format: text

text:
# Measurement of Branching Fractions for 𝐵→𝜂_𝑐𝐾^(∗) Decays

## Abstract

We report measurements of branching fractions for charged and neutral $`B\eta _cK`$ decays where the $`\eta _c`$ meson is reconstructed in the $`K_S^0K^\pm \pi ^{},K^+K^{}\pi ^0,K^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ and $`p\overline{p}`$ decay channels. The neutral $`B^0`$ channel is a $`CP`$ eigenstate and can be used to measure the $`CP`$ violation parameter $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1`$. We also report the first observation of the $`B^0\eta _cK^0`$ mode. The results are based on an analysis of $`29.1`$ fb-1 of data collected by the Belle detector at KEKB.

F. Fang7, T. Hojo30, K. Abe8, K. Abe40, T. Abe41, I. Adachi8, H. Aihara42, M. Akatsu22, Y. Asano47, T. Aso46, V. Aulchenko1, A. M. Bakich38, Y. Ban34, E. Banas26, A. Bay18, P. K. Behera48, I. Bizjak13, A. Bondar1, A. Bozek26, M. Bračko20,13, J. Brodzicka26, T. E. Browder7, B. C. K. Casey7, P. Chang25, Y. Chao25, K.-F. Chen25, B. G. Cheon37, R. Chistov12, S.-K. Choi6, Y. Choi37, Y. K. Choi37, M. Danilov12, A. Drutskoy12, S. Eidelman1, V. Eiges12, Y. Enari22, C. Fukunaga44, N. Gabyshev8, A. Garmash1,8, T. Gershon8, B. Golob19,13, T. Hara30, N. C. Hastings21, H. Hayashii23, M. Hazumi8, E. M. Heenan21, T. Higuchi42, L. Hinz18, T. Hokuue22, Y. Hoshi40, W.-S. Hou25, H.-C. Huang25, T. Igaki22, Y. Igarashi8, T. Iijima22, K. Inami22, A. Ishikawa22, R. Itoh8, H. Iwasaki8, Y. Iwasaki8, H. K. Jang36, J. H. Kang51, J. S. Kang15, P. Kapusta26, N. Katayama8, H. Kawai2, Y. Kawakami22, T. Kawasaki28, H. Kichimi8, D. W. Kim37, Heejong Kim51, H. J. Kim51, H. O. Kim37, Hyunwoo Kim15, S. K. Kim36, K. Kinoshita4, S. Kobayashi34, S. Korpar20,13, P. Križan19,13, P. Krokovny1, R. Kulasiri4, Y.-J. Kwon51, J. S. Lange5,33, G. Leder11, S. H. Lee36, J. Li35, D. Liventsev12, R.-S. Lu25, J. MacNaughton11, F. Mandl11, S. Matsumoto3, T. Matsumoto44, W. Mitaroff11, K. Miyabayashi23, H. Miyake30, H. Miyata28, G. R. Moloney21, T. Mori3, T. Nagamine41, Y. Nagasaka9, T. Nakadaira42, E. Nakano29, M. Nakao8, H. Nakazawa3, J. W. Nam37, Z. Natkaniec26, S. Nishida16, O. Nitoh45, S. Noguchi23, T. Nozaki8, S. Ogawa39, T. Ohshima22, T. Okabe22, S. Okuno14, S. L. Olsen7, Y. Onuki28, H. Ozaki8, P. Pakhlov12, C. W. Park15, H. Park17, K. S. Park37, J.-P. Perroud18, M. Peters7, L. E. Piilonen49, F. J. Ronga18, N. Root1, M. Rozanska26, K. Rybicki26, H. Sagawa8, S. Saitoh8, Y. Sakai8, H. Sakamoto16, M. Satapathy48, O. Schneider18, S. Schrenk4, C. Schwanda8,11, S. Semenov12, K. Senyo22, R. Seuster7, M. E. Sevior21, H. Shibuya39, B. Shwartz1, V. Sidorov1, N. Soni31, S. Stanič47,⋆, M. Starič13, A. Sugi22, A. Sugiyama22, K. Sumisawa8, T. Sumiyoshi44, K. Suzuki8, S. Suzuki50, T. Takahashi29, F. Takasaki8, N. Tamura28, J. Tanaka42, M. Tanaka8, G. N. Taylor21, Y. Teramoto29, S. Tokuda22, T. Tomura42, K. Trabelsi7, T. Tsuboyama8, T. Tsukamoto8, S. Uehara8, K. Ueno25, S. Uno8, Y. Ushiroda8, S. E. Vahsen32, G. Varner7, K. E. Varvell38, C. C. Wang25, C. H. Wang24, J. G. Wang49, M.-Z. Wang25, Y. Watanabe43, E. Won15, B. D. Yabsley49, Y. Yamada8, A. Yamaguchi41, Y. Yamashita27, M. Yamauchi8, H. Yanai28, J. Yashima8, M. Yokoyama42, Y. Yuan10, Y. Yusa41, C. C. Zhang10, J. Zhang47, Z. P. Zhang35, V. Zhilich1, and D. Žontar47

1Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk

2Chiba University, Chiba

3Chuo University, Tokyo

4University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati OH

5University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt

6Gyeongsang National University, Chinju

7University of Hawaii, Honolulu HI

8High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba

9Hiroshima Institute of Technology, Hiroshima

10Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing

11Institute of High Energy Physics, Vienna

12Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow

13J. Stefan Institute, Ljubljana

14Kanagawa University, Yokohama

15Korea University, Seoul

16Kyoto University, Kyoto

17Kyungpook National University, Taegu

18Institut de Physique des Hautes Énergies, Université de Lausanne, Lausanne

19University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana

20University of Maribor, Maribor

21University of Melbourne, Victoria

22Nagoya University, Nagoya

23Nara Women’s University, Nara

24National Lien-Ho Institute of Technology, Miao Li

25National Taiwan University, Taipei

26H. Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Krakow

27Nihon Dental College, Niigata

28Niigata University, Niigata

29Osaka City University, Osaka

30Osaka University, Osaka

31Panjab University, Chandigarh

32Princeton University, Princeton NJ

33RIKEN BNL Research Center, Brookhaven NY

34Saga University, Saga

35University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei

36Seoul National University, Seoul

37Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon

38University of Sydney, Sydney NSW

39Toho University, Funabashi

40Tohoku Gakuin University, Tagajo

41Tohoku University, Sendai

42University of Tokyo, Tokyo

43Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo

44Tokyo Metropolitan University, Tokyo

45Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, Tokyo

46Toyama National College of Maritime Technology, Toyama

47University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba

48Utkal University, Bhubaneswer

49Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg VA

50Yokkaichi University, Yokkaichi

51Yonsei University, Seoul

on leave from Nova Gorica Polytechnic, Slovenia

\[

\]

The decay mode $`B\eta _cK`$ proceeds by a spectator $`bc\overline{c}s`$ transition with internal $`W`$-emission as in the $`CP`$ eigenstate $`B^0J/\psi K_S^0`$. The neutral decay mode $`B^0\eta _cK_S^0`$ has therefore been used to measure the $`CP`$ violation parameter $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1`$,,. Measurements of branching fractions for $`B\eta _cK^{()}`$ decay modes are also useful in the study of the dynamics of hadronic $`B`$ decay. However, in contrast to $`B^0J/\psi K_S^0`$, the $`\eta _c`$ meson must be reconstructed from hadronic decays rather than from a leptonic final state with relatively low combinatorial background. In this paper, we report new measurements of $`B\eta _cK`$ branching fractions with the $`\eta _c`$ meson reconstructed in the $`K_S^0K^+\pi ^{},K^{}K^+\pi ^0,K^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ and $`p\overline{p}`$ channels. These signals are large enough to be used to determine the mass and width of the $`\eta _c`$ meson. We also report the first observation of the related decay mode $`B^0\eta _cK^0`$. When $`K^0K_S^0\pi ^0`$, this decay mode is also a $`CP`$ eigenstate.

We use a $`29.1\mathrm{fb}^1`$ data sample, which contains 31.3 million produced $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs, collected with the Belle detector at the KEKB asymmetric-energy $`e^+e^{}`$ (3.5 on 8 GeV) collider . KEKB operates at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance ($`\sqrt{s}=10.58`$ GeV) with a peak luminosity that now exceeds $`7\times 10^{33}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$. The Belle detector is a large-solid-angle magnetic spectrometer that consists of a three-layer silicon vertex detector (SVD), a 50-layer central drift chamber (CDC), a mosaic of aerogel threshold Čerenkov counters (ACC), time-of-flight scintillation counters (TOF), and an array of CsI(Tl) crystals (ECL) located inside a superconducting solenoid coil that provides a 1.5 T magnetic field. An iron flux-return located outside of the coil is instrumented to identify $`K_L`$ and muons (KLM). The detector is described in detail elsewhere .

We select well measured charged tracks with impact parameters with respect to the interaction point of less than 0.5 cm in the radial direction and less than 3 cm in the beam direction ($`z`$). These tracks are required to have $`p_T>50`$ MeV/$`c`$.

Particle identification likelihoods for the pion and kaon particle hypotheses are calculated by combining information from the TOF and ACC systems with $`dE/dx`$ measurements in the CDC. To identify kaons (pions), we apply a mode-dependent requirement on the kaon (pion) likelihood ratio, $`L_K/(L_\pi +L_K)`$ ($`L_\pi /(L_\pi +L_K)`$). The requirement $`L_K/(L_\pi +L_K)>0.5`$ is used for the $`\eta _cK_S^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ mode. For other modes, we require $`L_K/(L_\pi +L_K)>0.6`$, which is 88% efficient for kaons with a $`8.5\%`$ misidentification rate for pions. For the $`\eta _cK^+K^{}\pi ^0`$ mode, the kaon likelihood ratio is required to be greater than 0.8 for those charged kaons that come directly from the $`B`$ rather than from the $`\eta _c`$ candidate. In addition, we remove all kaon candidates that are consistent with being either protons or electrons.

Protons and antiprotons are identified using all particle ID systems and are required to have proton likelihood ratios ($`L_p/(L_p+L_K)`$ and $`L_p/(L_p+L_\pi )`$) greater than 0.4. Proton candidates that are electron-like according to the information recorded by the CsI(Tl) calorimeter are vetoed. This selection is $`95\%`$ efficient for protons with a $`12\%`$ kaon misidentification rate.

We select $`K_S`$ candidates from $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ candidates that lie within the mass window $`0.482\mathrm{GeV}/c^2<M(\pi ^+\pi ^{})<0.514`$ GeV/$`c^2`$ ($`\pm 4\sigma `$). The flight length of the $`K_S`$ is required to be greater than 0.2 cm. The difference in the angle, in the $`xy`$ plane, between a vector from the beam spot to the $`K_S`$ vertex and the $`K_S`$ flight direction is required to satisfy $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi <0.1`$ rad.

$`K^0`$ candidates are reconstructed in the $`K^+\pi ^{}`$ mode. For $`\eta _cK^0K^{}\pi ^+`$, we require the $`K^+\pi ^{}`$ invariant mass to be between 0.817 and 0.967 GeV/$`c^2`$. For the $`B^0\eta _cK^0`$ mode, the $`K^0`$ mass must lie in the range between 0.801 and 0.991 GeV/$`c^2`$.

Neutral pion candidates are selected from pairs of ECL clusters with invariant mass within $`\pm 16`$ MeV of the nominal $`\pi ^0`$ mass and momenta above $`350`$ MeV/c. The photons must have energy above 50 MeV if they lie in the barrel region of the calorimeter and above 200 MeV if they are detected in the endcap.

To reconstruct signal candidates in the $`B^+\eta _cK^+`$ and $`B^0\eta _cK^0`$ modes, we form combinations of charged or neutral kaons and $`\eta _c`$ candidates. The $`\eta _c`$ is reconstructed in the $`K_S^0K^+\pi ^{},K^{}K^+\pi ^0,K^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ and $`p\overline{p}`$ decay modes. The $`\eta _c`$ candidate is required to have invariant mass in the range $`2.920<M_{\eta _c}<3.035`$ GeV/$`c^2`$ for the $`K^{}K^+\pi ^0`$ mode and $`2.935<M_{\eta _c}<3.035`$ GeV/$`c^2`$ for all other modes. The charged daughters of the $`\eta _c`$ are required to satisfy a vertex constrained fit with a mode-dependent $`\chi ^2`$ requirement.

