format: text

text:
# Energy mechanism of charges analyzed in real current environment

Reuven Ianconescu

26 Rothenstreich Str., Tel-Aviv, Israel

r\_iancon@excite.com

L .P. Horwitz

School of Physics and Astronomy, Raymond and Beverly Sackler,

Faculty of Exact Sciences, Tel Aviv University,

Ramat Aviv 69978, Israel

larry@post.tau.ac.il

We analyze in this work the energy transfer process of accelerated charges, the mass fluctuations accompanying this process, and their inertial properties. Based on a previous work, we use here the dipole antenna, which is a very convenient framework for such analysis, for analyzing those characteristics. We show that the radiation process can be viewed by two energy transfer processes: one from the energy source to the charges and the second from the charges into the surrounding space. Those processes, not being in phase, result in mass fluctuations. The same principle is true during absorption. We show that in a transient period between absorption and radiation the dipole antenna gains mass according to the amount of absorbed energy and loses this mass as radiated energy. We rigorously prove that the gain of mass, resulting from electrical interaction has inertial properties in the sense of Newton’s third low. We arrive to this result by modeling the reacting spacetime region by an electric dipole.

Key words: radiation resistance, self force, energy transfer, charges.

PACS: 41.60.-m, 41.20.-q, 84.40.Ba

1. INTRODUCTION

The common belief that an accelerating charge always radiates energy is reviewed. There are two Lienard-Wiechert potentials: one retarded and one advanced. For reasons of causality, the advanced solution is usually disregarded. It is considered as a field which “knows” the future motion of a charged particle. But another way of interpreting the advanced field is to define it as the field which establishes the future motion of the particles.

Let us imagine a stationary charged particle, and some remote source of radiation, distributed spatially in such a way as to create radiation of the same pattern as a dipole antenna, but propagating inwards towards the particle. May such a field correspond exactly to the advanced field of one charged particle? The answer here is no, because the advanced field contains the Coulomb component, and there is no way to create a Coulomb field from a far distributed source (because of the Gauss law). In other words it is obvious that the advanced field cannot create the state of a single charged particle.

But if we modify the above question: may such a field correspond exactly to the advanced field of a neutral distribution of charged particles? Such a distribution is Coulomb free, and therefore the answer here is yes. The best example of such a charge distribution is an antenna. Also a single electric dipole is a good approximation to such a charge distribution. And one may state that as long as the advanced field does not interact with the above charge distribution, there is no charge (because the interaction domain is neutral). The charge becomes evident during the interaction. In this case one may state that the advanced field creates the charges. Or, in other words the advanced field converges into the future space-time domain of the charges, and creates a new body defined by the charge distribution.

It is to be mentioned that considering the interaction region as totally neutral before the interaction occurs, does not reduce the generality of the problem, because we assume the universe is neutral, and hence every charge in nature has its opposite sign counterpart. Therefore every space-time region is neutral on a sufficiently large scale. In this work we consider the interaction region to be large enough to validate the neutral system assumption; alternatively, we may restrict ourselves to systems which are locally neutral.

Where does this energy go now? If this charge distribution antenna is connected to a resistor which equals the radiation resistance of the antenna (i.e. impedance-matched), the energy transforms into heat. If the antenna is in open circuit (or shorted), the energy is radiated back into the space, on the same radiation pattern, and we will show that during the period of interaction, the antenna gains inertial mass.

This energy radiated back into the surrounding space will be represented by the retarded field, i.e. the field caused by the past charged distribution, or caused by the past (electric) existence of the body, as shown in Figure 1.

So interpreting the advanced field as an incoming energy (according to the definition of the advanced Green’s function), and symmetrically the retarded field as an outgoing energy, and knowing that both fields depend on acceleration of charges, we may generalize the statement: “an accelerating charge always radiates energy”, to: accelerating charges always radiate or absorb energy. There are two novel ideas here. One is that acceleration may indicate radiation or absorption, i.e. interaction , and the second is that the interaction is a collective process during which charges accumulate energy from a source and release it to a destination, and not a single charge process by which a charge “radiates its energy away”.

The known expression for the radiated power of a charged particle is $`P=2/3q^2a^\mu a_\mu `$. For an on-shell particle, $`a^\mu v_\mu 0`$, therefore we have the identity $`a^\mu a_\mu \dot{a}^\mu v_\mu `$. So the radiated power could be expressed as $`P=2/3q^2\dot{a}^\mu v_\mu `$. Interactions always occur slightly off-shell  (example: if gravitation acts like acceleration, and under the equivalence principle gravitation changes the metric, acceleration should change the metric too), so during interactions the above on-shell identity ($`a^\mu a_\mu =\dot{a}^\mu v_\mu `$) is not exactly satisfied.

One should therefore ask which one of the two expressions represents better the radiated power $`P`$? It comes out that radiated power cannot come from the charge itself, but from some source which boosted the charge (for example a charge passing through a static electric field will accelerate, by absorbing energy from the static field, and radiate it). We will show that while $`a^\mu a_\mu `$ is responsible for the radiation, $`\dot{a}^\mu v_\mu `$ is responsible for the energy absorption from the source, and therefore the difference between them, $`a^\mu a_\mu +\dot{a}^\mu v_\mu `$, represents a transient mass fluctuation.

In Section 2 we present the main results of a previous work , in which we analyzed the physical meaning of the self force on a charge which is part of a radiating antenna. This self force was associated with the radiation resistance of the antenna. We will bring here also some new insights and interpretations.

In Section 3 we develop the self force on a charge which is part of a radiating or absorbing antenna. We will show here that while for the radiating case, the self force generates the radiation resistance, for the impedance-matched absorbing antenna the self force is responsible for the dissipated heat.

In Section 4 we present an open circuit antenna which receives a short energy pulse from the surrounding space and radiates it back. We show that during the interaction process, the antenna gains an addition of inertial mass which equals the received energy, and loses the additional mass after radiation.

In Section 5, we explicitly show how the above mass gain has inertial properties.

2. SELF-FORCE ACTING AS RADIATION RESISTANCE

In a previous work  it has been shown that the so called “self force” $`F_{self}=(2/3)q^2\dot{a}`$ is responsible for the radiation resistance of an antenna. We will bring in this section, for convenience, the main results of this work, plus some new interpretations.

The following problem, of a driven short dipole antenna of length $`L`$, was formulated:

Given the fact that any time dependence can be expanded in a Fourier series of functions, we consider the harmonic time dependence, as shown in Figure 2. But the results we obtained for the fields are correct in general, and we use the harmonic dependence only when calculating the radiation resistance, which is indeed frequency dependent.

The $`z`$ dependence of the current is disregarded, the antenna being short.

It comes out therefore that the motion parameters (velocity, acceleration, and its derivative) of the charges have the form

$$v=v_0\mathrm{sin}(\omega t);a=\omega v_0\mathrm{cos}(\omega t);\dot{a}=\omega ^2v_0\mathrm{sin}(\omega t)$$
(1)
By describing the conductor as a continuum of single charges, as in Figure 3, we examined the forces on the “test charge” B, as a result of a disturbance produced on charge A. This disturbance is expressed in terms of the motion parameters of charge A, i.e. the acceleration and its derivative.

The motion parameters are connected to the current via:

$$I=v\rho =qv/\mathrm{\Delta }z$$
(2)
where $`I`$ is the electrical current and $`\rho `$ is the free charge density of the conductor. The discretization of the continuum into single charges is done by defining discrete charges of value $`q`$ at distance $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ so that $`q=\rho \mathrm{\Delta }z`$, as in Figure 3. Furthermore, the velocity of the charges in a conductor is extremely small (order of magnitude of $`10^4m/sec`$).

The result obtained for the disturbing field was (3):

$$E_z=q\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }z^2}\frac{a}{\mathrm{\Delta }z}+\frac{2}{3}\dot{a}\right)$$
(3)
It was shown  that the $`\dot{a}`$ term in (3), being in opposite phase with the velocity of the charge, and the velocity being in phase with the current, is the only term in (3) representing the damping force for the source.

The damping force is

$$F_{self}=(2/3)q^2\dot{a}$$
(4)
therefore the “self” work (or power) is

$$P_{self}=F_{self}v=(2/3)q^2\dot{a}v$$
(5)
and the radiation resistance, defined as $`\frac{P_{self}}{I^2}`$, using (1) and (2), comes out:

$$R=(2/3)(2\pi )^2(\mathrm{\Delta }z/\lambda )^2$$
(6)
The magnitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }z=L`$ represents the short dipole antenna length, and the wavelength $`\lambda =2\pi /\omega `$.

Another way to look at $`R`$ is to define the “self” voltage as an integral on the “self” field $`(2/3)q^2\dot{a}`$:

$$V_{self}=E_{self}𝑑zE_{self}\mathrm{\Delta }z=(2/3)q^2\dot{a}\mathrm{\Delta }z$$
(7)
and obtain $`R`$ as $`V_{self}/I`$.

It is remarkable that the “self force”, calculated with the micro parameters, shows up in macro to have the meaning of a damping power which is responsible for the radiation resistance.

Up to here, we have given the main results of . Let us now compare between the “self power”, which was shown to act as damping power, and the radiated power.

The power radiated by a (low velocity) charge is

$$P_{rad}=(2/3)q^2a^2$$
(8)
The “self power” equals identically $`I^2R`$, so this is the power the current source pumps. Therefore, it represents the power generated by the current source, and pumped into the charges. On the other hand, the radiated power represents the power which the charges release into space.

Using (1), we see that $`P_{self}=(2/3)q^2(\omega v_0)^2\mathrm{cos}^2(\omega t)`$ and $`P_{rad}=(2/3)q^2(\omega v_0)^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\omega t)`$. We remark that the energy over an entire cycle $`2\pi /\omega `$ of both powers is identical, so the energy is conserved in average, however there is a phase shift between them, suggesting that the charges accumulate energy, before radiating it into space.

Using (5) and (8), the power accumulated by the charges is

$$W=P_{self}P_{rad}=(2/3)q^2(a^2+\dot{a}v)=(2/3)q^2(v_0\omega )^2\mathrm{cos}(2\omega t)P_0\mathrm{cos}(2\omega t)$$
(9)
where $`P_0`$ is easily shown to be equal to $`RI_0^2`$ and is also the peak value of $`P_{self}`$ or $`P_{rad}`$ (which are equal up to a phase).

It is generally assumed that mass shell remains fixed classically, and varies only in quantum mechanics; we disagree because the on shell condition $`v^\mu v_\mu =1`$ always imposes constraints which might contradict reality. For example it imposes the constraint $`F^\mu v_\mu =0`$ for any force $`F^\mu =ma^\mu `$ in Newton’s law.

Therefore, interacting particles should not be completely on-shell , so we will interpret (9) by considering the charges slightly off-shell:

$$v^\mu v_\mu =1+v^2$$
(10)
The reason for choosing the off-shell factor $`v^2`$ will become clear later, and it is to be mentioned that $`v^21`$, as we stated already. Taking the derivative of the left side with respect to the proper time, and the derivative of the right side with respect to the time (supposing time and proper time are almost equivalent), we obtain:

$$a^\mu v_\mu =va$$
(11)
where $`a=\dot{v}`$. By taking again the derivative, we obtain:

$$\dot{a}^\mu v_\mu +a^\lambda a_\lambda =a^2+\dot{a}v$$
(12)
The relativistic expression of the self force $`F_{self}^\mu =(2/3)q^2(\dot{a}^\mu a^\lambda a_\lambda v^\mu `$), multiplied by the particle’s velocity $`v_\mu `$, results in identically $`0`$ on-shell, but in our case it gives:

$$F_{self}^\mu v_\mu =(2/3)q^2(\dot{a}^\mu v_\mu a^\lambda a_\lambda v^\mu v_\mu )(2/3)q^2(a^2+\dot{a}v)$$
(13)
The right side of (13) has been obtained using (12), and the fact that $`v1`$.

