text:
# 1 Expected number of CC signal events from 𝜈_𝜇→{𝜈_𝜇,𝜈_𝑒} oscillations for NBB(2GeV), NBB(3GeV) and those from (𝜈_𝜇)̄→{(𝜈_𝜇)̄,(𝜈_𝑒)̄} oscillations for (NBB)̄(2GeV), with 1Mt⋅year exposure. The results are shown for the parameters of eq.().

Neutrino oscillation experiment is one of the most attractive experiments in the first quarter of 21st century. Many experiments will measure precisely the model parameters in the neutrino oscillations. In this article, we discuss the sensitivity of a long-base-line (LBL) experiment with conventional neutrino beams to measure the CP phase in the lepton sector.

The Super-Kamiokande (SK) collaboration showed that the $`\nu _\mu `$ created in the atmosphere oscillates into $`\nu _\tau `$ with almost maximal mixing . The SNO collaboration reported that the $`\nu _e`$’s from the sun oscillate into the other active neutrinos . A consistent picture in the three active-neutrino framework is emerging.

In the three-neutrino-model, neutrino oscillations depend on two mass-squared differences, three mixing angles and one CP violating phase of the lepton-flavor mixing (Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata (MNS) ) matrix. These parameters are constrained by the solar and atmospheric neutrino observations. One of the mixing angles and one of the mass-squared differences are constrained by the atmospheric-neutrino observation, which we may label  as $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{_{\mathrm{ATM}}}`$ and $`\delta m_{_{\mathrm{ATM}}}^2`$, respectively. The K2K experiment, the ongoing LBL neutrino oscillation experiment from KEK to SK, constrains the same parameters . Their findings are consistent with the maximal mixing, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{_{\mathrm{ATM}}}1`$ ($`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{_{\mathrm{ATM}}}0.5`$) and $`\delta m_{_{\mathrm{ATM}}}^2(24)\times 10^3`$(eV2). The solar-neutrino observations constrain another mixing angle and the other mass-squared difference, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{_{\mathrm{SOL}}}`$ and $`\delta m_{_{\mathrm{SOL}}}^2`$, respectively. Four possible solutions to the solar-neutrino deficit problem  are found: the MSW  large-mixing-angle (LMA) solution, the MSW small-mixing-angle (SMA) solution, the vacuum oscillation (VO) solution , and the MSW low-$`\delta m^2`$ (LOW) solution. The SK collaboration  and the SNO collaboration  suggested that the MSW LMA solution is the most favorable solution among them, for which $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{_{\mathrm{SOL}}}=0.70.9`$ and $`\delta m_{_{\mathrm{SOL}}}^2=(315)\times 10^5`$ eV2. For the third mixing angle, only the upper bound is obtained from the reactor neutrino experiments. CHOOZ  and Palo Verde  found $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{_{\mathrm{RCT}}}<0.1`$ for $`\delta m_{_{\mathrm{ATM}}}^23\times 10^3`$ eV2. No constraint on the CP phase ($`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}`$) has been reported.

Several future LBL neutrino-oscillation experiments - have been proposed to confirm the results of these experiments and to measure the neutrino oscillation parameters more precisely. One of those experiments proposed in Japan makes use of the beam from High Intensity Proton Accelerator (HIPA)  and SK as the detector . The facility HIPA  has a 50 GeV proton accelerator to be completed by the year 2007 in the site of JAERI (Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute), as a joint project of KEK and JAERI. The proton beam of HIPA will deliver neutrino beams of sub-GeV to several GeV range, whose intensity will be two orders of magnitudes higher than that of the KEK PS beam for the K2K experiment. The HIPA-to-SK experiment with $`L`$=295 km base-line length and $`E_\nu 1`$ GeV will measure $`\delta m_{_{\mathrm{ATM}}}^2`$ at about 3 $`\%`$ accuracy and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{_{\mathrm{ATM}}}`$ at about 1 $`\%`$ accuracy from the $`\nu _\mu `$ survival rate, while $`\nu _\mu `$-to-$`\nu _e`$ oscillation can be discovered if $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{_{\mathrm{RCT}}}=4|U_{e3}^2|(1|U_{e3}^2|)\mathrm{\Gamma }>`$0.006 . As a sequel to the HIPA-to-SK LBL experiment, prospects of using the HIPA beam for a very long base-line (VLBL) experiments with the base-line length of a few thousand km have been studied . Use of narrow-band high-energy neutrino beams $`(E_\nu =36`$GeV$`)`$ and a 100kton-level water $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{C}}`$erenkov detector  will allow us to distinguish the neutrino mass hierarchy (the sign of $`m_3^2m_1^2`$), if $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{_{\mathrm{RCT}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.03}`$ . If the LMA solution of the solar neutrino deficit is chosen by the nature, we can further constrain the allowed region of the $`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{_{\mathrm{RCT}}}`$ . However, because $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$ appearance is strongly suppressed by the matter effect at such high energies, the measurement is not sensitive to the CP violating effects, $`\mathrm{sin}\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}`$. In this paper, we study the capability of an LBL experiment between HIPA and Hyper-Kamiokande (HK), a megaton-level water $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{C}}`$erenkov detector being proposed to be built at the Kamioka site . Here a combination of the shorter distance $`(L=295`$km$`)`$ and low $`\nu `$-energy $`(E_\nu 1`$GeV$`)`$ makes the matter effect small, and the comparison of $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$ appearance experiments is expected to have sensitivity to the CP violation effects proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}`$.

The MNS matrix of the three-neutrino model is defined as

$$\nu _\alpha =\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left(V_{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}\right)_{\alpha i}\nu _i=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left(U_{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}\right)_{\alpha i}𝒫_{ii}\nu _i,$$
(1)
where $`\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau `$ are the lepton-flavor indices and $`\nu _i(i=1,2,3)`$ denotes the neutrino mass-eigenstates. The $`3\times 3`$ MNS matrix, $`V_{\mathrm{MNS}}`$, has three mixing angles and three phases in general for Majorana neutrinos. In the above parameterization, the two Majorana phases reside in the diagonal phase matrix $`𝒫`$, and the matrix $`U`$, which has three mixing angles and one phase, can be parameterized in the same way as the CKM matrix . Because the present neutrino oscillation experiments constrain directly the elements, $`U_{e2}`$, $`U_{e3}`$, and $`U_{\mu 3}`$, we find it most convenient to adopt the parameterization  where these three matrix elements in the upper-right corner of the $`U`$ matrix are chosen as the independent parameters. Without losing generality, we can take $`U_{e2}`$ and $`U_{\mu 3}`$ to be real and non-negative while $`U_{e3}`$ is a complex number. All the other matrix elements of the $`U`$ are then determined by the unitary conditions .

The probability of finding the flavor-eigenstate $`\beta `$ at base-line length $`L`$ in the vacuum from the original flavor-eigenstate $`\alpha `$ is given by

$`P_{\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta }`$ $`=`$ $`\left|U_{\beta 1}U_{\alpha 1}^{}+U_{\beta 2}e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}}U_{\alpha 2}^{}+U_{\beta 3}e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}}U_{\alpha 3}^{}\right|^2,`$ (2)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}\frac{m_j^2m_i^2}{2E_\nu }L2.534\frac{\delta m_{ij}^2(\mathrm{eV}^2)}{E_\nu (\mathrm{GeV})}L(\mathrm{km})$$
(3)
satisfy $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{31}=(\delta m_{12}^2+\delta m_{23}^2+\delta m_{31}^2)(L/2E_\nu )=0`$. The two independent mass-squared differences are identified with the two “measured” ones, as follows;

$$\delta m_{_{\mathrm{SOL}}}^2=\left|\delta m_{12}^2\right|\left|\delta m_{13}^2\right|=\delta m_{_{\mathrm{ATM}}}^2.$$
(4)
With the above identification, the MNS matrix elements are constrained by the observed survival probabilities, $`P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\mu }`$ from the atmospheric neutrinos , $`P_{\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e}`$ from the reactor anti-neutrinos , and $`P_{\nu _e\nu _e}`$ from the solar neutrinos . The four independent parameters of the MNS matrix are then related to the observed oscillation amplitudes as

$`\left|U_{e3}\right|^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1\sqrt{1\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{_{\mathrm{RCT}}}}\right)/2,`$ (5a)
$`\left(U_{\mu 3}\right)^2`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{_{\mathrm{ATM}}}=\left(1\pm \sqrt{1\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{_{\mathrm{ATM}}}}\right)/2,`$ (5b)
$`\left(U_{e2}^2\right)^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1\left|U_{e3}\right|^2\sqrt{\left(1\left|U_{e3}\right|^2\right)^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{_{\mathrm{SOL}}}}\right)/2,`$ (5c)
$`arg\left(U_{e3}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}.`$ (5d)
The CP phase of the MNS matrix, $`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}`$, is not constrained. The solution eq.(5c) follows from our convention , $`U_{e1}>U_{e2}`$, which defines the mass-eigenstate $`\nu _1`$. In this convention, there are four mass hierarchy cases corresponding to the sign of $`\delta m_{ij}^2`$; I $`(\delta m_{13}^2>\delta m_{12}^2>0)`$, II $`(\delta m_{13}^2>0>\delta m_{12}^2)`$, III $`(\delta m_{12}^2>0>\delta m_{13}^2)`$, and IV $`(0>\delta m_{12}^2>\delta m_{13}^2)`$ . If the MSW effect is relevant for the solar neutrino oscillation, then the neutrino mass hierarchy cases II and IV are not favored. When $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{_{\mathrm{ATM}}}1`$, there is an additional twofold ambiguity in the determination of $`U_{\mu 3}`$ in eq.(5b). In order to avoid the ambiguity, we adopt the $`U_{\mu 3}`$ element itself, or equivalently $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{_{\mathrm{ATM}}}`$ defined in eq.(5b), as an independent parameter of the MNS matrix. Summing up, we parametrize the three-flavor neutrino oscillation parameters in terms of the 5 observed (constrained) parameters $`\delta m_{_{\mathrm{ATM}}}^2`$, $`\delta m_{_{\mathrm{SOL}}}^2`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{_{\mathrm{ATM}}}`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{_{\mathrm{SOL}}}`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{_{\mathrm{RCT}}}`$ and one CP-violating phase $`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}`$, for four hierarchy cases.

Neutrino-flavor oscillation inside of the matter is governed by the Schrödinger equation

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _e\\ \nu _\mu \\ \nu _\tau \end{array}\right)=H\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _e\\ \nu _\mu \\ \nu _\tau \end{array}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2E_\nu }}\left[H_0+\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)\right]\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _e\\ \nu _\mu \\ \nu _\tau \end{array}\right),`$ (18)
where $`H_0`$ is the Hamiltonian in the vacuum and $`a`$ is the matter effect term

$`a=2\sqrt{2}G_Fn_eE_\nu =7.56\times 10^5(\mathrm{eV}^2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^3}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_\nu }{\mathrm{GeV}}}\right).`$ (19)
Here $`n_e`$ is the electron density of the matter, $`E_\nu `$ is the neutrino energy, $`G_F`$ is the Fermi constant, and $`\rho `$ is the matter density. In our analysis, we assume for brevity that the density of the earth’s crust relevant for the LBL experiment, between HIPA and HK is a constant, $`\rho =3`$, with an overall uncertainty of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho =0.1`$;

$$\rho (\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^3)=3.0\pm 0.1.$$
(20)
The Hamiltonian is diagonalized as

$$H=\frac{1}{2E_\nu }\stackrel{~}{U}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda _1& 0& 0\\ 0& \lambda _2& 0\\ 0& 0& \lambda _3\end{array}\right)\stackrel{~}{U}^{},$$
(21)
by the MNS matrix in the matter $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$. The neutrino-flavor oscillation probabilities in the matter

$$P_{\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta }=\left|\stackrel{~}{U}_{\beta 1}\stackrel{~}{U}_{\alpha 1}^{}+\stackrel{~}{U}_{\beta 2}e^{i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{12}}\stackrel{~}{U}_{\alpha 2}^{}+\stackrel{~}{U}_{\beta 3}e^{i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{13}}\stackrel{~}{U}_{\alpha 3}^{}\right|^2,$$
(22)
takes the same form as those in the vacuum, with $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{ij}=(\lambda _j\lambda _i)L/2E_\nu `$, if the matter density can be approximated by a constant throughout the base-line. Because the effective matter potential for anti-neutrinos has the opposite sign with the same magnitude, the total Hamiltonian $`\overline{H}`$ governing the anti-neutrino oscillation in the matter is obtained from $`H`$ as follows ,

$$\overline{H}(\delta m_{12}^2,\delta m_{13}^2)=H^{}(\delta m_{12}^2,\delta m_{13}^2).$$
(23)
We make the following simple treatments in estimating the signals and the backgrounds in our analysis.

* We assume a 1 Mega-ton water $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{C}}`$erenkov detector, which is capable of distinguishing between $`e^\pm `$ CC events and $`\mu ^\pm `$ CC events, but cannot distinguish their charges.
* We do not require capability of the detector to reconstruct the neutrino energy.

