text:
# CP Violation: The CKM Matrix and New Physics

## 1 Introduction

The study of CP violation is, at last, experiment driven. Experiments have measured to date three independent CP violating parameters:

$``$ Indirect CP violation in $`K\pi \pi `$  and in $`K\pi \mathrm{}\nu `$ decays is given by

$$|\epsilon |=(2.28\pm 0.02)\times 10^3.$$
(1)
$``$ Direct CP violation in $`K\pi \pi `$ decays is given by

$$e(\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon )=(1.66\pm 0.16)\times 10^3.$$
(2)
(The world average given in eq. (2) includes the new result from NA48 , $`e(\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon )=(1.47\pm 0.22)\times 10^3`$, and previous results from NA31, E731 and KTeV.)

$``$ The CP asymmetry in $`B\psi K_S`$ decay (and other, related, modes) has been measured:

$$m\lambda _{\psi K}=0.734\pm 0.054.$$
(3)
(The world average given in eq. (3) includes the new results from Belle , $`m\lambda _{\psi K}=0.719\pm 0.074\pm 0.035`$, and Babar , $`m\lambda _{\psi K}=0.741\pm 0.067\pm 0.033`$, and previous results from Opal, Aleph and CDF.)

In addition, CP asymmetries in many other modes (neutral $`B`$ decays into final CP eigenstates and non-CP eigenstates and charged $`B`$ decays) have been searched for. We describe the implications of the new data for our theoretical understanding of CP violation.

## 2 Standard Model Lessons

Within the Standard Model, the only source of CP violation is the Kobayashi-Maskawa (KM) phase . This phase appears in the CKM matrix which describes the charged current interactions of quarks.

### 2.1 Unitarity Triangles

The CKM matrix gives the couplings of the $`W^+`$-boson to $`\overline{u}_id_j`$ quark pairs:

$$V=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}V_{ud}& V_{us}& V_{ub}\\ V_{cd}& V_{cs}& V_{cb}\\ V_{td}& V_{ts}& V_{tb}\end{array}\right).$$
(4)
The unitarity of the matrix leads to various relations among its elements, e.g.,

$$V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}+V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}+V_{td}V_{tb}^{}=0.$$
(5)
The unitarity triangle is a geometrical presentation in the complex plane of the relation (5). It provides a convenient tool in the study of flavor physics and CP violation:

1. Flavor changing processes and unitarity give rather precise information on the magnitudes of all elements except for $`|V_{ub}|`$ and $`|V_{td}|`$, which have large uncertainties. The unitarity triangle is a pictorial way of combining the various constraints on these elements and of testing whether the constraints can be explained consistently within the CKM framework.

2. The angles of the triangle are related to CP violation. In particular, measurements of various CP asymmetries in $`B`$ decays can be used to constrain the values of these angles. Conversely, the consistency of the various constraints tests whether CP violation can be accounted for by the Kobayashi-Maskawa mechanism.

Since the length of one side, $`|V_{cd}V_{cb}|`$, is well known, it is convenient to re-scale the unitarity triangle by the length of this side and put it on the real axis. When doing so, the coordinates of the remaining vertex correspond to the $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$ parameters in the Wolfenstein parametrization  of the CKM matrix (or, in an improved version , to $`\overline{\rho }=(1\frac{\lambda ^2}{2})\rho `$ and $`\overline{\eta }=(1\frac{\lambda ^2}{2})\eta `$):

$$V=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}& \lambda & A\lambda ^3(\rho i\eta )\\ \lambda & 1\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}& A\lambda ^2\\ A\lambda ^3(1\rho i\eta )& A\lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(6)
The angles $`\alpha ,\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ (also known as, respectively, $`\varphi _2,\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _3`$) are defined as follows:

$`\alpha `$ $``$ $`\mathrm{arg}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{td}V_{tb}^{}}{V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}}}\right),\beta \mathrm{arg}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}}{V_{td}V_{tb}^{}}}\right),`$
$`\gamma `$ $``$ $`\mathrm{arg}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}}{V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}}}\right).`$ (7)
The lengths $`R_t`$ and $`R_u`$ are defined as follows:

$$R_t\left|\frac{V_{td}V_{tb}^{}}{V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}}\right|,R_u\left|\frac{V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}}{V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}}\right|.$$
(8)
In what follows, we present the constraints on the $`(\overline{\rho },\overline{\eta })`$ parameters coming from various classes of processes. (The plots have been produced using the CKMFitter package .)

In Figure 1 we compare the constraints from CP conserving processes to those from CP violating ones. The CP conserving observables are the mass difference in the neutral $`B`$ system, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B`$, and the lower bound on the mass difference in the $`B_s`$ system, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$. The CP violating observables are the indirect CP violation in $`K\pi \pi `$ decays, $`\epsilon `$, and the CP asymmetry in $`B\psi K_S`$ decays, $`m\lambda _{\psi K}`$. There are two important lessons to be drawn from this comparison:

* Since there is a significant overlap between the allowed regions in the two panels, we learn that the two sets of constraints are consistent with each other. Thus it is very likely that the KM mechanism is indeed the source of the observed CP violation.
* The constraints from the CP violating observables are stronger than those from the CP conserving ones. While the allowed ranges are related to the experimental accuracy, an important factor in this situation is the fact that CP is a good symmetry of the strong interactions. (The effects of $`\theta _{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ are irrelevant to meson decays.) Consequently, some CP asymmetries can be theoretically interpreted with practically zero hadronic uncertainties.

Another way to see the consistency of the KM picture of CP violation is the following. Within the Standard Model, there is a single CP violating parameter. Therefore, roughly speaking, a measurement of a single CP violating observable simply determines the value of this parameter. This situation is demonstrated in the left panel of Figure 2, where the constraints from all but the $`m\lambda _{\psi K}`$-measurement are used to produce an allowed range in the $`(\overline{\rho },\overline{\eta })`$ plane. A second measurement of a CP violating observable tests this mechanism, as demonstrated in the same Figure by overlaying the constraint from the measurement of $`m\lambda _{\psi K}`$. (It is amusing to note that in ref. , the allowed range for $`m\lambda _{\psi K}`$ from the fit to all other observables is quoted to be $`0.734_{0.045}^{+0.055}`$, to be compared with the range from the direct measurements in eq. (3).) The allowed region in the ($`\overline{\rho },\overline{\eta }`$) plane from the combination of all observables is shown in the right panel of Figure 2. We can again draw several conclusions:

* The CKM matrix provides a consistent picture of all the measured flavor and CP violating processes.
* The recent measurement of $`m\lambda _{\psi K}`$ adds a significant constraint.

In Figure 3 we make one final comparison, between observables related to $`B`$ physics ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B,\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s},m\lambda _{\psi K}`$, left panel) and to $`K`$ physics ($`\epsilon ,(K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu })`$ , right panel).

The conclusions that we draw from this comparison are the following:

* There is no signal of new flavor physics.
* At present, the constraints from $`B`$ physics are much stronger. Future measurements of $`(K\pi \nu \overline{\nu })`$ (for both the charged and the neutral modes) will be essential to make this comparison into a useful probe of new physics.

### 2.2 Testing the KM mechanism

Since, by the consistency between the predicted range and the measured value of the CP asymmetry in $`B\psi K_S`$, the KM mechanism of CP violation has successfully passed its first precision test, we are able to make the following statement:

Very likely, the KM mechanism is the dominant source of CP violation in flavor changing processes.

