text:
# 1 Deriving time in phase space

## 1 Deriving time in phase space

The treatment of time as a phase space variable is a time-honored procedure. The term extended phase space was coined for the approach in which, to the $`n`$ pairs $`(q,p)`$ of the phase space variables of mechanical systems with $`n`$ degrees of freedom, one adds the additional conjugate pair $`(t,p_t)`$, which requires the constraint $`p_t+H(q,p)=0`$ for consistency. It seems possible to dismantle this construction trading in the way the pair $`(t,p_t)`$ by another canonical pair $`(q,p)`$. Naively, one would single out one of the phase space variables ($`q_1`$ for instance) and make it equal to some parametric value (i.e. $`q_1=x`$). Then, its canonical conjugate (the momentum $`p_1`$ in this example), would be fixed by the constraint, giving $`p_1=\varphi (x;q_2,p_2,\mathrm{},p_t)`$. The phase space would now be given in terms of $`\{(q_2,p_2),\mathrm{},(q_n,p_n),(t,p_t)\}`$, with $`x`$ acting as an external evolution-like parameter. Hence, $`t(x)`$ or in words, “the time of arrival at $`x`$” would be a legitimate question to ask. In spite of its apparent generality, is seldom possible to accomplish this program, not because of its very difficulty, but due to the non-fulfillment of some of the many conditions necessary for the existence of solutions. Here we will discuss the case of integrable systems for which there is a global construct for $`t(x)`$, that we will describe explicitly.

In the modern approach to classical dynamics (a standard reference is , a very readable text can be found in ), a Hamiltonian system is called completely integrable (a là Liouville) when it satisfies the conditions $`a`$ and $`b`$ below:

* There are $`n`$ compatible conservation laws
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_i(q_1,\mathrm{},q_n,p_1\mathrm{},p_n;t)=C_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, that is:

+ $`\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i=\{\mathrm{\Phi }_i,H\}+\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_i}{t}=0,i=1,\mathrm{},n.`$
    + $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }_i,\mathrm{\Phi }_j\}=0,i,j=1,\mathrm{},n.`$
* The conservation laws define $`n`$ isolating integrals that can be written as:

+ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i=C_ip_i=\varphi _i(q_1,\mathrm{},q_n,C_1,\mathrm{},C_n;t),i=1,\mathrm{},n.`$
    + $`\frac{\varphi _i}{q_j}=\frac{\varphi _j}{q_i}i,j=1,\mathrm{},n.`$

In these conditions, the solution to the Hamilton equations is an integrable flow, described by a system of holonomic coordinates $`(q(t),p(t))`$ in phase space for each instant of time:

$`q_i(t)`$ $`=q_i(q_0,p_0;t),`$ $`i=1,\mathrm{},n.`$ (1)
$`p_i(t)`$ $`=p_i(q_0,p_0;t),`$ $`i=1,\mathrm{},n.`$
In particular, given the set of initial conditions $`(q_0,p_0)`$, the system arrives at the point $`(q(t),p(t))`$ of the phase space in the path independent instant $`t`$. Conversely, these points define the corresponding times of arrival. In this case, time meets the requirements to qualify as a derived variable in phase space, whose explicit construction occupies the rest of this section.

For integrable flows there is a special choice of phase space coordinates that mathematically eliminates the effects of interactions (because the new positions are ignorable coordinates). In other words, integrable systems are canonically equivalent to a set of translations (or of circular motions) at constant speed. It is customary to denote the variables that determine these translations as action-angle variables, a name which strictly is appropriate only for the case of periodic systems, where the (closed) flow lines are topologically equivalent to circles. For these integrable flows, there is a canonical transformation $`W`$ (the Jacobi-Lie transformation) to free-like variables

$$\{q,p;H(q,p)\}\stackrel{W}{}\{Q,P;H_0(P)\}$$
(2)
where $`H(q,p)=H_0(P)`$. The most useful form of this transformation is $`W(q,P)`$, that is, a function of the old positions and the new momenta, so that

$$Q_i=\frac{W(q,P)}{P_i},p_i=\frac{W(q,P)}{q_i}i=1,\mathrm{},n$$
(3)
The choice $`H_0(P)=_i\frac{P_i^2}{2m}`$ relates the free coordinates $`P_i(t)=P_i`$ and $`Q_i(t)=\frac{P_i}{m}t+Q_i`$ of the translation flow to the positions and momenta $`(q_i(t),p_i(t))`$ of the actual flow generated by $`H(q,p)=_i\frac{p_i^2}{2m}+V(q)`$. In this work we shall only consider unbound systems with positive energy $`H=H_00`$. For this reason we choose the conserved momenta $`P_i`$ for the constant variables instead of the usual actions over a period $`p𝑑q`$ that are more apt for bounded motions. Notice however that the $`P_i`$ are different from the momenta appearing in perturbative calculations, even if both sets may coincide asymptotically or in some set of $`R^n`$. Coming back to our problem, the function $`W`$ would be given explicitly as a complete integral of the following Hamilton-Jacobi equation:

$$H(q_i,\frac{W(q,P)}{q_i})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{P_i^2}{2m}$$
(4)
Due to the relations b.1 and b.2 above, it is permitted to write $`W`$ as the path-independent integral:

$$W(q,P)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}_{q_0}^q𝑑q_i\varphi _i(q,C)$$
(5)
where $`q_0`$ is a constant configuration space point, and the $`C_i`$ (that remain fixed during the integration) are functions of the $`P_i`$ whose determination is necessary to solve explicitly the problem. We are not concerned here with the search of specific solutions, but with the fact that integrability ensures their global existence. In fact, the equations (3) can be written in the form

$$p_a(q,P)=\varphi _a(q,C),Q_a(q,P)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}_{q_0}^q𝑑q_i\frac{p_i(q,P)}{P_a},a=1,\mathrm{},n$$
(6)
The first equation is simply the definition of the isolating integrals (b.1). As a bonus, time can be given as a function of phase space in two alternative ways: either in terms of the old variables, or equally in terms of the new ones. Consider that a particle initially at $`(𝐪,𝐩)`$ arrives at the position $`𝐪(t)=𝐱`$ in the instant $`t(𝐱)=t`$, then:

$$t(𝐱)=\frac{m}{P_a}(X_aQ_a)=\frac{m}{P_a}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}_𝐪^𝐱𝑑q_i\frac{p_i(𝐪,𝐏)}{P_a},a=1,\mathrm{},n$$
(7)
where $`X_a=W(𝐱,𝐏)/P_a`$ (obviously, $`X_a=Q_a(t(𝐱))`$ by construction). Note that in (7) there is no summation over the index $`a`$. In fact, integrability can be envisioned as the simultaneous existence of $`n`$ independent flows each of them contained in a different phase space plane. The requirement of integrability was noticed by Einstein , who analyzed its implications for the old Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization conditions, that he reformulated accordingly giving a new condition, that was criticized by Epstein . Integrability  allows $`n`$ different expressions to define the unique time of arrival. Only a pair $`(Q_a,P_a)`$ appears in each of them, and they all are equivalent. This holds even when there is no separable solution to the original Hamilton-Jacobi equation (4) due to the presence of the potential $`V(𝐪)`$ in the Hamiltonian. Only for some well known cases  the problem is separable in the original variables. Independently of this, notice that as $`(𝐐(t),𝐏)`$ defines a straight line in the phase space, it is simple to lay one of the axes (the $`n^{th}`$ say) along it. This amounts to define $`H_0(𝐏)=P_n`$ which gives $`P_n(t)=E`$ and $`Q_n(t)=t+Q_n`$, while the other variables remain constant $`Q_j(t)=Q_j,P_j(t)=P_j,j=1,\mathrm{},n1`$. With this choice, one can write:

$$t(𝐱)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}_q^x𝑑q_i\frac{p_i(q_1\mathrm{}q_n,P_1\mathrm{}P_{n1},E)}{E}$$
(8)
with the $`p_i`$’s given in (6). This is the standard equation of time that appears in the literature. The rest of the relations would give the time independent geometric properties of the trajectories. Note that for central potentials only $`p_r`$ depends on $`E`$, so that (8) reduces to $`t(r_x)=_{r_0}^{r_x}𝑑r(p_r/E)`$.

We have focused the discussion of this section on the dual definition of the time of arrival, that can be given in terms of the original phase space variables, or of the free translation variables. This duality is a foundation stone for the quantum method presented in this paper. We will obtain the time of arrival operator of interacting particles $`\widehat{t}(x)`$ by applying a quantum version of the canonical transformation $`W(q,P)`$ to the well known operator for the time of arrival of free particles $`\widehat{t}_0(x)`$. The properties of the latter have been extensively analyzed in the literature. For completeness, and to fix the notation, we present a summary of them in the next section.

## 2 Time of arrival of free quantum particles

In one space dimension Eq. (7) gives the time of arrival at $`x`$ of a free particle initially at $`(q,p)`$ as a function of the phase space variables that depends on $`x`$ parametrically: $`t_0(q,p;x)=m(xq)/p`$. In spite of its simplicity, this expression presents serious quantization difficulties  whose solution we outline here . First of all, it requires a decision about operator ordering, the simplest one being symmetrization:

$$\widehat{t}_0(\widehat{q},\widehat{p};x)=m(\frac{x}{\widehat{p}}\frac{1}{2}\{\widehat{q},\frac{1}{\widehat{p}}\}_+)=e^{i\widehat{p}x}\sqrt{\frac{m}{\widehat{p}}}\widehat{q}\sqrt{\frac{m}{\widehat{p}}}e^{i\widehat{p}x}$$
(9)
Notice the proliferation of carets above. It is a reminder that we now deal with operators acting on the Hilbert space of the free particle states. From now on, we will drop the operator carets, simplifying the notation as much as possible, wherever this will not produce confusion between operators and c-number variables. The eigenstates $`|txs0`$ of this operator $`t_0(x)`$ in the momentum representation can be given as ($`\mathrm{}=1`$)

$$p|txs0=\theta (sp)\sqrt{\frac{|p|}{m}}\mathrm{exp}(i\frac{p^2}{2m}t)p|x$$
(10)
where $`t`$ is the time eigenvalue, $`x`$ the arrival position, and where we use $`s=r`$ for right-movers ($`p>0`$), and $`s=l`$ for left-movers ($`p<0`$.) The label $`0`$ stands for free particle case. Finally, the argument $`sp`$ of the step function that appears on the rhs is $`+p`$ for $`s=r`$, and $`p`$ for $`s=l`$, so that

$$\theta (rp)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑p|pp|\text{and}\theta (lp)=_{\mathrm{}}^0𝑑p|pp|$$
(11)
The degeneracy of the energy with respect to the sign of the moment is explicitly shown by means of a label $`s=r,l`$ in the energy representation, where

$$Es^{}0|txs0=\delta _{s^{}s}(\frac{2E}{m})^{1/4}e^{iEt}Es0|x$$
(12)
Summarizing, there is a representation for the time of arrival at $`x`$ spanned by the eigenstates

$$|txs0=(\frac{2H_0}{m})^{1/4}e^{iH_0t}\mathrm{\Pi }_{s0}|x$$
(13)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{s0}`$ projects on the subspace of right-movers ($`s=r`$), or of left-movers ($`s=l`$), i.e.