Although the water $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{C}}`$erenkov detector has the capability of measuring the energy of the produced $`\mu `$ and $`e`$ as well as a part of hadronic activities, we do not make use of these information in this analysis. We only use the total numbers of the produced $`\mu ^\pm `$ and $`e^\pm `$ events from $`\nu _\mu `$ or $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ narrow-band-beams (NBB). The NBBs from HIPA deliver $`10^{21}`$ protons on target (POT) in a typical 1 year operation, corresponding to about 100 days of operation with the design intensity . Details of the NBB’s used for this study are available from the web-page .

In the following discussion, we examine $`\nu _\mu `$ NBB’s with the mean $`\pi `$ momentum $`p_\pi =2`$GeV ($`\mathrm{NBB}`$($`2`$GeV)) and $`p_\pi =3`$GeV ($`\mathrm{NBB}`$($`3`$GeV)), and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ NBB with $`p_\pi =2`$GeV, ($`\overline{\mathrm{NBB}}`$($`2`$GeV)). For our input (‘true’) value of $`\delta m_{_{\mathrm{ATM}}}^2=3.5\times 10^3`$ eV2, the probability $`P_{\nu _\mu \nu _e}`$ has a broad peak at $`E_\nu 1`$GeV. $`\mathrm{NBB}`$($`2`$GeV) and $`\overline{\mathrm{NBB}}`$($`2`$GeV) are chosen to maximize the transition probability, since $`E_\nu p_\pi /2`$. Because $`P_{\nu _\mu \nu _e}`$ does not change much in the range $`E_\nu 0.61.2`$ GeV, our results do not depend strongly on the true value of the $`\delta m_{_{\mathrm{ATM}}}^2`$: as long as it stays in the range $`(25)\times 10^3`$ eV2 .

The signals in this analysis are the numbers of $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _e`$ CC events from $`\mathrm{NBB}`$($`2,3`$GeV) and those of the $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ CC events from $`\overline{\mathrm{NBB}}`$($`2`$GeV). These are calculated as

$`N_l(\nu _\mu ;p_\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`MN_A{\displaystyle _0^{10\text{GeV}}}𝑑E_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _\mu }(E_\nu ;p_\pi )P_{\nu _\mu \nu _{\mathrm{}}}(E_\nu )\sigma _\nu _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{CC}}(E_\nu ),`$ (24a)
$`\overline{N}_{\overline{l}}(\overline{\nu }_\mu ;p_\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`MN_A{\displaystyle _0^{10\text{GeV}}}𝑑E_{\overline{\nu }}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\overline{\nu }_\mu }(E_{\overline{\nu }};p_\pi )P_{\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}}(E_{\overline{\nu }})\sigma _{\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}}^{\mathrm{CC}}(E_{\overline{\nu }}),`$ (24b)
for $`l=e`$ or $`\mu `$, where $`M`$ is the mass of detector (1Mega-ton), $`N_A=6.017\times 10^{23}`$ is the Avogadro number, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _\mu }(E_\nu ;p_\pi )`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\overline{\nu }_\mu }(E_{\overline{\nu }};p_\pi )`$ are the flux of $`\nu _\mu `$ in $`\mathrm{NBB}`$($`p_\pi `$GeV) and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ in $`\overline{\mathrm{NBB}}`$($`p_\pi `$GeV), respectively. The flux is negligibly small at $`E_\nu >10`$GeV for the NBB’s used in our analysis. The cross sections are obtained by assuming a pure water target .

Typical numbers of expected CC signals are tabulated in Table 1 for the parameter sets***Recently KamLAND collaboration confirmed that only the LMA solution of the solar-neutrino deficit problem is consistent with the data. The allowed region of $`\delta m_{_{\mathrm{SOL}}}^2`$ is found to be either $`(69)`$ or $`(1319)\times 10^5`$eV2, slightly below or above our input value. The conclusions of this paper remain valid no matter which region its true value is. :

$`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{_{\mathrm{ATM}}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.5,\delta m_{13}^2=\delta m_{_{\mathrm{ATM}}}^2=3.5\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2,`$ (25a)
$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{_{\mathrm{SOL}}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.8,\delta m_{12}^2=\delta m_{_{\mathrm{SOL}}}^2=1.0\times 10^4\mathrm{eV}^2,`$ (25b)
$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{_{\mathrm{RCT}}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.06,0.01,\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}=0^{},90^{},180^{},270^{},`$ (25c)
$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`3\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^3.`$ (25d)
The numbers in the Table 1 are for 1 Mt$``$year exposure with $`10^{21}`$ POT per year for 0.77 MW operation of HIPA at $`L=295`$ km. From Table 1, we learn that the transition events, $`N_e`$ and $`\overline{N}_{\overline{e}}`$, are sufficiently large to have the potential of distinguishing the CP conserved cases, $`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}=0^{}`$ and $`180^{}`$, from the CP violating cases of $`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}=90^{}`$ and $`270^{}`$, even if $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{_{\mathrm{RCT}}}=0.01`$. We also find that the survival events, $`N_\mu `$ and $`\overline{N}_{\overline{\mu }}`$, barely depend on the CP phase. The ratio $`\overline{N}_{\overline{\mu }}(2`$GeV$`)`$/$`N_\mu (2`$GeV$`)`$ is approximately $`\sigma _{\nu _\mu }^{\mathrm{CC}}/\sigma _{\overline{\nu }_\mu }^{\mathrm{CC}}2.9`$, because both the flux and the survival rates are approximately the same for $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ . From the comparison of $`N_{\mathrm{}}(2`$GeV$`)`$ and $`N_{\mathrm{}}(3`$GeV$`)`$, we find that $`N_\mu (3`$GeV$`)`$/$`N_\mu (2`$GeV$`)3`$ because of the rise in the cross section ($`1.5`$) and the increase in the survival rate $`(2)`$. The $`\nu _e`$ appearance signal $`N_e`$ increases only slightly at higher energies because a slight decrease in the transition probability cancels partially the effect of the rising cross section. Most notably, we find that the difference between the predictions of $`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}=0^{}`$ and $`180^{}`$ cases is significantly larger for $`N_e(\nu _\mu ;p_\pi =3`$GeV$`)`$ than that for $`N_e(\nu _\mu ;p_\pi =2`$GeV$`)`$.

The above results can be seen clearly in Fig.1, where we show the expected number of $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ CC events $`\overline{N}_{\overline{e}}`$ for $`\overline{\mathrm{NBB}}`$($`2`$GeV) with 4Mton$``$year plotted against those of the $`\nu _e`$ CC event $`N_e`$ for $`\mathrm{NBB}`$($`2`$GeV) (left) and for $`\mathrm{NBB}`$($`3`$GeV) (right), both with 1Mton$``$year. The CP-phase dependence of the predictions are shown as closed circles for the parameters of eq.(S0.EGx6) at $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{_{\mathrm{RCT}}}=0.06`$, 0.04, 0.02, and 0.01. Comparable numbers of $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ CC events $`(\overline{N}_{\overline{e}})`$ and $`\nu _e`$ CC events $`(N_e)`$ are expected by giving 4 times more $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ than $`\nu _\mu `$ beams. At each $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{_{\mathrm{RCT}}}`$ the $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ events are expected to be smaller at $`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}=90^{}`$ (solid-squares) than at $`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}=270^{}`$ (open-squares). The trend is opposite for the $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$ events, and thus anti-correlation allows us to distinguish the two cases clearly. On the other hand, the expected number at $`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}=0^{}`$ (solid-circles) and that at $`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}=180^{}`$ (open-circles) do not differ much for $`\mathrm{NBB}`$($`2`$GeV) and $`\overline{\mathrm{NBB}}`$($`2`$GeV). We find that $`\mathrm{NBB}`$($`3`$GeV) predicts significant differences between the two CP-invariant cases without loosing event numbers.

In this report, we assume 1Mton$``$year exposure each with $`\mathrm{NBB}`$($`2`$GeV) and $`\mathrm{NBB}`$($`3`$GeV) and 4Mton$``$year exposure of $`\overline{\mathrm{NBB}}`$($`2`$GeV), and examine the capability of HIPA-to-Hyper-Kamiokande experiments to measure the CP phase, $`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}`$, under the following simplified treatments of the backgrounds and systematic errors.

For the $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\mu `$ CC signal from $`\mathrm{NBB}`$($`\nu _\mu ;p_\pi )`$, $`N_e(\nu _\mu ;p_\pi )`$ and $`N_\mu (\nu _\mu ;p_\pi )`$, respectively, we consider the following backgrounds:

$`N_e(p_\pi )_{\mathrm{BG}}`$ $`=`$ $`N_e(\nu _e;p_\pi )+N_{\overline{e}}(\overline{\nu }_\mu ;p_\pi )+N_{\overline{e}}(\overline{\nu }_e;p_\pi )+N_{e,\overline{e}}(NC;p_\pi ),`$ (26a)
$`N_\mu (p_\pi )_{\mathrm{BG}}`$ $`=`$ $`N_\mu (\nu _e;p_\pi )+N_{\overline{\mu }}(\overline{\nu }_\mu ;p_\pi )+N_{\overline{\mu }}(\overline{\nu }_e;p_\pi ).`$ (26b)
The first 3 terms in the r.h.s. are calculated as

$$N_{\stackrel{()}{l}}(\stackrel{()}{\nu _\alpha };p_\pi )=MN_A_0^{10\text{GeV}}𝑑E_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }_{\stackrel{()}{\nu _\alpha }}(E_\nu ;p_\pi )P_{\stackrel{()}{\nu _\alpha }\stackrel{()}{\nu _l}}(E_\nu )\sigma _{\stackrel{()}{\nu _l}}^{\mathrm{CC}}(E_\nu ),$$
(27)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _\alpha }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\nu }_\alpha }`$ stands, respectively, for the secondary $`\nu _\alpha `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\alpha `$ flux of the primarily $`\nu _\mu `$ NBB. The last term in eq.(26a) for the $`e`$-like events gives the contribution of the NC events where produced $`\pi ^0`$’s mimic the electron shower in the HK. By using the estimations from the K2K experiments , we use

$$N_{e,\overline{e}}(NC;p_\pi )=P_{e/NC}\underset{\nu _\alpha =\nu _e,\overline{\nu }_e,\nu _\mu ,\overline{\nu }_\mu }{}N_{\nu _\alpha }^{NC}(p_\pi ),$$
(28)
with

$$P_{e/NC}=0.25\times (1\pm 0.1)\%,$$
(29)
where the NC event numbers are calculated as in eq.(27) by replacing $`\sigma _\nu _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{CC}}`$ by $`\sigma _\nu _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{NC}}`$. The 10% error in the misidentification probability of 0.25% is accounted for as a systematic error . The $`\tau `$-lepton contribution is found to be negligibly small for the NBB’s considered in this analysis. The background for the $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ enriched beam $`\overline{\mathrm{NBB}}`$($`2`$GeV) are evaluated in the same way.

Summing up, the event numbers for each energy neutrino and anti-neutrino NBB’s are calculated from the sum :

$`N_l(p_\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`N_l(\nu _\mu ;p_\pi )+N_l(p_\pi )_{\mathrm{BG}},`$ (30a)
$`\overline{N}_l(p_\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{N}_{\overline{l}}(\overline{\nu _\mu };p_\pi )+\overline{N}_l(p_\pi )_{\mathrm{BG}}.`$ (30b)
Most importantly, we do not require the capability of the HK detector to distinguish charges of electrons and muons. In Table 2 the expected numbers of CC and NC events at HK in the absence of oscillations are shown for 1Mton$``$year each for the $`\nu _\mu `$ enriched NBB’s and 4Mton$``$year for $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ enriched NBB. The event numbers from the main (enriched) neutrinos are shown by the bold letters. The numbers in the parenthesis are the fractions as compared to the corresponding main mode. From the comparison between $`\mathrm{NBB}`$($`2`$GeV) and $`\overline{\mathrm{NBB}}`$($`2`$GeV), we find that the fraction of the secondary-beam contributions is much larger for the $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$-beam than that for the $`\nu _\mu `$-beam. This is essentially because $`\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}`$ CC cross section is about a factor of three smaller than the $`\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ CC cross section at $`E_\nu 1`$GeV.

In Fig.2, we show the expected $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ ($`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$) signal and background event numbers for the parameters of eq.(S0.EGx6) for $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{_{\mathrm{RCT}}}=0.010.06`$. The solid-circles show the number of expected signal events for $`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}=n\times 10^{}`$ $`(n=136)`$. The numbers of signal events are largest at around $`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}=270^{}`$ for $`\mathrm{NBB}`$($`2,3`$GeV), while those for $`\overline{\mathrm{NBB}}`$($`2`$GeV) are largest at around $`90^{}`$, as is expected from the CP phase dependence of $`N_e`$ and $`\overline{N}_{\overline{e}}`$ shown in Fig.1. The open-triangle denotes $`\nu _e\nu _e`$ CC events, which give the largest background for the experiments with $`\mathrm{NBB}`$($`2,3`$GeV), and the second largest background for $`\overline{\mathrm{NBB}}`$($`2`$GeV). The open-square denotes $`\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e`$ CC events that gives the largest background for $`\overline{\mathrm{NBB}}`$($`2`$GeV), but is negligible for $`\mathrm{NBB}`$($`2,3`$GeV). The open-diamond denotes the background from the NC events, where $`\pi ^0`$’s are miss-identified as electrons. They give the second largest background for $`\mathrm{NBB}`$($`2,3`$GeV). Backgrounds from $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$ transition events for $`\mathrm{NBB}`$($`2,3`$GeV) and those from $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ transition events for $`\overline{\mathrm{NBB}}`$($`2`$GeV) are shown by open-circle. These transition backgrounds depend on the CP phase and they tend to cancel the $`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}`$ dependence of the signals, but their magnitudes are small. The background level starts dominating the signal at $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{_{\mathrm{RCT}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.02}`$.

