format: text

text:
# 1 Comparison between the present solutions and Hayashi-Shirafuji Solution

Effect of signature change in NGR

F. I. Mikhail***Late Professor of Mathematics, Ain Shams University., M. I. Wanas$`^{}`$ ,and G. G. L. Nashed$`^{}`$

Astronomy Department, Faculty of Science, Cairo University-Giza , Egypt

Mathematics Department, Faculty of Science, Ain Shams University-Cairo, Egypt

e-mail:Wanas@frcu.eun.eg

The field equations of the new general relativity (NGR) have been applied to an absolute parallelism space having three unknown functions of the radial coordinate. The field equations have been solved using two different schemes. In the first scheme, we used the conventional procedure used in orthodox general relativity. In the second scheme, we examined the effect of signature change. The latter scheme gives a solution which is different from the Schwarzschild one. In both methods we find solution of the field equations under the same constraint imposed on the parameters of the theory. We also calculated the energy associated with the solutions in the two cases using the superpotential method. We found that the energetic content of one of the solutions is different from that of the other. A comparison between the two solutions obtained in the present work and a third one obtained by Hayashi and Shirafuji (1979) shows that the change of the signature may give rise to new physics.

1. Introduction

It is generally accepted that a successful theory of gravity should be a metric one. In applications of such a theory, it is necessary to attribute a property called signature to the metric representing space-time (cf. ). The signature usually chosen, in most applications, is the Lorentz signature (corresponding to an indefinite metric). This signature guarantees a desirable result that any gravity theory of this class will have correct special relativistic limits. However, it appears that there is a need for another signature different from the Lorentz one, giving rise to a positive definite metric, especially when dealing with some problems connected to quantum cosmology . It is well known that a complete consistent theory that combines quantum mechanics and gravity is still beyond the reach of researchers. However, one important features of such a theory, if it exists, is that it should incorporate Feynman’s proposal to formulate quantum theory in terms of a sum over histories. Severe technical problems arise when one tries to apply Feynman’s proposal in this context. The only way to overcome these problems is that one must add up waves for particle histories not in the real time but in the imaginary time . This necessitates the use of a positive-definite metric and not an indefinite one. So, it is of interest to examine the effect of the signature of the metric on solution of different geometric theories of gravity.

Some authors started to examine the effect of signature change on the solutions of the field equations of general relativity . The attempts of those authors can be classified in two different classes:
The first class, The main assumption in this class is that the signature of the metric is changed, from a positive-definite metric to an indefinite one, at a very early time in the history of the universe. This means that the change is represented as a jump process across a certain hypersurface (cf.).
The second class, This class depends on a different assumption. That is, the space-time has 4-dimensions with a positive-definite metric, but measurements are carried out in (3+1)-dimensions with an indefinite metric giving rise to Lorentz signature . Consequently, Lorentz signature is to be imposed on the metric just before matching the results of the theory with measurements. In other words, the field equations of the theory are to be solved using a positive-definite metric and then, after obtaining the solution, Lorentz signature is to be imposed on the metric.

The effects of signature change were examined, in the previous mentioned attempts, in the case of general relativity. It is of interest to examine these effects on the solutions of other metric field theories different from general relativity. Geometric field theories of this class are those theories written in absolute parallelism spaces (cf.). Recently, more attention is paid to such theories since they include non-vanishing torsion which is connected to Dirac field  and to string theory . One of those theories is the New General Relativity (NGR) constructed by Hayashi and Shirafuji . The basic geometry for this theory is the absolute parallelism (AP) geometry, in which a metric can always be defined.

The aim of the present work is to study the effects of signature change on the spherically symmetric solutions of the NGR and to calculate the energy associated with each solution, using the superpotential method of Mikhail et al.  is calculated. In section 2 we briefly review the field equations of NGR and the most general AP-structure having spherical symmetry, used for applications. To explore the effect of signature change on the solution, we are going, in section 3, to solve the field equations for the spherically symmetric structure, in two different cases. Case I: by imposing Lorentz signature , on the metric, from the beginning, i.e., before solving the field equations; Case II: we solve the field equation; using a positive-definite metric then we impose Lorentz signature to the solution obtained. In section 4 the energy associated with each solution is calculated using the superpotential method. We compare and discuss the results of section 3 and 4 in section 5.

2. NGR Field Equations and Geometric Structure

In 1979 Hayashi and Shirafuji constructed a theory which they called ”The New General Relativity”, (NGR). They have used an AP- space for its formulation, with the field variables being the 16 tetrad components $`(\lambda _{__i}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu })`$***Latin indices $`(i,j,k,\mathrm{})`$ designate the vector number, which runs from 0 to 3, while Greek indices $`(\mu ,\nu ,\rho ,\mathrm{})`$ designate the world-vector components running from 0 to 3. Latin indices $`(a,b,c,\mathrm{})`$, and Greek indices $`(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\mathrm{})`$, run from 1 to 3.. Assuming invariance under:
a) the group of general coordinate transformations, and
b) the group of global Lorentz transformations.
They wrote the general gravitational Lagrangian density quadratic in the torsion tensor as Throughout this paper we use the relativistic units, $`c=G=1`$. The Einstein constant $`\kappa `$ is then $`8\pi `$. We will denote the symmetric part by the parentheses ( ), for example, $`A_{(\mu \nu )}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}(1/2)(A_{\mu \nu }+A_{\nu \mu })`$ and the antisymmetric part by the brackets \[ \], $`A_{[\mu \nu ]}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}(1/2)(A_{\mu \nu }A_{\nu \mu })`$.

$$_G=\sqrt{g}\left[\frac{R}{2\kappa }+d_1(t^{\mu \nu \lambda }t_{\mu \nu \lambda })+d_2(C^\mu C_\mu )+d_3(a^\mu a_\mu )d_4(C^\mu a_\mu )\right],$$
(1)
where $`d_1`$, $`d_2`$, $`d_3`$ and $`d_4`$ are dimensionless parameters of the theory  The dimensionless parameters $`c_i`$ of Ref. are here denoted by $`d_i`$ for convenience., and

$`t_{\mu \nu \lambda }`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(\mu \nu )\lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}g_{\lambda (\mu }C_\nu )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}g_{\mu \nu }C_\lambda ,`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\lambda }{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\lambda }{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\lambda }{}_{\nu \mu }{}^{}=\lambda _{__i}^{}{}_{}{}^{\lambda }(\lambda _{__i}^{}{}_{\mu ,\nu }{}^{}\lambda _{__i}^{}{}_{\nu ,\mu }{}^{}),(\mathrm{Torsion}\mathrm{tensor}),`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\lambda }{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}`$ $`\lambda _{__i}^{}{}_{}{}^{\lambda }\lambda _{__i}^{}{}_{\mu ,\nu }{}^{},(\mathrm{Nonsymmetric}\mathrm{connection}),`$
$`C_\mu `$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\lambda }{}_{\mu \lambda }{}^{},(\mathrm{Basic}\mathrm{vector}),`$
$`a_\mu `$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\nu \lambda \rho },(\mathrm{Axial}\mathrm{vector}),`$
$`ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}`$ $`\sqrt{g}\delta _{\mu \nu \lambda \rho },(\mathrm{Completely}\mathrm{antisymmetric}),`$
$`g_{\mu \nu }`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}`$ $`\lambda _{__i}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{}\lambda _{__i}^{}{}_{\nu }{}^{},(\mathrm{Metric}\mathrm{tensor}),`$ (2)
$`\delta _{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }`$ is the Levi-Civita antisymmetric tensor and $`R`$ is the Ricci scalar.

By applying the variational principle to the Lagrangian (1), they obtained the field equation:

$$I^{\mu \nu }=\kappa T^{\mu \nu },$$
(3)
where,

$$I^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}G^{\mu \nu }+2\kappa \left[D_\lambda F^{\mu \nu \lambda }C_\lambda F^{\mu \nu \lambda }+H^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }L^{}\right],$$
(4)
and

$$F^{\mu \nu \lambda }\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\frac{1}{2}\lambda _{__i}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }\frac{L_G}{\lambda _{__i}^{}{}_{\nu ,\lambda }{}^{}}=F^{\mu \lambda \nu },$$
(5)
$$H^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\rho \sigma \mu }F_{\rho \sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\nu \rho \sigma }F_{}^{\mu }{}_{\rho \sigma }{}^{}=H^{\nu \mu },$$
(6)
$$L^{}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\left[d_1(t^{\mu \nu \lambda }t_{\mu \nu \lambda })+d_2(C^\mu C_\mu )+d_3(a^\mu a_\mu )d_4(C^\mu a_\mu )\right],$$
(7)
$$T^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta _M}{\delta \lambda _{__i}^{}{}_{\nu }{}^{}}\lambda _{__i}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }.$$
(8)
Here $`_M`$ denotes the Lagrangian density of material fields, of which the energy-momentum tensor $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ is nonsymmetric in general.

In the case of $`\mathrm{𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐}`$, $`\mathrm{𝑠𝑝ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦}`$ $`\mathrm{𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐}`$ space-time, with tetrad vector fields having a diagonal form, the field equations (4) have been exactly solved . The exact solution obtained is the same as that obtained by assuming the invariance under parity operation .

In order to reproduce the correct Newtonian limit, the parameters $`d_1`$ and $`d_2`$ should satisfy the condition

$$d_1+4d_2+9d_1d_2=0,$$
(9)
which is called the Newtonian approximation condition. This condition can be satisfied by taking,

$$d_1=\frac{1}{3(1ϵ)},d_2=\frac{1}{3(14ϵ)},$$
(10)
where $`ϵ`$ is a dimensionless parameter. Comparison with Solar - System observations indicates that $`|ϵ|`$ must be very small.

