text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Consider a single unstable states $`|\lambda `$ characterized by some quantum numbers denoted by $`\lambda `$. Although not an eigenstate to the full Hamiltonian, the state has a definite mass. Viewing this state as an open quantum system, its time evolution can be generally given as

$$|\lambda (\tau )=p_\lambda (\tau )|\lambda $$
(1.1)
where the effective Hamiltonian $`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ governing this system is non-hermitian and in the Weisskopf-Wigner approximation  one recovers the exponential decay law $`p_\lambda (\tau )=e^{iE\tau }e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }/2\tau }`$. As long as we restrict ourselves to a single particle state $`|\lambda `$, there are no known inconsistencies in performing this analysis. The state $`|\lambda `$ can be a mass-eigenstate defined, say, through mixing in a Lagrangian framework. Suppose now that we combine this mixing and the instability analysis into one single equation. With a two level quantum system, the non-hermitian Hamiltonian of the single particle case becomes a non-hermitian effective $`2\times 2`$ mass matrix $`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. Obviously, the diagonalization of $`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is generally not given by a unitary transformation and as a result the norm is not automatically preserved. The two emerging mass eigenstates, say $`|\lambda _{1,2}`$, can turn out to be non-orthogonal i.e. $`\lambda _1|\lambda _20`$. This non-orthogonality has rather profound consequences: no suitable definition of the anti-particle states is known, the time development of $`|\lambda _1`$ and $`|\lambda _2`$ are generally inter-connected (that is to say that the times evolution of one of this states seems to ‘know‘ about the other) and, maybe less certain, EPR-like paradoxes can be encountered in the system. A more detailed account of these peculiarities will be given in section 3. Let us now assume that the mixing is well defined within a Lagrangian. Performing only unitary transformations we can define two orthogonal mass eigenstates and proceed to analyze their time behaviour for each one of them separately. Since the situation of mixing and instability is often encountered in physics, the rather fundamental question arises, which one of the possibilities we should follow. Obviously, the outcomes will be different. The first method is followed in the neutral kaon system  (and related mesonic systems) whereas for massive unstable neutrinos the mixing is done within the Langrangian framework  and we opt here for the second possibility. Now the formal difference is that for the weak, CP-violating, kaon interaction no effective Langrangian description is known (this does not mean that such description is in general not possible and indeed we present below a Lagrangian which, at least, theoretically, contains the basic features of the neutral kaon system) whereas the neutrinos are part of the fundamental extended Standard Model Langrangian. On the other hand, there exist no argument which would restrict the applicability of the first method only to kaons or more generally to composite objects. Indeed, regardless whether the particles are fundamental or composite, this method can be applied to any unstable two level system, in particular to neutrinos. Since the question we pose here touches upon a basic principle, we should be able to decide which one is physically correct. If we find that the first method is the preferable one, then it should be applied to any similar system even if this system has been initially formulated by means of a Lagrangian. On the other hand if we find this method erroneous, we should seek for better theoretical tools which could amount to introduce improvements or to abandon it and replace it e.g. by a suitable effective Lagrangian.

In this paper we will compare these two approaches without propounding one in favor of the other. In doing so, we will stay as close as possible to the $`K^0\overline{K^0}`$ system. Although the Lagrangian presented below captures many features of the neutral kaon system, this will not be the main issue of the paper. As indicated above, no condition on the elementarity or compositness of the involved states enters the Lee-Oehme-Yang (LOY) theory  which is the theory which combines mixing of $`K^0\overline{K^0}`$ with the instability of these states. That is to say that this theory goes formally through for composite as well as fundamental particles. Therefore, to emphasize the main conclusions of the paper we will mostly treat the states as elementary. Nevertheless a comparison to the $`K^0\overline{K^0}`$ system seems legitimate.

## 2 CP-violation through mixing in a Lagrangian

To facilitate the understanding of the main problem, we start with a simple Lagrangian involving two complex scalar fields $`\varphi `$ and $`\chi `$, one scalar neutral field $`\phi `$ and possibly other fields $`\eta _i`$ which we do not need to specify further. We have

$$=_\phi ^{\mathrm{kin}}+_\varphi ^{\mathrm{kin}}+_\chi ^{\mathrm{kin}}+_{\varphi \phi \chi }^{\mathrm{int}}+_{\mathrm{CP}\mathrm{violat}.}^{\mathrm{mix}}+_{\varphi \phi \chi \eta _i}^{\mathrm{int}}$$
(2.1)
where $`^{\mathrm{kin}}`$ are the usual kinetic terms of the same form as

$$_\varphi ^{\mathrm{kin}}=(_\mu \varphi )(^\mu \varphi ^{})m^2\varphi \varphi ^{}$$
(2.2)
We choose for the interaction between $`\varphi `$, $`\phi `$ and $`\chi `$ the simple expression

$`_{\varphi \phi \chi }^{\mathrm{int}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{00}}{\sqrt{2}}}\varphi \phi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _+}{\sqrt{2}}}\varphi \chi \chi ^{}`$ (2.3)
$``$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{000}}{\sqrt{2}}}\varphi \phi ^3i{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{+0}}{\sqrt{2}}}\chi \chi ^{}\phi +\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$
where $`\lambda _{00}`$, $`\lambda _+`$, $`\lambda _{000}`$ and $`\lambda _{+0}`$ are real coupling constants. We demand now that $`_{\varphi \phi \chi \eta _i}^{\mathrm{int}}`$ be by itself CP-invariant such that $`\phi `$ has the CP quantum numbers of a pseudoscalar. Furthermore, we impose on $`_{\varphi \phi \chi \eta _i}^{\mathrm{int}}`$ a global $`U(1)`$ symmetry such that among $`\varphi `$, $`\phi `$ and $`\chi `$ only $`\varphi `$ has a non-zero charge with respect to this global $`U(1)`$ symmetry. Then $`_{\varphi \phi \chi }^{\mathrm{int}}`$ breaks this symmetry and even with $`_{\mathrm{CP}\mathrm{violat}.}^{\mathrm{mix}}`$ being zero we cannot identify the $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi ^{}`$ as mass-eigenstates. Writing therefore $`\varphi =(\varphi _1+i\varphi _2)/\sqrt{2}`$ where $`\varphi _{1,2}`$ are now the proper mass eigenstates (no mixing yet) we obtain easily

