text:
# Untitled Document

Some Unsettled Questions in the Problem of Neutrino Oscillations

Beshtoev Kh. M.

JINR, Dubna

Abstract

It is noted that the theory of neutrino oscillations can be constructed only in the framework of the particle physics theory, where is a mass shell conception and then transitions (oscillations) between neutrinos with equal masses are real and between neutrinos with different masses are virtual. It is necessary to solve the question: which type of neutrino transitions (oscillations) is realized in nature? There can be three types of neutrino transitions (oscillations). At present it is considered that Dirac and Majorana neutrino oscillations can be realized. It is shown that we cannot put Majorana neutrinos in the standard weak interactions theory without violation of the gauge invariance. Then it is obvious that there can be only realized transitions (oscillations) between Dirac neutrinos with different flowers. Also it is shown that the mechanism of resonance enhancement of neutrino oscillations in matter cannot be realized without violation of the law of energy-momentum conservation. Though it is supposed that we see neutrino oscillations in experiments, indeed there only transitions between neutrinos are registered. In order to register neutrino oscillations it is necessary to see second or even higher neutrino oscillation modes in experiments. For this purpose we can use the elliptic character of the Earth orbit. The analysis shows that the SNO experimental results do not confirm smallest of $`\nu _e\nu _\tau `$ transition angle mixings, which was obtained in CHOOZ experiment. It is also noted that there is contradiction between SNO, Super-Kamiokande, Homestake and the SAGE and GNO (GALLEX) data.

I. Introduction

The suggestion that, by analogy with $`K^o,\overline{K}^o`$ oscillations, there could be neutrino oscillations (i.e., that there could be neutrino-antineutrino oscillations $`\nu \overline{\nu }`$) was considered by Pontecorvo  in 1957. It was subsequently considered by Maki et al.  and Pontecorvo  that there could be mixings (and oscillation) of neutrinos of different aromas (i.e., $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ transitions).

The problem of solar neutrinos arose after the first experiment has been performed in order to measure the flux of neutrinos from the Sun by the $`{}_{}{}^{37}Cl^{37}Ar`$  method. The flux was found to be several times smaller than expected from calculations made in accordance with the standard solar model (SSM) . It was suggested in  that the solar neutrino deficit could be explained by Majorana neutrino oscillations. Subsequently, when the result of the experiment at Kamiokande  confirmed the existence of the deficit relative to the SSM calculations, one of the attractive approaches to the explanation of the solar neutrino deficit became resonant enhancement of neutrino oscillations in matter . Resonant enhancement of neutrino oscillations in matter was obtained from Wolfenstein’s equation for neutrinos in matter . It was noted in Ref.  that Wolfenstein’s equation for neutrinos in matter is an equation for neutrinos in matter in which they interact with matter not through the weak but through a hypothetical weak interaction that is left-right symmetric. Since only left components of neutrinos participate in the standard weak interactions, the results obtained from Wolfenstein’s equation have no direct relation to real neutrinos.

Later experimentalists obtained the first results on the Gran Sasso $`{}_{}{}^{71}Ga^{71}Ge`$ experiment , that within a $`3\sigma `$ limit did not disagree with the SSM calculations. The new data from the SAGE experiment  is fairly close to the Gran Sasso results.

After the discovery of neutrino transitions (oscillations) on Super-Kamiokande  and on SNO , it is necessary to analyze the situation, which arises in the problem of neutrino oscillations.

This work is devoted to discussion of some theoretical and experimental questions, which have been kept unsettled in the problem of neutrino oscillations. These are: construction of the correct neutrino oscillations theory; quest for the type of neutrino transitions (oscillations); determination of the concrete mechanism of neutrino transitions; real observation of the neutrino oscillations on experiments; solution of some contradictions in experiments (CHOOZ problem, inconsistency SNO, SK, Homestake and GNO, SAGE data).

II. THEORY

1. The Theory of Neutrino Oscillations

In the old theory of neutrino oscillations , constructed in the framework of Quantum Mechanics in analogy with the theory of $`K^o,\overline{K}^o`$ oscillation, it is supposed that mass eigenstates are $`\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3`$ neutrino states but not physical neutrino states $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$, and that the neutrinos $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ are created as superpositions of $`\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3`$ states. This means that the $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ neutrinos have no definite mass, i.e. their masses may vary in dependence on the $`\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3`$ admixture in the $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ states. On the example of $`K^o,\overline{K}^o`$ mesons (eigenstates of the strong interactions) we can well see that on the time $`10^{23}sec`$ (a typical time of the strong interactions) the $`K_1^o,K_2^o`$ mesons-eigenstates of the weak interactions cannot be created since its typical time is $`10^610^8sec`$. Naturally, in this case the law of conservation of the energy and the momentum of the neutrinos is not fulfilled. Besides, every particle must be created on its mass shell and it will be left on its mass shell while passing through vacuum. It is clear that this picture is incorrect.

In the modern theory on neutrino oscillations -, constructed in the framework of the particle physics theory, it is supposed that:

1) The physical states of the $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ neutrinos are eigenstates of the weak interaction and, naturally, the mass matrix of $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ neutrinos is diagonal. All the available experimental results indicate that the lepton numbers $`l_e,l_\mu ,l_\tau `$ are well conserved, i.e. the standard weak interactions do not violate the lepton numbers.

2) Then, in order to violate the lepton numbers, it is necessary to introduce an interaction violating these numbers. It is equivalent to introducing nonseasonal mass terms in the mass matrix of $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$. By diagonalizing this matrix, we go to the $`\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3`$ neutrino states. Exactly like it was in the case of $`K^o`$ mesons created in strong interactions, when mainly $`K^o,\overline{K}^o`$ mesons were produced, in the considered case $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$, but not $`\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3`$, neutrino states are mainly created in the weak interactions (this is so, because the contribution of the lepton numbers violating interactions in this process is too small). And in such case no oscillations take place.

3) Then, when the $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ neutrinos are passing through vacuum, they will be converted into superpositions of the $`\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3`$ owing to the presence of the interactions violating the lepton number of neutrinos and will be left on their mass shells. And, then, oscillations of the $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ neutrinos will take place according to the standard scheme \[16-18\]. Whether these oscillations are real or virtual, it will be determined by the masses of the physical neutrinos $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$.

i) If the masses of the $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ neutrinos are equal, then the real oscillation of the neutrinos will take place.

ii) If the masses of the $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ are not equal, then the virtual oscillation of the neutrinos will take place. To make these oscillations real, these neutrinos must participate in the quasielastic interactions, in order to undergo transition to the mass shell of the other appropriate neutrinos by analogy with $`\gamma \rho ^o`$ transition in the vector meson dominance model.

2. Neutrino Oscillation Types

The mass matrix of $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\mu `$ neutrinos has the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{\nu _e}& 0\\ 0& m_{\nu _\mu }\end{array}\right).$$
$`\left(1\right)`$
Due to the presence of the interaction violating the lepton numbers, a nondiagonal term appears in this matrix and then this mass matrix is transformed into the following nondiagonal matrix ($`CP`$ is conserved):

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{\nu _e}& m_{\nu _e\nu _\mu }\\ m_{\nu _\mu \nu _e}& m_{\nu _\mu }\end{array}\right),$$
$`\left(2\right)`$
then the lagrangian of mass of the neutrinos takes the following form ($`\nu \nu _L`$):

$$\begin{array}{c}_M=\frac{1}{2}\left[m_{\nu _e}\overline{\nu }_e\nu _e+m_{\nu _\mu }\overline{\nu }_\mu \nu _\mu +m_{\nu _e\nu _\mu }\left(\overline{\nu }_e\nu _\mu +\overline{\nu }_\mu \nu _e\right)\right]\\ \frac{1}{2}(\overline{\nu }_e,\overline{\nu }_\mu )\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{\nu _e}& m_{\nu _e\nu _\mu }\\ m_{\nu _\mu \nu _e}& m_{\nu _\mu }\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _e\\ \nu _\mu \end{array}\right)\end{array},$$
$`\left(3\right)`$
which is diagonalized by turning through the angle $`\theta `$ and (see ref. in ) and then this lagrangian (3) transforms into the following one:

$$_M=\frac{1}{2}\left[m_1\overline{\nu }_1\nu _1+m_2\overline{\nu }_2\nu _2\right],$$
$`\left(4\right)`$
where

$$m_{1,2}=\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(m_{\nu _e}+m_{\nu _\mu }\right)\pm \left(\left(m_{\nu _e}m_{\nu _\mu }\right)^2+4m_{\nu _\mu \nu _e}^2\right)^{1/2}\right],$$

and angle $`\theta `$ is determined by the following expression:

$$tg2\theta =\frac{2m_{\nu _e\nu _\mu }}{\left(m_{\nu _\mu }m_{\nu _e}\right)},$$
$`\left(5\right)`$
$$\begin{array}{c}\nu _e=cos\theta \nu _1+sin\theta \nu _2,\\ \nu _\mu =sin\theta \nu _1+cos\theta \nu _2.\end{array}$$
$`\left(6\right)`$
From eq.(5) one can see that if $`m_{\nu _e}=m_{\nu _\mu }`$, then the mixing angle is equal to $`\pi /4`$ independently of the value of $`m_{\nu _e\nu _\mu }`$:

$$sin^22\theta =\frac{\left(2m_{\nu _e\nu _\mu }\right)^2}{\left(m_{\nu _e}m_{\nu _\mu }\right)^2+\left(2m_{\nu _e\nu _\mu }\right)^2},$$
$`\left(7\right)`$
$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{\nu _1}& 0\\ 0& m_{\nu _2}\end{array}\right).$$

It is interesting to remark that expression (7) can be obtained from the Breit-Wigner distribution

$$P\frac{\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2\right)^2}{\left(EE_0\right)^2+\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2\right)^2},$$
$`\left(8\right)`$
by using the following substitutions:

$$E=m_{\nu _e},E_0=m_{\nu _\mu },\mathrm{\Gamma }/2=2m_{\nu _e,\nu _\mu },$$

where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/2W(\mathrm{})`$ is a width of $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ transition, then we can use a standard method  for calculating this value.

The expression for time evolution of $`\nu _1,\nu _2`$ neutrinos (see (4), (6)) with masses $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ is

$$\nu _1\left(t\right)=e^{iE_1t}\nu _1\left(0\right),\nu _2\left(t\right)=e^{iE_2t}\nu _2\left(0\right),$$
$`\left(9\right)`$
where

$$E_k^2=\left(p^2+m_k^2\right),k=1,2.$$

If neutrinos are propagating without interactions, then

$$\begin{array}{c}\nu _e\left(t\right)=cos\theta e^{iE_1t}\nu _1\left(0\right)+sin\theta e^{iE_2t}\nu _2\left(0\right),\\ \nu _\mu \left(t\right)=sin\theta e^{iE_1t}\nu _1\left(0\right)+cos\theta e^{iE_2t}\nu _2\left(0\right).\end{array}$$
$`\left(10\right)`$
Using the expression for $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$ from (6), and putting it into (10), one can get the following expression:

$$\nu _e\left(t\right)=\left[e^{iE_1t}cos^2\theta +e^{iE_2t}sin^2\theta \right]\nu _e\left(0\right)+$$

$$+\left[e^{iE_1t}e^{iE_2t}\right]sin\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \nu _\mu \left(0\right),$$
$`\left(11\right)`$
$$\nu _\mu \left(t\right)=\left[e^{iE_1t}sin^2\theta +e^{iE_2t}cos^2\theta \right]\nu _\mu \left(0\right)+$$

$$+\left[e^{iE_1t}e^{iE_2t}\right]sin\theta cos\theta \nu _e\left(0\right).$$

The probability that neutrino $`\nu _e`$ created at the time $`t=0`$ will be transformed into $`\nu _\mu `$ at the time $`t`$ is an absolute value of amplitude $`\nu _\mu (0)`$ in (11) squared, i. e.

$$\begin{array}{c}P\left(\nu _e\nu _\mu \right)=\left(\nu _\mu \left(0\right)\nu _e\left(t\right)\right)^2=\\ =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta \left[1cos\left(\left(m_2^2m_1^2\right)/2p\right)t\right],\end{array}$$
$`\left(12\right)`$
where it is supposed that $`pm_1,m_2;E_kp+m_k^2/2p`$.

