text:
# Coordinate Independence of of Quantum-Mechanical Path Integrals

## I Introduction

In the previous papers , we have presented a diagrammatic proof of reparametrization invariance of perturbatively defined quantum-mechanical path integrals. The proper perturbative definition of path integrals was shown to require an extension to a functional integral in $`D`$ spacetime, and a subsequent analytic continuation to $`D=1`$. In Ref.  the perturbative calculations were performed in momentum space, where Feynman integrals in a continuous number of dimensions $`D`$ are known from the prescriptions of ’t Hooft and M. Veltman. In Ref.  we have found the same results directly from the Feynman integrals in the $`1\epsilon `$-dimensional time space with the help of the Bessel representation of Green functions. The coordinate space calculation is interesting for many applications, for instance, if one wants to obtain the effective action of a field system in curvilinear coordinates, where the kinetic term depends on the dynamic variable. Then one needs rules for performing temporal integrals over Wick contractions of local fields.

In this note we want to show that the reparametrization invariance of perturbatively defined quantum-mechanical path integrals can be obtained in the coordinate space with the help of a simple but quite general arguments based on the inhomogeneous field equation for the Green function, and rules of the partial integration. The prove does not require the calculation of the Feynman integrals separately and remains valid for the functional integrals in an arbitrary space-time dimension $`D`$.

## II Problem with Coordinate Transformations

Recall the origin of the difficulties with coordinate transformations in path integrals. Let $`x(\tau )`$ be the euclidean coordinates of a quantum-mechanical point particle of unit mass in a harmonic potential $`\omega ^2x^2/2`$ as a function of the imaginary time $`\tau =it`$. Under a coordinate transformation $`x(\tau )q(\tau )`$ defined by $`x(\tau )=f(q(\tau ))=q(\tau )+_{n=2}^{\mathrm{}}a_nq^n(\tau )`$, the kinetic term $`\dot{x}^2(\tau )/2`$ goes over into $`\dot{q}^2(\tau )f^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(q(\tau ))/2`$. If the path integral over $`q(\tau )`$ is performed perturbatively, the expansion terms contains temporal integrals over Wick contractions which, after suitable partial integrations, are products of the following basic correlation functions

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(\tau \tau ^{})`$ $``$ $`q(\tau )q(\tau ^{})=\text{ }\text{}\text{ },`$ (1)
$`_\tau \mathrm{\Delta }(\tau \tau ^{})`$ $``$ $`\dot{q}(\tau )q(\tau ^{})=\text{ }\text{}\text{ },`$ (2)
$`_\tau _\tau ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }(\tau \tau ^{})`$ $``$ $`\dot{q}(\tau )\dot{q}(\tau ^{})=\text{ }\text{}\text{ }.`$ (3)
The right-hand sides define the line symbols to be used in Feynman diagrams for the interaction terms.

Explicitly, the first correlation function reads

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\tau ,\tau ^{})=\frac{1}{2\omega }e^{\omega |\tau \tau ^{}|}.$$
(4)
The second correlation function (2) has a discontinuity

$$_\tau \mathrm{\Delta }(\tau ,\tau ^{})=\frac{1}{2}ϵ(\tau \tau ^{})e^{\omega |\tau \tau ^{}|},$$
(5)
where

$$ϵ(\tau \tau ^{})2_{\mathrm{}}^\tau 𝑑\tau ^{\prime \prime }\delta (\tau ^{\prime \prime }\tau ^{})$$
(6)
is a distribution which has a jump at $`\tau =\tau ^{}`$. The third correlation function (3) contains a $`\delta `$-function:

$$_\tau _\tau ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }(\tau ,\tau ^{})=\delta (\tau \tau ^{})\frac{\omega }{2}e^{\omega |\tau \tau ^{}|},$$
(7)
The temporal integrals in $`\tau `$-space over products of such distributions are undefined.

In our previous papers  we have shown that a unique perturbation expansions leading to a reparametrization invariant theory is obtained by extending the path integral to a $`D`$-dimensional functional integral, and by performing the perturbation expansion in $`D`$-dimensional space, with a limit $`D1`$ taken at the end.

In this note we shall set up simple rules for integrals over products of the correlation functions in the extended coordinate space the same results.

## III Model System

To be specific, we shall prove the coordinate independence of the exactly solvable path integral of a point particle of unit mass in a harmonic potential $`\omega ^2x^2/2`$, over a large imaginary-time interval $`\beta `$,

$$Z_\omega =𝒟x(\tau )e^{𝒜_\omega [x]}=e^{\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{log}(^2+\omega ^2)}=e^{\beta \omega /2}.$$
(8)
The action is

$$𝒜_\omega =\frac{1}{2}𝑑\tau \left[\dot{x}^2(\tau )+\omega ^2x^2(\tau )\right].$$
(9)
A coordinate transformation turns (8) into a path integral with a singular perturbation expansion.

For simplicity we assume the coordinate transformation to preserve the symmetry $`xx`$ of the initial oscillator, such its power series expansion starts out like $`x(\tau )=f(q(\tau ))=qgq^3/3+g^2aq^5/5\mathrm{}`$, where $`g`$ is a smallness parameter, and $`a`$ an extra parameter. We shall see that the perturbation expansion is independent of $`a`$, such that $`a`$ will merely serve to check the calculations. The transformation changes the partition function (8) into

$$Z=𝒟q(\tau )e^{𝒜_J[q]}e^{𝒜[q]},$$
(10)
where the transformed action $`𝒜[q]=𝒜_\omega [q]+𝒜_{\mathrm{int}}[q]`$ is decomposed into a free part

$$𝒜_\omega [q]=\frac{1}{2}𝑑\tau [\dot{q}^2(\tau )+\omega ^2q^2(\tau )],$$
(11)
and an interacting part, which reads to second order in $`g`$:

$`𝒜_{\mathrm{int}}[q]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }d\tau \{g[2\dot{q}^2(\tau )q^2(\tau )+{\displaystyle \frac{2\omega ^2}{3}}q^4(\tau )]`$ (12)
$`+g^2[(1+2a)\dot{q}^2(\tau )q^4(\tau )+\omega ^2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2a}{5}})q^6(\tau )]\}.`$ (13)
The exponent in (10) contains an additional effective action $`𝒜_J[q]`$ coming from the Jacobian of the coordinate transformation:

$$𝒜_J[q]=\delta (0)𝑑\tau \mathrm{log}\frac{\delta f(q(\tau ))}{\delta q(\tau )}.$$
(14)
This has the power series expansion

$`𝒜_J[q]=\delta (0){\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \left[gq^2(\tau )+g^2\left(a\frac{1}{2}\right)q^4(\tau )\right]}.`$ (15)
For $`g=0`$, the transformed partition function (10) coincides with (8). When expanding $`Z`$ of Eq. (10) in powers of $`g`$, we obtain a sum of Wick contractions with associated Feynman diagrams contributing to each order $`g^n`$. This sum must vanish to ensure coordinate invariance of the path integral.

By considering only connected Feynman diagrams, we shall obtain an expansion for the free energy

$$F=F_\omega +\underset{n=1}{}g^nF_n,$$
(16)
where $`F_\omega `$ is the free energy of the unperturbed harmonic oscillator (8). The coordinate invariance is ensured by the vanishing of all expansion terms $`F_n`$.

## IV Expansion Terms of Free Energy Density

The graphical expansion for the ground state energy will be carried here only up to three loops. The diagrams are composed of the three types of lines in (1)–(3), and new interaction vertices for each power of $`g`$. The diagrams coming from the Jacobian action (15) are easily recognized by an accompanying power of $`\delta (0)`$.

To lowest order in $`g`$, there exists only three diagrams, two originated from the interaction (13), one from the Jacobian action (15):

$$F_1=g\left[\text{ }\text{}\text{ }+\omega ^2\text{ }\text{}\text{ }\delta (0)\text{ }\text{}\text{ }\right].$$
(17)
To order $`g^2`$, we distinguish several contributions. First there are two three-loop local diagrams coming from the interaction (13), and one two-loop local diagram from the Jacobian action (15):

$`F_2^{(1)}=g^2[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+a)\text{ }\text{}\text{ }+15\omega ^2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{18}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a}{5}})\text{ }\text{}\text{ }`$ (18)
(19)
$`3(a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\delta (0)\text{ }\text{}\text{ }].`$ (20)
(21)
We call a diagram local if it involves no temporal time integral. The Jacobian action (15) contributes further the nonlocal diagrams:

$`F_2^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2!}}\{2\delta ^2(0)\text{ }\text{}`$ (22)
$`4\delta (0)[\text{ }\text{}\text{ }+\text{ }\text{}\text{ }+2\omega ^2\text{ }\text{}\text{ }]\}.`$ (23)
In the perturbative calculations to follow, we shall use dimensional regularization where $`\delta (0)=0`$, according to a basic rule of t’Hooft and Veltman . As a consequence, the last terms in $`F_1`$, $`F_2^{(1)}`$, and the entire $`F_2^{(2)}`$ are zero. In fact, the term $`𝒜_J[q]`$ may be omitted completely from the path integral (10).

The remaining diagrams are either of the three-bubble type, or of the watermelon type, each with all possible combinations of the three line types (1)–(3). The former are

$`F_2^{(3)}={\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2!}}[4\text{ }\text{}\text{ }+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}\text{ }\text{}\text{ }+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}\text{ }\text{}`$ (24)
$`+8\omega ^2\text{ }\text{}\text{ }+8\omega ^2\text{ }\text{}\text{ }+8\omega ^4\text{ }\text{}\text{ }],`$ (25)
and the latter:

$`F_2^{(4)}={\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2!}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}[\text{ }\text{}\text{ }+4\text{ }\text{}\text{ }+\text{ }\text{}\text{ }+4\omega ^2\text{ }\text{}\text{ }+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\omega ^4\text{ }\text{}\text{ }].`$ (26)
(27)
Since the equal-time expectation value $`\dot{q}(\tau )q(\tau )`$ vanishes by Eq. (5), diagrams with a local contraction of a mixed line (2) are trivially zero, and have been omitted.

In our previous papers, all integrals were calculated individually in $`D=1\epsilon `$ dimensions, taking the limit $`\epsilon 0`$ at the end. Here we set up simple rules for finding the same results, which make the sum of all Feynman diagrams contributing to each order $`g^n`$ vanish.

## V Basic Properties of Dimensionally Regularized Distributions

The path integral (10) is extended to an associated functional integral in a $`D`$-dimensional coordinate space $`x`$, with coordinates $`x_\mu (\tau ,x_2,x_3,\mathrm{})`$, by replacing $`\dot{q}^2(\tau )`$ in the kinetic term by $`(_\mu q(x))^2`$, where $`_\mu =/x_\mu `$. The Jacobian action term (14) is omitted in dimensional regularization because of Veltman’s rule :

$$\delta ^{(D)}(0)=\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}=0.$$
(28)
In our calculations, we shall encounter generalized $`\delta `$-functions, which are multiple derivatives of the ordinary $`\delta `$-function:

$`\delta _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}^{(D)}(x)`$ $``$ $`_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}\delta ^{(D)}(x)`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \overline{}d^Dk(ik)_{\mu _1}\mathrm{}(ik)_{\mu _n}e^{ikx}},`$ (30)
with $`_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}_{\mu _1}\mathrm{}_{\mu _n}`$, and with $`\overline{}d^Dkd^Dk/(2\pi )^D`$. In dimensional regularization, alle these vanish at the origin as well:

$$\delta _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}^{(D)}(0)=\overline{}d^Dk(ik)_{\mu _1}\mathrm{}(ik)_{\mu _n}=0,$$
(31)
which is a more general way of expressing Veltman’s rule. In the extended coordinate space, the correlation function (1) becomes

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(x)=\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{e^{ikx}}{k^2+\omega ^2},$$
(32)
At the origin, it has the value

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(0)=\frac{\overline{}d^Dk}{k^2+\omega ^2}=\frac{\omega ^{D2}}{(4\pi )^{D/2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1\frac{D}{2}\right)\underset{D=1}{=}\frac{1}{2\omega }.$$
(33)
The extension of the time derivative (2),

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu (x)=\overline{}d^Dk\frac{ik_\mu }{k^2+\omega ^2}e^{ikx}$$
(34)
vanishes at the origin, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu (0)=0`$. This follows directly from a Taylor series expansion of $`1/(k^2+\omega ^2)`$ in powers of $`k^2`$, together with Eq. (31).