$`_{\varphi \phi \chi }^{\mathrm{int}}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _{00}\varphi _1\phi ^2+\lambda _+\varphi _1\chi \chi ^{}`$ (2.4)
$`+`$ $`\lambda _{000}\varphi _2\phi ^3+\lambda _{+0}\varphi _2\chi \chi ^{}\phi `$
The Lagrangian

$$^{(1)}=_{\mathrm{CP}\mathrm{violat}.}^{\mathrm{mix}}$$
(2.5)
in which the mass-eigenstates $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ are defined, describes the interaction of four mass-eigenstates fields: the neutral pseudoscalar (CP-odd) fields $`\phi `$, the charged field $`\chi `$ and the scalar (CP-even) $`\varphi _1`$ as well as the pseudoscalar $`\varphi _2`$. Obviously, since we were able to assign CP quantum numbers to all fields $`^{(1)}`$ is still invariant under CP-transformations. How can we break the CP-invariance through mixing of $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ ? To this end we introduce

$`_{\mathrm{CP}\mathrm{violat}.}^{\mathrm{mix}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu ^2\varphi \varphi \mu ^2\varphi ^{}\varphi ^{}`$ (2.6)
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}\mathrm{}\mathrm{e}\mu ^2\varphi _1^2+\sqrt{2}\mathrm{}\mathrm{e}\mu ^2\varphi _2^2\sqrt{2}\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}\mu ^2\varphi _1\varphi _2`$
with a complex parameter $`\mu ^2`$. With $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}\mu ^20`$, the fields $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$, previously carrying the quantum numbers of scalar and pseudoscalar, respectively, will mix which evidently leads to CP-violation. With $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}\mu ^2=0`$, there is no CP-violation, but the mixing remains. Hence, $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ are no longer mass-eigenstates. As a side remark, we note that $`_{CPviolat.}^{\mathrm{mix}}`$ can be understood as describing the transition $`\varphi \varphi ^{}`$. With a little bit effort, one could obtain at higher orders such a transition from $`^{(1)}`$ in (2.5) since we have $`\varphi \chi \chi ^{}\varphi ^{}`$. However, because $`^{(1)}`$ respects the CP-symmetry (at least with all coupling constants real), the contributions would be also CP-invariant.

The mixing due to (2.6) is given by

$$\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _1\\ \varphi _2\end{array}\right)^T\left(\begin{array}{cc}m^2+2\mathrm{}\mathrm{e}\mu ^2& 2\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}\mu ^2\\ 2\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}\mu ^2& m^22\mathrm{}\mathrm{e}\mu ^2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _1\\ \varphi _2\end{array}\right)$$
(2.7)
which after diagonalization leads to two new mass-eigenstates, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}e^{i\theta }[\varphi +e^{2i\theta }\varphi ^{}]`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta \varphi _1\mathrm{sin}\theta \varphi _2`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}e^{i\theta }[\varphi e^{2i\theta }\varphi ^{}]`$ (2.8)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta \varphi _1+\mathrm{cos}\theta \varphi _2`$
with masses given by

$`m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m^2+2|\mu ^2|`$
$`m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m^22|\mu ^2|`$ (2.9)
The mixing angle $`\theta `$ is defined through

$$\mathrm{tan}2\theta =\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}\mu ^2}{\mathrm{}\mathrm{e}\mu ^2}$$
(2.10)
In terms of the new mass-eigenstates $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,2}`$ the interaction Lagrangian $`_{\varphi \phi \chi }^{\mathrm{int}}`$ reads

$`_{\varphi \phi \chi }^{\mathrm{int}}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _{00}(\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{\Lambda }_2)\phi ^2`$ (2.11)
$`+`$ $`\lambda _+(\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{\Lambda }_2)\chi \chi ^{}`$
$`+`$ $`\lambda _{000}(\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{\Lambda }_2)\phi ^3`$
$`+`$ $`\lambda _{+0}(\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{\Lambda }_2)\chi \chi ^{}\phi `$
Performing once again a CP-transformation, but now on mass-eigenstates, we see that the CP-symmetry is broken as long as $`\mathrm{sin}\theta 0`$ i.e. $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}\mu ^20`$. With CP-violation and provided that $`m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,2}}`$ are bigger than $`2m_\phi `$ and $`m_\phi +2m_\chi `$, both states $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ will simultaneously decay into two, i.e. $`\phi \phi `$ and $`\chi \chi ^{}`$, and three, i.e. $`\phi \phi \phi `$ and $`\chi \chi ^{}\phi `$, spinless states.

There are two aspects of the Lagrangian presented in equations (2.1)-(2.11). We postpone the discussion of the more important aspect to the section 3 after having briefly discussed in section 4 the Lee-Oehme-Yang theory.