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{s0}=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑E|Es0Es0|=\theta (sp)$$
(14)
These time eigenstates are not orthogonal. This gave rise in the past to serious doubts about their physical meaning. The origin of the problem can be traced back to the fact that (9) is not self-adjoint, that is, that $`\phi |t_0(x)\psi t_0(x)\phi |\psi `$. This was pointed out by Pauli  long time ago and is due to the lower bound on the energy spectrum that prevents the applicability of the Stone theorem . The problem emerges as soon as one attempts integration by parts in the energy representation.

Not being self-adjoint or orthogonal, this operator poses an interpretation problem that can be solved by considering it in terms the Positive Operator Valued Measures (POVM). This is a class of operators less restrictive than the traditional projector valued measures. The POV measures only requires the hermiticity of $`t_0(x)`$ (i.e. $`t_0(x)=(t_0(x))_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$) to assure the positivity of the measure. Now, instead of a Projector Valued spectral decomposition of the identity operator, one has the POV measure

$`P_0(\mathrm{\Pi }(x);t_1,t_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}{\displaystyle _1^2}𝑑t|txs0txs0|`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}{\displaystyle _1^2}𝑑t({\displaystyle \frac{2H_0}{m}})^{1/4}e^{iH_0t}\mathrm{\Pi }_{s0}\mathrm{\Pi }(x)\mathrm{\Pi }_{s0}e^{iH_0t}({\displaystyle \frac{2H_0}{m}})^{1/4}`$
whose notation indicates the arrival interval and that the dependence on the arrival position comes through the projector $`\mathrm{\Pi }(x)=|xx|`$ on the position eigenstate. For the above measure $`P_0(1,2)^2P_0(1,2)`$ because $`|txs0txs0|`$ is not a projector, as the states are not orthogonal. However, the limit as $`t\mathrm{}`$ of $`P_0(t,+t)`$ is the identity as can be checked explicitly. The time operator obtained is well suited for interpretation. This solution was introduced in , and extensively analyzed in refs. . It has been recently reviewed in  and criticized in .

In this formulation the time of arrival is given by the first moment of the measure

$`t_0(H_0,\mathrm{\Pi }(x))`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑tt|txs0txs0|`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑tt({\displaystyle \frac{2H_0}{m}})^{1/4}e^{iH_0t}𝒫_0(x)e^{iH_0t}({\displaystyle \frac{2H_0}{m}})^{1/4}`$
where $`𝒫_0(x)=_s\mathrm{\Pi }_{s0}\mathrm{\Pi }(x)\mathrm{\Pi }_{s0}`$, which is not a projector. We now have the tools necessary for the physical interpretation of the formalism: Given an arbitrary state $`\psi `$ at $`t=0`$, its time of arrival at a position $`x`$ has to be, according to (16),

$$\psi |t_0(x)|\psi =\frac{1}{P_0(x)}\underset{s}{}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑tt|txs0|\psi |^2,$$
(17)
with the standard interpretation of $`_s|txs0|\psi |^2`$ like the (as yet unnormalized) probability density that the state $`|\psi `$ arrives at $`x`$ in the time $`t`$. The probability of arriving at $`x`$ at any time is then $`P_0(x)=𝑑t_s|txs0|\psi |^2`$, giving a normalized probability density in times of arrival

$$P_0(t,x)=\frac{1}{P_0(x)}\underset{s}{}|txs0|\psi |^2$$
(18)
normalization that has been used in (17).

The above equations (17,18) can be given forms that are very useful for computation and that throw some light on the physical meaning of the different quantities involved. By using explicitly (13), one gets

$`P_0(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}\{{\displaystyle 𝑑E(\frac{2E}{m})^{1/4}x|Es0Es0|\psi }\}^{}`$ (19)
$`\times `$ $`\{{\displaystyle 𝑑E^{}(\frac{2E^{}}{m})^{1/4}x|E^{}s0E^{}s0|\psi }\}{\displaystyle 𝑑te^{i(EE^{})t}}`$
$`=`$ $`2\pi {\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑E(\frac{2E}{m})^{1/2}|x|Es0Es0|\psi |^2}`$
The use of a similar procedure in (17) leads to $`\psi |t_0(x)|\psi `$

$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{P_0(x)}}{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑E(\frac{2E}{m})^{1/2}\{x|Es0Es0|\psi \}^{}}\stackrel{}{{\displaystyle \frac{}{E}}}\{x|Es0Es0|\psi \}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{P_0(x)}}{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑E(\frac{2E}{m})^{1/2}|x|Es0Es0|\psi |^2\frac{}{E}\{\mathrm{arg}x|Es0+\mathrm{arg}Es0|\psi \}}`$
This expression is easy to understand. In fact it involves two ingredients: the plane wave amplitude $`x|Es0=\sqrt{\frac{m}{2\pi p}}\mathrm{exp}(ispx)`$, along with the bracket $`Es0|\psi =\sqrt{\frac{m}{p}}\stackrel{~}{\psi }(sp)`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ is the Fourier transform of the initial state in momentum space, and $`p=\sqrt{2mE}`$. This gives for the arrival amplitude

$$txs0|\psi =\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑p\sqrt{\frac{p}{m}}e^{i(Et+spx)}\stackrel{~}{\psi }(sp)$$
(21)
This is a free case so that the probability of ever arriving to $`x`$ has to be one. In fact

$$P_0(x)=\underset{s=r,l}{}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑p|\stackrel{~}{\psi }(sp)|^2=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑p|\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)|^2=1$$
(22)
where we used that in our notation $`rp=+p`$ and $`lp=p`$. We also have:

$$\frac{}{E}\{\mathrm{arg}x|Es0+\mathrm{arg}Es0|\psi \}=\frac{m}{p}(sx\frac{\mathrm{arg}(\stackrel{~}{\psi }(sp))}{p})$$
(23)
There are initial wave packets centered around the values $`(q_0,p_0)`$ for which $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)=|\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)|\mathrm{exp}(ipq_0)`$ with the amplitude $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)`$ peaked around $`p_0`$. Then, $`(/p)\mathrm{arg}\stackrel{~}{\psi }(sp)=sq_0`$, and the time of arrival at $`x`$ reduces to

$$\psi |t_0(x)|\psi =\underset{s=r,l}{}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑p|\stackrel{~}{\psi }(sp)|^2\frac{m(xq_0)}{sp}=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑p|\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)|^2\frac{m(xq_0)}{p}$$
(24)
which is the time of arrival of the classical free particle averaged over its initial state.

The generalization to the case of three space dimensions  is not straightforward. The reason is that to begin with, there are three equivalent equations (7) for the time of arrival. To be compatible, they have to satisfy the constraints

$$=(𝐪𝐱)𝐩=0$$
(25)
where we drop the distinctions made in (7) between upper and lower case letters, as they are the same objects for free particles. Classically, the constraints correspond to the fact that $`𝐱`$ has to be a point of the particle’s trajectory, therefore the angular momentum can be written as $`𝐋=𝐱𝐩`$. In other words, the angular momentum with respect to $`𝐱`$, that is $``$, has to vanish. We now show that the constraints (25) are first class. First of all, they are closed as their components $`_a=ϵ_{abc}(qx)_bp_c`$ satisfy the algebra of 3-D rotations, namely $`\{_a,_b\}=ϵ_{abc}_c`$. Then, the total Hamiltonian is $`H_T=\frac{𝐩^2}{2m}+\lambda `$, where $`\lambda `$ is a vector multiplier, so that $`\{_a,H_T\}=ϵ_{abc}\lambda _b_c`$. Therefore, the constraints form a first class system that depends parametrically on $`𝐱`$, one for each arrival position $`𝐱`$. Not all the $`𝐱`$’s can be reached from an arbitrary set $`(𝐪,𝐩)`$ of phase space variables. Only those $`𝐱`$ that satisfy the constraints are positions where the particles with these dynamical variables can eventually be detected. A detector placed somewhere else will miss them.

The above translates into quantum mechanics as it is: Not all the states in the Hilbert space of free particle states $``$ with Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ can be detected at a specific position $`𝐱`$. Only the subspace $`_𝐱`$ of the states that satisfy the constraints (25) (where now $`𝐪`$ and $`𝐩`$ are operators) qualify as the Hilbert space of detected states (at $`𝐱`$). This subspace is spanned by the states $`|\psi ;𝐱`$ of the form $`|\psi ;𝐱=\psi (H_0)|𝐱`$. Here, $`\psi (H_0)`$ is an arbitrary function of $`H_0`$, that may also depend on other parameters, $`|𝐱`$ is the eigenstate $`𝐪|𝐱=𝐱|𝐱`$ of the arrival position. In particular, the detected subspace $`_𝐱`$ is obtained from $`_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ by a translation of amount $`𝐱`$, as required by covariance.

