text:
# Hall-conductivity sign change and fluctuations in amorphous NbxGe1-x films

## I  INTRODUCTION

One of the puzzling and intriguing phenomena in type-II superconductors is the sign change in the Hall effect near the mean-field transition at the upper critical field $`H_{c2}`$. Such a Hall anomaly has been observed in some conventional low-$`T_c`$ superconductors, such as moderately disordered Nb and V  and amorphous MoSi  and MoGe  films, as well as most high-$`T_c`$ superconductors (HTSC) . Hagen et al.  pointed out the importance of the electron mean-free path for the Hall anomaly and concluded that very clean and very dirty materials do not show Hall anomalies. However, studies on amorphous dirty superconductors contradict this conclusion .

Recent phenomenological approaches based on the time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau (TDGL) equation have qualitatively explained the sign anomaly . In these theories, the sign reversal is just a consequence of the difference in sign between the normal (or quasiparticle) term and the superconducting fluctuation (or vortex flow) term of the Hall conductivity. Several authors  have derived the sign of the fluctuation (vortex flow) term from the TDGL equation for BCS superconductors. Recent experimental studies on HTSCs  have pointed out that the sign predictions of these theories are not correct for HTSCs, but they should be valid for BCS superconductors.

Even if the sign of the Hall fluctuation conductivity were clear, its temperature and field dependence is a matter of discussion. Recent experimental studies on YBa2Cu3O7-δ films  and single-crystalline Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ and Bi1.95Sr1.65La0.4CuO6+δ  have observed that the sign change takes place above $`H_{c2}`$, while other studies have claimed that the sign anomaly takes place below $`H_{c2}`$. In this problem, the definition of $`H_{c2}`$ as well as the temperature and field dependence of the Hall fluctuation conductivity is very important.

As reported in conventional amorphous films  as well as HTSCs, the longitudinal conductivity in a perpendicular magnetic field shows a smooth crossover from the paraconducting regime to flux flow regime around $`H_{c2}`$, which is strikingly different from the picture of the conventional fluctuation theory in which the conductivity due to the direct fluctuation contributions of the Aslamazov-Larkin (AL) process diverges at $`H_{c2}`$ . Thus, it was difficult to define $`H_{c2}`$ correctly from the fluctuation theory. Recent TDGL theories , however, have successfully explained the smooth crossover around $`H_{c2}`$ by taking into account the interaction term of superconducting fluctuations of the AL process within the Hartree approximation. Later, Ullah and Dorsey (UD)  developed this further and proposed a scaling theory for the longitudinal and Hall conductivities. This scaling approach is very useful to determine $`H_{c2}`$ correctly and to describe the field and temperature dependence of the conductivities.

In this paper, we present measurements and analysis of the longitudinal and Hall resistivities $`\rho _{xx}`$ and $`\rho _{yx}`$ for thin amorphous (a-) Nb1-xGex ($`x0.3`$) films ($`T_c3K`$) according to the TDGL theories. We confirm that the smooth crossover in the longitudinal conductivity around $`H_{c2}`$ is well explained by the UD scaling theory as was found previously , and determine $`H_{c2}`$. We then show that for the thinner films the sign change in the Hall conductivity takes place above $`H_{c2}`$. Contrary to results on HTSCs, we show that the sign of the Hall conductivity is consistent with the TDGL theory for BCS superconductors. We discuss the origin of the sign reversal observed here.

## II  EXPERIMENTAL

The films used in this study were deposited by rf sputtering on Si substrates held at room temperature in a system with a base pressure of $`10^6`$mbar, using $`10^2`$ mbar Ar gas as a sputtering gas. The thickness as used were 16, 34, 60 and 163nm. X-ray diffraction showed the films to be amorphous. The average composition for each film was determined by electron microprobe analysis. The distribution in the composition $`\delta x`$ is less than $`1\%`$. The superconducting mean-field transition temperature in zero field, $`T_c`$, was determined from the temperature dependence of resistivity by using the AL fluctuation theory . From a previous systematic study on a-Nb1-xGex films , the distribution of $`T_c`$ due to $`\delta x`$ is estimated to be less than 18mK ($`\delta T/T_c6\times 10^3`$) around $`x=0.3`$. Except for the film thickness, these films have the following identical parameters; the average composition $`x`$ 0.3, $`T_c`$ 3K, the normal state resistivity $`\rho _{xx}^n2.2\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$m, $`Sd(\mu _0H_{c2})/dT|_{T_c}2`$ T/K, the GL coherence length at $`T`$=0 $`\xi _{GL}(0)7.3`$ nm and the GL parameter for dirty limit $`\kappa `$75. These films were ion-etched in 200$`\mu `$m wide strips with 8 voltage and 2 current contacts. The longitudinal and Hall resistivities are measured by a conventional dc four-probe method. The longitudinal component due to the misalignment in the Hall probes was subtracted by reversing the field direction. The films are immersed in liquid 4He to obtain good thermal contact. The magnetic field is normal to the film surface. The normal resistivity $`\rho _{xx}^n`$ in the temperature range of 1.5 K$`<T<`$ 5 K has a small temperature coefficient $`(\rho _{xx}^n)^1d\rho _{xx}^n/dT10^4`$ K-1.

## III  RESULT AND DISCUSSION

In this study, $`\rho _{xx}(=E_x/J_x)`$ and $`\rho _{yx}(=E_y/J_x)`$ were measured as a function of $`H`$ ($`|\mu _0H|`$8T) at various $`T`$. Figures 1 (a) and (b) show the field dependence of the longitudinal $`\sigma _{xx}(\rho _{xx}/(\rho _{xx}^2+\rho _{yx}^2))`$ and Hall conductivities $`\sigma _{xy}(\rho _{yx}/(\rho _{xx}^2+\rho _{yx}^2))`$ at different $`T`$ for the 34nm thick film with $`T_c`$=2.77K. To reduce the effect of pinning in the mixed state, the measuring current density $`J`$ was selected to be 1-4$`\times `$107A/m2 which is much higher than the depinning current density $`J_c(10^5`$ A/m2), but smaller than the depairing current density $`(10^{10}`$ A/m2).

Far above $`T_c`$, $`\sigma _{xx}`$ is field independent while $`\sigma _{xy}`$ is directly proportional to $`H`$, that is, the normal state Hall effect appears. The normal state Hall conductivity $`\sigma _{xy}^n`$ has a positive sign. Within the Drude model, the normal state Hall angle, $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _H^n`$, is given by

$$\mathrm{tan}\theta _H^n\sigma _{xy}^n/\sigma _{xx}^n=\omega _c\tau ,$$
(1)
where $`\omega _c`$ is the cyclotron frequency and $`\tau `$ is the elastic scattering time of electrons. Compared with typical result on HTSCs ($`\omega _c\tau 10^2`$ at $`\mu _0H=1`$T), the present films have very small value of $`\omega _c\tau 10^5`$ at $`\mu _0H=1`$T, indicating the very small mean-free path to be expected for amorphous metals.

Near and below $`T_c`$ one can clearly see that $`\sigma _{xy}`$ changes sign at a certain field $`H^{}`$ in Fig.1(b). We do not observe any second sign change below $`H^{}`$, in contrast to what has been reported for several HTSCs . Far above $`H^{}`$, $`\sigma _{xy}`$ recovers the direct proportionality to $`H`$ and the normal state Hall effect appears again, indicating that the superconducting fluctuations are completely suppressed by magnetic field. We therefore can define $`\sigma _{xy}^n`$ below $`T_c`$ unambiguously.

In order to determine $`H_{c2}`$, we use the UD scaling theory. According to this theory, the longitudinal conductivity is composed of the normal (or quasiparticle) term $`\sigma _{xx}^n`$ and superconducting fluctuation (or vortex flow) term $`\delta \sigma _{xx}`$, and expressed as

$$\sigma _{xx}=\sigma _{xx}^n+\delta \sigma _{xx}.$$
(2)
$`\delta \sigma _{xx}`$ interpolates smoothly from the paraconducting regime to flux flow regime around $`H_{c2}`$ and obeys universal scaling functions $`\stackrel{~}{F}_\pm `$ where $`\stackrel{~}{F}_+(\stackrel{~}{F}_{})`$ is the scaling function for $`H>H_{c2}(H<H_{c2})`$. These functions depend on the dimensionality governed by the ratio of the film thickness $`d`$ and the length scale $`\xi `$ for fluctuations of the order parameter near $`H_{c2}`$. For the thickness of the films in this study we can apply two-dimensional (2D) scaling functions . At each $`T`$ we identify $`\sigma _{xx}^n`$ with $`\sigma _{xx}`$ taken at a field (typically 7T) where $`\sigma _{xy}`$ depends linearly on field and $`\sigma _{xx}`$ is field independent. $`\delta \sigma _{xx}`$ is obtained by subtracting $`\sigma _{xx}^n`$ from $`\sigma _{xx}`$. Figure 2 shows a typical scaling result. Here, the data are plotted above $`H_{c2}(T)/3`$ where the lowest Landau level (LLL) approximation for the scaling functions is valid . One can clearly see that the scaled longitudinal fluctuation conductivity $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{xx}^{2D}(\delta \sigma _{xx}/(C\sigma _{xx}^n(A_0^{2D}t/h)^{1/2}))`$ collapses on two universal curves $`\stackrel{~}{F}_\pm `$ as a function of the scaled field $`x^{2D}`$ given by $`x^{2D}ϵ_H/\sqrt{A_0^{2D}th}`$, with $`ϵ_H=\mu _0(HH_{c2}(T))/ST_c`$, although deviations are visible at large $`|x^{2D}|`$. Here, $`t=T/T_c`$ and $`h=\mu _0H/ST_c`$ are normalized temperature and field, respectively. $`C`$ is related to the real part of the relaxation time of the order parameter $`\gamma =\gamma _1+i\gamma _2`$. We take a dirty limit value of $`C=1.447`$ . The strength of thermal fluctuations for 2D system, $`A_0^{2D}`$, is given by $`A_0^{2D}=4\sqrt{2G_i}\xi _{GL}(0)/d`$ where $`G_i(5\times 10^6)`$ is the Ginzburg number . Very close to $`H_{c2}`$, deviations due to the inhomogeneity in the composition $`\delta x`$ become apparent. Hence, we do not plot the data in fields $`|ϵ_H|<(1/2)\delta T_c/T_c3\times 10^3`$, which roughly corresponds to $`|x^{2D}|<0.2`$. In such a scaling plot, the unknown parameters are $`S`$ and $`H_{c2}(T)`$. In the temperature range close to $`T_c`$, they are connected by the simple relation $`H_{c2}(T)=S(T_cT)`$. We first determine $`S`$ from the scaling collapse of the data close to $`T_c`$ and this $`S`$ value is used to determine $`H_{c2}`$ far below $`T_c`$ in the scaling analysis. Thus, we can unambiguously determine $`H_{c2}`$ from the scaling collapse of the data.

