text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Even after intense studies over many decades, several aspects of relaxation in supercooled liquids remain ill-understood and controversial. It is now recognized that anomalies in the relaxation in deeply supercooled liquids arise from an interplay between the dynamical cooperativity between different regions in the liquid (an idea originally introduced by Adam and Gibbs ) and the influence of the underlying free energy surface of the liquid which increasingly exerts its influence as the glass transition region is approached . The essence of the dynamical cooperativity can arguably be described by the mode coupling theory  which, however, fails to connect to the free energy landscape. There is still no comprehensive treatment of the cross-over from the dynamically cooperative region to the hopping dominated region. The cross-over scenario is intimately connected with other concepts, like the fragility and the super-Arrhenius behavior of the supercooled liquid.

Orientational relaxation in glassy liquid has proved to be the most powerful probe of dynamics. The dielectric relaxation study by Goldstein and Johari first revealed the emergence of the $`\alpha `$-$`\beta `$ bifurcation and the disappearance of the $`\alpha `$ relaxation, as the glass transition is approached from higher temperature. The NMR studies of Ediger and coworkers find an emergence of the a new time scale near glass transition temperature . This new time scale is larger than $`\alpha `$ relaxation time. Ediger and other workers also found evidence of heterogeneity and decoupling of translational and rotational motions .

Theoretical and computer simulation studies have mostly been directed towards understanding spherical systems, like the Lennard-Jones and the hard spheres. In this study, we report detailed MD (constant pressure (P), temperature (T), and constant total number of particles (N)) simulations of orientational relaxation of a few isolated ellipsoids in glass forming binary liquids. The questions we address here are the following :(a) How are the orientational and the translational motions correlated ? (b) What is the energy surface for orientational hopping? (c) How local is the hopping phenomenon ? Or in another words, how relevant is the free energy landscape ? (d) How sensitive is rotational diffusion to molecular shape ? Simulation studies presented here hopefully provide answer to some of these questions.

Our solvent is represented by Kob-Andersen (KA) binary mixture  which is known to be a good glass former and has been extensively studied , and our solute probes are prolate ellipsoids. Pressure is kept constant by Andersen’s piston method  while in the case of temperature, a damped oscillator method has been adopted which keeps temperature constant at each and every time step . The piston mass involved here is $`0.0027(m_A/\sigma _A^4)`$ which is regarded as optimum . The interactions between the particles are modeled by different potentials. The interaction between the spheres are given by Lennard-Jones Potential (as in KA Model) and the interaction between two ellipsoids with arbitrary orientations is assumed to be given by the Gay-Berne (GB) potential ,

$`U_{GB}=4ϵ(\widehat{r},\widehat{u}_1,\widehat{u}_2)\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _0}{r\sigma (\widehat{r},\widehat{u}_1,\widehat{u}_2)+\sigma _o}}\right)^{12}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _0}{r\sigma (\widehat{r},\widehat{u}_1,\widehat{u}_2)+\sigma _0}}\right)^6\right]`$ (1)
where $`\widehat{u}_1`$ $`\widehat{u}_2`$ are the axial vectors of the ellipsoids 1 and 2. $`\widehat{r}`$ is the vector along the intermolecular vector $`r=r_2r_1`$, where $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$ denote the centers of mass of ellipsoids 1 and 2 respectively. $`\sigma (\widehat{r},\widehat{u}_1,\widehat{u}_2)`$ and $`ϵ(\widehat{r},\widehat{u}_1,\widehat{u}_2)`$ are the orientation-dependent range and strength parameters respectively. $`\sigma `$ and $`ϵ`$ depend on the aspect ratio $`\kappa `$. Finally, the interaction between a sphere and an ellipsoid is accounted for by a modified GB-LJ potential given below

$$U_{Ei}=4ϵ_{Ei}\left[\left(\frac{\sigma (\theta )_{Ei}}{r}\right)^{12}\left(\frac{\sigma (\theta )_{Ei}}{r}\right)^6\right]$$
(2)
where ’E’ denotes the ellipsoids and ’i’ can be ’A’ or ’B’. The expression for $`\sigma (\theta )_{Ei}`$ is available .

The ellipsoid in binary mixture system with the above mentioned potential is a well behaved system and it can also exhibit the experimentally observed anomalous viscosity dependence of the orientational correlation time . Four ellipsoids were placed far from each other in a binary mixture of 500 particles with number of ’A’ particles, $`N_A=400`$ and number of ’B’ type particles $`N_B=100`$. The reduced temperature is expressed as, $`T^{}`$(=$`k_BT/ϵ_A`$), the reduced pressure as, $`P^{}`$(= $`P\sigma _A^3/ϵ_{AA}`$). and the reduced density as $`\rho ^{}`$(=$`\rho \sigma _A^3`$). The time is scaled by $`\sqrt{(m_A\sigma _A^2/ϵ_{AA})}`$. The time step of the simulation is .002 $`\tau `$ and the system is equilibrated for 1.5 $`\times `$ 105 steps.

Systematic simulations of the Kob-Andersen model (with $`T^{}=0.8`$) have been carried out by varying pressure over a large range to study the system from its normal liquid regime to the glassy state. The dynamical nature of the system at different pressures can be characterized from the value of the viscosity and the nature of the translational hopping of all the particles and orientational hopping of the ellipsoids. At P=2.0, the system is in the normal liquid regime. Here the reduced density is 1.13 and the reduced viscosity is 13.446. Here motion is continuous and orientational correlation decays like in a normal liquid. Both the probability distributions for spatial displacement, $`P^i(r)`$, and for angular displacement, $`P(\theta )`$, are Gaussian in the long time. This behavior changes as pressure is increased.

At P=5 where $`\eta ^{}`$=479.5, it is a viscous liquid. In figure $`1(a)`$ we plot $`P(\theta )`$ at pressures 5 and 6. At $`P^{}=5`$, the rotational motion is mostly continuous and at long time $`P(\theta )`$ is Gaussian. However, at $`P^{}=6`$ viscosity $`\eta `$ is about 2340. At long time $`P(\theta )`$ has one peak at small angle and there is also another peak between 160\- 180 The trajectory at pressure 5 shows continuous change where as that at pressure 6 shows sharp 180 rotations.

Figures $`1(b)`$ and $`1(c)`$ show $`P(r)`$ at two different pressures, each plot showing the same for both the larger (A) and the smaller (B) particles. While at $`P^{}`$= 5 (not shown), both $`P^A(r)`$ and $`P^B(r)`$ are Gaussian, at pressure 6 the $`P^B(r)`$ is still Gaussian but $`P^A(r)`$ shows two peaks. This is because at this pressure although most of the small ‘B’ particles still have continuous motion with some amount of hopping, the ‘A’ particles move primarily through hopping. At pressure 8, both $`P^A(r)`$ and $`P^B(r)`$ show multiple peaks. At this pressure the density is around 1.36 and hopping is the dominant mode of transport for all the particles. A small peak observed in $`P^B(r)`$ at higher $`r`$ value ($`2.5\sigma `$) signifies correlated hopping. The peak at $`0.2\sigma `$ describes the vibrational motion within the cage. The cross-over from continuous to hopping dominated regime is accompanied by a dramatic slow down in the decay of the stress auto-time correlation function (not shown here) and the sharp rise in the value of the viscosity. From the above analyses, we conclude that the larger (A) particles freeze near $`P^{}`$=6 while the smaller (B) particles freeze near $`P^{}`$=7.

At $`P^{}=10`$ the system is so densely packed that there hardly remains any signature of liquid like region. The reduced density of this system is 1.41. In this highly dense system, each ellipsoid has about 22 neighbors. Here we found primarily two different kinds of translational motions, one is many particle correlated hopping and the other is motion in a ring like tunnel. We also found correlated orientational and translation hopping. Figures 2 and 3 show the displacement of the 1st and 2nd ellipsoid in reduced time and the change in their instantaneous orientation. Study of the first ellipsoid and its neighboring particle dynamics reveal that about 5-6 particles translate (greater than 0.525 $`\sigma `$) during (or just prior to) the time the ellipsoid hops. The OCF decays considerable amount only during this period. Analyzing the dynamics of the second ellipsoid and its neighboring particles and their neighbors, we found that 5 particles ( including the 2nd ellipsoid) have similar trajectories (around 1650 $`\tau `$). All these particles are not the neighbor of the ellipsoid, they are consecutive neighbors and are placed in a ring like tunnel. Thus although the ellipsoid translates considerable amount in this tunnel, the orientational dynamics is constrained, leading to less decay of the OCF ( only upto 0.82). We also find that hopping of the particle is associated with larger fluctuation in volume and total energy in this glassy system.

The study of the OCF at different pressures show that at high pressures ($`P^{}`$6) the OCF decays only through hopping and there is a distribution of relaxation times. While the average orientational correlation function is non-exponential, decay of each ellipsoid is found to be only weakly non-exponential, with widely different relaxation times, often differing by more than one order of magnitude at pressure $`P^{}`$=6. In two different runs the average OCF is also found to be drastically different, although the average energy and volume of the different runs remain the same. Thus, the local minimum explored by each probe ellipsoid are different.

In an ordinary liquid rotational relaxation time, $`\tau _R`$ is of the order of $`10^{11}sec`$ whereas the time taken to translate 1 molecular diameter, $`\tau _T`$ is about $`10^{10}sec`$. In a supercooled liquid both translation and rotation slows down. From the mean square displacement we found that $`\tau _T`$ of the ellipsoid is of the order of $`10^5sec`$. Since the orientational correlation function does not decay much it is difficult to make an estimate of $`\tau _R`$. We found that even at 1200 $`\tau `$ the OCF does not decay below 0.55. Thus it can be safely concluded that in our system $`\tau _{2R}>>\tau _T`$. This observation is similar to that reported by Ediger and co-workers where they found that the molecule translates hundreds of molecular diameter before it rotates once .