The expression (12) presents the probability of neutrino aroma oscillations. The angle $`\theta `$ (mixing angle) characterizes value of mixing. The probability $`P(\nu _e\nu _\mu )`$ is a periodical function of distances, where the period is determined by the following expression:

$$L_o=2\pi \frac{2p}{m_2^2m_1^2}.$$
$`\left(13\right)`$
And probability $`P(\nu _e\nu _e)`$ that the neutrino $`\nu _e`$ created at time $`t=0`$ is preserved as $`\nu _e`$ neutrino at time $`t`$ is given by the absolute value of the amplitude of $`\nu _e(0)`$ in (11) squared. Since the states in (11) are normalized states, then

$$P\left(\nu _e\nu _e\right)+P\left(\nu _e\nu _\mu \right)=1.$$
$`\left(14\right)`$
So, we see that aromatic oscillations caused by nondiagonality of the neutrinos mass matrix violate the law of the $`\mathrm{}_e`$ and $`\mathrm{}_\mu `$ lepton number conservations. However, in this case, as one can see from exp. (14), the full lepton numbers $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}_e+\mathrm{}_\mu `$ are conserved.

We can also see that there are two cases of $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu `$ transitions (oscillations) , .

1. If we consider the transition of $`\nu _e`$ into $`\nu _\mu `$ particle, then

$$sin^22\beta \frac{4m_{\nu _e,\nu _\mu }^2}{\left(m_{\nu _e}m_{\nu _\mu }\right)^2+4m_{\nu _e,\nu _\mu }^2},$$
$`\left(15\right)`$
How can we understand this $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ transition?

If $`2m_{\nu _e,\nu _\mu }=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}`$ is not zero, then it means that the mean mass of $`\nu _e`$ particle is $`m_{\nu _e}`$ and this mass is distributed by $`sin^22\beta `$ (or by the Breit-Wigner formula) and the probability of the $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ transition differs from zero and it is defined by masses of $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\mu `$ particles and $`m_{\nu _e,\nu _\mu }`$, which is computed in the framework of the standard method, as pointed out above.

So, this is a solution of the problem of the origin of mixing angle in the theory of vacuum oscillations.

In this case the probability of $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ transition (oscillation) is described by the following expression:

$$P\left(\nu _e\nu _\mu ,t\right)=sin^22\beta sin^2\left[\pi t\frac{m_{\nu _1}^2m_{\nu _2}^2}{2p_{\nu _e}}\right],$$
$`\left(16\right)`$
where $`p_{\nu _e}`$ is a momentum of $`\nu _e`$ particle.

Originally it was supposed  that these oscillations are real oscillations, i.e. that there takes place real transition of electron neutrino $`\nu _e`$ into muon neutrino $`\nu _\mu `$ (or tau neutrino $`\nu _\tau `$). Then the neutrino $`x=\mu ,\tau `$ is decayed in electron neutrino plus something

$$\nu _x\nu _e+\mathrm{}.,$$
$`\left(17\right)`$
as a result we get energy from vacuum, which equals the mass difference (if $`m_{\nu _x}>m_{\nu _e}`$)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }Em_{\nu _x}m_{\nu _e}.$$
$`\left(18\right)`$
Then, again this electron neutrino transits into muon neutrino, which is decayed again and we get energy and etc. So we got a perpetuum mobile! Obviously, the law of energy conservation cannot be fulfilled in this process. The only way to restore the law of energy conservation is to demand that this process is virtually one. Then, these oscillations will be the virtual ones and they are described in the framework of the uncertainty relations. The correct theory of neutrino oscillations can be constructed only into the framework of the particle physics theory, where the conception of mass shell is , , .

2. If we consider the virtual transition of $`\nu _e`$ into $`\nu _\mu `$ neutrino at $`m_{\nu _e}=m_{\nu _\mu }`$ (i.e. without changing the mass shell), then

$$tg2\beta =\mathrm{},$$
$`\left(19\right)`$
$`\beta =\pi /4`$, and

$$sin^22\beta =1.$$
$`\left(20\right)`$
In this case the probability of the $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ transition (oscillation) is described by the following expression:

$$P\left(\nu _e\nu _\mu ,t\right)=\left[\pi t\frac{4m_{\nu _e,\nu _\mu }^2}{2p_a}\right].$$
$`\left(21\right)`$
In order to make these virtual oscillations real, their participation in quasielastic interactions is necessary for the transitions to their own mass shells .

It is clear that the $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ transition is a dynamical process.

The question is: which type of neutrino oscillations is realized in the Nature?

3. The third type of transitions (oscillations) can be realized by mixings of the fields (neutrinos) in analogy with the vector dominance model ($`\gamma \rho ^o`$ and $`Z^o\gamma `$ mixings) in a way as it takes place in the particle physics. Since the weak couple constants $`g_{\nu _e},g_{\nu _\mu },g_{\nu _\tau }`$ of $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ neutrinos nearly are equally in reality, i.e. $`g_{\nu _e}g_{\nu _\mu }g_{\nu _\tau }`$ then the angle mixings are nearly maximal:

$$sin\theta _{\nu _e\nu _\mu }\frac{g_{\nu _e}}{\sqrt{g_{\nu _e}^2+g_{\nu _\mu }^2}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}sin\theta _{\nu _e\nu _\tau }sin\theta _{\nu _\mu \nu _\tau }.$$
$`\left(22\right)`$
Therefore, if the masses of these neutrinos are equal (which is hardly probable), then transitions between neutrinos will be real and if the masses of these neutrinos are not equal then transitions between neutrinos will be virtual in analogy with $`\gamma \rho ^o`$ transitions.

3. Mechanisms of Neutrino oscillations

3.1. Impossibility of resonance enhancement of neutrino oscillations in matter

In three different approaches: by using mass Lagrangian , by using the Dirac equation , and using the operator formalism , the author of this work has discussed the problem of the mass generation in the standard weak interactions and has come to a conclusion that the standard weak interaction cannot generate masses of fermions since the right-handed components of fermions do not participate in these interactions. It is also shown  that the equation for Green function of the weak-interacting fermions (neutrinos) in the matter coincides with the equation for Green function of fermions in vacuum and the law of conservation of the energy and the momentum of neutrino in matter will be fulfilled  only if the energy $`W`$ of polarization of matter by the neutrino or the corresponding term in Wolfenstein equation, is zero (it means that neutrinos cannot generate permanent polarization of matter). These results lead to the conclusion: resonance enhancement of neutrino oscillations in matter does not exist.

The simplest method to prove the absence of the resonance enhancement of neutrino oscillations in matter is:

If we put an electrical($`e`$) (or strong ($`g`$)) charged particle $`a`$ in vacuum, there arises polarization of vacuum. Since the field around particle $`a`$ is spherically symmetrical, the polarization must also be spherically symmetrical. Then the particle will be left at rest and the law of energy and momentum conservation is fulfilled.

If we put a weakly ($`g_W`$) interacting particle $`b`$ (a neutrino) in vacuum, then since the field around the particle has a left-right asymmetry (weak interactions are left interactions with respect to the spin direction ), polarization of vacuum must be nonsymmetrical, i.e. on the left side there arises maximal polarization and on the right there is zero polarization. Since polarization of the vacuum is asymmetrical, there arises asymmetrical interaction of the particle (the neutrino) with vacuum and the particle cannot be at rest and will be accelerated. Then the law of energy momentum conservation will be violated. The only way to fulfill the law of energy and momentum conservation is to demand that polarization of vacuum be absent in the weak interactions. The same situation will take place in matter. It is necessary to remark that for above considered proof it is sufficient to know that the field around of the weakly interacting particle is asymmetrical (and there is no a necessary to know the precise form of this field). It is necessary also to remark that the Super-Kamiokande datum on day-night asymmetry  is

$$A=\left(DN\right)/\left(\frac{1}{2}\left(D+N\right)\right)=0.021\pm 0.020\left(stat\right)+$$
$`\left(23\right)`$
$$+0.013\left(0.012\right)\left(syst\right).$$

and it does not leave hope on possibility of the resonance enhancement of neutrino oscillations in matter.

In means that the forward scattering amplitude of the weak interactions have a specific behavior.

It is interesting to remark that in the gravitational interaction the polarization does not exist either.

An Amplitude of forward scattering at the weak

interactions

Connection between refraction coefficient $`n`$ and amplitude of forward scattering $`f_k(k,0)`$ in matter is given by the following expression:

$$n1=\frac{2\pi }{k^2}\underset{i}{}Ref_i(k,0),$$
$`\left(24\right)`$
where $`i`$ is index of summation and $`k,p`$ respectively are momentum and transfer momentum.

Since at the weak interactions the polarization is absent, then

$$n=1,$$
$`\left(25\right)`$
and

$$Ref_i(k,0)=0,$$
$`\left(26\right)`$
i.e.

$$Ref_i(k,p)0,$$
$`\left(27\right)`$
$$p0.$$

The amplitude of forward scattering goes to zero when transfer momentum goes to zero in contrast to the strong and electromagnetic interactions, where it differs from zero.

3.2. Majorana Neutrino Oscillations

At present it is supposed  that the neutrino oscillations can be connected with Majorana neutrino oscillations. I will show that we cannot put Majorana neutrinos in the standard Dirac theory. It means that on experiments the Majorana neutrino oscillations cannot be observed.

Majorana fermion in Dirac representation has the following form :

$$\chi ^M=\frac{1}{2}\left[\mathrm{\Psi }\left(x\right)+\eta _C\mathrm{\Psi }^C\left(x\right)\right],$$
$`\left(28\right)`$
$$\mathrm{\Psi }^C\left(x\right)\eta _CC\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^T\left(x\right),$$

where $`\eta _C`$ is a phase, $`C`$ is a charge conjunction, $`T`$ is a transposition.

From Exp. (28) we see that Majorana fermion $`\chi ^M`$ has two spin projections $`\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ and then the Majorana spinor can be rewritten in the following form:

$$\chi ^M\left(x\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _{+\frac{1}{2}}\left(x\right)\\ \chi _{\frac{1}{2}}\left(x\right)\end{array}\right).$$
$`\left(29\right)`$
The mass Lagrangian of Majorana neutrinos in the case of two neutrinos $`\chi _e,\chi _\mu `$ ($`\frac{1}{2}`$ components of Majorana neutrinos, and $`\overline{\chi }_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the same Majorana fermion with the opposite spin projection) in the common case has the following form:

$$\begin{array}{c}_M^{^{}}=\frac{1}{2}(\overline{\chi }_e,\overline{\chi }_\mu )\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{\chi _e}& m_{\chi _e\chi _\mu }\\ m_{\chi _\mu \chi _e}& m_{\chi _\mu }\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _e\\ \chi _\mu \end{array}\right)\end{array}.$$
$`\left(30\right)`$
Diagonalizing this mass matrix by standard methods one obtains the following expression:

$$\begin{array}{c}_M^{^{}}=\frac{1}{2}(\overline{\nu }_1,\overline{\nu }_2)\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{\nu _1}& 0\\ 0& m_{\nu _2}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _1\\ \nu _2\end{array}\right)\end{array},$$
$`\left(31\right)`$
where

$$\nu _1=cos\theta \chi _esin\theta \chi _\mu ,$$

$$\nu _2=sin\theta \chi _e+cos\theta \chi _\mu .$$

These neutrino oscillations are described by expressions (9)-(14) with the following substitution of $`\nu _{e\mu }\chi _{e\mu }^M`$ .

