text:
# Systematics of the Exclusive Meson Production in the Proton-Proton System in Relativistic Quark-Models Supported in part by the Kernforschungszentrum KFZ Jülich email: mdillig@theorie3.physik.uni-erlangen.de

We investigate the exclusive production of the pseudoscalar mesons $`\pi ^0,\eta ,\eta ^{},K^+`$ and of the vector mesons $`\omega ,\varphi `$ in a microscopic gluon-exchange or instanton model. We describe the baryons as covariant quark - scalar diquark systems with harmonic confinement, thus taking into account center-of-mass corrections and Lorentz contraction in different frames. The excitation of intermediate baryon resonances is accounted by colorless 2-gluon (soft Pomeron) exchange. We find that our model accounts for the systematics of the high precision data on exclusive meson production from various modern proton factories.

PACS: 13.60Le, 13.75-n , 12.39KiC
Key Words: exclusive meson-production, quark model, gluon-exchange, instanton interaction

The advent of modern particle accelerators has introduced a new and unprecedented quality of data for electromagnetic and hadronic reactions on the nanobarn scale: they allow to investigate in detail scattering processes at very large momentum transfers with very low cross sections (1,2). One of these processes under intensive investigation is the exclusive production of pseudoscalar and vector mesons in proton - proton collisions $`pppB\lambda `$ (near the corresponding meson thresholds). As a characteristic feature, all these processes already at threshold involve a very large momentum transfer

$$Q=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{(M_B+M+m)^24M^2}$$

(with M and m being the nucleon and the meson mass, respectively. $`M_B`$ is the mass of the baryon in the final state): the corresponding momentum transfers range from 0.37 GeV/c for $`\pi ^0`$ production up to 1.2 GeV/c for $`\varphi `$ vector meson production. Thus the main goal of these experiments is to test the very short - range nucleon-nucleon dynamics and the structure of mesons and baryons as a step towards an understanding of these processes in the framework of QCD as the theory of strong interaction. For a microscopic formulation of exclusive meson production the choice of the appropriate degrees of freedom is crucial. So far, practically all investigations have been based on meson-exchange models with mesons and baryons as effective degrees of freedom (3). However, in view of the very large momentum transfers mentioned above, which correspond to scales between 0.2 and 0.5 fm in coordinate space, a more appropriate approach presumably has to be based QCD oriented models, i. e. on (constituent) quarks and (nonperturbative) gluons or instantons, as the appropriate degrees of freedom, a field which has not been explored hitherto (except of a single attempt for $`\eta `$ production (4)). We believe that the main impact of the high-momentum transfer experiments above is to explore the limit of meson and baryon exchange models and their transition into QCD inspired quark-gluon models. Presently, without a detailed understanding of QCD, in particular of quark-gluon confinement, QCD inspired quark models have to involve a high degree of phenomenology involving various parameters typical for nonperturbative low energy scales (at the range of 1 GeV). Alternatively, however, the advantage of these admittedly crude models is their internal consistency for different meson production processes and, within a (semi) covariant framework, their extension to genuine relativistic features of such reactions, such as the appropriate inclusion of Lorentz boosts. The obvious price one has to pay, is twofold: on the one side economical and feasible models are in general based on the hard - scattering or, equivalently, the Watson-Migdal formalism (5), providing momentum sharing in essentially one very violent collision of the interacting constituents (opposite to production mechanisms dominated by Faddeev - like multiple soft rescatterings (6); in practice, (moderate) corrections in the hard scattering picture are included as soft initial (ISI) and final state (FSI) interactions (7,8). Presently, however, the quality of such a modeling remains questionable: with a complete 3-body Faddeev calculation missing, estimates from coupled channel or perturbative models at least shed some doubt on the adequacy of the WM formalism on a quantitative level (9). Secondly, any present day model building becomes fairly involved, as it has to respect the experience from numerous investigations in meson exchange models. For the route which we follow in this investigation it enforces a formulation of rather detailed, but still practical and economical model for the genuine production mechanism. In this note we formulate exclusive meson production in a QCD inspired framework: our degrees of freedom are (constituent) quarks and (nonperturbative) gluons or instantons. As this investigation is a first step towards more detailed and realistic models in future steps, we introduce various simplifications in our model building (they are discussed below), in order to allow for a systematic application to and comparison with data. So far in meson production experiments only total and differential cross sections have been measured as observables (information on spin observables will be obtained in the near future (10)). For the 3-body pB$`\lambda `$ final state the differential cross section is given in the center-of mass system

$$d\sigma =\frac{1}{(2\pi )^5}\frac{S}{v_{pp}}\overline{|M_{pppB\lambda }|^2}\frac{d𝐤_pd𝐤_Bd𝐤_\lambda }{2w_\lambda }\delta (P_iP_f)$$

(with the statistical factor S = 1/2 for the proton-proton final state) with the transition amplitude in the Watson-Migdal parametrization given schematically as

$$M_{pppB\lambda }(K,k,k^{},k_\lambda )=M(FSI)M(HS)M(ISI)$$

In our calculation we include initial state interactions via an inelastic reduction factor derived from NN phase shift analysis, while final state interactions are parametrized in a low energy expansion via the scattering length and the effective range; except for the $`\eta `$-meson production, where the strong $`\eta `$N interaction is included explicitly, only the proton-proton and the proton-hyperon interaction is included. For details we refer to the literature (3,7,8). The hard scattering production amplitude M(HS) is given as the overlap of the pp initial and pp or pY final state (for K<sup>+</sup> production) with the corresponding gluon or instanton induced interaction to the mesonic final state

$$M(HS)=<p(qQ)Y(qQ)|V(qqqq(q\overline{q})_\lambda )|p(qQ)p(qQ)>$$

which includes the quark - quark interaction symmetric in the quark indices and proper anti-symmetrization among the quarks and symmetrization among the diquarks, respectively (as discussed below we describe the interacting baryons as quark-diquark $`qQ`$ systems). Right at threshold the partial waves contributing to the transition amplitude are severely restricted: the Pauli-principle, angular momentum and parity conservation restricts the transition from the relative initial pp P-state to the final S-state for the pB system (the pp final state involves only spin singlet, the pY final state both singlet and triplet spin contributions). We briefly outline the input for the interaction and specify the wave functions of the hadrons.

Interaction  Schematically, the interaction employed in our model calculation is given in Fig.1. In our calculation we compare two approaches: The nonperturbative instanton induced 6-point $`qqqqq\overline{q}`$ interaction (Fig. 1a) is given for the leading terms in the two-component zero-range representation as (11)

$`V_{int}(qqqq(q\overline{q}),ijk)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{inst}}{m^4}}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{\gamma 0}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\gamma }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^a\lambda ^a}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}d_{abc}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^a\lambda ^b\lambda ^c}{8}}\right)\delta \left(𝐫_i𝐫_k+\gamma 𝝈_k\right)\delta \left(𝐫_j𝐫_k\right)`$
(where m denotes the light quark mass, $`\lambda `$ the standard Gell-Man colour matrices and $`d_{abc}`$ the symmetric SU(3) structure constants). We mention that the structure of the instanton interaction allows both the production of pseudoscaler and vector mesons. Alternatively we start out from the nonperturbative one-gluon exchange in combination with the gluon-induced $`q\overline{q}`$ pair creation potential (Fig. 1b), given in the zero-range limit with an effective gluon mass $`m_g`$ in the two-component representation for the leading terms on the $`q/m`$ expansion (12)

$$V_{qq}(ij)=\frac{4\pi \alpha _s}{m_g^2}\frac{\lambda ^a\lambda ^a}{4}\delta (𝐫_i𝐫_j)$$

and

$$V(qq(q\overline{q}),ik)=\frac{4\pi \alpha _s}{m_g^2}\frac{1}{m}\frac{\lambda ^a\lambda ^a}{4}.$$

$`\underset{\gamma 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\gamma }}(m^2(\delta (𝐫_i𝐫_k+\gamma (𝝈_i+𝝈_k))+i{\displaystyle \frac{m_sm}{m_s}}\delta (𝐫_i𝐫_k+\gamma 𝝈_k))`$
$`+(2\sigma _k𝐩_i\gamma +2i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^2}}e^{i𝝈_k(𝐫_i𝐫_Q)\gamma })\delta (𝐫_i𝐫_k))`$
where we included the spin-dependence in the argument of $`\delta `$-function in coordinate space, to facilitate the explicit evaluation (above $`𝐫_Q`$ results from the gradient on the internal baryon wave function in the initial state; the parameter a reflects the size of the proton; see below). The expression above is extended to the 3-gluon exchange for vector meson production (Fig. 1c). In a further step we account for the coupling to colourless intermediate baryon states (baryon resonances near the meson thresholds seem to dominate $`\eta `$ and $`K^+`$ production in the meson-exchange picture (13)) (Fig. 1 d): evaluating the colourless Pomeron exchange as a two-gluon Box diagram (14) we obtain in the zero range limit

$$V_𝐏(ij)=\frac{4\pi \alpha _𝐏(\mathrm{\Lambda })}{m_g^2}\left(\frac{\lambda ^a\lambda ^a}{4}\frac{\lambda ^b\lambda ^b}{4}\right)_0\delta (𝐫_i𝐫_j)$$

where the effective Pomeron coupling constant on the scale parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ reflects the size of the constituent quarks in the 2-gluon loop (the index indicates the coupling of the two gluons to color zero). To obtain some insight in the convergence of irreducible gluon-exchange terms of higher order and their comparison to the instanton interaction, higher order multigluon-exchange contributions were investigated in the heavy quark limit up the 4. order in the running QCD coupling constante $`\alpha _s`$ (for all technical details and results we refer to work in preparation (15)).

Hadron wave functions  Representing the meson produced as $`q\overline{q}`$ states, we compromise in this exploratory study on the structure of the baryons: we represent them as quark-diquark objects and keep in practice only the dominant scalar spin-isospin diquark component (16). Then the meson wavefunction as a $`q\overline{q}`$ and the baryon as a $`q(qq)`$ object are given schematically in the standard form as

$$\varphi (ij)=\varphi (𝐫_{ij})\chi _{spin}\chi _{flavour}\chi _{colour},$$

$`\varphi `$ is four-component relativistic wave function (including the large and small component). For an harmonic confining kernel the large component of the boosted wave function in a system moving with momentum P along the z - axis is given for the nucleon - and correspondingly for the meson - in its ground state as (17)

$$\varphi (z,𝝆)=N\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2a^2}\left(\frac{z^2}{\lambda ^2}+𝝆^2\right)\right)$$

where $`𝝆`$ denotes the component perpenticular to the z-axis, while a is the size parameter of the hadron; the quantity $`\lambda =M/\sqrt{𝐏^2+M^2}`$ reflects the Lorentz quenching of the z-component of the hadronic wave function for momenta $`𝐏=(0,0,P`$). Furthermore we represent the s-wave (negative parity) $`1/2^{}`$ baryon resonances in $`\eta `$ and $`K^+`$ production as an orbital p-wave excitation of the q - Q system (18). Im presenting a set of characteristic results, we stress again our main goal to reproduce qualitatively the major trends in the various near threshold cross sections $`pppB\lambda `$ with a minimal set of parameters, rather than to produce an optimal fit to the data. In our survey we cover the energy dependence of the total cross section for the various mesons, where a substantial amount of data is presently established, i. e. $`\pi ^0,\eta ,\eta ^{},K^+,\omega `$ and $`\varphi `$ production in the proton - proton system (Fig. 2; the data are taken from refs. 19-24). We fix the parameters in our calculation from current values in the literature: the coupling constants $`\alpha _s=1.7,\alpha _{inst}=2.0`$ and $`\alpha _𝐏=2.2`$, the masses $`m_u=m_d=330`$ MeV, $`m_Q=600`$ MeV, $`m_g=660`$ MeV and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=450`$ MeV, together with the size parameters $`a_p=a_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.6`$ fm and $`a_\lambda =0.5`$ fm. Furthermore, for the absolute normalization of the cross section we normalize our prediction to the cross section for $`\pi ^0`$ production at the excess energy of Q = 9.6 MeV. Then without further adjustments we find that for the pseudoscalar and the vector mesons (with the inclusion of the colorless Pomeron exchange) the major trends of the date are qualitatively reproduced. In view of the various basic uncertainties of the models, particularly with respect to the absolute normalization of the various cross sections, it is difficult to discriminate quantitatively between the (nonperturbative) gluon exchange and instanton induced meson production (within the accepted range of strength parameters the two parametrizations provide qualitatively similar results for near-threshold), however, for resonance dominated meson production, such as the $`\eta `$ and the $`K^+`$ meson, the instanton induced interaction underestimates the data by typically a factor 4 (compare Fig. 3(a) below). In performing the comparison with the data Lorentz quenching is crucial for a qualitative agreement with the data: alternatively, the radius parameter for the incoming protons has to be reduced substantially from its value obtained from spectroscopy, where the proton wave function enters in its rest frame. For $`pppp\eta `$ the influence of the Pomeron exchange with the excitation of the N\*(1535) is demonstrated explicitly (Fig. 3 a). Evidently, the cross section from the pure 2-gluon or instanton exchange is enhanced by typically a factor 4 or more, provided Pomeron exchange is included. Clearly, the calculation is still preliminary, as it involves significant uncertainties in the evaluation of the 2-gluon loop; it evidently does not match the quality of sophisticated meson exchange calculations (13), however, it is found that - opposite to the production of other heavy mesons, which are presumably not resonance dominated, Pomeron exchange and $`N^{}`$ excitation is indispensable for $`\eta `$ (and $`K^+`$) production. In addition we find that qualitatively the model reproduces the angular distributions for the $`\eta `$ meson at different excess energies (25)(Fig. 3 b). Opposite to the 2-gluon exchange for pseudoscalar mesons, vector-meson production is dominated by the 3-gluon exchange contribution. The major trends for $`\omega `$ and $`\varphi `$ production are reproduced qualitatively, though the microscopic structure of the production processes are rather different: for the $`\varphi `$ meson as a pure $`\overline{ss}`$ state only the direct production via the 3-gluon exchange contributes (for the $`\omega `$ production the mechanism involves additional contributions). Clearly, further investigations are here necessary and interesting, in particular with respect of the $`\varphi /\omega `$ ratio in comparison with the prediction of the OZI rule (26) and with the respect to the strange content of the proton (presently details are worked out and presented in a separate publication). We summarize the brief survey of our model calculations. In a simple gluon and instanton exchange model, together with a relativistic quark-diquark model for the baryons involved in the production process, we qualitatively account for the major trends of the data. Though the model predictions presently do not match the successes of sophisticated meson exchange calculations for the various meson production processes, their main advantage is the consistency of the results with a very small set of adjustable parameters. The success of the model is not surprising: by construction it simulates the ”nucleonic” and the ”mesonic” currents in the meson-exchange models and allows, if extended by colorless (correlated) multi-gluon (Pomeron) exchanges, explicitly the excitation of colorless baryon resonances, such bridging the gap to resonance dominated production mechanisms. Clearly, for a quantitative comparison and extraction of parameters the model approach is by far too preliminary. Quite evident improvements are the inclusion of finite range effects in the interaction, an inclusion of vector - diquarks in the baryon wave functions (which is inevitable for associated $`\mathrm{\Sigma }K^+`$ production) or a more realistic treatment of the final state interactions, particularly in the meson-baryon system, to name only obvious extensions. Beyond that only a systematic application of the model to all existing observables and, to explore its predictive power, to more sensitive observables, like the analyzing power or spin transfer coefficients (where data are expected in the near future), will ultimately contribute to bridge the gap between effective mesonic and baryonic degrees of freedom and QCD as the adequate framework of strong interactions.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

A modern method to calculate a non-relativistic bound state problem is based on the Effective Field Theory (NRQED) which was proposed by Caswell and Lapage. This is the advantage of this method that provides a set of systematic rules (power-counting) that allows an easy identification of all terms that contribute to a certain order in the bound state calculations.

In NRQED calculation, relativistic kinetic vertex needs more attention respect to the other interactions. In this paper, we consider this vertex in the unperturbed part of the Hamiltonian as well as the Coulomb interaction to obtain the positronium energy correction. For this purpose we derive the Spinless Salpeter (SS) equation for the positronium with Coulomb potential using the NRQED Lagrangian in Sec. 2. The SS eigenfunctions and eigenvalues in Sec. 3 and 4 are used to describe the contribution of the relativistic vertex correction to the energy spectrum of the positronium at the order of $`\alpha ^4`$ and $`\alpha ^6`$.

## 2 Spinless Salpeter Equation

There are many equations incorporating relativistic kinematics which all have the same non-relativistic limit. However, if an expansion is made in powers of the momentum, the various equations differ in terms next to leading order. Furthermore, most of them are phenomenological equations and which are not derivable from field theory without making gross approximations. An approach which seems promising is the Spinless Salpeter equation to obtain spectrum of a two-body system. This equation, with appropriate assumptions, can be derived from the Bethe-Salpeter equation which is manifestly covariant and can be obtained directly from quantum field theory. We now consider the Spinless Salpeter Equation as follows:

$$\left\{\sqrt{p_1^2+m_1^2}+\sqrt{p_2^2+m_2^2}\right\}\mathrm{\Psi }=(EV)\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(1)
where for positronium, in the center of mass frame, one has

$$2\sqrt{p^2+m^2}\mathrm{\Psi }=(EV)\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(2)
or

$$\left\{^2+\frac{(EV(𝐫))^2}{4}m^2\right\}\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)=\mathrm{𝟎},$$
(3)
where $`m`$ is the mass of the particle and $`V(𝐫)`$ is the time component of a 4-vector potential where in the Coulomb case $`V(𝐫)=\frac{\alpha }{r}`$. In the non-relativistic limit, Eq.(3) leads to a Schrodinger equation with the effective potential $`V`$. In fact this equation gives all relativistic kinetic corrections to the Schrodinger equation with such effective potential. However we can derive Eq.(3) using NRQED Lagrangian. The momentum space equation of motion for an off-shell, time independent $`e^+e^{}e^+e^{}`$ four point function in the center-of-mass frame is:

$$\left[\frac{𝒑^2}{m_e}E\right]\stackrel{~}{G}(𝒑,𝒒;s)+\frac{d^3𝒒^{}}{(2\pi )^3}\stackrel{~}{V}(𝒑,𝒒^{})\stackrel{~}{G}(𝒒,𝒒^{};s)=(2\pi )^3\delta ^{(3)}(𝒑𝒒),$$
(4)
where

$$E\sqrt{s}2m_e,$$
(5)
is the center-of-mass energy relative to the electron–positron threshold and $`\stackrel{~}{V}(𝒑,𝒒)`$, the potential, is defined as

$`\stackrel{~}{V}(𝒑,𝒒)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{V}_{\text{Coul}}(𝒑,𝒒)+\stackrel{~}{V}_{\text{BF}}(𝒑,𝒒)+\stackrel{~}{V}_4(𝒑,𝒒)+\stackrel{~}{V}_{4\text{der}}(𝒑,𝒒)+\delta \stackrel{~}{H}_{\text{kin}}(𝒑,𝒒),`$ (6)
introduced in Ref. Considering $`\delta \stackrel{~}{H}_{\text{kin}}(𝒑)`$ to all orders will lead to the following equation:

$$\left[\frac{𝒑^2}{m_e}+\frac{𝒑^4}{4m_e^3}+\mathrm{}E\right]\stackrel{~}{G}(𝒑,𝒒;s)+(V_{\text{Coul}}+V^{})G(𝒑,𝒒;s)=(2\pi )^3\delta ^{(3)}(𝒑𝒒),$$
(7)
or

$$\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\sqrt{p^2+m_e^2}\sqrt{s}\right]\stackrel{~}{G}(𝒑,𝒒;s)+(V_{\text{Coul}}+V^{})G(𝒑,𝒒;s)=(2\pi )^3\delta ^{(3)}(𝒑𝒒),$$
(8)
where

$$(V_{\text{Coul}}+V^{})G(𝒑,𝒒;s)=\frac{d^3𝒒^{}}{(2\pi )^3}\stackrel{~}{V}_{\text{Coul}}(𝒑,𝒒^{})\stackrel{~}{G}(𝒒,𝒒^{};s)+\frac{d^3𝒒^{}}{(2\pi )^3}\stackrel{~}{V}^{}(𝒑,𝒒^{})\stackrel{~}{G}(𝒒,𝒒^{};s),$$
(9)
and

$`\stackrel{~}{V}^{}(𝒑,𝒒)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{V}_{\text{BF}}(𝒑,𝒒)+\stackrel{~}{V}_4(𝒑,𝒒)+\stackrel{~}{V}_{4\text{der}}(𝒑,𝒒).`$ (10)
Now equation (8) can be rewritten as,

$$\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\sqrt{p^2+m_e^2}(\sqrt{s}V_{\text{Coul}})\right]\stackrel{~}{G}(𝒑,𝒒;s)+V^{}G(𝒑,𝒒;s)=(2\pi )^3\delta ^{(3)}(𝒑𝒒).$$
(11)
Since the Coulomb potential and the relativistic kinetic vertices are the only interactions that must be treated exactly, we can ignore $`V^{}`$ in the above equation which leads to the Eq.(3) in momentum space. Therefore one can start with the wavefunction of the SS equation with Coulomb potential and determines the corrections by perturbation as is usual in NRQED. Whereas the effect of relativistic kinetic vertices is in the SS wavefunction of Eq.(3). To this end by substitution $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{U}{r}`$ in the radial part of Eq.(3) one obtains:

$$\left\{\frac{d^2}{d\rho ^2}+\frac{2}{\rho }\frac{(\mathrm{}+\kappa )(\mathrm{}+\kappa +1)}{\rho ^2}\frac{1}{(n+\kappa )^2}\right\}U(\rho )=0,$$
(12)
where

$$\kappa =(\mathrm{}+1/2)+\sqrt{(\mathrm{}+1/2)^2\alpha ^2/4}\&\rho =E\alpha r/4.$$

The eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of Eq.(12) are respectively:

$`E_{n,\mathrm{}}=2m\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{4(n+\kappa )^2}}\right]^{1/2},`$ (13)
$`U_{n+\kappa }^\kappa =N\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{n+\kappa }}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}+\kappa +n}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\frac{1}{3}}(2n+2\kappa +1)\rho ^{n+\kappa }\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{n+\kappa }}),`$ (14)
in which $`N`$ is an appropriate normalization constant. We can now expand $`\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{SS}}{\mathrm{\Psi }_{Sch}}`$ in terms of $`\alpha `$ (when $`n=1`$, $`\mathrm{}=0`$) as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{SS}(𝐫)=\mathrm{\Psi }_{Sch}(𝐫)\left\{1+\alpha ^2\left(\frac{1}{4}\gamma +\frac{5}{8}\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{ln}(mr\alpha )\right)+\mathrm{}\right\},$$
(15)
where $`\gamma `$ is the Euler number and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{Sch}(𝐫)`$ is the ground state wavefunction for the Schrodinger equation with Coulomb potential,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{Sch}(𝐫)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}\left(\frac{m\alpha }{2}\right)^{3/2}\mathrm{exp}(m\alpha r/2).$$
(16)
The Fourier transformation of Eq.(15) is

$`\psi _{SS}(𝐩)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi (𝐩)_{Sch}+\alpha ^2\phi (𝐩)+\mathrm{},`$ (17)
where $`\psi _{Sch}(𝐩)`$ and $`\phi (𝐩)`$ are

$`\psi _{Sch}(𝐩)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi ^{1/2}(m\alpha /2)^{5/2}}{[p^2+(m\alpha /2)^2]^2}},`$ (18)
$`\phi (𝐩)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(m\alpha /2)^{3/2}\sqrt{\pi }}{((m\alpha /2)^2+p^2)^2p}}\{\mathrm{arctan}({\displaystyle \frac{2p}{m\alpha }})(p^2(m\alpha /2)^2)`$ (19)
$`+p(m\alpha /2)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(m\alpha /2)^2+p^2}{m^2\alpha ^2}}\right)+3p(m\alpha /2)\}.`$
We are now ready to calculate positronium energy corrections at the order of $`\alpha ^4`$ and $`\alpha ^6`$, using SS wavefunction, Eq.(15).

## 3 $`\alpha ^4`$ Positronium Energy Corrections

The known vertices in NRQED Lagrangian are given in . The power-counting of NRQED specifies all the diagrams contributing to the energy shift at the order of $`\alpha ^4`$. These diagrams are all shown in Fig.(1) which can be calculated  to give the well-known positronium energy correction at the order of $`\alpha ^4`$. Contribution of relativistic kinetic corrections at this order are shown in Figs.(1(i,j)) which reads:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E_i+\mathrm{\Delta }E_j`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{d^3pd^3p^{}}{(2\pi )^6}\psi ^{}(𝐩^{})\left[\frac{p^4(2\pi )^3\delta (𝐩𝐩^{})}{8m^3}\right]\psi (𝐩)}`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m\alpha ^4}{16n^3(\mathrm{}+1/2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3m\alpha ^4}{64n^4}}.`$
To obtain positronium energy correction at the order of $`\alpha ^4`$ using SS equation, we should omit Figs.(1(i,j)) and calculate the remaining diagrams in Fig.(1) using SS wavefunction. That is obviously leads to the previous result at the order of $`\alpha ^4`$ and also extra pieces which start at higher order. These terms are irrelevant to the order of our interest. Meanwhile the result of Eq.(20) can be easily obtained by expanding the Eq.(13) in terms of $`\alpha `$,

$$E_{n,\mathrm{}}=2m\left[1+\frac{\alpha ^2}{4(n+\kappa )^2}\right]^{1/2}=2m\frac{m\alpha ^2}{4n^2}\frac{m\alpha ^4}{16n^3(\mathrm{}+1/2)}+\frac{3m\alpha ^4}{64n^4}+\mathrm{}.$$
(21)
## 4 $`\alpha ^6`$ Positronium Energy Correction

The full calculation of the positronium energy correction at the order of $`\alpha ^6`$, using NRQED has been done in reference . In this paper, we focus on the positronium Hyperfine Splitting (HFS) at the order of $`\alpha ^6`$ coming from one-photon annihilation . To be more specific in the way that the SS wavefunction can be useful in the bound state calculation, we first briefly review the NRQED method in the following subsection.

### 4.1 Matching and bound state energy shift at NNLO

Since the single photon annihilation of electron-positron occurs in $`S=1`$ state, one should calculate the diagrams which contain spin-1 Four-Fermion Vertex, $`c_4(1\gamma ann)`$. We can write $`c_4(1\gamma ann)=c_4^{(0)}(1\gamma ann)+c_4^{(1)}(1\gamma ann)+\mathrm{}`$ where the superscript ”(0)” and ”(1)” indicate that the coefficients $`c_4(1\gamma ann)`$ have been derived using tree-level and one-loop matching, respectively. To obtain the contribution of HFS at the order $`\alpha ^6`$, we should perform matching at two-loop level to get $`c_4^{(2)}(1\gamma ann)`$. For this purpose, it is more convenient to write:

$$c_4^{(2)}(1\gamma ann)=c_4^{(2)}(1\gamma ann)_{PC}+c_4^{(2)}(1\gamma ann)_{VC},$$
(22)
where PC stands for contribution coming from propagator corrections while VC for vertex corrections. Each terms in right hand-side of Eq.(22) can be obtained from Figs.(2-3).

All the NRQED diagrams which contribute to HFS at the order of $`\alpha ^6`$ can be identified using the NRQED power-counting rules. These are shown in Figs.(4-5) which are completely calculated in . Diagrams of Figs.(4(k,l,m)) which contain relativistic vertex corrections result in:

$`Fig(\text{4},k)+Fig(\text{4},l)+Fig(\text{4},m)={\displaystyle \frac{m\alpha ^6}{8}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m\alpha }}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}}m\alpha ^6+{\displaystyle \frac{m\alpha ^5}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m}}.`$ (23)
### 4.2 NNLO bound state energy shift using SS wavefunction

As shown in section 2, the whole relativistic kinetic vertex as well as Coulomb vertex can be considered in unperturbed part of the Hamiltonian, Eq.(11). Therefore, one should expect to omit relativistic kinetic vertex and using SS wavefunction instead of Schrodinger wavefunction, in all order of perturbation, to obtain the same results within the framework of NRQED. That is basically reduce the number of counter terms involve in this calculation . Since our goal is to obtain the final result using SS wavefunction, we should omit Figs.(4(k,l,m)) and calculate the remaining diagrams in Fig(4-5) with the SS wavefunction. Straightforward calculations shows that we have the previous result for these diagrams and also extra pieces at higher order than $`\alpha ^6`$. At first glance, it seems that there is no way to get the value of Figs.(4k,l,m) which we have omitted, but if we consider the diagrams which contributed to HFS at the order of $`\alpha ^4`$ we get some pieces at the higher order. That is basically due to the fact that we should replace $`\psi _{Sch}`$ with $`\psi _{SS}`$ in Fig.(1,k) and also using the $`p/m`$ expansion of relativistic propagator. This means that the Fig.(1,k) should be replaced by the left hand side of Fig.(6). It is easy to show that Fig.(6(a)) leads to the previous result at the order $`\alpha ^4`$, while the Figs.(6(c,e,f)) contributes to the higher order than $`\alpha ^6`$. The only remaining diagrams relevant to our calculation are the Figs.(6(b,d)):

$`Fig(6(b))`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \alpha }{m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p^{}}{(2\pi )^3}\psi _{Sch}(𝐩^{})\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\alpha ^2\phi (𝐩)}={\displaystyle \frac{m\alpha ^6}{8}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m\alpha }}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{32}}m\alpha ^6,`$ (24)
$`Fig(6(d))`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}m\alpha ^6+{\displaystyle \frac{m\alpha ^5}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m}}.`$ (25)
The sum of Fig.(6(b)) and Fig.(6(d)) is just equal to (23). It should be noted here that the divergence in the first term of (24) is a direct consequence of the singularity of the SS wavefunction (15). In fact in the Schrodinger case Figs.(2(l,m)) are responsible to cancel the logarithmic divergence coming from the other diagrams while in the SS case this is due to the SS wavefunction.

## Summary

In this paper, we have shown that the spinless Salpeter equation (3) correctly predicts the energy spectrum of a non-relativistic two body system such as positronium. In this way we have ignored the relativistic vertex correction in the bound state and therefore the calculations are made easier. On the other hand, although the SS wavefunction is singular at the origin (see Eq.(15)) but this is a crucial need to cancel UV divergence in the bound state system, Eq.(24).

## Acknowledgement

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of Shiraz University research council and IPM.


text:
# 1 Introduction. Basic definitions

## 1 Introduction. Basic definitions

In the present work, the nonlinear equations for the general nonsingular pairs of compatible nonlocal Poisson brackets of hydrodynamic type are derived and the integrability of these equations by the method of inverse scattering problem is proved. For these equations, the Lax pairs with a spectral parameter are presented. Moreover, we demonstrate the integrability of the equations for some especially important partial classes of compatible nonlocal Poisson brackets of hydrodynamic type, in particular, for the most important case when one of the compatible Poisson brackets is local and also for the case when one of the compatible Poisson brackets is generated by a metric of constant Riemannian curvature. The case when one of the compatible Poisson brackets of hydrodynamic type is local and nondegenerate was studied in detail in our previous paper , where the corresponding equations were derived and the integrability of these equations was announced. This case is very important, since, as was shown in , any solution of these equations generates an integrable bi-Hamiltonian hierarchy of hydrodynamic type by explicit formulae. Moreover, these equations describe an important class of integrable reductions of the classical Lamé equations. Accordingly, in the case when one of the compatible Poisson brackets is generated by a metric of constant Riemannian curvature, the corresponding equations describe integrable reductions of the equations for orthogonal curvilinear coordinate systems in spaces of constant curvature.

### 1.1 Local Poisson brackets of hydrodynamic type

An arbitrary local homogeneous first-order Poisson bracket, that is, a Poisson bracket of the form

$$\{I,J\}=\frac{\delta I}{\delta u^i(x)}\left(g^{ij}(u(x))\frac{d}{dx}+b_k^{ij}(u(x))u_x^k\right)\frac{\delta J}{\delta u^j(x)}𝑑x,$$
(1.1)
where $`u^1,\mathrm{},u^N`$ are local coordinates on a certain given smooth $`N`$-dimensional manifold $`M`$, is called a local Poisson bracket of hydrodynamic type or a Dubrovin–Novikov bracket . Here $`u^i(x),1iN,`$ are functions (fields) of single independent variable $`x`$, the coefficients $`g^{ij}(u)`$ and $`b_k^{ij}(u)`$ of bracket (1.1) are smooth functions of local coordinates, $`I[u]`$ and $`J[u]`$ are arbitrary functionals on the space of fields $`u^i(x),1iN.`$ A local bracket (1.1) is called nondegenerate if $`det(g^{ij}(u))0`$.

###### Theorem 1.1 (Dubrovin, Novikov )

If $`det(g^{ij}(u))0`$, then bracket (1.1) is a Poisson bracket, that is, it is skew-symmetric and satisfies the Jacobi identity, if and only if

* $`g^{ij}(u)`$ is an arbitrary flat pseudo-Riemannian contravariant metric (a metric of zero Riemannian curvature),
* $`b_k^{ij}(u)=g^{is}(u)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sk}^j(u),`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sk}^j(u)`$ is the Riemannian connection generated by the contravariant metric $`g^{ij}(u)`$ (the Levi–Civita connection).

Consequently, for any local nondegenerate Poisson bracket of hydrodynamic type, there always exist local coordinates $`v^1,\mathrm{},v^N`$ (flat coordinates of the metric $`g^{ij}(u)`$) in which all the coefficients of the bracket are constant:

$$\stackrel{~}{g}^{ij}(v)=\eta ^{ij}=\mathrm{const},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{jk}^i(v)=0,\stackrel{~}{b}_k^{ij}(v)=0,$$

that is, the bracket has the form

$$\{I,J\}=\frac{\delta I}{\delta v^i(x)}\eta ^{ij}\frac{d}{dx}\frac{\delta J}{\delta v^j(x)}𝑑x,$$
(1.2)
where $`(\eta ^{ij})`$ is a nondegenerate symmetric constant matrix:

$$\eta ^{ij}=\eta ^{ji},\eta ^{ij}=\mathrm{const},det(\eta ^{ij})0.$$

### 1.2 Nonlocal Poisson brackets of hydrodynamic type

Nonlocal Poisson brackets of hydrodynamic type (the Mokhov–Ferapontov brackets) were introduced and studied in the work of the present author and Ferapontov . They have the following form:

$$\{I,J\}=\frac{\delta I}{\delta u^i(x)}\left(g^{ij}(u(x))\frac{d}{dx}+b_k^{ij}(u(x))u_x^k+Ku_x^i\left(\frac{d}{dx}\right)^1u_x^j\right)\frac{\delta J}{\delta u^j(x)}𝑑x,$$
(1.3)
where $`K`$ is an arbitrary constant. A bracket of form (1.3) is called nondegenerate if $`det(g^{ij}(u))0`$.

###### Theorem 1.2 ()

If $`det(g^{ij}(u))0`$, then bracket (1.3) is a Poisson bracket, that is, it is skew-symmetric and satisfies the Jacobi identity, if and only if

* $`g^{ij}(u)`$ is an arbitrary pseudo-Riemannian contravariant metric of constant Riemannian curvature $`K`$,
* $`b_k^{ij}(u)=g^{is}(u)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sk}^j(u),`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sk}^j(u)`$ is the Riemannian connection generated by the contravariant metric $`g^{ij}(u)`$ (the Levi–Civita connection).

In  Ferapontov introduced and studied more general nonlocal Poisson brackets of hydrodynamic type (the Ferapontov brackets), namely, the Poisson brackets of the form

$`\{I,J\}={\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{\delta I}{\delta u^i(x)}}(g^{ij}(u(x)){\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}+b_k^{ij}(u(x))u_x^k+`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{L}{}}}\epsilon _\alpha (w^\alpha )_k^i(u(x))u_x^k\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}\right)^1(w^\alpha )_s^j(u(x))u_x^s){\displaystyle \frac{\delta J}{\delta u^j(x)}}dx,det(g^{ij}(u))0,`$ (1.4)
where $`\epsilon _\alpha =\pm 1,`$ $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},L.`$

###### Theorem 1.3 ()

Bracket (1.4) is a Poisson bracket, that is, it is skew-symmetric and satisfies the Jacobi identity, if and only if

* $`b_k^{ij}(u)=g^{is}(u)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sk}^j(u),`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sk}^j(u)`$ is the Riemannian connection generated by the contravariant metric $`g^{ij}(u)`$ (the Levi–Civita connection),
* the metric $`g^{ij}(u)`$ and the set of the affinors $`(w^\alpha )_j^i(u)`$ satisfies relations

$$g_{ik}(u)(w^\alpha )_j^k(u)=g_{jk}(u)(w^\alpha )_i^k(u),\alpha =1,\mathrm{},L,$$
(1.5)
$$_k(w^\alpha )_j^i(u)=_j(w^\alpha )_k^i(u),\alpha =1,\mathrm{},L,$$
(1.6)
$$R_{kl}^{ij}(u)=\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{L}{}}\epsilon _\alpha \left((w^\alpha )_l^i(u)(w^\alpha )_k^j(u)(w^\alpha )_l^j(u)(w^\alpha )_k^i(u)\right).$$
(1.7)
In addition, the family of the affinors $`w^\alpha (u)`$ is commutative: $`[w^\alpha ,w^\beta ]=0.`$

Let us write out all the relations on the coefficients of the nonlocal Poisson bracket (1.4) in a convenient form for further repeated use.

###### Lemma 1.1

Bracket (1.4) is a Poisson bracket if and only if its coefficients satisfy the relations

$$g^{ij}=g^{ji},$$
(1.8)
$$\frac{g^{ij}}{u^k}=b_k^{ij}+b_k^{ji},$$
(1.9)
$$g^{is}b_s^{jk}=g^{js}b_s^{ik},$$
(1.10)
$$g^{is}(w^\alpha )_s^j=g^{js}(w^\alpha )_s^i,$$
(1.11)
$$(w^\alpha )_s^i(w^\beta )_j^s=(w^\beta )_s^i(w^\alpha )_j^s,$$
(1.12)
$$g^{is}g^{jr}\frac{(w^\alpha )_r^k}{u^s}g^{jr}b_s^{ik}(w^\alpha )_r^s=g^{js}g^{ir}\frac{(w^\alpha )_r^k}{u^s}g^{ir}b_s^{jk}(w^\alpha )_r^s,$$
(1.13)
$$g^{is}\left(\frac{b_r^{jk}}{u^s}\frac{b_s^{jk}}{u^r}\right)+b_s^{ik}b_r^{sj}b_s^{ij}b_r^{sk}=\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{L}{}}\epsilon _\alpha g^{is}\left((w^\alpha )_s^j(w^\alpha )_r^k(w^\alpha )_r^j(w^\alpha )_s^k\right).$$
(1.14)
### 1.3 Compatible Poisson brackets

In  Magri proposed a bi-Hamiltonian approach to the integration of nonlinear systems. This approach demonstrated that integrability is closely related to the bi-Hamiltonian property, that is, the property of a system to have two compatible Hamiltonian representations.

###### Definition 1.1 (Magri )

Two Poisson brackets $`\{,\}_1`$ and $`\{,\}_2`$ are called compatible if an arbitrary linear combination of these Poisson brackets

$$\{,\}=\lambda _1\{,\}_1+\lambda _2\{,\}_2,$$
(1.15)
where $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ are arbitrary constants, is also a Poisson bracket. In this case, we shall also say that the brackets $`\{,\}_1`$ and $`\{,\}_2`$ form a pencil of Poisson brackets.

As was shown by Magri in , compatible Poisson brackets generate integrable hierarchies of systems of differential equations. In particular, for a system, the bi-Hamiltonian property generates recurrent relations for the conservation laws of this system.

### 1.4 Compatible pseudo-Riemannian metrics

Two pseudo-Riemannian contravariant metrics $`g_1^{ij}(u)`$ and $`g_2^{ij}(u)`$ are called compatible if for any linear combination of these metrics $`g^{ij}(u)=\lambda _1g_1^{ij}(u)+\lambda _2g_2^{ij}(u)`$, where $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ are arbitrary constants for which $`det(g^{ij}(u))0`$, the coefficients of the corresponding Levi-Civita connections and the components of the corresponding tensors of Riemannian curvature are related by the same linear formula: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{ij}(u)=\lambda _1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,k}^{ij}(u)+\lambda _2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2,k}^{ij}(u)`$ and $`R_{kl}^{ij}(u)=\lambda _1R_{1,kl}^{ij}(u)+\lambda _2R_{2,kl}^{ij}(u)`$ (in this case, we shall say also that the metrics $`g_1^{ij}(u)`$ and $`g_2^{ij}(u)`$ form a pencil of metrics) , . Flat pencils of metrics, that is nothing but compatible nondegenerate local Poisson brackets of hydrodynamic type (compatible Dubrovin–Novikov brackets ), were introduced in . Two pseudo-Riemannian contravariant metrics $`g_1^{ij}(u)`$ and $`g_2^{ij}(u)`$ of constant Riemannian curvature $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ respectively are called compatible if any linear combination of these metrics $`g^{ij}(u)=\lambda _1g_1^{ij}(u)+\lambda _2g_2^{ij}(u),`$ where $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ are arbitrary constants for which $`det(g^{ij}(u))0`$, is a metric of constant Riemannian curvature $`\lambda _1K_1+\lambda _2K_2`$ and the coefficients of the corresponding Levi-Civita connections are related by the same linear formula: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{ij}(u)=\lambda _1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,k}^{ij}(u)+\lambda _2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2,k}^{ij}(u)`$ , . In this case, we shall also say that the metrics $`g_1^{ij}(u)`$ and $`g_2^{ij}(u)`$ form a pencil of metrics of constant Riemannian curvature , . It is obvious that all these definitions are mutually consistent, so that if compatible metrics are metrics of constant Riemannian curvature, then they form a pencil of metrics of constant Riemannian curvature, and if compatible metrics are flat, then they form a flat pencil of metrics. A pair of pseudo-Riemannian metrics $`g_1^{ij}(u)`$ and $`g_2^{ij}(u)`$ is called nonsingular if the eigenvalues of this pair of metrics, that is, the roots of the equation $`det(g_1^{ij}(u)\lambda g_2^{ij}(u))=0,`$ are distinct (a pencil of metrics which is formed by a nonsingular pair of metrics is also called nonsingular). In , it is proved that an arbitrary nonsingular pair of metrics is compatible if and only if there exist local coordinates $`u=(u^1,\mathrm{},u^N)`$ such that both the metrics are diagonal in these coordinates and have the following special form (one can consider that one of the metrics, here $`g_2^{ij}(u),`$ is an arbitrary diagonal metric): $`g_2^{ij}(u)=g^i(u)\delta ^{ij}`$ and $`g_1^{ij}(u)=f^i(u^i)g^i(u)\delta ^{ij},`$ where $`f^i(u^i),`$ $`i=1,\mathrm{},N,`$ are functions of single variable (generally speaking, complex). It is obvious that the eigenvalues of the considered pair of metrics are given by the functions $`f^i(u^i),`$ $`i=1,\mathrm{},N.`$

## 2 Compatible metrics and compatible
Poisson brackets of hydrodynamic type

Consider two arbitrary nonlocal Poisson brackets of hydrodynamic type

$`\{I,J\}_1={\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{\delta I}{\delta u^i(x)}}(g_1^{ij}(u(x)){\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}+b_{1,k}^{ij}(u(x))u_x^k+`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{L_1}{}}}\epsilon _{1,\alpha }(w_1^\alpha )_k^i(u(x))u_x^k\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}\right)^1(w_1^\alpha )_s^j(u(x))u_x^s){\displaystyle \frac{\delta J}{\delta u^j(x)}}dx`$ (2.1)
and

$`\{I,J\}_2={\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{\delta I}{\delta u^i(x)}}(g_2^{ij}(u(x)){\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}+b_{2,k}^{ij}(u(x))u_x^k+`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{L_2}{}}}\epsilon _{2,\alpha }(w_2^\alpha )_k^i(u(x))u_x^k\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}\right)^1(w_2^\alpha )_s^j(u(x))u_x^s){\displaystyle \frac{\delta J}{\delta u^j(x)}}dx.`$ (2.2)
In  it was proved that if the Poisson brackets (2.1) and (2.2) are compatible, then the metrics $`g_1^{ij}(u)`$ and $`g_2^{ij}(u)`$ of the brackets are also compatible. Moreover, it was also proved in  that if 1) the pair of metrics $`g_1^{ij}(u)`$ and $`g_2^{ij}(u)`$ is nonsingular, 2) both the metrics $`g_1^{ij}(u),`$ $`g_2^{ij}(u)`$ and the affinors $`(w_1^\alpha )_j^i(u),`$ $`(w_2^\alpha )_j^i(u)`$ can be samultaneously diagonalized in a domain of local coordinates, then the Poisson brackets are compatible if and only if the metrics are compatible. Here we prove in some sense the converse theorem, which is very important for our method of integrating the equations for the general nonsingular pairs of arbitrary compatible nonlocal Poisson brackets of hydrodynamic type.

###### Theorem 2.1

If the pair of metrics $`g_1^{ij}(u)`$ and $`g_2^{ij}(u)`$ is nonsingular, then the Poisson brackets $`\{I,J\}_1`$ and $`\{I,J\}_2`$ are compatible if and only if the metrics are compatible and both the metrics $`g_1^{ij}(u),`$ $`g_2^{ij}(u)`$ and the affinors $`(w_1^\alpha )_j^i(u),`$ $`(w_2^\alpha )_j^i(u)`$ can be samultaneously diagonalized in a domain of local coordinates.

Proof. It is sufficient to prove here that if the pair of metrics is nonsingular and the Poisson brackets are compatible, then both the metrics $`g_1^{ij}(u),`$ $`g_2^{ij}(u)`$ and the affinors $`(w_1^\alpha )_j^i(u),`$ $`(w_2^\alpha )_j^i(u)`$ can be samultaneously diagonalized in a domain of local coordinates. All the rest was proved in . First of all, it was proved that in this case the metrics $`g_1^{ij}(u)`$ and $`g_2^{ij}(u)`$ are compatible. Recall that if the pair of metrics is nonsingular, then the metrics are compatible if and only if there exist local coordinates such that the metrics are diagonal and have the following special form in these coordinates: $`g_2^{ij}(u)=g^i(u)\delta ^{ij}`$ and $`g_1^{ij}(u)=f^i(u^i)g^i(u)\delta ^{ij},`$ where $`f^i(u^i),`$ $`1iN,`$ are functions of single variable . The functions $`f^i(u^i)`$ are the eigenvalues of the pair of metrics $`g_1^{ij}(u)`$ and $`g_2^{ij}(u)`$ so that they are distinct by assumption of the theorem even in the case if they are constants. It follows from the compatibility of the Poisson brackets $`\{I,J\}_1`$ and $`\{I,J\}_2`$ (it is necessary to consider relation (1.11) for the pencil $`\{I,J\}_1+\lambda \{I,J\}_2`$) that

$$g_1^{is}(w_2^\alpha )_s^j=g_1^{js}(w_2^\alpha )_s^i,$$
(2.3)
$$g_2^{is}(w_1^\alpha )_s^j=g_2^{js}(w_1^\alpha )_s^i.$$
(2.4)
Besides, from relation (1.11) for the Poisson brackets $`\{I,J\}_1`$ and $`\{I,J\}_2`$ we have

$$g_1^{is}(w_1^\alpha )_s^j=g_1^{js}(w_1^\alpha )_s^i,$$
(2.5)
$$g_2^{is}(w_2^\alpha )_s^j=g_2^{js}(w_2^\alpha )_s^i.$$
(2.6)
So from (2.3) and (2.6) in our special local coordinates we get

$$g^i(w_2^\alpha )_i^j=g^j(w_2^\alpha )_j^i,$$
(2.7)
$$f^i(u^i)g^i(w_2^\alpha )_i^j=f^j(u^j)g^j(w_2^\alpha )_j^i.$$
(2.8)
Thus

$$(w_2^\alpha )_j^i=\frac{g^i}{g^j}(w_2^\alpha )_i^j=\frac{f^i(u^i)g^i}{f^j(u^j)g^j}(w_2^\alpha )_i^j,$$
(2.9)
that is,

$$\left(1\frac{f^i(u^i)}{f^j(u^j)}\right)(w_2^\alpha )_i^j=0.$$
(2.10)
Consequently, since all the functions $`f^i(u^i)`$ are distinct, we get

$$(w_2^\alpha )_i^j=0\mathrm{for}ij.$$
(2.11)
Similarly, from (2.4) and (2.5) we have

$$(w_1^\alpha )_i^j=0\mathrm{for}ij.$$
(2.12)
Thus theorem 2.1 is proved.

## 3 Equations for nonsingular pairs of compatible
nonlocal Poisson brackets of hydrodynamic type

Consider an arbitrary nonsingular pair of compatible nonlocal Poisson brackets of hydrodynamic type (2.1) and (2.2), that is, we assume that the Poisson brackets are compatible and the pair of metrics $`g_1^{ij}(u)`$ and $`g_2^{ij}(u)`$ is nonsingular.

###### Theorem 3.1

General nonsingular pairs of compatible nonlocal Poisson brackets of hydrodynamic type are described by the following consistent integrable nonlinear systems:

$$\frac{H_{2,j}^\alpha }{u^i}=\beta _{ij}H_{2,i}^\alpha ,ij,$$
(3.1)
$$\frac{\beta _{ij}}{u^k}=\beta _{ik}\beta _{kj},ij,ik,jk,$$
(3.2)
$$ϵ_2^i\frac{\beta _{ij}}{u^i}+ϵ_2^j\frac{\beta _{ji}}{u^j}+\underset{si,sj}{}ϵ_2^s\beta _{si}\beta _{sj}+\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{L_2}{}}\epsilon _{2,\alpha }H_{2,i}^\alpha H_{2,j}^\alpha =0,ij.$$
(3.3)
$`ϵ_2^if^i(u^i){\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{ij}}{u^i}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_2^i(f^i)^{}\beta _{ij}+ϵ_2^jf^j(u^j){\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{ji}}{u^j}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_2^j(f^j)^{}\beta _{ji}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{si,sj}{}}ϵ_2^sf^s(u^s)\beta _{si}\beta _{sj}+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{L_1}{}}}\epsilon _{1,\alpha }H_{1,i}^\alpha H_{1,j}^\alpha =0,ij,`$ (3.4)
$$\frac{H_{1,j}^\alpha }{u^i}=\beta _{ij}H_{1,i}^\alpha ,ij,$$
(3.5)
where $`f^i(u^i),`$ $`i=1,\mathrm{},N,`$ are arbitrary given functions of one variable.

According to theorem 2.1 there exist local coordinates such that in these coordinates we have

$$g_2^{ij}(u)=g^i(u)\delta ^{ij},g_1^{ij}(u)=f^i(u^i)g^i(u)\delta ^{ij},$$
(3.6)
$$(w_2^\alpha )_j^i(u)=(w_2^\alpha )^i(u)\delta _j^i,(w_1^\alpha )_j^i(u)=(w_1^\alpha )^i(u)\delta _j^i.$$
(3.7)
Moreover, according to the same theorem 2.1 any pair of Poisson brackets of this form is compatible. Thus it is sufficient to consider the conditions that the brackets $`\{I,J\}_1`$ and $`\{I,J\}_2`$ of this special form are Poisson brackets. If the metric $`g^{ij}(u)`$ and the affinors $`(w^\alpha )_j^i(u)`$ of bracket (1.4) are diagonal, then the conditions (1.8)–(1.14) take an especially simple form. Consider the conditions for the bracket $`\{I,J\}_2`$ in the special local coordinates.

Introduce the standard classical notation

$`g^i(u)={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_2^i}{(H_i(u))^2}},ds^2={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}ϵ_2^i(H_i(u))^2(du^i)^2,`$ (3.8)
$`\beta _{ik}(u)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{H_i(u)}}{\displaystyle \frac{H_k}{u^i}},ik,`$ (3.9)
where $`H_i(u)`$ are the Lamé coefficients and $`\beta _{ik}(u)`$ are the rotation coefficients, $`ϵ_2^i=\pm 1,`$ $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$. Although, in our case, all the functions are, generally speaking, complex, we shall use formulae, which are convenient for using also in the purely real case.

In the considered “diagonal” case, the conditions that $`\{I,J\}_2`$ is a Poisson bracket are equivalent to the Gauss-Codazzi equations for submanifolds with flat normal bundle and holonomic net of curvature lines (see , ). Following ,  introduce the functions $`H_{2,i}^\alpha (u),`$ $`1iN,`$ $`1\alpha L_2,`$ such that

$$(w_2^\alpha )^i(u)=\frac{H_{2,i}^\alpha (u)}{H_i(u)}.$$
(3.10)
Then the conditions (1.8)–(1.14) for the bracket $`\{I,J\}_2`$ take the form (see )

$$\frac{H_{2,j}^\alpha }{u^i}=\beta _{ij}H_{2,i}^\alpha ,ij,$$
(3.11)
$$\frac{\beta _{ij}}{u^k}=\beta _{ik}\beta _{kj},ij,ik,jk,$$
(3.12)
$$ϵ_2^i\frac{\beta _{ij}}{u^i}+ϵ_2^j\frac{\beta _{ji}}{u^j}+\underset{si,sj}{}ϵ_2^s\beta _{si}\beta _{sj}+\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{L_2}{}}\epsilon _{2,\alpha }H_{2,i}^\alpha H_{2,j}^\alpha =0,ij.$$
(3.13)
For the metric $`g_1^{ij}(u)=f^i(u^i)g^i(u)\delta ^{ij}`$, the Lamé coefficients and the rotation coefficients have the form

$`\stackrel{~}{H}_i(u)={\displaystyle \frac{H_i(u)}{\sqrt{ϵ_1^if^i(u^i)}}},f^i(u^i)g^i(u)={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_1^iϵ_2^i}{(\stackrel{~}{H}_i(u))^2}},ϵ_1^i=\pm 1,`$ (3.14)
$`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{ik}(u)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{H}_i(u)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{H}_k}{u^i}}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{ϵ_1^if^i(u^i)}}{\sqrt{ϵ_1^kf^k(u^k)}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{H_i(u)}}{\displaystyle \frac{H_k}{u^i}}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{ϵ_1^if^i(u^i)}}{\sqrt{ϵ_1^kf^k(u^k)}}}\beta _{ik}(u),ik.`$ (3.15)
Besides, introduce the functions $`H_{1,i}^\alpha (u),`$ $`1iN,`$ $`1\alpha L_1,`$ such that

$$(w_1^\alpha )^i(u)=\frac{\stackrel{~}{H}_{1,i}^\alpha (u)}{\stackrel{~}{H}_i(u)}=\sqrt{ϵ_1^if^i(u^i)}\frac{\stackrel{~}{H}_{1,i}^\alpha (u)}{H_i(u)}=\frac{H_{1,i}^\alpha (u)}{H_i(u)}.$$
(3.16)
Accordingly, equations (3.12) are automatically satisfied also for the rotation coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{ik}(u)`$, equations (3.11) become equations (3.5), and equations (3.13) for $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{ik}(u)`$ give equations (3.4).

Note that it is easy to show that equations (3.3), (3.4) for nonsingular pairs of metrics (that is, all the functions $`f^i(u^i)`$ must be distinct also in the case if they are constants) are equivalent to the following equations (in particular, it is more convenient to use these equations for checking the consistency of system (3.1)–(3.5)):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{ij}}{u^i}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(f^i(u^i))^{}}{(f^j(u^j)f^i(u^i))}}\beta _{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_2^iϵ_2^j}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(f^j(u^j))^{}}{(f^j(u^j)f^i(u^i))}}\beta _{ji}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{si,sj}{}}ϵ_2^iϵ_2^s{\displaystyle \frac{(f^j(u^j)f^s(u^s))}{(f^j(u^j)f^i(u^i))}}\beta _{si}\beta _{sj}+{\displaystyle \underset{\beta =1}{\overset{L_1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_2^i\epsilon _{1,\beta }}{(f^j(u^j)f^i(u^i))}}H_{1,i}^\beta H_{1,j}^\beta `$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{L_2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_2^i\epsilon _{2,\alpha }f^j(u^j)}{(f^j(u^j)f^i(u^i))}}H_{1,i}^\alpha H_{1,j}^\alpha ,ij.`$ (3.17)
## 4 Lax pair for the general nonsingular pair
of compatible nonlocal Poisson brackets
of hydrodynamic type

The Lax pair with a spectral parameter for the system (3.1)–(3.5) can be derived from the linear problem for the system (3.1)–(3.3) describing all submanifolds with flat normal bundle and holonomic net of curvature lines. The equations (3.1)–(3.3) are the conditions of consistency for the following linear system:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _i}{u^k}}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{ϵ_2^i}}{\sqrt{ϵ_2^k}}}\beta _{ik}\phi _k,ik,`$ (4.1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _i}{u^i}}={\displaystyle \underset{ki}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{ϵ_2^k}}{\sqrt{ϵ_2^i}}}\beta _{ki}\phi _k+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{L_2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\epsilon _{2,\alpha }}}{\sqrt{ϵ_2^i}}}H_{2,i}^\alpha \psi ^\alpha ,`$ (4.2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi ^\alpha }{u^i}}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\epsilon _{2,\alpha }}}{\sqrt{ϵ_2^i}}}H_{2,i}^\alpha \phi _i.`$ (4.3)
The condition that the bracket $`\{I,J\}_1+\lambda \{I,J\}_2`$ is a Poisson bracket for any $`\lambda `$ is equivalent to the system (3.1)–(3.3) corresponding to the metric $`(\lambda +f^i(u^i))g^i(u)\delta ^{ij}`$ and the affinors $`(w_1^\beta )_j^i(u),`$ $`1\beta L_1,`$ and $`\sqrt{\lambda }(w_2^\alpha )_j^i(u),`$ $`1\alpha L_2`$. In this case, the linear problem (4.1)–(4.3) becomes the Lax pair with the spectral parameter $`\lambda `$ for the general nonsingular pair of arbitrary compatible nonlocal Poisson brackets of hydrodynamic type:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _i}{u^k}}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{ϵ_2^i(\lambda +f^i)}}{\sqrt{ϵ_2^k(\lambda +f^k)}}}\beta _{ik}\phi _k,ik,`$ (4.4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _i}{u^i}}={\displaystyle \underset{ki}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{ϵ_2^k(\lambda +f^k)}}{\sqrt{ϵ_2^i(\lambda +f^i)}}}\beta _{ki}\phi _k+`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{L_2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\epsilon _{2,\alpha }\lambda }}{\sqrt{ϵ_2^i(\lambda +f^i)}}}H_{2,i}^\alpha \psi ^\alpha +{\displaystyle \underset{\beta =1}{\overset{L_1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\epsilon _{1,\beta }}}{\sqrt{ϵ_2^i(\lambda +f^i)}}}H_{1,i}^\beta \chi ^\beta ,`$ (4.5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi ^\alpha }{u^i}}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\epsilon _{2,\alpha }\lambda }}{\sqrt{ϵ_2^i(\lambda +f^i)}}}H_{2,i}^\alpha \phi _i,`$ (4.6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi ^\beta }{u^i}}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\epsilon _{1,\beta }}}{\sqrt{ϵ_2^i(\lambda +f^i)}}}H_{1,i}^\beta \phi _i.`$ (4.7)
The Lax pair with the spectral parameter proves the integrability the system (3.1)–(3.5) for the general nonsingular pair of compatible nonlocal Poisson brackets of hydrodynamic type.

If $`H_{1,i}^\alpha (u)=0,`$ $`1iN,`$ $`1\alpha L_1,`$ and $`H_{2,i}^\alpha (u)=0,`$ $`1iN,`$ $`1\alpha L_2,`$ then the system (3.1)–(3.5) describe all compatible local Poisson brackets of hydrodynamic type (compatible Dubrovin–Novikov brackets or flat pencils of metrics). This system was derived and integrated by the method of inverse scattering problem in ,  with using the Zakharov method of differential reductions . The Lax pair for this system was demonstrated by Ferapontov in  (here $`\epsilon _2^i=1,`$ $`1iN`$):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _i}{u^j}}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(\lambda +f^i)}{(\lambda +f^j)}}}\beta _{ij}\phi _j,ij,`$ (4.8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _i}{u^i}}={\displaystyle \underset{ki}{}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(\lambda +f^k)}{(\lambda +f^i)}}}\beta _{ki}\phi _k,`$ (4.9)
where $`\lambda `$ is a spectral parameter. The corresponding linear problem for the Lamé equations, that is, equations (3.12), (3.13) with $`H_{2,i}^\alpha (u)=0,`$ was well known Darboux yet , see also, for example, , :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _i}{u^j}}=\beta _{ij}\phi _j,ij,`$ (4.10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _i}{u^i}}={\displaystyle \underset{ki}{}}\beta _{ki}\phi _k.`$ (4.11)
The condition of consistency for the linear system (4.10), (4.11) defines the Lamé equations. The Lax pair (4.8), (4.9) can be easily derived from the classical linear problem (4.10), (4.11) for the Lamé equations (see , ).

The Lax pair (4.8), (4.9) is generalized also to the case of arbitrary nonsingular pencils of metrics of constant Riemannian curvature (see examples in ). This Lax pair can be also easily derived from the corresponding linear problem for the system describing all the orthogonal curvilinear coordinate systems in $`N`$-dimensional spaces of constant curvature $`K_2`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _i}{u^j}}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\epsilon ^i}}{\sqrt{\epsilon ^j}}}\beta _{ij}\phi _j,ij,`$ (4.12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _i}{u^i}}={\displaystyle \underset{ki}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\epsilon ^k}}{\sqrt{\epsilon ^i}}}\beta _{ki}\phi _k+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{K_2}}{\sqrt{\epsilon ^i}}}H_i\psi ,`$ (4.13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{u^i}}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{K_2}}{\sqrt{\epsilon ^i}}}H_i\phi _i.`$ (4.14)
The condition of consistensy for the linear system (4.12)–(4.14) gives the equations for all orthogonal curvilinear coordinate systems in $`N`$-dimensional spaces of constant Riemannian curvature $`K_2`$.

The corresponding Lax pair with a spectral parameter for nonsingular pencils of metrics of constant Riemannian curvature has the form (see , ) :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _i}{u^j}}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^i(\lambda +f^i)}{\epsilon ^j(\lambda +f^j)}}}\beta _{ij}\phi _j,ij,`$ (4.15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _i}{u^i}}={\displaystyle \underset{ki}{}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^k(\lambda +f^k)}{\epsilon ^i(\lambda +f^i)}}}\beta _{ki}\phi _k+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda K_2+K_1}{\epsilon ^i(\lambda +f^i)}}}H_i\psi ,`$ (4.16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{u^i}}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda K_2+K_1}{\epsilon ^i(\lambda +f^i)}}}H_i\phi _i,`$ (4.17)
where $`\lambda `$ is a spectral parameter. The condition of consistency for the linear system (4.15)–(4.17) is equivalent to the equations for nonsingular pencils of metrics of constant Riemannian curvature.

If $`H_{2,i}^\alpha (u)=0,`$ $`1iN,`$ $`1\alpha L_1,`$ then the corresponding integrable systems (3.1)–(3.5) describe compatible pairs of Poisson brackets of hydrodynamic type one of which is local. These systems always give integrable reductions of the classical Lamé equations. The corresponding Lax pairs with a spectral parameter have the form:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _i}{u^k}}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{ϵ_2^i(\lambda +f^i)}}{\sqrt{ϵ_2^k(\lambda +f^k)}}}\beta _{ik}\phi _k,ik,`$ (4.18)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _i}{u^i}}={\displaystyle \underset{ki}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{ϵ_2^k(\lambda +f^k)}}{\sqrt{ϵ_2^i(\lambda +f^i)}}}\beta _{ki}\phi _k+{\displaystyle \underset{\beta =1}{\overset{L_1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\epsilon _{1,\beta }}}{\sqrt{ϵ_2^i(\lambda +f^i)}}}H_{1,i}^\beta \chi ^\beta ,`$ (4.19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi ^\beta }{u^i}}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\epsilon _{1,\beta }}}{\sqrt{ϵ_2^i(\lambda +f^i)}}}H_{1,i}^\beta \phi _i.`$ (4.20)
Similarly, we can construct the Lax pair with a spectral parameter for any special partial case of the equations for compatible nonlocal Poisson brackets of hydrodynamic type, for example, we get integrable reductions of the equations for orthogonal curvilinear coordinate systems in spaces of constant Riemannian curvature $`K`$ (in this case $`H_{2,i}^\alpha (u)=\sqrt{K}H_{2,i}(u),`$ $`L_2=1,`$ $`\alpha =1`$).

Centre for Nonlinear Studies,

L.D.Landau Institute for Theoretical Physics,

Russian Academy of Sciences

e-mail: mokhov@mi.ras.ru; mokhov@landau.ac.ru