Thirty eight years have passed since the discovery of CP violation  and twenty nine years have passed since the KM mechanism has been proposed . But only now, following the impressively precise measurements by Belle and Babar that yield (3), we can make the above statement based on experimental evidence. This is a very important step forward in our theoretical understanding of CP violation.

We would like to emphasize, however, three important points in the above statement:

1. ‘Very likely:’ since we are using only two CP violating observables, the consistency of the KM picture could be accidental. Additional measurements are crucial to make a more convincing case for the validity of the KM mechanism.
2. ‘Dominant:’ the accuracy of the Standard Model prediction for $`m\lambda _{\psi K}`$ is of $`𝒪(20\%)`$. Therefore, it is quite possible that new physics contributes to meson decays at this level.
3. ‘Flavor changing:’ while we have good reasons to think that flavor changing CP violation is dominated by Standard Model processes, the situation could be very different for flavor diagonal CP violation. Here, the KM mechanism predicts unobservably small CP violation, while new physics can dominate such observables by several orders of magnitude. Future searches of EDMs are crucial to clarify this point.

## 3 General Lessons

CP violation in meson decays is a complex phenomenon. This is best demonstrated by examining CP violation in neutral meson decay into a final CP eigenstate. ($`P`$ stands here for any of the $`K`$, $`D`$, $`B`$ and $`B_s`$ mesons.)

Each arrow in this figure stands for an amplitude that carries an independent CP violating phase. The various interferences between the different paths from $`P^0`$ to $`f_{\mathrm{CP}}`$ yield three distinct manifestations of CP violation:

1. In decay:

$$\left|\frac{\overline{A}}{A}\right|1\left[\frac{\overline{A}}{A}=\frac{\overline{A}_1+\overline{A}_2}{A_1+A_2}\right].$$
(9)
2. In mixing:

$$\left|\frac{q}{p}\right|1\left[\left(\frac{q}{p}\right)^2=\frac{2M_{12}^{}i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}^{}}{2M_{12}i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}}\right].$$
(10)
3. In interference (of decays with and without mixing):

$$m\lambda 0\left[\lambda =\frac{q}{p}\frac{\overline{A}}{A}\right].$$
(11)

One of the beautiful features of CP violation is that experiments can measure each of these three types separately. Take for example $`B`$ meson decays:

1. The CP asymmetry in charged $`B`$ decays is sensitive to only CP violation in decay:

$`𝒜_f^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^{}f^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^+f^+)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^{}f^{})+\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^+f^+)}}`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|\overline{A}_f/A_f|^21}{|\overline{A}_f/A_f|^2+1}}.`$
2. The CP asymmetry in semileptonic neutral $`B`$ decays is sensitive to only CP violation in mixing:

$`𝒜_{\mathrm{SL}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_{\mathrm{phys}}^0\mathrm{}^+X)\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_{\mathrm{phys}}^0\mathrm{}^{}X)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_{\mathrm{phys}}^0\mathrm{}^+X)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_{\mathrm{phys}}^0\mathrm{}^{}X)}}`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1|q/p|^4}{1+|q/p|^4}}.`$
3. The CP asymmetry in neutral $`B`$ decays probes separately $`|\lambda |`$ (a combination of CP violation in mixing and in decay) and $`m\lambda `$ (purely CP violation in the interference of decays with and without mixing) :

$`𝒜_{f_{\mathrm{CP}}}(t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_{\mathrm{phys}}^0f_{\mathrm{CP}})\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_{\mathrm{phys}}^0f_{\mathrm{CP}})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_{\mathrm{phys}}^0f_{\mathrm{CP}})+\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_{\mathrm{phys}}^0f_{\mathrm{CP}})}}`$
$`=`$ $`C_{f_{\mathrm{CP}}}\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_Bt)+S_{f_{\mathrm{CP}}}\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_Bt)`$
$`C_{f_{\mathrm{CP}}}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒜_{f_{\mathrm{CP}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1|\lambda _{f_{\mathrm{CP}}}|^2}{1+|\lambda _{f_{\mathrm{CP}}}|^2}},`$
$`S_{f_{\mathrm{CP}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2m\lambda _{f_{\mathrm{CP}}}}{1+|\lambda _{f_{\mathrm{CP}}}|^2}}.`$ (14)
Note that Babar’s $`C_{f_{\mathrm{CP}}}`$ corresponds to Belle’s $`𝒜_{f_{\mathrm{CP}}}`$. Further note that the latter notation suggests that this CP asymmetry is analogous to $`𝒜_f^{}`$ measured in charged $`B`$ decays. Formally, $`𝒜_{f_{\mathrm{CP}}}`$ measures deviations of $`|\lambda |`$ from unity while $`𝒜_f^{}`$ measures deviations of $`|\overline{A}/A|`$ from one. However, the deviation of $`|q/p|`$ from unity is known to be $`\text{ }<𝒪(10^2)`$ and, given the present sensitivity of searches for $`𝒜_{f_{\mathrm{CP}}}0`$, can be safely neglected. In practice, therefore, the analogy is justified.

There is a class of CP asymmetries in neutral meson decays into final CP eigenstates that theorists love most. It involves decays where the direct decay amplitude is dominated by a single weak phase, so that CP violation in decay can be neglected ($`|\overline{A}/A|=1`$) and where the effect of CP violation in mixing can be neglected ($`|q/p|=1`$). In this case $`|\lambda |=1`$, and the only remaining CP violating effect is $`S_{f_{\mathrm{CP}}}0`$.

The reason that this case is the theorists’ favorite is that the theoretical interpretation, in terms of Lagrangian parameters, is uniquely clean. Explicitly, the asymmetry can be expressed purely in terms of the (CP violating) phase difference between the mixing amplitude and twice the decay amplitude:

$$S_{f_{\mathrm{CP}}}=m\lambda _{f_{\mathrm{CP}}}=\pm \mathrm{sin}[\mathrm{arg}(M_{12}^{})2\mathrm{arg}(A_{f_{\mathrm{CP}}})],$$
(15)
where the sign depends on the CP eigenvalue of the final state. Among the few modes that belong to this class are the $`B\psi K_S`$, $`B\varphi K_S`$  and $`K\pi \nu \overline{\nu }`$  decays.

### 3.1 $`K\pi \pi `$

All three types of CP violation have been measured in $`K\pi \pi `$ decays. Historically, a different language has been used to parametrize the various CP violating observables. The translation between that language and our language is straightforward:

$`\epsilon `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\lambda _0}{1+\lambda _0}},`$
$`\epsilon ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(\lambda _{00}\lambda _+),`$ (16)
where the subindex $`0`$ refers to final two pions in an isospin-zero state, while the $`+`$ and $`00`$ sub-indices refer to, respectively, $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ final states.

The experimental values of the $`\epsilon `$ and $`\epsilon ^{}`$ parameters are given in eqs. (1) and (2). The measurement of $`\epsilon `$ in 1964 constituted the discovery of CP violation and drove, through the work of Kobayashi and Maskawa, to the prediction that a third generation exists. The precise measurement of $`e(\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon )`$ has important implications:

* Direct CP violation has been observed.
* The superweak scenario  is excluded.
* The result is consistent with the SM predictions.
* Large hadronic uncertainties make it impossible to extract a useful CKM constraint. This is the reason that no $`\epsilon ^{}`$ constraint appears in our unitarity triangles.
* New physics (e.g. Supersymmetry ) may contribute significantly.

