text:
# C, P, T ARE BROKEN. WHY NOT CPT?

## 1 Introduction

C, P, and T symmetries are known to hold at very high accuracy for electromagnetic and strong interactions $`^\mathrm{?}`$. For weak interactions the 100% breaking of P and C was discovered in 1957 $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ and served as a cornerstone of electroweak theory $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

The CP violation was discovered as a tiny (milliweak) effect in the decays of neutral kaons in 1964 $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and recently in the decays of $`B`$ mesons $`^\mathrm{?}`$. But we still do not know the origin(s) of the CP violation.

T violation was explicitly proved for neutral kaons $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ in accord with CPT invariance $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ which remains unshaken in spite of improved precision of experimental tests and increased number of theoretical speculations.

As for gravity, it is difficult to suggest an experimental test of C, P, or T in a classical weak gravitational field $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$, while effects of quantum gravity belong to the big bang which sets the arrow of time in the universe $`^\mathrm{?}`$, or to the black holes.

In this talk I will not speak about gravity and will try to classify effects of violation of seven symmetries – C, P, T, CP, PT, TC, and CPT – in laboratory experiments.

The subject has a vast literature. I apologize for making no attempt to cover it. My aim is to suggest a simple mnemonic approach.

## 2 CPT-cube

Let us start by considering three orthogonal axes representing violation of C, P and T (Fig. 1).

Point 0 at the origin of coordinates corresponds to the interactions, which are C even, P even, T even, and hence CP even, PT even, TC even, and CPT even.

Point 1 corresponds to the interactions which are C odd, P even, T even, and hence CP odd, PT even, TC odd, and CPT odd.

Point 2: C even, P odd, T even, CP odd, PT odd, TC even, and CPT odd.

Point 3: C even, P even, T odd, CP even, PT odd, TC odd, and CPT odd.

As a result we have the first four vertices of the CPT-cube. Let us now consider the other four vertices (Fig. 2): three in the planes CP (point 4), PT (point 5), TC (point 6), and the last one – outside these planes (point 7).

Point 4: C odd, P odd, T even, CP even, PT odd, TC odd, and CPT even.

Point 5: C even, P odd, T odd, CP odd, PT even, TC odd, and CPT even.

Point 6: C odd, P even, T odd, CP odd, PT odd, TC even, and CPT even.

Point 7: C odd, P odd, T odd, CP even, PT even, TC even, and CPT odd.

Thus for each of the seven transformations there are four even vertices and four odd.

For C: 0, 2, 5, 3 are even; 1, 4, 7, 6 are odd (the rear and front sides of the cube, correspondingly).

For P: 0, 3, 6, 1 are even; 2, 5, 7, 4 are odd (the left and the right sides, correspondingly).

For T: 0, 1, 4, 2 are even; 3, 6, 7, 5 are odd (the lower and upper sides¡ correspondingly).

For CP: 0, 4, 7, 3 are even; 1, 2, 5, 6 are odd (two vertical diagonal planes).

For PT: 0, 5, 7, 1 are even; 2, 3, 6, 4 are odd (two diagonal planes orthogonal to the page).

For TC: 0, 2, 7, 6 are even; 1, 3, 5, 4 are odd (two diagonal planes whose intersection is parallel to the page).

For CPT: 0, 4, 5, 6 are even; 1, 2, 3, 7 are odd (four diagonals of lower and upper planes).

The above classification can be easily memorized by assigning to each point the corresponding signature of (C, P, T) with + for even and - for odd: 0(+,+,+), 1(–,+,+), 2(+,–,+), 3(+,+,–), 4(–,–,+), 5(+,–,–), 6(–,+,–), 7(–,–,–).

## 3 C and P violation with CP conservation

Let us start with the interaction of $`VA`$ weak charged currents discovered in 1957. The products $`VV`$ and $`AA`$ belong to point 0, while the product $`VA`$ – to point 4, as the vector current $`V`$ is C, P, and T odd, while the axial current $`A`$ is C even, P even, and T odd. The experimental manifestation of the latter is seen directly in the decay $`K_12\pi `$, while of the former in the decay $`K_23\pi `$, where $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ are correspondingly C odd and C even superpositions of $`K^0`$ and $`\overline{K}^0`$:

$$K_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(K\overline{K}),K_2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(K+\overline{K}).$$
(1)
As both $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ are P odd (pseudoscalars), $`K_1`$ is CP even, while $`K_2`$ is CP odd.

The $`2\pi `$ in $`J=0`$ state is C even, P even, and CP even. Hence the decay $`K_1^02\pi `$ is C odd, P odd, but CP even. As for the state of $`3\pi `$ with $`J=0`$, it is P odd independent of values of relative angular momenta $`l`$ and $`L`$. The dominant state with $`L=l=0`$ is C even. Therefore the corresponding decay $`K_2^03\pi `$ is mainly C even, P even and CP even.

The manifestation of $`VA`$ (point 4) in the spin-momentum angular correlations in $`\beta `$-decay, decays of $`\mu `$ and $`\tau `$ leptons, semileptonic decays of mesons and nonleptonic decays of hyperons is impossible without interference with terms $`VV`$ and $`AA`$ (point 0) in the square of modulus of amplitude.

The same refers to the P violating and C violating correlations induced by neutral currents which were discovered in the 1970’s.

All the above processes are mediated by virtual $`W`$ and $`Z`$ bosons. After the discovery of these bosons in the early 1980’s a lot of experimental data has been collected on C and P violating asymmetries in their production and decay processes caused by interference of points 4 and 0.

## 4 CP and T violation

The discovery in 1964 of the $`2\pi `$ decays of the long-lived neutral kaons revealed that CP is violated. For almost three decades the effective interaction responsible for these decays was consistent with point 6: C odd, P even, T odd transition in vacuum of $`K_2`$ into $`K_1`$, described by a complex parameter $`\epsilon `$:

$$K_S=K_1+\epsilon K_2,K_L=K_2+\epsilon K_1.$$
(2)
The presence of $`\epsilon `$ in eqs.(2) leads to the conclusion that the probability of transformation of $`K`$ into $`\overline{K}`$ during a time interval $`t`$ is not equal to the probability of transformation of $`\overline{K}`$ into $`K`$ during the same time interval. (The two amplitudes are different because of the presence of two different time exponents, describing the propagation of $`K_L`$ and $`K_S`$.) This prediction of violation of time reversal was experimentally confirmed $`^\mathrm{?}`$ only a few years ago. Another confirmation of the time reversal violation came from a CP and T violating asymmetry between $`e^+e^{}`$ planes and $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ planes observed $`^\mathrm{?}`$ in the decays $`K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}e^+e^{}`$.

Only recently a consensus has been reached on the value of another parameter, $`\epsilon ^{}`$, describing the direct decay of $`K_2`$ into $`2\pi `$ (point 5, which is C even, P odd and T odd).

Point 5 is also responsible for the dipole electric moments of such particles as neutron and electron the search for which has up to now brought no positive evidence. (The term $`𝝈𝐄`$, where $`𝝈`$ represents the spin of the particle, while $`𝐄`$ electric field, is C even, P odd, T odd; so that the interaction is CPT invariant.)

Let us stress that at the level of the standard electroweak gauge lagrangian both points 5 and 6 for hadrons stem from the same origin, namely the phase of the CKM-matrix of charged currents of quarks.

Of special interest in connection with point 5 is the vanishingly small upper limit on the so-called $`\theta `$ term in QCD:

$$_\theta =\theta G_{\mu \nu }G_{\rho \sigma }\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma },$$
(3)
where $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ is the gluonic field tensor.

## 5 CP violating charge asymmetries

Both points 5 and 6 must manifest themselves in charge asymmetries. Thus from eq. (2) it follows immediately that the widths of the semileptonic decays $`K_Le^+\nu _e\pi ^{}`$ and $`K_Le^{}\overline{\nu }_e\pi ^+`$ must be different, the effect being proportional to $`2Re\epsilon `$ (point 6). Such charge asymmetry was measured for both electronic and muonic channels.