The Lagrangian (2.1) captures, at least theoretically, all important features of the $`K^0\overline{K^0}`$ system and is applicable to fundamental as well as composite fields (in the latter case we should replace the coupling constants by form factors, but the essential conclusions would remain unchanged). Indeed, we can identify $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi ^{}`$ with $`K^0`$ and $`\overline{K^0}`$, respectively and the mass $`m`$ with the kaon mass parameter usually denoted by $`m_K`$. The field $`\phi `$ represents then the neutral pion and $`\chi `$ the charged pion field. The other fields $`\eta _i`$ in $`_{\varphi \phi \chi \eta _i}^{\mathrm{int}}`$ stand, of course for more hadronic states. Hence $`_{\varphi \phi \chi \eta _i}^{\mathrm{int}}`$ is the strong interaction part which conserves CP and strangness, our imposed $`U(1)`$ symmetry. The latter is broken by weak interaction i.e. by $`_{\varphi \phi \chi }^{\mathrm{int}}`$. If $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}\mu ^2=0`$ i.e. there is no CP-violation in the system, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ have the quantum numbers of scalar and pseudoscalar and as such can be identified with $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ which do not decay simultaneously into two and three pions. If $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}\mu ^20`$, the CP-violation makes, however, both decays possible. A direct CP-violation can be also switched on by making the coupling constants in $`_{\varphi \phi \chi }^{\mathrm{int}}`$ complex. Anticipating our later discussion, we point out two essential features of the Lagrangian (2.1). Unlike the $`K^0\overline{K^0}`$ system described in the LOY-theory, the mass-eigenstates in the Lagrangian remain orthogonal and this in spite of CP-violation. Secondly, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$) has a well-defined anti-particle, namely it is anti-particle to itself.

The above is only a comparison. It would be too early to take (2.1) as a viable phenomenological description of the $`K^0\overline{K^0}`$ system. One reason is certainly that since this proposal is new, we do not know how to make a connection between the phenomenological Lagrangian (2.1) and the more fundamental Lagrangian of the Standard Model at quark level. This does not mean that such a connection cannot be established in future. If theoretically such a connection turns out to be possible, it could still be that (2.1) cannot reproduce all experimental facts from the $`K^0\overline{K^0}`$ system in which case we are left only with the choice of the LOY-theory. Secondly, to investigate the semi-leptonic decay channels with (2.1), we would have to add to (2.1) a $`W\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,2}\phi (\chi )`$ interaction which as such is actually not a problem. However, at tree level we would not see any CP-violation in the semi-leptonic decays and to obtain a non-zero semi-leptonic CP-asymmetry higher order corrections would be necessary. Since this superficial identification of (2.1) with the neutral kaon system is not the main point of the paper, we will not dwell on it further here. We end this section by once again pointing out that the analysis of the time evolution of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,2}`$ can be now done for each individual mass-eigenstate separately.

## 3  The LOY theory

To compare the results from the previous section, we will outline now the basic points of the LOY theory . Although we will formulate it for the neutral kaon system, it is important to stress again that this theory is applicable to many unstable systems with mixing, be it elementary or composite. In particular, it would also apply to massive neutrinos and the theory whose Lagrangian we presented in section 2. The LOY theory examines the mixing and instability simultaneously and as a result of this analysis we end up with an effective non-hermitian mass matrix $`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ which replaces the effective Hamiltonian for a single unstable state. This mass matrix is given by

$`(_{\mathrm{eff}})_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`m_K\delta _{ij}+K_i^0|H_{\mathrm{weak}}|K_j^0`$ (3.1)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{K_i^0|H_{\mathrm{weak}}|nn|H_{\mathrm{weak}}|K_j^0}{m_KE_n+iϵ}}`$
where $`K_i^0`$ can be either $`K^0`$ or $`\overline{K^0}`$. Parametrizing this mass matrix by

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& p^2\\ q^2& A\end{array}\right)$$
(3.2)
the mass-eigenstates can be calculated to be

$`|K_{S/L}`$ $`=`$ $`p|K^0\pm q|\overline{K^0}`$
$`|p|^2`$ $`+`$ $`|q|^2=1`$ (3.3)
Because $`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is in general non-hermitian, it is not necessary that we have $`K_S|K_L=K_S|K_L=0`$ or, in other words, that $`|p|^2=|q|^2`$. Indeed, if CP is a good symmetry, it follows that

$$p^2=K^0|_{\mathrm{eff}}|\overline{K^0}=e^{2i\xi }\overline{K^0}|_{\mathrm{eff}}|K^0=e^{2i\xi }q^2$$
(3.4)
where the phase $`\xi `$ comes from the CP-transformation $`CP|K^0=e^{i\xi }|\overline{K^0}`$. We conclude that if $`|p|^2|q|^20`$, we have CP-violation in the LOY theory and, indeed, this is taken as a genuine signal of broken CP. However, if $`p^2=e^{i\beta }q^2`$, with some phase $`\beta `$, we cannot decide whether CP is broken or conserved. As apparent from the Lagrangian example in section 2, a system can still exhibit CP-violation even if $`|p|^2=|q|^2`$. Quite similarly, if $`K_{S/L}`$ are eigenstates to CP, then $`|p|^2=|q|^2`$ (or if $`|p|^2=|q|^2`$, then $`K_{S/L}`$ are eigenstates to CP). The assignment or non-assignment of CP quantum numbers to the mass-eigenstates within the LOY-theory occurs in separation from any other state. In contrast, in the Lagrangian case this happens in conjunction with all states involved (i.e. only if we can assign to all fields a CP-phase, is CP conserved). As said above with $`|p|^2=|q|^2`$ CP can still be violated in the Lagrangian approach.

The time development in the Weisskopf-Wigner approximation is given by the the Schrödinger-like equation

$$i\frac{d}{d\tau }\left(\begin{array}{c}|K^0(\tau )\\ |\overline{K^0}(\tau )\end{array}\right)=_{\mathrm{eff}}\left(\begin{array}{c}|K^0(\tau )\\ |\overline{K^0}(\tau )\end{array}\right)$$
(3.5)
which leads to the exponential decay law for the mass-eigenstates.

In conclusion, in the LOY theory analyzing mixing and instability in a single step, one has to handle a non-hermitian mass-matrix. Its effect, in the presence of CP-violation, is the non-orthogonality of the mass-eigenstates i.e.

$$K_L|K_S=K_S|K_L=|p|^2|q|^20$$
(3.6)
In the next section we will discuss some peculiarities connected with non-orthogonal states. As such (3.6) is already troublesome to interpret. Although widely used, it is at the same time sometimes doubted if the usual projection technique in quantum mechanics is still applicable here. A density matrix would be preferable, but as for now one treats the mass-eigenstates kaons as pure states i.e. the density matrix is $`\rho _{S/L}=|K_{S/L}K_{S/L}|`$ and then there is no essential difference to the projection technique.

