text:
# 1 NRSE in Momentum Space

## 1 NRSE in Momentum Space

Non-relativistic Schrödinger equation (NRSE) in configuration space has been solved exactly for some potentials, such as the Coulomb and simple harmonic oscilator potentials. NRSE with a linear potential can be solved analytically for the $`S`$-state only as we will show later. For $`l>0`$, we resort to numerical methods. NRSE $`r`$-space codes are commonly known to be conditionally unstable , while the momentum space codes do not have the same problem. The momentum space code has an additional advantage of being easily adaptable to relativistic equations. NRSE in momentum space takes the form

$$\frac{p^2}{2\mu }\varphi (𝐩)+V(𝐪)\varphi (𝐩^{})𝑑p^{}=E\varphi (𝐩),$$
(1)
where $`𝐪=𝐩𝐩^{}`$.

Proof:

NRSE in momentum space can be derived from its configuration space counterpart

$$\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }\mathrm{}^2\psi (𝐱)+V(𝐱)\psi (𝐱)=E\psi (𝐱)$$
(2)
by Fourier transform. First we define the following:

$`\varphi (𝐩)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \psi (𝐱)e^{i𝐤𝐱}d^3x},`$ (3)
$`\psi (𝐱)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \varphi (𝐩)e^{i𝐤𝐱}d^3p},`$ (4)
$`𝐩`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}𝐤,`$ (5)
and ignore factors of $`2\pi `$ in Fourier and inverse Fourier transforms. As usual, we assume periodic boundary condition or $`\mathrm{}\varphi =\varphi =0`$ at infinity. We Fourier-transform Eq.  term by term. The term on the right hand side of Eq.  is obtained simply by Eq. . The first term involves $`\mathrm{}^2\psi `$ and is transformed as

$`{\displaystyle \mathrm{}^2\psi (𝐱)e^{i𝐤𝐱}d^3x}`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{}\psi (𝐱)e^{i𝐤𝐱}𝑑𝐒}{\displaystyle \mathrm{}\psi (𝐱)\mathrm{}e^{i𝐤𝐱}d^3x}`$
$`=`$ $`i𝐤{\displaystyle e^{i𝐤𝐱}\mathrm{}\psi (𝐱)d^3x}`$
$`=`$ $`i𝐤\left[{\displaystyle \psi (𝐱)e^{i𝐤𝐱}𝑑𝐒}{\displaystyle \psi (𝐱)\mathrm{}e^{i𝐤𝐱}d^3x}\right]`$
$`=`$ $`i𝐤\left[i𝐤{\displaystyle \psi (𝐱)e^{i𝐤𝐱}d^3x}\right]`$
$`=`$ $`k^2\varphi (𝐩).`$
The second term involves $`V(𝐱)\psi (𝐱)`$. With Eq. , the second term of Eq.  is transformed as

$`{\displaystyle V(𝐱)\psi (𝐱)e^{i𝐤𝐱}d^3x}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle V(𝐱)\left[\varphi (𝐩^{})e^{i𝐤^{}𝐱}𝑑p^{}\right]e^{i𝐤𝐱}d^3x}`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle V(𝐱)\varphi (𝐩^{})e^{i(𝐤𝐤^{})𝐱}d^3xd^3p^{}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3p^{}\varphi (𝐩^{})d^3xV(𝐱)e^{i(𝐤𝐤^{})𝐱}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle V(𝐩𝐩^{})\varphi (𝐩^{})d^3p^{}}`$
At last, Eqs. ,  and  are all needed to Fourier transform Eq.  into Eq. . The proof is complete.

In this paper, we attempt to re-derive the results previously obtained by Maung *et al.*  in 1993. The power law potential in $`r`$ space is given by

$$V^N(r)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & r<0\hfill \\ \lambda _Nlim_{\eta 0}r^Ne^{\eta r}\hfill & r0,\eta >0\hfill \end{array}$$

Let $`G=\mathrm{}=c=1`$. Define $`𝐪𝐩𝐩^{}`$. The momentum space potential can be obtained by Fourier transform.

$`V^N(𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}V^N(r)e^{i𝐫𝐪}d^3r`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _N}{(2\pi )^3}}\underset{\eta 0}{lim}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _1^1}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}r^Ne^{\eta r}e^{irq\mathrm{cos}\theta }r^2𝑑rd\mathrm{cos}\theta d\varphi `$ (9)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _N}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{iq}}\underset{\eta 0}{lim}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _1^1}r^{N+1}e^{\eta r}e^{irq\mathrm{cos}\theta }𝑑rd(irq\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _N}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{iq}}\underset{\eta 0}{lim}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}r^{N+1}e^{\eta r}\left(e^{irq}e^{irq}\right)𝑑r`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _N}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{iq}}\underset{\eta 0}{lim}(1)^{N+1}{\displaystyle \frac{^{N+1}}{\eta ^{N+1}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}e^{\eta r}\left(e^{irq}e^{irq}\right)𝑑r`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _N}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{iq}}\underset{\eta 0}{lim}(1)^{N+1}{\displaystyle \frac{^{N+1}}{\eta ^{N+1}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\eta iq}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\eta +iq}}\right]`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _N}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{iq}}\underset{\eta 0}{lim}(1)^{N+1}{\displaystyle \frac{^{N+1}}{\eta ^{N+1}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2iq}{\eta ^2+q^2}}\right]`$ (14)
The final form of the momentum space potential is

$$V^N(𝐪)=\frac{\lambda _N}{2\pi ^2}\underset{\eta 0}{lim}(1)^{N+1}\frac{^{N+1}}{\eta ^{N+1}}\left[\frac{1}{\eta ^2+q^2}\right],$$
(15)
where $`N=1`$ corresponds to the Coulomb potential and $`N=1`$ the linear potential. Together they give the Cornell potential

$$V(𝐪)V^C(𝐪)+V^L(𝐪)=V^{N=1}(𝐪)+V^{N=1}(𝐪).$$
(16)
Next we want to perform a partial wave expansion of $`V^N`$. There are 3 useful formulas, the Wigner-Eckart Theorem

$$<E^{}l^{}m^{}|T|Elm>=\delta _{l^{}l}\delta _{m^{}m}T_l(E),$$
(17)
the addition of spherical harmonics

$$\underset{m}{}Y_{lm}(\mathrm{\Omega })Y_{lm}^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})=\frac{2l+1}{4\pi }P_l(\mathrm{cos}\theta ),$$
(18)
and the orthogonality of spherical harmonics

$$𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }Y_{lm}^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })Y_{l^{}m^{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })=\delta _{l^{}l}\delta _{m^{}m},$$
(19)
which are used in deriving the following result.

$`<𝐩|V^N|𝐩^{}>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{lm}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{l^{}m^{}}{}}<𝐩|lm><lm|V^N|l^{}m^{}><l^{}m^{}|𝐩^{}>`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{lm}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{l^{}m^{}}{}}<p\mathrm{\Omega }|lm><lm|V^N|l^{}m^{}><l^{}m^{}|p^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}>`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{lm}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{l^{}m^{}}{}}<p|<\mathrm{\Omega }|lm><lm|V^N|l^{}m^{}><l^{}m^{}|\mathrm{\Omega }^{}>|p^{}>`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{lm}{}}<\mathrm{\Omega }|lm><p|V_l^N|p^{}><lm|\mathrm{\Omega }^{}>`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{lm}{}}V_l^N(p,p^{})Y_{lm}(\mathrm{\Omega })Y_{lm}^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2l+1}{4\pi }}V_l^N(p,p^{})P_l(\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ (25)
In scattering and bound state problems, it is customary to expand the momentum space wavefunction $`\varphi (𝐩)`$ in partial waves, such that

$$\varphi (𝐩)=\underset{nlm}{}c_{nlm}\varphi _{nl}(p)Y_{lm}(\mathrm{\Omega }),$$
(26)
where $`c_{nlm}`$’s are coefficients of the expansion \[p. 396 of Ref 1 \].

The non-relativistic Schrödinger equation in momentum space is given as

$`\left(\widehat{E}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩^2}{2\mu }}\right)\varphi (𝐩)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle V^N(𝐪)\varphi (𝐩^{})d^3𝐩^{}}`$ (27)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle <𝐩|V^N|𝐩^{}>\varphi (𝐩^{})d^3𝐩^{}}`$ (28)
Expand NRSE in partial waves.

$`\left(\widehat{E}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩^2}{2\mu }}\right){\displaystyle \underset{nlm}{}}c_{nlm}\varphi _{nl}(p)Y_{lm}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle p^2𝑑p^{}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\underset{nlm}{}V_l^N(p,p^{})Y_{lm}(\mathrm{\Omega })Y_{lm}^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})}`$ (29)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{n^{}l^{}m^{}}{}}c_{n^{}l^{}m^{}}\varphi _{n^{}l^{}}(p^{})Y_{l^{}m^{}}(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle p^2𝑑p^{}\underset{nlm}{}V_l^N(p,p^{})c_{nlm}\varphi _{nl}(p^{})Y_{lm}(\mathrm{\Omega })}.`$ (30)
The $`nl`$-th terms can be separated by inspection with the help of the identity $`\widehat{E}\varphi _{nl}(p)=E_{nl}\varphi _{nl}(p).`$ The partial wave NRSE is

$$\left(E_{nl}\frac{p^2}{2\mu }\right)\varphi _{nl}(p)=p^2𝑑p^{}V_l^N(p,p^{})\varphi _{nl}(p^{}).$$
(31)
Use the orthogonality of Legendre polynomials,

$$_1^1P_l(x)P_l^{}(x)𝑑x=\frac{2}{2l+1}\delta _{l^{}l},$$
(32)
and Eq. (25), we can calculate the potential matrix elements as follow.

$`{\displaystyle _1^1}<𝐩|V^N|𝐩^{}>P_l(\mathrm{cos}\theta )d\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ (33)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{l^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2l^{}+1}{4\pi }}V_l^{}^N(p,p^{}){\displaystyle _1^1}P_l(\mathrm{cos}\theta )P_l^{}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )d\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ (34)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{l^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}V_l^{}^N(p,p^{})\delta _{l^{}l}`$ (35)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}V_l^N(p,p^{})`$ (36)
In order words,

$$V_l^N(p,p^{})=2\pi _1^1V^N(𝐪)P_l(\mathrm{cos}\theta )d\mathrm{cos}\theta .$$
(37)
Define

$$y\frac{p^2+p^2+\eta ^2}{2p^{}p},$$
(38)
and use the definition of the Legendre polynomial of the second kind $`Q_n(z)`$,

$$Q_n(z)=\frac{1}{2}_1^1\frac{1}{zt}P_n(t)𝑑t,$$
(39)
we can modify Eq. (37) as

$`V_l^N(p,p^{})`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi {\displaystyle _1^1}V^N(𝐪)P_l(\mathrm{cos}\theta )d\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ (40)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _N}{\pi }}\underset{\eta 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{^{N+1}}{\eta ^{N+1}}}{\displaystyle _1^1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2+\eta ^2}}P_l(\mathrm{cos}\theta )d\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ (41)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _N}{\pi }}\underset{\eta 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{^{N+1}}{\eta ^{N+1}}}{\displaystyle _1^1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^2+p^22p^{}p\mathrm{cos}\theta +\eta ^2}}P_l(\mathrm{cos}\theta )d\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ (42)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _N}{\pi }}\underset{\eta 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{^{N+1}}{\eta ^{N+1}}}{\displaystyle _1^1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2p^{}p(y\mathrm{cos}\theta )}}P_l(\mathrm{cos}\theta )d\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ (43)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _N}{\pi }}\underset{\eta 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{^{N+1}}{\eta ^{N+1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_l(y)}{p^{}p}}.`$ (44)
The coulomb potential corresponds to $`N=1`$ and has the form

$$V_l^C(p,p^{})=\frac{\lambda _C}{\pi }\underset{\eta 0}{lim}\frac{Q_l(y)}{p^{}p}.$$
(45)
The linear potential corresponds to $`N=1`$ and has the form

