text:
# Search for Three-Nucleon Force Effects in Two-Body Photodisintegration of 3He (3H) and in the Time Reversed Proton-Deuteron Radiative Capture Process

## I Introduction

Three-nucleon (3N) forces come more and more into the focus of few-nucleon studies. Pure 3N continuum measurements at the accelerator facilities IUCF , KVI , RIKEN  and RCNP  are performed around 100-200 MeV nucleon laboratory energies with the aim to confront data to theoretical predictions based on modern high-precision nucleon-nucleon (NN) forces only . Clear-cut discrepancies for certain 3N observables against all those predictions can be considered to be good candidates for 3N force (3NF) effects. Thereby the theoretical investigations are based on numerically precise solutions of the 3N Faddeev equations. Then adding present day 3NF models and comparing to those data one tries to explore their strength and spin structure . Right now these 3NF models are the 2$`\pi `$-exchange Tucson Melbourne (TM) , a modified version thereof, TM’ , which is closer to chiral symmetry, and the Urbana IX  forces. Another path to learn about 3NF’s is the study of the low lying spectra of light nuclei as performed in Greens function Monte Carlo calculations . The inclusion of 3$`\pi `$-exchange ring diagrams with intermediate $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s on top of the Urbana IX 3NF appears to be rather promising to improve the theoretical description of the spectra . In all those investigations there is clear evidence found that present day NN forces alone fail to describe many of the studied observables and adding the presently available three- nucleon force models moves theory in the right direction.

A recent approach towards nuclear dynamics is based on chiral perturbation theory, which is closely linked to QCD and develops nuclear forces in a systematic and controlled manner . In that scheme which treats multi- pion exchanges explicitly and incorporates short range processes in the form of contact forces of increasing chiral dimensions also 3N forces are predicted and this consistently to NN forces. In  it has been demonstrated that like in the conventional approaches mentioned above 3N forces are unavoidable to predict binding energies of three- and four- nucleon nuclei as well as to remove discrepancies in certain 3N scattering observables.

Electromagnetically induced reactions in the 3N system should also show effects of 3NF’s. Since both 3N bound and scattering states enter into the nuclear matrix elements for photon induced processes and both types of states are affected by 3N forces it would be surprising if the various response functions for these reactions would be unaffected. In principle just by the continuity equation 3N forces lead also unavoidably to 3N currents. It is a quantitative question based on current choices of nuclear force models to reveal signatures by switching on and off 3N forces. If certain observables are linked to binding energies and if all modern NN forces including the most recent ones based on chiral perturbation theory are unable to predict the experimental bound state energies but the inclusion of 3N forces is, we leave it to the reader to decide whether the changes in those observables are called 3N force effects or just binding effects. Apparently under these circumstances both are tightly bound together. It is only with oversimplified toy model NN forces which do not describe the rich NN data set that possibly experimental bound state energies can be achieved. Conclusions based on those models should be taken with caution. The search for three- nucleon force effects in electromagnetically induced processes has been started before. For recent references see . It is the aim of this paper to investigate the nucleon-deuteron (Nd) photodisintegration of 3He and 3H as well as the time reversed proton-deuteron (pd) capture process using modern NN forces and various 3NF models.

The single nucleon current operator is supplemented by exchange currents either in the form of the Siegert approximation or by explicitly including MEC’s of the $`\pi `$\- and $`\rho `$-like nature. The treatment is carried through nonrelativistically, though presumably some of the data that we analyze, require at least relativistic corrections.

Two-body photodisintegration of 3He (3H) has a long history. Barbour and Phillips  found that the incorporation of the interacting 3N continuum is crucial for the understanding of that process. They solved the 3N Faddeev equations, at that time of course based on simple finite rank forces. This was taken up again more consistently by Gibson and Lehman  treating the 3N bound state and the final 3N continuum on equal footing. More recently the Bonn group  used more modern NN forces represented in finite rank form. They analyzed quite a few data and pointed out a correlation of a certain cross section peak height with the triton binding energy, an issue which we shall also address but now in the context of 3NF effects. All the work mentioned relied on the Siegert approximation. The current was restricted to the dominant $`E_1`$ multipole  or to the $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ multipoles . In a recent paper  a benchmark was set on the total 3N photodisintegration cross section. There two quite different approaches, the Faddeev one and a hyperspherical harmonic expansion together with the Lorentz integral transform method were compared to each other using AV18 together with Urbana IX and reached a very good agreement. This documents the technical maturity of advanced present day approaches.

Also for the pd capture process many experimental and theoretical studies have been performed in the past. We refer to  for references. Specifically we want to point to the theoretical investigations by Schadow et al. , Fonseca and Lehman  and to recent studies at very low energies by Viviani et al. .

The present investigation is restricted to nucleon- deuteron fragmentations in relation to 3He (3H) and we refer to a forthcoming study for 3N fragmentations.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we briefly review our formalism and the dynamical ingredients. Our results for Nd photodisintegration are presented in Sec. III together with available data. The pd capture observables are discussed in Sec. IV. We summarize in Sec. V.

## II Formalism

We evaluated photodisintegration and pd capture before in  and , always using Faddeev-like integral equations. In  we formulated pd capture based on NN forces alone. There the Faddeev-like integral equation is identical to the one for Nd scattering. This is because in pd capture the 3N scattering state $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(+)}`$ enters directly. On the other hand in 3He photodisintegration the 3N scattering state $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{()}`$ is involved like in electrodisintegration of 3He. The way to derive Faddeev-like integral equations in the latter cases is to apply the adjoint Moeller wave operator entering the nuclear matrix element to the right, namely onto the electromagnetic current operator and the 3He bound state . This has the very big advantage that the driving term of that Faddeev-type integral equation is fully connected, namely proportional to the 3He bound state. Because of the formal identity of the nuclear matrix elements for photodisintegration and electron induced processes the same Faddeev-like integral equation is applicable. In the two cases only the components of the current operator in the driving term have to be chosen appropriately. Now using time reversal symmetry one can relate the matrix elements for pd capture and photodisintegration, which are evaluated quite differently. This is a highly nontrivial numerical test for the various complex numerical steps involved.

In  we added a 3NF in the evaluation of the pd capture process and applied it to cross sections and several spin observables. The formalism was straightforward since we could use directly the Faddeev-like integral equation for Nd scattering including 3N forces as derived in . In the same paper  we compared Siegert approximation to the explicit use of a restricted but possibly dominant set of mesonic exchange currents.

Now for two- and three-body photodisintegration we would also like to formulate an extension including 3N forces. We shall proceed as follows. The nuclear matrix element for Nd-photodisintegration of a 3N bound state has the following form

$`N_\tau ^{\mathrm{Nd}}\mathrm{\Psi }_\stackrel{}{q}^{()}j_\tau (\stackrel{}{Q})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{bound}},`$ (1)
where $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ is the asymptotic relative momentum between the proton and the deuteron, and $`j_\tau (\stackrel{}{Q})`$ is the component of the 3N current operator. The scattering state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\stackrel{}{q}^{()}`$ can be Faddeev decomposed

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_\stackrel{}{q}^{()}=\psi _\stackrel{}{q}^{()}(1+P),`$ (2)
where $`P`$, according to our standard notation , is the sum of a cyclical and anticyclical permutation. The Faddeev amplitude $`\psi _\stackrel{}{q}^{()}`$ obeys the Faddeev equation

$`\psi _\stackrel{}{q}^{()}=\varphi _\stackrel{}{q}+\psi _\stackrel{}{q}^{()}\left(PtG_0+(1+P)V_4^{(1)}G_0(tG_0+1)\right).`$ (3)
Here the channel state $`\varphi _\stackrel{}{q}`$ enters, which is a product of a deuteron wave function and a momentum eigenstate of the remaining nucleon, the NN t-operator $`t`$ acting on nucleons 2 and 3, the free 3N propagator $`G_0`$, the permutation operator $`P`$ and $`V_4^{(1)}`$, the part of a 3N force, which singles out particle 1. For our notation see  and .

Using Eqs. (1), (2) and (3) we can write the nuclear matrix element as

$`N_\tau ^{\mathrm{Nd}}=\varphi _\stackrel{}{q}(1K)^1(1+P)j_\tau (\stackrel{}{Q})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{bound}},`$ (4)
where $`K`$ is the kernel of the integral equation (3). We introduce

$`U(1K)^1(1+P)j_\tau (\stackrel{}{Q})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{bound}}`$ (5)
or explicitly the integral equation

$`U=(1+P)j_\tau (\stackrel{}{Q})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{bound}}+\left(PtG_0+(1+P)V_4^{(1)}G_0(tG_0+1)\right)U.`$ (6)
This form is not yet suitable for numerical applications because of the presence of $`P`$ to the very left. This has already been noted at the very beginning of our numerical 3N studies using nuclear forces without finite rank representations . To rewrite Eq. (6) into a suitable form we use the following obvious identities

$`(1+P)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}P(1+P)`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}P(P1)=1`$ (8)
and obtain

$`(P1)U=(P1)(1+P)j_\tau (\stackrel{}{Q})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{bound}}+`$ (9)
$`(P1)P\left(tG_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+P)V_4^{(1)}G_0(tG_0+1)\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}P(P1)U.`$ (10)
This Faddeev-like integral equation is suitable for numerical implementations and has the form

$`\stackrel{~}{U}=(1+P)j_\tau (\stackrel{}{Q})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{bound}}+`$ (11)
$`\left(tG_0P+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+P)V_4^{(1)}G_0(tG_0+1)P\right)\stackrel{~}{U}`$ (12)
with

$`\stackrel{~}{U}(P1)U.`$ (13)
Then the nuclear matrix element results as

$`N_\tau ^{\mathrm{Nd}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi _\stackrel{}{q}P\stackrel{~}{U}.`$ (14)
In view of a forthcoming paper we also describe now the treatment of the complete 3N break-up process. The nuclear matrix element is

$`N_\tau ^{3\mathrm{N}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}}^{()}j_\tau (\stackrel{}{Q})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{bound}}.`$ (15)
The asymptotic momenta of the three nucleons are given by standard Jacobi momenta $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ . The Faddeev amplitude corresponding to the scattering state in Eq. (15) is now defined via

$`\psi _{\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}}^{()}=^{()}\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}+\psi _{\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}}^{()}K,`$ (16)
where $`K`$ is the same kernel as used before in Eq. (3) and

$`{}_{}{}^{()}\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}\varphi _0(tG_0+1).`$ (17)
It is to be noted that the free two-body subsystem state in $`\varphi _0`$ is properly antisymmetrized. Here $`\varphi _0`$ is the free 3N state. Following the same steps as above one ends up with

$`N_\tau ^{3\mathrm{N}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi _0(tG_0+1)P\stackrel{~}{U},`$ (18)
where $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ is as given above.

