text:
# Fixed-Point Hamiltonians in Quantum Mechanics

,111tobias@fis.ita.cta.br, 2delfino@if.uff.br,3tomio@ift.unesp.br, ,2, ,3,

## Abstract

We show how to derive fixed-point Hamiltonians in quantum mechanics from a proposed renormalization group invariance approach that relies in a subtraction procedure at a given energy scale. The scheme is valid for arbitrary interactions that originally contain point-like singularities (as the Dirac-delta and/or its derivatives). One example of diagonalization of a fixed-point Hamiltonian illustrates the procedure for an interaction that contains regular and singular parts. In another example, the fixed point Hamiltonian is derived for the case of higher order singularities in the interaction.

Recently, it has increased the interest in the application of effective theories to represent a more fundamental theory, as Quantum ChromoDynamics (QCD), which is too much complex to be solved exactly. The program followed by Wilson and collaborators  is of particular interest in this aspect, as it allows one to parametrize the physics of the high momentum states and work with effective degrees of freedom. In ref. , it was suggested the idea to use an effective renormalized Hamiltonian that, in the interaction between low-momentum states, includes the coupling with high momentum states. The renormalized Hamiltonian carries the physical information contained in the quantum system in states of high momentum. (The nonperturbative renormalization of refs. , for the light-front field theory, can also be related with the above procedure). As an example, in the nuclear physics context, the use of effective interactions containing singularities at short distances is motivated by the development of a chirally symmetric nucleon-nucleon interaction, which contains contact interactions (Dirac-delta and its higher order derivatives) . Singular contact interactions have also been considered in specific treatments of scaling limits and correlations between low-energy observables of three-body systems, in atomic and nuclear physics . For other examples, see ref. .

A general non-perturbative renormalization scheme to treat singular interactions in quantum mechanics has been proposed in ref. , with applications in a nuclear physics example in ref.  and in an effective QCD-inspired theory of mesons in ref. . It generalizes some ideas suggested in refs. , by performing $`n`$ subtractions in the free propagator of the singular scattering equation at an arbitrary energy scale. $`n`$ is the smallest number necessary to regularize the integral equation. The unknown short range physics related to the divergent part of the interaction, are replaced by the renormalized strengths of the interaction, that are known from the scattering amplitude at some reference energy. In this context, the renormalization scale is given by an arbitrary subtraction point. And a sensible theory of singular interactions exists if and only if the subtraction point slides without affecting the physics of the renormalized theory .

The subtraction point is the scale at which the quantum mechanical scattering amplitude is known . A fixed-point Hamiltonian  should have the property to be stationary in the parametric space of Hamiltonians, as a function of the subtraction point . This property is realized through the vanishing derivative of the renormalized Hamiltonian, in respect to the renormalization scale. This implies in the independence of the T-matrix in respect to the arbitrary subtraction scale, and in the renormalization group equations for the scattering amplitude. As shown in ref. , the driving term of the $`n`$subtracted scattering equation changes as the subtraction point moves due to the requirement that the physics of the theory remains unchanged. The driving term satisfies a quantum mechanical Callan-Symanzik (CS) equation , i.e., a first order differential equation in respect to the renormalization scale. The renormalization group equation (RGE) matches the quantum mechanical theory at scales $`\mu `$ and $`\mu +d\mu `$, without changing its physical content .

The purpose of the present letter is to show how one should obtain the renormalized (fixed-point) Hamiltonian for a quantum mechanical system consistent with ref. . The general concept of fixed-point Hamiltonians is unified to the practical and useful theory of renormalized scattering equations . The response to the relevant question on the existence and formulation of the corresponding renormalized Hamiltonian of quantum mechanical systems when the original interaction contains singular terms is given. This is important from the theoretical, as well as from the practical, point of view. The method is illustrated by the diagonalization of a renormalized Hamiltonian and also by constructing the fixed-point Hamiltonian in a situation of higher singularities in the interaction.

We start by defining the renormalized (fixed-point) Hamiltonian with the corresponding effective interaction $`V_{}`$:

$$H_{}=H_0+V_{},$$
(1)
where $`H_0`$ is the free Hamiltonian. $`H_{}`$ and $`V_{}`$ are understood as ‘fixed-point’ operators, as they should not depend on the subtraction point. The corresponding T-matrix equation of the above fixed-point Hamiltonian is given by the Lippmann-Schwinger equation for the interaction $`V_{}`$,

$`T_{}(E)=V_{}+V_{}G_0^{(+)}(E)T_{}(E).`$ (2)
From the expression of $`V_{}`$, we should be able to derive the $`n`$subtracted T-matrix equation, the perturbative renormalization of the T-matrix, and the CS equation satisfied by the driving term of the subtracted form of the scattering equation. So, considering the renormalization approach given in ref. , the expression of the fixed-point interaction $`V_{}`$ is given in terms of the driving operator of the $`n`$th order subtracted equation. For an arbitrary energy $`E`$, the driving operator is given by $`V^{(n)}(\mu ^2;E)`$, where $`\mu ^2`$ is the subtraction point in the energy space, that for convenience is chosen to be negative. $`n`$ is the number (order) of subtractions necessary for a complete regularization of the theory. Recalling from ref. , the $`n`$th order subtracted equation for the T-matrix and also for the driving term $`V^{(n)}V^{(n)}(\mu ^2;E)`$ are, respectively,

$`T(E)=V^{(n)}(\mu ^2;E)+V^{(n)}(\mu ^2;E)G_n^{(+)}(E;\mu ^2)T(E),`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{and}`$ $`V^{(n)}\left[1(\mu ^2E)^{n1}V^{(n1)}G_0^n(\mu ^2)\right]^1V^{(n1)}+V_{sing}^{(n)}(\mu ^2),`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{where}`$ $`G_n^{(+)}(E;\mu ^2)\left[(\mu ^2E)G_0(\mu ^2)\right]^nG_0^{(+)}(E).`$ (5)
$`G_0^{(+)}(E)=(E+\mathrm{i}ϵH_0)^1`$ is the free Green’s function corresponding to forward propagation in time. The higher-order singularities of the two-body potential are introduced in the driving term of the $`n`$th order subtracted T-matrix through $`V_{sing}^{(n)}(\mu ^2)`$. The interaction, $`V_{sing}^{(n)}(\mu ^2)`$, are determined by physical observables.

To obtain an expression for the fixed-point interaction $`V_{}`$, we first move the second term in the rhs of eq. (3) to the lhs; next, we add in both sides a term containing the driving term multiplied by the free Green’s function and the T-matrix:

$`\left[1+V^{(n)}\left(G_0^{(+)}(E)G_n^{(+)}(E;\mu ^2)\right)\right]T(E)=V^{(n)}+V^{(n)}G_0^{(+)}(E)T(E).`$ (6)
As in eq. (4), in order to simplify the notation, we drop the explicit dependence of $`V^{(n)}`$ on $`\mu ^2`$ and $`E`$. Multiplying the above equation by the inverse of the operator that is inside the square-brackets, we can identify the fixed-point interaction $`V_{}`$ considering the equivalence we want to establish between eqs. (2) and (3). So, in order to have $`T_{}(E)=T(E)`$,

$`V_{}=\left[1+V^{(n)}\left(G_0^{(+)}(E)G_n^{(+)}(E;\mu ^2)\right)\right]^1V^{(n)}.`$ (7)
By doing this, we are identifying the fixed-point Hamiltonian, eq. (1) in our renormalization scheme.

One could observe that the above fixed-point interaction is not well defined for singular interactions; nevertheless, the corresponding T-matrix is finite, as we have shown from the equivalence with the $`n`$th order subtracted equation for the T-matrix, given in ref. . Essentially, the renormalization subtraction procedure that was used in ref.  was instrumental to write the renormalized fixed-point interaction given in eq. (7). In the following, considering the above equivalence, it should be understood that our T-matrix refers to the renormalized one ($`T=T_{}`$), such that we drop the index $``$ from it. However, there is a clear distinction between $`V^{(n)}`$ and $`V_{}`$, such that the index cannot be dropped in this case.

In a concrete numerical application, when working with the operator $`V_{}`$, we should use a momentum regulator, that could be, for example, a sharp ultraviolet momentum cutoff ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$). By performing the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$, the results should be the same as the ones obtained through the direct use of the subtracted scattering equations. In particular, it implies that the eigenvalues of a renormalized Hamiltonian are stable in the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$, and agree with the correct results obtained from the subtracted integral equations. This fact will be illustrated.

The physical informations that apparently are lost due to the subtractions made in the intermediate free propagator are kept in $`V^{(n)}`$. In the case of the two-body system, it contains the renormalized coupling constants of the singular part of the interaction, given at some energy scale $`\mu ^2`$. We should also notice that one subtraction in the kernel of the integral equation is enough to obtain meaningful physical results from a T-matrix that contains a Dirac-delta interaction; and at least three subtractions are necessary if the singularity of the interaction corresponds to the Laplacian of the Dirac-delta function . In the case of a non-singular short-range interaction ($`V`$) for which $`V_{sing}^{(n)}=0`$, we immediately identify that $`V_{}=V`$, which is not surprising since the renormalized T-matrix is the T-matrix obtained from the conventional Lippmann-Schwinger equation.

We have initially defined a nonperturbative renormalized interaction $`V_{}`$, although it is natural to ask about the perturbative expansion of the renormalized T-matrix in powers of $`V^{(n)}`$. One can easily show that, the renormalized interaction contains the necessary counterterms to include the subtractions in each perturbative order. This can be answered by performing the expansion of the renormalized interaction $`V_{}`$, eq. (7), in powers of $`V^{(n)}`$ of order $`m`$. Consequently, for each order $`m`$ one can obtain the corresponding perturbative expansion:

$`T^{(m)}(E)=V^{(n)}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{m1}{}}}\left[G_n^{(+)}(E;\mu ^2)V^{(n)}\right]^k.`$ (8)
Thus, each intermediate state propagation up to order $`m`$ is subtracted at the energy scale $`\mu ^2`$. This shows that the fixed-point Hamiltonian includes the necessary counterterms in each perturbative order, which impose a subtraction of each intermediate propagation in the perturbative expansion of the scattering amplitude. As a simple remark, eq. (8) could be obtained from eq. (3), by iterating $`m1`$ times and truncating at the order $`m`$.

The subtraction point is arbitrary in the definition of the renormalized interaction and in principle it can be moved . The change in the subtraction point requires the knowledge of the driving term $`V^{(n)}`$ at the new energy scale. The coefficients that appear in the driving term $`V^{(n)}`$ come from the prescription used to define them. The renormalization group method can be used to arbitrarily change this prescription constrained by the invariance of the physics under dislocations of the subtraction point. This condition demands the renormalized potential $`V_{}`$ to be independent on the subtraction point. It gives a definite prescription to modify $`V^{(n)}`$ in eq. (3), without altering the predictions of the theory. So,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{}}{\mu ^2}}=0\mathrm{and}{\displaystyle \frac{H_{}}{\mu ^2}}=0;`$ (9)
the renormalized Hamiltonian does not depend on $`\mu `$; it is a fixed-point Hamiltonian in this respect. From eqs. (2) and (9), the renormalized T-matrix also does not dependent on $`\mu `$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{T(E)}{\mu ^2}}=0.`$ (10)
The renormalization group equation, satisfied by the running driving term $`V^{(n)}`$ in respect to the sliding subtraction point, follows by using the null-derivative condition, given by eq. (9) in eq. (7):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{V^{(n)}}{\mu ^2}}=V^{(n)}{\displaystyle \frac{G_n^{(+)}(E;\mu ^2)}{\mu ^2}}V^{(n)}.`$ (11)
Thus, we reobtain the nonrelativistic Callan-Symanzik equation , which reflects the invariance of the subtracted scattering equation under the modification of the subtraction point. The equation (11) expresses the invariance of the renormalized T-matrix under dislocation of the subtraction point. The boundary condition is given by $`V^{(n)}=V^{(n)}(\overline{\mu }^2;E)`$ at the reference scale $`\overline{\mu }`$. The subtracted potential $`V^{(n)}`$ obtained by solving the differential equation (11) is equal to the T-matrix for $`E=\mu ^2`$, relating the sliding scale to the energy dependence of the T-matrix itself. In particular, for $`n=1`$, eq. (11) is the differential form of the renormalized equation for the T-matrix

$$\frac{d}{dE}T(E)|_{E=\mu ^2}=T(\mu ^2)G_0^2(\mu ^2)T(\mu ^2).$$
(12)
This concludes our discussion on the invariance of the fixed-point Hamiltonian under renormalization group transformation, in case of singular potentials. As we have seen, the fixed-point Hamiltonian contains the renormalized coefficients/operators that carry the physical informations of the quantum mechanical system, as well as all the necessary counterterms that make finite the scattering amplitude.