To isolate the signal, we form the beam-energy constrained mass, $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}=\sqrt{E_{\mathrm{beam}}^2\stackrel{}{P}_{\mathrm{recon}}^2}`$, and energy difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=E_{\mathrm{recon}}E_{\mathrm{beam}}`$ in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ center of mass frame. Here $`E_{\mathrm{beam}}`$, $`E_{\mathrm{recon}}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{P}_{\mathrm{recon}}`$ are the beam energy, the reconstructed energy and the reconstructed momentum of the signal candidate, respectively. The signal region for $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ in all modes except for $`\eta _cK_S^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ is $`\pm 2.5\sigma `$, where $`\sigma `$ is the mode-dependent resolution and ranges from $`\pm 25`$ MeV for $`\eta _cp\overline{p}`$ to the range $`55,+45`$ MeV for $`\eta _cK^{}K^+\pi ^0`$. In the low background $`\eta _cK_S^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ mode, the region is extended to $`\pm 35`$ MeV, ($`\pm 3.5\sigma `$). The signal region for $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ is $`5.270\mathrm{GeV}/c^2<M_{\mathrm{bc}}<5.290`$ GeV/$`c^2`$. The resolution in beam-energy constrained mass is 2.8 MeV/$`c^2`$ and is dominated by the beam energy spread of KEKB.

Several event topology variables provide discrimination between the large continuum ($`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}`$, where $`q=u,d,s,c`$) background, which tends to be collimated along the original quark direction, and more spherical $`B\overline{B}`$ events. We first remove events with $`R_2>0.5`$, where $`R_2`$ is the normalized second Fox-Wolfram moment. We form a likelihood ratio using two variables. Six modified Fox-Wolfram moments and the cosine of the thrust angle are combined into a Fisher discriminant. For signal MC and continuum data, we then form probability density functions for this Fisher discriminant, and the cosine of the $`B`$ decay angle with respect to the $`z`$ axis ($`\mathrm{cos}\theta _B`$). The signal (background) probability density functions are multiplied together to form a signal (background) likelihood $`_S`$ ($`_{BG})`$. A mode-dependent likelihood ratio requirement $`_S/(_S+_{BG})`$ is then imposed.

Using a sample of 57 million $`B\overline{B}`$ Monte Carlo events with a model of $`bc`$ decays, we investigate backgrounds from other $`B`$ decay modes. In the $`\eta _cp\overline{p}`$ mode, no such backgrounds are found. In other modes, some background is observed but it can be removed by application of mode-dependent vetos on invariant mass combinations that are consistent with the $`D`$, $`D_s`$, $`\chi _{c1}`$, $`J/\psi `$, $`\psi (2S)`$ or $`\eta _c(2S)`$ masses. For example, in the $`B^+\eta _cK^+`$, $`\eta _cK^+K^{}\pi ^0`$ mode, we find there is background from the decay chain $`B^+\overline{D^0}\rho ^+`$, $`\overline{D}^0K^{}K^+`$, $`\rho ^+\pi ^+\pi ^0`$. This background is removed by requiring that the $`K^{}K^+`$ invariant mass be inconsistent with the $`D^0`$ mass.

We fit the $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ distribution to the sum of a signal Gaussian and a background function that behaves like phase space near the kinematic boundary. The width of the Gaussian is fixed from MC simulation while the mean is determined from $`B^+\overline{D}^0\pi ^+`$ data. The shape parameter of the background function is determined from $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ sideband data. The signal yield was determined by fits to the individual $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ distributions for each mode. The yields and significances for these fits are given in Table I. Significant signals are observed in all decay modes except for $`B^0\eta _cK^0`$, $`\eta _cK^0K^{}\pi ^+`$. For this mode, we calculate an upper limit based on the number of events observed in the $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ signal region (4) and the expected number of background events (2) based on the fit. We use the Feldman-Cousins procedure, and reduce the efficiency by one sigma of the systematic error in the calculation. The detection efficiencies for all modes were determined from a GEANT based Monte Carlo simulation.

For illustration, in Fig. 1, we show the beam-energy constrained mass and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ distributions for the signal candidates in all the decay modes except for $`B^0\eta _cK_S^0`$, $`\eta _cK^0K^{}\pi ^+`$. In the $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ distribution, we observe a signal of $`195\pm 17`$ events.

As a consistency check, we also determine the yield from a fit to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ distribution with a double Gaussian for signal and a linear background function with slope determined from the $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ sideband. The results of these fits are also given in Table I. The fit to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ distribution for all modes combined gives an integrated yield of $`188\pm 17`$ events in the signal region. In the fits to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ distribution, the region with $`\mathrm{\Delta }E<120`$ MeV is excluded to avoid contributions from modes with additional particles such as $`B\eta _cK^{}`$.

After removing the requirements on $`\eta _c`$ invariant mass, we also verify that the signal yield for $`\eta _c`$ candidates in the $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ signal region is consistent with the result used for the branching fraction determination. The $`\eta _c`$ invariant mass distribution for signal candidates is shown in Fig. 2. Fitting to a Breit-Wigner convolved with the resolution determined from MC, we find an intrinsic width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta _c)=29\pm 8\pm 6`$ MeV and a mass $`M(\eta _c)=2979.6\pm 2.3\pm 1.6`$ MeV. The systematic errors in the width and mass measurements include the effects of varying the background shape, the small difference between data and MC detector resolutions, and possible binning effects. The results are consistent with world averages and comparable in precision to the best individual measurements. The yield is $`182\pm 25`$ events. We also observe a clear signal of $`66\pm 18`$ events from $`BJ/\psi K`$, where the $`J/\psi `$ is reconstructed in hadronic decay modes, that has a $`J/\psi `$ mass and yield that are consistent with values obtained for the $`J/\psi \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay mode.

The contributions to the systematic error include the uncertainties due to the tracking efficiency (2% per track), particle identification efficiency (4-14%, depending on the mode) and the modeling of the likelihood ratio requirement (2%). The error in kaon identification efficiency is obtained from kinematically selected $`D^+D^0\pi ^+,D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ in the data while the error in proton/antiproton identification is determined using $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ samples. The systematic error due to the modeling of the likelihood ratio cut is determined using $`B^+\overline{D}^0\pi ^+`$ events reconstructed in data. The systematic error in the yields of the $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ fit were determined by varying the mean and $`\sigma `$ of the signal and the shape parameters of the background. To account for the possibility of background from non-resonant modes that may contribute to the $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ distribution, we include the yields observed in the $`\eta _c`$ mass sideband (8-14% of the signal depending on the mode) as an asymmetric systematic error. The sources of systematic error are combined in quadrature to obtain the total systematic error, which is given in Table II.

The product branching fractions are given in Table II for all modes in which signals are observed. Since many of the $`\eta _c`$ branching fractions are poorly determined and in some cases there are conflicting measurements, we quote $`B`$ branching fractions for the $`\eta _cK_S^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ and $`\eta _cK^{}K^+\pi ^0`$ modes only. The $`\eta _cK_S^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ mode is the most precisely and reliably measured mode and the branching fraction for the $`\eta _cK^{}K^+\pi ^0`$ mode is related by isospin. We use $`(\eta _cK_S^0K^{}\pi ^+)=1/3\times (0.055\pm 0.017)`$ where $`1/3`$ is the product of the appropriate Clebsch-Gordon coefficient and intermediate $`K^0`$ branching fraction. We assume that the experimental systematic errors in the $`\eta _cK_S^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ and $`\eta _cK^{}K^+\pi ^0`$ modes are uncorrelated. We assume equal production of $`B^+B^{}`$ and $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ pairs and do not include an additional systematic error for the uncertainty in this assumption. We find

$$(B^+\eta _cK^+)=(1.25\pm 0.14_{0.12}^{+0.10}\pm 0.38)\times 10^3$$

and

$$(B^0\eta _cK^0)=(1.23\pm 0.23_{0.16}^{+0.12}\pm 0.38)\times 10^3.$$

The first error is statistical, the second error is systematic and the third error is due to the uncertainty in the $`\eta _c`$ branching fraction scale. When the $`\eta _c`$ branching fractions for the other modes are better determined, absolute $`B`$ branching fractions for these modes can be extracted from our results.

In the $`B^0\eta _cK^0`$, $`K^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ channel, the $`\eta _c`$ is reconstructed in the $`K_S^0K^\pm \pi ^{}`$ mode. Since this mode is a pseudoscalar to pseudoscalar-vector decay, by angular momentum conservation, the cosine of the $`K^{}`$ helicity angle ($`\mathrm{cos}\theta _H`$) follows a $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _H`$ distribution; we select events with $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _H|>0.4`$. We also investigate $`B\overline{B}`$ background and find that this background can be removed by applying vetos to events with combinations that are consistent with $`J/\psi K_S^0K\pi `$, $`J/\psi K^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`\psi (2S)K_S^0K\pi `$, $`\eta _c(2S)K_S^0K\pi `$, $`\chi _{c1}K_S^0K\pi `$, $`\eta _cK^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`D_s^+K_S^0K^+`$ and $`D_sK^{}K^+\pi `$. The detection efficiency for these selection requirements is $`(7.95\pm 0.12)\%`$.

After applying these requirements, a fit to the $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ distribution yields a signal of $`33.7\pm 6.7`$ events for $`B^0\eta _cK^0`$ with a statistical significance of $`7.7\sigma `$. The $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ distribution is shown in Fig. 3(a). The yields from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ fit, shown in Fig. 3(b) ($`30\pm 7`$ events), the $`\eta _c`$ invariant mass distribution ($`24\pm 7`$ events) and the $`K^+\pi ^{}`$ invariant mass distribution ($`27\pm 8`$ events) are consistent with the yield from the $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ fit.

To evaluate the contribution from non-resonant $`B^0K_S^0K^+\pi ^{}K^{}`$ as well as the remaining $`B\overline{B}`$ backgrounds that peak in the $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ distribution, we select events in the $`\eta _c`$ sideband and repeat the $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ fit. We find no significant signal. By using the ratio of the yields in the $`\eta _c`$ signal and sideband regions determined from MC, we estimate the contributions of such backgrounds to be $`3.9\pm 4.2`$ events, consistent with zero. We use the $`K^{}`$ sideband to estimate the non-resonant $`B^0\eta _cK\pi `$ decay component and obtain $`0.6\pm 3.3`$ events. These possible background contributions are not subtracted in the branching fraction measurement, but instead are treated as systematic uncertainties. We find

$$(B^0\eta _cK^0)=(1.62\pm 0.32_{0.34}^{+0.24}\pm 0.50)\times 10^3.$$

To take into account the possibility of $`B\overline{B}`$ background, we conservatively include asymmetric systematic errors from the results of the fits to the $`\eta _c`$($`12\%`$) and $`K^{}`$ ($`8\%`$) sidebands. Other sources of systematic error are the uncertainties in the track reconstruction efficiency ($`\pm 2\%`$ per track), the parameters in the $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ fit ($`\pm `$ 7%), particle identification ($`\pm 6\%`$) and the number of $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ events.

From the results for the branching fractions for $`B^0\eta _cK^0`$ and $`B^0\eta _cK^0`$ determined above, we can determine the ratio $`R_{\eta _c}=(B^0\eta _cK^0)/(B^0\eta _cK^0)`$. The uncertainty from the $`\eta _c`$ branching fraction scale cancels in the ratio. We find

$$R_{\eta _c}=1.33\pm 0.36_{0.33}^{+0.24}.$$

Our result can be compared to calculations of this ratio in models based on factorization and is consistent with the range 1.02-2.57 predicted by Gourdin, Keum and Pham..

