text:
# Quantum Electrodynamics of the Helium Atom

## I Introduction

Singlet states of the helium atom, especially its ground state, are best suited for precision studies of the electron-electron interaction at low energies. Recent measurements of $`1^1S2^1P`$  and $`1^1S2^1S`$  intervals in helium reached the precision of about 10 ppb. Helium ground state ionization potential (the difference between ground state energies of the singly charged ion and of the atom) extracted from those measurements constitutes

$$\nu _{\mathrm{exp}}^{1S2P}(1^1S)=\mathrm{5\hspace{0.33em}945\hspace{0.33em}204\hspace{0.33em}238}(45)\mathrm{MHz}$$
(1)
and

$$\nu _{\mathrm{exp}}^{1S2S}(1^1S)=\mathrm{5\hspace{0.33em}945\hspace{0.33em}204\hspace{0.33em}356}(48)\mathrm{MHz},$$
(2)
respectively.

Theoretically, the ionization potential can be calculated as a power series in the fine structure constant $`\alpha `$. Leading $`𝒪(m\alpha ^2)`$ contribution to the ground state energy is the lowest eigenvalue $`E`$ of the nonrelativistic Hamiltonian

$$H=\underset{a}{}\left(\frac{p_a^2}{2m_a}+\alpha \underset{b>a}{}\frac{z_az_b}{r_{ab}}\right)$$
(3)
entering into the Schrödinger equation $`H\psi =E\psi `$. Here and below I use the following notations: $`𝒓_a`$ and $`𝒑_a`$ are the position and momentum operators for the particle $`a`$ with mass $`m_a`$ and electric charge $`z_a`$ (in units of the proton charge). The relative position of two particles is $`𝒓_{ab}=𝒓_a𝒓_b`$; for any vector $`𝒗`$, $`v`$ denotes $`|𝒗|`$. The helium atom consists of two electrons with masses $`m_1=m_2=m`$ and charges $`z_1=z_2=1`$, and the nucleus with mass $`m_3=M`$ and charge $`z_3=2`$. A general case of $`z_3=Z`$ takes into consideration helium-like ions with $`Z1/\alpha `$. In the center-of-mass frame, total momentum of the atom vanishes, $`_a𝒑_a=0`$ so that only two of three position vectors are independent: $`_am_a𝒓_a=0`$. In singlet states, spins of the electrons sum up to zero while the orbital part of the wave function is symmetric with respect to permutation of the electrons positions, $`\psi (𝒓_1,𝒓_2)=\psi (𝒓_2,𝒓_1)`$.

Relativistic and radiative effects shift the Schrödinger value of the energy by corrections of higher orders in $`\alpha `$. In particular, the leading correction,

$`\delta ^{(2)}E=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_a^4}{8m_a^3}}+\pi Z\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{\delta (𝒓_{13})+\delta (𝒓_{23})}{2m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha \delta (𝒓_{12})}{m^2}}`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a;b>a}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_az_b}{m_am_b}}[𝒑_a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_{ab}}}𝒑_b+(𝒑_a𝒓_{ab}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_{ab}^3}}(𝒓_{ab}𝒑_b)],`$
arises as the average value of the Breit perturbation (see, e.g., ) over the nonrelativistic wave function and is of the order $`\alpha ^2`$ relative to the Schrödinger energy. It is taken into account in (5) that the total spin of electrons and the spin of the nucleus are both equal to zero.

A particular class of corrections appears due to the nucleus structure. There, the most important (and sufficient to be included at the present level of accuracy) is the effect of the nucleus charge radius $`R_\mathrm{N}`$,

$$\delta _{\mathrm{chr}}E=\frac{2\pi Z\alpha }{3}R_\mathrm{N}^2\underset{a}{}\delta (𝒓_{a\mathrm{N}}).$$
(6)
Here $`𝒓_{a\mathrm{N}}`$ denotes the position of the $`a^{\mathrm{th}}`$ electron with respect to the nucleus.

The most recent theoretical result for the helium ionization potential,

$$\nu _{\mathrm{th}}(1^1S)=\mathrm{5\hspace{0.33em}945\hspace{0.33em}204\hspace{0.33em}226}(91)\mathrm{MHz},$$
(7)
obtained in  includes along with (5) and (6) the $`m\alpha ^5`$ order, the leading part of the $`m\alpha ^6`$ order, and some estimates of higher order contributions. Its uncertainty is twice as large as that of the experimental data (1) and (2). The main source of the uncertainty in (7) is the yet uncalculated part of the $`𝒪(m\alpha ^6)`$ correction.

The present work is the first of two devoted to the calculation of the helium ionization potential with $`𝒪(m\alpha ^6)`$ accuracy. It contains the analytic part of the calculation and its main result is a set of effective operators which produce all $`𝒪(m\alpha ^6)`$ corrections to singlet $`S`$ levels of helium atom and low-$`Z`$ helium-like ions. To make the presentation self-contained, I also briefly outline how the lower order correction can be obtained by the same method. The second paper  contains numerical results for the average values of the derived effective operators as well as all other known contributions to the helium ionization potential.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II describes general features of the approach. Order $`m\alpha ^5`$ effective operators are derived in Sec. III. Sections IV and V are devoted to the $`𝒪(m\alpha ^6)`$ effective operators appearing from hard and soft scales, respectively. The final result of this paper is presented in the Conclusion.

## II Framework of the calculation

Since the early days of quantum electrodynamics (QED) the nonrelativistic expansion of an atom’s ground state energy is known to break down at the $`m\alpha ^5`$ order . In contrast to the $`𝒪(m\alpha ^4)`$ effective operators whose average values (5) are completely determined by the soft $`(p1/rm\alpha )`$ scale, the operators of the next order in momentum-to-mass ratio are too singular to ensure finiteness of their average values over the ground state described by the wave function $`\psi `$***See Section III for details.. It means that those operators become sensitive also to the hard $`(pm)`$ scale which is beyond the scope of the nonrelativistic expansion. Another novel feature of the $`𝒪(m\alpha ^5)`$ contribution to the energy is that the very picture of interaction between particles through a potential fails: virtual transitions from the atom’s ground state to excited states and a photon become relevant. Thus, one more scale comes into play – this intermediate ultrasoft photon has an order $`m\alpha ^2`$ energy. The most natural way to calculate such a multi-scale shift of the energy is to divide it into several pieces each originating from its own scale and then use simplifying approximations suitable to that scale. For example, the nonrelativistic expansion is applicable at the soft scale. Alternatively, one can neglect bound-state effects at the hard scale. If all relevant contributions are included, their sum is independent of the details of the division. Applied to bound state problems in QED, this idea was first formulated in Ref.  as the nonrelativistic quantum electrodynamics (NRQED).

Traditionally, in atomic calculations involving several scales some auxiliary parameter is introduced to separate a contribution of the given scale from the others (see, e.g., Ref.  where such a scheme is applied to the helium problem). For example, to divide soft and hard scale contributions one introduces $`\lambda `$ satisfying $`m\alpha \lambda m`$ and gets a final $`\lambda `$-independent energy shift as a result of cancellation between two $`\lambda `$-dependent contributions. The soft scale one includes $`\lambda `$ as the ultraviolet cutoff which makes average values of singular operators finite. Simultaneously, $`\lambda `$ cuts off otherwise infrared divergent on-shell scattering amplitudes which represent a hard scale contribution. The higher is the order of $`\alpha `$, the more severe are singularities of both contributions and the larger is a number of $`\lambda `$-dependent terms to be canceled in order to get a final result. The problem seems even less tractable when the wave function is known only numerically.

Precise calculations of the positronium spectrum  have shown that contributions from various scales can be separated much more effectively by shifting the number of spatial dimensions $`d`$ from three, $`d32ϵ`$. For consistency, the number of space-time dimensions in hard scale calculations should be shifted from four to $`42ϵ`$. This shift implies essentially that all objects defined originally for $`d=3`$ are analytically continued to the complex plane of $`d`$. The main advantage of the dimensional regularization over the traditional scheme is that due to the analytic continuation all power divergences automatically drop out of calculations and one only has to keep track of logarithmic divergences which show up as inverse powers of $`ϵ`$.

Recall that there are two kinds of effective operators in NRQED. Operators coming from the hard scale are contact, i.e., they are proportional to delta-functions of distances between particles. Infrared divergences typical in hard scale contributions manifest themselves as inverse powers of $`ϵ`$ in coefficients of those delta-functions. On the other hand, the soft scale effective operators have finite coefficients at $`d3`$. Ultraviolet divergences inherent to soft scale contributions show up as inverse powers of $`ϵ`$ only when one evaluates average values of those operators over a solution of the Schrödinger equation in $`d=32ϵ`$ dimensions. The crucial observation made in Refs.  for the $`𝒪(m\alpha ^6)`$ corrections to positronium levels is that even without knowing an explicit form of this solution but using only the Schrödinger equation itself, one can extract all the divergent pieces in the form of $`\delta (𝒓)/ϵ`$, where $`r`$ is a distance between the electron and the positron while the average value is calculated over the $`d`$-dimensional wave function. Since after such an extraction the divergences contained in both hard and soft scale contributions have exactly the same form it is easy to check that they cancel each other so that a finite remainder can be safely calculated in three dimensions.

I employ the same idea for the helium atom, where an analytic form of the wave function is not available even in three dimensions. Nevertheless, in perfect analogy to the positronium case, the use of the Schrödinger equation alone makes it possible to extract the divergent pieces of all soft scale contributions on the operator level. Performing such an extraction I manage to demonstrate straightforwardly that the divergences coming from both scales cancel each other before any numerical calculation. As the result, the total $`𝒪(m\alpha ^6)`$ correction to a singlet $`S`$ level is represented as a sum of apparently finite average values of the regularization-independent operators. These average values can be calculated using a wave function of the helium atom, built as a numerical solution of the Schrödinger equation .

It is worth mentioning that the idea of the approach has a simple physical reason. In fact, soft scale divergences in bound state energy are of the ultraviolet origin. Hence they should be proportional to a value of the corresponding wave function at zeroth separation between interacting particles. In terms of the effective theory it means that by virtue of the Schrödinger equation one should be able to rewrite the singular soft scale contributions in such a way that corresponding divergences are shifted to the Wilson coefficients of the contact operators. After the perturbation theory is reformulated in such a manner, and if the underlying theory is renormalizable, all divergences that appear in any given Wilson coefficient have to cancel each other.

Validity of the results obtained below for the helium can be checked in two limiting cases. The first, $`\alpha 0`$ at finite $`Z\alpha `$ describes helium-like ion with the electron-electron interaction switched off. The second, $`Z0`$ at $`z_21`$ describes parapositronium. Since in both cases three-dimensional wave functions of all $`S`$ states are available in an analytic form, the average values of effective operators can be calculated explicitly (modulo $`\delta (𝒓)/ϵ`$ terms). Comparison with the known results shows complete agreement for all contributions.

In order to make the formulae more transparent, I write the nonsingular soft scale operators with coefficients taken at $`d=3`$.

