foundation, Research Corporation, and Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.


format: text

text:
# Pulsed light beams in vacuum with superluminal and negative group velocities

## Abstract

Gouy’s phase of transversally limited pulses can create a strong anomalous dispersion in vacuum leading to highly superluminal and negative group velocities. As a consequence, a focusing pulse can diverge beyond the focus before converging into it. A simple experiment is proposed.

Propagation of light pulses at superluminal velocities has received a good deal of attention in recent years CHIAO ; DU ; WANG . Superluminal group velocities in light pulses have been predicted and experimentally demonstrated in evanescent modes of undersized waveguides CHIAO , in $`X`$-Besssel waves DU , and in pulses travelling in transparent materials with pronounced enough anomalous dispersion WANG , one of the most striking results being a negative superluminal group velocity of an undeformable pulse, which in practice means that the pulse exits the dispersive material before entering WANG .

In this letter we show that arbitrarily high and negative group velocities in temporally undeformable pulses are also possible in vacuum as an effect of the phase anomaly BO , or Gouy’s phase associated to diffraction.

In fact, slight superluminal behavior in collimated POPRE  and focused ZBOR  pulsed Gaussian beam has been recently described. Though these results were obtained under the approximate paraxial theory of light beam propagation SI , they have been shown to be correct and accurate from the nonparaxial vectorial Kirchhoff-Sommerfeld diffraction formula POOC1 ; ZBOR .

Discrepancy of the group velocity from $`c`$ in arbitrary pulsed light beams is shown here to be a consequence of the frequency dependence of Gouy’s phase, a dispersion which can be controlled by properly selecting the pulse transversal profile. We then find it rather simple, by using standard optics such as a lens and a radially graded mirror BE02 ; PI96 , to generate a strong enough anomalous dispersion so as to produce arbitrarily high superluminal and negative group velocities in a focusing pulse, whose temporal form is moreover found to remain nearly unchanged.

Let us start by considering the three-dimensional wave packet, or pulsed light beam

$$E(r,z,t)=\frac{1}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \widehat{E}_\omega (r,z)\mathrm{exp}(i\omega t),$$
(1)
$`r=(x^2+y^2)^{1/2}`$, that results from the superposition of monochromatic light beams $`\widehat{E}_\omega (r,z)`$ of different frequencies $`\omega `$.

All components $`\widehat{E}_\omega (r,z)`$ are assumed to be paraxial about the positive $`z`$-axis, and further to have, for simplicity, revolution symmetry around this axis. The slowly varying complex amplitude $`\widehat{\psi }_\omega (r,z)`$ of the paraxial light beam $`\widehat{E}_\omega (r,z)`$ \[i.e., $`\widehat{E}_\omega =\widehat{\psi }_\omega \mathrm{exp}(i\omega z/c)`$, with $`c`$ the vacuum light speed of plane waves\] obeys the paraxial wave equation $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\widehat{\psi }_\omega +2i(\omega /c)_z\widehat{\psi }_\omega =0`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}=_{xx}+_{yy}=(1/r)_r(r_r)`$ is the transversal Laplacian. Writing $`\widehat{\psi }_\omega =a_\omega \mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _\omega )`$, i.e., in terms of its real amplitude $`a_\omega (r,z)=\sqrt{I_\omega (r,z)}>0`$ \[squared root of intensity $`I_\omega (r,z)`$\] and phase $`\varphi _\omega (r,z)`$, it is a straighforward calculation to obtain the propagation equation for the on-axis ($`r=0`$) phase $`\varphi _\omega (z)\varphi _\omega (0,z)`$, or Gouy’s phase, as $`_z\varphi _\omega (z)=(c/2\omega )C_\omega (z)`$, where $`C_\omega (z)\mathrm{\Delta }_{}a_\omega (r,z)|_{r=0}/a_\omega (0,z)`$, and we have assumed that the light beam is smooth enough at on-axis points \[$`_r\varphi (r,z)|_{r=0}=0`$\]. The axial variation of the Gouy’s phase $`_z\varphi (z)`$ of a monochromatic light beam can thus be inferred from the property of the transversal intensity profile $`C_\omega (z)`$, an easily measurable quantity having an intuitive meaning: If the normalized intensity profile is expanded in power series about $`r=0`$, we obtain $`I_\omega (r,z)/I_\omega (0,z)=1+(1/2)C_\omega (z)r^2+\mathrm{}`$; thus $`C_\omega (z)`$ gives the concavity of the intensity profile at $`r=0`$. For example, $`C_\omega (z)=4/s_\omega ^2(z)`$ for the Gaussian profile $`a_\omega (r,z)=\mathrm{exp}[r^2/s_\omega ^2(z)]`$.