We remark that $`F_{self}^\mu v_\mu =W`$ in (9). The mass of a radiating antenna is therefore:

$$m(t)=F_{self}^\mu v_\mu 𝑑\tau (2/3)q^2(a^2+\dot{a}v)𝑑t=(2/3)q^2av+M=\frac{P_{eff}}{\omega }\mathrm{sin}(2\omega t)+M$$
(14)
where $`M`$ is the integration constant and represents the interaction-free mass of the antenna, and $`P_{eff}=P_0/2`$ represents the average radiated power.

It is obvious that the free mass is preserved in average, because we dealt here with a stationary case of harmonic signal for which energy is pumped into the charges and almost immediately radiated into the space.

The mass variation will be further examined in Section 4, for a short excitation pulse.

3. ANTENNA ABSORBING ADVANCED FIELDS AND RADIATING RETARDED FIELDS

The formulation here is quite similar to this in , and it is shown in Figure 4.

As we saw, the “self” retarded field of a charge, acting on its neighbor, generates for a radiating antenna a “self” voltage which, divided by the current results in the radiation resistance.

It is therefore natural to analyze the “self” advanced field of a charge, acting on its neighbor, for an absorbing antenna.

We therefore derive the the retarded and advance field on charge B, by the motion of the disturbed charge A.

The near field of a charge is expressed by

$$E_z=\frac{q}{[R_\mu v^\mu ]^2}_{\mathrm{𝚁𝙴𝚃}/\mathrm{𝙰𝙳𝚅}}$$
(15)
where $`R_\mu `$ is the null vector from charge A to charge B, given by

$$R_\mu =(t_A(\tau ),0,0,z_Bz_A(\tau ))$$
(16)
The null vector condition is imposed by

$$t_A^2=|z_Bz_A(t_A)|^2$$
(17)
hence

$$t_{A}^{}{}_{\mathrm{𝚁𝙴𝚃}/\mathrm{𝙰𝙳𝚅}}{}^{}=(z_Bz_A(t_A))$$
(18)
Expressing $`v_\mu =\gamma (1,0,0,v_A(\tau ))`$, knowing that $`\gamma 1`$, we may express $`R_\mu v^\mu `$ as

$$R_\mu v^\mu =(z_Bz_A)(1v_A)$$
(19)
The position $`z_A`$ of charge A may be expanded in series of $`t_A`$

$$z_A(t_A)=z_{A_0}+\frac{1}{2}at_A^2+\frac{1}{6}\dot{a}t_A^3$$
(20)
where $`z_{A_0}`$, $`a`$ and $`\dot{a}`$ are the position, acceleration and its derivative of charge A at $`t=0`$, respectively, and we chose the reference frame so that the velocity is $`0`$ at $`t=0`$.

We may calculate now $`t_A`$ which satisfies the null vector condition. By putting (20) in (18), we obtain

$$z_Bz_A(t_A)=\mathrm{\Delta }z_0\frac{1}{2}at_A^2\frac{1}{6}\dot{a}t_A^3=t_A$$
(21)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }z_0z_Bz_{A_0}`$. The the null vector condition may be rewritten as follows

$$\mathrm{\Delta }z_0\pm t_A\left(1\frac{1}{2}at_A\frac{1}{6}\dot{a}t_A^2\right)=0$$
(22)
This may be solved in first approximation by $`t_{A}^{}{}_{\mathrm{𝚁𝙴𝚃}/\mathrm{𝙰𝙳𝚅}}{}^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }z_0`$. By setting the first approximation solution into (22), we obtain the retarded/advanced solution for $`t_A`$

$$t_{A}^{}{}_{\mathrm{𝚁𝙴𝚃}/\mathrm{𝙰𝙳𝚅}}{}^{}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }z_0}{1+\frac{1}{2}a\mathrm{\Delta }z_0\frac{1}{6}\dot{a}\mathrm{\Delta }z_0^2}$$
(23)
Using (21) in (19) we obtain

$$R_\mu v^\mu =t_A(1v_A)$$
(24)
We may expand $`v_A`$:

$$v_A=at_A+\frac{1}{2}\dot{a}t_A^2$$
(25)
and obtain

$$R_\mu v^\mu =t_Aat_A^2\frac{1}{2}\dot{a}t_A^3$$
(26)
Using (23), we expand $`t_A`$, $`t_A^2`$ and $`t_A^3`$ in powers of $`\mathrm{\Delta }z_0`$, keeping terms up to $`\mathrm{\Delta }z_0^3`$:

$$t_A=\mathrm{\Delta }z_0\left(1\frac{1}{2}a\mathrm{\Delta }z_0\pm \frac{1}{6}\dot{a}\mathrm{\Delta }z_0^2+\frac{1}{4}a^2\mathrm{\Delta }z_0^2\right)$$
(27)
$$t_A^2=\mathrm{\Delta }z_0^2(1a\mathrm{\Delta }z_0)$$
(28)
$$t_A^3=\mathrm{\Delta }z_0^3$$
(29)
Setting those values into (26), we obtain

$$R_\mu v^\mu =\mathrm{\Delta }z\left(1+\frac{1}{2}a\mathrm{\Delta }z\frac{1}{3}\dot{a}\mathrm{\Delta }z^2\frac{3}{4}a^2\mathrm{\Delta }z^2\right)$$
(30)
here we replace $`\mathrm{\Delta }z_0`$ by $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$, which is the average distance between charges, as described in Figure 3.

Putting now (30) into (15), we obtain

$$E_z=q(\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }z^2}\frac{a}{\mathrm{\Delta }z}\pm \frac{2}{3}\dot{a}+\frac{9}{4}a^2)$$
(31)
Dealing with harmonic excitation, $`\dot{a}=\ddot{v}\omega ^2v`$, and $`(\dot{v})^2(\omega v)^2`$. Having $`v`$ smaller by 11 orders of magnitude than light velocity, $`\dot{v}^2`$ is completely negligible relative to $`\ddot{v}`$, for any frequency, and we obtain:

$$E_z=q\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }z^2}\frac{a}{\mathrm{\Delta }z}\pm \frac{2}{3}\dot{a}\right)$$
(32)
where the upper sign refers to retarded and the lower sign refers to advanced (compare with (3)).

The first term $`q/\mathrm{\Delta }t^2`$ is always cancelled by the force of the “other” neighbor, it therefore can be completely ignored.

The third term is identical to what is considered to be the field which creates the retarded/advanced self-force of a charge, but here it was derived as the force on a charge, due to a disturbance on a neighboring charge. As we shall see, it is the only term which responsible for the radiation/absorption resistance (which is a local phenomenon on the world line).

We will call the last 2 terms of (32) $`E_{self}`$, obtaining

$$E_{self}=q\left(\frac{a}{\mathrm{\Delta }z}\pm \frac{2}{3}\dot{a}\right)$$
(33)
The potential difference $`V`$ on a wire segment of length $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$, resulting from $`E_{self}`$, will be denoted as the “self” tension (or “self” voltage) and is calculated by

$$V=E_{self}\mathrm{\Delta }z$$
(34)
The magnitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }z=q/\rho `$ is according to the discretization of the charge distribution, so we get from (33) and (34)

$$V=\frac{q^2[2/3\ddot{v}]}{\rho }+q\dot{v}$$
(35)
According to (2)

$$\dot{v}=\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{I}{t}and\ddot{v}=\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{^2I}{t^2}$$
(36)
Dealing with harmonic excitation (see (1)) $`/t`$ is like multiplication by $`\omega `$ (up to a $`90^0`$ phase).

We therefore may write (35), using (36)

$$V=\frac{2}{3}\left(\frac{q}{\rho }\right)^2\frac{^2I}{t^2}+\frac{q}{\rho }\frac{I}{t}=\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }z^2\frac{^2I}{t^2}+\mathrm{\Delta }z\frac{I}{t}$$
(37)
The power radiated/absorbed by the segment $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }P=VI`$ and given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }P=\frac{2}{3}\frac{^2I}{t^2}I\mathrm{\Delta }z^2+\frac{I}{t}I\mathrm{\Delta }z$$
(38)
According to (1), $`\frac{^2I}{t^2}=\omega ^2I`$. The constant ratio between $`^2I/t^2`$ and $`I`$ means that the current is “in phase” with its second derivative, and therefore the first part of $`\mathrm{\Delta }P`$ in (38), integrated over time, represents radiated or absorbed energy. However, the multiplication of $`I`$ by $`I/t`$ has the form of $`\mathrm{cos}\omega (t)\mathrm{sin}\omega (t)`$ and therefore the second part of $`\mathrm{\Delta }P`$ represents a reactive power, which results in zero energy after integrating on an integer number of time cycles. The reactive power represents power which is returned to the source each time cycle. We are therefore interested in the first term of $`\mathrm{\Delta }P`$ in (38).

We therefore obtain

$$P_{selfret/adv}=\pm \frac{2}{3}\omega ^2(I\mathrm{\Delta }z)^2=(2/3)q^2\dot{a}v$$
(39)
(compare with (5)). The radiation/absorption resistance is obtained by $`P_{selfret/adv}/I^2`$ or by the first part of $`V`$ in (34) divided by the current $`I`$:

$$R_{rad/abs}=\pm (2/3)(2\pi )^2(\mathrm{\Delta }z/\lambda )^2$$
(40)
The radiation resistance is the same as in (6), and the absorption resistance is obviously its negative counterpart.

This is because a negative resistance $`R`$ through which a current $`I`$ flows is completely equivalent to a current source $`I`$ with an internal resistance $`R`$. If we connect a load resistance of the same value $`R`$ to this current source, as in the right side of Figure 4, we get an impedance-matched absorbing antenna.

We proved here that the advanced field behaves like an absorbed field, and knowing that the Poynting vector associated with the advanced field is of the same size and opposite direction as the Poynting vector associated with the retarded field, we may clearly state that the absorbed power is

$$P_{abs}=(2/3)q^2a^2$$
(41)
(compare with (8)).

From here on we may follow the same arguments from Section 2, from (8) to (14), and get the analogous results for an absorbing antenna, which are basically the results for a radiating antenna, with sign changed.

The power accumulated by the charges is

$$W=P_{selfadv}P_{abs}=(2/3)q^2(a^2+\dot{a}v)=(2/3)q^2(v_0\omega )^2\mathrm{cos}(2\omega t)P_0\mathrm{cos}(2\omega t)$$
(42)
where $`P_0`$ is the peak value of $`P_{self}`$ or $`P_{abs}`$ (which are equal up to a phase).

The mass of an absorbing antenna comes out to be

$$m(t)=F_{self}^\mu v_\mu 𝑑\tau (2/3)q^2(a^2+\dot{a}v)𝑑t=(2/3)q^2av+M=\frac{P_{eff}}{\omega }\mathrm{sin}(2\omega t)+M$$
(43)
where $`M`$ is the interaction-free mass of the antenna, and $`P_{eff}=P_0/2`$ represents the average absorbed power.

We see that the mass of an antenna is expressed via the integral on the self force of its off-shell charges $`m(t)=F_{self}^\mu v_\mu 𝑑\tau `$, and the difference between the radiating and absorbing cases is the sign. This sign difference is associated with the fact that $`F_{selfadv}^\mu =F_{selfret}^\mu `$.

4. THE TRANSIENT FROM ABSORPTION TO RADIATION

We saw in the Sections 2 and 3 that the mass of an antenna radiating or absorbing an harmonic signal, oscillates harmonically at twice the radiating/absorbing frequency.

The harmonic signal has no local time properties, hence the above results cannot describe transients between emission and absorption.

We analyze here the case of an antenna of whose discretized charges have a constant acceleration $`a_z`$ for a short period of time $`2\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. As we saw in Section 3, acceleration can indicate radiation or absorption, so we will consider the case for which in the first half of the acceleration duration (time from $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ to $`0`$) there is absorption, and in the second half of the acceleration duration (time from $`0`$ to $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$) there is radiation.

The retarded/advance field due to a discretized charge in Figure 3 at the location of its neighbor is given by the last 2 terms in (32):

$$E_z=q\left(\frac{a}{\mathrm{\Delta }z}\pm \frac{2}{3}\dot{a}\right)$$
(44)
where the upper sign refers to retarded and the lower sign refers to advanced, and the first term in (32) $`q/\mathrm{\Delta }t^2`$ is always cancelled by the force of the “other” neighbor.

