format: text

text:
# A numerical analysis for G(t) in the Scalar-tensor theory.

## 1 Introduction

Since the thirties, many cosmologists have been suggested theories that predict the variation of Newton’s gravitational ”constant”. Among the more famous are Dirac’s Large Number Hypothesis , the Brans-Dicke theory  and more recently, some model of scalar-tensor theories (see the work by Barrow . for a review). The last one can be seen as a generalization of Brans-Dicke theory.

On the experimental hand, some measurements are performed to study this variation; for instance, the spacecraft radar ranging  and lunar laser ranging  . Both experiments give an upper limit for the ratio $`\left|\dot{G}/G\right|`$ that is:

$$\left|\frac{\dot{G}}{G}\right|<10^{12}yr^1$$

On despite of so especulative ideas, I have seen few numerical analisys about the evolution of the value Newton’s gravitational constant. A work by Bronikov, Melnikov and Novello  is in this sense. They describe the upper limit to $`\left|\dot{G}/G\right|.`$ Barrow and Parsons  studied the behavior of cosmological models with varying $`G`$ .They describe some analytical solutions to the field equations, using the conformal time coordinates and showed the dependence of the coupling constant $`\omega `$ with $`\varphi /\varphi _0`$ in some particular cases of the models.

In the present work, we made a numerical analisys, based in a Scalar-Tensor theory, with variable $`\omega ,`$studied by Barrow and others . These numerical analisys, togheter with experimental data, could indicate the more correct theory, the initial conditions of the Universe and the evolution.The paper is divided in the following sequence: in next section, we review the model and isolated some variables that will be important in the sequence. In section 3, we show the numerical methods and hypotheses. In section 4 we show some graphics, the main point of this work. The last section is devoted to discussion and concluion.

## 2 Relativistic scalar-tensor theories

Newtonian gravitation permits us to ’ write in’ an explicit time variation of G without the need to satisfy any further constraint. However, in general relativity the geometrical structure of space-time is determined by the sources of mass-energy it contains and so there are further constraints to be satisfied. Suppose that we take Einstein’s equation in the form (c$`1`$)

$$\stackrel{~}{G}_b^a=8\pi GT_b^a$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{G}_b^a`$ and $`T_b^a`$ are the Einstein and energy-momentum tensors, as usual, but imagine that $`G=G(t).`$ If we take a covariant divergence ;a of this equation the left-hand vanishes because of the Bianchi identities, $`T_{b;a}^a=0`$ if energy-momentum conservation is assumed to hold, hence $`G/x^a=0`$ always. In order to introduce a time- variation of $`G`$ we need to derive the space and time variations from some scalar field, $`\psi `$ which contributes a stress tensor $`\stackrel{~}{T}_b^a(\psi )`$ to the right=hand side of the gravitational field equations.

We can express this structure by a choice of lagrangian, linear in the curvatura scalar $`R`$, that generaizes the Einstein-Hilbert lagrangian of general relativity with,

$$L=f(\psi )R+\frac{1}{2}_a\psi ^a\psi +16\pi L_m$$
(1)
where $`L_m`$ is the lagrangian of matter fields. The choice of function $`f(\psi )`$ defines the theory. When $`\psi `$ is constant this reduces, after rescaling of coordinates, to the Einstein-Hilbert lagrangian of general relativity. The formulation introduced by Brans-Dicke  can be obtained from 1 by a non-linear tranformation of $`\psi `$ and $`f.`$ Define a new scalar field $`\varphi `$ , and a new coupling constant $`\omega (\varphi )`$ by

$$\begin{array}{c}\varphi =f(\psi )\\ \omega =f/(2f\stackrel{´}{}\stackrel{´}{}^2)\end{array}$$
(2)
then 1 becames

$$L=\varphi R+\frac{\omega (\varphi )}{\varphi }_a\varphi ^a\varphi +16\pi L_m.$$
(3)
The Brans-Dicke theory arises as the special case

$$BransDicke:\omega (\varphi )=\text{constant};\text{ }f(\psi )\psi ^2.$$
(4)
The field equations that arise by varying the action associated with $`L`$ in 3 with respect to the metric, $`g_{ab\text{ }}`$and $`\varphi `$ separately, gives the field equations,

$$\stackrel{~}{G}_{ab}=\frac{8\pi }{\varphi }T_{ab}\frac{\omega (\varphi )}{\varphi ^2}\left[\varphi _{,a}\varphi _{,b}\frac{1}{2}g_{ab}\varphi _{,i}\varphi _{,i}\right]\varphi ^1\left[\varphi _{,a;b}g_{ab}\mathrm{}\varphi \right]$$
(5)
$$\left[3+2\omega (\varphi )\right]\mathrm{}\varphi =8\pi T_a^a\omega ^{}(\varphi )\varphi _{,i}\varphi ^{}_{}{}^{}i$$
(6)
where the energy-momentum tensor of the matter sources obeys the conservation equation

$$T_{;a}^{ab}=0.$$
(7)
These field equations reduce to those of general relativity when $`\varphi `$ (and hence $`\omega (\varphi )`$ ) is constant, in which case the Newtonian gravitational constant is defined by $`G=\varphi ^1`$.

### 2.1 The Basic hypothesis of our analisys

In this work work, we will not suppose any trial function $`\omega (\varphi ),`$ hence we will not propose any analitycal solution to the field equation; instead we calculated $`G(t)`$, numerically, based in initial values of $`\varphi ,\dot{\varphi }`$ and of course $`\omega (\varphi )`$ (given by the field equations). We suppose that the scalar tensor theory can describe the present Universe quite well, so we have to consider the recent experimental data about it. We also assume that these data are hold, at least, during the last one billion of years.

Clearly the equation of state of our work must be:

$$p=0,$$
(8)
that is a basic fact in the cosmology.

Now is official, the Universe is flat. With this headlines, the Physicsweb site call the attention to work by Bernardis et al., in the Nature  , about the measures of the density of the Universe. This give us another information to work, the tricurvature:

$$k=0$$
(9)
Last, but not least, is the observation that the Universe is expanding , not only expanding, but also accelerating, that is, the deceleration parameter $`q`$ is:

$$q=\frac{\ddot{a}a}{\dot{a}^2}=1$$
(10)
where $`a`$ is the scale factor, that implies :

$$\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=H$$
(11)
where $`H`$ is the Huble parameter, and hence

$$a=e^{Ht}.$$
(12)
The field equations we have to work now are as follow:

For the Robertson-Walker’s metric,

$$ds^2=dt^2a(t)^2\left[dx^2+dy^2+dz^2\right]$$
(13)
we find, then $`(L_m=0):`$

$$H^2=\frac{8\pi \rho }{3\varphi }\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\varphi }H+\frac{\omega }{6}\frac{\dot{\varphi }^2}{\varphi ^2}$$
(14)
$$\ddot{\varphi }+3H\dot{\varphi }=\frac{\dot{\varphi }\dot{\omega }}{3+2\omega }+\frac{8\pi }{3+2\omega }\left(\rho 3p\right)$$
(15)
$$\rho ^{}+3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}(\rho +p)=0.$$
(16)
One can isolate $`\omega .`$

$$\omega =6\frac{\varphi ^2}{\dot{\varphi }^2}\left[H^2\frac{8\pi \rho _oe^{3Ht}}{3\varphi }+\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\varphi }H\right]$$
(17)
and $`\dot{\omega },`$

$$\dot{\omega }=12\left\{\frac{\varphi }{\dot{\varphi }}\frac{\varphi ^2\ddot{\varphi }}{\dot{\varphi }^3}\right\}\left\{H^2\frac{8\pi \rho _0e^{3Ht}}{3\varphi }+\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\varphi }H\right\}+$$

$$\frac{2}{3}\frac{1}{\dot{\varphi }^2}+\left\{24\pi \rho _0e^{3Ht}\left[3H\varphi +\dot{\varphi }\right]+H\left[\ddot{\varphi }\varphi \dot{\varphi }^2\right]\right\}$$
(18)
Here $`\rho _0`$ is an initial value for the density. Putting $`\omega `$ and $`\dot{\omega }`$ in 15, we can isolate $`\ddot{\varphi }.`$ This is an important point of this work, we use the diference finite method to calculated the field variations. We can check that:

$$\ddot{\varphi }=\frac{2H+8\pi \rho _0e^{3Ht}7H\dot{\varphi }12(\varphi ^2/\dot{\varphi })\left[H^28\pi \rho _0e^{=3Ht}/(3\varphi )+\varphi H/\dot{\varphi }\right]}{1+2H\varphi /\dot{\varphi }}$$
(19)
and can use :

$$\dot{\varphi }(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)=\dot{\varphi }(t)+\ddot{\varphi }_t\mathrm{\Delta }t$$
(20)
In the same way:

$$\varphi (t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)=\varphi (t)+\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{\Delta }t$$
(21)
and we have recorrence. We still need some information, the intial values for $`\varphi `$ and $`\dot{\varphi }`$ and will discuss it in the next section.

