text:
# Single-Spin Measurement and Decoherence in Magnetic Resonance Force Microscopy

## I Introduction

Magnetic resonance force microscopy (MRFM) is approaching its ultimate goal: a single spin detection . The most promising approach to single spin detection is, probably, cyclic adiabatic inversion (CAI) . In this approach, the magnetic moment of the sample changes its direction adiabatically following the effective magnetic field. The CAI of the spin may act as an “external force” driving the resonant vibrations of the cantilever or it may affect the frequency of the cantilever vibrations driven by another source (e.g. the modern “OSCAR” technique ).

The fundamental question which arises in MRFM single-spin measurement is the following: What component of the spin is measured by this technique? Indeed, in a simple geometry the cantilever tip oscillating along the $`z`$-axis interacts with the $`z`$-component of the spin and, consequently, is expected to measure the spin $`z`$-component. From the other side, adiabatic inversion assumes that the approximate integral of motion is the spin component along the effective magnetic field which rotates in the $`xz`$ plane. Thus, one might expect that the cantilever measures the spin component along the effective magnetic field in the rotating reference frame.

In this work we consider the macroscopic cantilever as itself the measuring device interacting with an environment. We assume that the influence of an additional (e.g. optical) device which detects the cantilever vibrations is small. This corresponds to the current MRFM technique. In Section II we discuss the quantum dynamics of the quasi-classical cantilever which describes a generation of the Schrödinger cat state associated with two possible projections of the spin. In Section III we include an interaction of the cantilever with an environment inherent to any measurement processes. The latter leads to the decoherence of the two possible trajectories of the cantilever due to interaction with the environment.

## II Hamiltonian Dynamics

We considering the simple setup shown in Fig. 1.

The ferromagnetic particle with a magnetic moment $`\stackrel{}{m}`$ is mounted on the cantilever tip. The permanent magnetic field, $`B_0`$, points in the positive $`z`$-direction. A rotating rf field in the $`xy`$ plane, $`\stackrel{}{B}_1\mathrm{exp}[i(\omega t\phi (t))]`$, is resonant with the spin precession around the $`z`$-axis. The frequency modulation of $`\stackrel{}{B}_1`$ causes the CAI of the spin. Under resonant conditions, when the period of the cantilever vibrations matches the period of the CAI, the amplitude of the cantilever vibrations is expected to increase providing the detection of the spin.

The quantum Hamiltonian of the system in the rotating frame ( in terms of dimensionless parameters) can be written as

$$=(p_z^2+z^2)/2+\dot{\phi }(\tau )S_zϵS_x2\eta zS_z.$$
$`(1)`$
Here

$$p_z=P_z/P_q,z=Z/Z_q,$$
$`(2)`$
$`\stackrel{}{S}`$ is the electron spin operator, $`ϵ=\gamma B_1/\omega _c`$, $`\dot{\phi }=d\phi /d\tau `$, $`\eta =gF/2F_q`$, $`P_z`$ and $`Z`$ are the operators of the effective momentum and coordinate of the cantilever tip; $`\gamma =g\mu _B/\mathrm{}`$ is the spin gyromagnetic ratio (absolute value); $`\omega _c`$ is the cantilever frequency; $`F`$ is the magnetic force between the ferromagnetic particle and the spin when the cantilever tip is at the origin ($`z=0`$). The origin is chosen at the equilibrium position of the cantilever with no spin; $`\tau =\omega _ct`$ is a dimensionless time. The units of the coordinate, momentum, and force are given by

$$Z_q=(\mathrm{}\omega _c/k_c)^{1/2},P_q=\mathrm{}/Z_q,F_q=k_cZ_q,$$
$`(3)`$
where $`k_c`$ is the cantilever spring constant. Note, that we treat an electron spin of a paramagnetic atom whose direction is opposite to the direction of the atomic magnetic moment. We assume in (1) that the transverse magnetic field points in the negative $`x`$-direction of the rotating frame.

With respect to actual “reading” devices we consider a realistic scenario for the MRFM technique which involves non-destructive measurements of the amplitude, frequency, and phase of the cantilever vibrations, for example by using a fiber-optic interferometer operating in the infrared region. We assume that the optical detection of cantilever vibrations does not influence significantly the cantilever-spin dynamics. (In practice, this means that the disturbance caused by the optical radiation is smaller than the thermal noise of the cantilever.)

