text:
# Pion photoproduction on the nucleon in the quark model

## I Introduction

Pion photoproduction has provided a wealth of information about baryon resonances. During the past three or four decades, extensive investigations have been carried out in both experiment and theory. In particular, the recent availability of high intensity electron and photon beams at JLab, ELSA, MAMI and ESRF has significantly improved the precision of pion photo- and electroproduction experiments. A large experimental database now exists, and a significant increase is expected once the current set of experiments has been analyzed.

Pion photoproduction has been an important source, supplementary to $`\pi N`$ scattering experiments, for establishing most of the well-known baryon resonances, while providing information on their photo-decay amplitudes. In the search for “missing resonances”, other meson production channels, to which these resonances might have stronger couplings, are now being extensively studied (See e.g. Ref.  and references therein).

Apart from a few dominant states, a considerable model-dependence exists in resonance parameters extracted using phenomenological approaches to the data. This has complicated the comparison with resonance parameters derived from quark models. Historically, most approaches have adopted a factorization of the meson interaction vertices, where the dynamical information is absorbed into the resonance partial-decay widths and empirical form factors. Consequently, parameters for the meson-nucleon-resonance couplings and form factors have been introduced.

Such empirical schemes have been very important in analyses of data and the extraction of resonance signals in pion photoproduction . A number of multipole fits, taking into account different dynamical aspects, are now underway. For instance, the unitary isobar model (MAID) , containing Born terms, 5 resonances and vector meson exchanges, succeeds in the description of data up to 1 GeV. Approaches adopting constraints from fixed-$`t`$ dispersion relations are being re-visited and applied to the Delta region . Other approaches, using effective Lagrangians for the Delta resonance excitation and t-channel vector-meson exchange, can also be found in the literature . The SAID fits , based on a parametrization of different partial wave contributions, extend the analysis up to 2 GeV. With some common features but quite different model constraints, these multipole fits hope to converge to a common result and obtain, as near as possible, model-independent information on the resonance excitations.

There is a clear need to treat all resonances consistently, and to understand the relation between the s\- and u-channel resonances and t-channel meson exchanges. A recently developed quark model framework, augmented by an effective Lagrangian approach to reaction dynamics, provides a good starting point. The main feature of this model is the introduction of an effective chiral Lagrangian for the quark-pseudoscalar-meson coupling in a constituent quark model. Unlike most previous quark models, which were generally based on factorization of the strong interaction vertices, the pion is treated as an elementary particle. As a result, one can explicitly calculate the tree level diagrams for pion production reactions. Here, the quark model wavefunctions for the nucleons and baryon resonances provide a form factor for each interaction vertex, and all the s\- and u-channel resonances can be consistently included.

This model has the advantage of being able to describe a large photoproduction database, employing only a very limited number of parameters within a microscopic framework. Applications of this model to the $`\eta `$  and $`K`$  meson photoproduction have been quite successful, and this has motivated our study of the very extensive pion photoproduction database.

The quark model’s well-known underestimation of the electromagnetic (EM) transition amplitude for the Delta resonance makes this resonance region particularly interesting. As suggested in Ref. , the “bare” $`\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vertex could be more directly related to the quantity given by the quark model derivation of the Delta EM transition. A direct examination of the Delta excitation in $`\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }\pi N`$ might shed some light on this question.

This paper presents both quantitative and qualitative investigations of pion photoproduction. The challenge to describe the $`N^{}`$ resonance excitation with explicit quark and gluon degrees of freedom is by no means trivial, since the correct off-shell behavior of those intermediate resonances is required. Also, a clear definition of the nucleon Born terms, associated with the gauge invariance requirement, is essential for this effective theory. In this study, we concentrate on the energy region corresponding to $`E_\gamma `$ 700 MeV, where the role played by the Born terms ***We use “Born terms” here to denote the amplitudes from a Born approximation, in which the nucleon pole terms, pion pole and contact term are included. In the following Sections, we use “nucleon pole terms” to denote the s\- and u-channel nucleon exchange amplitudes. and the low-lying resonances, in particular the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$, $`S_{11}(1535)`$ and $`D_{13}(1520)`$, can be clarified. Qualitative tests have been made in order to compare this model to a typical isobaric approach. Here we consider the role played by the t-channel vector meson exchanges in isobaric models, and the effect of neglecting the u-channel resonance contributions.

In Section II, we outline the formalism aspects of our approach. In Section III, results for cross sections and single polarization asymmetries for the four charge channels, $`\gamma p\pi ^+n`$, $`\gamma p\pi ^0p`$, $`\gamma n\pi ^{}p`$, and $`\gamma n\pi ^0n`$ will be presented. The role of the t-channel vector meson exchange will also be discussed. Conclusions are drawn in Section IV.

## II The model

Before we begin a detailed analysis, a brief review of this model is necessary.

### A The effective Lagrangian

For pion photoproduction, the low energy theorem (LET) provides a crucial test near threshold. As shown in previous investigation by Li , to recover the LET, one has to rely on the low energy QCD Lagrangian which keeps the meson-baryon interaction invariant under the chiral transformation. Combining the low energy QCD Lagrangian with the quark model, we introduce the quark-meson interaction through the effective Lagrangian :

$$=\overline{\psi }[\gamma _\mu (i^\mu +V^\mu +\gamma _5A^\mu )m]\psi +\mathrm{},$$
(1)
where the vector and axial currents are

$`V_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\xi ^{}_\mu \xi +\xi _\mu \xi ^{}),`$ (2)
$`A_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\xi ^{}_\mu \xi \xi _\mu \xi ^{}),`$ (3)
and the chiral transformation is,

$$\xi =e^{i\varphi _m/f_m},$$
(4)
where $`f_m`$ is the decay constant of the meson. The quark field $`\psi `$ in the SU(3) symmetry is

$$\psi =\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi (u)\\ \psi (d)\\ \psi (s)\end{array}\right),$$
(5)
and the meson field $`\varphi _m`$ is a 3$``$3 matrix:

$$\varphi _m=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\pi ^0+\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\eta & \pi ^+& K^+\\ \pi ^{}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\pi ^0+\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\eta & K^0\\ K^{}& \overline{K}^0& \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\eta \end{array}\right),$$
(6)
where the pseudoscalar mesons $`\pi `$, $`\eta `$ and $`K`$ are treated as Goldstone bosons. Thus, the Lagrangian in Eq. (1) is invariant under the chiral transformation. Expanding the nonlinear field $`\xi `$ in Eq. (4) in terms of the Goldstone boson field $`\varphi _m`$, i.e. $`\xi =1+i\varphi _m/f_m+\mathrm{}`$, we obtain the standard quark-meson pseudovector coupling at tree level:

$$H_m=\underset{j}{}\frac{1}{f_m}\overline{\psi }_j\gamma _\mu ^j\gamma _5^j\psi _j^\mu \varphi _m,$$
(7)
where $`\psi _j`$ ($`\overline{\psi }_j`$) represents the $`j`$th quark (anti-quark) field in the nucleon.

It is still not clear whether the Goldstone bosons couple to the nucleon through a pseudoscalar or pseudovector coupling, or even both. To our present knowledge, at low energies, the pseudovector coupling satisfies partial conservation of axial current (PCAC) and is consistent with the LET and chiral perturbation theory to leading order, while the high energy study prefers a pseudoscalar coupling. As pointed out in Ref. , the operators for the pseudoscalar and pseudovector coupling have the same leading order expression at quark tree level. Therefore, Eq. (7) can be regarded as a reasonable starting point for investigations of pion photoproduction in the resonance region.

The quark-photon electromagnetic coupling is

$$H_e=\underset{j}{}e_j\gamma _\mu ^jA^\mu (𝐤,𝐫),$$
(8)
where the photon has three-momentum $`𝐤`$, and the constituent quark carries a charge $`e_j`$.

The photoproduction amplitudes can be expressed in terms of the Mandelstam variables,

$$M_{fi}=M_{fi}^{sg}+M_{fi}^s+M_{fi}^u+M_{fi}^t,$$
(9)
where $`M_{fi}^{sg}`$ is the seagull term and $`M_{fi}^s`$, $`M_{fi}^u`$ and $`M_{fi}^t`$ represent the s-, u-, and t-channel processes as illustrated in Fig. 1. As shown in Ref. , the seagull term is composed of two parts,

$$M_{fi}^{sg}=N_f|H_{m,e}|N_i+iN_f|[g_e,H_m]|N_i,$$
(10)
where $`|N_i`$ and $`|N_f`$ are the initial and final state nucleon, respectively, and

$$H_{m,e}=\underset{j}{}\frac{e_m}{f_m}\varphi _m(𝐪,𝐫_j)\overline{\psi }_j\gamma _\mu ^j\gamma _5^j\psi _jA^\mu (𝐤,𝐫_j)$$
(11)
is the contact term from the pseudovector coupling, and

$$g_e=\underset{j}{}e_j𝐫_j\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ}e^{i𝐤𝐫_j}$$
(12)
comes from the transformation of the electromagnetic interaction in the s\- and u-channel .

The s\- and u-channel amplitudes have the following expression:

$`M_{fi}^s+M_{fi}^u`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`i\omega _\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}N_f|H_m|N_jN_j|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_i+\omega _\gamma E_j}}h_e|N_i`$ (14)
$`+`$ $`i\omega _\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}N_f|h_e{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_i\omega _mE_j}}|N_jN_j|H_m|N_i,`$ (15)
where

$$h_e=\underset{j}{}e_j𝐫_j\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ}(1𝜶_j\widehat{𝐤})e^{i𝐤𝐫_j},$$
(16)
and $`\widehat{𝐤}𝐤/\omega _\gamma `$ is the unit vector in the direction of the photon momentum.