The force on the neighbor charge $`q_1`$ will therefore be

$$F_z=q_1E_z=q_1q\left(\frac{a}{\mathrm{\Delta }z}\pm \frac{2}{3}\dot{a}\right)=\frac{q_1q}{\mathrm{\Delta }z}a\left(1(2/3)\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\mathrm{\Delta }z\right)Ma\left(1(2/3)\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\mathrm{\Delta }z\right)$$
(45)
where the lower sign refers to the absorption time interval ($`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ to $`0`$), and the upper sign to the radiation time interval ($`0`$ to $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$).

Here we defined the mass $`M`$ as minus the product of two neighboring charges over the distance between them. We shall see in Section 5 that such a configuration of a pair of charges has inertial properties of magnitude $`q_1q/\mathrm{\Delta }z`$, hence when the charges are opposite in sign they behave like a positive mass, and vice versa.

Actually our model in Figure 3 considered equal (free) charges in a conductor, but we know that for each negative charge there is a positive counterpart, so we will consider for now $`M`$ in (45) as positive: $`Mq^2/\mathrm{\Delta }z`$.

According to (45), the dynamic mass is

$$m(t)=M\left(1(2/3)\frac{\dot{a}(t)}{a(t)}\mathrm{\Delta }z\right)$$
(46)
We want to investigate the behavior of the dynamic mass change during the interaction, i.e. from time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ to $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }t<t<0`$, an absorption occurs, therefore the lower sign has to be used, and for $`0<t<\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, the upper sign has to be used.

A fixed acceleration $`a_z`$ means that if we go to the rest frame of the particle by Lorentz transformation at any proper time, and measure the acceleration in this frame, we always get the same result $`a_z`$. Under this definition, $`\dot{a}`$ is not identically $`0`$. A fixed accelerated motion, in the $`z`$ direction may be parametrized in the following way:

$`v^\mu (\tau )=(\mathrm{cosh}(a_z\tau ),0,0,\mathrm{sinh}(a_z\tau ))`$ (47)
$`a^\mu (\tau )=a_z(\mathrm{sinh}(a_z\tau ),0,0,\mathrm{cosh}(a_z\tau ))`$ (48)
$`\dot{a}^\mu (\tau )=a_z^2(\mathrm{cosh}(a_z\tau ),0,0,\mathrm{sinh}(a_z\tau ))`$ (49)
where the components of the 4-vectors are $`(t,x,y,z)`$.

This low order approximation maintains the mass shell constraint  $`v^\mu v_\mu =1`$, neglecting the $`v^2`$ correction noted in (10). But we shall see below, that this off-shell term will reappear.

In the framework of a conductor, we showed  that the velocity of the charges is of order of magnitude of $`10^4m/sec`$, hence $`v1`$, so we have to use the limit of (47)-(49) around the apex, up to first order in $`\tau `$ (note that for $`v1`$, $`t\tau `$)

$`v^\mu (\tau )(1,0,0,a_zt)`$ (50)
$`a^\mu (\tau )a_z(a_zt,0,0,1)`$ (51)
$`\dot{a}^\mu (\tau )a_z^2(1,0,0,a_zt)`$ (52)
We remark that (50)-(52) satisfy the off-shell condition $`v^\mu v_\mu =1+v^2`$ defined in (10).

We divide now the $`z`$ component of $`\dot{a}^\mu `$, by the $`z`$ component of $`a^\mu `$, to set it in (46), and get for the absorption period $`\mathrm{\Delta }t<t<0`$

$$m(t)=M(1+(2/3)a_z^2t\mathrm{\Delta }z);\mathrm{\Delta }t<t<0$$
(53)
and for the radiation period $`0<t<\mathrm{\Delta }t`$

$$m(t)=M(1(2/3)a_z^2t\mathrm{\Delta }z);0<t<\mathrm{\Delta }t$$
(54)
During the absorption period, there is a mass gain of $`(2/3)Ma_z^2t\mathrm{\Delta }z`$, and using $`M=q^2/\mathrm{\Delta }z`$, the mass gain is

$$m(0)m(\mathrm{\Delta }t)=(2/3)q^2a_z^2\mathrm{\Delta }tP_{absorbed}\mathrm{\Delta }t$$
(55)
and similarly, during the radiation period there is a mass loss, resulting in a negative mass gain:

$$m(\mathrm{\Delta }t)m(0)=(2/3)q^2a_z^2\mathrm{\Delta }tP_{radiated}\mathrm{\Delta }t$$
(56)
We recognize in the expressions for the gain and lost of mass, the absorbed and radiated energies, respectively, exhibiting energy conservation.

5. INERTIAL BEHAVIOR OF CHARGES

The analysis, done up to this point, was based on the discretization of an antenna into equally spaced charges, attributing to a given charge micro parameters ($`v`$, $`a`$, $`\dot{a}`$), connected to the antenna macro parameters, like $`I`$ and $`V`$. We eventually considered for a short antenna, the distance between 2 charges $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$, as a representative length of the antenna.

With the aid of this model, we have succeeded to prove that the retarded field behaves like a radiated field and the advanced field behaves like an absorbed field. We have shown that during radiation or absorption the mass of the antenna (defined as $`Mq^2/\mathrm{\Delta }z`$), oscillates at twice the frequency.

When the antenna absorbs an energy pulse, the mass increases according to the absorbed energy, and during the re-radiation of the pulse, the mass decreases.

In the current section we wish to make a rigorous analysis to show that an electrically reacting spacetime region has inertial properties. We model this reacting spacetime region by an ideal electric dipole. We define here an ideal dipole, as two equal and opposite charges at a distance $`d`$, so that for any possible acceleration $`a`$ of this system:

$$ad0$$
(57)
Note that $`ad`$ is unitless, therefore condition (57) is well defined. It means that the distance between the charges is short enough for the largest possible acceleration that may be considered.

The formulation is based on Figure 5

In Figure 5 the charges appear as $`q_1`$ $`q_2`$ but we will be eventually interested in the case of $`q=q_1=q_2`$. The charges are bound, and they move together on the $`z`$ axis.

We calculate the field on $`q_2`$, caused by $`q_1`$, in an inertial system in which $`q_2`$ is at rest.

The most general expression for the electromagnetic tensor of a moving charge $`q`$ is given by

$$F^{\mu \nu }=\pm \frac{q}{R^\sigma v_\sigma }\frac{d}{d\tau }\left(\frac{R^\mu v^\nu R^\nu v^\mu }{R^\sigma v_\sigma }\right)$$
(58)
where $`\pm `$ refer to retarded and advanced respectively, $`R^\mu (\tau )X^\mu Z^\mu (\tau )`$, $`X^\mu `$ being the observation point and $`Z^\mu (\tau )`$ the particle’s world line. Expression (58) is calculated at $`\tau `$ which satisfies

$$R^\sigma R_\sigma =0$$
(59)
Equation (59) has always two solutions for $`\tau `$, the earlier corresponds to retarded and the later to advanced.

The values we shall set in (58) for a constant acceleration $`a_z`$ along the $`z`$ axis are

$$Z^\mu =a_z^1(\mathrm{sinh}(a_z\tau ),0,0,\mathrm{cosh}(a_z\tau ))$$
(60)
$$X^\mu =(0,d,0,a_z^1)$$
(61)
because the observation point is defined as the location of $`q_2`$ when it is at rest, i.e. at the apex of the hyperbola.

$$v^\mu =(\mathrm{cosh}(a_z\tau ),0,0,\mathrm{sinh}(a_z\tau ))$$
(62)
therefore

$$R^\mu =a_z^1(\mathrm{sinh}(a_z\tau ),d,0,1\mathrm{cosh}(a_z\tau ))$$
(63)
We obtain for the tensor $`R^\mu v^\nu `$

$$R^\mu v^\nu =\left(\begin{array}{cccc}a_z^1\mathrm{sinh}(a_z\tau )\mathrm{cosh}(a_z\tau )\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & a_z^1\mathrm{sinh}^2(a_z\tau )\hfill \\ d\mathrm{cosh}(a_z\tau )\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & d\mathrm{sinh}(a_z\tau )\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ a_z^1(1\mathrm{cosh}(a_z\tau ))\mathrm{cosh}(a_z\tau )\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & a_z^1(1\mathrm{cosh}(a_z\tau ))\mathrm{sinh}(a_z\tau )\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(64)
The tensor $`R^\nu v^\mu `$ is the transpose of (64), so we obtain for $`R^\mu v^\nu R^\nu v^\mu `$

$$R^\mu v^\nu R^\nu v^\mu =\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0\hfill & d\mathrm{cosh}(a_z\tau )\hfill & 0\hfill & a_z^1(1\mathrm{cosh}(a_z\tau ))\hfill \\ d\mathrm{cosh}(a_z\tau )\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & d\mathrm{sinh}(a_z\tau )\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ a_z^1(1\mathrm{cosh}(a_z\tau ))\hfill & d\mathrm{sinh}(a_z\tau )\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(65)
The scalar $`R^\sigma v_\sigma `$ is

$$R^\sigma v_\sigma =a_z^1\mathrm{sinh}(a_z\tau )$$
(66)
Dividing (65) by (66) and taking the derivative with respect to $`\tau `$, we obtain

$$\frac{d}{d\tau }\frac{R^\mu v^\nu R^\nu v^\mu }{R^\sigma v_\sigma }=a_z\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0\hfill & \frac{da_z}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(a_z\tau )}\hfill & 0\hfill & \frac{1}{2\mathrm{cosh}^2(\frac{a_z\tau }{2})}\hfill \\ \frac{da_z}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(a_z\tau )}\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2\mathrm{cosh}^2(\frac{a_z\tau }{2})}\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(67)
So we obtain the EM field tensor

$$F^{\mu \nu }=\pm \frac{q_1a_z^2}{\mathrm{sinh}(a_z\tau )}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0\hfill & \frac{da_z}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(a_z\tau )}\hfill & 0\hfill & \frac{1}{2\mathrm{cosh}^2(\frac{a_z\tau }{2})}\hfill \\ \frac{da_z}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(a_z\tau )}\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2\mathrm{cosh}^2(\frac{a_z\tau }{2})}\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(68)
and by using the equality $`\mathrm{sinh}(x)2\mathrm{cosh}(x/2)\mathrm{sinh}(x/2)`$ we may simplify it to

$$F^{\mu \nu }=\frac{q_1a_z^2}{\mathrm{sinh}(a_z\tau )2\mathrm{cosh}^2(\frac{a_z\tau }{2})}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0\hfill & \frac{da_z}{2\mathrm{sinh}^2(\frac{a_z\tau }{2})}\hfill & 0\hfill & 1\hfill \\ \frac{da_z}{2\mathrm{sinh}^2(\frac{a_z\tau }{2})}\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 1\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(69)
Now we have to find $`\tau `$ which satisfies (59)

$$R^\sigma R_\sigma =d^2+2a_z^2(1\mathrm{cosh}(a_z\tau ))=0$$
(70)
By using the equality $`\mathrm{cosh}(x)12\mathrm{sinh}^2(x/2)`$ we find that $`\mathrm{sinh}^2(a_z\tau /2)=(da_z)^2/4`$, and $`\tau `$ is found by solving (70) for $`\mathrm{sinh}(a_z\tau )`$

$$\mathrm{sinh}(a_z\tau _{\mathrm{𝚁𝙴𝚃}/\mathrm{𝙰𝙳𝚅}})=da_z\sqrt{1+\left(\frac{da_z}{2}\right)^2}$$
(71)
We remark that both retarded and advanced fields are identical for our case, because by setting (71) in (69), the signs cancel.