The second derivative of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x)`$ has the Fourier representation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu }(x)=\overline{}d^Dk\frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{k^2+\omega ^2}e^{ikx}.$$
(35)
Contracting the indices yields

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \mu }(x)=\overline{}d^Dk\frac{k^2}{k^2+\omega ^2}e^{ikx}=\delta ^{(D)}(x)+\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }(x),$$
(36)
which follows from the definition of the correlation function by the inhomogeneous field equation

$$(_\mu ^2+\omega ^2)q(x)=\delta ^{(D)}(x).$$
(37)
From (36) we have the relation between integrals

$$d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \mu }(x)=1+\omega ^2d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }(x),$$
(38)
Inserting Veltman’s rule (28) into (36), we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \mu }(0)=\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }(0)\underset{D=1}{=}\frac{\omega }{2}.$$
(39)
This ensures the vanishing of the first-order contribution (17) to the free energy

$$F_1=g\left[\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \mu }(0)+\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }(0)\right]\mathrm{\Delta }(0)=0.$$
(40)
The same equation (36) allows us to calculate immediately the second-order contribution (21) from the local diagrams

$`F_2^{(1)}=3g^2\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+a\right)\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \mu }(0)5\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{18}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a}{5}}\right)\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }(0)\right]`$ (41)
$`\times \mathrm{\Delta }^2(0)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^3(0)\underset{D1}{=}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12\omega }}.`$ (42)
The other contributions to the free energy in the expansion (16) require rules for calculating products of two and four distributions, which we are now going to develop.

## VI Integrals over Products of Two Distributions

The simplest integrals of this type are

$`{\displaystyle d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }^2(x)}={\displaystyle \overline{}d^Dp\overline{}d^Dk\frac{\delta ^{(D)}(k+p)}{(p^2+\omega ^2)(k^2+\omega ^2)}}`$ (43)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{}d^Dk}{(k^2+\omega ^2)^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^{D4}}{(4\pi )^{D/2}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{(2D)}{2\omega ^2}}\mathrm{\Delta }(0),`$ (44)
and

$`{\displaystyle d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^2(x)}={\displaystyle d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }(x)\left[\delta ^{(D)}(x)+\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }(x)\right]}`$ (45)
$`=\mathrm{\Delta }(0)\omega ^2{\displaystyle d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }^2(x)}={\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }(0).`$ (46)
To obtain the second result we have perfomed a partial integration and used (36).

In contrast to the integrals (43) and (46), the integral

$`{\displaystyle d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu }^2(x)}={\displaystyle \overline{}d^Dp\overline{}d^Dk\frac{(kp)^2\delta ^{(D)}(k+p)}{(k^2+\omega ^2)(p^2+\omega ^2)}}`$ (47)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \overline{}d^Dk\frac{(k^2)^2}{(k^2+\omega ^2)^2}}={\displaystyle d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \mu }^2(x)}`$ (48)
diverges formally in $`D=1`$ dimension. In dimensional regularization, however, we may decompose $`(k^2)^2=(k^2+\omega ^2)^22\omega ^2(k^2+\omega ^2)+\omega ^4`$, and use (31) to evaluate further

$`{\displaystyle d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \mu }^2(x)}={\displaystyle \overline{}d^Dk\frac{(k^2)^2}{(k^2+\omega ^2)^2}}=2\omega ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{}d^Dk}{(k^2+\omega ^2)}}`$ (49)
$`+\omega ^4{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{}d^Dk}{(k^2+\omega ^2)^2}}=2\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }(0)+\omega ^4{\displaystyle d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }^2(x)}.`$ (50)
Together with (43), we obtain the finite integrals

$`{\displaystyle d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu }^2(x)}={\displaystyle d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \mu }^2(x)}=2\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }(0)`$ (51)
$`+\omega ^4{\displaystyle d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }^2(x)}=\left(1+D/2\right)\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }(0).`$ (52)
An alternative way of deriving the equality (48) is to use partial integrations and the identity

$$_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu }(x)=_\nu \mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \mu }(x),$$
(53)
which follows directly from the Fourier representation (34).

Finally, from Eqs. (43), (46), and (52), we observe the useful identity

$$d^Dx\left[\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu }^2(x)+2\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^2(x)+\omega ^4\mathrm{\Delta }^2(x)\right]=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},$$
(54)
which together with the inhomogeneous field equation (36) reduces the calculation of the second-order contribution of all three-bubble diagrams (25) to zero:

$`F_2^{(3)}=g^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2(0)`$ (55)
$`\times {\displaystyle }d^Dx[\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu }^2(x)+2\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^2(x)+\omega ^4\mathrm{\Delta }^2(x)]=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.`$ (56)
## VII Integrals Products of Four Distributions

More delicate integrals arise from the watermelon diagrams in (27) which contain products of four distributions, a nontrivial tensorial structure, and overlapping divergences . Consider the first three diagrams:

$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }^2(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu }^2(x)}.`$ (57)
$`4\text{ }\text{}\text{ }`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu (x)\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu (x)\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu }(x)},`$ (58)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu (x)\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu (x)\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu (x)\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu (x)},`$ (59)
To exhibit the subtleties with the tensorial structure, we introduce the integral

$`I_D={\displaystyle d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }^2(x)\left[\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu }^2(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \mu }^2(x)\right]}.`$ (60)
In $`D=1`$ dimension, the bracket vanishes formally, but the limit $`D1`$ of the integral is nevertheless finite. We now decompose the Feynman diagram (57), into the sum

$`{\displaystyle d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }^2(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu }^2(x)}={\displaystyle d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }^2(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \mu }^2(x)}+I_D.`$ (61)
To obtain an analogous decompositions for the other two diagrams (58) and (59) we derive a few useful relations using the inhomogeneous field equation (36), partial integrations, and Veltman’s rule (31). First there is the relation

$$d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \mu }(x)\mathrm{\Delta }^3(x)=\mathrm{\Delta }^3(0)\omega ^2d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }^4(x).$$
(62)
By a partial integration, the left-hand side becomes

$$d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \mu }(x)\mathrm{\Delta }^3(x)=3d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^2(x)\mathrm{\Delta }^2(x),$$
(63)
leading to

$$d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^2(x)\mathrm{\Delta }^2(x)=\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }^3(0)\frac{1}{3}\omega ^2d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }^4(x).$$
(64)
Invoking once more the inhomogeneous field equation (36) and Veltman’s rule (28), we obtain the integrals

$$d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \mu }^2(x)\mathrm{\Delta }^2(x)=2\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^3(0)+\omega ^4d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }^4(x),$$
(65)
and

$$d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \mu }(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^2(x)\mathrm{\Delta }(x)=\omega ^2d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^2(x)\mathrm{\Delta }^2(x).$$
(66)
Due to Eq. (64), the integral (66) takes the form

$`{\displaystyle d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \mu }(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^2(x)\mathrm{\Delta }(x)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^3(0)`$ (67)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\omega ^4{\displaystyle d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }^4(x)}.`$ (68)
Partial integration, together with Eqs. (65) and (68), leads to

$`{\displaystyle d^Dx_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_{\lambda \lambda }(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu (x)\mathrm{\Delta }^2(x)}=`$ (69)
$`{\displaystyle d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }_{\lambda \lambda }^2(x)\mathrm{\Delta }^2(x)}2{\displaystyle d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }_{\lambda \lambda }(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^2(x)\mathrm{\Delta }(x)}`$ (70)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^3(0){\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\omega ^4{\displaystyle d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }^4(x)},`$ (71)
A further partial integration, and use of Eqs. (53), (66), and (71), produces the decompositions of the second and third Feynman diagrams (58) and (59):

$`4{\displaystyle d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu (x)\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu (x)\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu }(x)}=`$ (72)
$`=`$ $`2I_D+4\omega ^2{\displaystyle d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }^2(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^2(x)},`$ (73)
and

$`{\displaystyle d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^2(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu ^2(x)}=`$ (74)
$`=`$ $`I_D3\omega ^2{\displaystyle d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }^2(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^2(x)}.`$ (75)
We now make the important observation that the subtle integral $`I_D`$ of Eq. (60) appears in Eqs. (61), (73) and (75) in such a way that it drops out from the sum of the watermelon diagrams in (27):

$`\text{ }\text{}\text{ }+4\text{ }\text{}\text{ }+\text{ }\text{}`$ (76)
$`={\displaystyle d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }^2(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \mu }^2(x)}+\omega ^2{\displaystyle d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }^2(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^2(x)}.`$ (77)
Using (64) and (65), the right-hand side becomes a sum of completely regular expressions. Moreover, adding to this sum the last two watermelon-like diagrams in Eq. (27):

$`4\omega ^2\text{ }\text{}\text{ }=4\omega ^2{\displaystyle }d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }^2(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^2(x),`$ (78)
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\omega ^4\text{ }\text{}\text{ }={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\omega ^4{\displaystyle }d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }^4(x),`$ (79)
we obtain for the contribution of all watermelon-like diagrams (27) the simple expression

$`F_2^{(4)}=2g^2{\displaystyle d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }^2(x)}`$ (80)
$`\times \left[\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \mu }^2(x)+5\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^2(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\omega ^4\mathrm{\Delta }^2(x)\right]`$ (81)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^3(0)\underset{D1}{=}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12\omega }}.`$ (82)
This cancels the finite contribution (42), thus making also the second-order free energy in (16) vanish, and confirming the invariance of the perturbatively defined path integral under coordinate transformations up to this order.

## VIII Summary

In this note we have set up simple rules for calculating integrals over products of distributions in configuration space which produce the same results as dimensional regularization in momentum space. For a path integral of a quantum-mechanical point particle in a harmonic potential, we have shown that these rules lead to a reparametrization-invariant perturbation expansions of path integral.

Let us end with the remark that in the time-sliced definition of path integrals, reparametrization invariance has been established as long time ago in the textbook .


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It is well known that consistent string theory can only be formulated in space time higher than four dimensions, specifically 10 or 11 dimensions. Until recently the predominant view was that since the extra dimensions have not been detected, they must be compactified in small volumes with radii of Planck size. This was supported by the study of the heterotic string where the string scale $`M_S`$ is related to the Planck scale $`M_P`$ via

$$M_S=M_P\sqrt{k\alpha _G}$$
(1)
where $`\alpha _G`$ denotes the unified gauge coupling constant and $`k`$ is an integer of order unity which labels the level of the Kac-Moody algebra. Here the string scale is close to the Planck scale and this renders string effects unobservable. Recently, Witten  observed that in nonperturbative string theory $`M_S`$ can be much lower. Lykken  and Antoniadis  independently suggested the possibility that $`M_S`$ can be as low as a few TeV. In this case, the fundamental string scale is not constrained theoretically as above but instead is constrained phenomenologically. This gains support from breakthroughs in understanding D-brane constructions in string theory . In the D-brane scenario the number of extra dimensions scanned by the Standard Model (SM) particles and the graviton can be very different.

Buoyed by these developments intense efforts are made to understand the main features of low scale string theories. A popular construction is to assume a factorizable geometry. The gravitational field is taken to propagate in the full 10 or 11- dimensional bulk volume whereas the SM particles are localized in the 3-brane and hence are not sensitive to the extra dimensions . The crucial observation  is that the weakness of gravity in four dimension is due to its spreading in the $`n`$ extra dimensions and Eq.(1) is replaced by

$$M_P^2=M_{}^{n+2}V_n$$
(2)
where $`V_n`$ is the volume of the compactified extra space and $`M_{}`$ is the higher dimensional Planck scale. The two scales $`M_S`$ and $`M_{}`$ are related but the exact relation will not be needed in this paper. It is simplest to consider toroidal compactification, for which the volume is

$$V_n=(2\pi )^nR_1R_2R_3\mathrm{}R_n$$
(3)
and $`R_i(i=1,2,\mathrm{}n)`$ are the radii of the extra dimensions. For symmetric compactification one takes all the radii to be equal and denoted it by $`R`$.

