text:
# Teleportation with a uniformly accelerated partner

## I Introduction

The large and rapidly growing field of quantum information science is a vindication of Landauer’s insistence that we recognize the physical basis of information storage, processing and communicationLandauer . Quantum information science is based on the discovery that there are physical states of a quantum system which enable tasks that cannot be accomplished in a classical world. An important example of such a task is quantum teleportationBennett-tele . Teleportation, like most recent ideas in quantum information science, is based squarely on the physical properties of non-relativistic quantum systems.

Recognizing that information science must be grounded in our understanding of the physical world, one is prompted to ask how relativistic considerations might impact tasks that rely on quantum entangled states. There has recently been some interest in this question for inertial frames. While Lorentz transformations cannot change the overall quantum entanglement of a bipartite statePeres ; Alsing , they can change which properties of the local systems are entangled. In particular, Gingrich and AdamiGA2002  showed that under a Lorentz transformation the initial entanglement of just the spin degrees of freedom of two spin half particles can be transferred into an entanglement between both the spin and momentum degrees of freedom. Physically this means that detectors, which respond only to spin degrees of freedom, will see a reduction of entanglement when they are moving at large uniform velocity. Put simply, the nature of the entanglement resource depends on the inertial reference frame of the detectors. A similar result holds for photonsGingrich03

In this paper however, we wish to consider quantum entanglement in non-inertial frames. In order to make the discussion physically relevant, we concentrate on a particular quantum information task; quantum teleportation. We will show that the fidelity of teleportation is compromised when the receiver is making observations in a uniformly accelerated frame. This is quite distinct from any reduction in fidelity through the Lorentz mixing of degrees of freedom noted by Gingrich and AdamiGA2002 . Rather it is direct consequence of the existence of Unruh-Hawking radiation for accelerated observers. In so far as teleportation fidelity is an operational measure of quantum entanglement, our results suggest that quantum entanglement may not be preserved in non-inertial frames.

## II Uniformly Accelerated Observers

### II.1 Preliminaries

Let Alice be an inertial Minkowski observer with zero velocity, located at the point $`P`$ as shown in Fig.(1a). Another inertial observer Bob is travelling with positive constant velocity $`v<c`$ in the $`z`$ direction with respect to Alice, and their positions are coincident at the point $`P`$ whereupon they each share one part of an entangled Bell state. The textbook teleportation protocol NC  proceeds as usual with Alice sending the results of her measurement to Bob at the point $`Q`$, say by photons, so that Bob will eventually receive them, and be able to rotate his half of the shared entangled state into the state $`|\psi _M=\alpha |0_M+\beta |1_M`$ that Alice wishes to teleport (where the $`M`$ subscripts denotes a Minkowski state).

The situation is drastically different for the observer Rob who travels with constant acceleration $`a`$ in the $`z`$ direction with respect to Alice. Alice’s and Rob’s position coincide at the point $`P`$ where again they instantaneously share an entangled Bell state, of which Rob takes one qubit on his journey. In Minkowski coordinates Rob’s world line takes the form

$$t_R(\tau )=a^1\mathrm{sinh}a\tau ,z_R(\tau )=a^1\mathrm{cosh}a\tau ,$$
(1)
where $`\tau `$ is the proper time along the world line. Rob’s trajectory is a hyperbola in Minkowski space bounded by the light-like asymptotes $`_{}`$ and $`_+`$ which represents Rob’s past and future horizons with $`\tau =\mathrm{}`$ and $`\tau =\mathrm{}`$ respectively. The shaded region in the right half of the Minkowski plane in Fig.(1b) where Rob is constrained to move is called the Right Rindler Wedge (RRW) and is labelled with the roman numeral $`I`$. In general, a point in the RRW can be labelled by the Rindler coordinates $`(\eta ,\zeta )`$ which are related to Minkowski coordinates $`(t,z)`$ by

$$t=\zeta \mathrm{sinh}\eta ,z=\zeta \mathrm{cosh}\eta ,$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{}<\eta <\mathrm{}`$ and $`0<\zeta <\mathrm{}`$. Lines of constant $`\zeta `$ are hyperbolas within the RRW and lines of constant $`\eta `$ are straight lines through the origin. The past horizon $`_{}`$ corresponds to $`\zeta =0,\eta =\mathrm{}`$ while the future horizon $`_+`$ corresponds to $`\zeta =0,\tau =\mathrm{}`$.

With the same coordinate transformation given in Eq.(2), the region $`\mathrm{}<\zeta <0`$ and $`\mathrm{}<\eta <\mathrm{}`$ is called the Left Rindler Wedge (LRW) and is labeled by the roman numeral $`II`$. In this region, the lines of constant $`\eta `$ run in the opposite sense than in $`I`$. Region $`I`$ is causally disconnected from $`II`$ and no signal from one region can propagate into the other region. The metric for Minkowski space is given by

$$ds^2=dz^2dt^2=d\zeta ^2\zeta ^2d\eta ^2.$$
(3)
It is well appreciated now fulling ; unruh ; BD ; takagi ; thooft ; pringle  that the quantization of fields in Minkowski and Rindler coordinates are inequivalent, implying that the RRW vacuum seen by Rob $`|0_I`$ is different than the Minkowski vacuum seen by Alice $`|0_M`$. The celebrated result of Davies and Unruh unruh  is that the Minkowski vacuum can be written in terms of the region $`I`$ and $`II`$ states (for a scalar field) as

$$|0_M=\underset{\mathrm{\Omega },\stackrel{}{k}_{}}{}\left(1e^{2\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}\right)^{1/2}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{2\pi \mathrm{\Omega }n}|n_{\mathrm{\Omega },\stackrel{}{k}_{}}_I|n_{\mathrm{\Omega },\stackrel{}{k}_{}}_{II},$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _R/(a/c)`$ with $`\omega _R`$ the frequency of a Rindler particle. The Minkowski vacuum as given by Eq.(4) is a two-mode squeezed state WallsMilburn  which for each mode $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\stackrel{}{k}_{})`$ has the general form

$$|0_M\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}r}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{tanh}^nr|n_I|n_{II},$$
(5)
with

$$\mathrm{cosh}r=\left(1e^{2\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}\right)^{1/2},\mathrm{sinh}r=e^{\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}\left(1e^{2\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(6)
Note that $`|0_M`$ can be written as $`S(r)|0_I|0_{II}`$ where the two-mode squeezing operator is given by $`S(r)\mathrm{exp}[r(b_Ib_{II}b_I^{}b_{II}^{})]`$ WallsMilburn . The evolution of a Minkowski state vector is affected by the unitary operator $`e^{iH_Mt}`$ where for a single mode (ignoring transverse momentum degrees of freedom) $`H_M=\mathrm{}\omega _Ma_M^{}a_M`$. For Rindler states the evolution proceeds via $`e^{iH_R\tau }`$ where

$`H_R`$ $``$ $`H_IH_{II}`$ (7)
$`H_I`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\omega _Rb_I^{}b_I,H_{II}=\mathrm{}\omega _Rb_{II}^{}b_{II}.`$ (8)
The minus sign in Eq.(8) stems from the sense of time essentially flowing ”backwards” in region $`II`$ (i.e. for $`a<0`$, $`\eta (\tau )=a\tau `$ is a decreasing function of $`\tau `$).

For Rob, who lives in region $`I`$, all his observables can be written solely in terms of $`b_I`$ and $`b_I^{}`$ operators. Since he is causally disconnected from region $`II`$, Rob must reduce any density matrix describing both Rindler wedges to one appropriate to region $`I`$ only, by tracing out over region $`II`$. Thus he perceives the Minkowksi vacuum as a thermal state,

$$\rho _{|0_M}^{(I)}Tr(|0_M0|)=\left(1e^{2\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}\right)\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{2\pi \mathrm{\Omega }n}|n_In|.$$
(9)
The exponential terms can be written as $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{}\omega _R/k_BT_U)`$ with the Unruh temperature $`T_U`$ is given by (in units of $`k_B=1`$)

$$T_U\frac{\mathrm{}a}{2\pi c}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\pi c\zeta _0},$$
(10)
where $`\zeta (\tau )=\zeta _0=1/a`$ is the constant Rindler position coordinate of Rob’s stationary world line.

### II.2 Relationship between Minkowski and Rindler modes

We will use two-photon states of the electromagnetic field note1  for the Bell state and so must consider Fock states, other than the vacuum state, for the Rindler observer. This is easily done by a consideration of how the creation and anihilation operators transform. The relationship between the Minkowski and Rindler modes is given by the Bogoliubov transformation

$$b_{\mathrm{\Omega },\stackrel{}{k}_{}}^{(\sigma )}=d^3k^{}\left(\alpha \alpha _{kk^{}}^{(\sigma )}a_k^{}+\beta _{kk^{}}^{(\sigma )}a_k^{}^{}\right)$$
(11)
where the notation of takagi  has been adopted, namely $`\sigma =(+,)`$ refers to region $`I`$ and $`II`$ respectively, $`k=(\mathrm{\Omega },\stackrel{}{k}_{})`$ and $`k^{}=(\stackrel{}{k}_{},k^3)`$. Modes in Minkowski space are specified by the wave vector $`\stackrel{}{k}(\stackrel{}{k}_{},k^3)`$ where $`\stackrel{}{k}_{}=(k^1,k^2)`$ are the components of the momentum perpendicular to the direction of Rob’s acceleration. The Minkowski frequency is given by $`\omega _\stackrel{}{k}=\sqrt{m^2+\stackrel{}{k}^2}`$. Modes in Rindler space are specified by a positive energy Rindler frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}_{}`$. The Bogoliubov transformation can be put into a more transparent form by introducing the Unruh modes $`d_{\mathrm{\Omega },\stackrel{}{k}_{}}^{(\sigma )}`$ and $`d_{\mathrm{\Omega },\stackrel{}{k}_{}}^{(\sigma )}`$. The Unruh modes arise by considering the fourier transform of the usual Minkowski plane waves $`[(2\pi )^3\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\omega _\stackrel{}{k}]^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{x}\omega _\stackrel{}{k}t)`$ in terms of the Rindler proper time $`\tau `$ pringle . These complete, orthonormal set of modes exits over all of Minkowski space and can be ”patched together” to form the two complete orthonormal set of Rindler modes which have finite support in either region $`I`$ or region $`II`$. The physical significance of the Unruh modes is that they diagonalize the generator of Lorentz boosts takagi , which in Minkowski coordinates is given by

$$M^{\alpha \beta }=d^3x(x^\alpha T^{0\beta }x^\beta T^{0\alpha }).$$

The restriction of the generator of boosts in the $`z`$ direction to region $`I`$ gives the Rindler Hamiltonian $`H_R=M^{03}|_I`$.

The relationship between the Unruh modes and the Minkowski modes is given by takagi

$$a_{\stackrel{}{k}_{},k^3}=\underset{\sigma }{}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }p_\mathrm{\Omega }^{(\sigma )}(k^3)d_{\mathrm{\Omega },\stackrel{}{k}_{}}^{(\sigma )}.$$
(12)
which can be inverted to give

$$d_{\mathrm{\Omega },\stackrel{}{k}_{}}^{(\sigma )}=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k^3p_\mathrm{\Omega }^{(\sigma )}(k^3)a_{\stackrel{}{k}_{},k^3}.$$
(13)
In the above expression, the functions $`p_\mathrm{\Omega }^{(\sigma )}(k^3)`$ form a complete orthonormal set and are given by

$$p_\mathrm{\Omega }^{(\sigma )}(k^3)=\frac{1}{(2\pi \omega _\stackrel{}{k})^{1/2}}\left(\frac{\omega _\stackrel{}{k}+k^3}{\omega _\stackrel{}{k}k^3}\right)^{i\sigma \mathrm{\Omega }/2}$$
(14)
which are essentially phase factors. Since by Eq.(13) the Unruh annihilation operator is a sum over only Minkowski annihilation operators, it too annihilates the Minkowski vacuum.

$$a_{\stackrel{}{k}_{},k^3}|0_M=0,d_{\mathrm{\Omega },\pm \stackrel{}{k}_{}}^{(\sigma )}|0_M=0.$$
(15)
Finally, the Unruh modes are related in a natural way to the Rindler modes through the following Bogoliubov transformation

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}d_{\mathrm{\Omega },\stackrel{}{k}_{}}^{(+)}\\ d_{\mathrm{\Omega },\stackrel{}{k}_{}}^{()}\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}r& \mathrm{sinh}r\\ \mathrm{sinh}r& \mathrm{cosh}r\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}b_{\mathrm{\Omega },\stackrel{}{k}_{}}^{(+)}\\ b_{\mathrm{\Omega },\stackrel{}{k}_{}}^{()}\end{array}\right]$$
(16)
with the hyperbolic functions of $`r`$ related to the Rindler frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ by Eq.(6). The operators $`b^{(+)}`$ and $`b^{()}`$ annihilate the RRW vacuum $`|0_+`$ and LRW vacuum $`|0_{}`$ respectively, and commute with each other.