## 3 The initial values problem.

As we can see in 19, $`\ddot{\varphi }`$ depends on the density $`\rho _0`$, the Hubble parameter $`H`$, that are constants. $`\ddot{\varphi }`$ depends also of $`\varphi `$ and $`\dot{\varphi }`$ and the choice of these two intial values determines the evolution of Newton gravitational constant. We remember that:

$$G=\frac{2\omega +4}{2\omega +3}\frac{1}{\varphi }$$
(22)
Hence $`\omega (\varphi (t))`$ and $`\varphi (t)`$ must result, when we arrive at the present Universe:

$$G=6.67\times 10^8\mathrm{dyn}.\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{g}^2$$
(23)
Note that we start in the past and go to the present time, so we can have values of $`G`$ in the past.23 is a final value condition. The theory has two free parmeters, the initial values for $`\varphi `$ and $`\dot{\varphi }`$, and could have also two constraint, $`G`$ and $`\dot{G},`$ but there are few measures of $`\dot{G},`$ so still there are some freedom in the choice of initial values. At the end of this work, we show a result that consider the limit value for $`\dot{G}`$. In the Brans-Dicke  theory, we have

$$\varphi \frac{1}{G}.$$
(24)
We use this fact as a guide to the choice of $`\varphi .`$ For $`\dot{\varphi }`$ we use the relation:

$$\dot{\varphi }10^n\varphi .$$
(25)
$`n`$ is an integer. If we write:

$$\varphi =\frac{b}{G}$$
(26)
where $`b`$ is a constant, each $`n`$ value will determine the value of $`b`$, (or we can also work in the opposite sense) in order to satisfy relation 23. *This is the important point of this work, we have to choice the initial numerical values for* $`\varphi `$ *and for* $`\dot{\varphi }.`$ *These values held in the past, one billion years ago. So the ratios* $`\dot{\varphi }/\varphi `$ *discussed here must be considered in the past.*

Finally, for $`H`$ we use the same value of  that is :

$$H=0.7\times 10^{10}yr^1$$
(27)
$`\rho _0`$ comes from  and it is :

$$\rho _0=2\times 10^{29}\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^3$$
(28)
Of course, when considering the past, we have to correct this density.

With these considerations, we have performed some possible situations, that are presented in the next section.

## 4 Results.

We studied some possible cases, using the datas and methods explained above, taking care that each step in our program means 10 millions of years. So in the figures below, 100 means one billion of years ago.

The first case is the following: we have positive values for $`\dot{\varphi }`$, in a way that:

$$\dot{\varphi }=10^n\varphi .$$
(29)
We performed our analisys for the case $`n=2,3,4,6,8.`$ In the figure 1 we present our results for the case $`n=1,2,3.`$ In our picture, the present time is on 0.0 and the past goes to right.

In figure 2, we studied another values. We use $`n=4,6`$ and 8 and $`\dot{\varphi }`$ is positive. In the figure 2 we can these results.

As we can see, it´s interesting to work the case n=3. So we studied the cases: $`n=2.5,`$ and the more interesting:

$$\dot{\varphi }=2\times 10^3\varphi .$$
(30)
In this case, the variation of $`G(t)`$ is slow and the calculated value for $`\omega (\varphi )`$ is bigger than 500. This is in agreement with observacional data . More exactly, $`\omega (\varphi )889`$ (for the present time). This means that this is a good starting point to search the fine tuning of the theory with the experimental data. In the figure 3 we have the results.

For the sake of completeness, we also show the cases where we have a negative $`\dot{\varphi }.`$

### 4.1
The fine tuning

As a final result, after a search for the parameters that hold theory and exprimental datas, we find that using:

$$\varphi 0.92755/G$$

as the intial value (one billion years ago), and (also for one billion years ago)

$$\dot{\varphi }=1.754236908125\times 10^3\varphi $$

we obtain the one posible value for $`G,`$ one billion of years ago:

$$G_{past}7.54\times 10^8\mathrm{dyn}.\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{g}^2$$

and the value for $`\omega ,`$ in the past, was, according to our computation

$$\omega _{past}8.87$$

and the present value for $`\omega `$ is, according to our program:

$$\omega 8.24\times 10^{21}$$

and finally, the present ratio:

$$\frac{\dot{G}}{G}5.77\times 10^{13}/yr$$

Note that, because we have so small experimental value for this ratio, we have to use several digits in $`\dot{\varphi }`$ .

These are the initial results of our proposal of perform an numerical analisys of the consequences of the scalar tensor theories of gravitation. We hope that these informations can be used in another investigations of the cosmological parameters.

## 5 Discussion and Conclusion.

In this work, we consider the scalar-tensor theory of gravitation, which the has the proposal of study of the Neton´s gravitational constant. We didn´t sugest any analitycal solution to the field equations. What we have done is, based in some justified hypothesis, to calculated numerically the solutions for the fields ($`\varphi )`$, the coupling constant ($`\omega )`$, and the main point, the values of $`G(t).`$ On despite that the field equations are non-linear in $`\varphi `$ and $`\dot{\varphi }`$ we have two constraints ($`G`$ and $`\left|\dot{G}/G\right|`$ ) that filter the possibilities. It´s useful to study if we can aply the uniquiness of solution under these conditions.

We consider that numerical analisys presented is quite interesting, because shows the possible evolutions for the value of the Newton´s gravitational constant $`G`$ in a recent period of the Universe, based in a Scalar Tensor Theory of gravitation. The same idea can be used to make some predictions about future values of G. We believe that, if one consider our basic hypothesis valid, ($`k=0,`$ accelerating Universe, $`p=0)`$ it´s worthwhile to work to find the intial values of $`\varphi `$ and $`\dot{\varphi }`$ that results in the present values of $`G`$ and $`\dot{G}`$ (if the last one is measured). The numerical approach used here can be improved to work with a more accurate step in the program (less than 10 millions of years). Another point is that our computational program shows that is possible a change in the signal of $`\dot{G},`$ so we may especulate that $`G`$ can start to grow.

We can also consider that, if the Newton´s gravitational constant have changed in the last one billion of years, there are consequences and evidences that can be search in the geological or astronomical fields of knowledge, for a compreensive discussion about these implications, see . Eventually, the study of gravitational waves can give some information about the value of $`G`$ in the past, or , in the opposite sense, these study can use some information about the numerical evolution of $`G,`$ gravitational waves in the scalar-tensor theories are studied in .

As a final consideration, we remember that we use $`L_m=0.`$ It´s possible propose many different forms for $`L_m.`$ In our humble opinion, if we think that even the theorethical part is not solved yet, hence the numerical one, in a way that it´s possible to perform several approachs to the problem.

Captions

Fig 1:G as a time function, when we consider the some ratios between $`\varphi `$ and $`\dot{\varphi },`$ in this case $`\dot{\varphi }/\varphi =10^n`$, where $`n=1(`$solid line),$`2(`$long dashed line) or 3(shor dashed line) . It´s important to observe that in this picture, the time goes from the right to left, being 0.00 the present time and 100 one billion of years ago. The same notation is used in the another grafics.

Fig 2: The case n=4,(solid) 6 (dashed) and 8. $`\dot{\varphi }`$ is positive.We can see that n=6 and n=8producesalmost the same results, so one line superposes the another. We can also see that we have a growing G(t), and also note this is an acceleratting growing. Due this we will eliminate these results of a “fine tunning” analisys.

Fig 3:A study for the cases with n=2.5(long dashed) and n=3, ($`\dot{\varphi }=2\times 10^3\varphi )`$(short dashed).For $`\dot{\varphi }=10^3\varphi `$ (solid line) we can observe a minimum. We can see there are an interesting result and worked it as a starting point of a search for a better fitting of the theorethical parameters.

Fig 4:G(t) in the cases we have negative values for the intial value of $`\dot{\varphi }.`$ We use n=4,(solid line) , 6 (long dashed) and 8 (short dashed). Again one result superposes another. The cases n=3 and n=2 have resulted inconsistent values and oscilations.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It has often been stated that CP violation is among the least tested and poorly understood properties of the Standard Model (SM) of electroweak and strong interactions. CP asymmetries measured in meson decays are accounted for by arbitrary complex Yukawa couplings, yielding a single phase in the Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa (CKM) matrix . The Kobayashi–Maskawa (KM) model for CP violation was suggested thirty years ago  to explain CP non-conservation in $`K`$ decays. Recently it passed in a remarkable way its first crucial  precise  test in $`B`$ decays when a large CP asymmetry was measured in $`B^0J/\psi K_S`$ . This opens a new era, in which the model is expected to be scrutinized through a variety of other $`B`$ and $`B_s`$ decay asymmetries. Impressive progress has already been made in search for asymmetries in several hadronic $`B`$ decays, including $`B^0(t)\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ , $`B^{0,\pm }K\pi `$ and $`B^\pm DK^\pm `$ . Current measurements are approaching the level of tightening bounds on the CP-violating phase $`\gamma `$ . These and forthcoming measurements of $`B_s`$ decays  will enable a cross-check of the KM model. Two complementary tools for studying hadronic decays, an isospin  and flavor SU(3)-based approach  and a QCD-factorization approach , can be checked and refined when confronted by data. This is expected to establish the KM hypothesis at a high precision, up to a point where deviations will hopefully be observed from this simple picture.

The CP transformation consists of a product of parity (P) and charge-conjugation (C). In the SM, parity is violated in a maximal way by assuming that left-handed chiral fermion fields transform as doublets under the SU(2) gauge group, while right-handed fermions transform as singlets. This left–right asymmetry, which is introduced by hand in order to account for the observed low energy phenomenology, may ultimately disappear at high energies in a left–right symmetric theory . This theory would hopefully explain the origin and pattern of fermion masses, mixing and CP-violating phases, which in the current model are represented by arbitrary complex Yukawa couplings. In such a theory, parity and CP violation would have a common origin in a new type of interaction responsible for fermion masses. If parity violation and the quark mass hierarchy have a common origin, then it may be anticipated that right-handed couplings grow with quark masses and are larger for $`b`$ quarks than for $`s`$ quarks, in contrast to the measured left-handed weak couplings. In this case the very small $`b`$ couplings , $`|V_{cb}|=0.04,|V_{ub}|=0.003`$, would be sensitive to right-handed interactions. In order for right-handed $`b`$ couplings to be observable in the near future, the left–right symmetry scale would have to be around a TeV or several TeV , not far above the electroweak scale. In the absence of good experimental tests for the chirality of $`b`$ quark couplings , such a scenario cannot be ruled out and adequate tests are desirable. This report will focus on several such tests.

