format: text

text:
# Implication of sin{2𝛽} from global fit and 𝐵→𝐽/𝜓𝐾_𝑆

## I Introduction

Recently, the BaBar and Belle Collaborations have reported their new results on the measurements of time dependent CP asymmetry $`𝒜_{CP}`$ of decay mode $`BJ/\psi K_S`$. The definition of $`𝒜_{CP}`$ is given as follows

$`𝒜_{CP}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0(t)J/\psi K_S)\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^0(t)J/\psi K_S)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0(t)J/\psi K_S)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^0(t)J/\psi K_S)}}`$ (1)
$``$ $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{J/\psi }\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_Bt).`$ (2)
In the framework of the Standard Model (SM), the angle $`\beta _{J/\psi }`$ is expected to be equal to the angle $`\beta `$ which concerns the weak phase of Cabbibo-Kabayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix element $`V_{td}^{}`$

$`\beta arg\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{td}V_{tb}^{}}{V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}}}\right)`$ (3)
which is also one of the angles of the unitarity triangles containing $`d`$ and $`b`$ quarks. The new measurements give the following values :

$`\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{J/\psi }|_{exp}`$ $`=`$ $`0.59\pm 0.14\pm 0.05\text{ (BaBar)}`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{J/\psi }|_{exp}`$ $`=`$ $`0.58_{0.340.1}^{+0.32+0.09}\text{ (Belle)}.`$ (5)
Combining with the ones measured earlier by CDF and ALEPH Collaboration $`0.79_{0.44}^{+0.41}`$, and $`0.84_{1.04}^{+0.82}\pm 0.16`$, one arrives at the new world average value of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$

$`\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{J/\psi }|_{exp}=0.59\pm 0.14.`$ (6)
Although this result is consistent with the prediction of Standard Model (SM), the results from BaBar and Belle may imply a possibility that the angle $`\beta _{J/\psi }`$ measured directly from the time dependent CP asymmetry may be different than the one from the global fit in SM ( denoted by $`\beta _{fit}^{SM}`$) which contains the indirect CP violations of both neutral $`K`$ and $`B`$ meson mixings. This possibility has aroused many discussions in the literatures. As has been pointed out in Ref., a lower value of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ less than 0.5 may imply that some hadronic parameters are out of the reasonable range. It may imply a large bag parameter $`\widehat{B}_K`$ for the matrix element $`<K^0|H_W|\overline{K}^0>`$, a large $`SU(3)`$ breaking factor between $`B^0`$ and $`B_s^0`$ or a small value of $`|V_{ub}|`$. In the SM, a lower bound of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ can be derived from the evaluation of $`ϵ_K`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B`$, a conservative bound was found to be $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta >0.42`$  which is compared with $`0.34`$ in due to the use of different values of hadronic parameters. The existence of a lower bound on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ also holds for new physics models with minimal flavor violation (MFV), namely a class of models which has no new flavor changing operators beyond those in the SM and no additional weak phases beyond the CKM phase.

In the SM, the angle $`\beta _{fit}^{SM}`$ extracted from the global fit should be the same as the one measured from the time dependent CP asymmetry in the decay $`BJ/\psi K_S`$. However, if there exists new physics beyond the SM, the situation may be quite different, the angle “$`\beta `$” extracted from two different approaches are in general not equal. This is because $`ϵ_K`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B`$ as well as $`BJ/\psi K_S`$ will receive contributions from new physics in a quite different manner comparing to the ones from the SM. As a consequence, the extracted “$`\beta `$” from two ways will become different. In the most general case, one may find that $`\beta _{fit}^{SM}\beta _{J/\psi }\beta `$ when new physics exists and the ratio

$`R_\beta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{J/\psi }}{\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{fit}^{SM}}}`$ (7)
is therefore not equal to unity. It will be shown in detail below that the true angle $`\beta `$ may not be directly obtained from the measurement of $`\beta _{fit}^{SM}`$ or $`\beta _{J/\psi }`$.

It is obvious that the deviation from $`R_\beta =1`$ provides a clean signal of new physics. While the different new physics models may modify its value in different ways. In the definition of $`R_\beta `$, the value of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{J/\psi }`$ is model dependent, the prediction of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{J/\psi }`$ may vary largely from different new physics models. On the other hand, even when $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{fit}^{SM}`$ is extracted via the same formulae as the ones in the SM and its value only depends on the hadronic parameters and the experimental data, namely it looks like model independent, but possible existence of new physics implies that $`\beta _{fit}^{SM}`$ may not be necessarily equal to the true $`\beta `$ in the SM. This is because the experimental data should contain all contributions from both SM and beyond the SM if new physics truly exists. Thus the relation between $`\beta _{fit}^{SM}`$ and $`\beta `$ depends on models. In this paper, we present a general parameterization for possible new physics contributions to $`R_\beta `$. For a detailed consideration, we investigate two interesting and typical models, one is the model with MFV and another is the simplest extension of SM with just adding one Higgs doublet. For convenience of mention in our following discussions, we may call such a minimal extension of the standard model with two Higgs doublet as an S2HDM, in which CP violation could solely originate from the Higgs potential. The experimental value of $`R_\beta `$ is obtained from an update of the global fit for the unitarity triangle (UT). It will be seen that the ratio $`R_\beta `$ may provide a useful tool for probing new physics. The current data lead to a low value of $`R_\beta `$ which is not likely to be accommodated by the models with MFV. If the future experiments confirm such a low value of $`R_\beta `$, the models involving new interactions with additional phases beyond the CKM phase will be preferred. Taking the S2HDM as an example, we illustrate that the new physics models with additional CP phases can easily explain the current data.

This paper is organized as follows: in section II, the ratio $`R_\beta `$ with possible new physics effects is introduced and the new physics effects on $`R_\beta `$ are parameterized in a most general form. In section III, the profile of the unitarity triangle is updated with the latest data and the resulting value of $`R_\beta `$ is obtained. The new physics effects of the models with MFV and the S2HDM are discussed in section IV. Our conclusions are made in the last section.

## II  Neutral meson mixing within and beyond the SM

In the study of quark mixing and CP violation, it is convenient to use the Wolfenstein parameterization  in which the CKM matrix elements can be parameterized by four parameters $`\lambda `$, $`A`$, $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$. The unitarity relation

$`V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}+V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}+V_{td}V_{tb}^{}=0`$ (8)
can be depicted as a closed triangle in the $`\rho `$, $`\eta `$ plane (see Fig.1). The two sides of the triangle can be written as:

$`\widehat{R}_u`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}}{V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}}}=R_ue^{i\gamma }=\sqrt{\overline{\rho }^2+\overline{\eta }^2}e^{i\gamma },`$ (9)
$`\widehat{R}_t`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{td}V_{tb}^{}}{V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}}}=R_te^{i\beta }=\sqrt{(1\overline{\rho })^2+\overline{\eta }^2}e^{i\beta },`$ (10)
with $`\overline{\rho }(1\frac{\lambda ^2}{2})\rho `$, and $`\overline{\eta }(1\frac{\lambda ^2}{2})\eta `$. The three angles of $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ of the triangle are defined as follows

$`\mathrm{sin}2\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{\eta }(\overline{\eta }^2+\overline{\rho }^2\overline{\rho })}{(\overline{\rho }^2+\overline{\eta }^2)((1\overline{\rho })^2+\overline{\eta }^2)}},`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{\eta }(1\overline{\rho })}{(1\overline{\rho })^2+\overline{\eta }^2}},`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{sin}2\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{\rho }\overline{\eta }}{\overline{\rho }^2+\overline{\eta }^2}},`$ (13)
with $`\alpha +\beta +\gamma =180^{}`$. One of the important goals in the modern particle physics is to precisely determine those angles and to test the unitarity relation of Eq.(8). Many efforts have been done for that purpose and the current data have constrained the apex of the triangle in a small region. For example, the values of $`\lambda `$, $`|V_{cb}|`$ and $`|V_{ub}|`$ are extracted from the semileptonic $`K`$ and $`B`$ decays. Besides the semileptonic decays, the important constraint may come from the neutral meson mixings, such as $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ and $`B_{(s)}^0\overline{B}_{(s)}^0`$ mixings.

There are two important observables in neutral meson mixings: the indirect CP violating parameter $`ϵ_K`$ of kaon and the mass difference of neutral $`B`$ meson $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_{(s)}}`$. In the SM, their expressions read

$`ϵ_K^{SM}`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{\overline{\eta }\left[(1\overline{\rho })A^2\eta _2S_0(x_t)+P_ϵ\right]A^2\widehat{B}_KC_ϵ\right\}e^{i\frac{\pi }{4}}`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_{(s)}}^{SM}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2}{6\pi ^2}}m_W^2m_{B_{(s)}}\left(f_{B_{(s)}}\sqrt{B_{(s)}}\right)^2\eta _BS_0(x_t)|\lambda _t^{B_{(s)}}|^2.`$ (15)
where $`S_0(x_i)`$ with $`(x_i=m_i^2/M_W^2)`$ are the integral function arising from the box diagram and $`\eta _i`$s are the QCD corrections with the values  $`\eta _1=1.38\pm 0.20,\eta _2=0.57\pm 0.01,\eta _3=0.47\pm 0.04`$ and $`\eta _B=0.55\pm 0.01`$, $`G_F=1.16\times 10^5`$ GeV<sup>-2</sup> is the Fermi coupling constant, $`f_B`$ and $`B_K,B`$ are the decay constant and bag parameter for kaon and $`B`$ meson respectively. The two constants $`C_ϵ`$ and $`P_ϵ`$ have the values :

$`C_ϵ=G_F^2F_K^2m_Km_W^2\lambda ^{10}/(6\sqrt{2}\pi ^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_K)=0.01`$and

$`P_ϵ=\left[\eta _3S_0(x_c,x_t)\eta _1S_0(x_c)\right]/\lambda ^4=0.31\pm 0.05`$

In the global SM fit of UT, one usually assumes that the SM is fully responsible for the observed experimental data. This scenario, however may be invalid if there are new contributions beyond the SM. If new physics effects exist, then $`ϵ_K^{exp.}ϵ_K^{SM}(\overline{\rho },\overline{\eta })`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B^{exp}\mathrm{\Delta }m_B^{SM}(\overline{\rho },\overline{\eta })`$ . In general, one may write

$`ϵ_K^{exp.}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_K^{SM}(\overline{\rho },\overline{\eta })[1+\delta ϵ_K]ϵ_K^{SM}(\overline{\rho }_{fit}^{SM},\overline{\eta }_{fit}^{SM})`$ (16)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B^{exp}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B^{SM}(\overline{\rho },\overline{\eta })[1+\delta m_B]\mathrm{\Delta }m_B^{SM}(\overline{\rho }_{fit}^{SM},\overline{\eta }_{fit}^{SM})[1+\delta \stackrel{~}{m}_B]`$ (17)
where $`\delta ϵ_K`$ and $`\delta m_B`$ ( $`\delta \stackrel{~}{m}_B`$) represent possible new physics contributions. Therefore the parameters $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$ extracted from the fit are in general the effective ones which may significantly deviate from their true values in the SM . The effective values $`\rho _{fit}^{SM}`$ and $`\eta _{fit}^{SM}`$ are defined as follows:

$`ϵ_K^{exp}=\left\{\overline{\eta }_{fit}^{SM}\left[(1\overline{\rho }_{fit}^{SM})A^2\eta _2S_0(x_t)+P_ϵ\right]A^2\widehat{B}_KC_ϵ\right\}e^{i\frac{\pi }{4}}`$ (18)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B^{exp}/[1+\delta \stackrel{~}{m}_B]={\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2}{6\pi ^2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}})^2A^2\lambda ^4m_W^2m_B\left(f_B\sqrt{B}\right)^2\eta _BS_0(x_t)\left((1\overline{\rho }_{fit}^{SM})^2+(\overline{\eta }_{fit}^{SM})^2\right).`$ (19)
where, $`ϵ_K^{exp}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B^{exp}`$ are the values measured from the experiments . It is seen that in the existence of unknown new physics, one may even not be able to extract the effective parameters $`\overline{\rho }_{fit}^{SM}`$ and $`\overline{\eta }_{fit}^{SM}`$ from the data $`ϵ_K^{exp}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B^{exp}`$. Only when the new physics contributions to the term $`\delta \stackrel{~}{m}_B`$ are neglected, the two effective parameters $`\overline{\rho }_{fit}^{SM}`$ and $`\overline{\eta }_{fit}^{SM}`$ can be determined from the data $`ϵ_K^{exp}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B^{exp}`$. In our following fit, due to the large uncertainties in both theoretical parameters and the present data, we actually take $`\delta \stackrel{~}{m}_B=0`$ as an approximation, so that the angle $`\beta _{fit}^{SM}`$ can be extracted via the same form as the one in Eq.(13)

$`\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{fit}^{SM}{\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{\eta }_{fit}^{SM}(1\overline{\rho }_{fit}^{SM})}{(1\overline{\rho }_{fit}^{SM})^2+(\overline{\eta }_{fit}^{SM})^2}},`$ (20)
From Eq.(20) , by eliminating $`S_0(x_t)`$ in the expression for $`ϵ_K`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B`$, the following relation holds

$`\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{fit}^{SM}`$ $`=`$ $`C_K\left(1\omega \overline{\eta }_{fit}^{SM}\right).`$ (21)
with $`C_K=\frac{G_F^2m_Bm_W^2F_B^2B_B\eta _B|ϵ_K|}{6\pi ^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_BA^4\widehat{B}_K\eta _2C_ϵ}`$ and $`\omega =C_ϵA^2\widehat{B}_KP_ϵ/|ϵ_K|`$.

Before proceeding, we would like to emphasize that even if taking the expressions satisfying the same relations as the ones in the SM, it is clear that the resulting values for $`\rho _{fit}^{SM}`$ and $`\eta _{fit}^{SM}`$ are not necessary to be the true ones in the SM if new physics beyond the SM truly exists. In general, one has $`\rho _{fit}^{SM}\rho `$ and $`\eta _{fit}^{SM}\eta `$. Only when there are no new physics contributions to the $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ and $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixings, i.e. $`ϵ_K^{exp}=ϵ_K^{SM}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B^{exp}=\mathrm{\Delta }m_B^{SM}`$, one can then get the true values $`\overline{\rho }_{fit}^{SM}=\overline{\rho }`$ and $`\overline{\eta }_{fit}^{SM}=\overline{\eta }`$. Thus the fit can really probe the true value of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$. However, if there exists new physics beyond the SM, the relation between $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{fit}^{SM}`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ will become complicated and depend strongly on new physics models, which can explicitly be seen below. Note that the values of $`\rho _{fit}^{SM}`$ and $`\eta _{fit}^{SM}`$ fitted in such a way remain model independent though they may not be equal to the true values of $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$ in the SM.

It is noticed that in the SM neutral meson mixings only occur at loop level, new physics contributions are expected to be considerable. If we denote the transition matrix element $`<f^0|H_{eff}|\overline{f}^0>`$ of neutral meson $`f^0(f^0=K^0,B_{(s)}^0)`$ by $`M_{12}^f`$, then the new physics effects on $`M_{12}^f`$ can be parameterized in the following general form:

$`M_{12}^f={\displaystyle \underset{i,j=c,t}{}}\lambda _i^f\lambda _j^fM_{12,ij}^{SM,f}(1+r_{ij}^f)+\stackrel{~}{M}_{12}^f`$ (22)
where $`\lambda _i^f(i=c,t)`$ are the products of CKM matrix elements with the definitions $`\lambda _i^KV_{id}^{}V_{is},\lambda _i^BV_{id}^{}V_{ib},`$ and $`\lambda _i^{B_s}V_{is}^{}V_{ib}.`$ The matrix elements $`M_{12,ij}^{SM,f}`$ are the ones in SM. They receive contributions from the internal $`tt,cc`$ and $`ct`$ quark loops in the box diagrams which are responsible for the $`f^0\overline{f}^0`$ mixing. Real parameters $`r_{ij}^f`$ reflect the possible new physics contributions to the corresponding loop diagrams, which carry no additional weak phases besides $`\lambda _{ij}^f`$. Models with such property include some versions of SUSY models and type I and II 2HDM. Obviously those models belong to the ones with MFV since they carry no additional phases. New physics contributions with new weak phases are all absorbed into the last term $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{12}^f`$. This term may arise from additional new interactions, such as the tree level Flavor Changing Neutral Current (FCNC) and the superweak-type interactions as well as interacting terms with new weak phases.

In evaluating $`ϵ_K`$ in kaon system, although the contribution of $`tt`$ quark loop is dominant, the effects of $`cc`$ and $`ct`$ quark loops are not negligible. While in the calculations of the mass differences of $`B_{(s)}^0`$ meson, one may only consider the $`tt`$ quark loop in the box diagram.

By using the Wolfenstein parameterization for CKM matrix elements and the parameterization of Eq.(22), in the presence of new physics, the expression of $`ϵ_K`$ is

$`ϵ_K=\left\{\overline{\eta }\left[(1\overline{\rho })A^2\eta _2S_0(x_t)\left(1+r_{tt}^K\right)+P_ϵ(1+r_{ct})\right]A^2\widehat{B}_KC_ϵ\right\}e^{i\frac{\pi }{4}}+\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_K`$ (23)
with

$`r_{ct}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _3S_0(x_c,x_t)r_{ct}^K\eta _1S_0(x_c)r_{cc}^K}{\eta _3S_0(x_c,x_t)\eta _1S_0(x_c)}}`$ (24)
$`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_K`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\frac{\pi }{4}}}{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Delta }m_K}}\text{Im}\stackrel{~}{M}_{12}^K`$ (25)
where the new physics effects with MFV have been expressed as the corrections to the integral function $`S_0(x_t)`$ and $`P_ϵ`$. The effects with additional phases have been absorbed into $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_K`$. The $`B_{(s)}^0\overline{B}_{(s)}^0`$ mass difference is also modified as follows

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B`$ $``$ $`\left|M_{12}^B\right|=\mathrm{\Delta }m_B^{SM}\left|1+r_{tt}^B\right|\left|e^{2i\beta }+\stackrel{~}{r}^Be^{2i\varphi ^B}\right|.`$ (26)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ $``$ $`\left|M_{12}^{B_s}\right|=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}^{SM}\left|1+r_{tt}^{B_s}\right|\left|1+\stackrel{~}{r}^{B_s}e^{2i\varphi ^{B_s}}\right|.`$ (27)
Where we have kept only the $`tt`$ quark loop in the box diagrams, the contributions from other loops with internal $`cc`$ and $`ct`$ quarks are highly suppressed and can be safely neglected.

From the definition of $`𝒜_{CP}`$, the $`\beta _{J/\psi }`$ measured from the time dependent CP asymmetry will be the total phase of $`M_{12}^B`$. Thus in the presence of new physics, The angle $`\beta _{J/\psi }`$ extracted from the time dependent CP asymmetry $`𝒜_{CP}(t)`$ in decay $`BJ/\psi K_S`$ is in general different from the true value $`\beta `$ in SM. This can be seen explicitly from the following relation

$`\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{J/\psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\beta \stackrel{~}{r}^B\mathrm{sin}2\varphi ^B}{\sqrt{1+2\stackrel{~}{r}^B\mathrm{cos}2(\varphi ^B+\beta )+(\stackrel{~}{r}^B)^2}}}.`$ (28)
The usual fit of the profile of the UT has also been made under the assumption that there is no new physics beyond the SM. The angle “$`\beta _{fit}^{SM}`$” which is obtained from the measurement of $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ and $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing is usually assumed to be the true angle $`\beta `$ associated with the phase of $`V_{td}^{}`$. In general, one should not make any assumption for purpose of new physics probing, since it may be greatly modified when new physics effects come into the evaluation of $`ϵ_K`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_{(s)}}`$. As we have discussed before even if we still use the same formulae as the ones in SM to extract the angle $`\beta `$, we may only get the effective values of $`\rho _{fit}^{SM}`$, $`\eta _{fit}^{SM}`$, and $`\beta _{fit}^{SM}`$. Their values may be far away from the true ones, this is because the experiment measured results for $`ϵ_K`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_{(s)}}`$ are the total ones which actually include all possible new physics contributions if new physics truly exists.

Combining Eq.(23) and (26) and using the definition of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ in Eq.(13), we come to the following simple relation

$`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ $`=`$ $`C_K{\displaystyle \frac{1+r_{tt}^B}{1+r_{tt}^K}}\left[\left|1{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_K}{ϵ_K}}\right|\omega \overline{\eta }(1+r_{ct})\right]\sqrt{1+2\stackrel{~}{r}^B\mathrm{cos}2(\varphi ^B+\beta )+(\stackrel{~}{r}^B)^2},`$ (29)
The relation between $`\beta _{fit}^{SM}`$ and $`\beta `$ is straight forward,

$`\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{fit}^{SM}={\displaystyle \frac{(1\omega \overline{\eta }_{fit}^{SM})\mathrm{sin}2\beta }{\sqrt{1+2\stackrel{~}{r}^B\mathrm{cos}2(\varphi ^B+\beta )+(\stackrel{~}{r}^B)^2}[\left|1\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_K/ϵ_K\right|\omega \overline{\eta }(1+r_{ct})]}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+r_{tt}^K}{1+r_{tt}^B}}\right)`$ (30)
To probe new physics effects, let us define the ratio $`R_\beta `$ between the two observables $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{J/\psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{fit}`$ as follows

$`R_\beta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{J/\psi }}{\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{fit}^{SM}}}`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+r_{tt}^B}{1+r_{tt}^K}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\left|1\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_K/ϵ_K\right|\omega \overline{\eta }(1+r_{ct})}{1\omega \overline{\eta }_{fit}^{SM}}}\right]\left(1\stackrel{~}{r}^B{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _B}{\mathrm{sin}2\beta }}\right).`$ (32)
Note that the factor $`\sqrt{1+2\stackrel{~}{r}^B\mathrm{cos}2(\varphi ^B+\beta )+(\stackrel{~}{r}^B)^2}`$ in Eq.(29) and (28) cancel each other in the expression of $`R_\beta `$. In the SM, $`R_\beta `$ is clearly equal to unity. From the above equation the deviation from unity due to the new physics effects can be expressed as the products of three terms: (1) The ratio of new physics corrections to the $`tt`$ quark loop in the box diagram between $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ and $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ mixings. Since almost all the new physics models give similar contribution to $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ and $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ mixing, their effect may cancel in some extent. (2) The corrections to the $`cc`$ and $`ct`$-quark loops in the box diagram in kaon meson as well as the ones from the additional contributions to $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ mixing which contain new CP-violating phases. The corrections from $`cc`$, $`ct`$ loops are suppressed due to the small quark mass $`m_c`$ if the additional contributions come from the new scalar particles such as the charged Higgs particle $`H^\pm `$ in some models. However, in general case, the corrections may be considerable. Although the small mass difference between $`K^0`$ and $`\overline{K}^0`$ has imposed a strong constraint on the real part of $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{12}`$ , its imaginary part can still be large and result in a sizable $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_K`$ such as the superweak-type interactions. (3) The corrections from the additional contributions to $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ with new CP-violating phases. It can be seen that the corrections depend on the product of $`\stackrel{~}{r}^B`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi _B`$. If $`\varphi ^B=0`$ the correction to $`R_\beta `$ disappears. This is directly related to the cancelation of the factor $`\sqrt{1+2\stackrel{~}{r}^B\mathrm{cos}2(\varphi ^B+\beta )+(\stackrel{~}{r}^B)^2}`$ in the ratio $`R_\beta `$. Although the new physics with zero $`\varphi _B`$ can affect both $`\beta _{J/\psi }`$ and $`\beta _{fit}`$, their net effect on $`R_\beta `$ is diminished.