The value of $`t`$ comes from the equation of motion in the subspace orthogonal to the constraints, namely $`𝐩𝐱=𝐩\left(\frac{𝐩}{m}t_0(𝐱)+𝐪\right)`$, that in spherical coordinates where $`|𝐩=|p,\theta _p,\varphi _p`$ and $`q=i\frac{d}{dp}`$ can be written as $`x=\frac{p}{m}t_0(𝐱)+q`$. This can be readily inverted to give

$$t_0(𝐱)=\frac{m}{p}e^{i\mathrm{𝐩𝐱}}p^{1/2}qp^{1/2}e^{i\mathrm{𝐩𝐱}}$$
(26)
Notice the characteristic powers of $`p`$ to the right and to the left of $`q`$. This operator ordering makes of $`t_0`$ a maximally symmetric operator with respect to the measure $`d^3p`$, making integration by parts a straightforward task. In $`d`$ space dimensions we would have $`t_0\frac{1}{p^{n+1}}(i\frac{d}{dp})p^n`$ with $`n=(d2)/2`$ . The eigenfunctions of $`t_0`$ are given in the momentum representation by:

$$𝐩|t;𝐱,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{4\pi mp}}e^{iE_𝐩t}𝐩|𝐱$$
(27)
where $`t𝐑`$ is the time eigenvalue, and $`E_𝐩=p^2/2m`$. One can define a time of arrival representation given by

$$|t;𝐱,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi m}}(\frac{1}{2mH_0})^{1/4}e^{iH_0t}|𝐱$$
(28)
These eigenstates are not orthogonal. They correspond to a POV measure defined by the spectral decomposition

$$\mathrm{𝟏}_𝐱=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑t|t;𝐱,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}t;𝐱,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}|$$
(29)
It can be immediately seen that for any state $`|\psi ;𝐱_𝐱`$, and for arbitrary momentum $`𝐩`$

$$𝐩|\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}_𝐱|\psi ;𝐱=𝐩|\psi ;𝐱𝐩𝐑^3$$
(30)
Therefore, the operator $`\mathrm{𝟏}_𝐱`$ is a decomposition of the identity within the subspace of detected states $`_𝐱`$. The fact that $`\mathrm{𝟏}_𝐱<\mathrm{𝟏}`$, so that the decomposition is uncompleted, is the quantum version of the classical case where only a part of the incoming particles will (reach and) be detected at $`𝐱`$. From here it is clear that our formalism is finer than that provided by the so-called screen operators , that would describe the arrival at a two dimensional plane put across the particle trajectories. In fact, these screen operators would correspond to a coarse graining of the present formalism, whose interpretation is analyzed in some detail in .

The time of arrival can be given through the first momentum of the POV measure (29):

$`t_0(𝐱)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑tt|t;𝐱,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}t;𝐱,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}|}`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi m}}{\displaystyle 𝑑tt(\frac{1}{2mH_0})^{1/4}e^{iH_0t}|𝐱𝐱|(\frac{1}{2mH_0})^{1/4}e^{iH_0t}}`$
whose similarity with the 1-D case (16) is evident, and can be used as a guide to get the average time of arrival an other quantities of interest that were worked on in one space dimension.

## 3 The arrival of interacting particles

In this section we want to determine the effect on the times of arrival of a position dependent interaction between the particle and the medium, that we describe by a potential energy $`V(q)`$. For instance, we want to consider the case of a barrier placed between the detector and the initial state. We would put a detector at $`x`$ (at the other side of the barrier), and prepare the initial state $`|\psi `$ of the particle at $`t=0`$ (at this side of the barrier). We would then record with a clock the time $`t`$ when the detector clicks. Repeating this procedure with identically prepared initial states, we would get the probability distribution $`P(t,x)`$ in times of arrival at $`x`$. This is the same procedure used for the free particle case, the differences coming from the presence of the potential energy $`V(q)`$.

To find the quantum time of arrival we will use what we know from the classical case: There is a canonical transformation from the free ($`H_0=\frac{P^2}{2m}`$) translation variables $`(Q,P)`$ to the actual variables $`(q,p)`$ of the interacting situation where $`H=\frac{p^2}{2m}+V(q)`$. Time can be given equally in any of these two versions and we did already quantize the free version $`t_0`$ in the previous section. Now, in successive steps, we do the following : We first construct the quantum canonical transformation $`U`$ that connects the free-particle states to the eigenstates of the complete Hamiltonian. This is the quantum version of the (inverse of the) Jacobi-Lie canonical transformation (2,5). We will see later on that $`U`$ is given by the Möller wave operator. We will then apply $`U`$ to $`t_0`$ to define the time of arrival $`t`$ in the presence of the interaction potential $`V(q)`$ in terms of $`t_0`$. We will work out the details of this transformation $`t=Ut_0U^{}`$. Finally, we will also address some questions of interpretation of the resulting formalism.

Dirac introduced canonical transformations in quantum mechanics in a number of different places  by means of unitary transformations $`U`$ ($`UU^{}=U^{}U=1`$ ). To fix the notation, we assume in what follows that the operators $`q`$ and $`p`$ are given in the coordinate representation of the Hilbert space $`L^2(x)`$ by $`q=x`$ and $`p=i\mathrm{}\frac{}{x}`$. If the operators $`\overline{q}`$ and $`\overline{p}`$ are the result of an arbitrary canonical transformation applied to $`q`$ and $`p`$, then there is a unitary transformation $`U`$ such that

$$\overline{q}=U^{}qU,\overline{p}=U^{}pU[\overline{q},\overline{p}]=[q,p]=i\mathrm{}$$
(32)
One can also define implicitly the quantum canonical transformations as is done in classical mechanics, a possibility that has been thoroughly analyzed and developed. The main results of the method are collected in , which also includes references to other relevant literature. The definition of $`U`$ is given implicitly by the two conditions

$$F(\overline{q},\overline{p})=F_0(q,p),\text{and}G(\overline{q},\overline{p})=G_0(q,p)$$
(33)
where $`F,G,F_0`$ and $`G_0`$ are functions of the operators shown explicitly as their arguments. They can not be chosen arbitrarily, the necessary and sufficient condition for the canonicity of the transformation being $`[F,G]=[F_0,G_0]`$. The dependence of (33) on $`U`$ can be explicitly given by using (32) in it:

$$U^{}F(q,p)U=F_0(q,p),\text{and}U^{}G(q,p)U=G_0(q,p)$$
(34)
that comes from the straight application of (32) to the first members. In addition, $`U`$ is unitary so that the spectra of the original and transformed operators have to coincide. We now assume that $`F`$ and $`F_0`$ are self-adjoint operators whose eigenvalue problems are solved by the states $`|fs`$ and $`|fs\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ (both corresponding to the same eigenvalue), that form orthogonal and complete bases of the Hilbert space satisfying

$$F|fs=\lambda _f|fs,F_0|fs\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}=\lambda _f|fs\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}$$
(35)
We are accepting here the presence of degeneracy indicated by the discrete index $`s`$, something that we will need later. Assuming now a continuous spectrum (the case we will be interested in), the operator $`U`$ that satisfies the first row of (35) is given by

$$U=\underset{s}{}_{\sigma (\lambda )}𝑑\lambda _f|fsfs\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}|$$
(36)
It is straightforward to verify that it is unitary. We can now give the definition of $`G`$ in terms of $`G_0`$ using $`U`$, that is $`G=UG_0U^{}`$, which in full detail reads

$$G(q,p)=\underset{ss^{}}{}_{\sigma (\lambda )}𝑑\lambda _f𝑑\lambda _f^{}|fsfs\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}|G_0(q,p)|f^{}s^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}f^{}s^{}|$$
(37)
This is the main result of our procedure. The fact that we can define an operator $`G`$, canonically conjugate to $`F`$, if we know $`G_0`$ and $`U`$.

We will now apply this to the case where $`F_0`$ is the free Hamiltonian $`H_0`$, $`F`$ the complete Hamiltonian $`H`$ and $`G_0`$ the time of arrival $`t_0`$ of the free particle Eqs.(9), or (16). Then, we have $`H_0=U^{}HU`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0(x)=U^{}\mathrm{\Pi }(x)U`$. Associated to the free particle there was the positive operator valued measure $`P_0`$ of Eq.(15). Accordingly, the POV measure $`P`$ of the interacting case will be given by (cf (34))

$$P(\mathrm{\Pi }(x);t_1,t_2)=UP_0(\mathrm{\Pi }_0(x);t_1,t_2)U^{}.$$
(38)
then, the time of arrival operator in the presence of interactions (the $`G`$ of (37)) is given by

$$t(H,\mathrm{\Pi }(x))=Ut_0(H_0,\mathrm{\Pi }_0(x))U^{}.$$
(39)
We noticed above that the spectra of the original and transformed operators had to coincide. Now, $`\sigma (H_0)=𝐑^+`$ so that not all the Hamiltonians can be obtained from $`H_0`$ by this procedure. In general, some fixing will be required to make the spectra coincide. Here we will only consider well behaved potentials ($`V(q)0q𝐑`$), vanishing appropriately at the spatial infinity. This ensures the required coincidence of the spectra, but introduces two solutions for $`U`$ due to the existence of two independent sets of eigenstates of $`H`$:

$$U_{(\pm )}=\underset{s}{}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑E|Es(\pm )Es0|=\mathrm{\Omega }_{(\pm )}$$
(40)
these are the Möller operators connecting the free particle states to the bound and scattering states. In presence the presence of bound states these operators would only be isometric, because the correspondence between eigenstates of $`H`$ and free states could not be one to one. In our case $`V(q)0`$, there is one free state for each scattering state and conversely. Thence, the Möller operators are unitary. In this case, the intertwining relations $`H\mathrm{\Omega }_{(\pm )}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{(\pm )}H_0`$ can be put in the more desirable form $`H=\mathrm{\Omega }_{(\pm )}H_0\mathrm{\Omega }_{(\pm )}^{}`$. We will also follow the standard sign conventions, choosing $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{(+)}`$ in (40) that, when $`E=lim_{ϵ0^+}(E+iϵ)`$, gives signal propagation forward in time. The results that would be obtained with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{()}`$ would correspond to the time reversal of this situation. If $`\tau `$ is the time reversal operator, then $`P_{()}(\mathrm{\Pi }(x);t_1,t_2)=\tau P_{(+)}(\mathrm{\Pi }(x);t_2,t_1)\tau ^{}`$. For notation simplicity, we will omit these labels $`(\pm )`$ wherever possible.

