text:
# Difference between AdS and dS spaces : wave equation approach

## I Introduction

Recently an accelerating universe has proposed to be a way to interpret the astronomical data of supernova. The inflation is employed to solve the cosmological flatness and horizon puzzles arisen in the standard cosmology. Combining this observation with the need of inflation leads to that our universe approaches de Sitter geometries in both the infinite past and the infinite future. Hence it is important to study the nature of de Sitter (dS) space and the assumed dS/CFT correspondence. However, there exist some difficulties in studying de Sitter space with a positive cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{dS}>0`$. i) There is no spatial (timelike) infinity and global timelike Killing vector. Thus it is not easy to define conserved quantities including mass, charge and angular momentum appeared in asymptotically dS space. ii) The dS solution is absent from string theories and thus we do not get a definite example to test the assumed dS/CFT correspondence. iii) It is hard to define the $`S`$-matrix because of the presence of the cosmological horizon. For the AdS-black hole with a negative cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{AdS}<0`$ Here we wish to distinguish the pure AdS space and the AdS-black hole ($`J=0`$ BTZ black hole) space. The latter is obtained by identifying points in the pure AdS space. Also the AdS-black hole space does not have globally timelike Killing vector but the AdS space has it. In this work we are interested mainly in the AdS-black hole., all of three difficulties mentioned in dS space seem to be resolved even though lacking for a globally timelike Killing vector. There exists a spatial (timelike) infinity and hence the region outside the event horizon is noncompact. Many AdS solutions are arisen from string theory or $`M`$-theory. There is no notion of an $`S`$-matrix in asymptotically AdS space, but one has the correlation functions of the boundary CFT. The correlators of the boundary CFT may provide the $`S`$-matrix elements of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ theory.

We remind the reader that the cosmological horizon in dS space is very similar to the event horizon of the balck hole in the sense that one can define its thermodynamic quantities of a temperature and an entropy using the same way as was done for the black hole. Two important quantities in studying the black hole are the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy and the absorption cross section (greybody factor). The former relates to the intrinsic property of the black hole itself, while the latter relates to the effect of spacetime curvature on the propagation of the perturbed wave. In other words, the computation of the absorption cross section is based on the solution to the wave equation. Explicitly the greybody factor for the black hole arises as scattering of a wave off the gravitational potential surrounding the horizon. The low-energy $`s`$-wave greybody factor for a massless scalar wave has a universality such that it is equal to the area of the horizon for all spherically symmetric black holes. Also the greybody factor measures the Hawking radiation in a semiclassical way. The entropy for the cosmological horizon was discussed in literature and the absorption of a scalar wave in the cosmological horizon was investigated in .

Here we focus on the consequences of the wave equation approach in both AdS-black hole and dS spaces. In addition to the greybody factor, these include quasinormal modes, and AdS(dS)/CFT correspondences. The quasinormal modes of a scalar field were studied in the background of black holes. The associated complex frequencies describe the time-decay of the scalar perturbation in the black hole background. The radiation associated with these modes is expected to be seen with the gravitational wave detectors in the near future. Most fields propagating in the pure AdS space can be expanded in ordinary real normal modes. That is, the negative cosmological constant provides an effective confining (bounded) box and solutions exist with discrete real frequencies. However, if a black hole is present in AdS space, the fields fall into the AdS-black hole and decay continuously. In this case frequencies become complex, showing characteristic of the black hole which describe the decay of the perturbation outside the event horizon.

Also the quasinormal modes of the AdS-black hole have a direct interpretation in terms of the dual CFT. Using the AdS/CFT correspondence, a black hole in AdS space corresponds to a thermal state in the CFT approximately. Perturbing the black hole by a bulk scalar field corresponds to perturbing the thermal state in the CFT by making use of the corresponding operator $`𝒪`$. The timescale for the decay of a scalar is given by the imaginary part ($`\omega _I`$) of quasinormal frequencies. The decay of scalar perturbation describes the return to thermal equilibrium in the CFT. So we can obtain a prediction for the thermalization timescale in the two-dimensional CFT. In the three-dimensional AdS-black hole (BTZ black hole), there is a precise quantitative agreement between quasinormal frequencies and location of the poles of the Fourier transform for the retarded correlation function of $`𝒪`$ : $`𝒟^{ret}(x,x^{})=i\theta (tt^{})<[𝒪(x),𝒪(x^{})]>_T`$. The set of poles characterizes the decay of thermal perturbation on the CFT side. We call this the thermal AdS/CFT correspondence. As a result, the thermal AdS/CFT correspondence is well established beyond our expectation. We study this connection to understand the cosmological horizon in dS space and to test whether or not the thermal dS/CFT correspondence can be realized.

In this work we investigate the consequences of the wave equation approach for a massive scalar in the background of both the AdS-black hole and dS spaces. As a toy model of the AdS space with the event horizon, the $`J=0`$ BTZ black hole is introduced. The BTZ black hole is a rotating black hole in three dimensions, as is shown in its other name of Kerr-AdS black hole. This is a counterpart of the Kerr-dS solution. However, these rotating solutions have the singularity at $`r=0`$. In order to avoid the singularity, we consider the non-rotating ($`J=0`$) BTZ black hole with the event horizon and dS space with the cosmological horizon only.

At this stage we wish to point out a difference between the cosmological horizon in de Sitter space and the event horizon in the Schwarzschild black hole. The cosmological horizon is usually assumed to be in thermal equilibrium with perturbations. This implies that the cosmological horizon not only absobs radiation, but also emits radiation previously emitted by itself at the same rate, keeping the curvature radius $`l`$ fixed. The two of black hole and heat bath will be in thermal equilibrium if the box is bounded because the black hole (radiation in box) have a negative (positive) specific heat. As an example, the eternal black hole in AdS space (AdS-Schwarzschild black hole in four and higher dimensions) was introduced because AdS space is considered as an effective confining box. If the box is unbounded, the black hole evaporates completely as the Schwarzschild black hole does. In this sense the de Sitter cosmological horizon is similar to the event horizon of AdS-black hole. The organization of this paper is as follows. In section II we briefly review two examples of quantum mechanics. Section III is devoted to studying the consequences of the wave equation approach in the AdS-black hole space. We study the dS wave equation along the AdS-black hole in section IV. We summarize our results in section V: what is the difference and similarity between AdS-black hole and dS spaces in the wave equation approach.

## II Two examples in quantum mechanics

In order to obtain the absorption cross section, we have to calculate the outgoing/ingoing fluxes in the AdS-black hole and dS space. However, at the timelike infinity of the AdS-black hole space, there remains some ambiguities to define the outgoing/ingoing fluxes. To estimate it clearly, let us review the flux computation in the potential barrier in quantum mechanics. Also there exists some problems in computation of the flux in dS space. For this purpose, we introduce the wave propagation under the potential step with $`0<E<V_0`$. This gives rise to the classical picture of what goes on : the total reflection occurs due to the potential step.

### A  Plane wave under potential step

Let us start with a wave propagation under a potential step with height $`V_0>E`$ shown in Fig.1.

Here we introduce the Schrödinger equation with $`\mathrm{}=1,m=1/2`$ as

$$\frac{d^2\mathrm{\Psi }(x)}{dx^2}+V(x)\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=E\mathrm{\Psi }(x).$$
(2.1)
The solution to the Schrödinger equation is given by

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_\text{I}(x)=Te^{qx},\text{region I}`$ (2.2)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\text{II}}(x)=e^{ikx}+Re^{ikx},\text{region II}`$ (2.3)
with $`k=\sqrt{E},q=\sqrt{V_0E}`$. Considering the continuity of $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x)`$ at $`x=0`$ leads to

$`1+R=T,`$ (2.4)
$`ik(1R)=qT.`$ (2.5)
The above relations take the form

$`R={\displaystyle \frac{1i\mathrm{tan}\theta }{1+i\mathrm{tan}\theta }}=e^{2i\theta }\left(|R|^2=1\right),`$ (2.6)
$`T=2e^{i\theta }\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ (2.7)
with $`\mathrm{tan}\theta =q/k`$. In region I the wave function is given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\text{I}(x)=2e^{i\theta }\mathrm{cos}\theta e^{qx},|\mathrm{\Psi }_\text{I}(x)|^2=4\mathrm{cos}^2\theta e^{2qx}.$$
(2.8)
and in region II, it takes

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\text{II}}(x)=2e^{i\theta }\mathrm{cos}(kx\theta ),|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\text{II}}(x)|^2=4\mathrm{cos}^2(kx\theta ).$$
(2.9)
Since the density of incident wave is unity, its flux ($`_{\text{II}\text{inc}}`$) is equal to $`2\sqrt{E}<0`$. The reflected flux $`_{\text{II}\text{ref}}`$ is given by $`2\sqrt{E}>0`$ and thus there is no net flux in region II: $`_{\text{II}\text{inc}}+_{\text{II}\text{ref}}=0`$. According to the flux conservation, we expect that there is no flux in region I. As a check, one finds that $`_\text{I}=\frac{1}{i}[\mathrm{\Psi }_\text{I}^{}(\mathrm{\Psi }_\text{I})^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_\text{I}(\mathrm{\Psi }_\text{I}^{})^{}]=0`$. Even though the probability density of finding a particle between $`x`$ and $`x+dx(x<0)`$ is not zero, its flux is zero. This means that the quantum mechanical picture reduces to the classical picture of the total reflection. A plane wave moving under a potential step of height ($`V_0>E`$) corresponds to a toy model for the total reflection with $`|R|^2=1`$ and $`R=e^{2i\theta }`$ (non-zero phase). A similar situation occurs in a scalar wave propagating under de Sitter space.

### B Plane wave under potential barrier

In this section we clarify the flux ambiguity by considering a plane wave propagation under the potential barrier shown in Fig.2.

The solution to the Schrödinger equation leads to

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_\text{I}(x)=e^{ikx}+Re^{ikx},\text{region I}`$ (2.10)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\text{II}}(x)=Ae^{qx}+Be^{qx},\text{region II}`$ (2.11)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\text{III}}(x)=Te^{ikx},\text{region III}`$ (2.12)
with $`k=\sqrt{E},q=\sqrt{V_0E}`$. Imposing the boundary condition on the wave function and its derivative at $`x=0`$ and $`x=a`$, one finds four relations:

$`1+R=A+B,`$ (2.13)
$`1R=i\rho (AB),`$ (2.14)
$`Ae^\theta +Be^\theta =Te^{i\delta },`$ (2.15)
$`Ae^\theta Be^\theta =i{\displaystyle \frac{T}{\rho }}e^{i\delta },`$ (2.16)
where $`\rho =q/k,\theta =qa,\delta =ka`$. From the above relations, we obtain relevant quantities

$`A={\displaystyle \frac{T}{2}}e^{(i\delta \theta )}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\rho }}),`$ (2.17)
$`B={\displaystyle \frac{T}{2}}e^{(i\delta +\theta )}(1{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\rho }}),`$ (2.18)
where

$$T=\frac{e^{i\delta }}{\mathrm{cosh}\theta +\frac{i}{2}(\rho \frac{1}{\rho })\mathrm{sinh}\theta }.$$
(2.19)
Here we focus on computing the flux at region II. At the first sight, we might have thought that $`_{\text{II}}=0`$, since the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\text{II}}(x)`$ does not take a form of travelling wave. According to the flux conservation, we expect that $`_\text{I}=_{\text{II}}=_{\text{III}}`$, otherwise waves would be created or destroyed. Actually one has a non-zero flux

$$_{\text{II}}=4q\text{Im}[AB^{}].$$
(2.20)
This shows that if the coefficient $`A`$ or $`B`$ is zero, or if they are both real (in general, if they are complex but have the same phase), the flux $`_{\text{II}}`$ is indeed zero. In the previous subsection, the coefficient corresponding to $`A`$ is zero and thus its flux is zero. In general potential barrier problem, neither $`A`$ nor $`B`$ is zero, and their relative phase gives a non-zero flux. However, we note that it is not easy to determine whether the value of the flux $`_{\text{II}}`$ in Eq.(2.20) is positive or negative. A similar situation to this case occurs in the scalar wave propagation near infinity in the BTZ black hole background.

