text:
# Variable stars in the core of the globular cluster M3

## 1 Introduction

M3 is the most variable-rich galactic globular cluster, and the majority of these variable stars are RR Lyraes (RRLs). Although the outer portions of the cluster were long ago surveyed for variables (e.g. Bailey, 1913; Sawyer Hogg, 1973), the identification and classification of RRLs in the core has proven much more difficult. Many variables in the core, though identified as such, have poor or undetermined periods and light curves. The advent of image subtraction techniques for differential photometry, particularly the recent work of Alard (2000), has made systematic searches for RRLs in the cores of globular clusters with modest (i.e. $``$ 1-m) instruments possible. Such studies will help to elucidate the radial distribution of the different classes of RRLs. In addition, the wide variety of pulsation behavior of RRLs serves as a testbed for theories of stellar evolution, and regular monitoring of possible period changes in RR Lyraes may help to shed light upon such phenomena as the Blazhko and Oosterhoff effects (Blazhko, 1907; Oosterhoff, 1939).

## 2 Observations and Reductions

### 2.1 Observations

All images were taken at the Three College Observatory (TCO), located in Snow Camp, NC, between Durham and Greensboro. Built in 1981 and operated by the University of North Carolina-Greensboro, TCO houses a 0.81-m f/13.5 Ritchey-Chretien telescope. It is equipped with a 1024 $`\times `$ 1024 Texas Instruments 215 charge-coupled device (CCD), binned to 512 $`\times `$ 512. The pixel scale is 0.46″, with a 3′51″$`\times `$ 3′51″field of view.

Observations were made on fifteen nights from March to July 2001. Seeing ranged from 1.5 to 2.0 arcsec. Images were taken in the V band, and exposure times were generally 160 s since longer exposures saturated the central part of the core. Eleven of the fifteen nights produced at least one image suitable for differential photometry. In total, 61 images were of sufficient quality to be used in subsequent analysis. All images were taken with the CCD set to the same field.

### 2.2 Reductions

The Image Reduction and Analysis Facility (IRAF) was used for the standard data reduction. All frames were trimmed, debiased, and flat-fielded using dome flats. Since all analysis was performed using only differential photometry, no standard stars were observed to calculate coefficients for magnitude transformation equations.

### 2.3 Image Subtraction

The reduced images were processed using the image subtraction method (ISM) of Alard and Lupton (1998), as implemented in the package ISIS 2.1, obtained through private communication with C. Alard. Five of the images with the best seeing were combined to serve as the reference frame, which is shown in Figure 1. All images were registered to the reference frame, and then for each image, a third-order convolution kernel was formed. The convolved reference frame was then subtracted from each individual frame. Then, for each pixel, a time series of these residual fluxes was created. Data points more than three standard deviations from the median were removed from the time series to account for contaminating events, such as cosmic rays or severe atmospheric disturbances. The median of this corrected set of data became a robust statistic for the variability of that pixel. The composite of all of these pixel statistics, essentially a stacked residual image, was denoted var.fits.

On var.fits, the only stars visible were variable stars–primarily RR Lyraes. A routine was then run to search for objects in var.fits. To avoid missing variables in the crowded core, the detection limit was set to only one standard deviation, so that the program found all objects whose ‘brightness’ was more than 1$`\sigma `$ above the local background.

Due to this low threshold, a substantial number of detected objects were ‘false positives’ in that they did not represent actual variable objects. The majority of these detections were associated with the extremely noisy edges of the var.fits file, which are an artifact of the ISM. These clear false positives were removed manually. A smaller number of objects were later found to have constant light curves, and were then removed from the data sample. One exception is the star v224, which is discussed in $`\mathrm{\S }4.2.`$

### 2.4 Photometry

For each of the remaining candidate variable stars, an unphased light curve was produced. The ISIS built-in routine for PSF photometry calculated the differential flux for each of the residual images by convolving the reference frame PSF to the individual frame using the previously calculated local kernel.

For stars $``$ 40 arcsec from the core, the internal dispersion of our photometry is $``$ 3-6 per cent of the differential flux. A direct conversion into instrumental magnitudes gives an upper limit to the internal error as 0.03 - 0.06 mag for this group of stars. For stars closer to the crowded core, the errors rise to typical values of 8-10 per cent (0.08 - 0.10 mag). Several stars within 25 arcsec of the core have dispersions as high as 20 per cent (0.20 mag). It should, however, be kept in mind that the absolute fluxes of these stars are certainly greater than the differential fluxes calculated, and thus the errors given here represent generous upper limits.

## 3 Analysis

### 3.1 Period Searching

To search for the periods of the suspected variables, Lomb-Scargle periodogram (Scargle, 1982) and phase dispersion minimization (PDM) (Stellingwerf, 1978) methods were used, as implemented in the R. Barbera’s AVE program111Version 2.51 may be found at http://www.astrogea.org/soft/ ave/aveint.htm. For each star, both methods were used to search for the best-fit period as described in this section. In nearly all cases, the resulting periods agreed to the fourth or fifth decimal place. When discrepancies existed, visual inspection of the resulting light curves was used to choose the period that minimized the scatter in the light curve.

Since the focus of the search was on RRLs, the period range 0.2-0.8 days was searched. In a few cases, when no accurate period could be found in that interval, the range was extended at both ends to allow for the rare possibility of a Cepheid, RGB, or SX Phe star.

For the majority of the stars in the outer portions of the images, the PDM/periodogram (PDMP) analysis showed a single clear period and produced a relatively clean light curve when fit to the data. For those stars closer to the core, however, the PDMP analysis did not always suggest a single period. In these cases, periods corresponding to all of the respective PDMP extrema were tried, and the resulting light curves were compared. In many cases it was possible to eliminate other periods because they were incompatible with the type of the RRL, as indicated by the shape of the light curve. If these methods still left multiple possible periods, the candidate light curves were inspected visually to ascertain the most accurate period. For a small number of cases, no such determination could be made, and no period was assigned.

For a few stars, the noise in the light curve can be at least partially attributed to the presence of a nearby star (variable or not), whose light interferes with the signal from the variable star. These stars have been marked as ‘merged’ in Table 1.

### 3.2 Identification

After calculating preliminary periods for all of the detected variables in the images, RA/Dec coordinates were found for each star. To do this, 20 variables were identified using the finder charts in Carretta et al. (1998) \[C98\]. Each variable had its identity confirmed using rough period matching from values given in the same source. Since complete astrometry for all previously known variables is given in Bakos et al. (2000) \[B00\], it was possible to obtain accurate RA/Dec values for each of these known RRLs. The IRAF tasks *ccmap* and *wcsctran* were then used to compute transformation equations from physical (pixel) to world (RA/Dec) coordinates for the images, and thus assign RA/Dec coordinates to each variable star in the sample. Since the accuracy of the B00 astrometry was $``$ 0.2 arcsec, the process of matching variables in the sample to known RRLs was greatly facilitated.

For nearly all detected variables, the RA/Dec matches provided an accurate means of identifying RRLs in our sample. A second means of verification was period matching. For each variable, the period was taken from the most recent source available, which was usually Corwin and Carney (2001) \[CC01\]. If the star was not included in the CC01 sample, an older period determination could sometimes be found in catalogue of Clement et al. (2001) \[C01\], an updated version of (Sawyer Hogg, 1973).

## 4 Results

We identified 140 variable star candidates using the above procedures. Of these 140, 131 proved to be variable. Those variables previously known are listed in Table 1. The new and published periods are compared, and comments are added where appropriate. Data for new and suspected variables is given in Table 2.

### 4.1 Error Analysis

The method used here calculates light curves using uncalibrated instrumental fluxes. This contrasts with most prior analyses of M3 RRL light curves which were plotted using standard apparent magnitudes. In this section, we address the self-consistency of this method and compare the results to published photometry of RRLs.

#### 4.1.1 Self-Consistency

To test the sensitivity of the period searching method to variations in the data, two stars were selected at random, one with a very clean light curve and the other with a relatively noisy one. Five data points, equivalent to eight per cent of the total data set, were then randomly selected for each star and removed from the set of observations. The period searching algorithm was then run as previously discussed.

v77 was chosen as the star with the clean light curve. Period analysis on both the full and reduced data sets gave the same period, 0.459419 d. The resulting light curve is slightly better than that produced using the published value from CC01, 0.459350 d.

v214 was selected for its more scattered light curve. In this case, the best fit period changed from 0.539507 d to 0.539492 d. These are both close to the most recent published period, 0.539493 d, taken from CC01. A visual inspection of the light curves for our two derived periods show no significant differences.

These results imply that our method is fairly robust: a slight pertubation of the data set does not have a substantial impact on our derived periods to four decimal places.

#### 4.1.2 Comparison with Published Periods

Another test of the accuracy of our method is how well it reproduces periods and light curves for well-studied stars. One difficulty is that we are studying primarily the inner core of M3, where the scatter in the data is inherently higher. However, many stars with previously measured periods were included in our field of view.

For example, many variable stars in the uncrowded outer portions of M3 were studied here and by CC01. For each of these variable stars, the light curves associated with the repsective periods were compared by PDMP analysis and by visual inspection. In many cases the period search algorithm was used on an interval that contained the CC01 period and excluded ours to ascertain whether the CC01 period was a secondary extremum in the PDMP analysis of our data.

For each star studied by CC01 and included in our sample, we found that the period determined by our analysis gave a fit that matched or exceeded the fit obtained using the CC01 period. In the latter cases, though the CC01 period might have a larger number of decimal places, PDMP analysis and visual inspection suggested that our periods were a better match than the CC01 periods to our data. In total, we found that 71 stars had period differences of less than 0.001 d between our period and the CC01 period. Twenty-eight additional stars had period differences of 0.001 d or more.

Since M3 is an Oosterhoff I cluster, the expected period change rate ($`\beta `$) is relatively low–CC01 found that typically, $`\beta <1\text{ day Myr}^1`$. Thus, given that the CC01 periods were determined using 1992-1997 data, it seems unlikely that more than a few of these differences could be reasonably attributed to period changes.

For seven of these 28 stars (v41, v148, v165, v170, v201, v209, v226) our periods agree with the C98 or C01 periods to within 0.001 d. Nine of the remaining 21 stars are listed as ‘blends’ by CC01. Their color index suggests the light of the variable star is mixed with that of a nearby non-variable star. Two additional stars merged with other RRLs (v122 with v229, v241 with v262). This merging may have led to a somewhat higher uncertainty in the period. For these eleven stars, we could not make an unambiguous determination as to which period gave a superior fit.

Seven of the remaining ten stars have noisy published light curves in CC01. Two of these stars (v193, v235) had coverage too poor in our data set to make a definite determination between our period and the CC01 period. For each of the other five stars, we plotted the light curves for both periods, and present them side by side for comparison in Figure 2. Visual inspection of these light curves indicates that our periods give superior results for each of these five stars. Though three of these five stars (v161, v175, v184) have periods included in C01, neither our periods nor those of CC01 agree with the C01 periods to 0.001 d.

Only three of the original 28 stars with period discrepancies greater than 0.001 d have both clean published light curves in CC01 and clean light curves when phased with our periods. Further study of these variables (v149, v208, v219) is needed to determine the correct periods.

#### 4.1.3 Accuracy

These consistency tests and the fact that the data spanned between 200-400 cycles of most variables led us to conclude that our measured periods were accurate to approximately 0.0001 d. In some cases our periods appear to be valid to at least 0.00001 d, and revised periods spanning many more cycles will be published in a future paper. Therefore, all of the measured period values in Tables 1 and 2 are rounded to four decimal places. Published values are rounded to four places for comparison.

### 4.2 Notes on Individual Variables

Comments on some of the newly discovered, suspected, and previously known variable stars are given below. Light curves for the newly discovered variables, labeled S1-S11, are presented in Figure 3, unless no period could be determined. For five of these stars (S1, S2, S6, S9, S10), the quality of the photometry was too poor to ascertain with certainty that the stars were variable, and thus we label these suspected variable stars. Additional study of these stars is needed to constrain our identifications and period determinations.