The standard theory of weak interactions is constructed on the base of local gauge invariance of Dirac fermions. In this case Dirac fermions have the following lepton numbers $`l_{l,}`$ which are conserved,

$$l_l,l=e,\mu ,\tau ,$$
$`\left(32\right)`$
and Dirac antiparticles have lepton numbers with the opposite sign

$$\overline{l}=l_l.$$
$`\left(33\right)`$
Gauge transformation of Majorana fermions can be written in the form:

$$\chi _{}^{}{}_{+\frac{1}{2}}{}^{}\left(x\right)=exp\left(i\beta \right)\chi _{+\frac{1}{2}}\left(x\right),$$

$$\chi _{}^{}{}_{\frac{1}{2}}{}^{}\left(x\right)=exp\left(+i\beta \right)\chi _{\frac{1}{2}}\left(x\right).$$
$`\left(34\right)`$
Then lepton numbers of Majorana fermions are

$$l^M=\underset{i}{}l_i^M\left(+1/2\right)=\underset{i}{}l_i^M\left(1/2\right),$$

i. e., antiparticle of Majorana fermion is the same fermion with the opposite spin projection.

Now we come to discussion of the problem of the place of Majorana fermion in the standard theory of weak interactions .

To construct the standard theory of weak interactions , Dirac fermions are used. The absence of contradiction of this theory with the experimental data confirms that all fermions are Dirac particles.

Now, if we want to put the Majorana fermions into the standard theory we must take into account that, in the common case, the gauge charges of the Dirac and Majorana fermions are different (especially it is well seen in the example of Dirac fermion having an electrical charge since it cannot have a Majorana charge (it is worth to remind that in the weak currents the fermions are included in the couples form)). In this case we cannot just include Majorana fermions in the standard theory of weak interactions by gauge invariance manner. Then, in the standard theory the Majorana fermions cannot appear.

3.3. Transitions (Oscillations) of Aromatic Neutrinos

In the work  Maki et al. supposed that there could exist transitions between aromatic neutrinos $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu `$. Afterwards $`\nu _\tau `$ was found and then $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ transitions could be possible. The author of this work has developed this direction (see ). It is necessary to remark that only this scheme of oscillations is realistic for neutrino oscillations (see also this work). The expressions, which described neutrino oscillations in this case are given above in expressions (9)-(14).

III. EXPERIMENTS

1. Experimental Observation of the Neutrino Oscillations

At present, it is supposed that the neutrino oscillations were observed \[13-15\]. In these experiments only transitions between the Sun or atmospheric neutrinos have been observed. Since we suppose that there take place the neutrino oscillations, therefore we must observe (Sun) neutrino oscillations in reality. Since the length of neutrino oscillations is sufficiently great we cannot observe higher modes in terrestrial experiment. But we have another possibility to observe the Sun neutrino oscillation using the fact that the Earth orbit is elliptic one with:

Earth’s perihelion $`R_P`$ = 147.117 $`10^6km`$ ,

Earth’s aphelion $`R_A`$ = 152.083 $`10^6km`$,

and their difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=4.86610^6km`$. Since the Sun neutrinos conclude all energies up to $`15MeV`$, we must divide this energy spectrum on energy regions (also distances must be divided on regions) and observe these neutrino fluxes as function of energy and the Ears’s distances from the Sun. At these conditions we must observe the neutrino oscillations if the length of neutrino oscillation $`R_{osc}`$ is bigger than the region $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where these (high energy) neutrinos are generated on the Sun i.e.

$$\mathrm{\Delta }0.05R_{sun}10^4km,$$
$`\left(35\right)`$
$$R_{osc}>\mathrm{\Delta }.$$

It is obvious that in these experiments it is impossible to register $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations since their length, as we know from Super-Kamiokande experiments, is small enough. The Super-Kamiokande and SNO detectors wholly fit for such observations.

2. The Earth Neutrinos

At present, there exist big detectors on the Sun and atmospheric neutrinos observation. The problem study of the Earth neutrino sources present enormous interest, therefore, using the same detectors it is possible to research the Earth neutrino sources. More detailed consideration this question will be published later. It is important that there is no a necessity to reconstruct the detectors. It is only necessary to collect data from the Earth as it is fulfilled for the Sun neutrinos but for opposite to the Sun direction . In this way we can obtain the Earth neutrino sources map using the detectors located in different places of the Earth surface.

3. The Problem with GNO (GALLEX), SAGE Data

As stressed above, transitions between neutrinos with different flavor have been already observed and the neutrino mixing angles are nearly maximal. The Super-Kamoikande , SNO , Homestake  data (D) normalized on SSM calculations (see \[32)) are in good agreement.

Homestake 1970-1994, $`E_{thre}=0.814`$:

$$\nu _e+^{71}Ga^{71}Ge+e^{},\frac{D^{exp}}{D^{BP2000}}=0.34\pm 0.03$$

Super-Kamiokande 1996-2001, $`E_{thre}=4.75MeV`$:

$$\nu _e+e^{}\nu _e+e^{},\frac{D^{exp}}{D^{BP2000}}=0.465\pm 0.015;$$

SNO $`E_{thre}=6.9MeV`$

$$\nu _e+dp+p+e^{},\frac{D^{exp}}{D^{BP2000}}=0.35\pm 0.02,$$

$`E_{thre}=2.2MeV`$

$$\nu _e+dp+n+e^{},\frac{D^{exp}}{D^{BP200}}=1.01\pm 0.13,$$

$`E_{thre}=5.2MeV`$

$$\nu +e^{}\nu +e^{},\frac{D^{exp}}{D^{BP200}}=0.47\pm 0.05,$$

But normalized on SSM  GNO (GALLEX) , SAGE  data are higher than above data on values $`0.160.20`$

GNO (GALLEX) 1998-2000, $`E_{thre}=0.233MeV`$

$$\nu _e+^{71}Ga^{71}Ge+e^{},\frac{D^{exp}}{D^{BP200}}=0.51\pm 0.08;$$

SAGE 1990-2001, $`E_{thre}=0.233MeV`$

$$\nu _e+^{71}Ga^{71}Ge+e^{},\frac{D^{exp}}{D^{BP200}}=0.54\pm 0.05;$$

Since the length of neutrino transitions (oscillations) is proportional to their energy (see eq.(13)), therefore, the smaller are the neutrino energies, the smaller are the lengths of transitions (oscillations), hence the norm of transitions (oscillations) at the small energies must be the same as at the high ones. In order to resolve this problem it is probably necessary to examine calibration of the last experiments. It is more likely that the Standard Sun model  requires a revision in these energy regions. It is very important to organize an experiment with neutral currents in this energy region in order to register the full (the Sun) neutrino fluxes. It is clear that there is no sense in drawing the allowed regions pictures until this problem is solved.

4.The CHOOZ problem

In the France reactor experiment on $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ neutrinos, there was observed a very small angle mixing for $`\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_\tau `$ transitions . If it is correct then on SNO there should be observed  only the $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ neutrino transitions and the $`\nu _e\nu _\tau `$ transitions must be suppressed, i.e. relation between $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\mu `$ neutrino fluxes must be equal

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _\tau }.$$
$`\left(36\right)`$
However, in the SNO experiments on neutral currents, we can see approximate equality the numbers of the three type of neutrinos.

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _\tau }+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _\mu }\right).$$
$`\left(37\right)`$
It is clear that the angle of $`\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_\tau `$ transition cannot be small. Since distance from the reactor is small then this detector can register only a small mixing angle (to see correct mixing angle the detector must be in a distance not smaller than the oscillations length).

Conclusion

It is noted that the theory of neutrino oscillations can be constructed only in the framework of the particle physics theory, where is a mass shell conception and then transitions (oscillations) between neutrinos with equal masses are real and between neutrinos with different masses are virtual.

It is necessary to solve the question: which type of neutrino transitions (oscillations) is realized in nature? There can be three types of neutrino transitions (oscillations).

At present it is considered that Dirac and Majorana neutrino oscillations can be realized. It is shown that we cannot put Majorana neutrinos in the standard weak interactions theory without violation of the gauge invariance. Then it is obvious that there can be only realized transitions (oscillations) between Dirac neutrinos with different flowers.

Also it is shown that the mechanism of resonance enhancement of neutrino oscillations in matter cannot be realized without violation of the law of energy-momentum conservation.

Though it is supposed that we see neutrino oscillations in experiments, indeed there only transitions between neutrinos are registered. In order to register neutrino oscillations it is necessary to see second or even higher neutrino oscillation modes in experiments. For this purpose we can use the elliptic character of the Earth orbit.

The analysis shows that the SNO experimental results do not confirm smallest of $`\nu _e\nu _\tau `$ transition angle mixings, which was obtained in CHOOZ experiment. It is also noted that there is contradiction between SNO, Super-Kamiokande, Homestake and the SAGE and GNO (GALLEX) data.

References

1. Pontecorvo B. M., Soviet Journ. JETP, 1957, v. 33, p.549;

JETP, 1958, v.34, p.247.

2. Maki Z. et al., Prog.Theor. Phys., 1962, vol.28, p.870.

3. Pontecorvo B. M., Soviet Journ. JETP, 1967, v. 53, p.1717.

4. Davis R. et al., Phys. Rev. Letters, 1968, vol.20, p.1205.

5. Bahcall J. et al., Phys. Lett.B, 1968, vol.26, p.1;

Bahcall J., Bahcall N., Shaviv G., Phys. Rev. Lett. 1968, vol.20,

p.1209;

S. Turck-Chieze et al., Astrophys.J. 335 (1988), p.415.

6. Gribov V., Pontecorvo B.M., Phys. Lett. B, 1969, vol.28, p.493.

7. Hirata K.S. et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 1989, vol.63,p.16.

8. Mikheyev S.P., Smirnov A.Ju., Nuovo Cimento, 1986, vol.9,p.17.

9. Wolfenstein L., Phys. Rev.D, 1978, vol.17, p.2369.

10. Beshtoev Kh.M., JINR Commun. E2-91-183, Dubna, 1991;

Proceedings of III Int. Symp. on Weak and Electromag. Int. in

Nucl. (World Scient., Singapoure, P. 781, 1992);

13th European Cosmic Ray Symp. CERN, Geneva, HE-5-13.

11. Anselmann P. et al., Phys. Lett. B, 1992,

vol.285, p.376; 1992, vol.285, p.391;

Hampel W. et al., Phys. Lett. B, 1999, v.447, p. 127.

12. Abdurashitov J.N. et al., Phys. Lett.B, 1994, vol.328,

p.234; Phys. Rev. Lett., 1999, v.83, p.4683.

13. Kameda J., Proceedings of ICRC 2001, August 2001, Germany,

Hamburg, p.1057.

Fukuda S. et al,. Phys. Rev . Lett. 2001, v. 25, p.5651;

Phys. Lett. B 539, 2002, p.179.

14. Toshito T., hep-ex/0105023;

Kameda J., Proceeding of 27th ICRC, August 2001;

Hamburg, Germany, v.2, p.1057.

Mauger Ch., 31-st ICHEP, Amsterdam, July 2002.

15. Ahmad Q. R. et al., Internet Pub. nucl-ex/0106015, June 2001.

Ahmad Q. R. et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 2002, v. 89, p.011301-1;

Phys. Rev. Lett. 2002,v. 89, p.011302-1.

16. Bilenky S.M., Pontecorvo B.M., Phys. Rep., C41(1978)225;

Boehm F., Vogel P., Physics of Massive Neutrinos: Cambridge

Univ. Press, 1987, p.27, p.121;

Bilenky S.M., Petcov S.T., Rev. of Mod. Phys., 1977, v.59,

p.631.

17. Beshtoev Kh.M., JINR Commun. E2-92-318, Dubna, 1992;

JINR Rapid Communications, N3-95.

18. Beshtoev Kh.M., Internet Pub. hep-ph/9911513;

The Hadronic Journal, v.23, 2000, p.477;

Proceedings of 27th Intern. Cosmic Ray Conf., Germany,

Hamburg, 7-15 August 2001, v.3, p. 1186.

19. Blatt J.M., Waiscopff V.F., The Theory of Nuclear Reactions,

INR T.R. 42.

20. Beshtoev Kh.M., JINR Commun. E2-99-307, Dubna, 1999;

JINR Commun. E2-99-306, Dubna, 1999.