In this section we do not consider the interaction with the environment which provides the measurement itself. (See also .) Thus, we use the Schrödinger equation,

$$i\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\mathrm{\Psi },$$
$`(4)`$
for computer simulations of the cantilever-spin dynamics. In the $`zS_s`$-representation, the wave function, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, is a spinor. It contains two components, $`\mathrm{\Psi }(z,1/2,\tau )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }(z,1/2,\tau )`$, which correspond to the two possible values of $`S_z`$. Using the expansion over the eigenfunctions, $`u_n`$, of the oscillator Hamiltonian, $`(p_z^2+z^2)/2`$, we write these two components of the cantilever-spin wave function in the form,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(z,1/2,\tau )=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_n(\tau )u_n,\mathrm{\Psi }(z,1/2,\tau )=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}B_n(\tau )u_n,$$
$`(5)`$
and derive equations for the amplitudes, $`A_n`$ and $`B_n`$,

$$i\dot{A}_n=(n+1/2+\dot{\phi }/2)A_n(\eta /\sqrt{2})(\sqrt{n}A_{n1}+\sqrt{n+1}A_{n+1})$$

$$(ϵ/2)B_n,$$
$`(6)`$
$$i\dot{B}_n=(n1/2+\dot{\phi }/2)B_n+(\eta /\sqrt{2})(\sqrt{n}B_{n1}+\sqrt{n+1}B_{n+1})$$

$$(ϵ/2)A_n.$$

The initial conditions describe the quasi-classical state of the cantilever tip and a spin which points in the positive $`z`$-direction,

$$A_n(0)=(\alpha ^n/\sqrt{n!})\mathrm{exp}(|\alpha |^2/2),B_n(0)=0,$$
$`(7)`$
$$\alpha =[z(0)+ip_z(0)]/\sqrt{2}.$$

In our computer simulations we used the following parameter values,

$$\eta =0.3,ϵ=400,\dot{\phi }=6000+300\tau if\tau 20,$$
$`(8)`$
$$\mathrm{and}\dot{\phi }=1000\mathrm{sin}(\tau 20),if\tau >20.$$

The value $`\eta =0.3`$ can be achieved in current MRFM experiments . The parameters for the transverse magnetic field have been chosen to satisfy two conditions: i) the condition of the CAI, $`|\ddot{\phi }|ϵ^2`$, and ii) the effective magnetic field produced by the cantilever vibrations on the spin is small in comparison with the amplitude of the rf field: $`2\eta |z|ϵ`$. We consider the results of the computer simulations reliable if they do not change with an increase in the number of basic functions, $`u_n`$.

To describe the quasi-classical cantilever, we took the initial average energy $`E(0)=|\alpha |^21`$. The number of basic functions, $`u_n`$, needed to provide reliable results, increases with the average energy. So, we can not take $`|\alpha |`$ too big. As we study the driven oscillations of the cantilever, our results did not show a significant dependence on the initial conditions.

The main results of our simulations are the following. The wave function of the cantilever-spin system, which is initially a product of the cantilever and spin parts, quickly becomes entangled. The probability distribution to find the cantilever at the point $`z`$ at time $`\tau `$,

$$P(z,\tau )=|\mathrm{\Psi }(z,1/2,\tau )|^2+|\mathrm{\Psi }(z,1/2,\tau )|^2,$$
$`(9)`$
splits into two peaks, “big” and “small” peaks. (See Fig. 2.) When the peaks are separated, the wave function of the cantilever-spin system can be represented as a sum of two spinors,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(z,s,\tau )=\mathrm{\Psi }^{(1)}(z,s,\tau )+\mathrm{\Psi }^{(2)}(z,s,\tau ),$$
$`(10)`$
where the upper indices “$`1`$” and “$`2`$” refer to the big and the small peaks, correspondingly. It was found with the accuracy to 1% that both spinor wave functions, $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(k)}(z,s,\tau )`$ ($`k=1,2`$), can be represented as a product of the cantilever and spin functions,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{(k)}(z,s,\tau )=R^{(k)}(z,\tau )\chi ^{(k)}(s,\tau ),$$
$`(11)`$
where $`\chi ^{(1)}(s,\tau )`$ describes the spin which points in the direction of the external effective field, $`(ϵ,0,\dot{\phi }(\tau ))`$, and $`\chi ^{(2)}(s,\tau )`$ describes the spin which points in the opposite direction. The ratio of the probabilities for the big and the small peak is determined by the initial angle between the external effective magnetic field and the spin,

$$|R^{(2)}(z,\tau )|^2𝑑z/|R^{(1)}(z,\tau )|^2𝑑z=\mathrm{tan}^2(\mathrm{\Theta }/2),$$
$`(12)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the initial direction of the external effective magnetic field ($`\mathrm{tan}\mathrm{\Theta }=ϵ/\dot{\phi }(0)=1/15`$). If the initial conditions describe a spin which points, for example, in the positive $`x`$-direction ($`A_n(0)=B_n(0)`$), our simulations reveal two peaks with approximately equal amplitudes. Thus, the Hamiltonian dynamics clearly indicates that the quasi-classical cantilever will measure the spin component along the effective magnetic field. Certainly, in the frames of the Hamiltonian approach we cannot describe the measurement itself: the coherence between the two cantilever peaks does not disappear. In other words, the Schrödinger equation describes the macroscopic Schrödinger cat state of the cantilever without effects of decoherence.