Before proceeding to the result of the $`H_{c2}`$ line, we compare the scaling functions $`\stackrel{~}{F}_\pm `$ with those predicted in the UD theory. The UD theory implies that the 2D universal functions $`\stackrel{~}{F}_\pm ^{2D}`$ in the high field limit are given by

$$x^{2D}=1/\stackrel{~}{F}^{2D}\stackrel{~}{F}^{2D},$$
(3)
if the pinning effect in the flux flow regime is negligible and the fluctuation conductivity in the paraconducting regime is dominated by the direct fluctuation contributions of the AL process. These functions are applicable to the field range where the LLL is satisfied. The solid lines in Fig.2(a) denote these universal functions. $`\stackrel{~}{F}_\pm `$ agrees well with $`\stackrel{~}{F}_\pm ^{2D}`$ near $`H_{c2}(1x_{2D}6`$), while deviations are visible in the large $`|x^{2D}|`$ regime. In the paraconducting regime, $`\stackrel{~}{F}_+`$ decreases much faster than $`\stackrel{~}{F}_+^{2D}`$ above $`x^{2D}6`$. Such a rapid decrease in $`\delta \sigma _{xx}`$ was also observed far above $`H_{c2}`$ in amorphous thick films and attributed qualitatively to a phenomenological short wavelength cutoff in the fluctuation spectrum . For the other films ($`d`$=16 and 60nm) except for the thickest film ($`d`$=163nm) , similar deviation of $`\stackrel{~}{F}_+`$ begins to appear at almost the same value of $`x^{2D}6`$, although the physical origin of the short wavelength cutoff is not clear. The definition of $`\sigma _{xx}^n`$ does not affect this behavior because the field at which $`\sigma _{xx}^n`$ is defined is much larger than the fields of interest. Hereafter, we regard $`x^{2D}=6`$ as the phenomenological boundary below which $`\delta \sigma _{xx}`$ is well described by the UD scaling theory, and discuss our data below this boundary.

From the scaling collapse of $`\delta \sigma _{xx}`$ we obtained the $`H_{c2}`$ line for films with different thickness. To compare those results, we plot the normalized mean-field value of $`\mu _0H_{c2}/ST_c(h_{c2})`$ against normalized temperature $`T/T_c`$ for different films in Fig. 3. Good agreement is seen for $`H_{c2}`$ of all films. The solid line represents the mean-field line for the dirty limit in the Werthamer-Helfand-Hohenberg (WHH) theory, which is given by

$$\mathrm{ln}(t)=\mathrm{\Psi }(1/2)\mathrm{\Psi }(1/2+(2/\pi ^2)h_{c2}/t)$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the digamma function . The $`H_{c2}`$ line obtained is well approximated by this relation, giving experimental support for the validity of the UD scaling theory.

Next, we turn to results of the Hall fluctuation conductivity. In the TDGL theories , the Hall conductivity also consists of a normal (or quasiparticle) term and a superconducting fluctuation (or vortex flow) term,

$$\sigma _{xy}(H,T)=\sigma _{xy}^n(H,T)+\delta \sigma _{xy}(H,T).$$
(5)
Hence, we subtract $`\sigma _{xy}^n(H,T)`$ from $`\sigma _{xy}(H,T)`$, and plot $`\delta \sigma _{xy}(H,T)`$ against $`H`$ in Fig.1(c). The plot shows that $`\delta \sigma _{xy}`$ always has a negative sign. $`H_{c2}`$ is denoted by the long arrows. With decreasing $`H`$ the magnitude of $`\delta \sigma _{xy}`$ increases monotonically and grows as 1/$`H`$ at low $`H(H_{c2})`$ (not shown) as the TDGL theories predict . Thus, the sign reversal of $`\sigma _{xy}`$ at $`H^{}`$ always takes place when $`\delta \sigma _{xy}`$ and $`\sigma _{xy}^n`$ are different in sign. Beforehand it is not clear whether or not $`H^{}`$ is above $`H_{c2}`$, because $`\sigma _{xy}^n`$ and $`\delta \sigma _{xy}`$ depend in different ways on the electronic structure of the material. As one can see in Fig.3, in the thinnest film $`H^{}`$ (denoted as open symbols) is always above $`H_{c2}`$ but below the phenomenological boundary where scaling analysis starts to fail. It may be worth pointing out that $`H^{}`$ decreases monotonically with rising $`T`$ and terminates finally at a certain $`T^{}`$ above $`T_{c0}`$ in zero field. With increasing $`d`$, $`H^{}`$ moves systematically closer to $`H_{c2}`$ and it finally shifts below (but very close to) $`H_{c2}`$ for the thickest film, implying that the contribution of the negative $`\delta \sigma _{xy}`$ to positive $`\sigma _{xy}^n`$ decreases with increasing $`d`$. These results support the view that enhancing the superconducting fluctuations by reducing $`d`$ leads to an increasing negative Hall conductivity working against positive $`\sigma _{xy}^n`$, which is responsible for the sign reversal above $`H_{c2}`$.

We now discuss the field and temperature dependence of $`\delta \sigma _{xy}`$, in comparison with the UD scaling theory. According to this theory, $`\delta \sigma _{xx}`$ and $`\delta \sigma _{xy}`$ have the same field and temperature dependence and their ratio should be independent of $`H`$ and $`T`$. Note that $`\delta \sigma _{xy}/\delta \sigma _{xx}=\gamma _2/\gamma _1`$, the ratio of the imaginary and real part of $`\gamma `$ . We did not find scaling of $`\delta \sigma _{xy}`$. A recent study on YBa2Cu3O7-δ films  has pointed out that the failure of the scaling of $`\delta \sigma _{xy}`$ can be attributed to the additional contributions of the MT process, which are not taken into account in the UD theory. However, the MT process cannot explain the present result because the strong pair breaking effect in the amorphous dirty films should lead to a small contribution . As one can see in the inset of Fig.4(a), contrary to the UD scaling theory, $`\delta \sigma _{xy}/\delta \sigma _{xx}`$ at $`H_{c2}`$ increases monotonically with cooling. Similar temperature dependence of $`\delta \sigma _{xy}/\delta \sigma _{xx}`$ has been reported for amorphous MoSi films . We conclude that the main reason for the scaling failure is the temperature dependence of $`\gamma _2/\gamma _1`$. Further microscopic calculations based on the BCS theory are required to explain this effect .

The field dependence of $`\delta \sigma _{xy}/\delta \sigma _{xx}`$ is shown in Fig. 4 (a) for two current densities. In the field range $`(1x^{2D}6)`$ where $`\delta \sigma _{xx}`$ follows the UD scaling theory, $`\delta \sigma _{xy}/\delta \sigma _{xx}`$ is independent of $`J`$ and depends only weakly on $`x^{2D}`$. As one can see in Fig.4 (b), however, in the same field range both conductivities change almost one decade in magnitude and their dependences on $`x^{2D}`$ look very similar. Hence, we believe that both $`\delta \sigma _{xx}`$ and $`\delta \sigma _{xy}`$ in the paraconducting regime ($`0x^{2D}6`$)) are dominated by the direct fluctuation contributions of the AL process and thus the contributions of the AL process are responsible for the sign change of the Hall conductivity above $`H_{c2}`$.

Finally, we discuss the origin of the sign in $`\sigma _{xy}^n`$ and $`\delta \sigma _{xy}`$ for our amorphous films. The sign of $`\sigma _{xy}^n`$ depends on the sign of the group velocity $`v((1/\mathrm{})\epsilon /k`$) of electrons at the Fermi level where $`\epsilon `$ is the energy and $`k`$ is the wave number. Because of the absence of band structure, the amorphous materials are generally more free-electron-like than their crystalline counterparts. Therefore, the simple amorphous metals generally have negative $`\sigma _{xy}^n`$ because of a positive group velocity ($`vk>0`$) . Most of the amorphous transition metals (TMs), however, have positive $`\sigma _{xy}^n`$ . The origin of this positive $`\sigma _{xy}^n`$ has been attributed to the s-d hybridization interaction in the TM, which leads to a negative group velocity ($`\epsilon /k<0`$) at the Fermi level if the Fermi energy $`\epsilon _F`$ lies within the d-band . The TM-metalloid type amorphous superconductors NbGe as well as MoGe and MoSi belong to amorphous TMs and have positive $`\sigma _{xy}^n`$.

In the TDGL theory based on BCS superconductors by Nishio and Ebisawa , the sign of $`\delta \sigma _{xy}`$ is determined by the electron-hole asymmetry, i.e. by the sign of $`N^{}`$, where $`N^{}(dN(\epsilon )/d\epsilon |_{\epsilon =\epsilon _F})`$ is the energy derivative of the density of states (DOS) $`N(\epsilon )`$ at the Fermi energy. Numerical calculations of the DOS for e.g. amorphous Ni  imply that the total DOS near $`\epsilon _F`$ is dominated by the DOS for the d-band whose energy dependence is characterized by a peak near the center of d-band $`\epsilon _d`$ and roughly approximated by a parabolic energy dependence with negative curvature, i.e., $`N(\epsilon )(\epsilon \epsilon _d)^2`$. Similar energy dependences of the total DOS have been commonly observed for various amorphous TM-metalloid alloys by photoemission experiments . Because Nb is a less than half filled 4d-band metal, $`\epsilon _F`$ lies below the center of the 4d-band $`\epsilon _{4d}`$. Thus, a-NbGe films have positive $`N^{}`$. The same argument holds for a-MoGe and MoSi, since Mo is also a less than half filled 4d-band metal. Thus, sgn$`(\delta \sigma _{xy})`$=sgn$`(N^{})<0`$ in both a-NbGe, a-MoGe and a-MoSi films . These findings give experimental support for the prediction of the sign of $`\delta \sigma _{xy}`$ in the TDGL theory for BCS superconductors.