Next, we present two examples to illustrate the present approach. In the first example, the numerical diagonalization of the regularized form of the fixed-point Hamiltonian for a two-body system with a Yukawa plus a Dirac-delta interaction is performed, and the observable (eigenvalues) are shown to be independent on the energy-point $`\mu ^2`$ where the subtraction is done; the results are shown to be stable in the infinite momentum cutoff. In another example, we derive the explicit form of the renormalized potential for an example of four-term singular bare interaction.

1. Renormalized Hamiltonian diagonalization

Let us consider a two-body system with a Yukawa plus Dirac-delta interaction

$$\stackrel{}{p}|V_{}|\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{p}|V|\stackrel{}{q}+\frac{\lambda _\delta }{2\pi ^2}=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}\left(\frac{2}{|\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}|^2+\eta ^2}+\lambda _\delta \right),$$
(13)
where $`\lambda _\delta `$ is the singular part of the renormalized or fixed point interaction; and $`\eta `$ is a constant that is given by the inverse of the range of the regular part of the interaction. The strength $`\lambda _\delta `$ can be derived from the full renormalized T-matrix given in eq. (2):

$`\left(1VG_0^{(+)}(E)\right)T_{}(E)=V+|\chi {\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\delta }{2\pi ^2}}\chi |\left[1+G_0^{(+)}(E)T_{}(E)\right].`$ (14)
By defining the T-matrix of the regular potential $`V`$ as $`T^V(E)=\left(1VG_0^{(+)}(E)\right)^1V`$, and using the identity $`\left(1VG_0^{(+)}(E)\right)^1=\left(1+T^V(E)G_0^{(+)}(E)\right)`$, one can easily obtain

$`T_{}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`T^V(E)+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1+T^V(E)G_0^{(+)}(E)\right)|\chi \chi |\left(1+G_0^{(+)}(E)T^V(E)\right)}{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2}{\lambda _\delta }}\chi |G_0^{(+)}(E)|\chi \chi |G_0^{(+)}(E)T^V(E)G_0^{(+)}(E)|\chi }}.`$ (15)
In this case, one subtraction is enough to render finite the theory. At the subtraction point $`\mu ^2`$, the above equation defines the T-matrix of eq. (4) for $`n=1`$:

$`V^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`T^V(\mu ^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1+T^V(\mu ^2)G_0(\mu ^2)\right)|\chi \chi |\left(1+G_0(\mu ^2)T^V(\mu ^2)\right)}{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2}{\lambda _\delta }}\chi |G_0(\mu ^2)|\chi \chi |G_0(\mu ^2)T^V(\mu ^2)G_0(\mu ^2)|\chi }}.`$ (16)
The denominator of the second term of eq.(16) at an arbitrary energy $`\mu ^2`$ is defined by a constant $`C^1(\mu ^2)`$, such that

$$2\pi ^2C^1(\mu ^2)2\pi ^2\lambda _\delta ^1\chi |G_V(\mu ^2)|\chi ,$$
(17)
where $`G_V(\mu ^2)=\left(\mu ^2+H_0+V\right)^1=G_0(\mu ^2)\left(1+T^V(\mu ^2)G_0(\mu ^2)\right)`$. The fixed-point structure of the renormalized potential (13), $`V_{}/\mu ^2=0`$ ($`\lambda _\delta /\mu ^2=0`$), defines the functional form of $`C(\mu ^2)`$ on the subtraction point:

$$2\pi ^2C^1(\mu ^2)2\pi ^2C^1(\mu ^2)=\chi |\left(G_V(\mu ^2)G_V(\mu ^2)\right)|\chi .$$
(18)
In case that the subtraction point is chosen to be one of the binding energies of the physical system, $`\mu ^2=\mu _B^2`$, $`C^1(\mu _B^2)=0`$. So, from eq.(16), we obtain

$$\lambda _\delta ^1=\frac{2}{\pi }_0^\mathrm{\Lambda }𝑑pp^2\frac{1}{\mu _B^2+p^2}+\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}d^3p\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2p^2)}{\mu _B^2+p^2}d^3q\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q^2)}{\mu _B^2+q^2}\stackrel{}{p}|T^V(\mu _B^2)|\stackrel{}{q},$$
(19)
where the momentum cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ was included through the step function $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$ (defined as $`0`$ for $`x<0`$ and $`1`$ for $`x>0`$). With the cutoff parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ assuming its exact limit (infinite), $`\lambda _\delta `$ contains the divergences in the momentum integrals that exactly cancels the infinities in eq.(2). We have to emphasize that, the role of the cutoff parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is just of a regulator of the integrals that, at the end, should disappear in a simple limit $`\mathrm{}`$, without affecting the physical results. The relevant scale parameter, where the physical information is supplied, is the energy-point $`\mu _B^2`$. As it will be shown, the results will not be affected by a specific choice of the position of the subtraction point.

Once $`V_R`$ is defined, as in eq.(13), we can perform the numerical diagonalization of the fixed-point Hamiltonian (1), and obtain the bound-states $`\epsilon `$. The corresponding Schrödinger equation, in the $`s`$wave, and in units such that $`\mathrm{}^2/(2m)=1`$, can be written as

$`H_{}\mathrm{\Psi }(p)=p^2\mathrm{\Psi }(p)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\mathrm{\Lambda }}q^2𝑑q\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2pq}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2+(p+q)^2}{\eta ^2+(pq)^2}}\right)+\lambda _\delta \right]\mathrm{\Psi }(q)=\epsilon \mathrm{\Psi }(p),`$ (20)
where $`\lambda _\delta `$, given by the renormalization prescription, keeps constant $`\mu _B^2`$, chosen as one of the bound-state energies. To solve numerically this example, we first choose arbitrarily a regular reference potential, with the matrix elements given by $`\stackrel{}{p}|V|\stackrel{}{q}=`$ $`\left[\pi ^2\left(|\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}|^2+\eta ^2\right)\right]^1`$ $`\left[\pi ^2\left(|\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}|^2+\eta _S^2\right)\right]^1`$, with $`\eta ^2=0.01`$ and $`\eta _S^2=1`$ ($`\eta ^2`$ and $`\eta _S^2`$, as well as the energies $`\epsilon `$, are given in units of inverse-squared length). This reference potential produces three bound-state energies: $`\epsilon ^{(0)}=`$2.3822, $`\epsilon ^{(1)}=`$0.20297 and $`\epsilon ^{(2)}=`$0.020643. Next, the short-range part of the reference potential is replaced by the Dirac-delta interaction. This singular interaction together with the long-range part is renormalized with the physical condition being supplied by one of the bound-state energies. This is the observable that is supposed to be known in our hypothetical example. So, the subtraction point $`\mu ^2`$ will be given by this energy. At the same time that $`\mu ^2`$ is regularizing the formalism, via a subtraction procedure, it is also carrying the relevant physical information in the present Hamiltonian renormalization approach.

Our results are shown in Fig. 1 for the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian, as functions of the momentum cutoff parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The specific choice of the subtraction point $`\mu ^2`$ (one of the three straight lines) does not affect the final results. They are exact in the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$. Fig. 1 shows three sets of results; for each one, the value of $`\mu ^2`$ has a specific definition, given by one of the “known” energies. In solid lines, we have the results for the first and second excited states, when $`\mu ^2=`$ $`\epsilon ^{(0)}=`$ 2.3822. The exact results, $`\epsilon ^{(1)}=`$0.2088 and $`\epsilon ^{(2)}=`$0.02217, are reached when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$. In the same way, we obtain the results given by the other two sets, with $`\mu ^2=`$ $`\epsilon ^{(1)}=`$ 0.2088 (dashed-lines), and with $`\mu ^2=`$ $`\epsilon ^{(2)}=`$ 0.02217 (dotted-lines). As shown, in this diagonalization procedure, the results are stable when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$, and converge to the exact values, that can be given by the real poles of the T-matrix: $`\epsilon ^{(0)}=`$2.3822, $`\epsilon ^{(1)}=`$0.2088 and $`\epsilon ^{(2)}=`$0.02217.

This example gives a simple and clear picture about what we have stated in Eq. (9): that the renormalized Hamiltonian does not depend on the choice of $`\mu `$; it is a fixed-point Hamiltonian in this respect. The momentum cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, used as an instrumental regulator, disappears in the present approach as a natural infinite limit of the integrals, where all the infinities presented in the formalism are canceled.

2. Renormalized Hamiltonian for a four-term singular interaction

Here we derive the explicit form of the renormalized potential for an example of four-term singular bare interaction that, after partial-wave decomposition to the $`s`$wave, is given by

$$p|V|q=\underset{i,j=0}{\overset{1}{}}\lambda _{ij}p^{2i}q^{2j}(\lambda _{ij}=\lambda _{ji}^{}).$$
(21)
The renormalized strengths of the interaction are known from the physical scattering amplitude at reference energy $`\overline{\mu }^2`$

$`p|T(\overline{\mu }^2)|q=\lambda _{00}+\lambda _{10}(p^2+q^2)+\lambda _{11}p^2q^2,`$ (22)
where for simplicity we suppose $`\lambda _{10}`$ real. The physics of the two-body system with the bare interaction of eq. (21) is completely defined by the values of the renormalized strengths, $`\lambda _{ij}`$, at the reference energy $`\overline{\mu }^2`$.