The branching fractions reported in this paper for $`B^+\eta _cK^+`$ and $`B^0\eta _cK^0`$ using $`\eta _cK\overline{K}\pi `$ decays are more precise than previous results. The result for the $`B^+\eta _cK^+`$ branching fraction is somewhat higher than the CLEO measurement, while the $`B^0\eta _cK^0`$ result is consistent. Several additional $`\eta _c`$ modes including $`\eta _cp\overline{p}`$, $`\eta _cK^{}K^+\pi ^0`$ and $`\eta _cK^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ have been used and increase the fraction of $`\eta _c`$ decays that can be reconstructed for $`CP`$ violation measurements. With the large samples of $`B\eta _cK`$ decays now available, we are able to determine the mass and width of the $`\eta _c`$ meson. We find $`M(\eta _c)=2979.6\pm 2.3\pm 1.6`$ MeV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta _c)=29\pm 8\pm 6`$ MeV. In addition, we report the first observation of the $`B^0\eta _cK^0`$ decay, which is an $`CP`$ eigenstate when $`K^0K_S^0\pi ^0`$.

We wish to thank the KEKB accelerator group for the excellent operation of the KEKB accelerator. We acknowledge support from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science; the Australian Research Council and the Australian Department of Industry, Science and Resources; the National Science Foundation of China under contract No. 10175071; the Department of Science and Technology of India; the BK21 program of the Ministry of Education of Korea and the CHEP SRC program of the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation; the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research under contract No. 2P03B 17017; the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Russian Federation; the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of Slovenia; the National Science Council and the Ministry of Education of Taiwan; and the U.S. Department of Energy.


text:
# Quintessential Cosmological Scenarios in the Relativistic Theory of GravitationTo appear in Proc. XXV Int. Workshop on Fundamental Problems of High Energy Physics and Field Theory (25-28 June 2002, Protvino, Russia)

## 1 Introduction

The relativistic theory of gravitation (RTG)  disagrees with the Einstein’s general relativity (GR) in the crucial point: it denies the total geometrization and considers the gravitation on the basis of the classical Faraday-Maxwell’s field approach. This means that there is a topologically simple background spacetime of Minkowski type, which can be restored in any situation. As a result, we can detach the physical content from an arbitrary geometrical game with co-ordinates. This converts the gravitation from the tensor-geometrical concept to the tensor-field one and puts it on the unified level with another fields.

Formally, the RTG can be considered as the bi-metric theory of gravitation . However, in the RTG the effective Riemannian spacetime produced by the gravitational field is essentially separated from the Minkowski background because the latter is presented in the field equations (see next section). Naturally, this transforms the solutions of the field equations and has the pronounced physical consequences. For example, the singularity disappears and the graviton acquires the nonzero mass. Nevertheless, the basic observational consequences of the RTG coincide with those in the GR (for instance, Mercury perihelion motion, time delay and spectral shift in the gravitational field, see ).

The application of the RTG for the cosmology produces some astonishing results, viz., in virtue of the field equations the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker cosmology admits only the flat global efficient Riemannian spacetime without initial singularity and with oscillating time behavior . The initial cosmological expansion is stimulated by the antigravitation, which is caused by the massive gravitons in the strong gravitational fields. The initial temperature is defined by the graviton mass and can be too low to create the undesirable relics (e.g. monopoles). So, the problems of the cosmological spacetime flatness, the source of the initial expansion, the cosmological singularity and the absence of the relics find in the RTG a natural solution. However, in this theory there are some disagreements with the modern observational data. As it is known, the latter suggests the accelerated expansion of the universe at present (see, for example, ). But in the RTG the accelerated expansion is possible only during a very short stage of the initial evolution and the subsequent expansion has a definitely decelerated character.

As it is well known, the accelerated cosmological expansion in the framework of the GR can be obtained “by hand” due to an insertion of the so-called cosmological constant in the field equations (for a review see ). This constant can be considered as a part of the geometrical structure of the GR because it is a natural consequence of the variational principle . Alternatively, it is possible to treat the cosmological constant as the vacuum zero-point energy. But in the both cases its value is too small and can not be attributed to any known physical scale.

The situation in the RTG is more complicated by virtue of the vacuum stability principle: the absence of the material fields reduces the effective Riemannian spacetime to the Minkowski one. Hence, the cosmological constant can not be introduced by hand and is to have the gravitational nature concerned with the nonzero graviton mass. As a result, the cosmological constant-like action of the massive graviton in the RTG produces the deceleration of the cosmological expansion.

Nevertheless there exists an approach, which considers the accelerated expansion of the universe as a manifestation of some matter possessing an unusual state equation $`p=w\rho `$ (where $`p`$ is the pressure and $`\rho `$ is the density). This matter usually is called as X-matter or quintessence. If its state parameter $`w`$ lies between the limits of the strong and week energy conditions (i.e. $`1w\frac{1}{3}`$), the domination of such matter produces a repulsion causing the accelerated expansion of the universe . The best candidate here is a certain scalar field whose potential energy dominates at present (the survey can be found in , for example).

In this article we shall consider the implementation of this idea in the RTG framework. As a result, some restrictions on the key parameter of the theory, i. e. the graviton mass, will be obtained.

## 2 Basic equations

The field equations for the gravitational field in the framework of the RTG are based on the assumption that the universal character of the gravitation allows introducing the effective Riemannian spacetime :

$$\stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }=\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{\mu \nu }+\stackrel{~}{\varrho }^{\mu \nu },$$
(1)
where $`\stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }=\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu },\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{\mu \nu }=\sqrt{\gamma }\gamma ^{\mu \nu },\stackrel{~}{\varrho }^{\mu \nu }=\sqrt{\gamma }\varrho ^{\mu \nu }`$ are the densities of Riemannian metric tensor, Minkowski metric tensor and gravitational field tensor, respectively. In this case the Lagrangian density for the gravitational field is the function both $`\stackrel{~}{\varrho }^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{\mu \nu }`$. It is essential that the effective Riemannian spacetime is completely defined for the given Minkowski co-ordinates, i. e. $`g^{\mu \nu }`$ is their single-valued function. Hence, the topology of the effective spacetime is quite simple. Let us consider the infinitesimal coordinate transformation induced by the translation vector $`\zeta ^\mu `$:

$$x^\mu \stackrel{´}{}=x^\mu +\zeta ^\mu .$$
(2)
Then the field-dependent metric density of the effective spacetime is changed as:

$$\stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{´}{}=\stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }+\delta _\zeta \stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }+\zeta ^\lambda D_\lambda \stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu },$$
(3)
$`\delta _\zeta `$ is the Lie variation and $`D_\lambda `$ is the covariant derivative on the Minkowski (i.e. background) spacetime. If the Lagrangian density for the gravitational field depends only on $`\stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }`$ and its derivatives, then the transformation (3) changes this density only on a divergence. On the basis of (3) we can define the gauge group preserving the field equations and the background metrics. Let’s Eq. (3) describes the transformation induced by the infinite-dimensional gauge group with the gauge vector $`\zeta ^\mu `$. In contrast to the coordinate transformation, this gauge transformation does not effect the background: $`\delta _\zeta \stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }=\delta _\zeta \stackrel{~}{\varrho }^{\mu \nu }`$.

The simplest Lagrangian density, which is changed only on a divergence by this gauge transformation, can be constructed from $`\sqrt{g}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}=\sqrt{g}\mathrm{}`$ ($`\mathrm{}`$ is the scalar curvature of the effective spacetime). Let us define (see ) the scalar curvature density through the tensor $`F_{\nu \lambda }^\mu `$:

$$F_{\nu \lambda }^\mu =\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \kappa }\left(D_\nu g_{\kappa \lambda }+D_\lambda g_{\kappa \nu }D_\kappa g_{\nu \lambda }\right).$$
(4)
Then

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}=\stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }\left(F_{\mu \nu }^\lambda F_{\lambda \kappa }^\kappa F_{\mu \kappa }^\lambda F_{\nu \lambda }^\kappa \right)D_\nu \left(\stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \kappa }^\kappa \stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \kappa }F_{\mu \kappa }^\nu \right).$$
(5)
Hence, the required density resulting in the field equation with the derivatives up to second order has the following form:

$$L_g=\omega _1\stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }\left(F_{\mu \nu }^\lambda F_{\lambda \kappa }^\kappa F_{\mu \kappa }^\lambda F_{\nu \lambda }^\kappa \right)+\omega _2\sqrt{g},$$
(6)
where $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$ are the some constants.

However, the structure of the Lagrangian density (6) does not allow including the background metrics in the field equations. Therefore we have to add in Eq. (6) the terms explicitly containing $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }`$ and violating the gauge group under consideration . The term $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }`$ obeys the required transformational properties but only for the gauge vectors:

$$g^{\mu \nu }D_\mu D_\nu \zeta ^\lambda =0.$$
(7)
Resulting Lagrangian density for the gravitational field is:

$$L_g\stackrel{´}{}=\omega _1\stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }\left(F_{\mu \nu }^\lambda F_{\lambda \kappa }^\kappa F_{\mu \kappa }^\lambda F_{\nu \lambda }^\kappa \right)+\omega _2\sqrt{g}+\omega _3\gamma _{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }+\omega _4\sqrt{\gamma },$$
(8)
here the last term is introduced to provide the vacuum stability, i.e. to exclude the cosmological constant-like term in the absence of the matter.

From the variational principle for the gravitational field ($`\frac{\delta L_g\stackrel{´}{}}{\delta \stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }}=0`$), the requirement of vacuum stability and taking into account the material sources for the gravitational field we can obtain from (8) the field equation:

$$G_\nu ^\mu \frac{m^2}{2}\left(\delta _\nu ^\mu +g^{\mu \lambda }\gamma _{\lambda \nu }\frac{1}{2}\delta _\nu ^\mu g^{\kappa \lambda }\gamma _{\kappa \lambda }\right)=\frac{8\pi \varkappa }{c^4}T_\nu ^\mu ,$$
(9)
where $`m^2=\left(m_gc\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\right)^2`$, $`\varkappa `$ is the Newtonian gravitational constant, $`m_g`$ is the graviton mass as a natural interpretation of the constants $`\omega `$ incoming in the Lagrangian density, $`G_\nu ^\mu `$ is the Einstein tensor. Below we shall use $`c=\mathrm{}=1`$, then $`m_{pl}=1\mathrm{}\sqrt{8\pi \varkappa }=2.43\times 10^{18}GeV`$ is the reduced Planck mass. It should be noted, that the mass of graviton results from the gauge group violation, i.e. it appears together with the background metrics in the Lagrangian. Otherwise we have the usual Einstein-Gilbert field equations (without cosmological constant) and the background spacetime loses its physical meaning.

Now let us consider the physical sense of the constraint (7). As a matter of fact, the introduced simplest modification of the Lagrangian by the term $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }`$ violating the gauge group results in the equation:

$$D_\mu \stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }=0,$$
(10)
which is the consequence of the field equations and defines the polarization of the gravitational field (spin states 2 and 0) . So, the structure of the mass part in the field equations and the field polarization are interdependent.

Now we have to consider an important consequence of the considered bi-metric approach. The point is that the existence of the physically meaningful background spacetime imposes the causality principle, which constraints the permissible solutions in the RTG. This background defines the observable events and the corresponding relations between them. These relations always can be attributed to the Minkowski spacetime. Hence, the causality cone of the effective Riemannian spacetime should be positioned inside the causality cone of the Minkowski spacetime :

$$\gamma _{\mu \nu }u^\mu u^\nu =0,$$
(11)
$$g_{\mu \nu }u^\mu u^\nu 0,$$

where $`u^\mu `$ is the arbitrary isotropic vector.

The cosmological equations in the RTG can be obtained on the general basis. However, we have to take into account that the formally arbitrary choice of the convenient $`g^{\mu \nu }`$, which is the typical trick in the GR, is not always appropriate in the RTG because this implies the simultaneous constraints on $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }`$.

Let us consider the homogeneous and isotropic Riemannian spacetime induced by the global gravitational field. As it was above mentioned, this spacetime in the framework of the RTG is flat. This is the consequence of the field equations (see ). The corresponding interval in the spherical coordinates is :

$$ds^2=d\tau ^2\alpha a\left(\tau \right)[dr^2+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}\left(\theta \right)^2d\varphi ^2)],$$
(12)
where $`\tau `$ is the proper time, $`a\left(\tau \right)`$ is the scaling factor and $`\alpha `$ is the constant of integration (its meaning see below).

