text:
# Geometrical measurements in three-dimensional quantum gravity

## 1 Distances

In general relativity we can measure the distance $`R`$ between a pair of points by considering the length of a geodesic between them (Figure 1).

In quantum gravity the metric fluctuates, so we expect only to be able to say what the possible values for $`R`$ are, and their probabilities. In general we might expect these to depend on the topology of the manifold $`M`$ in which the points $`p`$ and $`q`$ lie.

The Turaev–Viro state sum model  gives a theory of quantum gravity in 3 dimensions where the metric has positive signature ; it gives a concrete method for calculating the functional integral for three-dimensional gravity . You can think of this as related to a 4-dimensional theory with $`+++`$ signature metrics where the time dimension ($``$) has been dropped. Although this is not entirely realistic, it does give us a model in which the relationship between classical geometry and quantum gravity can be explored.

The model is specified by an integer $`r3`$. Given points $`p,qM`$ connected by a curve then an observable can be defined which takes values in the set of spins

$$j\{0,\frac{1}{2},1,\mathrm{},\frac{r2}{2}\}.$$

The probability that the spin takes value $`j`$ can be calculated to be

$$P_j=\frac{(dim_qj)^2}{N},$$

with $`dim_qj`$ the quantum dimension of the spin $`j`$ representation of $`U_qsl(2)`$ for $`q=e^{i\pi /r}`$, and $`N`$ a normalisation constant. The formula for the quantum dimension is

$$dim_qj=(1)^{2j}\left(\frac{\mathrm{sin}\frac{\pi }{r}(2j+1)}{\mathrm{sin}\frac{\pi }{r}}\right)$$

and $`N=_j(dim_qj)^2`$ is the constant which ensures that $`_jP_j=1`$. Actually in this model the distance measurements only depend on the topology of $`p`$, $`q`$ and $`M`$ to the extent that the points $`p`$ and $`q`$ are required to be in the same connected component of $`M`$. The topology of $`M`$ comes into generalizations of the formula considered further below. First I will describe how the probability formula is calculated, and then its physical interpretation.

## 2 Calculation

The Turaev-Viro state sum for a closed compact manifold $`M`$ is a formula for an invariant $`Z(M)`$. This is defined with the aid of a triangulation of the manifold; however the value of $`Z(M)`$ is independent of the triangulation chosen and depends only on the topology of $`M`$.

A state for this state sum model is the assignment of a spin $`i,j,k,\mathrm{}`$ to each edge of the triangulation (Figure 2) such that the following ‘admissibility’ conditions for each triangle are satisfied.

$$ij+k$$
(1)
$$jk+i$$
(2)
$$ki+j$$
(3)
$$i+j+kr2$$
(4)
$$i+j+k=0mod1$$
(5)
Given a state, each simplex is assigned a weight, a real number. This number depends on the spin labels for the edges in that simplex. The weights are calculated using the spin network evaluation based on the Kauffman bracket $``$ with $`A=e^{i\pi r/2}`$ as follows :

| Simplex | Weight | Spin Network |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`N^1`$ |  |
|  | $`dim_qj`$ | $`dim_qj=\text{}`$ |
|  | $`\mathrm{\Theta }^1`$ | $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\text{}`$ |
|  | $`\tau `$ | $`\tau =\text{}`$ |

For the tetrahedral simplex, the spin network in the right-hand column is the graph which is dual to the edges of the tetrahedron.

The state sum formula is

$$Z(M)=\underset{\text{states}}{}\underset{\text{simplexes}}{}\text{weights}.$$

The probability formula is calculated by finding a triangulation of $`M`$ such that $`p`$ and $`q`$ are the two vertices of a single edge in the triangulation. The probability $`P_j`$ is just the probability that the distinguished edge has its spin equal to $`j`$, i.e.

$$P_j=\frac{Z(M,j)}{Z(M)},$$

where $`Z(M,j)`$ is the sum over the subset of states that have spin $`j`$ on the distinguished edge. Clearly $`Z(M)=_jZ(M,j)`$, so the $`P_j`$ sum to $`1`$.

The proof that the formula for $`P_j`$ is correct is to calculate it explicitly for a particular triangulation, and then use the triangulation invariance of the state sum formula to show that the formula holds for all triangulations which have an edge that runs from $`p`$ to $`q`$. The calculation can be done easily for $`M=S^3`$ using the singular triangulation of $`S^3`$ with two tetrahedra. It also follows from the Fourier transform result proved below. The proof that the result is the same for any triangulation will appear elsewhere. The fact that the answer is the same for any manifold follows from the connected sum formula for the Turaev-Viro invariant and the fact that the edge is contained in a ball in $`M`$.

The positivity of the probabilities is not immediately obvious from the definition of the state sum since the total weight for a state of $`M`$ can have either sign. However it does follow from the fact that the Turaev-Viro model has state spaces on surfaces which are Hilbert spaces, and the state sum formula for $`P_j`$ is the expectation value of a positive operator (a projector) on the Hilbert space of $`S^2`$.

## 3 Geometrical Models

A physical interpretation is most apparent in the limiting case $`r\mathrm{}`$ (the Ponzano–Regge model ). Then,

$$P_j=\frac{(2j+1)^2}{N}.$$

There is however no value for $`N`$ which normalises $`P_j`$ to 1 so this limit is somewhat degenerate. Nevertheless, Ponzano and Regge discovered that the asymptotic formulae for the state sum in the limit $`j\mathrm{}`$ have a geometric interpretation if one takes $`j+\frac{1}{2}`$ to be the length of the edge in 3-dimensional Euclidean space $`^3`$. Also, they suggested that the semi-classical configurations of the state sum model are given by mapping the simplicial complex to $`^3`$ with an approximate uniform measure for the position of the vertices in $`^3`$. This is also consistent with the gauge theory interpretation of the model in which the gauge group is the semi-direct product of $`SU(2)`$ and $`^3`$ .

These considerations suggest that for spin $`j`$, the distance between $`p`$ and $`q`$ is $`j+\frac{1}{2}`$ and the probability $`P_j`$ is proportional to the area of the 2-sphere of radius $`j+\frac{1}{2}`$. In other words, a geometric model for the probabilities $`P_j`$ is to consider displacement vectors in $`^3`$ which have length $`R=j+\frac{1}{2}`$ but undetermined direction. The measure $`P_j`$ is a discrete version of the uniform measure $`4\pi R^2dR`$ in three-dimensional Euclidean space. This gives a model for the $`P_j`$ in terms of probability measures for points moving in the classical geometry.

Now to return to the Turaev–Viro model. The Lagrangian quantum field theory view is that this model is a version of quantum gravity with a positive cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, whereas the Ponzano–Regge model has $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$. The classical solutions are locally a 3-sphere, with radius $`\sqrt{1/\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. Obviously as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ this degenerates to the Euclidean space $`^3`$ of the Ponzano-Regge model. This suggests that the physical interpretation of the probabilities $`P_j`$ should be based on configurations in $`S^3`$. Indeed the area of a 2-sphere of radius $`j+\frac{1}{2}`$ in $`S^3`$ is

$$\text{area}=4\pi \mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\pi }{r}(2j+1),$$
(6)
i.e., proportional to $`P_j`$, if the 3-sphere has radius $`r/2\pi `$. If the point $`p`$ is fixed at the ‘north pole’ then the possible positions for $`q`$ lie on the 2-spheres indicated on Figure 3

with probability proportional to the area. In the figure, the 3-sphere is projected to a disk on the plane and the 2-sphere of constant height is shown in its projection as a horizontal line.

In this way the range of values for the spin also has a natural explanation in terms of the 3-sphere: the lengths take all possible half-integer values for distances on the 3-sphere of radius $`r/2\pi `$. This only works because of the ‘$`+\frac{1}{2}`$’ in the relation between spin and distance. The minimum distance is then $`1/2`$ and the maximum $`(r1)/2`$. There are two other possible half-integral values for the distance between a pair of points, namely 0 and the half-circumference $`r/2`$. However the corresponding probabilities in this picture are zero, and so these possibilities don’t occur.

## 4 Generalizations

In a similar way we can calculate the probability in the state sum model for three points $`p,q,s`$ which are the vertices of an embedded triangle in $`M`$ to be separated by distances $`i+\frac{1}{2}`$, $`j+\frac{1}{2}`$, $`k+\frac{1}{2}`$ (Figure 4).

The result is

$$P(i,j,k)=\frac{Z(M;i,j,k)}{Z(M)}=\{\begin{array}{cc}N^2dim_qidim_qjdim_qk\hfill & \text{if }(i,j,k)\text{admissible},\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{else}.\hfill \end{array}$$

In carrying out this calculation, the topological configuration is important. One has to specify curves which connect each pair of points. What is important is that the loop of the three edges is unknotted and is a contractible loop in $`M`$, in other words that the three edges do indeed bound a triangle in $`M`$.