In the Lippman-Schwinger equation, the potential given by eq. (21) implies in integrals that diverge at most as $`p^5`$, requiring at least three subtractions to obtain finite integrals. With $`n=3`$ in eq. (7), from the recurrence relationship (4), we obtain the following equations:

$`p|V^{(1)}(\overline{\mu }^2)|q=\lambda _{00},p|V^{(2)}(\overline{\mu }^2;k^2)|q=\left[\lambda _{00}^1+I_0\right]^1,`$ (23)
$`p|V^{(3)}(\overline{\mu }^2;k^2)|q=\overline{\lambda }_{00}+\lambda _{10}(p^2+q^2)+\lambda _{11}p^2q^2,`$
$`\mathrm{with}`$ $`\overline{\lambda }_{00}\left[\lambda _{00}^1+I_0+I_1\right]^1`$
$`\mathrm{and}`$ $`I_{i=0,1}I_i(k^2,\overline{\mu }^2){\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑qq^2{\displaystyle \frac{(\overline{\mu }^2+k^2)^{1+i}}{(\overline{\mu }^2+q^2)^{2+i}}}={\displaystyle \frac{(\overline{\mu }^2+k^2)^{1+i}}{(2\overline{\mu })^{1+2i}}}.`$ (24)
Note that the singular term, as shown in eq. (4), is introduced for $`n=3`$ in $`V^{(3)}`$ of eq. (23). Also, when $`k^2=\mu ^2`$ we have $`I_i=0`$ and $`\overline{\lambda }_{00}=\lambda _{00}`$. The renormalized interaction is obtained analytically in this example. By introducing $`V^{(3)}(\overline{\mu }^2,k^2)`$ of eq. (23) in eq. (7),

$`p|V_{}|q={\displaystyle \underset{i,j=0}{\overset{1}{}}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}(k^2)p^{2i}q^{2j}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ji}),`$ (25)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}`$, that will not depend on the subtraction point, are given by:

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{00}(k^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\lambda }_{00}\left(\overline{\lambda }_{00}K_1+\lambda _{10}K_2\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{10}}{1+\overline{\lambda }_{00}K_0+\lambda _{10}K_1}};`$ (26)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{11}(k^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{11}\left(\lambda _{10}K_0+\lambda _{11}K_1\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{10}}{1+\lambda _{11}K_2+\lambda _{10}K_1}};`$ (27)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{10}(k^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{10}+(\lambda _{10}^2\overline{\lambda }_{00}\lambda _{11})K_1}{1+D+(\lambda _{10}^2\overline{\lambda }_{00}\lambda _{11})(K_1^2K_0K_2)}},`$ (28)
with $`D\overline{\lambda }_{00}K_0+\lambda _{10}K_1+\lambda _{11}K_2+\lambda _{10}K_1`$ and

$`K_{i=0,1,2}`$ $``$ $`K_i(k^2,\overline{\mu }^2){\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dqq^{2i+2}}{k^2q^2}}\left[1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mu }^2+k^2}{\overline{\mu }^2+q^2}}\right)^3\right].`$ (29)
$`K_i`$ are the divergent integrals that exactly cancels the infinities of the Lippman-Schwinger equation obtained with the renormalized interaction, eq. (25). The integrands of these integrals are given by the kernel of eq. (7) with $`n=3`$.

The derivatives $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}/\mu ^2`$ vanish due to the arbitrariness of the subtraction point. These conditions on the derivatives are given by the explicit form of eq. (9) in the case of the four-term singular potential. The dependence of the coefficients $`\lambda _{00}`$, $`\lambda _{10}`$ and $`\lambda _{11}`$ on the sliding scale $`\mu `$ can be computed either from the above conditions or directly from eq. (11). The boundary condition of the RGE first order differential equation should be given for each scattering energy $`k^2`$, considered as a parameter, at the reference value of the subtraction point $`\overline{\mu }^2`$. This concludes our example of a derivation of the renormalized Hamiltonian, with the corresponding renormalized interaction given by (25).

In summary, the fixed-point Hamiltonian emerges as a consequence of the renormalized $`n`$-subtracted scattering equation for the T-matrix. It does not depend on the position of the subtraction point, $`\mu ^2`$, where the physical information is supplied to the theory. As shown, it naturally includes the renormalization group invariance properties of quantum mechanics with singular interactions, as expressed by the nonrelativistic Callan-Symanzik equation. Finally, we should emphasize the wide range of applicability of renormalized Hamiltonians, from atomic and nuclear physics models to effective theories of QCD (see, for example, refs. -). It would be of interest a comparison between the present nonperturbative Hamiltonian renormalization approach with other given formalisms; as, for example, the approach considered in ref. . However, a caution is necessary when doing such comparison, as one should note that, in the present work, the invariance of the Hamiltonian is with respect to a subtraction energy scale, in the limit of infinite momentum cutoff. The present Hamiltonian renormalization approach is particularly useful when several discrete eigenvalues are possible, since it can be diagonalized, in a regularized form, in order to obtain physical observables that are well defined in the infinite cutoff limit.

This work was partially supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq).


format: text

text:
# CP Violation: Past, Present, and Future∗

## I Introduction

CP symmetry and its violation are important guides to fundamental quark properties and to the understanding of the matter-antimatter asymmetry of the Universe. In this review, an updated version of one presented earlier in the year , we describe past, present, and future aspects of CP violation studies. After an illustration of fundamental discrete symmetries in Maxwell’s equations (Sec. II), we recall the history of CP violation’s discovery  in the decays of neutral kaons (Sec. III). The product CPT so far seems to be conserved, as is expected in local Lorentz-invariant quantum field theories . We then discuss the electroweak theory’s explanation of CP violation  in terms of phases of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM)  matrix in Sec. IV), and mention some present tests of this theory with kaons (Sec. V) $`B`$ mesons (Sec. VI), and charmed particles (Sec. VII). The future of CP violation studies (Sec. VIII) is very rich, with a wide variety of experiments relevant to physics beyond the Standard Model and the baryon asymmetry of the Universe.

## II DISCRETE SYMMETRIES IN MAXWELL’S EQUATIONS

The behavior of the Maxwell equations under the discrete symmetries P (parity), T (time reversal), C (charge conjugation), and CPT is summarized in Table I. Each term behaves as shown.

Under P, we have

$`𝐄(𝐱,t)`$ $``$ $`𝐄(𝐱,t),𝐁(𝐱,t)𝐁(𝐱,t),`$ (1)
$``$ $``$ $`,𝐣(𝐱,t)𝐣(𝐱,t).`$ (2)
Electric fields change in sign while magnetic fields do not, and currents change in direction. Under T,

$`𝐄(𝐱,t)`$ $``$ $`𝐄(𝐱,t),𝐁(𝐱,t)𝐁(𝐱,t),`$ (3)
$`/t`$ $``$ $`/t,𝐣(𝐱,t)𝐣(𝐱,t).`$ (4)
Magnetic fields change in sign while electric fields do not, since directions of currents are reversed. Under C,

$`𝐄(𝐱,t)`$ $``$ $`𝐄(𝐱,t),𝐁(𝐱,t)𝐁(𝐱,t),`$ (5)
$`\rho (𝐱,t)`$ $``$ $`\rho (𝐱,t),𝐣(𝐱,t)𝐣(𝐱,t).`$ (6)
Both electric and magnetic fields change sign, since their sources $`\rho `$ and $`𝐣`$ change sign. Finally, under CPT, space and time are inverted but electric and magnetic fields retain their signs:

$$𝐄(𝐱,t)𝐄(𝐱,t),𝐁(𝐱,t)=𝐁(𝐱,t).$$
(7)
A fundamental term in the Lagrangian behaving as $`𝐄𝐁`$, while Lorentz covariant, would violate P and T. Such a term seems to be strongly suppressed, in view of the small value of the neutron electric dipole moment. Its absence is a mystery, but several possible reasons have been proposed (see, e.g., ).

## III CP SYMMETRY FOR KAONS

Some neutral particles, such as the photon, the neutral pion, and the $`Z^0`$, are their own antiparticles, while some – those carrying nonzero quantum numbers – are not. The neutral kaon $`K^0`$, discovered in 1946  in cosmic radiation, was assigned a “strangeness” quantum number $`S=1`$ in the classification scheme of Gell-Mann and Nishijima  in order to explain its strong production and weak decay. Production would conserve strangeness, while the weaker decay process would not. For this scheme to make sense it was then necessary that there also exist an anti-kaon, the $`\overline{K}^0`$, with $`S=1`$.

As Gell-Mann described this scheme at a seminar at the University of Chicago, Enrico Fermi asked him what distinguished the $`\overline{K}^0`$ from the $`K^0`$ if both could decay to $`\pi \pi `$, as seemed to be observed. This question led Gell-Mann and Pais  to propose that the states of definite mass and lifetime were

$`K_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K^0+\overline{K}^0}{\sqrt{2}}}(C=+),`$ (8)
$`K_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K^0\overline{K}^0}{\sqrt{2}}}(C=),`$ (9)
with the $`K_1`$ allowed by C invariance (then thought to be a property of weak interactions) to decay to $`\pi \pi `$ and the $`K_2`$ forbidden to decay to $`\pi \pi `$. The $`K_2`$ would be allowed to decay only to three-body final states such as $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ and thus would have a much longer lifetime. It was looked for and found in 1956 . The discovery that the weak interactions violated C and P but apparently preserved the product CP  led to a recasting of the above argument through the identification $`CP(K_1)=+(K_1)`$, $`CP(K_2)=(K_2)`$.

The $`K_1`$$`K_2`$ system can be illustrated using a degenerate two-state example such as a pair of coupled pendula  or the first excitations of a drum head. There is no way to distinguish between the basis states illustrated in Fig. 1(a), in which the nodal lines are at angles of $`\pm 45^{}`$ with respect to the horizontal, and those in Fig. 1(b), in which they are horizontal and vertical.

If a fly lands on the drum-head at the point marked “$`\times `$”, the basis (b) corresponds to eigenstates. One of the modes couples to the fly; the other doesn’t. The basis in (a) is like that of $`(K^0,\overline{K}^0)`$, while that in (b) is like that of $`(K_1,K_2)`$. Neutral kaons are produced as in (a), while they decay as in (b), with the fly analogous to the $`\pi \pi `$ state. The short-lived state ($`K_1`$, in this CP-conserving approximation) has a lifetime of 0.089 ns, while the long-lived state ($`K_2`$) lives $`600`$ times as long, for 52 ns.

In 1964 Christenson, Cronin, Fitch, and Turlay  found that indeed one in about 500 long-lived neutral kaons did decay to $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, and one in about 1000 decayed to $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$. The states of definite mass and lifetime could then be written, approximately, as

$`K_S(\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}\mathrm{short}\mathrm{"})K_1+ϵK_2,`$ (11)
$`K_L(\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}\mathrm{long}\mathrm{"})K_2+ϵK_1,`$ (12)
with a parameter $`ϵ`$ whose magnitude was about $`2\times 10^3`$ and whose phase was about $`45^{}`$. Since the states of definite mass and lifetime were no longer CP eigenstates, CP had to be violated somewhere. However, for many years $`ϵ`$ was the only parameter describing CP violation. One could measure its magnitude and phase more and more precisely (including learning about Re($`ϵ`$) through a study of charge asymmetries in $`K_L\pi ^\pm l^{}\nu `$), but its origin remained a mystery. One viable theory included a “superweak” one  which postulated a new interaction mixing $`K^0=d\overline{s}`$ and $`\overline{K}^0=s\overline{d}`$ but with no other consequences.

Kobayashi and Maskawa offered a new opportunity to describe CP violation by boldly postulating three quark families  when charm (the last member of the second family) had not yet even been firmly established. In the diagram of Fig. 2 describing the second-order weak transition $`d\overline{s}s\overline{d}`$ through intermediate states involving pairs of quarks $`i,j=u,c,t`$ with charges 2/3, the phases of complex weak couplings can have physical effects. As long as there are at least three quark families, one cannot redefine quark phases so that all such couplings are real, and one can generate a nonzero value of $`ϵ`$.

The time-dependence of the two-component $`K^0`$ and $`\overline{K}^0`$ system is governed by a $`2\times 2`$ mass matrix $``$ :

$$i\frac{}{t}\left[\begin{array}{c}K^0\\ \overline{K}^0\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}K^0\\ \overline{K}^0\end{array}\right],$$
(13)
where $`=Mi\mathrm{\Gamma }/2`$, and $`M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are Hermitian matrices. The eigenstates (12) then correspond to the eigenvalues $`\mu _{S,L}=m_{S,L}i\gamma _{S,L}/2`$, with

$$ϵ\frac{\mathrm{Im}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}/2)+i\mathrm{Im}M_{12}}{\mu _S\mu _L}.$$
(14)
Using data and the magnitude of CKM matrix elements one can show  that the second term dominates. Since the mass difference $`m_Lm_S`$ and width difference $`\gamma _S\gamma _L`$ are nearly equal, the phase of $`\mu _L\mu _S`$ is about $`\pi /4`$, so that the phase of $`ϵ`$ is also $`\pi /4`$ (mod $`\pi `$).

