text:
# 1 Uses of a comparative study of the off-shell effects in QED and QCD atoms

## 1 Uses of a comparative study of the off-shell effects in QED and QCD atoms

Off-shell effects are known to be quite elusive. The most famous measured effect, dubbed Lamb shift , appears in atomic physics. It is represented by the atomic level shift on account of a tiny difference in the self-energies of the free electron and of the electron bound in the H-atom. Half a century after its discovery, investigations of Lamb shift still provide a precision test of bound-state QED . Now, an experimental uncertainty of 3 ppm in laser experiments is essentially smaller then the 10 ppm theoretical inaccuracy due to poor knowledge of the proton charge radius. In this situation the study of unstable leptonic atoms becomes competitive to the study of hydrogen.

In a study of the inter-nucleon potential there have been some early expectations  to reveal the off-shell parts of the nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung amplitude. Fearing and Scherer  excluded this possibility by subsuming such off-shell amplitudes into redundant terms  that can be rotated by field redefinitions into so called contact terms. The parity violating anapole terms  might be one exception, deserving a separate study.

However, particle physics provides new microscopic interactions leading to potentially interesting new contact terms. The most famous one is the anomalous $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ coupling. As explained in some detail in  this coupling can be viewed as an off-shell effect. On top of the QCD binding of the quark-antiquark atom, the triangle quantum loop dominated by far off-shell quarks produces an anomalous coupling responsible for the $`\pi ^0`$ decay. Such manifestation of the off-shellness motivates us to study the two-photon annihilation of atoms in general.

The simplest “total disintegration” of an “atom” occurs when it consists of a particle-antiparticle pair, like in the case of the true QED-atom, positronium111A revival of positronium  appeared after the discovery of the QCD atoms, together with the recognition that the first proposal of the positronium (termed “electrum”) has been given as early as in 1934 , immediately after the discovery of the positron by Anderson.. Actually, a comparative study of QED and QCD atoms has been very fruitful in the early days of quarkonia. A total disintegration of an atom consisting of different fermions is more subtle. It happens on account of the flavour changing (FC) processes familiar from weak interactions. While the transitions among charged quarks are well known, the lepton-flavour violating (LFV) transitions among charged leptons is an open urgent issue, stimulated by accumulated indication of the neutrino oscillations. In order to benefit from the crossfertilization of different fields we pursue here the comparative study of annihilation in the *heavy-light* QED and QCD systems.

Such a comparative study throws new light on the off-shell nonperturbative effects of valence quarks, studied first by two of us in the case of the double decays of the $`K_L`$  and $`\overline{B}_s`$ meson . Subsequently, this study has been continued within the specific bound state models, both for $`K_L2\gamma `$  and for $`\overline{B}_s^02\gamma `$ . In these papers it was explicitly demonstrated that operators that vanish by using the perturbative equations of motion gave nonzero contributions for processes involving bound quarks. The purpose of the present paper is to elaborate to more detail our more recent study  which accounts for similar effects for the bound leptons.

### 1.1 The relativistic QED atom

Our starting point is the Lagrangian density for the two fermions in the absence of the FC transitions. Thus the light particle (electron $`e^{}`$ of mass $`m`$) and a heavy positively charged particle (say muon $`\mu ^+`$ of mass $`M`$) interact only through electromagnetic field, as given by the last term in

$$=_e+_\mu \frac{1}{4}F^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }J^\alpha A_\alpha .$$
(1)
The Dirac Lagrangian

$$_i=\overline{\psi }_i[\frac{\text{i}}{2}\gamma ^\alpha \frac{\stackrel{}{}}{x^\alpha }m_i]\psi _i;\stackrel{}{}=\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{},$$
(2)
for a given particle ($`i=e,\mu `$) leads to the Dirac equations for $`\psi _i`$ and $`\overline{\psi }_i`$ treated as independent fields

$$\overline{\psi }_i(\text{i}\stackrel{}{}/+m_i)=0,(\text{i}/m_i)\psi _i=0.$$
(3)
Imposing the Coulomb (radiation) gauge, $`𝑨=0`$, one is able to solve for $`A^0`$ (eliminate it from the Lagrangian), leading to

$$=_e+_\mu +\frac{1}{2}(𝑬_{}^2𝑩^2)+𝑱𝑨\frac{1}{2}\frac{\text{d}^3r^{}}{4\pi }\frac{\rho (𝒓,t)\rho (𝒓^{},t)}{|𝒓𝒓^{}|}.$$
(4)
Here the last two terms can be expressed in terms of $`\rho `$ and $`𝑱`$ components of the fermion current

$$J^\alpha =e(\overline{\psi }_\mu \gamma ^\alpha \psi _\mu \overline{\psi }_e\gamma ^\alpha \psi _e).$$
(5)
The corresponding Hamiltonian, after neglecting the self-energy terms in the Coulomb interaction, has the form

$$H(x)=H(x)_{\mathrm{Atom}}+H(x)_{\mathrm{Rad}}+H(x)_{\mathrm{Coulomb}\mathrm{inst}}+H(x)_{\mathrm{int}}.$$
(6)
where

$$H_{\mathrm{Atom}}=H_\mu +H_e,$$
(7)
contains the relativistic fermion contributions

$$H_{e(\mu )}=\text{d}^3r_{e(\mu )}^0=\text{d}^3r\psi _{e(\mu )}^{}(x)\left[\text{i}𝜶+m_{e(\mu )}\beta \right]\psi _{e(\mu )}(x).$$
(8)
The electromagnetic piece splits into the radiation part

$$H_{\mathrm{Rad}}=\frac{1}{2}\text{d}^3r\left[𝑬_{}^2(x)+𝑩^2(x)\right]$$
(9)
containing the relevant electric and magnetic fields

$$𝑬_{}=\frac{𝑨}{t},𝑩=\times 𝑨,$$
(10)
and the instantaneous Coulomb term

$$H_{\mathrm{Coulomb}\mathrm{inst}}=\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{\text{d}^3rd^3r^{}}{|𝒓𝒓^{}|}J_\mu ^0(𝒓,t)J_e^0(𝒓^{},t).$$
(11)
The relativistic QED atoms can be treated to all orders by solving exactly the Dirac equation with a Coulomb interaction. This means solving the Dirac equation with $`V(x)=\gamma _0V_c(x)`$ ($`V_c`$ denotes the Coulomb potential)

$$[\text{i}/+V(x)m_i]\psi _i=0.$$
(12)
Correspondingly, the fermion propagator in external field reads

$$[\text{i}/+V(x)m_e]S_F^e(x,y)=\delta ^{(4)}(xy).$$
(13)
Thus, in contrast to the free-particle propagator, the propagator for the bound fermion,

$$\text{i}S_F(x,y)=\theta (x_0y_0)\underset{n,\sigma }{}\psi _{n,\sigma }^{(+)}(x)\overline{\psi }_{n,\sigma }^{(+)}(y)\theta (y_0x_0)\underset{n,\sigma }{}\psi _{n,\sigma }^{()}(x)\overline{\psi }_{n,\sigma }^{()}(y),$$
(14)
should require the sum over all possible excited states, which appear when decomposing the fermion field in terms of a complete set of positive and negative energy eigenfunctions:

$$\psi _e(x)=\underset{n,\sigma }{}\left\{b_{n,\sigma }\psi _{n,\sigma }^{(+)}(x)+d_{n,\sigma }^{}\psi _{n,\sigma }^{()}(x)\right\}.$$
(15)
The solutions of the free Hamiltonian

$$H_0=H_{\mathrm{Atom}}+H_{\mathrm{Rad}}+H_{\mathrm{Coulomb}\mathrm{inst}}$$
(16)
form a complete set of stationary states $`|a,N`$, expressed as a direct product of atomic wavefunctions $`\psi _a`$ and the photon Fock states

$$|a,N=\psi _a(r)|N.$$
(17)
When the interaction is turned on, one should make a replacement

$$H_0H=H_0+H_I(t),$$
(18)
and the pertinent states cease to remain stationary. Their evolution in time in practice means that the excited states decay under the influence of the QED interaction

$$H_I(t)=\text{d}^3r\left[𝑱_p(𝒓,t)+𝑱_e(𝒓,t)\right]𝑨(𝒓,t)$$
(19)
into other states $`|b,N`$, where $`N`$ photons are emitted.

In addition to the ordinary interaction (19), in the next subsection we shall consider possible additional interactions (24), involving the flavour changing $`\mu e`$ transition. This will enable the atom to disintegrate completely. The lowest order disintegration requires $`\mu `$ and $`e`$ overlap, happening when $`l=0`$, i.e. a decay from S states. The decay from $`l>0`$ corresponds to a cascade down to S state, followed by the decay from there — a higher order process which we do not need to consider in what follows.

### 1.2 Some motivation for scrutinizing muonium

There has been a considerable revival of the interest in muonium ($`\text{Mu}=\mu ^+e^{}`$ system) in view of the very precise measurements in this system. At the same time, the theoretical predictions are plagued by the nonperturbative bound-state effects. The only known way to achieve the required precision for the bound states is by expanding around a nonrelativistic limit. Such methods, like Non-Relativistic Quantum Electrodynamics  start from the bound state described by a Schrödinger wave function, and build up corrections in terms of the relative velocity of the components.