The non-zero part of this formula is

$$\mathrm{sin}\frac{\pi }{r}(2i+1)\mathrm{sin}\frac{\pi }{r}(2j+1)\mathrm{sin}\frac{\pi }{r}(2k+1)$$
(7)
which is positive, the signs cancelling due to the admissibility condition (5). The other four admissibility conditions (1)–(4) have a geometrical interpretation when they are rewritten in terms of the lengths:

$$i+\frac{1}{2}<(j+\frac{1}{2})+(k+\frac{1}{2})$$
(8)
$$j+\frac{1}{2}<(k+\frac{1}{2})+(i+\frac{1}{2})$$
(9)
$$k+\frac{1}{2}<(i+\frac{1}{2})+(j+\frac{1}{2})$$
(10)
$$(i+\frac{1}{2})+(j+\frac{1}{2})+(k+\frac{1}{2})<r$$
(11)
The first three are interpreted as the conditions for the edge-lengths of a non-degenerate triangle in a metric space geometry. A triangle is degenerate if there is a vertex whose location is uniquely determined by the location of the other two vertices. However the fourth condition is again specific to a sphere: a geodesic triangle with sides $`R_1,R_2,R_3`$ on a sphere (in any dimension) of radius $`r/2\pi `$ satisfies the inequality $`R_1+R_2+R_3r`$. The proof of this is very simple. The triangle inequalities for $`tqs`$ (Figure 5) give

$$R_1(r/2R_2)+(r/2R_3)\text{or}R_1+R_2+R_3r.$$

However in the case $`R_1+R_2+R_3=r`$ the three points lie on a diameter and one of the points is determined uniquely by the location of other two. Such a triangle is therefore degenerate. The overall result is that the conditions (1-4) are the conditions for a non-degenerate triangle on $`S^3`$.

The geometrical model (6) for the single edge can be extended to this case. Consider three points $`p`$, $`q`$ and $`s`$ on $`S^3`$ with a uniform probability distribution. The probability that the distances between them are $`R_1`$, $`R_2`$ and $`R_3`$, as in Figure 5, is proportional to

$$\mathrm{sin}\frac{2\pi R_1}{r}\mathrm{sin}\frac{2\pi R_2}{r}\mathrm{sin}\frac{2\pi R_3}{r}\mathrm{d}R_1\mathrm{d}R_2\mathrm{d}R_3$$

as long as the inequalities for a triangle are satisfied (Appendix 1). This formula is the continuum analogue of (7), and in fact (7) is obtained by substituting $`R_1=i+1/2`$, $`R_2=j+1/2`$, $`R_3=k+1/2`$ in this probability density. This means that the geometrical model reproduces the measure $`P(i,j,k)`$ under the additional assumption that all edge length are required to be a half-integer.

In a similar way one can analyse an embedded polygon in $`M`$, obtaining probabilities which can be considered as a measure of the volume of configurations of an unknotted circular loop of rods of fixed length in $`S^3`$. It is an interesting problem to relate this to other measures of the volume of these configurations, such as the symplectic volume measure provided in the flat ($`r\mathrm{}`$) case by the Riemann–Roch theorem .

These simple examples may give the misleading impression that the classical geometry is always the standard metric 3-sphere. However this is not the case, as the observable is sensitive to knotting and linking. The general situation is studied in the next section.

## 5 Fourier transform

In general one can consider the set of edges on which the spins are fixed to form an embedded graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in $`M`$. Then the state sum invariant with these spins fixed gives an invariant of the embedded graph under motions of the graph in the manifold (ambient isotopies).111 A different set of observables to the ones investigated here were defined in .

In the case of $`M=S^3`$ there is another invariant of embedded graphs with edges labelled by spins, the relativistic spin network invariant defined by Yetter . In this section it is shown that the two invariants are related by a Fourier transform of the spin labels. This substantially generalises the $`_2`$ Fourier transform of .

The definition of the relativistic spin network invariant is as follows. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_n)`$ be a graph embedded in $`S^3`$, and its edges labelled with spins $`i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_n`$ (in a fixed order). First, the invariant is defined in the case of trivalent graphs, then this will be generalised to arbitrary vertices. For each vertex of a trivalent graph there are three spin labels $`(i,j,k)`$ on the three edges meeting the vertex. The invariant is defined to be zero unless each triple satisfies the admissibility conditions (1)–(5). Suppose that these conditions are satisfied for each vertex. Put

$$\mathrm{\Theta }=\text{}$$

Then the relativistic invariant $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_n)_R`$ is defined in terms of the Kauffman bracket invariant of the diagram given by projecting the graph in $`S^3`$ to $`S^2`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_R=\frac{\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }\right|^2}{_{\text{vertices}}\mathrm{\Theta }}.$$

This definition is extended to arbitrary graphs by the relations

$$\text{}_R=\underset{j}{}\text{}_Rdim_qj$$

which defines an $`n`$-valent vertex recursively, for $`n>3`$,

$$\text{}_R=\delta _{j0}\text{}_R$$

for 1-valent vertices, and

$$\text{}_R=\frac{1}{dim_qj}\delta _{jk}\text{}_R$$

for 2-valent vertices.

The relation between the state sum invariant of a graph $`Z(S^3,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and the relativistic invariant $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ is given by a Fourier transform in the spin labels, using the kernel

$$K_b(a)=(1)^{2b}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\frac{\pi }{r}(2a+1)(2b+1)}{\mathrm{sin}\frac{\pi }{r}(2a+1)}.$$

The result is

###### Theorem.

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_n}{}\frac{Z(S^3,\mathrm{\Gamma }(j_1,j_2,\mathrm{},j_n))}{Z(S^3)}K_{i_1}(j_1)K_{i_2}(j_2)\mathrm{}K_{i_n}(j_n)\hfill \\ \hfill =\mathrm{\Gamma }(i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_n)_R.\end{array}$$
(12)
A general proof of this result will appear elsewhere. However I will prove a particular special case which is interesting, as the result implies some new identities among quantum $`6j`$-symbols (Appendix 2). This example is also sufficient to provide a proof of the results for the edge and the triangle given earlier.

The example is the tetrahedral graph embedded in $`S^3`$. The definition of the state sum invariant is

$$\begin{array}{c}Z(S^3,\text{})\hfill \\ \hfill =\frac{dim_qj_1\mathrm{}dim_qj_6}{N^4\mathrm{\Theta }(j_1,j_2,j_3)\mathrm{\Theta }(j_1,j_5,j_6)\mathrm{\Theta }(j_3,j_4,j_5)\mathrm{\Theta }(j_2,j_4,j_6)}\text{}^2,\end{array}$$
(13)
since $`S^3`$ can be ‘triangulated’ with two tetrahedra. The following calculations prove the theorem for this example.

Using Roberts’ chain mail , the square of the spin network evaluation on the right-hand side can be expressed as a link diagram in which some components are labelled with the formal linear combination

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{j}{}(dim_qj)j$$

of spins.

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Theta }(j_1,j_2,j_3)\mathrm{\Theta }(j_1,j_5,j_6)\mathrm{\Theta }(j_3,j_4,j_5)\mathrm{\Theta }(j_2,j_4,j_6)}\text{}^2\hfill \\ \hfill =\frac{1}{N^4}\text{}=\frac{1}{N^3}\text{}\end{array}$$
(14)
using the handleslide identity for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

The Fourier transform kernel is related to the Hopf link

$$K_i(j)=\text{}\frac{1}{dim_qj},$$

and the action of the Fourier transform on an edge of a spin network is given by the replacement

$$\underset{j}{}K_i(j)dim_qj\text{}=\text{}$$

Applying the Fourier transform to (14) gives

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_6}{}Z(S^3,\text{})K_{i_1}(j_1)K_{i_2}(j_2)\mathrm{}K_{i_6}(j_6)\hfill \\ \hfill =\frac{1}{N^7}\text{}=\frac{1}{N^4}\text{}\\ \hfill =\frac{1}{N\mathrm{\Theta }(i_1,i_2,i_6)\mathrm{\Theta }(i_2,i_3,i_4)\mathrm{\Theta }(i_1,i_3,i_5)\mathrm{\Theta }(i_4,i_5,i_6)}\text{}^2\\ \hfill =Z(S^3)\text{}_R.\end{array}$$
(15)
The graph in the final relativistic spin network is the same as the graph of edges in the original partition function $`Z`$. But now the admissibility conditions apply to triples of spins meeting at a vertex of the graph, whereas they applied to triples around a triangular circuit of the original graph in $`Z`$.

From this example it is possible to prove the theorem very easily also for sub-graphs of the tetrahedron. Setting, for example, $`i_1=0`$ in (15) gives, on the left-hand side, a summation over $`j_1`$ weighted with $`K_0(J_1)=1`$, which gives the correct state sum formula for the graph with this edge removed, whilst on the right-hand side this gives the relativistic invariant for the graph also with this edge removed. The results at the beginning of the paper can be checked very easily. For example, the relativistic spin network evaluation for    is $`\delta _{i0}`$ and inverting the transform gives $`P_j=_idim_q^2jK_i(j)\delta _{i0}=dim_q^2j`$.