The nonrelativistic expansions of Eqs. (16) and (7) become :

$$h_e=\underset{j}{}\left[e_j𝐫_j\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ}\frac{e_j}{2m_j}𝝈_j(\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ}\times \widehat{𝐤})\right]e^{i𝐤𝐫_j},$$
(17)
and

$$H_m^{nr}=\underset{j}{}\left[\frac{\omega _m}{E_f+M_f}𝝈_j𝐏_f+\frac{\omega _m}{E_i+M_i}𝝈_j𝐏_i𝝈_j𝐪+\frac{\omega _m}{2\mu _q}𝝈_j𝐩_j\right]\frac{\widehat{I}_j}{g_A}e^{i𝐪𝐫_j},$$
(18)
where $`M_i(M_f)`$, $`E_i(E_f)`$ and $`𝐏_i(𝐏_f)`$ are mass, energy and three-vector momentum for the initial (final) nucleon; $`𝐫_j`$ and $`𝐩_j`$ are the internal coordinate and momentum for the $`j`$th quark in the nucleon rest system. Note that, $`g_A`$, the axial vector coupling, relates the hadronic operator $`𝝈`$ to the quark operator $`𝝈_j`$ for the $`j`$th quark, and is defined by,

$$N_f|\underset{j}{}\widehat{I}_j𝝈_j|N_ig_AN_f|𝝈|N_i.$$
(19)
The transition amplitudes of pseudoscalar meson photoproduction can generally be expressed in terms of standard CGLN amplitudes , i.e.

$$M_{fi}=𝐉\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ},$$
(20)
where $`𝐉`$ is the interaction current and can be related to the CGLN amplitudes $`f_{1,2,3,4}`$:

$$𝐉=f_1𝝈+if_2\frac{(𝝈𝐪)(𝐤\times 𝝈)}{|𝐪||𝐤|}+f_3\frac{𝝈𝐤}{|𝐪||𝐤|}𝐪+f_4\frac{𝝈𝐪}{𝐪^2}𝐪.$$
(21)
Alternatively, one can express the transition amplitudes in the helicity space in terms of the $`𝒯`$ matrix:

$`H_1`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _f=+1/2|𝒯|\lambda _\gamma =+1,\lambda _i=1/2`$ (22)
$`H_2`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _f=+1/2|𝒯|\lambda _\gamma =+1,\lambda _i=+1/2`$ (23)
$`H_3`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _f=1/2|𝒯|\lambda _\gamma =+1,\lambda _i=1/2`$ (24)
$`H_4`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _f=1/2|𝒯|\lambda _\gamma =+1,\lambda _i=+1/2,`$ (25)
where $`\lambda _i`$ and $`\lambda _f`$ are helicities of the initial and final nucleons and $`\lambda _\gamma `$ is the helicity of the photon. Amplitudes with $`\lambda _\gamma =1`$ are not independent of those with $`\lambda _\gamma =+1`$ due to parity conservation. The CGLN and helicity amplitudes may be related through a standard transformation .

### B Transition amplitudes in the harmonic oscillator basis

The seagull term in this model differs from the traditional definition due to the appearance of a transformed electromagnetic interaction coupling to the meson at the same vertex. This term can be worked out explicitly in the SU(6)$``$O(3) symmetry limit:

$$M_{fi}^{sg}=e^{(𝐤𝐪)^2/6\alpha ^2}e_m\left[1+\frac{\omega _m}{2}\left(\frac{1}{E_i+M_i}+\frac{1}{E_f+M_f}\right)\right]𝝈\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ},$$
(26)
where the exponential factor is the corresponding quark model form factor in the harmonic oscillator basis.

The t-channel charged pion exchange amplitude can be derived by treating the exchanged pion as an elementary particle:

$$M_{fi}^t=e^{(𝐤𝐪)^2/6\alpha ^2}\frac{e_m(M_f+M_i)}{qk}\left(\frac{𝝈𝐪}{E_f+M_f}\frac{𝝈𝐤}{E_i+M_i}\right)𝐪\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ},$$
(27)
where $`q`$ and $`k`$ are four-vector-momenta of the pion and photon, respectively.

As illustrated in Eqs. (26) and (27), the leading order amplitudes from chiral perturbation theory are reproduced. The quark model modifications to these two terms come from three-body effects, which add an additional term (the second term in Eq. (26)) to the amplitudes. Note also the appearance of a form factor, which is essential to sustain the forward “spike” in $`\pi ^+`$ production.

Generalized expressions for the s\- and u-channel amplitudes are:

$$M_{fi}^s=(M_2^s+M_3^s)e^{(𝐤^2+𝐪^2)/6\alpha ^2},$$
(28)
and

$$M_{fi}^u=(M_2^u+M_3^u)e^{(𝐤^2+𝐪^2)/6\alpha ^2},$$
(29)
where the $`M_3`$ and $`M_2`$ represent transitions in which the photon and meson couple to the same quark or different quarks, respectively. The general framework was presented in Ref. . Here, we present the transition amplitudes in terms of the harmonic oscillator shell $`n`$ as follows:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{M_3^s}{g_3^s}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_q}}\left[ig_v𝐀_s(\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ}\times 𝐤)𝝈(𝐀_s\times (\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ}\times 𝐤))\right]{\displaystyle \frac{M_n}{n!(P_iknM\omega _h)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐤𝐪}{3\alpha ^2}}\right)^n`$ (30)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _\gamma \omega _m}{\mu _q}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _\gamma }{2m_q}})𝝈\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\omega _\gamma }{\alpha ^2}}𝝈𝐀_s\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ}𝐪\right]{\displaystyle \frac{M_n}{(n1)!(P_iknM\omega _h)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐤𝐪}{3\alpha ^2}}\right)^{n1}`$ (31)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _\gamma \omega _m}{18\mu _q\alpha ^2}}𝝈𝐤\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ}𝐪{\displaystyle \frac{M_n}{(n2)!(P_iknM\omega _h)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐤𝐪}{3\alpha ^2}}\right)^{n2},`$ (32)
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{M_2^s(2)^n}{g_2^s}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_q}}\left[ig_v^{}𝐀_s(\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ}\times 𝐤)g_a^{}𝝈(𝐀_s\times (\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ}\times 𝐤))\right]{\displaystyle \frac{M_n}{n!(P_iknM\omega _h)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐤𝐪}{3\alpha ^2}}\right)^n`$ (33)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _\gamma \omega _m}{\mu _q}}(1+g_a^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _\gamma }{2m_q}})𝝈\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\omega _\gamma }{\alpha ^2}}𝝈𝐀_s\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ}𝐪\right]`$ (35)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{M_n}{(n1)!(P_iknM\omega _h)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐤𝐪}{3\alpha ^2}}\right)^{n1}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _\gamma \omega _m}{18\mu _q\alpha ^2}}𝝈𝐤\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ}𝐪{\displaystyle \frac{M_n}{(n2)!(P_iknM\omega _h)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐤𝐪}{3\alpha ^2}}\right)^{n2},`$ (36)
result for the s-channel, while

$`{\displaystyle \frac{M_3^u}{g_3^u}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_q}}\left[ig_v𝐀_u(\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ}\times 𝐤)+𝝈(𝐀_u\times (\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ}\times 𝐤))\right]{\displaystyle \frac{M_n}{n!(P_fk+nM\omega _h)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐤𝐪}{3\alpha ^2}}\right)^n`$ (37)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _\gamma \omega _m}{\mu _q}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _\gamma }{2m_q}})𝝈\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\omega _\gamma }{\alpha ^2}}𝝈𝐀_u\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ}𝐪\right]{\displaystyle \frac{M_n}{(n1)!(P_fk+nM\omega _h)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐤𝐪}{3\alpha ^2}}\right)^{n1}`$ (38)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _\gamma \omega _m}{18\mu _q\alpha ^2}}𝝈𝐤\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ}𝐪{\displaystyle \frac{M_n}{(n2)!(P_fk+nM\omega _h)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐤𝐪}{3\alpha ^2}}\right)^{n2},`$ (39)
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{M_2^u(2)^n}{g_2^u}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_q}}\left[ig_v^{}𝐀_u(\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ}\times 𝐤)g_a^{}𝝈(𝐀_u\times (\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ}\times 𝐤))\right]{\displaystyle \frac{M_n}{n!(P_fk+nM\omega _h)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐤𝐪}{3\alpha ^2}}\right)^n`$ (40)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _\gamma \omega _m}{\mu _q}}(1+g_a^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _\gamma }{2m_q}})𝝈\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\omega _\gamma }{\alpha ^2}}𝝈𝐀_u\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ}𝐪\right]`$ (42)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{M_n}{(n1)!(P_fk+nM\omega _h)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐤𝐪}{3\alpha ^2}}\right)^{n1}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _\gamma \omega _m}{18\mu _q\alpha ^2}}𝝈𝐤\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ}𝐪{\displaystyle \frac{M_n}{(n2)!(P_fk+nM\omega _h)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐤𝐪}{3\alpha ^2}}\right)^{n2},`$ (43)
are corresponding terms for the u-channel. Vectors $`𝐀_s`$ and $`𝐀_u`$ are determined by the meson transitions in the s\- and u-channels:

$$𝐀_s=\left(\frac{\omega _m}{E_f+M_f}+1\right)𝐪,$$
(44)
and

$$𝐀_u=\left(\frac{\omega _m}{E_i+M_i}+\frac{\omega _m}{E_f+M_f}\right)𝐤\left(\frac{\omega _m}{E_f+M_f}+1\right)𝐪.$$
(45)
In Eqs. (30)-(40), $`P_i`$ and $`P_f`$ are four-vector momenta of the initial and final state nucleons in the total c.m. system; $`M_n`$ is the mass of excited state in the $`n`$th shell, while $`\omega _h`$ ($`=\alpha ^2/m_q`$) is the typical energy of the harmonic oscillator potential. The factor $`M_n/(P_iknM\omega _h)`$ and $`M_n/(P_fk+nM\omega _h)`$ have clear physical meanings in the s\- and u-channels that can be related to the propagators.