For the muonium at hand our analysis and results bear a close analogy to the correction to the muon lifetime due to muonium formation, reported in . In this system electron and muon have r.m.s. velocities $`\beta _e=\alpha 1/137`$, and $`\beta _\mu \alpha m_e/m_\mu 3.510^5`$. In terms of these parameters the bound-state corrections acquire a form $`\alpha ^n(m_e/m_\mu )^m`$, where the corrections up to $`n+m=4`$ matter in practice. The current world average for the muon lifetime measurements

$$\tau _\mu =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.19703}(4)\times 10^6\text{s},$$

has an uncertainty of only 18 ppm. In order to benefit from an improvement the measurement of $`\tau _\mu `$ (and thereby of $`G_\mu `$) by a factor of 20 (i.e. reducing its uncertainty to only $`\pm 1`$ ppm) a knowledge of modification of $`\tau _\mu `$ due to the formation of muonium is required.

The reexamination of the muonium bound state effect  showed only a tiny effect, the $`610^{10}`$ correction to the lifetime

$`\tau _{\text{Mu}}=\tau _\mu \left(1+\frac{\alpha ^2}{2}\frac{m_e^2}{m_\mu ^2}\right).`$

This negligible overall shift is in contrast to relatively large $`𝒪(\alpha \frac{m_e}{m_\mu })`$ velocity effects on the spectrum . In the present work we are pointing out the off-shell effects (52) in the radiative annihilation of muonium which are in between of these two.

For completeness, let us mention that besides the mentioned radiative annihilation, there is also the $`W`$-exchange annihilation Mu$`\nu _e\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ (the analog of $`\mu ^{}p`$ capture) with the rate

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{Mu}\nu _e\overline{\nu }_\mu )=48\pi \left(\frac{\alpha m_e}{m_\mu }\right)^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu ^+e^+\nu _e\overline{\nu }_\mu ).$$
(20)
Still, it leads to a miniscule branching ratio $`710^{12}`$, and moreover is restricted to the orthomuonium decay, which is out of our scope here. Let us note that some interest in radiative orthomuonium decay might come from the three-photon analog decays: the puzzling discrepancy in orthopositronium (a brief sketch of the recent status can be found in ) and the surprising suppression in theoretical estimate for $`K_L3\gamma `$ . These three-photon decays provide three-party entanglement similar to the one in quantum optics .

Of course, the muonium annihilation involves the LFV transition which is a matter of the beyond the standard model (BSM) physics. Such lepton-number violating interaction induces simultaneously a $`\mu e\gamma `$ transition , so that the unknown details will cancel in the ratio of these two processes.

For the heavy-light muonium system $`\mu ^+e^{}`$ (where $`m_\mu Mm_em`$), the bound-state calculation corresponds to that of the relativistic hydrogen. Thereby we distinguish between the Coulomb field responsible for the binding, and the radiation field  participating in the flavour-changing transition at the pertinent high-energy scale. In this way, the radiative disintegration of an atom becomes tractable by implementing the two-step treatment : “neglecting at first annihilation to compute the binding and then neglecting binding to compute annihilation”. This factorization of scales was introduced for the first time by Wheeler . For the muonium atom at hand, the binding problem is analogous to a solved problem of the H-atom. In this way we avoid the relativistic bound state problem, which is a difficult subject, and we have no intention to contribute to it here.

The mentioned two-step method is known to work well for disintegration (annihilation) of the simplest QED atom, positronium. Generalization of this procedure to muonium means that the two-photon decay width of muonium is obtained by using

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{|\psi (0)|^2|(\mu ^+e^{}\gamma \gamma )|^2}{64\pi Mm},$$
(21)
where $`|\psi (0)|^2`$ is the square of the bound-state wave function at the origin. After this factorization has been performed, the rest of the problem reduces to the evaluation of the scattering-annihilation invariant amplitude $``$. In the case of positronium this expression will involve equal masses ($`M`$=$`m`$), and the invariant amplitude which for a positronium annihilation at rest has the textbook form

$$=\frac{\text{i}e^2}{2m^2}\overline{v}_s(p_2)\{ϵ/_2^{}ϵ/_1^{}k/_1+ϵ/_1^{}ϵ/_2^{}k/_2\}u_r(p_1).$$
(22)
Only the antisymmetric piece in the decomposition of the product of three gamma matrices above

$$\left\{\right\}\text{i}ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\gamma _5\gamma _\beta (k_1k_2)_\alpha (ϵ_1^{})_\mu (ϵ_2^{})_\nu ,$$
(23)
contributes to the spin singlet parapositronium two-photon annihilation. This selects ($`\mathit{ϵ}_1^{}\times \mathit{ϵ}_2^{}`$), a CP-odd configuration of the final two-photon state. We will see that for muonium annihilation also the CP-even $`\mathit{ϵ}_1^{}\mathit{ϵ}_2^{}`$ configuration contributes.

The paper is organized as follows: In section 2 we consider the quantum field treatment of the annihilation process $`\mu ^+e^{}\gamma \gamma `$ in arbitrary external field(s). In section 3 we relate the binding forces to the external fields of section 2. In section 4 we perform the calculation of $`\overline{B}_s\gamma \gamma `$ in several different QCD models. In addition we consider the related off-shell bound-state effects in $`\overline{B}_dK^{}\gamma `$ decay. In section 5 we present our conclusions.

## 2 Flavour-changing operators for $`\mu ^+e^{}\gamma \gamma `$

Augmenting the electroweak theory by LFV enables the one- and two-photon radiative decays $`\mu e\gamma `$ and $`\mu e\gamma \gamma `$. Accordingly, the double-radiative transition is triggered by two classes of one-particle irreducible diagrams (Figs. 1a and b), related by the Ward identities.

After integrating out the heavy particles in the loops, these one-loop electroweak transitions can be combined into an effective Lagrangian ,

$$(e\mu )_\gamma =Bϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }F_{\mu \nu }(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\text{i}\stackrel{}{D_\lambda }\gamma _\rho L\psi )+\text{h.c.},$$
(24)
where muon and electron are described by quantum fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\psi _\mu `$ and $`\psi =\psi _e`$. Correspondingly, for $`\overline{B}_s^02\gamma `$, the involved fields are $`\psi _s=s`$ and $`\psi _b=b`$.

In our case, we do not need to specify the physics behind the lepton-flavour-violating transition in (24). For instance, the strength $`B`$ might contain Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata  parameters, analogous to the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa parameters $`\lambda _{\mathrm{CKM}}`$ in the quark sector.

Keeping in mind that the fermions in the bound states are not on-shell, we are not simplifying the result of the electroweak loop calculation by using the perturbative equation of motion. Thus the effective Lagrangian (24) obtained within perturbation theory splits into the on-shell magnetic transition operator $`_\sigma `$

$$_\sigma (1\gamma )=B_\sigma \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(M\sigma FL+m\sigma FR)\psi +\text{h.c.},$$
(25)
and an off-shell piece $`_F`$

$$_F=B_F\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}[(\text{i}\stackrel{}{D}/M)\sigma FL+\sigma FR(\text{i}D/m)]\psi +\text{h.c.},$$
(26)
where $`\sigma F`$ denotes $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }`$, and $`L=(1\gamma _5)/2`$ and $`R=(1+\gamma _5)/2`$ denote left-hand and right-hand projectors. To lowest order in QED (or QCD) $`B_F=B_\sigma =B`$, but in general they are different due to different anomalous dimensions of the operators in (25) and (26). Let us note that the off-shell part $`_F`$ has zero anomalous dimension .

By decomposing the covariant derivative, $`\text{i}D/=\text{i}/eA/`$, in the off-shell operator (26), we separate the one-photon piece

$$_F(1\gamma )=B_F\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}[(\text{i}\stackrel{}{/}M)\sigma FL+\sigma FR(\text{i}/m)]\psi +\text{h.c.},$$
(27)
from the two-photon piece

$$_F(2\gamma )=B_F\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}[eA/\sigma FL+\sigma FR(eA/)]\psi +\text{h.c.}.$$
(28)
The amplitude for the two-photon diagram (Fig. 2) is given by

$$A_a=\text{i}\text{d}^4x_F(2\gamma )=A_a^L+A_a^R,$$
(29)
in an obvious notation.

The single-photon off-shell Lagrangian $`_F(1\gamma )`$ leads to the amplitude with the heavy particle in the propagator

$`A_b`$ $`=`$ $`\text{i}B_F{\displaystyle \text{d}^4x\text{d}^4y\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(y)\left[\text{i}eA/_2(y)\right]\text{i}S_F^{(\mu )}(y,x)}`$ (30)
$`\times [(\text{i}\stackrel{}{/_x}M)\sigma F_1(x)L+\sigma F_1(x)R(\text{i}/_xm)]\psi (x),`$
and a similar amplitude with the light particle in the propagator

$`A_c`$ $`=`$ $`\text{i}B_F{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }\text{d}^4x\text{d}^4y\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(x)[(\text{i}\stackrel{}{/_x}M)\sigma F_1(x)L+`$ (31)
$`\sigma F_1(x)R(\text{i}/_xm)]\times \text{i}S_F^{(e)}(x,y)[\text{i}eA/_2(y)]\psi (y).`$
The subscripts 1 and 2 distinguish between the two photons. It is understood that a term with the $`12`$ subscript interchange should be added in order to make our result symmetric in the two photons.

Within the quantum field formalism, the sum of the equations (29), (30) and (31) describes the process $`\mu ^+e^{}\gamma \gamma `$, or $`\mu e\gamma \gamma `$.