In the actual numerical calculation we used, however, another form, which for the purpose of completeness, we would also like to present here. The reason for that is that at the time of the installation, the very heavy numerical tasks were more easily performed with already existing building blocks. That alternative forms are for the Nd-break up

$`N_\tau ^{\mathrm{Nd}}=\varphi _\stackrel{}{q}(1+P)j_\tau (\stackrel{}{Q})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{bound}}+\varphi _\stackrel{}{q}PU^{}`$ (19)
and for the 3N break up

$`N_\tau ^{3\mathrm{N}}=\varphi _0(1+P)j_\tau (\stackrel{}{Q})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{bound}}+\varphi _0tG_0(1+P)j_\tau (\stackrel{}{Q})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{bound}}+`$ (20)
$`\varphi _0PU^{}+\varphi _0tG_0PU^{}.`$ (21)
The Faddeev-like integral equation for $`U^{}`$ reads then

$`U^{}=\left(tG_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+P)V_4^{(1)}G_0(tG_0+1)\right)(1+P)j_\tau (\stackrel{}{Q})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{bound}}+`$ (22)
$`\left(tG_0P+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+P)V_4^{(1)}G_0(tG_0+1)P\right)U^{}.`$ (23)
The equivalence between the matrix elements (14) and (18) on the one hand and (19) and (21) on the other hand is demonstrated as follows. From Eqs. (12) and (23) we have

$`\stackrel{~}{U}U^{}=`$ (24)
$`(1K)^1((1+P)j_\tau (\stackrel{}{Q})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{bound}}tG_0(1+P)j_\tau (\stackrel{}{Q})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{bound}}`$ (25)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+P)V_4^{(1)}G_0(tG_0+1)(1+P)j_\tau (\stackrel{}{Q})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{bound}})=`$ (26)
$`(1K)^1\left(1tG_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+P)V_4^{(1)}G_0(tG_0+1)\right)(1+P)j_\tau (\stackrel{}{Q})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{bound}}.`$ (27)
Using again Eq. (7) and the form of the kernel $`K`$ this is

$`\stackrel{~}{U}U^{}=`$ (28)
$`(1K)^1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(P1+1K)(1+P)j_\tau (\stackrel{}{Q})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{bound}}=`$ (29)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1K)^1(P1)(1+P)j_\tau (\stackrel{}{Q})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{bound}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+P)j_\tau (\stackrel{}{Q})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{bound}}=`$ (30)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1K)^1(1+P)j_\tau (\stackrel{}{Q})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{bound}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+P)j_\tau (\stackrel{}{Q})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{bound}}`$ (31)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{U}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+P)j_\tau (\stackrel{}{Q})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{bound}}.`$ (32)
Thus

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{U}U^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+P)j_\tau (\stackrel{}{Q})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{bound}}.`$ (33)
Now it is a simple task to verify that the two expressions for the 3N break-up amplitude (16) and (18) are identical. This is also true for the two Nd break-up amplitudes (12) and (17). It is efficient to evaluate also the pd capture process using time reversal in terms of the formalism just described. This is what we do in this paper.

## III Results for pd (nd) Photodisintegration of 3He (3H).

We use the AV18 NN force  combined with the Urbana IX 3N force . By construction that force combination describes the 3H binding energy correctly. It overbinds however slightly the 3He bound state energy by 21 keV . For the convenience of the reader we cite the theoretical binding energies : -7.628 MeV for 3H and AV18 alone, -8.48 by construction including Urbana IX, -6.917 MeV for 3He and AV18 together with the Coulomb force and -7.739 MeV including in addition Urbana IX. The latter value is to be compared to the experimental value -7.718 MeV which is slightly different, but this should be of no significance for the present studies. Unfortunately we are still unable to include the Coulomb force into the pd continuum, which causes an inconsistency of unknown magnitude. Of course at least for the higher energies studied in this paper we expect minor Coulomb force effects as it is supported by pure pd scattering investigations . Our calculations are fully converged by choosing total two- nucleon angular momenta up to $`j_{\mathrm{max}}`$=3 and total 3N angular momenta up to $`J_{\mathrm{max}}`$= 15/2. It turned out to be sufficient to keep the 3N force different from zero for total 3N angular momenta up to $`J`$= 7/2. The standard nonrelativistic form of the single nucleon current operator  is supplemented by exchange currents via the Siegert approximation. We use it in the form as detailed in . In our treatment electric and magnetic multipoles are kept to a very high order (6–7) and no long wave length approximation is used. Both ingredients are important as has been shown for instance in . The formalism is performed throughout in momentum space. As is well known the Siegert approach corrects for many body currents only in the electric multipoles. Available models for two- body currents should then be added for the magnetic multipoles. This, however, is not yet included in this work. On the other hand we also use explicit exchange currents of the $`\pi `$\- and $`\rho `$\- like type consistent to the AV18 NN force. Again this is not yet a complete approach since further pieces in the AV18 NN force have no counterparts in two-body currents which would be also required to fulfill the continuity equation. This needs further investigations , though the expectations are that with the $`\pi `$\- and $`\rho `$\- like parts the dominant currents are taken into account. If the continuity equation would be fulfilled in relation to all parts of AV18 the Siegert approach with respect to the electric multipoles would be essentially equivalent to these explicit MEC’s (except of additional 3N force effects included in the Siegert approach and less important terms of higher multipolarities, see ). Our aim here is not to forward the theory of the electromagnetic current operator but to apply what is often called ” the standard model of nuclear physics” to the complex 2-body photodisintegration or pd capture processes, which has not been done before to the best of our knowledge.

We show in Fig.1 the angular distribution for pd photodisintegration of 3He against the angle between the outgoing deuteron and the incoming photon direction in the laboratory system. The photon energies $`E_\gamma `$ vary between 10 and 140 MeV. At the two lower energies the cross section maximum is decreased by adding the 3NF. A related effect has been seen before in  using different NN forces. Thereby it was found, that with increasing binding energy the value of the maximum decreased. This can be considered as a scaling behavior with the 3N binding energy. It ceases to be valid for the higher energies, where the results including the 3N force overtake the ones without. At about $`E_\gamma `$= 28 MeV the 3N force effects for the process $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}(\gamma ,d)p`$ in that observable vanish. In relation to that scaling at low energies one can ask the question whether the 3N force contributions in the continuum are critical for that result. To that aim we performed calculations where we switched off the 3N force in the continuum but kept it in the 3He bound state. Thereby the 3He binding energy did not change. (Note this is not a consistent calculation and necessarily induces spurious effects). The effect is a decrease of the cross section of about $`16\%`$ at Eγ=100 MeV in relation to the difference of the results when the 3N force is dropped totally. At Eγ=10 MeV the presence or absence of the 3NF in the continuum had only a very tiny effect. Nevertheless we would like to repeat that the correct binding energy could only be achieved by adding the 3NF to the current most modern NN forces. In  energy weighted sum rules for the A=3 photodisintegration cross sections based on the electric dipole operator have been investigated. They link the energy dependence of the cross section through the integrals to expectation values of the ground state wavefunctions, which are affected by the 3N forces and consequently depend on the binding energy. It appears worthwhile to check the assumptions and approximations in  from the point of view of present day forces, wavefunctions and currents.

Have these effects already been seen in some data? We are aware of cross section data at the deuteron laboratory and c.m. angles of 90  as a function of $`E_\gamma `$. They are shown in Fig. 2 in comparison to our theoretical results. We see the crossing of the theoretical curves without and with 3NF’s around 25 MeV and indeed the data support the decrease of the cross section at lower energy values as predicted by including the 3NF. At higher energies the effects of the 3NF appear to be somewhat too strong in case of the Ticcioni et al. data . It is possible that the overshooting of the theory at the lowest energies is partially due to the neglection of the pd Coulomb force effects in the continuum. Precise new data would be very welcome.

For $`E_\gamma `$= 120 MeV and higher photon energies we are aware of another set of data for that process . The deuteron laboratory angle is 103  now. In this case the addition of the 3NF is clearly supported by the data. This is shown in Fig. 3. In this case we used the explicit $`\pi `$\- and $`\rho `$\- like MEC’s since the energies are higher and Siegert as a low energy approximation is less suited.

There are also total nd and pd cross section data for the processes $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{H}(\gamma ,d)n`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}(\gamma ,d)p`$. We show them in Figs. 4 and 5 based on the Siegert approach. Clearly the old data for the nd cross section have too big error bars to be conclusive. In the case of the pd cross section the inclusion of the 3NF’s deteriorates the agreement somewhat for the low photon energies. The nd cross section data have been displayed before in .

Summarizing, the comparison with the angular distribution data appears to be in qualitative agreement. New improved data would be welcome and a more refined treatment of two-body currents is required.

In order to provide information on the dependence of the cross sections on the choice of forces and currents we display in Table I results for the total two-body photodisintegration cross section of 3He (3H) at three energies. At 12 MeV we see 5 % (10 %) spreads with (without) 3NF’s. At the higher energies the spreads are negligible which points to a certain stability of the results and helps to identify 3N force effects. Precise data, however, would be required.

## IV pd Capture Cross Sections

In Ref.  cross sections and spin observables for pd capture have been investigated at proton laboratory energies $`E_p`$ between 5 and 200 MeV (corresponding to deuteron laboratory energies $`E_d`$ between 10 and 400 MeV). The emphasis was on testing the sensitivity of pd capture observables to changes in the choice of NN forces and to compare the predictions of the Siegert approximation to the ones including explicitly $`\pi `$\- and $`\rho `$-like MEC’s. Please note as pointed out above that both approaches in the way we treat them are approximate and therefore the comparison is more of qualitative nature. We found that at low energies Siegert and MEC predictions are rather close together, whereas at the higher energies differences showed up. In the context of the Siegert approach the predictions based on different NN forces turned out to be rather close together, which is a satisfactory result, since it demonstrates stability. The agreement with the data was mostly good, but also clear discrepancies were present, which call for an improvement of the dynamical input. It is the aim of this paper to include 3NF’s, which in the previous work were only marginally investigated.

In the following we show our results for cross sections between $`E_d`$= 19.8 MeV and $`E_d`$= 400 MeV. In all of the following figures four theoretical curves are displayed. They are based on the Siegert approach, the single nucleon current together with explicit $`\pi `$\- and $`\rho `$-like MEC’s consistent to the NN force, the Siegert with 3NF and MEC‘s with 3NF. Let us denote these four choices by a, b, a’ and b’, for short.