The parameter $`x`$ that appears in (37) and (39) is the actual detection position in the interacting case, the place whose time of arrival at we want to know. Therefore, the arguments of $`t`$ in (39) have to be $`\mathrm{\Pi }(x)=|xx|`$ and $`H`$. Hence, the argument of $`t_0`$ will be an object $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0(x)=\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Pi }(x)\mathrm{\Omega }`$ which collects all the states of the free particle that add up to produce the actual position eigenstate $`|x`$ by the canonical transformation. Much of the difference between the classic and quantum cases is hidden here. In particular, the quantum capability to undergo classically forbidden jumps in phase space has much to do with the fact that $`\mathrm{\Pi }(x)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0(x)`$ can not be position projection operators simultaneously.

We have now at hand all the tools necessary to answer the questions about the time of arrival of interacting particles. Given a particle that was initially (at $`t=0`$) prepared in the state $`|\psi `$, we can compute the predictions for the average time of arrival $`\psi |t(x)|\psi `$, the probability distribution in times of arrival $`P(t,x)`$ and the probability of ever arriving at $`x`$, $`P(x)`$. Instead of writing more equations, we refer the reader to Eqs. (16,17), (15,18) and (19). By simply erasing the label $`0`$ from them, one gets the correct expressions for the interacting case, with the caveat that -to be of practical use- they require the knowledge of the scattering states and Möller operator. It is worth to recall here that the expression (2) for the average time remains valid after dropping the $`0`$’s. So, $`\psi |t(x)|\psi `$ is still the sum of two independent pieces, one containing $`(/E)\mathrm{arg}Es|\psi `$ that only depends of the initial state, the other that contains $`(/E)\mathrm{arg}x|Es`$ and only depends of the position of arrival.

We now consider the case where there is a finite potential energy starting at the origin ($`V(q)=0,q0`$), which is so smooth that the quasi-classical approximation is valid. Then for $`E>V(x)`$ the exponentially small reflection amplitude can be neglected, giving the scattering states

$$x|Er\theta (x)\sqrt{\frac{m}{2\pi p}}e^{ipx}+\theta (x)\sqrt{\frac{m}{2\pi p(x)}}e^{i_0^x𝑑qp(q)}$$
(41)
with $`p(q)=\sqrt{2m(EV(q))}`$, that are normalized to an incoming right-moving particle by time unit. We now consider the physically interesting case where the initial wave packet is normalized to 1, (i.e. that $`𝑑p|\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)|^2=1`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)=p|\psi `$), also, that it is localized around a position $`q_0`$ well to the left of the origin, and that it has a mean momentum $`p_0V(x)`$. Then, to this order the probability of ever arriving at $`x`$ (c.f. (19)) gives

$$P(x)\theta (x)+\theta (x)P_>(x),\text{where}P_>(x)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑p\frac{p}{p(x)}|\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)|^2$$
(42)
so that $`\frac{p}{p(x)}|\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)|^2`$ is the (unnormalized) probability of arrival at the point $`x`$ with momentum $`p(x)`$, as corresponds to the quasiclassical case. Notice that to the left of the origin the result is the same that in the free case. This comes about because the approximation neglects reflection, thus missing at $`q<0`$ any information about a the existence of a finite $`V`$ at $`q0`$. For the time probability distribution one gets

$`P(t,x)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta (x)}{2\pi }}\left|{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑pe^{iEt}\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)\right|^2`$ (43)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta (x)}{2\pi P_>(x)}}\left|{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑E\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m}{p(x)}}}\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)e^{i(Et_0^x𝑑qp(q))}\right|^2`$
which, not surprisingly, is the same as that of free particles for $`x<0`$. Finally,

$`\psi |𝐭_x|\psi `$ $``$ $`\theta (x){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑p|\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)|^2{\displaystyle \frac{m}{p}}\{xq_0\}`$ (44)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta (x)}{P_>(x)}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑p{\displaystyle \frac{p}{p(x)}}|\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)|^2\{{\displaystyle \frac{mq_0}{p}}+m{\displaystyle _0^x}{\displaystyle \frac{dq}{p(q)}}\}`$
Therefore, we recover the time of arrival of the free particles for negative $`x`$. On the other hand, for $`x>0`$ we get the classical time of arrival at $`x`$ for initial conditions $`(q_0,p)`$, $`_{q_0}^x(m/p(q))𝑑q`$, weighted by the probability of these conditions.

## 4 Advanced or delayed arrival?

What is the effect of putting a quantum barrier in the path of the arriving particle? Hartman  studied this question a long time ago, reaching the conclusion that tunneled particles should appear instantaneously on the other side of the barrier. Our formalism supports this result, but only for thin enough barriers.

The time of arrival at a point $`x`$ in the presence of a barrier will be given through a probability amplitude

$$txs|\psi =𝑑E(\frac{2E}{m})^{1/4}e^{iEt}x|Es(+)Es(+)|\psi $$
(45)
In the case where $`x`$ is at the right of the barrier, the amplitude can be approximately given by

$$txs|\psi \frac{\delta _{sr}}{\sqrt{2\pi }}𝑑E(\frac{m}{2E})^{1/4}e^{i(Etpx)}T(p)\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)$$
(46)
where $`T(p)`$ is the transmission amplitude for momentum $`p`$. Now, the total probability of eventually arriving at $`x`$ in any time $`t`$ is $`P(x)𝑑p|T(p)\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)|^2`$ that is independent of $`x`$ in cases like this, where $`x`$ is beyond the range of the potential. After a straightforward calculation we get for the average time of arrival at the other side of the barrier the corresponding version of (2)

$$\psi |𝐭_x|\psi \frac{1}{P(x)}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑p|T(p)\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)|^2\frac{m}{p}\{xq_0+\frac{d\mathrm{arg}(T(p))}{dp}\}$$
(47)
It is the value of the Wigner time  averaged over the transmitted state.

Consider a simple square barrier of height $`V`$ and width $`a`$. The transmission coefficient is in this case:

$$T(p)=e^{ipa}\left(1i\frac{(p^2+p^2)}{2pp^{}}\mathrm{tan}p^{}a\right)^1\mathrm{sec}p^{}a$$
(48)
where $`p^{}=\sqrt{p^2p_V^2}`$, that is imaginary for $`p`$ below $`p_V`$. Notice the contribution $`pa`$ to $`\mathrm{arg}(T(p))`$. This will subtract a term $`a`$ to the path length $`xq_0`$ that appears in (47). The barrier has effective zero width or, in other words, it is traversed instantaneously. This is the Hartman effect for barriers. To be precise, the effect is not complete, it is compensated by the other dependences in $`p^{}a`$ present in the phase of $`T(p)`$. In fact, it disappears for low barriers $`(p_V/p)0`$, where all the $`a`$ dependences of the phase cancel out, as was to be expected because the barrier effectively vanishes in this limit. In the opposite case of high barriers $`(p/p_V)0`$ the effect saturates and there is a decrease $`\frac{ma}{p}`$ in the time of arrival of transmitted plane waves, that emerge almost instantaneously at the other side of the barrier.

The averaging of the Wigner time over the transmitted state, present in (47) as a consequence of the formalism, has dramatic effects, because it effectively forbids the transmission of the wave components with low momenta. In fact, it produces the exponential suppression (by a factor $`\mathrm{exp}(2|p^{}|a)`$) of the tunneled components. Therefore, only the components with momentum above $`p_V`$ have a chance of surmounting thick barriers, being finally transmitted. But these components are delayed by the barrier (for them $`(\frac{d\mathrm{arg}(T(p))}{dp})>0`$), whose overall effect transmutes from advancement into retardation  at a definite predictable thickness that depends on the barrier height and also on the properties of the incoming state.

## Acknowledgements

Parts of this work are based on a talk given at the I Cracow-Clausthal Workshop on Tunneling Effect and Other Fundamental Problems in Quantum Physics. The author is indebted to Jacek Jakiel and Edward Kapuscik for the warm hospitality extended to him during the Workshop. This work has been partially supported by the DGESIC under contract PB97-1256.


format: text

text:
# CFNUL/00-03 DF/IST-4.2000 Gravitational instabilities in helicity-1 waves propagating through matter in equilibrium

## Acknowledgments

This work was partially funded by FCT through project ESO/PRO/1250/98.


text:
# Study of the 𝐾⁰_𝐿→𝜋⁺𝜋⁻𝛾 Direct Emission Vertex

## Abstract

We have perfomed studies of the $`K_L^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ Direct Emission (DE) and Inner Bremsstrahlung (IB) vertices, based on data collected by KTeV during the 1996 Fermilab fixed target run. We find $`a_1/a_2=0.737\pm 0.034`$ GeV2 for the DE form–factor parameter in the $`\rho `$–propagator parametrization, and report on fits of the form–factor to linear and quadratic functions as well. We concurrently measure $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_L^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma ,E_\gamma ^{}>20\mathrm{MeV})/\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_L^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})=(20.8\pm 0.3)\times 10^3`$, and a $`K_L^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ DE/(DE + IB) branching ratio of $`0.683\pm 0.011`$.

(Rutgers–00–17)

The decay $`K_L^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ (Figure 1) is a potential new window into the phenomenon of CP–violation . This decay arises primarily from the CP–violating Electric Dipole (E1) “Inner Bremsstrahlung” (IB) and the CP–conserving Magnetic Dipole (M1) “Direct Emission” (DE) processes. KTeV recently reported  the observation of a CP–violating angular asymmetry between the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`e^+e^{}`$ decay planes in the $`K_L^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma ^{}`$, $`\gamma ^{}e^+e^{}`$ mode, arising from the interference of DE and IB photon polarization states . If an E1 DE term were also present, this would generate a direct CP–violating effect.

Understanding the precise photon energy ($`E_\gamma ^{}`$) spectrum from the DE amplitude is crucial to interpretation of CP–violating effects and may shed light on particular chiral models . Previous experiments  have observed evidence for an energy shift in the DE $`E_\gamma ^{}`$ spectrum, interpreted as evidence for an $`E_\gamma ^{}`$–dependent form–factor modification to the pure–M1 DE amplitude. Here we report on the first measurement of this form–factor from direct fits to the data, using the rare decay mode $`K_L^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$.