It should not come now as a surprise that in LOY theory CP-violation is correlated with the width of $`K_{S/L}`$. The best place to see it, is by means of the Bell-Steinberger relation which reads

$`(\lambda _L\lambda _S^{})K_S|K_L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}f|T|K_S^{}f|T|K_L`$
$`\lambda _{S/L}`$ $``$ $`m_{S/L}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{S/L}`$ (3.7)
where $`T`$ is the transition operator. Evidently, if the transition matrix elements containing $`K_S`$ or $`K_L`$ vanish (which is equivalent to having $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S`$ or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L`$ zero) and maintaining $`m_Sm_L`$, we are forced to assume that $`K_S|K_L=0`$ i.e. no CP-violation. Again this is not so in the Lagrangian example where even if the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,2}`$ mass-eigenstates are stable, the CP-violation does not vanish and, as a matter of principle, could show up in a different place (e.g. in scattering processes). There is no such correlation between the mixing parameters and the width in the Lagrangian formalism.

An important point to realize is that the LOY theory is not restricted to the kaon system. Provided we are ready to leave the Lagrangian formalism, it would go through also for the interaction presented in section 2. Indeed, we would not even need to know the explicit form of $`_{\varphi \phi \chi }^{\mathrm{int}}+_{\mathrm{CP}\mathrm{violat}.}^{\mathrm{mix}}`$ corresponding now to $`H_{\mathrm{weak}}`$. All that is formally required, is the definition of $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi ^{}`$ through $`_{\varphi \phi \chi \eta _i}^{\mathrm{int}}`$ and the assumption that $`_{\mathrm{CP}\mathrm{violat}.}^{\mathrm{mix}}`$ violates CP. We could also demand that the interaction contained in $`_{\varphi \phi \chi \eta _i}^{\mathrm{int}}`$ is much stronger than in the corresponding $`_{\varphi \phi \chi }^{\mathrm{int}}`$. As compared with the results from the Lagrangian, this would lead to non-orthogonal mass-eigenstates. We emphasize that this orthogonality is not due to some artifact of an approximation, but essentially a consequence of the non-hermiticity of the effective mass matrix. This property of $`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ will be always present in the analysis of the time evolution of a two level system.

Certainly, the advantage of the LOY theory is that there exit a well established connection to the Standard Model Lagrangian and, even more importantly, the experimental data. Nevertheless, it has some curious theoretical properties which we shall examine in the next section.

## 4 Consequences of non-orthogonality

We have seen that for the dynamics defined through the Lagrangian (2.1) we have two possibilities to analyze the mixing and time evolution of the involved states: the analysis of both by separating the mixing from the instability or the LOY theory which combines both. Whereas the Lagrangian choice leads to, what we could call standard properties of the states, the LOY theory does not due to (3.6). Again we will work here with the neutral kaon system, but keeping in mind that the very same conclusion would follow had we applied the LOY theory to (2.1).

The first curious problem has to do with definition of anti-particles to $`K_{S/L}`$. If $`\mathrm{\Theta }CPT`$ transforms the strangeness eigenstates as $`\mathrm{\Theta }|\overline{K^0}=e^{i\delta }|K^0`$ , then the CPT-transformed mass-eigenstates are given by

$`|K_{S/L}^\mathrm{\Theta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\delta }}{2pq}}[(|p|^2\pm e^{2i\delta }|q|^2)|K_S`$ (4.1)
$`+`$ $`(|p|^2\pm e^{2i\delta }|q|^2)|K_L]`$
If, up to a phase, we would demand that $`|K_S^\mathrm{\Theta }=|K_S`$ (which is reasonable as the mass-eigenstates kaon do not carry any other quantum number except mass and spin $`0`$), we would end up with $`e^{2i\delta }=1`$ and $`|p|^2=|q|^2`$ which obviously is not what one would like to have in the LOY theory. Working with non-hermitian operators, there is still a different possibility to define the CPT-transformation, viz.

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{eff}}\mathrm{\Theta }^1=_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}$$
(4.2)
Then one can prove the following theorem : provided that the non-hermitian Hamiltonian $``$ is normal i.e $`[,^{}]=0`$, there exist for every state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ with definite mass and lifetime a CPT-transformed state defined by $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^\theta \mathrm{\Theta }^1|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ with the same mass and lifetime as $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Certainly, for normal Hamiltonians this is a good definition of CPT and anti-particle states. Unfortunately in our case we get

$$[_{\mathrm{eff}},_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}]=|p|^2|q|^2$$
(4.3)
which brings us back to the very source of the problem. It seems therefore that we cannot unambiguously define anti-particle states to the kaon mass-eigenstates as long as the latter are non-orthogonal.

The second curious consequence of the non-orthogonality has to do with time evolution. There are at least three different proofs  of the following statement: as long as $`|p|^2|q|^20`$, the time evolution beyond the Weisskopf-Wigner approximation is strictly given by

$$|K_{S/L}(\tau )=p_{SS/LL}(\tau )|K_{S/L}+p_{SL/LS}(\tau )|K_{L/S}$$
(4.4)
where the coefficients $`p_{S/L}=p_{L/S}`$ are non-zero. Hence, as long as we insist on (3.6) (say,as a signal of CP-violation), we will get a time evolution which looks like a vacuum regeneration of the mass eigenstates. It has been estimated that the coefficient $`p_{SL}`$ is tiny , indeed too small to be detected experimentally, but as a matter of principle we should be worried about the interpretation of this effect.