We see in Fig. 6 the pd capture cross section at $`E_d`$ = 19.8 MeV. In both cases, Siegert and explicit MEC’s, the inclusion of the 3NF decreases the cross section; in case of Siegert the decrease is much stronger. The choices a’, b and b’ are well within the error bars and only a is significantly too high. At $`E_d`$ = 95 MeV the cross section data are fairly well described by all four choices. This is displayed in Fig. 7. As already seen in the Nd photodisintegration the theoretical cross section increases by including 3NF’s. This is in agreement with our findings for pd capture .

Finally we show the cross sections for $`E_p`$= 100, 150 and 200 MeV (corresponding to $`E_d`$= 200, 300 and 400 MeV) in Fig. 8. The cases with the explicit MEC’s and 3N forces (b’) describe the data best (except for small angles). The choice a clearly underpredicts the maxima.

## V Summary and Conclusions

We presented the formalisms for including 3NF’s into the Faddeev framework for photodisintegration of three nucleon bound states. The resulting equations are solved rigorously using high precision nuclear forces: AV18 together with the Urbana IX 3NF or CD Bonn with TM 3NF. Many-body currents are included either in the form of $`\pi `$\- and $`\rho `$-like exchanges related to AV18 or via the Siegert approach where the latter corrects only electric multipoles for many body currents and the former does not include all two-body currents consistent to AV18 (in the sense of fulfilling the continuity equation). Thus both ways of going beyond the single nucleon current are approximate but currently used in the literature. The calculations are nonrelativistic but employ state of the art dynamics. We posed several questions. How well do the Siegert approach and the explicit use of the $`\pi `$\- and $`\rho `$-like MEC’s compare with each other ? Our results displayed for pd capture show differences between the two approaches which calls for improvements either by adding two-body currents for the magnetic multipoles in the Siegert approach or by adding at least the currents beyond the $`\pi `$\- and $`\rho `$-like parts required for the consistency to AV18. Qualitatively, however, the two approaches give similar results.

Another even more central question in that paper was to shed light on possible 3NF effects. In case of pd photodisintegration of 3He we compared theoretical predictions without and with a 3NF. We found a clear signature in adding the 3NF. The maxima are decreased at low energies and increased at high energies. The turning point is around Eγ=28 MeV. At the low energies this can be considered as a scaling effect with the 3He binding energy but one has to note that based on present day NN forces the 3He binding energy can only be achieved if a 3NF is added. These 3N force effects up to about 60 MeV are too small to be verified by the presently available data. However at the lower energies Eγ about 10 MeV our theoretical predictions including 3N forces are clearly too high which might be due to the neglected Coulomb force in the continuum. At the higher energies E$`{}_{\gamma }{}^{}120`$MeV the effects are larger and qualitatively supported by the data. One should, however, be aware that beyond the $`\pi `$-threshold we certainly leave the validity of our nonrelativistic framework. In case of the pd capture at the higher energies, Eγ=100 MeV and above, explicit use of MEC’s together with the 3N force model shows a tendency to move theory better towards the data than without 3N forces. The failure at the smaller angles shows however that some ingredients are missing. Overall we demonstrated that 3NF’s can be incorporated into such a complex 3N reaction process and effects are visible related to the models used. An improved theoretical treatment of many-body currents and more precise data are needed to achieve a clearer view towards 3N force effects.

Altogether the shifts caused by the Urbana IX 3NF on top of the AV18 NN force and explicit MEC’s is supported by most of the data we analyzed. The Siegert approach is less successful. The use of other force combinations as exemplified in the total two-body photodisintegration cross section does not lead to alarming variations. High quality data would be very helpful to challenge theory more strongly.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (H.K., A.N. and J.G.), the Polish Committee for Scientific Research under Grants No. 2P03B02818 and 2P03B05622 and by the NSF under Grant # PHY0070858. W.G. would like to thank the Foundation for Polish Science for the financial support during his stay in Cracow. R.S. thanks the Foundation for Polish Science for financial support. The numerical calculations have been performed on the Cray T90 and T3E of the NIC in Jülich, Germany.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The Hamiltonian light-front ($`LF`$) formalism is one of the most popular techniques developed to treat relativistic bound states of systems containing a fixed number of constituents . The $`LF`$ formalism is characterized by the fact that it maximizes the dimension of the subgroup of kinematical (interaction free) generators of the Poincarè group. As a matter of facts, the interaction term appears only in three out of the ten Poincarè generators, namely in the ”minus” component of the four-momentum ($`P^{}P^0P^z`$) and in the two transverse rotations about the $`x`$ and $`y`$ axes, with the null-plane being defined by $`x^+=t+z=0`$.

Hamiltonian $`LF`$ quantum models have been widely used for the investigation of hadronic form factors, like, e.g., the electroweak form factors of mesons and baryons within the framework of the constituent quark picture of hadrons, or the elastic electromagnetic ($`e.m.`$) form factors of the deuteron viewed as a composite two-nucleon system. A relevant issue is to know to what extent the response of a composite system can be understood in terms of the properties of its constituents. To this end the one-body approximation for the current operator has been extensively considered. In case of spin-$`1/2`$ constituents and for the $`e.m.`$ current operator, which are of interest in this work, one has

$`J^\mu J_{(1)}^\mu ={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\left[f_1^{(j)}(q^2)\gamma ^\mu +f_2^{(j)}(q^2){\displaystyle \frac{i\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q_\nu }{2m_j}}\right],`$ (1)
where $`q^2=qq`$ is the squared four-momentum transferred to the system and $`f_{1(2)}^{(j)}`$ is the Dirac(Pauli) form factors of the $`j`$-th constituent with mass $`m_j`$. In this paper we will limit ourselves to space-like $`q`$ (i.e., $`q^2<0`$).

While the full current $`J^\mu `$ is covariant with respect to the (interaction dependent) transverse rotations, its one-body approximation (1) is not, and the most direct manifestation of the loss of the rotational covariance is the so-called angular condition. Indeed, it is well known  that all the form factors appearing in the covariant decomposition of a conserved current can be expressed in terms of the matrix elements of only one component of the current, namely the plus component $`J^+J^0+J^z`$. It may occur however that the number of form factors is less than the number of independent matrix elements of the plus component obtained from general properties of the current operator. This means that in such situations a relation among the matrix elements (the angular condition) should occur in order to constrain further their number. The use of the one-body current (1) may lead to important violations of the angular condition, which do not allow to extract uniquely the form factors from the matrix elements of $`J_{(1)}^+`$ (cf. Refs.  for the case of the $`\rho `$-meson).

Within the $`LF`$ formalism two different approaches  have been proposed to overcome the angular condition problem. Both approaches really solve the angular condition problem and make use of the plus and transverse components of the one-body current (1). However, the approach of Ref.  is realized at $`q^+=0`$ and does not introduce explicitly any covariant current, whereas the approach of Ref.  is developed at $`q^+0`$ and a covariant approximation of the current $`J^\mu `$ is explicitly constructed. The two approaches, which we stress are both based on the one-body approximation (1), are inequivalent, because the Lorentz transformation connecting a frame where $`q^+=0`$ to a frame where $`q^+0`$ is interaction dependent. In other words, the impact of the additional many-body currents needed to construct the full current $`J^\mu `$, might be substantially different at $`q^+=0`$ and at $`q^+0`$.

The aim of this paper is to address the issue of the relevance of the many-body currents by comparing the predictions of the approaches of Refs.  and  in case of the (space-like) $`e.m.`$ elastic form factors of both light and heavy pseudoscalar and vector mesons adopting the general framework of the constituent quark model. It will be shown that the two above-mentioned $`LF`$ approaches are inequivalent because of the different contribution of the so-called $`Z`$-graph  at $`q^+=0`$ and at $`q^+0`$. While at $`q^+=0`$ it is possible to cancel out exactly the $`Z`$-graph (see Ref. ), the latter is active at $`q^+0`$, but ignored in Ref. . Moreover, it will be shown that the $`Z`$-graph provides an important contribution in case of light hadrons, whereas it vanishes in the heavy-quark limit, where the two $`LF`$ approaches predict the same universal Isgur-Wise ($`IW`$) function . It will be pointed out that within the approach of Ref.  the form factors are function of $`Q^2/M^2`$, where $`M`$ is the mass of the hadron, and such a dependence is not efficient for describing the phenomenology of light hadrons. Furthermore, in case of vector mesons, the spurious effects related to the orientation of the null hyperplane where the $`LF`$ wave function is defined, can be properly eliminated in the $`LF`$ approach at $`q^+=0`$ , while they are ignored and cannot be eliminated within the $`LF`$ approach at $`q^+0`$ . Thus, the latter approach appears to maximize the impact of the additional many-body currents needed to achieve consistency with experiment, and therefore, as far as the one-body current (1) is concerned, the predictions of the $`LF`$ approach at $`q^+=0`$ should be preferred, particularly in case of light hadrons.

The plan of the paper is simply as follows. Section 2 is devoted to a brief description of the two $`LF`$ approaches, which are then applied to the evaluation of the elastic form factor of both light and heavy pseudoscalar mesons. The case of vector mesons, where the angular condition becomes manifest, is illustrated in Section 3. The conclusions are summarized in Section 4.

## 2 Pseudoscalar mesons

In this Section we consider a pseudoscalar ($`PS`$) meson with mass $`M_{PS}`$, made of two constituent quarks $`q_1`$ and $`\overline{q}_2`$ with mass $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$, and with electric charges $`e_1`$ and $`\overline{e}_2`$. The matrix elements of the $`e.m.`$ current for the elastic channel are given by

$`P^{}|J^\mu |P=F_{PS}(Q^2)(P+P^{})^\mu ,`$ (2)
where $`Q^2q^2=(P^{}P)^2`$ is the squared four-momentum transfer ($`Q^20`$) and $`F_{PS}(Q^2)`$ is the elastic form factor. For both the approaches of Refs.  and  we use the same $`LF`$ wave function, which as well known  can be factorized into the product of a center-of-mass and an intrinsic parts. In terms of the intrinsic $`LF`$ variables, defined as

$`\xi `$ $`=`$ $`p_1^+/P^+=1p_2^+/P^+,`$
$`\stackrel{}{k}_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{p}_1\xi \stackrel{}{P}_{}=\stackrel{}{p}_2+(1\xi )\stackrel{}{P}_{},`$ (3)
one gets

$`|P_{LF}=R^{(PS)}(\xi ,\stackrel{}{k}_{})w_{PS}(k)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{A(\xi ,\stackrel{}{k}_{})}{4\pi }}}|\stackrel{}{P}_{},P^+,`$ (4)
where $`|\stackrel{}{P}_{},P^+`$ describes the $`LF`$ center-of-mass state \[normalized according to $`\stackrel{}{P^{}}_{},P^+|\stackrel{}{P}_{},`$ $`P^+=2P^+\delta (\stackrel{}{P^{}}_{}\stackrel{}{P}_{})\delta (P^+P^+)`$\], $`A(\xi ,\stackrel{}{k}_{})M_0[1(m_1^2m_2^2)^2/M_0^4]/4\xi (1\xi )`$ is a normalization factor for the intrinsic $`LF`$ wave function, $`w_{PS}(k)`$ is the radial wave function (normalized as $`_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑kk^2w_{PS}^2(k)=1`$) with $`k\sqrt{k_{}^2+k_z^2}`$, $`k_z=M_0(\xi 1/2)+(m_2^2m_1^2)/2M_0`$, and $`M_0`$ is the free mass given explicitly by

$`M_0^2={\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2+k_{}^2}{\xi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_2^2+k_{}^2}{1\xi }}.`$ (5)
Finally, the quantity $`R^{(PS)}`$ appearing in Eq. (4) is the product of (generalized) Melosh rotation spin matrices , viz.

