text:
# UNRUH EFFECT IN STORAGE RINGS aafootnote aTalk delivered at the 18th Advanced ICFA Beam Dynamics Workshop on Quantum Aspects of Beam Physics, Capri October 15-20, 2000.

## 1 Introduction

A uniformly accelerated observer will – at least in theory – see Minkowski vacuum as a thermally excited state, with a temperature determined by the acceleration. Thus, in the accelerated frame a natural definition of the vacuum state is the Rindler vacuum, which is different from the Minkowski vacuum $`^\mathrm{?}`$. When expressed in terms of the Rindler field quanta, Minkowski space is thermally excited. A quantum system that is uniformly accelerated will act as a detector or thermometer that probes the temperature of the Minkowski vacuum state in the accelerated Rindler frame. When coupled weakly to the radiation field, it will end up in a stationary state with a thermal probability distribution over energy levels $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$.

There is a close relation between this effect – the Unruh effect – and the Hawking effect, i.e. the effect that a black hole emits thermal radiation $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The accelerated observer in Minkowski space then corresponds to a stationary observer with a fixed distance from the event horizon of the black hole. This observer will detect the local effects of the Hawking temperature $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

An interesting question is whether the Unruh effect can be seen in any real experiment. There have been several suggestions, but there are obvious problems with the implementation of such experiments. A main problem is that the acceleration has to be extremely high to give even a very modest temperature. Thus, a temperature of $`1K`$ corresponds to an acceleration of $`2.510^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}20}}m/s^2`$. A detector indeed has to be very robust to take such an acceleration without being destroyed.

Some years ago it was suggested by John Bell and myself that that an electron could be viewed as such a detector $`^\mathrm{?}`$. It certainly is robust at this level of acceleration and in an external magnetic field the measured occupation of the spin energy levels would give a way to determine the temperature. However, for linearly accelerated electrons the obtainable temperature and the time scale for reaching equilibrium, for realistic values of the accelerating fields, makes it clear that such effects cannot not be seen in existing particle accelerators. Recently there have been interesting suggestions of how to obtain much more violent acceleration of electrons by use of laser techniques $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$, but even in this case the time scale for spin excitations is too long. (There are however suggestions of other ways to see the Unruh effect in these cases $`^\mathrm{?}`$.)

For electrons circulating in a storage ring the situation is different. The acceleration is larger than in linear accelerators and the time available is sufficient to reach equilibrium. In the discussion with John Bell the question came up: Could the the Sokolov-Ternov effect $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$, which predicts a equilibrium polarization lower than 100% be related to the Unruh effect in the sense that the upper spin energy level, measured in the rest frame, is partly occupied due to the heating? In two papers this question was studied an the answer was a qualified yes $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. (See also several later papers, some of these included in the proceedings from the ICFA meeting in Monterey two years ago $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$.) For circular motion there are however important complications relative to the case of linear acceleration. One point is that the simple connection to temperature is correct only for linear acceleration. For circular motion the excitations may be described in terms of an effective temperature, but this temperature is not uniquely determined by the acceleration as in the linear case. However, as a more important point, the electron does not act as a simple point detector. The spin is also affected by oscillations in the orbit, and the Thomas precession makes the direct coupling to the magnetic field act differently from the indirect coupling mediated through oscillations in the particle orbit. The net effect is that the correct expression for the electron polarization will deviate from one derived by a naive application of the Unruh temperature formula.

In this talk I will give a brief review of the connection between the Unruh and the Sokolov-Ternov effect and I will stress some points which I find interesting concerning this connection. First I will review how the Unruh effect, in principle, could be demonstrated as a spin effect for linearly accelerated electrons. Then I will discuss the relation between linear acceleration and circular motion and finally consider the spin effect for circulating electrons. I should stress that all the basic elements in the discussion of the Unruh effect for electrons in a storage ring have been presented in the papers referred to above. However, the discussion of the spin effect I will do in a slightly different way by treating the spin and orbital motion on equal footing.

## 2 Linear acceleration and the Unruh effect

A pointlike object which is uniformly accelerated, i.e. which has a constant acceleration as measured in the instantaneous inertial rest frame, describes a hyperbolic path in space time. We may associate a co-moving frame with the motion, with the time like unit vector as tangent vector of the trajectory and the three space like vectors spanning the hyperplane of simultaneity as defined by the moving object. The directions of the three (orthogonal) space like vectors are determined only up to a rotation, but if a non-rotational frame is chosen (Fermi-Walker transported) this degree of freedom is eliminated. The non-rotational frame is also a stationary frame in the sense that the acceleration is fixed with respect to the unit vectors.

The local frame can be extended in a natural way to an accelerated coordinate system, the Rindler coordinate system $`^\mathrm{?}`$. This is a stationary coordinate system in the sense that the metric is independent of the time coordinate. The transformation from Rindler coordinates $`(x^{},\tau )`$ to Cartesian coordinates $`(x,t)`$ is, with the $`x`$-axis chosen as the direction of acceleration,

$`x=(x^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{a}})\mathrm{cosh}({\displaystyle \frac{a\tau }{c}}),t=({\displaystyle \frac{x^{}}{c}}+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{a}})\mathrm{sinh}({\displaystyle \frac{a\tau }{c}}),y=y^{},z=z^{}`$ (1)
The Rindler time $`\tau `$ is the proper time of the trajectory $`x^{}=0(y^{}=z^{}=0)`$, which is assumed to be the trajectory of the pointlike object. However any trajectory $`x^{}=const`$ is equivalent to this in the sense of having a constant proper acceleration, although with a value of the acceleration that depends on the $`x^{}`$-coordinate.

The coordinate system $`(x^{},\tau )`$ is well behaved only in a part of space-time. At finite distance from the object (here chosen as the origin) there is a coordinate singularity. The two hyperplanes $`x=\pm ct`$ which intersect there define event horizons for the accelerated object. For points with $`x<ct`$ (behind the future horizon) an emitted light signal will not reach the object at any future time. A light signal emitted from the object at any past time will not be able to reach the points with $`x<ct`$ (behind the past horizon).

The Rindler coordinate system is similar to the Schwarzschild coordinate system of an eternal black hole. In fact the Rindler coordinate system can be seen as a limit case of black hole geometry, for points at finite distance from the horizon with the mass of the black hole tending to infinity. In this limit the space time curvature vanishes and only the effect of acceleration (due to gravitation) remains.

The Rindler coordinate system can be regarded as constructed from a continuous sequence of inertial frames, the instantaneous rest frames of the accelerated object. This implies that the time evolution of a system, described in the accelerated coordinate system, can be expressed in terms of the generators of the Poincaré group, which transform between inertial frames for infinitesimaly different values of $`\tau `$. For linear acceleration only the time translation and the boost generator (in the $`x`$-direction) are involved, and the Hamiltonian will have the form

$`H^{}=H+{\displaystyle \frac{a}{c}}K_x`$ (2)
If $`H^{}`$ is independent of $`\tau `$, the situation is stationary in the accelerated frame, and the ground state as well as the excited states of the accelerated system can be defined as the eigenstates of $`H^{}`$. (Such a physical system has to have a finite size to avoid problems related to the coordinate singularity.)

If a uniformly accelerated system, described by a stationary Hamiltonian $`H^{}`$, is coupled to a quantum field and this field is in the Minkowski vacuum state, the vacuum fluctuations will cause transitions in the accelerated system. The important point is, as pointed out by Unruh $`^\mathrm{?}`$, that transitions to higher energy (with respect to $`H^{}`$), is caused by positive frequency fluctuations with respect to the Rindler time $`\tau `$. The quantum fields in the vacuum state have only negative frequency components with respect to Minkowski time $`t`$, but in terms of $`\tau `$ they have both positive and negative frequency parts.

Let us consider the case of an accelerated electron. Then $`H`$ and $`K_x`$ are respectively the Dirac Hamiltonian and the boost operator of Dirac theory for the inertial (rest) frame at time $`\tau `$. If we neglect the fluctuations in the trajectory and simply constrain the particle coordinates to the classical path $`x^{}=0`$, the Hamiltonian $`H^{}`$ is reduced to a spin Hamiltonian of the form

$`H_{spin}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}(\stackrel{}{\omega }+\delta \stackrel{}{\omega })\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ (3)
with $`\stackrel{}{\omega }`$ determined by the external magnetic field and $`\delta \stackrel{}{\omega }`$ by the radiation field,

$`\stackrel{}{\omega }_0={\displaystyle \frac{e}{2mc}}g\stackrel{}{B^{}}_{ext},\delta \stackrel{}{\omega }={\displaystyle \frac{e}{2mc}}g\stackrel{}{B^{}}_{rad}`$ (4)
(The primed fields refer to the inertial rest frame.) The simplest situation would be to consider an external magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}_{ext}`$ in the same direction (the $`x`$-direction) as the accelerating (electric) field.

The coupling to the radiation field causes transitions between the spin up and spin down states of the particle in the external magnetic field. Standard first order perturbation theory gives for the transition probabilities per unit time

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm =\left({\displaystyle \frac{eg}{4mc}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{exp}(i\omega \tau )C(\tau iϵ)𝑑\tau `$ (5)
with $`\pm `$ referring to transitions up/down in spin and with $`C(\tau )`$ as the vacuum correlation function of the magnetic field along the accelerated trajectory,

$`C_B(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`B_\pm ^{}(\tau /2)B_{}^{}(\tau /2)`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}a^4}{2\pi c^7}}\left[\mathrm{sinh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a}{2c}}\tau \right)\right]^4,B_\pm ^{}=B_x^{}\pm iB_y^{},`$
The correlation function $`C(\tau )`$ has a periodicity property with respect to shifts in the imaginary time direction,

$`C_B(\tau +{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi c}{a}}i)=C_B(\tau )`$ (7)
which makes it easy to solve the integral (5) by closing the integration contour along the shifted path $`\tau +4\pi ic/a`$. For the closed contour we find $`^\mathrm{?}`$

$`\left(1\mathrm{exp}\left(\pm 2\pi c{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{a}}\right)\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{e^2g^2\mathrm{}}{6m^2c^5}}\omega \left(\omega ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{c^2}}\right)`$ (8)
and the ratio between transitions up and down is

$`R={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_+}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}}}=\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi c{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{a}}\right)`$ (9)
In an equilibrium situation the ratio between transitions up and down defines the relative occupation probabilities of the two spin levels. The dependence of the energy shows that it has the form of a Boltzmann factor corresponding to a temperature

$`kT_U={\displaystyle \frac{a\mathrm{}}{2\pi c}}`$ (10)
This is the Unruh temperature, which is generally associated with an accelerated system. It has exactly the same form as the temperature of a black hole,

$`kT_{BH}={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa \mathrm{}}{2\pi c}}`$ (11)
whith the acceleration $`a`$ corresponding to the the surface gravity, $`\kappa `$, of the black hole.

The spin effect discussed above is a special realization of the Unruh effect. The interesting point is that this effect has a universal character, it does not depend on details of the accelerated system or on its coupling to the radiation field. The temperature effect follows from general features of the vacuum state and special properties of the accelerated trajectory which lead to the symmetry properties (7) of the vacuum correlation functions. One should also note that the limitation to point detectors is not a necessary restriction. For the case considered here the fluctuations in the particle path can be taken into account. The Hamiltonian $`H^{}`$ will then depend on both spin and orbital coordinates and the electron in this sense has to be treated as an extended system. If the accelerating fields give rise to a time independent Hamiltonian in the accelerated frame, the probability distribution over the energy levels of $`H^{}`$ will still have a thermal form. This follows from general symmetry properties of the vacuum correlation functions in the Rindler coordinate system, and is closely related to PCT-invariance $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. An interesting complication is that the (local) temperature of such an extended system would vary over the extension of the system. On the other hand, such a variation is also present for a hot system in a gravitational field, where the variation in temperature is induced by the redshift which follows from differences in the gravitational potential.

