text:
# Electromagnetic splitting for mesons and baryons using dressed constituent quarks

## I Introduction

Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) is believed to be the good theory of strong interaction. It has met with numerous successes in many domains. However, in the low energy regime, it is extremely difficult to handle because of its non perturbative character. Lattice calculations become more and more reliable but still remain very cumbersome, time consuming and not always transparent for the underlying physics. This explains why, in the meson and baryon sectors, a number of alternative simpler models were introduced. Among them, the non relativistic quark model (NRQM) is very appealing because of its high simplicity, its ability to treat properly the center of mass motion, and the large number of observables that can be described within its framework.

In NRQM formalism, the dynamical equation is the usual Schrödinger equation including a non relativistic kinetic energy term plus a potential term luch91 . There exist a lot of different numerical algorithms to solve the two-body and three-body problems with a good accuracy (see for instance Refs. baye86 ; baye97 ; suzu98 ).

Nowadays, it becomes more and more frequent to use a relativistic expression for the kinetic energy operator. The resulting dynamical equation is known as a spinless Salpeter equation. It has several advantages as compared to the Schrödinger equation sema92 ; fulc94  and the corresponding numerical algorithms are now well under control (see for instance Refs. suzu98 ; fulc94 ; brau98b ; sema01 ; silv01 ). This kind of models and NRQM both use potentials, and are called potential models.

In potential models (and indeed in many other QCD inspired models), the quark degrees of freedom are no longer the bare quarks of the QCD lagrangian, but are quasiparticles dressed by a gluon cloud and quark-antiquark virtual pairs. They are called constituent quarks and the most visible modification is the necessity to use in potential models a quark mass substantially larger than the bare mass. In principle the bare quark-quark potential should also be modified and folded with the quark color density to give the final potential to be used in a Schrödinger or in a spinless Salpeter equation. In recent quark-quark potentials appearing on the market, this effect is taken into account sema97 ; sema99 ; brau98 ; sema01b . Actually, this effect has been already considered since a rather long time (see i.e. Ref. godf85 ; caps86 ). The resulting spectra of these models are in correct agreement with experimental data. However, it seems very difficult to get, in a unified scheme (same form of the potential and same set of parameters), a good description of both meson and baryon properties blas90 ; isgu00 . For example in the well known works of Isgur godf85 ; caps86 , the string tension is different in the mesonic and in the baryonic sector. Recently, progresses in obtaining a unified description have been achieved brau02 .

The spectra are only a part of interesting observables, and the validity of a model should be tested on other observables, especially if they are very sensitive to the form of the wave function. Electromagnetic properties are best suited for such a study, because the basic QED formalism is very well known and precise, and thus the possible uncertainties coming from mechanisms or wave function (itself depending on the much less known strong interactions) are more conveniently identified.

In this paper, we focus our study on the electromagnetic splitting between charged hadrons, both in the meson and baryon sectors, within the framework of potential models. Since the earliest works on charmed mesons john78 , and baryons wrig78 , a number of similar studies were performed in the past luch91 ; brau98 ; godf86 ; caps87 ; geno98 . Essentially three different sources for the splitting were identified: a small mass difference between up and down quarks, the coulomb interaction between charged quarks, and their dipole-dipole interaction geno98 . All of them seem to have an important effect and the final result is a very subtle interplay among them. This explains why a very proper and precise treatment must be invoked, and also why this observable is very interesting. The current mass ratio for the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks is probably comprised between 0.2 and 0.8 pdg . However their absolute values are presumably weak (a few MeV) with respect to the QCD scale parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Thus the spontaneous symmetry breaking induces large constituent masses for the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks; the corresponding values are very close (making the SU(2) isospin symmetry rather good) but nevertheless different. This small difference is a first source for the isospin splitting. Moreover, quarks being charged particles, the coulomb interaction is obviously present (very often, it has been treated as a perturbation). The dipole-dipole interaction (or hyperfine interaction) is a consequence of relativistic corrections to the coulomb potential.

The same problem was also undertaken using formalisms relying more basically on fundamental QCD. In Ref. luty95 , an heavy quark effective theory (first order in $`1/m_Q`$) is adopted to study the splitting in heavy mesons, using dispersion relations. In Ref. gao97  a chiral field theory is employed to study several splittings in ordinary and strange sectors. In Ref. cola98 , the authors are interested in the charmed and bottom meson sectors with a formalism based on Cottingham formula. In Ref. delb99  a tadpole term is introduced to deal with the $`ud`$ mass difference in some hadrons. But in most of these studies, the authors limit themselves to very restricted samples, either in meson or in baryon sector. We think that so few states to test the validity of a model can be questionable.

In our paper we want to deal with *all the known splittings* both in mesons and in baryons in a consistent approach, and to push the potential model study further in several domains. First we want to perform a precise and complete treatment, avoiding perturbative expressions as much as possible. Second, we introduce the “contact term”, which arises on equal footing as the dipole-dipole relativistic correction, but which is neglected by most authors luch91 ; geno98 .

Finally, our most important improvement to our point of view is the use of a dressed electromagnetic interaction between quarks. Since the constituent quarks are quasiparticles, the electromagnetic interaction should also be modified as compared to the bare one, in a very similar way to the quark-quark strong potential. However the electromagnetic lagrangian is different from the QCD lagrangian and the electromagnetic density for the quark, playing a role in the splitting, has no reason to be identical to the color density occurring in the quark-quark strong potential. Such an approach has already been proposed in Refs. godf86 ; caps87  but with a different form for the electromagnetic density. Moreover, in these works, different sets of parameters have been used for mesonic and baryonic sectors separately.

In order to see the sensitivity of the results on the treatment of the strong interactions for the quark dynamics, we investigate the splitting produced with two types of wave function, one resulting from a phenomenological non relativistic hamiltonian (AL1) silv93 ; Sema94  and another with a semi-relativistic hamiltonian (called here BSS) brau02 . Moreover, since our aim is to consider mesons and baryons on equal footing, it is important to consider interquark potentials that lead to a correct description of both sectors. This is rather difficult to encounter. Both hamiltonians considered here are suited for that. The first potential (AL1) relies on the so-called funnel or Cornell potential eich75 ; bhad81 . It is completely phenomenological and one can consider that the dressing of the quarks is included and simulated in the value of the various parameters. The second one (BSS) starts with more fundamental QCD grounds and is based on instanton induced effects blas90 ; shur89 ; the dressing is explicitly taken into account but there remain nevertheless some free parameters that are adjusted on the spectra.

The paper is organized as follows. The next section presents in more details the strong potentials and the way to solve the two-body and three-body problems. The third section deals with the electromagnetic interaction responsible of the splitting. The results of our calculations are presented and compared to data in the fourth section. Conclusions are drawn in the last section.

## II Potentials and wave function

### II.1 Strong potentials

As stated in the introduction, we use in this paper two kinds of interquark potentials: one that must be used in a Schrödinger equation (AL1) and the other in a spinless Salpeter equation (BSS). They both depend on the relative distance $`r`$ between the interacting quarks and are able to describe in a satisfactory way both the meson and the baryon spectra. However the BSS potential is suited, because of its underlying QCD basis, only for the light quark sectors ($`u`$, $`d`$, $`s`$ quarks). They differ by the type of kinematics and by the manner to deal with spin splitting; although they give spectra of similar good quality, the corresponding wave functions can differ appreciably. Their derivation and their parameters have been reported elsewhere, and here we just want to point out the essential features and stress their differences more explicitly. In both models, the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks are assumed to have the same mass. In the following, they will be noted by the symbol $`n`$ (normal or non strange).

