text:
# Positivity of High Density Effective Theory

## Abstract

We show that the effective field theory of low energy modes in dense QCD has positive Euclidean path integral measure. The complexity of the measure of QCD at finite chemical potential can be ascribed to modes which are irrelevant to the dynamics at sufficiently high density. Rigorous inequalities follow at asymptotic density. Lattice simulation of dense QCD should be possible using the quark determinant calculated in the effective theory.

preprint:   PNUTP-02/A01 OITS 711

Quantum chromodynamics (QCD) with a non-zero chemical potential has a complex measure, which has thus far precluded lattice simulations . Recent analytical work in color superconductivity  has demonstrated a rich phase structure at high density, and stimulated interest in QCD at non-zero baryon density. Several experiments have been proposed to probe matter at density of a few times nuclear matter density . Even rudimentary information about the behavior of dense matter would be useful to the experimental program, as well as to the study of compact astrophysical objects such as neutron stars. In this paper, we will show that QCD near a Fermi surface has positive, semi-definite measure. The contribution of the remaining modes far from the Fermi surface can be systematically expanded, using a high density effective theory previously introduced by one of us . This effective theory is sufficient to study phenomena like color superconductivity, although quantities like the equation of state are presumably largely determined by dynamics deep in the Fermi sea.

Let us recall why the measure of dense QCD is complex in Euclidean space. We use the following analytic continuation of the Dirac lagrangian to Euclidean space:

$$x_0ix_E^4,x_ix_E^i;\gamma _0\gamma _E^4,\gamma _ii\gamma _E^i.$$
(1)
The Euclidean gamma matrices satisfy

$$\gamma _{E}^{\mu }{}_{}{}^{}=\gamma _E^\mu ,\{\gamma _E^\mu ,\gamma _E^\nu \}=2\delta ^{\mu \nu }.$$
(2)
The Dirac-conjugated field, $`\overline{\psi }=\psi ^{}\gamma ^0`$, is mapped into a field, still denoted as $`\overline{\psi }`$, which is independent of $`\psi `$ and transforms as $`\psi ^{}`$ under $`SO(4)`$. Then, the grand canonical partition function for QCD is

$`Z(\mu )={\displaystyle dA_\mu det\left(M\right)e^{S(A_\mu )}},`$ (3)
where $`S(A_\mu )`$ is the positive semi-definite gauge action, and the Dirac operator

$$M=\gamma _E^\mu D_E^\mu +\mu \gamma _E^4,$$
(4)
where $`D_E=_E+iA_E`$ is the analytic continuation of the covariant derivative. The Hermitian conjugate of the Dirac operator is

$$M^{}=\gamma _E^\mu D_E^\mu +\mu \gamma _E^4.$$
(5)
The first term in (4) is anti-Hermitian, while the second is Hermitian, hence the generally complex eigenvalues. When $`\mu =0`$, the eigenvalues are purely imaginary, but come in conjugate pairs $`(\lambda ,\lambda ^{})`$ , so the resulting determinant is real and positive semi-definite:

$$\mathrm{detM}=\lambda ^{}\lambda 0.$$
(6)
In what follows we investigate the positivity properties of an effective theory describing only modes near the Fermi surface. A system of degenerate quarks with a net baryon number asymmetry is described by the QCD Lagrangian density with a chemical potential $`\mu `$,

$$_{\mathrm{QCD}}=\overline{\psi }iD/\psi \frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu }+\mu \overline{\psi }\gamma _0\psi ,$$
(7)
where the covariant derivative $`D_\mu =_\mu +iA_\mu `$ and we neglect the quark mass for simplicity.

The energy spectrum of (free) quarks is given by an eigenvalue equation,

$$\left(\stackrel{}{\alpha }\stackrel{}{p}+\mu \right)\psi _\pm =E_\pm \psi _\pm ,$$
(8)
where $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }=\gamma _0\stackrel{}{\gamma }`$ and $`\psi _\pm `$ denote the energy eigenfunctions with eigenvalues $`E_\pm =\mu \pm \left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|`$, respectively. At low energy $`E<\mu `$, the states $`\psi _+`$ near the Fermi surface, $`|\stackrel{}{p}|\mu `$, are easily excited but $`\psi _{}`$, which correspond to the states in the Dirac sea, are completely decoupled due to the presence of the energy gap $`\mu `$ provided by the Fermi sea. Therefore the appropriate degrees of freedom at low energy consist of gluons and $`\psi _+`$ only.

Now, we wish to construct an effective theory describing the dynamics of $`\psi _+`$ by integrating out modes whose energy is greater than $`\mu `$. Consider a quark near the Fermi surface, whose momentum is close to $`\mu \stackrel{}{v}_F`$. Without loss of generality, we may decompose the momentum of a quark into a Fermi momentum and a residual momentum as

$$p_\mu =\mu v_\mu +l_\mu ,$$
(9)
where $`v^\mu =(0,\stackrel{}{v}_F)`$. Since the quark energy is given as

$$E=\mu +\sqrt{(l_{}+\mu )^2+l_{}^2},$$
(10)
the residual momentum should satisfy $`(l_{}+\mu )^2+l_{}^24\mu ^2`$ with $`\stackrel{}{l}_{}=\stackrel{}{v}_F\stackrel{}{l}\stackrel{}{v}_F`$ and $`\stackrel{}{l}_{}=\stackrel{}{l}\stackrel{}{l}_{}`$.

To describe the small excitations of the quark with Fermi momentum, $`\mu \stackrel{}{v}_F`$, we decompose the quark fields as

$$\psi (x)=e^{i\mu \stackrel{}{v}_F\stackrel{}{x}}\left[\psi _+(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)+\psi _{}(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)\right],$$
(11)
where

$$\psi _\pm (\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)=P_\pm (\stackrel{}{v}_F)e^{i\mu \stackrel{}{v}_F\stackrel{}{x}}\psi (x)\mathrm{with}P_\pm (\stackrel{}{v}_F)\frac{1\pm \stackrel{}{\alpha }\stackrel{}{v}_F}{2}.$$
(12)
The quark Lagrangian in Eq. (7) then becomes

$`\overline{\psi }(iD/+\mu \gamma ^0)\psi `$ $`=`$ $`\left[\overline{\psi }_+(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)i\gamma _{}^\mu D_\mu \psi _+(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)+\overline{\psi }_{}(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)\gamma ^0\left(2\mu +i\overline{D}_{}\right)\psi _{}(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)\right]`$ (14)
$`+[\overline{\psi }_{}(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)iD/_{}\psi _+(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.]`$
where $`\gamma _{}^\mu (\gamma ^0,\stackrel{}{v}_F\stackrel{}{v}_F\stackrel{}{\gamma })`$, $`\gamma _{}^\mu =\gamma ^\mu \gamma _{}^\mu `$, $`\overline{D}_{}=\overline{V}^\mu D_\mu `$ with $`V^\mu =(1,\stackrel{}{v}_F)`$, $`\overline{V}^\mu =(1,\stackrel{}{v}_F)`$, and $`D/_{}=\gamma _{}^\mu D_\mu `$.

At low energy, we integrate out all the “fast” modes $`\psi _{}`$ and derive the low energy effective Lagrangian by matching all the one-light particle irreducible amplitudes containing gluons and $`\psi _+`$ in loop expansion. The effects of fast modes will appear in the quantum corrections to the couplings of low energy interactions. At tree-level, the matching is equivalent to eliminating $`\psi _{}`$ in terms of equations of motion:

$$\psi _{}(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)=\frac{i\gamma ^0}{2\mu +iD_{}}D/_{}\psi _+(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)=\frac{i\gamma ^0}{2\mu }\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{iD_{}}{2\mu }\right)^nD/_{}\psi _+(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x).$$
(15)
Therefore, the tree-level Lagrangian for $`\psi _+`$ becomes

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}^0=\overline{\psi }_+i\gamma _{}^\mu D_\mu \psi _+\frac{1}{2\mu }\overline{\psi }_+\gamma ^0(D/_{})^2\psi _++\mathrm{},$$
(16)
where the ellipsis denotes terms with higher derivatives.

Consider the first term in our effective Lagrangian, which when continued to Euclidean space yields the operator

$$M_{\mathrm{eft}}=\gamma _{}^ED(A).$$
(17)
$`M_{\mathrm{eft}}`$ is anti-Hermitian and it anti-commutes with $`\gamma _5`$, so it leads to a positive semi-definite determinant. However, note that the Dirac operator is not well defined in the space of $`\psi _+(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)`$ (for fixed $`v_F`$), since it maps $`\psi _+(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)`$ into $`\psi _+(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)`$:

$$iD_{}/P_+\psi =P_{}iD_{}/\psi .$$
(18)
Since $`P_{}(\stackrel{}{v}_F)=P_+(\stackrel{}{v}_F)`$, $`iD/\psi _+(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)`$ are $`\psi _+(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)`$ modes, or fluctuations of a quark with momentum $`\mu \stackrel{}{v}_F`$.

We can demonstrate the necessity of including both $`\psi _+(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)`$ and $`\psi _+(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)`$ modes in our effective theory by considering charge conservation in a world with only $`+\stackrel{}{v}_F`$ quarks. The divergence of the quark current at one loop is

$$_\mu J^{a\mu }(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)=g_s\frac{\mathrm{d}^4p}{(2\pi )^4}e^{ipx}p^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(p)A_{}^{b\nu }(p),$$
(19)
where $`A_{}=(A_0,\stackrel{}{v}_F\stackrel{}{v}_F\stackrel{}{A})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{ab}`$ is the vacuum polarization tensor in the effective theory given as

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}^{\mu \nu }(p)=i\mu ^2\delta _{ab}\frac{\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{v}_FV^\mu V^\nu }{pV+iϵ\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{v}_F}.$$
(20)
The polarization tensor has to be transverse to maintain gauge invariance. We find that if we have both fields $`\psi _+(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)`$ and $`\psi _+(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)`$ the current is conserved and the gauge symmetry is not anomalous:

$$_\mu J_a^\mu (\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)+_\mu J_a^\mu (\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)=0.$$
(21)
Therefore, we need to introduce quark fields with opposite momenta. The Dirac operator is well defined on this larger space.

This anomaly can be understood in terms of spectral flow, since the Fermi surface is (in a certain sense) not gauge-invariant. Under a gauge transformation, $`U(x)=e^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{x}}`$, the Hamiltonian changes and the energy spectrum of free modes of residual momentum $`\stackrel{}{l}`$ shifts to $`E=\stackrel{}{l}\stackrel{}{v}_F+\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{v}_F`$. Quarks near the Fermi surface with $`\stackrel{}{v}_F\stackrel{}{q}>0`$ flow out of the Fermi sea, creating charge. This charge creation is compensated by quarks with opposite $`\stackrel{}{v}_F`$; their energy decreases and they flow into the Fermi sea. However, unless modes with opposite velocities (i.e. both sides of the Fermi sphere) are included, charge is not conserved.

Thus far we have considered the quark velocity as a parameter labelling different sectors of the quark field. This is similar to the approach of heavy quark effective theory (HQET) , in which the velocity of the heavy charm or bottom quark is almost conserved due to the hierarchy of scales between the heavy quark mass and the QCD scale. However, this approach contains an ambiguity often referred to as “reparameterization invariance”, related to the non-uniqueness of the decomposition (9) of quark momenta into a large and residual component. In the dense QCD case, two $`\psi (v_F,x)`$ modes whose values of $`v_F`$ are not very different may actually represent the same degrees of freedom of the original quark field. In what follows we give a different formulation which describes all velocity modes of the quark field, and is suitable for defining the quasiparticle determinant.

First, a more precise definition of the breakup of the quark field into Fermi surface modes. Using the momentum operator in a position eigenstate basis: $`\stackrel{}{p}=i\stackrel{}{}`$, we construct the Fermi velocity operator:

$$\stackrel{}{v}=\frac{i}{\sqrt{^2}}\frac{}{\stackrel{}{x}},$$
(22)
which is Hermitian, and a unit vector.