### 3.2 $`B\psi K_S`$

The $`B\psi K_S`$ decay , related to the $`\overline{b}\overline{c}c\overline{s}`$ quark transition, is dominated by a single weak phase. An amplitude carrying a second, different phase, is suppressed by both a CKM factor of $`𝒪(\lambda ^2)`$ and a loop factor. Consequently, the deviation of $`|\overline{A}_{\psi K}/A_{\psi K}|`$ from unity is predicted to be below the percent level. It is then expected that $`|\lambda _{\psi K}|=1`$ to an excellent approximation. This golden mode belongs then to the ‘clean’ class described above: $`S_{\psi K}=m\lambda _{\psi K}`$ and can be cleanly interpreted in terms of the difference between the phase of the $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing amplitude and twice the phase of the $`bc\overline{c}s`$ decay amplitude.

It would be nice to confirm this expectation in a model independent way. The present average over the Babar  and Belle  measurements is

$$|\lambda _{\psi K}|=\left|\frac{q}{p}\frac{\overline{A}_{\psi K}}{A_{\psi K}}\right|=0.949\pm 0.039.$$
(17)
The central value is five percent away from unity with an error of order four percent. While this result is certainly consistent with $`|\lambda _{\psi K}|=1`$, it does not yet confirm it. We would like to argue that the information from two other, entirely independent measurements constrains the deviation of $`|\lambda _{\psi K}|`$ from one to a much better accuracy. The first measurement is that of the CP asymmetry in semileptonic $`B`$ decays. The world average over the results from Opal, Cleo, Aleph and Babar (see  and references therein) is given by

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{SL}}=0.002\pm 0.014.$$
(18)
Through eq. (13) we can constrain the size of CP violation in mixing:

$$|q/p|=0.999\pm 0.007.$$
(19)
The second measurement is that of the CP asymmetry in the charged mode, $`B^{}\psi K^{}`$:

$$𝒜_{\psi K^{}}=0.008\pm 0.025.$$
(20)
(This is the average over Cleo  and Babar  measurements.) Through eq. (12), and using isospin symmetry to relate this measurement to the neutral mode , we can constrain the size of CP violation in decay:

$$|\overline{A}_{\psi K}/A_{\psi K}|=1.008\pm 0.025.$$
(21)
Together, eqs. (19) and (21) give

$$|\lambda _{\psi K}|=1.007\pm 0.026.$$
(22)
This is a much stronger constraint than (17) and allows us to confidently use $`|\lambda _{\psi K}|=1`$ from here on. This exercise carries an important lesson: the two measurements employed here provide only upper bound on asymmetries that are not subject to a clean theoretical interpretation. Yet, they take us a step forward in our understanding of CP violation. Indeed, each and every measurement contributes its part to solving the big puzzle of CP violation.

What do we learn from the measurement of $`m\lambda _{\psi K}=0.734\pm 0.054`$?

$``$ CP violation has been observed in $`B`$ decays.

$``$ The Kobayashi-Maskawa mechanism of CP violation has successfully passed its first precision test. Figure 2 makes a convincing case for this statement.

$``$ A significant constraint on the CKM parameters ($`\overline{\rho },\overline{\eta }`$) has been added. Within the Standard Model,

$$\lambda _{\psi K_{S,L}}=\left(\frac{V_{tb}^{}V_{td}}{V_{tb}V_{td}^{}}\right)\left(\frac{V_{cb}V_{cd}^{}}{V_{cb}^{}V_{cd}}\right)=e^{2i\beta }.$$
(23)
The first CKM factor in (23) comes from $`(q/p)`$ and the second from $`\overline{A}_{\psi K}/A_{\psi K}`$. The $``$ signs are related to the CP eigenvalue of the final state. One obtains

$$S_{\psi K_S}=m\lambda _{\psi K_S}=\mathrm{sin}2\beta =\frac{2\overline{\eta }(1\overline{\rho })}{\overline{\eta }^2+(1\overline{\rho })^2}.$$
(24)
This is the constraint that has been used in our unitarity triangles. Note that there are no hadronic parameters involved in the translation of the experimental value of $`S_{\psi K_S}`$ to an allowed region in the ($`\overline{\rho },\overline{\eta }`$) plane. Hadronic uncertainties arise only below the percent level.

Our CKM fit yields, for example, the following allowed ranges (at CL$`>32\%`$):

$`0.12\overline{\rho }0.35,`$ $`0.28\overline{\eta }0.41,`$
$`0.82\mathrm{sin}2\alpha 0.24,`$ $`40^o\gamma 73^o.`$ (25)
$``$ Approximate CP is excluded. Approximate CP has been one of the more intriguing alternatives to the KM mechanism. It assumes that $`\epsilon `$ and $`\epsilon ^{}`$ are small not because of flavor suppression, as is the case with the KM mechanism, but because all CP violating phases are small. This idea can be realized (and is well motivated) within the supersymmetric framework . However, the observation of a CP asymmetry of order one excludes this idea. (One can still write viable models of approximate CP, but these involve fine-tuning.) Similarly, minimal left-right-symmetric models with spontaneous CP violation  are excluded.

$``$ New, CP violating physics that contributes $`>20\%`$ to $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing is disfavored. As mentioned above, it is still possible that there is a significant new physics in $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing, but the new phase and the Standard Model $`\beta `$ (different from the Standard Model fit) conspire to give an asymmetry that is the same as predicted by the Standard Model. This situation is rather unlikely, but is not rigorously excluded.

### 3.3 $`B\varphi K_S`$ and $`B\eta ^{}K_S`$

The $`B\varphi K_S`$ and $`B\eta ^{}K_S`$ decays, related to the $`\overline{b}\overline{s}s\overline{s}`$ quark transition, are dominated by a single weak phase. An amplitude carrying a second, different phase, is suppressed by a CKM factor of $`𝒪(\lambda ^2)`$. Consequently, the deviation of $`|\overline{A}/A|`$ from unity is predicted to be at the few ($`\text{ }<4`$) percent level . It is then expected that $`|\lambda _{\varphi K}|=|\lambda _{\eta ^{}K}|=1`$ to a good approximation. These modes belong then to the ‘clean’ class described above: $`Sm\lambda `$ and can be cleanly interpreted in terms of the difference between the phase of the $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing amplitude and twice the phase of the $`bs\overline{s}s`$ decay amplitude.

Averaging over the new Belle  and Babar  results for the $`\varphi K_S`$ mode, we obtain the present world average,

$`C_{\varphi K_S}`$ $`=`$ $`+0.56\pm 0.43,`$
$`S_{\varphi K_S}`$ $`=`$ $`0.39\pm 0.41.`$ (26)
The new Belle results for the $`\eta ^{}K_S`$ mode  read

$`C_{\eta ^{}K_S}`$ $`=`$ $`0.26\pm 0.22,`$
$`S_{\eta ^{}K_S}`$ $`=`$ $`+0.76\pm 0.36.`$ (27)
Thus, CP violation in $`bs\overline{s}s`$ transitions has not yet been observed.

In spite of being related to a different quark transition, the CKM dependence of these two modes is the same \[up to $`𝒪(\lambda ^2)`$ effects\] as that of $`\lambda _{\psi K}`$ of eq. (23). Consequently, within the Standard Model,

$$S_{\varphi K_S}S_{\eta ^{}K_S}S_{\psi K_S}.$$
(28)
A difference (larger than a few percent) between the CP asymmetries in the $`\varphi K_S`$ or $`\eta ^{}K_S`$ modes and in the $`\psi K_S`$ mode is a clear signal of new physics . More specifically, such a difference requires that new, CP violating physics contributes significantly to $`bs`$ transitions.

The measurements of the two modes suffer from large statistical errors. At present, there is no evidence (i.e., an effect $`3\sigma `$) for either $`S_{\varphi K_S}S_{\psi K_S}`$ or $`S_{\eta ^{}K_S}S_{\psi K_S}`$. We conclude that, at present, there is no evidence for new physics in these measurements.

