text:
# Experimental Study of 𝜌→𝜋⁰𝜋⁰𝛾 and 𝜔→𝜋⁰𝜋⁰𝛾 Decays

## 1 Introduction

In 1998 and 2000 the experiments with Spherical Neutral Detector (SND) at VEPP-2M $`e^+e^{}`$ collider were carried out in the energy range $`E=360970`$ MeV where cross section of $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation into hadrons is determined by the $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ meson decays. The integrated luminosity of 9 pb-1 collected in the experiment corresponds to $`3.510^6`$ and $`710^6`$ produced $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ mesons, respectively. One of the goals of the experiment was the investigation of the rare process

$$e^+e^{}\rho ,\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma .$$
(1)
Our preliminary study  of the process (1) was based on 1/3 of collected statistics. Its results were the first measurement of $`B(\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )=(4.8_{1.8}^{+3.4}\pm 0.2)10^5`$ and the measurement of $`B(\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )=(7.8\pm 2.7\pm 2.0)10^5`$ confirming the only previous measurement of this decay by GAMS: $`B(\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )=(7.2\pm 2.5)10^5`$ .

The theoretical study of the $`\rho ,\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decays was begun by P.Singer in Ref.  where the transitions via $`\omega \pi ^0`$ (Fig. 1a) and $`\rho ^0\pi ^0`$ intermediate states were suggested. The vector meson dominance (VMD) calculation with these intermediate states leads to branching ratios $`110^5`$ and $`310^5`$ for $`\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ and $`\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$, respectively .

For $`\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay another mechanism through the pions loops (Fig. 1b) is also possible . The branching ratios expected for this mechanism in different models  are listed in Table 1. It was noted in Ref.  that the $`\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay via chiral loops can be interpreted as $`\rho \sigma \gamma `$, where $`\sigma `$ is a scalar state decaying into $`\pi \pi `$ pair. The dependence of $`B(\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )`$ on $`\sigma `$ parameters was studied in Ref. . The range of $`B(\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )`$ values in L$`\sigma M`$ model corresponds to different $`\sigma `$ widths.

Since the amplitudes of $`\rho \omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ transition (Fig. 1a) and of the pion loops (Fig. 1b) are of the same order of magnitude, their interference is substantial. The interference contribution into branching ratio is predicted to be positive. The theoretical values for the total branching ratios are also listed in Table 1. The predictions of the chiral models  are in agreement with our previous experimental result. The significantly larger value of $`B(\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )`$ was obtained in Ref.  using $`\sigma `$ pole model. Their result contradicts to existing experimental data.

In $`\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay the contribution of pion loops is G-parity suppressed while the contribution of kaon loop is small due to large kaon mass. Therefore, it is assumed that the $`\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay proceeds through $`\rho ^0\pi ^0`$ intermediate state. The first measurement $`B(\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )=(7.2\pm 2.5)10^5`$  significantly exceeded the existent prediction of VMD model: $`310^5`$ . An attempt to explain this discrepancy was done in Ref.  where $`\rho `$$`\omega `$ mixing was taken into account and coupling constants were extracted from experimental values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega 3\pi )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma )`$. As a result the estimated value of $`B(\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )`$ increased up to $`(4.6\pm 1.1)10^5`$. Similar results (4.5–4.7)$`10^5`$ were then obtained in Refs. . In Ref.  the large experimental value of $`B(\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )`$ was explained by additional contribution of the $`\omega \sigma \gamma `$ transition and used to extract the value of $`g_{\omega \sigma \gamma }`$ coupling constant.

In the present work we present the experimental results on $`B(\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )`$ and $`B(\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )`$ based on full SND data sample.

## 2 Event selection

For analysis five-photon events with the energy deposition in the calorimeter

$$E_{tot}>0.7E$$
(2)
and the total momentum measured by the calorimeter

$$P_{tot}<0.15E/c$$
(3)
were selected. Here $`E`$ is $`e^+e^{}`$ center of mass energy.

Due to high beam background rate in 5% of events fake photons appear. This makes possible for lower photon multiplicity QED processes $`e^+e^{}2\gamma ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}\gamma ,4\gamma `$, and $`\rho ,\omega \pi ^0\gamma ,\eta \gamma 3\gamma `$ decays to imitate five-photon events producing main background contribution for the process under study. Detector response to the beam background was studied using special events recorded with a random generator trigger. The information on the fired detector channels in these events was used for simulation of the process under study and the background processes. Considerable suppression (by a factor of 8) of the background from events with fake photons was achieved by imposing the following cuts:

$$E_{min}>30\text{MeV},\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}30}^{}<\theta _{min}<150^{},$$
(4)
where $`E_{min}`$ and $`\theta _{min}`$ are the energy and polar angle of the softest photon in an event. These cuts reduce the detection efficiency for the process under study by 25%. Another background source is the $`e^+e^{}\eta \gamma 3\pi ^0\gamma 7\gamma `$ reaction producing five-photon events mainly due to the merging of near photons. To suppress this background, the parameter $`\chi _\gamma `$ describing transverse energy deposition profile of the detected photon  was used. The cut

$$\chi _\gamma <5$$
(5)
suppresses the $`e^+e^{}\eta \gamma `$ background by a factor of 2 with a 5% loss of actual 5-photon events.

Further selection was based on the kinematic fitting of the events. Compatibility of the event kinematics with $`e^+e^{}5\gamma `$ and $`e^+e^{}3\gamma `$ hypotheses was checked. For the $`3\gamma `$ hypothesis two out of five photons were considered spurious: all 3-$`\gamma `$ subsets were tested and the best one with minimum $`\chi ^2`$ value was selected. As a result of kinematic fitting the $`\chi ^2`$ values, $`\chi _{5\gamma }`$ and $`\chi _{3\gamma }`$, were calculated for both hypotheses. The cut

$$\chi _{3\gamma }>20$$
(6)
practically eliminates $`e^+e^{}2\gamma ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}\gamma `$ background with the loss only 2.5% of the events of the process under study. Figure 3 depicts the $`\chi _{5\gamma }`$ distribution of the experimental and simulated events. The following cut was imposed on this parameter:

$$\chi _{5\gamma }<20.$$
(7)
Finally, the events with two $`\pi ^0`$ mesons were selected. To do this the kinematic fit in $`e^+e^{}\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ hypothesis was performed and the following cut was imposed:

$$\chi _{\pi \pi \gamma }\chi _{5\gamma }<10.$$
(8)
Here $`\chi _{\pi \pi \gamma }`$ is the $`\chi ^2`$ value of the kinematic fit for the $`e^+e^{}\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ hypothesis. The $`\chi _{\pi \pi \gamma }\chi _{5\gamma }`$ distributions for the experimental and simulated events are shown in Fig.3.

The difference between distributions of the background events and events of the process under study (Figs. 3 and 3) was used to estimate the accuracy of the background calculation. The experimental distribution was fitted by the sum of simulated distributions for the process (1) and background. As a result of the fit the ratio $`K=N_{exp}^{bkg}/N_{calc}^{bkg}=0.7\pm 0.2`$ was determined. For softer selection criteria without cuts (4,6,5) this ratio is equal to $`1.30\pm 0.05`$ and does not depend on the beam energy at our level of statistical accuracy. From this we conclude that the systematic error of the background estimation does not exceed 50%.

The total of 310 events were selected with estimated background of $`15\pm 7`$ events. The main sources of the residual background are $`e^+e^{}\eta \gamma `$ and $`e^+e^{}4\gamma `$ processes. The distribution of selected events and calculated background over center of mass energy is given in the Table 2. No events were detected below 600 MeV. The uncertainty of the center of mass energy, integrated luminosity, and detection efficiency are listed in Table 2 for each energy point. The uncertainty of the center of mass energy includes the beam energy spread and the energy shift between 1998 and 2000 scans. The integrated luminosity was measured using $`e^+e^{}\gamma \gamma `$ process. The statistical error of the luminosity in each energy point does not exceed 1% and is not included in the table. Its systematic error was estimated to be 3%. The detection efficiency for the process (1) was determined by simulation. The differential cross section of the $`e^+e^{}\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ process calculated in VMD model  was used for simulation. The systematic error of the detection efficiency, including the model error due to possible contribution from $`\sigma \gamma `$ intermediate state was estimated to be 5%.

## 3 Fitting of the cross section

The fitting procedure maximizes the logarithmic likelihood function

$$L=\underset{i}{}\mathrm{ln}P_i(N_i^{exp},N_i^{th}),$$

where $`P_i`$ is a Poisson probability to detect observed number of events $`N_i^{exp}`$ in the $`i`$-th energy bin with a theoretical expectation of $`N_i^{th}`$. The theoretical expectations were calculated as

$$N_i^{th}=\epsilon _iL_i\sigma (E_i)(1+\delta (E_i))+N_i^{bkg},$$

where $`N_i^{bkg}`$ is a calculated number of background events, $`\epsilon _i`$ is a detection efficiency, $`L_i`$ is the integrated luminosity, $`\sigma (E)`$ is $`e^+e^{}\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ cross section depending on a set of approximation parameters, $`\delta `$ is a radiative correction. The radiative correction, which is a functional of the cross-section energy dependence $`\sigma (E)`$ , was determined within the fitting procedure. The values of radiative correction evaluated for each experimental energy point are listed in Table 2. The model error of the $`(1+\delta )`$ value does not exceed 3%. The values of the experimental cross section calculated as

$$\sigma _i^{exp}=\frac{N_i^{exp}N_i^{bkg}}{\epsilon _iL_i(1+\delta (E_i))}$$

are shown in Fig.4 and listed in Table 2. The systematic error of the cross section is determined by the the errors of the detector efficiency, integrated luminosity, and radiative correction. It was estimated to be 7%.

To calculate the cross section $`\sigma (E)`$ the amplitude of the $`e^+e^{}\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ process was parametrized as

$$A_{\pi \pi \gamma }=A_{\rho \omega \pi }(BW_\rho +\alpha _1BW_\rho ^{}+\alpha _2BW_{\rho ^{\prime \prime }})+\beta A_{\rho \sigma \gamma }BW_\rho +\gamma A_\omega BW_\omega ,$$
(9)
The first term in Eq.(9) is the amplitude of the $`e^+e^{}\rho ,\rho ^{},\rho ^{\prime \prime }\omega \pi ^0`$, where $`\rho ^{}`$ and $`\rho ^{\prime \prime }`$ are excitations of the $`\rho (770)`$. Second and third terms are $`e^+e^{}\rho (770)\sigma \gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ and $`e^+e^{}\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ amplitudes. Each amplitude is written in a factorized form. The functions $`A_{\rho \omega \pi ^0}`$, $`A_{\rho \sigma \gamma }`$, $`A_\omega `$ depending on the momenta of final particles describe the dynamics of vector mesons decays. The functions $`BW_i`$ describe the Breit-Wigner resonance shapes:

$$BW_i=\frac{m_i^2}{m_i^2E^2iE\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(E)},i=\rho ,\rho ^{},\rho ^{\prime \prime },\omega .$$

Here $`m_i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(E)`$ are resonance mass and energy dependent width. The cross section is calculated from Eq.(9) by integration over the phase space of final particles: $`\sigma (E)=|A_{\pi \pi \gamma }|^2𝑑\mathrm{\Pi }`$. At the energy above $`\omega \pi `$ threshold the Breit-Wigner functions of $`\rho `$ mesons are modified $`BW_{\rho _i}BW_{\rho _i}C_{\rho _i\omega \pi }`$, where $`C_{\rho _i\omega \pi }`$ are Blatt-Weisskopf factors, restricting fast growth of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho _i\omega \pi }`$ partial widths :

$$C_{\rho \omega \pi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+(Rq_\omega (E))^2}},C_{\rho _i\omega \pi }=\sqrt{\frac{1+(Rq_\omega (m_{\rho _i}))^2}{1+(Rq_\omega (E))^2}},\rho _i=\rho ^{},\rho ^{\prime \prime }.$$
(10)
Here $`q_\omega `$ is the $`\omega `$ meson momentum in $`\rho _i\omega \pi `$ decay. The range parameter $`R`$ is supposed to be the same for $`\rho ,\rho ^{},\rho ^{\prime \prime }`$ mesons. The main decay modes of $`\rho `$ mesons were taken into account for calculation of the energy dependence of the resonance widths. For instance, in the case of $`\rho (770)`$ we use the following expression:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho (E)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho (m_\rho )\left(\frac{m_\rho }{E}\right)^2\left(\frac{q_\pi (E)}{q_\pi (m_\rho )}\right)^3C_{\rho \pi \pi }^2+\frac{g_{\rho \omega \pi }^2}{12\pi }q_\omega ^3(E)C_{\rho \omega \pi }^2.$$
(11)
Here $`q_\pi `$ is a pion momentum in the $`\rho 2\pi `$ decay. The Blatt-Weisskopf factor $`C_{\rho \pi \pi }`$ is expressed by the formula similar to Eq.(10).