Figure 4 shows the variation of the single particle potential energy during hopping as a function of distance traversed, both for the ellipsoid and two of its neighbors. The study of the energetics (during orientational and translation hopping) reveals that both kinds of hopping are gated process, where the free energy barrier (or the saddle) is entropic in nature. The ellipsoid hopping is associated with instantaneous rearrangement (significant displacement) of surrounding molecules. At high pressure the particles are densely packed and trapped in regions separated by small windows (entropic bottlenecks) . If the motion of the ellipsoid is in the x-direction then the surrounding particles are found to move in the perpendicular plane. Thus only rearrangements or displacement of surrounding molecules open up the gate and allow the ellipsoid to move as envisaged in the Zwanzig model . In the process of creation of the gate some of the particles register a small rise in energy (shown in figure 4(b) and 4(c)). However the sum of energies of the ellipsoid and its neighbors remains the same.

The present study shows that orientational relaxation in a viscous liquid near glass transition, involves collective motion which, although complex, has certain regular and understandable features. For example, hopping of a particle in question is gated. There is clearly a waiting time distribution of this collective event to happen, although even very close to glass transition these events are certainly not rare. Therefore, these are expected to play important role in the relaxation of glassy liquids. A complete theory of these highly collective processes would be non-trivial, and would perhaps first require a “coarse-grained” theory of the type discussed by Xia and Wolynes.

We find that orientational relaxation occurs increasingly on slower time scale, compared to translation, as the glass transition is approached. This is because molecules can hop preserving its orientation and also 180 orientational hopping does not change 2nd rank harmonics, often probed in experiments. In the glassy state the hopping of ellipsoid is non-local. Finally, we note that the present simulations can reproduce several behavior observed in recent experiments on orientational relaxation in deeply supercooled liquids.

It is a pleasure to thank Prof. Peter Wolynes and Prof. Srikanth Sastry for discussions and correspondence. The work has been supported in parts by grants from the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and the Department of Science and Technology, India.

Figure Captions

Figure 1 (a) Dashed and Solid lines show variation of $`P(\theta )`$ against angular displacement $`\theta `$ for pressure $`P^{}=5.0`$ and $`P^{}=6`$, respectively. At $`P^{}=6`$ the distribution is bimodal with a second peak appearing around $`160^{}`$. (b)Distribution of $`P(r)`$ against displacement ($`r^{}`$) for two different types of particles ( ’A’ and ’B’) at pressure $`P^{}=6.0`$. Solid line and dashed line denote bigger and smaller particles, respectively. (c) Same plot as 1(b) but at pressure $`P^{}=8.0`$.

Figure 2 (a) Displacement of an ellipsoid (tag 1) occurs only by hopping at around $`300\tau `$. (b) Dot product of instantaneous orientation and the orientation at the time t=0 shows that orientational and translational hopping happen at the same time. (c) Decay of $`C_{2R}(t)`$ in different time intervals are plotted. The arrow points to the OCF which shows prominent decay during the time interval of the hopping.

Figure 3 (a) Displacement of another ellipsoid ( tag 2) where it undergoes motion in a ring like tunnel. (b) Dot product of the instantaneous orientation and the orientation at time t=0. Both the orientational hopping and translational motion are correlated. (c)Decay of $`C_{2R}(t)`$ in different time intervals are plotted. Although, the ellipsoid translates about 1$`\sigma `$ distance, due to constrained orientational dynamics in the ring like tunnel the OCF decays only upto 0.82. The arrow points to the OCF, obtained during the period of hopping.

Figure 4 (a) Variation of the single particle potential energy (SPPE) of the ellipsoid with time around hopping signifies gated diffusion. (b) and (c) shows variation of SPPE of two neighboring particles of the above ellipsoid.


format: text

text:
# On the lattice construction of electroweak gauge theory

## 1 An approach to electroweak theory

Recently, gauge-covariant and local lattice Dirac operators satisfying the Ginsparg-Wilson relation has been constructed, and this opens the possibility to formulate chiral gauge theories on the lattice with exact gauge invariance. Indeed, Lüscher has given a constructive proof of the existence of Weyl fermion measure in anomaly-free abelian chiral gauge theories . The same author has also examined the construction of generic non-abelian chiral gauge theories and has formulated the reconstruction theorem for the fermion measure . The purpose of this article is to examine the possible extension of the construction to electroweak SU(2)$`\times `$U(1) gauge theory.

Electroweak theory is the chiral gauge theory of left-handed leptons and quarks in SU(2) doublet and right-handed quarks in SU(2) singlet. Taking into account of the color degrees of freedom, there are four doublets in each generation. In order to construct this theory on the lattice, we adopt the definition of lattice Weyl fermion based on Ginsparg-Wilson Dirac operator :

$$\gamma _5D+D\widehat{\gamma }_5=0,\widehat{\gamma }_5\gamma _5(1aD),$$
(1)
$$\psi _L(x)=\widehat{P}_{}\psi _L(x),\widehat{P}_{}=(1\widehat{\gamma }_5)/2.$$
(2)
The projection for $`\overline{\psi }`$ is defined as usual with $`\gamma _5`$. Gauge fields are given by link variables $`U(x,\mu )=U^{(2)}(x,\mu )U^{(1)}(x,\mu )`$. We assume the lattice to be finite with periodic boundary conditions in all directions. We require that U(1) and SU(2) components of link variables satisfy the so-called admissibility conditions respectively, which ensure the locality and smoothness of the Dirac operator . Then the space of the admissible SU(2)$`\times `$U(1) gauge fields is divided into the topological sectors, each one is the product of a U(1) topological sector and an SU(2) topological sector.

Our approach to electroweak theory on the lattice relies on the specific feature of the original theory. In the vacuum sector of the U(1) gauge fields where any configuration can be deformed smoothly to the trivial one $`U(x,\mu )=1`$, we can turn off the hypercharge gauge coupling. Then the theory can be regarded as vector-like due to the pseudo reality of SU(2). It is indeed possible to make the fermion measure defined globally in all topological sectors of SU(2) by the following choice of the basis for a pair of doublets $`(a,b)`$:

$`w_j^{(a)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`u_j(x),`$ (3)
$`w_j^{(b)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\gamma _5C^1i\sigma _2\right)\left[u_j(x)\right]^{},`$ (4)
where $`\widehat{P}_{}u_j(x)=u_j(x)`$. This fact implies the cancellation of Witten’s SU(2) anomaly (cf. ). Given the basis for the SU(2) doublets defined globally, one may try to extend the fermion measure to incorporate the U(1) gauge field following the reconstruction theorem , as far as we concern the vacuum sector of the U(1) gauge fields.

## 2 A choice of the fermion measure

According to the reconstruction theorem, the first step to obtain the Weyl fermion measure is to construct the measure term ($`\eta _\mu \delta U_\mu U_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$):

$$𝔏=a^4\underset{x}{}\left\{\eta _\mu ^{(2)}(x)j_\mu ^{(2)}(x)+\eta _\mu ^{(1)}(x)j_\mu ^{(1)}(x)\right\},$$
(5)
where $`j_\mu ^{(n)}(n=2,1)`$ should satisfy the anomalous conservation law and the integrability condition, and should be defined smoothly over the space of the gauge fields. This question can be mapped to the equivalent local cohomology problem in the 4+2 dimensions. Two of the authors have examined the cohomology problem for electroweak theory and have shown that the currents $`j_\mu ^{(n)}(n=2,1)`$ with the desired properties can be constructed in the infinite volume. Then the remaining issue is to obtain the currents $`j_\mu ^{(n)}(n=2,1)`$ in the finite volume. The similar problem has already been solved by Lüscher in the case of abelian chiral gauge theories, and that procedure can actually be applied to the U(1) part of the current $`j_\mu ^{(1)}`$ in our case, if we regard the SU(2) gauge field as a background. The resulted current is local and smooth with respect to the SU(2) gauge field and is invariant under the SU(2) gauge transformation.

Given the smooth current $`j_\mu ^{(1)}(x)`$ and the “global” measure for $`U^{(2)}1`$ (the associated Weyl fermion basis $`\left\{w_j(x)\right\}`$), we may consider a choice of the fermion measure as follows: let us consider a smooth curve in the space of the gauge fields, along which the U(1) gauge field is interpolated from the trivial configuration $`U_0^{(1)}=1`$ to a certain non-trivial configuration $`U_1^{(1)}=U^{(1)}`$ in the vacuum sector, while the SU(2) gauge field is fixed to an arbitrary configuration $`U^{(2)}`$ in a given topological sector. Along the curve $`\{U^{(2)}U_t^{(1)}\}_{0t1}`$, we introduce the Wilson line $`W^{(1)}`$ using $`j_\mu ^{(1)}`$, and the evolution operator $`Q_t^{(1)}`$ ($`0t1`$). Then we define a basis for $`U^{(2)}U_1^{(1)}`$ as follows:

$`v_j=\{\begin{array}{cc}Q_1^{(1)}w_1W_{}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{1}\hfill & \text{if}j=1\hfill \\ Q_1^{(1)}w_j\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (6)
We can check directly the local properties of the fermion measure obtained from the basis (6), by evaluating the measure term in the neighbor of $`U^{(2)}U^{(1)}`$. We can see that both currents $`j_\mu ^{(2)}`$ and $`j_\mu ^{(1)}`$ are obtained in this case and they indeed satisfy the integrability condition and the anomalous conservation law. Thus this choice of the basis gives a consistent fermion measure at least locally.

## 3 Global integrability for U(1) loops

For the fermion measure defined with the basis (6) to be consistent globally, it is required that the Wilson line $`W^{(1)}`$ should satisfy the global integrability condition

$$W^{(1)}=det(1P_0+P_0Q_1^{(1)})$$
(7)
($`P_t=\widehat{P}_{}|_{U^{(2)}U_t^{(1)}}`$) for all closed loops in the space of the U(1) gauge fields with arbitrary SU(2) gauge field fixed in the background. We next examine this global integrability condition in this section.