## III Master Equation

In the previous section, we have presented indications that the cantilever “measures” the spin component along the direction of the effective magnetic field. In this section we describe the measurement process. During the measurement process the coherence between two cantilever trajectories disappears. It means that the reduced density-matrix of the cantilever-spin system becomes a statistical mixture representing two possible trajectories of the system. The main question we are going to answer is the following: Does the cantilever, which interacts with the environment, measure the spin component along the effective magnetic field?

To answer this question, we studied the dynamics of the cantilever-spin system using the master equation. Our purpose is not just to simulate the expected experiment but rather to present a qualitative verification of the conclusion obtained in the previous section. That is why we consider the simplest “ohmic” model of the environment in the high-temperature approximation . In this approximation the environment is described as an ensemble of harmonic oscillators. The number of oscillators per unit frequency is proportional to the frequency in the region below the chosen “cutoff” frequency, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and $`k_BT\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The master equation for the density matrix, $`\rho `$, in the high-temperature approximation, is

$$\frac{\rho _{ss^{}}(z,z^{},\tau )}{\tau }=[\frac{i}{2}(\frac{^2}{z^2}\frac{^2}{z_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}})\frac{i}{2}(z^2z_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})$$
$`(13)`$
$$\frac{\beta }{2}(zz^{})\left(\frac{}{z}\frac{}{z^{}}\right)D\beta (zz^{})^2$$

$$2i\eta (z^{}s^{}zs)+i\dot{\phi }(s^{}s)]\rho _{ss^{}}(z,z^{},\tau )$$

$$i\frac{ϵ}{2}\left[\rho _{s\overline{s}^{}}(z,z^{},\tau )\rho _{\overline{s}s^{}}(z,z^{},\tau )\right].$$

Here $`s,s^{}=\pm 1/2`$, $`\overline{s}=s`$, $`\overline{s}^{}=s^{}`$, $`D=k_BT/\mathrm{}\omega _c`$, $`\beta =1/Q`$, where $`Q`$ is the quality factor of the cantilever. Again, we use the expansion over the eigenfunctions, $`u_n`$,

$$\rho _{s,s^{}}(z,z^{},\tau )=\underset{n,m}{}A_{n,m}^{s,s^{}}(\tau )u_n(z)u_m^{}(z^{}).$$
$`(14)`$
Next, we solve numerically the system of equations for the amplitudes, $`A_{n,m}^{s,s^{}}(\tau )`$,

$$\dot{A}_{n,m}^{s,s^{}}(\tau )=$$
$`(15)`$
$$[i\dot{\phi }(\tau )(s^{}s)+\beta /2(n+m+1)D\beta i(nm)]A_{n,m}^{s,s^{}}(\tau )$$

$$i\eta s^{}\sqrt{2m}A_{n,m1}^{s,s^{}}(\tau )i\eta s^{}\sqrt{2m+2}A_{n,m+1}^{s,s^{}}(\tau )+$$

$$i\eta s\sqrt{2n}A_{n1,m}^{s,s^{}}(\tau )+i\eta s\sqrt{2n+2}A_{n+1,m}^{s,s^{}}(\tau )+$$

$$D\beta \sqrt{m(n+1)}A_{n+1,m1}^{s,s^{}}(\tau )+D\beta \sqrt{n(m+1)}A_{n1,m+1}^{s,s^{}}(\tau )+$$

$$(D+1/2)\beta \sqrt{(n+1)(m+1)}A_{n+1,m+1}^{s,s^{}}(\tau )+$$

$$(D1/2)\beta \sqrt{nm}A_{n1,m1}^{s,s^{}}(\tau )$$

$$(D1/2)\frac{\beta }{2}\sqrt{n(n1)}A_{n2,m}^{s,s^{}}(\tau )$$

$$(D+1/2)\frac{\beta }{2}\sqrt{(n+1)(n+2)}A_{n+2,m}^{s,s^{}}(\tau )$$

$$(D1/2)\frac{\beta }{2}\sqrt{m(m1)}A_{n,m2}^{s,s^{}}(\tau )$$

$$(D+1/2)\frac{\beta }{2}\sqrt{(m+2)(m+1)}A_{n,m+2}^{s,s^{}}(\tau )$$

$$i\frac{ϵ}{2}[A_{n,m}^{s,s^{}}(\tau )A_{n,m}^{s,s^{}}(\tau )].$$

Below we describe the results of our computer simulations for the values of parameters in (8). First, setting $`\beta =D=0`$ we obtain the density matrix, $`\rho _{s,s^{}}(z,z^{},\tau )`$, which exactly corresponds to the wave function, $`\mathrm{\Psi }(z,s,\tau )`$, derived from the Schrödinger equation.

