text:
# BL Lacertae: the multiwavelength campaign of 2000

## 1 Introduction

Blazars are radio loud active galactic nuclei characterized by an extremely wide spectral range, from radio to $`\gamma `$–ray (sometimes up to TeV frequencies) and by fast and large variability: simultaneous multiwavelength observations are therefore the most powerful tool to reveal the underlying mechanisms. During the last 20 years, BL Lacertae, the BL Lac prototype, has been the target of many multiwavelength campaigns (Bregman et al., 1990; Kawai et al., 1991; Sambruna et al., 1999; Madejski et al., 1999; Ravasio et al., 2002).
X–ray observations are particularly interesting for this source, because they have revealed the transition from synchrotron, which is rapidly varying, to the more quiet inverse Compton emission (Ravasio et al., 2002).
Therefore during the second half of 2000 a new multiwavelength campaign was organized, ranging from radio to TeV energies: the X–ray band was covered by BeppoSAX, with a $`10^5`$ sec run in the core of the campaign (July 17 – August 11; Ravasio et al., in prep.) and by RXTE, which assured 3 short pointings per week (Marscher et al., in prep.). Besides X–ray, the campaign comprised radio (4.8, 8, 14.5 GHz: Michigan Radio Astronomy Observatory; 22, 37 GHz: Metsähovi Radio Telescope) , optical (WEBT collaboration, Villata et al., 2000) and VHE $`\gamma `$–ray observations (CAT; HEGRA). Because of an increase in the activity of the source (Villata et al., 2002), the campaign was prolonged until the end of 2000, with a second BeppoSAX observation started at the end of October. During the autumn, the HEGRA team accumulated 10.5 hrs on–source time and was able to set an upper limit of $`25\%`$ of the Crab flux above 0.7 TeV (Mang et al., 2001). For a more detailed description of the campaign, we refer to Böttcher et al. (in prep).

## 2 X–ray observations

BeppoSAX observed the source while in two different optical states: during October–November BL Lac was 1.5-2 times brigher than in July (M$`{}_{R}{}^{}14`$). The differencies are further evident in the X–ray: when optically faint the source was not detected by the PDS experiment and the \[0.6-10\] keV LECS–MECS spectrum can be interpreted as inverse Compton emission, since it is well fitted by a hard power law model of index $`\alpha =0.8`$ (NH fixed to $`2.5\times 10^{21}`$ cm-2; Sambruna et al., 1999; Ravasio et al., 2002).
During the second observation, the PDS detected the source up to $`50`$ keV; the \[0.3-10\] keV flux was the highest recorded for BL Lac and the spectrum was well fitted by a convex broken power law, softening at E$`{}_{b}{}^{}2.2`$ keV (see table 1). PDS data lie above the described model leaving positive residuals becoming larger towards higher energies: this can be explained as the transition from a steepening synchrotron component to an hard inverse Compton, dominating above $`10`$ keV. BeppoSAX data are confirmed by the simultaneous RXTE \[3-15\] keV spectra: fitting them with power law models, we obtained $`\alpha =0.88`$ and $`\alpha =1.45`$ for the summer and autumn observations respectively (see table 1).

The temporal behaviour of the source confirmed the high state of activity during the autumnal observation : BeppoSAX detected flux variations of more than a factor 3 in time scales of 1 hr (see fig. 1). This is similar to the event flare detected during the observation of July 1999 (Ravasio et al., 2002). In that occasion, the BL Lac X–ray spectrum was displaying the transition between the two emission mechanisms: the flare was visible only in the energy range where synchrotron radiation was dominating. In autumn 2000, instead, both LECS and MECS were seeing synchrotron emission: the fast and large variability is found in the full 0.1–10 keV energy range. This extreme behaviour is not surprising since we are observing the emission of very energetic electrons ($`\gamma 10^510^6`$) that cool very quickly ($`10^3`$ sec). Furthermore, the spectrum is steep: a small change in the spectral slope will produce large flux variations.

## 3 Discussion

The great differencies discussed above are clearly evidenced in the Spectral Energy Distributions reported in fig. LABEL:fig2. To show the complex behaviour of BL Lac we plotted also two historical simultaneous SEDs, relative to the faint state of November 1995 and to the big flare of July 1997: the high energy peak of this first SED was interpreted by Sambruna et al. (1999) as SSC emission (Maraschi, Ghisellini & Celotti, 1992), while the hardness of the X–to–$`\gamma `$–ray flaring spectrum was attributed by Madejski et al. (1999) to an External Compton mechanism (Sikora, Begelmann & Rees, 1994).
Shifting the synchrotron component in frequencies and fluxes we can phenomenologically reproduce all the observed SEDs, except the one of the big flare of July 1997: in that case, the X–ray Compton spectra was extremely higher (more than a factor 4) than all the other Compton spectra, while the synchrotron component was similar. This uniqueness can be accounted for using a simple scenario: a synchrotron emitting blob moving along a jet can be inside or outside the Broad Line Region (see also Ravasio et al., 2002). If outside, the synchrotron photons will be the only available targets for inverse Compton scattering; if inside, otherwise, there will be also the disk emission reprocessed by the BLR. In the special case in which a BLR cloud is present along the jet, there would be a futher target radiation field, composed by the synchrotron radiation reprocessed by the cloud (Ghisellini & Madau, 1996). This latter case could explain the extraordinary X–to–$`\gamma `$–ray spectra seen during July 1997. We are not able to distinguish the engine producing the spectra of 2000, since we lack $`\gamma `$–ray informations. Anyway the fast variability suggest the compactness of the emitting region: during the second observation, the blob could be inside the BLR, producing an hard high energy component.

## Acknowledgments

This research was financially supported by the MURST and by the Italian Space Agency.

## References


format: text

text:
# Exclusive and semi-inclusive strangeness and charm production in 𝜋𝑁 and 𝑁𝑁 reactions Supported by DFG, RFFI and Forschugszentrum Jülich.

11institutetext: IKP, Forschungszentrum Jülich, D-52425 Jülich, Germany 22institutetext: Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, B. Cheremushkinskaya 25, 117259 Moscow, Russia33institutetext: Institute for Nuclear Research, 60th October Anniversary Prospect 7A, 117312 Moscow, Russia44institutetext: Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Giessen, Heinrich-Buff-Ring 16, D-35392 Giessen, Germany  (Received: date / Revised version: date)

## Abstract

Using the Quark-Gluon Strings Model (QGSM) combined with Regge phenomenology we consider the reactions $`\pi ^{}pK^0\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\pi ^{}pD^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ which are dominated by the contributions of the $`K^{}`$ and $`D^{}`$ Regge trajectories, respectively. The spin structure of the amplitudes is described by introducing Reggeized Born terms. It is found that the existing data for the reaction $`\pi ^{}pK^0\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are in reasonable agreement with the model predictions. To describe the absolute values of the cross sections it is necessary to introduce also suppression factors which can be related to absorption corrections. Furthermore, assuming the SU(4) symmetry to hold for Regge residues and the universality of absorption corrections we calculate the cross section of the reaction $`\pi ^{}pD^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$. Employing the latter results from $`\pi ^{}p`$ reactions we then estimate the contributions of the pion exchange mechanism to the cross sections of the reactions $`NNNK\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`NNN\overline{D}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ and compare them with the contributions of the $`K`$ and $`D`$ exchanges. We find that the $`NN`$ reactions are dominated not by pion exchange but by $`K`$ and $`D`$ exchanges, respectively. Moreover, assuming the SU(4) symmetry to hold approximately for the coupling constants $`g_{ND\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}`$ = $`g_{NK\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ we analyze also the production of leading $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ hyperons in the reaction $`NN\mathrm{\Lambda }_cX`$. It is shown that the non-perturbative mechanism should give an essential contribution to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ yield for $`x0.5`$.

Recently it has been argued Cassing2001  that the open charm enhancement observed in nucleus-nucleus collisions Abreu2000  at the SPS might be due to secondary reaction mechanisms such as $`\pi N\overline{D}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ or $`NNN\overline{D}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$. In this work we present estimates of these elementary cross sections using the anology with strangeness production in $`\pi N`$ and $`NN`$ collisions. We consider also semi-inclusive $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ production in the reactions $`NNNX\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`NNNX\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$.

It is well known that the methods of perturbative QCD can not be applied for a calculation of the cross sections mentioned above especially at invariant energies closer to threshold. For the analysis of binary reactions we instead use the nonperturbative Quark-Gluon String model Kaidalov82  and for reactions with three particles in the final state we employ the meson-exchange model taking into account the exchanges of the lowest meson states \- pseudoscalar and vector.