The two last examples display already the unconventional properties of the non-orthogonality of the mass-eigenstates emerging form the LOY theory. We point out once again that they would apply also to the dynamics of the Lagrangian in section 2, had we applied the LOY theory to the mixing and instability.

The last example we would like to mention has to do with a paradox and is as such less clear. We will discuss it briefly for completeness since the paradox would find its simple resolution if the mass-eigenstates of kaons were orthogonal. There are actually two types of paradoxes discussed in the literature in connection with neutral kaons. Both have to do with entangled kaons at the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ resonance. The first one is a cleverly posed question about future-past interference . It has been resolved by means of the unitarity equation (3) and therefore does not have anymore the status of paradox . The second one seems to be a genuine EPR-paradox . It is, however, based on the wave function collapse of non-orthogonal states and on a principle of non-ideal measurements . Both issues are not so clear as one would wish them to be so as to be able to establish unambiguously the existence of the paradox. Nevertheless is it worth quoting. The authors of  have calculated the probability in an entangled kaon system to measure a $`\overline{K^0}`$ on the left hand side at a time $`T`$ after at $`T^{}<T`$ on the right hand side one of the three possibilities has been detected: (i) strangeness eigenstates $`K^0`$ or $`\overline{K^0}`$, (ii) decay products of $`K_S`$, (iii) decay products of $`K_L`$. Their result is

$$𝒫(T,T^{})e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_ST}+e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_LT}2K_S|K_L\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }m(TT^{})e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_S+\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}{2}(T+T^{})}$$
(4.5)
Obviously, if correct, this is a measureable quantity in which the right hand side influences the left hand side over arbitrary distances. It therefore violates the locality principle at a statistical level. This violation has to do with the $`T^{}`$ dependence of (4.5) which would vanish if $`K_S|K_L=0`$.

It is worth mentioning that to avoid certain problems with non-orthogonality one defines left and right eigenstates of $`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$  (i.e. we are now dealing with four states) and uses the propagator method for the unstable states . We feel, however, that both methods do not completely answer all the questions raised by the non-orthogonality. More importantly for the conclusions of the present paper, it seems also that both these methods also do not agree with the Lagrangian one. A more careful examination is required. Such and similar topic we postpone to future publications.

## 5 Conclusions

We have emphasized throughout the paper two important features of the LOY theory. The LOY theory analyzes the mixing and instability simultaneously and for the very same reason invokes necessarily a non-hermitian effective mass matrix which can lead to non-orthogonality of the mass-eigenstates. Secondly, this theory is applicable to any two level system be it elementary or composite. This applies also if the dynamics is given in form of a Lagrangian. In particular, it is also applicable to massive neutrinos. We have presented a special case of a Lagrangian which reveals many properties of the kaon system, but of course our conclusion is not restricted to this particular case. In principle, we have then two non-equivalent choices: to use the LOY theory or to stay within the formalism of the Lagrangian. The latter defines the mass-eigenstates by unitary transformations and proceeds to the time evolution of the individual unstable states in a separate step. We have pointed out some unusual consequences of the LOY theory. In a weaker form we can conclude that if the Lagrangian (2.1) meets all physical requirements, i.e. we can find a connection between its parameters and the parameters of the Standard Model as well as the experimentally measured quantities, we would have equally two valid choices for the analysis of the neutral kaon system.

Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank CONACyt for financial support through Catedra Patrimonial fellowship.


format: text

text:
# A New Approach to Personal Income Distribution

## 1 Introduction

The analysis of the personal income distribution is one of the important subjects in the econophysics . The first step concerning this research is almost established. There are some empirical knowledge of it. It is believed that the distribution follows a power law in the high income range and follows a lognormal distribution in the low-middle income range. The purpose of this paper is to explain this behavior from a viewpoint of $`R^2`$ dynamical random surface (DRS) model.

The distribution in the high income range is first discussed by V. Pareto in 1897 . The probability density function of the personal income $`x`$ is given by the following;

$`p(x)=Cx^{(1+\alpha )},`$ (1)
where $`C`$ is a normalization factor. Also $`\alpha `$ is the parameter which characterizes the profile of the income distribution, so-called Pareto index, and this power law behavior is known as Pareto law.

On the other hand, it is indicated by R. Gibrat in 1931 that the probability density function in the low-middle range follows a lognormal distribution as follows ;

$`p(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{x\sqrt{2\pi \sigma ^2}}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}^2\left(\frac{x}{x_0}\right)}{2\sigma ^2}}\right],`$ (2)
where $`x_0`$ is a geometric mean value of $`x`$ and $`\sigma ^2`$ is a geometric variance.

In the early ’80s, the above two knowledge are rediscovered . The income distributions in United States 1935-1936 are analyzed in these papers. Most of the data follows the lognormal distribution, while the higher 1% is governed by the power law. Recently, this fact is reconfirmed  by using the detailed Japanese data .

The personal income distribution has been an interesting object of study. What seems to be lacking is a model from which we can deduce the features in the whole income range. For example there are models employed a stochastic evolution equation. It is easy to derive a power law, however, it is hard to lead a lognormal distribution by using these models . Because the basic idea of these models is that they contain no typical scale in the fundamental equations. We should comment an exception. In recent paper , the authors employed a concept of complex networks  and a stochastic evolution equation with some interactions. As a consequence, they succeed to construct a power law and lognormal distribution in the whole range. There is, however, not an analytic consideration for creation of the lognormal distribution but only a phenomenological one by using computer simulations.