RR Lyrae types are identified using the descriptive nomenclature of C01, based on pulsation modes. In this system, RR0 and RR1 denote fundamental and first overtone pulsators, respectively, corresponding to Bailey types RRab and RRc. RR01 refers to double-mode stars pulsating in both the fundamental and first overtone frequencies, commonly called RRd stars.

v29: CC01 misidentifies this star as v155, an error present in a previous paper (Evstigneeva et al., 1994).

v122: Although the light curve produced by our period, 0.5165 d, is noisy, that given by CC01, 0.5060 d, does not fit the data. The discrepency is likely due to the merging of v122 with v229 on the images.

v154: Because our data covers only 12 full cycles of this star, it is likely that our period, 15.43 d, is less accurate than that published in C01 (15.28 d), although our results do agree with C01 to the twelve period ($`\text{eight per cent}`$) accuracy our data allows.

v224: This star does not appear to be variable, but a definite determination could not be made using our data set. It is identified as variable X38 in Kholopov (1977).

v250: There is no previous period determination for v250, for which there are two close candidate stars (Bakos et al., 2000) in the WF/PC Hubble Space Telescope images of Guhathakurta et al. (1994). The confusion due to the companion resulted in an inconclusive PDMP, with several possible periods. Visual inspection of the resulting light curves suggests a period of 0.5586 d.

v273: This star was identified as a long period variable by B00. Our analysis gives a period of 46.43 d, although this is poorly constrained because fewer than three cycles are covered by our observations. If this period is correct, the star could be a short period SR-type or a long period W Vir.

S1: This suspected variable has a large scatter in its light curve. Although a period of 0.3868 d best fits our data, this is unusually short for an RR0. A possible alternate period is 0.6310 d.

S2: The light curve of this suspected variable is very noisy, but apparently that of an RR1. There are no obvious period candidates besides 0.2980 d.

S4: Though 0.5075 d falls outside the normal range for RR1 variables, the light curve most closely resembles that of an RR1 and gives a clean fit to the data. Such a classification is not unprecedented in M3–the RR1 star v70 has a CC01 period of 0.4861 d. However, more data is needed to confirm this assignment.

S6: Although the period 0.6090 d gives the best fit, the light curve of this suspected variable is very noisy.

S7: No period in the normal RR Lyrae range (0.2 d - 0.8 d) fits our data. We find possible periods of 0.9883 d, 1.3270 d, and 4.0433 d, with the second of these producing the least scatter. The first two periods fall within the W Vir range, but since no magnitudes were calculated, we cannot confirm whether its period matches that predicted by the Population II Cepheid period-luminosity relationship. While it could be a star on the tip of the RGB, the best fit periods are far too short for the most common candidates (e.g. Mira, SR). Thus, until more observations are made, we label this a suspected W Vir, period 1.3270 d.

S8: Our analysis suggests that this may be a long period variable, possibly an SRa or SRb. No unambiguous period measurement was possible over the limited time baseline of 119 d.

S9: For this suspected variable, the period 0.4261 d is favored by our analysis; however, large scatter near the minimum and poor coverage make this value uncertain.

S10: While the best fit for our data, the period 0.4778 d nevertheless gives an extrememly noisy RR0 light curve for this suspected variable.

S11: This star is likely an RR0 variable, but no clear period could be found.

## 5 Conclusions

We have conducted a survey of variable stars in the core of the globular cluster M3. We discovered eleven new or suspected variable stars, which include nine RR Lyraes, one unidentified long period variable, and a suspected W Vir. For thirteen previously known variable stars, our period determinations are the first. Additionally, we have updated period data for dozens of other poorly studied stars in the core. The success of this study is due largely to the effectiveness of the Alard ISM, which enables systematic surveys of variable stars in the cores of galatic globular clusers using modest instruments.

## Acknowledgments

We thank C. Alard for helpful advice on the use of ISIS 2.1, and appreciate R. Barbera’s help in providing us with his AVE program. We also thank G. Wendt for the use of his period analysis software. G. Bakos kindly supplied finder charts that we used in our early analysis. H. Smith, M. Corwin, and the referee provided useful suggestions which improved the manuscript.


format: text

text:
# A general framework of nondistortion quantum interrogation

## I Introduction

One of the counterintuitive effects of quantum mechnics is the “negative result measurement”, i.e. the nonobservance of a result represents additional information and hence modifies the wave function. This notion is first prescribed in 1960 by Renninger, and later Dicke who analyzed the change of an atomic wave function by the nonscattering of a photon. In 1993, Elitzur and Vaidman proposed the novel concept of interaction-free measurements (IFMs), in which the presence of an absorbing object in a Mach-Zehnder interferometer can be inferred without apparent interaction with the probe photon. In recent years, EV IFMs led to numerous investigations and several experiments have been performed. In the original EV scheme, the measurement is interaction-free at most half of the time. However, when combined with quantun zeno effect IFMs can in principle be done with unity efficiency, in an asympototic sense.

Aside from their conceptual significance, IFMs are of obvious application interest too. As emphasized by Vaidman, the paradoxical feature of the EV IFM is that it obtains information about a region in space without anything coming in, out, or through this place. This feature allows people to monitor radiation sensitive objects without exciting them, such as the quantum nondemolition measurement of the ground state atom number, non-invasive testing of materials, localization of atom beams without physical interaction, interaction-free imaging and so on. People also applied the idea of IFMs in quantum information science, such as quantum cryptography and counterfactual computation.

In the field of quantum information science, a physical system may be regarded as an information carrier if it can be prepared in some distinguishable quantum states. The advantage of processing information quantum mechanically is that, contrary to the classical case, information can be stored in quantum superposition states. However the quantum superposition is quite fragile. It is interesting to ask whether the similar treatments on IFMs can be applied in the nondemolition interrogation of the internal state of quantum object. Suppose there is a black box, in which a quantum object characterized by its quantum superposition can be persent (or absent). Our task is to determine if the quantum object in it, without disturbing the internal state of the object. We may call such an interrogation a nondistortion quantum interrogation (abbreviated NQI). Unfortunately, IFMs in general are not internal state preserving measurements. Since quantum superpositon of the object is subject to measurement dependent decoherence. Obtaining of “which way” information will cause an unavoidable change of the internal state of the detected object, even though the measurement is seemingly “interaction free”.

In this paper we will concentrate on some fundamental limits for the NQI process, under some definite physical conditions. In Section II, we present general physical assumptions that we use to formulate the NQI process. Section III is devoted to single-shot NQI process, in which the interaction between the detected object and the probe system takes place only once. We provide the necessary and sufficient condition for successful performing a single-shot nondistortion interrogation of an unknown quantum state. We also make a primary attempt to test this criterion when the probe system and the interaction are restricted. We find that in some simple cases it reduces to a solvable problem. In Section IV we discuss iterative NQI processes. A sufficient criterion for Zeno type NQI processes is obtained. We conclude in Section V by summarizing all the results.

## II Fundamental Framework of NQI

“Black box” problems have attracted people in many contexts. The aim of the nondistortion quantum interrogation is to find out whether there is a quantum object in a black box ( a region in space ) without disturbing the internal state of the object, even if its original quantum state is unknown.

According to Von Neumann’s treatments of quantum measurement, any observable can be coupled to a pointer. The information about the observable is obtained by detecting the pointer. All the possible measurement results about this pointer can be described by a set of orthogonal projectors $`\{P_a\}`$ in Hilbert space which satisfy

$$P_a=P_a^+,P_aP_b=\delta _{ab}P_a,\underset{a}{}P_a=1.$$
(1)
A Von Neumann measurement will take the probed pure state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }|`$ to $`\frac{P_a|\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }|P_a}{\mathrm{\Phi }\left|P_a\right|\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ with probability $`\mathrm{Pr}(a)=\mathrm{\Phi }\left|P_a\right|\mathrm{\Phi }`$, if the final detected pointer is in the $`P_a`$. The original quantum state will be modified by the measurement process unless the state$`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the eigenstate of the projector $`P_a`$. Obviously, Von Neumann measurement is not an effiective way to perform nondistortion interrogation, especially when the quantum state in the black box is unknown to us.

For the purpose of NQI, we use a probe wave function $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{probe}=\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r+\beta |\mathrm{\Psi }_d`$. We let part of it $`(|\mathrm{\Psi }_d)`$ go through the black box and interact with the object in the box. After the interaction $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_r`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_d`$ are recombined and a measurement is done on the probe wave function, possibly after a unitary operation on it (see Fig.1).

The above process is a bit similar to the case described by EV scheme. Indeed, it will be shown that EV IFM is a special case of our ”black box problem”. While, to perform the NQI in the general case some more exquisite designs need to be considered. To formulate general NQI processes we make the following assumptions:

a) $`S`$, the quantum system under interrogation (the quantum object in the black box), is a metastable system whose Hilbert space is denoted as $`H_S`$ with dimension $`n`$.

b) The Hilbert space of the probe system $`D`$ , $`H_D`$ , is composed of two orthogonal subspaces $`H_r`$ and $`H_d`$: $`H_D=H_rH_d`$. Here, $`H_r`$ and $`H_d`$ are the Hilbert spaces of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_r`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_d`$ respectively and the dimension of the space $`H_d`$ is $`m`$. We let $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_d`$ go through the black box and interact with S (if the object is in the box), while $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_r`$ is under free evolution.

c) The interaction between $`D`$ and $`S`$ is governed by a unitary operator. We assume the time of the interaction is some known $`t`$. When the interaction is over, any state driven out of space $`H_S`$ will quickly decay in an irreversible way to some stable ground state $`|g`$ which is out of space $`H_S`$. The decay signal will be registered by some properly arranged sensitive detectors, if the decay event actually happens.

In assumption a) we note that the physical property of the interrogated quantum system should be known to us although the original internal state of this system may be unknown. More exactly, a NQI only refers to an interrogation for a definite Hilbert space. In assumption b), the introduction of $`H_r`$ might appear to be redundant since it does not interact with $`S`$. But it is actually vital for the purpose of NQI, because the interaction between $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_d`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_S`$ changes the interference between $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_r`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_d`$ which provides information on what is in the black box. Assumption c) can be named as “dissipation postulation”, which makes sure that the state out of the space $`H_S`$ can not travel back into the original space $`H_S`$ after the interaction between the probe system and the detected system. We assume that the interrogation process will drive the initial sytem $`S`$ into an extended space $`H_SH_S^{}`$, while the states in the space $`H_S^{}`$ will rapidly decay into a stable state $`|g`$ ( which is out of the space $`H_SH_S^{}`$) in an irreversible way. Based on the above assumptions, the following major steps are followed to find out if there is an object in the black box ( see Fig.1):

i) Let the probe wave function $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_d`$ go through the black box and interact with the quantum object if it is in the box.

ii) The decay signal detectors are used to register any decay event. If a decay is detected, we conclude that the quantum object was in the black box but its initial state is destroyed. Otherwise, go to the next step. This is equivalent to a partial projection measurement on the whole system $`\varrho _{tot}`$:

$$\varrho _{out}=P\rho _{tot}P+P_{}\varrho _{tot}P_{}.$$
(2)
where the operators $`P`$ and $`P_{}`$ refer to unity operators of Hilbert space $`H_SH_D`$ and its complementary space $`\overline{H_SH_D}`$ respectively.

iii)Perform a Von Neumann measurement on the probe wave function (in $`H_D`$). Possible measurement outcomes are characterized by some projectors in an orthogonal projector set $`O`$.

In step iii), we keep in mind that if nothing is in the black box the probe will be in some definite final state corresponding to the free evolution of the initial state. We designate the projector to that state as $`P_e`$. If a successful interrogation of the object can be done, the probe will end up in some different state. For the consideration of universality we require that the probability of successful nondistortion interrogations of the quantum object be independent on its (unknown) initial state.