21. Beshtoev Kh.M., Phys. of Elem. Part. and Atomic Nucl.

(Particles and Nuclei), 1996, v.27, p.53.

22. Beshtoev Kh. M., JINR Communication E2-93-167, Dubna,

1993; JINR Communication P2-93-44, Dubna, 1993;

23. Beshtoev Kh.M., HEP-PH/9912532, 1999;

Hadronic Journal, 1999, v.22, p.235.

24. Beshtoev Kh.M., JINR Communication E2-2000-30, Dubna,

2000; Internet Publ. hep-ph/0003274.

25. Beshtoev Kh.M., JINR Communication D2-2001-292, Dubna,

2001; Internet Publ. hep-ph/01 03274.

26. C. Gonzalez-Garcia 31-st ICHEP, Amsterdam, July 2002.

27. Rosen S.P., Lectore Notes on Mass Matrices, LASL preprint,

1983.

28. Beshtoev Kh.M., JINR Commun. E2-92-195, Dubna, 1992.

29. Glashow S.L.- Nucl. Phys., 1961, vol.22, p.579 ;

Weinberg S.- Phys. Rev. Lett., 1967, vol.19, p.1264 ;

Salam A.- Proc. of the 8th Nobel Symp., edited by

N. Svarthholm (Almgvist and Wiksell, Stockholm) 1968, p.367.

30. Mitsui T., Proceedings of the 31-st ICHEP, August 2002,

Amsterdam, Netherlands.

31. Davis R. et al., Phys. Rev. Letters, 1968, vol.20;

Lande K., Neutrino 2002, may 2002, Munich, Germany.

32. Bahcall J., Pinsonneault M.N. and Sarbani B. Astrophysical

Journ 2001, v. 555, p.990.

33. Belloti E., Nucl. Phys.B (Proc. Suppl.), 2001,v. 91, p.44;

Hampel W. et al., Phys. Lett.B, 1996, v. 388, p.364;

Kirsten T., Neutrino 2002, May 2002, Munich, Germany.

34. Gavrin V. N., Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 2001, v. 91, p.36.

35. Appolinio M., Phys. Lett. B, 1999, v.466, p.415.


format: text

text:
# Acknowledgments

## Acknowledgments

I am very grateful to my advisor in Tbilisi State University, Professor A. Khelashvili, for helpful conversations and to Professor G. Lavrelashvili for useful discussions.


text:
# Second order SUSY transformations with ‘complex energies’

## 1 Introduction

The $`n`$-th order supersymmetric quantum mechanics ($`n`$-SUSY QM), which involves differential intertwining operators of order $`n`$, is a useful tool for generating new solvable potentials . Due to its simplicity, the 1-SUSY QM is the most explored; its nonsingular transformations produce partner potentials whose spectra can differ at most in the ground state energy level . The difficulty of ‘modifying’ the excited part of the spectrum has been surpassed through the 2-SUSY QM , which allows to ‘create’ two new levels $`ϵ_1,ϵ_2`$ between two neighboring energies $`E_i,E_{i+1}`$ of the initial Hamiltonian . A similar treatment, implemented for periodic potentials , can be used to embed two bound states in a spectral gap above the lowest energy band . In both situations the corresponding 2-SUSY transformations are irreducible, i.e., when obtained as the iteration of two 1-SUSY procedures they will involve always singular intermediate potentials.

Here we will study a different set of ‘irreducible’ 2-SUSY transformations applied to non-periodic potentials, which employs two complex conjugate factorization energies $`ϵ_1,ϵ_2`$, $`ϵ_2=\overline{ϵ}_1`$. Irreducibility means now that the intermediate potential is complex although the final one is real. This problem has been addressed previously , but up to our knowledge the conditions granting that the final potential will be regular have not been yet examined. We will show as well that the non-singular case leads to intermediate complex potentials having real spectra. These points constitute the subject of this letter, which has been organized as follows. In section 2 the second order SUSY transformations with $`ϵ_1,ϵ_2`$, $`ϵ_2=\overline{ϵ}_1`$ will be analyzed. A prescription for avoiding the singularities in the new potential will be provided in section 3, while section 4 will be devoted to study the intermediate complex potentials. Section 5 will deal with some particular examples as the free particle, one-soliton well and harmonic oscillator potential.

## 2 Second order supersymmetric quantum mechanics

The standard supersymmetric (SUSY) algebra with generators $`Q_1,Q_2`$ (supercharges) and $`H_{\mathrm{ss}}`$ (SUSY Hamiltonian) reads:

$`\{Q_j,Q_k\}=\delta _{jk}H_{\mathrm{ss}},[H_{\mathrm{ss}},Q_j]=0,j,k=1,2,`$ (1)
where $`[,]`$ denotes a commutator and $`\{,\}`$ an anticommutator. The realization $`Q_1=(Q^{}+Q)/\sqrt{2},Q_2=(Q^{}Q)/(i\sqrt{2})`$ with

$`Q=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& A\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),Q^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ A^{}& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (2)
$`H_{\mathrm{ss}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}AA^{}& 0\\ 0& A^{}A\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}(\stackrel{~}{H}ϵ_1)(\stackrel{~}{H}ϵ_2)& 0\\ 0& (Hϵ_1)(Hϵ_2)\end{array}\right),`$ (3)
$`A={\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dx^2}}+\eta (x){\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}+\gamma (x),`$ (4)
is called second order sypersymmetric quantum mechanics ($`2`$-SUSY QM). In this formalism $`H,\stackrel{~}{H}`$ are two intertwined Schrödinger Hamiltonians:

$`\stackrel{~}{H}A=AH,`$ (5)
$`H={\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dx^2}}+V(x),\stackrel{~}{H}={\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dx^2}}+\stackrel{~}{V}(x),`$ (6)
and thus the real functions $`\eta (x),\gamma (x)`$ are related with $`V(x),\stackrel{~}{V}(x)`$ through:

$`\stackrel{~}{V}V`$ $`=`$ $`2\eta ^{},`$ (7)
$`(\stackrel{~}{V}V)\eta `$ $`=`$ $`2V^{}+2\gamma ^{}+\eta ^{\prime \prime },`$ (8)
$`(\stackrel{~}{V}V)\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`\eta V^{}+V^{\prime \prime }+\gamma ^{\prime \prime }.`$ (9)
To decouple this system, substitute (7) in (8) and integrate to obtain

$`\gamma =dV+\eta ^2/2\eta ^{}/2,`$ (10)
where $`d`$ is a constant. By plugging (7,10) into (9), multiplying the result by $`\eta `$ and performing the next integration one arrives to:

$`\eta \eta ^{\prime \prime }(\eta ^{})^2/2+2\eta ^2\left(\eta ^2/4\eta ^{}V+d\right)+2c=0,`$ (11)
$`c`$ being another constant. This formalism is useful for generating new solvable potentials. To illustrate it, suppose that $`c,d`$ are fixed and $`V(x)`$ is an initial exactly solvable potential. The complete determination of $`\stackrel{~}{V}(x)`$ in (7) requires to find solutions $`\eta (x)`$ of the nonlinear second order differential equation (11). Let us find them using the Ansätz :

$`\eta ^{}(x)=\eta ^2(x)+2\beta (x)\eta (x)2\xi (x),`$ (12)
where $`\beta (x)`$ and $`\xi (x)`$ are to be determined. After substituting (12) into (11) we obtain a system of equations from which it follows that $`\xi ^2=c`$. The essential part of the system is the Riccati equation:

$`\beta ^{}+\beta ^2=Vϵ,ϵ=d+\xi .`$ (13)
As there exist two possible values of $`ϵ`$, $`ϵ_1=d+\sqrt{c}`$ and $`ϵ_2=d\sqrt{c}`$ (which coincide with the factorization energies in (3)), we indeed are dealing with two equations (13) whose solutions will be denoted by $`\beta _1(x)`$, $`\beta _2(x)`$. This leads to a natural classification of the 2-SUSY transformations based on the sign of $`c`$, which will be discussed elsewhere. Here, we restrict ourselves to the complex case for which $`c<0`$ and then $`ϵ_1,ϵ_2`$, $`ϵ_2=\overline{ϵ}_1`$. Since $`V`$ is real we can take $`\beta _2(x)=\overline{\beta }_1(x)`$, i.e., the problem reduces to solve the Riccati equation for $`\beta _1`$. In addition, using (12) we get two equivalent expressions for the real $`\eta (x)`$:

$`\eta ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^2+2\beta _1\eta 2i\mathrm{Im}(ϵ_1),`$ (14)
$`\eta ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^2+2\overline{\beta }_1\eta +2i\mathrm{Im}(ϵ_1).`$ (15)
By subtracting both equations and solving for $`\eta `$, we obtain:

$`\eta =\mathrm{Im}(ϵ_1)/\mathrm{Im}(\beta _1).`$ (16)
Once we know $`\eta `$, the 2-SUSY partner potential $`\stackrel{~}{V}(x)`$ is calculated using

$`\stackrel{~}{V}=V+2\left[\mathrm{Im}(ϵ_1)/\mathrm{Im}(\beta _1)\right]^{}.`$ (17)
Let us remark that the case we are dealing with has been previously explored . However, we have not found any previous analysis on how to avoid the singularities in $`\stackrel{~}{V}(x)`$, a phenomenon which seems almost unavoidable in the complex case .

## 3 The non-singular 2-SUSY potentials

The simplest algorithms departing from and arriving at the exactly solvable potentials should avoid the singularities which might appear in $`\stackrel{~}{V}(x)`$. Notice that a singular $`\stackrel{~}{V}(x)`$ could be treated as a non-singular partner potential of $`V(x)`$ in a restricted $`x`$-domain. However, this would require at the end to solve the initial Schrödinger equation with modified boundary conditions loosing, in general, the solvability of $`H`$ .

Let us rewrite first the formulae of section 2 in terms of solutions $`u_1(x)`$ of the Schrödinger equation arising from (13) by the change $`\beta (x)=u^{}(x)/u(x)`$ :

$`u^{\prime \prime }(x)+V(x)u(x)=ϵu(x).`$ (18)
Hence $`\eta (x)=2i\mathrm{Im}(ϵ_1)|u_1|^2/W(u_1,\overline{u}_1)`$, where $`W(u_1,u_2)=u_1u_2^{}u_2u_1^{}`$ denotes the Wronskian of $`u_1`$, $`u_2`$. From now on it is convenient to work with the real normalized Wronskian $`w(x)W(u_1,\overline{u}_1)/[2i\mathrm{Im}(ϵ_1)]`$. Therefore:

$`w^{}(x)=|u_1(x)|^2,`$ (19)
$`\eta (x)=w^{}(x)/w(x),`$ (20)
$`\stackrel{~}{V}(x)=V(x)2[w^{}(x)/w(x)]^{}.`$ (21)
In order that $`\stackrel{~}{V}(x)`$ be non-singular, $`w(x)`$ must be nodeless. Since $`w(x)`$ is an increasing monotonic function (see (19)), the arising of zeros is avoided if

$`\underset{x\mathrm{}}{lim}w(x)=0\mathrm{or}\underset{x\mathrm{}}{lim}w(x)=0.`$ (22)
To ensure this requirement it is sufficient that either

$`\underset{x\mathrm{}}{lim}u_1(x)=0\mathrm{or}\underset{x\mathrm{}}{lim}u_1(x)=0.`$ (23)
Such solutions are appropriate for generating non-singular potentials $`\stackrel{~}{V}(x)`$. Notice that a similar treatment can be designed for systems defined in a generic interval $`x(a,b)`$ by identifying in (22-23) $`\mathrm{}`$ with $`a`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ with $`b`$.