One might be tempted to interpret the $`2.7\sigma `$ difference between $`S_{\varphi K_S}`$ and $`S_{\psi K_S}`$ as a hint for new physics. It would be rather puzzling, however, (though, perhaps, not impossible) if new, CP violating physics affects $`B\varphi K_S`$ in a dramatic way but gives only a very small effect in $`B\eta ^{}K_S`$. Furthermore, Belle has also searched for CP violation in $`BK^+K^{}K_S`$ decays (with the $`\varphi `$-resonance contributions removed) :

$`C_{K^+K^{}K_S}`$ $`=`$ $`+0.42\pm 0.37_{0.03}^{+0.22},`$
$`S_{K^+K^{}K_S}`$ $`=`$ $`0.52\pm 0.47_{0.27}^{+0.03}.`$ (29)
(This is a-priori not a CP eigenstate, but a combination of experimental data and isospin considerations allows Belle to conclude that the final state is dominantly CP-even. The last, asymmetric, error is related to the fractions of CP-even and CP-odd components.) We learn that there is no observed deviation from $`S_{K^+K^{}K_S}=S_{\psi K_S}`$. We would like to suggest then that, when speculating on the source of the difference between $`S_{\varphi K_S}`$ and $`S_{\psi K_S}`$, one should also explain the difference between the $`S_{\varphi K_S}`$ and the other $`bs\overline{s}s`$ processes, $`S_{\eta ^{}K_S}`$ and $`S_{K^+K^{}K_S}`$. (Of course, the large statistical errors make any conclusion premature).

### 3.4 $`B\psi \pi ^0`$ and $`BD^+D^{}`$

The $`B\psi \pi ^0`$ and $`BD^+D^{}`$ decays, related to the $`\overline{b}\overline{c}c\overline{d}`$ quark transition, get contributions from both tree and penguin diagrams, where the CKM combinations are of similar magnitude, $`𝒪(\lambda ^3)`$, but carry different phases. Consequently, the deviation of $`|\overline{A}/A|`$ from unity can be large. Since both $`C`$ and, in particular, $`S`$ can be large, CP violation in mixing can be safely neglected.

Averaging over the new Belle  and Babar  results for the $`\psi \pi ^0`$ mode, we obtain the present world average,

$`C_{\psi \pi }`$ $`=`$ $`+0.31\pm 0.29,`$
$`S_{\psi \pi }`$ $`=`$ $`0.46\pm 0.49.`$ (30)
The $`D^+D^{}`$ state is not a CP eigenstate. The Babar collaboration has, however, performed an angular analysis which separates the CP-even and CP-odd components, with the following result for the CP-even final state :

$`|\lambda _{(D^+D^{})_+}|`$ $`=`$ $`0.98\pm 0.27,`$
$`m\lambda _{(D^+D^{})_+}`$ $`=`$ $`0.31\pm 0.46.`$ (31)
Thus, CP violation in $`bc\overline{c}d`$ transitions has not yet been observed.

The CKM dependence of the tree contribution to $`\lambda `$ in $`bc\overline{c}d`$ transitions is the same as that of $`\lambda _{\psi K}`$ of eq. (23). Loop contributions, however, modify the CKM dependence. Defining $`T`$ and $`P`$ through

$$A_fT_fV_{cb}^{}V_{cd}+P_fV_{tb}^{}V_{td},$$
(32)
we obtain

$$\lambda _{f_\pm (\overline{c}c\overline{d}d)}=\pm e^{2i\beta }\left(\frac{1+(P_fR_t/T_f)e^{+i\beta }}{1+(P_fR_t/T_f)e^{i\beta }}\right).$$
(33)
Consequently, a violation of either $`S_{\psi \pi }=S_{\psi K_S}`$ or $`S_{(DD)_+}=S_{\psi K_S}`$ will signal direct CP violation and, in particular, a significant penguin contribution to the decay. (If the violation is very strong, it might signal new physics. This statement is particularly valid for the $`DD`$ mode, where the penguin contribution is expected to be small.)

The measurements of the two modes suffer from large statistical errors. At present, there is no evidence for either $`S_{\psi \pi }S_{\psi K_S}`$ or $`S_{D^{}D^{}}S_{\psi K_S}`$. We conclude that, at present, there is no evidence for ‘penguin pollution’ in these measurements.

### 3.5 $`B\pi \pi `$

The $`B\pi \pi `$ decay, related to the $`\overline{b}\overline{u}u\overline{d}`$ quark transition, gets contributions from both tree and penguin diagrams, where the CKM combinations are of similar magnitude, $`𝒪(\lambda ^3)`$, but carry different phases. Consequently, the deviation of $`|\overline{A}/A|`$ from unity can be large. Since both $`C`$ and, in particular, $`S`$ can be large, CP violation in mixing can be safely neglected.

The results of Belle (based on 41.8 fb<sup>-1</sup>  and not updated in this conference) and Babar  for CP violation in $`B\pi \pi `$ suffer from large statistical errors and are inconsistent with each other. It is, therefore, more prudent at present to quote the separate results rather than average over them:

$`C_{\pi \pi }`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}0.94_{0.25}^{+0.31}\pm 0.09\hfill & \text{Belle,}\hfill \\ 0.30\pm 0.25\pm 0.04\hfill & \text{Babar,}\hfill \end{array}`$
$`S_{\pi \pi }`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}1.21_{0.270.13}^{+0.38+0.16}\hfill & \text{Belle,}\hfill \\ +0.02\pm 0.34\pm 0.05\hfill & \text{Babar.}\hfill \end{array}`$ (34)
Defining $`T`$ and $`P`$ through

$$A_{\pi \pi }T_{\pi \pi }V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}+P_{\pi \pi }V_{cb}^{}V_{cd},$$
(35)
we obtain

$$\lambda _{\pi \pi }=e^{2i\alpha }\left(\frac{1+(P_{\pi \pi }/T_{\pi \pi }R_u)e^{+i\gamma }}{1+(P_{\pi \pi }/T_{\pi \pi }R_u)e^{i\gamma }}\right).$$
(36)
The (expected) violation of $`S_{\pi \pi }=S_{\psi K_S}`$ or of $`C_{\pi \pi }=0`$ will signal direct CP violation. At present, however, there is no evidence for either of these options. (The average of the two measurements, with errors reflecting the inconsistency, is $`C_{\pi \pi }=0.54\pm 0.31`$ and $`S_{\pi \pi }=0.48\pm 0.60`$.)

The CP asymmetries in $`B\pi \pi `$ decays are one of the most interesting measurements anticipated in the $`B`$-factories because it can potentially determine the angle $`\alpha `$, thus providing yet another independent constraint on the unitarity triangle. As can be seen from eq. (36), if the penguin contributions were negligible, one would simply have $`m\lambda _{\pi \pi }=\mathrm{sin}2\alpha `$. The ratio $`P_{\pi \pi }/T_{\pi \pi }`$ is, however, non-negligible. To proceed, one can choose one of the following options:

1. A model independent determination of $`\alpha `$ from isospin analysis . This method requires measurements of various branching fractions and CP asymmetries and does not yet yield useful constraints.

2. A model independent upper bound on the deviation of $`\mathrm{sin}2\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}\frac{m\lambda _{\pi \pi }}{|\lambda _{\pi \pi }|}`$ from $`\mathrm{sin}2\alpha `$ :

$$\mathrm{sin}^2(\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}\alpha )\frac{(B\pi ^0\pi ^0)}{(B^+\pi ^+\pi ^0)}0.6.$$
(37)
Thus $`(\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}\alpha )`$ in the range $`50^o130^o`$ is excluded, a useful though not very strong bound.