Another charge asymmetry had been predicted by Okubo $`^\mathrm{?}`$ even before CP-violation was discovered, but is still beyond the reach of experiments. According to Okubo,

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }^+p\pi ^0)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }^+n\pi ^+)}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}\overline{p}\pi ^0)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}\overline{n}\pi ^{})}.$$
(4)
In order to show how this effect appears let me recall that for amplitudes of both S and P waves the following equalities hold

$`A(\mathrm{\Sigma }^+p\pi ^0)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}A_3\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}}A_1,`$
$`A(\mathrm{\Sigma }^+n\pi ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}}A_3+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}A_1,`$ (5)
where $`A_3`$ and $`A_1`$ are amplitudes for final states with isospin $`T=3/2`$ and $`T=1/2`$ correspondingly. Similar relations hold for antiparticles:

$`\overline{A}(\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}\overline{p}\pi ^0)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}\overline{A}_3\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}}\overline{A}_1,`$
$`\overline{A}(\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}\overline{n}\pi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}}\overline{A}_3+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}\overline{A}_1,`$ (6)
For simplicity let us consider only S wave amplitudes. In doing so we do not lose generality because S and P waves do not interfere in the expressions for partial widths.

The moduli of isotopic amplitudes, as well as the final state interaction phase shifts, are the same for particle and antiparticle ($`\overline{A}_1=A_1`$, $`\overline{A}_3=A_3`$, $`\overline{\delta }_1=\delta _1`$, $`\overline{\delta }_3=\delta _3`$), while the CP violating phases have opposite signs ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_3=\mathrm{\Delta }_3`$). As a result we get inequality (4) if $`\delta _3\delta _1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_3\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$. (The former condition is valid in the standard electroweak theory $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$, while the latter is known to hold from the $`\pi N`$-scattering experiments.)

A similar reasoning was applied by Sakharov $`^\mathrm{?}`$ when in 1967 he addressed the problem of baryonic asymmetry of the universe. He assumed CP violation for baryon number violating processes in order to get different cross-sections for specific processes with nucleons and antinucleons. The difficulties in working out a consistent theory of baryogenesis have directed theoretical thinking towards leptogenesis caused by CP-violation in leptonic sector, including neutrino oscillations.

## 6 Testing CPT with antiparticles

The faith in CPT invariance is based on quantum field theory, in particular on locality of the lagrangian, its Lorentz invariance and hermiticity. QFT might be an effective approximate manifestation of a more fundamental (superstring?) theory. But, first, I am unaware of any rigorous proof that superstrings violate CPT and, second, QFT remains the only solid basis of our phenomenology. Independently of the possible origin of CPT violation, in order to confront the speculations and experiment one has to formulate the phenomenological predictions by using the language of the quantum field theory.

Most of the phenomena suggested for testing CPT belong to the point 1: they are C-odd, but PT-even. Examples are:

1. the search for mass differences of particles and corresponding antiparticles: $`m_{K^0}m_{\overline{K}^0}`$, $`m_{K^+}m_K^{}`$, $`m_e^{}m_{e^+}`$, $`m_\mu ^{}m_{\mu ^+}`$, $`m_nm_{\overline{n}}`$, $`m_{\nu _e}m_{\overline{\nu }_e}`$, etc.
2. the search for nonvanishing sum of magnetic moments of a particle and its antiparticle: $`\mu _{\mu ^+}\mu _\mu ^{}`$, $`\mu _{e^+}\mu _e^{}`$, $`\mu _p\mu _{\overline{p}}`$, etc.

Especially popular nowadays are speculations on non-vanishing mass differences between neutrinos and antineutrinos$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. Most of them (though not all) are linked with the violation of Lorentz invariance and/or locality. The most recent references are triggered by the LSND anomaly $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Beware! The CPT violation in neutrino sector induces at the level of radiative corrections observable effects among charged leptons, where high precision tests of the CPT symmetry are available $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

A CPT violating effect due to interference of points 3 and 0 would be muon polarization perpendicular to the decay planes of $`K_L^0\mu ^+\nu _\mu \pi ^{}`$ and $`K_L^0\mu ^{}\overline{\nu }_\mu \pi ^+`$, if it turns out to be the same for both decays. In that case, the correlation $`𝐬_\mu [𝐤_\mu \times 𝐤_\pi ]`$ is C even, P even, but T odd. Hence it is CPT odd. However “a fake T violation” could be caused by the final state muon-pion scattering $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ at point 0 with phase $`\delta \alpha /3`$. The experimental upper limit for such polarization is 0.5% $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

Note that the same transverse polarization in the decays $`K^+\mu ^+\nu _\mu \pi ^0`$ and $`K^{}\mu ^{}\overline{\nu }_\mu \pi ^0`$ cannot be faked by a simple final state electromagnetic scattering.

As an example of manifestation of point 7 let us consider the electric dipole moments of a particle and its antiparticle, say, $`e^{}`$ and $`e^+`$, or $`\nu _e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e`$.

If P and T are broken, while C is conserved (point 6), the electric dipole moments are nonvanishing, however their sum must vanish, because they (similarly to charges and to the ordinary magnetic dipole moments described by point 0) must have opposite signs. This can be easily seen from the negative C parity of the photon.

If we now consider point 7, we see that it must be not only P and T odd but also C odd. This requires a term which gives not only the same absolute value, but also the same sign to the electric dipole moments of a particle and its antiparticle. If both points 7 and 6 are present, then $`d_{\nu _e}d_{\overline{\nu }_e}`$. Similar inequalities would be valid for all leptons and quarks and hence hadrons.

## 7 CPT and hermiticity

What would the discovery of circular polarization of a photon from the decay $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ (or $`\eta ^0\gamma \gamma `$) mean? One can easily see that this would be a signal that CPT is broken. Indeed, C is conserved in this decay, while the product $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐤}`$ is P odd, but T even. (Here $`𝐬`$ and $`𝐤`$ are photon’s spin and momentum respectively; $`𝐬`$ is P even, $`𝐤`$ is P odd, while both are T odd. Similar considerations apply to the longitudinal polarizations of muons in the decay $`\eta ^0\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ observed at the level of 6$`\times `$10<sup>-6</sup>. The correlation $`𝐬_\mu 𝐤_\mu `$ is P odd and T even. On the other hand it must be C even, because $`\eta ^0`$ is C even as well as the pair of muons both in the scalar and pseudoscalar states. Thus observation of the $`𝐬_\mu 𝐤_\mu `$ correlation would signal the CPT violation.)

Let us consider the two terms in the lagrangian the interference of which can lead to the correlation $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐤}`$ in the decay $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$. First of them is a scalar $`g\varphi F_{\mu \nu }F_{\rho \sigma }\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$, the second one is a pseudoscalar, $`h\varphi F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }`$, where $`\varphi `$ is the pseudoscalar field of the pion, which is C even, P odd and T odd.

Due to hermiticity of the lagrangian both $`g`$ and $`h`$ must be real. However the degree of circular polarization is proportional to $`g^{}hgh^{}`$. Hence for a hermitian lagrangian it should vanish at the tree approximation. (It would appear due to the difference of the absorptive parts of Fig. 3 in scalar and pseudoscalar amplitudes.) If the degree of polarization turns out to be different from that predicted by Fig. 3, e.g. much larger, we have to break hermiticity.

Let us consider first the case when $`\mathrm{Im}g=0`$, $`\mathrm{Re}h=0`$. In that case the term proportional to $`g`$ belongs to point 0, while the term proportional to $`h`$ belongs to point 2 because it is C even, P odd, T even, and hence CPT odd.

In the case when $`\mathrm{Re}g=0`$, $`\mathrm{Im}h=0`$ the $`g`$-term is C even, P even, T odd and hence CPT odd (point 3), while the $`h`$-term is C even, P odd, T odd, and hence CPT even (point 5). Interference of points 3 and 5 (as well as that of points 2 and 0) gives P-violating and CPT-violating correlation $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐤}`$.

In the general case, when both $`g`$ and $`h`$ are complex,

$$g^{}hgh^{}=2i\mathrm{Re}g\mathrm{Im}h2i\mathrm{Im}g\mathrm{Re}h.$$

Here the first term on the r.h.s. represents interference of points 2 and 0, while the second - of points 3 and 5.