The initial density matrix is represented as a product of the cantilever and spin parts,

$$\rho _{s,s^{}}(z,z^{},0)=\mathrm{\Psi }(z,1/2,0)\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(z^{},1/2,0)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$
$`(16)`$
The wave function, $`\mathrm{\Psi }(z,1/2,0)`$, describes the quasi-classical state of the cantilever,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(z,0)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_n(0)u_n(z).$$
$`(17)`$
The values $`A_n(0)`$ are given in (7). The initial values, $`A_{n,m}^{s,s^{}}(0)`$, in (15) can be easily found from (16).

For $`\tau >0`$, the density matrix describes the entangled state which cannot be represented as a product of the cantilever and spin parts. The initial peak of $`\rho _{s,s^{}}(z,z^{},\tau )`$ splits into two peaks which are centered along the diagonal $`z=z^{}`$, and two peaks centered at $`zz^{}`$, off the diagonal. The density matrix can be represented approximately as a sum of four terms corresponding to four peaks,

$$\rho _{s,s^{}}(z,z^{},\tau )=\rho _{s,s^{}}^{(1)}+\rho _{s,s^{}}^{(2)}+\rho _{s,s^{}}^{(3)}+\rho _{s,s^{}}^{(4)},$$
$`(18)`$
where we omit variables, $`z,z^{},\tau `$. The matrices, $`\rho ^{(1)}`$ and $`\rho ^{(2)}`$, describe the “big” and “small” diagonal peaks; $`\rho ^{(3)}`$ and $`\rho ^{(4)}`$, describe the peaks centered at $`zz^{}`$.

As an illustration, we show in Fig. 3 the quantity,

$$|\rho _{1/2,1/2}(z,z^{},\tau )+\rho _{1/2,1/2}(z,z^{},\tau )|.$$

We have found that with accuracy to 1% the density matrix, $`\rho _{s,s^{}}^{(1)}(z,z^{},\tau )`$, can be represented as a product of the coordinate and spin parts,

$$\rho _{s,s^{}}^{(1)}(z,z^{},\tau )=\widehat{R}^{(1)}(z,z^{},\tau )\widehat{\chi }_{s,s^{}}^{(1)}(\tau ),$$
$`(19)`$
where $`\widehat{\chi }_{s,s^{}}^{(1)}(\tau )`$ describes the spin which points in the direction of the external effective magnetic field $`(ϵ,0,\dot{\phi }(\tau ))`$. A similar expression is valid for $`\rho _{s,s^{}}^{(2)}(z,z^{},\tau )`$. But in this case, $`\widehat{\chi }_{s,s^{}}^{(2)}(\tau )`$ describes a spin which points in the opposite direction.

First we note that in order to describe the measurement process (the decoherence), we have to consider an ensemble of quasi-classical cantilevers with the same initial conditions. At the same time, we are considering driven oscillations of the cantilever. So, the result of our simulations qualitatively does not depend on the initial conditions of the cantilever. Second, as we already mentioned, we are going to verify qualitatively the conclusion derived in the previous section rather than simulate the expected experiment. Thus, we choose the values of parameters which help us to save a computational time. Namely, we choose a relatively small (but still quasi-classical) values for the initial energy of the cantilever, and a relatively small value for the thermal parameter $`D`$ (without violating the high-temperature approximation which requires $`D1`$). The small initial energy of the cantilever allows us to reduce a number of basis functions, $`u_n(z)`$. A relatively small value of $`D`$ allows us to observe four well separated peaks at relatively small values of time, $`\tau `$.

The initial uncertainty of the cantilever position is, $`\delta z=1/\sqrt{2}`$. Due to thermal diffusion, the uncertainty of the cantilever position increases with time. Thus, we have two effects: i) the increase of the amplitude of the driven cantilever vibrations (similar to the Hamiltonian dynamics) and ii) the increase of the uncertainty of the cantilever position due to thermal diffusion. If the second effect dominates, the two positions of the diagonal peaks (i.e. peaks centered on the line $`z=z^{}`$) become indistinguishable. In this case, one cannot provide a spin measurement with two possible outcomes.