Let us now be very general, and assume that both particles ($`e`$ and $`\mu `$) feel some kind of external field(s) represented by $`V_{(e)}`$ and $`V_{(\mu )}`$, and obey one-body Dirac equations

$$[\text{i}/V_{(i)}(x)m_{(i)}]\psi _{(i)}=0,$$
(32)
for $`i=e`$ or $`\mu `$ (in general $`V_{(i)}=\gamma _\alpha V_{(i)}^\alpha `$) , and accordingly the particle propagators $`S_F^{(i)}`$ satisfy:

$$[\text{i}/V_{(i)}(x)m_i]S_F^{(i)}(x,y)=\delta ^{(4)}(xy).$$
(33)
Our photon fields enter via perturbative QED, switched on by the replacement $`_\mu D_\mu =_\mu +ieA_\mu `$ in (12). It should be emphasized that $`A_\mu (x)`$ represents the radiation field and does not include binding forces, which will in the next section be related to the external fields $`V_{(i)}`$.

Now, using relations (12) and (13) we obtain

$$A_b=A_a^L+\mathrm{\Delta }A_b,A_c=A_a^R+\mathrm{\Delta }A_c,$$
(34)
resulting in a partial cancellation when the amplitudes are summed

$$A_a+A_b+A_c=\mathrm{\Delta }A_b+\mathrm{\Delta }A_c.$$
(35)
This shows that the local off-diagonal fermion seagull transition of Fig. 2 cancels, even if the external fermions are off-shell. The left-over quantities $`\mathrm{\Delta }A_b`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }A_c`$ involve the integrals over the Coulomb potential and represent the net off-shell effect.

There are also amplitudes $`A_d`$ and $`A_e`$ which are counterparts of $`A_b`$ and $`A_c`$ when $`_F(1\gamma )`$ is replaced by $`_\sigma `$. The total contribution from our flavour-changing Lagrangian ($`_F`$ and $`_\sigma `$ parts) is then given by

$`A_d+\mathrm{\Delta }A_b`$ $`=`$ $`\text{i}{\displaystyle \text{d}^4x\text{d}^4y\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(y)\left[\text{i}eA/_2(y)\right]}`$ (36)
$`\times \text{i}S_F^{(\mu )}(y,x)Q(x)\psi (x),`$
represented by Fig. 3a, and a similar one

$`A_e+\mathrm{\Delta }A_c`$ $`=`$ $`\text{i}{\displaystyle \text{d}^4x\text{d}^4y\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(x)Q(x)\text{i}S_F^{(e)}(x,y)}`$ (37)
$`\times \left[\text{i}eA/_2(y)\right]\psi (y),`$
corresponding to Fig. 3b. The operator $`Q(x)`$ in these expressions reads

$`Q(x)=\left[B_\sigma M+B_FV_{(\mu )}(x)\right]\sigma F_1(x)L`$ (38)
$`+\sigma F_1(x)R\left[B_\sigma m+B_FV_{(e)}(x)\right].`$
The result given by Eqs. (36)–(38) can also be understood in terms of the following field redefinition. Eq. (12) can be obtained from the Lagrangian

$$_D(\mathrm{\Psi },\psi )=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}[\text{i}D/V_{(\mu )}M]\mathrm{\Psi }+\overline{\psi }[\text{i}D/V_{(e)}m]\psi .$$
(39)
Now, by defining new fields

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=\mathrm{\Psi }+B_F\sigma FL\psi ,\psi ^{}=\psi +B_F^{}\sigma FL\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(40)
we obtain

$$_D(\psi ,\mathrm{\Psi })+_F=_D(\psi ^{},\mathrm{\Psi }^{})+\mathrm{\Delta }_B,$$
(41)
which shows that $`_F`$ can be transformed away from the perturbative terms, but a relic of it,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_B=B_F\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\left[V_{(\mu )}\sigma FL+\sigma FRV_{(e)}\right]\psi +\text{h.c.},$$
(42)
remains in the bound-state dynamics as a contact term. Thus, the off-shell effects are non-zero for bound external fermions. Combining $`\mathrm{\Delta }_B`$ and $`_\sigma `$, we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_B+_\sigma =\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}Q\psi +\text{h.c.},$$
(43)
where $`Q`$ is given by (38). This shows how the upper field redefinition rotates away the contact term shown in Fig. 2, leaving us with the result given by Eqs. (36)–(38).

## 3 Off-shellness in the muonium annihilation amplitude

The preceding section shows how far we can push the problem within quantum field theory. Up till now we have made no approximations except for standard perturbation theory. Now we apply the obtained results to the double radiative annihilation of muonium. Naively, the product $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\psi `$ corresponds to the bound state of $`\mu ^+`$ and $`e^{}`$, which might be true only for the asymptotic free fields. However, relativistic bound state physics is a difficult subject, which we circumvent by sticking to the two-step procedure  as explained in Section 1. We perform the calculations in the muonium rest frame (CM frame of $`\mu ^+`$ and $`e^{}`$) where we put the external field(s) equal to a mutual Coulomb field, $`V_{(i)}\gamma _0V_C`$ (where $`V_C=e^2/4\pi r`$). In calculating the $`\mu ^+e^{}\gamma \gamma `$ amplitude in momentum space, we take for $`V_C`$ the average over solutions in the Coulomb potential, which is $`V_C=(m\alpha ^2/2)`$. In this way the muonium-decay invariant amplitude acquires the form which is a straightforward generalization of the positronium-decay invariant amplitude (22) in momentum space.

The amplitudes $`A_d+\mathrm{\Delta }A_b`$ from Eq. (36), together with $`A_e+\mathrm{\Delta }A_c`$ from (37), transformed to the momentum space take the form

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2eB_\sigma }{m}}\overline{v}_\mu (p_2)\{{\displaystyle \frac{m}{M}}k/_2ϵ/_2^{}\mathrm{P}\mathrm{P}ϵ/_2^{}k/_2+(12)\}u_e(p_1),`$ (44)
where $`v_\mu `$ and $`u_e`$ are muon and electron spinors, and $`ϵ_{1,2}^{}`$ are photon polarization vectors. The factor, incorporating the binding in the form of a four-vector $`U^\alpha =(\rho ,\mathrm{𝟎})`$,

$`\mathrm{P}(1xU/)k/_1ϵ/_1^{}L+xk/_1ϵ/_1^{}R(1U/),`$ (45)
accounts for the aforementioned factorization of a binding and a decay, and is represented by the shaded box of Fig. 3:

$$\left[M(1x\rho \gamma ^0)\sigma F_1L+m\sigma F_1R(1\rho \gamma ^0)\right].$$
(46)
Here we introduced abbreviations for two small constant parameters,

$$x\frac{m}{M},\rho \frac{B_FV_C}{mB_\sigma },$$
(47)
in terms of which the sought off-shell effect will be expressed. Note that in the effective interaction (46), the left-handed part corresponding to $`V_{(\mu )}`$ has gotten an extra suppression factor $`x=m/M`$ in front of the binding factor $`\rho `$, in agreement with the expectation that the heavy particle ($`\mu ^+`$) is approximately free, and the light particle ($`e^{}`$) is approximately the reduced particle, in analogy with the H-atom.

The annihilation amplitude (44) can now be evaluated explicitly. The usual procedure of squaring the amplitude and using the Casimir trick for converting spinors into Dirac matrices would give us expressions with traces of up to twelve Dirac matrices, making the calculation unnecessary extensive. It is much easier to proceed by going into the frame in which the muonium is at rest and photons are emitted along the $`z`$-axis, i. e.

$$k_1=\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill \omega \\ \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0\\ \hfill \omega \end{array}\right),k_2=\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill \omega \\ \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0\\ \hfill \omega \end{array}\right),ϵ_\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill 0\\ \hfill 1\\ \hfill \pm \text{i}\\ \hfill 0\end{array}\right),$$
(48)
where $`\omega =(m+M)/2M/2`$ is the photon energy. In this frame $`k/_i`$ and $`ϵ^{}/_j`$ ($`i,j=1,2`$) formally anticommute

$$k/_iϵ^{}/_j=\omega (\gamma ^0\pm \gamma ^3)\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\gamma ^1\pm \text{i}\gamma ^2)=ϵ^{}/_jk/_i,$$
(49)
so we can group them together and calculate

$$k/_1k/_2ϵ^{}/_1ϵ^{}/_2=2\omega ^2\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathit{ϵ}_2^{}\mathit{ϵ}_1^{}(\mathit{ϵ}_2^{}\times \mathit{ϵ}_1^{})\widehat{𝒌}_1\sigma ^3& \mathit{ϵ}_2^{}\mathit{ϵ}_1^{}\sigma ^3(\mathit{ϵ}_2^{}\times \mathit{ϵ}_1^{})\widehat{𝒌}_1\\ \mathit{ϵ}_2^{}\mathit{ϵ}_1^{}\sigma ^3(\mathit{ϵ}_2^{}\times \mathit{ϵ}_1^{})\widehat{𝒌}_1& \mathit{ϵ}_2^{}\mathit{ϵ}_1^{}(\mathit{ϵ}_2^{}\times \mathit{ϵ}_1^{})\widehat{𝒌}_1\sigma ^3\end{array}\right).$$
(50)
It is now easy to multiply this by the appropriate chiral projectors $`L`$ and $`R`$, $`\rho \gamma ^0`$ terms, and $`\overline{v}_\mu (p_2)`$ and $`u_e(p_1)`$ spinors. Now, taking into account that muonium leading to the two-photon final state is in the spin singlet state, we get the result

$``$ $`=`$ $`2eB_\sigma M^2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{m}}}[(1x^2+x\rho +x^2\rho )\mathit{ϵ}_2^{}\mathit{ϵ}_1^{}`$ (51)
$`+\text{i}(1+2x+x^2+x\rho x^2\rho )(\mathit{ϵ}_2^{}\times \mathit{ϵ}_1^{})\widehat{𝒌}_1],`$
In comparison to the expressions (22) and (23) for parapositronium, we notice that in addition to $`\mathit{ϵ}_2^{}\times \mathit{ϵ}_1^{}`$ there appears also $`\mathit{ϵ}_2^{}\mathit{ϵ}_1^{}`$, a CP-even two-photon configuration.