A system of linearly accelerated electrons could in principle be used to demonstrate the Unruh effect, in the way discussed above. Thus, the spin polarization would depend on the spin precession frequency as

$`P(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1R}{1+R}}=\mathrm{tanh}\left(\pi c{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{a}}\right)`$ (12)
and by varying the strength of the external magnetic field the functional form of $`P`$ could be demonstrated. Unfortunately, this is not a realistic situation for real particle accelerators. If we use a value for the electric field $`E=10MV/m`$ we find a rather low corresponding temperature $`T=0.710^3K`$. However, the main complication is the long time for reaching equilibrium. From the expression for the transition probabilities we find a typical time of $`\tau =310^{18}s`$. In the lab frame this would be enhanced even further by the time dilatation effect. So this is not very promising. If much larger accelerations can be obtained the thermalization time $`\tau `$ would be strongly reduced (it varies with $`a`$ as $`a^3`$), but the limited time available in a linear accelerator is nevertheless a serious problem.

The limitations present for linear accelerators are not there for circular accelerators. Thus, much higher values for the proper acceleration are obtained, mainly due to the relativistic $`\gamma `$ factor for the transformation from the lab frame magnetic field to the rest frame electric field. A typical acceleration (limited by synchrotron radiation effects) is $`a=310^{23}m/s^2`$ corresponding to a temperature of $`T=1200K`$. And more importantly, for electrons in a storage ring the time needed to reach equilibrium is available, typically of the order of minutes to hours.

In the magnetic field of a circular accelerator, the electrons will gradually build up a transverse polarization due to spin flip radiation. This is well-known from calculations by Sokolov and Ternov $`^\mathrm{?}`$, and later by others $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ and the effect has been seen in real accelerators. The polarization will under ideal conditions reach the equilibrium value of 92%.

In the figure the theoretical curve for the polarization as a function of the $`g`$-factor is shown. In the same figure also the corresponding curve, based on the simple formula (12) obtained in the case of linear acceleration is shown. Much of the discussion of the Unruh effect in storage rings has been based on comparison of these curves. (For some critical remarks see Jackson $`^\mathrm{?}`$.) In the following I will examine this question again. There are two important points involved in understanding the similarity and difference between the two curves. The first is the question of the difference between linear acceleration and acceleration in a circular orbit. The other question concerns the approximation where we treat the electron as a point detector.

## 3 Stationary world lines

The world line of a uniformly accelerated particle and the world line of a particle moving with constant speed in a circular orbit are special cases of what has been referred to as stationary world lines $`^\mathrm{?}`$. These space-time curves are self similar in the sense that there is no geometric difference between two points on the trajectory. Such a curve can be generated by a time-independent Poincaré transformation which in general will involve rotation in addition to boost,bbbSuch motion has been referred to as group motion and has been examined in the context of relativistic Born rigid motion$`^\mathrm{?}`$.

$`H^{}=H+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{a}}{c}}\stackrel{}{K}\stackrel{}{\omega }\stackrel{}{J}`$ (13)
In the same way as for linear acceleration $`H^{}`$ can be seen as a time evolution operator which jumps between inertial frames, the instantaneous rest frames of the particle. It therefore generates a full (accelerated) coordinate system in Minkowski space, a system where the particle sits at rest. This is a stationary system in the sense that the space-time metric is independent of the time parameter. The operator $`H^{}`$ can also be interpreted as the Hamiltonian of a quantum system described in the accelerated frame. For the accelerated particle $`H^{}`$ is time independent when the accelerating fields are stationary in this frame.

By making use of the freedom to choose orientation of coordinate axis $`H^{}`$ can be brought into the form

$`H^{}=H+{\displaystyle \frac{a}{c}}K_x\omega _zJ_z\omega _xJ_x`$ (14)
The physical interpretation of the parameters is that they correspond to acceleration and angular velocity of a stationary frame moving with particle, as measured relative to an inertial rest frame, but they also have a geometric interpretation as curvature, torsion and hypertorsion of the world line of the accelerated particle $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

The trajectory of uniform linear acceleration corresponds to $`\omega _x=\omega _z=0`$ and the circular orbit with constant acceleration and velocity corresponds to $`\omega _x=0,\omega _z=a/v`$ with $`v`$ as the velocity of the particle. It is interesting to note that a continuous interpolation can be made between the two cases by changing $`\omega _z`$ while $`\omega _x=0`$. This looks as a purely formal interpolation, since $`v`$ has to exceed the speed of light, but that is not really the case. If the circular motion is not described in the rest frame of the center of the orbit, but rather in the rest frame of the circulating particle at one of point of the orbit, then there is a smooth interpolation between physically realizable trajectories. For $`\omega _z>a/c`$, the trajectories in the $`(x,y)`$-plane are cycloids, i.e. they are periodic orbits. For $`\omega _za/c`$ they are non-periodic (see figure.) The limit case $`\omega _z=a/c`$ can be interpreted as the limit of circular motion where the radius tend to infinity (and the velocity $`vc`$) while the proper acceleration is fixed.

In the same way as for linear acceleration all the acceleration dominated trajectories $`\omega _z<a/c`$ have an event horizon. This horizon disappears in the limit $`\omega _z=a/c`$ and is not present for the rotation dominated trajectories $`\omega _z>a/c`$, i.e. for circular motion. It is interesting to note the similarity with the situation of a rotating (Kerr) black hole. The black hole is characterized by two parameters, mass and spin (or surface gravity and angular velocity). For fixed mass there is an upper limit to the angular velocity for which the event horizon exists. For angular velocities beyond this one has the (unphysical) situation with a space-time singularity but no event horizon. In addition to the event horizon a rotating black hole is characterized by the presence of a static limit, a limiting distance from the black hole, within which no physical object can be stationary with respect to a distant observer. The circular motion in Minkowski space corresponds to a situation with no event horizon, but there is in this case a static limit outside which no object can be stationary in the accelerated coordinate system. The presence of this limit is easy to understand; due to the rotation points with fixed space coordinates will at some distance from the center of rotation move with a velocity larger than the velocity of light. At such a point a physical body cannot stay fixed.

As previously mentioned a detector which is uniformly accelerated through Minkowski vacuum is related to a detector which sits at rest in a stationary coordinate frame outside a (large) black hole. The black hole can be viewed as a thermodynamic system, and in a stationary state the detector will be in thermal equilibrium with the black hole, with a (locally determined) temperature that depends on its position due to the redshift effect. This suggests that in a similar way a detector following a trajectory with $`\omega _z0`$ is related to a stationary detector outside a rotating black hole. Also a rotating black hole can be viewed as a thermodynamic system, with the angular velocity now acting as a chemical potential for the conserved angular momentum. However, in this case we do not expect the occupation probabilities over the detectors energy levels to be determined simply by the temperature and angular velocity. This is because the detector will not be coupled to the black hole in a rotationally invariant way. In a similar way rotational invariance will be broken in the accelerated frame for any trajectory with $`\omega _z0`$, and there is no reason why the probability distribution in this case should have a thermal form. Only for $`\omega _z=a/c`$ that will be the case. The deviation from thermal form is well-known for circular motion and also for the case $`\omega _z<a/c`$ this has been discussed $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

However, even though there is no exact temperature associated with the motion where $`\omega _z0`$, the notion of an effective temperature is meaningful, as has been discussed before. The vacuum state, in some approximate meaning seems hot in the accelerated frame, and in addition there is a relative rotation between the stationary detector and the vacuum. In the following I will re-examine the case of the circulating electron from this point of view. The intention is to show that such a picture of the vacuum state is relevant and to demonstrate that much of the discrepancy between the polarization curve and the curve derived from the assumption of thermal excitations is due to the way the electron works as a detector.

## 4 Electrons in a storage ring

When we consider electrons in a storage ring under ideal conditions, where they move in a rotationally symmetric magnetic field and with the correction due to radiation loss neglected, they can be described by a time-independent Hamiltonian $`H^{}`$ of the form previously discussed,

$`H^{}=H+{\displaystyle \frac{a}{c}}K_x{\displaystyle \frac{a}{v}}J_z`$ (15)
This Hamiltonian refers to an accelerated (rotating) coordinate system which rotates with the frequency of electrons moving along a (classical) reference trajectory in the magnetic field. The transformation between the accelerated and the lab frame coordinates can be written as

$`x`$ $`=`$ $`\left(x^{}+R\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(a\tau /v\gamma \right)\gamma y^{}\mathrm{sin}\left(a\tau /v\gamma \right)`$
$`y`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma y^{}\mathrm{cos}\left(a\tau /v\gamma \right)+\left(x^{}+R\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(a\tau /v\gamma \right)`$
$`z`$ $`=`$ $`z^{}`$
$`t`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma \tau +\gamma vy^{}/c^2`$ (16)
with $`R`$ as the bending radius of orbit and $`\gamma `$ as the relativistic gamma factor.

The electrons described by the Hamiltonian are not restricted to the reference trajectory $`x^{}=y^{}=0`$. Also quantum fluctuations in the orbital motion are included. However, we may assume deviation from this orbit both in position and velocity to be small, which makes it possible to linearize in the deviation and to consider a non-relativistic approximation.

The operators $`H`$, $`K_x`$ and $`J_z`$ are Dirac operators in the inertial rest frame of the reference trajectory at time $`\tau =0`$,

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`c\stackrel{}{\alpha }\stackrel{}{\pi }+\beta mc^2+e\varphi +(g2){\displaystyle \frac{e\mathrm{}}{4mc}}(i\beta \stackrel{}{\alpha }\stackrel{}{E}\beta \stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{B})`$
$`K_x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2c}}(xH+Hx)`$
$`J_z`$ $`=`$ $`xp_yyp_x+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}\sigma _z`$ (17)
A term for the anomalous magnetic moment $`(g2)`$ has been introduced in the expression for $`H`$. All the coordinates and fields refer to the inertial rest frame of the reference trajectory, but here and in the following I will omit the primes on these coordinates and fields. $`\stackrel{}{\pi }=\stackrel{}{p}\frac{e}{c}\stackrel{}{A}`$ is the mechanical moment of the electron, and $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }`$ and $`\beta `$ are the standard Dirac matrices.

When a Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation is performed and the equations are linearized in the orbital fluctuations, the Hamiltonian can be reduced to a non-relativistic form which involves only spin and vertical oscillations. The coupling between the horizontal oscillations and the spin can be considered as a higher order effect when we primarily are interested in the spin degree of freedom. However the coupling to vertical oscillations cannot be neglected, as has been discussed in earlier papers. When we take into account only the external, accelerating fields the resulting electron Hamiltonian gets the simple form

$`H_e={\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m\mathrm{\Omega }^2z^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega \mathrm{}\sigma _z{\displaystyle \frac{1}{mc}}\omega \mathrm{}p\sigma _y{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{4c}}g\mathrm{\Omega }^2z\sigma _x`$ (18)
where $`p`$ is the momentum in the z-direction $`\omega =\frac{a}{4c}(g2)`$ is the spin precession frequency. A confining harmonic oscillator potential has been introduced for the vertical motion. In a weak focussing machine this is introduced by a gradient in the magnetic field, $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2=\frac{e}{m}\frac{B}{r}`$. The coupling to the radiation field gives an additional term,

$`H_1={\displaystyle \frac{e\mathrm{}}{4mc}}g\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{\sigma }ezE_z`$ (19)
which we treat as a perturbation. The fields $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ and $`E_z`$ are rest frame fields.

Thus, the transformation to the accelerated frame gives us a fairly simple and straight forward way to calculate the equilibrium properties of the electron beam. We first determine the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of $`H_e`$, which is a two-level system coupled to a harmonic oscillator, and we then find the occupation of the levels by calculating the transition probabilities induced by $`H_1`$.

The coupling terms between spin and orbital motion in (18) are normally quite small. If they are treated perturbatively we find to first order the following expressions for the eigenvectors of $`H_e`$

$`|\chi _{n,\pm }=|n,\pm i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{32mc^2}}}\{(2\omega g\mathrm{\Omega }){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{n+1}}{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}}|n+1,`$
$`+(2\omega \pm g\mathrm{\Omega }){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{n}}{\omega \pm \mathrm{\Omega }}}|n1,\}`$ (20)
$`|n,\pm `$ is the eigenvector of the uncoupled system, with $`n`$ referring to the harmonic oscillator and $`\pm `$ to the spin levels. Note the resonance between spin and orbital motion for $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega `$. The energy levels then are degenerate, and improved expressions close to resonance could be found by use of degenerate perturbation theory, but I will not do that here. Also note that to higher order in perturbation theory also higher order resonances, for $`\mathrm{\Omega }=n\omega `$, will be present.