There is a curious analogy between the Fourier transform and the duality between position and momentum variables of a particle in quantum theory. In fact the kernel $`K_j(a)`$ of the Fourier transform is a discrete version of the ‘zonal spherical function’ on $`S^3`$. The Laplace operator on $`S^3`$ (with radius $`r/2\pi `$) has eigenvalues

$$^2\varphi =\frac{16\pi ^2}{r^2}j(j+1)\varphi $$

for non-negative half-integer $`j`$; the eigenfunction that is spherically symmetric about $`pS^3`$ (the zonal spherical function) is

$$G_j(R)=(1)^{2j}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\frac{2\pi }{r}(2j+1)R}{\mathrm{sin}\frac{2\pi }{r}R},$$

where $`R`$ is the distance from $`p`$.

Putting $`R=a+\frac{1}{2}`$ shows that at half-integer values, $`G`$ coincides with the Fourier transform kernel

$$K_j(a)=G_j(a+\frac{1}{2})$$

so that the Fourier transform can be interpreted as a transition to a sort of ‘momentum’ or ‘mass’ representation for the quantum probabilities.

## Appendix 1. 3 points on $`S^3`$

If three points are distributed on $`S^3`$ with uniform probability, then this determines a probability distribution on the space of distances between these three points.

The 3-sphere has standard spherical coordinates $`(\chi ,\theta ,\varphi )`$ which determine points in $`S^3^4`$ by

$$\frac{r}{2\pi }(\mathrm{cos}\chi ,\mathrm{sin}\chi \mathrm{cos}\theta ,\mathrm{sin}\chi \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\chi \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi ).$$

Using the rotational symmetry, three points on $`S^3`$ can be assumed to be at $`(\chi ,\theta ,\varphi )`$ coordinates

$`p`$ $`=(0,0,0)`$
$`q`$ $`=(\chi _2,0,0)`$
$`s`$ $`=(\chi _3,\theta _3,0)`$
The probabilty is thus

$$\mathrm{d}P=\frac{2}{\pi }\mathrm{sin}^2\chi _2\mathrm{d}\chi _2\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{sin}^2\chi _3\mathrm{sin}\theta _3\mathrm{d}\chi _3\mathrm{d}\theta _3.$$

For three points on a 3-sphere of radius $`r/2\pi `$, the distances between them (Figure 5) are given by

$`R_2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{r}{2\pi }}\chi _2`$
$`R_3`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{r}{2\pi }}\chi _3`$
$`\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{r}}R_1`$ $`=\mathrm{cos}\chi _2\mathrm{cos}\chi _3+\mathrm{sin}\chi _2\mathrm{sin}\chi _3\mathrm{cos}\theta _3,`$
the last equation being the cosine law for the spherical triangle $`pqs`$ with $`\theta _3`$ the angle at $`p`$.

Differentiating these relations gives

$$\mathrm{d}P=\frac{16\pi }{r^3}\mathrm{sin}\frac{2\pi R_1}{r}\mathrm{sin}\frac{2\pi R_2}{r}\mathrm{sin}\frac{2\pi R_3}{r}\mathrm{d}R_1\mathrm{d}R_2\mathrm{d}R_3$$

when the inequalities for a spherical triangle are satisfied, and zero otherwise.

## Appendix 2. Identity for 6$`j`$-symbols

The 6$`j`$-symbols are defined to be normalised versions of the tetrahedral spin network evaluation :

$$\begin{array}{c}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}j_1& j_2& j_3\\ j_4& j_5& j_6\end{array}\right\}_q=\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Theta }(j_1,j_2,j_3)\mathrm{\Theta }(j_1,j_5,j_6)\mathrm{\Theta }(j_3,j_4,j_5)\mathrm{\Theta }(j_2,j_4,j_6)}}\text{}.\end{array}$$

Using this definition, the identity proved after the statement of the theorem is

$$\frac{1}{N^3}\underset{j_1\mathrm{}j_6}{}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}j_4& j_5& j_6\\ j_1& j_2& j_3\end{array}\right\}_q^2H(j_1,i_1)\mathrm{}H(j_6,i_6)=\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}i_1& i_2& i_3\\ i_4& i_5& i_6\end{array}\right\}_q^2$$

where

$$H(j,i)=K_i(j)dim_qj=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\frac{\pi }{r}(2i+1)(2j+1)}{\mathrm{sin}\frac{\pi }{r}}(1)^{2i+2j}.$$

The identity does not appear to have a classical ($`q=1`$) analogue.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The electric polarizability $`\overline{\alpha }`$ and magnetic polarizability $`\overline{\beta }`$ are fundamental structure constants of the nucleon having a direct relation to the internal dynamics of the particle. Their magnitudes depend not only on the quantum numbers of the constituents, but also on the properties of the interaction between these constituents. The prediction of the electromagnetic polarizabilities and the comparison with experimental data may serve as a sensitive tool for tests of hadron models.

The quantities $`\overline{\alpha }`$ and $`\overline{\beta }`$ can be obtained from the amplitude for low-energy Compton scattering off the nucleon. In the lab frame, this amplitude up to $`O(\omega ^2)`$ terms reads

$$T=T_{Born}+\overline{\alpha }\omega _1\omega _2\mathit{ϵ}_1\mathit{ϵ}_2^{}+\overline{\beta }(𝐤_1\times \mathit{ϵ}_1)(𝐤_2\times \mathit{ϵ}_2^{}),$$
(1)
where $`\omega _i,𝐤_i,`$ and $`\mathit{ϵ}_i`$ are the energy, momentum, and polarization vector of the incoming ($`i=1`$) and outgoing ($`i=2`$) photons ($`\mathrm{}=c=1`$). The contribution $`T_{Born}`$ corresponds to the amplitude for Compton scattering off a point-like particle with the spin, mass, charge, and magnetic moment of the nucleon.

The result of the most recent and most precise experimental investigation , obtained by Compton scattering off the proton below pion threshold, is shown in the first line of Table 1. For the neutron the same method is extremely difficult : (i) Quasi-free Compton scattering from neutrons bound in the deuteron has to be carried out leading to sizable corrections at low energies. (ii) The Born amplitude $`T_{Born}`$ is very small for the neutron. Therefore, the corresponding interference term is also small and, hence, cannot be used as is done in case of the proton. (iii) The low-energy differential cross section is less sensitive to the electric polarizability in case of the neutron as compared to the proton.

In order to avoid these difficulties, the differential cross section for electromagnetic scattering of neutrons in the Coulomb field of heavy nuclei

$$\frac{d\sigma _{\mathrm{pol}}}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\pi Mp(Ze)^2\mathrm{Re}a\left\{\overline{\alpha }_n\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\frac{e^2\kappa _n^2}{2M^3}\left(1\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\right)\right\}$$
(2)
has been investigated in a series of narrow-beam neutron transmission experiments. In (2) $`p`$ is the neutron momentum, $`a`$ the nuclear amplitude, $`\kappa _n`$ the neutron anomalous magnetic moment, $`M`$ the neutron mass, and $`e`$ the proton charge. Of these experiments only the Oak Ridge experiment  has a reasonable precision. This result is cited in the second line of Table 1 where the necessary correction for the second (Schwinger) term in the braces of (2) has been carried out. This Schwinger-term correction was disregarded in the original evaluation of the experiment  and reads $`+e^2\kappa _n^2/4M^3=+0.62`$ .

In  it was shown that it is also possible to use experimental data on quasi-free Compton scattering on neutrons bound in deuterons at energies between $`\pi `$ meson threshold and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ peak to extract the electric polarizability of the neutron. This method has successfully been tested for the proton  and applied to the neutron , leading to the result listed in the third line of Table 1.

From Table 1 we obtain the following result for the difference between the electric polarizabilities of proton and neutron

$$\overline{\alpha }_p\overline{\alpha }_n=0.3\pm 1.8$$
(3)
which apparently is compatible with zero.

The electromagnetic polarizabilities of hadrons have been calculated in many different models. Though much effort has been devoted to these model calculations, all of them can not be considered as completely satisfactory. In particular, there is a problem in explaining within a non-relativistic quark model that the electric polarizabilities of proton and neutron are equal to each other as suggested in (3). It was derived many years ago  that $`\overline{\alpha }`$ can be represented as a sum

$$\overline{\alpha }=\frac{2}{3}\underset{k0}{}\frac{|k|𝐃|0|^2}{E_kE_0}+\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =\alpha _{}+\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha ,$$
(4)
where $`𝐃`$ is the internal electric dipole operator, $`|0`$ and $`|k`$ are the ground and excited states in terms of internal coordinates, $`E_k`$ and $`E_0`$ are the corresponding energies. Note that $`𝐏|0=𝐏|k=0`$, where $`𝐏`$ is the operator of total momentum of the particle. The term $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha `$ in $`\overline{\alpha }`$ has a relativistic origin and its leading term is equal to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =\frac{Ze^2r_E^2}{3M},$$
(5)
where $`Z`$ and $`M`$ are the particle electric charge number and mass, and $`r_E`$ is the electric radius defined through the Sachs form factor $`G_E`$. The quantity $`\alpha _{}`$ calculated in a non-relativistic quark model without taking into account relativistic corrections leads to the same magnitude of $`\alpha _{}`$ for proton and neutron. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha `$ is equal to zero for the neutron but gives a significant contribution to $`\overline{\alpha }`$ for the proton, one can naively expect that

$$\overline{\alpha }_p\overline{\alpha }_n=\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _p=3.8\pm 0.1.$$
(6)
Comparing (3) with (6) we would come to the conclusion that the experimental and predicted differences between the electric polarizabilities of proton and neutron deviate from each other by $`2.3\sigma `$. In the following it will be shown that this discrepancy may be connected with hitherto unknown relativistic corrections to $`\alpha _{}`$ which are of the same order as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha `$. The relativistic corrections to $`\alpha _{}`$ in (4) come from corrections to the wave functions, to the energies of the ground and excited states, and a correction to $`𝐃`$. The relativistic correction to the electric dipole operator is connected with the appropriate relativistic definition of the center-of-mass coordinate . The neglect of this correction leads to an incomplete expression for $`\overline{\alpha }`$, and, as it has been shown in , the missing piece can be very essential.