The explicit expression for $`\rho `$ depends on some assumptions. As explained previously, we use $`V_C=m\alpha ^2/2`$ which gives $`\rho =\alpha ^2/2`$ for $`B_\sigma =B_F=B`$, which is a good approximation in the leptonic case.

Eq.(21) finally gives

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{2\alpha M^4}{m^2}|\psi (0)|^2|B_\sigma |^2\left(1+2x\rho \right),$$
(52)
where we have kept only the leading term in $`\rho `$ and $`x`$. Since the wave function at the origin appears as a prefactor, it is not necessary to know the precise value of $`|\psi (0)|^2(m\alpha )^3/\pi `$, in order to know the relative off-shell contribution. Thus, for muonium, the sought off-shell contribution is only a tiny correction, $`2x\rho =\alpha ^2m/M2.610^7`$, to the magnetic moment dominated rate.

We may note in passing that we have checked our results also by the direct calculation of the squared Feynman amplitude (44) on the computer using the FeynCalc Mathematica package for algebraic manipulation of expressions involving Dirac matrices and spinors . Here the explicit Lorentz covariance was preserved at all steps of the calculation and the final result was in agreement with the one obtained by hand calculation.

## 4 Off-shellness in $`\overline{B}_s^0\gamma \gamma `$

In comparison to a tiny effect in the preceding section, we expect the corresponding off-shellness in a strongly bound QCD system to be significantly larger. We also take into account the $`B_F/B_\sigma `$ correction in (52), when considering the $`\overline{B}_s^0\gamma \gamma `$ decay.

The expressions (24) to (28) apply to the $`bs\gamma \gamma `$ induced $`\overline{B}_s^02\gamma `$ decay amplitude by simple replacements $`\mu s`$ and $`eb`$. Then one has to scale the operators $`_{F,\sigma }`$ defined at the $`M_W`$ scale, down to the $`B`$-meson scale. The coefficients $`B_F`$ of $`_F`$, and $`B_\sigma `$ of $`_\sigma `$, in Eqs. (26) and (25), both being equal to $`B`$ at the $`W`$ scale, may evolve differently down to the $`\mu =m_b`$ scale. This difference between $`B_F`$ and $`B_\sigma `$ is due to different anomalous dimensions of the respective operators. Within the SM one can write

$$B_{\sigma ,F}=\frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\lambda _{\mathrm{CKM}}\frac{e}{16\pi ^2}C_7^{\sigma ,F}.$$
(53)
The coefficient $`C_7^\sigma `$ has been studied by various authors . The coefficient $`C_7^F`$ was considered in , where at the $`b`$-quark scale we obtained

$$\frac{C_7^F}{C_7^\sigma }4/3(\mu =m_b).$$
(54)
Although the off-shell effect for $`\overline{B}2\gamma `$ is expected to be suppressed by the ratio (binding energy)/$`m_b`$, it could still be numerically interesting.

The conventional procedure when evaluating the pseudoscalar meson decay amplitudes is to express them in terms of the meson decay constants, by using the PCAC relations

$`0|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5b|\overline{B}_s^0(P)`$ $`=`$ $`\text{i}f_BP_\mu ,`$ (55)
$`0|\overline{s}\gamma _5b|\overline{B}_s^0(P)`$ $`=`$ $`\text{i}f_BM_B.`$ (56)
These relations will be useful after reducing our general expression (44) containing the terms with products of up to five Dirac matrices. After some calculation we arrive at the expression for the $`\overline{B}_s`$ meson decay at rest, which is analogous to, and in fact confirms our previous relation (51) obtained in a different way,

$`^B`$ $`=`$ $`\text{i}{\displaystyle \frac{e}{3}}B_\sigma f_BM^2{\displaystyle \frac{(1+x)^2}{x}}[(1x^2+x\tau +x^2\tau )\mathit{ϵ}_2^{}\mathit{ϵ}_1^{}+`$ (57)
$`+`$ $`\text{i}(1+2x+x^2+x\tau x^2\tau )(\mathit{ϵ}_2^{}\times \mathit{ϵ}_1^{})\widehat{𝒌}_1].`$
Here, the parameter $`\tau `$ represents the off-shell effect in the QCD problem at hand, and will be more model dependent than its QED counterpart $`\rho `$. With the amplitude (57), keeping only the leading terms in $`\tau `$ and $`x`$, we arrive at the total decay width

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{\alpha M^5}{18m^2}f_B^2|B_\sigma |^2\left(1+2x\tau \right),$$
(58)
where by switching off $`\tau `$ we reproduce the result of Ref. .

### 4.1 Coulomb-type QCD model

In order to estimate the value of the off-shell contribution $`\tau `$, in this subsection we assume a QED-like QCD model with the Coulombic wave function  $`\psi (r)\mathrm{exp}(mr\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}})`$. Thus we rely again on an exact solution corresponding to effective potential $`V(r)=4\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}/(3r)`$, with effective coupling $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}(r)=(4\pi b_0\mathrm{ln}(r\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{pot}}))^1`$. Here $`b_0=(1/8\pi ^2)(11(2/3)N_f)`$. The mass scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{pot}}`$ appropriate to the heavy-light quark $`\overline{Q}q`$ potential is related to the more familiar QCD scale parameter, e.g. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{pot}}=2.23\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ (for $`N_f`$=3). Within this model, we obtain

$$\tau =\frac{2}{3}\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^2\frac{C_7^F}{C_7^\sigma }.$$
(59)
By matching the meson decay constant $`f_B`$ and the wave function at the origin

$$N_c\frac{|\psi _B(0)|^2}{M}=\left(\frac{f_B}{2}\right)^2;|\psi _B(0)|^2=\frac{(m\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}})^3}{\pi },$$
(60)
we obtain the value for the strong interaction fine structure strength $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $``$1. Then, including (54) for the QCD case, the correction factor

$$x\tau \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.1},$$
(61)
is much larger than $`x\rho `$ in the corresponding QED case. Correspondingly, one expects even more significant off-shell effects in light quark systems, in compliance with our previous results .

### 4.2 A constituent quark calculation

As an alternative to the Coulomb-type QCD model described above, now we adopt a variant of the approach in Refs. . One might use the PCAC relations (55)–(56) together with a kinematical assumption for the $`\overline{s}`$-quark momentum, similar to those in Refs. . We assume the bound $`\overline{s}`$ and $`b`$ quarks in $`\overline{B}_s^0`$ to be on their respective *effective* mass-shells. Note that even if one is using (55) and (56), the amplitude will still explicitly depend on the $`\overline{s}`$-quark momentum $`p_{\overline{s}}`$. This is put on the effective mass-shell by using the relation $`p_{\overline{s}}^\mu =M_s(k_1+k_2)^\mu /M_b`$, where $`M_q=m_q+m_0`$ (for $`q=b,s`$) are the effective (total) masses, $`m_q`$ are the current masses, and $`m_0`$ the constituent mass of order a few hundred MeV. The structure of the amplitude now comes out essentially as in (57) with a relative off-shell contribution

$$x\stackrel{~}{\tau }=\frac{2m_0}{m_b}0.1,$$
(62)
of the same order as in (61). However, unlike (57), the off-shell effect is now only in the CP-odd term ($`\mathit{ϵ}_1^{}\times \mathit{ϵ}_2^{}`$), the square bracket in (57) being replaced by

$$\left[\mathit{ϵ}_2^{}\mathit{ϵ}_1^{}+\text{i}(1+2x+x\stackrel{~}{\tau })(\mathit{ϵ}_2^{}\times \mathit{ϵ}_1^{})\right].$$
(63)
This may be different in other approaches , showing the model dependence of the off-shell effect. For instance, potential-QCD models in general, besides a vector Coulomb potential, also contain a scalar potential.

### 4.3 A bound state quark model

In our previous accounts  we applied a bound state model for $`\overline{B}_s^02\gamma `$. Then the potentials $`V_i`$ in (12) are replaced by a quark-meson interaction Lagrangian

$$_\mathrm{\Phi }(s,b)=G_B\overline{b}\gamma _5s\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(64)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the B-meson field. In this case, the term $`_F`$ can be transformed away by means of the field redefinitions:

$$s^{}=s+B_F\sigma FLb,b^{}=b+B_F^{}\sigma FLs.$$
(65)
However, its effect reappears in a new bound-state interaction $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }`$,

$$_\mathrm{\Phi }(s,b)+_F=_\mathrm{\Phi }(s^{},b^{})+\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(66)
where, after using $`R\gamma _5=R`$ and $`L\gamma _5=L`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }=B_FG_B\left[\overline{b}^{}\sigma FLb^{}\overline{s}^{}\sigma FRs^{}\right]\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}..$$
(67)
The two terms in this equation correspond to two contact amplitudes displayed in Fig. 4.

