format: text

text:
# Lepton Masses and Mixing in a Left-Right Symmetric Model with a TeV-scale Gravity

## I Introduction

The recent results from the SNO  and other  experiments provide strong evidences for the incompleteness of the standard model (SM). Among the various new physics (NP) scenarios that predict neutrino masses, the left-right symmetric (LRS) framework  is an attractive and popular one.

In many LRS models, e.g. models embedded in GUT , the LRS breaking scale, $`v_R>10^{14}\mathrm{GeV}`$, is much higher than the electroweak (EW) breaking scale, $`k_110^2\mathrm{GeV}`$, and the low energy effective Lagrangian is similar in many aspects to that of the SM. In such a case present and near future experiments will not be able to directly probe the NP. Furthermore, the introduction of such a high scale, in addition to the Planck scale, $`M_P10^{19}\mathrm{GeV}`$, related to gravity in four dimensions, raises the gauge hierarchy and fine tuning problems shared by many models.

A new exciting possibility, however, that the fundamental scale of gravity can in fact be much smaller than $`M_P`$ was raised in . It is very interesting, therefore, to investigate whether a natural LRS model (LRSM), in which both $`M_P`$ and $`v_R`$ are low, say below 100 TeV, and in which the neutrinos are very light, can be constructed.

This work is focused on the lepton flavor parameters, we comment on the inclusion of the quark sector in the conclusion. We present a LRSM which naturally accounts for the flavor parameters of the lepton sector and in which the fundamental scale and the LRS breaking scale are of the order of or below 25 TeV. It is a model of, at least, ***To have $`M_P<100\mathrm{TeV}`$ requires more extra dimensions. one extra compact dimension which copes with the above problems by using both the Froggatt-Nielsen  and the Arkani-Hamed-Schmaltz (AS)  mechanisms. The main role of the AS mechanism is to localize “left” and “right” lepton fields on different fixed points in the extra dimension, which then explains the smallness of $`m_\tau `$ compared with the electroweak breaking scale. An additional U(1) horizontal symmetry, described in detail in , yields a modified see-saw mechanism and accounts for the other flavor parameters.

Before proceeding with the details of our work we note that recent two papers, by Mimura and Nandi  and by Mohapatra and Perez-Lorenzana , dealt with the construction of a LRSM in five dimensions \[5D\]. Though important parts of the analysis in  are general and also used below the three models use, in fact, different constructions in the extra dimension. Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, the present model is the only LRSM in 5D that aims to account naturally for all the lepton flavor parameters.

To make our discussion concrete we briefly list the lepton flavor parameters as deduced from various experiments. The charged lepton masses are ,

$`m_e5.110^1\mathrm{MeV},m_\mu 1.110^2\mathrm{MeV},m_\tau 1.810^3\mathrm{MeV}.`$ (1)
As for the neutrino parameters, we consider below the large mixing angle solution of the solar neutrino problem which is favored by data . Consequently, the neutrino mass differences, at the 3$`\sigma `$ CL, are:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{Sol}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`(0.23)10^4\mathrm{eV}^2,\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{Atm}}^2=(16)10^3\mathrm{eV}^2,`$ (2)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{Sol}}^2`$ \[$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{Atm}}^2`$\] is the mass square difference deduced from the data of the solar \[atmospheric\] neutrino experiments. The neutrino mixing parameters are :

$`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}=0.20.7,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{23}=0.43,\theta _{13}<0.15.`$ (3)
In addition there are both direct  and indirect  bounds on the absolute scale of the neutrino masses:

$`m_i`$ $`<`$$``$ $`1\mathrm{eV}.`$ (4)
In section II we present our 5D LRSM model. In section III we describe the 4D effective theory of our model and calculate its lepton flavor parameters. In section IV we suggest several criteria by which we can test the model predictions. Comments and conclusions are given in section V.

## II The model

The space time of our model is described by the usual 4D space and an additional space dimension compactified on the orbifold $`S_1/Z_2\times Z_2^{}`$. The characteristic energy scales are:

$`L^1\mathrm{TeV};L^1<v_R,v<M_{};av\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{L}{M_{}}}}>5,`$ (5)
where $`L`$ is the size of the fifth dimension fundamental domain, $`v_R`$ is the scale at which the LRS is broken spontaneously, $`v`$ is related to the typical width of the fermion wave functions and $`M_{}`$ is the fundamental scale.

The discrete group, $`Z_2\times Z_2^{}`$ yields the following identifications for the fifth dimension coordinate, $`y`$:

$`Z_2:yy;Z_2^{}:y^{}y^{},`$ (6)
where $`y^{}y+\pi R/2`$.

The symmetry of the model is given by, To avoid confusion when dealing with fermions in 5D we denote the two SU(2) gauge groups as SU(2)1,2. We switch back to the ordinary notations, SU(2)L,R, when we discuss the 4D effective theory.

$`\mathrm{SU}(2)_1\times \mathrm{SU}(2)_2\times \mathrm{U}(1)_{\mathrm{B}\mathrm{L}}\times \mathrm{G}_{\mathrm{LR}}\times \mathrm{U}(1)_\mathrm{H},`$ (7)
where GLR corresponds to parity symmetry in the usual 4D LRSM and U(1)H corresponds the global horizontal symmetry . The gauge group is broken both explicitly, by the transformation laws of the fields under the orbifold discrete group, and spontaneously, by the VEVs of the scalars .

We now move to describe the field content of our model. We first describe the scalar sector, then we move to the lepton sector and afterwards to the gauge boson sector. For each sector we describe the transformation of the fields under the gauge and the orbifold groups while the horizontal charges are given in the next section.

The scalar field content of the model is similar to the minimal LRSM (see e.g. ). $`\varphi _1`$ is a bi-fundamental of the two SU(2) groups and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{1,2}`$ are triplets of the SU(2)1,2 gauge groups:

$`\varphi _1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}h_1^0& h_2^+\\ h_1^{}& h_2^0\end{array}\right),\varphi _2\tau _2\varphi _1^{}\tau _2,\mathrm{\Delta }_{1,2}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\delta _{1,2}^+}{\sqrt{2}}& \delta _{1,2}^{++}\\ \delta _{1,2}^0& \frac{\delta _{1,2}^+}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right).`$ (8)
In addition, we assume the existence of a real scalar field $`\phi `$, a pseudo-singlet of the discrete LRS group,

$`\phi ^{\mathrm{G}_{\mathrm{LR}}}\phi ,`$ (9)
where its self interactions and coupling to the fermions are discussed in the appendix.

The transformation laws of the scalars under the orbifold discrete group are given by,

$`\varphi _1(x^\mu ,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _1(x^\mu ,y),\varphi _1(x^\mu ,y^{})=\varphi _1(x^\mu ,y^{})P^{};`$ (10)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_2(x^\mu ,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2(x^\mu ,y),\mathrm{\Delta }_2(x^\mu ,y^{})=P^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_2(x^\mu ,y^{})P^{};`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_1(x^\mu ,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1(x^\mu ,y),\mathrm{\Delta }_1(x^\mu ,y^{})=\mathrm{\Delta }_1(x^\mu ,y^{})`$ (12)
$`\phi (x^\mu ,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\phi (x^\mu ,y),\phi (x^\mu ,y^{})=\phi (x^\mu ,y^{}),`$ (13)
with $`P^{}=\mathrm{diag}(1,1)`$. Note that, as already discussed in , only one of the neutral components of $`\varphi _1`$, $`h_1^0`$, has a zero mode and can develop a VEV. This fact is related to the natural suppression of the Dirac neutrino masses, which is necessary for the phenomenological viability of our model .

The field content of the lepton sector is more involved. It is similar to the one of  but not identical since our mechanism of generating neutrino masses is very different from the one of . In most of the LRS models there is a pair of lepton doublets (connected by GLR) for each generation. In our model, we actually introduce two such pairs for each generations (see also ). The reason for this is that our model assumes canonical see-saw mechanism . This implies zero modes for both the 4D left and right handed neutrinos. The transformation law of the bidoublet $`\varphi _1`$ (13) requires that the doublets of the SU(2)2 group will transform non-trivially under the orbifold $`Z_2^{}`$ discrete group. Thus, only one of the two components of the doublet can have a zero mode. This enforces to double the number of fermion fields as previously done in . Consequently, for each generation $`i`$, we have four lepton doublets. Two doublets of SU(2)1 and two of SU(2)2, denoted as $`L_1^i`$, $`L_1^i`$ and $`L_2^i`$,$`L_2^i`$ respectively.

The representation of the leptons under the SU(2)$`{}_{1}{}^{}\times `$SU(2)$`{}_{2}{}^{}\times `$U(1)B-L gauge group is therefore given by,

$`L_1^i(2,1)_1^{\mathrm{G}_{\mathrm{LR}}}L_2^i(1,2)_1,L_1^i(2,1)_1^{\mathrm{G}_{\mathrm{LR}}}L_2^i(1,2)_1,`$ (14)
where $`i=\mathrm{1..3}`$ stands for lepton flavors.