We consider two separate form–factor parametrizations. Historically, the $`\rho `$–propagator form

$$=\frac{a_1}{(m_\rho ^2m_K^2)+2m_KE_\gamma ^{}}+a_2$$
(1)
has been used, where $`a_1/a_2`$ is the quantity of interest. More generally the form factor may be expressed as a Taylor series in $`E_\gamma ^{}`$

$$=\left(1+\frac{rE_\gamma ^{}}{M_K}+\frac{sE_\gamma ^2}{M_K^2}+\mathrm{}\right)$$
(2)
where the interesting quantitites are the slope $`r`$ and the quadratic parameter $`s`$. Recent theoretical work  has attempted to calculate these parameters.

The data presented here was collected by KTeV operating in the E832 configuration  during the 1996 Fermilab fixed target run. A proton beam of intensity $`3\times 10^{12}`$ protons per 19 second spill incident at an angle of 4.8 mr on a BeO target was employed to produce two nearly parallel $`K_L^0`$ beams. In E832, one of these beams was incident on an active $`K_S^0`$ regenerator. Data collected in the regenerator beam was ignored for this analysis, except as a check of our understanding of the IB decay amplitude. The configuration of the KTeV E832 spectrometer consisted of a vacuum decay region, a magnetic spectrometer with four drift chambers, photon vetoes, a trigger scintillator bank, a CsI electromagnetic calorimeter, and a muon veto bank.

Signal $`K_L^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ and normalization $`K_L^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ candidates were selected from the two–charged–track trigger. Offline, the sample was further purified by requiring the presence of two reconstructed tracks with a good vertex–$`\chi ^2`$ within the fiducial aperture of the detector, and no significant activity in the photon veto counters. The tracks’ kinematics were required to be inconsistent with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0p^+\pi ^{}`$ decays. The energy deposited by the charged pions in the calorimeter was required to be less than $`0.85\times `$ the spectrometer momentum in order to eliminate backgrounds from $`K_{e3}`$ decays. Candidate events were required to have a decay vertex between 110 and 156 meters downstream of the target and a total energy between 20 and 160 GeV.

$`K_L^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ candidates were subject to the additional criterion of requiring that the quantity

$$P_{\pi ^0}^2\frac{(M_K^2M_{\pi ^0}^2M_{\pi \pi }^2)^24M_{\pi ^0}^2M_{\pi \pi }^24M_K^2(P_T^2)_{\pi \pi }}{4((P_T^2)_{\pi \pi }+M_{\pi \pi }^2)}$$
(3)
be negative, i.e. by requiring that the $`\pi ^0`$ momentum be imaginary under a $`K_L^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ hypothesis. This cut virtually eliminates the $`K_L^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ background to the $`K_L^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ event sample. In addition, at least one non–track–associated cluster in the calorimeter was required to possess $`1.5`$ GeV of energy, and to be at least 3 cm removed from the calorimeter edges. This “photon cluster” had to be at least 20 cm from the nearest track projection to reject background from $`K_L^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ events accompanied by pion hadronic showers in the calorimeter. The photon was required to have an energy of at least 20 MeV in the three–body center of momentum.

Figures 2 (a) and (b) show the vacuum beam $`K_{L,S}^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ data after final cuts. A very clean signal of 8,669 $`K_{L,S}^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ events is achieved, with a background of about 0.5%. Approximately 0.6% of the events in the peak in Figure 2 are residual $`K_S^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ decays from $`K_S^0`$’s generated at the target. A total of 4,482,706 $`K_L^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ events were accumulated for the normalization sample with a 0.1% background.

To extract the Direct Emission form–factor, we consider the distribution in $`E_\gamma ^{}`$, the photon energy in the center of momentum (Figure 3). We wish to extract the relative contributions of the Inner Bremsstrahlung and DE terms, as well as the energy shift of the DE spectrum due to the presence of a form factor. We assume that E1 IB and form–factor–modified M1 DE are the only significant contributions to the decay. The possibility of an interference term arising from the presence of an E1 DE contribution is also briefly discussed below.

We perform a MINUIT  $`\chi ^2`$–minimization fit to combine Monte Carlo DE and IB $`E_\gamma ^{}`$ distributions, and extract the relative DE and IB contributions to the data as well as the DE form–factor. In the fit, the form factor parameters ($`a_1/a_2`$ or $`r`$ and $`s`$) and the ratio

$$f=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{DE}}{(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{DE}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{IB})}$$
(4)
are allowed to float simultaneously. A $`\chi ^2`$ is formed from comparison of the resultant $`DE+IB`$ summed Monte Carlo histogram with the data, and minimized to obtain the best fit result.

Table I summarizes the numerical fitting results for the three form-factor parametrizations. For the Taylor series parametrization, fits were performed with the quadratic parameter both fixed at zero (floating a single parameter, $`r_1`$) and allowed to vary (floating two parameters, $`r_2`$ and $`s_2`$). Data–Monte Carlo agreement in the $`E_\gamma ^{}`$ distribution is shown in Figure 3, for the $`\rho `$–propagator form. Figure 4 illustrates the expected effect of the various parametrizations on the pure M1 direct emission spectrum.

We see in the data presented in Table I and Figure 4 clear evidence for a modification to the pure–M1 DE spectrum. All fits are good, though the $`\rho `$–propagator hypothesis stands out slightly: It gives the best $`\chi ^2`$ for a single–parameter fit, and the two–parameter fit results are in good agreement with the values $`r_2=2.70`$ and $`s_2=3.87`$ obtained by Taylor–expanding the $`\rho `$–propagator form. The size of this energy shift, in particular the need to take into account terms of second–order in $`E_\gamma ^{}`$, is not currently understood within the chiral perturbation theory model for this decay .

Additional contributions to the photon energy spectrum are expected from CP–violating higher–order multipole contributions to the Direct Emission amplitude. One possible consequence of these multipole terms is the presence of a charge–asymmetry in the $`\pi ^+`$ versus $`\pi ^{}`$ Dalitz plot . We exclude asymmetries larger than 2.4% at 90% c.l. with the present data.

One might also expect a contribution to the $`E_\gamma ^{}`$ spectrum from CP–violating E1 DE, which could interfere with the E1 IB. We have allowed for such a term, by performing a separate fit in which we assumed an E1 DE amplitude constant in $`E_\gamma ^{}`$, and searched for the corresponding interference contribution  to the $`E_\gamma ^{}`$ spectrum. The form–factor parameter and $`f`$ are allowed to float simultaneously, while fixing the $`IB`$ rate at its theoretical value of $`7.00\times 10^3`$ . Based on this fit, we set an upper limit of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{IN}/(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{DE}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{IB}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{IN})0.30(90\%\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{l}.)`$ on the contribution to the decay rate of the CP–violating interference term. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{IN}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ALL}=0.30`$ corresponds to a 22% decrease in the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{DE}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ALL}}`$ ratio.

Background subtraction under the $`E_\gamma ^{}`$ distribution (with shape determined by study of $`P_T^2`$ sideband) resulted in no statistically significant change in either the form–factor parameter or the $`DE/(DE+IB)`$ ratio. Accidental activity in the detector was also found to have no statistically significant effect. The form factor parameters are found to have a slight (1.9%) sensitivity to variations of the lower $`E_\gamma ^{}`$ cutoff (nominally 20 MeV) used in the fit. We also assign systematic uncertainties of 1.8% due to detector acceptance, and 1.4% due to the effects of uncertainties in the calorimeter photon energy scale. Bias due to Level 3 trigger inefficiency in the 1996 charged data set  is not significant in this analysis at the present level of statistics.

Note (Table I) that the measured $`DE/(DE+IB)`$ ratio is insensitive to the particular choice of form–factor parametrization. Uncertainty in the detector acceptance contributes a 0.7% systematic uncertainty to this ratio, while variations in analysis cuts contribute $`0.6`$%. The systematic uncertainty due to the calorimeter photon energy scale is $`0.2`$%.

We find the absolute $`K_L^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ branching ratio by normalizing the signal to the $`K_L^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ channel. We determine the ratio of $`K_L^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}/K_L^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ acceptances using a Monte Carlo simulation of the full detector and offline analysis criteria. Based on this, we calculate

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_L^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_L^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})}=(20.8\pm 0.2\pm 0.2)\times 10^3$$
(5)
(where the first error is statistical and the second systematic) for $`K_L^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ events with $`E_\gamma ^{}>20\mathrm{MeV}`$. The systematic uncertainty is due primarily to the effects of $`K_S^0`$ contamination in the vacuum beam. Assuming no contribution from interference and using the $`DE/(DE+IB)`$ result from Table I, we obtain the final $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$–normalized branching ratios $`(14.2\pm 0.2\pm 0.2)\times 10^3`$ for Direct Emission and $`(6.6\pm 0.2\pm 0.2)\times 10^3`$ for Inner Bremsstrahlung.

Our measured IB branching ratio is consistent with both the Q.E.D. prediction of $`7.00\times 10^3`$ and the most recent experimental result of FNAL E731 ; $`(7.3\pm 0.4)\times 10^3`$, based on a sample of 3,136 $`K_L^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ events. The $`DE/(DE+IB)`$ ratio is also in good agreement with the E731 result of $`0.685\pm 0.041`$, although the DE branching ratio differs from the E731 result of $`(15.7\pm 0.7)\times 10^3`$ by 1.8 standard deviations. The present form–factor results differ significantly from that reported by E731 ($`a_1/a_2=1.8\pm 0.2`$ GeV2) but this discrepancy has been understood: The E731 $`a_1/a_2`$ form–factor was inferred  from the model of Lin and Valencia , on the basis of the measured $`DE`$ branching ratio, whereas our results are obtained directly by performing fits to the $`E_\gamma ^{}`$ distribution. The underlying datasets in the two experiments are consistent with each other, and a reanalysis of the E731 data using our method yields results consistent with ours. The KTeV $`K_L^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ DE form–factor result is also in good agreement with the result $`a_1/a_2=0.720\pm 0.029`$ GeV2 extracted from the independent $`K_L^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}e^+e^{}`$ analysis from the KTeV E799 data set .

In conclusion, we have made the first direct measurements of the $`K_L^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ Direct Emission form–factor, including $`a_1/a_2=0.737\pm 0.034`$ GeV2. We find no evidence for new CP–violating effects in the photon energy spectrum. Finally, we have made improved measurements of the DE ($`(14.2\pm 0.2\pm 0.2)\times 10^3`$) and IB ($`(6.6\pm 0.2\pm 0.2)\times 10^3`$) $`K_L^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ branching ratios, normalized to the $`K_L^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ channel.