It is easy to model the CP-conserving neutral kaon system in table-top systems with two degenerate states . The demonstration of CP violation requires systems that emulate Im($`M_{12})0`$ or Im($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12})0`$. One can couple two identical resonant circuits “directionally” to each other (see Fig. 3) so that the energy fed from circuit 1 to circuit 2 differs from that fed in the reverse direction . Devices with this property utilize Faraday rotation of the plane of polarization of radio-frequency waves; some references may be found in . This asymmetric coupling also is inherent in the equations of motion of a spherical (or “conical”) pendulum in a rotating coordinate system , so that the Foucault pendulum is a demonstration (though perhaps not “table-top”) of CP violation. A ball rolling with viscous damping in a rotating vase of elliptical cross section holds more promise for a laboratory setting . In all such cases the CP-violating effect is imposed “from the outside,” leaving open the question of whether some “new physics” is governing the corresponding effect in particle physics.

## IV KOBAYASHI-MASKAWA THEORY OF CP VIOLATION

The interactions of quarks with $`W^\pm `$ bosons are described by

$$_{\mathrm{int}}=\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}[\overline{U}_L^{}\gamma ^\mu W_\mu ^{(+)}D_L^{}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.],$$
(15)
where the primed quarks are “weak eigenstates”:

$$U^{}\left[\begin{array}{c}u^{}\\ c^{}\\ t^{}\end{array}\right],D^{}\left[\begin{array}{c}d^{}\\ s^{}\\ b^{}\end{array}\right].$$
(16)
In the weak-eigenstate basis, the mass term in the Lagrangian,

$$_m=[\overline{U}_R^{}_UU_L^{}+\overline{D}_L^{}_DD_L^{}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.],$$
(17)
will involve a general $`3\times 3`$ matrix $``$, which requires separate left and right unitary transformations

$$R_Q^{}_QL_Q=\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q$$
(18)
to obtain a diagonal matrix $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q`$ with non-negative entries. If we define unprimed (mass) eigenstates by

$$Q_L^{}=L_QQ_L,Q_R^{}=R_QQ_R(Q=U,D),$$
(19)
the interaction Lagrangian may be expressed as

$$_{\mathrm{int}}=\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}[\overline{U}_L\gamma ^\mu W_\mu ^{(+)}VD_L+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.],$$
(20)
where $`VL_U^{}L_D`$ is the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix. As a result of its unitarity, $`V^{}V=VV^{}=1`$, the $`Zq\overline{q}`$ couplings in the electroweak theory are flavor-diagonal. Since it contains no information about $`R_U`$ or $`R_D`$, $`V`$ provides only partial information about $`_Q`$.

For $`nu`$-type quarks and $`nd`$-type quarks, $`V`$ is $`n\times n`$. Since it is unitary, it can be described by $`n`$ real parameters. Relative quark phases account for $`2n1`$ of these, leaving $`n^2(2n1)=(n1)^2`$ physical parameters. Of these, $`n(n1)/2`$ (the number of independent rotations in $`n`$ dimensions) correspond to angles, while the rest, $`(n1)(n2)/2`$, correspond to phases.

For $`n=2`$, we have one angle and no phases. The matrix $`V`$ then can always be chosen as orthogonal . For $`n=3`$, we have three angles and one phase, which in general cannot be eliminated by arbitrary choices of phases in the quark fields. It was this phase that motivated Kobayashi and Maskawa  to introduce a third quark doublet in 1973 when only two were known. (The bottom quark was discovered in 1977 , and the top in 1994 .) The Kobayashi-Maskawa theory provides a potential source of CP violation, serving as the leading contender for the observed CP-violating effects in the kaon system and suggesting substantial CP asymmetries in the decays of mesons containing $`b`$ quarks. The pattern of charge-changing weak transitions among quarks is depicted in Fig. 4.

A convenient parametrization of the CKM matrix utilizes a hierarchy  whereby magnitudes of elements are approximately powers of $`\lambda \mathrm{sin}\theta _c0.22`$, where $`\theta _c`$ is the Gell-Mann–Lévy–Cabibbo angle  describing strange particle decays. The matrix may be expressed as

$$V=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}& \lambda & A\lambda ^3(\rho i\eta )\\ \lambda & 1\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}& A\lambda ^2\\ A\lambda ^3(1\rho i\eta )& A\lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right],$$
(21)
where rows denote $`u,c,t`$ and columns denote $`d,s,b`$.

We learn $`|V_{cb}|=A\lambda ^20.041\pm 0.003`$ from the dominant decays of $`b`$ quarks, which are to charmed quarks . Smaller errors are quoted in most reviews  which take different views of the dominantly theoretical sources of error. As an indication that this number is still in some flux we note a new measurement $`|V_{cb}|=0.046\pm 0.004`$ by the CLEO group .) Similarly, we shall take from charmess $`b`$ decays $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|=0.090\pm 0.025=\lambda (\rho ^2+\eta ^2)^{1/2}`$ , leading to $`\rho ^2+\eta ^2=0.41\pm 0.11`$, whereas smaller errors are quoted by most authors.

As a result of the unitarity of the CKM matrix, the quantities $`V_{ub}^{}/A\lambda ^3=\rho +i\eta `$, $`V_{td}/A\lambda ^3=1\rho i\eta `$, and 1 form a triangle in the $`(\rho ,\eta )`$ plane (Fig. 5). We still do not have satisfactory limits on the angle $`\gamma `$ of this “unitarity triangle.” Further information comes from the following constraints:

1. Mixing of neutral $`B`$ mesons is dominated by top quark contributions to graphs such as Fig. 2 but with external quarks $`d\overline{b}`$ for $`B^0`$ or $`s\overline{b}`$ for $`B_s`$. For example, the mass splitting in the nonstrange neutral $`B`$ system is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_d=0.487\pm 0.014\mathrm{ps}^1f_B^2B_B|V_{td}|^2,$$
(22)
where $`f_B`$ is the $`B`$ meson decay constant and $`B_B=𝒪(1)`$ is the “vacuum saturation factor,” describing the degree to which graphs such as Fig. 2 describe the mixing. Recent estimates  give $`f_B\sqrt{B_B}=230\pm 40`$ MeV. Consequently, one finds  $`|1\rho i\eta |=0.87\pm 0.21`$. Neutral strange $`B`$ mesons are characterized by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_sf_{B_s}^2B_{B_s}|V_{ts}|^2>15\mathrm{ps}^1.$$
(23)
Since $`|V_{ts}||V_{cb}`$ is approximately known, this information mainly serves to constrain the product $`f_{B_s}\sqrt{B_{B_s}}`$ and, given information on the ratio of strange and nonstrange constants , the value of $`|V_{td}|`$, leading to $`|1\rho i\eta |<1.01`$. The large top mass, $`m_t=174\pm 5`$ GeV , is crucial for these mixings to be so large.

2. CP-violating $`K^0`$$`\overline{K}^0`$ mixing through the box graphs of Fig. 2 accounts for the parameter

$$ϵ=(2.27\times 10^3)e^{i43.3^{}}\mathrm{Im}_{12}f_K^2B_K\mathrm{Im}(V_{td}^2),$$
(24)
leading to a constraint

$$\eta (1\rho +0.39)=0.35\pm 0.12.$$
(25)
Here we have used $`f_K=161`$ MeV and $`B_K=0.87\pm 0.13`$ . If top quarks were fully dominant the left-hand side of this equation would be just $`\eta (1\rho )`$. The term 0.39 in brackets is a correction due to charmed quarks.

The constraints are plotted on the $`(\rho ,\eta )`$ plane in Fig. 6. Also shown are the $`\pm 1\sigma `$ bounds on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$, to be discussed presently, from an average $`0.49\pm 0.23`$  of OPAL, ALEPH, CDF, BaBar, and BELLE values. The allowed region is larger than that favored by many other analyses .

## V THE CKM MATRIX AND PREDICTIONS FOR KAON PHYSICS

### A $`K_{S,L}\pi \pi `$ rates

If we define

$$\eta _+\frac{A(K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{})}{A(K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{})},\eta _{00}\frac{A(K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0)}{A(K_S\pi ^0\pi ^0)},$$
(26)
the possibility of different CP-violating effects in $`\pi \pi `$ states of isospin $`I_{\pi \pi }=2`$ and $`I_{\pi \pi }=0`$  gives rise to a parameter $`ϵ^{}`$ such that $`\eta _+=ϵ+ϵ^{}`$, $`\eta _{00}=ϵ2ϵ^{}`$. The following ratio of ratios then can differ from unity:

$$R\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{})}/\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_S\pi ^0\pi ^0)}$$

$$=1+6\mathrm{Re}\frac{ϵ^{}}{ϵ}.$$
(27)
The ratio $`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$ is expected to be approximately real in a CPT-invariant theory . A key prediction of the KM theory is that $`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$ should be a number of order $`10^3`$. Two types of amplitudes contribute to $`K\pi \pi `$ decays.

1. Tree amplitudes, involving the quark subprocess $`su\overline{u}d`$, have both $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=3/2`$ components and thus contribute to both $`I_{\pi \pi }=0`$ and $`I_{\pi \pi }=2`$ states. In a standard convention , tree amplitudes contain no weak phases, since they involve the CKM elements $`V_{ud}`$ and $`V_{us}`$.

2. Penguin amplitudes, involving the quark subprocess $`sd`$ with an intermediate loop consisting of a $`W`$ boson and the quarks $`u,c,t`$, and interacting with the rest of the system through one or more gluons, have only $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ and thus can only contribute to the $`I_{\pi \pi }=0`$ state. The top quark in the loop gives rise to a weak phase through the CKM element $`V_{td}`$.

A relative weak phase of $`I_{\pi \pi }=0`$ and $`I_{\pi \pi }=2`$ states is thus generated in the KM theory, leading to $`ϵ^{}/ϵ0`$. Electroweak penguin amplitudes, in which the gluon connecting the $`sd`$ subprocess to the rest of the diagram is replaced by a photon or $`Z^0`$, can have both $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=3/2`$ components and tend to reduce the predicted value of $`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$. One range of estimates  finds a broad and somewhat asymmetric probability distribution extending from slightly below zero to above $`2\times 10^3`$. Others (see articles in ) permit slightly higher values.

Recent experiments on Re($`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$)  are summarized in Table II. (The error in the average includes a scale factor  of 1.86.) The magnitude of $`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$ is consistent with estimates based on the Kobayashi-Maskawa theory. The qualitative agreement is satisfactory, given that we still cannot account reliably for the large enhancement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ amplitudes with respect to $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=3/2`$ amplitudes in CP-conserving $`K\pi \pi `$ decays. More data are expected from the Fermilab and CERN experiments, reducing the eventual statistical error on $`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$ to a part in $`10^4`$.

### B $`K\pi l^+l^{}`$ information

1. The decay $`K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$ involves loop diagrams involving $`V_{td}`$ and a small charm correction in such a way that the combination $`|1.4\rho i\eta |`$ is constrained, with a predicted branching ratio of order

$$(K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu })10^{10}\left|\frac{|1.4\rho i\eta }{1.4}\right|^2,$$
(28)
or for the range permitted in Fig. 6, a branching ratio of about $`(0.8\pm 0.2)\times 10^{10}`$ . Additional uncertainties are associated with $`m_c`$  and $`|V_{cb}|`$. A measurement of $`(K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu })`$ to 10% will help to constrain $`(\rho ,\eta )`$ more tightly than in Fig. 6 or will expose inconsistencies in our present picture of CP violation.