As was noticed by M.B. Voloshin (private communication), the graphs of Fig. 4 with complex $`g`$ give complex magnetic moment of the proton. Similar graphs with complex $`h`$ give complex electric dipole moment. Interaction of these moments with corresponding external fields $`𝐁`$ and $`𝐄`$ would give complex energy. Complex energy looks rather exotic, but it is not more exotic than the violation of unitarity of $`S`$-matrix, or in other words, the non-conservation of probability. (Note that a complex energy might correspond to a tunneling of particle through a wormhole to another vacuum.)

To my knowledge, nobody has tried to measure the helicity of photons from $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$. V.L. Telegdi (private communication) noticed that the search for the circular polarization of photons from the decay of parapositronium is much easier than from the decay of pions. (At low energy the Compton scattering is dominant, hence the magnetized iron is a more effective detector of helicity of low energy photons.)

When thinking about possible mechanism of CPT-violation in the two photon decay of positronium one sees that circular polarization of photons might be produced by imaginary electric dipole moment of electron (see Figs. 5b and 5c) via interference with the standard QED diagram (Fig. 5a).

Unlike the case of particle-antiparticle mass differences the above examples of CPT-violating polarizations can be formulated in a Lorentz-invariant way. In the lagrangian language the CPT-violating terms have the wrong phase which violates hermiticity. The antihermitian terms in lagrangian break unitarity of $`S`$-matrix. But testing unitarity directly might be more difficult than searching for CPT violating correlations discussed above.

## 8 Conclusions

It is time now to answer the question in the title of this talk: Why not CPT?

Of course, whatever could be measured should be measured and whatever could be tested should be tested. There should be no reservations: such a fundamental symmetry as CPT should be tested.

However one should keep in mind that unlike breaking of C, P, T, CP, PT, and TC, the breaking of CPT is non-compatible with the standard quantum field theory, the only basis for a self-consistent phenomenological description of any process, which we know up to now. Therefore the chances that CPT breaking would be discovered are vanishingly small.

I am grateful to S. Bulanov, T. Nakada, B. Roe, V. Telegdi, L. Wolfenstein, and especially M. Voloshin for helpful discussions. This work has been partly supported by RFBR grant No. 00-15-96562, by CERN TH Division, and by A. von Humboldt award.

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4a

Fig.4b

Fig.5a

Fig.5b

Fig.5c

## References


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Suppose the usual description of spacetime as a 3+1 manifold breaks down at the scale where a quantum theory of gravity is expected to describe the world, generally agreed to be the Planck scale, $`l_p=10^{35}m`$. Can we still construct sensible theoretical models of the universe? Are they testable? Do they lead to a consistent quantum cosmology? Is this cosmology different than the standard one? The answer is yes, to all these questions, assuming that quantum theory is still valid. After eighty years work on quantum gravity, we do have the first detailed models for the microscopic structure of spacetime: spin foams.

The first spin foam models111Reisenberger, 1994, 1997; Reisenberger and Rovelli, 1997; Markopoulou and Smolin, 1997; Baez, 1998. were based on the predictions of loop quantum gravity, namely the quantization of general relativity, for the quantum geometry at Planck scale. A main result of loop quantum gravity is that the quantum operators for spatial areas and volumes have discrete spectra222Rovelli and Smolin, 1995. For a recent detailed review of loop quantum gravity see Thiemann, 2001, and for a non-technical review of the field see Smolin, 2001.. Discreteness is central to spin foams, which are discrete models of spacetime at Planck scale. Several more models have been proposed since, based on results from other approaches to quantum gravity, such as Lorentzian path integrals333 Ambjørn and Loll, 1998; Loll, 2001; Ambjørn, Jurkiewicz and Loll, 2002; Barrett and Crane, 2000; Perez and Rovelli, 2001a., euclidean general relativity444 Barrett and Crane, 1998; Iwasaki, 1999; Perez and Rovelli, 2001b., string networks555 Markopoulou and Smolin, 1998b., or topological quantum field theory666 See Baez, 2000.. For reviews of spin foams see Baez, 2000; Oriti, 2001.

Spin foam models are background independent, i.e. they do not live in a pre-existing spacetime. Gravity and the familiar 3+1 manifold spacetime are to be derived as the low-energy continuum approximation of these models. Thus, a spin foam model will be a good candidate for a quantum theory of gravity only if it can be shown to have a good low energy limit which contains the known theories, namely, general relativity and quantum field theory. One also expects a good model to predict observable departures from these theories.

Spin foams are only a few years old, and progress towards finding their low-energy limit is still in its very early stages. The aim of this note is both to discuss the basic features of these models, as well as their current status and ways to proceed in future research. Section 2 contains mostly results on the general formalism of these models. We see that they lead to a novel description of the universe, including a consistent quantum cosmology, in which, in general, there is no wavefunction of the universe or Wheeler-DeWitt equation. In section 3, we note that every spin foam is given by a partition function very similar to that of a spin system or a lattice gauge theory. I argue that this suggests that we should treat this approach to quantum gravity as a problem in statistical physics. However, there is an important difference from systems in statistical physics, the background-independence of spin foams. I list features of spin foams relevant to the calculation of their low-energy limit and discuss ways to proceed. Finally, spin foams can address the current challenge that quantum gravity effects, such as breaking of Lorentz invariance, may be observable777For possible experiments probing quantum gravity effects see Jacobson, Liberati and Mattingly, 2001; Sarkar, 2002; Amelino-Camelia, 2002; Konopka and Major, 2002; Kempf, 2002; Ellis et al. 2002.. In Section 3 and the Conclusions, we discuss the kind of predictions one could calculate with these models.

## 2 No spacetime manifold $`+`$ Quantum theory $`=`$ Spin foams

Several models of the microscopic structure of spacetime have recently been proposed. Different ones were constructed based on different motivations, but they have several features in common which I list here888This is a rather personal interpretation of spin foam models. Several of the models in the spin foam literature are constructed as a path integral formulation of loop quantum gravity, or are modelled on topological quantum field theory, and are not causal, nor is discreteness always considered fundamental. For reviews of spin foams from alternative viewpoints, see Baez, 2000; Oriti, 2001.:

At energies close to the Planck scale, the description of spacetime as a 3+1 continuum manifold breaks down. This is the old explanation for the singularities of general relativity and is further supported by the results of loop quantum gravity.

At such energies the universe is discrete. This is a simple way to model the idea that in a finite region of the universe there should be only a finite number of fundamental degrees of freedom. This is supported by Bekenstein’s arguments, by the black hole entropy calculations from both string theory and loop quantum gravity, by the quantum geometry spectra of loop quantum gravity, and is related to holographic ideas.

Causality still persists even when there is no manifold spacetime. How to describe a discrete causal universe has been known for quite some time, it is a causal set (Bombelli et al., 1987; Sorkin, 1990). This is a set of events $`p,q,r,\mathrm{}`$ ordered by the causal relation $`pq`$, meaning “$`p`$ preceeds $`q`$”, which is transitive ($`pq`$ and $`qr`$ implies that $`pr`$), locally finite (for any $`p`$ and $`q`$ such that $`pq`$, the intersection of the past of $`q`$ and the future of $`p`$ contains a finite number of events), and has no closed timelike loops (if $`pq`$ and $`qp`$, then $`p=q`$). Two events $`p`$ and $`q`$ are unrelated (or spacelike) if neither $`pq`$ nor $`qp`$ holds.

Note that the microscopic events do not need to be the same (or a discretization of) the events in the effective continuum theory. Also, the speed of propagation of information in the microscopic theory does not have to be the effective one, the speed of light $`c`$.

Quantum theory is still valid.

Since we are modelling the universe itself, the model should be background independent.

An example of such a model is causal spin networks (Markopoulou and Smolin, 1997; Markopoulou, 1997). Spin networks were originally defined by Penrose as trivalent graphs with edges labelled by representations of $`SU(2)`$ (Penrose, 1971). From such abstract labelled graphs, Penrose was able to recover directions (angles) in 3-dimensional Euclidean space in the large spin limit. Later, in loop quantum gravity, spin networks were shown to be the basis states for the spatial geometry states. The quantum area and volume operators, in the spin network basis, have discrete spectra, and their eigenvalues are functions of the labels on the spin network.

Given an initial spin network, to be thought of as modeling a quantum “spatial slice”, a causal set is built by repeated application of local moves, local changes of the spin network graph. Each move results in a causal relation in the causal set. An example is shown in Fig.1.