#### II.1.1 AL1 Potential

The AL1 potential Sema94 , developed for a non relativistic kinematics, contains the minimum ingredients necessary to get an overall reasonable description of hadronic resonances, a central part $`V_C`$ and a hyperfine term $`V_H`$

$$V_{ij}(r)=\frac{3}{16}\lambda _i\lambda _j\left[V_C^{(ij)}(r)+V_H^{(ij)}(r)\right].$$
(1)
The central part is merely the Cornell potential composed of a short range coulombic part, simulating the one-gluon exchange mechanism, and a long range linear term, responsible for the confinement (an additional constant is very important to get the good absolute values)

$$V_C^{(ij)}(r)=\frac{\kappa }{r}+ar+C.$$
(2)
The color dependence through the Gell-Mann matrices $`\lambda `$ in relation (1) comes from one gluon exchange. There is no reason, except simplicity, that such a structure is kept for the confining and constant parts. Nevertheless, this ansatz works well for both meson and baryon sectors.

The hyperfine term has a short range behavior and is chosen as a gaussian function

$$V_H^{(ij)}(r)=\frac{8\pi }{3m_im_j}\kappa ^{}\frac{\mathrm{exp}(r^2/\sigma _{ij}^2)}{\pi ^{3/2}\sigma _{ij}^3}𝐬_i𝐬_j.$$
(3)
The interesting property, as compared to Bhaduri’s bhad81  or Cornell’s eich75  potentials, is that the range $`\sigma _{ij}`$ of that force does depend on the flavor

$$\sigma _{ij}=A\left(\frac{2m_im_j}{m_i+m_j}\right)^B.$$
(4)
A kind of dressing is realized with the gaussian function, since the theory predicts a delta contribution for the hyperfine potential. The various parameters, including constituent masses, have been determined on the spectra by a best fit procedure. Although very simple, this potential does already a good job in hadronic spectroscopy.

The AL1 potential depends on quark masses in the strong hyperfine term. So a variation of the quark masses, as necessary for treating the electromagnetic splitting, has a strong effect on the meson masses. We have checked that this may induce wrong results in the case of a perturbative calculation.

#### II.1.2 BSS Potential

The BSS potential brau02 , developed for a semi relativistic kinematics, contains the Cornell potential and an instanton induced interaction. The Cornell potential has the same form as in the AL1 potential, but the constant interaction is different for meson and baryon sectors. Contrary to the AL1 potential, the instanton formalism is based on a SU(3) flavor symmetry and can hardly be generalized to the heavy quark sector.

The instanton induced interaction provides a suitable formalism to reproduce well the spectrum of the pseudoscalar mesons (and to explain the masses of $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ mesons). The interaction between one quark and one antiquark in a meson is vanishing for $`L0`$ or $`S0`$ states. For $`L=S=0`$, its form depends on the isospin of the $`q\overline{q}`$ pair

* For $`I=1`$:

$$V_I(r)=8g\delta (\stackrel{}{r});$$
(5)
* For $`I=1/2`$:

$$V_I(r)=8g^{}\delta (\stackrel{}{r});$$
(6)
* $`I=0`$:

$$V_I(r)=8\left(\begin{array}{cc}g& \sqrt{2}g^{}\\ \sqrt{2}g^{}& 0\end{array}\right)\delta (\stackrel{}{r}),$$
(7)
in the flavor space $`(1/\sqrt{2}(|u\overline{u}+|d\overline{d}),|s\overline{s})`$.

The parameters $`g`$ and $`g^{}`$ are two dimensioned coupling constants. Between two quarks in a baryon, this interaction is written blas90 ; munz94

$$V_I(r)=4\left(gP^{[nn]}+g^{}P^{[ns]}\right)P^{S=0}\delta (\stackrel{}{r}),$$
(8)
where $`P^{S=0}`$ is the projector on spin 0, and $`P^{[qq^{}]}`$ is the projector on antisymmetrical flavor state $`qq^{}`$. We have shown in Ref. brau02  that this model is able to describe correctly meson and baryon spectra in a consistent way if the following interaction is added for baryons only

$$V_I^{\mathrm{baryon}}(r)=C_I\left(P^{[nn]}+P^{[ns]}\right)P^{S=0}P^{L=0},$$
(9)
where $`C_I`$ is a new constant.

The quark masses used in this model are the constituent masses and not the current ones. It is then natural to suppose that a quark is not a pure pointlike particle, but an effective degree of freedom which is dressed by the gluon and quark-antiquark pair clouds. The form that we retain for the color charge density of a quark is a Gaussian function

$$\rho (𝐫)=\frac{1}{(\mathrm{\Gamma }\sqrt{\pi })^{3/2}}\mathrm{exp}(r^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }^2).$$
(10)
It is generally assumed that the quark size $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ depends on the flavor. So, we consider two size parameters $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_s`$ for $`n`$ and $`s`$ quarks respectively. More details are given in Refs. brau98 ; sema01b ; brau02 .

The instanton interaction acts differently on the symmetric $`(ud+du)`$ and antisymmetric $`(uddu)`$ flavor states; in a framework where $`m_u=m_d`$, the isospin formalism can be introduced to classify the basis states and this property can be taken into account without problem. As soon as $`m_um_d`$, the up and down quark must be considered as different and the instanton becomes very difficult to handle. Thus, for baryons, the three-body treatment with BSS is done perturbatively. In this case, the potential has no mass dependence and the problem mentioned above for the AL1 potential does not appear.

### II.2 Numerical Techniques

There exist many numerical algorithms to compute the radial function of a meson. In this paper, we use the method based on Lagrange mesh, which is very simple, very precise and very fast, and for which a recent work has shown that relativistic kinematics can be handled without any problem sema01 . Thus the same method can be applied for both AL1 and BSS potentials. To get a very high relative precision, around $`10^{10}`$, a typical number of basis states is $`N=60`$. Technical details can be found in Ref. sema01 .

Our method to solve the three-body problem is based on an expansion of the space wave function in terms of harmonic oscillator functions with *two different sizes*. This method, which is an old one nunb77 , was given up during a long time and renewed recently in Ref. silv01  (many authors use a numerical treatment based on harmonic oscillators but with a *single* variational parameter, for instance in Ref. caps86 ). In this paper, it was shown that the precision achieved was similar to the stochastic variational method suzu98 . This last method was also shown to be competitive with more conventional methods, such as Faddeev formalism roux95 . The number of quanta is the relevant quantity for convergence; a very good relative precision of the order of $`10^5`$, necessary in our study, is achieved if we include all basis states up to 20 quanta. More details on the method can be found in Ref. silv01 .