3. A model dependent determination of $`\alpha `$ with a theoretical value for $`P_{\pi \pi }/T_{\pi \pi }`$ . In this context we would like to mention that a large (small) value of $`|C_{\pi \pi }|`$ would (might) give evidence for a large (small) strong phase, in contrast to the prediction of  ().

In the future, measurements of CP violation in $`B\rho \pi `$ decays will contribute to a model independent determination of $`\alpha `$ . The first experimental steps towards this goal have been reported in this conference .

### 3.6 Summary

The results of the searches for CP asymmetries in $`B`$ decays into final CP eigenstates are summarized in Table 1. We can describe the emerging picture as follows:

* CP violation has not yet been observed in $`B`$ decays other than $`B\psi K`$. (The largest effect is at the $`2.1\sigma `$ level in $`S_{\eta ^{}K_S}`$.)
* Direct CP violation has not yet been observed in $`B`$ decays. (The largest effects are at the $`2.7\sigma `$ level in $`S_{\varphi K}S_{\psi K}`$ and in $`S_{DD}+S_{\psi K}`$.)
* There is no evidence of new physics. (The largest effect that is inconsistent with the Standard Model prediction in a $`2.7\sigma `$ violation of $`S_{\varphi K}=S_{\psi K}`$.)
* The measurements of branching ratios and CP asymmetries in $`B\pi \pi `$ decays are at a stage where restrictions on the CKM parameters and on hadronic parameters begin to emerge. The model independent constraints are still mild.

## 4 New Physics Lessons

CP violation is an excellent probe of new physics. First, the uniqueness of the Kobayashi-Maskawa mechanism (with its single source of CP violation) means that the mechanism is predictive and testable, and that new sources of flavor and CP violation can induce large deviations from the Standard Model predictions. Second, the cleanliness of the theoretical interpretation of various CP asymmetries means that signals of new physics will not be obscured by hadronic uncertainties.

The supersymmetric Standard Model provides an impressive example of the rich possibilities for the physics of CP violation. The model depends on 124 independent parameters, many of which are flavor violating. In particular, 44 of the parameters are CP violating. Consequently, Standard Model correlations between CP violating observables may be violated, and Standard Model zeros in CP asymmetries may be lifted. We use supersymmetry here as an example of new physics that allows us to ask two questions:

* What are the implications of existing measurements of CP violation on supersymmetric model building?
* What are the prospects that future measurements of CP violation will discover deviations from the Standard Model predictions?

### 4.1 SUSY model building

If all flavor violating and CP violating parameters of the supersymmetric Standard Model were of order one, then constraints from flavor changing neutral current processes and from CP violation would be violated by many orders of magnitude. This statement is best demonstrated when comparing the supersymmetric contribution to the imaginary part of the $`K^0\overline{K^0}`$ mixing amplitude to the experimental constraint (derived from $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K\times \epsilon `$, see for example ):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(mM_{12}^K)^{\mathrm{SUSY}}}{(mM_{12}^K)^{\mathrm{EXPT}}}}`$ $``$ $`10^8{\displaystyle \frac{m_Z^2}{\stackrel{~}{m}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{D}}^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{D}}^2}}`$ (38)
$`\times `$ $`m[(K_{LL}^d)_{12}(K_{RR}^d)_{12}],`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ is the scale of the soft SUSY breaking terms, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}(\stackrel{~}{D})}^2`$ is the mass-squared difference between the first two doublet (singlet) down squark generations, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}(\stackrel{~}{D})}`$ is their average mass, and $`K_{LL(RR)}^d`$ is the mixing matrix for doublet (singlet) down squarks. Even when one allows for squark and gluino masses close to $`300GeV`$ and for approximate degeneracy induced by RGE effects ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2/m^20.15`$), the bound is violated by $`45`$ orders of magnitude. Consequently, $`K`$ physics has had a huge impact on SUSY model building. Eq. (38) shows the various ways in which the supersymmetric $`\epsilon `$ problem can be solved:

* Heavy squarks: $`\stackrel{~}{m}100GeV`$;
* Universality: $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{s}\stackrel{~}{d}}^2\stackrel{~}{m}^2`$;
* Alignment: $`|K_{12}^d|1`$;
* Approximate CP: $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi 1`$, where $`\varphi `$ stands for a CP violating phase.

Any viable model of supersymmetry employs one of these options or some combination of them.

The scenario where all CP violating phases are small has been well motivated within the supersymmetric framework. The reason is that even if one employs, say, exact universality to solve all supersymmetric flavor-changing CP problems, there remains a supersymmetric flavor-diagonal CP problem . This statement is best demonstrated by comparing the supersymmetric contribution to the electric dipole moment (EDM) of the neutron with the experimental bound:

$$\frac{d_N^{\mathrm{SUSY}}}{6.3\times 10^{26}e\mathrm{cm}}300\frac{m_Z^2}{\stackrel{~}{m}^2}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{A,B}.$$
(39)
Here $`\varphi _A`$ (related to the trilinear scalar couplings and gaugino masses) and $`\varphi _B`$ (related to the bilinear Higgs coupling, bilinear Higgsino coupling and gaugino masses) are the two physical flavor-diagonal phases that remain even in models of exact universality. In this context, the measurement of the CP asymmetry in $`B\psi K_S`$ decays has an immediate impact. Since the measured asymmetry is of order one, it excludes the idea of approximate CP. To solve the supersymmetric EDM problem one has to either assume that the squarks (of at least the first two generations) are heavy or invoke special mechanisms that suppress $`\varphi _A`$ and $`\varphi _B`$ but not all flavor-changing CP phases. (It is still possible, but highly unlikely, that the large $`S_{\psi K}`$ is induced by a small phase, if there are fine-tuned cancellations between various contributions to the real part of the $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing amplitude.)

Since the measured value of $`S_{\psi K}`$ is consistent with the Standard Model prediction, it is also consistent with models of exact universality. Such models provide a well motivated example of a class of models where the CKM matrix is the only source of flavor changing and CP violating couplings. This framework is often called ‘minimal flavor violation’ (MFV)  (for recent analyses, see ). In contrast, the consistency of the measured $`S_{\psi K}`$ with the Standard Model prediction provides interesting constraints on models with genuinely supersymmetric sources of flavor and CP violation . In particular, models of heavy squarks, where flavor violation is only very mildly suppressed , are disfavored.

The search for mixing and CP violation in the neutral $`D`$ system is the most promising probe of supersymmetric models with alignment. Here, there are two important points concerning CP violation. First, given that it is not impossible for the Standard Model contributions to induce mixing close to present bounds , CP violation in mixing is crucial to make a convincing case for new physics . Second, the possible presence of CP violation should be taken into account when translating the experimental bounds into constraints on new physics. Specifically, one obtains

$$|M_{12}^D|\text{ }<5.4\times 10^{11}MeV,$$
(40)
compared to the PDG bound of $`2.3\times 10^{11}MeV`$ which assumes vanishing weak and strong phases. The bound of eq. (40) implies a severe constraint on squark masses in alignment models .

The mechanism by which supersymmetric flavor and CP violation are suppressed relates directly to the mechanism of dynamical supersymmetry breaking. In this sense, if supersymmetry is discovered, measurements of CP violating observables will play a crucial role in understanding the full high-energy theory . Future searches for EDMs are important in this context. While supersymmetric models with only the Kobayashi-Maskawa phase as a source of CP violation (such as certain models of gauge mediation) typically give $`d_N\text{ }<10^{31}e`$ cm, those where supersymmetry breaking is communicated at or close to the Planck scale typically give $`d_N\text{ }>10^{28}e`$ cm.

### 4.2 SUSY CP violation in $`B\varphi K_S`$?

We choose the question of whether supersymmetry can significantly modify the CP asymmetry in the $`B\varphi K_S`$ decay to demonstrate several points that have more general applicability.

Supersymmetry contributes to the $`B\varphi K_S`$ decay via, for example, gluonic penguin diagrams with intermediate squarks and gluinos .

Two crucial questions, regarding the size of this effect, come immediately to mind:

$``$ Is it still possible that new physics has an $`𝒪(1)`$ effect on $`S_{\varphi K}`$ when the measured value of $`S_{\psi K}`$ is so close to the Standard Model prediction?

The answer to this question is positive. Assuming that the consistency is not accidental, it teaches us that the effect of new, CP violating physics in $`bd`$ transitions is small. The $`B\varphi K_S`$ decay involves, however, not only $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing but also the $`bs\overline{s}s`$ decay. There is no similar indication for the smallness of new, CP violating effects in $`bs`$ transitions.

In the language of supersymmetry, the $`S_{\psi K}`$ constraint applies to $`\delta _{13}^d`$  while $`B\varphi K_S`$ depends also on $`\delta _{23}^d`$.

$``$ Is it still possible that new physics has an $`𝒪(1)`$ effect on $`S_{\varphi K}`$ when the measured value of $`(BX_s\gamma )`$ is close to the Standard Model prediction?

The answer to this question is, again, positive. The $`bs\gamma `$ rate teaches us that the effects of new, helicity changing physics in $`bs`$ transitions is small. The $`B\varphi K_S`$ decay involves, however, also helicity conserving contributions, which are much more weakly constrained .

In the language of supersymmetry, the $`(BX_s\gamma )`$ constraint is significant for $`\delta _{LR}^d`$ while $`B\varphi K_S`$ depends also on $`\delta _{LL}^d`$ and $`\delta _{RR}^d`$.

Having answered these two generic questions in the affirmative, one may ask a third question that is more specific to supersymmetry:

$``$ Are there well motivated supersymmetric models where new, CP violating effects in $`bs`$ transitions could be particularly large?

We are aware of, at least, two classes of models where this is indeed the case. First, in models where an Abelian horizontal symmetry determines the flavor structure of both the quark Yukawa matrices and the squark mass-squared matrices, the supersymmetric mixing angles are related to the quark parameters . In particular, we have

$$(\delta _{RR}^d)_{23}\frac{m_s/m_b}{|V_{cb}|}=𝒪(1).$$
(41)
Note, however, that if alignment is to solve the supersymmetric flavor problem without any squark degeneracy, $`(\delta _{RR}^d)_{23}`$ must be suppressed compared to the estimate (41). Similarly, in models where a non-Abelian horizontal symmetry determines all flavor parameters, $`(\delta _{RR}^d)_{23}1`$ and so is the difference between $`S_{\varphi K}`$ and $`S_{\psi K}`$ .

Second, in supersymmetric GUT theories, the $`b_Rs_R`$ mixing is related to the $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mixing. The latter is required to be of order one to explain the atmospheric neutrino measurements. This intriguing relation has particularly interesting consequences in the framework of $`SO(10)SU(5)`$ theories, where one obtains

$$(\delta _{RR}^d)_{23}\frac{15}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{log}\frac{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}{M_{10}}=𝒪(0.5).$$
(42)
### 4.3 Discussion

The general conclusion of the discussion of supersymmetry is that, if the consistency between experiment and the Standard Model concerning $`S_{\psi K}`$ is not accidental, then large (i.e. $`20\%`$) CP violating effects in $`bd`$ transitions are disfavored. In contrast, the constraints on new CP violating effects in $`bs`$ transitions are much milder.

We would like to demonstrate this point by performing a premature but, hopefully, thought-provoking exercise. Instead of the “$`B`$-triangle” and “$`K`$-triangle” of Figure 3, we now divide the loop processes (sensitive to new physics) into three classes. First, those involving $`sd`$ flavor-changing neutral current (FCNC) transitions. This triangle is identical to the $`K`$-triangle presented in Figure 3. Second, processes involving $`bd`$ FCNC transitions. Here we include only $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B`$ and $`S_{\psi K}`$. Finally, the constraints that arise from the lower bound on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$ and from the bounds on $`S_{\varphi K_S}`$. Both constraints involve, in addition to the $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing amplitude, $`bs`$ FCNC transitions. The results of this exercise are presented in Figure 4.

There is one solid statement that can be made on the basis of this presentation: There is still a lot to be learnt from future measurements. In particular, the probing of new physics in FCNC and in CP violating processes will become much more sensitive when the following is achieved:

$``$ The $`bd`$ triangle: The experimental accuracy and theoretical understanding of $`B`$ decays that depend on $`\alpha `$, $`\gamma `$, $`|V_{ub}|`$ and $`|V_{cb}|`$ improve.

$``$ The $`sd`$ triangle: $`(K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu })`$ is measured more precisely and the CP violating $`(K_L\pi ^0\nu \overline{\nu })`$ is measured .

$``$ The $`bs`$ triangle: The CP asymmetries in $`B\varphi K_S`$ and other $`bs\overline{s}s`$ processes are measured more precisely and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ and CP asymmetries in $`B_s`$ decays are measured.

$``$ Standard Model zeros: The experimental sensitivities to CP violation in $`D^0\overline{D^0}`$ mixing and to EDMs improve.

## 5 Conclusions

We have made a significant progress in our understanding of CP violation. For the first time, we are able to make the following statement based on experimental evidence:

$``$ Very likely, the Kobayashi-Maskawa mechanism is the dominant source of CP violation in flavor changing processes.

One consequence of this development is the following:

$``$ We are leaving the era of hoping for new physics alternatives to the CKM picture of flavor and CP violation.

In particular, the superweak scenario is excluded by the observation of direct CP violation in $`K\pi \pi `$ decays, and the scenario of approximate CP is excluded by the observation of an order one CP asymmetry in $`B\psi K_S`$ decays.

$``$ We are entering the era of seeking for new physics corrections to the CKM picture.

This effort would require a broad experimental program, and improvements in both the experimental accuracy and the theoretical cleanliness of CKM tests.

One has also to bear in mind that rather large corrections are still possible in $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$, in CP asymmetries in $`B_s`$ decays, and in CP asymmetries in $`B`$ decays related to $`\overline{b}\overline{s}s\overline{s}`$ transitions.

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Sandrine Laplace for working out the CKM fits, for producing the figures of the unitarity triangle constraints, and for many useful discussions. I thank Adam Falk, Yuval Grossman, Zoltan Ligeti and Guy Raz for their help and advice in preparing this talk.


format: text

text:
# State reconstruction of the kicked rotor

## Abstract

We propose two experimentally feasible methods based on atom interferometry to measure the quantum state of the kicked rotor.

preprint: APS/123-QED

Atom optics bib:review  has become a very active experimental testing ground for quantum chaos bib:chaosbooks . Such experiments bib:atomopticsandchaos  have investigated dynamical localization, quantum resonances and quantum dynamics in a regime of classical anomalous diffusion. So far, these studies have concentrated on the probability distribution rather than the full quantum state determined by amplitude and phase.
State reconstruction of simple quantum systems bib:staterec  has become a standard routine in labs. Such systems range from the motional state of a single ion in a trap bib:ionintrap  via tomography bib:tomography  of a single photon state bib:schiller  or atomic beams bib:mlyneknature  to quantum state holography bib:holography  of a Rydberg electron bib:rydbergatom . Moreover, many theoretical suggestions bib:star ; bib:selfinterference  exist. In the present paper we propose two methods to reconstruct the quantum state of the kicked rotor.