$`\left[R^{(PS)}(\xi ,\stackrel{}{k}_{})\right]_{\lambda _1\lambda _2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}\lambda _{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}}{}}\lambda _1|R_M^{}(\xi ,\stackrel{}{k}_{},m_1)|\lambda _{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}|00`$ (6)
$``$ $`\lambda _2|R_M^{}(1\xi ,\stackrel{}{k}_{},m_2)|\lambda _{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}`$
with

$`R_M(\xi ,\stackrel{}{k}_{},m_1)={\displaystyle \frac{m_1+\xi M_0i\stackrel{}{\sigma }(\widehat{z}\times \stackrel{}{k}_{})}{\sqrt{(m_1+\xi M_0)^2+k_{}^2}}}`$ (7)
In terms of the $`LF`$ spinors $`\overline{u}(p_1,\lambda _1)`$ and $`v(p_2,\lambda _2)`$ the Melosh factor $`R^{(PS)}`$ can be conveniently written as (cf. Refs. (b) and )

$`\left[R^{(PS)}(\xi ,\stackrel{}{k}_{})\right]_{\lambda _1\lambda _2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{M_0^2(m_1m_2)^2}}}\overline{u}(p_1,\lambda _1)\gamma ^5v(p_2,\lambda _2).`$ (8)
As for $`w_{PS}(k)`$, in what follows we will consider a specific choice, namely the eigenfunctions of the quark potential model of Ref. , because the latter nicely reproduces the mass spectra of both light and heavy mesons, which are of interest in this workbbbActually different choices for $`w_{PS}(k)`$ are clearly possible, but the qualitative results presented in this paper will not change.. The constituent quark masses used throughout this paper are taken from Ref. , namely: $`m_u=m_d=0.220GeV`$, $`m_s=0.419GeV`$, $`m_c=1.628GeV`$ and $`m_b=4.977GeV`$. The masses of the corresponding charged $`PS`$ and vector mesons are taken from $`PDG`$ , namely: $`M_\pi (M_\rho )=0.1396(0.767)GeV`$, $`M_K(M_K^{})=0.4937(0.892)GeV`$, $`M_D(M_D^{})=1.869(2.010)GeV`$ and $`M_B(M_B^{})=5.279(5.325)GeV`$.

Let us now briefly describe the basic features of the approaches of Refs.  and . In the former approach the working frame is a Breit frame where $`q^+=0`$ and the $`e.m.`$ current operator is given by the one-body approximation (1). However, the matrix elements of the one-body current do not have the decomposition given by Eq. (2). This is related to the fact that the $`LF`$ wave function (4) is specified on the null hyperplane, whose orientation can be identified by its normal four-vector $`\omega `$. The standard choice of $`\omega `$ is along the minus axis. Note that $`\omega `$ is a null four-vector ($`\omega \omega =0`$) and $`\omega q=q^+`$.

As firstly pointed out in Ref.  and subsequently derived from an analysis of the Feynmann triangle diagram in Ref. cccThe appearance of the four-vector $`\omega `$ in the Feynmann triangle diagram can be understood as due to the need of expressing the off-mass-shell constituent momenta, which naturally appears in any Feynmann diagram, in terms of the on-mass-shell constituent momenta, which characterize the $`LF`$ formalism (see Ref. )., the matrix elements of an approximate current do depend upon the four-vector $`\omega `$, while only the amplitudes of the full current are completely independent of $`\omega `$ \[see Eq. (2)\]. Then the general structure of the matrix elements of the one-body current (1) for an elastic process involving a $`PS`$ meson is given by

$`{}_{LF}{}^{}P^{}|J_{(1)}^\mu |P_{LF}^{}=F_{PS}^{(1)}(Q^2)(P+P^{})^\mu +B_{PS}^{(1)}(Q^2){\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^\mu }{\omega P}},`$ (9)
where $`B_{PS}^{(1)}(Q^2)`$ represents a spurious form factor. Since the standard choice of $`\omega `$ is along the minus axis, the physical form factor $`F_{PS}^{(1)}(Q^2)`$ can be obtained using the plus component of the one-body current (1). Adopting the usual Breit frame where $`q^+=q^{}=0`$, one has $`P^+=P^+=\sqrt{M_{PS}^2+Q^2/4}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{P^{}}_{}=\stackrel{}{P}_{}=\stackrel{}{q}_{}/2`$ with $`Q^2=q_{}^2`$. Assuming for sake of simplicity point-like constituents, the elastic form factor $`F_{PS}^{(1)}(Q^2)`$ can be cast in the following form

$`F_{PS}^{(1)}(Q^2)=e_1H_1(Q^2)+\overline{e}_2H_2(Q^2),`$ (10)
where

$`H_1(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\xi {\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{k}_{}\sqrt{A(\xi ,\stackrel{}{k}_{})A(\xi ,\stackrel{}{k^{}}_{})}\frac{w_{PS}(k)w_{PS}(k^{})}{4\pi }}`$ (11)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2(\xi )+\stackrel{}{k}_{}\stackrel{}{k^{}}_{}}{\sqrt{\mu ^2(\xi )+k_{}^2}\sqrt{\mu ^2(\xi )+k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}}`$
with $`\mu (\xi )m_1(1\xi )+m_2\xi `$ and $`\stackrel{}{k^{}}_{}=\stackrel{}{k}_{}+(1\xi )\stackrel{}{q}_{}`$. The explicit expression for the form factor $`H_2(Q^2)`$, corresponding to the coupling of the virtual photon with the antiquark $`\overline{q}_2`$, can be easily obtained from Eq. (11) by using simply $`\stackrel{}{k^{}}_{}=\stackrel{}{k}_{}\xi \stackrel{}{q}_{}`$. Note that the form factor (10) is a function of $`Q^2`$ and of the constituent masses $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$.

In case of the approach of Ref.  the working frame is a special Breit frame where the four-momentum transfer $`q`$ is along the spin-quantization axis, i.e. the $`z`$ axis. Therefore one has $`\omega q=q^+0`$, more precisely: $`q^+=q^{}=Q`$, $`\stackrel{}{q}_{}=0`$, $`P^+=\sqrt{M_{PS}^2+Q^2/4}Q/2`$, $`P^+=\sqrt{M_{PS}^2+Q^2/4}+Q/2`$ and $`\stackrel{}{P}_{}=\stackrel{}{P^{}}_{}=0`$. In such a special frame and in case of elastic processes a choice $`j^\mu `$ for the e.m. current operator compatible with (extended) Poincarè covariance and hermiticity is given by

$`j^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{C^\mu +L^{\mu \nu }[r_x(\pi )]e^{i\pi S_x}C_\nu ^{}e^{i\pi S_x}\right\},`$ (12)
where $`r_x(\pi )`$ represents a ($`\pi `$) rotation around the $`x`$ axis, $`S_x`$ is the $`x`$-component of the $`LF`$ spin operator and $`L(\mathrm{})`$ is the element of the Lorentz group corresponding to $`\mathrm{}\epsilon SL(2,C)`$. In Eq. (12) the operator $`C^\mu `$ should fulfill the (extended) Poincarè covariance and the specific choice made in Ref.  is as follows:

$`C^+`$ $`=`$ $`J_{(1)}^+,`$
$`\stackrel{}{C}_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{J}_{(1)},`$
$`C^{}`$ $`=`$ $`J_{(1)}^+,`$ (13)
where the last equation ensures the gauge invariance of the current operator $`j^\mu `$. The covariant decomposition of $`{}_{LF}{}^{}P^{}|j^\mu |P_{LF}^{}`$ is therefore given by

$`{}_{LF}{}^{}P^{}|j^\mu |P_{LF}^{}=_{PS}^{(1)}(P+P^{})^\mu ,`$ (14)
where no spurious structure is present thanks to the gauge invariance of $`j^\mu `$ and to the fact that $`\omega q=q^+0`$. Then, the elastic form factor $`_{PS}^{(1)}`$ can be calculated using the plus component $`j^+`$, whose matrix element $`{}_{LF}{}^{}P^{}|j^+|P_{LF}^{}`$ reduces to the corresponding one of the plus component of the one-body current $`J_{(1)}^+`$ evaluated at $`q^+=q^{}=Q`$ (see Ref. ). Therefore, one gets

$`_{PS}^{(1)}=e_1_1(Q^2/M_{PS}^2)+\overline{e}_2_2(Q^2/M_{PS}^2)`$ (15)
with

$`_1(Q^2/M_{PS}^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\kappa }{1\kappa /2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\xi {\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{k}_{}\sqrt{A(\xi ,\stackrel{}{k}_{})A(\xi ^{},\stackrel{}{k}_{})}}`$ (16)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{w_{PS}(k)w_{PS}(k^{})}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu (\xi )\mu (\xi ^{})+k_{}^2}{\sqrt{\mu ^2(\xi )+k_{}^2}\sqrt{\mu ^2(\xi ^{})+k_{}^2}}},`$
where $`\xi ^{}=\kappa +(1\kappa )\xi `$ and

$`\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{q^+}{P^+}}={\displaystyle \frac{Q/M_{PS}}{\sqrt{1+Q^2/4M_{PS}^2}+Q/2M_{PS}}}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{Q^4}{4M_{PS}^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{M_{PS}^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{2M_{PS}^2}}.`$ (17)
The explicit expression for the form factor $`_2(Q^2/M_{PS}^2)`$ can be easily obtained from Eq. (16) by using simply $`\xi ^{}=(1\kappa )\xi `$. Note that the factor $`(1\kappa )/(1\kappa /2)`$ in the $`r.h.s.`$ of Eq. (16) is nothing else than the factor $`2P^+/(P^++P^+)`$, where the numerator comes from the normalization of the $`LF`$ center-of-mass states. Moreover, one has $`0\kappa 1`$.