## III $`R_\beta `$ and $`\beta _{fit}^{SM}`$ from the global fit

To get the value of $`R_\beta `$ from the data, one needs to know the values of $`\beta _{J/\psi }`$ and $`\beta _{fit}^{SM}`$. Unlike the measurement of $`\beta _{J/\psi }`$ which is theoretically clean, the extraction of $`\beta _{fit}^{SM}`$ seems to surfer from some uncertainties as it involves parameters with large theoretical uncertainties. There is a long time debate on the treatment of the theoretical errors. Basicly there are three different approaches.

(1) Assuming all the errors, both experimental and theoretical ones are the random variables which obey Gaussian distribution . The most recent fitted results at $`95\%CL`$ are :

$`0.82\mathrm{sin}2\alpha _{fit}^{SM}0.42,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0.49}\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{fit}^{SM}0.94,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}42}^{}\gamma _{fit}^{SM}83^{}`$ (33)
(2) The distribution of experimental error is treated as Gaussian, but one imposes a $`prior`$ flat distribution on the theoretical error, i.e. assuming the theoretical parameters are the random variables which are uniformly populated in some reasonable regions , then by using the Bayesian approach, the distributions of the parameters can be determined . The recent fits using this method give the results

$`0.88\mathrm{sin}2\alpha _{fit}^{SM}0.04,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0.57}\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{fit}^{SM}0.83,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}42}^{}\gamma _{fit}^{SM}67^{}`$ (34)
(3) The distribution of experimental error is treated as Gaussian, but one $`doesnot`$ assume any distribution on the theoretical error, since they are unknown parameters which should have a unique value. their errors should be largely deduced with the improvement of the theory and the experiments. To get a quantitative result, the space of the allowed region for the theoretical parameters are scanned. For each set of parameters a contour at some confidence level ( for example $`68\%`$ or $`95\%`$) is made, then the whole region enveloping all the contours is considered as the allowed region at some $`overall`$ confidence level. Note that in doing this , the final results will have no clear probability explanation. The most recent fit gives

$`0.95\mathrm{sin}2\alpha _{fit}^{SM}0.5,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0.5}\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{fit}^{SM}0.85,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}40}^{}\gamma _{fit}^{SM}84^{}`$ (35)
In this paper, to get a more conservative conclusion, we adopt the last method and update the fit with the latest data on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$

Let us briefly describe the method and parameters used in the fitting of the unitarity triangle (UT). The detailed description of the fitting procedure can be found in Ref..

Among the four Wolfenstein parameters $`A,\rho ,\eta `$ and $`\lambda `$, the value of $`\lambda `$ has been well determined with a relative high precision through semileptonic kaon decays, $`K^+\pi ^0e^+\nu _e`$ and $`K_L^0\pi ^{}e^+\nu _e`$. In the fit, we quote the value of $`\lambda =0.2196`$ and take it as a fixed parameter.

The constraints on the apex of UT can be obtained from various experiments of the semileptonic $`B`$ decays. In $`bc`$ transition such as $`BX_cl\nu `$ and $`\overline{B^0}D^+l^+\overline{\nu _e}`$, the value of $`|V_{cb}|`$ can be determined. Here we quote the value of $`V_{cb}`$ from the most recent LEP results

$`|V_{cb}|=(40.4\pm 1.8)\times 10^3,(A=0.850\pm 0.037)`$ (36)
which is an average of measurements between inclusive and exclusive $`B`$ decays. From $`B\rho l^+\overline{\nu _e}`$ the value of $`|V_{ub}|`$ could be extracted. However, in the determination of $`V_{ub}`$, some model dependences have to be involved in the evaluation of the ratio $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$, which results in a considerable theoretical error. For a recent review of the theoretical error in determining $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ , we refer to the reference . The recent measurements of $`V_{ub}`$ from LEP and CLEO collaboration give the following values:

$`|V_{ub}|`$ $`=`$ $`(4.13_{0.47}^{+0.42}(\text{stat.+det.})_{0.48}^{0.43}(bc\text{ syst.})_{0.25}^{+0.24}(bu\text{ sys.})`$ (38)
$`\pm 0.02(\tau _b)\pm 0.20(\text{Model})\times 10^3.(\text{LEP})`$
$`|V_{ub}|`$ $`=`$ $`(3.25\pm 0.14(\text{stat.})_{0.29}^{+0.21}(\text{syst.})\pm 0.55(\text{model})\times 10^3.(\text{CLEO})`$ (39)
Note that both the determination of $`|V_{ub}|`$ and $`|V_{cb}|`$ may still suffer from sizable theoretical uncertainties. In the fit, we take the central value of $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ as a free theoretical parameter which lies in the range

$`<V_{ub}/V_{cb}>[0.07,0.1]`$ (40)
and the value of $`|V_{ub}|`$ has the following form

$`|V_{ub}|=<V_{ub}/V_{cb}>|V_{cb}|\pm 0.14`$ (41)
It is noted that possible new physics contributions to the semileptonic bottom meson decays are in general expected to be small, the extracted CKM parameters $`|V_{cb}|`$ and $`|V_{ub}|`$ are regarded as the true ones $`|V_{cb}|=A\lambda ^2`$ and $`|V_{ub}|=\sqrt{\rho ^2+\eta ^2}`$.

The other important constraint comes from the measurements of $`ϵ_K`$. The expression of $`ϵ_K`$ has been discussed in the previous section. From Eq.(23), the major theoretical error comes from the hadronic parameter $`\widehat{B}_K`$, and the QCD correction $`\eta _1`$, and $`\eta _3`$. the recent lattice calculations give the result

$`0.8\widehat{B}_K1.1.`$ (42)
The errors of $`\eta _i`$ can be found in the previous section. There are also experimental errors on the values of $`c`$ and $`t`$ running quark masses,

$`\overline{m}_c(m_c)=1.25\pm 0.1\text{GeV},\overline{m}_t(m_t)=165.0\pm 5.0\text{ GeV}`$ (43)
The constraint of $`R_t`$ could arises from both $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ and $`B_s^0\overline{B}_s^0`$ mixing. Here the parameter with a large uncertainty is $`f_B\sqrt{B_B}`$. In the fit, we take the value

$`160\text{MeV}f_B\sqrt{B_B}240\text{MeV}`$ (44)
Recently, the BaBaR and Belle Collaboration has reported their first measurements on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$. The combined result from the hadronic and semileptonic decays is  :

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$ $`=`$ $`0.512\pm 0.017(\text{stat.})\pm 0.022(\text{syst.})ps^1\text{(BaBaR)}`$ (45)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$ $`=`$ $`0.456\pm 0.008(\text{stat.})\pm 0.030(\text{syst.})ps^1\text{(Belle)}`$ (46)
comparing with the old world average value of $`0.472\pm 0.017ps^1`$ , the result of BaBaR is slightly higher. Now the new world average is

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}=0.478\pm 0.013ps^1`$ (47)
Besides $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B`$, the mass difference of $`B_s^0`$ and $`\overline{B}_s^0`$ also imposes a strong constraint on the size of $`R_t`$. It is helpful to introduce a $`SU(3)`$ breaking factor $`\xi ^2(f_{B_s}\sqrt{B_{B_s}})^2/(f_B\sqrt{B_B})^2`$ , the constraint on $`R_t`$ from $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ reads

$`R_t{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{\lambda }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_{B_s}}{m_{B_d}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}|_{min}}}}`$ (48)
In the fit , we take $`\xi [1.08,1.2]`$ . The lower bound of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ is now updated to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}>14.9\text{ps}^1`$ at $`95\%`$CL  which is also higher than the previous value of $`14.3`$ ps<sup>-1</sup>. This bound is obtained through the so called ’amplitude method’ . The latest data indicate that $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}17.7`$ ps<sup>-1</sup>. If this result can be confirmed by the future experiment, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ will impose strong constraint on new physics models .

The other two important CP-violation observables are the direct CP violation parameter $`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ from the time dependent CP asymmetry of decay $`BJ/\psi K_S`$. As the measurements of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ and $`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$ are now preliminary, they are not considered in our present fitting . However, it needs to emphasize that including the constraints from $`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$ may impose a nontrivial lower bound of $`\eta >0.32`$ . It would be interesting to further discuss its constraint with the improved prediction for $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ .

The basic idea of the fit is based on the least square method. The first step of the procedure is to construct a quantity $`\chi ^2`$ which has the following form

$`\chi ^2={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(f_i(A,\rho ,\eta )<f_i>)^2}{\sigma _i^2}}`$ (49)
where $`<f_i>`$ and $`\sigma _i`$ are the central values and corresponding errors of the experimentally measured observables. They contain $`|V_{cb}|,|V_{ub}|,|ϵ_K|,\mathrm{\Delta }m_B`$ and $`m_c,m_t`$. $`f_i(A,\rho ,\eta )`$ are the values calculated from the theories. They are the functions of parameters $`A,\rho ,\eta `$. The set of $`A,\rho ,\eta `$ which minimizes the $`\chi ^2`$ will be regarded as the best estimated values. On the determination of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$, the ’ amplitude method’  is adopted, which uses the amplitude curves measured from the experiments  and add a term $`\chi _s^2`$ to the total $`\chi ^2`$:

$`\chi _s^2={\displaystyle \frac{(1𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}))^2}{\sigma _𝒜^2(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s})}}`$ (50)
Note that there is an alternative approach to build the log-likelihood function in which one uses the values relative to the ones at $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s=\mathrm{}`$, i.e. use $`[\frac{\left(𝒜1\right)^2}{\sigma _A^2}\frac{𝒜^2}{\sigma _A^2}]`$ instead of $`\frac{\left(𝒜1\right)^2}{\sigma _A^2}`$ . The detailed comparison between these two approaches can be found in Ref.. In the fit, we choose $`A,\rho ,\eta `$ and $`m_c,m_t`$ as free parameters to be fitted and scan the allowed range for the theoretical parameters $`<V_{ub}/V_{cb}>`$, $`\widehat{B}_K,f_B\sqrt{B_B},\eta _s`$, $`\eta _1`$, and $`\eta _3`$. For each set of theoretical parameters, a $`68\%(95\%)`$ CL contour which corresponds to $`\chi ^2=\chi _{min}^2+2.4(6.0)`$ is made, then the region enveloping all the contours is the allowed region for $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$ at an $`overall68\%(95\%)`$ level. As usual, a $`\chi ^2`$ probability cut is used to reject the contours with relative high $`\chi _{min}^2`$ which means that the fit is not consistent.