Our proposal is an application of atom interferometry to quantum chaology bib:darcy : We consider an atom whose motional degree of freedom is determined by a classically chaotic Hamiltonian. Entanglement between the internal and external dynamics allows us to measure the quantum state of the motion. The kicked rotor bib:kickedrotor  in its realization of a kicked particle bib:moore  serves as an illustration of our scheme. We emphasize that the present state–of–the–art of experimental techniques suffices to perform this experiment.

Both reconstruction methods rely on controlling the dynamics of the atomic states $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ associated with two energy levels by the use of a laser field that couples the two levels with an excited electronic state (Fig. 1). This coupling influences the translational motion of the atom in the standing wave of the laser. Initially, a laser pulse prepares the atoms in a coherent superposition of state $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ establishing in this way a reference phase. It is followed by a sequence of $`N`$ pulses kicking the system. In the method of self–interference we use a classical electromagnetic standing wave that is detuned to the middle of the atomic transition. In this case the periodic potential felt by the atoms in state $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ is shifted by half a wavelength with respect to the potential corresponding to state $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$. In the holographic method the standing wave is prepared in such a way as to only influence the atom in the upper state $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$. Consequently, an atom in the lower state $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ propagates freely. The readout is common to both methods. A laser pulse shifts the momentum wave function of the lower state in order to measure the phase at the individual momenta.

We consider the quantum mechanical motion of an atom of mass $`m`$, characterized by coordinate $`x`$ and momentum $`p`$. This motion is driven by appropriately tailored $`\delta `$-function kicks. They serve two purposes: On one hand they create the kicked rotor, on the other hand, they provide the readout of the wave function. The state $`|\varphi (T_+)`$ of the center–of–mass motion immediately after a $`\delta `$-function kick described by the Hamiltonian

$$\widehat{H}_\delta =\frac{\widehat{p}^2}{2m}+V(\widehat{x})\delta (tT)$$
(1)
is related to the state $`|\varphi (T_{})`$ just before the kick by a phase determined by the potential $`V(x)`$, that is

$$|\varphi (T_+)=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}V(\widehat{x})\right]|\varphi (T_{}).$$
(2)
In an experimental realization the potential results from the interaction of the atomic dipole with the electromagnetic field in a given mode. A standing wave of wavenumber $`k_0/2`$ creates a periodic potential $`V(x)=\kappa \mathrm{sin}(k_0x)`$ leading bib:atomopticsandchaos  to the Hamiltonian

$$\widehat{H}=\frac{\widehat{p}^2}{2m}+\kappa \mathrm{sin}(k_0\widehat{x})\delta _T(t)$$
(3)
of the kicked rotor bib:kickedrotor . Here we assume a sequence of pulses $`\delta _T(t)_{n=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\delta (tnT)`$ of period $`T`$ and $`\kappa `$ denotes the kicking strength of the light field.

The Schrödinger equation together with the Hamiltonian, Eq. (3), determines the state $`|\varphi (t)`$ at time $`t`$. Due to the sequence $`\delta _T(t)`$ of pulses it is convenient to consider the recurrence relation

$$|\varphi _N=\mathrm{exp}\left[i\frac{\kappa }{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{sin}(k_0\widehat{x})\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[i\frac{\widehat{p}^2}{2m}\frac{T}{\mathrm{}}\right]|\varphi _{N1}$$
(4)
connecting the state $`|\varphi _N|\varphi (NT)`$ immediately after the $`N`$–th kick with the state $`|\varphi _{N1}`$ after the kick $`N1`$. Throughout the paper we focus on the momentum wave function $`\varphi (p,t)p|\varphi (t)`$. With the help of the expansion $`\mathrm{exp}\left(iz\mathrm{sin}\theta \right)=_l\mathrm{J}_l(z)\mathrm{exp}\left(il\theta \right)`$ in terms of Bessel functions $`\mathrm{J}_l`$ the momentum probability amplitude $`\varphi _N(p)p|\varphi _N`$ obeys the mapping

$$\varphi _N(p)=\underset{l=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{J}_l\left(\frac{\kappa }{\mathrm{}}\right)e^{i\beta (plp_0)}\varphi _{N1}(plp_0).$$
(5)
Here we have introduced the phase $`\beta (p)p^2T/(2m\mathrm{})`$ quadratic in the momentum and the abbreviation $`p_0\mathrm{}k_0`$. When we iterate this recurrence relation $`N`$ times we obtain a wave function with a rather complicated behavior of phases. This feature is due to the quadratic phase factor $`\beta (p)`$ arising from the free time evolution between the kicks.

In order to measure the phase of a wave function we need an interferometric scheme with a reference phase. In our proposal we use the superposition $`(|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2})/\sqrt{2}`$ between the internal states $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ of the atom. The level $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ is associated with the motion of the kicked rotor whereas $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ provides a reference. The initial state

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(t=0)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\right]|\varphi _0$$
(6)
of the complete system consists of the internal states and the state $`|\varphi _0`$ of the center–of–mass motion.

In our reconstruction method the two internal states undergo different dynamics governed by the Schrödinger equation

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=\left[\widehat{H}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}|+\widehat{}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}|\right]|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)$$
(7)
leading to the state

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}|\varphi (t)+|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}|\phi (t)\right].$$
(8)
Indeed, atoms in the upper state feel the dynamics of the kicked rotor and are described by the state $`|\varphi (t)`$ obtained by propagating $`|\varphi _0`$ with the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}`$. In contrast, atoms in the reference state $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ experience the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{}`$ giving rise to the state $`|\phi (t).`$

We now turn to the readout of the wave function. For this purpose we apply after $`N`$ kicks a final $`\delta `$–function kick with a linear potential $`V_P(x)=Px`$ to the atom in $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$, that means a final laser pulse shifts the momentum wave function of state $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ in order to measure the wave function of state $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$. According to Eq. (2) the state immediately after this kick reads

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_N\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}|\varphi _N+|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}e^{iP\widehat{x}/\mathrm{}}|\phi _N\right]$$
(9)
where $`|\phi _N|\phi (NT)`$.

Hence, the probability $`W_N^{(\theta )}(p;P)=\left|j(\theta )|p|\mathrm{\Psi }_N\right|^2`$ to find the atom in the superposition $`|j(\theta )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+e^{i\theta }|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\right]`$ with momentum $`p`$ takes the form

$`W_N^{(\theta )}(p;P)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{W_N(p)+𝒲_N(p+P)`$ (10)
$`+\mathrm{Re}\left[\varphi _N(p)\phi _N^{}(p+P)e^{i\theta }\right]\}.`$
Here we have made use of the relation $`p|e^{iP\widehat{x}/\mathrm{}}|\phi _N=p+P|\phi _N\phi _N(p+P)`$. Moreover, the distributions $`W_N(p)=\left|\varphi _N(p)\right|^2/2`$ and $`𝒲_N(p)=\left|\phi _N(p)\right|^2/2`$ are the probabilities to find the atom in the upper state or in the reference state with the momentum $`p`$, respectively.

