format: text

text:
# Enhancement of superhorizon scale inflationary curvature perturbations

## I Introduction

The standard, single-field, slow-roll inflation model predicts that the curvature perturbation on comoving hypersurfaces, $`_c`$, remains constant from soon after the scale crosses the Hubble horizon, giving the formula

$`_c_c(t_k)\left({\displaystyle \frac{H^2}{2\pi \dot{\varphi }}}\right)_{k=aH}`$ (1)
where $`H`$ is the Hubble parameter, $`\dot{\varphi }`$ is the time derivative of the inflaton field $`\varphi `$, and $`t_k`$ is a time shortly after horizon crossing. However, one may consider a model in which slow-roll is violated during inflation. Recently, Leach & Liddle  studied the behavior of the curvature perturbation in a model in which inflation is temporarily suspended, finding a large amplification of the curvature perturbation relative to its value at horizon crossing for a range of scales extending significantly beyond the Hubble horizon.

In this short paper, we consider single-field inflation models and analyze the general behavior of the curvature perturbation on superhorizon scales. We show analytically when and how this large enhancement occurs. We find that a necessary condition is that the quantity $`za\dot{\varphi }/H`$ becomes smaller than its value at the time of horizon crossing. We then present a couple of integrals which involve the above quantity and which give a criterion for enhancement.

## II Enhancement of the curvature perturbation

We assume a background metric of the form

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`dt^2+a^2(t)\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`a^2(\eta )\left(d\eta ^2+\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j\right).`$ (3)
On this background the growing mode solution of the curvature perturbation on comoving hypersurfaces is known to stay constant in time on superhorizon scales in the absence of any entropy perturbation . This follows from the equation for $`_c`$

$`_c^{\prime \prime }+2{\displaystyle \frac{z^{}}{z}}_c^{}+k^2_c=0,`$ (4)
where the prime denotes the conformal time derivative, $`d/d\eta `$, and $`z=a\dot{\varphi }/H`$. One readily sees that on superhorizon scales, when the last term can be neglected, there exists a solution with $`_c`$ constant, which corresponds to the growing adiabatic mode.

However, this does not necessarily mean that $`_c`$ must stay constant in time after its scale crosses the Hubble horizon. In fact, if the contribution of the other independent mode (i.e. the decaying mode) to $`_c`$ is large at horizon crossing, $`_c`$ will not become constant until the decaying mode dies out. The important point here is that the decaying mode is, by definition, the mode that decays asymptotically in the future, but it does not necessarily start to decay right after horizon crossing. In what follows, we show that there indeed exists a situation in which the decaying mode can stay almost constant for a while after the horizon crossing before it starts to decay. In such a case, the contribution of the two modes to the curvature perturbation is found to almost cancel at horizon crossing. This gives a small initial amplitude of $`_c`$, but results in a large final amplitude for $`_c`$ after the decaying mode becomes negligible.

Let $`u(\eta )`$ be a solution of Eq. (4) for any given $`k`$. For much of the following discussion it is not necessary to specify the nature of the solution $`u`$, but for clarity let us identify it straightaway as the late-time asymptotic solution at $`\eta _{}`$ (taking $`\eta _{}`$ for instance as the end of inflation). For any other solution, $`v(\eta )`$, independent of $`u(\eta )`$, it is easy to show from Eq. (4) that the Wronskian $`W=v^{}uu^{}v`$ obeys

$$W^{}=2\frac{z^{}}{z}W,$$
(5)
and hence $`W1/z^2`$. Therefore we have

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{v}{u}}\right)^{}={\displaystyle \frac{W}{u^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z^2u^2}}.`$ (6)
Hence the decaying mode, $`v`$, which vanishes as $`\eta \eta _{}`$, may be expressed in terms of the growing mode, $`u`$, as

$`v(\eta )u(\eta ){\displaystyle _\eta _{}^\eta }{\displaystyle \frac{d\eta ^{}}{z^2(\eta ^{})u^2(\eta ^{})}}.`$
Without loss of generality, we may assume $`v=u`$ at some initial epoch, which we take to be shortly after horizon crossing, $`\eta =\eta _k`$ ($`<\eta _{}`$). Then $`v`$ is expressed as

$`v(\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`u(\eta ){\displaystyle \frac{D(\eta )}{D(\eta _k)}},`$ (7)
where

$`D(\eta )=3_k{\displaystyle _\eta ^\eta _{}}𝑑\eta ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{z^2(\eta _k)u^2(\eta _k)}{z^2(\eta ^{})u^2(\eta ^{})}},`$ (8)
and, for convenience, the conformal Hubble parameter $`_k=(a^{}/a)_k`$ at $`\eta =\eta _k`$ is inserted to make $`D`$ dimensionless. In terms of $`u`$ and $`v`$, the general solution of $`_c`$ may be expressed as

$`_c(\eta )=\alpha u(\eta )+\beta v(\eta ),`$ (9)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are constants and we assume $`\alpha +\beta =1`$ without loss of generality. Thus, if the amplitude of $`_c`$ at horizon crossing differs significantly from that of the growing mode, $`\alpha u(\eta _k)`$, it can only be because $`|\beta |1`$.

Using Eq. (7) and noting $`\alpha +\beta =1`$, $`_c`$ and $`_c^{}`$ at the initial epoch $`\eta =\eta _k`$ are given by

$`_c(\eta _k)=u(\eta _k),`$ (10)
$`_c^{}(\eta _k)=u^{}(\eta _k){\displaystyle \frac{3(1\alpha )_ku(\eta _k)}{D_k}},`$ (11)
where $`D_k=D(\eta _k)`$. Then $`\alpha `$ can be expressed in terms of the initial conditions as

$`\alpha =1+D_k{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3_k}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{_c^{}}{_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{u^{}}{u}}\right]_{\eta =\eta _k}.`$ (12)
If we assume $`_c(\eta _k)`$ to be a complex amplitude determined by an initial vacuum state for quantum fluctuations, then $`_c^{}/(_k_c)`$ at the time of horizon crossing will be at most of order unity. This implies that $`|\alpha |`$, and hence $`|\beta |`$, can become large if $`D_k1`$ or $`(D_k/_k)|u^{}/u|1`$.

## III Long-wavelength approximation

Equation (4) can be written in terms of the canonical field perturbation, $`Q=z`$, as

$$Q^{\prime \prime }+\left(k^2\frac{z^{\prime \prime }}{z}\right)Q=0.$$
(13)
From this we see that the general solution for $`k^2|z^{\prime \prime }/z|`$ is given approximately by

$$_cA+B_\eta _{}^\eta \frac{d\eta ^{}}{z^2(\eta ^{})}.$$
(14)
where $`A`$ and $`B`$ are constants.

The requirement that $`v0`$ as $`\eta \eta _{}`$ uniquely identifies the decaying mode as proportional to $`_\eta ^\eta _{}𝑑\eta ^{}/z^2(\eta ^{})`$ in Eq. (14), but one is always free to include arbitrary contributions from the decaying mode in the growing mode. Nonetheless, it is convenient to identify the constant $`A`$ in Eq. (14) as an approximate solution for the growing mode, $`u`$, on sufficiently large scales. Thus we put the lowest order solutions for $`u`$ and $`v`$ as

$`u_0=\mathrm{const}.,v_0=u_0{\displaystyle \frac{D(\eta )}{D_k}},`$ (15)
where and in the rest of the paper $`D(\eta )`$ is the integral given by Eq. (8) but with $`u`$ approximated by $`u_0`$,

$`D(\eta )3_k{\displaystyle _\eta ^\eta _{}}𝑑\eta ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{z^2(\eta _k)}{z^2(\eta ^{})}}.`$ (16)
As long as the slow-roll condition is satisfied, the above approximate solutions are accurate enough. However, the next order correction to the growing mode $`u`$ may become substantial if there is an epoch at which the slow-roll condition is violated. It then becomes important to make clear how one chooses the growing mode.

Rewriting Eq. (4) in an iterative form, with the lowest order solution $`u=u_0`$, a growing mode solution is given by

$`u=\left[1+F(\eta )\right]u_0;`$ (17)
$`F(\eta )=k^2{\displaystyle _\eta ^\eta _{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\eta ^{}}{z^2(\eta ^{})}}{\displaystyle _{\eta _k}^\eta ^{}}z^2(\eta ^{\prime \prime }){\displaystyle \frac{u(\eta ^{\prime \prime })}{u_0}}𝑑\eta ^{\prime \prime },`$ (18)
where the boundary condition is chosen so that $`uu_0`$ as $`\eta \eta _{}`$. The above equation tells us when and how the approximation $`uu_0`$ on superhorizon scales may be invalidated once the $`O(k^2)`$ effect is taken into account.

In the long-wavelength approximation, $`F`$ can be approximated by setting $`u=u_0`$ in the integral to obtain the solution to $`O(k^2)`$ accuracy. Thus we take the approximation,

$`F(\eta )k^2{\displaystyle _\eta ^\eta _{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\eta ^{}}{z^2(\eta ^{})}}{\displaystyle _{\eta _k}^\eta ^{}}z^2(\eta ^{\prime \prime })𝑑\eta ^{\prime \prime }.`$ (19)
The $`O(k^2)`$ effect cannot be neglected if this integral becomes larger than unity. As may be guessed from the form of the integral, such a situation appears if there is an epoch during which $`z^2(\eta )z^2(\eta _k)`$.

To be specific, let us assume $`z(\eta )z_k=z(\eta _k)`$ for $`\eta >\eta _0(>\eta _k)`$. Then $`F(\eta )`$ will become large and approximately constant for $`\eta _k<\eta <\eta _0`$ and will decay when $`\eta >\eta _0`$. Incidentally, this behavior is quite similar to the behavior of the lowest order decaying mode $`v_0(\eta )`$ given in Eq. (15). In other words, the growing mode can be substantially contaminated by a component that behaves like the decaying mode, and it can no longer be assumed as being constant on large scales.

The above discussion suggests that we may take advantage of the ambiguity in defining the growing mode to redefine $`u`$ accurate to $`O(k^2)`$ by

$`u=\left[1+F(\eta )\right]u_0F_kv_0(\eta ),`$ (20)
where $`F_k=F(\eta _k)`$. The growing mode will be now approximately constant on superhorizon scales: $`uu_0`$, or at least $`u(\eta _k)=u(\eta _{})`$. However, $`u^{}/u`$ at $`\eta =\eta _k`$ will no longer be negligible. We find

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{u^{}}{u}}\right]_{\eta =\eta _k}=F_k\left[{\displaystyle \frac{v_0^{}}{v_0}}\right]_{\eta =\eta _k}={\displaystyle \frac{3_k}{D_k}}F_k.`$ (21)
Then Eq. (12) for $`\alpha `$ may be approximated as

$`\alpha 1+{\displaystyle \frac{D_k}{3_k}}{\displaystyle \frac{_c^{}}{_c}}F_k,`$ (22)
where $`D_k`$ and $`F_k`$ are those given in the long-wavelength approximation, Eqs. (16) and (19), and for definiteness we will take $`(k/_k)^2=0.1`$.