The fit is implemented by using the program package MINUIT. The result is shown in Fig.3. From the figure, one can read off the allowed region for $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$. The results are

$`0.09\rho _{fit}^{SM}0.28,0.23\eta _{fit}^{SM}0.46(at68\%CL)`$ (51)
$`0.10\rho _{fit}^{SM}0.30,0.20\eta _{fit}^{SM}0.49(at95\%CL)`$ (52)
or equivalently,

$`0.89\mathrm{sin}2\alpha _{fit}^{SM}0.37,0.56\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{fit}^{SM}0.85,41^{}\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma _{fit}^{SM}75^{},(at68\%CL)`$ (53)
$`0.95\mathrm{sin}2\alpha _{fit}^{SM}0.41,0.48\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{fit}^{SM}0.88,38^{}\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma _{fit}^{SM}76^{},(at95\%CL)`$ (54)
and the range for the combination factor of the CKM matrix elements, $`Im\lambda _tA^2\lambda ^5\eta `$, used in the calculation of direct CP-violating parameter $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ in kaon decay, is given by

$`0.76\times 10^4Im\lambda _t=A^2\lambda ^5\eta 1.73\times 10^4,(at68\%CL)`$ (55)
$`0.66\times 10^4Im\lambda _t=A^2\lambda ^5\eta 1.84\times 10^4,(at95\%CL)`$ (56)
As the allowed ranges for theoretical errors which are the main sources of total errors are the same in both fits , the results at 68$`\%`$ and 95$`\%`$CL are quite similar, It is needed to note that by using the scanning method, there is no probability explanation of the contours. One can not get the usual central value of the fitted parameters.

In the fitting, the $`\chi ^2`$ probability cut is set to be $`Prob(\chi ^2)5\%`$. The final results depend on the cut. We have checked that a lower cut such as $`2\%`$ or $`1\%`$ will give a larger allowed range, which allows the angle $`\gamma `$ to be greater than $`90^{}`$. The probability of large $`\gamma `$ has been widely discussed in Refs.. to meet the recent CLEO data on hadronic charmless $`B`$ decays. However, the model independent analysis show that in general there are two solutions for $`\gamma `$ from the charmless $`B`$ decays. The one with $`\gamma <90^{}`$ and the other one with $`\gamma >90^{}`$ . The data of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B`$ especially on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ may strongly constrain $`\gamma `$ to be less than $`90^{}`$. From Fig.3, with the cut of $`5\%`$, there is no indication of $`\gamma >90^{}`$.

With the angle $`\beta _{fit}`$ obtained from the above fit and the average value for $`\beta _{J/\psi }`$, the ratio $`R_\beta `$ is found to be

$`0.57R_\beta ^{exp.}1.1(at68\%CL),0.31R_\beta ^{exp.}1.36(at95\%CL)`$ (57)
The present data prefer a small value of $`R_\beta <1`$ at 1-$`\sigma `$ level. If it is confirmed by the future experiments, it will of course be a signal of new physics. Further more, $`R_\beta `$ may be used to distinguish different effects of new physics. This will be discussed in the next section.

## IV  new physics effects on the ratio $`R_\beta `$

The contributions of new physics to $`R_\beta `$ depend on the models. In this section, we choose two type of new physics models to illustrate new physics effects. one of them is the model with MFV, the other is the models with new CP-violating phases, such as the S2HDM.

### A $`R_\beta `$ in models with MFV

In a class of the models with MFV, the expression of $`R_\beta `$ may be greatly simplified. As MFV implies that there are no new operators beyond the SM, the values of $`r_{tt}^B`$ and $`r_{tt}^K`$ which come from the same internal $`tt`$ quark loop in $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ and $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ mixings must be the same . MFV also means that new CP-violating phases must vanish. Thus the following conditions hold

$`r_{tt}^B=r_{tt}^K,\stackrel{~}{r}^B=0,\varphi ^B=0,\text{and}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_K=0`$ (58)
Thus one has

$`\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{J/\psi }=\mathrm{sin}2\beta ,`$ (59)
which shows that in this case the angle $`\beta _{J/\psi }`$ measured from $`BJ/\psi K_S`$ is the ’true’ angle $`\beta `$ up to a four fold ambiguity. Assuming that $`r_{ct}`$ is small, which is a good approximation for many models , the ratio $`R_\beta `$ has the following simple form

$`R_\beta |_{MFV}={\displaystyle \frac{1\omega \overline{\eta }}{1\omega \overline{\eta }_{fit}^{SM}}}`$ (60)
Since the value of $`|V_{ub}|`$ is extracted from the semileptonic $`B\pi (\rho )e\nu _e`$ decay dominated by the tree diagrams, it is widely believed that its value is not likely to be affected by new physics. This may result in the relation: $`\overline{\rho }^2+\overline{\eta }^2=(\overline{\rho }_{fit}^{SM})^2+(\overline{\eta }_{fit}^{SM})^2=R_u^2`$. Combining this relation with Eqs.(59) and (13), the values of $`\overline{\rho }`$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$ can be solved as functions of two obserbales $`R_u`$ and $`\beta _{J/\psi }`$.

$`\overline{\rho }=R_u\mathrm{cos}\phi _\pm ,\overline{\eta }=R_u\mathrm{sin}\phi _\pm .`$ (61)
with $`\phi _\pm =\mathrm{sin}^1(\mathrm{sin}\beta _{J/\psi }/R_u)\pm \beta _{J/\psi }`$. Note that the solution for $`\phi _+`$ corresponds to $`\overline{\rho }<0`$. This is quite different from the value of $`\overline{\rho }_{fit}^{SM}`$ which seems be positive under the constraint from the data of $`B_s^0\overline{B}_s^0`$ mixing. If one assumes that the difference between true $`\overline{\rho }`$ and the fitted $`\overline{\rho }_{fit}^{SM}`$ caused by new physics effects is not too large, the solution for $`\phi _+`$ could be ignored. Taking the value of $`R_u`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{J/\psi }`$, one may find at 1$`\sigma `$ level

$`1.03R_\beta |_{MFV}1.36\text{ for }\phi _{}.`$ (62)
For $`\phi _+`$ solution, one gets a small value for $`R_\beta |_{MFV}`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.90}R_\beta |_{MFV}1.21`$. In obtaining these numerical values, the errors of $`\omega `$ and $`\overline{\eta }_{fit}^{SM}`$ are considered to be independent for simplicity. In general, they may be treated to be correlated as they all depend on the hadronic parameters. For a more detailed analysis, it should be interesting to include the correlation effects.

Comparing $`R_\beta |_{MFV}`$ with the experimental values of $`R_\beta ^{exp.}`$ in Eq.(57) , it is found that the models with MFV prefer to give a large value of $`R_\beta `$ which is not likely to agree with the current data. If the disagreement is confirmed by the future more precise data, all the models with MFV will be ruled out. It implies that new physics effects with flavor changing interactions beyond the CKM quark mixing must be involved to explain the data.

### B $`R_\beta `$ in S2HDM

The S2HDM without imposing discrete symmetries is a good example for models which can give nonzero value of $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_K,\stackrel{~}{r}^B`$ and $`\varphi ^B`$. In the S2HDM, the tree level flavor changing neutral current can be induced from the scalar interactions between neutral Higgs bosons and quarks. As all the Yukawa couplings in the model are allowed to be complex, the S2HDM can give rich sources of CP violation. It is not difficult to find that the values of $`r_{tt}^B`$, $`\stackrel{~}{r}^B`$ and $`\varphi ^B`$ in S2HDM are given by

$`r_{tt}^B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left|\xi _t\right|^4y_t{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _{tt}^{HH}}{\eta _B}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_V^{HH}(y_t)}{B^{WW}(x_t)}}+2\left|\xi _t\right|^2y_t{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _{tt}^{HW}}{\eta _B}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_V^{HW}(y_t,y_W)}{B^{WW}(x_t)}}`$ (63)
$`\stackrel{~}{r}^B\mathrm{sin}2\varphi ^B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{B_B}}{B_B}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{3}\pi vm_B}{m_{H_k^0}m_t}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_d}{m_b}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V_{td}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{Im}(Y_{k,13}^d)^2}{\eta _BB^{WW}(x_t)}}`$ (64)
where $`\xi _q`$ is the Yukawa coupling constant between charged Higgs and $`q`$ quark. $`B_{(V)}^{WW(HW,HH)}`$ are the integral functions of the box diagrams  with variable $`x_t=m_t^2/m_W^2`$, $`y_t=m_t^2/m_H^2`$ and $`y_W=m_W^2/m_H^2`$. $`\eta _{tt}^{HH}`$ is the QCD correction. It is seen that the value of $`r_{tt}^B`$ is directly related to the coupling $`\xi _t`$. In Fig.4, $`r_{tt}^B`$ is plotted as a function of the charged Higgs mass $`m_{H^\pm }`$ with different values of $`\xi _t`$. It can be seen that the typical value of $`r_{tt}^B`$ is around $`0.2`$. For large $`\xi _t`$ , $`r_{tt}^B`$ could become large.

The value of $`\stackrel{~}{r}^B`$ depends on the imaginary part of $`Y_{k,ij}^f`$ which is given by reduced Yukawa couplings between the $`k`$-th neutral Higgs boson and quarks. $`\stackrel{~}{B}_B`$ and $`B_B`$ are the bag parameters for $`(S+P)(SP)`$ and $`(VA)(VA)`$ four quark operators respectively.

Similar calculations can be made for the $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ mixing. $`r_{tt}^K,r_{ct}`$ in S2HDM are given by

$`r_{tt}^K`$ $`=`$ $`r_{tt}^B`$ (65)
$`r_{ct}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{y_ty_c}(\frac{x_t}{x_c})\frac{1}{2}\eta _{tt}^{HH}|\xi _c\xi _t|^2B_V^{HH}(y_c,y_t)+4\eta _{ct}^{HW}Re(\xi _c\xi _t)B_V^{HW}(y_c,y_t,y_W)}{(\frac{x_t}{x_c})\eta _BB^{WW}(x_c,x_t)\eta _1B^{WW}(x_c)}}`$ (66)
Since $`x_t/x_c`$ is of order $`𝒪(10^4)`$, $`r_{ct}^K`$ can be approximately written as

$`r_{ct}^K{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{y_ty_c}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _{tt}^{HH}}{\eta _B}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_V^{HH}(y_c,y_t)}{B^{WW}(x_c,x_t)}}|\xi _c\xi _t|^2`$ (68)
As the value of $`\sqrt{y_ty_c}`$ is of order $`10^2`$ and $`|\xi _c\xi _t|^2`$ is typicly of order $`1`$, one may find that $`r_{ct}`$ is relatively small and of order $`𝒪(10^210^1)`$. The S2HDM contribution to $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_K`$ is complicate, it may arise from both short and long distance interactions. The detailed discussion of $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_K`$ can be found in Ref.