We have found that peaks centered on the diagonal retain the main properties described by the Hamiltonian dynamics. The density matrix, $`\rho _{s,s^{}}^{(k)}(z,z^{},\tau )`$, for $`k=1,2`$ can be approximately represented as a product of the cantilever and spin parts. The spin part of the matrix describes the spin which points in the direction of the external effective magnetic field ($`k=1`$) or in the opposite direction ($`k=2`$).

Next, we discuss the two peaks centered at $`zz^{}`$. As an illustration, Figs. 4 and 5 show the contours of the quantities,

$$|\rho _{1/2,1/2}(z,z^{},\tau )+\rho _{1/2,1/2}(z,z^{},\tau )|,$$

and

$$|\rho _{1/2,1/2}(z,z^{},\tau )+\rho _{1/2,1/2}(z,z^{},\tau )|,$$

given in logarithmic scale. One can see the peaks centered at $`zz^{}`$ as well as at $`z=z^{}`$. The peaks centered at $`zz^{}`$ describe the coherence between the two cantilever positions. The amplitude of these peaks quickly decreases due to the decoherence. Thus, the master equation explicitly describes the process of measurement. The coherence between two cantilever trajectories (the macroscopic Schrödinger cat state) quickly disappears. As a result, the cantilever will “choose” one of two possible trajectories. Correspondingly, (depending on the cantilever trajectory) the spin will point in the direction of the effective magnetic field or in the opposite direction.

## IV Conclusion

We have studied the quantum dynamics of the cantilever-spin system in a simple version of the cyclic adiabatic inversion (CAI) magnetic resonance force microscopy (MRFM). In this version, the spin experiences a CAI under the action of the external phase modulated rf magnetic field. If the frequency of CAI matches the cantilever frequency, the amplitude of the cantilever vibrations increases allowing single-spin detection. We have studied the problem: Which component of the spin is measured by the cantilever? We argue that one will measure the component of the spin along the direction of the effective magnetic field providing non-destructive detection of the cantilever vibrations. This result was first derived using computer simulations of the Hamiltonian dynamics (the Schrödinger equation). Then, it was confirmed by the numerical solution of the master equation. We have considered the case when the amplitude of the driven cantilever vibrations was greater than the thermal noise. In this case, the phase of the driven vibrations depends on the spin component along the direction of the external effective magnetic field. Thus, detecting the phase of the cantilever vibrations one can measure the spin component along the effective magnetic field.

We should mention that the direct relation between the cantilever trajectory and the direction of the spin has been verified for a transient process in the CAI MRFM. Our computer capabilities do not allow us to check this relation for the stationary cantilever vibrations at $`\tau Q`$. Also, we completely ignored the direct interaction between the spin and the environment. We are now investigating this interaction.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Department of Energy (DOE) under the contract W-7405-ENG-36. GPB and VIT thank the National Security Agency (NSA), the Advanced Research and Development Activity (ARDA), and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Program MOSAIC for partial support.


format: text

text:
# Limits on the Two Higgs Doublet Model from meson decay, mixing and CP violation

## 1 Introduction

The Standard Model of quarks and leptons is here to stay. This theory is based on principles: special relativity, locality, quantum mechanics, local symmetries and renormalizability. Therefore the predictions of the Standard Model “are precise and unambiguous, and generally cannot be modified ‘a little bit’ except in very limited specific ways. This feature makes the experimental success especially meaningful, since it becomes hard to imagine that the theory could be approximately right without in some sense being exactly right.” Among the extensions of the Standard Model that respect its principles and symmetries, that are compatible with present data within a region of parameter space, and are of interest at the large particle colliders, is the addition of a second doublet of Higgs fields. Higgs doublets can be added to the Standard Model without upsetting the Z/W mass ratio; higher dimensional representations upset this ratio. A second Higgs doublet could make the three running coupling constants of the Standard Model meet at the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) scale. A second Higgs doublet is necessary in Supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Model. In this article we explore the limits that present data place on the parameters of the Two Higgs Doublet Model (Model II). In particular we consider meson decay, mixing and CP violation.

All of our analysis is based on the “tree-level Higgs potential”. The physical spectrum of the Two Higgs Doublet Model (Model II) contains five Higgs bosons: one pseudoscalar $`A^o`$ (CP-odd scalar), two neutral scalars $`H^o`$ and $`h^o`$ (CP-even scalars), and two charged scalars $`H^+`$ and $`H^{}`$. The masses of the Higgs bosons, the mixing angle $`\alpha `$ between the two neutral scalar Higgs fields, and the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the two neutral components of the Higgs doublets, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >0`$, are free parameters of the theory.