In slow-roll inflation, the time variation of $`\dot{\varphi }`$ is small and $`z`$ increases rapidly, approximately proportional to the scale factor $`a`$. Hence neither the integral $`D_k`$ nor $`F_k`$ cannot become large. Soon after horizon crossing $`_c^{}/_c`$, so that $`\alpha 1`$ and the standard result $`_c(\eta )_c(\eta _k)`$ holds. However, if the slow-roll condition is violated, $`\dot{\varphi }`$ may become very small and $`z`$ may decrease substantially to give a large value of $`D_k`$ and $`F_k`$. (The case where $`z`$ actually crosses zero is treated separately in an Appendix.) Then at late times, we have

$`_c(\eta _{})=\alpha u(\eta _{})\alpha u(\eta _k)=\alpha _c(\eta _k).`$ (23)
Thus the final amplitude will be enhanced by a factor $`|\alpha |`$, which can be large if $`D_k1`$ or $`F_k1`$.

## IV Starobinsky’s model

As an example we consider the model discussed by Starobinsky , where the potential has a sudden change in its slope at $`\varphi =\varphi _0`$ such that

$$V(\varphi )=\{\begin{array}{cc}V_0+A_+(\varphi \varphi _0)\hfill & \mathrm{for}\varphi >\varphi _0\hfill \\ V_0+A_{}(\varphi \varphi _0)\hfill & \mathrm{for}\varphi <\varphi _0\hfill \end{array}.$$
(24)
If the change in the slope is sufficiently abrupt  then the slow-roll can be violated and for $`A_+>A_{}>0`$ the field enters a friction-dominated transient (or “fast-roll”) solution with $`\ddot{\varphi }3H\dot{\varphi }`$  until the slow-roll conditions are once again satisfied

$$3H_0\dot{\varphi }=\{\begin{array}{cc}A_+\hfill & \mathrm{for}\varphi >\varphi _0\hfill \\ A_{}(A_+A_{})e^{3H_0\mathrm{\Delta }t}\hfill & \mathrm{for}\varphi <\varphi _0\hfill \end{array}.$$
(25)
For $`\varphi <\varphi _0`$ we have

$$za_0\frac{A_{}e^{H_0\mathrm{\Delta }t}+(A_+A_{})e^{2H_0\mathrm{\Delta }t}}{3H_0^2}.$$
(26)
This decreases rapidly to a minimum value $`z_{\mathrm{min}}(A_{}/A_+)^{2/3}z_0`$ for $`A_+A_{}`$, which can cause a significant change in $`_c`$ on superhorizon scales.

First let us discuss the behavior of $`D(\eta )`$. For a mode that leaves the horizon in the slow-roll regime $`z`$ grows proportional to $`a`$ while $`\varphi >\varphi _0`$, so that the integrand of $`D(\eta )`$ remains small. Hence $`D(\eta )D_k`$, which implies $`_c(\eta )_c(\eta _k)`$ until $`\eta =\eta _0`$. Even after the slow-roll condition is violated $`_c(\eta )`$ still remains constant until $`z`$ becomes smaller than $`z_k`$ and the integrand of $`D(\eta )`$ becomes large again. Then $`D(\eta )`$ may increase rapidly until $`_c`$ approaches the asymptotic value for $`\eta \eta _{}`$, given by Eq. (23). Substituting the above solution for $`z`$ in Eq. (26) into Eq. (16) we obtain

$$D_k\{\begin{array}{cc}1+\frac{A_+}{A_{}}\left(\frac{k}{_k}\frac{_0}{k}\right)^3\hfill & \mathrm{for}k>(k/_k)_0\hfill \\ 1+\frac{A_+}{A_{}}\left(\frac{_k}{k}\frac{k}{_0}\right)^3\hfill & \mathrm{for}k<(k/_k)_0\hfill \end{array},$$
(27)
which shows that for $`A_+/A_{}1`$, we have $`D_k1`$ on scales $`(A_{}/A_+)^{1/3}_0k(A_+/A_{})^{1/3}_0`$.

A similar behavior is expected for $`F(\eta )`$. Using again the solution for $`z`$ in Eq. (26), the double integral in Eq. (18) is evaluated to give

$`F_k\{\begin{array}{cc}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{15}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_+}{A_{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{_k}}{\displaystyle \frac{_0}{k}}\right)^5\hfill & \mathrm{for}k>(k/_k)_0\hfill \\ {\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_+}{A_{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{_0}}\right)^2\hfill & \mathrm{for}k<(k/_k)_0\hfill \end{array}.`$ (30)
Thus $`F_k1`$ for $`(A_{}/A_+)^{1/2}_0k(A_+/A_{})^{1/5}_0`$.

Combining the effects of $`D_k`$ and $`F_k`$, we see that the correction due to $`F_k`$ dominates on scales $`k<_0`$ and $`D_k`$ on scales $`k>_0`$. In particular the spiky dip in the spectrum seen in Fig. 1 at $`k(A_{}/A_+)^{1/2}_0`$ is caused by $`F_k`$, i.e., it is the $`O(k^2)`$ effect in the perturbation equation (4). To summarize, the curvature perturbation is significantly affected by the discontinuity at $`\varphi \varphi _0`$ even on superhorizon scales from $`k(A_{}/A_+)^{1/2}_0`$ up to $`k(A_+/A_{})^{1/3}_0`$.

Similar behavior was observed in the model studied by Leach & Liddle  for false-vacuum inflation with a quartic self-interaction potential , whose power spectrum is shown in Fig. 2. In this model there is no discontinuity in the potential, so the oscillations seen in Starobinsky’s model are washed out.

In both cases our analytic estimate of the enhancement on superhorizon scales is in excellent agreement with the numerical results on all scales. Thus our approximate formula for $`\alpha `$ given by Eq. (22) will be very useful for estimation of the curvature perturbation spectrum in general models of single-field inflation.

It may be noted that in the Leach & Liddle model the long-wavelength condition, $`k^2|z^{\prime \prime }/z|`$, is violated for modes $`k<_0`$. It is rather surprising that our long-wavelength approximation still works very well for this model.

## V Invariant spectra

A striking feature of these results is that the modes which leave the horizon during the transient regime share the same underlying spectrum as that produced during the subsequent slow-roll era. This is a manifestation of the ‘duality invariance’ of perturbation spectra produced in apparently different inflationary scenarios .

Starting from a particular asymptotic background solution, $`z(\eta )`$, one finds a two parameter family of solutions

$$\stackrel{~}{z}(\eta )=C_1z(\eta )+C_2z(\eta )_\eta ^\eta _{}\frac{d\eta ^{}}{z^2(\eta ^{})},$$
(31)
which leave $`z^{\prime \prime }/z`$ unchanged in the perturbation equation (13) and thus generate the same perturbation spectrum from vacuum fluctuations  (up to the overall normalization $`C_1`$). The variable $`z`$ itself obeys the second-order equation

$`z^{\prime \prime }+\left(a^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2V}{d\varphi ^2}}5^2+^{}+2{\displaystyle \frac{^{\prime \prime }}{}}2{\displaystyle \frac{^{}^2}{^2}}\right)z=0.`$ (32)
Thus for a weakly interacting field ($`d^2V/d\varphi ^2`$ constant) in a quasi-de Sitter background ($`H`$ constant) the equation can be approximated by the linear equation of motion

$$z^{\prime \prime }+\left(a^2\frac{d^2V}{d\varphi ^2}2^2\right)z0.$$
(33)
The general solution $`\stackrel{~}{z}(\eta )`$ is related to the asymptotic late-time solution $`z(\eta )`$ by the expression given in Eq. (31).

This means that the usual slow-roll result \[taking $`\dot{\varphi }(dV/d\varphi )/3H`$\] for the amplitude of the curvature perturbations in Eq. (1)

$$_c\left(\frac{3H^3}{2\pi (dV/d\varphi )}\right)_{k=},$$
(34)
may continue to be a useful approximation even when the actual background scalar field solution at horizon crossing is no longer described by slow-roll, as was noted previously by Seto, Yokoyama and Kodama  and seen in our figures.

## VI Summary

In summary, we have studied the enhancement of the curvature perturbation on superhorizon scales possible in some models of inflation. We have found that the curvature perturbation can be enhanced on superhorizon scales even in single-field inflation, provided that the slow-roll condition is violated and $`a\dot{\varphi }/H`$ becomes small compared to its value at horizon crossing. We have presented a quantitative criterion for this enhancement, namely that either of the integrals $`D_k`$ and $`F_k`$ defined by Eqs. (8) and (18), respectively, becomes larger than unity. In the long-wavelength approximation ($`k^2|z^{\prime \prime }/z|`$) these integrals are expressed in terms of the background quantity $`z=a\dot{\varphi }/H`$, as given by Eqs. (16 and (19), so an analytical formula for the final curvature perturbation amplitude may be derived without assuming slow-roll inflation. In the case of a weakly self-interacting field in de Sitter inflation we recover the usual slow-roll formula for the amplitude of the scalar perturbations even when the background solution is far from slow-roll at horizon crossing.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Karim Malik, Alexei Starobinsky and Jun’ichi Yokoyama for useful discussions and comments. S.M.L. is supported by PPARC, M.S. in part by Yamada Science Foundation and D.W. by the Royal Society.

## A If $`\dot{\varphi }`$ crosses zero

The case when $`\dot{\varphi }`$ and hence $`z`$ changes its sign can be treated as follows. For simplicity, let us assume $`z`$ changes the sign only once at $`\eta =\eta _0`$. Since the integral $`F_k`$ is still well-defined in this case, we focus on the integral $`D_k`$.

In the vicinity of $`\eta =\eta _0`$, $`z`$ can be expressed as $`z=z_0^{}(\eta \eta _0)`$ where $`z_0^{}=z^{}(\eta _0)`$. Hence the equation for $`_c`$ becomes

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{d\eta ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\eta \eta _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\eta }}+k^2\right]_c=0.`$ (A1)
The two independent solutions can be found as

$`uC\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}k^2(\eta \eta _0)^2+\mathrm{}\right),`$ (A2)
$`vD\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\eta \eta _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}k^2(\eta \eta _0)+\mathrm{}\right).`$ (A3)
It is apparent that $`u`$ should be chosen as the growing mode, and it remains constant across the epoch $`\eta =\eta _0`$.