One can show that a small set of local generating moves can be identified that take us from any given network to any other one. For example, for 4-valent networks, we only need the following local moves on pieces of the network:

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}$$

One should note that there is no preferred foliation in this model. The allowed moves change the network locally and any foliation consistent with the causal set (i.e. that respects the order the moves occured) is possible. This is a discrete analogue of multifingered time evolution. For more details, see Markopoulou, 1997.

There is an amplitude $`A_{\text{move}}`$ for each move to occur. The amplitude to go from a given initial spin network $`S_i`$ to a final one $`S_f`$ is the product of the amplitudes for the generating moves in the interpolating history of sequence of such moves, summed over all possible such sequences (or histories):

$$A_{S_iS_f}=\underset{\text{histories }S_iS_f}{}\underset{\stackrel{\text{moves}}{\text{in history}}}{}A_{\text{move}}.$$
(1)
Explicit expressions for the amplitudes $`A_{\text{move}}`$ have so far been given in Borissov and Gupta, 1998, for a simple causal model, in Ambjørn and Loll, 1998 (and their higher dimensional models), with differences in the allowed 2-complexes, and very recently in Livine and Oriti, 2002 for the Lorentzian Barrett-Crane model.

### 2.1 The general formalism of the models

With this example in mind, we can write down the formalism of the generic model that has the features A-E above. This will let us derive results about the general form of $`A_{\text{move}}`$ and the resulting quantum cosmology.

In the particular example of the causal spin networks, we note that the model really is a causal set “dressed with quantum theory” as follows: A move in the history changes a subgraph of the spin network with free edges. To such a subgraph $`s`$ is naturally associated a Hilbert space $`H`$ of so-called intertwiners. These are maps from the tensor product of the representations of $`SU(2)`$ on the free edges to the identity representation.

The new subgraph, $`s^{}`$ has the same boundary as $`s`$, the same edges and labels, and therefore corresponds to the same Hibert space of intertwiners. A move is a unitary operator from a state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_s`$ to a new one $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_s^{}`$ in $`H`$. See Fig.2.

Therefore, a causal spin network history is a causal set in which the events are Hilbert spaces and the causal relations are unitary operators.

Is it true for any model with properties A-E that it is such an assignment of a quantum theory to a causal set? The answer is yes, although the assignment can be slightly more complicated than for causal spin networks.

We start by interpreting events in $`C`$ as the smallest Planck scale systems in the quantum spacetime. These, according to D, are quantum mechanical. Quantum theory describes the possible states of such a system as states in a Hilbert space, if it is an isolated system, or by a density matrix in the more general case of an open system. It turns out that in our models each event $`pC`$ is best described by a density matrix $`\rho (p)`$ (for reasons we will explain below).

Going from a causal set $`C`$ to a quantum spacetime then involves the following steps: a) To each event $`pC`$ we assign an algebra of operators $`A(p)`$. Property B implies that $`A(p)`$ is a simple matrix algebra. Any such algebra carries a unique, faithful, normal trace $`\tau :A𝐂`$ defined by the properties that $`\tau (ab)=\tau (ba)`$ and $`\tau (1)=1`$, and given by the formula $`\tau (a)=\text{t}ra/\text{t}r1`$. This makes the algebra into a finite-dimensional Hilbert space with inner product $`a|b:=\tau (a^b)`$. b) The density matrix $`\rho (p)`$ representing the state of $`p`$ is a positive-definite operator in $`A(p)`$. c) Two spacelike events $`p`$ and $`q`$ are two independent events, and so are in a composite state given by $`\rho (p)\rho (q)`$. d) Every causal relation $`pq`$ in the causal set corresponds to a quantum operation $`\chi :A(q)A(p)`$ (Fig.3). This is the most general physical transformation that quantum theory allows between two open systems. A quantum operation is a completely positive linear operator, namely: it is linear on the $`\rho `$’s, it is trace-preserving ($`\text{t}r(\rho )=\text{t}r(\rho ^{})=1`$), positive, and completely positive (if $`\chi :\rho (q)\rho (p)`$ is positive, then $`\chi \mathrm{𝟏}:\rho (q)\rho (s)\rho (p)\rho (s)`$ is also positive).

We now have a formalism of models with properties A-E as a collection of density matrices connected by quantum operations. When can we have unitary evolution in this quantum spacetime? To answer this, let us first define an acausal set. This is a subset $`a=\{p,q,r,\mathrm{}\}`$ of $`C`$ with $`p,q,r,\mathrm{}`$ all spacelike to each other. It is not difficult to check that unitary evolution is only possible between two acausal sets $`a`$ and $`b`$ that form a complete pair, namely, every event in $`b`$ is in the future of some event in $`a`$ and every event in $`a`$ is in the past of some event in $`b`$. This is because, by construction, information is conserved from $`a`$ to $`b`$. See the example in Fig.4.

The fundamental description of the quantum spacetime as a collection of open systems joined by quantum operations does contain all the relevant physics, including the causal relations and any unitary operations. It is a rather technical construction to discuss here, but one can show that the causal information of $`C`$ is contained in conditions on the quantum operations, and can prove that given a complete pair $`a`$ and $`b`$, the quantum operations on the causal relations interpolating from $`a`$ to $`b`$ compose to give precisely the unitary transformation $`U:A(a)A(b)`$ (Hawkins, Markopoulou and Sahlmann, 2002).

Therefore, our quantum spacetime is a very large set of open systems connected by quantum operations, where unitary evolution arises only as a special case, for a complete pair (the special case of an isolated system). It is interesting to note, first, that this description of a quantum spacetime is almost identical to the quantum information theoretic description of noise in a quantum operation (e.g. see Nielsen and Chuang, 2000, p.353), and, second, that a master equation, already extensively used in quantum cosmology, is a continuum an analogue of a quantum operation (as above, p.386.).

These quantum spacetimes lead us to a new quantum cosmology which we describe next.

### 2.2 Quantum cosmology

The standard quantum cosmology is based on the recipe for the canonical, or 3+1, quantization of gravity. Here one starts with a spacetime with the topology $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times R`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the 3-dimensional spatial manifold. Quantizing the geometry of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (identifying variables such as the 3-metric and extrinsic curvature, or Ashtekar’s new variables) we obtain the so-called wavefunction of the universe $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\text{univ}}`$. An example of such a state is the Chern-Simons state in loop quantum gravity. This is to “evolve” eccording to the Wheeler-DeWitt equation,

$$\widehat{H}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\text{univ}}=0,$$
(2)
where $`\widehat{H}`$ is the quantization of the Hamiltonian constraint in the 3+1 decomposition of the Hilbert-Einstein action of general relativity, a hermitian operator.

There are several issues with this. First, the simple form of the equation and especially the peculiar righthand side hides the fact that we need to quantize relativity, a background-independent theory. We only really understand the quantum mechanical evolution of ordinary systems, where an external time is always unambiguously present. Second, equation (2) only works for spacetimes that are globally hyperbolic. Third, one can argue that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\text{univ}}`$ and eq. (2) do not have a satisfactory physical interpretation: $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\text{univ}}`$ is the state of the entire universe and thus only accessible to an observer outside the universe (or specific observers in special universes, such as the final moment of a spacetime with a final crunch, etc). A satisfactory theory of quantum cosmology has, instead, to refer to physical observations that can be made from inside the universe (Markopoulou, 1998) (see the diagram in Fig.5).

In the miscroscopic models we defined, the analogue of a spatial slice is an acausal set that is maximal, namely a subset of $`C`$ such that every other event in $`C`$ is either in its past or in its future. By tensoring together all the density matrices on each event in this “slice”, we could obtain a microscopic $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\text{univ}}`$. However, the causal structure of the generic $`C`$ is very different than that of a globally hyperbolic spacetime. One can show that, on average, a generic $`C`$ has very few “slices” (Meyer, 1988). And these may cross, i.e. one is partly to the future and partly to the past of the other. All this makes $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\text{univ}}`$ and the WDW equation not very useful for the generic causal set. We cannot restrict to causal sets that admit foliations since these are very special configurations in the partition function of the models.