## III Electromagnetic interaction

### III.1 Bare potential

The electromagnetic interaction between two pointlike particles $`i`$ and $`j`$ of charges $`Q_i`$, $`Q_j`$ and masses $`m_i`$, $`m_j`$ is very well known. In addition to the usual coulomb potential $`U_{\mathrm{coul}}`$, relativistic corrections (at lowest order) give rise to contact, hyperfine, tensor, symmetric and antisymmetric spin-orbit, and Darwin terms. Tensor, spin-orbit, and Darwin terms are complicated and presumably their effects are weak, so that people neglect them. The hyperfine interaction $`U_{\mathrm{hyp}}`$ does play an important role and is included in all serious calculations. The contact term $`U_{\mathrm{cont}}`$ is usually discarded with no other justification than simplicity. In this study we keep it, so that our total bare electromagnetic potential writes

$$U_{ij}^{(b)}(𝐫)=(U_{\mathrm{coul}})_{ij}^{(b)}(𝐫)+(U_{\mathrm{cont}})_{ij}^{(b)}(𝐫)+(U_{\mathrm{hyp}})_{ij}^{(b)}(𝐫),$$
(11)
with

$`(U_{\mathrm{coul}})_{ij}^{(b)}(𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`Q_iQ_j{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{r}},`$ (12)
$`(U_{\mathrm{cont}})_{ij}^{(b)}(𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}Q_iQ_j\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_i^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_j^2}}\right)\alpha \delta (𝐫),`$ (13)
$`(U_{\mathrm{hyp}})_{ij}^{(b)}(𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi Q_iQ_j}{3m_im_j}}\alpha \delta (𝐫)𝐬_i𝐬_j,`$ (14)
where $`\alpha `$ is the fine structure constant. Let us stress a point that deserves further discussion. One can wonder why such a contact term is not kept as well in the strong potential AL1. This term comes from one gluon exchange and is proportional to $`\alpha _s`$; but this parameter is essentially phenomenological and the Cornell form of the central potential is a kind of averaging of all unknown effects coming from QCD, including the contact term. Our philosophy is to maintain as far possible the form of the strong potential, that was shown to do a good job in hadronic physics. On the contrary, the situation is completely different in the electromagnetic hamiltonian (11) because the corresponding expression is the exact one and does not suffer from ambiguities or phenomenological uncertainties. This is why we decided to include the contact term, which is usually neglected, in order to grasp quantitatively its effect and to justify a posteriori the validity (or not) of neglecting it.

A perturbative treatment is compulsory for such a bare electromagnetic potential, owing to the presence of the delta function. It was shown that, in some cases, this a very bad approximation brau98 .

### III.2 Electromagnetic quark density

One way to introduce the very complicated mechanisms that transform the bare quarks (pointlike) to constituent quarks is to assume the existence of a phenomenological density distribution for a quark. The electromagnetic density should in principle depend on the internal structure of the system and contain a lot of unknown processes (including probably interferences between QCD and QED) leading to isospin symmetry breaking.

This means that a constituent quark located at $`𝐫`$ is generated by a bare quark located in $`𝐫^{}`$ with a certain probability distribution (or density) $`\rho (𝐫𝐫^{})`$. To have an appealing physical meaning this density must be a peaked function around zero with a certain size parameter, that depends in principle on the quark flavor. Moreover we require the natural property that, for a vanishing size, the constituent quark becomes pointlike and is identified to the bare quark. Mathematically, this means that the limit of the density $`\rho (𝐮)`$ for a vanishing size is the delta function $`\delta (𝐮)`$. Another natural property is that the density is isotropic. The last required property is that the integral of the density over the whole space is unity.

The most popular densities are of lorentzian, gaussian or Yukawa type. For instance, the authors of Refs. godf86 ; caps87  adopted a gaussian form. In this study we choose an electromagnetic Yukawa density. There is a precise reason for that: this density is the leading ingredient of the meson charge form factor. It is an experimental fact that the data accommodate rather nicely to a Yukawa density, giving a form factor with an asymptotic behavior $`Q^2`$ brau01 ; silv02 , instead of a gaussian density which leads to gaussian asymptotic behavior. Keeping in mind the previous remarks, the adopted density for quark of flavor $`i`$ is

$$\rho _i(𝐮)=\frac{1}{4\pi \gamma _i^2}\frac{e^{u/\gamma _i}}{u},$$
(15)
where $`\gamma _i`$ is the electromagnetic size parameter.

The dressed potential $`U`$ is obtained from the bare potential $`U^{(b)}`$ by a double convolution over the densities of each interacting quark

$$U_{ij}(𝐫)=𝑑𝐮𝑑𝐯\rho _i(𝐮)\rho _j(𝐯)U_{ij}^{(b)}(𝐫+𝐯𝐮).$$
(16)
With a trivial change of variable, it is quite easy to transform this double folding into a single one

$$U_{ij}(𝐫)=𝑑𝐫^{}U_{ij}^{(b)}(𝐫^{})\rho _{ij}(𝐫𝐫^{}),$$
(17)
with the definition of the new density

$$\rho _{ij}(𝐮)=𝑑𝐯\rho _i(𝐯)\rho _j(𝐮𝐯).$$
(18)
Applying Eq. (18) to the Yukawa density (15), one gets

$$\rho _{ij}(𝐮)=\frac{1}{8\pi \gamma _i^3}e^{u/\gamma _i}\mathrm{if}\gamma _i=\gamma _j$$
(19)
and

$`\rho _{ij}(𝐮)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi (\gamma _i^2\gamma _j^2)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^{u/\gamma _i}}{u}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{u/\gamma _j}}{u}}\right)`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\gamma _i^2\gamma _j^2)}}\left(\gamma _i^2\rho _i(𝐮)\gamma _j^2\rho _j(𝐮)\right)\mathrm{if}\gamma _i\gamma _j.`$ (21)
### III.3 Dressed potential

Starting from Eq. (11) and using Eqs. (17) and (19), it is easy to obtain analytically the dressed potential

$$U_{ij}(r)=(U_{\mathrm{coul}})_{ij}(r)+(U_{\mathrm{cont}})_{ij}(r)+(U_{\mathrm{hyp}})_{ij}(r),$$
(22)
in the case of two interacting constituent quarks with the same size $`\gamma _i=\gamma _j=\gamma `$. It writes

$`(U_{\mathrm{coul}})_{ij}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha Q_iQ_j\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\left(1e^{r/\gamma }\right){\displaystyle \frac{e^{r/\gamma }}{2\gamma }}\right],`$ (23)
$`(U_{\mathrm{cont}})_{ij}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha Q_iQ_j}{16\gamma ^3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_i^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_j^2}}\right)e^{r/\gamma },`$ (24)
$`(U_{\mathrm{hyp}})_{ij}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha Q_iQ_j}{3\gamma ^3m_im_j}}e^{r/\gamma }𝐬_i𝐬_j.`$ (25)
Doing the same thing with Eq. (21), one obtains the electromagnetic dressed potential in the case of different interacting quarks

$`(U_{\mathrm{coul}})_{ij}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha Q_iQ_j\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _i^2}{\gamma _i^2\gamma _j^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{r/\gamma _i}}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _j^2}{\gamma _i^2\gamma _j^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{r/\gamma _j}}{r}}\right),`$ (26)
$`(U_{\mathrm{cont}})_{ij}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha Q_iQ_j}{8(\gamma _i^2\gamma _j^2)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_i^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_j^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{e^{r/\gamma _i}e^{r/\gamma _j}}{r}},`$ (27)
$`(U_{\mathrm{hyp}})_{ij}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha Q_iQ_j}{3m_im_j(\gamma _i^2\gamma _j^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{r/\gamma _i}e^{r/\gamma _j}}{r}}𝐬_i𝐬_j.`$ (28)
It is possible to treat the electromagnetic potential $`U`$ as a perturbation. This procedure is only used for the baryons with the BSS potential (see Sec. II.1.2).