## III  wave equation in AdS-black hole space

### A Wave equation

We start with the wave propagation for a massive scalar field with mass $`m`$

$$(_{BTZ}^2m^2)\mathrm{\Phi }_{BTZ}=0$$
(3.1)
in the background of the $`J=0`$ BTZ black hole whose line element is given by

$$ds_{BTZ}^2=\left(M+\frac{r^2}{l^2}\right)dt^2+\left(M+\frac{r^2}{l^2}\right)^1dr^2+r^2d\varphi ^2,$$
(3.2)
where $`M`$ is the mass of the black hole and $`l`$ is the curvature radius of AdS space. Hereafter we set $`M=l=1`$ for simplicity unless otherwise stated. The above metric is singular at the event horizon of $`r=r_{EH}=1`$, which divides space into four regions. Its global structure (Penrose diagram) is shown in Fig.3.

There are two regions with $`0r<r_{EH}`$ which correspond to the interior region of the $`J=0`$ BTZ black hole. Two regions with $`r_{EH}r\mathrm{}`$ correspond to the exterior of the black hole. A timelike infinity of $`r=\mathrm{}`$ appears but there does not exist any spacelike infinity in AdS-black hole space. A timelike Killing vector $`\frac{}{t}`$ is future-directed only in the shaded diamond. This means that there is no globally defined timelike Killing vector in AdS-black hole space. To obtain the greybody factor, we have to obtain a definite wave propagation as time evolves. Hence we confine ourselves to the shaded region (SR). This means that our working space is noncompact, in contrast to the case of dS space. A scalar with mass $`m^21`$ including the tachyon with $`m^2=3/4`$ may be allowed for AdS space. A massless scalar with $`m^2=0`$ is special and it would be treated separately. Hence we are interested in the massive scalar propagation with $`m^20`$.

Assuming a mode solution

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{BTZ}(r,t,\varphi )=f_{\mathrm{}}(r)e^{i\omega t}e^{i\mathrm{}\varphi },$$
(3.3)
the radial part of the wave equation is

$$(r^21)f_{\mathrm{}}^{\prime \prime }(r)\left(\frac{1}{r}3r\right)f_{\mathrm{}}^{}(r)+\left(\frac{\omega ^2}{r^21}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{r^2}m^2\right)f_{\mathrm{}}(r)=0,$$
(3.4)
where the prime () denotes the differentiation with respect to its argument. Hereafter one should distinguish $`\mathrm{}`$ of the angular momentum number from $`l`$ of the curvature radius of AdS space.

### B Potential analysis

We observe from Eq.(3.4) that it is not easy to see how a scalar wave propagates in the exterior of the $`J=0`$ BTZ black hole. In order to do that, we must transform the wave equation into the Schrödinger-like equation by introducing a tortoise coordinate $`r^{}`$. Then we can get asymptotic waveforms in regions of $`r^{}=\mathrm{}`$ and $`r^{}=0`$ through a potential analysis. For our purpose, we introduce

$$r^{}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{r1}{r+1}\right],r=\mathrm{coth}r_{}$$
(3.5)
to transform Eq.(3.4) into the Schrödinger-like equation with the energy $`E=\omega ^2`$

$$\frac{d^2}{dr^2}f_{\mathrm{}}+V_{BTZ}(r)f_{\mathrm{}}=Ef_{\mathrm{}}.$$
(3.6)
Here the BTZ potential is given by

$$V_{BTZ}(r)=(r^21)\left[\frac{3}{4}+m^2+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{r^2}+\frac{1}{4r^2}\right].$$
(3.7)
From Eq.(3.5) we confirm that $`r^{}`$ is a tortoise coordinate such that $`r^{}\mathrm{}(r1)`$, whereas $`r^{}0(r\mathrm{})`$. We express the BTZ potential as a function of $`r^{}`$

$$V_{BTZ}(r^{})=\left[\left(\frac{3}{4}+m^2\right)\mathrm{coth}^2r^{}m^2+\mathrm{}^2\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{}^2+\frac{1}{4})\mathrm{tanh}^2r^{}\right].$$
(3.8)
We observe that for $`m^2>0`$, $`V_{BTZ}(r^{})`$ decreases exponentially to zero as one approaches the event horizon ($`r^{}\mathrm{},rr_{EH}=1`$), while it goes infinity as one approaches infinity($`r^{}0,r\mathrm{}`$). A typical form of $`V_{BTZ}(r^{})`$ is shown in Fig.4.

We thus conjecture that travelling waves appear near the event horizon of $`r^{}=\mathrm{}`$. But it is not easy to develop a genuine travelling wave at infinity. One finds an approximate equation near $`r^{}=0`$

$$\frac{d^2f_{\mathrm{},0}}{dr^2}\left(\frac{3}{4}+m^2\right)\frac{f_{\mathrm{},0}}{r^2}=0.$$
(3.9)
This gives us a solution

$$f_{\mathrm{},0}(r^{})=A_{BTZ}e^{(1+\sqrt{1+m^2})\mathrm{ln}r^{}}+B_{BTZ}e^{(1\sqrt{1+m^2})\mathrm{ln}r^{}}.$$
(3.10)
For $`m^2>0`$, the first term corresponds to a normalizable mode at $`r=\mathrm{}(r^{}=0)`$, while the second term is a non-normalizable mode.

On the other hand, near the event horizon $`r_{EH}=1(r^{}=\mathrm{})`$ one obtains an approximate equation because $`V_{BTZ}(r^{})0`$ as $`r^{}=\mathrm{}`$

$$\frac{d^2}{dr^2}f_\mathrm{},\mathrm{}+\omega ^2f_\mathrm{},\mathrm{}=0$$
(3.11)
which gives us a travelling wave solution

$$f_\mathrm{},\mathrm{}(r^{})=C_{BTZ}e^{i\omega r^{}}+D_{BTZ}e^{i\omega r^{}},$$
(3.12)
where considering $`e^{i\omega t}`$, the first term is the ingoing wave ($``$), and the second is the outgoing wave ($``$).

### C Flux calculation

Up to now we obtain the approximate solutions near $`r^{}=\mathrm{},0`$. In order to obtain the solution which is valid for whole region outside the black hole, we solve equation (3.4) explicitly. We wish to transform it into a hypergeometric equation using $`z=(r^21)/r^2`$. Our working space remains unchanged as $`0z1`$ covering the exterior of the BTZ black hole. This equation takes a form

$$z(1z)f_{\mathrm{}}^{\prime \prime }(z)+(1z)f_{\mathrm{}}^{}(z)+\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{\omega ^2}{z}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{1z}m^2\right)f_{\mathrm{}}(z)=0.$$
(3.13)
Here one finds two poles at $`z=0,1(r=1,\mathrm{})`$ and so makes a further transformation to cancel these by choosing an ingoing solution at $`z=0(r=r_{EH})`$

$$f(z)=z^\alpha (1z)^\beta w(z),\alpha =\frac{i\omega }{2},\beta =\frac{1}{2}(1\sqrt{1+m^2}).$$
(3.14)
Then we obtain the hypergeometric equation

$$z(1z)w^{\prime \prime }(z)+[c(a+b+1)z]w^{}(z)abw(z)=0,$$
(3.15)
where $`a,b`$ and $`c`$ are given by

$$a=\frac{1}{2}(i\mathrm{}i\omega +1\sqrt{1+m^2}),b=\frac{1}{2}(i\mathrm{}i\omega +1\sqrt{1+m^2}),c=1+i\omega .$$
(3.16)
The ingoing solution near $`z=0`$ to Eq.(3.13) is chosen as§§§In the neighborhood of the event horizon, the two linearly independent solution to Eq.(3.15) are given by $`w(z)=F(a,b,c;z)`$ and $`w(z)=z^{1c}F(ac+1,bc+1,2c,;z)`$. But the latter corresponds to the outgoing wave and thus we choose the former for our purpose.

$$f(z)=C_{BTZ}z^\alpha (1z)^\beta F(a,b,c;z)$$
(3.17)
which is in accordance with Eq.(3.12) with $`D_{BTZ}=0`$. Now we are in a position to calculate an ingoing fluxIn this work, one defines “ingoing flux” as negative whereas “outgoing flux” is defined to be positive. at $`z=0(r=1,r^{}=\mathrm{})`$ which shows

$$_{\text{in}}(z=0)=2\frac{2\pi }{i}[f^{}z_zffz_zf^{}]|_{z=0}=4\pi \omega |C_{BTZ}|^2.$$
(3.18)
To obtain the flux at infinity $`z=1(r=\mathrm{},r^{}=0)`$, we use a formula:

$`F(a,b,c;z)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(c)\mathrm{\Gamma }(cab)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(ca)\mathrm{\Gamma }(cb)}}F(a,b,a+bc+1;1z)`$ (3.19)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(c)\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+bc)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)\mathrm{\Gamma }(b)}}(1z)^{cab}F(ca,cb,ab+c+1;1z)`$ (3.20)
with

$`ca={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[i\mathrm{}i\omega +1+\sqrt{1+m^2}]a^{},`$ (3.21)
$`cb={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[i\mathrm{}i\omega +1+\sqrt{1+m^2}]b^{},`$ (3.22)
$`cab=\sqrt{1+m^2}(a+bc)^{}.`$ (3.23)
We note here that by comparing Eq.(3.16) with Eq.(3.21), $`cab,ca,cb`$ are not complex conjugates of $`a+bc,a,b`$, respectively. This is because we consider only the case of $`m^2>0`$. Using $`1zr^2(1/r^2)`$ near infinity, one finds from Eqs.(3.17) and (3.19) the following form:

$`f_{01}f_{nor}+f_{non}=H_{nor}e^{(1+\sqrt{1+m^2})\mathrm{ln}r^{}}+H_{non}e^{(1\sqrt{1+m^2})\mathrm{ln}r^{}}`$ (3.24)
$`=H_{nor}e^{(1+\sqrt{1+m^2})\mathrm{ln}r}+H_{non}e^{(1+\sqrt{1+m^2})\mathrm{ln}r},`$ (3.25)
where the explicit forms of normalizable and nonnormalizable amplitudes are given by

$`H_{nor}=C_{BTZ}E_{nor},E_{nor}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(c)\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+bc)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)\mathrm{\Gamma }(b)}},`$ (3.26)
$`H_{non}=C_{BTZ}E_{non},E_{non}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(c)\mathrm{\Gamma }(cab)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(ca)\mathrm{\Gamma }(cb)}}.`$ (3.27)
Then we can match Eq.(3.10) with Eq.(3.24) near infinity to yield

$$A_{BTZ}=H_{nor},B_{BTZ}=H_{non}.$$
(3.28)
Finally we calculate the flux near $`z=1(r=\mathrm{})`$ as

$`(z=1)={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{i}}[f_{01}^{}(r^3_rf_{01})f_{01}(r^3_rf_{01}^{})]|_{r=\mathrm{}}`$ (3.29)
$`=8\pi \sqrt{1+m^2}\text{Im}[H_{nor}^{}H_{non}]`$ (3.30)
which is similar to the case of potential barrier in Eq.(2.20). This shows that if the coefficient $`E_{nor}`$ or $`E_{non}`$ is zero, or if they are both real (in general, if they are complex but have the same phase), the flux is indeed zero. In the present case, neither $`E_{nor}`$ nor $`E_{non}`$ is zero, and both belong to complex. Their relative phase gives a non-zero flux. However we have to say that it is not easy to determine whether the value of the flux $`(z=1)`$ in Eq.(3.29) is positive or negative.