I will discuss photonic and hadronic $`B`$ decays, the study of which serves two purposes:

1. Examining the chiral structure of $`b`$-quark couplings in P-odd observables.
2. Testing CKM phases in CP-violating observables.

Since the second topic has recently been the subject of frequent discussions , I will pay more attention to the first aspect, discussing it in Sections 2 and 3. The second topic will be addressed in Section 4 while Section 5 will conclude.

## 2 The photon polarization in radiative $`B`$ decays

In radiative $`b`$ quark decays, $`bs\gamma `$, the $`s`$ quark, which couples to a $`W`$ in the loop, is left-chiral. Therefore, the photon is predominantly left-handed. The effective Hamiltonian for $`bs\gamma `$ contains a dominant dipole-type operator given by

$`_{\mathrm{rad}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}\left(C_{7L}𝒪_{7L}+C_{7R}𝒪_{7R}\right),`$ (1)
$`𝒪_{7L,R}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{16\pi ^2}}m_b\overline{s}\sigma _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1\pm \gamma _5}{2}}bF^{\mu \nu },`$ (2)
where the Wilson coefficients $`C_{7L}`$ and $`C_{7R}`$ describe the amplitudes for left- and right-handed photons, respectively. In the SM one has $`C_{7R}/C_{7L}=m_s/m_b`$. Defining the photon polarization in $`bs\gamma `$,

$$\lambda _\gamma \frac{|C_{7R}|^2|C_{7L}|^2}{|C_{7R}|^2+|C_{7L}|^2},$$
(3)
the SM predicts

$$\lambda _\gamma =1,$$
(4)
where $`𝒪(m_s^2/m_b^2)`$ corrections are expected to be at the per cent level. Also four-quark operators, $`O_{1,2}`$ with (V–A)(V–A) structure, contribute to a dominantly left-handed photon, whereas contributions from penguin operators, $`O_{36}`$, with a different chiral structure, involve much smaller Wilson coefficients and can be safely neglected.

As we will now argue , the prediction (4) for the photon polarization holds also in the presence of hadronic effects in exclusive radiative decays in which the final hadronic system carries well-defined spin and parity. Let us consider the decay of a $`\overline{B}`$ meson into a strangeness $`+1`$ state $`X_s`$ with spin-parity $`J^P`$, and let us denote hadronic and photonic states with helicities $`\pm 1`$ by $`X_s^{R,L}`$ and $`\gamma _{R,L}`$, respectively. One clearly has

$$X_s^L\gamma _L|𝒪_{7R}|\overline{B}=X_s^R\gamma _R|𝒪_{7L}|\overline{B}=0,$$
(5)
while parity and rotational invariance of the strong interactions imply

$$X_s^R\gamma _R|𝒪_{7R}|\overline{B}=(1)^{J1}PX_s^L\gamma _L|𝒪_{7L}|\overline{B}.$$
(6)
Defining weak radiative amplitudes for left- and right-polarized photons,

$$c_iX_s^i\gamma _i|_{\mathrm{rad}}|\overline{B},i=L,R,$$
(7)
one obtains

$$\frac{c_L}{c_R}=(1)^{J1}P\frac{C_{7L}}{C_{7R}}\frac{|c_R|^2|c_L|^2}{|c_R|^2+|c_L|^2}=\frac{|C_{7R}|^2|C_{7L}|^2}{|C_{7R}|^2+|C_{7L}|^2}.$$
(8)
Thus, both in inclusive radiative $`B`$ decays and in exclusive decays to $`J^P`$ states, there is a prediction for the photon polarization in terms of ratio of Wilson coefficients. The prediction (4) holds in the SM at the per cent level. It is amusing to note that, while the current calculation of the measured inclusive rate has not yet achieved a level of $`10\%`$ in spite of great efforts , the more precisely predicted photon chirality has not yet been put to an experimental test.

The photon polarization prediction is very sensitive to new physics effects. In several extensions of the SM the photon in $`bs\gamma `$ acquires an appreciable right-handed component due to chirality flip along a heavy fermion line in the electroweak loop. Two well-known examples of such extensions are the left–right-symmetric model and the unconstrained Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model. In the first model chirality flip along the $`t`$-quark line in the loop involves $`W_L`$$`W_R`$ mixing , while in the second scheme a chirality flip along the gluino line in the loop involves left–right squark mixing . In both types of models it was found that, in certain allowed regions of the parameter space, the photons emitted in $`bs\gamma `$ can be largely right polarized without affecting substantially the SM prediction for the inclusive radiative decay rate. This situation calls for an independent measurement of the photon polarization.

Several ways were proposed for measuring photon helicity effects in radiative $`B`$ decays. We will briefly describe three early suggestions. The first two proposals are sensitive to interference between left and right polarization amplitudes; they can be used to forbid a large interference at present $`B`$ factories. This may exclude certain parameters in left–right-symmetric and SUSY models. The third method, which measures the photon polarization directly, requires an extremely high luminosity $`e^+e^{}`$ $`Z`$ factory. Finally, we will focus our attention on a recent proposal to measure the photon polarization, which is feasible at currently operating $`B`$ factories.

### 2.1 CP asymmetry in $`B^0(t)X_{s(d)}^{CP}\gamma `$

Consider the time-dependent rate of  $`B^0(t)X_{s(d)}^{CP}\gamma `$, where $`X_s^{CP}=K^0K_S\pi ^0`$ or $`X_d^{CP}=\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. The time-dependent CP asymmetry follows from an interference between $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B}^0`$ decay amplitudes into a common state of definite photon polarization, and is proportional to $`C_{7R}/C_{7L}`$. For instance, in the SM the asymmetry in $`B^0(t)f,f=K^0\gamma (K_S\pi ^0)\gamma `$, is given by

$$𝒜(t)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^0(t)f)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0(t)f)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^0(t)f)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0(t)f)}=\frac{2C_{7L}C_{7R}}{C_{7L}^2+C_{7R}^2}\mathrm{sin}2\beta \mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }mt).$$
(9)
The ratio $`C_{7R}/C_{7L}`$ is expected to be a few per cent in the SM, whereas it may be much larger in extensions of the SM .

### 2.2 Angular distribution in $`\overline{B}\overline{K}^{}\gamma \overline{K}\pi e^+e^{}`$

Consider the decay distribution in this process as a function of the angle $`\varphi `$ between the $`\overline{K}\pi `$ and $`e^+e^{}`$ planes, where the photon can be virtual  or real, converting in the beam pipe to an electron–positron pair . The $`e^+e^{}`$ plane acts as a polarizer, the distribution in $`\varphi `$ is isotropic for purely circular polarization, and the angular distribution is sensitive to interference between left and right polarization. One finds

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\varphi }1+\xi \frac{C_{7L}C_{7R}}{C_{7L}^2+C_{7R}^2}\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi +\delta ),$$
(10)
where the parameters $`\xi `$ and $`\delta `$ are calculable and involve hadronic physics.

### 2.3 Forward–backward asymmetry in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma p\pi \gamma `$

The forward–backward asymmetry of the proton with respect to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ rest frame is proportional to the photon polarization . Using polarized $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$’s from extremely high luminosity $`e^+e^{}`$ $`Z`$ factories, one can also measure the forward–backward asymmetry of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ momentum with respect to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ boost axis . This asymmetry is proportional to the product of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ and photon polarizations.

### 2.4 Angular distribution in $`BK_1(1400)\gamma K\pi \pi \gamma `$

Radiative decays into an excited tensor meson resonance state, $`K_2^{}(1430)`$, identified through its $`K\pi `$ decay mode, were observed by the CLEO  and Belle  collaborations. The Belle collaboration also observed a $`K\pi \pi `$ resonant structure above an invariant mass of 1.2 GeV, consistent with a large mixture of $`K_1(1400)K^{}\pi `$. We will show that a detailed angular analysis of $`K\pi \pi \gamma `$ events can be used to study the photon polarization.

First, we point out  that, in order to measure the photon polarization $`\lambda _\gamma `$ in radiative $`B`$ decays through the recoil hadron distribution, one requires that the hadrons consist of at least three particles. This necessary condition follows from the simple fact that $`\lambda _\gamma `$ is parity-odd. Consequently, the hadronic quantity multiplying $`\lambda _\gamma `$ in the decay distribution must be P-odd. The pseudoscalar quantity, which contains the smallest number of hadron momenta, is a triple product that requires three hadrons recoiling against the photon. The idea is then to measure an expectation value $`\stackrel{}{p}_\gamma (\stackrel{}{p}_1\times \stackrel{}{p}_2)`$, where $`\stackrel{}{p}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_2`$ are momenta of two of the hadrons in the centre-of-mass frame of the recoil hadrons. Since the triple product is also time-reversal-odd, a non-zero expectation value requires a phase due to final state interactions. The final state interaction phase is calculable in the special case that the decay occurs through two isospin-related intermediate $`K^{}`$ resonance states. This is the case that we will discuss now .

