text:
# A stationary relativistic representation of the bound state

## Abstract

We show that a bound system in momentum space can be treated like a gas of free elementary constituents and a collective excitation of a background field which represents the countless quantum fluctuations generating the binding potential. The distribution function of the internal momenta in the bound system at rest is given by the projection of a solution of a relativistic bound state equation on the free wave functions of the elementary constituents. The 4-momentum carried by the collective excitation is the difference between the bound state 4-momentum and the sum of the free 4-momenta. This definition ensures the explicit fulfilment of Lorentz covariance, mass-shell constraints and single particle normalizability of the bound state function. The discussion is made for a two particle bound state and can be easily generalized to the case of three or more particles.

This paper is an attempt to supply the acute need of a relativistic treatment of the bound state problem manifested in particle physics.

In the following we shall specifically refer to the meson as a bound state of a quark and an antiquark, although the method is quite general. For reasons of simplicity we shall omit the flavour and colour indices and assume that the interaction potential is white.

In the standard approach of the bound state problem as it is found in quantum mechanics, the existence of a bound state is conditioned by the presence of an attractive potential well. The wave function is stationary and normalizable in the space of the relative coordinates with respect to the center of forces. We remind however that the interaction potential is essentially a nonrelativistic notion and hence this approach bears a nonrelativistic character even if one uses the relativistic expression of the energy in the time independent dynamical equation .

In the relativistic approaches derived from field theory the binding is supposed a consequence of quantum fluctuations, that is of a continuous exchange of quanta among the constituents . The iterative solution can be expressed in terms of free propagators and an interaction kernel which makes the number of elementary constituents indefinite. In spite of some formal similarities with the nonrelativistic quantum mechanical treatment of the bound state problem this approach is of a very different type. This is reflected in the presence of a relative time coordinate, in the ambiguities of the definition of the relative momentum, in the perturbative definition of the interaction kernel, in the existence of negative norm states. For these reasons the function describing the inner structure of a bound state is similar to a form factor rather than to a wave function. This situation is significantly improved by the elimination of the relative time coordinate in quasipotential models which resort to a relativistic extension of the Schrödinger equation for the bound state where the interaction potential is replaced by a scattering kernel .

For the understanding of the relation between the quantum mechanical and the field approach it has been essential to know if a bound system with a fixed number of particles can be quantized in a relativistic manner. Dirac  has shown that this is indeed possible if the generators of the symmetry group depend explicitly on the interaction potential. He also has shown that by restraining the symmetry group to those transformations which are purely kinematical it is possible to develop dynamical models independent on the concrete form of the interaction. This idea stays at the origin of the light cone models . The full relativistic covariance is of course destroyed in this case, but the effects of symmetry violation may be evaluated by comparing various quantization schemes .

The purpose of the present paper is to create a link between the quantum mechanical and the quantum field approaches of the bound state problem this time starting from a relativistic equation for a bound state. Our specific aim is to get a Lorentz covariant representation of the interaction potential compatible with the field approach, which will help in obtaining a real relativistic representation of a meson as bound state. The work is done in the momentum representation which is adequate to our purpose and the constituents of the bound state are treated as independent particles.

We assume that the total Hamiltonian is the sum of two free Dirac Hamiltonians and of an interaction potential which depends on both coordinates. Its eigenfunctions are the internal functions of the bound system in the rest frame and the corresponding eigenvalues are the meson masses. We then have:

$$[\underset{j=1,2}{}(i\stackrel{}{}^{(j)}\stackrel{}{\alpha }^{(j)}+\beta m_j)+𝒱_0(\stackrel{}{x}_1,\stackrel{}{x}_2)]\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{x}_1,\stackrel{}{x}_2)=M\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{x}_1,\stackrel{}{x}_2)$$
(1)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are Dirac matrices and $`𝒱_0`$ is the interaction potential. The function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{x}_1,\stackrel{}{x}_2)`$ has two spinorial indices and can be best written under the form of a $`4\times 4`$ matrix.

For reasons related to the real independence of the quarks which will become clear below we assume that the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{x}_1,\stackrel{}{x}_2)`$ satisfies the set of constraints

$$(i\stackrel{}{}^{(1)}i\stackrel{}{}^{(2)}+\stackrel{}{𝒱}(\stackrel{}{x}_1,\stackrel{}{x}_2))\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{x}_1,\stackrel{}{x}_2)=0$$
(2)
where $`\stackrel{}{𝒱}(\stackrel{}{x}_1,\stackrel{}{x}_2)`$ is a vector operator. Its expression as well as the compatibility between eq.(1) and the eqs.(2) will be briefly commented in the next in agreement with the interpretation we give to the interaction potential. (N.B. If $`\stackrel{}{𝒱}=0,\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{x}_1,\stackrel{}{x}_2)\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{x}_1\stackrel{}{x}_2)`$ and the real independence of the quarks is lost.)

In the space representation the solution of eqs.(1) and (2) corresponding to the eigenvalue $`M_{\{n\}}`$ where $`\{n\}`$ is a set of quantum numbers labelling the bound state is denoted by $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{n\}}(\stackrel{}{x}_1,\stackrel{}{x}_2)=\stackrel{}{x}_1,\stackrel{}{x}_2|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{n\}}`$. Its projection on the solutions of the free Dirac equation $`\psi _{\{\stackrel{}{k}_j\}}(\stackrel{}{x}_j)=\mathrm{exp}(iϵ_j\stackrel{}{k}_j\stackrel{}{x}_j)w(\{\stackrel{}{k}_j\})`$ and $`\psi ^c=C\overline{\psi }_{\{\stackrel{}{k}_j\}}^T(\stackrel{}{x}_j)`$ is denoted by $`\overline{w}_i(\{\stackrel{}{k}_1\})\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{n\}}(\{\stackrel{}{k}_1\},\{\stackrel{}{k}_2\})\right)_{ij}\overline{w^c}_j^T(\{\stackrel{}{k}_2\})`$, where $`C`$ is the charge conjugation matrix, $`w`$ is a Dirac spinor and $`\{\stackrel{}{k}_j\}`$ represents the set of quantum numbers $`\{ϵ_j,s_j,\stackrel{}{k}_j\}`$ labelling the free states ($`ϵ_j=\pm `$ is the sign of the energy, $`s_j`$ is the projection of the spin on an arbitrary axis and $`\stackrel{}{k}_j`$ is the momentum).

It is an easy matter to see that the projection satisfies the following set of equations derived from (1) and (2)

$`\left(ϵ_1\sqrt{\stackrel{}{k}_1^2+m_1^2}+ϵ_2\sqrt{\stackrel{}{k}_2^2+m_2^2}\right)`$ $`\overline{w}`$ $`(\{\stackrel{}{k}_1\})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{n\}}(\{\stackrel{}{k}_1\},\{\stackrel{}{k}_2\})\overline{w^c}^T(\{\stackrel{}{k}_2\})+\{\stackrel{}{k}_1\},\{\stackrel{}{k}_2\}|𝒱_0|\{n\}`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`M_{\{n\}}\overline{w}(\{\stackrel{}{k}_1\})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{n\}}(\{\stackrel{}{k}_1\},\{\stackrel{}{k}_2\})\overline{w^c}^T(\{\stackrel{}{k}_2\})`$ (4)
$$(ϵ_1\stackrel{}{k}_1+ϵ_2\stackrel{}{k}_2)\overline{w}(\{\stackrel{}{k}_1\})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{n\}}(\{\stackrel{}{k}_1\},\{\stackrel{}{k}_2\})w(\{\stackrel{}{k}_2\})+\{\stackrel{}{k}_1\},\{\stackrel{}{k}_2\}|\stackrel{}{𝒱}|\{n\}=0.$$
(5)
According to the general principles of quantum mechanics the projection $`\overline{w}(\{\stackrel{}{k}_1\})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{n\}}(\{\stackrel{}{k}_1\},\{\stackrel{}{k}_2\})\overline{w^c}^T(\{\stackrel{}{k}_2\})`$ is the probability amplitude for finding two free quarks with the individual quantum numbers $`\{\stackrel{}{k}_1\}`$ and $`\{\stackrel{}{k}_2\}`$ in the meson state characterized by $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{n\}}`$. Eqs.(3) and (5) show however that the representation of the meson as a supperposition of two free quark states is incomplete, because the sum of the quark 4-momenta does not satisfy the meson mass-shell constraint. A real representation must include the contribution of the interaction potential in such a way as to preserve relativistic covariance.

The solution we found to this problem was to assume the existence of a third component of the meson beside the valence quarks and independent of them. This component is denoted by $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and carries the 4-momentum $`Q^\mu `$  which is the difference between the meson and the quark momenta:

$$Q^0=M_{\{n\}}ϵ_1\sqrt{\stackrel{}{k}_1^2+m_1^2}ϵ_2\sqrt{\stackrel{}{k}_2^2+m_2^2}$$
(6)
$$\stackrel{}{Q}=ϵ_1\stackrel{}{k}_1ϵ_2\stackrel{}{k}_2.$$
(7)
We notice that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(Q)`$ does not have a definite mass and hence it is not an elementary excitation of the quark gluonic field.

We are now allowed to represent the meson by a gas of free quarks having the distribution of momenta and spins given by $`\overline{w}(\{\stackrel{}{k}_1\})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{n\}}(\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2)\overline{w^c}^T(\{\stackrel{}{k}_2\})`$ and a collective excitation of the background field, carrying the missing momentum $`Q^\mu `$ defined in (6) and (7). Then one can write the single meson state at rest in the following form:

$`|_{\{n\}}(M_{\{n\}},0)={\displaystyle d^3k_1\frac{m_1}{e_1}d^3k_2\frac{m_2}{e_2}d^4Q\delta ^{(3)}(\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2+\stackrel{}{Q})\delta (e_1+e_2+Q_0M_{\{n\}})}`$ (8)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{s_1,s_2}{}}\overline{u}_{s_1}(\stackrel{}{k}_1)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{n\}}(\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2)Cv_{s_2}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(Q)a_{s_1}^{}(\stackrel{}{k}_1)b_{s_2}^{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)|0`$ (9)
where $`\{n\}`$ are the quantum numbers of the meson, $`a^{}`$ and $`b^{}`$ are quark and antiquark creation operators and $`u,v`$ are free Dirac spinors. We mention that only the projection of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{n\}}`$ on the positive energy states appear in the expression of the single meson state (8) because those corresponding to the negative energy are associated with the quark and antiquark annihilation operators which gives 0 when acting on the vacuum. This eliminates the complications due to the presence of negative energy states which in alternative approaches of the bound state problem have been cured by the introduction of positive energy projectors in the definition of the bound state Hamiltonian . We remark however that the situation changes when two or more mesons are present because not all the annihilation operators are now acting on the vacuum. They may annihilate the quarks in other mesons giving rise to a genuine form of interaction among the bound systems usually called ”pair creation-annihilation mechanism”.

It is worthwhile noticing here that eqs.(1), (2) and (8) can be immediately generalized to the baryon case by introducing a third quark contribution according to the general rules of relativistic covariance.

The physical significance of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be deduced from the correspondence between the quantum mechanical and the field approaches. Specifically, observing that $`Q^\mu `$ represents the contribution of the interaction potential to the bound state momentum we conclude that $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ is the collective, time averaged effect of the continuous series of virtual excitations of the quark gluonic field giving rise to the binding. $`Q^0`$ is then a kind of binding energy and $`\stackrel{}{Q}`$ is the reaction of the whole mass of virtual particles to the motion of the free valence quarks or, in other words, it is the effect of the imperfect cancellation of the vector momenta during the quantum fluctuations. In order to clarify some concrete aspects of the relation among $`\stackrel{}{Q}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{𝒱}`$ we consider the case where the quarks are independently bound to the center of forces, like for instance in the bag model . We assume accordingly that the quark momenta are uncorrelated and hence eqs.(7) and (2) are identities defining the bag momentum and the operator associated to it respectively. In this case one can write $`\stackrel{}{𝒱}(\stackrel{}{x}_1,\stackrel{}{x}_2)=i\stackrel{}{}^{(1)}+i\stackrel{}{}^{(2)}`$ solving in this way the problem of compatibility among eqs.(1) and (2). Obviously this is not the unique choice for $`\stackrel{}{𝒱}`$ but it is the simplest compatible with our assumptions.

Closing this discussion on the significance of the collective excitation $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ we notice that it has some common features with the bag . Both $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and the bag are effective, nonelementary extra components of the bound system representing the binding effects. We also remark the resemblance between the definition of the momentum $`Q^\mu `$ (see eqs.(6),(7)) and that of the effective potential in nonrelativistic QCD, as the remaining part in the effective Lagrangian after removing off the kinetic terms .