By Eq.(12) we see that a given Minkowski mode of frequency $`\omega _\stackrel{}{k}`$ is spread over all positive Rindler frequencies $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, as a result of the Fourier transform relationship between $`a_{\stackrel{}{k}_{},k^3}`$ and $`d_{\mathrm{\Omega },\stackrel{}{k}_{}}^{(\sigma )}`$. We now simplify our analysis by considering the effect of teleportation of the state $`|\psi _M=\alpha |0_M+\beta |1_M`$ by the Minkowski observer Alice to a single Rindler mode of the RRW observer Rob. That is, we consider only the mode $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\stackrel{}{k}_{})`$ in region $`I`$ which is distinct from the mode $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\stackrel{}{k}_{})`$ in the same region. As such, we can consider only the $`\sigma =(+)`$ contribution and drop the unessential phase factors in Eq.(12). The single Rindler mode component of the Minkowski vacuum state we are interested is then

$$|0_M\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}r}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{tanh}^nr|n_{\mathrm{\Omega },\stackrel{}{k}_{}}_I|n_{\mathrm{\Omega },\stackrel{}{k}_{}}_{II}.$$
(17)
The relevant Bogoliubov transformation can now be written as

$$a_{\stackrel{}{k}_{},k^3}^{}d_{\mathrm{\Omega },\stackrel{}{k}_{}}^{(+)}=\mathrm{cosh}rb_{\mathrm{\Omega },\stackrel{}{k}_{}}^{(+)}\mathrm{sinh}rb_{\mathrm{\Omega },\stackrel{}{k}_{}}^{()}.$$
(18)
From here on we drop all the frequency and momentum subscripts and replace the labels $`\pm `$ by $`I`$ and $`II`$, keeping in mind the full definitions in Eq.(17) and Eq.(18).

## III Teleportation from a Minkowski observer to a Rindler observer

Let us first begin by briefly recalling the usual teleportation protocol, between Minkowski observers Alice and Bob \[Fig.(1a)\], as given in NC . Our two qubit entangled state will be encoded as entangled Fock states of the electromagnetic field. Alice wishes to teleport the state $`|\psi _M=\alpha |0_M+\beta |1_M`$ to Bob. Let Alice and Bob share the entangled Bell state $`|\beta _{00}_M=1/\sqrt{2}(|0_M|0_M+|1_M|1_M)`$. The input state to the system is then $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0_M=|\psi _M|\beta _{00}_M`$. Alice performs a CNOT gate on $`|\psi _M`$ and her portion of $`|\beta _{00}_M`$, and then passes the first qubit of the output state through a Hadammard gate. Upon making a joint projective measurement on her two qubits with the result $`|l_M|m_M`$ with $`l,m=\{0,1\}`$, the full state is projected into $`|l_M|m_M|\varphi _{l,m}_M`$ where Bob’s state is given by $`|\varphi _{lm}_Mx_{lm}|0_M+y_{lm}|1_M`$. Here we have defined the four possible outcomes as $`(x_{00},y_{00})=(\alpha ,\beta )`$, $`(x_{01},y_{01})=(\beta ,\alpha )`$, $`(x_{10},y_{10})=(\alpha ,\beta )`$, and $`(x_{11},y_{11})=(\beta ,\alpha )`$. After receiving the classical information $`\{l,m\}`$ of the result of Alice’s measurement, Bob can rotate his qubit of the entangled state into $`|\psi _M`$ by applying the operations $`Z_M^lX_M^m`$ to $`|\varphi _{lm}_M`$. The fidelity of the teleported state is unity in this idealized situation.

Alice now wishes to perform this same teleportation protocol with the uniformly accelerated Rob. The calculation proceeds straightforwardly once we remember two things. First, the states $`|0_M`$ and $`|1_M=a_M^{}|0_M`$ of the initial state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0_M`$ associated with Rob must be expanded in terms of the Rindler states $`|n_I|m_{II}`$. This can be accomplished by using the single mode Minkowski vacuum as given in Eq.(17) and the Bogoliubov transformation Eq.(18). Here we are imagining the situation where Rob has instantaneously accelerated to the value $`a`$ at $`\tau =0`$ at the point $`P`$ in Fig.(1b) where Alice and Rob initially share the entangle state $`|\beta _{00}_M`$. Second, since the result of Rob’s acceleration inextricably creates a particle horizon which keeps him causally disconnected from region $`II`$, his final state is produced by tracing out over region $`II`$. Thus, since any Minkowski Fock state is a correlated state of region $`I`$ and $`II`$ Fock states, there is no hope of completely teleporting the state $`|\psi _M=\alpha |0_M+\beta |1_M`$ in the presence of this partial trace operation by Rob. However, the best state we might expect Rob to obtain as an end product of the teleportation protocol would be the region $`I`$ analogous version of the Minkowski transported state $`|\psi _M`$, namely

$$|\psi _I=\alpha |0_I+\beta |1_I.$$
(19)
We might call this a thermally teleported state since Rob perceives all Minkowski states through the haze of the thermal vacuum that he moves through. If $`\rho _{lm}^{(I)}`$ is Rob’s density matrix after Alice performs the operations on her qubits, then we can measure the fidelity of the thermally teleported state as

$$F^{(I)}Tr_I\left(|\psi _I\psi |\rho ^{(I)}\right)=_I\psi |\rho ^{(I)}|\psi _I.$$
(20)
Using Eq.(5) for $`|0_M`$ and Eq.(18) for $`a_M^{}`$ we find

$$|1_M=\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}^2r}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{tanh}^nr\sqrt{n+1}|n+1_I|n_{II}.$$
(21)
When Alice sends the result of her measurement $`\{l,m\}`$, which can be received by Rob, if Alice has not yet crossed Rob’s future horizon $`_+`$, Rob’s state will be projected into

$`\rho _{lm}^{(I)}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{}_{II}{}^{}n|\varphi _{lm}_{M}^{}\varphi _{lm}|n_{II}`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tanh}^{2n}r}{\mathrm{cosh}^2r}}[(|x_{lm}|^2+n{\displaystyle \frac{|y_{lm}|^2}{\mathrm{sinh}^2r}})|n_In|+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x_{lm}y_{lm}^{}}{\mathrm{cosh}r}}\sqrt{n+1}|n+1_In|`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x_{lm}^{}y_{lm}}{\mathrm{cosh}r}}\sqrt{n+1}|n_In+1|].`$
Note that as the acceleration becomes large i.e. $`r\mathrm{}`$, Rob’s state is driven into the thermal vacuum state $`\rho _{|0_M}^{(I)}`$ of Eq.(9) and all information has been lost due to thermalization.

Let us now compute the fidelity in Eq.(20) with the state $`|\varphi _{lm}_I=x_{lm}|0_I+y_{lm}|1_I`$ with $`|x_{lm}|^2+|y_{lm}|^2=1`$, which is the penultimate state before Rob would perform the appropriate rotation to attempt to transform his half of the (accelerated) entangled Bell state to its final form $`|\psi _I`$. We obtain

$`F_{lm}^{(I)}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{I}{}^{}\varphi _{lm}|\rho _{lm}^{(I)}|\varphi _{lm}_{I}^{}`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}^2r}}[|x_{lm}|^4+(\mathrm{tanh}^2r|x_{lm}|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{|y_{lm}|^2}{\mathrm{cosh}^2r}})|y_{lm}|^2`$
$`+`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{|x_{lm}|^2|y_{lm}|^2}{\mathrm{cosh}r}}],`$
which is essentially a projection onto the $`\{|0_I,|1_I\}`$ subspace of $`\rho _{lm}^{(I)}`$.

In Fig.(2) we plot $`F_{lm}^{(I)}`$ averaged over all possible input states using the parameterization $`x_{lm}=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ and $`y_{lm}=\mathrm{sin}\theta `$. At $`r=0`$, corresponding to $`a=0`$, we are back to the case of teleportation between Alice and Bob in Minkowski space, and the fidelity is unity. Using the definition of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`r`$ in Eq.(6) we find

$`\mathrm{tanh}r`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[\pi \omega _R/(a/c)]\text{or}`$
$`r`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{exp}[\pi \omega _R/(a/c)]\text{for}r0.`$ (24)
For terrestrial experiments $`a=g10m/s^2`$ and $`a/c10^8s^1`$ is such a small frequency, that for all frequencies $`\omega _R`$ of physical interest the fidelity is near unity with incredible precision, (for $`r=10^3`$ the fidelity is is unity to within one part in $`10^6`$, and this still corresponds to unphysically large accelerations). Near the event horizon of a black hole appreciable accelerations can be obtained such that the reduction of the fidelity from unity could be observed. In that case an analogous teleportation scheme could be defined with Rob, stationary, outside the event horizon and Alice freely falling into the hole.

In the above we have ignored the time evolution of the states, namely that Alice’s qubits evolve according to $`e^{iH_Mt}`$ while Rob’s qubits evolve via $`e^{iH_R\tau }`$, as discussed in the previous section. A simple calculation reveals that only change from the above analysis is that $`y_{lm}y_{lm}e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }\tau }`$ in Eq.(21). However, since the fidelity in Eq.(23) depends only upon $`|y_{lm}|^2`$, this phase factor does not contribute to the final result. From Rob’s point of view, he is able to receive the result of Alice’s measurement for all of his eternity, i.e $`0<\tau <\mathrm{}`$. From Alice’s point of view, she cross Rob’s future horizon $`_+`$ in a finite time $`t=c/a`$, after which even light signals will not reach Rob (see point $`Q`$ in Fig.(1b)). For her, the teleportation protocol stops since she can no longer communicate the results of her measurements to Rob. However, for all of her eternity, i.e. $`0<t<\mathrm{}`$ she can still receive persistent requests from Rob to send the information. $`_+`$ is analogous to the ”one-way membrane” of an black hole event horizon, which Rob has ”fallen” through.

It is of some interest to consider the reduction of fidelity in terms of entropy. In Fig.(3) we plot the von Neumann entropy $`S=Tr(\rho \mathrm{log}\rho )`$ of Rob’s pre-measurement state, post-measurement state upon learning the result of Alice’s measurement, and the vacuum state, as a function of $`r`$ (measured in bits). The pre-measurement state is obtained from Eq.(22) by summing $`(l,m)`$ over all four possible input states, which reduces it to a diagonal density matrix. The post-measurement state is given by Eq.(22) with the input state to the teleportation protocol chosen to be $`|\psi _M=1/\sqrt{2}(|0_M+|1_M)`$.

For $`r=0`$, corresponding to $`a=0`$, Rob’s pre-measurement state is just $`\frac{1}{2}𝐈_{2\times 2}`$, half the 2-by-2 unit matrix in the $`\{|0_M,|1_M\}`$ sector (since $`|n_I|n_M`$ in this limit) and zero elsewhere, while the vacuum is just the normal Minkowski vacuum. Note that $`S_{pre}(0)=1`$ expressing Rob’s (or here Bob’s at $`r=0`$) complete ignorance of the outcome of Alices’s measurement. As $`r`$ increases all entropies increase since the thermalization eventually drives all states to the vacuum (in the limit $`r\mathrm{}`$) with equally weighted states, where all information is lost. The energy for this thermalization, of course, comes from the work supplied by the agent causing Rob’s acceleration.

Also plotted in Fig.(3) is the entropy for Rob’s post-measurement state $`S_{post}`$. At $`r=0`$ Rob (or Bob) would absolutely know the state that was teleported to him and thus gain 1 bit of information (the distance between the solid and dashed curve). However, as the acceleration increases, this information gain decreases from unity to zero as the Unruh temperature increases. This is seen as the solid curve in Fig.(4) which plots $`\mathrm{\Delta }S_{gain}S_{pre}S_{post}`$.

Though $`\mathrm{\Delta }S_{gain}S_{pre}S_{post}`$ appears to be levelling out for large $`r`$ in Fig.(4), it is doing so only very slowly. Since, as mentioned above, all states are driven to the infinite temperature vacuum as $`r\mathrm{}`$, these curves must eventually merge. It is curious that they do so slowly. The dashed curve in Fig.(4) is a 2-state model which uses only the (normalized) $`\{|0_I,|1_I\}`$ sector of Rob’s post-measurement state. The entropies for this two-state model and the vacuum can then be computed analytically and the resulting entropy difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }S_{gain}^{TSM}`$ agrees well with the numerical calculation $`\mathrm{\Delta }S_{gain}`$ for small values of $`r1/2`$. This two state model thermalizes much faster than the full post-measurement state and so approaches zero more rapidly due the finite number of states (2) used. The interesting point to note is that even after Rob receives Alice’s classical information about the result of her measurement Rob is prevented from regaining the full 1 bit of information if his acceleration is non zero. This is another way to see that from Rob’s perspective information appears to be lost.

## IV Discussion and Conclusions

The main issues of teleportation between an inertial Minkowksi observer Alice and a non-inertial, uniformly accelerated Rindler observer Rob are two fold. First, as a result of the acceleration, the Minkowski vacuum that Rob moves through (for a single Rindler mode $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\stackrel{}{k}_{})`$) can be written as a two-mode squeezed state with the component Fock states existing in causally separated regions $`I`$ and $`II`$. Second, as a result of this fact, Rob’s perceives the Minkowski vacuum as a pure thermal state of temperature $`T_U`$ as the inevitable result of his complete ignorance of region $`II`$.