The admissible U(1) gauge fields in the vacuum sector can be parametrized as

$`U^{(1)}(x,\mu )`$ $`=\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)w(x,\mu )\mathrm{\Lambda }(x+\widehat{\mu })^1,`$ (8)
$`w(x,\mu )`$ $`=w_\mu \delta _{\stackrel{~}{x}_\mu 0},`$ (9)
up to contractible components, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)\mathrm{U}(1)`$, $`w_\mu \mathrm{U}(1)`$. There are two types of non-trivial loops in the space of the U(1) gauge fields: the first one is related to the gauge degrees of freedom $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$ and referred as “gauge loops”, and the second one is “non-gauge loops” related to $`w_\mu `$. Then we should examine the global integrability condition for such non-trivial loops while the SU(2) gauge field is kept fixed.

For the gauge loops

$`U_t^{(1)}(x,\mu )`$ $`=\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(x)\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(x+\widehat{\mu })^1,`$ (10)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(x)`$ $`=\mathrm{exp}\{2\pi it\delta _{\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{y}}\},`$ (11)
we can prove the global integrability in the similar manner as abelian chiral gauge theories: we set $`\eta _\mu ^{(1)}(x)=_\mu \delta _{\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{y}}`$, and $`\eta _\mu ^{(2)}(x)=0`$, and then the anomalous conservation law implies that the Wilson loop is given by the U(1) part of the gauge anomaly as

$$W=\mathrm{exp}\{i2\pi 𝒜^{(1)}(y)_{t=0}\}.$$
(12)
On the other hand, the twist (the determinant on the r.h.s. of (7)) can be evaluated with the formula $`(t_k=k/n)`$

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}det\left(1P_{t_0}+P_{t_n}P_{t_n1}\mathrm{}P_{t_0}\right)$$
(13)
and $`P_t=R[\mathrm{\Lambda }_t]P_0R[\mathrm{\Lambda }_t]^1`$ to reproduce the r.h.s. of (12). As we can see, this proof holds with any SU(2) gauge field in the background.

For the non-gauge loops

$$U_t^{(1)}(x,\mu )=\mathrm{exp}\{2\pi it\delta _{\mu \nu }\delta _{\stackrel{~}{x}_\nu 0}\},$$
(14)
we could prove the global integrability condition by using the reflection property of the current $`j_\mu ^{(1)}`$ in the similar manner as abelian chiral gauge theories:

$$j_\mu ^{(1)}(x)|_{t1t}=j_\mu ^{(1)}(x+\widehat{I}\widehat{\mu }),$$
(15)
where the center of reflection is $`\widehat{I}/2`$ ($`\widehat{I}=(1,1,1,1)`$). With the SU(2) gauge field in the background, however, we need to require that the SU(2) gauge field should have the following reflection symmetry up to gauge transformation,

$$U^{(2)}(x+\widehat{I}\widehat{\mu },\mu )^1U^{(2)}(x,\mu ).$$
(16)
For this restricted class of the SU(2) gauge fields, the Wilson line $`W^{(1)}`$ turns out to be unity, because of (15). On the other hand, the twist can be evaluated to be unity, using the reflection property of the projection operator: $`P_t=\mathrm{\Gamma }P_{1t}\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi (x)\gamma _5\psi (x)`$.

The classical instantons mapped on to a sufficiently large lattice (centered at $`\widehat{I}/2`$, the middle of the lattice sites) indeed possess such reflection invariance, as well as the trivial gauge field $`U^{(2)}=1`$. It is conceivable that each topological sector of the SU(2) gauge fields has such a reflection invariant configuration. So far, the global integrability condition for the non-gauge loops can be shown only for these restricted SU(2) gauge fields.

## 4 Discussions

Our approach to electroweak theory on the lattice refers to the trivial U(1) configuration $`U^{(1)}=1`$, for which the fermion measure can be constructed globally in all topological sectors of SU(2), and therefore is restricted to the vacuum sector of the admissible U(1) gauge fields. It is not clear yet that such a fermion measure exists also in the U(1) magnetic flux sectors.

Our construction of the measure term is incomplete in the sense that the SU(2) part $`j_\mu ^{(2)}`$ is not constructed explicitly and it is not clear if $`j_\mu ^{(2)}`$ could be defined globally. The latter condition seems to be equivalent to the global integrability condition of $`j_\mu ^{(1)}`$ for both gauge and non-gauge loops with any SU(2) background. To show these conditions, it seems necessary to clarify the topological structure of the space of the admissible SU(2) gauge fields and to find the parametrization of the SU(2) link variables.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The radiative vector meson decay into two pseudoscalar mesons has attracted continuous attention. It has been a case for tests of vector meson dominance (VMD), through the sequential mechanism $`VPVPP\gamma `$ , but more recently it has been advocated as a source of information on the meson scalar sector in order to learn about the controversial nature of these states. One of the clearests examples is the $`\varphi \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay where the experiment  shows very clearly a peak for the $`f_0(980)`$ excitation. Similarly the $`\varphi \pi ^0\eta \gamma `$ reaction shows a clear peak for the $`a_0(980)`$ excitation . These decays of the $`\varphi `$ are particularly interesting since the contribution of the sequential processes in the VMD model  is negligible and the decay width can be attributed to the excitation of the scalar mesons. Attempts to obtain the rates for these reactions and for $`\varphi K^0\overline{K^0}\gamma `$ were done including loops of charged kaons to which the photons could couple . A link to chiral perturbation theory ($`\chi PT`$) was established in , by using the lowest order chiral meson-meson scattering amplitude. An important step in this direction was given in  where elements of unitarized chiral perturbation theory ($`U\chi PT`$) were used, which directly lead to the excitation of the $`f_0(980)`$ and $`a_0(980)`$ resonances in these reactions from the consideration of the chiral loops in coupled channels. The excitation of these resonances from the chiral loops was made possible because previously it had been found  that the loop iteration provided by the Bethe-Salpeter equation using a kernel (potential) from the lowest order chiral Lagrangian, with an appropriate loop regularization, provides a very good description of the meson-meson interaction in the scalar sector, including the dynamical generation of the $`\sigma (500)`$, $`f_0(980)`$ and $`a_0(980)`$ resonances.

The Bethe-Salpeter approach along the lines of  has been further used to study meson-meson and meson-baryon interaction in . More elaborate steps taking into account explicitly the contribution of higher order chiral Lagrangians , or generating them from the explicit exchange of meson resonances, were done in  respectively. At the same time these works provided an explanation of why the Bethe-Salpeter equation with the explicit use of only the lowest order chiral Lagrangian in  is so successful in the scalar sector. The interesting thing in all these works is that the scalar resonances are generated dynamically from the multiple scattering implicit in the unitary approach without the need to introduce them as genuine resonances (those which would survive in the large $`N_c`$ limit). The nature of the $`\sigma (500)`$ as a meson-meson scattering resonance was already advocated in . Other approaches would start from quark components for the mesons but the unitarization dresses them with a large cloud of meson-meson components . The unitarization of chiral perturbation theory has thus brought a new insight into the nature of the scalar resonances, which continues to be a subject of strong debate .

The purpose of the present paper is to complement the study initiated in  and extend it to other vector meson decays. Here we study the decays $`\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$, $`\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$, $`\rho \pi ^0\eta \gamma `$ and $`\omega \pi ^0\eta \gamma `$. All these decays were calculated also in ref.  using chiral Lagrangians and the extended Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model. The study of the first two reactions has been done recently in  combining the sequential vector meson decay mechanisms with loop contributions. The second of the reactions has also been revisited recently including effects of $`\rho `$-$`\omega `$ mixing in . The latest two reactions were studied in  using again the sequential vector meson decay mechanisms. Here we also include the loop corrections and $`\rho `$-$`\omega `$ mixing in the case of the $`\rho \pi ^0\eta \gamma `$ reaction. The first of the reactions has also been studied in  assuming $`\rho \sigma \gamma `$ decay, although apparently a too large transition amplitude was used in the approach, see  for details.

The present work is also stimulated by the recent measurement of the $`\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay by the SND Collaboration  where a value for the branching ratio

$$B(\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )=(4.8_{1.8}^{+3.4}\pm 0.2)\times 10^5$$
(1)
is obtained. The work of  finds that there are approximately equal contributions to the $`\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ process from the sequential mechanism and from the pion loops. This latter contribution is very interesting since, given the fact that the pion-pion scalar isoscalar amplitude factorizes on shell in this mechanism, the process is sensitive to the $`\pi \pi `$ interaction in the region where the sigma meson is produced. Furthermore, the phase space for the process and the dynamical factors in the total amplitude make the information appearing there a complement to the one obtained from other processes from where the $`\pi \pi `$ phase shifts are measured. Also, the interference between the loop contribution and the sequential process adds new information about the pion-pion interaction and the properties of the $`\sigma `$ meson. In ref.  a simple analytical model for the $`\pi \pi `$ interaction was used in which $`\sigma (500)`$ and $`f_0(980)`$ exchange are explicitly included in the $`\pi \pi `$ amplitude. Then values of the $`\sigma (500)`$ mass and width from the recent experimental determination  are used. These values are $`m_\sigma =478_{23}^{+24}\pm 17`$ MeV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma =324_{40}^{+42}\pm 21`$. In addition the paper shows that the results are quite sensitive to the mass and width of the $`\sigma `$, concluding that precise measurements of the process can provide valuable information on these two magnitudes.

Our aim here is different. We would like to use the reaction as a further test of the $`U\chi PT`$ approach to the meson-meson interaction. Indeed, analogously to the way the scalar resonances are generated in that approach, in the present case the reaction mechanisms immediately lead to the excitation of these resonances without the need to include them explicitly in the formalism. The theoretical framework allows one to make predictions for production processes, once the basic parameters of the theory, just one regularizing cut off in , have been fixed by fits to the scattering data.