### D Absorption cross section

Up to now we do not insert the curvature radius $`l`$ of AdS space. The correct absorption coefficient can be recovered when replacing $`\omega (m)`$ with $`\omega l(ml)`$ inspired from $`rr/l`$. An absorption coefficient by the event horizon is defined by

$$𝒜_{BTZ}=\frac{_{in}(z=0)}{_{in}(z=1)}$$
(3.31)
where $`_{in}(z=0)`$ is given by Eq.(3.18). However it is not easy to separate the ingoing flux from $`(z=1)`$ in Eq.(3.29). Hence we may use $`(z=1)`$ instead of $`_{in}(z=1)`$ for a further study. We follow the conventional approach to obtain the absorption cross section in black hole physics. The absorption cross section in three dimensions is formally defined by

$$\sigma _{abs}^{BTZ}=\frac{𝒜_{BTZ}}{\omega }=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\sqrt{1+(ml)^2}\text{Im}[E_{nor}^{}E_{non}]}.$$
(3.32)
Explicitly, $`E_{nor}`$ and $`E_{non}`$ are given by

$`E_{nor}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+i\omega l)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\sqrt{1+(ml)^2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }[(i\omega li\mathrm{}+1\sqrt{1+(ml)^2})/2]\mathrm{\Gamma }[(i\omega l+i\mathrm{}+1\sqrt{1+(ml)^2})/2]}},`$ (3.33)
$`E_{non}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1i\omega l)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\sqrt{1+(ml)^2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }[(i\omega li\mathrm{}+1+\sqrt{1+(ml)^2})/2]\mathrm{\Gamma }[(i\omega l+i\mathrm{}+1+\sqrt{1+(ml)^2})/2]}}.`$ (3.34)
For $`(ml)^2=1`$, one finds that $`E_{nor}^{}E_{non}|E_{nor}|^2`$ (real) and thus $`(z=1)0`$ irrespective of the factor $`\sqrt{1+(ml)^2}`$. For a massless scalar propagation with $`m^2=0`$, one has

$`E_{nor}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+i\omega l)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }[(i\omega li\mathrm{})/2]\mathrm{\Gamma }[(i\omega l+i\mathrm{})/2]}},`$ (3.35)
$`E_{non}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1i\omega )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }[(i\omega li\mathrm{})/2+1]\mathrm{\Gamma }[(i\omega l+i\mathrm{})/2+1]}}.`$ (3.36)
Here we find that $`E_{nor}^{}E_{non}`$ real and thus $`(z=1)0`$, although there exists a divergent term of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1)=\pi /\mathrm{sin}[2\pi ]`$ in $`E_{nor}^{}`$. We do not consider the massless scalar propagation because of this divergent term. Even for the $`s(\mathrm{}=0)`$-wave scalar propagation, it is difficult to split $`(z=1)`$ into $`_{in}(z=1)`$ and $`_{out}(z=1).`$ For the case of $`m^2>0`$, one cannot find the correct ingoing flux from Eq.(3.29) to compute the absorption cross section. This mainly arises from the fact that one cannot find an asymptotically flat region which is necessary for defining the scattering process well. In general, we need a spatial infinity to obtain an absorption cross section in the wave equation approach. Here “spatial infinity” means $`r=\mathrm{}`$ in asymptotically flat space, while “spatial (timelike) infinity” denotes $`r=\mathrm{}`$ in asymptotically AdS space. We note that the previous calculations based on the wave equation approach in the BTZ black hole belong to the approximate ones which are required to match with the results of the CFT. Hence we conclude that the absorption cross section is not derived from the bulk scalar propagation in AdS-black hole space, but it can be obtained from the dual CFT correlation function as the scattering matrix does.

### E Quasinormal modes

Even though we encounter some difficulties in calculating the absorption cross section in the BTZ black hole background, we can calculate the quasinormal modes. In asymptotically flat space like in the Schwarzschild black hole, these modes are usually defined as the solutions which are purely ingoing wave ($`\mathrm{\Phi }e^{i\omega (t+r^{})}`$) at the event horizon and which purely outgoing ($`\mathrm{\Phi }e^{i\omega (tr^{})}`$) near infinity (see Fig.5). The initial ingoing wave from infinity is not allowed.

In asymptotically AdS space, these modes are defined as the solutions which are purely ingoing wave ($`\mathrm{\Phi }_{BTZ}e^{i\omega (t+r^{})}`$) at the event horizon and which vanish ($`\mathrm{\Phi }_{BTZ}0`$) at infinity (see Fig.6). This comes from the boundary condition that the wave function is zero at infinity because its potential is infinite at infinity. Because one cannot find any travelling wave at infinity, we can extend this definition to the flux boundary condition in AdS-black hole space : the ingoing flux $`(_{in}(z=0)<0)`$ at the event horizon and no flux ($`(z=1)=0`$) at infinity. Then there are two ways to obtain $`(z=1)=0`$ with the complex frequency. First one chooses $`E_{non}=0`$ to get the quasinormal modes. These impose the restriction as

$$ca=n,cb=n,$$
(3.37)
where $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$(negative integers). Considering Eq.(3.34) leads to

$`\omega _1={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{l}}2{\displaystyle \frac{i}{l}}\left(n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1+(ml)^2}}{2}}\right),`$ (3.38)
$`\omega _2={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{l}}2{\displaystyle \frac{i}{l}}\left(n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1+(ml)^2}}{2}}\right).`$ (3.39)
Second from $`E_{nor}^{}=0`$, one finds $`a=n,b=n`$ which lead to

$`\omega _3={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{l}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{i}{l}}\left(n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1+(ml)^2}}{2}}\right),`$ (3.40)
$`\omega _4={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{l}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{i}{l}}\left(n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1+(ml)^2}}{2}}\right).`$ (3.41)
When decomposing the quasinormal frequencies into real and imaginary parts : $`\omega =\omega _Ri\omega _I`$, $`w_I`$ should be positive for all quasinormal frequencies because those modes decay with time. Hence the true quasinormal frequencies are given by Eqs.(3.38) and (3.39) but not by Eqs.(3.40) and (3.41). We note that in calculating quasinormal modes in AdS space, one has to use a definition of the zero-flux at infinity. Someone uses the Dirichlet boundary condition on the wave function at infinity which eventually leads to $`E_{non}=0`$. A single term of either normalizable one or nonnormalizable one leads to zero-flux at infinity. But requiring the Dirichlet condition (no nonnormalizable term) at infinity leads to a correct definition of quasinormal frequencies.

### F AdS/CFT correspondence

The complex quasinormal frequencies describe the decay of the massive scalar perturbation in the background of AdS-black hole. These depend on the parameters of AdS- black hole ($`M,l`$) as well as the parameters of perturbed field ($`m,\mathrm{}`$). In terms of the AdS/CFT correspondence, an off-equilibrium configuration in the AdS-black hole space ($`J=0`$ BTZ black hole) is related to an off-equilibrium thermal state in the boundary conformal field theory. The timescale for the decay of scalar perturbation is given by the imaginary part of the quasinormal frequencies ($`\omega _I`$). Using the AdS/CFT correspondence, one can obtain a prediction of the timescale for return to equilibrium of its dual CFT. Actually there is a precise agreement between quasinormal modes on the bulk side and the location of the poles for the retarded correlation function describing the linear response of an perturbing operator $`𝒪`$ on the CFT side. This provides a new quantitative test for the thermal AdS/CFT correspondence. Further, expressing $`\omega _I2/l`$ as $`\omega _I\frac{r_{EH}}{\gamma }\frac{1}{r_{EH}^2}`$, where $`\gamma `$ is the Choptuik scaling parameter, it suggests a deeper connection between the critical phenomena of the BTZ black hole thermodynamics and quasinormal modes. According to the thermal AdS/CFT correspondence, this leads to the boundary CFT interpretation of Choptiuk scaling (a universal scaling behavior).

## IV  wave equation in de Sitter space

### A dS wave equation

We start with the wave equation for a massive scalar field

$$(_{dS}^2m^2)\mathrm{\Phi }_{dS}=0$$
(4.1)
in the background of three dimensional de Sitter space

$$ds_{dS}^2=\left(1\frac{r^2}{l^2}\right)dt^2+\left(1\frac{r^2}{l^2}\right)^1dr^2+r^2d\varphi ^2.$$
(4.2)
Here $`l^2`$ is the curvature radius of de Sitter space and hereafter we set $`l=1`$ for simplicity unless otherwise stated. The above metric is singular at the cosmological horizon $`r=r_{CH}=1`$ which divides space into four regions, as is shown in Fig.7.

There are two regions with $`0r1`$ which correspond to the causal diamonds of observers at the north and south poles : northern diamond (ND) and southern diamond (SD). An observer at $`r=0`$ is surrounded by a cosmological horizon at $`r=1`$. Two regions with $`1<r\mathrm{}`$ containing the future-null infinity $`^+`$ and past-null infinity $`^{}`$ are called future triangle (FT) and past triangle (PT), respectively. A timelike Killing vector $`\frac{}{t}`$ is future-directed only in the southern diamond. To obtain the greybody factor, we have to obtain a definite wave propagation as time evolves. Hence we confine ourselves to the southern diamond (shaded region). This means that our working space here is compact, in contrast to the AdS-black hole.

In connection with the assumed dS/CFT correspondence, one may classify the mass-squared $`m^20`$ into three cases: $`m^21,0<m^2<1,m^2=0`$. For a massive scalar with $`m^21`$, one has a non-unitary CFT. A scalar with mass $`0<m^2<1`$ can be related to a unitary CFT. A massless scalar with $`m^2=0`$ is special and it would be treated separately. Here we consider only $`m^2(0<m^2<1)`$ as a parameter at the beginning. Assuming a mode solution

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{dS}(r,t,\varphi )=\stackrel{~}{f}_{\mathrm{}}(r)e^{i\omega t}e^{i\mathrm{}\varphi },$$
(4.3)
Eq.(4.1) leads to the differential equation for $`r`$

$$(1r^2)\stackrel{~}{f}_{\mathrm{}}^{\prime \prime }(r)+\left(\frac{1}{r}3r\right)\stackrel{~}{f}_{\mathrm{}}^{}(r)+\left(\frac{\omega ^2}{1r^2}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{r^2}m^2\right)\stackrel{~}{f}_{\mathrm{}}(r)=0,$$
(4.4)
where the prime () denotes the differentiation with respect to its argument. Apparently this equation can be obtained from equation (3.4) by replacing $`\mathrm{}^2,m^2`$ by $`\mathrm{}^2,m^2`$, respectively. However, an important thing is that the working space is different : the working region of AdS space (SR) is from $`1r\mathrm{}`$, while that of dS space (SD) is $`0r1`$. That is, there is no notion of spatial (timelike) infinity in the SD of dS space.

### B dS potential analysis

We observe from Eq.(4.4) that it is not easy to find how a scalar wave propagates in the southern diamond. In order to do that, we must transform the wave equation into the Schrödinger-like equation using a tortoise coordinate $`r^{}`$. Then we can get wave forms in asymptotic regions of $`r^{}\pm \mathrm{}`$ through a potential analysis. We introduce $`r^{}=g(r)`$ with $`g^{}(r)=1/r(1r^2)`$ to transform Eq.(4.4) into the Schrödinger-like equation with the energy $`E=\omega ^2`$

$$\frac{d^2}{dr^2}\stackrel{~}{f}_{\mathrm{}}+V_{dS}(r)\stackrel{~}{f}_{\mathrm{}}=E\stackrel{~}{f}_{\mathrm{}}$$
(4.5)
with the dS potential

$$V_{dS}(r)=\omega ^2+r^2(1r^2)\left[m^2+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{r^2}\frac{\omega ^2}{1r^2}\right].$$
(4.6)
Here, in contrast to the BTZ black hole, $`E=\omega ^2`$ is not singled out as the energy term of the Schrödinger equation because the dS potential also includes this term.

Considering $`r^{}=g(r)=g^{}(r)𝑑r`$, one finds

$$r^{}=\mathrm{ln}r\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left[(1+r)(1r)\right],e^{2r^{}}=\frac{r^2}{1r^2},r^2=\frac{e^{2r^{}}}{1+e^{2r^{}}}.$$
(4.7)
From the above we confirm that $`r^{}`$ is a tortoise coordinate such that $`r^{}\mathrm{}(r0)`$, whereas $`r^{}\mathrm{}(r1)`$. We can express the potential as a function of $`r^{}`$ explicitly

$$V_{dS}(r^{})=\omega ^2+\frac{e^{2r^{}}}{(1+e^{2r^{}})^2}\left[m^2+\frac{1+e^{2r^{}}}{e^{2r^{}}}\mathrm{}^2(1+e^{2r^{}})\omega ^2\right].$$
(4.8)
For $`m^2=1,\mathrm{}^2=0,E=\omega ^2=0.01`$, the shape of this takes a potential barrier ($``$) located at $`r^{}=0`$. On the other hand, for all non-zero $`\mathrm{}`$, one finds the potential step ($`\neg `$) with its height $`\omega ^2+\mathrm{}^2`$ on the left-hand side of $`r^{}=0`$. All potentials $`V_{dS}(r^{})`$ decrease exponentially to zero as $`r^{}`$ increases on the right-hand side. Roughly speaking, the outline of $`V_{dS}(r^{})`$ shown in Fig.8 is similar to the potential step in Fig.1. We conjecture that travelling waves appear near the cosmological horizon of $`r^{}=\mathrm{}`$.