Also in this case, net off-shell effects are found . Further calculations of $`B2\gamma `$ within bound state models of the type in (64) will be presented elsewhere.

Note that in bound-state models based on heavy-quark effective theory the expression (64) is slightly modified such that the $`b`$ quark field will be replaced by the product of the reduced heavy-quark field and its projector $`P_+(v)=(1+\gamma v)/2`$, where $`v`$ is the velocity of the heavy quark .

### 4.4 Link to $`\overline{B}_dK^{}\gamma `$

Although we focused till now only to the two-photon processes, the interaction in (26) contributes to the one-photon couplings as well.

Actually, we observe that off-diagonal one-photon couplings contained in the Lagrangian given by (38) and (43) can be used to calculate the amplitude for muonic hydrogen decaying to a photon and ordinary hydrogen, that is, the process $`\mu ^{}e^{}+\gamma `$ for both leptons bound to a proton. This is a leptonic version of the celebrated $`B`$-meson decay $`\overline{B}_dK^{}\gamma `$.

As a toy model, one might consider a process “$`\mu `$$``$$`e`$$`\gamma `$ in an external Coulomb field, with “$`\mu `$” and “$`e`$” rather close in mass such that the non-relativistic descriptions of the “leptons” might be used. The effective “$`\mu `$$``$$`e`$$`\gamma `$ interaction is given in (43). If we assume that $`(Mm)`$ is of order $`\alpha m`$, we obtain off-shell effects of order $`\alpha ^2`$ due to $`_F`$, relative to the standard magnetic moment term $`_\sigma `$. Bigger mass differences give bigger effects, until the non-relativistic approximation breaks down.

Returning to the off-shell bound-state effects in the important $`B_dK^{}\gamma `$ decay, they can be addressed in the framework of models  combining heavy quark effective theories with the ideas of Nambu-Jona-Lasinio models and chiral quark models.

The ordinary, on-shell transition magnetic moment $`_\sigma `$-induced amplitude for the $`\overline{B}_dK^{}\gamma `$ is shown in Fig. 5a.

Now, transforming away the term $`_F`$ by the field redefinitions produces the new contact term

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=B_FG_B\overline{s}^{}\sigma FRP_+(v)\gamma _5d^{}\mathrm{\Phi }$$
(68)
giving the amplitude displayed in Fig. 5b.

The ratio of the off-shell and the on-shell amplitudes in the soft $`K^{}`$ limit can now be calculated to be

$$\frac{A(\overline{B}_dK^{}\gamma )_{\mathrm{off}\mathrm{shell}}}{A(\overline{B}_dK^{}\gamma )_{\mathrm{on}\mathrm{shell}}}\frac{B_F}{B_\sigma }\frac{m_0}{2m_Q},$$
(69)
where $`m_0`$ is the constituent mass of order of 200–300 MeV, and $`m_Q`$ is the heavy ($`b`$ quark) mass. Going away from the soft $`K^{}`$ limit, the amplitudes will change, but the result (69) will persist in the leading order.

A refined calculation would be desirable in view of the importance of this result. An earlier attempt (the preprint version of Ref. ) reported on large off-shell effect in the amplitude which happened to be reduced below 10 % effect in the rate.

## 5 Discussion and conclusion

The present “atomic” approach enables us to see in a new light the off-shell effects studied first for the $`K_L\gamma \gamma `$ amplitude in the chiral quark model , and subsequently in the bound-state model . The observation that off-shell effects can be clearly isolated from the rest in the heavy-light quark atoms  was still plagued by the uncertainty in the QCD binding calculation . Here, in the Coulomb-type QCD model we are able to subsume the effect into an universal binding factor, in the same way as for the two-photon decay of muonium in the exactly solvable QED framework. It is a quite significant 10 percent effect in the $`\overline{B}_s^0\gamma \gamma `$ case, whereas in the two-photon decay of muonium it is very small (of order 10-7), but clearly identifiable.

As a byproduct we obtain here also the on-shell amplitude already considered in the literature. There is an extensive list of calculations  pertinent to the short distance electroweak loop contributions to $`bs\gamma \gamma `$ which trigger $`\overline{B}_s\gamma \gamma `$. Comparing our results to the expression (22) of  we can express $`C_7^\sigma `$ in our (53) in terms of their coefficient C

$$C_7^\sigma =\frac{1}{4\sqrt{6}}\left(C+\frac{23}{3}\right),$$
(70)
or, numerically, $`C_7^\sigma =0.4`$ at the $`B`$ meson scale. Still, there is another class of contributions, belonging to the LD regime. For example  present magnetic moment, $`O_7`$-type LD effects in $`\overline{B}_s\gamma \gamma `$ decays in the vector meson dominance approach, whereas the other authors , though with controversial results, estimate the contribution of the charmed-meson intermediate states. These seem to be a natural representation for our short-distance loops when the loop momenta are below the $`b`$ quark mass scale.

Our message is that such small SM effects might obscure possible new physics (BSM) signals that are of a comparable size. Without pretending on completeness we give some examples that the off-shell effects considered in the present paper might hinder possible BSM discovery.

Let us start with the famous magnetism of the muon, an ideal of the precision measurement. At some level the binding effects might become relevant. Such $`(g_{\text{Bound}}2)`$ effect due to the diagonal one-photon coupling would correspond to the $`(g_{\text{Bound}}2)`$ calculated already for a bound electron . This effect might be interesting in light of a deviation from the Standard Model expectation of the order of $`10^9`$ recently measured for $`(g2)`$ of the positively charged muon . Actually, this measurement triggered various speculations ascribing this discrepancy to the various BSM effects, the lepton compositeness  being one possibility. However, there are more direct ways to set a bound on the compositeness scale from the flavour-conserving processes. For example, there are flavour-diagonal $`e^+e^{}\gamma \gamma `$ contact terms

$$_{\text{contact}}=\text{i}\overline{\psi _e}\gamma _\mu (D_\nu \psi _e)\left(\frac{\sqrt{4\pi }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_6^2}F^{\mu \nu }+\frac{\sqrt{4\pi }}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_6^2}\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }\right)$$
(71)
which would lead to a ($`1+\delta _{\text{DEV}}`$) correction factor to the photon angular distribution $`d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions. From

$$\delta _{\text{DEV}}=s^2/(2\alpha )(1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_6^4+1/\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_6^4)(1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )$$
(72)
LEP200 sets a bound $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>1687`$ GeV (for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_6=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_6=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) at 95 % CL. Thus, eventual non-standard BSM physics contribution at LEP energies are highly suppressed.

More promising route to reveal BSM contributions could be provided by flavour non-diagonal transitions. Recent evidence for neutrino oscillations has renewed interest in charged LFV searches. Among variety of probes reviewed in  $`\mu e\gamma `$ and $`\mu e`$ conversion (invoking new high energy scale $`M_{12}`$) seem to be the most promising. Since the effects of new physics are expected to enter at one-loop level, these transitions may be parameterized by

$$_{12}=e\frac{g^2}{16\pi ^2}\frac{m_\mu }{M_{12}^2}\overline{\mu }\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }eF_{\alpha \beta },$$
(73)
in order to estimate the sensitivity of the current experimental facilities .

Although the BSM effects might be more pronounced for the flavour-changing quark transitions, their discovery might be hindered by the relatively more pronounced bound-state effects treated in the present paper. The off-shell contribution may affect the discovery potential in the radiative $`B`$ meson decays (for example, ). In particular, our result (69) indicates hindrance of the BSM discovery potential in the otherwise promising $`\overline{B}_dK^{}\gamma `$ decay.


format: text

text:
# Contents

## 1 Introduction and Summary

In a previous paper we developed a general formalism for constructing classical time dependent solutions describing the rolling tachyon field on unstable D-branes in bosonic and superstring theories. We also analysed the boundary state associated with these solutions in bosonic string theory in some detail, and showed that the energy momentum tensor approaches a finite limiting value if we push the system towards a direction in which the tachyon potential has a minimum.

In this paper we carry out a detailed study of the energy momentum tensor for rolling tachyon solution in D-branes in bosonic string theory, as well as for unstable D-branes and brane-antibrane configurations in superstring theories. We conclude that in both cases the asymptotic form of the energy momentum tensor for large time is described by a pressureless gas with non-zero energy density. The energy density is stored in the open string fields, even though around the minimum of the tachyon potential there are no open string degrees of freedom.

The paper is organised as follows. In section 2 we review the procedure used for determining the energy momentum tensor in terms of boundary states following , and determine the expression for the energy momentum tensor for the rolling tachyon solution in bosonic string theory. In sections 3 and 4 we generalize this procedure to unstable D-branes in superstring theories. In both theories the energy density remains constant and the pressure approaches zero as the tachyon field rolls towards its minimum. In section 5 we give a description of this phenomenon using an effective field theory.

It will be interesting to see if this kind of tachyon matter system can play some role in cosmology; in particular if it could contribute to the dark matter in the universe. Also interesting is the question as to whether tachyon condensation in other kind of unstable brane systems (e.g. branes at angles) could give rise to other kind of matter, with different equation of state. Another relevant issue is the nature of supersymmetry breaking induced by the tachyon matter. Since the total energy of the tachyon matter is an adjustable parameter, determined by the initial position and velocity of the tachyon, the associated supersymmetry breaking scale will also be an adjustable parameter.