We require $`v`$ to describe the decaying mode. As before, we consider an integral expression of $`v`$ in terms of $`z^2`$ and $`u`$. Then

$`v=u{\displaystyle _\eta ^\eta _{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\eta ^{}}{z^2u^2}}u{\displaystyle _\eta ^\eta _{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\eta ^{}}{z^2C^2}}`$ (A4)
for $`\eta >\eta _0`$. This $`v`$ behaves in the limit $`\eta \eta _0+0`$ as

$`v{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_0^{}{}_{}{}^{2}C_{}^{2}(\eta \eta _0)}}.`$ (A5)
This should be extended to the region $`\eta <\eta _0`$ as the solution (A3), which implies

$`v=u\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\left({\displaystyle _\eta ^{\eta _0ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\eta ^{}}{z^2u^2}}+{\displaystyle _{\eta _0+ϵ}^\eta _{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\eta ^{}}{z^2u^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{z_0^{}{}_{}{}^{2}C_{}^{2}ϵ}}\right),`$ (A6)
for $`\eta <\eta _0`$. Thus introducing the function $`\stackrel{~}{D}(\eta )`$ by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{D}(\eta )}{3_k}}=\underset{ϵ0}{lim}({\displaystyle _\eta ^{\eta _0ϵ}}d\eta ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{z_k^2u_k^2}{z^2u^2}}+{\displaystyle _{\eta _0+ϵ}^\eta _{}}d\eta ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{z_k^2u_k^2}{z^2u^2}}`$ (A7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_k^2u_k^2}{z_0^{}{}_{}{}^{2}u_{0}^{2}}}),`$ (A8)
and $`\stackrel{~}{D}_k=\stackrel{~}{D}(\eta _k)`$, where $`u_0=u(\eta _0)`$, the decaying mode $`v`$ normalized to $`u`$ at $`\eta =\eta _k`$ is given by

$`v(\eta )=u(\eta ){\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{D}(\eta )}{\stackrel{~}{D}_k}}.`$ (A9)
Thus exactly the same argument applies to this case, by replacing the original $`D_k`$ by the above $`\stackrel{~}{D}_k`$.


text:
# Exclusive weak 𝑩 decays to excited meson states

## I Introduction

The investigation of weak $`B`$ decays to excited mesons presents a problem interesting both from the experimental and theoretical point of view. The current experimental data on semileptonic $`B`$ decays to ground state $`D`$ mesons indicate that a substantial part ($`40\%`$) of the inclusive semileptonic $`B`$ decays should go to excited $`D`$ meson states. First experimental data on some exclusive $`B`$ decay channels to excited charmed mesons are becoming available now cleo ; aleph ; opal  and more data are expected in near future. Thus the comprehensive theoretical study of these decays is necessary. The presence of a heavy quark in the initial and final meson states in these decays considerably simplifies their theoretical description. A good starting point for this analysis is the infinitely heavy quark limit, $`m_Q\mathrm{}`$ iw . In this limit the heavy quark symmetry arises, which strongly reduces the number of independent weak form factors iw1 . The heavy quark mass and spin then decouple and all meson properties are determined by light-quark degrees of freedom alone. This leads to a considerable reduction of the number of independent form factors which are necessary for the description of heavy-to-heavy semileptonic decays. For example, in this limit only one form factor is necessary for the semileptonic $`B`$ decay to $`S`$-wave $`D`$ mesons (both for the ground state and its radial excitations), while the decays to $`P`$ states require two form factors iw1 . It is important to note that in the infinitely heavy quark limit matrix elements between a $`B`$ meson and an excited $`D`$ meson should vanish at the point of zero recoil of the final excited charmed meson in the rest frame of the $`B`$ meson. In the case of $`B`$ decays to radially excited charmed mesons this follows from the orthogonality of radial parts of wave functions, while for the decays to orbital excitations this is the consequence of orthogonality of their angular parts. However, some of the $`1/m_Q`$ corrections to these decay matrix elements give nonzero contributions at zero recoil. As a result the role of these corrections could be considerably enhanced, since the kinematical range for $`B`$ decays to excited states is a rather small region around zero recoil.

Rare radiative decays of $`B`$ mesons are induced by flavour changing neutral currents and thus they can serve as sensitive probes of new physics beyond the standard model. Such decays are governed by one-loop (penguin) diagrams with the main contribution from a virtual top quark and a $`W`$ boson. The statistics of rare radiative $`B`$ decays considerably increased since the first observation of the $`BK^{}\gamma `$ decay in 1993 by CLEO cleo1 . This allowed a significantly more precise determination of exclusive and inclusive branching fractions cleo2 . Recently the first observation of rare $`B`$ decay to the orbitally excited tensor strange meson $`BK_2^{}(1430)\gamma `$ has been reported by CLEO cleo2  with a branching fraction

$$BR(BK_2^{}(1430)\gamma )=(1.66_{0.53}^{+0.59}\pm 0.13)\times 10^5,$$
(1)
as well as the ratio of exclusive branching fractions

$$r\frac{BR(BK_2^{}(1430)\gamma )}{BR(BK^{}(892)\gamma )}=0.39_{0.13}^{+0.15}.$$
(2)
These new experimental data provide a challenge to the theory. Many theoretical approaches have been employed to predict the exclusive $`BK^{}(892)\gamma `$ decay rate (for a review see lss  and references therein). Less attention has been payed to rare radiative $`B`$ decays to excited strange mesons a ; aom ; vo . Most of these theoretical approaches aom ; vo  rely on the heavy quark limit both for the initial $`b`$ and final $`s`$ quark and the nonrelativistic quark model. However, the two predictions aom ; vo  for the ratio $`r`$ in Eq. (2) differ by an order of magnitude, due to a different treatment of the long distance effects and, as a result, a different determination of corresponding Isgur-Wise functions. Only the prediction of Ref. vo  is consistent with data (1), (2). Nevertheless, it is necessary to point out that the $`s`$ quark in the final $`K^{}`$ meson is not heavy enough, compared to the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ parameter, which determines the scale of $`1/m_Q`$ corrections in heavy quark effective theory n . Thus the $`1/m_s`$ expansion is not appropriate. Notwithstanding, the ideas of heavy quark expansion can be applied to the exclusive $`BK^{}(K_2^{})\gamma `$ decays. From the kinematical analysis it follows that the final $`K^{}(K_2^{})`$ meson bears a large relativistic recoil momentum $`|𝚫|`$ of order of $`m_b/2`$ and an energy of the same order. So it is possible to expand the matrix element of the effective Hamiltonian both in inverse powers of the $`b`$ quark mass for the initial state and in inverse powers of the recoil momentum $`|𝚫|`$ for the final state gf ; cbf .

Our relativistic quark model is based on the quasipotential approach in quantum field theory with a specific choice of the quark-antiquark interaction potential. It provides a consistent scheme for the calculation of all relativistic corrections at a given $`v^2/c^2`$ order and allows for the heavy quark $`1/m_Q`$ expansion. In preceding papers we applied this model to the calculation of the mass spectra of orbitally and radially excited states of heavy-light mesons egf , as well as to the description of the rare radiative decay $`BK^{}\gamma `$ gf  and of weak decays of $`B`$ mesons to ground state heavy and light mesons fgm ; efg . The heavy quark expansion for the ground state heavy-to-heavy semileptonic transitions fg  was found to be in agreement with model-independent predictions of the heavy quark effective theory (HQET).

## II Relativistic quark model

In our model a meson is described by the wave function of the bound quark-antiquark state, which satisfies the quasipotential equation 3  of the Schrödinger type 4 :

$$\left(\frac{b^2(M)}{2\mu _R}\frac{𝐩^2}{2\mu _R}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_M(𝐩)=\frac{d^3q}{(2\pi )^3}V(𝐩,𝐪;M)\mathrm{\Psi }_M(𝐪),$$
(3)
where the relativistic reduced mass is

$$\mu _R=\frac{M^4(m_q^2m_Q^2)^2}{4M^3}.$$
(4)
In the center-of-mass system the relative momentum squared on mass shell reads

$$b^2(M)=\frac{[M^2(m_q+m_Q)^2][M^2(m_qm_Q)^2]}{4M^2}.$$
(5)
The kernel $`V(𝐩,𝐪;M)`$ in Eq. (3) is the quasipotential operator of the quark-antiquark interaction. It is constructed with the help of the off-mass-shell scattering amplitude, projected onto the positive energy states. An important role in this construction is played by the Lorentz-structure of the confining quark-antiquark interaction in the meson. In constructing the quasipotential of the quark-antiquark interaction we have assumed that the effective interaction is the sum of the usual one-gluon exchange term and the mixture of vector and scalar linear confining potentials. The quasipotential is then defined by mass

$`V(𝐩,𝐪;M)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}_q(p)\overline{u}_Q(p)𝒱(𝐩,𝐪;M)u_q(q)u_Q(q)`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`\overline{u}_q(p)\overline{u}_Q(p)\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\alpha _sD_{\mu \nu }(𝐤)\gamma _q^\mu \gamma _Q^\nu +V_{\mathrm{conf}}^V(𝐤)\mathrm{\Gamma }_q^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{Q;\mu }+V_{\mathrm{conf}}^S(𝐤)\right\}u_q(q)u_Q(q),`$ (7)
where $`\alpha _s`$ is the QCD coupling constant, $`D_{\mu \nu }`$ is the gluon propagator in the Coulomb gauge and $`𝐤=𝐩𝐪`$; $`\gamma _\mu `$ and $`u(p)`$ are the Dirac matrices and spinors

$$u^\lambda (p)=\sqrt{\frac{ϵ(p)+m}{2ϵ(p)}}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ \frac{𝝈𝐩}{ϵ(p)+m}\end{array}\right)\chi ^\lambda $$
(8)
with $`ϵ(p)=\sqrt{𝐩^2+m^2}`$. The effective long-range vector vertex is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (𝐤)=\gamma _\mu +\frac{i\kappa }{2m}\sigma _{\mu \nu }k^\nu ,$$
(9)
where $`\kappa `$ is the Pauli interaction constant characterizing the nonperturbative anomalous chromomagnetic moment of quarks. Vector and scalar confining potentials in the nonrelativistic limit reduce to

$$V_{\mathrm{conf}}^V(r)=(1\epsilon )(Ar+B),V_{\mathrm{conf}}^S(r)=\epsilon (Ar+B),$$
(10)
reproducing

$$V_{\mathrm{conf}}(r)=V_{\mathrm{conf}}^S(r)+V_{\mathrm{conf}}^V(r)=Ar+B,$$
(11)
where $`\epsilon `$ is the mixing coefficient.