The lepton fields have the following transformation laws under the discrete group:

$`L_1^i(x^\mu ,y)`$ $`=`$ $`L_1^i(x^\mu ,y),L_1^i(x^\mu ,y^{})=L_1^i(x^\mu ,y^{});`$ (15)
$`L_1^i(x^\mu ,y)`$ $`=`$ $`L_1^i(x^\mu ,y),L_1^i(x^\mu ,y^{})=L_1^i(x^\mu ,y^{});`$ (16)
$`L_2^i(x^\mu ,y)`$ $`=`$ $`L_2^i(x^\mu ,y),L_2^i(x^\mu ,y^{})=P^{}L_2^i(x^\mu ,y^{});`$ (17)
$`L_2^i(x^\mu ,y)`$ $`=`$ $`L_2^i(x^\mu ,y),L_2^i(x^\mu ,y^{})=P^{}L_2^i(x^\mu ,y^{}),`$ (18)
where note that unlike  the transformation laws of $`L_2^i`$ allow for the “right handed” neutrinos to have zero modes. As we shall see below, however, they acquire large masses due to their Yukawa couplings to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$.

In order to have a chiral 4D low energy effective theory any lepton, $`\psi `$, has, on top of (18), the following transformation law under the orbifold discrete group :

$`\psi (x^\mu ,x_5)`$ $``$ $`\psi (x^\mu ,x_5)=\gamma ^5\psi (x^\mu ,x_5),`$ (19)
where $`x_5`$ stands both for $`y`$ and $`y^{}`$.

We now move to the gauge boson sector. As was already discussed in , with the above transformation laws for the matter fields, the gauge bosons of the SU(2)$`{}_{2}{}^{}\times `$U(1)B-L gauge groups have the following transformations:

$`W_\mu (x^\mu ,y)=W_\mu (x^\mu ,y),W_\mu (x^\mu ,y^{})=P^{}W_\mu (x^\mu ,y^{})P^{};`$ (20)
$`W_5(x^\mu ,y)=W_5(x^\mu ,y),W_5(x^\mu ,y^{})=P^{}W_5(x^\mu ,y)P^{};`$ (21)
$`B_\mu (x^\mu ,y),B_\mu (x^\mu ,y^{})=B_\mu (x^\mu ,y),B_\mu (x^\mu ,y^{});`$ (22)
$`B_5(x^\mu ,y),B_5(x^\mu ,y^{})=B_5(x^\mu ,y),B_5(x^\mu ,y^{}),`$ (23)
where $`B_{\mu ,5}`$ corresponds to the U(1)B-L gauge group. The gauge bosons of the SU(2)1 have the following transformations:

$`W_\mu (x^\mu ,x_5)=W_\mu (x^\mu ,x_5),W_5(x^\mu ,x_5)=W_5(x^\mu ,x_5),`$ (24)
where $`x_5`$ stands both for $`y`$ and $`y^{}`$.

The additional U(1)H symmetry (discussed in detail in ), is assumed to be broken by small parameters in two stages. First it is broken to a discrete $`Z_2`$ symmetry (the discrete symmetry does not allow for Majorana masses) by a small parameter, $`\epsilon `$. Then the discrete subgroup is further broken by a small parameter, $`\delta `$. Thus, as discussed below, various terms in the 5D effective Lagrangian are suppressed by powers of $`\epsilon `$ and $`\delta `$:

$`^{5D}`$ $`=`$ $`_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{M_{}}}}[\epsilon ^{|Q(L_2^j)Q(L_1^i)+Q(\varphi _1)|}f\overline{L}_1^i\varphi _1L_2^j+\epsilon ^{|Q(L_2^j)Q(L_1^i)Q(\varphi _1)|}g\overline{L}_1^i\varphi _2L_2^j`$ (25)
$`+`$ $`\delta \epsilon ^{|Q(\mathrm{\Delta }_1)+Q(L_1^i)+Q(L_1^j)\pm \frac{1}{2}|}h(L_{1}^{i}{}_{}{}^{T}i\tau _2\mathrm{\Delta }_1L_1^j+L_{2}^{i}{}_{}{}^{T}i\tau _2\mathrm{\Delta }_2L_2^j)+L_a^iL_a^i]`$ (26)
$`+`$ $`V^{5D}(\varphi ,\mathrm{\Delta }),`$ (27)
where $`_0`$ contains the kinetic and the gauge interaction terms . Higher dimensional operators are subdominant for the low energy effective theory. This is due to suppression factors coming from inverse powers of $`M_{}25\mathrm{TeV}`$ and from powers of $`ϵ`$ and $`\delta `$ As an example consider the operator $`L_1^{}L_1^{}\varphi _2\mathrm{\Delta }_2\varphi _1^{}`$ which is similar to the operator that gives the dominant contribution for neutrino masses in . In our model the induced neutrino mass from such an operator is roughly, $`\epsilon ^{24}\delta k_1^2v_R/M_{}^2`$, which is completely negligible. Furthermore, we assume that quantum modifications to our model both from perturbative and non-perturbative sources are small in the IR limit of the 4D effective theory (for discussions on this subjects see e.g  and references therein).

The effective 5D scalar potential, $`V^{5D}(\varphi ,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is given by

$`V^{5D}(\varphi ,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ijk}{}}\{\mu _{ii}^2\text{Tr}(\varphi _i^{}\varphi _i)\mu _i^2\text{Tr}(\mathrm{\Delta }_i\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_{}}}[\lambda _{ij}\text{Tr}(\varphi _i^{}\varphi _j)\text{Tr}(\varphi _i^{}\varphi _j)`$ (28)
$`+`$ $`\rho _{ij}\text{Tr}(\mathrm{\Delta }_i\mathrm{\Delta }_i)\text{Tr}(\mathrm{\Delta }_j^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_j^{})+\alpha _{ii}\text{Tr}(\varphi _i^{}\varphi _i)\text{Tr}(\mathrm{\Delta }_k\mathrm{\Delta }_k^{})+\beta _{ii}\text{Tr}(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_1\varphi _i\varphi _i^{}`$ (29)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_2\varphi _i^{}\varphi _i)+\gamma _{21}\text{Tr}(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}\varphi _2\mathrm{\Delta }_2\varphi _1^{})]\},`$ (30)
where some of the coefficients in $`V^{5D}`$ contain implicit suppression factor of various powers of $`\epsilon `$ . In the generic case, $`\varphi _{1.2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{1,2}`$ develop VEVs,

$`\varphi _1=\sqrt{M}_{}\left(\begin{array}{cc}k_1& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Delta }_{1,2}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{M}_{}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ v_{L,R}e^{i\alpha _{L,R}}& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (31)
The different VEVs have the following relation among them ,

$`|v_Rv_L|=\gamma |k_1|^2.`$ (32)
In the presence of the U(1)H $`\gamma `$ is given by ,

$`\gamma \epsilon ^{|Q(\mathrm{\Delta }_R)Q(\mathrm{\Delta }_L)2Q(\varphi _1)|}.`$ (33)
## III The Spectrum of the 4D Theory

Most of the details of the model were given above. To calculate its low energy spectrum, however, two main ingredients are missing. One is the horizontal charges of the fields, which are given below. The other is related to the separation and localization of the different lepton fields. We assume that all the doublets of the SU(2)1 gauge group have same-sign Yukawa couplings to $`\phi `$ (A2). Since we choose $`\phi `$ to be odd under the LRS discrete group (9), all the SU(2)2 doublets have the opposite sign of Yukawa couplings to $`\phi `$§§§In that way we go one step further in eliminating the arbitrariness in the sign assignment of the corresponding Yukawas. Such a problem is often encountered in the AS framework.

In the model presented below, we assume that these Yukawa couplings are flavor independent. Consequently, the magnitude of the couplings between the leptons and $`\phi `$ is universal and naturally of order unity. This assumption can be motivated in cases where the couplings to the scalar are originated from a flavor blind sector of a more fundamental theory. We shall comment on the implications of relaxing this assumption in the following section.

As explained, the fields $`L_1^i`$ and $`L_2^j`$ are localized around different fixed points . In the appendix we show that bidoublet Yukawa couplings are naturally suppressed due to small overlap between the wave functions of the zero modes of $`L_1^i`$ and $`L_2^j`$. As shown in (A22), given the model fundamental parameters (5), the corresponding suppression factor, $`Ke^a`$, is naturally of the order of $`m_\tau /k_1`$.

At this stage, when our main focus is on the zero mode of the fields, it is convenient to switch to the ordinary 4D notations, $`SU(2)_{1,2}SU(2)_{L,R};`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{1,2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{L,R};`$ $`f_{1,2}^0f_{L,R}^0,`$ where $`f_i^0`$ is any fermion zero mode that belongs to a doublet of the SU(2)i gauge group.