## 2 Analysis in Bosonic String Theory

A boundary state $`|`$ associated with a D-brane system in bosonic string theory is a closed string state of ghost number 3, defined as follows. For a closed string state $`|\psi _c`$ of ghost number 3 (which could be obtained for example by applying the operator $`(c_0\overline{c}_0)`$ on a physical closed string state of ghost number 2) $`|\psi _c`$ gives the one point function of the closed string vertex operator $`\psi _c`$ on the unit disk, with boundary condition appropriate to the particular D-brane system under consideration. The boundary state $`|`$ acts as a source for closed string fields; indeed it couples to the closed string field $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_c`$ of ghost number 2, satisfying $`(b_0\overline{b}_0)|\mathrm{\Psi }_c=0`$, through a term proportional to $`|(c_0\overline{c}_0)|\mathrm{\Psi }_c`$. To linearized order the equation of motion of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_c`$ in the presence of the D-brane system is given by:

$$(Q_B+\overline{Q}_B)|\mathrm{\Psi }_c=|,$$
(2.1)
where $`Q_B`$ and $`\overline{Q}_B`$ are the holomorphic and anti-holomorphic components of the BRST charge respectively. Since the closed string field includes the graviton modes, the boundary state $`|`$ contains information about the energy momentum tensor of the D-brane system. A simple way to determine the energy momentum tensor is to apply $`(Q_B+\overline{Q}_B)`$ on both sides of equation (2.1). This gives:

$$(Q_B+\overline{Q}_B)|=0.$$
(2.2)
This equation contains information about the conservation laws of the closed string source, in particular of the energy momentum tensor. To see how this comes about, let us consider the level (1,1) states111We shall measure level by taking $`(c_0+\overline{c}_0)c_1\overline{c}_1|k`$ to have level zero. in $`|`$ which are antisymmetric under the exchange of holomorphic and anti-holomorphic modes of matter and ghost fields (since the graviton state is anti-symmetric under such an exchange). The general form of this part of the boundary state is given by:

$$|_0d^{26}k[\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu \nu }(k)\alpha _1^\mu \overline{\alpha }_1^\nu +\stackrel{~}{B}(k)(b_1\overline{c}_1+\overline{b}_1c_1)](c_0+\overline{c}_0)c_1\overline{c}_1|k,$$
(2.3)
where $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu \nu }=\stackrel{~}{A}_{\nu \mu }`$, and $`\alpha _n^\mu `$, $`b_n`$, $`c_n`$, $`\overline{\alpha }_n^\mu `$, $`\overline{b}_n`$, $`\overline{c}_n`$ are various matter and ghost oscillators. The anti-symmetry of the state under left-right exchange comes from the anti-symmetry of $`c_1\overline{c}_1`$ under such an exchange. Although we have included integration over all 26 components of the momentum, depending on the D-brane configuration, the function $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ may have support only over a subspace of the 26-dimensional momentum space. In writing down (2.3) we have also used the condition that the boundary state is annihilated by $`(b_0\overline{b}_0)`$ and $`(c_0+\overline{c}_0)`$.

In the $`\alpha ^{}=1`$ unit, we have

$$(Q_B+\overline{Q}_B)|_0\sqrt{2}d^{26}k[k^\nu \stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu \nu }(k)+k_\mu \stackrel{~}{B}(k)](\overline{c}_1\alpha _1^\mu +c_1\overline{\alpha }_1^\mu )(c_0+\overline{c}_0)c_1\overline{c}_1|k,$$
(2.4)
If $`A_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ and $`B(x)`$ denote the Fourier transforms of $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ respectively, then the equation $`(Q_B+\overline{Q}_B)|_0=0`$ gives us:

$$^\nu (A_{\mu \nu }(x)+\eta _{\mu \nu }B(x))=0.$$
(2.5)
This shows that we should identify the conserved energy-momentum tensor as

$$T_{\mu \nu }(x)=K(A_{\mu \nu }(x)+\eta _{\mu \nu }B(x)),$$
(2.6)
where $`K`$ is an appropriate normalization constant.

We shall now focus on the rolling tachyon solution of ref.. For definiteness we focus on D-25-brane in flat space-time. For this system the boundary state $`|`$ is given by

$$||_{c=1}|_{c=25}|_{ghost},$$
(2.7)
Here $`|_{c=1}`$ is the boundary state associated with the boundary CFT involving the $`X^0`$ field, $`|_{c=25}`$ is the boundary state associated with the $`c=25`$ theory describing the flat space-like directions $`X^i`$ along which we have Neumann boundary condition, and $`|_{ghost}`$ is the boundary state associated with the ghost CFT. $`|_{c=25}`$ and $`|_{ghost}`$ are given by, respectively,

$$|_{c=25}\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n}\alpha _n^i\overline{\alpha }_n^i\right)|0,$$
(2.8)
and

$$|_{ghost}\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(\overline{b}_nc_n+b_n\overline{c}_n)\right)(c_0+\overline{c}_0)c_1\overline{c}_1|0.$$
(2.9)
Finally as shown in , the relevant part of $`|_{c=1}`$ is given by:

$$|_{c=1}[f(X^0(0)+\alpha _1^0\overline{\alpha }_1^0g(X^0(0))]|0,$$
(2.10)
where

$$f(x^0)=\frac{1}{1+e^{x^0}\mathrm{sin}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\pi )}+\frac{1}{1+e^{x^0}\mathrm{sin}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\pi )}1,$$
(2.11)
and,

$$g(x^0)=\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\pi )+1f(x^0).$$
(2.12)
$`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ is a parameter related to the initial displacement of the tachyon field. Putting these results together, collecting the level 1 states, and comparing the resulting expression with (2.3), we get

$$A_{00}(x)=g(x^0),A_{ij}(x)=f(x^0)\delta _{ij},B(x)=f(x^0).$$
(2.13)
Hence, from (2.6), we have

$$T_{00}=K(f(x^0)+g(x^0))=K(\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\pi )+1),$$
(2.14)
and

$$T_{0i}=0,T_{ij}=2Kf(x^0)\delta _{ij}.$$
(2.15)
The overall constant $`K`$ can be fixed by requiring that at $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=0`$ the energy density must agree with the D$`p`$-brane tension $`𝒯_p`$. This gives

$$K=\frac{1}{2}𝒯_p.$$
(2.16)
We see from (2.11) that for $`0<\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\pi /2`$, as $`x^0\mathrm{}`$, $`f(x^0)0`$. Thus $`T_{ij}0`$ and the system has zero pressure. On the other hand the energy density $`T_{00}`$ remains costant.

## 3 Generalization to Superstrings

We now generalize these results to the case of unstable D-branes or brane-antibrane system in superstring theory. The boundary state for a D-brane in superstring theory is defined in the same way as in the case of bosonic string. For determining the energy-momentum tensor we can focus our attention on the NS-NS sector of the boundary state. The ghost number and picture number conservation laws on the disk and the sphere can be used to conclude that the NS-NS sector boundary state $`|`$ in superstring theory has the form:

$$|=𝒪|\mathrm{\Omega },k.$$
(3.1)
Here $`𝒪`$ is a ghost number zero operator constructed from the bosonic and fermionic matter oscillators $`\alpha _n^\mu `$, $`\overline{\alpha }_n^\mu `$, $`\psi _n^\mu `$, $`\overline{\psi }_n^\mu `$, and oscillators of $`b`$, $`c`$, $`\overline{b}`$, $`\overline{c}`$ as well as the bosonic ghost fields $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$, $`\overline{\beta }`$, $`\overline{\gamma }`$. $`|\mathrm{\Omega },k`$ is the ghost number 3, picture number $`2`$ Fock vacuum with momentum $`k`$:

$$|\mathrm{\Omega },k=(c_0+\overline{c}_0)c_1\overline{c}_1e^{\varphi (0)}e^{\overline{\varphi }(0)}e^{ik.X(0)}|0,$$
(3.2)
where $`\varphi `$, $`\overline{\varphi }`$ are bosonized ghost fields. With such a $`|`$, $`|\psi _c`$ will be non-zero for a ghost number 3, picture number $`2`$ closed string vertex operator $`\psi _c`$, which are the correct quantum numbers for getting a non-zero one point function of $`\psi _c`$ on the disk. Since $`|\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is odd under both the left and the right moving GSO projection, and is symmetric under left-right exchange, the general level (1/2,1/2) GSO even contribution to the boundary state, anti-symmetric under left-right exchange, is given by:

$$|_0d^{10}k\left(\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu \nu }(k)\psi _{1/2}^\mu \overline{\psi }_{1/2}^\nu +\stackrel{~}{B}(k)(\overline{\beta }_{1/2}\gamma _{1/2}\beta _{1/2}\overline{\gamma }_{1/2})\right)|\mathrm{\Omega },k,$$
(3.3)
where $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu \nu }=\stackrel{~}{A}_{\nu \mu }`$. Requiring $`(Q_B+\overline{Q}_B)|_0=0`$ then gives:

$$k^\mu (\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu \nu }+\eta _{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{B})=0.$$
(3.4)
As in the case of bosonic string theory, this lets us identify the energy momentum tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ as:

$$T_{\mu \nu }(x)=K(A_{\mu \nu }(x)+B(x)\eta _{\mu \nu }),$$
(3.5)
for some constant $`K`$. Here $`A_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`B`$ are Fourier transforms of $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ respectively.