## III Order $`m\alpha ^5`$ effective operators

This Section illustrates the general scheme by the calculation of effective operators in the first non-trivial order. As previously mentioned, at $`𝒪(m\alpha ^5)`$ the relevant contributions to the energy come from three scales: ultrasoft, soft and hard. Below we will calculate corresponding effective operators.

### A Hard scale contribution

Hard scale effects in the interaction between nonrelativistic particles $`a`$ and $`b`$ give rise to the contact operators which show up as $`c_{ab}\delta (𝒓_{ab})`$ in the spatial representation and therefore as $`c_{ab}`$ in the momentum one. In the NRQED approach, $`c_{ab}`$ is extracted through the matching procedure, namely, equating the $`abab`$ scattering amplitude calculated in the full QED to that in the effective theory approach. Dimensional regularization is best suited to this procedure: $`c_{ab}`$ equals minus QED scattering amplitude for the particles $`a`$ and $`b`$ taken on their mass shells and at rest. In this manner the hard one-loop vertex correction to the single Coulomb exchange between the spin-$`1/2`$ point particle $`a`$ and a particle $`b`$ induces the effective potentialTo simplify the presentation, I omit the factor $`(4\pi )^ϵ\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+ϵ)`$ from the final expressions for all operators in Sect. III. This factor does not contribute to the finite total $`𝒪(m\alpha ^5)`$ energy correction.

$$V_{\mathrm{h}C}(𝒓_{ab})=\frac{2\alpha ^2}{3}\frac{z_a^3z_b}{m_a^2}\left(\frac{1}{ϵ}2\mathrm{ln}m_a\right)\delta (𝒓_{ab}).$$
(8)
The electron’s anomalous magnetic moment taken in the leading one-loop approximation gives rise to the potential between electrons $`a`$ and $`b`$

$$V_{\mathrm{hm}}(𝒓_{ab})=\frac{8\alpha ^2}{3m^2}𝒔_a𝒔_b\delta (𝒓_{ab}),$$
(9)
where $`𝒔_a`$ is the spin operator of the $`a^{\mathrm{th}}`$ particle. If the nucleus spin is zero, the corresponding electron-nucleus potential vanishes. The next effective potential is generated by the hard one-loop box diagrams. For two spin-$`1/2`$ particles such a potential reads

$$V_{\mathrm{box}}(𝒓_{ab})=\frac{(\alpha z_az_b)^2}{m_am_b}\left(\frac{1}{ϵ}\mathrm{ln}(m_am_b)\frac{1}{3}+\frac{m_a+m_b2\mu _{ab}(1+4𝒔_a𝒔_b)}{m_am_b}\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_a}{m_b}\right)\delta (𝒓_{ab}),$$
(10)
where $`\mu _{ab}=m_am_b/(m_a+m_b)`$ is the reduced mass of the pair. With the $`𝒪(m/M)`$ precision, the corresponding electron-nucleus effective potential is

$$V_{\mathrm{box}}(𝒓_{\mathrm{eN}})=\frac{(Z\alpha )^2}{mM}\left(\frac{1}{ϵ}2\mathrm{ln}m\frac{1}{3}\right)\delta (𝒓_{\mathrm{eN}}).$$
(11)
The last $`𝒪(m\alpha ^5)`$ contribution coming from the hard scale appears due to vacuum polarization. In ordinary few-electron atoms, an account of the electron vacuum polarization is sufficient for the present-day accuracy:

$$V_{\mathrm{vp}}(𝒓_{ab})=\frac{4\alpha ^2}{15}\frac{z_az_b}{m^2}\delta (𝒓_{ab}).$$
(12)
The hard scale contribution to the energy equals the average value of $`V_{\mathrm{h}C}+V_{\mathrm{hm}}+V_{\mathrm{box}}+V_{\mathrm{vp}}`$ summed over all pairs of particles.

### B Ultrasoft scale contribution

According to the standard rules of the perturbation theory, virtual transition of the atom into an excited state induced by the emission and subsequent absorption of a photon is described by the following effective operator:

$$\frac{d^dq}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{4\pi \alpha }{2q}\underset{a}{}j_{ai}\mathrm{exp}(i𝒒𝒓_a)\frac{\delta _{ij}\frac{q_iq_j}{q^2}}{EHq}\underset{b}{}j_{bj}\mathrm{exp}(i𝒒𝒓_b),$$
(13)
where $`H`$ is the $`d`$-dimensional Schrödinger Hamiltonian, $`E`$ is its lowest eigenvalue, $`𝒒`$ is the photon momentum, $`q=|𝒒|`$. Assuming that $`qm\alpha ^2`$, we can restrict our attention to the electric dipole transitions, i.e. replace the exponents $`\mathrm{exp}(\pm 𝒒𝒓_a)`$ by 1 and the current density operators $`𝒋_a`$ by their orbital counterparts taken in the leading nonrelativistic approximation, $`𝒋_az_a𝒑_a/m_a`$, in (13). Integration over directions of $`𝒒`$ then gives for the ultrasoft scale effective operator

$$V_{\mathrm{us}}=\frac{\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_d}{(2\pi )^{d1}}\frac{d1}{d}𝑱_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dqq^{d2}}{EHq}𝑱,$$
(14)
where the operator $`𝑱`$ is defined as $`_az_a𝒑_a/m_a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_d=2\pi ^{d/2}/\mathrm{\Gamma }(d/2)`$ is the $`d`$-dimensional solid angle. Analytic continuation of the integral over $`q`$ from the stripe $`1<\mathrm{Re}(d)<2`$ reads

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dqq^{d2}}{EHq}=\frac{\pi (HE)^{d2}}{\mathrm{sin}(\pi d)}.$$
(15)
Expanding now the right-hand side of (14) in $`ϵ=(3d)/2`$, we get with the $`𝒪(ϵ^0)`$ accuracy

$$V_{\mathrm{us}}\frac{2\alpha }{3\pi }𝑱(HE)\left(\frac{1}{2ϵ}+\frac{5}{6}\mathrm{ln}2(HE)\right)𝑱.$$
(16)
As previously mentioned, the $`1/ϵ`$ term is due to the divergence of $`V_{\mathrm{us}}`$ in three dimensions. The $`𝒪(m\alpha ^5)`$ ultrasoft scale contribution to the energy is the average value of the operator (16) over the $`d`$-dimensional wave function:

$$\delta _{\mathrm{us}}^{(3)}E=\frac{2\alpha }{3\pi }\left(\frac{1}{2ϵ}+\frac{5}{6}\mathrm{ln}(m\alpha ^2)\right)\frac{[𝑱,[H,𝑱]]}{2}𝑱(HE)\mathrm{ln}\frac{HE}{\mathrm{Ry}}𝑱.$$
(17)
Here I used the Schrödinger equation and also the standard notation for the Rydberg constant $`\mathrm{Ry}=m\alpha ^2/2`$. Since the Poisson equation $`[𝒑_a,[𝒑_a,C_{ab}]]=4\pi \alpha z_az_b\delta (𝒓_a𝒓_b)`$ for the Coulomb potential $`C_{ab}`$ between two particles holds in any dimensions, we have:

$$[𝑱,[H,𝑱]]=4\pi \alpha \underset{a}{}z_a\underset{b>a}{}z_b\left(\frac{z_a}{m_a}\frac{z_b}{m_b}\right)^2\delta (𝒓_{ab}).$$
(18)
The ultrasoft correction (17) in helium then reads

$$\delta _{\mathrm{us}}^{(3)}E=\frac{4Z\alpha ^2}{3}\left(\frac{1}{m}+\frac{Z}{M}\right)^2\left(\frac{1}{2ϵ}+\frac{5}{6}\mathrm{ln}(m\alpha ^2)\mathrm{ln}\frac{k_0}{\mathrm{Ry}}\right)\delta (𝒓_{23})+\delta (𝒓_{31}),$$
(19)
where the helium Bethe logarithm  is defined as

$$\mathrm{ln}\frac{k_0}{\mathrm{Ry}}=\frac{𝒑_3(HE)\mathrm{ln}\frac{HE}{\mathrm{Ry}}𝒑_3}{𝒑_3(HE)𝒑_3}$$
(20)
and can be safely calculated in three dimensions.

### C Soft scale contribution

At the soft scale, momenta of all particles (electrons, nucleus and virtual photons) are of the order $`m\alpha `$. Therefore the $`𝒪(m\alpha ^5)`$ soft scale effective operators are generated by transverse photon exchange(s) since only such scattering amplitudes can contain odd powers of photon momentum.

#### 1 Retardation

Let us again start with the single transverse photon exchange described by the effective operator (13) but now assuming that $`qm\alpha `$. Since $`HEm\alpha `$, we can expand the integrand in $`(HE)/q`$. Zeroth order term of this expansion describes the magnetic interaction in instantaneous approximation and is included (modulo relativistic corrections) into the Breit perturbation (see (5)). The first order retardation effect is represented by the operator

$$V_{\mathrm{ret}}=4\pi \alpha \frac{d^dq}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{\delta _{ij}\frac{q_iq_j}{q^2}}{2q^3}\underset{a}{}j_{ai}\mathrm{exp}(i𝒒𝒓_a)(HE)\underset{b}{}j_{bj}\mathrm{exp}(i𝒒𝒓_b).$$
(21)
Using again the Schrödinger equation, we get

$$\delta _{\mathrm{ret}}E=\pi \alpha \frac{d^dq}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{\delta _{ij}\frac{q_iq_j}{q^2}}{q^3}[\underset{a}{}j_{ai}\mathrm{exp}(i𝒒𝒓_a),[H,\underset{b}{}j_{bj}\mathrm{exp}(i𝒒𝒓_b)]].$$
(22)
The order $`m\alpha ^5`$ correction arises due to the nonrelativistic current densities,

$$𝒋_a(𝒑^{},𝒑)z_a\frac{𝒑^{}+𝒑+2[(𝒑^{}𝒑)𝒔_a,𝒔_a]}{2m}.$$
(23)
We then see that in (22) only the exchange between different particles ($`ab`$) can give a nonzero contribution. In fact, the integral over $`q`$ in the ‘diagonal’ terms ($`a=b`$) is scaleless and hence vanishes. The expression (22) simplifies,

$$\delta _{\mathrm{ret}}^{(3)}E=2\pi \alpha \underset{a}{}\underset{b>a}{}\frac{z_az_b}{m_am_b}U_{ij}(𝒓_{ab})[p_{ai},[p_{bj},C_{ab}(𝒓_{ab})]],$$
(24)
and reproduces the result obtained in Ref.  for positronium. Here

$$U_{ij}(𝒓)=\frac{d^dq}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{\delta _{ij}\frac{q_iq_j}{q^2}}{q^3}\mathrm{exp}(i𝒒𝒓)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{d3}{2}\right)r^{3d}}{6\pi ^{(d+1)/2}}\left(\delta _{ij}+\frac{d3}{2}n_in_j\right),$$
(25)
$`C_{ab}(𝒓)=\alpha z_az_b\mathrm{\Gamma }(d/21)r^{2d}/\pi ^{d/21}`$ is the Coulomb potential in $`d`$ dimensions and $`𝒏=𝒓/r`$. Thus we get

$$\delta _{\mathrm{ret}}^{(3)}E=\frac{4\alpha ^2}{3}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{d+1}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{d}{2}\right)}{\pi ^{d3/2}}\underset{a}{}\underset{b>a}{}\frac{z_a^2z_b^2}{m_am_b}r_{ab}^{32d}.$$
(26)
Here we cannot take the limit $`d3`$ since the average value of $`r^3`$ diverges logarithmically. However, we can extract the divergence in the following way. By definition, we have

$$r_{ab}^{32d}=\mathrm{a}_{ab}^{4ϵ}𝑑𝒓^{}𝑑𝒏_{ab}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\rho }{\rho ^{12ϵ}}\psi ^2(\mathrm{a}_{ab}\rho 𝒏_{ab},𝒓^{}).$$
(27)
Here $`\mathrm{a}_{ab}=|z_az_b\mu _{ab}\alpha |^1`$ is the Bohr radius for a given pair of particles, $`𝒓_{ab}=\mathrm{a}_{ab}\rho 𝒏_{ab}`$ being their relative position. The remaining independent variables are denoted by $`𝒓^{}`$. Integrating by parts in the last integral, we get:

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\rho }{\rho ^{12ϵ}}\psi ^2(\mathrm{a}_{ab}\rho 𝒏_{ab},𝒓^{})=\frac{1}{2ϵ}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\rho \rho ^{2ϵ}\frac{}{\rho }\psi ^2(\mathrm{a}_{ab}\rho 𝒏_{ab},𝒓^{}).$$
(28)
Here I took into account that $`lim_{\rho 0}\rho ^{2ϵ}`$ being written as the integral over momentum has no scale and hence vanishes. Substituting $`\rho ^{2ϵ}1+2ϵ\mathrm{ln}\rho +𝒪(ϵ^2)`$ into the r.h.s. of (28) gives for the retardation correction (26):

$$\delta _{\mathrm{ret}}^{(3)}E\frac{4\alpha ^2}{3}\underset{a}{}\underset{b>a}{}\frac{z_a^2z_b^2}{m_am_b}\left\{\left(\frac{1}{ϵ}2\mathrm{ln}\frac{4}{\mathrm{a}_{ab}}1\right)\delta (𝒓_{ab})\frac{\gamma +\mathrm{ln}\frac{2r_{ab}}{\mathrm{a}_{ab}}}{\pi r_{ab}^2}𝒏_{ab}\stackrel{}{\mathbf{}}_{ab}\right\},$$
(29)
where $`\mathbf{}_{ab}=/𝒓_{ab}`$ and $`\gamma =0.5772\mathrm{}`$ is the Euler constant. The arrow shows what the gradient is acting on. Thus we have managed to extract the divergences in the form of average values of the contact operators $`\delta (𝒓_{ab})`$ divided by $`ϵ`$. Since $`\psi `$ and its first derivatives are finiteIt follows from the Schrödinger equation in $`d`$ dimensions. for $`𝒓_{ab}0`$, the non-contact average values in (29) are finite in three dimensions.

#### 2 Double seagull

One more soft scale contribution of the order $`m\alpha ^5`$ appears due to the double transverse exchange between two particles when both photons are emitted and reabsorbed in the seagull vertices. The corresponding effective potential derived in  for the positronium can be easily generalized to a more complex atom:

$$V_{\mathrm{ds}}=2\alpha ^2\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1ϵ)^2}{(4\pi )^{12ϵ}}\left[1ϵ\frac{178\mathrm{ln}2}{3}+𝒪(ϵ^2)\right]\underset{a}{}\underset{b>a}{}\frac{z_a^2z_b^2}{m_am_b}r_{ab}^{32d}.$$
(30)
Exploiting the same trick as above to extract the divergences we get the double seagull contribution to the energy:

$$\delta _{\mathrm{ds}}^{(3)}E\alpha ^2\underset{a}{}\underset{b>a}{}\frac{z_a^2z_b^2}{m_am_b}\left\{\left(\frac{1}{ϵ}+2\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{a}_{ab}\frac{112\mathrm{ln}2}{3}\right)\delta (𝒓_{ab})\frac{\gamma +\mathrm{ln}\frac{2r_{ab}}{\mathrm{a}_{ab}}}{\pi r_{ab}^2}𝒏_{ab}\stackrel{}{\mathbf{}}_{ab}\right\}.$$
(31)
### D Total $`m\alpha ^5`$ correction

The $`ϵ^1`$ terms cancel out in the sum of all $`𝒪(m\alpha ^5)`$ corrections to the energy. Hence we can take the limit $`d3`$ in this sum. With the $`𝒪(m^2/M^2)`$ precision, the result for the helium ground state reads:

$`\delta ^{(3)}E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2Z\alpha ^2}{3m^2}}\left(4\mathrm{ln}(Z\alpha )+2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{k_0}{Z^2\mathrm{Ry}}}{\displaystyle \frac{19}{15}}\right)\delta (𝒓_1)+\delta (𝒓_2)`$ (35)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha ^2}{3m^2}}\left(7\mathrm{ln}\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{82}{5}}\right)\delta (𝒓)+{\displaystyle \frac{7\alpha ^2}{3\pi m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma +\mathrm{ln}(m\alpha r)}{r^2}}𝒏\stackrel{}{\mathbf{}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2(Z\alpha )^2}{3mM}}\left(\mathrm{ln}(Z\alpha )+4\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{k_0}{Z^2\mathrm{Ry}}}{\displaystyle \frac{31}{3}}\right)\delta (𝒓_1)+\delta (𝒓_2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{7(Z\alpha )^2}{3\pi mM}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma +\mathrm{ln}(Zm\alpha r_1)}{r_1^2}}𝒏_1\stackrel{}{\mathbf{}}_1+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma +\mathrm{ln}(Zm\alpha r_2)}{r_2^2}}𝒏_2\stackrel{}{\mathbf{}}_2.`$
Here and below I use simplified notations: $`𝒓_1=r_1𝒏_1=𝒓_{23}`$, $`𝒓_2=r_2𝒏_2=𝒓_{31}`$, $`𝒓=r𝒏=𝒓_{12}`$, the gradients are taken over the corresponding position vectors, $`\mathbf{}_1=/𝒓_1`$ and so on. In the limit of no recoil ($`m/M0`$), the result (35) agrees with the results of Araki  and Sucher  after integrating by parts in their average value $`Q`$:

$$Q=\underset{\rho 0}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(r\rho )}{4\pi r^3}+(\gamma +\mathrm{ln}(m\alpha \rho ))\delta (𝒓)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{\gamma +\mathrm{ln}(m\alpha r)}{r^2}𝒏\stackrel{}{\mathbf{}}.$$
(36)
The first recoil (linear in $`m/M`$) correction was previously discussed in Ref. .

## IV Order $`m\alpha ^6`$ Hard Scale Contributions

Similarly to what was done in the previous order, one has to consider the hard scale part of a two-particle scattering amplitude but now in two loops. There is no need to consider three-particle scattering amplitudes. In fact, the probability density to find three particles forming the helium atom at the same point is of the order $`(m\alpha )^6`$. On the other hand, these particles should exchange at least three photons to form a hard loop. Hence, hard scale effective operators proportional to $`\delta (𝒓_{ab})\delta (𝒓_{bc})`$ can produce an $`𝒪(m\alpha ^9)`$ correction only.

The radiative recoil potential appears when we account for the first radiative corrections to the hard one-loop box diagrams (see, e.g., ). The corresponding two-loop diagrams involve only even powers of the electric charges $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$. Hence the radiative recoil effective operator coincides with that for parapositronium :

$$\delta _{\mathrm{rad}\mathrm{rec}}E=\left(\frac{6\zeta (3)}{\pi ^2}\frac{697}{27\pi ^2}8\mathrm{ln}2+\frac{1099}{72}\right)\frac{\pi \alpha ^3}{m^2}\delta (𝒓).$$
(37)
The corresponding electron-nucleus operator vanishes in the non-recoil limit $`m/M0`$ considered from now on§§§Order $`m^2\alpha ^6/M`$ correction is much less than unknown $`m\alpha ^7`$ corrections.. Then, one-  and two-loop  pure radiative corrections to electron–nucleus interaction give rise to the following energy shifts:

$$\delta _{\mathrm{rad1l}}^{\mathrm{eN}}E=\left(\frac{427}{96}2\mathrm{ln}2\right)\frac{\pi \alpha (Z\alpha )^2}{m^2}\delta (𝒓_1)+\delta (𝒓_2),$$
(38)
$$\delta _{\mathrm{rad2l}}^{\mathrm{eN}}E=\left(\frac{9\zeta (3)}{4\pi ^2}\frac{2179}{648\pi ^2}+\frac{3\mathrm{ln}2}{2}\frac{10}{27}\right)\frac{\pi \alpha ^2(Z\alpha )}{m^2}\delta (𝒓_1)+\delta (𝒓_2).$$
(39)
The net effect of two-loop contributions to the slope of the electron Dirac formfactor , Pauli formfactor , and vacuum polarization  reads:

$$\delta _{\mathrm{rad}}^{\mathrm{ee}}E=\left(\frac{15\zeta (3)}{2\pi ^2}+\frac{631}{54\pi ^2}5\mathrm{ln}2+\frac{29}{27}\right)\frac{\pi \alpha ^3}{m^2}\delta (𝒓).$$
(40)
Finally, to get the pure recoil contribution to the electron-electron hard scale interaction (three photon exchange) we have to change the sign of the corresponding parapositronium resultRecall that it is convenient to omit the overall factor $`(4\pi )^{2ϵ}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(1+ϵ)`$ from the final expressions for all $`𝒪(m\alpha ^6)`$ operators. :

$$\delta _{\mathrm{rec}}E=\left(\frac{1}{ϵ}+4\mathrm{ln}m\frac{39\zeta (3)}{\pi ^2}+\frac{32}{\pi ^2}6\mathrm{ln}2+\frac{7}{3}\right)\frac{\pi \alpha ^3}{4m^2}\delta (𝒓).$$
(41)
Among the hard scale contributions only the last one contains the divergence.

## V Order $`m\alpha ^6`$ Soft Scale Contributions

The aim of this Section is to demonstrate that in analogy to the previous order the sum of all singular average values reduces to the form

$$\delta _{\mathrm{soft}}^{\mathrm{sing}}E=\frac{1}{ϵ}\frac{\pi \alpha ^3}{4m^2}\delta (𝒓),$$
(42)
so that the sum of soft and hard scale contributions is finite in three dimensions.

There are many soft scale effective operators with singular average values. One can easily determine whether an average value of a given operator is singular or regular for $`d3`$ using only the fact that the wave function and its first derivatives are finite when positions of two particles coincide.

### A Irreducible corrections

#### 1 Dispersion correction

Let us consider details of the singularities extraction procedure using the dispersion correction as an example. Nonrelativistic expansion of the electron’s dispersion law, $`\omega _p=\sqrt{m^2+p^2}`$, reads:

$$\omega _p=m+\frac{p^2}{2m}\frac{p^4}{8m^3}+\frac{p^6}{16m^5}+\mathrm{}.$$
(43)
The last written term induces a correction of the appropriate order. Using the Schrödinger equation we get

$`\delta _{\mathrm{disp}}E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^6+p_2^6}{16m^5}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2+p_2^2}{2m}}\right)^33{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2p_2^2}{4m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2+p_2^2}{2m}}`$ (44)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m^2}}(EC)(HC)(EC)3\{{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2p_2^2}{8m^2}},EC\}`$ (45)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m^2}}(EC)^3+[C,{\displaystyle \frac{[H,C]}{2}}]3{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2p_2^2}{4m^2}}E+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2p_2^2}{m^2}},C\}.`$ (46)
Here the total Coulomb potential $`C`$ is the sum of the electron-nucleus and electron-electron parts,

$$C=C_\mathrm{N}+c=C_1+C_2+c,$$
(47)
while a pairwise Coulomb potential is defined after Eq.(25). Singular contributions to (46) are induced by the following operators: i) $`C^3`$; ii) the double commutator,

$$\frac{1}{2m^2}[C,\frac{[H,C]}{2}]=\frac{1}{2m^2}[C,\underset{a=1}{\overset{2}{}}\frac{𝓔_a\mathbf{}_a}{2m}+\frac{𝒆\mathbf{}}{m}]=\frac{(𝓔_1𝓔_2)𝒆}{2m^3}+\frac{_1^2+_2^2}{4m^3}+\frac{e^2}{2m^3},$$
(48)
where

$$𝓔_a=[\mathbf{}_a,C_a];𝒆=[\mathbf{},c]$$
(49)
are electric forces exerted on electrons; and iii) the anticommutator

$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16m^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2p_2^2}{m^2}},c\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16m^2}}\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2+p_2^2}{2m}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2p_2^2}{2m}}\right)^2,c\}`$ (50)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16m^2}}2c(EC)^2[c,[H,C]]\{c,{\displaystyle \frac{(𝑷𝒑)^2}{m^2}}\},`$ (51)
where $`𝑷=𝒑_1+𝒑_2`$ and $`𝒑=(𝒑_1𝒑_2)/2`$. Double commutator $`[c,[H,C]]`$ can be transformed similarly to (48), the last term from (51) is conveniently rewritten as

$$\frac{3}{16m^2}\{c,\frac{(𝑷𝒑)^2}{m^2}\}=\frac{3}{16m^4}[𝑷𝒑,[𝑷𝒑,c]]+2(𝑷𝒑)c(𝑷𝒑).$$
(52)
Summing up all of the above contributions and using the virial theorem in three dimensions, $`C=2E`$, we get for the dispersion correction:

$`\delta _{\mathrm{disp}}E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5E^3}{2m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3E^2c}{8m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3E}{2m^2}}C^2{\displaystyle \frac{Cc}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2p_2^2}{4m^2}}`$ (55)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3p_1^2C_\mathrm{N}p_2^2}{8m^4}}3{\displaystyle \frac{[𝑷𝒑,[𝑷𝒑,c]]}{16m^4}}3{\displaystyle \frac{(𝑷𝒑)c(𝑷𝒑)}{8m^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{9C_\mathrm{N}^2c}{8m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3C_\mathrm{N}c^2}{4m^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{5(𝓔_1𝓔_2)𝒆}{16m^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_\mathrm{N}^3}{2m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{c^3}{8m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{_1^2+_2^2}{4m^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8m^3}}.`$
One can easily check that only the operators $`C_a^3`$, $`c^3`$ and $`_a^2`$, $`e^2`$ have divergent average values in three dimensions. The following analysis shows that in a similar manner singularities of all soft scale effective operators appear either as the third power of the Coulomb potentials or as the electric forces squared.

#### 2 Coulomb corrections

The order $`p^4/m^4`$ correction to the Coulomb potential between electron and nucleus reads:

$$V_C^{\mathrm{eN}}=\frac{5}{128m^4}[p_1^2,[p_1^2,C_1]]\frac{3\pi Z\alpha }{16m^4}\{p_1^2,\delta (𝒓_1)\}+(12).$$
(56)
I drop the spin-orbit term, which vanishes in a state with the total spin zero. The average value of the double commutator can be conveniently rewritten as

$`[p_1^2,[p_1^2,C_1]]+(12)`$ $`=`$ $`2m[HC,[p_1^2,C_1]+(12)]`$ (57)
$`=`$ $`4m_1^2+_2^2+(𝓔_1𝓔_2)𝒆.`$ (58)
For the anticommutator in (56), it should be taken into account that the average value of the operator $`\delta (𝒓_a)C_a`$ is a scaleless integral over $`𝒓_a`$ and hence vanishes in the dimensional regularization:

$$\{p_1^2,\delta (𝒓_1)\}+\{p_2^2,\delta (𝒓_2)\}=\delta (𝒓_1)(4m(EC_2c)2p_2^2)+(12).$$
(59)
The energy shift induced by (56) is

$$\delta _C^{\mathrm{eN}}E=\frac{3\pi Z\alpha }{4m^3}\delta (𝒓_1)(\frac{p_2^2}{2m}+C_2+cE)\frac{5𝓔_1(𝓔_1+𝒆)}{32m^3}+(12).$$
(60)
Note that $`𝒆`$ changes its sign under the permutation $`(12)`$.

Similar analysis for the correction to the electron-electron Coulomb interaction,

$$V_C^{\mathrm{ee}}=\frac{5}{128m^4}[p_1^2,[p_1^2,c]]+\frac{7\pi \alpha }{32m^4}\{p_1^2,\delta (𝒓)\}+(12)+\frac{(𝒑_1𝒑_2)c(𝒑_1𝒑_2)p_{1i}p_{2j}cp_{1j}p_{2i}}{16m^4},$$
(61)
gives

$`\delta _C^{\mathrm{ee}}E=3{\displaystyle \frac{[𝑷𝒑,[𝑷𝒑,c]]}{32m^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha \delta (𝒓)}{m^3}}\left(EC_\mathrm{N}{\displaystyle \frac{3P^2}{32m}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{(𝓔_1𝓔_2)𝒆}{16m^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8m^3}}.`$ (62)
Virtual transitions of electrons to negative-energy states induced by the Coulomb exchanges generate the energy shift

$$\delta _C^{}E=\frac{_1^2+_2^2+2(𝓔_1𝓔_2)𝒆+2e^2}{8m^3}.$$
(63)
The total irreducible Coulomb correction is the sum of (60), (62), and (63):

$`\delta _CE`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E\pi \alpha }{4m^3}}4\delta (𝒓)3Z\left[\delta (𝒓_1)+\delta (𝒓_2)\right]`$ (66)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi \alpha Z}{4m^3}}[\delta (𝒓_1)({\displaystyle \frac{p_2^2}{2m}}+C_2+c)+(12)]{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha \delta (𝒓)}{m^3}}({\displaystyle \frac{3P^2}{32m}}+C_\mathrm{N})`$
$`+3{\displaystyle \frac{[𝑷𝒑,[𝑷𝒑,c]]}{32m^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(𝓔_1𝓔_2)𝒆}{32m^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{_1^2+_2^2}{32m^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8m^3}}.`$
#### 3 Magnetic corrections

These corrections originate from single magnetic exchanges between particles in instantaneous approximation. There are two sources of such effects. Relativistic corrections to the instantaneous interaction of the Pauli currents of the electrons induce the following contribution to the energy:

$`\delta _M^{\mathrm{ee}}E`$ $`=`$ $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2+p_2^2}{2m}},{\displaystyle \frac{𝒑_1c𝒑_2+(d2)(𝒑_1𝒏)c(𝒏𝒑_2)}{4m^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha \delta (𝒓)}{m^3}}\}`$ (68)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d1}{32m^4}}([p_1^2,[p_1^2,c]]+[p_2^2,[p_2^2,c]]),`$
which can be transformed to

$`\delta _M^{\mathrm{ee}}E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒑_1c𝒑_2+(𝒑_1𝒏)c(𝒏𝒑_2)}{2m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \alpha \delta (𝒓)}{m^2}}`$ (71)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \alpha \delta (𝒓)}{m^3}}C_\mathrm{N}\{{\displaystyle \frac{C}{4m^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{𝒑_1c𝒑_2+(d2)(𝒑_1𝒏)c(𝒏𝒑_2)}{m}}\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{[𝑷𝒑,[𝑷𝒑,c]]}{8m^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(𝓔_1𝓔_2)𝒆}{8m^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d1}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{m^3}}.`$
Then, virtual transitions to negative-energy states of one electron induced by a single magnetic exchange with the other and a single Coulomb exchange with both other particles, shift the energy by

$$\delta _M^{}E=\frac{(𝓔_1𝓔_2)𝒆}{2m^3}\frac{d1}{2}\frac{e^2}{m^3}.$$
(72)
#### 4 Retardation corrections

The effect of retardation on a single magnetic exchange between the electrons is described in the appropriate order by the following average value:

$$\delta _RE=\frac{d^dq}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{2\pi \alpha }{q^4}[H,e^{i𝒒𝒓_1}\frac{𝒑_1^q+[𝒔_1𝒒,𝒔_1]}{m}][H,e^{i𝒒𝒓_2}\frac{𝒑_2^q[𝒔_2𝒒,𝒔_2]}{m}]+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(73)
where $`𝒒`$ is the magnetic photon’s momentum and $`𝒑_a^q=𝒑_a𝒒(𝒑_a𝒒)/q^2`$. The correction (73) consists of zero-, single-, and double-Coulomb parts:

$`\delta _RE`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0+\mathrm{\Delta }_1+\mathrm{\Delta }_2,`$ (74)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^dq}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{\pi \alpha }{m^4}[p_1^2,[p_2^2,\frac{𝒑_1^q𝒑_2\frac{d1}{4}q^2}{q^4}e^{i𝒒𝒓}]]},`$ (75)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^dq}{(2\pi )^d}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \alpha }{m^3}}[C,𝒑_1][p_2^2,{\displaystyle \frac{𝒑_2^q}{q^4}}e^{i𝒒𝒓}]+(12),`$ (76)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^dq}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{4\pi \alpha }{m^2}[C,𝒑_1^q]\frac{e^{i𝒒𝒓}}{q^4}[C,𝒑_2]}.`$ (77)
Integrating over $`𝒒`$ and using the Schrödinger equation we transform these expressions to the following ones:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E^2c}{8m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ECc}{4m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_\mathrm{N}^2c}{8m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_\mathrm{N}c^2}{4m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha \delta (𝒓)}{2m^4}}P^2+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒑c𝒑}{4m^4}}P^2`$ (80)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(𝑷𝒑)c(𝑷𝒑)}{8m^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2c(𝒏𝒑_2)^2+(𝒑_1𝒏)^2cp_2^23(𝒑_1𝒏)^2c(𝒏𝒑_2)^2+(12)}{16m^4}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(𝓔_1𝓔_2)𝒆}{8m^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{c^3}{8m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d1}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{m^3}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Ec^2}{4m^2}}+cr{\displaystyle \frac{2(𝒏𝒑_2)(𝓔_1𝒑_2)+(𝒏𝓔_1)\left[(𝒏𝒑_2)^2p_2^2\right]}{16m^3}}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (82)
$`3{\displaystyle \frac{(𝒑_1𝒏)^2c^2+c^2(𝒏𝒑_1)^2}{16m^3}}+(12){\displaystyle \frac{C_\mathrm{N}c^2}{4m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{c^3}{m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{m^3}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ $`=`$ $`cr^2{\displaystyle \frac{3𝓔_1𝓔_2(𝒏𝓔_1)(𝒏𝓔_2)2(𝓔_1𝓔_2)𝒆}{8m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(d1)(d2)^2}{8(4d)}}{\displaystyle \frac{c^3}{m^2}}.`$ (83)
Here and below I use short-hand notations $`(𝒏𝒑_a)^2`$ and $`(𝒑_a𝒏)^2`$ for the operator $`n_i(𝒏𝒑_a)p_{ai}`$ and its hermitean conjugate, respectively.

#### 5 Seagull correction

Double magnetic exchange between the two electrons one of which goes over into negative-energy intermediate states gives rise to the energy shift

$$\delta _{\mathrm{seag}}E=\frac{𝒑_1c^2𝒑_1+3(𝒑_1𝒏)c^2(𝒏𝒑_1)}{8m^3}+(12)+\frac{d1}{4}\frac{e^2}{m^3}.$$
(84)
This correction completes the list of the $`𝒪(m\alpha ^6)`$ irreducible contributions to the helium energy.

### B Reducible Corrections

#### 1 Breit Hamiltonian

Breit Hamiltonian for the helium singlet states,

$$U=U_S+U_P,$$
(85)
consists of two parts, $`U_S`$ and $`U_P`$, with the selection rules $`|\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮|=0`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮|=1`$, respectively$`𝓢=𝒔_1+𝒔_2`$. Just like in the positronium case (see ), the second order iteration of the $`S`$-wave Breit perturbation diverges in three dimensions. That is why this perturbation should be considered in $`d`$ dimensions:

$$U_S=\frac{p_1^4+p_2^4}{8m^3}+\frac{\pi Z\alpha }{2m^2}\left(\delta (𝒓_1)+\delta (𝒓_2)\right)+\frac{(d2)\pi \alpha }{m^2}\delta (𝒓)\frac{𝒑_1c𝒑_2+(d2)(𝒑_1𝒏)c(𝒏𝒑_2)}{2m^2}.$$
(86)
As for the $`P`$-wave part, which mixes singlet $`S`$ and triplet $`P`$ states, the corresponding second order iteration is saturated by the soft scale and therefore we can take this perturbation in the limit of $`d=3`$:

$$U_P=\alpha \frac{𝒔_1𝒔_2}{4m^2}\left(\frac{Z𝒍_1}{r_1^3}\frac{Z𝒍_2}{r_2^3}+\frac{𝒓\times 𝑷}{r^3}\right).$$
(87)
Here $`𝒍_a=𝒓_a\times 𝒑_a`$. Below I consider energy shifts arising in second order in $`U_P`$ and $`U_S`$.

#### 2 Second iteration of the Breit Hamiltonian: $`P`$-wave

To find the singlet $`S`$ level shift induced by an admixture of triplet $`P`$ states,

$$\delta _PE=U_PGU_P,$$
(88)
where $`G`$ is the (reduced) Green function of the Schrödinger equation, consider first the action of $`U_P`$ on the ground state wave function. As far as the latter depends on the absolute values of $`𝒓_1`$, $`𝒓_2`$ and $`𝒓`$, $`\psi =\psi (r_1,r_2,r)`$, we can substitute:

$`𝒍_1=𝒓_1\times 𝒑_1`$ $``$ $`i𝒓_1\times \left(𝒏_1_1+𝒏\right)=i{\displaystyle \frac{𝒓_1\times 𝒓_2}{r}},𝒍_2i{\displaystyle \frac{𝒓_1\times 𝒓_2}{r}},`$ (89)
$`𝒓\times 𝑷`$ $``$ $`i𝒓_1\times 𝒓_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_1}}_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_2}}_2\right),`$ (90)
$`U_P`$ $``$ $`i\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{𝑨(𝒔_1𝒔_2)}{2m^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{Z}{r_1^3r}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^3r_1}}_1+(12)),`$ (91)
where $`_a=/r_a`$, $`=/r`$, while the vector

$$𝑨=\frac{𝒓_1\times 𝒓_2}{2}=\frac{𝒓\times 𝒓_1}{2}=\frac{𝒓\times 𝒓_2}{2}$$
(92)
is perpendicular to the triangle composed by $`𝒓_1,𝒓_2`$ and $`𝒓`$, while its norm equals this triangle’s area. The $`P`$ wave admixture to the $`S`$ state wave function,

$$\delta _P\psi =GU_P\psi ,$$
(93)
has the same angular dependence as the perturbation:

$$\delta _P\psi =i\alpha \frac{𝑨(𝒔_1𝒔_2)}{2m^2}\frac{\varphi _P(r_1,r_2,r)}{r_1r_2r}.$$
(94)
Function $`\varphi _P(r_1,r_2,r)`$ is introduced in such a way in order to make it finite at coalescense points: $`\varphi _P(r_1,r_2,r)<\mathrm{}`$ when $`r_a0`$ or $`r0`$. Substituting the r.h.s. of Eq.(94) into the inhomogeneous equation,

$$(EH)\delta _P\psi =U_P\psi ,$$
(95)
we can cancel the spin- and angular-dependent factor using the following relations:

$`[H,𝒔_1𝒔_2]`$ $`=`$ $`0;`$ (96)
$`[H,𝒓_1\times 𝒓_2]`$ $`=`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2}{2m}},𝒓_1]\times 𝒓_2+𝒓_1\times [{\displaystyle \frac{p_2^2}{2m}},𝒓_2]{\displaystyle \frac{𝒓_1\times 𝒓_2}{m}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_1}}_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_2}}_2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}\right).`$ (97)
At the last step I took into account that the operator acts on the function depending only on $`r_1,r_2`$ and $`r`$. The resulting equation for $`\varphi _P`$ reads:

$$\{H^{}\frac{1}{m}(_1\frac{1}{r_1}+_2\frac{1}{r_2}+\frac{2}{r})E\}\varphi _P=\{\frac{r_1}{r^2}_2\frac{Zr_1}{r_2^2}+(12)\}\psi .$$
(98)
Here $`H^{}`$ is obtained from $`H`$ by the substitutions $`1/r,_1_11/r_1,_2_21/r_2.`$

The final expression for the energy shift (88) then reads:

$$\delta _PE=\frac{\alpha ^2}{4m^4}\varphi _P\left|\frac{A^2}{r^2r_1^2r_2^2}\{\frac{r_1}{r^2}_2\frac{Zr_1}{r_2^2}+(12)\}\right|\psi .$$
(99)
#### 3 Second iteration of the Breit Hamiltonian: $`S`$-wave

In order to extract divergences from the second order correction induced by the $`S`$-wave part of the Breit Hamiltonian, Eq.(86), it is convenient to rewrite the latter in the form

$$U_S=\frac{H^2}{2m}+\{H,u\}2Eu+𝒪_d,$$
(100)
where

$`u`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_\mathrm{N}+(d1)c}{4m}},`$ (101)
$`𝒪_d`$ $`=`$ $`E{\displaystyle \frac{C_\mathrm{N}+(d1)c}{2m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8m}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2}{m}}+c,{\displaystyle \frac{p_2^2}{m}}+c\}{\displaystyle \frac{C_\mathrm{N}c}{2m}}{\displaystyle \frac{2d3}{4m}}c^2`$ (103)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒑_1(C_\mathrm{N}(d2)c)𝒑_1+(12)}{4m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒑_1c𝒑_2+(d2)(𝒑_1𝒏)c(𝒏𝒑_2)}{2m^2}}.`$
Inserting (100) into equation

$$\delta _SE=U_SGU_S,$$
(104)
and using the Schrödinger equation for the reduced Green function, $`(HE)G(R,R^{})=\psi (R)\psi (R^{})\delta (RR^{})`$, where $`R`$ denotes the vector $`(r_1,r_2,r)`$, we get:

$$\delta _SE=2U_Su\frac{1}{2}[[H,u],u]+\{U_S,u\}+𝒪_3G𝒪_3.$$
(105)
Note that we can take the limit $`d3`$ in the last term since in contrast to $`U_S`$ the perturbation $`𝒪_3`$ does not contain operators more singular than $`C_a^2`$ and $`c^2`$. In other words, all the divergences in (105) are moved to the average values of local operators.

The first term from Eq.(105) is most easy to calculate:

$$2U_S𝒪_1=B\frac{2E+c}{2m}.$$
(106)
Here $`B=U_S`$ is the non-recoil limit of the first order Breit correction (5). For the second term from Eq.(105) we have

$$\frac{1}{2}[[H,u],u]=\frac{_1^2+_2^2}{32m^3}+\frac{(𝓔_1𝓔_2)𝒆}{8m^3}+\frac{(d1)^2e^2}{16m^3}.$$
(107)
Then, the third term from Eq.(105) can be rewritten as

$`\{U_S,u\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E^3}{2m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{EC^2}{2m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha (Z2)}{4m^3}}\delta (𝒓_1)C_2+\delta (𝒓_2)C_1`$ (111)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3CcC_\mathrm{N}}{4m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2C_\mathrm{N}p_2^2}{8m^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{[𝑷𝒑,[𝑷𝒑,c]]+2(𝑷𝒑)c(𝑷𝒑)}{8m^4}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha \delta (𝒓)}{2m^3}}C_\mathrm{N}+\{{\displaystyle \frac{C_\mathrm{N}+(d1)c}{8m^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{𝒑_1c𝒑_2+(d2)(𝒑_1𝒏)c(𝒏𝒑_2)}{m}}\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(𝓔_1𝓔_2)𝒆}{4m^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_\mathrm{N}^3}{4m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d1}{8m^2}}c^3{\displaystyle \frac{_1^2+_2^2}{8m^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{(d1)e^2}{8m^3}}.`$
Finally, the fourth term from Eq.(105) can be calculated in a way similar to that used above for the $`P`$-wave contribution. Namely, we first find the solution for the inhomogeneous equation

$$(EH)\delta _S\psi =\left(𝒪_3𝒪_3\right)\psi ,$$

orthogonal to the ground state, $`\delta _S\psi |\psi =0`$, and then evaluate the matrix element of $`𝒪_3`$ between $`\delta _S\psi `$ and $`\psi `$:

$$𝒪_3G𝒪_3=\delta _S\psi \left|𝒪_3\right|\psi .$$
(112)
An alternative way to calculate (112) is to include the operator $`𝒪_3`$ directly into the Hamiltonian:

$$(H+𝒪_3)\psi ^{}=E^{}\psi ^{}.$$
(113)
Then, with the $`𝒪(\alpha ^2)`$ precision,

$$𝒪_3G𝒪_3=E^{}E𝒪_3.$$
(114)
### C Total soft scale contribution

Summing up all soft scale contributions, given by Eqs.(55, 66, 71, 72, 8084, 99, 106112), we get:

$`\delta _{\mathrm{soft}}E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E^3}{2m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{E^2c}{4m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{E}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{2C_\mathrm{N}C+c^2}{4m}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2p_2^2}{8m^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha Z}{4m^2}}\left[\delta (𝒓_1)+\delta (𝒓_2)\right]`$ (124)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{Bc}{2m}}+\delta _PE+𝒪_3G𝒪_3`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{cC_\mathrm{N}C}{2m^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{C_\mathrm{N}}{8m^3}},{\displaystyle \frac{𝒑_1c𝒑_2+(𝒑_1𝒏)c(𝒏𝒑_2)}{m}}\}+{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2C_\mathrm{N}p_2^2}{4m^4}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒑_1c^2𝒑_1+𝒑_2c^2𝒑_2}{8m^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒑c𝒑P^2(𝑷𝒑)c(𝑷𝒑)}{4m^4}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2c(𝒏𝒑_2)^2+(𝒑_1𝒏)^2cp_2^23(𝒑_1𝒏)^2c(𝒏𝒑_2)^2+(12)}{16m^4}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{cr}{16m^3}}(2(𝒏𝒑_2)(𝓔_1𝒑_2)+(𝒏𝓔_1)[(𝒏𝒑_2)^2p_2^2]+(12)+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{cr^2}{8m^2}}\left(3𝓔_1𝓔_2(𝒏𝓔_1)(𝒏𝓔_2)2(𝓔_1𝓔_2)𝒆\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3[𝑷𝒑,[𝑷𝒑,c]]}{32m^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha \delta (𝒓)}{2m^3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{13P^2}{16m}}+C_\mathrm{N}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha Z}{4m^3}}[\delta (𝒓_1)({\displaystyle \frac{3p_2^2}{2m}}+2C_2+c)+(12)]{\displaystyle \frac{(𝓔_1𝓔_2)𝒆}{32m^3}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{C_\mathrm{N}^3}{4m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{_1^2+_2^2}{8m^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{13ϵ}{2m^2}}c^3+{\displaystyle \frac{36ϵ}{4m^3}}e^2.`$
Order $`ϵ`$ coefficients are kept in Eq.(124) only if they multiply the operators whose average values contain $`1/ϵ`$ singularities. In (124), the following relations are taken into account:

$$[p_i,[p_j,[c^2n_in_j]]=\frac{3d}{d2}e^2,(d3)\{c,\frac{𝒑_1c𝒑_2+(𝒑_1𝒏)c(𝒏𝒑_2)}{m}\}=(d3)c^3+𝒪(ϵ).$$
(125)
For the bulk of the operators in (124), their average values can be safely evaluated at $`d3`$. Special care is needed when one deals with the operator $`p_1^2c(𝒏𝒑_2)^2+(12)+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.`$ which is not well defined in three dimensions. We can take the limit $`d3`$ having previously determined what the momenta operators are acting on:

$$\underset{d3}{lim}p_1^2c(𝒏𝒑_2)^2+(12)+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.=\stackrel{}{p_1^2}c\stackrel{}{(𝒏𝒑_2)^2}+(12)+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.+4\pi m^2\alpha ^3\delta (𝒓)|_{d=3}.$$
(126)
In order to be certain that this relation holds, it is sufficient to consider the two-body problem, where both sides of Eq.(126) can be calculated analytically.

In order to calculate singular average values entering into (124), consider the Coulomb potential $`C_{ab}`$ between two particles with charges $`z_a`$ and $`z_b`$. The average value of $`C_{ab}^3`$ is

$$C_{ab}^3=(z_az_b\alpha )^3\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{d}{2}1\right)}{\pi ^{d/21}}\right)^3r_{ab}^{63d}.$$
(127)
Repeating the procedure used in Sec. III we get

$$C_{ab}^3=(z_az_b\alpha )^3\left\{\left(\frac{1}{ϵ}4\mathrm{ln}\frac{2}{\mathrm{a}_{ab}}+2\right)\pi \delta (𝒓_{ab})2\frac{\gamma +\mathrm{ln}\frac{2r_{ab}}{\mathrm{a}_{ab}}}{r_{ab}^2}𝒏_{ab}\stackrel{}{\mathbf{}}_{ab}\right\}.$$
(128)
Recall that $`\mathrm{a}_{ab}=|z_az_b\mu _{ab}\alpha |^1`$. Average value of the second singular operator, $`_{ab}^2`$, can be found in the following way:

$$_{ab}^2=[\mathbf{}_a,C_{ab}]^2=[\mathbf{}_a,C_{ab}[\mathbf{}_a,C_{ab}]]C_{ab}[\mathbf{}_a,[\mathbf{}_a,C_{ab}]]=2C_{ab}[\mathbf{}_a,C_{ab}]\stackrel{}{\mathbf{}}_a.$$
(129)
At the last step, I again have used the equation $`C_{ab}\delta (𝒓_{ab})=0`$ valid in the dimensional regularization. In order to express the average value

$$_{ab}^2=2(d2)(z_az_b\alpha )^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{d}{2}1\right)}{\pi ^{d/21}}\right)^2r^{32d}𝒏_{ab}\stackrel{}{\mathbf{}}_{ab}$$
(130)
in terms of $`C_{ab}^3`$, the known derivative of the wave function at $`𝒓_{ab}0`$\**\**\**Strictly speaking, with a coefficient $`1+𝒪(ϵ)`$. Inspection of the known two-body average values, however, shows that the coefficient is in fact equal to 1. can be added to and subtracted from $`𝒏_{ab}\stackrel{}{\mathbf{}}_{ab}`$:

$$_{ab}^2=2\mu _{ab}(d2)C_{ab}^3+2(z_az_b\alpha )^2\frac{1}{r_{ab}^3}\left(𝒏_{ab}\stackrel{}{\mathbf{}}_{ab}\mu _{ab}z_az_b\alpha \right).$$
(131)
Since the last average value in the r.h.s. of (131) is finite, it can be considered in three dimensions. Now, extracting all divergent pieces from (124) we get (42).

## VI Conclusion

The divergences contained in the hard (41) and soft (42) scale contributions cancel each other so that in the sum of all contributions, Eqs.(3741, 124), we can put $`d=3`$. Taking into account Eqs.(126,128,131), the final expression for the $`𝒪(m\alpha ^6)`$ correction to a singlet $`S`$-state energy of the helium atom can be written as

$`\delta ^{(4)}E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E^3}{2m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{E^2c}{4m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{E}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{2C_\mathrm{N}C+c^2}{4m}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2p_2^2}{8m^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha Z}{4m^2}}\left[\delta (𝒓_1)+\delta (𝒓_2)\right]`$ (141)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{Bc}{2m}}+\delta _PE+𝒪_3G𝒪_3+\pi \alpha ^3m^2k_{\mathrm{eN}}\left(\delta (𝒓_1)+\delta (𝒓_2)\right)+k_{\mathrm{ee}}\delta (𝒓)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3C_1C_2C_\mathrm{N}}{4m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{cC_\mathrm{N}C}{2m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_\mathrm{N}c[𝒑_1𝒑_2+𝒏(𝒏𝒑_1)𝒑_2]+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.}{8m^4}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2C_\mathrm{N}p_2^2}{4m^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒑_1c^2𝒑_1+𝒑_2c^2𝒑_2}{8m^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(𝒑_1\times 𝒑_2)c(𝒑_1\times 𝒑_2)}{4m^4}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2c(𝒏𝒑_2)^2+(𝒑_1𝒏)^2cp_2^23(𝒑_1𝒏)^2c(𝒏𝒑_2)^2+(12)}{16m^4}}`$
$`\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{2(𝒏𝒑_2)(𝓔_1𝒑_2)+(𝒏𝓔_1)[(𝒏𝒑_2)^2p_2^2]+(12)+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.}{16m^3}}`$
$`+\alpha r{\displaystyle \frac{3𝓔_1𝓔_2(𝒏𝓔_1)(𝒏𝓔_2)2(𝓔_1𝓔_2)𝒆}{8m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha }{32m^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{P^23(𝒏𝑷)^2}{r^3}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha \delta (𝒓)}{2m^3}}({\displaystyle \frac{9P^2}{16m}}+C_\mathrm{N})+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha Z}{4m^3}}[\delta (𝒓_1)({\displaystyle \frac{3p_2^2}{2m}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2Z1)\alpha }{r_2}})+(12)]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(𝓔_1𝓔_2)𝒆}{32m^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(Z\alpha )^2}{4m^3}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_1^3}}(𝒏_1\mathbf{}_1+mZ\alpha )+(12)]`$
$`\alpha ^3{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}(m\alpha r)+\gamma }{2m^2r^2}}𝒏\mathbf{}+{\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha ^2}{2m^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^3}}(𝒏\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{m\alpha }{2}}).`$
Here all momentum operators standing to the right (left) of position-dependent operators are assumed to act on the right (left) wave function. Although $`d`$-dimensional notations for the Coulomb potentials and electric forces are kept in (141), the immediate three-dimensional counterparts are implied for all operators, e.g., $`C_1Z\alpha /r_1`$, $`𝒆\alpha 𝒏/r^2`$ and so on. The contact terms enter into Eq.(141) with the coefficients

$`k_{\mathrm{eN}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Z^3}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{427Z^2}{96}}{\displaystyle \frac{10Z}{27}}{\displaystyle \frac{9Z\zeta (3)}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2179Z}{648\pi ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3Z4Z^2}{2}}\mathrm{ln}2,`$ (142)
$`k_{\mathrm{ee}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{3385}{216}}{\displaystyle \frac{331}{54\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{29\mathrm{ln}2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{15\zeta (3)}{4\pi ^2}}.`$ (143)
Eqs.(141-143) are the principal result of the present work. Its application to the ground state of the helium atom is considered elsewhere .

The approach elaborated here can be applied to other few-electron atoms as well as to higher order corrections. The only stumbling block to higher order calculations is the yet unknown three-loop hard scale electron-electron potential. Nevertheless, the order $`m\alpha ^7`$ corrections enhanced by powers of $`\mathrm{ln}\alpha `$ can be determined by combination of methods used in Ref.  and in the present work.

### Acknowledgments

Useful advices from V. L. Chernyak, A. Czarnecki, V. Korobov, and especially K. Melnikov are gratefully acknowledged. This research was supported in part by the Russian Ministry of Higher Education and by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research under grant number 00-02-17646.


format: text

text:
# New remarks on the linear constraint self-dual boson and Wess-Zumino terms

## I Introduction

The research in chiral bosonization has begun many years back with the seminal paper of W. Siegel . Floreanini-Jackiw have offered later some different solutions to the problem of a single self-dual field  proposing a non-anomalous model. The study of chiral bosons has blossomed thanks to the advances in some string theories  and in the construction of interesting theoretical models . They also play an important role in the studies of the quantum Hall effect . The introduction of a soliton field as a charge-creating field obeying one additional equation of motion leads to a bosonization rule . Stone  has shown that the method of coadjoint orbit , when applied to a representation of a group associated with a single affine Kac-Moody algebra, generates an action for the chiral WZW model , a non-Abelian generalization of the Floreanini and Jackiw (FJ) model.

A self-dual field in two dimensions is a scalar field which satisfies the self-dual constraint (self-dual condition) $`(\eta ^{\mu \nu }+ϵ^{\mu \nu })_\nu \varphi =0`$ or $`\dot{\varphi }=\varphi ^{}`$, where a dot means time derivation and prime, space derivation. In the formulation of Floreanini and Jackiw , the space derivative of the field instead of the field itself satisfies the self-dual condition, i.e., $`(_0_1)_1\varphi =0`$, and the field violates the microcausality postulate .

Trying to overcome these difficulties, Srivastava  introduced an auxiliary vector field $`\lambda _\mu `$ coupled with a linear constraint and constructed a Lorentz-invariant Lagrangian for a scalar self-dual field. Although Harada  and Girotti et al  have pointed out consistency problems with the Srivastava model at the quantum level, the linear formulation strictly describes a chiral boson from the point of view of equations of motion at the classical level. Some methods were used to quantize the theory . The extension to $`D=6`$ was accomplished in  as well as its supersymmetric case .

On the other hand, the concept of soldering  has proved extremely useful in different contexts. The soldering formalism essentially combines two distinct Lagrangians manifesting dual aspects of some symmetry to yield a new Lagrangian which is destituted of, or rather hides, that symmetry. The quantum interference effects, whether constructive or destructive, among the dual aspects of symmetry, are thereby captured through this mechanism . The formalism introduced by Stone could be interpreted recently as a new method of dynamical mass generation . This technique parallels a similar phenomenon in two dimensional field theory known as Schwinger mechanism  that results from the interference between right and left massless self-dual modes of chiral Schwinger model  of opposite chiralities .

Furthermore, an important ingredient in the study of such kind of systems are the so called Wess-Zumino (WZ) terms , which are introduced in the theory in order to recover the gauge invariance . In , it was proposed a new way of the derivation of the WZ counterterm. It was based on the generalized Hamiltonian formalism of Batalin and Fradkin  which have suggested a kind of quantization procedure for second-class constraint systems to which anomalous gauge theory belong . The final action obtained, dependent on an arbitrary parameter, has been constructed in order to become the Srivastava model gauge invariant. The Lorentz invariance requirement has fixed the parameter in two possible values which generates two possible WZ terms. The result, with one of the WZ terms, after a kind of chiral decomposition, was that the SCB spectrum is composed of two opposite FJ’s chiral bosons, similarly to what happens with the Minimal Chiral Schwinger Model  . The conclusion, however, was that the WZ term so obtained have added a new physical degree of freedom, an antichiral boson, to the spectrum and therefore changes the self-dual field into a massless scalar. Besides, in another similar paper, Miao and Chen  have asserted that it is impossible to apply the soldering formalism  to solder two opposite chiral aspects of the model proposed by Srivastava, as was successfully accomplished in the Siegel and Floreanini-Jackiw theories . It was pointed out that the method was invalid in the linear formulation because of the inequivalence of Srivastava’s and Siegel and FJ’s. Hence, to promote the fusion, it was constructed a chiral counterterm  for the linear formulation of the chiral bosons. This counterterm was the same Wess-Zumino term mentioned above.

In this work we have demonstrated that both conclusions are not really true. We have applied successfully the soldering formalism and showed that the interference on-shell of two SCB results in a massless scalar field. As another result, we have performed essentially a canonical transformation (CT)  (as a special case of CT, we have used the dynamical decomposition , which promotes a separation of a chiral theory in its dynamical and symmetry parts) and the outcome showed, in an exact way, that the spectrum is already composed of two FJ’s chiral bosons with the same chirality confirming the well known result that the SCB has two degrees of freedom thanks to the linear constraint structure . Besides, we have showed that the WZ term introduced in  is in fact a scalar field, i.e., it is composed of two FJ with opposite chiralities. So, it is obvious that the WZ terms introduced naturally these particles since the spectrum of the SCB is a vacuum-like one.

In section 2 we have made a short review of the soldering formalism. In section 3, it was carried out the soldering of two SCB’s models. The dynamical decomposition of the theory and a discussion of the WZ term were accomplished in section 4. The conclusions are depicted in section 5.

## II The soldering formalism

In this section we will follow basically the reference  to make a short review of the method of soldering two opposite chiral versions of a given theory. For more details, the interested reader can see .

The basic idea of the soldering procedure is to raise a global Noether symmetry of the self and anti-self dual constituents into a local one, but for an effective composite system, consisting of the dual components and an interference term.

An iterative Noether procedure was adopted  to lift the global symmetries. Therefore, assume that the symmetries in question are being described by the local actions $`S_\pm (\varphi _\pm ^\eta )`$, invariant under a global multi-parametric transformation

$$\delta \varphi _\pm ^\eta =\alpha ^\eta ,$$
(1)
where $`\eta `$ represents the tensorial character of the basic fields in the dual actions $`S_\pm `$ and, for notational simplicity, will be dropped from now on. As it is well known, we can write,

$$\delta S_\pm =J^\pm _\pm \alpha ,$$
(2)
where $`J^\pm `$ are the Noether currents.

Now, under local transformations these actions will not remain invariant, and Noether counter-terms become necessary to reestablish the invariance, along with appropriate auxiliary fields $`B^{(N)}`$, the so-called soldering fields which has no dynamics. Nevertheless we can say that $`B^{(N)}`$ is an auxiliary field which makes a wider range of gauge-fixing conditions available . In this way, the $`N`$-action can be written as,

$$S_\pm (\varphi _\pm )^{(0)}S_\pm (\varphi _\pm )^{(N)}=S_\pm (\varphi _\pm )^{(N1)}B^{(N)}J_\pm ^{(N)}.$$
(3)
Here $`J_\pm ^{(N)}`$ are the $`N`$iteration Noether currents. For the self and anti-self dual systems we have in mind that this iterative gauging procedure is (intentionally) constructed not to produce invariant actions for any finite number of steps. However, if after N repetitions, the non invariant piece end up being only dependent on the gauging parameters, but not on the original fields, there will exist the possibility of mutual cancelation if both self and anti-self gauged systems are put together. Then, suppose that after N repetitions we arrive at the following simultaneous conditions,

$$\delta S_\pm (\varphi _\pm )^{(N)}0\text{and}\delta S_B(\varphi _\pm )=0,$$
(4)
with $`S_B`$ being the so-called soldered action

$$S_B(\varphi _\pm )=S_+^{(N)}(\varphi _+)+S_{}^{(N)}(\varphi _{})+\text{Contact Terms},$$
(5)
where the Contact Terms are generally quadratic functions of the soldering fields. Then we can immediately identify the (soldering) interference term as,

$$S_{int}=\text{Contact Terms}\underset{N}{}B^{(N)}J_\pm ^{(N)}.$$
(6)
Incidentally, these auxiliary fields $`B^{(N)}`$ may be eliminated, for instance, through its equations of motion, from the resulting effective action, in favor of the physically relevant degrees of freedom. It is important to notice that after the elimination of the soldering fields, the resulting effective action will not depend on either self or anti-self dual fields $`\varphi _\pm `$ but only in some collective field, say $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, defined in terms of the original ones in a (Noether) invariant way

$$S_B(\varphi _\pm )S_{eff}(\mathrm{\Phi }).$$
(7)
Analyzing in terms of the classical degrees of freedom, it is obvious that we have now a bigger theory. Once such effective action has been established, the physical consequences of the soldering are readily obtained by simple inspection.

## III The soldering of two Srivastava’s self-dual bosons

The Srivastava action for a left-moving chiral boson, is

$$_\varphi ^{(0)}=_+\varphi _{}\varphi +\lambda _+_{}\varphi ,$$
(8)
where we have used the light-front variables $`_\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(_0\pm _1)`$ and $`\lambda _\pm =\lambda _0\pm \lambda _1`$.

Following the steps of the soldering formalism studied in the last section, we can start considering the variation of the Lagrangians under the transformations, $`\delta \varphi =\alpha `$ and $`\delta \lambda _+=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$. We will write only the main steps of the procedure.

In terms of the Noether currents we can construct

$$\delta _\varphi ^{(0)}=J_\varphi ^\mu _\mu \alpha ,$$
(9)
where $`\mu =+,`$, $`J_\varphi ^+=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ and $`J_\varphi ^{}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}_+\varphi +\lambda _+`$.

The next iteration, as seen in the last section, can be performed introducing auxiliary fields, the so-called soldering fields

$$_\varphi ^{(1)}=_\varphi ^{(0)}B_\mu J_\varphi ^\mu ,$$
(10)
and one can easily see that the gauge variation of $`_\varphi ^{(1)}`$ is

$$\delta _\varphi ^{(1)}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}B_{}\delta B_+,$$
(11)
where we have defined the variation of $`B_\pm `$ as $`\delta B_\pm =_\pm \alpha `$, and we see that the variation of $`_\varphi ^{(1)}`$ does not depend on $`\varphi `$. It is the signal to begin the process with the other chirality, which is given by

$$_\rho ^{(0)}=_+\rho _{}\rho +\lambda _{}_+\rho ,$$
(12)
and again, let us construct the basic transformations $`\delta \rho =\alpha `$ and $`\delta \lambda _{}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$.

The Noether´s currents are $`J_\rho ^+=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}_+\rho +\lambda _{}`$ and $`J_\rho ^{}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ and the variation of the final iteration is $`\delta _\rho ^{(1)}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}B_{}\delta B_+`$.

Now we can see that the variation of $`_{\varphi ,\rho }^{(1)}`$ does not depend neither on $`\varphi `$ nor $`\rho `$. Hence, as explained before, we can construct the final (soldered) Lagrangian as

$`_{TOT}`$ $`=`$ $`_L_R`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`_\varphi ^{(1)}+_\rho ^{(1)}+B_+B_{}`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`_\varphi ^{(0)}+_\rho ^{(0)}B_+J^+B_{}J^{}+B_+B_{}`$ (15)
which remains invariant under the combined symmetry transformations for $`(\varphi ,\rho )`$ and $`(\lambda _+,\lambda _{})`$, i.e., $`\delta _{TOT}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$.