We approximately divide the nondistortion interrogation into two types: single-shot NQI and iterative NQI according to how many times the interaction happens within an interrogation process. A scheme of single-shot NQI will follow the above steps i)-iii). In iterative NQI process, step i) and ii) are repeated. After a certain number of interactions the final measurement (step iii)) will be executed. Of course, some suitable operations on the probe wave function are allowed in between the iterations. Some results about two types of NQI processes are shown in Section III and IV.

## III Single-shot NQI process

Let the initial state of the probe wave function be $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{probe}=\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r+\beta |\mathrm{\Psi }_d`$, where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_rH_r`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_dH_d`$. When the probe passes through the black box the time evolution of the whole system is as follows:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{probe}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S\alpha e^{i/\mathrm{}(H^S+H^D)t}|\mathrm{\Psi }_r|\mathrm{\Psi }_S+\beta e^{i/\mathrm{}_0^t(H^S+H^D+H^I)𝑑t^{}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_d|\mathrm{\Psi }_S$$
(3)
where $`H^S`$ and $`H^D`$ are the free Hamiltonian of the systems $`S`$ and $`D`$ respectively, and $`H^I`$ characterizes the interaction between the two systems. If there is nothing in the black box the interaction Hamiltonian $`H^I`$ vanishes and the above process reduces to the free evolution of two separate systems. In contrast, when the black box is occupied with the quantum object, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_S`$ may be driven into a larger space $`H_SH_S^{}`$ due to the interaction Hamiltonian $`H^I`$. In view of the assumption c) a decay could happen with certain probability. While, if no decay signal is detected, the quantum state of the whole system is collapsed into the following (a projection on $`H_SH_D`$):

$`\alpha e^{i/\mathrm{}(H^S+H^D)t}|\mathrm{\Psi }_r|\mathrm{\Psi }_S+\beta (I_dI_S)e^{i/\mathrm{}_0^t(H^S+H^D+H^I)𝑑t^{}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_d|\mathrm{\Psi }_S`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}+\beta (I_dI_S)e^{i/\mathrm{}_0^t(H^S+H^D+H^I)𝑑t^{}}e^{i/\mathrm{}(H^S+H^D)t}(I_dI_S)|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}`$ (5)
where $`I_d`$ and $`I_S`$ are the unity operators in the Hilbert spaces $`H_d`$ and $`H_S`$, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{r(d)}^{}=e^{i/\mathrm{}H^Dt}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{r(d)}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}=e^{i/\mathrm{}H^St}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S`$. To simplify the future calculations, the above wave function is unnormalized. In Eq(5), we see that the evolution of the system is fully specified by the following interrogation operator $`D`$:

$$D=(I_dI_S)e^{i/\mathrm{}_0^t(H^S+H^D+H^I)𝑑t^{}}e^{i/\mathrm{}(H^S+H^D)t}(I_dI_S).$$
(6)
### A necessary and sufficient condition for single-shot NQI

In the subsection we will review some results in ref.

To obtain the necessary and sufficient condition for single-shot NQI the following lemma is necessary.

Lemma1: The necessary condition that a single-shot NQI can be done is that there exist a pair of vectors $`|\chi ,|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}H_d`$ which satisfy $`\chi \left|D\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}=cI_S`$ , where $`\left|c\right|1`$.

Proof: If the black box is empty no interaction takes place in it. Thus, the probe ends up in the state $`\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}+\beta |\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}`$. In term of the promise in above section, this process will give rise to an exact detecting outcome $`P_e=(\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}+\beta |\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{})(\alpha ^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}|+\beta ^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}|)I_S`$. On the contrary, the evolution of the probe wave function will be modified when a quantum object occupies the black box. To make sure that a successful NQI can be done, there must exist a projector $`P_I=|\mathrm{\Psi }_I\mathrm{\Psi }_I|I_S`$ ( orthogonal to $`P_e`$ ) in the set $`O`$ which corresponds to the outcome component of NQI with nonzero probability $`|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2`$. This relation can be embodied in the following equations:

$$P_IP_e=0$$
(7)
$$P_I(\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}+\beta D|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{})=\mathrm{\Delta }|\mathrm{\Psi }_I|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}$$
(8)
where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_IH_D`$ is some normalized vector of the probe. Relying on the Eqs(7,8), we may obtain:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_I\left|D\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}=(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\beta }+\mathrm{\Psi }_I|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{})|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}$$
(9)
In terms of the defination of the operator $`D`$ the vector $`D|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}`$ is a vector in Hilbert space $`H_dH_S`$. Thereby, setting a wave vector $`|\chi =I_d|\mathrm{\Psi }_I`$, which is the projection of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_I`$ on $`H_d`$, we find $`\mathrm{\Psi }_I\left|D\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}=\chi \left|D\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}`$. Similarly, we also have the relation $`\mathrm{\Psi }_I|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}=\chi |\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\beta `$ are nonzero we deduce that $`|\chi 0`$. Hence, the Eq(9) can be rewritten as:

$$\chi \left|D\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}=(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\beta }+\chi |\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{})|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}=c|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}$$
(10)
where $`c=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\beta }+\chi |\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}`$. Since $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}`$ is an arbitrary vector in the space $`H_S`$ the following must be satisfied:

$$\chi \left|D\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}=cI_S.$$
(11)
We thus complete our proof.

Once the necessary condition (11) is satisfied the interrogation operator $`D`$ will modify the wavefunction component $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}`$ in the following way:

$$D|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}=c|\chi |\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}+\underset{j=1}{\overset{m1}{}}|\stackrel{~}{\chi _j}|\stackrel{~}{m_{S(j)}}.$$
(12)
Here, $`|\stackrel{~}{m_{S(j)}}=\stackrel{~}{\chi _j}\left|D\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}`$ and the vectors $`\{|\chi ,|\stackrel{~}{\chi _j};j=1,\mathrm{},m1\}`$ form the orthogonal complete bases in Hilbert space $`H_d`$.

As we know, the decomposition of a pure quantum state is roughly dependent on the structure of its Hilbert space. However, it should be noted that the representation of Eq(12) is not enough “compact”. It seems too extravagant for decomposing the state $`D|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}`$ in the Hilbert space $`H_dH_S`$. Whether we can choose a more compact subspace in the space $`H_dH_S`$ to achieve a full decomposition for it? This point is quite vital for obtaining the necessary and sufficient condition for the single-shot NQI. To express the Eq(12) in a more compact way the following steps should be done. We may define a set of operators $`Q^{\left(i\right)}=Tr_S\left[D|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}|ii|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}|D^+\right]`$ if the Eq(11) holds. Here, $`\{|i,i=1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ is a set of orthogonal bases in the Hilbert space $`H_S`$. In the Hilbert space $`H_d`$, the kernel operator of the operator $`Q^{\left(i\right)}`$ is denoted as $`K_i`$. Thus, the operator $`K_iI_S`$ can be seen as the annihilation operator for the component $`D|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}|i`$:

$$K_iI_S(D|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}|i)=0.$$
(13)
If we set the intersection of all the $`n`$ kernel operators as $`K=_{i=1}^nK_i`$ the operator $`KI_S`$ will annihilate the quantum state $`D|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}`$. Because

$$KI_S(D|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}c_i^SKI_S(D|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}|i)=0$$
(14)
where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}=_{i=1}^nc_i^S|i`$. Therefore, a more compact space for decomposing the quantum state $`D|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}`$ is $`H_{\overline{K}}H_S`$. Here, $`H_{\overline{K}}`$ is the complementary space of kernel space $`H_K`$ in $`H_d`$. We denote the dimension of the space $`H_{\overline{K}}`$ by $`l(lm)`$. When we pick up some set of orthonormal states $`\{|\chi ,|\chi _1,\mathrm{},|\chi _{l1}\}`$ spanning the space $`\overline{K}`$. Then, Eq(12) can be rewritten as follows:

$`D|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}`$ $`=`$ $`c|\chi |\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{l1}{}}}|\chi _j|m_{S(j)}`$ (15)
$`|m_{S(j)}`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _j\left|D\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}.`$ (16)
We may outline the above treatments into the following lemma.

Lemma2: Eq(16) is the equivalent representation of the Eq(11).

In light of the above preparations we may provide our main theroem.

Theorem 1: The necessary and sufficient condition for the single-shot NQI is that Eq(16) holds and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}c|\chi `$ is linearly independent of the state set $`\{|\chi _j;j=1,\mathrm{},l1\}`$.

Proof: Lemma 1 and 2 show that Eq(16) is the necessary condition for single-shot NQI. If Eq(16) holds, in Hilbert space $`H_SH_D`$ the final state of the whole system will be:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{probe}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}+\beta c|\chi |\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}+\beta \underset{j=1}{\overset{l1}{}}|\chi _j|m_{S(j)}.$$
(17)
Reconsidering Eqs. (7) and (8), we may attain the following relations:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_I|\left(\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}+\beta |\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}\right)=0$$
(18)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }_I|\chi _j=0$$
(19)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }_I|\left(\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}+c\beta |\chi \right)=\mathrm{\Delta }.$$
(20)
Subtracting Eq(20) from Eq(18) we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_I|\beta \left(|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}c|\chi \right)=\mathrm{\Delta }.$$
(21)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$ requires that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}c|\chi `$ be linearly independent of the set of vectors $`\{|\chi _j;j=1,\mathrm{},l1\}`$. We thus confirm the necessity of the criterion.

We may further prove the converse by constructing a projector $`P_I`$ satisfying Eq(7) and Eq(8). This procedure can appeal to the Schmidt orthogonalization method. First we define the state set $`N`$ consisting of $`l+1`$ normalized vectors $`\{\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}+\beta |\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{},\gamma \left(\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}+c\beta |\chi \right),|\chi _j;j=1,\mathrm{},l1\}`$, where $`\gamma =\frac{1}{\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}+c\beta |\chi }`$ is the normalization coefficient for $`\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}+c\beta |\chi `$. We assume that $`\alpha 0`$. Since $`|\chi ,|\chi _1,\mathrm{}|\chi _{l1}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}`$ are orthogonal to each other and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}c|\chi `$ is linearly independent of $`\{|\chi _j;j=1,\mathrm{},l1\}`$, we may deduce that all vectors in the state set $`N`$ are linearly independent. To construct an orthonormal set out of $`N`$, we let the first $`l1`$ vectors be $`\{|\chi _j;j=1,\mathrm{},l1\}`$. We then calculate the $`l`$th vector using $`\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}+\beta |\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}`$: $`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\gamma ^{}(\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}+\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^{l1}\chi _i|(\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}+\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_d^{})|\chi _i)`$, where $`\gamma ^{}`$ is the normalization coefficient. Similarly, the last vector is $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_I=\gamma ^{\prime \prime }\left(\gamma \left(\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}+c\beta |\chi \right)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}|\gamma \left(\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}+c\beta |\chi \right)|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}\right)`$with the normalization coefficient $`\gamma ^{\prime \prime }`$. It is then obvious that the projector $`P_I=|\mathrm{\Psi }_I\mathrm{\Psi }_I|I_S`$ satisfies Eqs(7) and (8). In addition, once the coefficient $`\alpha `$ is fixed the projector $`P_I`$ obtained by using Schmidt orthogonalization will maximize the success probobility $`\left|\mathrm{\Delta }\right|^2`$ . We thus complete our proof.

From our proof it is clear that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}`$ is not redundant, even though it does not interact with the object. If $`\alpha =0`$ the capability of performing an NQI will be severely limited. For instance, if $`c`$ is zero in Eq(16) (This corresponds to an IFM of an opaque object in which the probe wave function is blocked by the absorbing object), no nondistortion interrogation of the object can be done without the introduction of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}`$. We may elucidate the novel NQI phenomena in the sense of quantum interference. The quantum object in the black box can be seen as a scattering object corresponding to the probe wave. The scattering process between the object and the probe wave makes each scattering wave component entangle different evolution of the object. If all the information on the evolution of the whole composite system is known it possibly allows us to choose a proper probe wave such that a successful scattering wave component is produced. For the purpose of NQI this component gets entangled with the free evolution of the object. Now, it seems clearly for the meaning of the above theorem. Once the necessary and sufficient condition for single-shot NQI holds the form of this successful probe wave component $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_I`$ can be obtained by using Schmidt orthogonalization steps outlined in the proof of theorem 1.