In an attempt to teleport a state $`|\psi _M=\alpha |0_M+\beta |1_M`$ to Rob, the best we can expect Rob to recover at the end of the protocol is $`|\psi _I=\alpha |0_I+\beta |1_I`$. In this work we have calculated the fidelity of the state Rob receives with this best possible result $`|\psi _I`$. We have demonstrated how the fidelity decreases with increasing acceleration until at high temperatures all information is lost and Rob perceives only the thermalized vacuum state.

The model investigated here is equivalent to teleportation through two channels, one of which is free space for Alice and the second which involves parametric down conversion with the following caveat described below. In the second channel, a signal mode $`I`$ and an idler mode $`II`$ experience a squeezing Bogoliubov transformation analogous to Eq.(16) yurke . Here $`r`$ is proportional to the coupling strength between the signal and idler mode times the length of the crystal through which the parametric down conversion takes place; higher interaction strengths and/or longer interaction lengths corresponds to a higher Unruh temperature. The caveat is that Rob, acting as say the signal mode, has no access to information about the idler and therefore must trace out this information. Performing the teleportation protocol in such a system is exactly analogous to teleportation between a Minkowski and Rindler observer as considered in this work. In the parametric down conversion model, Rob can choose to ignore the idler information thus mimicking a Rindler observer. However, for an accelerated observer, the existence of the horizons $`_\pm `$ is of fundamental importance. Since region $`I`$ and $`II`$ are causally disconnected, there is no way, even in principle, for Rob to have any information about region $`II`$, and thus his state is always a reduced density matrix appropriate for region $`I`$.

We have given an explanation of the reduction of teleportation fidelity in terms of the Unruh radiation seen by Rob in his frame. Note that this is an operationally meaningful statement as Rob can attempt to verify that he has not received the desired state $`\left(x_{lm}|0_I+y_{lm}|1_I\right)`$ by local verification measurements (e.g. a single photon interference experiment), and then send the results to Alice. It would be quite easy to arrange a situation whereby Alice could tell unambiguously that Rob had received the wrong state. From an operational point of view Alice would conclude that the shared entangled resource has become decohered. It is well know that entanglement is a fragile resource in the presence of environmental decoherence. It appears also to be a fragile resource when one of the entangled parties undergoes acceleration. While the degree of decoherence is exceedingly small for practical accelerations, the apparent connection between space time geometry and quantum entanglement is intriguing.

Added Note During the preparation of this work, the authors became aware of the recent paper by Anderson et al vanEnk  which also discusses teleportation and the Unruh vacuum. However, that work considers a physically different situation than the one presented here. The authors use the mirror modes of Audretsch and Müller audretsch  and consequently have the accelerated observers travelling on oppositely directed hyperbolas, with Alice in region $`I`$ and Bob in the causally disconnected region $`II`$. The teleportation protocol is then interpreted from the point of view of a Minkowski observer Mork. In this work, we consider a setup between observers, one stationary, the other accelerated, who remain causally connected to each other during the teleportation protocol.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors wish to thank Jon P. Dowling for stimulating discussions on this and other topics in relativistic quantum information theory.


format: text

text:
# Shape Invariant Potentials for Effective Mass Schrödinger Equation

## 1 Introduction

Since the introduction of the factorization method by Shrödinger  to solve the hydrogen atom problem algebraically, there has been a considerable effort to generalize this method and to find exactly (analytically) solvable potentials for the Schrödinger equation. One of the pioneering works in this line was done by Infeld and Hull . They obtained a wide class of exactly solvable potentials using the factorization method. After the introduction of supersymmetric quantum mechanics , the concept of a shape invariant potential (SIP) was introduced by Gendenshtein  in 1983. The Schrödinger equation with a SIP has exact solution and its energy eigenvalues can be obtained algebraically. The method of shape invariant potentials is also applied to some other equations like Fokker - Plank equation as well . Although SIPs are widely studied and many families of them are obtained , but the problem of the classification of SIPs has not been completely solved yet.

In this paper we apply the method of SIPs to effective mass Schrödinger equation and obtain its exact solutions in a specific ansatz. Effective mass Schrödinger equation was introduced by BenDaniel and Duke  in 1966 to explain the behavior of electrons in the junctions of semiconductors. It also have some applications in heterostructures, graded alloys, and quantum wells , , .

Recently, effective mass Schrödinger equation is studied by some authors and some of its exact solutions are obtained , , . Here we show that the method of shape invariant potentials applied to this problem leads to a wide class of exact solutions.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we review the method of SIPs and its generalized form for effective mass Schrödinger equation. In sections 3 and 4 we study two main classes of generalized shape invariant potentials(GSIPs) corresponding to special choices for the parameter dependence of the potential. Such parameter dependence have been considered to obtain SIPs for ordinary Schrödinger equation in reference  and references therein. Due to the importance of quantum systems with equi-spaced energy levels, we investigate them separately in each case. Section 5 is devoted to summary and concluding remarks.

## 2 Generalized Shape Invariant Potentials (GSIPs)

In this section we review the method of SIPs for effective mass Schrödinger equation. Consider an eigenvalue problem given by

$$H\psi _n(x)=E_n\psi _n(x),$$
(1)
where $`H`$ is given by

$$H=\frac{d}{dx}\frac{1}{2m(x)}\frac{d}{dx}+V(x).$$
(2)
Here $`m(x)`$ is the position depended effective mass and $`V(x)`$ is the potential.

Suppose that the minimum eigenvalue of $`H`$ is $`E_0`$. Let us define a new Hamiltonian $`H_1:=HE_0`$. The Hamiltonian $`H_1`$ can be written in the following form

$$H_1=\frac{d}{dx}\frac{1}{2m(x)}\frac{d}{dx}+V_1(x),$$
(3)
in which $`V_1(x)=V(x)E_0`$. The ground state energy of $`H_1`$ is zero, i. e. the spectrum of $`H_1`$ is non negative. Consequently the Hamiltonian $`H_1`$ can be assumed to be

$$H_1=A^{}A,$$
(4)
where $`A`$ is a first order differential operator of the form

$$A=U(x)\frac{d}{dx}+W(x).$$
(5)
Inserting $`A`$ from Eq. (5) in Eq. (4) and comparing the result with Eq. (3) one gets

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m(x)}}=U^2(x),`$ (6)
$`V_1(x)=W^2(x)\left[U(x)W(x)\right]^{}.`$ (7)
Here, a ‘’ indicates the derivative with respect to $`x`$. Eq. (7) is a generalization of the well known Riccati equation. We call the solution of this equation , $`W(x)`$, the superpotential.

Next we define the Hamiltonian $`H_2`$ as follows

$$H_2:=AA^{}\frac{d}{dx}\frac{1}{2m(x)}\frac{d}{dx}+V_2(x).$$
(8)
Then the potential $`V_2(x)`$ reads

$`V_2(x)`$ $`=`$ $`W^2(x)+\left[U(x)W(x)\right]^{}2U^{}(x)W(x)U(x)U^{^{\prime \prime }}(x),`$ (9)
$`W^2(x)\left[U(x)W(x)\right]^{}+2U(x)W^{}(x)U(x)U^{^{\prime \prime }}(x).`$
The Hamiltonian $`H_2`$ is called the supersymmetric partner of $`H_1`$ . It can be easily shown that $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ has the same spectrum except for the ground state of $`H_1`$. Suppose that $`\psi _1(x)`$ is an eigenfunction of $`H_1`$ with eigenvalue $`E_1`$. Then in view of Eq. (4) we have

$$A^{}A\psi _1(x)=E_1\psi _1(x).$$
(10)
Using Eq. (8) it is easily seen that $`A\psi _1(x)`$ is an eigenfunction of $`H_2`$ with eigenvalue $`E_1`$, provided that $`\psi _1(x)`$ is not the ground state wave function.

One can repeat the above procedure for $`H_2`$ and get the supersymmetric partner of $`H_2`$. Then one arrives at a hierarchy of Hamiltonians which their spectrum are essentially the same. Now suppose that the potentials $`V_1(x)`$ and $`V_2(x)`$ depend on some parameters which we show them in a compact form by $`a`$. The shape invariance condition is

$$V_2(x,a_1)=V_1(x,a_2)+R(a_1),$$
(11)
where $`a_2=F(a_1)`$ is a function of $`a_1`$ and $`R(a_1)`$ is independent of $`x`$. If these conditions are fulfilled, the spectrum of $`H_1`$ can be found algebraically :

$$E_n=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}R(a_n).$$
(12)
In what follows, we use this method to find the exact solutions of effective mass Schrödinger equation considering the super potentials in the ansatz:

$$W(x,a)=ag(x)+f(x)+\frac{1}{a}h(x).$$
(13)
Inserting $`W(x,a)`$ from Eq. (13) in Eqs. (7) and (9), the shape invariance condition (11) gives

$`(a_2^2a_1^2)g^2(x)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_2^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_1^2}}\right)h^2(x)+2(a_2a_1)g(x)f(x)+2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_1}}\right)h(x)f(x)`$
$`\left[U(x)(a_2a_1)g(x)+U(x)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_1}}\right)h(x)\right]^{}2U(x)\left[a_1g(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_1}}h(x)+f(x)\right]^{}`$
$`+U(x)U^{^{\prime \prime }}(x)+R(a_1)=0.`$ (14)
Before starting to study Eq. (14), we make a definition for the future convenience:

$$Y(x):=^x\frac{dx^{}}{U(x^{})}.$$
(15)
There is also a comment in order on the square integrability of the wave functions. According to Eq. (4) the ground state of $`H_1`$ is given by $`A\psi _0(x)=0`$. This, together with definition (5) leads to

$$\psi _0(x)\mathrm{exp}\left[^x\frac{W(x^{})}{U(x^{})}𝑑x^{}\right].$$
(16)
Then the square integrability of $`\psi _0(x)`$ leads to

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\psi _0^2(x)𝑑x=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[2^x\frac{W(x^{})}{U(x^{})}𝑑x^{}\right]<\mathrm{}.$$
(17)
This condition puts some restrictions on acceptable $`W(x)`$ and $`U(x)`$. In fact the following condition must be fulfilled

$$\underset{x\pm \mathrm{}}{lim}^x\frac{W(x^{})}{U(x^{})}𝑑x^{}=+\mathrm{}.$$
(18)
If $`\frac{W(x)}{U(x)}`$ has definite signs for $`x\pm \mathrm{}`$, then there is a simple condition which guarantees Eq. (18. Let us define

$$\left(\frac{W}{U}\right)_\pm :=\underset{x\pm \mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{W(x)}{U(x)}.$$
(19)
Then, to fulfill Eq. (18), it is sufficient that

$$\mathrm{sign}\left(\frac{W}{U}\right)_+=\mathrm{sign}\left(\frac{W}{U}\right)_{}.$$
(20)
It can be shown that this condition also ensures the square integrability of excited states wave functions .

## 3 GSIPs of type $`W(x,a)=f(x)+a`$

In this section we consider GSIPs whose superpotentials are of the form

$$W(x,a)=f(x)+a.$$
(21)
This means that in Eq. (13) we have put $`g(x)=1`$ and $`h(x)=0`$. Then the shape invariance condition gives

$$U(x)\left[U^{}(x)2f(x)\right]^{}(a_2a_1)\left[U^{}(x)2f(x)\right]+(a_2^2a_1^2)+R(a_1)=0.$$
(22)
In this equation $`U(x)`$ and $`f(x)`$ are independent of parameter $`a_1`$. Therefore there are only two ways for Eq. (22) to be consistent. The first way is that $`U^{}(x)2f(x)=const.=:2u_0`$. Then the superpotential is given by $`W(x,a)=\frac{1}{2}U^{}(x)+au_0`$. and Eq. (22) implies that $`R(a_1)=(a_1^2a_2^2)2u_0(a_1a_2)`$. Absorbing $`u_0`$ in $`a`$, one gets $`R(a_1)=(a_1^2a_2^2)`$. Therefore in this case $`a_2`$ is an arbitrary function of $`a_1`$ provided $`R(a_1)=a_1^2a_2^2>0`$ to ensure that the energy eigenvalues are non negative.

The second way is that $`a_1a_2`$ and $`(a_2^2a_1^2)+R(a_1)`$ be independent of parameter, i. e.

$`R(a_1)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha (2a_1\alpha )+R_0,`$ (23)
$`a_2`$ $`=`$ $`a_1\alpha ,`$ (24)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`R_0`$ are some real constants. Using these conditions and defining $`u(x):=U^{}(x)2f(x)`$ we can write Eq. (22) in the following form

$$U(x)u^{}(x)+\alpha u(x)+R_0=0.$$
(25)
Before trying to solve this equation let us have a look at the spectrum of $`H_1`$. The energy eigenvalues of $`H_1`$ are given by

$$E_n=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}R(a_i)=n(R_0+2a_1\alpha n\alpha ^2).$$
(26)
This equation shows that for $`\alpha =0`$ the energy levels are equi-spaced. Due to the importance of systems with equi-spaced energy levels we consider two distinct cases corresponding to $`\alpha =0`$ and $`\alpha 0`$ separately. We call solutions with equi-spaced energy levels oscillator like solutions.