This formulation has dramatic effects that lead to a new perspective on the mass hierarchy problem  and the gauge coupling constants unification . Furthermore, these theories predict a deviation from the Newtonian $`1/r`$ law of gravitational potential at submillimeter range. The fact that this law is well tested above a distance of 1mm leads to the limit that $`n2`$ for $`M_{}=1\mathrm{T}eV`$, for the symmetric case. New experiments currently underway will probe smaller distance scales . Besides the direct search for a deviation of the Newtonian gravitational law the above scenario can also be indirectly constrained by astrophysical considerations. Although somewhat model dependent these considerations suggest that $`n2`$ and $`M_{}30`$ TeV .

A different scenario to explain the weak gravitational force is proposed by Randall and Sundrum . This mechanism does not require large extra dimensions but instead invokes a non-factorizable geometry. Here the extra dimension has the effect of modifying the space-time metric. Experiments that probe gravity at small distances are then not interpreted in terms of the scaling law of Eq. 2. The phenomenology of the graviton and its Kaluza-Klein (KK) excitations is different from the case of factorizable geometry and has been studied in Ref.. Given the differences of the these two scenarios and their extensions, and the richness of the phenomenology for each case it is clear that probes other than the graviton and its KK spectrum will be important additions to the study of higher dimensional physics.

It has been suggested recently  that an extra right-handed neutrino that is a standard model gauge singlet may also be a probe of the extra dimensions. When a field is allowed to extend into the compactified extra dimensions it has associated with it Kaluza-Klein excitations which can have detectable effects in low energy experiments. Neutrinos propagating in the extra dimension will be referred to as the bulk neutrinos. The couplings of the bulk neutrino states with the active neutrino will give rise to a small neutrino mass for the active neutrino due to the spreading in the bulk volume. Some effects of these neutrinos in various low energy observables have been suggested . A solution to the solar neutrino problem in terms of matter enhanced flavor transformation of $`\nu _{eL}`$ into bulk neutrino states was studied in . Bulk neutrinos can induce energy loss in stars  and the possible connection to the supernova collapse phase is studied in .

In this paper we concentrate on the constraints on the extra dimensional scenarios from universality tests of nuclear $`\beta `$-decays. Such studies have been used to provide a strong basis for the SM and more recently their usage is mainly in the test of unitarity of the quark mixings. We point out that the difference in Q-values for the nuclei which are very well measured can be used to constrain the properties of the bulk neutrinos such as the Yukawa couplings, the higher dimensional scale, $`M_{}`$, and the compactification radius R. These are very general properties of neutrinos in extra dimensions and one does not need to employ the scaling relation between the Planck scale and $`M_{}`$ as given in Eq.(2). To illustrate the effects of the bulk neutrinos we give the Kurie plots of two nuclei and the nuclear recoil spectrum of a Fermi transition. The simplest model of bulk neutrinos given below may allow a signal to be detected in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{H}`$ beta decay spectra. Other models which modify the tritium beta decay endpoint are discussed in . However, in searches for a small admixture of a more massive neutrino, the features of the extra dimensional model are not within currently detectable limits. However more realistic models with larger mixings with the active neutrinos may be constructed which can be probed by these experiments as well. We concentrate only on one family of bulk neutrino and the active $`\nu _{eL}`$. However, it is straightforward to extend the model to include three bulk neutrinos; one for each family. This implies further model assumptions and will take us into the realm of models for fermion families in extra dimensions which is beyond the scope of this study.

This paper is organized as follow. In section 2 we briefly outline the model of bulk neutrinos that we use and the mixings with $`\nu _{eL}`$. This serves the purpose of fixing of our notation. Sec. 3 details the study of universality using the data from Q-values of several $`\beta `$-decays. Next we present the impact of bulk neutrinos on the beta spectrum, and look at the recoil momentum for Fermi transitions. We give our conclusion in Sec 5.

## 2 A Simple Model of Bulk Neutrinos

The basic idea of producing neutrino masses using extra dimensions is given in Ref. . In the interest of being self contained and to establish our notation we give some of the construction of a simple model of bulk neutrinos. The simplest model assumes that the fermions charged under the standard model gauge group as well as the gauge bosons and the Higgs boson are localized on a 3-brane embedded in the bulk of larger dimensions. If we assume only one extra dimension then space-time is labelled by $`(x^\mu ,z)`$ where $`\mu =0,1,2,3`$. The extra coordinate $`z`$ is assumed to compactify into a circle of radius R. The brane scenario stipulates that the left-handed SM lepton doublet $`L=(\nu _{eL},e_L)`$ is given by $`L(x^\mu ,z=0)`$. The fields $`\nu _{eL}`$ and $`e_L`$ are Weyl spinors. Next we assume that a SM singlet fermion, denoted by $`\nu (x,z)`$ exists and it propagates in the full five dimensional bulk. Its right- and left-handed projections are labelled by $`\nu _R`$ and $`\nu _L`$ respectively. It is distinguished from the SM neutrino by not carrying a flavor index. In this simple model gravity is weak because there are additional dimensions in which it propagates.

In five dimensions there are five gamma matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^5`$ where $`\mu =0,1,2,3`$. A convenient representation of the Clifford algebra in five dimensions is to choose $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu =\gamma ^\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^5=i\gamma ^5`$ with the usual $`\gamma ^\mu `$ of Minkowski space-time. The effective Lagrangian for generating a neutrino mass is given by

$$=_0^{2\pi R}𝑑z\overline{\nu }\left(i\gamma ^\mu _\mu +i\mathrm{\Gamma }_5_z\right)\nu +y_{}_0^{2\pi R}𝑑z\delta (z)\overline{L}H\nu _R+h.c.$$
(4)
where $`y_{}`$ is the dimensionful Yukawa coupling and $`H`$ is the Higgs doublet and it is related to the dimensionless coupling $`y`$ via

$$y_{}=\frac{y}{M_{}^{n/2}}$$
(5)
and $`n=1`$ for one extra dimension.

For simplicity we have neglected a higher dimensional bare Dirac mass term. This can be naturally implemented under $`𝒵_2`$ orbifold compactification . Following the Kaluza-Klein ansatz we Fourier expand $`\nu _R`$ and $`\nu _L`$ as follows:

$`\nu _R(x,z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi R}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\nu _{kR}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ikz}{R}}\right)`$ (6)
$`\nu _L(x,z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi R}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\nu _{kL}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ikz}{R}}\right)`$ (7)
Substituting this into Eq.(4) and integrating over $`z`$ yields the effective Lagrangian in four dimensions:

$$=\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[\overline{\nu }_{kL}i\gamma ^\mu _\mu \nu _{kL}+\overline{\nu }_{kR}i\gamma ^\mu _\mu \nu _{kR}\right]+\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}m_k\overline{\nu }_{kL}\nu _{kR}+\frac{y_{}}{\sqrt{2\pi R}}\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\overline{L}H\nu _{kR}+h.c.$$
(8)
where

$$m_k=\frac{k}{R}$$
(9)
is the mass of the $`k\mathrm{t}h`$ KK tower state. The mass splitting between each adjacent tower state is $`1/R`$. As seen in Eq.(8) the coupling between the KK-tower neutrino states and the active $`\nu _{eL}`$ given by the Yukawa term. After spontaneous electroweak symmetry breaking a Dirac mass term is generated for the active $`\nu _{eL}`$ and is given by

$$m_D=\frac{yv}{\sqrt{4\pi RM_{}}}$$
(10)
where $`v=247`$ GeV. This mass is suppressed by a bulk volume factor as first noticed in Ref.  and .

Rewriting all the mass terms in Eq.( 8) we have

$$m_D\overline{\nu }_{eL}\nu _{0R}+m_D\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\overline{\nu }_{eL}(\nu _{kR}+\nu _{kR})+\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}m_k(\overline{\nu }_{kL}\nu _{kR}\overline{\nu }_{kL}\nu _{kR})+h.c.$$
(11)
We find it useful to define the following orthogonal states

$$\nu _{kR}^{^{}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\nu _{kR}+\nu _{kR})\nu _{kR}^{^{\prime \prime }}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\nu _{kR}\nu _{kR})$$
(12)
and

$$\nu _{kL}^{^{}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\nu _{kL}\nu _{kL})\nu _{kL}^{^{\prime \prime }}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\nu _{kL}+\nu _{kL})$$
(13)
which can be used to cast Eq.11 into the form

$$m_D\overline{\nu }_{eL}\nu _{0R}+\sqrt{2}m_D\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\overline{\nu }_{eL}\nu _{kR}^{^{}}+\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}m_k(\overline{\nu }_{kL}^{^{}}\nu _{kR}^{^{}}+\overline{\nu }_{kL}^{^{\prime \prime }}\nu _{kR}^{^{\prime \prime }})+h.c.$$
(14)
The states with double prime superscripts have no low energy interactions and will be ignored. The mass terms can now be written in the familiar form of $`\overline{\nu }_LM\nu _R`$ in the bases of $`\nu _L=(\nu _{eL},\nu _{1L}^{},\nu _{2L}^{},\mathrm{})`$ and $`\nu _R=(\nu _{0R}^{},\nu _{1R}^{},\nu _{2R}^{},\mathrm{})`$. The mass matrix $`M`$ for $`k+1`$ states looks as follows

$`M=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}m_D& \sqrt{2}m_D& \sqrt{2}m_D& \mathrm{}& \sqrt{2}m_D\\ 0& \frac{1}{R}& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& 0& \frac{2}{R}& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& \frac{k}{R}\end{array}\right)`$ (20)
To find the left mass eigenstates, we consider the matrix $`MM^{}`$. Explicitly,

$`MM^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}(k+\frac{1}{2})\zeta ^2& \zeta & 2\zeta & \mathrm{}& k\zeta \\ \zeta & 1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 2\zeta & 0& 4& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ k\zeta & 0& 0& 0& k^2\end{array}\right)`$ (26)
where $`\zeta =\sqrt{2}m_DR`$. The mass eigenvalues $`\lambda `$ are given by the characteristic equation of Eq.(26) which is det$`[MM^{}\lambda ^2]`$. After some algebra it reduces to the transcendental equation :

$$\pi \zeta ^2\mathrm{cot}(\pi \lambda R)=2\lambda R$$
(27)
The solution of this equation yields the lowest mixed mass eigenstate $`m_D`$. For small $`\zeta `$ this is also the maximally mixed state. It is reasonable to assume that experiments that directly measures the neutrino mass will be probing this state. The current experimental limit on the mass of $`\nu _e`$ is $`m_{\nu _e}<2.5\mathrm{eV}`$ . When combined with this, Eq. (10) gives the following constraint

$$y<3.2\times 10^3\left(\frac{M_{}}{10\mathrm{T}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{R}{1\mathrm{m}\mathrm{m}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{m_D}{1\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}\right)$$
(28)
The diagonalization of Eq. (26) leads to the mixing of the $`k`$-th state to the lowest mass eigenstate $`\nu _{0L}^m`$ given by

$$\mathrm{tan}2\theta _k=\frac{2k\zeta }{k^2(k+\frac{1}{2})\zeta ^2}$$
(29)
This equation diagonalizes the submatrix between the lowest state $`\nu _{0L}`$ and the state $`\nu _{kL}`$. Where $`\zeta `$ is small, this is a good approximation to the exact mixing angle, obtainable by complete diagonalization of the matrix MM. In this limit, $`\zeta `$ can be used as an expansion parameter in the diagonalization process. For example, for $`M_{}=10\mathrm{TeV}`$, $`y=10^3`$ and $`R10^7\mathrm{m}m`$ we find $`\zeta 10^1`$. Hence, for small $`\zeta `$ we can see from above that the mixing of the KK states with the lowest mass neutrino eigenstate becomes progressively smaller as the value of $`k`$ increases. Furthermore, these KK states have no direct gauge interactions with other SM particles and their presence can only be probed through their mixing with the state $`\nu _{0L}^m`$.

In the small $`\zeta `$ limit, the vacuum oscillation survival probability for electron neutrinos is a particularly simple expression,

$$P(\nu _e\nu _e)1\frac{\pi ^2\zeta ^2}{3}+2\underset{k}{}\frac{\zeta ^2}{k^2}\left[12\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\delta m_{0k}^2t}{2E_\nu }\right)\right]+𝒪(\zeta ^4)$$
(30)
where $`\delta m_{0k}^2m_D^2m_k^2`$. The data from a reactor neutrino experiment can be used to find a limit on the Yukawa coupling. CHOOZ  quotes a limit on two neutrino mixing of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta <10\%`$ for $`\delta m^2>10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$. This translates into a limit on the extra dimensional parameters of

$$y<4.4\times 10^8\left(\frac{1\mathrm{m}\mathrm{m}}{R}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{M_{}}{10\mathrm{TeV}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(31)
If combined with the limit from the neutrino mass, Eq 28, we find that the least stringent limit on $`y`$ occurs at $`R=7\times 10^6\mathrm{mm}`$.