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }_1^o\\ \mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Phi }_2=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }_2^+\\ \mathrm{\Phi }_2^o\end{array}\right),\mathrm{tan}\beta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_2^o}{\mathrm{\Phi }_1^o}}.`$
Using the experimental data on meson decay rates, mixing and CP violation we set limits to the parameter $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ as a function of the mass of the charged Higgs $`m_H`$. This article is an update of . The reason for this update is that the recent measurements of $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta _{CKM})`$ by the B-factories Belle and BaBar permit us to set more stringent limits on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. $`\beta _{CKM}`$ is an angle of the “unitarity triangle”.

## 2 Theory

Consider the $`(B^o,\overline{B}^o)`$ system. $`B^o\overline{B}^o`$ mixing occurs because of the box diagrams illustrated in Figure 1. The difference in mass of the two eigenstates that diagonalize the hamiltonian can be written in the form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_B=\frac{\beta _BG_F^2m_W^2f_B^2m_B}{6\pi ^2}\left|\underset{i,j}{}\xi _i\xi _j\left[S^{WW}2\mathrm{cot}^2\beta S^{HW}+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{cot}^4\beta S^{HH}\right]\right|.$$
(2)
The functions

$`S^{WW}(x_W^i,x_W^j),\text{ }S^{HW}(x_W^i,x_W^j,x_H^i,x_H^j,x_H^W)\text{ and }S^{HH}(x_H^i,x_H^j,x_H^W)`$
are obtained from the box diagrams and are written in Appendix A. The Feynman rules for $`H^\pm `$ are listed in Appendix B. We have derived $`S^{WW}`$ in agreement with the literature. The derivation of $`S^{HW}`$ and $`S^{HH}`$ is given in . The variables of these functions are

$`x_W^i{\displaystyle \frac{m_i^2}{m_W^2}},x_H^i{\displaystyle \frac{m_i^2}{m_H^2}},\text{and}x_H^W{\displaystyle \frac{m_W^2}{m_H^2}}`$
where $`i=u,c,t`$. $`\xi _iV_{ib}V_{id}^{}`$. The notation for the remaining symbols in (2) is standard. To obtain the Standard Model, omit $`S^{HW}`$ and $`S^{HH}`$. $`\beta _B`$ is a factor of order 1. Estimates of $`\beta _B`$ using “vacuum intermediate state insertion”, “PCAC and vacuum saturation”, “bag model”, “QCD corrections”, and the “free particles in a box” models span the range $`0.4`$ to $`1`$. $`f_B`$ is the decay constant that appears in the decay rate for $`B^+\mu ^+\nu _\mu `$ which at tree level in the Two Higgs Doublet Model (Model II) is:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B^+}=\frac{|V_{ub}|^2}{8\pi }G_F^2m_\mu ^2m_{B^+}\left(1\frac{m_\mu ^2}{m_{B^+}^2}\right)^2\left[f_Bg_B\frac{m_{B^+}^2}{m_H^2}\mathrm{tan}^2\beta \right]^2$$
(3)
In the derivation of (3) we have substituted

$`\overline{v}\left(\overline{\text{b}}\right)\gamma ^\mu \left(1\gamma ^5\right)u\left(\text{u}\right)p^\mu f_B,`$
$`\overline{v}\left(\overline{\text{b}}\right)\left(1\gamma ^5\right)u\left(\text{u}\right){\displaystyle \frac{m_{B^+}^2}{m_b}}g_B`$
which defines the decay constants $`f_B`$ and $`g_B`$. $`\overline{v}\left(\overline{\text{b}}\right)`$ and $`u\left(\text{u}\right)`$ are spinors, see Appendix B. We expect $`f_Bg_B`$: for a scalar meson with the quark and antiquark at rest $`f_B=\frac{m_{B^+}}{m_b}g_B`$. The decays $`B^+\mu ^+\nu _\mu `$ and $`D^+\mu ^+\nu _\mu `$ are not yet accessible to experiment so that $`f_B`$ and $`f_D`$ are unknown. $`f_B`$ is estimated using sum rules, or the $`B^{}B`$ mass difference, or a phenomenological model, or the MIT bag model. These estimates span the range $`0.06GeV`$ to $`0.2GeV`$ with the convention used in reference  and in Equation (3).

In the “free particles in a box” model $`\beta _B=1`$ (after correcting  by a color factor $`4/3`$) and the volume of the box, i.e. the meson, is $`V=8/\left(\beta _Bm_Bf_B^2\right)`$.