A last comment on the expression (8) concerns the form of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{n\}}(\{\stackrel{}{k}_1\},\{\stackrel{}{k}_2\})`$ which is a 4$`\times `$4 matrix describing the distribution of the internal momenta and the coupling of the quark spins and angular momenta in the meson. $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{n\}}`$ can then be written as a linear combination of Dirac matrices with coefficients behaving at rotations like the components of a tensor. From general arguments related to the transformation properties of the meson wave function one can write for instance:

$`(\mathrm{\Psi }_PC)_{lm}=\phi _P\gamma _{lm}^5`$ (10)
$`(\mathrm{\Psi }_VC)_{lm}=\epsilon ^i\left(\phi _1^V\gamma _{lm}^i+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1,2}{}}\phi _{2n}^Vk_n^i\delta _{lm}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1,2}{}}\phi _{3n}^V[\gamma ^i,\gamma ^j]_{lm}k_n^j\right)`$ (11)
$`(\mathrm{\Psi }_AC)_{lm}=\epsilon ^i\left(\phi _1^A\gamma _{lp}^i+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1,2}{}}\phi _{2n}^Ak_n^i\delta _{lp}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1,2}{}}\phi _{3n}^A[\gamma ^i,\gamma ^j]_{lp}k_n^j\right)\gamma _{pm}^5`$ (12)
where $`P,V,A`$ denote the pseudoscalar, vector and axial mesons respectively, $`\epsilon `$ are the meson polarization vectors having only spatial components in the rest frame and $`\phi _i`$ are scalar functions of $`\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2`$ whose arguments have been omitted for simplicity.

We are now ready to put the expression (8) in a Lorentz covariant form simply by replacing $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ by $`k_T^\mu `$ and the scalar product $`\stackrel{}{k}_i\stackrel{}{k}_j`$ by $`k_{iT}^\mu k_{jT\mu }`$ where $`k_T=(0,\stackrel{}{k})`$ in the rest frame. Under the change of reference frame $`k_T`$ transforms into $`k_T^{}_{}{}^{}\mu =\mathrm{\Lambda }(\stackrel{}{\omega })_\nu ^\mu k_T^\nu `$ and the Dirac spinors $`u,v`$ transform into $`u(\stackrel{}{k}^{})=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{sp}(\stackrel{}{\omega })u(\stackrel{}{k})`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\stackrel{}{\omega })`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{sp}(\stackrel{}{\omega })`$ are the vectorial and spinorial representations of Lorentz transformations from the rest frame to a reference frame moving with the velocity $`\stackrel{}{\omega }`$ with respect to the first one. The result is the expression of the meson state with the energy $`E=\frac{M}{\sqrt{1\stackrel{}{\omega }^2}}`$ and the momentum $`\stackrel{}{P}=\stackrel{}{\omega }E`$:

$`|_{\{n\}}(E,\stackrel{}{P})={\displaystyle d^3k_1\frac{m_1}{e_1}d^3k_2\frac{m_2}{e_2}d^4Q\delta ^{(3)}(\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2+\stackrel{}{Q}\stackrel{}{P})\delta (e_1+e_2+Q_0E)}`$ (13)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{s_1,s_2}{}}\overline{u}_{s_1}(\stackrel{}{k}_1)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{n\}}(k_{1T},k_{2T})Cv_{s_2}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(Q)a_{s_1}^{}(\stackrel{}{k}_1)b_{s_2}^{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)|0`$ (14)
It must be emphasized that the expression (13) is free of the ambiguities in the definition of the quark momenta appearing in the models derived from quantum field theory. This fact and the explicit fulfilment of the mass shell constraints both by the meson and by the quark 4-momenta would be impossible in the absence of the nonelementary excitation $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. This one carries the ”missing 4-momentum” (see eqs. (6),(7)) which is just what one needs to be added to the free quark momenta in order to get the meson momentum.

To complete the proof we have still to verify the normalizability of the single meson state (8). To this end we make use of the commutation relations of the free quark operators and define the vacuum expectation value of the collective excitation in such a way as to ensure the separate conservation of its 4-momentum:

$$0\left|\mathrm{\Phi }(Q)\mathrm{\Phi }^+(Q^{})\right|0=\frac{1}{V_0T_0}d^4X\mathrm{e}^{i(Q^{}Q)_\mu X^\mu }=\frac{(2\pi )^4}{L_0^3T_0}\delta ^{(4)}(QQ^{})$$
(15)
where $`1/V_0T_0`$ has been introduced for dimensional reasons with $`V_0`$ the meson volume and $`T_0`$ a time sensibly larger than the time basis involved in the definition of the collective excitation $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

In order to avoid the cumbersome $`\delta (EE^{})`$ at the expression of the norm induced by $`\delta (Q_0Q_0^{})`$ in (15) and to preserve in the same time the manifest Lorentz covariance we write

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{T_0}}\delta (Q_0Q_0^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T_0}}{\displaystyle _T}𝑑X_0\mathrm{e}^{i(Q_0Q_0^{})X_0}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{T_0}}{\displaystyle _T}𝑑X_0\mathrm{e}^{i(E(P)E(P^{}))X_0}`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{E}{M_{\{n\}}T_0}}{\displaystyle _{T_0}}𝑑Y_0\mathrm{e}^{i(M_{\{n\}}M_{\{n^{}\}})Y_0}{\displaystyle \frac{E}{M_{\{n\}}}}\delta _{M_{\{n\}}M_{\{n^{}\}}}`$
and get immediately:

$$_{\{n^{}\}}(P^{})|_{\{n\}}(P)=2E(2\pi )^3\delta ^{(3)}(PP^{})\delta _{M_{\{n\}}M_{\{n^{}\}}}\delta _{\{n\}\{n^{}\}}𝒥$$
(18)
where

$`𝒥={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2ML_0^3}}{\displaystyle d^3k_1\frac{m_1}{e_1}d^3k_2\frac{m_2}{e_2}d^4Q\delta ^{(4)}(k_1+k_2+QP)}`$ (19)
$`\times Tr\left({\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{k}_1+m_1}{2m_1}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{n\}}(k_{1T},k_{2T})C{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{k}_2+m_2}{2m_2}}\gamma ^0C^+\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{n^{}\}}^+(k_{1T},k_{2T})\gamma ^0\right)=\delta _{\{n\}\{n^{}\}}.`$ (20)
In the above relations we have implicitly assumed that $`M_{\{n\}}`$ and $`M_{\{n^{}\}}`$ are discrete eigenvalues of the equation (1) with $`|M_{\{n\}}M_{\{n^{}\}}|T_0>>1`$ so that the integral in (17) vanishes if $`M_{\{n\}}M_{\{n^{}\}}`$. We notice that relation (17) allows to eliminate the rather arbitrary time $`T_0`$ from the expression of the norm, which is quite remarkable.

The normalization relation (18) can also be seen as an expression of the confinement because it shows that a many particle state (8) is normalized like a single particle one if the integral $`𝒥`$ converges. This will not be possible if $`Q^\mu =\alpha P^\mu `$ because $`𝒥`$ would contain the highly singular factor $`\delta (\alpha \alpha ^{})\delta ^{(3)}(0)`$. This is a decisive argument for introducing the constraints (2) with $`\stackrel{}{𝒱}0`$ which guarantees the existence of a nonvanishing momentum $`\stackrel{}{Q}`$ in the rest frame of the meson.

The last point we discuss here is the way back from the field representation (8) to the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{x}_1,\stackrel{}{x}_2)`$ in order to see if it is possible to recover the last one from the first.

The calculations are performed in the meson rest frame, where the bound state wave function has been defined. We notice that only the degrees of freedom associated with the quarks have a meaning in quantum mechanics. Those associated with the collective excitation do not and must be integrated out. Then, by analogy with quantum field theory and having in mind the stationarity of the meson structure, we define its wave function as follows:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\{n\}}(\stackrel{}{x}_1,\stackrel{}{x}_2,t)_{\alpha \beta }=0|d^3Q\overline{\psi }^c(\stackrel{}{x}_2,t)_\beta \overline{\psi }(\stackrel{}{x}_1,t)_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{Q},t)|_{\{n\}}(M_{\{n\}},0)$$
(21)
where the single meson state is given by (8), $`\psi `$ is the free quark field, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are spinorial indices and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{Q},t)=\frac{T_0}{(2\pi )}𝑑Q_0\mathrm{e}^{iQ_0t}\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{Q},Q_0).$$
(22)
By straightforward calculations it can be seen that the time dependence factorizes out under the form $`\mathrm{e}^{iM_{\{n\}}t}`$ (see eq.(6)) and that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\{n\}}(\stackrel{}{x}_1,\stackrel{}{x}_2,t)_{\alpha \beta }`$ contains only that part of the initial function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{n\}}(\stackrel{}{x}_1,\stackrel{}{x}_2)`$ having nonvanishing projection on the positive energy free states. The part projecting on the negative energy free states is lost, because it does not appear in the definition of the meson state (8).

In conclusion, the expression (8) may be seen as a link between the quantum mechanical and a field representation of a bound state because it describes in field language the information obtained in relativistic quantum mechanics. This has been achieved by assuming the existence of a nonelementary effective component, besides the valence quarks, which in quantum mechanics can be related to the interaction potential and in quantum field theory can be seen as a collective excitation of some background field. The conclusion is that a real relativistic representation of a bound state is possible in momentum representation where stationarity, Lorentz covariance and mass shell constraints can be simultaneously and explicitly satisfied.

Acknowledgments This work was started during author’s visit at ITP of the University of Bern in the frame of the Institutional Partnership Program of the Swiss National Science Foundation under Contract No.7 IP 051219. The author thanks Prof. Heiri Leutwyler for hospitality and stimulating discussions.

A careful reading of the manuscript and suggestions by Fl. Stancu as well as clarifying discussions with Irinel Caprini are also gratefully acknowledged.


format: text

text:
# Duality transformations for generalized WDVV in Seiberg-Witten theory.

## 1 Introduction

In 1994, Seiberg and Witten  solved the low energy behaviour of pure N=2 Super-Yang-Mills theory by giving the solution of the prepotential $``$. The essential ingredients in their construction are a family of Riemann surfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, a meromorphic differential $`\lambda _{SW}`$ on it and the definition of the prepotential in terms of period integrals of $`\lambda _{SW}`$

$$a_I=_{A_I}\lambda _{SW}\text{ }\frac{}{a_I}=_{B_I}\lambda _{SW}$$
(1.1)
The cycles $`A_I`$ and $`B_I`$ belong to a subset of a canonical homology basis on the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and the $`a_I`$ are the moduli parameters of the family of surfaces. These formulae define the prepotential $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_r)`$ implicitly, where $`r`$ denotes the rank of the gauge group under consideration.

A link between the prepotential and the Witten-Dijkgraaf-Verlinde-Verlinde equations , was proven to exist in  where it was found that the prepotential $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_r)`$ for pure N=2 SYM theory for classical Lie algebras (those of type $`A,B,C,D`$) satisfies the generalized WDVV equations

$$_I\left[\underset{M}{}\gamma _M_M\right]^1_J=_J\left[\underset{M}{}\gamma _M_M\right]^1_I\text{ }I,J,K=1,\mathrm{},r$$
(1.2)
where the $`_I`$ are matrices given by $`\left(_I\right)_{JK}=\frac{^3}{a_Ia_Ja_K}`$ and the $`\gamma _M`$ may depend on the $`a_I`$. If $``$ satisfies $`\left(\text{1.2}\right)`$ for some set of $`\gamma _M`$ it will automatically satisfy them for any other set $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_M`$ as long as $`_M\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_M_M`$ is invertible. These equations are indeed a generalization of the original WDVV equations, since we no longer demand the matrix $`_M\gamma _M_M`$ to be flat and constant.

In an alternative approach to , Ito and Yang  give a proof which is valid111Algebras $`E_7`$ and $`E_8`$ are not considered in  because of computational difficulty, but they are expected to follow the same pattern. for Lie algebras of type $`A,D,E_6`$ and it was shown in  that this method can be adapted to give a proof also in the case of Lie algebras of type $`B,C`$. The approach used by Ito and Yang consists of two main ingredients: an associative algebra with structure constants $`C_{IJ}^K`$, together with a relation between the structure constants and the third order derivatives of the function $``$

$$_I=C_I\left(\underset{M=1}{\overset{r}{}}\gamma _M_M\right)$$
(1.3)
for some $`\gamma _M`$. To derive this relation they used a subset of the Picard-Fuchs equations on the Riemann surfaces. If the matrix $`_{M=1}^r\gamma _M_M`$ is invertible then we can substitute $`\left(\text{1.3}\right)`$ into the WDVV equations $`\left(\text{1.2}\right)`$ which then express associativity of the algebra through a relation on the structure constants: $`[C_I,C_J]=0.`$

In the physical context of Seiberg-Witten theory, electric-magnetic duality transformations are very important and therefore it is a natural question if these are symmetries of the generalized WDVV equations. The duality transformations form a subgroup of $`Sp(2r,)`$ acting as linear transformations on the vector $`(\stackrel{}{a},\stackrel{}{}F)`$. These transformations are indeed symmetries, as was shown in  for a pure S-duality transformation and recently in  for general symplectic transformations.