Let us first consider the transition matrix elements for non-spin flip transitions. It is clear from the form of $`H_1`$ that the small terms of (4) will only give small contributions to the matrix elements. If they are neglected the result is

$`\chi _{n+1,\pm }\left|H_1\right|\chi _{n,\pm }=ie\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\left(n+1\right)}{2m\mathrm{\Omega }}}}E_z`$ (21)
For spin transitions the situation is different. Even if the coupling terms are small they give significant contributions since they are influenced by the coupling of the charge to the radiation field, which is much stronger than the spin coupling. The result for spin flips is

$`\chi _{n+1,\pm }\left|H_1\right|\chi _{n,\pm }={\displaystyle \frac{e\mathrm{}}{4mc}}\left(gB_{}+\left(2(g2){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}\right)E_z\right)`$ (22)
The equilibrium populations $`p_{n,\pm }`$ of the energy levels can be found be assuming detailed balance. Thus, the transition probabilities can be expressed in terms of the electromagnetic fields, as for linear acceleration, and the relative populations can be determined as the ratio between the probabilities for transition between the levels one way and the other. Thus, for fixed spin the ratio is determined by the matrix element (21), and thereby by the correlation function of the (rest frame) electric field,

$`R\left(\mathrm{\Omega }\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_{n+1,\pm }}{p_{n,\pm }}}={\displaystyle \frac{C_E\left(\mathrm{\Omega }\right)}{C_E\left(\mathrm{\Omega }\right)}},`$ (23)
$`C_E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \mathrm{exp}\left(i\mathrm{\Omega }\tau \right)E_z\left(\tau \right)E_z\left(0\right)}`$ (24)
Note that the ratio $`R(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is independent of the state $`(n,\pm )`$. This implies that the excitation spectrum has a thermal form,

$`p_{n,\pm }=N_\pm \mathrm{exp}\left(n\mathrm{ln}R\right)`$ (25)
with a frequency dependent temperature $`^\mathrm{?}`$

$`eT_{eff}=\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}\mathrm{ln}R`$ (26)
The relative population of spin up and down for the same $`n`$ is determined by ratios between spin flip transitions. It has a similar form,

$`R^{}\left(\omega \right)={\displaystyle \frac{p_{n,+}}{p_{n,}}}={\displaystyle \frac{D\left(\omega \right)}{D\left(\omega \right)}}`$ (27)
but now with a composite correlation function

$`D\left(\omega \right)=g^2C_B\left(\tau \right)+2gC_{EB}\left(\tau \right)+4C_E\left(\tau \right)`$ (28)
where $`C_B`$ is the correlation function of the magnetic fields $`B_+`$ and $`B_{}`$ and $`C_{EB}`$ is the mixed correlation function of $`B_\pm `$ and $`E_z`$.

The resonance term of (22) is small except close to the resonance. If it is neglected, the expression (27) for the relative populations of the spin levels will reproduce the standard result for the equilibrium polarization $`P=(1R^{})/(1+R^{})`$, earlier shown in Fig.1. It is interesting to see how this is built up from contributions from the direct coupling between the spin and magnetic field and the indirect one transmitted through fluctuations in the orbit. The effect of the fluctuations is demonstrated by not including the two terms $`C_{EB}`$ and $`C_E`$ in (28). The fluctuations in the orbit are then effectively suppressed and only the coupling to the magnetic moment of the electron is retained. The result is a changed curve $`P(g)`$, denoted ”direct” in Fig.4. It indeed has a form very similar to the one derived from the temperature formula, denoted ”thermal” in Fig.1. The effective temperature indicated by the curve is however somewhat higher than the Unruh temperature $`T_U`$ for the same acceleration.

It is instructive also to consider the curve obtained if the contributions to the spin transitions caused by the direct coupling is suppressed and only the indirect one, due to fluctuations in the orbit, are retained. (That means including only $`C_E`$ in Eq.(28).) The result is referred to as ”indirect” in Fig.4. It is very similar to the one obtained from the direct coupling to the radiation field, although differing by a shift of 2 units along the g-axis.

The relative shift of the curves obtained from the direct and indirect coupling of the spin to the radiation field is fairly easy to understand. The direct coupling of the radiation field to the spin is rotationally invariant and the corresponding occupation probabilities have (approximately) a thermal form in the frame which is non-rotational (with respect to the vacuum). This is the Fermi-Walker transported frame, where the direct coupling term is proportional to $`g`$. The vertical fluctuations are insensitive to rotations in the $`x,y`$-plane, but the coupling between the orbital motion and the spin is time independent in the stationary frame, which is rotating relative to the Fermi-Walker transported frame. This gives rise to occupation probabilities which are (approximately) thermal in the stationary frame. The relative rotation between these two frames is represented by the shift along the $`g`$-axis.

Based on this understanding we may conclude that much of the difference between the two curves in Fig.1 is due to the way the electron acts as a detector. (See also the related discussion by Unruh $`^\mathrm{?}`$.) As a final point I will illustrate this by considering a hypothetical situation where the detector, defined by the electron Hamiltonian (18) and the coupling term (19), is put in contact with an electromagnetic heat bath and where the detector is rotating relative to the thermal state. Thus, the true correlation functions along the orbit are replaced by thermal correlation functions in the evaluation of the polarization. In Fig.4 the correct polarization curve is compared with the modified curve obtained in this way. The temperature of the thermal state as well as the angular velocity are used as fitting parameter. We note that a good approximation is obtained for an effective temperature $`T_{eff}1.7T_U`$ and an angular velocity only slightly different from true one, $`\omega 1.1a/c`$. There are some details, though, which are different in the two cases, and which show that the correct curve is not truly thermal.

## 5 Concluding remarks

An interesting observation made by Fulling $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and others is that the natural definition of a vacuum state is related to the choice of the space-time co-ordinates. In a curved space-time this makes the notion of a vacuum state highly non-trivial and physical effects, like the Hawking radiation, may be related to the question of what is the correct vacuum state.

Even in flat space, there are non-trivial vacuum effects associated with accelerated co-ordinate frames. For a linearly accelerated system, the Rindler coordinate system, Minkowski vacuum appears as a thermally excited state. Also for other stationary coordinate systems, which include rotation and not only acceleration, Minkowski vacuum appears as an excited state, although not characterized by a uniquely defined temperature.

It is highly interesting that these vacuum effects, that usually are considered to be detectable only under extreme situations, can be related to measurable polarization effects of electrons in a storage ring. The natural way to see this connection is to describe the electron beam in the accelerated frame of an orbiting reference particle.The electron can be described as simple quantum mechanical system, which includes the vertical motion coupled to the spin, and with transitions between the states of this system induced by the radiation field. Since the Minkowski vacuum state appears excited in this frame transitions both up and down in energy are induced, and equilibrium is produced as a balance between these two processes.

Due to the coupling between spin and orbital motion, the electron acts as a non-trivial detector. Thus, the system is not rotationally invariant, and this complicates the detection of the vacuum effects. The vacuum can be seen as being hot in the accelerated frame, not in the stationary frame of the detector, but rather the non-rotational (Fermi-Walker transported) frame. In fact, up to minor details the correct polarization curve can be reproduced if the (rotating) detector, defined by the electron Hamiltonian, is excited by an electromagnetic heat bath, rather than the Minkowski vacuum state.

The description of the orbiting electrons in the accelerated frame is natural for the discussion of how the spin effects are related to the Unruh effect. But I would also like to stress that it gives a conceptually simple way to study the quantum effects of electrons in a storage rings. Under the ideal conditions considered here, the electron is described as a harmonic oscillator coupled to a two-level system with transition probabilities determined by correlation functions of the radiation field. It should be of interest to examine this approach further, also beyond the simplest approximation used here.

## References


format: text

text:
# Quantum cloning machines for equatorial qubits

## I Introduction

Quantum computing and quantum information have been attracting a great deal of interests. They differ in many aspects from the classical theories. One of the most fundamental differences between classical and quantum information is the no-cloning theorem. It tells us that an arbitrary quantum information can not be copied exactly. The no-cloning theorem for pure states is also extended to the case that a general mixed state can not be broadcast. However, no-cloning theorem does not forbid imperfect cloning. And several kinds of quantum cloning machines (QCM) are proposed, the optimal fidelity and transformations of QCMs are found .

In the proof of the no-cloning theorem, Wootters and Zurek introduced a QCM which has the property that the quality of the copy it makes depends on the input states. To diminish or cancel this disadvantage, Bužek and Hillery proposed a universal quantum cloning machine (UQCM) for an arbitrary pure state where the copying process is input-state independent. They use Hilbert-Schmidt norm to quantify distances between input density operator and the output density operators. Bruß et al  discussed the performance of a UQCM by analyzing the role of the symmetry and isotropy conditions imposed on the system and found the optimal UQCM and the optimal state-dependent quantum cloning. Optimal fidelity and optimal quantum cloning transformations of general $`N`$ to $`M`$ ($`M>N`$) case are presented in Ref.. The relation between quantum cloning and superluminal signalling is proposed and discussed in Ref.. It was also shown that the UQCM can be realized by a network consisting of quantum gates.

In case of UQCM, the input states are arbitrary pure states. In this paper, we study the QCM for a restricted set of pure input states. The Bloch vector is restricted to the intersection of $`xz`$ ($`xy`$ and $`yz`$) plane with the Bloch sphere. This kind of qubits are the so-called equatorial qubits and the corresponding QCM is called phase-covariant quantum cloning. The 1 to 2 phase-covariant quantum cloning was first studied by Bruß et al  who studied the optimal quantum cloning for $`xz`$ equatorial qubits by taking BB84 states as input. The fidelity of quantum cloning for the equatorial qubits is higher than the original Bužek and Hillery UQCM. This is expected as the more information about the input is given, the better one can clone each of its states.

In this paper, using the approach presented in Ref., we show that the 1 to 2 optimal phase-covariant quantum cloning machines can be realized by networks consisting of quantum rotation gates and controlled NOT gates. The copied equatorial qubits are shown to be separable by using Peres-Horodecki criterion. We then present the 1 to $`M`$ phase-covariant quantum cloning transformations and prove that the fidelity is optimal. The general $`N`$ to $`M`$ ($`M>N`$) optimal phase-covariant quantum cloning machines are finally proposed.

The paper is organized as follows: In section 2, we introduce the cloning transformations for equators in $`xz`$ and $`xy`$ planes. In section 3, phase-covariant quantum cloning can be realized by networks consisting of quantum gates. In section 4, the copied qubits are shown to be separable and quantum triplicators are studied. In section 5, optimal 1 to $`M`$ phase-covariant quantum cloning machines are presented and proved. In section 6, $`N`$ to $`M`$ ($`M>N`$) phase-covariant QCM is proposed. Section 7 includes a brief summary.

## II 1 to 2 phase-covariant quantum cloning

Instead of arbitrary input states, we consider the input state which we intend to clone to be a restricted set of states. It is a pure superposition state

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }=\alpha |0+\beta |1`$ (1)
with $`\alpha ^2+\beta ^2=1`$. Here, we use an assumption that $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are real in contrast to complex when we consider the case of UQCM. That means the $`y`$ component of the Bloch vector of the input qubit is zero. Because that there are just one unknown parameter in the input state under consideration, we expect that we can achieve a better quality in quantum cloning if we can find an appropriate phase-covariant QCM.