Our viewpoint is simple as follows. There is no typical scale concerning to money in the high income range. The distribution of it, therefore, should obey a power law. On the contrary, there is a typical scale in the low-middle income range, and it causes the breaking of the power law distribution. As a toy model which can realize above two cases in the same framework, we employ $`R^2`$ DRS model which is one of the methods for studying 2-dimensional quantum gravity with a typical scale. 2-dimensional gravity without a $`R^2`$ term has no typical scale, unlike 4-dimensional gravity. Here $`R`$ means the scalar curvature of a 2-dimensional surface. The dimension of $`R`$ is (length)<sup>-2</sup>, namely the $`R^2`$ term is dimensionfull. The $`R^2`$ term, therefore, provides a typical scale to 2-dimensional gravity. It is well known that this model has two ranges. A fractal and self-similar structure, $`i.e.`$ a power law, is seen in the range where the typical scale does not affect the theory. On the other hand, the fractal breaks down in the other range where the scale has the sense. This peculiarity is similar to the profile of the personal income distribution.

In order to confirm our view in the framework of $`R^2`$ DRS model, it is straight to adopt the money itself as the fundamental variable of theory not the money possessed by individuals. We have once forgotten the concept of an individual and pay attention only to the connection of the money in a certain unit. This connection forms a 2-dimensional surface in DRS model, and later the money of an individual is formed geometrically.

The outline of this paper is as follows. Section 2 is a brief review of the formalism upon which our work is based. $`R^2`$ DRS is explained and MINBU analysis that is one of the methods for studying the property of random surface is described. The aspects of continuum quantum $`R^2`$ gravity in 2-dimensions and the two asymptotic forms of the partition function are presented in section 3. These two forms correspond to the distribution functions in the high and the low income ranges, respectively. The interpretation and relation between quantities in $`R^2`$ DRS model and ones in the personal income are discussed in section 4. In section 5, the practical fitting is shown. The personal income distributions of United States in the year 1935-1936 and Japan in the year 1997-2000 are employed for its purpose. Summary and discussion will be given in section 6.

## 2 $`R^2`$ DRS Model and MINBU Analysis

In this section, we review DRS and explain MINBU analysis which is one of the methods for studying DRS . DRS model is known as dynamical triangulation (DT)  in particle physics, and DRS with a $`R^2`$ term has a fractal and a non-fractal ranges . In DRS, we consider a 2-dimensional surface. This surface is constituted by attaching the sides of simplexes (for instance equilateral triangles), and all possible constitutions are statistically averaged.

The typical surface is shown in Fig. 2. This surface has a self-similar structure. A simply connected region of area with one boundary is called a baby universe. In the dynamically triangulated surface, a minimum neck between baby universes is composed of three sides of triangles and can be identified uniquely. The distribution of minimum neck baby universe (MINBU) is, therefore, one of the important observable quantities in DRS (DT). In order to analyze it, we consider the case that a whole universe (area $`A`$) is divided into two baby universes (area $`AB`$, $`B`$), paying attention to one of minimum necks (Fig. 2). We denote that $`Z(A+1)`$ is the fixed area $`A+1`$ partition function, and that $`Z(A,l)`$ is the partition function for surfaces (area $`A`$) with one boundary (length $`l`$). MINBU (for minimum boundary loop length $`l=3`$) can be recognized as a surface from which one triangle is removed from a sphere. We can correlate these two partition functions, by counting ways which triangle is chosen and removed, as follows;

$`Z(A,3)(A+1)Z(A+1).`$ (3)
The partition functions of two MINBUs in Fig. 2 are given by

$`Z(B,3)`$ $``$ $`(B+1)Z(B+1),`$ (4)
$`Z(AB,3)`$ $``$ $`(AB+1)Z(AB+1).`$ (5)
We define, here, that $`n_A(B)`$ is the statistical average number of MINBUs of fixed area $`B`$ on a closed 2-dimensional surface of area $`A`$. If the 2-dimensional surfaces once divided into two MINBUs are made to be one universe again, the following expression can be obtained;

$`n_A(B){\displaystyle \frac{Z(B,3)Z(AB,3)}{Z(A)}}.`$ (6)
This formula works well as long as we treat MINBUs.

It is well known that DT is equivalent to the continuum theory . If we take the continuum limit which brings every sides of triangles to the infinitesimal and the number of triangles to the infinity simultaneously keeping the area of a 2-dimensional surface constant, it is thought that this limit becomes equivalent to 2-dimensional gravity defined by the continuous variables. The explicit forms of the partition function $`Z`$ and $`n_A(B)`$ is obtained by using the knowledge of 2-dimensional continuum quantum gravity. In next section, we consider it.

## 3 Continuum Quantum $`R^2`$ Gravity in 2-dimensions

2-dimensional quantum gravity with a $`R^2`$ term is investigated in the continuum framework in ref.. The partition function for fixed area $`A`$ is given by

$$Z=\frac{𝒟g𝒟X}{\mathrm{vol}(\mathrm{Diff})}\mathrm{e}^{S(g)S_M(X^i;g)}\delta \left(\mathrm{d}^2x\sqrt{g}A\right),$$
(7)
where $`g_{\mu \nu }(\mu ,\nu =0,1)`$ is a metric, $`X^i(i=1,2,\mathrm{},d)`$ is a scalar matter field and $`d`$ is the number of scalar fields. Also $`R`$ is the scalar curvature of the 2-dimensional surface. The $`\delta `$-function fixes the area to $`A`$. The actions are defined as

$`S(g)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^2x\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{1}{4m^2}R^2+4\mu _0\right)},`$ (8)
$`S_M(X^i;g)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^2x\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }_\mu X^i_\nu X_i},`$ (9)
where $`\mu _0`$ and $`m`$ are a bare cosmological constant and a coupling constant of length dimension $`1`$, respectively. The actions (8), (9) and the integration measure $`𝒟g,𝒟X`$ in the partition function (7) are invariant under 2-dimensional diffeomorphisms. The measure, therefore, should be divided by the volume of the diffeomorphisms, which is denoted by $`\mathrm{vol}(\mathrm{Diff})`$. The partition function (7) carried out by an appropriate gauge fixing has the exact expression. The partition function, however, contains infinite excited modes and is difficult to integrate the full functional completely. In Ref. , instead of the full integration, the two asymptotic forms are shown:

$`Z(A;m,\mu )`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{const}.A^{\gamma _{\mathrm{}}(d)3}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\mu A}{2\pi }}\mathrm{for}m^2A\mathrm{},`$ (10)
$``$ $`\mathrm{const}.A^{\gamma _0(d,m^2A)3}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\mu A}{2\pi }\frac{2\pi }{m^2A}}\mathrm{for}m^2A0,`$ (11)
where $`\mu `$ is a renormalized cosmological constant, and

$`\gamma _{\mathrm{}}(d)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d25\sqrt{(25d)(1d)}}{12}}+2,`$ (12)
$`\gamma _0(d,m^2A)`$ $`=`$ $`2+{\displaystyle \frac{(d12)}{6}},`$ (13)
are string susceptibilities of 2-dimensional gravity.