The structure of the AP-spaces with spherical symmetry has been studied by Robertson . The tetrad vectors defining completely this structure in Cartesian coordinates can be written as

$`\lambda _{__0}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$ $`=`$ $`A(r),`$
$`\lambda _{__0}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`D(r)X^\alpha ,`$
$`\lambda _{__a}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$ $`=`$ $`E(r)X^a`$
$`\lambda _{__a}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }B(r)+F(r)X^aX^\alpha +ϵ_{a\alpha c}S(r)X^c,`$ (11)
where $`A(r)`$, $`D(r)`$, $`E(r)`$, $`F(r)`$, $`B(r)`$ and $`S(r)`$ are functions of the radial coordinate
$`r=(X^aX^a)^{1/2}`$. It has been shown that  :
1) Improper rotation is admitted if $`S(r)`$=0.
2) The functions $`E(r)`$ and $`F(r)`$ can be eliminated by mere coordinate transformations, leaving the tetrad in the simple form

$$\begin{array}{cc}\lambda _{__0}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}=A(r),\hfill & \\ \lambda _{__0}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }=D(r)X^\alpha ,\hfill & \\ \lambda _{__a}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }=\delta _{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }B(r).\hfill & \end{array}\}$$
(12)
It is of interest to point out that the tetrad vectors used previously to obtain an exact solution  is a special case of the tetrad (12) when the function $`D(r)=0`$. Thus one may expect to obtain more general solutions when the tetrad (12) is applied to the field equations (4). The tetrad (12) can be written in the form:

$$\left(\lambda _{__i}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}A(r)& D(r)r& 0& 0\\ 0& B(r)\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi & \frac{B(r)}{r}\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi & \frac{B(r)\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{r\mathrm{sin}\theta }\\ 0& B(r)\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi & \frac{B(r)}{r}\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi & \frac{B(r)\mathrm{cos}\varphi }{r\mathrm{sin}\theta }\\ 0& B(r)\mathrm{cos}\theta & \frac{B(r)}{r}\mathrm{sin}\theta & 0\end{array}\right),$$
(13)
in spherical polar coordinates $`(t,r,\theta ,\varphi )`$. Consequently, the metric tensor of the Riemannian space, associated with the AP-space (13) can be written in the form (using (2))

$`g_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(B(r)^2+D(r)^2r^2)}{A(r)^2B(r)^2}},g_{01}=g_{10}={\displaystyle \frac{D(r)r}{A(r)B(r)^2}},g_{11}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{B(r)^2}},`$
$`g_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{B(r)^2}},g_{33}={\displaystyle \frac{r^2\mathrm{sin}\theta ^2}{B(r)^2}}.`$ (14)
3. Solution Of The Field Equation

For later convenience, we will redefine the functions A and D such that $`Ac^{}A`$ and $`Dc_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}D`$. This will not affect the geometric structure (13). Now substituting into the field equations (4) using (13), we get the following set of differential equations ($`c^{}`$ and $`c_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ are parameters)

$`(1+\kappa (d_1+4d_2))c^2A\{B^2(2ϵ\left({\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A}}\right)^{}+2(12ϵ)\left({\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{B}}\right)^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{r}}[ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A}}+(12ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{B}}]2ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}B^{}}{AB}}`$
$`ϵ\left({\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A}}\right)^2(14ϵ)\left({\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{B}}\right)^23{\displaystyle \frac{(1ϵ)c_1^2D^2}{B^2}})+c_1^2D^2r[l(r)r(s(r)+b(r))]\}=0,`$ (15)
$`(1+\kappa (d_1+4d_2))c^{}c_1^{}AD\{B^2(2(12ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{B}}r(2(12ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{A^{}B^{}}{AB}}+ϵ\left({\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{B}}\right)^2`$
$`+3{\displaystyle \frac{(1ϵ)c_1^2D^2}{B^2}}))c_1^2D^2r^2[r(s(r)+b(r))l(r)]\}=0,`$ (16)
$`(1+\kappa (d_1+4d_2))c^{}c_1^{}AD\{B^2[2(12ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A}}+2(13ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{B}}+8ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{D^{}}{D}}]B^2r(2(13ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{A^{}B^{}}{AB}}`$
$`+ϵ\left({\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A}}\right)^2+(16ϵ)\left({\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{B}}\right)^2+2ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}D^{}}{AD}}+2ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{B^{\prime \prime }}{B}}+6ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}D^{}}{BD}}2ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{D^{\prime \prime }}{D}}+3{\displaystyle \frac{(1ϵ)c_1^2D^2}{B^2}})`$
$`c_1^2D^2r^2[r(s(r)+b(r))l(r)]\}=0,`$ (17)
$`(1+\kappa (d_1+4d_2))\{B^2c_1^2D^2r[2(23ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A}}+2(43ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{B}}2(1ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{D^{}}{D}}]`$
$`B^2c_1^2D^2r^2(2(23ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{A^{}B^{}}{AB}}+2ϵ\left({\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A}}\right)^2+(43ϵ)\left({\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{B}}\right)^22ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}D^{}}{AD}}2(1ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{B^{}D^{}}{BD}}+ϵ\left({\displaystyle \frac{D^{}}{D}}\right)^2`$
$`+3{\displaystyle \frac{(1ϵ)c_1^2D^2}{B^2}})+B^4[2(12ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{A^{}B^{}}{AB}}+ϵ\left({\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{B}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}((12ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{B}})`$
$`+3{\displaystyle \frac{(1ϵ)c_1^2D^2}{B^2}}]+c_1^4D^4r^3[r(s(r)+b(r))l(r)]\}=0,`$ (18)
$`(1+\kappa (d_1+4d_2))B^2\{c_1^2D^2[(12ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{A^{\prime \prime }}{A}}3(12ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{A^{}B^{}}{AB}}(25ϵ)\left({\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A}}\right)^25(1ϵ)\left({\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{B}}\right)^2`$
$`+(38ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{A^{}D^{}}{AD}}2(12ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{B^{\prime \prime }}{B}}+(58ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{B^{}D^{}}{BD}}(12ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{D^{\prime \prime }}{D}}(13ϵ)\left({\displaystyle \frac{D^{}}{D}}\right)^2]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{c_1^2D^2}{r}}(4(12ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A}}+8(1ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{B}}2(35ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{D^{}}{D}})+{\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{r^2}}((12ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{A^{\prime \prime }}{A}}2ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}B^{}}{AB}}(25ϵ)\left({\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A}}\right)^2`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{B}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{B^{\prime \prime }}{B}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}[(12ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{B}}]3{\displaystyle \frac{(1ϵ)c_1^2D^2}{B^2}})\}=0,`$ (19)
where,

$`ϵ`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa (d_1+d_2)}{(1+\kappa (d_1+4d_2))}},`$
$`l(r)`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}`$ $`2(1ϵ)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A}}+3{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{B}}{\displaystyle \frac{D^{}}{D}}\right],`$
$`s(r)`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}`$ $`\left[ϵ\left({\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A}}\right)^2+3(1ϵ)\left({\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{B}}\right)^2+ϵ\left({\displaystyle \frac{D^{}}{D}}\right)^2\right],`$
$`b(r)`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}`$ $`2\left[(1ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{A^{}B^{}}{AB}}ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}D^{}}{AD}}(1ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{B^{}D^{}}{BD}}\right],`$ (20)
and $`A^{}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}{\displaystyle \frac{dA}{dr}}`$, $`B^{}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}{\displaystyle \frac{dB}{dr}}`$ and $`D^{}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}{\displaystyle \frac{dD}{dr}}`$.

We are going to find a general solution of the differential equations (15)-(19) following the method given by Mazunder and Ray  for two cases, i.e, the indefinite and positive-definite cases.
Case I: indefinite metric
In this case we take the value of $`c^{}=c_1^{}=\sqrt{1}`$. Using (15), (16) (taking $`ϵ=0`$, to simplify the equations) we get

$$(rB^{}B)BA^{}+(BB^{\prime \prime }B^2)rA+ABB^{}=0,$$
(21)
equation (21) can be integrated to give the function A, in terms of the unknown function B, in the form

$$A=\frac{k_1}{\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{rB^{}}{B}}\right)},$$
(22)
$`k_1`$ being a constant of integration.

From (15), using (22), we get after some rearrangements:

$`D^2\left(2BB^{\prime \prime }r^35B^2r^33rB^2+8r^2BB^{}\right)+DD^{}\left(2BB^{}r^32r^2B^2\right)`$
$`+2rB^3B^{\prime \prime }3rB^2B^2+4B^3B^{}=0.`$ (23)
Using the transformation,

$$B=e^\alpha ,z=lnr,D^2=\beta ,$$
(24)
then (23) will give,

$$\left(2\alpha _{zz}3\alpha _{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+6\alpha _z3\right)+\frac{\beta _z}{\beta }\left(\alpha _z1\right)\frac{1}{\beta }e^{(2\alpha 2z)}\left(2\alpha _{zz}\alpha _{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2\alpha _z\right)=0,$$
(25)
where $`\alpha _z={\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha }{dz}}`$. Now the solution of (25) can be written in the form

$$\beta =D^2=\frac{e^{3(\alpha z)}}{(1\alpha _z)^2}\left\{k_2+\alpha _z(\alpha _z2)e^{(z\alpha )}\right\},$$
(26)
$`k_2`$ being another constant of integration. Using (24), we rewrite (26) in the form

$$D^2=\frac{1}{\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{rB^{}}{B}}\right)^2}\left(\frac{B}{r}\right)^3\left\{k_2+\frac{rB^{}}{B}\left(\frac{rB^{}}{B}2\right)\frac{r}{B}\right\},$$
(27)
in terms of the arbitrary function B. Hence we obtain the general solution of the field equations (15)-(19) in the case $`c^{}=c_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=\sqrt{1}=i`$ in terms of an arbitrary function B for the special case $`ϵ=0`$.

The line - element in this case is given by

$$dS^2=\frac{(B^2D^2r^2)}{A^2B^2}dt^22\frac{Dr}{AB^2}drdt+\frac{1}{B^2}\left(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2\right),$$
(28)
where

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }^2=d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}\theta ^2d\varphi ^2.$$
(29)
Using the coordinate transformation

$$dT=dt+\frac{DrA}{B^2D^2r^2}dr,\xi =\frac{(B^2D^2r^2)}{A^2B^2},andR=\frac{r}{B},$$
(30)
then we can eliminate the cross term in (28), and we finally get

$$dS^2=\xi dT^2+\frac{1}{\xi }dR^2+R^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2.$$
(31)
Using (22), (27), the terms containing the derivatives of the arbitrary function $`B`$ cancel out and we finally get,

$$\xi (R)=\left(1\frac{k_2}{R}\right).$$
(32)
Taking $`k_2=2m`$, then (31) will give rise to the Schwarzschild metric. Thus in this case, i.e. indefinite metric, we get nothing more than the Schwarzschild field as a solution of the NGR field equations.

The tetrad (13) in Case I has been subject to two steps of coordinate transformations from $`(t,r,\theta ,\varphi )`$ to $`(T,R,\theta ,\varphi )`$. We now apply a further transformation from $`(T,R,\theta ,\varphi )`$ to the Cartesian coordinate $`(T,X^a)`$ with $`a=1,2,`$ and 3. The tetrad can be shown to have the form

$`\lambda _{__0}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1rB^{})}{\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{r}}\right)}},`$
$`\lambda _{__0}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x^\alpha }{r^{3/2}}}\sqrt{2m+B^2r^32B^{}r^2},`$
$`\lambda _{__a}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ix^\alpha }{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2m+B^2r^32r^2B^{}}}{(r2m)}},`$
$`\lambda _{__a}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{(B^{}x^\alpha x^ar)}{r}}.`$ (33)
Tetrad (33) will be used latter in the calculations of the energy for the case of indefinite metric.
Case II: positive definite

As we mentioned before, in this case we are going to postpone the insertion of Lorentz signature till we find the solution of the field equations (15)-(19). This can be achieved by taking $`c^{}=c_1^{}=1`$. Following the same procedure as in Case I, (taking $`ϵ=0`$), we get from (15) and (16)

$$(rB^{}B)BA^{}+(BB^{\prime \prime }B^2)rA+ABB^{}=0,$$
(34)
which can be integrated to give

$$A=\frac{\stackrel{~}{K_1}}{\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{rB^{}}{B}}\right)},$$
(35)
$`\stackrel{~}{K_1}`$ being a constant of integration. Using (15) and (35) we get after some rearrangement,

$`D^2\left\{2BB^{\prime \prime }r^35B^2r^33rB^2+8r^2BB^{}\right\}`$
$`+DD^{}\left(2BB^{}r^32r^2B^2\right)+2rB^3B^{\prime \prime }3rB^2B^2+4B^3B^{}=0.`$ (36)
Using transformation (24), we get

$$(2\alpha _{zz}3\alpha _{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+6\alpha _z3)+\frac{\beta _z}{\beta }(\alpha _z1)+\frac{1}{\beta }e^{(2\alpha 2z)}(2\alpha _{zz}\alpha _{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2\alpha _z)=0,$$
(37)
where $`\alpha _z`$ is defined above. The solution of (37) is given by,

$$\beta =D^2=\frac{e^{3(\alpha z)}}{(1\alpha _z)^2}\left\{\stackrel{~}{K_2}\alpha _z(\alpha _z2)e^{(z\alpha )}\right\},$$
(38)
where $`\stackrel{~}{K_2}`$ is another constant of integration. Hence the general solution, having spherical symmetry, of the system (15)-(19) is given by,

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{K_1}}{\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{rB^{}}{B}}\right)}},`$
$`D^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{rB^{}}{B}}\right)^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{B}{r}}\right)^3\left\{\stackrel{~}{K_2}{\displaystyle \frac{rB^{}}{B}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{rB^{}}{B}}2\right){\displaystyle \frac{r}{B}}\right\}.`$ (39)
It is clear from (39) that as $`r\mathrm{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{K_1}=1`$. Since $`B`$ is an arbitrary function, we are going to consider the following case.

If we take the arbitrary function $`B`$ in the form

$$B=\frac{1}{\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{c_1}{r^2}}\right)^{1/2}},$$
(40)
where $`c_1`$ is a constant, then substituting (40) in (39), we get

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{c_1}{r^2}}\right)`$
$`D^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{K_2}(r^2+c_1)^{3/2}+c_1(2r^2+c_1)}{r^4(r^2+c_1)}}.`$ (41)
It is of interest to note that a solution similar to that given by (40) and (41) was obtained before by one of the authors  in case of the generalized field theory. From now on, we will take into account Lorentz signature for the solution (40) and (41). Using (14) the line-element, in which Lorentz signature is inserted can be written in the form,

$$dS^2=\frac{(B^2D^2r^2)}{A^2B^2}dt^22\frac{Dr}{AB^2}drdt+\frac{1}{B^2}\left(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2\right).$$
(42)
We can eliminate the cross term from (42), by using the coordinate transformation (30),

$$d\stackrel{~}{T}=dt\frac{DrA}{(B^2D^2r^2)}dr,\eta =\frac{(B^2D^2r^2)}{A^2B^2},and\stackrel{~}{R}=\frac{r}{B},$$
(43)
then we finally get

$$dS^2=\eta d\stackrel{~}{T}^2+\frac{1}{\eta }d\stackrel{~}{R}^2+\stackrel{~}{R}^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2.$$
(44)
Using (40) and (41), we get

$$\eta (\stackrel{~}{R})=\left(1\frac{\stackrel{~}{K_2}}{\stackrel{~}{R}}\frac{4c_1}{\stackrel{~}{R}^2}+\frac{2c_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\stackrel{~}{R}^4}\right),$$
(45)
which is different from Schwarzschild metric.

Tetrad (13) in Case II has been subject to two steps of coordinate transformations from $`(t,r,\theta ,\varphi )`$ to $`(\stackrel{~}{T},\stackrel{~}{R},\theta ,\varphi )`$. We now apply a further transformation from $`(\stackrel{~}{T},\stackrel{~}{R},\theta ,\varphi )`$ to the Cartesian coordinate $`(\stackrel{~}{T},X^a)`$ with $`a=1,2,`$ and 3. The tetrad can be shown to have the form

$`\lambda _{__0}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1{\displaystyle \frac{c_1}{r^2}})}{(1{\displaystyle \frac{k_2}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{4c_1}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2c_1^2}{r^4}})}},`$
$`\lambda _{__0}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x^\alpha }{r^{3/2}}}\left(k_2+{\displaystyle \frac{2c_1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_1^2}{r^3}}\right),`$
$`\lambda _{__a}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{x^\alpha }{r^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(k_2+{\displaystyle \frac{2c_1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_1^2}{r^3}}\right)}{\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{k_2}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{4c_1}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2c_1}{r^4}}\right)}},`$
$`\lambda _{__a}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{(c_1x^\alpha x^ar^4)}{r^4}}.`$ (46)
Tetrad (46) in its Cartesian form will be used in the next section in the calculation of the energy for the positive-definite case. It is of interest to note that the Schwarzschild metric can be obtained in this case upon taking $`c_1=0`$.

4. Calculations of Energy

In this section we are going to calculate the energy associated with the two solutions obtained in the previous section using the superpotential method given by Mikhail .

The superpotential of Møller theory  is given by Mikhail et al.  as

$$𝒰_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu \lambda }\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\frac{\sqrt{g}}{2\kappa }P_{\chi \rho \sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{\tau \nu \lambda }\left[C^\rho g^{\sigma \chi }g_{\mu \tau }\lambda g_{\mu \tau }\gamma ^{\chi \rho \sigma }(12\lambda )g_{\mu \tau }\gamma ^{\sigma \rho \tau }\right],$$
(47)
where $`P_{\chi \rho \sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{\tau \nu \lambda }`$ is

$$P_{\chi \rho \sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{\tau \nu \lambda }\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\delta _{\chi }^{}{}_{}{}^{\tau }g_{\rho \sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu \lambda }+\delta _{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{\tau }g_{\sigma \chi }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu \lambda }\delta _{\sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{\tau }g_{\chi \rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu \lambda },$$
(48)
with $`g_{\rho \sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu \lambda }`$ being a tensor defined by

$$g_{\rho \sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu \lambda }\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\delta _{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }\delta _{\sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{\lambda }\delta _{\sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }\delta _{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{\lambda },$$
(49)
and $`\gamma ^{\chi \rho \sigma }`$ is the contorsion defined by

$$\gamma _{\mu \nu \rho }\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\lambda _{__i}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{}\lambda _{__i}^{}{}_{\nu ;\rho }{}^{},$$
(50)
and $`\lambda `$ is a free dimensionless parameter. The energy is given by the surface integral (cf.)

$$E\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}lim_\rho \mathrm{}_{\rho =constant}𝒰_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{0\alpha }n_\alpha 𝑑S,$$
(51)
where $`n_\alpha `$ is the unit 3-vector normal to the surface element $`dS`$. The superpotential associated with the solution in the case of indefinite metric (33) is given by

$$𝒰_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{0\alpha }=\frac{X^\alpha }{4\pi r^3}\left[2mr^2B^{}\right].$$
(52)
Substituting (52) into (51), we obtain

$$E(r)=2mB^{}r^2.$$
(53)
It is clear from (53) that the energy associated with (33) is dependent on the arbitrary function $`B(r)`$ which does not appear in the line-element (31) but appears in the tetrad (33).

For the case of positive-definite solution (46), the superpotential is given by

$$𝒰_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{0\alpha }=\frac{X^\alpha }{4\pi r^3}\left[k_2+\frac{3c_1}{r}\right].$$
(54)
Substituting (54) into (51), we obtain

$$E(r)=k_2+\frac{3c_1}{r}.$$
(55)
5. Comparison and Discussion

In the present work we have studied the effect of signature change on the solutions of the field equations of NGR. As is pointed out in , NGR is a gravitational theory formulated using the AP-space. Any AP-structure is defined completely, in 4-dimensions, by a tetrad vector field subject to the AP-condition as stated in section 2. The importance of examining gravity theory written in this geometry is that tetrads play an important role in many aspects, e.g. they are used as fundamental variables in the attempts to quantize gravity . So, one expects to get, using such theories, more information about gravity than those obtained from general relativity. This is one of the goals of the present study. In order to compare the results obtained with the corresponding results of general relativity, we have chosen the case having spherical symmetry for application. Also we have solved the field equations of NGR in free space, i.e. $`T^{\mu \nu }=0`$.

As mentioned in the introduction, there are two philosophies behind the idea of signature change. The first assumes that the change of signature, from a positive -definite 4-dimensions to an indefinite (3+1)-dimensions, occurred at a certain epoch when the universe was younger, i.e. it occurred on a hypersurface of the space-time (cf. ). The second philosophy assumes that the universe has a positive-definite metric, always and everywhere, with 4-dimensions while our measurements and observations are carried out in (3+1)-dimensions with an indefinite metric . Consequently, there is no need to impose the Lorentz signature on the metric (from which we formulate the differential equations) before solving these equations but this signature is to be imposed on the solutions of these equations, i.e. just before matching the results of the theory with measurements and observations. Although the first approach has some advantages, yet there is a singularity at the change surface . Using the second philosophy, one can overcome this difficulty.

Calculations in the present work have been done following the second philosophy. To study the effect of signature change, we have solved the field equations of NGR in two different cases. In the first case we have imposed the Lorentz signature on the metric (imaginary tetrad) before formulating the differential equations as usually done in the scheme of GR. In the second case we have formulated and solved the differential field equations using a positive-definite metric (real tetrad), then we imposed the Lorentz signature on the solution obtained in order to compare the results with the well known physics of GR. The same procedure has been previously used in the case of general relativity . The results obtained are similar to those obtained from general relativity. Table I summarizes these results and compares them with those previously obtained by Hayashi and Shirafuji .

From table I it is clear that, although the Schwarzschild metric is obtained in the three cases, these cases are associated with different sets of second-order skew tensors. As it is clear, the diagonal tetrad used by Hayashi and Shirafuji  does not produce any skew tensors of the second order. So, if some physics is to be attributed to these skew tensors, then the physical contents of the three cases, given in table II are quite different. The role of these second-order skew tensors is totally obscured in the case of Riemannian geometry, since such tensors are not defined in this geometry. For this reason general relativity was written in the AP-geometry when examining the effect of signature change . It can be shown that the non-vanishing second-order skew tensors depend on the function $`D(r)`$, whose vanishing will give rise to the vanishing of those skew tensors. The role of such tensors can be clarified if field theory dealing with other interactions together with gravity. Such a situation was achieved in the case of the generalized field theory . Referring to the discussion given in , it is shown that the non-vanishing skew tensors are related to the electromagnetic field.

On the other hand, in the solution given by (40) and (41) there are two different constants of integration $`c_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{K_2}`$. If we take $`c_1=0`$, the solution will give rise to the Schwarzschild metric. Then, we can identify $`\stackrel{~}{K_2}`$ with the geometric mass of the source of the gravitational field. While, if $`c_10`$, then if we evaluate the metric (49) far from the source of the field, i.e. neglecting the term $`O{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\stackrel{~}{R}^4)}}`$, the metric will be similar to Reissner-Nordstr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$m metric. This may indicate that the constant $`c_1`$ can be related to the electric charge of the source.

To investigate the structure of the two solutions (22), (27) and (40), (41) we make a physical application by calculating the energy associated with these two solutions using the superpotential potential method given by Mikhail et al. . We transform the tetrad which gives the Schwarzschild solution to the Cartesian form to calculate the energy. As is clear from (53) the energy depends on the arbitrary function $`B(r)`$. If the asymptotic behavior is of $`O(1/r)`$ then the form of the energy becomes $`E=2m+somecont.`$, which in general is different from the general relativity in spite of the fact that the associated form of the line-element of these solution is the Schwarzschild. This is because the asymptotic form of this tetrad behaves like $`O(1/\sqrt{r})`$ . We also calculate the energy associated with the second solution after transforming it to the Cartesian form using the superpotential method. As is clear from (55) we keep only up to $`O(1/r)`$. This may indicate that the structure of the two solutions different as we analyze above using the skew tensors argument.

It is clear from table II that the energy of Case II depends on $`r`$ which is similar to Reissner-Nordstr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$m energy.


text:
# Σ photoproduction in the resonance region

## I  Introduction

Traditionally, pion photoproduction reactions $`\gamma p\pi N`$ have played a crucial role in studies that aim at elucidating the excitation spectrum of baryons. The study of the far weaker kaon photoproduction channels is currently gaining momentum, thanks to the construction of a number of dedicated photon and electron accelerator facilities in the few GeV photon and electron energy regime. It is believed that the involvement of a $`s\overline{s}`$ quark anti-quark pair in the reaction process opens a new window on the dynamics of excited nucleon states and can help in shedding light on the complex and not so well understood field of baryon spectroscopy. Recently, accurate measurements for the three reactions $`\gamma pK^+\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\gamma pK^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ and $`\gamma pK^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ have been reported M.Q. Tran et al. (1998); S. Goers et al. (1999). In the baryon resonance region, the observed total cross sections for all three channels are of the order of a few microbarns.

A property which is specifically related to the production of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ hyperons, is the anticipated role of the isospin $`I=\frac{3}{2}`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ resonances in the reaction dynamics, which are excluded from participating in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ photoproduction because of arguments based on isospin conservation. As such, the $`\gamma pK\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ channel can act as an isospin filter to study those $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ resonances. In comparison to the $`\gamma pK\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ process, the description of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ photoproduction within the context of isobar models appears less attractive, as the freedom to excite $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ states increases the number of candidates, and correspondingly the number of parameters, for intermediate resonant states. An important feature which helps in minimizing the number of free parameters, though, is the observation that the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ particles are part of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ isospin triplet. Consequently, one can rely on isospin symmetry to relate the coupling constants needed in the description of the $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ reaction to those required for the $`p(\gamma ,K^0)\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ process. Within such a scheme, a common analysis of both reaction channels becomes possible.

In this work, we aim at studying $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ photoproduction at the so-called “tree level”, where only first-order Feynman graphs are taken into account. This implies that all higher-order terms, which for example account for final-state interaction effects, are being discarded. Also the unitarity constraint is not fully obeyed at tree level. A recent coupled-channel analysis Chiang et al. (2001), specifically designed to include coupled-channel effects in the description of strangeness photoproduction channels, reports that the effect of coupled-channel mechanisms on the cross sections is of the order of 20%. Admittedly, this is a substantial effect. On the other hand, in the tree-level analysis presented here, we observe substantial model dependences. They give rise to variations in some of the extracted coupling constants up to a factor of two. The major source of the model uncertainties stems from the treatment of the background or non-resonant Feynman diagrams. In the light of this, we reckon that a profound understanding of the tree-level contributions to hyperon photoproduction processes is imperative. We are convinced that full-blown coupled-channel analyses will also benefit from an improved understanding of the tree-level contributions to the strangeness photoproduction reactions.

In this work, we extend our tree-level analysis of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ photoproduction data reported in Ref. Janssen et al. (2002) to the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ channel. The organization of this paper is as follows. In Sec. II, we will discuss the isobar model for hyperon photoproduction on the nucleon. Special attention will be paid to the peculiar role played by the Born diagrams. In Sec. III we then present the results of our numerical calculations. In III.1, we explore the dominant resonance contributions and in III.2 we investigate various schemes to implement the non-resonant background terms. In III.3, we discuss in how far the crossing symmetric $`K^{}p\gamma \mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ process provides additional constraints for the description of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ photoproduction reaction. Sec. IV contains our conclusions and an outlook. The Appendix summarizes the use of isospin constraints in relating hadronic and electromagnetic coupling constants.

## II Isobar Model

### II.1 Formalism

In this work, the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ photoproduction reaction on the proton is modeled with the aid of effective Lagrangians. In such a framework, the physical degrees of freedom are hadrons and their excited states. Every resonance is treated as an individual particle with its own properties, like mass, strong-decay widths and photohelicity amplitudes. When calculating the leading Feynman diagrams, effective-field theories provide the operatorial structure of the interaction vertices and the propagators for the intermediate particles. The detailed forms of the effective Lagrangians for the various couplings can be found in many works (see for example Refs. Feuster and Mosel (1999); Benmerrouche et al. (1995)). The conventions used here are summarized in Ref. Janssen et al. (2002).

Since the Lagrangian formalism describes point-like interactions, it is a common procedure to introduce phenomenological form factors at the hadronic vertices. They do account for the finite extension of the interacting hadrons and the hard (unknown) physics at short inter-baryon distances. We wish to stress that such a phenomenological treatment of the short-distance physics is necessarily model dependent. A widely used parameterization for the hadronic form factors is the dipole form Pearce and Jennings (1991):

$$F_x\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4+\left(xM_x^2\right)^2}(xs,t,u),$$
(1)
where $`x`$ is the off-shell momentum squared at the vertex and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the cutoff mass that sets the short-distance scale of the effective theory. It is well known that introducing hadronic form factors violates gauge invariance at the level of the Born diagrams. Additional contact terms are then required to restore this fundamental symmetry, a procedure which is not free of ambiguities. In our calculations, the gauge-restoring contact terms are determined with the aid of a procedure which was recently suggested by Davidson and Workman Davidson and Workman (2001). The advantage of this recipe over other schemes, is that the added contact terms do not contain any singularities. This is not the case for older procedures, like those suggested by Ohta Ohta (1989) or Haberzettl Haberzettl (1997), which have been adopted in numerous theoretical works dealing with meson induced and meson production reactions.

Within the context of an effective-field theory, the degree of participation of the different intermediate resonances is determined by the magnitude of the corresponding electromagnetic and strong coupling constants. Those values are not predicted by the theory itself, but should be determined by comparing model calculations to an extensive data set. The most recently published $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ and $`p(\gamma ,K^0)\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ data are due to the SAPHIR Collaboration at the ELSA facility in Bonn M.Q. Tran et al. (1998); S. Goers et al. (1999). This data set for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$) photoproduction contains 21 (5) total and 70 (18) differential cross section points, as well as 12 (4) recoil polarization asymmetries over an energy range from threshold up to 2.0 (1.55) GeV. On the basis of these data, we have determined the optimal coupling constants for several sets of intermediate resonances by minimizing $`\chi ^2`$, which is defined in the standard manner:

$$\chi ^2=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\left[X_iY_i(a_1,\mathrm{}a_n)\right]^2}{\sigma _{X_i}^2}.$$
(2)
Here, $`X_i`$ are the measured observables, $`\sigma _{X_i}^2`$ their standard deviations, $`Y_i(a_1,\mathrm{}a_n)`$ the theoretical predictions for the variables $`X_i`$ and $`N`$ the number of data points in the fit. The $`a_j`$’s denote the free parameters (coupling constants and hadronic form-factor cutoffs) of the model.

The $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ baryons form an isospin triplet. As outlined in the Appendix, one can exploit isospin symmetry to establish relations between the hadronic and electromagnetic coupling constants for the different $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ photoproduction channels. The obvious advantage of such a procedure, is that the $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ and $`p(\gamma ,K^0)\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ data can be described with one common set of parameters. In principle, the $`n(\gamma ,K^0)\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ and $`n(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ channels could also be implemented in this scheme Mart et al. (1995). Data for those reaction channels are sparse, though. Moreover, the procedure of extracting “elementary” neutron cross sections from measurements on nuclei, like the deuteron, induces severe model dependences. To make matters even worse, connecting proton to neutron electromagnetic coupling constants demands the knowledge of the rather poorly known helicity amplitudes for the different nucleon resonances. For all of the above arguments, we have excluded from our global analyses the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ photoproduction channels off the neutron.

Even at tree level, the description of $`\gamma pKY`$ processes involves a substantial number of Feynman diagrams. The diagrams can be divided into two broad classes, the background (or, non-resonant) and the resonant terms. The latter reflect themselves as $`s`$-channel terms and are esteemed to contain the most relevant physical information. The extracted coupling constants for the corresponding resonant states constitute the bridge between the photoproduction measurements and quark-model predictions Capstick and Roberts (1998); Li and Close (1990); Stassart and Stancu (1990). However, the implementation of the background contributions in the description of $`\gamma pKY`$ processes is far from being a trivial task. The background contains several classes of Feynman graphs. First the Born terms, involving an off-shell proton in the $`s`$-channel, a K meson exchange in the $`t`$-channel and hyperon exchange in the $`u`$-channel. Second, there are terms involving the exchange of a $`K^{}`$ vector meson in the $`t`$-channel and $`Y^{}`$ hyperon resonances in the $`u`$-channel. Some models dealing with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ photoproduction have neglected these resonant $`u`$-channel terms Mart and Bennhold (2000); Mart (2000). The exchange of $`K^{}`$ and $`Y^{}`$ particles in the $`t`$\- and $`u`$-channel are perceived as background and not as resonant diagrams, as they do not possess poles in the physical region of the reaction.

### II.2 Born Diagrams

It is a notable fact that the Born terms on their own exhibit rather intriguing characteristics when it comes to modeling the $`\gamma pK^+\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\gamma pK\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ reaction dynamics. The Born terms only depend on two parameters, $`g_{K^+\mathrm{\Lambda }p}`$ and $`g_{K^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0p}`$, which are in principle strictly related to the well-determined $`g_{\pi NN}`$ coupling constant through SU(3) flavor symmetry. In practice, SU(3) is a broken symmetry and at best some “realistic” ranges for $`g_{K^+\mathrm{\Lambda }p}`$ and $`g_{K^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0p}`$ can be set. Reasonable ranges, corresponding with deviations of 20% from the SU(3) predictions, are:

$`4.5`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{K^+\mathrm{\Lambda }p}}{\sqrt{4\pi }}}`$ $`3.0,`$ (3a)
$`0.9`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{K^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0p}}{\sqrt{4\pi }}}`$ $`1.3.`$ (3b)
Purely hadronic processes, such as $`KN`$ scattering Martin (1981) or $`pppKY`$ reactions Gasparian et al. (2001); Holzenkamp et al. (1989), can be understood in terms of the SU(3)-based coupling constants. These observations may suggest that there is little room for SU(3) breaking beyond the aforementioned ranges. In the electromagnetic production of strangeness, though, a difficulty emerges Janssen et al. (2002); Williams et al. (1992); Cheoun et al. (1996); Hsiao et al. (2000). Indeed, using coupling constants which vary within the aforementioned boundaries, the predicted strength from the “bare” Born terms overshoots the measured $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cross section by a factor of three or four. In the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ photoproduction case, we observe similar qualitative features. The photon-energy dependence of the total $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ and $`p(\gamma ,K^0)\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ cross sections, calculated in a model that solely includes the Born terms, is displayed in Fig. 1. For both $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ production channels, the Born terms in themselves strongly overpredict the measurements. For the curves of Fig. 1 we adopt the values $`g_{K^+\mathrm{\Lambda }p}/\sqrt{4\pi }=3.0`$ and $`g_{K^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0p}/\sqrt{4\pi }=0.9`$. They correspond with the smallest absolute couplings which are allowed according to Eq. (3). When adopting couplings based on exact SU(3) symmetry, the overprediction becomes even more severe.

An intriguing observation is that, under the constraints of Eq. (3), the major fraction of the Born strength in the $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ channel is stemming from the so-called “extended” Born diagram which is sketched in Fig. 2.

In this diagram, a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is produced in the $`u`$-channel and converted into a $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ at the electromagnetic vertex. The dominance of this term can be attributed to the large value of $`g_{K^+\mathrm{\Lambda }p}`$ compared to $`g_{K^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0p}`$. As a matter of fact, this implies that the major part of the background cross section in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ production is dominated by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ exchange in the $`u`$-channel. Due to charge conservation, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ exchange cannot contribute to the Born terms for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ photoproduction. In the $`p(\gamma ,K^0)\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ channel, the Born contributions consist only of proton exchange in the $`s`$-channel and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ exchange in the $`u`$-channel. Remark that also the $`t`$-channel does not contribute since the photon does not couple to the neutral $`K^0`$ meson. Despite the restricted number of background diagrams, the two Born terms produce far more strength than in the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ photoproduction case. This can be partly attributed to the $`g_{K^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^+p}`$ coupling constant which is, according to the relation (11), a factor of $`\sqrt{2}`$ larger than $`g_{K^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0p}`$ and partly to the values of the corresponding anomalous magnetic moments ($`\kappa _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}`$ = 1.458, $`\kappa _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}`$ = 0.79) Particle Data Group, D.E. Groom et al. (2000); Perkins (2000).

From the above discussion it may become clear that apart from introducing resonances, it is mandatory to add model ingredients that properly counterbalance the strength produced by the “bare” Born terms. In $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ photoproduction, where one comes across a similar difficulty, we discussed three schemes in which this goal could be accomplished Janssen et al. (2002). First, it is well-known that for sufficiently low values of the cutoff mass $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the hadronic form factors of Eq. (1), the strength stemming from the Born terms can be adequately suppressed without invoking other mechanisms. It turns out that in such a scheme an appropriate description of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ photoproduction data can solely be achieved with cutoff masses of the order of the kaon mass. This is a rather inconvenient situation for an effective-field theory. Second, in Ref. Janssen et al. (2001) we have shown that for the $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ process, the introduction of hyperon resonances ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$) in the $`u`$-channel permits to naturally cut down the strength from the Born terms through destructive interferences. Such a scheme offers the obvious advantage of describing the photoproduction data with cutoff masses of a few times the kaon mass. As a third alternative, the constraints from (broken) SU(3)-flavor symmetry of Eq. (3) can be simply disregarded. It goes without saying that after sufficiently reducing the $`g_{K^+\mathrm{\Lambda }p}`$ and $`g_{K^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0p}`$ couplings, one can (artificially) force the strength from the Born diagrams to approach the magnitude of the measured cross sections.

In this work, we extend our description of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ photoproduction Janssen et al. (2002) to the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ production channels. Building on the knowledge gained in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ photoproduction, in Sec. III.2 we will present various schemes to implement the background diagrams in modeling $`p(\gamma ,K)\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ reactions. First, however, we will look for a proper set of resonances to describe the currently available $`p(\gamma ,K)\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ data in Sec. III.1. Finally, in Sec. III.3 we consider the $`p(K^{},\gamma )\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ reaction.

## III  Results

### III.1  Resonance contributions

Recent isobar models Feuster and Mosel (1999); Janssen et al. (2002); Mart and Bennhold (2000); Saghai (2001) identified the three nucleon resonances $`S_{11}(1650)`$, $`P_{11}(1710)`$ and $`P_{13}(1720)`$ as leading $`N^{}`$ contributions to the $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ reaction. It thus appears natural to consider them as privileged candidates to participate in the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ photoproduction channels Mart (2000). On the other hand, we do not have similar guidelines concerning the leading $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ contributions. In our numerical investigations, we rely on a $`\chi ^2`$ procedure to judge whether a particular set of resonances is suited to describe the data. In the process of determining an optimum set of $`N^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ particles, we have fixed a basic set consisting of the three aforementioned $`N^{}`$ resonances to which we have gradually added other combinations of $`N^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ states. All results reported in this subsection are obtained with a particular model choice (in Sec. III.2 coined model D) for treating the background. A profound discussion of the implementation of the background diagrams is postponed to Sec. III.2.