However, Eq.(29) reveals a different phenomenon if $`\zeta `$ is large; i.e. $`\zeta 1`$. Now it is the higher KK states with $`k\zeta `$ that will have the largest mixing with the the lowest eigenstate; whereas states with lower $`k`$ values will have small mixing of order $`\frac{1}{\zeta }`$. In order for this to happen in $`n=1`$ case we require $`R10^3`$ mm. Obviously this cannot happen with $`\zeta 1`$ and a small compactification radius. When relatively large values of $`R`$ are considered, masses of these KK states can be in the $`1`$ eV range.

The above considerations can be generalized to higher extra dimensions. For $`n=2`$ and different compactification radii $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ the scaling equation for $`m_D`$ becomes

$$m_D=\frac{yv}{2\pi M_{}\sqrt{2R_1R_2}}$$
(32)
and yields the following constraint the on the Yukawa coupling

$$y<1.8\times 10^6\left(\frac{M_{}}{10\mathrm{T}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}\right)\left(\frac{R_1R_2}{1\mathrm{m}\mathrm{m}^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{m_D}{1\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}\right)$$
(33)
For $`R_1=R_2`$ and a comparison with Eq.(28) shows that this is a much less stringent constraint on the parameters of the theory compared to the case of only one extra dimension. This is expected since the bulk neutrino state has a larger volume in which to spread and the Yukawa coupling is inversely proportional to the square root of this volume. An interesting case occurs for asymmetric compactification where one radius is much smaller than the other. Take for example $`R_2=10^{11}\mathrm{mm}`$ and $`R_1=0.1\mathrm{mm}`$ then Eq.(33) approaches the case of $`n=1`$ and gives a limit on $`y`$ similar to that of Eq.(28).

The masses of the KK tower states are generalized to

$$m_{k,l}=\sqrt{\left(\frac{k^2}{R_1^2}+\frac{l^2}{R_2^2}\right)}$$
(34)
where $`k`$ and $`l`$ denote the KK level corresponding to radii $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ respectively. It is seen that the smaller compactification radius $`R_2`$ will give rise to higher mass KK state in the asymmetric compactification scenario. For example if $`R_2=10^7\mathrm{mm}`$ one can have keV bulk neutrinos mixing into the active $`\nu _e`$ state that come from the small radius (i.e. for $`k=0`$ and small $`l`$ values). When both radii are large such neutrinos come only from the high KK values. Next we examine the mixings of these bulk states.

For small mixing the electron neutrino state can written as

$$\nu _e=\frac{1}{N}\left(\nu _0+\zeta _1\underset{k=1}{}\frac{1}{k}\nu _{k,0}+\zeta _1\underset{k,l1}{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{k^2+(\frac{R_1}{R_2})^2l^2}}\nu _{k,l}\right)$$
(35)
where $`\zeta _1=\sqrt{2}m_DR_1<<1`$ and $`N`$ is the normalization constant. It is seen that for the asymmetric case the KK states which come solely from the small radius may have larger masses than those from the larger radius; moreover, they are accompanied by correspondingly smaller mixings. We conclude that high mass states will have small mixing, regardless of the size of the compactification radii mainly due to the constraint on $`m_D`$ from the direct limit on the electron neutrino mass. Since the direct limits on the mu and tau neutrino masses are much less strict, large mixing may occur in these families for considerably smaller KK masses.

For two extra dimensions, the constant, $`N`$, depends on the cutoff scale $`M_{}`$, as $`N1+\zeta ^2\mathrm{log}(M_{}R)`$, if $`R_1=R_2`$ = R. Limits derived from universality of Fermi transitions which are presented in the next section do not depend on this normalization and therefore on the cutoff procedure. However, other calculations such as vacuum oscillation survival probabilities will depend on the normalization. In particular, this would become important if one were to compare the theory with the reactor neutrino data. In this case, the constraint on $`y`$ and $`M_{}`$ from universality could be used together with survival probability data to limit the size, $`R`$.

In the next section we study the constraint $`\beta `$ decay universality places on the parameters $`y,M_{}`$ and $`R`$.

## 3 Universality

In this section we study the consequences for beta decay of the model for bulk neutrinos outlined in section 2. Although bulk neutrinos do not have gauged interactions with SM particles, the allowed Yukawa coupling enables them to generate mass for the active neutrino. As seen in the last section the smallness of the neutrino mass is due to the spreading of the state in the higher dimensions. The KK excitations are also seen to have mixing effects with the active neutrino. In a given weak decay, the number of KK states that can be excited will depend on the energy released in the reaction. If $`1/R<<Q`$, where $`Q`$ is the nuclear Q-value, then many states contribute. For example, for n = 1, if $`Q=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathrm{MeV}`$ and $`R=10^7\mathrm{mm}`$ then around 500 states contribute. In previous studies of such classical weak interactions one concentrates on one or two massive neutrino states and their kinematic effect. In the present scenario, towers of KK neutrinos ranging in mass from eV to a few MeV are involved in a nuclear $`\beta `$ decay. They have to be taken into account in the study of universality, electron spectra and nuclear recoil spectra. We shall examine these issues separately to see if they provide useful constraints on the Yukawa coupling, $`y`$ and the size R, of the extra dimension. We begin with universality.

The rate of beta decay from a single state in the parent nucleus to another state in the daughter nucleus is given by,

$$\lambda =\frac{\mathrm{ln}2}{ft}P(m_\nu )$$
(36)
The $`ft`$\- value is proportional to the inverse of the matrix element. $`P(m_\nu )`$ is the phase space factor, which depends on the mass of the emitted neutrino, $`m_\nu `$. We define the phase space factor as

$$P(m_\nu )=\frac{1}{m_e^5}_{m_e}^{Q+m_em_\nu }F(Z,E_e)E_ep_e(Q+m_eE_e)[(Q+m_eE_e)^2m_\nu ^2]^{1/2}𝑑E_e$$
(37)
The Q-value is the energy difference between the initial and final nuclear states, while $`E_e`$, and $`p_e`$ are the electron energy and momentum respectively. The Coulomb wave correction factor is denoted by $`F(Z,E)`$. We use the approximation of this factor found in .

For pure Fermi, $`0^+0^+`$ transitions and zero mass electron neutrinos, the corrected $`ft`$-values, $`Ft=ft(1+\delta _R)(1\delta _C)`$ for all nuclei should be the same under the assumption of universality in the standard model. Here, $`\delta _R`$ is the nucleus dependent part of the radiative correction and $`\delta _C`$ is the isospin symmetry breaking correction. These corrections contribute at the 1% level. Results of Ft-values for 10 nuclei are listed in .

The bulk neutrino scenario outlined in the previous section would cause an apparent deviation from the constant $`Ft`$ values predicted by universality in the standard model. This is because the actual phase space factor in an extra dimensional scenario is more complicated than Eq.(37). In general $`ft`$-values are found by using Eq. 36, with a measured rate and a calculated phase space factor. The transition rate for the case of one dimension is given in the small mixing limit, $`\zeta <<1`$, by

$$\lambda =\frac{\mathrm{ln}2}{ft_{xd}}\left[\left(1\frac{\pi ^2\zeta ^2}{6}\right)P(m_\nu 0)+\underset{k=1}{\overset{k_{max}}{}}P(m_{\nu _k}\frac{k}{R})\frac{\zeta ^2}{k^2}\right]$$
(38)
The maximum number of neutrinos to be summed over is determined by the maximum mass of a neutrino that can be released in the beta decay, $`k_{max}=QR`$. Transitions with a higher Q value will have more neutrino states that can contribute to the decay. Note that the $`ft`$ value in an extra dimensional scenario will not necessarily take on the same value as given in the standard model. (Although, the ‘true’ $`Ft`$\- values will be the same for all $`0^+0^+`$ transitions.) This will change the calculated value of the quark mixing angle $`V_{ud}`$ as discussed below. Because of this uncertainty, it is best to employ a normalization when looking for the effects of bulk neutrinos. In this example we will compare the relative difference in beta decays from two different nuclei.

Assuming that bulk neutrinos exist in one extra dimension, we can compare the $`ft`$-value for the extra dimensional scenario with the apparent $`ft`$-values for the standard model for the nucleus, $`A_1`$, by taking a ratio,

$$\frac{ft(A_1)_{xd}}{ft(A_1)_{SM,apparent}}\left(1\frac{\pi ^2\zeta ^2}{6}\right)+\underset{k=1}{\overset{k_{max}}{}}\frac{P(A_1,m_{\nu _k})}{P(A_1,0)}\frac{\zeta ^2}{k^2},$$
(39)
where we have used $`\lambda _{SM}/\lambda _{xd}=1`$. Since in the extra dimensional scenario, the $`ft`$-values for two nuclei are the same up to the isospin and radiative corrections, the apparent Standard Model values will not be the same,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{ft(A_2)_{SM,apparent}}{ft(A_1)_{SM,apparent}}}1`$ $`+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{k_{max}=Q_1R}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{P(A_1,m_{\nu _k})}{P(A_1,0)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^2}{k^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{k_{max}=Q_2R}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{P(A_2,m_{\nu _k})}{P(A_2,0)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^2}{k^2}}`$ (40)
$`[\delta _R(A_1)\delta _R(A_2)]+[\delta _C(A_1)\delta _C(A_2)].`$
The maximum value of the second two terms may be obtained from the experimental uncertainty in the $`Ft`$-values from . The sums in the above expression are very insensitive to lower bound on the sum, so it is only necessary to consider the highest modes in the sum, where there are relatively large differences in the phase space factor ratio. The mixing of the low energy KK states is not relevant to universality considerations.

The above formula is valid for large $`\zeta `$, provided that $`\zeta ^2/k^2<<1`$, if the term $`(\zeta ^2/k^2)`$ is replaced by $`f(\zeta )^2(\zeta ^2/k^2)`$. Here $`f(\zeta )`$ is a function which must be calculated for each $`\zeta `$ by explicit diagonalization of the mass matrix given by Eq.(26). This explicit diagonalization shows that the mixing of state with $`k>>m_DR`$ is approximately $`\zeta ^{}/k=f(\zeta )\zeta /k`$. For $`\zeta =100`$, $`f(\zeta )=0.007`$. For larger $`\zeta `$, $`f(\zeta )`$ decreases, while for $`\zeta <<1`$, $`f(\zeta )=1`$.

We use $`\beta ^+`$ decay data from $`{}_{}{}^{14}\mathrm{O}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{54}\mathrm{Co}`$ with a combined error of $`0.22\%`$. These nuclei have Q values of 1.81 MeV and 7.22 MeV respectively. This can be translated into a limit on the Yukawa coupling,$`y`$ and the size of the extra dimension, R,

$`0.0022>1.9\times 10^7\mathrm{MeV}^2y^2f(\zeta )^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{10\mathrm{TeV}}{M_{}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{mm}}{R}}\right)`$
$`\left[{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{Q_1R}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{P(A_1,m_{\nu _k})}{P(A_1,0)}}{\displaystyle \frac{P(A_2,m_{\nu _k})}{P(A_2,0)}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{\nu _k}^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=Q_1R}{\overset{Q_2R}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{P(A_2,m_{\nu _k})}{P(A_2,0)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{\nu _k}^2}}\right]`$ (41)
Converting the sums in the above equation into integrals and integrating over all the available neutrino states produces a limit on the Yukawa coupling. As long as the small mixing limit applies, the limit on $`y`$ has little R dependence and remains fairly constant for example, at $`y<10^3`$ for a scale of $`M_{}=10\mathrm{TeV}`$. The limit becomes less strict for a larger high dimensional scale. The lack of R dependence can be seen when converting the sum in Eq. (3) to an integral, and making the change of variables $`dkRdm_\nu `$. In the case of large mixing, the limit is less strict, due to the factor $`f(\zeta )`$.