Up to now the Brookhaven E787 Collaboration sees only one $`K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$ event with negligible background , corresponding to

$$(K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu })=(1.5_{1.2}^{+3.4})\times 10^{10}.$$
(29)
More data are expected from the final analysis of this experiment, as well as from a future version with improved sensitivity.

2. The decays $`K_L\pi ^0l^+l^{}`$ should be dominated by CP-violating contributions, both indirect ($`ϵ`$) and direct, with a CP-conserving “contaminant” from $`K_L\pi ^0\gamma \gamma \pi ^0l^+l^{}`$. The direct contribution probes the parameter $`\eta `$. Each contribution (including the CP-conserving one) is expected to correspond to a $`\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$ branching ratio of a few parts in $`10^{12}`$. However, $`K_L\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$ may be limited by backgrounds in the $`\gamma \gamma e^+e^{}`$ final state associated with radiation of a photon in $`K_L\gamma e^+e^{}`$ from one of the leptons . Present experimental upper limits (90% c.l.)  are

$$(K_L\pi ^0e^+e^{})<5.1\times 10^{10},$$

$$(K_L\pi ^0\mu ^+\mu ^{})<3.8\times 10^{10},$$
(30)
still significantly above most theoretical expectations. (See, however, .)

3. The decay $`K_L\pi ^0\nu \overline{\nu }`$ should be due entirely to CP violation, and provides a clean probe of $`\eta `$. Its branching ratio, proportional to $`A^4\eta ^2`$, is expected to be about $`3\times 10^{11}`$. The best current experimental upper limit (90% c.l.) for this process  is $`(K_L\pi ^0\nu \overline{\nu })<5.9\times 10^7`$, several orders of magnitude above the expected value.

### C Other rare kaon decays

1. The decay $`K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}e^+e^{}`$ involves three independent momenta in the final state and thus offers the opportunity to observe a T-odd observable through a characteristic distribution in the angle $`\varphi `$ between the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`e^+e^{}`$ planes. A CP- or T-violating angular asymmetry in this process has recently been reported .

2. The decay $`K_L\mu ^+\mu ^{}\gamma `$ has been studied with sufficiently high statistics to permit a greatly improved measurement of the virtual-photon form factor in $`K_L\gamma ^{}\gamma `$ . This measurement is useful in estimating the long-distance contribution to the real part of the amplitude in $`K_L\gamma ^{()}\gamma ^{()}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, which in turn allows one to limit the short-distance contribution to $`K_L\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$.

### D Is the CKM picture of CP violation correct?

The KM theory is comfortable with the observed range of $`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$, and its prediction for $`(K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu })`$ is consistent with the one event seen so far. Further anticipated tests are the measurement $`\eta `$ through the decay $`K_L\pi ^0\nu \overline{\nu }`$ (see below), and the search for CP violation in hyperon decays, which is already under way . One also looks forward to a rich set of effects in decays of particles containing $`b`$ quarks, particularly $`B`$ mesons. We now describe the experiments and the effects they are expected to see.

## VI CP VIOLATION IN $`B`$ DECAYS

### A Current and planned experiments

Asymmetric $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions are being studied at “$`B`$ factories”: the PEP-II machine at SLAC with the BaBar detector, and the KEK-B collider in Japan with the Belle detector. By July 2000, these detectors had accumulated about 14 and 6 fb<sup>-1</sup> of data at the energy of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance, which decays almost exclusively to $`B\overline{B}`$ . As of September, 2000, PEP-II and KEK-B were providing about 150 and 100 pb<sup>-1</sup> per day to their respective detectors.

Further data on $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ will be provided by the Cornell Electron Storage Ring with the upgraded CLEO-III detector. The HERA-b experiment at DESY in Hamburg hopes to study $`b`$ quark production via the collisions of 920 GeV protons with a fixed target. The CDF and D0 detectors at Fermilab will devote a significant part of their program at Run II of the Tevatron to $`B`$ physics. One can expect further results on $`B`$ physics from the general-purpose LHC detectors ATLAS and CMS, and the dedicated detectors at LHC-b at CERN and BTeV at Fermilab.

### B Types of CP violation

In contrast to neutral kaons, whose mass eigenstates differ in lifetime by nearly a factor of 600, the corresponding $`B^0`$$`\overline{B^0}`$ mass eigenstates are predicted to differ in lifetime by at most 10–20% for strange $`B`$’s , and much less for nonstrange $`B`$’s. Thus, instead of mass eigenstates like $`K_L`$, two main types of $`B`$ decays are of interest: decays to CP eigenstates, and “self-tagging” decays. Both have their advantages and disadvantages.

1. Decays to CP eigenstates $`f=\pm \mathrm{CP}(f)`$ utilize interference between direct decays $`B^0f`$ or $`\overline{B^0}f`$ and the corresponding paths involving mixing: $`B^0\overline{B^0}f`$ or $`\overline{B^0}B^0f`$. Final states such as $`f=J/\psi K_S`$ provide examples in which one quark subprocess is dominant. In this case one measures $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ with negligible corrections. For $`f=\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, one would measure $`\mathrm{sin}2\alpha `$ only if the direct decay were dominated by a “tree” amplitude (the quark subprocess $`bu\overline{u}d`$). With contamination from the penguin subprocess $`bd`$ expected to be about 30% in amplitude, one must measure decays to other $`\pi \pi `$ states (such as $`\pi ^\pm \pi ^0`$ and $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$) to sort out amplitudes . In decays to CP eigenstates, one must determine the flavor of the decaying $`B`$ at time of production.

2. “Self-tagging” decays involve final states $`f`$ such as $`K^+\pi ^{}`$ which can be distinguished from their CP-conjugates $`\overline{f}`$. A CP-violating rate asymmetry arises when two weak amplitudes $`a_i`$ with weak phases $`\varphi _i`$ and strong phases $`\delta _i`$ ($`i=1,2)`$ interfere:

$$A(Bf)=a_1e^{i(+\varphi _1+\delta _1)}+a_2e^{i(+\varphi _2+\delta _2)},$$

$$A(\overline{B}\overline{f})=a_1e^{i(\varphi _1+\delta _1)}+a_2e^{i(\varphi _2+\delta _2)}.$$
(31)
The weak phase changes sign under CP-conjugation, while the strong phase does not. The rate asymmetry is then

$$𝒜(f)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(f)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{f})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(f)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{f})}$$

$$=\frac{2a_1a_2\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _1\varphi _2)\mathrm{sin}(\delta _1\delta _2)}{a_1^2+a_2^2+2a_1a_2\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _1\varphi _2)\mathrm{cos}(\delta _1\delta _2)}.$$
(32)
The two amplitudes must have different weak and strong phases in order for a rate asymmetry to be observable. The CKM theory predicts the weak phases, but no reliable estimates of strong phases exist. We shall note some ways to avoid this problem.

### C Decays to CP eigenstates

The interference between direct and mixing terms in $`B`$ decays to CP eigenstates modulates the exponential decay (see, e.g., ):

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)}{dt}e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t}(1\mathrm{Im}\lambda _0\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }mt),$$
(33)
where the upper sign refers to $`B^0`$ decays and the lower to $`\overline{B^0}`$ decays. $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ is the mass splitting, and $`\lambda _0`$ expresses the interference of decay and mixing amplitudes. For $`f=J/\psi K_S`$, $`\lambda _0=e^{2i\beta }`$, while for $`f=\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`\lambda _0e^{2i\alpha }`$ only to the extent that penguin amplitudes can be neglected in comparison with the dominant tree contribution. The time integral of the modulation term is

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }mt=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{x}{1+x^2}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{1}{2},$$
(34)
where $`x\mathrm{\Delta }m/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This expression is maximum for $`x=1`$, and 96% of maximum for the observed value $`x0.76`$.

The CDF Collaboration  “tags” neutral $`B`$ mesons at the time of their production and measures the decay rate asymmetry in $`B^0(\overline{B^0})J/\psi K_S`$. This asymmetry arises from the phase $`2\beta `$ characterizing the two powers of $`V_{td}`$ in the $`B^0`$$`\overline{B^0}`$ mixing amplitude. The tagging methods are of two main types. In “opposite-side” methods, since strong interactions produce $`b`$ and $`\overline{b}`$ in pairs, one learns the initial flavor of a decaying $`B`$ from the “other” $`b`$-containing hadron produced in association with it. “Same-side” methods  utilize the fact that a $`B^0`$ tends to be associated more frequently with a $`\pi ^+`$, and a $`\overline{B^0}`$ with a $`\pi ^{}`$, somewhere nearby in phase space.

Electron-positron collisions provide $`B`$ mesons in pairs at the c.m. energy of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance, just above threshold, in states of negative charge-conjugation eigenvalue. It then becomes necessary to distinguish the vertices of the decaying and tagging $`B`$’s from one another when studying CP eigenstates. If $`t`$ and $`t^{}`$ denote the decay and tagging proper times, the asymmetry for decay to a CP eigenstate will be proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }m(tt^{})`$, which vanishes when integrated over all times (see, e.g.,  or ). The BaBar and BELLE results were obtained using asymmetric $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions, with typical vertex separations of about 250 $`\mu `$m and 200 $`\mu `$m. PEP-II, constructed in the ring of the old PEP machine, collides 9 GeV electrons with 2.7 GeV positrons, while KEK-B, constructed in the TRISTAN tunnel, collides 8.5 GeV electrons with 3.5 GeV positrons. In symmetric collisions the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ is produced at rest and the proper path length of a decaying $`B`$ is only about 30 $`\mu `$m.

Both BaBar and BELLE used tags based on leptons and kaons from $`B`$ decays. BaBar also used two neural net methods. The samples reported by the summer of 2000  are shown in Table III.

The CDF result and ones from OPAL  and ALEPH  utilizing $`B`$’s produced in the decays of the $`Z^0`$ are compared with those from BaBar and BELLE in Table IV. The average  corresponds to the $`\pm 1\sigma `$ rays plotted in Fig. 6. There is no contradiction (yet!) with the allowed region, but we look forward eagerly to reduced errors from BaBar and BELLE. New results are due to be presented in February of 2001.

### D “Self-tagging” decays

A typical “self-tagging” mode suitable for the study of “direct” CP violation is $`B^0K^+\pi ^{}`$. The tree amplitude \[Fig. 7(a)\] involves the quark subprocess $`\overline{b}\overline{s}u\overline{u}`$ with CKM factor $`V_{ub}^{}V_{us}`$ (weak phase $`\gamma `$). The penguin amplitude \[Fig. 7(b)\] $`\overline{b}\overline{s}`$ with intermediate $`u,c,t`$ quarks has CKM factor $`V_{tb}^{}V_{ts}`$ or $`V_{cb}^{}V_{cs}`$ (weak phase $`\pi `$ or 0), depending on how the unitarity of the CKM matrix is used. The relative weak phase between the tree and penguin amplitudes thus is non-zero, and direct CP violation can arise if the relative strong phase $`\delta _T\delta _P`$ also is non-zero. The interpretation of a rate difference $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^0K^+\pi ^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B^0}K^{}\pi ^+)`$ requires independent information on $`\delta _T\delta _P`$.

If one measures both a CP-violating asymmetry and a rate ratio such as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(BK^\pm \pi ^{})/\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^\pm K\pi ^\pm )`$ or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^\pm K^\pm \pi ^0)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^\pm K\pi ^\pm )`$, one can eliminate the strong phase difference and solve for $`\gamma `$ . One must deal with electroweak penguins (which also affected the interpretation of $`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$). One proposal (see the first of Refs. ) to extract $`\gamma `$ from the rates for $`B^+(\pi ^0K^+,\pi ^+K^0,\pi ^+\pi ^0)`$ and the charge-conjugate processes was flawed by the neglect of these contributions, which are important . However, they can be calculated , so that measurements of the rates for these processes can yield useful information on $`\gamma `$.