We obtain, from these results, the EM tensor field

$$F^{\mu \nu }=\frac{q_1a_z}{2d\left[1+\left(\frac{da_z}{2}\right)^2\right]^{3/2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0\hfill & \frac{2}{da_z}\hfill & 0\hfill & 1\hfill \\ \frac{2}{da_z}\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 1\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(72)
We calculate now the 4-force on the charge $`q_2`$. The velocity $`v`$ of charge $`q_2`$ is zero in our reference frame, as we defined before, so the 4-velocity $`v^\mu `$ is $`(1,0,0,0)`$. The force on $`q_2`$ is then

$$f_2^\nu =q_2v_\mu F^{\mu \nu }=\frac{q_1q_2a_z}{2d\left[1+\left(\frac{da_z}{2}\right)^2\right]^{3/2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0\hfill & \frac{2}{da_z}\hfill & 0\hfill & 1\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(73)
Similarly if we calculate the force on the charge $`q_1`$, caused by $`q_2`$, we just have to reverse the $`x`$ axis, so we obtain

$$f_1^\nu =\frac{q_1q_2a_z}{2d\left[1+\left(\frac{da_z}{2}\right)^2\right]^{3/2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0\hfill & \frac{2}{da_z}\hfill & 0\hfill & 1\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(74)
The force on the whole system is therefore

$$f^\nu =f_1^\nu +f_2^\nu =\frac{q_1q_2a_z}{d\left[1+\left(\frac{da_z}{2}\right)^2\right]^{3/2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 1\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(75)
The only component of the force is in the direction of the acceleration $`z`$

$$f_z=\frac{q_1q_2a_z}{d\left[1+\left(\frac{da_z}{2}\right)^2\right]^{3/2}}$$
(76)
For an ideal dipole, according to (57), $`da_z0`$, and the force is proportional to the acceleration:

$$f_z=\frac{q_1q_2a_z}{d}Ma_z$$
(77)
We defined here $`Mq_1q_2/d`$, and dealing with $`q=q_1=q_2`$, $`M`$ comes out $`q^2/d`$ and is a positive quantity.

We remark that the configuration defined in Figure 5 cannot radiate, and we see that it behaves like a simple constant mass. That is why we did not have to bother whether to use retarded or advanced field, and both fields gave the same result (see remark after (71)). Another way of understanding this is by the fact that $`F_{self}^\mu =(2/3)q^2(\dot{a}^\mu a^\lambda a_\lambda v^\mu )0`$ for the world line described in (60).

Now, does this mass represent inertia? Yes, because if some obstacle is put in the way of the accelerating body, this obstacle will “feel” the force $`F=Ma_z`$, exactly as it will feel it for any non-electrical body of mass M. The obstacle will be hit by an accelerating body, and will absorb the force $`a_zq^2/d`$, hence the dipole has inertial properties of magnitude $`q^2/d`$.

However, the problem as exposed above, describing an accelerating dipole is not completely defined, because we must say what caused it to accelerate. But we can look at it from a different point of view: suppose we observed a static dipole from a frame accelerating in the $`z`$ direction.

Any mass $`M`$ that we observe from an accelerating system will appear to us as being driven by an imaginary force (we call it imaginary aposteriori, knowing we are not in an inertial system, but we observe it as a real force). In other words, if the dipole would not have EM mass, we would not have observed the force. And again, we can measure this mass by dividing the imaginary force $`F`$, in our case $`a_zq^2/d`$ by the acceleration $`a_z`$, and obtain $`M=q^2/d`$.

6. DISCUSSION

The purpose of this work was to clarify the energy transfer process between charged bodies and the world surrounding them.

We showed here that the “self” retarded field of a charge, acting on its neighbor, generates for a radiating antenna a “self” voltage which, divided by the current results in the radiation resistance ($`R`$), and similarly the “self” advanced field of a charge, acting on its neighbor, generates for an absorbing matched antenna a “self” voltage which, divided by the current results in minus the radiation resistance ($`R`$), i.e. acts like current source with internal resistance $`R`$.

We showed also that the radiation process of an antenna consists of two energy transfer processes: energy transfer from the current source to the charges (expressed by $`2/3q^2\dot{a}^\mu v_\mu `$), and energy transfer from the charges to the surrounding space (expressed by $`2/3q^2a^\mu a_\mu `$). Those two processes are not in phase, and therefore the mass of the antenna fluctuates at twice the radiation frequency.

Similarly, the absorption process of an antenna consists of two energy transfer processes: energy transfer from the surrounding space to the charges, and energy transfer from the charges to the resistive absorber. In this case the mass of the antenna fluctuates at twice the absorption frequency, too.

In a transient period between absorption and radiation, we found out that during absorption the mass of the antenna increases by the amount of energy absorbed, and during the radiation period the mass of the antenna decreases by the amount of energy radiated.

Another interesting conclusion is that bound charges, always appearing in nature as dipoles, are a manifestation of energy (inertia).

In a philosophical way, one may say that charge itself can be considered as a manifestation of the interaction process. This may be understood in the following way. From a macroscopic point of view, an antenna is completely neutral in the absence of interaction. The charges of course exist all the time, but they annihilate each other. During the interaction, the charges form dipoles, and appear as mass fluctuations.


text:
# Entanglement, local measurements, and symmetry

## I Introduction

Celebrating the Centenary of Eugene Paul Wigner, one cannot but reward Wigner’s approach to quantum mechanics that has been formulated in his famous papers (Wigner 1931, Wigner, 1939). According to this approach, the general properties of a quantum mechanical system are specified by the dynamical symmetry of the corresponding Hilbert space. For years, the approach has been used in quantum mechanics and quantum field theory and has demonstrated an ”unexpected efficiency” (Wigner 1967). The main aim of this paper is to apply Wigner’s approach to the investigation of the phenomenon of quantum entanglement.

It has been recognized that the notion of entanglement has a deep conceptual meaning, touching on the problems of locality and reality in quantum mechanics. At the same time, entanglement is considered to be a base of quantum computing, communications, and cryptography (see: Bowmeester et al 2000 and Tombesi and Hirota 2001 and references therein). In spite of a great success in engineered entanglement (for a recent review, see: Zeilinger 1999, Raimond et al 2001, Gisin et al 2002), there is still no agreement of opinion among the experts on the very definition of entanglement and its proper measure (e.g., see: Peres 1998, Verdal and Plenio 1998, Brukner et al 2001).

In the usual treatment, the entanglement is associated with nonseparability of corresponding states. It should be stressed that the nonseparability is not a sufficient condition of maximum entanglement, and probably of the entanglement at all (Horodecki et al 1998).

It has been shown recently (Can et al 2002 (a)) that the entangled states of physical systems obey a certain condition, viz the local measurements have the maximum uncertainty in comparison with the other states allowed for a system under consideration. This condition can be used as an operational definition of maximum entanglement (definition in terms of what can be measured). At the same time, there is an adequate mathematics hidden behind this physical definition that has been unveiled recently (Klyachko 2002).

Let us note first that this novel definition has a deep physical meaning. One can choose to interpret the entangled state shared between Alice and Bob as a quantum communication channel, in which the information is carried mostly by the correlations between the sides of the channel (Brukner et al 2001). These correlations manifest themselves in terms of local measurements performed at the ends of the channel and the maximum correlation corresponds to the maximum uncertainty of local measurements (Klyachko and Shumovsky 2002).

We now note that the set of possible independent measurements for a given system is specified by the symmetry properties of the Hilbert space, corresponding to this physical system. Beginning with this fact, reflecting the key idea of Wigner’s approach, it is possible to examine the notion of entanglement in terms of the geometric invariant theory (Klyachko 2002) (for references on geometric invariant theory see Mumford et al 1994).

In this paper we continue the discussion of the new definition of maximum entanglement and consider a number of physical examples.

The paper is arranged as follows. In section II, wee consider the definition of entangled states in terms of the maximum uncertainty of local measurements. This definition is illustrated by a number of examples involving the two- and three-qubit systems. In section III, we show that the above definition of entanglement can also be expressed in terms of a certain property of the matrix of coefficients, specifying the entangled state. Viz, the parallel slices of this matrix should be orthogonal and should have the same measure. In section IV, we consider a realization of long-lived, easy monitored entanglement in a system of three-level $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-type atoms. Finally, in section V we briefly discuss the obtained results and their implementation.

## II Definition of entanglement

In the usual treatment, the entanglement is associated with the states of the composite systems. Consider a composite system defined in the Hilbert space

$`={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{N}{}}}_{\mathrm{}},`$ (1)
where $`N2`$ is the number of components and each component has the dimension $`n_{\mathrm{}}`$ (the number of independent quantum degrees of freedom). Then, the dynamic symmetry group, corresponding to a component, is

$`G_{\mathrm{}}=SU(n_{\mathrm{}}).`$ (2)
An example of some considerable interest is provided by the $`N`$-qubit system, consisting of the spin-$`1/2`$ particles. In this case, for all $`\mathrm{}`$, $`n_{\mathrm{}}=2`$ and $`G_{\mathrm{}}=SU(2)`$.

The local measurements, providing the information about entanglement, are defined by the observables $`g_{\mathrm{}}`$ from the Lie algebra $`LieG_{\mathrm{}}`$ of the dynamic symmetry group $`G_{\mathrm{}}`$ (2).

Assume that $`g_{\mathrm{}}LieG\mathrm{}`$ is a local measurement that gives the spin projection on a given axis. Then, the result of the local measurements is specified by the expectation values

$`g_{\mathrm{}}=\psi |g_{\mathrm{}}|\psi `$ (3)
and by the variances

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }g_{\mathrm{}})^2=\psi |(g_{\mathrm{}})^2|\psi \psi |g_{\mathrm{}}|\psi ^2,`$ (4)
determining the quantum error of measurements. Here $`|\psi `$ denotes a state in (1).

Consider the variance (4). First of all, it is well known that

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }g_{\mathrm{}})^20`$ (5)
for all $`|\psi `$. Then, the operators $`(g_{\mathrm{}})^2`$ always have diagonal form and eigenvalues that can be equal only to $`1`$ and $`0`$ (Serre 1992). Therefore, the maximum uncertainty of a local measurement is achieved when the second term in (4), corresponding to the squared expectation value (3), is equal to zero. It is clear that this condition requires a special choice of the state $`|\psi `$.

Following our previous discussions (Can et al 2002 (a), Klyachko and Shumovsky 2002, Klyachko 2002), let us define the maximum entangled state in (1) by the condition

$`\mathrm{}g_{\mathrm{}}=0,g_{\mathrm{}}LieG_{\mathrm{}}`$ (6)
This means that the perfect entanglement of a composite system provides the maximum uncertainty of all local measurements performed over all components. In other words, the maximum entanglement corresponds to a state, in which all projections of the spin are equal to zero.

Before we begin to discuss this definition in details, let us note that the coherent states of photons are widely used for decades in quantum optics. It is interesting that these states can also be defined in terms of the dynamic symmetry approach (Perelomov 1986). According to Perelomov’s analysis, the coherent states provide the minimum uncertainty of local measurements. That is why the coherent states are usually considered as almost classical states.

It is clear that the maximum entangled states defined in terms of condition (5) represent the very reverse case with respect to the coherent states. Thus, the perfect entangled states, corresponding to the maximum uncertainty of local measurements, should be considered as the fundamentally quantum states.

Let us return to the example of $`N`$-qubit system. Then, each subspace in (1) is spanned by the two vectors

$`e_{\mathrm{}}^{(1)}=|+_{\mathrm{}},e_{\mathrm{}}^{(2)}=|_{\mathrm{}},`$ (7)
where $`|\pm _{\mathrm{}}`$ denotes the spin-up and spin-down states of the $`\mathrm{}`$-th spin, respectively. The physical realization of ”spin” variable can be chosen differently. For example, it can be polarization of photons or state of a two-level atom. In this local basis, the infinitesimal generators of the $`SU(2)`$ group have the following form

$`\begin{array}{cc}\sigma _{\mathrm{}}^x=\hfill & |+_{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}|+|_{\mathrm{}}+_{\mathrm{}}|,\hfill \\ \sigma _{\mathrm{}}^y=\hfill & i|+_{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}|+i|_{\mathrm{}}+_{\mathrm{}}|,\hfill \\ \sigma _{\mathrm{}}^z=\hfill & |+_{\mathrm{}}+_{\mathrm{}}||_{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}|,\hfill \end{array}`$ (11)
so that

$`\mathrm{}j=x,y,z(\sigma _{\mathrm{}}^j)^2=\mathrm{𝟏},`$ (12)
where $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is the unit operator.