Using the velocity operator, we define the projection operators $`P_\pm `$ as before and break up the quark field as, $`\psi (x)=\psi _+(x)+\psi _{}(x)`$, with $`\psi _\pm =P_\pm \psi `$. By leaving $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ as an operator we can work in coordinate space without introducing the HQET-inspired velocity Fourier transform which introduces $`v_F`$ as a parameter. If we expand the quark field in the eigenstates of the velocity operators, we recover the previous formalism with all Fermi velocities summed up.

The leading low-energy part of the quark action is given by

$$_+=\overline{\psi }P_{}(v)(i/A/+\mu \gamma _0)P_+(v)\psi .$$
(23)
As before, we define the fields $`\psi _+`$ to absorb the large Fermi momentum:

$$\psi _+(x)=e^{i\mu \stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{v}}P_+(v)\psi (x).$$
(24)
Let us denote the eigenvalue $`v`$ obtained by acting on the field $`\psi `$ (which has momentum of order $`\mu `$) as $`v_l`$ (or $`v`$ “large”), whereas eigenvalues obtained by acting on the effective field theory modes $`\psi _+`$ are denoted $`v_r`$ (or $`v`$ “residual”). If the original quark mode had momentum p with $`|p|>\mu `$ (i.e. was a particle), then $`v_l`$ and $`v_r`$ are parallel, whereas if $`|p|<\mu `$ (as for a hole) then $`v_r`$ and $`v_l`$ are anti-parallel. In the first case, we have $`P_+(v_l)=P_+(v_r)`$ whereas in the second case $`P_+(v_l)=P_{}(v_r)`$. Thus, the residual modes $`\psi _+`$ can satisfy either of $`P_\pm (v_r)\psi _+=\psi _+`$, depending on whether the original $`\psi `$ mode from which it was derived was a particle or a hole. In fact, $`\psi _+`$ modes can also satisfy either of $`P_\pm (v_l)\psi _+=\psi _+`$ since they can originate from $`\psi `$ modes with momentum $`+\mu v`$ as well as $`\mu v`$ (both are present in the original measure: $`D\overline{\psi }D\psi `$). So, the functional measure for $`\psi _+`$ modes contains all possible spinor functions – the only restriction is on the momenta: $`|l_0|,|\stackrel{}{l}|<\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the cutoff.

In light of the ambiguity between $`v_l`$ and $`v_r`$, the equation $`\psi =e^{+i\mu xv}\psi _+`$ must be modified to

$$\psi =\mathrm{exp}\left(+i\mu xv\alpha v\right)\psi _+=\mathrm{exp}\left(+i\mu xv_r\alpha v_r\right)\psi _+,$$
(25)
where the factor of $`\alpha v_r`$ corrects the sign in the momentum shift if $`v_r`$ and $`v_l`$ are anti-parallel. In general, any expression with two powers of $`v`$ is unaffected by this ambiguity. For notational simplicity we define a local operator

$$X\mu xv\alpha v=\mu \frac{\alpha ^ix^j}{^2}\frac{^2}{x^ix^j}.$$
(26)
Taking this into account, we obtain the following action:

$$_+=\overline{\psi }_+e^{iX}(i/A/+\mu \gamma _0)e^{+iX}\psi _+.$$
(27)
We treat the $`A/`$ term separately from $`i/+\mu \gamma _0`$ since the former does not commute with X, while the latter does. Continuing to Euclidean space, and using the identity $`P_{}\gamma _\mu P_+=\gamma _\mu ^{}P_+`$, we obtain

$$_+=\overline{\psi }_+\gamma _{}^\mu \left(^\mu +iA_+^\mu \right)\psi _+,$$
(28)
where

$$A_+^\mu =e^{iX}A^\mu e^{+iX},$$
(29)
and all $`\gamma `$ matrices are Euclidean. The term containing $`A`$ cannot be fully simplified because $`[v,A]0`$. Physically, this is because the gauge field carries momentum and can deflect the quark velocity. The redefined $`\psi _+`$ modes are functions only of the residual momenta l, and the exponential factors in the A term reflect the fact that the gluon originally couples to the quark field $`\psi `$, not the residual mode $`\psi _+`$.

The kinetic term in (28) can be simplified to

$$\gamma _{}^\mu ^\mu =\gamma ^\mu ^\mu $$
(30)
since $`vv\gamma =\gamma .`$ The action (28) is the most general dimension 4 term with the rotational, gauge invariance ***If we simultaneously gauge transform $`A_+`$ and $`\psi _+`$ in (28) the result is invariant. There is a simple relation between the gauge transform of the + fields and that of the original fields: $`U_+(x)=U(x)e^{iX}.`$ Of course, the momentum-space support of the + gauge transform must be limited to modes less than the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. and projection properties appropriate to quark quasiparticles. Therefore, it is a general consequence of any Fermi liquid description of quark-like excitations.

The operator in (28) is anti-Hermitian and leads to a positive, semi-definite determinant since it anti-commutes with $`\gamma _5`$. The corrections given in (16) are all Hermitian, so higher orders in the $`1/\mu `$ expansion may re-introduce complexity. The structure of the leading term plus corrections is anti-Hermitian plus Hermitian, just as in the original QCD Dirac Lagrangian with chemical potential. The leading terms in the effective action for gluons (these terms are generated when we match our effective theory, with energy cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, to QCD) also contribute only real, positive terms to the partition function:

$$S_{\mathrm{eff}}(A)=\mathrm{d}^4x_E\left(\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^aF_{\mu \nu }^a+\frac{M^2}{16\pi }\underset{\stackrel{}{v}_F}{}A_\mu ^aA_\mu ^a\right)0,$$
(31)
where $`A_{}=AA_{}`$ and the Debye screening mass is $`M=\sqrt{N_f/(2\pi ^2)}g_s\mu `$ .

Matching of hard gluon effects also leads to four-quark operators in the effective theory. At asymptotic density, we can neglect these operators, since forward scattering dominates Cooper pairing interactions (due to Landau damping ). However, at lower densities hard operators may be important. Matching effects due to hard gluon exchange still lead to a positive action for attractive channels, since they arise from quasiparticle-gluon interactions which are originally positiveA simple way to study the positivity of four-quark operators is to replace them by a vector field with trivial quadratic term $`V_\mu ^2`$ which couples to quarks like the original gluon: $`V_\mu \overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \psi `$. Completing the square, we see that the resulting path integral is positive if the four-quark interactions are attractive.. Only interactions involving virtual anti-quarks lead to non-positive interactions, and these are always suppressed by powers of $`\mu `$.

Positivity of the measure allows for rigorous QCD inequalities at asymptotic density. For example, inequalities among masses of bound states can be obtained using bounds on bare quasiparticle propagators. One subtlety that arises is that a quark mass term does not lead to a quasiparticle gap (the mass term just shifts the Fermi surface). Hence, for technical reasons the proof of non-breaking of vector symmetries  must be modified. (Naive application of the Vafa-Witten theorem would preclude the breaking of baryon number that is observed in the color-flavor-locked (CFL) phase .) A quasiparticle gap can be inserted by hand to regulate the bare propagator, but it will explicitly violate baryon number. However, following the logic of the Vafa-Witten proof, any symmetries which are preserved by the regulator gap cannot be broken spontaneously. One can, for example, still conclude that isospin symmetry is never spontaneously broken. In the case of three flavors, one can use the CFL gap as a regulator to show rigorously that none of the symmetries of the CFL phase are broken at asymptotic density. On the other hand, by applying anomaly matching conditions , we can prove that the axial symmetries are broken. We therefore conclude that the CFL phase is the true ground state for three light flavors at asymptotic density.

It may be possible to simulate dense QCD using the effective field theory determinant in place of the usual quark determinant. We know that this is a good approximation at very high density, and it should remain a good approximation as long as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$, the characteristic scale of the dominant physics, is smaller than $`\mu `$. At lower densities the weak coupling approximation no longer holds, so (15) is no longer a good guide to the higher order corrections, which are only constrained by symmetry and projection requirements. However, we can use naive dimensional analysis  to estimate the coefficients of the higher dimension operators.

An estimate of the size of corrections to the determinant from higher orders can be obtained by considering the Euclidean relation

$$\mathrm{detM}=\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{TrlnM}}=\mathrm{e}^{ϵ_0\mathrm{V}},$$
(32)
where $`ϵ_0`$ is the vacuum energy density and V the volume of the system. Corrections to the vacuum energy can be estimated using conventional diagrammatic methods and naive dimensional analysis. We find that corrections are roughly suppressed by powers of $`\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu }`$.

To realize the effective theory (28) directly on the lattice, one can replace the plaquette $`U_{n,n+\mu }1+iaA_\mu (n)`$ by $`U_+e^{iX}Ue^{+iX}`$ in the fermion action, but not in the gauge action. In effect, one computes the fermion determinant in the usual way, but as a function of $`U_+`$. The momenta of the quasiparticle $`\psi _+`$ modes is simply the residual momenta l, which is unrestricted except that its magnitude must be small compared to $`\mu `$. One can impose this condition on $`\psi _+`$ by choosing a lattice spacing $`a_{\mathrm{det}}>>\mu ^1`$ in the quark determinant. However, a challenging aspect of this determinant is that it is computed on the geometry of a spherical shell rather than a ball:

$$d^3p=dpp^2d\mathrm{\Omega }=dl(\mu +l)^2d\mathrm{\Omega }d^3l=dll^2d\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(33)
To obtain the $`e^{\pm iX}`$ operators, one must first realize (and presumably diagonalize) the velocity operator (22). Since the momentum operator has a simple representation in coordinate space, the most challenging aspect of $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ is the normalization factor (the square root of the Laplacian in (22)), which is non-local. (A similar problem arises in lattice models of chiral fermions.) One should probably investigate a simpler method for directly enforcing the normalization condition on $`\stackrel{}{v}`$. Note, however, that $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ and $`X`$ are independent of the gauge field, so they need be computed only once for each lattice.

Probably the most direct way to utilize our results on the lattice is as follows. Imagine coupling dense quark matter to a background gauge field A whose magnitude and derivatives are characterized by a scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<<\mu `$. The leading part of the low-energy effective theory (describing only Fermi surface modes) has a real and positive determinant. The quark determinant (or equivalently, its logarithm which is the effective action) can be expanded in powers of $`1/\mu `$, with the leading term real and positive. Since the determinant is a functional of the gauge field and its derivatives, the expansion will effectively be in powers of $`\lambda `$ over $`\mu `$. This means that the ordinary lattice determinant $`\mathrm{det}[\gamma _\mu D_\mu +\mu \gamma _4]`$ computed in such backgrounds should be real and positive to leading order in $`1/\mu `$. Physically, the low-momentum gauge fields cannot excite modes deep within the Fermi sea (such as anti-quarks) which lead to complex contributions to the determinant. If we further take $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>>\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, then the neglected effects of higher momentum gluon modes are suppressed by powers of $`\alpha _s(\mathrm{\Lambda })<<1`$.

In order to restrict ourselves to gauge fields satisfying $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<<\mu `$ we need to couple the quark determinant living on a lattice with spacing $`a1/\mu `$ to a set of gauge fields living on a coarser lattice of spacing $`a^{}1/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Ordinary calculations of the dense matter quark determinant on lattices with $`a=a^{}`$ will not yield a real, positive result since the sub-leading terms in the $`1/\mu `$ expansion of the determinant are as large as the leading term.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank M. Alford, T. Cohen, S. Hands, C. Kim, W. Lee, T.-S. Park, K. Rajagopal, M. Schwetz and M. Stephanov for useful discussions. The work of D.K.H. was supported in part by the academic research fund of Ministry of Education, Republic of Korea, Project No. BSRI-99-015-DI0114, and also by the KOSEF through the Korea-USA Cooperative Science Program, 2000-111-04-2. The work of S.H. was supported in part under DOE contract DE-FG06-85ER40224 and by the NSF through through the USA-Korea Cooperative Science Program, 9982164. D.K.H. and S.H. acknowledge the hospitality of the APCTP Winter School on Dense Matter, where this work was begun.


format: text

text:
# Three particles in an external trap: Nature of the complete 𝐽=0 spectrum

## I Introduction

Mean-field methods are commonly used to characterize Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs), i.e., atomic alkali vapors in an external trapping potential . These approaches, which account for the interaction between particles through a mean-field term in an effective single-particle Hamiltonian, accurately describe much of the dilute condensate energetics. However, these shape-independent $`s`$-wave scattering length approximations break down for strongly interacting gases with large interaction parameters .