A necessary condition for the observability of direct CP asymmetries based on the interference of two amplitudes, one weaker than the other, is that one must be able to detect processes at the level of the absolute square of the weaker amplitude . Let the weak phase difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ and the strong phase difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta `$ both be near $`\pm \pi /2`$ (the most favorable case). Then the rate asymmetry $`𝒜`$ in Eq. (32) has magnitude

$$|𝒜|=𝒪\left(\frac{2A_1A_2}{A_1^2+A_2^2}\right)\frac{2A_2}{A_1}\mathrm{for}A_2A_1.$$
(35)
Define a rate based on the square of each amplitude: $`N_i=\mathrm{const}.|A_i|^2`$. Then $`|𝒜|2\sqrt{N_2/N_1}`$.

The statistical error in $`𝒜`$ is based on the total number of events. For $`A_2A_1`$, one has $`\delta 𝒜1/\sqrt{N_1}`$. Then the significance of the asymmetry (in number of standard deviations) is

$$\left|\frac{𝒜}{\delta 𝒜}\right|𝒪(2\sqrt{N_2}).$$
(36)
Thus (aside from the factor of 2) one must be able to see the square of the weaker amplitude at a significant level in order to see a significant asymmetry due to $`A_1`$$`A_2`$ interference.

In searching for direct CP asymmetries one thus considers $`B`$ decays with at least two amplitudes having an expected weak phase difference, with a large enough rate that the smaller amplitude alone would be detectable, and with a good chance for a strong phase difference.

Many branching ratios for charmless $`B`$ decays are one to several parts in $`10^5`$. Rates associated with the subdominant amplitudes are expected to be $`\lambda ^21/20`$ of these. Thus when sensitivities to branching ratios of a few parts in $`10^7`$ are reached, searches for direct CP asymmetries will take on great significance.

Two processes whose rates favor a weak phase $`\gamma `$ exceeding $`90^{}`$ are $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ , which favor destructive and constructive tree-penguin interference, respectively. A fit to these and other processes in the second of Refs.  finds $`\gamma =(114_{23}^{+24})^{}`$, grazing the allowed region of Fig. 6 but inconsistent with some more restrictive fits . Since the upper bound on $`\gamma `$ is set by the limit on $`B_s`$$`\overline{B_s}`$ mixing, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s>15`$ ps<sup>-1</sup>, such mixing should be visible soon. There is a hint of a signal at $`17`$ ps<sup>-1</sup> .

The Tevatron and the LHC will produce many neutral $`B`$’s decaying to $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`K^\pm \pi ^{}`$, and $`K^+K^{}`$ . Each of these channels has particular advantages.

1. The decays $`B^0K^+K^{}`$ and $`B_s\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ should be suppressed unless these final states are “fed” by rescattering from other channels .

2. The decays $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ can yield $`\gamma `$ via time-dependence measurements .

3. A recent proposal for measuring $`\gamma `$  utilizes the decays $`B^0K^+\pi ^{}`$, $`B^+K^0\pi ^+`$, $`B_sK^{}\pi ^+`$, and the corresponding charge-conjugate processes. The $`B^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B_sK^{}\pi ^+`$ peaks are well separated from one another and from $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ kinematically .

The proposal of Ref.  is based on the observation that $`BK\pi `$ decays involve tree ($`T`$) and penguin ($`P`$) amplitudes with relative weak phase $`\gamma `$ and relative strong phase $`\delta `$. The decays $`B^\pm K\pi ^\pm `$ are expected to be dominated by the penguin amplitude (there is no tree contribution except through rescattering from other final states), so this channel is not expected to display any CP-violating asymmetries. The prediction $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^+K^0\pi ^+)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^{}\overline{K}^0\pi ^{})`$ thus will check the assumption that rescattering effects can be neglected. A typical amplitude is given by $`A(B^0K^+\pi ^{})=[P+Te^{i(\gamma +\delta )}]`$, where the signs are associated with phase conventions for states . Defining

$$\left\{\begin{array}{c}R\\ A_0\end{array}\right\}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^0K^+\pi ^{})\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B^0}K^{}\pi ^+)}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^+K^0\pi ^+)},$$
(37)
$$\left\{\begin{array}{c}R_s\\ A_s\end{array}\right\}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_sK^{}\pi ^+)\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B_s}K^+\pi ^{})}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^+K^0\pi ^+)},$$
(38)
and $`rT/P`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }V_{us}/V_{ud}`$, one finds

$$R=1+r^2+2r\mathrm{cos}\delta \mathrm{cos}\gamma ,$$

$$R_s=\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^2+(r/\stackrel{~}{\lambda })^22r\mathrm{cos}\delta \mathrm{cos}\gamma ,$$
(39)
$$A_0=A_s=2r\mathrm{sin}\gamma \mathrm{sin}\delta .$$
(40)
The sum of $`R`$ and $`R_s`$ allows one to determine $`r`$. Using $`R`$, $`r`$, and $`A_0`$, one can solve for both $`\delta `$ and $`\gamma `$. The prediction $`A_s=A_0`$ checks the flavor SU(3) assumption on which these relations are based. An error of $`10^{}`$ on $`\gamma `$ seems feasible with forthcoming Tevatron data.

Recent upper limits on CP-violating asymmetries in $`B`$ decays to light-quark systems , defined as

$$𝒜_{CP}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}\overline{f})\mathrm{\Gamma }(Bf)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}\overline{f})+\mathrm{\Gamma }(Bf)},$$
(41)
are shown in Table V. No significant asymmetries have been seen, but sensitivities adequate to check the maximum predicted values  $`|𝒜_{CP}^{K^+\pi }|1/3`$ are being approached.

## VII THE ROLE OF CHARM

### A Mixing and CP violation

The dominant decay modes of the neutral charmed mesons $`D^0`$ and $`\overline{D^0}`$ are to states of negative and positive strangeness, respectively, and not to CP eigenstates. Thus $`D^0`$$`\overline{D^0}`$ mixing induced by shared final states is expected to be small. Short-distance contributions to mixing also are expected to be small. Thus, in contrast to the case of neutral kaons and $`B`$ mesons, one expects small mass splittings, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m/\mathrm{\Gamma }1`$, and, in contrast to neutral kaons, also small width differences. The degree to which cancellations among contributions of intermediate states such as $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`K^+K^{}`$, and $`K^\pm \pi ^{}`$ to mixing suppress such effects further is a matter of debate . If any rate difference is expected, it would be in the direction favoring a slightly greater rate for the CP-even mass eigenstate.

CP violation in the charm sector is expected to be small in the Standard Model. It is also easy to look for, since $`D`$ mesons are easier to produce than $`B`$ mesons and the Standard Model background is low.

Recent interesting studies of mixing by the CLEO  and FOCUS  Collaborations hint at the possibility of non-zero values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, or both, but are not yet statistically compelling. No evidence for mixing is found by the Fermilab E791 Collaboration . It may be necessary to invoke large final-state phase differences in order to reconcile the CLEO and FOCUS results . No CP-violating asymmetries have been seen in charmed meson decays at the level of several percent .

### B Spectroscopy

A wide variety of excited $`cqq`$ and $`c\overline{q}`$ states are accessible at CLEO and FOCUS. The $`cqq`$ states are providing unique insights into baryon spectroscopy , while the $`c\overline{q}`$ states , are important sources of incormation about the corresponding $`b\overline{q}`$ states, useful for “same-side” tagging of neutral $`B`$ mesons.

## VIII THE FUTURE

### A Envisioned measurements

Future CP studies involve a broad program of experiments with kaons, charmed and $`B`$ mesons, and neutrinos.

1. Rare kaon decays: Measurement of the branching ratio for $`K_L\pi ^0\nu \overline{\nu }`$ at the required sensitivity ($`3\times 10^3`$) is foreseen at Brookhaven National Laboratory  and the Fermilab Main Injector . A Fermilab proposal  seeks to acquire enough events of $`K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$ to measure $`|V_{td}|`$ to a precision of 10%.

2. Charmed mesons: While great strides have been taken in the measurement of mass and lifetime differences for CP eigenstates of the neutral charmed mesons $`D^0`$, , it would be worth while to follow up present hints of nonzero effects. Both electron-positron colliders and hadronic experiments devoted to future $`B`$ studies may also have more to say about mixing, lifetime differences, and CP violation for charmed mesons.

3. $`B`$ production in symmetric $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions: Although asymmetric $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders are now taking data at an impressive rate, the CLEO Collaboration is continuing with an active program. It will be able to probe charmless $`B`$ decays down to branching ratios of $`10^6`$. It may be able to detect the elusive $`B^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ mode, whose rate will help pin down the penguin amplitude’s contribution and permit a determination of the CKM phase $`\alpha `$ . Other final states of great interest at this level include $`VP`$ and $`VV`$, where $`P,V`$ denote light pseudoscalar and vector mesons. A useful probe of rescattering effects  is the decay $`B^0K^+K^{}`$. This decay is expected to have a branching ratio of only a few parts in $`10^8`$ if rescattering is unimportant, but could be enhanced by more than an order of magnitude in the presence of rescattering from other channels. A challenging but crucial channel is $`B^+\tau ^+\overline{\nu }_\tau `$, whose rate will provide information on the combination $`f_B|V_{cb}|`$. Rare decays such as $`BX\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ and $`BX\nu \overline{\nu }`$ will probe the effects of new particles in loops.

4. $`B`$ production in asymmetric $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions: The BaBar and Belle detectors have made a start at the measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ in $`B^0J/\psi K_S`$. The moving center-of-mass facilitates both flavor tagging and improvement of signal with respect to background. These machines will make possible a host of time-dependent studies in such decays as $`B\pi \pi `$, $`BK\pi `$, etc., and their impressive luminosities will eventually add significantly to the world’s tally of detected $`B`$’s.

5. Hadronic $`B`$ production: The strange $`B`$’s cannot be produced at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ which will dominate the attention of $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders for some years to come. Hadronic reactions at high energies will produce copious $`b`$’s incorporated into nonstrange, strange, and charmed mesons, and baryons. A measurement of the strange-$`B`$ mixing parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$is likely to be made soon. $`B_s`$ decays provide valuable information on CKM phases and CP violation, as in $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ . The width difference expected between the CP-even and CP-odd eigenstates of the $`B_s`$ system  should be visible in the next round of experiments.

6. Neutrino studies: The magnitudes and phases in the CKM matrix are connected with the quark masses themselves, whose pattern we will not understand until we have mapped out a similar pattern for the leptons. We will learn much about neutrino masses and mixings from forthcoming experiments at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory , Borexino , K2K , and Fermilab (BooNE and MINOS) .

### B A likely parameter space

Our knowledge of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa is likely to improve over the next few years . With $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )`$ measured in $`B^0J/\psi K_S`$ decays to an accuracy of $`\pm 0.06`$ (the BaBar goal with 30 fb<sup>-1</sup> ), errors on $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ reduced to 10%, strange-$`B`$ mixing bounded by $`x_s=\mathrm{\Delta }m_s/\mathrm{\Gamma }_s>20`$ (the present bound is already better than this!), and $`(B^+\tau ^+\nu _\tau )`$ measured to $`\pm 20\%`$ (giving $`f_B|V_{ub}|`$, or $`|V_{ub}/V_{td}|`$ when combined with $`B^0`$$`\overline{B^0}`$ mixing), one finds the result shown in Fig. 8.

The narrow range of $`(\rho ,\eta )`$ increases the chance that any non-standard physics will show up as a contradiction among various measurements, most likely by providing additional contributions to $`B^0`$$`\overline{B^0}`$ mixing  but possibly directly affecting decays .