The interesting fact is that the models provide an alternative quantum cosmology that does not use a wavefunction of the universe and in fact avoids the issues listed above. The universe is not represented by a global $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\text{univ}}`$, but is instead a collection of ordinary open quantum mechanical systems (all the density matrices on the events of $`C`$). Or, at the level of complete pairs, it is a collection of ordinary isolated quantum mechanical systems. There is no WDW equation, but there is local unitary evolution and a partition function for the entire system (see Fig.6). These local systems may or may not combine to give an evolving wavefunction of the universe, depending on the causal structure. As a result, any observables naturally refer to observations made from inside the universe (see Hawkins, Markopoulou and Sahlmann, 2002).

A smooth continuous universe with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times R`$ topology is what we want to derive in the low-energy limit. Viewed this way, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\text{univ}}`$ and the WDW equation presupposes the limit we need to derive.

## 3 Quantum Gravity as a problem in statistical physics

We now wish to discuss the problem of calculating the low-energy limit of spin foam models. To do so, we give the general definition of a spin foam, a partition function of which equation (1) is a special case.

A spin foam is a labelled 2-complex whose faces carry representations of some group $`G`$, the edges by intertwiners in the group, and the vertices carry the evolution amplitudes. These are functions of the faces and the edges that meet on that vertex and code the evolution dynamics for the model (fig.7).

A spin foam model is then given by a partition function of the form

$$Z(S_i,S_f)=\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}\underset{\text{labels on }\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}\underset{f\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}\text{dim}j_f\underset{v\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}A_v(j).$$
(3)
The first sum is over all spin foams $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ interpolating between a given initial spin network $`S_i`$ and a final one $`S_f`$. $`\text{dim}j_f`$ is the dimension of the $`G`$ representation labelling the face $`f`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. $`A_v`$ is the amplitude on the vertex of $`v`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, a given function of the labels on the faces and the edges adjacent to $`v`$. A choice of the group $`G`$ and the functions $`A_v`$ (and possibly a restriction on the allowed 2-complexes) defines a particular spin foam model. Degrees of freedom such as matter and supersymmetric ones can be introduced by using or adding the appropriate group representations.

Several spin foam models exist in the literature, all candidates for the microscopic structure of spacetime. The very first test such a model has to pass is a tough one: it should have a good low energy limit, in which it reproduces the known theories, general relativity and quantum field theory. Next, it should predict testable deviations from these theories. The first question is then, what is this limit and how we are going to calculate it.

Note that the models are given by a partition function that is strongly reminiscent of that for a spin system or a lattice gauge theory. This suggests that the problem of their low-energy limit may be best treated as a problem in statistical physics. That is, for spin foams in the correct class of microscopic models, we should find the known macroscopic theory by integrating out microscopic degrees of freedom in $`Z`$.

Can we use techniques from statistical physics to test the models? This appears very promising, however, there are important differences between spin foams and the systems studied in condensed matter physics. We can actually list the features of spin foam models, so that we can make a better comparison with the situation in condensed matter physics. They are:

1. The microscopic degrees of freedom are representations of a group or algebra.
2. The weights in the partition function are amplitudes rather than probabilities.
3. The lattices are the highly irregular spin foam 2-complexes. In general, we cannot simplify the problem by restricting to regular 2-complexes as these are rare configurations in the sum.
4. Spin foams are background-independent. This means that we cannot use global external parameters such as time or temperature.
5. There is a minimum length, the Planck length.
6. The partition function contains a sum over all 2-complexes with the same given boundary.

1, 2 or 3 above are mainly technical difficulties. 4, however, and 6, are novel issues, due to the fact that spin foams are microscopic models of the universe itself. It is possible that one can extend the methods of statistical physics, such as the renormalization group, to deal with background independent systems (Markopoulou, 2002).

One thing that is true in statistical physics is that progress is made by analysing specific models, and the issues mentioned above may or may not turn out to be significant. For example, a very interesting model is the Ambjørn-Loll model of Lorentzian dynamical triangulations (Ambjørn and Loll, 1998). In this model, quantum spacetimes of piecewise linear simplicial building blocks approximate continuum Lorentzian spacetimes. To reflect the causal properties of the continuum spacetimes, the model does not allow any spatial topology change. As a result, it has a foliated structure. It is easy to describe this in 1+1 dimensions. There, the model is a sum over sequences of discrete one-dimensional spatial slices, namely, closed chains of length $`L`$ that changes in time.

From the perspective of a relativist, for whom explicit background independence is a necessary condition for a model of the universe to be satisfactory, this model is unpleasant because it appears to have a preferred foliation. The relativist will also question the exclusion of topology change. However, the model is completely well-defined, and the suppression of topology change enables us to perform a Wick rotation, solve it analytically and find that it has a good low-energy limit with very interesting properties. This limit cannot, of course, be classical gravity, since general relativity in 1+1 is an empty theory. Still, one finds that this model belongs to a different universality class than the well-studied euclidean (Liouville) 2-d quantum gravity, and that it is much better behaved. For example, its Hausdorff dimension999The Hausdorff dimension $`d_H`$ can be measured by finding the scaling behaviour of the volumes $`V(R)`$ of geodesic balls of radius $`R`$ in the ensemble of Lorentzian geometries: $`V(R)R^{d_H}`$. is 2, compared to the result for euclidean 2-d histories, which have Hausdorff dimension 4 (reflecting the dominance of fractal geometries). The physically reasonable result of 2 is a direct consequence of the suppression of topology change and the resulting foliated structure.

There are similar results for these models in higher dimensions (see Loll, 2001). Certainly, we cannot have a final verdict on this model until we have its solution in four dimensions. However, it raises the possibility that something already familiar from statistical physics, namely, that the properties of the low-energy theory do not have to be present in the microscopic model, may hold even for backround-independence.

If we regard a spin foam as a statistical physics model, then the phenomenon of universality suggests that it is very likely that models with different microscopic details have the same low-energy limit. This is in contrast with many current arguments for or against specific spin foam models. Most spin foam models are derived from other approaches to quantum gravity (such as path-intergal form of loop quantum gravity, deformations of topological quantum field theories, etc.), and so there is attachment to the details of the models. For example, a very popular model is the Lorentzian Barrett-Crane model (Barrett and Crane, 2000). It has a partition function of the form (3), with representations of the Lorentz group. We know that the Lorentz group is present in the observed low-energy theory (as opposed to Euclidean gravity which is a mathematical construct). This is taken to mean that this model is preferred over the Euclidean Barrett-Crane model (Barrett and Crane, 1998). But what is the status of this choice if the Lorentz group appears only in the low-energy theory?

It is my personal opinion that such arguments, for or against particular details of the partition function (3), at this stage, miss the point. What is now required is calculations of collective effects in a spin foam. For example, what many spin foam models suppose is that there exist discrete fundamental building blocks of spacetime. This is more striking than the details of these blocks. Can we demonstrate their existence independently of their detailed structure?

This brings us to the second lesson from statistical physics: experiments are necessary. We currently have several proposals for experiments that will probe the high-energy regime of spacetime. I believe the task at hand is to make contact between the partition function (3) and such experiments. Calculation of collective effects in a spin foam can be used to predict, for example, departures from Lorentz incariance. This is not an easy task considering the great gap from the Planck scale to what is currently accessible experimentally, and it is further complicated by questions about what time, temperature, etc. are in these models. But the upside is that, if this works, we will have testable real-physics quantum gravity.

## 4 Conclusions

In the last few years, spin foam models have been proposed as the microscopic description of spacetime at Planck scale. We have described their general features and we gave the general formalism for such models.

Causal spin foam models provide a new quantum cosmology in which there is no wavefunction of the universe or Wheeler-DeWitt equation. Instead the universe is described simply as a collection of ordinary quantum mechanical systems.

Spin foams are best interpreted as models of the universe in the statistical physics sense, with gravity and 3+1 spacetime to be derived as the low-energy continuum limit (although this is not the way most were introduced). I believe our best chance to calculate their continuum limit is indeed by importing methods from statistical physics. This immediately implies two things: a) the microscopic details of the models may not play a role, and b) further progress should be made by analyzing individual models as well as by experimental input.