If our wavepacket $`E(r,z,t)`$ has the form of enveloped oscillations of a certain carrier frequency $`\omega _0`$, then $`a_\omega (z)`$ is a narrow function of frequency around $`\omega _0`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega /\omega _01`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$ being, e.g., the half-width at $`1/e`$ maximum amplitude). The phase and group velocities at which the carrier oscillations and the envelope propagate in vacuum are given, respectively, by BO  $`v_p=\omega _0/_z[\omega _0z/c+\varphi _{\omega _0}(z)]`$ and $`v_g=1/_z[\omega z/c+\varphi _\omega (z)]_{\omega _0}^{}`$, where the prime sign means differentiation with respect to $`\omega `$. It is then seen that discrepancies of $`v_p`$ and $`v_g`$ from $`c`$ are due, respectively, to axial and frequency dependence of Gouy’s phase, dependences that originate, also respectively, from transversal limitation of the wave (i.e., from diffraction) and the frequency-dependent nature of the diffraction phenomenon. Negative group velocities (with the physical sense discussed by Wang et al. WANG ) are in principle allowed by omitting the absolute value in the rigorous definition of group velocity BO . Since $`_z\varphi (z)=(c/2\omega )C_\omega (z)`$, the alternative expressions $`v_p/c=\left[1+(c^2/2\omega _0^2)C_{\omega _0}(z)\right]^1`$, and

$$\frac{v_g}{c}=\left\{1\frac{c^2}{2\omega _0^2}\left[C_{\omega _0}(z)\omega _0C_{\omega _0}^{}(z)\right]\right\}^1,$$
(2)
can be readily found. The values of $`v_p`$ and $`v_g`$ at a given cross section $`z`$ of a pulsed beam can be then predicted from the transversal profile of the monochromatic light beam at $`\omega _0`$ and neighbouring frequencies. It is worthwhile to note that the above expressions of $`v_p`$ and $`v_g`$ can be formally obtained from the well-known formulas $`v_p/c=n_{\omega _0}^1`$ and $`v_g/c=(n_{\omega _0}+\omega _0n_{\omega _0}^{})^1`$ for a plane pulse in a material medium with refraction index $`n_\omega (z)=1+(c^2/2\omega ^2)C_\omega (z)`$.

In the most frequent and interesting case of $`C_\omega (z)<0`$ (maximum amplitude on-axis), the condition of superluminality \[$`v_g(z)>c]`$ is found to be, from Eq. (2), $`|C_{\omega _0}(z)|^{}>|C_{\omega _0}(z)|/\omega _0`$. Negative $`v_g(z)`$ can even take place if $`|C_{\omega _0}(z)|^{}>|C_{\omega _0}(z)|/\omega _0+2\omega _0/c^2`$. In terms of the equivalent refraction index, superluminality corresponds to $`n_{\omega _0}^{}<(1n_{\omega _0})/\omega _00`$, i.e., to weak normal dispersion or anomalous dispersion, and negative $`v_g`$ corresponds to $`n_{\omega _0}^{}<n_0/\omega _0<0`$, i.e., to strong anomalous dispersion. It appears, in conclusion, that the only requirement to produce a desired superluminality is to introduce a suitable variation with frequency of the concavity of the transversal profile of the monochromatic components. These variations can be easily generated in laboratory using simple optical elements as lenses, or suitably designed filters:

Consider an arbitrary pulsed beam $`E(r,t)`$ at the entrance plane of a lens whose focal length is $`f`$, and let write its spectrum in the convenient form $`\widehat{E}_\omega (r)=\widehat{P}_\omega b_\omega (r)`$, where $`\widehat{P}_\omega `$ can be identified with the pulse spectrum at a typical point on the lens (e.g., $`r=0`$). The dependence of $`b_\omega (r)`$ with $`\omega `$ accounts for possible changes in the transversal amplitude and phase profile with frequency. At the focal plane, the spectrum amplitude is, as is well-known, $`a_\omega |\stackrel{~}{b}_\omega (\omega r/2\pi cf)|`$, where