### C Baryon number of the Universe

The number of baryons in the Universe is much larger than the corresponding number of antibaryons. Sakharov proposed  three requirements for this preponderance of matter over antimatter: (1) an epoch in which the Universe was not in thermal equilibrium, (2) an interaction violating baryon number, and (3) CP (and C) violation. The observed baryon asymmetry is not explained directly by the CP violation in the CKM matrix; the effects are too small, requiring some new physics. Two examples are the following:

1. Supersymmetry, in which each particle of spin $`J`$ has a “superpartner” of spin $`J\pm 1/2`$, affords many opportunities for introducing new CP-violating phases and interactions which could affect particle-antiparticle mixing .

2. Neutrino masses at the sub-eV level can signal large right-handed neutrino Majorana masses, exceeding $`10^{11}`$ GeV . Lepton number ($`L`$), violated by such masses, can be reprocessed into baryon number ($`B`$) by $`BL`$ conserving interactions at the electroweak scale . New CP-violating interactions must exist at the high mass scale if lepton number is to be generated there. These interactions could be related to CKM phases . If this alternative is correct, it will be important to understand the leptonic analogue of the CKM matrix!

### D Surprises ahead?

The CKM theory of CP violation in neutral kaon decays has passed a crucial test. The parameter $`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$ is nonzero, and has the expected order of magnitude. Tests using $`B`$ mesons, including the observation of a difference in rates between $`B^0J/\psi K_S`$ and $`\overline{B^0}J/\psi K_S`$, are just around the corner. Progress in “tagging” neutral $`B`$’s and rich information from measurements of many $`B`$ decay rates will round out the picture.

If $`B`$ decays do not provide a consistent set of CKM phases in the next few years, we will re-examine other proposed sources of CP violation. Most of these, in contrast to the CKM theory, predict neutron and electron dipole moments very close to their present experimental upper limits. If, however, the CKM picture remains self-consistent, we should ask about the origin of the CKM phases and the associated quark and lepton masses. It is probably time to start anticipating this possibility, given the resilience of the CKM picture since it was first proposed nearly 30 years ago.

I am looking forward to a surprise such as one encountered many years ago when exploring a small cave in Pennsylvania. We had entered it in the afternoon and thought we had seen all its rooms, when I came upon another chamber with ghostly stalactites silhouetted against the darkness behind them. A breeze of warm air signaled that I was actually looking outside, with the “stalactites” the faintly glowing night sky, and the dark spaces the shadows of pine trees. Such a “perception shift” does not come often, but is a welcome source of wonder.

## IX ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It is a pleasure to thank Adriano Natale and Rogerio Rosenfeld for the invitation to attend the Brazilian Meeting of Particles and Fields and for their wonderful hospitality in Sao Paulo and Sao Lourenço, and Patrick Roudeau for constructive correspondence. This work was supported in part by the United States Department of Energy under Grant No. DE FG02 90ER40560.


text:
# Abstract

## Abstract

Supersymmetry between bosons and fermions is modeled within $`𝒫𝒯`$symmetric quantum mechanics. A non-Hermitian alternative to the Witten’s supersymmetric quantum mechanics is obtained.

## 1 Introduction

Final chapters of the current textbooks on quantum mechanics usually mention its natural extensions towards relativistic kinematics and towards the quantization of fields (cf., e.g., ). Recently, fundamental concepts like symmetries and interpretations have been re-considered within quantum mechanics itself. For example, Witten  proposed the so called supersymmetric (SUSY) quantum mechanics (cf. its review ) and Bender and Boettcher  initiated a study of an innovative formalism of $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric quantum mechanics (cf. also ). In what follows, we intend to discuss and further develop a certain overlap or combination of the the latter two schemes in the direction indicated recently in our letter .

Before moving to the deeper technical details, let us start from an overall setting of the stage. Indeed, there exists a palpable contrast between the well developed formalism of the traditional Hermitian quantum mechanics of ref.  and the striking incompleteness of interpretation of the alternative non-Hermitian $`𝒫𝒯`$symmetric formalism of ref. . As mentioned by the referee of this paper, the gross mathematical consistency of the former theory is already well understood since H. Weyl. The essence of this theory is most clearly presented in the language of the self-adjoint operators and/or their essentially self-adjoint extensions . In contrast, the unanswered open questions abound in the latter context. Even the fundamental conjecture of the connection between the reality of the spectrum and the related “unbroken” $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry is just a more or less intuitive hypothesis at present. Many of its illustrative manifestations are puzzling . At the same time, quite recently there emerged several indications that its “natural” formulation may be provided by resurgence theory (cf. subject number 34M37 within the Mathematics Subject Classification 2000 scheme) rather than by functional analysis (ref.  can be recalled for an updated review of the related literature).

Similarly, in the language of physics, the multi-faceted character of the possible physical interpretations of the Witten’s scheme  cannot be compared, at the present stage of development at least, with the first-step nature of our fairly simple-minded proposals in ref. . At the same time, it is necessary to imagine that our latter representation of supersymmetry “lives” in an unusual space. In a way depending on its explicit physical interpretation (which is very often being related to the zero-dimensional field theory  and, hence, need not necessarily coincide with the traditional versions of quantum mechanics), one often speaks about the “states” which are manifestly regularized by their $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetrization. These states need not necessarily survive in the appropriate Hermitian limit. This is a crucial aspect of our forthcoming considerations  and has to be kept in mind whenever one tries to understand properly the relations between the non-equivalent formalisms as depicted in the following diagram

$$\begin{array}{c}\\ \begin{array}{c}\\ \mathrm{Hermitian}\mathrm{QM}\\ \mathrm{of}\mathrm{ref}.\text{[1]}\end{array}\stackrel{}{}\begin{array}{c}\\ \mathrm{Hermitian}\mathrm{QM}\\ \mathrm{with}\mathrm{SUSY}\text{[2]}\end{array}\\ \\ \begin{array}{c}\\ \mathrm{non}\mathrm{Hermitian}\\ 𝒫𝒯\mathrm{QM}\text{[4]}\end{array}\stackrel{}{}\begin{array}{c}\\ \mathrm{non}\mathrm{Hermitian}\\ 𝒫𝒯\mathrm{SUSY}\mathrm{QM}\text{[6]}\end{array}\end{array}$$

In our forthcoming text we shall solely pay attention to the $`{}_{}{}^{}`$marked correspondence. We shall outline a consistent approach to supersymmetry after the weakening of the Hermiticity to the mere $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry.

For the sake of clarity, our considerations will be presented in an elementary language inspired by the possible $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetrization of the Calogero two-particle solvable model . In combination with the methodical analysis of the $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric quartic anharmonic oscillators of ref.  this will enable us to modify slightly the current interpretation of the $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry itself. We shall also analyze anew some of its possible consequences. This material will be split in the sketchy description of the Witten’s supersymmetry in section 2, similar sketchy outline of the $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry in section 3 and their synthesis in section 4.

## 2 Hermitian SUSY

Energies $`E_n^{(HO)}=2n+1`$ of bound states generated by the one-dimensional harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian $`H^{(HO)}=p^2+x^2`$ belong to the wave functions $`\psi _n(x)`$ with the definite parity, $`𝒫\psi _n(x)=\psi _n(x)=(1)^n\psi _n(x)`$, $`n=0,1,\mathrm{}`$. Let us now employ this particular example and recollect its re-interpretation within supersymmetric quantum mechanics.

### 2.1 Harmonic oscillator in supersymmetric picture

In accord with the review of the supersymmetric quantum mechanics by Cooper et al  we can consider the left-shifted and right-shifted harmonic oscillator Hamiltonians

$$H^{(L)}=p^2+x^21,H^{(R)}=p^2+x^2+1$$

and notice their almost complete isospectrality,

$$E_m^{(L)}=2m,m=0,1,\mathrm{},E_k^{(R)}=2k+2,k=0,1,\mathrm{}.$$

Wave functions of the same energy become arranged in doublets,

$$\psi _{n+1}^{(L)}(x)\psi _n^{(R)}(x),n=0,1,\mathrm{}.$$
(1)
Formally this can be interpreted as a consequence of an underlying supersymmetry $`sl(1/1)`$ since a representation of this algebra working with both commutators and anticommutators can be generated by the three two-by-two matrices one of which is defined in terms of our two toy Hamiltonians,

$$=\left[\begin{array}{cc}H^{(L)}& 0\\ 0& H^{(R)}\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}BA& 0\\ 0& AB\end{array}\right].$$

The well known factorization of the Hamiltonian is then defined in terms of the harmonic oscillator superpotential $`W^{(HO)}(x)=x`$,

$$A=A^{(HO)}=\frac{d}{dx}+W^{(HO)}(x),B=B^{(HO)}=\frac{d}{dx}+W^{(HO)}(x).$$

The other two generators or “supercharges” read

$$𝒬=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ A& 0\end{array}\right],\stackrel{~}{𝒬}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& B\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right]$$
(2)
and close the required superalgebra,

$$[,𝒬]=[,\stackrel{~}{𝒬}]=0,\{𝒬,𝒬\}=\{\stackrel{~}{𝒬},\stackrel{~}{𝒬}\}=0,\{𝒬,\stackrel{~}{𝒬}\}=.$$

Formally the whole scheme with its Riccati equation background (cf. ref.  for more details) is firmly rooted in the nineteen century mathematics  and offers an explanation of the exact solvability of many potentials after a suitable change of the superpotential $`W(x)`$.

### 2.2 The model of Calogero in supersymmetric picture

In the present setting let us note that the supersymmetrized pairs of states of the same energy are characterized by their parity,

$$𝒫\psi _m^{(L)}(x)=𝒫\psi _k^{(R)}(x),m=k+1,k=0,1,\mathrm{}.$$

This feature finds an interesting interpretation within the so called Calogero model of the two particles interacting via the harmonic oscillator forces complemented by a short-term “repulsion” . The complete two-body Hamiltonian reads

$$H^{(Cal)}=\frac{^2}{x_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\frac{^2}{x_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}+\left[\frac{1}{2}(x_1x_2)^2+\frac{g}{(x_1x_2)^2}\right].$$

After a routine elimination of the centre-or-mass coordinate $`R=(x_1+x_2)/\sqrt{2}`$ one is left with the radial Schrödinger equation

$$\left[\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+r^2+\frac{1}{2}\frac{g}{r^2}E\right]\psi (r)=0$$
(3)
in the relative coordinate $`r=(x_1x_2)/\sqrt{2}`$. This is a singular ordinary differential equation and $`E`$ is the energy in the centre-of-mass system. The singularity acquires the common centrifugal form whenever we introduce the (in general, non-integer) “angular momentum”

$$\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}(g)=\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}+\frac{g}{2}}.$$
(4)
The strongly repulsive centrifugal-like core can be perceived as impenetrable. The normalizability of the wave function at $`g[3/2,\mathrm{})`$ implies that $`\psi ^{(admissible)}(r)`$ vanishes at $`r=0`$. By “brute force”, Calogero extended such an impenetrability feature to all the couplings $`g>1/2`$ by demanding that it takes place for the weak repulsion (or, if necessary, attraction) as well. The related explicit boundary conditions

$$\begin{array}{cc}lim_{r0}\psi ^{(admissible)}(r)=0,\hfill & g(0,3/2),\hfill \\ lim_{r0}[r^{1/2}\psi ^{(admissible)}(r)]=0,\hfill & g(1/2,0)\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
were more thoroughly discussed in the related recent comment  containing the discussion of such a regularization interpreted as a selection of the “admissible” or “physical” solutions at any $`g>1/4`$.

It may be useful  to re-emphasize here that the choice of the regularization is fairly conventional, indeed. In the various modern applications of the formalism of quantum mechanics, the whole family of the “nonstandard” models may prove equally useful. The formal freedom of choosing any essentially self-adjoint extension as our “physical” Hamiltonian operator in the interval of $`g(1/2,3/2)`$ enables us to modify accordingly its desirable physical meaning .

Under our present conventions we may summarize that the Calogero’s “non-communication rules” (5) make the Calogero’s equation selfconsistently defined on both the half-axes $`r(0,\mathrm{})`$ and $`r(\mathrm{},0)`$. In a way dictated by the pure physics one can join these separate branches in both the symmetric (= bosonic) and antisymmetric (= fermionic) manner,

$$𝒫\psi ^{(bosonic)}(x)=+\psi ^{(bosonic)}(x),𝒫\psi ^{(fermionic)}(x)=\psi ^{(fermionic)}(x)$$
(6)
observing that

* the operator $`𝒫`$ of parity can be re-interpreted as an exchange of particles, within the framework of the sufficiently non-harmonic Calogero model at least;
* tentatively, we can try to move to the smaller couplings $`g>1/2`$ and pick up the $`g=0`$ special case. Then, within the above-mentioned supersymmetric arrangement (1), we obtain a new interpretation of supersymmetry as a very natural mapping between the Calogerian bosons and fermions (6).

We can add that the Hermitian supersymmetric transformation unavoidably fails in all the $`g0`$ cases where the superpotential $`W(x)`$ becomes singular. More details can be found in chapter 12 of the review . Here we shall propose a systematic remedy in a way inspired by our letter .

## 3 $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric Hamiltonians

In the usual Hermitian conjugation $`H=H^+`$ the superscript <sup>+</sup> means the transposition $`HH^{}`$ combined with the complex conjugation, $`H^+=𝒯H^{}𝒯`$. Within the $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric quantum mechanics of ref.  another type of conjugation is necessary.

### 3.1 Complexifications of smooth oscillators

Let us briefly review the main features of the $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric quantum mechanics. Its basic idea is simple and dates in fact back to the old paper by Caliceti et al . In this work the complex forces of a “minimally” perturbed type $`V(x)=x^2+i\lambda x^3`$ have been shown to posses the real spectrum at the sufficiently small and real couplings $`\lambda `$. Using the symbols $`𝒫`$ (parity) and $`𝒯`$ (complex conjugation) the probable relevance of the $`𝒫𝒯`$ invariance $`V(x)=𝒫𝒯V(x)𝒫𝒯`$ of this model has been emphasized and re-emphasized in different contexts .

The recent explicit formulation of the hypothesis connecting the reality of spectrum to the unbroken $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry of wave functions belongs to Bender et al . It has been verified on several different solvable examples. During this verification an important role has been played by the partially solvable systems  and by the systematic $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetrization of the so called shape invariant family of the polynomially solvable models . After a return to their Hermitian limit, their classification is offered by the supersymmetric quantum mechanics .

A key to the relevance of the $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetrization can be seen in the ambiguity of quantization resulting from a complex deformation of the coordinate axis. In this way the analytic potentials $`V(x)`$ admit a change of the spectrum caused by a mere deformation of the integration path (i.e., asymptotic boundary conditions) in the complex plane. This idea first appeared in the context of field theory . Its most elementary illustrations have been mediated by the regular harmonic oscillator  and by its partially solvable anharmonic modifications of the sextic type . A decisive progress in the study of the $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric systems of this type has been achieved by Buslaev and Grecchi  who discovered an unexpected byproduct of the elementary $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric complexifications which lies in a facilitated regularization of the centrifugal singularities.

### 3.2 $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric regularization

In the spirit of paper  the range $`r(0,\mathrm{})`$ of many solvable radial Schrödoinger equations can be extended to the whole complex contour $`r=r(t)`$ parameterized by a real $`t(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$. Quite often, the most elementary implementation of the latter idea is represented by the real line shifted slightly downwards,

$$r(t)=ti\epsilon ,\epsilon >0.$$

One can further deform this curve $`r(t)`$ with $`|r(t)|\mathrm{}`$ for $`t\pm \mathrm{}`$ to many other suitable shapes. For the harmonic oscillator example the curve only has to stay within the asymptotic wedges in which the dominant part $`\mathrm{exp}(r^2/2)`$ of our explicit wave functions decreases, $`|\mathrm{Im}r(t)|<|\mathrm{Re}r(t)|`$, $`|t|1`$ (cf. ).

Thorough repetition of a $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric analysis of the Calogerian singular example (3) in  (and of its quartic  and decadic  modifications) revealed that a core of the difference between the regular and regularized cases lies in the necessity of introduction of the (say, upward-running) cut in our complex plane of $`r`$ in the majority of cases . In the other words, the quantization (and spectrum) can be influenced by the continuation of $`r(t)`$ on the other Riemannian sheets. Such a type of the subtle non-equivalence deserves a due care. Its exactly solvable example was constructed by Cannata et al and can be found, slightly hidden and implicit, in sec. 5 of their letter .

## 4 $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric supersymmetry

We are now prepared to find a way towards a synthesis of the separate supersymmetric and $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric modifications of the traditional quantum mechanics. Our main idea is that after a regularization of the centrifugal-like singularities many difficulties encountered in the classical SUSY in connection with the singular superpotentials could be in principle avoided via the $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric regularization. This returns us once more to the general experience with quantum theory where our choice or specification of the physical meaning of the Hamiltonians can remain, sometimes, quite flexible and adapted to our specific phenomenological needs .

### 4.1 Anharmonic oscillators with the $`x^2`$ core

Teaching by example once more, let us pick up the first nontrivial (viz., quartic anharmonic) example. In a way close to our present discussion this example has been first studied by the purely non-perturbative means by Flessas . For the purposes of inserting this example in the new supersymmetric scheme let us also recall the results of the papers  and . We recollect that the potentials

$$V^{(sm)}(x)=4i(xi\epsilon )(xi\epsilon )^4,$$
(7)
$$V^{(sp)}(x)=\frac{2}{(x+i\epsilon )^2}(x+i\epsilon )^4$$
(8)
possess the respective exact zero-energy solutions

$$\psi ^{(sm)}(x)=(xi\epsilon )\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{(xi\epsilon )^3}{3}\right)L_2(\mathrm{},\mathrm{}),$$

$$\psi ^{(sp)}(x)=\frac{1}{x+i\epsilon }\mathrm{exp}\left(+i\frac{(x+i\epsilon )^3}{3}\right)L_2(\mathrm{},\mathrm{}).$$

We can, therefore, introduce the usual superpotentials

$$W^{(sp/sm)}(x)=\left[\frac{d}{dx}\psi ^{(sp/sm)}(x)\right]/\psi ^{(sp/sm)}(x)=\pm \left[\frac{1}{x\pm i\epsilon }i(x\pm i\epsilon )^2\right].$$
(9)
In a way proposed in our recent study  we employ the standard definition of the supercharges (2) containing the nonstandard creation- and annihilation-type operators

$$A=A^{(𝒫𝒯)}=𝒯\left[\frac{d}{dx}+W^{(sm)}(x)\right],B=B^{(𝒫𝒯)}=\left[\frac{d}{dx}+W^{(sm)}(x)\right]𝒯.$$

This preserves all the underlying supersymmetric algebra $`sl(1/1)`$ and extends the concept of the supersymmetric partners to the case of our non-Hermitian Hamiltonians.

### 4.2 $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetrized Calogero model at $`A=2`$

All the Hermitian harmonic oscillators with a central symmetry (i.e., real potentials $`V(\stackrel{}{r})=|\stackrel{}{r}|^2`$ in $`D`$ dimensions) are described by the ordinary differential “radial” Schrödinger equation of the form (3) with $`g/2=\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)`$. This equation is solvable in terms of the confluent hypergeometric functions and its integer of half-integer parameter $`\mathrm{}=(D3)/2+L`$ depends on an integer quantum number $`L`$ of the free angular motion. This implies that we can write all the exact normalizable solutions in terms of Laguerre polynomials in a way which is fully parallel to the well known Hermitian case.

On a move to the singular and $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetrized Calogerian harmonic oscillator (3) with, in general, non-integer $`2\mathrm{}`$ (and with the straight line $`r(t)=ti\epsilon `$ for definiteness), we can recollect the results obtained in our paper . There, the well known “regular” harmonic oscillator bound state solutions $`\psi ^{(reg)}(r)`$ which behave like $`r^{\mathrm{}+1}`$ near the origin were complemented by their “irregular-like” partners $`\psi ^{(irreg)}(r)=𝒪(r^{\mathrm{}})`$. The latter states remain formally acceptable whenever $`\epsilon 0`$. At the same time, they just play a purely formal role and “naturally” disappear in the “standard” or “physical” non-$`𝒫𝒯`$ Hermitian limit $`\epsilon 0`$. Hence, no contradictory predictions can emerge. The physics remains unchanged while merely its mathematical presentation is modified. In fact the overall picture becomes simplified in a way resembling the simplification of algebraic equations after one moves from the real line to complex plane.

* Our two sets of solutions form the non-equidistant spectrum $`\{E_n^{(reg)},E_n^{(irreg)}\}`$ where

$$E_n^{(reg)}=4n+2\mathrm{}+3,E_n^{(irreg)}=4n2\mathrm{}+1,n=0,1,\mathrm{}.$$

These “energies” exhibit an $`\alpha \alpha `$ symmetry with $`\alpha =\mathrm{}+1/2`$.
* The related wave functions remain bounded, normalizable and proportional to the Laguerre polynomials,

$$\psi ^{(reg)}(r)=constr^{\mathrm{}+1}e^{r^2/2}L_n^{\mathrm{}+1/2}(r^2),$$

$$\psi ^{(irreg)}(r)=constr^{\mathrm{}}e^{r^2/2}L_n^{\mathrm{}1/2}(r^2).$$

They exhibit the same $`\alpha \alpha `$ symmetry.
* At $`g=0`$ (i.e., $`\mathrm{}=0`$) we return to the well known one-dimensional spectrum,

$$E_n^{(reg)}=4n+3,E_n^{(irreg)}=4n+1,\mathrm{}=0,n=0,1,\mathrm{}.$$

The seemingly formal $`\alpha \alpha `$ symmetry degenerates to the parity.
* The latter feature (parity) survives smoothly the transition to the singular systems. At all the sufficiently small $`g`$ the $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric regularization preserves the continuity and reality of the energies as well as their numbering by the integer $`n`$ and by the sign of the parameter $`\alpha =\mathrm{}+1/2=\sqrt{1/4+g/2}`$.

The latter smoothness is in a sharp contrast with the abrupt loss of the irregular half of the spectrum at any $`g0`$ in the traditional Hermitian formalism. Summarizing the situation, we can now start from the $`g=0`$ or $`\mathrm{}=0`$ bound states with the well defined values of parity $`=\pm 1`$. A smooth continuation in $`g`$ transfers the label $`\pm 1`$ to all the energies. The complexified bosonic and fermionic symmetry becomes re-established in this manner. This enables us to speak about the bosons and fermions defined by the following rule

$$\begin{array}{c}\psi ^{(bosonic)}(r)=(1)^{\mathrm{}}\psi ^{(bosonic)}(r),\\ \psi ^{(fermionic)}(r)=(1)^{\mathrm{}+1}\psi ^{(fermionic)}(r).\end{array}$$
(10)
The new statistics (10) resembles strongly some aspects of its Hermitian alternative. In essence, the transition from the new fermions to bosons is just a change of sign of $`\alpha =\mathrm{}+1/2`$. Such a “complexified supersymmetry” differs from its older form in .