But near the coordinate origin of $`r^{}=\mathrm{}(r=0)`$, it is not easy to develop a travelling wave. Near $`r=0(r^{}=\mathrm{})`$ one finds the approximate equation

$$\frac{d^2}{dr^2}\stackrel{~}{f}_\mathrm{},\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^2\stackrel{~}{f}_\mathrm{},\mathrm{}=0.$$
(4.9)
This gives us a solution

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_\mathrm{},\mathrm{}(r^{})=A_{dS}e^\mathrm{}r^{}+B_{dS}e^\mathrm{}r^{}$$
(4.10)
which is equivalently rewritten by making use of Eq.(4.7) as

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_{\mathrm{},r=0}(r)=A_{dS}r^{\mathrm{}}+\frac{B_{dS}}{r^{\mathrm{}}}.$$
(4.11)
In the above two equations, the first terms correspond to normalizable modes at $`r=0(r^{}=\mathrm{})`$, while the second terms are non-normalizable, singular modes. On the other hand, near the cosmological horizon $`r_c=1(r^{}=\mathrm{})`$ one obtains a differential equation which is irrespective of $`\mathrm{}`$

$$\frac{d^2}{dr^2}\stackrel{~}{f}_\mathrm{},\mathrm{}+\omega ^2\stackrel{~}{f}_\mathrm{},\mathrm{}=0.$$
(4.12)
This has a solution

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_\mathrm{},\mathrm{}(r^{})=C_{dS}e^{i\omega r^{}}+D_{dS}e^{i\omega r^{}}.$$
(4.13)
The first/second waves in Eq.(4.13) together with $`e^{i\omega t}`$ imply the ingoing $`()`$/outgoing $`()`$ waves across the cosmological horizon. These are shown in Fig. 8. This picture is based on the observer confined in the southern diamond.

### C dS flux calculation

In order to solve equation (4.4) explicitly , we first transform it into a hypergeometric equation using $`z=r^2`$. Here the working space still remains unchanged as $`0z1`$ covering the southern diamond. This equation takes a form

$$z(1z)\stackrel{~}{f}_{\mathrm{}}^{\prime \prime }(z)(2z1)\stackrel{~}{f}_{\mathrm{}}^{}(z)+\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{\omega ^2}{1z}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{z}m^2\right)\stackrel{~}{f}_{\mathrm{}}(z)=0.$$
(4.14)
Here one finds two poles at $`z=0,1(r=0,1)`$ and so makes a further transformation to cancel these by choosing a normalizable solution at $`z=0(r=0)`$

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_{\mathrm{}}(z)=z^\alpha (1z)^\beta \stackrel{~}{w}(z),\alpha =\frac{\mathrm{}}{2},\beta =i\frac{\omega }{2}.$$
(4.15)
Then we obtain the hypergeometric equation

$$z(1z)\stackrel{~}{w}^{\prime \prime }(z)+[c(a+b+1)z]\stackrel{~}{w}^{}(z)ab\stackrel{~}{w}(z)=0$$
(4.16)
where $`a,b`$ and $`c`$ are given by

$$a=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{}+i\omega +h_+),b=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{}+i\omega +h_{}),c=\mathrm{}+1$$
(4.17)
with

$$h_\pm =1\pm \sqrt{1m^2}.$$
(4.18)
One regular solution near $`z=0`$ to Eq.(4.14) is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_+(z)=A_{dS}z^{\mathrm{}/2}(1z)^{i\omega /2}F(a,b,c;z)$$
(4.19)
with an unknown constant $`A_{dS}`$. In addition, there is the other solution with a logarithmic singularity at $`z=0`$ as $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{}(z)=\stackrel{~}{A}_{dS}z^{\mathrm{}/2}(1z)^{i\omega /2}[F(a,b,c;z)\mathrm{ln}z+\mathrm{}]`$. However, both solutions have vanishing flux at $`z=0`$ because the relevant part ($`z^{\mathrm{}/2}`$) is not complex but real.

Now we are in a position to calculate an outgoing flux at $`z=0(r=0,r^{}=\mathrm{})`$ which is defined as

$$\stackrel{~}{}_{out}(z=0)=2\frac{2\pi }{i}[\stackrel{~}{f}_+^{}z_z\stackrel{~}{f}_+\stackrel{~}{f}_+z_z\stackrel{~}{f}_+^{}]|_{z=0}.$$
(4.20)
For any kind of real functions near $`z=0(r=0)`$ including $`\stackrel{~}{f_\pm }`$, the outgoing $`()`$ flux is obviously given by

$$\stackrel{~}{}_{out}(z=0)=0.$$
(4.21)
This means that if a wave form is real near $`z=0`$, one cannot find any non-zero flux. We choose a regular solution of $`\stackrel{~}{f_+}(z)`$ for further calculation. To obtain a flux at the horizon of $`z=1(r=1)`$, we first use a formula of Eq.(3.19) with

$$ca=b^{},cb=a^{},cab=(a+bc)^{}.$$
(4.22)
Using $`1ze^{2r^{}}`$ near $`z=1`$, one finds from Eq.(4.19) the following form:

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_{+,01}\stackrel{~}{f}_{in}+\stackrel{~}{f}_{out}=\stackrel{~}{H}_{\omega ,\mathrm{}}e^{i\omega r^{}}+\stackrel{~}{H}_{\omega ,\mathrm{}}e^{i\omega r^{}}$$
(4.23)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_{\omega ,\mathrm{}}=\stackrel{~}{H}_{\omega ,\mathrm{}}^{}=A_{dS}\alpha _{\omega ,\mathrm{}},\alpha _{\omega ,\mathrm{}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\mathrm{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(i\omega )2^{i\omega }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }[(\mathrm{}+i\omega +h_+)/2)]\mathrm{\Gamma }[(\mathrm{}+i\omega +h_{})/2)]}.$$
(4.24)
Then we match Eq.(4.13) with Eq.(4.23) to yield $`C_{dS}=\stackrel{~}{H}_{\omega ,\mathrm{}}`$ and $`E_{dS}=\stackrel{~}{H}_{\omega ,\mathrm{}}`$ near the cosmological horizon. Finally we calculate its outgoing $`()`$ flux at $`z=1(r^{}=\mathrm{})`$ as

$$\stackrel{~}{}_{out}(z=1)=\frac{2\pi }{i}[\stackrel{~}{f}_{out}^{}_r^{}\stackrel{~}{f}_{out}\stackrel{~}{f}_{out}_r^{}\stackrel{~}{f}_{out}^{}]|_{r^{}=\mathrm{}}=4\pi \omega A_{dS}^2|\alpha _{\omega ,\mathrm{}}|^2.$$
(4.25)
On the other hand, the ingoing $`()`$ flux is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{}_{in}(z=1)=\frac{2\pi }{i}[\stackrel{~}{f}_{in}^{}_r^{}\stackrel{~}{f}_{in}\stackrel{~}{f}_{in}_r^{}\stackrel{~}{f}_{in}^{}]|_{r^{}=\mathrm{}}=4\pi \omega A_{dS}^2|\alpha _{\omega ,\mathrm{}}|^2.$$
(4.26)
Thus one finds that $`\stackrel{~}{}_{out}(z=1)+\stackrel{~}{}_{in}(z=1)=0`$ because of $`|\alpha _{\omega ,\mathrm{}}|^2`$ = $`|\alpha _{\omega ,\mathrm{}}|^2`$.

### D dS absorption cross section

Up to now we do not insert the curvature radius $`l`$ of dS space. The correct absorption coefficient can be recovered when replacing $`\omega (m)`$ with $`\omega l(ml)`$. An absorption coefficient by the cosmological horizon is defined formally by

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_{dS}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{}_{out}(z=1)}{\stackrel{~}{}_{out}(z=0)}.$$
(4.27)
It is found that there is no absorption of a scalar wave in de Sitter space in a semiclassical way. This means that de Sitter space is usually stable and in thermal equilibrium with the scalar perturbation, unlike the AdS-black hole. The cosmological horizon not only absorbs radiation (scalar perturbation) but also emits that previously absorbed by itself at the same rate, keeping the curvature radius $`l`$ of de Sitter space fixed. It can be proved by the relation of $`\stackrel{~}{}_{out}(z=1)+\stackrel{~}{}_{in}(z=1)=0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}_{out}(z=0)=0`$. This picture coincides with the plane wave propagation of the energy $`E`$ under the potential step with $`0<E<V_0`$ which shows the classical picture of what goes on, as is shown in Sec. II-A.

### E dS quasinormal modes

Because one cannot find any travelling wave at $`r=0`$, we assume the definition of quasinormal modes to the flux boundary condition in dS space : the outgoing flux ($`\stackrel{~}{}_{out}(z=1)>0`$) at the cosmological horizon and the zero-flux ($`\stackrel{~}{}(z=0)=0`$) at $`r=0`$. See Fig.9 for the assumed quasinormal modes. Now let us check whether or not these modes exist in dS space. One may choose $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{\omega ,\mathrm{}}=0`$ to get the quasinormal modes. This imposes the restriction as

$$ca=n,cb=n,$$
(4.28)
where $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$(negative integers). Considering Eq.(3.34) leads to

$`\omega _1=2{\displaystyle \frac{i}{l}}\left(n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(l+1){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1(ml)^2}}{2}}\right),`$ (4.29)
$`\omega _2=2{\displaystyle \frac{i}{l}}\left(n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(l+1)+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1(ml)^2}}{2}}\right).`$ (4.30)
However, this condition of Eq. (4.28) leads through Eq.(4.22) to $`b^{}=n,a^{}=n`$ which implies that $`\stackrel{~}{}_{out}(z=1)=0`$ because its dependence of $`|\alpha _{\omega ,\mathrm{}}|^2`$. Also their complex conjugates of $`\omega _1^{},\omega _2^{}`$ which comes from $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{\omega ,\mathrm{}}=0`$ are not the quasinormal modes because their outgoing fluxes are zero and $`\omega _I<0`$. Hence we cannot define the quasinormal modes in dS spaceAuthors in  have found quasinormal modes in dS space. However, their calculation was based on the FT and PT where are outside the SD in Fig. 7. These regions are causally disconnected to an observer at $`r=0`$ in the SD. Actually it is difficult to define the wave propagation well in the FT and PT. In this sense their computations are different from ours in the SD.. This result is consistent with the picture of stable cosmological horizon because the presence of quasinormal frequencies implies that the dS scalar wave is loosing its energy continuously into the cosmological horizon.

### F dS/CFT correspondence

We find that one cannot obtain the purely outgoing flux near the cosmological horizon. Hence there is no decay of a bulk scalar into the cosmological horizon. Hence we do not obtain quasinormal frequencies. Because the cosmological horizon is stable, there is no off-equilibrium configuration by the scalar perturbation. In turn there is no perturbation of the boundary thermal states in CFT. The thermal dS/CFT correspondence\**\**\**This can be considered as an extension of the assumed dS/CFT correspondence to study dS space. The assumed dS/CFT correspondence can be checked somewhere by calculation of entropy  and conserved quantities in the FT or PT where is causally disconnected to an observer in the SD. But one cannot confirm this thermal correspondence by making use of the wave equation approach in the SD of dS Space. is not established in the wave equation approach.

## V summary

We study the wave equation for a massive scalar in three-dimensional AdS-black hole and dS spaces. Our results are summarized in TABLE. For the AdS-black hole, the absorption cross section is not obtained directly from the bulk wave equation approach because the space is asymptotically not flat but anti de Sitter. Instead, one could obtain it from the dual CFT. On the other hand, quasinormal frequencies are found and the AdS/CFT correspondence is established.

For dS space with the cosmological horizon, one finds that the absorption cross section is zero. By analogy of the quantum mechanics with the potential step, it is evident that there is no absorption of a scalar wave in de Sitter space. This means that de Sitter space is usually stable and it is in thermal equilibrium with the scalar perturbation. Explicitly the cosmological horizon not only absorbs scalar waves but also emits those previously absorbed by itself at the same rate. As a result, de Sitter space keeps the curvature radius $`l`$ fixed. This can be proved by the flux conservation of $`\stackrel{~}{}_{out}(z=1)+\stackrel{~}{}_{in}(z=1)=0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}(z=0)=0`$. It is identical to that in the wave propagation of the energy $`E`$ under the potential step with $`0<E<V_0`$, which shows the classical picture of what goes on. This contrasts to the case of the AdS-black hole. The quasinormal modes are not defined because one cannot find the purely outgoing flux at the cosmological horizon. Also the thermal dS/CFT correspondence is not realized in the wave equation approach.

Finally we wish to mention two important results. First we clarify that the absorption cross section is not derived from the bulk scalar wave propagation in the background of the AdS-black hole. But this could be obtained from the dual CFT through the AdS/CFT correspondence. It implies that the shaded region of AdS-black hole space in Fig.3 is too small to find the greybody factor. Second, thermal properties of the cosmological horizon are different from those of the event horizon of the AdS-black hole. The cosmological horizon is in thermal equilibrium with the scalar perturbation whereas the event horizon of the $`J=0`$ BTZ black hole is not in equilibrium with the scalar perturbation because the scalar waves decay into the horizon continuously.

## Acknowledgement

This was supported in part by KOSEF, Project No. R02-2002-000-00028-0.


format: text

text:
# Heterogeneities in systems with quenched disorder

## I Introduction

Much of the work in the theory of the glass transition has been concentrated in the precursor phenomena present in the high temperature (or low density) phase on approaching the glass transition. The (equilibrium) dynamics in this region shows two qualitatively different regimes: a short time relaxation associated with the rattling of particles inside cages formed by their neighbors and a long time structural relaxation which, as density increases (or $`T`$ decreases), takes longer and longer times Debenedetti (1996); Debenedetti and Stillinger (2001). In supercooled liquids, the presence of a crossover temperature below which exponentially decaying correlation functions typical of the liquid phase become stretched has been observed Sastry et al. (1998). The origin of this stretching of relaxations is associated to the gradual appearance of heterogeneities in the space/time domain. Understanding the emergence of these heterogeneities is at the heart of the nature of the glass transition and has been the source of a lot of theoretical and experimental work Sillescu (1999); Ediger (2000); Richert (2002). Nevertheless, a unifying microscopic theory is still lacking and only a few universal properties related to heterogeneities have been found.

In real space, dynamical heterogeneities correspond to particles with different mobilities. In computer simulations of simple glass formers the presence of fast and slow particles has been observed. The typical time scales of the two types of particles can be identified for example by examining the behavior of the non-gaussian parameter associated with the van Hove correlation function Kob et al. (1997); Donati et al. (1998). This leads to the identification of a growing time scale which seems to diverge at the mode coupling transition temperature ($`T_{MCT}`$). This characteristic time arises naturally when computing a suitable time dependent four point correlation function or dynamical non-linear susceptibility Glotzer et al. (2000); Donati et al. (2002). As the temperature approaches $`T_{MCT}`$ from above, this dynamical response shows a growing peak at a characteristic time $`t^{}`$ and then relaxes at long times to its equilibrium value. This growing characteristic time of the four point functions has been associated with the presence of long lived dynamical heterogeneities (clusters of very slow or immobile particles).

From a landscape point of view, the emergence of stretching seems to be consequence of the gradual confinement of the system in low (free) energy regions of phase space surrounded by growing barriers as temperature decreases. The confinement is due in part to the dramatic decrease of escape directions in configuration space on approaching the glass transition Broderix et al. (2000); Angelani et al. (2000); Grigera et al. (2002). In simple models of binary mixtures it has been found that stretched relaxations are associated with long lived superstructures or “metabasins” in configuration space Büchner and Heuer (2000). The relaxation from single metabasins shows a stretched behavior and different metabasins relax with different characteristic times, giving rise to the overall stretching observed for example in the $`\alpha `$ region of the incoherent scattering function.

At variance with the enormous amount of work on the problem of heterogeneities in glasses, much less is known about them in systems with quenched disorder Poole et al. (1997); Glotzer et al. (1998); Barrat and Zecchina (1999). Differently from true glasses, where the inhomogeneities are dynamically created by the self induced local frustration and persist during a given timescale, the quenched disorder induces structural heterogeneities that may have infinite lifetime. In this sense they can be called quenched heterogeneities. Since the inhomogeneities are pinned by the disorder, they may be easier to detect and characterize than in systems with self induced disorder. Thus, the posed question is to what extent these heterogeneities influence the relaxation properties and how different regions of the sample differ from each other. Moreover, how do they affect the different degrees of freedom present in the system (like particles and spins)?

To answer these questions, in this work we address the problem of heterogeneities in systems with quenched disorder by focusing the analysis on the behavior of a two dimensional version of the Frustrated Ising Lattice Gas (FILG) which has been proposed as a simple lattice glass model Nicodemi and Coniglio (1997). Nevertheless it is known that the presence of quenched disorder in the definition of the model introduces some features not typical of real glasses. In particular it acts as a pinning field for heterogeneities, some of which can have infinite lifetime. This is reflected in the behavior of dynamical correlation functions and in the non-linear susceptibility and compressibility as will be shown below. In this context we will consider a measure of local frustration Poole et al. (1997); Glotzer et al. (1998), show how it induces the appearance of spatial heterogeneities and how this reflects in the observed behavior of equilibrium density distributions and dynamic correlation functions. For the sake of comparison with other glassy systems without quenched disorder we also discuss the behavior of the non-linear susceptibility associated with the spin degrees of freedom and of the non-linear compressibility of the density variables. Finally, an analysis of the universal behavior in terms of hole variables recently introduced Lawlor et al. (2002); Dawson et al. (2002) shows that this system seems to be in a different universality class than the previously investigated glass models without disorder.

## II The Model

The Frustrated Ising Lattice Gas Nicodemi and Coniglio (1997); Fierro et al. (2000); Stariolo and Arenzon (1999); Arenzon et al. (2000) is defined by the Hamiltonian

$$H=J\underset{<ij>}{}(\epsilon _{ij}\sigma _i\sigma _j1)n_in_j\mu \underset{i}{}n_i.$$
(1)
At each site of the lattice there are two different dynamical variables: local density (occupation) variables $`n_i=0,1`$ ($`i=1\mathrm{}N`$) and internal degrees of freedom, $`\sigma _i=\pm 1`$. The usually complex spatial structure of the molecules of glass forming liquids, which can assume several spatial orientations, is in part responsible for the geometric constraints on their mobility. Here we consider the simplest case of two possible orientations, and the steric effects imposed on a particle by its neighbors are felt as restrictions on its orientation due to the quenched variables $`\epsilon _{ij}`$ connecting nearest neighbors sites. The first term of the Hamiltonian ensures that when $`J`$ is large, any two neighboring particles will have their spins satisfying the connection between them. Finally $`\mu `$ represents a chemical potential ruling the system density (at fixed volume).

This model has been studied mainly through simulations Nicodemi and Coniglio (1997); Fierro et al. (2000); Arenzon et al. (2000) in $`3d`$ and analytically in mean field Arenzon et al. (1996); Crisanti and Leuzzi (2002). In the low density (high temperature) phase, the system behavior is liquid like, the dynamics is fast, time-translationally invariant and obeys the fluctuation-dissipation theorem. By increasing the density (or lowering the temperature), the system has a spin glass transition characterized by a divergence of the static nonlinear susceptibility. This transition point is located quite close to the point where the system suffers a dynamical arrest, where the particles are no longer able to diffuse. After a sub-critical quench, the dynamics is slow and history dependent. Besides that, it presents aging and violates the fluctuation-dissipation theorem (we refer the interested reader to Arenzon et al. (2000) and references therein).

## III Static properties

Since bonds are created at random (with probability $`1/2`$ of being $`\pm 1`$), the system is not homogeneous at the lenghtscale of the lattice spacing. Each site belongs to several minimal plaquets and there is a probability that all (or neither) of these are frustrated. This would influence the dynamics at a local level since the system is no longer invariant under spatial translations. Thus we may ask which are the consequences of these quenched heterogeneities on the equilibrium properties of the system.

When evaluating the partition function at finite density, the configurations in which particles close any frustrated loop will have zero probability. The average density will no longer be site independent and the density distribution $`P(\rho )`$ will be inhomogeneous, i.e. will show spatial fluctuations. Homogeneity will only be recovered when $`\rho 0`$. For small densities, the distribution will be gaussian while deviations from gaussianity should be evident as the density increases. The forbidden configurations introduce spatial inhomogeneities that are long lived as they derive from the quenched random underlying connections. In other lattice models, as well as in structural glasses, the disorder is not quenched, what restores translational invariance if the measure time is much larger than the dynamical heterogeneities characteristic time. An example of a system with quenched but not random frustration, that does not present these inhomogeneities is the fully frustrated version of the FILG.

To quantify this we use the (local) coarse-grained quantity

$$\gamma _i\underset{𝒫(i)}{}\underset{j𝒫(i)}{}\epsilon _{ij}$$
(2)
where $`𝒫(i)`$ are the minimal plaquets containing the site $`i`$. That is, for every site, we consider the 4 minimal plaquets that contain that site (12 in $`d=3`$) and we check how many of these plaquets are frustrated, i.e. the product of the connections in the loop is negative. This local frustration parameter was originally considered in the context of dynamical heterogeneities in refs. Poole et al. (1997); Glotzer et al. (1998). In this nearest neighbor plaquet approximation sites that are maximally frustrated have all of its 4 plaquets with negative products and sites with no frustration have all plaquets with positive products. In other words, $`\gamma _i`$ may assume values between $`4`$ and 4. Figure 1$`a`$ shows a configuration with inhomogeneous distribution of local frustration.

We now consider how these structural clumps change the system’s behavior. In fig. 1$`b`$ we show, for the same realization of disorder of fig. 1$`a`$, only the sites that have an averaged occupation greater than 0.9. In this figure, $`\mu =4`$, and the total average density is roughly 0.74, well below 0.9. The presence of preferred positions is a direct consequence of the existence of islands of low frustration, as can be seen by comparing figures 1$`a`$ and 1$`b`$. As the chemical potential increases, the number of these sites also increase, as expected. These heterogeneities make the system not translationally invariant even in the low density liquid phase. This can be made clear by measuring the distribution $`P(\rho _i)`$ of local averaged densities $`\rho _i=n_i`$ as shown in fig. 2. In homogeneous systems all sites have the same average density and the distribution, for a finite number of measurements, is a gaussian centered in this value. Examples might be a non disordered version of the model considered here (with fully frustrated connections) or models for structural glasses without quenched variables. In the last case, the annealed character of the frustration allows the homogeneity to be recovered again.

The broadness of the curves does not seem related neither to finite average times nor to finite lattice sizes, but rather to the fact that, when not limited to the nearest neighbor plaquet approximation, there are several values that the local frustration may assume generating in this way the broad distributions seen in the above figures.

To make clear the origin of this broad distribution, we considered the density distribution $`P(\rho _i,\gamma _i)`$ separately for each value of the local frustration $`\gamma _i`$, which has a well defined density around which its particular distribution is centered. The result is seen in fig. 3. Moreover, the separation between these curves increases as the density increases and the deviation from gaussianity becomes apparent.

We may define $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as the difference between the average densities of the peaks associated with the lowest and highest values of $`\gamma `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _i_4\rho _i_4`$ where the averages $`\mathrm{}_{\gamma _i}`$ are over $`P(\rho _i,\gamma _i)`$. When there is no difference, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$, the particles do not feel the underlying landscape and all sites have the same average equilibrium density. In this model this happens for very low densities. As the density increases, the dynamics becomes landscape influenced and $`P(\rho _i)`$ has a more complex structure, no longer being a simple gaussian. This is exemplified in fig. 3 for $`\mu =3`$. One can also note that the distributions are asymmetric around $`\gamma _i=0`$: for example, in the case of $`P(\rho _i,2)`$ and $`P(\rho _i,2)`$ the former is broader and shorter while the latter is higher and more concentrated. A possible explanation is that sites with negative values of $`\gamma _i`$ are more influenced by higher order plaquets than sites with positive $`\gamma _i`$, thus having a broader distribution.

In $`d=3`$ the overall picture is similar to that of $`d=2`$. Nevertheless some differences are evident when comparing figures 2 and 4 and one may wonder if the minimum plaquet approximation used in the definition of the local frustration parameter works in $`d=3`$ as it does in $`d=2`$. Still within the same approximation, the distribution of local densities for different local frustrations presents also different peaks (not shown), a manifestation of the lack of translational invariance also in $`d=3`$.

Recently, a description of the jamming transition has been introduced that unveiled some universal mechanism leading to the dynamical arrest that happens at $`\rho _c`$. The notion of hole is introduced: empty sites that have at least one neighbor particle able, due to the energetic or to the kinetic constraints, to jump to the initial empty site. We measure, for several fixed densities 111In this case, when diffusing, the particle carries its spin., the density of holes, $`\nu `$. It has been conjectured, and supported by numerical simulations on some lattice models Lawlor et al. (2002); Dawson et al. (2002), that the diffusivity depends on $`\nu `$ as $`D(\nu \nu _0)^2`$ where $`\nu _0`$ is a possible residual density of holes at $`\rho _c`$ (rattlers) that do not contribute to the diffusion. We show our results for the FILG in $`d=2`$ in fig. 5. We obtain $`D(\nu 0.056)^{2.4}`$. The Kob-Andersen is another example of model where $`\nu _00`$. Some things are remarkable: first, we notice that the FILG belongs to a different universality class. Second, the value of $`\nu `$ at $`\rho _c`$ is much larger than in other models. Notice also that the behavior of $`\nu `$ near $`\rho _c`$ is linear.

The fact that the FILG does not belong to the same universality class of several other models is very interesting and the reason may be related to the inhomogeneity of the underlying connections structure. Indeed, we measure the density of holes accordingly to the $`\gamma _i`$ of the hole site. For small values of $`\rho `$ there is no difference between these values and all curves collapse. The fact that for higher densities these curves fall apart is an indication that the holes also have preferred sites and tend to form small clusters. Thus, near $`\rho _c`$, the mechanism leading to diffusion is no longer the pairwise collisions between holes but a more complicated process involving these small clusters, what may lead to a failure of the $`\nu `$-square law 222Deviations from this law were also observed in the KA model in the density regime near the dynamical arrest (M. Sellitto, private communication.). Further work along this line has to be done in order to clarify this issue.

## IV Dynamical properties

In Ref.Stariolo and Arenzon (1999) the nonequilibrium behavior of the model was shown to present interesting aging properties similar to those observed in glass forming systems. Here we address equilibrium density correlations instead and the role of heterogeneities in the low density phase. The density autocorrelations are defined by

$$c_n(t)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i}{}\left[n_i(t)n_i(0)n_i(0)^2\right]$$
(3)
and $`C_n(t)c_n(t)/c_n(0)`$, where the averages are both over samples and initial states. The densities are also averaged over the thermal history in each sample. Notice that only in the case where the system is homogeneous, that is, the average quantities are invariant under spatial translations, we can substitute the last term in the numerator by $`\rho ^2`$, otherwise $`_in_i^2_in_i^2`$. In the region of densities considered here, these correlations do not present the usual two step dynamics observed in other models as can be seen in fig. 6. Nevertheless two regimes can be clearly observed and all the curves can be fitted by stretched exponentials (not shown) in the first regime. The second regime at longer times observed for the largest densities can also be fitted by stretched exponentials with other parameters and probably will tend to develop a plateau at higher densities.

For the same values of the chemical potential or mean density shown in fig. 6, the diluted spin correlations show a different behavior. The correlations between spins on occupied sites are defined as

$$C_{ns}(t)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i}{}n_i(t)S_i(t)n_i(0)S_i(0).$$
(4)
The results for several values of $`\mu `$ are shown in fig. 7 together with the best fits to stretched exponential decays for the long time regime. Interestingly, the correlations $`C_n`$ and $`C_{ns}`$ decay with very different timescales: density correlations decay much faster than the diluted spin correlations. This can be understood as follows. Particles can be created/destroyed and diffuse through the lattice, forming clusters of neighboring particles. Once they belong to the same cluster, the nature of the interaction enforces them to have spins satisfying all the bonds in the cluster, otherwise they should move apart. Thus, when a site contributes for the correlation at different times, the contribution will be positive, unless there is enough time for the whole cluster to flip all its spins. Moreover, the percolation transition is just below $`\mu =3`$ and the considered clusters are large, making the decorrelation time quite large.

The diluted spin correlations start to develop an incipient plateau as the value of the chemical potential increases. We expect that by further increasing the value of $`\mu `$, this plateau will be more noticeable and the characteristic decay time will tend to diverge at the dynamical transition. In fig. 8 we show an Arrhenius plot of the relaxation times showing that they tend to diverge for $`\mu \mathrm{}`$. This is different from the behavior observed in the three dimensional model de Candia and Coniglio (2001), which shows a power law divergence at a finite value of $`\mu `$. Thus, while the three dimensional model presents a spin glass transition at a finite chemical potential the two dimensional model only has a transition at $`\mu \mathrm{}`$.

Both correlations can also be measured only for sites presenting a given value of the frustration parameter $`\gamma _i`$. The curves for the 5 possible values (in $`d=2`$) are shown in figs. 9 and 10 for $`\mu =3`$. Fits to stretched exponential decay are also shown for the diluted spin correlations. They are normalized to unity but, recalling fig. 3, the number of sites contributing to each one of the curves is different. The behavior for $`C_n(t)`$ is very different and almost all curves give the same correlation, only sites with $`\gamma _i=4`$ differ slightly from the others (and their contribution to the overall curve is small). On the other hand, for $`C_{ns}(t)`$ the curves are strongly resolved and we notice that the dynamics is faster in those sites in highly frustrated regions. This may be due to the fact that since particle creation-destruction is allowed, particles appearing in these regions have a higher probability to go elsewhere or be destroyed (as these are regions of less than average densities), what makes the decorrelation time small. On the other hand, low frustration regions are those preferred by the particles and correlations take much more time to decay (as these are regions of larger than average densities). The total correlation (not shown) follows closely the $`\gamma _i=0`$ or mean frustration curve. Note that all local correlations show stretched exponential relaxations irrespective of the value of the local frustration being high or low. In this scenario the stretched relaxation does not emerge as a consequence of some kind of convolution of local exponential relaxations with different time scales. At this level of description, the stretching, although heterogeneous due to different local frustration, is intrinsic. As the density increases this scenario does not change qualitatively.

It is interesting to remark that for high values of $`\mu `$ the decay of the diluted spin correlation starts to develop a plateau and the sites responsible for this behavior are those that are less frustrated. The effect is not much pronounced because the summed up effect of $`\gamma _i=2`$ and 0 sites is dominant.

As the dynamical heterogeneities have attracted much attention recently, several quantities have been devised to quantify them Sillescu (1999). Among them, of particular interest is the four point correlation (or dynamical nonlinear response) defined as

$$\chi _4^n(t)=N\left(C_n^2(t)C_n(t)^2\right).$$
(5)
Away from the transition, this function presents a maximum at a time $`t^{}`$ that is a measure of the timescale during which the particles forming the heterogeneity are correlated. The long time behavior of this quantity is a measure of its equilibrium value. In figure 11 we plot $`\chi _4^n(t)`$. Analogously to what happens in other glass models it presents a broad peak that shifts to longer times and gets higher as the density increases. Nevertheless an important difference from other models is that after the peak the non-linear compressibility does not decay too much and develops a density-dependent plateau at long times. The persistence of density correlations is a clear signature of the presence of very long lived heterogeneities, a consequence of the pinning effect of the quenched disorder present in the model. The possible divergence of the equilibrium (infinite time) limit of the non-linear compressibility should point to the existence of a thermodynamic transition associated with the density degrees of freedom not yet observed in this model.

Analogously, for diluted spin correlations we can evaluate eq. 5 using $`C_{ns}(t)`$ in the place of $`C_n(t)`$. The resultant $`X_4^{ns}(t)`$ is seen in fig. 12. The behavior is similar to that observed for the density variables, but instead of a peak we observe a crossover time after which this non-linear susceptibility saturates in a finite density dependent value. In this case the height of the plateau seems to diverge much more rapidly than for the compressibility giving more plausibility to the presence of a thermodynamic transition in the spin variables, probably for $`\mu \mathrm{}`$. The crossover to a plateau, instead of the presence of a peak, clearly points to the appearance of a persistent correlation length associated with the spin degrees of freedom. It would be interesting to check if these persistence is a manifestation of a growing structural correlation length which might diverge at an equilibrium spin glass transition similar to that present in d=3.

## V Conclusions

In this paper we considered the role played by heterogeneities present in a model with quenched disorder. Differently from self-induced frustration models here the heterogeneities may be pinned by the local frustration and this allows a simple characterization of them. The effects of these pinned heterogeneities on time correlation functions and distribution of local densities have been analyzed. The system forms clumps in the liquid phase even when the particles either do not interact or strongly repel each other Klein et al. (1994). Moreover, these clumps are long-lived and it would be interesting to study their size distribution and how they are correlated Johnson et al. (1998).

A simple measure of local frustration Poole et al. (1997) was considered and a strong correlation with the inhomogeneous density distribution was found. The use of $`\gamma _i`$ allowed to decompose the local density distributions in components related to the degree of local frustration. However, the use of $`\gamma _i`$ as a measure of the local frustration considering only the minimal plaquets has to be considered as a first order approximation. Indeed, higher order plaquets, involving larger loops, have to be taken into account in order to obtain the full dependence of $`\rho _i`$ on $`\gamma _i`$. For example, in the $`d=2`$ case, there exists 12 plaquets of second order (those having 6 bonds). It is an open problem to determine to what extent the present results may change by considering the effects of larger loops in $`\gamma _i`$ and how they determine the average local density and affect the relaxation properties. It was shown also that dynamic correlations can be decomposed accordingly to the local values of frustration and in each case the relaxations are essentially stretched although the degree of stretching is of course dependent on the degree of local frustration. It would be interesting to study the possible relation between local correlation functions in the out-of-equilibrium regime and the violation of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem Barrat and Zecchina (1999); Castillo et al. (2002); Montanari and Ricci-Tersenghi (2003); Berthier (2003) with the local frustration as defined by the parameter $`\gamma _i`$.

Further insight into the relation of the FILG with other models of glasses and spin glasses can be gained by analyzing non-linear responses. We showed that two such responses associated with different degrees of freedom in the model behave differently in some important aspects. At variance with models of glasses, the spin non-linear susceptibility shows a crossover time after which the response saturates instead of the characteristic peak observed for example in models with constrained dynamics. Also the rapid growth of the plateau at long times suggests the developing of a structural correlation length associated with a possible spin glass transition. This remains to be confirmed. The non-linear compressibility instead shows a broad peak but with a modest further relaxation to a density dependent plateau. In this case one can associate this plateau with the formation of very long lived quenched heterogeneities. From the observed behavior of these non-linear responses one can conclude that the FILG does not behave neither as a proper spin glass nor as a glass sharing some characteristics with both kinds of systems.

Although the model considered here has been originally introduced as an attempt to obtain a finite dimensional lattice system with glassy properties similar to structural glasses the main drawback is the lack of invariance under spatial translations already in the liquid phase. There are several ways to restore this invariance. For example, by considering spatially coarse-grained variables or by including a temporal evolution of the bonds Fierro et al. (2000). As it stands this model still may be interesting to study transport in disordered media (see Oshanin et al. (2003) and references therein) which has been of much interest recently.