The amplitudes for the reactions $`\pi NK\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\pi ND\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ are calculated using the Reggeized Born term approach (see e.g. Refs. Irving ; Guidal ) with contributions of $`K^{}`$ and $`D^{}`$ Regge trajectories, respectively. The parameters of the trajectories are taken from Ref. Boreskov , whereas for the coupling constants we assume SU(4) symmetry as suggested recently by Lin and Ko Lin . With these parameters the energy dependence of the total $`\pi ^{}pK^+\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cross section (solid line in Fig. 1) as well as the $`t`$-dependence of the differential $`\pi ^{}pK^+\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cross section are described rather well, except for the region close to threshold where the dominant contribution stems from the well established $`s`$\- and $`p`$-wave resonances Feuster . We note that to obtain the absolute value of the cross section one has to introduce a suppression factor of $`0.4`$, which can be interpreted as an absorption correction. Assuming its universality we will introduce the same suppression factor for charm production, too. The resulting total cross section of the reaction $`\pi ^{}pD^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ is shown by the dashed line in Fig. 1.

Our next step is to study $`NN`$ reactions where we first apply our model to strangeness production. Using the method of Yao Yao  one can express the $`\pi `$-exchange cross section for the reaction $`pppK^+\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in terms of the $`g_{NN\pi }`$ coupling constant and the $`\pi ^0pK^+\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cross section as

$`\sigma ={\displaystyle \frac{g_{NN\pi }^2}{8\pi ^2p_i^2s}}{\displaystyle _{W_{min}}^{W_{max}}}kW^2\sigma (\pi ^0pK^+\mathrm{\Lambda },W)dW\times `$
$`\times {\displaystyle _{t_{min}(W)}^{t^{max}(W)}}F_\pi ^4(t){\displaystyle \frac{1}{(tm_\pi ^2)^2}}tdt,`$ (1)
where $`W`$ is the c.m. energy in the $`K^+\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ subsystem and $`t`$ is the 4-momentum transfer squared between the initial and final baryons. The form factor was chosen to be of the standard monopole type: $`F_\pi (t)=(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi ^2m_\pi ^2)/(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi ^2t)`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi =1.3`$ GeV. A similar expression – but with $`\sigma (K^+p)`$ – can be written for the $`K`$-exchange. For the $`K^+p`$ elastic cross section employed in this case we use the parametrization of Cugnon et al. Cugnon .

The total cross section of the reaction $`ppK^+\mathrm{\Lambda }p`$ as a function of the laboratory momentum $`p_{lab}`$ is shown in Fig. 2. The dashed and solid lines describe the $`\pi `$\- and $`K`$-exchange contributions, respectively, with the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_K`$ = 1.0 GeV. An interesting observation is that the pion-exchange contribution is substantially smaller than the $`K`$-exchange and can be neglected especially at higher energies. The reason for that is a difference in the energy dependence of the elementary cross sections: $`\sigma (\pi ^{}pK\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ falls off with energy whereas $`\sigma (K^+p)`$ is almost constant since it is dominated by Pomeron exchange. Moreover, the $`K`$-exchange alone is able to reproduce the experimental data when choosing the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_K=1.0`$ GeV.

We see that using the approach of Yao Yao  we can express the cross section for the reaction $`ppK^+p\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ through the coupling constant $`g_{K^+p\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and the elastic $`K^+p`$ scattering cross section $`\sigma _{el}(K^+p)`$. Similarly, the cross section for the leading $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ production in the reaction $`ppX\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be expressed through the same coupling constant and the total $`K^+p`$ scattering cross section $`\sigma _{tot}(K^+p)`$.

As follows from Fig. 2 the cross section of the reaction $`ppK^+p\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is about 40–50 $`\mu `$b for $`p_{lab}5`$GeV/c. The ratio of the cross sections $`\sigma _{tot}(K^+p)/\sigma _{el}(K^+p)78`$. Thus we expect that the cross section for semi-inclusive leading $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ production in the reaction $`ppX\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ via $`K`$ exchange should be about $`\sigma _{Kexch}(ppX\mathrm{\Lambda })300400\mu `$b. Furthermore, the ratio of the coupling constants $`g_{K^+p\mathrm{\Lambda }}/g_{K^+p\mathrm{\Lambda }}2`$ Guidal  which implies that the contribution of the $`K^{}`$ exchange to the cross section of the leading $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ production might be $``$4 times larger. Thus we expect the cross section for the semi-inclusive leading $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ production to be about

$$\sigma _{Kexch}(ppX\mathrm{\Lambda })+\sigma _{Kexch}(ppX\mathrm{\Lambda })1.5÷2\mathrm{m}\mathrm{b}.$$

We note that Erhan et al. Erhan  quote total cross sections for the reaction $`pp\mathrm{\Lambda }+X`$ of $`4.4\pm 0.2`$ and $`4.7\pm 0.2`$ mb at $`\sqrt{s}=53`$ and 62 GeV, respectively. This comparison shows that the mechanism considered above gives a dominant contribution to the semi-inclusive leading $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ production in the reaction $`ppX\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Using the analogy of strangeness and charm production we can expect that the main contributions to the cross sections of the reactions $`NN\overline{D}_c(\overline{D}_c^{})\mathrm{\Lambda }_cN`$ come from the $`D_c`$ and $`D_c^{}`$ exchanges, respectively. The coupling constants – involving a charm quark – can be related to the strange ones using $`SU(4)`$ symmetry, i.e. $`g_{KN\mathrm{\Lambda }}=g_{D_cN\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}`$ and $`g_{K^+N\mathrm{\Lambda }}=g_{D_c^{}N\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}`$. Within the approach of Yao Yao  we then can express the cross section of the reaction $`pp\overline{D}_c^0p\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ through the coupling constant $`g_{\overline{D}_c^0p\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}`$ and the elastic $`\overline{D}_c^0p`$ scattering cross section $`\sigma _{el}(\overline{D}_c^0p)`$. Similarly, the cross section for the leading $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ production in the reaction $`ppX\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ can be expressed through the same coupling constant and the total $`\overline{D}_c^0p`$ scattering cross section $`\sigma _{tot}(\overline{D}_c^0p)`$.

In our calculations we assume $`\sigma _{el}(\overline{D}_c^0p)`$ = $`\sigma _{el}(K^+p)`$ and $`\sigma _{tot}(\overline{D}_c^0p)`$ = $`\sigma _{tot}(K^+p)`$ while the form factor is taken as

$$F_D(t)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_D^2/(\mathrm{\Lambda }_D^2t).$$
(2)
In Fig. 3 we present the total cross section for the reaction $`pp\overline{D}_c^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+p`$ as a function of the invariant energy above threshold for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D_c}`$=1.5 GeV (dashed line) and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D_c}`$=1.0 GeV (solid line). The dash-dotted line denotes the contribution from the $`\pi `$-exchange alone. Note, that for the elementary reaction $`\pi ^0p\overline{D}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ we use the amplitude calculated in the approach discussed above, while for the $`\overline{D}^0p`$ cross section we adopt a value corresponding to the asymptotic $`K^+p`$ cross section, i.e. $`3`$ mb, which is consistent with the values used in the literature (see e.g. Cassing00 ).

We find that the main contribution to the cross section for the reaction $`NN\overline{D}\mathrm{\Lambda }_cN`$ (a few GeV above threshold) comes from the $`D_c`$ exchange which is much larger than the pion exchange for cut-off parameters $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_D`$ 1 GeV.

To find restrictions on the cutoff parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_D`$ in (2) we use the data from Ref. Bari  on semi-inclusive $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ production in the reaction $`ppX\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$. We assume now that the same $`D`$-exchange mechanism also gives a large contribution to the semi-inclusive $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ production at $`x`$ close to 1. (In fact, in our calculation the cross section is peaked at $`x0.9`$). Of course, in this case one has to insert the total $`\overline{D}^0p`$ cross section in the corresponding analog of Eq. (1). As shown in Fig. 4 the $`p_t`$ dependence of the differential cross section constrains $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_D`$ to $`11.5`$ GeV.

To make a rough estimate of the absolute value of the $`D`$-exchange contribution to the leading $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ production in the reaction $`ppX\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ we assume that the total $`\overline{D}^0p`$ cross section is the same as in case of $`K^+p`$ scattering, i.e. $`20`$ mb. Then at c.m. energies larger than 10 GeV we obtain a cross section of $`1040\mu b`$ depending on the choice of the cutoff. As in the case of strangeness production the contribution from $`D^{}`$ exchange might be approximately 4 times larger. Therefore, according to our estimates the cross section of the semi-inclusive leading $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ production at high energy should be as large as $`50200\mu b`$. This estimate agrees with the experimental value of $`40200\mu b`$ at $`\sqrt{s}`$=62 GeV quoted in Ref. Bari  which implies that the non-perturbative mechanism considered here gives an essential contribution to the leading $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ production.