We note that the vectors $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}`$ and $`|\chi `$ satisfying Eq(11) may not be unique. However, once $`|\chi `$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}`$ are chosen we may obtain the optimal success probability for these two vectors, by following the steps outlined in the proof of theorem 1. If the initial state of the probe is $`\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r+\beta |\mathrm{\Psi }_d`$, the success probability is

$$\mathrm{Pr}ob(\alpha )=\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_I|(\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}+c\beta |\chi )\right|^2.$$
(22)
Therefore we have the following corollary.

Corollary 1: Under the condition that the wave function $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}`$ and $`|\chi `$ are given the optimal success probability of the NQI is as follows:

$$P_{opt}=\underset{\left|\alpha \right|[0,1)}{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{Pr}ob(\alpha ).$$
(23)
### B Verifying the criterion of NQI

In the former context we have pointed out the operator $`D`$ fully characterizes the interaction between two systems and the dissipation process. In this subsection, starting from the operator $`D`$ we will devote ourself to explore the existance of the pair of vectors $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}`$ and $`|\chi `$ satisfying the criterion of NQI.

The operator $`D`$ can be written as:

$$D=\underset{i,j;k,l}{}d_{i,j;k,l}|i_d|k_Sl_S|j_d|.$$
(24)
For the simplicity of discussion we will omit the subscripts of the vectors. Unless pointed out otherwise $`|i\left(|j\right)`$ will indicate the vectors in the Hilbert Space $`H_d`$ and $`|k\left(|l\right)`$ will indicate the vectors in the Hilbert Space $`H_S`$.

Once a successful NQI process can be put in practice the operator $`D`$, as a subblock in a unitary matrix( see Eq(6)), satisfies the following relation:

$$\chi \left|D\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}=cI_S.$$
(25)
We set $`|\chi =_{i=1}^ma_i^{}|i`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}=_{i=1}^mb_i|i`$ the relation(25) can be parameterized as:

$$\underset{i,j}{}a_id_{i,j;k,l}b_j=c\delta _{kl},(k,l=1,2,\mathrm{},n)$$
(26)
Furthermore, we may define $`_jd_{i,j;k,l}b_j`$ as a matrix $`\mathrm{}_{i;k,l}`$ with a set of parameters $`\left\{b_j\right\}`$. Thus, whether the equation (25) holds is equivalent to whether there are a set of parameters $`\left\{a_i\right\}`$satisfying the following equation:

$$\underset{i}{}a_i\mathrm{}_{i;k,l}=c\delta _{kl},(k,l=1,2,\mathrm{},n)$$
(27)
Since the above equations are linear, in principle, it is possible to identify the existence of the unknown parameters $`\left\{a_i\right\}`$ satisfying the equation set(27).

Theorem 2: the necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of the solution is that the matrix $`(\mathrm{})_{m\times n^2}`$ and its augmented matrix $`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}})_{(m+1)\times n^2}`$ has the same rank(see ref):

$$rank(\mathrm{})=rank(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}})$$
(28)
where the augmented matrix $`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}})`$ is

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_{i;k,l}=\mathrm{}_{i;k,l}\left(im\right),\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_{m+1;k,l}=c\delta _{kl}.$$
(29)
Unfortunately, since the matrix $`\mathrm{}_{i;k,l}`$ includes the uncertain parameters $`\left\{b_j\right\}_{j=1}^m`$, how to develop a general method to determine the existence of the solution of the equation set (27) remains unknown. Numerically, we may simply try all possible $`b_j`$’s $`\left(_j\left|b_j\right|^2=1\right)`$ and $`c`$ to see if Eq(28) is satisfied. When the total number of the equations in (27) is not larger than $`m`$ it is a readily solvable problem. In principle, if the solutions exist, it can be formally described as:

$$a_i=a_i(b_1,b_2,\mathrm{},b_m,c);i=1,\mathrm{},m.$$
(30)
Furthermore, according to the steps shown in the above context we may test the criterion of the NQI. The solutions of the equation set (27) may not be unique, that is, for different $`b_i`$’s and $`c`$ we may get different $`a_i`$’s. In practice, we may choose the set of solutions which maximize the success probability. Here, Let us consider a concrete example.

As in Fig. 2, the model we consider is a multi-level atom. The atom is prepared in an arbitrary superposition of the two degenerate metastable states $`|m+`$ and $`|m`$. By obsorbing a $`+()`$ circularly polarized photon with the frequency $`\omega `$ the atom can make a resonant transition from $`|m+\left(|m\right)`$ to the corresponding exicted state $`|e+`$ $`(|e)`$. Here, we may view the transition between $`|m+\left(|m\right)`$ and $`|e+`$ $`(|e)`$ caused by the $`+()`$ circularly polarized photon as a resonant Jaynes-Cummings model. Clearly, there are no correlations between the two processes. We assume that the atom will decay rapidly from the excited state $`|e+\left(|e\right)`$ to the ground state $`|g`$ in an irreversible way when the electromagnetic field with the frequency $`\omega `$ fades away. At last, the decay signals can be recorded by some sensitive detectors. To study the criterion of NQI process we start with the Hamiltonian of the whole system:

$`H_{tot}`$ $`=`$ $`H_{atom}+H_{photon}+H_{interaction}`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=+,}{}}\left[\mathrm{}\omega a_k^+a_k+\mathrm{}\omega |ekek|+\mathrm{}g_k\left(\sigma _+^ka_k+a_k^+\sigma _{}^k\right)\right]`$ (32)
where $`a_k^+`$ and $`a_k`$ are the creation and annihilation operators of the $`k`$ polarized photon. the operators $`\sigma _+^k`$ and $`\sigma _{}^k`$ separately refer to $`|ekmk|`$ and$`|mkek|`$. Here, we define $`|mk`$ as the zero point of the energy. To formulate the operator $`D`$ our main task is to obtain the representation of the unitary operator $`U(t)=e^{i/\mathrm{}H_{tot}t}`$. For that purpose, we may bring in the total particle number operator $`N=_{k=+,}(\mathrm{}\omega a_k^+a_k+\mathrm{}\omega |ekek|)`$. Since the operator $`N`$ commutes with the Hamiltonian $`H_{tot}`$, i.e. $`[N,H_{tot}]=0`$, the unitary operator $`U(t)`$ can be decomposed into the direct summands of a series of subspaces labelled by the eigenvalues of the operator $`N`$. As a prior assumption of this NQI process, we assume that only one photon comes into the system and interacts with the atom prepared in the superposition of the metastable states. Due to the fact that $`(N\mathrm{}\omega )|one\mathrm{\_}photon|metastable\mathrm{\_}state=0`$, during the whole interaction process, the quantum state of the whole system can not escape from the eigenspace of the operator $`N`$ with the eigenvalue $`\mathrm{}\omega `$. This subspace is spanned by six basis vectors: $`|ek|0`$, $`|mk|k^{}`$ $`\left(k,k^{}=+,\right)`$. Here, $`|k`$ and $`|0`$ refer to the state of single $`k`$ (circularly) polarized photon and the vacuum state respectively. Thus, in this problem, we need only give the representation of the unitary operator $`U(t)`$ in the eigenspace of the operator $`N`$ labelled by eigenvalue $`\mathrm{}\omega `$.

$`U^{(\mathrm{}\omega )}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\omega t}\{{\displaystyle \underset{k=+,}{}}\left(\mathrm{cos}g_kt\right|mk|kk\left|mk|i\mathrm{sin}g_kt|ek\right|0k|mk\left|\right)`$ (35)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k=+,}{}}\left(\mathrm{cos}g_kt|ek|00\left|ek\left|i\mathrm{sin}g_kt\right|mk\right|k0|ek|\right)`$
$`+|m|++|m|+|m+||m+|\}.`$
Based on the equation(6) the operator $`D`$ can be obtained:

$$D=\underset{k=+,}{}\mathrm{cos}g_kt|mk|kk|mk|+|m|++|m|+|m+||m+|.$$
(36)
We may further deduce that the space $`\overline{K}`$ is just $`H_d`$ spanned by two vectors $`|+`$ and $`|`$. By setting $`|\chi =_{i=+,}a_i^{}|i`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}=_{i=+,}b_i|i`$ we can rephrase the equation(27) as follows:

$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}p_+b_+& b_{}\\ b_+& p_{}b_{}\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}a_+\\ a_{}\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}c\\ c\end{array}\right]$$
(37)
where $`p_\pm =\mathrm{cos}g_\pm t`$. To make sure that there are rational solutions of $`a_+`$ and $`a_{}`$ it is essential that the determinant of the matrix on the left hand of the above equation is non-zero: $`(p_+p_{}1)b_+b_{}0`$ i. e. $`p_+p_{}1`$ and $`b_+b_{}0`$. The solutions of the equation set(37) are that: $`a_+=\frac{\left(p_{}1\right)c}{\left(p_+p_{}1\right)b_+}`$, $`a_{}=\frac{\left(p_+1\right)c}{\left(p_+p_{}1\right)b_{}}`$. the normolizaton of the vector $`|\chi `$ provides the limit of the norm of the constant $`c`$: $`\left|c\right|=\frac{\left|b_+b_{}\right|\left(1p_+p_{}\right)}{\sqrt{\left(p_{}1\right)^2\left|b_{}\right|^2+\left(p_+1\right)^2\left|b_+\right|^2}}`$. For the purpose of simplicity we set $`p_+=p_{}=p`$. Thus, the above parameters should be separately reduced to: $`a_+=\frac{c}{\left(p+1\right)b_+}`$, $`a_{}=\frac{c}{\left(p+1\right)b_{}}`$, and $`\left|c\right|=\left|b_+b_{}\right|\left(1+p\right)`$. Starting from the state vector $`|\chi =\frac{c^{}}{\left(p+1\right)b_+^{}}|++\frac{c^{}}{\left(p+1\right)b_{}^{}}|`$ we can deduce $`|\chi _1=\frac{c}{\left(p+1\right)b_{}}|+\frac{c}{\left(p+1\right)b_+}|`$. By comparing $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}c|\chi `$ with $`|\chi _1`$ we may find that the two state vectors are linearly independent unless $`p=1`$. In other words, for the atomic system as depicted in Fig. 2, the criterion of NQI process can be satisfied in most cases. Therefore, it allows us to obtain the projector $`P_I`$ by taking advantage of the steps outlined in section III A and to devise feasible protocols of nondistortion interrogation. One such example is given in , where $`|\chi =|\psi _d^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(a_{l,}^+a_{l,+}^+\right)|0`$, and the maximum success probability is $`\frac{1}{16}`$.

## IV Iterative NQI process

People have recently presented several protocols of NQI. However, it is quite difficult to increase the interrogation efficiency in single-shot NQI processes. We proved that the optimal success probability in the protocol investigated by Pötting et. al. can only reach $`\frac{1}{16}`$. By expanding the Hilbert space of the probe system, the success probability for NQI can be raised to $`\frac{1}{8}`$ in an advanced scheme. The design for the previous two schemes is just in terms of the fundamental steps i)-iii) described in section II. As we know, in most protocols of the interaction-free measurements, it is possible to make the probability of IFMs arbitrarily close to one by taking advantage of the quantum Zeno effect. Similar treatments can also be considered in NQI. A primary attempt was presented in ref.