For the $`(B_s^o,\overline{B}_s^o)`$ system: $`\xi _iV_{ib}V_{is}^{}`$ where $`i=u,c,t`$; in (2) replace subscript $`B`$ by $`B_s`$. For the $`(K^o,\overline{K}^o)`$ system: $`\xi _iV_{is}V_{id}^{}`$ where $`i=u,c,t`$; in (2) replace subscript $`B`$ by $`K`$. The CP violation parameter $`\epsilon `$ in the $`(K^o,\overline{K}^o)`$ system in the Two Higgs Doublet Model is given by:

$$\epsilon =e^{i\frac{\pi }{4}}\frac{Im\left(_{i,j}\xi _i\xi _j\left[S^{WW}2\mathrm{cot}^2\beta S^{HW}+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{cot}^4\beta S^{HH}\right]\right)}{2\sqrt{2}\left|_{i,j}\xi _i\xi _j\left[S^{WW}2\mathrm{cot}^2\beta S^{HW}+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{cot}^4\beta S^{HH}\right]\right|}$$
(4)
For the $`(D^o,\overline{D}^o)`$ system: $`\xi _iV_{ci}V_{ui}^{}`$ where $`i=d,s,b`$; in (2) replace subscript $`B`$ by $`D`$ and replace $`\mathrm{cot}\beta `$ by $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (leave $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ as is in (3)).

The branching ratio for $`H^+\tau ^+\nu _\tau `$ for $`m_H<m_t`$ is given by

$$B\left(H^+\tau ^+\nu _\tau \right)\frac{m_\tau ^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }{\left|V_{cs}\right|^2a+\left|V_{cb}\right|^2b+m_\tau ^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }$$
(5)
with $`a3\left[m_s^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta +m_c^2\mathrm{cot}^2\beta \right]`$ and $`b3\left[m_b^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta +m_c^2\mathrm{cot}^2\beta \right]`$. From the measured limit on $`m_H`$ as a function of the branching ratio and (5) we obtain a lower bound of $`m_H`$ for each $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

Let us finally mention that the time-dependent CP-violating asymmetry $`A(\mathrm{\Gamma }\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }})/(\mathrm{\Gamma }+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }})`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$) is the rate of the decay $`B^oJ/\psi +K_s`$ ($`\overline{B^o}J/\psi +K_s`$), measured by CDF, Belle and BaBar is given by $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta _{CKM})\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }Mt)`$ in both the Standard Model and in the Two Higgs Doublet Model (Model II). This is because the dominating terms of $`\xi _i\xi _jS^{HW}`$ and $`\xi _i\xi _jS^{HH}`$ have $`i=j=t`$.

## 3 Limits

All experimental data are taken from . In order to obtain limits we assume conservatively $`0.4<\beta _x<1.8`$, and $`f_x=g_x`$ with $`x=B`$, $`B_s`$, $`D`$, $`K`$, $`\pi `$. These assumptions are not critical since the upper (lower) limits on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ depend on terms $`\mathrm{tan}^4\beta `$ ($`\mathrm{cot}^4\beta `$) in (2) or (3). We take the magnitude of the elements of the CKM matrix from  and leave the phase $`\mathrm{}V_{ub}`$ as a free parameter. The following calculations are made for each $`(m_H,\mathrm{tan}\beta )`$. The measured value of the parameter $`\epsilon `$ determines the phase $`\mathrm{}V_{ub}`$ of the CKM matrix, and hence $`\beta _{CKM}`$. This phase is required to be within the experimental bounds: $`0.325<\mathrm{tan}(\beta _{CKM})<0.862`$ at $`95\%`$ confidence. The measured decay rates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_K`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi `$ determine $`f_K`$ and $`f_\pi `$ using (3). The experimental upper bounds on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_B`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_D`$ determine upper bounds on $`f_B`$ and $`f_D`$ using (3). The measured $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K`$ determine $`\beta _Bf_B^2`$ and $`\beta _Kf_K^2`$ using (2). The experimental upper bound on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_D`$ determines an upper bound on $`\beta _Df_D^2`$. The experimental lower bound on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{Bs}`$ determines a lower bound on $`\beta _{Bs}f_{Bs}^2`$. From the preceding information we obtain $`\beta _K`$ and a lower bound on $`\beta _B`$. Then the requirements $`0.4<\beta _K<1.8`$, $`\beta _B<1.8`$ and $`0.325<\mathrm{tan}(\beta _{CKM})<0.862`$ place limits on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ for each $`m_H`$ as listed in Table 1. The confidence level of these limits is $`95\%`$. It turns out that the lower limit on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is determined by the experimental lower limit of $`\mathrm{tan}(\beta _{CKM})`$, and the upper limit on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is determined by $`\beta _B<1.8`$.

## 4 Conclusions

Using measured meson decay rates, mixing and CP violation we have obtained lower and upper bounds of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ for each $`m_H`$. These limits are compared with the results of direct searches in Figures 2. Note that the measurements of $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta _{CKM})`$ by the Belle and BaBar collaborations have raised the lower bound on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ by a factor $`5`$ with respect to our previous calculation.