## IV  SUMMARY

In summary, we have measured the longitudinal and Hall resistivities for thin films of the dirty superconductor a-Nb1-xGex ($`x0.3`$) near $`H_{c2}`$. We confirm that $`\delta \sigma _{xx}`$ obeys the 2D scaling functions of the UD fluctuation theory. We find a good agreement of the obtained $`H_{c2}`$ line with the WHH theory, supporting the scaling procedure. The failure of the scaling collapse of $`\delta \sigma _{xy}`$ is attributed to the temperature dependence of $`\gamma _2/\gamma _1`$. The Hall conductivity $`\sigma _{xy}`$ in thinner films shows a sign change at a certain $`H^{}`$ which is above $`H_{c2}`$ but in the regime where $`\sigma _{xx}`$ follows the UD theory. With increasing film thickness, $`H^{}`$ moves closer to $`H_{c2}`$ and it finally shifts below (but close to) $`H_{c2}`$ for the thickest film. The negative contribution of the superconducting fluctuations of the AL process working against positive $`\sigma _{xy}^n`$ is responsible for the sign change above $`H_{c2}`$. The negative sign of $`\delta \sigma _{xy}`$ in the present films is consistent with the electron-hole asymmetry in the framework of the TDGL theory for BCS superconductors.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are very grateful to R. Ikeda for useful comments and sending us his manuscripts. We would like to thank Y.Matsuda for giving us a copy of his unpublished work. We acknowledge the experimental assistance of R. Besseling, M.B.S.Hesselberth, G.L.E. van Vliet, R.W.A. Hendrikx and T.J. Gortenmulder. This work is part of the research program of the ”Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie” (FOM), which is financially supported by NWO. One of the authors (N.K.) is financially supported by JSPS Postdoctoral Fellowships for Research Abroad.


format: text

text:
# On the critical dissipative quasi-geostrophic equation

## 1 Introduction

Do singularities develop in finite time in smooth solutions of unforced, incompressible 3D fluid equations? This challenging question remains yet unanswered. Lower dimensional model equations have been proposed and studied (,,,) in an attempt to develop mathematical insight in this problem. The 2D quasi-geostrophic (QG) equation is one of these models. The dissipative QG equation is

$$\frac{\theta }{t}+u\theta +\kappa (\mathrm{\Delta })^\alpha \theta =0,$$
(1.1)
where $`\alpha [0,1]`$, $`\kappa >0`$ is the dissipative coefficient, and the 2D velocity field $`u=(u_1,u_2)`$ is determined from $`\theta `$ by a stream function $`\psi `$ via the auxiliary relations

$$(u_1,u_2)=(\frac{\psi }{x_2},\frac{\psi }{x_1}),(\mathrm{\Delta })^{\frac{1}{2}}\psi =\theta .$$
(1.2)
Equation (1.1) with $`\alpha =1/2`$ is the critical dissipative QG. Criticality means that the dissipation balances nonlinearity when one takes into account the conservation laws.

In addition to its intrinsic mathematical interest, the equation (1.1) is relevant in the context of general quasi-geostrophic models of atmospheric and ocean fluid flow .

We are concerned here with global existence results for solutions of the initial-value problem (IVP) for equation (1.1) wherein

$$\theta (x,0)=\theta _0(x)$$
(1.3)
is specified. We consider periodic boundary conditions with period box $`\mathrm{\Omega }=[0,2\pi ]^2`$. Without loss of generality we may restrict the discussion to $`\theta `$ that obey for all time $`(2\pi )^2_\mathrm{\Omega }\theta 𝑑x=0`$.

The issue of global existence for equation (1.1) is non-trivial (,). If no smallness condition is imposed on the initial data, then the issue of global existence for arbitrary data is open. In this paper we show that if the $`L^{\mathrm{}}`$-norm of the initial data is small then (1.1) possesses a global solution in the critical case $`\alpha =1/2`$. The QG equations (dissipative or not) have global weak solutions for arbitrary $`L^2`$ initial data (, see Appendix B). The $`L^{\mathrm{}}`$ norm condition is significant in view of the fact that the QG equations have a maximum principle (, see Appendix A) that ensures that for all time and initial data the $`L^{\mathrm{}}`$ norm is non-increasing in time. If the initial data is smooth enough then the solution of the critical dissipative QG is unique, smooth and decays in time. These results and their proofs are presented in section 2. When $`\alpha >1/2`$, the smallness assumption on the data is not needed for global existence of smooth solutions for equation (1.1). This can be proved using the same ideas as for the critical case. The theory of global existence and regularity in the sub-critical $`(\alpha >1/2)`$ case is thus in a satisfactory state. More details for the sub-critical case can be found in .

We establish now some of the notation. The Fourier transform of $`f`$ is $`\widehat{f}`$

$$\widehat{f}(k)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}_\mathrm{\Omega }f(x)e^{ikx}𝑑x.$$

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is used to denote the operator $`(\mathrm{\Delta })^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, defined at the Fourier level by

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }f}(k)=|k|\widehat{f}(k).$$

The relation in (1.2) can be identified as

$$u=(_{x_2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^1\theta ,_{x_1}\mathrm{\Lambda }^1\theta )=(R_2\theta ,R_1\theta )\text{or}\widehat{u}(j)=i\left(\widehat{j}\right)^{}\widehat{\theta }(j),$$
(1.4)
where $`i=\sqrt{1}`$, $`\widehat{j}=\frac{j}{|j|}`$ for $`j𝐙^2\{0\}`$, $`(j_1,j_2)^{}=(j_2,j_1)`$, and $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ are Riesz transforms (). The spaces $`H^s`$ are the familiar Sobolev spaces of functions having $`s`$ derivatives in $`L^2`$.

## 2 Global existence

The initial value problem for the critical dissipative QG equation is

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\theta _t+u\theta +\kappa \mathrm{\Lambda }\theta =0,\hfill & (x,t)\mathrm{\Omega }\times [0,\mathrm{}),\hfill \\ & \\ u=(u_1,u_2)=(R_2\theta ,R_1\theta ),\hfill & (x,t)\mathrm{\Omega }\times [0,\mathrm{}),\hfill \\ & \\ \theta (x,0)=\theta _0(x),\hfill & x\mathrm{\Omega },\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.1)
where $`\kappa >0`$ is a constant.

In this section we assume that the $`L^{\mathrm{}}`$ norm of the initial data $`\theta _0`$ is small. We establish that the IVP (2.1) has a global bounded solution in $`H^1`$. If the initial data is smoother ($`H^2`$) then the solution’s norm in $`H^2`$ is non-increasing in time. The solution becomes real analytic at positive time and and decays exponentially. For the sub-critical case, no smallness assumption is necessary and these results hold for arbitrary data.

We start with an apriori estimate.

###### Theorem 2.1

There exists a constant $`c_{\mathrm{}}`$ such that for any $`\theta _0H^2𝒞^3`$ with

$$\theta _0_L^{\mathrm{}}c_{\mathrm{}}\kappa ,$$
(2.2)
the classical solution $`\theta `$ of the IVP (2.1) satisfies

$$\theta (,t)_{H^2}\theta _0_{H^2}$$
(2.3)
for all $`t0`$.

Proof. Multiplying the first equation in (2.1) by $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2\theta `$ and integrating by parts, we obtain

$$\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}|\mathrm{\Delta }\theta |^2𝑑x+\kappa |(\mathrm{\Delta })^{\frac{5}{4}}\theta |^2𝑑x=\mathrm{\Delta }^2\theta (u\theta )𝑑x.$$

Further integration by parts gives

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^2\theta (u\theta )𝑑x=2u((\theta ))\mathrm{\Delta }\theta +(\mathrm{\Delta }u\theta )\mathrm{\Delta }\theta $$

By Hölder’s inequality,

$$\left|\mathrm{\Delta }^2\theta (u\theta )𝑑x\right|C\left[u_{L^3}\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{L^3}^2+\mathrm{\Delta }u_{L^3}\theta _{L^3}\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{L^3}\right]$$

The Riesz transforms are bounded in $`L^p`$ spaces, so

$$\mathrm{\Delta }u_{L^3}C\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{L^3},u_{L^3}C\theta _{L^3}.$$

The Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities

$$\theta _{L^3}C\theta _L^{\mathrm{}}^{\frac{7}{9}}(\mathrm{\Delta })^{\frac{5}{4}}\theta _{L^2}^{\frac{2}{9}},\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{L^3}C\theta _L^{\mathrm{}}^{\frac{1}{9}}(\mathrm{\Delta })^{\frac{5}{4}}\theta _{L^2}^{\frac{8}{9}},$$

follow from classical ones () by complex interpolation (see also). Using them we obtain

$$\left|(\mathrm{\Delta })^2\theta (u\theta )𝑑x\right|C\theta _L^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Delta })^{\frac{5}{4}}\theta _{L^2}^2.$$

Collecting the above estimates, we have

$$\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}|\mathrm{\Delta }\theta |^2𝑑x+\kappa |(\mathrm{\Delta })^{\frac{5}{4}}\theta |^2𝑑xC_{\mathrm{}}\theta _L^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Delta })^{\frac{5}{4}}\theta _{L^2}^2.$$

It was proved in () (see the Appendix A) that $`\theta `$ satisfies the maximum principle

$$\theta (,t)_L^{\mathrm{}}\theta _0_L^{\mathrm{}}\text{for all }t0.$$

Taking $`c_{\mathrm{}}=(C_{\mathrm{}})^1`$ the bound (2.3) then follows from the smallness condition (2.2). This completes the proof of the theorem.

###### Theorem 2.2

There exists a constant $`c_{\mathrm{}}`$ (the same as in Theorem 2.1 above) so that for any $`\theta _0H^2`$ with $`\theta _0_L^{\mathrm{}}c_{\mathrm{}}\kappa `$ the IVP (2.1) has a unique global solution $`\theta `$ satisfying

$$\theta (,t)_{H^2}\theta _0_{H^2}$$

for any $`t0`$.

Proof. Let $`\theta `$ be the unique local solution on $`[0,T_0]`$ with $`T_0`$ depending on $`\theta _0_{H^2}`$ only (standard techniques can be applied to show that a unique local solution exists and depends continuously on initial data in $`H^2`$). By Theorem 2.1, $`\theta `$ satisfies

$$\theta (,t)_{H^2}\theta _0_{H^2}$$

for any $`t[0,T_0]`$. Therefore the local solution can be extended uniquely to $`[0,2T_0]`$ and the global solution is obtained by repeating this procedure.

###### Theorem 2.3

Assume that the initial data $`\theta _0H^2`$ satsifies the bound $`\theta _0_L^{\mathrm{}}<c_{\mathrm{}}\kappa `$. Then the solution of the IVP (2.1) decays exponentially

$$\theta _{H^2}^2\mathrm{exp}(ct)\theta _0_{H^2}^2$$

for all $`t0`$. Here $`c=2(\kappa c_{\mathrm{}}^1\theta _0_L^{\mathrm{}})`$, and $`c_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the same as in the previous theorems.

The proof is a trivial consequence of the obvious Poincare inequality

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }|(\mathrm{\Delta })^{\frac{5}{4}}\theta |^2𝑑x_\mathrm{\Omega }|(\mathrm{\Delta })\theta |^2𝑑x.$$

###### Theorem 2.4

Assume that the initial data $`\theta _0H^2`$ satsifies the bound $`\theta _0_L^{\mathrm{}}<c_{\mathrm{}}\kappa `$. Then there exists a time $`t_0>0`$ such that the solution of the IVP (2.1) is real analytic for $`tt_0`$. More precisely, there exists an extension of $`\theta `$, $`\theta (z,t)`$ that is an analytic function in the time-expanding strip $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t𝐂^2`$,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_t=\{z=x+iy;x\mathrm{\Omega },|y|<\frac{1}{2}\kappa (tt_0)\}$$

and obeys the inequality

$$|\theta (z,t)|\frac{\kappa }{2}$$

uniformly for $`z\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$.

Proof. Let us consider $`t_0`$ to be the first time when

$$Y(t)=\underset{j𝐙^2\{0\}}{}|\widehat{\theta }(j,t)|$$

becomes smaller than $`\kappa /4`$:

$$Y(t_0)\kappa /4.$$

In view of the preceding theorem and the elementary inequality

$$Y(t)C\theta (t)_{H^2}$$

the existence of $`t_0`$ is guaranteed. Consider the function

$$y(t)=\underset{j𝐙^2\{0\}}{}|\widehat{\theta }(j,t)|\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{(tt_0)\kappa |j|}{2}\right\}$$

and the function

$$z(t)=\underset{j𝐙^2\{0\}}{}|j||\widehat{\theta }(j,t)|\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{(tt_0)\kappa |j|}{2}\right\}$$

Formally

$$\frac{dy}{dt}+z(t)(\frac{\kappa }{2}y(t))0$$

holds. This implies that the function $`y(t)`$ is non-increasing for $`tt_0`$. The more rigorous proof requires one to take only a finite sum, and introduce an artificial power to avoid differentiating the modulus at zero:

$$y_{n,ϵ}(t)=\underset{j𝐙^2\{0\},|j|n}{}|\widehat{\theta }(j,t)|^{1+ϵ}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{(tt_0)\kappa |j|}{2}\right\}$$

This is now a differentiable function in time. One differentiates, and obtains

$$\frac{d}{dt}y_{n,ϵ}(t)+\frac{\kappa }{2}z_{n,ϵ}(t)\gamma _ϵy(t)z(t)$$

where

$$z_{n,ϵ}(t)=\underset{j𝐙^2\{0\},|j|n}{}|j||\widehat{\theta }(j,t)|^{1+ϵ}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{(tt_0)\kappa |j|}{2}\right\},$$

and $`\gamma _ϵ=(1+ϵ)\theta _0_{L^2}^ϵ`$, and thus $`lim_{ϵ0}\gamma _ϵ=1`$. One integrates from $`t=t_0`$ to $`t`$ and passes to the limit $`n\mathrm{}`$, $`ϵ0`$. One obtains then

$$y(t)+\frac{\kappa }{2}_{t_0}^tz(s)𝑑s\frac{\kappa }{4}+_{t_0}^ty(s)z(s)𝑑s$$

Then, because $`y(t_0)\frac{\kappa }{4}`$ it follows that the set $`\{tt_0|y(s)\frac{\kappa }{2},s,t_0st\}`$ equals $`[t_0,\mathrm{})`$. The completely rigorous proof requires a regularization of the equation so that $`z(t)`$ is guaranteed to be finite. After $`t=t_0`$ one may use Galerkin approximations for this purpose. The conclusion is that, for $`tt_0`$ one has

$$\underset{j𝐙\{0\}}{}|\widehat{\theta }(j,t)|\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{(tt_0)\kappa |j|}{2}\right\}\frac{\kappa }{2}$$

The analytic extension is

$$\theta (z,t)=\underset{j𝐙^2\{0\}}{}e^{ijz}\widehat{\theta }(j,t)$$

and the uniform convergence and bound in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ follow. This completes the proof. The idea of using time dependent exponential weights was introduced in ().

Initial data in $`H^1`$ are sufficient for a global existence results to hold.

###### Theorem 2.5

There exists a constant $`d_{\mathrm{}}`$ such that for any $`\theta _0H^1`$ and $`\theta _0_L^{\mathrm{}}d_{\mathrm{}}\kappa `$ there exists a weak solution of the QG equation satisfying

$$\theta (,t)_{H^1}\theta _0_{H^1}$$

for any $`t0`$.

Proof. It was proved in () that the IVP (2.1) with $`\theta _0L^2`$ has a global weak solution $`\theta (,t)L^2`$ (see Appendix B). The $`L^2`$ weak solutions are constructed using a Galerkin approximation. The $`H^1`$ weak solutions can be constructed by solving approximate equations

$$_t\theta +u_\delta \theta +\kappa \mathrm{\Lambda }\theta =0,$$
(2.4)
where

$$u_\delta =k_\delta u=k_\delta \left(R^{}\theta \right)$$

and $`k_\delta `$ the periodic Poisson kernel in 2D given at the Fourier level by

$$\widehat{k_\delta }(\xi )=e^{\delta |\xi |}$$

$`\xi 𝐙^2`$. The approximations have gobal smooth solutions for positive time, uniform bounds in $`L^{\mathrm{}}(dt;L^2(dx))`$ and converge weakly to solutions of the QG equation. In addition, and in contrast with Galerkin approximations, these approximations have monotonic non-increasing $`L^p`$ norms of $`u`$. Multiplying the first equation in (2.4) by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ and integrating by parts, we obtain

$$\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}|\theta |^2𝑑x+\kappa |\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{3}{2}}\theta |^2𝑑x|(\theta )u_\delta (\theta )|𝑑x.$$

By a similar argument as in the proof of Theorem 2.1, the term on the right hand side can be bounded as follows.

$$|(\theta )u_\delta (\theta )|𝑑xC\theta _{L^3}^2u_\delta _{L^3}C\theta _{L^3}^3C\theta _L^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{3}{2}}\theta _{L^2}^2.$$

In addition to the boundedness of Riesz transforms in $`L^p`$ spaces and an appropriate Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality, we use here the fact that convolution with the Poisson kernel does not increase $`L^p`$ norms. Therefore,

$$\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}|\theta |^2𝑑x+\kappa |\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{3}{2}}\theta |^2𝑑xD_{\mathrm{}}\theta _L^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{3}{2}}\theta _{L^2}^2.$$

Using $`d_{\mathrm{}}=(D_{\mathrm{}})^1`$ and the maximum principle we deduce from $`\theta _0_L^{\mathrm{}}d_{\mathrm{}}`$ and the inequality above that

$$\theta (,t)_{H^1}\theta _0_{H^1}\text{and}_0^t|\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{3}{2}}\theta |^2(x,\tau )𝑑x𝑑\tau <\mathrm{}$$
(2.5)
for any $`t>0`$. The solutions obtained thus are relatively strong and the equation holds in time integral form in $`L^2`$.

For the sub-critical case $`\alpha >\frac{1}{2}`$ the maximum principle allows one to get a sublinear bound of the nonlinearity in terms of the dissipation and, consequently, the global existence result holds without any smallness assumption on $`\theta _L^{\mathrm{}}`$.

###### Theorem 2.6

Let $`\alpha >\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\theta _0H^2`$. Then there exists a unique global solution $`\theta `$ solving the IVP (2.1). The solution is real analytic for positive time and decays exponentially to zero.

## 3 Appendix A

In  it was shown that a solution to (2.1) for $`\frac{1}{2}\alpha 1`$ satisfies the following maximum principle

$$\theta (,t)_{L^p}\theta _0_{L^p}\text{for }1<p\mathrm{}\text{for all }t0.$$

Below we give a short description of the proof in the case $`\alpha =\frac{1}{2}`$.

Define $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }=k_s\theta `$ where $`\widehat{k}_s(\xi )=e^{s|\xi |}`$. The Poisson kernel $`k_s`$ is positive and has integral equal to one. $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ satisfies

$$\frac{d\stackrel{~}{\theta }}{ds}+\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{\theta }=0$$

and

$$\frac{d\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{L^p}^p}{ds}+p|\stackrel{~}{\theta }|^{p2}\stackrel{~}{\theta }\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{\theta }𝑑x=0.$$

Integrating with respect to s we obtain

$$p_{s_1}^{s_2}|\stackrel{~}{\theta }|^{p2}\stackrel{~}{\theta }\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{\theta }𝑑x𝑑s=\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{L^p}^p(s_1)\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{L^p}^p(s_2)$$

Using the properties of the Poisson Kernel $`k_s`$

$$k_{s_1}\theta _{L^p}^pk_{s_2s_1}(k_{s_1}\theta )_{L^p}^p0.$$

therefore

$$|\theta |^{p2}\theta \mathrm{\Lambda }\theta 𝑑x=lim_{s0^+}|\stackrel{~}{\theta }|^{p2}\stackrel{~}{\theta }\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{\theta }𝑑x0.$$

Hence, returning to the evolution equation for $`\theta `$

$$\frac{d\theta _{L^p}^p}{dt}=p|\theta ||^{p2}\theta \mathrm{\Lambda }\theta dx0.$$

## 4 Appendix B

It was proved in () that the QG equations, dissipative or not, have global weak solutions in $`L^2`$. We present here a brief description of the main reason for this fact. We consider QG as an infinite system of ODEs:

$$\frac{d}{dt}\widehat{\theta }(l,t)+\kappa |l|^{2\alpha }\widehat{\theta }(l,t)=b_l(\theta ,\theta )$$
(4.6)
with

$$b_l(\theta ,\theta )=\underset{j+k=l}{}\frac{1}{|j|}\left(j^{}k\right)\widehat{\theta }(j,t)\widehat{\theta }(k,t)$$
(4.7)
Note that because of the perpendicularity

$$\left(j^{}k\right)=\left(j^{}l\right)=\left(k^{}l\right)$$

and because of symmetry considerations in the sum we can write

$$b_l(\theta ,\theta )=\underset{j+k=l}{}\gamma _{j,k}^l\widehat{\theta }(j,t)\widehat{\theta }(k,t)$$
(4.8)
with

$$\gamma _{j,k}^l=\frac{1}{2}\left(j^{}l\right)\frac{|k||j|}{|j||k|}.$$

Note the inequality

$$\left|\gamma _{j,k}^l\right|\frac{|l|^2}{2(\mathrm{max}|j|;|k|)}$$

Consider now the weak norm

$$\theta _w=\underset{j𝐙^2\{0\}}{sup}|\widehat{\theta }(j)|$$

The nonlinearity can be written as

$$B(\theta ,\theta )(x)=\underset{l𝐙^2\{0\}}{}b_l(\theta ,\theta )e^{ilx}$$

The main observation is that the nonlinearity has a weak continuity property. Let $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _2`$ be in $`L^2`$. There exists a constant $`C`$ so that

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(B(\theta _1,\theta _1)B(\theta _2,\theta _2))_w$$

$$C\theta _1\theta _2_w\left(1+\mathrm{log}(1+\theta _1\theta _2_w^1)\right)\left(\theta _1_{L^2}+\theta _2_{L^2}\right)$$

This is the key ingredient in the existence of weak solutions. The method of proof employs a Galerkin approximation. The weak continuity guarantees the fact that the weak limit of the approximations solves the weak formulation of the equation.

Acknowledgment We thank A. Kiselev for helpful discussions.


text:
# The Dependence of 𝑇_𝑐 on Hydrostatic Pressure in Superconducting MgB2

## 1 Figure Captions

Fig. 1. Real part of the ac susceptibility of MgB2 versus temperature at ambient and high pressures. The applied magnetic field is 0.113 Oe (rms) at 1,023 Hz. Intercept of straight tangent lines defines superconducting onset at ambient pressure $`T_c(0)`$ 39.25 K. No correction is made for demagnetization effects.

Fig. 2. Superconducting transition temperature versus applied pressure. Numbers give order of measurement. Data for pts. 2, 6, 8, and 11 are shown in Fig. 1. A typical error bar for $`T_c`$ ($`\pm 0.01`$ K) is given in lower left corner; the error in pressure is less than the symbol size. Pressure was either changed at RT (unprimed numbers) or at low temperatures $``$ 60 K (primed numbers).


text:
# Compton scattering on the nucleon at intermediate energies and polarizabilities in a microscopic model

## I Introduction

In this paper we develop a relativistic model suitable for a quantitative description of real Compton ($`\gamma N`$) scattering at both low and intermediate energies (up to the second resonance region). To achieve this, the model should obey various constraints that are important in the different energy regimes. At the lowest energies, gauge invariance, CPT invariance and crossing symmetry are important for the model to obey low-energy theorems . At energies near the pion production threshold, unitarity and analyticity put strong constraints on the amplitude . Since a wide energy span needs to be described, it is most efficient to use a relativistic approach.

An obvious starting point may seem to be the Bethe-Salpeter equation  or a 3-dimensional reduction thereof. They have been used to accurately describe pion-nucleon ($`\pi N`$) scattering . However, with the usual choice of the kernel – consisting of tree-level diagrams only – crossing symmetry is violated. For this reason we have developed an alternative approach, called the “Dressed K-matrix Model”. Since this model is based on a K-matrix formalism, unitarity (in the coupled channel space) and crossing symmetry are easily implemented. The kernel is formulated with dressed vertices and propagators such that certain analyticity constraints for the amplitude are incorporated at the level of one-particle reducible diagrams. Singularities of the regularization form factor are chosen far away from the kinematic regime of interest, and thus we ignore the small violations of analyticity due to the regularization. Also, analyticity is not explicitly incorporated for one-particle irreducible diagrams. We argue in Section II C that the level of violation of analyticity can be regarded as an expansion parameter in the present model. Gauge invariance is exact through the introduction of contact terms obtained by minimal substitution.

In Section II we present a short recap of the essential ingredients of the Dressed K-matrix Model. The parameters in the model Lagrangian are fixed to a large extent from pion-nucleon scattering and pion photoproduction as presented in Section III. The results for Compton scattering and nucleon polarizabilities are given in Section IV.

## II The Dressed K-matrix Model

Various ingredients of the Dressed K-Matrix Model have been described in Refs. . Therefore, here we will present only the essential motivation and arguments behind the formulation of the model. Throughout we will use a manifestly relativistic covariant formulation using the notation of Ref. .

Since we want our model to satisfy the important constraint of crossing symmetry, we embed it in the K-matrix approach. In Appendix A we show that any model cast in the K-matrix formalism obeys crossing symmetry if the kernel $`K`$ itself is crossing symmetric. For a hermitian kernel, unitarity is also satisfied, even in a coupled $`\pi `$-N and $`\gamma `$-N channel space. The problem is thus now reduced to constructing a suitable kernel $`K`$ such that also causality – or analyticity of the amplitude – is satisfied. We will write our kernel as a sum of tree-level diagrams and contact terms (for gauge invariance), as is done usually. If this were all, the amplitude would not be an analytic function (the real and imaginary parts of the loop corrections would not be related to each other through dispersion relations), which implies that causality would be violated, as is the case in traditional K-matrix models. The essence of our approach lies in the use of dressed vertices and propagators in the kernel $`K`$, where the diagrams selected for the dressing are chosen such that certain analyticity constraints are implemented in the calculation of the T-matrix. Effects of the dressing are expressed in terms of purely real form factors and self-energy functions. Our approximation is in the extent to which analyticity of the amplitude for the process is satisfied.

The dressing in our formalism is based on including only those diagrams which are necessary for satisfying analyticity. As discussed in the next section and more extensively in Refs. , this dressing corresponds to loop corrections to vertices and propagators, where every vertex in a loop correction is in turn corrected by similar loops to satisfy the constraints also in the strong interaction regime. Since this type of dressing cannot be captured as a geometric series in the coupling constant, the summation is done via a numerical iterative expansion.

In the following we first present the essential ingredients of the dressing procedure for the $`\pi NN`$ and $`\gamma NN`$ vertices and the nucleon self-energy and only thereafter show the full structure of the K-matrix kernel.

### A The dressing procedure

#### 1 The $`\pi `$NN vertex

The objective of dressing the vertices and propagators in the present approach is solely to improve on the analytic properties of the amplitude. The imaginary parts of the amplitude are generated through the K-matrix formalism (as imposed by unitarity) and correspond to cut loop corrections where the intermediate particles are taken on their mass shell. The real parts have to follow from applying dispersion relations to the imaginary parts. We incorporate these real parts as real vertex and self-energy functions. Investigating this in detail (for a more extensive discussion we refer to ) shows that the dressing can be formulated in terms of coupled equations, schematically shown in Fig. (1), which generate multiple overlapping loop corrections. The coupled nature of the equations is necessary to obey simultaneously unitarity and analyticity.

The equations presented in Fig. (1) are solved by iteration where every iteration step proceeds as follows. The imaginary – or pole – contributions of the loop integrals for both the propagators and the vertices are obtained by applying cutting rules . Since the outgoing nucleon and the pion are on-shell, the only kinematically allowed cuts are those shown in Fig. (1). The real part of the vertex (i.e. the real parts of the form factors) and self-energy functions are calculated at every iteration step by applying dispersion relations  to the imaginary parts just calculated, where only the physical one-pion–one-nucleon cut on the real axis in the complex $`p^2`$-plane is considered. These real functions are used to calculate the pole contribution for the next iteration step. This procedure is repeated to obtain a converged solution. We consider irreducible vertices, which means that the external propagators are not included in the dressing of the vertices.

One of the advantages of the use of cutting rules in the solution procedure is that throughout we deal with vertices with only one virtual nucleon (half-off-shell vertices). In other words, the knowledge of full-off-shell form factors will not be needed for the calculation of the pole contributions to the loop integrals, which greatly simplifies our approach. Also for the construction of the K-matrix only half-off-shell vertices are required.

In the dressing procedure we maintain the full Lorentz structure of the nucleon propagator and $`\pi NN`$ vertices. The half-off-shell $`\pi NN`$ vertex, as given in Appendix B, is written in terms of the form factors $`G_{ps}(p^2)`$ and $`G_{pv}(p^2)`$ corresponding to the usual pseudo-scalar and pseudo-vector couplings.

Bare $`\pi NN`$ form factors

$$G_{pv}^0(p^2)=f(1\chi )\mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{ln}2\frac{(p^2m^2)^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N^4}\right]\text{ and }G_{ps}^0(p^2)=\frac{\chi }{(1\chi )}G_{pv}^0(p^2)$$
(1)
have been introduced in the dressing procedure to regularize the dispersion integrals. Here $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_N^2`$ is the half-width of the form factor, and $`f`$ is a bare coupling constant fixed from the condition that the dressed vertex reproduces the physical pion-nucleon coupling on-shell. For simplicity we have taken a vanishing pseudo-scalar admixture ($`\chi =0`$) in the bare vertex. The bare form factor reflects physics at energy scales beyond those of the included mesons and which has been left out of the dressing procedure. One thus expects a large width for this factor, as is indeed the case. The use of a bare form factor also implies a violation of analyticity due to additional singularities of this form factor. However, since the width of the form factor is large, the associated violation of analyticity will be small in the energy regime of present interest. It should be noted that our results are largely insensitive to the details of the structure of the bare form factor; only its width matters.

In dressing the $`\pi NN`$ vertex, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ degrees of freedom are taken into account besides the pion (the vertices and parameters are given in Appendix B and in Table I). The coupling parameters were adjusted so that the iteration procedure converges and also to get a reasonable reproduction of pion-nucleon phase shifts in the full model calculation, discussed in Section III B. We have insisted on consistency between model parameters in the calculation of the vertices and in the full model calculation. For reasons of simplicity, however, we have not included the full nucleon resonance spectrum in the dressing of the vertices; nor have we dressed all resonance propagators and vertices on the same footing with the nucleon propagator and $`\pi NN`$ vertex. This can be considered as an additional approximation in the present approach.

The dressed nucleon propagator is renormalized to have a pole with a unit residue at the physical mass and is given in Appendix B, where the nucleon self-energy functions $`A(p^2)`$ and $`B(p^2)`$ have been introduced together with the renormalization constant $`Z_2^N`$ and the nucleon mass shift $`\delta m=mm_0`$.

#### 2 The $`\gamma `$NN vertex

The procedure of obtaining the $`\gamma NN`$ vertex is in principle the same as for the $`\pi NN`$ vertex. One should consider the cut loop diagrams generated in the K-matrix approach and use the equivalent cuts for evaluating the integrand of the dispersion integral. This is shown schematically in Fig. (2), a more complete discussion is presented in . This equation is solved using the same method as used for constructing the $`\pi NN`$ vertex. The equation in Fig. (2) is simpler than that in Fig. (1) since, due to the weaker electromagnetic coupling, photon loops are not considered. The dressed $`\pi NN`$ vertex can thus be taken from the calculations presented in the previous section.

The most general $`\gamma NN`$ vertex is kept in the dressing procedure. It is given in Appendix B for a real photon with momentum $`q=p^{}p`$ and an on-shell outgoing nucleon, $`p^2=m^2`$. It contains four form factors $`\widehat{F}_{1,2}^{+,}(p^2)`$ each of which has the isospin structure $`\widehat{F}=F^s+\tau _3F^v`$.

The bare $`\gamma NN`$ vertex is taken with $`\widehat{F}_1^+(p^2)=\widehat{F}_1^{}(p^2)=\widehat{e}_N=(1+\tau _3)/2`$ and $`\widehat{F}_2^+(p^2)=\widehat{F}_2^{}(p^2)=\widehat{\kappa }_B=\kappa _B^s+\tau _3\kappa _B^v`$, the bare anomalous magnetic moment of the nucleon, adjusted to provide the normalization

$$F_2^{+,s}(m^2)=0.06\text{ and }F_2^{+,v}(m^2)=1.85.$$
(2)
of the dressed vertex. We have not introduced bare $`\gamma NN`$ form factors since the dispersion integrals are finite due to the sufficiently fast falloff of the dressed $`\pi NN`$ vertex.