$$\stackrel{~}{b}_\omega (\rho )=2\pi _0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑rrb_\omega (r)J_0(2\pi \rho r)$$
(3)
is the two-dimensional Fourier transform of $`b_\omega (r)`$, $`J_0()`$ is the zero-order Bessel function of first class, $`\rho =(\xi ^2+\eta ^2)^{1/2}`$, $`(\xi ,\eta )`$ being conjugate variables of $`(x,y)`$. The concavity at the focus can be shown to be $`|C_\omega |=(\omega /2\pi cf)^2|(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{}|\stackrel{~}{b}_\omega |/|\stackrel{~}{b}_\omega |)_{\rho =0}|`$, with $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{}_{\xi \xi }+_{\eta \eta }`$. Elemental properties of the Fourier transform lead to the relationship $`|(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{}|\stackrel{~}{b}_\omega |/|\stackrel{~}{b}_\omega |)_{\rho =0}|=4\pi ^2r^2_\omega `$, where $`r^2_\omega \left[_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑rr^3|b_\omega (r)|\right]/\left[_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑rr|b_\omega (r)|\right]`$ is the squared rms width of the transversal profile amplitude $`|b_\omega (r)|`$ on the lens. In conclusion, $`|C_\omega |=r^2_\omega (\omega ^2/c^2f^2)`$ at the focus.

In the case of an amplitude profile $`|b(r)|`$ independent of frequency, the proportionality $`|C_\omega |\omega ^2`$ due to the focusing process makes condition $`|C_{\omega _0}|^{}>|C_{\omega _0}|/\omega _0`$ of superluminality to be satisfied. Indeed, from Eq. (2), the simple result $`v_g/c=(1r^2/2f^2)^11`$ for the group velocity at the focus is obtained. The Gaussian case $`b(r)=\mathrm{exp}(r^2/s^2)`$ with plane pulse front and in the limit of infinite Fresnel number $`N_{\omega _0}=s^2/\lambda _{\omega _0}f`$ ($`\lambda _{\omega _0}=2\pi c/\omega _0`$) was considered in Ref. ZBOR, . We see, however, that the superluminality at the focus is independent of the transversal amplitude and phase profiles, and of $`N_{\omega _0}`$.

Strong superluminality ($`v_gc`$, $`v_g<0`$) may be obtained if the transversal profile $`b_\omega (r)`$ on the lens depends on frequency. In this case the concavity $`|C_\omega |`$ at the focus varies with $`\omega `$ due to focusing ($`\omega ^2`$) and also to the possilbe variation of the width $`r^2_\omega `$ on the lens with $`\omega `$. From Eq. (2) the group velocity at the focus is given by

$$\frac{v_g}{c}=\left(1\frac{1}{2}\frac{r^2_{\omega _0}}{f^2}\frac{\omega _0}{2}\frac{r^2_{\omega _0}^{}}{f^2}\right)^1,$$
(4)
which is (as in the previous case) independent of the exact shape of $`b_\omega (r)`$, and also of its possible distortion when widening with frequency. Superluminality is enhanced with respect to the case of $`\omega `$-independent profile if $`r^2_\omega `$ at the lens grows with $`\omega `$ (i.e., $`r^2_{\omega _0}^{}>0`$)

Growth of width with frequency must be obtained making use of the spatially dispersive properties of certain optical systems. A fair possibility is the use of graded mirrors or transparencies BE02  made of a stack of dielectric layers, PI96  like the rather simple one shown in Fig. 1a. Such a device is designed to produce a certain transversal profile $`|b_{\omega _R}(r)|`$ of a certain width $`r^2_{\omega _R}`$ when illuminated with a specific frequency $`\omega _R`$. When illuminated with neighboring frequencies, however, we have found that the produced profile changes, and in particular its spot size grows significantly with frequency. Fig. 1b shows the frequency-dependent width of the output amplitude profile when the multilayer is illuminated with Gaussian beams of different frequencies but constant width.

Given $`\omega _0`$, $`r^2_{\omega _0}\lambda _{\omega _0}^2`$, and $`r^2_{\omega _0}^{}`$ produced by a spatially dispersive system \[as those of Fig. 1b in the case of the graded mirror\], the focal length to be used to obtain $`v_g=\mathrm{}`$ at the focus is, from Eq. (4),

$$f^2=(r^2_{\omega _0}+\omega _0r^2_{\omega _0}^{})/2\text{(}v_g=\mathrm{}\text{)}$$
(5)
(slightly smaller $`f`$ will yield a negative group velocity). This focal length must moreover verify, for paraxiality, $`f\sqrt{r^2}_{\omega _0}`$, or from (5),

$$r^2_{\omega _0}^{}r^2_{\omega _0}/\omega _0,$$
(6)
which can be regarded as the condition for the device in order to obtain strong superluminality. In the case of the multilayer of Fig. 1, for the selected $`\omega _0=3.409`$ fs-1, we obtained $`r^2_{\omega _0}=0.17`$ mm2, and $`r^2_{\omega _0}^{}=1.645`$ mm2 fs. Then condition (6) is loosely satisfied ($`r^2_{\omega _0}^{}33r^2_{\omega _0}/\omega _0`$). The focal length for $`v_g=\mathrm{}`$ is in fact $`f=1.7`$ mm $``$ $`\sqrt{r^2_{\omega _0}}=0.41`$ mm.