The quark level operators have been related to the hadronic level ones through $`g`$-factors defined as below:

$$g_3^u=N_f|\underset{j}{}e_j\widehat{I}_j\sigma _j^z|N_i/g_A,$$
(46)
$$g_2^u=N_f|\underset{ij}{}e_j\widehat{I}_i\sigma _i^z|N_i/g_A,$$
(47)
$$g_v=\frac{1}{g_3^ug_A}N_f|\underset{j}{}e_j\widehat{I}_j|N_i,$$
(48)
$$g_v^{}=\frac{1}{3g_2^ug_A}N_f|\underset{ij}{}e_j\widehat{I}_i𝝈_i𝝈_j|N_i,$$
(49)
and

$$g_a^{}=\frac{1}{2g_2^ug_A}N_f|\underset{ij}{}e_j\widehat{I}_i(𝝈_i\times 𝝈_j)_z|N_i.$$
(50)
Numerical values for these $`g`$-factors can be explicitly calculated in the SU(6)$``$O(3) symmetry limit .

So far, the resonance contributions have not been explicitly separated out. The intermediate states are still degenerate in the quantum number of the harmonic oscillator shell. Notice that the factor $`M_n/(P_iknM\omega _h)`$ can be written as $`2M_n/(sM_n^2)`$, where $`s=W^2=(P_i+k)^2`$ is the square of the total c.m. energy, we thus substitute a Breit-Wigner distribution for the resonances, $`2M_R/(sM_R^2+iM_R\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(𝐪))`$, where the resonance mass and width effects are taken into account. Explicitly, all the contributing resonances with $`n2`$ in the quark model symmetry limit can be included. In pion production, this is the place where the imaginary part of the transition amplitude comes out. The role of the imaginary part can be investigated more directly in the polarization observables, e.g. polarized target asymmetry $`T`$ and recoil polarization asymmetry $`P`$, where direct interferences between the real and imaginary part are highlighted.

Consequently, we must separate out the resonance excitation amplitudes for each $`n`$. For $`n=0`$, the contributing terms are the Delta resonance excitation and the nucleon pole terms. One can see that only the first terms in Eqs. (30)-(40) can contribute. For the s-channel, we have

$`M^s(n=0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_q}}[i(g_3^sg_v+g_2^ug_v^{})𝐀_s(\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ}\times 𝐤)`$ (52)
$`(g_3^s+g_2^ug_a^{})𝝈(𝐀_s\times (\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ}\times 𝐤))]{\displaystyle \frac{M_0}{P_ik\delta M^2/2}}e^{(𝐤^2+𝐪^2)/6\alpha ^2},`$
where $`\delta M^2/2`$ denotes the mass square difference between the intermediate state and initial state nucleon. The amplitude for the spin 1/2 nucleon pole term is,

$`M^s(nucleon)`$ $`=`$ $`N_f|H_m|N(J=1/2)N(J=1/2)|h_e|N_i`$ (53)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\mu _i}{2m_q}}𝝈𝐀_s𝝈(\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ}\times 𝐤){\displaystyle \frac{2M_N}{sM_N^2}}e^{(𝐤^2+𝐪^2)/6\alpha ^2},`$ (54)
where we have used $`\delta M^2/2=0`$ and $`P_ik=(sM_N^2)/2`$ for the nucleon pole; $`\mu _i`$ is the magnetic moment of the initial nucleon in terms of the proton magnetic moment $`e/2m_q`$. In this way, the Delta resonance excitation amplitude is derived,

$`M^s(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ $`=`$ $`M^s(n=0)M^s(nucleon)`$ (55)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_q}}[i(g_3^sg_v+g_2^ug_v^{}\mu _i)𝐀_s(\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ}\times 𝐤)`$ (57)
$`(g_3^s+g_2^ug_a^{}\mu _i)𝝈(𝐀_s\times (\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ}\times 𝐤))]{\displaystyle \frac{2M_\mathrm{\Delta }}{sM_\mathrm{\Delta }^2+iM_\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Delta }}}e^{(𝐤^2+𝐪^2)/6\alpha ^2},`$
where $`M_0/(P_ik\delta M^2/2)M_\mathrm{\Delta }/(sM_N^2(M_\mathrm{\Delta }^2M_N^2))/2`$ is used and the Breit-Wigner distribution is introduced after the separation of the spin operators.

Similarly, the Delta resonance and nucleon pole terms in the u-channel with $`n=0`$ can be separated:

$`M^u(nucleon)`$ $`=`$ $`N_f|h_e|N(J=1/2)N(J=1/2)|H_m|N_i`$ (58)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\mu _f}{2m_q}}𝝈(\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ}\times 𝐤)𝝈𝐀_u{\displaystyle \frac{2M_N}{uM_N^2}}e^{(𝐤^2+𝐪^2)/6\alpha ^2},`$ (59)
and

$`M^u(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_q}}[i(g_3^ug_v+g_2^ug_v^{}\mu _f)𝐀_u(\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ}\times 𝐤)`$ (61)
$`+(g_3^ug_2^ug_a^{}\mu _f)𝝈(𝐀_u\times (\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ}\times 𝐤))]{\displaystyle \frac{2M_\mathrm{\Delta }}{uM_\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}e^{(𝐤^2+𝐪^2)/6\alpha ^2},`$
where $`\mu _f`$ is the magnetic moment of the final state nucleon in terms of the proton magnetic moment $`e/2m_q`$.

Several points can be learned from Eqs. (30)-(40). First, the nucleon pole terms and Delta resonance transition only involve the c.m. part of their spatial wavefunctions. Therefore, only the first terms in these equations contribute to the amplitudes. For resonances with $`n>0`$, the internal motion of constituents will be involved. Specifically, terms relating to $`(n1)`$ are due to correlations between c.m. motion and internal ones, while $`(n2)`$ terms are due to correlations between internal motions at two vertices.

Secondly, amplitudes for processes having the photon and meson coupled to different quarks are relatively suppressed. This can be seen clearly through the factors $`(2)^n`$. In Ref. , this qualitative feature was discussed, but not shown explicitly. Here, we show how the indirect diagram can be exactly calculated, and show that the direct diagram will become dominant with increasing energy and the excitation of higher states.

Notice that in the degeneracy limit, the sum over $`n`$ in Eqs. (30)-(40) gives:

$`M_{fi}^s+M_{fi}^u`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(\widehat{O}_s+\widehat{O}_u){\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐤𝐪}{3\alpha ^2}}\right)^ne^{(𝐤^2+𝐪^2)/6\alpha ^2}`$ (62)
$`=`$ $`(\widehat{O}_s+\widehat{O}_u)e^{(𝐤𝐪)^2/6\alpha ^2},`$ (63)
where $`\widehat{O}_s`$ and $`\widehat{O}_u`$ represent operators independent of $`n`$, and recovering the factor $`e^{(𝐤𝐪)^2/6\alpha ^2}`$ is essential for the theory to be gauge invariant. Although like many other phenomenological approaches this model does not have unitarity, such a form factor prevents certain terms from violating unitarity. One can see that at high energies the degeneracy limit can be recognized by the dominance of the direct diagram. How to restore the unitarity in a general framework should be a next step of this investigation.

From Eq. (55), the analytical expression for the Delta multipole can be derived,

$$M_{1+}^{3/2}=g_{\pi NN}g_R\frac{1}{2m_q}\left[\frac{\omega _m}{E_f+M_f}+1\right]\frac{2M_\mathrm{\Delta }}{sM_\mathrm{\Delta }^2+iM_\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Delta }}e^{(𝐤^2+𝐪^2)/6\alpha ^2},$$
(64)
where $`g_Rg_3^sg_v+g_2^ug_v^{}\mu _i`$, and $`g_{\pi NN}`$ has been taken into account. The real and imaginary parts of the Delta multipole $`M_{1+}^{3/2}`$ are calculated and shown in Fig. 2. We shall discuss the quark model form factor effects in the following Section. Therefore, it would be useful to present the calculation of $`M_{1+}^{3/2}`$ without the exponent, which comes from the spatial integral and serves as a form factor for the multipole. As illustrated by the dotted and dot-dashed curve in Fig. 2, apparent deviations from the experimental data occur with the increasing energies. In another word, the quark model turns to be indispensible to account for the correct energy dependence.

Multipole $`E_{1+}^{3/2}`$ vanishes in this approach for the s-channel Delta resonance. Experimentally, $`E_{1+}^{3/2}`$ is found to be much smaller than $`M_{1+}^{3/2}`$ .

## III Results and analysis

In this Section, we present our study of reactions, $`\gamma p\pi ^+n`$, $`\gamma p\pi ^0p`$, $`\gamma n\pi ^{}p`$, and $`\gamma n\pi ^0n`$ with the same set of coherent parameters. The Goldberg-Treiman relation,

$$g_{\pi NN}=\frac{g_AM_N}{f_\pi },$$
(65)
relates the axial vector coupling $`g_A`$ to the well-known $`g_{\pi NN}`$ coupling, where $`f_\pi `$ is the pion decay constant. Note that $`g_A`$ in this model is an overall constant, and can be calculated in the quark model. However, the quark model predicts a rather large value: $`|g_A|=5/3`$ for charged pions and $`5/3\sqrt{2}`$ for neutral pions. Consequently, $`g_{\pi NN}`$ given by Eq. (65) is not a good input for our purpose. On the other hand, $`g_{\pi NN}`$ is a well-determined number, and we shall therefore “fix” the “parameter” $`g_{\pi NN}=13.48`$ in our calculations. This is a strong constraint on the theory, as the Born terms (including seagull term, t-channel pion exchange, and nucleon pole terms) are completely fixed. We shall follow the quark model predictions for relative signs and strengths in order to study the four charge channels coherently.

### A The charged pion production reaction

A distinguishing feature of $`\pi ^+`$ photoproduction is the forward “spike” and the dip near $`t=m_\pi ^2`$ seen in its differential cross sections. Multipole analyses based on a unitary isobaric model and studies utilizing fixed-t dispersion relations suggest that this feature is related to an interference between the Born terms and the Delta resonance “excitation” (in the naive quark model, the Delta resonance is the ground state for isospin 3/2 baryons). The $`M_{1+}^{3/2}`$ multipole for the Delta resonance dominates the cross sections and single polarization asymmetries over a wide energy range. Reproducing this combination of features is non-trivial in a microscopic model.

In Fig. 3, we show the calculations for reaction $`\gamma p\pi ^+n`$ in the SU(6)$``$O(3) symmetry limit. The dotted curves are calculated in this limit, having only an overall quark-meson coupling parameter, which is in fact not “free” for the Born terms due to the Goldberg-Treiman relation. Near threshold, the cross section is reproduced reasonably, which is consistent with the leading order calculation of chiral perturbation theory. The dip at $`t=m_\pi ^2`$ clearly originates from the interference between the t-channel pion exchange and the seagull term. At $`E_\gamma 220`$ MeV, the Delta resonance has only small interference.

Interference from the nucleon pole terms becomes important from $`E_\gamma =220`$ to 260 MeV. At the lower energy limit, the t-channel pion exchange and the seagull term dominate over other processes, while for higher energies, the Delta resonance dominates. The influence of the nucleon pole terms can be seen clearly in the polarized beam asymmetries. As shown by the dotted curve in Fig. 4 at $`E_\gamma =260`$ MeV, for which the nucleon pole terms are eliminated, the interference from the nucleon pole terms generally produces large asymmetries at intermediate angles.

With increasing energy, we find that the cross sections are underestimated over the Delta resonance region in the SU(6)$``$O(3) symmetry limit. This suggests a failure of the symmetric quark model for the Delta resonance. However, notice that the “dip” feature is still sustained over this region, and we assume that the Delta excitation has a “good” form factor from the quark model. Thus, we empirically treat the $`\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ coupling strength as a free parameter, which will be fixed by the experimental data. The solid curves shown in Fig. 3 denote the calculations with $`C_\mathrm{\Delta }=1.7474`$, where $`C_\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$ is the strength in the quark model symmetry limit. The enhancement of the Delta contribution significantly improves the description of the experimental data. Compared with the dotted curves, the cross sections at the extremely-forward and intermediate angles are both enhanced.

The differential cross section for the $`\pi ^+`$ production changes rapidly from threshold to the Delta resonance region. After that, it remains stable up to $`E_\gamma `$ 700 MeV, where resonances of the second resonance region start to interfere. The challenge for a microscopic approach is not only to reproduce the dramatic changes at low energies, but also to sustain the forward peaking to high energies. It is quite natural for us to achieve the first goal in this model. That is, the enhanced Delta resonance succeeds in reproducing the drastic change of the cross sections at the first resonance region. For the second goal, we find that with only one parameter, the strong forward peaking can only be sustained up to $`E_\gamma `$ 500 MeV. This result has non-trivial implications. It suggests that the quark model within an effective Lagrangian provides correct signs and even reasonable form factors for the Delta excitation and nucleon pole terms. As illustrated in Section II, the Delta excitation and the nucleon pole terms have simple structures coming from the harmonic oscillator shell $`n=0`$. Clearly, a self-consistent treatment of these ingredients is essential to any viable model. We suggest that the tree level calculation, based on the quark model, may have included the main ingredients, (e.g. relative signs and form factors), even though its description of the nucleon pole and Delta resonance is very simple.

An interesting question arising in this work is the role played by the u-channel resonance contributions. Generally, this part has been neglected in isobaric models, nor is it included in traditional quark model calculations, due to empirical considerations . In the present calculation, we find that the u-channel process tends to decrease the forward peaking. In Fig. 3, the dashed curves denote calculations with the u-channel of $`n>1`$ neglected, which enhances the forward peak above the Delta resonance region. Since the full calculation underestimates the forward peaking slightly, the neglect of the u-channel of $`n>1`$ seems to follow the data more closely. This feature seems consistent with findings of Ref. . There, the u-channel resonance contributions were neglected, and an overall strong forward peaking was observed.

Polarization observables are sensitive to resonance contributions, providing a possible way to clarify the role played by the Delta resonance. In Fig. 4, the polarized beam asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is calculated for 8 energy bins. The results are generally in agreement with the data at $`E_\gamma `$ 300 MeV. However, some discrepancies are found at $`E_\gamma =350`$ and 400 MeV, which are sensitive to the u-channel nucleon pole rather than the u-channel resonances ($`n>1`$). As shown by the dashed curves, neglecting the $`n>1`$ u-channel resonance does not change the solid curves significantly. At $`E_\gamma `$ 700 MeV, the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ becomes a strongly interfering source. The enhancement of this asymmetry at $`\theta =130`$-$`140^{}`$ is evidence for the existence of the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ resonance.

The presence of the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ as a state of representation $`[\mathrm{𝟕𝟎},^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝟖}]`$ in the quark model accounts for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ naturally up to 750 MeV. Compared with the precise measurement of GRAAL , we cannot produce the structure observed at backward angles above 800 MeV. As suggested by the isobaric approach , a small $`S_{11}(1650)`$ contribution can reproduce the data reasonably. In our model calculation, the $`S_{11}(1650)`$ is absent in the proton reaction due to the Moorhouse selection rule . The breaking of the symmetric quark model will introduce mixing between states of different representations, e.g. the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ and $`S_{11}(1650)`$. A more realistic model taking into account such a mixing mechanism is clearly required above the second resonance region. The $`S_{11}(1650)`$ has large branching fraction to $`\pi N`$ states .

Calculations for the polarized target asymmetries are presented in Fig. 5, and compared with existing experimental measurements. Given that only one parameter has been introduced, the results should be regarded as consistent with the data from threshold to $`E_\gamma `$ 500 MeV. At $`E_\gamma =220`$ MeV, our results underestimate the data, however this feature is consistent with the SAID fit .

Calculations for the recoil polarization asymmetries are presented in Fig. 6, which are consistent with the data in the first resonance region.

The reaction $`\gamma n\pi ^{}p`$ is calculated using the same set of parameters determined in the $`\pi ^+`$ production. We present the results for the differential cross sections in Fig. 7. Although large uncertainties exist within the data, our calculation is in good agreement with experiment up to $`E_\gamma `$ 400 MeV. Interestingly, these results, which can be regarded as predictions of this approach, are very close to the analyses of Ref. . It is worth noting that similar structures as found in $`\gamma p\pi ^+n`$ (the “dip” and “spike”) are also present here, and due to the same mechanism.

### B The neutral pion production reaction

In comparison with the charged pion production, the neutral-pion channels are relatively simple in this model. The contact term and the t-channel pion exchange are eliminated in the effective interaction since these amplitudes are proportional to the charge of the produced meson. The nucleon pole terms and the Delta excitation therefore dominate over other processes near threshold.

In Fig. 8, the differential cross sections for $`\gamma p\pi ^0p`$ are presented at several energies. In the SU(6)$``$O(3) symmetry limit, as shown by the dashed curves, the cross sections are underestimated by the Delta excitation. Similar to the feature arising from the charged pion production channels, we need to enhance the Delta excitation strength to reproduce the data.

The calculations of the single polarization asymmetries are presented in Fig. 911 and compared with data.

In Fig. 12, the calculated cross sections for $`\gamma n\pi ^0n`$ are presented. So far, there are only sparse data available for this channel.

The above results for the cross section and single polarization asymmetries suggest an overall quantitative agreement with the data from threshold to the first resonance region, while qualitatively, the data up to the second resonance region can be explained. The lack of quantitative agreement above the Delta resonance region was expected, given that only a minimum number of free parameters are used here. However, by using only a minimal model, it has been easier to identify key ingredients responsible for those trends we do reproduce.

### C Quark model form factor and the helicity basis

As mentioned previously, in $`\pi ^+`$ photoproduction, the most prominent features seen in the cross section are forward peaking and the dip at $`t=m_\pi ^2`$, which is attributed to the Born terms. Our results also reproduce this feature. Some new ingredients appearing in this approach concern the roles played by the Born terms and the Delta resonance, and the influence of their associated form factors.

As found in previous studies, the Born terms deviate significantly from the experimental data at intermediate and backward angles as photon energies increase to the GeV level. The cross section due to Born terms alone is much larger than the data suggest. One possible explanation is that the Born terms are cancelled by resonance contributions away from the forward peak. As discussed by Barbour, Malone and Moorhouse in a fixed-$`t`$ dispersion relation , the real parts of the resonance amplitudes tend to cancel the Born terms at $`t>m_\pi ^2`$, while the region $`t<m_\pi ^2`$ is slightly enhanced by low-lying resonance contributions.