###### Acknowledgements.

We acknowledge interesting conversations with Annalisa Fierro and Yan Levin. Work partially supported by the brazilian agencies FAPERGS and CNPq.


text:
# References

UdeM-GPP-TH-03-109

Probing New Physics via an Angular Analysis
of $`BV_1V_2`$ Decays

David London a,111london@lps.umontreal.ca, Nita Sinha b,222nita@imsc.res.in and Rahul Sinha b,333sinha@imsc.res.in

$`a`$: Laboratoire René J.-A. Lévesque, Université de Montréal,
C.P. 6128, succ. centre-ville, Montréal, QC, Canada H3C 3J7

$`b`$: Institute of Mathematical Sciences, C. I. T Campus,
Taramani, Chennai 600 113, India

()
Abstract
We show that an angular analysis of $`BV_1V_2`$ decays yields numerous tests for new physics (NP) in the decay amplitudes. Many of these NP observables are nonzero even if the strong phase differences vanish. For certain observables, neither time-dependent measurements nor tagging is necessary. Should a signal for new physics be found, one can place a lower limit on the size of the NP parameters, as well as on their effect on the measurement of the phase of $`B^0`$$`\overline{B}^0`$ mixing.

CP violation in the standard model (SM) is due to the presence of a nonzero complex phase in the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) quark mixing matrix. This explanation can be tested by measuring CP-violating rate asymmetries in $`B`$ decays, and extracting $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$, the three interior angles of the unitarity triangle . If the measured values of these angles are inconsistent with the predictions of the SM, this will indicate the presence of new physics (NP).

The most promising modes for measuring the CP phases are those that are dominated by a single decay amplitude. In this case, the weak-phase information can be extracted cleanly, i.e. with no hadronic uncertainties. An example of such a decay is the so-called “gold-plated” mode $`B_d^0(t)J/\psi K_S`$, which is used to probe $`\beta `$ 444In fact, there are two weak amplitudes that can contribute to $`B_d^0(t)J/\psi K_S`$: the tree amplitude and the $`bs`$ penguin amplitude. However, the weak phases of these two amplitudes are equal (they vanish in the Wolfenstein parametrization of the CKM matrix ), so that there is effectively only a single weak amplitude contributing to $`B_d^0J/\psi K_S`$. Thus, the extraction of the CP phase $`\beta `$ from this decay mode is extremely clean.. Note that the decay $`B_d^0(t)J/\psi K^{}`$ is equally gold-plated. The only difference, in comparison to $`B_d^0(t)J/\psi K_S`$, is that here the final state consists of two vector particles. In this case, one has to do an angular analysis to separate out the CP-even and CP-odd components . Each component can then be treated separately, and $`\beta `$ can be obtained cleanly.

Suppose now that there is new physics. How does this affect the above analysis? If the NP affects $`B_d^0`$$`\overline{B}_d^0`$ mixing only, the above analysis is unchanged, except that the measured value of $`\beta `$ is not the true SM value, but rather one that has been shifted by a new-physics phase. On the other hand, if the NP affects the decay amplitude , then the extraction of $`\beta `$ is no longer clean – it may be contaminated by hadronic uncertainties. It is this situation that interests us in this paper.

New physics can affect the decay amplitude either at loop level (i.e. in the $`bs`$ penguin amplitude) or at tree level. Examples of such new-physics models include non-minimal supersymmetric models and models with $`Z`$-mediated flavor-changing neutral currents . In all cases, if the new contributions have a different weak phase than that of the SM amplitude, then the measured value of $`\beta `$, $`\beta ^{meas}`$, no longer corresponds to the phase of $`B_d^0`$$`\overline{B}_d^0`$ mixing, $`\beta ^{mix}`$. (Note that $`\beta ^{mix}`$ could include NP contributions to the mixing.)

If new-physics contributions to the decay amplitude are present, how will we see them? One way is to note that, to a good approximation, $`\beta `$ can also be obtained in the SM from $`B_d^0(t)\varphi K_S`$ and $`B_d^0(t)\eta ^{}K_S`$ . Indeed, at present there appears to be a discrepancy between the value of $`\beta `$ extracted from $`B_d^0(t)J/\psi K_S`$ and that obtained from $`B_d^0(t)\varphi K_S`$ . Should this difference remain as more data is taken, it would provide indirect evidence for a NP amplitude in $`B\varphi K`$.

Still, even in this case, it would be preferable to have direct evidence for this new amplitude. Furthermore, if present, we would like to obtain information about it (magnitude, weak and strong phases). It is therefore important to have as many independent tests as possible for NP. One possibility is to search for direct CP violation. However, direct CP asymmetries vanish if the strong phase difference between the SM and NP amplitudes is zero, which may well be the case in $`B`$ decays. (It has been argued that all strong phases in $`B`$ decays should be quite small, due to the fact that the $`b`$-quark is rather heavy.)

In this Letter we show that an angular analysis of $`B`$-meson decays to two vector mesons, such as $`B_d^0(t)J/\psi K^{}`$ or $`\varphi K^{}`$, can provide many signals for NP, including several that are nonzero even if the strong phase differences vanish. Furthermore, if any NP signal is found, this analysis allows one to place a lower bound on the size of the NP amplitude, and on the difference $`|\beta ^{meas}\beta ^{mix}|`$. As we will see, the analysis can even be used within the SM to analyze decays such as $`B_d^0(t)D^+D^{}`$, from which CP phases cannot be extracted cleanly due to penguin “pollution.”

Consider a $`BV_1V_2`$ decay for which a single weak decay amplitude contributes within the SM. Suppose that there is a new-physics amplitude, with a different weak phase, that contributes to the decay. The decay amplitude for each of the three possible helicity states may be generally written as

$`A_\lambda Amp(BV_1V_2)_\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`a_\lambda e^{i\delta _\lambda ^a}+b_\lambda e^{i\varphi }e^{i\delta _\lambda ^b},`$
$`\overline{A}_\lambda Amp(\overline{B}\overline{V}_1\overline{V}_2)_\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`a_\lambda e^{i\delta _\lambda ^a}+b_\lambda e^{i\varphi }e^{i\delta _\lambda ^b},`$ (1)
where $`a_\lambda `$ and $`b_\lambda `$ represent the SM and NP amplitudes, respectively, $`\varphi `$ is the new-physics weak phase, the $`\delta _\lambda ^{a,b}`$ are the strong phases, and the helicity index $`\lambda `$ takes the values $`\{0,,\}`$. Using CPT invariance, the full decay amplitudes can be written as

$`𝒜`$ $`=`$ $`Amp(BV_1V_2)=A_0g_0+A_{}g_{}+iA_{}g_{},`$
$`\overline{𝒜}`$ $`=`$ $`Amp(\overline{B}\overline{V}_1\overline{V}_2)=\overline{A}_0g_0+\overline{A}_{}g_{}i\overline{A}_{}g_{},`$ (2)
where the $`g_\lambda `$ are the coefficients of the helicity amplitudes written in the linear polarization basis. The $`g_\lambda `$ depend only on the angles describing the kinematics . For $`B=B_d^0`$, the above equations enable us to write the time-dependent decay rates as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_d(\text{})(t)V_1V_2)=e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t}\underset{\lambda \sigma }{}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\lambda \sigma }\pm \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\lambda \sigma }\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }Mt)\rho _{\lambda \sigma }\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }Mt)\right)g_\lambda g_\sigma .$$
(3)
Thus, by performing a time-dependent angular analysis of the decay $`B_d^0(t)V_1V_2`$, one can measure 18 observables. These are:

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\lambda \lambda }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|A_\lambda |^2+|\overline{A}_\lambda |^2),`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\lambda \lambda }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|A_\lambda |^2|\overline{A}_\lambda |^2),`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i=\mathrm{Im}(A_{}A_i^{}\overline{A}_{}\overline{A}_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}),`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0=\mathrm{Re}(A_{}A_0^{}+\overline{A}_{}\overline{A}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{}),`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i=\mathrm{Im}(A_{}A_i^{}+\overline{A}_{}\overline{A}_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}),`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0=\mathrm{Re}(A_{}A_0^{}\overline{A}_{}\overline{A}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{}),`$
$`\rho _i=\mathrm{Re}\left({\displaystyle \frac{q}{p}}\left[A_{}^{}\overline{A}_i+A_i^{}\overline{A}_{}\right]\right),`$ $`\rho _{}=\mathrm{Im}\left({\displaystyle \frac{q}{p}}A_{}^{}\overline{A}_{}\right),`$
$`\rho _0=\mathrm{Im}\left({\displaystyle \frac{q}{p}}[A_{}^{}\overline{A}_0+A_0^{}\overline{A}_{}]\right),`$ $`\rho _{ii}=\mathrm{Im}\left({\displaystyle \frac{q}{p}}A_i^{}\overline{A}_i\right),`$ (4)
where $`i=\{0,\}`$. In the above, $`q/p=\mathrm{exp}(2i\beta ^{mix})`$, where $`\beta ^{mix}`$ is the weak phase describing $`B_d^0`$$`\overline{B}_d^0`$ mixing. Note that $`\beta ^{mix}`$ may include NP effects (in the SM, $`\beta ^{mix}=\beta `$). Note also that the signs of the various $`\rho `$ terms depend on the CP-parity of the various helicity states. We have chosen the sign of $`\rho _{00}`$ and $`\rho _{}`$ to be $`1`$, which corresponds to the final state $`J/\psi K^{}`$.

The 18 observables given above can be written in terms of 13 theoretical parameters: three $`a_\lambda `$’s, three $`b_\lambda `$’s, $`\beta ^{mix}`$, $`\varphi `$, and five strong phase differences defined by $`\delta _\lambda \delta _\lambda ^b\delta _\lambda ^a`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i\delta _{}^a\delta _i^a`$. The explicit expressions for the observables are as follows:

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\lambda \lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`a_\lambda ^2+b_\lambda ^2+2a_\lambda b_\lambda \mathrm{cos}\delta _\lambda \mathrm{cos}\varphi ,`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\lambda \lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`2a_\lambda b_\lambda \mathrm{sin}\delta _\lambda \mathrm{sin}\varphi ,`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ $`=`$ $`2\left[a_{}b_i\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }_i\delta _i)a_ib_{}\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }_i+\delta _{})\right]\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ $`=`$ $`2[a_{}a_0\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{\Delta }_{})+a_{}b_0\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\delta _0)\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$
$`+a_0b_{}\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{\Delta }_{}+\delta _{})\mathrm{cos}\varphi +b_{}b_0\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{\Delta }_{}+\delta _{}\delta _0)],`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ $`=`$ $`2[a_{}a_i\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }_i+a_{}b_i\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }_i\delta _i)\mathrm{cos}\varphi +a_ib_{}\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }_i+\delta _{})\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$
$`+b_{}b_i\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }_i+\delta _{}\delta _i)],`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ $`=`$ $`2\left[a_{}b_0\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\delta _0)a_0b_{}\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{\Delta }_{}+\delta _{})\right]\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,`$
$`\rho _{ii}`$ $`=`$ $`a_i^2\mathrm{sin}2\beta ^{mix}+2a_ib_i\mathrm{cos}\delta _i\mathrm{sin}(2\beta ^{mix}+\varphi )+b_i^2\mathrm{sin}(2\beta ^{mix}+2\varphi ),`$
$`\rho _{}`$ $`=`$ $`a_{}^2\mathrm{sin}2\beta ^{mix}2a_{}b_{}\mathrm{cos}\delta _{}\mathrm{sin}(2\beta ^{mix}+\varphi )b_{}^2\mathrm{sin}(2\beta ^{mix}+2\varphi ),`$
$`\rho _i`$ $`=`$ $`2[a_ia_{}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }_i\mathrm{cos}2\beta ^{mix}+a_{}b_i\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }_i\delta _i)\mathrm{cos}(2\beta ^{mix}+\varphi )`$
$`+a_ib_{}\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }_i+\delta _{})\mathrm{cos}(2\beta ^{mix}+\varphi )`$
$`+b_ib_{}\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }_i+\delta _{}\delta _i)\mathrm{cos}(2\beta ^{mix}+2\varphi )],`$
$`\rho _0`$ $`=`$ $`2[a_0a_{}\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{\Delta }_{})\mathrm{sin}2\beta ^{mix}+a_{}b_0\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\delta _0)\mathrm{sin}(2\beta ^{mix}+\varphi )`$ (5)
$`+a_0b_{}\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{\Delta }_{}+\delta _{})\mathrm{sin}(2\beta ^{mix}`$
$`+\varphi )+b_0b_{}\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{\Delta }_{}+\delta _{}\delta _0)\mathrm{sin}(2\beta ^{mix}+2\varphi )].`$
It is straightforward to show that one cannot extract $`\beta ^{mix}`$. There are a total of six amplitudes describing $`BV_1V_2`$ and $`\overline{B}\overline{V}_1\overline{V}_2)`$ decays \[Eq. (1)\]. Thus, at best one can measure the magnitudes and relative phases of these six amplitudes, giving 11 measurements. Since the number of meaurements (11) is fewer than the number of theoretical parameters (13), one cannot obtain any of the theoretical unknowns purely in terms of observables. In particular, it is impossible to extract $`\beta ^{mix}`$ cleanly.