As for $`m^2A\mathrm{}`$, the asymptotic form of the partition function (10) represents that the surface is fractal. The similar phenomenon can be seen in 2-dimensional gravity without the $`R^2`$ term , where no typical length scale exists. In this $`A1/m^2`$ range, even if the model contains the $`R^2`$ term, at an area scale much larger than $`1/m^2`$ surfaces are smoothly fractal. On the other hand, as for $`m^2A0`$, the partition function (11) is highly suppressed by an exponential factor $`\mathrm{exp}[\frac{2\pi }{m^2A}]`$, hence, the fractal structure of 2-dimensional surface is broken. This phenomenon can be understood as follows. In the $`A1/m^2`$ range, at an area scale much smaller than $`1/m^2`$ surfaces are affected by the typical length scale, and they are not fractal.

This is the model for which we were asking, however, the partition function (10) cannot be made to correspond to Pareto law (1) directly. Because area $`A`$ in Eq.(10) or (11) should be correspond to the whole money, on the other hand, $`x`$ in Eq.(1) or (2) is the individual income.

In order to connect this model to the personal income, we should consider MINBU analysis in the previous section. By substituting the asymptotic forms (10), (11) to the partition function (4), (5), We can find the following two asymptotic formulae;

$`n_A(B)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{const}.\left[\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{B}{A}}\right)B\right]^{\gamma _{\mathrm{}}2}\text{ for }m^2(1\frac{B}{A})B\mathrm{},`$ (14)
$``$ $`\mathrm{const}.\left[\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{B}{A}}\right)B\right]^{\gamma _02}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(1\frac{B}{A}\right)B}}\right]\text{ for }m^2(1\frac{B}{A})B0.`$ (15)
From these expressions, we can recognize that the distribution of MINBUs obeys a power law in the limit $`m^2(1B/A)B\mathrm{}`$, on the other hand, it does not follow any power law in the limit $`m^2(1B/A)B0`$.

## 4 The Map between $`R^2`$ DRS and the Personal Income

In the previous section, we analyze how the 2-dimensional surface (the whole universe) is distributed to MINBUs. Let us consider a relation between the quantities of $`R^2`$ DRS and those of the personal income. By comparison between Pareto law (1) and Eq. (14), we propose a correspondence relation;

$`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{B}{A}}\right)B`$ $``$ $`x,`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{n_A(B)}{N}}`$ $``$ $`p(x),`$ (17)
where $`N`$ is a normalization factor. We should note that MINBU is, in general, defined as the smaller universe when the whole universe is divided into two parts, therefore, $`BA/2`$ ($`xA/4`$). From this correspondence, we can correlate the string susceptibility to Pareto index as follows;

$`\gamma _{\mathrm{}}=1\alpha .`$ (18)
Since Pareto index $`\alpha `$ is reported as $`1.5`$ in , we should take the value of $`\gamma _{\mathrm{}}`$ as $`\frac{1}{2}`$. This means that we should chose the corresponding 2-dimensional surface as a sphere without any matters ($`d=0`$), and we can conclude that $`\gamma _0=0`$ by using Eq. (13). Two asymptotic distributions are, in the end, acquired;

$`p(x)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{const}.x^{\frac{5}{2}}\text{ for }m^2x\mathrm{},`$ (19)
$``$ $`\mathrm{const}.x^2\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\right]\text{ for }m^2x0.`$ (20)
Here $`m`$ is a typical area scale. We should notice that Eq. (20) is known as Weibull distribution.

The asymptotic distribution (20) is correspond to the low income one, and it is not a lognormal distribution which is offered by many researchers. This fact must be paid attention. The form of Eq. (20) obtained by our argument agrees with the practical data in the low income range. Particularly its fitting is better than the lognormal one in the low income range.

## 5 The Data Fitting of the Income Distributions

In this section, we attempt to fit the personal income distributions of Japan in several years 1997-2000 , and the United States in the year 1935-1936 . For this purpose, we define a cumulative probability as follows:

$`P(x)={\displaystyle _x^{\mathrm{}}}dyp(y).`$ (21)
Substituting Eqs. (19) and (20) for this definition, we obtain below formulae:

$`P(x)`$ $``$ $`C_{\mathrm{}}x^{\frac{3}{2}}\text{ for }m^2x\mathrm{},`$ (22)
$``$ $`1C_0\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\right]\text{ for }m^2x0,`$ (23)
where $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`C_0`$ are normalization factors.

Firstly, let us consider the distribution in the high income range. In our model, Pareto index $`\alpha `$ takes the value of $`1.5`$. We find that this index is almost consistent with the result of  (see U.S. data in Fig. 4). Also we should notice that this value is little larger than that in Japan for the year 1997-2000  (see the Japanese data in Figs. 3 and 4).

Secondly, the profile in ”the low” income range is considered. This paper gives the weight to analyze this distribution. It must be noted that ”the low” does not mean the low and middle. This point of view is one of the main differences from previous works. The plots of the data and the best fitting are also presented in Figs. 3 and 4. The parameter $`2\pi /m^2`$ in the figures can be obtained as the slope in the graph where the horizontal axis is taken as $`1/x`$ and the vertical axis is taken as $`\mathrm{log}(1P(x))`$ in the limit $`m^2x0`$.