In the present paper we show that the difference $`\delta \alpha =(\alpha _{})_p(\alpha _{})_n`$ is due to the correction to the electric dipole operator only. By carrying out model calculations we show that $`\delta \alpha `$ can strongly compensate $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha `$, thus removing the contradiction between (3) and (6) mentioned above.

## 2 Correction to the center-of-mass vector

Let us consider a system of spin-1/2 particles having the masses $`m_i`$ and spin operators $`𝐬_i`$. The Hamiltonian of the system $`H`$ , accounting for the first relativistic correction, is the sum of the non-relativistic Hamiltonian $`H_{nr}`$ and the Breit Hamiltonian $`H_B`$, where

$`H_{nr}={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_i^2}{2m_i}}+{\displaystyle \underset{i>j}{}}V_{ij}(r_{ij}).`$ (7)
Here $`𝐫_{ij}=𝐫_i𝐫_j`$ and $`V_{ij}(r)`$ are some potentials. The explicit form of the Breit Hamiltonian $`H_B`$ depends on the Lorentz structure of interaction, namely, whether it is Lorentz-scalar or Lorentz-vector (see  and references therein). As in most models, we assume that the potential $`V(r)`$ contains a short-range Coulomb-type term $`V_C(r)`$ due to single-gluon exchange corresponding to vector interaction, and a long-range confining potential $`V_{conf}(r)`$. The Lorentz structure of the latter is not well known. We show that it makes no difference in the form of $`\delta 𝐑_{c.m.}`$.

The center-of-mass vector $`𝐑_{c.m.}`$ should satisfy the following relations :

$`[R_{c.m.}^j,P^k]`$ $`=`$ $`i\delta ^{jk},`$
$`[𝐑_{c.m.},H_{nr}+H_B]`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{𝐏}{M+H}}i{\displaystyle \frac{𝐏}{M}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{H_{nr}}{M}}\right),`$ (8)
where $`M`$ and $`𝐏`$ are the total mass and the total momentum of the system, respectively. Using the explicit form of the Breit Hamiltonian it is easy to check that in both cases, i.e. Lorentz-scalar and Lorentz-vector interactions, the vector $`𝐑_{c.m.}`$ for the system of particles has the form

$`𝐑_{c.m.}`$ $`=`$ $`𝐑+\delta 𝐑_0+\delta 𝐑_s,𝐑={\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}m_i𝐫_i,`$
$`\delta 𝐑_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\{𝐫_i𝐑,{\displaystyle \frac{p_i^2}{2m_i}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}V_{ij}(𝐫_i𝐫_j)\},`$
$`\delta 𝐑_s`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_i}{m_i}}\times 𝐬_i\right),`$ (9)
where $`M=m_i`$, and where the notation $`\{a,b\}=ab+ba`$ is used. Thus, the relativistic correction $`\delta 𝐑_0`$ is expressed via the non-relativistic potential of the interaction between the constituents.

Let us consider proton and neutron. In this case all potentials are equal to each other, i.e. $`V_{ij}=V`$. Let the vectors $`𝐫_1`$ and $`𝐫_2`$ correspond to two $`u`$-quarks in the proton and two $`d`$-quarks in the neutron, and $`𝐫_3`$ correspond to the $`d`$-quark in the proton and the $`u`$-quark in the neutron, and $`m_1`$ to the mass of the identical quarks ($`u`$ quarks in the proton and $`d`$-quarks in the neutron), and $`m_3`$ to the mass of the third quark. We pass to the Jacobi variables:

$`𝝆={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(𝐫_1𝐫_2),𝝀={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}(𝐫_1+𝐫_22𝐫_3),𝐑={\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}(m_1𝐫_1+m_1𝐫_2+m_3𝐫_3),`$ (10)
where $`M=2m_1+m_3`$. Then the momentum operators are

$`𝐩_\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(𝐩_1𝐩_2),𝐩_\lambda ={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{6}}{2M}}(m_3𝐩_1+m_3𝐩_22m_1𝐩_3),𝐏=𝐩_1+𝐩_2+𝐩_3.`$ (11)
The non-relativistic Hamiltonian $`H_{nr}`$ in terms of the Jacobi variables has the form

$`H_{nr}={\displaystyle \frac{P^2}{2M}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p_\rho ^2}{2m_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p_\lambda ^2}{2m_\lambda }}+V(\sqrt{2}\rho )+V(\sqrt{2}\xi )+V(\sqrt{2}\eta ),`$ (12)
where $`m_\lambda =3m_1m_3/M`$, $`𝝃=(𝝆+\sqrt{3}𝝀)/2`$, and $`𝜼=(𝝆+\sqrt{3}𝝀)/2`$. In terms of Jacobi variables the spin-independent correction to the center-of-mass vector is

$`\delta 𝐑_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M^2}}\left(\{𝝆,𝐏𝐩_\rho \}+\{𝝀,𝐏𝐩_\lambda \}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{6}m_1M}}\{𝝆,𝐩_\lambda 𝐩_\rho \}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{6}}{8M^2}}\{𝝀,{\displaystyle \frac{m_3}{m_1}}p_\rho ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{m_32m_1}{m_\lambda }}p_\lambda ^2\}`$
$`+𝝀{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{6}m_3V(\sqrt{2}\rho )}{2M^2}}+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{𝝆}{\sqrt{2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{6}(m_32m_1)𝝀}{2M}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{V(\sqrt{2}\xi )}{2M}}`$
$`+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{𝝆}{\sqrt{2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{6}(m_32m_1)𝝀}{2M}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{V(\sqrt{2}\eta )}{2M}},`$ (13)
and the spin-dependent correction

$`\delta 𝐑_s={\displaystyle \frac{𝐏\times 𝐒}{2M^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_\rho \times (𝐬_1𝐬_2)}{2\sqrt{2}m_1M}}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_\lambda \times [m_3(𝐬_1+𝐬_2)2m_1𝐬_3]}{2\sqrt{6}m_1m_3M}}.`$ (14)
When $`m_1=m_3=m`$ , then $`m_\lambda =m`$ and the expressions for $`\delta 𝐑_0`$ and $`\delta 𝐑_s`$ become essentially simpler:

$`\delta 𝐑_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{18m^2}}\left[\{𝝆,𝐏𝐩_\rho \}+\{𝝀,𝐏𝐩_\lambda \}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6\sqrt{6}m^2}}\left[\{𝝆,𝐩_\lambda 𝐩_\rho \}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{𝝀,p_\rho ^2p_\lambda ^2\}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6\sqrt{6}m}}\left[2𝝀V(\sqrt{2}\rho )+\left(\sqrt{3}𝝆𝝀\right)V(\sqrt{2}\xi )+\left(\sqrt{3}𝝆𝝀\right)V(\sqrt{2}\eta )\right],`$ (15)
and

$`\delta 𝐑_s={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6m^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}𝐏\times 𝐒+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}𝐩_\rho \times (𝐬_1𝐬_2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}𝐩_\lambda \times (𝐬_1+𝐬_22𝐬_3)\right].`$ (16)
Let us consider the substitutions

$`𝝆{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝝆{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}}𝝀,𝝀{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}}𝝆+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝝀,`$
$`𝐩_\rho {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝐩_\rho {\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}}𝐩_\lambda ,𝐩_\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}}𝐩_\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝐩_\lambda .`$ (17)
If $`m_1=m_3`$ , then the non-relativistic Hamiltonian (12) is invariant under this substitution and $`\delta 𝐑_0(𝐏=0)\delta 𝐑_0(𝐏=0)`$. In addition, the Hamiltonian (12) is invariant under the transformation $`𝝆𝝆`$ and $`𝝀𝝀`$. The properties of the operators with respect to the transformations (2) are useful for the selection rules for the matrix elements.