For the sequential mechanism we follow the approach of , but for the loop contributions we follow the approach of  where the chiral tensor formalism for the vector mesons  is used, as done in  in the study of the $`\rho \pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ decay. In  it was found that the results depend both on the $`G_V`$ and $`F_V`$ coupling constants which are a bit different than the values provided by VMD where $`F_V=2G_V`$. Actually, as shown in , the use of the empirical values of $`G_V`$ and $`F_V`$ extracted from $`\rho \pi \pi `$ and $`\rho e^+e^{}`$ decays or from $`\varphi \pi \pi `$ and $`\varphi e^+e^{}`$ decays leads to appreciable differences in the results in the case of the $`\varphi \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay.

## 2 Chiral loop contributions

The chiral loop contribution to the $`\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay was already formulated in ref. , where the chiral unitary approach was used to deal with the final state interaction of the meson-meson system. We follow the same procedure here and show the explicit form of the transition amplitudes for all the decays considered in this paper, $`\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$, $`\rho \pi ^0\eta \gamma `$, $`\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ and $`\omega \pi ^0\eta \gamma `$.

We shall make use of the chiral Lagrangian for vector mesons of ref.  and follow the lines of ref.  in the treatment of the radiative meson decay. The Lagrangian coupling vector mesons to the pseudoscalar mesons and photons is given by ref. ,

$$=\frac{F_V}{2\sqrt{2}}<V_{\mu \nu }f_+^{\mu \nu }>+\frac{iG_V}{\sqrt{2}}<V_{\mu \nu }u^\mu u^\nu >,$$
(2)
where $`V_{\mu \nu }`$ is a 3 $`\times `$ 3 matrix of antisymmetric tensor fields representing the octet of vector mesons, $`f_+^{\mu \nu }`$ is related to the photon field, $`u^\mu `$ are SU(3) matrix involving derivatives of the pseudoscalar meson fields and $`<`$ $`>`$ denotes the trace in flavour space. The couplings $`G_V`$ and $`F_V`$ are deduced from the $`\rho \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`\rho e^+e^{}`$ decays, and taken to be $`G_V=69`$ MeV and $`F_V=154`$ MeV . A singlet field, $`\omega _1`$, is introduced through the substitution $`V_{\mu \nu }V_{\mu \nu }+I_3\times \frac{\omega _{1,\mu \nu }}{\sqrt{3}}`$ with $`I_3`$ the 3 $`\times `$ 3 unit matrix, and the physical $`\varphi `$ and $`\omega `$ meson fields are defined by assuming the ideal mixing. Here the $`F_V`$ term include the $`VPP\gamma `$ (V vector and P pseudoscalar) couplings and the $`G_V`$ term include $`VPP`$ and $`VPP\gamma `$ couplings.

From the Lagrangian, the basic couplings to evaluate the loop contributions to the present decays are,

$`t_{\omega K^+K^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{G_VM_\omega }{f_\pi ^2}}(pp^{})_\mu ϵ^\mu (\omega )`$
$`t_{\omega K^+K^{}\gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`e{\displaystyle \frac{G_VM_\omega }{f_\pi ^2}}ϵ_\nu (\omega )ϵ^\nu (\gamma )`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{M_\omega f_\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{F_V}{2}}G_V\right)P_\mu ϵ_\nu (\omega )[k^\mu ϵ^\nu (\gamma )k^\nu ϵ^\mu (\gamma )]`$
with $`p_\mu `$, $`p_\mu ^{}`$ are $`K^+`$, $`K^{}`$ momenta, $`P_\mu `$ the $`\omega `$ meson momentum and $`k_\mu `$ the photon momentum. There are no couplings $`\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ nor $`\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$. The couplings for $`\rho `$ meson are given explicitly in ref. . The pion decay constant $`f_\pi `$ is taken to be 92.4 MeV.

The $`\rho ^0`$ and $`\omega `$ decays into neutral mesons and photon can take place through the loop contributions shown in figure 1. The technology to introduce the final state interaction is developed in ref.  and applied to the radiative decay of $`\rho ^0`$ and $`\varphi `$ mesons in ref. . Using gauge invariance arguments one finds that the loop function is finite and that the meson-meson scattering amplitude factorizes in the loop integral with its on shell value. Following the procedure in ref. , we can write the explicit expression for the transition amplitudes for $`\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ and $`\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ as,

$`t_{\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma }^{loop}`$ $`=`$ $`2e{\displaystyle \frac{G_VM_\rho }{f_\pi ^2}}\left(\stackrel{~}{G}_{\pi \pi }t_{\pi ^+\pi ^{},\pi ^0\pi ^0}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{G}_{KK}t_{K^+K^{},\pi ^0\pi ^0}\right)ϵ_\mu (\rho )ϵ^\mu (\gamma )`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2e}{f_\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{F_V}{2}}G_V\right)q\left(G_{\pi \pi }t_{\pi ^+\pi ^{},\pi ^0\pi ^0}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_{KK}t_{K^+K^{},\pi ^0\pi ^0}\right)ϵ_\mu (\rho )ϵ^\mu (\gamma )`$
$`t_{\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma }^{loop}`$ $`=`$ $`2e{\displaystyle \frac{G_VM_\omega }{f_\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{G}_{KK}t_{K^+K^{},\pi ^0\pi ^0}ϵ_\mu (\omega )ϵ^\mu (\gamma )`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2e}{f_\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{F_V}{2}}G_V\right)q{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_{KK}t_{K^+K^{},\pi ^0\pi ^0}ϵ_\mu (\omega )ϵ^\mu (\gamma )`$
where $`q`$ is the photon momentum in the vector meson rest frame, $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ the loop function with the photon attached, $`G`$ the ordinary two meson propagator function, and $`t_{M_1M_2,M_1^{}M_2^{}}`$ is the strong transition matrix element. The $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ is defined in ref.  and has the analytic expression given in . The two meson propagator function, $`G`$ is the one appearing in the Bethe-Salpeter equation for the meson-meson scattering and is regularized in ref.  using a cut-off parameter. The strong transition matrix element, $`t_{M_1M_2,M_1^{}M_2^{}}`$, is also evaluated in ref. .

The transition amplitudes to the $`\pi ^0\eta \gamma `$ final state are readily obtained by omitting the pion loop contribution for $`\rho `$ meson and replacing the $`t_{K^+K^{},\pi ^0\pi ^0}`$ into $`t_{K^+K^{},\pi ^0\eta }`$ for both $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ mesons.

## 3 Sequential mechanism contributions

Apart from the loop contributions studied in section 2, there is another decay mechanism based on vector meson exchange whose contribution is as important as the one coming from the loops in the case of $`\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ , and dominant in the rest of the decays studied here. This mechanism has been studied in  and in this section we will follow closely these references.

The Feynman diagrams corresponding to this mechanism, $`V(q^{},ϵ^{})P(p)P^{}(p^{})\gamma (q,ϵ)`$, are of the form shown in figure 2. The vertices involved in these diagrams come from the Lagrangians:

$`_{VVP}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }_\mu V_\nu _\alpha V_\beta P`$
$`_{V\gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`4f^2egA_\mu QV^\mu `$ (5)
where $`G=\frac{3g^2}{4\pi ^2f}`$ is the $`\rho \omega \pi `$ coupling and $`g`$ can be related to the $`G_V`$ coupling of the chiral resonance Lagrangians of eq. (2), $`g=\frac{G_VM_\rho }{\sqrt{2}f^2}`$. The total amplitude has the form:

$$𝒜(VP^0P^0\gamma )=C_{VPP^{}\gamma }\left(\frac{G^2e}{\sqrt{2}g}\right)\left\{\frac{P^2\{a\}+\{b(P)\}}{M_{V_1}^2P^2iM_{V_1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{V_1}}+\frac{P^2\{a\}+\{b(P^{})\}}{M_{V_2}^2P^2iM_{V_2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{V_2}}\right\}$$
(6)
where the $`\{a\}`$ and $`\{b\}`$ functions and the $`C_{VPP^{}\gamma }`$ coefficients are defined in ref.  and $`P`$ and $`P^{}`$ are the momenta of the intermediate resonance in the $`t`$ and $`u`$ ($`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$) channels respectively. The amplitude $`𝒜`$ corresponds to our $`t`$ matrices changing the sign.

From the amplitude of eq. (6) one can calculate the branching ratios of the different decay modes. The results are given in table 1. In the calculation of the $`\omega `$ decay channels we have used a momentum-dependent width for the intermediate $`\rho `$ meson in the propagators, which leads to an enhancement of the decay width of around $`12\%`$ when compared to the calculation performed with a constant width, as pointed out in refs. .

### 3.1 $`\rho `$-$`\omega `$ mixing effects

In addition to the VMD contribution, the incorporation of isospin violation effects (due to quark mass differences and electromagnetic corrections) allowing the mixing of the $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ resonances is readily possible. This mixing is well known and it has been seen to be relevant in processes like the $`\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay or in the pion form factor in the $`\omega `$ region . A treatment of this mixing within $`\chi PT`$ was done in . Here we will follow the study of its effects in the radiative decays of vector resonances done in , where the mixing allows the transition $`VV^{}`$ in the process: $`VV^{}PP^{}\gamma `$. Thus, the amplitudes can be written as $`𝒜_0(VPP^{}\gamma )+ϵ𝒜(V^{}PP^{}\gamma )`$, where $`𝒜_0(VPP^{}\gamma )`$ includes the contributions coming from VMD and the loops and $`ϵ`$ is the mixing parameter:

$$ϵ\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_{VV^{}}^2}{M_V^2M_V^{}^2i(M_V\mathrm{\Gamma }_VM_V^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_V^{})}$$
(7)
with

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{VV^{}}^2=\frac{M_V^2}{M_V^{}^2}\left[(m_{K^0}^2m_{K^+}^2)+(m_{\pi ^0}^2m_{\pi ^+}^2)+\frac{e^2F_V^2}{3}\right]$$
(8)
We have considered this effect in the calculation of the $`\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$, $`\omega \pi ^0\eta \gamma `$ and $`\rho \pi ^0\eta \gamma `$ decays. There is still another effect of this mixing, which is that it modifies the $`V^{}`$ propagator in $`𝒜_0`$ by:

$$\frac{1}{D_V^{}(s)}\frac{1}{D_V^{}(s)}\left(1+\frac{g_{V\pi \gamma }}{g_{V^{}\pi \gamma }}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_{VV^{}}^2}{D_V(s)}\right)$$
(9)
where $`D_V=sM_V^2+iM_V\mathrm{\Gamma }_V`$. This effect is relevant in the case of the $`\rho `$ propagator since $`g_{\omega \pi \gamma }/g_{\rho \pi \gamma }=3`$, according to $`SU(3)`$ symmetry, and in fact makes the branching ratio a $`8\%`$ larger in the $`\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ case and a $`11\%`$ larger in the $`\omega \pi ^0\eta \gamma `$ case.