In Eq. (15) we have explicitly taken into account that within the approach of Ref.  the elastic form factor $`_{PS}^{(1)}`$ is not a function of $`Q^2`$, but of the ratio $`Q^2/M_{PS}^2`$ (and of the constituent masses $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$). This is an important feature, which naturally emerges when a ”longitudinal” frame with $`q^+0`$ and $`\stackrel{}{q}_{}=0`$ is chosen. As a matter of facts, since only the $`LF`$ fraction $`\xi `$ changes in the final state, the form factor $`_{PS}^{(1)}`$ cannot be function of $`q^+`$ only, but of $`q^+/P^+`$ (or equivalently $`q^+/P^+=\kappa `$). Thus, the dependence of the elastic form factors upon the ratio between the momentum transfer and the mass of the system is expected to characterize the predictions of the $`LF`$ approach of Ref.  for a generic hadrondddThis means that the $`LF`$ approach at $`q^+0`$ provides naturally implicit many-body contributions associated with the hadron mass. and this fact has important consequences. The most direct one is that the charge radius of a hadron is expected to be approximately proportional to the inverse of its mass. Such a behavior is completely at variance with the phenomenology of light hadrons. Indeed, for instance, the experimental charge radii of the pion, the kaon and the nucleon are approximately the same \[$`r_{ch}^\pi =0.660\pm 0.024fm`$ (a), $`r_{ch}^K=0.58\pm 0.04fm`$ (b) and $`r_{ch}^p=0.883\pm 0.014fm`$ (c)\], while the kaon (nucleon) mass is larger than the pion mass by a factor of $`3.5`$ ($`6.7`$).

From the above considerations it is quite clear that the approach of Ref.  is likely to be not efficient for the description of the phenomenology of light hadrons; in other words, substantial effects of additional many-body currents should be explicitly considered in order to achieve consistency with experiment. An explicit demonstration is provided by the pion case. The results obtained using Eqs. (15-16), are reported in Fig. 1 and compared with the corresponding results of the approach of Ref.  based on Eqs. (10-11). The form factor evaluated at $`q^+0`$ exhibits a very rapid falloff with increasing $`Q^2`$, corresponding to a charge radius of $`5fm`$. On the contrary, the form factor obtained at $`q^+=0`$ is much higher and corresponds to a charge radius of $`0.46fm`$. Similar results hold as well in case of the kaon, whose charge radius turns out to be $`2fm`$ at $`q^+0`$ and $`0.43fm`$ at $`q^+=0`$. All the calculations have been done assuming point-like constituents and therefore only within the approach at $`q^+=0`$ it is possible to recover the agreement with the experimental charge radius of the pion (and the kaon) by introducing a constituent size of $`0.45fm`$, as already proposed in Ref. . The same constituent size is suggested also by the recent analysis of the elastic nucleon form factors carried out within the covariant $`LF`$ approach at $`q^+=0`$ in Ref. .

The question to be addressed now is clearly the origin of the large differences in the pion form factor evaluated at $`q^+=0`$ and $`q^+0`$. The answer is already well known from the works of Ref.  and more recently from the results of Refs. . There it has been shown that the one-body $`LF`$ form factor at $`q^+=0`$ \[Eqs. (10-11)\] matches exactly the form factor embedded in the Feynmann triangle diagram, evaluated using the one-body current (1) and adopting the appropriate bound-state vertex corresponding to the $`LF`$ wave function (4) \[see Eq. (11) of Ref. \]. The matching is due to the vanishing of the contribution of the $`Z`$-graph at $`q^+=0`$. Thus, one has $`F_{PS}^{(1)}=F_{PS}^{(triangle)}`$. Thanks to the covariance property of the triangle diagram, the same form factor can be obtained in a frame where $`q^+0`$. However, in such a frame the anatomy of the form factor is different in the sense that it is given by the sum of two non-vanishing contributions, the spectator and the $`Z`$-graph terms: $`F_{PS}^{(triangle)}=_{PS}^{(sp.)}+_{PS}^{(Zgraph)}`$. The spectator term (see Ref. ), evaluated in the Breit frame where $`q^+=q^{}=Q`$, turns out to coincide with Eqs. (15-16), i.e. with the form factor predicted by the approach of Ref. : $`_{PS}^{(1)}=_{PS}^{(sp.)}`$. Thus, finally one has

$`F_{PS}^{(1)}=_{PS}^{(1)}+_{PS}^{(Zgraph)},`$ (18)
where $`_{PS}^{(Zgraph)}`$ is the contribution of the $`Z`$-graph in the triangle diagram evaluated in the Breit frame where $`q^+=q^{}=Q`$. Thus, the origin of the differences in the pion form factor evaluated within the $`LF`$ approaches of Refs.  and  is the $`Z`$-graph contribution at $`q^+0`$, which is ignored in Ref. . From Fig. 1 it is clear that the $`Z`$-graph dominates the pion form factor at $`q^+0`$, while the contribution of the spectator term is almost negligible (except at the photon point). Therefore, since the $`Z`$-graph is a many-body process, we can conclude that the approach of Ref. , based on the specific choice (13) and on the Breit frame where $`q^+=q^{}=Q`$, appears to maximize the impact of the many-body currents needed for consistency with experiment, particularly in case of light hadrons.

Since the $`Z`$-graph is expected to vanish in the heavy-quark limit, it is worthwhile to study the behavior of the two $`LF`$ approaches in that limit. We expect that for fixed values of the dot product $`w`$ of the initial and final meson four-velocities, given by

$`w=PP^{}/M_{PS}^2=1+Q^2/2M_{PS}^2,`$ (19)
one should have

$`\text{lim}_{m_1\mathrm{}}H_1(Q^2)=\text{lim}_{m_1\mathrm{}}_1(Q^2/M_{PS}^2)=\xi _{IW}(w),`$ (20)
where $`\xi _{IW}(w)`$ is the Isgur-Wise ($`IW`$) form factor , which has been already calculated within the $`LF`$ approach at $`q^+=0`$ in Ref. . We have therefore calculated the form factors $`H_1(Q^2)`$ \[Eq. (11)\] and $`_1(Q^2/M_{PS}^2)`$ \[Eq. (16)\] for various values of the constituent mass $`m_1`$ pertaining to the cases of $`\pi `$, $`K`$, $`D`$ and $`B`$ mesons, keeping fixed the constituent mass $`m_2`$ at the value $`m_2=0.220GeV`$. The results are reported in Fig. 2 in terms of the variable $`w`$ and compared with the $`IW`$ function $`\xi _{IW}(w)`$ calculated in Ref. .

Few comments are in order: i) Eq. (20) is fulfilled, i.e. the two $`LF`$ approaches predict the same asymptotic $`IW`$ function. This confirms that the differences between the results at $`q^+=0`$ and $`q^+0`$ are entirely due to the $`Z`$-graph contribution ignored at $`q^+0`$; ii) the convergence of the calculated form factors to the asymptotic $`IW`$ function occurs from below at $`q^+0`$ and from above at $`q^+=0`$ and it is much faster in the former case: $`_1\xi _{IW}`$ already at the B-meson mass (see Fig. 2(b)); iii) the dependence of the calculated form factor at $`q^+0`$ upon the constituent mass $`m_1`$ is quite mild at $`q^+0`$, which implies that in terms of the variable $`w`$ the approach of Ref.  predicts quite similar form factors for light and heavy mesons. Such a prediction is not reasonable; indeed, the dynamics of a heavy quark is characterized by the Heavy Quark Symmetry ($`HQS`$) , which makes a heavy quark blind to the spin and flavor of light spectator quarks. The situation is opposite in light hadrons, where already the mass spectrum clearly exhibits a rich spin and flavor dependent structure. Thus, at $`q^+0`$ the form factors of light hadrons are basically dominated the $`Z`$-graph, while the one-body spectator term \[i.e., Eqs. 15-16)\] plays only a marginal role. On the contrary, at $`q^+=0`$ the $`Z`$-graph is suppressed and the main contribution to the form factors is given by the one-body spectator term \[i.e., Eqs. 10-11)\]. Therefore, the approach of Ref.  should be improved by making a choice of the operator $`C^\mu `$ different from Eq. (13). If this will be done in such a way to include the effects of the $`Z`$-graph, we expect that the present one-body predictions at $`q^+=0`$ will be recovered as the sum of one-body and additional many-body contributions at $`q^+0`$.

If we scale the result obtained for $`r_{ch}^\pi `$ at $`q^+0`$ (i.e. $`r_{ch}^\pi 5fm`$) according to the $`1/M`$ dependence, where $`M`$ is the mass of the system, one may obtain a charge radius of $`0.7fm`$ for $`M1GeV`$, i.e. around the nucleon mass. In other words it might happen that the approach of Ref.  could reproduce the proton charge radius even assuming point-like (or almost point-like) constituents. Moreover, thanks to the approximate dipole behavior of the proton form factors at least for $`Q^2\text{ }<M^21GeV^2`$, a good agreement with the experimental data at low $`Q^2`$ might be achieved at $`q^+0`$ without the need of introducing a finite size for the constituent quarks. However, it should be clear that such an agreement is not physically meaningful unless one demonstrates that the $`Z`$-graph gives a negligible contribution. This is likely not to be the case as shown in Fig. 3, where the quantity $`R_Z`$, defined as

$`R_Z={\displaystyle \frac{H_1_1}{_1}},`$ (21)
is reported as a function of the variable $`w`$ for the various pseudoscalar mesons so far considered. The quantity $`R_Z`$ is a measure of the relative importance of the $`Z`$-graph with respect to the calculated form factor at $`q^+0`$. Since $`M_K`$ is almost half of the nucleon mass and $`M_D`$ approximately twice the nucleon mass, we expect that, as a conservative estimate, the $`Z`$-graph contribution for a system with a mass around $`1GeV`$ should be between the dotted and dashed lines shown in Fig. 3, and therefore not negligible.