In order to reconstruct the wave function $`\varphi _N(p)`$ we need to measure the probability distribution $`W_N^{(\theta )}(p;P)`$ for two angles $`\theta =0`$ and $`\theta =\pi /2`$ together with the momentum distributions $`W_N(p)`$ and $`𝒲_N(p)`$. With the help of Eq. (10) for these angles $`\theta `$ we can express the product

$$\varphi _N(p)\phi _N^{}(p+P)=_N(p;P)$$
(11)
in terms of the sum

$`_N(p;P)`$ $`=`$ $`2W_N^{(0)}(p;P)+2iW_N^{(\frac{\pi }{2})}(p;P)`$ (12)
$`(1+i)\left[W_N(p)+𝒲_N(p+P)\right]`$
of measured distributions. The inversion formula, Eq. (11), is the central tool for the reconstruction of the kicked rotor’s wave function.

We now illustrate our reconstruction scheme by discussing two special cases of the reference Hamiltonian. In the method of self–interference, we use

$$\widehat{}=\frac{\widehat{p}^2}{2m}+\kappa \mathrm{sin}(k_0\widehat{x}+\pi )\delta _T(t)$$
(13)
which differs from the Hamiltonian of the kicked rotor by the phase difference of $`\pi `$.

In order to solve Eq. (11) for the momentum wave function of the kicked rotor we select the negative diagonal $`P=p`$ of the two–dimensional measured probabilities $`W_N^{(\theta )}(p;P)`$ which yields

$$\varphi _N(p)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2𝒲_N(0)}}_N(p;p).$$
(14)
Here we have assumed $`𝒲_N(0)0`$. Since we have measured the distribution, we already know that value. In case of $`𝒲_N(0)=0`$ we use another suitable $`P`$. Moreover, we have chosen the phase of $`\phi _N(0)`$ to vanish.

In the case of well–separated peaks, that is when the width $`\sigma `$ of the initial momentum distribution is much smaller than the shift $`p_0`$, the two momentum distributions $`W_N(p)`$ and $`𝒲_N(p)`$ are identical bib:remark1 . This property reduces the number of measurements.

In the holographic method the reference is provided by the atom in the lower state moving in the absence of any potential, that is

$$\widehat{}=\frac{\widehat{p}^2}{2m}.$$
(15)
However, the freely propagated momentum wave function of the lower state is too narrow to cover the state to be reconstructed. For this reason we impart another kick to displace the reference state. We can always shift it by integer multiples of $`p_0`$, that is $`P=np_0`$, to cover all significant parts of the momentum wave function. Nevertheless smaller displacements are possible in order to improve the accuracy of the reconstruction scheme.

During the free time evolution the momentum wave function $`\phi _N(p)=\mathrm{exp}(i\frac{p^2}{2m}\frac{NT}{\mathrm{}})\varphi _0(p)`$ only accumulates a phase which yields the measured distribution $`𝒲_N(p)=|\phi _N(p)|^2/2=|\varphi _0(p)|^2/2`$. With the help of the inversion formula, Eq. (11), we find

$$\varphi _N(p)=\frac{1}{\varphi _0^{}(p+np_0)}e^{iN\beta (p+np_0)}_N(p,np_0).$$
(16)
We now exemplify our reconstruction scheme using a Monte–Carlo simulation of the holographic method. We propagate the momentum wave function of the kicked rotor with the help of a FFT algorithm. Our initial wave function is a Gaussian of width $`\sigma `$, that is $`p|\varphi _0\mathrm{exp}(p^2/4\sigma ^2)`$. The parameters of the simulation lead to a comb of localized peaks in momentum space. Therefore, we shift the reference state by multiples of $`p_0`$ in order to reconstruct each single peak and calculate the distributions $`W_N`$, $`W_N^{(0)}`$ and $`W_N^{(\frac{\pi }{2})}`$. These distributions serve as the weight function for a random number generator which simulates a single measurement event. The distributions emerge from $`M`$ measurement events, that is measurements of $`M`$ single atoms. In the final step, these histograms are used to reconstruct an individual peak of the state to be reconstructed with the help of Eq. (16). This procedure is repeated until all significant peaks of the kicked rotor’s momentum wave function have been reconstructed. In Figs. 2 and 3 we show the results of such a simulation for the dimensionless parameters $`Kk_0^2T\kappa /m=14`$ and $`k\text{-}k_0^2T\mathrm{}/m=15`$. The width of the initial momentum wave function is $`\sigma =0.1\mathrm{}k_0`$.

Figure 2 displays amplitude and phase of the kicked rotor after $`N`$ kicks in a comparison between the exact (right column) and the reconstructed (left column) version. We emphasize that the holographic method resolves very well details of the phase portrait.

Figure 3 compares the two methods based on the fidelity defined by the overlap $`|\varphi _N|\psi _N|^2`$ between the reconstructed state $`|\varphi _N`$ and the original state $`|\psi _N`$ of the kicked rotor after $`N`$ kicks. The holographic method has a small advantage over the method of self–interference: The fidelity of the reconstructed state is larger, at least for the used parameter regime. Moreover, the holographic method relies on fewer measured distributions. Indeed, it needs the distributions $`W_N^{(0)}`$ and $`W_N^{(\frac{\pi }{2})}`$ only once per each single peak of the whole state, whereas with the method of self–interference it is necessary to record these distributions for each reconstructed point of the searched wave function. However, the initial state must be known for the holographic method.

We now turn to a brief discussion of a possible experimental implementation of our reconstruction scheme but emphasize that all the ingredients are already in operation. We choose the ($`6\mathrm{S}_{1/2},\mathrm{F}=3`$) and ($`6\mathrm{S}_{1/2},\mathrm{F}=4`$) hyperfine levels of cesium with a level splitting of approximately $`9.2\mathrm{GHz}`$ for the reference state $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ and the state $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$, respectively. Two co-propagating Raman pulses create the initial superposition between them. The frequency $`\omega _1`$ ($`\omega _2`$) denotes the transition frequency between $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ ($`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$) and an excited electronic state. In the method of self–interference we apply a laser with frequency $`(\omega _1+\omega _2)/2`$ and $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ evolve in potentials which only differ in a $`\pi `$–phase shift. In the holographic method we pass a laser beam at $`\omega _2`$ through an electro–optic phase modulator that imposes symmetric sidebands at $`\pm \omega _m,\pm 2\omega _m,\mathrm{}`$ on the carrier. An absorption cell with a Doppler profile smaller than $`\omega _m`$ strips the carrier but leaves the sidebands unchanged. For example, in cesium we can take $`\omega _m/(2\pi )=4\mathrm{G}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{z}`$. Finally, we split the beam to create the standing wave. Since the sidebands are tuned symmetrically to the red and blue side of the resonance there will be no effect on the reference state but $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ will experience a standing wave potential. For example in cesium the dominant term will be detuned $`9.2\mathrm{GHz}4\mathrm{G}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{z}=5.2\mathrm{GHz}`$ from resonance. The same technique can be used for the final kick in the readout stage. However, in this case we create sidebands around $`\omega _1`$. In this way we can make an accelerating standing wave that will only affect $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$. Finally, we drive a Raman transition using a $`\pi /2`$–pulse to detect the atoms in the reference state.

We conclude by summarizing our main results. We have proposed two experimentally feasible methods to measure the wave function of the kicked rotor in amplitude and phase. Both methods rely on atom interferometry, that is interference between the center–of–mass motions in the two internal states. In this way we bring to light the convoluted behavior of the phases which are at the heart of the phenomena of dynamical localization and the quantum resonances.

We thank M. Freyberger for many fruitful discussions. The work of MB and WPS is supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. The work of MGR is supported by the Welch Foundation and the National Science Foundation.