For the iterative NQI processes, a basic consideration is that when the probe wavefunction comes out of the detected system one makes it come in the detected system again after an appropriate manipulation on it, instead of performing the Von Neumann measurement on it. A final measurement can be done on the probe after the certain number of iterations. When we denote the quantum manipulation between the loops by the operator $`L^{\left(i\right)}`$ the final state in $`H_DH_S`$ is:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{nondecay}=\underset{i=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\left(L^{\left(Ni\right)}\left(\left(I_rI_S\right)D\right)U_{free}\right)|\mathrm{\Psi }_D|\mathrm{\Psi }_S$$
(38)
where $`U_{free}=e^{i/\mathrm{}(H^D+H^S)t}`$ and N refers to the number of the iterations. Because we allow to insert the proper operation $`L^{\left(i\right)}`$ in between the iterations it becomes hard to obtain the necessary and sufficient for the iterative NQI processes. Here, we only consider the sufficient condition for the iterative cases.

Theorem 3: The sufficient condition that an iterative NQI can be done with certainty is that there exists a vector $`|\chi H_d`$ which satisfies $`\chi \left|D\right|\chi =cI_S`$ , where $`c`$ is a known constant and is not equal to one.

Proof: Suppose that the original probe wavefunction is: $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_D=e^{i/\mathrm{}H^Dt}(\mathrm{cos}\theta |\psi _r+\mathrm{sin}\theta |\chi )`$. If the condition $`\chi \left|D\right|\chi =cI_S\left(c1\right)`$ holds, for any state vector $`|\psi _S^{}S\left(H_S\right)`$, we have the following relation:

$$D|\chi |\psi _S^{}=c|\chi |\psi _S^{}+\underset{j=1}{\overset{m1}{}}|\chi _j|m_{S(j)}.$$
(39)
Here, $`\{|\chi _j_{j=1}^{m1},|\chi \}`$ form the bases of the Hilbert space $`H_d`$ and $`|m_{S(j)}=\chi _i\left|D\right|\chi |\psi _S^{}`$. For the iterative NQI, the main task is to elaborately devise the operations between the adjacent loops. Considering the condition(39) we may set the operator $`L^{\left(i\right)}`$ as follows:

$$L^{\left(i\right)}=e^{i/\mathrm{}H^Dt}UM$$
(40)
where $`M`$ is a projector which projects the probe wavefunction into the subspace $`\left(|\psi _r\psi _r|+|\chi \chi |\right)I_S`$ with some probability. The unitary operator $`U`$ has the following form:

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\delta & \mathrm{sin}\delta \\ \mathrm{sin}\delta & \mathrm{cos}\delta \end{array}\right)$$
(41)
where the matrix is in the bases$`|\psi _r`$ and $`|\chi `$. We choose $`\delta =\theta \theta ^{}`$, where $`\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}=\mathrm{cos}\theta /\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +c^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }`$. Thus, if there is a quantum object characterized in the state $`|\psi _S`$ in the black box, after the probe wavefunction initially prepared in the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_D`$ undergoes N iterations, if we choose N such that $`N\delta =\pi /2`$, the non-decay quantum fraction of the whole system will be transformed into:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{nondecay}=e^{\frac{iH^Dt}{\mathrm{}}}\gamma ^N\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta |\psi _r+\mathrm{sin}\theta |\chi \right)e^{\frac{iH^SNt}{\mathrm{}}}|\psi _S$$
(42)
where $`\gamma =1/\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +c^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }`$. As the final result, the probe will be end up in the state $`e^{\frac{iH^Dt}{\mathrm{}}}\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta |\psi _r+\mathrm{sin}\theta |\chi \right)`$ with the probability $`\gamma ^{2N}`$, which goes to unity in the limit of large N and small $`\theta `$ (see the ref). On the contrary, if the black box is empty the quantum state of the probe will evolve into:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=e^{\frac{iH^Dt}{\mathrm{}}}\left[\mathrm{cos}(\theta +\pi /2)|\psi _r+\mathrm{sin}(\theta +\pi /2)|\chi \right]$$
(43)
with certainty. Due to the orthogonality and (asymptotic) certainty of the two outcomes we may perfectly perform the NQI in the iterative way. This completes the proof of theroem 3.

## V Discussion and Conclusion

In the quantum interrogation, the interaction between the probe wave and the quantum object modifies the interference among the original probe wave components. Meanwhile, each of the probe wave components entangles the corresponding evolution of the scattered object. For the NQI processes, there must exist a successful probe wave component, which should entangle with the free evolution of the object, at the same time, be orthogonal to any other scattering wave components. Quantum measurement theory ensures that once this component is registered the corresponding quantum branch will come into reality. In this case, we may not only obtain information on the location of a quantum object, but also make the evolution of the internal state of the detected object free from the disturbance from the interrogation process. Here, we should emphasize that before an experimentist provides a practical NQI scheme all the physical conditions about the interaction in the black box should be considered carefully. In addition, As far as some complicated interactions are concerned, it is quite difficult to test the criterion of NQI. Especially, how to obtain the sufficient and necessary criterion for the iterative NQI processes is still an open question.

Nevertheless, NQI may provide some miraculous applications. It should be noted that the interrogated target is not a quantum state, but a space of quantum states. In other words, quantum information in Hilbert space $`H_S`$ will not be contaminated by the probing process. This way to manipulate quantum objects is of potential application in the recently developed quantum information science. Since the detected system need not be restricted to pure states we may also cast our interests on mixed states. As pointed out by Pötting et. al  the nondistortion interrogation provides a tool to monitor a subsystem in a many-particle system without destroying the entanglement between the particles.

In conclusion, we have studied the process of NQI under some physical assumptions. We proved the necessary and sufficient condition for single-shot NQI process in our formulation. Furthermore, we consider the NQI processes in iterative cases and obtain a sufficient condition for the iterative nondistortion quantum interrogation. As a novel method to manipulate quantum systems NQI may be applied in future quantum information processing.

Z. W. Zhou and G. C. Guo are funded by National Fundamental Research Program( 2001CB309300), National Natural Science Foundation of China ( Grant No. 10204020), the Innovation funds from Chinese Academy of Sciences. Work of X. Zhou and M. J. Feldman was supported in part by ARO grant DAAG55-98-1-0367.


text:
# Optical conductivity of one-dimensional doped Hubbard-Mott insulator

## Abstract

We study the optical response of a strongly correlated electron system near the metal-insulator transition using a mapping to the sine-Gordon model. With semiclassical quantization, the spectral weight is distributed between a Drude peak and absorption lines due to breathers. We calculate the Drude weight, the optical gap, and the lineshape of breather absorption.

Optical absorption is one of the basic tools in studies of the spectral properties of strongly correlated electron systems Ladders ; Polymers ; Stripes . An important class of such systems is comprised of one-dimensional conductors such as ladder compounds, organic metals and stripes in high $`T_c`$ cuprates. The electron-electron interaction in these low-dimensional systems is known Voit  to result in spin-charge separation and formation of a Luttinger liquid or the Mott-Hubbard insulator (MHI). The MHI occurs at commensurate filling fractions and is characterised by an energy gap in the charge sector. In this case, optical absorption exhibits a threshhold at twice the gap energy. As the Fermi level shifts above the gap, the system conducts, with profound changes to the optical absorption spectrum. The optical conductivity summarizes this behavior: $`\sigma (\omega )=D2\pi \delta (\omega )+\sigma _{\mathrm{reg}}(\omega ),`$ with the Drude weight $`D=0`$ in the insulating phase, and a regular part $`\sigma `$ containing contributions from pair excitations and bound states, or excitons MIT .

The simplest model where the MHI phase occurs is the Hubbard model with an on-site repulsion. In the commensurate phase the spectrum of the optical absorption consists of a broad feature lying in the particle-hole continuum Carmelo00 ; Jeckelmann00 ; Controzzi01 . In the more realistic extended Hubbard model, the excitation spectrum generally consists of both the particle-hole continuum and bound states (excitons) Extended ; Barford . Numerical studies of the extended Hubbard model with nearest- and next-nearest neighbor repulsions Essler2001  show the emergence of a sharp exciton peak, which becomes a dominant feature when the repulsion is sufficiently strong.

In addition to the numerical analysis of the problem a mapping to the continuous sine-Gordon (SG) model can be considered MIT . The exciton peaks are seen in the sine-Gordon approach as absorption on quantum ”breather” modes of the model.

Much is known about the commensurate phase because of the integrable structure of the corresponding SG theory and the knowledge of its form-factors due to the Smirnov bootstrap (see Essler2001  and refs therein). The incommensurate phase is much less studied with analytic results existing for the high frequency expansion of the optical conductivity in the absence of breathers MIT .

In this paper we report our results for the optical conductivity in the incommensurate phase in the presence of a large number of breathers, which corresponds to long-range interactions in the Hubbard chain Barford . It is known that in this limit the SG model can be analyzed semiclassically Dashen . Using the semiclassical approach we calculate the optical absorption of a doped MHI as a function of frequency and the carrier density. Our analytic expression for the Drude weight (21) is found in an excellent agreement with a thermodynamic Bethe ansatz calculation. At high doping the optical weight is contained in the Drude peak and in a series of well resolved peaks at finite frequencies, corresponding to excitation of breathers. We calculate the positions of the peaks (19), and their shape (32). At low doping peaks merge in a narrow continuous band and we provide an analytic expression for the optical absorption in this case. Our results for one spatial dimension agree with experimental and theoretical evidences for the peaks in optical absorption at small energies near the metal-insulator transition in quasi 1D compounds and in higher dimensions Ladders ; Stripes ; HiD ; Fleck ; Horsch .

The optical response of a doped MHI is described by the sine-Gordon model MIT ; Emery

$$=\frac{1}{2}\left\{(_t\varphi )^2(_x\varphi )^2\right\}+\frac{m^2}{\beta ^2}\mathrm{cos}\beta \varphi +h\frac{\beta }{2\pi }_x\varphi $$
(1)
where the charge and current densities read

$$\rho =\frac{\beta }{2\pi }_x\varphi ,j=\frac{\beta }{2\pi }_t\varphi .$$
(2)
In Eq. (1) $`h`$ is the chemical potential controlling the average density $`\rho (x)=\overline{\rho },`$ and it is assumed that in the insulating phase $`\overline{\rho }=0.`$ The cosine term in Eq.(1) is related to Umklapp. The sine-Gordon coupling $`\beta `$ is determined by the interactions of the lattice model Voit . For free fermions $`\beta =\sqrt{8\pi }.`$ For infinite $`U`$ Hubbard model $`\beta =\sqrt{4\pi },`$ which corresponds to the refermionization point, where the optical absorption can be found exactlyFukuyama . Below, we will investigate the case of $`\beta 1`$ when the number of breather modes is $`8\pi /\beta ^2`$. he mass $`m`$ is a characteristic energy scale for a breather excitation while the particle-hole continuum starts from energies $`8m/\beta ^2.`$

By virtue of (2) the Kubo formula for the optical conductivity is written as

$$\sigma (\omega )=\left(\frac{\beta }{2\pi }\right)^2\mathrm{Im}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{i\omega t}G(t),$$
(3)
where

$$G(t)=𝑑x[\pi (x,t),\varphi (0,0)].$$
(4)
and $`\pi =_t\varphi `$ is the canonically conjugate momentum for $`\varphi ,`$ such that $`[\varphi (x),\pi (y)]=i\delta (xy).`$

It follows from (3) that $`\sigma (\omega )`$ satisfies a sum rule

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \sigma (\omega )=i\frac{\beta ^2}{4\pi }𝑑x[\pi (x,0),\varphi (0,0)]=2\tau ,$$
(5)
with $`\tau =\beta ^2/8\pi .`$ In the Tomonaga-Luttinger limit, $`m=0`$ in (1), the sum rule (5) is saturated by the Drude weight $`D=\tau /\pi .`$

In the quasiclassical regime the case $`\overline{\rho }=0`$ is very simple. Eq. (1) reduces to the Klein-Gordon model, with the ground state $`\varphi =0.`$ The optical conductivity is calculated immediately

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{KG}}(\omega )=\tau \left(\delta (\omega m)+\delta (\omega +m)\right),$$
(6)
For a finite $`\overline{\rho }`$ the quasiclassical ground state found from the stationary SG equation under constraint $`_x\varphi =2\pi \overline{\rho }/\beta `$ is

$$\varphi _0(x)=2\beta ^1\mathrm{am}(2K\overline{\rho }x)$$
(7)
where $`\mathrm{am}(x,k)`$ is the Jacobi amplitude function ArLu  with the elliptic index $`k`$. This index is found from the equation

$$m/\overline{\rho }=2kK(k)$$
(8)
with the complete elliptic integral $`K`$. Henceforth we will drop the index $`k`$ in the argument of the elliptic functions and use the conventions $`k_1=\sqrt{1k^2}`$, $`K(k)=K`$, $`K(k_1)=K^{}`$, $`E(k)=E`$. The standard semiclassical approach requires the second variation of the action around the classical solution and an analysis of the spectrum of the resulting Gaussian action. It was, shown ArLu  that this scheme encounters infrared divergences in higher orders of perturbation theory in $`\beta .`$ An infrared stable formulation of the theory is achieved by a non-linear change of variables

$$\varphi =\varphi _0\left(x+\kappa ^1\beta \eta \right).$$
(9)
where $`\kappa =2\pi \overline{\rho }.`$ The new field variable $`\eta (x,t)`$ plays the role of the continuous ”collective coordinate” Raja , which roughly corresponds to fluctuations in kinks’ positions.

