text:
# References

Nucleon electromagnetic form factors
in a single-time constituent quark model

T.P.Ilichova, S.G Shulga
Francisk Skaryna Gomel State University,
Laboratory of Particle Physics, JINR

Talk at the VIth International School-Seminar
“Actual Problems of Particle Physics”
July 30 - August 8, 1999, Gomel, Belarus

Abstract

The main statement of the nucleon constituent quark model with a fixed number of particles as basic ansatz are considered in a framework of the single-time (quasipotential) approach to the bound state problem. The scaling law breacking for the proton form factor are investigated for $`Q^2=0÷2`$Gev2.

The problem of the relativistic treatment of the constituent quark model (CQM) have been solved by several manners , which have general feature - fixed number of the particles assumption and additive assumption for nucleon current expression in terms of quarks currents . A popular approach to the problem is the light-front dynamics . In present work we propose to use the old quasipotential approach  for formulation of CQM with fixed number of particles.

In proceeding we suggest that Fock momentum-space for nucleon has $`N=3`$ quarks Dirac basis $`\alpha _1𝐩_1,\alpha _2𝐩_2,\alpha _3𝐩_3\alpha 𝐩`$ :

$$\lambda 𝐊\underset{\alpha }{}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝐩_1}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝐩_2}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝐩_3}\alpha 𝐩\alpha 𝐩\lambda 𝐊.$$
(1)
We will take it for granted that all nontrivial effects of the QCD vacuum (e.g., gluon and quark-antiquark condensates) can be absorbed into the effective parameters of the CQM.

To find a equation for wave function (WF) $`\alpha 𝐩\lambda 𝐊`$ we consider covariant single-time WF  ($`N=3`$):

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\lambda 𝐊,\alpha }^{QP}(x)=\mathrm{\Psi }_{\lambda 𝐊,\alpha }^{BS}(x)\delta (n_K(x_1x_2))\mathrm{}\delta (n_K(x_{N1}x_N)),\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Psi }_{\lambda 𝐊,\alpha }^{BS}(x)=0T[\varphi _{\alpha _1}^{(1)}(x_1)\mathrm{}\varphi _{\alpha _N}^{(N)}(x_N)]\lambda 𝐊,\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\lambda 𝐊,\alpha }^{BS}(x)`$ is Bethe-Salpeter WF; $`(n_K)_\mu =\frac{K_\mu }{\sqrt{K^2}}=\frac{K_\mu }{M_n}`$ \- 4-velocity, $`\delta `$-functions in (2) covariantly equal times in the center-of-mass of system.

Using a translational invariance $`\varphi (x_i)=\mathrm{exp}(i\widehat{H}t_i)\varphi (0,𝐱_i)\mathrm{exp}(i\widehat{H}t_i),`$ expression $`\varphi _\alpha (0,𝐱)=1/(2\pi )^3𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_q_r\left[b_r(𝐪)u_\alpha ^{(r)}(𝐪)\mathrm{exp}(iqx)+\mathrm{}\right]`$ and according to fixed number of particles assumption notice that the anti-particle operator do not give a contribution into the one-time WF we can obtain the Fourier-momentum representation WF (2) ($`D`$ \- the Wigner rotation matrix;$`\stackrel{o}{𝐩}\stackrel{o}{𝐩_1},\stackrel{o}{𝐩_2},\stackrel{o}{𝐩_3}`$, $`\stackrel{o}{𝐩}_i=\stackrel{}{L}_K^1p_i`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\lambda 𝐊,\alpha }(p)=(2\pi )\delta ^{(1)}(\stackrel{o}{P_0}M_P)\left[_r_{i=1}^Nu_{\alpha _i}^{(r_i^{})}(𝐩_i)_{i=1}^N\stackrel{+}{D}{}_{K}{}^{r_i^{}r_i}(p_i)\right]r\stackrel{o}{𝐩}\lambda \mathrm{𝟎}\hfill \\ =(2\pi )\delta ^{(1)}(\stackrel{o}{P_0}M_P)_{i=1}^Nu_{\alpha _i}^{(r_i)}(𝐩_i)r𝐩\lambda 𝐊.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
As in  we determine WF projection into positive-frequencial states:

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\lambda 𝐊}^{(+)(r)}(p)\overline{u}_{\alpha _1}^{r_1}(𝐩_1)\mathrm{}\overline{u}_{\alpha _N}^{r_N}(𝐩_N)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\lambda 𝐊,\alpha }(p)=2\pi \delta (\underset{0}{\overset{o}{P}}M_P)r𝐩\lambda 𝐊;`$ (4)
$`r𝐩\lambda 𝐊=(2\pi )^3\delta ^{(3)}({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\underset{i}{\overset{o}{𝐩}}){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\stackrel{+}{D}{}_{K}{}^{r_i^{}r_i}(p_i)\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda \mathrm{𝟎}}^{(+)(r)}(\stackrel{o}{𝐩}).`$ (5)
The connection established between CQM WF with fixed number of particle $`r𝐩\lambda 𝐏`$ and WF $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda \mathrm{𝟎}}^{(+)(r)}`$ give us a chance to obtain equation for relative motion WF by standart form ($`\underset{i}{\overset{o}{𝐩}}=\stackrel{o}{𝐩{}_{i}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}=0`$):

$$(E_{\underset{i}{\overset{o}{𝐩}}}M_P)\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda \mathrm{𝟎}}^{(+)(r)}(\stackrel{o}{𝐩})=\underset{i=2}{\overset{N}{}}d\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{o}{𝐩}_i^{}}V^{(r^{}r)}(\stackrel{o}{𝐩},\stackrel{o}{𝐩^{}})\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda \mathrm{𝟎}}^{(+)(r^{})}(\stackrel{o}{𝐩^{}})$$
(6)
To construct a three-particle state with given total angular momentum $`J=1/2`$ and helisity $`\lambda `$ we use the same method as in Ref. :

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda \mathrm{𝟎}}^{(+)(r)}(\stackrel{o}{𝐩_1},\stackrel{o}{𝐩_2},\stackrel{o}{𝐩_3})=\phi _\mathrm{𝟎}^{model}\chi _\lambda ^{SU(6)}(r_1,r_2^{},r_3^{})D_{(p_2+p_3)}^{(r_2,r_2^{})}(\stackrel{\mathit{}}{𝐩_2})D_{(p_2+p_3)}^{(r_3,r_3^{})}(\stackrel{\mathit{}}{𝐩_3}),$$
(7)
where $`\stackrel{\mathit{}}{𝐩_1}=\stackrel{\mathit{}}{𝐩_2}=\stackrel{}{L}_{p_1+p_2}^1`$. We used the oscillator WF  and Coulomb-like WF for calculation of the proton form factor:

$$\begin{array}{c}\phi _\mathrm{𝟎}^{osc}=N\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2m}{3\gamma ^2}\left(E_{\underset{1}{\overset{o}{p}}}+E_{\underset{2}{\overset{o}{p}}}+E_{\underset{3}{\overset{o}{p}}}3m\underset{ik}{}\frac{(\stackrel{o}{𝐩}_i\stackrel{o}{𝐩}_k)}{\sqrt{(E_{\stackrel{o}{𝐩}_i}+m)(E_{\stackrel{o}{𝐩}_k}+m)}}\right)\right];\hfill \\ \phi _\mathrm{𝟎}^{Coulomb}=N/(E_{\stackrel{o}{𝐩_1}}+E_{\stackrel{o}{𝐩_2}}+E_{\stackrel{o}{𝐩_3}})^29m^2+\gamma ^2)^2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
Let us consider electromagnetic current matrix element. Assuming that $`J_\mu (0)=\underset{s=1}{\overset{N}{}}j_\mu ^{(s)}(0)`$ we first expand in sets of free-particle states (1) and current matrix element takes the form:

$$n^{}𝐏^{}|J_\mu (0)|n\mathrm{𝟎}=\underset{s=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}d\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝐩_k^{}}d\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝐩_k}\underset{\alpha ^{},\alpha }{}n^{}𝐏^{}|\alpha ^{}𝐩^{}\alpha ^{}𝐩|j_\mu ^{(s)}(0)|\alpha 𝐩\alpha 𝐩|n\mathrm{𝟎}.$$

For 3-quark system with symmetrical WF we obtained ($`\stackrel{o}{𝐩{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}+\underset{2}{\overset{o}{𝐩}}+\underset{3}{\overset{o}{𝐩}}=𝐩_1+𝐩_2+𝐩_3=0`$):

$$\begin{array}{c}n^{}𝐏^{}|J_\mu (0)|n\mathrm{𝟎}=3d\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝐩_2}d\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝐩_3}\frac{m^2}{E_{\underset{2}{\overset{o}{𝐩}}+\underset{3}{\overset{o}{𝐩}}}E_{\stackrel{}{𝐩_2+𝐩_3}}}\underset{\lambda ^{}0}{\overset{(+)(r_1^{},r_2^{},r_3^{})}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}}(\stackrel{o}{𝐩{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}},\underset{2}{\overset{o}{𝐩}},\underset{3}{\overset{o}{𝐩}})\hfill \\ D{}_{P^{}}{}^{r_1^{}\alpha _1^{}}(𝐩_1^{})j_\mu ^{\alpha _1^{}\alpha _1}(𝐩_1^{},𝐩_1)D{}_{P^{}}{}^{r_2^{}\alpha _2}(𝐩_2)D{}_{P^{}}{}^{r_3^{}\alpha _3}(𝐩_3)\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda 0}^{(+)(\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3)}(𝐩_1,𝐩_2,𝐩_3)\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
If $`\stackrel{o}{𝐬}=0`$ then $`s=\frac{\stackrel{o}{s_0}}{M_P}P`$ and for $`s=p_1^{}+p_2+p_3,s=p_1+p_2+p_3`$ we have

$$p{}_{1}{}^{}+p_2+p_3=P^{}\frac{E_{\stackrel{o}{𝐩{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}}+E_{\stackrel{o}{𝐩_2}}+E_{\stackrel{o}{𝐩_3}}}{M_P};p_1+p_2+p_3=P\frac{E_{𝐩_1}+E_{𝐩_2}+E_{𝐩_3}}{M_P}.$$
(10)
Thus, (9) approximatly satisfies to current conservation condition:
if $`(p_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}p_1)_\mu \alpha _1^{}𝐩{}_{1}{}^{^{}}|j_\mu ^{(1)}(0)|\alpha _1𝐩_1=0`$ then $`(P^{}P)_\mu n^{}𝐏^{}|J_\mu (0)|n\mathrm{𝟎}`$ $`0,P=(M_n,\mathrm{𝟎}).`$ The numerical calculation are shown that this condition approximatly satisfy for wide region of the model parameters. 6 - dimensional integrals of this model calculated by the Monte-Carlo method.

Eq. (9) in nonrelativistic limit (additive quark model) is given by:

$`n^{}𝐏^{}|J_\mu (0)|n\mathrm{𝟎}3\stackrel{}{\chi }{}_{\lambda ^{}}{}^{\alpha _1^{},\alpha _2,\alpha _3}\alpha _1^{}𝐏^{}|j_\mu ^{(1)}(0)|\alpha _1\mathrm{𝟎}\chi _\lambda ^{\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3}F(t),`$ (11)
where form factor is $`F(t)=𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝐩_2}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝐩_3}\underset{\mathrm{𝟎}}{\overset{}{\phi }}(\stackrel{o}{𝐩{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}},\underset{2}{\overset{o}{𝐩}},\underset{3}{\overset{o}{𝐩}})\phi _\mathrm{𝟎}(𝐩_1,𝐩_2,𝐩_3).`$
Relation (11) provides the scaling law of the space-like Sachs nucleon form factors ($`G_E^PG_M^P/\mu _P`$). Dziembowski  obtained that the so-called soft contributions (CQM) reproduce the experimental data extremely well up to the scale $`Q^22.5GeV^2`$ for the nucleon. Analogous results were obtaited by Cardarelli  within light-front CQM without quark form factors. We have reproduced it in our model (see fig. 1, experimental data from ). The Coulomb-like model describe best the experimental data up to $`Q^23`$ GeV2 for quark mass $`m_q=166`$ MeV, $`\gamma ^2=1.1`$ GeV2. The magnetic moment ($`\mu _P=G_M(0)`$) was reproduced in this model (with $`\gamma ^2=1.1`$ GeV2) for $`m_q=105`$ MeV but $`G_E^P/G_{dip}1`$, $`G_M^P/G_{dip}/\mu _P1`$ for $`Q^2=0÷2`$ GeV2, ($`G_{dip}=1/(1+Q^2/0.71`$).


format: text

text:
# Electromagnetic Form Factors of Nucleons in a Light-cone Diquark Model

## I Introduction

Since the photon is a particularly clean probe, the electromagnetic interactions are unique tools for investigating hadronic physics. Different electromagnetic processes are described by different transition form factors. For example, in the case of electron-nucleon elastic scattering processes, the Sachs form factors $`G_E^N`$ (electric) and $`G_M^N`$ (magnetic) contain all the information. At low momentum transfers, $`G_E^N`$ and $`G_M^N`$ are related to the spatial Fourier transform of the nucleon’s charge and magnetization distributions; while at high momentum transfers, these form factors give important information about the quark structure within the nucleon and also about the short-range behavior of the strong interactions. In fact, precise knowledge of the elastic electromagnetic form factors not only discloses the internal substructure of nucleons, but is also important for other processes, such as the experimental measurement of nucleon strangeness form factors Muller et al. (1997) and also for the nucleon spin problemBrodsky (1994a).

Theoretically, the very high $`Q^2`$ behavior of the nucleon form factors can be well described by perturbative quantum chromodynamics (QCD) Brodsky (1980a). However, as QCD bound states, and due to the large coupling constant of QCD in the non-perturbative region, the nucleons have to be explored in phenomenological QCD models or in lattice QCD. The non-relativistic constituent quark model is quite successful in explaining the static properties of baryons, but with increasing transfer momentum, it must fail in explaining the nucleon form factors because the intrinsic momentum of the quarks within a nucleon has the same order of magnitude as the quark mass. Thus, recently, many studies of nucleon form factors have been extended to relativistic quark models Dong et al. (1999), and also to light-cone Schlumpf (1993); Cardarelli and Simula (1999) and point-form Wagenbrunn et al. (2001) models. These relativistic quark models partially solved the shortcomings of its non-relativistic counterparts.

The purpose of this work is to show that both the electric and magnetic form factors of the proton and neutron can be reproduced in a simple relativistic quark spectator-diquark model which is formulated in the light-cone frame. This model was originally proposed in order to study deep inelastic lepton nucleon scattering Close (1973), based on the quark-parton model picture Feynman (1969) that deep inelastic scattering is well described by the impulse approximation, in which the incident lepton scatters incoherently off a quark in the nucleon, with the remaining nucleon constituents treated as a quasi-particle spectator. After taking into account Melosh rotation effects, this model is in good agreement with the experimental data of polarized deep inelastic scattering, and the mass difference between the scalar and vector spectators reproduces the up and down valence quark asymmetry Ma (1991). In this work we extend the relativistic quark spectator-diquark model in order to investigate electron-nucleon elastic scattering processes, where the single quark is the struck constituent and the non-interacting diquark serves to provide the quantum numbers of the spectator system. Recently, a covariant quark-diquark model was proposed in order to describe the nucleon properties Oettel and a d L. von Smekal (2000), but it was not formulated in light-cone quantization. The light-cone Fock representation of composite systems has a number of remarkable properties. The matrix elements of local operators such as electromagnetic currents have exact representation in terms of light-cone wave functions of Fock states Brodsky et al. (2000). If one chooses the special frame Drell and Yan (1970) $`q^+=0`$ for the space-like momentum transfer and takes the matrix elements of plus components of currents, the contribution from pair creation or annihilation is forbidden and the matrix elements of space-like currents can be expressed as overlaps of light-cone wave functions with the same number of Fock constituents.

This paper is organized as follows. In section II, the relativistic quark-diquark model formulated in the light-cone frame is introduced. The specific light-cone form is obtained by transforming instant into light-cone states using Melosh rotations. The detailed matrix elements of electromagnetic currents are given in section III. In section IV, we present the results for the nucleon electromagnetic properties calculated in the light-cone diquark model. Finally, a brief summary is given in section V.

## II The light-cone quark spectator-diquark model

The proton wave function in the conventional $`SU\left(6\right)`$ quark model is given by

$$|p^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{18}}\left[\left(u^{}d^{}u^{}d^{}\right)u^{}+(\mathrm{cyclic}\mathrm{permutation})\right].$$
(1)
In the impulse approximation, the incident lepton strikes incoherently a single constituent quark in the nucleon, with the remain nucleon constituents treated as a quasi-particle spectator to provide the other quantum numbers of nucleons. Thus, it is more convenient to rewrite the wave function of the conventional $`SU\left(6\right)`$ quark model in the quark spectator-diquark form. In fact, in the quark spectator-diquark form, some non-perturbative effects between the two spectator quarks or other non-perturbative gluon effects in the nucleon can be effectively taken into account by the mass of the diquark spectator. Starting from Eq. (1), the proton wave function of the quark-diquark model in the instant form can be written as Ma (1991); Pavković (1976)

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_p^,\left(qD\right)=\mathrm{sin}\theta \phi _V|qV^,+\mathrm{cos}\theta \phi _S|qS^,,$$
(2)
with

$`|qV^,`$ $`=`$ $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left[V^0\left(ud\right)u^,\sqrt{2}V^{\pm 1}\left(ud\right)u^,\sqrt{2}V^0\left(uu\right)d^,+2V^{\pm 1}\left(uu\right)d^,\right],`$
$`|qS^,`$ $`=`$ $`S\left(ud\right)u^,,`$ (3)
where $`\theta `$ is the mixing angle that breaks SU(6) symmetry at $`\theta \pi /4`$, $`V^{s_z}(q_1q_2)`$ is the $`q_1q_2`$ instant form vector diquark Fock state with third spin component $`s_z`$, $`S(ud)`$ is the $`ud`$ scalar diquark Fock state, and $`\phi _D`$ stands for the momentum space wave function of the quark-diquark, with $`D`$ representing the vector ($`V`$) or scalar ($`S`$) diquarks. In this paper we choose the $`SU\left(6\right)`$ symmetry case $`\theta =\pi /4`$. The neutron wave function can be obtained simply by exchanging the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks.

Since the light-cone Fock representation of composite systems has a number of remarkable properties, we will calculate the electromagnetic properties of nucleons in this formalism. The light-cone momentum space wave function of the quark-spectator is assumed to be a harmonic oscillator wave function (the Brodsky-Huang-Lepage (BHL) prescription Brodsky et al. (1981); Huang (1994))

$$\phi _D(x,𝒌_{})=A_Dexp\left\{\frac{1}{8\beta _D^2}\left[\frac{m_q^2+𝒌_{}^2}{x}+\frac{m_D^2+𝒌_{}^2}{1x}\right]\right\},$$
(4)
where $`m_q`$ and $`m_D`$ are the masses for the quark $`q`$ and spectator $`D`$ respectively, $`x`$ and $`𝒌_{}`$ are the light-cone momentum fraction and internal transversal momentum of quarks respectively, and $`\beta _D`$ is the harmonic oscillator scale parameter.