When comparing with Eqs.(28, 31), one can see that the limit on the Yukawa coupling from universality is always less stringent than the limit on the Yukawa coupling derived from the maximum neutrino mass and mixing determined by tritium beta decay and reactor neutrino experiments, respectively. This latter limit is shown as the bottom curve in Figure 1. Therefore, one does not obtain a useful constraint from universality when considering only one extra dimension.

One can perform the same exercise for two extra dimensions which both have the same size R. In the perturbative limit, the mass eigenstates are $`m_{\nu _{k,n}}^2(k^2+n^2)/R^2`$. In this case the sum ranges over two indices, $`k`$ and $`n`$. An equation similar to Eq.(3) may be derived for this case,

$`0.0022>6\times 10^{25}\mathrm{MeV}^2y^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{10\mathrm{TeV}}{M_{}}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{mm}}{R}}\right)^2[`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k,n=1}{\overset{k^2+n^2=Q_1R}{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{P(A_1,m_{\nu _{k,n}})}{P(A_1,0)}}{\displaystyle \frac{P(A_2,m_{\nu _{k,n}})}{P(A_2,0)}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{\nu _{k,n}}^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k,n=Q_1R}{\overset{k^2+n^2=Q_2R}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{P(A_2,m_{\nu _{k,n}})}{P(A_2,0)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{\nu _{k,n}}^2}}]`$ (42)
All two dimensional cases considered here, $`M_{}>1\mathrm{T}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$, fulfill the condition $`\zeta ^2<<1`$. We solve the above equation by converting the sums to integrals, and find that the limit is again insensitive to R. Figure 1 also shows the constraint on $`M_{}`$ and $`y`$ for the two dimensional case. It can be seen that greater precision is needed to probe scales greater than 10 TeV, since above this scale the Yukawa coupling is not constrained to be less than of order 1.

The Standard Model value of $`V_{ud}`$ can be obtained from measured $`Ft`$ values as in  with the additional input of $`G_F`$, the weak coupling constant from muon decay. Using these quantities, the unitarity sum $`V_{ud}^2+V_{us}^2+V_{ub}^2`$ is calculated to be smaller than one by two standard deviations. The extra dimensional scenario would effect both the muon decay measurement as well as the $`Ft`$ values from beta decay. This introduces additional parameters and model uncertainties, such as the coupling of the muon neutrino to the same or another Kaluza Klein tower of neutrinos. If, for example, the muon neutrinos did not couple to any bulk neutrinos, then the calculated value of $`V_{ud}`$ should appear too large and an extra dimensional scenario could not account for the shortfall in the unitarity sum through the determination of $`V_{ud}`$ from beta decay.

Next we make contact with another much discussed test of universality using charged pion decays . The pion decays, $`\pi e\nu _e`$ and $`\pi \mu \nu _\mu `$ can be probed kinematically. Since the electron in the decay is relativistic, while the muon is not, the contributions of a massive neutrino differ considerably in the two decays; a massive electon neutrino will make a larger difference than a massive muon neutrino. In the case of massless neutrinos the standard model ratio is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi e\nu )/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi \mu \nu )=1.233\times 10^4`$. The experimentally measured quantity is $`R_{\pi \mu }^{\pi e}=(1.230\pm 0.004)\times 10^4`$ . Therefore, the extradimensional contribution to these decays can not exceed 0.3%. The contribution has been calculated explicitly by  and for the $`n=2`$ case with two families of bulk neutrinos. The contribution is approximately given by

$$7.52\pi \times 10^2y_e^2\left(\frac{1\mathrm{T}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}{M_{}}\right)^26.23\pi \times 10^1\left(\frac{1\mathrm{T}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}{M_{}}\right)^2y_\mu ^2<0.003.$$
(43)
With this reaction alone, the only way to obtain a constraint on either $`y_e`$ or $`y_\mu `$ as a function of $`M_{}`$ is to make an assumption about one of the couplings such as, $`y_e1`$ or $`y_\mu 1`$. Ideally, one would obtain a separate constraint on one of the couplings and use the pion decay data to limit the other. Taking the constraint on $`y_e`$ from beta decay universality discussed previously we find that another two orders of magnitude in precision in the beta decay data would be required in order to probe $`y_\mu `$. However, a complete discussion must include an analysis of neutrino oscillations which is beyond the scope of this paper; however, see  for a discussion.

## 4 Kinematic searches

In addition to changing the apparent $`ft`$ values, bulk neutrino scenarios can in principle also be probed kinematically. Here we demonstrate the consequences of the extra dimensional scenario on nuclear recoil momenta, and electron spectra. Massive neutrino searches in beta decay have focused on examining beta spectra  and on examining the nuclear recoil spectra . A tower of Kaluza-Klein bulk states will produce a somewhat different signal than just one massive neutrino. We examine the signature in both of these types of spectra from the KK tower of states. Larger mixing scenarios may be probed by tritium beta decay searches for eV range neutrinos. However, as we shall see below,the model of extra dimensions cannot currently be constrained by searches for heavy (keV-MeV) neutrinos.

With a massive electron neutrino, the number of electron neutrinos as a function of momentum would be,

$$\frac{N(p_e)}{p_e^2F(Z,p_e)}=\frac{1}{m_e^5}\frac{1}{ft}\left[(QE_e+m_e)^2m_\nu ^2\right]^{1/2}(QE_e+m_e)$$
(44)
We show the normalized Kurie plot, $`(N(p_e)/(p_e^2F(Z,p_e)))^{1/2}`$ vs. $`E_e`$ for $`{}_{}{}^{38m}\mathrm{K}`$ at the top of Figure 3, for the case of $`m_\nu =0`$. The Q- value for this decay is 5.02 MeV.

In the case of one extra dimension, the function is modified to

$$\frac{N(p_e)}{p_e^2F(Z,p_e)}=\frac{1}{m_e^5}\frac{1}{ft_{xd}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{k_{max}}{}}|U_{ke}|^2\left[(QE_e+m_e)^2m_{\nu _k}^2\right]^{1/2}(QE_e+m_e).$$
(45)
Here $`|U_{ke}|^2`$ is the mixing of the kth mass eigenstate with the electron neutrino. For heavy massive neutrino searches (keV-MeV) very small mixing is relevant as discussed below. However, for massive neutrino searches in the eV range, such as tritium beta decay, a slightly larger mixing is applicable. Several states will give a different signature than just one or two massive states in a kinematic study. We illustrate this in the lower panel of Figure 2. This panel shows the beta endpoint spectrum for tritium for three cases. The dashed line shows the spectrum for a single massive neutrino of 2.3 eV. The solid line shows the result for a scenario with one extra dimensions, and $`\zeta =.13`$, $`1/R=25`$ eV giving $`m_D=2.3\mathrm{eV}`$. The first ten mass eigenstates were calculated by explicit diagonalization of the matrix, Eq. (26). The first three occur at 2.3 eV, 25 eV and 50 eV, with mixings $`|U_{ke}|^2`$ of 0.974, 0.017 and 0.004 respectively. As can be seen from the figure, the Kaluza-Klein tower produces several bumps as well as less counts slightly away from the endpoint than a single massive neutrino. For comparison a two neutrino mixing scenario is shown as the dot-dashed line. The mass eigenstates are at 2.3 eV and 25 eV with a mixing of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta 2.5\%`$.

We now turn to searches for massive neutrinos in the keV and MeV range. In the case of one extra dimension and small mixing, the function is modified to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{N(p_e)}{p_e^2F(Z,p_e)}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_e^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ft_{xd}}}`$ $`[(1{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2\zeta ^2}{6}})(QE+m_e)+`$ (46)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{k_{max}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^2}{k^2}}[(QE_e+m_e)^2m_{\nu _k}^2]^{1/2}(QE_e+m_e)]`$
We have normalized to the number of counts in order to eliminate the uncertainty in $`ft_{xd}`$. Therefore, we replace $`N(p_e)N(p_e)/N`$, where for one extra dimension, $`N=N(p_e)𝑑p_e`$. We plot the results for the extra dimensional scenario as the ratio,

$$=\left[\frac{N(p_e)}{Np^2F(Z,p)}\right]_{xd}^{1/2}/\left[\frac{N(p_e)}{Np^2F(Z,p)}\right]_{SM}^{1/2}.$$
(47)
Two cases are shown in Figure 3. The panel in the bottom left hand corner shows a situation where many modes can contribute to the decay; $`R=10^8\mathrm{mm}`$, $`m_D=1\mathrm{eV}`$. The mass of the lightest mode is at about 0.02 MeV and has a mixing of around $`\zeta ^2=5\times 10^9`$. Nuclei with smaller Q values will have a slightly larger signature for the continuum case.

The experimental limits on the mixing angle for a single 17 keV neutrino, for example  are of order $`10^3`$. Since the mixing of the $`20\mathrm{keV}`$ modes from this extra dimensional scenario are considerably weaker, these modes are not likely to be detectable with present experimental data. The mixing of a $``$1 MeV neutrino is smaller still, since the mixing goes as $`\zeta /k=\sqrt{2}m_DR/k`$. If the lowest KK state occurs around 1 MeV, this implies a size $`R2\times 10^{10}\mathrm{mm}`$ and a mixing of $`\zeta ^23\times 10^{13}`$. The point here is that the mixing of the a high mass KK mode is proportional to $`m_D`$ which is constrained by tritium beta decay experiments. Therefore, in this simple model the mixing of keV and MeV neutrinos will always be small. The bottom right hand corner of Figure 3 shows contributions from three separate neutrino masses, 1, 2 and 3 MeV. The bumps shown in the lower right panel are unobservable, since current constraints on the mixing of an MeV neutrino are many orders of magnitude less ($`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta 10^3`$).

We also consider the method of detecting massive neutrinos by measuring nuclear recoil spectra. In the presence of a massive neutrino, the nuclear recoil spectrum for a pure Fermi transition has the shape,

$$P_r(Z,r)=\frac{1}{2}_{E_{min}}^{E_{max}}F(Z,E_e)\left[rE_eE_\nu +r\frac{a}{2}(r^2p_e^2p_\nu ^2)\right]𝑑E_e$$
(48)
Here, $`r`$ is the recoil momentum of the nucleus and $`a=1`$. For a pure Gamow-Teller transition, $`a=1/3`$. The limits of integration depend on the mass of the neutrino and are given by

$$E_{max,min}=\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{E_0(E_0^2r^2+me^2m_\nu ^2)\pm r\sqrt{(E_0^2r^2m_e^2m_\nu ^2)^24m_\nu ^2m_e^2}}{E_0^2r^2}\right]$$
(49)
Here $`E_0=Q+m_e`$ is the total energy available for the decay. We again normalize the distribution by integrating over all possible recoil energies and finding $`P_r(m_\nu )`$, for each given neutrino mass. The distribution for $`m_\nu =0`$ is shown on the top panel of Figure 4. The normalized probability distribution for the scenario with one extra dimension looks like,

$$P_r(r)=\frac{(1\frac{\pi ^2\zeta ^2}{6})P_r(r,m_\nu 0)+\underset{k}{}\frac{\zeta ^2}{k^2}P_r(r,m_\nu k/R)}{P_r}$$
(50)
where the normalization is

$$P_r=(1\frac{\pi ^2\zeta ^2}{6})P_r(r,m_\nu 0)𝑑r+\underset{k}{}\frac{\zeta ^2}{k^2}P_r(r,m_\nu k/R)𝑑r$$
(51)
To see the effect of the bulk neutrino states on recoil spectra, we again plot normalized ratios, $`(P_r(r)/P_r)_{xd}/(P_r(r)/P_r)_{SM}`$ The results are shown in Figures 4 for the Fermi transition in $`{}_{}{}^{38m}\mathrm{K}`$. The top panels show the normalized spectra for a single zero mass neutrino. The bottom left panels show the effect when many neutrino modes can contribute to the decay, while the bottom right panels show the case where only a few neutrinos can contribute. However, as in the case with the Kurie plots, the mixing of the KK modes is several orders of magnitude too small to be detected with current experimental measurements.

## 5 Conclusions

We have studied the effects of bulk neutrinos in nuclear $`\beta `$ decays in a simple model which only allows the SM singlet state to propagate in one or more compactified extra dimensions. All other SM particles are confined to a 3-brane and have no KK excitations. There are many well studied nuclei with different Q values that allow us to use universality to place constraints on the Yukawa coupling and the fundamental scale $`M_{}`$. This information is complementary to the various studies of physics of higher dimensions using the gravitational force or KK graviton probes.