The charges of the fields under the U(1)H horizontal symmetry are given by:

$`Q(L_L^3)`$ $`=`$ $`0,Q(L_L^2)=1,Q(L_L^1)=3,`$ (34)
$`Q(L_R^3)`$ $`=`$ $`7,Q(L_R^2)=6,Q(L_R^1)=4,`$ (35)
$`Q(\mathrm{\Delta }_L)`$ $`=`$ $`7/2,Q(\mathrm{\Delta }_R)=21/2,Q(\varphi _1)=7,`$ (36)
with $`Q(L_i^j)=Q(L_i^j)`$. Note that the charges of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{L,R}`$ are half integers and therefore they carry an odd parity under the residual, $`Z_2`$, horizontal symmetry. All the other fields have integer charges and therefore carry an even parity. Thus, in the limit where the discrete symmetry is exact ($`\delta 0`$) the Majorana mass matrices vanish. The discrete symmetry is assumed to be further broken by the small parameter $`\delta `$.

For concreteness, in our calculation below, we use the following numerical values,

$`\epsilon ,\delta 0.3;v_R4\mathrm{TeV}.`$ (37)
Other combination of parameters of a similar magnitude yield a viable phenomenology as well. Furthermore, for simplicity we assume real values for the various VEVs and couplings. Consequently, we assume no CP violation in the lepton sector.

We now arrive at a point where we can compute the masses of the various lepton zero modes predicted by the model.

### A Charged leptons

The charged lepton mass matrix, $`M^{cl}`$, is read from the second term in the square brackets of eq. (27). It is given, up to order one coefficients, by:

$`M^{cl}Kk_1\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\epsilon ^6& \epsilon ^4& \epsilon ^3\\ \epsilon ^4& \epsilon ^2& \epsilon \\ \epsilon ^3& \epsilon & 1\end{array}\right).`$ (38)
Using the numerical value for $`Kk_12\mathrm{GeV}`$, the eigenvalues of $`M^{cl}`$ reproduce the required scale for the charged lepton masses (1), up to order one coefficients:

$`m_e\epsilon ^6Kk_11\mathrm{MeV},m_\mu \epsilon ^2Kk_1150\mathrm{MeV},m_\tau Kk_12\mathrm{GeV}.`$ (39)
In addition $`M^{cl}`$ is hierarchical and diagonalized by,

$`\theta _{12}^c\epsilon ^2,\theta _{13}^c\epsilon ^3,\theta _{23}^c\epsilon .`$ (40)
### B Neutrinos

The light neutrino mass matrix, $`M_l^\nu `$, is given by:

$`M_l^\nu (M_\nu ^D)^T(M_R^{Maj})^1M_\nu ^D+M_L^{Maj},`$ (41)
with $`M_\nu ^D`$ being the Dirac neutrino mass and $`M_R^{Maj}`$ \[$`M_L^{Maj}`$\] being the Majorana mass matrix for the right \[left\] handed neutrinos. The RHS of eq. (41) contains two terms. The first, $`M_{See}^\nu (M_\nu ^D)^T(M_R^{Maj})^1M_\nu ^D`$, is related to the seesaw mechanism. The second, $`M_L^{Maj}`$, is induced by the VEV of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$. In the following we shall calculate the elements of each and we shall show that the dominant contributions to $`M_l^\nu `$ come from $`M_L^{Maj}`$, while $`M_{See}^\nu `$ yields small (but non-negligible) correction to $`M_l^\nu `$.

In our model $`M_L^{Maj}`$ is read from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ Yukawa interactions of eq. (27). Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{L,R}`$ carry half integer charges their corresponding couplings are suppressed by $`\delta \times \mathrm{max}(\epsilon ^{|Q(\mathrm{\Delta }_{L,R})+2Q(L_{L,R})+1/2|},\epsilon ^{|Q(\mathrm{\Delta }_{L,R})+2Q(L_{L,R})1/2|})`$. Consequently, $`M_L^{Maj}`$ is given by,

$`M_L^{Maj}=v_L\delta \left(\begin{array}{ccc}\epsilon ^2& 1& 1\\ 1& \epsilon & \epsilon ^2\\ 1& \epsilon ^2& \epsilon ^3\end{array}\right),`$ (42)
where from eq. (33) we have,

$`v_L{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^2}{v_R}}\epsilon ^{|Q(\mathrm{\Delta }_R)Q(\mathrm{\Delta }_L)2Q(\varphi _1)|}={\displaystyle \frac{k_1^2}{v_R}}\epsilon ^{21}.`$ (43)
As explained above $`M_{See}^\nu `$ depends on the structure of the Dirac neutrino mass, $`M_\nu ^D`$, and on the structure of the Majorana mass matrix for the right handed neutrinos $`M_R^{Maj}`$. The matrix $`M_R^{Maj}`$ is simply read from $`M_L^{Maj}`$ with the replacement $`v_Lv_R`$,

$`M_R^{Maj}=v_R\delta \left(\begin{array}{ccc}\epsilon ^2& 1& 1\\ 1& \epsilon & \epsilon ^2\\ 1& \epsilon ^2& \epsilon ^3\end{array}\right).`$ (44)
The matrix $`M_{R,L}^{Maj}`$ has an approximate $`L_eL_\mu L_\tau `$ structure . Thus to diagonalize $`M_{R,L}^{Maj}`$ requires $`\theta _{12}\pi /4`$, $`\theta _{23}1`$ and a very small $`\theta _{13}`$ (for a recent review see e.g.  and references therein).

Since the determinant of $`M_R^{Maj}`$ is given by,

$`\mathrm{Det}\left(M_R^{Maj}\right)(v_R\delta )^3\epsilon ,`$ (45)
the inverse of $`M_R^{Maj}`$ can be approximated by,

$`(M_R^{Maj})^1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{v_R\delta }}O_{23}(\theta _{23})O_{12}(\theta _{12})diag(1,1,1/\epsilon )O_{12}^T(\theta _{12})O_{23}^T(\theta _{23}),`$ (46)
where $`O_{ij}(\theta _{ij})`$ is a rotation matrix on the $`ij`$ plane with an angle $`\theta _{ij}`$ which were defined above.

The neutrino Dirac mass matrix, $`M_\nu ^D`$, is read from the first term in the square brackets of eq. (27) . It is given by,

$`M_\nu ^DKk_1\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\epsilon ^8& \epsilon ^{10}& \epsilon ^{11}\\ \epsilon ^{10}& \epsilon ^{12}& \epsilon ^{13}\\ \epsilon ^{11}& \epsilon ^{13}& \epsilon ^{14}\end{array}\right).`$ (47)
We can now use eqs. (46,47) to calculate $`M_{See}^\nu `$,

$`M_{See}^\nu `$ $``$ $`K^2{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^{16}}{\delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^2}{v_R}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \epsilon ^2& \epsilon ^3\\ \epsilon ^2& \epsilon ^4& \epsilon ^5\\ \epsilon ^3& \epsilon ^5& \epsilon ^6\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\epsilon & 1& 1\\ 1& 1/\epsilon & 1/\epsilon \\ 1& 1/\epsilon & 1/\epsilon \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \epsilon ^2& \epsilon ^3\\ \epsilon ^2& \epsilon ^4& \epsilon ^5\\ \epsilon ^3& \epsilon ^5& \epsilon ^6\end{array}\right)`$ (48)
$``$ $`\epsilon ^{23}{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^2}{v_R}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \epsilon ^2& \epsilon ^3\\ \epsilon ^2& \epsilon ^4& \epsilon ^5\\ \epsilon ^3& \epsilon ^5& \epsilon ^6\end{array}\right),`$ (49)
where in the second line we used the approximation, $`\epsilon ^6\frac{K^2}{\delta }`$.

Combining eqs. (42,49) the light neutrinos mass matrix is given by,

$`M_l^\nu (M_\nu ^D)^T(M_R^{Maj})^1M_\nu ^D+M_L^{Maj}\epsilon ^{22}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{v_R}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\epsilon & 1& 1\\ 1& \epsilon & \epsilon ^2\\ 1& \epsilon ^2& \epsilon ^3\end{array}\right),`$ (50)
where, as anticipated, the dominant elements come from $`M_L^{Maj}`$. Consequently, the Matrix $`M_l^\nu `$ has an approximate $`L_eL_\mu L_\tau `$ structure which therefore yields inverted hierarchical masses:

$`|m_1|`$ $``$ $`|m_2|\epsilon ^{22}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{v_R}}0.02\mathrm{eV},|m_3|\epsilon ^{23}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{v_R}}0.007\mathrm{eV};`$ (51)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{Sol}}^2`$ $``$ $`210^4\mathrm{eV}^2,\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{Atm}}^2110^3\mathrm{eV}^2,`$ (52)
in agreement, up to an order one coefficients, with the recent data given in eq. (2). The neutrino mixing angles read from $`M_l^\nu `$ and $`M^{cl}`$ (38) are:

$`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1+\mathrm{tan}^22\theta _{12}}1}{\sqrt{1+\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}}+1}}1\epsilon 0.7,`$ (53)
$`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{23}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪(1),\theta _{13}𝒪(\epsilon ^2)0.1,`$ (54)
again in agreement with the recent neutrino data given in eq. (3).