## 4 Numerical results

Using the transition amplitudes described in the previous sections, we can calculate the differential decay widths of the $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ mesons as,

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dM_I}=\frac{1}{64\pi ^3}_{m_\pi }^{M_Vqm^{}}𝑑\omega \frac{M_I}{M_V^2}\overline{}|t|^2\theta (1A^2),$$
(10)
where $`M_I`$ is the invariant mass of the final two mesons, $`M_V`$ the initial vector meson mass ($`M_\rho `$ or $`M_\omega `$), $`m^{}`$ is the pion mass for the $`\pi \pi \gamma `$ decay and $`\eta `$ mass for the $`\pi \eta \gamma `$ decay and $`q`$ is the photon momentum in the initial vector meson rest frame. $`A`$ accounts for the cosine of the angle between the $`\pi ^0`$ and the photon and it is defined as,

$$A=\frac{1}{2pq}\left[(M_V\omega (p)q)^2m^2p^2q^2\right],$$
(11)
where $`p`$ and $`\omega (p)`$ are the $`\pi ^0`$ momentum and energy in the initial vector meson rest frame. A symmetry factor 1/2 must be implemented in eq. (10) in the case of $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ in the final state.

The spin sum and average of the transition amplitudes, $`\overline{}|t|^2`$, can be expressed using the contravariant tensor $`F^{ij}`$ as:

$$\overline{}|t|^2=\frac{1}{3}\left[F^{ij}F^{ij}\frac{1}{|q|^2}(F^{ij}q_j)(F^{ij^{}}q_j^{})\right],$$
(12)
where the tensor expression $`F^{ij}`$ of the transition amplitude $`t`$ is defined as

$$tF^{ij}ϵ_i(V)ϵ_j(\gamma ).$$
(13)
We show the total decay widths obtained in table 1. There we can see, in agreement with , that the dominant contribution is the one corresponding to the sequential mechanism in all cases except for the $`\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay, where the loop contribution is comparable. As we can see in figure 3 the interference between these two contribution is constructive. It is worth noting that the final shape of the mass distribution with the sum of the sequential and loop contributions is rather different from the one obtained with either of the two mechanisms. Experimental information on this observable would thus be most welcome. The loop contribution for the $`\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay was estimated small in  using qualitative arguments. Here we corroborate this claim performing the actual calculation and find it also small in the case of the $`\rho \pi ^0\eta \gamma `$ and $`\omega \pi ^0\eta \gamma `$ decays, due to the relatively high mass of the kaons. The $`\rho `$-$`\omega `$ mixing effects are negligible in the $`\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay, but relevant in the rest of the decays. Although the mixing contribution is by itself small, it has important interferences with the sequential contribution, and in addition modifies the resonance propagators involved, as was already mentioned in section 3.1.

The result obtained here for the $`\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ branching ratio is in good agreement with the recent SND collaboration measurement : $`B(\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )=(4.8_{1.8}^{+3.4}\pm 0.2)\times 10^5`$. The same collaboration obtained for the $`\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay a branching ratio $`B(\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )=(7.8\pm 2.7\pm 2.0)\times 10^5`$, thus confirming the previous and more accurate measurement of the GAMS collaboration , $`B(\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )=(7.2\pm 2.5)\times 10^5`$. Our predicted branching ratio for this decay is within the error bars of these experimental values, as we can see in table 1. We should also mention that although we do not give errors in our numbers, an estimate of $`20\%`$ theoretical error is realistic in view of the accuracy of the chiral Lagrangians used in eq. (5) to provide the radiative decays of the vector mesons . For the case of the $`\rho \pi ^0\eta \gamma `$ and $`\omega \pi ^0\eta \gamma `$ decays there are not experimental data for the branching ratios.

Finally, in table 2 we compare our results with other analyses and also with the experiment. The theoretical approaches followed in the literature are quite varied. In ref.  current algebra, hard pions and Ward identities were used. In  an approach with low energy effective Lagrangians with gauged Wess-Zumino terms was followed. A different procedure was followed in  using chiral Lagrangians and the extended Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model to fix the couplings of the resonance contribution (the results given in table 2 are the largest ones in the intervals given in , which are still low compared with experiment). In  only the sequential VMD mechanisms were used and the results were improved in  for the $`\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay including the one loop $`\chi PT`$ contribution. This latter point is further improved in , where a more realistic $`\pi \pi `$ isoscalar amplitude is used. In  only the loop contributions were evaluated, and here the sequential VMD mechanisms are considered in addition. Finally, in , where only the $`\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay is evaluated, the sequential VMD mechanisms are considered including the $`\omega \rho `$ mixing, but only the sequential mechanism is used for the $`\rho `$ decay in this latter term. The order of magnitude in the different approaches is similar, with the exception of the results in  which seem abnormally low. Yet, the rates obtained in  and in the present work match better with the experimental $`\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay width. Table 2 shows also the evolution of the approaches and the results with the time, and how the original VMD mechanisms suggested in  have survived, while the advent of $`\chi PT`$ and its unitary extensions have brought the mechanisms needed to obtain a satisfactory result for the $`\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay, as seen in  and the present work. With respect to this last reference our approach adds the novel thing of using directly the $`\pi \pi `$ amplitudes from $`U\chi PT`$, while in  a phenomenological model for the $`T`$ matrix accounting explicitly for the $`\sigma `$ and $`f_0(980)`$ mesons was used. In our approach both mesons are dynamically generated from the multiple scattering of pions and kaons driven by the dynamics of the lowest order chiral Lagrangian.

The unitary approach followed here for the meson meson interaction leads to the $`f_0(980)`$ and $`a_0(980)`$ resonances for the $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ and $`\pi ^0\eta `$ final states, respectively, without having to introduce them explicitly. One may wonder what would be the contribution of the $`f_1(1285)`$, $`a_1(1260)`$, $`f_2(1270)`$ and $`a_2(1320)`$ resonances as intermediate states. Avoiding the discussion whether they could or could not be generated dynamically as their $`f_0`$, $`a_0`$ partners , we can deal with those mechanisms by considering tree level Feynman diagrams which rely upon empirical couplings of these resonances to vector mesons, pseudoscalars and photons. One of the possible mechanisms would then be the one of fig. 2 where $`V^{}`$ is substituted by any of those resonances (with zero charge). However, the $`VRP`$ vertex, with $`V`$ any neutral vector meson, $`P=\pi ^0,\eta `$ and $`R=f_1,f_2,a_1,a_2`$ (with zero charge), is not allowed by charge conjugation . Analogously one can see in the explicit Lagrangians involving the $`a_1`$, $`f_1`$ resonances that such terms vanish . Thus, we are left with the diagrams where a photon is produced in the first place, see fig 4. The topology of this diagram is actually the same one as that in the $`f_0`$, $`a_0`$ production considered so far. Next we see that if $`R`$ is the $`f_1`$ or $`a_1`$ resonance the $`RPP^{}`$ vertex with $`P,P^{}=\pi ^0,\eta `$ is forbidden by parity reasons, because the decay must proceed in p-wave and $`f_1`$, $`a_1`$ have positive parity.

Finally we are left with the mechanism of fig. 4 with the $`f_2`$ or $`a_2`$ resonances. In order to estimate the contribution of these mechanisms to the decay processes studied here, or to the radiative $`\varphi `$ decay of , we rely upon the results obtained in  in the study of the $`\gamma \gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0`$, $`\pi ^0\eta `$, with obvious similarity to the $`V\gamma PP^{}`$ process studied here. In this work the contribution of the $`f_2`$ and $`a_2`$ resonances was considered and found to be very important in the regions around the corresponding resonance poles. However, as the calculation provides, or one can see explicitly in figs. 7 and 10 of , the extrapolation of the resonance contribution down to energies below the $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ mass, which we have in the decays studied here, is negligible. At these energies the effect of the $`f_0`$, $`a_0`$ resonances which are closer in energy are relatively more important, and even then they do not play a significant role in the $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ radiative decay.

Although we have not studied here the radiative $`\varphi `$ decay, it is worth taking advantage of the former discussion to estimate the effects of the $`f_2`$, $`a_2`$ intermediate states in this decay. Once again the figures of ref.  mentioned above are illustrative. Fig. 10 shows that for $`\pi ^0\eta `$ production the $`a_2`$ contribution would be a small fraction of the $`a_0`$ contribution at energies below 1020 MeV found in this decay. The case of the $`f_2`$ resonance is more subtle because as one can see in fig. 7 of  the $`f_0`$ resonance shows up only weakly in the $`\gamma \gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0`$ reaction and the background of the $`a_2`$ resonance at energies around 1 GeV does not seem negligible. However, the small signal of the $`f_0`$ resonance in this reaction is due, as noted in , to a strong cancellation between the $`f_0`$ contribution and the one with an $`\omega `$ in the intermediate state in the $`\gamma \gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0`$ process. However, while the $`\gamma \omega \pi ^0`$ vertex is sizeable, the $`\varphi \omega \pi ^0`$ vertex is not allowed by isospin conservation, and hence the cancellation does not appear in the radiative decay of the $`\varphi `$, making the $`f_0`$ production sizeable as clearly seen in the experimental data  which are dominated by the $`\varphi f_0\gamma `$ decay. In the absence of that cancellation the $`f_2`$ contribution to the radiative decay of the $`\varphi `$ into $`\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ is also very small compared to the dominant $`\varphi f_0\gamma `$ contribution.