## 3 Charge radii

Let us consider the charge radii of the nucleon $`r_E^2=e_i(𝐫_i𝐑_{c.m.})^2`$, where $`e_i`$ is equal to $`2/3`$ for the $`u`$-quark and $`1/3`$ for the $`d`$-quark:

$`(r_E^2)_p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}0|\left[4(𝐫_1𝐑_{c.m.})^2(𝐫_3𝐑_{c.m.})^2\right]|0,`$
$`(r_E^2)_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}0|\left[(𝐫_1𝐑_{c.m.})^2(𝐫_3𝐑_{c.m.})^2\right]|0.`$ (18)
Here we used the symmetry of the wave function with respect to the permutation $`𝐫_1𝐫_2`$. The values of $`(r_E^2)_p`$ and $`(r_E^2)_n`$ were measured to be $`(r_E^2)_p=0.74\text{fm}^2`$ and $`(r_E^2)_n=0.119\pm 0.003\text{fm}^2`$ . Thus, $`0|(𝐫_1𝐑_{c.m.})^2|0>0|(𝐫_3𝐑_{c.m.})^2|0`$. Due to the symmetry of $`H_{nr}`$ with respect to the permutation $`𝐫_1𝐫_3`$ for the case of equal quark masses, it is evident that $`(r_E^2)_n=0`$ in the non-relativistic approximation. The relativistic correction to $`(r_E^2)_n`$ comes from the correction to the center-of-mass vector and from the correction to the wave function:

$`\delta (r_E^2)_n={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}0|\{𝐫_1𝐫_3,\delta 𝐑_0+\delta 𝐑_s\}|0`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}0|\left[(𝐫_1𝐑)^2(𝐫_3𝐑)^2\right]G_0H_B|0`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}0|H_BG_0\left[(𝐫_1𝐑)^2(𝐫_3𝐑)^2\right]|0,`$ (19)
where $`G_0`$ is the non-relativistic reduced Green function

$`G_0=[\epsilon _0H_{nr}+i0]^1(1|00|),`$ (20)
and $`\epsilon _0`$ is the ground state binding energy in the non-relativistic approximation.

Using the properties of $`\delta 𝐑_0`$ and $`\delta 𝐑_s`$ with respect to the transformations (2), it is easy to show that the contribution to $`\delta (r_E^2)_n`$ (3) from the correction to the center-of-mass vector, as well as the contribution of the spin-independent part of $`H_B`$, vanish. Due to parity conservation the contribution of the part of $`H_B`$ being linear in spin is also zero. The spin-spin part $`H_B^{(ss)}`$ of the Breit Hamiltonian gives a non-zero contribution to $`\delta (r_E^2)_n`$. This operator exists only for the Lorentz-vector part $`V_v(r)`$ of the potential:

$`H^{(ss)}={\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3m_im_j}}\mathrm{}V_v(r_{ij})(𝐬_i𝐬_j)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6m_im_j}}[V_v^{\prime \prime }(r_{ij})V_v^{}(r_{ij})/r_{ij}][3(𝐬_i\widehat{𝐫}_{ij})(𝐬_j\widehat{𝐫}_{ij})𝐬_i𝐬_j],`$ (21)
where $`\widehat{𝐫}_{ij}=𝐫_{ij}/r_{ij}`$. Substituting $`V_v(r)=2\alpha _s/3r`$ and averaging over the spin part of the neutron wave function, we obtain

$`H^{(ss)}={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \alpha _s}{9\sqrt{2}m^2}}\left[\delta (𝝆)2\delta (𝝃)2\delta (𝜼)\right].`$ (22)
Using Jacobi variables, we can represent $`\delta (r_E^2)_n`$ as

$`\delta (r_E^2)_n={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}0|[\rho ^2\lambda ^2]G_0H^{(ss)}|0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}0|H^{(ss)}G_0[\rho ^2\lambda ^2]|0.`$ (23)
In order to calculate the matrix element (23) we follow the prescription of  and set $`V(r)=Kr^2/2`$ in the non-relativistic Hamiltonian $`H_{nr}`$. Then we obtain

$`H_{nr}={\displaystyle \frac{P^2}{2M}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p_\rho ^2}{2m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p_\lambda ^2}{2m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3K(\rho ^2+\lambda ^2)}{2}}.`$ (24)
Thus, we have two independent oscillators with equal frequencies $`\omega _\rho =\omega _\lambda =\sqrt{3K/m}`$. Taking into account that $`(\rho ^2\lambda ^2)|0`$ is an eigenfunction of $`H_{nr}`$ (24) with the excitation energy $`EE_0=2\omega _\rho `$, we have

$`\delta (r_E^2)_n={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\omega _\rho }}0|[\rho ^2\lambda ^2]H^{(ss)}|0={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{3\sqrt{2\pi \omega _\rho m^3}}}.`$ (25)
Thus, we obtain the negative value for $`(r_E^2)_n`$. The magnitude of this quantity can also be made in agreement with the experimental value by taking the appropriate parameters.

## 4 Electric polarizability

Using the Jacobi variables we obtain the operator of the internal dipole moment $`𝐃=ee_i(𝐫_i𝐑_{c.m.})`$ for proton and neutron:

$`𝐃_p=e\left(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}𝝀\delta 𝐑_{c.m.}\right),𝐃_n=e\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}𝝀.`$ (26)
If we neglect $`\delta 𝐑_{c.m.}`$ in $`𝐃_p`$, we immediately obtain $`(\alpha _0)_p=(\alpha _0)_n`$ since $`\alpha _0`$ is quadratic in $`𝐃`$ (see (4)). Therefore, the difference between $`(\alpha _0)_p`$ and $`(\alpha _0)_n`$ arises only due to the correction $`\delta 𝐑_{c.m.}`$ in $`𝐃_p`$. The contribution to this difference being linear in $`\delta 𝐑_{c.m.}`$ reads:

$`\delta \alpha =(\alpha _0)_p(\alpha _0)_n=e^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\right)^{3/2}\left[0|𝝀G\delta 𝐑_{c.m.}|0+0|\delta 𝐑_{c.m.}G𝝀|0\right],`$ (27)
where $`G`$ is the reduced Green function accounting for the first relativistic correction:

$`G=[E_0H_{nr}H_B+i0]^1(1|00|).`$ (28)
If we replace $`G`$ by its non-relativistic limit $`G_0`$ and use the symmetry with respect to the transformations (2), we obtain zero as the result for $`\delta \alpha `$. Therefore, it is necessary to take into account the corrections to the wave function and to the Green function due to the spin-dependent part of $`H_B`$. In addition, it is necessary to account for the term quadratic in $`\delta \text{R}_{c.m.}`$ in (4), and the second-order relativistic correction to $`𝐑_{c.m.}`$. The calculation of the latter is a very complicated problem. Since we are only going to demonstrate the possible cancellation between $`\delta \alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha `$ (see (4)), we may simplify our problem and assume, in a spirit of the diquark model , that the relativistic effects reduce to the small difference between the masses $`m_1`$ and $`m_3`$. As a result, we use the non-relativistic Hamiltonian

$`H_{nr}={\displaystyle \frac{P^2}{2M}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p_\rho ^2}{2m_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p_\lambda ^2}{2m_\lambda }}+{\displaystyle \frac{3K(\rho ^2+\lambda ^2)}{2}}`$ (29)
and the expression (2) for $`\delta 𝐑_0`$. Remind that $`M=2m_1+m_3`$ and $`m_\lambda =3m_1m_3/M`$. Thus, the corresponding frequencies are $`\omega _\rho =\sqrt{3K/m_1}`$ and $`\omega _\lambda =\sqrt{3K/m_\lambda }`$. We can fix the parameters of the model from the experimental values of $`(r_E^2)_p`$ and $`(r_E^2)_n`$. Using (10), (3) and (29) it is easy to find that

$`(r_E^2)_p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_1\omega _\rho }}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{(m_3^2m_1^2)\omega _\rho }{m_3M\omega _\lambda }}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_1\omega _\rho }},`$
$`(r_E^2)_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_1\omega _\rho }}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{(2m_1m_3)\omega _\rho }{m_3\omega _\lambda }}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{5(1x)}{6m_1\omega _\rho }},`$ (30)
where $`x=m_1/m_3`$. Substituting the experimental values of charge radii into (4), we obtain $`x=0.8`$ , and $`m_1\omega _\rho =610^4\text{MeV}^2`$. Using the conventional value $`m_1=330`$MeV, we have $`\omega _\rho /m_1=0.6`$. As a result of simple calculations we have in our model:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _p={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{9m_1^2\omega _\rho }},\delta \alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{79e^2(1x)}{108m_1^2\omega _\rho }}+{\displaystyle \frac{53e^2}{1296m_1^3}}.`$ (31)
The second term in $`\delta \alpha `$ comes from the correction being quadratic in $`\delta 𝐑_{c.m.}`$ and numerically is much smaller than the first one. For the parameters of our model we obtain

$$\frac{\delta \alpha +\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _p}{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _p}=0.1,$$
(32)
which leads to the approximate equality of the predicted proton and neutron electric polarizabilities in agreement with the experimental data.

## Conclusion

Thus we have demonstrated that the equality of the proton and neutron electric polarizability can be explained in the frame of constituent quark model. Therefore, it is not necessary to deal with such ad hoc contributions (for constituent quark model) as mesonic currents. Though it has been shown in  that there are many sources of the relativistic corrections of the same order as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha `$, due to the isospin invariance it is crucial to take into account the correction to the center-of-mass vector. If this correction is neglected, the difference $`(\alpha _{})_p(\alpha _{})_n`$ vanishes identically. The estimate for the relativistic corrections made above with the use of a toy model serves only as an illustration of the possibility to make the difference $`(\overline{\alpha })_p(\overline{\alpha })_n`$ consistent with the experimental data at reasonable values of the parameters.

## Acknowledgements

One of us (A.I.M.) wishes to thank Zweites Physikalisches Institut, University of Göttingen, for the very warm hospitality during the stay when the part of this work has been done. This work was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through contracts SCHU222 and 436 RUS 113/510.


text:
# Proposition 1.

Meromorphic connections on $`^1`$ and the multiplicity of Abelian integrals
Hossein Movasati 111Supported by MPIM-Germany
Keywords: Meromorphic connection, Gauss-Manin connection
Math. classification: 14F05, 14F43

## Abstract

In this paper we introduce the concept of Abelian integrals in differential equations for an arbitrary vector bundle on $`^1`$ with a meromorphic connection. In this general context we give an upper bound for the numbers we are looking for.

Let $`V`$ be a locally free sheaf (vector bundle) of rank $`\alpha `$ on $`^1`$ and $`D=_{i=1}^rm_ic_i`$ be a positive divisor in $`^1`$, i.e. all $`c_i`$’s are positive. We denote by $`C`$ the set of $`c_i`$’s. A meromorphic connection $``$ on $`V`$ with the pole divisor $`D`$ is a $``$-linear homomorphism of sheaves

$$:V\mathrm{\Omega }_^1^1(D)_{𝒪_^1}V$$

satisfying the Leibniz identity

$$(f\omega )=df\omega +f\omega ,f𝒪_^1,\omega V$$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_^1^1(D)`$ is the sheaf of meromorphic 1-forms in $`^1`$ with poles on $`D`$ (the pole order of a section of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_^1^1(D)`$ at $`c_i`$ is less than $`m_i`$). For any two meromorphic connection $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ with the same pole divisor $`D`$, $`_1_2`$ is a $`𝒪_^1`$-linear map.

Let $`t`$ be the affine coordinate of $`=^1\{\mathrm{}\}`$, where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the point at infinity in $`^1`$. By Leibniz rule and by composing $``$ with the holomorphic vector field $`\frac{}{t}`$ we can define:

$$_\frac{}{t}:H^0(^1,V(\mathrm{}))H^0(^1,V(D+\mathrm{}))$$

where $`\mathrm{}`$ means that the pole order at $`\mathrm{}`$ is arbitrary. Since $`\frac{}{t}`$ is a holomorphic vector field in $`^1`$ with a zero of multiplicity two at $`\mathrm{}`$, if $`\omega H^0(^1,V(\mathrm{}))`$ has a pole (resp. zero) of order $`m`$ at $`\mathrm{}`$ then $`_\frac{}{t}\omega `$ has a pole (resp. zero) of order $`m1`$ (resp. $`max\{2,m+1\}`$) at $`\mathrm{}`$. If there is no confusion we write $`=_\frac{}{t}`$.

For any point $`b^1\backslash C`$ we can find a frame $`\{e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_\alpha \}`$ of holomrphic sections of $`V`$ in a neighborhood of $`b`$ such that $`e_i=0i`$ and any other solution of $`\omega =0`$ is a linear combination of $`e_i`$’s. Analytic continuations of this frame in $`^1\backslash C`$ define the monodromy operator

$$T:\pi _1(^1\backslash C,b)GL(V_b)$$

We say that $``$ is irreducible if the action of monodromy on a non-zero element of $`V_b`$ generates the whole $`V_b`$.
Let $`V^{}`$ be the dual vector bundle of $`V`$. There is defined a natural dual connection $`^{}:V^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_^1^1(D)_{𝒪_^1}V^{}`$ on $`V^{}`$ as follows

$$<^{}\delta ,\omega >=d<\delta ,\omega ><\delta ,\omega >,\delta V^{}\omega V$$

If $`\{e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_\alpha \}`$ is a base of flat sections in a neighborhood of $`b`$ then we can define the dual of it as follows: $`<\delta _i,e_j>=0`$ if $`ij`$ and $`=1`$ if $`i=j`$. We can easily check that $`\delta _i`$’s are flat sections. The associated monodromy for $`^{}`$ with respect to this basis is just $`T^{}`$, where $`T^{}`$ is the composition of $`T`$ with the transpose operator. We can also define a natural connection on $`^kV=\{\omega _1\omega _2\mathrm{}\omega _k\omega _iV\}`$ with the pole divisor $`D`$ as follows:

$$(\omega _1\omega _2\mathrm{}\omega _k)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\omega _1\omega _2\mathrm{}\widehat{\omega _i,\omega _i}\mathrm{}\omega _k$$

where $`\widehat{\omega _i,\omega _i}`$ means that we replace $`\omega _i`$ by $`\omega _i`$.

###### Proposition 1.

If the connection $``$ over $`V`$ is irreducible then for any global meromorphic non zero section of $`V`$ with poles at $`C\{\mathrm{}\}`$, say $`\omega `$, we have

1. $`\{^i\omega i=0,1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$ generates each fiber $`V_b,b^1\backslash C\{\mathrm{}\}`$;
2. $`\{^i\omega i=0,1,2,\mathrm{},\alpha 1\}`$ generates a generic fiber $`V_b`$.

###### Proof.

If there exists a $`\omega H^0(^1,V(\mathrm{}))`$ such that $`\{^i\omega i=0,1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$ does not generate $`V_b`$ then there is a $`\delta _bV_b^{}`$ such that

$$<\delta _b,^i\omega >=0,i=0,1,2,\mathrm{}$$

Consider the flat section $`\delta `$ passing through $`\delta _b`$. Since $`\frac{^i<\delta ,\omega >}{^it}_b=<\delta _b,^i\omega >=0`$, we conclude that $`<\delta ,\omega >`$ is identically zero. Since $``$ is irreducible, we conclude that $`\omega `$ is the zero section.
Now let us prove the second part. Let k be the smallest number such that for all non-zero $`\omega H^0(^1,V(\mathrm{}))`$ $`A=\omega \omega \mathrm{}^k\omega `$ is not identically zero. We want to prove that $`k=\alpha 1`$. Fix a non zero $`\omega `$ with the property $`A^{k+1}\omega =0`$. Let $`B=^1C\{\mathrm{}\}zero(A)`$ and $`V^{}`$ be the vector bundle over $`B`$ generated by $`\omega ,\omega ,\mathrm{},^k\omega `$. Since $`A^{k+1}\omega =0`$, $``$ induces on $`V^{}`$ a well-defined holomorphic connection. But this means that $`V_b^{}`$ is invariant under monodromy. $``$ is irreducible and so $`k+1=dim(V_b^{})=\alpha `$. ∎

Every line bundle $`L`$ in $`^1`$ is of the form $`L_a\mathrm{}`$, where $`a`$ is an integer and $`L_a\mathrm{}`$ is the line bundle associated to the divisor $`a\mathrm{}`$. We define $`c(L)=a`$ (Chern class). According to Grothendieck decomposition theorem, every vector bundle $`V`$ on $`^1`$ can be written as $`V=_{i=1}^\alpha L_i`$, where $`L_i`$’s are line bundles. We define $`c(V)=_{i=1}^\alpha c(L_i)`$. In view of Proposition 1 the following definition is natural.

###### Definition 1.

For any meromorphic global section of $`V`$ with poles at $`C\{\mathrm{}\}`$ define its degree to be the sum of its pole orders. For any natural number $`n`$ let $`H_{}(n)`$ be the smallest number such that for all $`\omega `$ of degree $`n`$ the set $`\{^i\omega i=0,1,2,\mathrm{},H_{}(n)1\}`$ generates each fiber $`V_b,b^1\backslash C\{\mathrm{}\}`$.

Of course we have

$$H_{}(n)\alpha $$

Let $`V`$ be a line bundle. In this case $`H_{}(n)`$ is the maximum multiplicity of a zero of a $`\omega `$ of degree $`n`$ minus one and so $`H_{}(n)=n+c(V)+1`$. In general case we can only give an upper bound for $`H_{}(n)`$.

###### Proposition 2.

Let $``$ be an irreducible connection then

$$H_{}(n)(\alpha 1)(m_i)+\alpha (n+1)\frac{\alpha (\alpha 1)}{2}+c(V)$$

###### Proof.

For any global meromorphic section $`\omega `$ of $`V`$ with poles at $`C\{\mathrm{}\}`$ we define $`A=\omega \omega \mathrm{}^{\alpha 1}\omega `$. In Proposition 1 we proved that $`A`$ is a nonzero global meromorphic section of $`^\alpha V`$. Let $`m`$ be the order of the pole of $`\omega `$ at $`\mathrm{}`$. The sum of pole orders of $`A`$ at $`C`$ is at most $`(\alpha 1)(m_i)+\alpha (nm)`$. Each $`^i\alpha `$ has a pole (resp. zero if $`mi`$ is positive) of order $`mi`$ at $`\mathrm{}`$ and so $`A`$ has order $`m+m1+m2+\mathrm{}+m(\alpha 1)=m\alpha \alpha (\alpha 1)/2`$ at infinity. We conclude that the multiplicity of a zero of $`A`$ in $`^1\backslash C\{\mathrm{}\}`$ is less than

$$(\alpha 1)(m_i)+\alpha (nm)+m\alpha \alpha (\alpha 1)/2+c(V)$$

If $`b^1\backslash C\{\mathrm{}\}`$ be a point such that $`\omega ,\omega \mathrm{},^i\omega ,i\alpha 1`$ do not generate $`V_b`$ then $`A`$ has a zero of multiplicity $`i(\alpha 2)`$. The proposition is proved. ∎

It does not seem to the author this upper bound to be the best one. More precisely for any vector bundle $`V`$ and divisor $`D`$ on $`^1`$ can we find a meromorphic connection $``$ on $`V`$ with pole divisor $`D`$ such that $`H_{}(n)`$ is the above number?

Let $`\delta `$ be a flat section of $`V^{}`$ in a small open set $`U`$ around $`b`$ and $`\omega `$ be a global meromorphic section of $`V`$ with poles at $`C\{\mathrm{}\}`$. From now on we use the notation $`_\delta \omega `$ instead of $`<\delta ,\omega >`$. Let us fix the number $`n`$ and suppose that the degree of $`\omega `$ is less than $`n`$. What is the maximum multiplicity of $`_\delta \omega `$ at $`tU`$, say $`H_{}(n,\delta )`$? Let $`S(n)`$ be the vector space of meromorphic sections of $`V`$ with poles at $`C\{\mathrm{}\}`$ and degree less than $`n`$. Since $`S(n)`$ is a finite dimensional vector space, $`H_{}(n,\delta _t)`$ is a finite number.

###### Proposition 3.

If $``$ is irreducible then for all $`tU`$

$$H_{}(n,\delta )dim_{}S(n)1$$

The equality happens except for a finite number of points in $`U`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\omega _1,\omega _2,\mathrm{},\omega _b`$ be a basis for the vector space $`S(n)`$. Consider the determinant

$$W_b(t)=det[\frac{^i_\delta \omega _j}{t^i}]_{b\times b}$$

It is enough to prove that $`W_b(t)`$ is not identically zero. Let $`ab`$ be the smallest number such that $`W_a(t)`$ is identically zero. There exist holomorphic functions $`p_i,i=1,2,\mathrm{},a`$ in $`U`$ such that

$$A_a=\underset{i=1}{\overset{a1}{}}A_ip_i/p_a=0$$

where $`A_i`$ is the $`i`$-th column of $`[\frac{^i_\delta \omega _j}{t^i}]_{a\times a}`$. This is $`a`$ equalities. If we act $`\frac{}{t}`$ to the $`i`$-th equation and subtract the $`(i+1)`$-th equation we conclude that $`[\frac{^i_\delta \omega _j}{t^i}]_{b1\times b1}.[\frac{(p_i/p_b)}{t}]_{b1\times 1}=0`$. By hypothesis, this implies that $`[\frac{(p_i/p_b)}{t}]_{b_1\times 1}0`$ or equivalently $`_{i=1}^ac_i_\delta \omega _i=0`$, where $`c_i`$’s are constant. Since $`^{}`$ is irreducible, we have $`_{i=1}^ac_i\omega _i=0`$ which is a contradiction. ∎

###### Proposition 4.

If $``$ is irreducible then

$$H_{}(n)=supp\{H_{}(n,\delta )\}$$

where $`\delta `$ runs through all flat sections of $`V^{}`$ in $`^1\backslash C\{\mathrm{}\}`$.

###### Proof.

The proof is essentially stated in Proposition 1. If there exists a degree $`n`$ section $`\omega `$ such that $`\{^i\omega i=0,1,2,\mathrm{},p1\}`$ does not generate $`V_b`$ then there is a $`\delta _bV_b^{}`$ such that

$$_{\delta _b}^i\omega =0,i=0,1,2,\mathrm{},p1$$

Consider the flat section $`\delta `$ passing through $`\delta _b`$. We conclude that $`_\delta \omega `$ has multiplicity $`p`$ at $`b`$ and hence $`H_{}(n,\delta _b)H_{}(n)`$. The proof of the other part is similar. ∎

Regular Connections and Linear Equations: Consider the connection $`^{}`$ on $`V^{}`$ as before and fix a trivialization map for $`V^{}`$ around a singular point $`c_i`$. $`^{}`$ is called regular at $`c_i`$ if each flat section of $`V^{}`$ in a sector with the vertex $`c_i`$ has at most a polynomial growth near $`c_i`$ (see \[Ku\] p. 36 or \[AB\] p. 8). $``$ is called regular if it is regular in all $`c_i`$’s.

Let $`\omega _1,\omega _2,\mathrm{},\omega _\alpha `$ be global meromorphic sections of $`V`$ with poles at $`C\{\mathrm{}\}`$. Let also $`\delta _1,\mathrm{},\delta _\alpha `$ be a base of flat sections of $`V^{}`$ in a neighborhood of $`b`$. The Wornskian function is defined as follows

$$W(t)=W(\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _\alpha )(t)=det[_{\delta _j}\omega _i]_{\alpha \times \alpha }$$

The division of two such functions is a one valued meromorphic function in $`^1\backslash C`$ and by regularity of $`^{}`$ we conclude that it extends meromorphically to the whole $`^1`$. Fix an $`\omega `$. By a similar argument as stated in Proposition 3 and by irreducibility of $``$ we know that $`W(\omega ,\omega ,\mathrm{},^{\alpha 1}\omega )`$ is not identically zero. The set $`\{_\delta \omega \delta \text{ is a flat section of }V^{}\}`$ is a base for the space of solutions of the following linear equation

(1)
$$\psi :\left|\begin{array}{cc}Y\hfill & _\delta \omega \hfill \\ Y^{}\hfill & _\delta \omega \hfill \\ \mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}\hfill \\ Y^{(\alpha )}\hfill & _\delta ^\alpha \omega \hfill \end{array}\right|$$

writing in other form

(2)
$$\psi :Y^{(\alpha )}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}(1)^iP_iY^{(i)}=0$$

where

$$P_i=\frac{W(\omega ,\omega ,\mathrm{},\widehat{^{\alpha i}\omega },\mathrm{},^\alpha \omega )}{W},W=W(\omega ,\omega ,\mathrm{},^{\alpha 1}\omega )$$

Since $`_{\delta _i}\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$ has polynomial growth at the points of $`C`$, $`\psi `$ is regular therefore it must be Fuchsian i.e. $`P_i`$ has poles of order at most $`i`$(see \[AB\]). The union of poles of $`P_i`$’s is the singular set of the Picard-Fuchs equation $`\psi `$. It has three type of singularities:

1. $`C`$; in a $`c_iC`$ the solutions of (2) branch.
2. $`Z`$ the zeros of $`W`$; In these singularities like regular points we have a space of solutions of dimension $`\alpha `$. Note that $`P_1=\frac{\frac{W}{t}}{W}`$ and so neither of these points is regular. For this reason in \[AB\] these are called apparent singularities. For a zero $`b`$ of $`W`$ we can find a flat section $`\delta `$ of $`V^{}`$ such that $`_\delta \omega `$ has multiplicity greater than $`\alpha `$ at $`b`$.
3. $`\mathrm{}`$; Let $`m`$ be the order of the pole of $`\omega `$ at $`\mathrm{}`$. The solutions of (2) in a neighborhood of $`\mathrm{}`$ are meromorphic functions with poles of order at most $`m`$ at $`\mathrm{}`$.

Since $`P_1=\frac{\frac{W}{t}}{W}`$ we have

$$Res(P_1dt,t=c)=mul(W,t=c),cCZ$$

Now Consider a regular linear equation $`\psi `$ with singularities at $`CZ\{\mathrm{}\}`$ and suppose that it has apparent singularities in $`Z`$ and a singularity of type 3 in $`\mathrm{}`$. Furthermore assume that $`\psi `$ has the same monodromy representation like as of $`^{}`$.

###### Proposition 5.

$`\psi `$ is obtained by a meromorphic global section of $`V`$ with poles at $`C\{\mathrm{}\}`$.