We finally note, that the same mechanism with $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$ exchanges should provide a similar contribution to the open charm production in $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions.


text:
# Beyond the Zero-Binding Approximation in Quarkonium

## 1 Introduction

Although perturbative QCD was originally seen as the source of the Zweig rule leading to the narrowness of heavy quarkonium  , measurements of the strong coupling constant at the Z boson would imply, in the non-relativistic or zero-binding approximation (ZBA), hadronic decay rates significantly greater than those observed . Thus, if the standard model is correct in the quarkonium region, corrections to these decay rates beyond the ZBA must greatly suppress these rates. A similar problem exists in the treatment of the inclusive B meson decay into $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }+X`$. After correcting an error in  noted by , the color singlet model gives an $`\alpha _s(m_b)`$ some $`20\%`$ lower than suggested by extrapolating in the standard model from measurements at the $`Z`$ boson (i.e., $`0.154\pm 0.005`$ versus $`0.20\pm 0.01`$). These low values of the strong coupling constant required in the ZBA together with low values  obtained in other low energy measurements have stimulated interest in the light gluino hypothesis, but direct searches for such light supersymmetric particles have, up to now, all turned out negative. This increases the importance of a thorough investigation of quarkonium wave function effects beyond the ZBA. Quarkonium has a useful analog in positronium  although the former case is complicated due to the non-Abelian nature of the binding force and due to non-perturbative confinement effects. There is continuing discussion of the much smaller binding effects in positronium  to which we can compare our results. For definiteness we restrict our attention to the vector quarkonium states such as $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$, and in particular to the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$. In a relativistic treatment the production amplitude of such a state with polarization $`ϵ`$ together with other particles from an arbitrary initial state takes the form

$`𝒜=ϵ^\mu _\mu .`$ (1.1)
In the rest frame of the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$, the states of spin +1,-1, or zero along the z axis (quantization axis) are described by polarization vectors

$`ϵ^\mu (\pm )^R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(0,\pm 1,i,0)`$
$`ϵ^\mu (0)^R`$ $`=`$ $`(0,0,0,1).`$ (1.2)
(Throughout this article we use the superscript $`R`$ to indicate $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ rest frame values; for phase conventions see , page 54.)

The production of a $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is, of course, equivalent to the production of a quark of momentum $`p`$ and spin $`\lambda /2`$ together with an antiquark of momentum $`\overline{p}`$ and spin $`\overline{\lambda }/2`$ in a bound state wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. The $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ four-momentum, $`P`$, and the relative momentum, K, are

$`P`$ $`=`$ $`p+\overline{p}`$
$`K`$ $`=`$ $`(p\overline{p})/2`$ (1.3)
with

$`P^2`$ $`=`$ $`M^2`$
$`p^2`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{p}^2=m^2`$ (1.4)
Thus

$`K^2`$ $`=`$ $`m^2{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{4}}`$ (1.5)
The momentum, $`K`$, is conjugate to the relative position of the quark and antiquark in the bound state wave function; we understand (1.5), therefore, in the sense of an average over the wave function. The matrix element $`𝒜`$ in (1.1) is therefore related to a wave function factor, $`F_w`$, which is linear in $`ϵ^{}`$ and is a matrix in the Dirac space of the heavy quarks:

$`𝒜={\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^3}\delta (\frac{PK}{M})\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(K)(F_w)_{\alpha \beta }𝒪_{\beta \alpha }}.`$ (1.6)
Here $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are spinor indices and $`F_w`$ depends on the quark and antiquark momenta and spins while $`𝒪`$ carries the dependence on other variables in the problem. If the initial and final states contain heavy quarks only in the bound state, then the matrix element takes the form of a Dirac trace over $`F_w`$ and other factors from $`𝒪`$. For example, the decay amplitude for $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ into an electron positron pair is

$`𝒜={\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^3}\delta (\frac{PK}{M})\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(K)\left(\text{Tr}\overline{F}_w\gamma _\mu \right)\overline{u}(p^{})\gamma ^\mu v(p^+)2m_e4\pi \alpha e_q/q^2}`$ (1.7)
where $`q^2`$ is the virtual photon’s squared four-momentum and

$`\overline{F}_w=\gamma _0F_{w}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\gamma _0.`$ (1.8)
We use dimensionless spinors normalized to

$`\overline{u}u=\overline{v}v=1.`$ (1.9)
The $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ wave function is strongly affected by non-perturbative confinement effects and is therefore model dependent. In this article we ask what can be said assuming only that the wave function is spherically symmetric (an S wave), that the binding is small compared to the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ mass, and that the bound state can be treated as a superposition of on-shell quark and antiquark.

Since the production of a $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the production of a quark-antiquark in the appropriate wave function, we would expect that, if $`\overline{\lambda }=\lambda `$, for suitable quark and antiquark spinors $`v`$ and $`\overline{u}`$,

$`F_w(\lambda )_{\alpha \beta }=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{M}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{\sqrt{3}}}v(\overline{p},\overline{\lambda })_\alpha \overline{u}(p,\lambda )_\beta `$ (1.10)
while in the case of $`\overline{\lambda }=\lambda `$ we would have the spin projection zero quarkonium state

$`F_w(0)_{\alpha \beta }=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{M}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{\sqrt{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{v(\overline{p},+)_\alpha \overline{u}(p,)_\beta +v(\overline{p},)_\alpha \overline{u}(p,+)_\beta }{\sqrt{2}}}.`$ (1.11)
It is understood that $`F_w`$ contains a unit matrix in the quark color space which, with the $`\sqrt{3}`$ in eqs. 1.10 and 1.11, puts the quark-antiquark pair into a color singlet state. The traces in eqs. 1.6 and 1.7 include a color space trace. In the ZBA, the normalization factors are derived in  and . They carry over without change to the more general case. Here we have used the Fourier transform and normalization identities

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3K}{(2\pi )^3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(K)\mathrm{exp}iKx}`$
$`{\displaystyle d^3x|\mathrm{\Psi }(x)|^2}`$ $`=`$ $`1.`$ (1.12)
Assuming spherical symmetry and on-shell quarks, in addition to (1.5) we have

$`<K_\mu K_\nu >={\displaystyle \frac{<K^2>}{3}}\left(g_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{P_\mu P_\nu }{M^2}}\right)`$ (1.13)
Binding effects in any production or decay process can, therefore, be expressed as a power series in $`<K^2>`$.

## 2 The spin paradox

We are free to choose any quantization axis along which to measure the spin of the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$. If we make the conventional choice of the z axis as quantization axis, one might attempt to use the standard Bjorken-Drell  spinors

$`u(p,\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2m(p^0+m)}}}(m+\overline{)}p)\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _\lambda \\ 0\end{array}\right)`$ (2.3)
$`v(\overline{p},\overline{\lambda })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2m(\overline{p}^0+m)}}}(m\overline{)}\overline{p})\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ i\sigma _2\chi _{\overline{\lambda }}\end{array}\right)`$ (2.6)
with

$`\chi _\lambda ={\displaystyle \frac{(1+\lambda \sigma _3)}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right).`$ (2.9)
In the case $`\overline{\lambda }=\lambda `$ we have

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ i\sigma _2\chi _\lambda \end{array}\right)\left(\chi _\lambda 0\right)`$ $`=`$ $`i\rho _2(1+\rho _3)(\lambda \sigma _1i\sigma _2)/4`$ (2.12)
$`=`$ $`\overline{)}ϵ^R(\lambda ){\displaystyle \frac{M+\overline{)}P^R}{2\sqrt{2}M}}`$ (2.13)
where the $`R`$ refers to the rest frame values of (1.2) so that $`\overline{)}P^R=M\gamma _0`$. In (2.13) we have used the common decomposition of the four-by-four Dirac matrices into two two-by-two spaces

$`\gamma _0`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _3,`$ (2.14)
$`\gamma ^i`$ $`=`$ $`i\rho _2\sigma ^i.`$ (2.15)
Inserting (2.6) into (1.10,1.11) one would obtain

$`(F_w)_{\alpha \beta }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M\sqrt{3M(p_0+m)(\overline{p}_0+m)}}}\left((m\overline{)}\overline{p})\overline{)}ϵ^R(\lambda )(M+\overline{)}P^R)(m+\overline{)}p)I_0\right)_{\alpha \beta }`$ (2.16)
where $`I_0`$ is the unit matrix in the three-by-three quark color space. In general this naive use of (2.6) leads to a non-covariant $`F_w`$, as can be seen by noting the explicit appearance of the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ rest frame values of $`ϵ`$ and $`P`$. Problems with Lorentz covariance have been discussed by  and attributed to non-perturbative effects. The non-covariance of (2.16) is connected with a non-zero relative momentum $`K`$. The rest frame values of $`\overline{)}ϵ`$ are related to the values in a general frame where the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ has four-momentum $`P^\mu =(P^0,\stackrel{}{P})`$ by

$`\overline{)}ϵ^R=\overline{)}ϵϵ_0{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{)}P+\overline{)}P^R}{P_0+M}}.`$ (2.17)
Only if $`K=0`$ does (2.16) take the covariant form

$`F_w={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3M}}}\overline{)}ϵ^{}(\overline{)}P+M).`$ (2.18)
Although binding effects in QCD may be inherently non-perturbative, we see this problem not as one to be resolved by assuming non-perturbative effects, but as requiring consideration of what spinors can be covariant in a bound state problem. Going beyond the ZBA requires a more careful choice of the Dirac spinors $`u`$ and $`v`$. Another symptom of the problem is associated with the way the spin of the quarks is carried over to the spin of the bound state, as we discuss shortly.

The spin operator along a quantization axis $`\stackrel{~}{n}`$ appropriate to act on a Dirac spinor of momentum $`p`$ is

$`S_{\stackrel{~}{n}}={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{)}p}{2m}}\gamma _5\overline{)}\stackrel{~}{n}`$ (2.19)
provided $`p\stackrel{~}{n}=0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{n}^2=1`$. Conventionally, one takes

$`\stackrel{~}{n}^\mu =(0,0,0,1),`$ (2.20)
i.e., pure spacelike in the z direction. However, this spin operator acting on the spinors of (2.6) gives the appropriate $`\lambda /2`$ or $`\overline{\lambda }/2`$ only if

$`p_3=\overline{p}_3=0.`$ (2.21)
In the rest frame of the bound state this implies that

$`K_3=0`$ (2.22)
but, if the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ has unit spin along the z axis and there is no orbital angular momentum, then the constituent quark and antiquark must each have a unique spin $`1/2`$ along this axis. This leads to the apparent paradox that the relative momentum, $`K`$, in the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ rest frame must lie in the plane perpendicular to the quantization axis, contrary to the requirement that an s-wave state must have a spherically symmetric distribution in the relative momentum.

## 3 Recovering covariance; resolving the spin paradox

A free fermion spinor can only depend on the particle momentum and the spin axis as in (2.6). However, in order to recover covariance in the bound state and resolve the spin paradox one needs to employ not the usual Bjorken-Drell spinors (2.6) but instead

$`u(p,\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{m+\overline{)}p}{\sqrt{2m(M/2+m)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{M+\overline{)}P}{\sqrt{2M(P_0+M)}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _\lambda \\ 0\end{array}\right)`$ (3.3)
$`v(\overline{p},\overline{\lambda })={\displaystyle \frac{m\overline{)}\overline{p}}{\sqrt{2m(M/2+m)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{M\overline{)}P}{\sqrt{2M(P_0+M)}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ i\sigma _2\chi _{\overline{\lambda }}\end{array}\right).`$ (3.6)
With these spinors in place of (2.6) the wave function factor becomes

$`F_w({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda +\overline{\lambda }}{2}})=m\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3M}}}v(\overline{p},\overline{\lambda })\overline{u}(p,\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{(m\overline{)}\overline{p})\overline{)}ϵ^{}(M+\overline{)}P)(m+\overline{)}p)I_0}{\sqrt{3M}M(M+2m)}}.`$ (3.7)
For the spin projection zero state, the central expression is the symmetrized combination as in (1.11).

Our result agrees with that found in a recent work  that has appeared since we began this research. While confirming their result, the current article emphasizes the covariance requirement of bound state fermion spinors depending not only on the fermion momentum but also on the bound state momentum. In addition we consider in detail how the spin structure of the constituents carries over to the spin of the bound state. A comparison with other earlier work is given below.

In calculating a quarkonium production or decay process including first order corrections beyond the ZBA, the usual prescription is to expand the matrix element in the relative momentum and use the expectation values (1.5,1.13) as we will do in the next section for the quarkonium lepton pair decay rate and the $`B`$ meson to $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }+X`$ rate. The remainder of this section is devoted to justifying the above choice of spinors in the quarkonium bound state.

One should note first that the quark and antiquark spin projections along any axis only need to sum to the quarkonium spin along that axis after performing the integration over relative momentum, $`K`$. For any fixed value of $`K`$ there can be an orbital angular momentum that comes into the equation. Further, the usual spin states are defined by reference to axes in the particle rest frame, and axis directions are not Lorentz invariant. Bjorken and Drell  specified their spinors for nonzero fermion three-momentum in terms of the Lorentz transformation taking $`(m,0,0,0)`$ to $`(E,\stackrel{}{p})`$, but they did not point out that such a transformation is not unique: any rotation in the rest frame can be applied first. Such a rotation is the difference between the spinors we propose in (3.6) and those of (2.6); such a rotation also is the difference between a single Lorentz boost and the same boost realized via two noncollinear boosts. To construct the quark and antiquark spinors with the proper spin structure we first boost each from their differing rest frames into the rest frame of the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$, since the conventional use of eqs.(1.2) implies the choice of the z axis in the rest frame of the quarkonium for the defining quantization axis.

Any spinor in the rest frame of a particle of mass $`m`$ is boosted into the frame where this particle has four-momentum $`p^\mu `$ by the Lorentz transformation matrix

$`T_p={\displaystyle \frac{m+\overline{)}p\gamma _0}{\sqrt{2m(m+p_0)}}}.`$ (3.8)
Any covariant matrix, $`A`$, in Dirac space is boosted between these two frames by sandwiching the matrix in the particle rest frame between $`T_p`$ on the left and

$`\overline{T}_p=T_{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}={\displaystyle \frac{m+\gamma _0\overline{)}p}{\sqrt{2m(m+p_0)}}}`$ (3.9)
on the right. The spinors (3.6) may be written by transforming the quark and antiquark spinors from their rest frame, where they have spin projections $`\lambda /2`$ and $`\overline{\lambda }/2`$ respectively, first to the quarkonium rest frame where they have momenta $`p^R`$ and $`\overline{p}^R`$, and then transforming to the general frame where the quarkonium has momentum $`P^\mu `$. Thus

$`u(p,\lambda )=T_PT_{p^R}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\lambda \gamma _5\overline{)}\stackrel{~}{n}}{2}}u_0`$
$`v(\overline{p},\overline{\lambda })=T_PT_{\overline{p}^R}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\overline{\lambda }\gamma _5\overline{)}\stackrel{~}{n}}{2}}v_0.`$ (3.10)
Here,

$`u_0=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)`$ (3.15)
$`v_0=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 1\\ 1\end{array}\right).`$ (3.20)
Note that the spinors of (2.6) are

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _\lambda \\ 0\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+\lambda \gamma _5\overline{)}\stackrel{~}{n}}{2}}u_0`$ (3.23)
$`\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ i\sigma _2\chi _{\overline{\lambda }}\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+\overline{\lambda }\gamma _5\overline{)}\stackrel{~}{n}}{2}}v_0.`$ (3.26)
The quark and antiquark momenta, $`p^R`$ and $`\overline{p}^R`$, in the quarkonium rest frame are related to their values $`p`$ and $`\overline{p}`$ in the general frame where the quarkonium has four-momentum $`P^\mu =(P^0,\stackrel{}{P})`$ by

$`p_0^R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Pp}{M}}={\displaystyle \frac{M}{2}}`$
$`\stackrel{}{p}^R`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{p}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{P}(p_0+M/2)}{P_0+M}}`$ (3.27)
and equivalent equations for $`\overline{p}^R`$.

The $`\gamma _0`$’s in the $`T_p`$ and $`T_{\overline{p}}`$ of eqs. (3.10) commute with $`\gamma _5\overline{)}\stackrel{~}{n}`$ and give $`+1`$ and $`1`$ respectively acting on $`u_0`$ and $`v_0`$. We may then use

$`T_P(m+\overline{)}p^R)\overline{T}_P`$ $`=`$ $`(m+\overline{)}p)`$
$`T_P(m\overline{)}\overline{p}^R)\overline{T}_P`$ $`=`$ $`(m\overline{)}\overline{p})`$ (3.28)
or

$`T_P(m+\overline{)}p^R)`$ $`=`$ $`(m+\overline{)}p)T_P`$
$`T_P(m\overline{)}\overline{p}^R)`$ $`=`$ $`(m\overline{)}\overline{p})T_P.`$ (3.29)
Again, the $`\gamma _0`$ in $`T_P`$ acting on $`u_0`$ or $`v_0`$ gives $`\pm 1`$ respectively so the spinors of (3.10) become identical to those of (3.6). Combining $`v`$ and $`\overline{u}`$ and using (2.13) we have

$`F_w=m\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3M}}}v\overline{u}={\displaystyle \frac{(m\overline{)}\overline{p})}{(M/2+m)}}T_P{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{)}ϵ^R(M+\overline{)}P^R)}{M\sqrt{12M}}}\overline{T}_P(m+\overline{)}p)I_0.`$ (3.30)
Then, using

$`T_P\overline{)}ϵ^R(M+\overline{)}P^R)\overline{T}_P=\overline{)}ϵ^{}(M+\overline{)}P),`$ (3.31)
we have (3.7). This result agrees with that of . One might ask, however, why the conventional spinors (2.6) lead to a non-covariant result while the spinors of (3.6) or (3.10) lead to a satisfactory covariant result. The answer lies in the following observation. A quark spinor is given by a covariant factor times a rest frame spinor. The rest frame spinors combine to a covariant form in the meson rest frame (2.13). From there one would have to boost to the general frame via $`T_P`$. But such a spinor would not satisfy the on-shell condition. The combination (2.13) sandwiched with $`T_{p^R}`$ and $`\overline{T}_{p^R}`$ also provides a covariant form in the meson rest frame. This boosted by the $`T_P`$ gives a covariant form in the general frame and also satisfies the Dirac on-shell conditions due to (3.29).

To investigate how the quark and antiquark spins add to the quarkonium spin we consider the momentum dependent spin operators for quark and antiquark

$`S_i(p)=T_PT_{p^R}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _0\gamma _5\gamma _i}{2}}\overline{T}_{p^R}\overline{T}_P`$
The $`S_i(p)`$ satisfy the $`SU(2)`$ algebra for any $`p`$. In the quark rest frame we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _0\gamma _5\gamma _i}{2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{)}p}{2m}}\gamma _5\overline{)}e_i={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _i}{2}}`$ (3.32)
where $`e_i`$ is a pure space-like unit vector along the $`i^{}th`$ axis. Without forcing the relative momentum to lie in the $`x,y`$ plane, $`S_3(p)`$ and $`S_3(\overline{p})`$ have the proper eigenvalues $`\lambda /2`$ and $`\overline{\lambda }/2`$ acting on the spinors of (3.6). In addition we note that, in the quarkonium rest frame where $`T_P=1`$,

$`S_3(p)=S_3(p^R)={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{)}p^R}{2m}}\gamma _5\overline{)}n^R`$ (3.33)
where

$`\overline{)}n^R=T_{p^R}\overline{)}\stackrel{~}{n}\overline{T}_{p^R}=\overline{)}\stackrel{~}{n}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{n}}\stackrel{}{p}^R}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{)}p^R+m\gamma _0}{p_0^R+m}}.`$ (3.34)
$`p_0^R`$, of course, is merely $`M/2`$. After averaging over $`K`$ directions $`\overline{)}n^R`$ is in the $`\overline{)}\stackrel{~}{n}`$ direction. For on-shell quarks $`\overline{)}n^R`$ is, after averaging, precisely $`\overline{)}\stackrel{~}{n}`$. Thus this construction insures that in the quarkonium rest frame the quark and antiquark spins are taken with respect to the same $`\stackrel{~}{n}`$ direction after averaging over relative momenta. It is this property that ensures covariance of the $`v\overline{u}`$ bound state and ensures that the spins of the quark and antiquark carry over properly to the spin of the quarkonium.

In the general frame, where the quarkonium has four-momentum $`(P^0,\stackrel{}{P})`$,

$`S_3(p)={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{)}p}{2m}}\gamma _5\overline{)}n`$ (3.35)
where

$`n^\mu =n_{}^{\mu }{}_{P}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{pn_P}{m}}Q^\mu `$ (3.36)
and $`Q^\mu `$ is the dimensionless four-vector

$`Q^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{mP^\mu +Mp^\mu }{M(M/2+m)}}.`$ (3.37)
$`n_P`$ is the four-vector that is $`\stackrel{~}{n}`$ in the quarkonium rest frame.

$`n_P=\mathrm{\Lambda }(P)\stackrel{~}{n}=({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{n}}\stackrel{}{P}}{M}},\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{n}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{P}}{M}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{P}\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{n}}}{(P^0+M)}})`$ (3.38)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(P)`$ is the Lorentz transformation matrix that relates the quarkonium rest frame to the general frame. The four-dimensional spin axis $`\overline{n}`$ for the antiquark is given by eqs. 3.36 and 3.37 replacing $`p`$ by $`\overline{p}`$. Only in the $`K=0`$ limit or after averaging over $`K`$ are these axes equal. Note that $`pn=\overline{p}\overline{n}=Pn_P=0`$ as required by Lorentz invariance. Using these orthogonalities and the fact that

$`(m+\overline{)}p)\gamma _5\overline{)}Q(M+\overline{)}P)=0`$ (3.39)
it is easy to show that

$`S_3(p)u(p,\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}u(p,\lambda )`$
$`S_3(\overline{p})v(\overline{p},\overline{\lambda })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\lambda }}{2}}v(\overline{p},\overline{\lambda })`$ (3.40)
where the $`u`$ and $`v`$ spinors here are those of (3.6). Therefore,

$`S_3(\overline{p})F_w+F_wS_3(p)={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda +\overline{\lambda }}{2}}F_w.`$ (3.41)
This makes manifest the addition of the quark and antiquark spin projections to compose that of the meson for arbitrary values of $`K`$.

We turn now to a comparison of our result with that of other authors. We convert all results to those appropriate to production of a quarkonium state as opposed to a decay process and we ignore normalization factors.

In one of the seminal early papers on quarkonium processes , there appears the expression

$`F_w(m\overline{)}\overline{p})\overline{)}ϵ^{}(\gamma ^0+1)(m+\overline{)}p).`$ (3.42)
These authors did not attempt to treat the system beyond the ZBA and noted that the above result held in the bound state rest frame, but did not deal with the apparent non-covariance of the result.

In , the wave function factor was given as

$`F_w(m\overline{)}\overline{p})\overline{)}ϵ^{}(m+\overline{)}p).`$ (3.43)
This paper omitted the factor, $`(M+\overline{)}P)`$, which is important in going beyond the ZBA. The same form appears in .

In , the form

$`F_w\overline{)}ϵ^{}(m+\overline{)}P)`$ (3.44)
is given without attempting an analysis beyond the ZBA.

In , in addition to the form (3.43), there appears the non-covariant form

$`F_w\overline{)}ϵ^{}(\gamma ^0+1).`$ (3.45)
Again, these authors did not deal with the apparent non-covariance, preferring to restrict their considerations to the meson rest frame.

Repeating our analysis above, it is straightforward to write the wave function factor for a bound state of different quark species. For a quark of mass $`m`$ and antiquark of mass $`\overline{m}`$, the appropriate generalization is

$`F_w(\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{(\overline{m}\overline{)}\overline{p})\overline{)}ϵ^{}(M+\overline{)}P)(m+\overline{)}p)I_0}{M\sqrt{12M(p_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{R}+m)(\overline{p}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{R}+\overline{m})}}}.`$ (3.46)
Here the quark and antiquark energies in the rest frame of the bound state are

$`p_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{R}={\displaystyle \frac{M}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2\overline{m}^2}{2M}}`$
$`\overline{p}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{R}={\displaystyle \frac{M}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2\overline{m}^2}{2M}}.`$ (3.47)
In the case of non-equal masses, the $`\delta `$ function in (1.6) is modified to

$`\delta ({\displaystyle \frac{PK}{M}}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2\overline{m}^2}{M}})`$ (3.48)
## 4 Decay rates beyond the zero-binding approximation

We would now like to use the bound state formalism to calculate the decay rates $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }l^+l^{}`$ and $`BJ/\mathrm{\Psi }+X`$ including the first corrections beyond the ZBA. In the decay of a $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ as opposed to the production one uses the conjugate wave function factor (1.8). Using (1.10) in the trace of (1.7) and averaging over the relative momenta using (1.5,1.13) we have

$`\text{Tr}(\overline{F}_w\gamma _\mu )={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}(2m+M)}{\sqrt{M}}}ϵ_\mu \left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4K^2}{3(2m+M)^2}}\right)\sqrt{12}ϵ_\mu \left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2K^2}{3M^2}}\right).`$ (4.1)
Thus, to lowest order in $`K^2`$,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(J/\mathrm{\Psi }l^+l^{})=16\pi \alpha ^2e_{q}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)|^2}{M^2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{4K^2}{3M^2}}\right).`$ (4.2)
Using the Particle Data Group  charm quark mass $`m=(1.25\pm 0.1)`$ GeV and $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ mass $`M=3.097`$ GeV we see that the first order correction beyond the ZBA decreases the leptonic pair decay rate of the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ by a factor of $`0.88\pm .04`$. This correction has been also found in . The effect goes in the wrong direction to explain the suppression of the hadronic $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ decays relative to the leptonic pair decay. However, important contributions come from the binding corrections to the three gluon decay. Although the first order correction does reduce the three gluon decay rate, the authors of  note an apparent slow convergence of the $`K^2`$ expansion indicating that further study is needed.

Turning to the decay $`BJ/\mathrm{\Psi }+X`$, the Dirac structure of the invariant amplitude is

$`𝒜\overline{u}(p_s)\gamma ^\mu P_LF_w\gamma ^\nu P_Lu(p_b)\left(g_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{M_{W}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_{W}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k^2}}`$ (4.3)
where $`P_L`$ is the left handed chiral projection and

$`k_\mu =p_{b\mu }p_\mu =p_{s\mu }+\overline{p}_\mu .`$ (4.4)
It is easy to see that, to lowest order in $`\frac{1}{M_{W}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}`$ and to first order in $`\frac{K^2}{M^2}`$, the decay rate is modified by the identical factor $`(1+\frac{4K^2}{3M^2})`$ that occurs in lepton pair decay. Thus, measured relative to lepton pair decay or, equivalently, using the leptonic rate as a measure of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)|^2`$, the relativistic corrections do not change the inclusive $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ decay rate of the $`B`$ meson at zeroth order in the strong coupling constant.