We will show in this Letter that the classes of solutions of the WDVV system coming from Seiberg-Witten theory are invariant under duality transformations, by giving the duality transformations their natural interpretation in the Seiberg-Witten context. The reason for the invariance is that the Picard-Fuchs equations leading to the relation $`\left(\text{1.3}\right)`$ have solutions in terms of period integrals of $`\lambda _{SW}`$. We require of our solutions $`\left(\text{1.1}\right)`$ only that the cycles be canonical, so they are invariant under symplectic transformations of the cycles. These are precisely the duality transformations. In the derivation of $`\left(\text{1.3}\right)`$ we will rely heavily on the connection between the Seiberg-Witten and Landau-Ginzburg theories which is quite straightforward in the simply laced $`(ADE)`$ cases. For $`B`$ and $`C`$ Lie algebras this connection is less clear  but we will show that one can use the same method as in the other cases. For $`F_4`$ it is not rigorously proven that the prepotential satisfies the WDVV equations, so we cannot say anything definite about duality in this case222Since $`G_2`$ has rank 2, the prepotential depends only on 2 variables and it trivially satisfies the WDVV equations..

## 2 Duality transformations

Duality transformations play an important role in $`N=2`$ Super-Yang-Mills theory, where in the classical theory they exchange the Bianchi identity and the equations of motion of the Yang-Mills field strength. In the quantum field theory, these transformations were studied extensively in the context of supergravity $`\left(\text{for a review, see }\text{[9]}\right)`$ and they turn out to form a subgroup of $`Sp(2r,)`$ where $`r`$ is the rank of the gauge group. The action on $`(a_I,_I)`$ of $`\left(\text{1.1}\right)`$ is given by

(a)[UZWV](a) [
UZWV]Sp(2r,)𝑎delimited-[]𝑈𝑍𝑊𝑉𝑎 delimited-[]
UZWV𝑆𝑝2𝑟\left(\begin{tabular}[c]{l}$\overrightarrow{a}$\\
$\overrightarrow{\mathcal{F}}$\end{tabular}\right)\rightarrow\left[\begin{tabular}[c]{ll}$U$&$Z$\\
$W$&$V$\end{tabular}\right]\left(\begin{tabular}[c]{l}$\overrightarrow{a}$\\
$\overrightarrow{\mathcal{F}}$\end{tabular}\right)\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }\left[\begin{tabular}[c]{ll}$U$&$Z$\\
$W$&$V$\end{tabular}\right]\in Sp(2r,\mathbb{Z}) (2.1)
There is some terminology used by physicists for some special transformations

* An example of $`S`$-duality is a transformation for which

(a)[0II0](
aF)𝑎delimited-[]0𝐼fragmentsI0
aF\left(\begin{tabular}[c]{l}$\overrightarrow{a}$\\
$\overrightarrow{\mathcal{F}}$\end{tabular}\right)\rightarrow\left[\begin{tabular}[c]{ll}$0$&$I$\\
$-I$&$0$\end{tabular}\right]\left(\begin{tabular}[c]{l}$\overrightarrow{a}$\\
$\overrightarrow{\mathcal{F}}$\end{tabular}\right)
and in general $`S`$-duality transformations exchange the strong and weak coupling regimes of the physical theory.
* An example of $`T`$-duality is a tranformation for which

(a)[I0WI](
aF)𝑎delimited-[]𝐼0𝑊𝐼
aF\left(\begin{tabular}[c]{l}$\overrightarrow{a}$\\
$\overrightarrow{\mathcal{F}}$\end{tabular}\right)\rightarrow\left[\begin{tabular}[c]{ll}$I$&$0$\\
$W$&$I$\end{tabular}\right]\left(\begin{tabular}[c]{l}$\overrightarrow{a}$\\
$\overrightarrow{\mathcal{F}}$\end{tabular}\right)
and in general $`T`$-duality transformations are perturbative, so they go from weak coupling to weak coupling.

Seiberg and Witten used the fact that duality transformations can be thought of as changes of a canonical basis of a family of auxiliary Riemann surfaces in the following way. Let a canonical basis $`\{A_I,B_I\}`$ of homology on a Riemann surface be given. The transformations that take this canonical basis into another one are known to be (see e.g. ) symplectic transformations $`Sp(2g,)`$ acting like

(AB)[
UZWV](AB)𝐴𝐵delimited-[]
UZWV𝐴𝐵\left(\begin{tabular}[c]{l}$\overrightarrow{A}$\\
$\overrightarrow{B}$\end{tabular}\right)\rightarrow\left[\begin{tabular}[c]{ll}$U$&$Z$\\
$W$&$V$\end{tabular}\right]\left(\begin{tabular}[c]{l}$\overrightarrow{A}$\\
$\overrightarrow{B}$\end{tabular}\right) (2.2)
For Lie algebra $`A_r`$ the genus of the curves taken in Seiberg-Witten theory equals the rank of the gauge group, so $`\left(\text{2.2}\right)`$ generate transformations on $`a_I,_I`$ since for example

$$_{A_1+A_2}\lambda _{SW}=_{A_1}\lambda _{SW}+_{A_2}\lambda _{SW}=a_1+a_2$$

so

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{a}\hfill \\ \stackrel{}{}\hfill \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}_\stackrel{}{A}\lambda _{SW}\hfill \\ _\stackrel{}{B}\lambda _{SW}\hfill \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}_{U\stackrel{}{A}+Z\stackrel{}{B}}\lambda _{SW}\hfill \\ _{W\stackrel{}{A}+V\stackrel{}{B}}\lambda _{SW}\hfill \end{array}\right)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}U\hfill & Z\hfill \\ W\hfill & V\hfill \end{array}\right]\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{a}\hfill \\ \stackrel{}{}\hfill \end{array}\right)$$

In other words, electric-magnetic duality transformations in the Seiberg-Witten context can be thought of as changes of canonical bases of homology on families of Riemann surfaces.

For other gauge groups, the rank is always less than the genus of the curve and we have to take a subset of the homology basis in such a way that this subset has canonical intersection numbers $`A_IA_J=B_IB_J=0,`$ $`A_IB_J=\delta _{IJ}`$. If we call the linear subspace of $`H^1(\mathrm{\Sigma },)`$ spanned by these cycles $`X`$, then duality transformations are generated by changes of the canonical homology basis which leave $`X`$ invariant.

## 3 Picard-Fuchs equations and duality

In our derivation of the generalized WDVV equations, we consider a system of differential equations for the periods $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }\lambda _{SW}`$ (Picard-Fuchs like equations) and then substitute $`a_I=_{A_I}\lambda _{SW}`$ and $`_I=_{B_I}\lambda _{SW}`$ in them. This way, the derivation of the WDVV equations is manifestly invariant under changes of the canonical homology basis and therefore under electric-magnetic duality transformations.

The Riemann surfaces for the $`ADE`$ cases read

$$z+\frac{1}{z}=W(x,u_i)$$
(3.1)
where $`W`$ can be though of as the one-dimensional version of the Landau-Ginzburg superpotential. In deriving the Picard-Fuchs equations, use is made of the flat coordinates of the corresponding Landau-Ginzburg theories. For the $`B,C`$ Lie algebras, the methods of  are no longer directly applicable: we have to ‘twist’ the affine Lie algebra to construct the surfaces333The $`ADE`$ algebras are invariant under this twisting. This leads to surfaces

$$z+\frac{1}{z}=\stackrel{~}{W}(x,u_i)$$
(3.2)
where $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ need not have a direct relation to Landau-Ginzburg theory. For the $`B,C`$ cases, where the relation with the corresponding superpotential is still quite straightforward, it is shown in  that the method of using Picard-Fuchs equations can be adapted in order to give the WDVV equations.

In the next sections we will review the derivation of the WDVV equations in order to see that duality transformations are symmetries of them.

### 3.1 The $`ADE`$ cases

The family of Riemann surfaces associated with Seiberg-Witten theory with Lie algebras of $`A,D,E`$ type is given by

$$z+\frac{1}{z}=W(x,u_i)$$
(3.3)
Here $`W`$ can be thought of as a one variable Landau-Ginzburg superpotential for the corresponding Lie algebra. For instance, $`W_{A_r}(x,u_i)=x^{r+1}_{i=1}^{r1}u_ix^{ri}`$ is the superpotential for Lie algebra $`A_r`$. However $`W_{E_6}`$ contains a square root of a polynomial, but the structure constants of the chiral ring are the same as in the three-variable situation. From the Landau-Ginzburg theory it is known (see e.g.  and references therein) that we can pass from the moduli $`u_i`$ to flat coordinates $`t_i`$ in terms of which the Gauss-Manin connection is set to zero. The Landau-Ginzburg product structure reads

$$\frac{W}{t_i}\frac{W}{t_j}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{r}{}}C_{ij}^k(t)\frac{W}{t_k}\frac{W}{t_r}+Q_{ij}\frac{W}{x}$$
(3.4)
which leads to the algebra

$$\frac{W}{t_i}\frac{W}{t_j}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{r}{}}C_{ij}^k(t)\frac{W}{t_k}$$
(3.5)
and the flat coordinates444The $`t_i`$ are flat coordinates for the *multivariable* Landau-Ginzburg superpotentials. In the cases of $`A,D`$ Lie algebras these superpotentials are respectively not and not much different from the one variable case presented here. For the Lie algebras of type $`E_6`$ it was shown explicitly in  that the known flat coordinates are indeed a solution to $`\left(\text{3.6}\right)`$ for the one-variable superpotential, and that the algebra is the same as in the multivariable case. satisfy

$$\frac{Q_{ij}}{x}=\frac{^2W}{t_it_j}$$
(3.6)
Now that the Riemann surfaces $`\left(\text{3.3}\right)`$ are introduced, we need a meromorphic differential on them

$$\lambda _{SW}=x\frac{dz}{z}$$
(3.7)
whose derivatives with respect to the moduli are

$$\frac{\lambda _{SW}}{t_i}=d[..]\frac{W}{t_i}\frac{dx}{z\frac{1}{z}}$$
(3.8)
It is stated often in the literature that the forms

$$\frac{W}{t_i}\frac{dx}{z\frac{1}{z}}$$

are holomorphic and linearly independent. For all classical Lie algebras, the Riemann surfaces are hyperelliptic and this statement can be easily checked. For all exceptional Lie algebras however, the Riemann surfaces are not hyperelliptic and it is still not proven that the forms are holomorphic.

As a final ingredient for the Seiberg-Witten theory, we introduce a third set of coordinates $`a_I`$ on the moduli space of the family of surfaces and objects $`_I`$

$$a_I=_{A_I}\lambda _{SW}$$

$$_I=_{B_I}\lambda _{SW}$$
(3.9)
where we take a subset of a canonical basis for the homology. The holomorphic parts of the differentials $`\frac{\lambda _{SW}}{a_I}`$ are canonical with respect to the cycles and therefore $`\frac{_I}{a_J}`$ is a submatrix of the period matrix, which is symmetric. So $`_I`$ is a gradient and there exists a function $`(a_I)`$ with derivatives $`_I`$ and this socalled prepotential solves the low energy behaviour of $`N=2`$ super-Yang-Mills theory.