The amplitude of the $`e^+e^{}\omega \pi `$ process is described by formulas from Ref.  and depends on 8 parameters. The data from energy region below 1 GeV are insufficient to determine them. Therefore we used additional measurements of the $`e^+e^{}\omega \pi ^0`$ cross section in the 1–1.4 GeV energy range by SND  and of the $`\omega \pi ^0`$ spectral function in $`\tau \omega \pi \nu _\tau `$ decay by CLEO . The spectral function can be converted to corresponding production cross section in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions using CVC hypothesis . The all-data fit on $`e^+e^{}\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ cross section is shown in Fig.5.

For $`E>1\mathrm{GeV}`$ experimental data are well described by three models with parameters listed in Table 3.

The ranges of parameter values correspond to the variation of the parameter $`R`$ from 0 to 2 GeV-1. The statistical errors are not shown because they are significantly smaller than model biases. For models with two excited $`\rho `$ states the $`\rho ^{}`$ mass and width were fixed to 1400 MeV and 500 MeV. These values are close to $`\rho ^{}`$ parameters from $`\pi ^\pm \pi ^0`$ spectral function data .

Below $`\omega \pi ^0`$ threshold the amplitude of the $`e^+e^{}\omega \pi ^0`$ process drops rapidly and the product $`|BW_\rho |^2|A_{\rho \omega \pi }|^2𝑑\mathrm{\Pi }`$ in contrast with the corresponding product for $`\rho \sigma \gamma `$ transition does not demonstrate resonance behavior. This allows to separate contributions of the two $`\rho `$ decay mechanisms by measurement of energy dependence of the $`e^+e^{}\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ cross section. The $`\rho \sigma \gamma `$ decay amplitude was described by the $`\chi PT`$ and $`L\sigma M`$ models from Ref. . The three sets of $`\sigma `$ parameters  used in the $`L\sigma M`$ model are listed in Table 5. The $`\chi PT`$ model corresponds to $`m_\sigma \mathrm{}`$. The $`\beta `$ parameter represents the difference between observed value of the $`\rho \sigma \gamma `$ decay amplitude and theoretical prediction.

For $`\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay the variation of the final state phase in the CMS energy interval of the $`\omega `$ meson is small, so we cannot separate different decay mechanisms studying the cross section energy dependence. Thus the amplitude of the $`\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay was written according to VMD model . The $`\rho `$-$`\omega `$ mixing was taken into account following Ref. . Possible contributions of other mechanisms would result in a deviation of the complex parameter $`\gamma `$ from 1.

Full description of the energy dependence of the cross section below 1 GeV requires extra four parameters e.g. absolute values and phases of $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$: $`|\beta |`$, $`\varphi _\beta `$, $`|\gamma |`$, $`\varphi _\gamma `$. But we prefer two other sets of parameters: $`B(\rho \sigma \gamma )`$, $`\varphi _\beta `$, $`B(\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )`$, $`\varphi _\gamma `$ or $`B(\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )`$, $`\varphi _\beta `$, $`B(\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )`$, $`\varphi _\gamma `$. The branching ratios are related to $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ as

$$B(\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )=\frac{m_\rho ^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ^2}\frac{1}{\sigma _\rho }|A_{\rho \omega \pi }(m_\rho )+\beta A_{\rho \sigma \gamma }(m_\rho )|^2𝑑\mathrm{\Pi },$$

$$B(\rho \sigma \gamma )=\frac{m_\rho ^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ^2}\frac{1}{\sigma _\rho }|\beta A_{\rho \sigma \gamma }(m_\rho )|^2𝑑\mathrm{\Pi },$$

$$B(\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )=\frac{m_\omega ^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega ^2}\frac{1}{\sigma _\omega }|\gamma A_\omega (m_\rho )|^2𝑑\mathrm{\Pi },$$

where $`\sigma _V=12\pi B(Ve^+e^{})/M_V^2`$ is a total vector meson production cross section in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions.

Characteristic feature of the process under study is a large interference between the contributions of $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ decays. For instance the cross section of $`e^+e^{}\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ process at $`E=m_\omega `$ evaluated using the table value of $`B(\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )=(7.2\pm 2.5)10^5`$ is equal to 0.12 nb. The interference with $`\rho `$ meson increases this value up to approximately 0.25 nb (Fig.4). The experimental data on the energy dependence of the cross section are insufficient for determination of unambiguous solution for interference phases $`\varphi _\beta `$, $`\varphi _\gamma `$. There are four solutions listed in Table 4.

The third and fourth ones correspond to a large destructive contribution into $`\omega `$ decay from mechanisms other than $`\rho ^0\pi ^0`$. The $`B(\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )`$ values obtained in this case disagree with existing experimental value $`B(\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )=(7.2\pm 2.5)10^5`$. The solution with $`\varphi _\beta \pi `$, $`\varphi _\gamma 0`$ can be ruled out for two reasons: $`B(\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )`$ exceeds the table value by 1.7 standard deviations and consistency of the calculated spectrum of the recoil photon with the experimental one is poor. The analysis of the photon spectrum is described in the next section.

For the only survivor solution with both phases close to zero, the model dependence of the fit parameters was studied. Three models of excited $`\rho `$ states (Table 3) and four sets of $`\sigma `$ parameters (Table 5) were tested. The $`\varphi _\beta `$ was found ranging within $`(20÷80)^{}\pm 80^{}`$. These values are in agreement with theoretically expected zero value . Therefore the final fitting was performed with $`\varphi _\beta =0`$. The phase $`\varphi _\gamma `$ was considered as a floating parameter to take into account its possible shift due to the contribution of mechanisms other than $`\omega \rho \pi ^0`$. The fitted $`\varphi _\gamma =(2÷20)^{}\pm 20^{}`$ is consistent with zero.

The probabilities of the $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ decays into $`\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ obtained with different parameters of $`\sigma `$ meson are listed in Table 5.

The spreads in parameter values correspond to different models describing $`e^+e^{}\omega \pi ^0`$ cross section above 1 GeV. All models reproduce the experimental data well. Therefore parameter midrange was taken as a final result. Its spread was regarded as the model error. The branching ratios obtained this way with statistical and systematic errors are listed in the last row of Table 5. The systematic error includes the model error, uncertainties in the detection efficiency and integrated luminosity. The variation of the background level within its systematic error practically does not change the $`B(\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )`$ central value and results in following additional uncertainties of the $`\rho `$ meson branching ratios: 7% for $`B(\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )`$ and 12% for $`B(\rho \sigma \gamma )`$. Since these uncertainties affect statistical significance of the results they were added to statistical errors. The energy dependence of the cross section in the model with $`m_\sigma =478`$ MeV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma =324`$ MeV is shown in Fig. 4 together with the curve corresponding to $`B(\rho \sigma \gamma )=0`$. The $`P(\chi ^2)`$ value for the latter model is equal to 0.5%.

## 4 The energy and angular spectra

From Table 2 it is seen that selected events are mainly concentrated in two energy regions: 180 events near $`\omega `$ peak and 92 events in the range 920–970 MeV above the $`e^+e^{}\omega \pi ^0`$ reaction threshold. The angular and energy distributions in the latter region agree with $`\omega \pi ^0`$ mechanism.

Recoil photon spectrum for events from 760–800 MeV energy range is shown in Fig.7. Although this energy region is dominated by $`\omega `$ peak the contributions of both $`\omega `$ and $`\rho `$ decays must be taken into account to obtain the theoretical spectrum. The spectrum calculated in model 3 from Table 5 (Fig.7) is in a good agreement with the experimental one. In this model it is supposed that $`\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay proceeds through $`\rho ^0\pi ^0`$ intermediate state. Another way is to describe the $`\omega `$ decay by a sum of contributions of $`\omega \rho ^0\pi ^0`$ and $`\omega \sigma \gamma `$ mechanisms. To do this we fix $`B(\omega \rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )`$ at $`2.510^5`$ and fit the $`\omega \sigma \gamma `$ decay contribution to a value yielding observed $`\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ branching ratio. In case of constructive interference this leads to $`B(\omega \sigma \gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )=1.310^5`$ and the photon spectrum close to that expected for $`\rho ^0\pi ^0`$ mechanism. As was shown in the previous section, assumption of destructive interference results in $`B(\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )`$ inconsistent with the PDG table value.

The second theoretical spectrum in Fig.7 corresponds to the model 2 from Table 4 with destructive interference of $`\omega \pi `$ and $`\sigma \gamma `$ amplitudes in $`\rho `$ decay. For this model the consistency between theoretical and experimental spectra calculated using Kolmogorov test  is about 1%, which was one of the reasons to discard this model.

Additional information about mechanism of $`\omega `$ decay can be obtained from the analysis of angular distributions. One of such distribution is shown in Fig.7. The same figure displays the theoretical distributions obtained under assumptions that $`\omega `$ decay proceeds through either pure $`\rho ^0\pi ^0`$ intermediate state or a mixture of $`\rho ^0\pi ^0`$ and $`\sigma \gamma `$. One can see that our limited statistics does not allow to distinguish these two models.

## 5 Summary

The branching ratios measured in this work,

$$B(\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )=(6.6_{1.3}^{+1.4}\pm 0.6)10^5,$$
(12)
$$B(\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )=(4.1_{0.9}^{+1.0}\pm 0.3)10^5.$$
(13)
are in a good agreement with our preliminary results  and GAMS measurement $`B(\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )=(7.2\pm 2.5)10^5`$ , but have higher accuracy.

The probability of $`\rho \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay significantly exceeds VMD model prediction $`(1.31.5)10^5`$. This excess can be explained by the contribution of the decay via scalar state $`\rho \sigma \gamma `$. Two mechanisms, $`\rho \sigma \gamma `$ and $`\rho \omega \pi `$, can be separated using difference in energy dependence of their amplitudes. Our result on $`\rho \sigma \gamma `$ decay

$$B(\rho \sigma \gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )=(1.9_{0.8}^{+0.9}\pm 0.4)10^5$$
(14)
differs from zero by 2.4 standard deviations and is consistent with the predictions of chiral models . The magnitude of $`B(\rho \sigma \gamma )`$ is sensitive to $`\sigma `$ parameters. As can be seen from Table 5, the models with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma 300`$ MeV give the most consistent description of the experimental data.

The value of the branching ratio $`B(\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )=(6.7\pm 1.2)10^5`$, obtained by averaging of our measurement with the GAMS result exceeds theoretical predictions, $`(4.6\pm 1.1)10^5`$  and $`(4.7\pm 0.9)10^5`$ , by 1.3 standard deviations. It is necessary to make some remarks about these predictions. The result of Ref.  is based on table value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho \pi ^0\gamma )=102\pm 26`$ keV . It must be corrected taking into account newer measurement $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho \pi ^0\gamma )=76\pm 22`$ keV , which is close to the value for charged $`\rho `$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho ^\pm \pi ^\pm \gamma )=68\pm 8`$ keV . This decreases the predicted $`B(\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )`$ and worsens agreement with the experiment. In the Refs.  and  the values of $`g_{\rho \omega \pi }`$ equal to 15 GeV-1 and 15.9 GeV-1 were used to calculate $`B(\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )g_{\rho \omega \pi }^2g_{\rho \pi \gamma }g_{\rho \omega \pi }^4/g_\rho ^2`$. On the other hand, the use of these $`g_{\rho \omega \pi }`$ values for VMD calculation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega 3\pi )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega \pi ^0\gamma )`$ leads to too large values conflicting with experimental data. For example, the $`g_{\rho \omega \pi }`$ obtained from $`\omega 3\pi `$ width assuming intermediate $`\rho \pi `$ state is equal to $`(14.3\pm 0.2)`$ GeV-1 . Therefore, our opinion is that $`4.610^5`$ is the maximum branching ratio acceptable within VMD model and the additional theoretical study is required to explain the large value of $`B(\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )`$.