## 5 Conclusions

We have studied the radiative decays of the $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ mesons into two neutral mesons including the mechanisms of sequential vector meson decay, $`\rho `$-$`\omega `$ mixing and chiral loops. In the case of the $`\omega `$ decays we find, confirming previous findings, that the sequential mechanism is dominant. We also find that the loop contribution is very small for the $`\rho \pi ^0\eta \gamma `$ case. The $`\rho `$-$`\omega `$ mixing was found non negligible for the $`\rho \pi ^0\eta \gamma `$, $`\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ and $`\omega \pi ^0\eta \gamma `$ decays. The loop contribution is very important in the case of the $`\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ and the branching ratio obtained in this case, with the sum of the sequential and loop mechanisms, is about three times larger than with either mechanism alone, leading to values compatible with present experimental measurements. The shape of the $`\pi \pi `$ mass distribution is also found rather different to that with either of the mechanisms alone. We have also estimated the effects of the $`f_2`$, $`a_2`$ intermediate resonances concluding that they are negligible for the decays studied here. In the case of the $`\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay our predicted branching ratio is also in agreement with the experimental values. The results obtained for the $`\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay provide a further consistency check of the $`U\chi PT`$ approach to meson-meson interaction and its underlying interpretation of the nature of the scalar mesons. Further measurements on invariant mass distributions would provide extra tests of these ideas, allowing us to gain further insight on the controversial nature of the scalar mesons.

### Acknowledgments

One of us, S.H. wishes to acknowledge the hospitality of the University of Valencia where this work was done and financial support from the Fundación BBV. We are also grateful to A. Bramon for useful discussions. J.E.P. acknowledges support from the Ministerio de Educación y Cultura. This work is also partly supported by DGICYT contract number BFM2000-1326, E.U. EURODAPHNE network contract no. ERBFMRX-CT98-0169 and by the Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research of the Japan Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (No. 11440073 and No. 11694082).


text:
# ARPES in the normal state of the cuprates: comparing the marginal Fermi liquid and spin fluctuation scenarios

## Abstract

We address the issue whether ARPES measurements of the spectral function $`A_k(\omega )`$ near the Fermi surface in the normal state of near optimally doped cuprates can distinguish between the marginal Fermi liquid scenario and the spin-fluctuation scenario. We argue that the data for momenta near the Fermi surface are equally well described by both theories, but this agreement is nearly meaningless as in both cases one has to add to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$ a large constant of yet unknown origin. We show that the data can be well fitted by keeping only this constant term in the self-energy. To distinguish between the two scenarios, one has to analyze the data away from the Fermi surface, when the intrinsic piece in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )`$ becomes dominant.

The observed discrepancies between the normal state properties of the cuprates and the predictions of Fermi liquid theory continue to attract a lot of attention from the condensed-matter community. In a Fermi liquid, the quasiparticle damping near the Fermi surface behaves as $`\omega ^2`$ or $`(\pi T)^2`$, whichever is larger. This gives rise to the $`\omega ^2`$ ($`T^2`$) behavior of the width of the peak in the quasiparticle spectral function $`A_k(\mathrm{\Omega })=(1/\pi )ImG(k,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ measured in the angle-resolved photoemission (ARPES) experiments.

The data on optimally doped cuprates show several features which are in disagreement with Fermi liquid theory: $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }(\omega ,T)`$ is large and does not display a Fermi liquid form for all $`T>T_c`$ and for all frequencies. Instead, over a wide range of $`\omega `$ and $`T`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }(\omega ,T)`$ resembles a linear function of both arguments . As a result $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }(\omega ,T)`$ does not become progressively smaller than $`\omega `$ with decreasing $`\omega `$, and the spectral function does not undergo a drastic sharpening at the smallest energies, as it does in a Fermi liquid. Whether this effect is quantitative or qualitative is still a matter of debate as in the normal state experiments, $`T`$ remains finite and larger than $`T_c`$. The data for overdoped materials do show a stronger sharpening of the spectral function near $`k_F`$ indicating that these materials are likely Fermi liquids . From this perspective, the unusual behavior of optimally doped cuprates indicates that the upper energy cutoff for the Fermi liquid behavior rapidly reduces down from the Fermi energy. This is a typical situation for system near a quantum phase transition.

In this communication, we compare two scenarios for the non-Fermi liquid behavior, both are based on the idea of quantum criticality. The first is the marginal Fermi liquid (MFL) scenario developed in Ref . This scenario assumes that there exists a quantum-critical point (QCP) separating the Fermi liquid and the pseudogap regimes (Fig. 1a). Superconductivity develops in the shaded region about the QCP. In the quantum-critical regime, the system is assumed to display a marginal Fermi liquid behavior with

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐤^{mfl}(\omega )=\lambda _{mfl}[\omega \mathrm{log}(\frac{\omega }{\omega _0})i\frac{\pi }{2}\sqrt{\omega ^2+\pi ^2T^2}]$$
(1)
where $`\lambda _{mfl}`$ and $`\omega _0`$ are the two adjustable parameters. To satisfy Kramers-Kronig relations, $`\omega _0`$ should possess a nonsingular dependence on $`(\pi T/\omega )^2`$, but this dependence is usually neglected. The self energy is defined such that $`G(𝐤,\omega )=1/(\omega ϵ_𝐤+\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤,\omega ))`$. We plot $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{mfl}(\omega )`$ in Fig. 1b and c. This marginal behavior naturally emerges near the critical points in $`3D`$, however obtaining this behavior in 2D systems is still problematic. To do so, it is possible that special requirements such as, e.g., singular momentum dependence of the low-energy bosonic mode which mediates the fermionic interaction  must be satisfied.

Another scenario is based on the idea that the dominant interaction in the cuprates is between fermions and their low-energy collective spin excitations. This physics is described by the spin-fermion (SF) model.  In this scenario, the non-Fermi liquid behavior in the normal state is also associated with the closeness to a critical point, but this point now separates paramagnetic and antiferromagnetically ordered phases. The pseudogap phase emerges in the SF model as a dome around this critical point, and optimal doping roughly corresponds to a situation when this dome intersects the crossover line separating Fermi liquid and quantum-critical regions (see Fig. 1d). Superconductivity results in the shaded region where the pseudogap and Fermi liquid regimes intersect, and the normal state non-Fermi liquid behavior occurs in the quantum critical regime that near optimal doping stretches down to almost $`T_c`$. The quantum-critical behavior in the SF model has been analyzed in detail.  The model has two parameters; $`\omega _{sf}`$ which is the typical frequency for the relaxational spin dynamics and also turns out to be the upper cutoff of the Fermi liquid behavior, and the dimensionless coupling $`\lambda _{sf}`$. Both $`\lambda _{sf}`$ and $`\omega _{sf}^1`$ increase as the system approaches a magnetic instability, but the product $`\overline{\omega }=4\lambda _{sf}^2\omega _{sf}`$ remains finite and serves as the upper cutoff for the quantum-critical behavior. The separation into Fermi liquid and quantum critical regions makes sense when $`\lambda _{sf}1`$ or equivalently when $`\omega _{sf}\overline{\omega }`$. In general, $`\lambda _{sf}`$ and $`\omega _{sf}`$ (but not $`\overline{\omega }`$) depend on the momenta along the Fermi surface, but this dependence is rather mild as we will show.

The microscopic nature of the SF model implies that the self-energy is totally determined and has to be obtained in explicit calculations. At $`T=0`$, the Eliashberg-type calculations yield

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐤^{sf}\left(\omega \right)=\lambda _{sf}\frac{2\omega }{1+\sqrt{1i\frac{\left|\omega \right|}{\omega _{\mathrm{sf}}}}}$$
(2)
At small frequencies, $`\omega \omega _{\mathrm{sf}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐤^{sf}\left(\omega \right)=\lambda _{sf}\left(\omega +i\omega \left|\omega \right|/4\omega _{\mathrm{sf}}\right)`$ and the system displays a Fermi liquid behavior. At frequencies above $`810\omega _{\mathrm{sf}}`$, the fermionic self-energy displays a quantum-critical behavior, in which $`\overline{\omega }`$ is the only energy scale: $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐤^{sf}\left(\omega \right)=e^{i\pi /4}\mathrm{sign}\omega \left(\overline{\omega }|\omega |\right)^{1/2}`$. At intermediate frequencies, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐤^{sf}\left(\omega \right)`$ interpolates between the two limits. Although there is no intermediate asymptotic (i..e., the crossover happens at energies $`O(\omega _{sf})`$), the intermediate regime is rather wide, and in between $`\omega _{sf}/2`$ and at least $`68\omega _{sf}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐤^{sf}\left(\omega \right)`$ resembles a linear function of $`\omega `$. The finite temperature result is more complicated  but posesses the same basic characteristics as the zero temperature result. We plot $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐤^{sf}\left(\omega \right)`$ at $`T=100K`$ in Fig. 1d.

In light of the strong simliarities between the MFL and SF fermionic self energies, it is important to ask which experiments allow us to distinguish between the two scenarios. We focus in this communication on energy distribution curve (EDC) ARPES experiments performed for momenta near the Fermi surface. Abrahams and Varma  have argued that such ARPES experiments help put strong constraints on the form of the pairing interaction and can rule out many of the scenarios for the non-Fermi liquid behavior in the normal state. In particular, they argued (i) that the MFL form of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )`$ nicely fits the experimental data, and (ii) the data along the Fermi surface can be fitted assuming that the MFL coupling $`\lambda _{mfl}`$ is almost independent of the position on the Fermi surface. They argued that this rules out a magnetic scenario since the bosonic interaction is peaked at $`Q=(\pi ,\pi )`$ and hence the coupling constant should be momentum dependent with the maximum at hot spots (points at the Fermi surface separated by $`Q`$) in contradiction with (ii). We, on the contrary, demonstrated previously  that the photoemission data near $`(0,\pi )`$ and along the zone diagonal can be well fitted by the spin-fluctuation self-energy, Eq. (2), with $`\lambda _{sf}`$ varying along the Fermi surface.

