text:
# Coulomb drag Between One Dimensional Wigner Crystal Rings

## I Introduction

Coulomb Drag between current carrying systems has been studied in numerous papers both experimentally and theoreticallyprl:gramila ; prb:zheng ; jphysc:rojo ; sps:pogre ; physica:price . The earliest experiments were done in two dimensional systems. In this configurations the electrons are combined to two-dimensional layers. In one such layer a current is driven and another conducting layer is brought to within close proximity of the first. The Coulomb interaction between the electrons in these two layers causes a transfer of momentum and the second layer acquires a current. This current is referred to as the drag current.

Recently, the phenomenon of Coulomb drag in one dimensional systems has attracted much attention, particularly with regards to nanowires and nanotechnology jphyscm:gurevich ; prl:raichev ; prb:raichev ; jetpl:gurevich ; physicaE:debray . The basic description of the one dimensional case is identical to that in two dimensions. In all of these systems the time averaged charge density of the systems are translationally invariant. The coupling of the two systems is due to charge fluctuations in the two systems.

It is known however that the long range character of the Coulomb interaction can lead to the formation of a Wigner crystal in which the electrons become localized and form a periodic lattice. Numerical simulations on one dimensional systems indicate that an arbitrarily weak long range interaction will lead to the formation of a Wigner crystalprl:schulz ; prb:fano . This long range nature of the Coulomb force should be apparent for low electron densities.

In this paper we consider the drag between two such Wigner crystals. It is evident that this system has a non-uniform charge distributions and we will show that this in principle can lead to a much higher value of the drag current.

## II Classical Drag

It is the aim of this section to analyze from a classical perspective some aspects of current drag that we may expect in a quantum mechanical treatment of the Wigner crystal. The Wigner crystal is as a system where the electrons are effectively localized, so it is reasonable to expect that some aspects of the current drag between Wigner crystals may be exhibited in a classical system.

Here, we discuss the current drag between two one dimensional wires consisting of classical particles interacting via an unscreened Coulomb potential. The two systems are close enough that they are coupled by the Coulomb interaction between the wires. This system is illustrated in Figure (1).

To get an idea of what to expect from such a system we first consider a ”toy model” consisting of two lines of equally spaced particles interacting via a periodic potential and moving under a viscous drag force. The main difference between this system and that in Figure (1) is that the spacing between particles is fixed so that the internal dynamics of the system are ignored. The description of such a system has been considered in an analysis by Cladis, Parks and Danielsprl:cladis  in the context of the vortex dynamics in type II superconductors.

In this analysis, two rigid chains of equally spaced particles are taken in the presence of a viscous drag force $`F_d=\alpha \dot{x}`$. Since each chain is rigid, its position can be denoted by the position of one of its particles. Call $`x_1`$ the position of chain $`1`$ and $`x_2`$ the position of chain $`2`$. The interaction between the two chains is then periodic in $`x_1x_2`$ and modeled by $`F_i=A\mathrm{sin}[(2\pi /a)(x_1x2)]`$note:periodic  where $`a`$ is the lattice spacing. In addition, the first chain is driven by a constant force $`f`$. In steady state the equations of motion of the two chains are given by

$$\alpha \dot{x_1}=A\mathrm{sin}[(2\pi /a)(x_1x_2)]+f$$

$$\alpha \dot{x_2}=A\mathrm{sin}[(2\pi /a)(x_1x_2)]$$

Setting $`\varphi =(x_1x_2)`$, results in the following equation for the difference between the velocities of the two chains.

$$\dot{\varphi }=f/\alpha \frac{2A}{\alpha }\mathrm{sin}(2\pi \varphi /a)$$

with solution

$$T_0=_0^{a/2}\frac{d\varphi }{\frac{f}{\alpha }\frac{2A}{\alpha }\mathrm{sin}(2\pi \varphi /a)}$$

where $`T_0`$ is the time for the two chains to slip one complete cycle (distance $`a/2`$).

Carrying out the integral results in

$$T_0=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}\hfill & \text{ for }f<2A/\alpha \text{ (locking) }\hfill \\ \frac{a}{2}\frac{1}{(f/\alpha )^2(2A/\alpha )^2}\hfill & \text{ for }f2A/\alpha \text{ (slipping)}\hfill \end{array}.$$

This simple analysis shows the interesting result that for suitable conditions of the parameters $`f`$ and $`A`$, the two chains will be locked together with the drag current equal to the drive current.

We now wish to investigate the behavior of this classical system when internal dynamics are included. We take therefore as a model of the dynamics of these classical particles the following Fokker-Planck equation

$$\frac{}{t}P(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y},t)=\underset{i}{}D\left(\frac{^2}{x_i^2}+\frac{1}{k_BT}\frac{}{x_i}F_i\right)P(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y},t)+\underset{j}{}D\left(\frac{^2}{y_j^2}+\frac{1}{k_BT}\frac{}{y_j}F_j\right)P(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y},t)$$
(1)
Here, $`\stackrel{}{x}=(x_1,x_2\mathrm{},x_N)`$ labels the positions of $`N`$ particles in wire $`1`$, $`\stackrel{}{y}=(y_1,y_2\mathrm{},y_N)`$ labels the positions of particles in wire $`2`$, $`D`$ is the diffusion constant and $`T`$ is the temperature. $`P(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y},t)`$ is then the probability of having the $`N`$ particles in layer $`1`$ at positions $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ and the $`N`$ particles in layer $`2`$ at position $`\stackrel{}{y}`$ at time $`t`$. The forces present are

$$F_i=f+\frac{}{x_i}V(\stackrel{}{x})+\frac{}{x_i}U(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y})$$

in wire $`1`$ and

$$F_j=\frac{}{y_j}V(\stackrel{}{y})+\frac{}{y_j}U(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y})$$

in wire $`2`$. The interaction $`U`$ is taken to be the unscreened Coulomb interaction between the wires, $`V`$ is the unscreened Coulomb interaction within each wire and $`f`$ is a constant force driving the particles in wire $`1`$. The basic problem is to determine the drag current produced in wire $`2`$ due to the moving charges in wire $`1`$.

In the numerical analysis of this problem we performed Monte Carlo simulations on discrete systems. The conducting systems are partitioned into a lattice with the particles occupying positions at the lattice points. The dynamics of the simulation are determined by equation (1) which is approximated numerically as follows. For each particle, one of two possible random directions is chosen . If the particle lowers its energy by moving one lattice site in that direction, then the move is accepted. Otherwise the move is accepted with probability $`e^{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }E}`$, where $`\beta =1/k_BT`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is the change in the particles energy upon making this move. This process is completed iteratively for each particle until a steady state condition is reached. Simulations were performed to determine the dependence of the drag current on separation between the two systems. The results are shown in Figure (2)

The plot of Drag Current vs. Separation shows the fact that the sum of the drive and drag currents is a constant, $`\overline{J}_d+\overline{J}_0=\frac{NDf}{k_BT}`$ as can be seen by averaging the right hand side of equation (1), ($`RHS=_i\frac{}{x_i}J_0+_j\frac{}{y_j}J_d`$). It also shows that the drag current is significant only when the distance of separation is on the order of the interparticle spacing or smaller.

The main feature of interest in this plot, however, is that the drag current, $`J_d`$, is essentially equal in magnitude to the drive current, $`J_0`$, at small interwire seperations. As the separation between the wires is increased the drag current shows a smooth decrease in magnitude. The main difference between this plot and the toy model (where internal dynamics are ignored) is that there does not appear to be an abrupt locking transition. However at sufficiently large values of the interaction parameter, $`A`$ the two chains are essentially locked together with the drag current equal in magnitude to the drive current. We will now examine to what extent this classical effect is exhibited in a quantum mechanical system.

## III Wigner crystal Ring

### III.1 Disorder Free Case

In this section we calculate the non-dissipative drag between two perfect Wigner crystal rings at zero temperature. The basics of non-dissipative drag effects has been considered in previous papers prl:rojo\_mahan ; prb:baker . The basic system of interest here consists of two metallic rings one of which is threaded by an Ahranov-Bohm flux, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. This flux shifts the ground state, $`E_g`$, of the ring to a current carrying state which is calculated according to

$$J=\frac{E_g}{\mathrm{\Phi }}.$$

If another ring is brought close to the first one, then the Coulomb interaction will cause a drag current to be produced in the second ring. Since this is the ground state of the two ring system this current is non-dissipative and persists as long as the magnetic flux is present in the first ring.

In these works the two rings have uniform charge densities and the drag effect is due to coupling of charge fluctuations in each ring. In a system with zero disorder, the relative magnitude of the drag current produced is typically a small fraction of the driving current. For two such systems separated by a distance $`200\AA `$ the drag current is on the order of $`10^4`$ times the current in the driving system. prl:rojo\_mahan  Based on the analysis of the last section, we expect that the drag current of two Wigner crystals could in principle be as large as the driving current.

The model of the one dimensional Wigner crystal that we use here is that proposed in references (prb:glazman ) and (prb:krive ). In this model the Wigner crystal is viewed as an elastic chain of spinless electrons. In the continuum limit, the Wigner crystal of length $`L`$, in the presence of an Ahranov Bohm flux, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, is described by the Lagrangian prb:krive

$$=𝑑x\left[\frac{m}{2a}\left(\dot{u}^2s^2(u^{})^2\right)+\frac{\mathrm{}}{L}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\dot{u}\right]$$
(2)
where $`a`$ is the crystal period, m is the electron mass, s is the velocity of sound in the crystal and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is the flux quantum. The field variable $`u(x,t)`$ describes the local displacement of the chain at a point $`x`$ at time $`t`$. If the field variable is expanded in a fourier series

$$u=\frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}\underset{k}{}c_ke^{ik\theta }$$

we get,

$$=(\mu /2)\underset{k}{}\left(\dot{c}_k^2s^2k^2c_k^2\right)\frac{\mathrm{}}{L}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\dot{c}_0,$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. It is clear that the flux will only couple to the zero mode of the ring. So in dealing with the persistent current of a disorder free Wigner crystal ring, the internal dynamics of the ring may be ignored and only the rotation of the ring as a whole is relevant. We wish to study the interaction between two such Wigner crystal rings as shown in Figure (3).