The above criticisms can be directly extended to the recent results obtained in Ref.  for the nucleon elastic form factors within the so-called Point Form Spectator Approximation ($`PFSA`$). Such an approach was firstly proposed and illustrated in Ref. ; here it suffices to say that it is based on the one-body approximation (1) for the $`e.m.`$ current operator, but carried out within a form of the dynamics different from the $`LF`$ one, namely the point form. However, as in the case of the $`LF`$ approach at $`q^+0`$, within the $`PFSA`$ the elastic form factors of a hadron are not function of $`Q^2`$, but of $`Q^2/M^2`$, where $`M`$ is the mass of the hadron (cf. Ref. ). Moreover, within the $`PFSA`$ the $`Z`$-graph is totally ignored (i.e., no match with the Feynmann triangle diagram). Therefore, the agreement with the elastic nucleon data obtained in Ref.  assuming point-like constituent quarks, is likely to be physically meaningless in the same way and with the same arguments already explained in case of the $`LF`$ approach at $`q^+0`$. A more detailed analysis of the $`PFSA`$ is in progress.

Before closing this Section, we want to stress again the main result so far achieved, namely: among various Hamiltonian formalisms (point as well as light-front forms) based on the one-body $`e.m.`$ current (1), the predictions of the $`LF`$ approach at $`q^+=0`$ should be preferred, particularly in case of light hadrons. This is due to the fact that when $`q^+0`$ the relevance of many-body currents appears to be amplified by the occurrence of the $`Z`$-graph term, which turns out to be essential also to compensate the unwanted $`Q^2/M^2`$ dependence of the one-body form factors calculated in ”longitudinal” frames. Finally, we point out that the choice $`q^+=0`$ is possible only for space-like $`q`$ ($`q^20`$). Indeed, for time-like $`q`$ ($`q^2>0`$) one has always $`q^+0`$. In this case one needs to perform an analytic continuation from space-like to time-like $`q`$. This cannot be easily done in the standard $`LF`$ formalism because the contribution of the $`Z`$-graph cannot be eliminated when $`q^2>0`$ (see Refs. ). However, a proper analytic continuation can be achieved for the Feynmann triangle diagram by means of the so-called dispersion approach, which is described in Ref.  and has been extensively applied to time-like processes, like heavy meson weak decays, in Ref. . We stress that for space-like $`q`$ the dispersion approach result matches the $`LF`$ one at $`q^+=0`$ (see Ref. ).

## 3 Vector mesons

The elastic $`e.m.`$ response of a vector system is described by three physical form factors $`F_i(Q^2)`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$), which appear in the following covariant decomposition of the matrix elements of the $`e.m.`$ current operator $`J^\mu `$:

$`J^\mu (s^{},s)`$ $`=`$ $`(P+P^{})^\mu \left\{F_1(Q^2)e^{}(P^{},s^{})e(P,s)+{\displaystyle \frac{F_2(Q^2)}{2M_V^2}}\left[e^{}(P^{},s^{})q\right]\left[e(P,s)q\right]\right\}`$ (22)
$`+`$ $`F_3(Q^2)\left\{\left[e^\mu (P^{},s^{})\right]^{}\left[e(P,s)q\right]e^\mu (P,s)\left[e^{}(P^{},s^{})q\right]\right\},`$
where $`e(P,s)`$ is the $`LF`$ polarization four-vector of the spin-1 system (with mass $`M_V`$) corresponding to spin projection $`s`$ and total four-momentum $`P`$.

In the standard $`LF`$ approach at $`q^+=0`$ (see Ref. ) only the matrix elements of the plus component of the one-body approximation (1), which will be denoted by $`J_{(1)}^+(s^{},s)`$, are taken into account. After considering general properties of the current operator (like, e.g., the time reversal symmetry) the number of independent matrix elements $`J_{(1)}^+(s^{},s)`$ turns out to be four, while the physical form factors are three. A further condition arises from the rotational invariance of the charge density, which however involves transformations based upon Poincarè generators depending on the interaction. Such an additional constraint, known as the angular condition , reads as

$`(1+2\eta )J_{(1)}^+(1,1)+J_{(1)}^+(1,1)\sqrt{8\eta }J_{(1)}^+(1,0)J_{(1)}^+(0,0)=0,`$ (23)
where $`\eta Q^2/4M_V^2`$. The angular condition (23) is not satisfied by the matrix elements $`J_{(1)}^+(s^{},s)`$ and therefore the extraction of the one-body form factors $`F_i^{(1)}(Q^2)`$ is not unique.

In Ref.  the problem of the violation of the angular condition (23) is solved by considering the matrix elements of the tensor $`T_{(1)}^{\mu ,\alpha \beta }`$, which are related to those of the one-body current by

$`J_{(1)}^\mu (s^{},s)=e_\alpha ^{}(P^{},s^{})T_{(1)}^{\mu ,\alpha \beta }e_\beta (P,s).`$ (24)
In terms of spin-1 $`LF`$ wave function one has

$`T_{(1)}^{\mu ,\alpha \beta }={}_{LF}{}^{}P^{},\alpha |J_{(1)}^\mu |P,\beta _{LF}^{},`$ (25)
where for an $`S`$-wave vector system

$`|P,\beta _{LF}=\text{R}^{(V)}(\xi ,\stackrel{}{k}_{};\beta )w_V(k)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{A(\xi ,\stackrel{}{k}_{})}{4\pi }}}|\stackrel{}{P}_{},P^+`$ (26)
with

$`\left[\text{R}^{(V)}(\xi ,\stackrel{}{k}_{};\beta )\right]_{\lambda _1\lambda _2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{M_0^2(m_1m_2)^2}}}`$ (27)
$``$ $`\overline{u}(p_1,\lambda _1)\left[\gamma ^\beta {\displaystyle \frac{(p_1p_2)^\beta }{M_0+m_1+m_2}}\right]v(p_2,\lambda _2).`$
Following Refs.  and  the general decomposition of the tensor $`T_{(1)}^{\mu ,\alpha \beta }`$ reads as

$`T_{(1)}^{\mu ,\alpha \beta }=I_{(1)}^{\mu ,\alpha \beta }+B_{(1)}^{\mu ,\alpha \beta }(\omega ),`$ (28)
where the tensor $`I_{(1)}^{\mu ,\alpha \beta }`$ is independent of the four-vector $`\omega `$, while $`B_{(1)}^{\mu ,\alpha \beta }(\omega )`$ contains all the possible covariant structures depending on $`\omega `$. One gets

$`I_{(1)}^{\mu ,\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`(P+P^{})^\mu \{F_1^{(1)}(Q^2)[g^{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{P^\alpha P^\beta }{M_V^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }}{M_V^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }P^\beta }{M_V^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{PP^{}}{M_V^2}}]`$ (29)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{F_2^{(1)}(Q^2)}{2M_V^2}}(q^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{P^{}q}{M_V^2}}P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha })(q^\beta {\displaystyle \frac{Pq}{M_V^2}}P^\beta )\}`$
$`+`$ $`F_3^{(1)}(Q^2)\{(g^{\mu \alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }}{M_V^2}})(q^\beta {\displaystyle \frac{Pq}{M_V^2}}P^\beta )`$
$``$ $`(g^{\mu \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{P^\mu P^\beta }{M_V^2}})(q^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{P^{}q}{M_V^2}}P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha })\}`$
$``$ $`(P+P^{})^\mu \left\{H_1^{(1)}(Q^2){\displaystyle \frac{P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }P^\beta }{M_V^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{H_2^{(1)}(Q^2)}{2M_V^2}}\left(q^\alpha P^\beta q^\beta P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }\right)\right\}`$
$`+`$ $`H_3^{(1)}(Q^2)\left(g^{\mu \alpha }P^\beta +g^{\mu \beta }P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }\right)+H_4^{(1)}(Q^2)q^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{q^\alpha P^\beta +q^\beta P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }}{M_V^2}}`$
and

$`B_{(1)}^{\mu ,\alpha \beta }(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_V^2}{2(\omega P)}}\omega ^\mu [B_1^{(1)}(Q^2)g^{\alpha \beta }+B_2^{(1)}(Q^2){\displaystyle \frac{q^\alpha q^\beta }{M_V^2}}+M_V^2B_3^{(1)}(Q^2){\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^\alpha \omega ^\beta }{(\omega P)^2}}`$ (30)
$`+`$ $`B_4^{(1)}(Q^2){\displaystyle \frac{q^\alpha \omega ^\beta q^\beta \omega ^\alpha }{2(\omega P)}}]+(P+P^{})^\mu [M_V^2B_5^{(1)}(Q^2){\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^\alpha \omega ^\beta }{(\omega P)^2}}`$
$`+`$ $`B_6^{(1)}(Q^2){\displaystyle \frac{q^\alpha \omega ^\beta q^\beta \omega ^\alpha }{2(\omega P)}}]+{\displaystyle \frac{M_V^2}{(\omega P)}}B_7^{(1)}(Q^2)[(g^{\mu \alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{q^\mu q^\alpha }{q^2}})\omega ^\beta `$
$`+`$ $`(g^{\mu \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{q^\mu q^\beta }{q^2}})\omega ^\alpha ]+B_8^{(1)}(Q^2)q^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{q^\alpha \omega ^\beta +q^\beta \omega ^\alpha }{2(\omega P)}},`$
where all the covariant structures included in Eqs. (29-30) satisfy both parity and time reversal symmetries.

In Eq. (29) there are seven form factors, namely the three form factors $`F_i^{(1)}(Q^2)`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$) and the four form factors $`H_j^{(1)}(Q^2)`$ ($`j=1,\mathrm{},4`$). The form factors $`F_i^{(1)}(Q^2)`$ appear in covariant structures which are transverse to all the external momenta $`P`$, $`P^{}`$ and $`q`$, while the form factors $`H_j^{(1)}(Q^2)`$ describe the loss of transversity (including the possible loss of gauge invariance) of the tensor (29). Therefore, since $`e(P,s)P=e(P^{},s^{})P^{}=0`$, the form factors $`H_j^{(1)}(Q^2)`$ do not appear in the decomposition of the matrix elements $`J_{(1)}^\mu (s^{},s)`$.