The case of 1 to 2 phase-covariant quantum cloning transformation has already been found by Bruß et al in . They proposed the following cloning transformation for the input (1),

$`|0_{a_1}|Q_{a_2a_3}`$ $``$ $`[({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}})|00_{a_1a_2}+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}})|11_{a_1a_2}]|_{a_3}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|+_{a_1a_2}|_{a_3},`$ (2)
$`|1_{a_1}|Q_{a_2a_3}`$ $``$ $`[({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}})|11_{a_1a_2}+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}})|00_{a_1a_2}]|_{a_3}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|+_{a_1a_2}|_{a_3},`$ (3)
where the following notations are introduced

$`|+={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|10+|01),|={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|10|01).`$ (4)
The fidelity of the phase-covariant cloning transformation is $`F=\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{8}}`$ which is larger than $`F=\frac{5}{6}`$, the fidelity of 1 to 2 UQCM. And also this fidelity was proved to be optimal for phase-covariant cloning machine. Actually, because we assume $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are real, only a single unknown parameter is copied instead of two unknown parameters for the case of a general pure state. Thus a higher fidelity of quantum cloning can be achieved. The case of spin flip has a similar phenomenon. Here, the fidelity is defined in the standard form as $`F=\mathrm{\Psi }|\rho |\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`\rho `$ is the output reduced density operator at a single qubit.

For convenience, we present the following cloning transformation for pure input state (1),

$`|0_{a_1}|Q_{a_2a_3}\left(|00_{a_1a_2}+\lambda |11_{a_1a_2}\right)q|_{a_3}+\left(|10_{a_1a_2}+|01_{a_1a_2}\right)y|_{a_3},`$ (5)
$`|1_{a_1}|Q_{a_2a_3}\left(|11_{a_1a_2}+\lambda |00_{a_1a_2}\right)q|_{a_3}+\left(|10_{a_1a_2}+|01_{a_1a_2}\right)y|_{a_3},`$ (6)
where we assume $`\lambda `$ is real and $`\lambda \pm 1`$, we also use notations

$`q\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{32\lambda +3\lambda ^2}}},y{\displaystyle \frac{1\lambda }{\sqrt{64\lambda +6\lambda ^2}}}.`$ (7)
The qubit in $`a_1`$ is the input state, the output copies appear in $`a_1,a_2`$ qubits, and $`a_3`$ is the ancilla state. In case $`\lambda =0`$, the cloning transformation reduces to the UQCM proposed in . When $`\lambda =32\sqrt{2}`$, we obtain the optimal phase-covariant quantum cloning transformation presented in  for $`xz`$ equator. Actually, we can use both Bures fidelity and Hilbert-Schmidt norm to quantify the quality of the copies. Both of them show that transformation (3) is the optimal cloning machine for input state (1).

Sometimes, we study $`xy`$ equator instead of $`xz`$ equator so that some results can be obtained easier, and the two cases are connected by a transformation. We consider the input state as

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}[|0+e^{i\varphi }|1],`$ (8)
where $`\varphi [0,2\pi )`$. One can check that the $`y`$ component of the Bloch vector of this state is zero. The cloning transformation takes the form,

$`|0_{a_1}|00_{a_2a_3}{\displaystyle \frac{2(1\lambda )}{\sqrt{64\lambda +6\lambda ^2}}}|00_{a_1a_2}|0_{a_3}+{\displaystyle \frac{1+\lambda }{\sqrt{64\lambda +6\lambda ^2}}}\left(|01_{a_1a_2}+|10_{a_1a_2}\right)|1_{a_3},`$ (9)
$`|1_{a_1}|00_{a_2a_3}{\displaystyle \frac{2(1\lambda )}{\sqrt{64\lambda +6\lambda ^2}}}|11_{a_1a_2}|1_{a_3}+{\displaystyle \frac{1+\lambda }{\sqrt{64\lambda +6\lambda ^2}}}\left(|01_{a_1a_2}+|10_{a_1a_2}\right)|0_{a_3}.`$ (10)
As the case of $`xy`$ equator, $`\lambda =0`$ corresponds to UQCM, and the case $`\lambda =32\sqrt{2}`$ is the optimal phase-covariant quantum cloning for input (8) which takes the following form

$`|0_{a_1}|00_{a_2a_3}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|00_{a_1a_2}|0_{a_3}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(|01_{a_1a_2}+|10_{a_1a_2}\right)|1_{a_3},`$ (11)
$`|1_{a_1}|00_{a_2a_3}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|11_{a_1a_2}|1_{a_3}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(|01_{a_1a_2}+|10_{a_1a_2}\right)|0_{a_3}.`$ (12)
## III Quantum cloning networks for equatorial qubits

In this section, following the method proposed by Bužek $`etal`$, we show that the quantum cloning transformations for equatorial qubits can be realized by networks consisting of quantum logic gates. Let us first introduce the method proposed by Bužek $`etal`$, and then analyze the case of phase-covariant cloning. The network is constructed by one- and two-qubit gates. The one-qubit gate is a single qubit rotation operator $`\widehat{R}_j(\vartheta )`$, defined as

$`\widehat{R}_j(\vartheta )|0_j`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\vartheta |0_j+\mathrm{sin}\vartheta |1_j,`$ (13)
$`\widehat{R}_j(\vartheta )|1_j`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\vartheta |0_j+\mathrm{cos}\vartheta |1_j.`$ (14)
The two-qubit gate is the controlled NOT gate represented by the unitary matrix

$`\widehat{P}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (19)
Explicitly, the controlled NOT gate $`\widehat{P}_{kl}`$ acts on the basis vectors of the two qubits as follows:

$`\widehat{P}_{kl}|0_k|0_l=|0_k|0_l,\widehat{P}_{kl}|0_k|1_l=|0_k|1_l,`$ (20)
$`\widehat{P}_{kl}|1_k|0_l=|1_k|1_l,\widehat{P}_{kl}|1_k|1_l=|1_k|0_l.`$ (21)
Due to Bužek $`etal`$, the action of the copier is expressed as a sequence of two unitary transformations,

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_1}^{(in)}|0_{a_2}|0_{a_3}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_1}^{(in)}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_1a_2}^{(prep)}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_1a_2a_3}^{(out)}.`$ (22)
This network can be described by a figure in Ref.. The preparation state is constructed as

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_2a_3}^{(prep)}=\widehat{R}_2(\vartheta _3)\widehat{P}_{32}\widehat{R}_3(\vartheta _2)\widehat{P}_{23}\widehat{R}_2(\vartheta _1)|0_{a_2}|0_{a_3}.`$ (23)
The quantum copying is performed by

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_1a_2a_2}^{(out)}=\widehat{P}_{a_3a_1}\widehat{P}_{a_2a_1}\widehat{P}_{a_1a_3}\widehat{P}_{a_1a_2}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_1}^{(in)}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_2a_3}^{(prep)}.`$ (24)
Note that the output copies appear in the $`a_2,a_3`$ qubits instead of $`a_1,a_2`$ qubits. For UQCM, we should choose

$`\vartheta _1=\vartheta _3={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{8}},\vartheta _2=\mathrm{arcsin}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}})^{1/2}.`$ (25)
We now consider the cloning transformations for equatorial qubits. The network proposed by Bužek $`etal`$ is rather general. We only need to take a different angles $`\vartheta _j,j=1,2,3`$ to realize the phase-covariant cloning. In the case of cloning transformation for $`xy`$ equator (10), the preparation state takes the form

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_2a_3}^{(perp)}={\displaystyle \frac{2(1\lambda )}{\sqrt{64\lambda +6\lambda ^2}}}|00_{a_2a_3}+{\displaystyle \frac{1+\lambda }{\sqrt{64\lambda +6\lambda ^2}}}\left(|01_{a_1a_2}+|10_{a_2a_3}\right).`$ (26)
The preparation state corresponding to cloning transformation (6) for $`xz`$ equator can be written as

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_2a_3}^{(perp)}=q|00_{a_2a_3}+q\lambda |11_{a_2a_3}+y|10_{a_2a_3}+y|01_{a_2a_3}.`$ (27)
We can check that for some angles $`\vartheta _j,j=1,2,3`$, the above preparation states can be realized, Actually we have several choices. When $`\lambda =0`$, we obtain the result for UQCM. Here we present the result for the optimal case, i.e., $`\lambda =32\sqrt{2}`$.

For $`xy`$ equator, let

$`\vartheta _1=\vartheta _3=\mathrm{arcsin}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}})^{\frac{1}{2}},\vartheta _2=\mathrm{arcsin}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{4}})^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$ (28)
Then, the preparation state has the form

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_2a_3}^{(perp)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|00_{a_2a_3}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|01_{a_2a_3}+|10_{a_2a_3}).`$ (29)
For $`xz`$ equator, let

$`\vartheta _1=\vartheta _3=\mathrm{arcsin}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}})^{\frac{1}{2}},\vartheta _2=0.`$ (30)
The preparation state is

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_2a_3}^{(perp)}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}}\right)|00_{a_2a_3}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}(|01_{a_2a_3}+|10_{a_2a_3})+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}}\right)|11_{a_2a_3}.`$ (31)
After the preparation stage, perform the copying procedure (24), we obtain the output state. And the output copies appear in the $`a_2`$ and $`a_3`$ qubits. The optimal quantum cloning transformations for equatorial qubits can achieve the highest fidelity $`\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{8}}`$. The reduced density operator of both copies at the output in $`a_2`$ and $`a_3`$ qubits can be expressed as

$`\rho ^{(out)}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}}\right)|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}}\right)|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{}|.`$ (32)
## IV Separability of copied qubits and quantum triplicators

### A Separability

For the UQCM, the density matrix for the two copies $`\rho _{a_2a_3}^{(out)}`$ is shown to be inseparable by use of Peres-Horodecki criterion. That means it cannot be written as the convex sum,

$`\rho _{a_2a_3}^{(out)}={\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}w^{(m)}\rho _{a_2}^{(m)}\rho _{a_3}^{(m)},`$ (33)
where the positive weights $`w^{(m)}`$ satisfy $`_mw^{(m)}=1`$. And there are correlations between the copies, i.e., the two qubits at the output of the quantum copier are nonclassically entangled. We shall show in this section that, different from the UQCM, the copied qubits are separable for the case of optimal phase-covariant quantum cloning by Peres-Horodecki criterion.

Peres-Horodecki’s positive partial transposition criterion states that the positivity of the partial transposition of a state is both necessary and sufficient condition for its separability. For $`xz`$ equator where the input state is $`\alpha |0+\beta |1`$, with $`\alpha =\mathrm{cos}\theta ,\beta =\mathrm{sin}\theta `$, the partially transposed output density operator at $`a_2,a_3`$ qubits is expressed by a matrix,

$`[\rho _{a_2a_3}^{(out)}]^{T_2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\lambda +3\lambda ^2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}2(\alpha ^2+\lambda ^2\beta ^2)& \alpha \beta (1\lambda ^2)& \alpha \beta (1\lambda ^2)& \frac{1}{2}(1\lambda )^2\\ \alpha \beta (1\lambda ^2)& \frac{1}{2}(1\lambda )^2& 2\lambda & \alpha \beta (1\lambda ^2)\\ \alpha \beta (1\lambda ^2)& 2\lambda & \frac{1}{2}(1\lambda )^2& \alpha \beta (1\lambda ^2)\\ \frac{1}{2}(1\lambda )^2& \alpha \beta (1\lambda ^2)& \alpha \beta (1\lambda ^2)& 2(\beta ^2+\alpha ^2\lambda ^2)\end{array}\right).`$ (38)
Here the cloning transformation corresponds to (6). Note that the output of copies appear in $`a_2,a_3`$ qubits. We have the following four eigenvalues;

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\lambda +3\lambda ^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(16\lambda +\lambda ^2),{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+2\lambda +\lambda ^2),`$ (39)
$`1+\lambda ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\lambda )\sqrt{5+6\lambda +5\lambda ^2},1+\lambda ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\lambda )\sqrt{5+6\lambda +5\lambda ^2}\}.`$ (40)
For optimal phase-covariant quantum cloning, $`\lambda =32\sqrt{2}`$, the four eigenvalues are

$`\{0,0,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\}.`$ (41)
We see that none of the four eigenvalues is negative. This is different from the UQCM, where one negative eigenvalue exists for $`\lambda =0`$. According to Peres-Horodecki criterion, the copied qubits in phase-covariant quantum cloning are separable. Analyzing the four eigenvalues (40), we find that the optimal point $`\lambda =32\sqrt{2}`$ is the only separable point for the copied qubits. If we analyze the $`xy`$ equator, we obtain the same result.