If one ignores the $`r_{ct}^K`$ , the ratio $`R_\beta `$ mainly depends on the value of $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_K`$ , $`ImY_{k,13}^d`$ and $`m_{H^0}`$ as well as the true value of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$. The ratio $`R_\beta `$ has the following form

$`R_\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{|1\stackrel{~}{ϵ_K}/ϵ_K|\omega \overline{\eta }}{1\omega \overline{\eta }_{fit}^{SM}}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{B_B}}{B_B}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{3}\pi vm_B}{m_{H_k^0}m_t}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_d}{m_b}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|V_{td}^2|}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{Im}(Y_{k,13}^d)^2}{\eta _BB^{WW}(x_t)}}\right)`$ (69)
Which shows that the new interactions between neutral Higgs and quarks are the main sources for the changing of ratio $`R_\beta `$. The value of $`R_\beta `$ as the function of neutral Higgs mass $`m_{H^0}`$ is plotted in Fig.5 with different values of $`ImY_{k,13}^d`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_K/ϵ_K`$. Where for simplicity we have taken $`\overline{\eta }\overline{\eta }_{fit}=0.35`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}_BB_B`$. From the figure, the value of $`R_\beta `$ can be smaller than 1 for positive $`Im(Y_{K,13}^d)^2`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_K/ϵ_K`$. Thus the present data can be easily explained in the S2HDM.

## V  conclusions

In conclusion, we have investigated the measurement of the UT angle $`\beta `$ within and beyond the SM. It has been shown that if new physics beyond the SM truly exists, the angle $`\beta `$ extracted from the global fit(denoted by $`\beta _{fit}^{SM}`$) and the one extracted from $`BJ/\psi K_S`$ (denoted by $`\beta _{J/\psi }`$) could be in general all different from the ’true’ angle $`\beta `$ in the SM. The observable $`R_\beta `$, which is the ratio between the angle $`\beta `$ measured from the time dependent CP asymmetry of decay $`BJ/\psi K_S`$ and the one extracted from the global fit, is introduced and studied in detail. By using the scanning method, the value of $`R_\beta `$ is obtained from an update of the fit of the UT with the latest data and it is found to lie in the range.

$`0.57R_\beta ^{exp.}1.1(at68\%CL),0.31R_\beta ^{exp.}1.36(at95\%CL)`$As the SM calculation gives $`R_\beta =1`$, the deviation of $`R_\beta `$ from unity is a clean signal of new physics. On the study of new physics effects, we have given a general parameterization of $`R_\beta `$. By using this parameterization, the effects from the models with MFV and the S2HDM have been investigated in detail. It has been found that the MFV models seem to give a large $`R_\beta `$ relative to the current data. If it can be comfirmed by the future experiments, it will indicate that this kind of new physics are difficult to explain the small value of $`R_\beta `$. Such models include type I and type II 2HDM and some simple versions of SUSY. Thus new physics with additional phases should be considered. The most recent discussions on models with MFV. can also be found in Ref. . As an illustration for those models with additional phases beyond the one in the CKM matrix element, the S2HDM effects on $`R_\beta `$ has been studied, especially, if the superweak type contributions to $`ϵ_K`$ are considered, it could easily coincide with the data.

acknowledgments

One of the authors (Y.L.Wu) would like to thank L. Wolfenstein for helpful discussions. This work is supported in part by NSFC under grant No. 19625514 and Chinese Academy of Sciences.


text:
# Harmonic generation in ring-shaped molecules

## I Introduction

The generation of harmonics (HG) through the interaction of atoms with intense laser fields is a topic which has been broadly studied from both a theoretical and an experimental point of view. The big interest in the HG is due to the possible use as a source of short-wavelength radiation. In fact, through the harmonic emission it is possible to generate coherent XUV radiation using table-top lasers. Recently, harmonics of wavelength as short as 67 Å have been reported . The harmonics spectra obtained from a single atom in a monochromatic laser field present some common and well known features: (i) only linearly polarized odd harmonics are generated , (ii) the spectrum has a plateau structure , (iii) the plateau is extended up to a cut-off that is located around $`I_p+3.17U_p`$, where $`I_p`$ is the ionization energy of the atom and $`U_p`$ is the ponderomotive energy . The presence of only odd harmonics is due to symmetry reasons (a more detailed argument will be discussed in the next Section) and the location of the cut-off can be explained, at least qualitatively, with the so-called “simple man’s theory” . The interaction of a single atom with two circularly polarized lasers of frequencies $`\omega `$ and $`2\omega `$ has been investigated recently ; it has been found that while the harmonic orders $`3n1`$ and $`3n+1`$ are allowed, the harmonic order $`3n`$ is forbidden by the selection rules of the dipole emission, where $`n`$ is any positive integer. These results agreed with a previous experiment .

More recently, the generation of harmonics in more complex systems than the single atom has become a strongly addressed topic. A model for harmonic emission from atomic clusters has been proposed . The harmonics generated by electrons moving in the periodic potential of a crystal have been investigated also .

In this work we want to study the generation of harmonics in ring-shaped molecules, like benzene and other aromatic compounds. This kind of molecules exhibits an invariance under a rotation of a certain angle around the axis which is orthogonal to the molecule plane and goes through its center. In this case the potential is periodic in the azimuthal direction.

The HG from ring-like molecules interacting with a circularly polarized field presents many different features with respect to the single-atom case in a linearly polarized field: (i) within the same harmonic range fewer lines are emitted and the higher is the number of atoms in the molecule, the lower is the number of emitted lines, (ii) odd and even harmonics are equally possible, (iii) the harmonics are alternately left or right circularly polarized. In our opinion, all these peculiar properties make this topic challenging and worth to be studied in detail.

The paper is organized as following: in Section II we summarize the derivation of the selection rules for the ring-shaped molecules obtained by Alon et al. . In Section III the numerical model used in our simulations is presented and discussed. In Section IV we describe the interaction between the ring molecule and the laser field. In Section V we show the results obtained for different intensities and frequencies together with a broad discussion. Finally, in Section VI we give a summary and an outlook. Atomic units (a.u.) are used throughout the paper.

## II Selection Rules

In the case of atoms or molecules which are shone by a laser field of frequency $`\omega `$, the Hamiltonian is periodic in time with a period $`\tau =2\pi /\omega `$: $`H(t+\tau )=H(t)`$. The time-dependent Schrödinger equation (TDSE) for such a system can be written as

$$\left[H(t)i\frac{}{t}\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_𝒲(\stackrel{}{r},t)=0.$$
(1)
The solutions are of the form (Floquet theorem):

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_𝒲(\stackrel{}{r},t)=\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{r},t)\text{e}{}_{}{}^{i𝒲t}\text{with}\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{r},t+\tau )=\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{r},t),$$
(2)
where $`𝒲`$ is the quasi-energy and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ is a square integrable function.
Because the set of all functions which are square-integrable in a certain interval and have a finite norm over a cycle, forms a composite Hilbert space, we can apply the extended Hilbert space formalism. The probability to get the $`n`$th harmonic from a system in a state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_𝒲(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ is

$$\sigma _𝒲^{(n)}n^4\left|\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{r},t)|\widehat{\mu }e^{in\omega t}|\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{r},t)\right|^2,$$
(3)
where $`\widehat{\mu }`$ is the dipole operator and the double bracket stands for the integration over space and time.

In the case of an atom (in the dipole approximation) the Hamiltonian $`(t)[H(t)i\frac{}{t}]`$ is invariant under the so-called second order dynamical symmetry operator (DSO) ,

$$𝒫_2=(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r},tt+\pi /\omega ).$$
(4)
Therefore, the states $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are simultaneous eigenfunctions of $`(t)`$ and the second order DSO with eigenvalues $`\pm 1`$. The $`n`$th harmonic is therefore emitted only if

$$\mathrm{\Phi }|\widehat{\mu }e^{in\omega t}|\mathrm{\Phi }=𝒫_2\mathrm{\Phi }|𝒫_2\widehat{\mu }e^{in\omega t}𝒫_2^1|𝒫_2\mathrm{\Phi }0,$$
(5)
leading to

$$\widehat{\mu }(\stackrel{}{r})e^{in\omega t}=\widehat{\mu }(\stackrel{}{r})e^{in\omega (t+\pi /\omega )}$$
(6)
that is fulfilled only with odd $`n`$’s. Instead, where the Hamiltonian $`(t)`$ is invariant under a rotation around an $`N`$-fold symmetry axis $`𝒫_2`$ can be replaced by

$$𝒫_N=\left(\phi \phi +\frac{2\pi }{N},tt+\frac{2\pi }{N\omega }\right),$$
(7)
where $`\phi `$ is the angular coordinate around the symmetry axis. With an algebra similar to the single atom case we derive

$$e^{\pm i\left(\phi +\frac{2\pi }{N}\right)}e^{in\omega \left(t+\frac{2\pi }{N\omega }\right)}=e^{\pm i\phi }e^{in\omega t}e^{i\frac{2\pi \left(n\pm 1\right)}{N}}=1,$$
(8)
from which $`n=kN\pm 1,k𝒩`$ follows. That means that the higher is the symmetry order $`N`$ the less are the generated harmonics within a fixed frequency interval. In the limit of a continuous symmetry $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ a circularly polarized laser does not generate any harmonics. The two harmonics of each couple have opposite polarization, clockwise and anticlockwise .

## III Numerical Model

In order to keep the numerical effort manageable we restrict ourselves to a two-dimensional (2D) model where the molecule plane and the rotating electric field are properly represented. We study a single active electron in a ring-shaped potential of $`N`$ ions. Different kinds of “smoothed” potentials can be used for this purpose . The potential used in our simulations reads

$$V(\rho ,\phi )=\frac{A}{\sqrt{(\rho r_0)^2+\beta }}(\alpha \text{cos}(N\phi )+2\alpha )$$
(9)
where $`r_0`$ is the radius of the molecule, and $`\rho `$ and $`\phi `$ are the polar coordinates. $`\beta `$ is the parameter which gives the “degree of smoothness” of the potential and determines the width of the ground state along the ring. $`\alpha `$ moves the local maxima of the potential keeping the minima constant (the parameter $`\alpha `$ was introduced in order to avoid the presence of points where $`V=0`$ for finite $`\rho `$, because this could generate non-physical ionization). Finally, $`A`$ is the “strength” of the potential. For our simulations we chose $`\alpha =0.99`$ and $`\beta =0.38`$. Once the values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, which lead to reasonable model properties, have been found and fixed, we varied $`A`$ for choosing the ionization energy of the molecule. The potential has $`N`$ oscillations in the azimuthal direction, each minimum representing the location of one of the $`N`$ ions. The potential goes to zero for $`\rho \mathrm{}`$.

It has been tested that the generation of harmonics is very weakly dependent on the fine details of the atomic potential. Instead, it is strongly dependent on its geometry and symmetries. It is therefore worth to look for a model potential that, keeping the proper symmetry, can be quite easily numerically optimized, i.e., requiring as few as possible grid points. In order to achieve this minimization of the number of grid points and to not break any physical symmetry we used a polar grid. Moreover, we paid attention to use always a number of points in the azimuthal direction that is an integer multiple of $`N`$. We will take $`N=6`$, like in benzene, and therefore the potential will exhibit a $`C_6`$ symmetry around the orthogonal axis.

For a good understanding of the harmonic spectra it is essential to study the level scheme in detail. Therefore, in order to characterize our model we have calculated the energy of the first six states for different potential strengths $`A`$ in the interval between 0.2 and 1.6. In this interval the energy of the ground state of the molecule decreases from $`0.14`$ down to $`2.44`$. The first, the third and the fourth states are non-degenerate, the others have a double degeneracy. In Fig. 1 the energetic behavior of those states versus $`A`$ is shown. Contour plots of the six states for an intermediate value of $`A=0.80`$ are shown in Fig. 2. The pattern shape and the symmetries do not change with $`A`$, but the “average radius”, i.e., the spatial extension, does. Clearly, for low values of $`A`$ the probability density is more loosely bound than for high $`A`$. In particular this is true for the upper states. For the sake of easy reference later on, we name the six states $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟏}_a`$, $`\mathrm{𝟏}_b`$, $`\mathrm{𝟐}_a`$, $`\mathrm{𝟐}_b`$, $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟒}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟓}_a`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟓}_b`$. The subscripts are used just to distinguish among the degenerate states. The non-degenerate states $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟒}`$ have the full $`C_6`$ symmetry.

As one can infer from Fig. 1 the six states can be divided in two branches: the first one, containing the first four states, $`\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝟑}`$, decreases very fast as $`A`$ increases, and a second one, containing the two upper states, $`\mathrm{𝟒}\mathrm{𝟓}`$, which decreases much more slowly and lies even in the continuum for $`A<0.4`$. As a result, for an increasing $`A`$ an increasing gap between the two branches appears. To obtain the ionization potential of real benzene ($`0.34`$ a.u.) we have to choose $`A=0.375`$. Surprisingly, at that position the level scheme of our simple model resembles the molecular orbital (MO) scheme of the real benzene very well . In particular, the states $`\mathrm{𝟒}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟓}`$ are still in the continuum so that only the four states $`\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝟑}`$, possessing the same degeneracies as the MOs, are bound. A magnification of the region around $`A=0.375`$ is also shown in Fig. 1. Another parameter that will play a role in the HG is the level spacing $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ between the ground state and the first excited state. For an increasing $`A`$, i.e., a decreasing ground state energy, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ decreases.

## IV Molecule-Field Interaction

In dipole approximation the time-dependent Schrödinger equation for a single electron in a laser field $`\stackrel{}{E}(t)`$ and under the influence of an effective ionic potential $`V(\stackrel{}{r})`$ is given in length gauge by

$$i\frac{}{t}\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{r},t)=\left(\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{}^2+V(\stackrel{}{r})+\stackrel{}{E}(t)\stackrel{}{r}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{r},t).$$
(10)
In our case the dipole approximation is excellent because the molecule has a size much smaller than the wavelength of the laser field. We used a circularly polarized laser field that in cartesian coordinates is described by

$$\stackrel{}{E}(t)=\frac{(t)}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\text{cos}(\omega t)\stackrel{}{e}_x+\text{sin}(\omega t)\stackrel{}{e}_y\right),$$
(11)
where $`(t)`$ is a slowly varying envelope with amplitude $`\widehat{}`$, and $`\omega `$ is the laser frequency. In polar coordinates we obtain the TDSE

$$i\frac{}{t}\mathrm{\Psi }(\rho ,\phi ,t)=\left(\frac{1}{2\rho }\frac{}{\rho }\left(\rho \frac{}{\rho }\right)\frac{1}{2\rho ^2}\frac{^2}{\phi ^2}+V(\rho ,\phi )+\frac{(t)}{\sqrt{2}}\rho \text{cos}(\phi \omega t)\right)\mathrm{\Psi }(\rho ,\phi ,t).$$
(12)
This TDSE can be solved ab initio on a PC. We did this by propagating the wavefunction in time with a Crank-Nicholson approximant to the propagator $`U(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t,t)=\text{exp}[i\mathrm{\Delta }tH(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t/2)]`$ where $`H(t)`$ is the explicitly time-dependent Hamiltonian corresponding to the TDSE (12). Our algorithm is fourth order in the grid spacings $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi `$ and second order in the time step $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. The boundary condition is $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\rho ,0,t)=\mathrm{\Psi }(\rho ,2\pi ,t)`$ for all $`\rho `$ and $`t`$. Probability density which approaches the grid boundary in $`\rho `$-direction is removed by an imaginary potential.

## V Results

Here we discuss the results obtained from our 2D simulations and we compare them with previous results from a one-dimensional model (1D) presented elsewhere . Our studies were mainly focused on the structure of the harmonic spectrum for different values of the ionization energy. In general, our findings show that, together with the harmonics we expected from the selection rules, other lines are present and their location can be, in most of the cases, explained with the help of the level scheme. In particular, we observed that for higher $`A`$ the gap between the two branches of Fig. 1 plays an important role. For each $`A`$ various simulations with pulses of the same frequency and length but different intensities were performed. We used sine-square pulses of 30 cycles duration and a frequency $`\omega =0.0942`$, unless noted otherwise. In order to better understand the additional lines which appear besides the expected harmonics it is useful to study the low intensity regime first.

### A Low Fields

In the case of a single atom, when the intensity of the field is not high enough for generating harmonics efficiently, the Fourier transform of the dipole shows only the fundamental. Clearly, the threshold of the field strength to observe any harmonics depends on the ionization potential. In Fig. 3 two dipole spectra, for different $`A`$, obtained from the interaction of the ring molecule with a low field pulse are shown. For the dipole emission spectrum of Fig. 3a an electric field amplitude $`\widehat{}=0.005`$ was used and $`A=1.6`$. In this case apart from the fundamental and the weak fifth harmonic, four other lines are present. Two lines are located at $`14.1\omega `$ and $`16.0\omega `$, respectively. We refer to them as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ hereafter. These two lines correspond to two resonances between the states $`\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝟓}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟑}\mathrm{𝟒}`$ and therefore they move towards the red if $`A`$ decreases. This is confirmed in Fig. 3b, where $`A=1.4`$ and $`\widehat{}=0.005`$. In Fig. 3b the 5th harmonic is more pronounced. This is due to the fact that when the ionization potential is lower the generation of harmonics requires weaker fields. A subfundamental line at $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, corresponding to a transition from the first excited state $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ to the ground state is also present in both cases. We name this line $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$. Another line corresponding to the transition $`2\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ is visible as a right satellite to the fundamental. Looking closer, one observes that, with respect to the positions one would expect from the unperturbed level scheme, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ are blue-shifted, whereas $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ is not. This opposite shift can be explained by the dynamical Stark effect. The ground state remains almost unaffected and the lower-lying states move slightly. The higher-lying states instead, experience a relatively strong shift. Therefore, with increasing laser intensity the gap between the two branches in Fig. 1 increases, leading to a blue shift of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$. The three lines $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ are the first lines to appear in the low field regime. The subfundamental line can be considered as characteristic for the low field regime. Indeed, with increasing field strength, it moves towards the red and finally becomes very difficult to be resolved.

### B High Fields

With increasing laser intensity the actual harmonic spectrum develops. In Fig. 4 we show HG spectra for four different electric field amplitudes and $`A=1.6`$. In Fig. 4a $`\widehat{}=0.02`$ a.u. and the situation is, at first sight, quite similar to that one of Fig. 3a: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ are present, and the first allowed harmonic is there, i.e. the 5th. Increasing the field to $`\widehat{}=0.12`$ a.u., Fig. 4b, also the $`7`$th and the $`11`$th appear, and the two lines $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ are still present but located within a broader structure. This last phenomenon can be explained taking into account at least three different effects: (i) in general, the width of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ increases for higher fields, (ii) other channels, i.e. other resonance lines between the two branches, can be opened if the field becomes intense, and (iii) through a removal of the degeneracy of the states by the electric field more possible resonance lines are obtained. These factors generate a kind of broad “hill” in the harmonic spectrum, the position of which is a function of $`A`$. Moreover, in Fig. 4b other satellite lines around the expected harmonics are present. Those lines are decays from virtual states to real states. In Fig. 4c, $`\widehat{}=0.21`$ a.u., more couples of harmonics are present and the hill is reduced to a light background modulation of the main HG spectrum. This becomes even clearer in Fig. 4d where harmonics up to the $`49`$th are observed and the $`17`$th is located just on the hill. We have also studied in more detail how the strength of the harmonics increases (or decreases) in function of the electric field. The results for harmonics up to the 31st are shown in Fig. 5. For each couple of harmonics there is a minimum field threshold, below which the harmonic lines cannot be picked out from the background. All the harmonic strengths of Fig. 5 are normalized to the fundamental. What is worth to stress is that for the 5th harmonic we can have an efficiency up to 13%.

Repeating the sequence of simulations shown in Fig. 4 for a lower $`A`$ gives results that are quite similar to those shown in Fig. 4 as long as the gap between the two branches is quite large. When the gap becomes of the order of about ten photons the two lines $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ play a role that is less important. This is due to the fact that, as the gap is smaller, the two lines are expected to be located in a low frequency region and therefore they are easily hidden by the background of the main HG spectrum that in the low frequency region is higher. Furthermore, as the intensity of the harmonic lines is strongly enhanced with increasing field, the strength of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ is not. Also the extension of the harmonic spectrum is dependent on $`A`$, for lower $`A`$ less harmonics can be generated (for a fixed frequency).

As already mentioned, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the distance between $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$. For high $`A`$ (or high $`\omega `$) we have $`\omega >\mathrm{\Omega }`$ but for decreasing $`A`$ (or decreasing $`\omega `$), $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ approaches the laser frequency and overtakes it. The ratio of $`\omega `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ strongly affects the harmonic emission by the ring molecule. In particular, we observed that when $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ a very complex spectrum is generated and together with the expected harmonics many other lines of similar intensities are present. This effect can be seen in Fig. 6. A very similar behavior was also observed in the 1D model . In particular, the shape of the additional satellite structures around each allowed harmonic are in the two cases alike. It seems that in this resonant case the system is not in a single non-degenerate Floquet state as assumed for the proof of the selection rules . In that derivation the pulse was assumed as infinite. Therefore, the particular behavior of the dipole emission could be also due to a pulse shape effect. However, pulse shape effects should be not dependent on the frequency, and in fact, we have additional lines for all the frequencies, but those lines play always a minor role with respect to the expected harmonics. Instead, when the laser frequency becomes nearly resonant many new strong lines appear.

Keeping the same pulse parameters and decreasing the parameter $`A`$ the ionization increases. When we want to study a model that is closer to the real benzene, we have to take $`A=0.375`$. With this condition the physical scheme is very different from those of the cases previously discussed; the ionization energy is reduced from $`2.44`$ to $`0.34`$ and, as we already mentioned, only four states are present and the gap between level $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟒}`$ does not exist at all. Under these conditions a pulse with the frequency $`\omega =0.0942`$, which we used so far, leads to emission spectra without any harmonic structure. This is mainly for the reason that the frequency is relatively high with respect to the ionization potential and therefore just a very few photons are sufficient for reaching the continuum. Therefore, unless the field is very low the ionization would prevail at soon. Also making a comparison with the rule for the cut-off position used in the atomic case ($`I_p+3.17U_p`$) we should not expect any harmonics due to the low value of $`U_p`$. Therefore, we made a series of simulations with the benzene model but using a lower frequency, $`\omega =0.0314`$. With this frequency eleven photons are required for reaching the continuum, i.e., the molecule can be ionized only with a high-order multiphoton process. A spectrum obtained with this low frequency and $`\widehat{}=0.044`$ is shown in Fig. 7. Like in the highly-bound high frequency case the emission spectrum exhibits the harmonics allowed by the selection rules. The efficiency of the harmonics in Fig. 7 is not as high as the one of the harmonics of Fig. 4. Another line, located around $`3\omega `$ is also present in the spectrum of Fig. 7. This line is a resonance between the states $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ (for $`A=0.37`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.09143\omega `$ ). It is interesting to note that in this case of a weakly bound electron the results from the 2D simulations are different with respect to those from the 1D simulations . In the latter case no harmonic structure was observed for $`\omega <\mathrm{\Omega }`$. This, in our opinion, could be due to the reason that in the 1D model the level scheme is qualitatively different. In particular, there is no continuum in the 1D case.