Following the steps of the algorithm depicted in the last section, we have to eliminate the soldering fields solving their equations of motion which result in $`B_\pm =J^{}`$ where $`J^\pm =J^{\varphi ,\rho }`$.

Substituting it back in (13) we have the final effective Lagrangian density

$`_{TOT}=(_{}\varphi _{}\rho )(_+\varphi _+\rho )`$ (16)
$`+`$ $`\lambda _+(_{}\varphi _{}\rho )\lambda _{}(_+\varphi _+\rho ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _+\lambda _{}`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_+\mathrm{\Phi }+\lambda _+_{}\mathrm{\Phi }\lambda _{}_+\mathrm{\Phi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _+\lambda _{}.`$ (18)
where the new compound field are defined as $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\varphi \rho `$.

As we can see we have a second order term in the Lagrange multipliers. Solving the equations of motion for the multipliers, we obtain that,

$`\lambda _{}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}_{}\mathrm{\Phi }\text{and}\lambda _+=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}_+\mathrm{\Phi }.`$ (19)
Substituting the equations (19) in (16) we have

$`_{TOT}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^\mu \mathrm{\Phi },`$ (20)
which represents the massless scalar field action.

Hence, we have demonstrated in a precise way that it is possible to use the soldering formalism to promote the fusion of two opposite SCB, in contradiction with the assertion done in . Finally, one can conclude that, starting from these inconsistent Lagrangian densities, it is recovered, in the soldering procedure, a consistent model which is, in fact, the free scalar field. However, this result was not the expected one, but we will come back to this issue later.

In the next section we will investigate the spectrum of the Srivastava model constructing a canonical transformation , i.e., using the special case of the dynamical decomposition . The objective is to analyze the result obtained by Miao et al  previously with the alternative construction of the Wess-Zumino term of the Srivastava theory.

## IV The dynamical decomposition of the Srivastava model

In the Hamiltonian formulation, canonical transformations can be sometimes used to decompose a composite Hamiltonian into two distinct pieces. A familiar example , is the decomposition of the Hamiltonian of a particle in two dimensions moving in a constant magnetic field and quadratic potential. It can be shown that this Hamiltonian can be separated into two pieces corresponding to the Hamiltonians of two one dimensional oscillators rotating in a clockwise and a anti-clockwise directions, respectively. Let us now make a canonical transformation analysis of the SCB. In this case, that the theory is already a chiral one, we will promote a dynamical decomposition of it, i.e., the theory will be decomposed in its dynamical and symmetry parts. If the theory is not invariant, the result will show only the dynamics of the system. To perform this we have to make a canonical transformation  in (8) using the Faddeev-Jackiw first-order procedure.

At this point, some interesting comments are in order. The inconsistencies of the SCB model at the quantum level, discussed in some works , can be verified from another point of view. This is done by comparing the Lagrangian density of the SCB in Minkovisky space, i.e.,

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi +\lambda _\mu (g^{\mu \nu }ϵ^{\mu \nu })_\nu \varphi `$ (21)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\dot{\varphi }^2\varphi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})+\lambda (\dot{\varphi }\varphi ^{})`$ (22)
where $`\lambda =\lambda _+`$, with that of the bosonized version of the CSM

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\mu )^2+e(g^{\mu \nu }ϵ^{\mu \nu })_\mu \varphi A_\nu `$ (23)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ae^2}{2}}A_\mu ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }^2`$ (24)
and to note that the former is in fact a particular case of the latter, where one should take care of the identifications: $`a=0`$ and $`A_\mu \lambda _\mu `$, an external field with vanishing field strength. Now, one can relate the inconsistency of the SCB with that of the CSM with the regularization ambiguity parameter $`a=0`$, as shown by Girotti et al . Now let us recover the discussion on the SCB, by doing its dynamical decomposition and then discussing how and why the WZ terms introduced in  recover its quantum consistency.

The canonical momentum is defined by $`\pi =\dot{\varphi }+\lambda ,`$ and substituting it back in (21) to obtain the first-order form we have

$$=\pi \dot{\varphi }\frac{1}{2}\pi ^2+\pi \lambda \frac{1}{2}\lambda ^2\frac{1}{2}\varphi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\lambda \varphi ^{},$$
(25)
Now, as we have mentioned before, we have to do the following canonical transformation

$$\varphi =\eta +\sigma \text{and}\pi =\eta ^{}\sigma ^{},$$
(26)
which is defined as a dynamical decomposition. Notice that $`\varphi `$ is a chiral field already. So, in this way, this canonical transformation will allow us to know exactly what is the Srivastava chiral boson. Hence, substituting (26) in (25) we have as a result

$`_{DD}=\eta ^{}\dot{\eta }\eta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\sigma ^{}\dot{\sigma }\sigma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}2\lambda \sigma ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda ^2.`$ (27)
Again, solving the equations of motion for the $`\lambda `$-field we have $`\lambda =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\sigma ^{}`$, and, substituting back,

$`_{DD}=\eta ^{}\dot{\eta }\eta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(\sigma ^{}\dot{\sigma }\sigma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}).`$ (28)
We can see clearly that this action represents two Floreanini-Jackiw’s (FJ) chiral bosons. Each one with the same chirality. This is caused by the fact that the Lagrange multiplier has acquired dynamics because of the linear constraint form. In fact, we are demonstrating that (21) has two degrees of freedom, represented in (28) by $`\eta `$ and $`\sigma `$, differently from Siegel’s approach, where $`\lambda `$ is a pure gauge degree of freedom. This result corroborates the one found by Bazeia in analyzing the linear constraint chiral boson quantum mechanics. We can say that both particles in (28) act like a Gupta-Bleuler’s pair so that each chiral excitation destroys the other and the Hilbert space is composed of vacuum. This result confirms the one found in .

Hence, in the soldering process of the SCB, each FJ’s chiral boson interact with its opposite chiral partner, so that the final result represents a scalar field. We can observe also that the linear constraint formulation of the chiral boson does not contain the Hull noton , a nonmover field that cancels out the anomaly of the Siegel model (an alternative fermionic noton was introduced in ), which is expected since the SCB is not gauge invariant.

The result (28) contradicts the result obtained in  in the following way. There, firstly it was built a final action composed of the Srivastava action plus a WZ term with an arbitrary parameter. The Lorentz invariance fixed the parameter in two possible values which originated two different WZ terms. Hence, one of the actions obtained, after a kind of chiral decomposition, is shown to have two FJ’s particles of opposite chiralities, in an analogous fashion to what happens with the usual CSM . Besides, the final Lagrangian obtained contain the BF fields  used to construct the WZ term . The conclusion was that the WZ term constructed have added a new degree of freedom to the theory in the form of an antichiral boson. On the other hand, we can see what is really happening through a careful analysis of the two WZ terms introduced in . It is not difficult to see that the first WZ term defined in , i.e. ,

$$_{WZ}^{(1)}=\frac{1}{2}(\dot{\theta }^2+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}\theta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})\lambda (\dot{\theta }+\theta ^{})\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^2,$$
(29)
where $`\theta `$ is the BF field, once integrated in the $`\lambda `$ field, a chiral boson is recovered. Besides, if one takes the second WZ term introduced in ,

$$_{WZ}^{(2)}=\dot{\theta }\theta ^{}\theta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\lambda (\dot{\theta }+\theta ^{})\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^2,$$
(30)
and perform again the integration $`\lambda `$, one gets nothing but the Lagrangian density of the free scalar boson. This result signalizes that the WZ term obtained by Miao et al  is already composed of two opposite FJ’s particles. Obviously it really introduces the degree of freedom, because it is already there, in the WZ term, but it does not change the physics of the SCB model, since, as we saw above, this last is composed of vacuum.

Analyzing the interference aspects, we can apply the soldering formalism again, but now, let us do it using two actions of the type of (28), i.e.,

$`_1`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{\eta }\eta ^{}\eta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(\dot{\sigma }\sigma ^{}\sigma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$ (31)
$`_2`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{\xi }\xi ^{}\xi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(\dot{\omega }\omega ^{}\omega _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$ (32)
where $`\eta ,\sigma ,\xi `$ and $`\omega `$ are all FJ’s particles. We can see in Eqs. (24) and (25) that the fields $`(\eta ,\xi )`$ and $`(\sigma ,\omega )`$ form opposite chiralities particles pairs .

Performing the soldering procedure, one can easily see that the result is

$$=\frac{1}{2}(_\mu \mathrm{\Psi })\frac{1}{2}(_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda })$$
(33)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\eta \xi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\sigma \omega `$. This is the expected result, and not (16), since we know that the SCB have a vacuum-like spectrum. The soldering procedure in (26) discloses the same behavior as shown in (28).

The result (26) is quite different as the one shown in (16). Since it is well known that the soldering of two opposite FJ chiral bosons is a massless scalar field, we should expect that the fusion of two SCB would be two opposite scalar fields with the final vacuum-like spectrum. This difference can be explained  as we note that now, in each action of the Eqs. (24) and (25), we have two fields, i.e., the action can be separated in two different sectors, representing the FJ particles with the same chirality. So, in the interference process (soldering) each sector of each action interfere with its opposite partner. To obtain (16), note that we have only one sector in each action. In the interference process we have lost the information about the other sector, like a destructive interference. This does not occur in (26).

## V Conclusions

It is well known that the SCB has consistency problems. In this work we have used the soldering formalism to show that the interference on-shell of two Srivastava’s chiral bosons resulted in a scalar field. The other aspect of this result is that the soldering method recover the consistency of the SCB model, i.e., the fusion of opposites chiralities of the model results in a consistent theory. This contradicts the conclusion published in the literature, which asserts that it is impossible to apply the soldering procedure to the SCB due to the inequivalence of this model with relation to Siegel and Floreanini-Jackiw’s models.

This has motivated us to explore the model promoting a canonical transformation in the specific form of a dynamical decomposition, which permitted us to decompose the action in its dynamical parts. This procedure showed us that the SCB is in fact formed by two Floreanini-Jackiw’s chiral bosons of the same chiralities. Again, the contradiction with the current literature is evident since one well known publication affirms that the WZ term introduced a new degree of freedom to the theory resulting in two Floreanini-Jackiw’s chiral bosons of opposite chiralities, a chiral boson and an antichiral boson. This is not really true, since we saw that in fact the WZ term used consists of two degrees of freedom, i.e., the two FJ’s opposite chiral particles. So, one can say that it is obvious that this WZ term should introduce new degrees of freedom because it is composed by the fields that appeared. Now, with each SCB composed of two fields, after the fusion through the soldering formalism, we have obtained two scalar fields with a negative signal between them. This result shows that the spectrum of the soldered action is vacuum-like.

## VI Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank C. Wotzasek and S. J. Gates Jr. for valuable discussions. EMCA is financially supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP). This work is partially supported by Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento (CNPq). FAPESP and CNPq are brazilian research agencies.