### 3.1 Oscillator like Solutions

For $`\alpha =0`$ Eq. (25) gives

$$u(x)=R_0Y(x),$$
(27)
where $`Y(x)`$ is defined by Eq. (15). Therefore the superpotential is

$$W(x,a)=\frac{1}{2}\left[U^{}(x)+R_0Y(x)\right]+a,$$
(28)
and the potential $`V_1(x,a_1)`$ is given by

$$V_1(x,a)=\frac{1}{4}\left[(R_0Y(x)+2a)^22R_0\right]+V_0(x),$$
(29)
in which

$$V_0(x):=\frac{1}{4}U^2(x)\frac{1}{2}U(x)U^{^{\prime \prime }}(x).$$
(30)
The energy eigenvalues are $`E_n=nR_0,n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$. Since the energy eigenvalues are non negative we should have $`R_0>0`$. because the energy eigenvalues are non negative.

Now we can obtain the zero energy eigenstate using Eq. (16)

$$\psi _0(x)|U(x)|^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{R_0}{4}Y^2(x)aY(x)\right).$$
(31)
It can be easily verified that the ground state wave function is normalizable i. e. Eq. (17) is fulfilled. The results of this subsection is summarized in table 1.

#### 3.1.1 Examples

Example 1: If $`U(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2m}}=const`$, the system is a harmonic oscillator; the most simple system with equi-spaced energy levels.

Example 2: For $`U(x)=\frac{1}{2x}`$ we have $`Y(x)=x^2`$. The effective mass and potential are given by

$`m(x)=2x^2,`$ (32)
$`V_1(x,a)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{R_0}{2}}x^2+a\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{5}{16x^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{R_0}{2}}.`$ (33)
Example 3: For $`U(x)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}x}`$ we have $`Y(x)=\mathrm{sinh}x`$ and $`m(x)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cosh}^2x`$. This form of position dependent mass is considered by some authors in graded alloys . The potential is given by

$$V_1(x,a)=\frac{1}{4}\left[(R_0\mathrm{sinh}x+2a)^2+\frac{\mathrm{sinh}^2x2}{\mathrm{cosh}^4x}2R_0\right].$$
(34)
### 3.2 Exponential Solutions

If $`\alpha 0`$, by redefinition of the function $`f(x)`$ and the parameter $`a`$ we can put $`R_0=0`$. The redefinition is given by the following equations

$`a`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{a}=a+{\displaystyle \frac{R_0}{2\alpha }},`$ (35)
$`f(x)`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{f(x)}=f(x){\displaystyle \frac{R_0}{2\alpha }}.`$ (36)
Under this redefinition, $`W(x,a)`$ does not change but $`R(a_1)`$ changes as

$$R(a_1)\stackrel{~}{R}(\stackrel{~}{a_1})=\alpha (2\stackrel{~}{a_1}\alpha ),$$
(37)
and Eq. (25) can be rewritten as

$$U(x)\stackrel{~}{u}^{}(x)+\alpha \stackrel{~}{u}(x)=0.$$
(38)
We conclude that for $`\alpha 0`$ one can always put $`R_0=0`$. The solution of Eq. (38) is

$$\stackrel{~}{u}(x)=u_0\mathrm{exp}\left(\alpha Y(x)\right).$$
(39)
We call these solutions, exponential solutions. The superpotential $`W(x,a)`$ is therefore

$$W(x,a)=\frac{1}{2}\left[U^{}(x)u_0\mathrm{exp}\left(\alpha Y(x)\right)\right]+a,$$
(40)
and the potential is given by

$$V_1(x,a)=\frac{1}{4}\left[(u_0e^{\alpha Y(x)}2a)^22\alpha u_0e^{\alpha Y(x)}\right]+V_0(x),$$
(41)
in which $`V_0(x)`$ is defined in Eq. (30). The energy eigenvalues are

$$E_n=\alpha n(2a_1\alpha n).$$
(42)
The ground state which is given by Eq. (16) takes the following form

$$\psi _0(x)|U(x)|^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{u(x)}{2\alpha }a_1Y(x)\right).$$
(43)
The above results are summarized in the table 2.

#### Examples

Example 1: $`U(x)=U_0=const`$. With this choice for $`U(x)`$ we arrive at the Morse potential for ordinary Schrödinger equation which is a well known SIP .

Example 2: $`U(x)=\frac{\alpha }{2}x`$. In this case, choosing $`u_0=1`$ in Eq. (39), one gets

$`W(x,a)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\alpha +2x^2\right)+a,`$ (44)
$`V_1(x,a)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}x^4(\alpha /2+a)x^2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{16}}+a^2,`$ (45)
$`\psi _0(x)|x|^{\frac{2a_1}{\alpha }\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{2\alpha }}\right).`$ (46)
## 4 GSIPs of Type $`W(x,a)=ag(x)+f(x)`$

This ansatz is obtained putting $`h(x)=0`$ in Eq. (13). Applying the shape invariance condition we arrive at

$`(a_2^2a_1^2)g^2(x)+(a_2a_1)g(x)\left[2f(x)U^{}(x)\right]`$
$`(a_1+a_2)U(x)g^{}(x)U(x)\left[2f(x)U^{}(x)\right]^{}+R(a_1)=0.`$ (47)
Assuming that $`a_1a_2=\alpha `$, one gets

$`\alpha ^2g^2(x)2\alpha f(x)g(x)+\alpha \left[U(x)g(x)\right]^{}2U(x)f^{}(x)+U(x)U^{^{\prime \prime }}(x)`$
$`2a_1\left(\alpha g^2(x)+U(x)g^{}(x)\right)+R(a_1)=0.`$ (48)
Since $`U(x)`$, $`f(x)`$, $`g(x)`$, and $`\alpha `$ are parameter independent, we conclude from the above equation that

$`\alpha ^2g^2(x)2\alpha f(x)g(x)+\alpha \left[U(x)g(x)\right]^{}2U(x)f^{}(x)+U(x)U^{^{\prime \prime }}(x)+C_1=0,`$ (49)
$`2a_1\left(\alpha g^2(x)+U(x)g^{}(x)\right)+R(a_1)C_1=0.`$ (50)
In the same way Eq. (50) implies that

$`\alpha g^2(x)+U(x)g^{}(x)+C_2=0,`$ (51)
$`R(a_1)=C_12a_1C_2.`$ (52)
Therefore energy eigenvalues are

$$E_n=n^2\alpha C_2+n[C_1(2a_1+\alpha )C_2].$$
(53)
Using Eq. (51) in Eq. (49) one finds

$$\alpha g(x)u(x)+U(x)u^{}(x)+C_1\alpha C_2=0,$$
(54)
where $`u(x)=U^{}(x)2f(x)`$. Eq. (53) indicates that for $`\alpha C_2=0`$ the energy eigenvalues are equi-spaced. In the following we discuss three different families of solutions corresponding to $`\alpha C_2=0`$, $`\alpha C_2>0`$, and $`\alpha C_2<0`$.

### 4.1 Oscillator like solutions ($`\alpha C_2=0`$)

These are solutions with equi-spaced spectrum (see Eq. (53)). Three different cases can be realized as follows,

Case 1: $`\alpha =C_2=0`$. In this case according to Eq. (51), $`g(x)`$ should be a constant function of $`x`$. We have discussed this case in section 3.

Case 2: $`\alpha =0`$ and $`C_20`$. In this case Eqs. (51) and (54) are easily solved and we get $`g(x)=C_2Y(x)`$ and $`u(x)=C_1Y(x)`$. Therefore,

$`W(x,a)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}U^{}(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(C_12aC_2)Y(x),`$ (55)
$`E_n=n((C_12a_1C_2).`$ (56)
One can redefine the parameter $`a`$ as $`a\stackrel{~}{a}=\frac{C_1}{2}aC_2`$. The results are summarized in the table 3.

Case 3: $`\alpha 0`$ and $`C_2=0`$. In this case from Eq. (51) one finds

$$g(x)=\frac{1}{\alpha Y(x)}.$$
(57)
Then substituting this solution in Eq. (54) we have

$$u(x)=\frac{C_1}{2}Y(x)\frac{C_3}{Y(x)},$$
(58)
where $`C_3`$ is a constant. In fact $`C_3`$ is not so important and can be absorbed in the parameter $`a`$. See table 4

### 4.2 Trigonometric Solutions ($`\alpha C_2>0`$)

Putting $`k:=\sqrt{C_2\alpha }`$ it is straightforward to solve Eqs. (51) and (54) to get

$$g(x)=\frac{k}{\alpha }\mathrm{tan}\left[kY(x)\right],$$
(59)
and

$$u(x)=\frac{C_1\alpha C_2}{k}\mathrm{tan}\left[kY(x)\right]C_3\mathrm{sec}\left[kY(x)\right].$$
(60)
Then the superpotential is obtained:

$$W(x,a)=(\frac{ka}{\alpha }+\frac{C_1k^2}{2k})\mathrm{tan}(kY)+\frac{C_3}{2}\mathrm{sec}(kY).$$
(61)
Redefining the parameter $`a`$ as

$$a\stackrel{~}{a}=\frac{ka}{\alpha }+\frac{C_1k^2}{2k},$$
(62)
we have $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }:=\stackrel{~}{a_1}\stackrel{~}{a_2}=k`$. Using this redefinition one can write the general form of superpotential as

$$W(x,a)=a\mathrm{tan}(\alpha Y)+b\mathrm{sec}(\alpha Y)+\frac{1}{2}U^{}(x),$$
(63)
where $`b=\frac{C_3}{2}`$. The energy eigenvalues are given by

$$E_n=n\alpha (n\alpha 2a_1).$$
(64)
Finally the ground state is given by

$$\psi _0(x)|U(x)|^{\frac{1}{2}}|\mathrm{sec}(\alpha Y)|^{\frac{a}{\alpha }}|\mathrm{tan}(\alpha Y)+\mathrm{sec}(\alpha Y)|^{\frac{b}{\alpha }}.$$
(65)
It is remarkable that for $`U(x)=const.`$ the above solution reduces to the Scarf I potential which is a SIP for ordinary Schrödinger equatioin . The results of this subsection is summarized in table 5

### 4.3 Hyperbolic Solutions ($`\alpha C_2<0`$)

Considering the definition $`k:=\sqrt{C_2\alpha }`$ one can solve Eqs. (51) and (54) to get

$$g(x)=\frac{k}{\alpha }\mathrm{tanh}\left[kY(x)\right],$$
(66)
and

$$u(x)=\frac{C_1\alpha C_2}{k}\mathrm{tanh}\left[kY(x)\right]C_3\mathrm{sech}\left[kY(x)\right].$$
(67)
Then the superpotential can be found as

$$W(x,a)=(\frac{ka}{\alpha }+\frac{C_1+k^2}{2k})\mathrm{tanh}(kY)+\frac{C_3}{2}\mathrm{sech}(kY).$$
(68)
Now we redefine the parameter $`a`$ as

$$a\stackrel{~}{a}=\frac{ka}{\alpha }+\frac{C_1+k^2}{2k}.$$
(69)
After this redefinition of $`a`$ we have $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }:=\stackrel{~}{a_1}\stackrel{~}{a_2}=k`$. Therefore the general form of superpotential can be given as

$$W(x,a)=a\mathrm{tanh}(\alpha Y)+b\mathrm{sech}(\alpha Y)+\frac{1}{2}U^{}(x),$$
(70)
where $`b=\frac{C_3}{2}`$. The energy eigenvalues are given by

$$E_n=n\alpha (n\alpha 2a_1),$$
(71)
and the ground state is

$$\psi _0(x)|U(x)|^{\frac{1}{2}}|\mathrm{sech}(\alpha Y)|^{\frac{a}{\alpha }}|\mathrm{tanh}(\alpha Y)+\mathrm{sech}(\alpha Y)|^{\frac{b}{\alpha }}.$$
(72)
For $`U(x)=const.`$ the above solution reduces to the Scarf II potential which is a SIP for ordinary Schrödinger equatioin . The results of this subsection are summarized in table 6

## 5 Concluding Remarks

In this paper we studied exact solutions of effective mass Schrödinger equation using the mathod of shape invariant potentials. We considered an ansatz in which the superpotential takes the form

$$W(x,a)=ag(x)+f(x)+\frac{h(x)}{a}.$$
(73)
Assuming $`h(x)`$ be vanishing, the exact solutions for the Schrödinger equation are studied and a wide class of solutions with equi-spaced spectrum are obtained. Following the general arguments of the paper, it can be verified that if $`h(x)`$ is non-vanishing then it should be simply a constant. In this case the shape invariance condition requires $`m(x)`$ to be constant. Thus if $`h(x)0`$, one obtains the SIPs for the ordinary Scrödinger equation. The main results of the this study are summarized in tables 1 – 6.