Consider the simplest case of only two components ($`N=2`$). Then, the Hilbert space (1) is spanned by the four base vectors

$`|\psi _{ik}=e_1^{(i)}e_2^{(k)},i,k=1,2.`$ (13)
Any state in such a space can be represented as follows

$`|\psi ={\displaystyle \underset{i,k=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\psi _{ik}|\psi _{ik},`$ (14)
where the complex coefficients $`\psi _{ik}`$ obey the standard normalization condition

$`|\psi _{11}|^2+|\psi _{12}|^2+|\psi _{21}|^2+|\psi _{22}|^2=1.`$ (15)
Employing the definition (5) with the measurements defined by (6) then gives the following set of six equations

$`\{\begin{array}{c}Re(\psi _{11}\psi _{21}^{}+\psi _{12}\psi _{22}^{})=0\hfill \\ Im(\psi _{11}\psi _{21}^{}+\psi _{12}\psi _{22}^{})=0\hfill \\ Re(\psi _{11}\psi _{12}^{}+\psi _{22}\psi _{21}^{})=0\hfill \\ Im(\psi _{11}\psi _{12}^{}+\psi _{21}\psi _{22}^{})=0\hfill \\ |\psi _{11}|^2+|\psi _{12}|^2|\psi _{21}|^2|\psi _{22}|^2=0\hfill \\ |\psi _{11}|^2|\psi _{12}|^2+|\psi _{21}|^2|\psi _{22}|^2=0\hfill \end{array}`$ (22)
Thus, the state (7) is characterized by eight real coefficients (absolute values and phases of $`\psi _{ij}`$), while the normalization condition (8) together with conditions (9) give only seven equations. Since one parameter remains free, there are infinitely many maximum entangled states in the 2-qubit system.

In general, a state of $`N`$-qubit system is specified by $`2^{N+1}`$ real parameters, while conditions (5) together with normalization condition give only $`(3N+1)`$ equations. Thus, there are infinitely many maximum entangled states in an arbitrary $`N`$-qubit composite system ($`N2`$).

It follows from the normalization condition (8) and Eqs. (9) that

$`\{\begin{array}{c}|\psi _{22}|=|\psi _{11}|\hfill \\ |\psi _{21}|=|\psi _{12}|\hfill \\ |\psi _{11}|^2+|\psi _{12}|^2=1/2\hfill \\ \mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\varphi _{11}+\varphi _{22}\varphi _{12}\varphi _{21}}{2}\right)=0\hfill \end{array}`$ (27)
where $`\varphi _{ik}\mathrm{arg}\psi _{ik}`$. Consider some realization of Eqs. (10). It is easily seen that the choice of either $`|\psi _{11}|=0`$ or $`|\psi _{12}|=0`$ leads to 1the conventional Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) and Bell states

$`\begin{array}{ccc}|\psi _{EPR}\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|+_1_2\pm |_1+_2),\hfill \\ |\psi _{Bell}\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|+_1+_2\pm |_1_2),\hfill \end{array}`$ (30)
respectively. The states (11) form a basis in the four-dimensional Hilbert space. Let us stress that each state in (11) contains only two base vectors $`|\psi _{ij}`$ out of four. The conditions (10) permit us to construct the maximum entangled states containing all four base vectors. For example

$`|\psi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|+_1+_1+i|+_1_2+i|_1+_2+|_1_2`$ (31)
is the maximum entangled two-qubit state.

Let us stress that, from the mathematical point of view, there is only one maximum entangled state of the two-qubit system, viz the EPR state. All other maximum entangled states defined by the conditions (10) are equivalent to the EPR state to within the action of the dynamic symmetry group. At the same time, these states can be different from the physical point of view because they are realized under different conditions caused by the physical environment of the system.

We now note that Eqs. (9) can be obtained in a different way. Let us note that the coefficients $`\psi _{ij}`$ in (7) form a $`(2\times 2)`$ matrix $`[\psi ]`$. Then, it is easily seen that the above equations express the orthogonality conditions for the parallel rows and columns of this matrix $`[\psi ]`$ and the condition that different rows and columns have the same norm. The generalization of this result is discussed in the next section.

Consider now another example of some considerable importance provided by the three-qubit states. The simplest case is represented by the Grinberger-Horn-Zeilinger (GHZ) states

$`|\psi _{GHZ}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|+_1+_2+_3\pm |_1_2_3).`$ (32)
The general three-qubit state has the following form

$`|\psi ={\displaystyle \underset{i,k,m}{}}\psi _{ikm}e_1^{(i)}e_2^{(k)}e_3^{(m)},i,k.m=1,2,`$ (33)
where $`e_{\mathrm{}}^{(i)}`$ are the same base vectors as above and the coefficients $`\psi _{ikm}`$ obey the normalization condition

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i,k,m}{}}|\psi _{ikm}|^2=1.`$ (34)
In this case, the $`(2\times 3)`$ matrix $`[\psi ]`$ is specified by eight complex or sixteen real parameter. In turn, the conditions (5) together with (15) give only ten equations. Thus, there is infinitely many maximum entangled three-qubit states.

Through the use of definition (5) with Pauli operators (6), we can get a number of restrictions on the coefficients $`\{\psi _{ikm}\}`$, providing the entanglement in (14). Leaving aside the general case, we restrict our consideration by the two examples. Consider first the state

$`|\psi _1=\psi _{111}|+_1+_2+_3+\psi _{121}|+_1_2+_3+\psi _{222}|_1_2_3.`$ (35)
Clearly, this is a nonseparable space in (1) and thus it can be considered as a candidate for entangled state. Then, the use of the definition (5) gives

$`\{\begin{array}{ccc}|\psi _{111}||\psi _{121}|\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _{111}\varphi _{121})\hfill & =\hfill & 0\hfill \\ |\psi _{111}||\psi _{121}|\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _{111}\varphi _{121})\hfill & =\hfill & 0\hfill \\ |\psi _{111}|^2+|\psi _{121}|^2|\psi _{222}|^2\hfill & =\hfill & 0\hfill \\ |\psi _{111}|^2|\psi _{121}|^2|\psi _{222}|^2\hfill & =\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}`$ (40)
where $`\varphi _{ikm}`$ again denotes the phase of the complex coefficients. It is seen that the only solution of these equations is

$`|\psi _{111}|=|\psi _{222}|={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}},|\psi _{121}|=0.`$ (41)
This solution reduces the state (16) to one of the GHZ states (13) that definitely obey the definition of entanglement in terms of the maximum uncertainty of local measurements (see Can et al 2002 (a)). At any $`|\psi _{121}|0`$, the nonseparable state (16) does not manifest entanglement. It should be stressed in this connection that the nonseparability by itself is not a sufficient condition of entanglement (Horodecki et al 1998).

Consider now another, more symmetric realization of the three-qubit state (14)

$`|\psi _2=\psi _{111}|+_1+_2+_3+\psi _{121}|+_1_2+_3+\psi _{212}|_1+_2_3+\psi _{222}|_1_2_3.`$ (42)
Through the use of definition (5) and normalization (15) we can obtain the set of ten equations that can be reduced to the following conditions

$`|\psi _{111}|^2+|\psi _{121}|^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},`$ (43)
$`|\psi _{222}|=|\psi _{111}|,`$ (44)
$`|\psi _{212}|=|\psi _{121}|,`$ (45)
$`\varphi _{111}\varphi _{121}\varphi _{212}+\varphi _{222}=\pm \pi +2n\pi .`$ (46)
In contrast to the GHZ states (13), the coefficients here do not have fixed values but lie on a circle of radius $`1/2`$. Again, the state (18) is equivalent to the GHZ state (13) to within the action of the dynamic symmetry group $`SU(2)\times SU(2)\times SU(2)`$. The conditions (5) can also be used to construct the basis of eight three-qubit maximum entangled states.

## III Maximum entanglement and the matrix of coefficients in (7)

The maximum entanglement of a nonseparable state is usually defined in terms of the reduced density matrix. Viz, the reduced entropy should have the maximum value, same for all components of the composite system (e.g., see Scully and Zubairy 1997). It is then a straightforward matter to show that tis condition follows from the definition of entanglement in terms of local measurements (5).

Let us now note that the scheme that has been discussed in the previous section can be reformulated through the use of the properties of the matrix of coefficients $`[\psi ]`$. It was shown in previous section that, in the case of two-qubit system, this matrix obey a certain condition. Consider now the generalization of this result.

Let the factor spaces in the Hilbert space (1) be spanned by the orthonormal bases $`\{e_{\mathrm{}}^{(i)}\}`$. Then, a state of a composite system defined in (1) can be described by the normalized state vector of the form

$`|\psi ={\displaystyle \psi _{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_N}e_1^{(i_1)}\mathrm{}e_N^{(i_N)}}.`$ (47)
The results of the previous section show us that the entanglement of the state (19) is specified by a certain choice of the many-dimensional matrix $`[\psi ]`$ of the coefficients in (19).

It has been proven (Klyachko 2002) that the state $`|\psi `$ manifests the maximum entanglement if and only if parallel slices of its matrix $`[\psi ]`$ are orthogonal and have the same norm. (About parallel slices of multidimensional matrices see Gelfand et al 1994. In the simplest case of two-qubit system considered in the previous section, the parallel slices are represented by rows and columns of the $`(2\times 2)`$ matrix $`[\psi ]`$. In the case of three-qubit system, this is a $`(2\times 3)`$ matrix.)

This general statement can be illustrated in the simplest case by the state (12) whose matrix of coefficients has the form

$`[\psi ]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1/2& i/2\\ i/2& 1/2\end{array}\right].`$ (50)
It is clear that

$`[1/2i/2]\left[\begin{array}{c}i/2\\ 1/2\end{array}\right]=0,`$ (53)
so that the parallel slices are orthogonal. In turn

$`[1/2i/2]=[i/21/2]=1/\sqrt{2}.`$ (54)
The fact that (12) represents the maximum entangled state can also be verified through the calculation of reduced entropies. It is straightforward to show that, in the case of state (12)

$`S_1=S_2=\mathrm{ln}2,`$ (55)
as all one can expect for the maximum entangled two-qubit state (Scully and Zubairy 1997). Here

$`S_k=Tr_{ik}(\rho \mathrm{ln}\rho ),\rho =|\psi \psi |`$ (56)
is the reduced entropy. The above condition of maximum entanglement together with the Eqs. (10) permits us to construct another maximum entangled two-qubit states that involve all four base vectors $`\{e_{ell}^{(1)},e_{\mathrm{}}^{(2)}\}`$ at $`\mathrm{}=1,2`$. For example, the states

$`|\psi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|+_1+_2i|+_1_2+i|_1+_2|_1_2),`$ (57)
$`|\psi ^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(i|+_1+_2+|+_1_2+|_1+_2+i|_1_2),`$ (58)
$`|\psi ^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(i|+_1+_2+|+_1_2|_1+_2+i|_1_2)`$ (59)
are the maximum entangled two-qubit states, forming together with (12) an orthonormal basis in the Hilbert space (1) (Can et al 2002 (a)). This basis is equivalent to (11) to within the action of the dynamical symmetry group $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$.

In a more general case of a two-component entangled state

$`|\psi =_1_2,`$ (60)
the matrix of coefficients $`[\psi ]`$ has the dimensionality $`n_1\times n_2`$ where $`n_{\mathrm{}}dim_{\mathrm{}}`$. The orthogonal rows and columns have the norms $`1/\sqrt{n_1}`$ and $`1/\sqrt{n_2}`$, respectively. Thus, the maximum entanglement is allowed only if $`n_1=n_2`$. In this case, $`[\psi ]`$ is similar to the unitary matrix. This implies the uniqueness of the maximum entangled state to within the action of the dynamic symmetry group $`SU(n)\times SU(n)`$.

By performing a similar analysis, it is a straightforward matter to show that the three-qubit state (17), (18) also manifests the maximum entanglement.