Consider the decays $`B^+K_1^+(1400)\gamma `$ and $`B^0K_1^0(1400)\gamma `$, where $`K_1^+`$ and $`K_1^0`$ are observed through

$`K_1^+(1400)\left\{\begin{array}{c}K^+\pi ^0\\ K^0\pi ^+\end{array}\right\}K^0\pi ^+\pi ^0,K_1^0(1400)\left\{\begin{array}{c}K^+\pi ^{}\\ K^0\pi ^0\end{array}\right\}K^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0,`$ (15)
with a branching ratio $`(K_1K^{}\pi )=0.94\pm 0.06`$ . In both charged and neutral $`K_1`$ decays, two Breit–Wigner amplitudes interfere through intermediate $`K^+`$ and $`K^0`$. Decays to $`\rho K`$, with $`(K_1\rho K)=0.03\pm 0.03`$ , will be neglected at this point. The two $`K^{}`$ amplitudes are related by isospin; therefore phases other than the two Breit–Wigner phases cancel. The decay $`K_1K^{}\pi `$ is dominated by an $`S`$ wave and involves a small $`D`$ wave amplitude, where the $`D/S`$ ratio of rates is $`|A_D/A_S|^2=0.04\pm 0.01`$ . Using Lorentz invariance, it is straightforward to write down the decay amplitude for $`B(K\pi \pi )_{K_1}\gamma `$, and to calculate the decay distribution in the $`K_1`$ rest frame ,

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{ds_{13}ds_{23}d\mathrm{cos}\theta }|\stackrel{}{J}|^2(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )+\lambda _\gamma 2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}\left(\widehat{n}(\stackrel{}{J}\times \stackrel{}{J}^{})\right)\mathrm{cos}\theta .$$
(16)
The vector $`\stackrel{}{J}`$ is an antisymmetric function of the two pion momenta $`p_1,p_2`$ and of the $`K`$ momentum $`p_3`$. It involves a Breit–Wigner function $`B(s)=\left(sm_K^{}^2im_K^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_K^{}\right)^1`$ of $`s_{i3}=(p_i+p_3)^2(i=1,2)`$. The angle $`\theta `$ lies between the normal to the decay plane $`\widehat{n}(\stackrel{}{p}_1\times \stackrel{}{p}_2)/|\stackrel{}{p}_1\times \stackrel{}{p}_2|`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_\gamma `$, all measured in the $`K_1`$ rest frame. A useful definition of the normal is in terms of the slow and fast pion momenta, $`(\stackrel{}{p}_{\mathrm{slow}}\times \stackrel{}{p}_{\mathrm{fast}})/|\stackrel{}{p}_{\mathrm{slow}}\times \stackrel{}{p}_{\mathrm{fast}}|`$. The angle between this normal and $`\stackrel{}{p}_\gamma `$ will be denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$.

The decay distribution exhibits an up–down asymmetry of the photon momentum with respect to the $`K_1`$ decay plane. The asymmetry is proportional to the photon polarization. When integrating over the entire Dalitz plot one finds

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{up}\mathrm{down}}\frac{_0^{\pi /2}\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }}d\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{\pi /2}^\pi \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }}d\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }}{_0^\pi \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }}d\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }}=(0.33\pm 0.05)\lambda _\gamma .$$
(17)
The uncertainty follows from experimental errors in the $`\rho K`$ amplitude and in the $`K^{}\pi `$ $`D`$-wave amplitude. In the SM, where $`\lambda _\gamma 1`$, the asymmetry is $`(33\pm 5)\%`$ and the polarization signature is unambiguous: in $`B^{}`$ and $`\overline{B}^0`$ decays the photon prefers to be emitted in the hemisphere of $`\stackrel{}{p}_{\mathrm{slow}}\times \stackrel{}{p}_{\mathrm{fast}}`$, while in $`B^+`$ and $`B^0`$ it is more likely to be emitted in the opposite hemisphere.

The $`K\pi \pi `$ invariant mass region above 1.2 GeV contains in addition to $`K_1(1400)`$ other $`K`$ resonances: an axial-vector $`K_1(1270)`$, a vector $`K^{}(1410)`$, a tensor $`K_2^{}(1430)`$ and higher resonance states. In order to avoid interference between $`K_1(1400)`$ and $`K_1(1270)`$, one would have to study the region $`m(K\pi \pi )=1400`$$`1550`$ MeV. The $`K^{}(1410)`$ state leads to no up–down asymmetry, while the $`K_2^{}(1430)`$ involves a small asymmetry . These two resonances dilute the overall up–down asymmetry in this mass range compared to the asymmetry from $`K_1(1400)`$; however, they do not affect the sign of the asymmetry. Thus, a first crude measurement of merely the sign of the photon polarization can be made using an integrated sample of $`K\pi \pi \gamma `$ events. In order to improve the efficiency, one would have to isolate events from $`K_1(1400)`$, where the asymmetry is largest. A procedure for achieving this goal by studying decay angular distributions is described in .

Assuming then that $`BK_1(1400)\gamma K\pi \pi \gamma `$ events involving one neutral pion  can be effectively isolated, one may check the feasibility of measuring the photon polarization at currently operating $`B`$ factories. A $`3\sigma `$ measurement of a $`33\%`$ up–down asymmetry requires about 80 reconstructed $`BK_1(1400)\gamma K\pi \pi \gamma `$ events, including charged and neutral $`B`$ and $`\overline{B}`$ decays. Fewer events may be needed using the full $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ dependence. Assuming $`(BK_1\gamma )=0.7\times 10^5`$ , including known $`K_1`$ and $`K^{}`$ branching ratios to the relevant charge states, and allowing another order of magnitude for experimental efficiencies, resolution and background, one finds that this number of reconstructed events can be obtained from a total of $`2\times 10^8`$ $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs, including charged and neutrals. This number has already been produced at $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders. In order to measure $`\lambda _\gamma `$ to about $`15\%`$, which is the level of precision of the theoretical result (17), one would need about $`10^9B\overline{B}`$ pairs.

## 3 Chirality tests in hadronic $`B`$ decays

As mentioned in the introduction, the chirality of weak $`b`$ quark couplings has not yet been put to a test in hadronic $`B`$ decays. In semileptonic decays $`B(D^{}D\pi )e\overline{\nu }`$, angular decay distributions are sensitive to a $`W_L`$$`W_R`$ mixing amplitude, in which the $`bc`$ coupling is $`V+A`$ and the leptonic current is $`VA`$. These measurements  set upper bounds on $`W_L`$$`W_R`$ mixing; however, it cannot distinguish between $`W_L`$ and $`W_R`$ exchange, in which quark and lepton currents have equal chiralities . Such a distinction requires a parity-odd observable, which cannot be constructed from two-body hadronic $`D^{}`$ decays.

In the present section we will discuss a method for testing $`VA`$ in $`b`$-quark couplings by studying hadronic $`B`$ decays involving a vector meson and an axial-vector meson, $`BD^{}a_1`$, in which the axial vector meson decays to three pseudoscalars. The idea is similar to that used to measure the photon or the $`K_1`$ chirality in $`BK_1\gamma `$. In order to calculate helicity amplitudes in $`BD^{}a_1`$, we will assume factorization and heavy quark symmetry. Predictions following from this assumption have recently been tested experimentally in $`B`$ decays to two vector mesons, $`BD^{}\rho `$. Let us therefore start with a discussion of this process.

### 3.1 Helicity amplitudes in $`\overline{B}^0D^+\rho ^{}`$

The decays $`\overline{B}^0D^+(D^0\pi ^+)\rho ^{}(\pi ^{}\pi ^0)`$, in which each of the two vector mesons decays to two spinless particles whose momenta are measured, can be used to study the vector meson polarization . Using an angular momentum decomposition, the decay amplitude can be written in terms of three helicity amplitudes, $`H_0,H_+,H_{}`$, corresponding to the three polarization states of the vector mesons,

$$A=\frac{3}{2\sqrt{2\pi }}\left[H_0\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2+\frac{1}{2}(H_+e^{i\varphi }+H_{}e^{i\varphi })\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\right].$$
(18)
Here $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _2`$ are the angles between each of the two vector mesons momenta in the $`B`$ rest frame and the momenta of the corresponding daughter particles in the decaying vector mesons rest frame; $`\varphi `$ is the angle between the $`D^{}`$ and $`\rho `$ decay planes. In the above we use a convention in which the normalized decay angular distribution is given by $`|A|^2`$,

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{d^3\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2d\varphi }=|A|^2|H_0|^2+|H_+|^2+|H_{}|^2=1.$$
(19)
The decay distribution is symmetric under $`(H_0,H_+,H_{})(H_0^{},H_{}^{},H_+^{})`$, implying that rates into left and right polarizations, $`|H_{}|^2`$ and $`H_+|^2`$ respectively, are indistinguishable. Namely, one cannot distinguish in this process between left- and right-polarized vector mesons. As mentioned before, this follows from the lack of a parity-odd observable when each of the vector mesons decays into two spinless particles. Thus, while the rate into longitudinally polarized state $`|H_0|^2`$ can be measured, only the magnitude of $`|H_+|^2|H_{}|^2`$ is measurable, but not its sign.

The following values were reported very recently by the CLEO collaboration :

$`|H_0|`$ $`=`$ $`0.941\pm 0.009\pm 0.006,`$
$`|H_+|\mathrm{or}|H_{}|`$ $`=`$ $`0.107\pm 0.031\pm 0.011,`$
$`|H_{}|\mathrm{or}|H_+|`$ $`=`$ $`0.322\pm 0.025\pm 0.016.`$ (20)
In their report the collaboration quotes a value for $`|H_+|`$, which is smaller than $`|H_{}|`$, assuming that the $`D^{}`$ predominantly carries the chirality of the $`c`$ quark, as would follow from a $`\overline{c}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)b`$ coupling. It is important to check this assumption experimentally.

The three helicity amplitudes $`H_{0,\pm }`$ can be calculated using factorization and heavy quark symmetry . In this approximation, the three normalized amplitudes can be written in terms of meson masse. For a $`\overline{c}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)b`$ current one finds

$$H_0=\left(1+\frac{4y}{y+1}ϵ^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}},H_\pm =\left(1\sqrt{\frac{y1}{y+1}}\right)ϵ\left(1+\frac{4y}{y+1}ϵ^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
(21)
where $`y(m_B^2+m_D^{}^2m_\rho ^2)/2m_Bm_D^{}=1.476,ϵm_\rho /(m_Bm_D^{})=0.236`$. Thus, the values

$$|H_0|=0.940,|H_+|=0.125,|H_{}|=0.318,$$
(22)
are obtained, in good agreement with (3.1). One expects deviations from factorization in the amplitudes $`H_\pm `$ which are subleading in $`1/m_b`$. The above predictions of the Standard Model apply to $`\overline{B}^0`$ decays, while in $`B^0`$ decays the values of $`|H_+|^2`$ and $`|H_{}|^2`$ are interchanged. In the case of a $`\overline{c}\gamma _\mu (1+\gamma _5)b`$ current, the roles of $`|H_+|`$ and $`|H_{}|`$ are interchanged. Thus, while the measured value of $`|H_0|`$ is in excellent agreement with the SM prediction using factorization and heavy quark symmetry, measurements of $`|H_\pm |`$ cannot distinguish between $`VA`$ and $`V+A`$ currents. The present experimental precision allows also for an admixture of the two chiralities in the $`bc`$ coupling.