$`V_l^L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _L}{\pi }}\underset{\eta 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\eta ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_l(y)}{p^{}p}}`$ (46)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _L}{\pi }}\underset{\eta 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\eta }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{(p^{}p)^2}}Q_l^{}(y)\right]`$ (47)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _L}{\pi }}\underset{\eta 0}{lim}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{Q_l^{}(y)}{(p^{}p)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2}{(p^{}p)^3}}Q_l^{\prime \prime }(y)\right].`$ (48)
There are 3 useful relations in terms of Legendre polynomials of the 2nd kind :

$`Q_0(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{y+1}{y1}}\right|,`$ (49)
$`Q_l(y)`$ $`=`$ $`P_l(y)Q_0(y)w_{l1}(y),`$ (50)
$`w_{l1}(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{l}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}P_{lm}(y)P_{m1}(y).`$ (51)
The singularities of $`V_l^C(p,p^{})`$ and $`V_l^L(p,p^{})`$ come from the singularies of $`Q_l(y)`$ and $`Q_l^{\prime \prime }(y)`$. From Eq. (50), it is obvious that the singularities of $`Q_l(y)`$ and $`Q_l^{\prime \prime }(y)`$ again come from those of $`Q_0(y)`$, $`Q_0^{}(y)`$ and $`Q_0^{\prime \prime }(y)`$. In order to treat the singularities of the momentum space Cornell potential, we need to control the singularities of $`Q_0(y)`$, $`Q_0^{}(y)`$ and $`Q_0^{\prime \prime }(y)`$ first and foremost. Substitute Eq. (38) into Eq. (49), we have

$$Q_0(y)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{(p+p^{})^2+\eta ^2}{(pp^{})^2+\eta ^2}\right].$$
(52)
Differentiating Eq. (52) yields

$`Q_0^{}(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{y}}\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{y+1}{y1}}\right|`$ (53)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y+1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y1}}\right]`$ (54)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1y^2}}`$ (55)
$`=`$ $`p^{}p\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(p+p^{})^2+\eta ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(pp^{})^2+\eta ^2}}\right]`$ (56)
Differentiating again gives

$`Q_0^{\prime \prime }(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2y}{(1y^2)^2}}`$ (57)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p^2+p^2+\eta ^2}{p^{}p}}\left[p^{}p\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{(p+p^{})^2+\eta ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(pp^{})^2+\eta ^2}}\right)\right]^2,`$ (58)
or

$$\frac{\eta ^2}{p^{}p}Q_0^{\prime \prime }(y)=\eta ^2\left(p^2+p^2+\eta ^2\right)\left[\frac{1}{(p+p^{})^2+\eta ^2}\frac{1}{(pp^{})^2+\eta ^2}\right]^2.$$
(59)
There are two useful identities which we want to prove:

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{p^{}}Q_0(y,\eta =0)𝑑p^{}=\frac{\pi ^2}{2},$$
(60)
$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\left[\frac{\eta ^2}{p^{}p}Q_0^{\prime \prime }(y)+Q_0^{}(y)\right]𝑑p^{}=0.$$
(61)
Proof:
The integral in Eq.  is derived as follow:

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^{}}}Q_0(y,\eta =0)𝑑p^{}`$ (62)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^{}}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p+p^{}}{pp^{}}}\right)^2dp^{}`$ (63)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[{\displaystyle _0^a}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x+a}{xa}}\right)^2dx+{\displaystyle _a^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x+a}{xa}}\right)^2dx]`$ (64)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _a^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a+x}{ax}}\right)𝑑x+{\displaystyle _a^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x+a}{xa}}\right)𝑑x`$ (65)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ae^u}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a+ae^u}{aae^u}}\right)ae^u𝑑u+{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ae^u}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ae^u+a}{ae^ua}}\right)ae^u𝑑u`$ (66)
$`=`$ $`2\left[{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+e^u}{1e^u}}\right)𝑑u\right]`$ (67)
$`=`$ $`2\left[{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{ln}(1+e^u)𝑑u{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{ln}(1e^u)𝑑u\right]`$ (68)
$`=`$ $`2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{12}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}\right]`$ (69)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{2}}`$ (70)
The results of Eq.  come from relations BI((256))(10) and BI((256))(11) in Gradshteyn and Ryzhik .

Eq.  has 4 simple poles: $`\alpha =p+i\eta `$, $`\alpha ^{}`$, $`\beta =p+i\eta `$ and $`\beta ^{}`$. $`Q_0^{}(y)`$ can be rewritten as

$$Q_0^{}(y)=p^{}p\left[\frac{1}{(p^{}\alpha )(p^{}\alpha ^{})}+\frac{1}{(p^{}\beta )(p^{}\beta ^{})}\right]$$
(71)
The contour integral $`Q_0^{}(y)𝑑z`$ over the upper complex plane has 2 residues: $`Res(\alpha )`$ and $`Res(\beta )`$. Use the formula $`Res(z_0)=lim_{zz_0}(zz_0)f(z)`$ to calculate these residues,

$`Res(\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{p^{}\alpha }{lim}p^{}p\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^{}\alpha ^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p^{}\alpha }{(p^{}\beta )(p^{}\beta ^{})}}\right]`$ (72)
$`=`$ $`p(p+i\eta )\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i\eta }}+0\right]`$ (73)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p(p+i\eta )}{2i\eta }},`$ (74)
$`Res(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{p^{}\beta }{lim}p^{}p\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(p^{}\beta )}{(p^{}\alpha )(p^{}\alpha ^{})}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(p^{}\beta ^{})}}\right]`$ (75)
$`=`$ $`p(p+i\eta )\left[0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i\eta }}\right]`$ (76)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p(p+i\eta )}{2i\eta }},`$ (77)
$`Res(\alpha )+Res(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p(p+i\eta )}{2i\eta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{p(p+i\eta )}{2i\eta }}`$ (78)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{i\eta }}.`$ (79)
Since the contour at infinity is zero and $`Q_0^{}(y)`$ along the real axis is symmetric around the origin, we obtain

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}Q_0^{}(y)𝑑p^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle Q_0^{}(y)𝑑z}`$ (80)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(2\pi i{\displaystyle Res}\right)`$ (81)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi p^2}{\eta }}.`$ (82)
$`(\eta ^2/p^{}p)Q_0^{\prime \prime }(y)`$ has the same poles as $`Q_0^{}(y)`$ but of order 2. Residues of order $`m`$ are calculated by the formula

$$Res(z_0)=\underset{zz_0}{lim}\frac{1}{(m1)!}\frac{d^{m1}}{dz^{m1}}(zz_0)^mf(z).$$
(83)
Again we can simplify the algebra by rewriting Eq.  as

$$\frac{\eta ^2}{p^{}p}Q_0^{\prime \prime }(y)=\eta ^2\left(p^2+p^2+\eta ^2\right)\left[\frac{1}{(p^{}\alpha )(p^{}\alpha ^{})}+\frac{1}{(p^{}\beta )(p^{}\beta ^{})}\right]^2.$$
(84)
The residues are

$`Res(\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{p^{}\alpha }{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dp^{}}}\eta ^2\left(p^2+p^2+\eta ^2\right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(p^{}\alpha ^{})}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p^{}\alpha }{(p^{}\beta )(p^{}\beta ^{})}}\right]^2`$ (85)
$`=`$ $`\eta ^2\left\{2(p+i\eta )\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i\eta }}\right]^2+4p(p+i\eta )\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i\eta }}\right]\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2i\eta )^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2p(2p+2i\eta )}}\right]\right\}`$ (86)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2}{2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{p}{\eta ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\eta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{i\eta ^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p}{\eta ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\eta }}\right\}`$ (87)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2i\eta }},`$ (88)
$`Res(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{p^{}\beta }{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dp^{}}}\eta ^2\left(p^2+p^2+\eta ^2\right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(p^{}\beta )}{(p^{}\alpha )(p^{}\alpha ^{})}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^{}\beta ^{}}}\right]^2`$ (89)
$`=`$ $`\eta ^2\left\{2(pi\eta )\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i\eta }}\right]^2+4p(pi\eta )\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i\eta }}\right]\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2i\eta )^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2p(2p+2i\eta )}}\right]\right\}`$ (90)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2}{2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{p}{\eta ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\eta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{i\eta ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{p}{\eta ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\eta }}\right\}`$ (91)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2i\eta }}.`$ (92)
Hence the sum of residues is

$`Res(\alpha )+Res(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2i\eta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2i\eta }}`$ (93)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{i\eta }}`$ (94)
Since $`(\eta ^2/p^{}p)Q_0^{\prime \prime }(y)`$ is symmetric around the origin, we can integrate along the same contour as before and obtain

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2}{p^{}p}}Q_0^{\prime \prime }(y)𝑑p^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2}{pz}Q_0^{\prime \prime }(y)𝑑z}`$ (95)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(2\pi i{\displaystyle Res}\right)`$ (96)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi p^2}{\eta }}.`$ (97)
From these results, it is obvious that Eq.  is true. The proof is complete.

A simple example is the momentum space Schrödinger equation with a linear potential in the $`S`$-state ,

$$\frac{p^2}{2\mu }\varphi _{n0}(p)+\frac{\lambda _L}{\pi p^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\underset{V_0^L(p,p^{})}{\underset{}{\left[\frac{\eta ^2}{p^{}p}Q_0^{\prime \prime }(y)+Q_0^{}(y)\right]}}\varphi _{n0}(p^{})𝑑p^{}=E_{n0}\varphi _{n0}(p),$$
(98)
where $`y=(p^2+p^2)/2p^{}p`$. Lande subtraction  involves subtracting a zero term

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\left[\frac{\eta ^2}{p^{}p}Q_0^{\prime \prime }(y)+Q_0^{}(y)\right]𝑑p^{}=0$$
(99)
from Eq.  such that

$$\frac{p^2}{2\mu }\varphi _{n0}(p)+\frac{\lambda _L}{\pi p^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\left[\frac{\eta ^2}{p^{}p}Q_0^{\prime \prime }(y)+Q_0^{}(y)\right][\varphi _{n0}(p^{})\varphi _{n0}(p)]𝑑p^{}=E_{n0}\varphi _{n0}(p).$$
(100)
Using Eqs. , the integral in Eq.  for $`p>0`$ in the limit of $`y1`$ can be shown to equal

$$\underset{\eta 0}{lim}\underset{pp^{}}{lim}\frac{\lambda _L}{\pi }\left[2\eta ^2\left(\frac{1}{(pp^{})^2+\eta ^2}\right)^2\frac{1}{(pp^{})^2+\eta ^2}\right](pp^{})^2\frac{d\varphi _{n0}}{dp}=0.$$
(101)
The order of the limits in Eq.  is important. The reverse order will lead to the nonsensical result $`Q_0^{}(y)𝑑p^{}=0`$. Next, in the limit of $`p,p^{}0`$, $`(p+p^{})^2=(pp)^2`$. By substituting this equality into Eqs. , it can be shown again that the integral in Eq.  vanishes for $`p0`$ at $`y=1`$. At the end, the integral vanishes at $`y=1,p`$. Away from the singularities, both integrands in the integral of Eq.  are finite. By taking $`\eta 0`$, the first integrand vanishes. The final form of Eq.  is

$$\frac{p^2}{2\mu }\varphi _{n0}(p)+\frac{\lambda _L}{\pi p^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}Q_0^{}(y)[\varphi _{n0}(p^{})\varphi _{n0}(p)]𝑑p^{}=E_{n0}\varphi _{n0}(p),$$
(102)
where $`Q_0^{}(y)=1/(1y^2)`$.

The momentum space NRSE with a coulomb potential is given as

$$\frac{p^2}{2\mu }\varphi _{nl}(p)+\frac{\lambda _C}{\pi p}_0^{\mathrm{}}P_l(y)\frac{Q_0(y)}{p^{}}\varphi _{nl}(p^{})p^2𝑑p^{}\frac{\lambda _C}{\pi p}_0^{\mathrm{}}w_{l1}(y)\varphi _{nl}(p^{})p^{}𝑑p^{}=E_{nl}\varphi _{nl}(p).$$
(103)
Use Eq.  to subtract out the logarithmic singularity and obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2\mu }}\varphi _{nl}(p)+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _C}{\pi p}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}P_l(y){\displaystyle \frac{Q_0(y)}{p^{}}}\left[p^2\varphi _{nl}(p^{}){\displaystyle \frac{p^2\varphi _{nl}(p)}{P_l(y)}}\right]𝑑p^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _C}{\pi p}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{2}}p^2\varphi _{nl}(p)\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _C}{\pi p}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}w_{l1}(y)\varphi _{nl}(p^{})p^{}𝑑p^{}=E_{nl}\varphi _{nl}(p).`$ (104)
Before we perform Lande subtraction on the NRSE with a confining potential, we need the identity

$$P_l^{}(1)=\frac{l(l+1)}{2}.$$
(105)
Proof:
We use the recursion relation $`xP_x^{}P_{l1}^{}(x)=lP_l(x)`$, the equality $`P_l(1)=1`$ to obtain the following relations:

$`P_l^{}(1)P_{l1}^{}(1)`$ $`=`$ $`l`$
$`P_{l1}^{}(1)P_{l2}^{}(1)`$ $`=`$ $`l1`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
$`P_2^{}(1)P_1^{}(1)`$ $`=`$ $`2`$
$`P_1^{}(1)P_0^{}(1)`$ $`=`$ $`1.`$ (106)
Add these relations and use $`P_0(x)=1`$ or $`P_0^{}(x)=0`$, we prove Eq. . Next we want to examine the singularities of $`Q_l^{}(y)`$ and $`Q_l^{\prime \prime }(y)`$. Differentiating Eq.  once and twice, we have

$`Q_l^{}`$ $`=`$ $`P_l^{}Q_0+P_lQ_0^{}w_{l1}^{},`$ (107)
$`Q_l^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`P_l^{\prime \prime }Q_0+2P_l^{}Q_0^{}+P_lQ_0^{\prime \prime }w_{l1}^{\prime \prime }.`$ (108)
$`\eta ^2P_l^{\prime \prime }Q_0`$, $`\eta ^2P_l^{}Q_0^{}`$ and $`\eta ^2w_{l1}^{\prime \prime }`$ vanish in the limit of $`\eta 0`$. The momentum space confining potential is

$$V_l^L(p^{},p)=\frac{\lambda _L}{\pi }\underset{\eta 0}{lim}\left\{P_l(y)\left[\frac{\eta ^2}{(p^{}p)^3}Q_0^{\prime \prime }(y)+\frac{Q_0^{}(y)}{(p^{}p)^2}\right]+\frac{P_l^{}(y)Q_0(y)w_{l1}^{}(y)}{(p^{}p)^2}\right\}.$$
(109)
Lastly, perform Lande subtraction and use Eq. . Take the limit of $`\eta =0`$, we derive the momentum space NRSE with a confining potential as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2\mu }}\varphi _{nl}(p)+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _L}{\pi p^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}P_l(y)Q_0^{}(y)\left[\varphi _{nl}(p^{}){\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _{nl}(p)}{P_l(y)}}\right]𝑑p^{}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _L}{\pi p^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}P_l^{}(y){\displaystyle \frac{Q_0(y)}{p^{}}}\left[p^{}\varphi _{nl}(p^{}){\displaystyle \frac{l(l+1)}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{p\varphi _{nl}(p)}{P_l^{}(y)}}\right]𝑑p^{}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _L}{\pi p^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{l(l+1)}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{2}}p\varphi _{nl}(p)\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _L}{\pi p^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}w_{l1}^{}(y)\varphi _{nl}(p^{})𝑑p^{}=E_{nl}\varphi _{nl}(p).`$ (110)
## 2 Exact Solution of NRSE with a Linear Potential

In the next section, we are going to solve the NRSE numerically with a linear potential. In this section, we will solve the same equation exactly so that we can use the analytic results to check their numerical counterparts. The Hamiltonian equation can be written as

$$\left(\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+\frac{2}{r}\frac{d}{dr}\right)R2\mu [\lambda _LrE]R=0.$$
(111)
Let $`SrR`$, then Eq.  can be simplified as

$$\frac{d^2}{dr^2}S2\mu [\lambda _LrE]S=0.$$
(112)
If we define as new variable

$$x\left(\frac{2\mu }{\lambda _L}^2\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}[\lambda _LrE],$$
(113)
Eq.  can be transformed as

$$S^{\prime \prime }xS=0,$$
(114)
which is the Airy equation. The solution which satisfies the boundary condition of $`S0`$ as $`x\mathrm{}`$ is the Airy function $`\mathrm{Ai}(x)`$. Fig.  illustrates the graph of the Airy function. By noticing that $`SrR`$ vanishes at $`r=0`$, we infer that $`S(r=0)`$ must coincide with a zero of $`\mathrm{Ai}(x)`$. It is made possible by letting the eigen-energy act as a horizontal shift which shifts the origin to the left along the $`x`$-axis. If $`S`$ is plotted against $`r`$ instead of $`x`$, $`S`$ will vanish at the origin if $`E_n`$ is chosen appropriately. This conclusion leads to the eigen-energy formula

$$E_n=x_n\left(\frac{\lambda _L^2}{2\mu }\right)^{\frac{1}{3}},$$
(115)
where $`x_n`$ is the $`n`$-th zero of the Airy function counting from $`x=0`$ along $`x`$.

In Norbury *et. al.*’s  paper, the values $`\lambda _L=5`$ and $`\mu =0.75`$ are used. The eigen-energy formula is

$$E_n=2.554364772x_n.$$
(116)
Table 1 lists the zeros of the Airy function and the corresponding exact eigen-energies.

## 3 Conclusion

The $`p`$-space formalism shown in this paper can be applied to any arbitrary potential in principle although only the cases of $`n=1,1`$ in $`r^n`$ are considered in this paper. More complicated potentials require the calculation of integrals involving other powers of $`r`$. The potential involving the coupling constant $`\alpha (r)`$ in QCD near the asymptotic freedom region is such an example. In these cases, we may need to reply on numerical integration to evaluate the integrals of the Lande subtraction terms.


format: text

text:
# I Introduction

## I Introduction

The possible breaking of parton model symmetries by the nucleon’s quark distribution functions has been a topic of great interest since the experimental discoveries that the Ellis-Jaffe  and Gottfried  sum rules are violated. In particular, the flavour asymmetry in the nucleon sea ($`\overline{d}>\overline{u}`$) has been confirmed by several experiments , and the $`x`$-dependence of this asymmetry has been investigated. This asymmetry can be naturally explained in the meson cloud model, in which the physical nucleon wave function contains many virtual meson-baryon components, and the valence anti-quark in the meson contributes (via a convolution) to the anti-quark distributions in the proton sea. Since the probability of the Fock state $`|n\pi ^+`$ is larger than that of the $`|\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}\pi ^{}`$ state in the proton wave function, the asymmetry $`\overline{d}>\overline{u}`$ emerges naturally in the proton sea. There have been many theoretical investigations (see e. g.  and references therein) on this subject.

Recently there has been increasing interest in the question of whether this asymmetry extends also to the polarized sea distributions i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)`$. Such a polarized sea asymmetry would make a direct contribution to the Bjorken sum rule. Although well established experimental evidence for a polarized sea asymmetry is still lacking, some experimental studies have been done . Moreover several parameterizations  for the polarized parton distributions arising from fits of the world data from polarized experiments leave open the possibility of this asymmetry. There have also been some theoretical studies on this asymmetry. In Ref. , the polarized sea asymmetries are calculated in the chiral quark-soliton model (using the large-$`N_C`$ limit). Sizable results for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)+\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)2\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{s}(x)`$ were found, and it was further predicted that the flavour asymmetry of the polarized sea distributions is larger than that of the unpolarized sea distributions, i.e. $`\left|\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)\right|>\left|\overline{d}(x)\overline{u}(x)\right|`$. Such sizeable asymmetries would make an important contribution (around 20%) to the Bjorken sum rule. Fries and Schäfer  calculated the non-strange polarized sea asymmetry by considering the $`\rho `$ meson cloud in the meson cloud model. Their prediction for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)`$ is more than one order of magnitude smaller than the result from the chiral quark-soliton model. Boreskov and Kaidalov  analysed this asymmetry by calculating the Regge cut contribution to the imaginary part of the high-energy photon-nucleon scattering amplitude. They found that the interference between the amplitudes for the photon coupling to a pion or to a rho meson can provide a sizable polarized anti-quark asymmetry in the small $`x`$ region. This asymmetry has also been discussed in the instanton model  and a statistical model  for the parton distributions of the nucleon.

In this paper we investigate the flavour asymmetry of the non-strange polarized anti-quarks using the meson cloud model. We include both the vector meson cloud and the interference terms of the pseudoscalar and the vector mesons. Such interference terms appear naturally in the meson cloud model. In section II, we derive the formulas in the meson cloud model to calculate the flavour asymmetry of non-strange polarized anti-quark distributions. The numerical results are given in section III along with discussion. In section IV we discuss how a contribution to the flavour asymmetry can arise from the Fermion nature of the quarks, often called Pauli blocking. Section V is a summary.

## II Flavour asymmetry in the meson cloud model

In the meson cloud model (MCM) the nucleon can be viewed as a bare nucleon plus some meson-baryon Fock states which result from the fluctuation $`NMB`$. The wavefunction of the nucleon can be written as ,

$`|N_{\mathrm{physical}}=Z|N_{\mathrm{bare}}+{\displaystyle \underset{MB}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda \lambda ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑yd^2𝐤_{}\varphi _{MB}^{\lambda \lambda ^{}}(y,k_{}^2)|M^\lambda (y,𝐤_{});B^\lambda ^{}(1y,𝐤_{})}`$ (1)
where $`Z`$ is the wave function renormalization constant, $`\varphi _{MB}^{\lambda \lambda ^{}}(y,k_{}^2)`$ is the wave function of the Fock state containing a meson ($`M`$) with longitudinal momentum fraction $`y`$, transverse momentum $`𝐤_{}`$, and helicity $`\lambda `$, and a baryon ($`B`$) with momentum fraction $`1y`$, transverse momentum $`𝐤_{}`$, and helicity $`\lambda ^{}`$. The model assumes that the lifetime of a virtual baryon-meson Fock state is much larger than the interaction time in the deep inelastic or Drell-Yan process, thus the quark and anti-quark in the virtual meson-baryon Fock states can contribute to the parton distributions of the nucleon. For spin independent parton distributions these non-perturbative contribution can usually be expressed as a convolution of fluctuation functions with the valance parton distributions in the meson and/or baryon. For polarised parton distributions in the model it is necessary to include all the terms which can lead to the same final state . This allows the possibility of interference terms between different terms in the nucleon wavefunction eq. (1). The effect of interference between $`N\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\pi `$ terms on polarised quark distributions was calculated in . For polarised anti-quark distributions the interference will be between terms with different mesons and the same baryon e.g. $`N\pi `$ and $`N\rho `$, see Fig. 1.

We can write the total meson cloud contribution to the distribution of anti-quarks of a given flavour with helicity $`\sigma `$ as

$`x\delta \overline{q}^\sigma (x)={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}{\displaystyle _x^1}𝑑yf_{(M_1M_2)B/N}^\lambda (y){\displaystyle \frac{x}{y}}\overline{q}_{(M_1M_2)\lambda }^\sigma ({\displaystyle \frac{x}{y}})`$ (2)
where

$`f_{(M_1M_2)B/N}^\lambda (y)={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k_{}^2\varphi _{M_1B}^{\lambda \lambda ^{}}(y,k_{}^2)\varphi _{M_2B}^{\lambda \lambda ^{}}(y,k_{}^2),`$ (3)
is the helicity dependent fluctuation function. The second meson ($`M_2`$) could be the same as or different from the first meson ($`M_1`$).

For simplicity we denote Eq. (2) as

$`x\delta \overline{q}^\sigma ={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}f_{(M_1M_2)B/N}^\lambda \overline{q}_{(M_1M_2)\lambda }^\sigma .`$ (4)
The two mesons appearing in Eq. (4) may be both vector mesons ($`V`$) or one pseudoscalar meson ($`P`$) plus one vector meson ($`V`$), that is

$`x\delta \overline{q}^\sigma ={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda =0,\pm 1}{}}f_{VB/N}^\lambda \overline{q}_{V_\lambda }^\sigma +{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda =0,\pm 1}{}}f_{(V_1V_2)B/N}^\lambda \overline{q}_{(V_1V_2)_\lambda }^\sigma +{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda =0}{}}f_{(PV)B/N}^0\overline{q}_{(PV)_0}^\sigma .`$ (5)
Observing that (see the discussion below)

$`\overline{q}_{(V_1V_2)_1}^{}=\overline{q}_{(V_1V_2)_1}^{},`$ $`\overline{q}_{(V_1V_2)_1}^{}=\overline{q}_{(V_1V_2)_1}^{},`$ (6)
$`\overline{q}_{(V_1V_2)_0}^{}=\overline{q}_{(V_1V_2)_0}^{},`$ $`\overline{q}_{(PV)_0}^{}\overline{q}_{(PV)_0}^{},`$ (7)
and denoting

$`\mathrm{\Delta }f_{(V_1V_2)B/N}=f_{(V_1V_2)B/N}^1f_{(V_1V_2)B/N}^1`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{q}_{V_1V_2}=\overline{q}_{(V_1V_2)_1}^{}\overline{q}_{(V_1V_2)_1}^{},\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{q}_{(PV)_0}=\overline{q}_{(PV)_0}^{}\overline{q}_{(PV)_0}^{}`$ (9)
we have

$`x(\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{q})`$ $`=`$ $`x\delta \overline{q}^{}x\delta \overline{q}^{}`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }f_{VB/N}\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{q}_V+\mathrm{\Delta }f_{(V_1V_2)B/N}\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{q}_{V_1V_2}+\mathrm{\Delta }f_{(PV)B/N}\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{q}_{PV}.`$ (11)
The first term in Eq. (11) comes from the vector meson cloud, which has been considered in . The second and third terms, which are first included in this study, result from the interference between terms with two different vector mesons ($`\rho ,\omega `$) and between terms with a vector meson ($`\rho ,\omega `$) and a pseudoscalar meson ($`\pi `$) respectively. Eq. (11) explicitly shows the existence of the interference contributions. We would like to point out that the above interference terms do not contribute to the unpolarized parton distributions due to the flavour-spin structure of the $`SU(6)`$ wavefunction. For example, the $`\pi ^+`$-$`\rho ^+`$ interference term contributes to $`\overline{d}^{}`$ and $`\overline{d}^{}`$ with equal magnitude but opposite sign (see the below expressions for the wave functions), so the result is zero when the helicities are summed up. The $`SU(6)`$ wavefunction also leads to a zero contribution to the polarised anti-quark distribution from $`\pi `$-$`\eta `$ interference terms.

The interference distributions ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{q}_{\rho \omega },\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{q}_{\pi \rho },\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{q}_{\pi ,\omega },q=u,d`$) do not have the same straightforward interpretation as the quark distributions. However using the quark model with $`SU(6)`$ wavefunctions we can relate these distributions to the polarised anti-quark distributions of the vector mesons. In the quark model, the valence wavefunctions of the $`\pi ,\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ mesons can be written as ,

$`|\pi ^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\overline{d}^{}u^{}\overline{d}^{}u^{})\psi _\pi (x,k_{}),`$ (12)
$`|\pi ^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\overline{u}^{}u^{}\overline{u}^{}u^{}\overline{d}^{}d^{}+\overline{d}^{}d_{}^{}{}_{)}{}^{}\psi _\pi (x,k_{}),`$ (13)
$`|\pi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\overline{u}^{}d^{}\overline{u}^{}d^{})\psi _\pi (x,k_{}),`$ (14)
$`|\rho ^+^{1,1}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{d}^{}u^{}\psi _\rho (x,k_{}),`$ (15)
$`|\rho ^+^{1,0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\overline{d}^{}u^{}+\overline{d}^{}u^{})\psi _\rho (x,k_{}),`$ (16)
$`|\rho ^+^{1,1}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{d}^{}u^{}\psi _\rho (x,k_{}),`$ (17)
$`|\rho ^0^{1,1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\overline{u}^{}u^{}\overline{d}^{}d^{})\psi _\rho (x,k_{}),`$ (18)
$`|\rho ^0^{1,0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\overline{u}^{}u^{}+\overline{u}^{}u^{}\overline{d}^{}d^{}\overline{d}^{}d^{})\psi _\rho (x,k_{}),`$ (19)
$`|\rho ^0^{1,1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\overline{u}^{}u^{}\overline{d}^{}d^{})\psi _\rho (x,k_{}),`$ (20)
$`|\rho ^{}^{1,1}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}^{}d^{}\psi _\rho (x,k_{}),`$ (21)
$`|\rho ^{}^{1,0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\overline{u}^{}d^{}+\overline{u}^{}d^{})\psi _\rho (x,k_{}),`$ (22)
$`|\rho ^{}^{1,1}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}^{}d^{}\psi _\rho (x,k_{}),`$ (23)
$`|\omega ^{1,1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\overline{u}^{}u^{}+\overline{d}^{}d^{})\psi _\omega (x,k_{}),`$ (24)
$`|\omega ^{1,0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\overline{u}^{}u^{}+\overline{u}^{}u^{}+\overline{d}^{}d^{}+\overline{d}^{}d^{})\psi _\omega (x,k_{}),`$ (25)
$`|\omega ^{1,1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\overline{u}^{}u^{}+\overline{d}^{}d^{})\psi _\omega (x,k_{}),`$ (26)
where $`\psi _M(x,k_{})`$ is a two-body light-cone wave function. The $`\omega `$ meson has been treated as an ideal mixture of an octet and a singlet. Note that the distribution $`\varphi (x)=d^2𝐤_{}|\psi (x,k_{})|^2`$ is not the “true” parton distribution since only the lowest Fock state is considered and the normalization condition is not satisfied ($`_0^1\varphi (x)<1`$). Employing the above wave functions and assuming $`\psi _\pi (x,k_{})=\psi _\rho (x,k_{})=\psi _\omega (x,k_{})`$, we can obtain the following relations between the polarized anti-quark distributions and the interference distributions,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}_{\rho ^+}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}_\rho ^{}=2\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}_{\rho ^0}=2\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}_{\rho ^0}=2\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}_\omega =2\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}_\omega =\varphi (x),`$ (27)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}_{\rho ^0\omega }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}_{\rho ^0\omega }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi (x),`$ (28)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}_{(\pi ^+\rho ^+)_0}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}_{(\pi ^{}\rho ^{})_0}=2\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}_{(\pi ^0\rho ^0)_0}=2\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}_{(\pi ^0\rho ^0)_0}=\varphi (x),`$ (29)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}_{(\pi ^0\omega )_0}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}_{(\pi ^0\omega )_0}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi (x).`$ (30)
Although the above relations are derived from the quark model and by considering only the lowest Fock states, we will assume they hold for the full wavefunction. Thus the distribution $`\varphi (x)`$ can be replaced with the polarized parton distribution $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_\rho =\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}_{\rho ^+}=\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}_\rho ^{}`$ which, in principle, can be measured experimentally. We adopt two prescriptions to obtain the $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_\rho `$ distribution: (i) employing the MIT bag model and (ii) adopting the ansatz used in , i.e. relating it to the valence quark distribution of the $`\pi `$ meson inspired by the lattice calculation of the first moments of the polarized and unpolarized parton distributions of the $`\rho `$ meson.

We will consider the fluctuations $`pN\pi ,N\rho ,N\omega `$ and $`p\mathrm{\Delta }\pi ,\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$. We neglect the fluctuation $`p\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$ as this fluctuation is forbidden by isospin. The following relations exist for the fluctuation functions ,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }f_{\rho ^+n/p}=2\mathrm{\Delta }f_{\rho ^0p/p}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{\Delta }f_{\rho N/N},`$ (31)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }f_{\rho ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}/p}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }f_{\rho ^0\mathrm{\Delta }^+/p}=3\mathrm{\Delta }f_{\rho ^+\mathrm{\Delta }^0/p}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }f_{\rho \mathrm{\Delta }/N},`$ (32)
$`f_{(\pi ^+\rho ^+)n/p}=2f_{(\pi ^0\rho ^0)p/p}=f_{(\pi \rho )N/N},`$ (33)
$`f_{(\pi ^{}\rho ^{})\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}/p}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}f_{(\pi ^0\rho ^0)\mathrm{\Delta }^+/p}=3f_{(\pi ^+\rho ^+)\mathrm{\Delta }^0/p}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f_{(\pi \rho )\mathrm{\Delta }/N}.`$ (34)
Using Eqs. (30) and (34) we can obtain from Eq. (11),

$`x(\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u})`$ $`=`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{\Delta }f_{\rho N/N}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{\Delta }f_{\rho \mathrm{\Delta }/N}]\mathrm{\Delta }v_\rho `$ (35)
$`+[\mathrm{\Delta }f_{(\rho ^0\omega )p/p}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}f_{(\pi \rho )N/N}^0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}f_{(\pi \rho )\mathrm{\Delta }/N}^0f_{(\pi ^0\omega )p/p}^0]\mathrm{\Delta }v_\rho `$ (36)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }f_\rho \mathrm{\Delta }v_\rho +\mathrm{\Delta }f_{int}\mathrm{\Delta }v_\rho .`$ (37)
The first term is the same as the result given in . We note that there are no contributions directly from the $`\omega `$ meson due to its charge structure. The second term is the interference contribution.

Now we turn to the calculation of the fluctuation functions. The fluctuation $`NMB`$ is described by the effective interaction Lagrangians ,

$`_{NN\pi }`$ $`=`$ $`ig_{NN\pi }\overline{N}\gamma _5\pi N`$ (38)
$`_{N\mathrm{\Delta }\pi }`$ $`=`$ $`f_{N\mathrm{\Delta }\pi }\overline{N}_\mu \pi \mathrm{\Delta }^\mu +\text{h.c.},`$ (39)
$`_{NNV}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{NNV}\overline{N}\gamma _\mu \theta ^\mu N+f_{NNV}\overline{N}\sigma _{\mu \nu }N(^\mu \theta ^\nu ^\nu \theta ^\mu )`$ (40)
$`_{N\mathrm{\Delta }\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`f_{N\mathrm{\Delta }\rho }i\overline{N}\gamma _5\gamma _\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_\nu (^\mu \theta ^\nu ^\nu \theta ^\mu )+\text{h.c.},`$ (41)
where $`N`$ is a spin-1/2 field, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ a spin-3/2 field of Rarita-Schwinger form, $`\pi `$ a pseudoscalar field, and $`\theta `$ a vector field. The coupling constants are taken to be ,

$`g_{NN\pi }^2/4\pi =13.6,`$ (42)
$`g_{NN\rho }^2/4\pi =0.84,`$ $`f_{NN\rho }/g_{NN\rho }=6.1/4m_N,`$ (43)
$`g_{NN\omega }^2/4\pi =8.1,`$ $`f_{NN\omega }/g_{NN\omega }=0,`$ (44)
$`f_{N\mathrm{\Delta }\pi }^2/4\pi =12.3\mathrm{GeV}^2,`$ $`f_{N\mathrm{\Delta }\rho }^2/4\pi =34.5\mathrm{GeV}^2.`$ (45)
The amplitudes $`\varphi _{MB}^{\lambda \lambda ^{}}(y,k_{}^2)`$ which essentially determine the fluctuation function (see Eq. (3)) are calculated by using time-ordered perturbation theory in the infinite momentum frame,

$`\varphi _{MB}^{\lambda \lambda ^{}}(y,k_{}^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{y(1y)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{m_Nm_B}V_{IMF}^{\lambda \lambda ^{}}(y,k_{}^2)G_{MB}(y,k_{}^2)}{m_N^2m_{MB}^2(y,k_{}^2)}},`$ (46)
where $`m_{MB}^2`$ is the invariant mass squared of the $`MB`$ Fock state,

$`m_{MB}^2(y,k_{}^2)={\displaystyle \frac{m_M^2+k_{}^2}{y}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_B^2+k_{}^2}{1y}}.`$ (47)
As usual a phenomenological vertex form factor, $`G_{MB}(y,k_{}^2)`$ is introduced to describe the unknown dynamics of the fluctuation $`NMB`$. Here we adopt the exponential form,

$`G_{MB}(y,k_{}^2)=exp\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m_N^2m_{MB}(y,k_{}^2)}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right],`$ (48)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a cut-off parameter. We adopt $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{oct}=1.08`$ GeV and and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{dec}=0.98`$ GeV for the fluctuations involving the octet and decuplet baryons respectively . This form factor satisfies the relation $`G_{MB}(y,k_{}^2)=G_{BM}(1y,k_{}^2)`$.

We note that there are two prescriptions for calculating the vertex functions $`V_{IMF}`$, depending on the manner in which the meson energy is treated. In this work we follow the prescription used in reference  i.e. the meson energy in the vertex is $`E_NE_B`$, which is called method (B) in reference . The expressions for the various fluctuation functions in Eq. (37) are given in the Appendix. These expressions agree with the vertex functions given in , but differ from those given in the appendix of  in the following ways: 1) The terms proportional to $`f_{NN\rho }g_{NN\rho }`$ in $`f_{\rho N/N}^\lambda (y)`$ have the opposite sign; 2) Our results for $`f_{\rho \mathrm{\Delta }/N}^\lambda (y)`$ agree with the results of method (A) in  (Eqs. (24) and (26) in the appendix of ), rather than the results of method (B). Finally we note that adopting the alternative method (method (A) of ) leads to somewhat smaller values of $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u})`$, but does not change our conclusions significantly.

There is little experimental information on the parton distributions of the vector meson. Although it is common practice to set the unpolarized parton distribution of the $`\rho `$ meson the same as that of the pion, the study of the polarized parton distribution of the $`\rho `$ meson is lacking both in experiment and theory. The lattice calculation  finds that the polarization of the $`\rho `$ meson is about $`60\%`$. So the ansatz $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_\rho (x)=0.6v_\pi (x)`$ was used in . We note that the lattice prediction of $`60\%`$ polarization is for the ratio of the first moments of the polarized and unpolarized parton distributions, i.e. $`_0^1\mathrm{\Delta }v_\rho (x)=0.6_0^1v_\rho (x)`$ and it is quite possible that the $`x`$-dependence of the polarized parton distribution may be different from that of the unpolarized one.

As an alternative hypothesis for the $`x`$-dependence of the polarized parton distribution, we employ a non-perturbative model of hadrons – the MIT bag model . The bag model has been shown to be a useful tool in the study of the non-perturbative structure of hadrons (e.g., mass spectrum, parton distribution). The theoretical calculations  of the parton distributions of the nucleon, including meson cloud contributions, can give results consistent with the experimental data. An interesting aspect of the bag model calculation is that it can be generalised to provide useful information on the parton distributions of the other hadrons. The parton distributions for both polarized and unpolarized octet and decuplet baryons have been calculated in the bag model . However most present bag model calculations for the parton distributions are for the baryons. There has been no attempt in the bag model to calculate the parton distributions of the mesons. This is due, at least in part, to the lack of experimental data on the parton distributions of the mesons<sup>*</sup><sup>*</sup>*At present only the parameterization for the parton distributions of the pion has been extracted experimentally .. While the bag model is probably not very applicable to the pion, it does describe the rest of the pseudoscalar nonet and the vector octet reasonably well. So adapting the methods used to calculate baryon parton distributions to the meson sector should give a useful approximation to the parton distributions of the mesons, in particular the $`\rho `$ meson.

Adapting the argument of reference  we obtain the expression for the quark distribution function in a $`\rho `$ meson, where we include only one-quark intermediate states

$`q_{\rho ,f}^{}(x)={\displaystyle \frac{M_\rho }{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\mu |P_{f,m}|\mu {\displaystyle 𝑑𝐩_n\frac{|\varphi _1(𝐩_n)|^2}{|\varphi _2(\mathrm{𝟎})|^2}\delta (M_\rho (1x)p_n^+)|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{+,f}^{}(𝐩_n)|^2}.`$ (49)
Here + components of momenta are defined by $`p^+=p^0+p^3`$, $`𝐩_n`$ is the 3-momentum of the intermediate state, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ is the Fourier transform of the MIT bag ground state wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)`$, and $`\varphi _m(𝐩)`$ is the Fourier transform of the Hill-Wheeler overlap function between $`m`$-quark bag states:

$`|\varphi _m(𝐩)|^2={\displaystyle 𝑑𝐑e^{i𝐩𝐑}\left[𝑑𝐫\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(𝐫𝐑)\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)\right]^m}.`$ (50)
The $`\varphi `$ functions arise through the use of the Peierls-Yoccoz projection to form momentum eigenstates from the initial and intermediate bag states. The matrix element $`\mu |P_{f,m}|\mu `$ appearing in eqn. (49) is the matrix element of the projection operator $`P_{f,m}`$ onto the required flavour $`f`$ and helicity $`m`$ for the $`SU(6)`$ spin-flavour wavefunction $`|\mu `$ of the $`\rho `$ meson.

## III Results and Discussion

We first fix the parameters of the MIT bag model calculation by fitting the calculated unpolarized parton distribution of the $`\rho `$ meson to the Gluck-Reya-Schienbein parameterization (GRS99)  for the valence parton distribution of the pionAs usual we take the unpolarized pion and $`\rho `$ valence distributions to be the same., which is essentially fixed by the $`\pi `$-$`N`$ Drell-Yan data. For the parton distributions of the nucleon, the bag model calculations with only two-quark intermediate states are usually smaller than the data in the small-$`x`$ region and do not satisfy the normalization condition of the probability, i.e. $`P_2<1`$ rather than $`P_2=1`$ . It is necessary to include intermediate states with three quarks and one anti-quark, arising from the action of the field operator ($`\psi =b+d^{}`$) on the three-quark bag state. This allows the normalization condition to be satisfied. Such contributions from multi-quark intermediate states can be well parametrised by the form $`f_4(x)=N_4(1x)^7`$ consistent with the Drell-Yan-West relation . For simplicity we will employ a similar function form $`f_3(x)=N_3(1x)^5`$ to parametrise the three-quark (and two-quark plus one-antiquark) intermediate state contributions to the unpolarized parton distributions of the $`\rho `$ meson. The value of $`N_3`$ is determined from the normalization condition $`P_1+P_3=1`$, where $`P_1`$ and $`P_3`$ are the probabilities of the one-quark and three-quark intermediate states respectively. The parameters needing to be fixed are the radius of the bag $`R`$, the mass of the one-quark intermediate state $`m_1`$, and the low momentum scale $`\mu ^2`$, at which the model is supposed to be valid. The next-to-leading-order GRS99 parameterization is given at a scale, $`\mu _{NLO}^2=0.40`$ GeV<sup>2</sup>,

$`v_{NLO}^\pi (x,\mu _{NLO}^2)=0.696x^{0.447}(1x)^{0.426},`$ (51)
where $`v^\pi =u_v^{\pi ^+}=\overline{d}_v^{\pi ^+}`$. Both the GRS99 parton distributions and our calculations are evolved to the scale $`Q^2=4`$ GeV<sup>2</sup> and the results are shown in Fig. 2. The thin dashed curve is the GRS99 parameterization, and the thick dashed curve is the bag model calculation. A good agreement in the small and intermediate $`x`$ region is found for $`R=0.7`$ fm, $`m_1=0.55m_\rho `$, $`N_3=1.68`$ and $`\mu ^2=0.23`$ GeV<sup>2</sup>.

Having fixed the parameters we calculate the polarized parton distribution of the $`\rho `$, $`x\mathrm{\Delta }v_\rho ^{MIT}(x)`$. The result is presented in Fig. 2 as the thick solid curve. The first moment of $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_\rho ^{MIT}(x)`$ is found to be about $`0.60`$ at $`Q^2=4`$ GeV<sup>2</sup>, which is in agreement with the lattice value of $`0.60`$. For comparision, the distribution $`0.6xv_\pi (x)`$, which could be set as the polarized parton distribution according to the ansatz used in , is also shown in Fig. 2 as the thin solid curve. It can be seen that the distribution $`0.6xv_\pi (x)`$ is smaller than the bag model calculation $`x\mathrm{\Delta }v_\rho ^{MIT}(x)`$ in the intermediate $`x`$ region, although both distributions satisfy the same normalization condition. Also the bag model polarized parton distribution has a different $`x`$-dependence from the unpolarized distribution.

We show the polarized fluctuation functions of the $`\rho `$ meson ($`\mathrm{\Delta }f_\rho `$ in Eq.(37), the solid curve) and the interference terms ($`\mathrm{\Delta }f_{int}`$ in Eq.(37), the dashed curve) in Fig. 3. It can be seen that the maximum of $`\mathrm{\Delta }f_{int}`$ is about $`40\%`$ that of $`\mathrm{\Delta }f_\rho `$ and that $`\mathrm{\Delta }f_{int}`$ changes sign from positive to negative at about $`y=0.6`$. So the contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}`$ from the interference terms is not negligible.