The product structure $`\left(\text{3.4}\right)`$ can also be expressed in terms of the $`a_I`$ as follows

$$\frac{W}{a_I}\frac{W}{a_J}=\underset{K=1}{\overset{r}{}}C_{IJ}^K(a)\frac{W}{a_K}\left[\underset{M=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{a_M}{t_r}\frac{W}{a_M}\right]+\stackrel{~}{Q}_{IJ}\frac{W}{x}$$
(3.10)
where the structure constants are related through $`C_{IJ}^K(a)=_{i,j,k}\frac{t_i}{a_I}\frac{t_j}{a_J}C_{ij}^k(t)\frac{a_K}{t_k}`$. Here we assume that the transformation from $`t_i`$ to $`a_I`$ is invertible, which can be justified: in the case of type $`A`$ Lie algebras, the number of moduli equals the genus and therefore the Jacobian

$$\frac{a_I}{t_j}=_{A_I}\frac{\lambda _{SW}}{t_j}\text{ }I,j=1,\mathrm{},g$$
(3.11)
is indeed invertible, since $`\frac{\lambda _{SW}}{t_j}`$ form a basis of holomorphic forms (modulo exact forms). For the other Lie algebras, we have to take a subset of a canonical basis. Suppose we supplement the forms $`\frac{\lambda _{SW}}{t_j}`$ with more forms $`\omega _i`$ to form a basis of holomorphic forms, then we know that the $`g\times g`$ matrix

$$\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}_{A_1}\frac{\lambda _{SW}}{t_1}\hfill & \text{}\hfill & _{A_1}\frac{\lambda _{SW}}{t_r}\hfill & _{A_1}\omega _1\hfill & \text{}\hfill & _{A_1}\omega _{gr}\hfill \\ \text{.}\hfill & \text{.}\hfill & \text{.}\hfill & \text{.}\hfill & \text{.}\hfill & \text{.}\hfill \\ \text{.}\hfill & \text{.}\hfill & \text{.}\hfill & \text{.}\hfill & \text{.}\hfill & \text{.}\hfill \\ _{A_g}\frac{\lambda _{SW}}{t_1}\hfill & \text{}\hfill & _{A_g}\frac{\lambda _{SW}}{t_r}\hfill & _{A_g}\omega _1\hfill & \text{}\hfill & _{A_g}\omega _{gr}\hfill \end{array}\right]$$

has rank $`g`$. So the submatrix

$$\left[\begin{array}{ccc}_{A_1}\frac{\lambda _{SW}}{t_1}\hfill & \text{}\hfill & _{A_1}\frac{\lambda _{SW}}{t_r}\hfill \\ \text{.}\hfill & \text{.}\hfill & \text{.}\hfill \\ \text{.}\hfill & \text{.}\hfill & \text{.}\hfill \\ _{A_g}\frac{\lambda _{SW}}{t_1}\hfill & \text{}\hfill & _{A_g}\frac{\lambda _{SW}}{t_r}\hfill \end{array}\right]$$

has rank $`r`$, and we can always find a square submatrix of rank $`r`$ by choosing the proper cycles. Therefore we can always choose cycles in such a way that the transformation from $`t_i`$ to $`a_I`$ is invertible. In Seiberg-Witten theory, there is a specific prescription  of what cycles one has to take and invertibility of the corresponding submatrix should be checked.

Following  we write down a subset of the Picard-Fuchs555If a basis of cohomology on a family of Riemann surfaces is given by $`\{\omega _i\}`$ where $`i=1,\mathrm{},2g`$ then the Picard-Fuchs equations express
$$\frac{}{t_i}_\mathrm{\Gamma }\omega _j=\underset{k}{}A_{ij}^k_\mathrm{\Gamma }\omega _k$$
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is some closed cycle and the $`t_i`$ are the moduli of the family. By a subset of Picard-Fuchs equations, we mean that we can express derivatives of some (not all) period integrals into a linear combination of some others. equations

$$\left(\frac{^2}{t_it_j}\underset{k=1}{\overset{r}{}}C_{ij}^k(t)\frac{^2}{t_kt_r}\right)_\mathrm{\Gamma }\lambda _{SW}=0$$
(3.12)
which hold for integrals along any closed cycle $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

We will now prove the following theorem

###### Theorem 1

The following formula holds: $`_{IJK}=_{L=1}^rC_{IJ}^L(a)\left[_{M=1}^r\frac{a_M}{t_r}_{MKL}\right]`$

Proof. Making a change of coordinates in $`\left(\text{3.12}\right)`$ from $`t_i`$ to $`a_I`$ we get

$$\left(\frac{a_I}{t_i}\frac{a_J}{t_j}\frac{^2}{a_Ia_J}\underset{k=1}{\overset{r}{}}C_{ij}^k(t)\frac{a_K}{t_k}\frac{a_M}{t_r}\frac{^2}{a_Ka_M}\right)_\mathrm{\Gamma }\lambda _{SW}=0$$

where we made use of the fact that the $`a_I`$ themselves are solutions to $`\left(\text{3.12}\right)`$. Now we can substitute $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=B_K`$ and find

$$\frac{^3}{a_Ia_Ja_K}=\underset{L=1}{\overset{r}{}}C_{IJ}^L(a)\left[\underset{M=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{a_M}{t_r}_{MKL}\right]$$
(3.13)
which is the relation $`\left(\text{1.3}\right)`$ between the third order derivatives of $`(a_I)`$ and the structure constants $`C_{IJ}^L(a)`$.

To obtain the generalized WDVV equations for the function $`(a_I)`$ we need the matrix $`_{M=1}^r\frac{a_M}{t_r}_M`$ to be invertible, which is generically true. Otherwise small perturbations can make it so. Since the derivation of the theorem does not depend on the specific choice of canonical homology basis we started with, and since duality transformations are changes of canonical homology, we have the following

###### Corollary 2

Take a set of solutions of the WDVV system coming from Seiberg-Witten theory with gauge group of $`ADE`$ type. Duality transformations leave the set of solutions invariant.

In other words, after a duality transformation there exists a function $`\stackrel{~}{}(\stackrel{~}{a}_I)`$ which is in general different666The transformations are often too difficult to perform explicitly. from $`(a_I)`$ but still satisfies the generalized WDVV system.

### 3.2 The $`B`$ and $`C`$ cases

Let us stresss that for $`B,C`$ Lie algebras, we no longer have

$$z+\frac{1}{z}=W$$

with $`W`$ a one variable version of the Landau-Ginzburg superpotential. This will be reflected in the Picard-Fuchs equations. In fact, if we still work with the flat coordinates of the Landau-Ginzburg superpotential $`W_{BC}`$ one can derive the Picard-Fuchs equations

$$\left(\frac{^2}{t_it_j}\underset{k=1}{\overset{r}{}}C_{ij}^k\frac{^2}{t_kt_r}\underset{k=1}{\overset{r}{}}\underset{n=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{d_nt_n}{h^{}}D_{ij}^k\frac{^2}{t_kt_n}+\underset{k=1}{\overset{r}{}}D_{ij}^k\frac{1}{h^{}}\left(1d_k\right)\frac{}{t_k}\right)_\mathrm{\Gamma }\lambda _{SW}=0$$
(3.14)
where the $`C_{ij}^k`$ are structure constants of the $`W_{BC}`$ Landau-Ginzburg theory, the $`d_n`$ are so-called degrees of the Lie algebra (the exponents +1), $`D_{ij}^k`$ depend on the $`t_i`$ and $`h^{}`$ is the dual Coxeter number. Making a change of coordinates to the $`a_I`$ just like we did for $`ADE`$ algebras and using the fact that the $`a_I`$ satisfy $`\left(\text{3.14}\right)`$, we get

$$\left[\frac{a_I}{t_i}\frac{a_J}{t_j}\underset{k}{}C_{ij}^k\frac{a_I}{t_k}\frac{a_J}{t_r}\underset{k,n}{}D_{ij}^k\frac{d_nt_n}{h^{}}\frac{a_I}{t_n}\frac{a_J}{t_k}\right]\frac{^2}{a_Ia_J}_\mathrm{\Gamma }\lambda _{SW}=0$$
(3.15)
These equations are not of such a form that we can derive a relation between $`_{IJK}`$ and the structure constants $`C_{ij}^k`$ in the same way as before. However, in  it was shown that some other constants $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{ij}^k`$ form structure constants of an associative algebra and are related to $`C_{ij}^k`$ through

$$C_{ij}^k=\stackrel{~}{C}_{ij}^k\underset{l,n=1}{\overset{r}{}}D_{ij}^l\frac{2nt_n}{h^{}}\stackrel{~}{C}_{nl}^k$$

$$C_i=\stackrel{~}{C}_iD_i\left(\underset{n=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{2nt_n}{h^{}}\stackrel{~}{C}_n\right)$$
(3.16)
where the second line is in matrix form. Substituting this into $`\left(\text{3.15}\right)`$ we get

$$\left[\frac{a_I}{t_i}\frac{a_J}{t_j}\underset{k}{}\stackrel{~}{C}_{ij}^k\frac{a_I}{t_k}\frac{a_J}{t_r}\right]\frac{^2}{a_Ia_J}_\mathrm{\Gamma }\lambda _{SW}+$$

$$\underset{n}{}D_{ij}^l\frac{2nt^n}{h^{}}\left[\frac{a_I}{t_n}\frac{a_J}{t_l}\underset{l}{}\stackrel{~}{C}_{nl}^k\frac{a_I}{t_k}\frac{a_J}{t_r}\right]\frac{^2}{a_Ia_J}_\mathrm{\Gamma }\lambda _{SW}=0$$
(3.17)
and in  further information about the $`D_{ij}^l`$ was used to conclude

$$\left[\frac{a_I}{t_i}\frac{a_J}{t_j}\underset{k}{}\stackrel{~}{C}_{ij}^k\frac{a_I}{t_k}\frac{a_J}{t_r}\right]\frac{^2}{a_Ia_J}_\mathrm{\Gamma }\lambda _{SW}=0$$
(3.18)
From this point we can proceed with the same reasoning as in the $`ADE`$ case and conclude that the following theorem holds

###### Theorem 3

The following formula holds: $`_{IJK}=_{L=1}^r\stackrel{~}{C}_{IJ}^L(a)\left[_{M=1}^r\frac{a_M}{t_r}_{MKL}\right]`$

###### Corollary 4

Take a set of solutions of the WDVV system coming from Seiberg-Witten theory with gauge group of $`B,C`$ type. Duality transformations leave the set of solutions invariant.

## 4 Conclusion and outlook

It was shown in  that elements of the continuous symplectic group $`Sp(2n,)`$ are symmetries of the generalized WDVV system. Because of the relation between Seiberg-Witten theory and Riemann surfaces, this leads naturally to the study of the discrete subgroup $`Sp(2n,)`$ in the Seiberg-Witten context, and we have shown how the interpretation of this discrete subgroup as changes of a canonical homology basis leads automatically to the invariance of classes of solutions to the WDVV system.

Other solutions of the generalized WDVV system found so far either come from the original WDVV equations or from the context of tau functions of conformal mappings . Interpretations of the symplectic transformations can be looked for in both contexts. This might show whether the discrete subgroup is a natural object there as well.

Other interesting symmetries of the WDVV system have been found , but no systematic investigation of symmetries has been undertaken. We believe such an investigation would be interesting.


text:
# Charge Density Waves and 𝑥=1/8 anomaly in La2-x-y(Nd,Eu)y(Ba,Sr)xCuO4

## Abstract

We adopt a $`t_1t_2t_3JG`$ model for explanation of $`x=1/8`$ anomaly in La2-xSrxCuO4 family compound. The calculated charge susceptibility shows a maximum near $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ at intermediate temperatures and near $`(\pi ,\pi /2)`$ as temperature approaches zero, in agreement with neutron scattering experiments. Coulomb repulsion $`G`$ between the first neighbors turns out to be the source of Charge Density Waves (CDW) in narrow band $`t_1^{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}},t_2^{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}},t_3^{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}<G`$. For physically realistic hopping values we obtain the CDW amplitude $`e_Q=x`$. The in-phase domain structure as a candidate for ”stripe” picture is proposed.

February 15, 2002

It is widely accepted, that high-temperature superconductivity (HTSC) appears in the vicinity of metal-insulator transition (MIT) in layered copper oxides . In addition, these compounds possess a pseudogap phenomenon in the normal state of underdoped regime, namely the density of states suppression at Fermi level. The superconducting CuO2 planes in La2-xSrxCuO4, YBa2Cu3O7-y and other copper oxide layered HTSC compounds present nearly an ideal realization of two-dimensional (2D) systems. Low dimensional character of these compounds suggests, that various phases are possible due to instabilities. It is known, that s-wave BCS Superconductivity compete with Charge Density Waves (CDW), where the anomalous averages were due to Fröhlich interaction and did not depend on the wave vector. $`d`$-wave superconductivity was also found to compete with $`id`$-wave Peierls instability in bilayered underdoped HTSC, where both gaps were due to Superexhange and Coulomb interactions between the nearest neighbors . Very recently this sliding vortex-antivortex current structures in CuO2 planes attracted a renewed interest in connection with unusual nonsuperconducting state properties of layered copper oxide HTSC compounds .

Strong depression of TC in La2-xBaxCuO4 , La2-xSrxCuO4  and La1.48Nd0.4Sr0.12CuO4  within narrow region of $`x`$ at $`x1/8`$ is the well known important problem of the doped CuO2 plane in the HTSC. The discovery of stripe like structure via neutron diffraction in La1.48Nd0.4Sr0.12CuO4  gave a new accelerating impulse for study this intriguing problem (see  for review). New ideas regarding the relation between the fluctuating stripe motion and HTSC phenomenon were speculated . The $`𝐐`$ dependence of peaks as seen in neutron diffraction experiments seems to provide an evidence that stripes are a kind of CDW instability; this scenario was considered in a number of papers (see e.g. ). However, the crucial question, namely why at so narrow interval of concentration around $`x1/8`$ the mystery of $`T_C`$ strong depression occurs and accompanies by stripes pattern phenomenon is not been completely understood. Recently this problem was investigated by magnetic resonance method  and new evidence of the quasi-static charge-spins ordering at $`x1/8`$ has been found at low temperatures in La2-xBaxCuO4  and in La1.48Eu0.4Sr0.12CuO4 . Note that x-ray diffraction measurements have confirmed the existence of charge order in La1.48Nd0.4Sr0.12CuO4 .