## 6 Acknowledgments

This work is supported by “Russian Fund for Basic Researches” grants No. 01-02-16934-a and 00-15-96802 and STP “Integration” Fund, grant No. A0100.


format: text

text:
# Josephson-plasma-resonance and phonon anomalies in trilayer Bi₂Sr₂Ca₂Cu₃O₁₀.

Also at \]Institute of Solid State Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Chernogolovka, Moscow distr., 142432 Russia Also at \]Institute of Solid State Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Chernogolovka, Moscow distr., 142432 Russia Also at\]Institute of Solid State Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Chernogolovka, Moscow distr., 142432 Russia

## Abstract

The far-infrared (FIR) $`c`$ axis conductivity of a Bi2223 crystal has been measured by ellipsometry. Below Tc a strong absorption band develops near 500 cm -1, corresponding to a transverse Josephson-plasmon. The related increase in FIR spectral weight leads to a giant violation of the Ferrell-Glover-Tinkham sum-rule. The gain in $`c`$ axis kinetic energy accounts for a sizeable part of the condensation energy. We also observe phonon anomalies which suggest that the Josephson-currents lead to a drastic variation of the local electric field within the block of closely spaced CuO2 planes.

The transition from a normal metal to a superconductor (SC) below the critical temperature, $`T_c`$, is accompanied by a redistribution of spectral weight, ($`SW`$) from finite frequencies in the normal state (NS) into a $`\delta `$-function at zero frequency in the SC state that represents the loss-free response of the SC condensate. For classical SC’s the energy gap determines the frequency range over which the $`SW`$ of the $`\delta `$-function is collected, so that noticeable changes occur only for $`\omega 4\mathrm{\Delta }`$, (the so-called Ferrell-Glover-Tinkham (FGT) sum rule) Tinkham . Recently, it was claimed that the FGT sum-rule is partially violated for the $`c`$ axis response of the cuprate high-$`T_c`$ (HTSC) compounds $`\mathrm{Tl}_2\mathrm{Ba}_2\mathrm{CuO}_{6+\mathrm{x}}`$ (Tl2201), $`\mathrm{La}_{2\mathrm{x}}\mathrm{Sr}_\mathrm{x}\mathrm{CuO}_4`$ (LaSr214) and $`\mathrm{YBa}_2\mathrm{Cu}_3\mathrm{O}_{6.6}`$ (Y123) Basov . It was found that the $`SW`$ loss in the FIR below $`T_c`$ is smaller than the $`SW`$ of the $`\delta `$-function at zero frequency, which is independently determined from the imaginary part of the conductivity. However, the change of the FIR-SW in the SC state is small and hard to measure experimentally. Nevertheless, due to its important implications, this report has attracted considerable attention. It implies that a very large frequency scale is involved in the SC pairing and seems to rule out any conventional mechanism that relies exclusivley on low-frequency bosons like phonons. Instead, it supports models where an increase in the $`c`$ axis kinetic energy, $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_c`$, below $`T_c`$ provides a significant contribution to the SC condensation energy Anderson ; Chakravarty .

These far reaching implications call for furher experiments on a compound where the related $`SW`$ transfer is larger and therefore more easily identified. The most promising candidates are multilayer HTSC compounds, which contain more than one CuO2 plane per unit cell. For the bilayer systems Y123 and Bi2212 it has already been shown that a sizeable absorption peak develops below $`T_c`$ in the FIR range. Evidence has been presented that its $`SW`$ is mostly electronic in origin and that it is part of the SC condensate Munzar1 ; Gruninger ; Bernhard1 ; Zelezny ; Munzar2 . This can be understood in terms of the interlayer-tunneling (ILT) model Anderson  which assumes that the CuO2 planes are weakly coupled by the Josephson-currents in the SC state. For bilayer compounds this results in two kinds of Josephson-junctions with different longitudinal plasma frequencies Marel . Their out-of-phase oscillation gives rise to a transverse Josephson-plasma resonance (t-JPR) which has been assigned to the absorption peak that develops below $`T_c`$. This model, termed Josephson-superlattice-model (JSL) in the following, has been successfully applied to describe the anomalous FIR $`c`$ axis response of Y123 and $`\mathrm{Bi}_2\mathrm{Sr}_2\mathrm{CaCu}_2\mathrm{O}_8`$ (Bi2212) Munzar1 ; Gruninger ; Bernhard1 ; Zelezny ; Munzar2 . Nevertheless, it is not commonly accepted yet, and it is even disputed whether the $`SW`$ of the absorption band is electronic in origin, and whether it arises from higher frequencies Homes .

In this manuscript we present ellipsometric data of the $`c`$ axis dielectric response of the trilayer compound $`\mathrm{Bi}_2\mathrm{Sr}_2\mathrm{Ca}_2\mathrm{Cu}_3\mathrm{O}_{10}`$ (Bi2223). We show that a strong absorption band develops below $`T_c`$ in the FIR, corresponding to a t-JPR. It leads to a clear increase of the $`SW`$ in the FIR below $`T_c`$ corresponding to a giant violation of the FGT sum-rule. We quantify the associated change in kinetic energy and show that it can account for a substantial part of the SC condensation energy. We also show that the electronic mode and the associated phonon anomalies can be qualitatively described with the JSM. The drastically different SC induced anomalies of the two similar oxygen bond-bending modes provide clear evidence that the local electric field can vary significantly along the $`c`$ axis direction even within a stack of closely spaced CuO2 layers and thus provide strong support for the JSM.

A Bi2223 single crystal of dimensions 6 $`\times `$ 4 $`\times `$0.5 mm3 was grown by the travelling solvent floating zone technique. The crystal contains more than 95 % of Bi2223 with only a minor fraction of layer-intercalated Bi2212 Liang . In its as grown state, the crystal was underdoped with $`T_c`$ = 97 K (midpoint) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c`$ = 7 K. Subsequent to the optical measurements the same crystal was annealed for ten days in flowing oxygen at 500C (and then for three days in air at 700C) and rapidly quenched so it was nearly optimally doped with $`T_c`$ = 107 K and $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c`$ = 3 K (moderately underdoped with $`T_c`$ = 102 K and $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c`$ = 4 K). The ellipsometric measurements (see Ref. Bernhard1  for a description of the technique) have been performed at the infrared beamline of the synchrotron radiation source at ANKA in Karlsruhe, Germany and at NSLS in Brookhaven, USA. A home-built ellipsometer attached to a ”Bruker” IFS 66v/S FT-IR spectrometer has been used. The high brilliance of the synchrotron enables us to obtain accurate ellipsometric data in the FIR spectral range even on mm-sized samples.

Figure 1 shows the real part $`\sigma _1(\omega )`$ of the $`c`$ axis optical conductivity of Bi2223 at the three different doping levels. Shown are spectra for one temperature somewhat above $`T_c`$ and for several temperatures below $`T_c`$. The normal-state spectra are dominated by the contributions of several IR-active phonons, the one of the charge carriers is very weak. The main phonon bands are located at 97, 128 notshown , 170, 211, 305, 360, 400 and 582 cm-1. Except for the additional modes of Bi2223 at $`400\mathrm{cm}^1`$ and $`128\mathrm{cm}^1`$ IR-active phonons appear in Bi2212 at similar frequencies Zelezny ; Munzar2 . In order to find the corresponding eigenvector patterns we have performed shell model calculations for the Bi-based compounds in the body centered tetragonal $`I4/mmm`$ structure. We obtained a set of parameters which allows to reproduce simultaneously the structures, the experimental values of the $`c`$ axis dielectric constants and the frequencies of the IR-active modes in Bi2223, Bi2212 and Bi2201. For Bi2212 our assignment of the modes agrees well with the one given in Ref. Prade . Details will be presented elsewhere Kovaleva . The strongest modes at 582 and 305 cm-1 involve primarily $`c`$ axis vibrations of the apical O2 oxygen and the Bi-plane O3 oxygen, respectively. The eigenvector patterns of the modes at 360 and 400 cm-1 corresponding to the in-phase and the out-of-phase motion of the oxygens in the inner and the outer $`\mathrm{CuO}_2`$ layers are shown in Fig. 3(a). The remaining four $`A_{2u}`$ IR-active phonon modes at lower frequencies involve vibrations of the heavy ions and will not be further discussed here. Some additional weak modes at 276, 471 and 635 cm-1 are most likely related to the incommensurate modulation in the BiO and SrO layersJacubowicz .

In the NS the spectra exhibit hardly any noticeable changes, except for a sharpening of the phonons with decreasing temperature (not shown). Right below $`T_c`$, however, the spectra change appreciably. This is also illustrated in Fig. 2(a) which displays the difference $`\sigma _1(T=10K)\sigma _1(T=120K)`$. The most prominent feature is the broad absorption band around $`500\mathrm{cm}^1`$ which appears below $`T_c`$ and grows rapidly with decreasing temperature. Figures 1 and 2(a) show that the center of this band shifts towards higher frequencies with increasing doping. A similar absorption band has been previously identified in the bilayer compound Y123 where it has been assigned Munzar1 ; Gruninger ; Bernhard1  to the t-JPR of the JSM. While this feature is rather weak in Bi2212 Zelezny ; Munzar2 , its $`SW`$ is very large in Bi2223 and gives rise to a considerable increase in the FIR-$`SW`$ below Tc. This is evident from Fig. 2(b) where we show the difference between the $`SW`$ in the SC state at 10 K and the one in the NS at 120 K:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }SW(\omega )={\displaystyle _{100cm^1}^\omega }(\sigma _1(10,\omega ^{})\sigma _1(120,\omega ^{}))𝑑\omega ^{^{}}`$ (1)
Apart from some smaller changes related to the phonon anomalies (as discussed below) it exhibits a steep increase between $`400\mathrm{cm}^1`$ and $`550\mathrm{cm}^1`$. Above 650 cm-1 $`\mathrm{\Delta }SW(\omega )`$ remains essentially constant (as shown in Fig.2 up to 1300 cm -1 for the optimally doped sample) at $`\mathrm{\Delta }SW`$ = 800, 1100, and 1400 $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1\mathrm{cm}^2`$ for $`T_c`$ of 97, 102, and 107 K, respectively. Such an apparent increase in the FIR-$`SW`$ below $`T_c`$ is certainly not expected for any conventional SC where FIR-$`SW`$ should be removed and transferred to the $`\delta `$-function at zero frequency with $`(N_nN_s)/\rho _s=1`$ (FGT sum-rule) Tinkham , where $`N_nN_s=120/\pi \mathrm{\Delta }SW(\mathrm{\Omega }_c)`$ (cutoff frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c4\mathrm{\Delta }`$), $`\rho _s`$ is the SC condensate density. For Bi2223 upper limit of $`\rho _s`$ can be estimated using the London penetration depth $`\lambda _c=23\mu m`$ for $`\mathrm{Bi}_{1.85}\mathrm{Pb}_{0.35}\mathrm{Sr}_2\mathrm{Ca}_2\mathrm{Cu}_{3.1}\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{y}`$ Shibata : $`\rho _s=(c/\lambda _c)^24800\mathrm{cm}^2`$. The inset of Fig.2(b) shows that our data on Bi2223 with $`T_c`$ = 107 K in terms of the FGT sum-rule give $`(N_nN_s)/\rho _s10`$ at $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c650\mathrm{cm}^1`$. The data certainly represent a striking manifestation of the violation of the FGT sum rule. They highlight that a significant amount of $`SW`$ is transferred from higher frequencies to the t-JPR in the FIR. We emphasize that the $`SW`$ of the t-JPR is part of the SC condensate just as much as the $`\delta `$-function at zero frequency. For Bi2223 the $`SW`$ of the t-JPR, however, exceeds the one of the $`\delta `$-function at zero frequency by one order of magnitude.

It is evident from Fig. 1 and Fig. 2(a) that the formation of the t-JPR is also associated with an anomalous temperature dependence of some of the phonon modes, in particular, of the modes at 360, 400 and 582$`\mathrm{cm}^1`$ denoted by $`A,B,C`$ in Fig. 2(a). Particularly interesting are the contrasting $`T`$ dependences of the in-phase and out-of-phase oxygen bond-bending modes at 360 and 400$`\mathrm{cm}^1`$ whose eigenvector diagrams are shown in Fig. 3(a). As shown in Fig. 3(b), the mode at 360 cm-1 loses a significant amount of its $`SW`$ below $`T_c`$. A similar effect has been observed for the oxygen bond-bending mode in Bi2212. In clear contrast, the out-of-phase mode at 400 cm-1 (which is specific to the trilayer compound) gains a significant amount of $`SW`$ in the SC state. In the following we show that this behavior, while surprising at first, is explained by the JSM.