We take as a model for two disorder free interacting Wigner crystal rings the following Hamiltonian.

$$H=\frac{1}{2M}\left(i\mathrm{}\frac{}{u_1}\frac{e}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }_1\right)^2+\frac{1}{2M}\left(i\mathrm{}\frac{}{u_2}\frac{e}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }_2\right)^2+V_0\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi }{a}(u_1u_2)$$
(3)
where $`M=Nm`$ is the total mass of each ring, $`V_0`$ represents the strength of the inter-ring interaction, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ is the flux through ring 1, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ is the flux through ring 2 and $`u_{1,2}`$ represents the displacement of ring $`1,2`$ respectively. The first two terms in Equation (3) represent the individual dynamics of rings $`1`$ and $`2`$ respectively. The third term represents the interaction between the two rings. It is evident that the interaction between the chains will be periodic in the relative displacement between the two crystals. For simplicity we model this interaction as a cosine term, however the basic features of this analysis should not depend on the particular form of the periodic potential used.

Transforming to center of mass and relative angular coordinates $`\varphi =\frac{2\pi }{L}(u_1u_2)`$ and $`\theta =\frac{\pi }{L}(u_1+u_2)`$, we have in dimensionless form

$$\left[\left(i\frac{}{\varphi }+\frac{\alpha }{2}\right)^2+\frac{1}{4}\left(i\frac{}{\varphi }+\beta \right)^2+q\mathrm{cos}(N\varphi )\right]\mathrm{\Psi }=ϵ\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(4)
where $`\alpha =\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$, $`\beta =\mathrm{\Phi }_1+\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$, $`q=V_0(MR^2/\mathrm{}^2)`$ and $`ϵ=E(MR^2/\mathrm{}^2)`$. Our task is now to solve equation (4) for the eigenenergy $`ϵ`$.

The hamiltonian, equation (4), separates into two parts $`H=H_\varphi +H_\theta `$ with energies $`ϵ=ϵ_\varphi +ϵ_\theta `$. The ground state wavefunction is a product $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\varphi ,\theta )=S(\theta )T(\varphi )`$. The equation for the center of mass coordinates is readily solved giving

$$S(\theta )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{in^{}\theta }$$

$$ϵ_\theta =\frac{1}{4}(n^{}+\beta )^2;n^{}=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}$$
(5)
The equation for the relative coordinate wavefunction is

$$\left[\left(i\frac{}{\varphi }+\frac{\alpha }{2}\right)^2q\mathrm{cos}(N\varphi )+ϵ_\varphi \right]T(\varphi )=0$$
(6)
For $`\alpha =0`$ this reduces to Mathieu’s equation. The energy eigenvalues correspond to the periodic solutions $`T(0)=T(2\pi )`$. We therefore substitute the Fourier expansion

$$T=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_ne^{in\varphi }$$

into equation (6) and obtain the following recursion relation for the coefficients $`c_n`$

$$\frac{q}{2}c_{n+1}+(ϵ[n\alpha ]^2)c_n+\frac{q}{2}c_{n1}=0.$$

The energy eigenvalues may be found numerically to any desired accuracy by truncating the set of equations for some $`c_N`$ and searching for the value of $`ϵ`$ which gives a zero value for the appropriate determinant of coefficients. book:jordan

The energy eigenvalues determined in this way, combined with the results of equation (5) allow the currents in each ring to be determined from $`J_1=\frac{ϵ}{\mathrm{\Phi }_1}`$ and $`J_2=\frac{ϵ}{\mathrm{\Phi }_2}|_{\mathrm{\Phi }_2=0}`$.prb:baker . The results are shown in Figure (4).

Figure (4) shows that the drag current does approach the drive current in magnitude as the interaction $`V_0`$ is increased which is qualitatively similar to the classical result. For large values of the interaction strength, $`q/N3`$ or

$$V_03\mathrm{}^2N/mR^2,$$
(7)
the two Wigner crystals have essentially the same current with each having half the current that one ring would have if isolated.

In order to relate the interaction in equation (3) to the true Coulomb interaction we approximate the amplitude $`V_0`$ as follows. We want to calculate the potential felt by an electron a distance $`d`$ from a finite periodic system of length $`L`$ and period $`a`$. We model our system by taking a length $`L`$ of an infinite line of electrons centered at $`x`$. This system is shown schematically in Figure (5).

This potential energy is given by

$$V=\underset{n=\frac{1}{a}(L/2x)}{\overset{\frac{1}{a}(L/2+x)}{}}\frac{e^2}{\sqrt{(xna)^2+d^2}}$$

which can be rewritten as

$$V=_{\frac{1}{a}(L/2x)}^{\frac{1}{a}(L/2+x)}𝑑z\frac{e^2}{\sqrt{(xaz)^2+d^2}}\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\delta (zn)$$

$$=_{\frac{1}{a}(L/2x)}^{\frac{1}{a}(L/2+x)}𝑑z\frac{e^2}{\sqrt{(xaz)^2+d^2}}\underset{l=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{i2\pi lz}$$

$$=\underset{l=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_{L/2}^{L/2}\frac{dz^{}}{a}\frac{e^2}{\sqrt{z^2+d^2}}e^{i2\pi \frac{l}{a}(xz)}$$

$$=_{L/2}^{L/2}\frac{dz^{}}{a}\frac{e^2}{\sqrt{z^2+d^2}}+2\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[_{L/2}^{L/2}\frac{dz^{}}{a}\frac{e^2}{\sqrt{z^2+d^2}}\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{2\pi l}{a}z^{}\right)\right]\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{2\pi l}{a}x\right)$$

The first term is a constant in $`x`$ therefore we ignore it. For small separation distances $`d/a1`$, higher $`l`$ terms may be ignored and we keep only the $`l=1`$ term. This yields finally

$$V\frac{4}{a}\left[_0^{L/2}𝑑z^{}\frac{\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{2\pi }{a}z^{}\right)}{\sqrt{z^2+d^2}}\right]\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{2\pi }{a}x\right)$$

We can now identify the amplitude $`V_0`$ in Equation (3)for a crystal with N electrons as

$$V_0=N\frac{4}{a}_0^{L/2}𝑑z^{}\frac{\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi }{a}z^{}}{\sqrt{z^2+d^2}}.$$
(8)
$$=N\frac{4}{a}_0^{L/2a}𝑑z\frac{\mathrm{cos}(2\pi z)}{\sqrt{z^2+d^2}}.$$

As mentioned in the introduction for a one dimensional system, a long range interaction will lead to the formation of a Wigner crystalprl:schulz ; prb:fano . The long range nature of the Coulomb force should be apparent for electron densities, $`n\frac{1}{10}a_B`$ where $`a_B`$ is the Bohr radius for the particular ring material.prl:ivanov  For a typical mesoscopic ring radius of $`100\mu m`$, crystal lattice constant $`a=10a_B`$ and $`a_B2\AA `$ we have $`L/a>10^5`$ so the upper limit in the integral in Equation (8) may be taken to infinity which yields

$$V_0=\frac{4Ne^2}{a}K_0(2\pi \frac{d}{a})$$

where $`K_0`$ is the zeroth order Bessel function. This implies an exponential decrease in the amplitude of the interaction with increasing separation between the two Wigner crystals. Comparison with Equation (7) shows that the two crystals will be ”locked” together at a distance $`d/a4`$. So two very low density perfect Wigner crystals will be essentially locked together when separated by a distance of four times the lattice constant or less.

### III.2 Impurity Effects

We now consider the effects of impurities on the dynamics of the Wigner crystal. In the presence of an impurity, the phase of the Wigner crystal will be pinned. In this case the crystal ring cannot rotate as a whole so the current as presented in the last subsection is not possible. It was shown, however, by Rice et al. prl:rice , that a new type of current is possible, namely the tunneling of solitons through the impurity barrier. It is the tunneling of solitons that we will investigate in this section.

We are interested in knowing the ratio of the drag current in ring two, to the drive current in ring one. We therefore take as an assumption the presence of a current in ring one and look for the relative magnitude of the drag current in ring two in the presence of a single impurity. This system is shown schematically in Figure (6).

Using Equation (2), we take as a description of our two ring Wigner crystal system, the following Lagrangian

$$=_1+_2W\left[1\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _1\varphi _2)\right]$$
(9)
Where

$$_1=\frac{ma}{8\pi ^2}\left\{\frac{\varphi _1}{t}^2s^2\frac{\varphi _1}{x}^2\right\},$$
(10)
$$_2=\frac{ma}{8\pi ^2}\left\{\left(\frac{\varphi _2}{t}\right)^2s^2\left(\frac{\varphi _2}{x}\right)^2\right\}V_p\delta (x)\left[1\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _2)\right],$$
(11)
and the phase $`\varphi _{1,2}=u_{1,2}(x,t)(2\pi /a)`$.

The first two terms in Equation (9) are the Lagrangians describing the dynamics of rings $`1`$ and $`2`$ respectively. The last term describes the interaction between the two rings. We follow the work of Krive et al. prb:krive  and introduce the dimensionless parameter

$$\alpha =\frac{\pi \mathrm{}}{msa}$$

which characterizes the magnitude of the quantum fluctuations of the Wigner crystal, and the parameter

$$T_s=\mathrm{}s$$

which characterizes the energy scale in a Wigner crystal of length $`L`$. We will be concerned with stiff crystals that are weakly fluctuating characterized by $`\alpha 1`$.

The basic approach that we will use here is a semiclassical approximation used by Larkin and Lee prb:larkin  in the context of charge density waves and elaborated by Kleinertbook:kleinert  for a single particle tunneling through a barrier . In this approach the probability amplitude of a soliton tunneling through an impurity is given by $`e^{A/\mathrm{}}`$ where $`A`$ is the action associated with the tunneling trajectory obtained by minimizing the function $`𝑑t𝑑x(\tau )`$, where $`(\tau )`$ is the Lagrangian, Equation (9), with $`t`$ replaced by the imaginary time $`\tau =it`$. This approach amounts to approximating the path integral of the propagator by its value at the classical trajectory.book:kleinert

We now want to answer the following question: given a current in ring $`1`$ that causes a rotation of the phase by $`2\pi `$, what is the probability that the phase of ring $`2`$ will also rotate by $`2\pi `$? It is apparent that there are three possiblities:

$`i`$) $`\varphi _12\pi ,\varphi _20`$: the phase in ring $`2`$ will remain pinned and ring 1 will rotate on top of the relative potential between the two ending with a relative phase difference $`(\varphi _1\varphi _2)=2\pi `$.

$`ii`$) $`\varphi _12\pi ,\varphi _22\pi `$: the phase of ring $`2`$ will tunnel through the impurity thus increasing by $`2\pi `$ and ending in phase with $`\varphi _1`$.

$`iii`$) $`\varphi _12\pi ,\varphi _22\pi `$: the phase of ring $`2`$ will counter-rotate with that in ring $`1`$ ending with a relative phase difference, $`(\varphi _1\varphi _2)=4\pi `$.

Here we have limited our consideration to single tunneling trajectories. In other words, each shift of the phase of each ring occurs due to a single tunneling event and ignore all multistep tunneling trajectories. Thus we only consider strong coupling between rings, $`WL/(\frac{N\mathrm{}^2}{mR^2})1`$, and strong pinning $`\alpha V_pT_s`$. We now calculate the tunneling amplitudes for each case above.

In case ($`i`$), the Lagrangian in Equation (9) reduces to

$$=\frac{ma}{8\pi ^2}\left\{\left(\frac{\varphi _1}{\tau }\right)^2+s^2\left(\frac{\varphi _1}{x}\right)^2\right\}W\left[1\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _1)\right]$$
(12)
This is simply the problem of a single Wigner crystal ring in the presence of a periodic pinning potential. The classical wave equation resulting from this Lagrangian in real time, is

$$\frac{ma}{8\pi ^2}\{\ddot{\varphi _1}s^2\stackrel{^{\prime \prime }}{\varphi _1}\}+W\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _1)=0$$

This is the sine-Gordon equation and it admits the exact soliton solution

$$\varphi _1=4\mathrm{tan}^1\left[\mathrm{exp}\pm \left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{x}u\stackrel{~}{t}}{\sqrt{1u^2}}\right)\right]$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{x}=\frac{\omega _0}{s}x`$, $`\stackrel{~}{t}=\omega _0t`$ and

$$\omega _0=\sqrt{\frac{4\pi ^2W}{ma}}.$$

The $`+`$ sign corresponds to a soliton rotating in the clockwise direction, the $``$ sign corresponds to an antisoliton rotating in the counterclockwise direction and $`u`$ is the soliton/antisoliton velocity. The boundary conditions on such a solution are $`\varphi (L/2,t)=\varphi (L/2,t)`$. A solution to this equation that matches this boundary condition is the soliton/antisoliton solution and has the form

$$\varphi _1(x,t)=4\mathrm{tan}^1\left[\frac{u\mathrm{sinh}\left(\stackrel{~}{x}/\sqrt{1u^2}\right)}{\mathrm{cosh}\left(u\stackrel{~}{t}/\sqrt{1u^2}\right)}\right].$$

This solution has the following interpretation: at $`t=0`$ the phase of the crystal is $`0`$, as $`t`$ increases, the phase at $`x=0`$ locally increases to $`2\pi `$ creating a region around $`x=0`$ with phase $`2\pi `$. As $`t`$ increases this region with $`2\pi `$ phase propagates symmetrically from $`x=0`$ at speed $`u`$ towards $`x=L/2`$ and $`x=L/2`$ until the entire ring is at $`\varphi =2\pi `$. The Lagrangian, Equation (12) has been considered in the context of charge density wave tunneling by Bogachek et al. prb:bogachek  , and there it is noted that the homogeneous (space independent) soliton solution is advantageous in the action against any spatially dependent solution for a finite system. The homogenous solution corresponds to a uniform rotation of the Wigner crystal as a whole and has the form prb:bogachek

$$\varphi _1(\tau )=4\mathrm{tan}^1\mathrm{exp}(\omega _0\tau ).$$
(13)
This solution describes the uniform increase of the phase of the entire ring from $`0`$ to $`2\pi `$ in a time $`\tau _01/\omega _0`$. The action associated with this solution is by Equation (12)

$$A_1=\frac{8WL}{\omega _0}=8\left[\frac{WL}{\left(\frac{N}{mR^2}\right)}\right]^{1/2}$$
(14)
In case ($`ii`$), the relative difference between the two phases does not increase, while the phase of the center of mass of the two ring system increases by $`2\pi `$. We assume that during the tunneling process the two rings remain in phase to minimize the potential energy between them. If we rewrite Equation (9) using $`\varphi =\varphi _1\varphi _2`$ and $`\theta =\varphi _1+\varphi _2`$, we get the relevant Lagrangian for case ($`ii`$) to be

$$=\frac{ma}{8\pi ^2}\left\{\left(\frac{\theta }{\tau }\right)^2+s^2\left(\frac{\theta }{x}\right)^2\right\}V_p\delta (x)\left[1\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\theta }{2}\right)\right]$$
(15)
This is the problem of a single Wigner crystal ring tunneling through an impurity. We consider the case of strong crystal pinning, $`\alpha V_pT_s`$.

The case of soliton tunneling through an impurity in a strongly pinned Charge Density wave was first considered by Larkin and Lee prb:larkin . In their analysis, the tunneling process is broken into two stages. The first stage consists of a rapid tunneling of a length $`l_0`$ of the crystal through the impurity in a short time $`t_0`$ and leaves the crystal in a distorted state of high potential energy. The second stage consists of a slow relaxation of the crystal from this distorted state back into a state that minimizes its potential energy.

To describe the first stage of the process Larkin and Lee proposed the following trial solution to Equation (15)

$$\theta =\frac{2\pi t}{t_0}\left(1\frac{|x|}{l_0}\right)$$

for $`0<t<t_0`$ and $`|x|<l_0`$.

It is evident that this solution interpolates between the initial state, $`\theta =0`$ for all $`x`$ at $`t=0`$, and the final state $`\theta =2\pi `$ for $`x=0`$ at $`t=2\pi `$. The second stage of the process takes place away from the impurity $`|x|>l_0`$ and obeys the equation of motion

$$\ddot{\theta }+s^2\theta ^{\prime \prime }=0.$$

The solution to this stage of the tunneling should obey the periodic boundary conditions of the ring and match the solution for the first stage at $`x=L/2,L/2`$. This problem has been considered in the work of Krive et al prb:krive  where the proposed trajectory for the relaxation stage has the form

$$\varphi =\pi \pm 2\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{(\tau \tau _s)s}{|x|}\right).$$

The action associated with the tunneling stage of the process is

$$A_{2t}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{\alpha }\left(C_1+C_2\frac{\alpha V_p}{T_h}\right).$$

where $`C_{1,2}`$ are constants. The action associated with the relaxation stage is

$$A_{2r}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{\alpha }\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{L}{2l_0}\right).$$

The length $`l_0`$ is obtained by minimizing the total action $`A_{2T}=A_{2t}+A_{2r}`$ with the result that

$$l_0=\frac{\mathrm{}s}{C\alpha V_p}$$

and

$$A_{2T}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{\alpha }\left\{\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\alpha V_p}{T_s}\right)+C_3\right\}$$
(16)
where $`C`$ is a constant and $`C_3`$ is a constant assumed to be of the order unity prb:larkin . Equation (16) shows the interesting result that the action is only logarithmically dependent on the impurity for strong pinning.

In case ($`iii`$) above, the center of mass of the two ring system does not move while the phase of the relative coordinates increases by $`4\pi `$. The relevant Lagrangian for this system is given by

$$=\frac{ma}{8\pi ^2}\left\{\left(\frac{\varphi }{\tau }\right)^2+s^2\left(\frac{\varphi }{x}\right)^2\right\}V_p\delta (x)\left[1\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\varphi }{2}\right)\right]W\left[1\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\varphi }{2}\right)\right].$$
(17)
This is identical to the lagrangian in Equation (15) with the addition of the term proportional to $`W`$. Since the probability for this process goes as $`e^A`$ it is expected that the probability for this case will be reduced relative to that in case ($`ii`$) by $`e^W`$ and can therefore be neglected.

We are now in a position to analyze the relative magnitude of the drag current $`J_D`$ to the drive current $`J_0`$. This ratio is given by

$$\frac{J_D}{J_0}=\frac{e^{\frac{A_{2T}}{\mathrm{}}}}{e^{\frac{A_1}{\mathrm{}}}+e^{\frac{A_{2T}}{\mathrm{}}}}$$
(18)
It is clear that if $`|A_1||A_{2T}|`$ the two crystal will essentially be locked together. For purposes of illustration we consider a stiff crystal with $`\alpha =.1`$ and consider values of $`V_p`$ for stiff pinning $`\alpha V_pT_s`$.

Figure (7) shows that the impurity effects are not that drastic in determining the value of $`W`$ where the locking of the two crystals occur. This is due to the fact that the impurity potential enters logarithmically into the tunneling action. Comparison with Figure (4b) shows that the distance at which the two Wigner crystals become ”locked” together is essentially the same as in the impurity free case. The main effect of the impurity is then in the magnitude of the persistent current.

We can estimate the magnitude of these currents by noting that if the two currents are locked together, then the magnitude of the persistent current for a given flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ should be the same as a single Wigner crystal ring with twice the mass. This current has been calculated at zero temperature to be prb:krive

$$J_0T_s\left(\frac{T_s}{\alpha V_p}\right)^{1/\alpha }e^{C_3/\alpha }\mathrm{cos}\left(2\pi \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\right).$$
(19)
We see that the current in Equation (19) is much smaller than the disorder free persistent current due to the $`(1/V_p)^{1/\alpha }`$ factor.

In summary we have analyzed the Coulomb drag between two one-dimensional Wigner crystal rings. For sufficiently large interaction between rings the drag current is essentially equal in magnitude to the drive current. For an impurity free ring this ”locking” of currents occurs at a separation distance of $`d4a`$ with $`a`$ the crystal period. We analyzed the effect of a single impurity in the drag ring and found that the two currents are ”locked” at essentially the same distance and the major effect of the impurity is to significantly decrease the magnitude of the persistent current.


format: text

text:
# I Introduction

## I Introduction

Already Schrödinger  in 1935 pointed to the peculiar features of what he called entangled states (“verschränkte Zustände” in his original words). It was Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) who aimed in their famous paper  to show the incompleteness of quantum mechanics (QM) by considering a quantum system of two particles. Also Furry  emphasized, inspired by EPR and Schrödinger, the differences between the predictions of QM of non-factorizable systems and models with spontaneous factorization.

Much later, in 1964, this subject was brought up again by John S. Bell  who re-analyzed the “EPR paradox”. He discovered via an inequality that the predictions of QM differ from those of (all) local realistic theories (LRT); inequalities of this type are now named quite generally “Bell inequalities”.

It is the nonlocality, the “spooky action at a distance”, which is the basic feature of quantum physics and is so contrary to our intuition or more precise, the nonlocal correlations between the spatially separated EPR pair, which occur due to the quantum entanglement.

Many beautiful experiments have been carried out over the years (see e.g. Refs. ) by using the entanglement of the polarization of two photons; all confirm impressively this very peculiar quantum feature.