The background numbers for the $`\mu `$-like signals are found to be negligibly small ($`10^2`$) for $`\mathrm{NBB}`$($`2,3`$GeV). Those for $`\overline{\mathrm{NBB}}`$($`2`$GeV) are found to be about 21% of the signal almost independent of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{_{\mathrm{RCT}}}`$. In Both cases, the major background comes from the secondary $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ ($`\nu _\mu `$) survival events.

Our analysis proceeds as follows. For a given set of the model parameters, we calculate the expected numbers of all the signal and background events for each NBB($`p_\pi `$) and $`\overline{\mathrm{NBB}}(p_\pi )`$, by assuming 100% detection efficiencies for simplicity. The resulting numbers of $`\mu `$-like and $`e`$-like events are then denoted by $`N_\mu ^{true}(p_\pi )`$ and $`N_e^{true}(p_\pi )`$ for $`\mathrm{NBB}(p_\pi )`$, and $`\overline{N_\mu }^{true}(p_\pi )`$ and $`\overline{N_e}^{true}(p_\pi )`$ for $`\overline{\mathrm{NBB}}(p_\pi )`$.

We account for the following two effects as major parts of the systematic uncertainty in this analysis. One is the uncertainty in the total flux of each neutrino beam, for which we assign the uncertainty,

$$\underset{\nu _\alpha }{\overset{()}{f}}(p_\pi )=1\pm 0.03,$$
(31)
independently for $`\nu _\alpha =\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\overline{\nu }_e,\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ and for $`\mathrm{NBB}`$($`2`$GeV), $`\mathrm{NBB}`$($`3`$GeV), and $`\overline{\mathrm{NBB}}`$($`2`$GeV). Although it is likely that correlation exists among the flux uncertainties, we ignore possible effects of correlations in this analysis. By using the above flux factors, theoretical predictions for the event numbers, $`N_l^{fit}(p_\pi )`$ and $`\overline{N}_l^{fit}(p_\pi )`$, are calculated as

$`N_{\mathrm{}}^{fit}(p_\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`f_{\nu _e}(p_\pi )N_{\mathrm{}}(\nu _e,p_\pi )+f_{\nu _\mu }(p_\pi )N_{\mathrm{}}(\nu _\mu ,p_\pi )`$ (32a)
$`+f_{\overline{\nu }_e}(p_\pi )N_\overline{\mathrm{}}(\overline{\nu }_e,p_\pi )+f_{\overline{\nu }_\mu }(p_\pi )N_\overline{\mathrm{}}(\overline{\nu }_\mu ,p_\pi )`$
$`+\delta _{\mathrm{},e}P_{e/NC}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu _\alpha }{}}f_{\nu _\alpha }(p_\pi )N_{\nu _\alpha }^{NC}(p_\pi ),`$
$`\overline{N}_{\mathrm{}}^{fit}(p_\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{f}_{\nu _e}(p_\pi )\overline{N}_{\mathrm{}}(\nu _e,p_\pi )+\overline{f}_{\nu _\mu }(p_\pi )\overline{N}_{\mathrm{}}(\nu _\mu ,p_\pi )`$ (32b)
$`+\overline{f}_{\overline{\nu }_e}(p_\pi )\overline{N}_\overline{\mathrm{}}(\overline{\nu }_e,p_\pi )+\overline{f}_{\overline{\nu }_\mu }(p_\pi )\overline{N}_\overline{\mathrm{}}(\overline{\nu }_\mu ,p_\pi )`$
$`+\delta _{\mathrm{},e}P_{e/NC}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu _\alpha }{}}\overline{f}_{\nu _\alpha }(p_\pi )\overline{N}_{\nu _\alpha }^{NC}(p_\pi ),`$
where the last terms proportional to $`\delta _{\mathrm{},e}`$ are counted only for $`\mathrm{}=e`$. As the second major systematic error, we allocate 3.3% overall uncertainty in the matter density along the base-line, eq.(20). The fit functions are hence calculated for an arbitrary set of the 6 model parameters, the 12 flux normalization factors, and the matter density $`\rho `$.

The $`\chi ^2`$ function of the fit in this analysis can now be expressed as

$`\chi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{NBB}{}}\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{N_\mu ^{fit}(p_\pi )N_\mu ^{true}(p_\pi )}{\sigma _\mu (p_\pi )}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{N_e^{fit}(p_\pi )N_e^{true}(p_\pi )}{\sigma _e(p_\pi )}}\right)^2`$ (33)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\nu _\alpha }{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_{\nu _\alpha }(p_\pi )1.0}{0.03}}\right)^2\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{NBB}}{}}\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{N}_\mu ^{fit}(p_\pi )\overline{N}_\mu ^{true}(p_\pi )}{\sigma _\mu (p_\pi )}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{N}_e^{fit}(p_\pi )\overline{N}_e^{true}(p_\pi )}{\sigma _e(p_\pi )}}\right)^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\nu _\alpha }{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{f}_{\nu _\alpha }(p_\pi )1.0}{0.03}}\right)^2\}`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho 3.0}{0.1}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_{_{\mathrm{SOL}}}^{2fit}\delta m_{_{\mathrm{SOL}}}^{2true}}{0.1\times \delta m_{_{\mathrm{SOL}}}^{2true}}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{_{\mathrm{SOL}}}^{fit}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{_{\mathrm{SOL}}}^{true}}{0.06}}\right)^2,`$
where the summation is over $`\mathrm{NBB}`$($`2`$GeV), $`\mathrm{NBB}`$($`3`$GeV) and $`\overline{\mathrm{NBB}}`$($`2`$GeV). Even though we have only one $`\overline{\mathrm{NBB}}`$ in our analysis, we retain the summation symbol in eq.(33) for the sake of clarity. The last two terms are added because KamLAND experiment  will measure $`\delta m_{_{\mathrm{SOL}}}^2`$ at 10% level and the solar neutrino experiments constrain $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{_{\mathrm{SOL}}}`$ with the $`1\sigma `$ error of about 0.06 for the LMA parameters of eq.(S0.EGx6). The individual error for each $`N_\mu (p_\pi )`$ ($`\overline{N}_\mu (p_\pi )`$) is statistical only, whereas the error for each $`N_e(p_\pi )`$ ($`\overline{N}_e(p_\pi )`$) is a sum of the statistical errors and the systematic error coming from the 10% uncertainty in the $`e/\pi ^0`$ misidentification probability of eq.(29),

$`\sigma _\mu (p_\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{N_\mu ^{true}(p_\pi )},`$ (34a)
$`\sigma _e(p_\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{N_e^{true}(p_\pi )+\left(0.1N_{e,\overline{e}}^{true}(NC;p_\pi )\right)^2}.`$ (34b)
The errors for the $`\overline{\mathrm{NBB}}`$($`2`$GeV) case are calculated similarly as above.

We show in Fig.3 regions allowed by the HIPA-to-HK experiment in the plain of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{_{\mathrm{RCT}}}`$ and $`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}`$. The mean values of the input data are calculated for the LMA parameters of eq.(S0.EGx6). In each figure, the input parameter point $`(\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{_{\mathrm{RCT}}}^{true},\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}^{true})`$ is shown by a solid-circle for $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{_{\mathrm{RCT}}}^{true}=0.06`$, and by a solid-square for $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{_{\mathrm{RCT}}}^{true}=0.01`$. The regions where $`\chi _{min}^2<`$1, 4, and 9 are depicted by solid, dashed, and dotted boundaries, respectively. All the 6 parameters, $`\delta m_{_{\mathrm{ATM}}}^{2fit}`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{_{\mathrm{ATM}}}^{fit}`$, $`\delta m_{_{\mathrm{SOL}}}^{2fit}`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{_{\mathrm{SOL}}}^{fit}`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{_{\mathrm{RCT}}}^{fit}`$, $`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}^{fit}`$, the matter density $`\rho ^{fit}`$, and the 12 flux normalization factors are allowed to vary freely in the fit.

From the top-right and bottom-right figures for $`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}^{true}=90^{}`$ and $`270^{}`$ respectively, we learn that $`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}`$ can be constrained to $`\pm 30^{}(\pm 60^{})`$ at the 1$`\sigma `$ (3$`\sigma `$) level, even if $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{_{\mathrm{RCT}}}^{true}=0.01`$. This is because $`N_e+\overline{N}_e`$ constrain $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{_{\mathrm{RCT}}}`$ and $`N_e/\overline{N}_e`$ distinguishes between $`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}=90^{}`$ and $`270^{}`$ in Fig.3, whereas the remaining parameters ($`\delta m_{_{\mathrm{ATM}}}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{_{\mathrm{ATM}}}`$) are constrained by the $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ survival data, $`N_\mu `$ and $`\overline{N}_\mu `$. The accuracy of the $`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}`$ measurement does not decrease significantly for $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{_{\mathrm{RCT}}}^{true}=0.01`$ despite the large background level, because the $`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}`$-dependence of the signal exceeds significantly the 3% uncertainty of the background level from the flux normalization factors in eq.(31). We find that the CP violation signal can be distinguished from the CP-conserving cases ($`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}=0^{}`$ or $`180^{}`$) at 4$`\sigma `$ (3$`\sigma `$) level for all $`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}`$ values in the region $`|\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}|`$, $`|\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}180^{}|>30^{}`$ if $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{_{\mathrm{RCT}}}^{true}\mathrm{\Gamma }>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.03}`$ (0.01), for the LMA parameters of eq.(S0.EGx6) and for the systematic errors assumed in this analysis.

The situation is quite different for the CP-conserving cases of $`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}^{true}=0^{}`$ or $`180^{}`$ shown in the left-hand side of Fig.3. $`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}`$ can be constrained to better than $`\pm 7^{}`$ ($`11^{}`$) accuracy at 1$`\sigma `$ level for $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{_{\mathrm{RCT}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.06}`$ (0.01), but the two cases cannot be distinguished at 2$`\sigma `$ level. This is mainly because of the similarity of $`N_e/\overline{N}_e`$ between $`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}=0^{}`$ and $`180^{}`$ in Fig.1. The difference between the two cases is larger for $`\mathrm{NBB}`$($`3`$GeV). If we remove the $`\mathrm{NBB}`$($`3`$GeV) data from the fit, we find that the two cases cannot be distinguished even at 1$`\sigma `$ level. This two-fold ambiguity between $`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}`$ and $`180^{}\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}`$ is found in general for all $`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}`$, because the difference in the predictions can be adjusted by a shift in the fitted $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{_{\mathrm{RCT}}}`$ value; see Fig.1.

As a demonstration of the effect of using two NBB’s, $`\mathrm{NBB}`$($`2`$GeV) and $`\mathrm{NBB}`$($`3`$GeV), in the analysis, we show in Fig.4 the fit results when the data are generated by using $`\mathrm{NBB}`$($`2`$GeV) and $`\overline{\mathrm{NBB}}`$($`2`$GeV) only, each at 2 Mton$``$year and 4 Mton$``$year, respectively. It is clearly seen from the figures that the ‘mirror’ solution at $`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}=180^{}`$ $`(0^{})`$ can fit the data as well as the ‘true’ solution at $`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}=0^{}`$ $`(180^{})`$. Essentially the same results are obtained when we replace $`\mathrm{NBB}`$($`2`$GeV) by $`\mathrm{NBB}`$($`3`$GeV) in the above analysis. It is only by combining the two NBB’s that we can distinguish the two solutions as shown in Fig.3. We find less significant difference from the results of Fig.3 when the input $`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}`$ value is $`90^{}`$ or $`270^{}`$.

It is remarkable that the $`1\sigma `$ error of $`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}`$ is as large as $`30^{}`$ for $`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}^{true}=90^{}`$ and $`270^{}`$ while it is less than $`10^{}`$ for $`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}^{true}=0^{}`$ and $`180^{}`$. This is simply because the $`\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}`$ dependence of the $`\nu _\mu `$-to-$`\nu _e`$ (and also $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$-to-$`\overline{\nu }_e`$) oscillation probability is roughly proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}\delta _{_{\mathrm{MNS}}}`$, in the vicinity of the first dip of the $`\nu _\mu `$-to-$`\nu _\mu `$ survival probability.

We close this article by pointing out that the low-energy LBL experiment like HIPA-to-HK cannot distinguish between the neutrino-mass hierarchy cases (between I and III) because of the small matter effect at low energies. If we repeat the analysis by using the same input data but assuming the hierarchy III in the analysis, we obtain another excellent fit to all the data where the fitted model parameters are slightly shifted from their true (input) values. VLBL experiments at higher energies at $`L>1000`$km  are needed to determine the mass hierarchy.