Our consideration so far have dealt with the composite systems of spin-$`1/2`$ particles (qubit systems). The scheme can be generalized on the case of an arbitrary spin $`s1/2`$ as well. The examples of the spin-$`1`$ entangled states were discussed by Burlakov et al (Burlakov et al 1999) in the context of photon pairs in symmetric Fock states and by Can et al (Can et al 2002 (a)) in connection with polarization of multipole waves of photons. The application of such a states to the quantum cryptography was considered by Bechman-Pasquinucci and Peres (Bechman-Pasquinucci and Peres 2000).

According to the definition of maximum entanglement (5) discussed in section 2, the entangled state should give the average spin projection onto every direction equal to zero. Let us denote the spin-$`1`$ states by $`+`$, $`|0`$, and $`|`$. Consider the cascade decay of a two-level atom with the excited state specified by the angular momentum $`j=2`$ and projection of the angular momentum on the quantization axis $`m=0`$, and the ground state $`j^{}=0,m^{}=0`$. This transition gives rise to photon twins (Mandel and Wolf 1995) that can be observed in the states

$`|+_1_2,|0_10_2,|_1+_2`$ (61)
because of the conservation of the total angular momentum in the process of radiation. It is then easily seen that the so-called $`SU(2)`$ phase states of photons (Shumovsky 2000)

$`|\varphi _k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(|+_1_2+e^{i\varphi _k}|0_10_2+e^{2i\varphi _k}|_1+_2,`$ (62)
where

$`\varphi _k={\displaystyle \frac{2k\pi }{3}},k=0,1,2,`$ (63)
obey the condition (5) and form a basis of entangled states dual to (20).

The principle difference between the systems with spin $`1/2`$ and spin $`1`$ is that the maximum entangled state (in the sense of definition (5)) can be realized in the composite system, consisting of at least two particles in the former case and in a single-particle system in the latter case. Consider, for example, the superposition state

$`|\psi =\lambda _+|++\lambda _0|0+\lambda _{}|,{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}|\lambda _i|^2=1.`$ (64)
Then, the measurement of projections gives in view of the definition (5) the following equations

$`\{\begin{array}{c}|\lambda _+|^2|\lambda _{}|^2=0\hfill \\ |\lambda _+||\lambda _0|\mathrm{cos}(\phi _0\phi _+)+|\lambda _0||\lambda _{}|\mathrm{cos}(\phi _{}\phi _0)=0\hfill \\ |\lambda _+||\lambda _0|\mathrm{sin}(\phi _0\phi _+)+|\lambda _0||\lambda _{}|\mathrm{sin}(\phi _{}\phi _0)\hfill \end{array}`$ (68)
where $`\phi _i\mathrm{arg}\lambda _i`$. One of the possible solutions, manifesting the single spin-$`1`$ particle entanglement then is $`|\lambda _0|=0`$ and

$`|\psi _I={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|++e^{i\varphi }|),`$ (69)
where $`\varphi `$ is an arbitrary complex number. Another solution has the form $`|\lambda _+|=|\lambda _{}|=0`$, $`|\lambda _0|=1`$, so that

$`|\psi _{II}=|0.`$ (70)
One more solution of (23) is specified by the conditions

$`|\lambda _+|=|\lambda _{}|,2|\lambda _+|^2+|\lambda _0|^2=1,\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\phi _++\phi _{}2\phi _0}{2}}\right)=0.`$ (71)
It is seen that the conditions (26) permit us to construct infinitely many entangled single-particle states. For example,

$`|\psi _{III}=|\lambda _+|^2\left(|++{\displaystyle \frac{1+i}{\sqrt{2}|\lambda _+|^2}}\sqrt{12|\lambda _+|^2}|0+|\right)`$ (72)
is the single-particle entangled state. From the physical point of view, these states can be constructed for the massive particles like $`\rho `$ and $`K`$ mesons that have reasonable long life time and for the alcaline atoms used in the experiments on Bose-Einstein condensation. The problem of interpretation, preparing entangled single-particle states, and performing the necessary measurements deserves special consideration.

## IV Entangled states in atomic systems

As a possible physical realization of the above discussed formalism, consider now the entangled states in the atomic systems. It should be stressed that the engineered entanglement in the systems of trapped atoms and atomic beams has attracted recently a great deal of interest (e.g., see Bederson and Walther 2000, Mayatt et al 2000, Rempe 2000, Raymond 2001, Julsgaard 2001 and references therein). In particular, the single-photon exchange between the two two-level atoms in a cavity can lead to a maximum entangled atomic state (Plenio et al 1999, Beige et al 2000).

It was then shown (Can et al 2002 (a)) that the atomic entangled states in a cavity belong to a special class of the so-called $`SU(2)`$ phase states that has been introduced by Vourdas (Vourdas 1990) and generalized by one of the authors (see Shumovsky 2001 and references therein). It particular, it was shown that these states obey the definition of maximum entanglement (5). The $`SU(2)`$ phase states can also be used in quantum coding (Vourdas 2002).

One of the important requirements dictated by the practical applications of entanglement in the field of quantum information technologies is that the lifetime of an entangled state should be long enough. Under this conditions, it seems to be much more convenient to use the three-level atoms with the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-type transitions instead of the two-level atoms (Can et al 2002 (b)). Consider this idea in more details.

The system of three-level $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-type atoms interacting with the two cavity modes can be described by the following Hamiltonian

$`H=H_0+H_{int},`$ (73)
$`H_0=\omega _Pa_P^+a_P+\omega _{Sk}a_S^+a_S+\omega _{12}{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}R_{22}(f)+\omega _{13}{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}R_{33}(f),`$ (74)
$`H_{int}={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}\{g_PR_{21}(f)a_P+g_SR_{32}(f)a_S+H.c.\}.`$ (75)
Here $`a_P`$ and $`a_S`$ are the photon operators of the ”pumping” and Stokes modes, respectively. It is supposed that the cavity is an ideal one with respect to the pumping, while strongly absorbes the Stokes photons. The operator $`R_{21}(f)`$ describes the transition in $`f`$-th atom from the ground to the highest excited level. In turn, $`R_{32}(f)`$ gives the transition from the highest excited level to an intermediate level $`3`$ separated from the ground level by $`\omega _{13}`$. The dipole transition between the atomic levels $`3`$ and $`1`$ is forbidden because of the parity conservation.

Assume first that the system consists of only two atoms and is initially prepared in the state

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0=|1,1|1_P,`$ (76)
so that both atoms are in the ground state while the cavity contains a single photon of the pumping mode. The evolution of the system in the cavity damped with respect to the Stokes photons is then described by the master equation

$`\dot{\rho }=i[H,\rho ]+\kappa \{2a_S\rho a_S^+a_S^+a_S\rho \rho a_S^+a_S\},`$ (77)
where $`1/\kappa `$ is the lifetime of a Stokes photon in the cavity defining the quality factor. The so-called Liouville term in the right-hand side of (30) takes into account the absorption of Stokes photon. The density matrix $`\rho `$ involves all eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (28) including the state

$`|\psi _{fin}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|3,1+|1,3)|0_P|0_S.`$ (78)
The lifetime of this state is determined by the nonradiative processes and therefore is quite long.

As a consequence of evolution generated by the Hamiltonian (28), the pumping photon can be absorbed by either atom with equal probability, so that the system passes into the entangled state

$`|\psi _1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|2,1+|1,2)|0_P|0_S.`$ (79)
The lifetime of this state is completely defined by the dipole radiative processes $`21`$ and $`23`$ and therefore is very short.

As the next step, the first term in the right-hand side of (30) generates evolution to another entangled state

$`|\psi _2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|3,1+|1,3)|0_P|1_S.`$ (80)
The absorption of the Stokes photon described by the Liouville term in (30) then leads to the final, long-lived state (31).

The scheme can be easily realized with the modern experimental technique. First of all, the single-photon excitation of the cavity field can be prepared (see Walther 1997, Walther 2001 and references therein). One of the atoms can be trapped inside the cavity, while the other atom should pass through the cavity in the same way as in the experiments on excitation of Fock states of photons (Walther 2001). Another way is to send a beam of three-level atoms through the cavity with single pumping photon so that every time there would be just two atoms inside the cavity.

Concerning the experimental realization, let us note that the Raman-type process with emission of Stokes photon in a single atom has been observed recently (Henrich et al 2000).

In principle, the process can be realized in the system of more than two three-level atoms, interacting with single cavity photon. In fact, the Fock states with more than one photon have been successfully generated (Walther 2001). The use of the definition of entanglement (5) then shows that if the number of pumping photons in the cavity is $`n`$, then the number of atoms, interacting at once with these photons should be $`2n`$ (Can et al 2002 (a)). In this case, the entangled atomic states can be constructed as the $`SU(2)`$ phase states have been discussed by Can et all (Can et al 2002 (a)).

Another realization of long-lived entanglement in the system of three-level atoms that has been considered by Can et al (Can et al 2002 (b)) assumes that the Stokes photons can leave the cavity freely. In this case, detection of Stokes photons outside the cavity can be considered as a signal that the long-lived atomic entangled state was created.

## V Conclusion

Let us briefly discuss the obtained results. The general scheme has been discussed in sections II and III has the following structure. To specify the entangled states of a composite system defined in the Hilbert space (1) it is necessary:
1) to specify the dynamic symmetry group $`G`$ of the factor spaces in (1);
2) to specify the local measurements defined by the Lie algebra, corresponding to the dynamic symmetry group $`G`$;
3) to apply the condition (5) that determines the matrix of coefficients of a general state in (1), corresponding to the entanglement (maximum entanglement).

The maximum entangled state can also be specified by the condition that the parallel slices of matrix $`[\psi ]`$ are mutually orthogonal and have the same norm. It can be proven that this definition entails the conventional condition expressed in terms of reduced entropy (Klyachko 2002).

As it follows from the definition (5), the entangled states show the maximum level of quantum fluctuations in all local measurements. Therefore, they should be considered as the fundamentally quantum states in contrast to the almost classical coherent states, showing the minimum of quantum fluctuations.

The scheme discussed in section II superposes the elements of the operational approach (zero result for all local measurements allowed for an entangled state) with the deep mathematics lying behind the definition of entanglement (5). In particular, it is possible to show that an arbitrary entangled state (not necessery the maximum entangled state) can be defined to be the semistable vector in the Hilbert space $``$ (1) and that the rate of entanglement can be specified by the length of minimal vector in complex orbit of entangled state (Klyachko 2000).

It is interesting, that the definition of entanglement represented by the condition (5) permits us to consider the single-particle entangled states in the case of spin $`s1`$ in addition to the conventional composite-system states.

The practical realization of long-lived easy monitored entanglement discussed in section IV seems to be accessible with the present experimental technique. Let us note that, instead of the three-levels interacting with the cavity mode, another environment can be used. An interesting example is provided by the system of atoms in the presence of dispersive and absorbing objects (Dung et al 1998, Dung et al 2002, Welsch et al 2002).

The definition of entanglement in terms of condition (5) is a general one and may exceed the limits of quantum optics and quantum information. For example, the combinations of quarks corresponding to $`\pi `$ mesons can be treated in terms of the possible states with the dynamic symmetry provided by the hadron group $`SU(3)`$. Then, the definition (5) shows that $`\pi ^0`$ corresponds to the entangled combination of quarks, while $`\pi ^\pm `$ are specified by the coherent combinations (Klyachko 2002). It seems to be tempting to associate the short lifetime of $`\pi ^0`$ with respect to $`\pi ^\pm `$ by the strong quantum fluctuations in the entangled state and very weak in the coherent state.

The authors would like to thank Dr. A. Beige, Prof. J.H. Eberly, Prof. P.L. Knight, Prof. A. Vourdas, Prof. D.-G. Welsch, and Prof. A. Zeilenger for useful discussions.