The contact $`\gamma \pi NN`$ and $`\gamma \gamma NN`$ vertices, necessary for gauge invariance of the model, are constructed by minimal substitution in the dressed $`\pi NN`$ vertex and nucleon propagator, as was explained in . Using minimal substitution, two $`\gamma \pi NN`$ vertices were derived in , which differ by a purely gauge invariant (transverse with respect to the photon four-momentum) term. In the present calculation, the contact term was chosen as a weighted sum of the two $`\gamma \pi NN`$ vertices,

$$\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \pi NN}^{ps}\right)_\alpha ^\mu +\left[0.15\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \pi NN}^{pv\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}\right)_\alpha ^\mu +0.85\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \pi NN}^{pv\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\right)_\alpha ^\mu \right],$$
(3)
using the notation introduced in Eqs. (C.3,C.5) and (C.6) of Ref. . The reason for this choice will be discussed in Section III B, when presenting results for pion photoproduction. Since, due to the inclusion of the $`\gamma \pi NN`$ contact term, the photon vertex obeys the Ward-Takahashi identity, the $`F_1^\pm `$ form factors are uniquely related to the nucleon self-energy (see Ref.).

As explained in Section II C, the present procedure restores analyticity at the level of one-particle reducible diagrams in the T-matrix. In general, violation due to two- and more-particle reducible diagrams can be regarded as higher order corrections. An important exception to this general rule is formed by one-particle irreducible diagrams generated by the K-matrix formalism for Compton scattering. These include, for example, diagrams where both photons couple to the same intermediate pion in a loop (so-called “handbag” diagrams). In the K-matrix formalism, the imaginary (pole) contribution of this type of diagrams is essentially a square of part of the pion-photoproduction amplitude. This term is exceptional since at the pion threshold the S-wave contribution is large, related to the non-zero value of the $`E_{0+}^{1/2}`$ multipole in pion-photoproduction. Not including the real part of such a large contribution would entail a significant violation of analyticity. To correct for this to a large extent, the $`\gamma \gamma NN`$ vertex also contains the (purely transverse) “cusp” contact term whose construction is described in Section 4 of Ref. . It is derived from a simplified treatment of the large “handbag” loop correction, using the fact that the latter is dominated by the $`E_{0+}^{1/2}`$ photoproduction channel and that therefore the loop can be saturated by $`J^\pi =1/2^{}`$ intermediate states. Since these intermediate states correspond to negative-energy states, the integrand of the dispersion integral for the “cusp” term is proportional to the negative-energy magnetic (to ensure the transversality of the term) form factor as calculated in the dressing procedure. The explicit expression for the term is given in Eqs. (32) and (33) of Ref. , where the functions $`\text{Im}\stackrel{~}{F}_2^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_I`$ are now obtained from the full dressing procedure.

Since, due to chiral symmetry, the S-wave pion scattering amplitude vanishes at threshold, $`\pi \pi NN`$ or $`\pi \gamma NN`$ contact terms analogous to the “cusp” $`\gamma \gamma NN`$ term will be negligible and have therefore not been considered.

### B The effective Lagrangian

Since our approach is based on the K-matrix formalism, it is convenient to describe the effective Lagrangian of our model in terms of the diagrams included in the kernel $`K`$.

The $`S`$ matrix is expressed in terms of the scattering amplitude $`𝒯`$ (the T matrix) by $`S=1+2i𝒯`$. The T-matrix is written in the form $`𝒯=K+Ki\delta 𝒯`$, which can be solved, yielding the central equation of the K-matrix approach,

$$𝒯=(1Ki\delta )^1K,$$
(4)
where $`\delta `$ indicates that the intermediate particles have to be taken on the mass shell. It is straightforward to check that $`S`$ is unitary provided $`K`$ is hermitian. The simplicity of Eq. (4) is due to the fact that it contains the cut two-particle propagator $`i\delta `$, thus involving integrals only over on-shell intermediate particles. As a result Eq. (4) reduces to a set of algebraic equations when one is working in a partial wave basis. When both the $`\pi N`$ and $`\gamma N`$ channels are open, the coupled-channel K-matrix becomes a $`2\times 2`$ matrix in the channel space, i.e.

$$K=\left[\begin{array}{cc}K_{\gamma \gamma }& K_{\gamma \pi }\\ K_{\pi \gamma }& K_{\pi \pi }\end{array}\right].$$
(5)
The pion-nucleon scattering entry $`K_{\pi \pi }`$ of the K matrix is given in Fig. (3), and the pion photoproduction and Compton scattering entries, $`K_{\pi \gamma }`$ and $`K_{\gamma \gamma }`$, are shown in Figs. (4) and (5), respectively, including all baryon resonances specified in Table II.

The analytic form of the K matrix can be written by applying Feynman rules, with the 3-point vertices and propagators given in Appendix B.

Several coupling constants are fixed from the corresponding decay widths, according to the Particle Data Group values : $`g_{\rho ^0\pi \gamma }=0.131`$, $`g_{\rho ^\pm \pi \gamma }=0.103`$ and $`g_{\omega \pi \gamma }=0.313`$. The coupling constant $`g_{\pi \gamma \gamma }`$ is fixed so that the width of the pion decay into two photons is 7.37(1.5) eV. The remaining parameters, given in Table I for the nucleon-meson couplings and in Table II for the coupling to the resonances, were determined from a fit to pion-nucleon phase shifts, multipole amplitudes in pion photoproduction and Compton scattering cross sections. The range of the parameters pertaining to the degrees of freedom included in the dressing equations is constrained in addition by the requirement of convergence of the iteration procedure.

### C Violation of analyticity as an expansion parameter

As we have argued, the amplitude in this model obeys crossing symmetry at the expense of violating analyticity. We have incorporated analyticity constraints at the level of 1-particle reducible diagrams contributing to the amplitude. Analyticity is violated at the level of 2- and higher-particle reducible diagrams (the higher-particle reducible diagrams enter when multi-pion production channels are included explicitly). Our approach can thus be regarded as an expansion in a certain parameter $`a`$, the degree of analyticity of the amplitude, where we interpret the real (principal-value) parts of the dressed one-particle reducible diagrams as terms of $`𝒪(a)`$, the real parts of the dressed 1-particle irreducible but 2-particle reducible diagrams as $`𝒪(a^2)`$ and so on. Without specifying it, the expansion parameter $`a`$ is related to the energy scale at which the amplitude is affected significantly by imposing the analyticity constraints. By phase-space arguments, the higher-particle reducible diagrams will have finite and comparatively smooth imaginary parts only at higher energies. The associated real parts will thus exhibit an energy dependence which is weaker than those due to the 1- and 2-particle reducible diagrams. In the approach presented here, these weak energy dependences are in general absorbed in one of the fitting constants of the model, such as the strength of the negative energy couplings of the resonances.

We will show in Section III A that analyticity at the one-body level (order $`𝒪(a)`$) strongly affects 3-point vertex functions at relatively moderate momenta. The approach can be extended to include also analyticity at the level of 4-point 2-particle reducible functions. To do so, one will have to add 4-point contact term contributions to the K-matrix. Note that the corresponding imaginary parts are associated with the one-pion–one-nucleon discontinuity. Other diagrams of the orders higher than $`𝒪(a^2)`$ will be associated with one-nucleon–multi-pion thresholds, which implies that they become important above energies of order $`m_N+2m_\pi `$. In other words, in the approximation of two-body unitarity, only the terms of $`𝒪(a)`$ and $`𝒪(a^2)`$ should be retained. Thus, to systematically improve the property of analyticity of the amplitude, one has to extend the dressing technique to the 1-particle irreducible (but 2-particle reducible) 4-point diagrams. This will ensure that all the terms up to and including $`𝒪(a^2)`$ are taken into account. To go beyond second order, one would have to accommodate two-pion production in the model.

In the case of Compton scattering, the “handbag” diagram gives a large contribution with pronounced features at the pion production threshold. Therefore, although this diagram enters at $`𝒪(a^2)`$, we had to include it effectively through the “cusp” contact term.

An additional breaking of analyticity is caused by the introduction of the bare form factors. Since these are wide, the associated poles in the complex $`p^2`$-plane will be far removed from our region of interest and one may thus regard the associated violation of analyticity being of higher order in $`a`$. Since a form factor is associated with physics not included explicitly in the model, which in the present case is multi-pion production, one could argue that the associated breaking is of the order $`𝒪(a^3)`$.

## III Results

Results obtained from the dressed K-matrix model are presented in this section. We first discuss effects of the dressing for the vertex functions and nucleon self-energy, showing the large effect of multi-loop dressing. Since these off-shell form factors are not observable quantities, results for pion-nucleon scattering, pion photoproduction and Compton scattering are presented in the following sections.

### A Vertex functions

As explained above, the dressing of the vertices is expressed in terms of form factors and self-energy functions. They depend of the choice of the bare form factors, but our calculations show that the detailed structure of this bare form factor is rather unimportant, only its half-width $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_N^2`$ is crucial. There exists a maximum width beyond which the dressing procedure fails to converge. This maximum depends on the meson-nucleon couplings and on the pseudo-scalar – pseudo-vector mixing ratio ($`\chi `$) used in the bare form factor. The width we have taken in the calculations discussed in the following, see Table I, has been taken relatively close to this maximum. The form factors for the pion-nucleon vertex are shown in Fig. (6).

Due to the dressing, the pion-nucleon vertex is considerably softer than the original bare vertex. The difference is about a factor one and a half in the width. The dressing affects the pseudo-scalar and pseudo-vector parts of the vertex function differently, resulting in a mixing ratio which is strongly momentum dependent. At the pion-production threshold the ratio is still small, i.e. the pseudo-vector structure dominates, which is consistent with a minor explicit breaking of chiral symmetry.

The nucleon self-energy functions are shown in Fig. (7). The wave function and mass renormalization constants are $`Z_2^N=0.8`$ and $`\delta m=77`$ MeV, respectively. The bare pion coupling constant is $`f=10.82`$ in Eq. (1). In principle, a field redefinition can be made such that the self-energy vanishes, resulting in a transformation of the $`\pi NN`$ vertex (see  for details). Due to the equivalence theorem, observables calculated in both representations are the same. In the present calculation we have not used a field redefinition.

Since the model is gauge invariant – and thus the $`\gamma NN`$ vertex obeys the Ward-Takahashi identity – there is a one-to-one correspondence between the electric form factors $`F_1^\pm `$ and the nucleon self-energy, given by Eqs. (28) and (29) of Ref. . In particular, the neutron-photon electric form factors are zero. The proton-photon form factors $`F_1^\pm (p^2)`$ are shown in Fig. (8) as functions of the momentum squared of the proton. They do not depend on the choice of the contact $`\gamma \pi NN`$ vertex.

The magnetic form factors $`F_2^\pm `$ are shown in Fig. (9) for the proton and the neutron. The dominant contribution to the form factors $`F_2^\pm `$ is due to the first diagram under the integral in Fig. (2), which generates the bulk of the form factors already in the first iteration. This, however, does not mean that the other terms in the equation are of minor importance. In particular, they are crucial for satisfying the Ward-Takahashi identity for the $`\gamma NN`$ vertex. Because the derivative of the imaginary part of $`F_2^{}(p^2)`$ tends to infinity as $`p^2`$ approaches the pion threshold (since intermediate s-wave $`\pi N`$ states give a large contribution to the loop integrals in Fig. (2)), its real part has a sharp cusp. The dressed vertex is renormalized by adjusting $`\widehat{\kappa }_B`$ ($`\kappa _B^s=0.017`$ and $`\kappa _B^v=1.78`$) in the bare $`\gamma NN`$ vertex to fulfill the normalization conditions Eq. (2).

### B Observables in pion-nucleon scattering and pion photoproduction

In the following we shall be discussing effects of the dressing of vertices and propagators on observables by comparing two calculations, referred to as calculations B (Bare) and D (Dressed).

* Calculation B. The “bare” K matrix, $`K_B`$, consists of free propagators and bare vertices for all particles. No form factors are included, except for the bare form factors in the $`\pi NN`$ and $`\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vertices. A $`\gamma \gamma NN`$ term is not included since the bare $`\gamma NN`$ vertex does not have form factors. Thus, the corresponding T matrix contains only the pole parts of the loop diagrams.
* Calculation D. The “dressed” K matrix, $`K_D`$, is composed of the dressed propagators for the nucleon, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ (the propagators of the pion and $`\omega `$ are taken free) and the dressed $`\pi NN`$ and $`\gamma NN`$ vertices. To provide gauge invariance of the Compton scattering amplitude, a $`\gamma \gamma NN`$ vertex is added, which includes the additional “cusp” term. Since this calculation includes all features of the model, it is also referred to as the full calculation. Now both pole and principal-value parts are taken into account of a wide class of loop diagrams which contribute to the T matrix.

Both calculations include a contact $`\gamma \pi NN`$ vertex, calculated by minimal substitution in the $`\pi NN`$ vertex (in the bare vertex for calculation B and in the dressed one for calculation D). The $`\pi NN`$ and $`\gamma NN`$ vertices are normalized at the threshold to reproduce the physical pion-nucleon coupling constant and the nucleon anomalous magnetic moment, respectively. In addition, nucleon resonances are included in both calculations. Since we focus on effects of the nucleon dressing, we do not readjust the resonance parameters in calculation B.

The pion-coupling parameters have been optimized to reproduce the pion-nucleon scattering phase shifts and inelasticities in the full calculation. However, since in the present paper we do not aim for a perfect fit to the data, we have not used a least-square minimization routine. In part, this is because certain phase shifts, notably the $`P_{11}`$ at higher energies, show discrepancies which seem to be outside the capability of the model. On the whole, the phase shifts and inelasticities are reproduced well, see Fig. (10). In the propagators for the nucleon resonances an additional width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ has been introduced, given in Table II, to account for decay channels which are not included explicitly in the model (see Ref.  for details). The large effect of the dressing which was seen in the vertex functions persists in the calculation of observables. At pion energies exceeding 500 MeV the phase shift in the $`P_{33}`$ channel is somewhat above the data. This appears to be due to the structure of the $`\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vertex. Namely, due to the use of a gauge-invariant $`\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vertex , an additional factor $`p^2`$ is introduced in the s-channel diagrams, which is apparently insufficiently compensated by the form factor. We have not made an extensive effort to correct this in the present calculation.

The calculated multipoles for pion photoproduction on the proton are shown in Fig. (11), where the results of both calculations D and B are given. The usual nomenclature  for the multipoles is used. Comparing the results of the two calculations in Fig. (11), it is seen that effects of the dressing are most prominent in the magnetic dipole multipole $`M_1^{1/2}`$ reflecting the effect of the $`F_2^+`$ form factors in the s-channel.

As pointed out earlier, gauge invariance alone does not provide sufficient restrictions on the $`\gamma \pi NN`$ contact term: its transverse part cannot be determined unambiguously. We found that the choice of the transverse part has an influence on the multipole $`E_{0+}^{1/2}`$, in particular its falloff with energy, which allowed us to fix this term as given in Eq. (3) to fit the data. Since the $`E_{0+}^{1/2}`$ multipole corresponds to angular momentum and parity $`J^\pi =1/2^{}`$ of the nucleon-photon system, it contributes to the imaginary part of $`F_2^{}`$, which explains the strong effect of the $`\gamma \pi NN`$ contact term on $`F_2^{}`$.

## IV Compton scattering and nucleon polarizabilities

Our special interest concerns observables in Compton scattering since for this case constraints imposed by crossing symmetry and analyticity will be most important.

### A Compton scattering

The only two free parameters which enter in the calculation of Compton scattering appear in the $`\gamma \gamma \sigma `$ vertex and have been adjusted to reproduce the backward Compton cross section at moderate energies. Calculated angular distributions are compared with data in Fig. (12). Notably, the near vanishing $`0^o`$ cross section at the pion production energy is correctly reproduced in the full calculation, a feature which is impossible to obtain in the calculation without dressing. At somewhat higher energies, however, the forward cross section is under-predicted in the full calculation. The dependence of the cross section on the photon energy is displayed in Fig. (13) for different scattering angles. In general the full calculation gives an improvement in the description of the data.

We have not made a detailed investigation of the source of the observed discrepancies with the cross section data. Below the energy of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance the contribution of $`\sigma `$-meson exchange is small and the most obvious reason for the problems would be the structure of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }N\gamma `$ vertex. At smaller angles there is destructive interference between the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the nucleon contribution. A relatively minor change in the momentum dependence of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }N\gamma `$ vertex will thus be magnified in its effect on the cross section at forward angles while affecting the larger angles to a lesser extend. For example, the poor agreement at backward angles could be mitigated by lowering the absolute value of the mixing parameter $`a_\gamma `$ in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }N\gamma `$ vertex (see Appendix B and Table II), which would however result in a too high cross section at smaller angles. Above the energy of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance, the contribution of the $`\sigma `$ meson becomes progressively more important. As a t-channel exchange, it mainly affects the backward angles. Thus, at higher energies and backward angles the cross section will be sensitive to the structure of the vertices in the $`\sigma `$ exchange diagram. The detailed study of such modifications to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\sigma `$ vertices falls, however, outside the scope of the present work.

The photon (beam) asymmetry at $`90^o`$ and the proton (target) polarization at $`100^o`$ are shown in Fig. (14) as functions of the photon laboratory energy. As can be seen, effects of the dressing become very conspicuous above the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance region. The observables exhibit a cusp structure at the pion threshold, which is especially pronounced for the photon asymmetry. This cusp is a consequence of the unitarity and analyticity properties of the coupled-channel scattering matrix, affecting primarily the $`f_{EE}^1`$ partial wave amplitude .

The effect of the dressing on the $`f_{EE}^1`$ amplitude can be seen in Fig. (15), where also the results of dispersion analyses are quoted for comparison. Note that the imaginary parts of $`f_{EE}^1`$ from calculations B and D are rather similar in the vicinity of threshold. Both calculations B and D are unitary, and the full calculation D includes the dressing in addition. Since gauge invariance, crossing and CPT symmetries are fulfilled in the model, all these calculations tend to the Thompson limit at vanishing photon energy.

### B Nucleon polarizabilities

The polarizabilities characterize response of the nucleon to an externally applied electromagnetic field . They can be defined as coefficients in a low-energy expansion of the cross section or partial amplitudes of Compton scattering. We adhere to the standard notation for the partial amplitudes . We will attach the superscript $`NB`$ (non-Born) to the difference between the full amplitude obtained in the full calculation D and the amplitude in the Born approximation. In the Born approximation, the T matrix equals the sum of the first two graphs in Fig. (5) with the bare (but properly normalized to the physical anomalous moment) $`\gamma NN`$ vertices and the free nucleon propagator. Such a calculation is not unitary, resulting in a purely real amplitude. According to the low-energy theorem , the zeroth and first orders in an expansion of the amplitude in the small photon energy $`\omega `$ are model-independent and are reproduced by the Born contribution alone. The polarizabilities enter starting at second order and are model-dependent. We are in particular interested in the role of the dressing procedure in this connection.

To calculate the polarizabilities, we use formulae given in Ref. . The electric and magnetic (scalar) polarizabilities are determined using the equations

$$\alpha _E\frac{(f_{EE}^1+2f_{EE}^{1+})^{NB}}{\omega ^2},\beta _M\frac{(f_{MM}^1+2f_{MM}^{1+})^{NB}}{\omega ^2}.$$
(6)
The spin (vector) polarizabilities are related to third order coefficients in the low-energy expansion,

$$\gamma _{E1}\frac{(f_{EE}^{1+}f_{EE}^1)^{NB}}{\omega ^3},\gamma _{M1}\frac{(f_{MM}^{1+}f_{MM}^1)^{NB}}{\omega ^3},$$
(7)
$$\gamma _{E2}\frac{6(f_{ME}^{1+})^{NB}}{\omega ^3},\gamma _{M2}\frac{6(f_{EM}^{1+})^{NB}}{\omega ^3}.$$
(8)
We calculate also the forward- and backward-angle spin polarizabilities, given by

$$\gamma _0=\gamma _{E1}\gamma _{M1}\gamma _{E2}\gamma _{M2}\text{and}\gamma _\pi =\gamma _{E1}+\gamma _{M1}+\gamma _{E2}\gamma _{M2},$$
(9)
respectively. We obtained similar values for the polarizabilities extracted at the energies in the range between $`\omega =20`$ MeV and $`\omega =100`$ MeV, whereas at lower energies the numerical extraction was unreliable due to the closeness of the amplitude to the nucleon pole. For this reason, we applied a linear extrapolation to $`\omega =0`$ MeV through the values of polarizabilities calculated at $`\omega =80`$ MeV and $`\omega =40`$ MeV (the points used for the extrapolation are immaterial within the indicated range of moderately low energies).

Since all the parameters are now fixed by the dressing procedure and by the comparison with experiment for the pion-nucleon scattering, pion photoproduction and Compton scattering, the calculated polarizabilities reflect the dynamical contents of the model. Our results for the electric, magnetic and spin polarizabilities of the nucleon are given in Tables III and IV, where also results of other calculations are summarized together with the values extracted from recent experiments. (It should be noted that there has been some discussion concerning the definition of the polarizabilities used in different chiral perturbation theory calculations, see .)

It is known  that the t-channel $`\pi ^0`$-exchange diagram gives a large contribution to the spin polarizabilities $`\gamma `$, while not affecting the scalar polarizabilities $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. For this reason, this contribution is often subtracted from the $`\gamma `$s, as is also done in Tables III and IV. We find that the $`\pi ^0`$-exchange diagram gives a contribution of $`+10.62`$ to $`\gamma _{E1}^p`$, $`\gamma _{M2}^p`$, $`\gamma _{M1}^n`$, $`\gamma _{E2}^n`$ and $`10.62`$ to $`\gamma _{E1}^n`$, $`\gamma _{M2}^n`$, $`\gamma _{M1}^p`$, $`\gamma _{E2}^p`$ (earlier works quote similar numbers: $`\pm 11.3`$  $`\pm 11.2`$ , $`\pm 10.9`$ , $`\pm 10.7`$ ). The effect of the dressing on the polarizabilities can be seen by comparing the values given in columns D and B. In particular, the dressing tends to decrease $`\alpha `$ while increasing $`\beta `$. Among the spin polarizabilities, $`\gamma _{E1}`$ is affected much more than the other $`\gamma `$s.

Various contributions to the full calculation D of the polarizabilities are analyzed in Tables V and VI for the proton and neutron, respectively. The different rows contain the results obtained from the calculation in which certain contributions have been omitted. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-resonance, with its strong magnetic coupling, primarily affect the magnetic polarizabilities such as $`\beta `$, $`\gamma _{M1}`$ and $`\gamma _{M2}`$.

The $`\sigma `$ meson does not affect the sum of the scalar polarizabilities, $`\alpha +\beta `$. To understand this feature, we recall that the second order term in the low-energy expansion of the differential cross section in the laboratory frame of reference can be expressed in terms of the polarizabilities as

$$\frac{m}{2\alpha _f}\left[(\alpha +\beta )(1+cos\theta )^2+(\alpha \beta )(1cos\theta )^2\right]\omega ^2,$$
(10)
$`\alpha _f`$ being the fine structure constant, $`\alpha _f=1/137`$. The sum $`\alpha +\beta `$ thus remains unaffected since $`\sigma `$-exchange enters as a t-channel contribution and does not contribute at forward angles. Also the spin-polarizabilities are not affected by a scalar exchange. Both the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the $`\sigma `$ give large, but cancelling, contributions to $`\beta `$.

The effect of the additional “cusp” $`\gamma \gamma NN`$ contact term, mentioned at the end of Section II A 2, can be seen by comparing the “no cusp” with the full calculation. In particular, it is seen that this term strongly influences the electric polarizabilities rather than the magnetic ones. The reason for this is that the “cusp” contact term affects primarily the electric partial amplitude $`f_{EE}^1`$ (corresponding to the the total angular momentum and parity of the intermediate state $`J^\pi =1/2^{}`$) rather than the magnetic amplitude $`f_{MM}^1`$ ($`J^\pi =1/2^+`$). Hence, by Eqs. (6,7), the electric polarizabilities ($`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma _{E1}`$) receive a sizable contribution from this term.

None of the polarizabilities is much influenced by contributions from the $`D_{13}`$ or any of the other resonances.

## V Summary and Conclusions

The results are presented of a comprehensive calculation of pion and photon scattering off the nucleon in the “Dressed K-matrix Model”. In particular, we focused our attention on the calculation of Compton scattering in the energy regime ranging from the lowest energies, where observables are presented in terms of nucleon polarizabilities, up to energies in the second resonance region. We show that this model distinguishes itself from other microscopic approaches since it is able to give a quantitative description of the observables in the full energy range, due to the fact that the model preserves the symmetries which are important in the different energy regimes.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Alex Korchin for discussions. We also thank Harold Fearing for reading the manuscript and making several useful suggestions. This work is part of the research program of the “Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie” (FOM) with financial support from the “Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek” (NWO).

## A Crossing symmetry

The proof that our T-matrix obeys crossing symmetry in the meson lines is based on simple kinematics. Diagrams of the type depicted on the left in Fig. (16) contribute to the T-matrix. Crossing symmetry of the T-matrix implies that also the crossed version of this diagram, depicted on the right in Fig. (16), is taken into account. Part of this diagram corresponds however to the incoming nucleon “decaying” to a state consisting of two on-shell pions and an on-shell nucleon. Since this is not allowed kinematically, the contribution from this crossed diagram vanishes.

This argument can be used to show that for any term contributing to the T-matrix which involves a second or higher power of the kernel, the corresponding crossed diagram vanishes. The resulting T-matrix is thus crossing symmetric provided that the kernel itself is crossing symmetric. In the present approach special care is taken that the latter is indeed the case.

## B Model Lagrangian

The form factors included in the vertices with baryon and meson resonances have similar form to the bare $`\pi NN`$ form factor given in Eq. (1), with the half-width chosen the same for all the vertices, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=1`$ GeV<sup>2</sup>.

The $`\mathrm{\Delta }N\pi `$ and also the $`\mathrm{\Delta }N\gamma `$ vertices have been chosen so as to obey the gauge condition $`p\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$ . As a consequence of this the coupling to the spin 1/2 components in the Rarita-Schwinger propagator are eliminated. Only the vertices for the nucleon and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-resonance are given, those for other $`j=1/2`$ and $`j=3/2`$ resonances are similar except for an additional factor $`\gamma _5`$ for resonances carrying negative parity. A cross in the propagator attached to a vertex implies that the particle corresponding to this leg is taken on-shell.

The parameters $`a_\pi `$ and $`a_\gamma `$ appearing in the vertices for spin–$`3/2`$ particles determine the ratio of coupling to positive– and negative–energy intermediate states. In principle the value of the parameter $`a_\gamma `$ can be different for the two structures in the photon-resonance vertex; however, these have been taken the same for simplicity.

$`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \pi \pi })_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^\mu =ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }g_{\rho \pi \pi }F_\rho (p^2)\left[k^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{(pk)}{p^2}}p^\mu \right]`$

$`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \pi \pi })_{\alpha \beta }=iF_\sigma (p^2)\delta _{\alpha \beta }\left[g_{\sigma \pi \pi }m_\pi +f_{\sigma \pi \pi }{\displaystyle \frac{(qq^{})}{m_\pi }}\right]`$

$`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \pi \gamma })_{\alpha \beta }^{\mu \nu }=ie{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\rho \pi \gamma }}{m_\pi }}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }q_\rho q_\sigma ^{}\delta _{\alpha \beta }`$

$`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\omega \pi \gamma })_\alpha ^{\mu \nu }=ie{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\omega \pi \gamma }}{m_\pi }}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }q_\rho q_\sigma ^{}\delta _{\alpha 3}`$

$`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi \gamma \gamma })_\alpha ^{\mu \nu }=i{\displaystyle \frac{e^2g_{\pi \gamma \gamma }}{m_\pi }}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }q_\rho q_\sigma ^{}\delta _{\alpha 3}`$

$`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \gamma \gamma })^{\mu \nu }=i{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{m_\sigma }}\left[q^\mu q^\nu \delta ^{\mu \nu }(qq^{})\right]\left[g_{\sigma \gamma \gamma }+f_{\sigma \gamma \gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{(qq^{})}{m_\sigma ^2}}\right]`$

$`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi NN})_\alpha =\tau _\alpha \gamma ^5\left[G_{ps}(p^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{p/+m}{2m}}G_{pv}(p^2)\right]`$

$`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma NN})^\mu =ie{\displaystyle \underset{l=\pm }{}}\left[\gamma ^\mu \widehat{F}_1^l(p^2)+i{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q_\nu }{2m}}\widehat{F}_2^l(p^2)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{lp/+m}{2m}}`$

$`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho NN})_\alpha ^\mu =ig_{\rho NN}F_N(p^2){\displaystyle \frac{\tau _\alpha }{2}}\left(\gamma ^\mu +i\kappa _\rho {\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^{\mu \nu }k_\nu }{2m}}\right)`$

$`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\omega NN})^\mu =ig_{\omega NN}\left(\gamma ^\mu +i\kappa _\omega {\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^{\mu \nu }k_\nu }{2m}}\right)`$

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma NN}=ig_{\sigma NN}F_N(p^2)`$

$`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }})_\alpha ^\mu =i{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}}{m_\pi ^2}}T_\alpha F_\mathrm{\Delta }(p^2)F_N(p^2)[p/q^\mu (pq)\gamma ^\mu ]\times [(1a_\pi )+a_\pi {\displaystyle \frac{p/}{m_\mathrm{\Delta }}}]`$

$`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Delta }N\gamma })^{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{ie}{2m_\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}\{g_1[g^{\nu \mu }p/q/p^\nu \gamma ^\mu q/\gamma ^\nu \gamma ^\mu (pq)+\gamma ^\nu q^\mu p/]+g_2[q^\mu p^\nu g^{\mu \nu }(pq)]\}\times [(1a_\gamma )+a_\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{p/}{m_\mathrm{\Delta }}}]\gamma ^5T_3`$

The normalization of the isospin $`3/2`$ to $`1/2`$ transition operators is chosen according to

$$T_\alpha T_\beta ^{}=\delta _{\alpha \beta }\frac{\tau _\alpha \tau _\beta }{3}$$

.

PROPAGATORS

For cut propagators, the usual form is used as $`2i`$ multiplied by the imaginary part of the propagator at positive energies; only the pole contribution is taken into account in the case of the stable particles (nucleon and pion).

$`D_\pi ^0={\displaystyle \frac{i}{k^2m_\pi ^2+i0}}`$

$`D_\sigma ={\displaystyle \frac{i}{k^2m_\sigma ^2\mathrm{\Pi }_\sigma (k^2)}},`$

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\sigma (k^2)=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\sigma ,L}(k^2)(Z_\sigma 1)(k^2m_\sigma ^2)Z_\sigma \delta m_\sigma ^2`$

$`(D_\rho )^{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{i𝒫_1^{\mu \nu }(k)}{k^2m_\rho ^2\mathrm{\Pi }_\rho (k^2)}},𝒫_1^{\mu \nu }(k)=g^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{k^\mu k^\nu }{k^2}},`$

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\rho (k^2)=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho ,L}(k^2)(Z_\rho 1)(k^2m_\rho ^2)Z_\rho \delta m_\rho ^2`$

$`(D_\omega ^0)^{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{i𝒫_1^{\mu \nu }(k)}{k^2m_\omega ^2+i0}}`$

$`S_N={\displaystyle \frac{i}{p/m\mathrm{\Sigma }_N(p)+i0}},`$

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_N(p)=A_N(p^2)p/+B_N(p^2)m(Z_2^N1)(p/m)Z_2^N\delta m`$

$`(S_\mathrm{\Delta })^{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{i}{p/m_\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Delta }(p)}}𝒫_{3/2}^{\mu \nu }(p),`$

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Delta }(p)=A_\mathrm{\Delta }(p^2)p/+B_\mathrm{\Delta }(p^2)m_\mathrm{\Delta }(Z_2^\mathrm{\Delta }1)(p/m_\mathrm{\Delta })`$

$`𝒫_{3/2}^{\mu \nu }(p)=g^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{3p^2}}(p/\gamma ^\mu p^\nu +p^\mu \gamma ^\nu p/)`$

Due to the gauge-invariance condition imposed on the spin-$`3/2`$ vertices, the terms in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ propagator proportional to $`p^\mu `$ and $`p^\nu `$ give vanishing contributions to the matrix elements.