It is tempting to compare our current situation to the 1900’s, shortly before atomism was established. It is hard to believe it now, but at the time, the idea that there could be “any hypothesis about the microstructure of matter was opposed on the grounds that (a) such a structure is inherently unobservable; (b) phenomenological theories are quite adequate for the legitimate purposes of science” (quoted from Brush, 1986, p. 92). Many models of the atomic theory of matter were proposed at the time. “Every Tom, Dick and Harry felt himself called upon to devise his own special combination of atoms and vortices, and fancied in having done so that he had pried out the ultimate secrets of the Creator”101010L. Boltzmann, Verh. Ges. D. Naturf. Aerzte (1) 99 (1899). Quoted from Brush, 1986, p. 98.. It is interesting to see how misguided the physicists were as to the abilities of the experimentalists. They did not think that atoms would be observable in their lifetime. It is also interesting to see that the proof that atoms exist did not involve any particular model. It came with Einstein’s theory of Brownian motion, where very basic assumptions on the statistical nature of molecules (that they are identical, interchangeable, etc), allowed him to calculate a collective effect, that the mean disctance travelled by a molecule was proportional to the square root of time, which was observable and different from the corresponding result for continuous matter.

Again, experience from statistical physics teaches us that experimental input is required to identify the correct models for the systems we are interested in. We are certainly at an early stage but we may well be entering a very exciting period for quantum gravity. There is a real chance that experimental data will come in in the next few years that we will have to explain, with spin foam models, or some other approach. We can start to treat quantum gravity as real physics, where we make contact with experiment and compare predictions with experimental data.

## References

> Ambjørn, J., and R. Loll, 1998, “Non-perturbative Lorentzian Quantum Gravity, Causality and Topology Change”, Nucl.Phys. B536 407, preprint available as hep-th/9805108;
>
> Ambjørn, J., J. Jurkiewicz and R. Loll, “3d Lorentzian, Dynamically Triangulated Quantum Gravity”, Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. 106 (2002) 980-982, preprint available as hep-lat/0201013.
>
> Amelino-Camelia, G., “Quantum-Gravity Phenomenology: Status and Prospects” Mod.Phys.Lett. A17 (2002) 899-922, preprint available as gr-qc/0204051.
>
> Baez, J. “Spin Foam Models”, Class. Quant.Grav. 15 (1998) 1827-1858, preprint available as gr-qc/9709052.
>
> Baez, J. “An Introduction to Spin Foam Models of Quantum Gravity and BF Theory”, Lect.Notes Phys. 543 (2000) 25-94, preprint available as gr-qc/9905087.
>
> Barrett, J., and L. Crane, “Relativistic spin networks and quantum gravity”, J.Math.Phys. 39 (1998) 3296-3302, preprint available as gr-qc/9709028.
>
> Barrett, J., and L. Crane, “A Lorentzian Signature Model for Quantum General Relativity”, Class.Quant.Grav. 17 (2000) 3101-3118, preprint available as gr-qc/9904025.
>
> Bombelli L, Lee J, Meyer D and R, 1987, “Space-time as a causal set”, Phys Rev Lett 59 521.
>
> Borissov R and Gupta S, 1998, “Propagating spin modes in canonical quantum gravity”, Phys Rev D 60 (1999) 024002 (gr-qc/9810024).
>
> Brush, S.G., The kind of motion we call heat Vol. 1, 1986 (Amsterdam: North Holland)
>
> Ellis, J., N.E. Mavromatos, D.V. Nanopoulos and A.S. Sakharov, “Quantum-gravity analysis of gamma-ray bursts using wavelets”, astro-ph/0210124.
>
> Hawkins, F. Markopoulou and H. Sahlmann, Algebraic causal histories, to appear.
>
> Iwasaki, J., “A surface theoretic model of quantum gravity”, preprint available as gr-qc/9903112.
>
> Jacobson, T., S. Liberati and D. Mattingly, “TeV Astrophysics Constraints on Planck Scale Lorentz Violation”, hep-ph/0112207.
>
> Kempf, A., “On the vacuum energy in expanding space-times”, gr-qc/0210077.
>
> Konopka, T.J. and S. A. Major, “Observational Limits on Quantum Geometry Effects”, New J.Phys. 4 (2002) 57, hep-ph/0201184.
>
> Livine, E.R., and Oriti, D, “Implementing causality in the spin foam quantum geometry”, preprint available as gr-qc/0210064.
>
> Loll, R., “Discrete Lorentzian Quantum Gravity”, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 94 (2001) 96-107, preprint available as hep-th/0011194;
>
> Markopoulou, F., “Dual formulation of spin network evolution”, preprint available as gr-qc/9704013.
>
> Markopoulou F, 1998, “The internal logic of causal sets: What the universe looks like from the inside”,Commun.Math.Phys. 211 (2000) 559-583 (gr-qc/9811053).
>
> Markopoulou, F., “Coarse-graining spin foam models”, gr-qc/0203036
>
> Markopoulou, F., and L. Smolin, “Causal evolution of spin networks”, Nucl.Phys. B508 (1997) 409, preprint available as gr-qc/9702025.
>
> Markopoulou, F., and L. Smolin, “Quantum geometry with intrinsic local causality”, Phys.Rev. D58 (1998) 084032, preprint available as gr-qc/9712067.
>
> Markopoulou, F. and L. Smolin, “Nonperturbative dynamics for abstract (p,q) string networks”, Phys. Rev. D58 (1998) 084033, preprint available as hep-th/9712148.
>
> Meyer D A, 1988, The Dimension of Causal Sets, PhD Thesis, Massachussets Institute of Technology.
>
> Nielsen, M.A. and I.L.Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, 2000 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
>
> Oriti, D., “Spacetime geometry from algebra: spin foam models for non-perturbative quantum gravity”, Rept.Prog.Phys. 64 (2001) 1489-1544, preprint available as gr-qc/0106091.
>
> Penrose, R., “Theory of quantized directions”, unpublished manuscript, and in “Quantum theory and beyond”, ed. T. Bastin, Cambridge U. Press 1971.
>
> Perez, A., and C. Rovelli, “Spin foam model for Lorentzian General Relativity”, Phys.Rev. D63 (2001) 041501, preprint available as gr-qc/0009021.
>
> Perez, A., C. Rovelli,“ A spin foam model without bubble divergences”, Nucl.Phys. B599 (2001) 255-282, preprint available as gr-qc/0006107.
>
> Reisenberger, M., “Worldsheet formulations of gauge theories and gravity”, preprint available as gr-qc/9412035.
>
> Reisenberger, M., “A lattice worldsheet sum for 4-d Euclidean general relativity”, preprint available as gr-qc/9711052.
>
> Reisenberger, M., and C. Rovelli, ‘ “Sum over Surfaces” form of Loop Quantum Gravity’, Phys.Rev. D56 (1997) 3490, preprint available as gr-qc/9612035.
>
> Rovelli, C, and L. Smolin, “Discreteness of area and volume in quantum gravity”, Nucl. Phys. B442 (1995) 593-622; Erratum-ibid. B456 (1995) 753, preprint available as gr-qc/9411005.
>
> Sarkar, S., “Possible astrophysical probes of quantum gravity”, Mod. Phys. Lett. A17 (2002) 1025-1036, gr-qc/0204092.
>
> Smolin, Three roads to quantum gravity. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 2000.
>
> Sorkin R, 1990, “Space-time and causal sets” in Proc. of SILARG VII Conf., Cocoyoc, Mexico.
>
> Thiemann T., “Introduction to Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity”, preprint available as gr-qc/0110034.


text:
# Mirror matter admixtures and isospin breaking in the |Δ𝐼|=1/2 rule in Ω⁻ two body non-leptonic decays

## Amplitudes of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ decays with isospin breaking.

As a start, let us briefly review the results of Ref. . Following the ansatz discussed earlier , the mirror admixtures in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ are

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{ph}^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }_s^{}\sqrt{3}\sigma \mathrm{\Xi }_s^{}+\sqrt{3}\delta ^{}\mathrm{\Xi }_p^{}+\mathrm{}.$$
(1)
Our phase conventions are those of Ref. .