We thank German Valencia and Jusak Tandean for discussions concerning this work. We gratefully acknowledge the support of the technical staff of Fermilab and participating institutions. This work was supported in part by the U.S. DOE, NSF, and The Ministry of Education and Science of Japan.


text:
# 1 The two-loop (bottom curve) and predicted three-loop (top curve) expressions for the scale-sensitive portion 𝐻[𝑠=(5𝑀_𝐻)²,𝐿(𝜇),𝑔(𝜇)] of the cross-section (1) are plotted for Higgs mass 𝑀_𝐻=200 GeV.

## Acknowledgment

VE is grateful for research support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

## References

1. U. Nierste and K. Riesselmann, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 6638.
2. J. Ellis, I. Jack, D.R.T. Jones, M. Karliner, and M. A. Samuel, Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 2665.
3. J. Ellis, M. Karliner, and M. A. Samuel, Phys. Lett. B 400 (1997) 176.
4. V. Elias, T. G. Steele, F. Chishtie, R. Migneron, and K. Sprague, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 116007.
5. I. Jack, D.R. T. Jones, and M. A. Samuel, Phys. Lett. B 407 (1997) 143.
6. F. Chishtie, V. Elias, and T. G. Steele, Phys. Lett B 446 (1999) 267.
7. F. Chishtie, V. Elias, and T. G. Steele, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 105013.
8. M. R. Ahmady, F. A. Chishtie, V. Elias, and T. G. Steele, Phys. Lett. B 479 (2000) 201.
9. F. A. Chishtie, V. Elias, and T. G. Steele, J. Phys. G 26 (2000) 93.
10. F. A. Chishtie, V. Elias, and T. G. Steele, J. Phys. G 26 (2000) 1239.
11. H. Kleinert, J. Neu, V. Schulte-Frohlinde, K. G. Chetyrkin, and S. A. Larin, Phys. Lett. B 272 (1991) 39 and (Erratum) B 319 (1993) 545.
12. B. Kastening, Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 3567.
13. J. A. M. Vermaseren, S. A. Larin, and T. Van Ritbergen, Phys. Lett. B
405 (1997) 327; K. G. Chetyrkin, Phys. Lett. B 404 (1997) 161.
14. I. Jack, D. R. T. Jones, and A. Pickering, Phys. Lett. B 435 (1998) 61.
15. M. A. Samuel, J. Ellis, and M. Karliner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 (1995) 4380;
J. Ellis, E. Gardi, M. Karliner, and M. A. Samuel, Phys. Lett. B 366 (1996)
268 and Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 6986; S. J. Brodsky, J. Ellis, E. Gardi, M.
Karliner, and M. A. Samuel, Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997) 6980.


text:
# Flavor asymmetry of the nucleon sea

## 1 INTRODUCTION

One of the most active areas of research in nuclear and particle physics during the last several decades is the study of quark and gluon distributions in the nucleons and nuclei. Several major surprises were discovered in Deep-Inelastic Scattering (DIS) experiments which profoundly changed our views of the partonic substructure of hadrons. In the early 1980’s, the famous ‘EMC’ effect found in muon DIS provided the first unambiguous evidence that the quark distributions in nuclei are significantly different from those in free nucleons . More recently, surprising results on the spin and flavor structures of the nucleons were discovered in DIS experiments. The so-called “spin crisis”, revealed by the disagreement between the prediction of the Ellis-Jaffe sum rule and the polarized DIS experiments, has led to extensive theoretical and experimental efforts to understand the partonic content of proton’s spin . Subsequently, the observation  of the violation of the Gottfried sum rule  in DIS revealed a surprisingly large asymmetry between the up and down antiquark distributions in the nucleon, shedding new light on the origins of the nucleon sea.

In this article, we review the status of our current knowledge on the flavor dependence of the sea quark distributions in hadrons. In Section 2, we review the early studies of the nucleon sea in DIS and lepton-pair production. The crucial recent experiments establishing the up/down flavor asymmetry of the nucleon sea are also discussed in Section 2. Various theoretical models for explaining the $`\overline{d}/\overline{u}`$ asymmetry are described in Section 3. The implications of these models on other aspects of the parton structure functions are discussed in Section 4. Finally, we present future prospects in Section 5, followed by conclusion in Section 6.

## 2 EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR $`\overline{d}/\overline{u}`$ ASYMMETRY

The earliest parton models assumed that the proton sea was flavor symmetric, even though the valence quark distributions are clearly flavor asymmetric. Inherent in this assumption is that the content of the sea is independent of the valence quark’s composition. Therefore, the proton and neutron were expected to have identical sea-quark distributions. The flavor symmetry assumption was not based on any known physics, and it remained to be tested by experiments. Neutrino-induced charm production experiments , which are sensitive to the $`sc`$ process, provided strong evidences that the strange-quark content of the nucleon is only about half of the up or down sea quarks. Such flavor asymmetry is attributed to the much heavier strange-quark mass compared to the up and down quarks. The similar masses for the up and down quarks suggest that the nucleon sea should be nearly up-down symmetric.

The issue of the equality of $`\overline{u}`$ and $`\overline{d}`$ was first encountered in measurements of the Gottfried integral , defined as

$$I_G=_0^1\left[F_2^p(x,Q^2)F_2^n(x,Q^2)\right]/x𝑑x,$$
(1)
where $`F_2^p`$ and $`F_2^n`$ are the proton and neutron structure functions measured in DIS experiments. Assuming charge symmetry, $`I_G`$ can be expressed in terms of the valence and sea quark distributions of the proton as:

$`I_G={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle _0^1}\left[u_v(x,Q^2)d_v(x,Q^2)\right]𝑑x+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle _0^1}\left[\overline{u}(x,Q^2)\overline{d}(x,Q^2)\right]𝑑x.`$ (2)
Under the assumption of a $`\overline{u}`$, $`\overline{d}`$ flavor-symmetric sea in the nucleon, the Gottfried Sum Rule (GSR) , $`I_G=1/3`$, is obtained.

The first measurements of the Gottfried integral were carried out in the 1970s  soon after the discovery of scaling in DIS. Although the large systematic errors associated with the unmeasured small-$`x`$ region prevented a sensitive test of the GSR, Field and Feynman  nevertheless interpreted the early SLAC data as strong indications that GSR is violated and that the $`\overline{u}`$ and $`\overline{d}`$ distributions in the proton are different. The SLAC DIS experiments were followed by several muon-induced DIS experiments at Fermilab and at CERN. Despite the fact that all measurements of Gottfried integral consistently showed a value lower than 1/3, the large systematic errors prevented a definitive conclusion. As a result, all parametrizations  of the parton distributions based on global fits to existing data before 1990 assumed a symmetric $`\overline{u}`$, $`\overline{d}`$ sea.

The most accurate test of the GSR was reported in 1991 by the New Muon Collaboration (NMC) , which measured $`F_2^p`$ and $`F_2^n`$ over the region $`0.004x0.8`$. They determined the Gottfried integral to be $`0.235\pm 0.026`$, significantly below 1/3. This surprising result has generated much interest.

Although the violation of the GSR can be explained by assuming unusual behavior of the parton distributions at very small $`x`$, a more natural explanation is to abandon the assumption $`\overline{u}=\overline{d}`$. Specifically, the NMC result implies

$$_0^1\left[\overline{d}(x)\overline{u}(x)\right]𝑑x=0.148\pm 0.039.$$
(3)
It should be emphasized that only the integral of $`\overline{d}\overline{u}`$ was deduced from the DIS measurements. The $`x`$ dependence of $`\overline{d}\overline{u}`$ remained unspecified.

The proton-induced Drell-Yan (DY) process provides an independent means to probe the flavor asymmetry of the nucleon sea . An important advantage of the DY process is that the $`x`$ dependence of $`\overline{d}/\overline{u}`$ can be determined. It is interesting to note that, as early as 1981, Fermilab E288  reported evidence for a $`\overline{d}/\overline{u}`$ asymmetry, based on a measurement of the $`p+d`$ DY cross section. However, this interpretation depended sensitively on assumptions about the shape of the valence quark distributions and was not conclusive. Later, the Fermilab E772 collaboration  compared the DY yields from isoscalar targets with that from a neutron-rich (tungsten) target, and constraints on the nonequality of $`\overline{u}`$ and $`\overline{d}`$ in the range $`0.04x0.27`$ were set. More recently, the CERN experiment NA51  carried out a comparison of the DY muon pair yield from hydrogen and deuterium using a 450-GeV/c proton beam. They found that $`\overline{u}/\overline{d}=0.51\pm 0.04\pm 0.05`$ at $`x=0.18`$, a surprisingly large difference between the $`\overline{u}`$ and $`\overline{d}`$.

A DY experiment (E866), aiming at higher statistical accuracy and wider kinematic coverage than NA51, was recently completed  at Fermilab. This experiment also measured the DY muon pairs from 800-GeV/c protons interacting with liquid deuterium and hydrogen targets. The acceptance of the spectrometer was largest for $`x_F=x_1x_2>0`$. In this kinematic regime the DY cross section is dominated by the annihilation of a beam quark with a target antiquark. The DY cross section ratio at large $`x_F`$ is approximately given as

$$\frac{\sigma _{DY}(p+d)}{2\sigma _{DY}(p+p)}\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\frac{\overline{d}(x_2)}{\overline{u}(x_2)}\right).$$
(4)
The ratio is unity when $`\overline{d}=\overline{u}`$. Figure 1 shows that the E866 measurement of this ratio clearly exceeds unity for an appreciable range in $`x_2`$.

Using an iterative procedure , values for $`\overline{d}/\overline{u}`$ were extracted by the E866 collaboration at $`Q^2=54`$ GeV2/c2. These are shown in Figure 2 along with the NA51 measurement. For $`x<0.15`$, $`\overline{d}/\overline{u}`$ increases linearly with $`x`$ and is in good agreement with the CTEQ4M  and MRS(R2)  parameterizations. However, a distinct feature of the data, not seen in either parameterization, is the rapid decrease toward unity of $`\overline{d}/\overline{u}`$ beyond $`x=0.2`$.