As outlined in Refs.Munzar1 ; Bernhard1 ; Zelezny ; Munzar2  the onset of the Josephson-currents between the CuO2 layers can lead (in the absence of a significant screening in the NS) to a significant change of the dynamical local electric field. A simple estimate of the local field can be obtained by considering a stack of homogeneously charged Josephson coupled CuO2 layers. A sketch is shown in Fig. 3(c) where $`\kappa (\omega )`$ denotes the charge density that alternates from one outer plane to the other. The Josephson-currents $`j_{bl}(\omega )`$ and $`j_{int}(\omega )`$ can be described by using the local dielectric functions of the intra-trilayer region and of the inter-trilayer region, $`\epsilon _{tl}(\omega )=\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}\omega _{bl}^2/\omega ^2`$ and $`\epsilon _{int}(\omega )=\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}\omega _{int}^2/\omega ^2`$, respectively. Following the model of Ref. Munzar1  the normalized local field inside the spacing layer that separates the trilayers, $`E_{int}^{}`$, inside the trilayer, $`E_{in}^{}`$, and at the outer CuO2 layers, $`E_{out}^{}`$ are :

$$E_{int}^{}=\frac{E_{int}}{<E>}=\frac{(d_{tl}+d_{int})\epsilon _{tl}}{(d_{tl}\epsilon _{int}+d_{int}\epsilon _{tl})},$$
$`(3a)`$
$$E_{in}^{}=\frac{E_{in}}{<E>}=\frac{(d_{tl}+d_{int})\epsilon _{int}}{(d_{tl}\epsilon _{int}+d_{int}\epsilon _{tl})},$$
$`(3b)`$
$$E_{out}^{}=\frac{(E_{int}^{}+E_{in}^{})}{2},$$
$`(3c)`$
where $`<E>`$ is the average field, $`d_{tl}=2d_{bl}`$. For $`\omega _{int}=0`$, $`\omega _{bl}=1250\mathrm{cm}^1`$, $`d_{int}=12\mathrm{\AA }`$, and $`d_{bl}=3.37\mathrm{\AA }`$ we obtain the result that is shown in Fig. 3(d). In the NS with $`\omega _{int}=0`$ and $`\omega _{bl}=0`$ we have $`E_{int}^{}=E_{in}^{}=E_{out}^{}=1`$. Note the following: (i) In the frequency range of the bond-bending modes (360 to 400 cm-1) $`E_{out}`$ is positive but strongly suppressed with respect to the NS, whereas $`E_{in}`$ changes sign at $`T_c`$ and acquires a large negative value; (ii) The value of $`E_{int}`$ around the frequency of the apical mode (582 cm-1) is also strongly suppressed with respect to the NS.

The $`SW`$ of a given phonon mode is determined by the local field at the ions participating in the mode and by the mode polarizability. The trends (i) account for the anomalies of the bending modes. Concerning the in-phase mode, the pattern of the local field is in agreement with the eigenvector pattern above $`T_c`$ ($`E_{out}`$ and $`E_{in}`$ are parallel) but not below $`T_c`$ ($`E_{out}`$ and $`E_{in}`$ are antiparallel). In addition, the magnitude of $`E_{out}`$ is strongly suppressed below $`T_c`$. Both effects lead to the observed decrease of the $`SW`$ of the in-phase mode in the SC state. For the out-of-phase mode the situation is reversed, that is, the two patterns are not in agreement above $`T_c`$ whereas they are in accord below $`T_c`$. In addition, the magnitude of $`E_{in}`$ increases below $`T_c`$. Both effects contribute to the $`SW`$ increase of the mode below $`T_c`$. We emphasize that these results are rather robust against a change of the relative amplitudes of the ionic displacements which will only affect the relative contribution of the above mentioned effects. Finally, point (ii) allows one to understand why the $`SW`$ of the apical oxygen mode at $`582\mathrm{cm}^1`$ decreases below $`T_c`$: $`E_{int}`$ decreases below $`T_c`$ and so does the $`SW`$. We can also understand why the anomaly is much stronger in Bi2223 than in Bi2212. For $`\omega _{int}=0`$ and for $`\omega `$ considerably larger than the frequency of the t-JPR, $`\omega _{pl}=\omega _{bl}\sqrt{d_{int}/[(d_{tl}+d_{int})\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}]}`$, it follows from Eq. (3a) that $`E_{int}^{}1[d_{tl}\omega _{pl}^2/(d_{int}\omega ^2)]`$. The corresponding equation for the bilayer system reads $`E_{int}^{}1[d_{bl}\omega _{pl}^2/(d_{int}\omega ^2)]`$. The magnitude of the second term on the right hand side which is responsible for the suppression of $`E_{int}^{}`$ at high frequencies is twice as high for the trilayer system than for the bilayer one. This explains the stronger reduction of the $`SW`$ of the apical oxygen below $`T_c`$ in Bi2223 than in Bi2212. Note that these arguments merely depend on the trilayer geometry and on the circumstance that the frequencies of the bending modes are lower than $`\omega _{pl}`$ whereas the frequency of the apical oxygen mode is somewhat higher. These phonon anomalies and the underlying changes of the local electric field in the SC state clearly reflect a transition from a state exhibiting confinement (incoherent intra-trilayer conductivity) into a state where the CuO2 planes are Josephson-coupled. We demonstrate that in the SC state the local electric field can exhibit enormous variations within the unit cell, even its sign can change between the inner- and outer- layers of the trilayer. We are not aware of any other model which would allow one to describe these phenomena in so much detail.

Having shown that the JSM provides an excellent description of the electronic spectra and the phonon anomalies of Bi2223, we now use this model to evaluate the change in the $`c`$ axis kinetic energy of the charge carriers, $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_c`$, which is related to the growth of the t-JPR. In a recent paper Munzar2  $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_c`$ in Y123 and Bi2212 has been estimated according to $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_c=E_J`$, where $`E_J`$ is the coupling energy of the intra-bilayer Josephson junctions. This approach, however, ignores the changes upon entering the SC state due to the single particle tunnelling and thus may overestimate the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_c`$. The more rigorous sum-rule approach Chakravarty  is appropriate only for single-layer materials but not for the bi- or trilayer ones Munzar2 . In the meantime some of us have derived Munzar3  a version of the sum-rule that is valid for multilayer compounds with fully insulating blocking layers such as Bi2212 or Bi2223. For trilayer cuprates it reads

$$\mathrm{\Delta }H_c=\frac{\mathrm{}^2\epsilon _0a^2}{e^2}\frac{(2d_{bl}+d_{int})}{d_{bl}^2}\mathrm{\Delta }SW(\mathrm{\Omega }_c),$$
$`(2)`$
where $`d_{bl}(2223)=d_{bl}(2212)`$, $`a`$ is the in-plane lattice constant. Using the results shown in Fig. 2(b) we obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_c`$ 0.06, 0.08, and 0.11 meV for $`T_c=`$ 97, 102, and 107 K respectively. The condensation energy of Bi2223 is not known. Remarkably, however, our results for $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_c`$ are comparable to the condensation energy of $`0.13\mathrm{meV}`$ obtained by specific heat measurements for optimally doped Bi2212 Loram .

In summary, our data of the $`c`$ axis dielectric function of Bi2223 provide clear evidence that the t-JPR is a universal feature of the multilayer HTSC cuprate compounds. They show unambiguously that the $`SW`$ of the t-JPR is electronic in origin and arises from high frequencies beyond the FIR range. We have shown that the related transfer of $`SW`$ gives rise to a significant change in $`c`$ axis kinetic energy of the charge carriers which can account for a sizable part of the SC condensation energy. We also observe phonon anomalies which suggest that the Josephson-currents lead to a strong variation of the dynamical local electric field even between the inner and outer CuO2 planes of a trilayer.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank L.Carr for the support at NSLS. T.H. acknowladges support by the AvH Foundation.


text:
# Theoretical predictions for extraction of 𝑮_𝑬^𝒏 from semi-inclusive electron scattering on polarized 3He based on various nucleon-nucleon interactions

## Abstract

The process $`\stackrel{}{{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}n)`$ is theoretically analyzed with the aim to search for sensitivity to the electric form factor of the neutron, $`G_E^n`$. Faddeev calculations based on five high precision nucleon-nucleon force models are employed and stability versus exchange of the nucleon-nucleon forces is demonstrated.

In a recent paper  we investigated the sensitivity of the process $`\stackrel{}{{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}n)`$ to the extraction of the electric form factor of the neutron. That study was based on the AV18  nucleon-nucleon (NN) force and related MEC’s and Faddeev calculations for 3He consistent with the final state continuum. We found that final state interaction (FSI) effects were quite important and an analysis without FSI cannot be recommended. Though we know from most of our experience that the theoretical results are quite stable under exchange of one of the high precision NN potentials by another one, we would like to supplement our previous paper  by explicitely demonstrating the independence from the NN interaction for that specific process. We refer to  for all information about the formalism and the definitions of the asymmetries $`A_{}`$ and $`A_{}`$. Since in contrast to AV18 there are no consistent MEC’s worked out for the other four high precision NN potentials CD Bonn , Nijmegen 93, Nijmegen I and II  we show only the asymmetries evaluated with those NN potentials based on the standard nonrelativistic single nucleon current operator.

The important ratio $`A_{}/A_{}`$ for the extraction of $`G_E^n`$ is displayed in Fig. 1 for the same $`q^2`$-values as in . This figure corresponds to Fig. 8 of Ref. . It shows the five predictions (including AV18) for a fixed choice of $`G_E^n`$ as used in . In order to provide the necessary information on the sensitivity with respect to $`G_E^n`$ we include also three additional curves, where $`G_E^n`$ is multiplied by 0.75, 1.25 and 1, respectively and this for the choice of AV18+MEC. These additional three curves are the same as in Fig. 8 of Ref. . We see first of all in all cases a rather narrow spread of the five NN force predictions which document the expected stability of the results under exchange of one NN force by another one. However, we had to reduce somewhat the energy range near the upper end of the neutron energies in order to keep that spread small. Especially for the higher $`q^2`$-values the spread increases quite a bit for the lower neutron energies (not shown). Experimentally it should be possible to concentrate on that restricted upper energy range, where the cross section is anyhow largest.

Now narrow is meant in relation to the variation of the predictions by changing $`G_E^n`$ by $`\pm `$ 25 %. From the three added curves we see that the shifts caused by those changes of $`G_E^n`$ is by far larger than the spread induced by varying the NN forces. For example at $`q^2`$= 0.45 $`(\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c})^2`$ and $`E_n`$= 260 MeV the spread due to different NN potentials is about 13 %, whereas the shifts caused by the $`G_E^n`$ variations reach 70 %. We did not repeat the calculations varying $`G_E^n`$ for the NN force predictions with a single nucleon current alone since one can safely expect that corresponding shifts would result as for AV18+MEC. This Fig. 1 shows that the sensitivity to a $`G_E^n`$ extraction would not suffer from a theoretical uncertainty induced by the choice of the NN force. However, one also sees that MEC effects can only be neglected near the very upper end of that neutron energy spectrum. They are quite significant for $`q^2`$= 0.05 \- 0.2 $`(\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c})^2`$. The filled square is the result for the scattering on a free neutron at rest. This is treated fully relativistically and will be referred to as the pure neutron result. Clearly an analysis of data with such an oversimplified picture would be meaningless.

For the sake of completeness we also display $`A_{}`$ and $`A_{}`$ separately in Figs. 2 and 3 (corresponding to Figs. 5 and 6 of Ref. ), now again, as in Fig. 1, restricted to that upper $`E_n`$ energy range. The spread among all curves for $`A_{}`$ is quite small and MEC effects for AV18 are also minor. The filled square is the pure neutron result. For $`A_{}`$, which carries the dependence on $`G_E^n`$, we see again only small spreads. MEC effects are quite noticeable only for $`q^2`$= 0.1 - 0.2 $`(\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c})^2`$. Clearly FSI is mandatory: the pure neutron result, which is reached by PWIAS calculations  is far off. For the highest $`E_n`$-values $`A_{}`$ is very stable under exchange of the NN forces (effects below 1 %). This observable is also insensitive to the $`G_E^n`$ variations (changes are below 2 %). That is why the ratio $`A_{}/A_{}`$ reflects the sensitivity of $`A_{}`$ to both effects.