Our study shows that for $`n=1`$ the most stringent constraint on the parameters of the bulk neutrinos arise from the direct measurement of the mass of $`\nu _e`$ and from reactor neutrino oscillation experiments. Universality tests do not give additional information. On the other hand for $`n=2`$ the universality test restricts the Yukawa coupling to be less than unity for $`M_{}10\mathrm{TeV}`$. Future experiments with radioactive beams measuring decays with Q values of order 10 MeV and improved accuracy with current measurements that can push this by a factor of ten will be most welcome.

The Kurie plot and the recoil nuclear spectrum in some selected decays are also given. For probes of massive Kaluza-Klein states we find the nuclei with smaller Q values are more sensitive. Currently, for medium and heavy nuclei, the sensitivity of experiments designed for massive neutrino searches are several orders of magnitude below what is needed to probe mixing of the massive KK neutrinos in these reactions. This may be due to the simplicity of the model we have considered and hopefully such studies will prove useful for more realistic models with enhanced mixings that also address the family problem. We also point out that our study may be used in connection with other data to constrain parameters of second and third generation mixing with bulk neutrinos. These scenarios are more model dependent and contain more parameters. We give an illustration of this point for charged pion decays.

On the other hand we find that the tritium $`\beta `$ decay spectrum can be significantly altered by the presence of KK bulk neutrino states in the eV range. They can reveal themselves in the shape of endpoint region of the Kurie plot if the mixings are favorable.

It is useful to compare the results from universality limits to the ones derived from astrophysical constraints which are indirect. The latter relies on the energy loss carried away by bulk neutrinos. For example with limits derived from the neutrino magnetic moment  for $`n=2`$ there is essentially no constraint on the neutrino magnetic moment induced from the sort of extra dimensional scenario presented here, while the limit on the Yukawa coupling is of order 1 for $`M_{}10\mathrm{TeV}`$ from universality. For $`n=1`$ one obtains a constraint from the mu and tau neutrino magnetic moment whereas universality gives no useful constraints. As mentioned before in this case for electron neutrinos the strongest constraint comes from the electron neutrino mass limit and oscillation experiments.

## 6 Acknowledgements

We wish to thank J. Behr and M.Trinczek for helpful discussions. One of us (J.N.N.) would like to thank Prof. T.K. Lee of the National Center for theoretical Science for his hospitality.

This research is partly supported by the Natural Science and Engineering Council of Canada.


text:
# Nonlinear Decoherence in Quantum State Preparation of a Trapped Ion

## Abstract

We present a nonlinear decoherence model which models decoherence effect caused by various decohereing sources in a quantum system through a nonlinear coupling between the system and its environment, and apply it to investigating decoherence in nonclassical motional states of a single trapped ion. We obtain an exactly analytic solution of the model and find very good agreement with experimental results for the population decay rate of a single trapped ion observed in the NIST experiments by Meekhof and coworkers (D. M. Meekhof, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 1796 (1996)).

PACS numbers: 32.80.Pj, 42.50.Lc, 03.65.Bz, 05.45.+b

In recent years, much progress has been made in preparation, manipulation, and measurement of quantum states of the center-of-mass vibrational motion of a single trapped ion experimentally \[1-8\] and theoretically \[9-16\], which are not only of fundamental physical interest but also of practical use for sensitive detection of weak signals  and quantum computation in an ion trap . In particular, the NIST group  has experimentally created and observed nonclassical motional states of a single trapped ion. In the NIST experiments , an anti Jaynes-Cummings model (JCM) interaction between the internal and motional states of a trapped ion is realized through stimulated Raman transitions, which couple internal states of the trapped ion to its motional states, when the Lamb-Dicke limit is satisfied and the driving laser fields are tuned to the first blue sideband. Detection of motional states is carried out by observing the evolution characteristics of quantum dynamics of internal levels of the trapped ion under influence of the anti JCM-typed interaction. The NIST experiments revealed the fact that the population of the low atomic state ($`P_{}`$) evolves according to the following phenomenological expression

$$P_{}(t)=\frac{1}{2}\{1+\underset{n}{}p_n\mathrm{cos}(2gt\sqrt{n+1})e^{\gamma _nt}\}$$
(1)
where $`p_n`$ is the initial probability distribution of motional states of the trapped ion in the Fock representation, $`g`$ is a coupling constant between the atomic internal and motional states, $`\gamma _n`$ is a decay rate. The experimentally observed decay rate is of the following form

$$\gamma _n=\gamma _0(n+1)^\nu $$
(2)
where the observed value of $`\nu `$ is $`\nu 0.7`$.

A question that naturally arises is: how to explain the above experimentally observed decay rate? It is generally accepted that the appearance of the decay factor $`\gamma _n`$ in the evolution of internal states is a consequence of decoherence. It is of practical significance to well understand decoherence for preparation of nonclassical states and quantum computation in ion traps. There are various sources of decoherence , such as ion vibrational decoherence, ion internal-state decoherence, decoherence caused by non-ideal external fields, and so on. Recently, Schneider and Milburn  have investigated decoherence due to laser intensity and phase fluctuations and obtained the power $`\nu `$ in Eq.(2) being $`\nu 0.5`$ instead of the experimentally observed value $`0.7`$. More recently, Murao and Knight , using master equation method, have studied decoherence due to the imperfect dipole transitions and fluctuation of vibrational potential in the NIST experiments. In spite of these efforts, the problem of decoherence in quantum state preparation of a trapped ion has been not satisfactorily solved, and its character and microscopic origin still call for further attention. In particular, it should be pointed out that the experimentally observed decay rate indicated in (2) is a collective effect caused by various decohering sources, not by a specific decohering source. Nevertheless, authors in refs investigated the decay rate caused only by a specific source of decoherence, not by various sources of decoherence. So how to model the experimentally observed decay rate caused by various decohering sources is an interesting subject in quantum state preparation and manipulation of a trapped ion. In this paper, we present a nonlinear decoherence model to model decoherence effects caused by various decohering sources in a quantum system. We shall show that our theoretical model can well describe the experimentally observed decay rate in the NIST experiments .

We consider a single trapped ion with mass $`m`$ and laser cooled to the Lamb-Dicke limit. Following symbols Ref., we denote three related internal states and motional states of the ion by $`|i`$ ($`i=\underset{¯}{0},,`$) and $`|n`$ ($`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$), respectively. The free Hamiltonian of the trapped ion is given by $`\widehat{H_0}=\mathrm{}\omega _x\widehat{a}^+\widehat{a}\mathrm{}\omega _{01}||\mathrm{}\omega _{02}||`$, where $`\omega _{01}(\omega _{02})`$ is the transition frequency between states $`|(|)`$ and $`|\underset{¯}{0}`$, $`\widehat{a}^+(\widehat{a})`$ is the creation (annihilation) operator of the motional states with the corresponding frequency $`\omega _x`$. Two driving laser beams with detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, wave vector $`\stackrel{}{k}_1(\stackrel{}{k}_2)`$ and frequency $`\omega _1(\omega _2)`$ are used to cause dipole transitions between the level $`|(|)`$ and $`|\underset{¯}{0}`$.

With the dipole and rotating wave approximations, under large detuning condition the intermediate level $`|\underset{¯}{0}`$ can be adiabatically eliminated when the Lamb-Dicke limit is met and the driving laser beam is tuned to the first blue sideband. Then, in the interaction picture of $`\widehat{H_0}`$, the effective Hamiltonian of the system has the anti JCM-typed form

$$\widehat{H}_S=\mathrm{}g(\widehat{a}^+\sigma _++\widehat{a}\sigma _{})$$
(3)
where $`g`$ is a coupling constant, which depends on the coupling strength between internal and motional states of the trapped ion and the Lamb-Dicke parameter defined by $`\eta =\delta kx_0`$, where $`\delta k`$ is the wave-vector difference of the two Raman beams along $`x`$, and $`x_0=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/2m\omega _x}`$. For simplicity, we set $`\mathrm{}=1`$ throughout this paper.

The Hamiltonian (3) is diagonal in the dressed-state representation with the following basis

$$|\phi (n,i)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|,n(1)^i|,n+1),i=1,2$$
(4)
$$|\phi (0,3)=|,0$$
(5)
And we have $`\widehat{H}_S|\phi (n,i)=E_{ni}|\phi (n,i)`$ with eigenvalues $`E_{ni}=(1)^{i+1}g\sqrt{n+1}`$ for $`i=1,2`$, and $`E_{03}=0`$.

Before going to our model, let us briefly recall a few basic facts about the interaction between a quantum system and its environment. The interaction between the system and its environment may create two types of effects \[20-34\]: decoherence and dissipation, which can be mathematically described by decaying of the off-diagonal and diagonal elements of the reduced density operator of the system, respectively. These two effects have been paid much attention in various areas, for instance, quantum measurement \[20,25-28\], condensed matter physics \[21-23\], quantum computation \[29-31\], and so on. The decoherence effect causes the states of the system continuously decohere to approach classical states . The dissipation effect dissipates energy of the system to environment \[21-23\]. The two effects can be understood in terms of Hamiltonian formalism \[32-34\]. If we assume that the total Hamiltonian of the system plus environment to be $`\widehat{H}_T=\widehat{H}_S+\widehat{H}_R+\widehat{H}_I`$, where $`\widehat{H}_S`$ and $`\widehat{H}_R`$ are Hamiltonians of the system and environment, respectively, and $`\widehat{H}_I`$ is the interaction Hamiltonian between them, when the Hamiltonian of the system commutes with that of the interaction between the system and environment, i.e., $`[\widehat{H}_S,\widehat{H}_I]=0`$, which means that there is no energy transfer between the system and the environment, energy of the system is conservative, so that what interaction between the system and environment describes is decoherence effect. When $`[\widehat{H}_S,\widehat{H}_I]0`$, there is energy transfer between the system and environment, so that what interaction between the system and environment describes is the dissipation effect. It should be pointed out that the decoherence and dissipation happen at different time scales . The dissipation effect occurs at the relaxation time $`\tau _{rel}`$, while the decoherence time scale $`\tau _d`$ is much shorter than $`\tau _{rel}`$ with the time evolution of a quantum system. Hence, we here restrict our attention on decoherence effect.

We now present our model. We use a reservoir consisting of an infinite set of harmonic oscillators to model the environment of the single trapped ion in the NIST experiments, and assume that in the interaction picture of $`\widehat{H}_0`$ the total Hamiltonian is of the following phenomenological form

$`\widehat{H}_T`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{H}_S+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\omega _k\widehat{b}_k^{}\widehat{b}_k+F(\{\widehat{O}_S\}){\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}c_k(\widehat{b}_k^{}+\widehat{b}_k)`$ (7)
$`+F^2(\{\widehat{O}_S\}){\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_k^2}{\omega _k^2}}.`$
Here the first term is the Hamiltonian of the system in the interaction picture given by Eq.(3); the second term is the Hamiltonian of the reservoir; the third one represents the interaction between the system and the reservoir with a coupling constant $`c_k`$, where $`\{\widehat{O}_S\}`$ is a set of linear operators of the system or their linear combinations in the same picture as that of $`\widehat{H}_S`$, $`F(\{\widehat{O}_S\})`$ is an operator function of $`\{\widehat{O}_S\}`$. In order to enable what the interaction between the system and the reservoir describes in Eq.(6) is decoherence not dissipation, we require that the linear operator $`\widehat{O}_S`$ commutes with the Hamiltonian of the system, i.e., $`[\widehat{O}_S,\widehat{H}_S]=0`$. It is well known that the decohering process can indeed be considered as a quantum measurement process. The conventional definition of a quantum measurement involves any form of interaction between a quantum object and a classical system. Therefore, the interaction function $`F(\{\widehat{O}_S\})`$ in the model (6) can involve any form of interaction between the system and environment. This enables it to model the collective decohering behavior caused by various decohering sources. The concrete form of the function $`F(\{\widehat{O}_S\})`$ may be regarded as an experimentally determined quantity. The last term in Eq.(6) is a renormalization term, which is discussed in Ref.. When $`F(\{\widehat{O}_S\})`$ is a linear and nonlinear function of the linear operator $`\widehat{O}_S`$, We call decoherence described by the interaction between the system and the reservoir linear and nonlinear decoherence, respectively, in the similar sense of the linear and nonlinear dissipation implied in Ref.. In this sense, decoherence investigated in Ref. is a kind of linear decoherence. In what follow we shall show that nonlinear decoherence can better describe the decay rate in the the NIST experiments.