Very recent experiments by Greiner et al.  have entered this regime: A quantum phase transition from a superfluid to a Mott insulator was observed for ultracold atoms held in a three-dimensional optical lattice. Most relevant to our studies here, the atoms are held in tight isotropic lattice sites with an occupancy of 1-3 atoms per site. The experiment thus realizes a strongly correlated many-body (and in a sense, few-body) quantum system with unprecedented control of parameters. In this paper, we present the quantal $`J=0`$ energy spectrum of three particles under external isotropic confinement, and compare with results obtained using mean-field theory.

The lowest order mean-field approximation \[Gross-Pitaevskii (GP) or Hartree-Fock (HF) equation\]  and also higher order approaches such as second order perturbation theory  treat the metastable BEC state of the trapped alkali vapor as if it was the “true” ground state of the system. This means that these approaches cannot describe recombination processes or atom-loss processes, since coupling to the true (solid-like/liquid-like) ground state is neglected completely. Attempts to include additional “empirical” terms in these mean-field equations, which account for “reaction processes”, exist, and have been able to describe some experimental findings successfully . However, the ad hoc nature of some of these empirical terms is less than satisfactory.

The nonperturbative quantal calculations permit us to circumvent these problems. These calculations come at a price, namely, our initial restriction to only $`N=3`$ particles with total angular momentum $`J=0`$ in the trap. For this “simple” system, however, we are able to include all channels in the calculation, molecular three-body bound state channels, diatom plus atom channels, and metastable gaseous-like channels .

This paper focuses on regimes where standard mean-field treatments break down. For large positive $`a_{sc}+\mathrm{}`$, the mean-field treatment results in unphysically large diverging energies. In contrast, the three-body energies change smoothly in the pole region, where the scattering length $`a_{sc}`$ changes from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$ and the number of two-body $`s`$-wave bound states $`N_b`$ increases by $`1`$. Additionally, our three-body study implies that the excitation frequencies are well behaved around $`|a_{sc}|\mathrm{}`$.

The mean-field treatment also exhibits limitations in the parameter range around the negative critical scattering length $`a_{cr}`$, where $`a_{cr}`$ is defined through the instability criterion $`(N1)a_{cr}/a_{ho}=0.575`$ derived from the mean-field equation . The lowest gaseous energy level (i.e., the BEC ground state) changes its character from metastable to molecular around $`a_{cr}`$, while some of the higher lying BEC-like states remain almost completely unaffected by criticality. In contrast, the mean-field equation simply has no solution for $`a_{sc}`$ lower than the critical value.

Three-particle studies have been used previously to shed light on the many-body physics of BECs. In 1996, Esry et al.  explored the role of the two-body scattering length in BECs. More recently, three research groups explained experiments regarding the three-body recombination rate in many-atom BECs via three-body calculations that include channel coupling . Three-body studies have also been used to test the validity of shape-independent two-body interaction potentials .

The studies presented here are based on time-independent Schrödinger wave mechanics. The energy levels show several avoided crossings when plotted as functions of $`a_{sc}`$ (see Section III); nevertheless, dynamical behavior such as Landau-Zener-type branching ratios or recombination rates remains beyond the scope of this paper. Studies along these lines will be a natural continuation of the static studies presented here.

Section II describes our three-body system, and outlines the formalism for its investigation. Section III presents quantum mechanical three-body energetics, and Section IV compares with results derived from mean-field treatments. Finally, Section V summarizes our main results.

## II The three-particle system

The Schrödinger equation for three mass-$`m`$ particles in a spherical external potential with trapping frequency $`\nu _{ho}=\omega _{ho}/(2\pi )`$ reads

$`\left[{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}_{\stackrel{}{r}_i}^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m\omega _{ho}^2r_i^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{\overset{3}{}}}V(r_{ij})\right]\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{r}_1,\stackrel{}{r}_2,\stackrel{}{r}_3)=E\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{r}_1,\stackrel{}{r}_2,\stackrel{}{r}_3),`$ (1)
where $`V(r_{ij})`$ denotes a two-body interaction potential and $`r_{ij}=|\stackrel{}{r}_j\stackrel{}{r}_i|`$. $`\stackrel{}{r}_i`$ is the position vector of atom $`i`$ relative to the center of the trap. Restriction to states of zero total angular momentum ($`J=0`$) reduces this nine-dimensional problem to six dimensions. The dimensionality of the problem can be reduced further by a transformation to Jacobi coordinates, $`\stackrel{}{X}_{cm}=(\stackrel{}{r}_1+\stackrel{}{r}_2+\stackrel{}{r}_3)/3`$, $`\stackrel{}{\rho }_{12}=\stackrel{}{r}_2\stackrel{}{r}_1`$, and $`\stackrel{}{\rho }_{12,3}=\stackrel{}{r}_3(\stackrel{}{r}_2+\stackrel{}{r}_1)/2`$ . This transformation decouples the center-of-mass motion,

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}}_\stackrel{}{X}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M\omega _{ho}^2X^2\right)\varphi _{klm}(\stackrel{}{X})=E_k^{CM}\varphi _{klm}(\stackrel{}{X}),`$ (2)
from the relative (internal) motion,

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{R^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu \omega _{ho}^2R^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu R^2}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{4}}\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{\overset{3}{}}}V(r_{ij})\right]\psi _n(R,\vartheta ,\phi )=E_n^{int}\psi _n(R,\vartheta ,\phi ).`$ (3)
Here, $`M=3m`$ is the total mass, and $`E_k=(k+3/2)\mathrm{}\omega _{ho}`$ with $`k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ the energy related to the center-of-mass motion. The corresponding eigenfunctions $`\varphi _{klm}`$ are simply the three-dimensional isotropic oscillator solutions. Eq. (3) represents the Hamiltonian describing the relative particle motions in terms of three hyperspherical coordinates ($`R`$, $`\vartheta `$, $`\phi `$) rather than the Jacobi coordinates $`\stackrel{}{\rho }_{12}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\rho }_{12,3}`$ . Our definition of the hyperradius $`R`$, and the two hyperangles $`\vartheta `$ and $`\phi `$ is based on the democratic coordinate system of Whitten-Smith , i.e., $`\mu R^2=m\rho _{12}^2/2+2m\rho _{12,3}^2/3`$. Owing to the identical boson character of the atoms, the angular range can be restricted to $`\phi [0,\pi /6]`$ and $`\vartheta [0,\pi /4]`$. $`\mu =m/\sqrt{3}`$ denotes the reduced mass of the three-body system, while $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ denotes the “squared grand angular momentum” operator . Here we rescale the wave function $`\psi (R,\vartheta ,\phi `$) by $`R^{5/2}`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{r}_1,\stackrel{}{r}_2,\stackrel{}{r}_3)=R^{5/2}\psi (R,\vartheta ,\phi )\varphi _{klm}(\stackrel{}{X})`$, in order to eliminate first derivatives from the hyperradial kinetic energy operator.

Eq. (3) is solved here using two different, but related approaches: a coupled-adiabatic-channels approach and a strict adiabatic approximation. The coupled-adiabatic-channel calculation can in principle be made exact. The strict adiabatic approximation can be viewed as an “incomplete” coupled-adiabatic-channel calculation, truncated to one channel only, which neglects all off-diagonal coupling elements. It is important to keep in mind that the strict adiabatic approximation cannot describe recombination processes.

To solve Eq. (3) we expand $`\psi _n(R,\vartheta ,\phi )`$ into radial wave functions $`F_{\nu n}(R)`$ and a set of complete, orthonormal angular channel functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu (R;\vartheta ,\phi )`$. The basis functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu `$, which depend parametrically on $`R`$, are solutions of the partial differential equation

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu R^2}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{4}}\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{\overset{3}{}}}V(r_{ij})\right]\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu (R;\vartheta ,\phi )=U_\nu (R)\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu (R;\vartheta ,\phi ).`$ (4)
We refer to the eigenvalues $`U_\nu (R)`$ as adiabatic potential curves. Inserting the expansion $`\psi _n=F_{\nu n}\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu `$ into the Schrödinger equation for the internal motion \[Eq. (3)\] results in an infinite set of coupled ordinary differential equations,

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dR^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu \omega _{ho}^2R^2+U_\nu (R)+Q_{\nu \nu }(R)E_n^{int}\right)F_{\nu n}(R)`$ $`=`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu ^{}\nu }{}}Q_{\nu \nu ^{}}(R)F_{\nu ^{}n}(R)+{\displaystyle \underset{\nu ^{}\nu }{}}P_{\nu \nu ^{}}(R){\displaystyle \frac{dF_{\nu ^{}n}(R)}{dR}},`$
where $`P_{\nu \nu ^{}}`$ \[$`Q_{\nu \nu ^{}}`$\] are angular coupling matrix elements involving the first \[second\] derivative of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu `$ with respect to $`R`$ . We refer to the solution of Eq. (6) as the coupled-adiabatic-channel solution. The strict adiabatic approximation follows immediately by neglecting coupling elements between different channels \[$``$ setting the right hand side of Eq. (6) to zero\]. Another variant of the strict adiabatic approximation additionally neglects the diagonal element $`Q_{\nu \nu }`$, and is typically referred to as the hyperspherical Born-Oppenheimer approximation. In the following, we use these two variants of the strict adiabatic approximation interchangably, and denote the eigenvalues by $`E_{\nu n}^{int}`$.

The outlined formalism splits the solution of the Schrödinger equation for the internal motion \[Eq. (3)\] into two steps: i) solution of Eq. (4) (here via a two-dimensional B-spline code), and ii) solution of the one-dimensional coupled equations, Eq. (6). The former is numerically more challenging due to its higher dimensionality, and coincides with determining the bound and continuum channel functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu `$ of three particles interacting via a sum of two-body potentials $`V(r)`$ \[the trapping potential does not enter Eq. (4)\].

For a vanishing interaction potential, $`V(r)=0`$, the eigenfunctions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu `$ of Eq. (4) reduce to Gegenbauer polynomials  with eigenvalues $`U_\nu (R)=\mathrm{}^2\frac{\lambda (\lambda +1)+15/4}{2\mu R^2}`$, $`\lambda =0,4,6,\mathrm{}`$, where the $`\lambda =2`$ state is forbidden due to symmetry constraints, and the eigenvalues with $`\lambda =12`$ and $`\lambda 16`$ are doubly-degenerate. Now consider a non-vanishing two-body interaction potential $`V(r)`$. Compared to the $`V=0`$ potential, the non-vanishing $`V`$ introduces three-body bound states at small hyperradii $`R`$, accounting for the short range physics of $`V(r)`$, and also modifies the potential curves at large $`R`$, reflecting the non-zero $`s`$-wave scattering length $`a_{sc}`$. Additionally, a non-vanishing $`V`$ lifts the degeneracy of the $`U_\nu (R)`$ potential curves.