The spin part of the light-cone wave functions of nucleons can be obtained by transforming instant into light-cone states using Melosh rotations. For a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particle, the Melosh transformations are known to be Melosh (1974)

$`\chi _T^{}`$ $`=`$ $`w\left[\left(k^++m\right)\chi _F^{}k^R\chi _F^{}\right],`$
$`\chi _T^{}`$ $`=`$ $`w\left[\left(k^++m\right)\chi _F^{}k^L\chi _F^{}\right],`$ (5)
where $`\chi _T`$ and $`\chi _F`$ are instant and light-cone spinors respectively, $`w=\left[2k^+\left(k^0+m_q\right)\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, $`k^{R,L}=k^1\pm ik^2`$, and $`k^+=k^0+k^3`$. In this work, for simplicity we treat the diquark as a point particle. The scalar diquark does not transform, since it has zero spin. For the spin-$`1`$ vector diquark, the Melosh transformations are given by Ahluwalia and Sawicki as Ahluwalia and Sawicki (1993)

$`V_T^1`$ $`=`$ $`w^2\left[\left(k^++m\right)^2V_F^1\sqrt{2}\left(k^++m\right)k^RV_F^0+k_{}^{R}{}_{}{}^{2}V_F^1\right],`$
$`V_T^0`$ $`=`$ $`w^2\left[\sqrt{2}\left(k^++m\right)k^LV_F^1+2\left(\left(k^0+m\right)k^+k^Rk^L\right)V_F^0\sqrt{2}\left(k^++m\right)k^RV_F^1\right],`$
$`V_T^1`$ $`=`$ $`w^2\left[k_{}^{L}{}_{}{}^{2}V_F^1+\sqrt{2}\left(k^++m\right)k^LV_F^0+\left(k^++m\right)^2V_F^1\right].`$ (6)
Here, $`V_T`$ and $`V_F`$ are the instant and light-cone spin-$`1`$ spinors respectively, which are constructed within the Weinberg-Soper formalism Weinberg (1964). Ahluwalia and Sawicki Ahluwalia and Sawicki (1993) used this formalism in order to construct explicit hadronic spinors for arbitrary spin in the light-cone form, and obtained general Melosh rotations for spinors of arbitrary spin. In the case of spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$, these spinors are in agreement with the results of Lepage and Brodsky Brodsky (1980a), and also the Melosh rotations are the same as in Eq. (II), which were introduced originally by Melosh. The Melosh rotations for spin-$`1`$ particles have a similar form as Eq. (II), if the spin-$`1`$ particle is treated as a composite state of two spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particles.

## III The calculation of electromagnetic form factors

The nucleon Sachs form factors are defined as combinations of the Dirac and Pauli form factors Sachs (1962)

$`G_E^N\left(Q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`F_1^N\left(Q^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{4M^2}}F_2^N\left(Q^2\right),`$
$`G_M^N\left(Q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`F_1^N\left(Q^2\right)+F_2^N\left(Q^2\right).`$ (7)
As a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ composite system, the nucleon has Dirac and Pauli form factors $`F_1\left(Q^2\right)`$ and $`F_2\left(Q^2\right)`$ defined by

$$P^{}\left|J^\mu \left(0\right)\right|P=\overline{u}\left(P^{}\right)\left[F_1^N\left(Q^2\right)\gamma ^\mu +F_2^N\left(Q^2\right)\frac{i\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q_\nu }{2M}\right]u\left(P\right),$$
(8)
where $`q^\mu =\left(P^{}P\right)^\mu `$ is four-momentum transfer, $`Q^2=q^2`$, and $`u\left(P\right)`$ is the nucleon spinor. In the light-cone formalism, it is well known that the Dirac and Pauli form factors are equal to the helicity-conserving and helicity-flip matrix elements of the plus component of electromagnetic current operators Brodsky and Drell (1980):

$`P^{},\left|{\displaystyle \frac{J^+\left(0\right)}{2P^+}}\right|P,`$ $`=`$ $`F_1^N\left(Q^2\right),`$
$`P^{},\left|{\displaystyle \frac{J^+\left(0\right)}{2P^+}}\right|P,`$ $`=`$ $`(q_1iq_2){\displaystyle \frac{F_2^N\left(Q^2\right)}{2M}}.`$ (9)
In the $`Q^20`$ limit, the nucleon magnetic form factor is just the magnetic moment of the nucleon:

$$\mu _N=G_M^N\left(0\right).$$
(10)
Other important static electromagnetic properties of nucleons are the charge and magnetic radii, which can be obtained via the $`Q^20`$ limit of the electromagnetic form factors as:

$`r_{EN}^2`$ $`=`$ $`6\underset{Q^20}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{dG_E^N\left(Q^2\right)}{dQ^2}},`$
$`r_{MN}^2`$ $`=`$ $`6\underset{Q^20}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu _N}}{\displaystyle \frac{dG_M^N\left(Q^2\right)}{dQ^2}}.`$ (11)
In these calculations, we choose the Drell-Yan assignment Drell and Yan (1970):

$`q`$ $`=`$ $`(q^+,q^{},𝒒_{})=(0,{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{P^+}},𝒒_{}),`$
$`P`$ $`=`$ $`(P^+,P^{},𝑷_{})=(P^+,{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{P^+}},\mathrm{𝟎}_{}).`$ (12)
As pointed out in the introduction, the matrix elements of space-like currents can be expressed as overlaps of light-cone wave functions with the same number of Fock constituents. In particular, for the form factors we have

$`F_1^N\left(Q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝒌_{}dx}{16\pi ^3}\underset{j}{}e_j\psi _a^{}(x_i,𝒌_i^{},\lambda _i)\psi _a^{}(x_i,𝒌_i,\lambda _i)},`$
$`q^L{\displaystyle \frac{F_2^N\left(Q^2\right)}{2M}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝒌_{}dx}{16\pi ^3}\underset{j}{}e_j\psi _a^{}(x_i,𝒌_i^{},\lambda _i)\psi _a^{}(x_i,𝒌_i,\lambda _i)},`$ (13)
where $`e_j`$ is the charge of struck constituents, $`\psi _a(x_i,𝒌_i,\lambda _i)`$ is the light-cone Fock expansion wave function, and $`\lambda _i`$, $`x_i`$ and $`𝒌_i`$ are the spin projections along the quantization direction, light-cone momentum fractions and relative momentum coordinates of the QCD constituents, respectively. Here, for the final state light-cone wave function, the relative momentum coordinates are

$$𝒌_i^{}=𝒌_i+\left(1x_i\right)𝒒_{}$$
(14)
for the struck quark and

$$𝒌_i^{}=𝒌_ix_i𝒒_{}$$
(15)
for each spectator. This treatment is similar to that for the pion form factor with a quark-antiquark pair as constituents in the light-cone formalism Ma (1993).

Thus, in terms of the wave functions Eqs. (2, II, II) and (II), it is easy to obtain the expressions for the Dirac and Pauli form factors in our light-cone quark model. Explicit expressions for the proton form factors are:

$`F_1^p\left(Q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`3{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k_{}dx}{16\pi ^3}\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta w_q^{}w_q\left[\left(k_q^++m_q\right)\left(k_q^++m_q\right)+k_{}^Lk_{}^R\right]\phi _S(x,𝒌_{}^{})\phi _S(x,𝒌_{})},`$
$`F_2^p\left(Q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6M}{q^L}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k_{}dx}{16\pi ^3}\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta w_q^{}w_q\left[\left(k_q^++m_q\right)k_{}^L\left(k_q^++m_q\right)k_{}^L\right]}`$ (16)
$`\times \phi _S(x,𝒌_{}^{})\phi _S(x,𝒌_{}).`$
It is interesting to notice that in the proton case the contributions of the vector diquark cancel each other exactly due to the spin-flavor structure of the proton wave functions. In the case of neutrons, the expressions are similar, but the contributions of vector diquarks do not cancel. For completion, we also present them in the Appendix.

## IV Results and discussions

In our model there are five parameters: the quark mass $`m_q`$, the scalar and vector diquark masses $`m_S`$ and $`m_V`$, and the harmonic oscillator scale parameter $`\beta _S`$ and $`\beta _V`$, which are fixed by six static electromagnetic properties: the charge radii, magnetic radii and magnetic moments of both proton and neutron. This is given in Table 1. As we already noticed, in the proton case the vector diquark contributions to the form factors cancel each other exactly. Therefore, the three static electromagnetic properties of protons can fix completely the quark mass and the parameters corresponding to the scalar diquark. The other parameters are fixed by the neutron static properties. We calculate the static electromagnetic properties and form factors of nucleons using three different sets of parameters in order to show their dependence on the difference between the scalar and vector diquarks. We find that the electromagnetic properties of neutrons, specially the charge radius, are sensitive to the values of the parameters. When the value of the vector diquark harmonic oscillator scale parameter is less than that of the scalar diquark, we obtain a much larger positive squared charge radius for the neutron, although the neutron magnetic moment is in good agreement with experiment. In our calculations, the quark mass $`m_q=0.220\mathrm{GeV}`$ is much less than that used in the non-relativistic quark model $`(m_qM_N/3=0.313\mathrm{GeV})`$. This is due to the fact that although in the non-relativistic quark model the proton magnetic moment has a simple relation with the quark mass, $`\mu _p=\frac{M_N}{m_q}3`$, in relativistic quark models, for example our model, this relation is more complicated, and it depends on both the mass and the intrinsic momentum of quarks within the nucleon. In fact, the value of the quark mass used in our model is comparable with that used in other relativistic quark model Capstick and Keister (1986). The model parameters used here are slightly different from those used in previous calculations of valence quark distributions, but these previous results are not sensitive to the actual values of the parameters and therefore the present parameters will give similar results.

The static electromagnetic properties of nucleons are shown in Table 2 for three different sets of parameters. In the first set we use the same mass and scale parameters for the scalar and vector diquarks in order to keep the $`SU\left(6\right)`$ symmetry of nucleon wave functions, but get nearly zero charge radius for the neutron and also the proton anomalous magnetic is close to that of the neutron. This choice of parameters is compatible with the naive $`SU\left(6\right)`$ symmetric quark model. However, the experimental negative squared charge radius of neutrons as well as the ratio $`\mu _p/\mu _n=1.46`$ indicate that the $`SU\left(6\right)`$ symmetry is broken. In our model the $`SU\left(6\right)`$ breaking effect is introduced by the difference between the scalar and vector diquarks parameters, as it is shown with the third set of parameters. Except for the fact that the neutron magnetic moment is slightly off, the results of set III are in good agreement with experiment, through the difference between the scalar and vector diquarks parameters, which breaks the $`SU\left(6\right)`$ symmetry and gives the right neutron charge radius. Although the Melosh rotations already break the $`SU\left(6\right)`$ symmetry of nucleon wave functions, it is not enough to produce the right neutron charge radius Cardarelli and Simula (1999). In set II, we try to fix the neutron magnetic moment. However, we obtain a bad result for the neutron charge radius.

In Figs. 1 and 2 we show the electromagnetic form factors of protons up to $`Q^2=4\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. Since as pointed out in Ref. Jones et al. (2000) the results for the electric form factor of protons from Ref. Hoehler et al. (1976); Walker et al. (1994) are too high, in Fig 1 we also present the results from Ref. Jones et al. (2000) for $`G_E^p`$, which are obtained by assuming that the proton magnetic form factor $`G_M^p/\mu _p`$ satisfies a dipole behaviour $`G_D=1/\left[1+Q^2/0.71\right]^2`$. Both form factors are in good agreement with experiment even up to $`Q^2=4\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. However, because of the harmonic oscillator wave functions used in our calculations, it is important to keep in mind that we expect our model to be valid essentially for $`Q^2`$ up to $`2\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. Recently, the JLab data Jones et al. (2000) showed that the $`Q^2`$ dependence of $`G_E^p`$ and of $`G_M^p`$ is significantly different, in contrast to the non-relativistic quark model prediction, in which both have the same behavior. In the light-cone frame, however, after taking into account the Melosh rotations, the $`Q^2`$ dependence is naturally different because the Dirac form factor is obtained from the helicity-conserving matrix element of the plus component of electromagnetic current operator while the Pauli form factor is obtained from the helicity-flip matrix element. Our results for the ratio between $`G_E^p`$ and $`G_M^p`$, together with the JLab data, are shown in Fig. 3, and the neutron electromagnetic form factors are shown in Figs. 4 and 5. In contrast to the proton case, the experimental data for the neutron has fewer points, and our results also agree with the available experimental data. Once again it is the difference between the scalar and vector diquarks which breaks the $`SU\left(6\right)`$ symmetry and reproduces the non-zero neutron electromagnetic form factor.

## V summary

We have calculated the electromagnetic form factors of nucleons in a simple quark spectator-diquark model which is formulated in the light-cone formalism. The wave functions of the model are obtained by transforming the instant states into the light-cone states using Melosh rotations which are applied to both the quark and vector diquark. The model parameters are fixed by the six static electromagnetic properties of nucleons. We find that the calculated form factors are in good agreement with the experimental data, and that the ratio between the electric and magnetic form factors of protons also agrees with recent JLab data. The difference between the scalar and vector diquarks breaks the $`SU\left(6\right)`$ symmetry of the nucleon wave functions and it is essential in order to reproduce the correct electromagnetic nucleon properties. This framework is certainly applicable to calculate other processes such as nucleon-delta transitions and nucleon axial form factors, and would therefore be interesting to extend and check it in its application to these processes and also to reactions involving other baryons.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is partially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Numbers 19975052 10025523, and 90103007, by Fondecyt (Chile) under project 3000055 and Grant Number 8000017. *

## Appendix A

Using Eqs. (2,II,II, II) and (III), we obtain the explicit expressions of neutron form factors as:

$`F_1^n\left(Q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`3{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k_{}dx}{16\pi ^3}}w_q^{}w_q\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \{[(k_q^++m_q)(k_q^++m_q)+k_{}^Lk_{}^R]O_{V^{0,0}}`$ (17)
$`\sqrt{2}\left[\left(k_q^++m_q\right)k_{}^L\left(k_q^++m_q\right)k_{}^L\right]O_{V^{0,1}}`$
$`\sqrt{2}\left[\left(k_q^++m_q\right)k_{}^R\left(k_q^++m_q\right)k_{}^R\right]O_{V^{1,0}}`$
$`+2[(k_q^++m_q)(k_q^++m_q)+k_{}^Rk_{}^L]O_{V^{1,1}}\left\}\phi _V\right(x,𝒌_{}^{}\left)\phi _V\right(x,𝒌_{})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta [(k_q^++m_q)(k_q^++m_q)+k_{}^Lk_{}^R]\phi _S(x,𝒌_{}^{})\phi _S(x,𝒌_{})\},`$
and

$`F_2^n\left(Q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6M}{q^L}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k_{}dx}{16\pi ^3}}w_q^{}w_q\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \{[(k_q^++m_q)k_{}^L(k_q^++m_q)k_{}^L]O_{V^{0,0}}`$ (18)
$`\sqrt{2}\left[\left(k_q^++m_q\right)\left(k_q^++m_q\right)+k_{}^Lk_{}^R\right]O_{V^{0,1}}`$
$`\sqrt{2}\left[\left(k_q^++m_q\right)\left(k_q^++m_q\right)+k_{}^Rk_{}^L\right]O_{V^{1,0}}`$
$`+2[(k_q^++m_q)k_{}^R(k_q^++m_q)k_{}^R]O_{V^{1,1}}\left\}\phi _V\right(x,𝒌_{}^{}\left)\phi _V\right(x,𝒌_{})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta [(k_q^++m_q)k_{}^L(k_q^++m_q)k_{}^L]\phi _S(x,𝒌_{}^{})\phi _S(x,𝒌_{})\},`$
where

$`O_{V^{0,0}}`$ $`=`$ $`w_{}^{}{}_{D}{}^{2}w_D^2[4(k_D^++m_D)(k_D^++m_D)𝒌_{}^{}𝒌_{}+((k_D^++m_D)^2𝒌_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$
$`\times ((k_D^++m_D)^2𝒌_{}^2)],`$
$`O_{V^{0,1}}`$ $`=`$ $`w_{}^{}{}_{D}{}^{2}w_D^2[\sqrt{2}(k_D^++m_D)(k_D^++m_D)^2k_{}^R+\sqrt{2}((k_D^++m_D)^2𝒌_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$
$`\times (k_D^++m_D)k_{}^R+\sqrt{2}(k_D^++m_D)k_{}^Lk_{}^{R}{}_{}{}^{2}],`$
$`O_{V^{1,0}}`$ $`=`$ $`w_{}^{}{}_{D}{}^{2}w_D^2[\sqrt{2}(k_D^++m_D)^2(k_D^++m_D)k_{}^L+\sqrt{2}(k_D^++m_D)`$
$`\times ((k_D^++m_D)^2𝒌_{}^2)k_{}^L+\sqrt{2}(k_D^++m_D)k_{}^{L}{}_{}{}^{2}k_{}^R],`$
$`O_{V^{1,1}}`$ $`=`$ $`w_{}^{}{}_{D}{}^{2}w_D^2[(k_D^++m_D)^2(k_D^++m_D)^2+2(k_D^++m_D)(k_D^++m_D)`$
$`\times k_{}^Lk_{}^R+k_{}^{L}{}_{}{}^{2}k_{}^{R}{}_{}{}^{2}],`$
$`O_{V^{0,1}}`$ $`=`$ $`w_{}^{}{}_{D}{}^{2}w_D^2[\sqrt{2}(k_D^++m_D)k_{}^Rk_{}^{L}{}_{}{}^{2}\sqrt{2}((k_D^++m_D)^2𝒌_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})(k_D^++m_D)k_{}^L`$ (19)
$`+\sqrt{2}(k_D^++m_D)(k_D^++m_D)^2k_{}^L],`$
and

$`O_{V^{0,1}}`$ $`=`$ $`w_{}^{}{}_{D}{}^{2}w_D^2[(k_D^++m_D)^2k_{}^{L}{}_{}{}^{2}2(k_D^++m_D)(k_D^++m_D)`$ (20)
$`\times k_{}^Lk_{}^L+(k_D^++m_D)^2k_{}^{L}{}_{}{}^{2}]`$
come from the Melosh rotations of vector diquarks, in which the superscript $`(i,j)`$ of $`V`$ indicates the third spin component of initial and final state vector diquarks.


text:
# Nonstandard numbers for qualitative decision making This work was partially supported by the Jean and Helene Alfassa fund for research in Artificial Intelligence and by grant 136/94-1 of the Israel Science Foundation on “New Perspectives on Nonmonotonic Reasoning”. (Extended Abstract)

## 1 Infinitesimal probabilities

Suppose you are considering playing dice. You have to choose between betting on six (b6) and betting on four (b4). The sums won are the same. You experiment with the dice and come to the conclusion that the chances of the dice falling on six are equal to those it falls on four. You conclude that you are indifferent between b6 and b4. You are now offered a third bet (e6): you win if the dice falls on six or falls on one of the (twelve) edges. You ponder the chances of the dice falling on an edge and conclude that they are too small to make you prefer the bet e6 to b4. You are indifferent between b4 and e6. Since you believe in the transitivity of indifference, you conclude you are indifferent between e6 and b6.

You now consider two more bets. In e, you win a large sum if the dice falls on any one of the edges. In f, you win the same sum if the dice falls on the edge that lies between face six and face five. You decide you prefer bet e to bet f.