Let’s the background is described by the Galilean metrics. Eqs. (12, 11) result in :

$$a\left(\tau \right)^4\alpha <0,$$
(13)
which eliminates the cosmological solution with the eternal expansion. This is the consequence of the causality principle in the RTG. It is convenient to assign $`\alpha =a_{\mathrm{max}}^4`$, where $`a_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is the maximum scaling factor.

Then the cosmological equations are:

$$\left(\frac{\stackrel{\text{·}}{a}}{a}\right)^2=\frac{\rho \left(\tau \right)}{3m_{pl}^2}\frac{m^2}{12}\left(2+\frac{1}{a\left(\tau \right)^6}\frac{3}{a\left(\tau \right)^2a_{\mathrm{max}}^4}\right),$$
(14)
$$\frac{\stackrel{\text{··}}{a}}{a}=\frac{\rho \left(\tau \right)+3p\left(\tau \right)}{6m_{pl}^2}\frac{m^2}{6}\left(1\frac{1}{a\left(\tau \right)^6}\right),$$
(15)
and $`a\left(\tau \right)a_{\mathrm{max}}`$. $`\rho `$ and $`p`$ are the matter density and pressure, respectively; the dot denotes the derivative with respect to $`\tau `$. These equations are similar to those in the GR with the flat global spacetime but: 1) they contain the terms describing the massive graviton and 2) suppose the increase of $`a`$ up to some maximum scaling factor $`a_{\mathrm{max}}`$ as a result of the causality principle.

## 3 Cosmological scenarios in the RTG and constraints on the graviton mass

Before an examination of the cosmological scenarios, let us consider possible embedding of the effective Riemannian spacetime in the background with the constant curvature and the same dimension. The hyperbolic background has to be rejected due to the causality principle violation. The causally connected events in the effective spacetime are asymptotic causally independent on the background.

$$a^4\frac{\alpha }{1+r^2}\underset{r\mathrm{}}{}0.$$
(16)
However, the spherical background obeys the causality principle. The corresponding global Riemannian spacetime is spherical, too. Then the cosmological equations have the modified form:

$$\left(\frac{\stackrel{\text{·}}{a}}{a}\right)^2=\frac{\rho }{3m_{pl}^2}\frac{m^2}{12}\left(2+\frac{1}{a^6}\frac{3}{a^2a_{\mathrm{max}}^4}\right)\frac{1}{a^2a_{\mathrm{max}}^4},$$
(17)
$$\frac{\stackrel{\text{··}}{a}}{a}=\frac{\rho +3p}{6m_{pl}^2}\frac{m^2}{6}\left(1\frac{1}{a^6}+\frac{3\left(1\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\right)}{4a^2a_{\mathrm{max}}^4}\right),$$
(18)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the background curvature, $`a_{\mathrm{max}}=\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

Turning back we can conclude that, although it is possible to embed the effective spacetime into the spherical background, there are no some physical justifications for such complication of the model. Nevertheless, the extension of the background dimensionality requires an additional analysis but this exceeds the limits of this article .

Let us return to Eqs. (14, 15) and consider their structure. It is clear that the fulfilment of the causality principle requiring only closed evolutional scenarios results from the first term in the brackets of Eq. (14). This term produced by the massive graviton plays a role of the negative cosmological constant, which stops any expansion of the universe with the arbitrary material contents if the state parameter for their dominating form is $`w>1`$. The corresponding minimum density is connected with the graviton mass and the maximum scaling factor :

$$\rho _{\mathrm{min}}=\frac{m^2m_{pl}^2}{2}\left(1\frac{1}{a_{\mathrm{max}}^6}\right).$$
(19)
On the other hand, when the scaling factor is small, the second term in the brackets of Eq. (15) causes the repulsion (antigravitation) induced by the graviton mass in the strong gravitational field. This repulsion prevents from the existence of the initial cosmological singularity and provides the acceleration at the initial stage of the universe expansion. However, as one can see from Eq. (15), out of this initial stage there is only decelerated expansion up to $`a_{\mathrm{max}}`$ if the state parameter for the dominating form of the matter obeys $`w>\frac{1}{3}`$. We remind, that as a result of the vacuum stability principle (i.e. due to $`g_{\mu \nu }\underset{T_{\mu \nu }0}{}\gamma _{\mu \nu }`$) the cosmological constant in the RTG has only gravitational nature and its sign is negative (i.e. it causes the attraction on the large scales). Here we face the challenge of the disagreement with the modern observational data.

The data obtained from the BOOMERANG, MAXIMA and COBE projects  suggest the accelerated expansion of the universe at present. The acceleration parameter can be estimated as $`q\left(d^2a\mathrm{}d\tau ^2\right)_0\mathrm{}\left(a_0H_0^2\right)`$ $`0.33\pm 0.17`$ and has a positive value (here $`H`$ is the Habble constant and the zero index refers to the present epoch when $`\tau =\tau _0`$). On the whole the data are summarized in Table 1 (see also ).

The age of the universe $`\tau _0`$ is estimated from the age of the oldest globular clusters. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m\rho _m\mathrm{}\left(3m_{pl}^2H_0^2\right)`$ is the density parameter for the “normal” matter at present. The word “normal” means that this matter possesses the state parameter obeying $`w0`$. Such matter can only decelerate the cosmological expansion. However, the detailed structure of this “normal” sector of the matter is unknown. The baryons contribution amounts only $`5\%`$ in the total density and the rest of the matter sector belongs to the so-called cold dark matter, which is not revealed to day.

The similar parameter for the photons is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\gamma \rho _\gamma \mathrm{}\left(3m_{pl}^2H_0^2\right)=2.51\times 10^5h^2\left(5.56\pm 0.97\right)\times 10^5`$ (here $`H_0100\times hkm\mathrm{}\left(sMps\right)`$ ), and for the massless neutrino $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu =0.681\times \mathrm{\Omega }_\gamma `$ . Then for the relativistic matter (“radiation”) we have $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r\left(9.34\pm 1.64\right)\times 10^5`$.

The accelerated expansion of the universe suggests that the main part of the density in the universe belongs to some exotic “dark energy” or “X-matter” with the density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x`$ and the state parameter obeying $`w0.6`$. The latter provides the negative pressure and, as a result, the acceleration of the universe expansion.

The parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}\mathrm{\Omega }_x+\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_r`$ defines the curvature of the effective Riemannian spacetime in the GR through the so-called cosmic sum rule: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}+\mathrm{\Omega }_K=1`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_KK\mathrm{}\left(a_0^2H_0^2\right)`$ and $`K=1,1`$ and $`0`$ for the spherical, hyperbolic and flat spacetimes, respectively. As $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}1`$ at present , this requires the fine tuning at past (for example, if we start from the Planck scale the deviation from the unity at the beginning of the expansion is about of $`10^{60}`$ ). There is no such problem in the RTG because the flatness of the homogeneous and isotropic Riemannian spacetime is the consequence of the field equations.

Now let us consider the possible modifications of the cosmological scenarios in the framework of the RTG, which provide the agreement with the modern observational data. To obtain the accelerated expansion at present we modify the energy-momentum tensor by the insertion of the quintessence term with the negative pressure. The practically interesting candidate for the quintessence is some scalar field $`\varphi `$, which evaluates slowly in a runaway potential $`V\left(\varphi \right)`$: $`V\left(\varphi \right)\underset{\varphi \mathrm{}}{}0`$ .

In the beginning let’s consider the problem phenomenologically and introduce the quintessential term with the constant state parameter $`w_x=p_x\mathrm{}\rho _x`$ lying within the limits of the strong and week energy conditions: $`1<w<1\mathrm{}3`$ . It is convenient to suppose that at present $`a\left(\tau _0\right)=1`$ and to transit from the densities to the density parameters. Then Eq. (14) can be rewritten as:

$$H\left(\tau \right)^2=H_0^2\times $$
(20)
$$\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_r}{a\left(\tau \right)^4}+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_m}{a\left(\tau \right)^3}+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}{a\left(\tau \right)^{\left(3+3w_x\right)}}\mathrm{\Omega }_g\left(1+\frac{1}{2a\left(\tau \right)^6}\frac{3}{2a\left(\tau \right)^2a_{\mathrm{max}}^4}\right)\right],$$

where we used $`\rho \left(\tau \right)a\left(\tau \right)^{3\left(1+w\right)}`$ and introduced $`\mathrm{\Omega }_g=m^2\mathrm{}\left(6H_0^2\right)`$ (the density parameter for the massive graviton).

We can see from Eq. (20) that the massive graviton modifies the cosmic sum rule

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_r+\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_x\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_g\left(1\frac{1}{a_{\mathrm{max}}^4}\right)=1,$$
(21)
which is like that for the spherical curvature of the effective Riemannian spacetime ($`a_{\mathrm{max}}1`$). This similarity results from the negative cosmological constant-like action of the gravitons. Note however that in fact the spacetime is flat.

The substitution $`t=H_0\left(\tau \tau _0\right)`$ in Eq. (15) produces (this substitution really omits $`H_0^2`$ from the right-hand side of Eq. (20)):

$$\frac{d^2a\left(t\right)}{dt^2}=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_m}{2a\left(t\right)^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_r}{a\left(t\right)^3}\frac{1+3w_x}{2a\left(t\right)^{\left(2+3w_x\right)}}\mathrm{\Omega }_g\left(a\left(t\right)\frac{1}{a\left(t\right)^5}\right).$$
(22)
Eqs. (20, 22) result in the expression for the acceleration parameter:

$$q=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_x\left(1\frac{3}{2}\chi \right)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_m\mathrm{\Omega }_r}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_g},$$
(23)
where $`\chi 1+w_x`$ is the deviation of the quintessence state parameter from that for the pure positive cosmological constant. If the gravitons and the relativistic matter do not contribute to the present state, the combination of the observational data and Eq. (23) results in the estimation for $`\chi `$:

$$\chi =\frac{2}{3}\left(1q\right)\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_m}{3\mathrm{\Omega }_x}\left(1+2q\right)0.16_{0.09}^{+0.11}.$$
(24)
The deviation of the state parameter from that for the pure cosmological constant can be considered as the justification of the initial guess about the material (not vacuum) source of the accelerated expansion.

If $`a_{\mathrm{max}}a_0`$ (this is a well-grounded assumption because the graviton mass has to be small, see below), then the minimum density is defined by the material terms with a slowest density decrease due to the scaling factor increase. These are the negative cosmological constant produced by the massive graviton and the quintessence with small $`\chi `$. Hence we have the estimation for the maximum scaling factor:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_g}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}a_{\mathrm{max}}^{3\chi }.$$
(25)
As a result, Eqs. (24, 25) give the dependence of the maximum scaling factor on the graviton density parameter. It is natural, the approach of $`w_x`$ to $`1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x`$ to $`1`$ increase the maximum scaling factor due to growing negative pressure of the quintessence.

Eqs. (20, 25) allow finding the minimum scaling factor. The corresponding equation is:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_ga^{3w_x}\left(2a^6+\frac{3}{a_{\mathrm{max}}^4}a^41\right)+2a^{3w_x}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_ra^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_m\right)+2\mathrm{\Omega }_xa^3=0.$$
(26)
If $`w_x1`$ and $`a_{\mathrm{max}}1`$ then $`a_{\mathrm{min}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_g\mathrm{}\left(2\mathrm{\Omega }_r\right)}`$. It is obviously that the minimum scaling factor can not be less than that corresponding to the radiation domination epoch. For the radiation domination we have the well-known condition (if the universe thermalized):

$$\rho _{\mathrm{max}}=\frac{\pi ^2}{30}g_{}\left(T\right)T_{\mathrm{max}}^4,$$
(27)
where $`g_{}(T)`$ is the effective degeneracy factor, $`T`$ is the temperature. Simultaneously, as the scaling factor is roughly $`a_{\mathrm{min}}T_0/T_{\mathrm{max}}`$ ($`T_010^4eV`$ is the present temperature of the cosmic background), we obtain the expression for the graviton density and the maximum scaling factor:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_g`$ $``$ $`2\mathrm{\Omega }_r\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_0}{T_{\mathrm{max}}}}\right)^2,`$ (28)
$`a_{\mathrm{max}}`$ $``$ $`\sqrt[3\varkappa ]{\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}{2\mathrm{\Omega }_r}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_{\mathrm{max}}}{T_0}}\right)^2}.`$
The maximum admissible graviton mass and the maximum scaling factor are presented in Table 2 (for the cosmological parameters we choose their mean values). The estimation of the maximum graviton mass means that the universe starts its expansion from the denoted “event” (the dimensional mass can be re-calculated by means of the relation $`m_g=\sqrt{6\mathrm{\Omega }_g}H_0\mathrm{}\mathrm{}c^2`$).