## Acknowledgment

Financial supports from Isfahan University of Technology (IUT) is acknowledged.


text:
# Asymptotically flat solutions to the Ernst equation with reflection symmetry

## I Introduction

The general solution of the axisymmetric Laplace equation

$$\mathrm{}UU,_{\rho \rho }+\frac{1}{\rho }U,_\rho +U,_{\zeta \zeta }=0$$
(1)
that is regular outside some finite region and vanishes at infinity may be written in form of a multipole expansion

$$U=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_nr^{(n+1)}\mathrm{P}_\mathrm{n}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )$$
(2)
with

$$\rho =r\mathrm{sin}\theta ,\zeta =r\mathrm{cos}\theta .$$
(3)
Solutions with reflection symmetry

$$U(\rho ,\zeta )=U(\rho ,\zeta )$$
(4)
are given by

$$c_n=0\text{for}n=1,3,5,\mathrm{}$$
(5)
This leads to the following form of the potential $`U^{(u)}`$ on the upper part of the axis ($`\theta =0`$):

$$U^{(u)}(\zeta )=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_{2k}\zeta ^{(2k+1)}.$$
(6)
Hence, solutions with reflection symmetry are uniquely characterized by an odd function $`U^{(u)}(\zeta )`$:

$$U^{(u)}(\zeta )=U^{(u)}(\zeta ).$$
(7)
The aim of the present paper is to prove a relation that generalizes Eq. (7) to the case of solutions to the axisymmetric and stationary vacuum Einstein equations with reflection symmetry. As is well known these equations are equivalent to an equation for the complex Ernst potential $`f(\rho ,\zeta )`$:

$$(\mathrm{}f)\mathrm{}f=(f)^2.$$
(8)
Solutions with reflection symmetry of the metric are defined by

$$f(\rho ,\zeta )=\overline{f}(\rho ,\zeta ),$$
(9)
where a bar denotes complex conjugation. Eq. (9) is the analogue of Eq. (4). (It should be noted that the real part $`\mathrm{}f`$ of $`f`$ is directly related to some metric coefficient, whereas its imaginary part is related to some other metric coefficient in such a way, that symmetry of the metric means antisymmetry of $`\mathrm{}f`$.) The analogue of Eq. (7) will be shown to be

$$f^{(u)}(\zeta )\overline{f}^{(u)}(\zeta )=1.$$
(10)
The Laplace equation (1) is a special case of the Ernst equation (8) for real Ernst potentials

$$f=\mathrm{exp}(2U).$$
(11)
In this way it can easily be verified that Eqs. (4) and (7) are indeed special cases of (9) and (10), respectively.

Our prove of relation (10) is based upon the existence of a Linear Problem whose integrability condition is just the Ernst equation.

## II The Linear Problem related to the Ernst equation

Introducing complex variables

$$z=\rho +i\zeta ,\overline{z}=\rho i\zeta $$
(12)
the Ernst equation takes the form

$$(f+\overline{f})\{(\rho f,_{\overline{z}}),_z+(\rho f,_z),_{\overline{z}}\}=4\rho f,_zf,_{\overline{z}}.$$
(13)
Eq. (13) is the integrability condition of a related Linear Problem for the $`2\times 2`$–matrix function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\lambda ,z,\overline{z})`$:

$$\mathrm{\Phi },_z=\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}N& 0\\ 0& M\end{array}\right)+\lambda \left(\begin{array}{cc}0& N\\ M& 0\end{array}\right)\}\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(14)
$$\mathrm{\Phi },_{\overline{z}}=\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{M}& 0\\ 0& \overline{N}\end{array}\right)+\frac{1}{\lambda }\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \overline{M}\\ \overline{N}& 0\end{array}\right)\}\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(15)
cf. . $`M`$ and $`N`$ depend on $`z`$ and $`\overline{z}`$ but not on $`\lambda `$, which is defined as

$$\lambda =\sqrt{\frac{Ki\overline{z}}{K+iz}},$$
(16)
where $`K`$ is an additional complex variable called the spectral parameter***For some considerations of the matrix function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ it turns out to be appropriate to switch to a different set of independent variables, e. g. $`K,\rho ,\zeta `$ instead of $`\lambda ,z,\overline{z}`$.. Consequently,

$$\lambda ,_z=\frac{\lambda }{4\rho }(\lambda ^21),\lambda ,_{\overline{z}}=\frac{1}{4\rho \lambda }(\lambda ^21).$$
(17)
The condition $`\mathrm{\Phi },_{z\overline{z}}=\mathrm{\Phi },_{\overline{z}z}`$ then implies a first order system of nonlinear equations for the functions $`M`$ and $`N`$ which is equivalent to the Ernst equation via

$$M=\frac{f,_z}{f+\overline{f}},N=\frac{\overline{f},_z}{f+\overline{f}}.$$
(18)
Without loss of generality the following structure of the matrix $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ may be assumed:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\psi (\lambda ,z,\overline{z})& \hfill \psi (\lambda ,z,\overline{z})\\ \chi (\lambda ,z,\overline{z})& \hfill \chi (\lambda ,z,\overline{z})\end{array}\right),$$
(19)
together with

$$\overline{\psi (\frac{1}{\overline{\lambda }},z,\overline{z})}=\chi (\lambda ,z,\overline{z}).$$
(20)
For $`K\mathrm{}`$ and $`\lambda =1`$ the functions $`\psi `$ and $`\chi `$ may be normalized by

$$\psi (1,z,\overline{z})=\chi (1,z,\overline{z})=1.$$
(21)
The related solution to the Ernst equation is given by

$$f(\rho ,\zeta )\chi (1,z,\overline{z})(K\mathrm{}).$$
(22)
We mention that, according to (16), the complex $`\lambda `$–plane is related to a two–sheeted Riemann $`K`$–surface, with the branching points $`K=\mathrm{i}\overline{z}`$ and $`K=\mathrm{i}z`$.

## III Solution of the Linear Problem on the axis

We consider solutions of the Ernst equation that are regular outside some finite region. Therefore, on the axis $`\rho =0`$, we distinguish two regions: an upper part $`\zeta >\zeta _+`$ and a lower part $`\zeta <\zeta _{}`$, where we assume the solution to be regular. We introduce the following notation:

$$f^{(u)}(\zeta )f(0,\zeta ),\text{with}\zeta >\zeta _+;f^{(l)}(\zeta )f(0,\zeta ),\text{with}\zeta <\zeta _{}.$$
(23)
For $`\rho =0`$ and $`K\zeta `$ Eq. (16) leads to

$$\lambda =\pm 1.$$
(24)
This allows us to integrate the Linear Problem (14), (15) along the axisNote that, for any function $`\phi `$ depending on $`\lambda ,z,\overline{z}`$, $`lim_{\rho 0}\phi (\lambda ,z,\overline{z})`$ is a function of the two variables $`K`$ and $`\zeta `$, in general. For example, $`lim_{\rho 0}(1\lambda ^2)/(z+\overline{z})=lim_{\rho 0}i/(K+iz)=i/(K\zeta )`$.:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi \\ \chi \end{array}\right)=F_\pm ^{(u/l)}(K)\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill \overline{f}^{(u/l)}(\zeta )\\ \hfill \pm f^{(u/l)}(\zeta )\end{array}\right)+G_\pm ^{(u/l)}(K)\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill 1\\ \hfill 1\end{array}\right).$$
(25)
Two of these 8 integration ‘constants’ $`F_\pm ^{(u/l)}(K)`$ and $`G_\pm ^{(u/l)}(K)`$ (they may depend on $`K`$, but not on $`\zeta `$) can be fixed by prescribing $`\psi `$ and $`\chi `$ at one point $`\zeta =\zeta _0`$ on the axis, for $`K`$–values from one of the two sheets of the Riemann surface ($`\lambda =+1`$ or $`\lambda =1`$). We choose some $`\zeta _0>\zeta _+`$ and assume for $`\lambda =1`$

$$\rho =0,\zeta =\zeta _0,\lambda =1:\psi 1,\chi 1.$$
(26)
This choice is consistent with Eqs. (20) and (21). From Eqs. (25) and (26) we conclude

$$F_{}^{(u)}(K)0,G_{}^{(u)}(K)1.$$
(27)
Now we use the assumption of asymptotic flatness, i. e.

$$f1\text{as}\rho ^2+\zeta ^2\mathrm{}.$$
(28)
As a consequence, the coefficients $`M`$ and $`N`$ in the Linear Problem (14), (15) vanish asymptotically such that $`\psi `$ and $`\chi `$ do not change on the half–circle in the $`\rho `$$`\zeta `$–plane

$$\rho =R\mathrm{sin}\theta ,\zeta =R\mathrm{cos}\theta ,0\theta \pi ,$$
(29)
in the limit $`R\mathrm{}`$. In this limit we find from (16)

$$\lambda =\pm \mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\theta ),$$
(30)
i. e. $`\lambda `$ changes from $`\pm 1`$ to $`1`$ as $`\theta `$ changes from $`0`$ to $`\pi `$. Therefore, we may conclude from Eqs. (25) for $`\zeta \pm \mathrm{}`$

$$F_\pm ^{(u)}+G_\pm ^{(u)}=F_{}^{(l)}+G_{}^{(l)},F_\pm ^{(u)}G_\pm ^{(u)}=F_{}^{(l)}+G_{}^{(l)},$$
(31)
i. e.

$$F_\pm ^{(u)}=G_{}^{(l)},G_\pm ^{(u)}=F_{}^{(l)}.$$
(32)
This means, together with Eq. (27), that all these functions may be expressed in terms of two of them, say $`F_+^{(u)}`$ and $`G_+^{(u)}`$. With the new notation

$$F(K)F_+^{(u)}(K),G(K)G_+^{(u)}(K)$$
(33)
we may summarize these findings as follows

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\underset{¯}{\zeta >\zeta _+:}\hfill & \lambda =1:& \psi =\chi =1,\hfill \\ & \lambda =+1:& \psi =F(K)\overline{f}^{(u)}(\zeta )+G(K),\chi =F(K)f^{(u)}(\zeta )G(K),\hfill \\ \underset{¯}{\zeta <\zeta _{}:}\hfill & \lambda =+1:& \psi =\overline{f}^{(l)}(\zeta ),\chi =f^{(l)}(\zeta ),\hfill \\ & \lambda =1:& \psi =G(K)\overline{f}^{(l)}(\zeta )+F(K),\chi =G(K)f^{(l)}(\zeta )+F(K).\hfill \end{array}$$
(34)
The functions $`F(K)`$ and $`G(K)`$ characterize a solution $`f(\rho ,\zeta )`$ of the Ernst equation uniquely. They are directly related to the Ernst potential on the axis. This can be seen by taking $`K=\zeta `$, i. e. by going to the branching points of Eq. (16). (Note that $`K=\mathrm{i}\overline{z}`$ and $`K=\mathrm{i}z`$ coincide for $`\rho =0`$.) For $`K=\zeta `$ the values of $`\psi `$ and $`\chi `$ must be unique, i. e. the formulae for $`\lambda =+1`$ and $`\lambda =1`$ in Eqs. (34) have to be identified. This leads to

$$f^{(u)}(\zeta )=\frac{1+G(\zeta )}{F(\zeta )},\overline{f}^{(u)}(\zeta )=\frac{1G(\zeta )}{F(\zeta )},f^{(l)}(\zeta )=\frac{F(\zeta )}{1+G(\zeta )},\overline{f}^{(l)}(\zeta )=\frac{F(\zeta )}{1G(\zeta )}.$$
(35)
On the other hand, we obtain

$$F(\zeta )=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}f^{(u)}(\zeta )},G(\zeta )=\mathrm{i}\frac{\mathrm{}f^{(u)}(\zeta )}{\mathrm{}f^{(u)}(\zeta )}.$$
(36)
We note that the function $`F(K)`$ is related to the determinant of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\lambda ,z,\overline{z})`$. From Eqs. (14), (15) and (18) one finds that $`(\mathrm{}f)^1\mathrm{det}\mathrm{\Phi }(\lambda ,z,\overline{z})`$ does not depend on $`z`$ and $`\overline{z}`$. Calculating $`\mathrm{det}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ for $`\rho =0`$, $`\zeta \mathrm{}`$ then leads to the result

$$F(K)=\frac{1}{f+\overline{f}}\mathrm{det}\mathrm{\Phi }(\lambda ,z,\overline{z}).$$
(37)
## IV Solutions with reflection symmetry

The symmetry relation (9) reads on the axis

$$f^{(l)}(\zeta )=\overline{f}^{(u)}(\zeta )(\zeta >\zeta _+>0).$$
(38)
(Because of the symmetry we may assume $`\zeta _{}=\zeta _+`$.) Then we find from Eqs. (35)

$$G(\zeta )=G(\zeta ),G^2(\zeta )=1F(\zeta )F(\zeta ).$$
(39)
These relations together with (36) lead to

$$\mathrm{}f^{(u)}(\zeta )\mathrm{}f^{(u)}(\zeta )=\mathrm{}f^{(u)}(\zeta )\mathrm{}f^{(u)}(\zeta ),\mathrm{}f^{(u)}(\zeta )\mathrm{}f^{(u)}(\zeta )+\mathrm{}f^{(u)}(\zeta )\mathrm{}f^{(u)}(\zeta )=1.$$
(40)
This is equivalent to relation (10) that was to be shown. If, on the other hand, Eq. (10) is satisfied, one can easily invert the above conclusions to show Eq. (38), and from this, by the symmetric structure of the Ernst equation itself, the symmetry (9) in the whole space may be concluded. Hence we are lead to the following statement:

An asymptotically flat solution to the Ernst equation has reflection symmetry (9) if and only if the relation (10) is satisfied.