## 4 Complex potentials with real spectrum

Although in principle irreducible, let us decompose the non-singular 2-SUSY transformations of the previous section into two 1-SUSY steps:

$`\stackrel{~}{H}A_2=A_2H_1,H_1A_1=A_1H,`$ (24)
where

$`H_1={\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dx^2}}+V_1(x),A_i={\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}+\alpha _i(x),i=1,2.`$ (25)
The 1-SUSY treatment implies that $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2`$ obey the Riccati equations:

$`\alpha _1^{}+\alpha _1^2=V(x)ϵ_1,`$ (26)
$`\alpha _2^{}+\alpha _2^2=V_1(x)\overline{ϵ}_1,`$ (27)
where $`V_1(x)=V(x)+2\alpha _1^{}`$ and thus $`\stackrel{~}{V}(x)=V(x)+2(\alpha _1+\alpha _2)^{}`$. A simple comparison of (13) with (26) leads to

$`\alpha _1(x)=\beta _1(x)=u_1^{}(x)/u_1(x),`$ (28)
$`u_1(x)`$ being a solution of (18) behaving asymptotically as in (23). Moreover, by expanding $`A=A_2A_1`$ and comparing the result with (4) we find that:

$`\alpha _2=\alpha _1+\eta =\beta _1+(ϵ_1\overline{ϵ}_1)/(\beta _1\overline{\beta }_1).`$ (29)
This is a particular case of the finite difference Bäcklund algorithm , which algebraically determines a solution to (27) in terms of solutions of (26) for two different factorization energies (here $`ϵ_1`$ and $`\overline{ϵ}_1`$). It is interesting as well to factorize the involved Hamiltonians:

$`H=A_1^{}A_1+ϵ_1,H_1=A_1A_1^{}+ϵ_1,`$ (30)
$`H_1=A_2^{}A_2+\overline{ϵ}_1,\stackrel{~}{H}=A_2A_2^{}+\overline{ϵ}_1,`$ (31)
$`A_i^{}=d/dx+\alpha _i(x),i=1,2`$. Since $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2`$ and $`ϵ_1`$ are complex, the $`A_i^{}`$’s are not adjoint to the $`A_i`$’s but $`A_i^{}=d/dx+\overline{\alpha }_i(x),i=1,2`$.

It is clear now that the complex intermediate potential $`V_1(x)`$ is non-singular:

$`V_1(x)=V(x)2[u_1^{}(x)/u_1(x)]^{}.`$ (32)
To analyse the normalizability of the corresponding eigenfunction associated to $`E_n`$,

$`\psi _n^1(x)=c_nA_1\psi _n=c_n[\psi _n^{}(x)u_1^{}(x)\psi _n(x)/u_1(x)],`$ (33)
we will employ the operator relationship:

$`\eta A_1=Hϵ_1+A.`$ (34)
From the validity of (23) and the assumption of $`\psi _n=1`$, it turns out that $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_n=A\psi _n/|E_nϵ_1|`$ is normalized, and therefore the function $`\eta A_1\psi _n=(E_nϵ_1)\psi _n+|E_nϵ_1|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_n`$ is normalizable as well. Thus, for $`A_1\psi _n`$ to be normalizable it is neccessary that $`\eta ^1`$ does not destroy the normalizability of $`(E_nϵ_1)\psi _n+|E_nϵ_1|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_n`$. If this is the case (and this will happen for the examples we discuss below), we obtain a complex potential $`V_1(x)`$ with real eigenvalues $`E_n`$ . Let us remark that complex Hamiltonians with real spectra have been studied recently in the context of PT-symmetry and pseudo-Hermiticity .

## 5 Illustrative examples

We shall show that the previous techniques admit very simple applications.

i) Consider firstly the free particle for which $`V(x)=0`$. The general solution $`u_1(x)`$ of the Schrödinger equation (18) for $`ϵ_1`$ is a linear combination of

$`e^{\pm (k_1+ik_2)x},`$ (35)
where $`ϵ_1=(k_1+ik_2)^2,k_1>0,k_2`$. In general, such a $`u_1(x)`$ does not tend to zero neither when $`x\mathrm{}`$ nor when $`x+\mathrm{}`$. However, two particular solutions with the required behavior are precisely those of (35). We use them for obtaining the nodeless $`w(x)`$:

$`w(x)=\pm e^{\pm 2k_1x}/(2k_1).`$ (36)
It turns out that $`\stackrel{~}{V}(x)`$ becomes again the null potential for both $`w(x)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{V}(x)=0`$. The intermediate 1-SUSY complex potentials generated by using the two $`u_1(x)`$ of (35) are as well trivial, $`V_1(x)=0`$. Our conclusion is that the null potential can be non-trivially transformed in frames of our algorithm only at the price of creating singularities (compare with ).

ii) Consider now the well known one-soliton potential (Pöschl-Teller)

$`V(x)=2k_0^2\mathrm{sech}^2(k_0x)`$ (37)
which is obtained from the null potential by a 1-SUSY transformation employing $`\mathrm{cosh}(k_0x),k_0>0`$. The spectrum of (37) consists of a continuous part $`E0`$ and a bound state at $`E_0=k_0^2`$ with eigenfunction given by:

$`\psi _0(x)=\sqrt{k_0/2}\mathrm{sech}(k_0x).`$ (38)
The general solution $`u_1(x)`$ of (18) for (37) with $`ϵ_1=(k_1+ik_2)^2,k_1>0,k_2`$ is a linear combination of the 1-SUSY transformed eigenfunctions of (35)

$`e^{\pm (k_1+ik_2)x}[k_0\mathrm{tanh}(k_0x)(k_1+ik_2)].`$ (39)
The solutions (39) are precisely the required ones: if the upper signs are taken, then $`u_1(x)0`$ for $`x\mathrm{}`$, while the lower signs ensure $`u_1(x)0`$ when $`x+\mathrm{}`$. An explicit calculation leads to the two nodeless $`w(x)`$:

$`w(x)=\pm {\displaystyle \frac{ke^{\pm 2k_1x}}{2k_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cosh}[k_0(xx_0)]}{\mathrm{cosh}(k_0x)}},`$ (40)
where $`k_0^2+k_1^2+k_2^2k\mathrm{cosh}(k_0x_0),2k_0k_1k\mathrm{sinh}(k_0x_0),k,x_0`$. The two 2-SUSY partner potentials of (37) read now:

$`\stackrel{~}{V}(x)=2k_0^2\mathrm{sech}^2[k_0(xx_0)],`$ (41)
obtaining just real $`x_0`$-displaced copies of (37). This result has to do with the Darboux invariance phenomenon recently discovered for the one-soliton well .

On the other hand, the two complex intermediate potentials generated by (39) become:

$`V_1(x)=2k_0^2\mathrm{sech}^2[k_0(xx_1)],`$ (42)
where now $`k_1+ik_2\kappa \mathrm{cosh}(k_0x_1),k_0\kappa \mathrm{sinh}(k_0x_1)`$ define ‘complex displacements’ $`x_1,\kappa `$. These potentials have a bound state at $`E_0=k_0^2`$ whose normalized ‘ground state’ eigenfunction is obtained from (33) by employing the $`\psi _0(x)`$ of (38) and the $`u_1(x)`$ of (39):

$`\psi _0^1(x)={\displaystyle \frac{k_0}{|\kappa |}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_2}}\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_0+k_1}{k_2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_2}}\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_0k_1}{k_2}}\right)\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sech}[k_0(xx_1)]`$ (43)
The complex potentials (42) were obtained for the first time in .

iii) Our final example is the harmonic oscillator:

$`V(x)=x^2,`$ (44)
which has a purely discrete equidistant spectrum $`\{E_n=2n+1,n=0,1,\mathrm{}\}`$. The general solution of (18) for $`ϵ_1`$ is now (see  and references therein):

$`u_1(x)=c_1e^{\frac{x^2}{2}}\left[{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{1ϵ_1}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};x^2)+2\nu x{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3ϵ_1}{4})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1ϵ_1}{4})}}{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{3ϵ_1}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}};x^2)\right],`$ (45)
where $`{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,c;z)`$ is the Kummer hypergeometric series. In general, such a $`u_1(x)`$ does not satisfy neither $`lim_x\mathrm{}u_1(x)=0`$ nor $`lim_x\mathrm{}u_1(x)=0`$. However, there are two particular values for $`\nu `$ ($`\nu =\pm 1`$) leading to solutions with the required behavior:

$`u_1(x)=e^{\frac{x^2}{2}}\left[{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{1ϵ_1}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};x^2)\pm 2x{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3ϵ_1}{4})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1ϵ_1}{4})}}{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{3ϵ_1}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}};x^2)\right].`$ (46)
Take, e.g., (46) with the upper sign, which in the negative semiaxis $`x=|x|<0`$ reduces to:

$`u_1(x)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3ϵ_1}{4})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2})}}e^{\frac{|x|^2}{2}}\mathrm{\Psi }({\displaystyle \frac{1ϵ_1}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};|x|^2),`$ (47)
where the Tricomi function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(a,c;z)`$ is related with $`{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,c;z)`$ through (see, e.g., ):

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(a,c;z)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1c)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(ac+1)}}{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,c;z)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(c1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)}}z^{1c}{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(ac+1,2c;z)`$ (48)
Since the leading term in the asymptotic expansion for $`\mathrm{\Psi }(a,c;z)`$ is $`z^a`$ , one can check that $`lim_x\mathrm{}u_1(x)=0`$. Similarly, if the lower sign is chosen we have $`lim_x\mathrm{}u_1(x)=0`$.

Once we have identified the solutions (46) with the right asymptotic behavior, we evaluated $`w(x)`$ and then $`\stackrel{~}{V}(x)`$. The resulting expressions in this case are too long; instead, we are plotting $`\stackrel{~}{V}(x)`$ for $`ϵ_1=10+0.1i`$ using (46) with the lower minus sign (see figure 1). Contrasting with the results for the previous examples, in this case the potentials $`\stackrel{~}{V}(x)`$ are in general different from $`V(x)`$. This means that the transformations involving a pair of complex conjugate factorization energies are effective tools in generating isospectral 2-SUSY partner potentials. As a byproduct, we have obtained in a simple way complex potentials $`V_1(x)`$ given by (32) with real energy eigenvalues $`E_n=2n+1`$. A plot of the ‘ground state’ probability density $`|\psi _0^1(x)|^2`$, illustrating the existence of these bound states for the complex 1-SUSY partner $`V_1(x)`$ of the oscillator, is shown in figure 2.

## 6 Conclusions

We have shown that the 2-SUSY transformations involving two complex conjugate factorization energies can produce new non-singular potentials isospectral to a given initial one. This non-singular character is shared as well by the intermediate complex potentials arising when those transformations are factorized.

Acknowledgements. The support of CONACYT (México) is acknowledged. A.R. has been partially supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Educación y Cultura through a FPI grant, research project PB96-0717, and by the European Commission funding for the Research Training Network “Mechanics and Symmetry in Europe” (MASIE), contract HPRN-CT-2000-00113. A.R. thanks also the warm hospitality at the Departamento de Física of CINVESTAV.


text:
# UCTP-108-02 Evidence for Light Scalar Resonances in Charm Meson Decays from Fermilab E791

## 1 Introduction

The constituent quark model of QCD provides a successful description of pseudo-scalar and vector mesons, which can be conveniently arranged into $`SU(3)_c`$ nonet representations. One also expects a corresponding scalar meson nonet to exist, and much experimental effort has been directed towards identifying its members. The following states have been identified thus far, listed by isospin:

* $`I=0`$: $`f_0(600)`$ or $`\sigma (500)`$, $`f_0(980)`$, $`f_0(1370)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$, $`f_0(1710)`$
* $`I=1/2`$: $`\kappa (800)`$, $`K_0^{}(1430)`$
* $`I=1`$: $`a_0(980)`$, $`a_0(1450)`$

Scalar mesons have traditionally been studied via scattering experiments. However, in these experiments the mesons can be difficult to disentangle from nonresonant background due to their broad widths and lack of a distinctive angular distribution. Thus some scalar states are controversial ($`\sigma (500)`$ and $`\kappa (800)`$), while others, although accepted, have poorly-determined parameters ($`f_0(980)`$, $`a_0(980)`$, and $`f_0(1370)`$). For a recent review, see Ref. .