### B Optimal quantum triplicators

The networks for equatorial qubits can realize the quantum copying. The copies at the output appear in $`a_2`$ and $`a_3`$ qubits. And the output reduced density operator is written as

$`\rho ^{(out)}={\displaystyle \frac{2(1\lambda ^2)}{32\lambda +3\lambda ^2}}\rho ^{(in)}+{\displaystyle \frac{12\lambda +5\lambda ^2}{64\lambda +6\lambda ^2}}1.`$ (42)
Here, we are also interested in the output state in $`a_1`$ qubit. According to the cloning transformations or cloning networks for equatorial qubits, we find that the reduced density operator of the output state in $`a_1`$ qubit can be written as

$`\rho _{a_1}^{(out)}={\displaystyle \frac{(1+\lambda )^2}{32\lambda +3\lambda ^2}}[\rho ^{(in)}]^T+{\displaystyle \frac{(1\lambda )^2}{32\lambda +3\lambda ^2}}1,`$ (43)
where the superscript $`T`$ means transposition. For $`xz`$ equator, the output reduced density operator is invariant under the action of transposition. Comparing the output reduced density operators in $`a_2`$ and $`a_3`$ qubits (42) and $`a_1`$ qubit (43), in case $`\lambda =1/3`$, we have a triplicator,

$`\rho _{a_1}^{(out)}=\rho _{a_2}^{(out)}=\rho _{a_3}^{(out)}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\rho ^{(in)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}1,`$ (44)
with fidelity $`\frac{5}{6}`$ . Explicitly, the triplicator cloning transformation for $`xz`$ equator has the form,

$`|0_{a_1}|00_{a_2a_3}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{12}}}[3|000_{a_1a_2a_3}+|011_{a_1a_2a_3}+|101_{a_1a_2a_3}+|110_{a_1a_2a_3}],`$ (45)
$`|1_{a_1}|00_{a_2a_3}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{12}}}[3|111_{a_1a_2a_3}+|100_{a_1a_2a_3}+|001_{a_1a_2a_3}+|010_{a_1a_2a_3}].`$ (46)
For $`xy`$ equator, by applying a transformation $`|0|1`$ in $`a_1`$ qubit, and still let $`\lambda =1/3`$, we find the output density operator in $`a_1`$ (43) equals to that of $`a_2`$ and $`a_3`$ (42). And the triplicator cloning for $`xy`$ equator takes the form,

$`|0_{a_1}|00_{a_2a_3}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}[|001_{a_1a_2a_3}+|100_{a_1a_2a_3}+|010_{a_1a_2a_3}],`$ (47)
$`|1_{a_1}|00_{a_2a_3}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}[|110_{a_1a_2a_3}+|011_{a_1a_2a_3}+|101_{a_1a_2a_3}].`$ (48)
The fidelity for quantum triplicator is $`\frac{5}{6}`$. Actually, we can find the fidelity takes the same value $`\frac{5}{6}`$ when $`\lambda =0`$ and $`\lambda =1/3`$ corresponding to UQCM and quantum triplicator, respectively. D’Ariano and Presti  proved that the optimal fidelity for 1 to 3 phase-covariant quantum cloning is $`\frac{5}{6}`$, and presented the cloning transformation. The quantum triplicators presented above achieve the bound of the fidelity and agree with the results in Ref..

## V Optimal 1 to $`M`$ phase-covariant quantum cloning machines

We have investigated the $`12`$ and $`13`$ optimal quantum cloning for equatorial qubits. In what follows, we shall study the general $`N`$ to $`M`$ ($`M>N`$) phase-covariant quantum cloning.

We first discuss $`1M`$ phase-covariant quantum cloning. We start from the cloning transformations similar to the UQCM, then determine the parameters to give the highest fidelity, and finally prove that the determined cloning transformation is the optimal QCM for equatorial qubits. For $`xy`$ equator $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=(|+e^{i\varphi }|)/\sqrt{2}`$, we suppose the cloning transformations take the following form,

$`U_{1,M}|R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{M1}{}}}\alpha _j|(Mj),jR_j,`$ (49)
$`U_{1,M}|R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{M1}{}}}\alpha _{M1j}|(M1j),(j+1)R_j,`$ (50)
where we use the same notations as those of Ref., $`R`$ denotes the initial state of the copy machine and $`M1`$ blank copies, $`R_j`$ are orthogonal normalized states of ancilla, and $`|(Mj)\psi ,j)\psi _{}`$ denotes the symmetric and normalized state with $`Mj`$ qubits in state $`\psi `$ and $`j`$ qubits in state $`\psi _{}`$. For arbitrary input state, the case $`\alpha _j=\sqrt{\frac{2(Mj)}{M(M+1)}}`$ is the optimal $`1M`$ quantum cloning. Here we consider the case of $`xy`$ equator instead of arbitrary input state. The quantum cloning transformations should satisfy the property of orientation invariance of the Bloch vector and that we have identical copies. The cloning transformation (50) already ensure that we have $`M`$ identical copies. The unitarity of the cloning transformation demands the relation $`_{j=0}^{M1}\alpha _j^2=1`$. Under this condition, we can check that the cloning transformation has the property of orientation invariance of the Bloch vector. Thus, the relation (50) is the quantum cloning transformation for $`xy`$ equator. The fidelity of the cloning transformation (50), takes the form

$`F={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[1+\eta (1,M)],`$ (51)
where

$`\eta (1,M)={\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{M1}{}}}\alpha _j\alpha _{M1j}{\displaystyle \frac{C_{M1}^j}{\sqrt{C_M^jC_M^{j+1}}}}.`$ (52)
We examine the cases of $`M=2,3`$. For $`M=2`$, we have $`\alpha _0^2+\alpha _1^2=1`$ and $`\eta (1,M)=\sqrt{2}\alpha _0\alpha _1`$. In case $`\alpha _0=\alpha _1=1/\sqrt{2}`$, we have the optimal fidelity and recover the previous result (12). For $`M=3`$, we have $`\alpha _0^2+\alpha _1^2+\alpha _2^2=1`$, and

$`\eta (1,3)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\alpha _1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}}\alpha _0\alpha _2.`$ (53)
For $`\alpha _0=\alpha _2=0,\alpha _1=1`$, we have $`\eta (1,3)=\frac{2}{3}`$, which reproduces the case of quantum triplicator for $`xy`$ equator (48).

We present the result of 1 to $`M`$ phase-covariant quantum cloning transformations. When $`M`$ is even, we have $`\alpha _j=\sqrt{2}/2,j=M/21,M/2`$ and $`\alpha _j=0`$, otherwise. When $`M`$ is odd, we have $`\alpha _j=1,j=(M1)/2`$ and $`\alpha _j=0`$, otherwise. The fidelity are $`F=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\sqrt{M(M+2)}}{4M}`$ for M is even, and $`F=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{(M+1)}{4M}`$ for M is odd. The explicit cloning transformations have already been presented in (50).

Though the fidelity for $`M=2,3`$ are optimal, we need to prove that for general $`M`$, the fidelity achieve the bound as well. We apply the same method introduced by Gisin and Massar in Ref.. In order to use some results later, we consider the general $`N`$ to $`M`$ cloning transformation. Generally, we write the $`N`$ identical input state for equatorial qubits as

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }^N={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{N/2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N}{}}}e^{ij\varphi }\sqrt{C_N^j}|(Nj),j.`$ (54)
The most general $`N`$ to $`M`$ QCM for equatorial qubits is expressed as

$`|(Nj),jR{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{M}{}}}|(Mk),k|R_{jk},`$ (55)
where $`R`$ still denotes the $`MN`$ blank copies and the initial state of the QCM, and $`|R_{jk}`$ are unnormalized final states of the ancilla. The unitarity relation is written as,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{M}{}}}R_{j^{}k}|R_{jk}=\delta _{jj^{}}.`$ (56)
The fidelity of the QCM takes the form

$`F=\mathrm{\Psi }|\rho ^{out}|\mathrm{\Psi }={\displaystyle \underset{j^{},k^{},j,k}{}}R_{j^{}k^{}}|R_{jk}A_{j^{}k^{}jk},`$ (57)
where $`\rho ^{out}`$ is the reduced density operator of each output qubit by taking partial trace over all $`M`$ but one output qubits. We impose the condition that the output density operator has the property of Bloch vector invariance, and find the following for $`N=1`$,

$`A_{j^{}k^{}jk}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\{\delta _{j^{}j}\delta _{k^{}k}+(1\delta _{j^{}j})[\delta _{k^{},(k+1)}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{(Mk)(k+1)}}{M}}+\delta _{k,(k^{}+1)}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{(Mk^{})(k^{}+1)}}{M}}]\},`$ (58)
where $`j,j^{}=0,1`$ for case $`N=1`$. The optimal fidelity of the QCM for equatorial qubits is related to the maximal eigenvalue $`\lambda _{max}`$ of matrix $`A`$ by $`F=2\lambda _{max}`$ . The matrix $`A`$ (58) is a block diagonal matrix with block $`B`$ given by

$`B={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \frac{\sqrt{(Mk)(k+1)}}{M}\\ \frac{\sqrt{(Mk)(k+1)}}{M}& 1\end{array}\right).`$ (61)
Thus we have proved that the optimal fidelty of 1 to $`M`$ QCM for equatorial qubits takes the form

$`F=2\lambda _{max}=\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\sqrt{M(M+2)}}{4M},\mathrm{M}\mathrm{is}\mathrm{even},\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}+\frac{(M+1)}{4M},\mathrm{M}\mathrm{is}\mathrm{odd}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (64)
We thus find in this section the optimal 1 to $`M`$ phase-covariant quantum cloning transformation, this is the main result of this paper.

## VI $`N`$ to $`M`$ phase-covariant QCM

We conjecture that the optimal $`N`$ to $`M`$ phase-covariant QCM for $`xy`$ equator take the following form:

Case A, when $`M=N+2L`$, the cloning transformation is

$`U_{N,N+2L}|(Nj),jR=|(Nj+L),(j+L)R_L,`$ (65)
which implies that we just need one ancilla state and can omit it in cloning relation. The corresponding fidelity is

$`F={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^N}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}\sqrt{C_N^jC_N^{j+1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{(L+j+1)(N+Lj)}}{N+2L}}.`$ (66)
Case B, when $`M=N+2L+1`$, the cloning transformation is

$`U_{N,N+2L+1}|(Nj),jR`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|(Nj+L+1),(j+L)R_L`$ (68)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|(Nj+L),(j+L+1)R_{L+1}.`$
The corresponding fidelity is

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{N+1}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}\sqrt{C_N^jC_N^{j+1}}`$ (70)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{N+2L+1}}[\sqrt{(L+j+1)(N+Lj+1)}+\sqrt{(L+j+2)(N+Lj)}].`$
When $`N=1`$, the cloning transformations and the fidelity reduce to the previous results given in the last section. For case $`N>1`$, the upper bound on the fidelity obtained by the method introduced in Ref. is too conservative because that it is sometimes greater than unity.

It is proved that the optimal fidelity of $`N\mathrm{}`$ quantum cloning equals to the corresponding optimal fidelity of quantum estimation. In the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$, the fidelity for $`N`$ to $`N+2L,N+2L+1`$ quantum cloning becomes

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{N+1}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}\sqrt{C_N^jC_N^{j+1}}`$ (71)
which is equal to the optimal fidelity of the quantum phase-estimation presented in Ref.. This confirms that the optimal fidelity (66,70) in the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$ gives a correct result. However, we still need a rigorous proof for the case of general $`N`$ to $`M`$ phase-covariant quantum cloning.

## VII Summary

In this paper, the networks consisting of quantum gates for phase-covariant quantum cloning have been studied. The copied qubits of phase-covariant cloning machine are showed to be separable. We have given explicitly the $`1M`$ cloning transformations for $`xy`$ equator. And the optimal fidelity has been proved by using the method by Gisin and Massar . The general $`NM`$ phase-covariant quantum cloning are conjectured.

Acknowlegements: One of the authors HF acknowleges the support of JSPS. He also would like to thank Prof.G.Mauro D’Ariano for informing him their results in Ref. before it appeared in web. We thank V.Bužek and D.Bruss for very useful comments, and we thank N.Gisin and M.Hillery for communications.


text:
# Analysis of the nature of the ϕ→𝛾𝜋𝜂 and ϕ→𝛾𝜋⁰𝜋⁰ decays.