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank stimulating discussions with T. Kajita, T. Kobayashi and J. Sato. The work of MA is supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from MEXT, Japan. KH would like to thank the core-university program of JSPS for support. The work of NO is supported in part by a grand from the US Department of Energy, DE-FG05-92ER40709.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently there has been much interest in cyclic (oscillating) and bouncing universes of brane cosmology . In these studies one started with the moving domain wall (MDW) . This is obtained by embedding of an $`(n+1)`$-dimensional brane into the $`(n+2)`$-dimensional bulk background. In this approach one has to choose a specified bulk configuration, for example, the 5D charged topological AdS (CTAdS5) black hole with mass $`M`$ and charge $`Q`$ . Then the bulk gravitational dynamics induces the 4D Friedmann equations with CFT-radiation and exotic stiff matters for a dynamic brane . This provides bouncing and cyclic universes, even though it has an exotic stiff matter from the black hole charge $`Q`$ .

Without a charge $`Q`$, one finds a scenario with a CFT-radiation matter: the universe starts from the black hole singularity (big bang), crosses the horizon of the black hole, and expands up to its maximum size. And then it contracts, crosses the horizon of the black hole again, and finally collapses into the singularity (big crunch) . On the other hand we obtain a different evolution of the universe with $`Q0`$. This universe is free from singularities of big bang and big crunch and evolves with a smooth transition between a contracting phase and an eventual expanding one. The presence of charge makes it in such a way. This provides an exotic stiff matter with a negative energy density on the brane. This term dominates for small scale factor and hence induces a singular repulsive potential near the black hole singularity for the brane to be unable to access it.

In addition the presence of both mass $`M`$ and charge $`Q`$ induces a potential well which makes bouncing and cyclic trajectories of the brane in the bulk spacetime. The key point is that the sign of stiff matter from $`Q`$ is opposite with respect to that of radiation matter from $`M`$. Although this opposite sign provides bouncing and cyclic universes, we immediately confront with a difficulty that it violates the dominant energy condition (DEC): $`\rho 0;P=\omega \rho `$ with $`|\omega |1`$ . We remind the reader that the derivation of the DEC is based on the 4D Lorentz invariance. However, it was shown that the Lorentz invariance is apparently violated for an observer on the brane moving in the charged black hole background . Nowadays one may accept the negative energy density from the charge of the black hole as well as the violation of the DEC in the brane cosmology .

On the other hand, the BDL approach is a genuine extension to the higher dimensional (Kaluga-Klein) cosmology to take into account a local matter distribution . An evolution of the brane is possible when the brane is fixed with respect to the extra direction $`y`$ and the bulk is given by a charged AdS spacetime . For this purpose we have to introduce negative cosmological constants and Maxwell fields for both bulk sides. Then one finds the Friedmann equations with two unknown constants. In this case we are free to determine the corresponding mass and charge because the mass term is usually included as an integration constant with respect to a cosmic time on the brane and the charge is given by an unspecified solution to the Maxwell equation under the BDL metric. One may attempt to identify these constants as mass and charge of the black hole if one chooses a specific bulk spacetime of two CTAdS black holes as did in the MDW case.

In this work, we ask mainly of whether or not bouncing and cyclic solutions for the 4D universe can be derived from the BDL approach.

The organization of this paper is as follows. In Sec.2 we review briefly the MDW procedure in the charged topological AdS black holes. First we study the CFT-thermodynamics for a static brane located near the AdS boundary using the AdS/CFT correspondence. Then we will understand the thermodynamics of a dynamic brane in view of the bulk gravitational dynamics. It is important to note that the CFT-interpretation of radiation and stiff matter is possible only when a MDW was close to the AdS boundary unless its holographic energy density is small. Sec.3 is devoted to the BDL approach in the charged AdS background. For simplicity we use the same bulk stress-energy tensor for both sides. Here we also find the same Friedmann equations with unspecified integration constants. These can be fixed if one chooses a specific bulk spacetime like as two CTAdS black holes. With this choice we find bouncing universes as well as cyclic universe from the BDL approach. If not with this choice, we obtain only the bouncing universes. If the exotic stiff from charge $`Q`$ is considered still as an unwanted matter, we may answer to a question of how to avoid it. This may be done by introducing an appropriate local matter on the brane in Sec.4. Finally we discuss our results, especially for a relation between the exotic stiff matter and Lorentz invariance violation in the brane world scenarios.

## 2 MDW cosmology in the charged topological AdS black holes

In general we consider an $`(n+1)`$-dimensional brane with a local matter distribution $`\tau _{\mu \nu }`$ including a tension $`\sigma `$ which is located at between two $`(n+2)`$-dimensional charged black holes. We introduce the bulk spacetime by $`^+`$ and $`^{}`$ for the positively and negatively charged black holes and their boundaries by $`^+`$ and $`^{}`$. These boundaries are fixed to coincide with the brane exactly. We keep the $`Z_2`$-symmetric geometry, although we don’t need to have the $`Z_2`$-symmetry for the electric configuration . Actually we have a dipole configuration ($``$) in flat spacetime as far as the electric flux lines are concerned. Also we assume that there is no source or sink for the charge on the brane. Thus the flux lines are conserved on the brane and thus the Israel junction condition remains unchanged. For this purpose we start with the $`(n+2)`$-dimensional Einstein-Maxwell theory with the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=n(n+1)/2\mathrm{}^2`$:

$$I=\frac{1}{16\pi G_{n+2}}_{^++^{}}d^{n+2}x\sqrt{g}\left(RF_{MN}F^{MN}2\mathrm{\Lambda }\right),$$
(2.1)
where $`R`$ is the curvature scalar and $`F_{MN}`$ denotes the Maxwell field111 Hereafter we use indices $`M,N,\mathrm{}`$ for $`(n+2)`$-bulk space, $`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}`$ for $`(n+1)`$-brane, and $`i,j,\mathrm{}`$ for $`n`$-spatial space in the brane.. For a while we consider the right hand side $`(^+)`$ of the bulk spacetime. Varying the action (2.1) yields the equations of motion

$`G_{MN}R_{MN}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{MN}R=T_{MN},T_{MN}=2F_{MP}F_N^P{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{MN}F^2\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{MN},`$ (2.2)
$`_M(\sqrt{g}F^{MN})=0.`$ (2.3)
For completeness we need the Bianchi identity

$$_{[M}F_{NP]}=0.$$
(2.4)
These equations all give us a charged topological AdS(CTAdS) black hole solution

$`ds_{CTAdS}^2g_{MN}dx^Mdx^N=h(r)dt^2+h(r)^1dr^2+r^2\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j,`$ (2.5)
$`F_{rt}={\displaystyle \frac{n\omega _n}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_+}{r^n}},`$ (2.6)
where the metric function $`h(r)`$ is given by

$$h(r)=k\frac{m_+}{r^{n1}}+\frac{q_+^2}{r^{2(n1)}}+\frac{r^2}{\mathrm{}^2},m_+=\omega _nM_+,q_+^2=\frac{n\omega _n^2Q_+^2}{8(n1)},\omega _n=\frac{16\pi G_{n+2}}{nV(M^n)}.$$
(2.7)
Here $`\gamma _{ij}`$ is the horizon metric for a constant curvature manifold $`M^n`$ with the volume $`V(M^n)=d^nx\sqrt{\gamma }`$. The horizon geometry is thus extended to include elliptic, flat, and hyperbolic for $`k=1,0,1`$, respectively. In this sense we call it the topological black hole. The event horizon $`r_H`$ is determined by the maximal root of $`h(r_H)=0`$. The integration constants $`M_+`$ and $`Q_+`$ can be interpreted as the ADM mass and electric charge of the black hole.

In the spirit of the brane world scenario  and AdS/CFT correspondence , let us introduce two black hole spacetimes. We glue it ($`^+)`$ to another ($`^{}`$). For simplicity we choose the same horizon geometry and cosmological constant for $`^+`$ and $`^{}`$. Then the thermodynamics of two black holes corresponds to that for the boundary CFT with an $`R`$-charge (or $`Q`$-potential). We rescale the boundary metric so that it can take a form of $`ds_{BCFT}^2=d\tau ^2+\mathrm{}^2\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j`$ . For simplicity we choose $`M_+=M_{}=M(m_+=m_{}=m)`$, but $`Q_+=Q_{}=Q/2(q_+=q_{}=q/2)`$. As a result, we have $`T_{+MN}=T_{MN}`$ for the stress-energy tensor 222If not, in brane cosmology we have to solve the Gauss-Godazzi equation for the non-$`Z_2`$ symmetric evolution by different masses and different charges.. This implies that a single energy $`E=2E_+=2E_{}`$, temperature $`T=T_+=T_{}`$, entropy $`S=2S_+=2S_{}`$ and pressure $`p=2p_+=2p_{}`$ can be defined on the brane of two boundaries using the AdS/CFT correspondence . Thermodynamic quantities of the corresponding CFT are given by

$`E=2M{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{r}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{}r_H^{n1}}{r\omega _n}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{r_H^2}{\mathrm{}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n\omega _n^2(Q/2)^2}{8(n1)r_H^{2(n1)}}}\right),`$ (2.8)
$`T=T_H{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{r}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{4\pi rr_H}}\left((n1)+{\displaystyle \frac{(n+1)r_H^2}{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{n\omega _n^2(Q/2)^2}{8r_H^{2(n1)}}}\right),`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }=\varphi _H{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{r}}={\displaystyle \frac{n\mathrm{}\omega _nQ}{8(n1)rr_H^{n1}}},`$
$`S=S_{BH}={\displaystyle \frac{r_H^n}{2G_{n+2}}}V(M^n),`$
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(=\mathrm{\Phi }_+=\mathrm{\Phi }_{})`$ denotes the chemical potential conjugate to the charge of $`Q/2`$. We can rewrite the entropy in Eq.(2.8) as the Cardy-Verlinde formula

$$S=\frac{2\pi r}{n}\sqrt{E_c(2(EE_q)E_c}),$$
(2.9)
where the Casimir energy $`E_c`$ and electromagnetic energy $`E_q`$ are given by

$$E_c=\frac{4\mathrm{}r_H^{n1}}{\omega _nr},E_q=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }Q=\frac{n\mathrm{}\omega _nQ^2}{16(n1)rr_H^{n1}}.$$
(2.10)
Now we wish to derive a dynamic equation from the moving domain wall approach. Actually the embedding of a moving domain wall into the black hole space is a mapping of $`tt(\tau ),r(\tau )`$ with $`\dot{}^2/h()h()\dot{t}^2=1`$. For a good embedding, a small black hole of $`q/\mathrm{}<m/\mathrm{}<1`$ is usually assumed. And then we obtain an induced metric $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ on the brane

$$ds_{n+1}^2=d\tau ^2+^2(\tau )\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^jh_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu .$$
(2.11)
Here the scale factor $`(\tau )`$ will be determined by the Israel junction condition . For $`(_+)_{k=1,n=3}`$, the extrinsic curvature components are given by

$`K_{\tau \tau }=K_{MN}u^Mu^N=(h()\dot{t})^1(\ddot{}+h^{}()/2)={\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{}+h^{}()/2}{\sqrt{\dot{}^2+h()}}},`$ (2.12)
$`K_{\chi \chi }=K_{\theta \theta }=K_{\varphi \varphi }=h()\dot{t}=\sqrt{\dot{}^2+h()},`$ (2.13)
where $`u^M`$ is a tangent vector along the moving brane with $`u^Mu_M=1`$ and prime () stands for derivative with respect to $``$. The presence of any localized matter on the brane including a brane tension implies that the extrinsic curvature jumps across the brane. At this stage let us glue it to another bulk of $`_{}`$ with the same $`(\tau )`$ but an opposite embedding of $`K_{\mu \nu }=K_{+\mu \nu }(=K_{\mu \nu })`$. This jump is then described by the Israel junction condition333The Gibbons-Hawking term $`\frac{1}{\kappa ^2}d^{n+1}x\sqrt{h}K`$ and the Hawking-Ross term $`\frac{2}{\kappa ^2}d^{n+1}x\sqrt{h}F^{MN}n_MA_N`$ are necessary for embedding of the brane into the charged black hole. However, the electric flux across the brane is conserved and thus the Israel junction condition remains unchanged even for $`F_{MN}0`$ . Here we no longer consider one-sided brane cosmology. Hence we keep the $`Z_2`$-symmetry which was important in two-sided brane cosmology.