Recently, large samples of $`D_{(s)}^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ and $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ decays have been used to study scalar mesons ($`S`$) via the quasi-two-body decay $`D^+S\pi ^+,Sh^{}\pi ^+`$ (charge-conjugate modes are assumed unless noted otherwise). The scalar masses and decay widths are determined by fitting a Dalitz-plot distribution to the square of coherently-summed decay amplitudes $`|_n𝒜(DS_n\pi )|^2`$. In this paper, we present such results from Fermilab E791. This experiment produced $`D`$ mesons using a 500 GeV/$`c`$ $`\pi ^{}`$ beam incident on Pt and C targets. The subsequent $`D`$ decays were reconstructed using a silicon-strip vertex detector, a large-aperture spectrometer, and various particle identification detectors. Details of the experiment can be found in Ref. .

## 2 Dalitz-Plot Formalism

The analyses select $`D_{(s)}^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ and $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ decays by requiring that there be a 3-track vertex well-separated from the primary interaction vertex. Pions and kaons are identified using information from two threshold C̆erenkov counters. The $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ sample contains 15090 events with about 6% background, while the $`D^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ and $`D_s^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ samples contain 1686 and 937 events, respectively, with about 30% background. The $`K\pi \pi `$ sample is significantly larger and has a lower level of background because this decay is Cabibbo-favored.

To study the resonance structure of each sample, an unbinned maximum likelihood fit is performed. The likelihood function is $`=_{events}\left[𝒫_S+𝒫_B\right]`$, where $`𝒫_S`$ is the probability density function (PDF) for signal and $`𝒫_B`$ is the PDF for background. The latter PDF is obtained from a fit to events in mass sidebands or from Monte Carlo simulation. The signal PDF is $`𝒫_S=(1/N_S)g(M)\epsilon (m_{12}^2,m_{13}^2)|𝒜|^2`$, where $`N_S`$ is a normalization factor, $`g(M)`$ describes the signal shape in the $`\pi \pi \pi `$ or $`K\pi \pi `$ mass spectrum, and $`\epsilon (m_{12}^2,m_{13}^2)`$ is the acceptance over the Dalitz plot, including smearing. The amplitude $`𝒜`$ is the coherent sum of a uniform non-resonant (NR) amplitude and amplitudes of resonances:

$$𝒜=a_0e^{i\delta _0}𝒜_0+\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}a_ne^{i\delta _n}𝒜_n(m_{12}^2,m_{13}^2).$$
(1)
The coefficients $`a_n`$ and relative phases $`\delta _n`$ are determined from the fit. The amplitude $`𝒜_n=F_D^{(J)}F_n^{(J)}_n^{(J)}BW_n`$, where $`F_D^{(J)}`$ and $`F_n^{(J)}`$ are Blatt-Weisskopf factors that depend on the spin ($`J`$) and radii ($`r_D`$ and $`r_R`$) of the parent $`D`$ and intermediate resonance; $`_n^{(J)}`$ is the angular-momentum-conserving factor $`(2)^Jp^Jq^JP_J(\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$, where $`\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{q}`$ are the momenta of the $`D`$ and one of the daughters of the intermediate resonance in the resonance rest frame, and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =\widehat{p}\widehat{q}`$; and $`BW_n`$ is the relativistic Breit-Wigner propagator $`\left[m_n^2m^2im_n\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(m)\right]^1`$, where $`m`$ is the invariant mass of the track pair forming a resonance ($`m_{12}`$ or $`m_{13}`$), $`m_n`$ is the resonance mass, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(m)`$ is the mass-dependent width. More details of these expressions can be found in Ref. . Finally, each resonant amplitude is Bose-symmetrized with respect to the identical pions: $`𝒜_n=𝒜_n[(\mathrm{𝟏𝟐})\mathrm{𝟑}]+𝒜_n[(\mathrm{𝟏𝟑})\mathrm{𝟐}]`$.

## 3 Results

The results of the likelihood fits are given in Tables 13. The tables list the coefficients $`a_n`$ and phases $`\delta _n`$ resulting from the fits, along with the decay fraction for each amplitude. The decay fraction for an amplitude is defined as its intensity integrated over the Dalitz plot, divided by the integrated intensity of all amplitudes coherently summed. To assess the quality of the fit, a fast Monte Carlo program was developed that produces binned Dalitz-plot densities according to signal and background PDFs, including detector smearing effects. The difference between this density distribution and that of the data – summed over all bins – is taken as the $`\chi ^2`$ of the fit. The number of bins is the number of degrees of freedom.

Table 1 gives the results for $`D^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$. The left-most column lists results obtained when fitting to established resonances, while the right-most column lists results obtained when an additional scalar resonance is included. For the latter fit, the $`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom ($`\nu `$) is significantly improved, and the non-resonant fraction constitutes a much smaller component of the total width (in the left-most column it dominates). The mass and width obtained by the fit for the additional resonance (denoted “$`\sigma `$”) are $`m=478_{23}^{+24}\pm 17`$ MeV/$`c^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=324_{40}^{+42}\pm 21`$ MeV/$`c^2`$. As a test we also fit the data with vector, tensor, and toy (Breit-Wigner with no phase variation) models for the additional amplitude. In all cases we obtain a higher $`\chi ^2/\nu `$ than that obtained with the additional scalar amplitude.

Table 2 gives the results for $`D_s^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$. The left-most column lists results obtained when fitting to established resonances, while the other two columns list results obtained when the $`\rho ^0(770)`$ and $`\rho ^0(1450)`$ are excluded. The parameters determined from the fit are the mass and width of the $`f^0(1370)`$, and the mass and coefficients $`g_\pi ,g_K`$ of a coupled-channel Breit-Wigner width  for the $`f^0(980)`$. The results are $`m_{f_0(1370)}=1434\pm 18\pm 9`$ MeV/$`c^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_0(1370)}=172\pm 32\pm 6`$ MeV/$`c^2`$, and $`m_{f_0(980)}=977\pm 3\pm 2`$ MeV/$`c^2`$, $`g_\pi =0.09\pm 0.01\pm 0.01`$, $`g_K=0.02\pm 0.04\pm 0.03`$. We also fit the data using the same Breit-Wigner for the $`f_0(980)`$ as that used for the other resonances; the resulting fit is nearly as good and the decay fractions and phases are essentially unchanged. The isoscalar plus $`\pi ^+`$ components correspond to over 90% of the $`D_s^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ decay width.

Table 3 gives the results for $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$. The left-most column lists results when fitting only to established resonances and fixing the parameters of the scalar $`K_0^{}(1430)`$. The middle column lists results obtained when the $`K_0^{}(1430)`$ parameters are allowed to float, and, in addition, Gaussian form factors $`F_DF_R=\mathrm{exp}(p^2r_D^2/12)\mathrm{exp}(p^2r_R^2/12)`$ are used for the $`K_0^{}(1430)`$ to account for the size of the decaying mesons. The meson radii $`r_D`$ and $`r_R`$ (also appearing in Blatt-Weisskopf factors) are now determined from the fit. The right-most column lists results when an additional scalar resonance is included (also with Gaussian form factors in its amplitude). This last fit yields a significantly improved $`\chi ^2/\nu `$, and the NR fraction is reduced from about 90% to 13%, which is more consistent with expectations. The mass and width of the additional resonance (denoted “$`\kappa `$”) are $`m=797\pm 19\pm 43`$ MeV/$`c^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=410\pm 43\pm 87`$ MeV/$`c^2`$. Including this additional resonance, the fit obtains $`K_0^{}(1430)`$ parameters $`m_{K^{}(1430)}=1459\pm 7\pm 5`$ MeV/$`c^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{K^{}(1430)}=175\pm 12\pm 12`$ MeV/$`c^2`$; these values are shifted by $`+47`$ MeV and $`119`$ MeV, respectively, with respect to PDG values . The meson radii are $`r_D=5.0\pm 0.5`$ GeV-1 and $`r_R=1.6\pm 1.3`$ GeV-1. We also fit the data with vector, tensor, and toy (Breit-Wigner with no phase variation) models for the additional amplitude; in all cases we obtain a higher $`\chi ^2/\nu `$ than that obtained with the $`\kappa `$ amplitude.

In summary, we have performed Dalitz-plot analyses for the decays $`D^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$, $`D_s^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$, and $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$. For the first sample, including an additional scalar resonance with mass near 500 MeV/$`c^2`$ significantly improves the quality of the fit. For the $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ sample, including a scalar resonance with $`m800`$ MeV/$`c^2`$ improves the quality of the fit. When this resonance is included, the fit obtains a mass and decay width for the $`K_0^{}(1430)`$ that are shifted with respect to PDG values. For the $`D_s^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ sample, the Dalitz-plot fit yields new values for the masses and decay widths of the $`f_0(980)`$ and $`f_0(1370)`$ scalar mesons.


text:
# Deviation of the Nucleon Shape From Spherical Symmetry: Experimental Status

## 1 Introduction

Experimental confirmation of the deviation of the proton structure from spherical symmetry is fundamental and has been the subject of intense experimental and theoretical interestNstar  since this possibility was originally raised by GlashowGlashow . The most direct method to determine this would be to measure the quadrupole moment of the proton. However since the proton spin is 1/2 this is not possible. Therefore, this determination has focused on the measurement of the electric and Coulomb quadrupole amplitudes (E2, C2) in the predominantly M1 (magnetic dipole -quark spin flip) $`\gamma ^{}N\mathrm{\Delta }(1/23/2)`$ transition. Thus measurements of the E2 and C2 amplitudes represent deviations from spherical symmetry of the $`N,\mathrm{\Delta }`$ system and not the nucleon alone. The experimental difficulty is that the E2/M1 and C2/M1 ratios are small (typically $``$ $`2`$ to $`8`$ % at low $`Q^2`$). In this case the non-resonant (background) and resonant quadrupole amplitudes are the same order of magnitude. For this reason experiments have to be designed to attain the required sensitivity and precision to separate the signal and background contributions. This has been accomplished for photo-pion reactions for the E2 amplitude using polarized photon beamsMainz ; LEGS . In pion electroproduction the deviation from spherical symmetry is easier to observe due to the interference between the longitudinal(Coulomb) C2 and the dominant M1 amplitudes by observation of the $`\sigma _{TL}`$ cross sectionMertz . Electroproduction experiments are also being performed for a range of four momenta $`Q^2`$Mertz ; warren ; Kunz ; Mpolp ; MainzTL' ; Bonn ; Joo ; Stoler ; HallA  which provides a measure of the spatial distribution of the transition densities. On the other hand the presence of the additional longitudinal multipoles in electroproduction means that there are more observables to measure and therefore more data must be taken than in photoproduction experiments. The experiments to generate an extensive data-base that would allow a model independent analysis have just begun, both in photo- and in electro-production. At the present time one must rely on reaction models to extract the resonant M1, E2, and C2 amplitudes of interest from the data. As has been pointed out the model error can be much larger than the experimental errorMertz . Therefore it is important to test model calculations for a range of center of mass(CM) energies $`W`$ in the region of 1232 MeV, the resonant energy, which provides a range of the relative background and resonant amplitudes, as well as picking out specific observables which are sensitive to the quadrupole amplitudes (e.g. $`\sigma _{\mathrm{TL}}`$) and others which are primarily sensitive to the background amplitudes(e.g. $`\sigma _{\mathrm{TL}^{^{}}}`$).