## I Introduction

As was shown in a number of papers, see Refs.  and references therein, the study of the radiative decays $`\varphi \gamma a_0\gamma \pi \eta `$ and $`\varphi \gamma f_0\gamma \pi \pi `$ can shed light on the problem of the scalar $`a_0(980)`$ and $`f_0(980)`$ mesons. These decays have been studied not only theoretically but also experimentally. Present time data have already been obtained from Novosibirsk with the detectors SND  and CMD-2 , which give the following branching ratios : $`BR(\varphi \gamma \pi \eta )=(0.88\pm 0.14\pm 0.09)10^4`$ , $`BR(\varphi \gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0)=(1.221\pm 0.098\pm 0.061)10^4`$  and $`BR(\varphi \gamma \pi \eta )=(0.9\pm 0.24\pm 0.1)10^4`$, $`BR(\varphi \gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0)=(0.92\pm 0.08\pm 0.06)10^4`$ .

These data give evidence in favor of the four-quark $`(q^2\overline{q}^2)`$  nature of the scalar $`a_0(980)`$ and $`f_0(980)`$ mesons. Note that the isovector $`a_0(980)`$ meson is produced in the radiative $`\varphi `$ meson decay as intensively as the well-studied $`\eta ^{}`$ meson involving essentially strange quarks $`s\overline{s}`$ ($`66\%`$), responsible for the decay.

As shown in Refs. , the background situation for studying the radiative decays $`\varphi \gamma a_0\gamma \pi ^0\eta `$ and $`\varphi \gamma f_0\gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0`$ is very good. For example, in the case of the decay $`\varphi \gamma a_0\gamma \pi ^0\eta `$, the process $`\varphi \pi ^0\rho \gamma \pi ^0\eta `$ is the dominant background. The estimation for the soft, by strong interaction standard, photon energy, $`\omega <100`$ MeV, gives $`BR(\varphi \pi ^0\rho ^0\gamma \pi ^0\eta ,\omega <100\text{MeV})1.510^6`$. The influence of the background process is negligible, provided $`BR(\varphi \gamma a_0\gamma \pi ^0\eta ,\omega <100\text{MeV})10^5`$. In this paper, in Sec. II, we calculate the expression for the $`\varphi \gamma \pi ^0\eta `$ decay amplitude taking into account the interference between the $`\varphi \gamma a_0\gamma \pi ^0\eta `$ and $`\varphi \pi ^0\rho \gamma \pi ^0\eta `$ processes. We show that for the obtained experimental data the influence of the background processes is negligible everywhere over the photon energy region.

The situation with $`\varphi \gamma f_0\gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0`$ decay is not much different. As was shown in  the dominant background is the $`\varphi \pi ^0\rho ^0\gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0`$ process with $`BR(\varphi \pi ^0\rho ^0\gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0,\omega <100\text{MeV})6.410^7`$. The influence of this background process is negligible, provided $`BR(\varphi \gamma f_0\gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0,\omega <100\text{MeV})510^6`$.

The exact calculation of the interference patterns between the decays $`\varphi \gamma f_0\gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0`$ and $`\varphi \rho ^0\pi \gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0`$, which we present in this paper in Sec. III, shows that the influence of the background in the decay $`\varphi \gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0`$ for the obtained experimental data is negligible in the wide region of the $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ invariant mass, $`m_{\pi \pi }>670`$ MeV, or in the photon energy region $`\omega <300`$ MeV.

In Sec. IV we discuss the mechanism of the scalar meson production in the radiative decays and show that experimental data obtained in Novosibirsk give the reasonable arguments in favor of the one-loop mechanism $`\varphi K^+K^{}\gamma a_0`$ and $`\varphi K^+K^{}\gamma f_0`$ of these decays . In the same place we discuss also distinctions between the four-quark, molecular, and two-quark models and explain why these data give evidence in favor of the four-quark nature of the scalar $`a_0(980)`$ and $`f_0(980)`$ mesons.

## II Interference between the reactions $`\varphi \gamma a_0\gamma \pi ^0\eta `$ and $`\varphi \pi ^0\rho ^0\gamma \pi ^0\eta `$.

As was shown in Refs.  the background process $`e^+e^{}\varphi \pi ^0\rho ^0\gamma \pi ^0\eta `$ is dominant. The amplitudes of the processes $`e^+e^{}\rho ^0(\omega )\eta \rho ^0(\omega )\gamma \pi ^0\eta `$ are much less than the amplitudes of the $`e^+e^{}\rho ^0(\omega )\pi ^0\omega (\rho ^0)\gamma \pi ^0\eta `$ processes. In its turn, the amplitudes of the $`e^+e^{}\rho ^0(\omega )\pi ^0\omega (\rho ^0)\gamma \pi ^0\eta `$ processes are much less than the amplitudes of the $`e^+e^{}\varphi \pi ^0\rho ^0\gamma \pi ^0\eta `$ processes. The amplitude of the $`e^+e^{}\varphi \eta \varphi \gamma \pi ^0\eta `$ process is also much less than the amplitude of $`e^+e^{}\varphi \pi ^0\rho ^0\gamma \pi ^0\eta `$ process.

The amplitude of the background process $`\varphi (p)\pi ^0\rho ^0\gamma (q)\pi ^0(k_1)\eta (k_2)`$ is

$$M_B=\frac{g_{\varphi \rho \pi }g_{\rho \eta \gamma }}{D_\rho (pk_1)}\varphi _\alpha k_{1\mu }p_\nu ϵ_\delta (pk_1)_\omega q_ϵϵ_{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }ϵ_{\beta \delta \omega ϵ}.$$
(1)
For the amplitude of the signal $`\varphi \gamma a_0\gamma \pi ^0\eta `$ we use the model suggested in Ref. , in which the one-loop mechanism of the decay $`\varphi K^+K^{}\gamma a_0`$ is considered:

$$M_a=g(m)\frac{g_{a_0K^+K^{}}g_{a_0\pi \eta }}{D_{a_0}(m)}\left((\varphi ϵ)\frac{(\varphi q)(ϵp)}{(pq)}\right),$$
(2)
where $`m^2=(k_1+k_2)^2`$, $`\varphi _\alpha `$ and $`ϵ_\mu `$ are the polarization vectors of $`\varphi `$ meson and photon, the function $`g(m)`$ is determined in Refs. . The mass spectrum is

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi \gamma \pi \eta )}{dm}=\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_0}(m)}{dm}+\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{back}(m)}{dm}\pm \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{int}(m)}{dm},$$
(3)
where the mass spectrum for the signal is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_0}(m)}{dm}}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi \gamma a_0(m))\mathrm{\Gamma }(a_0(m)\pi \eta )}{|D_{a_0}(m)|^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{2|g(m)|^2p_{\eta \pi }(m_\varphi ^2m^2)}{3(4\pi )^3m_\varphi ^3}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{g_{a_0K^+K^{}}g_{a_0\pi \eta }}{D_{a_0}(m)}}\right|^2.`$ (4)
Accordingly, the mass spectrum for the background process $`e^+e^{}\varphi \pi ^0\rho \gamma \pi ^0\eta `$ is

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{back}(m)}{dm}=\frac{(m_\varphi ^2m^2)p_{\pi \eta }}{128\pi ^3m_\varphi ^3}_1^1𝑑xA_{back}(m,x),$$
(5)
where

$`A_{back}(m,x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle |M_B|^2}=`$ (6)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}(m_\eta ^4m_\pi ^4+2m^2m_\eta ^2m_\pi ^2\stackrel{~}{m_\rho }^22m_\eta ^4m_\pi ^2\stackrel{~}{m_\rho }^22m_\eta ^2m_\pi ^4\stackrel{~}{m_\rho }^2+`$ (7)
$`2m^4\stackrel{~}{m_\rho }^42m^2m_\eta ^2\stackrel{~}{m_\rho }^4+2m_\eta ^4\stackrel{~}{m_\rho }^42m^2m_\pi ^2\stackrel{~}{m_\rho }^4+4m_\eta ^2m_\pi ^2\stackrel{~}{m_\rho }^4+m_\pi ^4\stackrel{~}{m_\rho }^4+`$ (8)
$`2m^2\stackrel{~}{m_\rho }^62m_\eta ^2\stackrel{~}{m_\rho }^62m_\pi ^2\stackrel{~}{m_\rho }^6+\stackrel{~}{m_\rho }^82m_\eta ^4m_\pi ^2m_\varphi ^22m^2m_\eta ^2m_\varphi ^2\stackrel{~}{m_\rho }^2+`$ (9)
$`2m_\eta ^2m_\pi ^2m_\varphi ^2\stackrel{~}{m_\rho }^22m^2m_\varphi ^2\stackrel{~}{m_\rho }^4+2m_\eta ^2m_\varphi ^2\stackrel{~}{m_\rho }^42m_\varphi ^2\stackrel{~}{m_\rho }^6+m_\eta ^4m_\varphi ^4+m_\varphi ^4\stackrel{~}{m_\rho }^4)\times `$ (10)
$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\varphi \rho \pi }g_{\rho \eta \gamma }}{D_\rho (\stackrel{~}{m_\rho })}}\right|^2,`$ (11)
and

$`\stackrel{~}{m_\rho }^2=m_\eta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(m^2+m_\eta ^2m_\pi ^2)(m_\varphi ^2m^2)}{2m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(m_\varphi ^2m^2)x}{m}}p_{\pi \eta }`$ (12)
$`p_{\pi \eta }={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{(m^2(m_\eta m_\pi )^2)(m^2(m_\eta +m_\pi )^2)}}{2m}}.`$ (13)
The interference between the background process amplitude and the signal amplitude is written in the following way:

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{int}(m)}{dm}=\frac{(m_\varphi ^2m^2)p_{\pi \eta }}{128\pi ^3m_\varphi ^3}_1^1𝑑xA_{int}(m,x),$$
(14)
where

$`A_{int}(m,x)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}Re{\displaystyle }M_aM_B^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}((m^2m_\varphi ^2)\stackrel{~}{m_\rho }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{m_\varphi ^2(\stackrel{~}{m_\rho }^2m_\eta ^2)^2}{m_\varphi ^2m^2}})\times `$ (15)
$`Re\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{g(m)g_{a_0K^+K^{}}g_{a_0\pi \eta }g_{\varphi \rho \pi }g_{\rho \eta \gamma }}{D_\rho ^{}(\stackrel{~}{m_\rho })D_{a_0}(m)}}\right\}.`$ (16)
The inverse propagator of $`a_0`$ meson, $`D_{a_0}(m)`$, is presented in Refs. . The inverse propagator of $`\rho `$ meson has the following expression

$$D_\rho (m)=m_\rho ^2m^2im^2\frac{g_{\rho \pi \pi }^2}{48\pi }\left(1\frac{4m_\pi ^2}{m^2}\right)^{3/2}.$$
(17)
We use the coupling constant $`g_{\varphi K^+K^{}}=4.68\pm 0.05`$ obtained form the decay $`\varphi K^+K^{}`$ , and the coupling constant $`g_{\rho \eta \gamma }=0.572\pm 0.08`$ GeV-1 obtained from the decay $`\rho \eta \gamma `$ , with the help of the following expressions

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi K^+K^{})=\frac{g_{\varphi K^+K^{}}^2}{48\pi }m_\varphi \left(1\frac{4m_K^2}{m_\varphi ^2}\right)^{3/2},\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho \eta \gamma )=\frac{g_{\rho \eta \gamma }^2}{96\pi m_\rho ^3}\left(m_\rho ^2m_\eta ^2\right)^3.$$
(18)
The coupling constant $`g_{\varphi \rho \pi }=0.811\pm 0.081`$ GeV-1 is obtained using the data on the decay $`\varphi \rho \pi \pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$  with the help of the formulas from the paper .