Summarizing we conclude that theoretical uncertainties arising from replacing one of the modern high precision NN potentials by another one in the ratio $`A_{}/A_{}`$ are much smaller than the sought changes due to $`G_E^n`$ variations. MEC effects as evaluated in conjunction with AV18 decrease strongly at the upper end of the neutron spectra. Measurements concentrated to the upper end of the neutron energies would be ideal and could provide important information on $`G_E^n`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (J.G.), the Polish Committee for Scientific Research under Grants No. 2P03B02818 and 2P03B05622, and by NFS grant # PHY0070858. R.S. is a holder of scholarship from the Foundation for Polish Science and acknowledges its financial support. The numerical calculations have been performed on the Cray T90 of the NIC in Jülich, Germany.


text:
# 1 INTRODUCTION

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The main asteroid belt (MAB), the Edgeworth–Kuiper belt (EKB), and comets belong to the main sources of dust in the Solar System. Most of Jupiter-family comets came from the EKB. Comets can be destructed due to close encounters with planets and the Sun, collisions with small bodies, and internal forces. We support  the Eneev’s idea  that the largest objects in the EKB and MAB could be formed directly by the compression of rarefied dust condensations of the protoplanetary cloud but not by the accretion of small (for example, 1-km) planetesimals. The total mass of planetesimals that entered the EKB from the feeding zone of the giant planets during their accumulation could exceed tens of Earth’s masses $`m_{}`$ . These planetesimals increased eccentricities of ’local’ trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs) and swept most of these TNOs. A small portion of such planetesimals could left beyond Neptune’s orbit in highly eccentric orbits. The results of previous investigations of migration and collisional evolution of minor bodies were summarized in . Below we present mainly our recent results.

## 2 MIGRATION OF MATTER TO A NEAR-EARTH SPACE

Asteroids leave the MAB via some regions corresponding to resonances with Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars. They get into these regions mainly due to collisions. Gravitational influence of the largest asteroids plays a smaller role. The number of resonances delivering bodies to the Earth is not small (more than 15) . So even due to small variations in semimajor axes $`a`$, some asteroids can get into the resonances, and the role of mutual gravitational influence of asteroids in their motion to the Earth may not be very small. Small bodies can get into the resonant regions also due to the Yarkovsky orbital drift. For dust particles we also need to take into account the Pointing–Robertson effect, radiation pressure, and solar wind drag.

Objects leave the EKB mainly due to the gravitational influence of planets . During last 4 Gyr several percents of TNOs could change $`a`$ by more than 1 AU due to the gravitational interactions with other TNOs . For most of other TNOs such variations in $`a`$ were less than 0.1 AU. The role of mutual gravitational influence of TNOs in evolution of their orbits may be greater than that of their collisions. Even small variations in orbital elements of TNOs due to their mutual gravitational influence and collisions can cause large variations in orbital elements due to the gravitational influence of planets. TNOs can leave the EKB (and comets leave the Oort cloud) without collisions. Therefore, some cometary objects migrating inside the Solar System can be large. The largest objects (with $`d`$$``$$`10`$ km) that collided the Earth during last 4 Gyr could be mainly of cometary origin.

We investigated the evolution for intervals $`T_S`$$``$5 Myr of 2500 Jupiter-crossing objects (JCOs) under the gravitational influence of all planets, except for Mercury and Pluto (without dissipative factors). In the first series we considered $`N`$=2000 orbits near the orbits of 30 real Jupiter-family comets with period $`<`$$`10`$ yr, and in the second series we took 500 orbits close to the orbit of Comet 10P Tempel 2 ($`a`$$``$3.1 AU, $`e`$$``$0.53, $`i`$$``$$`12^{}`$). We calculated the probabilities of collisions of objects with the terrestrial planets, using orbital elements obtained with a step equal to 500 yr and then summarized the results for all time intervals and all bodies, obtaining the total probability $`P_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of collisions with a planet and the total time interval $`T_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ during which perihelion distance $`q`$ of bodies was less than a semimajor axis of the planet. The values of $`P_r`$$`=`$$`10^6P`$$`=`$$`10^6P_\mathrm{\Sigma }/N`$ and $`T`$$`=`$$`T_\mathrm{\Sigma }/N`$ are presented in the Table together with the ratio $`r`$ of the total time interval when orbits were of Apollo type (at $`a`$$`>`$1 AU, $`q`$$`=`$$`a(1e)`$$`<`$1.017 AU, $`e`$$`<`$$`0.999`$) to that of Amor type ($`1.017`$$`<`$$`q`$$`<`$1.33 AU); $`r_2`$ is the same as $`r`$ but for Apollo objects with eccentricity $`e`$$`<`$0.9. For observed near-Earth objects (NEOs) $`r`$ is close to 1.

Table: Values of $`T`$ (in kyr), $`T_c`$$`=`$$`T/P`$ (in Myr), $`P_r`$, $`r`$, $`r_2`$ for the terrestrial planets

$`\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}& & & & & & & & & & \\ & & \text{Venus}& \text{Venus}& \text{Earth}& \text{Earth}& \text{Earth}& \text{Mars}& \text{Mars}& & \\ & & & & & & & & & & \\ & N\hfill & T& P_r& T& P_r& T_c& T& P_r& r& r_2\\ & & & & & & & & & & \\ \text{JCOs}\hfill & 2000\hfill & 9.3& 6.62& 14.0& 6.65& 2110& 24.7& 2.03& 1.32& 1.15\\ \text{comet }10P\hfill & 500\hfill & 24.9& 16.3& 44.0& 24.5& 1800& 96.2& 5.92& 1.49& 1.34\\ 3:1\text{ reson.}\hfill & 144\hfill & 739& 529& 1227& 626& 510& 2139& 116& 2.05& 1.78\\ 5:2\text{ reson.}\hfill & 144\hfill & 109& 54.5& 223& 92.0& 416& 516& 19.4& 1.28& 1.15\end{array}`$

For integrations we used the Bulirsh-Stoer method (BULSTO) and a symplectic method. The probabilities of collisions of former JCOs with planets were close for these methods, but bodies got resonant orbits more often in the case of BULSTO. Besides JCOs, we considered asteroids with initial values of $`e`$ and $`i`$ equal to 0.15 and $`10^{}`$, respectively. For the asteroids initially located at the 3:1 resonance with Jupiter, we found that the ratio $`r_{hc}`$ of the number of asteroids ejected into hyperbolic orbits to that collided with the Sun was 5.6 for BULSTO and 0.38 and 0.87 for a symplectic method for a step of integration equal to 10 and 30 days, respectively. So in some cases a symplectic method can give a large error. For the 5:2 resonance with Jupiter, $`r_{hc}`$ equaled 20 and 10 for BULSTO and symplectic methods, respectively. In the Table for asteroids we present only results obtained by the BULSTO code at $`T_S`$$`=`$50 Myr (at $`T_S`$$`=`$10 Myr the values of $`P`$ and $`T`$ are smaller by a factor less than 1.2 and 1.01 for the 3:1 and 5:2 resonances, respectively) and for TNOs we present results obtained by both codes.

The total time during which former 2000 JCOs were in Apollo-type and Amor-type orbits was 28.7 and 21.75 Myr, respectively, but 12.7 and 11.4 Myr of the above times were due to three objects. We found several former TNOs that moved for more than 1 Myr in orbits with aphelion distance $`Q`$$`<`$4.7 AU. The time interval during which a body had $`Q`$ less than 3.2 and 3.7 AU exceeded 0.1 and 2.6 Myr, respectively.

Most of the collisions of former JCOs with the Earth were from orbits with aphelia inside Jupiter’s orbit. The probability of collisions with the Earth for 3 former JCOs, each of which moved for more than 1 Myr in Earth-crossing orbits (mainly with $`Q`$$`<`$4.7 AU) was 1.5 times greater than that for the other 1997 JCOs. About 1 of 300 JCOs collided with the Sun. In  we considered a much smaller number of objects, which didn’t get aphelia inside Jupiter’s orbit and the values of $`P_r`$ and $`T`$ were smaller than those in the Table. For 2000 JCOs we consider, the mean probability of collisions with Venus is about the same as with Earth, and that with Mars is smaller by a factor of 3. These values are mainly due to a few bodies that moved during more than 1 Myr in orbits with aphelia deep inside Jupiter’s orbit (for such bodies usually more than 80% of collisions with planets were from orbits with $`Q`$$`<`$4.2 AU). If we consider 1000 JCOs, for which most of the collisions with planets were from orbits with $`Q`$$`>`$4.2 AU, then the mean probability for Venus and Mars is less by a factor of 1.6 and 3, respectively, than that for Earth. Therefore, the ratio of the total mass of icy planetesimals that migrated from the feeding zone of the giant planets and collided with the planet to the mass of this planet was greater for Mars than that for Earth and Venus.

The mean time during which an object crossed Jupiter’s orbit was 0.13 Myr for 2500 JCOs. An object had period $`P_a`$$`<`$10 yr usually only during about 12% of this time, so we think that our consideration of initial objects with only $`P_a`$$`<`$10 yr does not influence much on the obtained results. At $`N`$$`=`$2000 for $`10`$$`<`$$`P_a`$$`<`$20, $`20`$$`<`$$`P_a`$$`<`$50, $`50`$$`<`$$`P_a`$$`<`$200 yr, we got 23%, 22% and 16%, respectively. One former JCO spent some time in orbits with aphelia deep inside Jupiter’s orbit, and then it moved for tens of Myr in the trans-Neptunian region, partly in low eccentricity and partly in high eccentricity orbits. This result shows that some bodies can get from the MAB into the trans-Neptunian region, and that typical TNOs can become scattered objects (with high eccentricities) and vice versa.

## 3 COLLISIONS WITH THE EARTH

The number of TNOs migrating to the inner regions of the Solar System can be evaluated on the basis of simple formulas and the results of numerical integration. Let $`N_J`$$`=`$$`p_{JN}P_NN_{TNO}`$ be the number of former TNOs with $`d`$$`>`$$`D`$ reaching Jupiter’s orbit for the given time span $`T_{SS}`$, where $`N_{TNO}`$ is the number of TNOs with $`d`$$`>`$$`D`$; $`P_N`$ is the fraction of TNOs leaving the EKB and migrating to Neptune’s orbit during $`T_{SS}`$; and $`p_{JN}`$ is the fraction of Neptune-crossing objects which reach Jupiter’s orbit for their lifetimes. Then the current number of Jupiter-crossers that originated in the zone with $`30`$$`<`$$`a`$$`<`$50 AU equals $`N_{Jn}`$$`=`$$`N_J\mathrm{\Delta }t_J/T_{SS}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_J`$ is the average time during which the object crosses Jupiter’s orbit. According to , the fraction $`P_N`$ of TNOs that left this zone during $`T_{SS}`$$`=`$4 Gyr under the influence of the giant planets is 0.1-0.2 and $`p_{JN}`$$`=`$0.34. As mutual gravitational influence of TNOs also takes place , we take $`P_N`$$`=`$0.2. Hence, at $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_J`$$`=`$0.13 Myr and $`N_{TNO}`$$`=`$$`10^{10}`$ ($`d`$$`>`$1 km), we have $`N_{Jn}`$$`=`$$`210^4`$. The number of former TNOs now moving in Earth-crossing orbits equals $`N_E`$$`=`$$`N_{Jn}T/\mathrm{\Delta }t_J`$. The characteristic time $`T_{cN}`$ between collisions of former TNOs with the Earth is $`T/(N_{Jn}P)`$. For $`T`$$`=`$0.014 Myr and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_J`$$`=`$0.13 Myr, we have $`N_E`$$`=`$2150 and $`T_{cN}`$$``$0.1 Myr. $`N_E`$ is larger than the estimated number $`N_{Ee}`$ of Earth-crossers with $`d`$$`>`$1 km (750), and $`T_c`$$`=`$$`T/P`$ is larger than the characteristic time $`T_{co}`$$``$100 Myr elapsed till a collision with the Earth obtained for fixed orbits of the observed NEOs. Such difference can be caused by the fact that it is difficult to observe NEOs with high $`e`$ and $`i`$ and $`N_{Ee}`$ doesn’t include such NEOs. It may be also probable that the number of 1-km TNOs is smaller than $`10^{10}`$. As comets can get NEO and asteroidal orbits, a considerable portion of dust produced by NEOs and even some dust produced in the MAB can be of comet origin.

The total mass of water delivered to the Earth during the formation of the giant planets is $`M_w`$$`=`$$`M_JP_{JE}k_i`$, where $`M_J`$ is the total mass of planetesimals from the feeding zones of these planets that became Jupiter-crossers during evolution, $`P_{JE}`$ is a probability $`P`$ of a collision of a former JCO with the Earth during its lifetime, and $`k_i`$ is the portion of water ices in the planetesimals. For $`M_J`$$`=`$$`100m_{}`$, $`k_i`$$`=`$0.5, and $`P_{JE}`$$`=`$$`6.6510^6`$, we have $`M_w`$$`=`$$`3.310^4m_{}`$. This value is greater by a factor of 1.5 than the mass of the Earth oceans. The mass of water delivered to Venus can be of the same order of magnitude and that delivered to Mars can be less by a factor of 3. Some TNOs with $`a`$$`>`$50 AU can also migrate to the orbits of Jupiter and Earth. Collisions of comets with small bodies and nongravitational forces can decrease $`Q`$. Asher et al.  showed that the rate at which objects may be decoupled from Jupiter and attain orbits like NEOs is increased by a factor of four or five, if nongravitational forces are included as impulsive effects. So the values of $`P_r`$ and $`T`$ can be larger than those in the Table. Rickman et al.  also concluded that comets play an important role among all km-sized impactors. As it is easier to destroy icy bodies than stone or metal bodies, the portion of TNOs among NEOs for bodies with $`d`$$`<`$100 m may be greater than that for 1-km bodies. In future, when people will make settlements on the Moon and terrestrial planets, small icy comets can be move by rockets to the orbits around these celestial bodies in order to be sources of water.

This work was supported by INTAS (00-240), RFBR (01-02-17540), and NASA (NAG5-10776).


text:
# I. Introduction

## I. Introduction

Orientifold planes (O-planes) as well as D-branes are important objects to reveal non-perturbative effects in unoriented string theory. Recent studies on open-string tachyon condensation have shown that background fields can control the dimensions of D-branes.111 See, for example, Refs.  for recent reviews on the related topics. The relationship between the dimensions of the D-branes and the configuration of the background open-string fields is easily understood from the viewpoint of the worldsheet; the background fields on the boundaries can alter the boundary conditions on the worldsheet. On the other hand, the relationship between the properties of O-planes and background fields has not been understood well as yet.

In the present work, we investigate the connection between the dimensions of O-planes and the configuration of the background dilaton field, in unoriented bosonic string theory. An O-plane is represented as a crosscap on an $`RP^2`$ worldsheet while a D-brane is represented as a boundary on a disc. Therefore we consider an $`RP^2`$ worldsheet in the presence of the background dilatons. The reason we consider dilatons is based on the following property. Dilatons couple to the worldsheet curvature and their contribution can be put on any part of the worldsheet in general. However, we show that the contribution of the background dilatons localizes on the crosscap if we choose the gauge in which the worldsheet curvature vanishes in the bulk of the fundamental region of the $`RP^2`$. This choice of gauge is nice; the bulk part of the $`RP^2`$ becomes free and all the interactions from the background dilatons appear only on the crosscap. Therefore the effects of the background dilatons can be translated into the modification of the crosscap conditions.

We introduce a new crosscap state which we refer to as an off-shell crosscap state in order to analyze the properties of the $`RP^2`$ worldsheet. Of course, O-planes couple to only closed strings and we do not have open-string modes on the $`RP^2`$ worldsheet. Useful tools to analyze the properties of worldsheets in terms of closed-string modes are boundary states and crosscap states . Usually, boundary states and crosscap states belong to the closed-string sector which preserves conformal invariance on the worldsheet. Extensions of these boundary states which do not in general maintain conformal invariance have been proposed recently . (See also .) We call them off-shell boundary states in the present article. The off-shell boundary state interpolates between the usual on-shell boundary states and their T-duals. This state is defined on a disc worldsheet with quadratic boundary interactions. The dimension of the corresponding D-brane is controlled by the coupling constants of these interactions. Boundary string field theory (BSFT)  states that the coupling constants also parameterize the configuration of open-string tachyons . Calculating the disc partition function by using these states enables us to obtain the descent relation among the D-brane tensions if we take appropriate on-shell limits of the partition functions.

An attempt to apply the foregoing idea to crosscap states is given in Ref. , in which the definition of the off-shell crosscap state which interpolates the usual on-shell crosscap states and their T-duals has been proposed. We present an explicit representation of the off-shell crosscap state in the present work. We define the off-shell crosscap state on an $`RP^2`$ worldsheet in the presence of quadratic interactions on the crosscap. The dimension of the corresponding O-plane is controlled by the coupling constants of these interactions. The physical meaning of the quadratic interactions on the crosscap is the background dilaton field of quadratic configuration. The behaviour of the off-shell crosscap state shows that the background dilatons control the dimension of the O-plane.

The off-shell crosscap state is a useful tool to obtain correlation functions on the $`RP^2`$ worldsheet in the presence of the quadratic dilatons on the crosscap. The exact partition function of the $`RP^2`$ worldsheet which is considered to be proportional to the O-plane tension can be calculated exactly by using the two-point function. We show that the condensation of the dilatons of quadratic profile reproduces the correct descent relation among O-plane tensions by taking appropriate on-shell limits of the partition function. Note that we have not attempted to find the dynamical origin of the dilaton condensation.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2, we construct the $`RP^2`$ worldsheet on a complex plane and we show that the contribution of the background dilatons survives on the crosscap alone if we choose the gauge in which the worldsheet curvature vanishes in the bulk of the fundamental region of the $`RP^2`$. In Sec. 3 we define the off-shell crosscap state and we obtain its explicit representation. We find that the behaviour of this state signifies that a non-trivial dilaton condensation alters the dimensions of O-planes. We calculate the partition function of the $`RP^2`$ by using the off-shell crosscap state. In Sec. 4, we verify that the non-trivial dilaton condensation reproduces the correct descent relation of O-plane tensions, by taking appropriate limits of the partition function of the $`RP^2`$ worldsheet. In the final section, we summarize the results of this study. We make comments on some relationship between the $`RP^2`$ worldsheet and the supersymmetric disc worldsheet which appears in the analysis of $`D\overline{D}`$ systems in Appendix.

## II. $`RP^2`$ worldsheet with background dilatons

Let us consider an $`RP^2`$ worldsheet with background dilaton field. We show, in this section, that the contribution of the background dilatons localizes on the crosscap if we choose the gauge in which the worldsheet curvature in the bulk of the fundamental region of the $`RP^2`$ vanishes.

$`RP^2`$ is a non-orientable Riemann surface of Euler number one with no hole, no boundary and one crosscap. We construct the $`RP^2`$ worldsheet on a complex $`z`$-plane by using an involution where we identify $`z`$ and $`\frac{1}{\overline{z}}`$ on the complex plane. We choose the fundamental region $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to be $`\{z=re^{i\sigma }|0r<1,0\sigma <2\pi \}\{z=re^{i\sigma }|r=1,0\sigma <\pi \}`$. The crosscap $`𝒞`$, the non-trivial closed loop of the $`RP^2`$ worldsheet, is represented as half of unit circle $`\{z=re^{i\sigma }|r=1,0\sigma <\pi \}`$ in this case.

To begin with, we set the metric inside the unit circle ($`|z|1`$) on the complex plane as

$`h_{zz}=h_{\overline{z}\overline{z}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`h_{\overline{z}z}=h_{z\overline{z}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}.`$ (2.1)
The metric outside the unit circle ($`|z^{}|1`$) is obtained by the involution $`z^{}=\frac{1}{\overline{z}}`$, $`\overline{z}^{}=\frac{1}{z}`$ as

$`h_{z^{}\overline{z}^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{z}}{z^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{z}{\overline{z}^{}}}h_{\overline{z}z}`$ (2.2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(z^{}\overline{z}^{})^2}}h_{\overline{z}z}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^4}}h_{\overline{z}z},`$
where $`r^2=z^{}\overline{z}^{}`$ for $`r1`$. Therefore the metric on the entire complex plane can be written as

$`h_{zz}=h_{\overline{z}\overline{z}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`h_{\overline{z}z}=h_{z\overline{z}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^\rho ,`$ (2.3)
where

$`\rho (r)=(4\mathrm{ln}r)\theta (r1).`$ (2.4)
Next, we rewrite the metric in the polar coordinate $`(r,\sigma )`$ as

$`g_{ab}=\widehat{g}_{ab}e^\rho ,`$ (2.5)
where $`\widehat{g}_{rr}=1,\widehat{g}_{\sigma \sigma }=r^2,\widehat{g}_{\sigma r}=\widehat{g}_{r\sigma }=0`$. The worldsheet curvature $`R`$ is then given by

$`\sqrt{g}R`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\widehat{}^2\rho (r)=r\left(_{r}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}_r\right)\rho (r)`$ (2.6)
$`=`$ $`4\left\{\delta ^{}(r1)r\mathrm{ln}r+(2+\mathrm{ln}r)\delta (r1)\right\}.`$
Let us calculate the integral $`_{\mathrm{\Sigma }(ϵ)}𝑑r𝑑\sigma \sqrt{g}R\mathrm{\Phi }(r,\sigma )`$. We define the integral region $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(ϵ)`$ as $`\{z=re^{i\sigma }|0r1+ϵ,0\sigma <\pi \}\{z=re^{i\sigma }|0r1ϵ,\pi \sigma <2\pi \}`$, where $`ϵ`$ is a positive real number. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(ϵ)`$ becomes the fundamental region $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of the $`RP^2`$ after we take the limit $`ϵ0`$. We obtain

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Sigma }(ϵ)}}𝑑r𝑑\sigma \sqrt{g}R\mathrm{\Phi }(r,\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma {\displaystyle _0^{1+ϵ}}𝑑r\sqrt{g}R\mathrm{\Phi }(r,\sigma )+{\displaystyle _\pi ^{2\pi }}𝑑\sigma {\displaystyle _0^{1ϵ}}𝑑r\sqrt{g}R\mathrm{\Phi }(r,\sigma )`$ (2.7)
$`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma {\displaystyle _0^{1+ϵ}}𝑑r\left\{\delta ^{}(r1)r\mathrm{ln}r+(2+\mathrm{ln}r)\delta (r1)\right\}\mathrm{\Phi }(r,\sigma )`$
$`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}\{r\mathrm{ln}r\mathrm{\Phi }(r,\sigma )\}|_{r=1}+2\mathrm{\Phi }(1,\sigma )\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }(1,\sigma ),`$
which yields

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}𝑑r𝑑\sigma \sqrt{g}R\mathrm{\Phi }(r,\sigma )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }(1,\sigma ).`$ (2.8)
Note that (2.8) gives the correct Euler number of the $`RP^2`$ (which is one) if we set $`\mathrm{\Phi }=1`$. Therefore the contribution of the background dilaton concentrates on the crosscap with the above gauge choice.

## III. Off-shell crosscap state

In this section, we define the off-shell crosscap state and obtain its explicit representation. We apply the off-shell crosscap state to calculate the correlation functions and the partition function of the $`RP^2`$ worldsheet with quadratic background dilaton field. We find that the behaviour of the off-shell crosscap state signifies that a non-trivial dilaton condensation alters the dimensions of O-planes.