To illustrate this behavior, Fig. 1 shows the sum of the trapping potential, $`V_{trap}=\mu \omega _{ho}^2R^2/2`$ with $`\nu _{ho}=78`$kHz, and the adiabatic potential curves, $`U_\nu (R)`$, for a two-body model interaction potential (see Sec. III) with $`s`$-wave scattering length $`a_{sc}=228`$a.u. and two two-body $`s`$-wave bound states, $`N_b=2`$ \[$`m=m(^{87}`$Rb)\]. Length and energy are expressed in oscillator units (length unit $`a_{ho}=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/(m\omega _{ho})}`$, energy unit $`\mathrm{}\omega _{ho}`$). The two lowest potential curves with $`\nu =0`$ and $`1`$ (upper panel, dashed lines) describe three-body bound state physics, and approach the two-body $`s`$-wave binding energies in the absence of a trapping potential. The higher lying potential curves (solid lines) describe metastable BEC physics, and would correspond to continuum states, in the absence of a trapping potential. The $`\nu =2`$ curve (thick solid line) shows a double minimum structure with minima at $`R0.2a_{ho}`$ and $`R2.5a_{ho}`$, which are separated by a potential barrier. The lowest metastable state “lives” in the minimum at larger $`R`$. The lower panel of Fig. 1 shows an enlargement of the gaseous region together with the effective potential curves for a vanishing interaction potential (dotted lines). Significant deviations between the solid and the dotted curves (non-vanishing and vanishing two-body potential, respectively) are visible.

As clearly demonstrated in Fig. 1, to properly describe the metastable states, one must solve Eq. (4) for hyperradii $`R`$ as large as $`10a_{ho}`$, corresponding roughly to several $`10^4`$a.u. (depending somewhat on $`\nu _{ho}`$). In our calculation, we determine the adiabatic potential curves $`U_\nu `$ and the coupling matrix elements $`P_{\nu \nu ^{}}`$ and $`Q_{\nu \nu ^{}}`$ out to $`R10100a_{sc}`$ using a two-dimensional B-spline code, and then extrapolate to larger $`R`$. For the continuum potential curves we follow a second independent approach suggested by Nielsen and Macek . For large $`R`$, they recognise the dependence of $`U_\nu `$ on $`a_{sc}`$ only, and derive a nearly analytic expression for $`U_\nu `$. Note, Nielsen and Macek’s formula does not account for those potential curves, which simply coincide with the “unperturbed” eigenvalues $`\mathrm{}^2\frac{\lambda (\lambda +1)+15/4}{2\mu R^2}`$, $`\lambda =12,16,18,\mathrm{}`$ (see above). The nearly analytical expressions  are in excellent agreement with our continuum curves $`U_\nu `$ calculated through numerical solution (and extrapolation) of Eq. (4).

In passing, we note an additional nice feature of the outlined formalism. Suppose that we wish to study the energetics of three particles in an external spherical potential as a function of the trapping frequency $`\nu _{ho}`$. For a given interaction potential $`V(r)`$, it is only necessary to solve the numerically most demanding Eq. (4) once. $`\omega _{ho}`$ then enters the simple one-dimensional Eq. (6) simply through an additive term, which trivially determines the energy spectrum versus $`\omega _{ho}`$ .

## III The quantal energy spectrum

This section presents the internal energies $`E^{int}`$ for three bosonic particles with $`J=0`$ in an external trap for a two-body model potential of the form $`V(r)=d\mathrm{cosh}^2(r/r_0)`$. This is convenient because the two-body $`s`$-wave eigenenergies and eigenfunctions can be determined analytically . Furthermore, we determined an analytical expression for the energy-dependent $`s`$-wave scattering length,

$`a_{sc}(k)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{ik}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\rho }{1\rho }},`$ (7)
where

$`\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(iks,1+s+ik;1+ik;\frac{1}{2})}{2_2^{ik}F_1(s,1+s;1ik;\frac{1}{2})}},`$ (8)
where $`k=\sqrt{mE/\mathrm{}^2}`$, and $`s=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1+4mdr_0^2/\mathrm{}^2}`$. $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ denotes the usual hypergeometric function. The zero-energy $`s`$-wave scattering length $`a_{sc}`$ is then simply given by $`a_{sc}=lim_{k0}a_{sc}(k)`$. While $`r_0`$ is fixed at $`r_0=55`$a.u. throughout our calculations, $`d`$ is varied to change the number of two-body $`s`$-wave bound states $`N_b`$ and the two-body $`s`$-wave scattering length $`a_{sc}`$ \[$`m=m(^{87}`$Rb) throughout the rest of the paper\]. We perform three-body calculations for 70 different $`d`$ values, which translates into a range of two-body scattering lengths $`a_{sc}`$ from $`10^4`$a.u. to $`10^4`$a.u.. To keep the coupled-adiabatic-channel calculations tractable we restrict $`d`$ in this study to values such that $`N_b=1`$ or $`2`$.

Consider a vanishing interaction potential, $`d=0`$ (ideal gas) first. For this system, the strict adiabatic approximation is exact, and $`E_n^{int}=3,5,7,\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\omega _{ho}`$. Introduction of a non-vanishing interaction potential shifts these gaseous energy levels according roughly to the value of $`a_{sc}`$, lifts the degeneracy, and additionally gives rise to three-body bound states. Figure 2 shows the internal energies $`E_{\nu n}^{int}`$ (solid lines) of the gaseous-like states for $`\nu _{ho}=78`$kHz calculated via the strict adiabatic approximation for various scattering lengths $`a_{sc}`$. To accomodate a large range of interaction parameters $`(N1)a_{sc}/a_{ho}`$ , Fig. 2 shows the internal energies as a function of $`[\text{arctan}(a_{sc}/a_{ho})]/\pi `$. To additionally be able to plot results for systems with $`N_b=1`$ and $`N_b=2`$ two-body bound states, respectively, the integer part of the abcissa is chosen to be equal to $`N_b`$. This scaling procedure results in abcissa values of $`[2.5,0.5]`$. We refer to the interval $`[0.5,1.5]`$ as the “first cycle” ($`N_b=1`$), and to the interval $`[1.5,2.5]`$ as the “second cycle” ($`N_b=2`$). In this representation, $`a_{sc}=0`$ corresponds to $`[\text{arctan}(a_{sc}/a_{ho})]/\pi =2.0`$ and $`1.0`$.

To interpret this complicated energy level structure, concentrate on six different scattering length values labeled by A–F in Fig. 2. Figure 3 shows the sum of the corresponding adiabatic potential curves and the trapping potential, $`U_\nu +V_{trap}`$, where $`V_{trap}(R)=0.5\mu \omega _{ho}^2R^2`$ (solid lines):

Panel A corresponds to a large positive scattering length, $`a_{sc}=2138`$a.u.. The lowest BEC-like curve ($`\nu =2`$) is highlighted as a thick solid curve. The lowest energy level lying within this potential curve, $`E_{20}^{int}`$, has an energy close to $`5\mathrm{}\omega _{ho}`$, and the excited levels ($`E_{2n}^{int}`$, $`n>0`$) lie about $`2\mathrm{}\omega _{ho}`$ higher each (see Fig. 2). We refer to the energy levels “located” within the same potential curve (identical $`\nu `$, but having a different number of hyperradial nodes $`n`$) as a family. The lowest energy of the next higher BEC-like curve is $`E_{30}^{int}7\mathrm{}\omega `$, and again, the excited levels ($`E_{3n}^{int}`$, $`n>0`$) lie about $`2\mathrm{}\omega _{ho}`$ higher each. To guide the eye, Fig. 2 displays dotted curves that represent the effective potential curves in the absence of any two-body interaction potential.

Panel B corresponds to a much smaller scattering length than in panel A, $`a_{sc}=103`$a.u.. This panel shows a series of crossings at energies around $`20\mathrm{}\omega _{ho}`$, indicating a $`d`$-wave shape resonance. As the scattering length decreases slightly, these crossings move to lower energies, until they finally vanish at $`a_{sc}=97`$a.u.. The scattering length $`a_{sc}=97`$a.u. corresponds to a well depth $`d`$ of the two-body potential $`V`$ at which $`V`$ first supports a $`d`$-wave two-body bound state. To calculate energy levels in the presence of a $`d`$-wave shape resonance we follow the potential curves that cross diabatically. Note that the potential curves approach the $`V(r_{ij})=0`$ curves (i.e., the dotted lines) as $`a_{sc}`$ approaches zero. Accordingly, the energy levels approach those of the ideal inhomogeneous gas.

Panel C shows the effective potential curves (solid lines) for vanishing scattering length, $`a_{sc}=0`$ (however, non-vanishing $`V`$), in which case the potential curves are almost identical to the ones for vanishing $`V`$ (dotted lines). Small differences occur in the inner wall region reflecting the existence of molecular states at small $`R`$. These molecular states at small $`R`$ are, however, not shown in Fig. 3.

Panels D, E, and F correspond to negative scattering lengths. The inflection of the thick solid line at $`R0.5a_{ho}`$ in panel $`D`$ indicates the first signature of a decaying condensate. The interaction parameter for this system is $`(N1)a_{sc}/a_{ho}=0.085`$. In panel E, the barrier of the lowest gaseous-like curve, which separates the BEC minimum from the energetically much deeper molecular minimum, has almost vanished; here, $`(N1)a_{sc}/a_{ho}=0.356`$. Panel F shows a large negative scattering length case, $`a_{sc}=1970`$a.u.. The thick solid curve corresponds to a situation in which the gaseous-like state (condensate) is no longer stable. Note the similarity of the potential curves for large positive and large negative $`a_{sc}`$ (panel A and F). This similarity reflects the smooth dependence of $`E_{\nu n}^{int}`$ as $`|a_{sc}|`$ goes through infinity (see below).

In addition to the aforementioned issues, four more characteristics are important to the energy level scheme shown in Fig. 2: (i) At $`a_{sc}=0`$, corresponding to $`[\text{arctan}(a_{sc}/a_{ho})]/\pi =1`$ and $`2`$, the positive energy levels $`E_{\nu n}^{int}`$ lie very close to those of the ideal gas. (ii) The energy level with energy $`E^{int}=15\mathrm{}\omega _{ho}`$ is unchanged over the two cycles shown. This energy level originates in the “unperturbed” potential curve $`\mathrm{}^2\frac{\lambda (\lambda +1)+15/4}{2\mu R^2}`$, $`\lambda =12`$ (see Section II), and therefore coincides with an ideal gas level. (iii) The internal energy levels in the first cycle ($`N_b=1`$) and in the second cycle ($`N_b=2`$) behave very similarly, indicating that the energies are, to a good approximation, independent of the number of two-body $`s`$-wave bound states $`N_b`$. (iv) Notice in particular that the energy levels $`E_{\nu n}^{int}`$ change smoothly as $`|a_{sc}|`$ passes through infinity.

Note as well that families of plunging energy levels with molecular character are present, which to simplify our presentation are shown only partially in Fig. 2. Consider the lowest gaseous-like energy level of the first cycle, i.e. with $`N_b=1`$. As the gaseous-like state becomes unstable while $`a_{sc}`$ decreases this energy level decreases through zero (at $`[\text{arctan}(a_{sc}/a_{ho})]/\pi 1.2`$), which reflects the transition of this BEC state to one of molecular character. The other energy levels of this family also change character from gaseous-like to molecular-like as the two-body potential well depth $`d`$ becomes deeper. For clarity, Fig. 2 shows these energy levels only for $`[\text{arctan}(a_{sc}/a_{ho})]/\pi >1.75`$. For each additional two-body bound state, a “manifold” of plunging energy levels is present, reflecting the fact that the number of three-body states with negative energy increases far more rapidly than those for the two-body system.

So far we have discussed results for a trap with trapping frequency $`\nu _{ho}=78`$kHz. In addition, we performed calculations for trapping frequencies that are 10 times larger, and also 10 or 100 times smaller. Since $`a_{ho}=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/(m\omega _{ho})}`$, the interaction parameter $`(N1)a_{sc}/a_{ho}`$ scales as $`\sqrt{\omega _{ho}}`$. Adopting the same two-body interaction potentials as before, a trapping frequency smaller than $`\nu _{ho}=78`$kHz therefore leads to a narrower $`[\text{arctan}(a_{sc}/a_{ho})]/\pi `$ interval than shown in Fig. 2. As an example, Fig. 4 shows the internal energies $`E_{\nu n}^{int}`$ for three particles in a trap with $`\nu _{ho}=780`$Hz and $`N_b=2`$ (solid lines). A few of the internal energies at large negative scattering length, corresponding to $`[\text{arctan}(a_{sc}/a_{ho})]/\pi 2.08`$, are indicated by diamonds. These data points are not connected by solid lines since in this region our grid in $`a_{sc}`$ is too coarse to allow for interpolation.