### 3.2 Chirality test in $`\overline{B}^0D^+a_1^{}`$

A large sample of $`18000\pm 1200`$ partially reconstructed $`\overline{B}^0D^+a_1^{}`$ events, combining this mode with its charge-conjugate, was reported very recently by the BABAR collaboration . The $`a_1`$ was reconstructed via the decay chain $`a_1^{}\rho ^0\pi ^{},\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, while the $`D^{}`$ was identified by a slow pion. We will now show that the $`D^{}`$ chirality can be determined from a suitable angular decay distribution . We will only assume an $`S`$-wave $`\rho ^0\pi ^{}`$ structure, without using the $`a_1`$ resonance shape and width, which involve a large uncertainty . A small $`D`$-wave correction can also be incorporated in the calculation.

The decay amplitude for this process is written in terms of weak helicity amplitudes $`H_i^{}`$, in analogy with (18),

$$A(\overline{B}^0D^+\pi ^{}(p_1)\pi ^{}(p_2)\pi ^+(p_3))=\underset{i=0,+,}{}H_i^{}A_i.$$
(23)
The strong amplitude $`A_i`$ involves two terms, corresponding to two possible ways of forming a $`\rho `$ meson from $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ pairs, each of which can be written in terms of two invariant amplitudes:

$$A(a_1(p,\epsilon )\rho (p^{},\epsilon ^{})\pi )=A(\epsilon \epsilon ^{})+B(\epsilon p^{})(\epsilon ^{}p),$$
(24)
convoluted with the amplitude for $`\rho ^0(\epsilon ^{})\pi ^+(p_i)\pi ^{}(p_j)`$, which is proportional to $`\epsilon ^{}(p_ip_j)`$. One finds

$`A(a_1^{}(p,\epsilon )\pi ^{}(p_1)\pi ^{}(p_2)\pi ^+(p_3))C(s_{13},s_{23})(\epsilon p_1)+(p_1p_2),`$ (25)
$`C(s_{13},s_{23})=[A+Bm_{a_1}(E_3E_2)]B_\rho (s_{23})+2AB_\rho (s_{13}),`$ (26)
where $`s_{ij}=(p_i+p_j)^2,B_\rho (s_{ij})=(s_{ij}m_\rho ^2im_\rho \mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho )^1`$, and pion energies are given in the $`a_1`$ rest frame. The amplitudes $`A`$ and $`B`$ are related to $`S`$\- and $`D`$-wave $`\rho \pi `$ amplitudes. When neglecting the small $`D`$-wave amplitude , they obey

$$B=A\left(1\frac{m_\rho }{E_\rho }\right)\frac{E_\rho }{m_\rho \stackrel{}{p}_\rho ^2}.$$
(27)
Defining an angle $`\theta `$ between the normal to the $`a_1`$ decay plane and the direction opposite to the $`D^{}`$ in the $`a_1`$ rest frame, one calculates the $`BD^{}3\pi `$ decay distribution,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{ds_{13}ds_{23}d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}`$ $``$ $`|H_0^{}|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta |\stackrel{}{J}|^2+(|H_+^{}|^2+|H_{}^{}|^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )|\stackrel{}{J}|^2`$ (28)
$`+`$ $`(|H_+^{}|^2|H_{}^{}|^2)\mathrm{cos}\theta \text{Im}[(\stackrel{}{J}\times \stackrel{}{J}^{})\widehat{n}],`$
where

$$\stackrel{}{J}=C(s_{13},s_{23})\stackrel{}{p}_1+C(s_{23},s_{13})\stackrel{}{p}_2.$$
(29)
A fit to the angular decay distribution enables separate measurements of the three terms $`|H_0^{}|^2,|H_+^{}|^2+|H_{}^{}|^2`$ and $`|H_+^{}|^2|H_{}^{}|^2`$. In particular, one can measure the P-odd up–down asymmetry of the $`D^{}`$ momentum direction with respect to the $`a_1`$ decay plane,

$$𝒜=\frac{3}{4}\frac{\text{Im }[\widehat{n}(\stackrel{}{J}\times \stackrel{}{J}^{})]\text{sgn }(s_{13}s_{23})}{|\stackrel{}{J}|^2}\frac{|H_+^{}|^2|H_{}^{}|^2}{|H_0^{}|^2+|H_+^{}|^2+|H_{}^{}|^2},$$
(30)
which determines $`|H_+^{}|^2|H_{}^{}|^2`$. Integration over the entire Dalitz plot gives

$$𝒜=0.237\frac{|H_+^{}|^2|H_{}^{}|^2}{|H_0^{}|^2+|H_+^{}|^2+|H_{}^{}|^2}.$$
(31)
In the heavy quark symmetry and factorization approximation , using (21) where $`y(m_B^2+m_D^{}^2m_{a_1}^2)/2m_Bm_D^{}=1.432,ϵm_{a_1}/(m_Bm_D^{})=0.376`$ , the results are

$$|H_0^{}|=0.866,|H_+^{}|=0.188,|H_{}^{}|=0.463.$$
(32)
These values, which depend somewhat on $`m_{a_1}`$ and on neglecting corrections to factorization in $`H_\pm ^{}`$, imply $`𝒜=0.042`$. The sign of the asymmetry, which is not expected to change under these corrections, provides an unambiguous signature for a $`VA`$ coupling in contrast to $`V+A`$. In the $`a_1^{}`$ rest frame the $`\overline{B}^0`$ and $`D^+`$ prefer to move in the hemisphere opposite to $`\stackrel{}{p}(\pi ^{})_{\mathrm{slow}}\times \stackrel{}{p}(\pi ^{})_{\mathrm{fast}}`$. Present statistics seem to be sufficient for determining this sign.

## 4 Determining $`2\beta +\gamma `$ in CP asymmetries

Both $`\overline{B}^0D^+\rho ^{}`$ and $`\overline{B}^0D^+a_1^{}`$ belong to a class of processes, which also contains $`\overline{B}^0D^+\pi ^{},D^+\pi ^{},D^+\rho ^{}`$ , from which the weak phase $`2\beta +\gamma `$ can be determined with no hadronic uncertainty. Using the well-measured value of $`\beta `$  this would fix $`\gamma `$. The difficulty in these methods lies in having to measure a very small time-dependent interference between $`bc\overline{u}d`$ and doubly-CKM-suppressed $`\overline{b}\overline{u}c\overline{d}`$ transitions, where $`|V_{ub}^{}V_{cd}/V_{cb}V_{ud}^{}|0.02`$. In decays to $`D^+\pi ^{},D^+\pi ^{},D^+\rho ^{}`$ the resulting analyses are sensitive to the doubly-CKM-suppressed rate, a precise measurement of which is extremely challenging. In the case of decays to two vector mesons, $`\overline{B}^0D^+\rho ^{}`$, one avoids the need to determine this small rate by using an interference between helicity amplitudes of CKM-allowed and doubly-CKM-suppressed decays . This requires a detailed angular analysis in addition to time-dependent measurements. The feasibility of using an angular analysis for measuring the helicity amplitudes in the dominant CKM-allowed channel was demonstrated in . It will be more difficult, but not impossible, to measure the time-dependent interference of helicity amplitudes with such disparate magnitudes. Here we will describe this method for determining $`2\beta +\gamma `$, first in $`\overline{B}^0D^+\rho ^{}`$ , and then in $`\overline{B}^0D^+a_1^{}`$  where a discrete ambiguity in the weak phase can be resolved. Our considerations will not depend on an assumption of factorization.

### 4.1 $`\overline{B}^0(t)D^+\rho ^{}`$

It is convenient to write the amplitude $`AA(\overline{B}^0D^+(D^0\pi ^+)\rho ^{}(\pi ^{}\pi ^0))`$ in a linear polarization basis , in which the $`D^{}`$ and $`\rho `$ transverse polarizations are either parallel or perpendicular to one another, $`H_,=(H_+\pm H_{})/\sqrt{2}`$, and to similarly expand $`aA(B^0D^+\rho ^{})`$ in terms of $`h_{0,,}`$:

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2\sqrt{2\pi }}}(H_0g_0+H_{}g_{}+iH_{}g_{}),a={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2\sqrt{2\pi }}}(h_0g_0+h_{}g_{}+ih_{}g_{}),`$ (33)
$`g_0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2,g_{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,g_{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{sin}\varphi .`$ (34)
The transversity amplitudes can be written as,

$$H_t=|H_t|\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Delta }_t),h_t=|h_t|\mathrm{exp}(i\delta _t)\mathrm{exp}(i\gamma ).$$
(35)
The time-dependent rate for $`\overline{B}^0(t)D^+\rho ^{}`$ has the general form

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$ $``$ $`e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t}\left[(|A|^2+|a|^2)+(|A|^2|a|^2)\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }mt+2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}\left(e^{2i\beta }Aa^{}\right)\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }mt\right]`$ (36)
$`=`$ $`e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t}{\displaystyle \underset{tt^{}}{}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{tt^{}}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{tt^{}}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }mt+\rho _{tt^{}}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }mt\right)g_tg_t^{}.`$
Each of the coefficients in the sum can be measured by performing a time-dependent angular analysis. Denoting by $`\mathrm{\Phi }2\beta +\gamma `$, this determines the following quantities:

$`|H_t|^2,|H_0||H_{}|\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{\Delta }_{}),|H_{}||H_{}|\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}),`$
$`|H_t||h_t|\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Delta }_t\delta _t),(t=0,,),`$
$`|H_{}|h_0|\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\delta _0)|H_0|h_{}|\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Delta }_0\delta _{}),`$
$`|H_{}|h_{}|\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\delta _{})|H_{}|h_{}|\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\delta _{}).`$ (37)
One does not rely on knowledge of the small $`|h_t|^2`$ terms , in which uncertainties would be large. Decays into the charge-conjugate state $`D^{}\rho ^+`$ determine similar quantities, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is replaced by $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. It is then easy to show that this overall information is sufficient for determining $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ up to a sign ambiguity.