We re-examine this issue using recent photoemission results from the Argonne group.  We will argue that EDC data for $`kk_F`$ can be reasonably well fitted by both the MFL and SF theories, but the way in which the fitting works poses a serious question for both scenarios. Namely, in both fits, one has to add to the self-energy a large imaginary constant $`i\gamma (\stackrel{}{k}_F)`$ of yet unknown origin. We show that the fits with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k(\omega )=i\gamma (\stackrel{}{k}_F)`$ with no frequency dependent terms added turn out to be of the same quality as the fits with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{full}(\omega )=\mathrm{\Sigma }_k(\omega )+i\gamma `$ where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k(\omega )`$ has either MFL or SF form. From this perspective, the ARPES measurements near the Fermi surface do not allow the ruling out of either scenario. The situation may be different at large deviations from $`k_F`$ when the maximum in the photoemission intensity moves to high frequencies, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k(\omega )`$ (which increases with $`\omega `$) becomes larger than $`\gamma `$. In this case, one could possibly distinguish between MFL and SF scenarios by examining both the frequency dependence of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$ and the sign and magnitude of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(\omega )`$.

Before we proceed with the fitting, we briefly review the experimental setup . Two types of ARPES experiments are currently available. The EDC (energy distribution curve) experiments measure fermionic $`I_k(\omega )=A_k(\omega )n_F(\omega )`$ as a function of frequency at a given $`k`$. The MDC (momentum distribution curve) experiments measure $`I_k(\omega )`$ as a function of $`k`$ transverse to the Fermi surface at a given frequency. In general, near the Fermi surface,

$$A_k(\omega )=\frac{1}{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{\prime \prime }(\omega )}{(\omega +\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{}(\omega )v_k(kk_F))^2+(\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{\prime \prime }(\omega ))^2}$$
(3)
There are both experimental and theoretical indications that in the cuprates, the fermionic self-energy is almost independent of the momentum component transverse to the Fermi surface although it strongly depends on frequency, and also possesses some dependence on the momentum along the Fermi surface. In this situation, the self-energy in the MDC measurements remains almost a constant, and the photoemission intensity evolves with $`k`$ as

$$I_k^{MDC}(\omega )\frac{1}{(v_F(kk^{}(\omega )))^2+(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime })^2}$$
(4)
where $`k^{}(\omega )=k_F(\omega +\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(\omega ))/v_F`$. We see that $`I_k`$ has a Lorentzian form with the maximum at $`k=k^{}`$ and FWHM $`|kk^{}|=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }(\omega )/v_F`$. In other words, the MDC measurements allow one to directly infer the frequency dependence of the fermionic self-energy. If $`v_F`$ were known, the MDC measurements would also yield the magnitude of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$. However to obtain $`v_F`$ is itself a problem as the MDC dispersion extracted from the peak position at low enough $`\omega `$ is $`\omega (k)=v_F^{}(kk_F)`$ where $`v_F^{}=v_F(1+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(\omega )/\omega )`$, hence measuring the dispersion at low frequencies one obtains a renormalized $`v_F^{}`$, not a bare $`v_F`$ . One could hope to extract $`v_F`$ from the dispersion at higher frequencies, where $`\omega >\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(\omega )`$, and $`v_F^{}`$ approaches $`v_F`$. However, it is not quite clear whether $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(\omega )`$ can be fully neglected at energies where one can restrict with the linearized dispersion near the Fermi surface.

In the EDC experiments, one measures at small enough frequencies

$$I_k^{EDC}(\omega )\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }(\omega )}{(\omega \omega (k))^2+(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }(\omega )/v_F^{})^2}$$
(5)
In a Fermi liquid $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$ is small and near $`\omega =\omega (k)`$ can be approximated by a constant - its value at $`\omega =\omega (k)`$. $`I_k^{EDC}(\omega )`$ then has a Lorentzian form with FWHM $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }(\omega )/v_F^{}`$. As $`v_F^{}`$ is directly measured from the dispersion, one could straightforwardly extract $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$ from the data. In the cuprates, however, the situation is more complex as (i) typical frequencies are not small, and hence $`v_F^{}`$ itself depends on frequency, and (ii) $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$ is not small, and its frequency dependence matters. Both effects give rise to a non-Lorentzian form of $`I_k^{EDC}(\omega )`$, and the extraction of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$ becomes problematic.

In Figs 2, 4 and 5 we present the data for $`I_k(\omega )`$ obtained from EDC experiments by Kaminski et al  taken at $`100K`$ from near optimally doped Bi2212 with a $`T_c`$ of $`85K`$. We have chosen lineshapes for two points near the Fermi surface, one is close to the zone diagonal ($`k_y=0.54\pi /a`$) , and another near a hot spot ($`k_y=0.81\pi /a`$). We see that the form of $`I_k^{EDC}(\omega )`$ is clearly different from a Lorentzian, even when the Fermi function is taken into account. In this situation, it is more reasonable to fit the whole $`I_k^{EDC}(\omega )`$ rather than the FWHM. This is what we will do.

In Fig.2 we present the theoretical fits using the MFL form of the self-energy. The fit in Fig. 2a is obtained using $`\omega _0=500meV`$. For this $`\omega _0`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(\omega )`$ is small at frequencies of few hundred meV (see Fig. 1) and to first approximation can be neglected. The fit in Fig. 2b is obtained using a deliberately large $`\omega _0=5eV`$, in which case the real part of the self-energy is strong. We see that both fits are rather good. The fitting parameters in Fig 2 a (b) are $`\lambda _{mfl}=0.17(0.17)`$, $`\gamma =100(133)meV`$ and $`ϵ_k=26(30)meV`$ for $`k`$ along the zone diagonal, and $`\lambda _{mfl}=0.15(0.15),\gamma =171(225)meV`$, and $`ϵ_k=43(47)meV`$ for $`k`$ close to a hot spot. To account for the flattening of the measured $`I_k^{EDC}(\omega )`$ at the highest frequencies, we also had to add a background contribution to $`I_k^{EDC}(\omega )`$ which we have chosen, following Ref.  to be just proportional to the Fermi function: $`I_k^{EDC}(\omega )I_k^{EDC}(\omega )+\beta n_F(\omega )`$. We found $`\beta =1.57(1.64)`$ along zone diagonal and $`\beta =2.22(2.26)`$ near the hot spots.

We next consider the fits by the SF model. As stated previously, the two input parameters in the model, $`\omega _{sf}`$ and $`\lambda _{sf}`$ generally depend on the momentum component along the Fermi surface. Near the hot spots, this dependence is universal and is given by $`\lambda _{sf}(k)=\lambda _{sf}/Z_k^{1/2},\omega _{sf}(k)=\omega _{sf}Z_k`$ where $`Z_k=1+(\delta k\xi )^2`$, and $`\xi `$ and $`\delta k`$ are the spin correlation length and the momentum deviation from a hot spot along the Fermi surface, respectively . The largest $`\delta k\xi `$ is for $`𝐤`$ along the zone diagonal. At optimal doping, ARPES measurements of the Fermi surface yield $`\delta k^{\mathrm{max}}0.2\pi /a0.6/a`$ . The correlation length extracted from the NMR measurements  is $`\xi 12a`$. Then $`\lambda _{sf}`$ is reduced by at most a factor of $`2`$ as one moves from hot spots to zone diagonal. For $`\omega _{sf}`$, the use of the expansion formula near hot spots would yield a bigger increase, but its actual variation is much smaller as the theoretical $`\omega _{\mathrm{sf}}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _0`$, where $`\varphi _0`$ is the angle between Fermi velocities at $`𝐤`$ and $`𝐤+𝐐`$, which tends to $`\pi `$ as $`𝐤`$ approaches the zone diagonal.  In Fig. 3 we present the results of a computation of $`\omega _{sf}(k)`$ along the Fermi surface which includes both of the above effects. The increase is only a factor of 2.4, consistent with the fact that $`\omega _{sf}(k_{diag})`$ extracted from fitting $`v_F^{}`$ by the SF self-energy yields $`\omega _{sf}(k_{diag})2025meV`$  while the fits to NMR yield $`\omega _{sf}15meV`$ for fermions near hot spots . For simplicity, in the SF fits, we will consider $`\omega _{sf}`$ to be independent of $`k`$ and set $`\omega _{sf}=15meV`$ in accordance with NMR. We, however, have verified that variations in $`\omega _{sf}`$ have little effect on ARPES lineshapes.

The fits using the SF form of the self-energy are presented in Fig 4. The two fits are obtained using momentum independent and momentum-dependent coupling $`\lambda _{sf}(k)`$, respectively. We see that the fits are of the same quality as those in Fig. 2. The fitting parameters in Fig 5 a (b) are $`\lambda _{sf}=0.84(1.0)`$, $`\gamma =110(114)meV`$, $`\beta =1.68(1.63)`$ and $`ϵ_k=32(30)meV`$ for $`k`$ along the zone diagonal, and $`\lambda _{sf}=0.84(1.5),\gamma =180(193)meV`$, $`\beta =2.31(2.28)`$ and $`ϵ_k=52(45)meV`$ for $`k`$ close to a hot spot. We verified that making $`\lambda _{sf}`$ a bit larger or allowing it to vary more over the Fermi surface does not change the accuracy of the fits.

Since the frequency dependence of the self energy appears to make little difference in the quality of the fits at the Fermi surface, we now attempt to fit the data by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )=i\gamma (k)`$ without extra MFL or SF frequency dependence. The results of these fits are presented in Fig.5. The fitting parameters are $`\gamma =94meV`$, $`\beta =1.8`$ and $`ϵ_k=4.4meV`$ for $`k`$ along the zone diagonal, and $`\gamma =160meV`$, $`\beta =2.4`$ and $`ϵ_k=12meV`$ for $`k`$ close to a hot spot. $`ϵ_k`$ is much smaller than in the other two fits, due to the lack of a real part of the self energy in these fits.