To summarize, our microscopic studies of the energetics of three confined particles as a function of $`\nu _{ho}`$ reveal that the overall behavior of the energy level scheme (as shown in Fig. 2) remains unchanged as $`\nu _{ho}`$ either decreases or increases. As discussed in the previous paragraph, however, $`\nu _{ho}`$ determines the range of the interaction parameter. Specifically, the behavior of the energy levels around $`a_{sc}a_{cr}`$ depends on $`\nu _{ho}`$. Figure 2 indicates a gradual decrease of the condensate energy as the scattering length decreases through the region $`[\text{arctan}(a_{sc}/a_{ho})]/\pi 2.1`$. As $`\nu _{ho}`$ is decreased, the separation between the molecular-like region at small $`R`$ and the gaseous-like region at large $`R`$ becomes more pronounced, and the energy decrease (change from gaseous-like to molecular-like) takes place over a smaller range of scattering lengths. In other words, the potential barrier (shown in panel D and E of Fig. 3 for $`\nu _{ho}=78`$kHz) spatially separates the molecular-like and gaseous-like region more for small $`\nu _{ho}`$ than for large $`\nu _{ho}`$.

The internal energies discussed in this section have been calculated within the strict adiabatic approximation. To assess the accuracy of this approach we additionally performed coupled-adiabatic-channel calculations. Figure 5 shows the energies resulting from the coupled-adiabatic-channel calculation including four channels (pluses) together with those resulting from the adiabatic calculation (dotted, solid, and dashed lines) for $`\nu _{ho}=78`$kHz. Figure 5 indicates excellent agreement between these two sets of calculations for small $`a_{sc}`$ (left hand side of the figure), however, some differences occur at larger $`a_{sc}`$ (right hand side of the figure). To be more specific, the plunging molecular levels (dotted lines) and the BEC levels in the lowest gaseous adiabatic potential curve (solid lines) seem to repell each other at large $`a_{sc}`$ due to channel coupling. In summary, for our time-independent studies here, the strict adiabatic approximation describes the main characteristics of the energy level pattern as shown in Figs. 2 and 4 with sufficient accuracy. To go beyond this static picture, however, the coupling between channels must be considered.

Studies including channel coupling  show that the primary recombination mechanism is related to the behavior of the adiabatic potential curves and the corresponding coupling elements at hyperradii $`R23a_{sc}`$. Consider panel A of Fig. 3 with $`a_{sc}=2138`$a.u. and $`\nu _{ho}=78`$kHz. For this situation, the criterion $`R23a_{sc}`$ translates into $`5.88.8a_{ho}`$. At these hyperradii, the lowest lying gaseous $`V_{trap}+U_\nu `$ curve reaches $`1020\mathrm{}\omega _{ho}`$, compared to the lowest gaseous energy level of $`5.3\mathrm{}\omega _{ho}`$. Thus, we speculate that we have entered a regime where recombination processes are largely suppressed due to the strong confinement. It would be interesting to probe this regime experimentally.

## IV Comparison with Mean-Field Treatments

This section connects our microscopic studies with results obtained by mean-field treatments. Consider the HF treatment , which results in an equation identical to the GP equation, except for a change from $`N`$ to $`N1`$ in the interaction parameter. The HF treatment does not take advantage of the decoupling of the center-of-mass and the internal motion, and determines an approximate value for the total energy $`E_{HF}`$ as well as the orbital energy or chemical potential. To compare our internal three-body energies $`E_{\nu n}^{int}`$ (solid lines in Figs. 2 and 4) with the HF energy $`E_{HF}`$, we subtract the exact energy associated with the lowest center-of-mass motion, $`E_0^{CM}=1.5\mathrm{}\omega _{ho}`$, from $`E_{HF}`$, and refer to this quantity as internal HF energy $`E_{HF}^{int}`$. The approximate HF treatment could either lead to an error in $`E_{HF}^{int}`$ or in $`E_{HF}^{CM}`$, or in both these quantities at the same time, and the subtraction of $`E_0^{CM}`$ from $`E_{HF}`$ is therefore somewhat artificial . Figures 2 and 4 show the resulting internal HF energy, $`E_{HF}^{int}`$, as dotted lines.

For $`\nu _{ho}=780`$Hz, the internal HF energy $`E_{HF}^{int}`$ (dotted lines in Fig. 4) agrees favorably with the lowest gaseous-like internal three-body energy (solid line). As discussed in Sec. III, Fig. 4 includes only a small range of interaction parameters $`(N1)a_{sc}/a_{ho}`$. Thus, the good agreement between $`E_{\nu n}^{int}`$ and $`E_{HF}^{int}`$ is not surprising.

For comparison, Fig. 2 shows the energy levels for a 100 times larger trapping frequency, namely $`\nu _{ho}=78`$kHz. This figure indicates two regions in which $`E_{HF}^{int}`$ (dotted line) deviates from the lowest many-body energy level $`E_{\nu n}^{int}`$ having gaseous character, the region around $`a_{cr}`$ and the large $`a_{sc}`$ region. For $`a_{sc}a_{cr}`$, the HF equation does not have a solution. This mathematical fact is typically interpreted as “decay of the condensate” . The three-body treatment reveals that the decay of the condensate is linked to the disappearance of a potential barrier (see, e.g., panels D and E of Fig. 3), which separates the molecular region at small $`R`$ from the gaseous-like region at large $`R`$. When the potential barrier has disappeared, the states associated with this potential curve have purely molecular character. Thus, the energy levels in this potential curve change dramatically in the vicinity of $`a_{cr}`$, whereas most of the energy levels belonging to other families change slowly around $`a_{sc}`$.

Our interpretation of the behavior of a BEC in the vicinity of $`a_{cr}`$ agrees with that suggested by Bohn et al. for an arbitrary number of particles . Within the $`K`$-harmonic approximation, Bohn et al.  describe the interaction between each pair of particles through a shape-independent delta-function potential, and make some approximations about the behavior at small hyperradii, where the $`\delta `$-function potential leads to divergences. These approximations are confirmed to be well justified, based on our calculations with shape-dependent two-body interaction potentials, so that no additional approximations at small $`R`$ need to be made. Taken together, these two studies highlight the usefulness of the hyperspherical radius coordinate in interpreting dynamics of a BEC (see also ).

Figure 2 also indicates discrepencies between $`E_{HF}^{int}`$ and $`E_{\nu n}^{int}`$ at large $`|a_{sc}|`$. For $`a_{sc}\mathrm{}`$, $`E_{HF}^{int}`$ diverges and approaches unrealistically large values, whereas the three-body energies $`E_{\nu n}^{int}`$ behave smoothly. Recall that the sign change of the scattering length from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$ (pole region) corresponds to the appearance of an additional two-body $`s`$-wave bound state. Coincidently, this corresponds to the existence of a hyperradial potential curve, which approaches the corresponding (negative) two-body binding energy in the absence of the trapping potential asymptotically. Around the pole region, this hyperradial potential curve is energetically close to the lowest potential curve with gaseous-like character, and therefore, coupling between these two potential curves with molecular-like and gaseous-like character, respectively, can occur.

For positive $`a_{sc}`$, the “standard” HF/GP treatment has been improved by including an additional mean-field term . This modified treatment leads to an improved description of BECs with small and medium interaction parameters, however, exhibits divergences similar to that observed for the standard mean-field treatment as $`a_{sc}\mathrm{}`$. Therefore the modified mean-field treatment does not overcome the limitations of the standard mean-field treatment addressed above.

To improve upon the GP (or equivalently, the HF) treatment, several groups  developed mean-field formalisms within the shape-independent contact potential approximation. These approaches go beyond typically applied approximations by introducing a molecular field, and are aimed at describing condensate physics in the presence of a Feshbach resonance. Application of these formalisms to calculating the energetics as a function of $`a_{sc}`$, i.e., in the regions where $`a_{sc}a_{cr}`$ and $`|a_{sc}|\mathrm{}`$ would be useful. The present study may then be used to benchmark such treatments, and would thus provide a strong link between many-body and mean-field treatments.

To make further contact with mean-field treatments, comparisons between our three-body excitation frequencies and those calculated within the random phase approximation can be made. This comparison will be discussed in a future publication.

## V Conclusions

This paper discusses microscopic studies for three <sup>87</sup>Rb atoms interacting via a sum of simple two-body model potentials under external confinement. Our study is important in light of recent experiments of atomic gases trapped in an optical lattice with an occupancy of 1-3 atoms per lattice site . These experiments open the opportunity to systematically study strongly-interacting few-body systems, and therefore enter regimes discussed in the present paper from a theoretical microscopic point of view. The overall behavior of the zero temperature energy levels discussed in Secs. III and IV is independent of the exact shape of the two-body potential, though the detailed behavior of the energy levels and of the hyperradial potential curves at small hyperradii $`R`$ depends on the shape of the two-body potential. The goal of this paper is to point out the gross behavior of the energy levels as a function of the two-body $`s`$-wave scattering length $`a_{sc}`$. Therefore, we consider only one class of two-body potentials. Our main results are derived for a relatively large trapping frequency, $`\nu _{ho}=78`$kHz. As pointed out in Sec. III, dependencies on $`\nu _{ho}`$ exist, however, the gross features of the energy level scheme are independent of the magnitude of $`\nu _{ho}`$.

Our time-independent calculations, performed mostly within the adiabatic approximation, include molecular-like and gaseous-like states, whereas standard mean-field treatments only treat the latter states. Our study reveals a microscopic understanding of the decay of a BEC in agreement with a study by Bohn et al. . Furthermore, the present microscopic three-body study reveals a smooth non-diverging behavior of the energy levels around the pole region where $`|a_{sc}|\mathrm{}`$, and provides a detailed picture of the corresponding physics through analysis of hyperspherical potential curves.

Section IV compares our microscopic energy levels with those calculated at the HF level. While mean-field theories are commonly derived in the large particle limit, the HF equation is valid for any number of particles and density (though it might result in a more accurate description for systems with large $`N`$ and low density). The energy level pattern for systems with more than three particles may differ in detail from our three-body energy levels presented here, however, the overall behavior will be similar and we expect our main conclusions to generalize to systems with more than $`N=3`$ particles.

Our study raises several discussion points. Most of all, we have only briefly discussed the effect of channel coupling on the behavior of the energy level scheme (see Fig. 5). To obtain detailed information about the dynamics of the condensate, inclusion of channel coupling, or at least a Landau-Zener-type analysis, is required. Such an analysis would allow the following question to be addressed (see Fig. 2): Is it possible to form a BEC with positive $`a_{sc}`$ that resides in a hyperradial curve other than the lowest curve with BEC character, and then decrease $`a_{sc}`$ until $`a_{sc}<a_{cr}`$ (e.g. through the use of a Feshbach resonance) without destroying the condensate? Answers to this question certainly require a more detailed analysis, and will be left for future study.

To extend the present work to many (more than four) particles is computationally infeasible. We hope, however, that our results can eventually be compared with modified mean-field treatments that implicitly include molecular states . Our study may then provide an additional link between many-body and mean-field physics. Lastly, our work relates to various many-body treatments using hyperspherical coordinates  that neglect molecular physics. (An exception is the recent study by Sørensen et al. , which includes molecular states explicitly.)

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank B. D. Esry for providing access to his B-spline code, and J. Macek for suggesting that we apply Eqs. (4) and (5) of Reference . This work was supported by the National Science Foundation.