As it was above mentioned, the RTG solves some basic problems, which inspire the inflation paradigm in the modern cosmology: the flatness problem and the problem of the source of the initial expansion. Moreover, the inflation does not solve the problem of the singularity , which is lacking in the RTG. The problem of the relics in the RTG can be solved if $`a_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is too large to provide $`T_{\mathrm{max}}`$, which is sufficient for their creation. However, the problem of the horizon remains: the size of the causally connected domains at the moment of the last scattering of the cosmic background photons is $``$100 Mps. In principle, this problem can be solved without inflation (see, for example ). As the RTG eliminates singularity, it admits the physically meaningful oscillating solution with increasing homogeneity and isotropy. Nevertheless, let us examine the compatibility of the RTG with the inflation paradigm.

As it was mentioned, the feature of the RTG is the antigravitation produced by the massive graviton in the strong gravitational field. This causes the accelerated expansion at the initial stage of the universe evolution and prevents from the singularity. However, the gravitational field is produced by the matter therefore the character of the initial acceleration is defined by the form of this matter. As an example, the relativist matter (radiation) results in the short acceleration stage (“inflation”) $`t_{ac}=\mathrm{\Omega }_g^{3\mathrm{}2}\left[11\mathrm{}\sqrt{2}\right]\mathrm{}\left(3\mathrm{\Omega }_r^{5\mathrm{}2}\right)`$ ($`t_{ac}`$ is the acceleration time) with the scaling factor growing by only factor of root of two: $`a_{end}\mathrm{}a_{\mathrm{min}}=\sqrt{2}`$. It is clear that such short inflation is not sufficient for the solution of the horizon problem.

The appropriate choice is the inflation governed by the scalar field $`\varphi `$ (inflaton). Let’s consider the minimally coupled single scalar field with the potential $`V\left(\varphi \right)`$. Then the initial evolution can be described by the following system:

$$\left(\frac{\stackrel{\text{·}}{a}}{a}\right)^2=\frac{1}{3m_{pl}^2}\left(\frac{\stackrel{\text{·}}{\varphi }}{2}+V\left(\varphi \right)\right)\frac{m^2}{12a^6},$$
(29)
$$\stackrel{\text{··}}{\varphi }+3\varphi \frac{\stackrel{\text{·}}{a}}{a}=\frac{dV}{d\varphi }.$$

Note, that at the beginning there exist no other material fields with the exception of the scalar field. If at the beginning the potential energy prevails over the kinetic one, the exponential expansion begins (the standard slowroll conditions have to be satisfied: $`m_{pl}\left|\frac{dV}{d\varphi }\mathrm{}V\right|1`$ and $`m_{pl}^2\left|\frac{d^2V}{d\varphi ^2}\mathrm{}V\right|1`$). The simple estimation shows that the graviton term vanishes very quickly and the expansion does not differ from that in the GR. The inflation ends when the sufficient energy transfers into the kinetic form. Then the so-called reheating begins and the material fields are created. The natural criterion providing this primordial inflation in the framework of the RTG is:

$$a_{\mathrm{min}}a_{begin}a_{end},$$
(30)
where $`a_{begin}`$ and $`a_{end}`$ are the scaling factors at the beginning and at the end of the inflation, respectively.

Let us consider the potential, which admits the primordial inflation solving the horizon problem and, simultaneously, allows the second inflation describing the accelerated expansion at present. Such models consider both inflations as the manifestation of the single scalar field (quintessential inflation models, for review see ). For example, the potential

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda \left(\varphi ^4+M^4\right)\text{ for}\varphi <0,`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda M^8}{\varphi ^4+M^4}}\text{ for }\varphi 0`$
corresponds to the case of the self-interacting $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ field for the negative $`\varphi `$ (the value of the cosmic background fluctuations requires $`\lambda 10^{14}`$) and provides the second acceleration on the rolling-away tail of the potential, when $`\varphi \mathrm{}`$ (quintessential tail). The present value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x`$ requires $`M8\times 10^5GeV`$.

The first inflation terminates at $`\left|\varphi \right|m_{pl}`$ and Eqs. (29, 30) result in ($`Mm_{pl}`$):

$$a_{end}\sqrt[3]{\frac{m}{m_{pl}\sqrt{\lambda }}}.$$
(32)
Simultaneously,

$$\frac{a_r}{a_{end}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda R}},$$
(33)
where $`R0.01`$ is the numerical factor defining the particles creation at the end of the first inflation and the transit to the radiation domination . At the beginning of the radiation domination, when $`aa_r`$, the temperature was

$$T_r\lambda R^{3\mathrm{}4}m_{pl}10^3GeV.$$
(34)
Then roughly we have:

$$m\lambda ^2R^{3\mathrm{}2}m_{pl}\left(\frac{T_0}{T_r}\right)^310^{52}eV,$$
(35)
If we made the usual assumption about the $`60`$-$`e`$ folding expansion during the inflation then $`a_{begin}a_{end}\times e^{60}`$. Hence we have the estimation for the graviton mass allowing the appropriate scaling factor:

$$m\frac{\sqrt{12\lambda }}{m_{pl}}\varphi _{in}^2\left(a_{end}\times e^{60}\right)^3\frac{\sqrt{12}}{m_{pl}}\lambda ^2\mathrm{\Pi }^{3\mathrm{}2}\varphi _{in}^2\left(\frac{T_0}{T_r}\right)^3\times e^{180}$$
(36)
$$10^{157}\frac{\varphi _{in}^2}{m_{pl}},$$

where $`\varphi _{in}`$ (initial scalar field) and graviton mass are expressed through the Planck mass. Although $`\left|\varphi _{in}\right|m_{pl}`$, the obtained estimation is extremely low because it is very hard to “squeeze” the universe down to the Planck scale in the condition of the strong antigravitation produced by the massive graviton. Such low value for the graviton mass can not be attributed to some real physics. However, we have not to consider this conclusion as the pessimistic estimation of the incompatibility between the RTG and the primordial inflation picture because 1) our estimation is the model-dependent and needs an additional investigation; 2) we have not to overestimate our knowledge of the physics on the Planck scale; 3) the RTG can propose an alternative (oscillating) scenario without primordial inflation.

It is of interest to consider the compatibility of the RTG with the second inflation picture, which takes a place on the quintessential tail of the model under consideration. In the framework of this model (see Eq. (3) (the below described picture is common for the different models of the quintessential inflation, see ) we have the following evolutional stages: 1) *First inflation*. The field $`\varphi m_{pl}`$ slowly rolls to zero. The potential energy dominates over the kinetic one. As a consequence, the state parameter $`w_x=\frac{\stackrel{\text{·}}{\varphi }^2\mathrm{}2V}{\stackrel{\text{·}}{\varphi }^2\mathrm{}2+V}1`$. 2) *Reheating and kination*. $`\varphi >m_{pl}`$ causes the end of the inflation due to the kinetic term increase ($`w_x1`$). The energy transfers to the material fields. But the kinetic dominated scalar field decreases as $`\rho _x\frac{\stackrel{\text{·}}{\varphi }^2}{2}a^6`$. Hence, the radiation (and then the matter) domination begins. 3) The kinetic term vanishes and the potential energy of the scalar field dominates again. *Second inflation* begins from which the universe never recovers because the slowroll conditions are satisfied.

However, the RTG provides the quite natural exit from the eternal inflation due to the presence of the negative cosmological constant-like term in Eq. (17). As $`V`$ decreases as

$$V\frac{\lambda M^8}{m_{pl}^2\mathrm{ln}^4\left(\frac{a}{a_{end}}\right)},$$
(37)
the inflation stops when

$$aa_{end}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{M^2\sqrt{mm_{pl}\sqrt{\lambda }}}{mm_{pl}^2}\right)10^{24}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{10^{14}}{\sqrt{m\left[eV\right]}}\right).$$
(38)
From Eq. (38) the maximum mass of the graviton is $`10^{31}eV`$ (criterion $`a_{\mathrm{max}}>1`$), however, the maximum scaling factor increases exponentially with the $`m`$ decrease in contrast to Eq. (25) because $`w_x1`$ in the late universe. Here we do not consider the additional numerical estimations because they are model-dependent. Nevertheless, it is obviously that the combination of the first inflation condition ($`a_{\mathrm{min}}a_{end}`$) with the break of second inflation can result in the exponentially large $`a_{\mathrm{max}}`$.

## 4 Conclusions

The RTG is able to solve some important cosmological problems. It does not contain the cosmological singularity and derives the flatness of the global spacetime from the field equations. The antigravitation produced by the massive graviton in the strong gravitational field solves the problem of the source of the initial expansion and allows escaping the relics creation. However, the problems of the horizon and the present accelerated expansion of the universe remain. The former is solvable in the framework of the oscillation paradigm. The RTG admits only closed evolutional scenario in virtue of the causality principle and thereby the causal connections with the extremely distant domains can result from the previous cycles of the oscillation (remind that there is no the singularity in the RTG). However, the problem of the accelerated expansion needs some additional hypothesis. The appropriate modification of the RTG Lagrangian is awkward because the structure of its massive part is defined by the polarization properties of the gravitational field. The alternative way is the modification of the energy-momentum tensor due to inclusion of the so-called quintessence term with the state parameter lying within the limits of the strong and weak energy conditions that causes the repulsion and, as a result, the accelerated expansion.

In the framework of the latter approach there is the single scenario:

1. *First acceleration (inflation)*, which can be governed by the scalar field (exponential inflation) or by the massive gravitons (power-mode inflation that occurs if the radiation dominates at the beginning of the expansion).
2. *First deceleration* due to the radiation (and then matter) domination. The massive gravitons do not contribute due to the increased scaling factor.
3. *Second acceleration (inflation)* due to the quintessence domination. The massive gravitons do not contribute.
4. *Second deceleration* due to the negative cosmological constant-like action of the massive gravitons.
5. *Contraction* produced by the massive gravitons.

At the first stage, there are the certain constraints on the graviton mass: the initial scaling factor has to provide the temperature, which is sufficient for the formation of the universe in its known form. At least, this temperature has to exceed that required for the nucleosynthesis. As a result, $`m_g<10^{43}eV`$. These constraints become extremely exacting in the case of the primordial inflation governed by the scalar field because it is hard to squeeze the universe down to the Planck size. One could say that the RTG is hardly compatible with such primordial inflation.

The second inflation can be considered in two ways. Firstly, we can suppose the constant state parameter for the quintessence: $`w_x>1`$. In this case the massive graviton terminates the inflation for the scaling factor, which is power dependent on the graviton mass. The rough estimation for the above given $`m_g`$ results in the relative scaling factor $`10^{28}`$ (if its present value is $`1`$). Secondly, we can consider the quintessence as some scalar field with the rolling-away potential. This is a more complicated situation because the state parameter changes and approaches $`1`$ in the late universe. However, the massive graviton stops the inflation in this case too, but the dependence of the maximum scaling factor on the graviton mass is exponential. As the latter approach is based on the artificial model building, the problem of the late universe evolution in the framework of the RTG needs an additional investigation.

In spite of the successful agreement of the RTG with the modern observational data, the unsolved problems remain:

1. The horizon problem and the initial expansion of the universe remain unexplored in the RTG. There are some doubts about the compatibility of the RTG with the primordial inflation governed by the scalar field.
2. The quintessential scenarios need a more detailed investigation. Moreover, the nature of the quintessence is still unknown and this hypothesis faces some typical problems:

1. the quintessence has to be extremely weakly coupled with the usual matter;
    2. it is probably that the quintessence has to be a very light ;
    3. the quintessence would generate the corrections to the gauge coupling.
3. And at last, why is the graviton so light? It is necessary to explore the connections of the RTG with the modern field theory.