###### Proof.

Consider in a neighborhood of $`b`$ a base of flat sections $`\delta _i`$ of $`V^{}`$ and a base $`e_i,i=1,2,\mathrm{},\alpha `$ for solutions of $`\psi `$ such that the monodromy representation of the both $`^{}`$ and $`\psi `$ with respect to these bases is the same Define a section of $`V=(V^{})^{}`$ as follows

$$\omega (\delta _t)=e_i(t)$$

this is a one valued holomorphic section of $`V`$ in $`^1\backslash C\{\mathrm{}\}`$. Since $`\psi `$ and $`^{}`$ are regular, $`\omega `$ extends meromorphically to $`C`$. ∎

Let $`\varphi _b`$ be the maximum multiplicity of solutions of $`\psi `$ at $`b`$. If $`b`$ is a regular point of $`\psi `$ then $`\varphi _b=\alpha 1`$ and if it is an apparent singularity of $`\psi `$ then $`\varphi _b\alpha `$. In the last case by definition of $`W`$ we can see that $`W`$ has a zero of order at least $`\varphi _b(\alpha 1)`$ at $`b`$ and by $`P_1=\frac{\frac{W}{t}}{W}`$ we have

$$\varphi _bRes(P_1dt,t=b)+(\alpha 1)$$

Remark: Let us choose a trivialization of $`V`$ in a small disk $`D`$ around a singular point $`c_i`$ of the connection $``$, $`V_DD\times ^\alpha `$, and a coordinate $`z`$ in $`D`$. In this coordinate we can write $`v=\frac{v}{z}+_{j=1}^{m_i}\frac{C_j}{z^j}v+A(z)v`$, where $`v`$ is a holomorphic vector in $`D`$, $`C_j,1jm_i`$ (resp. $`A(z)`$) is a constant (resp. holomorphic in $`z`$) matrix. $`C_1`$ is called the residue of the connection at $`c_i`$. Now we can apply the Levelt’s theory (see \[AB\] Section 1, 2.2) to understand the local theory of this connection.

Lefschetz Pencil: Let $`M`$ be a projective compact complex manifold of dimension two, $`\{M_t\}_{t^1}`$ a pencil of hyperplane sections of $`M`$ and $`f`$ the meromorphic function on $`M`$ whose level sets are $`M_t`$’s (see \[La\]). We set $``$ the indeterminacy points of $`f`$, $`L_t=M_t`$, $`C=\{c_1,c_2,c_3,\mathrm{},c_r\}`$ the set of critical values of $`f`$, $`\beta =dim(H^1(L_t,))`$ for a $`t^1C`$ and $`[t]`$ the ring of polynomials in $`t`$. Since $`f_M`$ is a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ fibration over $`^1C`$ (see \[La\]), $`\beta `$ is independent of $`t`$. We assume that

1. The axis of the pencil intersects $`M`$ transversally. This is equivalent to this fact that in a coordinate system $`(x,y)`$ around each indeterminacy point of $`f`$ we can write $`f=\frac{x}{y}`$;
2. The critical points of $`f`$ are isolated;
3. The pole divisor $`D=M_{\mathrm{}}`$ of $`f`$ is a regular fiber, i.e. $`\mathrm{}C`$.

We define $`\mathrm{\Omega }^i(D)`$ to be the set of meromorphic $`i`$-forms in $`M`$ with poles of arbitrary order along $`D`$. The set $`\stackrel{~}{H}=_{tB}H^1(L_t,)`$, where $`B=^1C`$, has a natural structure of a complex manifold and the natural projection $`\stackrel{~}{H}^1B`$ is a holomorphic vector bundle which is called the cohomology vector bundle. The sheaf of holomorphic sections of $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ is also denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$. In what follows when we consider $`f`$ as a holomorphic function we mean its restriction to $`M`$. Let $`_M`$ be the sheaf of constant functions in $`M`$ and $`R^1f_{}_M`$ be the $`1`$-th direct image of the sheaf $`_M`$ (see \[GrRe\]). Any element of $`R^1f_{}_M(U)`$, $`U`$ being an open set in $`B`$, is a holomorphic section of the cohomology fiber bundle map. It is easy to verify that

$$\stackrel{~}{H}R^1f_{}_M_{}𝒪_^1,\text{ in }B$$

Now let us introduce the Gauss-Manin Connection on $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$. Consider a holomorphic coordinate $`(t,0)`$ in $`U`$, a small open disk in $`^1`$. The Gauss-Manin connection is defined as follows:

$$:\stackrel{~}{H}(U)\mathrm{\Omega }_^1^1_{𝒪_U}\stackrel{~}{H}(U)$$

$$(gc)=dgc,cR^1f_{}_M(U),g𝒪_^1(U)$$

The sheaf of flat sections of $``$ is $`R^1f_{}_M`$. Let $`\frac{}{t}`$ be a vector field in $`U`$. We write $`_\frac{}{t}=\frac{}{t}`$. ($`_\frac{}{t}(gc)=\frac{g}{t}c`$).

In the same way we can define the cohomology fiber bundle $`\stackrel{~}{H}_c`$ of compact fibers $`M_t`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{H}_c`$ is a $``$-invariant sub-vector bundle of $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$, we have the restriction of $``$ to $`\stackrel{~}{H}_c`$ which we denote it again by $``$.

Let $`\omega `$ be a meromorphic 1-form in $`M`$ with poles along some fibers of $`f`$. Let also $`\{\delta _t\}_{t^1C},\delta _tL_t`$ be a a continuous family of cycles. The Abelian integral $`_{\delta _t}\omega `$ appears in the deformation $`df+ϵ\omega `$ of $`df`$ inside holomorphic foliations (differential equations) and it is related to the number of limit cycles which born from the cycles $`\delta _t`$ (see \[Ho\]). The pair $`(\stackrel{~}{H},)`$ is defined in $`^1C`$ and in order to be in the context of this paper we may be interested to prove:

###### Proposition 6.

Under the assumptions 1,2,3, there is a vector bundle $`V`$, a sub-vector bundle $`\overline{V}V`$ and a meromorphic connection on $`V`$ with poles in $`C`$

$$:V\mathrm{\Omega }_^1^1(D)_{𝒪_^1}V,D=m_ic_i$$

such that:

1. $`\overline{V}`$ is $``$-invariant.
2. $`(V,)`$ (resp. $`(\overline{V},)`$) coincides with $`(\stackrel{~}{H},)`$( resp. $`(\stackrel{~}{H}_c,)`$) in $`^1C`$;
3. The Brieskorn lattices ( Petrov module in the context of differential equations) of $`f`$ $`H^{}=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^1(D)}{df\mathrm{\Omega }^0(D)+d\mathrm{\Omega }^0(D)}`$ is $`[t]`$-isomorphism to the module of global sections of $`V`$ with poles of arbitrary order at $`\mathrm{}`$.

This is a task which is done in details in \[Ho1\]. If the singularities of $`f`$ are non-degenerated, i.e. in a holomorphic coordinate $`(x,y)`$ around a singularity $`p_i`$ we can write $`f=f(p_i)+x^2+y^2`$, then all the $`m_i`$’s are equal to one. In other words $``$ is logarithmic.

The pair $`(V,)`$ is not irreducible but if $`H^1(M,)=0`$ and $`f`$ satisfies 1, 2, 3 and has non-degenerated singularities with distinct images then $`(\overline{V},)`$ is irreducible (see \[La\] 7.3). The following proposition justifies the use of $`(\overline{V},)`$ instead of $`(V,)`$.

###### Proposition 7.

For an $`\omega `$ a meromorphic 1-form in $`M`$ with poles of order at most $`n`$ along $`D`$, the integral $`_{\delta _t}\omega `$ is a polynomial of degree $`n`$. $`_\frac{}{t}^i\omega ,i>n`$ restricted to each fiber has not residues in $``$ and hence is a meromorphic section of $`\overline{V}`$.

###### Proof.

We have $`p(t):=_{\delta _t}\omega =t^n_{\delta _t}\frac{\omega }{f^n}`$. Since the 1-form $`\frac{\omega }{f^n}`$ has not pole along $`D`$, $`\frac{p(t)}{t^n}`$ has finite growth at $`t=\mathrm{}`$. Since $`p(t)`$ is holomorphic in $``$ (even in the points of $`C`$), we conclude that $`p(t)`$ is a polynomial of degree at most $`n`$. The second part is a direct consequence of the first one and the fact that $`\frac{}{t}_{\delta _t}\omega =_{\delta _t}_\frac{}{t}\omega `$. ∎

I tried to study the maximum multiplicity of Abelian integrals in the context of meromorphic connections. My motives were the paper \[Ma\] and also a paper of mine, where the extension of cohomology vector bundles and their connections to the critical values of a meromorphic function is discussed. The upper bound obtained in Proposition 2 seems to be far from the best one (at least for Guass-Manin connections). Some works in Differential equations (see \[HoIl\]) suggest that the number $`H_{}(n)`$ must be very sensitive with respect to $``$.

Here I would like to express my thanks to Max-Planck institute for hospitality. Thanks go also to C. Hertling, Y. Holla and S. Archava for many useful conversations.

Hossein Movasati

IMPA, 22460-320, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

IPM, P.O.Box : 19395-5746,Tehran-Iran

E-mail: hossein@impa.br, movasati@ipm.ir