$$K_{+\mu \nu }K_{\mu \nu }=\kappa ^2\left(\tau _{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{n}\tau _\lambda ^\lambda h_{\mu \nu }\right)$$
(2.14)
with the bulk gravitational constant $`\kappa ^2=8\pi G_{n+2}`$. The 4D perfect fluid is introduced for a local stress-energy tensor on the brane

$$\tau _{\mu \nu }=(\varrho +p)u_\mu u_\nu +ph_{\mu \nu }.$$
(2.15)
Here $`\varrho =\rho _l+\sigma `$ $`(p=P_l\sigma )`$, where $`\rho _l`$ $`(P_l)`$ are the energy density (pressure) of a local matter and $`\sigma `$ is a brane tension. In the case of $`\rho _l=P_l=0`$, the right hand side of Eq. (2.14) leads to a form of the Randall-Sundrum case as $`\frac{\sigma \kappa ^2}{n}h_{\mu \nu }`$ . The spatial components of the junction condition (2.14) lead to

$$\sqrt{h()+\dot{}^2}=\frac{\kappa ^2}{2n}\sigma .$$
(2.16)
In two black hole spacetimes, we use the tension $`\sigma =2n/(\kappa ^2\mathrm{})`$ to obtain a critical brane. The above equation leads to the first Friedmann equation

$$H^2=\frac{k}{^2}+\frac{m}{^{n+1}}\frac{q^2}{^{2n}}.$$
(2.17)
Its time rate as the second Friedmann equation is given by

$$\dot{H}=\frac{k}{^2}\frac{n+1}{2}\frac{m}{^{n+1}}+\frac{nq^2}{^{2n}}.$$
(2.18)
Introducing a CFT-energy density $`\rho _r=E/V`$ with $`E=2M\mathrm{}/`$, its pressure $`P_r=\rho _r/n`$, a charge density $`\rho _Q=Q/V`$ , and its electric potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }=n\mathrm{}\omega _nQ/8(n1)^n`$ with the volume of the brane $`V=^nV(M^n)`$, two Friedmann equations take the forms

$`H^2={\displaystyle \frac{k}{^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi G_{n+1}}{n(n1)}}\left(\rho _r{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }\rho _Q\right),`$ (2.19)
$`\dot{H}={\displaystyle \frac{k}{^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi G_{n+1}}{n1}}\left(\rho _r+P_r\mathrm{\Phi }\rho _Q\right).`$ (2.20)
In deriving these, we use an important relation for the two-sided brane scenario

$$G_{n+2}=\frac{2\mathrm{}}{n1}G_{n+1}$$
(2.21)
and the conservation law of $`\dot{\rho }=nH(\rho +P)`$. This means that the cosmological evolution is derived by the energy density and pressure of the CFT-radiation matter plus those of the electric potential energy. Eqs. (2.19) and (2.20) are identified with those of the one-sided brane world  because two black hole masses and charges on both sides are combined with Eq.(2.21) to give the same ones. These equations can be further rewritten as the cosmological Cardy-Verlinde formula and a defining relation for the Bekenstein-Hawking energy as

$`S_H={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{n}}\sqrt{E_{BH}[2(E\mathrm{\Phi }Q/2)kE_{BH}]},`$ (2.22)
$`kE_{BH}=n(E+pV\mathrm{\Phi }Q𝒯_HS_H).`$ (2.23)
Here the Hubble temperature $`𝒯_H=\frac{\dot{H}}{2\pi H}`$ is expressed in terms of the Hubble parameter and its time rate only.

Another interpretation is also possible for the Friedmann equations on the brane if one defines a charge stiff density $`\rho _{csti}=\mathrm{\Phi }\rho _Q/2`$ with the equation of state : $`P_{csti}=\rho _{csti}`$ . Then one finds

$`H^2={\displaystyle \frac{k}{^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi G_{n+1}}{n(n1)}}\rho _h,`$ (2.24)
$`\dot{H}={\displaystyle \frac{k}{^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi G_{n+1}}{n1}}\left(\rho _h+P_h\right),`$ (2.25)
where a holographic energy density $`\rho _h`$ and its pressure $`P_h`$ are defined by

$$\rho _h=\rho _r\rho _{csti},P_h=P_rP_{csti}=\frac{\rho _r}{n}\rho _{csti}.$$
(2.26)
This means that the mass of the black hole gives a CFT-radiation matter holographically, whereas the charge of the black hole induces an exotic CFT-stiff matter on the moving domain wall because the sign in the front of $`\rho _{csti}`$ is negative. Thus it is shown that the bulk gravitational dynamics leads to the standard cosmology with a radiation matter of $`\rho _r^{(n+1)}`$ and a stiff matter of $`\rho _{csti}^{2n}`$ on the brane. However, this CFT-interpretation on the brane is always not true. This is possible only when the brane is located at large distance from the center of AdS space unless the holographic energy density $`\rho _h`$ is small . Applying the Hamiltonian approach to calculation of the exact energy on the brane, the energy density $`\rho _e`$ and its pressure $`P_e`$ measured by an observer on the brane is given by

$`\rho _e{\displaystyle \frac{2n}{\kappa ^2\mathrm{}}}\xi ()={\displaystyle \frac{2n}{\kappa ^2\mathrm{}}}\left[\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{^{n1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{^{2n2}}}\right)}1\right],`$ (2.27)
$`P_e=\rho _f+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\kappa ^2\xi ()}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(n+1)m}{^{n+1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2nq^2}{^{2n}}}\right].`$ (2.28)
Here it is not guaranteed that $`\rho _f`$ is always positive. The Friedmann equations lead to those of the conventional brane cosmology

$`H^2={\displaystyle \frac{k}{^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi G_{n+1}}{n(n1)}}\rho _e+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^4}{4n^2}}\rho _e^2,`$ (2.29)
$`\dot{H}={\displaystyle \frac{k}{^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi G_{n+1}}{n1}}\left(\rho _e+P_e\right){\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^4}{4n}}\rho _e(\rho _e+P_e).`$ (2.30)
Small $`\rho _e`$ means either that the brane is close to the AdS boundary:

$$\underset{\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{^2}\left(\frac{m}{^{n1}}\frac{q^2}{^{2n2}}\right)\mathrm{small}$$
(2.31)
or that a holographic term is small

$$\left(\frac{m}{^{n1}}\frac{q^2}{^{2n2}}\right)\mathrm{small}$$
(2.32)
which implies a small black hole of $`q/\mathrm{}<m/\mathrm{}<1`$. In this approximation the energy density is given by

$$\rho _e\frac{n\mathrm{}}{\kappa ^2}\left(\frac{m}{^{n+1}}\frac{q^2}{^{2n}}\right)=\rho _r\rho _{csti}=\rho _h$$
(2.33)
and for its pressure

$$P_e\frac{\rho _r}{n}\rho _{csti}=P_rP_{csti}=P_h.$$
(2.34)
Neglecting $`\rho _e^2`$ and $`\rho _eP_e`$ terms in (2.29) and (2.30), we recover our equations (2.24) and (2.25). This means that our holographic interpretation of the cosmological Cardy-Verlinde formula for Eq.(2.22) has limitation and approximation because it is based on an approximate equation (2.8). Unless we assume small $`\rho _e`$, a lot of terms are generated in the Friedmann equations. In this case we may establish the unconventional duality, and the holographic duality corresponds to an approximation of the unconventional duality.

## 3 BDL cosmology in the charged background

In the MDW approach the bulk space time is always fixed. This means that we can determine the gravitational dynamics of the brane exactly from the given bulk black hole background. Actually, we don’t know precisely what kind of higher dimensional theory we should start with, even if string theories provide us some information about it. In this sense the moving domain wall method is considered as a very restrictive approach although it provides us an exact evolution of the brane. The BDL approach is a genuine extension to the Kaluza-Klein cosmology to account for a local matter distribution on the brane. Hence it is very desirable to study the BDL brane cosmology in the charged background. Following , we assume the Gaussian-normal metric for an ($`n+2`$)-dimensional spacetime

$$ds_{BDL}^2=c^2(t,y)dt^2+a^2(t,y)\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j+b^2(t,y)dy^2,$$
(3.1)
where $`\gamma _{ij}`$ is the previous metric of an $`n`$-dimensional space with constant curvature $`n(n1)k`$. In the orthogonal basis, we express the Einstein tensor $`G_{\widehat{M}\widehat{N}}`$ in Eq.(2.2) in terms of the BDL metric as

$`G_{\widehat{t}\widehat{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`n\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{ac^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{b}}{b}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{b^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a^{\prime \prime }}{a}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a^{}}{a}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{a^{}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{b^{}}{b}}\right)\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{n1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}}\right],`$
$`G_{\widehat{y}\widehat{y}}`$ $`=`$ $`n\left[{\displaystyle \frac{a^{}}{ab^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{a^{}}{a}}+{\displaystyle \frac{c^{}}{c}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{c^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{c}}{c}}\right)\right){\displaystyle \frac{n1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}}\right],`$
$`G_{\widehat{t}\widehat{y}}`$ $`=`$ $`n\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}c^{}}{abc^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a^{}\dot{b}}{ab^2c}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}^{}}{abc}}\right),`$
$`G_{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ij}}{b^2}}\left[(n1){\displaystyle \frac{a^{\prime \prime }}{a}}+{\displaystyle \frac{c^{\prime \prime }}{c}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{a^{}}{a}}\left((n2){\displaystyle \frac{a^{}}{a}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{c^{}}{c}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{b^{}}{b}}\left((n1){\displaystyle \frac{a^{}}{a}}+{\displaystyle \frac{c^{}}{c}}\right)\right]`$ (3.2)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ij}}{c^2}}\left[(n1){\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{b}}{b}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{b}}{b}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{c}}{c}}(n1){\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{n1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{c}}{c}}(n2){\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\right)\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)(n2)}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}}\delta _{ij},`$
where the dot (prime) stand for differentiation with respect to $`t`$ ($`y`$). Suppose that an $`(n+1)`$-dimensional brane is located at $`y=0`$. In the two-sided brane world, the stress-energy tensors are given by (2.2), but we don’t need to choose the same initially. Furthermore $`T_{\widehat{t}\widehat{y}}=0`$ implies that there is no local matter flow along the extra direction. A local stress-energy tensor including a brane tension $`\sigma `$ is assumed to be

$$\stackrel{~}{\tau }_\mu ^\nu =\frac{\delta (y)}{b}\mathrm{diag}(\varrho ,p,\mathrm{},p,0).$$
(3.3)
Let us denote the gap of a given function $`f`$ at $`y=0`$ by $`[f]=f(0_+)f(0_{})`$ and its average by $`\{f\}=(f(0_+)+f(0_{}))/2`$, where $`+()`$ denote $`y>0(y<0)`$, respectively. The functions $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$ in the metric (3.1) are continuous at $`y=0`$, but their derivatives are not. So the second derivative takes the form

$$f^{\prime \prime }=f^{\prime \prime }|_{(y0)}+[f^{}]\delta (y).$$
(3.4)
It is then straightforward to write down the gaps in ($`\widehat{t}\widehat{t}`$), ($`\widehat{y}\widehat{y}`$) and ($`\widehat{i}\widehat{j}`$) components of the Einstein equation (2.2), respectively:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{n}{b_0^2}}\left((n1){\displaystyle \frac{[a^{}]\{a^{}\}}{a_0^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{[a^{}]\{b^{}\}}{a_0b_0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\{a^{}\}[b^{}]}{a_0b_0}}\right)=T_{\widehat{t}\widehat{t}}(0_+)T_{\widehat{t}\widehat{t}}(0_{}),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{n}{b_0^2}}\left((n1){\displaystyle \frac{[a^{}]\{a^{}\}}{a_0^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{[a^{}]\{c^{}\}}{a_0c_0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\{a^{}\}[c^{}]}{a_0c_0}}\right)=T_{\widehat{y}\widehat{y}}(0_+)T_{\widehat{y}\widehat{y}}(0_{}),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)}{b_0^2}}\delta _{ij}((n2){\displaystyle \frac{[a^{}]\{a^{}\}}{a_0^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{[a^{}]\{c^{}\}}{a_0c_0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\{a^{}\}[c^{}]}{a_0c_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{[a^{}]\{b^{}\}}{a_0b_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\{a^{}\}[b^{}]}{a_0b_0}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n1}}{\displaystyle \frac{[b^{}]\{c^{}\}}{b_0c_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\{b^{}\}[c^{}]}{b_0c_0}})=T_{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}(0_+)T_{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}(0_{}).`$ (3.5)
where quantities with subscript “0” denote those at $`y=0`$. The $`\delta (y)`$-function parts in ($`\widehat{t}\widehat{t}`$) and ($`\widehat{i}\widehat{j}`$) components of the Einstein equation with Eq.(3.3) lead to the Israel junction condition

$$\frac{[a^{}]}{a_0b_0}=\frac{\kappa ^2}{n}\varrho ,\frac{[c^{}]}{b_0c_0}=\kappa ^2\left(p+\frac{n1}{n}\varrho \right).$$
(3.6)
On the other hand, the average part of ($`\widehat{y}\widehat{y}`$) component is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c_0^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}_0}{a_0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}_0}{a_0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}_0}{a_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{c}_0}{c_0}}\right)\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2n}}\left(T_{\widehat{y}\widehat{y}}(0_+)+T_{\widehat{y}\widehat{y}}(0_{})\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{n1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{a_0^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{[a^{}]}{a_0b_0}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\{a^{}\}}{a_0b_0}}\right)^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{[a^{}][c^{}]}{a_0b_0^2c_0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\{a^{}\}\{c^{}\}}{a_0b_0^2c_0}}.`$ (3.7)
The Maxwell equation (2.3) and the Bianchi identity (2.4) under the BDL metric (3.1) have a solution

$$F_{yt}=\frac{𝒬bc}{a^n},$$
(3.8)
where $`𝒬`$ is an unknown integration constant. Thus the stress-energy tensor including the Maxwell field $`F_{MN}`$ and cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is given by

$$T_{\widehat{M}}^{\widehat{N}}=\mathrm{diag}(\frac{n(n+1)}{2\mathrm{}^2}\frac{𝒬^2}{a^{2n}},\frac{n(n+1)}{2\mathrm{}^2}+\frac{𝒬^2}{a^{2n}},\mathrm{},\frac{n(n+1)}{2\mathrm{}^2}+\frac{𝒬^2}{a^{2n}},\frac{n(n+1)}{2\mathrm{}^2}\frac{𝒬^2}{a^{2n}}).$$
(3.9)
In order to go parallel with the moving domain wall approach, we consider a simple case in which the bulk stress-energy tensors are identical on two sides of the brane and thus the bulk is $`Z_2`$-symmetric. This is the same situation as was considered in Sec. 2. One then has $`\{f^{}\}=0`$ for $`f=a,b,c`$. Also $`G_{\widehat{t}\widehat{y}}=0`$ is satisfied if $`c(t,y)=\dot{a}(t,y)/\dot{a}_0`$ with $`b(t,0)=1`$. This means that the position of the brane is always fixed along the extra direction during whole evolution. This allows us to set $`c_0c(t,0)=1`$ so that $`d\tau c(t,0)dt=dt`$. The Hubble parameter $`H`$ on the brane is defined as $`H=\dot{a}_0/a_0\dot{}/`$. The left hand side of Eq. (3) can be rewritten as

$$\frac{1}{c_0^2}\left(\frac{\ddot{a}_0}{a_0}+\frac{\dot{a}_0}{a_0}\left(\frac{n1}{2}\frac{\dot{a}_0}{a_0}\frac{\dot{c}_0}{c_0}\right)\right)=\frac{1}{2^n}\frac{d}{d}\left(H^2^{n+1}\right),$$
(3.10)
while the right hand side of Eq. (3) can be calculated with Eqs. (3.6) and (3.9) to yield

$$\frac{1}{2^n}\frac{d}{d}\left(H^2^{n+1}\right)=\frac{\kappa ^4}{8n^2}\varrho \left(2np+(n1)\varrho \right)\frac{n+1}{2\mathrm{}^2}\frac{n1}{2}\frac{k}{^2}+\frac{𝒬^2}{n^{2n}}.$$
(3.11)
In general we include a local matter distribution with $`\tau _{\mu \nu }`$ on the brane. In this case we have $`\varrho =\rho _l+\sigma ,p=P_l\sigma `$ with $`P_l=\varpi \rho _l,\sigma =2n/\kappa ^2\mathrm{}`$. Then the brane becomes a critical one and Eq. (3.11) reduces to

$$\frac{d}{d}\left(H^2^{n+1}\right)=(n1)k^{n2}+\frac{2𝒬^2}{n^n}\frac{\kappa ^2(n\varpi 1)^n}{n\mathrm{}}\rho _l\frac{\kappa ^4}{4n^2}(2n\varpi +n1)^n\rho _l^2.$$
(3.12)
Assuming $`\rho _l^{n(1+\varpi )}`$, one integrates this equation to yield

$$H^2=\frac{k}{^2}+\frac{𝒞}{^{n+1}}\frac{2}{n(n1)}\frac{𝒬^2}{^{2n}}+\frac{16\pi G_{n+1}}{n(n1)}\rho _l+\frac{\kappa ^4}{4n^2}\rho _l^2,$$
(3.13)
where $`𝒞`$ and $`𝒬`$ are two integration constants . This governs an evolution of the fixed brane sandwiched in the two charged AdS spacetimes.

For $`\rho _l=P_l=0`$ case, let us compare our equation (3.13) with (2.17) of the moving domain wall in the CTAdS black holes which can be rewritten further as

$$H^2=\frac{k}{^2}+\frac{\omega _nM}{^{n+1}}\frac{n\omega _n^2Q^2}{32(n1)^{2n}}.$$
(3.14)
By analogy, we rewrite two constants as

$$𝒞=\omega _n\stackrel{~}{M},𝒬=\pm \frac{n\omega _n}{4}\frac{\stackrel{~}{Q}}{2}.$$
(3.15)
Our equation (3.13) exactly coincides with Eq. (3.14) if $`M=\stackrel{~}{M}`$ and $`Q=\stackrel{~}{Q}`$. In case of the moving brane Eq. (3.14), the bulk is just fixed as two CTAdS black holes with the same mass $`M`$ and charge $`Q/2`$. These two parameters encode all information of the bulk and are used to describe a strongly coupled CFT on the brane using the finite-temperature AdS/CFT correspondence. On the other hand, in deriving Eq. (3.13), we don’t know what the precise AdS geometry is. But we include the bulk Maxwell fields. Certainly, the two integration constants $`𝒞`$ and $`𝒬`$ will carry with information of the bulk, as the initial conditions. This shows that a holographic duality may be realized within the BDL approach .

Now we are position to obtain a solution to equation (3.13). As an explicit computation we choose a case of $`n=3,\rho _l=P_l=0`$. Introducing a conformal time $`\eta `$, defined by $`d\tau =(\eta )d\eta `$, one finds a solution for $`k=1`$ closed geometry

$$^{k=1}(\eta )=\sqrt{\frac{\omega _3\stackrel{~}{M}}{2}\left(1\stackrel{~}{c}_1\mathrm{cos}(2\eta )\right)},\stackrel{~}{c}_1=\sqrt{1\frac{3\stackrel{~}{Q}^2}{16\stackrel{~}{M}^2}}.$$
(3.16)
Here we do not guarantee the reality of $`\stackrel{~}{c}_1`$: $`\stackrel{~}{Q}/2<2\stackrel{~}{M}/\sqrt{3}`$, approximately, a small black hole condition of $`q/\mathrm{}<m/\mathrm{}<1`$. because the values of two parameters $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ are arbitrary. This means that $`\stackrel{~}{c}_1`$ may become a pure imaginary. On the other hand, for the MDW case the reality condition of $`\stackrel{~}{c}_1`$ comes from the condition for the existence of the event horizon in the 5D AdS Reissner-Nordstrom (AdSRN5) black hole . Hence a cyclic solution is allowed. Then the universe evolves periodically between a maximal distance $`_{max}`$ and a minimal distance $`_{min}`$ with

$$_{max/min}^{k=1}=\sqrt{\frac{\omega _3M}{2}(1\pm c_1)},c_1=\sqrt{1\frac{3Q^2}{16M^2}}>0.$$
(3.17)
If one chooses $`\stackrel{~}{M}=M`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}=Q`$, then we find the above bouncing universe. However, this case rarely occurs in the BDL approach because the bulk spacetime should be chosen specially as two AdSRN5 black holes.

For $`k=1`$ open universe, one has the solution

$$^{k=1}(\eta )=\sqrt{\frac{\omega _3\stackrel{~}{M}}{2}\left(\stackrel{~}{c}_2\mathrm{cosh}(2\eta )1\right)},\stackrel{~}{c}_2=\sqrt{1+\frac{3\stackrel{~}{Q}^2}{16\stackrel{~}{M}^2}}>1.$$
(3.18)
This is acceptable because $`c_2`$ is always real. The brane is initially contracting and then bounces to an expansion. At the turning point of $`\eta =0`$, the minimal radius takes the form

$$_{min}^{k=1}=\sqrt{\frac{\omega _3\stackrel{~}{M}}{2}(c_21)}.$$
(3.19)
In the absence of the Maxwell fields ($`\stackrel{~}{Q}=0`$), one immediately finds $`_{min}^{k=1}=0`$.

In the case of $`k=0`$ flat universe we have

$$^{k=0}(\eta )=\sqrt{\frac{3\stackrel{~}{Q}^2\omega _3}{64\stackrel{~}{M}}+\omega _3\stackrel{~}{M}\eta ^2}.$$
(3.20)
Also we have a bouncing universe with the minimal distance $`_{min}^{k=0}=\sqrt{3\stackrel{~}{Q}^2\omega _3/64\stackrel{~}{M}}`$ at the turning point $`\eta =0`$. Obviously this goes to zero in the limit of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}0`$. Hence we find bouncing universes for $`k=1,0`$ cases from the BDL approach. The cyclic closed universe is only allowable if the bulk spacetime are chosen specially as two AdSRN5 black holes. In this case, all solutions remain fixed with respect to the extra direction $`y`$. However, there is no restriction on $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$, for example, a small black hole condition of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}/2<2\stackrel{~}{M}/\sqrt{3}`$ required in the MDW solutions.

## 4 Brane cosmologies with a local matter

### 4.1 MDW approach

First of all we wish to remark the sign of $`\rho _h=\rho _r\rho _{csti}`$ in Eq.(2.26). At the very early universe we have a negative holographic energy density of $`\rho _h<0`$ because $`\rho _{csti}`$ dominates. On the other hand, in the standard cosmology one usually uses the dominant energy condition (DEC) which postulates that the local energy density is non-negative for all observers :$`\rho 0,P=\omega \rho `$ with $`|\omega |1`$. But we do not maintain this condition because of $`\rho _h<0`$ at the very early universe. In this section we may deal with this problem by introducing an appropriate local matter distribution on the brane . In the case of $`\rho _l0`$ with $`P_l=\varpi \rho _l`$, from Eqs.(2.14) and (2.15) we obtain two Friedmann equations

$`H^2={\displaystyle \frac{k}{^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi G_{n+1}}{n(n1)}}\left(\rho _r\rho _{csti}+\rho _l\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^4}{4n^2}}\rho _l^2,`$ (4.1)
$`\dot{H}={\displaystyle \frac{k}{^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi G_{n+1}}{n1}}\left(\rho _r\rho _{csti}+\rho _l+P_rP_{csti}+P_l\right)n{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^4}{4n^2}}\rho _l(\rho _l+P_l).`$ (4.2)
If a local stiff matter with $`P_{lsti}=\rho _{lsti}>\rho _{csti}`$ is chosen, we achieve the positivity of the total energy density $`\rho _T=\rho _h+\rho _{lsti}=\rho _r+(\rho _{lsti}\rho _{csti})>0`$ in Eq.(4.1). Even though we avoid an exotic stiff-matter problem thanks to a local stiff matter, it gives rise to a higher-order term of $`\rho _{lsti}^2^{4n}`$, which have not been found in the standard and brane cosmologies. If this exists, it will contribute to the very early universe.

In order to find another case, we rewrite the above equations using $`\rho _{cdust}^2=Q^2/V^2`$ as

$`H^2={\displaystyle \frac{k}{^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi G_{n+1}}{n(n1)}}\left(\rho _r+\rho _l\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^4}{4n^2}}\left(\rho _l^2\rho _{cdust}^2\right),`$ (4.3)
$`\dot{H}={\displaystyle \frac{k}{^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi G_{n+1}}{n1}}\left(\rho _r+P_r+P_l\right)n{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^4}{4n^2}}\left[\rho _l(\rho _l+P_l)\rho _{cdust}^2\right].`$ (4.4)
Including a local dust matter with $`P_{ldust}=0,\rho _{ldust}^2>\rho _{cdust}^2`$, then we maintain the positivity of the last term in Eq.(4.3). However, we obtain an effective energy density which is composed of two different matters : a CFT-radiation matter with $`\rho _r^{(n+1)}`$ plus a local dust matter with $`\rho _{ldust}^n`$.

### 4.2 BDL approach

Considering Eq. (3.13) together with (3.15), we can lead to Eqs.(4.1) and (4.2) but replacing $`\rho _r,\rho _{csti}`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_r,\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{csti}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{Q}^2`$. Also another case of Eqs.(4.3) and (4.4) can be recovered from the BDL approach by replacing $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_r,\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{cdust}^2`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{Q}^2`$. Hence we may avoid an exotic stiff matter due to the bulk Maxwell field by inserting an appropriate local matter on the brane within the BDL scheme. In addition, we have degrees of freedom to make the positivity of the total energy density because there are no restrictions on determining $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ in the BDL approach.

## 5 Discussions

A moving domain wall in the charged topological AdS black holes provides bouncing and cyclic universes. This solution is possible because an exotic stiff matter term arises from the bulk charge $`Q`$ of the black hole in a holographic way. On the other hand this term obviously violates the dominant energy condition of keeping the positive energy density for all observers on the brane. In the BDL approach we confirm from Eq.(3.13) that the Maxwell field with a charge $`\stackrel{~}{𝒬}`$ generates an exotic stiff matter with a negative sign. As was reported in , one cannot guarantee the positivity of holographic energy densities. But there is no problem in any local matter on the brane because the 4D Lorentz invariance is always maintained.

The embedding of a moving domain wall into the black hole background is just the 2$``$1 mapping of $`tt(\tau ),r(\tau )`$ with a timelike tangent vector $`u^M=(\dot{t},\dot{},0,0,0),u^Mu_M=1`$ and a spacelike normal vector $`n_M=(\dot{},\dot{t},0,0,0),n^Mn_M=1,u^Mn_M=0`$. These lead to only one condition of $`h()\dot{t}^2+\dot{}^2/h()=1`$ which makes the timelike brane during whole evolution . However, it is well known that for a timelike bulk coordinate $`t=t(\tau )`$ and spacelike bulk coordinate $`r=(\tau )`$, their role is exchanged into each other when the brane crosses the horizon of the black hole at $`=r_H`$ with $`h()=0`$. This means that the induced metric (2.11) will have differently defined Lorentz symmetry at different points along the radial timelike geodesics to maintain a speed of light $`c=1`$. This implies that the bulk spacetime of (2.5) globally violates 4D Lorentz invariance, leading to apparent violations of Lorentz invariance in view of an observer on the brane due to the bulk gravitational effects. An important fact of this consequence is that the speed of gravitational waves which propagates through the bulk spacetime would be different from the speed of light waves which propagates along the brane. Explicitly the gravitational wave will arrive at the brane faster than the light wave . This could cause apparent violations of the causality from the view of an observer on the 4D brane. On the other hand the dominant energy condition usually requires the causality on the 4D spacetime. Hence it arrives that we don’t need to require the dominant energy condition on the holographic energy density of $`\rho _h=\rho _r\rho _{csti}`$ from the bulk configuration. The mass of the black hole happens to give a positive energy density, whereas the charge happens to be a negative energy density. This is considered as a result of the nature of the bulk configuration.

In the BDL approach we note first that two metrics (2.5) and (3.1) are equivalent even for the charged black hole background . Hence we expect that the dominant energy condition is not necessarily required on the holographic energy density of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_h=\stackrel{~}{\rho }_r\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{csti}`$ from the Maxwell fields. Our result of Eq.(3.13) shows an explicit example for this direction.

In conclusion we obtain the bouncing universes from the BDL approach in the charged bulk spacetime. This method provides a more general approach to study the brane cosmology than the moving domain wall. Especially considering a special bulk of two AdSNR black holes, then we can find a cyclic universe for $`k=1`$ closed geometry. These solutions arise mainly from an exotic stiff matter term originated from the Maxwell field. If one wishes to avoid this exotic matter on the brane, we may include an appropriate local matter. In this case we may use this model to describe a core of neutron stars consistent with causality

## Acknowledgments

We thank Henry Tye for helpful discussions. This work was supported in part by KOSEF, Project Numbers. 2000-1-11200-001-3 and R02-2002-000-00028-0.


text:
# Maximal violation of Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt inequality for two qutrits

## I Introduction

Bell inequality has come to be not only as a tool for exposing the weirdness of quantum mechanics, but also as a more powerful resource in a number of applications, such as in quantum communication. Bell-Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (Bell-CHSH) inequality has been applied in communicating protocol (Ekert protocol) to detect the presence of the eavesdropper . Furthermore, it has been found that two entangled $`N`$-dimensional systems (qu$`N`$its) generate correlations that are more robust against noise than those generated by two entangled qubits . It was suggested that the higher dimensional entangled systems may be much superior than two-dimensional systems in quantum communication. Naturally, the extension of the protocol (involving Bell-CHSH inequality) to higher dimension becomes an interesting problem. So, it is necessary and important to investigate the Bell inequality for higher dimensional systems.

In an interesting paper , by using the Bell-Clauser-Horne inequality (in terms of probabilities) , Acín et al. have shown that non-maximally entangled states violate the Bell-CHSH inequality more strongly than the maximally entangled one. Recently, a Bell-CHSH inequality (in terms of correlation functions) of two qutrits has been obtained  by searching the inequality which can give the minimal noise admixture $`F_{thr}`$ for the maximally entangled states. The minimal noise admixture $`F_{thr}`$ for the maximally entangled state of two qutrits has been obtained numerically by the method of linear optimization in  and analytically in . The extension of the Bell-CHSH to higher dimension is a non-trivial and interesting problem. Actually, it has been applied to quantum cryptography . In this paper, we study the Bell-CHSH inequality of two qutrits for tritter measurements by considering a class of pure states of two qutrits. A uniform formula of the maximum value of this inequality is obtained. Based on this formula, we find the states which give the maximum violation of the Bell-CHSH inequality. This result is consistent with what was obtained by Acín et al. .

## II The inequality

Let us consider a gedanken experiment with two observers each measuring two observables on some state of two qutrits $`\rho .`$ We denote the observables by $`\widehat{A}^i`$ $`(i=1,2)`$ for the first observer (Alice), $`\widehat{B}^j(j=1,2)`$ for the second observer (Bob). The measurement of each observable yields three distinct outcomes which denote by $`a_1^i,a_2^i`$ and $`a_3^i`$ for Alice’s measurement of the observable, and $`b_1^j,b_2^j`$ and $`b_3^j`$ for Bob’s measurement of the observable. Specifically, the observables have the spectral decompositions: $`\widehat{A}^i=a_1^i\widehat{P}_1^i+a_2^i\widehat{P}_2^i+a_3^i\widehat{P}_3^i,`$ and $`\widehat{B}^j=b_1^j\widehat{Q}_1^j+b_2^j\widehat{Q}_2^j+b_3^j\widehat{Q}_3^j,`$ where $`\widehat{P}_l^i`$ and $`\widehat{Q}_m^j`$ $`(l,m=1,2,3)`$ are mutually orthogonal projectors respectively. The probability of obtaining the set of three numbers $`(a_l^i,b_m^j)`$ in a simultaneous measurement of observables $`\widehat{A}^i`$ and $`\widehat{B}^j`$ on the state $`\rho `$ is denoted by $`P(a_l^i,b_m^j),`$ which can be given by the standard formula

$$P(a_l^i,b_m^j)=Tr(\rho \widehat{P}_l^i\widehat{Q}_m^j).$$
(1)
As introduced and used in Ref. , the correlation function $`Q(\stackrel{}{\phi }^{A_i},\phi ^{B_j})`$ ($`Q_{ij}`$ for short) between Alice’s and Bob’s measurements is

$$Q_{ij}=\underset{l_i,m_j=1}{\overset{3}{}}\alpha ^{l_i+m_j}P(a_{l_i},b_{m_j}),$$
(2)
where $`\alpha =e^{i2\pi /3}.`$ Let us define the following quantity

$$S=\mathrm{Re}[Q_{11}+Q_{12}Q_{21}+Q_{22}]+\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\mathrm{Im}[Q_{11}Q_{12}Q_{21}+Q_{22}].$$
(3)
It can be shown , using the recently discovered Bell inequality for two qutrits , that according to local realistic theory $`S`$ can not exceed $`2,`$ i.e. $`S2`$ for local realistic theory. However, when using the quantum correlation function given in Eq. (2), $`S_{\mathrm{max}}`$ acquires the value $`\frac{2}{9}(6+4\sqrt{3})2.87293`$ for the state $`|\psi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\underset{i}{\overset{3}{}}|i|i`$ , the maximally entangled state. Following , we define the threshold noise admixture $`F_{thr}`$ (the minimal noise admixture fraction for $`|\psi `$) $`F_{thr}=12/S_{\mathrm{max}}.`$ Then for the maximally entangled two qutrits, we have $`F_{thr}=0.30385.`$ For the maximally entangled two qubits, one has $`F_{thr}=0.29289.`$ Obviously, entangled qutrits are more resistant to noise than entangled qubits .

As suggested in Ref.  and , the Bell-CHSH inequality for two qutrits can be expressed as

$$4S2.$$
(4)
On the other hand, the interesting thing is the maximal $`F_{thr}`$ of two qutrits obtained in Ref.  by the numerical linear optimization method. The authors found that the optimal non-maximally entangled state of two qutrits is around $`3\%`$ more resistant to noise than the maximally entangled one. The maximal $`F_{thr}=0.31386`$ for such state (a non-maximally state). Similar result is obtained in Ref.. Obviously, the maximal violation of the inequality should be $`2.91485`$ for such non-maximally entangled states.

For simplicity, we consider such a gedanken experiment that Alice’s and Bob’s observables are defined by unbiased symmetric six-port beam-splitter on the state of two qutrits

$$|\psi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\underset{i}{\overset{3}{}}a_i|i|i,$$
(5)
with real coefficients $`a_i,`$the kets $`|i`$ $`(i=1,2,3)`$ denote the orthonormal basis states for the qutrit. The unbiased symmetric six-port beam-splitter, called tritter , is an optical device with three input and output ports. In front of every input port there is a phase shifter that changes the phase of the photon entering the given port. The observers select the specific local observables by setting appropriate phase shifts in the beams leading to the entry ports of the beam-splitters. Such process performs a unitary transformation between “mutually unbiased” bases in the Hilbert space . The overall unitary transformation performed by such a device is given by

$$U_{ij}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\alpha ^{(i1)(j1)}e^{i\phi _j},i,j=1,2,3$$
(6)
where $`\alpha =e^{i2\pi /3}`$ and $`j`$ denotes an input beam to the device, and $`i`$ an output one; $`\phi _j`$ are the three phases that can be set by the local observer, denoted as $`\stackrel{}{\phi }=(\phi _1,\phi _2,\phi _3)`$ . The transformations at Alice’s side are denoted as $`\stackrel{}{\phi }^A=(\phi _1^A,\phi _2^A,\phi _3^A),`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\phi }^B=(\phi _1^B,\phi _2^B,\phi _3^B)`$ for Bob’s side.

The observables measured by Alice and Bob are now defined as follows. The set of projectors for Alice’s $`i`$-th measurement is given by $`\widehat{P}_l^i=U_A^+(\stackrel{}{\phi }^{A_i})|ll|U_A(\stackrel{}{\phi }^{A_i})`$ $`(l=1,2,3),`$ where $`U_A(\stackrel{}{\phi }^{A_i})`$ is the matrix of Alice’s unbiased symmetric six-port beam-splitter defined by Eq. (6). Bob’s $`j`$-th measurement is given by $`\widehat{Q}_m^j=U_B^+(\stackrel{}{\phi }^{B_j})|mm|U_B(\stackrel{}{\phi }^{B_j})`$ $`(m=1,2,3).`$ Then, from (1) and (2), the correlation function for state $`|\psi `$ reads

$$Q_{ij}=\underset{n,k}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{l_i,m_j}{\overset{3}{}}a_na_k\alpha ^{l_i+m_j}(\alpha ^{})^{(n1)(l_i+m_j2)}\alpha ^{(k1)(l_i+m_j2)}e^{i(\phi _k^{A_i}+\phi _k^{B_j}\phi _n^{A_i}\phi _n^{B_j})}.$$
(7)
This shows the results of the measurement obtained by Alice and Bob are strictly correlated.

In the following, we will investigate the Bell-CHSH inequality (4) for the tritter measurements and give analytical discussions of above results.

## III The maximal violation

By substituting Eq. (7) into (3), after some elaborate, we obtain

$$S=a_1a_2T_{12}+a_1a_3T_{13}+a_2a_3T_{23},$$
(8)
where

$`T_{12}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}[3\mathrm{cos}(\phi _1^{A_2}\phi _2^{A_2}+\phi _1^{B_1}\phi _2^{B_1})3\mathrm{cos}(\phi _1^{A_1}\phi _2^{A_1}+\phi _1^{B_1}\phi _2^{B_1})`$

$`3\mathrm{cos}(\phi _1^{A_2}\phi _2^{A_2}+\phi _1^{B_2}\phi _2^{B_2})\sqrt{3}\mathrm{sin}(\phi _1^{A_2}\phi _2^{A_2}+\phi _1^{B_1}\phi _2^{B_1})`$

$`+\sqrt{3}\mathrm{sin}(\phi _1^{A_1}\phi _2^{A_1}+\phi _1^{B_1}\phi _2^{B_1})+2\sqrt{3}\mathrm{sin}(\phi _1^{A_1}\phi _2^{A_1}+\phi _1^{B_2}\phi _2^{B_2})`$

$$+\sqrt{3}\mathrm{sin}(\phi _1^{A_2}\phi _2^{A_2}+\phi _1^{B_2}\phi _2^{B_2})],$$
(9)
$`T_{13}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}[3\mathrm{cos}(\phi _1^{A_1}\phi _3^{A_1}+\phi _1^{B_1}\phi _3^{B_1})3\mathrm{cos}(\phi _1^{A_2}\phi _3^{A_2}+\phi _1^{B_1}\phi _3^{B_1})`$

$`+3\mathrm{cos}(\phi _1^{A_2}\phi _3^{A_2}+\phi _1^{B_2}\phi _3^{B_2})+\sqrt{3}\mathrm{sin}(\phi _1^{A_1}\phi _3^{A_1}+\phi _1^{B_1}\phi _3^{B_1})`$

$`\sqrt{3}\mathrm{sin}(\phi _1^{A_2}\phi _3^{A_2}+\phi _1^{B_1}\phi _3^{B_1})+2\sqrt{3}\mathrm{sin}(\phi _1^{A_1}\phi _3^{A_1}+\phi _1^{B_2}\phi _3^{B_2})`$

$$+\sqrt{3}\mathrm{sin}(\phi _1^{A_2}\phi _3^{A_2}+\phi _1^{B_2}\phi _3^{B_2})],$$
(10)
and

$`T_{23}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}[3\mathrm{cos}(\phi _2^{A_1}\phi _3^{A_1}+\phi _2^{B_1}\phi _3^{B_1})3\mathrm{cos}(\phi _2^{A_2}\phi _3^{A_2}+\phi _2^{B_1}\phi _3^{B_1})`$

$`+3\mathrm{cos}(\phi _2^{A_2}\phi _3^{A_2}+\phi _2^{B_2}\phi _3^{B_2})\sqrt{3}\mathrm{sin}(\phi _2^{A_1}\phi _3^{A_1}+\phi _2^{B_1}\phi _3^{B_1})`$

$`+\sqrt{3}\mathrm{sin}(\phi _2^{A_2}\phi _3^{A_2}+\phi _2^{B_1}\phi _3^{B_1})2\sqrt{3}\mathrm{sin}(\phi _2^{A_1}\phi _3^{A_1}+\phi _2^{B_2}\phi _3^{B_2})`$

$$\sqrt{3}\mathrm{sin}(\phi _2^{A_2}\phi _3^{A_2}+\phi _2^{B_2}\phi _3^{B_2})],$$
(11)
are three continuous functions of twelve angles $`\stackrel{}{\phi }^{A_i}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\phi }^{B_j}`$ $`(i,j=1,2).`$ So, $`S`$ is the continuous function of the twelve variables. The points which satisfy

$$\frac{S}{\phi _j^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_i}}=0,\text{ }\mathrm{\Lambda }=A,B;i=1,2;andj=1,2,3,$$
(12)
are the critical points of the function $`S`$. According to the theory of extreme points of continuous functions, we know that the extreme points are belong to the critical points of the function. So, we can extract the maximum and minimum of $`S`$ from the critical points by comparing the value of $`S`$ among the critical points, since the maximum and minimum point must be one of extreme points.

On the other hand, we can know that $`|t_{12}|\frac{4}{3},|t_{13}|\frac{4}{3},|t_{23}|\frac{4}{3}.`$ However, the above three formulae are strongly correlated, so $`t_{12},`$ $`t_{13},`$ and $`t_{23}`$ can not reach their maximum value at the same time. It happens that when one of $`t_{12},`$ $`t_{13},`$ and $`t_{23}`$ reaches its maximum value $`\frac{4}{3},`$ the others can reach their sub-maximum value $`\frac{4}{3\sqrt{3}}.`$ If we consider $`t_{12},`$ $`t_{13},`$ and $`t_{23}`$ as three coordinates, then they can form a complicated polyhedron. The polyhedral vertices are the points when $`t_{12},`$ $`t_{13},`$ and $`t_{23}`$ reach their extreme values.

Lemma For the formula $`G=_{i=1}^N\xi _iR_i`$ , where $`\xi _i`$ are $`N`$ real parameters, the maximum (minimum) points of $`G`$ must on the boundary of the region formed by $`R_i`$ for any $`\xi _i.`$

Proof: Giving $`G^0=_{i=1}^N\xi _i`$ $`R_i^0`$, if $`R_i^0(i=1,2,\mathrm{},N)`$ are in the inner region formed by $`R_i`$, we can always have $`G=G^0+_{i=1}^N\xi _i\mathrm{\Delta }R_i,`$ in which $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_i`$ are infinitesimal values satisfying $`\xi _i\mathrm{\Delta }R_i>0`$ $`(i=1,2,\mathrm{},N),`$ so that $`G>G^0;`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_i`$ are infinitesimal values satisfying $`\xi _i\mathrm{\Delta }R_i<0`$ $`(i=1,2,\mathrm{},N),`$ so that $`G<G^0.`$ So, we can know that the maximum (minimum) points of $`G`$ can only find on the boundary.

Theorem The maximum and minimum value of $`S`$ for a given state (5) must be found at the vertices of polyhedron formed by $`t_{ij}`$ $`(ij,i,j=1,2,3).`$

Proof: We know that the maximum points of $`S`$ is belong to the critical points of $`S.`$ For the critical points in the inner region formed by $`(t_{12},t_{13},t_{23}),`$ from the Lemma we know that the value of such critical points must be less than some values of $`S`$ on the boundary, so they can not be the maximum points of $`S`$. For the same reason, if the critical point on the boundary (excepting for vertices), we can know that the value of $`S`$ on this point must be less than $`S`$ on one of the vertices on this boundary. Then, the maximum value of $`S`$ must be only found on the vertices of region formed by $`(t_{12},t_{13},t_{23})`$.

In analog to the above discussion, the minimum value of $`S`$ can also be found on the vertices.

To find out the maximum (minimum) value we have to calculate the vertices of the polyhedron formed by $`t_{ij}.`$ For convenience, we denote $`T_1`$as one of $`\{t_{12},t_{13},t_{23}\},`$ $`T_2`$ as one of $`\{t_{12},t_{13},t_{23}\}/\{T_1\}`$ and $`T_3`$ as one of $`\{t_{12},t_{13},t_{23}\}/\{T_1,T_2\},`$where $`\{\}/\{\}`$ means division of sets namely, if $`T_1=t_{12}`$, then $`T_2\{t_{12},t_{13},t_{23}\}/\{t_{12}\}=\{t_{13},t_{23}\},`$ and so on. In the following, we list the vertices formed by the maximum and sub-maximum of $`t_{ij}`$ (it is enough),

$$(|T_1|,|T_2|,|T_3|)=(\frac{4}{3},\frac{4}{3\sqrt{3}},\frac{4}{3\sqrt{3}}),\text{ }for\text{ }T_1T_2T_3>0;$$
(13)
and

$$(|T_1|,|T_2|,|T_3|)=(\frac{4}{3},\frac{4}{3},\frac{4}{3}),\text{ }for\text{ }T_1T_2T_3<0.$$
(14)
Comparing the value of $`S`$ among these points, we can obtain the maximum and minimum values of $`S`$ for the state (5). Assuming $`\{K_i,(i=1,2,3)\}=`$ $`\{|a_1a_2|,|a_1a_3|,|a_2a_3|\}`$ , where $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}=\mathrm{"}`$ means the equality of two sets, and $`K_i`$ are in decreasing order, i.e. $`K_1K_2K_3,`$ let us define

$$S_1(|\psi )=\frac{4}{3}K_1+\frac{4}{3\sqrt{3}}(K_2+K_3),$$
(15)
and

$$S_2(|\psi )=\frac{4}{3}(K_1+K_2K_3),$$
(16)
Then, we can know the maximum value of $`S`$ must be

$$S_{\mathrm{max}}(|\psi )=Max(S_1(|\psi ),S_2(|\psi )).$$
(17)
From (15) and (16), we know that $`S_2(|\psi )S_1(|\psi )`$ only for $`\frac{K_3}{K_2}2\sqrt{3}.`$ If taking $`_ia_i^2=3`$ into account, one can prove that when $`Max(|a_1|,|a_2|,|a_3|)\frac{\sqrt{6+3\sqrt{3}}}{2}=1.67303`$ , $`S_2(|\psi )S_1(|\psi ).`$ Let us define $`A_{\mathrm{max}}=Max(|a_1|,|a_2|,|a_3|),`$ finally we obtain that

$$S_{\mathrm{max}}(|\psi )=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{4}{3}K_1+\frac{4}{3\sqrt{3}}(K_2+K_3),& A_{\mathrm{max}}\frac{\sqrt{6+3\sqrt{3}}}{2};\\ \frac{4}{3}(K_1+K_2K_3),& A_{\mathrm{max}}>\frac{\sqrt{6+3\sqrt{3}}}{2}.\end{array}$$
(18)
We can also prove that the minimum of $`S`$ is

$$S_{\mathrm{min}}(|\psi )=\frac{4}{3}(K_1+K_2+K_3).$$
(19)
Obviously one can easily find that for maximally entangled state $`|\psi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\underset{i}{\overset{3}{}}|i|i`$, (i.e., $`a_i=1`$), we have $`S_{\mathrm{max}}=\frac{2}{9}(6+4\sqrt{3})`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{min}}=4,`$ which are the same as the results obtained in Refs. .

In Fig.1, we give the comparison between the theoretical results and the numerical calculations obtained by multi random search optimization method, which shows a perfect agreement; (a) for $`S_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and (b) for $`S_{\mathrm{min}},`$ in which $`a_1`$ changes in region $`[\sqrt{3},\sqrt{3}]`$, $`a_2=\sqrt{(3a_1^2)\epsilon }`$ and $`a_3=\sqrt{(3a_1^2)(1\epsilon )},`$ $`0\epsilon 1`$. One can find some inflexion points in fig. 1(a), for example, at the point $`a_1=1`$ when $`\epsilon =0.5.`$ These inflexion points are due to the discontinuous change of $`K_1,`$ the maximum value among $`|a_1a_2|,|a_1a_3|`$ and $`|a_2a_3|,`$ e.g., for $`\epsilon =0.5,`$ $`K_1=a_2a_3=(\frac{3a_1^2}{2})`$ when $`a_11,`$ but when $`a_1>1`$, $`K_1=a_1a_2=a_1\sqrt{\frac{(3a_1^2)}{2}}.`$ On the other hand, we can see from Fig.1(a) that the maximally entangled states are not the states that give the maximal violation of the Bell inequality.

Consider $`a_i`$ as variables, we can obtain the maximal value of $`S_{\mathrm{max}},`$ denoted as $`\overline{S}_{\mathrm{max}},`$ by calculating the extreme value of Eq. (18), after some elaboration, we get

$$\overline{S}_{\mathrm{max}}=1+\sqrt{\frac{11}{3}},$$
(20)
when

$$\{|a_1|,|a_2|,|a_3|\}=\{\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}\left(1\sqrt{\frac{3}{11}}\right)},\sqrt{\frac{3a_1^2}{2}},\sqrt{\frac{3a_1^2}{2}}\}.$$
(21)
One sees that for this value the threshold amount of noise is about $`F_{thr}=0.3139,`$ which is as the same as what has been obtained in recently calculation . So, this result gives another evidence for the inequality (4).

On the other hand, we can also calculated the minimum value of $`S_{\mathrm{min}},`$ denoted as $`\overline{S}_{\mathrm{min}}`$

$$\overline{S}_{\mathrm{min}}=4,\text{ }for\text{ }\{|a_1|,|a_2|,|a_3|\}=\{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1},1\}.$$
(22)
Then, we can know that

$$0S_{\mathrm{max}}1+\sqrt{\frac{11}{3}},4S_{\mathrm{min}}0.$$
(23)
Obviously, for tritter measurements, the left hand of the inequality (4) would never be violated, and the right hand only be violated by some of pure states. We can easily find the states that violate the inequality for tritter measurements from the formula (18). In Fig. 2, we show the states described by $`(a_1,a_2=\sqrt{(3a_1^2)\epsilon },a_3=\sqrt{(3a_1^2)(1\epsilon )})`$ that violate the inequality for tritter measurements. The states which violate the inequality are in the shadow region; the states of which $`S_{\mathrm{max}}=2`$ are on the boundary of the shadow region; the states in other region can not violate the inequality for tritter measurements.

We should add here that some similar calculations as well as some equivalence results were made by Cereceda  where the author compared some of the two-qutrit inequalities and investigated them in detail.

## IV Discussion

In the above discussion we only concentrate on tritter measurements which can be easily carried out for nowadays technology . By detail studying the Bell-CHSH inequality of two qutrits, we give formulae of the maximum and minimum values of this inequality, and obtain the states which give the maximal violation of the Bell-CHSH inequality. The maximal violation we obtained are the same as Refs.  .

Indeed, one should use general measurements to study the problem of maximizing the Bell violation for a state, or in other words, for some states the tritter measurements are not optimal.

So, some states that do not violate the inequality using tritter measurements, but may violate the inequality when general measurements are taken into account . For example, for the state with $`|a_1|=1.56`$ and $`\epsilon =0.5`$, $`S_{\mathrm{max}}=1.964`$ for tritter measurements, which does not violate the inequality; but if we employ the following measurements, $`\widehat{P}_l^i=U_A^+(\stackrel{}{\phi }^{A_i})|x_lx_l|U_A(\stackrel{}{\phi }^{A_i})`$ $`(l=1,2,3)`$ and $`\widehat{Q}_m^j=U_B^+(\stackrel{}{\phi }^{B_j})|x_mx_m|U_B(\stackrel{}{\phi }^{B_j})`$ $`(m=1,2,3)`$where $`|x_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[|1+|2],`$ $`|x_2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[|1|2]`$ and $`|x_3=|3`$ are orthonormal basis, we can obtain $`S_{\mathrm{max}}=2.0132`$ (violates the inequality).

However, by employing tritter measurements, it can reveal many important properties of Bell inequality of entangled two qutrits. For instance, for the maximally entangled state $`|\psi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\underset{i}{\overset{3}{}}|i|i`$ and the states that maximally violates the inequality, the tritter measurements are optimal, and based on such entangled qutrit pairs a cryptographic protocol has been presented more recently  by employing tritter measurements.

## V Acknowledgment

We thank Professor S.G. Chen for useful discussions. This work was supported by the 973 Project of China and Science and Technology Funds of CAEP.

## VI Figures caption:

Fig. 1(a). The maximal value of the inequality for tritter measurements, $`S_{\mathrm{max}},`$ for state given by Eq. (5), where $`a_1`$ changes in region $`[\sqrt{3},\sqrt{3}]`$, $`a_2=\sqrt{(3a_1^2)\epsilon }`$ and $`a_3=\sqrt{(3a_1^2)(1\epsilon )},`$ $`0\epsilon 1`$. The solid lines are theoretical results, circles are numerical dates; dotted line shows the maximal value predicted by the local realistic theory, dashed line marks the value of the maximally entangled states. (b) The minimal value of the inequality, $`S_{\mathrm{min}}`$.

Fig. 2. It shows the states that violate the inequality for tritter measurements. The states in shadow region violate the inequality.