### 4.2 What is new in $`\overline{B}^0(t)D^+a_1^{}`$ ?

The amplitudes $`A^{}A(\overline{B}^0D^+(3\pi )_{a_1}^{})`$ and $`a^{}A(B^0D^+(3\pi )_{a_1}^{})`$ are written in analogy with (33):

$`A^{}={\displaystyle \underset{t=0,,}{}}H_t^{}A_t,a^{}={\displaystyle \underset{t=0,,}{}}h_t^{}A_t.`$ (38)
Instead of real functions $`g_t`$ of the angular variables, one has calculable complex amplitudes $`A_t`$ defined in Eq. (25), which are functions of corresponding angles . One measures $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0(t)D^+(3\pi )_{a_1}^{})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0(t)D^{}(3\pi )_{a_1}^+)`$ as a function of $`\theta `$ and an angle $`\psi `$ that defines the direction of the $`D^{}`$ decay plane. The complex $`A_t`$, in contrast to the real $`g_t`$, imply that one can measure also interference terms between helicity amplitudes $`H_t^{}`$ and $`h_t^{}^{}`$ in which the cosines and sines in (4.1) are interchanged. This additional information has the effect of resolving the ambiguity in the sign of $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ .

The advantage of $`BD^{}a_1`$ in determining unambiguously the CP-violating phase $`2\beta +\gamma `$ can be traced back to the parity-odd measurables that occur in this process but not in $`BD^{}\rho `$. As noted, $`|H_+^{}|^2H_{}^{}|^2=2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}(H_{}^{}H_{}^{})`$ is P-odd, and so is $`\mathrm{Im}[e^{2i\beta }(H_{}^{}h_{}^{}+H_{}h_{}^{})]`$. These terms, which do not occur in the time-dependent rate of $`\overline{B}^0D^+\rho ^{}`$, do occur in $`\overline{B}^0(t)D^+a_1^{}`$ multiplying a P-odd function of $`\theta `$, $`\mathrm{cos}\theta \text{Im}[(\stackrel{}{J}\times \stackrel{}{J}^{})\widehat{n}]`$. A practical advantage of $`\overline{B}^{}D^+a_1^{}`$ over $`\overline{B}^0D^+\rho ^{}`$ is the occurrence of only charged pions in the first process. A slight disadvantage of the first process may be an intrinsic uncertainty in the amplitudes $`A_t`$ obtained in (25).

## 5 Conclusion

Parity-odd measurables in hadronic and photonic $`B`$ decays were shown to test the chiral structure of weak $`b`$ quark couplings at tree level and at the one-loop level, respectively. Time-dependent CP asymmetries in $`BD^{}a_1`$ complement measurements in $`BD^{}\rho `$, and resolve a discrete ambiguity in a clean determination of the CP-violating phase $`2\beta +\gamma `$.

I am grateful to the CERN Theory Division for its kind hospitality.


text:
# Squeezing and temperature measurement in Bose-Einstein Condensates

## I Introduction

Following the first experimental observation of Bose-Einstein condensation in 1995 1stexp , analogies between this phenomenon and non-linear optics have been pointed out 4wm ; reinhardt . Recently, squeezing of the matter waves has been analysed duan ; sorensen ; EPR ; by considering the role of the nonlinear interactions between the atoms in generating entangled atomic beams, namely the spin-exchanging collisions of spinor Bose-Einstein condensates (BEC’s).

Here we analyse squeezing in relation to the coupling of collective excitations in a Bose condensed gas in a trap. Most of the observed effects of elementary excitations can be explained using the standard Bogoliubov theory bogo . However, it cannot account for higher order processes such as the Beliaev damping of the excitations observed recently for a scissors mode of a BEC in 87Rb beldamp . Beliaev damping is a mechanism in which a quasiparticle with energy $`E_2`$ interacts with the condensate and generates two quasiparticles with energy $`E_1`$. The process is actually based on a four-wave process that is desguised as a three-wave interaction analogous to degenerate parametric down-conversion. The new quasiparticles, being produced in pairs, constitute a squeezed twin phonon beam. Recent theoretical development including the presence of interactions between the quasiparticles sam  provides an explanation for such processes. Finding quantitative estimates for the amount of squeezing and entanglement based on this theory is one of the main tasks of this paper.

Considering a system containing 10000 87Rb atoms in a spherical trap, we calculate the degree of squeezing of the quasiparticle excitations. A related experimental challenge that we also address is the accurate determination of temperature in BEC’s at $`TT_c`$. The temperature is currently estimated by fitting a thermal Gaussian profile to the atomic cloud. We propose a different way to determine temperature by observing the variation of the envelope of collective oscillations.

The paper is structured as follows: In Section II, the Hamiltonian in both particle and quasiparticle basis is discussed in relation to squeezing. The Hamiltonian in the quasiparticle basis accommodates processes such as the Landau and Beliaev damping. In Section III, we obtain equations of motion for the quasiparticle modes and give quantitative estimates for the degree of squeezing and entanglement in the quasiparticle excitations. The expected “damping rate” at various temperatures is calculated. This is then used as a temperature measurement calibration for BEC. In Section IV, we conclude.

## II Many-body Hamiltonian

Within the second quantised formalism, the many-body Hamiltonian for a system of bosons with binary interactions can be written as,

$$\widehat{H}=\underset{ij}{}H_{ij}^{sp}\widehat{a}_i^{}\widehat{a}_j+\frac{1}{2}\underset{ijkm}{}ij|\widehat{V}|km\widehat{a}_i^{}\widehat{a}_j^{}\widehat{a}_k\widehat{a}_m,$$
(1)
where the matrix elements $`H_{ij}^{sp}`$ are given by

$$H_{ij}^{sp}=d^3𝐫\psi _i^{}(𝐫)\widehat{H}^{sp}\psi _j(𝐫).$$
(2)
Here, $`H^{sp}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2m}^2+V_{trap}`$, is the single-particle Hamiltonian with a confining potential $`V_{trap}`$, and the basis state wave functions are $`\psi _i(𝐫)`$. The matrix element $`ij|\widehat{V}|km`$ denotes the matrix element for a bare interaction potential $`\widehat{V}(𝐫)`$ between two atoms; in this work, we shall consider the typical delta-function contact interaction potential for $`\widehat{V}(𝐫)`$. The operators $`\widehat{a}_i^{}`$ and $`\widehat{a}_i`$ are the creation and annihilation operators for mode $`i`$ that obey the Boson commutation relations

$$[\widehat{a}_i,\widehat{a}_j^{}]=\delta _{ij},\text{ }[\widehat{a}_i,\widehat{a}_j]=[\widehat{a}_i^{},\widehat{a}_j^{}]=0.$$

The Hamiltonian (1) is written in a single-particle basis where the operator $`\widehat{a}_i`$ annihilates a particle from the state with wave function $`\psi _i(𝐫)`$. The wave function $`\psi _0(𝐫)`$ describes the condensate, whilst the remaining functions form a complete set orthogonal to the condensate.

### II.1 Particle Hamiltonian

Let us first investigate the condensate by concentrating only on the condensate mode. This one-mode approximation applies well for temperatures $`T0`$ which is indeed the case for many experiments. We find the Hamiltonian is then simplified to

$$\widehat{H}=ϵ_{00}\widehat{a}_0^{}\widehat{a}_0+\frac{1}{2}00|V|00\widehat{a}_0^{}\widehat{a}_0^{}\widehat{a}_0\widehat{a}_0.$$
(3)
Treating the deviations from the ideal condensate as perturbations, we are able to expand $`\widehat{a}_0`$ as

$$\widehat{a}_0=z+\widehat{c},$$
(4)
where $`z=\sqrt{N_0}`$ represents the mean-field (condensate), and $`\widehat{c}`$ is the small quantum perturbation. $`\widehat{c}`$ may take the meaning of non-condensed atoms. We choose the phase so that $`z`$ is real. The mean-field approximation, although not exact, has been very successful in describing a large number of experimental results. Using the expansion for $`\widehat{a}_0`$ and splitting our Hamiltonian into a Gaussian and a non-Gaussian parts, we get the Gaussian part of our Hamiltonian as

$$\widehat{H}=ϵ_0\left[z^2+z(\widehat{c}+\widehat{c}^{})+\widehat{c}^{}\widehat{c}\right]+\frac{00|V|00}{2}\left[z^4+z^2(\widehat{c}^2+\widehat{c}^2)+2z^3(\widehat{c}+\widehat{c}^{})+4z^2\widehat{c}^{}\widehat{c}\right].$$
(5)
The non-Gaussian part may be treated using perturbation theory dunn . The resulting Heisenberg equations of motion for $`\widehat{c}`$ and $`\widehat{c}^{}`$ are

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\dot{\widehat{c}}(t)\\ \dot{\widehat{c}^{}}(t)\end{array}\right)=\mathrm{i}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{a}& \hfill \mathrm{b}\\ \hfill \mathrm{b}& \hfill \mathrm{a}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\widehat{c}(t)\\ \widehat{c}^{}(t)\end{array}\right)+\mathrm{i}\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill \kappa \\ \hfill \kappa \end{array}\right),$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{a}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\left(ϵ_0+200|V|00z^2\right)`$, $`\mathrm{b}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}00|V|00z^2`$, and $`\kappa =\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\left(ϵ_0z+00|V|00z^3\right)`$. The solutions of these equations are

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\widehat{c}(t)\\ \widehat{c}^{}(t)\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ B^{}& A^{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\widehat{c}(0)\\ \widehat{c}^{}(0)\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{c}D\\ D^{}\end{array}\right),$$
(7)
where $`A=\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}t\mathrm{i}\frac{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}t`$, $`B=\mathrm{i}\frac{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}t`$, $`D=\frac{(\mathrm{a}\mathrm{b})\kappa }{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^2}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}t\mathrm{i}\frac{\kappa }{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}t+\frac{(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{a})\kappa }{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^2}`$, and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\sqrt{\mathrm{a}^2\mathrm{b}^2}`$. It is important to note that the above equations are formally equivalent to dynamic equations that describe parametric down conversion in quantum optics barnett  if $`\kappa 0`$.