The fit of the experimental data from the SND detector , taking into account the relation $`g_{a_0\pi \eta }=0.85g_{a_0K^+K^{}}`$ resulting from the $`q^2\overline{q}^2`$ model , chooses the constructive interference and gives

$`m_{a_0}=985.51\pm 0.8\text{MeV}`$ (19)
$`g_{a_0K^+K^{}}=2.747\pm 0.428\text{GeV};{\displaystyle \frac{g_{a_0K^+K^{}}^2}{4\pi }}=0.6\pm 0.015\text{GeV}^2`$ (20)
$`\chi ^2/dof=3.1/6.`$ (21)
The total branching ratio, taking into account the interference, is $`BR(\varphi (\gamma a_0+\pi ^0\rho )\gamma \pi \eta )=(0.79\pm 0.2)10^4`$, the branching ratio of the signal is $`BR(\varphi \gamma a_0\gamma \pi \eta )=(0.75\pm 0.2)10^4`$ and the branching ratio of the background is $`BR(\varphi \rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma \pi ^0\eta )=3.4310^6`$. So, the integral part of the interference is negligible. The influence of the interference on the mass spectrum of the $`\pi \eta `$ system is also negligible, see Fig. 1.

The difference of the obtained parameters (21) from the parameters found in , which are $`m_{a_0}=994\pm _8^{33}`$ MeV, $`g_{a_0K^+K^{}}^2/4\pi =1.05\pm _{0.25}^{0.36}`$ GeV2, is due to the fact that in  a more refined fitting was performed considering the event distribution inside of the each bin. Notice that this difference is less than two standard deviations.

Let us specially emphasize that the value $`g_{a_0K^+K^{}}^2/4\pi =0.6\pm 0.015`$ GeV2 obtained by us on no account points to the possibility of the $`K\overline{K}`$ molecule description  of the $`a_0`$ meson. In the $`K\overline{K}`$ molecule model, the imaginary part of the $`K^+K^{}`$ loop is dominant because the real part of the $`K^+K^{}`$ loop is suppressed by the wave function of the molecule , see also Sec. IV. Due to this fact, we have $`BR(\varphi \gamma a_0\gamma \pi \eta )1.510^5`$  in the $`K\overline{K}`$ molecule model at the same coupling constant and $`m_{a_0}=985`$ MeV, which is almost by six times less than the experimental value $`BR(\varphi \gamma \pi \eta )=(0.88\pm 0.14\pm 0.09)10^4`$ . The divergence is by five standard deviations! Besides, in the case of molecule, the bump in the spectrum of the $`\pi \eta `$ system is much narrower than the experimentally observed, , see also Sec. IV.

## III Interference between the $`e^+e^{}\gamma f_0\gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0`$ and $`e^+e^{}\varphi \pi ^0\rho \gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0`$ reactions

When analyzing the $`\varphi \gamma f_0\gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0`$ decay, one should take into account the mixing of the $`f_0`$ meson with the isosinglet scalar states. The whole formalism of the mixing of two scalar $`f_0`$ and $`\sigma `$ mesons was considered in Ref. . In this paper, we consider only expressions in regard to the interference with the background reactions.

As was shown in Refs. , the dominant background is the $`e^+e^{}\varphi \pi ^0\rho \gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0`$ reaction. The amplitude of the $`e^+e^{}\rho \pi ^0\omega \gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0`$ reaction is much less than the amplitude of the $`e^+e^{}\varphi \pi ^0\rho \gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0`$ reaction. In its turn, the amplitude of the $`e^+e^{}\omega \pi ^0\rho \gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0`$ reaction is much less than the amplitude of the $`e^+e^{}\rho \pi ^0\omega \gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0`$ reaction.

The amplitude of the background decay $`\varphi (p)\pi ^0\rho \gamma (q)\pi ^0(k_1)\pi ^0(k_2)`$ is written in the following way:

$$M_{back}=g_{\rho \pi ^0\varphi }g_{\rho \pi ^0\gamma }\varphi _\alpha p_\nu ϵ_\delta q_ϵϵ_{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }ϵ_{\beta \delta \omega ϵ}\left(\frac{k_{1\mu }k_{2\omega }}{D_\rho (q+k_2)}+\frac{k_{2\mu }k_{1\omega }}{D_\rho (q+k_1)}\right).$$
(22)
The amplitude of the signal $`\varphi \gamma (f_0+\sigma )\gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0`$ takes into account the mixing of $`f_0`$ and $`\sigma `$ mesons, see ,

$$M_{f_0}=g(m)e^{i\delta _B}\left((\varphi ϵ)\frac{(\varphi q)(ϵp)}{(pq)}\right)\left(\underset{R,R^{}}{}g_{RK^+K^{}}G_{RR^{}}^1g_{R^{}\pi ^0\pi ^0}\right),$$
(23)
where $`R,R^{}=f_0,\sigma `$. The matrix of propagators is defined in Ref. . The phase of the signal amplitude is formed by the phase of the triangle diagram ($`\varphi K^+K^{}\gamma R`$) and by the phase of $`\pi \pi `$ scattering which in its turn is defined by the phase of the $`f_0\sigma `$ complex, and by the phase of the elastic background of $`\pi \pi `$ scattering, $`\delta _B`$, see details in Refs. .

The mass spectrum of the process is

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi \gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0)}{dm}=\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_0}(m)}{dm}+\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{back}(m)}{dm}\pm \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{int}(m)}{dm},$$
(24)
where the mass spectrum of the signal has the form

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_0}(m)}{dm}=\frac{|g(m)|^2\sqrt{m^24m_\pi ^2}(m_\varphi ^2m^2)}{3(4\pi )^3m_\varphi ^3}\left|\underset{R,R^{}}{}g_{RK^+K^{}}G_{RR^{}}^1g_{R^{}\pi ^0\pi ^0}\right|^2.$$
(25)
The mass spectrum for the background process $`e^+e^{}\varphi \pi ^0\rho \gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0`$ is

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{back}(m)}{dm}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{(m_\varphi ^2m^2)\sqrt{m^24m_\pi ^2}}{256\pi ^3m_\varphi ^3}_1^1𝑑xA_{back}(m,x),$$
(26)
where

$`A_{back}(m,x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \left|M_{back}\right|^2}=`$ (27)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}g_{\varphi \rho \pi }^2g_{\rho \pi \gamma }^2\{(m_\pi ^8+2m^2m_\pi ^4\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^2}4m_\pi ^6\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^2}+2m^4\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^4}`$ (28)
$`4m^2m_\pi ^2\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^4}+6m_\pi ^4\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^4}+2m^2\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^6}4m_\pi ^2\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^6}+\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^8}2m_\pi ^6m_\varphi ^2`$ (29)
$`2m^2m_\pi ^2\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^2}m_\varphi ^2+2m_\pi ^4\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^2}m_\varphi ^22m^2\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^4}m_\varphi ^2+2m_\pi ^2\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^4}m_\varphi ^22\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^6}m_\varphi ^2+`$ (30)
$`m_\pi ^4m_\varphi ^4+\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^4}m_\varphi ^4\left)\right({\displaystyle \frac{1}{|D_\rho (m_\rho )|^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|D_\rho (\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^{}})|^2}})+(m_\varphi ^2m^2\left)\right(m^2`$ (31)
$`2m_\pi ^2+2\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^2}m_\varphi ^2\left)\right(2m^2m_\pi ^2+2m_\pi ^2m_\varphi ^2m^4){\displaystyle \frac{1}{|D_\rho (\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^{}})|^2}}+`$ (32)
$`2Re\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{D_\rho (m_\rho )D_\rho ^{}(\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^{}}}}\right)(m_\pi ^8m^6\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^2}+2m^4m_\pi ^2\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^2}+`$ (33)
$`2m^2m_\pi ^4\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^2}4m_\pi ^6\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^2}4m^2m_\pi ^2\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^4}+6m_\pi ^4\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^4}+`$ (34)
$`2m^2\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^6}4m_\pi ^2\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^6}+\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^8}+m^2m_\pi ^4m_\varphi ^22m_\pi ^6m_\varphi ^2+2m^4\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^2}m_\varphi ^2`$ (35)
$`4m^2m_\pi ^2\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^2}m_\varphi ^2+2m_\pi ^4\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^2}m_\varphi ^2m^2\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^4}m_\varphi ^2+2m_\pi ^2\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^4}m_\varphi ^22\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^6}m_\varphi ^2`$ (36)
$`m_\pi ^4m_\varphi ^4m^2\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^2}m_\varphi ^4+2m_\pi ^2\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^2}m_\varphi ^4+\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^4}m_\varphi ^4)\}`$ (37)
and

$`\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^2}=m_\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(m_\varphi ^2m^2)}{2}}\left(1x\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4m_\pi ^2}{m^2}}}\right)`$ (38)
$`\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^2}=m_\varphi ^2+2m_\pi ^2m^2\stackrel{~}{m_\rho }^2.`$ (39)
The interference between the amplitudes of the background process and the signal has the form

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{int}(m)}{dm}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\sqrt{m^24m_\pi ^2}}{256\pi ^3m_\varphi ^3}_1^1𝑑xA_{int}(m,x),$$
(40)
where

$`A_{int}(m,x)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}Re{\displaystyle M_fM_{back}^{}}=`$ (41)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}Re\{g(m)e^{\delta _b}g_{\varphi \rho \pi }g_{\rho \pi ^0\gamma }({\displaystyle \underset{R,R^{}}{}}g_{RK^+K^{}}G_{RR^{}}^1g_{R^{}\pi ^0\pi ^0})({\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^2}m_\pi ^2)^2m_\varphi ^2(m_\varphi ^2m^2)^2\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^2}}{D_\rho ^{}(\stackrel{~}{m_\rho })}}+`$ (42)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^2}m_\pi ^2)^2m_\varphi ^2(m_\varphi ^2m^2)^2\stackrel{~}{m_\rho ^2}}{D_\rho ^{}(\stackrel{~}{m_\rho }^{})}})\}.`$ (43)
The factor $`1/2`$ in (26) and the factor $`1/\sqrt{2}`$ in (40) take into account the identity of pions. In (25), the identity of pions is taken into account by the definition of the coupling constant $`g_{R\pi ^0\pi ^0}=g_{R\pi ^+\pi ^{}}/\sqrt{2}`$. For the fitting of the experimental data we use the model of $`\pi \pi `$ scattering considered in Ref. . The phase of the elastic background of $`\pi \pi `$ scattering is taken in the form $`\delta _B=b\sqrt{m^24m_\pi ^2}`$. We fit simultaneously the phase of $`\pi \pi `$ scattering and the experimental data on the decay $`\varphi \gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0`$.

The fit of the experimental data , obtained using the total statistics of SND detector, and the data on the $`\pi \pi `$ scattering phase , taking the value $`g_{\rho \pi ^0\gamma }=0.295\pm 0.037GeV^1`$ obtained from the data on the $`\rho \pi ^0\gamma `$ decay  with the help of the following expression:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho \pi ^0\gamma )=\frac{g_{\rho \pi ^0\gamma }^2}{96\pi m_\rho ^3}\left(m_\rho ^2m_\pi ^2\right)^3,$$
(44)
gives the constructive interference and the following parameters:

$`g_{f_0K^+K^{}}=4.021\pm 0.011\text{GeV},g_{f_0\pi ^0\pi ^0}=1.494\pm 0.021\text{GeV},m_{f_0}=0.996\pm 0.0013\text{GeV},`$ (45)
$`g_{\sigma K^+K^{}}=0,g_{\sigma \pi ^0\pi ^0}=2.58\pm 0.02\text{GeV},m_\sigma =1.505\pm 0.012\text{GeV},`$ (46)
$`b=75\pm 2.1(1^{}/GeV),C=0.622\pm 0.04\text{GeV}^2,g_{f_0K^+K^{}}^2/4\pi =1.29\pm 0.017\text{GeV}^2.`$ (47)
The constant $`C`$ takes into account effectively the contribution of multi particle intermediate states in the $`f_0\sigma `$ transition in $`G_{RR^{}}`$ matrix, see Ref. , and incorporates the subtraction constant for the $`R(0^{}0^{})R^{}`$ transition. We treat this constant as a free parameter.

The total branching ratio, with interference being taken into account, is $`BR(\varphi (\gamma f_0+\pi ^0\rho )\gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0)=(1.26\pm 0.29)10^4`$, the branching ratio of the signal is $`BR(\varphi \gamma f_0\gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0)=(1.01\pm 0.23)10^4`$, the branching ratio of the background is $`BR(\varphi \rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0)=0.1810^4`$. The results of fitting are shown in Figs. 2 and 3.