## 2 Why Should the Nucleon be Deformed?

It is well known that in the quark model there are non-central (tensor) interactions between quarks which were modeled after the electromagnetic interactionGlashow ; Isgur .
Although this interaction does, in fact, introduce non-spherical responses (E2 and C2) into the electromagnetic matrix elements they are only a small fraction of the observed amplitudes. In my view this is not surprising since the long distance part of the nucleon and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ structure should be related to the pion cloud which is poorly represented in quark models. We expect the long range (low $`Q^2`$) behavior to be pion field dominated since it is the lightest hadron. Of course this is well known experimentally and is a cornerstone of classical nuclear theory. What is new is our more recent understanding that the pion itself, and its interaction with other hadrons, is a consequence of spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking in QCDchiral . In the chiral limit, i.e. where the light quark masses are set equal to zero, the QCD Lagrangian has chiral symmetry which does not appear in nature. We know this experimentally since if chiral symmetry were exact we would observe parity doubling of all hadronic states. This means that the chiral symmetry is broken (or more exactly hidden) and is manifested in the appearance of zero mass, pseudoscalar Goldstone Bosons. Since, in nature, the light quark masses are small but non-zero, the physical Goldstone Bosons have a small mass and are identified as the $`\pi `$ mesons. The coupling of a Goldstone Boson to a nucleon is g$`\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}`$ where g is the $`\pi N`$ coupling constant (predicted by the Goldberger-Trieman relation) $`\sigma `$ is the nucleon spin, and p is the pion momentum. This interaction vanishes in the s wave and leads to the Goldstone theorem that the interaction vanishes as $`p0`$. The $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}`$ interaction is strong in the p wave which leads to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance and is the basis of the deviation from spherical symmetry in the nucleon, illustrated schematically in Fig. 1, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ structure. In a sense this is the basis of classical nuclear theory.

Although it is beyond the scope of this presentation, I cannot resist mentioning that the $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}`$ interaction required by the spontaneous breakdown of chiral symmetry in QCD economically describes the basics of $`\pi N`$ scattering and of nuclear physics. Indeed, this $`\pi N`$ interaction leads to a non-spherical NN interaction (the tensor force). By generalizing Fig. 1 to the case of two nucleons, it is not hard to see physically (semi-classically) that the most attractive position for two nucleons is for one nucleon to be spatially above the second with their spins parallel. This is the configuration which is favored by the tensor force.

Quantitatively the quark model calculations of the M1 matrix element are too smallCapstick (although this is not often discussed). This is shown in Table 1 where the magnitude of the experimentalPDG  and theoretical matrix elements for the $`\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ reaction are presented. It can be seen that the quark model predictions are $`30\%`$ too low for the dominant M1 and an order of magnitude too small for the E2 matrix element, which is the indicator of the non-spherical structure of the nucleon and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ structure. The table also includes the redundant E2/M1 ratio just to illustrate that it has become commonplace in the recent literature to quote only this latter ratio and not the absolute values of the matrix elements. By doing so, some important lessons tend to be overlooked. As an example, we focus on the quark model extensionsBuchmann , which introduce multi-body interactions between the quarks, taking into account the composite nature of the constituent quarks. These currents take the pion field partially into account and, as can be seen in Table 1, this effect increases the E2 matrix element to the empirical size and in fact increases the E2/M1 ratio to an even larger value than the experiment. However this treatment does not increase the magnitude of the M1 matrix element so it remains $`30\%`$ less than experiment. As was discussed above, based on spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking, it is physically intuitive that this shortfall should be looked for in the long range effect of the pion cloud.

This issue of the quark core and pion cloud contributions has been addressed in a meson exchange model by Sato and LeeSL . Their model results are also presented in Table 1. Here it is seen that their model tends to make up for the deficiencies of the quark model, not only for the E2/M1 ratio, but for the individual magnitudes of the E2 and M1 matrix elements. The uncertainties shown in Table 1 are due to uncertainties in their model parameters (see Table IV and the discussion in their 1996 paperSL ). Sato and Lee have also calculated the effects of the pion cloud for pion electroproduction as a function of $`Q^2`$ and the results are presented in Fig. 2. It can be seen that the enhancement of the M1 matrix element is significant and that the non-spherical E2 and C2(Coulomb quadrupole) matrix elements are dominated by meson cloud effects. It is also seen in Fig. 2 that, as expected, the long range pion cloud effects are more dominant at low $`Q^2`$. The dynamic Sato-Lee calculations are in excellent agreement with the data for photo-pion production in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ region (some of the parameters were fit to these data) and are also in good agreement with the JLab data presented by Burkert at this meeting. However, before becoming complacent, we should note that the next section will show that this model is not in agreement with low $`Q^2`$ data taken at BatesMertz ; Kunz  near the predicted peak of the pion cloud contribution.This suggests to me that even though the Sato-Lee Lagrangian has chiral symmetry they are not completely implementing the dynamics of chiral symmetry breaking, perhaps in their omission of the pion loops which are required in chiral perturbation theory calculations of the $`epe\pi ^0p`$ reaction in the near thresholdBKM  and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ regionsHemmert . Therefore, even though the contribution of the pion cloud appears to be required, its description must be considered somewhat qualitative at this point. It’s detailed contribution needs to be calculated in a manner which is more consistent with the dynamics of spontaneous breaking.

Calculations of the $`\gamma ^{}N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ transition in chiral perturbation theory (ChPT), which incorporates spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking in a manner which is consistent with QCD, have just begunHemmert . In this calculation the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is included as a dynamical degree of freedom. A low energy expansion has been performed in the small parameter $`ϵ=(p_\pi ,m_\pi ,\delta =M_\mathrm{\Delta }M_p)`$ to order $`O(ϵ^3)`$.In this calculation the importance of the pion loops is clear since they are required by the power counting rules of ChPT at $`O(ϵ^3)`$, or higher. As is typical of low energy effective theories there are two low energy parameters which were fit to the empirical M1 and E2 transitions so that there aren’t any predicted values to be included in Table 1. The slopes of the transition form factors are predicted, but cannot yet be compared to experiment since there is a paucity of low $`Q^2`$ data, which is something that we plan to remedy in the next year. On the theoretical side it is important that the ChPT calculations be carried out to make contact with experimental observables and also extended to $`O(ϵ^4)`$ to check the convergence of these calculations. It is clear that at the present time the verification of the idea that the pion cloud is the major contributor to the nucleon and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ deformation requires more theoretical and experimental work.This is important, since as was stated above, it is expected that the pion cloud plays a significant role in baryon structureUlf .

The question of the shape of the nucleon and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ were explored in the context of three different models by Buchmann and HenleyBH . They conclude that the proton is prolate (longer at the poles) and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is oblate(flatter at the poles). This is consistent with the data.

Finally we note that there are two lattice QCD calculationslattice at $`Q^2=0,0.52GeV^2`$ which demonstrate non-zero quadrupole transition amplitudes. Taking into account the relatively large theoretical errors, as well as the experimental errors, they are tolerably close to the data. Clearly we await further calculations which reduce the error, so that accurate QCD calculations can be compared to experimental results. We do note however that the question of exactly how to compare the experimental transition amplitudes, which contain background continuum contributions, and a theoretical calculation which assumes that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a bound particle, need improvement.

## 3  Experiments on Proton Deformation

Modern photon experiments have been carried out at Mainz Mainz  and BrookhavenLEGS  of the $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }p\pi ^0p`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }p\pi ^+n`$ reactions with polarized photons. The combination of accurate measurements and the use of polarized photons provides sufficient sensitivity so that two laboratories have reported measurements of both the small E2 amplitude and the dominant M1 amplitude. The observation of both charge channels allows an isospin separation of the resonant $`I=`$3/2 channel. The results for the polarized photon asymmetry are presented in Fig. 3. There is good agreement for this quantity between the two labs and model calculations and the results are $`E2/M1=2.5\pm 0.5\%`$ PDG  showing that there is significant deformation in the $`N,\mathrm{\Delta }`$ system (see the discussion inLEGS ). It should be mentioned, however, that although there is very good agreement between the Mainz and Brookhaven measurements of the polarized photon asymmetries shown in Fig. 3, there is a significant deviation in the unpolarized cross sectionsMainz ; LEGS  which unfortunately is still unresolved.

The situation for pion electroproduction in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance region is evolving rapidly with activity at all the intermediate energy facilities: BatesMertz ; warren ; Kunz , MainzMpolp ; MainzTL' , BonnBonn , and JLabJoo ; Stoler ; HallA  (for a review seeNstar ). In this brief report only a few highlights will be mentioned. The work at Bates will be emphasized here since the focus of this talk is on the pion cloud effects which are largest in the low $`Q^2`$ regime covered by those experiments and also since the JLab work was covered by Burkert at this meetingVB . There has been a corresponding increase in the theoretical activity in this field which is being emphasized in a complementary talk at this meeting by Tiator who also presents an overview of the dataTiator . The goal of the pion electroproduction experiments is to obtain accurate data which have sufficient sensitivity to determine the M1, E2, and C2 resonance amplitudes, but also sufficient coverage to determine the background amplitudes which are of the same order of magnitude as E2 and C2. These are of interest in their own right as an integral part of the $`\gamma \pi N`$ system and therefore as part of the chiral structure of matter. For example, the resonance and background amplitudes are related to the form factors and to the electric and magnetic polarizabilities of the nucleon. The background amplitudes contribute to the cross sections linearly with the resonance amplitudes, and the interference terms therefore make significant contributions to the observables. The background contributions also occur in the resonance amplitudes and are part of the physics. In a sense this is a crucial difference between dynamic and static models(e.g.the quark model) for which the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is treated as a bound state, which ignores the background contributions. The cleanest experimental determination would consist of an empirical multipole analysis of the data. At the present time we do not have a sufficient, accurate data-base with which to perform such an analysis and must rely on empirical models to extract the resonant amplitudes. The present short term experimental goal is to provide a sufficiently sensitive and accurate data-base to rigorously test the models. It is hoped that the combination of Born terms and the tails of higher resonances will suffice to reproduce the background amplitudes.

The coincident $`p(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}\pi )`$ cross section in the one-photon-exchange-approximation can be written as obs :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\omega d\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{e}d\mathrm{\Omega }_\pi ^{\mathrm{cm}}}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{v}\sigma _\mathrm{h}(\theta ,\varphi )`$ (1)
$`\sigma _\mathrm{h}(\theta ,\varphi )=\sigma _\mathrm{T}+\epsilon \sigma _\mathrm{L}+\sqrt{2\epsilon (1+\epsilon )}\sigma _{\mathrm{TL}}\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$
$`+\epsilon \sigma _{\mathrm{TT}}\mathrm{cos}2\varphi +hp_\mathrm{e}\sqrt{2\epsilon (1\epsilon )}\sigma _{\mathrm{TL}^{}}\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{v}`$ is the virtual photon flux, $`h=\pm 1`$ is the electron helicity, $`p_\mathrm{e}`$ is the magnitude of the longitudinal electron polarization, $`\epsilon `$ is the virtual photon polarization, $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ are the pion CM polar and azimuthal angles relative to the momentum transfer $`\stackrel{}{q}`$, and $`\sigma _\mathrm{L}`$, $`\sigma _\mathrm{T}`$, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{TL}}`$, and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{TT}}`$ are the longitudinal, transverse, transverse-longitudinal, and transverse-transverse interference cross sections, respectively. Each of these partial cross sections can be written in terms of the multipolesobs . The E2 and M1 amplitudes can be obtained from a combination of $`\sigma _\mathrm{T}`$ and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{TT}}`$ as was done in photo-production (the polarized photon asymmetry =$`\sigma _{\mathrm{TT}}/\sigma _\mathrm{T}`$). In the approximation that only s and p wave pions are produced they can be written asobs :

$`\sigma _\mathrm{T}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`A_T+B_T\mathrm{cos}\theta +C_T\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ (2)
$`\sigma _{\mathrm{TT}}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta A_{TT}`$
$`A_T`$ $``$ $`5/2|M_{1+}|^2+Re[M_{1+}M_1^{}3M_{1+}E_{1+}^{}]`$
$`B_T`$ $``$ $`2M_{1+}E_{0+}^{}`$
$`C_T`$ $``$ $`3/2|M_{1+}|^2+Re[9M_{1+}E_{1+}^{}3M_{1+}M_1^{}]`$
$`A_{TT}`$ $``$ $`1/2|M_{1+}|^2Re[M_{1+}E_{1+}^{}+M_{1+}M_1^{}]`$
where the pion production multipole amplitudes are denoted by $`M_{l\pm }`$, $`E_{l\pm }`$, and $`L_{l\pm }`$, indicating their character (magnetic, electric, or longitudinal), and their total angular momentum ($`J`$=$`l\pm 1/2`$)mult . The expressions for $`A_T,B_T,C_T`$ and $`A_{TT}`$ are in the truncated multipole approximation where it is assumed that only terms which interfere with the dominant magnetic dipole amplitude $`M_{1+}`$ are kept. The exact formulas without this approximation can be found in obs . In this approximation the longitudinal cross section $`\sigma _L`$ = 0. In model calculationsSL ; MAID ; KY ; Az ; SAID  this approximation is not made and significant deviations from the truncated multipole approximation occur.