Defining the quadrature operators as $`\widehat{X}_p(t)=\frac{\widehat{c}(t)+\widehat{c}^{}(t)}{2}`$ and $`\widehat{Y}_p(t)=\frac{\widehat{c}(t)\widehat{c}^{}(t)}{2\mathrm{i}}`$, we have that the variances can be written as

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{X}_p(t))^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2\stackrel{~}{n}+1)}{4}}\left(\mathrm{cos}^2\mathrm{{\rm Y}}t+{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{a}\mathrm{b})^2}{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{{\rm Y}}t\right)`$ (8)
$`(\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{Y}_p(t))^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2\stackrel{~}{n}+1)}{4}}\left(\mathrm{cos}^2\mathrm{{\rm Y}}t+{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{a}+\mathrm{b})^2}{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{{\rm Y}}t\right)`$ (9)
where $`\stackrel{~}{n}`$ is the number of excited particles. In this case, the magnitude of $`\mathrm{a}`$ and $`\mathrm{b}`$, or equivalently the magnitude and phase of the mean field, $`z`$, control the amount of squeezing of the particule quadrature operators.

### II.2 Quasiparticle Hamiltonian

On the other hand, it is possible to describe the system including the higher order processes. The dominant ones correspond to the quadratic Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_Q=\widehat{H}_0+\widehat{H}_1+\widehat{H}_2`$, where the subscripts 0,1,2 indicate the order in $`\widehat{a}_i`$. This may be diagonalised exactly using the standard Bogoliubov transformations, changing the Hamiltonian to a quasiparticle basis where the quasiparticle operators $`\widehat{\beta }_i`$ are defined by111For simplicity from now on we drop the explicit notation in the operators

$$\beta _i=\underset{j0}{}U_{ij}^{}a_jV_{ij}^{}a_j^{}.$$
(10)
Here $`U_{ij}`$ and $`V_{ij}`$ are the well-known matrices associated with the Bogoliubov transformations, obeying the orthogonality and symmetry conditions $`UU^{}VV^{}=1`$ and $`UV^TVU^T=0`$. These matrices have to be evaluated numerically depending on temperature and the geometry of the trap. The non-quadratic terms are expected to be small and can be dealt with perturbatively. The energy and shape of the condensate change when one includes these terms. It has been shown sam  that in terms of the quasiparticle operator $`\beta _i`$ the effective Hamiltonian can be written as

$$H^{}=const+\underset{i0}{}(ϵ_i+\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_i)\beta _i^{}\beta _i+\{[\underset{ijk0}{}[\xi _{ijk}\beta _i\beta _j\beta _k+\zeta _{ijk}\beta _i^{}\beta _j\beta _k]+\underset{i0}{}\eta _i\beta _i]+h.c.\},$$
(11)
where the $`const`$ term simply shifts the zero of energy and $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_i`$ is the energy shift from first order perturbation theory. The Hamiltonian given by equation (11) contains terms beyond the Bogoliubov approximation, showing that we are treating interacting quasiparticles. We are thus taking into account important processes such as Landau and Beliaev damping. Landau processes, in which two quasiparticles collide to form a single quasiparticle, can not occur at zero temperature because there are no excited quasiparticles. However, they are dominant at high temperatures. Expressions for the coefficients of equation (11) are given in Appendix A. As we are interested in finite temperature, the $`U`$ and $`V`$ matrices are calculated self-consistently using the Bogoliubov-de Gennes (BdG) formalism for each temperature. From the Hamiltonian (11), the Heisenberg equation of motion for $`\beta _p`$ is

$$\mathrm{i}\dot{\beta }_p=\frac{\eta _p^{}}{\mathrm{}}+\omega _p\beta _p+\underset{j,k0}{}\sigma _{jk}\beta _j\beta _k+\underset{j,k0}{}\rho _{jk}\beta _j^{}\beta _k^{}+\underset{j,k0}{}\nu _{jk}\beta _k^{}\beta _j,$$
(12)
where

$`\omega _p`$ $`=`$ $`\left(ϵ_p+\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_p\right)/\mathrm{},`$
$`\sigma _{jk}`$ $`=`$ $`\zeta _{pjk}/\mathrm{},`$
$`\rho _{jk}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\xi _{pjk}^{}+\xi _{jkp}^{}+\xi _{kpj}^{}\right)/\mathrm{},`$
$`\nu _{jk}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\zeta _{jpk}^{}+\zeta _{jkp}^{}\right)/\mathrm{}.`$
Equation (12) and its complex conjugate are valid for the general case. However, a dominant process can be defined by choosing the appropriate geometry for the trap. In this form, the number of states involved is reduced merzbacher . The trap geometry can be modified by adjusting the frequencies in the radial and axial directions independently and the selection of a dominant mode in this way has been demonstrated hechen . In particular, the observation of a Beliaev process has recently been reported for a scissors mode, where one mode is resonantly coupled to two modes of half the original frequency beldamp ; this is the kind of process that we seek to model in the present paper. We note that terms in $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$ describe the spontaneous decay of quasiparticles and thus do not generally conserve energy. Therefore, we will only keep terms containing $`\sigma `$ and $`\nu `$. More details of these arguments can be found in reference martin , and the main points are summarised in Appendix B. For a Beliaev process, the equations of motion for modes $`p=1`$ and $`p=2`$ are

$`\dot{\beta }_1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}\omega _1\beta _1\mathrm{i}\nu _{21}\beta _2\beta _1^{},`$ (13)
$`\dot{\beta }_2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}\omega _2\beta _2\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _{21}}{2}}\beta _1\beta _1.`$ (14)
plus their complex conjugates. The factor of 2 that appears in equation (14) comes from the fact that $`\sigma _{11}=\nu _{21}/2`$.

Considering the system at a temperature $`T=20`$ nK, with $`N=10000`$ particles and a trap frequency $`\omega _{trap}=2\pi \times 100`$ Hz with spherical geometry and using 87Rb atoms for which the s-wave scattering length $`a=10a_0`$, where $`a_0`$ is the Bohr radius, the coefficient $`\nu _{21}`$ equals $`1.90\times 10^2`$ in trap units. The equations of motion for $`\beta _1`$ and $`\beta _1^{}`$ are profoundly affected by temperature through the values of $`\nu _{21}`$.

Equations of this sort have extensively been studied in quantum optics. In this case we apply them in order to study squeezing in the quasiparticle excitations and its temperature dependence. It is important to mention that the damping of excitations has earlier been described in terms of nonlinear mixing NLM ; this work differs from that description as the operator nature of the quasiparticle annihilation operator $`\beta _i`$ is retained, and the calculation is not restricted to the quadratic approximation. We are in effect extending the work of Ref. NLM , such that spontaneous quantum processes are included.

## III Temperature dependent coupling process

### III.1 Non-depleted regime

In the case in which mode 2 has a much larger population than mode 1, we may approximate the operator $`\beta _2`$ by a c-number $`b_2`$ and ignore the depletion of mode 2. The solutions of the Heisenberg equations of motion for the operators $`\beta _1`$ and $`\beta _1^{}`$ are then given by

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\beta _1(t)\\ \beta _1^{}(t)\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{cosh}(\mathrm{\Omega }t)& \hfill \mathrm{i}\mathrm{sinh}(\mathrm{\Omega }t)\\ \hfill \mathrm{i}\mathrm{sinh}(\mathrm{\Omega }t)& \hfill \mathrm{cosh}(\mathrm{\Omega }t)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\beta _1(0)\\ \beta _1^{}(0)\end{array}\right),$$
(16)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\nu _{21}b_2`$, and we have chosen the phases such that the coefficients are real. This represents the physical situation where the pump is continuously driven by a resonant excitation. It is important to mention that the approximation is no longer valid when a noticeable down-conversion has occurred.

Solutions (16) are equivalent to equations obtained in the description of degenerate parametric down-conversion in quantum optics. This process is well-known to be an efficient source of squeezed states. In this case, the corresponding squeezing parameter is

$$\tau =\mathrm{\Omega }t,$$
(17)
which is temperature dependent via $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

Analogously, one can define the quadrature operators for $`\beta `$ and $`\beta ^{}`$ and calculate the variances

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }X(t))^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2N_1+1)}{4}}\mathrm{exp}(2\mathrm{\Omega }t),`$ (18)
$`(\mathrm{\Delta }Y(t))^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2N_1+1)}{4}}\mathrm{exp}(2\mathrm{\Omega }t),`$ (19)
where $`N_1`$ is the number of particles in mode 1. In optics the quadrature operators are well-defined quantities corresponding to the amplitude and the phase of the electromagnetic (EM) oscillation. In a similar fashion, we give our quadrature operators $`X`$ and $`Y`$ the interpretations of amplitude and phase of oscillations. The dependence of equations (18) and (19) implies that the amount of squeezing is related to the number of lower-mode atoms present. Consequently, it is connected to the temperature of the ultracold atoms in the condensate rich , defined in terms of the initial Bose-Einstein (BE) distribution of quasiparticles.