In this Letter we will concentrate ourselves to the description of properties for particular underdoped case $`x=1/8`$ in La2-xSrxCuO4 on the microscopical basis. We start from the $`t_1t_2t_3JG`$ model Hamiltonian

$`\widehat{H}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}t_{ij}\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{pd,\sigma }\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{\sigma ,dp}+{\displaystyle \underset{l>m}{}}J_{lm}\left[\left(𝐒_l𝐒_m\right){\displaystyle \frac{n_ln_m}{4}}\right]`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l>m}{}}G_{lm}\delta _l\delta _m{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}F_i\left({\displaystyle \underset{\rho }{}}S_{i+\rho }\right)^2,`$ (2)
where $`\delta _l=1n_l`$ is the number of extra holes per unit cell, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{pd,\sigma }(\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{\sigma ,dp})`$ are creation (annihilation) operators constructed on the singlet combination of copper (d) and oxygen (p) states basis (see Ref.  for details). The last term takes into account the polarization of nearest neighbor (n.n.) copper spins ($`\rho `$ runs over n.n.) around copper-oxygen singlet at site $`i`$ as described in .

Following the idea of Zhang and Rice about copper-oxygen singlets formation it was shown , that it is possible to describe correctly the elementary excitations spectrum in cuprates. This singlet correlated band is analogous to upper Hubbard band with essential distinction - the subband splitting is much smaller, compared to Hubbard model. Therefore it is possible to apply Hubbard formalism without strict restriction on $`t`$ and $`J`$ values in $`tJ`$ model. According to Angle Resolved Photoemission Electron Spectroscopy (ARPES) the bandwidth $`W3J`$ for optimally doped HTSC . In undoped insulating Sr2CuO2Cl2, $`WJ`$, in agreement with Monte-Carlo and Exact Diagonalization simulations , and the valence-band dispersion has a maximum located near ($`\pi /2`$,$`\pi /2`$) . The value of bare hopping between the first neighbors $`t_1=78`$ meV is known from comparison with ARPES . We stress the importance of $`t_2`$ and $`t_3`$ hopping integrals, that expand our model and strongly affect on the Fermi surface form. The value of superexchange interaction between the nearest Cu neighbors for La2-xSrxCuO4 is known from neutron scattering data $`J`$=135 meV . These arguments enforces us to study the opposite region of values ($`t_1,t_2,t_3<J`$), compared to usually used in celebrated $`tJ`$ model.

The hoppings $`t_{ij}`$ are strongly affected by electron and especially by spin-spin correlations, resulting to effective values of hoppings

$$t_n^{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}=t_nP_{pd}\left[1+\frac{𝐒_i𝐒_j_n}{P_{pd}^2}\right]$$
(3)
for $`n`$=$`|ji|`$-th neighbor. $`P_{pd}`$=$`(1+x)/2`$ is Hubbard electronic reduction factor. The spin-spin correlation functions $`𝐒_i𝐒_j`$ have been calculated in a variety of approaches  and numerical methods  within the 2D $`tJ`$ model. The most notable result is that $`𝐒_i𝐒_j_10.333`$ in undoped antiferromagnet at zero temperature. These calculations suggest also that with doping the spin-spin correlations goes down first slowly in lightly doped and underdoped HTSC oxides and then rapidly decreases for optimally doped and overdoped regime. Therefore, for $`x=1/8`$ we set $`𝐒_i𝐒_j_1=P_{pd}^20.3164`$ so that $`t_1^{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}=0`$. Strong antiferromagnetic correlations block the hopping between the first neighbors so that the order is undamped . Our initial Fermi surface with dispersion

$`\epsilon _𝐤^{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}=4t_2^{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y+2t_3^{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}(\mathrm{cos}2k_x+\mathrm{cos}2k_y),`$ (4)
has pockets centered around $`(\pi /2,\pi /2)`$ and is similar to that observed by LaRosa et al.  in Sr2CuO2Cl2.

To select the instability wavevector for charge subsystem we have calculated the charge susceptibility, using the expressions given in . The results are shown on Fig. 1. It is seen, that at low temperatures charge susceptibility has a maximum near $`(\pi /2,\pi )`$, in remarkable agreement with neutron scattering experiments . With increasing temperature the charge susceptibility shows a peak around $`𝐐=(\pi ,\pi )`$. These results are stable with respect to moderate variation of $`G`$ value.

To formulate the self-consistent system of equations we use Green’s function method and apply Roth’s decoupling scheme . The elementary excitations spectrum of the Hamiltonian (1) is given by the equation

$$\mathrm{d}et\left|\begin{array}{cc}\text{ }\epsilon _𝐤^{}\mu \hfill & \text{ }\eta _{𝐤,𝐐}^{}\hfill \\ \eta _{𝐤+𝐐,𝐐}^{}\hfill & \text{ }\epsilon _{𝐤+𝐐}^{}\mu \hfill \end{array}\right|=0.$$
(5)
The quasiparticle dispersion relation has the form

$`\epsilon _𝐤^\sigma =P_{pd}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}t_{ij}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐒_i𝐒_j_n}{P_{pd}^2}}\right]e^{i\mathrm{𝐤𝐑}_{ij}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2NP_{pd}}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤^{}}{}}\left[\left(J_{𝐤^{}𝐤}2t_𝐤^{}\right)X_𝐤^{}^{2\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}X_𝐤^{}^{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }2}+2G_{𝐤^{}𝐤}X_𝐤^{}^{2\sigma }X_𝐤^{}^{\sigma 2}\right],`$ (6)
where $`t_𝐤=2t_1(\mathrm{cos}k_x+\mathrm{cos}k_y)+4t_2\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y+2t_3(\mathrm{cos}2k_x+\mathrm{cos}2k_y)`$. The order parameter $`\eta _{𝐤,𝐐}^\sigma `$ is responsible for abnormal properties of HTSC layered copper oxides due to instabilities. It is caused by short ranged interactions and given by

$`\eta _{𝐤,𝐐}^\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`\left[t_{𝐤+𝐐}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐒_i𝐒_jt_{ij}e^{i\mathrm{𝐤𝐑}_{ij}}}{P_{pd}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(𝐒_i𝐒_jJ_{ij}e^{i\mathrm{𝐤𝐑}_{ij}}\right)_{𝐤=\mathrm{𝟎}}}{2P_{pd}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J_𝐐\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e_𝐐+\sigma s_𝐐^z+`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2NP_{pd}^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤^{}}{}}\left[\left(J_{𝐤^{}𝐤}2t_𝐤^{}\right)X_𝐤^{}^{2\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}X_𝐤^{}^{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }2}+2G_{𝐤^{}𝐤}X_𝐤^{}^{2\sigma }X_𝐤^{}^{\sigma 2}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e_𝐐+\sigma s_𝐐^z`$ (8)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2NP_{pd}}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤^{}}{}}\left[\left(J_{𝐤^{}𝐤}2t_𝐤^{}\right)X_{𝐤^{}+𝐐}^{2\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}X_𝐤^{}^{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }2}+2G_{𝐤^{}𝐤}X_{𝐤^{}+𝐐}^{2\sigma }X_𝐤^{}^{\sigma 2}\right]+G_𝐐e_𝐐,`$ (9)
where $`J_𝐤=2J\left(\mathrm{cos}k_x+\mathrm{cos}k_y\right)`$, $`G_𝐤=2G\left(\mathrm{cos}k_x+\mathrm{cos}k_y\right)`$ and $`\sigma =\pm `$ is spin index. The latter contribution in Eq. (7), $`G_Qe_Q`$, will be important and we note, that $`G_Q/G=4`$ is negative due to instability vector $`𝐐=(\pi ,\pi )`$. The eigenvalues of the matrix (5) are given by

$$E_{1𝐤,2𝐤}^\sigma =\frac{1}{2}\left(\epsilon _{𝐤+𝐐}^\sigma +\epsilon _𝐤^\sigma \right)\frac{}{}\mu \pm \frac{1}{2}E_{12}^\sigma $$
(10)
where

$$E_{12}^\sigma =\sqrt{\left(\epsilon _{𝐤+𝐐}^\sigma \epsilon _𝐤^\sigma \right)^2+4\eta _{𝐤+𝐐,𝐐}^\sigma \eta _{𝐤,𝐐}^\sigma }.$$
(11)
It is seen that in the $`t_1^{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}=0`$ case $`\eta _{𝐤,𝐐}^\sigma =\eta _{𝐤+𝐐,𝐐}^\sigma `$ and the quasiparticle energy is real, i.e. the regime realized has no damping.

$$e_𝐐=\frac{1}{N}\delta _ie^{i\mathrm{𝐐𝐑}_i},\text{ }s_𝐐^z=\frac{1}{N}s_i^ze^{i\mathrm{𝐐𝐑}_i}$$
(12)
are Fourier amplitudes of CDW and Spin Density Wave (SDW) respectively and can be expressed via thermodynamic averages as

$$e_𝐐=\frac{1}{2N}\underset{𝐤}{}X_{𝐤+𝐐}^2X_𝐤^2+X_{𝐤+𝐐}^2X_𝐤^2,$$
(13)
$$s_𝐐^z=\frac{1}{2N}\underset{𝐤}{}X_𝐤^2X_{𝐤+𝐐}^2X_𝐤^2X_{𝐤+𝐐}^2.$$
(14)
We note, that the $`id`$-wave order does not contribute to expectation values of CDW $`(e_𝐐)`$ and SDW $`(s_𝐐^z)`$.

The relevant thermal average have the following form:

$$X_{𝐤+𝐐}^{2\sigma }X_𝐤^{\sigma 2}=\frac{P_{pd}\text{ }\eta _{𝐤,𝐐}^\sigma }{E_{12}^\sigma }\left[f(E_{1𝐤}^\sigma )\frac{}{}f(E_{2𝐤}^\sigma )\right].$$
(15)
In the $`t_1^{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}=0`$, $`t_2^{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}},t_3^{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}G`$ limit suggestions on solution of system of equations (7-15) may be obtained even analytically. Suppose, that we have non-negligible CDW amplitude $`e_Q`$. Then, due to large $`G`$, compared to hoppings, value, the contribution $`G_Qe_Q`$ will dominate in (7). Next, we note, that the $`\eta `$ order parameter will dominate in Eq. (11) and hence $`E_{12}^\sigma |2\eta _{𝐤,𝐐}^\sigma |`$. Therefore the absolute value of thermal average (15) is equal to $`\frac{1}{2}P_{pd}`$. Substituting this result to Eqs. (13, 14) we obtain, that the SDW amplitude is $`s_Q=0`$ and CDW amplitude $`e_Q=\frac{1}{2}P_{pd}`$.

Despite many attempts to calculate the numerical values of hoppings $`t_2^{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}`$ and $`t_3^{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}},`$ their values are precisely still unknown together with the spin-spin correlation functions between the next-next nearest neighbors. The only known result from ARPES experiments and exact numerical simulations within 2D $`tJ`$ model is that the bandwidth $`WJ`$ for undoped antiferromagnet, that gives a restriction to the $`t_2^{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}`$ and $`t_3^{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}`$ values. We set the values of effective hoppings $`|t_2^{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}|=10`$ meV and $`t_3^{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}=20`$ meV, that are, in our opinion, the most relevant values for La2-xSrxCuO4 with $`x=1/8`$. For the spin-spin correlation function between the second neighbors we set $`𝐒_i𝐒_j_2=0.15`$, due to reasons described above. The value and even the sign of next-next nearest neighbors spin-spin correlation function is completely unknown, therefore we set $`𝐒_i𝐒_j_3=0`$. $`F_i`$ 4 meV was estimated in . The value of screened Coulomb repulsion at $`x1/8`$ is $`G75`$ meV . We have solved the system of equations (7-15) with this set of parameters. We have obtained, that in the low temperature limit the CDW amplitude $`e_Q=x`$, where $`x`$ is the number of holes in CuO2 plane due to Sr doping. In this case the undamped CDW completely destroy superconductivity at $`x=1/8`$ in La2-xSrxCuO4 and are responsible for drastic change in temperature dependencies of various physical quantities. The calculated wavevector dependence of $`\eta _𝐤^\sigma `$ order parameter at T$`=50`$ K is presented in Fig. 2. It is seen, that its value is mainly determined by wavevector independent CDW contribution $`G_Qe_Q`$. The temperature dependence of CDW amplitude $`e_Q`$ determined by temperature dependence of thermal average (15), which are, in turn, determined by mean field approximation via Fermi distribution functions $`f(E_{1𝐤}^\sigma ),f(E_{2𝐤}^\sigma )`$. The calculated CDW closure temperature is T$`{}_{CDW}{}^{}=350`$ K.