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Fig. 5


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

At low energies the heterotic string theory leads to an effective field theory of massless fields which describes supergravity coupled to some matter fields. In  it was shown that when considering the toroidal compactification from $`D`$ to $`3`$ dimensions using a Kaluza–Klein ansatz, the resulting theory turns out to be a nonlinear $`\sigma `$–model with values in the symmetric coset space $`SO(d+1,d+n+1)/S[O(d+1)\times O(d+n+1)]`$. It is well known that the theory of symmetric spaces provides a convenient framework for discussing and understanding the internal symmetries of the $`\sigma `$–models. Later on, an alternative representation of this effective field theory in terms of a couple of matrix Ernst potentials (MEP) was proposed in . This formulation is, in fact, a matrix generalization of the nonlinear $`\sigma `$–model parametrization of the stationary Einstein–Maxwell (EM) theory and enables us to extrapolate the results obtained in the EM theory to the heterotic string realm; we review this formalism in Section 2. Further development in this direction was achieved in  by introducing a single rectangular matrix potential which transforms linearly under the action of the charging symmtery group. Several families of solutions have been constructed making use of the analogy between both theories (see, for instance, ), however, the full charge parametrized stationary axisymmetric black hole solution is still missing . Most of the constructed solutions were obtained by making use of solution generating techniques based on the symmetries of the effective theory and their equations of motion.

In the framework of this motivation we present in Section 3 a particularly symmetric formulation of the matter sector of the effective field theory of heterotic string in terms of a pair of matrix potentials that enter the effective action in a completely symmetric way. This fact allows us to construct new solutions for the hole theory starting from a solution for the truncated theory in terms of one of the matrix potentials. We discuss as well the restrictions under which this procedure can consistently take place. Subsequently we give an explicit $`O(d+1,d+n+1)`$–invariant formulation of the effective theory in terms of a matrix vector endowed with an $`O(d+1,d+n+1)`$–invariant scalar product. This formulation linearizes the action of the $`O(d+1,d+n+1)`$ symmetry group on the coset space $`O(d+1,d+n+1)/O[(d+1)\times (d+n+1)`$ and open the possibility of applying a solution–generating technique in order to construct new families of solutions. We conclude this Section by choosing a simple ansatz for the matrix vector which reduces the equation of motion to the Laplace equation for a real scalar function and yields a family of extremal solutions. Finally, in Section 4 we present our conclusions and discuss on the further development and applications of this formalism.

## 2 The effective action and matrix Ernst potentials

Let us consider the effective action of the heterotic string at tree level

$`𝒮^{(D)}={\displaystyle d^{(D)}xG^{(D)}^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{\varphi ^{(D)}}(R^{(D)}+\varphi _{;M}^{(D)}\varphi ^{(D);M}\frac{1}{12}H_{MNP}^{(D)}H^{(D)MNP}\frac{1}{4}F_{MN}^{(D)I}F^{(D)IMN})},`$ (1)
where

$`F_{MN}^{(D)I}=_MA_N^{(D)I}_NA_M^{(D)I},H_{MNP}^{(D)}=_MB_{NP}^{(D)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A_M^{(D)I}F_{NP}^{(D)I}+\text{cycl. perms. of \hspace{0.17em} M,\hspace{0.17em}N,\hspace{0.17em}P.}`$
Here $`G_{MN}^{(D)}`$ is the metric, $`B_{MN}^{(D)}`$ is the anti–symmetric Kalb-Ramond field, $`\varphi ^{(D)}`$ is the dilaton and $`A_M^{(D)I}`$ is a set of Abelian $`U(1)`$ vector fields ($`I=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{},n`$). In the consistent critical case $`D=10`$ and $`n=16`$, but we shall leave these parameters arbitrary for the sake of generality since when $`d=1`$ and $`n=6`$ the matter content of the considered effective field theory corresponds to that of $`D=N=4`$ supergravity, and when $`d=n=1`$, to that of Einstein–Maxwell Dilaton–Axion theory; moreover, several cases have been considered in the literature using different values of $`d`$ and $`n`$.

In  it was shown that after the compactification of this model on a $`D3=d`$–torus, the resulting stationary theory possesses the $`SO(d+1,d+1+n)`$ symmetry group and describes gravity coupled to the following set of three–dimensional fields:

a) scalar fields

$`GG_{mn}=G_{m+3,n+3}^{(D)},BB_{mn}=B_{m+3,n+3}^{(D)},AA_m^I=A_{m+3}^{(D)I},\varphi =\varphi ^{(D)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}|\mathrm{det}G|,`$ (2)
b)tensor fields

$`g_{\mu \nu }=e^{2\varphi }\left(G_{\mu \nu }^{(D)}G_{m+3,\mu }^{(D)}G_{n+3,\nu }^{(D)}G^{mn}\right),B_{\mu \nu }=B_{\mu \nu }^{(D)}4B_{mn}A_\mu ^mA_\nu ^n2\left(A_\mu ^mA_\nu ^{m+d}A_\nu ^mA_\mu ^{m+d}\right),`$ (3)
c)vector fields $`A_\mu ^{(a)}=((A_1)_\mu ^m,(A_2)_\mu ^{m+d},(A_3)_\mu ^{2d+I})`$

$`(A_1)_\mu ^m={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G^{mn}G_{n+3,\mu }^{(D)},(A_3)_\mu ^{I+2d}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A_\mu ^{(D)I}+A_n^IA_\mu ^n,(A_2)_\mu ^{m+d}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B_{m+3,\mu }^{(D)}B_{mn}A_\mu ^n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A_m^IA_\mu ^{I+2d}`$ (4)
where the subscripts $`m,n=1,2,\mathrm{},d`$; and $`a=1,\mathrm{},2d+n`$. Following , in this paper we set $`B_{\mu \nu }=0`$ in order to remove the effective cosmological constant from our consideration.

In three dimensions all vector fields can be dualized on–shell as follows

$`\times \stackrel{}{A_1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{2\varphi }G^1\left(u+(B+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}AA^T)v+As\right),`$
$`\times \stackrel{}{A_3}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{2\varphi }(s+A^Tv)+A^T\times \stackrel{}{A_1},`$ (5)
$`\times \stackrel{}{A_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{2\varphi }Gv(B+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}AA^T)\times \stackrel{}{A_1}+A\times \stackrel{}{A_3}.`$
Thus, the effective stationary theory describes gravity $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ coupled to the scalars $`G`$, $`B`$, $`A`$, $`\varphi `$ and pseudoscalars $`u`$, $`v`$, $`s`$. All matter fields can be arranged in the following pair of MEP

$`𝒳=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{2\varphi }+v^TXv+v^TAs+\frac{1}{2}s^Ts& v^TXu^T\\ Xv+u+As& X\end{array}\right),𝒜=\left(\begin{array}{c}s^T+v^TA\\ A\end{array}\right),`$ (10)
where $`X=G+B+\frac{1}{2}AA^T`$. These matrices have dimensions $`(d+1)\times (d+1)`$ and $`(d+1)\times n`$, respectively. Some words about the physical meaning of of the fields are in order. The relevant information of the gravitational field is encoded in $`X`$, whereas its rotational nature is hidden in $`u`$; $`\varphi `$ is the dilaton field, $`v`$ is related to multidimensional components of the Kalb–Ramond field, $`A`$ and $`s`$ stand for electric and magnetic potentials, respectively.

In terms of MEP, the effective three–dimensional theory adopts the form

$`{}_{}{}^{3}𝒮={\displaystyle d^3xg^{\frac{1}{2}}\{R+\mathrm{Tr}[\frac{1}{4}(𝒳𝒜𝒜^T)𝒢^1(𝒳^T𝒜𝒜^T)𝒢^1+\frac{1}{2}𝒜^T𝒢^1𝒜]\}},`$ (11)
where $`𝒳=𝒢++\frac{1}{2}𝒜𝒜^T`$, hence the matrices $`𝒢=\frac{1}{2}\left(𝒳+𝒳^T𝒜𝒜^T\right)`$ and $`=\frac{1}{2}\left(𝒳𝒳^T\right)`$ read

$`𝒢=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{2\varphi }+v^TGv& v^TG\\ Gv& G\end{array}\right),=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& v^TBu^T\\ Bv+u& B\end{array}\right).`$ (16)
In  it was shown that there exist a map between the stationary actions of the heterotic string and Einstein–Maxwell theories

$`𝒳E,𝒜F,`$
$`\mathrm{𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥}\mathrm{𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛}\mathrm{𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑥}\mathrm{𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑢𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛},`$ (17)
where $`E`$ and $`F`$ are the complex Ernst potentials of the Einstein–Maxwell theory . Thus, the map (9) allows us to generalize the results obtained in the EM theory to the heterotic string one using the MEP formulism. It is worth noticing that in the right hand side we have complex functions, whereas in the left hand side we have real matrices (hence the transposition instead the complex conjugation) that obey the usual rules of matrix algebra.

## 3 Symmetric Formulations

We begin this Section by reformulating the matter sector of the three–dimensional effective field theory of the heterotic string (6). First we give a particularly symmetric representation of the effective theory in terms of two potentials and then we rewrite it in an explicit $`O(d+1,d+n+1)`$–invariant form.

Thus, if we substitute $`𝒳=2(Z_1+\mathrm{\Sigma })^1\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`𝒜=\sqrt{2}(Z_1+\mathrm{\Sigma })^1Z_2`$, where $`Z_1`$and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are matrices of dimension $`d+1`$, $`Z_2`$ is a $`(d+1)\times n`$–matrix and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=diag(1,1,1,1,\mathrm{}1)`$, the matter sector of the action (7) takes the form

$`𝒮_{matt}={\displaystyle }d^3xg^{\frac{1}{2}}Tr[Z_1(\mathrm{\Sigma }+\mathrm{\Sigma }Z_1^T\mathrm{\Theta }^1Z_1\mathrm{\Sigma })Z_1^T\mathrm{\Theta }^1+Z_1\mathrm{\Sigma }Z_1^T\mathrm{\Theta }^1Z_2Z_2^T\mathrm{\Theta }^1+`$
$`Z_2Z_2^T\mathrm{\Theta }^1Z_1\mathrm{\Sigma }Z_1^T\mathrm{\Theta }^1+Z_2(I_n+Z_2^T\mathrm{\Theta }^1Z_2)Z_2^T\mathrm{\Theta }^1],`$ (18)
or, equivalently,

$`𝒮_{matt}={\displaystyle d^3xg^{\frac{1}{2}}Tr\left(\mathrm{\Theta }^1Z_kY_{kl}Z_l^T\right)},`$ (19)
where the symmetric block–matrix reads

$`Y_{kl}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Sigma }+\mathrm{\Sigma }Z_1^T\mathrm{\Theta }^1Z_1\mathrm{\Sigma }& \mathrm{\Sigma }Z_1^T\mathrm{\Theta }^1Z_2\\ Z_2^T\mathrm{\Theta }^1Z_1\mathrm{\Sigma }& I_n+Z_2^T\mathrm{\Theta }^1Z_2\end{array}\right),`$ (22)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }=\mathrm{\Sigma }Z_1\mathrm{\Sigma }Z_1^TZ_2Z_2^T`$, $`I_n`$ is the unit matrix of dimension $`n`$ and $`k,l=1,2`$. The corresponding equations of motion for the matrix potentials $`Z_1`$ and $`𝒵_2`$ are

$`^2Z_1+2\left(Z_1\mathrm{\Sigma }Z_1^T+Z_2Z_2^T\right)\mathrm{\Theta }^1Z_1=0`$
$`^2Z_2+2\left(Z_1\mathrm{\Sigma }Z_1^T+Z_2Z_2^T\right)\mathrm{\Theta }^1Z_2=0`$ (23)
This parametrization of the effective theory is a generalization of the Kähler $`\sigma `$–model representation of the stationary EM theory  in terms of a pair of real matrix potentials instead of complex functions. An important feature of this action is its evident invariance under the transformation

$`Z_2Z_1\tau `$ (24)
if the rectangular matrix $`\tau `$ satisfies the following conditions

$`\tau \tau ^T=\mathrm{\Sigma },\tau ^T\mathrm{\Sigma }\tau =I_n.`$ (25)
This symmetry mixes the gravitational and matter degrees of freedom of the theory. It recalls the Bonnor transformation of the Einstein–Maxwell theory , but in the heterotic string realm.