Note, that for our aim, the phase in the region $`m_{\pi \pi }<1.1`$ GeV is important.

The authors of Ref.  fit the data taking into account the background reaction $`\varphi \rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0`$. The parameters found  are $`m_{f_0}=0.9698\pm 0.0045`$, $`g_{f_0K^+K^{}}^2/4\pi =2.47\pm _{0.51}^{0.73}`$ GeV2 and $`g_{f_0\pi ^+\pi ^{}}^2/4\pi =0.54\pm _{0.08}^{0.09}`$ GeV2. They are different from the parameters found in our fitting. The difference is due to the fact that we perform the simultaneous fitting of the data on the decay $`\varphi \gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0`$ and the data on the S-wave phase of $`\pi \pi `$ scattering, taking into account the mixing of $`f_0`$ and $`\sigma `$ mesons.

In addition, in Ref. , the interference between the background and signal is found from the fitting meanwhile in our paper the interference is calculated. The branching ratio of the background $`BR(\varphi \rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0)=0.1210^4`$ used in Ref.  is taken from Ref.  in which the coupling constant $`g_{\rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma }`$ is less by 25% than resulting from the experiment. In our paper, the background is calculated on the basis of experiment and is accordingly larger, $`BR(\varphi \rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0)=0.1810^4`$. Note that in Ref. , in contrast to us, the fitting is performed taking into account the event distribution inside each bin.

The fitting of the experimental data of the CMD-2 detector  and the data on the $`\pi \pi `$ scattering phase  gives the constructive interference and the following parameters:

$`g_{f_0K^+K^{}}=3.874\pm 0.17\text{GeV},g_{f_0\pi ^0\pi ^0}=0.536\pm 0.03\text{GeV},m_{f_0}=1.0019\pm 0.002\text{GeV},`$ (48)
$`g_{\sigma K^+K^{}}=0,g_{\sigma \pi ^0\pi ^0}=2.61\pm 0.1\text{GeV},m_\sigma =1.585\pm 0.015\text{GeV},`$ (49)
$`b=70.7\pm 2.0(1^{}/GeV),C=0.593\pm 0.06\text{GeV}^2,g_{f_0K^+K^{}}^2/4\pi =1.19\pm 0.03\text{GeV}^2.`$ (50)
The total branching ratio, taking into account the interference, is $`BR(\varphi (\gamma f_0+\pi ^0\rho )\gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0)=(0.98\pm 0.21)10^4`$, the branching ratio of the signal is $`BR(\varphi \gamma f_0\gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0)=(0.74\pm 0.2)10^4`$, the branching ratio of the background is $`BR(\varphi \rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0)=0.1810^4`$. The results of fitting are shown in Figs. 4 and 5.

The parameters found in , which are $`m_{f_0}=0.969\pm 0.005`$, $`g_{f_0K^+K^{}}^2/4\pi =1.49\pm 0.36GeV^2`$ and $`g_{f_0\pi ^+\pi ^{}}^2/4\pi =0.4\pm 0.06GeV^2`$, are different from the parameters found in our fitting. The difference is due to the fact that we perform the simultaneous fitting of the data on the decay $`\varphi \gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0`$ and the data on the S-wave phase of the $`\pi \pi `$ scattering, taking into account the mixing of $`f_0`$ and $`\sigma `$ mesons and taking into account the background reaction $`\varphi \rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0`$.

One can see from Figs. 2 and 4 that the influence of the background process on the spectrum of the $`\varphi \gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0`$ decay is negligible in the wide region of the $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ invariant mass, $`m_{\pi \pi }>670`$ MeV, or when photon energy less than $`300`$ MeV.

In the meantime, the difference from the experimental data is observed in the region $`m_{\pi \pi }<670`$ MeV. We suppose this difference is due to the fact that in the experimental processing of the $`e^+e^{}\gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0`$ events the background events $`e^+e^{}\omega \pi ^0\gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0`$ are excluded with the help of the invariant mass cutting and simulation, in so doing the part of the $`e^+e^{}\varphi \rho \pi ^0\gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0`$ events is excluded as well.

It should be noted that the SND and CMD-2 data on the branching ratios of the $`\varphi \gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0`$ decay are quite consistent, in the meantime, the SND and CMD-2 data on the shapes of the spectra of the $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ invariant mass are rather different. The CMD-2 shape is noticeably more narrow, compare Figs. 2 and 4. This difference reflects on the coupling constant $`g_{f_0\pi ^0\pi ^0}`$ and the constant $`C`$, which are quite different, see Eqs. (45) and (48). In all probability, this difference will disappear when the CMD-2 group processes the total statistics.

## IV Conclusion.

The experimental data give evidence not only in favor of the four-quark model but in favor of the dynamical model suggested in Ref. , in which the discussed decays proceed through the kaon loop, $`\varphi K^+K^{}\gamma f_0(a_0)`$.

Indeed, according to the gauge invariance condition, the transition amplitude $`\varphi \gamma f_0(a_0)`$ is proportional to the electromagnetic tensor $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ (in our case to the electric field). Since there are no pole terms in our case, the function $`g(m)`$ in (2) and (23) is proportional to the energy of photon $`\omega =(m_\varphi ^2m^2)/2m_\varphi `$ in the soft photon region. To describe the experimental spectra, the function $`|g(m)|^2`$ should be smooth (almost constant) in the range $`m0.99`$ GeV, see Eqs. (4) and (25). Stopping the function $`\omega ^2`$ at $`\omega _0=30`$ MeV, using the form-factor of the form $`1/(1+R^2\omega ^2)`$, requires $`R100`$ GeV-1. It seems to be incredible to explain the formation of such a huge radius in hadron physics. Based on the large, by hadron physics standard, $`R10`$ GeV-1, one can obtain an effective maximum of the mass spectra under discussion only near 900 MeV. In the meantime, the $`K^+K^{}`$ loop gives the natural description to this threshold effect, see Fig. 6.

To demonstrate the threshold character of this effect we present Fig. 7 in which the function $`|g(m)|^2`$ is shown in the case of $`K^+`$ meson mass is 25 MeV less than in reality. One can see that in the region 950-1020 MeV the function $`|g(m)|^2`$ is suppressed by the $`\omega ^2`$ low. In the mass spectrum this suppression is increased by one more power of $`\omega `$, see Eqs. (4) and (25), so that we cannot see the resonance in the region 980-995 MeV. The maximum in the spectrum is effectively shifted to the region 935-950 MeV. In truth this means that $`a_0(980)`$ and $`f_0(980)`$ resonances are seen in the radiative decays of $`\varphi `$ meson owing to the $`K^+K^{}`$ intermediate state, otherwise the maxima in the spectra would be shifted to 900 MeV.

It is worth noting that the $`K^+K^{}`$ loop model is practically accepted by theorists, compare, for example, Ref.  with Ref. , true there is exception .

It was noted already in paper  that the imaginary part of the $`K^+K^{}`$ loop is calculated practically in a model independent way making use of the coupling constants $`g_{\varphi K^+K^{}}`$ and $`g_{a_0(f_0)K^+K^{}}`$ due to the Low’s theorem  for the photons with energy $`\omega <100`$ MeV which is soft by the standard of strong interaction. In the same paper it was noted that the real part of the loop (with accuracy up to 20% in the width of the $`\varphi \gamma f_0(a_0)`$ decay) is practically not different for the point-like particle and the compact hadron with form-factor which has the cutting radius in the momentum space about the mass of $`\rho `$ meson ($`m_\rho =0.77`$ GeV). In contrast to the four-quark state which is the compact hadron , the bound $`K\overline{K}`$ state is the extended state with the spatial radius $`R1/\sqrt{m_Kϵ}`$, where $`ϵ`$ is the binding energy. Corresponding form-factor in the momentum space has the radius of the order of $`\sqrt{m_Kϵ}100`$ MeV for $`ϵ=20`$ MeV, . The more detailed calculation  gives for the radius in the momentum space the value $`p_0=140`$ MeV. As a result, the contribution of the virtual intermediate $`K^+K^{}`$ states in the $`K^+K^{}`$ loop is suppressed by the momentum distribution in the molecule, and the real part of the loop amplitude is negligible . It leads to the branching ratio much less than the experimental one, as it was noted above. In addition, the spectrum is much narrower in the $`K\overline{K}`$ molecule case that contradicts to the experiment, see the behavior of the imaginary part contribution in Fig. 6 and in corresponding figures in .

Of course, the two-quark state is as compact as four-quark one. The question arises, why is the branching ratio in the two-quark model suppressed in comparison with the branching ratio in the four-quark model? There are two reasons. First, the coupling constant of two-quark states with the $`K\overline{K}`$ channel is noticeably less  and, second, there is the Okubo-Zweig-Iizuka (OZI) rule that is more important really.

If the isovector $`a_0(980)`$ meson is the two-quark state, it has no strange quarks. Hence , the decay $`\varphi \gamma a_0`$ should be suppressed according to the OZI rule. On the intermediate state level, the OZI rule is formulated as compensation of the different intermediate states . In our case these states are $`K\overline{K}`$, $`K\overline{K}^{}+\overline{K}K^{}`$, $`K^{}\overline{K}^{}`$ and so on. Since, due to the kinematical reason, the real intermediate state is the only $`K^+K^{}`$ state, the compensation in the imaginary part is impossible and it destroys the OZI rule. The compensation should be in the real part of the amplitude only. As a result, the $`\varphi \gamma a_0`$ decay in the two-quark model is mainly due to the imaginary part of the amplitude and is much less intensive than in the four-quark model . In addition, in the two-quark model, $`a_0(980)`$ meson should appear in the $`\varphi \gamma a_0`$ decay as a noticeably more narrow resonance than in other processes, see the behavior of the imaginary part contribution in Fig. 6.

As regards to the isoscalar $`f_0(980)`$ state, there are two possibilities in the two-quark model. If $`f_0(980)`$ meson does not contain the strange quarks the all above mentioned arguments about suppression of the $`\varphi \gamma a_0`$ decay and the spectrum shape are also valid for the $`\varphi \gamma f_0`$ decay. Generally speaking, there could be the strong OZI violation for the isoscalar $`q\overline{q}`$ states ( mixing of the $`u\overline{u}`$, $`d\overline{d}`$ and $`s\overline{s}`$ states) with regard to the strong mixing of the quark and gluon degree of freedom which is due to the nonperturbative effects of QCD . But, an almost exact degeneration of the masses of the isoscalar $`f_0(980)`$ and isovector $`a_0(980)`$ mesons excludes such a possibility. Note also, the experiment points directly to the weak coupling of $`f_0(980)`$ meson with gluons, $`B(J/\psi \gamma f_0\gamma \pi \pi )<1.410^5`$ .

If $`f_0(980)`$ meson is close to the $`s\overline{s}`$ state  there is no suppression due to the the OZI rule. Nevertheless, if $`a_0(980)`$ and $`f_0(980)`$ mesons are the members of the same multiplet, the $`\varphi \gamma f_0`$ branching ratio, $`BR(\varphi \gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0)=(1/3)BR(\varphi \gamma \pi \pi )1.810^5`$, is significantly less than that in the four-quark model, due to the relation between the coupling constants with the $`K\overline{K}`$, $`\pi \eta `$ and $`K\overline{K}`$, $`\pi \pi `$ channels inherited in the two-quark model, see Refs. . In addition, in this case there is no natural explanation of the $`a_0`$ and $`f_0`$ mass degeneration.

Only in the case when the nature of $`f_0(980)`$ meson in no way related to the nature of $`a_0(980)`$ meson (which, for example, is the four-quark state) the branching ratio experimentally observed $`\varphi \gamma f_0`$ could be explained by $`s\overline{s}`$ nature of $`f_0(980)`$ meson. But, from the theoretical point of view, such a possibility seems awful .

## V Acknowledgement

We gratefully acknowledge discussions with V.P. Druzhinin, A.A. Kozhevnikov, G.N. Shestakov, and Z.K. Silagadze. This work was supported in part by INTAS-RFBR, grant IR-97-232.