The quasipotential for the heavy quarkonia, expanded in $`v^2/c^2`$, can be found in Refs. mass ; pot  and for heavy-light mesons in egf . All the parameters of our model, such as quark masses, parameters of the linear confining potential, mixing coefficient $`\epsilon `$ and anomalous chromomagnetic quark moment $`\kappa `$, were fixed from the analysis of heavy quarkonia masses mass  and radiative decays gfm . The quark masses $`m_b=4.88`$ GeV, $`m_c=1.55`$ GeV, $`m_s=0.50`$ GeV, $`m_{u,d}=0.33`$ GeV and the parameters of the linear potential $`A=0.18`$ GeV2 and $`B=0.30`$ GeV have the usual quark model values. In Ref. fg  we have considered the expansion of the matrix elements of weak heavy quark currents between pseudoscalar and vector meson ground states up to the second order in inverse powers of the heavy quark masses. It has been found that the general structure of the leading, first, and second order $`1/m_Q`$ corrections in our relativistic model is in accord with the predictions of HQET. The heavy quark symmetry and QCD impose rigid constraints on the parameters of the long-range potential in our model. The analysis of the first order corrections fg  fixes the value of the Pauli interaction constant $`\kappa =1`$. The same value of $`\kappa `$ was found previously from the fine splitting of heavy quarkonia $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{}`$\- states mass . The value of the parameter mixing vector and scalar confining potentials $`\epsilon =1`$ was found from the analysis of the second order corrections fg . This value is very close to the one determined from considering radiative decays of heavy quarkonia gfm .

In the quasipotential approach, the matrix element of the weak current $`J_\mu =\overline{f}Gb`$ ($`f=\{c`$ or $`s\}`$, $`G=\{\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma ^5)`$ or $`\frac{i}{2}k^\nu \sigma _{\mu \nu }(1+\gamma ^5)\}`$) between the states of a $`B`$ meson and an excited $`F`$ ($`D^{()}^{}`$ or $`K_2^{}`$) meson has the form f

$$F|J_\mu (0)|B=\frac{d^3pd^3q}{(2\pi )^6}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_F(𝐩)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (𝐩,𝐪)\mathrm{\Psi }_B(𝐪),$$
(12)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (𝐩,𝐪)`$ is the two-particle vertex function and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{B,F}`$ are the meson wave functions projected onto the positive energy states of quarks and boosted to the moving reference frame. The contributions to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ come from Figs. 1 and 2. The contribution $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}`$ is the consequence of the projection onto the positive-energy states. Note that the form of the relativistic corrections resulting from the vertex function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}`$ explicitly depends on the Lorentz structure of the $`q\overline{q}`$-interaction. The vertex functions look like

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{(1)}(𝐩,𝐪)=\overline{u}_f(p_1)Gu_b(q_1)(2\pi )^3\delta (𝐩_2𝐪_2),$$
(13)
and

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{(2)}(𝐩,𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}_f(p_1)\overline{u}_q(p_2)\{G{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^{()}(k_1)}{ϵ_b(k_1)+ϵ_b(p_1)}}\gamma _1^0𝒱(𝐩_2𝐪_2)`$ (14)
$`+𝒱(𝐩_2𝐪_2){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_f^{()}(k_1^{})}{ϵ_f(k_1^{})+ϵ_f(q_1)}}\gamma _1^0G\}u_b(q_1)u_q(q_2),`$
where $`𝐤_1=𝐩_1𝚫;𝐤_1^{}=𝐪_1+𝚫;𝚫=𝐩_F𝐩_B`$;

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{()}(p)=\frac{ϵ(p)\left(m\gamma ^0+\gamma ^0(𝜸𝐩)\right)}{2ϵ(p)}.$$

It is important to note that the wave functions entering the weak current matrix element (12) cannot be both in the rest frame. In the $`B`$ meson rest frame, the $`F`$ meson is moving with the recoil momentum $`𝚫`$. The wave function of the moving $`F`$ meson $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{F𝚫}`$ is connected with the $`F`$ wave function in the rest frame $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{F\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}0}}\mathrm{\Psi }_F`$ by the transformation f

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{F𝚫}(𝐩)=D_f^{1/2}(R_{L_𝚫}^W)D_q^{1/2}(R_{L_𝚫}^W)\mathrm{\Psi }_{F\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}0}}(𝐩),$$
(15)
where $`R^W`$ is the Wigner rotation, $`L_𝚫`$ is the Lorentz boost from the meson rest frame to a moving one. The wave functions of $`B`$, $`D^{()}^{}`$ and $`K_2^{}`$ mesons at rest were calculated by numerical solution of the quasipotential equation (3).

## III Semileptonic decays to radially excited states

The matrix elements of the vector and axial vector currents between the $`B`$ and radially excited $`D^{}`$ or $`D^{}^{}`$ mesons can be parameterized by six hadronic form factors:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{D^{}(v^{})|\overline{c}\gamma ^\mu b|B(v)}{\sqrt{m_D^{}m_B}}}`$ $`=`$ $`h_+(v+v^{})^\mu +h_{}(vv^{})^\mu ,`$ (16)
$`D^{}(v^{})|\overline{c}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5b|B(v)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{D^{}{}_{}{}^{}(v^{},ϵ)|\overline{c}\gamma ^\mu b|B(v)}{\sqrt{m_D^{}^{}m_B}}}`$ $`=`$ $`ih_V\epsilon ^{\mu \alpha \beta \gamma }ϵ_\alpha ^{}v_\beta ^{}v_\gamma ,`$ (18)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{D^{}{}_{}{}^{}(v^{},ϵ)|\overline{c}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5b|B(v)}{\sqrt{m_D^{}^{}m_B}}}`$ $`=`$ $`h_{A_1}(w+1)ϵ^\mu (h_{A_2}v^\mu +h_{A_3}v^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu })(ϵ^{}v),`$ (19)
where $`v(v^{})`$ is the four-velocity of the $`B(D^{()}{}_{}{}^{})`$ meson, $`ϵ^\mu `$ is a polarization vector of the final vector charmed meson, and the form factors $`h_i`$ are dimensionless functions of the product of velocities $`w=vv^{}`$.

The HQET analysis rad  shows that five independent functions $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_3`$, $`\chi _b`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{1,2,3}`$, as well as two mass parameters $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(n)}`$ are necessary to describe first order $`1/m_Q`$ corrections to matrix elements of $`B`$ meson decays to radially excited $`D`$ meson states. The function $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_3`$ emerges from corrections to the current in effective theory, while $`\chi _b`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{1,2,3}`$ parameterize corrections to HQET Lagrangian. The resulting structure of the decay form factors is rad

$`h_+`$ $`=`$ $`\xi ^{(n)}+\epsilon _c\left[2\stackrel{~}{\chi }_14(w1)\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2+12\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3\right]+\epsilon _b\chi _b,`$ (20)
$`h_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _c\left[2\stackrel{~}{\xi }_3\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(n)}+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(n)}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{w1}}\right)\xi ^{(n)}\right]\epsilon _b\left[2\stackrel{~}{\xi }_3\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(n)}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{w1}}\right)\xi ^{(n)}\right],`$ (21)
$`h_V`$ $`=`$ $`\xi ^{(n)}+\epsilon _c\left[2\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1+\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(n)}+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(n)}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{w1}}\right)\xi ^{(n)}4\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3\right]+\epsilon _b\left[\chi _b+\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(n)}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{w1}}\right)\xi ^{(n)}2\stackrel{~}{\xi }_3\right],`$ (22)
$`h_{A_1}`$ $`=`$ $`\xi ^{(n)}+\epsilon _c\left[2\stackrel{~}{\chi }_14\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3+{\displaystyle \frac{w1}{w+1}}\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(n)}+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(n)}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{w1}}\right)\xi ^{(n)}\right]`$ (24)
$`+\epsilon _b\left\{\chi _b+{\displaystyle \frac{w1}{w+1}}\left[\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(n)}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{w1}}\right)\xi ^{(n)}2\stackrel{~}{\xi }_3\right]\right\},`$
$`h_{A_2}`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _c\left\{4\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{w+1}}\left[\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(n)}+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(n)}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{w1}}\right)\xi ^{(n)}+\stackrel{~}{\xi }_3\right]\right\},`$ (25)
$`h_{A_3}`$ $`=`$ $`\xi ^{(n)}+\epsilon _c\left[2\stackrel{~}{\chi }_14\stackrel{~}{\chi }_24\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3+{\displaystyle \frac{w1}{w+1}}\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(n)}+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(n)}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{w1}}\right)\xi ^{(n)}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{w+1}}\stackrel{~}{\xi }_3\right]`$ (27)
$`+\epsilon _b\left[\chi _b+\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(n)}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{w1}}\right)\xi ^{(n)}2\stackrel{~}{\xi }_3\right],`$
where $`\epsilon _Q=1/(2m_Q)`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(n)})=M(M^n)m_Q`$.

Now we can perform the heavy quark expansion for the matrix elements of $`B`$ decays to excited $`D`$ mesons in the framework of our model and determine leading and subleading Isgur–Wise functions. To do this we substitute the vertex functions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}`$ given by Eqs. (13) and (14) in the decay matrix element (12) and take into account the wave function properties (15). The resulting structure of this matrix element is rather complicated, because it is necessary to integrate both over $`d^3p`$ and $`d^3q`$. The $`\delta `$ function in expression (13) permits us to perform one of these integrations and thus this contribution can be easily calculated. The calculation of the vertex function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}`$ contribution is more difficult. Here, instead of a $`\delta `$ function, we have a complicated structure, containing the $`Q\overline{q}`$ interaction potential in the meson. However, we can expand this contribution in inverse powers of heavy ($`b,c`$) quark masses and then use the quasipotential equation in order to perform one of the integrations in the current matrix element. We carry out the heavy quark expansion up to first order in $`1/m_Q`$. It is easy to see that the vertex function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}`$ contributes already at the subleading order of the $`1/m_Q`$ expansion. Then we compare the arising decay matrix elements with the form factor decompositions (20) for decays to radial excitations and determine the form factors. We find that, for the chosen values of our model parameters (the mixing coefficient of vector and scalar confining potential $`\epsilon =1`$ and the Pauli constant $`\kappa =1`$), the resulting structure at leading and subleading order in $`1/m_Q`$ coincides with the model-independent predictions of HQET. This allows us to determine leading and subleading Isgur-Wise functions rad :