In our model, the parameter $`m`$ specifies the aspect of the breaking of a power law, and we are able to make a best fitting by changing the value of it. The best fit values of $`2\pi /m^2`$ in Japan 1997-2000 and in U.S. 1935-36 are given as $`9.48`$, $`10.8`$, $`8.43`$, $`7.93`$, and $`2050`$, respectively (Figs. 3 and 4). We have employed the coefficient of determination $`r^2`$ for the parameter that indicates the appropriateness of practical fitting:

$`r^2={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }(f_iF)^2}{\mathrm{\Sigma }(F_iF)^2}}.`$ (24)
Here $`F_i`$ is the $`i`$th value of data, $`f_i`$ is the value of the fitting function and $`F`$ is the mean value of $`F_i`$.

It remains an unsettled question what distribution function should be employed in the middle income range. We have to inquire, to some extent, into this subject. It is believed that the distribution function is a lognormal one in this range. It is difficult to deduce a lognormal distribution from the partition function (7) analytically. We employed, therefore, a computer simulation of DT with a $`R^2`$ term $`\beta _L\frac{4\pi ^2}{3}_i\frac{(6q_i)^2}{q_i}`$  to investigate a profile in the middle income range, $`i.e.x`$ is not so high neither low. Here $`\beta _L`$ is a coupling constant and $`q_i`$ is the number of links at the vertex in DRS. The result is shown in Fig. 5 as the data of the distribution of MINBUs which is not cumulated. The horizontal and the vertical axes are the logarithm of $`(1A/B)B`$ and $`n_A(B)`$, respectively. As the figure indicates, the profile in the middle range can be well approximated with a secondary curve, and this behavior deduces a lognormal distribution. It seems that we can obtain the whole personal income distribution from the partition function (7).

## 6 Summary and Discussion

In this paper we have proposed the $`R^2`$ dynamical random surface (DRS) model as a toy model to explain the profile of the personal income distribution. The money in a certain unit have been identified with a certain unit area (simplex) of a 2-dimensional surface. The connection of the unit money have been corresponded to the attaching of simplexes’ sides which forms a 2-dimensional surface. On the basis of this correspondence, we have analyzed the distribution of the 2-dimensional surface statistically as the personal income distribution by using MINBU analysis.

The point is that $`R^2`$ DRS model has a typical scale $`1/m^2`$, which is the coefficient of the $`R^2`$ term, and that the distribution of MINBUs exhibits two distinct phases. One is fractal in the large MINBU range where the typical scale does not affect the DRS, and the other is not fractal in the middle-small MINBU range where small MINBUs are suppressed by the effect of the $`R^2`$ term. On the other hand, this fact could be confirmed by the continuum theory which analytically presented the two asymptotic forms in these two region.

Moreover, we have proposed that the personal income $`x`$ should be corresponded to $`(1B/A)B`$, where $`A`$ is the whole area of a 2-dimensional surface and $`B`$ is the area of a MINBU. From this assumption, the power law distribution has re-obtained in the high income range similarly to Refs. . In addition, it has deduced directly from the partition function in our method. At the same time, we have identified that Pareto index $`\alpha =1\gamma _{\mathrm{}}`$, where $`\gamma _{\mathrm{}}`$ is the parameter which characterizes the profile of the 2-dimensional surface in the limit $`x\mathrm{}`$, so called the string susceptibility. We have also concluded that we should chose the corresponding surface as a sphere without any matter fields ($`d=0`$).

We have argued, in particular, the distribution functions in the low and the middle income range in detail. The new distribution function so-called Weibull function has been proposed in the low income limit. This function has well fitted to the data rather than the lognormal distribution. A method of least squares has been employed to evaluate a validity of the data fitting. Also we have employed the computer simulation to discussed the distribution function in the middle income range. Our whole results were displayed in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4.

In our argument, we assume that the personal income $`x`$ was identified with the area $`(1B/A)B`$. We try to explain this identification below. In MINBU analysis, a boundary of a MINBU is a minimum neck, where two universes are correlated through only three sides of simplexes each other (See Fig. 2). This means that the connection between universes is very weak at that point, therefore, it is natural to consider that the minimum neck separates the money which an individual possesses.

We should notice that the area of a small MINBU is double counted as the area of bigger one by definition. This may be because why the income which an individual obtains should be added to the income of those who have obtained more income. The effect $`B/A`$ can be neglect when $`B`$ is much smaller than $`A`$. We must, however, take into account of it when $`B`$ is close to $`A/2`$. In our model, there is the huge mother universe from which all MINBUs are removed (See Fig. 2). It is hard to find the object corresponding to this mother universe in the real economics, however, the theoretical distribution obtained has well expressed the real data. There may be virtual heat bath of the money in the real world. These arguments are left behind as a future subject.

In this paper, we have shown that the distribution of the personal income could be understandable as the geometry of a 2-dimensional surface of a sphere without no matter field. This suggests that the technique developed for the analysis of spacetime structure can be applied also to the analysis of our social structure. In 2-dimensions, above geometry is simplest one and the geometry of a 2-dimensional surface with genus and matter fields is also well understood. There are many fractal objects in the econophysics, for instance the distribution of the company profit, and the extended geometry may suit these objects. We are pleased if this analysis becomes a first step for the research which considers our society geometrically.

## Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express our gratitude to Dr. W. Souma, Dr. Y. Fujiwara and Professor H. Terao for valuable advices and discussions. We are also grateful to Professor H. Kawai for useful comments especially about his work . Thanks are also due to members of YITP, where one of the authors (A. I.) stayed several times during the completion of this work. One of the author (T. S.) is also grateful to Professor Y. Yamagishi for useful discussions.