It is interesting to note that the reflection symmetry (9) of the Ernst potential leads to the following global property of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\lambda ,z,\overline{z})`$:

$$\frac{1}{f+\overline{f}}\mathrm{\Phi }^T(\lambda ,z,\overline{z})\mathrm{\Phi }(\frac{1}{\lambda },\overline{z},z)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \hfill G(K)\\ G(K)\hfill & \hfill 1\end{array}\right)$$
(41)
together with

$$G(K)=G(K),G^2(K)=1F(K)F(K).$$
(42)
$`F(K)`$ and $`G(K)`$ are analytic functions, i. e. they may be obtained as analytic continuations of $`F(\zeta )`$ and $`G(\zeta )`$ defined by means of the axis potential according to (36).

## V Discussion

Within the Newtonian theory of gravitation all equilibrium states of isolated self–gravitating fluids (i. e. stellar models) must have reflection symmetry through a plane (the ‘equatorial plane’) which is perpendicular to the rotation axis of the star, see . It has been conjectured that stationary general relativistic stellar models must have reflection symmetry as well . Therefore, reflection symmetric solutions to the Ernst equation describing the exterior gravitational fields of rotating bodies are of particular interest. Also the Kerr solution describing a rotating black hole has reflection symmetry. Accordingly, the Ernst potential of the Kerr solution satisfies (10). The same holds true for the solution describing a rigidly rotating disk of dust , . A consequence of relation (10) is, that – as in the case of the Laplace equation – every second multipole moment vanishes. The non–vanishing moments are $`M_0,M_2,M_4,\mathrm{}`$ for the ‘mass moments’ and $`J_1,J_3,J_5,\mathrm{}`$ for the ‘rotational moments’. (For a definition of these moments see .) This simplifies the investigation of reflection symmetric solutions.

## Acknowledgement

We acknowledge an interesting discussion with Panagiotis Kordas who intends to publish an independent proof of relation (10) . In fact, this discussion stimulated us to publish our result, found as a by–product of our work on the rigidly rotating disk of dust , . The relations (40) were necessary for deriving Eq. (24) in .


text:
# hep-ph/0302123 DO-TH 03/02 Simultaneous Solution to 𝐵→ϕ𝐾CP Asymmetry and 𝐵→𝜂'𝐾,𝐵→𝜂𝐾^∗Branching Ratio Anomalies from R-Parity Violation

## 1 Introduction

The flavour structure of the Standard Model (SM) is, arguably, the best proof that there is new physics lurking above the electroweak scale. We do not know how this new physics should manifest itself, so one is forced to consider all possible ways to uncover it. Moreover, any experimental result that deviates from the SM expectation is bound to receive close scrutiny for new physics. Apart from the direct production of new particles, one can look for their indirect effects, i.e., how the operators at a high energy affect the low-energy observables. In this respect, the $`e^+e^{}`$ B factories at Cornell, SLAC, and KEK are doing a commendable job by churning out a huge amount of data on various B decay modes, including the branching ratios (BR) and CP asymmetries.

Even at this stage, there exist several hints that everything is not as one should expect from the SM, if we take the experiments seriously. The SM is in no way ruled out, since there is much scope for theoretical uncertainty in low-energy QCD, but it will be under considerable strain if the experimental results persist over the next few years. In a large set of data, most of which are in perfect agreement with the SM, there are three so-called sore thumbs sticking out: (i) The direct and mixing-induced CP-asymmetries for the mode $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ where Belle and BaBar are not consistent , (ii) The abnormally high branching ratios for the $`B\eta ^{}K`$ and $`B\eta K^{}`$ modes, incompatible with the SM prediction with factorization , and (iii) The measured value of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ from $`B\varphi K_S`$  111There are some other anomalies, e.g., lack of a consistent fit of the BRs of the $`BPV`$ channel . It is not clear at this moment whether this is a feature of QCD factorization models, which was used in the analysis, or is true in general.. (Last two points are closely related; see, e.g., .) Let us briefly comment on these anomalies. But first we wish to make our notation clear: we use $`B`$ as a general shorthand for both $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B^0}`$, and also for the charged $`B`$ mesons where the mention of charge is either unnecessary or self-evident, and the BRs are assumed to be averaged over the CP conjugate states. Moreover, we use the symbol $`\eta K`$ to denote the final states with either an $`\eta `$ or $`\eta ^{}`$ and a $`K`$ or $`K^{}`$ (neutral or charged).

The first anomaly exists only for Belle — BaBar data is completely consistent with the SM expectation, if one uses perturbative QCD calculations  or QCD-improved factorization model . However, if we take the Belle data seriously, existence of new physics is hinted. A possible solution is discussed in .

The second and third anomalies are the main theme of this paper. Before one confronts the data with any specific model, three things are obvious. First, even if there is new physics, it is very much flavour-sensitive, since modes with the same topologies are not equally affected. Secondly, the effect of new physics is of the order of unity, considering the change in the BRs of $`B\eta K`$ modes, and the CP asymmetry from the $`B\varphi K_S`$ mode. Thus, the effective operators generated by the new physics should better be tree-level at the high scale, unless one prefers a strong-coupling theory. Thirdly, the new physics amplitude should have weak (and possibly strong) phases different from the corresponding SM amplitude to generate the observable CP asymmetries, particularly in the $`B\varphi K_S`$ channel .

These constraints severely limit the choice of plausible new physics options 222There may be new physics with loop-induced and/or flavour-blind operators, but their effects will be very hard to detect in the B factories. However, some supersymmetric resolutions of the $`\varphi K`$ puzzle have been proposed .. Among those that survive, one of the most respectable options is R-parity violating supersymmetry (RPV) . RPV automatically generates flavour-specific tree-level operators which can leave their signals in some, but not all, B decay modes.

The effect of RPV on B decays has been extensively discussed in the literature . It has been proposed as a solution to the $`B\varphi K_S`$ CP asymmetry puzzle , and even a simultaneous solution to both the $`\eta ^{}K`$ and $`\varphi K_S`$ anomalies has been proposed .

What is new, then, in this paper? There are two main points where our analysis differs from . This is the first time that one takes all the relevant parameters, including the final-state strong phases, into account, and tries to explain all available data, including the direct CP asymmetry results. Secondly, we have not looked at isolated points in the parameter space as possible solutions, but have made a complete scan over the whole parameter space, and find out the regions which satisfy all the existing data. In fact, we introduce only one new physics operator, which, we find, does the fitting quite well. Moreover, we get a stronger bound on the relevant coupling, two orders of magnitude better than the existing one.

The discrepancies from the SM expectations show up in the BRs of different $`B\eta K`$ modes (see our convention before), and the value of $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )`$ extracted from $`B\varphi K_S`$ decay. The numerical values are given in Section 2. By itself, the CP asymmetry data has nothing wrong in it, but it is definitely not consistent with the value of $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )`$ extracted from $`BJ/\psi K_S`$ (and other charmonium channels) even at $`2\sigma `$.

That the experimental numbers are not consistent with the SM predictions for $`\eta ^{}K`$ and $`\eta K^{}`$ modes are known for a long time. Many solutions for this are proposed, ranging from introducing a charm content of $`\eta ^{}`$ or anomalous $`\eta ^{}`$ coupling to gluons to the introduction of new physics like RPV . For our calculation we take the charm contents in both these mesons to be zero. To have an estimate of the SM BRs for these modes, we assume naive factorization (NF) to hold good. Note that the BRs are more or less stable with the variation of the number of effective colors, $`N_c`$, which takes into account the nonfactorizable effects . This, however, is not true for the generic $`B\varphi K`$ modes, which is a penguin and the BR depends sensitively on $`N_c`$, falling quickly as $`N_c`$ increases. Thus, if one takes a fixed value of $`N_c`$, the BR predictions (within the context of the SM) for the $`\eta K^{}`$ and $`\eta ^{}K`$ modes are sort of reliable, but that is not the case for the $`\varphi K`$ mode. In fact, it has been shown that dynamical enhancement of the penguin operators may lead to a twofold increase of the BR over the expectation from the NF model . Keeping in mind such sensitivity which results from a numerical cancellation between different Wilson coefficients (WC), we think it prudent to present the analysis both by including Br($`B\varphi K)`$ as a constraint and by discarding it. We will show that the tighter constraints on the parameter space come from the CP asymmetry data and the $`B\eta K`$ BRs, and relaxation of the $`B\varphi K`$ BR constraint does not affect the solutions in any perceptible way.

The paper is arranged as follows. In the next section we enlist all our input parameters, relevant formulae and experimental data. In Section 3, we introduce the RPV effective hamiltonian, and show how it affects the modes we are interested in. Section 4 deals with the numerical results, and we display the allowed regions of the parameter space that satisfy all data. In Section 5 we summarize and conclude.

## 2 Input Parameters

We consider only those modes which are, even in the SM, governed by the $`bs\overline{q}q`$ transitions, with $`q=u`$, $`d`$ or $`s`$. The relevant effective four-Fermi hamiltonian reads

$$_{eff}=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\left[V_{ub}V_{us}^{}\underset{i=1,2}{}C_i(\mu )O_i(\mu )V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}\underset{i=3}{\overset{10}{}}C_i(\mu )O_i(\mu )\right]$$
(1)
where the operators $`O_i`$ has the standard form

$`O_1`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{s}_\alpha \gamma ^\mu P_Lu_\beta )(\overline{u}_\beta \gamma _\mu P_Lb_\alpha ),`$
$`O_{3,5}`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{s}_\alpha \gamma ^\mu P_Lb_\alpha ){\displaystyle \underset{q=u,d,s}{}}(\overline{q}_\beta \gamma _\mu P_{L,R}q_\beta ),`$
$`O_{7,9}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(\overline{s}_\alpha \gamma ^\mu P_Lb_\alpha ){\displaystyle \underset{q=u,d,s}{}}(e_q\overline{q}_\beta \gamma _\mu P_{R,L}q_\beta ),`$ (2)
with $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ being the color indices, and $`e_q`$ the charge of the corresponding quark. The operators $`O_{2n}`$ are obtained from $`O_{2n1}`$ by color-singlet $``$ color-octet transformation. The projection operators are $`P_L(P_R)=1(+)\gamma _5`$.

The effective WCs for the transition $`bs`$ are evaluated at the scale $`\mu =m_b/2`$ at next-to-leading-log (NLL) precision in naive dimensional regularization (NDR) scheme, with $`m_t=170`$ GeV, $`\alpha _s(m_Z)=0.118`$, $`\alpha (m_Z)=1/128`$, and the QCD scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}^{(5)}=225`$ MeV. They typically change by 10% if we vary the QCD scale by about 60 MeV. The values, which are taken from , read

$`C_1=0.33,C_2=1.16,C_3=0.022+0.003i,C_4=0.0510.009i,`$
$`C_5=0.016+0.003i,C_6=0.0630.009i,C_7=(1.2+1.3i)\times 10^4,`$
$`C_8=5\times 10^4,C_9=(101+1.3i)\times 10^4,C_{10}=20\times 10^4.`$ (3)
At $`\mu =m_b/2`$, the current quark masses (in GeV) are taken to be

$$m_u=0.0042,m_d=0.0076,m_s=0.122,m_c=1.5,m_b=4.88.$$
(4)
The masses for the mesons $`B^0`$, $`B^{}`$, $`\pi `$, $`\eta `$, $`\eta ^{}`$, $`K`$ and $`K^{}`$ are the corresponding central values as given in .

The meson decay constants (in GeV) are:

$$f_\pi =0.133,f_K=0.158,f_K^{}=0.214,f_\varphi =0.233.$$
(5)
The $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ decay constants are obtained from $`f_{\eta _1}=1.10f_\pi `$ and $`f_{\eta _8}=1.34f_\pi `$ :

$`f_\eta ^u={\displaystyle \frac{f_{\eta _8}\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\sqrt{6}}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\eta _1}\mathrm{sin}\theta }{\sqrt{3}}},`$ $`f_\eta ^s={\displaystyle \frac{2f_{\eta _8}\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\sqrt{6}}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\eta _1}\mathrm{sin}\theta }{\sqrt{3}}},`$
$`f_\eta ^{}^u={\displaystyle \frac{f_{\eta _8}\mathrm{sin}\theta }{\sqrt{6}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\eta _1}\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\sqrt{3}}},`$ $`f_\eta ^{}^s={\displaystyle \frac{2f_{\eta _8}\mathrm{sin}\theta }{\sqrt{6}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\eta _1}\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\sqrt{3}}}.`$ (6)
The mixing angle $`\theta `$ is taken to be $`22^{}`$. Thus the numerical values are $`f_\eta ^u=0.099`$, $`f_\eta ^s=0.103`$, $`f_\eta ^{}^u=0.051`$, $`f_\eta ^{}^s=0.133`$. This shows why the strange quark plays a dominant role in decays involving an $`\eta ^{}`$. These values differ slightly from those given in  using a two-angle mixing scheme taking into account the coupling of gluons to $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$; the corresponding numbers are $`0.077`$, $`0.112`$, $`0.063`$ and $`0.141`$ respectively. Our results do not change appreciably if we use the latter set.