The linearized Lagrangian for the field $`\eta `$ reads

$$=\frac{1}{2}w^2(x)\{(_t\eta )^2(_x\eta )^2\}.$$
(10)
where the weight function, $`w`$ is defined as

$$w(x)=\frac{2K}{\pi }\mathrm{dn2}K\overline{\rho }x.$$
(11)
The spectrum of the Lagrangian (10) was analyzed in detail in ArLu . The eigenmodes of (10) are the Bloch functions

$$\eta _q(x,t)=e^{iqxi\omega _qt}\chi _q(x),$$
(12)
where $`q`$ is the Bloch wave vector and $`\chi `$ is the modulating Bloch function with period $`1/\overline{\rho }`$.

These solutions are conveniently parametrized by a complex parameter $`\alpha `$ as follows. The Bloch wave vector and the eigenfrequency of the mode are given by

$$q=i2\overline{\rho }K\mathrm{Z}(\alpha )+\pi \overline{\rho },\omega =2\overline{\rho }K\mathrm{dn}(\alpha ),$$
(13)
where $`Z(\alpha )`$ is the Jacobi Zeta function. The modulating Bloch function is

$$\chi _q(x)=C_\alpha e^{i\pi \overline{\rho }x}\vartheta _1\left(\pi \overline{\rho }x\frac{\pi \alpha }{2K}\right)\vartheta _3^1(\pi \overline{\rho }x).$$
(14)
Here the coefficient $`C_\alpha `$ is chosen to fulfill the normalization condition

$$𝑑xw^2(x)\eta _\alpha ^{}(x)\eta _\beta (x)=\delta _{\alpha \beta }.$$
(15)
The quantized field $`\eta (x,t)`$ is then represented in the oscillator basis

$$\eta (x,t)=\underset{\alpha }{}(\frac{\eta _\alpha (x)}{\sqrt{2\omega _\alpha }}e^{i\omega _\alpha t}b_\alpha ^{}+h.c.)$$
(16)
with operators $`b,b^{}`$ satisfying usual commutation relations $`[b_\alpha ,b_\alpha ^{}^{}]=\delta _{\alpha \alpha ^{}}`$.

In the limit of small $`\beta `$ the change of variables (9) can be linearized $`\varphi =\varphi _0+w\eta ,\pi =w\dot{\eta }`$ and from the normal mode expansion (16) and the Kubo formula (3) one obtains for the optical conductivity

$$\sigma (\omega )=\tau \underset{\alpha }{}\left|F(\alpha )\right|^2(\delta (\omega \omega _\alpha )+\delta (\omega +\omega _\alpha )),$$
(17)
where the form factor

$$F(\alpha )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}_0^L𝑑x\eta _\alpha (x)w(x).$$
(18)
The selection rules for the form factors in (17) should allow only transitions between the states of zero wave vector in the reduced Brillouin zone scheme (see Fig. 1).

This condition combined with (13) implies that the allowed indices $`\alpha `$ and the corresponding frequencies of the absorption lines satisfy

$$2iKZ(\alpha _n)=\pi (2n1),\omega _n=(m/k)\mathrm{dn}\alpha _n,$$
(19)
where $`n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$ and $`\alpha _n[0,iK^{}).`$ For the form factors we find

$$|F(\alpha _n)|^2=\frac{\pi ^2}{2K^2}\frac{\mathrm{csch}^2\left[\frac{i\pi \alpha _n}{2K}+iK^{}Z(\alpha _n)\right]}{\mathrm{dn}^2\alpha _n\frac{E}{K}}.$$
(20)
The lowest frequency $`\omega _1`$ can be associated with the optical gap. From Eq. (19) (see also Fig. 1) one finds that $`\omega _1`$ is always greater than $`m`$ and is an increasing function of $`\overline{\rho }.`$ One has $`\omega _1m`$ for $`\overline{\rho }m`$ and $`\omega _12\pi \overline{\rho }`$ for $`\overline{\rho }m.`$ The spacings between the peaks also increase with $`\overline{\rho },`$ from zero at $`\overline{\rho }0`$ to $`2\pi \overline{\rho }`$ for $`\overline{\rho }m.`$ The amplitudes $`|F(\alpha _n)|^2`$ are rapidly decreasing functions of $`n.`$ In the high density limit one finds $`|F(\alpha _n)|^2n^2(4\pi \overline{\rho }/m)^{4n}.`$

The Drude weight comes from the zero mode $`\eta _0`$ and is found to be

$$D=\frac{\tau }{\pi }\left|F_0\right|^2=\frac{\tau \pi }{4EK}$$
(21)
Combined with definition (8) formula (21) gives the quasiclassical expression for the Drude weight as a function of the density of kinks. The following limiting cases allow for further simplifications:

1. High density limit. This limit corresponds to $`k0`$ and $`K,E\pi /2.`$ For the Drude weight we get $`D\tau /\pi ,`$ which is the result for the Tomonaga-Luttinger limit.

2. Low density limit. In this limit both $`k`$ and $`E`$ are close to unity. The Drude weight is then given by

$$D=\frac{\overline{\rho }}{2M_s}.$$
(22)
This result has a simple physical interpretation. In the limit of low density the kinks form a gas of weakly interacting non-relativistic particles. In an external electric field $`\epsilon `$ the motion of a particle is described by Newton’s law $`iM_s\omega v=\epsilon `$ and the electric current is given by $`j=\overline{\rho }\epsilon /(i\omega M_s).`$ Analytic continuation of this expression gives Eq. (22).

To check the accuracy of these results we calculate the exact Drude weight from the thermodynamic Bethe ansatz PapaTsve . A comparison made in Fig. 2 shows an excellent agreement between the quasiclassics and the exact result.

Further analysis needs a different treatment of the cases of the high and the low density.

In the limit $`\rho /m0`$ one has $`K\mathrm{}`$ so that both the weight of $`\delta `$functions in (17) and the spacings between them vanish. (In this limit one has $`K^{}\pi /2`$, $`E1`$, $`Z(\alpha )\mathrm{tanh}\alpha `$, $`\mathrm{dn}\alpha \mathrm{sech}\alpha `$ and $`\alpha _ni(2n+1)\pi \overline{\rho }/m`$, $`\omega _n^2=m^2+[(2n+1)\pi \overline{\rho }]^2`$. ) As a result, the sequence of $`\delta `$functions merges to the continuous function

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{reg}}(\omega )=\frac{\tau \pi \overline{\rho }}{|\omega |\sqrt{\omega ^2m^2}}\frac{\vartheta (\omega ^2m^2)}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\frac{\pi }{2m}\sqrt{\omega ^2m^2}}$$
(23)
Note the non-integrable singularity $`\sigma (\omega )(\omega m)^{3/2}`$ at the threshold, which seemingly violates the sum rule (5). This signals that the low density limit requires special treatment. A careful analysis of the fluctuations in this limit ACL  leads to the formula

$$\sigma (\omega )=\frac{\tau |\omega |}{\pi m\sqrt{\omega ^2m^2}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xe^{ix\sqrt{\frac{\omega ^2}{m^2}1}\frac{2m\overline{\rho }}{\omega ^2}x\mathrm{coth}x},$$

which satisfies the sum rule and coincides with (23) for $`\omega m\overline{\rho }^2/m.`$

Next we turn to the case of large densities. The series of infinitely narrow peaks in Eq. (17) stems from the classical picture of the broken translational symmetry of the ground state Eq. (7) which is a periodic lattice of kinks. The true ground state, however, should be translationally invariant, for arbitrarily small $`\beta `$. The symmetry is restored by zero-point fluctuations of the respective positions of kinks in the lattice. Below we show that such fluctuations lead to non-perturbative corrections to Eq. (17) and to the algebraic broadening of the conductance peaks.

In order to analyze finite $`\beta `$ corrections to Eq.(17) it is convenient to write the following identity for the correlation function (4)

$$\dot{G}(t)=𝑑x\frac{m^2}{\beta }[\mathrm{sin}\beta \varphi (x,t),\varphi (0)],$$
(24)
which follows from the equations of motion of the sine-Gordon model. The optical sum rule is taken care of by imposing the initial condition $`G(0)=i.`$

With a help of (9) and observing that the ground state solution $`\varphi _0`$ satisfies the stationary SG equation we write

$$\dot{G}(t)=𝑑x[\varphi _0^{\prime \prime }\left(x+\frac{\beta \eta (x,t)}{\kappa }\right),\varphi _0\left(\frac{\beta \eta (0)}{\kappa }\right)]_X$$
(25)
where the average over the position of the lattice of kinks $`X`$ is spelled out explicitly. The function $`\varphi _0`$ is a sum of a linear and a periodic function of its argument and can be represented as a Fourier series

$$\varphi _0\left(x+\frac{\beta \eta }{\kappa }\right)=\frac{\kappa x}{\beta }+\eta +\underset{l0}{}\frac{C_l}{i\beta l}e^{il(\kappa x+\beta \eta )}$$
(26)
with $`C_l=\mathrm{sech}(\pi lK^{}/K).`$ Using (26) we write Eq. (25) as

$$\dot{G}(t)=\kappa ^2L^1𝑑x𝑑y\underset{l}{}C_l^2e^{i\kappa l(xy)}Q_l(xy,t),$$
(27)
where

$$Q_l(xy,t)=\beta ^2[e^{il\beta \eta (x,t)},e^{il\beta \eta (y)}]$$
(28)
In deriving Eq. (27), off-diagonal terms of the form $`[\mathrm{exp}(im\beta \eta (x,t)),\mathrm{exp}(in\beta \eta (0))]`$ for $`nm`$ were dropped, since they vanish in the thermodynamic limit. The average over the position of the kink lattice $`X`$ was replaced by the equivalent integration over $`y.`$

The limit $`\beta 0`$ in (27) is non-trivial because of the long-distance singularities characteristic of this problem. First take this limit naïvely by expanding the exponentials in Eq. (28) in powers of small $`\beta `$ and keeping the leading term. Then

$$Q_l(xy,t)l^2[\eta (x,t),\eta (y)].$$
(29)
Using this approximation in formula (27) immediately leads to the peaked structure of the optical response (17).

Next, consider the average commutator in Eq. (28) using the Gaussian approximation

$$e^{i\beta l\eta (x,t)}e^{i\beta l\eta (0)}=e^{\beta ^2l^2\eta (x,t)\eta (0)}.$$
(30)
Eq. (29) is obtained from the first two terms of the Taylor expansion of the exponential in the right hand side of (30). This expansion is accurate while the argument of the exponential is small, which is not true at large distances, where $`\beta ^2\eta (x,t)\eta (0)𝒦\mathrm{log}|x^2v_s^2t^2|,`$ where $`𝒦`$ is the Luttinger parameter, ArLu . The breakdown of the approximation Eq. (29) at large distances leads to a broadening of the conductance peaks.