Starting with a “core set” consisting of the $`S_{11}(1650)`$, $`P_{11}(1710)`$ and $`P_{13}(1720)`$ resonances, we arrive at $`\chi ^2`$ = 6.52 for an overall fit to the combined set of $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ and $`p(\gamma ,K^0)\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ cross section and polarization asymmetry data. This quality of agreement surely allows room for improvement and, consequently, for additional $`N^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ resonances playing a non-negligible role in the reaction dynamics. Table 1 summarizes the attained $`\chi ^2`$ values for various combinations of resonances. In an attempt to minimize the number of free parameters, we started out with introducing only spin-1/2 $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ states. Note that in an effective Lagrangian approach, a spin-1/2 resonance adds only one free parameter while five extra parameters are introduced per spin-3/2 resonance (two coupling constants and three off-shell parameters). Candidates for spin-1/2 $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ resonances are the $`S_{31}(1620)`$, $`S_{31}(1900)`$ and $`P_{31}(1910)`$ states Particle Data Group, D.E. Groom et al. (2000). With those three $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ resonances and the aforementioned core of three $`N^{}`$ resonances consisting of the $`S_{11}(1650)`$, $`P_{11}(1710)`$ and $`P_{13}(1720)`$, we arrive at a global best fit with $`\chi ^2`$ = 3.19. A similar quality of agreement ($`\chi ^2`$ = 3.20), however, can already be achieved by the mere action of only two of these $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$’s, the $`S_{31}(1900)`$ and $`P_{31}(1910)`$. Other combinations selected out of the three aforementioned $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ states were also able to improve the description of the data (see Table 1) although the combination of the $`S_{31}(1900)`$ and $`P_{31}(1910)`$ clearly produced the best $`\chi ^2`$. Note that these two $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ resonances were also recognized as most likely $`I=\frac{3}{2}`$ resonance candidates by Mart in his analysis of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ photoproduction data Mart (2000).

The recent $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ data from the SAPHIR collaboration M.Q. Tran et al. (1998) exhibit a structure in the energy dependence about $`\omega _{lab}`$ 1.5 GeV. In the analysis of Ref. Mart and Bennhold (2000), this structure was put forward as possible evidence for the existence of a “missing” $`D_{13}(1895)`$ resonance. An alternative interpretation in terms of the exchange of a spin-3/2 $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ resonance in the $`u`$-channel was put forward by Saghai in Ref. Saghai (2001). In Ref. Janssen et al. (2002), we stressed that $`N^{}`$ resonances with other quantum numbers can also account for the observed structure. From this discussion it may already become obvious that the identification of “missing resonances” and their properties from strangeness photoproduction data, is a heavily debated topic. We have investigated in how far the inclusion of a “missing” $`D_{13}(1895)`$ resonance improves the fits of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ photoproduction data. Including the core set of three $`N^{}`$’s and the $`D_{13}(1895)`$ in the $`s`$-channel, we arrive at a best fit with $`\chi ^2`$ = 5.29. Despite the fact that the $`D_{13}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ resonances have their poles in the same energy region, inspection of Table 1 learns that this quality of agreement is inferior to what was obtained in the calculation with two $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ resonances. A resonance set consisting of the core of three $`N^{}`$ resonances, the $`D_{13}`$ and the two $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$’s leads to a fit with $`\chi ^2`$ = 2.88. Compared to the $`\chi ^2`$ of 3.20, achieved without introducing the $`D_{13}`$, this represents only a minor improvement, in view of the fact that the introduction of a spin-3/2 resonance comes at the expense of throwing in five additional free parameters in the fitting procedure.

Summarizing the findings of Table 1, we are tempted to conclude that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ resonances seem to constitute an essential part of the dynamics of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ photoproduction. No convincing evidence for a salient role for the $`D_{13}(1895)`$ resonance in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ photoproduction is found. In this subsection, we have drawn our conclusions on the basis of numerical calculations within one particular model (“model D”) for treating the background diagrams. Alternative models for implementing the background diagrams will be introduced in the forthcoming section. Anticipating these investigations, the relative role of the different $`N^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ particles turns out to be rather independent of the choices made with respect to the treatment of the non-resonant diagrams. As it happens, this will turn out not always to be the case for the extracted quantitative resonance information.

### III.2  Background contributions

As alluded to in Sec. II.2, one of the long-standing issues in modeling strangeness photoproduction is the unrealistically large amounts of strength produced by the “bare” Born terms. In the process of trying to counterbalance the strength from these amplitudes by adding extra ingredients to the theory, it appears that some model dependence in the treatment of the background terms cannot be avoided. We now discuss four models which all succeed in cutting down the background strength in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ photoproduction. In all schemes, the background contains at least the usual Born terms (including the “extended” diagram in the $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ case) and the $`K^{}(892)`$ vector-meson exchange in the $`t`$-channel. For the investigations presented in this subsection, the resonant part includes the $`N^{}`$ resonances $`S_{11}(1650)`$, $`P_{11}(1710)`$ and $`P_{13}(1720)`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ states $`S_{31}(1900)`$ and $`P_{31}(1910)`$. Those five resonances were identified in Sec. III.1 as an appropriate set for describing $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ photoproduction with a minimal number of free parameters.

* Model A: The hadronic form factors $`F_x(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, described in Eq. (1), cut the high-momentum dependence of the different amplitudes and emerge as a mechanism to reduce the strength stemming from the Born diagrams to magnitudes of the order of the measured cross sections. To fully exploit the power of this reduction mechanism, we imposed an under limit of 0.4 GeV for the cutoff mass $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ during the fit. Thereby, no $`Y^{}`$ contributions in the $`u`$-channel are considered. Despite our reservations regarding the use of “soft” cutoff masses, eventually we arrive in this scheme at a very satisfactory $`\chi ^2`$ = 2.03 with a cutoff mass $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ close to the under limit of 0.4 GeV. It should be stressed that with cutoff masses as small as the kaon mass, the hadronic form factor starts playing a predominant role in the description of the reaction dynamics and heavily affects the predicted values of the observables, not only in the high-energy regime but even at threshold.
* Model B: In Ref. Janssen et al. (2001), we pointed out that for the description of $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ processes, the introduction of hyperon resonances in the $`u`$-channel can be an efficient and physically relevant way of counterbalancing the strength produced by the Born terms.

More specifically, the destructive interference between the $`u`$-channel amplitudes of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(1800)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(1810)`$ hyperon resonances and the Born terms resulted in a very satisfactory description of the $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ data. We have made an attempt to identify an equivalent procedure for $`K\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ photoproduction. Unfortunately, there is relatively little theoretical guidance on how to select the proper intermediate hyperon resonances and how to determine realistic values for their coupling constants. Nevertheless, after including the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(1810)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(1880)`$ in the $`u`$-channel, we arrive at a fair description of the $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ and $`p(\gamma ,K^0)\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ data with a $`\chi ^2`$ of 1.95.

Note that the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ resonance does not feed the $`\gamma pK^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ channel. Consequently, the procedure of introducing hyperon resonances in the $`u`$-channel, as a natural physical mechanism to counteract the background amplitudes, is expected to be less effective in the $`p(\gamma ,K^0)\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ channel. However, as can be seen in Fig. 3, a stronger destructive interference between the $`K^{}`$ vector-meson contribution in the $`t`$-channel and the background diagrams is noted for the $`p(\gamma ,K^0)\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ process. One may wonder why this mechanism does not seem to prevail so strongly in the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ photoproduction case. This can be naturally explained by looking at the respective electromagnetic coupling constants of the $`K^{}`$ vector mesons. On the basis of Eq. (18), one finds that the loss of destructive interference with the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ resonance in the $`p(\gamma ,K^0)\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ process is likely to be counterbalanced by an enhanced destructive interference with the $`t`$-channel vector-meson exchanges.

One of the obvious advantages of the “model B” described here, is that the role of the hadronic form factors can be diminished to levels that appear physically acceptable. Indeed, good fits ($`\chi ^2`$ = 1.95) of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ photoproduction data can be obtained with a “hard” cutoff mass of the order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ = 1.6 GeV. One argument that may speak against model B is that the extracted values of the $`Y^{}`$ coupling constants turn out to be large in comparison with the $`N^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ coupling strengths. However, the two $`u`$-channel particles, introduced in the computations, could be interpreted as representing effective particles which account for a larger set of $`u`$-channel processes Janssen et al. (2002).
* Model C: A third option is to simply disregard the constraints of Eq. (3) imposed by (broken) SU(3)-flavor symmetry. Then, the $`g_{K^+\mathrm{\Lambda }p}`$ and $`g_{K^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0p}`$ coupling constants can be treated as free parameters in the minimization procedure. In calculations with model C we are solely constraining the relative sign between the two coupling constants. Ignoring $`Y^{}`$ exchange in the $`u`$-channel, we arrive at an overall agreement with the data of $`\chi ^2`$ = 1.96 with $`g_{K^+\mathrm{\Lambda }p}/\sqrt{4\pi }=0.23`$ and $`g_{K^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0p}/\sqrt{4\pi }`$ = 0.28. These numbers are dramatically smaller than what is predicted on the basis of SU(3)-flavor symmetry (-3.75 and 1.09, respectively). In this fit, the cutoff mass was allowed to vary freely and adopts a value of 2.5 GeV. This value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ alludes to a rather modest role for the hadronic form factors in the description of the reaction dynamics.
* Model D: This scheme is an attempt to unite some of the virtues of the three models presented above, at the same time minimizing the number of free parameters that are introduced to compute the background diagrams. In this model, the constraints of Eq. (3) are respected during the fitting procedure. In an attempt to keep the model as simple as possible, no $`Y^{}`$ particles in the $`u`$-channel are introduced. The hadronic cutoff mass $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is treated as a parameter and allowed to vary freely in a range defined by the under limit 1.1 GeV. In the optimum fit, the value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ always approaches this under limit, stressing the essential role of the hadronic form factors for keeping the strength from the Born diagrams at realistic levels. In Sec. III.1 this scheme for treating the background diagrams was adopted when investigating the dominant resonance contributions. This choice was made on the basis of a minimized number of free parameters related to the background diagrams. Inspecting Table 1, it becomes obvious, though, that for a fixed set of resonances model D systematically leads to $`\chi ^2`$ values which are inferior to those obtained in models A, B and C.

With all suggested models for implementing the background diagrams, we arrive at a satisfactory description of the available data. This feature becomes apparent from the $`\chi ^2`$ values contained in Table 1 and can also be illustrated by directly comparing model predictions with the data points. Fig. 4 shows the energy dependence of the total cross section for the background models A, B and C. In these plots, the strength from the background diagrams is also shown. It is clear from this figure that the predictions for the background and resonant strength are qualitatively similar for models A and C. Nevertheless, there are major differences between the assumptions underlying the two models. Most importantly, whereas model A is based on $`g_{KYp}`$ coupling constants respecting (broken) SU(3) flavor symmetry, model C does not impose any constraints of that type. However, it appears that respecting SU(3) flavor symmetry comes at a certain price. Indeed, when adopting SU(3) constraints on the $`g_{KYp}`$ values, one appears to be forced to either introduce (unrealistically) soft hadronic form factors (model A), or implement additional $`u`$-channel diagrams (model B) to destructively interfere with the Born terms. In the literature on $`p(\gamma ,K)Y`$, there is no agreement on whether or not to respect SU(3) symmetry. The analysis of Lee et al. in Ref. Lee et al. (2001) is based on moderately broken SU(3) symmetry ($`g_{K\mathrm{\Lambda }p}/\sqrt{4\pi }`$ = -3.80 and $`g_{K\mathrm{\Sigma }p}/\sqrt{4\pi }`$ = 1.20). This for example also holds for the work of David et al. David et al. (1996) ($`g_{K\mathrm{\Lambda }p}/\sqrt{4\pi }`$ = -3.23 and $`g_{K\mathrm{\Sigma }p}/\sqrt{4\pi }`$ = 0.80). Other analyses yielded $`g_{KYp}`$ coupling constants which do not respect SU(3) symmetry. Williams et al. Williams et al. (1992) were one of the first to document that by not imposing flavor symmetry a fair description is obtained with much smaller couplings, -2.38 $`g_{K\mathrm{\Lambda }p}/\sqrt{4\pi }`$ -1.16 and 0.0928 $`g_{K\mathrm{\Sigma }p}/\sqrt{4\pi }`$ 0.273. Similarly and more recently, Mart et al. Mart et al. (1995) use $`g_{K\mathrm{\Lambda }p}/\sqrt{4\pi }`$ = 0.51 and $`g_{K\mathrm{\Sigma }p}/\sqrt{4\pi }`$ = 0.13, Feuster and Mosel Feuster and Mosel (1999) extract $`g_{K\mathrm{\Lambda }p}/\sqrt{4\pi }`$ = -1.72 and Hsiao et al. Hsiao et al. (2000) arrives at values ranging between -2.41 $`g_{K\mathrm{\Lambda }p}/\sqrt{4\pi }`$ -1.24 and -0.50 $`g_{K\mathrm{\Sigma }p}/\sqrt{4\pi }`$ 1.04. All these absolute $`g_{KYp}`$’s are substantially smaller than what could be expected on the basis of moderately broken SU(3) flavor symmetry. The numerical values obtained in this work are summarized in Table 2. As pointed out in Ref. Feuster and Mosel (1999), it probably makes more sense to compare the product $`g_{KYp}\widehat{F}`$ than the bare coupling constants $`g_{KYp}`$. In this respect, our model A, based on SU(3) flavor symmetry for $`g_{KYp}`$, requires form factors $`\widehat{F}`$ of the order 0.1. Model C, on the other hand, use values of $`\widehat{F}`$ of the order 1, but the $`g_{KYp}`$ are close to one-tenth of the SU(3) predictions. This results in comparable values for $`g_{KYp}\widehat{F}`$ in both models. In model B, SU(3) flavor symmetry is only mildly violated and due to the larger cutoff mass, the product $`g_{KYp}\widehat{F}`$ is considerably larger than in the models A and C.

In Fig. 5, model calculations for the angular distribution of the $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0`$ and $`p(\gamma ,K^0)\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^+`$ recoil-polarization asymmetry are given. This asymmetry is defined as:

$$P=\frac{d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }^{(+)}d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }^{()}}{d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }^{(+)}+d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }^{()}},$$
(4)
where $`+()`$ refers to a hyperon polarization parallel (anti-parallel) to the $`\left(\stackrel{}{p}_\gamma \times \stackrel{}{p}_K\right)`$-axis. Note, however, that the data points for the asymmetry of the $`K^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ process, are binned over the whole energy range. Consequently, they hardly affect the $`\chi ^2`$ of the global fit.

Predictions for the energy and angular dependence of the differential cross section and the photon-beam asymmetry ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) are displayed in Figs. 6, 7 and 8 for the models A, B and C described above. The photon-beam asymmetry is defined in the standard manner:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\frac{d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }^{()}d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }^{()}}{d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }^{()}+d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }^{()}}.$$
(5)
Here, $`()`$ refers to linearly polarized photons perpendicular (parallel) to the reaction plane. From visual inspection of the Figs. 6-8, it indeed becomes apparent that the energy and angular dependence of the differential cross sections is rather similar for the three models. The sudden rise in the predicted $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ cross sections at very backward angles and the highest photon energies should not be considered as physical. It illustrates the limits of the hadronic models for predicting observables in “unmeasured” regions of the phase space. Note that the data used in the fitting procedure do not extend beyond 2.0 GeV ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ production) and 1.55 GeV ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ production). For the angular and energy dependence of the $`p(\stackrel{}{\gamma },K^+)\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ photon-beam asymmetry, models A, B and C produce comparable results. Although no published data exist for this observable to date, the model dependences in the predictions for this observable seem to be modest. On the other hand, large variations between the different predictions for the $`p(\gamma ,K^0)\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ photon-beam asymmetry are observed. To fully appreciate this, we have gathered the calculations for the photon-beam asymmetries at some fixed photon lab energies in Fig. 9.

With no doubt, more precise data for the various polarization observables would help in further constraining the model dependences in the treatment of the background diagrams.

Not only the predictions for some of the asymmetries, but also the extraction of resonance parameters, turns out to be reasonably sensitive to the adopted procedure to treat the background.

This feature is illustrated in Fig. 10, where the extracted resonance coupling constants are plotted for the background models A, B and C. For the $`I=\frac{3}{2}`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ resonances, the extracted coupling constants are rather insensitive to the choices for the background. Larger variations, exceeding the 20% level are observed for the extracted $`N^{}`$ parameters. Table 2 lists the numerical values of all parameters corresponding with the optimum fits. The discerned model variation in the resonance parameters show that a model-independent extraction of this information from the strangeness-photoproduction data is not yet at hand. This is rather unfortunate, given that these variables play a crucial role in linking the predictions of (constituent) quark models and the photoproduction data.

To conclude this Section, we come back to the aforementioned issue of the missing $`D_{13}`$ nucleon resonance. Adopting background model D, the inclusion of this $`N^{}`$ particle improved the quality of the global fit from $`\chi ^2`$ = 3.20 to $`\chi ^2`$ = 2.88. We stress again that this comes at the expense of adding five extra parameters. We have investigated whether a similar qualitative feature emerged with background models A, B and C. In all cases, a global fit with the core of the three $`N^{}`$ and the two $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ resonances with and without the $`D_{13}(1895)`$ was performed. The results are contained in Table 1. The improvement in the quality of the fit varied from 3% (model A) to 8% (model B). We appreciate this improvement as rather modest in view of the five extra parameters. For the sake of reference, we mention that in a comparable tree-level analysis of the $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ data, the inclusion of an extra $`D_{13}(1895)`$ resonance improved the fits from 22% up to 40%, depending on the choices made for computing the background contributions Janssen et al. (2001).

### III.3  Radiative Kaon Capture

Through the rules of crossing symmetry Ji and Cotanch (1988), the process of radiative kaon capture:

$$K^{}+p\gamma +\mathrm{\Sigma }^0,$$
(6)
is related to the kaon photoproduction $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ process. Indeed, one has:

$`^{K^{}p\gamma \mathrm{\Sigma }^0}(p,k,p_K,p_\mathrm{\Sigma })=`$ (7)
$`^{\gamma pK^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}(p,k,p_K,p_\mathrm{\Sigma }),`$
where $`p`$, $`k`$, $`p_K`$ and $`p_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are the four momenta of the proton, photon, kaon and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, respectively. Unfortunately, to our knowledge the sole reliable data point for the radiative kaon capture process is for the branching ratio of stopped kaons:

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(K^{}p\gamma \mathrm{\Sigma }^0\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(K^{}p\text{all}\right)}}`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2W_{K^{}p}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{M_pM_K\left(M_p+M_K\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(4\pi \right)^2}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left|^{\gamma pK^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}(p,k,p_K,p_Y)\right|^2,`$
where $`\omega `$ is the c.m. photon energy and $`W_{K^{}p}`$ = 560 $`\pm `$ 135 MeV fm<sup>3</sup> is the $`K^{}p`$ pseudo-potential determined by Burkhardt et al. Burkhardt et al. (1985).

Our model predictions for $``$ are summarized in Table 3. It becomes clear that the three proposed background models produce values which differ by two orders of magnitude and considerably underestimate the measured value. However, it has been stressed by various authors Burkhardt et al. (1985); David et al. (1996); Workman and Fearing (1988) that the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(1405)`$ resonance, which is an $`s`$-channel resonance just below the decay threshold, is of crucial importance for reproducing $``$. In the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ photoproduction process, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(1405)`$ is a candidate for a resonant $`u`$-channel contribution. However, in our analysis of $`\gamma pK\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, no direct need for introducing the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(1405)`$ emerged (model B is the sole model that implements $`u`$-channel $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ resonances). Therefore, we investigated whether a consistent description of the branching ratio $``$ and the $`p(\gamma ,K)\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ SAPHIR data is feasible. To this end, we started out from background model B to which we added the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(1405)`$ hyperon resonance. In the fitting procedure against the SAPHIR data and the value of $``$, we arrive at a $`\chi ^2`$ value of 1.92. The result for $``$ = 1.56 $``$ 10<sup>-3</sup> is in agreement with the experimental value within the error bars.

To conclude this subsection, we wish to stress that the branching ratio $``$ in radiative kaon capture has only a limited potential to constrain the $`p(\gamma ,K)\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ reaction dynamics. Indeed, there are strong indications that the value of $``$ is mainly determined by the strength of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(1405)`$ while this resonance plays only a secondary role in $`\gamma pK\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ reactions.

## IV  Conclusion

In this work, we have presented results for neutral and charged $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ photoproduction off the proton in a hadronic model at tree level. By comparing model calculations to the SAPHIR data, we were able to identify a set of five $`N^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ resonances ($`S_{11}(1650)`$, $`P_{11}(1710)`$, $`P_{13}(1720)`$, $`S_{31}(1900)`$ and $`P_{31}(1910)`$) with which a satisfactory description of the data can be obtained. Our calculations do not provide evidence for a salient role for the $`D_{13}(1895)`$ resonance in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ photoproduction. The $`D_{13}(1895)`$ has never been observed in $`\pi N`$ scattering. Recently, it was claimed that signals for the existence of such a resonance emerge from the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ photoproduction data.

We have shown that the “bare” Born amplitudes produce $`p(\gamma ,K)\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ cross sections which dramatically overshoot the measured ones. Therefore, additional ingredients in the model calculations beyond resonance contributions appear essential. We have presented total and differential cross sections as well as recoil and photon asymmetry results for four schemes which accomplish to cut down satisfactorily the magnitude of the Born amplitudes. Through the background diagrams some model dependence in the extracted resonance parameters gets introduced. This dependence turns out to be small for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ particles. For some of the $`N^{}`$ resonances, though, the obtained coupling constants may vary up to a factor of two, depending on which model is used to implement the background. Predictions for the $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ photon-beam asymmetry are only moderately sensitive to the implementation of the background terms. This is not the case for the photon-beam asymmetries in the $`p(\gamma ,K^0)\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ channel. It should be stressed that for the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ case far more data are presently available. In the foreseeable future, the available amount of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ photoproduction data in the resonance region will dramatically increase. Research efforts at Jefferson Lab Schumacher (2000), at GRAAL (Grenoble) D’Angelo (2001) and SPring-8 Zegers (2001) and continuing analysis work from the SAPHIR collaboration Glander (2001) will extend the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ photo and electroproduction data beyond 2.0 GeV and will shed light on the (in)capability of hadronic approaches to model the physics at higher photon energies. They will also provide large and accurate sets of polarization data. With such an extended data base, one can be hopeful to better constrain the theoretical models and reveal the full dynamics of strangeness photoproduction reactions.

*

## Appendix A  Isospin symmetry and coupling constants

Isospin symmetry considerations are extremely useful tools to establish ranges and relative signs between series of coupling constants. In this Appendix we sketch how isospin arguments can be used to establish relations between the different hadronic and electromagnetic coupling constants which are required in global fits to photoinduced open strangeness production on the proton. In this Appendix, we assume the isospin symmetry of the various meson and baryon multiplets to be exact. In what follows we will briefly address both hadronic and electromagnetic coupling constants.

### A.1 Hadronic decays of $`N^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ resonances

The calculation of hadronic transitions of baryon resonances poses a challenging task to Constituent Quark Models (CQM). The major difficulty of such models is to determine the structure of the operators which govern the decay mechanism. This reflects the insufficient basic insight into the quark dynamics in low-energy hadron phenomenology. Most CQM’s studying hadronic decays of baryon resonances (for a recent example see Ref. Theussl et al. (2001)), start from a transition operator at quark level which does not contain isospin-dependent terms. In such a model, the amplitude for a pseudo-scalar hadronic decay of the type:

$$B(I_1,M_1)K(I_2,M_2)+Y(I_3,M_3),$$
(9)
is proportional to the isospin part:

$$\frac{(1)^{I_2I_1}}{\sqrt{2I_1+1}}I_2M_2I_3M_3I_1M_1I_2\widehat{T}^{(I_3)}I_1,$$
(10)
where $`I_i`$ ans $`M_i`$ are the isospin and isospin projection of the respective particles and $`\widehat{T}^{(I)}`$ denotes a spherical tensor operator of rank $`I`$. From the expression (10), one easily obtains the following relations between the different isospin channels in $`NK\mathrm{\Sigma }`$:

$$g_{K^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0p}=\frac{g_{K^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^+p}}{\sqrt{2}}=g_{K^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^0n}=\frac{g_{K^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}n}}{\sqrt{2}}.$$
(11)
In determining these relations we adopted the following conventions for the isospin states of the physical $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ particles:

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ $`:`$ $`|I=1,M=+1,`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ $`:`$ $`+|I=1,M=0,`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ $`:`$ $`+|I=1,M=1.`$
For the hadronic decays of the type $`NK\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, starting from Eq. (10), even simpler relations can be written down:

$`g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }K^+p}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }K^0n}.`$ (13)
We now consider hadronic decays of the type $`\mathrm{\Delta }K\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Defining the corresponding isospin states for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{+,0}`$ particles as $`|I=\frac{3}{2},I_3=\pm \frac{1}{2}`$, one obtains the following relations from Eq. (10):

$`g_{K^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\mathrm{\Delta }^+}=\sqrt{2}g_{K^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\mathrm{\Delta }^+}=`$ (14)
$`g_{K^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\mathrm{\Delta }^0}=\sqrt{2}g_{K^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^0}.`$
The relations contained in Eqs. (11), (13) and (14), also hold when a $`N^{}`$, $`K^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ resonance is involved at the vertex.

### A.2 Electromagnetic vertices

Most of the information with respect to electromagnetic couplings rely on experimental quantities. The measured decay widths for the $`K^+(892)`$ and $`K^0(892)`$ vector mesons are Particle Data Group, D.E. Groom et al. (2000):

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{K^+K^+\gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`50\pm 5\text{ keV},`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{K^0K^0\gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`116\pm 10\text{ keV}.`$ (16)
In principle, one can determine the value of the magnetic transition moment on the basis of the proportionality $`\kappa _{K^{}K}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{K^{}K\gamma }`$. Within the context of isobar models, however, the coupling constants are frequently considered as “effective couplings” wherein, for example, part of final-state interaction effects are absorbed. It is a common procedure to use only the ratios of the measured decay widths to connect isospin related coupling constants. This leads to the following expression:

$$\frac{\kappa _{K^0K^0}^2}{\kappa _{K^+K^+}^2}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{K^0K^0\gamma }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{K^+K^+\gamma }},$$
(17)
or:

$$\kappa _{K^0K^0}=1.52\kappa _{K^+K^+}.$$
(18)
The relative sign in the last expression was allocated on the basis of a CQM prediction Singer and Miller (1986).

The nucleon magnetic transition moments are related to the photohelicity amplitudes through the interaction Lagrangians. From the isospin structure of the $`N^{}`$ helicity amplitudes, it is easily proven that they are sensitive to the isospin of the final state. To determine the electromagnetic vertex coupling at a neutron target from the knowledge of the electromagnetic coupling at a proton target, those differences have to be taken into account. We adopt the same procedure as for the vector-meson transition moments and use the experimental amplitudes as a conversion coefficient. The expressions, which directly follow from the interaction Lagrangians, read:

spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$: $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{N^{}n}}{\kappa _{N^{}p}}}={\displaystyle \frac{A_{1/2}^n}{A_{1/2}^p}},`$ (19)
spin-$`\frac{3}{2}`$: $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{N^{}n}^{\left(1\right)}}{\kappa _{N^{}p}^{\left(1\right)}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}A_{1/2}^n\pm A_{3/2}^n}{\sqrt{3}A_{1/2}^p\pm A_{3/2}^p}},`$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{N^{}n}^{\left(2\right)}}{\kappa _{N^{}p}^{\left(2\right)}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}A_{1/2}^n\frac{M_p}{M_N^{}}A_{3/2}^n}{\sqrt{3}A_{1/2}^p\frac{M_p}{M_N^{}}A_{3/2}^p}},`$
where $`\pm `$ refers to even/odd parity. Note that some of these helicity amplitudes are rather poorly known, especially those of the neutron. For the electromagnetic decay of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ resonances the following simple relation holds:

$$\kappa _{\mathrm{\Delta }^{}p}=\kappa _{\mathrm{\Delta }^{}n},$$
(22)
regardless of the spin state of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ resonance. This is not the case for the electromagnetic decay of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ resonances. In principle, one can make use of the same procedure adopted for the $`K^{}`$ and $`N^{}`$ transition moment and take the ratio of the helicity amplitudes as a conversion coefficient. Due to the lack of knowledge about the latter quantities, we have used ratio’s of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ ground state transition moments as conversion coefficients. This produces the following relations:

$$\kappa _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}=\frac{\mu _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}}{\mu _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}}\kappa _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}=\frac{\mu _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}}{\mu _\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}\kappa _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}},$$
(23)
in which we have used $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}`$ = 2.458, $`\mu _\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ = -1.160 Particle Data Group, D.E. Groom et al. (2000) and $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}`$ = 0.79 Perkins (2000).

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by the Fund for Scientific Research - Flanders under contract number 4.0061.99 and the Research Council of Ghent University.