In summary, we have shown how the recovery of Lorentz covariance requires the use of quark spinors in the bound state that depend not only on the quark momentum but also on the bound state momentum. We have also noted how the relevant spin operators for quark and antiquark refer to momentum dependent axes that are only equal in an average sense. We have confirmed earlier recent results for the wave function factor and lepton-pair decay mode of quarkonium, and have extended the beyond-ZBA analyses to the inclusive $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ decay of the $`B`$ meson.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the US Department of Energy under grant DE-FG02-96ER-40967. We thank Philip Coulter for discussions in the early stages of this research.


text:
# CAN QUANTUM MECHANICS BE CLEARED FROM CONCEPTUAL DIFFICULTIES?

## CAN QUANTUM MECHANICS BE CLEARED FROM CONCEPTUAL DIFFICULTIES?

Volodymyr Krasnoholovets

Institute of Physics, National Academy of Sciences

Prospect Nauky 46, UA-03028 Kyïv, Ukraine

http://inerton.cjb.net

20 July 2002

Abstract

The major conceptual difficulties of quantum mechanics are analyzed. They are: the notion ”wave-particle”, the probabilistic interpretation of the Schrödinger wave $`\psi `$-function and hence the probability amplitude and its phase, long-range action, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, etc. The probabilistic formalism is developed in the phase space, but not in the real one. Elimination of the difficulties is likely if we are able to develop quantum mechanics in the real space. Such a theory in fact can be constructed, however, it should proceed from deepest first principles starting from the notion of a 4D space-time, the notion of a massive particle in the space, the principles of the motion of a particle, etc. The theory should be characterized by short-range action that automatically means the introduction of a quantum mechanical force. It is shown that the aforementioned force makes it evident and, moreover, is able to appear on the macroscopic scale. A simple experiment, the express test, which in fact proves the macroscopic manifestation of quantum mechanical force, is proposed for the demonstration in the quantum curriculum.

Key words: quantum mechanics, space, matter waves, inertons

PACS: 03.65.Bz Foundations, theory of measurement, miscellaneous theories; 03.65.w Quantum mechanics; 03.75.-b Matter waves; 14.80.-j Other particles (including hypothetical)

Today we shall soberly look at what we expect from tomorrow. E. P. Wigner, Symmetries and Reflections

## 1 Introduction

Eugene Wigner was keenly interested in mathematical problems of interpretation of quantum mechanical laws and, in particular, he actively studied the problems of measuring. His studies arrived him at the formulation of the following problems of orthodox quantum mechanics, i.e. its difficulties : (i) the vector of state ”the object plus the instrument” cannot be distinguished from the mixture of states; (ii) a possibility of the measuring only state $`\sigma ^{(\nu )}`$ of a quantum system can be measured only in the case when the instrument is a very large system; (iii) quantum laws allow one to obtain only probabilistic correlations between results of several consequence observations of the quantum system. He particularly emphasized the importance of a macroscopic instrument in the problem of measuring: just the instrument should reduce the wave package (or sometimes the vector of state). While on the subject of hidden variables, Wigner  noted that we could not obtain directly their magnitudes. He noticed that the measuring the distribution of magnitudes of hidden variables still remained undetermined, or fuzzy.

Nowadays, however, researchers concern on some other aspects of the foundations of quantum mechanics, which have been revealed in the course of recent studies associated with the phenomenon of entanglement states. One of the main problems which is examined at present is a possibility for nonlocality of quantum theory. Bell  introduced some new aspects to the problem of completeness of quantum theory. He formulated a locality requirement introducing some additional variables, so called local hidden variables. Such a study initiated a long series of thought experiments, which then resulted in some actual experiments (however, the experiments involved photons as quantum entities, which, strictly speaking, are entities of quantum electrodynamics, but not quantum mechanics). In particular, we should mention here research by Stapp  who has carried out a detailed analysis of both theoretical and experimental results, which touch questions like these: Is quantum theory local or nonlocal? and Is nonlocality is real? Stapp has adduced many arguments for this or that point of views and specifically noted that quantum theory is still formulated as an indeterministic theory.

Indeterminism is a very important starting point of modern quantum theory. However, would we are based on the other assumption?.. This question indeed is very interesting as the searching for the answer could clarify the major fundamental physical notions and culminate in the discovery of a series of new links between them, which so far were still hidden from researchers including those who follow Louis de Broglie and David Bohm, pioneers of determinism.

## 2 White gaps in quantum concept

1. First of all let us take a good look at the term ”conceptual difficulties”. The term implies that the doctrine under consideration features strong discrepancies between characteristics, which it describes, and methods, which the doctrine uses. In the case of quantum mechanics, the situation is dramatized by the fact that one more characteristic should be ascribed to a canonical particle, namely, the particle as such is transformed to a certain ”particle-wave”. And this is the first conceptual difficulty of quantum mechanics! Indeed, how can one understand the particle-wave? In 1924 de Broglie, when wrote his remarkable relationships

$$E=h\nu \mathrm{and}\lambda =h/p,$$
(1)
assumed that some real wave was connected with the moving particle and that just this wave guided the particle. In expressions (1) parameters $`E`$ and $`p`$ (the energy and the momentum) belonged to the particle, but the frequency $`\nu `$ and the wavelength $`\lambda `$ were characteristics of a wave that should accompany the particle at its motion in the real space. Especially as relationships (1) enable one to derive the Schrödinger equation .

Corollary 1. De Broglie’s transparent idea that a moving particle is accompanied by an actual wave did not receive any further development.

2. The Schrödinger equation written in 1925 was successfully applied to the calculation of energies of equilibrium states of an electron in the Coulomb potential of a proton, which practically coincided with the experimentally measured spectrum of the hydrogen atom. Such an excellent correspondence between the prediction of the theory and the experimental results gave immediate impetus to the construction of the probabilistic formalism of quantum mechanics. Born’s and Heisenberg’s abstract formalism replaced de Broglie’s common sense. Thus, Born’s probabilistic interpretation of the Schrödinger wave $`\psi `$-function rejected any conceivable physical content from the $`\psi `$. Nowadays a quantum system is described by the probability amplitude $`|\psi |^2`$ and its phase $`\varphi `$ that includes information on the energy, momentum and coordinate of the particle and it is also implied that $`\varphi `$ involves information on the wave characteristics of the particle, some frequency $`\nu `$ and wavelength $`\lambda `$.

Corollary 2. In the modern interpretation, the wave $`\psi `$-function is quite abstract. However, it is believed that at the measuring process the abstract wave function collapses to a measurable actual point particle.

3. At the same time, the existence of the actual wave properties in particles, i.e. the matter waves, received empirical confirmation in the diffraction experiments. Therefore, particles in fact possess wave properties and this automatically implies that the pure probabilistic interpretation of the $`\psi `$-function is not complete.

Recently Briner et al.  has published an experimental work entitled ”Looking at Electronic Wave Functions on Metal Surfaces”, in which they demonstrate the colored spherical and elliptical figures, which the authors called ”the images of $`\psi `$ wave functions of electrons”. Virtually they gave the evidence that the electron is not a point-like object, though the high energy physics asserts that it is a point object with the size no larger than $`10^{17}`$ cm. Thus they fixed an actual perturbation of the space around an electron in the metal! Thereby, the authors subconsciously rose against the probabilistic interpretation of the $`\psi `$ wave accepted by the Copenhagen School concept and, moreover, they practically proved the fallaciousness of the statement of the concept.

Corollary 3. Experimental data point to the fact that the wave $`\psi `$-function is not abstract but a measurable matter.

4. Furthermore, the Schrödinger and Dirac formalisms say nothing about true trajectories of the quantum system studied that is a direct consequence of the probabilistic approach to the description of quantum phenomena. Of course, one could use Feynman diagrams for any entity, with their point-like particles and photons, all having some absolute position and momentum. However, we cannot get the true path. Instead we must draw infinitely many Feynman diagrams and then calculate the Feynman’s path integrals, which make it possible to find out only the most verisimilar trajectory of the quantum system.

Once again, this is because of the fact that conventional quantum mechanics is developed in the phase space, but not in the real one. Indeed, can one clarify the duality of a ”particle-wave” in the real space where only a particle and a wave can separately be determined? The same is noted by Ligare and Olivery : ”it is not always clear which aspects of classical wave behaviour are related in a fully quantum-mechanical treatment, or where to draw the line between wave-like aspects and particle-like aspects and how to justify the division”.

When we talk about the real space we imply a 3D space or a 4D space-time, in which one can assign exact position, velocity and momentum to an object at any time. A wave can also simply be given in a 3D space or 4D space-time, but in this case the space should possess clear defined condensed matter properties.

Corollary 4. If we wish to understand the ”particle-wave”, we must turn to the consideration of quantum mechanics in a space filled with a subquantum medium that was first pointed out by de Broglie (see e.g. Ref. ).