## Appendix A Functions $`S^{WW},S^{HW}`$ and $`S^{HH}`$.

If $`ij`$:

$`S^{WW}(x_W^i,x_W^j)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x_W^i+x_W^j\frac{11}{4}x_W^ix_W^j}{\left(1x_W^i\right)\left(1x_W^j\right)}}`$ (6)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(x_W^ix_W^j\right)}}\left[G(x_W^i,x_W^j)G(x_W^j,x_W^i)\right]`$
where

$$G(x_W^i,x_W^j)=\frac{\left(x_W^i\right)^2\mathrm{ln}\left(x_W^i\right)}{\left(1x_W^i\right)^2}\left[12x_W^j+\frac{1}{4}x_W^ix_W^j\right].$$
(7)
If $`i=j`$:

$`S^{WW}(x_W^i,x_W^i)={\displaystyle \frac{x_W^i}{\left(1x_W^i\right)^2}}\left[3{\displaystyle \frac{19}{4}}x_W^i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(x_W^i\right)^2\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2x_W^i\mathrm{ln}\left(x_W^i\right)}{\left(1x_W^i\right)^2}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(x_W^i\right)^2}{\left(1x_W^i\right)}}\right].`$ (8)
If $`ij`$:

$$S^{HH}(x_H^i,x_H^j,x_H^W)=\frac{x_H^ix_H^j}{x_H^W}\left[\frac{J\left(x_H^i\right)J\left(x_H^j\right)}{x_H^ix_H^j}\right]$$
(9)
with

$$J\left(x_H^i\right)=\frac{1}{\left(1x_H^i\right)}+\frac{\left(x_H^i\right)^2\mathrm{ln}\left(x_H^i\right)}{\left(1x_H^i\right)^2}.$$
(10)
If $`i=j`$:

$$S^{HH}(x_H^i,x_H^i,x_H^W)=\frac{\left(x_H^i\right)^2}{x_H^W}\left[\frac{1\left(x_H^i\right)^2+2x_H^i\mathrm{ln}\left(x_H^i\right)}{\left(1x_H^i\right)^3}\right].$$
(11)
For $`ij`$:

$`S^{HW}(x_W^i,x_W^j,x_H^i,x_H^j,x_H^W)={\displaystyle \frac{x_H^ix_H^j}{\left(x_H^W1\right)\left(x_H^i1\right)\left(x_H^j1\right)}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8x_H^W}}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{x_H^ix_H^jx_H^W}{\left(x_H^W1\right)\left(x_H^ix_H^W\right)\left(x_H^jx_H^W\right)}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\mathrm{ln}\left(x_H^W\right){\displaystyle \frac{7}{8}}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(x_H^i\right)^2x_H^j}{\left(x_H^ix_H^W\right)\left(x_H^ix_H^j\right)\left(x_H^i1\right)}}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(x_H^i\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}x_W^i\right)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}x_W^i1\right)\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(x_H^j\right)^2x_H^i}{\left(x_H^jx_H^W\right)\left(x_H^jx_H^i\right)\left(x_H^j1\right)}}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(x_H^j\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}x_W^j\right)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}x_W^j1\right)\right].`$ (12)
For $`i=j`$:

$`S^{HW}(x_W^i,x_W^i,x_H^i,x_H^i,x_H^W)=\left(x_H^i\right)^2[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}\left(x_H^i\right)}{\left(x_H^W1\right)\left(x_H^i1\right)^2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4x_H^W}})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_H^W\mathrm{ln}\left(x_W^i\right)}{\left(x_H^W1\right)\left(x_H^ix_H^W\right)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(x_H^i1\right)\left(x_H^ix_H^W\right)}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}x_W^i)].`$ (13)
## Appendix B Feynman rules of the charged Higgs in the Two Higgs Doublet Model

.

The effective Lagrangian corresponding to the $`H^\pm f\overline{f}^{}`$ vertex is:

$$L=\frac{g}{2\sqrt{2}m_W}[H^+V_{ff^{}}\overline{u}_f(A+B\gamma ^5)v_{\overline{f}^{}}+h.c.]$$
(14)
where $`A\left(m_f^{}\mathrm{tan}\beta +m_fcot\beta \right)`$ and $`B\left(m_f^{}\mathrm{tan}\beta m_fcot\beta \right)`$, $`f=`$ fermion (quark or lepton) and $`\overline{f^{}}=`$ antifermion (antiquark or antilepton). $`V_{ff^{}}`$ is an element of the CKM matrix.

The charged-Higgs propagator is: $`i/\left(K^2m_H^2+i\epsilon \right)`$.