$`\xi ^{(1)}(w)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{w+1}}\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\overline{\psi }_{D^{()}^{}}^{(0)}\left(𝐩+\frac{2ϵ_q}{M_{D^{()}^{}}(w+1)}𝚫\right)\psi _B^{(0)}(𝐩)},`$ (28)
$`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_3(w)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(1)}+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{2}}m_q+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(1)}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{w1}}\right)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{w1}{w+1}}\right)\xi ^{(1)}(w),`$ (29)
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1(w)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{20}}{\displaystyle \frac{w1}{w+1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(1)}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{w1}}\xi ^{(1)}(w)`$ (31)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(1)}}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{w+1}}\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\overline{\psi }_{D^{()}^{}}^{(1)si}\left(𝐩+\frac{2ϵ_q}{M_{D^{()}^{}}(w+1)}𝚫\right)\psi _B^{(0)}(𝐩)},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2(w)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{w+1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(1)}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{w1}}\xi ^{(1)}(w),`$ (32)
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3(w)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{80}}{\displaystyle \frac{w1}{w+1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(1)}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{w1}}\xi ^{(1)}(w)`$ (34)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(1)}}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{w+1}}\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\overline{\psi }_{D^{()}^{}}^{(1)sd}\left(𝐩+\frac{2ϵ_q}{M_{D^{()}^{}}(w+1)}𝚫\right)\psi _B^{(0)}(𝐩)},`$
$`\chi _b(w)`$ $``$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{w+1}}\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\overline{\psi }_{D^{()}^{}}^{(0)}\left(𝐩+\frac{2ϵ_q}{M_{D^{()}^{}}(w+1)}𝚫\right)\left[\psi _B^{(1)si}(𝐩)3\psi _B^{(1)sd}(𝐩)\right]},`$ (35)
where $`𝚫^2=M_{D^{()}^{}}^2(w^21)`$. Here we used the expansion for the $`S`$-wave meson wave function

$$\psi _M=\psi _M^{(0)}+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_M\epsilon _Q\left(\psi _M^{(1)si}+d_M\psi _M^{(1)sd}\right)+\mathrm{},$$

where $`\psi _M^{(0)}`$ is the wave function in the limit $`m_Q\mathrm{}`$, $`\psi _M^{(1)si}`$ and $`\psi _M^{(1)sd}`$ are the spin-independent and spin-dependent first order $`1/m_Q`$ corrections, $`d_P=3`$ for pseudoscalar and $`d_V=1`$ for vector mesons. The symbol $``$ in the expressions (31)–(35) for the subleading functions $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i(w)`$ means that the corrections suppressed by an additional power of the ratio $`(w1)/(w+1)`$, which is equal to zero at $`w=1`$ and less than $`1/6`$ at $`w_{\mathrm{max}}`$, were neglected. Since the main contribution to the decay rate comes from the values of form factors close to $`w=1`$, these corrections turn out to be unimportant.

It is clear from the expression (28) that the leading order contribution vanishes at the point of zero recoil ($`𝚫=0,w=1`$) of the final $`D^{()}^{}`$ meson, since the radial parts of the wave functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{D^{()}^{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_B`$ are orthogonal in the infinitely heavy quark limit. The $`1/m_Q`$ corrections to the current also do not contribute at this kinematical point for the same reason. The only nonzero contributions at $`w=1`$ come from corrections to the Lagrangian 111There are no normalization conditions for these corrections contrary to the decay to the ground state $`D^{()}`$ mesons, where the conservation of vector current requires their vanishing at zero recoil luke . $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1(w)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3(w)`$ and $`\chi _b(w)`$. From Eqs. (20) one can find for the form factors contributing to the decay matrix elements at zero recoil

$`h_+(1)`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _c\left[2\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1(1)+12\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3(1)\right]+\epsilon _b\chi _b(1),`$ (36)
$`h_{A_1}(1)`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _c\left[2\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1(1)4\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3(1)\right]+\epsilon _b\chi _b(1).`$ (37)
Such nonvanishing contributions at zero recoil result from the first order $`1/m_Q`$ corrections to the wave functions (see Eq. (35) and the last terms in Eqs. (31), (34)). Since the kinematically allowed range for these decays is not broad ( $`1ww_{\mathrm{max}}1.27`$) the relative contribution to the decay rate of such small $`1/m_Q`$ corrections is substantially increased. Note that the terms $`\epsilon _Q(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(n)}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})\xi ^{(n)}(w)/(w1)`$ have the same behaviour near $`w=1`$ as the leading order contribution, in contrast to decays to the ground state $`D^{()}`$ mesons, where $`1/m_Q`$ corrections are suppressed with respect to the leading order contribution by the factor $`(w1)`$ near this point (this result is known as Luke’s theorem luke ). Since inclusion of first order heavy quark corrections to $`B`$ decays to the ground state $`D^{()}`$ mesons results in approximately a 10-20% increase of decay rates fg ; n , one could expect that the influence of these corrections on decay rates to radially excited $`D^{()}^{}`$ mesons will be more essential. Our numerical analysis supports these observations.

We can now calculate the decay branching fractions by integrating double differential decay rates. Our results for decay rates both in the infinitely heavy quark limit and taking account of the first order $`1/m_Q`$ corrections as well as their ratio

$$R^{}=\frac{\mathrm{Br}(BD^{()}{}_{}{}^{}e\nu )_{\mathrm{with}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/m_Q}}{\mathrm{Br}(BD^{()}{}_{}{}^{}e\nu )_{m_Q\mathrm{}}}$$

are presented in Table 1. We find that both $`1/m_Q`$ corrections to decay rates arising from corrections to HQET Lagrangian (31)–(35), which do not vanish at zero recoil, and corrections to the current (29), vanishing at zero recoil, give significant contributions. In the case of $`BD^{}e\nu `$ decay both types of these corrections tend to increase the decay rate leading to approximately a 75% increase of the $`BD^{}e\nu `$ decay rate. On the other hand, these corrections give opposite contributions to the $`BD^{}{}_{}{}^{}e\nu `$ decay rate: the corrections to the current give a negative contribution, while corrections to the Lagrangian give a positive one of approximately the same value. This interplay of $`1/m_Q`$ corrections only slightly ($`10\%`$) increases the decay rate with respect to the infinitely heavy quark limit. As a result the branching fraction for $`BD^{}e\nu `$ decay exceeds the one for $`BD^{}{}_{}{}^{}e\nu `$ after inclusion of first order $`1/m_Q`$ corrections. In the infinitely heavy quark mass limit we have for the ratio $`Br(BD^{}e\nu )/Br(BD^{}{}_{}{}^{}e\nu )=0.75`$, while the account for $`1/m_Q`$ corrections results in the considerable increase of this ratio to 1.22.

In Table 1 we also present the sum of the branching fractions over first radially excited states. Inclusion of $`1/m_Q`$ corrections results in approximately a 40% increase of this sum. We see that our model predicts that $`0.40\%`$ of $`B`$ meson decays go to the first radially excited $`D`$ meson states. If we add this value to our prediction for $`B`$ decays to the first orbitally excited states $`1.45\%`$ orb , we get the value of 1.85%. This result means that approximately 2% of $`B`$ decays should go to higher charmed excitations.

## IV Rare radiative $`BK_2^{}(1430)\gamma `$ decay

In the standard model $`BK^{}\gamma `$ decays are governed by the contribution of the electromagnetic dipole operator $`O_7`$ to the effective Hamiltonian which is obtained by integrating out the top quark and $`W`$ boson and using the Wilson expansion lss :

$$O_7=\frac{e}{16\pi ^2}\overline{s}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }(m_bP_R+m_sP_L)bF_{\mu \nu },P_{R,L}=(1\pm \gamma _5)/2.$$
(38)
The matrix elements of this operator between the initial $`B`$ meson state and the final state of the orbitally excited tensor $`K_2^{}`$ meson have the following covariant decomposition

$`K_2^{}(p^{},ϵ)|\overline{s}ik_\nu \sigma _{\mu \nu }b|B(p)`$ $`=`$ $`ig_+(k^2)ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }ϵ^{\nu \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{p_\beta }{M_B}}k^\lambda (p+p^{})^\sigma ,`$ (39)
$`K_2^{}(p^{},ϵ)|\overline{s}ik_\nu \sigma _{\mu \nu }\gamma _5b|B(p)`$ $`=`$ $`g_+(k^2)(ϵ_{\beta \gamma }^{}{\displaystyle \frac{p^\beta p^\gamma }{M_B}}(p+p^{})_\mu ϵ_{\mu \beta }^{}{\displaystyle \frac{p^\beta }{M_B}}(p^2p^{}{}_{}{}^{2}))`$ (42)
$`+g_{}(k^2)\left(ϵ_{\beta \gamma }^{}{\displaystyle \frac{p^\beta p^\gamma }{M_B}}k_\mu ϵ_{\mu \beta }^{}{\displaystyle \frac{p^\beta }{M_B}}k^2\right)`$
$`+h(k^2)((p^2p^{}{}_{}{}^{2})k_\mu (p+p^{})_\mu k^2)ϵ_{\beta \gamma }^{}{\displaystyle \frac{p^\beta p^\gamma }{M_B^2M_{K_2^{}}}},`$
where $`ϵ_{\mu \nu }`$ is a polarization tensor of the final tensor meson and $`k=pp^{}`$ is the four momentum of the emitted photon. The exclusive decay rate for the emission of a real photon ($`k^2=0`$) is determined by the single form factor $`g_+(0)`$ and is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(BK_2^{}\gamma )=\frac{\alpha }{256\pi ^4}G_F^2m_b^5|V_{tb}V_{ts}|^2|C_7(m_b)|^2g_+^2(0)\frac{M_B^2}{M_{K_2^{}}^2}\left(1\frac{M_{K_2^{}}^2}{M_B^2}\right)^5\left(1+\frac{M_{K_2^{}}^2}{M_B^2}\right),$$
(43)
where $`V_{ij}`$ are the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix elements and $`C_7(m_b)`$ is the Wilson coefficient in front of the operator $`O_7`$. It is convenient to consider the ratio of exclusive to inclusive branching fractions, for which we have

$$R_{K_2^{}}\frac{BR(BK_2^{}(1430)\gamma )}{BR(BX_s\gamma )}=\frac{1}{8}g_+^2(0)\frac{M_B^2}{M_{K_2^{}}^2}\frac{\left(1M_{K_2^{}}^2/M_B^2\right)^5\left(1+M_{K_2^{}}^2/M_B^2\right)}{\left(1m_s^2/m_b^2\right)^3\left(1+m_s^2/m_b^2\right)}.$$
(44)
The recent experimental value for the inclusive decay branching fraction t

$$BR(BX_s\gamma )=(3.15\pm 0.35\pm 0.41)\times 10^4$$

is in a good agreement with theoretical calculations.

For the calculation of the decay matrix elements in our model we use the same framework as in previous calculations of $`B`$ to excited $`D`$ decays. However, for a heavy-to-light transition we cannot expand $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}`$ contribution in inverse powers of the $`s`$ quark mass. Instead we expand this contribution in inverse powers of the large recoil momentum $`|𝚫|m_b/2`$ of the final $`K_2^{}`$ meson. The resulting expressions for the form factor $`g_+(0)`$ up to the second order in $`1/m_b`$ can be found in rarexc .

We can check the consistency of our expressions for $`g_+(0)`$ by taking the formal limit of $`b`$ and $`s`$ quark masses going to infinity. 222As it was noted above such limit is justified only for the $`b`$ quark. In this limit according to the heavy quark effective theory vo2  the function $`\xi _F=2\sqrt{M_BM_{K_2^{}}}g_+/(M_B+M_{K_2^{}})`$ should coincide with the Isgur-Wise function $`\tau `$ for the semileptonic $`B`$ decay to the orbitally excited tensor $`D`$ meson, $`BD_2^{}e\nu `$. Such semileptonic decays have been considered by us in Ref. orb . It is easy to verify that the equality of $`\xi _F`$ and $`\tau `$ is satisfied in our model if we also use the expansion in $`(w1)/(w+1)`$ ($`w`$ is a scalar product of four-velocities of the initial and final mesons), which is small for the $`BD_2^{}e\nu `$ decay orb . Calculating the ratio of the form factor $`g_+(0)`$ in the infinitely heavy $`b`$ and $`s`$ quark limit to the same form factor in the leading order of expansions in inverse powers of the $`b`$ quark mass and large recoil momentum $`|𝚫|`$ we find this ratio to be equal to $`M_B/\sqrt{M_B^2+M_{K_2^{}}^2}0.965`$. The corresponding ratio for the form factor $`F_1(0)`$ of the exclusive rare radiative $`B`$ decay to the vector $`K^{}`$ meson gf  is equal to $`M_B/\sqrt{M_B^2+M_K^{}^2}0.986`$. Therefore we conclude that the form factor ratios $`g_+(0)/F_1(0)`$ in the leading order of these expansions differ by factor $`\sqrt{M_B^2+M_K^{}^2}/\sqrt{M_B^2+M_{K_2^{}}^2}0.98`$. This is the consequence of the relativistic dynamics leading to the effective expansion in inverse powers of the $`s`$ quark energy $`ϵ_s(p+\mathrm{\Delta })=\sqrt{(𝐩+𝚫)^2+m_s^2}`$, which is large in one case due to the large $`s`$ quark mass and in the other one due to the large recoil momentum $`𝚫`$. As a result both expansions give similar final expressions in the leading order. Thus we can expect that the ratio $`r`$ from (2) in our calculations should be close to the one found in the infinitely heavy $`s`$ quark limit vo .

The results of numerical calculations are given in Table 2. There we also show our previous predictions for the $`BK^{}\gamma `$ decay gf . Our results are confronted with other theoretical calculations a ; aom ; vo  and recent experimental data cleo2 . We find a good agreement of our predictions for decay rates with the experiment and estimates of Ref. vo . Other theoretical calculations substantially disagree with data either for $`BK^{}\gamma `$ a  or for $`BK_2^{}\gamma `$ aom  decay rates. As a result our predictions and those of Ref. vo  for the ratio $`r`$ from (2) are well consistent with experiment, while the $`r`$ estimates of a  and aom  are several times larger than the experimental value (see Table 2). As it was argued above, it is not accidental that $`r`$ values in our and Ref. vo  approaches are close. The agreement of both predictions for branching fractions could be explained by some specific cancellation of finite $`s`$ quark mass effects and relativistic corrections which were neglected in Ref. vo . We believe that our analysis is more consistent and reliable. We do not use the ill-defined limit $`m_s\mathrm{}`$, and our quark model consistently takes into account some important relativistic effects, for example, the Lorentz transformation of the wave function of the final $`K_2^{}`$ meson (see Eq. (15)). Such a transformation turns out to be very important, especially for $`B`$ decays to orbitally excited mesons orb . The large value of the recoil momentum $`|𝚫|m_b/2`$ makes relativistic effects to play a significant role. On the other hand this fact simplifies our analysis since it allows to make an expansion both in inverse powers of the large $`b`$ quark mass and in the large recoil momentum.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors express their gratitude to P. Ball, A. Golutvin, I. Narodetskii, V. Savrin, and K. Ter-Martirosyan for discussions. D.E. acknowledges the support provided to him by the Ministry of Education of Japan (Monbusho) for his work at RCNP of Osaka University. Two of us (R.N.F and V.O.G.) were supported in part by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft under contract EB 139/2-1 and Russian Foundation for Fundamental Research under Grant No. 00-02-17768.


text:
# Noncommutativity and the Aharonov-Bohm Effect

## I Introduction

There are arguments in string theory suggesting that spacetime could be non-commutative. Although this property might be an argument in favor of new renormalizables effective field theories, it represents also a trouble because we need to explain the transition between the commutative and noncommutative regimes.

If the noncommutative effects are important at very high energies, then one could posit a decoupling theorem that produces the standard quantum field theory as an effective field theory and that does not remind the noncommutative effects. However, our experience in atomic and molecular physics strongly suggests that the decoupling is never complete, and the high energy effects appear in the effective action as topological remnants.

Following this idea we would like to consider an example, related to topological aspects, where the appearance of noncommutative effects could be relevant. A natural candidate is the Aharonov-Bohm effect , where we know that the line spectrum does not depend on the relativistic nature of the electrons . However, as will see below, the spatial noncommutativity smears the spectral lines and this effect, in principle, could be observed by increasing the energy of the electrons in the Aharonov-Bohm experiment.

The article is organized as follows; in section 2, we discuss the noncommutative Aharonov-Bohm effect following a very simple perturbative approach and a generalized formula for the holonomy is given. In section 3, we discuss the physical consequences of our result and we argue how to observe noncommutative effects from the Tonomura experiment. Finally, an appendix discussing the fringe pattern in the relativistic Aharonov-Bohm effect is also considered.

## II The Noncommutative Aharonov-Bohm Effect

Let us start considering a spinless electron moving on a two dimensional noncommutative plane $`\mathrm{}^2\{0\}`$, where $`\{0\}`$ is constructed putting a solenoid with a magnetic field concentrated along the $`x_3`$ axis. Since in the noncommutative case space is a collection of cells, the reader will notice that this rearrangement is just an approximation valid for small values of the anticommutative $`\theta `$ parameter.

The field tensor in the noncommutative plane is

$$\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu +ieA_\mu A_\nu ieA_\nu A_\mu ,$$
(1)
where $``$ is the Moyal product defined as

$$𝐀𝐁(𝐱)=e^{\frac{i}{2}\theta ^{ij}_i^{(1)}_j^{(2)}}𝐀(𝐱_1)𝐁(𝐱_2)|_{𝐱_1=𝐱_2=𝐱},$$
(2)
and we will use $`\theta ^{ij}=ϵ^{ij}\theta `$.

As we are assuming that the noncommutative effects are small, one can expand the Moyal product retaining only the linear term in $`\theta `$, i.e.

$$\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu +e\theta ϵ^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha A_\mu _\beta A_\nu .$$
(3)
Then, we must construct a gauge potential such that the magnetic field $`B`$ vanishes everywhere except at the origin. In order to do that, we proceed as in the commutative case, i.e. from

$$𝐀=\frac{x_2\widehat{x}_1+x_1\widehat{x}_2}{x_1^2+x_2^2}.\frac{\varphi }{2\pi }$$
(4)
where $`\varphi `$ is the flux inside the solenoid. We construct the non-commutative potential by means of the Ansatz

$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`x_2f(r^2).{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2\pi }},`$ (5)
$`A_2`$ $`=`$ $`x_1f(r^2).{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2\pi }}.`$ (6)
Since we have taken an expansion of the Moyal product in eq. (3), the ordinary product in (6) must be understood. Then, as in the commutative case, we impose $`B_3=\widehat{F}_{12}=0`$ outside the solenoid implying the condition

$$2f+2r^2f^{^{}}e\theta (f^2+2r^2ff^{^{}})=0,$$
(7)
where $`f^{^{}}=df/dr^2`$.

This differential equation can be integrated easily and yields the following solution

$`f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e\theta }}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{e\theta }}\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{e\theta }{r^2}}}`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e\theta }}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{e\theta }}[1{\displaystyle \frac{e\theta }{2r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2\theta ^2}{8r^4}}+\mathrm{}].`$ (9)
From (9) we see that the commutative limit is smooth for the minus sign in the above equation i.e.

$$f=\frac{1}{2r^2}+\frac{e\theta }{8r^4}+\mathrm{}$$
(10)
and the potential

$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`x_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(x_1^2+x_2^2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e\theta }{8(x_1^2+x_2^2)^2}}+\mathrm{}\right).{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2\pi }}`$ (11)
$`A_2`$ $`=`$ $`x_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(x_1^2+x_2^2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e\theta }{8(x_1^2+x_2^2)^2}}+\mathrm{}\right).{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2\pi }},`$ (12)
describes a magnetic field zero everywhere except at the origin. This potential is also the non- commutative generalization of the magnetic monopole for $`\theta `$ small.

Next step is to solve the Schrödinger equation for a particle with mass $`m`$ moving in the field (12). However, instead of doing this we remind that, in the commutative case, the Schrödinger equation in an external gauge potential is solved by

$$\psi =e^{ie_C𝑑x^jA_j}\phi ,$$
(13)
where the $`U(1)`$ holonomy $`e^{ie_C𝑑x^jA_j}`$, in general, is a non-integrable factor, i.e. dependent on the path $`C`$, being $`\phi `$ the free solution of the Schrödinger equation.

However, although formally (13) solve the Schrödinger equation, the holonomy involves in a non trivial way the dynamics of the gauge potential and it hides all the complications of $`𝐀`$. Our goal below will be to find an approximate expression for the holonomy for $`\theta `$ small.

Let us suppose that the operator $`D_j=i_j+eA_j`$ satisfies the eigenvalue equation

$$D_j\psi =k_j\psi .$$
(14)
Then, using (14) the Schrödinger equation becomes

$$\widehat{H}\psi =\frac{1}{2m}D_jD_j\psi =\frac{1}{2m}k_jk_j\psi .$$
(15)
In order to solve (14) we use the Ansatz

$$\psi =e^F,$$
(16)
and therefore, for $`\theta `$ small

$`D_j\psi `$ $`=`$ $`i_je^F+eA_je^F`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`e^F[i_jF+eA_j+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}e\theta ϵ^{lm}(_lA_j)(_mF)]`$ (18)
and furthermore

$$i_jF+eA_j+\frac{i}{2}e\theta ϵ^{lm}(_lA_j)(_mF)=k_j.$$
(19)
Now, one can solve (19) perturbatively by expanding $`F`$ and $`A_j`$ in powers of $`\theta `$, i.e.

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`F^{(0)}+\theta F^{(1)}+\mathrm{}`$ (20)
$`A_j`$ $`=`$ $`A_j^{(0)}+\theta A_j^{(1)}+\mathrm{},`$ (21)
then at zero order in $`\theta `$, equation (19) gives

$$i_jF^{(0)}+eA_j^{(0)}=k_j,$$
(22)
and the following expression for $`F^{(0)}`$ is obtained

$$F^{(0)}=ik_j(xx_0)_jie_{x_0}^x𝑑x_jA_j^{(0)}.$$
(23)
The first term in the RHS is just the free particle solution if we interpret $`k_j`$ as the wave number and the second term is the $`U(1)`$ holonomy for the commutative case. Thus, at zero order, we reproduce the commutative solution of the Schrödinger equation.

If we retain first order terms in $`\theta `$, the following differential equation is obtained

$$i_jF^{(1)}+eA_j^{(1)}+\frac{i}{2}e\theta ϵ^{lm}(_lA_j^{(0)})(_mF^{(0)})=0,$$
(24)
and the integration of (24) gives

$$F^{(1)}=e_{x_0}^xdx_jA_j^{(1)}\frac{ie\theta }{2}_{x_0}^xdx_jϵ^{ml}(k_meA_m^{(0)})_lA_j^{(0)}).$$
(25)
The first term in the RHS is an additive correction to the commutative holonomy, i.e.

$$e_{x_0}^xdx_j(A_j^{(0)}+\theta A_j^{(1)})=:e_{x_0}^xdx_jA_j,$$
(26)
and a second one include a velocity dependent term which can be written as follows***A different contribution was obtained in . However, the mistake of these authors was corrected after our paper appeared in a the subsequent version of . We would like to thank to the referee for drawing our attention on this point.:

$$\frac{i}{2}e_{x_0}^x𝑑x_jϵ^{ml}k_m_lA_j^{(0)}=\frac{i}{2}em𝑑x_j(𝐯\times A_j^{(0)})_3,$$
(27)
For the third term our calculation yields to

$$_{x_0}^x𝑑x_j(𝐀^{(0)}\times A_j^{(0)})_3.$$
(28)
Thus, at this order in $`\theta `$, the nonconmutative holonomy is

$`𝒲(x,`$ $`x_0`$ $`)=`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[ie{\displaystyle _{x_0}^x}dx_jA_j{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}me\theta {\displaystyle _{x_0}^x}dx_j[(𝐯\times A_j^{(0)})_3`$ (30)
$``$ $`e(𝐀^{(\mathrm{𝟎})}\times A_j^{(0)})_3]].`$ (31)
Now, we analyze the different terms in (31); the first one in the exponential is the usual holonomy (corrected at order $`\theta `$) which classifies the differents homotopy classes.

The term

$$_{x_0}^x𝑑x_j[𝐀^{(\mathrm{𝟎})}\times A_j^{(0)}]_3,$$
(32)
is a non-commutative correction to the vortex decaying as $`1/r^3`$ and does not contribute to the line spectrum.

Finally, the term

$$\theta _{x_0}^xdx_j[(𝐯\times A_j^{(0)}]_3$$
(33)
is a velocity dependent correction insensitive to the topology of the manifold. If $`𝐯`$ increases, the contribution of (33) to the holonomy oscillates very quickly smearing the fringe pattern. The above result is completly different to the commutative Aharonov-Bohm effect where the fringe pattern is insensitive to the relativistic nature of the electrons .

## III Possible experimental strategy for detecting noncommutative effects

In this section we will analyse the possibility of detecting spatial noncommutative effects by using the Tonomura experiment. Our claim is that if one increase the energy of the incident electrons beam, then one should observe a squeezing of the fringes pattern. As we expect that $`\theta `$ is small, then $`\theta `$ –as was assumed in the previous section– is a perturbative parameter and the main part of the fringe pattern is contained in the commutative sector of the Aharonov-Bohm.

If we now modify the energy of the electrons beam, then we should see noncommutative corrections. In the original Tonomura experiment , they consider incident beams with energies among 80, 100 and 125 keV but they did not find changes in the fringes pattern. In our opinion, this is explained by the perturbative stability of the Aharonov-Bohm fringes pattern but, if we can consider incident energies among 160-500 keV (or higher) spectral differences should be observed. At this energies the effects of the penetrability can be important, but this fact does not affect the flux-dependent phase difference.

Presently, we have several bounds for $`\theta `$. The noncommutative contributions will, in general, be tiny. We hope, however, that futureTonomura or improved Tonomura kind experiments will be able to distinguish these new effects.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank to G. V. Dunne F. Méndez and V. O. Rivelles for several discussions. We would like to thank also Professor Akira Tonomura by inform us about energy of the incident electron beam. This work has been partially supported by the grants Nr. 1010596 and Nr. 1010976 from Fondecyt-Chile and Dicyt-USACH.

## IV Appendix

In this appendix, we would like to discuss some implications of the relativistic Aharonov-Bohm effect. In particular, we would like to emphasize that due the topological character of the Aharanov-Bohm effect (and also to the fact that the radius of the solenoid is zero) the interference pattern does not change by relativistic corrections.

This last fact can be seen as follows; using the reference  one see that the Green function associated to the usual Aharonov-Bohm effect is given by

$$G[x,x^{^{}}]=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(i)^{|n+\varphi |}\mathrm{exp}[i(n+\varphi )]F_{|n+\varphi |},$$
(34)
where $`\varphi `$ is the magnetic flux and the function $`F_{|n+\varphi |}`$ for the non-relativistic case is

$$F_{|n+\varphi |}=\frac{m}{2\pi i}\mathrm{exp}[\frac{2mi}{\tau }(r^2+r^{}_{}{}^{}2)]J_{|n+\varphi |}(\frac{mrr^{^{}}}{\tau }),$$
(35)
where $`\tau =tt^{^{}}`$ and $`J_\alpha `$ are Bessel functions. For the relativistic case the calculation is similar. Indeed, after using the proper-time gauge the function $`F_{|n+\varphi |}`$ becomes

$`F_{|n+\varphi |}`$ $`=`$ (36)
$`{\displaystyle }d^2p{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d\lambda \mathrm{exp}[`$ $`i`$ $`p_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }x^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}(p^2+m^2)]J_{|n+\varphi |}({\displaystyle \frac{rr^{^{}}}{\lambda }}).`$ (37)
where $`\lambda =N(0)(tt^{^{}})`$ with $`N(0)`$ the einbein.

If we use the Poisson summation formula, then in both the relativistic as well as in the non relativistic case, the Green function is

$$G[x,x^{^{}}]=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{2i\pi n\varphi }K_n,$$
(38)
where $`K_n`$ is defined as

$$K_n=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega (i)^{|\omega |}e^{i\omega \varphi }F_{|\omega |},$$
(39)
and, as a consequence, the wave function becomes

$$\psi (x)=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{2i\pi n\varphi }\phi _n(x),$$
(40)
with

$$\phi _n(x)=𝑑yG_n[x,y]\psi (y),$$
(41)
being $`\phi _n`$ and $`G_n[x,y]`$, respectively, the wave and Green functions for the n-th homotopy class .

Thus, from (40) one see that the relativistic character of the system is contained in $`K_n`$ and only the exponential factor, which does not depend on the energy, is responsible for the fringe pattern. This result reflects the topological nature of the commutative Aharonov-Bohm effect. However, our formula (33) show us that the noncommutative Aharonov-Bohm effect is radically different because the fringe pattern must change when the electrons are getting higher energies.


text:
# High time-resolution observations of the Vela pulsar

## 1. Introduction

The Vela pulsar is one of the closest and brightest radio pulsars known. Polarization observations made shortly after its discovery showed that it is highly linearly polarized and that the position angle of the radiation followed an S-shape curve as a function of pulse longitude (Radhakrishnan & Cooke 1969). This showed that the radio emission was related to the geometry of the magnetic field lines near the pole. The rotating vector model (RVM) of Radhakrishnan & Cooke has been extensively used in a large number of pulsars to obtain the spin axis - magnetic axis and the viewing angle - magnetic axis geometries. In the Vela pulsar, the angle between the spin and magnetic axes, $`\alpha `$ is estimated to lie between 60 and 90, and the impact angle, $`\beta `$ is $`6^{}`$ (Krishnamohan & Downs 1983 (hereafter KD83); Lyne & Manchester 1988; Rankin 1993).

In the only detailed single pulse study of Vela to have appeared in the (recent) literature, KD83 observed 87000 pulses at 2.3 GHz with a time resolution including dispersion smearing of 750$`\mu `$s. Their main conclusion was that the pulse profile consists of four different components which were emitted at different heights in the magnetosphere. They also found that the pulse shape depended on the intensity with the strongest pulses arriving early with respect to the average profile.

In some pulsars, the S-shaped sweep of polarization is broken by one or more jumps of $`90^{}`$. These are known as ‘orthogonal’ jumps (Backer & Rankin 1980). It is generally believed that emission from two orthogonally polarized modes are superposed (McKinnon & Stinebring 1998). At a given pulse longitude the dominant mode then determines the position angle. In the Vela pulsar, KD83 found that only one mode was present at all pulse longitudes for all 87000 pulses.

Sub-pulse structure is ubiquitous in pulsars on a number of different timescales. So-called microstructure is often seen and can have both a typical width (generally a few tens of $`\mu `$s) and be quasi-periodic in a given pulsar (e.g. Lange et al. 1998). Surprisingly, for the Vela pulsar no microstructure analysis has ever been published.

The phenomenon of giant pulses has only been detected in two pulsars, the Crab pulsar (e.g. Lundgren et al. 1995) and PSR B1937+21 (Cognard et al. 1996). The working definition of giant pulses is a flux density in a single pulse which is more than 10 times the mean flux density. Both the Crab and PSR B1937+21 show occasional pulses in excess of 1000 times the mean pulsed flux. In the vast majority of pulsars, very few if any single pulse fluxes exceed 10 times the mean flux density. The Crab is one of the youngest known pulsars whereas PSR B1937+21 is a millisecond pulsar with very rapid rotation rate. As Cognard et al. (1996) point out, the common feature these pulsars share is the highest (estimated) magnetic field at their light cylinder, although whether this is related to the physics of the giant pulses is unclear. In this parameter, Vela ranks 22nd in the current catalogue of 965 pulsars.

## 2. Observations and Data Reduction

As part of a project investigating single pulses from a large sample of pulsars, we observed the Vela pulsar at two different observing frequencies between 2000 March 14 and 17 using the 64-m Parkes radiotelescope. The center frequencies of the observations were 660 and 1413 MHz; at these frequencies the system equivalent flux density is 120 and 26 Jy respectively. Each receiver consists of two orthogonal feeds sensitive to linear polarization. The signals are down-converted and amplified before being passed into the backend. The backend, CPSR, is an enhanced version of the Caltech Baseband Recorder (Jenet et al. 1997). It consists of an analogue dual-channel down-converter and digitizer card which yields 2-bit quadrature samples at 20 MHz. The data stream is written to DLT for subsequent off-line processing allowing all 4 Stokes parameters to be computed. At both frequencies, 30 minutes of data or $``$20000 pulses were recorded. Before each observation, a 90-s observation of a pulsed signal, directly injected into the receiver at a $`45^{}`$ angle to the feed, is made. This enables instrumental polarization to be corrected. Observations of the flux calibrator Hydra A were made at each of the observing frequencies; this allows absolute fluxes to be obtained.

The data were processed off-line using a workstation cluster at the Swinburne Supercomputer Centre. Data reduction involves coherent de-dispersion (Hankins & Rickett 1975) and includes quantization error corrections as described by Jenet & Anderson (1998). The data are folded at the apparent topocentric period of the pulsar and the full Stokes profiles for each pulse are written to disk. Flux calibration and instrumental calibration are then carried out using information contained in the observation of the pulsed (calibration) signal. The data in each frequency channel is corrected for the rotation measure of the pulsar and all the frequency channels are then summed to produce the final profile. At 1413 MHz there are 2048 time-bins per pulse period for an effective time resolution of 44 $`\mu `$s, comparable to the scatter broadening at this frequency. At the lower frequency, the time resolution is 88 $`\mu `$s, but the scatter broadening dominates and the effective time resolution is $``$0.5 ms at 660 MHz.

## 3. Results

### 3.1. Microstructure

As far as we are aware, the literature has not pointed out the existence of microstructure in the Vela pulsar, generally because the time resolution of the observations has been too coarse. Figure 1 shows ‘typical’ single pulses from Vela at 1413 MHz with a time resolution of 44$`\mu `$s. Microstructure is clearly seen. This microstructure is ubiquitous in virtually every pulse at 1413 MHz. We conclude that the smooth pulse profiles shown by KD83 are an artifact of their coarse time resolution.

At lower observing frequencies, pulse scatter broadening smooths over the microstructure features, although they are still visible in the 660 MHz data. A complete investigation of the microstructure in the Vela pulsar will be presented elsewhere (Kramer et al. 2001).

### 3.2. Pulse Intensity

Figure 2 shows a histogram of the mean flux density for the 20085 pulses recorded at 1413 MHz. More than 95% of the pulses are within a factor of 2 of the mean flux density, 99.5% are within a factor of 3 and there are no pulses greater than 10 times the mean flux density. This distribution is typical of many, perhaps most pulsars. There are no giant pulses in Vela in the same sense as those in the Crab pulsar and PSR B1937+21. It is well known that Vela does not show any nulls (e.g. KD83; Biggs 1986), and indeed we also see no evidence of nulling in the $``$40,000 pulses collected at the two observing frequencies. The weakest single pulses have continuum flux densities of 1.3 and 0.3 Jy at 660 and 1413 MHz respectively.

We computed the modulation index, $`\sigma _i`$/$`m_i`$ where $`\sigma _i`$ is the rms and $`m_i`$ the mean intensity in the $`i`$th bin, for each bin in the pulse profile. As also shown by KD83, the modulation index is low in the centre of the pulse profile and increases towards the wings. To show this effect in a more striking way, we computed the quantity $`R_i`$=(MAXi$`m_i`$)/$`\sigma _i`$ where MAXi is the maximum intensity in the $`i`$th bin. $`R_i`$ as a function of pulse phase is shown in Figure 3. It can be seen that the value of $`R`$ is consistent with Gaussian statistics in the centre of the pulse but that both the leading and trailing edges of the pulse have individual pulses which are extremely high amplitude with respect to the mean intensity. A very similar result is seen at 660 MHz. The three main features in this plot will be discussed in more detail below.

### 3.3. Orthogonal Modes

The sweep of the position angle across the pulse in the Vela pulsar shows the characteristic S shape without any of the ‘orthogonal’ jumps seen in a large number of other pulsars. The swing of the position angle is well fitted by the RVM and shows that the line-of-sight cuts very close to the magnetic axis, i.e. $`\alpha 55^{}`$ and $`\beta 6^{}`$. To investigate whether any individual pulse shows emission in the orthogonal mode we compared the position angle of each bin in each pulse to that of the position angle in the integrated profile at the same pulse phase. Of the 40,000 pulses recorded at 660 and 1413 MHz, none shows evidence for orthogonal mode emission in the region of the profile’s peak, consistent with the results of KD83 at 2295 MHz.

However, investigating the feature centered near phase +4 ms in Figure 3, we discovered that it is a result of only 21 pulses at 1413 MHz. These pulses not only exhibit integrated flux densities more than 10 times that of the integrated profile at this longitude, but they also have a consistently small fractional polarization. Similarly, at 660 MHz there are 23 pulses with the same characteristics. Of these, all had low net polarization but, where polarization was present it was orthogonal to the integrated polarization at this pulse phase. Figure 4 shows the profile resulting from the summation of the 21 pulses taken at 1413 MHz. The large intensity of this ‘bump’ feature compared to the integrated profile and the orthogonal mode emission can clearly be seen. We also note that the circular polarization is negative under the bump emission and this is of the opposite sign to that in the integrated profile, as is commonly seen in orthogonal mode emission. Introducing a jump of $`90^{}`$ in the position angle of the bump region results in the identical results for $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ when fitting the RVM.

The midpoint of the ‘bump’ emission occurs 3.86 ms after the main pulse peak at 1413 MHz and 4.37 ms afterwards at 660 MHz, a significant difference. Thus the profile is wider at 660 MHz than at 1413 MHz. The ‘bump’ component is also stronger relative to the main pulse at 1413 MHz than at 660 MHz by nearly a factor of 2. This frequency dependence is in the direction expected in the radius-to-frequency mapping paradigm. Such a high intensity, relatively rarely-appearing component has not been detected in any other pulsar although the interpulse in PSR B0950+08 may show similar properties.

As stated above, at 1413 MHz there are 21 occurrences of the bump component in the $``$20000 pulses. A look at the pulse numbers, however, reveals a far from random sequence. There are 7 cases in which the differences in pulse number between appearances of the bump component is less than 300. Of these, 5 pairs have intervals either in the range 130-140 pulses or 260-280 pulses and other related harmonics are also present. We computed fluctuation spectra from the single pulses, producing results which are somewhat different to those of KD83, probably due to our much better time resolution. Including 15360 pulses in our analysis, we indeed find periodicities of $`0.007`$ and $`0.025`$ cycles/period, i.e. every $`142`$ and $`40`$ pulses, in the ‘bump’ region. These periodicities are significant at the $``$6$`\sigma `$ level. We also detect an even lower frequency feature in the main peak region, which could be associated with a ‘drift’ in micropulses, which we sometimes observe. A longer dataset is required to determine the significance of these features; observations at 1400 and 2400 MHz will be carried out in the near future.

### 3.4. Giant Micro-pulses

At 1413 MHz there are 14 pulses for which $`R>25`$ and which do not occur in the bump region. The individual pulses are shown superimposed in Figure 5. Of these 14, the two which occur earliest in pulse phase are both centered at phase $`2.2`$ ms (relative to the peak of the integrated profile) and are very narrow with a full-width at half-maximum of only $``$50$`\mu `$s. The other 12 pulses have peak phases between $`1.4`$ and $`1.8`$ ms and have typical half-widths of $``$400$`\mu `$s. The brightest of these pulses has a peak flux density in excess of 2500 Jy, more than 40 times the peak flux density in the integrated profile and more than 130 times the mean flux density at this pulse phase. At 660 MHz the results are very similar. One high amplitude pulse is seen at early phases and 19 at phases just prior to the main pulse. The peak amplitudes are again in excess of 2000 Jy, this is only a factor of $``$10 higher than the peak of the main pulse at this frequency.

We call all these features giant micro-pulses : they are not true giant pulses because their mean flux density does not exceed 10 times the mean flux density, but their peak flux densities are very large in absolute terms and they appear far more often than would be expected from any ‘normal’ flux probability distribution. The polarization of these giant micro-pulses is extremely high with a linear fraction close to 100%. Furthermore, the position angle of the polarization is exactly that expected by extrapolating the main position angle swing back to these longitudes. Finally, 13 of the 14 pulses have small negative circular polarization and one has positive circular polarization.

Although KD83 also noted that strong intensity pulses arrived at early phases, they make no explicit mention of single giant pulses. However, they seem to have employed a time-averaging technique which may have had the effect of broadening the giant pulses (because they do not all arrive at the same pulse phase) and reducing their amplitude. Our secondary feature more than 2 ms earlier than the main pulse peak was not covered in their ‘on-pulse’ bins.

## 4. Discussion

If we assume that the line-of-sight crosses the magnetic axis at the peak of the profile, we can compute the emission height at 660 and 1413 MHz by measuring the delay of the steepest swing of the position angle relative to the profile peak (Blaskiewicz et al. 1991; Hibschman & Arons 2000). Using the result of our RVM fits, the delay is 1.3 ms at 660 MHz and 1.04 ms at 1413 MHz leading to emission heights of 98 and 78 km respectively, although the 660 MHz value has a significant error bar due to the scatter broadening. These emission heights are typical in pulsars, and the frequency scaling is also within the range seen in other pulsars (e.g. Kramer et al. 1994). In turn, by assuming dipolar field lines, the emission heights can be used to derive the half-opening angle of the cone, $`\rho =3\sqrt{\pi r_{em}/(2cP)}`$, respectively 13 and 11.6 at the two frequencies.

Knowledge of $`\rho `$ and the viewing geometry can be used to derive the width of the pulse profile. (Normally this process is used in reverse, with the known pulse width used to derive $`\rho `$). For $`\alpha 55^{}`$ and $`\beta 6^{}`$, the pulse full-width should be $`30^{}`$ or $`7.4`$ ms. Even when considering that this width is to be measured at a very low intensity level, it seems much larger than observed in the integrated profile. However, the emission from the ‘bump’ component now extends the pulse profile towards the trailing edge, matching the expected width quite nicely. Luo & Melrose (2001) have recently proposed that the trailing edges of wide cones have their emission suppressed due to cyclotron absorption within the pulsar magnetosphere. Such a mechanism may explain why these ‘bump’ pulses are seen so rarely.

The presented calculation assumes that the magnetic axis coincides with the pulse peak, tempting the speculation that we are ‘missing‘ the leading edge of the cone. Perhaps extending to a phase of $`5`$ ms, the cone may not emit at all or only very rarely. We note that the giant micro-pulses do increase the pulse width on the leading edge but only by 1 ms or so.

One could also assume that, with the extra bump component, we are seeing the full pulse width. In this case, the magnetic pole crossing would be close to phase $`+2`$ ms. However, this reasoning does not fit well with a number of the observations. First, the steepest swing of the position angle sweep occurs prior to this point. Also, the frequency dependence of the pulse width and the spectral index of the various features show that the ‘main’ pulse is more likely to be the core component and the ‘bump’ more likely to be conal (e.g. Kramer et al. 1994).

Considering the apparent two groups of giant micro-pulses, it is unclear whether we are dealing with two separate phenomenon or whether the small number statistics are preventing us from seeing these features at all pulse phases near $`2`$ ms. However, the giant micro-pulses at the earliest phases are of much shorter duration than those occuring later, and the same pattern is seen at 660 MHz as at 1413 MHz. What is certain is that they all lead the main pulse; there are no such features anywhere after the main pulse peak.

These giant micro-pulses seem to have more in common with the giant pulses in PSR B1937+21 than with the Crab giant pulses. In the former, the giant pulses all occur at the same pulse phase, whereas in the Crab the giant pulses can arrive anywhere within the pulse window. In Vela, the giant micro-pulses all arrive within a narrow phase range and lead the main pulse (unlike in PSR B1937+21 where the giant pulses lag the main pulse).

We thank R. Edwards for help with the observations. The Australia Telescope is funded by the Commonwealth of Australia for operation as a National Facility managed by the CSIRO.