Due to the appreciable variation of the width with frequency at the lens plane imposed by Eq. (6), we must ensure that not only the monochromatic component at $`\omega _0`$, but at any $`\omega `$ within the frequency band $`2\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$, focuses paraxially, i.e., $`\lambda _\omega \sqrt{r^2}_\omega f`$ for all $`\omega `$ in $`2\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$. If we assume, for simplicity, the approximate linear variation of the width $`\sqrt{r^2}_\omega \sqrt{r^2}_{\omega _0}+\sqrt{r^2}_{\omega _0}^{}(\omega \omega _0)`$ within $`2\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$, we must then require $`\sqrt{r^2}_{\omega _0\mathrm{\Delta }\omega }\lambda _{\omega _0\mathrm{\Delta }\omega }\lambda _{\omega _0}`$ for the smallest width in the spectrum, and $`\sqrt{r^2}_{\omega _0+\mathrm{\Delta }\omega }f`$ for the largest one. These two conditions are seen to be satisfied if

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\omega \sqrt{r^2}_{\omega _0}/\sqrt{r^2}_{\omega _0}^{}=2r^2_{\omega _0}/r^2_{\omega _0}^{}.$$
(7)
Eq. (7) then determines the spectral bandwidth of the input pulse to achieve strong superluminality by paraxial focusing. For the proposed filter, Eq. (7) yields $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega 0.206`$ fs-1. In practice, the entire spectrum should lie within the operation range $`\omega >\omega _R`$ of the filter; one can then take, e.g., $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega 0.206/16`$, which implies an input pulse duration $`\mathrm{\Delta }t155`$ fs.

To investigate in more detail the effects associated to infinite or negative $`v_g`$, we have simulated the focusing of the pulsed beam $`E(r,t)`$ whose spectrum $`\widehat{E}_\omega (r)=\widehat{P}_\omega \mathrm{exp}(r^2/s_{L,\omega }^2)`$ has a frequency-dependent width $`s_{L,\omega }`$. Using standard rules of Gaussian beam propagation SI , the spectrum amplitude at any propagation distance $`z`$ beyond the lens is given by $`a_\omega (r,z)=[s_{L,\omega }\widehat{P}_\omega /s_\omega (z)]\mathrm{exp}[r^2/s_\omega ^2(z)]`$, where $`s_\omega (z)=s_{L,\omega }[(1z/f)^2+(2cz/\omega s_{L,\omega }^2)^2]^{1/2}`$ is the Gaussian width at distance $`z`$, and the spectrum phase is given by $`\varphi _\omega (r,z)=\mathrm{tan}^1[\pi N_\omega (zf)/z]\pi /2+\omega r^2/2cR_{\omega _0}(z)`$, where $`N_\omega =s_{L,\omega }^2/\lambda _\omega f`$ is the Gaussian Fresnel number, and $`1/R_{\omega _0}(z)=[s_{L,\omega }/s_\omega (z)][(1z/f)/f+(2c/\omega s_{L,\omega })^2z]`$. The group velocity along the $`z`$-axis turns out to be, from Eq. (2),

$$\frac{v_g(z)}{c}=\left\{1\frac{s_{L,\omega _0}^2}{2f^2}\sigma \frac{(1\xi )^2[1(\xi \pi N_{\omega _0})^2]}{[1+(\xi \pi N_{\omega _0})^2]^2}\right\}^1$$
(8)
where $`\sigma 1+2\omega _0s_{L,\omega _0}^{}/s_{L,\omega _0}`$ and $`\xi (zf)/z`$. At the focus ($`\xi =0`$), Eq. (8) reduces to Eq. (4) with the identification $`s_{L,\omega _0}^2=r^2_{\omega _0}`$. The curve $`v_g(z)`$ is shown in Fig. 2 for typical sets of parameters. The form of the curve is solely determined by $`N_{\omega _0}`$. A maximum is reached at an intermediate point between the focus $`z=f`$ and the waist position $`z_0=f/[1+1/\pi ^2N_{\omega _0}^2]`$ of the Gaussian beam with frequency $`\omega _0`$. If $`N_{\omega _0}`$ is large enough, the asymmetry of the curve $`v_g(z)`$ with respect to $`z=f`$ becomes inappreciable. The maximum enhances with increasing convergence angle $`s_{L,\omega _0}/f`$. Moreover, for given $`s_{L,\omega _0}/f`$ (as in the three curves in Figs. 2a and b), arbitrary enhancements are achieved by increasing $`s_{L,\omega _0}^{}`$. For instance, in Fig.2b, $`\omega _0s_{L,\omega _0}^{}/s_{L,\omega _0}=600`$ (so that the lhs of (5) is 2/3 the rhs). Then an extended region with negative $`v_g`$ appears around the focus. This region plays a similar role as the gas cell in the experiments of Ref. WANG, .