5. Next negative aspect is that the probabilistic formalism severe suffers from long-range action. By conventional quantum mechanics, particles can interact simultaneously even if they are spaced at any quantity of kilometers, Ehrenfest . Long-range action of quantum mechanics was also emphasized by Pauli ; in particular, he noted that quantum mechanics bears up against a hypothetical basis that the speed of the interaction in the quantum mechanical range $`c=\mathrm{}`$ and that the gravitational interaction is negligible, the constant of gravitational interaction $`G=0`$.

For instance, let us turn to the problem of hydrogen atom, a typical example of long-range action in quantum mechanics. The radial part of the Schrödinger equation written for a particle in a spherically symmetric electrostatic potential $`V(r)`$ has the form (see, e.g. Schiff )

$$\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2\chi }{\mathrm{d}r^2}+\left[V(r)+\frac{l(l+1)\mathrm{}^2}{2mr^2}\right]\chi =E\chi $$
$`(2)`$
where $`\chi (r)`$ is the radial wave function. The second term in the square brackets is stipulated by the potential energy associated with the moment of momentum of the particle. The potential energy

$$V(r)+\frac{l(l+1)\mathrm{}^2}{2mr^2}$$
$`(3)`$
ensures the stability of the particle orbit. In the case of the hydrogen atom the potential $`V(r)=e^2/(4\pi ϵ_0r)`$ and the equation of related motion of an electron and proton has the form similar to Eq. (2).

However, it should be noted that the Schrödinger quantum equation (2) includes the potentials $`V(r)`$ written in pure classical terms, much as in the problem of Newton gravity! $`V(r)`$ is a usual classical presentation of the motionless charge and the electromagnetic field that surrounds it. The mass $`m`$ that enters into quantum equation (2) is also a pure classical parameter. Hence even the most comprehensive quantum mechanical description of the quantum system studied is only a quasi-classical pattern.

Corollary 5. If we remain devotees of orthodox quantum mechanics, the fundamentals will be kept in the shade of its statistical conformities.

6. Although there are Heisenberg’s uncertainties for the coordinate and momentum and the energy and time of a particle,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x\mathrm{\Delta }p\mathrm{};\mathrm{\Delta }E\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{},$$
$`(4)`$
we are not able to write any similar relation for the particle mass, which should also be fuzzy in a undetermined volume, the same as the particle itself (the mass must follow the particle!!), as the probabilistic formalism prescribes.

De Broglie  studied this problem and came to the conclusion that the dynamics of particles had the characteristics of the dynamics of the particles with a variable proper mass. He was the first to indicate that the corpuscle dynamics was the basis for the wave mechanics. With the variational principle, he obtained and studied the equations of motion of a massive point reasoning from the typical Lagrangian

$$L=M_0c^2\sqrt{\overline{1v^2/c^2}}$$
$`(5)`$
in which the velocity $`v`$ of the point and the velocity of light $`c`$ were constant along a path. De Broglie’s pioneer research allows one to suggest that a real wave, which indeed has to accompany the moving particle, must complement the deficient value of the momentum and the energy of the particle. Then, say, we know the momentum and the energy, but have uncertainties in coordinate and time. If we assume the existence of an actual wave that travels in the space together with the particle, we can readily propose that the particle is entrained by the said wave and, therefore, position and time of the particle become in fact undetermined in a concrete point as they become functions of the traveling wave.

Corollary 6. Heisenberg’s uncertainty is a direct consequence of the probabilistic approach to quantum phenomena when only one of two subsystems is taken into account, namely, we treat the behaviour only a particle, but totally ignore the real wave, which accompany the particle.

7. All correct theories should be Lorentz invariant, i.e. they and Einstein’s special relativity should agree (see, e.g. Ref. ). Nevertheless, the Schrödinger equation is not Lorentz invariant but it perfectly describes quantum phenomena and we trust wholly the results derived from the equation. How is it possible?

It seems that the disagreement between the strong theoretical conclusion and the experimental veracity is hidden in the statistical approach to the Schrödinger formalism. Indeed, relationships (1) allow the derivation of the Schrödinger equation as well , but what exactly do the relationships describe? In recent papers by the author  the inner sense of relationships (1) was studied in detail starting from an idea that the physical reality represented a space net that came into the interaction with a moving particle. This allowed the derivation of the Schrödinger equation from deepest first principles that in fact removed a very unpleasant conflict that so far took place between nonrelativistic quantum mechanics and special relativity: Unlike the traditional presentation, the Schrödinger equation gained in paper  is Lorentz invariant owing to the invariant time entered in the equation.

Corollary 7. The Schrödinger equation is Lorentz invariant.

8. There is no correct determination of values $`E`$ and $`\nu `$ in the expression $`E=h\nu `$ applied to a moving canonical particle. In one case $`E=\frac{1}{2}m_0v^2`$ (see, e.g. Schiff , p. 33 ), and in the other one $`E=m_0c^2(1v^2/c^2)^{1/2}`$ (see, e.g. Schiff , p. 364). Which is true?

The problem has been studied by the author in paper , in which the motion of a relativistic particle has been treated based on a generalized lattice model of the real space. It has been shown that if the moving particle interacts with the space, the feedback governs the quantum system in question and the system undergoes the phase transition when its velocity $`v`$ trends to $`c`$. In the case $`v<<c`$, an associated real wave, which guides the particle, carries the particle’s kinetic energy $`E=\frac{1}{2}M_0v^2`$; in the case $`vc`$ the associated wave becomes closed inside of the range covered by the Compton wavelength $`\lambda _{}=h/mc`$ of the particle and hence the kinetic energy of the particle is given by the total energy of the region, $`E=m_0c^2(1v^2/c^2)^{1/2}`$.

Corollary 8. Allowance for the interaction of the quantum system under consideration with the real space clarifies difficult questions of quantum mechanics and, in particular, gives the unambiguous answer to the question : What is nature of the phase transition, which occurs in the quantum system, that turns us from the description of the system based on the Schrödinger equation to that resting on the Dirac one?

9. What is spin? It is one more mystery of the microworld. In quantum mechanics spin is perceived to be a certain inner property of canonical particles. Quantum field theories define spin as an ”inseparable and invariable property of a particle” (see e.g. Ref. , p. 17). That is all.

As a rule the notion of spin of a particle is associated with an intrinsic particle motion. Several tens of works have been devoted to the spin problem. Major of them is reviewed in recent author’s papers . Main ideas of the works quoted in Refs.  are reduced to a moving particle that is surrounded by a wave, or a small massless particle, or an ensemble of small massless particles, which engage in a circular motion.

Of course, it seems quite reasonable to assume that spin in fact reflects some kind of proper rotation of the particle. However, canonical particles possess also electrodynamic properties and the operation ”rotor” is the principal characteristic of the particle electromagnetic field. Therefore, the accord between quantum electrodynamics and quantum mechanics of a particle requires the abandonment of the idea of rotation with respect to the notion of the particle spin. This means that we should associate the rotational electromagnetic field generated by a canonical particle with the particle’s proper rotation of some sort.

Particle physics also cannot offer any reasonable answer to the question on the problem of spin, as this branch of physics does not deal with spatial images of particles which, nevertheless, are the main subject of its study. If quantum mechanics considers particles by means of their abstract $`\psi `$ functions, particle physics treats the subject basing on all the more abstract notion of fundamental symmetry.

In the author concept \[16-19\] particles are determined just as spatial images (or objects) in the real space, which in fact makes it possible to investigate the notion of spin in detail. In this case along with an oscillating rectilinear motion, the particle undergoes also some kind of an inner pulsation, like a drop. The two possible orientations of pulsations either along the particle velocity vector or diametrically opposite to it are associated with the particle spin .

Corollary 9. The notion of the particle spin can be determined only in the framework of quantum mechanics constructed in the real space. Two possible own pulsations of the particle in the real space are exhibited by two so-called spin-1/2 projections in the phase space. An integer-valued spin is the property of a composite quantum system.

10. Dirac  considering links between general relativity and quantum mechanics noted that although the relativity posed the objections to an aether, quantum mechanics practically removed them. This automatically means that a vacuum, which is hazy something or nothing in all modern quantum theories (quantum mechanics, quantum elecrodynamics, chromodynamics, etc.), should be replaced by a concrete subquantum substrate. High energy physics working on sub microscopic scales proposes some Higgs condensate, which would be initial at the creation of the physical world. Nonetheless, the Higgs condensate of models of grand unification of interactions is not constructed in a real 4D space-time and moreover, it does not give any idea in what way it can manifest itself in quantum mechanics. We emphasize that it is quantum mechanics that is the most reliable basis for all the other quantum theories. Because of that any new quantum concept should produce orthodox quantum mechanics as a limiting case of the theory constructed. However, either quantum chromodynamics, or some other contemporary theory (such as string theory) is not able to mutate in the orthodox quantum mechanical formalism. Quantum field theories and their derivatives suffer from undetermined field variables $`\phi `$, $`\phi ^4`$ and so on. Group methods also isolate themselves from both the constitution of the space and the direct measurement.