The described above scenario explains the reason of anomaly at $`x=1/8`$. At this doping level conventional CDW are allowed (without damping) and they suppress superconductivity. According to our calculation CDW regime appeared at $`x=1/8`$ far above TC. The experimental observation of critical temperature T$`{}_{d2}{}^{}`$ 138 K in La2-x-yEuySrxCuO4 with $`x=1/8`$ at which the copper relaxation rate $`1/T_1`$ suddenly goes down  can be naturally interpreted as a transition related to CDW state. With lowering temperature the pinning process due to freezing of the spin fluctuation becomes important and charge-spin ordering tends to be quasi-static. In Fig. 3 we show our variant of copper - oxygen singles ordering in plane which we expect to be appeared in La2-x-yReySrxCuO4 (Re=Nd and Eu) below T $``$ 9 K. The displayed stripe pattern has many common features with that suggested by Tranquada et al. . The distinction is that our picture corresponds to the so-called in-phase domain walls in contrast to antiphase domain proposed in . As one can see our model explains the observed magnetic superlattice peaks of the type (1/2,$`\pm ϵ`$), (1/2,0) (in $`2\pi `$ units) and charge-ordered peaks at (2$`ϵ`$,0,0) , too. In addition it is naturally follows from widely accepted copper-oxygen singlet formation picture , which provides the minimum in the energy of the exchange interactions between copper - oxygen and copper-copper spins . The last term in (1) plays crucial role in this aspect. It was pointed in Ref.  that in-phase domain even better reproduce the observed high frequency tail in NQR spectra in La2-xBaxCuO4 with $`x=1/8`$ at low temperatures compared to anti-phase domain model . This conclusion is consistent with the ferromagnetic stripe ordering suggestion  based on strong sensitivity to magnetic fields. The Coulomb term ($`G`$) is important, since without it there is no CDW-like instability. This statement is in agreement with conclusion of  that pure $`tJ`$ model does not give any stripes.

Finally we comment the results of huge isotope shift changes with Sr doping in La2-xSrxCuO4 . According to our findings the competition between $`d`$-wave superconductivity and CDW is stronger, compared to competition between $`d`$-wave SC and order, caused by short range interactions. Moreover, the latter type of competition becomes stronger with decreasing of doping. Thus we are able to explain the gradual increase of isotope effect with decreasing of Sr doping in underdoped regime together with nearly divergent behavior of isotope exponent near $`x=1/8`$ anomaly in La2-xSrxCuO4.

In summary, the calculated charge susceptibility shows a maximum near $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ at intermediate temperatures and near $`(\pi ,\pi /2)`$ as temperature approaches zero, in agreement with neutron scattering experiments. We have shown, that in two-dimensional systems with narrow bands, so that the hoppings $`t_2^{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}},t_3^{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}<G`$, $`t_1^{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}=0`$ due to strong antiferromagnetic correlations, and with instability antiferromagnetic wave vector $`Q=(\pi ,\pi )`$, due to large Coulomb repulsion between the first neighbors $`G`$ the CDW are formed. For physically realistic values $`t_2^{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}},t_3^{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}`$ at $`x=1/8`$ in La2-xSrxCuO4 the CDW amplitude $`e_Q`$ = $`x`$, where $`x`$ is Sr content. Based on the calculated charge susceptibility peaks position the in-phase domain structure as a candidate for ”stripe” picture is proposed. In our opinion, this scenario sheds light on drastic change of various physical quantities at ”magic” value of Sr content $`x=1/8`$ in La2-xSrxCuO4.

This work was supported in part by Russian State Science and Technology Program ”Superconductivity” Grant No. 98014-2 and CRDF Rec 007. I.A.L. thanks INTAS YSF 2001/2-45 for support.


text:
# Spectral Energy Distributions and Age Estimates of 78 Star Clusters in M33

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The importance of the study of star clusters is difficult to overstate, especially in Local Group galaxies. Star clusters, which represent, in distinct and luminous “packets”, single age and single abundance points, and encapsulate at least a partial history of the parent galaxy’s evolution, can provide a unique laboratory for studying. For example, globular clusters can be utilized to provide a lower limit to the age of the parent galaxy provided their ages can be ascertained, and to study the properties of the parent galaxy soon after its formation.

M33 is a small Scd Local Group galaxy, about 15 times farther from us than the LMC (distance modulus is 24.64) (Freedman, Wilson, & Madore 1991; Chandar, Bianchi, & Ford 1999a). It is interesting and important because it represents a morphological type intermediate between the largest “early-type” spirals and the dwarf irregulars in the Local Group (Chandar, Bianchi, & Ford 1999a). Besides, At a distace of $`840`$ kpc, M33 is the only nearby late-tye spiral galaxy, it can provide an important link between the cluster populations of earlier-tye spirals (Milky Way galaxy and M31) and the numerous, nearby later-type dwarf galaxies. A database of star clusters for M33 have been yielded from the ground-based work (Hiltner 1960; Kron & Mayall 1960; Christian & Schommer 1982, 1988; Melnick & D’Odorico 1978; Mochejska et al. (1998)), and from the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) images (Chandar, Bianchi, & Ford 1999a; Chandar, Bianchi, & Ford (2001)). Especially, the $`HST`$ spatial resolution allowed Chandar, Bianchi, & Ford (1999a, 2001) to penetrate the crowded, spiral regions of M33, yielding the unbiased, representative sample of star clusters, which can be used to probe the global properties of M33. Since clusters at the distance of M33 are easily distinguished from stellar sources in $`HST`$ WFPC2 images, the clusters detected by $`HST`$ WFPC2 images are reliable.

Using the $`Hubble`$ $`Space`$ $`Telescope`$ WFPC2 multiband images of 20 fields in M33, Chandar, Bianchi, & Ford (1999a) detected 60 star clusters in this spiral galaxy. These clusters sample a variety of environments from outer regions to spiral arms and central regions, and are the first unbiased, representive sample of star clusters in M33. Then, Chandar, Bianchi, & Ford (1999b) estimated the ages and masses for these star clusters by comparing the integrated photometric measurements with evolutionary models and theoretical $`M/L_V`$ ratios. They found the 60 star clusters to form continuously in their parent galaxy from $`4\times 10^610^{10}`$ years, and to have masses between $`4\times 10^2`$ and $`3\times 10^5`$ $`M_{}`$.

M33 was observed as part of galaxy calibration program of the Beijing-Arizona-Taiwan-Connecticut (BATC) Multicolor Sky Survey (Fan et al. 1996; Zheng et al. 1999) from September 23, 1995. This program uses the 60/90 cm Schmidt telescope at the Xinglong Station of Beijing Astronomical Observatory (BAO), and has custom designed a set of 15 intermediate-band filters to do spectrophotometry for preselected 1 deg2 regions of the northern sky. The BAO Schmidt telescope is equipped with a Ford $`2048\times 2048`$ Ford CCD at its main focus. Using the 13 intermediate-band filters images of M33 obtained from the BATC Multicolor Sky Survey, Ma et al. (2001) studied the 60 star clusters of Chandar et al. (1999a). They (Ma et al. 2001) presented the SEDs by aperture photometry, and estimated the ages by comparing the integrated photometric measurements with theoretical stellar population synthesis models for these star clusters. We can provide the accurate SEDs for these star clusters using the multi-color photometry of BATC.

From 35 deep $`Hubble`$ $`Space`$ $`Telescope`$ $`(HST)`$ WFPC2 fields, Chandar, Bianchi, & Ford (2001) again detected 102 star clustrs in M33, eighty-two of which had not previously been detected. Using one dereddened color ($`(VI)_0`$), they estimated the ages and masses for these clusters with single stellar population models. However, they did not give quantitative age estimates for individual clusters due to the relatively large uncertainty associated with age estimates from comparison of one color with single stellar population models.

In this paper, we present the SEDs of 78 star clusters that were detected by Chandar, Bianchi, & Ford (2001) in M33, and quantitatively estimate the ages for these clusters by comparing the integrated photometric measurements with theoretical stellar population synthesis models.

The outline of the paper is as follows. Details of observations and data reduction are given in section 2. In section 3, we provide a brief description of the stellar population synthesis models of G. Bruzual & S. Charlot (1996, unpublished). The age estimates for the star clusters are given in section 4. The summary and discussion are presented in section 5.

## 2 SAMPLE OF STAR CLASTERS, OBSERVATIONS AND DATA REDUCTION

### 2.1 Sample of Star Clusters

The sample of star clusters in this paper is from Chandar, Bianchi, & Ford (2001), who used 35 deep $`Hubble`$ $`Space`$ $`Telescope`$ $`(HST)`$ WFPC2 fields to extend the search for star clusters in M33, and particularly to focus on detection of older clusters. Since these clusters cover a range of environments from the center to the skirts, they can be used to probe the global properties of the parent galaxy. At the same time, the accurate positions of these star clusters are presented in Chandar, Bianchi, & Ford (2001). So, we select these star clusters to be studied, and obtain their SEDs in the 13 intermediate-band filters by aperture photometry. The age estimates for thses star clusters are obtained using the theoretical evolutionary population synthesis methods. Clusters 63, 65, 66, 80, 82, 85, 102, 105, 111, 123, 134, 138, 140, 143 and 149 are not included in our sample because of their low signal-to-noise ratio in the images of some BATC filters. Besides, clusters 61, 70, 81, 90, 98, 104, 106, 114 and 116 are U49, M9, C20, U77, R14, H38, H10, C38 and R12 of Christian & Schommer (1982) respectively, the SEDs and ages of which were presented (Ma et al. 2002), and are also not included in our sample. The position of cluster 85 presented by Chardar et al. (2001) may be wrong, it should be $`\mathrm{RA}=01^\mathrm{h}33^\mathrm{m}14^\mathrm{s}.28`$ decl.=30$`{}_{}{}^{}28_{}^{}22^{\prime \prime }.9`$, and it is U137 of Christian & Schommer (1982) (see details from Ma et al. 2002).

Figure 1 is the image of M33 in filter BATC07 (5785Å), the circles in which indicate the positions of the sample clusters in this paper.

### 2.2 Observations and Data Reduction

The large field multi-color observations of the spiral galaxy M33 were obtained in the BATC photometric system. The multi-color BATC filter system, which were specifically designed to avoid contamination from the brightest and most variable night sky emission lines, includes 15 intermediate-band filters, covering the total optical wavelength range from 3000 to 10000Å. The images of M33 covering the whole optical body of M33 were accumulated in 13 intermediate band filters with a total exposure time of about 32.75 hours from September 23, 1995 to August 28, 2000. The dome flat-field images were taken by using a diffuse plate in front of the correcting plate of the Schmidt telescope. For flux calibration, the Oke-Gunn primary flux standard stars HD19445, HD84937, BD+262606 and BD+174708 were observed during photometric nights (see details from Yan et al. 1999, Zhou et al. 2001). Column 6 in Table 1 gives the calibration error, in magnitude, for the standard stars in each filter. The formal errors we obtain for these stars in the 13 BATC filters are $`0.02`$ mag. This indicates that we can define the standard BATC system to an accuracy of $`0.02`$ mag.

The data were reduced with standard procedures, including bias subtraction and flat-fielding of the CCD images, with an automatic data reduction software named PIPELINE I developed for the BATC multi-color sky survey (see Ma et al. 2001, 2002 for a detail).

### 2.3 Integrated Photometry

For each star cluster, the PHOT routine in DAOPHOT (Stetson 1987, 1992) is used to obtain magnitudes. For avoiding contamination from nearby objects, a smaller aperture of $`6\mathrm{}.8`$, which corresponds to a diameter of 4 pixels in Ford CCDs, is adopted. Aperture corrections are computed using isolated stars. The spectral energy distributions (SEDs) in 13 BATC filters for 78 star clusters were obtained. Table 2 contains the following information: Column 1 is cluster number which is taken from Chandar, Bianchi, & Ford (2001). Column 2 to Column 14 show the magnitudes of different bands. Second line of each star cluster is the uncertainties of magnitude of corresponding band. The uncertainties for each filter are given by DAOPHOT.

