format: text

text:
# Large pion pole in 𝑍_𝑆^{𝑀𝑂𝑀}/𝑍_𝑃^{𝑀𝑂𝑀} from Wilson action data

## 1 Introduction

In a recent paper , using data222 To calculate $`Z_\psi `$, we have also used the propagator data at $`\beta =6.0`$ kindly communicated by the Rome group.  from the QCDSF collaboration at $`\beta =6.0`$ and $`c_{SW}=1.769`$ for three different values of $`\kappa `$ , we have shown that the quark pseudoscalar vertex contains an unexpectedly large contribution from the Goldstone boson pole, and that this contribution accounts for a third of $`Z_P`$ at $`2\text{GeV}`$. Qualitative indication of this large Goldstone contribution had been noted previously by the QCDSF group , and by the Rome group . A large quantitative estimate has been found independently by JLQCD  with staggered fermions.

Giusti and Vladikas  have recently presented a criticism of our paper; they have reexamined this problem using Wilson data at two values of $`\beta =6.2,6.4`$, and have come to the conclusion that the Goldstone boson term would be below the level of discretisation errors "around $`p=1/a`$", and therefore not significant. However, they do not compare their data with our result $``$ given at $`2\text{GeV}`$ ($`ap1`$ at $`\beta =6.0`$)$``$ but rather consider higher momenta $`p=3.3\text{or}4.6\text{GeV}`$ ($`sin^2(ap)=0.8`$ in their Fig. 4 and Table 1), where of course the Goldstone is much smaller333One should not speak of the magnitude of the Goldstone at $`p=1/a`$ independently of the value of $`\beta `$, since this magnitude depends on $`p`$, and $`p=1/a`$ depends of course on $`\beta `$. We have never spoken ourselves of such a thing, as stated in the abstract of , but of its magnitude at $`2\text{GeV}`$ ($`\beta =6.0`$).. We present here an analysis based on a set of previously published data of the same origin , which shows that, contrary to their objections, the Goldstone boson contribution in Wilson data is in fact completely compatible with our previous estimate, and much above discretisation errors at $`2\text{GeV}`$ and probably at notably higher momenta444 The present study could presumably be improved using the raw data of , which were unfortunately not available to us up to now. We now hope to improve our results in the future with the help of the authors of . .

The present study in fact improves our determination of the Goldstone pole. First of all, the set of Wilson data analysed here is obtained at larger values of $`\beta `$, up to $`\beta =6.4`$, where discretisation errors should become really small at moderate $`p2\text{GeV}`$ ($`a^2p^20.25`$ at $`\beta =6.4`$), and perhaps better than with the previous $`\beta =6.0`$ data  with ALPHA SW improved action. Secondly, we are now in a position to give a reliable estimate of the discretisation errors by considering the evolution of the parameters with $`\beta `$. Thirdly, thanks to the $`\beta =6.2,6.4`$ data, we can improve the large momentum tail of our analysis of power corrections. Finally, we shall also improve our previous work by the inclusion of statistical errors.

Having shown that the Wilson data confirm rather beautifully our first estimate, exhibiting *a remarkable stability of the effect with increasing* $`\beta `$, we shall conclude by a critical analysis of the procedures of  which lead to erroneous conclusions.

## 2 Previous results on the Goldstone pole in the pseudoscalar vertex

### 2.1 Our previous results

The theoretical expectation from the continuum is that a pole in $`1/m_q`$ must be present in the pseudoscalar quark vertex at $`q=0`$, as a consequence of the existence of the Goldstone boson. In , we analysed the lattice data kindly communicated by QCDSF collaboration  for the PS vertex at $`\beta =6.0`$ with SW action at $`c_{SW}=1.769`$, at several $`\kappa `$, combined with propagator data from the Rome group, at the same $`\beta `$ with the same action. We have obtained, in the MOM renormalisation scheme, a Goldstone-like fit of $`\left(Z_P^1\right)_{MOM}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_P/Z_\psi `$ as function of $`\kappa `$. Namely, we have shown that, at $`ap=1`$ and $`\beta =6.0`$, i.e. around $`1.92`$ GeV:

$`Z_P^1(2\text{GeV})=1.88+{\displaystyle \frac{0.023}{am_q}}.`$ (1)
The first term on the r.h.s. is the ($`\beta `$-dependent) short-distance contribution. The Goldstone pole corresponds to the second term555 Recently, on investigating the quark propagator and the Ward identity relating the PS and the propagator , we have improved the precision of the determination of $`Z_P`$,and obtained similar numbers. However, we shall stick here to our first determination, to which  is referring., i.e. a pole in $`m_q`$ at $`m_q=0`$. We have also checked that, as function of $`p^2`$, one has the expected behavior: the short distance term is compatible with a logarithmic dependence $`\left[\alpha _s(p^2)\right]^{4/11}`$ and the Goldstone term has a $`1/p^2`$ decrease. Converting to physical units, with $`a^1=1.9\text{GeV}`$, one obtains:

$`Z_P^1(p^2)=Z_P^1(shortdistance)+{\displaystyle \frac{0.158\text{GeV}^3}{m_qp^2}}`$ (2)
Of course, the effect of the uncertainty due to the error on $`a^1`$ could be relevant for the Goldstone contribution since it is $`a^3`$. Despite this fact, and despite the presence of other uncertainties, it seems difficult to escape the conclusion that the magnitude of the Goldstone term is large at the smallest quark mass (around $`m_q=50`$ MeV) and at $`2`$ GeV: $`30\%`$ of the total $`Z_P^1=2.7`$ at $`1.9`$ GeV, although *it is decreasing rapidly with increasing* $`p^2`$. The result can be translated into an estimate of the Georgi-Politzer mass at 1.9 GeV in the chiral limit: $`m_R=34`$ MeV.

### 2.2 Related findings of JLQCD and ALPHA

Our evaluation (1,2) is quantitatively supported by the remarkable JLQCD results on the pseudoscalar vertex and the mass operator with staggered fermions . These results are important as they benefit from two advantages: they go down to very small quark masses (about 20 MeV), and they have, in principle, small discretisation errors. The phenomenon appears very stable with respect to $`\beta `$ as they considered $`\beta =6.0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}6.2}`$ and 6.4.

The above estimate of the Goldstone term is also supported by the estimate of the ALPHA group for the short distance $`Z_P`$ , which must be considered as very solid, since they work at ultra-short distances, and since their discretisation errors are very well controlled. When their short-distance result is converted into the MOM scheme666The initial idea of this conversion is due to Vittorio Lubicz. and evolved perturbatively (at 3 loops ) down to $`2`$ GeV, one obtains $`Z_P^1(2\text{GeV})=1.8`$. This result is close to the first term of Eq.(1), and *quite different from the total* $`Z_P^1(2\text{GeV})2.52.7`$: *the difference must be filled by the Goldstone boson pole, unless there be incredibly large discretisation errors in the total $`Z_P^1`$* *.* The latter is very unlikely in view of the following discussion of Wilson data.

## 3 The Goldstone pole in Wilson data

The most valuable part of  is the introduction of the ratio $`(Z_P/Z_S)^{RI/MOM}=Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$ and, on the other hand, of some interesting Ward-Takahashi identities. Let us emphasize indeed that $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$ is a scale-dependent quantity, in contrast to $`(Z_P/Z_S)^{WI}`$, but with a $`p^2`$ dependence due only to power corrections . This gives it an important advantage over $`Z_P`$ which necessarily contains a purely perturbative contribution with logarithmic behaviour, complicating the determination of the power term.

We therefore discuss $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$ as the best probe of the Goldstone pole, which should be seen as a $`1/m_qp^2`$ term in the inverse, $`Z_S^{MOM}/Z_P^{MOM}`$. Moreover, we shall show later that, according to equation (19) of , a $`p^2`$ change in $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$ can only be due to the presence of a Goldstone $`1/m_q`$ pole. The physical source of any departure from the $`p^2\mathrm{}`$ asymptotic value must then be a Goldstone contribution. That it is present is recognized in ; we differ on the estimate of its magnitude.

The first question to be answered is whether the effect of the Goldstone pole has the large magnitude that we have estimated, or whether it is sub-dominant with respect to discretisation errors already at $`p=2`$ GeV, as claimed in . This can be answered only by considering the behaviour of $`Z_S^{MOM}/Z_P^{MOM}`$around $`2`$ GeV, or, in a scale independent manner, by comparing the coefficient of the power corrections to the one we have given in Eq. (2).

The second point concerns the estimate of the discretisation error itself: its magnitude can be estimated by examining the stability of the result as a function of $`\beta `$ with *fixed physical parameters**.*

### 3.1 Methodological considerations

#### 3.1.1 Use of physical units and comparison of different actions

We have to compare different sets of data, with different actions and different $`\beta `$’s. It is a delicate task, especially for scale-dependent quantities. Since the Goldstone pole residue is a physical effect $``$ although perhaps gauge dependent $``$ seen in the renormalised pseudoscalar ($`PS`$) vertex, a minimum requirement is to compare the results at identical momenta for the same quark mass, not at identical $`ap`$ if $`\beta `$ varies, as done in ref. , e.g. when making statements about the magnitude of the Goldstone as compared to ours, at “$`p=1/a`$". Our Fig. 1 below illustrates the effect of comparing data in terms of $`ap`$ instead of $`p`$: the data at various $`\beta `$’s, which show large discrepancies in terms of $`ap`$ (Fig. 1 a), almost superpose in terms of physical $`p`$ (Fig. 1 b)777This is also quite visible in Figs. 3 to 5 of ..

> Figure 1: (a) the data from  for $`Z_S^{MOM}/Z_P^{MOM}`$ for three values of $`\beta `$, as function of the lattice $`a^2p^2`$ and (b) our fits to these data represented in physical units.

The comparison of data from the same action at different $`\beta `$ requires only the ratio of the lattice units $`a`$, which are rather well determined. When we consider the absolute magnitude of the Goldstone term, the uncertainty becomes larger since the strength (i.e. the coefficient of $`1/(m_qp^2)`$ ) is proportional to $`a^3`$.

Furthermore, a dependence on the action, and therefrom an additional cutoff dependence, is to be expected even on the the finite $`Z`$’s as shown by lattice perturbation theory. In particular, the Wilson term and the clover term induce contributions to finite $`Z`$’s of the form $`Cg^2=C6.0/\beta `$, with a coefficient $`C`$ dependent on the action. These contributions are quite sizable $``$ even for large $`\beta `$, close to the continuum. On the other hand, one may expect that the non-perturbative Goldstone part is independent of the action, since it is a long distance effect. Both these expectations are confirmed in the present analysis.

#### 3.1.2 Discretisation errors

At a given $`\beta `$, one can appreciate discretisation errors, as done in , by observing the discrepancies between various quantities which should have been equal, for instance between various estimates of $`(Z_P/Z_S)^{WI}`$, from various Ward identities ($`WI`$), or else from the asymptotic value of $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$. We shall return to their conclusions at the end of the paper.

However, since one has a series of values for $`\beta `$, it is possible to do better; by observing the variation of a quantity when one increases $`\beta `$, one can estimate its discretisation error separately. Indeed, the discretisation error will then correspond to the deviation by powers of $`a`$ from what is expected close to the continuum : namely, as we said, one expects a cutoff independent Goldstone pole, and a very slow dependence of the perturbative part of $`Z_P/Z_S`$ itself through $`g^2`$. Note that these expectations amount, on the whole, to saying that $`Z_P/Z_S`$ should be rather stable with respect to $`\beta `$, on the limited range of available $`\beta `$ values, and we will refer to this, from now on as "stability"; the discretisation errors can then be estimated as the deviation from this stability.

Such a study of the $`\beta `$ dependence is indeed possible for the Goldstone contribution to $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$ since one has three $`\beta `$’s, and to some extent for $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$ itself, although one must then take into account the dependence expected from $`𝒪(g^2)`$ corrections, which is very slow, and one must make sure that the comparisons are performed for the same parameter values in physical units.

#### 3.1.3 Extrapolating to $`m_q=0`$

In the presence of a Goldstone pole, and because of its $`1/m_q`$ behavior, there is no $`m_q0`$ limit at all for $`1/Z_P^{MOM}`$, and there is the trivial one $`0`$ for $`Z_P^{MOM}`$, or $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$. One can define a chiral limit only after subtracting the Goldstone pole.

On the other hand, if, as in , one considers $`Z_P^{MOM}`$ as it is, without subtraction of the pole, and if one then makes as usual a linear fit in $`m_q`$, the extrapolation to $`m_q=0`$ is not the chiral limit. Two questions then arise :
1) Is such a linear fit possible, given that the real behaviour includes a $`1/m_q`$ term?
2) What is the meaning of the quantity obtained by this linear extrapolation?

As to question 1), a fit to $`1/m_q`$ linear in $`m_q`$ seems possible for the values of $`m_q`$ reached in standard numerical simulations, at least for $`p^2`$ not too small, but is not with smaller masses, as reached by JLQCD. As to question 2), we show below that in fact the linear fit used in  gives to a good approximation $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$ at an effective mass $`m_{eff}(\beta )`$ which can be determined by the various masses used in the extrapolation and which is close to the lowest mass.

### 3.2 Results

First of all, the extrapolated results of  can then still be used to observe the $`1/p^2`$ power behavior of the Goldstone pole, and a fit in $`1/p^2`$ will first allow us to quantify this contribution. Secondly, we shall determine $`m_{eff}(\beta )`$ and this will enable us to observe the typical Goldstone sensitivity to the mass: the apparent discretisation errors are in fact due to the hidden $`m_{eff}(\beta )`$ dependence. Finally, we shall be able to confirm the quantitative estimate of the Goldstone coefficient we have made previously, and to give an estimate of the true discretisation errors in Wilson data.

#### 3.2.1 Large power corrections

To display the power corrections, we perform a fit on the Wilson $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$ ratio, given with its statistical errors in , and shown in Fig. 1. Note that the momentum variable is the true $`p`$, not $`\overline{p}=sin(ap)/a`$ as in . The values of the parameters corresponding to the data are given in Table 1.    $`\beta `$ 6.0 6.2 6.4  1/a (GeV) 2.258$`\pm `$0.050 2.993$`\pm `$0.094 4.149$`\pm `$0.161  $`\kappa _1`$ 0.1530 0.1510 0.1488  $`\kappa _2`$ 0.1540 0.1515 0.1492  $`\kappa _3`$ 0.1550 0.1520 0.1496  $`\kappa _4`$  0.1526 0.1500  $`\kappa _{crit}`$ 0.15683 0.15337 0.15058

> Table 1: the parameters corresponding to the data analysed here, from .

One can clearly see in these data the presence of a pole contribution at small $`p^2`$. To quantify it, we fit the points at each $`\beta `$ separately, to the form:

$`Z_S^{MOM}/Z_P^{MOM}=a_{S/P}(\beta )+{\displaystyle \frac{b(\beta )}{p^2}}`$ (3)
with $`b`$ in GeV2 and $`p`$ in GeV. The results of this fit are shown in Fig. 1(b) and in Table 2.

The $`\chi ^2/dof`$ is rather high, but this is due to the points at high $`p^2`$ (this can be verified: cutting out high values of $`p^2`$ reduces the $`\chi ^2/dof`$ substantially), where the discretisation errors and/or the logarithmic corrections should be the largest. As expected from BPT, the $`p^2`$-independent term is remarkably stable with $`\beta `$ (even at 6.0), $`a_{S/P}1.14`$. The coefficient of the power correction is less stable, changing by about 15%, but is consistently very large. Hence $`b`$ is clearly incompatible with zero, and gives a very large effect of around $`30\%`$ on the total $`Z_S^{MOM}/Z_P^{MOM}`$ at $`2`$ GeV.

| $`\beta `$ | 6.0 | 6.2 | 6.4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`a_{S/P}`$ | 1.1414$`\pm `$0.0072 | 1.1266 $`\pm `$ 0.0082 | 1.1364$`\pm `$0.0049 |
| $`b`$ | 1.8710$`\pm `$0.063 | 2.8996$`\pm `$0.15 | 2.5844$`\pm `$0.15 |
| $`\chi ^2/dof`$ | 1.49 | 1.22 | 1.83 |

> Table 2: the values of the coefficients of Eq. (3) fit to the data of .

The consistency of the values of $`b`$ at $`\beta =6.2`$ and $`\beta =6.4`$ shows that this contribution is much beyond the discretisation error on $`Z_S^{MOM}/Z_P^{MOM}`$. In fact, these can be estimated to about 2% from the difference between $`Z_S^{MOM}/Z_P^{MOM}`$ at 6.2 and 6.4 at $`p2`$ GeV.

The difference of $`b`$ at $`\beta =6.2`$ and $`\beta =6.4`$ might be taken as indicating the discretisation artefact *on the coefficient itself**.* However, we show in the next section that even this difference is most probably a physical effect, and that the real discretisation error on the power correction is still smaller.

#### 3.2.2 Power corrections are of Goldstone origin

Having proven the existence of large power corrections, stable with $`\beta `$, and therefore probably not artefacts of discretisation, we must now prove that these come from a Goldstone boson. This is in agreement with the dominance of the divergence of axial current (the pseudoscalar density) at small pion mass, but in fact we can show that the data itself favours this interpretation.

However, we would like first to comment on the dominance of the Goldstone, and, for that purpose, to establish the connection with the quantity $`WIq`$ discussed in : power corrections to $`Z_S^{MOM}/Z_P^{MOM}`$ can originate only from the Goldstone boson pole $`1/m_q`$, if one is close enough to the chiral limit.

We start with the Ward identity given in equation (19) of :

$$(\frac{Z_S}{Z_P})^{WI}=\frac{m_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_P(ap;am_1,am_1)m_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_P(ap;am_2,am_2)}{(m_1m_2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_S(ap;am_1,am_2)}$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_P`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S`$ are the bare vertex functions. If we assume that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_P`$ has a Goldstone contribution, whereas $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S`$ doesn’t, we get:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_P=A_P(p^2)+\frac{B_P(p^2)}{m_q}+𝒪(m_q)$$

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_S=A_S(p^2)(1+\lambda _S(p^2)m_q)$$

We see that the r.h.s. of Eq. (4) must then be $`A_P(p^2)/A_S(p^2)+𝒪(m_q)`$. As $`(Z_S/Z_P)^{WI}`$ is a constant, we have:

$$\frac{A_P(p^2)}{A_S(p^2)}=C+O(m_q)$$

with $`C`$ a constant, independent of $`p^2`$.

But in the MOM scheme, the ratio is given by:

$$\frac{Z_S^{MOM}}{Z_P^{MOM}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_P}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_S}$$

Hence :

$$\frac{Z_S^{MOM}}{Z_P^{MOM}}=C+(m_q)^1\frac{B_P(p^2)}{A_S(p^2)}(m_q)^0\frac{\lambda _S(p^2)B_P(p^2)}{A_S(p^2)}+O(m_q)$$

We see that the power corrections are dominated by the Goldstone pole $`1/m_q`$. There seems to be possible additional $`O\left((m_q)^0\right)`$ power corrections, although $`\lambda _S(p^2)`$ is probably small888This $`(m_q)^0`$ term was ommitted in the initial version of our paper. We thank D. Becirevic for having helped us realise this. That this $`\lambda _S`$ is indeed small is implied by the observations of the QCDSF group for Wilson action, hep-lat/9807044, p.16 ; for Kogut-Susskind action, it is striking in the Fig 1 of the JLQCD paper, hep-lat/9901019 ; for ALPHA action, we thank D. Becirevic for confirming that $`Z_S`$ is incredibly stable with respect to variations of $`m_q`$ over a very large range of light masses. . These are themselves roughly proportional to the residue of the Goldstone term, since $`\lambda _S(p^2)`$ is not expected to have quick variation with $`p^2`$. At least, they are connected with the presence of the Goldstone pole, and we can say that all the power corrections, to this order $`O(m_q^0)`$ included, originate in the Goldstone pole. In our fits, we shall neglect the $`\lambda _S(p^2)`$ term in Eq. (5), as well as the smaller $`O(m_q)`$ terms.

We see also that the the difference :

$$(\frac{Z_S}{Z_P})^{WI}\frac{Z_S^{MOM}}{Z_P^{MOM}}=\frac{B_P(p^2)}{m_qA_S(p^2)}\frac{\lambda _S(p^2)B_P(p^2)}{A_S(p^2)}+O(m_q)$$
(5)
is entirely due to the Goldstone boson.

#### 3.2.3 The effective quark mass; Goldstone fit

If the $`O(m_q)`$ corrections are not large, the linear extrapolation to $`\kappa _{crit}`$ which is usually performed amounts to making a linear fit in $`m_q`$ to $`1/m_q`$, for the 3 or 4 values of $`m_q`$ with $`2am_q=1/\kappa 1/\kappa _{crit}`$. The extrapolation of the resulting straight line to $`m_q=0`$ (or to $`\kappa _{crit})`$ then defines the inverse of an effective mass $`1/m_{eff}(\beta )`$. The extrapolated $`Z_S^{MOM}/Z_P^{MOM}`$ is thus really calculated, not at the chiral limit, but at $`m_{eff}(\beta ),`$ and has the form:

$$\frac{Z_S^{MOM}}{Z_P^{MOM}}=a_{S/P}(\beta )+\frac{b^{}}{m_{eff}(\beta )p^2},$$
(6)
in other words:

$`b={\displaystyle \frac{b^{}}{m_{eff}(\beta )}}`$ , (7)
where $`b^{}`$ is a constant, i.e. a number independent of $`p`$, $`m_q`$ and $`\beta `$, which we call the Goldstone strength.

As long as the Goldstone term is not too large, this result is maintained to a good approximation when the linear extrapolation is made on the inverse, $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$, which is what is actually done in .

We show in Fig. 2(a) and in Table 3 the result of this extrapolation for the values of $`\kappa `$ given in Table 1. As we see, $`m_{eff}(\beta )`$ is close to the lowest mass used in the extrapolation.

| $`\beta `$ | 6.0 | 6.2 | 6.4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`m_{eff}(\beta )`$ (GeV) | 0.0591 | 0.0400 | 0.0434 |
| $`b^{}`$ (GeV3) | 0.1106$`\pm 0.004`$ | 0.116$`\pm 0.006`$ | 0.112$`\pm 0.006`$ |

> Table 3: the values of the effective mass defined by the linear extrapolation, and the resulting values of the coefficient of the Goldstone term.

> Figure 2: (a) The three straight lines extrapolate the values of $`1/m_q`$ at each $`\beta `$. Their intersection with the $`m=0`$ ordinate defines $`1/m_{eff}(\beta )`$ and (b) the result of a joint fit to all data, after the $`1/m_{eff}(\beta )`$ dependence of the Goldstone term has been taken into account.

We can now deduce $`b^{}`$ from the fit to $`b`$ calculated previously: $`b^{}=bm_{eff}(\beta )`$. The striking result, shown in Table 3, is that the rather different values of $`b`$ obtained previously in Table 2 correspond to very good approximation to the same $`b^{}`$, i.e., the Goldstone strengths extracted from the data are almost the same, and the difference of the $`b`$’s is mainly due to the different values of $`m_{eff}(\beta )`$ for each $`\beta `$, which are due to the choice of values of $`\kappa `$.

This effect is also evident in Fig. 5 of  and in our Fig. 1(b) , where $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$ at $`\beta =6.0`$, with $`p`$ in physical units, deviates significantly from its value at the higher $`\beta `$’s, at small momenta. Such a deviation cannot be explained by discretisation effects, which are not confined at small momenta. The natural explanation is that the effective mass is notably higher than at higher $`\beta `$, and that the apparent deviation of $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$ at $`\beta =6.0`$ is *almost entirely due to the quark mass dependence of the Goldstone effect*, and disappears when results are compared not only at same physical $`p`$, but also at same physical quark mass. The typical quark mass dependence of the Goldstone had been hidden by the extrapolation procedure, but has reappeared as a completely spurious discretisation effect. The true Goldstone origin of this fictitious discretisation effect is revealed by its $`1/(p^2m_q)`$ behaviour.

We are now in a position to perform a joint fit to the data at the three values of $`\beta `$, with the variable $`1/(m_{eff}(\beta )p^2)`$ instead of $`1/p^2`$. We find, with a $`\chi ^2/dof=1.39`$:

$`Z_S^{MOM}/Z_P^{MOM}=a_{S/P}(\beta )+{\displaystyle \frac{(0.112\pm 0.025)\text{GeV}^3}{m_{eff}(\beta )p^2}}`$ (8)
The dependence of $`a_{S/P}`$ on $`\beta `$ is very weak: we find $`1/a_{S/P}(\beta )=0.88\pm 0.05`$, $`0.88\pm 0.04`$ and $`0.88\pm 0.03`$ respectively at $`\beta =6.0`$, $`6.2`$ and $`6.4`$.

The Goldstone contribution is stable, compatible at the 3 $`\beta `$’s within statistical errors, and very large when $`p2`$ GeV and $`m_q50`$ MeV. Note that these results, shown in Fig. 2(b), are in direct contradiction with the conclusions of .

The mildness of cutoff dependence is manifest in the possibility of making such a good common fit to the data for the three different $`\beta `$’s. This possibility also gives strong support to the Goldstone interpretation, since it would not be possible without accounting for the $`1/m_q`$ dependence.

#### 3.2.4 $`a^2p^2`$ discretisation errors

From the fit (8), we can deduce the asymptotic value of $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}=1/a_{S/P}0.88`$, close to the BPT result. This should be equal to the value given by the Ward identity (4), from which however one gets a lower result $`0.790.80`$ .

In fact, there seems to be a $`p`$-dependent effect, which is signaled by the fact that the strength of the Goldstone term becomes slightly lower and that the $`\chi ^2`$ improves when cutting off the large $`a^2p^2`$ points.

Also, correspondingly, the right-hand side of Eq. (4), which equates to $`Z_S^{MOM}/Z_P^{MOM}`$ minus the Goldstone, is not perfectly constant as it should, although it is much more so than $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$ itself, illustrating the Goldstone interpretation (see Fig. 3 of ). It is also somewhat different from $`1/a_{S/P}`$, although the comparison between a constant and a varying quantity is difficult.

The residual cutoff dependence (leaving aside the $`𝒪(g^2)`$ effect) can be fitted by a small negative $`a^2p^2`$ term in $`Z_S^{MOM}/Z_P^{MOM}`$. We can then obtain very good fits at the three $`\beta `$’s with a universal Goldstone strength $`b^{}=0.098`$ *GeV*3 and a constant term $`a_{S/P}`$ which decreases with $`\beta `$ just as expected from BPT, and we obtain our final result:

$`Z_S^{MOM}/Z_P^{MOM}=a_{S/P}(\beta )+{\displaystyle \frac{(0.098\pm 0.004)GeV^3}{m_{eff}(\beta )p^2}}(0.013\pm 0.003)a^2p^2`$ (9)
with $`\chi ^2/dof=0.45`$ and $`dof=19`$. The corresponding values of $`a_{S/P}`$, together with the expectations from BPT and the Ward identities, are shown in Table 3. From this table, it is visible that, once more, after due subtraction of the essentially non perturbative Goldstone pole effect, one has a result close to BPT. Note however that the BPT estimate quoted here is the ratio of the one-loop BPT estimates of $`Z_P`$ and $`Z_S`$ at $`ap=1`$; one would obtain a somewhat different result, and one exactly scale independent, by applying one loop BPT directly to the ratio.

| $`\beta `$ | 6.0 | 6.2 | 6.4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`1/a_{S/P}`$ (our fit) | 0.835$`\pm `$0.010 | 0.845$`\pm 0.009`$ | 0.845$`\pm 0.007`$ |
| $`1/a_{S/P}`$ (BPT)  | 0.83 | 0.84 | 0.85 |
| $`1/a_{S/P}`$ (WIq)  | - | $`0.79\pm 0.02`$ | $`0.80\pm 0.02`$ |

> Table 3: our determination of $`1/a_{S/P}`$ compared with other determinations from ,.

We show in Fig. 3 that the Goldstone contribution dominates the discretisation artefact described by our $`a^2p^2`$ term, up to the highest considered $`a^2p^2`$ for the two higher values of $`\beta `$.

> Figure 3: the contribution of the $`a^2p^2`$ term (rising curves) and of the Goldstone contribution (decreasing curves) relative to the total $`\frac{Z_S}{Z_P}`$.

This fit, as shown in Table 3, also gives an estimate of the asymptotic contribution to the Ward Identity, $`1/a_{S/P}`$, lower and closer to (4). We also give our estimate of the relative sizes of the three terms at $`a^2p^2=1`$ in Table 4.

| $`\beta `$ | 6.0 | 6.2 | 6.4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Goldstone term | 21.5% | 19.0% | 10.1% |
| $`a^2p^2`$ discretisation errors | -0.83% | -0.87% | -0.96% |

> Table 4: the relative values of the Goldstone boson and of the $`a^2p^2`$ discretisation errors at $`a^2p^2=1`$.

We must of course keep in mind that the procedure used here is crude, and that a proper analysis of the data must take the Goldstone contribution into account for each $`\kappa `$, before extrapolating to the chiral limit. Hence the agreement with BPT and the difference with the WI determination may reflect the crudeness of our method, due to the unavailability of better data. It is also possible to get fits still closer to $`1/a_{S/P}=0.8`$ by allowing for $`a^4p^4`$ terms, at the cost of some variation of $`b^{}`$ with $`\beta `$. On the other hand it is clear that a similar analysis of discretisation artefacts of the type $`a^np^n`$ could be usefully applied to $`WIq`$, which does not appear to be perfectly constant. At any rate, we observe that even with our latter fits with $`a^4p^4`$ terms, the main conclusion is still the same: the Goldstone strength is large, close to our previous estimate, and well above any estimate of discretisation errors over a large range of momenta above $`2\text{GeV}`$.

#### 3.2.5 Comparison with Goldstone residue extracted from QCDSF improved data

We can compare the Goldstone residue with our result of Eq. (2), extracted from the QCDSF data. Since we do not know the value of $`Z_S`$ from the ALPHA action, the simplest thing to do, disregarding slow logarithmic evolutions, is to compare the magnitudes of the ratio of the power correction to the perturbative term at $`p`$ and $`m_q`$ similar in physical units, or of the Goldstone strength $`b^{}`$ to the perturbative term in the same unit GeV3. We immediately notice that the latter ratio is in perfect agreement: 0.82 GeV3 for the improved action, $`0.818\pm 0.003`$ GeV3 for the Wilson action.

Hence there is *full compatibility between the various determinations of the Goldstone strength, both at various $`\beta `$’s and for various actions, converging towards very large values, some $`30\%`$ of the total around $`2\text{GeV}`$ and for a mass around $`50`$* MeV.

## 4 Discretisation errors; an overall discussion

We now come to the paper  of Giusti and Vladikas (G&V), and to a discussion of the origin of its conclusions, opposite to ours. Admittedly, many of the procedures used there are common in the literature, but they turn out to be inappropriate for the present discussion of the Goldstone contribution. Hence we think that beyond answering the criticisms of , commenting upon them is of general interest.

Although they intended to discuss specifically our estimate of the magnitude of the Goldstone contribution, the core of the argument of G&V is the comparison of various determinations of $`(Z_P/Z_S)^{WI}`$. The spread of the values directly extracted from Ward identities, and the deviation with the values obtained for $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$, are supposed to be a measure of the discretisation error on $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$ itself. This way of estimating the errors is one of our main disagreements, for reasons expressed below in points 2 and 3. The other main difference is that G&V do not take into account the strong scale dependence of $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$, as explained in points 1 and 4.

1. Let us first emphasize that, even admitting the $`1015\%`$ estimate of discretisation errors made by , these errors cannot dominate the $`30\%`$ estimate of the Goldstone pole that we have given at $`2\text{GeV}`$. The reason why G&V have missed this point is clear. The argument, illustrated in their Fig. 4 and Table 1, relies on a point with large momentum for each $`\beta `$. The numbers of ref.  are given at sin$`{}_{}{}^{2}(ap)=0.8`$, i.e. at $`p=3.3`$ GeV $`(\beta =6.2)`$ or $`p=4.6`$ GeV $`(\beta =6.4)`$. This choice of a large physical momentum is not appropriate when the manifest goal is to discuss the Goldstone pole overall strength. Indeed, if there is a Goldstone pole, $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$ strongly depends on $`p^2`$, and its difference with the asymptotic value decreases rapidly with increasing $`p^2`$, rendering difficult or eventually impossible the determination of the power correction. Had G&V taken $`p=2`$ GeV, they would have had to quote a central value for $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$ around 0.6 or less (as can be seen from their Fig. 3), much below $`WIq=0.79`$ and also below $`WIh=0.68`$ $``$ making manifest the large magnitude of the Goldstone $``$. In the introduction to their new version of the paper , they state however that $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$ is compatible with the $`WI`$’s even at $`2\text{GeV}`$ within discretisation errors; this, from their own numbers, amounts to admitting still larger discretisation errors of the order of $`30\%`$ or more at $`\beta =6.2`$ and $`a^2p^2=0.45`$ (difference between $`0.79`$ and $`0.6`$). One the other hand, the only known way to explain the data with a reasonable error estimate is through the Goldstone interpretation.
2. Furthermore, let us emphasize that their estimated discretisation errors contradict the evolution of data with $`\beta `$ as far as $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$ is concerned. Indeed in , the statistical errors on $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$ are small, and the discretisation errors seem also small, since the values of $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$ *taken at the same physical momenta* differ only by a few percent between $`\beta =6.2`$ and $`\beta =6.4`$ (see Fig. 1(a)).

A careful reading of the text reveals that the much larger error introduced in  *has actually nothing to do with the error on $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$ itself*, but really concerns the estimated error made on the indirect estimate of the Ward identity result through the asymptotic value of $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$. This error was already given in , and in fact, in , the same numbers were quoted as “RGI” (i.e., estimate of the asymptotic, renormalisation group invariant quantity). Indeed, in , the lack of the expected plateau was interpreted as an error of 10 to 15% on $`(Z_P/Z_S)^{RGI}`$. In , the same number is re-expressed arbitrarily as an error on the value of $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$ at the lower end of the range, $`a^2\mu ^2=0.8`$, though it is not an actual error on $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$.

In our opinion, the lack of plateau signals power corrections and the need to subtract them. The procedure of , which amounts to including them automatically into the errors on $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$, makes it of course impossible to discuss the power corrections.
3. Moreover, G&V further substantiate their estimate of the discretisation effect by observing a $`1015\%`$ discrepancy between determinations from two Ward identities, called *WIq* and *WIh*, at $`\beta =6.2`$. This procedure has the advantage that the Ward identities are scale independent. It is also a natural approach, if one is working at only one $`\beta `$, to look for the difference between quantities which should be equal. However, in this approach, one does not know which is the best estimate, or whether both equally fail: the same discretisation error is attributed to both, and to any other quantity, such as $`(Z_P/Z_S)^{RI/MOM}`$, which may be over-pessimistic.

As already emphasized, a better approach is to examine the variation of the specific quantity which one wants to study, when one increases $`\beta `$. Admittedly, small variations can present from the variation of $`\alpha _S`$, but they should be $`O(g^2)`$ in BPT and vary slowly with $`\beta `$, and hence the quantity should be very stable when $`\beta `$ changes. If it is stable up to logarithms, this particular quantity has probably a small discretisation error. It seems that the *WIq* determination changes very slightly between 6.2 and 6.4, from 0.79 to 0.8. In fact, the values are compatible within statistical errors, and the small increase is expected from BPT. This is not so for *WIh*, which shows a strong variation from 0.68 to 0.73. In fact, *WIh* corresponds to $`Z_A`$ times the ratio $`\rho /m_q`$ of the axial to the subtracted mass, and the latter ratio is known to exhibit rather large variations. The natural conclusion would be then that *WIq* deserves more trust than *WIh*. The same can be said probably of $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$, which is remarkably stable, with a small variation in agreement with BPT. . Thus the large discretisation error should be probably attributed to *WIh* only, not to the three quantities at the same time. It is then rewarding that *WIq* and $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$ give compatible results for the estimate of $`WI`$, after due subtraction of the Goldstone pole, as we have shown above.
4. We note that in their Fig. 4 and Table 1, G&V consider the spread of values of various determinations of $`Z_P/Z_S`$ with increasing $`\beta `$, including $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$, at the same $`a^2\mu ^2=0.8`$, and not at at the same physical $`p`$, as one should do when discussing the error on a scale-dependent quantity. G&V are in fact not comparing the same quantity at two different $`\beta `$’s, but *two different quantities*: the values of $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$ respectively at $`p=3.3`$ GeV and $`p=4.6`$ GeV.

The natural explanation of the increase of $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$ with $`\beta `$ in their figure and table is the decrease of the power correction with increasing $`p`$, which is a physical effect, not the discretisation errors, except at very large $`p`$. If we duly compare at identical $`p`$, we see once again that $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$ is very stable with $`\beta `$, and that the discrepancy with $`WIq`$ does not decrease, unlike suggested by the Fig. 4 of : it is a physical effect, the sign of Goldstone contribution as shown above.

## 5 Conclusion

The quantity $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$ appears to be the best indicator of the Goldstone pole. Contrarily to , we find a large Goldstone contribution to the Wilson data, of the same magnitude as found previously with data for $`Z_P^{MOM}`$ from the QCDSF improved action. The results are consistent for 3 values of $`\beta `$ and for momenta ranging from about $`1`$ GeV to $`8`$ GeV. Of course, the determination of the Goldstone strength comes mainly from moderate momenta, where the contribution is the largest. The discretisation uncertainty, as estimated from the variation of $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$ with $`\beta `$, appears in fact to be rather small, and the Goldstone contribution at $`p=24`$ GeV is far above it. Even admitting the larger discretisation error advocated by , which is not relevant in our opinion, our claimed Goldstone contribution at $`2\text{GeV}`$ is so large, as already found previously, that it is clearly dominating. Evidently, it is smaller at the higher momenta considered by G&V in their Fig. 4 and Table 1, but this is as it should be: it must be $`1/p^2`$ !

This large Goldstone contribution explains in a natural manner the discrepancy of the MOM $`Z_P`$ with the ALPHA group determination of $`Z_P`$ at large distance (around $`30\%`$ at $`2\text{GeV}`$). It also explains for the most part the absence of plateau in $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$, even at the highest acceptable momenta. True, we find some contribution from $`a^2p^2`$ artefacts, but certainly not a dominant one. Given this absence of a plateau, one should not insist on extracting an estimate of $`(Z_P/Z_S)^{WI}`$ directly from $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$, even if one assumes large errors. The only way to proceed, which we have illustrated here, is to *subtract* the Goldstone contribution. The result of the subtraction is, once more, a number close to the BPT expectation, which is quite encouraging. Another formulation of this is to use Eq. (4), which automatically subtracts the Goldstone, and which is found to be rather stable with $`\beta `$.

Of course, some slight changes in the conclusions must be expected from a more thorough analysis of the complete data, where it may be possible, in particular, to explain the small discrepancy between $`WIq`$ and $`1/a_{S/P}`$ given in Table 3.

It remains to explain the apparently different conclusion from , at $`\beta =6.2`$, which find smaller power corrections; this may be related to *off-shell* improvement.

The interesting and intriguing physical question is now to find the reason why the Goldstone residue is so large in $`Z_P^{MOM}`$ or $`Z_P^{MOM}/Z_S^{MOM}`$. This is connected with the behavior of the pion wave function (BS amplitude) at short distance. The apparent contradiction with the standard OPE is puzzling. A na ve interpretation of our results999 Note that, contrarily to what was written in the first version of , we have never ourselves proposed such an interpretation. Note however that in the mechanism of spontaneous color symmetry breaking proposed recently by C. Wetterich , the propagator could get large fluctuations in the octet and this could be connected with our observation (private communication). would be to claim that the quark condensate is 10 times the standard value, but this is certainly not probable, and the ultimate physical reason of this disagreement must surely be more subtle.

## Acknowledgments:

We are very much indebted to Damir Becirevic for numerous discussions and suggestions, and very useful criticism. We thank also Guido Martinelli, as well as the Quadrics group, especially J.-P. Leroy, and also the authors of  for important discussions; we also thank S. Capitani, V. Lubicz and R. Sommer for previous comments on the question. This research is supported in part by the CNRS-CGRI cooperation agreement 99-11.

## Note added in proof:

While we were writing this letter, C. Dawson  and Y. Zhestkov  stressed again the necessity of subtracting the Goldstone pole to obtain a chiral limit.


text:
# A model for decoherence of entangled beautyThis research was performed within the FWF Project No. P14143–PHY of the Austrian Science Foundation.

## I The introduction

There is increasing interest in the last years in using particle physics phenomena for the study of possible deviations from quantum mechanics (QM). Efforts have been concentrated on two types of phenomena: oscillations, like $`K^0`$-$`\overline{K}^0`$  and neutrino oscillations , and quantum entanglement, where particularly suitable systems are the entangled $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ and $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ states  which are produced in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions at the resonances $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$, respectively. These states become macroscopically extended objects before they decay. Thus in both types of phenomena macroscopic distances are involved. Furthermore, entangled systems are – due to EPR-Bell correlations  – important objects to clearly test QM against local realistic theories. Whereas entangled systems like $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ have a rather longstanding and venerable position in the QM literature , the physics of neutrino oscillations is a rather recent testing ground for QM; this development has been boosted, in particular, by the now well-established atmospheric neutrino anomaly, but also solar neutrinos and neutrinos in the early universe are discussed in this context.

In this paper we concentrate on possible decoherence effects which might arise due to some fundamental modification of QM or due to the interaction of the system with its “environment”, whatever this may be. In the latter case, the idea of the influence of quantum gravity  – quantum fluctuations in the space-time structure at the Planck mass scale – is especially attractive nowadays. Possible effects of the environment have been investigated intensively in the $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ system in Refs. . But also other models of decoherence, like those found in Refs. , may serve as working hypothesis. Our model, which we will propose in this paper, has some remote similarity with the models mentioned here, but ours will be tailored to the situation of two particles moving apart in their center of mass system.

In the past, a measure of decoherence for entangled systems has been introduced on pure phenomenological grounds in order to determine quantitatively deviations from pure QM. This simple procedure of multiplying the quantum-mechanical interference term by $`1\zeta `$ , where $`\zeta `$ is called decoherence parameter, is a basis-dependent concept and works very well as a measure for interpolating continuously between pure QM ($`\zeta =0`$) and total decoherence ($`\zeta =1`$). The latter case corresponds to spontaneous factorization, also called Furry’s hypothesis . By investigating certain observables, the authors of Refs.  could show that the entangled $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ and $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ systems are far from total decoherence, at least when $`\zeta `$ is introduced in relation to the basis of mass eigenstates, so that local realistic theories are highly unlikely. In other words, the presence of the interference term is well established in agreement with QM (see also Ref. ), which means that there is quantum interference of massive particles over macroscopic distances.

In this paper we want to present a model of dissipation for entangled systems of two particles. In contrast to the prevailing concept in the literature, where dissipation is introduced at the 1-particle level and transferred to the 2-particle level through the tensor product structure of the Hilbert space of states (see, e.g., Ref. ), we assume the usual quantum-mechanical time evolution for the 1-particle states. Thereby we have in mind that entangled 2-particle systems become decoherent when they move apart over macroscopic distances, whereas for a 1-particle system QM is not modified. Our dissipative term in the 2-particle time evolution obeys the condition of complete positivity . For reasons given below, we consider the entangled $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ system with negative C parity. By using the experimental value of the ratio $`R`$ of the number of like-sign dilepton events over opposite-sign dilepton events, we can derive a bound on the strength of the dissipative term. Considering the time-integrated dilepton event rates, our model reproduces precisely the corresponding calculations with the phenomenological decoherence parameter $`\zeta `$ associated with the $`B_H`$-$`B_L`$ basis. As a result, we obtain a remarkably simple formula which relates the dissipative strength to the decoherence parameter $`\zeta `$. In the context of the observable $`R`$, we also compare our model of 2-particle decoherence with the case where the analogous dissipative term is introduced already at the 1-particle level.

## II The model

Before considering the $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ system, let us first discuss our model of decoherence in a 2-dimensional Hilbert space of states $`=𝐂^2`$. We allow for a non-hermitian Hamiltonian $`H`$, in order to include the possibility of incorporating particle decay in the Weisskopf–Wigner approximation . We denote the normalized energy eigenstates by $`|e_j`$ ($`j=1,2`$) and have, therefore,

$$H|e_j=\lambda _j|e_j\text{with}\lambda _j=m_j\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_j,$$
(1)
where $`m_j`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$ are real and the latter quantities are positive in addition. Furthermore, we make the crucial assumption that

$$e_1|e_2=0$$
(2)
despite the non-hermiticity of $`H`$. Including decoherence, the time evolution of the density matrix $`\rho `$ has the form

$$\frac{d\rho }{dt}=iH\rho +i\rho H^{}D[\rho ].$$
(3)
Our model of decoherence consists in assuming that

$$D[\rho ]=\lambda \left(P_1\rho P_2+P_2\rho P_1\right),\text{where}P_j=|e_je_j|$$
(4)
and $`\lambda `$ is a positive constant. Such a term is also employed, for instance, in the context of neutrinos in the early universe (see, e.g., Ref. ). It can readily be checked that the decoherence term in Eq. (4) is of the Lindblad type

$$D[\rho ]=\frac{1}{2}\left(\underset{j}{}A_j^{}A_j\rho +\rho \underset{j}{}A_j^{}A_j\right)\underset{j}{}A_j\rho A_j^{},$$
(5)
if we make the identification $`A_j=\sqrt{\lambda }P_j`$. Thus, the term (4) generates a completely positive map; moreover, since $`P_j^{}=P_j`$ and $`[P_j,H]=0`$, the decoherence term would increase the “von Neumann entropy” and conserve energy in the case of a hermitian Hamiltonian (see Ref.  and references therein). However, what is more important in our discussion is the fact that with the choice (4) the equations for the components of $`\rho `$ decouple. Indeed, with

$$\rho =\underset{j,k=1}{\overset{2}{}}\rho _{jk}|e_je_k|,$$
(6)
where $`\rho _{jk}=\rho _{kj}^{}`$, and with the time evolution (3), we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}\rho _{11}(t)=\rho _{11}(0)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1t),\hfill \\ \rho _{22}(t)=\rho _{22}(0)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_2t),\hfill \\ \rho _{12}(t)=\rho _{12}(0)\mathrm{exp}\left\{[i(m_1m_2)+(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)/2+\lambda ]t\right\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
Let us for a moment dwell on the motivation for our model of decoherence. To this end we start with the more general setting $`A_j=\sqrt{\lambda _j}P_j`$ ($`j=1,2`$ and $`\lambda _j>0`$) with $`P_j=|p_jp_j|`$, where the normalized vectors $`|p_j`$ are linearly independent and in general different from the eigenvectors of the Hamiltonian. Note that we also allow for $`p_1|p_20`$. In any case, one can use formula (5) to obtain a completely positive dissipative term in the time evolution (3), but in general one will not obtain the form of $`D[\rho ]`$ given by Eq. (4). For the time being we want to assume that $`H^{}=H0`$ holds and that $`H`$ is non-degenerate in order to avoid trivial considerations. Now we have two possibilities: 1. The system $`\{|p_1,|p_2\}`$ is the system of eigenvectors of $`H`$, i.e., it is equivalent to the orthonormal system $`\{|e_1,|e_2\}`$; 2. $`\{|p_1`$, $`|p_2\}`$ is not equivalent to the system of eigenvectors of $`H`$. In the first case one can show that the form (4) of $`D[\rho ]`$ with $`\lambda =(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)/2`$ is obtained and that

$$\text{Case 1}[H,P_j]=0\text{ for }j=1,2:\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\rho (t)=P_1\rho (0)P_1+P_2\rho (0)P_2$$
(8)
holds. Furthermore, density matrices $`P_j`$, or linear combinations thereof, are constant solutions of the time evolution equation. In the second case, at least one of the vectors $`|p_1`$, $`|p_2`$ is not an eigenvector of $`H`$ and one can prove that

$$\text{Case 2}j=1\text{or}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}\text{ with }[H,P_j]0:\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\rho (t)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{𝟏},$$
(9)
independent of $`\rho (0)`$. We will see in the following – when we apply our model to the $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ system – that the first case is closer to our physical intuition (see also last paragraph of this section). The two cases have been described in Refs.  in the context of 1-particle decoherence in neutrino oscillations. Note that Case 1 is used in Ref.  (see also Ref. ), whereas Case 2 is considered, e.g., in Ref.  in the same context. If we allow for $`H^{}H`$, the picture, we have developed here, gets blurred because then there is a competition between particle decay, i.e., $`lim_t\mathrm{}\text{Tr}\rho (t)=0`$, and the effect of decoherence. We nevertheless stick to the first case. Note that identifying the orthonormal system given by $`P_j`$ ($`j=1,2`$) with the system of eigenvectors of $`H`$ is not only motivated by the considerations above but also by simplicity; as we have seen in Eq. (7) we have decoupled time evolutions as a consequence. We want to stress, however, that in the case of CP violation, which is particularly important for the $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ system, it might be useful to allow for small deviations from $`e_1|e_2=0`$, and thus for small deviations of the eigenvectors of the Hamiltonian from the orthonormal system $`\{|p_1,|p_2\}`$.

Returning from general considerations, we now we apply our model of decoherence to the case of the 2-particle $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ state, generated by the decay of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance (for the formalism used in the $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ system see, e.g., Ref. ). We conceive $`t`$ as the eigentime of $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B}^0`$ and make the identification

$$|e_1=|B_HB_L\text{and}|e_2=|B_LB_H,$$
(10)
where the heavy and the light neutral $`B`$ states are defined via

$$|B_H=p|B^0+q|\overline{B}^0\text{and}|B_L=p|B^0q|\overline{B}^0,$$
(11)
which have eigenvalues

$$\lambda _H=m_H\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_H\text{and}\lambda _L=m_L\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_L,$$
(12)
respectively, of the effective 1-particle Hamiltonian $`H_1`$. For the 2-particle system, we transfer, as usual, the 1-particle Hamiltonian to the tensor product of the 1-particle Hilbert spaces by using $`H=H_1\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟏}H_1`$. We imagine that the first factor in the tensor product corresponds to particles moving to the left, whereas the second factor in the tensor product corresponds to right-moving particles. We assume CP conservation in $`B^0`$-$`\overline{B}^0`$ mixing, which is a good approximation  and corresponds to $`|p/q|=1`$. In this case we have $`B_H|B_L=0`$ and, therefore, $`e_1|e_2=0`$. In the following we will set $`p=q=1/\sqrt{2}`$. At the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance, at $`t=0`$, the entangled state

$$|\psi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|e_1|e_2\right)$$
(13)
is produced, which is equivalent to the density matrix

$$\rho (0)=\frac{1}{2}\left(|e_1e_1|+|e_2e_2||e_1e_2||e_2e_1|\right).$$
(14)
With the time evolution (7), the initial condition (14) and taking into account that in the case of the vectors (10) we have $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2=m_H+m_Li\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Gamma }_H+\mathrm{\Gamma }_L)/2`$, we obtain the time evolution

$$\rho (t)=\frac{1}{2}e^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }t}\left\{|e_1e_1|+|e_2e_2|e^{\lambda t}\left(|e_1e_2|+|e_2e_1|\right)\right\}.$$
(15)
Note that the factor $`\mathrm{exp}(\lambda t)`$ in the density matrix (15) introduces decoherence as a consequence of the $`D`$-term in the time evolution (3). In other words, for $`t>0`$ and $`\lambda >0`$, the density matrix (15) does not correspond to a pure state anymore.

Having chosen the energy eigenstates (10) for the construction of the projectors $`P_j`$, our model complies with Case 1 (8). In this case, we would have no decoherence if $`\rho (0)=P_1`$ or $`P_2`$, though such initial conditions might be unrealistic. This agrees with our intention because in these cases we have no entanglement over macroscopic distances and no reason for modifying the quantum-mechanical time evolution. Note that using the projector states (10) confines our Hilbert space of states to a 2-dimensional one. Using projector states which are non-trivial orthogonal linear combinations of the states (10), would lead to Case 2 (9), still with a 2-dimensional Hilbert space. However, using projector states which are *not* linear combinations of the states (10), like, e.g., $`|B^0\overline{B}^0`$, $`|\overline{B}^0B^0`$, entails not only a time evolution into the full 4-dimensional Hilbert space of states, including $`|B_HB_H`$ and $`|B_LB_L`$, but also opens up the possibility for more involved schemes of decoherence than given by our simple model.

## III The measurement

In order to obtain information on the parameter $`\lambda `$, which modifies the time evolution in the $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ system, we adopt the following philosophy. We start at $`t=0`$ with the density matrix (14) for a $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ state with negative C parity. This 2-particle density matrix follows the time evolution (15) and undergoes thereby some decoherence. We imagine a measurement of the $`B`$ quantum number of the left-moving particle at time $`t_{\mathrm{}}`$ and of the right-moving particle at time $`t_r`$. For times $`\mathrm{min}(t_{\mathrm{}},t_r)<t<\mathrm{max}(t_{\mathrm{}},t_r)`$ we have a 1-particle state which we assume to evolve exactly according to QM, with the time evolution given by $`H_1`$.

In a mathematical language, we do the following. Assuming for definiteness $`t_{\mathrm{}}<t_r`$, at $`t=t_{\mathrm{}}`$ we calculate the trace

$$\mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{}}\left\{\left(|nn|\mathrm{𝟏}\right)\rho (t_{\mathrm{}})\right\}\rho _r(t_{\mathrm{}};t=t_{\mathrm{}}),$$
(16)
where $`\mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{}}`$ means the trace evaluated only in the space of the left-moving particles; $`\rho (t_{\mathrm{}})`$ is given by Eq. (15), evaluated at $`t=t_{\mathrm{}}`$; moreover, we have defined $`|1=|B^0`$ and $`|2=|\overline{B}^0`$, and $`n=1,2`$. Consequently, $`\rho _r(t_{\mathrm{}};t=t_{\mathrm{}})`$ is a 1-particle density matrix for the right-moving ones. For $`t>t_{\mathrm{}}`$, it is denoted by $`\rho _r(t_{\mathrm{}};t)`$ and follows the 1-particle time evolution. At $`t=t_r`$, where we measure the $`B`$ quantum number of the right-moving particles, we finally have ($`n^{}=1,2`$)

$$N(n,t_{\mathrm{}};n^{},t_r)=\mathrm{Tr}\left\{|n^{}n^{}|\rho _r(t_{\mathrm{}};t_r)\right\}.$$
(17)
Using all the above formalism and allowing also for $`t_{\mathrm{}}>t_r`$, we arrive at

$`N(n,t_{\mathrm{}};n^{},t_r)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(t_{\mathrm{}}+t_r)}`$ (21)
$`\times \{|n|B_H|^2|n^{}|B_L|^2e^{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }(t_{\mathrm{}}t_r)/2}+|n|B_L|^2|n^{}|B_H|^2e^{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }(t_{\mathrm{}}t_r)/2}`$
$`e^{\lambda \mathrm{min}(t_{\mathrm{}},t_r)}(n|B_Hn|B_L^{}n^{}|B_Ln^{}|B_H^{}e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }m(t_{\mathrm{}}t_r)}`$
$`+n|B_Ln|B_H^{}n^{}|B_Hn^{}|B_L^{}e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }m(t_{\mathrm{}}t_r)})\}.`$
In this equation we have used the notation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_H\mathrm{\Gamma }_L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=m_Hm_L`$. For the sake of clarity, we have retained the scalar products $`n|B_{H,L}`$ and $`n^{}|B_{H,L}`$. According to our assumption of CP conservation in $`B^0`$-$`\overline{B}^0`$ mixing, we will replace them by their values $`\pm 1/\sqrt{2}`$. It is easy to check that for $`\lambda =0`$ one obtains the usual expressions found in the literature. Note that for $`t_{\mathrm{}}=t_r`$ and $`n=n^{}`$ we have

$$N(n,t_{\mathrm{}};n,t_{\mathrm{}})=\frac{1}{4}e^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }t_{\mathrm{}}}\left(1e^{\lambda t_{\mathrm{}}}\right),$$
(22)
which is different from zero, in contrast to the standard quantum-mechanical case.

## IV The dileptonic decays

In practice, measurement of the $`B`$ quantum number of neutral mesons in the entangled $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ state proceeds via flavour tagging when the mesons decay. Assuming the validity of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=\mathrm{\Delta }Q`$ rule, in inclusive semileptonic decays $`\mathrm{}^+`$ tags $`B^0`$ and $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ tags $`\overline{B}^0`$ ($`\mathrm{}=e`$ or $`\mu `$). In the following we will concentrate on dilepton events . Denoting the inclusive semileptonic decay rate by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}`$, the numbers of dilepton events from the decay of $`|\psi `$ (13) are then given by the integrals

$`N_{++}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t_{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t_rN(1,t_{\mathrm{}};1,t_r),`$ (23)
$`N_{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t_{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t_rN(2,t_{\mathrm{}};2,t_r),`$ (24)
$`N_+=N_+=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t_{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t_rN(1,t_{\mathrm{}};2,t_r).`$ (25)
Defining $`x=\mathrm{\Delta }m/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`y=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }/2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and calculating these integrals leads to the result

$`N_{++}=N_{}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}^2}{4\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1y^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+x^2}}\left(1\zeta (\mathrm{\Lambda })\right)\right\},`$ (26)
$`N_+=N_+={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}^2}{4\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1y^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+x^2}}\left(1\zeta (\mathrm{\Lambda })\right)\right\},`$ (27)
where the function $`\zeta (\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is given by the simple expression

$$\zeta (\mathrm{\Lambda })=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2+\mathrm{\Lambda }}\text{with}\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{\Gamma }}.$$
(28)
It is interesting to note that $`x`$ does not enter into $`\zeta `$.

Eqs. (26) and (27) reproduce the results of Refs. , where the “decoherence parameter” $`\zeta `$  is introduced phenomenologically in the observable

$$R=\frac{N_{++}+N_{}}{N_++N_+},$$
(29)
by multiplying the interference terms in $`N_{++}`$, etc., with $`(1\zeta )`$. In the model presented here, $`\zeta `$ is expressed by the parameter $`\lambda `$ (see Eq. (28)), the strength of the dissipative term in the modified time evolution (3). It has been discussed in the literature that the above phenomenological procedure of introducing a parameter $`\zeta `$ depends on the basis chosen in $`B^0`$-$`\overline{B}^0`$ space . In the present model it is the $`\zeta `$ associated with the $`B_H`$-$`B_L`$ basis.

Let us perform a numerical estimate of $`\zeta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ along the lines presented in Ref. . To this end we use $`R`$ (29), which has been measured by the ARGUS  and CLEO  Collaborations. Combining both measurements, we obtain the value $`R_{\mathrm{exp}}=0.189\pm 0.044`$ . As far as $`x`$ is concerned, we use the value $`x_{\mathrm{exp}}=0.740\pm 0.031`$ obtained by combining the data from all LEP experiments . With the approximation $`y=0`$ in Eqs. (26) and (27)  and using the law of propagation of errors, from $`R_{\mathrm{exp}}`$ and $`x_{\mathrm{exp}}`$ we derive the following numerical estimates:

$$\zeta =0.06\pm 0.10\text{and}\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.11\pm 0.18.$$
(30)
The Belle Collaboration has published data on the correlated semileptonic decay rate as a function of the difference $`t_{\mathrm{}}t_r`$ . Of course, these data could also be used to put a limit on $`\lambda `$, if we integrate $`N(n,t_{\mathrm{}};n^{},t_r)`$, Eq. (21), over $`t_{\mathrm{}}+t_r`$. However, we do not have enough information to perform such a fit.

Let us now compare our model, where decoherence is implemented at the 2-particle level, with the case where we have the analogous time evolution (3) at the 1-particle level . We use the same structure of the $`D`$-term as given by Eq. (4), but now with $`|e_1=|B_H`$ and $`|e_2=|B_L`$, instead of Eq. (10). We denote the strength of the dissipative term by $`\xi `$, in order to distinguish it from $`\lambda `$ in the case of 2-particle decoherence. Evidently, we have the same time evolution (7) at the 1-particle level, with $`\lambda `$ replaced by $`\xi `$. Following the steps to derive Eq. (21), we obtain the same formula, except that $`\mathrm{exp}(\lambda \mathrm{min}(t_{\mathrm{}},t_r))`$ is replaced by $`\mathrm{exp}(\xi (t_{\mathrm{}}+t_r))`$. Eventually, we arrive at $`N_{++}`$ and $`N_+`$ given by Eqs. (26) and (27), respectively, where $`\zeta `$ is now given by<sup>*</sup><sup>*</sup>*Note that the result for $`R`$ with $`\zeta `$ given by Eq. (31) agrees with the result for $`R`$ in first order in $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ of Ref. , if the general Lindblad term in this paper is specialized to energy conservation. We thank the referee for pointing this out to us.

$$\zeta (\mathrm{\Xi },x)=\frac{(1+\mathrm{\Xi })^21}{(1+\mathrm{\Xi })^2+x^2}\text{with}\mathrm{\Xi }=\frac{\xi }{\mathrm{\Gamma }}.$$
(31)
Thus the two models of decoherence cannot be distinguished on the basis of the time-integrated dilepton event rates, but only on the basis the time-dependent event rates. A numerical estimate analogous to the one performed for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ leads to the result $`\mathrm{\Xi }=0.04\pm 0.07`$.

## V The summary

In this paper we have considered a model of decoherence applicable in the center of mass system of two particles. Our model reflects the idea that, when the two particles move apart and eventually become macroscopically separated, some “forces” might be operative which de-entangle the quantum-mechanical state as a function of the distance. The dissipative term which we have added to the quantum-mechanical time evolution could be an effective term originating in some modification of QM; it could as well be based on some effective quantum-mechanical description of an interaction of the 2-particle system with an unknown environment. Our dissipative term respects complete positivity, which – we believe – is a useful physical guiding principle for modifications of the quantum-mechanical time evolution. In compliance with our idea, we assume that, after one of the particles has decayed, the other one follows the quantum-mechanical time evolution. We have applied our model in the case of the entangled $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ state with negative C parity, where we have used the data on the B lifetime, the $`B_H`$-$`B_L`$ mass difference measured by observing the time evolution of single neutral B mesons, and the ratio of like-sign over opposite-sign dilepton event rates for the purpose of estimating the strength $`\lambda `$ of the dissipative term. In the case of time-integrated dilepton events, our simple model leads to a result which is also obtained by the phenomenological introduction of a “decoherence parameter” $`\zeta `$ in the quantum-mechanical interference terms of the quantities $`N_{++}`$, $`N_+`$, etc. In the dissipative term $`D[\rho ]`$ we employ the states $`|B_HB_L`$ and $`|B_LB_H`$; this, eventually, modifies the interference terms of $`N_{++}`$, $`N_+`$, etc., with the $`\zeta `$ associated with the $`B_H`$-$`B_L`$ basis . Note that we have neglected CP violation in $`B^0`$-$`\overline{B}^0`$ mixing, which is a good approximation in this system. Transferring our model of decoherence to the $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ system is not straightforward, because it requires to take CP violation and the non-orthogonality of the $`K_S`$ and $`K_L`$ states into account. Work on this is in progress.