A rather lengthy but straightforward analysis, based on Eq. (30) shows then that the real part of optical conductivity near the $`n`$-th peak is given by

$$\sigma (\omega _n+\mathrm{\Omega })\underset{l}{}\mathrm{Re}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t\frac{l^2C_l^2e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }t}}{(\overline{\rho }^2(v_n^2v_s^2)t^2+1)^{𝒦l^2}},$$
(31)
where $`v_n`$ is the group velocity of the bosonic excitations near frequency $`\omega _n`$, $`v_s`$ is the sound velocity of bosonic excitations. We can see, that in the limit $`𝒦=0`$ the delta-function form of the conductivity peak is restored. At any finite value of the Luttinger parameter $`𝒦`$ the conductivity will fall off algebraically away from $`\omega _n`$.

$$\sigma (\omega _n+\mathrm{\Omega })|\mathrm{\Omega }|^{2𝒦1}$$
(32)
The width of the peak, on the other hand, is determined by the difference of the sound velocity $`v_s`$ and the group velocity $`v_n`$ and is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }=\overline{\rho }\sqrt{v_g^2v_n^2}$$
(33)
In the high density limit one finds $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }m^2/\rho `$ which implies, that peaks of optical conductivity are well resolved despite the quantum smearing of the lattice structure.

In summary, the optical conductivity of a one-dimensional conductor close to the Hubbard-Mott transition in the quasiclassical limit shows a smooth crossover between the Luttinger liquid and the Mott-Hubbard insulator. With increasing density the band of breather absorption splits into a series of well resolved peaks. We calculated the positions of the peaks (19), their shape (32) and width (33). Our analytic result for the Drude weight (21) shows an excellent agreement with the thermodynamic Bethe ansatz.

We thank A. Rosch and P. Horsch for helpful discussions.


text:
# AVERAGE (RECOMMENDED) HALF-LIFE VALUES FOR TWO NEUTRINO DOUBLE BETA DECAY

## 1 Introduction

At present two neutrino double beta decay process ($`2\nu \beta \beta `$ ) has been detected in 10 nuclei. In 100Mo this type of decay was detected for the transition to $`0^+`$ excited state of daughter nucleus too. All these results were obtained in a few tens of geochemical experiments, more then two tens of direct (counting) experiments and in one radiochemical experiment. In direct experiments for some nuclei there are up to 5 independent positive results (76Ge, 100Mo). In some experiments, statistical error does not play the main role. Thus in Heidelberg-Moscow experiment with 76Ge more then 64000 useful events were detected  and in NEMO experiment with 100Mo 1423 events were detected . This results in values for the statistical error of 0.5% and 4%, respectively. At the same time systematic error in the experiments on $`2\nu \beta \beta `$ decay remain quite high ($`1030\%`$) and, in addition, very often it can’t be determined reliably enough. For example, in Geidelberg-Moscow experiment the measured half-life value recently was changed by 15% with an indicated systematic error $`7\%`$ (see  and ). This demonstrates that the real systematic error in this experiment  was higher than the indicated one. And now authors estimate the systematic error as $`1012\%`$ .

In the present work critical analysis of all ”positive” experimental results are made and averaged, and recommended values for all isotopes are obtained.

## 2  Present experimental data

Experimental results on $`2\nu \beta \beta `$ decay in different nuclei are presented in Table 1. For direct experiments number of useful events and signal/background ratio are presented.

## 3  Data analysis

To obtain an average of the data a standard weighted least-squares procedure recommended by Particle Data Group  was used. Weighted average and error were calculated as:

$$\overline{x}\pm \delta \overline{x}=w_ix_i/w_i\pm (w_i)^{1/2},$$
(1)
where $`w_i=1/(\delta x_i)^2`$.

Here $`x_i`$ and $`\delta x_i`$ are the value and error reported by the i-th experiment, and the sums run over the N experiments. We then calculate $`\chi ^2=w_i(\overline{x}x_i)^2`$ and compare it with N - 1, which is the expectation value of $`\chi ^2`$ if the measurements are from a Gaussian distribution.

If $`\chi ^2/(N1)`$ is less than or equal to 1, and there are no known problems with the data, we accept the results.

If $`\chi ^2/(N1)`$ is very large, we may choose not to use the average at all. Alternatively, we may quote the calculated average, but then make an educated guess of the error, a conservative estimate designed to take into account known problems with the data.

Finally, if $`\chi ^2/(N1)`$ is greater than 1, but not greatly so, we still average the data, but we increase our quoted error, $`\delta \overline{x}`$ in Eq. (1), by a scale factor S defined as

$$S=[\chi ^2/(N1)]^{1/2},$$
(2)
For averages we add the statistical and systematic errors in quadrature and use this combined error as $`\delta x_i`$.

3.1. 48Ca. There are two independent experiments in which $`2\nu \beta \beta `$ decay of 48Ca was observed . Results are in good agreement, but errors are quite large. The weighted average value is:

$$T_{1/2}=4.2_{1.0}^{+2.1}10^{19}y.$$

3.2. 76Ge. Let us consider the results of five experiments. But, first of all, a few additional comments are necessary:

1) Recently the result of the Heidelberg-Moscow group was corrected. Instead of the previously published value $`T_{1/2}=[1.77\pm 0.01(stat)_{0.11}^{+0.13}(syst)]10^{21}`$ y , a new value $`T_{1/2}=[1.55\pm 0.01(stat)_{0.15}^{+0.19}(syst)]10^{21}`$ y  has been presented. This last value has been used in our analysis.

2) In ref.  the value $`T_{1/2}=0.92_{0.04}^{+0.07}10^{21}`$ y was presented. However, after more careful analysis, it was changed to a value of $`T_{1/2}=1.2_{0.1}^{+0.2}10^{21}`$ y , which was used in our analysis.

3) The result of work  does not agree with more later and more precise experiments . Error presented in  looks too small, especially taking into account that signal/background ratio in this experiment is equal to $`1/10`$. Before it was mentioned , that half-life value in this work can be $`1.52`$ times higher because the thickness of dead layer in using Ge(Li) detectors can be different in crystals made of natural and enriched Ge. Under nonuniformity of external background it can have an appreciable influence on the final result.

Finally, in calculating the average, only result of experiments with signal/background ratio greater then 1 were used, i.e. the results of . The weighted average value is:

$$T_{1/2}=1.43_{0.07}^{+0.09}10^{21}y.$$

3.3. 82Se. There are two independent counting experiments and a lot of geochemical measurements $`(20)`$. Geochemical data are not in good agreement with each other and with direct experiments data. Formally the accuracy of geochemical measurements can be on the level of a few percent and even better. Nevertheless, now the possibility of existing large systematic error cannot be excluded (see discussion in ). It is mentioned in ref.  that, if weak interaction constant $`G_F`$ depends of time, then half-life values obtained in geochemical experiments will depend of the age of the samples. This is why to obtain a ”present” half-life value of 82Se, only results of direct measurements,  and , were used. Result of ref.  is the preliminary result of  and we do not use it in our analysis. Notice that ”low” error in  looks too small. It is even smaller than the statistical error! This is why we use here a more realistic value of 15% as an estimation of this error. As a result the weighted average value is:

$$T_{1/2}=(0.9\pm 0.1)10^{20}y.$$

3.4. 96Zr. There are two ”positive” results: geochemical result  and result of direct NEMO experiment . Taking into account the comment in section 3.3 we take the value from  as ”present” half-life value for 96Zr:

$$T_{1/2}=2.1_{0.4}^{+0.8}10^{19}y.$$

3.5. 100Mo. Formally there are 6 positive results 111We do not consider result of  because possible background contribution to the ”effect” was not excluded in this experiment. . But we do not consider preliminary result of M.Moe et al.  and use their final result . The following weighted average value for half-life is obtained:

$$T_{1/2}=(8\pm 0.7)10^{18}y.$$

3.6. 100Mo - 100Ru ($`0_1^+`$; 1130.29 keV). Transition to $`0^+`$ excited state in 100Ru was detected in three independent experiments. Results are in good agreement. Weighted average value for half-life is:

$$T_{1/2}=(6.8\pm 1.2)10^{20}y.$$

3.7. 116Cd. There are three independent ”positive” results which are in a good agreement with each other taking into account the error bars. The waighted average value is:

$$T_{1/2}=3.3_{0.3}^{+0.4}10^{19}y.$$

3.8. 128Te and 130Te. There are only geochemical data for these isotopes. Though the half- life ratio for this isotopes is obtained with good accuracy $`(3\%)`$ , absolute values for $`T_{1/2}`$ are different from one experiment to the next. One group of authors  gives $`T_{1/2}0.810^{21}`$ y for 130Te and $`T_{1/2}210^{24}`$ y for 128Te and another group  \- $`T_{1/2}(2.52.7)10^{21}`$ y and $`T_{1/2}7.710^{24}`$ y, respectively. And besides, as a rule, experiments with ”young” samples ($`100`$ million. years) give for half-life of 130Te values $`(0.70.9)10^{21}`$ y and for ”old” samples ($`>1`$ billion years) $`(2.52.7)10^{21}`$ y. It was even assumed that the difference in half-life values could be connected with a variation of the week interaction constant $`G_F`$ with time .

We will estimate the absolute values of $`T_{1/2}`$ for 130Te and 128Te using only very well known ratios from geochemical measurements and ”present” half-life value of 82Se (see section 3.3). First ratio is $`T_{1/2}(^{130}\mathrm{Te})/T_{1/2}(^{128}\mathrm{Te})=(3.52\pm 0.11)10^4`$ . Second ratio is $`T_{1/2}(^{130}\mathrm{Te})/T_{1/2}(^{82}\mathrm{Se})=9.9\pm 0.6`$. This value is weighted average value from three experiments: $`7.3\pm 0.9`$ , $`12.5\pm 0.9`$  and $`10\pm 2`$ . It is significant that the gas retention age problem has no effect on the half-life ratios. Now using ”present” 82Se half-life value $`T_{1/2}=(0.9\pm 0.1)10^{20}`$ y. and value $`9.9\pm 0.6`$ for $`T_{1/2}(^{130}\mathrm{Te})/T_{1/2}(^{82}\mathrm{Se})`$ ratio one can obtain the half-life value for 130Te:

$$T_{1/2}=(0.9\pm 0.15)10^{21}y.$$

Using $`T_{1/2}(^{130}\mathrm{Te})/T_{1/2}(^{128}\mathrm{Te})=(3.52\pm 0.11)10^4`$  one can obtain the half-life value for 128Te:

$$T_{1/2}=(2.5\pm 0.4)10^{24}y.$$

3.9. 150Nd. The half-life value was obtained in two independent experiments,  and . But the two results are not in good agreement. Using the relation (1) one can obtain $`T_{1/2}=(7.0\pm 0.8)10^{18}`$ y. Taking into account that $`\chi ^2>1`$ and S = 2.2 (see relation (2)) we finally obtain:

$$T_{1/2}=(7.0\pm 1.7)10^{18}y.$$

3.10. 238U. There is only one positive result from radiochemical experiment :

$$T_{1/2}=(2.0\pm 0.6)10^{21}y.$$

## 4 Conclusion

Hence all ”positive” $`2\nu \beta \beta `$ results were analyzed and average values for half-lives were calculated. For 128Te and 130Te so-called ”recommended” values were proposed. We recommend the use of exactly these values as most precise and reliable by this moment.


text:
# Superluminal Paradox and Neutrino

## Abstract

Einstein’s theory of special relativity(SR) and the principle of causality imply that the speed of any moving object can not exceed that of light in a vacuum($`c`$).However,there were many attempts in literature discussing the particle moving with speed $`u>c`$(called as superluminal particle or tachyon)either in the scheme of SR or beyond it.These theories all encountered a series of insurmountable difficulties which will be named “superluminal paradox”in this paper.We will analyze it in some detail and then prove that the paradox disappears unambiguously in quantum theory,which is compatible with SR.Most likely,the superluminal particle in real world is just a kind of known particle,the neutrino.