In the particular case when $`\tau `$ is a square matrix, only the first restriction is sufficient to ensure the map (13). This symmetry enables us to construct new classes of solutions for the whole theory on the basis of solutions for $`Z_1`$ or $`Z_2`$ making use of a simple solution generating procedure.

In principle, one can study the effective action under investigation formulated in terms of other dynamical variables in which the group $`O(d+1,d+n+1)`$ acts linearly on the coset space $`O(d+1,d+n+1)/O[(d+1)\times (d+n+1)`$. In order to achieve this aim, let us introduce the $`O(d+1,d+n+1)`$–matrix vector $`𝐖=(W_1,W_2,W_3)0`$ with components defined by the relations

$`Z_1(W_2)^1W_1,Z_2(W_2)^1W_3,`$ (26)
where $`W_1`$ and $`W_2`$ are $`(d+1)\times (d+1)`$–matrices and the dimension of $`W_3`$ is $`(d+1)\times n`$. Let us define as well the $`O(d+1,d+n+1)`$–invariant scalar product in the space of vectors $`𝐖`$

$`(𝐖,𝐖^T)(W_1,W_2,W_3)\stackrel{~}{}(W_1,W_2,W_3)^T=W_1\mathrm{\Sigma }W_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{T}+W_2\mathrm{\Sigma }W_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{T}W_3W_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{T},`$ (27)
where the matrix $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ determines the indefinite signature $`\stackrel{~}{}=diag(\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Sigma },I_n)`$ of the vector space.

In terms of the introduced vector our action adopts the form

$`𝒮={\displaystyle }d^3xg^{\frac{1}{2}}Tr\{R+(𝐖,𝐖^T)^1[(𝐖,𝐖^T)`$
$`(𝐖,𝐖^T)(𝐖,𝐖^T)^1(𝐖,𝐖^T)]\},`$ (28)
the corresponding equations of motion are

$`R_{\mu \nu }=Tr\left\{(𝐖,𝐖^T)^1\left[(_\mu 𝐖,_\nu 𝐖^T)(_\mu 𝐖,𝐖^T)(𝐖,𝐖^T)^1(𝐖,_\nu 𝐖^T)\right]\right\},`$
$`^2𝐖2(𝐖,𝐖^T)(𝐖,𝐖^T)^1𝐖=0,`$ (29)
which is nothing else that a matrix vector generalization of the Ernst equation for $`𝐖`$.

This new dynamical system is related to the original one in the following sense: any solution of the field equations (18) can be translated into a solution of the equations of motion for the original theory using the algebraic relations (15). This formulation of the theory and its equation of motion is explicitly $`O(d+1,d+n+1)`$–invariant and is a direct generalization of the representation given in  and  in the framework of the stationary EM theory. The realization of the linear action of the $`O(d+1,d+n+1)`$ symmetry group on the coset space $`O(d+1,d+n+1)/O[(d+1)\times (d+n+1])`$ is reached by means of the matrix transformation

$`𝐖^{}=U𝐖`$ (30)
where the matrix $`U`$ satisfies the following condition

$`U\stackrel{~}{}U^T=\stackrel{~}{},`$ (31)
i.e., $`U`$ belongs to the $`O(d+1,d+n+1)`$ symmetry group.

In the simplest case when the matrix vector $`𝐖`$ has the form

$`𝐖=\mathrm{\Psi }^1𝐊,`$ (32)
where the $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a real scalar function and $`𝐊`$ is a constant matrix vector, the equation of motion (18) reduces to the Laplace equation for the function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$

$`^2\mathrm{\Psi }=0.`$ (33)
The general solution of this equation is well known and in the simplest case we can consider the spherically symmetric solution

$`\mathrm{\Psi }=1{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{r}}.`$ (34)
## 4 Conclusion and discussion

We have presented a couple of symmetric formulations of the toroidally compactified stationary heterotic string theory. The first representation is written in terms of a pair of matrix potentials $`Z_1`$ and $`Z_2`$ that enter the effective action in a completely symmetric way, a fact that allows us to apply a simple solution–generating procedure on the basis of either $`Z_1`$ or $`Z_2`$. The second parametrization is expressed in terms of a matrix vector $`𝐖`$ which linearizes the action of the $`O(d+n+1)`$ symmetry group on the coset space $`O(d+1,d+n+1)/[O(d+1)\times O(d+n+1)]`$ and can be exploted for generating new solutions on the basis of known ones. Under the asumption of a simple ansatz for the matrix vector $`𝐖`$, its equation of motion reduces to the Laplace equation for a real scalar function giving rise to a family of extremal solutions.

As a further development of this formalism we would like to address the application of solution–generating techniques in the framework of both formulations ($`Z_1,Z_2`$ and $`𝐖`$) in order to obtain and study more complicated field configurations. Another interesting issue is the investigation of the full symmetry group of the theory expressed in terms of the matrix vector $`𝐖`$ since it introduces one more matrix dynamical variable in the formalism.

## 5 Acknowledgements

The authors thank Dr. O. Kechkin for helpfull discussions. This work was supported by grants CIC-UMSNH-4.18 and CONACYT-J34245-E. AHA is really grateful to S. Kousidou for encouraging him during the performance of this research.


text:
# 1 Diagrams contributing to the reactions 𝐾𝛾→𝐾𝜋.

The Uses of Chiral Anomaly
for Determination of the Number of Colors

R. N. Rogalyov***E-mail: rogalyov@mx.ihep.su

State Research Center of Russia

”Institute for High-Energy Physics”, Protvino, Russia

## Abstract

The $`N_c`$-dependence of the vertices $`PPP\gamma `$, where $`P`$ is a pseudoscalar meson and $`N_c`$ is the number of colors, is analyzed with regard for the $`N_c`$-dependence of the quark charges. It is shown that the best processes for the determination of $`N_c`$ are the reactions $`K\gamma K\pi `$ and $`\pi ^\pm \gamma \pi ^\pm \eta `$ as well as the decay $`\eta \pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$. The measurement of the cross section $`\sigma (\pi ^{}\gamma \pi ^{}\eta )`$ at the VES facility at the IHEP agrees with the value $`N_c=3`$.

The chiral anomaly  is a fundamental property of quantum field theories with chiral fermions such as the Standard Model (SM). The chiral anomaly offers a quamtum-mechanical violation of a classical symmetry at small distances (electroweak scale) such that its manifestations at large distances (hadronic scale) are unambiguously determined. This property distinguishes the chiral anomaly from the other predictions of the SM; it makes the only effect of quark–lepton interactions at small distances which can be described in terms of hadronic fields without introducing an additional phenomenological parameter. For this reason, an experimental study of the chiral anomaly would be a test of the theoretical foundations of the elementary particle physics.

Phenomenological implications of the chiral anomaly are accounted for by the Wess–Zumino–Witten1 )1 )1 )In formula (1) it is assumed that the charge matrix is given by the expression (3) for all $`N_c`$; however, it is shown below that this assumption is untrue. For this reason, the expression (1) is valid only for $`N_c=3.`$ (WZW) functional

$$S[U,\mathrm{},r]_{\text{WZW}}^{\left(N_c=3\right)}=\frac{iN_c}{48\pi ^2}d^4x\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }U\mathrm{}_\mu \mathrm{}_\nu \mathrm{}_\alpha U^{}r_\beta +\frac{1}{4}U\mathrm{}_\mu U^{}r_\nu U\mathrm{}_\alpha U^{}r_\beta +$$
(1)
$$+iU_\mu \mathrm{}_\nu \mathrm{}_\alpha U^{}r_\beta +i_\mu r_\nu U\mathrm{}_\alpha U^{}r_\beta i\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu ^L\mathrm{}_\nu U^{}r_\alpha U\mathrm{}_\beta +\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu ^LU^{}_\nu r_\alpha U\mathrm{}_\beta $$

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu ^L\mathrm{\Sigma }_\nu ^LU^{}r_\alpha U\mathrm{}_\beta +\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu ^L\mathrm{}_\nu _\alpha \mathrm{}_\beta +\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu ^L_\nu \mathrm{}_\alpha \mathrm{}_\beta i\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu ^L\mathrm{}_\nu \mathrm{}_\alpha \mathrm{}_\beta +$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu ^L\mathrm{}_\nu \mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha ^L\mathrm{}_\beta i\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu ^L\mathrm{\Sigma }_\nu ^L\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha ^L\mathrm{}_\beta (LR),$$

which should be added to the Lagrangian of the chiral perturbation theory. Here $`N_c`$ is the numbetr of colors ($`N_c=3`$); the brackets $`\mathrm{}`$ denote trace over flavor indices;

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu ^L=U^{}_\mu U;\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu ^R=U_\mu U^{};U=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\mathrm{\Phi }\sqrt{2}/F\right);$$
(2)
$$r_\mu =\mathrm{}_\mu =eA_\mu Q=A_\mu \text{diag}(\frac{2}{3},\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{3});$$
(3)
$`A_\mu `$ is the electromagnetic field; $`F=93`$ MeV; symbol $`\left(LR\right)`$ denotes the substitutions $`UU^{}`$, $`\mathrm{}_\mu r_\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu ^L\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu ^R`$; and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{\pi ^0}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{\eta ^8}{\sqrt{6}}+\frac{\eta ^0}{\sqrt{3}}& \pi ^+& K^+\\ \pi ^{}& \frac{\pi ^0}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{\eta ^8}{\sqrt{6}}+\frac{\eta ^0}{\sqrt{3}}& K_0\\ K^{}& \overline{K}_0& \frac{2\eta ^8}{\sqrt{6}}+\frac{\eta ^0}{\sqrt{3}}\end{array}\right).$$

The functional (1) determins low-energy behavior of the amplitudes of the reactions $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$, $`\eta \gamma \gamma `$, $`\eta \pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$, $`\pi ^+\gamma \pi ^+\pi ^0`$, $`\pi ^+\gamma \pi ^+\eta `$, $`K^+\gamma K^+\pi ^0`$ etc. Some of these reactions ($`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$, $`\eta \gamma \gamma `$, $`\eta \pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$, and $`\pi ^+\gamma \pi ^+\pi ^0`$) were used for the determination of the number of colors $`N_c`$.

However, a recent analysis  of the vertices $`PPP\gamma `$ and $`P\gamma \gamma `$ ($`P`$ is a pseudoscalar meson) has revealed that, in a self-consistent theory, the vertices $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ and $`\pi ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ are independent of $`N_c`$, in spite of the fact that, in any textbook on elementary particle physics (see, for example, ), the width of the decay $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ is said to be proportional to $`N_c^2`$ and thus the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi ^0\gamma \gamma )`$ is considered to be an important source of experimental information on the value of $`N_c`$. The point is that the statement on the dependence of the amplitudes $`𝒜_{\pi ^+\gamma \pi ^+\pi ^0}`$ and $`𝒜_{\pi ^0\gamma \gamma }`$ on $`N_c`$ stems from an impicit (and faulty) assumption that the quark charges $`Q_u=2/3,Q_d=1/3,Q_s=1/3`$ are independent of $`N_c`$. If this assumption were true, the triangle anomalies in the quark sector do not cancel those in the lepton sector and thus the SM is not renormalizable. Assuming renormalizability of the SM for all $`N_c`$, we obtain the relations between $`N_c`$ and the quark charges

$$Q_u=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{N_c}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\right),Q_d=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{N_c}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\right).$$
(4)
Using these relations as the base one can show that the amplitudes of the reactions $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma ,\pi ^+\gamma \pi ^+\pi ^0`$, and $`\eta \gamma \gamma `$ are independent of $`N_c`$. The anomalous vertices $`\gamma \pi ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`\gamma \eta \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ have been studied theoretically (in the case $`N_c=3`$) in  and experimentally in the processes of Coulomb production of $`\pi ^0`$  and $`\eta `$  mesons on nuclei at the IHEP. It should be mentioned that the motivation of the experiment  (the measurement of the cross section $`\sigma (\pi ^+\gamma \pi ^+\pi ^0)`$) was to determine the number of colors; however, according to the above, the number of colors could not be determined in this experiment. Therewith, the data obtained in the experiment  can well be used for a determination of $`N_c`$. As for now, the only vertex involving light mesons used for a determination of the number of colors $`N_c`$ is $`\eta \pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$. It has been studied in the decay $`\eta \pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$  and in the scattering process $`\pi ^+\gamma \pi ^+\eta `$ . The expression for this vertex for an arbitrary value of $`N_c`$ is presented below. With regard for this expression, the mentioned experiments give evidence for the value $`N_c=3`$.