According to the theory of rationality proposed by von Neumann and Morgenstern , you are irrational. If you are indifferent between e6 and b6, it must be that you give subjective probability zero to the event of the dice falling on one of its edges. In this case, you must be indifferent between e and f. You may certainly be rational and indifferent between e and f, but must any rational decider be such? This work suggests the preferences above can be explained by choosing some number $`ϵ`$, positive but infinitesimally close to zero (as in Robinson’s ), and assigning a subjective probability of $`\frac{1ϵ}{6}`$ to the dice falling on any of its faces and a probability of $`\frac{ϵ}{12}`$ to the dice falling on any one of its edges. The numbers $`\frac{1ϵ}{6}`$ and $`\frac{1ϵ}{6}+ϵ`$ are qualitatively (the term will be formally defined below) equivalent. The numbers $`ϵ`$ and $`\frac{ϵ}{6}`$ are not qualitatively equivalent.

## 2 Infinitesimal utilities

Here is a different example. Suppose you have to choose between two lotteries. In the first lottery you may win, with probability $`p`$, a week’s vacation in Hawaii. With probability $`1p`$ you get nothing. In the second lottery you may win, with the same probability $`p`$, the same vacation in Hawaii, but, with probability $`1p`$ you get a consolation prize: a free copy of your favorite magazine. Since the free copy is preferred to nothing, von Neumann-Morgenstern’s independence postulate implies that lottery two is preferred to lottery one. But couldn’t a rational decision maker be indifferent between the two lotteries? One, often, I think, buys a lottery ticket in a frame of mind focused on the big prize and not on the consolation prize. This behavior is by no means general, as attested by the fact lotteries often offer consolation prizes, but should a decision maker indifferent between the two lotteries be considered irrational in all situations? I think not.

A variation on this example considers also a third lottery, in which one wins a trip to Paris with the same probability $`p`$ as above, and nothing with probability $`1p`$. Suppose you try to compare lotteries one and three. You ponder at length the advantages and disadvantages of the two vacation spots, and decide you are indifferent between the trip to Hawaii and the trip to Paris, all relevant considerations taken into account. You conclude that you are also indifferent between the lotteries one and three. The Independence axiom of von Neumann and Morgenstern implies that lottery two is preferred to lottery three. But it has been argued that it is quite unreasonable to expect the very slight improvement that lottery two presents over lottery one to overcome the lengthy and delicate deliberation that made you conclude that the trips to Hawaii and Paris are equivalent for you.

Similar examples have been put forward to argue that the indifference relation is not always transitive: lottery three is equivalent to lottery one and to lottery two, but lottery two is preferred to lottery one. The system presented in this paper endorses the transitivity of indifference, but allows a decision maker to be indifferent between lotteries one and two.

This work proposes to consider that the utility you attach to the trips to Paris and Hawaii are equal, say $`1`$. The utility you attach to the free copy of your favorite magazine is $`ϵ`$, some positive number, infinitesimally close to zero. The utility of lottery one and of lottery three is $`p`$, that of lottery two is $`p+(1p)ϵ`$, which is qualitatively equivalent to $`p`$. Nevertheless, the free copy of the magazine has utility $`ϵ`$, that is not qualitatively equivalent to zero.

## 3 Infinite utilities

Let us consider yet another situation. A patient has to choose between two options:

1. (option $`p`$) do nothing and die in a matter of weeks,
2. (option $`q`$) undergo surgery, the result of which, depending on some objective probabilities, may be a long and happy life (denoted by $`l`$) or an immediate death on the operation table (denoted by $`d`$). We shall denote by $`\lambda `$ the probability of the surgery being successful, i.e., the probability of $`l`$. The probability of death on the operation table is, therefore, $`1\lambda `$.

In other terms, one has to compare mixtures $`p`$ and $`\lambda l+(1\lambda )d`$. Assuming one prefers $`l`$ to $`p`$ and prefers $`p`$ to $`d`$, von Neumann and Morgenstern’s postulates imply what we shall call property P: there is a unique $`\lambda ]0,1[`$ for which one is indifferent between $`p`$ and $`\lambda l+(1\lambda )d`$. For any $`\mu >\lambda `$, one prefers $`\mu l+(1\mu )d`$ to $`p`$, and for all $`\mu <\lambda `$, one prefers $`p`$ to $`\mu l+(1\mu )d`$. If one thinks that a long and happy life is overwhelmingly preferable to $`p`$ so as to make the distinction between $`p`$ and $`d`$ insignificant, i.e., that $`\mu l+(1\mu )d`$ is preferable to $`p`$ for any $`\mu ]0,1[`$, property P fails and one deviates from von Neumann-Morgenstern’s rationality postulates.

But would we really dismiss as irrational such a behavior, or such a preference? The consideration of an infinite utility for $`l`$ explains the preference. Von Neumann-Morgenstern’s point of view is perfectly acceptable and I have no criticism for someone who adheres to it and decides there is indeed some $`\mu `$, very close to zero, perhaps, such that $`p`$ is equivalent to $`\mu l+(1\mu )d`$. My only claim is that someone who thinks $`\mu l+(1\mu )d`$ is preferable to $`p`$ for any $`\mu ]0,1[`$ cannot be considered irrational outright.

An argument, very similar to the one just presented, for prefering a mixture $`\mu w+(1\mu )d`$ to some $`p`$, for any $`\mu ]0,1[`$, even though $`p`$ is preferred to $`d`$, appears in Pascal’s . There $`w`$ denotes eternal bliss (the reward of the believer if God exists), $`d`$ denotes a life spent in error by a believer in a God that does not exist, and $`p`$ denotes a life spent by a non-believer. This argument, known as Pascal’s wager, is very well-known and the reader may find in a detailed discussion in .

A number of papers  discussed, in the setting of the St. Petersburg’s paradox, the existence of unbounded utilities. In the last of these papers, Aumann argues very convincingly that utilities should be bounded. At first sight, one may think that infinite utilities imply unbounded utilities, and therefore Aumann argues also against infinite utilities, but this is not the case. His argument may be summarized in the following way: if utilities were unbounded, for any $`\lambda ]0,1[`$ there would be a consequence ($`c`$) such that a lottery $`\lambda c+(1\lambda )d`$ is prefered to a long and happy life ($`l`$). But this seems very unreasonable to Aumann. His argument is directed against unbounded utilities, but ineffective against infinite utilities. Certainly, no consequence is infinitely preferable to $`l`$ and therefore, if there are infinite utilities, the utility of $`l`$ is infinite. But there is absolutely no problem if one assumes that the utility of $`l`$ is infinite and maybe even maximal (nothing is prefered to $`l`$). In this case, Aumann’s argument disappears. The fact that $`l`$ is infinitely prefered to some other consequence, $`d`$ for example, or a sum of money, will influence the preferences of a decider between lotteries involving $`l`$ and consequences such as $`d`$.

## 4 Background

Utility theory is discussed in the framework of \[19, Chapter 3\], see also . Let $``$ be a boolean algebra of subsets of $`X`$, and $`P`$ a convex set of probability measures on $``$.We assume that $`P`$ is finitely generated. Convex means here that:

$$p,qP,\lambda ]0,1[,\lambda p+(1\lambda )qP.$$

Here $`]0,1[`$ denotes the open real interval in some model, maybe nonstandard, of the real numbers.

Von Neumann and Morgenstern have characterized the binary relations $`>`$ on $`P`$ that can be defined by a linear functional $`u`$ on $`P`$, when $`]0,1[`$ is the standard interval, in the following way:

$$p,qP,p>qu(p)>u(q).$$
(1)
In Equation 1, the functional $`u`$ is a function from $`P`$ to the standard set of real numbers $`𝐑`$ and the relation $`>`$ in the right hand side is the usual strict ordering on $`𝐑`$.

Their characterization is equivalent to the following, due to Jensen  (see \[7, p. 1408\]) three conditions, for all $`p,q,rP`$ and all $`\lambda ]0,1[`$ (a weak order is an asymmetric and negatively transitive binary relation):

$$\mathrm{𝐀𝟏}>\mathrm{on}P\mathrm{is}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{weak}\mathrm{order},$$

$$\mathrm{𝐀𝟐}p>q\lambda p+(1\lambda )r>\lambda q+(1\lambda )r,$$

$$\mathrm{𝐀𝟑}(p>q,q>r)\alpha ,\beta ]0,1[,\mathrm{such}\mathrm{that}$$

$$\alpha p+(1\alpha )r>q>\beta p+(1\beta )r.$$

The three conditions above are not the original postulates of von Neumann and Morgenstern, they are equivalent to them. They will be referred to, nevertheless, in this work, as von Neumann and Morgenstern’s postulates. The purpose of this work is to generalize von Neumann and Morgenstern’s characterization to deal with qualitative probabilities or with qualitative utilities. In the sequel, $`pq`$ will denote $`qp`$ and $`pq`$ will denote the conjunction of $`pq`$ and $`qp`$.

## 5 Qualitative Decision Theory

Qualitative decision theory has been developed mostly in opposition to quantitative decision theory, stressing decision methods that do not satisfy von Neumann-Morgenstern’s or Savage’s  postulates, the postulates generally accepted for quantitative decision theory. The focus in qualitative decision theory has always been on methods and algorithms, more than on an axiomatic treatment ( is an exception).

A different approach is proposed here: qualitative and quantitative decision theories can be viewed as special cases of a unified general theory of decision that contains both. This unified theory is a generalization of the quantitative theory. The power of the generalization lies in the consideration of nonstandard models of the set of real numbers for utilities and a definition of indifference that neglects infinitesimally small differences. In this paper probabilities will always be standard. Some first results, for nonstandard probabilities and standard utilities have been presented in . Preliminary ideas appeared in .

A well-established tradition in Decision Theory considers Expected Utility Maximization as the only rational policy. Following this view, an act $`f`$ is strictly preferred to an act $`g`$ iff the utility expected from $`f`$ is strictly larger than that expected for $`g`$. Since expected utilities are real numbers, strictly larger has its usual, quantitative meaning. The main claim of this paper is that the qualitative point of view may be subsumed by a slightly different definition of strictly larger. Suppose we consider any model elementarily equivalent to the real numbers, more precisely, any (standard or nonstandard) model of the real numbers, $``$ (for the standard model, we shall use $`𝐑`$). Let $`x`$ and $`y`$ be elements of $``$. To make matters simpler, suppose that both $`x`$ and $`y`$ are positive. The number $`x`$ is quantitatively larger than $`y`$ iff $`xy>0`$. What could be a reasonable definition of qualitatively larger? Clearly, if $`x`$ is qualitatively larger than $`y`$ then it must be quantitatively larger: in a sense qualitatively larger means definitely larger. A first idea that may be considered is to use a notion that proved fundamental for nonstandard analysis (the monads of , or see ): the notion of two numbers being infinitely close, and consider that a number $`x`$ is qualitatively larger than a number $`y`$ iff $`x`$ is larger than $`y`$ and not infinitely close to $`y`$, i.e., iff $`xy`$ is strictly larger than some positive standard number. At first this idea looks appealing: if $`ϵ`$ is strictly positive and infinitesimally close to zero, and $`x`$ is a standard, strictly positive, real, we do not want $`x+ϵ`$ to be qualitatively larger than $`x`$. At a second look, one realizes that the size of $`xy`$ should not be judged absolutely, but relatively to the size of $`x`$: for example $`ϵ^2+ϵ`$ should be qualitatively larger than $`ϵ^2`$. Therefore I propose the following definition:

###### Definition 1

Let $`x`$ and $`y`$ be positive. We shall say that $`x`$ is qualitatively larger than $`y`$ and write $`xy`$ iff $`\frac{xy}{x}`$ is strictly positive and not infinitesimally close to zero: in other terms, iff there is a strictly positive standard number $`r`$ such that $`\frac{xy}{x}r`$.

The definition may be extended to arbitrary numbers in an obvious way:

1. if $`x0`$ and $`0>y`$, then $`xy`$, and
2. $`xy`$ iff $`yx`$,

$`xy`$ shall denote $`xy`$ and $`xy`$ shall denote that $`xy`$ and $`yx`$.

Notice that, if we choose, for $``$, the standard model of the reals, $`𝐑`$, then $`xy`$ iff $`x>y`$. Therefore our treatment would include the classical approach, if we allowed also negative utilities. As said above, in this paper, we concentrate on the case all utilities are positive. Is our framework, with positive nonstandard utilities, a generalization of the classical theory, with standard positive and negative utilities? Since, in the classical setting, utilities are defined only up to an additive constant, bounded utilities may always be considered to be positive, by adding a positive large enough constant. In view of Aumann’s  critique of unbounded utilities, we feel that the present framework encompasses the most important part of classical theory.

Notice also that Definition 1 relies on the notion of a nonstandard number, and that notion is not first-order definable.

Expected Qualitative Utility Maximization, the paradigm of rationality proposed here is the version of Expected Utility Maximization that obtains when, for probabilities and utilities,

* the models chosen for the real numbers may be nonstandard, and
* real numbers are compared qualitatively, i.e., by $``$.

At this stage, I do not know of an axiomatic characterization of Expected Qualitative Utility Maximization in its most general form: nonstandard probabilities and utilities. But two orthogonal special cases have been characterized in full: first, the case in which probabilities may be nonstandard but utilities are standard and secondly, the case in which probabilities are standard but utilities may be nonstandard. In the first case, we want to characterize the binary relations $`>`$ on $`P`$ that can be defined by a functional $`u:P𝐑`$ into the standard real numbers in the following way:

$$p,qP,p>qu(p)>u(q),$$
(2)
and $`u`$ is pseudo-linear, i.e.:

$$p,qP,\lambda ]0,1[,u(\lambda p+(1\lambda )q)\lambda u(p)+(1\lambda )u(q).$$
(3)
In Equation 3, the interval $`]0,1[`$ may be non-standard and therefore the right-hand side of the equivalence may be nonstandard. This case is treated in Section 7.

In the second case, we characterize the binary relations $`>`$ on $`P`$ that can be defined by a linear functional $`u:P_+`$ in the following way:

$$p,qP,p>qu(p)u(q).$$
(4)
Here the interval $`]0,1[`$ is the standard one. This case in treated in Section 8.

One should immediately notice that, if $`c>0`$, the utility function $`cu(p)`$ defines the same ordering as $`u(p)`$, and is linear or pseudo-linear iff $`u`$ is. But, contrary to what happens in the classical setting, if $`d`$ the function $`d+u(x)`$ does not, in general, define the same ordering as $`u(p)`$. Such an instability under an additive constant, and in particular an asymmetry between gains and losses has been found in the behavior of decision makers in many instances . The question of whether Expected Qualitative Utility Maximization is a realistic model for explaining such behavior cannot be discussed in this work.

## 6 Maximin as Expected Qualitative Utility Maximization

Considering nonstandard utilities enables us to obtain decision criteria that do not satisfy von Neumann-Morgenstern’s postulates and were so far considered as part of the realm of qualitative decision theory.

As noticed above, Expected Qualitative Utility Maximization generalizes Expected Utility Maximization: if one chooses the standard model for real numbers then Expected Qualitative Utility Maximization boils down exactly to Expected Utility Maximization, at least when utilities are bounded. We shall show now that considering nonstandard utilities enables us to obtain decision criteria that do not satisfy von Neumann-Morgenstern’s postulates and were so far considered as part of the realm of qualitative decision theory. A version of the Maximin criterion will be presented. The Maximin criterion has been proposed by A. Wald , in a different framework. The criterion to be presented is a variation on this theme.

Assume the set $`X`$ is finite and $``$ contains all subsets of $`X`$. Let the elements of $`X`$ be $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_{n1}`$. Let $`ϵ`$ be a number that is positive and infinitesimally close to zero and let our utility function $`u`$ be the linear function defined by: $`u(x_i)=ϵ^{ni1}`$, for $`i=0,\mathrm{},n1`$. Notice that $`x_i<x_j`$ iff $`i<j`$. The utility of a mixture $`\lambda x_i+(1\lambda )x_j`$ is $`\lambda ϵ^{ni1}`$ if $`x_i<x_j`$ and $`ϵ^{ni1}`$ if $`x_ix_j`$.

Suppose $`i<j`$ and $`i^{}<j^{}`$. Then, $`\lambda x_i+(1\lambda )x_j<\mu x_i^{}+(1\mu )x_j^{}`$ iff $`x_i<x_i^{}`$ or $`x_ix_i^{}`$ and $`\lambda >\mu `$. The decision maker therefore compares different mixtures by comparing the worst possible outcomes and, if they are the same, their respective probabilities. This is some form of Maximin criterion and does not satisfy A2 or A3, but it has been considered a rational way of deciding by many authors, and it is amenable to Expected Qualitative Utility Maximization.

## 7 Postulates for nonstandard probabilities and standard utilities

The postulates that characterize this first case are A1, A3 and the following B2.

###### Definition 2

$`\lambda ]0,1[`$ is negligible iff, for any $`p,qP`$, $`\lambda p+(1\lambda )qq`$.

The intuitive meaning of negligible is infinitesimally close to zero.

$$\mathrm{𝐁𝟐}p>q,\lambda \mathrm{not}\mathrm{negligible}\lambda p+(1\lambda )r>\lambda q+(1\lambda )r.$$

## 8 Postulates for standard probabilities and nonstandard utilities

The postulates that characterize this second case are A1 and the following.

To formulate our independence property, it is best to set the following definition.

###### Definition 3

We shall say that $`p`$ overrides $`q`$ and write $`pq`$ iff $`p>q`$ and for any $`q^{}`$ such that $`q>q^{}`$ and for any $`\lambda ]0,1[`$, $`\lambda q+(1\lambda )p\lambda q^{}+(1\lambda )p`$.

The intuitive meaning of $`pq`$ is that $`p`$ is so much preferred to $`q`$ that, in any lottery in which $`p`$ and $`q`$ are the prizes, if one does not win $`p`$, one does not even care to cash $`q`$, but would as well get any lesser prize $`q^{}`$. Notice that, since $`>`$ is asymmetric, the relation $``$ is also asymmetric and therefore irreflexive.

Our independence property may now be formulated as:

$$𝐀^{}\mathrm{𝟐}p>q,r\gg ̸p\lambda ]0,1[\lambda p+(1\lambda )r>\lambda q+(1\lambda )r.$$

The intuitive meaning of A’2 is that any lottery is sensitive to both its prizes, unless one of the prizes overrides the other one.

$$𝐀^{}\mathrm{𝟑}p>q>r\alpha ]0,1[\mathrm{such}\mathrm{that}\alpha p+(1\alpha )r>q.$$

$$𝐀^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{𝟑}p>q>r,p\gg ̸q\beta ]0,1[\mathrm{such}\mathrm{that}q>\beta p+(1\beta )r.$$

## 9 Comparison with previous work

Numerous works during the fifties and the sixties considered weakenings of the von Neumann-Morgenstern’s postulates. Nonstandard analysis  appeared late on the scene. This work proposes an original weakening based on nonstandard analysis.

Our postulates are very close to the original postulates of von Neumann and Morgenstern. In particular the ordering $`<`$ is modular (weak total) and the indifference relation $``$ is transitive. In the case of nonstandard utilities, we weaken both A2 and A3, in a closely linked manner. Notice that A2, A’3 and A”3 together imply A3, since A2 says that $`pq`$ implies that for any $`w`$, $`wq`$. The lexicographic orderings of  provide one of the best known weakenings of von Neumann and Morgenstern’s postulates. The weakening they present is essentially orthogonal to ours. Indeed, the lexicographic orderings define a preference relation that satisfies A2. Any ordering that satisfies our postulates and those of von Neumann-Morgenstern postulates. To explain better the difference between lexicographic orderings and our qualitative ordering (in the case probabilities are standard), assume $`P`$ is the real plane $`𝐑^2`$ ordered by the lexicographic ordering: $`(x,y)<(x^{},y^{})`$ iff either $`x<x^{}`$ or $`x=x^{}`$ and $`y<y^{}`$. For $`\lambda [0,1]`$, define $`\lambda (x,y)+(1\lambda )(x^{},y^{})`$ to be $`(\lambda x+(1\lambda )x^{},\lambda y+(1\lambda )y^{})`$. Notice that $`(0,0)<(1,10)<(2,0)`$, but there is no $`\lambda ]0,1[`$ such that $`(1,10)=`$ $`\lambda (0,0)+(1\lambda )(2,0)`$ since $`\lambda (0,0)+(1\lambda )(2,0)=`$ $`(2(1\lambda ),0)`$. Both lexicographic and qualitative orderings imply the failure of property P of section 3. But lexicographic orderings also implies the failure of the following property that holds in the case probabilities are standard: if $`p>q>r`$ and there exists some $`\beta ]0,1[`$ such that $`q>\beta p+(1\beta )r`$, then there exists some $`\gamma ]0,1[`$ such that $`q\gamma p+(1\gamma )r`$. Indeed there exists some $`\beta ]0,1[`$ such that $`(1,10)>`$$`\beta (2,0)+(1\beta )(0,0)=`$ $`\beta (2,0)`$: for example $`\beta =0.4`$, and nevertheless there is no $`\lambda `$ as above. Lexicographic and qualitative orderings stem from different concerns and have very different characteristics.

## 10 Subjective probability

### 10.1 Anscombe-Aumann’s framework

In , Anscombe and Aumann consider a finite set $`S`$ (of states) and the set $`𝐅`$ (of acts) of mappings: $`SP`$. They show that a single postulate , added to A1, A2 and A3 is enough to characterize the orderings obtainable from subjective probabilities on states and linear utilities: for any $`a,b𝐅`$,

$$\mathrm{𝐀𝟒}\mathrm{If}sS,ss_0a(s)=b(s),\mathrm{then}a>ba(s_0)>b(s_0).$$

In the last part of A4, $`a(s_0)`$ and $`b(s_0)`$ stand for the corresponding constant functions.

For the case of standard utilities (and nonstandard probabilities), the same single added postulate is enough to guarantee the corresponding result: existence of nonstandard subjective probabilities and a pseudo-linear utility function into the standard reals.

For the case of standard probabilities (and nonstandard utilities), in addition to A1, A’2, A’3, A”3 and A4, one needs an additional postulate to ensure the subjective probabilities are standard. This postulate deals with Savage-null states.

$$𝐀^{}\mathrm{𝟓}tS,a𝐅,a(t)at\mathrm{is}\mathrm{null}.$$

where null is defined below and $``$ is defined in Definition 3.

###### Definition 4

Let $`tS`$. The element $`t`$ is said to be null iff for any $`a,b𝐅`$ we have $`ab`$ if $`a`$ and $`b`$ agree everywhere except possibly on $`t`$, i.e., for any $`st`$, $`a(s)=b(s)`$.

## 11 Conclusion

Nonstandard models of the real numbers provide for a natural notion of qualitative equivalence and a principle of Qualitative Utility Maximization. This work characterizes in full the situation in which one allows nonstandard utilities but insists on standard probabilities. In this framework one may consider consequences that are infinitely preferable to others and criteria of the Maximin family. The study of games with nonstandard utilities seems appealing. The dual case of nonstandard probabilities and standard utilities and the most general case of nonstandard probabilities and utilities are yet to be characterized. They will include consideration of subjective probabilities infinitesimally close to zero.

## Acknowledgments

I want to thank Israel Aumann for his encouragements and suggestions to improve the presentation of this work.


text:
# Landauer-like formula for dissipative tunneling

## Abstract

The Landauer formula for electrical conductance is simple but works remarkably well in mesoscopic systems. We propose a Landauer-like formula for calculating an escape rate out of a dissipative metastable well, the quantum Kramers rate. The proposed formula works well in the current-voltage characteristic of a single Josephson junction.

The electrical conduction is a typical non-equilibrium phenomenon. Two theories are known. One is the Green-Kubo-Nakano linear response theory and the other is the Landauer theory. The former has a generality but often technically challenging. The latter, on the other hand, lacks a generality and limited to mesoscopic systems so far such as quantum wires, but is intuitive, simple and practically quite useful.

The system Landauer considered is composed of a sample which is connected by two leads to the electron reservors with chemical potentials $`\mu _{1,2}`$. The voltage applied is $`V=(\mu _1\mu _2)/e`$. The electrons which contribute to the net current are those electrons with energies between $`\mu _1`$ and $`\mu _2`$. Write the energy of electrons with wave number $`k`$ as $`E(k)`$, then it contributes $`e(dE/\mathrm{}dk)T(k)`$ where $`T(k)`$ denotes the transmission rate. Assuming that any electron supply and removal from resevors are immediate, the net current is simply, including factor 2 for up and down spins,

$$I=2e_{k_1}^{k_2}\frac{dk}{2\pi }\frac{dE}{\mathrm{}dk}T(k)$$
(1)
where $`\mu _{1,2}=E(k_{1,2})`$. When $`\mu _1\mu _2`$ and $`T(k)=const=T`$, one gets the conductance

$$G=\frac{I}{V}=\frac{2e^2}{h}T$$
(2)
The purpose of the present paper is to propose a Landauer-like formula for calculating a particle’s escape rate out of a dissipative metastable well, the so-called quantum Kramers rate. This well-defined and universal problem is ubiquitous in quite a wide range of physics and attracted much attention over decades. The latest review article discussed a seemingly ultimate issue of full dynamical analysis in the presence of time-dependent external driving force. In spite of all these quite intensive studies, however, the issue appears to be still open. The situation looks somehow similar to the problem of electrical conductance. As mentioned above, we have the linear response theory which is exact but often technically challenging and the Landauer theory which is limited but intuitive, simple and has seen a remarkable success in mesoscopic systems. It may be worth pursuing an analogous simple formula for the quantum Kramers rate.

First note that (1) is a sum of individual contributions $`(dE/\mathrm{}dk)T(k)`$ which is nothing but a right going flux. A corresponding quantity in the escape rate is the probability of finding particle moving rightward at the top of the potential barrier. Adding all such contributions, we might reach a formula

$$v_{qts}=Tr\left[e^{\beta H}\mathrm{\Theta }(p)\right]/Z_0\frac{1}{2M}<\delta (x)|p|>$$
(3)
where $`Z_0`$ is the partition function of the metastable well, $`\delta (x)p/M`$ with $`p=i\mathrm{}_x`$ is the flux at the barrier top and $`\mathrm{\Theta }(p)`$ is the unit step function. The formula (3) is nothing but the quantum transient state (QTS) theory long known in chemistry for calculating molecular reaction rates. Historically, the QTS theory first appeared as an approximation to a formally exact expression from scattering theory,

$$v_{exact}=\mathrm{Re}<𝒫>$$
(4)
where Re means to take the real part and the operator

$$𝒫=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}e^{iHt/\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Theta }(p)e^{iHt/\mathrm{}}$$
(5)
projects onto all states that have positive momentum in the infinite future. The exact expression (4) can be manipurated to give

$$v_{exact}=\frac{1}{2}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t<(0)(t)>$$
(6)
where $`(t)`$ is the Heisenberg picture of the operator $``$.

The formula (6) takes precisely the form of the Green-Kubo-Nakano formula for the electrical conductance. The QTS theory was obtained from the exact one (4) by simply replacing $`𝒫\mathrm{\Theta }(p)`$ thereby neglecting all the dynamical processes. The QTS formula (3), however, is not well-defined quantum mechanically because the operator $``$ is ambiguous. The necessary regularization of such operators as $``$ is done by the Weyle rule. Let us write (3) as

$`v_{qts}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2MZ_0}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑x^{}}`$ (7)
$`\times `$ $`<x|e^{\beta H}|x^{}><x^{}|\delta (x)|p||x>`$ (8)
Now the Weyle rule gives a quantum operator from a classical one, $`_{cl}(p,q)_{op}(p,q)`$, in coordinate matrix representation,

$$<x^{}|_{op}|x>=\frac{1}{h}𝑑pe^{ip(xx^{})/\mathrm{}}_{cl}(p,\frac{x+x^{}}{2})$$
(9)
Applied to the last term in (7), we have

$`<x^{}|\delta (x)|p||x>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{h}}{\displaystyle 𝑑pe^{ip(xx^{})/\mathrm{}}|p|\delta \left(\frac{x+x^{}}{2}\right)}`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\pi }}\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{x+x^{}}{2}}\right)_x\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{xx^{}}}\right)`$ (11)
Putting (10) into (7) and integrating in parts gives

$$v_{qts}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{4\pi MZ_0}𝑑x(\frac{1}{x})_x<x|e^{\beta H}|x>$$
(12)
Some comments are due on the Weyle rule. First, it is not exact. For example, if one proceeds with this rule for the propegator $`e^{iHt/\mathrm{}}`$ with $`H=p^2/2M+V(x)`$, the Weyle rule gives only a short time approximation. In general, as one can easily see from (9), the more complicated the functional forms of coordinate and momentum, unless they are functions of coordinate alone or momentum alone, the more dubious results are obtained by the Weyle rule. Back to the propagator, because it is already Hermite, the classical and quantum expression take the same form. Thus the failure of the Weyle rule resides in an inability of doing proper commutation calculations for complicated mixtures of coordinate and momentum. In fact when the starting classical form is simple enough, e.g. $`xp`$, then the Weyle rule is known to give a correct answer, e.g. $`(xp+px)/2`$. It is certainly embarrasing that we still do not know how to construct correct quantum mechanical operators from classical quantities when they are complicated enough. Second, a connection to the more familiar Wigner distribution function should be mentioned. In fact we have for any operator $`𝒪`$,

$$<𝒪>=𝑑x𝑑x^{}<x|e^{\beta H}|x^{}><x^{}|𝒪_{op}|x>$$
(13)
Using the Weyle rule (9) for the last term in (13) and changing the variables as $`xx^{}=r,\frac{x+x^{}}{2}=q`$, we have

$$<𝒪>=𝑑p𝑑q𝒪_{cl}(p,q)W(p,q)$$
(14)
where the Wigner distribution function $`W(p,q)`$ is the Wigner representation of the density matrix,

$$W(p,q)\frac{1}{h}𝑑re^{ipr/\mathrm{}}<q+\frac{r}{2}|e^{\beta H}|q\frac{r}{2}>$$
(15)
The expression (14) should not be confused with the formally exact expression

$$<𝒪>=𝑑p𝑑q𝒪_W(p,q)W(p,q)$$
(16)
where $`𝒪_W`$ is the Wigner representation of the operator $`𝒪`$,

$$𝒪_W=𝑑re^{ipr/\mathrm{}}<q+\frac{r}{2}|𝒪_{op}|q\frac{r}{2}>$$
(17)
It is a simple exercise to check that $`𝒪_W`$ reduces to $`𝒪_{cl}`$ if the term in (17) is approximated by the Weyle rule (9). Third, as is seen in (10) and (12), the term $`\delta (q)=\delta (\frac{x+x^{}}{2})`$ results in an antiperiodic paths $`<x|e^{\beta H}|x>`$ in the expression (12). The nonlocality, an integral over $`x`$ rather than just a contribution at the barrier top $`x=0`$, however, arises from the step function $`\mathrm{\Theta }(p)`$. It is noted that some nonlocal contribution is certainly negative reflecting the fact that the Wigner distribution function is a quasi-probability function. It is also noted that the nonlocality does not show up when the QTS formula is treated by a semiclassical approximation (see e.g. Eq(2.22) in the second paper in).

We have critically reviewed the QTS theory (12) as a candidate for the Landauer-like formula for the quantum Kramers rate. Two major approximations involved are (A) static or transient-state approximation and (B) the Weyle rule (9). The step function $`\mathrm{\Theta }(p)`$ or equivalently $`|p|`$ under the trace operation is found to be a dangerous operator for the Weyle procedure, leading to nonlocality and associated possible negativity. Our idea in this paper is to get rid of this dangerous operator by taking square and square root. We thus propose a Landauer-like formula

$$v_{Ll}=\frac{1}{2M}\sqrt{<\delta (x)p^2>/L}$$
(18)
where $`L`$ is the size of the potential well. The factor $`L`$ and the square root operation arises dimensionally and the fact that $``$ is a density operator containing $`\delta (x)`$. The proposed formula also makes the Kramers rate calculable from the local, at the barrier top, particle state. The factor $`1/2`$ takes into account only half of the contribution, outgoing one. It may be worth emphasizing that the $`p^2`$ operator rather than $`\mathrm{\Theta }(p)`$ or $`|p|`$ would make the Weyle rule less dubious. Now, proceeding as before, we have

$$v_{Ll}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2M}\sqrt{\frac{1}{4LZ_0}_x^2<x|e^{\beta H}|x>|_{x=0}}$$
(19)
which should be compared with the QTS formula (12).

Note that the proposed formula (19), unlike the QTS formula (12), is manifest local. In fact the difference between the QTS formula and the proposed one resides in a quantum fluctuation. To see this, consider

$`<\delta (x)|p|>^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n,n^{}}{}}<n|e^{\beta H}\delta (x)|p|`$ (20)
$`\times `$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{|n><n^{}|e^{\beta H}\delta (x)}{Z_0}}\right]|p||n^{}>/Z_0`$ (21)
where the plane wave complete set may be used for $`\{n\}`$. Neglecting a quantum fluctuation, the term $`[\mathrm{}]\delta _{nn^{}}<n|\delta (x)|n^{}>`$, we reach

$$<\delta (x)|p|>^2<\delta (x)p^2>/L$$
(22)
We have tested the proposed formula (18) versus the QTS formula (3) for the $`IV`$ characteristic of the single Josephson junction (JJ). The resistively shunted and current biased single JJ is described by the action for the superconducting phase difference between the two superconductors,

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\beta \mathrm{}}𝑑\tau \left[{\displaystyle \frac{C}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2e}}\dot{\varphi }\right)^2+U(\varphi )\right]`$ (24)
$`{\displaystyle _0^\beta \mathrm{}}{\displaystyle _0^\beta \mathrm{}}𝑑\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}\alpha (\tau \tau ^{})\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi (\tau )\varphi (\tau ^{})}{2}}\right)`$
$`U(\varphi )=E_J\mathrm{cos}\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{I\mathrm{}}{2e}}\varphi `$ (25)
$`\alpha (\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2\pi e^2R_\mathrm{T}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\pi /\beta \mathrm{})^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2(\pi \tau /\beta \mathrm{})}}`$ (26)
where $`C`$ is the capacitance, $`R_T`$ the shunt resistance, $`I`$ the bias current and $`E_J`$ the Josephson energy. Thermal over-the-hill motion or quantum tunneling of the phase gives rise to a voltage $`V=\mathrm{}\dot{\varphi }/2e`$ (the Josephson relation) with $`\dot{\varphi }=[\varphi ,H]/i\mathrm{}=(2e)^2n/\mathrm{}C`$ where $`n=i_\varphi `$ is the number of the Cooper pairs. So the flux operator here is

$$=\delta (\varphi \varphi _0)\frac{(2e)^2}{\mathrm{}C}n$$
(27)
where $`\varphi _0`$ denotes a maximum point of the potential $`U(\varphi )`$. Taking into account the backward flux by a detailed balance, we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{V}{e/2C}}=\left[1\mathrm{exp}(\pi I\mathrm{}\beta /e)\right]\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{\delta (\varphi \varphi _0)n^2/L}`$ (28)
After some manipulations, one can express the average in (28) as

$`\delta (\varphi \varphi _0)n^2=Z/Z_0`$ (29)
$`Z={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}_\varphi ^2W(\varphi ,2\varphi _0\varphi )|_{\varphi =\varphi _0}`$ (30)
$`Z_0={\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi W(\varphi ,\varphi )}`$ (31)
$`W(\varphi ,\varphi ^{})={\displaystyle _{\varphi \varphi ^{}}}𝒟\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\mathrm{exp}(S/\mathrm{})`$ (32)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(0)=\varphi `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(\beta \mathrm{})=\varphi ^{}`$.

The path-integral (29) with the action $`S`$ given by (25) can be evaluated precisely by the cluster transfer matrix (CTM) method. In the present problem, however, the dimensionless junction conductance $`gR_q/R_T`$ where $`R_Q=h/4e^2=6.45K\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the quantum resistance, is at $`g1`$, and from the study of the single electron box which has a similar action as (25), this regime of $`g`$ can be accurately handled by the 1-cluster TM method.

For a fixed g, the temperature dependence of the resistance changes from insulator-like behavior $`\frac{dR}{dT}<0`$ to superconductor-like $`\frac{dR}{dT}>0`$ with incresing ratio $`E_J/E_C`$ where $`E_C\frac{e^2}{2C}`$. Repeating the calculations for different $`g`$, we can thus map a superconductor-insulator (SI) phase diagram in the $`E_J/E_Cg`$ plane. Fig. 1 shows a SI phase diagram at T=80 mK. The corresponding experimental results are denoted by open circles (S-like) and solid circles (I-like). Our result is the open diamond, the band-theory result the thick solid line, and the QTS result is denoted by triangles. While there is an issue of temperature dependence concerning the phase diagram, the agreement between the previous theory and experiments with the proposed method, not with the QTS theory, will be evident. A major disagreement between theory and experiment is for some data points near $`g=2.8`$. However a similar phase diagram experimentally found for the 2D JJ arrays with similar parameter ranges for $`g,E_j/E_C`$ and $`T`$ is bounded, $`E_J/E_C0.5`$, and $`g0.5`$ (cf. Fig 3 in). The above data near $`g=2.8`$ is currently mysterious.

In conclusion, we have proposed a new formula for calculating the quantum Kramers rate which may correspond to the Landauer formula for electrical conductance. The single Josephson junction for which the proposed formula was tested is quite general: It contains quantum fluctuation, dissipation and external bias. The reasonable outcome of the proposed formula in comparison with experiments and the previous theory, although the latter is not free from criticism, may be encouraging a further testing of the proposed method in a variety of physical systems. On the other hand, we must also admit that the new formula was derived in an attempt for technical improvement over the QTS theory. A contemplation of deep physical argument leading directly to the proposed formula is much desired.

This work was supported by the Visitor Program of the MPI-PKS. The work was also partially supported by the NSF under Grant No. DMR990002N and utilized the SGI/CRAY Origin2000 at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. I thank Yoshiro Kakehashi, Mitsuhiro Arikawa and Klaus Morawetz for helpful discussions and bringing important references to my attention. I also thank Peter Hänggi and Anthony Leggett for enlightening conversations.

FIG. 1. Phase diagram of the single Josephson junction. The phase boundary lies between the insulator-like (solid circles) and superconductor-like (open circles) samples experimentally found in . The thick line is the band theory  at $`T=80mK`$. The triangle is the QTS theory and diamond is due to the present theory at $`T=80mK`$.