The nonlocality does not conflict with Einstein’s relativity, so it cannot be used for superluminal communication, nevertheless, it is the basis for new physics, like quantum cryptography  and quantum teleportation , and it triggered a new technology: quantum information .

Of course, it is of great interest to test the EPR-Bell correlations also for massive systems in particle physics. Already in 1960 Lee and Yang  and several other authors  emphasized the EPR-like features of a $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$pair in a $`J^{PC}=1^{}`$ state. Indeed many authors  suggested to investigate the $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$pairs which are produced at the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ resonance – for instance in the $`e^+e^{}`$-machine DA$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$NE at Frascati. And the non separability of the neutral kaon system – created in $`p\overline{p}`$-collisions – has been analyzed by the authors .

Similar systems are the entangled $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ pairs produced at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$(4S) resonance (see e.g., Refs. ), which we do not consider here.

Specific realistic theories have been constructed , which describe the $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$pairs, as tests versus quantum mechanics. However, the general test of QM versus LRT relies on Bell inequalities, where the different kaon detection times play the role of the different angles in the photon or spin $`1/2`$ case. On the other hand, also the free choice of the kaon “quasi spin” state is of importance. Furthermore an interesting feature of kaons is the $`CP`$ violation and indeed it turns out that Bell inequalities imply bounds on the physical $`CP`$ violation parameters $`\epsilon `$ and $`\epsilon ^{}`$. In this connection also a bound on the degree of decoherence of the wavefunction can be found , which turns out to be very strong for a distinction of QM versus LRT.

The important difference of the kaon systems as compared to photons is their decay. Focusing, therefore, just on some particular “quasi spin” states and not accounting for the decay states restricts the investigation to a subset of the total Hilbert space and will limit the validity of the physical theories.

Therefore we allow in our work for the freedom of choosing arbitrary “quasi spin” states and we emphasize the importance of including all decay product states into the BI, in contrast to other authors, so we use a unitary time evolution. Only this guarantees the use of the complete Hilbert space. It may very well happen that in a particular subspace QM violates indeed the BI for certain times $`t>0`$ , and thus contradicts with the assumptions of reality and locality, but in the total Hilbert space the violation will disappear. We show cases where this will happen. Note, that for entangled spin $`1/2`$ particles or photon systems all operations are already defined on the total Hilbert space, since the photon does not decay and its polarization is conserved, whereas in the kaon systems strangeness is not conserved due to the weak interactions.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section $`2`$ we give an introduction to neutral kaons and explain the “quasi spin” picture. In Section $`3`$ the unitary time evolution is worked out in detail and how one has to calculate the probabilities in quantum mechanics. In Section $`4`$ we review briefly the Bell inequalities for spin $`1/2`$ particles. Our main part is contained in Section $`5`$, there we derive the generalized Bell inequalities for entangled kaons and analyze three different examples which can be found in the literature. Section $`6`$ summarizes our results and the conclusions are drawn. Finally, some useful formulae can be found in the Appendix.

## II Neutral $`K`$-mesons

Let us start with a discussion of the properties of the neutral kaons, which we need in the following. The neutral $`K`$-mesons are characterized by their strangeness quantum number $`S`$

$`S|K^0`$ $`=`$ $`+|K^0`$ (1)
$`S|\overline{K}^0`$ $`=`$ $`|\overline{K}^0.`$ (2)
As the $`K`$-mesons are pseudoscalars their parity $`P`$ is minus and charge conjugation $`C`$ transforms $`K^0`$ and $`\overline{K}^0`$ into each other so that we have for the combined transformation $`CP`$ (in our choice of phases)

$`CP|K^0`$ $`=`$ $`|\overline{K}^0`$ (3)
$`CP|\overline{K}^0`$ $`=`$ $`|K^0.`$ (4)
From this follows that the orthogonal linear combinations

$`|K_1^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left\{|K^0|\overline{K}^0\right\}`$ (5)
$`|K_2^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left\{|K^0+|\overline{K}^0\right\}`$ (6)
are eigenstates of $`CP`$

$`CP|K_1^0`$ $`=`$ $`+|K_1^0`$ (7)
$`CP|K_2^0`$ $`=`$ $`|K_2^0,`$ (8)
a quantum number conserved in strong interactions.

Due to weak interactions, which are $`CP`$ violating, the kaons decay and the physical states, having the mass $`m_S`$ and $`m_L`$, are the short and long lived states

$`|K_S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\left\{p|K^0q|\overline{K}^0\right\}`$ (9)
$`|K_L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\left\{p|K^0+q|\overline{K}^0\right\}`$ (10)
with $`p=1+\epsilon `$, $`q=1\epsilon `$, $`N^2=|p|^2+|q|^2`$ and $`\epsilon `$ being the complex $`CP`$ violating parameter ($`CPT`$ invariance is assumed; thus the short and long lived states contain the same $`CP`$ violating parameter $`\epsilon _S=\epsilon _L=\epsilon `$). They are eigenstates of the non-Hermitian “effective mass” Hamiltonian

$$H=M\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }$$
(11)
satisfying

$$H|K_{S,L}=\lambda _{S,L}|K_{S,L}$$
(12)
with

$$\lambda _{S,L}=m_{S,L}\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{S,L}.$$
(13)
Both mesons $`K^0`$ and $`\overline{K}^0`$ have transitions to common states (due to $`CP`$ violation) therefore they mix, that means they oscillate between $`K^0`$ and $`\overline{K}^0`$ before decaying. Since the decaying states evolve — according to the Wigner-Weisskopf approximation — exponentially in time

$$|K_{S,L}(t)=e^{i\lambda _{S,L}t}|K_{S,L},$$
(14)
the subsequent time evolution for $`K^0`$ and $`\overline{K}^0`$ is given by

$`|K^0(t)`$ $`=`$ $`g_+(t)|K^0+{\displaystyle \frac{q}{p}}g_{}(t)|\overline{K}^0`$ (15)
$`|\overline{K}^0(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p}{q}}g_{}(t)|K^0+g_+(t)|\overline{K}^0`$ (16)
with

$$g_\pm (t)=\frac{1}{2}\left[\pm e^{i\lambda _St}+e^{i\lambda _Lt}\right].$$
(17)
Supposing that at $`t=0`$ a $`K^0`$ beam is produced, e.g. by strong interactions, then the probability for finding a $`K^0`$ or $`\overline{K}^0`$ in the beam is calculated by

$`\left|K^0|K^0(t)\right|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{|q|^2}{|p|^2}}\left\{e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_St}+e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lt}+2e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t}\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }mt)\right\}`$ (18)
$`\left|\overline{K}^0|K^0(t)\right|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{|q|^2}{|p|^2}}\left\{e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_St}+e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lt}2e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t}\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }mt)\right\},`$ (19)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=m_Lm_S`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_L+\mathrm{\Gamma }_S)`$. The $`K^0`$ beam oscillates with frequency $`\mathrm{\Delta }m/2\pi `$, the oscillation being clearly visible at times of the order of a few $`\tau _S`$, before all $`K_S`$ have died out leaving only the $`K_L`$ in the beam. So in a beam which contains only $`K_0`$ mesons at the time $`t=0`$ the $`\overline{K}_0`$ will appear far from the production source through its presence in the $`K_L`$ meson with equal probability as the $`K_0`$ meson. A similar feature occurs when starting with a $`\overline{K}^0`$ beam.

In comparison with spin $`1/2`$ particles, or with photons having the polarization directions vertical and horizontal, it is especially useful to work with the “quasi-spin” picture for kaons introduced by Lee and Wu  and Lipkin . The two states $`|K^0`$ and $`|\overline{K}^0`$ are regarded as the quasi-spin states up $`|`$ and down $`|`$ and the operators acting in this quasi-spin space are expressed by Pauli matrices. So the strangeness operator $`S`$ can be identified with the Pauli matrix $`\sigma _3`$, the $`CP`$ operator with ($`\sigma _1`$) and $`CP`$ violation is proportional to $`\sigma _2`$. In fact, the Hamiltonian (11) can be written as

$$H=a\mathrm{𝟏}+\stackrel{}{b}\stackrel{}{\sigma }$$
(20)
with

$`b_1=b\mathrm{cos}\alpha ,b_2=b\mathrm{sin}\alpha ,b_3=0`$ (21)
$`a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\lambda _L+\lambda _S),b={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\lambda _L\lambda _S)`$ (22)
($`b_3=0`$ due to $`CPT`$ invariance), and the phase $`\alpha `$ is related to the $`CP`$ parameter $`\epsilon `$ by

$$e^{i\alpha }=\frac{1\epsilon }{1+\epsilon }.$$
(23)
Now, what we are actually interested in are entangled states of $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$pairs, in analogy to the entangled spin up and down pairs, or photon pairs. Such states are produced by $`e^+e^{}`$-machines through the reaction $`e^+e^{}\mathrm{\Phi }K^0\overline{K}^0`$, in particular at DA$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$NE, or they are produced in $`p\overline{p}`$-collisions like, e.g. at LEAR. There a $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$pair is created in a $`J^{PC}=1^{}`$ quantum state and thus antisymmetric under $`C`$ and $`P`$, and is described at the time $`t=0`$ by the entangled state

$`|\psi (t=0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left\{|K^0_l|\overline{K}^0_r|\overline{K}^0_l|K^0_r\right\},`$ (24)
which can be rewritten in the $`K_SK_L`$-basis

$`|\psi (t=0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_{SL}}{\sqrt{2}}}\left\{|K_S_l|K_L_r|K_L_l|K_S_r\right\}`$ (25)
with $`N_{SL}=\frac{N^2}{2pq}`$. Then the neutral kaons fly apart and will be detected on the left ($`l`$) and right ($`r`$) side of the source. Of course, during their propagation the $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$oscillate and $`K_S,K_L`$ decays will take place. This is an important difference to the case of spin $`1/2`$ particles or photons.

## III Time evolution - unitarity

Now let us discuss more closely the time evolution of the kaon states  . At any instant $`t`$ the state $`|K^0(t)`$ decays to a specific final state $`|f`$ with a probability proportional to the absolute squared of the transition matrix element. Because of unitarity of the time evolution the norm of the total state must be conserved. This means that the decrease in the norm of the state $`|K^0(t)`$ must be compensated by the increase in the norm of the final states.

So starting at $`t=0`$ with a $`K^0`$ meson the state we have to consider for a complete $`t`$-evolution is given by

$`|K^0\stackrel{}{}a(t)|K^0+b(t)|\overline{K}^0+{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}c_f(t)|f`$ (26)
with

$`a(t)=g_+(t)\text{and}b(t)={\displaystyle \frac{q}{p}}g_{}(t)`$ (27)
and the functions $`g_\pm (t)`$ are defined in Eq.(17). Denoting the amplitudes of the decays of the $`K^0,\overline{K}^0`$ to a specific final state $`f`$ by

$`𝒜(K^0f)𝒜_f\text{and}𝒜(\overline{K}^0f)\overline{𝒜}_f`$ (28)
we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}|c_f(t)|^2=|a(t)𝒜_f+b(t)\overline{𝒜}_f|^2`$ (29)
and for the probability of the decay $`K_0f`$ at a certain time $`\tau `$

$`P_{K^0f}(\tau )={\displaystyle _0^\tau }{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}|c_f(t)|^2𝑑t.`$ (30)
Since the state $`|K^0(t)`$ evolves according to a Schrödinger equation with “effective mass” Hamiltonian (11) the decay amplitudes are related to the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ matrix by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}={\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}|𝒜_f|^2,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{22}={\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}|\overline{𝒜}_f|^2,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}={\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}𝒜_f^{}\overline{𝒜}_f.`$ (31)
These are the Bell-Steinberger unitarity relations ; they are a consequence of probability conservation, and play an important role.

For our purpose the formalism used by Ghirardi, Grassi and Weber  is quite convenient, and we generalize it to arbitrary quasi spin states. So we describe the complete evolution of the mass eigenstates by a unitary operator $`U(t,0)`$ whose effect can be written as

$`U(t,0)|K_{S,L}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\lambda _{S,L}t}|K_{S,L}+|\mathrm{\Omega }_{S,L}(t)`$ (32)
where $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_{S,L}(t)`$ denotes the state of all decay products. For the transition amplitudes of the decay product states we then have

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_S(t)|\mathrm{\Omega }_S(t)`$ $`=`$ $`1e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_St}`$ (33)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_L(t)|\mathrm{\Omega }_L(t)`$ $`=`$ $`1e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lt}`$ (34)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_L(t)|\mathrm{\Omega }_S(t)`$ $`=`$ $`K_L|K_S(1e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }mt}e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t})`$ (35)
$`K_{S,L}|\mathrm{\Omega }_S(t)`$ $`=`$ $`K_{S,L}|\mathrm{\Omega }_L(t)=0.`$ (36)
Note that the mass eigenstates (9) are normalized but due to $`CP`$ violation not orthogonal

$`K_L|K_S={\displaystyle \frac{2Re\{\epsilon \}}{1+|\epsilon |^2}}=:\delta .`$ (37)
Now we consider entangled states of kaon pairs, and we start at time $`t=0`$ from the entangled state (24) given in the $`K_SK_L`$ basis choice

$$|\psi (t=0)=\frac{N^2}{2\sqrt{2}pq}\left\{|K_S_l|K_L_r|K_L_l|K_S_r\right\}.$$
(38)
Then we get the state at time $`t`$ from (38) by applying the unitary operator

$`U(t,0)`$ $`=`$ $`U_l(t,0)U_r(t,0),`$ (39)
where the operators $`U_l(t,0)`$ and $`U_r(t,0)`$ act on the space of the left and of the right mesons according to the time evolution (32).

What we are finally interested in are the quantum mechanical probabilities for detecting, or not detecting, a specific quasi spin state on the left side $`|k_n_l`$ and on the right side $`|k_n_r`$ of the source. For that we need the projection operators $`P_{l,r}(k_n)`$ on the left, right quasi spin states $`|k_n_{l,r}`$ together with the projection operators that act onto the orthogonal states $`Q_{l,r}(k_n)`$

$`P_l(k_n)`$ $`=`$ $`|k_n_{ll}k_n|andP_r(k_n)=|k_n_{rr}k_n|`$ (40)
$`Q_l(k_n)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}P_l(k_n)andQ_r(k_n)=\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}1}P_r(k_n).`$ (41)
So starting from the initial state (38) the unitary time evolution (39) gives the state at a time $`t_r`$

$`|\psi (t_r)`$ $`=`$ $`U(t_r,0)|\psi (t=0)=U_l(t_r,0)U_r(t_r,0)|\psi (t=0).`$ (42)
If we now measure a $`k_m`$ at $`t_r`$ on the right side means that we project onto the state

$`|\stackrel{~}{\psi }(t_r)`$ $`=`$ $`P_r(k_m)|\psi (t_r).`$ (43)
This state, which is now a one-particle state of the left-moving particle, evolves until $`t_l`$ when we measure a $`k_n`$ on the left side and we get

$`|\stackrel{~}{\psi }(t_l,t_r)`$ $`=`$ $`P_l(k_n)U_l(t_l,t_r)P_r(k_m)|\psi (t_r).`$ (44)
The probability of the joint measurement is given by the squared norm of the state (44). It coincides (due to unitarity, composition laws and commutation properties of $`l,r`$-operators) with the state

$`|\psi (t_l,t_r)`$ $`=`$ $`P_l(k_n)P_r(k_m)U_l(t_l,0)U_r(t_r,0)|\psi (t=0),`$ (45)
which corresponds to a factorization of the time into an eigentime $`t_l`$ on the left side and into an eigentime $`t_r`$ on the right side.

Then we can calculate the quantum mechanical probability $`P_{n,m}(Y,t_l;Y,t_r)`$ for finding a $`k_n`$ at $`t_l`$ on the left side and a $`k_m`$ at $`t_r`$ on the right side and the probability $`P_{n,m}(N,t_l;N,t_l)`$ for finding $`no`$ such kaons by the following norms; and similarly the probability $`P_{n,m}(Y,t_l;N,t_r)`$ when a $`k_n`$ at $`t_l`$ is detected on the left but $`nok_m`$ at $`t_r`$ on the right

$`P_{n,m}(Y,t_l;Y,t_r)`$ $`=`$ $`P_l(k_n)P_r(k_m)U_l(t_l,0)U_r(t_r,0)|\psi (t=0)^2`$ (46)
$`P_{n,m}(N,t_l;N,t_r)`$ $`=`$ $`Q_l(k_n)Q_r(k_m)U_l(t_l,0)U_r(t_r,0)|\psi (t=0)^2`$ (47)
$`P_{n,m}(Y,t_l;N,t_r)`$ $`=`$ $`P_l(k_n)Q_r(k_m)U_l(t_l,0)U_r(t_r,0)|\psi (t=0)^2.`$ (48)
## IV Bell inequalities for spin $`1/2`$ particles

In this section we will review briefly the well-known derivation of Bell-inequalities . Our intention is to draw the readers attention to the analogies, but more important to the differences of the spin/photon correlations as compared to the quasi spin correlations discussed in the following sections.

We want to start with the derivation a general Bell inequality, the CHSH inequality, named after Clauser, Horne, Shimony and Holt , and then we derive from that inequality - with two further assumptions - the original Bell inequality and the Wigner-type inequality.

Let $`A(n,\lambda )`$ and $`B(m,\lambda )`$ be the definite values of two quantum observables $`A^{QM}(n)`$ and $`B^{QM}(m)`$, $`\lambda `$ denoting the hidden variables which are not accessible to an experimenter but carry the additional information needed in a LRT. The measurement result of one observable is $`A(n,\lambda )=\pm 1`$ corresponding to the spin measurement ’spin up’ and ’spin down’ along the quantisation direction $`n`$ of particle $`1`$; and $`A(n,\lambda )=0`$ if no particle was detected at all. The analogue holds for the result $`B(m,\lambda )`$ of particle $`2`$.

Assuming now Bell’s locality hypothesis ($`A(n,\lambda )`$ depends only on the direction $`n`$, but not on $`m`$, the analogue holds for $`B(m,\lambda )`$) – which is the crucial point – we have for the combined spin measurement the following expectation value

$`M(n,m)={\displaystyle 𝑑\lambda \rho (\lambda )A(n,\lambda )B(m,\lambda )}`$ (49)
with the normalized probability distribution

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\lambda \rho (\lambda )}=1.`$ (50)
This quantity $`M(n,m)`$ correspond to the quantum mechanical mean value $`M^{QM}(n,m)=A^{QM}(n)B^{QM}(m)`$.

A straight forward calculation (for example ) gives the estimate of the absolut value of the difference of two mean values

$`|M(n,m)M(n,m^{})|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\lambda \rho (\lambda )\left\{1\pm A(n^{},\lambda )B(m^{},\lambda )\right\}}`$ (52)
$`+{\displaystyle 𝑑\lambda \rho (\lambda )\left\{1\pm A(n^{},\lambda )B(m,\lambda )\right\}}`$
and using normalization (50) we get

$`|M(n,m)M(n,m^{})|2\pm |M(n^{},m^{})+M(n^{},m)|`$ (53)
and more symmetrically

$`|M(n,m)M(n,m^{})|+|M(n^{},m^{})+M(n^{},m)|\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}.`$ (54)
This is the familiar CHSH-inequality, derived by Clauser, Horne, Shimony and Holt  in 1969. Every local realistic hidden variable theory must obey that inequality.
Inserting the quantum mechanical expectation values $`M^{QM}(n,m)`$ for $`M(n,m)`$, we get with $`\varphi _{n,m}`$ being the angle between the two quantization directions $`n`$ and $`m`$

$`S(n,m,n^{},m^{})=|\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _{n,m})\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _{n,m^{}})|+|\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _{n^{},m^{}})+\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _{n^{},m})|\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2},`$ (55)
which is for some choices of the angles $`\varphi `$ violated; the maximal value of the left hand side is $`2\sqrt{2}`$, with for instance $`\varphi _{n,m^{}}=\frac{3\pi }{4}`$ and $`\varphi _{n,m}=\varphi _{n^{},m^{}}=\varphi _{n^{},m}=\frac{\pi }{4}`$. Experimentally, for entangled photon pairs inequality (55) is violated under strict Einstein locality conditions in an impressive way, with a result close in agreement with QM , confirming such previous experimental results on similar inequalities .

In order to come to the original Bell inequality or to the Wigner inequality we make two assumptions, first we assume always perfect correlation $`M(n,n)=1`$ and second the measurement of the state of the particles has to be perfect, so there are no omitted events which were interpreted in the CHSH derivation as $`0`$ results.

Considering now just $`3`$ different quantization directions, so choosing e.g. $`n^{}=m^{}`$, inequality (53) gives

$`|M(n,m)M(n,n^{})|2\pm \{\underset{}{M(n^{},n^{})}+M(n^{},m)\}`$ (56)
$`1n^{}`$ (57)
or (58)
$`|M(n,m)M(n,n^{})|\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}+M(n^{},m).`$ (59)
This is the famous original inequality derived by J.S. Bell  in 1964. Note, that this derivation is already true for the entangled kaon system where the different kaon quasi spin eigenstates on the left and right side, measured at equal times, play the role of the different angles, see Section V C.

Finally, we rewrite the expectation value for two spin $`1/2`$ particles in terms of probabilities

$`M(n,m)`$ $`=`$ $`P(\stackrel{}{n};\stackrel{}{m})+P(\stackrel{}{n};\stackrel{}{m})P(\stackrel{}{n};\stackrel{}{m})P(\stackrel{}{n};\stackrel{}{m})`$ (60)
$`=`$ $`1+4P(\stackrel{}{n};\stackrel{}{m}),`$ (61)
where we used $`P=1`$. Then Bell’s original inequality (56) provides the Wigner inequality

$`P(\stackrel{}{n};\stackrel{}{m})P(\stackrel{}{n};\stackrel{}{n^{}})+P(\stackrel{}{n^{}};\stackrel{}{m}),`$ (62)
where the $`P`$ can be the measurement of all spins up or down on both sides, or spin up on one side and spin down on the other side, or vice versa. Note, that the Wigner inequality has been originally derived by a set-theoretical approach.

## V Generalized Bell inequalities for $`K`$-mesons

Let us consider again the entangled state $`|\psi (t=0)`$ (24) of a $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$pair and its time evolution $`U(t,0)|\psi (0)`$, then we find the following situation:

Performing two measurements to detect the kaons at the same time at the left side and at the right side of the source the probability of finding two mesons with the same strangeness $`K^0K^0`$ or $`\overline{K}^0\overline{K}^0`$ is zero. If we measure at time $`t`$ a $`\overline{K}^0`$ meson on the left side, we will find with certainty at the same time $`t`$ $`no\overline{K}^0`$ on the right side. This is an EPR-Bell correlation analogously to the spin $`1/2`$ or photon (e.g., with polarization vertical - horizontal) case. The analogy would be perfect, if the kaons were stable ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S=\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=0`$); then the quantum probabilities become

$`P(Y,t_l;Y,t_r)`$ $`=`$ $`P(N,t_l;N,t_r)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left\{1\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m(t_lt_r))\right\}`$ (63)
$`P(Y,t_l;N,t_r)`$ $`=`$ $`P(N,t_l;Y,t_r)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left\{1+\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m(t_lt_r))\right\}.`$ (64)
They coincide with the probabilities of finding simultaneously two entangled spin $`1/2`$ particles in spin directions $``$ $``$ or $``$ $``$ along two chosen directions $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{m}`$

$`P(\stackrel{}{n},;\stackrel{}{m},)`$ $`=`$ $`P(\stackrel{}{n},;\stackrel{}{m},)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left\{1\mathrm{cos}\theta \right\}`$ (65)
$`P(\stackrel{}{n},;\stackrel{}{m},)`$ $`=`$ $`P(\stackrel{}{n},;\stackrel{}{m},)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left\{1+\mathrm{cos}\theta \right\}.`$ (66)
The time differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }m(t_lt_r)`$ in the kaon case play the role of the angle differences $`\theta `$ in the spin $`1/2`$ case.

Nevertheless, there are important physical differences between kaon and spin $`1/2`$ states (for an experimenter’s point of view, see Ref.).

1. While in the spin $`1/2`$ or photon case one can test whether a system is in an arbitrary spin state $`\alpha |+\beta |`$ one cannot test it for an arbitrary superposition $`\alpha |K^0+\beta |\overline{K}^0`$.
2. For entangled spin $`1/2`$ particles or photons it is sufficient to consider the direct product space $`H_{spin}^lH_{spin}^r`$, however, this is not so for kaons. The unitary time evolution of a kaon state also involves the decay product states (see Chapter 3), therefore one has to include the decay product spaces which are orthogonal to the product space $`H_{kaon}^rH_{kaon}^l`$.

So by measuring a $`\overline{K}^0`$ at the left side we can predict with certainty to find at the same time $`no\overline{K}^0`$ at the right side. In any LRT this property $`no\overline{K}^0`$ must be present at the right side independent of having the measurement performed or not. In order to discriminate between QM and LRT we set up a Bell inequality for the kaon system where now the different times play the role of the different angles in the spin $`1/2`$ case. But, in addition, we use the freedom of choosing a particular quasi spin state of the kaon, the strangeness eigenstate, the mass eigenstate, or the $`CP`$ eigenstate.

### A Expectation values and locality

As discussed before in kaon systems we have the freedom of choosing the time, when a measurement takes place and the freedom which particular quasi spin state we want to measure.

The locality hypothesis then requires that the results of measurement on the left side are completely independent of the chosen time and chosen quasi spin state in the measurement on the right side.

Let us consider an observable $`O(k_n,t_a)`$ on each side of the source, which gets the value $`+1`$ if in a measurement at time $`t_a`$ the quasi spin state $`k_n`$ is found and the value $`1`$ if not.

Then we can define a correlation function $`O(k_n,t_a;k_m,t_b)`$ which gets the value $`+1`$, both when at the left side a $`k_n`$ at $`t_a`$ and at the right side a $`k_m`$ at $`t_b`$ was detected or when $`nok_n`$ and $`nok_m`$ was found. In the case that only one of the desired quasi spin eigenstates has been found, no matter at which side, the correlation function has the value $`1`$.

Locality hypothesis: Locality in the sense of Bell means that the correlation function $`O(k_n,t_a;k_m,t_b)`$ is equal to the product of the observables on each side

$$O(k_n,t_a;k_m,t_b)=O^l(k_n,t_a)O^r(k_m,t_b).$$
(67)
Then the following relation holds

$`|O(k_n,t_a;k_m,t_b)O(k_n,t_a;k_m^{},t_d)|+|O(k_n^{},t_c;k_m^{},t_d)+O(k_n^{},t_c;k_m,t_b)|=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2},`$ (68)
with $`k_n,k_m,k_n^{}`$ and $`k_m^{}`$ being arbitrary quasi spin eigenstates of the meson and $`t_a,t_b,t_c`$ and $`t_d`$ four different times.

Now we consider a series of $`N`$ identical measurements and we denote by $`O_i`$ the value of $`O`$ in the $`i`$-th experiment. The average is given by

$`M(k_n,t_a;k_m,t_b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}O_i(k_n,t_a;k_m,t_b).`$ (70)
Taking the absolute values of differences and sums of such averages and inserting relation (68) we obtain the Bell-CHSH inequality for the expectation values

$$|M(k_n,t_a;k_m,t_b)M(k_n,t_a;k_m^{},t_d)|+|M(k_n^{},t_c;k_m^{},t_d)+M(k_n^{},t_c;k_m,t_b)|\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}.$$
(71)
If we identify $`M(k_n,t_a;k_m,t_b)M(n,m)`$ we are back at the inequality (54) for the spin $`1/2`$ case.

### B Probabilities

Now we consider the expectation value (70) for the series of identical measurements in terms of the probabilities, where we denote by $`P_{n,m}(Y,t_a;Y,t_b)`$ the probability for finding a $`k_n`$ at $`t_a`$ on the left side and finding a $`k_m`$ at $`t_b`$ on the right side and by $`P_{n,m}(N,t_a;N,t_b)`$ the probability for finding $`no`$ such kaons; similarly $`P_{n,m}(Y,t_a;N,t_b)`$ denotes the case when a $`k_n`$ at $`t_a`$ is detected on the left but $`nok_m`$ at $`t_b`$ on the right. Then we can re-express the expectation value by the following linearcombination

$`M(k_n,t_a;k_m,t_b)`$ $`=`$ $`P_{n,m}(Y,t_a;Y,t_b)+P_{n,m}(N,t_a;N,t_b)`$ (73)
$`P_{n,m}(Y,t_a;N,t_b)P_{n,m}(N,t_a;Y,t_b).`$
Since the sum of the probabilities for $`(Y,Y)`$, $`(N,N)`$, $`(Y,N)`$ and $`(N,Y)`$ must be unity we get

$`M(k_n,t_a;k_m,t_b)`$ $`=`$ $`1+2\left\{P_{n,m}(Y,t_a;Y,t_b)+P_{n,m}(N,t_a;N,t_b)\right\}.`$ (74)
Note that relation (73) between the expectation value and the probabilities is satisfied for QM and LRT as well.

Setting this expression into the Bell-CHSH inequality (71) we finally arrive at the following inequality for the probabilities

$`|P_{n,m}(Y,t_a;Y,t_b)+P_{n,m}(N,t_a;N,t_b)P_{n,m^{}}(Y,t_a;Y,t_d)P_{n,m^{}}(N,t_a;N,t_d)|`$ (75)
$`1\pm \{1+P_{n^{},m}(Y,t_c;Y,t_b)+P_{n^{},m}(N,t_c;N,t_b)`$ (76)
$`+P_{n^{},m^{}}(Y,t_c;Y,t_d)+P_{n^{},m^{}}(N,t_c;N,t_d)\}`$ (77)
or

$`S(k_n,k_m,k_n^{},k_m^{};t_a,t_b,t_c,t_d)=`$ (81)
$`|P_{n,m}(Y,t_a;Y,t_b)+P_{n,m}(N,t_a;N,t_b)P_{n,m^{}}(Y,t_a;Y,t_d)P_{n,m^{}}(N,t_a;N,t_d)|+`$
$`|1+P_{n^{},m}(Y,t_c;Y,t_b)+P_{n^{},m}(N,t_c;N,t_b)`$
$`+P_{n^{},m^{}}(Y,t_c;Y,t_d)+P_{n^{},m^{}}(N,t_c;N,t_d)|\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}.`$
### C Wigner-type inequalities

What we aim is to find Wigner-type inequalities. The most general one we get from above inequality (75) by choosing the upper sign $`+`$

$`P_{n,m}(Y,t_a;Y,t_b)`$ $``$ $`P_{n,m^{}}(Y,t_a;Y,t_d)+P_{m^{},n^{}}(Y,t_d;Y,t_c)+P_{n^{},m}(Y,t_c;Y,t_b)`$ (83)
$`+h(n,m,n^{},m^{};t_a,t_b,t_c,t_d)`$
where

$`h(n,m,n^{},m^{};t_a,t_b,t_c,t_d)`$ $`=`$ $`P_{n,m}(N,t_a;N,t_b)+P_{n,m^{}}(N,t_a;N,t_d)`$ (85)
$`+P_{n^{},m}(N,t_c;N,t_b)+P_{n^{},m^{}}(N,t_c;N,t_d)`$
is a correction function to the usual set-theoretical result, see Section IV. It arises because for a unitary time evolution we also have to include the decay states (see Eq.(32)), contributing to the $`nokaon`$ states, thus the decay product spaces which are orthogonal to the product space $`H_{kaon}^rH_{kaon}^l`$ .

For zero times $`t_{a,b}0`$, when we have no decays, the probabilities for $`(N,N)`$ become the ones for $`(Y,Y)`$

$$P_{n,m}(N,t_a;N,t_b)|_{t_{a,b}=0}P_{n,m}(Y,t_a;Y,t_b)|_{t_{a,b}=0},$$
(86)
the correction function (for $`t_a=t_b=t_c=t_d=t=0`$) is then equal to

$`h(n,m,n^{},m^{};t=0)`$ $`=`$ $`P_{n,m}(Y,Y)|_{t=0}+P_{n,m^{}}(Y,Y)|_{t=0}+P_{n^{},m}(Y,Y)|_{t=0}`$ (88)
$`+P_{n^{},m^{}}(Y,Y)|_{t=0},`$
and just adds up to the inequality (83) in such a way that we obtain the usual set-theoretical result

$`P_{n,m}(Y,Y)|_{t=0}`$ $``$ $`P_{n,m^{}}(Y,Y)|_{t=0}+P_{m^{},n^{}}(Y,Y)|_{t=0}+P_{n^{},m}(Y,Y,)|_{t=0}.`$ (89)
Of course, the case we are interested in contains only 3 different states, so we put $`n^{}=m^{}`$ and $`t_c=t_d,`$ then the probability for $`(Y,Y)`$ vanishes $`P_{n^{},n^{}}(Y,t_c;Y,t_c)=0`$ due to the EPR-Bell anticorrelation but certainly not the probability for $`(N,N)`$ $`P_{n^{},n^{}}(N,t_c;N,t_c)0`$ (it vanishes only for $`t_c0`$).

So we obtain the following Wigner-type inequality for 3 different quasi spin states

$`P_{n,m}(Y,t_a;Y,t_b)`$ $``$ $`P_{n,n^{}}(Y,t_a;Y,t_c)+P_{n^{},m}(Y,t_c;Y,t_b)`$ (91)
$`+h(n,m,n^{};t_a,t_b,t_c)`$
with the correction function

$`h(n,m,n^{};t_a,t_b,t_c)`$ $`=`$ $`P_{n,m}(N,t_a;N,t_b)+P_{n,n^{}}(N,t_a;N,t_c)`$ (93)
$`+P_{n^{},m}(N,t_c;N,t_b)+P_{n^{},n^{}}(N,t_c;N,t_c).`$
Again, in the limit of zero times $`t0`$ we arrive at the familiar Wigner-type inequality

$$P_{n,m}(Y,Y)|_{t=0}P_{n,n^{}}(Y,Y)|_{t=0}+P_{n^{},m}(Y,Y)|_{t=0}.$$
(94)
We certainly also can achieve Bell’s original case (56), which is more restrictive since we have to require perfect anticorrelation

$$M(k_n,t;k_n,t)=1.$$
(95)
Then the general CHSH relation, Eq.(71), implies the specific inequality of Bell

$$|M(k_n,t;k_m,t)M(k_n,t;k_n^{},t)|\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}+M(k_n^{},t;k_m,t).$$
(96)
Converting it into a Wigner-type we come back to inequality (91), but with a smaller correction function

$$h_{Bell}(t)=h_{CHSH}(t)P_{n^{},n^{}}(N,t;N,t),$$
(97)
which is more restrictive.

### D The choice sensitive to the $`CP`$ parameter $`\epsilon `$

Choosing the quasi spin states

$`|k_n=|K_S`$ (98)
$`|k_m=|\overline{K}^0`$ (99)
$`|k_n^{}=|K_1^0,`$ (100)
and denoting the probabilities $`P_{K_S,\overline{K}^0}(Y,Y)|_{t=0}P(K_S,\overline{K}^0)`$ etc., we recover Uchiyama’s inequality

$$P(K_S,\overline{K}^0)P(K_S,K_1^0)+P(K_1^0,\overline{K}^0)$$
(101)
which he derived by a set-theoretical approach. The interesting point here is its connection to a physical parameter, the $`CP`$ violating parameter $`\epsilon `$. As Uchiyama has shown his inequality can be turned into an inequality for $`\epsilon `$

$$Re\{\epsilon \}|\epsilon |^2$$
(102)
which is obviously violated by the experimental value of $`\epsilon `$, having an absolute value of about $`10^3`$ and a phase of about $`45^{}`$ .

An other meaningful choice would be the replacement of the short living state $`|K_S`$ by the long living state $`|K_L`$ and the $`CP`$ eigenstate $`|K_1`$ by $`|K_2`$ in Eq.(98) then we arrive at the same inequality (102).

Our Wigner-type inequality (91) differs from the ones discussed in the literature ; in the sense that we have an additional term $`h`$ (93) due to the unitary time evolution of the considered states. Since $`h`$ is positive it worsens the possibility for quantum mechanics to violate the Bell inequality.

This can be clearly seen in case of equal times $`t_a=t_b=t_c=t`$, when the exponential $`t`$-dependence factorizes in the $`(Y,Y)`$ probabilities but not in the $`(N,N)`$ ones. Then we have for the choice (98) the following Wigner-type inequality

$$e^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }t}P(K_S,\overline{K}^0)e^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }t}P(K_S,K_1^0)+e^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }t}P(K_1^0,\overline{K}^0)+h(K_S,\overline{K}^0,K_1^0;t),$$
(103)
where the probabilities and the correction function $`h`$ can be found explicitly in the Appendix A 1. As we see due to the fast damping of the probabilities (and $`h2`$) a violation of inequality (103) by QM is only possible for very small times, in fact, only for times $`t810^4\tau _S`$.

But fortunately there exist certain cases where the situation is better. We can avoid a fast increase of the correction function $`h`$ by taking the times $`t_a=t_c`$ and $`t_at_b`$. Then a violation of the Wigner-type inequality (91) occurs, which is strongest for $`t_a0`$; and in this case $`t_b`$ can be chosen up to $`t_b4\tau _S`$, which is already quite large.

### E The choice sensitive to the direct $`CP`$ parameter $`\epsilon ^{}`$

As shown by Benatti and Floreanini in Refs., the case has been also discussed carefully in Refs., some decay end-products can be identified with the quasi spin eigenstates. For example, the two neutral pions or the two charged pions can be associated with the quasi spin eigenstates:

$`|K_{00}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+|\epsilon _{00}|}}}\{|K_1^0+\epsilon _{00}|K_2^0\}`$ $`|\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ (104)
$`|K_+={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+|\epsilon _+|}}}\{|K_1^0+\epsilon _+|K_2^0\}`$ $`|\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ (105)
with

$`\epsilon _{00}`$ $`=`$ $`2\epsilon ^{}+i{\displaystyle \frac{Im\{𝒜_0\}}{Re\{𝒜_0\}}}`$ (106)
$`\epsilon _+`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon ^{}+i{\displaystyle \frac{Im\{𝒜_0\}}{Re\{𝒜_0\}}}.`$ (107)
Here $`𝒜_0\pi \pi ,I=0|H_w|K^0`$ is the weak decay amplitude with $`I`$ being the isospin (for further information, see Refs.) and $`\epsilon ^{}`$ being the direct $`CP`$ violation parameter; the third order and higher orders in $`\epsilon `$ and $`\epsilon _{00},\epsilon _+`$ are already neglected.

We choose – analogously to previous section – the quasi spin states

$`|k_n=|K^0`$ (108)
$`|k_m=|K_{00}`$ (109)
$`|k_n^{}=|K_+`$ (110)
and we get the following Wigner-type inequality for $`t=0`$

$`P(K^0,K_{00})P(K^0,K_+)+P(K_+,K_{00}).`$ (111)
The calculation of the probabilities gives an inequality

$`|Re\{\epsilon _{00}\}(1+|\epsilon _+|^2)+Re\{\epsilon _+\}(1+|\epsilon _{00}|^2)||\epsilon _{00}|^2+|\epsilon _+|^22Re\{\epsilon _{00}^{}\epsilon _+\}`$ (112)
which, when the results (106) for $`\epsilon _{00}`$ and $`\epsilon _+`$ are inserted, turns into an inequality in the direct $`CP`$ violating parameter $`\epsilon ^{}`$ (third order terms neglected)

$`Re\{\epsilon ^{}\}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}|\epsilon ^{}|^2,`$ (114)
the inequality of Refs..

This inequality is clearly violated by the experimental value of $`\epsilon ^{}`$, $`|\epsilon ^{}|10^6`$ and has a phase of about $`45^{}`$ .

Again, for times $`t>0`$ we have to include the correction function h. Choosing all four times equal $`t_a=t_b=t_c=t_d=t`$, the inequality (91) with the choice (108) cannot be violated for times larger than $`t=3.710^6\tau _S`$.

Varying all four times, unfortunately, does not improve the test QM versus LRT, we only find a violation in the region where all times are smaller than $`10^6\tau _S`$.

### F The choice of the strangeness eigenstate

Finally we also can reproduce the case of Ghirardi, Grassi and Weber , we just have to consider the same quasi spin states

$`k_n=k_m=k_n^{}=k_m^{}=\overline{K}^0.`$ (115)
Evaluating the Bell-CHSH inequality (71) by the quantum mechanical probabilities, neglecting $`CP`$ violation, the result is

$`|e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_S}{2}(t_a+t_c)}\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m(t_at_c))e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_S}{2}(t_a+t_d)}\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m(t_at_d))|`$ (116)
$`+|e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_S}{2}(t_b+t_c)}\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m(t_bt_c))+e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_S}{2}(t_b+t_d)}\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m(t_bt_d))|\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}.`$ (117)
Unfortunately, inequality (116) *cannot* be violated  for any choice of the four (positive) times $`t_a,t_b,t_c,t_d`$ due to the interplay between the kaon decay and strangeness oscillations. As demonstrated in Ref.  a possible violation depends very much on the kaon parameter $`x=\mathrm{\Delta }m/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$; if we had $`x=4.3`$ instead of the experimental $`x1`$, this Bell-CHSH inequality (116) would be broken. Note, that in this case the CHSH inequality maximizes at different time values than expected from the corresponding photon CHSH inequality (55).

## VI Summary and Conclusions

* Quantum theory
We consider the time evolution of neutral kaons and emphasize the unitary time evolution which includes the decay states. Starting at $`t=0`$ with a $`K^0`$ one gets after a certain time $`t`$ a superposition of the strangeness eigenstates due to strangeness oscillations *and* the decay states. In this way we consider the total Hilbert space – analogously to the photon case.

Then we treat entangled states and derive their quantum mechanical probabilities of finding or not finding arbitrary quasi spin states at arbitrary times. With these QM probabilities we calculate the quantum mechanical expectation value.
* LRT
We derive the general Bell-CHSH inequality (71) based on a local realistic hidden variable theory. From this general Bell inequality follows a Wigner-type inequality (83) and an inequality analogously to Bell’s original version.
* QM versus LRT
Next we compare the quantum theory with LRT that means we insert the quantum mechanical expectation value into the general Bell-CHSH inequality. Expressing the expectation value in terms of probabilities we arrive at a Wigner-type inequality (83) which contains an additional term due to the unitary time evolution, the correction function $`h`$ (85).This function $`h`$ is missing in the inequalities of other authors  since they restrict themselves to a sub-set of the Hilbert space.
* Results
This correction function $`h`$ makes it rather difficult for QM to violate the Bell inequality (in order to show the non-local character of QM). In case of Ghirardi, Grassi and Weber , where only $`\overline{K}^0`$ or no $`\overline{K}^0`$ is detected, it is impossible for any choice of the times that QM violates the BI. On the other hand, if we consider in addition to the choice of time the freedom of choosing particular quasi spin eigenstates, then we find cases were QM does violate the BI for certain times. For example, in the choice (98) the Bell inequality is violated for $`t_a=t_c0`$ and $`t_b4\tau _S`$. Considering another choice (108) we find no violation at all, except for $`t=0`$.
* Comments
The authors of Refs. restrict their analysis to a subset of the Hilbert space; tests on such subspaces, however, probe only a restricted class of LRT. In such subspaces Bell inequalities may be violated, but this need not to be the case in the total Hilbert space.

We, on the other hand, aim to exclude the largest class of LRT, therefore we work with a unitary time evolution, a point of view we share with .
* Outlook
In cases, where QM does not violate the Bell inequality, we trace it back to the specific value of the internal parameter $`x=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$, given by Nature. And it does not indicate that these massive systems *have* real properties independent of the act of measurement. However, some of these quasi spin eigenstates are difficult to detect experimentally, in this connection the idea of the “quasi spin rotations”, introducing appropriate kaon “regenerators” along the kaon flight paths, and the resulting Bell inequalities is of special interest (see e.g. ).

An interesting feature of the neutral kaon systems in comparison with photon is that this system has $`CP`$ violation. Although the Bell inequalities themselves are hard to check experimentally, they imply an inequality on the physical $`CP`$ violation parameter $`\epsilon `$ or $`\epsilon ^{}`$, which is experimentally testable.

## VII Acknowledgement

The authors want to thank W. Grimus, N. Gisin and G.C. Ghirardi for fruitful discussions and suggestions. One of the authors, B.C. Hiesmayr, was supported by Austrian FWF project P14143-PHY and the Austrian-Czech Republic Scientific Collaboration, project KONTAKT 1999-8.

## A

### 1 Formula for the choice sensitive to the $`CP`$ parameter $`\epsilon `$

The $`(Y,Y)`$-probabilities:

$`P_{K_S,\overline{K}^0}(Y,t_l;Y,t_r)=`$ (A2)
$`N_{SL}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(1\delta )\left\{e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_St_l\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lt_r}+\delta ^2e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lt_l\mathrm{\Gamma }_St_r}+2\delta \mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m\mathrm{\Delta }t)e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(t_l+t_r)}\right\}`$
$`P_{K_S,K_1^0}(Y,t_l;Y,t_r)=`$ (A5)
$`N_{SL}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+|\epsilon |^2}}\left\{|\epsilon |^2e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_St_l\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lt_r}+\delta ^2e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_St_r\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lt_l}2\delta Re\{\epsilon ^{}e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }m\mathrm{\Delta }t}\}e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(t_l+t_r)}\right\}`$
$`P_{K_1^0,\overline{K}^0}(Y,t_l;Y,t_r)=`$ (A8)
$`N_{SL}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1\delta }{1+|\epsilon |^2}}\left\{e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_St_l\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lt_r}+|\epsilon |^2e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lt_l\mathrm{\Gamma }_St_r}+2Re\{\epsilon e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }m\mathrm{\Delta }t}\}e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(t_l+t_r)}\right\}`$
$`P_{K_1^0,K_1^0}(Y,t_l;Y,t_r)=`$ (A11)
$`N_{SL}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\epsilon |^2}{(1+|\epsilon |^2)^2}}\left\{e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_St_l\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lt_r}+e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lt_l\mathrm{\Gamma }_St_r}2\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m\mathrm{\Delta }t)e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(t_l+t_r)}\right\}`$
The correction function:

$`h(K_S,t_a;\overline{K}^0,t_b;K_1^0,t_c;K_1^0,t_d)=`$ (A13)
$`P_{K_S,\overline{K}^0}(Y,t_a;Y,t_b)+P_{K_S,K_1^0}(Y,t_a;Y,t_c)+P_{K_1^0,K_1^0}(Y,t_d;Y,t_b)+P_{K_1^0,\overline{K}^0}(Y,t_d;Y,t_c)`$
$`+`$ $`3N_{SL}^2\{e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_St_a}+\delta ^2e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lt_a}2\delta ^2\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }mt_a)e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t_a}`$ (A17)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+|\epsilon |^2}}\left(e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_St_d}+|\epsilon |^2e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lt_d}2\delta Re\{\epsilon e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }mt_d}\}e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t_d}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1\delta }{2}}\left(e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_St_b}+e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lt_b}+2\delta \mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }mt_b)e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t_b}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+|\epsilon |^2}}(e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_St_c}+|\epsilon |^2e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lt_c}2\delta Re\{\epsilon e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }mt_c}\}e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t_c})\}`$
### 2 Formula for the choice sensitive to the direct $`CP`$ parameter $`\epsilon ^{}`$

The $`(Y,Y)`$ probabilities:

$`P_{K^0,K_{00}}(Y,t_l;Y,t_r)={\displaystyle \frac{N_{SL}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\delta }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+|\epsilon |^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+|r_{00}|^2}}`$ (A20)
$`\{|\epsilon _{00}^{}+\epsilon |^2e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_St_l\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lt_r}+|1+\epsilon \epsilon _{00}^{}|^2e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lt_l\mathrm{\Gamma }_St_r}`$
$`2Re\{(\epsilon _{00}+\epsilon ^{})(1+\epsilon \epsilon _{00}^{})e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }m\mathrm{\Delta }t}\}e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(t_l+t_r)}\}`$
$`P_{K^0,K_+}(Y,t_l;Y,t_r)={\displaystyle \frac{N_{SL}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\delta }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+|\epsilon |^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+|r_+|^2}}`$ (A23)
$`\{|\epsilon _+^{}+\epsilon |^2e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_St_l\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lt_r}+|1+\epsilon \epsilon _+^{}|^2e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lt_l\mathrm{\Gamma }_St_r}`$
$`2Re\{(\epsilon _++\epsilon ^{})(1+\epsilon \epsilon _+^{})e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }m\mathrm{\Delta }t}\}e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(t_l+t_r)}\}`$
$`P_{K_+,K_{00}}(Y,t_l;Y,t_r)={\displaystyle \frac{N_{SL}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+|\epsilon |^2)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+|r_{00}|^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+|r_+|^2}}`$ (A26)
$`\{|1+\epsilon \epsilon _+^{}|^2|\epsilon _{00}^{}+\epsilon |^2e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_St_l\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lt_r}+|\epsilon _+^{}+\epsilon |^2|1+\epsilon \epsilon _{00}^{}|^2e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lt_l\mathrm{\Gamma }_St_r}`$
$`2Re\{(1+\epsilon ^{}\epsilon _+)(\epsilon _{00}+\epsilon ^{})(\epsilon _+^{}+\epsilon )(1+\epsilon \epsilon _{00}^{})e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }m\mathrm{\Delta }t}\}e^{\gamma (t_l+t_r)}\}`$
$`P_{K_+,K_+}(Y,t_l;Y,t_r)={\displaystyle \frac{N_{SL}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+|\epsilon |^2)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+|r_+|^2)^2}}|1+\epsilon \epsilon _+^{}|^2|\epsilon _+^{}+\epsilon |^2`$ (A28)
$`\left\{e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_St_l\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lt_r}+e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lt_l\mathrm{\Gamma }_St_r}2\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m\mathrm{\Delta }t)e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(t_l+t_r)}\right\}`$
The correction function:

$`h(K^0,t_a;K_{00},t_b;K_+,t_c;K_+,t_d)=`$ (A38)
$`P_{K^0,K_{00}}(Y,t_a;Y,t_b)+P_{K^0,K_+}(Y,t_a;Y,t_c)+P_{K_+,K_+}(Y,t_d;Y,t_b)`$
$`+P_{K_+,K_{00}}(Y,t_d;Y,t_c)`$
$`+3N_{SL}^2\{{\displaystyle \frac{1+\delta }{2}}(e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_St_a}+e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lt_a}2\delta \mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }mt_a)e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t_a})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+|\epsilon |^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+|\epsilon _+|^2}}(|1+\epsilon _+^{}\epsilon |^2e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_St_d}+|\epsilon +\epsilon _+^{}|^2e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lt_d}`$
$`2\delta Re\{(1+\epsilon _+\epsilon ^{})(\epsilon +\epsilon _+^{})e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }mt_d}\}e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t_d})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+|\epsilon |^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+|\epsilon _{00}|^2}}(|1+\epsilon _{00}^{}\epsilon |^2e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_St_b}+|\epsilon +\epsilon _{00}^{}|^2e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lt_b}`$
$`2\delta Re\{(1+\epsilon _{00}\epsilon ^{})(\epsilon +\epsilon _{00}^{})e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }mt_b}\}e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t_b})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+|\epsilon |^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+|\epsilon _+|^2}}(|1+\epsilon _+^{}\epsilon |^2e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_St_c}+|\epsilon +\epsilon _+^{}|^2e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lt_c}`$
$`2\delta Re\{(1+\epsilon _+\epsilon ^{})(\epsilon +\epsilon _+^{})e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }mt_c}\}e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t_c})\}`$