General relativity does not deal with any substrate, its major subject is geometry. However, we should not forget that the relativity separates the mass from the geometry, i.e. matter from space. Nonetheless, if we assume that matter appears from the space, which in turn is a substrate, we immediately arrive at the conclusion that the matter should interact with such a space: the space itself becomes material.

Corollary 10. A quantum theory constructed with regard to the connection of a quantum system with the real space in which the system is found will arrive us at very new horizons in both the subatomic area (the strong and electroweak interaction would be revised) and macroscopic one (the theory of gravity would be developed starting from quantum mechanics as well).

## 3 Quantum mechanical force

As of now, quantum entanglement, the property that allows two particles to behave as one, no matter how far apart they are, has been much investigated. Experimentally, if we measure the state of one particle, we instantly determine the state of the other. Researchers probe the possibility to teleport not just quantum states of photons, but also of more massive particles. And it is anticipated that the phenomenon could one day allow us to teleport objects by transferring their properties instantly from one place to another.

In interesting theoretical work  interference and entanglement have recently been studied in the frame of a so-called intrinsic approach. As a rule classical states are prescribed to the phase space, while quantum states, which are considered as linear functions on the dynamical variables, assign to the vector space formalism (the Hilbert space). Density matrices belong to bilinears in the vectors. The authors  propose a generalized method of restoring an entangled pure state (a purification of the linear vector) from mixed states of the subsystems involved in entanglement. The pure density matrix is then treated as a measure of entanglement for the quantum system in question. In orthodox quantum mechanics linear operators, which act on the Hilbert space of states, are associated with observables. For instance, the Wigner distribution $`f(𝐱)`$ is related to observables as well. Nevertheless, although $`f(𝐱)`$ is defined in the Hilbert space  its arguments belong to the phase space (note in the general case the Wigner function is determined as $`f(𝐱,𝐩,t)`$). So the phase space and the Hilbert one appear as interconnected, though the Hilbert space describes strictly stationary states of the quantum system in question.

From the view point of conceptual difficulties of quantum theory, the entanglement represents some synthesis of nonlocality and long-range action considered above. These two difficulties as well as all the other ones are associated with the area of existence of quantum mechanics, i.e. the phase space, in which orthodox quantum mechanics is constructed. However, all the problems are remedied by passing on to quantum mechanics derived on a deeper fundamental basis, namely, the real space.

Such a theory, submicroscopic quantum mechanics, indeed has recently been developed by the author (see self reviews ). It is argued that a particle moving in the real space is surrounded by a cloud of elementary excitations called ”inertons”, which appear due to friction of particle-on-superparticles (where superparticles are building blocks of the real space, see also Refs. ). The particle along with its inerton cloud moves as a typical real wave. Inertons, which accompany the particle, represent a substructure of its matter waves and, because of that, they are carriers of the particle inert properties.

Thus, just inertons teleport quantum states of one particles to the other ones. The mass of inertons can easily be estimated . Besides, the inerton and the photon are not fundamentally different: It is an inerton that is an undercoat for the photon, i.e. the photon is an inerton, which is supplemented by the electromagnetic polarization . We know that photons are carriers of the electromagnetic interaction (or electromagnetic force) between both quantum entities and macroscopic objects. Therefore, since the photon is a complexly built quasi-particle whose base is the inerton, we immediately get the conclusion that inertons should be carriers of both the quantum mechanical interaction (or quantum mechanical force), which acts between quantum entities, and the pure mechanical interaction, which occurs between macroscopic objects. In the last case inertons manifest themselves as carriers of the force of inertia, which is the major mechanical force. Indeed, everyone can recall that any abrupt halt is attended with the further inexplicable jog. The reason can simply be explained in the frame of the submicroscopic concept: our own cloud of inertons continues to push us slightly when we instantly pull up. In the case of a quantum system the impact of inertons should intensify oscillations of a particle(s), which in turn yields an option to guide the particle(s) to another place, including the so-called tunneling. In other words, in the quantum case a flow of inertons can be treated as a confinement field, which exacts control over the system behaviour. Besides, inertons having the energy and the momentum carry also local deformations, which result in the induction of the gravitational potential around a particle or a classical object .

One can put a question whether inertons, as carriers of the quantum mechanical force, can be measured on the macroscopic scale. Yes, they certainly can. Recent research has shown  that Egyptian pyramids were functioning as peculiar plants, which projected (or teleported?) the Earth by transferring its properties to the pyramids. In other words, especially the Great Pyramid of Giza was constructed (by modern estimates several tens of thousand years ago ) as a transducer that converted the Earth inerton field into a microwave electromagnetic radiation . In fact, the ancients possessed the detailed knowledge on the constitution of the universe. For instance, we meet in the $`Bhagavad`$-$`g\overline{ı}t\overline{a}`$ : ”Yet there is another nature, which is eternal and is transcendental to this manifested and unmanifested matter. It is supreme and is never annihilated. When all in this world is annihilated, that part remains as it is.” Besides, quite recently Roy  has found the clue to decoding the Vedic manuscripts and nowadays we could ascribe another title to the Ṛgveda, namely: Ultramodern Handbook on the Constitution of Space, Particle Physics and Cosmology (see also Ref. ). It is interesting to note that the theory of space, which is developing by Bounias and the author \[16-19,22-25\], exactly corresponds to the pattern stated in the decoding Ṛgveda .

The Earth’s inerton waves are generated along West-East line owing to the proper rotation of the Earth (in other words, the rotation of the Earth results in its interaction with the space). In our own experiment  (see also Ref. ) we could fix changes caused by the Earth inerton field in samples that were stayed in a resonator for 30 days. The construction of the resonator is very simple; it consists of two faces bonded together in the top and distant one from another at the bottom. The faces should be oriented to the East and the West. Thus our resonator resembles a small model pyramid in a certain sense. The result obtained directly demonstrates the existence of the quantum mechanical force on the macroscopic scale. In paper  we showed that an external inerton field (the Earth’s inerton field) influenced the system studied in the same manner as the ultrasound. This allows us to elaborate a facility that should record the quantum mechanical force by using of rapid method. Figure 1 depicts the stunning demonstration experiment: in the resonator the device measures the inerton radiation of the Earth. The antenna of the device is turned at a concrete frequency $`\nu _0`$, which is generated by the proper electronic circuit. In the presence of inerton radiation, frequency $`\nu _0`$ should be altered. If we turn the resonator on $`90^{}`$ so that its faces become oriented to the North and South, the device will not record any radiation; along the North-South line the Earth does not revolve and therefore in this direction no stable inerton flows are available . The device described is not a fantasy. Similar devices constructed by engineers (”Demon,” ”Urga” and ”Tesey”) have already been used by some geologists and architects in Moscow and Kharkiv at the construction of model pyramids in Russia and Ukraine. The pyramids whose height varies from 10 to 44 m were built for both scientific studies and business purpose (see Refs. ). The said devices measured noise that was several times greater inside of the pyramid than that of outside.

## 4 Concluding remarks

In this outline we have analysed basic confusing points of conventional quantum mechanics. They are very strong, though still are not virtually treated in the physics literature. Nevertheless, we have to mention here the very interesting recent work by Arunasalam  in which he considers discrepancies in views on the fundamentals by famous physicists: Einstein, Dirac, Feynman, Pauli, Bethe and others. Arunasalam brings up the views on the fundamental problems expressed by different sets of giants of physics and shows that the views are in sharp contrast (for instance, covariance versus invariance, relativistic versus nonrelativistic electron theories, etc.). He is completely right when notes that ”such conflicts put heavy burden on the conscience of any physics teacher. After all, a good physics teacher has a responsibility to explain to the students which view is the correct one.”

The problems posed by Arunasalam  indeed are considerably importance. However, it seems that those problems arise from the fact that the fundamental physics is still resting on an undetermined basis. For instance, when we talk about charge conjugation $`𝐂`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏𝐓}`$ violation, we neither know nor understand what do the notions charge, space, and time mean exactly. These notions still are not determined exactly at all! The same take place in all other examples: (i) the total angular momentum includes the vector potential $`\stackrel{}{A}`$, but what does the latter mean?! (ii) The problem ”covariance versus invariance” is determined only in the framework of phenomenological consideration; quantum mechanical behaviour of the system studied change the problem very significantly. (iii) The problem ”relativistic and nonrelativistic theories of the electron” strongly depends on the notions of spin and the vector potential $`\stackrel{}{A}`$, which completely do not understandable in the framework of conventional quantum theories.

Thus, only transition to sub atomic physics is capable to clarify the discrepancies described by Arunasalam . We need a detailed microscopic theory of the real space, the notions of matter and time derived from the space and the identification of the process of motion of matter in the space. All these problems have been raised by the author and partly already solved in works \[16-19,22-25,28\]. The theoretical results obtained have found rigorous experimental verification  (see also Ref. ) and the device (that has been developing) shown in Figure 1 is reliable evidence of credibility of the proposed concept.

Further studies aimed at the understanding the constitution of the real space and the generation of matter and physics laws in the space promise a major breakthrough in fundamental science and advance in technology.