The Hamiltonian (6) can be exactly solved by making use of the following unitary transformation

$$\widehat{U}=\mathrm{exp}[F(\{\widehat{O}_S\})\underset{k}{}\frac{c_k}{\omega _k}(\widehat{b}_k^{}\widehat{b}_k)].$$
(8)
After applying the unitary transformation (7) to the total Hamiltonian (6), we get a decoupled Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_T^{}=\widehat{H}_S+_k\omega _k\widehat{n}_k`$, where $`\widehat{n}_k=\widehat{b}_k^{}\widehat{b}_k`$. The density operator associated with the decoplued Hamiltonian is given by

$$\widehat{\rho }_T^{}(t)=e^{i\widehat{H}_T^{}t}\widehat{\rho }_T^{}(0)e^{i\widehat{H}_T^{}t}$$
(9)
where $`\widehat{\rho }_T^{}(0)=\widehat{U}\widehat{\rho }_T(0)\widehat{U}^1`$, with $`\widehat{\rho }_T(0)`$ being the initial total density operator. Through a converse transformation of (7), it is straightforward to obtain the total density operator associated with the original Hamiltonian (6) with the following expression

$`\widehat{\rho }_T(t)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\widehat{H}_St}\widehat{U}^1e^{it_k\omega _k\widehat{n}_k}\widehat{U}\widehat{\rho }_T(0)`$ (11)
$`\times \widehat{U}^1e^{it_k\omega _k\widehat{n}_k}\widehat{U}e^{i\widehat{H}_St}.`$
We assume that the system and reservoir are initially in thermal equilibrium and uncorrelated, so that $`\widehat{\rho }_T(0)=\widehat{\rho }_S(0)\widehat{\rho }_R(0)`$, where $`\widehat{\rho }_S(0)`$ and $`\widehat{\rho }_R(0)`$ are the initial density operator of the system and the reservoir, respectively. $`\widehat{\rho }_R(0)`$ can be expressed as $`\widehat{\rho }_R=_k\widehat{\rho }_k(0)`$ where $`\widehat{\rho }_k(0)=(1e^{\beta \omega _k})e^{\beta \omega _k\widehat{n}_k}`$ is the density operator of the $`k`$-th harmonic oscillator in thermal equilibrium, where $`\beta =1/k_BT`$, $`k_B`$ and $`T`$ being the Boltzmann constant and temperature, respectively. After taking the trace over the reservoir, from Eq.(9) we can get the reduced density operator of the system, denoted by $`\widehat{\rho }(t)=tr_R\widehat{\rho }_T(t)`$, its matrix elements in the dressed state representation are explicitly written as

$`\rho _{(m^{},i^{})(m,i)}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{(m^{},i^{})(m,i)}(0)R_{m^{}i^{}mi}(t)`$ (13)
$`\times e^{i\varphi _{m^{}i^{}mi}(t)},`$
Here the phase is defined by

$$\varphi _{m^{}i^{}mi}(t)=[E_{m^{}i^{}}E_{mi}],$$
(14)
and $`R_{m^{}i^{}mi}(t)`$ is a reservoir-dependent quantity given by

$`R_{m^{}i^{}mi}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}Tr_R\{D(\alpha _{mik})e^{it\omega _k\widehat{n}_k}D(\alpha _{mik})`$ (16)
$`\times D(\alpha _{m^{}i^{}k})e^{it\omega _k\widehat{n}_k}D(\alpha _{m^{}i^{}k})\widehat{\rho }_k(0)\},`$
where $`\alpha _{mik}=f(\{O_{mi}\})c_k/\omega _k`$ with $`O_{mi}`$ being an eigenvalue of the linear operator $`\widehat{O}_S`$ in a dressed state, i.e., $`\widehat{O}_S|\phi (m,i)=O_{mi}|\phi (m,i)`$, and $`D(\alpha )=\mathrm{exp}(\alpha \widehat{b}_k^+\alpha ^{}\widehat{b}_k)`$ is a displacement operator.

Making use of properties of the displacement operator:

$`D(\alpha )D(\beta )=D(\alpha +\beta )\mathrm{exp}[iIm(\alpha \beta ^{})],`$ (17)
$`\mathrm{exp}(x\widehat{n}_k)D(\alpha )\mathrm{exp}(x\widehat{n}_k)=\mathrm{exp}(\alpha e^x\widehat{b}_k^+\alpha ^{}e^x\widehat{b}_k),`$ (18)
and the following formula

$$Tr_R[D(\alpha )\widehat{\rho }_k(0)]=\mathrm{exp}[\frac{1}{2}|\alpha |^2\mathrm{coth}(\frac{\beta \omega _k}{2})],$$
(19)
we find that the reservoir-dependent quantity $`R_{m^{}i^{}mi}(t)`$ can be written as the following factorized form

$$R_{m^{}i^{}mi}(t)=e^{i\delta \varphi _{m^{}i^{}mi}(t)}e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{m^{}i^{}mi}(t)},$$
(20)
with the following phase shift and damping factor

$$\delta \varphi _{m^{}i^{}mi}(t)=[F^2(\{O_{m^{}i^{}}\})F^2(\{O_{mi}\})]Q_1(t),$$
(21)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{m^{}i^{}mi}(t)=[F(\{O_{m^{}i^{}}\})F(\{O_{mi}\})]^2Q_2(t).$$
(22)
Here the two reservoir-dependent functions are given by

$$Q_1(t)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega J(\omega )\frac{c^2(\omega )}{\omega ^2}\mathrm{sin}(\omega t),$$
(23)
$$Q_2(t)=2_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega J(\omega )\frac{c^2(\omega )}{\omega ^2}\mathrm{sin}^2(\frac{\omega t}{2})\mathrm{coth}(\frac{\beta \omega }{2}),$$
(24)
where we have taken the continuum limit of the reservoir modes: $`_k_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega J(\omega )`$, where $`J(\omega )`$ is the spectral density of the reservoir, $`c(\omega )`$ is the corresponding continuum expression for $`c_k`$.

We assume that the system is initially in a state $`\widehat{\rho }(0)=||_np_n|nn|`$. Then, from Eqs.(10)-(16) we find that at time $`t`$ the population of the lower atomic state is given by

$$P_{}(t)=\frac{1}{2}\{1+\underset{n}{}p_n\mathrm{cos}[\varphi _{n1n2}(t)+\delta \varphi _{n1n2}(t)]e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n1n2}(t)},$$
(25)
which indicates that the interaction between the system and reservoir induces a phase shift $`\delta \varphi _{n1n2}(t)`$ and a damping factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n1n2}(t)`$ in the time evolution of the atomic population.

Taking into account the experimental expression (1), we choose the following linear operator and interaction function:

$`\widehat{O}_S=\widehat{a}^+\sigma _++\widehat{a}\sigma _{},`$ (26)
$`F(\{\widehat{O}_S\})=\widehat{O}_S^{2d+1},`$ (27)
where $`d`$ is an adjustable parameter to describe the nonlinearity in the interaction, which reflects the deviation degree of the nonlinearity of $`F(\{\widehat{O}_S\})`$ with respect to the linear operator $`\widehat{O}_S`$. The value of the parameter $`d`$ is determined by the experimental results. With these choices, it is easy to find that

$`F^2(O_{n1})F^2(O_{n2})=0,`$ (28)
$`F(O_{n1})F(O_{n2})=2(\sqrt{n+1})^{2d+1}.`$ (29)
Then the phase shift in Eq.(21) naturally vanishes, and the damping factor becomes

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n1n2}=4(n+1)^{2d+1}Q_2(t).$$
(30)
So that we can find from Eq.(21) that

$$P_{}(t)=\frac{1}{2}\{1+\underset{n}{}p_n\mathrm{cos}(2gt\sqrt{n+1})e^{4(n+1)^\nu Q_2(t)}\}$$
(31)
where $`\nu =2d+1`$ and $`Q_2(t)`$ is given by Eq.(20). From Eq.(27) we see that the argument of the cosine function on the RHS of Eq.(27) does have the same form as that in the experimental expression (1). Comparing the theoretical expression (27) with the experimental result (1), we find that when the nonlinear deviation $`d0.15`$, the $`n`$-dependence of the damping factor in Eq.(27) is completely in agreement with that seen in the experimental expression (1). The final step is to determine the time dependence of the damping factor in Eq.(27). From Eqs.(19), (20), and (27), we see that all necessary information about the effects of the environment is contained in the spectral density of the reservoir. Eq.(27) indicates that the time dependence of the damping factor is completely determined by the spectral density of the reservoir. The experimental expression (1) requires that the time dependence of the damping factor must be linear, so that if we choose the spectral density such that

$$Q_2(t)=\frac{1}{4}\gamma _0t$$
(32)
where $`\gamma _0`$ is a characteristic parameter, then we can get an expression of $`P_{}(t)`$, which has exactly the same form as the experimental result (1). It is possible to find a spectral density of the reservoir to satisfy the condition (28). For instance, for the case of zero temperature, if we take the spectral density $`J(\omega )=\gamma _0/(2\pi c^2(\omega ))`$, substituting it to Eq.(20) we can realize Eq.(28).

In conclusion, we have present a nonlinear decoherence model, and obtained its exactly analytic solution. It has been shown that our model can give precisely the same expression of the population decay rate of the single trapped ion as that observed in the NIST experiments . The nonlinear decoherence model can describe the NIST experiments so well. This indicates that the reservior and the nonlinear coupling between the system and the reservoir, which we design, properly model the real environment of the single trapped ion in the experiments. It is worthwhile to emphasize that the nonlinearity in the coupling describes a collective contribution of various decohering sources to the decay rate. Hence, what the nonlinear decoherence describes is a collective decoherence effect caused by various decohering sources not a specific decoherence source. We have noted that authors in ref. obtained the decay rate in Eq.(1), but decoherence which they considered is a specific decoherence caused by the imperfect dipole transitions and fluctuation of vibrational potential, so their results can not cover the contribution of other decohering sources to the decay rate in the NIST experiment. It can be expected that the nonlinear decoherence model proposed in the present paper can describe decoherence behaviors of a wide variety of quantum systems.

L. M. Kuang thanks Profs. Changpu Sun , Hong Chen , and Dr. Shao-Ming Fei a for enlightening discussions. This work was supported in part by 95-climbing project of China, NSF of China, Educational Committee Foundation and NSF of Hunan Province, and special project of NSF of China via Institute of Theoreical Physics, Academia Sinica.


text:
# A Giant Glitch in the Energetic 69 ms X-ray Pulsar AXS J161730-505505

## 1. Introduction

Radio pulsars are thought to be highly magnetized ($`10^{12}`$ G), rapidly spinning neutron stars whose luminosity is powered by rotational energy loss. The study of young ($`<10^5`$ yrs) rotation-powered pulsars provides an important laboratory for understanding the early evolution (thermal, spin, and magnetic) of these embers of stellar collapse. The most energetic of these pulsars are observable at X-ray wavelengths, which allow us to probe these extreme, but rare, examples.

In addition to uniform spin-down corresponding to the rotational energy loss, rotation powered pulsars show sudden discontinuities in their rotation periods (see Lyne & Graham-Smith 1998, chapter 6). These rare phenomena, known as “glitches” are considered to arise from sudden changes in the configuration of super-dense material in the neutron star interior. To date, a total of 71 glitches with $`|\mathrm{\Delta }P/P|>10^9`$ have been reported in 30 pulsars (Urama & Okeke 1999). Observation of pulsar glitches gives us insights into the structure and physical processes inside the neutron stars, such as the interactions of neutron superfluid and crust components (e.g., Anderson & Itoh 1975).

In this article we report the detection of a giant glitch from AXS J161730$``$505505 by using the newly acquired multi-mission X-ray data. This source is an unusual case of a young pulsar discovered first by its X-ray emission, revealed during the course of an archival X-ray study of the SNR RCW 103 (Gotthel, Petre, & Hwang 1997). Further analysis detected highly significant pulsations from photons attributed to this source (Torii et al. 1998). The 69 ms pulse period was consistent with that reported from a GINGA observation of the region (Aoki, Dotani, & Mitsuda 1992). Recent radio observation has confirmed AXS J161730$``$505505 as a young energetic rotation-powered pulsar (Kaspi et al. 1998). The lack of evidence for this object in archival soft X-ray images of this field suggested that the source might be highly absorbed, making it difficult to determine whether it is associated with a SNR.

## 2. Observations

A set of day-long X-ray observations of the field containing RCW 103, 1E 161348$``$5055, and AXS J161730$``$505505 were performed with the ASCA (Tanaka, Inoue, & Holt 1994), SAX (Boella et al. 1997), and XTE (Bradt et al. 1993) observatories. We summarize in table 1 the set of observations presented in this work.

Imaging data were acquired with the Gas Imaging Spectrometers (GIS) on-board ASCA and with the Medium Energy Concentrators (MECS) instruments on SAX. These instruments have moderate imaging ($`2^{}`$) and spectral resolution ($`8\%`$ at 6 keV) over an energy band pass of $`0.710`$ keV (GIS) and $`1.512`$ keV (MECS), with a field-of-view (FOV) large enough to cover the SNR and pulsar simultaneously. Non-imaging data were obtained with the Proportional Counter Array (PCA) on-board XTE which provides broader energy band-pass ($`260`$ keV) at lower spectral resolution ($`16\%`$ at 6 keV). The PCA FOV is roughly circular with a $`1^{}`$ FWHM response. The GIS data were collected in the highest time resolution mode ($`0.5\mathrm{ms}`$ or $`61\mu \mathrm{s}`$, depending on data acquisition mode) whose measured absolute accuracy is $`200\mu \mathrm{s}`$ in this mode (Saito et al. 1997). The PCA data were collected using the Good Xenon mode with $`0.9\mu `$s timing resolution. For the current analysis, the absolute timing uncertainty is $`100\mu `$s (Rots et al. 1998). Photons collected by the MECS are time tagged with 15 $`\mu `$s resolution. We do not include data from ASCA’s Solid-state Imaging Spectrometers (SIS), as the pulsar fell just off the edge of its FOV. Nor do we include data from SAX’s other instruments as the observing time is insufficient for these instruments to measure the pulsar periodicity reliably, as a part of the observation was interrupted prematurely.

Each data set was processed through its standard pipeline reduction for that mission and edited to exclude times of high background contamination using the standard screening criteria. This rejects time intervals of South Atlantic Anomaly passages, Earth occultations, bright Earth limb in the FOV (ASCA and SAX only), and other periods of high particle activity. The resulting effective observation times are summarized in Table 1. For each observation, event data from all detectors were co-added and the arrival times of each event were corrected to the solar system barycenter using the software TIMECONV (ASCA), BARYCONV (SAX), or FXBARY (XTE).

## 3. Results

### 3.1. Timing

The X-ray images obtained with both ASCA and SAX above 3 keV reveal AXS J161730–505505 $`4^{}`$ outside the SNR shell (see figure 1a and 1b of Gotthelf et al. 1997; Gotthelf, Petre, & Vasisht 1999). To increase the signal-to-noise ratio for detecting pulsations from the pulsar, we extracted photons from an 8 diameter aperture centered on the pulsar, restricting the energy range of extracted photons to $`310`$ keV for GIS and $`312`$ keV for the other instruments. For the PCA data, in this energy band, we further restrict our search to Layer 1 data only, which provides the best sensitivity for a Crab-like spectrum; For the higher energy analysis afforded by the PCA, above $`12`$ keV, we used data from all three PCA layers.

We searched each data set for the expected 69 ms period predicted from the initial period and period derivative measurement (Torii et al. 1998). A periodgram was constructed using the $`\chi ^2`$ statistic to test against a null hypothesis. For each trial period, we folded the data into 10 bins and computed the $`\chi ^2`$ of the resultant profile. We search a narrow range of periods centered on the expected period $`\pm 0.1`$ ms, sampled in increments of $`0.1\times P^2/T`$, where $`T`$ is the observation duration, and $`P`$ is the test period. A highly significant signal was detected from each of our data sets.

As well as the newly obtained data, we have re-analyzed the previous GINGA and ASCA data (Aoki et al. 1992; Torii et al. 1998) in a uniform way and revised the period and its error by using the method of Leahy (1987). Our X-ray timing results derived from these 13 measurements are listed in table 1, along with an updated radio ephemeris (Kaspi 1999, Private communication).

### 3.2. Spectrum

We search for spectral dependence of the pulse profile by comparing the folded light curves in several energy bands. No strong energy dependence is evident in the energy resolved light curves. Furthermore, the pulse amplitude and pulse profile remained unchanged between observational epochs.

We examined the ASCA and SAX data on AXS J161730$``$505505 for any long term changes in its energy spectrum or flux. As for the timing analysis, we restrict our comparison to the energy range above $`3`$ keV and extract photons from an $`8^{}`$ diameter aperture centered on the source. We fitted the spectrum with a power law function modified by interstellar absorption. The absorption was fixed at $`6.8\times 10^{22}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ (Torii et al. 1998). Spectra from each observation were found to be consistent with each other. Combining the 7 ASCA observations, we obtain the pulse phase averaged photon index, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.4\pm 0.2`$, and the observed flux of $`(3.6\pm 0.2)\times 10^{12}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2`$ (90% confidence errors) in the 3-10 keV range, which is consistent with the previous measurement (Torii et al. 1998).

## 4. Discussion

A $`\chi ^2`$ fit to the all 14 data points as summarized in table 1 gives the mean spin-down rate of $`\dot{P}=1.3611(1)\times 10^{13}`$ s/s and $`P=0.069347150(1)`$ at MJD 50,000.0 (Figure 1). However, the quality of the fit is bad, with $`\chi ^2/d.o.f.=4808/12`$. The residual of the fit shows a jump of $`\mathrm{\Delta }P1.2\times 10^7`$ s between the observations of 1993 August (MJD 49,217.6) and 1997 September (MJD 50,696.0) (Figure 2, top panel). Within the observation span of 10 years, the residual is neither periodic nor smooth. A sudden change in the period between MJD 49,217.6 and MJD 50,696.0 is suggested. We consider the most likely explanation for these residuals is due to a glitch, similar to those observed in several young rotation-powered pulsars.

Given the clear evidence of glitch activity, we next attempted to model the spin-down data with a single glitch followed by an exponential recovery. The data coverage is limited and we simply assumed the following relation for the spin-down.

$$P(t)=P_0+\dot{P}(tt_0)+\mathrm{\Delta }P\mathrm{exp}(\frac{tt_0}{\tau })$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }P=0`$ for $`t<t_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }P`$ is a negative constant for $`tt_0`$. This model contains five parameters, which, except for the depth of the glitch $`\mathrm{\Delta }P`$, are found to be independent of the time of the glitch, $`t_0`$. The derived parameters, $`P_0`$, $`\dot{P}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }P`$, and $`\tau `$ are summarized in table 2 for assumed values of $`t_0=49,300.0`$ MJD, $`t_0=50,000.0`$ MJD, and $`t_0=50,600.0`$ MJD. The residual for $`t_0=50,000`$ is shown in the middle panel of figure 2. The quality of the fit is now characterized by $`\chi ^2/d.o.f.=22.6/10`$.

The size of the glitch depends strongly upon the unknown glitch epoch $`t_0`$. The fractional increase in rotation was found to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }P/P=4.2\times 10^6`$ for $`t_0=50,000.0`$ MJD (fixed) while it changes between $`\mathrm{\Delta }P/P=11\times 10^6`$ for $`t_0=49,300.0`$ MJD (fixed) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }P/P=1.8\times 10^6`$ for $`t_0=50,600.0`$ MJD (fixed). The minimum fractional increase in rotation rate is therefore comparable with those of the largest known pulsar glitches (Lyne, et al. 1996a; Shemar & Lyne 1996).

Using the above model, the recovery time following the glitch episode is found to be $`\tau =700`$ days. This duration is somewhat unusual compared to the radio pulsars whose recovery time is seen to bifurcate between $`\tau 100`$ days and $`\tau 1,000`$ days (Shemar & Lyne 1996). Our derived value lies squarely between these two time scales, perhaps due to the simple model we invoked which allows for only a single glitch. Because of the sparse data coverage between August 1993 and September 1997, however, we cannot determine if the recovery time could be expressed as the sum of the two timescales.

Glitches found in radio pulsars may be classified into three groups (Lyne & Graham-Smith 1998). The first is a Crab-like glitch which is characterized by steps mainly in $`\dot{P}`$. The second is a Vela-like glitch which is characterized by large changes in $`P`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }P/P10^6`$) and the exponential recoveries. For the Vela pulsar, linear sawtooth changes in $`\dot{P}`$ have been observed between glitches (Lyne et al. 1996b). The third kind is often found in old pulsars which is characterized by a change in $`P`$.

Since the large glitch found for AXS J161730$``$505505 is similar in its magnitude to those in the Vela pulsar, a phenomenological model taking into account the sawtooth behavior may be a good description. Apart from short term effects, the spin-down for the Vela pulsar is expressed by a linear change in spin-down rate. Therefore, the following function is appropriate if the transient effects have already ceased by MJD 50,696.

$$P(t)=P_0+\mathrm{\Delta }P_0+(\dot{P}+\mathrm{\Delta }\dot{P})(tt_0)+\frac{1}{2}\ddot{P}(tt_0)^2$$
(2)
Here, $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_0=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\dot{P}=0`$ for $`t<t_0`$ and they are constant values ($`\mathrm{\Delta }P_0<0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\dot{P}>0`$) for $`tt_0`$. This model contains six parameters. Again, the time of the glitch, $`t_0`$, had to be assumed. The derived parameters are summarized in table 3. For the condition that $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_0<0`$, $`t_0`$ was restricted to $`t_0\stackrel{<}{_{}}50,205`$. The residual for $`t_0=50,000`$ is shown in the bottom panel of figure 2. The quality of the fit is significantly improved to $`\chi ^2/d.o.f.=17.1/9`$. Compared to the fit to Equation (1), the f-test gives a chance probability of $`0.1`$. This result suggests that transient effects had indeed ceased by MJD 50,696. The reduced $`\chi ^2`$ is still larger than unity, suggesting the presence of timing noise and smaller glitches.

We can estimate the expectancy of large ($`|\mathrm{\Delta }P/P|>10^7`$) glitches by using the semi-empirical relation based upon the superfluid vortex unpinning model (Alpar & Baykal 1994). Using this relation, the expected number of large glitches between the first GINGA observation and the last ASCA observations is 3.7. Therefore, there should have been about 4 glitches of $`|\mathrm{\Delta }P/P|>10^7`$. Indeed the residuals to the fit of Equation (1) or (2) still hint a small jump of $`\mathrm{\Delta }P=5\times 10^9`$ s between MJD 51,263.8 (1999 Mar.) and MJD 51,394.2 (1999 Aug). This may be another glitch of $`\mathrm{\Delta }P/P=7\times 10^8`$, much smaller in magnitude than the one near MJD 50,000, but still relatively large compared to those seen for most radio pulsars (Shemar & Lyne 1996). We have thus found a giant glitch of $`|\mathrm{\Delta }P/P|\stackrel{>}{_{}}10^6`$ at $`t_050,000`$ MJD ($`49,218t_050,696`$) and possibly a glitch of $`|\mathrm{\Delta }P/P|7\times 10^8`$ at $`t_051,300`$ MJD ($`51,264t_051,394`$).

The detection of a giant glitch from AXS J161730$``$505505 gives a rare sample for studying the origin of pulsar glitches and the interior structure of neutron stars. In this context, regular timing observation of this pulsar in the radio band is quite important to monitor the onset of a glitch and following transient effects. Long term timing observations for measuring the braking index are desired. Searches for the highly absorbed X-ray emission from the supernova remnant associated with this pulsar should be undertaken with the next generation X-ray observatories.

Acknowledgments — We thank Jules Halpern for a critical reading of the manuscript, the referee Andrew Lyne for invaluable comments and suggestions on the original draft, and Victoria Kaspi for communicating the revised radio ephemeris. Special thanks to Alan Smale for expediting the delivery of the XTE data and to the XTEhelp@athena.gsfc.nasa.gov crew for their patience and assistance. Part of this research has made use of data obtained through the HEASARC data center, provided by NASA/GSFC. E. V. G. and G. V. acknowledge the supported of NASA LTSA grant NAG 5-7935.