In Fig. 13, we illustrate the results for the Born terms and Born terms plus Delta excitation, with and without the quark model form factors, respectively. Clearly, form factors are vital in the quark-model description, though no free parameters have been introduced. Comparing the full result to one in which the form factors are switched off, we see potential problems for those who compare quark-model results directly to fits (such as SAID and MAID) which do not introduce form factors. An interesting extension of this work would be the consideration of forward cross sections at higher energies, where the influence of form factors is nebulous .

To end this Section, we present a comparison of energy evolution of the Born terms plus Delta helicity amplitudes calculated by this model with a SAID analysis. The four independent helicity amplitudes are calculated following the convention of Ref. ,

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }_{cm}}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{|𝐪|}{|𝐤|}\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}|H_i(\theta _{cm})|^2,$$
(66)
where $`\theta _{cm}`$ is the angle between the incoming photon momentum $`𝐤`$ and outgoing meson momentum $`𝐪`$ in the c.m. system. In Fig. 14, the helicity amplitudes are presented at five angles, $`\theta _{cm}=0^{},45^{},90^{},135^{}`$, and $`180^{}`$. At $`\theta _{cm}=0^{}`$, only $`H_2`$ has non-zero values, while all the other elements vanish. In the backward direction, the non-vanishing element is $`H_4`$. Compared with the SAID analysis, an overall agreement is obtained up to 500 MeV.

### D t-channel vector meson exchange

A long-standing question concerns the role played by vector-meson exchange in low-energy pion photoproduction. According to the duality argument , the introduction of vector meson exchanges, along with a complete set of s-channel resonances, might result in double counting. In practice, a systematic inclusion of all s-channel resonances at the hadronic level is not available. Empirically, t-channel vector-meson exchange may account for incomplete s-channel resonance contributions, which however makes the duality hypothesis more ambiguous.

Given the results presented in the previous Subsections, the quark model framework, with an effective Lagrangian, could address this question in pion photoproduction from a more fundamental level. As seen in the cross sections for $`\pi ^+`$ production up to 700 MeV, forward peaking above the Delta resonance has been successfully sustained up to 500 MeV. This could reasonably illustrate that the effective Lagrangian has been sufficient to describe the data over the first resonance region. In order to consider the effect of possible double counting between the t-channel vector meson exchange and s\- and u-channel resonances, we compare models including various subsets of these diagrams. Our purpose is to clarify whether the behavior of those higher excited states (terms) would be similar to the inclusion of vector meson exchange, particularly to compare with an ‘isobaric’ model, where the u-channel resonance contributions are neglected.

We shall introduce the following effective Lagrangians for vector-meson exchange:

$$_{\gamma \pi V}=e\frac{g_{\gamma \pi V}}{m_\pi }\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }^\alpha A^\beta ^\gamma V^\delta \pi ,$$
(67)
for $`\gamma \pi V`$ coupling and

$$_{Vqq}=g_{Vqq}\overline{\psi }\left(\gamma _\mu +\frac{\kappa _q}{2m_q}\sigma _{\mu \nu }^\nu \right)V^\mu \psi ,$$
(68)
for the quark-vector-meson ($`V`$-$`qq`$) coupling; $`A`$ and $`V`$ denote the photon and vector meson; $`\pi `$ denotes the pion field and $`\psi `$ ($`\overline{\psi }`$) denotes the quark (antiquark) field; $`g_{\gamma \pi V}`$ and $`g_{Vqq}`$ are coupling constants. Note that we treat the $`V`$-$`qq`$ coupling at quark level in order to be consistent with our framework. In this way, there is once again no need to introduce free parameters for the vertex form factors. In addition, a simple current analogy will relate the $`g_{Vqq}`$ to $`g_{VNN}`$, constraining this term as well.

Some simple algebra gives the transition amplitude,

$`_V`$ $`=`$ $`e{\displaystyle \frac{g_{V\pi \gamma }g_{Vqq}e^{(𝐤𝐪)^2/6\alpha ^2}}{m_\pi (tm_v^2)}}\{g_t[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _m}{E_f+M_f}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _\gamma }{E_i+M_i}}`$ (75)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _q}{2m_q}}({\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2}{E_f+M_f}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_f+M_f}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_i+M_i}}kq))]𝐪(𝐤\times \mathit{ϵ}\text{γ})`$
$`+g_A[{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _\gamma 𝐪^2}{E_f+M_f}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _m𝐤^2}{E_i+M_i}}({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _\gamma }{E_i+M_i}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _m}{E_f+M_f}})𝐪𝐤`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _q}{2m_q}}(\omega _m𝐤^2+\omega _\gamma 𝐪^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _\gamma \omega _m}{E_f+M_f}}𝐪^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(\omega _\gamma \omega _mm_\pi ^2)}{E_i+M_i}}𝐤^2`$
$`(\omega _\gamma +\omega _m+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _m^2}{E_f+M_f}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _\gamma ^2}{E_i+M_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{kq}{E_i+M_i}}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐪𝐤}{E_f+M_f}})𝐪𝐤)]i𝝈\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ}`$
$`+g_A\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _m}{E_f+M_f}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _q}{2m_q}}\left(\omega _m+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _m^2}{E_f+M_f}}{\displaystyle \frac{kq}{E_f+M_f}}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐤𝐪}{E_i+M_i}}\right)\right]i𝝈\mathrm{𝐤𝐪}\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ}`$
$`g_A[{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _\gamma }{E_f+M_f}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _q}{2m_q}}(\omega _\gamma +{\displaystyle \frac{𝐤^2}{E_i+M_i}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _\gamma \omega _m}{E_f+M_f}})]i𝝈\mathrm{𝐪𝐪}\mathit{ϵ}\text{γ}\},`$
where $`kq=\omega _\gamma \omega _m𝐤𝐪`$ is the four-momentum product; The exponent comes from the nucleon wave functions, which plays the role of a form factor; $`g_A`$ is the axial vector coupling and defined in the quark model as Eq. (19), i.e.

$$N_f|\underset{j}{}\widehat{I}_j^v𝝈_j|N_ig_AN_f|𝝈|N_i,$$
(76)
where $`\widehat{I}_j^v`$ is the isospin operator for the exchanged vector meson. The other factor $`g_t`$ comes from the isospin space,

$$g_tN_f|\underset{j}{}\widehat{I}_j^v|N_i.$$
(77)
Analogy between the quark level operator and $`V`$-$`NN`$ coupling gives:

$`g_tg_{Vqq}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{VNN}`$ (78)
$`g_A{\displaystyle \frac{g_{Vqq}}{m_q}}(1+\kappa _q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{VNN}}{m_N}}(1+\kappa _V),`$ (79)
where $`m_q=330`$ MeV is the constituent quark mass. In Ref. , a similar relation was investigated, but only the vector current was introduced for the $`V`$-$`qq`$ coupling. We shall use the commonly used values for $`g_{VNN}`$ and $`\kappa _V`$ to constrain the values for $`g_{Vqq}`$ and $`\kappa _q`$.

In the $`\pi ^+`$ production, we adopt the values $`g_{\rho NN}=3`$ and $`\kappa _\rho =3.71`$ as inputs. With the quark model values $`g_A=5/3`$ and $`g_t=1`$ for $`\gamma p\pi ^+n`$, we derive $`g_{\rho qq}=3`$ and $`\kappa _q^\rho =0.0064`$. In $`\gamma p\pi ^0p`$, we adopt $`g_{\omega NN}=9`$, and $`\kappa _\omega =0.12`$. With $`g_A^\omega =1`$ and $`g_t^\omega =3`$, $`g_{\omega qq}=3`$ and $`\kappa _q^\omega =0.2`$ are derived for the $`\omega `$ exchange, and with $`g_A^\rho =5/3\sqrt{2}`$ and $`g_t^\rho =1/\sqrt{2}`$, $`g_{\rho qq}=3`$ and $`\kappa _q^\rho =1.99`$ are derived.

In Figs. 15 and 16, we show the calculations of observables ($`d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`T`$ and $`P`$) with the t-channel vector meson exchange (VME) for $`\gamma p\pi ^+n`$ and $`\gamma p\pi ^0p`$, respectively. Three energy bins are investigated. We use s+u to denote the effective Lagrangian calculations, while s+t denotes calculations suppressing the u-channel resonance but including the t-channel VME. Finally, we use s+u+t to represent the full calculation, including the VME. The values, $`g_{\rho \pi \gamma }=0.103`$ and $`g_{\omega \pi \gamma }=0.313`$ are adopted.

In the $`\pi ^+`$ production, contributions from the VME are found to be negligible. One reason is the relatively smaller couplings of $`g_{\rho \pi \gamma }`$ and $`g_{\rho NN}`$ compared to the couplings for $`\omega `$ exchange. However, the main factor leading to small VME contributions in the $`\pi ^+`$ production is a large cancellation occurring among terms proportional to $`g_A`$ and $`g_t`$ in Eq. (75). Since different contributions from the VME to different reactions depend on the quark model prediction for $`g_A`$ and $`g_t`$, the VME might introduce more model-dependent ingredients in the calculations.

## IV Conclusions

We have studied pion photoproduction in four charge channels within the quark model incorporating an effective Lagrangian. Up to $`E_\gamma =`$ 500 MeV, the cross sections and single polarization asymmetries can be accounted for with one adjustable parameter for the Delta excitation strength. We find that if a stronger coupling for the Delta transition is employed, all the observables in the first resonance region can be reproduced. In another words, the NRCQM might have provided a reasonable form factor for the Delta resonance, but with weaker coupling.

As the first systematic microscopic study of pion photoproduction, this result suggests that a direct calculation of the tree level diagrams based on the quark model with a chiral effective Lagrangian may contain the main ingredients required in an elementary approach. In particular, we show that the quark model form factors play a key role in reproducing the data over a wide energy region. Such a form factor can be only self-consistently and completely considered in a direct calculation of quark level diagrams. This result highlights the relation between the background Born terms and resonance excitations. Extensions to higher energies would help to clarify the relation between quark model results and those found via phenomenology. Nevertheless, a parallel investigation of electroproduction would be useful for a better understanding of the Delta resonance based on this model. We shall report this elsewhere.

Restricted to the low energies at $`E_\gamma <500`$ MeV, we see that t-channel vector-meson exchange is negligible. This leaves the duality hypothesis far from conclusive. We expect that more sophisticated calculations at high energies could be helpful in disentangling this question as well.

###### Acknowledgements.

Useful discussions with F.E. Close and T. Sato are gratefully acknowledged. Q.Z. thanks J. Arends for sending details about their experimental data. Q.Z. and J.A. acknowledge the financial support of the U.K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (Grant No. GR/M82141). R.W. acknowledges the financial support in part by a U.S. Department of Energy Grant DE-FG02-99ER41110. R.W. also acknowledges partial support from Jefferson Lab, by the Southeastern Universities Research Association under D.O.E. contract DE-AC05- 84ER40150.


format: text

text:
# Strong-Field QED and the Inverse Mellin Transform*footnote **footnote *Talk presented in Fifth Workshop on Quantum Field Theory under the Influence of External Conditions, Leipzig, Germany, 10-14 Sep 2001.

## I Introduction

The wave function and energy quantization of a relativistic charged particle in a uniform background magnetic field is well understood. For a relativistic electron (positron), one solves for the Dirac equation in a background magnetic field. The solution is characterized by the energy levels:

$$E_{n,s_z}^2=m_e^2+p_z^2+eB\left(2n+1+2s_z\right),$$
(1)
with $`s_z`$ the electron spin projection along the $`+z`$ direction, and the correspondent wave function

$$\psi _{n,p_y,p_z,s_z}^\pm (\stackrel{}{r},t)=\mathrm{exp}(iE_nt+ip_yy+ip_zz)𝐅_{n,p_z,s_z}^\pm (x^{}),$$
(2)
where $`𝐅_{n,p_z,s_z}^\pm (x^{})`$ is a four-component spinor with $`x^{}=xp_y/eB`$. The detailed form for $`𝐅_{n,p_z,s_z}^\pm `$ can be found, for example, in.

In spite of our knowledge in the above energy quantization and wave function, it is often non-trivial to compute a physical process occurring in a background magnetic field, particularly, if there are more than one charged fermion involving in the reaction. A well-known example is the pair production process, $`\gamma e^+e^{}`$, which is relevant to the gamma-ray attenuation in the neutron star, and was studied first by Toll and Klepikov independently. Both authors computed the pair production width by squaring the $`\gamma e^+e^{}`$ matrix elements using exact electron and positron wave functions in a background magnetic field, and summing over all available final states consistent with the initial photon energy. The most updated calculation using this approach was given in . We note that all of the above works assume $`q^2=0`$ for the photon momentum, despite the presence of background magnetic field. To apply the precise photon dispersion relation in the calculation of pair-production width, one needs to study the photon polarization function in a background magnetic field. In fact, a consistent calculation of pair-production width require the knowledge of both absorptive and dispersive parts of photon polarization function. In this regard, Tsai and Erber obtained the absorptive part of the one-loop photon polarization function in the asymptotic limit $`\omega 2m_e`$ and $`BB_cm_e^2/e`$ with the assumption $`q^2=0`$. Their result was shown to agree with that of Toll and Klepikov. However, in the above asymptotic limit, the threshold behavior of the pair-production width is completely lost. Later on, Shabad obtained the absorptive part (and the dispersive part as well) of one-loop photon polarization function for a general photon energy and magnetic-field strength. In that work, the threshold behavior of the pair-production width was worked out explicitly. We remark that Refs. employed Schwinger’s proper-time representation for the electron and positron Green’s functions which make up the photon polarization function. To our knowledge, Ref. is the first work demonstrating that the proper-time representation for the photon polarization function gives equivalent pair-production width to that given by squaring the $`\gamma e^+e^{}`$ amplitude directly. Unfortunately, the manipulations of Ref. are rather involved and the substantial details of them were given in some other unpublished preprints. It is not very clear how one can generalize the approach of Ref. to other processes.

In this report, we provide an alternative derivation of the pair-production width (or equivalently the absorptive part of the photon polarization function) from the proper-time representation of the photon polarization function. We shall also outline the procedure of obtaining the dispersive part of the polarization function, which is required for computing the photon index of refraction. It will be clear that our approach is very straightforward and physically intuitive. This report is organized as follows: In Section 2, we derive the sum rule that relates the moments of the pair-production width to the derivatives of the photon polarization function at the zero momentum. In Section 3, we apply this sum rule to the photon polarization function in an asymptotic limit, i.e., $`\omega 2m_e`$ and $`BB_c`$. A general analysis valid for arbitrary $`\omega `$ and $`B`$ is given in Section 4. We conclude in Section 5.

## II The Sum Rule

We are interested in the properties of photon polarization function in the background magnetic field, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }`$. Since a photon has two different polarization states in a background magnetic field, one may choose the polarization states as $`ϵ_{}^\mu (0,\stackrel{}{ϵ}_{})`$ and $`ϵ_{}^\mu (0,\stackrel{}{ϵ}_{})`$ where $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}_{}`$ is lying on the plane spanned by the photon momentum $`𝐪`$ and the magnetic field vector $`𝐁`$, while $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}_{}`$ is perpendicular to the plane. It is then convenient to define the scalar functions $`\mathrm{\Pi }_,=ϵ_,^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }ϵ_,^\nu `$ which govern the behaviors of polarization states $`ϵ_,^\mu `$ in the background magnetic field. The sum rule for $`\mathrm{\Pi }_,`$ is derived by considering the following contour integral:

$$I_n=_C\frac{d\omega ^2}{2\pi i}\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_,(\omega ^2)}{(\omega ^2+\omega _0^2)^{n+1}},$$
(3)
where the integration contour $`C`$ is shown in Fig. 1. We have implicitly assume $`q^2=0`$ in the above equation in order to compare with previous results. This assumption will be relaxed later. For convenience, let us take $`𝐁`$ to be along $`+z`$ direction, while the photon momentum $`𝐪`$ is on the $`XZ`$ plane making an angle $`\theta `$ to $`𝐁`$. Hence $`q`$ can be parameterized as $`q^\mu =(\omega ,\omega \mathrm{sin}\theta ,0,\omega \mathrm{cos}\theta )`$. We note that the integral $`I_n`$ may be evaluated in two different ways. One computes $`I_n`$ either by the residue theorem or by a direct integration along the contour $`C`$ with the realization that the contribution from the outer circle vanishes. The equivalence of two integration procedures gives rise to the relation:

$$\frac{1}{n!}\left(\frac{d^n}{d(\omega ^2)^n}\mathrm{\Pi }_,\right)|_{\omega ^2=\omega _0^2}=\frac{1}{\pi }_{M_,^2}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega ^2\frac{\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_,(\omega ^2)}{(\omega ^2+\omega _0^2)^{n+1}},$$
(4)
where $`M_,`$ are the threshold energies for pair productions, given by

$$M_{}^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta =4m_e^2,M_{}^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta =m_e^2\left(1+\sqrt{1+2\frac{B}{B_c}}\right)^2.$$
(5)
Since the absorption coefficient (pair production width) is given by $`\kappa _,=\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_,/\omega `$, Eq. (4) relates the real part of photon polarization function to the absorption coefficient. One can further simplify Eq. (4) by taking $`\omega _0^2=0`$ such that

$$\frac{1}{n!}\left(\frac{d^n}{d(\omega ^2)^n}\mathrm{\Pi }_,\right)|_{\omega ^2=0}=\frac{M_,^{12n}}{\pi }_0^1𝑑y_,y_,^{n1}\left(\kappa _,y_,^{1/2}\right),$$
(6)
with $`y_,=M_,^2/\omega ^2`$. One notes that the absorptive part of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_,(\omega ^2)`$ vanishes for the range $`0\omega ^2M_,^2`$. Therefore one can effectively set the integration range of Eq. (6) as from $`y_,=0`$ to $`y_,=\mathrm{}`$. As mentioned before, the above sum rule is derived by assuming $`q^2=0`$. For a general $`q^2`$, the sum rule becomes:

$$\frac{1}{n!}\left(\frac{d^n}{d(q_{}^2)^n}\mathrm{\Pi }_,\right)|_{q_{}^2=0}=\frac{m_,^{2n}}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑u_,u_,^{n1}\left(\omega \kappa _,\right),$$
(7)
where $`m_{}^2=4m_e^2`$, $`m_{}^2=m_e^2(1+\sqrt{1+2B/B_c})^2`$, $`q_{}^2=\omega ^2q_z^2`$, and $`u_,=m_,^2/q_{}^2`$. Both of Eqs. (6) and (7) indicate that the moments of absorption coefficients are proportional to the derivatives of photon polarization functions at the zero value of $`q_{}^2\omega ^2q_z^2`$. Hence the absorption coefficients can be calculated from the derivatives of photon polarization functions at the zero value of $`q_{}^2`$ by the inverse Mellin transform.

## III The behaviors of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_,`$ in the asymptotic limit

To study the behaviors of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_,`$, let us begin with the proper-time representation of photon polarization function $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }`$ in a uniform background magnetic field:

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^3B}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}ds{\displaystyle _1^{+1}}dv\{e^{is\varphi _0}[(q^2g_{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )N_0`$ (8)
$``$ $`(q_{}^2g_{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )N_{}+(q_{}^2g_{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )N_{}]`$ (9)
$``$ $`e^{ism_e^2}(1v^2)(q^2g_{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )\},`$ (10)
where the photon momentum has been decomposed into $`q_{}^\mu (\omega ,0,0,q_z)`$ and $`q_{}^\mu (0,q_x,q_y,0)`$. The phase $`\varphi _0`$ and the functions $`N_0`$, $`N_{}`$, and $`N_{}`$ are given by

$$\varphi _0=m_e^2\frac{1v^2}{4}q_{}^2\frac{\mathrm{cos}(zv)\mathrm{cos}(z)}{2z\mathrm{sin}(z)}q_{}^2$$
(11)
with $`z=eBs`$, and

$`N_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(zv)v\mathrm{cot}(z)\mathrm{sin}(zv)}{\mathrm{sin}(z)}},`$ (12)
$`N_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cot}(z)\left(1v^2+{\displaystyle \frac{v\mathrm{sin}(zv)}{\mathrm{sin}(z)}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(zv)}{\mathrm{sin}(z)}},`$ (13)
$`N_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(zv)}{\mathrm{sin}(z)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v\mathrm{cot}(z)\mathrm{sin}(zv)}{\mathrm{sin}(z)}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(zv)\mathrm{cos}(z)}{\mathrm{sin}^3(z)}}.`$ (14)
In the limit $`BB_c`$ with $`q^2=0`$, we write the derivative of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_,`$ into an asymptotic series in $`B/B_c`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d^n}{d(\omega ^2)^n}}\mathrm{\Pi }_,\right)|_{\omega ^2=0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _em_e^2}{\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{B^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{3B_c^2m_e^2}}\right)^n{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(3n1)\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(2n)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)\mathrm{\Gamma }(4n)}}`$ (15)
$`\times `$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{6n+1,3n+1}{4n+1}}\right)+\mathrm{},`$ (16)
where the disregarded terms are of higher order in $`B/B_c`$. From the sum rule in Eq. (6), we obtain the absorption coefficients $`\kappa _,`$ via the inverse Mellin transform:

$`\kappa _{}(\lambda ^{^{}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha m_e^2}{i\pi \omega }}{\displaystyle _{i\mathrm{}+a}^{+i\mathrm{}+a}}𝑑s(\lambda ^{^{}})^{2s}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(3s)\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(2s)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)\mathrm{\Gamma }(4s)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3s1}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{6s+1}{4s+1}},`$ (17)
$`\kappa _{}(\lambda ^{^{\prime \prime }})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha m_e^2}{i\pi \omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{1+\sqrt{1+2B/B_c}}}{\displaystyle _{i\mathrm{}+a}^{+i\mathrm{}+a}}𝑑s(\lambda ^{^{\prime \prime }})^{2s}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(3s)\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(2s)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)\mathrm{\Gamma }(4s)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3s1}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{3s+1}{4s+1}},`$ (18)
(19)
where $`a`$ is any real number greater than $`1/3`$; while $`\lambda ^{^{}}=(\omega \mathrm{sin}\theta B/\sqrt{3}m_eB_c)`$ and $`\lambda ^{^{\prime \prime }}=\lambda ^{^{}}(1+\sqrt{1+2B/B_c})/2`$. These absorption coefficients were shown to agree with previous results by Tsai and Erber who obtained $`\kappa _,=\frac{\alpha }{2}\mathrm{sin}\theta \left(eB/m_e\right)T_,(\lambda )`$ with $`\lambda =\frac{3}{2}(eB/m_e^2)(\omega /m_e)\mathrm{sin}\theta `$, and

$$T_,(\lambda )=\frac{4\sqrt{3}}{\pi \lambda }_0^1𝑑v(1v^2)^1[(1\frac{1}{3}v^2),(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{6}v^2)]K_{2/3}\left(\frac{4}{\lambda }\frac{1}{1v^2}\right),$$
(20)
with $`K_{2/3}`$ the modified Bessel function.

It is important to point out that both of $`\kappa _{}`$ and $`\kappa _{}`$ are smooth functions of the photon energy. This behavior actually does not describe the real physical situation where new absorption peaks keep on emerging as the photon energy increases. One attributes this problem to the asymptotic expansion performed in Eq. (16). As it is easily seen that, apart from the trivial mass factor $`m_e^{22n}`$, the first term on the R.H.S. of Eq. (16) grows to infinity as $`n`$ increases, no matter how small the ratio $`B/B_c`$ is. This then implies that the disregarded higher-order terms are in fact non-negligible for a sufficiently large $`n`$. As a result, the large moments of $`\kappa _,`$ are not accurately determined by the first term of the above asymptotic expansion. Therefore, to obtain a correct energy dependencies of the absorption coefficients $`\kappa _,`$, one should not expand in $`B/B_c`$ even for a small magnetic-field strength.

## IV The exact one-loop result for $`\mathrm{\Pi }_,`$

In this section, we calculate $`\mathrm{\Pi }_,`$ for a general photon energy and background magnetic-field strength. From Eq. (10), we obtain the integral representation for the scalar functions $`\mathrm{\Pi }_,`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}(\omega ^2,𝐪_{}^2,\theta )=(\alpha _e\omega ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta /4\pi )\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}(\omega ^2,𝐪_{}^2,\theta )=(\alpha _e𝐪_{}^2/4\pi )\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}`$, with

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑z{\displaystyle _1^{+1}}𝑑v\mathrm{exp}[is\varphi _0]N_{},`$ (21)
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑z{\displaystyle _1^{+1}}𝑑v\mathrm{exp}[is\varphi _0]N_{},`$ (22)
where $`𝐪_{}^2=q_x^2+q_y^2`$, and $`\theta `$ is the angle between the photon momentum $`𝐪`$ and the magnetic field vector $`𝐁`$. The calculations of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}`$ are non-trivial. For illustrations, we will only show the details of computing one particular term in $`\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}`$. Let us consider the following integral

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^A=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑z_1^{+1}𝑑v\mathrm{exp}[is\varphi _0]\frac{\mathrm{cos}(zv)}{\mathrm{sin}(z)},$$
(23)
where $`\mathrm{cos}(zv)/\mathrm{sin}(z)`$ is the last term in $`N_{}`$. To apply the sum rule given by Eq. (7), we rotate the integration contour $`sis`$ and write $`\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^A`$ in an infinite series of $`q_{}^2`$, i.e.,

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^A(q_{}^2,𝐪_{}^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle K_{lmpp^{}}^A(𝐪_{}^2)(\frac{1}{B^{}})^n\frac{(q_{}^2)^{nl}}{(nl)!}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑zz^{nl}\mathrm{exp}[z\beta ]}`$ (24)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑v(1v^2)^{nl}\left(\mathrm{exp}[\alpha zv]+\mathrm{exp}[\alpha zv]\right),`$ (25)
with $`_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}_{l=0}^n_{m=0}^{\mathrm{}}_{p^{},p=0}^l`$, $`q_{}^2=q_{}^2/4m_e^2`$, $`B^{}=B/B_c`$, $`𝐪_{}^2=𝐪_{}^2/4m_e^2`$, $`\alpha =p^{}p+1`$, $`\beta =p+p^{}+2m+1+1/B^{}`$, and

$$K_{lmpp^{}}^A(𝐪_{}^2)=\frac{2(1)^{l+p+p^{}}(2𝐪_{}^2)^l\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+m+1)}{(lp)!p!(lp^{})!p^{}!\mathrm{\Gamma }(m+1)}.$$
(26)
Note that the various indices in the summation arise as follows: the index $`n`$ comes from the photon-energy expansion, $`l`$ arises from the binomial expansion of $`((1v^2)\omega ^2+2(\mathrm{cosh}(zv)\mathrm{cosh}(z))𝐪_{}^2/z\mathrm{sinh}(z))^n`$, $`p`$ and $`p^{}`$ arises from writing $`(\mathrm{cosh}(zv)\mathrm{cosh}(z))^l`$ as a sum of exponential functions, and $`m`$ is due to expansions such as $`\mathrm{sinh}^lz=2^l\mathrm{exp}[lz]_{m=0}^{\mathrm{}}C_m^{l+m1}\mathrm{exp}[2mz]`$. After performing the integrals in Eq. (24) and replacing $`nl+1`$ by $`n`$, we arrive at

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _e\omega ^2}{4\pi }}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^A={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _em_e^2\omega ^2}{\sqrt{\pi }q_{}^2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta {\displaystyle \stackrel{}{}}K_{lmpp^{}}^A(𝐪_{}^2)(B^{})^{1l}({\displaystyle \frac{q_{}^2}{\beta B^{}}})^n`$ (27)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+\frac{1}{2})}}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{n+1}{2}};n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{\beta ^2}}).`$ (28)
It is easy to calculate the derivatives of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^A`$. Let us define $`F_{}^A(n,𝐪_{}^2,B)=m_{}^{2n}\frac{1}{n!}\frac{d^n}{d(q_{}^2)^n}\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^A|_{q_{}^2=0}`$. We have

$$\kappa _{}^A=\frac{1}{2i\omega }_C𝑑sF_{}^A(s,𝐪_{}^2,B)u_{}^s,$$
(29)
by inverting the sum rule in Eq. (7). The above integral transform is evaluated using

$$\frac{1}{2\pi i}_C𝑑sx^s\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s+\frac{1}{2})}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\frac{s}{2},\frac{s+1}{2};s+\frac{1}{2};z^2)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(1x+\frac{x^2z^2}{4})}{\sqrt{1x+\frac{x^2z^2}{4}}}.$$
(30)
We arrive at