However, in an experiment what one measures some correlation functions, for instance $`\beta _1^{}\beta _1`$. Assuming an initial number state in the quasiparticle basis, some important correlation functions are given by:

$`\beta _1(t)\beta _1(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}\left(N_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\mathrm{sinh}(2\mathrm{\Omega }t),`$ (20)
$`\beta _1^{}(t)\beta _1(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(N_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\mathrm{cosh}(2\mathrm{\Omega }t){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}.`$ (21)
A plot of the correlation function (20) is shown in Figure 2 a). A non-zero value for this correlation function implies the presence of squeezing and hence of entanglement between the two modes. The quantity given by equation (21) carries information about the behaviour of the population in mode 1 and it is directly measured as the amplitude of oscillation. A plot of this correlation function as a function of time $`(t)`$ and temperature $`(T)`$ is given in Figure 2 b). At $`t=0`$ the behaviour is determined by the BE distribution of $`N_1`$. As time evolves the population of the lower mode increases.

### III.2 Depleted regime

Let us now include the effect that depletion of mode 2 has in the description of the coupling process. In order to tackle the problem, we will consider the equations of motion for the number operators $`N_i=\beta _i^{}\beta _i`$. They can be calculated through the Heisenberg equations (13-14), namely

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}N_1}{\mathrm{d}t}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}\nu _{21}\left(\beta _2^{}\beta _1\beta _1\beta _1^{}\beta _1^{}\beta _2\right),`$ (22)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}N_2}{\mathrm{d}t}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _{21}}{2}}\left(\beta _2\beta _1^{}\beta _1^{}\beta _2^{}\beta _1\beta _1\right).`$ (23)
It is possible to uncouple the equations (22) and (23) using the constant of motion $`A=N_1+2N_2`$ and calculating the second derivative. The uncoupled equations are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2N_1}{\mathrm{d}t^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\nu _{21}^2(3N_1^2+2AN_1+A),`$ (24)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2N_2}{\mathrm{d}t^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _{21}^2}{2}}(12N_2^28AN_2+A^2A).`$ (25)
When the population of mode 2 is large, it is possible to determine the time evolution by taking the average of equation (25). In that case we have a c-number second-order differential equation with the following initial conditions

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}N_2}{\mathrm{d}t}}|_{t=0}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (26)
$`N_2(0)`$ $`=`$ $`N_{20};`$ (27)
The solution can be expressed as follows

$$N_2(t)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}N_{20}+(\alpha _2N_{20})\mathrm{sn}^2(\frac{\nu _{21}}{2}\sqrt{\frac{\alpha _1N_{20}}{6}}t,\sqrt{\frac{\alpha _2N_{20}}{\alpha _1N_{20}}}),\text{ for }N_{20}<\alpha _2,& & \\ & & \\ \alpha _1+(N_{20}\alpha _1)\mathrm{nd}^2(\frac{\nu _{21}}{2}\sqrt{\frac{\alpha _1\alpha _2}{6}}t,\sqrt{\frac{N_{20}\alpha _2}{\alpha _1\alpha _2}}),\text{ for }N_{20}>\alpha _2,& & \end{array}$$
(28)
where $`\mathrm{sn}(u,k)`$ and $`\mathrm{nd}(u,k)`$ are the standard Jacobi elliptic functions byrd , and the coefficient $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$ are the roots of the quadratic polynomial $`P(N_2)=N_2^2+(AN_{20})N_2N_{20}^2(A^2A)/4+N_{20}A`$. It has been already mentioned that the coefficient $`\nu _{21}`$ is temperature dependent; therefore the population will change accordingly. The initial population was calculated for different temperatures as prescribed by the BE distribution. An initial driving was also taken into account. The solution was then calculated using these parameters; a plot is shown in Figure 3 as a function of temperature and time.

The connection between the theory and experiment can be accomplished by observing that the initial part of the population surface can be fitted by a curve of the form $`A_1\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)`$. The parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is related to the solution (28) as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\nu _{21}\sqrt{\frac{(\alpha _1N_{20})(N_{20}\alpha _2)}{12N_{20}}}.$$
(29)
Following this line of analysis, a fitting routine was used to obtain a plot of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as a function of temperature (Figure 4). We can see from the plot that for lower temperatures the influence of the initial population is preeminent. For higher temperatures the coupling coefficient $`\nu _{21}`$ dwindles quickly, thus the effect of the initial population is hidden. It can clearly be seen that there is a competition between the initial population and the coupling coefficient. The quantity $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is notable in that it is a readily measurable temperature dependent quantity that links to the squeezing of quasiparticles.

## IV Discussion

The detection of squeezed states in the case of the electromagnetic field can be achieved through well-known techniques, e.g. homodyne detection. On the other hand, scattering experiments have also been proposed as a way to detect squeezing in bosons yurke . The proposal makes use of a particle scattering off a boson field. Provided the particle is prepared in the proper input state, it can either absorb or emit a boson, and these two scattering processes can coherently interfere when the boson field is in a squeezed state. The change in the rate of scattering into a particular state gives a signature that the field has been squeezed. A schematic setup for the detection of squeezing is shown in Figure 5: An incoming beam of frequency $`\omega _{}`$ is divided into two by a beam splitter, with one of the beams frequency shifted to $`\omega _+`$, which may be achieved through acusto-optic modulation. The two beams are made incident into the boson field, e.g. BEC. Particles scattered off the squeezed field are detected by the counter. This would provide an experimentally feasible way to directly measure squeezing in BEC.

In conclusion, we have described a process analogous to parametric down-conversion in trapped Bose-Einstein condensates. A fully second quantised order theory has been used to depict the condensate at finite temperature. The process corresponds to Beliaev damping, where a quantum of higher energy is divided into two quanta of lower energy. The coupling process is temperature dependent; this implies that any amount of squeezing in the elementary excitations of the condensate would give a direct indication of the temperature.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Dr. M. Rusch for helpful discussions. This work has been supported by CONACyT, EPSRC, Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851 and the EU.

## Appendix A

The coefficients that appear in equation (11) written in the position representation (using the contact potential) are determined by

$`\xi _{ijk}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{N_0}U_0{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^3𝐫\left[\psi _0^{}(𝐫)v_i(𝐫)u_j(𝐫)u_k(𝐫)+\psi _0(𝐫)u_i(𝐫)v_j(𝐫)v_k(𝐫)\right]},`$ (30)
$`\zeta _{ijk}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{N_0}U_0{\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}^3𝐫\{\psi _0^{}(𝐫)[u_i^{}(𝐫)u_j(𝐫)u_k(𝐫)+v_i^{}(𝐫)v_j(𝐫)u_k(𝐫)+v_i^{}(𝐫)u_j(𝐫)v_k(𝐫)]`$ (31)
$`+\psi _0[u_i^{}(𝐫)u_j(𝐫)v_k(𝐫)+u_i^{}(𝐫)v_{j(𝐫)}u_k(𝐫)+v_i^{}(𝐫)v_j(𝐫)v_k(𝐫)]\},`$
$`\eta _i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{q0}{}}\left(\zeta _{qqi}+\zeta _{qiq}\right)N_q.`$ (32)
where the indices $`i,j`$ and $`k`$ are labels that denote eigen-energy levels. For a 3-D condensate, the level $`i`$ is an implicit notation for the quantum numbers $`n,l`$ and $`m`$.

## Appendix B

To prove that Beliaev damping is indeed the dominant process with the given trap geometry discussed in the paper, it is only necessary to calculate various contributions from the framework of second order perturbation theory. The energy shift due to various higher order terms is given by the expression

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ij0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\xi _{pij}^{P3}|^2}{2(ϵ_p+ϵ_i+ϵ_j)}}[1+N_i+N_j]`$ (33c)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{ij0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\zeta _{pij}+\zeta _{pji}|^2}{2(ϵ_pϵ_iϵ_j)}}[1+N_i+N_j]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{ij0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\zeta _{ijp}+\zeta _{ipj}|^2}{ϵ_pϵ_i+ϵ_j}}[N_jN_i],`$
where line (33c) indicates spontaneous decay of quasiparticles. Here the coefficient $`\xi _{pij}^{P3}`$ is defined as a sum over permutations of the three indices in $`\xi _{pjk}`$, i.e. $`\xi _{pijk}^{P3}=\xi _{pjk}+\xi _{pkj}+\xi _{jpk}+\xi _{jkp}+\xi _{kpj}+\xi _{kjp}`$. Lines (33c) and (33c) give Beliaev and Landau damping processes respectively. Typical values are given in Ref. martin  and owing to the resonance in the denominator, (33c) may be made dominant with a correct choice of experimental parameters hechen .

Figure Captions

1. Schematic diagram of energy levels for a BEC in a trap. In the Beliaev process, a quasiparticle of frequency $`\omega _2`$ interacts with the ground state generating two quasiparticles of frequency $`\omega _1`$ that divide the initial energy equally. This process is analogous to the optical parametric down-conversion.
2. a) Surface plot of the average $`\beta _1\beta _1`$. A non-zero value of this quantity implies the presence of squeezing and hence entanglement. b) The average $`\beta _1^{}\beta _1`$ describes the behaviour of the population in mode 1. This solution is valid within the non-depleted regime. As discussed before, the behaviour at $`t=0`$ is determined by the BE distribution function.
3. The population $`N_2`$ as a function of temperature and time.
4. Plot of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ against temperature. This parameter is obtained by fitting a curve of the form $`A_1\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)`$ corresponds to the initial part of the envelope of the population $`N_2`$ shown in figure 3.
5. Schematic figure for the detection of squeezing by particle scattering.