## IV Testing The Model By Experiments

It is very interesting to understand whether the model has unique experimental signatures which can be tested in near future experiments. Our model belongs to a class of LRS models in 5D, that was recently constructed in  and some of its phenomenological implications were already discussed there. We shall briefly summarize some of the most important properties:
(1) Existence of Kaluza-Klein (KK) excitations of the gauge bosons; (2) No left-right mixing in the charged sector; (3) The lightest $`W_2`$ is a KK excitation while $`Z_2^{(0)}`$ is not; (4) A lower bound of the order of a TeV on $`L^1`$ and on the masses of the $`Z_2`$ and $`W_2`$ lower KK excitations; (5) Existence of a heavy stable lepton whose mass is of the order of $`L^1`$.

In addition we list below predictions which are specifically related to our model:

* Inverted mass hierarchy for the neutrinos.
* Order one mixing for $`\theta _{23}`$ but not parametrically close to maximal.
* Small branching ratio (BR) of lepton flavor processes such as $`\mu e\gamma `$, $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ and $`\tau e\gamma `$ (for details on these processes see e.g.  and references therein) due to the smallness of the LR mixing in the model . The same feature is also shared by the additional neutral and charged scalars introduced in our model. This is due to their corresponding transformation under the orbifold discrete group (13) and the smallness of $`v_L/(k_1,v_R)`$ (33).
* The process $`\mu ^{}e^+e^{}e^{}`$ does not require LR mixing and therefore might be significantly enhanced (similar $`\tau `$ decay modes have a smaller experimental sensitivity ). It can be efficiently mediated by the Yukawa couplings of $`\delta _L^{}`$ to a pair of charged lepton zero modes. The rate is given by (see e.g.  and references therein)

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu 3e)={\displaystyle \frac{G_{eff}^2m_\mu ^5}{192\pi ^3}},`$ (55)
where $`G_{eff}`$ is proportional to the product of ($`\delta _L^{}ee`$) and ($`\delta _L^{}e\mu `$) Yukawa couplings. In our model it is given by

$`G_{eff}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^2\delta ^2}{M_{}RM_{\delta _L^{}}^2}}<{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^2\delta ^2}{a^2M_{\delta _L^{}}^2}}10^{11}\mathrm{GeV}^2.`$ (56)
Comparing the above result with the current experimental bound ,

$`G_{eff}<10^{11}\mathrm{GeV}^2,`$ (57)
and we learn that the two are comparable. This implies that our model will be subject to an experimental test in the very near future.
* As $`M_l^\nu `$ (50) is induced by an approximate $`L_eL_\mu L_\tau `$ symmetry, the model predicts a rather small amplitude for neutrinoless double decay (see e.g.  and references therein):

$`|m|\epsilon ^{23}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{v_R}}0.007\mathrm{eV}.`$ (58)
This is comparable with the lower limit for the case of inverted hierarchy  and very likely, below the sensitivity of near future experiments.

The above results are based on the assumption that the widths of the lepton wave functions are universal. If the Yukawa couplings between the leptons and $`\phi `$ are not universal but of order unity the model looses some of its predictive power. This is mainly due to the fact the structure of the Dirac mass matrices (38,47) may be significantly modified due to different overlaps of the wave functions in the extra dimension (even if the eigenvalues of these matrices are unchanged). In this case the resultant mixing angles and neutrino masses are functions of the widths and cannot be explicitly calculated. Note, however, that if the hierarchical structure (38,47) is not badly broken (with the corresponding eigenvalues remain roughly the same), most of the above features of the model are still valid. This is due to the fact that the structure of the Majorana mass matrices (42,44) is independent of the universality assumption and the neutrino masses and mixing are mainly derived from $`M_L^{Maj}`$ (42).

## V Discussion and Conclusion

We constructed a left-right symmetric (LRS) model of leptons in five dimensions. The structure of the lepton flavor parameters is explained naturally and the gauge hierarchy problem is ameliorated.

The typical scales are: (1) The fundamental-domain size in the extra dimension, $`L\mathrm{TeV}^1`$; (2) The LRS breaking scale, $`v_R4\mathrm{TeV}`$; (3) The fundamental scale, $`M_{}25\mathrm{TeV}`$.

The model predicts that the light neutrino mass matrix has an approximate $`L_eL_\mu L_\tau `$ structure which therefore yields inverted hierarchical masses, with $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}0.7`$ and $`\theta _{23}=𝒪(1)`$ but not parametrically close to maximal. The model predicts a relatively large branching ratio for the lepton flavor violation process $`\mu ^{}e^+e^{}e^{}`$, comparable with its present experimental sensitivity.

The fact that the model copes both with the lepton flavor puzzle and with the gauge hierarchy problem is manifested in its rich structure. The model has elements related to the following mechanisms:
(i) The Arkani-Hamed-Schmaltz mechanism- localization of “left” and “right” leptons on different fixed points in the extra dimension, which then explains the smallness of $`m_\tau `$ compared with the electroweak breaking scale.
(ii) The Froggatt-Nielsen mechanism- a horizontal symmetry which yields a modified see-saw mechanism and accounts for the other flavor parameters.

The above results are derived for the case of universal Yukawa couplings to $`\phi `$ and when $`L_j^i`$ and $`L_j^i`$ have the same horizontal charges. If this is not the case the model looses some of its predictive power. It is rather clear, however, that it is possible, for a given set of order one Yukawa couplings, to find a charge assignment that preserve the model appealing features. Thus, although the more generic setup of the model is less predictive, it is still provide a natural framework to understand the origin of the flavor parameters.

In this work we focused on the large mixing angle solution of the solar neutrino problem as favored by the present experimental data. In an earlier work , however, we showed that a LRSM with a similar $`v_R`$ and the same horizontal symmetry, can in principle, produce a model with the small mixing angle solution of the solar neutrino problem.

Finally we note that the addition of the quark fields to the fermion sector of our model is in principle possible based on the above ideas . The large top mass, however, might require an additional structure .

###### Acknowledgements.

I thank Yossi Nir, Yael Shadmi, Oleg Khasanov and especially Yuval Grossman for helpful discussions and comments on the manuscript.

## A Localization of the Fermion Wave Functions

In this part we examine the requirements for splitting and localizing the fermions around the different fixed points. Some of the results derived below are known (see e.g. ), but for the self consistency of our work we briefly present them below.

To localize the fermions we add a real scalar field, $`\phi `$, which transforms non-trivially under the orbifold discrete group ,

$$\phi (x,x_5)\phi (x,x_5)=\phi (x,x_5),$$
(A1)
which for simplicity we take as a single $`Z_2`$. The Lagrangian is

$$=\overline{\psi }\left(i\overline{)}\gamma _5_5\frac{f}{\sqrt{M}_{}}\phi \right)\psi +\frac{1}{2}^\mu \phi _\mu \phi \frac{1}{2}_5\phi _5\phi \lambda \left(\phi ^2v^2\right)^2,$$
(A2)
where for further simplicity we consider a single fermion model.

The shape of the fermion wave functions depends on the shape of $`\phi `$. The localization is significant if $`𝑑x_5\phi (x_5)`$ is large enough. In the following we investigate what is required from the model parameters so that efficient localization will occur.

### 1 Properties of the profile of $`\phi (x_5)`$

The boundary conditions, (A1), require that the scalar field vanish on the orbifold fixed points, namely, at $`x_5=0`$ and $`L`$. However, for $`v^2>0`$, the scalar field tends to develop a VEV. We can make this argument more quantitative by considering the scalar Lagrangian, neglecting the effects of its Yukawa interactions:

$$_\phi =\frac{1}{2}^\mu \phi _\mu \phi \frac{1}{2}_5\phi _5\phi \lambda \left(\phi ^2v^2\right)^2.$$
(A3)
The minimum energy configuration is found when the following action is minimized,

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{L^2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_5\phi ^{}_5\phi ^{}+a^2(\phi ^21)^2\right],`$ (A4)
with $`u=x_5/L`$, $`v=v^{}\sqrt{L}`$, $`\lambda ^{}=\lambda M_{}`$, $`a^2=\lambda ^{}vL\frac{v}{M_{}}`$ and $`\phi ^{}=\frac{\sqrt{L}}{v}\phi `$ Note that above (5) we defined $`a^2=vL\frac{v}{M_{}}`$. The difference is the $`\lambda ^{}`$ coefficient which is assumed to be of order one and therefore it is omitted below. Let us find the condition for which $`\phi =0`$ will not be a local minimum of $`S`$. Expanding $`\phi `$ in terms of sin functions which satisfy the boundary condition of eq. (A1),

$`\phi ^{}(u)={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\sqrt{2}\phi _n^{}\mathrm{sin}\pi nu,`$ (A5)
and integrating over $`u`$ yields the resultant “mass” matrix for the action $`S`$,

$`M_{nm}^2={\displaystyle \frac{^2S}{\phi _n^{}\phi _m^{}}}|_{\phi _l=0}\delta _{nm}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2n^2}{2}}2a^2\right).`$ (A6)
From the structure of $`M_{nm}`$ we learn that if

$`a^2vL{\displaystyle \frac{v}{M_{}}}>{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{4}}`$ (A7)
we find negative eigenvalues for $`M_{nm}^2`$ which implies that $`\phi ^{}=0`$ is not a local minimum of $`S`$ . Thus, we expect to find a lower action $`S`$ for $`u`$ dependent $`\phi ^{}`$,

$$\phi (u)=h(u).$$
(A8)
An intuition on the possible profile of $`h(u)`$ is gained by viewing the action $`S`$ as related to a one particle problem. The particle moves in a potential $`V(\phi ^{})=a^2(\phi ^21)^2`$, shown in figure 1, with “initial” and “final” conditions $`\phi ^{}(u=0,1)=0`$ (for more details see e.g. ). The solution $`\phi ^{}(u)=0`$ represents a static particle at the bottom of the potential.