## References

Bechman-Pasquinucci H and Peres A 2000 Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 3313
Bederson B and Walther H 2000 Advances in Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, Vol. 42 (New York: Academic Press)
Beige A, Munro WJ and Knight PL 2000 Phys. Rev. A 62 052102
Bowmeester D, Ekert AK and Zeilinger A 2000 The Physics of Quantum Information (Berlin: Springer-Verlag)
Brukner Č, Žukowski M and Zeilinger A 2001 E-print quant-ph/0106119
Burlakov AV, Chekhova MV, Karabutova OA, Klyshko DN and Kulik SP 1999 Phys. Rev. A 60 R4209
Can MA, Klyachko AA, and Shumovsky AS 2002 a Phys. Rev. A 66, 022111
2002 b Appl. Phys. Lett. 81 5072
Dung HT, Knöll L and Welsch D-G 1998 Phys. Rev. A 57 3931
Dung HT, Scheel S, Welsch D-G and Knöll L 2002 J. Optics B 4 S169
Gelfand IM, Kapranov MM and Zelevinsky A.V. 1994 Discriminants, Resultants, and Multi-Dimensional Determinants (Boston: Birkhauser)
Gisin N, Ribordy G, Tittel W and Zbinden H 2002 Rev. Mod. Phys. 74 145
Greenberger DM, Horne M and Zeilinger A 1998 in Bell’s Theorem, Quantum Theory, and Conceptions of the Universe (Dordreht: Kluwer)
Henrich M, Legero T, Kun K and Rempe G 2000 Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 5872
Horodecki M, Horodecki P and Horodecki R 1998 Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 5239
Julsgaard B, Kozhekin A and Polzik E 2001 Nature 413 400
Klyachko AA 2002 E-print quant-ph/0206012
Klyachko AA and Shumovsky AS 2002 E-print quant-ph/0203099
Mandel L and Wolf E 1995 Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics (New York: Cambridge University Press)
Mumford D Fogarty J and Kirwan F 1994 Geometric Invariant Theory (Berlin: Springer)
Myatt CJ, King BE, Turchette QA, Sackett CA, Kielpinski D, Itano WH, Monroe C and Wineland DJ 2000 Nature 403 269
Perelomov A 1986 Generalized Coherent States and Their Applications (Berlin: Springer)
Peres A 1998 Physica Scripta 76 52
Plenio MB, Huelga SF, Beige A and Knight PL 1999 Phys. Rev. A 59 2468
Raimond JM, Brune M and Haroche S 2001 Rev. Mod. Phys. 73 565
Rempe G 2000 Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 9 843
Scully MO and Zubairy MS 1997 Quantum Optics (New York: Cambridge University Press)
Serre JP 1992 Lie Algebras and Lie Groups (New York: Sringer-Verlag)
Shumovsky AS 2001 in Modern Nonlinear Optics edited by M.W. Evans (New York: Wiley)
Tombesi P and Hirota O 2001 Quantum Communications, Computing, and Measurements (New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers)
Verdal V and Plenio MB 1998 Phys. Rev. A 57 1619
Vourdas A 1990 Phys. Rev. A 41 1653
2002 Phys. Rev. A 65 042321
Walther H 1997 in Quantum Optics and the Spectroscopy of Solids edited by T. Hakioğlu and A.S. Shumovsky (Dordrecht: Kluwer)
2001 in Quantum Communications, Computing, and Measurements edited by P. Tombesi and O. Hirota (New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers)
Welsch D-G, Dung HT and Knöll L 2002 E-print quant-ph/0205192
Wigner EP 1931 Gruppentheorie und ihre Anwendungen auf die Quantummechanik der Atomspectren (Braunschweig: Vieweg)
1939 Ann. Math. 40 149
1967 Symmetries and Reflections (Bloomington: Indiana University Press)
Zeilinger A. 1999 Rev. Mod. Phys. 71 S288


text:
# References

Noether conservation laws issue from the gauge invariance of an Euler–Lagrange operator, but not a Lagrangian

G.Sardanashvily

Department of Theoretical Physics, Moscow State University, 117234 Moscow, Russia

E-mail: sard@grav.phys.msu.su

URL: http://webcenter.ru/$``$sardan/

Abstract. As is well known, there are different Lagrangians which lead to the same Euler–Lagrange operator. The gauge invariance of a Lagrangian guarantees that of the corresponding Euler–Lagrange operator, but not vice versa. We show that the gauge invariance of an Euler–Lagrange operator, but not a Lagrangian results in Noether conservation laws.

Let us consider a first order field theory on a smooth fibre bundle $`YX`$ coordinated by $`(x^\lambda ,y^i)`$. Its configuration space is the first order jet manifold $`J^1Y`$ of sections of $`YX`$ equipped with the adapted coordinates $`(x^\lambda ,y^i,y_\mu ^i)`$ (see, e.g., ). We will use the notation $`\omega =d^nx`$, $`n=dimX`$, and $`\omega _\lambda =_\lambda \omega `$.

A first order Lagrangian is a density

$$L=(x^\lambda ,y^i,y_\lambda ^i)\omega :J^1Y\stackrel{n}{}T^{}X$$
(1)
on $`J^1Y`$. Its variation $`\delta L`$ is the second order Euler–Lagrange operator

$`_L:J^2YT^{}Y(\stackrel{n}{}T^{}X),`$
$`_L=(_id_\lambda _i^\lambda )\theta ^i\omega ,`$ (2)
where $`\theta ^i=dy^iy_\lambda ^idx^\lambda `$ are contact forms and $`d_\lambda =_\lambda +y_\lambda ^i_i+y_{\lambda \mu }^i_i^\mu `$ are the total derivative. Its kernel Ker$`_LJ^2Y`$ defines the Euler–Lagrange equations. There are different Lagrangians whose variations provide the same Euler–Lagrange operator. They make up an affine space modelled over the vector space of variationally trivial Lagrangians $`L_0`$, i.e., $`\delta L_0=0`$. One can show that a first order Lagrangian $`L_0`$ is variationally trivial iff

$$L_0=h_0(\phi ),$$
(3)
where $`\phi `$ is a closed $`n`$-form on $`Y`$ and

$`h_0(dx^\lambda )=dx^\lambda ,h_0(\theta ^i)=0`$
is the horizontal operator acting on semibasic exterior forms on $`J^1YY`$.

Gauge transformations are defined as bundle automorphisms of a fibre bundle $`YX`$. Any projectable vector field

$$u=u^\lambda (x^\mu )_\lambda +u^i(x^\mu ,y^j)_i$$
(4)
on $`YX`$ is the infinitesimal generator of a local one-parameter group $`G_u`$ of gauge transformations of $`YX`$, and vice versa. Its jet prolongation onto $`J^1Y`$ reads

$$J^1u=u^\lambda _\lambda +u^i_i+(d_\lambda u^iy_\mu ^i_\lambda u^\mu )_i^\lambda .$$
(5)
A Lagrangian $`L`$ (1) is invariant under a gauge group $`G_u`$ iff its Lie derivative

$$𝐋_{J^1u}L=[_\lambda (u^\lambda )+(u^i_i+(d_\lambda u^iy_\mu ^i_\lambda u^\mu )_i^\lambda )]\omega $$
(6)
along $`J^1u`$ vanishes.

The first variational formula of the calculus of variations provides the canonical decomposition

$$𝐋_{J^1u}L=u_V_L+h_0d(uH_L)$$
(7)
of the Lie derivative (6), where: $`u_V=(u\theta ^i)_i`$, $`_L`$ is the Euler–Lagrange operator (2) and $`H_L`$ is some Lepagean equivalent of $`L`$, e.g., the Poincaré–Cartan form

$`H_L=L+_i^\lambda \theta ^i\omega _\lambda =_i^\lambda dy^i\omega _\lambda +(y_\lambda ^i_i^\lambda )\omega .`$
For instance, if $`L=L_0`$ is a variationally trivial Lagrangian, the first variational formula (7) gives the equality

$$𝐋_{J^1u}L_0=h_0d(uH_{L_0}).$$
(8)
If the Lie derivative (6) vanishes, one obtains the weak conservation law

$$0h_0d(uH_L)=d_\lambda [\pi _i^\lambda (u^\mu y_\mu ^iu^i)u^\lambda ]\omega $$
(9)
on Ker$`_L`$.

The Euler-Lagrange operator $`_L`$ (2) is invariant under a one-parameter gauge group $`G_u`$ iff its Lie derivative $`𝐋_{J^2u}_L`$ along the jet prolongation $`J^2u`$ of $`u`$ onto the second order jet manifold $`J^2Y`$ vanishes. There is the relation

$$𝐋_{J^2u}_L=\delta (𝐋_{J^1u}L)=_{𝐋_{J^1u}L},$$
(10)
i.e., the Lie derivative $`𝐋_{J^2u}_L`$ is the Euler–Lagrange operator associated to the Lagrangian $`𝐋_{J^1u}L`$ . It follows that $`𝐋_{J^2u}_L=0`$ iff the Lie derivative $`𝐋_{J^1u}L`$ is a variationally trivial Lagrangian, i.e., is given by the expression (3). Substituting this expression into the first variational formula (7), we obtain the weak equality

$$h_0(\phi )h_0d(uH_L)$$
(11)
on Ker$`_L`$. If $`\phi =d\sigma `$ is an exact form on $`Y`$, this equality is brought into the weak conservation law

$$0h_0d(uH_L\sigma ).$$
(12)
Let $`L^{}=L+L_0`$ be another Lagrangian whose variation is the Euler–Lagrange operator $`_L`$. Due to the equality (8), we come to the same conservation law (12).


text:
# Family Nonuniversal 𝑍' and 𝑏→𝑠𝛾 decay

## 1 Introduction

The impressive agreement between the standard electroweak theory (SM) and experiment is not sufficient to make it the fundamental theory of nature up to very high energies. This follows mainly from the instability of its Higgs sector under radiative corrections. The supersymmetry (SUSY) is thus one of the remedies which can cure this hierarchy problem. However, the minimal supersymmetric model (MSSM) itself has a hierarchy problem concerning the natural scale of the Higgsino mass parameter ($`\mu `$ problem). This problem is solvable in various frameworks each of which introducing a certain SM singlets to dynamically generate the $`\mu `$ parameter. The $`Z^{}`$ models form a viable candidate model to extend the MSSM in order to solve the $`\mu `$ problem . The vacua that suppress the $`ZZ^{}`$ mixing have been found in  with further improvements concerning the radiative effects . The effects of such extra $`Z`$ bosons on precision observables have been analyzed in detail in . Moreover, several collider signatures have been analyzed for tree level Higgs sector .

Recently there have been a revived interest in the flavor changing neutral current phenomena  in such models . Given the recent indications for a light $`Z^{}`$ boson , it is necessary to analyze certain rare phenomena within such models in order to test or at least determine the ballpark of model parameters. One such rare decay is the radiative decay of $`B`$ mesons, $`BX_s\gamma `$ which is under intense experimental investigation at the present $`B`$ factories.

The flavor mixing in the quark and lepton sectors will lead to flavor changing (nondiagonal) couplings of the heavy $`Z^{^{}}`$. Since its topology is similar to the photon and gluon vertex, calculating the branching ratio (BR) and CP asymmetry $`(A_{CP})`$ of the process $`BX_s\gamma `$ can restrict the couplings $`\xi `$ of the $`Z^{^{}}`$. Although in SM CP asymmetry A$`{}_{CP}{}^{}(bs\gamma )`$ is less than 1%, in the extension of the SM, due to CP violating couplings large CP asymmetries are possible . In particular, large asymmetries arise naturally in models with enhanced chromomagnetic dipole operators. There is also flavor violating Z couplings if there is Z-$`Z^{^{}}`$ mixing. This is another motivation to search for flavor changing neutral current (FCNC) effects.

The prediction for the $`BX_s\gamma `$ branching ratio is usually obtained by normalizing the result for the corresponding decay rate to that for the semileptonic decay rate, thereby eliminating a strong dependence on the b-quark mass .

The branching fraction is obtained from the CLEO experiment  as

$$BR(bs\gamma )=(3.15\pm 0.35\pm 0.32\pm 0.26)\times 10^4$$
(1)
where the photon energy is $`2.1<E_\gamma <2.7`$ $`GeV.`$ Therefore the branching fraction is between

$$2.0\times 10^4<BR<4.5\times 10^4$$
(2)
Direct CP violation can lead to a difference between the rates for $`bs\gamma `$ and $`\overline{b}\overline{s}\gamma `$ giving rise to a non-zero value for the CP asymmetry

$$A_{CP}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(bs\gamma )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{b}\overline{s}\gamma )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(bs\gamma )+\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{b}\overline{s}\gamma )}.$$
(3)
The SM predicts that this asymmetry is very small, less than 1%. Recent theoretical work suggests that non-SM physics may contribute significantly to a CP asymmetry, as large as 10-40%.

The signature for $`bs\gamma `$ is a photon with energy sufficiently high that it is unlikely to come from other B decay processes.

In Cleo’s work the photon energy range is taken between 2.1-2.7 GeV, and in conclusion CP asymmetry $`A_{CP}`$ in $`bs\gamma `$ plus $`bd\gamma `$ lies between the limits ,

$$0.27<A<+0.10$$
(4)
at 90% confidence level.

These limits rule out some extreme non-SM predictions, but are consistent with most, as well as with the SM.

By using the constrained couplings of $`Z^{^{}}`$ boson from this process, we may calculate other processes including $`Z^{^{}}`$ boson couplings.

## 2 Calculation

At the W-boson mass scale Q=M$`_W,`$ the flavor changing radiative transition $`bs\gamma `$ is described by the following operator product expansion

$`H_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}K_{ts}^{}K_{tb}\{C_2(M_W)O_2(M_W)`$ (5)
$`+C_7(M_W)O_7(M_W)+C_8(M_W)O_8(M_W)\}`$
where $`C_i(M_W)`$ are the Wilson coefficients, and $`O_i(M_W)`$ are the local operators defined by

$$O_2(M_W)=(\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu c_L)(\overline{c}_L\gamma _\mu b_L),$$
(6)
$$O_7(M_W)=\frac{e(Q)}{16\pi ^2}\overline{m}_b(M_W)(\overline{s}_L\sigma ^{\mu \nu }b_R)F_{\mu \nu },$$
(7)
$$O_8(M_W)=\frac{g_s(Q)}{16\pi ^2}\overline{m}_b(M_W)(\overline{s}_L\sigma ^{\mu \nu }T^ab_R)G_{\mu \nu }^a.$$
(8)
Here $`O_2(M_W)`$ is a four-fermion operator and its coefficient satisfies $`C_2(M_W)=1`$ , that is, it is a constant independent of the looping particle species. However, the coefficients of the electric $`O_7(M_W)`$ and color $`O_8(M_W)`$ dipole operators can receive nonvanishing contributions from physics beyond the SM. In general

$$C_{7,8}(M_W)=C_{7,8}^{SM}(M_W)+C_{7,8}^{NP}(M_W)$$
(9)
where the last term is for the New Physics contributions, and the SM contributions $`C_{7,8}^{SM}(M_W)`$ are ;

$$C_7^{SM}(M_W)=\frac{3x^32x^2}{4(x1)^4}\mathrm{ln}x+\frac{8x^35x^2+7x}{24(x1)^3}$$
(10)
$$C_8^{SM}(M_W)=\frac{3x^2}{4(x1)^4)}\mathrm{ln}x+\frac{x^3+5x^2+2x}{8(x1)^3}.$$
(11)
Here

$$x=\frac{m_{t,p}^2}{M_W^2}\left(\frac{\alpha _s(M_W)}{\alpha _s(m_b)}\right)^{24/23}\left(1\frac{8}{3}\frac{\alpha _s(m_t)}{\pi }\right).$$
(12)
In the Langacker-Plümacher paper , we let $`\xi _R^{sb}=\xi _L^{sb}\xi _{sb}`$ for simplicity. Then the new physics contribution can be parametrized as

$$C_{7,8}^{NP}(M_W)=2\sqrt{2}\frac{\xi _{sb}}{V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}}$$
(13)
where we have used the fact that gluon and photon diagrams have the same topology as $`Z^{^{}}`$ boson which is neutral both electrically and chromoelectrically. Here $`\xi _{sb}`$ is a complex number whose expression is

$$\xi _{sb}=\frac{y}{m_b}(B^dm_dB^d)_{23}+wϵ_L(b)B_{23}^d$$
(14)
where $`m_d`$ is the diagonal mass matrix of down quarks,

$$y=\left(\frac{g_2}{g_1}\right)^2(\rho _1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\rho _2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ),$$
(15)
$$w=\frac{g_2}{g_1}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta (\rho _1\rho _2),$$
(16)
$$\rho _i=\frac{M_W^2}{M_i^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W}.$$
(17)
$`M_i`$ are the masses of the neutral gauge boson mass eigenstates, $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ are the coupling constants of the neutral gauge bosons Z and Z$`^{^{}}`$ respectively.

The Wilson coefficients mentioned so far are at the $`Q=M_W`$ scale. However, physically one must recalculate them at the $`Q=m_b`$ scale- the natural scale of the problem. Therefore, the Wilson coefficients above are now reduced to $`Q=m_b`$ scale via

$`C_2(m_b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\eta ^{\frac{12}{23}}+\eta ^{\frac{6}{23}}),`$
$`C_7(m_b)`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^{\frac{16}{23}}C_7(M_W)+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}(\eta ^{\frac{14}{23}}\eta ^{\frac{16}{23}})C_8(M_W)+C_2(M_W){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}}h_i^{(72)}\eta ^{a_i},`$
$`C_8(m_b)`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^{\frac{14}{23}}C_8(M_W)+C_2(M_W){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}}h_i^{(82)}\eta ^{a_i},`$ (18)
where the magic numbers on the right are given by

$`a_i`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{14}{23}},{\displaystyle \frac{16}{23}},{\displaystyle \frac{6}{23}},{\displaystyle \frac{12}{23}},0.4086,0.4230,0.8994,0.1456),`$
$`h_i^{(72)}`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{626126}{272277}},{\displaystyle \frac{56281}{51730}},{\displaystyle \frac{3}{7}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{14}},`$
$`0.6494,0.0380,0.0186,0.005),`$
$`h_i^{(82)}`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{313063}{363036}},0,0,0,0.9135,0.0873,0.0571,0.0209).`$ (19)
In obtaining $`C_7(m_b)`$ we have made use of the leading order QCD renormalization group running from $`Q=M_W`$ down to $`Q=m_b`$ and so the renormalization factor $`\eta =\alpha _s(M_W)/\alpha _s(m_b).`$ Having $`C_7(m_b)`$ at hand, it is easy to calculate the branching ratio and CP asymmetry of the decay. Branching ratio is given by

$$BR(bs\gamma )=BR^{(\mathrm{exp})}(bce\overline{\nu }_e)\left|\frac{V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}}{V_{cb}}\right|^2\frac{6\alpha }{\pi f(z_c)}S(\delta )\left|C_7(m_b)\right|^2$$
(20)
where $`z_c=m_c^2/m_b^2,`$ $`BR^{(\mathrm{exp})}(BX_ce\overline{\nu }_e)10.5\%,`$ and $`f(z)=18z+8z^3z^412z^2\mathrm{ln}z.`$ Here $`\delta =0.9`$ represents the energy of the emitted photon, and

$$S(\delta )=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2\alpha _s(m_b)}{3\pi }\left(\mathrm{ln}^2\delta +\frac{7}{2}\mathrm{ln}\delta \right)\right].$$
(21)
Similarly the CP asymmetry is given by

$`A_{CP}(b`$ $`s\gamma )={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(m_b)}{\left|C_7(m_b)\right|^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{40}{81}}\text{Im}\left[C_2(m_b)C_7^{}(m_b)\right]`$ (22)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{8z_c}{9}}\left[v(z_c)+b(z_c,\delta )\right]\text{Im}\left[\left(1+ϵ_s\right)C_2(m_b)C_7^{}(m_b)\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}\text{Im}\left[C_8(m_b)C_7^{}(m_b)\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{8z_c}{27}}b(z_c,\delta )\text{Im}\left[(1+ϵ_s)C_2(m_b)C_8^{}(m_b)\right]\}`$
where $`ϵ_s`$ represents the pure SM contribution

$$ϵ_s\frac{V_{us}^{}V_{ub}}{V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}}\lambda _c^2(i\eta \rho )=O(10^2),$$
(23)
and the functions $`v(z)`$ and $`b(z,\delta )`$ are defined by

$`g(z,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\theta (y4z)\{(y^24yz+6z^2)\mathrm{ln}(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{y}{4z}}}+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{y}{4z}}1})`$ (24)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3y(y2z)}{4}}\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4z}{y}}}\},`$
$`v(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(5+\mathrm{ln}z+\mathrm{ln}^2z{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^3}{3}}\right)+(\mathrm{ln}^2z{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^3}{3}})z+`$ (25)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{28}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\mathrm{ln}z\right)z^2+O(z^3),`$
with $`b(z,\delta )=g(z,1)g(z,1\delta ).`$

## 3 Results

To get the numerical results from Eqs. 20. and 22. we use $`\delta =0.90.`$ We calculate the branching ratio from Eq. (20) as

$$BR(bs\gamma )=0.00025+0.01232I^20.00352R+0.01232R^2$$
(26)
The branching ratio $`BR(bs\gamma )`$ is plotted in Fig. 1 as a function of $`R`$ for different values of $`I.`$

Comparing the graph in Fig 1. with the experimental value , we get the following values with $`\xi =R+iI`$

$`0.03`$ $`<`$ $`R<+0.02\text{ for }I=0.04,`$
$`0.02`$ $`<`$ $`R<+0.04\text{ for }I=0.08,`$
$`+0.01`$ $`<`$ $`R<+0.11\text{ for }I=0.12`$ (27)
to get the following constraint

$$0.000222<BR(bs\gamma )<0.000408.$$
(28)
From the values obtained for R and I the coupling constant $`\xi =R+iI`$ is between

$$0.05|\xi _{sb}|0.163.$$
(29)
We calculate the CP asymmetry $`A_{CP}(bs\gamma )`$ from Eq. (22) as

$$A_{CP}(bs\gamma )=\frac{0.00648Re[I]}{0.0963452+4.71401I^21.34785R+4.71401R^2}$$
(30)
The CP asymmetry $`A_{CP}(bs\gamma )`$ is plotted in Fig. 2 as a function of $`R`$ for different values of $`I.`$

Similarly From Fig. 2, we obtain

$$0.13<R<+0.15\text{ for }I=\pm 0.002$$
(31)
to get the following experimental constraint

$$0.27<A_{CP}(bs\gamma )<+0.10,$$
(32)
from .

From the values obtained for R and I the coupling constant $`\xi =R+iI`$ is between

$$0.132\xi _{sb}0.151.$$
(33)
## 4 Discussion and Conclusion

In summary we have analyzed the constraints on family non-universal $`Z^{}`$ couplings from the branching ratio and the CP asymmetry of the decay $`BX_s\gamma `$. We have found that the parameter $`\xi _{sb}`$ has non-vanishing real and imaginary parts, and the central value allowed is $`|\xi _{sb}|0.1`$. Although it is not possible to infer any further results about the parameters $`\xi _{sb}`$ depends on, still one can infer that the parameter $`\xi _{sb}`$ is complex and is required to be around $`0.1`$ in magnitude.

As shown in Fig. 1 the dependence of the branching ratio on $`R`$ is strong, and given the present $`1\sigma `$ bounds we conclude that only positive values of $`R`$ are preferred. Similarly, the graph in Fig. 2 depicts the CP asymmetry of the decay, and it can be as large as $`10\%`$ in the parameter region preferred by the branching ratio constraints.

Though we have restricted our analysis to $`BX_s\gamma `$ only, it is clear that such family–non-universal $`Z^{}`$ bosons will contribute to various FCNC observables. Among others, the two hadronic decays $`BJ\psi K_s`$ and $`B\pi K_s`$ are of prime importance. The CP violation in the former has already been measured constituting the present value of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$. The latter, however, is a pure penguin process and it is still under investigation. Any measurable difference between the CP asymmetries of respective decay modes will be a violation of the SM expectation. This then can be taken as a signal of the new physics effects, among all possible candidates, the family non–universal $`Z^{}`$ models are of particular importance since any difference between the couplings to charm and strange quarks will show up as shift from $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$.

FIGURE CAPTIONS

Figure 1. Plot of branching ratio (BR) as a function of R for different values of I.

Figure 2. Plot of CP asymmetry $`A_{CP}`$ as a function of R for different values of I.