## <br>Acknowledgements

Author appreciates Prof. A. A. Logunov and Prof. M. A. Mestvirishvili for the promotional and helpful discussions and Organizing Committee for the hearty welcome, the creative and friendly atmosphere at Workshop. Author is Lise Meitner Fellow, supported by the Austrian National Science Found (grant M688).


text:
# Quarticles and the Identity of Indiscernibles11footnote 1To appear in K.A. Brading and E. Castellani (eds.), ”Symmetries in Physics: Philosophical Reflections”, CUP 2003.

## 1 Introduction

In sections 5.3-4 of their paper in this volume333K.A. Brading and E. Castellani (eds.), Symmetries in Physics: Philosophical Reflections, CUP 2003, French and Rickles raise the question of the logical relations between the indistinguishability postulate (IP) and the various senses in which particles might fail to be individuals. In section 5.3 they refer to the convincing arguments of French and Redhead (1988) and of Butterfield (1993) that IP does not logically entail non-individuality, understood several ways – even though, as all seem to concede, there *is* something perverse about taking bosons and fermions to be individuals. Going the other way, as Huggett and Imbo444N. Huggett and T. Imbo, “Identicality and indistinguishability”, in preparation. show, if non-individuality is taken to mean the absence of continuous distinguishing trajectories, characteristic of standard quantum mechanics (QM), then non-individuality does not entail IP. Nor, as French and Rickles point out, do substance or haecceity views of individuality.

But what if we conceive of individuality in terms of the principle of the identity of indiscernibles (PII)? First, French and Redhead (1988) and Butterfield (1993) have given theorems showing that bosons and fermions violate PII, while the former have also demonstrated violations of PII in the case of a certain paraparticle state. But these cases, as I will explain (and as French and Rickles point out), cover just a very few of the possible kinds of quantum particles, and so for each kind the question arises as to whether it violates PII. I will give an answer to this question here, rather more general than – though based on – those previously offered.

So consider the theorems proven about PII. Suppose one has an $`n`$-particle system. The states of such a system lie in the Hilbert space that is the tensor product of $`n`$ Hilbert spaces, one for each of the particles. Suppose further that the Hilbert space for particle $`i`$ or $`j`$ – appearing as the $`i^{th}`$ and the $`j^{th}`$ factors of the tensor product space – is $`H`$. And suppose finally that $`Q`$ is an observable on $`H`$ with eigenvalues $`p`$ and $`q`$ (and let $`I`$ represent the identity on any of the factors). Then, $`Q_i=II\mathrm{}Q\mathrm{}I`$ (with $`Q`$ as the $`i^{th}`$ factor) is intuitively the observable corresponding to a measurement of the value of $`Q`$ for the $`i^{th}`$ particle, and mutatis mutandis $`Q_j`$.

Then, French and Redhead (1988) showed the following: for any state $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ such that $`P_{ij}\mathrm{\Psi }=\pm \mathrm{\Psi }`$ (where $`P_{ij}`$ transposes the $`i^{th}`$ and the $`j^{th}`$ factors of the tensor product space) so that $`i`$ and $`j`$ are either symmetrized (if $`+`$) or antisymmetrized (if $``$),555Note that we have assumed nothing at this stage about whether the particles are identical, or (anti)symmetrized in every state, or what the effect of other permutations of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ might be. We will consider these factors below.

$$\mathrm{pr}^\mathrm{\Psi }(Q_i=q)=\mathrm{pr}^\mathrm{\Psi }(Q_j=q)$$
(1)
and

$$\mathrm{pr}^\mathrm{\Psi }(Q_i=q|Q_j=p)=\mathrm{pr}^\mathrm{\Psi }(Q_j=q|Q_i=p).$$
(2)
That is, for example, the probability that the system, while in state $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, would possess value $`q`$ for observable $`Q_i`$ if measured is equal to the probability that it would possess that value for $`Q_j`$ if measured – roughly, the chance that particle $`i`$ has value $`q`$ is the same as the chance that particle $`j`$ does. Butterfield (1993) extends these results by considering a second observable on $`H`$, $`Q^{}`$, with eigenvalues $`q^{}`$ and $`p^{}`$ and corresponding observables $`Q_i^{}`$ and $`Q_j^{}`$ on the tensor product space. He also considers a third particle whose Hilbert space is the $`k^{th}`$ factor and for which $`Q^{}`$ is also an observable.666Now $`k`$ need not be identical to the other particles – the proof certainly does not assume that it is (anti)symmetrized with respect to $`i`$ or $`j`$. However, the proof does assume that it has the same Hilbert space $`H`$, or at the very least that there is a correspondence between the observable $`Q^{}`$ on $`H`$ and an observable on $`k`$’s Hilbert space. Then he shows - again for bosons and fermions – that

$$\mathrm{pr}^\mathrm{\Psi }(Q_i=q|Q_j^{}=p^{})=\mathrm{pr}^\mathrm{\Psi }(Q_j=q|Q_i^{}=p^{})$$
(3)
and

$$\mathrm{pr}^\mathrm{\Psi }(Q_k^{}=q^{}|Q_i=p)=\mathrm{pr}^\mathrm{\Psi }(Q_k^{}=q^{}|Q_j=p).$$
(4)
Since the probabilities for the possession of eigenvalues of observables capture the dynamical properties of a quantum system exhaustively, the authors conclude that these four results show that any pair of bosons or fermions in a system are indistinguishable by monadic (the first result) or relational (the other results) dynamical properties. The possibility remains that the particles are distinguished by their intrinsic properties, those that are state-independent, and can be treated as “c-number” quantities, such as spin magnitude, mass, charge, or colour. So let’s suppose that the particles are “identical”, sharing all their intrinsic properties. Then, as Butterfield (1993) and French and Redhead (1988) conclude, $`i`$ and $`j`$ in state $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ violate both logically strong – that individuals sharing all monadic properties are identical – and weak – that individuals sharing all monadic *and relational* properties are identical – forms of the principle of the identity of indiscernibles.

But of course there is more. For if $`i`$ and $`j`$ are identical bosons or fermions then $`P_{ij}\mathrm{\Psi }=\pm \mathrm{\Psi }`$ is always true: they satisfy the “symmetrization postulate”. And so, conclude Butterfield and Co., a pair of identical bosons or fermions always violate PII.

Now, a word of clarification is in order. One might well think that if we are, say, talking about bosons, then since the system is only ever in symmetrized states, the appropriate Hilbert space is just the *symmetrized sector* of the tensor product space – just those states for which $`P_{ij}\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }`$. But $`Q_i`$ and $`Q_j`$ are not observables on the symmetric sector, but only on the full tensor product space, so the proof is not applicable. In fact, $`Q_i`$ and $`Q_j`$ don’t in general even act as operators on the symmetric sector, since their action on a symmetric vector is to take it out of the sector – e.g., $`Q_i\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is in general not symmetric. (If they do act as operators then, as it’s easy to see, their *restrictions* to the symmetric sector are identical.) Thus one might say that they are not really observables at all for bosons (or at least not different observables). But French and Redhead (1988) are sensitive to this kind of worry, for they argue that one can indeed take the full tensor product space as the state space for the bosons, taking all states, symmetrized or not, to be possible but – in a terminology I propose – taking only the symmetric ones to be “preparable”. After all, they point out, we can understand the unpreparability of the unsymmetrized states in terms of a boundary condition (that the initial state was symmetrized) and the symmetrization of the Hamiltonian (which guarantees that the symmetry type is preserved).777This view has its problems, especially those raised by Redhead and Teller (1991). So we can – and will for the purposes of this discussion – take $`Q_i`$ and $`Q_j`$ to be (distinct) operators, even though they may have no restriction to the symmetric sector (or restrictions that are not distinct). Finally, however, one might object that $`Q_i`$ and $`Q_j`$ so construed are no longer observables, since they violate the “indistinguishability postulate” (IP), according to which every observable must commute with every permutation of identical particles: $`[P_{ij},O]=0`$ in this case. French and Redhead’s response is analogous to their reply to the first objection: they allow “observables” that cannot be observed, so that – in principle – any Hermitian operator, whether commuting or not, might be used to discern particles. I will follow this suggestion, but (until section 3) I will use “observable” to refer *only* to those Hermitian operators that satisfy IP. Hence we want to know whether PII is violated not for the smaller set of properties – those which correspond to observables – but for the larger set – those corresponding to all Hermitian operators – which contains the smaller as a subset. (Of course if the PII is violated for the latter it is automatically violated for the former, since it is a subset, and hence contains no more properties that might discern particles.) What the results show is that identical bosons are indeed indiscernible (and so are identical fermions).888Two remarks: First, when we look at other kinds of particles we will find that it is quite possible to consider observables that violate IP, and so we can avoid the debate about whether French and Redhead’s scheme is legitimate. Second, Saunders (this volume) argues for a rather different and highly plausible understanding of PII in quantum mechanics (see also French and Rickles, this volume).

Consider how the proofs of these results go, following the style adopted by Butterfield (1993). What we need in order to calculate these probabilities is the probabilities – for state $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ – of such propositions as the atomic $`Q_i=q`$ and conjunctive $`Q_i=q\&Q_j^{}=p`$, since the conditional probabilities can be found in terms of these unconditional probabilities. But these quantities can be expressed in terms of the expectation values for the projection operators onto the eigenstates with the appropriate eigenvalues (and products of such operators). For example, let the projection operators onto the subspace of states that are eigenstates of $`Q_i`$ and $`Q_j^{}`$ with eigenvalues $`q`$ and $`p`$ respectively be denoted $`{}_{}{}^{q}Q_{i}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{p}Q_{j}^{}`$ respectively. And so on in the obvious way for the other projection operators. Then according to the standard QM algorithm, for instance:

$$\mathrm{pr}^\mathrm{\Psi }(Q_i=q)=\mathrm{\Psi }|^qQ_i|\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(5)
and

$$\mathrm{pr}^\mathrm{\Psi }(Q_i=q\&Q_j^{}=p)=\mathrm{\Psi }|^qQ_i^pQ_j^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(6)
Finally, the purely algebraic relation $`(P_{ij})^2=I`$ plus the fact that $`Q_j=P_{ij}Q_iP_{ij}`$ – let’s call this the ‘conjugacy condition’ (CC) – which implies that $`{}_{}{}^{q}Q_{j}^{}=P_{ij}^qQ_iP_{ij}`$, will deliver our proofs. Given $`P_{ij}\mathrm{\Psi }=\pm \mathrm{\Psi }`$,

$`\mathrm{pr}^\mathrm{\Psi }(Q_i=q)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }|^qQ_i|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }|P_{ij}^qQ_jP_{ij}|\mathrm{\Psi }`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }|^qQ_j|\mathrm{\Psi }`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{pr}^\mathrm{\Psi }(Q_j=q)`$
and

$`\mathrm{pr}^\mathrm{\Psi }(Q_i=q\&Q_j^{}=p)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }|^qQ_i^pQ_j^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }|P_{ij}^qQ_jP_{ij}P_{ij}^pQ_i^{}P_{ij}|\mathrm{\Psi }`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }|^qQ_j^pQ_i^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{pr}^\mathrm{\Psi }(Q_j=q\&Q_i^{}=p)`$
and so on for any of the atomic or conjunctive propositions that we need in order to derive the conditional probabilities, and hence they are equal too, proving the theorems.

## 2 Generalizations

I want to generalize these results still further, in two ways. First, why stop with conditionalizing on only one or two atomic propositions? Why not take the most general relational probability to be

$`\mathrm{pr}^\mathrm{\Psi }(\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij})\mathrm{pr}^\mathrm{\Psi }(Q_i=q_i\&Q_i^{}=p_i\&\mathrm{}\&R_j=r_j\&S_j=s_j\&\mathrm{}`$
$`\&T_k=t_k\&U_k=u_k\&\mathrm{}|V_i=v_i\&W_i=w_i\&\mathrm{}`$
$`X_j=x_j\&Y_j=y_j\&\mathrm{}\&Z_k=z_k\&A_k=a_k\&\mathrm{})`$ (9)
where all the operators are of the same form as $`Q_i`$, with a suitable Hermitian operator on $`H`$ replacing $`Q`$ in the appropriate “slot” in the tensor product.999Note that in this case, and as we go on, the observables in question – and hence their projection operators – need not all commute. Thus the conditional probability, found as before in terms of the expectation values of the corresponding products of projection operators is dependent on the order of the operators. We will adopt the convention that the order of the projection operators is the same as the order of the propositions in the expression for the probability. (And why not let the ellipses be filled in with propositions concerning a fourth and fifth and so on particles?) Then we need to show that if $`P_{ij}\mathrm{\Psi }=\pm \mathrm{\Psi }`$ then $`\mathrm{pr}^\mathrm{\Psi }(\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij})=\mathrm{pr}^\mathrm{\Psi }(\mathrm{\Pi }_{ji})`$, where the latter argument is obtained from $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}`$ by transposing the $`i`$ and $`j`$ labels on the observables throughout. And to show this we need – much as in the cases considered so far – to show that the probability of an arbitrary conjunction of atomic propositions is equal to that of its transposition. And to do this we need one more fact about these operators, namely that for $`ki,j`$, $`P_{ij}Q_kP_{ij}=Q_k`$, from which it follows that $`P_{ij}^qQ_kP_{ij}=^qQ_k`$ or $`P_{ij}^qQ_k=^qQ_kP_{ij}`$ (and similarly for any of the other operators in question) – let’s call this the “independence condition’ (IC).101010In fact, as you will have found if you’ve worked through the proofs, this condition is also required to prove the third and fifth results of Butterfield and Co. Then we see for example that

$`\mathrm{pr}^\mathrm{\Psi }(Q_i=q_i\&Q_i^{}=p_i\&\mathrm{}\&R_j=r_j\&S_j=s_j\&\mathrm{}\&T_k=t_k\&`$
$`U_k=u_k\&\mathrm{})`$
$`=\mathrm{\Psi }|^{q_i}Q_i^{p_i}Q_i^{}\mathrm{}^{r_j}R_j^{s_j}S_j\mathrm{}^{t_k}T_k^{u_k}U_k\mathrm{}|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (10)
$`=\mathrm{\Psi }|P_{ij}^{q_i}Q_jP_{ij}P_{ij}^{p_i}Q_jP_{ij}\mathrm{}P_{ij}^{r_j}R_iP_{ij}P_{ij}^{s_j}S_iP_{ij}\mathrm{}^{t_k}T_k^{u_k}U_k\mathrm{}|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (11)
by CC

$$=\mathrm{\Psi }|P_{ij}^{q_i}Q_j^{q_i^{}}Q_j^{}\mathrm{}^{r_j}R_i^{s_j}S_i\mathrm{}^{t_k}T_k^{u_k}U_k\mathrm{}P_{ij}|\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(12)
using $`P_{ij}^2=I`$ and applying IC to shift the remaining $`P_{ij}`$ all the way to the right, to obtain for (anti)symmetrized $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$

$`=\mathrm{\Psi }|^{q_i}Q_j^{p_i}Q_j^{}\mathrm{}^{r_j}R_i^{s_j}S_i\mathrm{}^{t_k}T_k^{u_k}U_k\mathrm{}|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (13)
$`=\mathrm{pr}^\mathrm{\Psi }(Q_j=q_i\&Q_j^{}=p_i\&\mathrm{}\&R_i=r_j\&S_i=s_j\&\mathrm{}\&T_k=t_k\&`$
$`U_k=u_k\&\mathrm{}),`$ (14)
as we required. So the upshot is that no conditional probabilities for the system taking on values for the Hermitian operators in question will serve to discern identical bosons or fermions in a system.

There is, however, a further generalization that I think should be made, one which also preserves the result regarding PII. Why assume that only operators of the form $`I\mathrm{}Q\mathrm{}I`$ can represent single particle properties? Of course they do, but, I would suggest, as a special case. Here’s the more general notion that I have in mind. Suppose that for an $`n`$-particle system we find a “family” of $`n`$ Hermitian operators, $`\{O_1,\mathrm{}O_i,\mathrm{}O_j\mathrm{}O_n\}`$, that satisfy CC pair-wise: $`O_j=P_{ij}O_iP_{ij}`$ for all $`i`$, $`j`$. Then it seems to me that they are candidates for representing single particle properties, since the natural interpretation is that whatever quantity $`O_i`$ represents of the $`i^{th}`$ particle, $`O_j`$ represents of the $`j^{th}`$ particle, and so on. Clearly $`Q_i`$, $`Q_j`$ and so on satisfy this condition, but it allows other possibilities too: for example, $`AA\mathrm{}B\mathrm{}A`$ ($`A`$, $`B`$ observables on $`H`$) and certain sums of such operators. Now one might argue that being a *single particle* Hermitian operator requires more than membership in such a family (that all or some members of the family are distinct, for example) but no matter for our purposes: the “minimal condition” of *membership in such a family of single particle operators* is enough to prove all our results. For these results only depend on two properties of the single particle operators: CC and IC. CC for $`Q_i`$ and $`Q_j`$ etc. follows immediately (as a special case) of the minimal condition, and IC can be easily shown. Suppose that the minimal condition is satisfied by Hermitian operators $`\{O_1,\mathrm{},O_n\}`$. Then

$$O_k=P_{jk}O_jP_{jk}=P_{ij}P_{ik}P_{ij}O_jP_{ij}P_{ik}P_{ij}=P_{ij}P_{ik}O_iP_{ik}P_{ij}=P_{ij}O_kP_{ij},$$
(15)
where the second step uses the algebraic identity $`P_{jk}=P_{ij}P_{ik}P_{ij}`$, which holds if $`ki,j`$, and the other steps by the minimal condition. And so the general proof goes through – for bosonic and fermionic $`i`$, $`j`$ – as long as the minimal condition is satisfied; so identical bosons and fermions are indistinguishable by anything we might consider to be a single particle property.

This way of constructing the proofs is nice, I think, because it shows very clearly just what assumptions are doing the work, and because it points the way to extending these considerations to kinds of particles other than bosons and fermions, as French and Rickles suggest.

## 3 Quarticles

First though, what are these other kinds of particles? As French and Rickles describe (and see for example Greiner and Muller, 1989, chapter 9, for more details), the bosonic and fermionic representations of the permutation group $`S_n`$ are only two possible representations – the 1-dimensional ones. As the number of particles increases, one finds representations of higher and higher dimensions. This raises the question of whether there could be a species of quantum particle for every representation – as bosons and fermions correspond to the symmetric and antisymmetric representations – and indeed whether there could be a species of particle for every direct sum of representations. This is the question explored and answered by Hartle, Stolt and Taylor (e.g. 1970). More precisely, we want to characterize each (statistical) kind of particle by a rule that specifies, for each $`n`$, what the space of allowed states is – after all, a species of particle can come in any number. In this case it is natural to impose a condition of “cluster decomposition”. First, suppose that one looks at $`m`$ of the particles in a system of $`n`$: the rule for $`n`$ such particles determines their state space, from which we can extract the state space of the first $`m`$, which must carry exactly the same representations as the rule for $`m`$ particles demands. Second, in the other direction, if we take two systems of $`m`$ and $`n`$ particles respectively, then the rule determines their state spaces, and then the joint state space obtained from them must satisfy the rule for $`n+m`$ particles. That is, cluster decomposition demands that parts and wholes must be related consistently by the state space rule for any species of particle.

Hartle, Stolt and Taylor showed that this condition entails a very simple classification of the species of possible particles. They found a correspondence between pairs of natural numbers $`(p,q)`$ satisfying $`p+q>0`$ *together with* $`\mathrm{}`$ and the allowed species of particles. While these numbers determine which representations are allowed to any species of particle in a fairly direct way, space does not permit that I explain how here.111111See for example N. Huggett, in preparation, “What is an elementary quarticle?”, appendix, for an account. There are, however, a few points and illustrations that I can usefully make.

First, for bosons (or fermions) all Hermitian operators on the space of symmetric (or antisymmetric) states satisfy IP, so all are observables as we defined them earlier. In the higher dimensional representations this is not so: there are Hermitian operators on a $`(p,q)`$ state space that do not commute with all permutations. (Though that the energy be one of these operators is sufficient to guarantee again that the system will never evolve out of the allowed state space.) Hence we should no longer define “observables” to be only those operators that satisfy IP – any Hermitian operator on the allowed space could in principle represent a distinct observable quantity. And so corresponding to (almost) every $`(p,q)`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ there is both a possible “distinguishable” kind of particle for which all Hermitian operators on the space are observables and a distinct possible “indistinguishable” kind of particle for which IP is imposed on observables.121212R. Espinoza, T. D. Imbo and M. Satriawan, “Identicality, (in)distinguishability and quantum statistics”, in preparation, ask what other sets of Hermitian operators – fewer than all those on the state space but more than just those that satisfy IP – can be taken as the observables, and show how to classify all possible answers. Huggett and Imbo, ‘Identicality and indistinguishability’, in preparation, demonstrate why quantum mechanics in no way entails IP. That is, in choosing the properties of a type of particle, nature needs to decide not just $`p`$ and $`q`$, but also whether any physical quantities correspond to observables violating IP.

Then, for $`\mathrm{}`$ particles the whole tensor product space is the state space, and if they are distinguishable then they are called “quantum Maxwell-Boltzmann particles”, since the number of independent states available to them is always the same as the number of corresponding classical states. Bosons are $`(1,0)`$ and fermions $`(0,1)`$ particles, and they are the only cases – because all operators on the (anti)symmetric sector satisfy IP – for which there is no distinguishable kind. “Parabose” particles of order $`p`$ (those for which up to $`p`$ particles may be mutually antisymmetrized) are $`(p,0)`$ particles, while “parafermi” particles of order $`q`$ are $`(0,q)`$ particles. Now it is usual to speak of these last two kinds of particles as “paraparticles” but we are without a convenient terminology to refer to all particles in the $`(p,q)`$ classification (other than the bland “$`(p,q)`$-particles”). To show that these kinds of particles interpolate between quanta (bosons and fermions) and classical(-like) particles (quantum Maxwell-Boltzmann particles) let’s call them “quarticles”, of which paraparticles are a special class. And so, French and Rickles’s question concerns PII for quarticles: When (if ever) does it hold? When (if ever) does it fail?131313French and Redhead (1988) consider a specific 3-particle state in a 2-dimensional representation (which is allowed to infinitely many kinds of quarticle) and show that two of the particles are indistinguishable while either can be distinguished from the third. “ Here’s a (fairly) comprehensive answer to this question, in three parts:

(i) For any number of any kind of identical quarticle (even as a subsystem of a system including other non-identical particles) there are states in which no particles are discernible. This follows because for any quarticles either totally symmetrized or totally antisymmetrized states (for which $`P_{ij}\mathrm{\Psi }=\pm \mathrm{\Psi }`$, where $`i`$, $`j`$ label *any* pair of the identical quarticles) are allowed, and we have already seen that they are states of indiscernible particles.

(ii) For any number greater than two of any kind of identical quarticle but quanta there are states in which some particles are discernible and some are indiscernible.

Suppose there are $`m`$ identical quarticles. Again let $`Q`$ be a Hermitian operator on the single particle Hilbert space $`H`$, and define $`Q_1`$ etc. as before (i.e. $`Q_1=QI\mathrm{}I`$ etc.), but now supposing that $`Q`$ is non-degenerate with eigenstates $`\varphi _1`$, $`\varphi _2`$, …, $`\varphi _m`$, … with corresponding eigenvalues $`q_1`$, $`q_2`$, …, $`q_m`$, … (so that $`H`$ is at least $`m`$-dimensional). Let $`S_{ab\mathrm{}c}`$ be the operator on the tensor product space that totally symmetrizes states with respect to transpositions of the $`a^{th},b^{th},\mathrm{}c^{th}`$ factors, and similarly let $`A_{ab\mathrm{}c}`$ be the operator on the tensor product space that totally *anti*symmetrizes states with respect to transpositions of the $`a^{th},b^{th},\mathrm{}c^{th}`$ factors.141414Thus, for example, $`S_{12\mathrm{}m}\varphi _1\varphi _2\mathrm{}\varphi _m\mathrm{}\varphi _n`$ is the normalized sum of every permutation of the first $`m`$ factors of $`\varphi _1\varphi _2\mathrm{}\varphi _m\mathrm{}\varphi _n`$, and $`A_{12\mathrm{}m}\varphi _1\varphi _2\mathrm{}\varphi _m\mathrm{}\varphi _n`$ the normalized sum of the even permutations minus the odd permutations of the first $`m`$ factors. For further discussion and the explicit form of these operators see for example Greiner and Muller (1989), chapter 9.

Then for any system including $`m>2`$ quarticles of any kind but bosons and fermions either

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_s=S_{23\mathrm{}m}A_{12}\varphi _1\varphi _2\mathrm{}\varphi _m$$
(16)
or

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_a=A_{23\mathrm{}m}S_{12}\varphi _1\varphi _2\mathrm{}\varphi _m$$
(17)
is an allowed state (of course *not* the only kind of allowed state). In either case the total (anti)symmetrization of quarticles $`2,3,\mathrm{},m`$ entails that for $`2i,jm`$, $`P_{ij}\mathrm{\Psi }=\pm \mathrm{\Psi }`$; so from our earlier proofs quarticles $`2,3,\mathrm{},m`$ are indiscernible. However, we can easily calculate $`\mathrm{pr}^\mathrm{\Psi }(Q_1=q_1)`$ and $`\mathrm{pr}^\mathrm{\Psi }(Q_i=q_1)`$ to see that these probabilities discern the quarticle $`1`$ from every other quarticle. For example,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_s=S_{2\mathrm{}m}(\varphi _1\varphi _2\mathrm{}\varphi _m\varphi _2\varphi _1\mathrm{}\varphi _m),$$
(18)
a sum of $`2(m1)!`$ terms with equal coefficients (one for each permutation of the factors $`2,3,\mathrm{}m`$). $`(m1)!`$ of the terms have $`\varphi _1`$ as the first factor – all those with positive coefficients. But only $`(m2)!`$ of the terms have $`\varphi _1`$ as the $`i^{th}`$ factor – the number of permutations of the term with the negative coefficient which have $`\varphi _1`$ in the $`i^{th}`$ place. Therefore,

$$\mathrm{pr}^{\mathrm{\Psi }_s}(Q_1=q_1)=\mathrm{\Psi }|^{q_1}Q_1|\mathrm{\Psi }=(m1)!/(2(m1)!)=1/2$$
(19)
while (for $`2im`$)

$$\mathrm{pr}^{\mathrm{\Psi }_s}(Q_i=q_1)=\mathrm{\Psi }|^{q_1}Q_1|\mathrm{\Psi }=(m2)!/(2(m1)!)=1/(2(m1)),$$
(20)
which are never equal for $`m>2`$. Hence quarticles 1 and 2 are indeed discernible (as they are in state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_a`$).

(iii) For any number greater than two of any kind of identical quarticle but quanta there are states in which all the particles are discernible.

The following is an allowed state for $`m>2`$ of any kind of quarticle but bosons and fermions:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_d=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}S_{12\mathrm{}(i1)(i+1)\mathrm{}m}A_{i(i+1)}\varphi _1\varphi _2\mathrm{}\varphi _m,$$
(21)
where $`i\pm 1`$ is taken modulo $`m`$. That is, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_d`$ is a sum of states similar to those considered in equation (16); for each of the first $`m`$ factors of the tensor product, there is contribution to $`\mathrm{\Psi }_d`$ in which the factor and its successor are antisymmetrized before the remaining factors are symmetrized. Then – as in the proof of (ii) – we count the total number of terms in the sum in which $`\varphi _i`$ appears as the $`i^{th}`$ (or $`j^{th}`$) factor to find the numerator for $`\mathrm{pr}^{\mathrm{\Psi }_d}(Q_i=q_i)`$ (or $`\mathrm{pr}^{\mathrm{\Psi }_d}(Q_j=q_i)`$) and – since all the coefficients are equal – the denominator is just the total number of terms in the sum. Omitting the details we find that:

$$\mathrm{pr}^{\mathrm{\Psi }_d}(Q_i=q_i)=\{(m1)!+(2m3)(m2)!\}/(2m!)$$
(22)
while for $`ij`$

$$\mathrm{pr}^{\mathrm{\Psi }_d}(Q_j=q_i)=\{(2m4)(m2)!\}/(2m!),$$
(23)
which are unequal for all $`m`$. Hence every quarticle is discernible from every other by the probability for possessing an appropriate quantity.

## 4 Concluding remarks

In conclusion there are a couple of remarks I’d like to add. First, I have addressed the question of whether quarticles are discernible by any Hermitian operators, since this is how the issue was originally raised. But what if we consider instead just those Hermitian operators that satisfy IP, as the $`Q_i`$ of the proofs do not? To indicate that we are now asking a different question we should have a new name for the principle at stake. The principle is that for every pair of (identical) quarticles there is some conditional probability for the possession of single particle *observable* quantities on which they disagree: let’s call this the “principle of the identity of *indistinguishables*”. (The question of whether this principle holds for a particular system depends on what the observables are for that system; I’ve assumed that any Hermitian observable that satisfies the IP is an observable, but other choices can be investigated.) We will investigate whether this principle holds exactly as before, except we demand that the probabilities we consider are only for observable quantities.

If the IP is imposed on observables then we will find that the identity of indistinguishables is maximally violated – any pair of identical quarticles in a system will have all probabilities for the possession of observable quantities in common (just like bosons and fermions).151515This is easy to see intuitively: if the minimal condition for being a single particle observable – inclusion in a family of observables related by CC pair-wise – is satisfied, then we have for all $`i`$, $`j`$, $`O_j=P_{ij}O_iP_{ij}`$. But by IP $`P_{ij}O_iP_{ij}=O_i`$ so $`O_i=O_j`$. Thus the probability for the $`i^{th}`$ quarticle to possess some given value of whatever quantity $`O_i`$ represents must be the same as the probability for the system to possess the same value for $`O_j`$, which represents the same property but for the $`j^{th}`$ particle. For the conjunctive probabilities required to find the more general probabilities note that if a Hermitian operator satisfies the IP so do the corresponding projection operators and products of projection operators. Thus a calculation like that of equations 2-14 shows that IP is sufficient to show that for any $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`\mathrm{pr}^\mathrm{\Psi }(\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij})=\mathrm{pr}^\mathrm{\Psi }(\mathrm{\Pi }_{ji})`$ as required.

The second remark is a question. Our calculations made clear that the (anti)symmetrization of a pair of quarticles is sufficient for a violation of PII. But what about the converse? If none of the conditional probabilities for the possession of values of any Hermitian operators will discern particles $`i`$ and $`j`$ in some state, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, can we infer that $`P_{ij}\mathrm{\Psi }=\pm \psi `$? Consider, for example, a two particle case in which $`Q_1=QI`$ and $`Q_2=IQ`$, with $`\varphi _i`$ the eigenstate of $`Q`$ with eigenvalue $`q_i`$. Then if $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\varphi _1\varphi _2+e^{i\theta }\varphi _2\varphi _1`$ it is easy to check that, for instance, $`\mathrm{pr}^\mathrm{\Psi }(Q_1=q_1)=\mathrm{pr}^\mathrm{\Psi }(Q_2=q_1)`$. And so even though $`P_{ij}\mathrm{\Psi }\pm \mathrm{\Psi }`$ for $`\theta n\pi /2`$, the Hermitian operators we used to discern quarticles will not discern these two particles. So the question is, even though these probabilities do not discern the particles, does $`P_{ij}\mathrm{\Psi }\pm \mathrm{\Psi }`$ entail that *some* conditional probability for the possession of values for some single particle Hermitian operators will discern them? If so then we have the most complete account of PII in many particle quantum mechanics: a pair of identical particles is indiscernible just in case they are mutually (anti)symmetrized.

## 5 Appendix

Since this paper first appeared, I have been able to show that the answer to the question posed in the final paragraph is ‘yes’: if a pair of identical particles is indiscernible then they are mutually (anti)symmetrized.

Proof: Suppose that particles $`i`$ and $`j`$ are indiscernible in $`n`$-particle state $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, so that they are not discerned by appropriate conditional probabilities; then in particular for $`n`$ observables $`Q,Q^{},\mathrm{}R,\mathrm{}S,\mathrm{}T`$ on $`H`$ with eigenvalues $`q,q^{},\mathrm{}r,\mathrm{}s,\mathrm{}t`$ respectively:

$`\mathrm{pr}^\mathrm{\Psi }(Q_1=q\&Q_2^{}=q^{}\&\mathrm{}R_i=r\&\mathrm{}S_j=s\&\mathrm{}T_n=t)`$ (24)
$`=\mathrm{pr}^\mathrm{\Psi }(Q_1=q\&Q_2^{}=q^{}\&\mathrm{}R_i=r\&\mathrm{}S_j=s\&\mathrm{}T_n=t),`$ (25)
where is the $`n`$-fold tensor product $`Q_1=QII\mathrm{}I`$, and so on for the other observables. But these probabilities are, as usual, given by the expectation values for appropriate products of projection operators; hence (24) can be rewritten as

$`\mathrm{\Psi }|^qQ_1^q^{}Q_2^{}\mathrm{}^rR_i\mathrm{}^sS_j\mathrm{}^tT_n|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (26)
$`=\mathrm{\Psi }|^qQ_1^q^{}Q_2^{}\mathrm{}^rR_j\mathrm{}^sS_i\mathrm{}^tT_n|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (27)
$`=P_{ij}\mathrm{\Psi }|^qQ_1^q^{}Q_2^{}\mathrm{}^rR_j\mathrm{}^sS_i\mathrm{}^tT_n|P_{ij}\mathrm{\Psi },`$ (28)
where the last step follows from simple algebra of $`P_{ij}`$ involving CC and IC. However, operators of the form $`{}_{}{}^{q}Q_{1}^{q^{}}Q_2^{}\mathrm{}^rR_i\mathrm{}^sS_j\mathrm{}^tT_n`$ form a basis for $`Herm(H_n)`$, the Hermitian operators on $`H_n`$.161616$`Herm(H_n)`$ contains $`n`$-fold tensor products of Hermitian operators on $`H`$ and their sums over the reals; since $`{}_{}{}^{q}Q_{1}^{}`$ has the form $`{}_{}{}^{q}QII\mathrm{}I`$ the operator products in (26) have the form $`{}_{}{}^{q}Q_{1}^{}^q^{}Q_2^{}\mathrm{}^rR_i\mathrm{}^sS_j\mathrm{}^tT_n`$, linear combinations of which form any $`n`$-fold tensor products of Hermitian operators on $`H`$. Thus, since any $`AHerm(H)`$ can be written as a linear combination of the operator products in equation (26), for any $`A`$

$$\mathrm{\Psi }|A|\mathrm{\Psi }=P_{ij}\mathrm{\Psi }|A|P_{ij}\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(29)
But any states lying in distinct rays differ in the expectation values of some Hermitian operator (for instance, the projection operator onto one of the rays), hence $`P_{ij}\mathrm{\Psi }=\lambda \mathrm{\Psi }`$. But the eigenvalues of $`P_{ij}`$ are $`\pm 1`$, so. QED.

To reiterate then, two identical particles, $`i`$ and $`j`$ are indiscernible in state $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ if and only if $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\pm P_{ij}\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

References

Butterfield, J. (1993). Review article: “Interpretation and identity in quantum theory”. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 24, 443-76.

French, S., and Redhead, M. (1988). “Quantum physics and the identity of indiscernibles”. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 39, 233-46.

Greiner, W., and Muller, B. (1989). Quantum mechanics: symmetries. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Hartle, J. B., Stolt, R. H., and Taylor, J. R. (1970). Phys. Rev. D, 2, 1759.

Redhead, M., and Teller, P. (1991). “Particle labels and the theory of indistinguishable particles in quantum mechanics”. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 43, 201-18.


text:
# X-waves Generated at Second Harmonic

## List of Figure Captions

Fig. 1. Orientation (and support) of generated SH X-wave for $`\beta _1\mathrm{ }>\mathrm{ }\beta _2`$ (top) and $`\beta _1\mathrm{ }<\mathrm{ }\beta _2`$ (bottom).


text:
# Two-Point Green’s Function in 𝒫𝒯-Symmetric Theories

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy.