text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The $`\rho `$ coupling to the nucleon has been the subject of permanent attention from different points of view. The $`\rho `$ exchange plays an important role in the nucleon-nucleon interaction at intermediate energies  and the strength of the tensor interaction is particularly large, about twice the value given by the vector meson dominance hypothesis (VMD). The determination of this coupling was done in  using dispersion relations and has been reconfirmed with posterior analysis along the same lines . The strength of the tensor coupling found in  finds also support from the values of the mixing parameter, $`ϵ`$, at energies of the nucleons around or bigger than 200 MeV . Attempts to describe this deviation from VMD have been done from different perspectives. In  an analysis using a topological chiral model concluded that the strong tensor coupling could be described semiquantitatively in a two phase model with half and half fractioning of charge and baryon number between the core and the soliton cloud. A color dielectric model was used in  concluding that the ratio $`\kappa _\rho /\kappa _v`$ was bigger than one. QCD sum rules have also been used in , and more recently in  where the tensor coupling is also found big and compatible with empirical determinations. Relativistic quark models were used to obtain also the $`\rho NN`$ coupling in . The chiral quark models  were also used to obtain the vector and tensor coupling in , assuming that they come solely from the coupling of the $`\rho `$ to the pion cloud of the nucleon and determining the radius of the bag to reproduce the empirical results. In one way or another all these works come to confirm the important role of the pion cloud in these couplings.

However, stimulated by the interest in determining the renormalization of the $`\rho `$ properties in the nuclear medium, much work has been done recently  which make a revision of the problem timely. There has also been progress in another front concerning the $`\rho `$ meson. Indeed, Chiral Perturbation Theory, ($`\chi PT`$), as an effective theory of the underlying QCD, has emerged as a useful tool to deal with hadronic interactions at low and intermediate energies. For the meson meson interaction the basic dynamics is contained in the lowest and second order Lagrangians of Gasser and Leutwyler . One important step forward in the understanding of the content of these Lagrangians was done in  where it was found that the parameters of the second order Lagrangian could be generated by the explicit exchange of resonances, particularly the vector mesons. Another step forward was subsequently given in  where the lowest order chiral Lagrangian, together with the exchange of vector and scalar mesons suggested in , were used to study the meson meson interaction, implementing unitarity via the N/D method. The result of this work was that, while the coupling of the vector mesons to the pseudoscalar mesons was essential to reproduce the data, the coupling of the scalars was compatible with zero. Yet, the scalar mesons were generated within the unitary approach simply from the multiple scattering of the mesons driven by the interaction accounted for by the lowest order Lagrangian. These mesons are hence dynamically generated in this approach, contrary to the vector mesons which qualify as genuine mesons. This classification can also be linked to arguments of the large $`N_c`$ limit in QCD. Indeed, loops are subleading in the $`N_c`$ counting, and consequently in the large $`N_c`$ limit the scalar mesons would disappear while the formerly called genuine mesons would survive, hence giving extra meaning to the concept of genuine and dynamically generated mesons .

This distinction is hence more than semantics and has practical repercussions. Indeed, since the lowest of the scalar mesons, the $`\sigma `$, is built up here from the meson meson interaction, consistency with this picture demands that the coupling of a $`\sigma `$ to the nucleon is simply done by coupling the interacting meson pair to the nucleon and this is what was done in . However, since the $`\rho `$ meson qualifies as one of the genuine mesons, its coupling to the nucleon does not have to come from just the pion cloud within this approach and, indeed, the effective Lagrangians used in  contain a direct coupling of the $`\rho `$ to the nucleon.

With this picture in mind, and within the philosophy of these effective Lagrangians, it is still proper to ask which is the contribution to the $`\rho NN`$ coupling from the mesonic loops in the perturbative expansion.

There is also another new element in the present evaluation since the findings of the lattest references  have also shown the importance of vertex corrections, linked to the underlying gauge structure of the Lagrangians, which were overlooked in the previous determinations of the meson cloud contributions to the $`\rho `$ couplings. All these findings introduce new elements in the evaluation of the vector and tensor couplings of the $`\rho `$ to the nucleon and the purpose of the present work is to give a new look to the problem from this modern perspective.

## 2 Model for the $`\rho NN`$ coupling

We shall calculate the nucleon coupling to the $`\rho `$ meson based on the chiral Lagrangian for the pion and nucleon. The basic couplings of the pion and nucleon to the $`\rho `$ meson are introduced by imposing the gauge theory for vector meson on the chiral Lagrangian. In the gauge theory for vector meson, this particle is considered as a gauge boson of an implicit gauge symmetry, which was originally suggested by Sakurai  with the vector meson dominance hypothesis, where it mediates all hadronic interactions. Later on, Bando et al.  developed this idea to the hidden local gauge theory of the non-linear sigma model. As we shall see, at tree level, the gauge condition of the vector meson on the chiral Lagrangian gives only the vector coupling of the $`\rho NN`$ vertex, since the tensor coupling itself is free from the gauge constraint. Therefore, in absence of direct tensor contributions, the tensor coupling is generated through pion-loop contributions. The study of such contributions is the aim of this paper.

Let us start by considering the elementary $`\rho NN`$ vertex. According to the construction of the gauge theory, the direct coupling of a hadron $`h`$ to the $`\rho `$ meson is constructed replacing the derivative by the associated covariant derivative with the gauge symmetry :

$$_\mu h(x)D_\mu h(x)=_\mu h(x)+ig_\rho [h(x),V^a]\rho _\mu ^a$$
(1)
where $`V^a`$ is the generator of the gauge symmetry of the $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ isospin space and the hadronic charge $`g_\rho `$ is given as a universal constant in all hadrons.

For the nucleon, since under the isospin rotation it is transformed as the fundamental representation: $`[V^a,\psi _N]=\frac{1}{2}\tau ^a\psi _N`$, the covariant derivative for the nucleon is written as

$$D_\mu \psi _N=(_\mu +i\frac{g_\rho }{2}\stackrel{}{\tau }\stackrel{}{\rho }_\mu )\psi _N$$
(2)
where $`\tau ^a`$ is the Pauli matrix for the isospin. Thus, the replacement on the kinetic term of the nucleon, $`\overline{\psi }_Ni/\psi _N\overline{\psi }_NiD/\psi _N`$, gives the direct coupling of the $`\rho `$ meson to the nucleon:

$$_{\rho NN}=\frac{g_\rho }{2}\overline{\psi }_N\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{}{\rho }_\mu \stackrel{}{\tau }\psi _N$$
(3)
The Lagrangian (3) contributes the vertex shown in fig.1 as

$$it_{\rho NN}^{\mathrm{direct}}=i\frac{g_\rho }{2}\tau ^a\gamma \epsilon ^{},$$
(4)
where $`\epsilon _\mu `$ is the polarization vector of $`\rho `$, and $`a`$ is the isospin index of the $`\rho `$ meson. In general, the vertex function of the $`\rho NN`$ coupling is written in terms of two Lorentz independent functions $`G^V`$ and $`G^T`$:

$$it_{\rho NN}=i\left(G^V(q^2)\gamma ^\mu +\frac{G^T(q^2)}{2iM_N}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q_\nu \right)\epsilon _\mu ^{}\tau ^a,$$
(5)
where $`q`$ is the outgoing momentum of the $`\rho `$. From eq. (4) the vertex functions $`G^V`$ and $`G^T`$ at tree level are obtained with the result

$$G_{\mathrm{tree}}^V=\frac{g_\rho }{2},G_{\mathrm{tree}}^T=0$$
(6)
while empirically one has

$$G_{\mathrm{emp}.}^V=2.9\pm 0.3,G_{\mathrm{emp}.}^T=18\pm 2$$
(7)
In the Lagrangian language, the tensor part is written as

$$_{\rho NN}^{\mathrm{tensor}}=\frac{G^T}{2M_N}\overline{\psi }_NF_a^{\mu \nu }\sigma _{\mu \nu }\frac{\tau ^a}{2}\psi _N$$
(8)
with the field strength tensor of the rho meson $`F_{\mu \nu }^a=_\mu \rho _\nu ^a_\nu \rho _\mu ^ag_\rho ϵ_{abc}\rho _\mu ^b\rho _\nu ^c`$. The Lagrangian of eq. (8) itself is invariant under the gauge transformation. Therefore the value of the coefficient $`G^T`$ is free from the constraint of the gauge theory. Here we would like to calculate $`G^T`$ from pion-loop contributions as the pion cloud without introducing any direct tensor couplings.

For later convenience we work with the Breit frame, that is $`q^0=0`$, $`p_i=\stackrel{}{q}/2`$ and $`p_f=\stackrel{}{q}/2`$, and also use the non-relativistic form. Then eq. (5) is written as

$$it_{\rho NN}=\left(iG^E(q)\epsilon ^0\frac{G^M(q)}{2M_N}(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\times \stackrel{}{q})\stackrel{}{\epsilon }\right)\tau ^a,$$
(9)
with

$`G^E(q)`$ $`=`$ $`G^V(q)`$ (10)
$`G^M(q)`$ $`=`$ $`G^T(q)+G^V(q).`$ (11)
In order to include the contribution from the pion cloud, we calculate the indirect coupling of the $`\rho `$ meson to the nucleon shown in fig.2 a). Since this diagram is one-loop, we also consider other one-loop diagrams shown in fig.2 for consistency of the loop expansion. As intermediate baryons in the loops, which can be excited by the pion, we consider both nucleon and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The loop corrections do not contribute to $`G^E`$ at $`q=0`$ due to the Ward-Takahashi identity.

The $`\rho \pi \pi `$ coupling is introduced by the gause theory for vector meson in the same way as the nucleon case. With the isospin rotation for pions $`[V^a,\pi ^b]=iϵ^{abc}\pi ^c`$, we obtain the covariant derivative for the pion:

$$D_\mu \pi ^a=_\mu \pi ^a+g_\rho ϵ_{abc}\pi ^b\rho _\mu ^c$$
(12)
and, then, from the replaced kinetic term $`\frac{1}{2}D_\mu \stackrel{}{\pi }D^\mu \stackrel{}{\pi }`$, we obtain the $`\rho \pi \pi `$ vertex :

$$_{\pi \pi \rho }=g_\rho (\stackrel{}{\pi }\times ^\mu \stackrel{}{\pi })\stackrel{}{\rho }_\mu $$
(13)
With this Lagrangian we can calculate the decay width of the $`\rho `$ meson decaying to two pions, which gives $`g_\rho =6.14`$. The sign is given by comparing to the standard $`\rho `$ coupling to pions in the chiral tensor formalism , which provides the equivalence $`g_\rho =m_\rho G_V/f^2`$, where $`G_V`$ is the parameter appearing in the chiral resonance Lagrangians of ref.  providing the $`\rho \pi \pi `$ coupling.

For the $`\pi N`$ couplings, we use the chiral Lagrangian:

$$_{\pi N}=\frac{g_A}{2f}\overline{N}/\gamma _5\stackrel{}{\pi }\stackrel{}{\tau }N\frac{1}{4f^2}\overline{\psi }_N(\stackrel{}{\pi }\times /\stackrel{}{\pi })\stackrel{}{\tau }\psi _N+\mathrm{},$$
(14)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes terms with multiple pions which do not enter the present calculation. In eq. (14) $`g_A`$ is the axial charge of the nucleon, $`g_A=1.26`$. In alternative formulations $`g_A`$ appears as $`D+F`$, with $`D`$ and $`F`$ the two $`SU(3)`$ coefficients for the semileptonic decay of hyperons, or through $`g_A/2ff_{\pi NN}/m_\pi `$. The gauge theory for vector meson introduces the $`\pi \rho NN`$ coupling through the replacement of the derivative by the covariant derivative (12):

$$_{\pi \rho N}=\frac{g_Ag_\rho }{2f}\overline{N}(\stackrel{}{\rho }_\mu \times \stackrel{}{\pi })\stackrel{}{\tau }\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5N+\frac{g_\rho }{4f^2}\overline{\psi }_N\gamma ^\mu (\stackrel{}{\pi }\stackrel{}{\pi }\stackrel{}{\rho }_\mu \stackrel{}{\tau }\stackrel{}{\pi }\stackrel{}{\rho }_\mu \stackrel{}{\pi }\stackrel{}{\tau })\psi _N+\mathrm{}$$
(15)
The first terms of eqs.(14) and (15) give the $`\pi NN`$ and $`\pi \rho NN`$ vertices. After the non-relativistic reduction we have

$`it_{\pi NN}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{2f}}\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\tau ^a`$ (16)
$`it_{\pi \rho NN}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{g_Ag_\rho }{2f}}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{\epsilon }ϵ_{abc}\tau ^c`$ (17)
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are the isospin indices for $`\pi `$ and $`\rho `$, respectively, and $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ is the outgoing pion momentum.

For the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ contribution, the introduction of $`\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ coupling is empirically performed through the replacement of the spin-isospin matrix $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$, $`\stackrel{}{\tau }`$ on the $`\pi NN`$ vertex by the spin-isospin transition matrices $`\stackrel{}{S}`$, $`\stackrel{}{T}`$:

$$it_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}=\left(\frac{f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}}{f_{\pi NN}}\right)\frac{g_A}{2f}\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{S}T^a$$
(18)
where $`(f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}/f_{\pi NN})=2.13`$. If we recall the introduction of the rho meson coupling through the replacement of eq. (12), the $`\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ coupling relates to the $`\pi \rho N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ one. Therefore, in analogy with the introduction of the $`\pi \rho NN`$ coupling (17) from the $`\pi NN`$ vertex (16), we have

$$it_{\pi \rho N\mathrm{\Delta }}=i\left(\frac{f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}}{f_{\pi NN}}\right)\frac{g_Ag_\rho }{2f}\stackrel{}{S}\stackrel{}{\epsilon }ϵ_{abc}T^c$$
(19)
For the $`\rho \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ coupling, we use the gauge theory for vector mesons again. The covariant derivative for the delta baryon is given in the relativistic form with the Rarita-Schwinger field for the spin $`3/2`$ fermion as

$$D_\mu \psi _{\mathrm{\Delta },\nu }=_\mu \psi _{\mathrm{\Delta },\nu }+ig_\rho \stackrel{}{T}_\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{\rho }_\mu \psi _{\mathrm{\Delta },\nu }$$
(20)
where $`T_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the isospin $`3/2`$ matrix, which is normalized so that $`T_{\mathrm{\Delta }11}^3=3/2`$. The kinetic term for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with the covariant derivative, which is written as $`\overline{\psi }_{\mathrm{\Delta },\mu }iD/\psi _\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu `$, gives the direct coupling of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to the $`\rho `$ meson. Similarly to the nucleon case, there exists a tensor coupling free from the gauge constraint. After including the tensor coupling and the non-relativistic reduction, the $`\rho \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vertex is written as

$$it_{\rho \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}=\left(ig_\rho \epsilon ^0\frac{G_\mathrm{\Delta }^M}{2M_N}(\stackrel{}{S}_\mathrm{\Delta }\times \stackrel{}{q})\stackrel{}{\epsilon }\right)T_\mathrm{\Delta }^a$$
(21)
where $`S_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the same matrix as the isospin matrix $`T_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ but for spin space, and $`G_\mathrm{\Delta }^M`$ is a free parameter. Here we assume that the magnetic coupling of the direct $`\rho \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is scaled to that of the $`\rho NN`$ according to the quark model , which is

$$G_\mathrm{\Delta }^M=\frac{4}{5}G_N^M$$
(22)
The derivation is written in Appendix A. If the direct tensor term is not included, the magnetic coupling comes from the vector term and we obtain $`G_\mathrm{\Delta }^M=\frac{4}{3}\frac{M_N}{M_\mathrm{\Delta }}G_N^M`$.

For the $`\rho N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ coupling, the vector coupling is not allowed due to the spin symmetry, thus, only the magnetic coupling is allowed and given as

$$it_{\rho N\mathrm{\Delta }}=\left(\frac{G_{N\mathrm{\Delta }}^M}{2M_N}(\stackrel{}{S}\times \stackrel{}{q})\stackrel{}{\epsilon }\right)T^a$$
(23)
with the quark model result

$$G_{N\mathrm{\Delta }}^M=\frac{6}{5}\sqrt{2}G_N^M$$
(24)
## 3 One loop contributions

The evaluation of the tree level diagram with a contact $`\rho NN`$ interaction from the Lagrangian of eq. (3) contributes to the $`G_{\rho NN}^E`$ term, providing a value $`G_{\rho NN}^E=\frac{M_\rho G_V}{2f^2}F_\rho (\stackrel{}{Q}=\stackrel{}{0})`$=3.07, which is already a very good value when compared to the experimental one, $`G_{\rho NN}^E=2.9\pm 0.3`$ ($`F_\rho (\stackrel{}{Q})`$ is the $`\rho `$ form factor, defined in Appendix B). However, this is the only contribution to $`G_{\rho NN}^M`$ , which has an empirical value around 21. We want to see how much of the magnetic strength can be generated through loop contributions. In this section we perform the one loop calculation, which comes from the diagrams shown in figure 2 plus other time orderings. In all of them we assume the external nucleon lines to be protons.

The contribution of each of these diagrams to $`G_{\rho NN}^E`$ and to $`G_{\rho NN}^M`$ is given in Appendix B. We discuss here in more detail the calculations and the results obtained. In what follows we present results calculated with the form factors for $`\pi `$ and $`\rho `$ given in eq. (45) and we take $`g_A=1.26`$ and $`f=93`$ MeV.

In diagram a) the pions are a $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ pair since the $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ pair does not couple to the $`\rho ^0`$, being the intermediate nucleon a neutron. The evaluation of this diagram is straightforward and gives the values $`G_{\rho NN}^E(\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{0})=1.64`$ and $`G_{\rho NN}^M(\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{0})=4.42`$. The calculation of diagram b) is analogous, once the spin and isospin factors arising from eq. (50) of Appendix B are taken into account. It gives $`G_{\rho NN}^E(\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{0})=1.11`$ and $`G_{\rho NN}^M(\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{0})=1.44`$. As we can see, the contributions of these two diagrams to $`G_{\rho NN}^E`$ have opposite sign, and therefore there is an important cancellation between them, while the contributions to $`G_{\rho NN}^M`$ have the same sign.

The other diagrams to be considered, except for diagram k), contain vertices in which the $`\rho `$ is coupled directly to a nucleon leg. In all these cases we have multiplied the result provided by the expressions given in Appendix B by the corresponding $`F_\rho (\stackrel{}{Q})`$ form factor, defined in eq. (45). The results given in Appendix B for diagram c) accounts for the diagram represented in c) of figure 2 but also for the one with the $`\rho `$ meson attached to the lower vertex instead of the upper one. In these vertices the pions are charged. Their contribution to $`G_{\rho NN}^E`$ is of order $`𝒪(1/M)`$ and is not considered here. The contribution to $`G_{\rho NN}^M`$ is found to be $`G_{\rho NN}^M(\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{0})=1.90`$. In the case of diagram d) there are two more diagrams contributing since we can have $`p\pi ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$, $`\rho p\pi ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ vertices. We obtain from these diagrams $`G_{\rho NN}^M(\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{0})=0.55`$, being the contribution to $`G_{\rho NN}^E`$ of $`𝒪(1/M)`$ as in the previous case.

In diagrams e), f) and g) we have the $`\rho NN`$, $`\rho N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\rho \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vertices. The contributions to $`G^E`$ and $`G^M`$ of these diagrams are written in Appendix B, where we have taken into account the quark model based relations between $`G^M`$, $`G_\mathrm{\Delta }^M`$ and $`G_{N\mathrm{\Delta }}^M`$ of Appendix A. Diagram e) accounts actually for two diagrams, one with an intermediate $`p`$ and another one with an intermediate $`n`$. The evaluation of these diagrams is simple and gives $`G_{\rho NN}^E(\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{0})=0.41`$ and $`G_{\rho NN}^M(\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{0})=0.14`$. In the case of diagrams f) and g) we have to take into account that they correspond to more diagrams than in the case of diagram e) since we can have an intermediate $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ in addition to $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^0`$. In the evaluation of diagram g) we need to apply the following relation:

$$S_iS_{\mathrm{\Delta }j}S_k^{}=\frac{5}{6}\text{i}ϵ_{ijk}\frac{1}{6}\delta _{ij}\sigma _k+\frac{2}{3}\delta _{ik}\sigma _j\frac{1}{6}\delta _{jk}\sigma _i$$
(25)
With this we get $`G_{\rho NN}^E(\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{0})=2.77`$ and $`G_{\rho NN}^M(\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{0})=0.93`$ from these diagrams. We find also that diagrams of type f) do not contribute to $`G_{\rho NN}^E`$, and they provide a contribution to $`G^M`$ of $`G_{\rho NN}^M(\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{0})=1.40`$.

The next diagrams that we have considered, h) and i), correspond to the wave function renormalization. Their evaluation is straightforward, and their effect is taken into account by multiplying the tree level contribution by $`(1+\mathrm{\Sigma }/k^0`$) (see Appendix B). Finally, diagrams j) and k) cancel at $`\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{0}`$ (see Appendix B), and therefore we do not consider them here. Diagrams c) and d), containing the vertex corrections, have been neglected in the evaluation of $`G^E`$ because they are of order $`1/M`$ of the rest of the diagrams and terms of this order (recoil corrections) have been omitted in the $`\pi NN`$, $`\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vertices. However, we have evaluated numerically the contribution of these terms, and although individually they are not too small we find a very good cancellation between the terms involving a nucleon or a $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ propagator, thus justifying altogether the neglecting of all these terms.

We should also point out that we have not included diagrams m) where the $`\rho `$ couples directly to the nucleon and there is a selfenergy insertion in the $`\rho `$ corresponding to a two pion loop , or similarly diagrams l), where a tadpole of a pion loop is attached to the $`\rho `$ propagator. Such terms, as shown in  go into the renormalization of the $`\rho `$ mass and width.

In table 1 we summarize the results obtained here for $`G^E`$ and $`G^M`$ at $`\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{0}`$.

It is worth noting that the different loop contributions approximately cancel with the wave function renormalization (see table 1) in $`G^E(\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{0})`$. The cancellation appears from diagrams a), e), h) as a block, which are the terms containing intermediate nucleon propagators, and from diagrams b), g) and i) which contain the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ propagators. This cancellation can be found analytically from the expressions in Appendix B at $`\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{0}`$ if we include only one factor $`M/E`$ in the set of baryon propagators to keep at the same order of a non-relativistic expansion.

The interesting thing to see in table 1 is that the loops provide a sizeable contribution to $`G^M(\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{0})`$ which has now a value of 6.05, about double the one from the tree level. This number is still small compared to the empirical value of $`G^M21`$, and the discrepancy should be attributed to non-perturbative effects.

In order to estimate the uncertainties we have changed the value of the form factor parameter for the pion and the value of $`D+F`$. If we use for instance $`D+F=2ff_{\pi NN}/\mu `$ instead of $`D+F=g_A`$ we obtain $`G^M(\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{0})=6.39`$. If we change $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$ from 0.9 GeV to 1.2 GeV we obtain $`G^M(\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{0})=6.41`$. The results obtained by changing the parameters reasonably indicate that the uncertainties in the theoretical calculation are around as less than 10%.

Finally, in figure 3 we plot the results for the $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ dependence (form factor) of $`G^E(\stackrel{}{q})`$ and $`G^M(\stackrel{}{q})`$. They are compared with the empirical form factor, assuming the same normalization at $`\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{0}`$. For the $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ dependence of our results we sum the tree level contribution multiplied by the empirical form factor and the loop contributions evaluated here. We can see that our calculation falls down faster than a monopole form factor at low energies, perticularly the tensor part.

## 4 Considerations on gauge invariance

Although the procedure followed with the Feynman diagrams used would fulfill gauge invariance, our introduction of the explicit form factors of Appendix B would break it. This is a well known fact and in the literature there have been many attempts to restore gauge invariance in the presence of form factors .

Since our main concern is to show the contribution of loops to the magnetic coupling (at $`\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{0}`$) or to $`G^E`$ and $`G^M`$ at moderate values of $`\stackrel{}{q}`$, rather than embarking in some of the procedures to restore gauge invariance as quoted above, we shall make a study here of why and how gauge invariance is broken and this will give us an idea for which values of $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ our procedure still satisfies gauge invariance and hence makes the results credible. Let us take the contribution from all loop diagrams from a) to g) in fig. 2 with an incoming nucleon momentum $`p`$ and an outgoing nucleon momentum $`p+q`$, and call their contribution to -i$`t^\mu `$:

$$\text{i}\mathrm{\Delta }t^\mu \text{i}\mathrm{\Delta }G^V(q)\gamma ^\mu +\frac{G^T(q)}{2\text{i}M_N}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q_\nu $$
(26)
A general test of gauge invariance can be given by the Ward identities which establish in the $`\rho NN`$ case

$$\text{i}\mathrm{\Delta }t^\mu (q)q_\mu =\text{i}\frac{g_\rho }{2}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }(p+q)\mathrm{\Sigma }(p)\right)$$
(27)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p)`$ is the nucleon self-energy. Eq.(27) implies

$$\text{i}\mathrm{\Delta }G^V(q)\gamma ^\mu q_\mu =\text{i}\frac{g_\rho }{2}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }(p+q)\mathrm{\Sigma }(p)\right)$$
(28)
which should be valid for any value of $`p`$ and $`q`$ even if the nucleons and the $`\rho `$ are off shell. By chosing $`p^0=M_N`$, $`\stackrel{}{p}=\stackrel{}{0}`$ and arbitrary $`q^0`$, $`\stackrel{}{q}`$, which is a sufficiently general situation, we have:

$$\text{i}\mathrm{\Delta }G^V(q)\gamma ^\mu q_\mu =\text{i}\frac{g_\rho }{2}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }(q^0+M_N,\stackrel{}{q})\mathrm{\Sigma }(M_N,\stackrel{}{0})\right)$$
(29)
where in the non relativistic expansion which we are using $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p)`$ is just a number. We now evaluate the matrix element of the first member of eq. (28) between the spinors $`\overline{u}(\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q})`$ and $`u(\stackrel{}{p})`$ in the same non-relativistic approximation. Then we obtain

$$\text{i}\mathrm{\Delta }G^V\left(q^0\frac{\stackrel{}{q}^{\text{ }2}}{2M_N}\right)=\text{i}\frac{g_\rho }{2}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }(q^0+M_N,\stackrel{}{q})\mathrm{\Sigma }(M_N,\stackrel{}{0})\right)$$
(30)
Let us now take $`q^0`$, $`q`$ small enough such that a Taylor expansion of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ can be done and we obtain

$$\text{i}\mathrm{\Delta }G^V\left(q^0\frac{\stackrel{}{q}^{\text{ }2}}{2M_N}\right)=\text{i}\frac{g_\rho }{2}\left(q^0\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{q^0}|_{q^0=q=0}+\stackrel{}{q}^{\text{ }2}\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\stackrel{}{q}^{\text{ }2}}|_{q^0=q=0}\right)$$
(31)
which by means of the easily derivable relation

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\stackrel{}{q}^{\text{ }2}}|_{q^0=q=0}=\frac{1}{2M_N}\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{q^0}|_{q^0=q=0}$$
(32)
leads to

$$\text{i}\mathrm{\Delta }G^V\left(q^0\frac{\stackrel{}{q}^{\text{ }2}}{2M_N}\right)=\text{i}\frac{g_\rho }{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{q^0}|_{q^0=q=0}\left(q^0\frac{\stackrel{}{q}^{\text{ }2}}{2M_N}\right)$$
(33)
This requires (omitting higher orders $`q^0`$, $`\stackrel{}{q}`$) that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }G^V(q)|_{q^0=q=0}\frac{g_\rho }{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{q^0}|_{q^0=q=0}=\left(\mathrm{\Delta }G^E+G_{tree}^E\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{q^0}\right)|_{q^0=q=0}=0$$
(34)
As we have noted in the former section, $`\mathrm{\Delta }G^E+G_{tree}^E\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{q^0}`$ gives the contribution to $`G^E(q)`$ from the loop vertex functions of diagrams a) to g) of fig. 2, plus the contribution from the wave function renormalization (diagrams h), i) of fig. 2) which is given by the second term, $`G_{tree}^E\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{q^0}`$. Eq. (34) tells us that the contribution of all those terms to $`G^E(0)`$ is null, something that we had already found numerically even with the presence of form factors. It is not surprising that this should be the case because it should occur in the absence of form factors from a cancellation of the contribution of the different diagrams. Then at $`q^0=q=0`$ all these diagrams are multiplied by the same form factors and hence the cancellation also holds. Since eq. (34) is satisfied also in the case of form factors, then eq. (33), which is the statement of the Ward identities at moderate values of $`q^0`$ and $`q`$, also holds in the presence of form factors. However, the limits go beyond those where the Taylor expansion may hold. Indeed, as we stated above, the Ward identities in the absence of form factors would be fulfilled and if all the diagrams were multiplied in our case by the same form factors then the equality would still hold. However, this is the case only at $`q^0=q=0`$, because for finite $`q`$ we have in the loops $`F_\pi ^2(\stackrel{}{p})`$ in some diagrams and $`F_\pi (\stackrel{}{p})F_\pi (\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q})`$ in other diagrams, which are not the same. Also we have the $`\rho NN`$ form factor which does not appear in diagrams a) and b). Since the form factor is only operative for values of $`|\stackrel{}{p}|`$ of the order of the cut off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ or higher, demanding that the angle averaged value of $`F_\pi (\stackrel{}{p})F_\pi (\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q})`$ be similar to $`F_\pi ^2(\stackrel{}{p})`$, for instance, implies that $`q`$ should be small compared to the cut off scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

The former argument sets the scale of values of $`q`$ where gauge invariance would be violated. On the other hand the results of  using the gauge restoring Berends formalism or the plain application of form factors showed that the differences were not large even at values of $`|\stackrel{}{q}|800`$ MeV. All these things considered, one can reasonably say that up to values of $`q500`$ MeV the results evaluated here would be reliable.

## 5 Conclusions

We have evaluated the contributions to $`G^E(\stackrel{}{q})`$ and $`G^M(\stackrel{}{q})`$ for the coupling of the $`\rho `$ meson to the nucleon including direct couplings stemming from a gauge formulation of the theory and in addition we have included the contributions of the virtual meson cloud at one loop level. We regularize the loops by means of a form factor, introducing an effective cut off of the order of 1 GeV which is considered the natural scale. In addition to this cut off the space of the intermediate states is reduced to the nucleon and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. This means a regularization from two sources and the justification should be seen in the phenomenological success of such an approach in a large number of hadronic properties in the evaluation of chiral bag models .

What we find, as expected, is that $`G^E(\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{0})`$ does not change with respect to the tree level, because it is restricted by gauge conditions, but $`G^M(\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{0})`$, which has no such restrictions, is appreciably enhanced. However, this enhancement is still clearly insufficient to provide values close to the empirical one. This result seems to indicate that the magnetic coupling of the $`\rho `$ to the nucleon is of direct nature and cannot be attributed to loop corrections. The $`\rho `$, as a genuine QCD state , by contrast to the low energy scalar mesons , has also as a genuine property a strong magnetic coupling to the nucleon, the origin of which goes beyond the meson loop calculation which we have done. This is in contrast to the coupling of the $`\sigma `$ meson to the nucleon which, in correspondence to the nature of the $`\sigma `$ as a pion-pion rescattering resonance, could be obtained by coupling the meson cloud to the nucleons .

On the other hand we observe that the loop contribution to the electric and magnetic form factors has a stronger $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ dependence than the one provided by the assumed empirical monopole form factor. This is due to the large extend of the pion cloud, which, due to the small mass of the pion, has a larger range than the genuine constituents (quarks) of the $`\rho `$ meson. This faster fall of the form factors, or, alternativelly the larger range of the coupling, should also have some repercussion in the part of the $`NN`$ interaction mediated by $`\rho `$ exchange.

### Acknowledgments

One of us, D.J. wishes to acknowledge the hospitality of the University of Valencia where this work was done and financial support from the Ministerio de Educacion in the program Doctores y Tecnologos extranjeros. J. E. P. wishes to acknowledge support from Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. This work is also partly supported by DGICYT contract number BFM2000-1326 and E.U. EURODAPHNE network contract no. ERBFMRX-CT98-0169.

## Appendix A $`G_\mathrm{\Delta }^M`$ and $`G_{N\mathrm{\Delta }}^M`$ from the quark model

Here we explain the calculations of the $`\rho \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\rho N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ couplings from the $`SU(6)`$ quark model. Now let us define the operator of the $`\rho ^0`$ coupling to the $`i`$-th quark for $`G_M`$:

$$\widehat{g}_M^{(i)}=G_{(q)}^M\frac{(\stackrel{}{q}\times \stackrel{}{\epsilon })\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{(i)}}{2m_q}\tau _{(i)}^3$$
(35)
with the light quark mass $`m_q`$ and an outgoing $`\rho ^0`$ momentum $`\stackrel{}{q}`$. The $`G^M`$ for proton with up spin is calculated from the quark model as

$$p|\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\widehat{g}_M^{(i)}|p=\frac{5}{3}G_{(q)}^M\frac{(\stackrel{}{q}\times \stackrel{}{\epsilon })_3}{2m_q}$$
(36)
Here we use $`p|\sigma ^3\tau ^3|p=\frac{5}{3}`$ and the $`SU(6)`$ flavor-spin symmetry for the nucleon wave function:

$$|N=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\varphi _{MS}\chi _{MS}+\varphi _{MA}\chi _{MA})$$
(37)
with, for the proton with the spin up,

$`\varphi _{MS}^{(p)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}[(ud+du)u2uud]`$ $`\varphi _{MA}^{(p)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(uddu)u`$ (38)
$`\chi _{MS}^{()}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}[(+)2]`$ $`\chi _{MA}^{()}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}()`$ (39)
Comparing with the definition of the magnetic coupling for nucleon (9), we obtain the relation of the $`G_N^M`$ to the $`G_{(q)}^M`$:

$$\frac{G_{(q)}^M}{2m_q}=\frac{3}{5}\frac{G_N^M}{2M_N}$$
(40)
In the same way, the $`\rho N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\rho \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ couplings are calculated with the quark model. Using $`p|\sigma ^3\tau ^3|\mathrm{\Delta }^+\frac{1}{2}=\frac{8}{3\sqrt{2}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+\frac{1}{2}|\sigma ^3\tau ^3|\mathrm{\Delta }^+\frac{1}{2}=\frac{1}{3}`$, we obtain

$`p|{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\widehat{g}_M^{(i)}|\mathrm{\Delta }^+\frac{1}{2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3\sqrt{2}}}G_{(q)}^M{\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{}{q}\times \stackrel{}{\epsilon })_3}{2m_q}}`$ (41)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^+\frac{1}{2}|{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\widehat{g}_M^{(i)}|\mathrm{\Delta }^+\frac{1}{2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}G_{(q)}^M{\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{}{q}\times \stackrel{}{\epsilon })_3}{2m_q}}`$ (42)
Here the $`SU(6)`$ wave function for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ with spin $`1/2`$ is given by

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }^+\frac{1}{2}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(uud+udu+duu)\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(++)$$
(43)
Taking care of the normalization of the definitions of the couplings (21) and (23), where $`p|S^3T^3|\mathrm{\Delta }^+\frac{1}{2}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+\frac{1}{2}|S_\mathrm{\Delta }^3T_\mathrm{\Delta }^3|\mathrm{\Delta }^+\frac{1}{2}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}`$, finally we obtain the relations to the $`\rho NN`$ coupling:

$$G_{N\mathrm{\Delta }}^M=\frac{6}{5}\sqrt{2}G_N^MG_\mathrm{\Delta }^M=\frac{4}{5}G_N^M$$
(44)
## Appendix B  One loop calculations

In this Appendix we give the explicit expressions of the contributions of the loop diagrams to $`G_{NN\rho }^V`$ and $`G_{NN\rho }^M`$. In the following equations and diagrams $`ϵ_\mu `$ denotes the $`\rho `$ polarization vector, and:

$`q(E(\stackrel{}{q}),\stackrel{}{q})`$ $`Q(0,\stackrel{}{q})`$
$`\omega (k)\sqrt{\stackrel{}{k}^2+m_\pi ^2}`$ $`D(k){\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2m_\pi ^2}}`$
$`F_\pi (\stackrel{}{k}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+\stackrel{}{k}^2}}`$ $`F_\rho (\stackrel{}{k}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^2+\stackrel{}{k}^2}}`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.9\text{ GeV}`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho =2.5\text{ GeV}`$
$`E(\stackrel{}{k}){\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{k}^{\text{ }2}}{2M_N}}+M_N`$ $`E_\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{k}){\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{k}^{\text{ }2}}{2M_\mathrm{\Delta }}}+M_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (45)
We warn the reader that, in order not to complicate excessively the expressions, we have deliberately omitted the form factors and the $`M/E`$ relativistic corrections to the baryonic propagators in the following equations, although it should be kept in mind that one must include them to perform the numerical calculations.

$`iV(\stackrel{}{q})=4ϵ_\mu \left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{2f}}\right)^2g_\rho {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{\sigma }(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}/2)\stackrel{}{\sigma }(\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}/2)}{E(\stackrel{}{q}/2)+p^0E(\stackrel{}{p})+iϵ}}\times `$
$`\times D(pq/2)D(p+q/2)p^\mu `$ (46)
$$G_{\rho NN}^{E\text{ }a)}(\stackrel{}{q})=2\left(\frac{g_A}{2f}\right)^2g_\rho \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\left(\stackrel{}{p}^{\text{ }2}\frac{\stackrel{}{q}^{\text{ }2}}{4}\right)f_1(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{q})$$
(47)
$$\frac{G_{\rho NN}^{M\text{ }a)}}{2M_N}=2\left(\frac{g_A}{2f}\right)^2g_\rho \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\left(\stackrel{}{p}^{\text{ }2}\frac{(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q})^2}{\stackrel{}{q}^{\text{ }2}}\right)f_2(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{q})$$
(48)
where the $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ functions are defined as:

$`f_1(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{q})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega (\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}/2)+\omega (\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}/2)}}\text{ }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E(\stackrel{}{q}/2)\omega (\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}/2)E(\stackrel{}{p})}}\times `$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E(\stackrel{}{q}/2)\omega (\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}/2)E(\stackrel{}{p})}}`$
$`f_2(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{q})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega (\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}/2)+\omega (\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}/2)}}\text{ }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E(\stackrel{}{q}/2)\omega (\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}/2)E(\stackrel{}{p})}}\times `$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega (\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}/2)+\omega (\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}/2)+E(\stackrel{}{p})E(\stackrel{}{q}/2)}{E(\stackrel{}{q}/2)\omega (\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}/2)E(\stackrel{}{p})}}\text{ }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\omega (\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}/2)\omega (\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}/2)}}`$
In the calculation of diagrams with intermediate $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s one has different spin and isospin factors since the spin and isospin transition operators appearing in the corresponding Lagrangians satisfy the following relations:

$`S_iS_j^{}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{3}}ϵ_{ijk}\sigma _k`$
$`T_iT_j^{}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{3}}ϵ_{ijk}\tau _k`$ (50)
Taking this into account one finds

$$G_{\rho NN}^{E\text{ }b)}(\stackrel{}{q})=\frac{4}{9}\left(\frac{f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}}{f_{\pi NN}}\right)^2\left(\frac{g_A}{2f}\right)^2g_\rho \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\left(\stackrel{}{p}^{\text{ }2}\frac{\stackrel{}{q}^{\text{ }2}}{4}\right)f_1^\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{q})$$
(51)
$$\frac{G_{\rho NN}^{M\text{ }b)}}{2M_N}=\frac{2}{9}\left(\frac{f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}}{f_{\pi NN}}\right)^2\left(\frac{g_A}{2f}\right)^2g_\rho \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\left(\stackrel{}{p}^{\text{ }2}\frac{(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q})^2}{\stackrel{}{q}^{\text{ }2}}\right)f_2^\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{q})$$
(52)
where $`f_1^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`f_2^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are defined as $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ (see eqs. (B)), but replacing there $`E(\stackrel{}{p})`$ by $`E_\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{p})`$, and $`f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}/f_{\pi N}=2.12`$.

$$G_{\rho NN}^{E\text{ }c)}(\stackrel{}{q})=𝒪(1/M_N)$$
(53)
$`\text{ }{\displaystyle \frac{G_{\rho NN}^{M\text{ }c)}}{2M_N}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{2f}}\right)^2g_\rho {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}}{\stackrel{}{q}^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\omega (\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}/2)}}\times `$ (54)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E(\stackrel{}{q}/2)\omega (\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}/2)E(\stackrel{}{p})}}`$
$$G_{\rho NN}^{E\text{ }d)}(\stackrel{}{q})=𝒪(1/M_N)$$
(55)
$`\text{ }{\displaystyle \frac{G_{\rho NN}^{M\text{ }d)}}{2M_N}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}}{f_{\pi NN}}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{2f}}\right)^2g_\rho {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}}{\stackrel{}{q}^2}})\times `$ (56)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\omega (\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}/2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E(\stackrel{}{q}/2)\omega (\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}/2)E_\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{p})}}`$
$`\text{ }G_{\rho NN}^{E\text{ }e)}(\stackrel{}{q})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{2f}}\right)^2g_\rho {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\omega (\stackrel{}{p})}}\times `$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}^{\text{ }2}}{E(\stackrel{}{q}/2)\omega (\stackrel{}{p})E(\stackrel{}{q}/2\stackrel{}{p})}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E(\stackrel{}{q}/2)\omega (\stackrel{}{p})E(\stackrel{}{q}/2\stackrel{}{p})}}`$ (57)
$`G_{\rho NN}^{M\text{ }e)}(\stackrel{}{q})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_\rho }{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{2f}}\right)^2{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q})^2}{2\stackrel{}{q}^{\text{ }2}\omega (\stackrel{}{p})}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E(\stackrel{}{q}/2)\omega (\stackrel{}{p})E(\stackrel{}{q}/2\stackrel{}{p})}}\times `$ (58)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E(\stackrel{}{q}/2)\omega (\stackrel{}{p})E(\stackrel{}{q}/2\stackrel{}{p})}}`$
$`G_{\rho NN}^{E\text{ }f)}(\stackrel{}{q})={\displaystyle \frac{10}{9}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{2f}}\right)^2g_\rho \left({\displaystyle \frac{f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}}{f_{\pi NN}}}\right)^2{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\omega (\stackrel{}{p})}}\times `$ (59)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}^{\text{ }2}}{E(\stackrel{}{q}/2)\omega (\stackrel{}{p})E_\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{q}/2\stackrel{}{p})}}\text{ }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E(\stackrel{}{q}/2)\omega (\stackrel{}{p})E_\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{q}/2\stackrel{}{p})}}`$
$`G_{\rho NN}^{M\text{ }f)}(\stackrel{}{q})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}g_\rho \left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{2f}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}}{f_{\pi NN}}}\right)^2{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}}(\stackrel{}{p}^{\text{ }2}+{\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q})^2}{3\stackrel{}{q}^{\text{ }2}}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\omega (\stackrel{}{p})}}\times `$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E(\stackrel{}{q}/2)\omega (\stackrel{}{p})E_\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{q}/2\stackrel{}{p})}}\text{ }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E(\stackrel{}{q}/2)\omega (\stackrel{}{p})E_\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{q}/2\stackrel{}{p})}}`$
$$G_{\rho NN}^{E\text{ }g)}(\stackrel{}{q})=0$$
(61)
$`G_{\rho NN}^{M\text{ }g)}(\stackrel{}{q})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\sqrt{2}}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_\rho }{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{2f}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}}{f_{\pi NN}}}\right){\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}}({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}^{\text{ }2}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q})^2}{6\stackrel{}{q}^{\text{ }2}}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\omega (\stackrel{}{p})}}\times `$
$`\times `$ $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E(\stackrel{}{q}/2)\omega (\stackrel{}{p})E(\stackrel{}{q}/2\stackrel{}{p})}}\text{ }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E(\stackrel{}{q}/2)\omega (\stackrel{}{p})E_\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{q}/2\stackrel{}{p})}}+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E(\stackrel{}{q}/2)\omega (\stackrel{}{p})E_\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{q}/2\stackrel{}{p})}}\text{ }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E(\stackrel{}{q}/2)\omega (\stackrel{}{p})E(\stackrel{}{q}/2\stackrel{}{p})}}\}`$
$$\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_N^N}{k^0}|_{k^0=M_N}=3\left(\frac{g_A}{2f}\right)^2\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{\stackrel{}{p}^{\text{ }2}}{2\omega (\stackrel{}{p})[M_N\omega (\stackrel{}{p})E(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{p})]^2}$$
(63)
$$\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_N^\mathrm{\Delta }}{k^0}|_{k^0=M_N}=\frac{4}{3}\left(\frac{g_A}{2f}\right)^2\left(\frac{f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}}{f_{\pi NN}}\right)^2\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{\stackrel{}{p}^{\text{ }2}}{2\omega (\stackrel{}{p})[M_N\omega (\stackrel{}{p})E_\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{p})]^2}$$
(64)
We do not take into account these two diagrams since they cancel at $`\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{0}`$. At this value of $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ diagram j) is proportional to:

$$\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}2\gamma ^\mu g_{\mu \nu }ϵ^\nu D(p)$$
(65)
and diagram k) is proportional to:

$$\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\gamma ^\mu 4p_\mu ϵ^\nu p_\nu D(p)D(p)$$
(66)
Taking into account the integral identity:

$$d^4p\frac{4p^\mu p^\nu }{(p^2+s+iϵ)^2}=d^4p\frac{2g^{\mu \nu }}{k^2+s+iϵ}$$
(67)
it is straightforward to see that these diagrams cancel at $`\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{0}`$.


format: text

text:
# Gravitational wave background from Population III black hole formation

## 1 Introduction

The detection of gravitational waves (GWs) will open up a new era in the history of astronomy and transform research in general relativity into an observational/theoretical study (Schutz 1999).

The detection of GWs will directly verify the predictions of general relativity theory concerning the existence or not of such waves, as well as other theories of gravity (Thorne 1987). The information provided by such waves is completely different when compared to that provided by electromagnetic waves. GWs carry detailed information on the coherent bulk motions of matter, such as in collapsing stellar cores or coherent vibrations of space-time curvature as produced, for example, by black holes. On the other hand, electromagnetic waves are usually an incoherent superposition of emissions from individual atoms, molecules and charged particles.

There is a host of possible astrophysical sources of GWs: namely, supernovae, the collapse of a star or star cluster to form a black hole, inspiral and coalescence of compact binaries, the fall of stars and black holes into supermassive black holes, rotating neutron stars, ordinary binary stars, relics of the big bang, vibrating or colliding of monopoles, cosmic strings and cosmic bubbles, among others (see, e.g., Thorne 1987, 1996, 1997; Schutz 1996, 1999).

From the theoretical point of view there has been a great effort to study which are the most promising sources of GWs to be detected. In particular, the waveforms, the characteristic frequencies and the number of sources per year that one expects to observe are questions that have been addressed (see Thorne 1997; Schultz 1999; Grishchuk et al. 2000 for a review). In a few years, starting from the observations (waveforms, amplitudes, polarizations, etc.), it will be possible really to understand how GW emission is generated by the astrophysical sources.

Because of the fact that GWs are produced by a large variety of astrophysical sources and cosmological phenomena, it is quite probable that the Universe is pervaded by a background of such waves. A variety of binary stars (ordinary, compact or combinations of them), Population III stars, phase transitions in the early Universe and cosmic strings are examples of sources that could produce such putative GW background (Thorne 1987).

As GWs possess a very weak interaction with matter, passing through it without being disturbed, once detected they can provide information on the physical conditions from the era in which they were produced. In principle, it will be possible to get information from the epoch when the galaxies and stars started to form and evolve.

Concerning the production of GW backgrounds, it is worth mentioning that recently Blair & Ju (1996) and Ferrari, Matarrese & Schneider (1999a,b) studied the cosmological GW background produced by supernovae explosions that took place in the redshift range $`0<z<5`$.

On the other hand, from considerations based on the Gunn-Peterson effect (Gunn & Peterson 1965), it is widely accepted that the Universe underwent a reheating (or reionization) phase between the standard recombination epoch (at $`z1000`$) and $`z>5`$ (see Haiman & Loeb 1997; Loeb & Barkana 2001 for a review). However, at what redshift the reionization occurred is still an open question (Loeb & Barkana 2001), although recent studies conclude that it occurred at redshifts in the range $`6<z<30`$ (Venkatesan 2000; Tegmark & Zaldarriaga 2000; Schmalzing et al. 2000; Loeb & Barkana 2001). It is worth noting that present and future cosmic background radiation (CBR) studies can impose some constraints on the reionization phase of the Universe (see, e.g., Tegmark & Zaldarriaga 2000; Loeb & Barkana 2001).

Although different models could possibly explain the reionization of the Universe, it is widely accepted that most of the contribution to the reionization is related to the formation and evolution of pre-galactic objects (sometimes called Population III objects) at high redshift ($`z>10`$), such as subgalactic objects ($`M<10^9\mathrm{M}_{}`$) and stars formed from them (Loeb & Barkana 2001). This putative epoch where the formation of the Population III objects took place, and where the consequent reionization and reheating of the Universe occurred, marked the end of an epoch named ‘dark age’ (see, e.g., Rees 1998). Also, note that the metalicity of $`10^2Z_{}`$ found in $`\mathrm{high}z`$ Ly$`\alpha `$ forest clouds (Songaila & Cowie 1996; Ellison et al. 2000) is consistent with a stellar population formed at $`z>5`$ (Venkatesan 2000).

The history of the Universe during the formation of the Population III objects could be investigated in the future with the New Generation of Space Telescope (NGST; Rees 1998) and also, in principle, with GW observatories. Besides the reheating and reionization phases, putative Population III stars could produce GWs, particularly, from the formation of neutron stars and black holes. Also, after the dark age, the epoch of the first light could be studied with large radio telescopes such as the Giant Meter Wavelength Telescope (GMRT) or the Square Kilometer Array Radio Telescope (SQA; Meiksin 1999).

When the high-mass stars died as supernovae, they left stellar black holes as remnants. The formation of these stellar Population III black holes can, in principle, produce a GW background detectable by GW observatories. It is worth mentioning that a significant amount of GWs can also be produced during the formation of neutron stars. However, because this depends on the equation of state for the neutron star, which is not well defined, we consider here only the contribution of the black holes. Another possibility would be the generation of GWs through the so-called r-mode instability (Anderson 1998), which should be important for young, hot and rapidly rotating neutron stars, but we leave this issue for another study, to appear elsewhere.

In the present study we have adopted a stellar generation with a Salpeter initial mass function (IMF) as well as different stellar formation epochs. We then discuss what conclusions would be drawn whether (or not) the stochastic background studied here is detected by the forthcoming GW observatories such as LIGO and VIRGO.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we present the basic ideas on the collapse of the first clouds and on the resulting stellar formation; in Section 3 we describe how to calculate the GW background produced during the formation of black holes in this scenario; in Section 4 we present and discuss the numerical results; in Section 5 we consider the detectability of the putative GW background produced by the Population III black holes; and finally in Section 6 we present the conclusions.

## 2 Population III objects and the first stars

The current theory of structure formation, based on cold dark matter (CDM) models, predicts that the first objects to collapse, the so-called Population III objects or mini-haloes, had a total mass of $`10^6M_{}`$ and a formation epoch $`z1050`$ (see Tegmark et al. 1997, and references therein). The first stars, the Population III stars, started forming in these Population III objects of $`10^6M_{}`$ and subsequently in more massive mini-haloes (see Haiman & Loeb 1997; Venkatesan 2000; Loeb & Barkana 2001).

As a result of the formation of the first stars, a population of stellar black holes is formed after the supernova explosions associated with the high-mass stars. Then, knowing the law of distribution of stellar masses, it is possible to obtain the number of stars that explode as supernovae, and so it is possible to determine the number (or event rate) of stellar black holes left as remnants.

Thus, to proceed, the distribution function of stellar masses, the stellar IMF, for the first stars is required. Here the Salpeter IMF is adopted, namely

$$\varphi (m)=Am^{(1+x)},$$
(1)
where $`A`$ is the normalization constant and $`x=1.35`$ (our fiducial value). The normalization of the IMF is obtained through the relation

$$_{m_\mathrm{l}}^{m_\mathrm{u}}m\varphi (m)𝑑m=1,$$
(2)
where we consider $`m_\mathrm{l}=0.1\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and $`m_\mathrm{u}=125\mathrm{M}_{}`$. It is worth noting that some authors argue (see, e.g., Gilmore 2001) that there is evidence supporting the universality of the IMF, even for the first stars; on the other hand, other authors (see, e.g., Scalo 1998, among others) argue that the IMF may not be universal. In particular, the universality of the Salpeter exponent ($`x=1.35`$) has been studied by recent evolutionary models for the Magellanic Clouds (de Freitas-Pacheco 1998). Some models, particularly those of the Large Magellanic Cloud, take into account constraints on the star formation history imposed by recent data on color-magnitude diagrams of field star clouds, showing that a steeper exponent, $`x=2.0`$ is necessary to resolve the excessive production of iron obtained if one takes into account the Salpeter law ($`x=1.35`$). Furthermore, concerning the star formation at high redshift, the IMF could be biased toward high-mass stars, when compared to the solar neighborhood IMF, as a result of the absence of metals (Bromm, Coppi & Larson 1999, 2001).

Then, for the standard IMF, the mass fraction of black holes produced as remnants of the stellar evolution is

$$f_{\mathrm{BH}}=_{\mathrm{m}_{\mathrm{min}}}^{m_\mathrm{u}}M_\mathrm{r}\varphi (m)𝑑m,$$
(3)
where $`m_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is the minimum stellar mass capable of producing a black hole at the end of its life, and $`M_\mathrm{r}`$ is the mass of the remnant black hole. Timmes, Woosley & Wheaver (1995) (see also Woosley & Timmes 1996) obtain, from stellar evolution calculations, that the minimal progenitor mass to form black holes is $`18m_{\mathrm{min}}/\mathrm{M}_{}30`$ depending on the stellar iron core mass. Thus, we assume that the minimum mass capable of forming a remnant black hole is $`m_{\mathrm{min}}=25\mathrm{M}_{}`$. For the remnant, $`M_\mathrm{r}`$, we take $`M_\mathrm{r}=\alpha m`$, where $`m`$ is the mass of the progenitor star and $`\alpha =0.1`$ (see, e.g., Ferrari et al. 1999a, b). With these considerations at hand, the mass fraction of black holes reads $`f_{\mathrm{BH}}=6.8\times 10^2\times \alpha \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6.8}\times 10^3`$ for $`x=1.35`$.

To assess the role of possible IMF variations in our results, other values of $`x`$ have also been considered. Besides the standard IMF, two others have been studied, namely, with $`x=0.3`$ and $`x=1.85`$, which yield ten times and one-tenth of the mass fraction of black holes of the standard IMF, respectively.

It is worth mentioning that stars formed with masses greater than $`8\mathrm{M}_{}`$ to $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}25}\mathrm{M}_{}`$ also finish their lives as supernovae. Numerical studies have shown that these stars leave neutron star remnants, after forming iron cores with masses near the Chandrasekhar limit (Woosley & Timmes 1996). These stars are important for injecting energy into the ambient medium and regulating the feedback of stellar formation. In the present paper only the generation of GWs that come from black holes formation have been studied, and so the progenitors of interest are stars with masses in the interval $`25m/\mathrm{M}_{}125`$.

## 3 Gravitational wave production

The GWs can be characterized by their dimensionless amplitude, $`h`$, and frequency, $`\nu `$. The spectral energy density, the flux of GWs, received on Earth, $`F_\nu `$, in $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Hz}^1`$, is (see, e.g., Douglass & Braginsky 1979; Hils, Bender & Webbink 1990)

$$F_\nu =\frac{c^3s_\mathrm{h}\omega _{\mathrm{obs}}^2}{16\pi G},$$
(4)
where $`\omega _{\mathrm{obs}}=2\pi \nu _{\mathrm{obs}}`$, with $`\nu _{\mathrm{obs}}`$ the GW frequency (Hz) observed on Earth, $`c`$ is the velocity of light, $`G`$ is the gravitational constant and $`\sqrt{s_\mathrm{h}}`$ is the strain amplitude of the GW ($`\mathrm{Hz}^{1/2}`$).

The stochastic GW background produced by gravitational collapses that lead to black holes would have a spectral density of the flux of GWs and strain amplitude also related to the above equation (4). Therefore, in the above equation the strain amplitude takes into account the star formation history occurring at the ‘first light’, just after the ‘dark age’ epoch. The strain amplitude at a given frequency, at the present time, is a contribution of black holes with different masses at different redshifts. Thus, the ensemble of black holes formed produces a background whose characteristic strain amplitude at the present time is $`\sqrt{s}_\mathrm{h}`$.

On the other hand, the spectral density of the flux can be written as (Ferrari et al. 1999a,b)

$$F_\nu =_{z_{\mathrm{cf}}}^{z_{\mathrm{ci}}}_{m_{\mathrm{min}}}^{m_\mathrm{u}}f_\nu (\nu _{\mathrm{obs}})𝑑R_{\mathrm{BH}}(m,z),$$
(5)
where $`f_\nu (\nu _{\mathrm{obs}})`$ is the energy flux per unit of frequency (in $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{Hz}^1`$) produced by the formation of a unique black hole and $`dR_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ is the differential rate of black holes formation.

The above equation takes into account the contribution of different masses that collapse to form black holes occurring between redshifts $`z_{\mathrm{ci}}`$ and $`z_{\mathrm{cf}}`$ (beginning and end of the star formation phase, respectively) that produce a signal at the same frequency $`\nu _{\mathrm{obs}}`$. On the other hand, we can write $`f_\nu (\nu _{\mathrm{obs}})`$ (Carr 1980) as

$$f_\nu (\nu _{\mathrm{obs}})=\frac{\pi c^3}{2G}h_{\mathrm{BH}}^2,$$
(6)
where $`h_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ is the dimensionless amplitude produced by the collapse to a black hole of a given star with mass $`m`$ that generates at the present time a signal with frequency $`\nu _{\mathrm{obs}}`$. Then, the resulting equation for the spectral density of the flux is

$$F_\nu =\frac{\pi c^3}{2G}h_{\mathrm{BH}}^2𝑑R.$$
(7)
From the above equations we obtain for the strain amplitude

$$s_\mathrm{h}=\frac{1}{\nu _{\mathrm{obs}}^2}h_{\mathrm{BH}}^2𝑑R.$$
(8)
Thus, the dimensionless amplitude reads

$$h_{\mathrm{BG}}^2=\frac{1}{\nu _{\mathrm{obs}}}h_{\mathrm{BH}}^2𝑑R,$$
(9)
(see de Araujo, Miranda & Aguiar 2000 for details).

The dimensionless amplitude produced by the collapse of a star, or star cluster, to form a black hole is (Thorne 1987)

$`h_{\mathrm{BH}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{15}{2\pi }}\epsilon _{\mathrm{GW}}\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{G}{c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_\mathrm{r}}{r_\mathrm{z}}}`$
$`7.4\times 10^{20}\epsilon _{\mathrm{GW}}^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_\mathrm{r}}{𝐌_{}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_\mathrm{z}}{1\mathrm{M}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}}}\right)^1,`$
where $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{GW}}`$ is the efficiency of generation of GWs and $`r_\mathrm{z}`$ is the distance to the source.

The collapse of a star to a black hole produces a signal with frequency (Thorne 1987)

$`\nu _{\mathrm{obs}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{5\pi M_\mathrm{r}}}{\displaystyle \frac{c^3}{G}}(1+z)^1`$ (11)
$`1.3\times 10^4\mathrm{Hz}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{M}_{}}{M_\mathrm{r}}}\right)(1+z)^1,`$
where the factor $`(1+z)^1`$ takes into account the redshift effect on the emission frequency, that is, a signal emitted at frequency $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$ at redshift $`z`$ is observed at frequency $`\nu _{\mathrm{obs}}=\nu _\mathrm{e}(1+z)^1`$. The observed signal is in the range

$$\frac{1.04\times 10^3}{(1+z_{\mathrm{ci}})}\mathrm{Hz}\nu _{\mathrm{obs}}\frac{5.2\times 10^3}{(1+z_{\mathrm{cf}})}\mathrm{Hz},$$
(12)
obtained using the mass upper limit $`m_\mathrm{u}=125\mathrm{M}_{}`$, the mass lower limit $`m_{\mathrm{min}}=25\mathrm{M}_{}`$, and $`\alpha =0.1`$.

For the differential rate of black hole formation we have

$$dR_{\mathrm{BH}}=\dot{\rho }_{}(z)\frac{dV}{dz}\varphi (m)dmdz,$$
(13)
where $`\dot{\rho }_{}(z)`$ is the star formation rate (SFR) density (in $`\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$) and $`dV`$ is the comoving volume element.

From the above equations we obtain for the dimensionless amplitude

$`h_{\mathrm{BG}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(7.4\times 10^{20}\alpha )^2\epsilon _{\mathrm{GW}}}{\nu _{\mathrm{obs}}}}`$ (14)
$`\times [{\displaystyle _{z_{\mathrm{cf}}}^{z_{\mathrm{ci}}}}{\displaystyle _{m_{\mathrm{min}}}^{m_\mathrm{u}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{\mathrm{M}_{}}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{d_\mathrm{L}}{1\mathrm{M}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}}}\right)^2\dot{\rho }_{}(z)`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{dV}{dz}}\varphi (m)dmdz].`$
In equation (14) $`d_\mathrm{L}`$ is the luminosity distance to the source. The comoving volume element is given by

$$dV=4\pi \left(\frac{c}{H_0}\right)r_\mathrm{z}^2(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M},\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda },z)dz,$$
(15)
with

$$(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M},\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda },z)\frac{1}{\sqrt{(1+z)^2(1+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}z)z(2+z)\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}},$$
(16)
and the comoving distance, $`r_\mathrm{z}`$, is

$$r_\mathrm{z}=\frac{c}{H_0\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}|}}S\left(\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}|}_0^z\frac{dz^{}}{(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M},\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda },z^{})}\right),$$
(17)
where

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DM}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}\mathrm{and}1=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(18)
are the usual density parameters for the matter (M), i.e., dark matter (DM) plus baryonic matter (B), curvature (k) and cosmological constant ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$). The function S is given by

$`S(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{sin}x\hfill & \text{if closed,}\hfill \\ x\hfill & \text{if flat,}\hfill \\ \mathrm{sinh}x\hfill & \text{if open.}\hfill \end{array}`$ (19)
The comoving distance is related to the luminosity distance by

$$d_\mathrm{L}=r_\mathrm{z}(1+z).$$
(20)
The set of equations presented above can be used to find the dimensionless amplitude of the GW background generated by black hole formation as a function of the SFR density, and related to the ‘first light’ epoch.

It is worth mentioning that the formulation used here is similar to that used by Ferrari et al. (1999a), but instead of using an average energy flux taken from Stark & Piran (1986), who simulated the axisymmetric collapse of a rotating polytropic star to a black hole, we use equation (LABEL:hBH) to obtain the energy flux, which takes into account the most relevant quasi-normal modes of a rotating black hole and represents a kind of average over the rotational parameter (see de Araujo et al. 2000). Both formulations present similar results, since in the end the most important contributions to the energy flux come from the quasi-normal modes of the black holes formed, which account for most of the gravitational radiation produced during the collapse process.

The SFR density, however, for the formation of the first stars is unknown. Star formation in other media could in principle give us some information on how things occurred in the ‘first light’ epoch, but unfortunately as one can see in what follows there are no compelling arguments in this direction.

The formation of a bound cluster of stars requires a star formation efficiency of $`50`$ per cent when the cloud disruption is sudden and $`20`$ per cent when cloud disruption takes place on a longer time-scale (Margulis & Lada 1983; Mathieu 1983; Ciardi et al. 2000). We define ‘star formation efficiency’ as the fraction of gas of a cloud that is converted into stars \[this definition is similar to that used by Ciardi et al. (2000), among others\].

On the other hand, Pandey, Paliwal & Mahra (1990) have investigated the influence of the IMF on the star formation efficiency, for clouds of different masses, and have concluded that the efficiency decreases if massive stars (the most destructive ones) are formed earlier. Some studies have also analysed the molecular gas properties and star formation in nearby nuclear starburst galaxies (see, e.g., Planesas, Colina & Perez-Olea 1997) indicating the existence of giant molecular clouds with masses $`10^810^9\mathrm{M}_{}`$, in which star formation process occurs in a short time ($`<3\times 10^7\mathrm{yr}`$) with efficiency of conversion of gas into stars $`{}_{}{}^{<}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}`$ per cent. All these studies show the large uncertainties in the star formation efficiency.

Probably, the best way to infer the SFR density is to relate it to studies concerning the reionization of the Universe. In the introduction of the present paper we argued that there are compelling arguments in favor of a reionization phase of the Universe, which probably occurred at redshifts in the range $`6<z<30`$ (Tegmark, Silk & Blanchard 1994; Venkatesan 2000). There are at least two compelling reasons for reionization through Population III stars to be considered. First, the Population III stars are expected to form at $`z_{}^>10`$, being capable of ionizing hydrogen. Secondly, the first stars create heavy elements, and can account for the metalicity of $`10^2Z_{}`$ found in $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ forest clouds (Venkatesan 2000). It is found that the amount of baryons necessary to participate in early star formation, to account for the reionization, would amount to a small fraction, $`f_{}`$, of all baryons of the Universe (see, e.g., Venkatesan 2000; Loeb & Barkana 2001).

The above discussion suggests that we can write the SFR density as follows:

$$\dot{\rho }_{}\frac{d\rho _{}}{dt}=\frac{d}{dt}[\mathrm{\Omega }_{}\rho _\mathrm{c}(1+z)^3],$$
(21)
where the term in brackets represents the stellar mass density at redshift $`z`$, with $`\rho _\mathrm{c}`$ the present critical density and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ the stellar density parameter. The latter can be written as a fraction of the baryonic density parameter, namely, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}=f_{}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}`$.

Another relevant physical quantity associated with the GW background, produced by the first stars, is the closure energy density per logarithmic frequency span, which is given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}=\frac{1}{\rho _\mathrm{c}}\frac{d\rho _{\mathrm{GW}}}{d\mathrm{log}\nu _{\mathrm{obs}}}.$$
(22)
The above equation can be rewritten as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}=\frac{\nu _{\mathrm{obs}}}{c^3\rho _\mathrm{c}}F_\nu =\frac{4\pi ^2}{3H_0^2}\nu _{\mathrm{obs}}^2h_{\mathrm{BG}}^2.$$
(23)
In the next section we present the numerical results and discussions, which come mainly from equation (14). Looking at this equation one notes that, to integrate it, one needs to choose the IMF, and to set values for the following parameters: $`z_{\mathrm{ci}}`$, $`z_{\mathrm{cf}}`$, $`\alpha `$, $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{GW}}`$, $`f_{}`$, $`H_0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

## 4 NUMERICAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Based on models of structure formation, the first objects that collapsed should have had masses around $`10^6\mathrm{M}_{}`$ (see, e.g., Tegmark et al. 1997, among others), and objects with higher masses should have collapsed subsequently. Evidently, as the density fluctuations could have had peaks higher than $`1\sigma `$ values, clouds could have collapsed earlier. As a result, there were clouds with different masses collapsing around the redshift of collapse of $`10^6\mathrm{M}_{}`$.

We have considered that the first stellar formation is related to the collapse of Population III objects. To evaluate the GW background produced by the formation of the Population III black holes, it is necessary to know the redshifts at which they began and finished being formed. This is a very hard question to answer, since it involves knowledge of the role of the negative and positive feedbacks of star formation, which are regulated by cooling and injection of energy processes.

Should the stochastic GW background studied here be significantly produced and detected at a reasonable confidence level, the present study can be used to obtain the redshift range where the Population III black holes were formed, independently of any CDM modelling. In Fig. 1 an example is given of how one could get $`z_{\mathrm{ci}}`$ and $`z_{\mathrm{cf}}`$ from the curve $`h_{\mathrm{BG}}`$ versus $`\nu _{\mathrm{obs}}`$. Knowing the frequency band $`\nu _{\mathrm{min}}\nu _{\mathrm{max}}`$ and using equation (12), one obtains $`z_{\mathrm{ci}}`$ and $`z_{\mathrm{cf}}`$ (see Fig. 1), which are, therefore observable. Note that we have assumed as did Ferrari et al. (1999a,b) that $`\alpha `$ is a constant ($`\alpha =0.1`$).

Is is worth noting that $`\alpha `$ may depend sensitively on the metallicity: the lower the value of $`Z`$, the higher are the remnant masses and the less ejected material there is relative to $`Z_{}`$ stars. More realistically there would be a dependence of $`\alpha `$ on the progenitor mass. On the other hand, the value $`\alpha =0.1`$ adopted can be considered as a mean value for the progenitor masses studied here. If $`\alpha `$ is not very well determined, this would mean that the observed frequency band does not uniquely fix the redshift band where the black holes are formed.

In the introduction of the present paper we mention that different studies related to the reionization of the Universe set this epoch as being somewhere in the range $`6<z<30`$. It is also clear that the reionization process is not instantaneous. Stars start forming at different redshifts, creating ionized bubbles (Strömgren spheres) around themselves, which expand into the intergalactic medium (IGM), at a rate dictated by the source luminosity and the background IGM density (Loeb & Barkana 2001). The reionization is complete when the bubbles overlap to fill the entire Universe. Thus the epoch of reionization is not the epoch of star formation. There is a non-negligible time-span between them. Here, we have chosen different formation epochs to see their influence on the putative GW background and also to see if it could be detected by the forthcoming GW antennas.

The first relevant quantity appearing in the equation for the GW background is the IMF. As discussed in the previous section, we have adopted the standard IMF ($`x=1.35`$), as our fiducial case, and have also studied two other cases to assess the role of the IMF variations on $`h_{\mathrm{BG}}`$.

The second relevant parameter is $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{GW}}`$, the efficiency of production of GWs, whose distribution function is unknown. Thus, we have parameterized our results in terms of its maximum value, namely, $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{GW}_{\mathrm{max}}}=7\times 10^4`$, which is obtained from studies by Stark & Piran (1986) who simulated the axisymmetric collapse of a rotating star to a black hole. We will see below that, if $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{GW}}`$ is a very tiny fraction of the maximum value, the detection of the GW background whose existence we propose, is very improbable, even for advanced antennas.

To calculate $`h_{\mathrm{BG}}`$ we still need to know $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$, which has a key role in the definition of the SFR density. As discussed in the previous section studies related to the reionization of the Universe can shed some light on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$. From different studies one can conclude that a few percent, maybe up to $`10`$ per cent, of the baryons must be condensed into stars in order for the reionization of the Universe to take place. Here we have set the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ in such a way that it amounts to $`1`$ per cent of all baryons (our fiducial value). In the next section we discuss the detectability of the GW background, and we then parameterize our results in terms of $`f_{}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{}/\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}`$.

Looking at equation (14) one could think it would depend critically on the cosmological parameters: $`H_0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DM}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. However, our results show that, given the redshifts involved in our calculations, $`h_{\mathrm{BG}}`$ depends only on $`H_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}`$; the latter dependence occurs because this parameter appears in the SFR density. The quantity $`h_{100}^2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}=0.019\pm 0.0024`$ (where $`h_{100}`$ is the Hubble parameter given in terms of 100 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$) is obtained from big bang nucleosynthesis studies (see, e.g., Burles et al. 1999).

In Table 1 we present the redshift band, $`z_{\mathrm{ci}}`$ and $`z_{\mathrm{cf}}`$ for the models studied and the corresponding GW frequency bands. For the cosmological parameters we have adopted $`h_{100}=0.65`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}=0.045`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$. Keep in mind that our results are sensitive to the combination $`h_{100}^2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}`$. We have also adopted $`\alpha =0.1`$, $`f_{}=0.01`$ and the standard IMF.

Note that no structure formation model has been used to find the black hole formation epoch. Instead we have simply chosen the values of $`z`$ to see whether it is possible to obtain detectable GW signals. In the next section it will be seen that, unless $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{GW}}`$ is negligible, the GW background that we propose here can be detected. Our choices, however, can be understood as follows. The greater the redshift formation, the more power the masses related to the Population III objects have. Thus, of our models A to D, our model D (A) has more (less) power when compared to the others. Models E, F and G would mean a more extended star formation epoch, which means that the feedback processes of star formation are such that they allow a more extended star formation epoch when compared to models B, C and D, respectively.

Concerning the reionization epoch, as already mentioned, it occurred at lower redshifts as compared to the first star formation redshifts. Loeb & Barkana (2001) found, for example, that if the stars were formed at $`z1030`$, with standard IMF, they could have reionized the Universe at redshift $`z6`$. Our models A, B and E, for example, could account for such a reionization redshift.

In addition, we also consider a model with $`z_{\mathrm{cf}}=5`$ (see model H of Table 1) to verify if a final epoch of star formation close to this redshift could produce a detectable signal for the VIRGO and LIGO experiments.

If the process of structure formation of the Universe and the consequent star formation were well known, one could obtain the redshift formation epoch of the first stars. On the other hand, as discussed below, if the GW background really exists and is detected, one can obtain information about the formation epoch of the first stars.

A relevant question is whether the background we study here is continuous or not. The duty cycle indicates if the collective effect of the bursts of GWs generated during the collapse of a progenitor star generates a continuous background. The duty cycle is defined as follows:

$$DC=_{z_{\mathrm{cf}}}^{z_{\mathrm{ci}}}𝑑R_{\mathrm{BH}}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{\mathrm{GW}}}(1+z),$$
(24)
where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{\mathrm{GW}}}`$ is the average time duration of single bursts at the emission, which is inversely proportional to the frequency of the lowest quasi-normal mode of the rotating black holes (see, e.g., Ferrari et al. 1999a), which amounts to $`1\mathrm{ms}`$ for the mass range of the black holes considered here.

Since the star formation rate could be high, a significant amount of GWs could be produced. We also note that, independently of the primordial cloud mass and of redshift of collapse, star formation occurring at high redshift could produce high duty cycle values, which lead us to conclude that the stochastic GW background could be continuous. For all the models studied here the duty cycle is $`1`$.

The amplitude $`h_{\mathrm{BG}}`$ of the GW background in terms of $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{GW}}`$ (the efficiency of generation of GWs), in the frequency band $`\nu _{\mathrm{min}}\nu _{\mathrm{max}}`$ is shown in Fig. 2 for the models A, E and F of Table 1. In the next section we discuss the detectability of such a putative background.

Note that, the earlier that star formation occurs, the greater is the GW amplitude $`h_{\mathrm{BG}}`$. This can be explained as follows. For a given individual source, the higher the redshift, the lower is the amplitude of the GWs generated. On the other hand, the higher the redshift of star formation, the greater is the SFR density. As a result there is a more significant overlapping of bursts of GWs at higher redshifts.

We find, for example, that the formation of Population III of black holes, in model D, could generate a stochastic GW background with amplitude $`h_{\mathrm{BG}}(0.82)\times 10^{24}`$ and a corresponding closure density of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}(0.71.4)\times 10^8`$, in the frequency band $`\nu _{\mathrm{obs}}20130\mathrm{Hz}`$ (assuming an efficiency of generation $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{GW}}7\times 10^4`$, the maximum one).

It could be argued that the formation of stars could not be restricted to the epoch of the collapse of the first Population III objects. A new surge of star formation associated with the collapse of Population III objects of $`M>10^6\mathrm{M}_{}`$ at lower redshifts could occur. The existence of this new surge of star formation would depend on the role of the negative and positive feedbacks, which are regulated by cooling and injection of energy processes of the previous star formation surge. If another surge of star formation took place, then another GW background could be generated, and a partial superposition with the background previously generated could also occur. As a result for some frequency bands the GW amplitude could be enhanced.

Another possibility would be a star formation process taking place during the time of collapse of the first Population III objects and continuing during the collapse of objects of higher masses. In such a case the star formation would occur for a large redshift span, and as a result the frequency band, the amplitude and the closure energy density of GWs could be larger. As before, the role of the negative and positive feedbacks of the star formation would be the key point. In the models E, F and G we have considered such a possibility (see also Fig. 2).

Certainly, the GW background produced depends on the star formation history. A different star formation history would produce different results for both the values of $`h_{\mathrm{BG}}`$ and frequency bands. However, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that, if the first stars had been formed at high redshift, a significant amount of GWs would have been produced as well.

To assess the role of possible IMF variations we have considered, besides the standard IMF, two others, namely, with $`x=0.3`$ and $`x=1.85`$, which yield ten times and one-tenth of the mass fraction of black holes of the standard IMF, respectively. For the model A, our calculations show that for $`x=0.3`$ ($`x=1.85`$) the maximum $`h_{\mathrm{BG}}`$ is a factor $`3`$ ($`4`$) greater (smaller) than case with standard IMF ($`x=1.35`$). In the next section we consider the role of the IMF variations on detectability of the background of the GW background that we propose exists.

## 5 DETECTABILITY OF THE BACKGROUND OF GRAVITATIONAL WAVES

The background predicted in the present study cannot be detected by single forthcoming interferometric detectors, such as VIRGO and LIGO (even by advanced ones). However, it is possible to correlate the signal of two or more detectors to detect the background that we propose exists. Michelson (1987) was the first to show that this kind of signal can, in principle, be detected by correlating the outputs of two different detectors. However, the main requirement that must be fulfilled is that they must have independent noise. This study was improved by Christensen (1992) and by Flanagan (1993). The reader should also refer to the papers by Allen (1997) and Allen & Romano (1999) who also deal in detail with such an issue.