In section 4 we shall show that for the rolling tachyon solution on a D9 brane in type IIA or a D9-$`\overline{\mathrm{D}}`$9 brane in type IIB superstring theory, we have:

$$A_{00}(x)=g(x^0),A_{ij}(x)=f(x^0)\delta _{ij},B(x)=f(x^0),$$
(3.6)
where

$$f(x^0)=\frac{1}{1+e^{\sqrt{2}x^0}\mathrm{sin}^2(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\pi )}+\frac{1}{1+e^{\sqrt{2}x^0}\mathrm{sin}^2(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\pi )}1,$$
(3.7)
$$g(x^0)=\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\pi )+1f(x^0).$$
(3.8)
$`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$, as usual is the deformation parameter that labels the initial position of the tachyon field. Thus we have

$$T_{00}=K(g(x^0)+f(x^0))=K(\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\pi )+1),T_{ij}=2Kf(x^0)\delta _{ij},T_{0i}=0.$$
(3.9)
By requiring that at $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=0`$ $`T_{00}`$ is equal to the total tension of the brane system, the constant $`K`$ can be determined to be equal to half of the total tension of the brane system.

We see from (3.7) that for either sign of $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$, as $`x^0\mathrm{}`$, $`f(x^0)0`$. Thus we see again that in this limit $`T_{ij}`$ and hence the pressure vanishes, whereas the energy density remains constant at $`K(\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\pi )+1)`$.

## 4 Boundary State for Rolling Tachyon Solution in Superstrings

From general considerations, the NS-NS sector boundary state for the rolling tachyon solution in the case of superstring will be given by:

$$|=|,+|,,$$
(4.1)
where

$$|,ϵ|,ϵ_{X^0,\psi ^0}|,ϵ_{\stackrel{}{X},\stackrel{}{\psi }}|,ϵ_{ghost},ϵ=\pm .$$
(4.2)
Here $`(\stackrel{}{X},\stackrel{}{\psi })`$ stand for the CFT of the spacelike coordinates $`X^1,\mathrm{}X^9`$ and their fermionic partners $`\psi ^1,\mathrm{}\psi ^9,\overline{\psi }^1,\mathrm{}\overline{\psi }^9`$. Of the different factors appearing in (4.2), $`|,ϵ_{\stackrel{}{X},\stackrel{}{\psi }}`$ and $`|,ϵ_{ghost}`$ have the same form as on a static D9-brane:

$$|,ϵ_{\stackrel{}{X},\stackrel{}{\psi }}\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n}\alpha _n^j\overline{\alpha }_n^j\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(iϵ\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\psi _{n1/2}^j\overline{\psi }_{n1/2}^j\right)|0,$$
(4.3)
with sum over $`j`$ running from 1 to 9, and

$`|,ϵ_{ghost}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(\overline{b}_nc_n+b_n\overline{c}_n)\right)`$ (4.4)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left(iϵ{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(\overline{\beta }_{n1/2}\gamma _{n1/2}\beta _{n1/2}\overline{\gamma }_{n1/2})\right)|\mathrm{\Omega },`$
where

$$|\mathrm{\Omega }=(c_0+\overline{c}_0)c_1\overline{c}_1e^{\varphi (0)}e^{\overline{\varphi }(0)}|0.$$
(4.5)
We now need to determine $`|,ϵ_{X^0,\psi ^0}`$. We shall show that the part of $`|,ϵ_{X^0,\psi ^0}`$ which involves either no oscillators, or involves at most states created from pure momenmtum carrying states by the action of $`\psi _{1/2}^0\overline{\psi }_{1/2}^0`$ is proportional to:

$$(f(X^0(0))+iϵ\psi _{1/2}^0\overline{\psi }_{1/2}^0g(X^0(0)))|0,$$
(4.6)
where $`f`$ and $`g`$ are the same functions defined in eqs.(3.7), (3.8). Thus the net level $`(1/2,1/2)`$ contribution to the boundary state is given by, upto a constant of proportionality,

$$i\left[\psi _{1/2}^0\overline{\psi }_{1/2}^0g(X^0(0))\psi _{1/2}^j\overline{\psi }_{1/2}^jf(X^0(0))(\overline{\beta }_{1/2}\gamma _{1/2}\beta _{1/2}\overline{\gamma }_{1/2})f(X^0(0))\right]|\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(4.7)
Comparison of this with (3.3) immediately gives eq.(3.6).

Thus it remains to establish (4.6). We follow the approach of  to first study the boundary state in the Wick rotated theory $`X^0iX`$, $`\psi ^0i\psi `$, $`\overline{\psi }^0i\overline{\psi }`$ and inverse Wick rotate after obtaining the boundary state. We shall not attempt to determine this state completely, but only determine the part that corresponds to a linear combination of the Fock vaccum states $`|k`$ carrying $`X`$ momentum $`k`$, and states of the form $`\psi _{1/2}\overline{\psi }_{1/2}|k`$. These will be sufficient for establishing (4.6).

In the original theory we switch on a tachyon field proportional to $`\mathrm{cosh}(x^0/\sqrt{2})`$. In the Wick rotated theory this corresponds to a tachyon field proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}(x/\sqrt{2})`$. This gives rise to perturbation by a boundary term proportional to the integral of $`\psi \mathrm{sin}(X/\sqrt{2})\sigma _1`$ where $`\sigma _1`$ is an appropriate Chan-Paton factor. We have $`X_L=X_R`$, $`\psi =\overline{\psi }`$ at the boundary. As in  we fermionize the field $`X`$ through the relations:

$$XX_L+X_R,$$
(4.8)
$$e^{i\sqrt{2}X_R}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\xi +i\eta ),e^{i\sqrt{2}X_L}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\overline{\xi }+i\overline{\eta }),$$
(4.9)
where $`\xi ,\eta `$ are right-moving Majorana fermions and $`\overline{\xi }`$, $`\overline{\eta }`$ are left moving Majorana fermions.222In writing (4.9) we have ignored the cocycle factors. These could give rise to additional $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ independent phases in the final answer. However, since we shall determine these phases by an independent argument anyway, we shall not include the cocycle factors in our analysis. There is a natural SO(3) subgroup acting on $`\xi `$, $`\eta `$ and $`\psi `$. We shall for convenience identify $`\xi `$, $`\eta `$ and $`\psi `$ axis as 1, 2 and 3 axis respectively. The boundary perturbation by $`\psi \mathrm{sin}(X/\sqrt{2})=\psi \mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{2}X_R)`$ corresponds to perturbation by a term proportional to integral of $`\psi \eta `$.333We could also have chosen $`\overline{\psi }\overline{\eta }`$ since at the boundary $`(\xi ,\eta ,\psi )=(\overline{\xi },\overline{\eta },\overline{\psi })`$. The effect of this perturbation is an SO(3) rotation about the $`\xi `$ axis. We shall represent it by an SU(2) group element:444Note that the Chan-Paton factor $`\sigma _1`$ does not affect the NS-NS sector closed string vertex operator. In studying the effect of the deformation on one point function of closed string vertex operators, we could keep track of $`\sigma _1`$ by formally including it in the deformation parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$. Since the final answer will be even in $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$, we can formally expand the answer in a power series in $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ and then resum the series, and $`\sigma _1`$ drops out in this process.

$$R=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}(\pi \stackrel{~}{\lambda })& i\mathrm{sin}(\pi \stackrel{~}{\lambda })\\ i\mathrm{sin}(\pi \stackrel{~}{\lambda })& \mathrm{cos}(\pi \stackrel{~}{\lambda })\end{array}\right).$$
(4.10)
This corresponds to an SO(3) rotation angle of $`2\pi \stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$.

In order to determine the NS-NS sector boundary state of the perturbed theory, we need to compute one point function of closed string vertex operators in this perturbed theory.555We could use the result of ref. and reexpress the boundary state in terms of original coordinates, but we shall not do that here. This can be computed by simply rotating the closed string vertex operator by the SU(2) rotation $`R`$, and computing the resulting one point function in the unperturbed theory. First we focus on the part involving linear combinations of Fock vacuum. Since the boundary perturbation is periodic in $`X`$ with periodicity $`2\pi \sqrt{2}`$, we might expect that the boundary state will be a linear combination of states of momentum $`n/\sqrt{2}`$ with integer $`n`$. But the perturbation in fact has an additional symmetry $`X2\pi /\sqrt{2}`$, $`\psi \psi `$, $`\overline{\psi }\overline{\psi }`$. Since the fermionic oscillators $`\psi _n`$, $`\overline{\psi }_n`$ always appear in pairs in the NS-NS sector boundary state, and hence is invariant under this transformation, we can conclude that the boundary state is in fact built on states carrying momentum $`n\sqrt{2}`$ for integer $`n`$. Thus we can write the oscillator free part of the boundary state as:

$$\underset{n}{}\stackrel{~}{f}_n|k=n\sqrt{2},$$
(4.11)
where the sum over $`n`$ runs over all integers, and $`\stackrel{~}{f}_n`$ are coefficients to be determined. These are in fact proportional to the one point function of the closed string vertex operator $`e^{in\sqrt{2}X}`$ on the disk. In order to carry out this computation we need to study how the SU(2) rotation by $`R`$ affects this vertex operator. To determine this we note that as in , the $`e^{in\sqrt{2}X_R}`$ part of the state $`e^{in\sqrt{2}X}=e^{in\sqrt{2}(X_L+X_R)}`$ transforms in the $`(j=|n|,m=n)`$ representation of the SU(2) group, whereas the part $`e^{in\sqrt{2}X_L}`$ remains unchanged. Under rotation by $`R`$ this mixes with all the $`(j=|n|,m)`$ states in the representation, which can be represented as states created by combinations of $`X_R`$ and $`\psi `$ oscillators acting on $`e^{i\sqrt{2}(nX_L+mX_R)}(0)|0`$. However only the term proportional to $`(j=|n|,m=n)`$ state, represented by the vertex operator $`e^{in\sqrt{2}(X_LX_R)}`$, has a non-zero one point function, since in the unperturbed theory $`X`$ has Neumann boundary condition. The coefficient of the state $`(j=|n|,m=n)`$ under a rotation by $`R`$ of $`(j=|n|,m=n)`$ is given by $`D_{n,n}^{j=n}(R)`$, where $`D_{m,m^{}}^j(R)`$ is the spin $`j`$ representation matrix of $`R`$ in the $`J_z`$ eigenbasis. Thus we have:

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_n=D_{n,n}^{j=n}(R)e^{i\epsilon (n)},$$
(4.12)
where $`e^{i\epsilon (n)}`$ is a phase factor, appearing due to the fact that the choice of basis in which we compute $`D_{m,m^{}}^j(R)`$ may differ from the one we need by multiplicative phase factors, and also because we could get additional phases from various cocycle factors that we have ignored in fermionizing the boson $`X`$. We shall use the convention of  for $`D_{m,m^{}}^j(R)`$, which gives:

$$D_{n,n}^{j=|n|}(R)=D_{n,n}^{j=|n|}(R)=(i\mathrm{sin}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\pi ))^{2|n|}=(1)^n\mathrm{sin}^{2|n|}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\pi ).$$
(4.13)
Thus we get the component of $`|,ϵ_{X,\psi }`$ involving only momentum states to be proportional to

$$\left[1+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^n\mathrm{sin}^{2n}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\pi )\{e^{i\epsilon (n)}e^{i\sqrt{2}nX(0)}+e^{i\epsilon (n)}e^{i\sqrt{2}nX(0)}\}\right]|0$$
(4.14)
where we have chosen $`\epsilon (0)=0`$. According to , for $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=1/2`$ this should reproduce the boundary state for an infinite array of D-branes with Dirichlet boundary condition along $`X`$, placed at the zeroes of the tachyon field $`T(x)\mathrm{cos}(x/\sqrt{2})`$, i.e. at $`x=\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{2}}(n+\frac{1}{2})`$.666Actually these are alternatively D-branes and anti-D-branes, but the NSNS sector boundary state is insensitive to this difference. It is easy to check that this happens provided we choose $`\epsilon (n)=0`$.

After inverse Wick rotation $`XiX^0`$, and setting $`\epsilon (n)=0`$, we get the oscillator free part of the boundary state to be proportional to:

$$f(X^0(0))|0,$$
(4.15)
where

$`f(x^0)`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^n\mathrm{sin}^{2n}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\pi )(e^{n\sqrt{2}x^0}+e^{n\sqrt{2}x^0})`$ (4.16)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+e^{\sqrt{2}x^0}\mathrm{sin}^2(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\pi )}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+e^{\sqrt{2}x^0}\mathrm{sin}^2(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\pi )}}1.`$
This gives eq.(3.7).

We now turn to the computation of $`g(x^0)`$. Instead of doing a full computation, we shall use a trick, and that is to use eq.(3.9) and energy conservation to conclude that $`f(x^0)+g(x^0)`$ must be conserved. Thus we must have:

$$g(x^0)=Cf(x^0),$$
(4.17)
where $`C`$ is an $`x^0`$ independent constant to be determined. We compute $`C`$ by examining the power series expansion of $`g`$ and $`f`$ in powers of $`e^{\pm \sqrt{2}x^0}`$, and comparing the constant term on the two sides of eq.(4.17).

The constant term in $`f`$ is 1, as seen from eq.(4.16). Eq.(4.17) then tells us that the constant term in $`g`$ is given by $`C1`$. From eq.(4.6) we see that the coefficient of the $`\psi _{1/2}^0\overline{\psi }_{1/2}^0|0`$ term (relative to the coefficient of $`|0`$) in the expression for $`|,ϵ_{X^0,\psi ^0}`$ is given by $`iϵ(C1)`$. Thus after Wick rotation, the coefficient of $`\psi _{1/2}\overline{\psi }_{1/2}|0`$ in $`|,ϵ_{X,\psi }`$ will be $`iϵ(C1)`$. Hence to compute $`C`$, we need to compute the one point function of the closed string state $`\psi _{1/2}\overline{\psi }_{1/2}|0`$ on the disk in the perturbed theory and equate it to $`iϵ(C1)`$. In the unperturbed theory $`|,ϵ_{X,\psi }`$ is proportional to $`\mathrm{exp}(iϵ\psi _{1/2}\overline{\psi }_{1/2})|0`$, and hence this one point function is given by $`iϵ`$. Since the effect of the perturbation is an SO(3) rotation by angle $`2\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\pi `$ on the $`(\psi ,\eta )`$ system without changing $`\xi `$, this converts $`\psi _{1/2}\overline{\psi }_{1/2}|0`$ to $`(\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \stackrel{~}{\lambda })\psi _{1/2}+\mathrm{sin}(2\pi \stackrel{~}{\lambda })\eta _{1/2})\overline{\psi }_{1/2}|0`$. Thus we now need to compute the one point function of this in the unperturbed theory. Of this the one point function of $`\eta _{1/2}\overline{\psi }_{1/2}|0`$ vanishes. On the other hand, as already mentioned, the one point function of $`\psi _{1/2}\overline{\psi }_{1/2}|0`$ is $`iϵ`$. Thus we get

$$iϵ(C1)=iϵ\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \stackrel{~}{\lambda }).$$
(4.18)
This gives

$$C=1+\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \stackrel{~}{\lambda }).$$
(4.19)
Using eqs.(4.17) and (4.19) we recover (3.8).

The tachyon perturbation proportional to $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\mathrm{cosh}(x^0/\sqrt{2})`$ that we have analyzed here represents a system with total energy less than the tension of the unstable D-brane. If we want to consider systems with total energy larger than that of the unstable D-brane, we need to consider a tachyon configuration proportional to $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\mathrm{sinh}(x^0/\sqrt{2})`$. This can be obtained from the previous background by the replacement $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }i\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$, $`x^0x^0+i\pi /\sqrt{2}`$. Making these replacements in (4.16) we get

$$f(x^0)=\frac{1}{1+e^{\sqrt{2}x^0}\mathrm{sinh}^2(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\pi )}+\frac{1}{1+e^{\sqrt{2}x^0}\mathrm{sinh}^2(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\pi )}1$$
(4.20)
Thus $`f(x^0)`$ still vanishes as $`x^0\mathrm{}`$ and the system evolves to a pressureless gas.

Finally we note that we have focussed our attention only on the NS-NS sector of the boundary state since this is the part that carries information about the energy momentum tensor. Analysis of the RR sector of the boundary state may yield other important informations as in the analysis of .

## 5 Effective Field Theory Analysis

In this section we shall give a description of the phenomenon observed in the earlier sections using an effective field theory.777I wish to thank B. Zwiebach for asking pertinent questions which led to this analysis. The effective action for the tachyon field $`T`$ on a D-$`p`$-brane that we shall be using is the one proposed in :

$$Sd^{p+1}xV(T)\sqrt{detA},$$
(5.1)
where

$$A_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+_\mu T_\nu T.$$
(5.2)
The tachyon potential $`V(T)`$ has a maximum at $`T=0`$ and a minimum at $`T=T_0`$ where it vanishes. The relevant aspects of this model have been discussed in . The energy momentum tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ obtained from this action is:

$$T_{\mu \nu }V(T)\sqrt{detA}(A^1)_{\mu \nu }.$$
(5.3)
We now restrict to spatially homogeneous time dependent solutions for which $`_iT=0`$. Thus we have:

$$A_{00}=1+(_0T)^2,A_{ij}=\delta _{ij}detA=1+(_0T)^2,$$
(5.4)
$$(A^1)_{00}=(1+(_0T)^2)^1,(A^1)_{ij}=\delta _{ij},$$
(5.5)
and hence

$$T_{00}V(T)(1(_0T)^2)^{1/2},T_{ij}V(T)(1(_0T)^2)^{1/2}\delta _{ij},T_{i0}=0.$$
(5.6)
Since $`T_{00}`$ is conserved, we see from this that for a solution with fixed energy, as $`T`$ approaches the minimum $`T_0`$ of the potential where $`V(T_0)=0`$, $`_0T`$ must approach its critical value 1. This, in turn makes $`T_{ij}`$ vanish in this limit. This is precisely what we have observed in the more rigorous boundary state analysis.

Note however that since $`_0T`$ approaches a finite constant 1, in this parametrization the minimum $`T_0`$ of the potential must be at infinity. Otherwise $`T`$ will approach $`T_0`$ in a finite time.

Acknowledgement: I would like to thank B. Zwiebach for many useful discussions and comments on the manuscript. This work was supported in part by a grant from the Eberly College of Science of the Penn State University.