We prove below that the “time” for the particle to reach the turning point and returning is a monotonically increasing function with the “length” of the corresponding “trajectory”. Consequently, there is only one additional solution which must correspond to the global minimum, provided that eq. (A7) is satisfied.

Since $`S`$ does not contain an explicit $`u`$ dependence, we can define an effective conserved “energy”, $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$,

$`\stackrel{~}{E}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_5\phi ^{}_5\phi ^{}a^2(\phi ^21)^2,`$ (A9)
where $`a^2<\stackrel{~}{E}<0`$. Using this we can estimate the maximal value of $`\phi ^{}`$ (the value at the “turning point”) and study its dependence on the time period, $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{T}}{4}}=1/2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}a}}{\displaystyle _0^{\phi ^{}(1/2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\phi ^{}}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{E}/a^2(\phi ^21)^2}}}`$ (A10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}a}}{\displaystyle _0^{\phi ^{}(1/2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\phi ^{}}{\sqrt{[\phi ^2\phi ^{}(1/2)^2][\phi ^2\overline{\phi }^{}(1/2)^2]}}}I,`$ (A11)
with $`\phi ^{}(1/2)^2=1\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{E}/a^2}`$, is the physical turning point and $`\overline{\phi }^{}(1/2)^2=1+\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{E}/a^2}=2\phi ^{}(1/2)^2`$ is an unphysical one.

Using the substitution $`X=\phi ^{}/\phi ^{}(1/2)`$, $`I`$ takes the form of a complete eliptic integral (see e.g. ),

$`I={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2a^2\phi ^{}(1/2)^2}}}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dX}{\sqrt{[X^21][X^21/d^2]}}}={\displaystyle \frac{F(\pi /2,d)}{\sqrt{2a^2\overline{\phi }^{}(1/2)^2}}},`$ (A12)
with $`d^2=\phi ^{}(1/2)^2/\overline{\phi }^{}(1/2)^2`$ and $`F(\pi /2,d)`$ is a complete elliptic integral of the first kind.

The function $`F`$ can be expressed as a series in $`d^2`$, (provided that $`0<d<1`$ as in our case) :

$`F(\pi /2,d){\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\left\{1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1!!}{1!2^1}}\right)^2d^2+\mathrm{}+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(2n1)!!}{n!2^n}}d^{2n}\right]^2\right\}.`$ (A13)
As a consistency check for our results we note that for a very small $`\phi ^{}`$ the potential is quadratic in $`\phi ^{}`$, $`V(\phi ^{})2a^2\phi ^2`$. This implies that the time period should be given by

$`\stackrel{~}{T}=\pi /a.`$ (A14)
Plugging the first term in the expansion of $`F(\pi /2,d)`$ into the expression for $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ in eq. (A11) indeed reproduces the result of eq. (A14).

We are now at a point were we can show that the “time” for the particle to reach the turning point and returning is a monotonically increasing function with the “length” of the corresponding “trajectory” or “energy”. Since all the coefficients of the series in eq. (A13) are positive and $`d`$ is monotonic with $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ (in the physical range) it is clear that $`F(\pi /2,d)`$ is a monotonic increasing function with $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$. The time period is given by $`IF(\pi /2,d)/\overline{\phi }^{}(1/2)`$. Since $`\overline{\phi }^{}(1/2)`$ decreases with $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$, $`I`$ or the time period is indeed increasing with the energy which guarantees that there is only one additional minimum of $`S`$.

For the above potential, $`V(\phi )`$, one cannot compute analytically the profile of $`\phi (x_5)`$. However to our consideration we only need to have information on its asymptotical behavior. This was analyzed in  in which it was shown that for large $`L`$ the profile is approximated by, in our scaling:

$`h(u)\mathrm{tanh}\left(\sqrt{2}au\right)\mathrm{tanh}\left[\sqrt{2}a(1u)\right],`$ (A15)
where the exact $`u`$ dependence of (A15) is found by taking the large $`a`$ limit of eq. (A9). With that profile we expect a significant reduction in the overlap between the wave functions localized at the different fixed points.

We demonstrate that this case corresponds to the large $`a`$ case using our semi-analytic derivation presented above. In addition we gain physical understanding for the resultant shape of $`h(u)`$. Consider the result of eqs. (A11,A12) when $`d1`$ or $`\phi ^{}(1/2)^21\epsilon ^2`$. In that case $`F(\pi /2,d)`$ can be approximated by the following expression :

$`F(\pi /2,d)\mathrm{ln}4\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{2}\epsilon .`$ (A16)
Substituting this into eq. (A11) yields the following equation for $`\phi ^{}(1/2)`$:

$`a/\sqrt{2}=\mathrm{ln}4\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{2}\epsilon ,`$ (A17)
which implies

$`\phi ^{}(1/2)^2=18e^{a\sqrt{2}}.`$ (A18)
From (A18) we learn that indeed this limit is good for a relatively large $`a`$. This means that at $`\phi ^{}0`$ the kinetic energy is very large and there is a very rapid motion there. Furthermore, since near the turning point the potential is almost flat the net force on the particle is very small. This implies that the particle spends most of its time near the turning point moving with a nearly constant velocity. Thus, as promised, $`h(u)`$ can be well approximated by the two kink profile given in eq. (A15). We also learn from (A18) that this limit is good for rather modest values of $`a`$. For example $`a4`$ yields $`\phi ^{}(1/2)^2>0.97`$.

### 2 The shape of the fermion wave functions

We analyzed above the profile of $`\phi (x_5)`$, relevant for our considerations. In this part we ask what are the conditions for the fermions to be localized around the different fixed points with small overlap of the corresponding wave functions. Using the derivation of  we find that the shape of a zero mode fermions in the fifth dimension is given by:

$`\xi _{0+}(x_5)=K_{\xi _{0+}}e^{s(x_5)}`$ (A19)
with $`K_{\xi _{0+}}`$ being a normalization constant and

$`s(x_5)=f{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{L}v}{\sqrt{M}_{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{x_5}{L}}}𝑑uh(u)=fa{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{x_5}{L}}}𝑑uh(u),`$ (A20)
where, as shown in , if $`f`$ is positive \[negative\] the corresponding fermion will be localized around $`x_5=0[L]`$. As explained above the fact that $`\phi `$ is odd under the LRS discrete group (9) guarantees that the fields $`L_1,L_1^{}`$ \[$`L_2,L_2^{}`$\] have positive \[negative\] Yukawa coupling $`f`$.

In order to estimate the overlap between the wave functions we approximate $`h(u)`$ by a step function , $`h(u)1`$, in the required range. Consequently, the wave functions of two fermions with opposite Yukawas are roughly given by

$`\psi _{1,2}K_{1,2}e^{\pm |f_{1,2}|au}.`$ (A21)
Thus, the overlap between the wave functions is given, up to an order one coefficients, by :

$`K{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u\psi _1\psi _2e^{Ca},`$ (A22)
where $`C`$ is an order one coefficient, that for simplicity, we assume to be one. In the range $`a=\mathrm{5..9}`$ we get that the overlap between the wave functions is indeed small, as required by our model, of the order of $`m_\tau /k_1`$.


text:
# CPT and effective Hamiltonians for neutral kaon and similar complexes11footnote 1Talk given at the Conference on ”Irreversible Quantum Dynamics”, 29 July — 2 August 2002, Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, Italy.

## 1 Introduction.

The problem of testing CPT–invariance experimentally has attracted the attention of physicist, practically since the discovery of antiparticles. CPT symmetry is a fundamental theorem of axiomatic quantum field theory which follows from locality, Lorentz invariance, and unitarity . Many tests of CPT–invariance consist in searching for decay process of neutral kaons. All known CP– and hypothetically possible CPT–violation effects in the neutral kaon complex are described by solving the Schrödinger–like evolution equation  (we use $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$ units)

$$i\frac{}{t}|\psi ;t>_{}=H_{}|\psi ;t>_{}$$
(1)
for $`|\psi ;t>_{}`$ belonging to the subspace $`_{}`$ (where $``$ is the state space of the physical system under investigation), e.g., spanned by orthonormal neutral kaons states $`|K_0>,|\overline{K}_0>`$, and so on, (then states corresponding to the decay products belong to $`_{}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}_{}`$), and nonhermitian effective Hamiltonian $`H_{}`$ obtained usually by means of the Lee-Oehme–Yang (LOY) approach (within the Weisskopf–Wigner approximation (WW)) , :

$$H_{}M\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma },$$
(2)
where

$$M=M^+,\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }^+,$$
(3)
are $`(2\times 2)`$ matrices.