All three fitting procedures work surprisingly well. The facts that the data are not obtained exactly at the Fermi surface (i.e., $`ϵ_k0`$) and that one has to add the background do not differentiate between the fits and hence are not that relevant, particularly as $`ϵ_k50meV`$ corresponds to a very small $`|kk_F|ϵ_k/v_F0.02(\pi /a)`$. The two physically relevant parameters are the coupling constant $`\lambda `$ and the extra $`\gamma (k)`$. By adjusting $`\gamma (k)`$ one can fit the data quite well by both MFL and SF forms, and also by just $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }=i\gamma (k)`$. This indicates that one cannot differentiate between theoretical scenarios by analyzing EDC data obtained near the Fermi surface. It is possible that the intrinsic piece of the self energy may be extracted by fitting either EDC or MDC at deviations from the Fermi surface of at least a few hundred meV. Finally, the large $`\gamma (k)`$ in the fits poses a problem for both MFL and SF scenarios. The origin of the $`\gamma (k)`$ is currently unknown and its understanding is clearly called for.

###### Acknowledgements.

It is our pleasure to thank E. Abrahams, D. Basov, G. Blumberg, J.C. Campuzano P. Johnson, A. Kaminski, M. Norman, D. Pines, J. Schmalian and C. Varma for useful discussions. We are also thankful to A. Kaminskii and J.C. Campuzano for sending us the unpublished experimental data. The research was supported by NSF DMR-9979749 (A. Ch.) by DR Project 200153, and by the Department of Energy, under contract W-7405-ENG-36. (R.H. and A.Ab.)


text:
# References

ANALYTIC FORM FACTORS OF HYDROGENLIKE ATOMS
FOR DISCRETE-CONTINUUM TRANSITIONS.
I. TRANSITIONS FROM $`nS`$-STATES
O.Voskresenskaya1,2,3***E-mail: Olga.Voskresenskaja@mpi-hd.mpg.de; voskr@cv.jinr.dubna.su

1 Institut für Theoretische Physik der Universität, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
2 Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik, Postfach 103980, 69029 Heidelberg, Germany
3 Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, 141980 Dubna, Moscow Region, Russia

## Abstract

The new approach for calculation of transition form factors of hydrogenlike atoms is proposed. The explicit expressions for form factors of transitions from bound $`nS`$-states to continuum in terms of the classical polynomials are derived

The calculation of transition form factors from bound to unbound (continuum) states of hydrogenlike atoms have been discussed in series of papers . Nowadays, this problem became of great importance due to preparing of the DIRAC experiment at CERN .

The usual approach to this problem is based on the decomposition of continuum wave functions into infinite series of partial waves and calculation of transition form factors from initial bound state to final continuum state with definite value of angular momentum.

In this approach only finite number of terms of infinite series are taken into account in actual calculation leaving unsolved the problem of estimation for contribution of omitted tail with infinite number of terms.

We would like to show in this paper that above mentioned transition (bound to continuum) form factors of hydrogenlike atoms may be explicitly calculated without decomposition of final state into infinite series of partial waves.

Below we shall prove this statement for the simplest case when orbital momentum of bound state is equal zero, i.e. we restrict of ourselves with initial $`nS`$-states. The generalization of this consideration for the case of arbitrary initial states will be done later.

We define the transition form factors with the help of the following equation:

$$S_{fi}(\stackrel{}{q})=\psi _f^{}(\stackrel{}{r})e^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{r}}\psi _i(\stackrel{}{r})d^3r,$$
(1)
where $`\psi _{i(f)}`$ are the wave functions of initial (final) states of hydrogenlike atoms, $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ is the transferred momentum.

For the case when $`i=n00nS`$

$`\psi _i=\psi _{n00}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^3}{\pi }}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}(\omega r)\mathrm{\Phi }(n+1;2;2\omega r)`$ (2)
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^3}{\pi }}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}n^1\mathrm{exp}(\omega r)L_{n1}^1(2\omega r),`$
where $`\omega =\mu \alpha /n`$; $`\mu `$ is the reduced mass and $`\alpha =1/137`$ is the fine structure constant; $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the confluent hypergeometric function and $`L_k^\lambda `$ are the associated Laguerre polynomials.

The wave function of the final (continuum) state must be choose in the form

$`\psi _f(\stackrel{}{r})=\psi _\stackrel{}{p}^{()}`$ $`=`$ $`c^{()}\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{r})\mathrm{\Phi }[i\xi ,1,i(pr+\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{r})],`$ (3)
$$c^{()}=(2\pi )^{\frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\pi \xi }{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+i\xi ),$$

$$\xi =\frac{\mu \alpha }{p}.$$

Now we use recurrence relation for the Laguerre polynomials

$$L_k^{\lambda +1}(x)=\frac{1}{x}\left[(k+\lambda +1)L_{k1}^\lambda (x)(k+1)L_k^\lambda (x)\right]$$
(4)
and their representation with the help of the generating function

$$L_k^\lambda (x)=\mathrm{\Delta }_z^{(k)}\left[(1z)^{(\lambda +1)}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{xz}{z1}\right)\right],$$
(5)
where operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_z^{(k)}`$ is defined as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_z^{(k)}\left[f(z)\right]=\frac{1}{k!}\left(\frac{d^k}{dz^k}f(z)\right)|_{z=0}.$$
(6)
Then

$$\psi _i(r)=\frac{1}{2r}\left(\frac{\omega }{\pi }\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }_z^{(n1)}\mathrm{\Delta }_z^{(n)}\right]\left[(1z)^1\mathrm{exp}\left[\omega (z)r\right]\right],$$
(7)
$$\omega (z)=\omega \frac{1+z}{1z}.$$
(8)
The substitution of Eqs. (3) and (7) to (1) gives

$$S_{\stackrel{}{p},noo}(\stackrel{}{q})=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\omega }{\pi }\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}c^{()}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }_z^{(n1)}\mathrm{\Delta }_z^{(n)}\right]\left[\frac{J(\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p},z)}{(1z)}\right],$$
(9)
$$J(\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p},z)=\frac{d^3r}{r}\mathrm{\Phi }[i\xi ,1,i(pr+\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{r})]\mathrm{exp}[i(\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{p})\stackrel{}{r}\omega (z)r].$$
(10)
The last integral is easily calculated using integral representation for the hypergeometrical functions (see e.g. ).

The result reads

$$J(\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p},z)=4\pi [\omega ^2(z)+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2]^{1+i\xi }\left[[\omega (z)ip]^2+q^2\right]^{i\xi },$$
(11)
where $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{p}`$.

Taking into account the definition (8) and obvious the relation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_z^{(n)}\left[zf(z)\right]=\mathrm{\Delta }_z^{(n1)}f(z),$$
(12)
(9) may be rewritten in the form

$$S_{\stackrel{}{p},noo}(\stackrel{}{q})=4(\pi \omega )^{\frac{1}{2}}c^{()}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_z^{(n)}2\mathrm{\Delta }_z^{(n1)}+\mathrm{\Delta }_z^{(n2)}\right)\left(D_1^{1+i\xi }D_2^{i\xi }\right),$$
(13)
$$D_1=(1+z^2)(\omega ^2+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2)2z(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2\omega ^2),$$

$$D_2=(\omega ip)^2+q^22z(q^2p^2\omega ^2)+z^2\left((\omega +ip)^2+q^2\right).$$

Using the definition of the Gegenbauer polynomials

$$(12xz+z)^\lambda =\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_k^{(\lambda )}(x)z^k,$$
(14)
it is easy to obtain

$$D_1^{1+i\xi }=(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\omega ^2)^{1+i\xi }\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_k^{(1i\xi )}(u)z^k,$$
(15)
$$u=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\omega ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\omega ^2};$$

$$D_2^{i\xi }=[(\omega ip)^2+q^2]^{i\xi }\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_k^{(i\xi )}(v)w^kz^k,$$
(16)
$$v=\frac{q^2p^2\omega ^2}{\sqrt{[(\omega ip)^2+q^2][(\omega +ip)^2+q^2]}},$$

$$w=\sqrt{\frac{(\omega +ip)^2+q^2}{(\omega ip)^2+q^2}}.$$

At least, with the help of the relations

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_z^{(n)}[f_1(z)f_2(z)]=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }_z^{(nk)}f_1(z)\right]\left[\mathrm{\Delta }_z^{(k)}f_2(z)\right]$$
(17)
and

$$C_n^{(\lambda )}(x)C_{n1}^{(\lambda )}(x)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda \frac{1}{2})\mathrm{\Gamma }(n1+2\lambda )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\lambda 1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+\lambda \frac{1}{2})}P_n^{(\lambda \frac{3}{2},\lambda \frac{1}{2})}(x),$$
(18)
where $`P_n^{(\lambda \frac{3}{2},\lambda \frac{1}{2})}(x)`$ are the Jacobi polynomials, we finally obtain

$$S_{\stackrel{}{p},noo}(\stackrel{}{q})=2(\pi \omega )^{\frac{1}{2}}c^{()}(\omega ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^{1+i\xi }$$
(19)
$$\times [(\omega ip)^2+q^2]^{i\xi }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}i\xi \right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(12i\xi \right)}\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}w^kC_k^{(i\xi )}(v)$$

$$\times \left[\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(nk+12i\xi \right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(nk+\frac{1}{2}i\xi \right)}P_{nk}^{(\frac{1}{2}i\xi ,\frac{1}{2}i\xi )}(u)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(nk2i\xi \right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(nk\frac{1}{2}i\xi \right)}P_{nk1}^{(\frac{1}{2}i\xi ,\frac{1}{2}i\xi )}(u)\right].$$

Thus, the result of the calculation for transition form factors of hydrogenlike atoms for the case $`nS`$-continuum transitions is expressed in terms of the classical polynomials and may be easily evaluated numerically with arbitrary degree of accuracy.

Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to Professor Jörg Hüfner for invitation and hospitality at the Institute for Theoretical Physics, Heidelberg University, where this work was done, and to Alexander Tarasov for useful discussions.