### A. Off-shell crosscap conditions

Let us consider an $`RP^2`$ worldsheet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with the following action:

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}d^2zX^\mu \overline{}X_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _𝒞}𝑑\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma ),`$ (3.1)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu =1}{\overset{26}{}}}u_\mu (X^\mu (\sigma ))^2,`$ (3.2)
where the interaction $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma )`$ is inserted only on crosscap $`𝒞`$. Note that the worldsheet action is free in the “bulk” region $`\{z=re^{i\sigma }|0r<1,0\sigma <2\pi \}`$. A closed string propagates freely in the “bulk” toward the crosscap, from the viewpoint of the closed-string channel. In this sense, $`X^\mu `$ in the “bulk” can be expanded as

$`X^\mu (z,\overline{z})=X_0^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha ^{}}{2}}p^\mu \mathrm{ln}(z\overline{z})+i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}\left(\alpha _n^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{z^n}{n}}+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\overline{z}^n}{n}}\right).`$ (3.3)
The existence of the crosscap, however, makes constraints on the oscillation of the closed string in the neighborhood of the crosscap (in the region $`r1`$). For example, the constraints when we have no interaction on $`𝒞`$ are given in Ref.  as

$`\left\{X^\mu (z,\overline{z})X^\mu (1/\overline{z},1/z)\right\}|_{r1}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\left\{\dot{X^\mu }(z,\overline{z})+\dot{X^\mu }(1/\overline{z},1/z)\right\}|_{r1}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3.4)
where

$`\dot{X^\mu }(z,\overline{z})`$ $``$ $`(w_w+\overline{w}\overline{}_{\overline{w}})X^\mu (w,\overline{w})|_{w=z,\overline{w}=\overline{z}},`$
$`\dot{X^\mu }(1/\overline{z},1/z)`$ $``$ $`(w_w+\overline{w}\overline{}_{\overline{w}})X^\mu (w,\overline{w})|_{w=1/\overline{z},\overline{w}=1/z}.`$ (3.5)
Note that (3.4) are equivalent to the following constraints:

$`K_0(z,\overline{z})|_{r1}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\left\{(z_z+\overline{z}\overline{}_{\overline{z}})K_0(z,\overline{z})\right\}|_{r1}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3.6)
where

$`K_0(z,\overline{z})`$ $``$ $`\dot{X}^\mu (z,\overline{z})+\dot{X}^\mu (1/\overline{z},1/z).`$ (3.7)
These conditions are rewritten in terms of closed-string modes at $`r1`$ as

$`\alpha _n^\mu +(1)^n\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`p^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (3.8)
The conditions (3.4), (3.6) or (3.8) are referred to as (on-shell) crosscap conditions.

The aim of this subsection is to extend the on-shell crosscap conditions into the case $`u_\mu 0`$. We should find, in other words, the constraints on the closed-string modes in the neighborhood of $`𝒞`$ in the presence of interaction $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. We call these constraints off-shell crosscap conditions. We assert that the off-shell crosscap conditions can be written as

$`K(z,\overline{z})|_{r1}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\left\{(z_z+\overline{z}\overline{}_{\overline{z}})K(z,\overline{z})\right\}|_{r1}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3.9)
where

$`K(z,\overline{z})`$ $``$ $`\dot{X}^\mu (z,\overline{z})+\dot{X}^\mu (1/\overline{z},1/z)+u_\mu \{X^\mu (z,\overline{z})+X^\mu (1/\overline{z},1/z)\}`$ (3.10)
$`=`$ $`\left\{(w_w+\overline{w}\overline{}_{\overline{w}})X^\mu (w,\overline{w})+u_\mu X^\mu (w,\overline{w})\right\}|_{w=z,\overline{w}=\overline{z}}`$
$`+\left\{(w_w+\overline{w}\overline{}_{\overline{w}})X^\mu (w,\overline{w})+u_\mu X^\mu (w,\overline{w})\right\}|_{w=1/\overline{z},\overline{w}=1/z}.`$
The right-hand side of (3.10) indicates the meaning of the off-shell crosscap conditions; (3.9) are the conditions so that the $`X^\mu `$ in the neighborhood of $`𝒞`$, as well as its image by the involution, connects smoothly with the $`X^\mu `$ on $`𝒞`$ which obeys

$`\left\{(z_z+\overline{z}\overline{}_{\overline{z}})X^\mu (z,\overline{z})+u_\mu X^\mu (z,\overline{z})\right\}|_𝒞=0,`$ (3.11)
given by varying the worldsheet action (3.1).222 Although $`RP^2`$ has no boundary, $`(z_z+\overline{z}\overline{}_{\overline{z}})X^\mu (z,\overline{z})`$ which comes from the total derivative survives only on the crosscap due to the involution.

The off-shell crosscap conditions (3.9) are rewritten in terms of closed-string modes as

$`\{\alpha _n^\mu +(1)^n\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^\mu \}+{\displaystyle \frac{u_\mu }{n}}\{\alpha _n^\mu (1)^n\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^\mu \}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`i\alpha ^{}p^\mu +u_\mu X_0^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3.12)
where we do not sum over $`\mu `$. We can easily check that the conditions (3.12) gives the on-shell crosscap conditions (3.8) in the limit $`u^\mu 0`$. We also note that (3.12), in the limit $`u^\mu \mathrm{}`$, becomes equivalent to the T-dual of (3.8),

$`\alpha _n^\mu (1)^n\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`X_0^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3.13)
which are rewritten as the T-dual of (3.4):

$`\left\{X^\mu (z,\overline{z})+X^\mu (1/\overline{z},1/z)\right\}|_{r1}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\left\{\dot{X^\mu }(z,\overline{z})\dot{X^\mu }(1/\overline{z},1/z)\right\}|_{r1}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (3.14)
Note that the conditions (3.9) in the limit $`u^\mu \mathrm{}`$ is (3.14) itself. Therefore the off-shell crosscap conditions (3.9) or (3.12) naturally interpolate between on-shell crosscap conditions and their T-duals. The coupling constant $`u^\mu `$, which is a parameter of the configuration of the background dilaton field, controls the dimension of the corresponding O-plane.

### B. Off-shell crosscap state and partition function

We define off-shell crosscap state $`C(𝒖)|`$ using the off-shell crosscap conditions as

$`C(𝒖)|\left\{\{\alpha _n^\mu +(1)^n\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^\mu \}+{\displaystyle \frac{u_\mu }{n}}\{\alpha _n^\mu (1)^n\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^\mu \}\right\}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`C(𝒖)|\left\{i\alpha ^{}p^\mu +u_\mu X_0^\mu \right\}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (3.15)
The explicit form of $`C(𝒖)|`$ is given as

$`C(𝒖)|`$ $`=`$ $`0|𝒞(𝒖),`$
$`𝒞(𝒖)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}X_0^\mu A_{\mu \nu }X_0^\nu \right)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_m^\mu C_{\mu \nu }^{(m)}\alpha _m^\nu \right),`$ (3.16)
where

$`A_{\mu \nu }A(u_\mu )\delta _{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}}u_\mu \delta _{\mu \nu },C_{\mu \nu }^{(m)}C^{(m)}(u_\mu )\delta _{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{(1)^m}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{mu_\mu }{m+u_\mu }}\delta _{\mu \nu }.`$ (3.17)
We can easily check that this off-shell crosscap state becomes (the T-dual of) the usual on-shell crosscap state if we take the limit $`u^\mu 0`$ ($`u^\mu \mathrm{}`$). Therefore the off-shell crosscap state naturally interpolates between the crosscap state for a higher-dimensional O-plane and that for a lower-dimensional O-plane.

Next, we show that the off-shell crosscap state is a useful tool to evaluate the quantities on the $`RP^2`$ worldsheet. For example, we can calculate the Green’s function and the partition function on the $`RP^2`$ worldsheet in the presence of interaction $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma )`$ on the crosscap. Let us consider one-dimensional target space and omit the superscript $`\mu `$ of $`X`$ and $`u`$ for simplicity. The Green’s function for this case is given as

$`G(z,w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C(u)|X(z,\overline{z})X(w,\overline{w})|0}{C(u)|0}}`$ (3.18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}\mathrm{ln}|zw|^2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}\mathrm{ln}|1+z\overline{w}|^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{u}}\alpha ^{}u{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k(k+u)}}\left[(z\overline{w})^k+(\overline{z}w)^k\right].`$
In the case $`z=e^{i\sigma }`$ and $`w=e^{i\sigma ^{}}`$, we obtain

$`G(e^{i\sigma },e^{i\sigma ^{}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}\mathrm{ln}|1e^{i(\sigma \sigma ^{})}|^2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}\mathrm{ln}|1+e^{i(\sigma \sigma ^{})}|^2`$ (3.19)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{u}}\alpha ^{}u{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^k}{k(k+u)}}\left[e^{ik(\sigma \sigma ^{})}+e^{ik(\sigma \sigma ^{})}\right].`$
We define composite operator $`X^2(\sigma )`$ as shown in Ref. :

$`X^2(\sigma )`$ $``$ $`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\left(X(\sigma )X(\sigma +ϵ)f(ϵ)\right),`$
$`f(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}\mathrm{ln}|1e^{iϵ}|^2+(\text{const.}).`$ (3.20)
We write the constant in (3.20) as $`\alpha ^{}\mathrm{ln}q`$ by using a positive constant $`q`$. The value for $`q`$ is ambiguous at this stage and depends on the renormalization scheme. We will determine the value for $`q`$ later. We can then obtain

$`X^2(\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}\mathrm{ln}2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{u}}2\alpha ^{}u{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^k}{k(k+u)}}\alpha ^{}\mathrm{ln}q`$ (3.21)
$`=`$ $`\alpha ^{}\mathrm{ln}(2q){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{u}}2\alpha ^{}\left[\mathrm{\Psi }\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }(u)\right],`$
where

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(u){\displaystyle \frac{\frac{d}{du}\mathrm{\Gamma }(u)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(u)}}`$ (3.22)
is a polygamma function for which we have used the relationship

$`u{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^k}{k(k+u)}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{u}}+\mathrm{\Psi }\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }(u).`$ (3.23)
We can next calculate the partition function of the $`RP^2`$ worldsheet by using the following relationship:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{du}}\mathrm{ln}Z(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma X^2(\sigma )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha ^{}}}X^2(\sigma )`$ (3.24)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha ^{}}}\left\{\alpha ^{}\mathrm{ln}(2q){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{u}}2\alpha ^{}\left[\mathrm{\Psi }\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }(u)\right]\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{\mathrm{ln}(2q)+{\displaystyle \frac{d}{du}}\mathrm{ln}u+2\left[2{\displaystyle \frac{d}{du}}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{d}{du}}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Gamma }(u)\right]\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{du}}\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2q}^u\sqrt{u}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{u}{2}\right)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(u)}}+\text{const.}\right).`$
We then obtain

$`Z(u)={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2q}^u\sqrt{u}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{u}{2})^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(u)}},`$ (3.25)
up to the overall normalization factor. In general, the partition function for 26-dimensional target space with the interaction (3.2) on the crosscap can be written as

$`Z(a,𝒖)`$ $``$ $`e^aZ(𝒖)e^a{\displaystyle \underset{\mu =1}{\overset{26}{}}}Z(u_\mu )`$ (3.26)
$`=`$ $`e^a{\displaystyle \underset{\mu =1}{\overset{26}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2q}^{u_\mu }\sqrt{u_\mu }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{u_\mu }{2})^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(u_\mu )}}\right),`$
up to the overall normalization factor. We note that the partition function (3.26) on the $`RP^2`$ has an identical representation with the partition function on the supersymmetric disc worldsheet which have been considered in the analysis of open-string tachyon condensation in $`D\overline{D}`$ systems . We present some comments on the relationship between the $`RP^2`$ worldsheet and the supersymmetric disc worldsheet in Appendix.

## IV. Derivation of the descent relation among O-plane tensions

In this section, we clarify the physical meaning of the partition function calculated in the previous section. We show that the condensation of the quadratic dilaton field reproduces the correct descent relation among the O-plane tensions.

### A. Sigma model approach and $`RP^2`$ worldsheet

Let us consider our work from the viewpoint of the sigma model approach. The basic idea of the sigma model approach is that the spacetime action for string fields is essentially the renormalized partition function of the worldsheet with corresponding background string fields. In this sense, the spacetime action $`S`$ for string field $`\lambda _i`$ may be given as

$`S(\lambda _i)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\chi }{}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_\chi }}[dg_{ab}][dX^\mu ]e^{I_\chi (g_{ab},X^\mu ;\lambda _i)}`$ (4.1)
$`=`$ $`Z_{sphere}(\lambda _i)+\{Z_{disc}(\lambda _i)+Z_{RP^2}(\lambda _i)\}+\mathrm{},`$
where $`I_\chi `$ is the action on the worldsheet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\chi `$ of the Euler number $`\chi `$. Leading term $`Z_{sphere}(\lambda _i)`$ is the renormalized partition function on the sphere. This term is of order $`g_o^2`$ where $`g_o`$ is the open-string coupling constant. Renormalized partition functions $`Z_{disc}(\lambda _i)`$ on the disc and $`Z_{RP^2}(\lambda _i)`$ on the $`RP^2`$ are the loop correction terms of order $`g_o^1`$. In principle, $`Z_{disc}(\lambda _i)`$ is proportional to the tension of the corresponding D-brane and $`Z_{RP^2}(\lambda _i)`$ is proportional to the tension of the corresponding O-plane.