## IV Results

### IV.1 Determination of the parameters

We do not want to introduce a lot of new parameters; here we restrict the number of free parameters to the minimum unavoidable. In particular the parameters of the strong potential are maintained without modification. Important information is contained in the electromagnetic size of the quarks $`\gamma _i`$. This size could depend on the flavor and on the electrical charge of the quark. If the dependence on charge were dominant, we could expect that sizes of quarks with the same charge are similar. Preliminary calculations have shown that the size must be strongly reduced for heavy quarks, showing that the dependence on mass must be dominant. Consequently, in order to restrict again the number of parameters, we assume that the sizes of the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks are the same. Thus we impose $`\gamma _u=\gamma _d=\gamma _n`$. For AL1 and BSS models, we have $`\gamma _n`$ and $`\gamma _s`$ as free parameters. An observable that is very sensitive to those parameters is the charge mean square radius.

In the mesonic sector, the bare charge square radius operator for pointlike quarks is defined by

$$(r^2)^{(b)}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}e_i(𝐫_i𝐑)^2,$$
(29)
where $`e_i`$ is the charge for quark $`i`$, $`𝐫_i`$ its position, and $`𝐑`$ the position of the center of mass. For constituent quarks, this expression has to be folded with quark density and should be written instead

$$(r^2)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}e_i𝑑𝐫^{}(𝐫^{}𝐑)^2\rho _i(𝐫^{}𝐫_i).$$
(30)
Averaging quantity (30) on the meson wave function provides us with the charge mean square radius of the meson. Performing the calculation, one finds that this observable is a sum of a term, that can be called the bare radius $`r^2^{(b)}`$ (which is essentially the mean value of quantity (29) on meson wave function), plus a term which is essentially the dipole moment of the density. With a Yukawa density, one has explicitly

$$r^2=r^2^{(b)}+6\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}e_i\gamma _i^2.$$
(31)
The dynamical contribution to the square radius is entirely contained in the bare quantity, whose expression is very well known and is not recalled here.

From relation (31), one sees that the pion radius depends only on $`\gamma _n`$ and it is used to determine this parameter. The kaon radius depends on $`\gamma _n`$ and $`\gamma _s`$; since $`\gamma _n`$ has already be determined from the pion, the kaon radius is used to determine $`\gamma _s`$. In addition, the AL1 potential needs the further determination of $`\gamma _c`$ and $`\gamma _b.`$ Since the radii for $`D`$ and $`B`$ resonances are not known experimentally, we determine the corresponding sizes by requiring a smooth behavior versus the mass. Moreover, the uncertainty on the kaon radius is rather large. Fortunately, we checked that the isospin splitting does not depend too much on the precise value of the quark size. Our accepted values for the electromagnetic sizes are summarized on table 1.

Other parameters that need to be changed are the quark masses. In fact, the only important ingredient for the splittings is the mass difference between the down and up quarks: $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\stackrel{~}{m}_d\stackrel{~}{m}_u`$. In view of this, we choose to maintain the $`s`$, $`c`$, and $`b`$ quark masses at their non perturbative value $`\stackrel{~}{m}_i=m_i`$, and to keep the average value of the isospin doublet at its non perturbative value $`(\stackrel{~}{m}_d+\stackrel{~}{m}_u)/2=m_n`$. The size parameters being determined once and for all on charge radii, we have only *one free parameter* $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ at our disposal to try to reproduce all the known electromagnetic splittings. To really see that this is a very big constraint, let us recall that for doing the same job, authors of Refs. godf86 ; caps87  used 4 free parameters and Genovese *et al* 2 free parameters. The $`\pi ^0`$ and $`\rho ^0`$ resonances are considered here as $`n\overline{n}`$ systems, composed of fictitious quark and antiquark of mass $`\stackrel{~}{m}_n=(\stackrel{~}{m}_u+\stackrel{~}{m}_d)/2=m_n`$. Doing this, we neglect mixing of $`I=0`$ and $`I=1`$ components; this is a good approximation up to second order in $`\mathrm{\Delta }/m_n`$. One can imagine several strategies to determine the parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. We first remarked that if we fit $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on the mesons, the baryons were very badly reproduced, while if we fit it on the baryons, the mesons were spoiled less dramatically. Moreover, among the baryons, some splittings are more affected than others by a small change of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Thus, we decided to fit this parameter on one of the most sensitive and well known splitting, namely $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^0=4.807\pm 0.04`$ MeV.

One aim of our study is to see the respective influence of each component of the electromagnetic potential (22). The coulomb part seems to us unavoidable, so we will consider four different approximations in the following:

* C: Electromagnetic potential restricted to the coulomb term (23) or (26) alone;
* CC: Electromagnetic potential restricted to coulomb and contact (24) or (27) terms alone;
* CH: Electromagnetic potential restricted to coulomb and hyperfine (25) or (28) terms alone;
* T: Total electromagnetic potential (22) taken into account.

Each approximation requires its own $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ parameter, but the $`\gamma _i`$ parameters can be maintained to their values of Table 1. The corresponding results are gathered in Table 2. It is worth noting that the study of any of these approximations is a complete calculation by its own and needs a computational effort identical to the total treatment.

It is funny that for both potentials, increasing values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are obtained with approximations CH, C, T, CC respectively. Is it a property independent of the strong potential (realistic enough to reproduce baryon and meson spectra)? We have no answer.

### IV.2 Experimental data

A number of experimental data, concerning the electromagnetic splittings, exist for both the mesonic and baryonic sectors, and for both light quarks ($`u`$, $`d`$, and $`s`$) systems and systems containing at least a heavy quark ($`c`$ and $`b`$). The use of AL1 potential allows to study all data, while BSS is restricted to the light quark domain for the reasons mentioned in Sec. II.1.2. The values for the splittings are of order of some MeV and some of them are known with good accuracy.

From the splitting in the nucleon case and many others, the $`d`$ quark mass is presumably larger than the $`u`$ quark mass. From a naive argument based on rest masses only, the hierarchy of the splittings can be explained although the quantitative value needs much refined explanation. However, contrary to this naive argument, a number of puzzling questions still arise and some of them are not solved in a satisfactory manner by the up to date theoretical studies. Let us list some of them:

* $`np=1.293`$ MeV is much weaker than $`\pi ^+\pi ^0=4.594`$ MeV, despite the fact that a very naive quark model gives $`n(udd)p(duu)=\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\pi ^+(u\overline{d})\pi ^0([u\overline{u}d\overline{d}]/\sqrt{2})=0`$;
* $`\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ has a large positive value while $`\rho ^+\rho ^0`$ has a small negative value (a positive value is compatible with the error bar but with a very low value in any case);
* $`D_2^+D_2^00`$ (or even may be negative) while the values for other $`c\overline{n}`$ states are largely positive;
* $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}`$ is the highest level of the multiplet, in contradiction to what one expects from naive arguments where it should be the lowest one;
* All the members of the charmed $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ verify $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0>\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ except the particular states $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0<\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ which satisfy the opposite relation.

These remarks illustrate the fact that the mass difference between down and up quarks cannot be the only – or even leading – ingredient to explain the splitting; the internal dynamics also plays an important role. An important aim of this paper is devoted to examine this question.

### IV.3 Influence of various approximations

In this part we want to study the effect of using various approximations C, CC, CH and T of the electromagnetic hamiltonian. An exact treatment is performed, except for the baryons with BSS potential, as explained previously.

Let us first present the results obtained with AL1 potential. They are gathered on Table 3 for the mesons and on Table 4 for the baryons. Few comments are in order:

* The various approximations differ significantly one from the other. This proves again that the electromagnetic splitting is an observable very sensitive to the physical content put in it. A more quantitative comparison is relegated later on.
* Although the experimental data cannot be reproduced with a good precision, the calculated values have the good order of magnitude and respect more or less the hierarchy. We mean by this that the order of a given multiplet is generally the good one and that a large (small) theoretical splitting corresponds to a large (small) experimental one. Let us recall that we have only one free parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, which has been fitted on the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ value.
* From time to time the sign is wrong (order is opposite to the experimental one), but this effect occurs generally when compatibility is not excluded due to error bars, or at least when the experimental uncertainty is large.
* Let us comment on the puzzling questions raised in the introduction of this section. The splitting among the pions is larger than the splitting among the nucleons, but not enough to claim that the problem is solved. The $`\rho ^+\rho ^0`$ mass difference is still wrong but the value is lower than the naive expected one. The characteristic pattern for the $`D`$ mesons is good but the quantitative values fail. The order in the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$ multiplet is a good one and the quantitative value are also very good; this case is really a success (let us mention that in Ref. caps87  the theoretical value agrees well with the experimental data, but since then the data changed and the agreement is less good with the new value). The problem for the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c`$ is not solved but the order is the good one for 3 resonances over 4.

Let us now have a look on the situation concerning the wave functions arising from the BSS potential. The mesonic sector is presented in Table 5 and the baryonic sector in Table 6. The same comments as for AL1 can be made for BSS generally, but in this case the puzzle concerning the $`\rho `$ has found a solution. Unfortunately, the nucleon splitting is much too large.

Moreover the BSS results are quite different from AL1 results, indicating that, in order to describe the electromagnetic splitting, not only a good form for the electromagnetic part of the interaction is important, but also the strong one via the wave function. This conclusion is very important. In order to draw this conclusion, it was necessary to use very different strong potentials that lead equally good results on spectra both in the mesonic and in the baryonic sectors. These requirements are not easy to be met. AL1 and BSS allow such a fruitful comparison.

In order to grasp more quantitatively the influence of each approximation, as well as to compare the effect of the strong potential, we calculate a chi-square value on the experimental sample (in fact a chi-square divided by the number of data in the set). In order to avoid a too much important weight on very precise values, a minimum uncertainty at 0.1 MeV has been assigned arbitrarily to those values. The results are gathered in Table 7. Let us note that this chi-square has no precise statistical relevance; it is just a convenient way to get a synthetic view of the comparison between the various approximations. To have a more refined analysis, we separate the sample for meson (denoted by “M” in the Table), for baryon (“B” in the Table), or the entire sample of hadrons (“H” = “M”+“B” in the Table). Moreover we also distinguish between light sector ($`u`$, $`d`$, $`s`$ denoted by “l” in the Table), heavy sector ($`c`$, $`b`$ denoted by “h” in the Table), or all sectors (denoted by “a” = “l”+“h” in the Table). For instance the line “hB” means a chi-square calculated on heavy baryons, “lM” calculated on light mesons, “aH” on the entire sample, …

Interesting remarks can be emphasized:

* The baryonic sector is explained in a much more satisfactory way, whatever the chosen strong potential. This is the consequence of our arbitrary choice to adjust the free parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on a baryon resonance. Should we have chosen to fit $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on a meson resonance, the mesonic sector would have been much best reproduced, but at the price of a dramatic spoiling of the baryonic sector, and with an overall worse description. It appears that a consistent description of electromagnetic splittings for both mesons and baryons is hardly feasible with a model containing only one free parameter. Let us stress that our model probably do not contain all possible sources of splitting. For instance, the pion mass difference can be explained with the vector meson dominance assumption saku69 . Nevertheless, this last model relies on pointlike pion while mesons are composite particles in our approach. So it is difficult to compare such so different phenomenological models of QCD.
* Concerning the BSS calculation, the exact formalism (T approximation) is the best one for mesons, but it is the CH approximation that is the best for baryons, and the C approximation (presumably the crudest one) for the entire set. Anyhow, addition of the contact term deteriorates seriously the results.
* Concerning the AL1 calculation, several conclusions are drawn. For baryons, all approximations are roughly of the same quality. What is gained on data by one approximation versus the others is lost on another data. But curiously CC is the best approximations and T the worse one, so that the conclusion is rather different from BSS case. For mesons, CH is always the best approximation and CC the worse. For the totality of the sample this conclusion remains, while the exact treatment (T) is just a bit better than the crudest one (C). Here again the contact term has a very bad influence.
* AL1 and BSS calculations give results of comparable quality for the whole set, but BSS is much better for mesons, and AL1 much better for baryons. This may be explained by the fact that only a perturbative treatment (and not an exact one as in AL1) can be performed with BSS in the baryonic sector.
* It is interesting to compare our results with some previous studies treating both meson and baryon electromagnetic splittings:

+ In Refs. godf86 ; caps87 , the results look at least as good as ours, but we want address two comments. First, some data have changed since that time (for instance, the old value of 1.8 MeV for the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0`$ splitting is now 0.35 MeV) and new ones are now available (for instance, their calculated value of 4.4 MeV for the $`D_2^+D_2^0`$ is now experimentally estimated at 0.1 MeV). Second, the value of the electromagnetic quark size is determined by a best fit on the splittings, while in our case, the same parameter is fixed by meson form factors and cannot be considered as a free parameter.
    + In Ref. geno98 , the results look also rather good, but there exist several differences with the present work. First, the contact term is absent. Second, only the hyperfine term is dressed in order to avoid a collapse. Third, two free parameters were used, the $`u`$ and $`d`$ masses separately.

No doubt that if we have allowed more free parameters in our model (for example releasing the constraint $`(\stackrel{~}{m}_u+\stackrel{~}{m}_d)/2=m_n`$), our results would have appeared better. But this was not the ultimate goal of our paper; we were interested in discovering what are the necessary ingredients to explain the splittings.

Another important point for the consistency of our approach is that, with the new values of the $`u`$ and $`d`$ masses, the absolute masses for the meson and baryon resonances are also well reproduced. This point is not often studied in previous works. Just to convince the reader that our formalism is able to provide a good description of meson and baryons simultaneously, we present below the absolute masses of one member of the multiplet (the other can be obtained using the values of the splittings given above) for both mesons (Table 8) and baryons (Table 9). The T approximation is used and the treatment is exact except for baryons with the BSS potential.

The small discrepancy for light baryons in the case of AL1 potential can be attributed to a three-body force bhad81 , which is mass dependent. The instanton does not give rise to a three-body force for the baryon blas90 ; munz94 , and the parameters have been fitted directly to the absolute masses of mesons and baryons. The agreement with experimental data is rather satisfactory.

## V Conclusions

In this paper, we calculated the electromagnetic splitting on hadronic systems. This observable is a very sensitive test of the formalism because it results from a very subtle and fine balance between several physical ingredients. In order to concentrate on the physical aspects of the problem, we were very cautious in the numerical treatment, both for the two-body and three-body problems. Thus we are very confident with our numerical results, and interesting conclusions can be emphasized.

As compared to previous works we considered the total electromagnetic hamiltonian (excepted Darwin, spin-orbit, and tensor forces that we believe to play a very minor role). In particular we took into account the so-called contact term that is usually neglected. Moreover, we treated the quarks as constituent particles with an electromagnetic size that modifies the form of the electromagnetic interaction. Lastly, we based our calculations on wave functions resulting from two different strong potentials: the phenomenological AL1 potential to be used with a non relativistic kinematics energy operator and the more fundamental BSS potential, including instanton effects, to be used with a relativistic kinetic energy operator. The size of the quarks were determined in order to reproduce the pion and kaon charge form factors. Only one free parameter, the mass difference between down and up quarks, is left at our disposal; it was fitted on the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ splitting. We want to emphasize that in this paper, with only one parameter, we try to reproduce the totality of the experimental data, including mesons and baryons. To our opinion, this is a condition to pretend to some consistency in the formalism. This condition is rarely met in previous calculations, since authors very often restricted themselves either to mesons (or even to less restrictive domains) or to baryons.

We first showed that dressing the strong and electromagnetic interaction is a necessity to obtain in a consistent way both the hadron spectra, the meson form factors and the electromagnetic splitting.

By comparison of AL1 and BSS results, we stressed that the strong potential, via the wave function, is an important ingredient in the description of electromagnetic splittings. In our particular case, AL1 gives a better description of baryons, and BSS a better description of mesons.

But we proved also that the electromagnetic hamiltonian is equally important for explaining the splittings. Adding or removing a term (contact or hyperfine) has a non negligible influence. In particular taking into account the contact term spoils a lot the results, and curiously it is the approximation based on coulomb+hyperfine (the usual ingredient for many people) which is globally the best.

In our formalism the splittings are described in a reasonable way, specially owing to the fact that we have only one free parameter to try to reproduce 26 experimental data; the order among multiplet masses is generally correct and the values have the right order of magnitude. But the agreement is far from being perfect; some suggested puzzles have been solved but some others are still opened questions. New improvements must be done in future studies.

###### Acknowledgements.

B. Silvestre-Brac and C. Semay greatly acknowledge the financial support provided by cooperation agreement CNRS/CGRI-FNRS (France-Belgium). C. Semay (FNRS Research Associate position) and F. Brau (FNRS Postdoctoral Researcher position) would like to thank FNRS for financial support .


format: text

text:
# The c-axis optical sum rule and possible new collective mode in La2-xSrxCuO4

\[

## Abstract

We present the c-axis optical conductivity $`\sigma _{1c}(\omega ,T)`$ of underdoped ($`x`$ = 0.12) and optimally doped ($`x`$ = 0.15) La2-xSrxCuO4 from 4 meV to 1.8 eV obtained by a combination of reflectivity and transmission spectra. In addition to the opening of the superconducting gap, we observe an increase of conductivity above the gap up to 270 meV with a maximal effect at about 120 meV. This may indicate a new collective mode at a surprisingly large energy scale. The Ferrell-Glover-Tinkham sum rule is violated for both doping levels. Although the relative value of the violation is much larger for the underdoped sample, the absolute increase of the low-frequency spectral weight, including that of the condensate, is higher in the optimally doped regime. Our results resemble in many respects the observations in YBa2Cu3O7-δ.

\]

The charge transport between the CuO2 planes in the high-$`T_c`$ cuprates forms one of the most intriguing puzzles of these materials. On the one hand the essential common physics seems to lie in the collective behavior of holes doped into a 2D Mott insulator, while the interplane conductivity strongly depends on the interlayer chemistry, which varies dramatically among different members of the high-$`T_c`$ family. On the other hand, it is the in-plane ’confinement’ that preserves a possibility of significant lowering of the c-axis kinetic energy (KE) as the 3D coherent movement of the Cooper pairs is restored below $`T_c`$, which, however, was shown to be a small effect in some single-layer compounds . The models based on the KE lowering in the superconducting (SC) state predict the violation of the Ferrell-Glover-Tinkham (FGT) optical sum rule, which means that the spectral weight (SW) of the SC condensate is collected not only from energies of the order of $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ but also from higher frequencies. For the c-axis the violation has been experimentally tested in YBa2Cu3O7-δ (YBCO) over a broad doping range and a significant increase of the relative violation value was found in the underdoped regime . In the case of La2-xSrxCuO4 (LSCO) a value of 50% has been reported for a slightly underdoped sample , although the doping dependence is still not known. Thus, the c-axis KE lowers in the SC state, which, however, leaves room for debate whether this is a by-product or the very reason for superconductivity .

The conclusiveness of the sum rule analysis greatly depends on a reliable value of $`\sigma _1(\omega ,T)`$. However, the usually employed Kramers-Kronig (KK) analysis of reflectivity seriously lacks accuracy due to the insensitivity of reflection to small absorption details and an ambiguity of the data extrapolation. This is a major problem for LSCO with a relatively small c-axis electronic conductivity . In this Letter we report on our optical study of underdoped (UD) and optimally doped (OpD) LSCO by a combination of reflection and transmission spectroscopy which overcomes many limitations of the KK analysis. We measured the transmission ($`𝐄𝐜`$) through free-standing thin crystals to avoid complications due to a substrate. Here we focus on the low-temperature data well below the HTT-LTO phase transition.

The La2-xSrxCuO4 single crystals ($`x`$=0.12, $`T_c`$=29 K and $`x`$=0.15, $`T_c`$=37 K) were grown by the same method as described in Ref. . The c-axis was within 1 in the ac sample surface, as determined by Laue diffraction. Initially the reflectivity ($`R`$) spectra (15 - 6000 cm-1) have been obtained using an FT-IR spectrometer on thick samples with the surface area of 20-25 mm2 mounted on a copper cone (see Fig.1(a)). The in-situ gold evaporation was used as a reference. The spectra match very well with the previous data , which were used to continue curves to higher frequencies. Then each sample was attached to a supporting plane and reduced to a thin platelet by polishing with diamond paper with a roughness down to 0.1 $`\mu `$m. The platelets were made 23 $`\mu `$m and 14 $`\mu `$m thick with areas of 1.3 and 1.0 mm2 for $`x`$ = 0.12 and 0.15 correspondingly. The thickness was chosen in order to optimize the transmission sensitivity on the base of an anticipated value of $`\sigma _1`$. Finally the samples were unglued from the support and mounted on a copper mask. The c-axis transmission ($`T`$) spectra (see Fig.1(b)) have been measured using an FT-IR spectrometer (20 - 6000 cm-1) and a grating-type spectrometer (6000 - 15000 cm-1). At higher frequencies the samples are not transparent presumably due to the charge-transfer absorption, at lower energies the diffraction effects mask the data. The transmission for $`𝐄𝐚`$ was unmeasurably small, indicating the absence of any ’pinhole’ leakage. All the measurements were done in a home-made optical cryostat with a temperature-stable sample position. The absolute systematic error bars of $`R`$ and $`T`$ are about 0.01 and 0.03 respectively. The accuracy of their relative temperature difference, is at least one order of magnitude better. The temperature precision is about 1 K .

The measured $`R(\omega )`$ and $`T(\omega )`$ are functions of $`ϵ(\omega )=ϵ_1(\omega )+iϵ_2(\omega )`$:

$$R=|r|^2,T=\left|\frac{(1r^2)t}{1r^2t^2}\right|^2,r=\frac{1\sqrt{ϵ}}{1+\sqrt{ϵ}},t=e^{i\frac{\omega }{c}\sqrt{ϵ}d},$$
(1)
where $`d`$ is the sample thickness. These relations can be applied to derive $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_2`$ from $`R`$ and $`T`$ for frequencies above 650 cm-1 and below 200 cm-1 without the use of the KK transformation. In the phonon range, where $`T`$ is vanishingly small, the KK method still should be exploited. Here we use a more accurate analysis (which we call ’RT+KK’), which is to find an $`ϵ(\omega )`$ which satisfies the KK relations and delivers the best fit to the experimental $`R(\omega )`$ and $`T(\omega )`$ simultaneously in the whole spectral range. It is done by modelling $`ϵ(\omega )`$ with a very large number of oscillators (approaching the number of experimental points), including the zero-frequency lossless mode of the SC condensate. The sample thickness is one of the variable parameters which is determined by fitting of the Fabry-Perot fringes . The two methods give close results. The optical conductivity $`\sigma _1(\omega )=\omega ϵ_2(\omega )/4\pi `$ is shown in Fig.1(c). Notably, above 1000 cm-1 it is significantly smaller than the previously published values based solely on the KK analysis  (see inset in Fig.1(c)).

The conductivity for selected frequencies is shown in Fig.2(a). It is temperature-dependent both in the normal and the SC state and shows a distinct kink right at $`T_c`$. Because $`\sigma _1(\omega ,T)`$ has a strong temperature dependence above $`T_c`$, the difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _1=\sigma _1(T=T_c)\sigma _1(TT_c)`$ does not represent purely a superconductivity induced change of $`\sigma _1(\omega )`$. Instead, we use the slope jump at $`T_c`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_s\sigma _1\frac{\sigma _1}{T}|_{T_c+}\frac{\sigma _1}{T}|_{T_c}$$
(2)
to characterize the effect of the SC transition. One can see that the kink is negative at low frequencies, indicating the opening of the SC gap. However, it becomes positive at somewhat higher energies ($``$ 1000 cm-1, or $``$ 120 meV) and disappears within the noise level above $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$ 2200 cm-1 ($``$ 270 meV). The ’anomalous’ kink at intermediate energies is nicely seen in the original transmission data, which we double-checked with an enhanced temperature resolution (see Fig.2(d)).

The spectral dependence of the conductivity kink is shown in Fig.3(a). The most accurate value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s\sigma _1`$ is obtained in regions of non-zero transmission. The error bars increase in the phonon range, especially near the very intense peak at 240 cm-1, which complicates the sum rule analysis. The difficulty can be circumvented by assuming a smooth shape of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s\sigma _1(\omega )`$ and fitting it with a function, which can be used to ’bridge’ the problematic frequency range. The model function $`\mathrm{\Delta }_sϵ=\mathrm{\Delta }_sϵ_1+i\mathrm{\Delta }_sϵ_2`$ has to satisfy the KK relations. In addition to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s\sigma _1(\omega )=\mathrm{\Delta }_sϵ_2(\omega )\omega /4\pi `$ below and above the phonons (Fig. 3(a)) we fit the experimentally observed spectrum of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_sR(\omega )`$ inside the phonon region (Fig. 3(b)) using the relation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_sR=(R/ϵ_1)\mathrm{\Delta }_sϵ_1+(R/ϵ_2)\mathrm{\Delta }_sϵ_2,$$
(3)
where the derivatives $`R/ϵ_{1,2}`$ are obtained by the RT+KK method at $`T_c`$ (the idea is similar to that of the temperature modulation technique). Important extra information on $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s\sigma _2`$ (or $`\mathrm{\Delta }_sϵ_1`$) is given by the Fabry-Perot extrema positions $`\omega _m`$. The product $`\omega _m\sqrt{ϵ_1}d`$ is a constant (if $`ϵ_2ϵ_1`$), therefore

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_sϵ_1=2ϵ_1\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_s\omega _m/\omega _m+\mathrm{\Delta }_sd/d\right).$$
(4)
The c-axis lattice constant does not show a kink at $`T_c`$ so that the spectral dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_sϵ_1`$ can be directly determined from $`\omega _m`$’s and fitted together with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s\sigma _1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_sR`$. The high-frequency $`\mathrm{\Delta }_sϵ_1`$ is especially useful because it is related to the total low-frequency SW

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_sϵ_1(\omega )8\mathrm{\Delta }_s\left[A(\mathrm{\Omega }_c)+D\right]\omega ^2$$
(5)
(we adopt notations $`A(\omega )=_{0+}^\omega \sigma _1(\omega ^{})𝑑\omega ^{}`$ for the finite-frequency integrated SW and $`D`$ for the condensate SW). As the Fabry-Perot pattern is less damped for $`x`$=0.12 due to the smaller thickness spread, the error bars of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_sϵ_1`$ are much smaller in this case. We obtained a reasonably good fit of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s\sigma _1`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_sR`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_sϵ_1`$ simultaneously (see Fig.3), which is prerequisite for a reliable sum rule examination.

The superconductivity-driven change of $`\sigma _1`$ below $`T_c`$ (detectable for $`\omega <\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$) is governed by two factors: (i) the SC gap opening and (ii) the increase of SW above the gap. The former is much more pronounced for the OpD sample ($``$ 8 times larger effect). It is therefore remarkable that the latter is only 1.8-2 times smaller for the UD sample. In principle, a slight conductivity increase above the gap is expected in BCS theory in the clean limit. However, the incoherent c-axis transport is far in the dirty limit, especially in the UD regime, and calculations give a small size of this effect . We propose that this is a signature of a new collective mode emerging (or sharpening) below $`T_c`$. The nature of this mode is not clear at the moment. Its energy scale (100 - 270 meV) is much higher than $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ ($``$ 20-30 meV ). The single-layer structure seems to exclude the transverse plasmon scenario put forward for YBCO . However there is a similarity between the effect we observe in LSCO and the increase of conductivity at the same energies in YBCO , so that the possibility that the phenomena in these two compounds are common in origin cannot be ruled out, even though the value of $`\sigma _1`$ as well as its absolute change below $`T_c`$ is much larger in YBCO.

The occurrence of several collective modes has been recently predicted by Lee and Nagaosa  from a mean-field treatment of the $`t`$-$`J`$ model in the SU(2) formulation. One of them, a so-called $`\varphi `$ gauge mode, acquires a weak c-axis spectral weight in the low-temperature orthorhombic structure due to the coupling to the buckling phonon mode. The energy scale of this mode is the in-plane exchange $`J`$ ($``$ 100-150 meV), which agrees well with our observation. Note, that this interpretation does not involve the interplane charge transfer; the c-axis infrared activity is due to the tilting of the oxygen octahedra.

The sum rule analysis can be applied to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s\sigma _1`$ in the same manner as to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _1`$. However, it directly relates to the usual FGT sum rule only close to $`T_c`$ but not automatically for $`TT_c`$. From $`D(T)`$ (see Fig.2(c)) we obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }_sD`$ of 27 and 130 $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1`$cm-2K-1 for $`x`$ = 0.12 and 0.15 respectively, denoted by the hatched area in Fig.3(a).

Fig.4(a) shows the relative SW $`\mathrm{\Delta }_sA(\omega )/\mathrm{\Delta }_sD`$. It saturates above $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$ at the level of $``$ 0.2 for $`x`$=0.12 and $``$ 0.7 for $`x`$=0.15, thus clearly showing the presence of the FGT sum rule violation for both doping levels with relative values of almost 80% for the UD sample and 30% for the OpD sample. This is in excellent agreement with the tendency found in YBCO . In contrast to the relative violation, which is stronger in the UD sample, the absolute decrease of the spectral weight $`A(\mathrm{\Omega }_c)+D`$ is about 2 times larger for $`x`$=0.15 (Fig.4(b)). This can be also directly deduced from Fig.3(c) using formula (5). Thus the c-axis KE lowering is likely to be larger for the OpD sample, which agrees with the prediction of Ref. . The positive $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s\sigma _1`$ at higher frequencies significantly increases the violation, especially in the UD sample. One can even notice that the ratio between the positive part of SW above the gap for two doping levels ($``$ 2) is close to the ratio of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s[A(\mathrm{\Omega }_c)+D]`$. Finally we plot the temperature dependence of $`A(\mathrm{\Omega }_c)`$ and $`A(\mathrm{\Omega }_c)+D`$ (Fig.4(b)). In the normal state the SW decreases with cooling down, which has to be taken into account for a proper formulation of the FGT sum rule. Below $`T_c`$ $`A(\mathrm{\Omega }_c)`$ starts to decrease faster as a result of the gap opening, which is partially screened by the intermediate-energy increase of SW. The growth of $`A(\mathrm{\Omega }_c)+D`$ in the SC state is a signature of the FGT sum rule violation.