The magnitude of the CKM elements are taken from  which uses a fit based only on the unitarity of the mixing matrix. The error limits are at 95% CL.

$`|V_{ud}|=0.97504\pm 0.00094,|V_{us}|=0.2221\pm 0.0042,|V_{ub}|=0.00352\pm 0.00103,`$
$`|V_{cd}|=0.2220\pm 0.0042,|V_{cs}|=0.97422\pm 0.00102,|V_{cb}|=0.0407\pm 0.0028,`$
$`|V_{td}|=0.0079\pm 0.0016,|V_{ts}|=0.0403\pm 0.0030,|V_{tb}|=0.99917\pm 1.2\times 10^4.`$ (7)
We could even have used the numbers from the standard CKM fits with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B`$ as one of the inputs, since, as we will show later, the RPV couplings considered here do not affect the $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing amplitude. This, however, is not true in general; e.g., see ref. .

The transition formfactors  at $`q^2=0`$ are given by

$$F_0(BK)=0.38;F_0(B\eta )=0.145;F_0(B\eta ^{})=0.135;A_0(BK^{})=0.32,$$
(8)
and $`F_0(0)=F_1(0)`$. One could have used the so-called ‘hybrid’ formfactors using both lattice QCD and light-cone QCD . However, they are completely consistent with the numbers quoted above, and the $`B\eta K`$ BRs are only mildly affected by the latter choice. Moreover, the SM spread in these BRs is more or less taken care of by a scan over $`N_c`$.

The CP asymmetry for $`BJ/\psi K_S`$ is not modified by our choice of RPV parameters (more on this in the next section). This helps us to take the SM value of the angle $`\beta `$ to be given by

$$\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )=0.79\pm 0.10.$$
(9)
We show all our results with the central value of $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )`$, since the uncertainty has negligible effect over the final results.

For the $`\eta K`$ modes, the data reads :

$`Br(B^+\eta ^{}K^+)`$ $`=`$ $`(75\pm 7)\times 10^6`$
$`Br(B^+\eta K_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+})`$ $`=`$ $`(25.4\pm 5.6)\times 10^6`$
$`Br(B^0\eta ^{}K^0)`$ $`=`$ $`(58_{13}^{+14})\times 10^6`$
$`Br(B^0\eta K_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0})`$ $`=`$ $`(16.41\pm 3.21)\times 10^6`$
$`Br(B^+\eta K^+)`$ $`<`$ $`6.9\times 10^6`$
$`Br(B^+\eta ^{}K_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+})`$ $`<`$ $`35\times 10^6`$
$`Br(B^0\eta K^0)`$ $`<`$ $`9.3\times 10^6`$
$`Br(B^0\eta ^{}K_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0})`$ $`<`$ $`24\times 10^6`$
$`A_{CP}(B^\pm \eta ^{}K^\pm )`$ $`=`$ $`0.11\pm 0.11\pm 0.02(\mathrm{BaBar})`$
$`A_{CP}(B^\pm \eta ^{}K^\pm )`$ $`=`$ $`0.015\pm 0.070\pm 0.009(\mathrm{Belle})`$
$`A_{CP}^{dir}(B\eta ^{}K_S)`$ $`=`$ $`0.13\pm 0.32_{0.09}^{+0.06}(\mathrm{Belle})`$
$`A_{CP}^{mix}(B\eta ^{}K_S)`$ $`=`$ $`0.28\pm 0.55_{0.08}^{+0.07}(\mathrm{Belle})`$ (10)
where

$`A_{CP}(B^\pm \eta ^{}K^\pm )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^+\eta ^{}K^+)\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^{}\eta ^{}K^{})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^+\eta ^{}K^+)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^{}\eta ^{}K^{})}}`$
$`A_{CP}^{dir}={\displaystyle \frac{1|\lambda |^2}{1+|\lambda |^2}},`$ $`A_{CP}^{mix}={\displaystyle \frac{2Im\lambda }{1+|\lambda |^2}}`$ (11)
with

$$\lambda =e^{i\varphi _M}\frac{\eta ^{}K_S|\overline{B^0}}{\eta ^{}K_S|B^0},$$
(12)
$`\varphi _M`$ being the mixing phase in the $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ box ($`2\beta `$ in the SM). Note that BaBar uses a convention which differs by a minus sign from our convention of $`A_{CP}`$ (see eq. (1) of ), and the convention of Belle differs by a minus sign too, in both direct and mixing-induced CP asymmetries. Also note that if $`B\eta ^{}K_S`$ were a pure $`bs`$ penguin, the mixing-induced CP asymmetry would have been $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )`$; but the presence of a tree-level $`bu\overline{u}s`$ term makes the calculation more complicated. That is why we have used the data from  which gives directly the direct and mixing-induced CP asymmetries, rather than , which quotes an effective value of $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )=0.76\pm 0.36`$.

Among these data, the measured BRs are definitely higher than the theoretical predictions; the discrepancy is about a factor of 2 to 3 for the $`\eta ^{}K`$ modes and almost a factor of 10 for the $`\eta K^{}`$ modes within the NF model (this depends on the choice of the regularization scale, and the effective number of colors). The expressions for the amplitudes can be found in the appendix, and the numerical values of the theoretically expected BRs in tables 8 and 10, of . However, there are other models, as the perturbative QCD , which predict a dynamical enhancement of the penguin amplitude due to the higher-twist corrections. Judging by the enhancement one may get in these models for charmless modes, one expects at most to gain a factor of 2 over the factorization amplitude. This, evidently, does not serve our purpose. Let us just point out again that we take neither any charm content in $`\eta `$ or $`\eta ^{}`$ nor any anomalous $`\eta (\eta ^{})`$ coupling with gluon. The CP asymmetry data are consistent with the SM prediction; if one assumes these decays to be penguin dominated as a first approximation, the direct CP asymmetry should be zero, whereas the mixing-induced CP asymmetry should be just $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )`$. The tree-level charged current operators may change that prediction.

The modes $`B\varphi K`$ (both neutral and charged) have also been measured, and the averaged BRs are :

$`Br(B^+\varphi K^+)`$ $`=`$ $`(8.58\pm 1.24)\times 10^6,`$
$`Br(B^0\varphi K^0)`$ $`=`$ $`(8.72\pm 1.37)\times 10^6,`$ (13)
where the near equality is expected from the isospin symmetry. The direct CP asymmetry is measured by BaBar  for the charged mode and by Belle  for the neutral mode:

$`A_{CP}(B^\pm \varphi K^\pm )`$ $`=`$ $`0.05\pm 0.20\pm 0.03`$
$`A_{CP}(B\varphi K_S)`$ $`=`$ $`0.56\pm 0.41\pm 0.12.`$ (14)
Note again that both BaBar and Belle conventions differ from ours in an extra minus sign. The mixing-induced CP asymmetry, which should give $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )`$ to a very good approximation, is (at $`1\sigma `$) :

$`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )_{B\varphi K_S}`$ $`=`$ $`0.19_{0.50}^{+0.52}\pm 0.09(\mathrm{BaBar})`$
$`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )_{B\varphi K_S}`$ $`=`$ $`0.73\pm 0.64\pm 0.18(\mathrm{Belle}).`$ (15)
Though their central values are not compatible, one may still make an average:

$$\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )_{ave}=0.39\pm 0.41.$$
(16)
We use the averaged values of BR and mixing-induced CP asymmetries as our input parameters. For the direct CP asymmetry, we use the Belle data, but it may be observed later that the in the entire allowed parameter space the direct CP asymmetry is rather small (between $`0.13`$ and $`0.25`$) so that the BaBar numbers are not in trouble.

The BR for the $`B\varphi K`$ mode is a sensitive function of $`N_c`$. It has also been shown in  that one needs to take into account the annihilation and nonfactorizable contributions, which push the BR up by almost a factor of 2. While the BR is in perfect agreement with the NF model, there is no model which can explain the data on mixing-induced CP asymmetry without invoking new physics. For this purpose, in our analysis, we use the NF model to calculate the BR keeping $`N_c`$ a free parameter, which we take to be the same for both $`\varphi K`$ and $`\eta K`$ modes just for simplicity. We will also comment on what happens when one relaxes the BR constraint on $`\varphi K`$.

## 3 R-parity Violating Supersymmetry

R-parity is a global quantum number, defined as $`(1)^{3B+L+2S}`$, which is $`+1`$ for all particles and $`1`$ for all superparticles. In the minimal version of supersymmetry and some of its variants, R-parity is assumed to be conserved ad hoc, which prevents single creation or annihilation of superparticles. However, models with broken R-parity can be constructed naturally, and such models have a number of interesting phenomenological consequences. The crucial point is that unlike most extensions of the SM, RPV contributes to B decay amplitudes at the tree level. Moreover, the current bounds  on sparticle masses and couplings leave open the possiblity that such contributions can indeed be comparable to or even larger than the SM amplitude. It may be noted that the presence of two interfering amplitudes of comparable magnitude is essential for a large deviation of CP asymmetries from the SM prediction.

It is well known that in order to avoid rapid proton decay one cannot have both lepton number and baryon number violating RPV model, and we shall work with a lepton number violating one. This leads to slepton/sneutrino mediated B decays. Since the current lower bound on the slepton mass is weaker than that on squark mass, larger effects within the reach of current round of experiments are more probable in this scenario. We start with the superpotential

$$𝒲_\lambda ^{}=\lambda _{ijk}^{}L_iQ_jD_k^c,$$
(17)
where $`i,j,k=1,2,3`$ are quark and lepton generation indices; $`L`$ and $`Q`$ are the $`SU(2)`$-doublet lepton and quark superfields and $`D^c`$ is the $`SU(2)`$-singlet down-type quark superfield respectively. This leads to a four-Fermi hamiltonian relevant for B decays :

$`H_{R/}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}d_{jkn}^R(\overline{d}_n\gamma ^\mu P_Ld_j)_8(\overline{d}_k\gamma _\mu P_Rb)_8`$ (18)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}d_{jkn}^L(\overline{d}_n\gamma ^\mu P_Lb)_8(\overline{d}_k\gamma _\mu P_Rd_j)_8`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}u_{jnk}^R(\overline{u}_n\gamma ^\mu P_Lu_j)_8(\overline{d}_k\gamma _\mu P_Rb)_8+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.`$
where

$$d_{jkn}^R=\underset{i}{}\frac{\lambda _{ijk}^{}\lambda _{}^{}{}_{in3}{}^{}}{2m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{Li}}^2},d_{jkn}^L=\underset{i}{}\frac{\lambda _{i3k}^{}\lambda _{}^{}{}_{inj}{}^{}}{2m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{Li}}^2},u_{jnk}^R=\underset{i}{}\frac{\lambda _{ijk}^{}\lambda _{}^{}{}_{in3}{}^{}}{2m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_{Li}}^2},$$
(19)
and the subscript 8 indicates that the currents are in color SU(3) octet-octet combination.

Following the standard practice we shall assume that the RPV couplings are hierarchical i.e., only one combination of the couplings is numerically significant. Let us note that both the transitions $`B\eta ^{(^{})}K^{()}`$ and $`B\varphi K`$ are controlled by the quark-level transitions $`bs\overline{s}s`$. Thus, let us assume, to start with, only $`d_{222}^R`$ and $`d_{222}^L`$ to be nonzero, as has been done in . Of course, $`\eta K`$ modes can be fed by $`bu\overline{u}s`$ and $`bd\overline{d}s`$ transitions. Since they affect other decay modes like $`B\pi K`$ where there is no apparent discrepancy with SM expectations, we assume those operators to be vanishing.

Next let us discard $`d_{222}^R`$ too. The reason for this is that $`d_{222}^R`$ and $`u_{222}^R`$ are related by SU(2) symmetry, and are the same if we neglect the electroweak D-term that causes the sneutrino-slepton mass splitting (on the other hand, $`d_{222}^R`$ and $`d_{222}^L`$ are completely unrelated, and unless there is some underlying texture in the RPV couplings, there is no reason why they should be equal). However, presence of $`u_{222}^R`$ generates $`bc\overline{c}s`$ transition, which in turn affects the modes like $`BJ/\psi K_S`$ which is used as a standard to extract $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )`$. Since the values of $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )`$ extracted from different charmonium modes, as well as from the $`J/\psi \pi ^0`$ mode with a different quark-level process, are almost the same , it is a safe assumption, also compatible with the principle of Occam’s razor, to have no RPV contribution to that channel. Thus, the value of $`\beta `$ extracted from $`BJ/\psi K_S`$ can be taken to be the SM value for that angle. The product coupling $`d_{222}^L`$ does not contribute to the $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ box, so that there is no scope to have an extra box amplitude, in contrast to the situation, e.g., in  (but $`d_{222}^L`$ contributes to the $`B_s`$ box; this is discussed later). The QCD corrections are easy to implement: the short-distance QCD corrections enhance the $`(SP)\times (S+P)`$ RPV operator by approximately a factor of 2 while running from the slepton mass scale (assumed to be at 100 GeV) to $`m_b`$ .