It is known, however, that the right-hand side of (4.1) does not give the correct spacetime action; we need modification of $`Z_{sphere}(\lambda _i)`$ and $`Z_{disc}(\lambda _i)`$ 333 We need not modify $`Z_{disc}(\lambda _i)`$ in superstring theory since the volume of the super-Möbius group of the super-disc is finite .  in order to obtain the correct off-shell spacetime action. These modifications are closely related to the infinite Möbius volume of the worldsheets; we need to subtract the divergence from the Möbius infinity . (See also .)

The situation is different for $`Z_{RP^2}(\lambda _i)`$ (and for the partition functions of the worldsheets of $`\chi 0`$). We should note that the Möbius group of $`RP^2`$ is $`SO(3)`$ whose volume is finite, and we have no Möbius infinity from the $`RP^2`$ worldsheet. Therefore it is natural to assume that partition function $`Z_{RP^2}(\lambda _i)`$ itself is the exact loop correction term from the $`RP^2`$ graph. We have calculated the partition function (3.26) on the $`RP^2`$ worldsheet in the presence of quadratic background dilaton field $`\mathrm{\Phi }=a+(2\alpha ^{})^1_\mu u_\mu X_\mu ^2`$ on the crosscap. We have fixed the worldsheet metric so that the “bulk” part of the fundamental region of the $`RP^2`$ becomes flat and the contribution of the dilatons concentrates on the crosscap. Therefore we have to calculate the contribution of the ghost field and the anti-ghost field on the $`RP^2`$ worldsheet in order to obtain the correct overall normalization of (3.26). We write this overall factor $`A`$ and then we have the following relationship:

$`Z_{RP^2}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ $`=`$ $`Ae^a{\displaystyle \underset{\mu =1}{\overset{26}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2q}^{u_\mu }\sqrt{u_\mu }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{u_\mu }{2})^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(u_\mu )}}\right)`$ (4.2)
$``$ $`Z_{RP^2}(a,𝒖).`$
The sign of A should be minus. Note that factor $`e^a`$ is equal to $`g_o^1`$ when the dilaton is constant.

### B. Asymptotic behaviour of $`Z(u)`$

Let us rewrite $`Z(u)`$ given in (3.25) as

$`Z(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2q}^u\sqrt{u}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{u}{2})^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(u)}}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{\sqrt{u}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{q}{2}}\right)^{\frac{u}{2}}F\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}\right),`$ (4.3)
where we have defined function $`F(x)`$ as

$`F(x){\displaystyle \frac{4^xx\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)^2}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(2x)}}.`$ (4.4)
$`F(x)`$ behaves as follows:

$`F(x)`$ $``$ $`1+(2\mathrm{ln}2)x+O(x^2)(x0),`$ (4.5)
$`F(x)`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{\pi x}+O(x^{\frac{1}{2}})(x\mathrm{}).`$ (4.6)
$`Z(u)`$ around $`u=0`$ is then

$`Z(u)`$ $``$ $`4\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{u}}}\right)+O(\sqrt{u}).`$ (4.7)
Thus, $`Z(u)`$ diverges when $`u`$ approaches $`0`$. This is an IR divergence which corresponds to the volume of the spacetime.

On the other hand $`Z(u)`$ around $`u=\mathrm{}`$ is

$`Z(u)`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{q}{2}}\right)^{\frac{u}{2}}\left\{4\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}}+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{u}}}\right)\right\}.`$ (4.8)
We can obtain a finite and non-zero value of $`Z(u)`$ in the limit $`u\mathrm{}`$ if and only if $`q=2`$. Therefore we assign the value $`2`$ to $`q`$. In other words, we have chosen the renormalization scheme in (3.20) so that we can obtain a finite and non-zero value of $`Z(u)`$ in the limit $`u\mathrm{}`$. $`Z(u)`$ is then

$`Z(u)={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{4}^u\sqrt{u}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{u}{2})^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(u)}}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{\sqrt{u}}}F\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}\right),`$ (4.9)
up to the overall normalization factor and

$`Z_{RP^2}(\text{a,}𝒖)=Ae^a{\displaystyle \underset{\mu =1}{\overset{26}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{\sqrt{u_\mu }}}F\left({\displaystyle \frac{u_\mu }{2}}\right)\right).`$ (4.10)
### C. Ratio of the O-plane tensions

Let us define quantity $`S_p`$ as follows:

$`Z_{RP^2}(\text{a,}𝒖)S_p,`$ (4.11)
where the limit is taken as

$`u^1,\mathrm{},u^{p+1}`$ $``$ $`0,`$
$`u^{p+2},\mathrm{},u^{26}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{}.`$ (4.12)
We do not touch the parameter $`a`$ in this subsection. According to the argument in the previous section, $`S_p`$ is equal to $`V_p\times T_p`$ where $`V_p`$ and $`T_p`$ are the volume and tension of an O$`p`$-plane. Here, the dimension of the O-plane is $`p+1`$ and is defined as the number of parameters $`u^\mu `$ which are taken to zero. We can thus write

$`S_{25}`$ $`=`$ $`Z_{RP^2}(u_{25}0,u_i0)={\displaystyle 𝑑x^{25}V_{24}T_{25}},`$
$`S_{24}`$ $`=`$ $`Z_{RP^2}(u_{25}\mathrm{},u_i0)=V_{24}T_{24},`$ (4.13)
where $`i25`$. Then

$`{\displaystyle \frac{S_{25}}{S_{24}}}={\displaystyle \frac{Z(u_{25}0)}{Z(u_{25}\mathrm{})}}={\displaystyle \frac{𝑑x^{25}T_{25}}{T_{24}}},`$ (4.14)
where $`Z(u)`$ is given in (4.9). We can rewrite $`Z(u_{25})`$ as

$`Z(u_{25})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\sqrt{u_{25}}}}F\left({\displaystyle \frac{u_{25}}{2}}\right)`$ (4.15)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x^{25}e^{\frac{1}{2\alpha ^{}}u_{25}(x^{25})^2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}\pi }}4F\left(\frac{u_{25}}{2}\right)},`$
where $`x^{25}`$ is the zero mode of $`X^{25}`$. In the second line, we have explicitly rewritten the integral of the zero-mode part of $`Z(u_{25})`$ . (This corresponds to $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{u_{25}}}`$.) We can therefore obtain

$`\underset{u_{25}0}{lim}Z(u_{25})=\underset{u_{25}0}{lim}{\displaystyle 𝑑x^{25}e^{\frac{1}{2\alpha ^{}}u_{25}(x^{25})^2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}\pi }}4F\left(\frac{u_{25}}{2}\right)}={\displaystyle 𝑑x^{25}\frac{4}{\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}\pi }}1}.`$ (4.16)
We can also obtain

$`\underset{u_{25}\mathrm{}}{lim}Z(u_{25})`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{u_{25}\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\sqrt{u_{25}}}}F\left({\displaystyle \frac{u_{25}}{2}}\right)=\underset{u_{25}\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\sqrt{u_{25}}}}\left(\sqrt{\pi {\displaystyle \frac{u_{25}}{2}}}+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{u_{25}}}}\right)\right)`$ (4.17)
$`=`$ $`4\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}}.`$
Therefore

$`{\displaystyle \frac{T_{24}}{T_{25}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}\pi }}{4}}4\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}}=\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}}.`$ (4.18)
This is precisely the ratio of the tension of an O$`24`$-plane and that of an O$`25`$-plane. In general, we can show in a similar manner that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{T_p}{T_q}}=\left(\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}}\right)^{qp}.`$ (4.19)
## V. Conclusion

We have considered the relationship between the configuration of the background dilaton field and the dimensions of the O-planes. We showed that the contribution of the dilatons on the $`RP^2`$ worldsheet localizes on the crosscap if we choose the gauge in which the worldsheet curvature in the “bulk” vanishes. This feature enables us to treat dilatons quite easily. We have proposed the off-shell crosscap state which naturally interpolates between the usual crosscap states and their T-duals. The behaviour of the off-shell crosscap state signifies that the non-trivial dilaton condensation alters the dimensions of O-planes. We obtained the correlation functions and partition function on the $`RP^2`$ worldsheet in the presence of the quadratic dilaton field on the crosscap. We showed that the non-trivial dilaton condensation reproduces the correct descent relation among O-plane tensions, by taking the on-shell limits of the partition function of the $`RP^2`$. We found the correspondence between the $`RP^2`$ worldsheet and the supersymmetric disc which is presented in Appendix.

We would like to make some comments. We have studied the effects of the non-trivial dilaton condensation on O-planes. In order to describe the full dynamics of dilatons, we would need open-closed string field theory 444 An unoriented open-closed string field theory has been proposed in Ref. . . Non-perturbative analysis would be necessary too. However the present work can be a step to understand the relationship between the condensation of string fields and the transmutations of O-planes. An extension of the present work into the supersymmetric case is interesting, and studying the relationship between our work and the properties of O-planes described by F-theory  is one further direction to pursue. Studying the relationship between the configuration of the dilatons and the O-planes in Type I’ theory  is also tempting. It has been shown that non-trivial configurations of dilatons constrain the spacetime positions of D-branes . Effects of the non-trivial dilaton condensation on D-branes are also interesting subjects to study. Recent studies have shown that the condensation of the closed-string tachyons in the twisted sector can alter the topology of the orbifolded spacetime . We expect that the present work can also be a step towards understanding the relationship between the topology of the spacetime and the configuration of the string fields, since the dimensions of O-planes are closely related to the topology of the orientifolded spacetime.

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank H. Kawai, T. Kugo, K. Murakami, T. Nakatsu, A. Tsuchiya and T. Yokono for fruitful discussions. We are grateful to Santo seminar for providing an opportunity for collaboration. S.N. wishes to thank M. Laidlaw, M. Rozali, and G. W. Semenoff for discussions and their hospitality during his stay at University of British Columbia.

## Appendix A

Correspondence between the $`RP^2`$ worldsheet and the supersymmetric disc worldsheet

We comment in this appendix on the relationship between the $`RP^2`$ worldsheet we have considered and the supersymmetric disc (super-disc) worldsheet which appears in the analysis of $`D\overline{D}`$ systems. Let us consider a unit disc $``$ ($`\{z=re^{i\sigma }|0r1,0\sigma <2\pi \}`$) with the following worldsheet action:

$`I_{superdisc}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _{}}d^2z\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\alpha ^{}}}X^\mu \overline{}X_\mu +\psi ^\mu \overline{}\psi _\mu +\stackrel{~}{\psi }^\mu \stackrel{~}{\psi }_\mu \right\}`$ (A.1)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _{}}𝑑\sigma y^\mu \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\alpha ^{}}}X_\mu ^2+(\psi ^\mu _\mu X^\rho ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{_\sigma }}(\psi ^\nu _\nu X_\rho )\right\}.`$
This action has been considered in the context of open-string tachyon condensation in $`D\overline{D}`$ systems . The partition function of the super-disc is obtained in Ref.  as

$`Z(𝒚){\displaystyle \underset{\mu =1}{\overset{26}{}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y^\mu }}}F(y^\mu ),`$ (A.2)
where function $`F(x)`$ has been defined in (4.4).

Therefore, the partition function (4.10) of the $`RP^2`$ worldsheet has an identical form to the partition function (A.2) of the super-disc. Comparing (4.10) and (A.2), we find the correspondence

$`{\displaystyle \frac{u^\mu }{2}}y^\mu .`$ (A.3)
At the level of integrated operators, we find the correspondence

$`O_{RP^2}O_{disc},`$ (A.4)
where

$`O_{RP^2}{\displaystyle _𝒞}𝑑\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{2}{\alpha ^{}}}X_\mu ^2(\sigma )`$ (A.5)
is an operator on the $`RP^2`$ and

$`O_{disc}(\sigma ){\displaystyle _{}}𝑑\sigma \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\alpha ^{}}}X_\mu ^2(\sigma )+(\psi ^\mu _\mu X^\rho ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{_\sigma }}(\psi ^\nu _\nu X_\rho )(\sigma )\right\}`$ (A.6)
is an operator on the super-disc. We should also note that the descent relation among D-brane tensions in the $`D\overline{D}`$ system can be obtained in the same manner as that we have shown in Sec. 4. The correspondence (A.4) can be explained from the calculation of $`X_\mu ^2`$ for the $`RP^2`$, in which we have an extra minus sign in the contributions from odd modes.555 See the third term of the first line on the right-hand side of (3.21). These contributions correspond to those of the fermions on the super-disc, while the even modes behave like the bosonic part on the super-disc.