As we have discussed in the last section, our expressions for $`f_{\rho N/N}^\lambda `$ and $`f_{\rho \mathrm{\Delta }/N}^\lambda `$ are different from those given in . We show the numerical difference in Fig. 4 where the fluctuation functions $`\mathrm{\Delta }f_{\rho NN}`$ (dashed curves), $`\mathrm{\Delta }f_{\rho \mathrm{\Delta }N}`$ (dotted curves), and $`\mathrm{\Delta }f_\rho =\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }f_{\rho NN}\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }f_{\rho \mathrm{\Delta }N}`$ (solid curves) which enter directly in the calculation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}`$ (see Eq. (37)) are plotted. The thick curves are our results while the thin curves are from . In each case the cut-off parameter in the form factor has been set to the same value $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{oct}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{dec}=0.85`$ GeV. The difference is about 50%.

We calculate the flavour asymmetry of the polarized anti-quark distributions employing both the bag model distribution $`x\mathrm{\Delta }v_\rho ^{MIT}(x)`$ and $`0.6xv_\pi (x)`$ for the polarized valence parton distribution of the $`\rho `$ meson. The results are shown in Fig. 5. The solid curves are the predictions using $`x\mathrm{\Delta }v_\rho ^{MIT}(x)`$, while the dashed curves are obtained by using $`0.6xv_\pi (x)`$. The thin curves are the results without interference terms while the thick curves are the results with interference terms. We see that the interference effect mildly increases the predictions for the flavour asymmetry, and pushes the curves towards the small $`x`$ region due to $`\mathrm{\Delta }f_{inter}`$ being peaked at smaller $`y`$ ($`y_{max}0.3`$) than the $`\mathrm{\Delta }f_\rho `$ ($`y_{max}0.60`$). For the calculations with $`x\mathrm{\Delta }v_\rho ^{MIT}(x)`$, the asymmetry with interference terms included exhibits a maximum at $`x0.12`$ while the asymmetry without interference terms exhibits a maximum at $`x0.18`$. Also it can be seen that the calculations with $`x\mathrm{\Delta }v_\rho ^{MIT}(x)`$ (the solid curves) are larger than that with $`0.6xv_\pi (x)`$ (the dashed curves) in the intermediate $`x`$ region, and have their maxima at larger $`x`$.

The integral

$`I_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x[\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)]`$ (52)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x\mathrm{\Delta }v_\rho (x){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑y[\mathrm{\Delta }f_\rho (y)+\mathrm{\Delta }f_{int}(y)]`$ (53)
will be the same for both models for the polarized parton distribution of the $`\rho `$ as they have the same first moment for the polarized distribution. We find the integral to be $`0.023`$ ($`0.031`$) without (with) the interference terms. The interference effect increases the integral by about $`30\%`$.

Using a softer form factor for the octet contributions, as suggested by the fit of $`\overline{d}(x)\overline{u}(x)`$ at large $`x`$ , will lower the value of the integral $`I_\mathrm{\Delta }`$. For example, taking $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{oct}=0.80`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{dec}=1.0`$ GeV consistent with the analysis of , the integral decreases to $`1.1\times 10^4`$ ($`+5.7\times 10^3`$) without (with) the interference terms. In this case the flavour asymmetry between $`\overline{d}`$ and $`\overline{u}`$ is very small. The reason is that the fluctuation $`p\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ gives a negative contribution to the integral $`I_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and this fluctuation is greatly emphasized for the above cut-off parameters The probabilities for $`pN\rho `$ and $`p\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ are $`0.012`$ and $`0.042`$ respectively, while the probabilities are $`0.189`$ and $`0.034`$ for the parameter values $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{oct}=1.08`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{dec}=0.98`$ GeV.. The prediction for the integral $`I_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has a strong dependence on the cut-off parameters $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{oct}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{dec}`$. For example, the results calculated including interference terms vary from $`0.0043`$ to $`0.033`$ for the cut-off parameters changing from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{oct}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{dec}=0.8`$ GeV to $`1.10`$ GeV. Clearly these values obtained using the meson cloud model are very different from those obtained using the chiral quark-soliton model  which have a magnitude of around $`0.3`$. It is interesting that both models agree well with the experimental data for the unpolarized asymmetry, yet predict very different results for the polarized asymmetry. As the magnitude of the predicted polarized asymmetry appears to be fairly natural in each of these models, experimental data will provide a valuable test of these models, and give insight into the relation between helicity dependent and helicity independent observables in quark models.

We do not find that the $`\pi \rho `$ interference terms can be sizeable, which appears to be in disagreement with the conclusions of Boreskov and Kaidalov . The main reason for this disagreement is that we do not here consider interference terms where the $`\rho `$ meson has non-zero helicity. This is because any such terms only contribute to amplitudes in the virtual Compton scattering which have a spin-flip between the incoming and outgoing proton states. These spin-flip amplitudes in turn only contribute to the cross-section $`\sigma _I`$, which is the interference between transverse and longitudinal polarisations of the virtual photon

$`\sigma _I`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{Q^2}}{M^2}}\left[G_1+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{M}}G_2\right]`$ (54)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{Q^2}}{M\nu }}\left[g_1(x)+g_2(x)\right]\text{in the Bjorken limit.}`$ (55)
So any interference terms involving non-zero helicity $`\rho `$ mesons can be expected to decrease as $`1/\sqrt{Q^2}`$ as $`Q^2`$ gets large. Using the operator product expansion shows that the relevant operators are all twist 3 or higher. As the experimental data for $`g_1(x)`$ for both the proton and the neutron show no marked $`Q^2`$ dependence, we conclude that these higher twist contributions are not relevant at the experimental scales.

## IV Pauli blocking contributions to the flavour asymmetry

We have not so far considered any contribution to the asymmetry arising from ‘Pauli blocking’ effects . In a model such as the bag model, where the valence quarks are confined by a scalar field, the vacuum inside a hadron is different from the vacuum outside. This manifests itself as a distortion in the negative energy Dirac sea, which is full for the outside (or free) vacuum, whereas there will be empty states in the Dirac sea of the bag. To an external probe this change in vacuum structure appears as an intrinsic, non-perturbative sea of $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs . This change in the vacuum is similar to the change in the Fermi-Dirac distribution when the temperature is raised above absolute zero. Now when a quark is put into the ground state of the bag it wil have the effect of filling some of the empty negative energy states in the sea of the bag vacuum. The reason for this is that the ground state wavefunction can be written as a wavepacket in terms of plane wave states of positive and negative energy, with the energy distribution of the wavepacket centred at the ground state energy eigenvalue, but with non-zero contributions from negative energy plane waves. Hence the presence of a quark in the bag ground state lowers the probability of a negative energy state being empty, which is the same as lowering the probability of finding a positive energy antiquark. As the proton consists of two up quarks and one down quark, the probability of finding a $`\overline{u}`$ antiquark is reduced more than the probability of finding a $`\overline{d}`$ antiquark i.e. $`\overline{d}>\overline{u}`$. The analysis of ref  showed that, in the context of the meson cloud model, about 50% of the observed $`\overline{d}\overline{u}`$ asymmetry may be due to Pauli blocking.

When we include spin in the analysis of Pauli blocking, we find that putting a spin up quark into the bag ground state has the effect of filling some of the negative energy spin up quark states in the bag vacuum, which is equivalent to lowering the probability of finding a positive energy spin down antiquark. As the $`SU(6)`$ wavefunction of the spin up proton is dominated by terms with the two up quarks having spin parallel to the proton spin and the down quark having spin anti-parallel, Pauli blocking predicts that the probabilities of finding spin down $`\overline{u}`$ antiquarks and spin up $`\overline{d}`$ antiquarks are reduced i.e. $`\overline{u}^{}>\overline{u}^{},\overline{d}^{}>\overline{d}^{}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)0,\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)0.`$

We can also estimate the contribution of the Pauli blocking effect to the polarized asymmetry, again using the Adelaide group’s argument for calculating parton distributions in the bag model. In the parton model antiquark distribution functions are given by

$`\overline{q}^{}(x)=p^+{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\delta (p^+(1x)p_n^+)\left|n|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\gamma ^5)\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{}(0)|p,s\right|^2.`$ (56)
The appropriate intermediate state $`|n`$ consists of four quarks. If we assume the $`SU(6)`$ wavefunction for the proton with spin $`+1/2`$, and insert an additional quark only into the radial ground state, then we have the following matrix elements for the projection operators onto spin and flavour

$`\mu |P_{u,+1/2}^{(q)}|\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}},`$ $`\mu |P_{u,1/2}^{(q)}|\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}},`$ (57)
$`\mu |P_{d,+1/2}^{(q)}|\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}},`$ $`\mu |P_{d,1/2}^{(q)}|\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{7}{3}}.`$ (58)
We have ignored any effects of spin-spin coupling in the intermediate state. Following the argument of the Adelaide group for calculating the parton distributions we can then write the antiquark distributions as

$`\overline{u}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2F_{(4)}(x)\pm {\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}G_{(4)}(x),`$ (59)
$`\overline{d}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}F_{(4)}(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}G_{(4)}(x),`$ (60)
where $`F_{(4)}(x)`$ and $`G_{(4)}(x)`$ are the spin independent and spin dependent kinematic integrals over the momentum of the intermediate four quark state. The sea asymmetries can then be expressed as

$`\overline{d}(x)\overline{u}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`F_{(4)}(x),`$ (61)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}G_{(4)}(x).`$ (62)
As $`G_{(4)}(x)`$ is positive at all $`x`$, Pauli blocking gives a negative contribution to the spin dependent flavour asymmetry in the sea, whereas the meson cloud contribution tended to be positive. Also noting that as $`F_{(4)}(x)G_{(4)}(x)`$, we can integrate over all $`x`$ and then obtain an upper limit for the size of the Pauli blocking contribution to the spin dependent asymmetry in terms of the contribution to the spin independent asymmetry:

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x[\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)]{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x[\overline{d}(x)\overline{u}(x)].`$ (63)
As an estimate for the integral on the rhs of eqn. (63) we may use the value of $`0.07`$ given by the analsis of reference . This then gives an upper limit of about $`0.12`$ for the magnitude of the integral over the polarized asymmetry. In the bag model, the ratio $`G_{(4)}(x)/F_{(4)}(x)`$ varies from about $`0.8`$ at low $`x`$ to unity at large $`x`$, which gives us a value of about $`0.09`$ for the integrated polarized asymmetry. While these values are calculated at some scale appropriate to the bag model, the values of the integrals are not much affected by evolution up to experimental scales, so we expect the relation between polarized and unpolarized sea asymmetries to be approximately correct at all scales. The value of the Pauli blocking contribution to the integrated polarized asymmetry is much larger than that we have calculated in the meson cloud model, in contrast to approximate equality in the unpolarized case. Thus the experimental observation of any asymmetry in the polarized sea distributions is much more a test of the Pauli blocking hypothesis than of the meson cloud model.

The Bjorken sum rule may be written

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x[g_1^p(x)g_1^n(x)]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x[(\mathrm{\Delta }u(x)\mathrm{\Delta }d(x))+(\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x))]`$ (64)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{g_V}}\right|\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right).`$ (65)
We estimate that the contribution to the sum rule from Pauli blocking plus meson cloud effects is about 5-10% of the value of the sum rule.

We note that the Dortmund group have recently  analyzed the polarized sea asymmetry also using a Pauli blocking type ansatz, and found a value around $`0.3`$ for the integrated asymmetry. This would correspond to a contribution of around 20% to the Bjorken sum rule. The Dortmund analysis was based on the proposed relation between polarized distributions:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)}{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }u(x)}{\mathrm{\Delta }d(x)}}.`$ (66)
This relation is not obeyed by the distributions in our analysis. The reason for this is that Pauli blocking should most affect the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}`$ distribution rather than the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}`$ distribution (starting from an assumed $`SU(6)`$ value of 0), and hence the lhs of the relation (66) has magnitude less than one, while the magnitude of the rhs is greater than one.

## V Summary

The meson cloud model is very successful in explaining the flavour asymmetry of the unpolarized parton distributions in the nucleon sea. In this paper, we have calculated the flavour asymmetry for the polarized anti-quark distributions of the nucleon. We have included the contributions from both the vector meson cloud and the interference terms between pseudoscalar and vector mesons. We have used two prescriptions to describe the polarized valance quark distribution of the $`\rho `$ meson – (i) calculating it in bag model and (ii) employing the ansatz given in  to relate it to the unpolarized quark distribution of the $`\pi `$ meson. Our calculations show that the interference effect mildly increases the prediction for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)`$ in the intermediate $`x`$ region. We have also discussed the effect of ‘Pauli blocking’ on the asymmetry, and have seen that this effect gives a larger contribution to the asymmetry than meson cloud effects, in contrast to the unpolarized case.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Tony Thomas, Wally Melnitchouk, Andreas Schreiber and Kazuo Tsushima for a number of useful discussions, especially in regard to the sign of Pauli blocking contributions to the polarized sea asymmetry. Part of this work was carried out while the authors were guests at the Centre for the Subatomic Structure of Matter at the University of Adelaide. This work was partially supported by the Science and Technology Postdoctoral Fellowship of the Foundation for Research Science and Technology, and the Marsden Fund of the Royal Society of New Zealand.

## Appendix

We give here expressions for the helicity dependent fluctuation functions appear in Eq. (37), where the superscript $`1`$ ($`1`$) is the vector meson helicity.

$`\mathrm{\Delta }f_{\rho N/N}`$ $`=`$ $`f_{\rho N/N}^1f_{\rho N/N}^1`$ (67)
$`f_{\rho N/N}^1(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi ^2\left(1+y\right)^2y^3}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk_{}^2G_{\rho N}^2(y,k_{}^2)}{[m_N^2m_{\rho N}^2(y,k_{}^2)]^2}}`$ (71)
$`\{g_{NN\rho }^2(k^2+m_N^2y^4)`$
$`+4f_{NN\rho }^2\left(k^4+5k^2m_N^2y^2+4m_N^4y^4\right)`$
$`4f_{NN\rho }g_{NN\rho }m_Ny[2m_N^2y^3+k^2(1+y)]\}`$
$`f_{\rho N/N}^1(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi ^2\left(1+y\right)^2y^3}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk_{}^2G_{\rho N}^2(y,k_{}^2)}{[m_N^2m_{\rho N}^2(y,k_{}^2)]^2}}`$ (75)
$`\{k^2[g_{NN\rho }^2(1+y)^24f_{NN\rho }g_{NN\rho }m_N(1+y)y`$
$`+4f_{NN\rho }^2(k^2+m_N^2y^2)]\}`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }f_{\rho \mathrm{\Delta }/N}(y)`$ $`=`$ $`f_{\rho \mathrm{\Delta }/N}^1(y)f_{\rho \mathrm{\Delta }/N}^1(y)`$ (76)
$`f_{\rho \mathrm{\Delta }/N}^1(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{N\mathrm{\Delta }\rho }^2}{24m_\mathrm{\Delta }^2\pi ^2\left(1+y\right)^4y^3}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk_{}^2G_{\rho \mathrm{\Delta }}^2(y,k_{}^2)}{[m_N^2m_{\rho \mathrm{\Delta }}^2(y,k_{}^2)]^2}}`$ (80)
$`\{k^6+k^4m_\mathrm{\Delta }^2(34y+4y^2)`$
$`+k^2m_\mathrm{\Delta }y\left[4m_Nm_\rho ^2\left(1+y\right)^3+m_\mathrm{\Delta }^3y\left(44y+3y^2\right)\right]`$
$`+[m_Nm_\rho ^2(1+y)^3+m_\mathrm{\Delta }^3y^2]^2\}`$
$`f_{\rho \mathrm{\Delta }/N}^1(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{N\mathrm{\Delta }\rho }^2}{24m_\mathrm{\Delta }^2\pi ^2\left(1+y\right)^2y^3}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk_{}^2G_{\rho \mathrm{\Delta }}^2(y,k_{}^2)}{[m_N^2m_{\rho \mathrm{\Delta }}^2(y,k_{}^2)]^2}}`$ (84)
$`\{k^4m_N^2+k^2[m_\rho ^2(1+y)+2m_\mathrm{\Delta }m_Ny]^2`$
$`+3m_\mathrm{\Delta }^2[m_\rho ^2(1+y)+m_\mathrm{\Delta }m_Ny^2]^2\}`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }f_{(\rho ^0\omega )p/p}=f_{(\rho ^0\omega )p/p}^1f_{(\rho ^0\omega )p/p}^1`$ (85)
$`f_{(\rho ^0\omega )p/p}^1(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3g_{NN\omega }}{8\pi ^2\left(1+y\right)^2y^3}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk_{}^2G_{\rho N}(y,k_{}^2)G_{\omega N}(y,k_{}^2)}{[m_N^2m_{\rho N}^2(y,k_{}^2)][m_N^2m_{\omega N}^2(y,k_{}^2)]}}`$ (87)
$`\left\{g_{NN\rho }\left(k^2+m_N^2y^4\right)2f_{NN\rho }m_Ny\left[2m_N^2y^3+k^2\left(1+y\right)\right]\right\}`$
$`f_{(\rho ^0\omega )p/p}^1(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3g_{NN\omega }}{8\pi ^2\left(1+y\right)y^3}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk_{}^2G_{\rho N}(y,k_{}^2)G_{\omega N}(y,k_{}^2)}{[m_N^2m_{\rho N}^2(y,k_{}^2)][m_N^2m_{\omega N}^2(y,k_{}^2)]}}`$ (90)
$`\left\{k^2\left[g_{NN\rho }\left(1+y\right)2f_{NN\rho }m_Ny\right]\right\}`$
For pseudoscalar-vector interference terms, only helicity zero contributes at leading twist.

$`f_{(\pi \rho )N/N}^0(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16m_\rho \pi ^2\left(1+y\right)^3y^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk_{}^2G_{\pi N}(y,k_{}^2)G_{\rho N}(y,k_{}^2)}{[m_N^2m_{\pi N}^2(y,k_{}^2)][m_N^2m_{\rho N}^2(y,k_{}^2)]}}`$ (93)
$`\left\{g_{NN\pi }\left[k^2+m_{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\left(1+y\right)+m_N^2y^2\right]\right\}`$
$`\left\{g_{NN\rho }m_N\left(1+y\right)y+f_{NN\rho }\left[k^2\left(2+y\right)+m_N^2y^3\right]\right\}`$
$`f_{(\pi \rho )\mathrm{\Delta }/N}^0(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{N\mathrm{\Delta }\pi }f_{N\mathrm{\Delta }\rho }m_\rho }{24m_\mathrm{\Delta }\pi ^2\left(1+y\right)^3y^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk_{}^2G_{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }}(y,k_{}^2)G_{\rho \mathrm{\Delta }}(y,k_{}^2)}{[m_N^2m_{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }}^2(y,k_{}^2)][m_N^2m_{\rho \mathrm{\Delta }}^2(y,k_{}^2)]}}`$ (97)
$`\{k^4(2+y)`$
$`2k^2\left[2m_\mathrm{\Delta }m_N\left(1+y\right)m_N^2\left(1+y\right)^2\left(1+y\right)+m_\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left(1+2y\right)\right]`$
$`+[m_\mathrm{\Delta }^2m_N^2(1+y)^2]^2y\}`$
$`f_{(\pi ^0\omega )p/p}^0(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3g_{NN\pi }g_{NN\omega }m_N}{16m_\omega \pi ^2\left(1+y\right)^2y}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk_{}^2G_{\pi N}(y,k_{}^2)G_{\rho N}(y,k_{}^2)}{[m_N^2m_{\pi N}^2(y,k_{}^2)][m_N^2m_{\omega N}^2(y,k_{}^2)]}}`$ (99)
$`\left[k^2+m_\omega ^2\left(1+y\right)+m_N^2y^2\right]`$
## Figure Captions

Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of interference contributions to the polarized anti-quark distributions.

Fig. 2. The polarized and unpolarized valence quark distributions of the $`\rho `$ meson at $`Q^2=4`$ GeV<sup>2</sup>. The thick dashed and solid curves are the bag model calculations for the unpolarized and polarized distributions respectively. The thin dashed curve is the unpolarized parton distribution of the $`\pi `$ meson . The thick solid curve is the polarized parton distribution of the $`\rho `$ meson using the ansatz $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_\rho (x)=0.6v_\pi (x)`$ .

Fig. 3. The polarized fluctuation functions for the vector meson (the solid curve) and the interference terms (the dashed curve).

Fig. 4. Comparision of polarized fluctuation functions, $`\mathrm{\Delta }f_{\rho NN}`$ (dashed curves), $`\mathrm{\Delta }f_{\rho \mathrm{\Delta }N}`$ (dashed-dotted curves), and $`\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }f_{\rho NN}\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }f_{\rho \mathrm{\Delta }N}`$ (solid curves), given in this work (thick curves) and in  (thin curves).

Fig. 5. The flavour asymmetry of the anti-quark in the proton. The solid curves are the predictions using $`x\mathrm{\Delta }v_\rho ^{MIT}`$, while the dashed curves are obtained by using $`0.6xv_\pi (x)`$. The thin curves are the results without interference terms while the thick curves are the results with interference terms.


text:
# Structure in the velocity space of globular clusters

## 1 Introduction

It has been known since the late eighties that groupings exist in the velocity space of several halo tracers which could be interpreted as debris from larger stellar sub-structures disrupted by the Galaxy (Sommer–Larsen & Christensen 1987, Dionidas & Beers 1989, Arnold & Gilmore 1992, Poveda et al. 1992). In particular, some kinematic studies of halo stars (Majewski et al. 1996, Chen 1998) indicate that the Galactic halo may not be a dynamically relaxed system. The presence of three moving groups in the SA57 field near the NGP, with different metallicity distributions, supports the hypothesis that the Galactic halo is mainly formed from a mixture of several stellar streams.

Analysis of the radial velocity dispersion tensor of the GCs (Hartwick 1996) also falls upon the idea that the Galactic halo is not dynamically homogeneous. Two different subsystems are clearly identified in that study; one, located in the outer region of the halo (R$`{}_{\mathrm{g}}{}^{}>`$ 7 kpc), shows a minor axis parallel to the Galactic rotation axis, while the second inner one is highly inclined relative to the symmetry axes of the Galactic disk. The fact that the inner Galactic GCs present a velocity ellipsoid almost parallel to the spatial distribution of the outer satellites suggests that the outer satellites may be outlining the Galaxy’s dark matter halo and that the actual residual velocity distribution of the inner halo clusters might be representative of the dominant potential well in the early phases of the halo formation (Hartwick 2000). Thus, there is evidence in favor of two peculiar kinematic features in the halo: 1) miss-aligned residual velocity ellipsoids and 2) moving groups whose origin might be ascribed either to “pollution” by disrupted satellites or to the signature of the early dominant potential well.

Another interesting peculiarity of the Galactic globular cluster system is its present LF. In contrast to disk open clusters that show a monotonically increasing LF, globular clusters show a peaked distribution with a maximum around M$`{}_{\mathrm{V}}{}^{}`$7.5. Some authors consider this LF to be primordial (e.g. Fall & Rees 1988, Fritze-von Alvensleben 1999) while the most accepted interpretation supposes that the present distribution evolved from an initial power-law distribution through destructive processes (Larson 1996, Elmegreen & Efremov 1997). Dynamical modelling of halo globular clusters in the Milky Way potential shows that destructive processes, and their time scales, depend strongly on orbital parameters and cluster masses (e.g. Capuzzo-Dolcetta 1993).

Following these arguments, we ask to what extent kinematics and luminosity (and hence mass) are correlated and, if correlated, how this reflects on the velocity space of the GCs. In this respect, the work by Burkert & Smith (1997) indicates that the metal-rich GCs can be separated by mass into three groups, with different spatial and kinematic properties. Here we present a similar analysis for the metal-poor GCs and study the velocity space of the halo GCs with complete kinematic information.

The paper is organized into three main sections. Section two is devoted to a description of the sample and presentation of our results while the final section considers possible interpretations.

## 2 Kinematics and Luminosity

### 2.1 The sample

Our data sources are the compilation of absolute proper motions for GCs (Dinescu et al. 1999; DGA in the following) and the updated version (June 1999) of the catalogue of “Milky Way Globular Cluster Parameters” by Harris (1996). The first compilation provides information about the velocity components and orbital parameters, as well as metallicity, radial velocity and spatial information for 38 Galactic GCs (the largest sample so far with complete kinematic information). The second one provides a large set of physical, structural and photometric parameters, including total luminosity, for the entire Galactic globular cluster system. Errors in velocities have also been taken from DGA, who adopted a 10% error in the distances. The average uncertainty in the integrated absolute magnitudes is $``$0.5.

We limit our study to the halo GCs within a galactocentric radius of 20 kpc. Thus, two clusters with \[Fe/H\]$``$0.9, typical of the disk sub-system, and Pal~3 located well beyond our limit radius, have been removed. Three other clusters (NGC~6254, NGC~6626, and NGC~6752) display disk-like orbits and can be considered to be the metal-poor tail of the disk sub-system (DGA). NGC~5139, in addition, is thought to be the core of a disrupted dwarf spheroidal galaxy (Majewski et al. 2000). These four clusters are consequently omitted from our analysis. The final kinematic sample contains 31 “bona fide” halo GCs representing $``$40% of the halo cluster population within 20 kpc. This sample distributes with metallicity, total luminosity, and galactocentric radius in a rather similar way to the ones shown for the halo cluster population inside the same volume. The main difference involves the Rg variable whose distribution is flatter than the typical potential law shown by the halo GCs.

The kinematic data are considered in a cylindrical coordinate system. The $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ component is positive outwards from the galactic center, whereas the other components retain their usual conventions; $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is positive towards the direction of galactic rotation and W towards the North galactic pole. The centroid and dispersion of the velocity components for our sample \[($`\mathrm{\Pi }`$=25$`\pm `$25, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$=50$`\pm `$16, $``$W$``$=$``$43$`\pm `$21); ($`\sigma _\mathrm{\Pi }`$=137$`\pm `$23, $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Theta }`$=100$`\pm `$13, $`\sigma _\mathrm{W}`$=107$`\pm `$21)\] present a mean rotational value similar to the ones obtained from radial velocity data for the metal-poor globular clusters (Côté 1999). The present values of the velocity dispersion are in good agreement with those obtained by other authors for halo stellar samples (Norris 1986, Morrison et al. 1990). Thus, on the basis of rotation and velocity dispersions, the sample can be considered as representative of the halo globular clusters.

### 2.2 Velocity components versus Luminosity

We began our study by analyzing the distribution of the velocity components with luminosity for our sample. The vertical component (W) is plotted versus the integrated absolute magnitude (MV) in fig. 1 (top panel). A clear correlation is apparent in this plot, which translates into a probability lower than 0.1% that the two variables are uncorrelated ($`\tau `$-Kendall and Spearman tests). Only the lowest luminosity cluster in our sample, Pal 5, separates from the main distribution. This cluster is representative of a small group of faint objects located beyond Rg=10 kpc which do not have a counterpart in the inner galactic regions (McLaughlin 2000). It has been suggested that this group of clusters formed more recently than the rest (van den Bergh 1999, private communication to MacLaughlin). Fig. 1 (top panel) also shows a robust linear fit to the data while the residuals of the fitting are plotted against galactocentric radius in the bottom panel of fig. 1, where a weaker but apparent correlation (probability lower than 7% that the two variables are not correlated according to $`\tau `$-Kendall and Spearman tests) is also present. These results indicate that for halo clusters with integrated absolute magnitudes between $``$9.2 and $``$6.0, the vertical component of the velocity scales with luminosity and, marginally, with galactocentric radius.

The other velocity components do not clearly correlate with luminosity although, as we will discuss in the next sub-section, clusters with different luminosity display distinct kinematic behaviours.

### 2.3 Luminosity Groups

Our sample has been divided into two groups according to their integrated absolute magnitude. There are 15 clusters brighter than MV=$``$7.5, which form the High Luminosity Group (HL) while 16 constitute the Low Luminosity Group (LL). The first and second moments of the velocity distribution have been estimated for both groups and the mean radial component shows a marginal difference between the HL and LL clusters (9$`\pm `$40 and 39$`\pm `$24 respectively), where the LL group shows evidence for a weak expansion. The mean rotational moment (57$`\pm `$24 and 43$`\pm `$28 for HL and LL respectively) is similar for both groups and also agrees with the average value obtained for the metal-poor GCs from radial velocity data (Côté 1999).

The main difference involves the vertical velocity component where 13/15 of the HL clusters display negative values of W and an average vertical component of $``$109$`\pm `$21. In contrast, the mean value for the LL group is 20$`\pm `$23, where 10/16 objects show positive W values. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov two-sample test gives a probability lower than 1% that both sub-samples come from the same population.

Fig. 2 shows the velocity space for our data, projected onto the three principal planes defined by the cylindrical velocity components. This plot reveals that the luminosity groups distribute in a different way: 1) the radial component of the HL clusters (black squares) display a wider range of values than the LL group (open circles) and 2) the ($`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, W) plane distribution of the LL clusters is highly inclined relative to the Galactic rotation axis. The velocity dispersions for the LL and HL clusters are ($`\sigma _\mathrm{\Pi }`$=168$`\pm `$32, $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Theta }`$=92$`\pm `$15, $`\sigma _\mathrm{W}`$=81$`\pm `$17) and ($`\sigma _\mathrm{\Pi }`$=97$`\pm `$19, $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Theta }`$=107$`\pm `$21, $`\sigma _\mathrm{W}`$=90$`\pm `$17) respectively.

In order to analyze in more detail the velocity space of these groups, we have derived the velocity ellipsoid for both distributions. The evaluation procedure has been configured in a bootstrap loop in order to provide an estimate of the parameter uncertainties. Table 1 shows the module and direction of the three main axes of the two distributions. The velocity ellipsoid defined by the distribution of the brightest clusters is almost parallel to the principal axes of the Galaxy, while the Low Luminosity objects distribute in a highly inclined ellipsoid.

## 3 Discussion and Conclusions

The analysis performed in the previous section provides evidence for a clear connection between kinematics and luminosity which can be summarized as follows:

1. The vertical component of the velocity (W) scales with luminosity and galactocentric radius for a sample of 31 metal-poor GCs with absolute proper motions.
2. The sample of globular clusters has been divided into two absolute magnitude groups separated above and below MV=$``$7.5. The first and second statistical moments of the velocity distributions of the groups show significant differences.
3. Both luminosity groups display different structure in the velocity space. The velocity ellipsoid of the High Luminosity group is aligned with the main axes of the Galactic disk while the Low Luminosity clusters show a velocity ellipsoid with minor axis highly inclined with respect to the Galactic rotation axis.

The first result is very surprising and we have no satisfactory explanation for the existence of such a relationship between vertical velocity and luminosity. Given that our kinematic sample represents 40% of the halo population in this volume, we consider whether this correlation could be produced by a selection effect involving the clusters with absolute proper motions. In order to check this we have taken the complete set of halo GCs within 20 kpc and estimated the average vertical component for the two luminosity groups using only radial velocity data. Assuming the system has neither net expansion nor rotation, we obtain ($`\mathrm{W}^{\mathrm{HL}}`$=$``$32$`\pm `$6; $`\sigma _{\mathrm{los}}^{\mathrm{HL}}`$=115) and ($`\mathrm{W}^{\mathrm{LL}}`$=46$`\pm `$7; $`\sigma _{\mathrm{los}}^{\mathrm{LL}}`$=128) for the HL and LL groups respectively. After correcting for rotation, assuming $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$=50 km s-1, we obtain ($`\mathrm{W}^{\mathrm{HL}}`$=$``$45$`\pm `$6; $`\sigma _{\mathrm{los}}^{\mathrm{HL}}`$=112) and ($`\mathrm{W}^{\mathrm{LL}}`$=55$`\pm `$7; $`\sigma _{\mathrm{los}}^{\mathrm{LL}}`$=128). These results go in the direction marked in fig. 1, clusters with low luminosity move, onn average, towards the NGP while clusters brighter than MV=$``$7.5 show a negative mean W component.

In addition the second and third items noted above clearly show that both luminosity groups occupy different volumes in the velocity space. They can be distinguished by the centroids of the distributions as well as by the main axes of the dispersion ellipsoids. As noted above, Hartwick (1996) pointed out that the metal-poor GCs display different dispersion tensors for objects located within and beyond the solar galactocentric radius. The inner clusters show a dispersion tensor highly inclined with respect to the Galactic rotation axis while the outer group is almost aligned with the Galactic symmetry axes. Could our results and the results of Hartwick represent different aspects of the same phenomenon?. If this hypothesis is correct then luminosity and galactocentric radius should correlate in the sense that Low Luminosity clusters should be preferentially located in the inner Galactic regions. However, this does not appear to be the case. Our sample does not show any correlation between integrated absolute magnitude and galactocentric radius and we extend this conclusion to the entire Galactic system of GCs (McLaughlin 2000). Therefore the connection between kinematics and luminosity stressed in this work can not be accounted for only by different episodes of cluster formation in distinct gravitational potentials. We must devise another mechanism that is mainly driven by luminosity.

McLaughlin (2000) recently showed that globular clusters fit a plane in the parameter space defined by binding energy, luminosity and galactocentric radius. It was suggested that this relationship is primordial. Our correlation between the vertical velocity component of the GCs and the same two variables (luminosity and galactocentric radius), gives rise to the possibility that this correlation is also primordial or that it reflects destructive processes that have occurred since the halo formation. We do not have a definite answer to this question, but our analysis suggests that “external” variables, such as the orbital parameters (location in the velocity space) are intimately connected with “internal” parameters such as the binding energy and/or luminosity.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are very grateful to Antxón Alberdi, José Franco and Enrique Pérez for useful discussions. Jack Sulentic is acknowledged for his careful revision of the language. This work has been partially supported by the Spanish DGICYT, through grant PB97-1438-C02-02 and by the Research and Education Council of the Autonomous Government of Andalucía (Spain). Spanish CICYT under grant ESP98-1339-C02-02 has partially funded this work.