The C2 amplitude can be obtained from $`\sigma _{\mathrm{TL}}`$. An example of this is presented in Fig.4 which shows the Bates dataMertz  and the difference between the cross section with and without the quadrupole C2 amplitude calculated with the MAID modelMAID . The sensitivity is quite large, again indicating a significant d state component in the $`N,\mathrm{\Delta }`$ system. As can be seen from a comparison of Figs. 3 and 4, there is far more sensitivity to the C2 as compared to the E2 amplitude, despite the fact that they are both only a few % of the M1 amplitude. The reason for this difference lies in the fact that in the longitudinal amplitude the C2 is a leading term, whereas in the transverse amplitude the E2 occurs in a linear combination with the M1 amplitude.

The TL and the TL (transverse-longitudinal) response functions are the real and imaginary parts of the same combination of interference multipole amplitudes. Again assuming that only s and p wave pions are produced they can be written asobs :

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{TL}}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{Re}[A_{\mathrm{TL}}+B_{\mathrm{TL}}\mathrm{cos}\theta ]`$ (3)
$`\sigma _{\mathrm{TL}^{}}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{Im}[A_{\mathrm{TL}}+B_{\mathrm{TL}}\mathrm{cos}\theta ]`$
$`A_{\mathrm{TL}}`$ $``$ $`L_{0+}^{}M_{1+}`$
$`B_{\mathrm{TL}}`$ $``$ $`6L_{1+}^{}M_{1+}`$
where the last two approximations are for the truncated multipole approximation.

The Bates out-of-plane spectrometer system (OOPS)OOPS  which was designed and built in order to exploit the $`\varphi `$ dependence shown in Eq. 3 is shown schematically in Fig. 5. It consists of an electron spectrometer used in conjunction with four relatively light spectrometers which can be deployed at a fixed polar angle $`\theta _{hq}`$, relative to the momentum transfer $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ to detect the charged, emitted hadron $`(p,\pi ^+)`$. By deploying multiple (3 or 4) spectrometers at different azimuthal angles $`\varphi `$, the combination of $`\sigma _0=\sigma _T+ϵ\sigma _L,\sigma _{TT}`$ and $`\sigma _{TL}`$ can be simultaneously measured in one run, which reduces the systematic errors caused by luminosity measurement errors. Furthermore, the geometry is optimized to measure relatively small relative magnitudes of $`\sigma _{TL}/\sigma _0`$ and $`\sigma _{TT}/\sigma _0`$. The combination of high luminosity and small systematic errors, allows precise measurements to be performed. Furthermore, when polarized electron beams are employed, measurements of the fifth structure function $`\sigma _{TL^{^{}}}`$, which require out-of-plane hadron detection, become possible.

Several rounds of experiments have been carried out at Bates with the OOPS apparatusMertz ; Kunz . Experiments have been carried out at $`Q^2=0.127GeV^2`$ over a range of CM energies W, below, on, and above the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance energy W = 1232 MeV. For brevity only the results at the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ peak are presented in Fig. 6. The experimental results are compared to calculationsSL ; MAID ; KY ; Az ; SAID . The most ambitious calculations are the dynamical Sato-Lee modelSL  and a dispersion relation calculationAz . The Sato-Lee model calculates all of the multipoles and $`\pi N`$ scattering from dynamical equations. Dispersion relation calculations have previously provided good agreement with photo-pion production dataMainz-dispersion . Unfortunately, neither of these calculations agrees with the Bates data. The Sato-Lee modelSL  agrees for the unpolarized cross sections $`\sigma _0=\sigma _\mathrm{T}+ϵ\sigma _\mathrm{L}`$ but is in strong disagreement with the measurements of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{TL}}`$ and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{TL}^{}}`$. The dispersion relations calculation Az  agrees with some of the Bates data but disagrees with the measurement of $`\sigma _0`$ at W = 1170 MeV(not shown here) and with $`\sigma _{\mathrm{TL}}`$ measurements. Only the two most empirical modelsMAID ; SAID  give reasonable overall fits to all of the Bates data. The Mainz Unitary Model (MAID) is a flexible way to fit observed cross sections as a function of $`Q^2`$MAID . It incorporates Breit-Wigner resonant terms, Born terms, higher $`N^{}`$ resonances, and is unitarized using empirical $`\pi `$N phase shifts. The fitted parameters of the model include a range of dataMAID . The SAID calculationSAID  is an empirical multipole fit to previous electropion production data. The Kamalov-Yang modelKY  includes dynamics for the resonant channels and uses the background amplitudes of the MAID model. This model is in reasonable agreement with most of the Bates data with the exception of the unpolarized cross section $`\sigma _0`$ at $`W`$=1170 MeV(not shown here).

The Sato-Lee dynamical modelSL  predicts that the pion cloud is the dominant contribution to the quadrupole amplitudes at low values of $`Q^2`$. Unfortunately, this model is not in agreement with our data but showed much better predictions of the recently reported result from the CLAS detector at JLab for the $`p(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}p)\pi ^0`$ reaction in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ region for $`Q^2`$ from 0.4 to 1.8 (GeV/c)<sup>2</sup>Joo . This seems to indicate that the dominant meson cloud contribution, which is predicted to be a maximum near our values of $`Q^2`$, is not quantitatively correct. n.

Recently, a measurement of $`A_{\mathrm{TL}^{}}`$ for the $`p(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}p)\pi ^0`$ reaction in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ region was performed at MainzMainzTL' . The kinematics include a range of $`Q^2`$ values from 0.17 to 0.26 (GeV/c)<sup>2</sup> and backward $`\theta `$ angles. These data were compared to several modelsSL ; MAID ; KY  which all disagreed with the data. The results of the MAID calculation had to be multiplied by 0.75 to agree with the experimentMainzTL' . In comparison with the Bates $`\sigma _{TL^{^{}}}`$ dataKunz , if one multiplies the MAID results by the same factor these data are still in agreement at W=1170 MeV, but at W=1232 MeV they do not agree with a discrepancy of $`1.4\sigma `$. Therefore a reduction of 25% in the MAID predictions for $`\sigma _{TL^{^{}}}`$ does not seriously effect the agreement with the Bates experiment.

It is of interest to compare the TL and TL results presented here with those of the recoil polarizations which are proportional to the real and imaginary parts of interference multipole amplitudes. For the $`p(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}\stackrel{}{p})\pi ^0`$ channel the outgoing proton polarizations have been observed in parallel kinematics (the protons emitted along $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ or $`\theta =180^{}`$) warren ; Mpolp . For this case the observable amplitudes areobs :

$`\sigma _0p_x`$ $``$ $`Re[A_{TL}^x]`$ (4)
$`\sigma _0p_y`$ $``$ $`Im[B_{TL}^y]`$
$`\sigma _0p_z`$ $``$ $`Re[C_{TT}^z]`$
$`A_{TL}^xB_{TL}^y`$ $``$ $`(4L_{1+}^{}L_{0+}^{}+L_1^{})M_{1+}`$
$`C_{TT}^z`$ $``$ $`M_{1+}^2+Re[(6E_{1+}^{}2E_{0+}^{})M_{1+}]`$
where $`\sigma _0`$ is the unpolarized cross section and the constants of proportionality contain only kinematic factors. The formulas for $`A_{TL}^x,B_{TL}^y,C_{TT}^z`$ assume s and p wave pions are produced and are in the truncated multipole approximation. This shows both the similarity and detailed difference between a measurement of TL and TL and the recoil polarizations. In the published papers the data were compared to the MAID model which is not in good agreement with the data warren ; Mpolp . At the present time we do not have sufficient data to pin down the multipoles which are responsible for this difference.

The EMR and CMR ratios as a function of $`Q^2`$ were presented by Tiator at this workshopTiator . For completeness these are included here as Figs. 7 and 8. The results have provided us with a reasonably consistent overall picture of the EMR and CMR ratios. Although not presented here the pion cloud modelsSL ; KY  are not in agreement with the data shown in Figs. 7 and 8 (see e.g. the figure presented by BurkertVB ). This agrees with the observation that this modelSL  does not agree with the data near $`Q^2=0.125GeV^2`$ as discussed above. In this connection it should be noted that there is a paucity of data between the photon point and $`Q^2=0.4GeV^2`$. We are planning to perform an experiment at Mainz to study this region where the pion cloud effects are predicted to be largeSL ; KY  to test the idea of pion cloud dominance of the E2 and C2 transition amplitudes at low $`Q^2`$.

At large (asymptotic) values of $`Q^2`$ it is predicted that due to helicity conservation $`EMR=E_{1+}/M_{1+}1`$ and that $`CMR=S_{1+}/M_{1+}constant`$asym . At the highest measured values of $`Q^2=4GeV^2`$ it is clear from Figs. 7 and 8 that the asymptotic QCD region has not been reached.

## 4 What Are the Requirements for a Model Independent Data Analysis?

It is interesting to consider how many data are required to perform a complete, model independent, multipole analysis. This can be illustrated in the approximation where it is assumed that only s and p wave pions are emitted (the discussion can be easily generalized without this assumption). In this case there are 7 multipoles for electroproduction ($`E_{0+},E_{1+},M_{1\pm },L_{0+},L_{1\pm }`$). Since these are complex they represent 14 numbers. However, an overall phase is irrelevant, so this leaves 13 numbers to be determined at each value of $`Q^2`$ and W. By counting the observables in Eqs. 2 and 3 it can be seen that for for polarized electrons and unpolarized targets there are 8 observables, namely A,B,C, $`A_{TT},Re[A_{TL}],Im[A_{TL}],Re[B_{TL}],Im[B_{TL}]`$ in Eqs 2 and 3. This is the number we have obtained at Bates (including data presently being analyzed)at $`Q^2=0.127GeV^2`$. By adding recoil polarization observables in parallel kinematics, 3 more numbers are measured(Eq. 4). This provides a stringent test of the reaction models but not enough to make a model independent analysis. By measuring recoil polarization away from the forward direction the remainder can be measured. It is of interest to compare this to the photon experiments which have been carried out with polarized photons and unpolarized targets. There are 4 transverse multipoles which make 8-1 = 7 numbers to determine. The actual experimentsMainz ; LEGS  determined 4 of these (A,B,C and $`A_{TT}`$ of Eq. 2). So even these data are not yet sufficient for a model independent analysis, and polarized target data is required to complete this task. Such experiments are underway at LEGS in Brookhaven and are being planned at Mainz.

## 5 Conclusions

In conclusion, our data are consistent with a deviation of the nucleon and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ from spherical symmetry. We are making rapid progress towards making a more quantitative measurement of this effect. The errors are primarily in the model extraction of the deformation. We also are making rapid progress towards stringently testing the reaction models, which means pinning down the resonant and background amplitudes. The latter effort consists of measurements of the fifth structure function $`\sigma _{TL^{^{}}}`$ and of the recoil polarizations. In addition we are also making progress towards a sufficient data-base to approach making model independent analyses. The interesting question of whether the main mechanism for the deviation from spherical symmetry has its origin in the spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry in QCD with the resulting long range contribution from the pion cloud, needs further experimental and theoretical work.

## 6 Acknowledgements

I want to thank the organizers, O. Benhar, A. Fabrocini, and R. Schiavilla for their invitation to a stimulating workshop. I would like to thank my OOPS colleagues for their collaboration, and for allowing me to use data prior to publication. I also thank L. Tiator for discussions during the workshop and for permission to use Figs.7 and 8. For their helpful discussions of the manuscript I would like to thank V.R.Brown,B. Holstein, T.-S. H. Lee, U.G.Meißner, S.Stave, I. Nakagawa, C.Vellidis.