The solutions of Eq. (1) can be written in matrix form and such a matrix defines the evolution operator (which is usually nonunitary) $`U_{}(t)`$ acting in $`_{}`$:

$$|\psi ;t>_{}=U_{}(t)|\psi ;t_0=0>_{}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}U_{}(t)|\psi >_{},$$
(4)
where,

$$|\psi >_{}q_1|\mathrm{𝟏}>+q_2|\mathrm{𝟐}>,$$
(5)
and $`|\mathrm{𝟏}>`$ stands for the vectors of the $`|K_0>,|B_0>`$ type and $`|\mathrm{𝟐}>`$ denotes antiparticles of particle ”1”: $`|\overline{K}_0>,|\overline{B}_0>`$, $`<𝐣|𝐤>=\delta _{jk}`$, $`j,k=1,2`$.

In many papers it is assumed that the real parts, $`\mathrm{}(.)`$, of the diagonal matrix elements of $`H_{}`$:

$$\mathrm{}(h_{jj})M_{jj},(j=1,2),$$
(6)
where

$$h_{jk}=<𝐣|H_{}|𝐤>,(j,k=1,2),$$
(7)
correspond to the masses of particle ”1” and its antiparticle ”2” respectively , (and such an interpretation of $`\mathrm{}(h_{11})`$ and $`\mathrm{}(h_{22})`$ will be used in this paper), whereas the imaginary parts, $`\mathrm{}(.)`$,

$$2\mathrm{}(h_{jj})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jj},(j=1,2),$$
(8)
are interpreted as the decay widths of these particles . Such an interpretation seems to be consistent with the recent and the early experimental data for the neutral kaon and similar complexes .

Relations between matrix elements of $`H_{}`$ implied by CPT–transformation properties of the Hamiltonian $`H`$ of the total system, containing neutral kaon complex as a subsystem, are crucial to designing CPT–invariance and CP–violation tests and to proper interpretation of their results. The aim of this paper is to examine the properties of the exact $`H_{}`$ generated by the CPT–symmetry of the total system under consideration and independent of the approximation used and to compare these properties of the exact and of the approximate $`H_{||}`$.

## 2 $`H_{LOY}`$ and CPT–symmetry.

Now, let us consider briefly some properties of the LOY model. Let $`H`$ be the total (selfadjoint) Hamiltonian, acting in $``$ — then the total unitary evolution operator $`U(t)`$ fulfills the Schrödinger equation

$$i\frac{}{t}U(t)|\varphi >=HU(t)|\varphi >,U(0)=I,$$
(9)
where $`I`$ is the unit operator in $``$, $`|\varphi >|\varphi ;t_0=0>`$ is the initial state of the system:

$$|\varphi >|\psi >_{}$$
(10)
in our case $`|\varphi ;t>=U(t)|\varphi >`$. Let $`P`$ denote the projection operator onto the subspace $`_{}`$:

$$P=_{},P=P^2=P^+,$$
(11)
then the subspace of decay products $`_{}`$ equals

$$_{}=(IP)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}Q,QIP.$$
(12)
For the case of neutral kaons or neutral $`B`$–mesons, etc., the projector $`P`$ can be chosen as follows:

$$P|\mathrm{𝟏}><\mathrm{𝟏}|+|\mathrm{𝟐}><\mathrm{𝟐}|,$$
(13)
and the definition of $`|K_0>`$ and $`|\overline{K}_0>`$ is analogous to the one used in the LOY theory for corresponding vectors. In the LOY approach it is assumed that vectors $`|\mathrm{𝟏}>`$, $`|\mathrm{𝟐}>`$ considered above are eigenstates of $`H^{(0)}`$ for a 2–fold degenerate eigenvalue $`m_0`$:

$$H^{(0)}|𝐣>=m_0|𝐣>,j=1,2,$$
(14)
where $`H^{(0)}`$ is the so called free Hamiltonian, $`H^{(0)}H_{strong}=HH_W`$, and $`H_W`$ denotes weak and other interactions which are responsible for transitions between the eigenvectors of $`H^{(0)}`$, i.e., for the decay process. This means that

$$[P,H^{(0)}]=0.$$
(15)
The condition guaranteeing the occurrence of transitions between subspaces $`_{}`$ and $`_{}`$, i.e., the decay process of states in $`_{}`$, can be written as follows

$$[P,H_W]0,$$
(16)
that is

$$[P,H]0.$$
(17)
Usually, in LOY and related approaches, it is assumed that

$$\mathrm{\Theta }H^{(0)}\mathrm{\Theta }^1=H_{}^{(0)}{}_{}{}^{+}H^{(0)},$$
(18)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the antiunitary operator:

$$\mathrm{\Theta }\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}𝒞𝒫𝒯.$$
(19)
The subspace of neutral kaons $`_{}`$ is assumed to be invariant under $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$:

$$\mathrm{\Theta }P\mathrm{\Theta }^1=P^+P.$$
(20)
In the kaon rest frame, the time evolution is governed by the Schrödinger equation (9), where the initial state of the system has the form (10), (5). Within assumptions (14) — (16) the Weisskopf–Wigner approach, which is the source of the LOY method, leads to the following formula for $`H_{LOY}`$ (e.g., see ):

$`H_{LOY}=m_0P\mathrm{\Sigma }(m_0)`$ $``$ $`PHP\mathrm{\Sigma }(m_0),`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`M_{LOY}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{LOY}`$ (22)
where it has been assumed that $`<\mathrm{𝟏}|H_W|\mathrm{𝟐}>=<\mathrm{𝟏}|H_W|\mathrm{𝟐}>^{}=0`$ (see ),

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(ϵ)=PHQ\frac{1}{QHQϵi0}QHP.$$
(23)
The matrix elements $`h_{jk}^{LOY}`$ of $`H_{LOY}`$ are

$`h_{jk}^{LOY}`$ $`=`$ $`H_{jk}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{jk}(m_0),(j,k=1,2),`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`M_{jk}^{LOY}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^{LOY}`$ (25)
where, in this case,

$$H_{jk}=<𝐣|H|𝐤><𝐣|(H^{(0)}+H_W)|𝐤>m_0\delta _{jk}+<𝐣|H_W|𝐤>,$$
(26)
and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{jk}(ϵ)=<𝐣\mathrm{\Sigma }(ϵ)𝐤>`$.

Now, if $`\mathrm{\Theta }H_W\mathrm{\Theta }^1=H_W^+H_W`$, that is if

$$[\mathrm{\Theta },H]=0,$$
(27)
then using, e.g., the following phase convention

$$\mathrm{\Theta }|\mathrm{𝟏}>\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}|\mathrm{𝟐}>,\mathrm{\Theta }|\mathrm{𝟐}>\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}|\mathrm{𝟏}>,$$
(28)
and taking into account that $`<\psi |\phi >=<\mathrm{\Theta }\phi |\mathrm{\Theta }\psi >`$, one easily finds from (21) – (26) that

$$h_{11}^{LOY}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Theta }}h_{22}^{LOY}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Theta }}=0,$$
(29)
and thus

$$M_{11}^{LOY}=M_{22}^{LOY},$$
(30)
(where $`h_{jk}^{LOY}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ denotes the matrix elements of $`H_{LOY}^\mathrm{\Theta }`$ — of the LOY effective Hamiltonian when the relation (27) holds), in the CPT–invariant system. This is the standard result of the LOY approach and this is the picture which one meets in the literature .

If it is assumed that the CPT–symmetry is not conserved in the physical system under consideration, i.e., that

$$[\mathrm{\Theta },H]0,$$
(31)
then $`h_{11}^{LOY}h_{22}^{LOY}`$.

It is convenient to express the difference between $`H_{LOY}^\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and the effective Hamiltonian $`H_{LOY}`$ appearing within the LOY approach in the case of nonconserved CPT–symmetry as follows

$`H_{LOY}`$ $``$ $`H_{LOY}^\mathrm{\Theta }+\delta H_{LOY}`$ (32)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}(M_0+\frac{1}{2}\delta M)\frac{i}{2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0+\frac{1}{2}\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }),& M_{12}\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}\\ M_{12}^{}\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}^{}& (M_0\frac{1}{2}\delta M)\frac{i}{2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\frac{1}{2}\delta \mathrm{\Gamma })\end{array}\right).`$ (35)
In other words

$$h_{jk}^{LOY}=h_{jk}^{LOY}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Theta }}+\mathrm{\Delta }h_{jk}^{LOY},$$
(36)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }h_{jk}^{LOY}=(1)^{j+1}\frac{1}{2}(\delta M\frac{i}{2}\delta \mathrm{\Gamma })\delta _{jk},$$
(37)
and $`j,k=1,2`$. Within this approach the $`\delta M`$ and $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ terms violate the CPT–symmetry.