The present study as well as  does not cast doubt on the total of the experimental data used for the determination of the parameter $`N_c`$; we pursue rather unpretentious goals. Bär and Wiese  suggest that the decay $`\eta \pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ ”should replace the textbook example $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ for lending experimental support to the fact that there are three colors in our world.” In the present study, we consider the $`N_c`$-dependence of the cross sections of the reactions $`K\gamma K\pi `$ and $`K\gamma K\eta `$, which can also be used for the determination of $`N_c`$. A detailed study of the vertices $`KK\pi \gamma `$ and $`KK\eta \gamma `$ is needed because, in spite of a sophisticated and comprehensive analysis of the $`P\gamma \gamma `$ and $`PPP\gamma `$ vertices performed in , the ultimate expressions for these vertices (formula (5.11) of the cited paper) are in error. For istance, the mentioned formula in the case $`N_c=3`$ disagree with that obtained from the WZW Lagrangian (1).

The effective Lagrangian for the vertices $`PPP\gamma `$ can be calculated by either of two ways:

1. By a straightforward computation of the group-theoretical coefficients of the quark digarams contributing to the respective Green function with antisymmetrization over axial currents and regard for the relations (4). Strictly speaking, this procedure yields only the ratios between the coefficients of the same type; the known vertices $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ and $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0\gamma `$ can be used as the reference values.
2. By a substitution of the explicit expression for the matrix $`U`$ (formula (2)) in the expression for the WZW Lagrangian (1), generalized to the case $`N_c3`$. Such generalization was proposed in . It has the form

$$S=S^{\left(N_c=3\right)}+\left(1\frac{N_c}{3}\right)S_{\text{GW}},$$
(5)
where $`S_{\text{GW}}`$ is the Goldstone–Wilczek current :

$`S_{\text{GW}}[U,A_\mu ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{48\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle d^4x\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }A_\mu \text{Tr}[(U^{}_\nu U)(U^{}_\alpha U)(U^{}_\beta U)]}`$ (6)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ie^2}{32\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle d^4x\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }A_\mu F_{\nu \alpha }\text{Tr}[Q(_\beta UU^{}+U^{}_\sigma U)]};`$

when considering the $`PPP\gamma `$ vertices, the second row in formula (6) can be omitted.

The results of the calculations by these two ways coincide; the vertices sought for have the form

$`_{\text{WZW}}^{PPP\gamma }={\displaystyle \frac{ie}{4\pi ^2F^3}}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }A_\beta `$ $`(_\mu \pi ^0_\nu \pi ^+_\alpha \pi ^{}+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{3\sqrt{3}}}_\mu \eta ^8_\nu \pi ^+_\alpha \pi ^{}+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c+3}{6}}_\mu \pi ^0_\nu K^+_\alpha K^{}+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c1}{2}}_\mu \pi ^0_\nu K^0_\alpha \overline{K}^0+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9N_c}{6\sqrt{3}}}_\mu \eta ^8_\nu K^+_\alpha K^{}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}(N_c1)}{2}}_\mu \eta ^8_\nu K^0_\alpha \overline{K}^0`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c3}{3\sqrt{2}}}_\mu \pi ^{}_\nu K^+_\alpha \overline{K}^0+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c3}{3\sqrt{2}}}_\mu \pi ^+_\nu K^{}_\alpha K^0+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{6}}{9}}_\mu \eta ^0_\nu K^+_\alpha K^{}+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c\sqrt{6}}{9}}_\mu \eta ^0_\nu \pi ^+_\alpha \pi ^{}),`$
where $`\eta ^0`$ and $`\eta ^8`$ are the singlet and octet states:

$$\eta =\eta ^8\mathrm{cos}\theta _P\eta ^0\mathrm{sin}\theta _P,\eta ^{}=\eta ^8\mathrm{sin}\theta _P+\eta ^0\mathrm{cos}\theta _P,\theta _P20^o.$$
(8)
It should be noticed that the vertices $`K^+K^0\pi ^{}\gamma `$ and $`K^{}\overline{K}^0\pi ^+\gamma `$ do not appear in the anomalous action2 )2 )2 ) The vertices $`K^+K^0\pi ^{}\gamma `$ and $`K^{}\overline{K}^0\pi ^+\gamma `$ are not presented in . only in the case $`N_c=3`$. For this reason, the near-threshold behavior of the reactions $`K^+\gamma K^0\pi ^+`$ and $`K^0\gamma K^+\pi ^{}`$ offer a good indicator of a deviation of the parameter $`N_c`$ from the value $`N_c=3`$. To put it differently, the chiral anomaly gives a contribution to the amplitudes of the reactions $`K^+\gamma K^+\pi ^0`$ and $`K^0\gamma K^0\pi ^0`$ and gives no contribution to the amplitudes of the reactions $`K^+\gamma K^0\pi ^+`$ and $`K^0\gamma K^+\pi ^{}`$ only at $`N_c=3`$. As a consequence of this, the cross sections of the reactions $`K^+\gamma K^+\pi ^0`$ and $`K^0\gamma K^0\pi ^0`$ over the near-threshold region far exceed the cross sections of the reactions $`K^+\gamma K^0\pi ^+`$ and $`K^0\gamma K^+\pi ^{}`$. These cross sections were calculated (in the case $`N_c=3`$) in , where a possibility of an experimental study of these cross sections is discussed. A measurement of the cross sections of the reactions $`K^+\gamma K^+\pi ^0`$, $`K^0\gamma K^0\pi ^0`$, $`K^+\gamma K^0\pi ^+`$, and $`K^0\gamma K^+\pi ^{}`$ is of particular interest due to their dependence on $`N_c`$, ptresented in formula (S0.Ex14).

However, the formilas (S0.Ex14) give an adequate description of the amplitudes only at sufficiently small momenta. To describe the reactions $`K\gamma K\pi `$, $`\pi ^\pm \gamma \pi ^\pm \eta `$ and the decay $`\eta \pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ at the physical values of momenta, one should take into account the contribution of the $`1^{}`$ resonances, which can be calculated in the vector-meson dominance model. In what follows, we use the version of the vector-meson dominance model proposed in , because (i) in the chiral limit, it goes over into the chiral perturbation theory; (ii) the formalism proposed in  is well suited for taking the chiral anomaly into consideration. The Lagrangian of this model and its application to the above-mentioned processes can be found in ; here we only point to its dependence on $`N_c`$. All $`N_c`$-dependence in the normal part of this Lagrangian is absorbed in the effective coupling $`g`$. The anomalous terms should be mutiplied by $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{3}}`$ in order to obtain the WZW Lagrangian in the vicinity of the chiral limit; the quark charges are considered to be the functions of $`N_c`$, according to (4). The analysis of the reactions $`\pi ^\pm \gamma \pi ^\pm \eta `$ and the decay $`\eta \pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ in the vector-meson dominance model was performed in . From the expressions presented in  it follows that both diagrams for these processes are proportional to $`N_c(Q_uQ_d)=N_c`$ and the dependence of the amplitudes on $`N_c`$ is readily determined.

The reactions $`K\gamma K\pi `$ present a challenge: a straightforward computation of the amplitudes is needed. The respective Feynman diagrams are presented in the figure.

The calculations were performed with the FORM package , the result has the form

$`A_{K\gamma K\pi }={\displaystyle \frac{ie}{16\pi ^2F^3}}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }q^\mu p_b^\nu p_2^\alpha ϵ^\beta (C_0+{\displaystyle \frac{C_sM_K^{}^2}{sM_K^{}^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_K^{}\sqrt{s}}}+`$ (9)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{C_tM_\rho ^2}{tM_\rho ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_uM_K^{}^2}{uM_K^{}^2}}),`$
where $`ϵ`$ is the photon polarization vector; the momenta $`q`$, $`p_b`$, and $`p_2`$ are defined in the table; $`s=(q+p_b)^2,t=(p_bp_2)^2,u=(qp_2)^2`$; $`M_K^{}`$ and $`M_\rho `$ are the masses of the $`K^{}`$ and $`\rho `$ mesons; $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_K^{}`$ is the width of the $`K^{}`$ meson. The coefficients $`C_0`$, $`C_s`$, $`C_t`$, and $`C_u`$ for specific processes are presented in the table as the functions of $`N_c`$.

Table. Coefficients $`C_s,C_t,C_u`$, and $`C_0`$ from formula (9).

| Reaction | $`C_0`$ | $`C_s`$ | $`C_t`$ | $`C_u`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`K^+(p_b)\gamma (q)K^+(p_2)\pi ^0(p_1)`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c+3}{3}}`$ | 1 | $`N_c+1`$ | 1 |
| $`K^+(p_b)\gamma (q)K^0(p_2)\pi ^+(p_1)`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}(N_c3)}{3}}`$ | $`\sqrt{2}`$ | $`\sqrt{2}(N_c2)`$ | $`2\sqrt{2}`$ |
| $`\pi ^+(p_b)\gamma (q)\pi ^+(p_2)\eta (p_1)`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{2N_c\sqrt{3}}{9}}P_\theta `$ | 0 | $`{\displaystyle \frac{2N_c\sqrt{3}}{3}}P_\theta `$ | 0 |

Note. Taking into account the $`\eta \eta ^{}`$ mixing (8) gives rise to the factor  $`P_\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{F}{F_8}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _P{\displaystyle \frac{F}{F_0}}\mathrm{sin}\theta _P`$, where the difference between the decay constants $`F_{\pi ^\pm }=F`$, $`F_0`$, and $`F_8`$ must also be taken into consideration. The values $`F_0`$ ($`F_8`$) parametrize the matrix element of the axial current between vacuum and purely singlet (octet) state. Their magnites were computed in the one-loop approximation of the chiral perturbation theory and are equal to : $`F_01.04F`$, $`F_81.30F`$; the mixing angle is $`\theta _P=20^o`$. All this makes theoretical predictions for the decays $`\eta \pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ and $`\eta ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ and the reactions $`\pi ^\pm \gamma \pi ^\pm \eta (\eta ^{})`$ less accurate than those for the reactions $`K\gamma K\pi `$.

Thus a measurement of the cross sections of the reactions $`K^+\gamma K^+\pi ^0`$ and $`K^+\gamma K^0\pi ^+`$ would compensate for a deficiency in experimental facts giving evidence for $`N_c=3`$. This deficiency is due to an exclusion of the decays $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ and $`\eta \gamma \gamma `$ and the reaction $`\pi ^+\gamma \pi ^+\pi ^0`$ from the total of the experimental data used for a determination of $`N_c`$. Moreover, a measurement of the cross sections of the reactions $`K\gamma K\pi `$ would make it possible to check the phenomenological implications of the chiral anomaly in the world with three (rather than two) light quarks. It is important because the WZW Lagrangian was derived under the assumption that there are just three light quarks.

I am grateful to M.I.Polykarpov for the interest to this study.