In Eq. (30) all the $`B_k^{(1)}(Q^2)`$ ($`k=1,2,\mathrm{}8`$) are spurious form factors, which can contribute to the matrix elements $`J_{(1)}^\mu (s,s^{})`$, namely:

$`J_{(1)}^\mu (s^{},s)`$ $`=`$ $`(P+P^{})^\mu \left\{F_1^{(1)}(Q^2)e^{}(P^{},s^{})e(P,s)+{\displaystyle \frac{F_2^{(1)}(Q^2)}{2M_V^2}}\left[e^{}(P^{},s^{})q\right]\left[e(P,s)q\right]\right\}`$ (31)
$`+`$ $`F_3^{(1)}(Q^2)\left\{\left[e^\mu (P^{},s^{})\right]^{}\left[e(P,s)q\right]e^\mu (P,s)\left[e^{}(P^{},s^{})q\right]\right\}`$
$`+`$ $`e_\alpha ^{}(P^{},s^{})B_{(1)}^{\mu ,\alpha \beta }e_\beta (P,s).`$
For the angular condition one has

$`(1+2\eta )J_{(1)}^+(1,1)+J_{(1)}^+(1,1)`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{8\eta }J_{(1)}^+(1,0)J_{(1)}^+(0,0)=`$ (32)
$`=`$ $`B_5^{(1)}(Q^2)B_7^{(1)}(Q^2)0,`$
which implies that at $`q^+=0`$ the loss of rotational covariance of the one-body current (1), i.e. the violation of the angular condition (23), is described by the spurious structures containing $`B_5^{(1)}(Q^2)`$ and $`B_7^{(1)}(Q^2)`$ in Eq. (30). Finally, note that the loss of gauge invariance of the one-body current (1) at $`\omega q=q^+=0`$ is described by the spurious form factor $`B_8^{(1)}(Q^2)`$ appearing in Eq. (30).

As explained in Ref. , in the Breit frame where $`q^+=0`$ the physical one-body form factors $`F_i^{(1)}(Q^2)`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$) can be obtained through the following equations

$`F_1^{(1)}(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T_{(1)}^{+,yy}}{2P^+}},`$
$`F_2^{(1)}(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\eta }}{\displaystyle \frac{T_{(1)}^{+,yy}T_{(1)}^{+,xx}}{2P^+}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(1+\eta )}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_{(1)}^{+,++}}{2P^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\eta (1+\eta )}}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_{(1)}^{+,x+}}{2P^+}},`$
$`F_3^{(1)}(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T_{(1)}^{y,xy}}{Q}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1+\eta }{\eta }}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_{(1)}^{y,+y}}{Q}}.`$ (33)
At variance with the $`PS`$ case the components of the tensor (28) with $`\mu =y`$ are essential for the extraction of the physical form factors, more precisely for the determination of $`F_3^{(1)}(Q^2)`$. Note also that the form factors $`F_1^{(1)}(Q^2)`$ and $`F_2^{(1)}(Q^2)`$ are determined only by the components with $`\mu =+`$.

We stress that by means of Eq. (33) the extraction of the physical form factors $`F_i^{(1)}(Q^2)`$ is not plagued at all by spurious effects, including those related to the loss of rotational covariance and gauge invariance. The angular condition problem (32) is therefore completely overcome without introducing explicitly any covariant current operator.

As far the approach of Ref.  is concerned, the matrix elements $`j^\mu (s^{},s)`$ of the covariant current (12) can be expressed in terms of the $`LF`$ wave function (26-27) as: $`j^\mu (s^{},s)=`$ $`P^{},s^{}|j^\mu |P,s`$ with $`|P,s=e_\beta (P,s)|P,\beta _{LF}`$. In Ref.  it is assumed that the matrix elements $`j^\mu (s^{},s)`$ have the following decomposition

$`j^\mu (s^{},s)`$ $`=`$ $`(P+P^{})^\mu \left\{_1^{(1)}e^{}(P^{},s^{})e(P,s)+{\displaystyle \frac{_2^{(1)}}{2M_V^2}}\left[e^{}(P^{},s^{})q\right]\left[e(P,s)q\right]\right\}`$ (34)
$`+`$ $`_3^{(1)}\left\{\left[e^\mu (P^{},s^{})\right]^{}\left[e(P,s)q\right]e^\mu (P,s)\left[e^{}(P^{},s^{})q\right]\right\}`$
and it is shown that there are only three independent matrix elements $`j^\mu (s^{},s)`$, namely $`j_{00}^+`$, $`j_{11}^+`$ and $`j_{10}^x`$eeeNote that the matrix element $`j_{10}^y`$ is not independent from $`j_{10}^x`$ because one has $`j_{10}^y=ij_{10}^x`$ .. Thanks to the choice (13), the latter are very simply related to the matrix elements of the one-body current (1) evaluated at $`q^+0`$, which will be denoted by $`𝒥_{(1)}^\mu (s^{},s)`$ to distinguish them from the matrix elements $`J_{(1)}^\mu (s^{},s)`$ evaluated at $`q^+=0`$. Ignoring for the moment the possible presence of spurious structures, in the Breit frame where $`q^+=q^{}=Q`$ one has

$`j_{00}^+`$ $`=`$ $`𝒥_{(1)}^+(00)=2M_V\sqrt{1+\eta }\left\{(1+2\eta )_1^{(1)}2\eta (1+\eta )_2^{(1)}2\eta _3^{(1)}\right\},`$
$`j_{11}^+`$ $`=`$ $`𝒥_{(1)}^+(11)=2M_V\sqrt{1+\eta }_1^{(1)},`$
$`j_{10}^x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[𝒥_{(1)}^x(10)𝒥_{(1)}^x(01)\right]=2M_V\sqrt{1+\eta }\sqrt{\eta /2}_3^{(1)}.`$ (35)
Thus, the form factors $`_i^{(1)}`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$) may be uniquely determined through the following relations

$`_1^{(1)}(Q^2/M_V^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M_V\sqrt{1+\eta }}}𝒥_{(1)}^+(11),`$
$`_2^{(1)}(Q^2/M_V^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4M_V\eta (1+\eta )}}\{𝒥_{(1)}^+(00)(1+2\eta )𝒥_{(1)}^+(11)`$
$`+`$ $`\sqrt{2\eta }[𝒥_{(1)}^x(10)𝒥_{(1)}^x(01)]\},`$
$`_3^{(1)}(Q^2/M_V^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M_V\sqrt{1+\eta }\sqrt{2\eta }}}\left[𝒥_{(1)}^x(10)𝒥_{(1)}^x(01)\right],`$ (36)
where we have explicitly taken into account that the form factors $`_i^{(1)}`$ are not function of $`Q^2`$, but of the ratio $`Q^2/M_V^2`$, thanks also to the fact that the matrix elements $`𝒥_{(1)}^\mu (s^{},s)`$ are proportional to $`2P^+`$ because of the normalization of the $`LF`$ center-of-mass states. Note that the form factor $`_3^{(1)}`$ is determined through the $`x`$ component of the one-body current, while $`_1^{(1)}`$ depends on the plus component only.

The predictions of the $`LF`$ approaches at $`q^+=0`$ \[Eq. (33)\] and at $`q^+0`$ \[Eq. (36)\], obtained in case of the $`\rho `$ meson adopting for $`w_\rho (k)`$ the corresponding eigenfunction of the quark potential model of Ref. , are compared in Figs. 4-6 in terms of the conventional charge $`G_0(Q^2)`$, magnetic $`G_1(Q^2)`$ and quadrupole $`G_2(Q^2)`$ form factors, defined as

$`G_0(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`F_1(Q^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{2\eta }{3}}\left[F_1(Q^2)F_3(Q^2)(1+\eta )F_2(Q^2)\right],`$
$`G_1(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`F_3(Q^2),`$
$`G_2(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{8}\eta }{3}}\left[F_1(Q^2)F_3(Q^2)(1+\eta )F_2(Q^2)\right].`$ (37)
It can be seen that: i) the charge radius, $`r_{ch}\sqrt{6dG_0(Q^2)/dQ^2|_{Q^2=0}}`$, turns out to be $`r_{ch}=1.1fm`$ at $`q^+0`$ and $`r_{ch}=0.57fm`$ at $`q^+=0`$fffTaking into account a constituent size of $`0.45fm`$ as in the pion and kaon cases, the $`LF`$ approach at $`q^+=0`$ predicts a charge radius of the $`\rho `$ meson equal to $`0.75fm`$.; ii) the charge form factor calculated at $`q^+=0`$ exhibits a node at $`Q^23.4(GeV/c)^2`$ at variance with the result obtained at $`q^+0`$; iii) the magnetic moment, $`\mu _\rho G_1(Q^2=0)`$, is remarkably larger at $`q^+0`$ \[$`\mu _\rho =11.6`$\] than the corresponding one at $`q^+=0`$ \[$`\mu _\rho =2.35`$\], which is quite close to the non-relativistic limit $`\mu _\rho =2`$ (cf. Ref. ); moreover, the magnetic form factor $`G_1(Q^2)`$ calculated at $`q^+0`$ has a sharp upturn near the photon point completely at variance with the result obtained at $`q^+=0`$; iv) the quadrupole form factor $`G_2(Q^2)`$ is predicted to be quite small at $`q^+0`$ both at low and high values of $`Q^2`$. All these findings are a direct manifestation of the lack of the $`Z`$-graph in the $`LF`$ approach at $`q^+0`$. Thus, for the $`\rho `$ meson the $`Z`$-graph plays an important role both at low and high values of $`Q^2`$. We want to point out that the node obtained in the charge form factor $`G_0(Q^2)`$ at $`q^+=0`$ may be (at least partially) related to the nature of the spin-spin term of the quark potential model of Ref. , which is repulsive in the triplet spin state at short interquark distances.

Let us now consider the heavy quark limit in which only one quark is coupled to the virtual photon and its mass goes to infinity, i.e. $`m_1\mathrm{}`$. Thanks to the $`HQS`$ we expect that for fixed values of the variable $`wPP^{}/M_V^2=1+Q^2/2M_V^2`$ one should have

$`\text{lim}_{m_1\mathrm{}}G_0(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\xi _{IW}(w),`$
$`\text{lim}_{m_1\mathrm{}}G_1(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\xi _{IW}(w),`$
$`\text{lim}_{m_1\mathrm{}}G_2(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (38)
where $`\xi _{IW}(w)`$ is the same $`IW`$ function encountered in the $`PS`$ case. We have calculated the form factors $`G_i`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$) for various values of the constituent mass $`m_1`$ pertaining to the cases of $`\rho `$, $`K^{}`$, $`D^{}`$ and $`B^{}`$ mesons, keeping fixed the constituent mass $`m_2`$ at the value $`m_2=0.220GeV`$. The results are reported in Figs. 7-9 in terms of the variable $`w`$ and compared with the $`IW`$ function $`\xi _{IW}(w)`$ calculated in Ref. .

It can clearly be seen that Eq. (38) is fulfilled, confirming in this way that also in case of vector mesons the differences between the results at $`q^+=0`$ and $`q^+0`$ are due to the lack of the $`Z`$-graph contribution at $`q^+0`$. We want to stress that the universality of the calculated $`IW`$ function, implied by the fulfillment of Eqs. (20) and (38), is in nice agreement with the predictions of the $`HQS`$, which is an exact symmetry of $`QCD`$ in the heavy-quark limit. Finally, from Figs. 8-9 a couple of comments are in order: i) the difference in the calculated magnetic moment is still remarkably sizable at the $`D^{}`$ mass (i.e., around $`M_V2GeV`$), and ii) the lack of the $`Z`$-graph at $`q^+0`$ makes the quadrupole form factor $`G_2`$ very small even at quite large values of the (active) quark mass.

Let us now consider the question whether the decomposition (34) is complete without introducing spurious structures analogous to those appearing at $`q^+=0`$ in Eqs. (30-31). It is clear that the dependence of $`e.m.`$ amplitudes upon the four-vector $`\omega `$, which we remind identifies the orientation of the null hyperplane where the $`LF`$ wave function is defined, can occur independently of the value of $`q^+`$. Therefore, at $`q^+0`$ one expects that the following general decomposition holds for the matrix elements $`𝒥_{(1)}(s^{},s)`$ of the one-body current:

$`𝒥_{(1)}(s^{},s)`$ $`=`$ $`(P+P^{})^\mu \left\{_1^{(1)}e^{}(P^{},s^{})e(P,s)+{\displaystyle \frac{_2^{(1)}}{2M_V^2}}\left[e^{}(P^{},s^{})q\right]\left[e(P,s)q\right]\right\}`$ (39)
$`+`$ $`_3^{(1)}\left\{\left[e^\mu (P^{},s^{})\right]^{}\left[e(P,s)q\right]e^\mu (P,s)\left[e^{}(P^{},s^{})q\right]\right\}`$
$`+`$ $`e_\alpha ^{}(P^{},s^{})_{(1)}^{\mu ,\alpha \beta }e_\beta (P,s)`$
with

$`_{(1)}^{\mu ,\alpha \beta }(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_V^2}{2(\omega \stackrel{~}{P})}}\omega ^\mu [_1^{(1)}g^{\alpha \beta }+_2^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\alpha q^\beta }{M_V^2}}+M_V^2_3^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^\alpha \omega ^\beta }{(\omega \stackrel{~}{P})^2}}`$ (40)
$`+`$ $`_4^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\alpha \omega ^\beta q^\beta \omega ^\alpha }{2(\omega \stackrel{~}{P}}})]+(P+P^{})^\mu [M_V^2_5^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^\alpha \omega ^\beta }{(\omega \stackrel{~}{P})^2}}`$
$`+`$ $`_6^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\alpha \omega ^\beta q^\beta \omega ^\alpha }{2(\omega \stackrel{~}{P})}}]+{\displaystyle \frac{M_V^2}{(\omega \stackrel{~}{P})}}_7^{(1)}[(g^{\mu \alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{q^\mu q^\alpha }{q^2}})\omega ^\beta `$
$`+`$ $`(g^{\mu \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{q^\mu q^\beta }{q^2}})\omega ^\alpha ]+_8^{(1)}q^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{q^\alpha \omega ^\beta +q^\beta \omega ^\alpha }{2(\omega \stackrel{~}{P})}},`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{P}(P+P^{})/2`$. With respect to Eq. (30) we have introduced a different notation for the spurious form factors, because the latter may depend in general on $`\omega q`$, i.e. they can be different at $`q^+=0`$ and $`q^+0`$. Note that at $`q^+0`$ the loss of gauge invariance of the one-body current is described not only by the spurious structure containing $`_8^{(1)}`$ (as in the case $`q^+=0`$), but also by the ones proportional to $`_k^{(1)}`$ with $`k=1,\mathrm{},4`$.

By means of the four-vector $`\omega `$ the choice (13) for the operator $`C^\mu `$ can be conveniently cast into the following form: $`C^\mu =J_{(1)}^\mu \omega ^\mu (qJ_{(1)})/(\omega q)`$. Therefore, using Eqs. (39-40) one immediately obtains that the spurious structures containing the form factors $`_k^{(1)}`$ with $`k=1,\mathrm{},4`$ cannot appear in the decomposition of the matrix elements $`C^\mu (s^{},s)`$ of the gauge-invariant operator $`C^\mu `$. Consequently, also for the matrix elements $`j^\mu (s^{},s)`$ we generally expect that

$`j^\mu (s^{},s)`$ $`=`$ $`(P+P^{})^\mu \left\{_1^{(1)}e^{}(P^{},s^{})e(P,s)+{\displaystyle \frac{_2^{(1)}}{2M_V^2}}\left[e^{}(P^{},s^{})q\right]\left[e(P,s)q\right]\right\}`$ (41)
$`+`$ $`_3^{(1)}\left\{\left[e^\mu (P^{},s^{})\right]^{}\left[e(P,s)q\right]e^\mu (P,s)\left[e^{}(P^{},s^{})q\right]\right\}`$
$`+`$ $`e_\alpha ^{}(P^{},s^{})\overline{}_{(1)}^{\mu ,\alpha \beta }e_\beta (P,s)`$
with

$`\overline{}_{(1)}^{\mu ,\alpha \beta }(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`(P+P^{})^\mu \left[M_V^2_5^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^\alpha \omega ^\beta }{(\omega \stackrel{~}{P})^2}}+_6^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\alpha \omega ^\beta q^\beta \omega ^\alpha }{2(\omega \stackrel{~}{P})}}\right]`$ (42)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_V^2}{(\omega \stackrel{~}{P})}}_7^{(1)}\left[\left(g^{\mu \alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{q^\mu q^\alpha }{q^2}}\right)\omega ^\beta +\left(g^{\mu \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{q^\mu q^\beta }{q^2}}\right)\omega ^\alpha \right]`$
$`+`$ $`_8^{(1)}\left[q^\mu \omega ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{(\omega q)}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{q^\alpha \omega ^\beta +q^\beta \omega ^\alpha }{2(\omega \stackrel{~}{P})}}.`$
In order to prove that the decomposition (34) is not complete, it is enough to demonstrate that at least one of the four spurious form factors $`_{58}^{(1)}`$ is non vanishing. To this end let us first consider that the possible presence of spurious structures corresponds to replace Eq. (35) with

$`j_{00}^+`$ $`=`$ $`𝒥_{(1)}^+(00)=2M_V\sqrt{1+\eta }\{(1+2\eta )_1^{(1)}2\eta (1+\eta )_2^{(1)}2\eta _3^{(1)}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_5^{(1)}}{1+\eta }}+2\eta _6^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{1+\eta }}_7^{(1)}2\eta _8^{(1)}\},`$
$`j_{11}^+`$ $`=`$ $`𝒥_{(1)}^+(11)=2M_V\sqrt{1+\eta }_1^{(1)},`$
$`j_{10}^x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[𝒥_{(1)}^x(10)𝒥_{(1)}^x(01)\right]=2M_V\sqrt{1+\eta }\sqrt{\eta /2}\left\{_3^{(1)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(1+\eta )}}_7^{(1)}\right\}.`$ (43)
Therefore, the extraction of the form factors $`_2^{(1)}`$ and $`_3^{(1)}`$ may be plagued by spurious effects, while only $`_1^{(1)}`$ is free from spurious effects. We want to point out that the relation $`j_{10}^y=ij_{10}^x`$ is not modified by the possible presence of spurious structures in Eqs. (41-42); in other words the number of independent matrix elements of the current operator $`j^\mu `$ is still three even in presence of the spurious form factors appearing in Eq. (42).

In addition to Eq. (43) one has

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[𝒥_{(1)}^x(10)+𝒥_{(1)}^x(01)\right]={\displaystyle \frac{M_V}{\sqrt{2}}}_7^{(1)},`$ (44)
which allows us to calculate the spurious form factor $`_7^{(1)}`$ directly in terms of matrix elements of the one-body current. The explicit calculation of the l.h.s. of Eq. (44), carried out for the case of the $`\rho `$ meson, is reported in Fig. 10. It can be seen that $`_7^{(1)}`$ is just a small fraction of $`_3^{(1)}`$ and therefore its impact on the extraction of $`_3^{(1)}`$ is quite limited. However, what really matters is not the quantitative impact of $`_7^{(1)}`$, but the conceptual fact that it is non vanishing, which demonstrates that the covariant decomposition (34) is not complete. Note that at the photon point $`_7^{(1)}=0`$, so that the anomalous result $`\mu _\rho =11.6`$ obtained at $`q^+0`$ does not depend on spurious effects. Furthermore, the other spurious form factors $`_5^{(1)}`$, $`_6^{(1)}`$ and $`_8^{(1)}`$ entering Eq. (43), cannot be calculated in terms of matrix elements of the one-body current. Thus we can conclude that the approach of Ref.  not only ignores the spurious terms arising from the orientation of the null hyperplane, but also it is not able to eliminate consistently such spurious effects in the extraction of the physical form factors.

## 4 Conclusions

In this paper we have carried out a detailed comparison of the predictions of the light-front approaches of Refs.  and  in case of the (space-like) electromagnetic elastic form factors of both light and heavy pseudoscalar and vector mesons adopting the general framework of the constituent quark model. The two approaches are based on the one-body approximation (1) for the electromagnetic current operator, but they are elaborated in different Breit frames, namely at $`q^+=0`$  and $`q^+0`$ . It has been shown that: i) the two light-front approaches are inequivalent because of the different contribution of the $`Z`$-graph at $`q^+=0`$ or $`q^+0`$. While at $`q^+=0`$ it is possible to cancel out exactly the $`Z`$-graph (see Ref. ), the latter is active at $`q^+0`$, but ignored in Ref. ; ii) the $`Z`$-graph provides an important contribution in case of light hadrons, whereas it vanishes in the heavy-quark limit, where the two light-front approaches predict the same universal Isgur-Wise function.

We have also pointed out an important feature of the approach of Ref. , namely: the elastic form factors of a hadron are basically function of $`Q^2/M^2`$, where $`M`$ is the mass of the hadron. We have shown that such a dependence (shared also by the point-form approach of Refs. ) is not efficient for describing the phenomenology of light hadrons. In other words, the light-front approach at $`q^+0`$ maximizes the impact of the many-body currents needed to achieve consistency with experiment.

Finally, in case of vector mesons, the spurious effects related to the orientation of the null hyperplane where the $`LF`$ wave function is defined, have been analyzed in details. While such unwanted effects are properly eliminated in the approach of Ref. , they are ignored and cannot be eliminated within the approach of Ref. . Thus, we can conclude that, as far as the one-body current (1) is concerned, the predictions of the light-front approach at $`q^+=0`$ should be preferred, particularly in case of light hadrons.

## Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges E. Pace for many fruitful discussions about the approach of Ref. .