The $`\overline{d}/\overline{u}`$ ratio, along with the CTEQ4M values for $`\overline{d}+\overline{u}`$, was used to obtain $`\overline{d}\overline{u}`$ over the region $`0.02<x<0.345`$ (Figure 3). From the results shown in Figure 3, one can obtain an independent determination  of the integral of Equation 3. E866 finds $`0.100\pm 0.007\pm 0.017`$, consistent with, but roughly $`2/3`$ of the value deduced by NMC.

The HERMES collaboration recently reported a semi-inclusive DIS measurement of charged pions from hydrogen and deuterium targets . Based on the differences between charged-pion yields from the two targets, the ratio $`(\overline{d}\overline{u})/(ud)`$ is determined in the kinematic range, $`0.02<x<0.3`$ and 1 GeV2/c$`{}_{}{}^{2}<Q^2<`$ 10 GeV2/c2. The HERMES results for $`\overline{d}\overline{u}`$, shown in Figure 3, are consistent with the E866 results obtained at significantly higher $`Q^2`$.

## 3 ORIGINS OF THE $`\overline{d}/\overline{u}`$ ASYMMETRY

The earliest experiments indicated that the value of the Gottfried integral might be less than 1/3, leading to speculation regarding the origin of this reduction. Field and Feynman suggested  that it could be due to Pauli blocking in so far as $`u\overline{u}`$ pairs would be suppressed relative to $`d\overline{d}`$ pairs because of the presence of two $`u`$-quarks in proton as compared to a single $`d`$-quark. Ross and Sachrajda  questioned that this effect would be appreciable because of the large phase-space available to the created $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs. They also showed that perturbative QCD would not produce a $`\overline{d}/\overline{u}`$ asymmetry. Steffens and Thomas  recently looked into this issue, explicitly examining the consequences of Pauli blocking. They similarly concluded that the blocking effects were small.

A natural origin for this flavor asymmetry is the virtual states of the proton containing isovector mesons. This point appears to have first been made by Thomas in a publication  treating SU(3) symmetry breaking in the nucleon sea. Sullivan  previously showed that in DIS virtual mesons scale in the Bjorken limit and contribute to the nucleon structure function. Following the publication of the NMC result, many papers treated virtual mesons as the origin of the $`\overline{d}/\overline{u}`$ asymmetry (see  for recent reviews). Here the $`\pi ^+(\overline{d}u)`$ cloud, dominant in the process $`p\pi ^+n`$, leads to an excess of $`\overline{d}`$ sea.

A different approach for including the effects of virtual mesons has been presented by Eichten et al.  and further investigated by other authors . In chiral perturbation theory, the relevant degrees of freedom are constituent quarks, gluons, and Goldstone bosons. In this model, a portion of the sea comes from the couplings of Goldstone bosons to the constituent quarks, such as $`ud\pi ^+`$ and $`du\pi ^{}`$. The excess of $`\overline{d}`$ over $`\overline{u}`$ is then simply due to the additional valence $`u`$ quark in the proton.

The $`x`$ dependences of $`\overline{d}\overline{u}`$ and $`\overline{d}/\overline{u}`$ obtained by E866 provide important constraints for theoretical models. Figure 3 compares $`\overline{d}(x)\overline{u}(x)`$ from E866 with a virtual-pion model calculation, following the procedure detailed by Kumano . Figure 3 (dotted curve) also shows the predicted $`\overline{d}\overline{u}`$ from the chiral model. We follow the formulation of Szczurek et al  to calculate $`\overline{d}(x)\overline{u}(x)`$ at $`Q^2`$ = 0.25 GeV2/c2 and then evolve the results to $`Q^2`$ = 54 GeV2/c2. The chiral model places more strength at low $`x`$ than does the virtual-pion model. This difference reflects the fact that the pions are softer in the chiral model, since they are coupled to constituent quarks, that carry only a fraction of the nucleon momentum. The $`x`$ dependence of the E866 data favors the virtual-pion model over the chiral model, suggesting that correlations between the chiral constituents should be taken into account.

Recently, the flavor asymmetry of the nucelon sea was computed in the large-$`N_c`$ limit, where the nucleon is described as a soliton of an effective chiral theory . In this chiral quark-soliton model, the flavor non-singlet distribution, $`\overline{d}(x)\overline{u}(x)`$, appears in the next-to-leading order of the $`1/N_c`$ expansion . The E866 $`\overline{d}(x)\overline{u}(x)`$ data were shown to be well described by this model .

Instantons have been known as theoretical constructs since the seventies . The collision between a quark and an instanton flips the helicity of the quark while creating a $`q\overline{q}`$ pair of different flavor. Thus, interaction between a $`u`$ quark and an instanton results in a $`u`$ quark of opposite helicity and either a $`d\overline{d}`$ or $`s\overline{s}`$ pair. Such a model has the possibility of accounting for both the flavor asymmetry and the “spin crisis” . However, the prediction  at large $`x`$, $`\overline{d}(x)/\overline{u}(x)4`$, is grossly violated by experiment (see Figure 2). Thus, it appears that while instantons have the possibility for accounting for flavor and spin anomalies, the approach is not yet sufficiently developed for a direct comparison.

## 4 IMPLICATIONS OF THE MESON-CLOUD MODELS

Models in which virtual mesons are admitted as degrees of freedom have implications that extend beyond the $`\overline{d}/\overline{u}`$ flavor asymmetry addressed above. They create hidden strangeness in the nucleon via such virtual processes as $`p\mathrm{\Lambda }+K^+,\mathrm{\Sigma }+K`$, etc. Such processes are of considerable interest as they imply different $`s`$ and $`\overline{s}`$ parton distributions in the nucleon, a feature not found in gluonic production of $`s\overline{s}`$ pairs. This subject has received a fair amount of attention in the literature  but experiments have yet to clearly identify such a difference.

A difference between the $`s`$ and $`\overline{s}`$ distribution can be made manifest by direct measurement of the $`s`$ and $`\overline{s}`$ parton distribution functions in DIS neutrino scattering, or in the measurement of the $`q^2`$ dependence of the strange quark contribution ($`F_{1s}^p(q^2)`$) to the proton charge form factor. This latter case follows from a suggestion of Kaplan and Manohar  regarding the new information contained in the weak neutral current form factors of the nucleon. Measurement of these form factors allows extraction of the strangeness contribution to the nucleon’s charge and magnetic moment and axial form factors. The portion of the charge form factor $`F_{1s}^p(q^2)`$ due to strangeness clearly is zero at $`q^2=0`$, but if the $`s`$ and $`\overline{s}`$ distributions are different the form factor becomes non-zero at finite $`q^2`$. These “strange” form factors can be measured in neutrino elastic scattering  from the nucleon, or by selecting the parity-violating component of electron-nucleon elastic scattering, as is now being done at the Bates  and Jefferson Laboratories .

It is worth pointing out that there is a relationship between the parton distributions and the form factors of a hadron. If the neutron’s charge form factor is explained in terms of a particular meson-baryon expansion, then one should expect that the expansion is consistant with the neutron’ s partonic structure.

The chiral and the meson-cloud models both predict that the $`\overline{u}`$ and $`\overline{d}`$ quarks will carry negligible amount of the proton’s spin . In striking contrast, the chiral-quark model predicts  a significantly polarized sea with a large flavor asymmetry. In particular, this model predicts a larger values for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}`$ than for $`\overline{d}\overline{u}`$. Both the SMC  and the HERMES  experiments attempted to extract the sea-quark polarizations via semi-inclusive polarized DIS measurements, and the results indicate small sea-quark polarization consistent with zero. However, as pointed out in Ref. , large uncertainties are associated with certain assumptions made in the extraction. Future DY and $`W^\pm `$ production experiments at RHIC could clearly test these models .

The observation of a large $`\overline{d}/\overline{u}`$ asymmetry in the proton has motivated Alberg et al.  to consider the sea-quark distributions in the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The meson-cloud model implies a $`\overline{d}/\overline{u}`$ asymmetry in the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ even larger than that of the proton. However, the opposite effect is expected from SU(3) symmetry. Although relatively intense $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ beams have been produced for recent experiments at Fermilab, this experiment appears to be very challenging because of large pion, kaon, and proton contaminations in the beam.

## 5 FUTURE PROSPECT

The interplay between the perturbative and non-perturbative components of the nucleon sea remains to be better determined. Since the perturbative process gives a symmetric $`\overline{d}/\overline{u}`$ while a non-perturbative process is needed to generate an asymmetric $`\overline{d}/\overline{u}`$ sea, the relative importance of these two components is directly reflected in the $`\overline{d}/\overline{u}`$ ratios. Thus, it would be very important to extend the DY measurements to kinematic regimes beyond the current limits.

The new 120 GeV Fermilab Main Injector (FMI) and the proposed 50 GeV Japanese Hadron Facility  (JHF) present opportunities for extending the $`\overline{d}/\overline{u}`$ measurement to larger $`x`$ ($`x>0.25`$). For given values of $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ the DY cross section is proportional to $`1/s`$, hence the DY cross section at 50 GeV is roughly 16 times greater than that at 800 GeV! The values of $`\overline{d}/\overline{u}`$ over the region $`0.25<x<0.7`$ could indeed be obtained at FMI and JHF , and these data would be extremely valuable for testing various theoretical models.

At the other end of the energy scale, RHIC will operate soon in the range $`50\sqrt{s}500`$ GeV/nucleon. The capability of accelerating and colliding a variety of beams from $`p+p`$, $`p+A`$, to $`A+A`$ at RHIC offers a unique opportunity to extend the DY $`\overline{d}/\overline{u}`$ measurement to very small $`x`$. Furthermore, an interesting quantity to be measured at RHIC is the ratio of the $`p+pW^++X`$ and $`p+pW^{}+X`$ cross sections . It can be shown that this ratio is very sensitive to $`\overline{d}/\overline{u}`$. An important feature of the $`W`$ production asymmetry in $`p+p`$ collision is that it is completely free from the assumption of charge symmetry.

As discussed earlier, an interesting consequence of the meson-cloud model is that the $`s`$ and $`\overline{s}`$ distributions in the proton could have very different shapes, even though the net amount of strangeness in the proton vanishes. By comparing the $`\nu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }`$ induced charm production, the CCFR collaboration found no difference between the $`s`$ and $`\overline{s}`$ distributions . More precise future measurements would be very helpful. Dimuon production experiments using $`K^\pm `$ beams might provide an independent determination of the $`s`$/$`\overline{s}`$ ratio of the proton, provided that our current knowledge on valence-quark distributions in kaons is improved. Ongoing measurements of $`F_{1s}^p`$ via parity-violating electron-nucleon scattering should shed much light on the possible difference between $`s`$ and $`\overline{s}`$ distributions.

DY and $`W^\pm `$ production in polarized $`p+p`$ collision are planned at RHIC  and they have great potential for providing qualitatively new information about antiquark polarization. At large $`x_F`$ region ($`x_F>0.2`$), the longitudinal spin asymmetry $`A_{LL}`$ in the $`\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{p}`$ DY process is given by

$`A_{LL}^{DY}(x_1,x_2)g_1(x_1)/F_1(x_1)\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}}{\overline{u}}}(x_2),`$ (5)
where $`g_1(x)`$ is the proton polarized structure function measured in DIS, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)`$ is the polarized $`\overline{u}`$ distribution function. Eq. 5 shows that $`\overline{u}`$ polarization can be determined using polarized DY at RHIC.

## 6 CONCLUSION

The flavor asymmetry of the nucleon sea has been clearly established by recent DIS and DY experiments. The surprisingly large asymmetry between $`\overline{u}`$ and $`\overline{d}`$ is unexplained by perturbative QCD. Thus far, three distinct explanations have been offered in the literature for the origin of the observed $`\overline{d}`$, $`\overline{u}`$ asymmetry. The first is Pauli blocking which, while appealing, is difficult to calculate and appears to produce too small an effect to be the sole origin of the large observed asymmetry. The second involves virtual isovector mesons, mostly pions, in the nucleon. Such descriptions necessarily require non-perturbative QCD and, apart from lattice gauge calculations, demand additional parameters and possess systematic uncertainties. However, as these virtual mesons readily generate a large $`\overline{d}/\overline{u}`$ asymmetry, many authors, using a variety of techniques to invoke and justify their approachs, have obtained qualitative agreement with the experimental measurements. The third explanation involves instantons, but the theory is not sufficiently developed to allow quantitative comparison to the asymmetry data. Future experiments will test and refine these models. They will further illuminate the interplay between the perturbative and non-perturbative nature of the nucleon sea.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The smallness of the cosmological constant poses a severe problem  on our natural understanding of an effective field theory description of the universe. The problem is two-fold: one is the apparent absence (or cancellation) of the contributions from the standard model dynamics including gravity to the vacuum energy; the other is to choose the vanishing (or tiny) value itself among possible values of the cosmological constant even if we can choose it.

Warped compactification of a higher-dimensional theory is an attempt to achieve the four-dimensional vanishing cosmological constant without fine tuning of couplings . It results in a degenerate metric in six-dimensional pure gravity . Six-dimensional warped compactification with an abelian gauge theory was investigated in Ref. and that with a 3-brane in Ref..

In this paper, we consider warped compactification with an abelian gauge theory in a 3-brane background. The vanishing four-dimensional cosmological constant can generically be realized with regular and compact extra dimensions in contrast to the case of pure gravity without an abelian gauge theory.

## 2 The Model

Let us consider six-dimensional gravity coupled to an abelian gauge theory. The action with a 3-brane is given by

$`S={\displaystyle d^6x\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{1}{2}R\frac{1}{4}F_{MN}F^{MN}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g_4}\lambda },`$ (1)
where $`g=detg_{MN}`$, $`g_4=detg_{\mu \nu }`$, $`\lambda >0`$, the six-dimensional gravitational scale is set to unity, and the brane is located at the origin in the extra two dimensions. Here $`M`$ and $`N`$ denote six-dimensional indices, $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ denote four-dimensional ones, and $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is the induced metric on the brane. Then the Lagrangian in six dimensions is given by

$`=\sqrt{g}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{MN}F^{MN}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\sqrt{g_4}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2\pi ϵ}}\mathrm{\Theta }(ϵr),`$ (2)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ denotes a step function and $`ϵ=+0`$. Here we have adopted the polar coordinates $`(r,\theta )`$ for the extra two dimensions ($`0r`$, $`0\theta <2\pi `$).

The equations of motion are obtained as

$`R^{MN}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{MN}R=F^M{}_{L}{}^{}F_{}^{NL}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{KL}F^{KL}+\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)g^{MN}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{g_4}{g}}}\delta _\mu ^M\delta _\nu ^Ng^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2\pi ϵ}}\mathrm{\Theta }(ϵr),`$
$`_M(\sqrt{g}F^{MN})=0.`$ (3)
In the following sections, we solve these equations based on an ansatz of four-dimensionality after compactification.

## 3 Warped Compactification

In order to obtain four-dimensional spacetime from six dimensions, we compactify the extra two dimensions. Under an assumption of rotational symmetry in the extra dimensions ($`\theta `$-independence  or orbifolding by $`S^1`$), the warped metric is given by

$`ds^2=\sigma (r)\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu dr^2\rho (r)d\theta ^2`$ (4)
and the background gauge field is given by

$`A_\mu =A_r=0,A_\theta =a(r),`$ (5)
where $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ denotes the four-dimensional metric independent of $`(r,\theta )`$.

With the aid of Eq.(3), we obtain

$`F^{r\theta }={\displaystyle \frac{B}{\sigma ^2\sqrt{\rho }}},`$ (6)
where $`B`$ is an integration constant taking continuous values.111The freedom to choose a value of one continuous variable $`B`$ eventually leads to that of the effective four-dimensional cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4`$. Then the Einstein equations are reduced to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^{\prime \prime }}{\sigma }}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^{}}{\sigma }}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^{}}{\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{\rho ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^{\prime \prime }}{\rho }}={\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{2\sigma ^4}}\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2\pi ϵ\sqrt{\rho }}}\mathrm{\Theta }(ϵr)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_4}{\sigma }},`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^2}{\sigma ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^{}}{\sigma }}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^{}}{\rho }}={\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{2\sigma ^4}}\mathrm{\Lambda }+{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_4}{\sigma }},`$ (8)
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^{\prime \prime }}{\sigma }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^2}{\sigma ^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{2\sigma ^4}}\mathrm{\Lambda }+{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_4}{\sigma }},`$ (9)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4`$ denotes the four-dimensional cosmological constant for the metric $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ introduced as an integration constant and the prime denotes a derivative with respect to $`r`$.

By means of Eq.(8) and (9), we obtain

$`z^{\prime \prime }={\displaystyle \frac{V}{z}};V(z)={\displaystyle \frac{25}{96}}B^2z^{\frac{6}{5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{16}}\mathrm{\Lambda }z^2{\displaystyle \frac{25}{24}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_4z^{\frac{6}{5}},`$ (10)
$`\sigma =z^{4/5},\rho =C^2z^2z^{6/5},`$ (11)
where $`C`$ is an integration constant. Note that Eq.(10) looks like an equation of motion for a particle with the position $`z(r)`$ at the time $`r`$ in a potential $`V(z)`$ .

## 4 The Solutions

Let us seek regular metrics with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4=0`$. From the Einstein equations in the previous section, boundary conditions at $`r=ϵ`$ are given by

$`(\sqrt{\rho })^{}|_{r=0}^ϵ={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2\pi }},(\sqrt{\rho })^{}(0)=1,\rho (ϵ)=0.`$ (12)
Namely, the extra dimensions are conical around the brane with a deficit angle $`\lambda `$, which is regular in the presence of the brane. Owing to Eq.(11), this implies

$`z^{}(ϵ)=0,z^{\prime \prime }(ϵ)=C\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2\pi }}\right).`$ (13)
Here we have taken $`z(ϵ)=1`$ without loss of generality. Then Eq.(10) leads to

$`C\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2\pi }}\right)=z^{\prime \prime }(ϵ)={\displaystyle \frac{V}{z}}(z(ϵ))={\displaystyle \frac{5}{16}}B^2{\displaystyle \frac{5}{8}}\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$ (14)
For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ and $`\lambda <2\pi `$, we have desired solutions of Eq.(10), which are half periods of oscillations in $`z(r)`$ between two values $`1=z(ϵ)`$ and $`\overline{z}=z(\overline{r})`$ with $`z^{}(\overline{r})=0`$ given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{25}{96}}B^2+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{16}}\mathrm{\Lambda }=V(z(ϵ))=V(z(\overline{r}))={\displaystyle \frac{25}{96}}B^2\overline{z}^{\frac{6}{5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{16}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{z}^2.`$ (15)
Imposing a condition $`(\sqrt{\rho })^{}(\overline{r})=1`$ for a regular metric (without a conical singularity) at $`r=\overline{r}`$, we obtain

$`C\overline{z}^{\frac{3}{5}}=z^{\prime \prime }(\overline{r})={\displaystyle \frac{V}{z}}(z(\overline{r}))={\displaystyle \frac{5}{16}}B^2\overline{z}^{\frac{11}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{8}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{z}.`$ (16)
The constants $`B`$, $`C`$ and $`\overline{z}`$ are determined by Eq.(14), (15) and (16). This result indicates that we indeed have compact extra dimensions of sphere topology with a completely regular metric in six dimensions.

## 5 Conclusion

We have considered warped compactification Eq.(4) and (5) with an abelian gauge theory in a 3-brane background Eq.(1) or (2). The vanishing cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4=0`$ can generically be realized with a regular metric determined by Eq.(14), (15) and (16) with Eq.(10) and (11). This is achieved without fine tuning of Lagrangian parameters.

We have only obtained the backgrounds with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4=0`$, just for simplicity; the backgrounds with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_40`$ are also possible. The four-dimensional cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4`$ is an integration constant in the present setup. This diminishes a half of the cosmological constant problem stated in the Introduction: the desired backgrounds with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4=0`$ exist for positive couplings $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\lambda (<2\pi )`$, which the standard model dynamics directly affect. The remaining half is to select the vanishing (or tiny) value $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4=0`$.

We note that inclusion of another 3-brane at $`r=\overline{r}`$ is straightforward. The selection of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4=0`$ might be possible, for instance, by a sector on a brane  other than the brane at the origin. For that purpose, we should also consider the case for a negative bulk cosmological constant, which will be investigated elsewhere.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank T. Yanagida for careful reading of the manuscript.