To assess the detectability of a GW signal, one must evaluate the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N), which for a pair of interferometers is given by (see, e.g., Flanagan 1993; Allen 1997)

$$(\mathrm{S}/\mathrm{N})^2=\left[\left(\frac{9H_0^4}{50\pi ^4}\right)T_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu \frac{\gamma ^2(\nu )\mathrm{\Omega }_{GW}^2(\nu )}{\nu ^6S_h^{(1)}(\nu )S_h^{(2)}(\nu )}\right]$$
(25)
where $`S_h^{(i)}`$ is the spectral noise density, $`T`$ is the integration time and $`\gamma (\nu )`$ is the overlap reduction function, which depends on the relative positions and orientations of the two interferometers. For the $`\gamma (\nu )`$ function we refer the reader to Flanagan (1993), who was the first to calculate a closed form for the LIGO observatories. Flanagan (1993; see also Allen 1997) showed that the best window for detecting a signal is $`0<\nu <64`$ Hz, where the overlap reduction function has the greatest magnitude.

Here we consider, in particular, the LIGO interferometers. Their spectral noise densities have been taken from a paper by Owen et al. (1998)- who in turn obtained them from Thorne, by means of private communication.

In Table 2 we present the S/N for one year of observation with $`\alpha =0.1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}h_{100}^2=0.019`$, $`f_{}=0.01`$ and $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{GW}_{\mathrm{max}}}=7\times 10^4`$ for the models of Table 1, for the three LIGO interferometer configurations.

Note that for the ‘initial’ LIGO (LIGO I) there is no hope of detecting the GW background we propose here, even for ideal orientation and locations of the interferometers, i.e., $`|\gamma (\nu )|=1`$. For the ‘enhanced’ LIGO (LIGO II) there is some possibility of detecting the background, since $`\mathrm{S}/\mathrm{N}>1`$, if $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{GW}}`$ is around the maximum value. Even if the LIGO II interferometers cannot detect such a background, it will be possible to constrain the efficiency of GW production.

The prospect for the detection with the ‘advanced’ LIGO (LIGO III) interferometers is much more optimistic, since the S/N for almost all models is significantly greater than unity. Only if the value of $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{GW}}`$ were significantly lower than the maximum value would the detection not be possible. In fact, the S/N is critically dependent on this parameter, whose distribution function is unknown.

Note, for example, that it is possible to detect a GW background with the ‘advanced’ LIGO, even for star formation for which $`z_{\mathrm{cf}}5`$ (model H), if $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{GW}}`$ is around the maximum value.

Let us now look at how the variations of the parameters modify our results. First of all, note that the larger the star formation redshift band, the greater is the S/N. Secondly, the earlier the star formation, the greater is the S/N. It is worth recalling that, if one can obtain the curve of $`h_{\mathrm{BG}}`$ versus $`\nu _{\mathrm{obs}}`$ and if the value of $`\alpha `$ is known, one can find the redshift of star formation.

The S/N is also sensitive to variations of $`\alpha `$. The larger $`\alpha `$, the lower are the GW frequencies and the higher is $`h_{\mathrm{BG}}`$, and since the best window for detection is around $`0<\nu <64\mathrm{H}\mathrm{z}`$, the S/N is higher.

Even if $`\alpha `$ is not known beforehand, it is possible to impose a constraint on its values, and also on the redshift star formation epoch. For example, if one found from GW observations that the GW frequency band were $`40200`$ Hz, one would obtain (using Equation 11) that $`\alpha 0.10.4`$ and $`z_\mathrm{f}550`$. On the other hand, if one knew that the star formation redshift band were $`z_f1030`$, through some model of structure formation or whatever observational data, and the GW frequency band were known, say $`40200`$ Hz, one would obtain that $`\alpha 0.1`$.

It would be interesting to perform a study considering $`\alpha `$ as a function of the progenitor mass, which would result in a more realistic model. There are some studies in the literature considering how the remnant mass depends on the progenitor (see, e.g., Fryer & Kalogera 2001), but we will not consider such an issue here.

To assess the role of the variations in the IMF, we modify its exponent $`x`$. For $`x=0.3`$ ($`x=1.85`$), the S/N is $`10`$ ($`0.1`$) times the S/N of the standard IMF. As expected for an IMF biased toward high- (low-) mass stars, where one has a greater (lower) amount of black holes, the S/N is greater (lower).

Note that the S/N for a given formation epoch, IMF and $`\alpha `$, and for one year of observation, still presents a dependence on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}h^2`$, $`f_{}`$ and $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{GW}}`$, namely

$$\mathrm{S}/\mathrm{N}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}h^2f_{}\epsilon _{\mathrm{GW}}.$$
(26)
The value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}h^2`$ is well constrained by primordial nucleosynthesis studies. For $`f_{}`$ we have adopted a value of 0.01, which is a very conservative choice. Note that the value for this parameter can be obtained from studies concerning the reionization of the Universe, which is very difficult to model, but there is some agreement in the literature (see, e.g, Gnedin 2000; Venkatesan 2000; Loeb & Barkana 2001) among the different models of the reionization of the Universe which lead us to conclude that $`f_{}`$ could range from a few up to 15 per cent.

For $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{GW}}`$, the situation is more complicated since its distribution function is unknown. We have adopted here the maximum value as a reference, but if its actual value is much less than this value the S/N could be lower than unity for all the models studied here, even for a LIGO III pair. Let us think of what occurs with other compact objects, namely, the neutron stars, to see if we can learn something from them. Hot and rapidly rotating neutron stars can lose angular momentum to gravitational radiation via the so-called r-mode instability (Anderson 1998). This could explain why all known young neutron stars are relatively slow rotators. The black holes could have had a similar history, i.e., they could have been formed rapidly rotating and lost angular momentum to gravitation radiation via their quasi-normal modes. If this was the case, the value of $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{GW}}`$ could be near the maximum one, or in the worst case it could have a value to produce $`\mathrm{S}/\mathrm{N}>1`$ at least for a LIGO III pair.

In order to assess the values of $`f_{}`$ and $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{GW}}`$ that yield $`\mathrm{S}/\mathrm{N}>1`$, for a given formation epoch, IMF, $`\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}h^2`$, we present in Fig. 3 the regions in the $`(f_{},\epsilon _{\mathrm{GW}})`$ plane where S/N could be greater than unity for a pair of LIGO III interferometers. Note that unless $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{GW}}`$ is very small, S/N can be significantly greater than unity, indicating that the background could in principle be detected in the near future.

A relevant issue is whether there are other GW backgrounds that could be confused with that of the present study. Relic GWs generated in the very early Universe can in principle present a signal in the LIGO bandwidth. The ordinary inflationary models, however, predict $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}10^{15}`$ (see, e.g., Schultz 1999; Giovannini 2000; Maggiore 2000a,b). This is much less than our models predict, and therefore undetectable even with a pair of LIGO III interferometers. Other models, such as string cosmologies, provide different predictions (see, e.g., Schutz 1999) with values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}`$ that could be much greater than our studies predict, which could render the background studied here undetectable. Other GW backgrounds exist in the bandwidth of LIGO, which could have been produced at $`0<z<5`$, namely: (a) a cosmological population of core-collapse supernovae (Ferrari et al. 1999a); (b) a population of young rapidly rotating neutron stars (Owen et al. 1998, Ferrari et al. 1999b); and (c) double neutron star binaries (Schneider et al. 2000). The first two backgrounds, however, have energy density shifted for higher GW frequencies when compared to our predictions. Moreover, the S/Ns of these backgrounds are less than unity, even for a pair of LIGO III. The last one has a frequency band ranging from $`10^5`$ Hz up to $`10^2`$ Hz, and therefore there is a partial overlap with the background of our study. The GW amplitudes, however, would be comparable only if $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{GW}}/\epsilon _{\mathrm{GW}_{\mathrm{max}}}<<1`$.

## 6 CONCLUSIONS

We present here a study concerning the generation of GWs produced from a cosmological population of black holes. These objects are formed as a consequence of the collapse of pre-galactic objects (Population III objects) that form the first generation of stars at high redshift. Our results show that different structure formation models which predict the formation of the first objects at $`z>10`$ could, in principle, predict the formation of pre-galactic black holes and a significant stochastic GW background associated with them. Our results lead us to conclude that star formation occurring at high redshifts could have large duty cycles and so the stochastic GW background generated is continuous.

We consider that stars are formed following a Salpeter IMF and having masses in the range $`0.1125\mathrm{M}_{}`$. Certainly, the results presented here are dependent on this particular choice. A steeper IMF would modify the number of high-mass stars, modifying the peak of $`h_{\mathrm{BG}}`$ and the frequency band of the GWs. For an IMF with $`x=0.30`$ ($`x=1.85`$) the IMF is biased toward high- (low-) mass stars, as a result the S/N is $``$10 ($``$0.1) times the S/N predicted with the use of a standard IMF. It would be of interest, however, to have a look in detail at studies of the metallicity of high-z Ly $`\alpha `$ clouds to see if it is possible to constrain the Population III IMF.

If we consider $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{GW}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}7.0}\times 10^4`$ (see, e.g., Stark & Piran 1986) then we obtain $`h_{\mathrm{BG}}(0.82)\times 10^{24}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}(0.71.4)\times 10^8`$ at $`\nu _{\mathrm{obs}}20130\mathrm{Hz}`$ for the model D. Thus, this GW background produced as a consequence of the formation of the first stars in the Universe is capable of being detected by a pair of ‘advanced’ LIGO interferometers.

As seen, with reasonable parameters, our results show that a significant amount of GWs is produced related to the the Population III black hole formation at high redshift, and can in principle be detected by a pair of LIGO II (or most probably by a pair of LIGO III) interferometers. However, a relevant question should be considered: What astrophysical information can one obtain from whether or not such a putative background is detected?

First, let us consider a non-detection of the GW background. The critical parameter to be constrained here is $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{GW}}`$. A non-detection would mean that the efficiency of GWs during the formation of black holes is not high enough. Another possibility is that the first generation of stars is such that the black holes formed had masses $`>100M_{}`$, and should they form at $`z>10`$ the GW frequency band would be out of the LIGO frequency band.

Secondly, a detection of the background with a significant S/N would permit us to obtain the curve $`h_{\mathrm{BG}}`$ versus $`\nu _{\mathrm{obs}}`$. From it, as discussed above, one can constrain $`\alpha `$ and the redshift formation epoch; and for a given IMF and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}h^2`$, one can also constrain the values of $`f_{}`$ and $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{GW}}`$. On the other hand, using the curve $`h_{\mathrm{BG}}`$ versus $`\nu _{\mathrm{obs}}`$ and in addition other astrophysical data, say CBR data, models of structure formation and reionization of Universe, a constraint on $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{GW}}`$ can also be imposed.

## Acknowledgments

JCNA and ODM would like to thank the Brazilian agency FAPESP for support (grants 97/06024-4, 97/13720-7, and 98/13735-7, 00/00116-9, 01/04086-0, respectively). ODA thanks CNPq (Brazil) for partial financial support (grant 300619/92-8). We would also like to thank the referee for helpful comments that we feel have considerably improved the paper.