Eq. (1) is to be used together with the expressions with the mixings in the $`s=1/2`$ baryons and pseudoscalar mesons relevant here, namely,

$$\mathrm{\Xi }_{ph}^{}=\mathrm{\Xi }_s^{}\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_s^{}+\delta ^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_p^{}+\mathrm{}$$
(2)
$$\mathrm{\Xi }_{ph}^0=\mathrm{\Xi }_s^0\sigma (\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_s^0+\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_s)+\delta ^{}(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_p^0+\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_p)+\mathrm{}$$
(3)
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ph}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_s+\sigma \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}(\mathrm{\Xi }_s^0n_s)+\delta \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{\Xi }_p^0+\delta ^{}\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}n_p+\mathrm{}$$
(4)
$$\pi _{ph}^0=\pi _p^0\sigma \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(K_p^0+\overline{K}_p^0)+\delta \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(K_s^0\overline{K}_s^0)+\mathrm{}$$
(5)
$$\pi _{ph}^{}=\pi _p^{}+\sigma K_p^{}+\delta K_s^{}+\mathrm{}$$
(6)
$$K_{ph}^{}=K_p^{}\sigma \pi _p^{}+\delta ^{}\pi _s^{}+\mathrm{}$$
(7)
The transition operator is the strong-interaction flavor and parity-conserving hamiltonian responsible for the two-body strong decays of the other $`s=3/2`$ resonances in the decuplet where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_s^{}`$ belongs to. The parity-conserving and parity-violating amplitudes $``$ and $`𝒞`$ in the decay amplitude $`\overline{u}(p^{})(+\gamma ^5𝒞)q^\mu u_\mu (p)`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ (in a standard notation) are given by

$$(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\pi ^0)=\sigma (\sqrt{3}g_{_{\pi ^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}g_{_{\overline{K}^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}}),$$
(8)
$$𝒞(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\pi ^0)=\delta ^{}\sqrt{3}g_{_{\pi _p^0\mathrm{\Xi }_s^{},\mathrm{\Xi }_p^{}}}\delta \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}g_{_{\overline{K}_s^0\mathrm{\Xi }_s^{},\mathrm{\Omega }_s^{}}},$$
(9)
$$(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0\pi ^{})=\sigma (\sqrt{3}g_{_{\pi ^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0,\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}}+g_{_{K^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0,\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}}),$$
(10)
$$𝒞(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0\pi ^{})=\delta ^{}\sqrt{3}g_{_{\pi _p^{}\mathrm{\Xi }_s^0,\mathrm{\Xi }_p^{}}}+\delta g_{_{K_s^{}\mathrm{\Xi }_s^0,\mathrm{\Omega }_s^{}}},$$
(11)
$$(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }K^{})=\sigma (\sqrt{3}g_{_{K^{}\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}}+\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}g_{_{K^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}}),$$
(12)
$$𝒞(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }K^{})=\delta ^{}\sqrt{3}g_{_{K_p^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_s,\mathrm{\Xi }_p^{}}}+\delta \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}g_{_{K_p^{}\mathrm{\Xi }_p^0,\mathrm{\Omega }_s^{}}}.$$
(13)
The $`g_{_{MB^{},B}}`$ in these amplitudes are the Yukawa coupling constants observed in the strong decays $`BB^{}M`$. The constants $`g_{_{M_pB_s^{},B_p}}`$, $`g_{_{M_sB_s^{},B_s}}`$ and $`g_{_{M_pB_p^{},B_s}}`$ are new, because they involve mirror matter. The subindeces $`s`$ and $`p`$ stand for positive and negative parity, respectively. Our assumptions about the $`SU(3)`$ properties of mirror $`s=3/2`$ resonances require that the absolute values of their Yukawa couplings be the same as the corresponding ones of ordinary $`s=3/2`$ resonances. However, their phases may differ.

We have no assumed in Eqs. (8) – (13) isospin symmetry. For comparison purposes let us reproduce in Tables I and II the predictions obtained when one assumes this limit, when the $`|\mathrm{\Delta }I|=1/2`$ rule is valid. One can see in these tables that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\pi ^0)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0\pi ^{})`$ differ by $`16\%`$ and $`12\%`$, respectively, from their measured values. These two deviations give practically all of the $`\chi ^2`$ of 25.16. Their ratio or rather its inverse is 2.07 and is smaller about $`35\%`$ than the measured one of 2.74. In this mirror admixture approach these deviations must be explained by isospin breaking. One must recall that in this approach the $`|\mathrm{\Delta }I|=1/2`$ rule should more properly be named a $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=0`$ rule.

## Effects of isospin breaking in the predictions for $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ decays.

Since we do not assume isospin symmetry the constants $`g_{_{\pi ^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}}`$ and $`g_{_{\pi ^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0,\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}}`$ and $`g_{_{\overline{K}^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}}`$ and $`g_{_{K^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0,\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}}`$ are allowed to vary separately, because they are no longer constrained to obey the $`SU(2)`$ symmetry relations $`g_{_{\pi ^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0,\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}}=\sqrt{2}g_{_{\pi ^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}}`$ and $`g_{_{K^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0,\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}}=g_{_{\overline{K}^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}}`$. The results are also displayed in Tables I and II. The main changes appear in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\pi ^0)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0\pi ^{})`$ and their corresponding parity-conserving amplitudes $`(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\pi ^0)`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0\pi ^{})`$. Percentage-wise these changes are $`15.4\%`$, $`+11.4\%`$, $`8.0\%`$, and $`+5.6\%`$, respectively. All percent changes we shall quote are with respect to the symmetry limit values. Changes in other observables and amplitudes are not perceptible at the two and even at the three digit level. With isospin breaking the description of the data is quite satisfactory.

To appreciate this breaking we must look first at the values of the parameters. Our $`\chi ^2`$ consists of 10 restrictions, 3 weak decay rates, 3 asymmetries, 1 strong decay rate  and the values of the 3 angles from earlier work . The latter are $`\sigma =(4.9\pm 2.0)\times 10^6`$, $`\delta =(2.2\pm 0.9)\times 10^7`$, and $`\delta ^{}=(2.6\pm 0.9)\times 10^7`$. In the $`SU(2)`$ limit, the 6 parameters take the values $`g_{_{\pi ^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}}=4.326\mathrm{GeV}^1(=g_{_{\pi _p^0\mathrm{\Xi }_s^{},\mathrm{\Xi }_p^{}}})`$, $`g_{_{\pi ^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0,\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}}=6.118\mathrm{GeV}^1(=g_{_{\pi _p^{}\mathrm{\Xi }_s^0,\mathrm{\Xi }_p^{}}})`$, $`g_{_{\overline{K}^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}}=10.35\mathrm{GeV}^1(=g_{_{\overline{K}_s^0\mathrm{\Xi }_s^{},\mathrm{\Omega }_s^{}}})`$, $`g_{_{K^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0,\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}}=10.35\mathrm{GeV}^1(=g_{_{K_s^{}\mathrm{\Xi }_s^0,\mathrm{\Omega }_s^{}}}=g_{_{K_p^{}\mathrm{\Xi }_p^0,\mathrm{\Omega }_s^{}}})`$, $`g_{_{K^{}\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}}=7.773\mathrm{GeV}^1(=g_{_{K_p^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_s,\mathrm{\Xi }_p^{}}})`$, $`\sigma =5.10\times 10^6`$, $`\delta =2.63\times 10^7`$, and $`\delta ^{}=2.15\times 10^7`$. The second and fourth constants are fixed by $`SU(2)`$ and we have displayed in parentheses the phases used for the coupling constants involving mirror hadrons.

When isospin is broken the 8 parameters used take the values $`g_{_{\pi ^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}}=4.322\mathrm{GeV}^1`$, $`g_{_{\pi ^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0,\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}}=6.120\mathrm{GeV}^1`$, $`g_{_{\overline{K}^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}}=10.36\mathrm{GeV}^1`$, $`g_{_{K^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0,\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}}=10.34\mathrm{GeV}^1`$, $`g_{_{K^{}\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}}=7.766\mathrm{GeV}^1`$, $`\sigma =5.10\times 10^6`$, $`\delta =2.62\times 10^7`$, and $`\delta ^{}=2.15\times 10^7`$, with the same phases as above for the mirror couplings. These coupling constants are of the order of magnitude expected . One can see that the angles remain unchanged from their symmetry limit to their symmetry breaking predictions. The first four couplings in these two lists change only in the third or even in the fourth digit. In percent, the changes in the ratios $`(\sqrt{2})g_{_{\pi ^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}}/g_{_{\pi ^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0,\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}}`$ and $`g_{_{K^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0,\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}}/g_{_{\overline{K}^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}}`$ are $`0.13\%`$, and $`0.19\%`$, respectively. This is indeed a small isospin breaking.