## VI Conclusions

In this work we have studied the harmonic emission in a ring molecule. We have shown that when a ring molecule interacts with a laser pulse, together with the series of harmonics predicted by the selection rules, other lines are present. Under certain conditions the strength of these lines can be comparable with that one of the harmonics. Our HG spectra present a structure and a complexity that is absent in the numerical results shown in . This is due to the reason that while there a 1D Floquet simulation was performed in our studies a realistic pulse (i.e., a finite pulse with a certain envelope) and a 2D model with ionization included were used, and the TDSE was solved ab initio.

What is worth to note is the scaling of the TDSE (12) with respect to the size of the molecule. If one scales the molecule radius like $`\rho ^{}=\alpha \rho `$, the TDSE (12) remains invariant if $`t^{}=\alpha ^2t`$, $`V^{}=V/\alpha ^2`$, $`\widehat{}^{}=\widehat{}/\alpha ^3`$, $`\omega ^{}=\omega /\alpha ^2`$ are chosen. Therefore our results for high $`A`$ can reproduce the results that would have been obtained for a bigger molecule with a lower ionization potential interacting with a field of lower frequency. Moreover, one can think about the different cases of Fig. 1 as the level scheme of positively charged molecules as well.

To our knowledge, so far harmonics in ring-shaped molecules have been investigated experimentally only in gaseous samples . Studying a gaseous sample is very different with respect to what we did in our simulations. Because the molecules in a gas have a random orientation it is not possible to apply the symmetry properties discussed. If the propagation direction of the circularly polarized field is not orthogonal to the plane of the molecule, the molecule “sees” a field that is elliptically polarized. This breaks the discrete rotational symmetry and other harmonics become possible. Nonetheless, even if it is not possible to make a direct comparison it is useful to note that the results presented in  confirm that ring molecules, like benzene and cyclohexane, can tolerate short pulses of high intensity and phenomena like fragmentation and Coulomb explosion do not play a big role. In order to reproduce in a real experiment the results we presented, it is fundamental to prepare a sample where most of the molecules lie in the same plane. This could be done with some orientation techniques or, considering the particular shape of the organic molecules, preparing a very thin layer.

We described and discussed results for a molecules with $`N=6`$, but cases with higher $`N`$ are as well possible. Moreover, the higher is $`N`$ the higher is the frequency of the first generated harmonic; in the limit of very high $`N`$, harmonics of very short wavelength could be generated.

In this work we a took into account a single active electron, but also including correlation through both, a full description  or an approximate treatment like time-dependent density functional theory, would not change the symmetry properties of the Hamiltonian describing the system. Therefore, the selection rules would apply as well.

More complex molecules which produces similar selection rules  are the nanotubes . They can be very long in the longitudinal direction and exhibit a discretized cylindrical symmetry. A semiclassical approach to harmonic generation from nanotubes was also investigated . Unfortunately, because of their size, the dipole approximation would not be accurate enough. Therefore, an ab initio numerical simulation in 3D would be at the limit, or probably beyond, the calculation capabilities of even the fastest computers now available.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported in part by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft within the SPP “Wechselwirkung intensiver Laserfelder mit Materie”.

FIGURES

FIG. 1. Energetic behavior of the first six states versus $`A`$. For lower $`A`$ some of the states belong to the continuum; the magnification shows the region around $`A=0.375`$ where four states are bound. For higher $`A`$ the set of states is split in two branches and a gap between those branches appears.

Fig. 2. Contour plots of the first six states. For each double degenerate state, two linearly independent states are shown. The non-degenerate states present a full $`C_6`$ symmetry.

Fig. 3. Emission spectrum in the low field regime. In (a) $`A=1.6`$ and $`\widehat{}=0.005`$, in (b) $`A=1.4`$ and $`\widehat{}=0.005`$. The lines $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ are present in both pictures. When $`A`$ decreases the two lines $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ are red-shifted. This can be observed comparing (b) with (a).

Fig. 4. Evolution of the harmonic spectrum with increasing field for $`A=1.6`$. In (a) $`\widehat{}=0.02`$, in (b) $`\widehat{}=0.12`$, in (c) $`\widehat{}=0.21`$ and in (d) $`=0.27`$. When the field increases additional satellite lines appear with the low order harmonics. The highest allowed resolved harmonic is the 49th.

Fig. 5. Strength of each harmonic line versus the electric field $``$. It is worth to note that the first allowed harmonic, i.e., the 5th, can reach an efficiency up to 13%. In the low field region the strength of the the 13th and 17th harmonic is particularly high, this is due to the presence of the “hill”. The value of $`A`$ is constant, $`A=1.6`$.

Fig. 6. Emission spectrum for $`A=1.00`$ and $`\omega =0.0942`$. The value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ approaches the laser frequency $`\omega `$ and the spectrum exhibits a complex structure with many additional strong lines.

Fig. 7. Emission spectrum for $`A=0.375`$ and $`\omega =0.0314`$. Also in this case, where the ionization potential corresponds to that one of the benzene molecule, the spectrum exhibits the same structure as in the highly-bound high frequency case. The line around $`3\omega `$ is given by a decay from the state $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ to the state $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$.

REFERENCES

Fig. 1: F. Ceccherini and D. Bauer, “Harmonic generation in …”

Fig. 2: F. Ceccherini and D. Bauer, “Harmonic generation in …”

Fig. 3: F. Ceccherini and D. Bauer, “Harmonic generation in …”

Fig. 4: F. Ceccherini and D. Bauer, “Harmonic generation in …”

Fig. 5: F. Ceccherini and D. Bauer, “Harmonic generation in …”

Fig. 6: F. Ceccherini and D. Bauer, “Harmonic generation in …”

Fig. 7: F. Ceccherini and D. Bauer, “Harmonic generation in …”


text:
# Ghost Diffraction: Causal Explanation via Correlated Trajectory Calculations

## I INTRODUCTION

In the ”ghost” diffraction experiment of , photons correlated in a down conversion process are separated and then counted in coincidence after one photon passes through a slit mask. Strange as it may seem, the slit diffraction pattern is observed on the detection screen of the other photon if one only counts those pairs for which the first photon is detected by a small-aperature fixed detector. For this EPR  type experiment, the data was interpreted in  in terms of entangled states. A second and similar experiment  exhibited optical imaging via two photon coincidence counting. This experiment was likewise analyzed in terms of entangled states. In an earlier conference report  we have shown with detailed numerical calculations that ”ghost” diffraction patterns can be explained by trajectory correlations assuming an initial position and velocity relationship for the particles.

In the present work, we give some detailed calculations of ”ghost” diffraction patterns and examine trajectory details in comparison with those involved in deterministic explanations of ordinary diffraction. The trajectory calculations are carried out numerically using the trajectory-wave ordering interaction of . The latter is a set of second order differential equations for trajectories which invoke, via solution, the integral method of generating random variants. We begin with a brief description of this particle-wave interaction.

## II TRAJECTORY-WAVE ORDERING INTERACTION (TWOI)

The TWOI studied earlier by the author, made use of a general line parameter . The following equations represent a version with time as the independent variable.

$$\frac{d\dot{x}_i}{dt}\frac{du_i}{dt}=(\dot{x}_iu_i)F$$
(1)
In these equation the $`x_i`$ represent the particle coordinates, and $`\dot{x}_i=dx_i/dt`$. The $`u_i`$ are components of a field ray-velocity and the function $`F`$ is a real positive function of field components with units of inverse time. The field affects the trajectories only through the $`u_i`$ and function $`F`$. The TWOI equations can be implemented with different choices for the $`u_i`$ and function $`F`$, facilitating the study of different trajectory models. Specific expressions for $`u_i`$ and $`F`$ used in the diffraction calculations here are discussed in the following section. Modifications to impose metric constraints are discussed in .

The above set of trajectory equations has in general two important properties. First, the $`\dot{x}_i`$ approach the $`u_i`$ as a limit. Second, in this limit $`(\dot{x}_iu_i)`$ , ( named the ”attractor limit” in  ) the large number distribution of the particles approaches the function $`F`$ provided the initial particle phase-space values are chosen uniformly randomly over a large but not unique volume. The attractor limit is approached closer and closer as time increases. For practical calculations, one must set some criteria for ”sufficiently close”. These feature can be more easily seen with a simple one-dimensional case with $`u_i=0`$ . We directly integrate the following equation.

$$\frac{d\dot{x}}{dt}=(\dot{x})F$$
(2)
This gives the following integral relations

$$\dot{x}(t)=\dot{x}(0)_0^tF\dot{x}(t^{})𝑑t^{}$$
(3)
$$\dot{x}(t)=\dot{x}(0)_{x_0}^xF𝑑x^{}$$
(4)
If we numerically solve (2) until the attractor limit $`\dot{x}(t)0`$ is sufficiently satisfied, we obtain the following relation.

$$_{x_0}^xF𝑑x^{}\dot{x}(0)$$
(5)
Repeating this process many times with ($`x(0),\dot{x}(0)`$) chosen uniformly randomly over a sufficient volume of phase space, we generate a random variant specified by $`F`$. The quantity $`Fdx`$ is proportional to the number of particles that reach the attractor limit $`\dot{x}(t)0`$ between $`x`$ and $`x+dx`$. It is a technique that indirectly invokes the integral method  to generate in the attractor limit a random variant specified by $`F`$ . It re-arranges an initial distribution to match $`F`$. This interaction is viewed as one possible mechanism by which nature could bring about the observed relation between particle distributions and wave intensities.

To solve the trajectory equations we use both fourth and fifth order Runge-Kutta methods  with adaptive step size techniques . These two methods are used as checks against each other. The adaptive step technique saves two to four orders of magnitude on net computation time. The system of second-order differential equations is reduced to a system of first-order differential equations following the method of Butcher . Numerical details and a test case are given in the appendix of . Figure 1 presents a histogram of particle positions in the attractor limit generated using (2) with $`x(0)=7`$ , $`F=0.3\mathrm{exp}(.3|x|)\mathrm{cos}^2(2x)`$ , and $`\dot{x}(0)`$ chosen uniformly randomly from the range $`(0,1.2)`$. The ”sufficiently close” to the attractor limit criteria used was $`|\dot{x}(t)|=10^5\mathrm{max}|\dot{x}(0)|`$. The solid line in Fig. 1 gives the profile of $`F`$ scaled to match the particle histogram. This distribution can also be generated with a wide variety of choices of the initial phase space volume. Use of random or a variety of amplitudes in $`F`$ (instead of $`0.3`$ ) together with a sufficiently large initial phase-space volume will still generate the same shape. The noise in the distribution is due to initializing with a random number generator, the ”sufficiently close” criteria and numerical approximations.

The second property of the TWOI equations is the alignment feature of the particle velocities with the wave ray velocity. From (1) we can see that the rate that the attractor limit is approached depends on the initial velocity difference $`(\dot{x}_iu_i)`$ and upon $`F`$. In Fig. 2 we give some representative trajectories with particles initialized at $`Z=10\lambda `$ beyond a slit of width $`10\lambda `$. The particles are initialized in directions at $`20^0`$ intervals. One can see that the particles initially moving backwards can be turned around and approximately aligned up with the wave ray velocity in less than a wavelength.

The TWOI approach has some similiar features to, but some conceptional differences from, the deterministic approach initiated by Madelung  and de Broglie  and re-considered later by Bohm  and others  for the Schrodinger equation. In that work, the particle velocity $`\dot{\stackrel{}{x}}`$ is identified with the wave ray velocity so that the particles follow the wave flow tangent lines. We will refer to this case ( $`\dot{\stackrel{}{x}}=\stackrel{}{u}`$) as the attached case. This attached case is approached in the attractor limit for the TWOI.

Critics of attached models quickly point out that the particle distribution must initially match the quadratic wave density, and that there is no mechanism to bring about the attached condition ($`\dot{\stackrel{}{x}}=\stackrel{}{u}`$). If initial conditions are met, the continuity equation guarantees that the distributions will continue to match. However, if tangent lines are initiated with a density that does not match the quadratic wave density, they will continue to differ. Interestingly, it was Bohm  who suggested using a force that depended on the difference ( $`\dot{\stackrel{}{x}}\stackrel{}{u}`$ ) to bring about the attached case as a limit. The TWOI can bring about this case as a limit, as well as generate in the particle distribution the wave intensity pattern if the latter is represented by $`F`$ in the TWOI equations. The TWOI is a somewhat more general approach in that it does not depend upon a continuity equation, and $`F`$ can represent any field intensity. Likewise, the $`\stackrel{}{u}`$ can be chosen in different ways, e.g., as a vector parallel to the Poynting vector as in , or as in the interesting work of Floyd .

## III SLIT DIFFRACTION

Slit diffraction has been observed for many types of particles, including photons, neutrons and atoms. Can slit diffraction be explained via calculating particle trajectories, one particle at a time? One adamant view on this question is reflected in the well-known comment of Richard Feynman ” a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics ” . By treating the wave as a field and using the TWOI, the author has been able to obtain slit diffraction patterns, one particle at a time. Here, we present a single, a double and a triple slit diffraction pattern in Figures 3, 4, and 5 respectively. These diffraction patterns are calculated using the following scalar wave equation $`^2\mathrm{\Psi }k^2\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$ and standard Rayleigh-Sommerfield diffraction  with Neumann boundary conditions together with the following equation for $`\stackrel{}{u}`$.

$$\stackrel{}{u}=ı\frac{A}{2}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{})\mathrm{\Psi })/(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi })$$
(6)
For light diffraction, we use $`A=c/k`$ where $`c`$ is the speed of light. With (6) we are taking $`\stackrel{}{u}`$ proportional to the gradient of the phase of the complex field, as in the work of Madelung  and de Broglie . The scalar field, together with its first and second partial derivatives needed in (1), are calculated numerically for each point along each trajectory. Because an adjustable step technique is used, the exact position where the trajectory crosses a screen is determined by using a fifth order Lagrange interpolation polynomial .

In each figure, the wave is calculated assuming a point source $`500\lambda `$ in front of the slits and a detector screen at $`1000\lambda `$ beyond the slits. For the single slit case shown in Fig. 3, the slit width is $`8\lambda `$. In the double slit case shown in Fig. 4 , the slit width is $`5\lambda `$ and the center-to-center slit separation is $`25\lambda `$ . In the three slit case shown in Fig. 5 , the slit width is $`5\lambda `$ , and the center-to-center slit separation is $`10\lambda `$. The solid lines in these figures represents the wave intensity scaled to match the histograms. From these figures, it is clear that slit diffraction patterns can be reproduced via deterministic trajectory calculations using the TWOI and treating the wave as a field.

It is instructive to view some typical trajectories. Figure 6 shows some typical trajectories for a three slit case with slit width of $`5\lambda `$ and slit center to center separation of $`7\lambda `$. These trajectories are near the attractor limit at the slits, so that the trajectories closely represent the wave flow tangent lines. Notice that these trajectories are not straight lines and that the trajectories do not cross each other. These feature are characteristic of tangent line trajectories for waves involving the operator $`^2`$ .

## IV TWO-PHOTON GHOST DIFFRACTION

Two-photon correlations involving slit diffraction have been measured using photon pairs made in a parametric down conversion process . Figure 7a illustrates the experimental setup. The ”unfolded” sketch is illustrated in Fig. 7b. These figures and notation follow Fig. 5 of Ref.  with some changes that feature the trajectory calculations here. The two polarization components are separated by a polarizing beam splitter into the ”signal” beam and the ”idler” beam as shown. The signal beam passes through a slit pattern onto a screen about a meter behind the slits. No slit pattern is placed in the idler beam. A small aperture detector $`D_1`$ is placed at a fixed position on the signal screen and a small aperture detector $`D_2`$ is used to scan the idler screen. Coincident two-photon measurements are made for signal-idler photon pairs if a signal photon enters the fixed detector $`D_1`$. After many pairs have been measured, the accumulated distribution on the idler screen clearly exhibits a slit diffraction pattern . This is remarkable because no slit mask exist in the idler beam.

The author considers this to be one of the most intriguing experimental results of modern physics. It would appear that what happens to the signal photon is some how ”known” by the idler photon. A two-photon entangled state explanation of the data distributions was given in . Can this type of experiment be explained with a deterministic interactive particle-field model? To investigate this problem, we consider a very simple model whose features are best illustrated by the unfolded version sketch in Fig. 7 b. In this figure, as in  , the distance $`Z_2`$ is the distance from the slits back through the beam splitter $`BS`$ to the crystal and then back along the idler path to the idler screen. The distance $`Z_0`$ is the distance from the crystal to the beam splitter and on to the slits. $`Z_1`$ is the distance from the slits to the fixed detector $`D_1`$.

We describe this system using our interacting particle-field model. The o-ray and e-ray polarization components satisfy the wave equations $`^2E_ok^2E_o=0`$ and $`^2E_ek^2E_e=0`$, and for both components we assume spherical wave solutions with sources centered at some point S in the crystal. The e-ray is diffracted by the slits and the o-ray continues to the idler screen. We likewise assume that together with the spherical wave, two particles are initialized at point S in the crystal with equal and opposite velocity vectors . For the e-ray we calculate the diffracted wave as in the slit diffraction described above, but here the source point S is generally not on the optical axis.

To calculate the particle trajectories we use Eqs. (1) and (6) with $`A=c/k`$, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }=E_o`$ or $`\mathrm{\Psi }=E_e`$. Our model crystal source is very thin in the $`Z`$ direction and for each pair of particles, we choose the $`Y`$ position of the source point S in the crystal uniformly randomly from a range of $`(W,W)`$. The initial angular direction of the signal particle is likewise chosen uniformly randomly. However, the initial velocity direction of the idler particle is always fixed as the negative of the initial velocity direction of the signal particle (as viewed in the unfolded picture of Fig. 7b). This and the same initial position represent the initial trajectory coupling that gives rise to the ”ghost” diffraction in this model. We first calculate the trajectory of the signal particle, and if it terminates in the aperture of detector $`D_1`$, we calculate the trajectory of the idler particle and record where it hits the idler screen. With this coincidence restriction, the accumulated histogram of idler particles on the idler screen is the ”ghost” pattern in the language of . An initial report by the author on this type of two-photon ”ghost” diffraction calculations for a single and double slit case appears in a recent conference proceedings .

We show in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 the ”ghost” diffraction patterns calculated with this simple model for cases of one and three slits respectively. For both cases we used $`Z_2=7000\lambda `$, $`Z_0=1000\lambda `$, and $`Z_1=500\lambda `$. For the single slit case, shown in Fig. 8 we used a slit width of $`15\lambda `$, a crystal half width of $`W=155\lambda `$ , and a $`6\lambda `$ aperture for the signal detector $`D_1`$. For the three slit case shown in Fig. 8, we used a slit width of $`5\lambda `$, a slit center-to-center separation of $`7\lambda `$, a crystal half width of $`W=215\lambda `$, and a $`10\lambda `$ aperture for the detector $`D_1`$. It was necessary to calculate many signal trajectories because very few terminated on the narrow detector aperture of $`D_1`$.

The distinct recognizable diffraction patterns exhibited in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 clearly indicate that two-photon ”ghost” diffraction can be explained via deterministic trajectory calculations using the interacting particle-field model. This two-photon correlation phenomenon is a result of pattern selection via correlated trajectory selection. The trajectory correlations are entirely due to initial conditions. In Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 the solid line represents the diffraction pattern on the idler screen that results as if one had a point source at the signal detector on the signal screen. The common features of the solid line and the histogram are due to the common geometry in the almost Fraunhofer limit. However, the patterns differ slightly from each other. This difference can be reasonably explained by the fact that the signal detector $`D_1`$ has a finite size. It is conceptually incorrect to think that the ”ghost” diffraction is the result of a ”collapsed probability” signal at $`D_1`$ propagating backwards to the idler screen.

In the conventional slit diffraction of Fig. 3, Fig. 4, and Fig. 5 the wave used for each particle had a common point source. By sharp contrast, each particle in the ”ghost” diffraction generally is influenced by a different wave since the source positions in the crystal have a wide range $`(W,W)`$ . A random selection of signal trajectories just beyond the slits is shown in Fig. 10 for the three slit case. One can see that the trajectories cross each other and appear to have no definite pattern. In fact, if one accumulates a histogram on the signal screen, one finds a broad smear with no definite pattern. This is expected because each wave generally starts from a different source points in the crystal. However, it is in this very situation that we obtain the ”ghost” diffraction pattern on the idler screen for that selection of signal trajectories that terminate in the fixed detector $`D_1`$. This feature is consistent with the observations in , in which the ”ghost” patterns were obtained using rather divergent beams. By shifting the position of the detector $`D_1`$ we obtain a shifted ”ghost” pattern on the idler screen. This corresponds to selecting an entirely different set of signal-idler trajectory pairs. The authors in  mentions that this interesting feature was observed in the experiment.

## V SUMMARY

We have made ”ghost” diffraction calculations using a trajectory model with two key features. The first feature is the use of the TWOI equations to describe the trajectories. Through the TWOI, the diffracted field influences the distribution of the trajectory particles, one trajectory at a time. As a physical model both particle and field must be taken together. Here, the TWOI used to calculate the particle-field interaction is much closer to that of classical physics in which the particle is not ”attached” to the field. This key freedom, not found in the ”attached” models initiated by Madlung  and de Broglie  many years ago, facilitates the random variant generator inherent in the structure of the TWOI to generate the wave intensity patterns in the ensemble distribution.

The second key feature is the initial velocity correlation of the photons in the down conversion crystal, as well as the same initial position. As the calculations clearly demonstrate, this initial coupling together with the TWOI is sufficient to give rise to the ”Ghost” diffraction patterns. This is a simple classical trajectory model of this photon-photon experiment. Its success clearly lends support to a realistic and deterministic description of nature.