The behavior of a pulse with such an unusual $`v_g`$ is more easily understood from Fig. 3a. The solid curve shows the arrival time of the pulse peak (that travels at velocity $`v_g`$) at axial position $`z`$, as determined by the pulse front equation BO  $`t=[\omega z/c+\varphi _\omega (0,z)]_{\omega _0}^{}`$. The slope of the curve yields the group velocity in units of $`c`$. At $`z_A`$ and $`z_B`$, $`v_g`$ is infinite, and negative between them. As a consequence (as is apparent from the curve), the pulse peak may arrive earlier at axial points behind the focus than at points before the focus, e.g., earlier at $`z_B`$ than at $`z_A`$. The infinite group velocity at $`z_B`$ can be associated to the fact that the pulse peak appears to arrive instantly at $`z_B`$ from $`z_C`$. Indeed, in the interval $`(t_C,t_A)`$, the pulse peak arrives at three positions at the same time.

Of course, the above interpretation for the behavior of the pulse peak is valid if the pulse temporal form does not experience significant deformation during propagation, in which case it is also valid for any temporal feature of the pulse. In Fig. 3b we have numerically verified that this is the case. The pulsed beam of spectrum on the lens $`\widehat{E}_\omega (r)=\widehat{P}_\omega \mathrm{exp}(r^2/s_{L,\omega }^2)`$, with $`\widehat{P}_\omega =\sqrt{\pi }(b/2)\mathrm{exp}[b^2(\omega \omega _0)^2/2]`$ \[i.e., $`P(t)=\mathrm{exp}(t^2/b^2)`$\] was propagated behind the lens according to the Gaussian beam rules SI , and the time-domain field was obtained from numerical integration of Eq. (1), with $`\omega _0=1.571`$ fs-1, $`s_{L,\omega _0}=0.096`$ mm, $`f=1.92`$ mm, and $`s_{L,\omega _0}^{}=36.67`$ mm fs (to obtain, as in Figs. 2b and 3a, the values $`N_{\omega _0}=4`$, $`s_{L,\omega _0}/f=0.05`$ and $`\omega _0s_{L,\omega _0}^{}/s_{L,\omega _0}=600`$). Condition (7) is satisfied taking $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega =1.309\times 10^3`$ fs-1, or $`b=2/\mathrm{\Delta }\omega =1528`$ fs. Fig. 3b shows the normalized pulse temporal form at $`z_A=1.861`$ mm and $`z_B=1.974`$ mm (points A and B of Fig.3a). There is no appreciable deformation in the pulse, which arrives at $`z_B`$ (after the focus) 109 fs earlier than at $`z_A`$ (before the focus). At other distances $`z`$, we have also observed pulse form invariance. The arrival time of pulse peak at each selected $`z`$ is shown (small squares) in Fig. 3a.

Fig. 4 offers a more complete off-axis picture of the propagation. The pulse front surface $`t=[\omega z/c+\varphi _\omega (r,z)]_{\omega _0}^{}`$, or surface formed by all points of equal peak time, is depicted at some instants of time. When the convergent front advancing towards the focus intersects the axis at $`z_C`$, a new elliptical branch is born at position $`z_B`$ beyond the focus (curves 1), starting its motion with $`v_g=\mathrm{}`$. At $`t=6400`$ (1 fs later than curve 3), the two branches join, transforming into a planar front that coincides with the focal plane and backpropagates at $`v_g2c`$, and a nearly elliptical front around the focus. At longer times (curves 4-6), the situation is nearly reversed; in particular, a branch of the front implodes at $`z_A`$ with $`v_g=\mathrm{}`$. In short, the pulse peak (or any other pulse feature) diverges from the axial point $`z_B>f`$ before it reaches the focal plane. Indeed, the converging front never reaches this plane, but dies out at $`z_A<f`$.

According to our analysis, strong superluminality in vacuum, including negative group velocities, could be experimentally demonstrated by focusing rather arbitrary pulses, under the only condition that the spot size varies with frequency appropriately. The required variation has been shown to be loosely attained with a multilayer graded mirror. Other devices are under study. Superluminality is here an effect of the dephasing between the different spectral components of the pulse due to the frequency dependence of Gouy’s phase.

The authors thank A. Piegari for helpful discussions.