## Relevant remarks.

It is interesting to see how such a small breaking leads to a deviation of around $`35\%`$ in the quotient of the branching ratios of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\pi ^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0\pi ^{}`$. We must concentrate on the $``$ amplitudes of these two decays, the $`𝒞`$ amplitudes are kinematically suppressed and this explains the small values of the asymmetry coefficients. These amplitudes are particularly sensitive to isospin $`SU(2)`$ symmetry and to its breaking. An order of magnitude estimate shows this.

Looking at Eqs. (8) – (13) one sees that since the mixing angle $`\sigma `$ is of the order of $`10^5`$ \- $`10^6`$ and the Yukawa couplings are of the order of 10 $`\mathrm{GeV}^1`$, the amplitudes are expected to be of the order of $`10^7`$ \- $`10^8`$ $`\mathrm{MeV}^1`$. In contrast, they are of the order of $`10^9\mathrm{MeV}^1`$. From Table II, $`(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\pi ^0)=0.8889\times 10^9\mathrm{MeV}^1`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0\pi ^{})=1.257\times 10^9\mathrm{MeV}^1`$ in the symmetry limit. So, experimentally our estimate must be reduced by over one order of magnitude. This is what $`SU(2)`$ symmetry achieves, but then the $``$ amplitudes become very sensitive to its breaking. Accordingly, a small breaking of around $`0.20\%`$ in the couplings lead to the new values $`(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\pi ^0)=0.8175\times 10^9\mathrm{MeV}^1`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0\pi ^{})=1.327\times 10^9\mathrm{MeV}^1`$. The corresponding percent changes are $`8.0\%`$ and $`+5.6\%`$. The ratios of these two amplitudes deviates around $`15\%`$ from the $`1/\sqrt{2}`$ value predicted by the $`|\mathrm{\Delta }I|=1/2`$ rule. Since the $``$’s dominate the branching ratios, the quotient $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0\pi ^{})/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\pi ^0)`$ deviates around $`35\%`$ from its 2.1 value of the $`|\mathrm{\Delta }I|=1/2`$ rule. A $`8.0\%`$ or a $`+5.6\%`$ change in the $``$’s is large, and not because $`SU(2)`$ breaking is large but because the $``$’s are small.

$`SU(2)`$ symmetry becomes so relevant because of the demands we discussed above. It is necessary that the values of the mixing angles used here be the same as in earlier work and that the Yukawa couplings be of the right order of magnitude. The role of the strong decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_4`$ in Table I is essential. Without this restriction those couplings would become wild, and the required suppression would be provided by a reduction of their magnitudes and not by the interplay of the $`SU(2)`$ Clebsch-Gordan coefficients.

In Ref.  we referred to the approach used here as manifest mirror symmetry, because it is assumed that the strong and electromagnetic interactions are shared with the same intensity between mirror and ordinary matter . These are the most favorable conditions under which mirror admixtures may give observable effects in our by large predominantly ordinary matter world.

## Discussion and conclusion.

The above analysis together with the previous ones shows that mirror-matter admixtures provide a systematic description of the enhancement phenomenon observed in non-leptonic meson, hyperon, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ decays (NLMD, NLHD, and NLOD) and in weak radiative decays of hyperons (WRD). At this point the question is what room is left for those contributions by the description of this phenomenon within the standard framework. We shall now address this question.

Theoretical investigations of the enhancement phenomenon have a long story (see Refs.  and references therein) and progress has been slow. It is a common understanding that its explanation is rooted in the dynamics of the strong interactions that dress the weak transition vertex. At present there is not yet a first principle QCD derivation of this effect. One must therefore resort to ways to address calculations, which lead to effective weak hamiltonians involving quasi-particle degrees of freedom. Necessarily, many parameters as low energy coupling constants or effective masses are introduced, limiting the predictive power. In the last decade an a half perturbative contributions have been shown to produce rather small enhancement. However, they do provide essential hints of how non-perturbative contributions should be incorporated in the low energy domain of QCD. Currently, a consensus has been reached that the major effect in understanding the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ rule and its deviations is due to non-perturbative long distance contributions. However, comparison between different effective approaches is difficult. There are ambiguities from author to author and uncertainties in calculations may be largely amplified. In some cases (NLMD and NLHD) an effort is made to estimate a theoretical error, in others (WRD and NLOD) the predictions are less quantitative or simply qualitative.

Important attention has been paid to studying systematically the success of specific approaches in different groups of decays, in order to assess their overall success. The best numerical results in reproducing experimental measurements are obtained in NLMD and NLHD. In Ref.  NLMD are analyzed and after adjusting a free parameter corresponding to unknown Fierz terms in factorization, the theoretical predictions carry a 20-30% uncertainty and the central values differ from experiment by 25-30%. Also in this reference  the results of  for NLHD are reviewed. Out of the 14 measured amplitudes 13 are reproduced between 1-20%, only one is missed by about 80%. The corresponding decay rates are all reproduced ranging from 1% to 30% .The results of Ref.  for NLHD reproduce 4 of the $`P`$-waves amplitudes (only 4 are independent when exact isospin is assumed) very well between 1-5%; however, only 3 $`S`$-wave amplitudes are reproduced between 10-30% and one is missed badly (its sign is predicted opposite).

The approach of  has not been applied to WRD. In Ref.  WRD are studied, but its results are not quantitative. Experimental data is used to extract some parameters, which are then compared with their determination elsewhere. An order of magnitude agreement is observed. The approach of  has been extended to WRD ; however, only indicative results are expected. The large negative asymmetry of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+p\gamma `$ is reproduced, but the corresponding branching ratio is missed by an order of magnitude. Predictions within the standard framework for this group of decays are not yet quantitatively satisfactory.

The approaches of  and  have both been applied to NLOD ; although the authors make it clear that their results are mainly of qualitative nature and are not anticipated to reproduce precisely experimental numbers. Looking at the predictions of  one can see that the three decay rates are predicted within 30-50%. In  numerical results are better, at 5-10%; however, the authors emphasized that these results are not to be trusted yet. There are other predictions in the literature , whose approach is along the lines of . Ref.  does not really make predictions, it is similar in spirit to , certain parameters are fitted and their order of magnitude is satisfactorily compared to independent determinations elsewhere. In contrast, Ref.  points out that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=3/2`$ amplitudes in NLOD turn out so large as to cast doubt on either experimental values or on the reliability of approximations of calculations of the analogous amplitudes in NLHD. A different effective approach is envisaged in Ref. . Their predictions for decay rates, however, turn out to be a factor of 2 off experiment.

To summarize our brief review of the work within the standard framework, let us say that (i) no first principle QCD calculations are yet available, (ii) there are many effective formulations which are difficult to compare with one another, however, (iii) predictions so far are encouraging and (iv) a systematic understanding of long range effects to produce enhancement is $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=1`$ non-leptonic hadronic decays is gradually emerging. We can now address our question: is there room for contributions of physics outside the standard framework in these decays? Currently the answer is affirmative. Guiding ourselves by the estimated theoretical errors and the accuracy of the predictions of Refs.  one may estimate that the enhancement produced in the standard framework leaves room for other contributions that ranges between 30-50%.

In view of our results above and of previous work and of this last discussion, one may conclude that in attacking the problem of the enhancement observed in $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=1`$ non-leptonic and radiative decays one should keep in mind that non-standard physics may contribute to this enhancement. The extent of this contribution will depend on the room left for it by standard framework contributions. Whether these latter will produce 50%, 70%, or even a full 100% of the observed enhancement will be determined beyond doubt by first principle calculations of QCD long range effects. This final answer is, however, not yet within our reach and may stay so for quite some time . It is therefore very important in the meanwhile to remain open-minded and not to overlook potentially important contributions from outside the standard framework.

The authors are grateful to CONACyT (México) for partial support.