In the absence of NP, $`b_\lambda =0`$. The number of parameters is then reduced from 13 to 6: three $`a_\lambda `$’s, two strong phase differences ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$), and $`\beta ^{mix}`$. All of these can be determined cleanly in terms of observables. Because we have 18 observables, but only 6 theoretical parameters, there are 12 relations that must exist among the observables in the absence of NP. (Of course, only five of these are independent.) The 12 relations are:

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\lambda \lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_i=\mathrm{\Sigma }_0=0`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{ii}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ii}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}}`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\lambda \lambda }^2\rho _0\rho _{}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\lambda \lambda }^2\rho _{\lambda \lambda }^2)}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\lambda \lambda }^2\rho _{\lambda \lambda }^2}}\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _i^2}{4\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ii}\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^2\rho _{}^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^2}}.`$ (6)
The key point is the following: the violation of any of the above relations will be a smoking-gun signal of NP. We therefore see that the angular analysis of $`BV_1V_2`$ decays provides numerous tests for the presence of new physics.

The observable $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ deserves special attention . From Eq. (5), one sees that even if the strong phase differences vanish, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ is nonzero in the presence of new physics ($`\varphi 0`$), in stark contrast to the direct CP asymmetries (proportional to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\lambda \lambda }`$). This is due to the fact that the $``$ helicity is CP-odd, while the $`0`$ and $``$ helicities are CP-even. Thus, $``$$`0`$ and $``$$``$ interferences include an additional factor of ‘$`i`$’ in the full decay amplitudes \[Eq. (2)\], which leads to the cosine dependence on the strong phases.

Now, although the reconstruction of the full $`B_d^0(t)`$ and $`\overline{B}_d^0(t)`$ decay rates in Eq. (3) requires both tagging and time-dependent measurements, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\lambda \sigma }`$ terms remain even if the two rates for $`B_d^0(t)`$ and $`\overline{B}_d^0(t)`$ decays are added together. Note also that these terms are time-independent. Therefore, no tagging or time-dependent measurements are needed to extract $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$! It is only necessary to perform an angular analysis of the final state $`V_1V_2`$. Thus, this measurement can even be made at a symmetric $`B`$-factory.

The decays of charged $`B`$ mesons to vector-vector final states are even simpler to analyze since no mixing is involved. One can in principle combine charged and neutral $`B`$ decays to increase the sensitivity to new physics. For example, for $`BJ/\psi K^{}`$ decays, one simply performs an angular analysis on all decays in which a $`J/\psi `$ is produced accompanied by a charged or neutral $`K^{}`$. A nonzero value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ would be a clear signal for new physics .

The decays of both charged and neutral $`B`$ mesons to $`D_s^{}D^{}`$ can be analyzed similarly. Because these modes are dominated by a single decay amplitude in the SM, no direct CP violation is expected. And since this is not a final state to which both $`B_d^0`$ and $`\overline{B}_d^0`$ can decay, no indirect CP violation is present either. An angular analysis of these decays would therefore be interesting – if any CP-violating signal were found, such as a nonzero value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$, this would again indicate the presence of new physics.

It must be noted that, despite the large number of new-physics signals, it is still possible for the NP to remain hidden. This happens if a singular situation is realized. If the three strong phase differences $`\delta _\lambda `$ vanish, and the ratio $`r_\lambda b_\lambda /a_\lambda `$ is the same for all helicities, i.e. $`r_0=r_{}=r_{}`$, then it is easy to show that the relations in Eq. (6) are all satisfied. Thus, if the NP happens to respect these very special conditions, the angular analysis of $`BV_1V_2`$ would show no signal for NP even if it is present, and the measured value of $`\beta `$ would not correspond to the actual phase of $`B_d^0`$$`\overline{B}_d^0`$ mixing.

Now, suppose that some signal of new physics is found, indicating that $`\beta ^{meas}`$ is not equal to $`\beta ^{mix}`$. As we have argued earlier, in the presence of new physics one cannot extract the true value of $`\beta ^{mix}`$. However, as we will describe below, the angular analysis does allow one to constrain the value of the difference $`|\beta ^{\mathrm{𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠}}\beta ^{mix}|`$, as well as the size of the NP amplitudes $`b_\lambda ^2`$. Naively, one would not think it possible to obtain any constraints on the NP parameters. After all, we have 11 measurements, but 13 theoretical unknown parameters. However, because the equations are nonlinear, such constraints are possible. Below, we list some of these constraints; their full derivation will be presented elsewhere .

In the constraints, we will make use of the following quantities. For the vector-vector final state, the analogue of the usual direct CP asymmetry $`a_{dir}^{CP}`$ is $`a_\lambda ^{dir}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\lambda \lambda }/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\lambda \lambda }`$, which is helicity-dependent. For convenience, we define the related quantity $`y_\lambda =\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\lambda \lambda }^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\lambda \lambda }^2}`$. The measured value of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ can also depend on the helicity of the final state: $`\rho _{\lambda \lambda }`$ can be recast in terms of a measured weak phase $`2\beta _\lambda ^{\mathrm{𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠}}`$, defined as

$$\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\beta _\lambda ^{\mathrm{𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠}}=\frac{\pm \rho _{\lambda \lambda }}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\lambda \lambda }^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\lambda \lambda }^2}},$$
(7)
where the $`+`$ $`()`$ sign corresponds to $`\lambda =0,`$ ($``$). In terms of these quantities, the size of NP amplitudes $`b_\lambda ^2`$ may be expressed as

$$2b_\lambda ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi =\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\lambda \lambda }\left(1y_\lambda \mathrm{cos}(2\beta _\lambda ^{meas}2\beta )\right).$$
(8)
The form of the constraints depends on which new-physics signals are observed; we give a partial list below. For example, suppose that direct CP violation is observed in a particular helicity state. In this case a lower bound on the corresponding NP amplitude can be obtained by minimizing $`b_\lambda ^2`$ \[Eq. (8)\] with respect to $`\beta `$ and $`\varphi `$:

$$b_\lambda ^2\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\lambda \lambda }\left[1y_\lambda \right].$$
(9)
On the other hand, suppose that the new-physics signal is $`\beta _i^{\mathrm{𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠}}\beta _j^{\mathrm{𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠}}`$. Defining $`2\omega 2\beta _j^{meas}2\beta _i^{meas}`$ and $`\eta _\lambda 2(\beta _\lambda ^{\mathrm{𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠}}\beta ^{mix})`$, the minimization of $`(b_i^2b_j^2)`$ with respect to $`\eta _i`$ and $`\varphi `$ yields

$$(b_i^2b_j^2)\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ii}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{jj}}{2}\frac{\left|y_i\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ii}y_j\mathrm{\Lambda }_{jj}e^{2i\omega }\right|}{2},$$
(10)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ii}>\mathrm{\Lambda }_{jj}`$ is assumed. If there is no direct CP violation ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\lambda \lambda }=0`$), but $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ is nonzero, one has

$$2(b_i^2b_{}^2)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ii}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}\sqrt{\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ii}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}\right)^2\pm \mathrm{\Lambda }_i^2},$$
(11)
where $`\beta _{}^{meas}`$ was eliminated using the expression for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$.

One can also obtain bounds on $`|\beta _\lambda ^{\mathrm{𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠}}\beta ^{mix}|`$, though this requires the nonzero measurement of observables involving the interference of different helicities. For example, if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ is nonzero and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\lambda \lambda }=0`$, we find

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ii}\mathrm{cos}\eta _i+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}\mathrm{cos}(\eta _{}2\eta _i)\sqrt{\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ii}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}\right)^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^2},$$

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ii}\mathrm{cos}\eta _i\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}\mathrm{cos}\eta _{}\sqrt{\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ii}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}\right)^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^2}.$$
(12)
If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i0`$, one cannot have $`\eta _i=\eta _{}=0`$. These constraints therefore place a lower bound on $`|\beta _i^{\mathrm{𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠}}\beta ^{mix}|`$ and/or $`|\beta _{}^{\mathrm{𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠}}\beta ^{mix}|`$.

A-priori, one does not know which of the above constraints is strongest – this depends on the actual values of the observables. Of course, in practice, one will simply perform a fit to obtain the best lower bounds on these NP parameters . However, it is interesting to see that constraints can be obtained analytically.

As a specific application, we have noted the apparent discrepancy in the value of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ as obtained from measurements of $`B_d^0(t)J/\psi K_S`$ and $`B_d^0(t)\varphi K_S`$ . In this case, the angular analyses of $`B_d^0(t)J/\psi K^{}`$ and $`B_d^0(t)\varphi K^{}`$ would allow one to determine if new physics is indeed present. If NP is confirmed, this analysis would allow one to put constraints on the NP parameters.

Note that this analysis can also be applied within the SM to decays such as $`B_d^0(t)D^+D^{}`$. These decays have both a tree and a penguin contribution, so that $`\beta ^{mix}`$ cannot be extracted cleanly. Assuming no new physics, the above analysis allows one to obtain lower bounds on the ratio of penguin to tree amplitudes, as well as on $`|\beta _\lambda ^{\mathrm{𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠}}\beta ^{mix}|`$. This can serve as a crosscheck on other measurements of $`\beta ^{mix}`$, as well as on model calculations of the hadronic amplitudes.

Finally, it is worthwhile to examine the feasibility of this method. The present data at $`B`$-factories can already be used to perform time-independent angular analyses of $`BV_1V_2`$ decays. In fact, BaBar has measured a nonzero value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ (a CP-violating triple-product correlation) in $`B\varphi K^{}`$ at $`1.7\sigma `$ . This is a potential hint of new physics. On the other hand, time-dependent angular analyses will take considerably more time to carry out. Thus, it may be several more years before we have new-physics signals which rely on time-dependent measurements.

To sum up: in the standard model (SM), the cleanest extraction of the CP angles comes from neutral $`B`$ decays that are dominated by a single decay amplitude. If there happens to be a new-physics (NP) contribution to the decay amplitude, with a different weak phase, this could seriously affect the cleanliness of the measurement. There is already a hint of such NP, as indicated by the discrepancy between the value of $`\beta `$ extracted from $`B_d^0(t)J/\psi K_S`$ and that obtained from $`B_d^0(t)\varphi K_S`$. However, it is important to confirm this through independent direct tests, and to attempt to obtain information about the NP amplitude, if possible.

In this paper, we have shown that this type of new physics can be probed by performing an angular analysis of the related $`BV_1V_2`$ decay modes. There are numerous relations that are violated in the presence of NP, and several of these remain nonzero even if the strong phase difference between the SM and NP amplitudes vanishes. The most incisive test is a measurement of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i0`$. To obtain this observable, neither tagging nor time-dependent measurements is necessary – one can combine all neutral and charged $`B`$ decays.

Furthermore, should a signal for new physics be found, one can place a lower bound on the difference $`|\beta ^{\mathrm{𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠}}\beta ^{mix}|`$, as well as on the size of the NP amplitudes. By applying this analysis to the decays $`B_d^0(t)J/\psi K^{}`$ and $`B_d^0(t)\varphi K^{}`$, one can confirm the presence of the new physics that is hinted at in the measurements of $`B_d^0(t)J/\psi K_S`$ and $`B_d^0(t)\varphi K_S`$ . It can even be applied within the SM to decays such as $`B_d^0(t)D^+D^{}`$, which receive both tree and penguin contributions.

Acknowledgements: N.S. and R.S. thank D.L. for the hospitality of the Université de Montréal, where part of this work was done. The work of D.L. was financially supported by NSERC of Canada. The work of N.S. was supported by the Department of Science and Technology, India.