The RPV amplitude for $`B\eta ^{}K`$ is given by

$$M_{\eta ^{}K}^{R/}=\frac{1}{4}d_{222}^L\left[R_1\left(A_{\eta ^{}K}^sA_{\eta ^{}K}^u\right)\frac{1}{N_c}A_{\eta ^{}K}^s\right]$$
(20)
and that for $`B\eta K^{}`$ is

$$M_{\eta K^{}}^{R/}=\frac{1}{4}d_{222}^L\left[R_2\left(A_{\eta K^{}}^sA_{\eta K^{}}^u\right)\frac{1}{N_c}A_{\eta K^{}}^s\right],$$
(21)
where

$`R_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\eta ^{}^2}{m_s(m_bm_s)}}`$
$`R_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\eta ^2}{m_s(m_b+m_s)}}`$ (22)
and

$`A_{\eta ^{}K}^{u,s}`$ $`=`$ $`f_\eta ^{}^{u,s}F_0^{BK}(m_\eta ^{}^2)(m_B^2m_K^2)`$
$`A_{\eta K^{}}^{u,s}`$ $`=`$ $`2f_\eta ^{u,s}m_K^{}A_0^{BK^{}}(m_\eta ^2)(ϵ_K^{}.p_\eta ).`$ (23)
For $`B\varphi K`$ (both neutral and charged channels), the RPV amplitude is

$$M_{\varphi K}^{R/}=\frac{1}{4N_c}d_{222}^LA_{\varphi K}$$
(24)
with

$$A_{\varphi K}=2f_\varphi m_\varphi F_0^{BK}(m_\varphi ^2)(ϵ_\varphi .p_K)$$
(25)
All these amplitudes are calculated at the slepton mass scale, and, as stated earlier, should be multiplied roughly by a factor of 2 when we compute their effects at $`m_b`$.

The product coupling $`d_{222}^L`$ can in general be complex, which we write as

$$d_{222}^L=|d_{222}^L|exp(i\varphi _{R/}).$$
(26)
In our analysis we vary this phase over the range 0 to $`\pi `$, and include the effects of $`\pi \varphi _R/2\pi `$ by allowing $`|d_{222}^L|`$ to take both positive and negative values.

For generic $`B\eta K`$ modes, even the SM has two factorizable amplitudes, tree and penguin. Following the color transparency argument which predicts the strong phase difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta _{SM}`$ between them to be small , we take $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta _{SM}=0`$. We vary the strong phase difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta `$ between the SM and the RPV amplitudes over a range of 0 to $`2\pi `$, but expect to find solutions allowing $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta `$ to be near 0 or $`2\pi `$, which is theoretically pleasing. Note that if all strong phase differences are exactly zero, there should not be any direct CP violation; indeed, with color transparency expectations, we should get a small $`A_{CP}^{dir}`$, which anyway is perfectly allowed by data. For simplicity we take $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta `$ to be the same for all channels to be considered.

## 4 The Analysis

Our input parameters are specified in Sections 2 and 3. We scan the CKM element $`V_{ub}`$, which has an almost $`30\%`$ uncertainty, over its entire range. We also vary $`1/N_c`$ from 0.1 to 1. The weak phase $`\varphi _R/`$ associated with $`d_{222}^L`$ is scanned over 0 to $`\pi `$ and the strong phase difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta `$ between SM (tree or penguin) and RPV over 0 to $`2\pi `$ (we, however, present our results for the range $`\pi /6<\mathrm{\Delta }\delta <\pi /6`$, motivated by the color-transparency argument). The CKM angle $`\gamma `$ is varied between 0 and $`\pi \beta `$ where $`\beta =0.5\mathrm{arcsin}(A_{CP}(BJ/\psi K_S))`$.

The following constraints were applied: (i) BR for the modes $`\eta ^{}K^+`$, $`\eta ^{}K^0`$, $`\eta K_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}`$, $`\eta K_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$ and $`\varphi K_S`$, (ii) the direct CP asymmetry for $`B^\pm \eta ^{}K^\pm `$ from BaBar, (iii) the direct CP asymmetry for $`B\varphi K_S`$ from Belle, and (iv) the average value of BaBar and Belle for $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )`$ extracted from $`B\varphi K_S`$. Constraints (ii) and (iii) are applied with the rationale that they have larger error bars and we wish to check whether the data from the other experiment with smaller errors can be accomodated. The direct and mixing-induced CP asymmetries for $`B\eta ^{}K_S`$ are not imposed as constraints but one can easily check from the figures that most of the allowed region is perfectly compatible with the data.

Our results are shown in figures 1-4. Let us note the salient features of the analysis.

* It is known that the nonfactorizable effects in these decays can be substantial. To account for that, we have taken $`N_c`$ as a free parameter, and not stuck to its QCD value of 3. However, the Wilson coefficients are evaluated with $`N_c=3`$. It appears that there is a significant nonfactorizable contribution in $`B\varphi K`$, since we have obtained the fit only for $`0.151/N_c0.25`$. Note that $`\eta K`$ channels are $`N_c`$ stable, so the constraint only comes from the $`\varphi K`$ mode. This is in conformity with the analysis in .
* There are two possible bands of solutions, as can be seen from Fig. 1. The left-hand side band, with more points and more width, is for negative values of $`d_{222}^L`$ and $`\varphi _R/`$ in the first quadrant (this we will call Band I). There is a second narrow band (Band II) for positive values of $`d_{222}^L`$ and $`\varphi _R/`$ in the second quadrant. This shape is essentially controlled by the BRs and CP asymetries of different $`\eta K`$ channels.

We found a much stronger constraint on the product coupling $`|\lambda _{i32}^{}\lambda _{}^{}{}_{i22}{}^{}|`$:

$$|\lambda _{i32}^{}\lambda _{}^{}{}_{i22}{}^{}|2.3\times 10^3.$$
(27)
If we take all these experimental data seriously, it is possible to get even an upper bound:

$$|\lambda _{i32}^{}\lambda _{}^{}{}_{i22}{}^{}|1.3\times 10^3.$$
(28)
The present bound, as quoted in  for the third slepton generation, is only $`0.23`$, and that too assuming squarks at 100 GeV. If one has 300 GeV squarks, the bound gets weaker by a factor of 9. However, one gets a comparatively better constraint from $`B_s\overline{B_s}`$ mixing, since nonzero values of $`\lambda _{i32}^{}`$ and $`\lambda _{i22}^{}`$ can generate a second amplitude for the box, with two sneutrinos and two right-handed strange quarks flowing inside the box. Taking $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ to be completely saturated by the RPV contribution, and using the experimental lower limit, one gets a bound on the product coupling which is approximately $`1.5\times 10^2`$. The main loophole in the analysis is the fact that only an experimental upper bound can generate an upper bound on some unknown parameter; moreover, it is questionable to neglect the SM contribution completely. Even then we have an improvement by an order of magnitude.
* Figure 2 shows that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta `$ should be positive for Band I and negative for Band II. It can be checked easily that this ensures a positive direct CP asymmetry in all channels, and a negative mixing-induced CP asymmetry in $`B\varphi K_S`$. Figure 3 shows the range of $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )`$ in this model, which is between the upper limit of $`0.02`$ and $`0.6`$. The central value of Belle, however, cannot be reproduced.
* Figure 4 shows the mixing-induced CP asymmetry for $`B\eta ^{}K_S`$. Note that imposition of the Belle data means a significant portion (the region in the upper right-hand corner) of the already weak Band II is ruled out, while Band I is completely allowed. Still, one cannot rule out Band II completely.
* The CP asymmetry in $`B^\pm \eta ^{}K^\pm `$ is found to lie between $`0.115`$ and $`0.22`$ (the upper limit) for Band I, and between $`0.14`$ and $`0.22`$ for Band II. The direct CP asymmetry in the neutral channel lies between $`0.13`$ to $`0.24`$. This is definitely compatible with the Belle data, but again the central value is far away. One must wait for the error bars to come down.
* The direct CP asymmetry for $`B\varphi K_S`$ lies between $`0.13`$ and $`0.25`$ for Band I and between $`0.13`$ and $`0.22`$ for Band II. This is in perfect harmony with the BaBar data too.

Let us try to understand why we get a nonzero $`A_{CP}^{dir}`$. This is due to the constraint put by $`A_{CP}^{mix}(B\varphi K)`$. To see this qualitatively, let us assume that there is only one SM amplitude and both weak and strong phase differences vanish so that there is no direct CP asymmetry. It is easy to see that in that case there is no change in the prediction for $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )`$, which is given only by the phase in the $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ box.
* The angle $`\gamma `$ can take any value upto $`\pi \beta `$ for Band I. On the other hand, it can be only in the second quadrant for Band II. The origin of such a pattern can easily be traced back to the expressions of BRs and CP asymmetries of the $`\eta K`$ modes. Ref.  estimates $`40^{}<\gamma <78^{}`$ at 95% CL from different $`B\pi \pi `$ and $`BK\pi `$ modes. These modes are not affected by $`d_{222}^L`$, so one concludes that if there are no other nonzero RPV couplings, Band II is completely ruled out. Thus, if the value of $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )`$ extracted from $`B\eta ^{}K_S`$ converges towards that found from $`BJ/\psi K_S`$, this solution will be in trouble. However, the error bars are too large to draw any definite conclusion right now.
* As a check, we redo the analysis switching the $`B\varphi K`$ BR constraint off. There is no substantial change in the result, except that the lower bound on $`A_{CP}(B^\pm \eta ^{}K^\pm )`$ marginally decreases to $`0.11`$. Thus we consider our result to be fairly robust with respect to hadronic uncertainties. However, there is no upper limit on $`1/N_c`$ anymore.

We have also explicitly checked that BRs of the so far unobserved $`\eta K`$ channels remain below their experimental upper bounds.

## 5 Summary and Conclusion

We found that a minimal set of RPV couplings, compatible with all present data, can explain the BR anomalies for $`B\eta ^{}K`$ and $`B\eta K^{}`$, and the unusual value of $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )`$ from $`B\varphi K_S`$. This is mainly due to the fact that RPV contributes to B decays at tree-level. A nice feature is that one can have points where the strong phase difference between RPV and SM is small, which is what one expects from the color transparency argument.

With more data pouring in, one can significantly shrink the allowed parameter space for RPV. However, even at present we get sufficiently strong bound on the relevant product coupling — better by two orders of magnitude at least.

What other effects are mediated by the product coupling $`\lambda _{i32}^{}\lambda _{i22}^{}`$? This generates a top decay channel $`tc\overline{s}s`$, whose strength is, unfortunately, only a few per cent of the corresponding SM channel. Thus, the signal is essentially unobservable. A better signal may come from the strange squark mediated semileptonic top decays $`tc\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ ($`\mathrm{}=e,\mu ,\tau `$). This also generates $`bs\nu \overline{\nu }`$ or $`B_s\nu \overline{\nu }`$ decays. The third effect is a new box amplitude in $`B_s\overline{B_s}`$ mixing. Here, also, the amplitude is only at a few per cent level compared to the SM amplitude, so we do not expect any significant CP asymmetry in channels like $`B_sJ/\psi \varphi `$ even if $`\varphi _R/`$ is large.

We have not discussed the product coupling $`d_{222}^R`$ which can also explain the anomalies that are studied in this paper. As we mentioned before, that coupling also generates the SU(2) conjugate transition $`bc\overline{c}s`$. This may jeopardize the predictions from the $`BJ/\psi K_S`$ channel, for example. However, a nonzero phase in $`d_{222}^R`$ should show up in the $`B_s`$ box, i.e., one may get a significant CP-asymmetry in the channel $`B_sJ/\psi \varphi `$, contrary to the SM expectation. The reason is simple: RPV contributes to both the box amplitude and to the decay $`bc\overline{c}s`$. The rare decays $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ or $`B_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ also receive a tree-level contribution from $`d_{222}^R`$ and may be pushed up to the observable level.

At present, one has to wait for the errors to come down. This may rule out part or all of one or both bands (existence of Band II is already under threat from the fit of $`\gamma `$, as we have shown). However, if the bands still remain allowed, one should look for any unexpected CP asymmetry signal in $`B_s`$ decays. Only such correlated studies can unravel the exact nature of new physics.

Acknowledgement

We thank S. Oh for his comments on the manuscript. AK has been supported by the BRNS grant 2000/37/10/BRNS of DAE, Govt. of India, by the grant F.10-14/2001 (SR-I) of UGC, India, and by the fellowship of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.