## 3 CPT and the exact effective Hamiltonian

The aim of this Section is to show that, contrary to the LOY conclusion (29), the diagonal matrix elements of the exact effective Hamiltonian $`H_{||}`$ can not be equal when the total system under consideration is CPT invariant but CP noninvariant. This will be done by means of the method used in .

The universal properties of the (unstable) particle–antiparticle subsystem of the system described by the Hamiltonian $`H`$, for which the relation (27) holds, can be extracted from the matrix elements of the exact $`U_{||}(t)`$ appearing in (4). Such $`U_{||}(t)`$ has the following form

$$U_{||}(t)=PU(t)P,$$
(38)
where $`P`$ is defined by the relation (13), and $`U(t)`$ is the total unitary evolution operator $`U(t)`$, which solves the Schrödinger equation (9). Of course, $`U_{||}(t)`$ has a nontrivial form only if (17) holds, and only then transitions of states from $`_{||}`$ into $`_{}`$ and vice versa, i.e., decay and regeneration processes, are allowed.

Using the matrix representation one finds

$$U_{||}(t)\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝐀(t)& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}\end{array}\right)$$
(39)
where $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$ denotes the suitable zero submatrices and a submatrix $`𝐀(t)`$ is the $`2\times 2`$ matrix acting in $`_{||}`$

$$𝐀(t)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A_{11}(t)& A_{12}(t)\\ A_{21}(t)& A_{22}(t)\end{array}\right)$$
(40)
and $`A_{jk}(t)=<𝐣|U_{||}(t)|𝐤><𝐣|U(t)|𝐤>`$, $`(j,k=1,2)`$.

Now, assuming (27) and using the phase convention (28), , one easily finds that ,

$$A_{11}(t)=A_{22}(t).$$
(41)
Note that assumptions (27) and (28) give no relations between $`A_{12}(t)`$ and $`A_{21}(t)`$.

The important relation between amplitudes $`A_{12}(t)`$ and $`A_{21}(t)`$ follows from the famous Khalfin’s Theorem , . This Theorem states that in the case of unstable states, if amplitudes $`A_{12}(t)`$ and $`A_{21}(t)`$ have the same time dependence

$$r(t)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\frac{A_{12}(t)}{A_{21}(t)}=\mathrm{const}r,,$$
(42)
there must be $`|r|=1`$.

For unstable particles relation (41) means that the decay laws

$$p_j(t)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}|A_{jj}(t)|^2,$$
(43)
(where $`j=1,2`$), of the particle $`|\mathrm{𝟏}>`$ and its antiparticle $`|\mathrm{𝟐}>`$ are equal,

$$p_1(t)p_2(t).$$
(44)
The consequence of this last property is that the decay rates of the particle $`|\mathrm{𝟏}>`$ and its antiparticle $`|\mathrm{𝟐}>`$ must be equal too.

From (41) it does not follow that the masses of particle ”1” and the antiparticle ”2” should be equal.

More conclusions about the properties of the matrix elements of $`H_{||}`$ one can infer analyzing the following identity

$$H_{||}H_{||}(t)=i\frac{U_{||}(t)}{t}[U_{||}(t)]^1,$$
(45)
where $`[U_{||}(t)]^1`$ is defined as follows

$$U_{||}(t)[U_{||}(t)]^1=[U_{||}(t)]^1U_{||}(t)=P.$$
(46)
(Note that the identity (45) holds, independent of whether $`[P,H]0`$ or $`[P,H]=0`$). The expression (45) can be rewritten using the matrix $`𝐀(t)`$

$$H_{||}(t)i\frac{𝐀(t)}{t}[𝐀(t)]^1.$$
(47)
Relations (45), (47) must be fulfilled by the exact as well as by every approximate effective Hamiltonian governing the time evolution in every two dimensional subspace $`_{||}`$ of states $``$ .

It is easy to find from (47) the general formulae for the diagonal matrix elements, $`h_{jj}`$, of $`H_{||}(t)`$, in which we are interested. We have

$`h_{11}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{det𝐀(t)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{A_{11}(t)}{t}}A_{22}(t){\displaystyle \frac{A_{12}(t)}{t}}A_{21}(t)\right),`$ (48)
$`h_{22}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{det𝐀(t)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{A_{21}(t)}{t}}A_{12}(t)+{\displaystyle \frac{A_{22}(t)}{t}}A_{11}(t)\right).`$ (49)
Now, assuming (27) and using the consequence (41) of this assumption, one finds

$$h_{11}(t)h_{22}(t)=\frac{i}{det𝐀(t)}\left(\frac{A_{21}(t)}{t}A_{12}(t)\frac{A_{12}(t)}{t}A_{21}(t)\right).$$
(50)
Next, after some algebra one obtains

$$h_{11}(t)h_{22}(t)=i\frac{A_{12}(t)A_{21}(t)}{det𝐀(t)}\frac{}{t}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{A_{12}(t)}{A_{21}(t)}\right).$$
(51)
This result means that in the considered case for $`t>0`$ the following Theorem holds:

$$h_{11}(t)h_{22}(t)=0\frac{A_{12}(t)}{A_{21}(t)}=\mathrm{const}.,(t>0).$$
(52)
Thus for $`t>0`$ the problem under study is reduced to the Khalfin’s Theorem (see the relation (42)).

From (48) and (49) it is easy to see that at $`t=0`$

$$h_{jj}(0)=<𝐣|H|𝐣>,(j=1,2),$$
(53)
which means that in a CPT invariant system (27) in the case of pairs of unstable particles, for which transformations of type (28) hold

$$M_{11}(0)=M_{22}(0)<\mathrm{𝟏}|H|\mathrm{𝟏}>,$$
(54)
the unstable particles ”1” and ”2” are created at $`t=t_00`$ as particles with equal masses.

Now let us go on to analyze the conclusions following from the Khalfin’s Theorem. CP noninvariance requires that $`|r|1`$  (see also , ). This means that in such a case there must be $`rr(t)\mathrm{const}.`$. So, if in the system considered the property (27) holds but

$$[𝒞𝒫,H]0,$$
(55)
and the unstable states ”1” and ”2” are connected by a relation of type (28), then at $`t>0`$ it must be $`(h_{11}(t)h_{22}(t))0`$ in this system. Assuming the LOY interpretation of $`\mathrm{}(h_{jj}(t))`$, ($`j=1,2`$), one can conclude from the Khalfin’s Theorem and from the property (52) that if $`A_{12}(t),A_{21}(t)0`$ for $`t>0`$ and if the total system considered is CPT–invariant, but CP–noninvariant, then $`M_{11}(t)M_{22}(t)`$ for $`t>0`$, that is, that contrary to the case of stable particles (the bound states), the masses of the simultaneously created unstable particle ”1” and its antiparticle ”2”, which are connected by the relation (28), need not be equal for $`t>t_0=0`$. Of course, such a conclusion contradicts the standard LOY result (29), (30). However, one should remember that the LOY description of neutral $`K`$ mesons and similar complexes is only an approximate one, and that the LOY approximation is not perfect. On the other hand the relation (52) and the Khalfin’s Theorem follow from the basic principles of the quantum theory and are rigorous. Consequently, their implications should also be considered rigorous.

## 4 Beyond the LOY approximation

The approximate formulae for $`H_{}(t)`$ have been derived in  using the Krolikowski–Rzewuski equation for the projection of a state vector , which results from the Schrödinger equation (9) for the total system under consideration, and, in the case of the initial conditions of the type (10), takes the following form

$$(i\frac{}{t}PHP)U_{}(t)|\psi >_{||}=i_0^{\mathrm{}}K(t\tau )U_{}(\tau )|\psi >_{||}𝑑\tau ,$$
(56)
where $`U_{}(0)=P`$,

$$K(t)=\mathrm{\Theta }(t)PHQ\mathrm{exp}(itQHQ)QHP,$$
(57)
and $`\mathrm{\Theta }(t)=\{1\mathrm{for}t0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}\mathrm{for}t<0\}`$.