In conclusion, our study, based on the combination of reflection and transmission spectra, reveals a detailed picture of the changes to the spectral weight in LSCO below $`T_c`$ for energies up to 1.8 eV. The transition to the superconducting state is accompanied not only by the gap opening at low frequencies ($`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ 20-30 meV) but also by the increase of $`\sigma _1(\omega )`$ at higher energies up to 270 meV. The latter is interpreted as a possible occurrence of a new collective mode. Its origin is not yet established. However the model by Lee and Nagaosa predicts collective modes at similar energy. The total low-frequency SW (including condensate) increases below $`T_c`$; the absolute value of this growth is higher in the OpD state, even though the relative FGT sum rule violation is much larger for the UD sample. Taking into account the new collective mode is decisive for a quantitative understanding of the implications of the sum-rule violation. Our results match qualitatively several findings in YBCO, thus giving a hope that many of the ’c-axis effects’ can be understood on the same basis in different cuprates in spite of a diversity of their crystal structures. This investigation was supported by the Netherlands Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter (FOM) with financial aid from the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO) and by DFG via SFB 608.


text:
# Bump Cepheids and the Stellar Mass-Luminosity Relation

## 1. Introduction

Cepheids form the first step to extra-galactic distances and are fundamental to modern observational cosmology. It remains a goal to have theoretical models capable of predicting the period-luminosity relation and its metallicity dependence. The regularity of Cepheid pulsation provides a set of well defined observational parameters with which to confront the predictions of theoretical models of stellar pulsation. In this way, Cepheids provide close scrutiny of the accuracy of input physics within pulsation models.

One of the weakest points in our description of the internal structure of intermediate to massive stars is the description of convection in the vicinity of the convective core. Ongoing debate centers of the degree of extension of the convective core above its classical Schwarzschild boundary. Convection is of course a fundamentally 3d problem awaiting hydrodynamical simulation such as is planned with Djehuty (see Bazan in these proceedings).

For the time being it suffices to treat the extension of the classical convective core by means of mixing-length theory. The convective core overshoot parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ sets the height (as a fraction of the pressure scale height) to which convective motion extends the core into the formally convectively stable region.

The size of the convective core determines the helium core mass laid down by the end of core H burning. A larger He core mass increases the luminosity of the post-main-sequence evolution and hastens its pace. Consequently the mass-luminosity relation for Cepheids is determined by the level of convective core overshoot whilst the star was on the main-sequence.

## 2. The Modeling Procedure

The lightcurve morphology of a Cepheid is determined by the stellar mass, luminosity and effective temperature. A feature of the lightcurves of a subset of the Cepheid population is the presence of a bump either preceding or following maximum light. This is the bump in bump Cepheids (see Figure 1). The bump arises from the 2:1 resonance between the fundamental mode and the second overtone. It becomes particularly prominent when the period ratio of these two modes ($`P_{02}`$) is close to two.

We have selected a sample of bump Cepheids from the MACHO photometric database in both the LMC (20 stars) and the SMC (10 stars). The details of the non-linear pulsation code are provided in Keller & Wood (2002). In contrast to the work of Bono, Castellani & Marconi (2002) we use only stellar pulsation and atmosphere theory - we do not make recourse to the assumption of existing mass-luminosity relations.

Throughout standard abundances for LMC and SMC populations are assumed (Z=0.008 and 0.004 respectively). This us with three fundamental parameters to describe the pulsation envelope: M, L and $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. Hence we require three constraints to determine these. The first constraint is that the fundamental period of the model matches that observed and this is achieved from linear theory. The second and third are obtained from the lightcurve fit from the nonlinear code. This procedure is illustrated in Figure 1.

In Figure 1 effective temperature is varied vertically and P02 horizontally. As P02 is varied the phase of the bump is modified; $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ varies the amplitude. The best fit to the observed lightcurve is located in the central panel. In this way we have determined the fundamental parameters of the Cepheid: M, L, $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, distance and reddening.

## 3. Caveat Pulsator

The above models treat convective energy transport via the mixing-length approximation. This approximation is expected to break down at cooler temperatures as the convective zone becomes a substantial fraction of the envelope. A consequence is that our models do not reproduce the red edge of the instability strip. In the vicinity of the red edge the pulsation amplitude is too high. The additional dissipative effect of turbulent convection is present in a real Cepheid atmosphere.

To avoid this shortcoming we have selected our sample of bump Cepheids close to the blue edge of the instability strip. This region has the added advantage that driving and hence amplitude, is very sensitive to effective temperature.

## 4. The Mass-Luminosity Relation

Our results for our sample of LMC and SMC bump Cepheids are presented in Figure 2. Overlaid are M-L relations from stellar evolutionary models for three values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$. It is evident that both samples are significantly mode luminous than classical models. This difference amounts to a reduction of 20% in mass from classical models, with an optimal $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ of 0.65$`\pm `$0.03 pressure scale heights for the LMC sample and 0.67$`\pm `$0.04 for the SMC. We also note that we do not see evidence for a metallicity dependence in the level of convective core overshoot.

This runs counter to other circumstantial evidence that would suggest that core overshoot should increase as we decrease metallicity. The findings of Venn (1999 and 1995) indicate a higher level of chemical enrichment amongst A supergiants, more massive cousins of the Cepheids examined here. Rotationally induced mixing has been proposed as the mechanism for this more efficient mixing in the stellar envelope. This suggests a generally more rapid rotation amongst lower metallicity stars (Keller et al. 2001b). If rotation were responsible we would expect the SMC stars to be of generally higher luminosity relative to classical models.

## 5. Summary

The problem of reconciling pulsation masses with evolutionary masses for Cepheids has a long history much of which has been resolved with the introduction of the OPAL opacities. The discrepancy between pulsation and classical evolution mass that we have demonstrated here is the remainder of the debate which has not been removed with improved input physics.

Rather, the discrepancy shown here has a basis in a higher level of internal mixing within intermediate mass main-sequence stars. Our findings are supported by a number of studies using linear pulsation analysis (Sebo & Wood 1995) and studies of stellar populations (Keller et al. 2001a) which show the need for a level of convective core overshoot of order 0.5 $`l/H_p`$. Our study of bump Cepheids has enabled us to place stringent limits on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ and we now wait to see if the results of 3d hydrodynamical simulations such as those available from Djehuty match that observed.

### Acknowledgments.

Work performed by SCK was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration by the University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract No. W-7405-Eng-47.

## References

Bono, G., Castellani, V., & Marconi, M. 2002, ApJL, 565, L83

Keller, S. C., Da Costa, G. S., & Bessell, M. S. 2001a, AJ, 121, 905

Keller, S. C., Grebel, E. K., Miller, G. J., & Yoss, K. M. 2001b, AJ, 122, 248

Keller, S. C., & Wood, P. R. 2002, ApJ, accepted, astro-ph/0205555

Sebo, K. M., & Wood, P. R. 1995, ApJ, 449, 164