$`\kappa _{}^A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _eB^{}}{4q_{}^2}}\omega \mathrm{sin}^2\theta {\displaystyle \stackrel{\prime \prime }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{K_{lmpp^{}}^A(𝐪_{}^2)\mathrm{\Theta }\left((1\frac{\beta B^{}}{q_{}^2})+(\frac{\alpha B^{}}{2q_{}^2})^2\right)}{B^l\sqrt{(1\frac{\beta B^{}}{q_{}^2})+(\frac{\alpha B^{}}{2q_{}^2})^2}}},`$ (31)
where $`^{\prime \prime }_{l=0}^{\mathrm{}}_{m=0}^{\mathrm{}}_{p^{},p=0}^l`$. To understand the structure of $`\kappa _{}^A`$, we rewrite the denominator of the above equation as

$$\sqrt{(1\frac{\beta B^{}}{q_{}^2})+(\frac{\alpha B^{}}{2q_{}^2})^2}=\frac{1}{q_{}^2}\sqrt{q_{}^4(\frac{1}{B^{}}+l_1+l_2)B^{}q_{}^2+\frac{1}{4}(l_1l_2)^2B^2},$$
(32)
with $`l_1=(\beta +\alpha 1/B^{})/2`$ and $`l_2=(\beta \alpha 1/B^{})/2`$. It is easy to verify that this denominator has a root at $`q_{}^2=m_e^2(\sqrt{1+2l_1B^{}}+\sqrt{1+2l_2B^{}})^2`$, which is precisely the threshold value for $`q_{}^2`$ to produce an electron-positron pair at the Landau levels $`l_1`$ and $`l_2`$ respectively. This threshold behavior is also indicated by the step function in the numerator.

Having worked out the $`q_{}^2`$ dependence of $`\kappa _{}^A`$, we proceed to perform the summation in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }`$. We first perform the summation over the index $`l`$ in $`K_{lmpp^{}}^A`$:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{p,p^{}=0}{\overset{l}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{x^l\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+m+1)}{(lp)!(lp^{})!}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p,p^{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}x^{\overline{p}}e^x\mathrm{\Gamma }(\widehat{p}+m+1)L_{\widehat{p}+m}^{\overline{p}\widehat{p}}(x),`$ (33)
where $`x=2𝐪_{}^2/B^{}𝐪_{}^2/(2eB)`$, $`\overline{p}=\mathrm{max}\{p,p^{}\}`$, $`\widehat{p}=\mathrm{min}\{p,p^{}\}`$, and $`L_{\widehat{p}+m}^{\overline{p}\widehat{p}}`$ is the Laguerre polynomial. We then rewrite the left-over summation $`_{p,p^{}=0}^{\mathrm{}}_{m=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ as $`_{l_1=1}^{\mathrm{}}_{l_2=0}^{\mathrm{}}_{m=0}^{\widehat{l}}`$ with $`\widehat{l}=\mathrm{min}\{l_11,l_2\}`$ using the relation $`l_1=(\beta +\alpha 1/B^{})/2=p^{}+m+1`$ and $`l_2=(\beta \alpha 1/B^{})/2=p+m`$. The summation over the index $`m`$ can now be performed as follows:

$$\underset{m=0}{\overset{\widehat{l}}{}}x^m\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{l}m+1)}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\widehat{l}m+1)}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(m+1)}=\frac{x^{\widehat{l}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{l}+1)}L_{\widehat{l}}^{\overline{l}\widehat{l}}(x),$$
(34)
where $`\overline{l}=\mathrm{max}\{l_11,l_2\}`$. With the above summations over $`l`$ and $`m`$, we arrive at

$`\kappa _{}^A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _eB^{}}{2q_{}^2}}\omega \mathrm{sin}^2\theta {\displaystyle \underset{l_1=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l_2=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐓_{l_1l_2}^A(x)\mathrm{\Theta }\left((1\frac{\beta B^{}}{q_{}^2})+(\frac{\alpha B^{}}{2q_{}^2})^2\right)}{\sqrt{(1\frac{\beta B^{}}{q_{}^2})+(\frac{\alpha B^{}}{2q_{}^2})^2}}},`$ (35)
withThe absorption coefficient is not written in a symmetrized form for saving the space. Nevertheless, the symmetrization with respect to $`l_1`$ and $`l_2`$ can be easily done as one wishes.

$$𝐓_{l_1l_2}^A(x)=(1)^{1+r_A}x^{r_A}e^x\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda _A+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda _A+r_A+1)}L_{\lambda _A}^{r_A}(x)L_{\lambda _A}^{r_A}(x),$$
(36)
where $`r_A\overline{l}\widehat{l}=|l_1l_21|`$, and $`\lambda _A\widehat{l}=(l_1+l_2|l_1l_21|1)/2`$.

Apart from the factor $`\omega \mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$, the absorption coefficient $`\kappa _{}^A`$ is a function of $`x𝐪_{}^2/(2eB)`$ and $`q_{}^2`$ where the latter determines the threshold behaviors of the absorption coefficient. Now that we have obtained the absorptive part of the polarization function $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^A`$, the dispersive part can be calculated using the Kramers-Kronig relation. It is convenient to recall the relation $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^A=(\alpha _e\omega ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta /4\pi )\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^A(q_{}^2,𝐪_{}^2)`$. Hence

$$\mathrm{Re}\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^A(q_{}^2,𝐪_{}^2)=\frac{P}{\pi }_1^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t\frac{\mathrm{Im}\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^A(t,𝐪_{}^2)}{tq_{}^2},$$
(37)
where $`P`$ stands for evaluating the principle part of the integral. We point out that the refractive index for the polarization state, $`ϵ_{}^\mu `$, can be calculated through the equation $`q^2+\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Pi }_{}=0`$. Hence

$$1n_{}^2(q_{}^2,𝐪_{}^2,\theta )=\frac{\alpha _e\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{4\pi ^2}P_1^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t\frac{\mathrm{Im}\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}(t,𝐪_{}^2)}{tq_{}^2}.$$
(38)
It is important to note that the index of refraction $`n_{}`$ also appears on the R.H.S. of the above equation, through relations among the quantities, $`q_{}^2`$, $`𝐪_{}^2`$, and the angle $`\theta `$. Thus the calculation of $`n_{}`$ is in principle nontrivial even if the polarization function $`\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Pi }_{}`$ is known. Let us consider a simplified case where the magnetic-field strength is super-critical, i.e., $`BB_c`$. In this case, the quantity $`1n_{}^2`$ to the leading order in $`B_c/B`$ is given by the lowest Landau-level contribution to the dispersion integral in Eq. (38). Hence, we arrive at

$$n_{}^2(q_{}^2,𝐪_{}^2,\theta )1=\frac{\alpha _eB^{}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{2\pi q_{}^2}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{q_{}^2(1q_{}^2)}}\mathrm{arctan}\sqrt{\frac{q_{}^2}{1q_{}^2}}1\right)\mathrm{exp}(\frac{2𝐪_{}^2}{B^{}}).$$
(39)
It is instructive to rewrite $`\mathrm{exp}(2𝐪_{}^2/B^{})`$ as $`\mathrm{exp}(2\omega ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta n_{}^2/B^{})`$ with $`\omega ^{}=\omega /2m_e`$. Clearly, for $`q_{}^2`$ not very close to $`4m_e^2`$ (the threshold energy for the pair production), one can safely set $`\mathrm{exp}(2𝐪_{}^2/B^{})=1`$. The index of refraction $`n_{}^2`$ with this approximation then agrees with the previous result. However, as $`q_{}^2`$ is so close to 1 such that $`\alpha _e/\sqrt{1q_{}^2}`$ becomes greater than unity, one can no longer neglects the exponential factor $`\mathrm{exp}(2𝐪_{}^2/B^{})`$. In fact, in the limit $`q_{}^21`$, one finds that $`𝐪_{}^2\mathrm{}`$, as pointed in the previous literature. We note that the behaviors of another polarization state, $`ϵ_{}^\mu `$, can be studied in the similar manner. The details are given in Ref. .

For consistency, it is desirable to compare our absorption coefficients with those obtained by squaring the $`\gamma e^+e^{}`$ amplitude directlyWe make comparisons with the most updated results in Ref. .. Our results reduce to that of Daugherty and Harding in the special limit $`q^2=0`$, which is an assumption made by these authors in their calculations. Our finding is similar to what Shabad has demonstrated in Ref.  as he compared his result with that of Klepikov  in the same limit for $`q^2=0`$. Our approach differs from that of Refs.  in that Shabad performs the calculation in the beyond-threshold energy where the algebraic manipulations are rather involved and precautions are required, whereas we take the advantage of inverse Mellin transform which permits us to calculate the polarization function near the zero longitudinal momentum with a convenient momentum expansion.

## V Conclusion

In conclusion, we have developed an integral-transform technique to compute the absorptive part of photon polarization function in a background magnetic field, while the dispersive part can be obtained via the Kramers-Kronig relation. We emphasize that this technique is rather powerful for the current problem in which there are infinite numbers of singularity occurring in the real positive axis of $`q_{}^2`$, each corresponds to an $`e^+e^{}`$ system in a specific combination of Landau levels. This technique has many other applications. To name a few, one may analyze the photon polarization function in a general background electromagnetic field, or study other current-current correlation functions under the same external condition. To our knowledge, the vector-axial vector correlation function relevant to weak interaction processes has not been analyzed as detailed as the fashion presented in this work. We shall report the results of such analysis as well as other relevant studies in a forthcoming publication.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank Prof. M. Bordag for organizing this workshop. This work is supported by Taiwan’s National Science Council under the grant numbers: NSC89-2112-M009-041 and NSC90-2112-M-009-023.