PACS:11.30 Cp,14.60 Lm

Consider two inertial frames$``$ and $`^{^{}}`$ moving with relative velocity $`v`$ along x axis.Then the Lorentz tansformation (LT) reads:

$$x^{^{}}=\frac{xvt}{\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}},t^{^{}}=\frac{tvx/c^2}{\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}}$$
(1)
where ($`x,t`$) and ($`x^{},t^{^{}}`$) are the space-time coordinates of the same particle P in $``$ and $`^{^{}}`$ frames, respectively.

Fig.1 shows the motion trajectory(world line) of a subluminal particle(P) with uniform velocity $`u<c`$ on the two-dimensional space-time diagram of $``$ and $`^{^{}}`$ .In Fig.1(b) it is seen that when $`v>u`$,the $`t^{^{}}`$ axis leaps across the world line OP,making $`x^{}<0`$ and $`u^{}=\frac{dx^{}}{dt^{}}<0`$ but with $`t^{}>0`$ still. There is no problem\[1-4\].

However,for a superluminal particle with $`u>c`$,as shown in Fig.2,a strange phenomenon occurs.While Fig.2(a) seems not so different from Fig.1.Fig.2(b) shows a great surprise that when $`v>c^2/u`$,$`t_p^{^{}}`$ becomes negative:

$$t_p^{^{}}<0\text{ }(u>c,v>c^2/u)$$
(2)
which was regarded as “tachyon traveling backward in time” or “violation of causality” and remains as a mysterious puzzle till now.\[5-7\].

In our opinion,the above puzzle can be better exhibited in an alternative way.Taking derivative of Eq.(1) ($`u=\frac{dx}{dt},u^{}=\frac{dx^{}}{dt^{^{}}}),`$we have addition law for velocity in LT as:

$$u^{}=\frac{uv}{1uv/c^2}$$
(3)
Notice that though Eq.(3) is an analytic function of three variables $`u,u^{^{}}`$and $`v`$ as long as $`\left|v\right|<c`$ and $`u<c`$,it does have a singularity if $`u>c`$.The pole is located at $`v=c^2/u`$ or $`u=c^2/v`$ and is clearly shown in Fig.3.When $`v`$ increases across the singularity $`c^2/u`$,the velocity of superluminal particle in $`^{^{}}`$frame,$`u^{^{}}`$,will leap abruptly from $`+\mathrm{}\mathrm{}:`$

$$u^{^{}}<c,(u>c^2/v\text{ }or\text{ }v>c^2/u)$$
(4)
Half of above phenomenon can also be seen in Fig.2(a) when we gradually rotate the x$`^{^{}}`$axis approaching the OP line anticlockwise:$`u^{^{}}`$=$`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }x^{^{}}}{\mathrm{\Delta }t^{^{}}}\mathrm{}.`$But it seems to us that Fig.2(b) is meaningless,the $`x^{^{}}`$ axis is not allowed to leap across the OP line.We prefer to accept Eq.(4) rather than $`t_p^{^{}}`$ $`<`$0.

However,the EQ.(4) still remains as a puzzle because we have the momentum $`p^{^{}}>0`$ as easily proved from the LT:

$$p^{^{}}=\frac{pvE/c^2}{\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}},\text{ }E^{^{}}=\frac{Evp}{\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}},$$
(5)
with

$$p=\frac{m_su}{\sqrt{u^2/c^21}}>0,\text{ }E=\frac{m_sc^2}{\sqrt{u^2/c^21}}>0,$$
(6)
for a superluminal particle(Eq.(6) will be derived below).Indeed,combining(5) with (6),we find

$$p^{^{}}=\frac{m_s(uv)}{\sqrt{u^2/c^21}\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}}>m_sc>0.$$
(7)
$$E^{^{}}=\frac{m_s(c^2uv)}{\sqrt{u^2/c^21}\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}}<0.(u>c^2/v\text{ or }v>c^2/u)$$
(8)
How can a particle have $`u^{^{}}<0`$ $`(u>c^2/v)`$ whereas $`p^{^{}}>0`$ ?

Moreover,how can the energy become negative in $`^{^{}}`$ frame:$`E^{^{}}<0`$ ?(Both $`p^{^{}}`$ and $`E^{^{}}`$ vary smoothly at $`uv=c^2`$ but energy must be positive definite in classical theory.)What do they mean?All the above puzzle (2),(4),(7) and (8) comprise the “superluminal paradox”.

Some authors regarded the paradox as a signal showing that the theory of LT might not be valid for superluminal particles.We don’t think so.We believe the paradox being stemming from the classical nature of above discussion.Once we find a reasonable quantum theory,the paradox will disappear.But the clue can only be found from the experiments.

The recent measurements on the neutrino show its mass-square being negative.Experimental data yield(even not so accurately):

$$\frac{E^2}{c^4}\frac{p^2}{c^2}=m^2(\nu _e)<0$$
(9)
$$m^2(\nu _e)=2.5\pm 3.3eV^2$$
(10)
$$m^2(\nu _u)=0.016\pm 0.023MeV^2$$
(11)
Based on these data,one can assume for a superluminal neutrino that:

$$c^2p^2E^2=m_s^2c^4$$
(12)
with $`m_s^2>0,`$for ins$`\mathrm{tan}`$ce$`,m_s(\nu _e)=1.6`$ eV.

If accepting Eq.(12),one can easily derive Eq.(6).But how can we derive Eq.(12) from a quantum theory?In Refs,a Dirac-type equation is established,where two two-component spinor functions $`\xi (\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ and $`\eta (\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ are coupled together via nonzero $`m_s:`$

$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\xi `$ $`=`$ $`ic\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\xi m_sc^2\eta `$ (13)
$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\eta `$ $`=`$ $`ic\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\eta +m_sc^2\xi `$ (14)
Eq.(13) describes the motion of a left-handed neutrino with $`E>0`$,e.g.,the plane wave function along x axis being:

$$\xi \eta \mathrm{exp}[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}(pxEt)].\text{ }(\left|\xi /\eta \right|>1)$$
(15)
Substitution of (14) into (13) leads to (12) immediately.It is easy to see that Eq.(13) is invariant under the following “pure time inversion ”.

$$tt,\xi (x,t)\eta _c(x,t),\eta (x,t)\xi _c(x,t),$$
(16)
Meanwhile,the concrete solution (14) is transformed into

$$\eta _c\xi _c\mathrm{exp}[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}(px+Et)].\text{ }(\left|\eta _c/\xi _c\right|>1)$$
(17)
If using the familiar momentum and energy operators for particle:

$$\widehat{p}=i\mathrm{}\frac{}{x},\widehat{E}=i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}$$
(18)
one would say that Eq.(16) describes a particle with momentum $`p`$ and energy $`(E)<0`$.However,a negative-energy particle should be directly viewed as its antiparticle with positive energy $`(E>0)`$.The counterpart of (17) for antiparticle read:

$$\widehat{p}_c=i\mathrm{}\frac{}{x},\widehat{E}_c=i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}$$
(19)
with subscript $`c`$ denoting “antiparticle”.Hence Eq.(16) should be recast into

$$\eta _c\xi _c\mathrm{exp}[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}(p_cxE_ct)].\text{ }(\left|\eta _c/\xi _c\right|>1)$$
(20)
with $`p_c=p<0,`$ and $`E_c=E>0.`$ So Eq.(16) describes a right-handed antineutrino moving in the opposite direction of x axis.

We are now in a position to solve the “superluminal paradox”,returning back to Eqs.(2),(4),(7) and (8).Evidently,the observer in $`^{}`$ frame will see the neutrino with $`u>c^2/v`$ in $``$ frame as an antineutrino since $`E^{}`$ $`<0`$.And its momentum is $`p_c=p^{}`$ $`<0`$(instead of $`p^{}>0`$) just in comformity with its velocity $`u^{}<0.`$The mysterious time-reversal,Eq(2),is no more than a false appearance of the sign change in the phase of wave function,which,of course, can not be reflected suitably in Fig.2(b).So now all puzzle disappear.There is no paradox at all.

The implication of Fig.3 is amazing.If we tentatively identify the $``$ frame with the rest frame of cosmos in which the 3K microwave radiation background is strictly isotropic,our earth($`^{}`$ frame)is moving with velocity $`v=356`$km/s.Then the originally isotropic neutrinos(identified tentatively with the dark matter)with velocity distribution in the range $`(\mathrm{}<u<c,c<u<\mathrm{})`$ will be divided anisotropically in $`^{}`$ frame into two parts.One of them(with $`u>c^2)`$ will be transformed into antineutrinos moving in the opposite direction of $`v`$ $`(u^{}<(c^2/v),`$see Fig.3(a)$`).`$As an ideal experiment,if we wish to chase a superluminal neutrino with fixed $`u`$ by increasing our velocity $`v`$(see Fig.3(b)),its behavior looks fantastic.First it flees away with speed $`u^{}`$ even faster and faster($`u^{}>u)`$ until $`u^{}=\mathrm{}`$ when $`vc^2/u.`$Then if we further accelerate to pass the critical value $`v_c=c^2/u,`$it changes suddenly into an antineutrino moving toward us($`u^{}<c).`$(This is why the $`x^{}`$ can not leap across the OP line in Fig.2(b)). On the other hand,if we leave the neutrino along opposite direction ($`v<0)`$,its velocity ($`u^{}>0)`$slows down instead.

Summary and discussion:

(a).Numerous experimental tests have been supporting the validity of SR,which stands even more firm than ever before.However,based on the new experimental fact about neutrino,it is possible to construct a superluminal theory compatible with SR.

(b).In particular,the LT (Eqs.(1) and (5)) and the addition law for velocity (Eq.(3))are valid for both subluminal and superluminal phenomena as long as $`\left|v\right|<c`$.This is because the concept about space-time is formed by observers ourselves who are composed of ordinary particles.Our discussion can be meaningful only if it is based on SR,LT and the invariance of speed of light in the vacuum($`c`$).

(c).The superluminal paradox is over.All puzzle stemming from the classical concepts dissapears in reasonable quantum theory.Indeed,the superluminal problem poses a very severe and interesting test on the validity of Eq.(13) which in turn is based on the new concept about the symmetry between particle and antiparticle(including Eq.(18) vs (17) and Eq.(19) vs (14)) .

(d).At first sight,the existence of a rest frame $`=_0`$ in cosmos (implied by the 3K microwave radiation background)leads to vialation of the symmetry in LT:other inertial frame $`^{}`$ with velocity $`v0`$ relative to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ is not equivalent to $`_0`$.But since $`_0`$ is selected by the neutrino(dark matter)(its velocity distribution being isotropic in $`_0`$),the equal existence of antineutrino with mutual transformation between them as shown in Fig.3 does imply that the LT symmetry is restored implicitly.In other words,The LT symmetry is hidden in superluminal neutrino bath.The LT symmetry is actually extended to the totality of inertial frames with velocity in the whole range($`c<v<c`$)and $`real`$ized by neutrino and antineutrino together.

The author wishes to thank Dr. T. Chang for bringing the superluminal problem about neutrino to his attention and relevant discussions.

Caption:

Figure 1.A subluminal partcle (P) moving along x axis with velocity $`u<c.`$

(a)$`v<u`$; (b)$`v>u`$. (v is the velocity of $`^{}`$ frame relative to $``$.In the limit $`vc,x^{}`$ and $`t^{}`$ axes coincide at the diagonal dash-dot line).

Figure 2.A superluminal particle (P) moving along x axis with velocity $`u>c.`$

(a)$`v<c^2/u,`$ $`t_p^{}>0;`$ $`(b)v>c^2/u,`$ $`t_p^{}<0`$

Figure 3.Addition of velocity in Lorentz transformation:

(a) $`u^{}`$ as a function of $`u`$ for a fixed $`v;`$

(b) $`u^{}`$ as a function of $`v`$ for a fixed $`u(>c)`$