The integro–differential equation (56) can be replaced by the following differential one (see )

$$(i\frac{}{t}PHPV_{||}(t))U_{}(t)|\psi >_{||}=0,$$
(58)
where

$$PHP+V_{||}(t)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}H_{||}(t).$$
(59)
Taking into account (56) and (58) or (1) one finds from (4) and (56)

$$V_{}(t)U_{}(t)=i_0^{\mathrm{}}K(t\tau )U_{}(\tau )𝑑\tau \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}iKU_{}(t).$$
(60)
(Here the asterisk, $``$, denotes the convolution: $`fg(t)=_0^{\mathrm{}}f(t\tau )g(\tau )𝑑\tau `$ ).Next, using this relation and a retarded Green’s operator $`G(t)`$ for the equation (56)

$$G(t)=i\mathrm{\Theta }(t)\mathrm{exp}(itPHP)P,$$
(61)
one obtains

$$U_{}(t)=\left[\mathit{1}+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(i)^nL\mathrm{}L\right]U_{}^{(0)}(t),$$
(62)
where $`L`$ is convoluted $`n`$ times, $`\mathit{1}\mathit{1}(t)\delta (t)`$,

$$L(t)=GK(t),$$
(63)
$$U_{}^{(0)}=\mathrm{exp}(itPHP)P$$
(64)
is a ”free” solution of Eq. (56). Thus from (60)

$$V_{}(t)U_{}(t)=iK\left[\mathit{1}+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(i)^nL\mathrm{}L\right]U_{}^{(0)}(t),$$
(65)
Of course, the series (62), (65) are convergent if $`L(t)<1`$. If for every $`t0`$

$$L(t)1,$$
(66)
then, to the lowest order of $`L(t)`$, one finds from (65)

$$V_{}(t)V_{}^{(1)}(t)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}i_0^{\mathrm{}}K(t\tau )\mathrm{exp}[i(t\tau )PHP]𝑑\tau .$$
(67)
Thus

$$H_{}(0)PHP,V_{}(0)=0,V_{}(t0)itPHQHP.$$
(68)
If the projector $`P`$ is defined as in (13) and $`H`$ has the following property

$$PHPm_0P,$$
(69)
that is for

$$H_{12}=H_{21}=0,$$
(70)
the approximate formula (67) for $`V_{}(t)`$ leads to the following form of $`Pe^{itPHP}`$,

$$Pe^{itPHP}=Pe^{itm_0},$$
(71)
and thus to

$$V_{}^{(1)}(t)=PHQ\frac{e^{it\left(QHQm_0\right)}1}{QHQm_0}QHP,$$
(72)
which leads to $`V_{||}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}lim_t\mathrm{}V_{||}^{(1)}(t)`$,

$$V_{||}=\mathrm{\Sigma }(m_0).$$
(73)
This means that in the case (69)

$$H_{||}=m_0P\mathrm{\Sigma }(m_0),$$
(74)
and $`H_{||}=H_{LOY}`$.

On the other hand, in the case

$$H_{12}=H_{21}^{}0,$$
(75)
the form of $`Pe^{itPHP}`$ is more complicated. For example in the case of conserved CPT, formula (67) leads to the following form of $`V_{||}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}lim_t\mathrm{}V_{||}^{(1)}(t)`$

$`V_{||}^\mathrm{\Theta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }(H_0+|H_{12}|)\left[\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{|H{}_{12}{}^{}|}}\right)P+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|H_{12}|}}PHP\right]`$ (76)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }(H_0|H_{12}|)\left[\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{|H{}_{12}{}^{}|}}\right)P{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|H_{12}|}}PHP\right],`$
where

$$H_0\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\frac{1}{2}(H_{11}+H_{22}),$$
(77)
and $`V_{}^\mathrm{\Theta }`$ denotes $`V_{}`$ when (27) occurs.

In the general case (75), when there are no assumptions on symmetries of the type CP–, T–, or CPT–symmetry for the total Hamiltonian H of the system considered, the form of $`V_{||}=V_{}(t\mathrm{})V_{}^{(1)}(\mathrm{})`$ is even more complicated. In such a case one finds the following expressions for the matrix elements $`v_{jk}(t\mathrm{})\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}v_{jk}`$ of $`V_{}`$ ,

$`v_{j1}=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{H_z}{\kappa }}\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j1}(H_0+\kappa ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{H_z}{\kappa }}\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j1}(H_0\kappa )`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{H_{21}}{2\kappa }}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j2}(H_0+\kappa )+{\displaystyle \frac{H_{21}}{2\kappa }}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j2}(H_0\kappa ),`$
$`v_{j2}=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{H_z}{\kappa }}\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j2}(H_0+\kappa ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{H_z}{\kappa }}\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j2}(H_0\kappa )`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{H_{12}}{2\kappa }}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j1}(H_0+\kappa )+{\displaystyle \frac{H_{12}}{2\kappa }}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j1}(H_0\kappa ),`$
where $`j,k=1,2`$,

$$H_z=\frac{1}{2}(H_{11}H_{22}),$$
(79)
and

$$\kappa =(|H_{12}|^2+H_z^2)^{1/2}.$$
(80)
Hence, by (59)

$$h_{jk}=H_{jk}+v_{jk}.$$
(81)
It should be emphasized that all components of the expressions (LABEL:v-jk) are of the same order with respect to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\epsilon )`$.

In the case of preserved CPT–symmetry (27), one finds $`H_{11}=H_{22}`$ which implies that $`\kappa |H_{12}|`$, $`H_z0`$ and $`H_0H_{11}H_{22}`$, and

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}(\epsilon =\epsilon ^{})\mathrm{\Sigma }_{22}(\epsilon =\epsilon ^{})\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(\epsilon =\epsilon ^{}).$$
(82)
Therefore matrix elements $`v_{jk}^\mathrm{\Theta }`$ of operator $`V_{}^\mathrm{\Theta }`$ take the following form

$`v_{j1}^\mathrm{\Theta }=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j1}(H_0+|H_{12}|)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j1}(H_0|H_{12}|)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{H_{21}}{|H_{12}|}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j2}(H_0+|H_{12}|){\displaystyle \frac{H_{21}}{|H_{12}|}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j2}(H_0|H_{12}|)\},`$
$`v_{j2}^\mathrm{\Theta }=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j2}(H_0+|H_{12}|)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j2}(H_0|H_{12}|)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{H_{12}}{|H_{12}|}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j1}(H_0+|H_{12}|){\displaystyle \frac{H_{12}}{|H_{12}|}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j1}(H_0|H_{12}|)\},`$
Assuming

$$|H_{12}||H_0|,$$
(84)
we find

$$v_{j1}^\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j1}(H_0)H_{21}\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j2}(x)}{x}\begin{array}{c}\\ x=H_0\hfill \end{array},$$
(85)
$$v_{j2}^\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j2}(H_0)H_{12}\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j1}(x)}{x}\begin{array}{c}\\ x=H_0\hfill \end{array},$$
(86)
where $`j=1,2`$. One should stress that due to the presence of resonance terms, derivatives $`\frac{}{x}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{jk}(x)`$ need not be small and the same is true about products $`H_{jk}\frac{}{x}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{jk}(x)`$ in (85), (86). Finally, assuming that (84) holds and using relations (85), (86), (81) and the expression (24), we obtain for the CPT–invariant system

$$h_{j1}^\mathrm{\Theta }h_{j1}^{\mathrm{LOY}}H_{21}\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j2}(x)}{x}\begin{array}{c}\\ x=H_0\hfill \end{array}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}h_{j1}^{\mathrm{LOY}}+\delta h_{j1},$$
(87)
$$h_{j2}^\mathrm{\Theta }h_{j2}^{\mathrm{LOY}}H_{12}\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j1}(x)}{x}\begin{array}{c}\\ x=H_0\hfill \end{array}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}h_{j2}^{\mathrm{LOY}}+\delta h_{j2},$$
(88)
where $`j=1,2`$. From these formulae we conclude that, e.g., the difference between the diagonal matrix elements of $`H_{}^\mathrm{\Theta }`$ which plays an important role in designing CPT–invariance tests for the neutral kaons system, equals

$$\mathrm{\Delta }h\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}h_{11}h_{22}H_{12}\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{21}(x)}{x}\begin{array}{c}\\ x=H_0\hfill \end{array}H_{21}\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}(x)}{x}\begin{array}{c}\\ x=H_0\hfill \end{array}0.$$
(89)
## 5 Final remarks

In the case of conserved CPT– and violated CP– symmetries there must be

$$h_{11}^\mathrm{\Theta }(t)h_{22}^\mathrm{\Theta }(t)0\mathrm{for}t>t_0=0,$$

and, $`h_{11}(0)=h_{22}(0)=<\mathrm{𝟏}|H|\mathrm{𝟏}>`$, for the exact $`H_{||}`$.

Note that properties of the more accurate approximation described in Sec. 4 are consistent with the general properties and conclusions obtained in Sec. 3 for the exact effective Hamiltonian — compare (68) and (53) and relations (52) with (89).

From the result ( 89) it follows that $`\mathrm{\Delta }h=0`$ can be achieved only if $`H_{12}=H_{21}=0`$. This means that if the first order $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=2`$ interactions are forbidden in the $`K_0,\overline{K}_0`$ complex then predictions following from the use of the mentioned more accurate approximation and from the LOY theory should lead to the the same masses for $`K_0`$ and for $`\overline{K}_0`$. This does not contradict the results of Sec. 3 derived for the exact $`H_{||}`$: the mass difference is very, very small and should arise at higher orders of the more accurate approximation.

On the other hand from (89) it follows that $`\mathrm{\Delta }h0`$ if and only if $`H_{12}0`$. This means that if measurable deviations from the LOY predictions concerning the masses of, e.g. $`K_0,\overline{K}_0`$ mesons are ever detected, then the most plausible interpretation of this result will be the existence of first order $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=2`$ interactions in the system considered.