### 2.4 Comparison with Previous Photometry

Using the Landolt standards, Zhou et al. (2001) presented the relationships between the BATC intermediate-band system and $`UBVRI`$ broadband system by the catalogs of Landolt (1983, 1992) and Galadí-Enríquez et al. (2000). We show the coefficients of one relationship in equation (1).

$$m_V=m_{07}+(0.3233\pm 0.019)(m_{06}m_{08})+0.0590\pm 0.010.$$
(1)
Using equation (1), we transformed the magnitudes of 78 star clusters in BATC06, BATC07 and BATC08 bands to ones in V band. Figure 2 plots the comparison of $`V`$ (BATC) photometry with previously published measurements (Chandar, Bianchi, & Ford 2001). Table 3 shows this comparison. The mean $`V`$ magnitude difference (this paper’s values minus the values of Chandar et al. 2001) is $`<\mathrm{\Delta }V>=0.036\pm 0.042`$. The uncertainties in $`V`$ (BATC) have been added linearly, i.e. $`\sigma _B=\sigma _{07}+0.3233(\sigma _{06}+\sigma _{08})`$, to reflect the error in the three filter measurements. From Figure 2 and Table 3, it can be seen that there is good agreement in the photometric measurements between Chandar, Bianchi, & Ford (2001) and this paper except for clusters 115 and 127.

## 3 DATABASES OF SIMPLE STELLAR POPULATIONS

Tinsley (1972) and Searle et al. (1973) did the pioneering work in evolutionary population synthesis. This method has become a standard technique to study the stellar populations of galaxies. This is a result of the improvement in the theory of the chemical evolution of galaxies, star formation, stellar evolution and atmospheres, and of the development of synthesis algorithms and the availability of various evolutionary synthesis models. A comprehensive compilation of such models was presented by Leitherer et al. (1996) and Kennicutt (1998). More widely used models are from the Padova and Geneva group (e.g. Schaerer & de Koter (1997); Schaerer & Vacca (1998); Bressan et al. (1996); Chiosi et al. (1998)), GISSEL96 (Charlot & Bruzual (1991); Bruzual & Charlot (1993); G. Bruzual & S. Charlot 1996, unpublished), PEGASE (Fioc & Rocca-Volmerange (1997)) and STARBURST99 (Leitherer et al. (1999)).

A simple stellar population (SSP) is defined as a single generation of coeval stars with fixed parameters such as metallicity, initial mass function, etc. (Buzzoni (1997)). SSPs are the basic building blocks of synthetic spectra of galaxies that can be used to infer the formation and subsequent evolution of the parent galaxies (Jablonka et al. (1996)). They are modeled by a collection of stellar evolutionary tracks with different masses and initial chemical compositions, supplemented with a library of stellar spectra for stars at different evolutionary stages in evolution synthesis models. In this paper, we use the SSPs of Galaxy Isochrone Synthesis Spectra Evolution Library (hereafter GSSP; G. Bruzual & S. Charlot 1996, unpublished) to estimate the ages of the sample clusters, since they are simple and reasonably well understood.

### 3.1 Spectral Energy Distribution of GSSPs

Charlot & Bruzual (1991) developed a model of stellar population synthesis. In this model, the population synthesis method can be used to determine the distribution of stars in the theoretical color-magnitude diagram (CMD) for any stellar system. Bruzual & Charlot (1993) presented “isochrone synthesis” as a natural and reliable approach to model the evolution of stellar populations in star clusters and galaxies. With this isochrone synthesis algorithm, Bruzual & Charlot (1993) computed the spectral energy distributions of stellar populations with solar metallicity. G. Bruzual & S. Charlot (1996, unpublished) improved the Bruzual & Charlot (1993) evolutionary population synthesis models. The updated version provides the evolution of the spectrophotometric properties for a wide range of stellar metallicity, which are $`Z=0.0004,0.004,0.008,0.02,0.05,`$ and $`0.1`$ (see Ma et al. 2001, 2002 for a detail).

### 3.2 Integrated Colors of GSSPs

Kong et al. (2000) have obtained the age, metallicity, and interstellar-medium reddening distribution for M81. They found the best match between the intrinsic colors and the predictions of GSSP for each cell of M81. To estimate the ages for the sample clusters in this paper, we follow the method of Kong et al. (2000). As we know, the observational data are integrated luminosity. So, we need to convolve the SED of GSSP with BATC filter profiles to obtain the optical and near-infrared integrated luminosity for comparisons (Kong et al. 2000). The integrated luminosity $`L_{\lambda _i}(t,Z)`$ of the $`i`$th BATC filter can be calculated with

$$L_{\lambda _i}(t,Z)=\frac{F_\lambda (t,Z)\phi _i(\lambda )𝑑\lambda }{\phi _i(\lambda )𝑑\lambda },$$
(2)
where $`F_\lambda (t,Z)`$ is the spectral energy distribution of the GSSP of metallicity $`Z`$ at age $`t`$, $`\phi _i(\lambda )`$ is the response functions of the $`i`$th filter of the BATC filter system ($`i=3,4,\mathrm{},15`$), respectively. For avoiding to use the parameters that are denpantant on the distance. We calculate the integrated colors of a GSSP relative to the BATC filter BATC08 ($`\lambda =6075`$Å):

$$C_{\lambda _i}(t,Z)=L_{\lambda _i}(t,Z)/L_{6075}(t,Z).$$
(3)
As a result, we obtained the intermediate-band colors of a GSSP for 6 metallicities from Z=0.0004 to Z=0.1 using equations (2) and (3).

## 4 AGE ESTIMATES

In order to obtain intrinsic colors of 78 clusters and hence accurate ages, the photometric measurements must be dereddened. As Chandar, Bianchi, & Ford (2001) did, we adopted $`E(BV)=0.10`$. Besides, we adopted the extinction curve presented by Zombeck (1990). An extinction correction $`A_\lambda =R_\lambda E(BV)`$ was applied, here $`R_\lambda `$ is obtained by interpolating using the data of Zombeck (1990).

Since we model the stellar populations of the star clusters by SSPs, the intrinsic colors for each star cluster are determined by two parameters: age, and metallicity. We will determine the ages and best-fitted models of metallicity for these star clusters simultaneously by a least square method. The age and best-fitted model of metallicity are found by minimizing the difference between the intrinsic and integrated colors of GSSP:

$$R^2(n,t,Z)=\underset{i=3}{\overset{15}{}}[C_{\lambda _i}^{\mathrm{intr}}(n)C_{\lambda _i}^{\mathrm{ssp}}(t,Z)]^2,$$
(4)
where $`C_{\lambda _i}^{\mathrm{ssp}}(t,Z)`$ represents the integrated color in the $`i`$th filter of a SSP at age $`t`$ in the model of metallicity $`Z`$, and $`C_{\lambda _i}^{\mathrm{intr}}(n)`$ is the intrinsic integrated color for nth star cluster. Using the stellar evolutionary models (Bertelli et al. 1994) and published line indices of 22 M33 older clusters, Chandar, Bianchi, & Ford (1999b) narrowed the range of cluster metallicities (Z) to be from $`0.0002`$ to 0.03. So, we only select the models of three metallicities, 0.0004, 0.004 and 0.02 of GSSP.

Figure 3 shows the map of the best fit of the integrated color of a SSP with the intrinsic integrated color for 78 star clusters, and Table 4 presents the best-fitted models of metallicities and ages for these star clusters. In Figure 3, the thick line represents the integrated color of a SSP of GSSP, and filled circle represents the intrinsic integrated color of a star cluster. From this figure, we see that clusters 83, 88 and 148 have strong emission lines. In the process of fitting, we did not use the strong emission lines.

Figure 4 presents a histogram of cluster ages. The results show that, in general, M33 clusters have been forming continuously, with ages of $`3\times 10^6`$$`10^{10}`$ years. This conclusion confirms the results of Chandar, Bianchi, & Fort (2001). There exist three groups of clusters that formed with three models of metalicities, $`Z=0.02,0.004`$, and $`0.0004`$. In different models of metallicities, the distribution of cluster ages is a little different, too. In the model of $`Z=0.02`$, the ages of most clusters are younger than $`10^9`$ years, and there are two peaks at $`10^7`$ and $`10^9`$ years. In the model of $`Z=0.004`$, the clusters formed from $`3\times 10^6`$$`10^{10}`$ years, and the distribution of ages is more homogeneous than in the other two models. In the model of $`Z=0.0004`$, the most clusters formed from $`10^8`$$`10^{10}`$ years. Clusters 97, 106 and 162 have derived ages consistent with that of the globular clusters of the Milky Way, $`1.5\times 10^{10}`$ years. This result is also consistent with that found by Chandar, Bianchi, & Fort (1999b) and Ma et al. (2001), who presented clusters 11, 28, 29 and 57 to be as old as $`1.5\times 10^{10}`$ years.

In this section, we estimate the ages of our sample clusters by comparing the photometry of each object with the theoretical stellar population synthesis models for different values of metallicity. However, we want to emphasize that, for clusters older than several $`10^8`$ years, the age/metallicity degeneracy becomes pronounced. In this case, we only mean that in some model of metallicity, the intrinsic integrated color of a cluster can do the best fit with the integrated color of a SSP at some age. Besides, the uncertainties in the age estimates arising from photometric uncertainties are 0.2 or so, i.e, $`\mathrm{age}\pm 0.2\times \mathrm{age}[\mathrm{log}\mathrm{yr}]`$.

## 5 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

In this paper, we have, for the first time, obtained the SEDs of 78 star clusters of M33 in 13 intermediate colors with the BAO 60/90 cm Schmidt telescope. Below, we summarize our main conclusions.

1. Using the images obtained with the Beijing Astronomical Observatory $`60/90`$ cm Schmidt Telescope in 13 intermediate-band filters from 3800 to 10000Å, we obtained the spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of 78 star clusters that were detected by Chandar, Bianchi, & Ford (2001).

2. By comparing the integrated photometric measurements with theoretical stellar population synthesis models, we find that clusters formed continuously in M33 from $`3\times 10^6`$$`10^{10}`$ years. The results also show that, there are two peaks at $`8\times 10^6`$ and $`10^9`$ years.

Chandar et al. (1999a, 1999b) estimated ages for 60 star clusters in M33 by comparing the photometric measurements to integrated color from theoretical models by Bertelli et al. (1994). Their results showed that, the integrated colors of star clusters depend mostly on age, with a secondary dependence on chemical composition. So, we can estimate ages of clusters, but cannot determine metallicities of clusters exactly. As Chandar, Bianchi, & Ford (1999b, 1999c, 2001) did, we also estimated the ages of our sample clusters by comparing the photometry of each object with models for different values of metallicity. Although we presented the metallity of each cluster in Table 4, we only mean that, in this model of metallicity, the intrinsic integrated color of each cluster can do the best fit with the integrated color of a SSP.

With spectrophotometry, Christian & Schommer (1983) obtained the ages of the star clusters in M33 to be $`10^7`$$`10^{10}`$ years. Using the integrated $`UBV`$ photometry and IUE $`\lambda \lambda 12003000`$ Å spectra, Ciani, D’Odorico, & Benvenuti (1984) studied the minuscule “bulge” population of M33 and found that, a multigeneration model, where a young component (age $`10^7`$ years) and an old, metal-poor one (age $`5\times 10^9`$ years) are superposed, gives the best fit to the observed data. Schmidt, Bica, & Alloin (1990) applied a population synthesis method which uses a star cluster spectral library and a grid of the star cluster spectral properties as a function of age and metallicity (Bica & Alloin 1986a, b; 1987), to the blueish nucleus of M33, and gave an age of less than $`5\times 10^8`$ years for the dominant blue bulge population. From the histogram of ages in this paper, we can see that some old clusters in our sample appear to be coeval with the old population of the bulge.

We would like to thank the anonymous referee for his/her insightful comments and suggestions that improved this paper. We are grateful to the Padova group for providing us with a set of theoretical isochrones and SSPs. We also thank G. Bruzual and S. Charlot for sending us their latest calculations of SSPs and for explanations of their code. The work is supported partly by the National Sciences Foundation under the contract No.19833020 and No.19503003. The BATC Survey is supported by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Chinese National Natural Science Foundation and the Chinese State Committee of Sciences and Technology. The project is also supported in part by the National Science Foundation (grant INT 93-01805) and by Arizona State University, the University of Arizona and Western Connecticut State University.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The COW experiment  as well as the Bonse-Wroblewski one  not only shed a new light on the physical phenomena in which both gravitational and quantum effects are interwoven but also showed that the aforementioned phenomena are nomore beyond our reach. The theoretical analysis concerning these experiments consisted simply in inserting the Newtonian gravitational potential into the Schr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$dinger equation. To improve this analysis we need to learn, certainly, how to obtain an adequate interpretation for relativistic wave equations in curved space. In other words, we have to acquaint ourselves with the issue of the gravitational effects on quantum mechanical systems. This can be done by constructing the Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation (FWT) \- the keystone of relativistic quantum mechanics - for both bosons and fermions coupled to the spacetime metric. Here we address ourselves to the problem of finding the exact FWT for spin-0 particles coupled to the static metrics

$`ds^2=V^2dt^2W^2d𝐱^2,`$ (1.1)
where $`V=V(𝐱)`$ and $`W=W(𝐱)`$.

We employ natural units in which $`c=\mathrm{}=1`$. Our convention are to use a metric with signature $`(+)`$ and define the Riemann and Ricci tensors as $`R_{\lambda \mu \nu }^\rho =_\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\lambda \mu }^\rho +_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\lambda \nu }^\rho `$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\lambda \mu }^\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \nu }^\rho +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\lambda \nu }^\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \mu }^\rho `$ and $`R_{\mu \nu }=R_{\mu \nu \rho }^\rho `$.

## 2 Exact FWT for spin $`0`$ particle

The propagation of a free scalar $`\varphi `$ with mass $`m`$ in Minkowski spacetime is described by the Klein-Gordon (KG)

$$\left(\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu +m^2\right)\varphi =0,$$
(2.1)
where $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ is the Minkowski metric.

A generalization of (2.1) to a curved background is

$$\left(g^{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu +m^2+\lambda R\right)\varphi =0,$$
(2.2)
where the numerical constant $`\lambda `$ represents the direct coupling between the field and the curvature. Since the coupling constant $`\lambda `$ can have any real value, we are on the horns of a dilemma: Do we pick out the value $`\lambda =0`$, which means that the field and the curvature are minimally coupled, or do we choose $`\lambda 0`$, implying in a nonminimal coupling of the field to the curvature? Fortunately, there are two strong arguments that seems to favour the choice $`\lambda =\frac{1}{6}`$:

1. The equation for the massless scalar field is conformally invariant-.

2. Under the assumptions that (i) the scalar field satisfies (2.2), and (ii) the field $`\varphi `$ does not violate the equivalence principle, $`\lambda `$ is forced to assume the value $`\frac{1}{6}`$ -.

We assume thus that $`\varphi `$ satisfies the covariant KG equation

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{}\mathrm{}+m^2+\frac{1}{6}R\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{}\right)\varphi =0,$$

where

$$\mathrm{}g^{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu =\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}_\mu \left(\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }_\nu \right).$$

Specializing now to the static metrics (1.1) we find

$$\ddot{\varphi }F^2^2\varphi F^2\mathrm{ln}(VW)\varphi +m^2V^2\varphi +\frac{1}{6}R\varphi ^2=0,$$

where

$$R=\frac{2}{W^4}\left(W\right)^2\frac{2}{VW^3}VW\frac{2}{VW^2}^2V\frac{4}{W^3}^2W.$$

Here $`F^2\frac{V^2}{W^2}`$ and the differentiation with respect to time is denoted by dots.

In order to understand the physics of the equation above we write it in first order form

$$i\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\mathrm{\Phi },$$

where

$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _1\\ \varphi _2\end{array}\right),`$ (2.5)
$`\varphi _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{}}\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{m}}\dot{\varphi }{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{}}\right),\varphi _2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{}}\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{i}{m}}\dot{\varphi }{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{}}\right),`$
with the Hamiltonian given by

$$=\frac{m}{2}\xi ^T\xi \theta ,$$
(2.6)
where

$`\xi `$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (2.9)
$`\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{F^2}{2m}}^2{\displaystyle \frac{F^2}{2m}}\mathrm{ln}(VW){\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}V^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24m}}V^2R.`$
The matrix $`\xi `$ has the following algebraic properties

$$\xi ^2=0,\{\xi ,\xi ^T\}=4.$$

Redefining the scalar field and the Hamiltonian

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=f\mathrm{\Phi },^{}=ff^1,$$

with

$$f=V^{1/2}W^{3/2},$$

we obtain a new Hamiltonian which is explicitly Hermitian with respect to the usual flat space measure:

$$^{}=\frac{m}{2}\xi ^T\xi \theta ^{},$$

where

$`\theta ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`f\theta f^1`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}V^2{\displaystyle \frac{F}{2m}}\widehat{𝐩}^2F+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8m}}FF{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12m}}F^2F.`$
Here $`\widehat{𝐩}=i`$ denotes the momentum operator.

It is astonishing and at the same time fascinating that the square of the transformed Hamiltonian $`^{}`$,

$$^{\mathrm{}}=\frac{m}{2}\theta ^{}\{\xi ,\xi ^T\}=2m\theta ^{}I,$$

where

$$I=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$

is diagonal and, obviously, an even operator. Formally, we have

$$\sqrt{^{\mathrm{}}}=(2m\theta ^{})^{1/2}\eta ,$$

where

$$\eta =\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),\eta ^2=1.$$

Accordingly, $`^{}=ff^1`$ is the exact FWT for the KG equation in curved space .

Now, taking into account, that the Hamiltonian squared can be rewritten as

$$^{\mathrm{}}=m^2V^2+F\widehat{p}^2F\frac{1}{4}FF+\frac{1}{6}F^2F,$$

we promptly obtain the quasirelativistic Hamiltonian simply by assuming that the dominating term is $`m`$:

$$\sqrt{^{\mathrm{}}}mV+\frac{1}{4m}\left(W^1\widehat{p}^2F+F\widehat{p}^2W^1\right)\frac{1}{8mV}FF+\frac{1}{12mW}^2F.$$
(2.10)
Two comments are in order here:

(i) The preceding Hamiltonian contains the gravitational Darwin term

$$\frac{1}{12mW}^2F,$$

which is lacking in all the works on this subject  with the exception of that by Obukhov .

(ii) (2.10) is identical to the spinless sector found in Ref.  for the Dirac particle except for the Darwin term which is one third of the corresponding term in the fermionic case. Fermions and bosons, of course, lead to different Darwin terms .

## 3 The nonrelativistic FW Hamiltonian concerning the general solution to the linearized field equations of higher-derivative gravity for a static pointilike source in the Teyssandier gauge

Higher-derivative gravity is defined by the action

$$S=d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[\frac{2R}{\kappa ^2}+\frac{\alpha }{2}R^2+\frac{\beta }{2}R_{\mu \nu }^2\right]d^4x\sqrt{g}_M,$$

where $`_M`$ is the Lagrangian density for matter, $`\kappa ^232\pi G`$, with $`G`$ being the Newton’s constant, and $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are dimensionless parameters. The corresponding field equations are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\kappa ^2}}G_{\mu \nu }`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }R^2+2RR_{\mu \nu }+2_\mu _\nu R2g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}R{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{}}\right]`$ (3.1)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }R_{\rho \sigma }^2+_\mu _\nu R+2R_{\mu \rho \lambda \nu }R^{\rho \lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}R\mathrm{}R_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}T_{\mu \nu }=0,`$
where

$$\delta d^4x\sqrt{g}_M\sqrt{g}d^4x\frac{T^{\mu \nu }}{2}\delta g_{\mu \nu }.$$

In the weak field approximation, i.e.,

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+\kappa h_{\mu \nu },$$

and in the Teyssandier gauge , (3.1) reduces to

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{}1\frac{\beta \kappa ^2}{4}\mathrm{}\right)\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}h_{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{6}\eta _{\mu \nu }\overline{R}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{}\right)=\frac{\kappa }{4}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{}T_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}T\eta _{\mu \nu }\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{}\right],$$

where

$$\overline{R}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}h\gamma _{,\mu \nu }^{\mu \nu },$$

with $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }=h_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\mu \nu }h`$. Here indices are raised (lowered) using $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }(\eta _{\mu \nu })`$. Teyssandier showed that the general solution of the above equations is given by

$$h_{\mu \nu }=h_{\mu \nu }^{(E)}+\psi _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Phi }\eta _{\mu \nu },$$

where $`h_{\mu \nu }^{(E)},\psi _{\mu \nu }`$and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ satisfy the following equations:

$`\mathrm{}h_{\mu \nu }^{(E)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{T\eta _{\mu \nu }}{2}}T_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{}}\right],\gamma _{\mu \nu }^{(E),\nu }=0,\gamma _{\mu \nu }^{(E)}=h_{\mu \nu }^{(E)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _{\mu \nu }h^{(E)};`$
$`\left(\mathrm{}+m_1^2\right)\psi _{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{}}T_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}T\eta _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{}}\right],\psi _{,\mu \nu }^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}\psi =0;\left(\mathrm{}+m_0^2\right)\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa T}{12}}.`$
Here $`m_0^2\frac{2}{\kappa ^2\left(3\alpha +\beta \right)},m_1^2\frac{4}{\kappa ^2\beta }.`$

For a point particle of mass $`M`$ located at $`𝐫=\mathrm{𝟎}`$, the general solution of the equations above is

$`g_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`1+2MG\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{m_0r}}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{m_1r}}{r}}\right],`$ (3.2)
$`g_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{22}=g_{33}=1+2MG\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{m_1r}}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{m_0r}}{r}}\right].`$ (3.3)
It is worth mentioning that we have assumed that $`m_0^2`$ and $`m_1^2`$ are real, in order to assure asymptotic agreement of the theory with Newton’s law.

From (3.2) and (3.3) we get immediately

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`1+MG\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{m_0r}}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{m_1r}}{r}}\right],`$ (3.4)
$`W`$ $`=`$ $`1MG\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{m_1r}}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{m_0r}}{r}}\right].`$ (3.5)
Inserting (3.4) and (3.5) into (2.10) we come to the conclusion that the nonrelativistic FW Hamiltonian is given by

$`\sqrt{^{\mathrm{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`\{{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{}}m+({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{}}1+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{m_0r}}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}e^{m_1r}{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{}})m𝐠𝐱+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{𝐩}^2}{2m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}\widehat{𝐩}.u\widehat{𝐩}`$ (3.6)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{}}({\displaystyle \frac{7}{6}}(1+m_1r)e^{m_1r}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(1+m_0r)e^{m_0r})𝐠\right]\}\eta ,`$
with

$$𝐠=GM\frac{𝐫}{r^3}$$

and

$$uMG(\frac{3}{r}+\frac{1}{3}\frac{e^{m_0r}}{r}+\frac{8}{3}\frac{e^{m_1r}}{r})$$

.

Note that (3.6) tends to

$$\sqrt{^{\mathrm{}}}=\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{}m+m𝐠𝐱+\frac{\widehat{𝐩}^2}{2m}+\frac{3}{2m}\widehat{𝐩}(𝐠𝐱)\widehat{𝐩}+\frac{7}{12m}𝐠\right]\eta ,$$
(3.7)
as $`m_0,m_1\mathrm{}`$, which is nothing but the nonrelativistic Hamiltonian for the spin-0 particle in the external gravitational field of a central gravitating body of mass $`M`$ in the framework of ordinary general relativity. The first terms of this expansion has been found in  by means of another method. The coefficient in the last term of (3.7) differs from that of  since the Darwin term contribution in the scalar case enters as $`1/3`$ of the relevant term for fermions. It is worth mentioning that we have neglected in (3.6) and (3.7) the higher order relativistic and gravitational/inertial terms.

## 4 The nonminimal coupling term does not violate the equivalence principle

Let us now show that the nonminimal coupling term does not violate the equivalence principle for spin-0 particles by making a comparison of the true gravitational coupling with the pure inertial case. To do that, we recall that in the case of the flat Minkowski space in accelerated frame,

$$V=1+𝐚𝐱,W=1.$$

Consequently, the corresponding nonrelativistic FW Hamiltonian is

$$\sqrt{^{\mathrm{}}}=\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{}m+m𝐚𝐱+\frac{\widehat{𝐩}^2}{2m}+\frac{1}{2m}\widehat{𝐩}(𝐚𝐱)\widehat{𝐩}\right]\eta ,$$
(4.1)
where we have also neglected the higher order relativistic and gravitational/inertial terms.

For the particle $`m`$ far away from the body $`M`$ one can neglect the terms $`\frac{3}{2m}\widehat{𝐩}(𝐠𝐱)\widehat{𝐩}`$ and $`\frac{1}{2m}\widehat{𝐩}(𝐚𝐱)\widehat{𝐩}`$ in (3.7) and (4.1), respectively, since they are of the order $`(GM)/(mr)`$. In (4.1) we are assuming that $`𝐚`$ is such that $`|𝐚𝐱|/m`$ is of the order $`(GM)/(mr)`$. Then, we come to the conclusion that the covariant KG theory with $`\lambda =\frac{1}{6}`$ is in agreement with the equivalence principle.

## 5 Final remarks

We have shown that (i) the KG equation only admits exact FWT if $`\lambda =\frac{1}{6}`$, and (ii) the nonminimal coupling term, contrary to a previous claim , does not violate the equivalence principle. We are not claiming, however, that $`\lambda =\frac{1}{6}`$ is the correct coupling for the various scalar particles. The question of which value(s) of $`\lambda `$ should constitute the correct coupling(s) to gravity depends on the particular quantum field theory used for the scalar field $`\varphi `$ (see e.g.  and references therein).

Acknowledgement

H. Blas gratefully acknowledges financial support from Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP).