text:
# Recent experimental data and the size of the quark in the Constituent Quark Model

## 1 Introduction

One of the most challenging problems of QCD is to find correct degrees of freedom for high energy “soft” interaction. In other words, the question is what set of quantum numbers diagonalizes the interaction matrix at high energies. On the one hand, the observation of the diffraction production in all “soft” processes including the photoproduction  is a direct experimental indication that hadrons are not correct degrees of freedom. On the other hand, at short distances we know that colour dipoles are the correct degrees of freedom  (see also Refs.  ). Frankly speaking, these two facts exhaust our solid theoretical knowledge on the subject.

In this paper we are going to examine an old model for the degrees of freedom at high energy: the Constituent Quark Model, in which the constituent quarks play the rôle of the correct degrees of freedom. In spite of the naivity of this model it works and describes a lot of “soft” data in the first approximation .

Different theoretical arguments have also been expressed in favour of the existence of two sizes in hadrons, e.g. in instanton models of QCD vacuum  and it has been included as an essential ingredient in the non-perturbative QCD approach for the high energy scattering . The CQM gives a constructive way to build an approach which introduces two dimensional scales inside a hadron: the size of the hadron, built of the constituent quarks and the size of the constituent quark itself.

We wish to re-examine this model because of two beautiful pieces of the experimental data.

1. CDF double parton cross section at the Tevatron . The CDF collaboration has measured the process of inclusive production of two pairs of “hard” jets with almost compensating transverse momenta in each pair, and with values of rapidity that are very similar. Such pairs can only be produced in double parton shower interactions (double parton collisions, see Fig. 1). The cross section of this interaction can be calculated using Mueller diagrams (as shown in Fig. 1) in CQM.

The double parton scattering cross section can be written in the form

$$\sigma _{DP}=m\frac{\sigma _{incl}(2jets)\sigma _{incl}(2jets)}{2\sigma _{eff}},$$
(1)
where the factor $`m`$ is equal to two for different pairs of jets and to one for identical pairs. The experimental value of $`\sigma _{eff}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}14.5}\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.7}\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.3}mb`$ . This value is about 6 $`÷`$ 7 times less than the total $`p\overline{p}`$ cross section at the Tevatron and this itself shows that we have a small scale inside the proton. The idea is that this small size is related to the proper size of the constituent quark. We are going to check this idea in the paper.

2. HERA data on inclusive diffraction production with nucleon excitation.

HERA data for both inclusive and exclusive diffractions, show that the nucleon excitations give at least 30% - 40% of the cross section  in the region of small $`t`$ ($`t<1.5GeV^2`$). In CQM these two processes of the diffraction production are presented in Fig. 2. One can see that they also give an information about the size of the constituent quark.

The main goal of this paper is to extract the value of the proper size of the quark using these two sets of data, using the simplest assumptions on the quark-quark interaction. We assume that (i) only the Pomeron exchange  contributes to the amplitude of the quark-quark interaction at high energies, and (ii) that we can calculate the inclusive cross section using the Mueller diagrams  and the AGK cutting rules .

In Section 2 we discuss in more detail our approach; we calculate the value $`\sigma _{eff}`$ in Eq. (1) and the ratio

$$R(t)=\frac{\frac{d\sigma _{el}^{DIS}(\gamma ^{}+pX+p)}{dt}}{\frac{d\sigma _{inel}^{DIS}(\gamma ^{}+pX+N^{})}{dt}}$$
(2)
for the single Pomeron exchange model. In Section 3 we introduce the possibility of triple Pomeron interactions and re-analyze $`\sigma _{eff}`$ and $`R`$. We present our conclusions and suggestions for further experiments in the last section.

## 2 Single Pomeron exchange in CQM.

### 2.1 Quark - quark scattering in the Pomeron approach

As we said, the key ingredient of the CQM is the quark-quark (antiquark) amplitude at high energies. In the single Pomeron model this amplitude can be written in terms of the single Pomeron exchange as shown in Fig. 3:

In order to calculate the contribution of the diagrams in Fig. 3, we have to know the main parameters of the Pomeron which we choose in the following way.

* For the exchange of the “soft” Pomeron we have

$$P(Y,q^2)=e^{\mathrm{\Delta }Y\alpha ^{}q^2Y},$$
(3)
where $`Y=\mathrm{ln}s`$ is the rapidity of the elastic process.
* We found the intercept and the slope of the Pomeron trajectory by fitting the data of the total, elastic and diffractive cross sections (we will show this later).

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=0.08\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.09};\alpha _P^{}(0)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0.2}GeV^2;\alpha _P(0)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\mathrm{\Delta }$$
(4)
* The vertices of the Pomeron-Quark interactions

$$g_{PQ}^2=g_0^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}9}GeV^2.$$
(5)
* The vertex for the inclusive emission of the hadron ($`a`$ in Fig. 3) is taken from the inclusive proton-proton scattering to be equal

$$a\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}.$$
(6)
* It is common in the two processes we are going to discuss here that they are both due to the exchange of the so-called “hard” Pomeron (gluon “ladder” in perturbative QCD, as shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2). We accept here a rather simplified way of describing such a “hard” Pomeron. We assume the same formulae as for the “soft” one (see Eq. (3) and Eq. (4), but $`\mathrm{\Delta }_H>\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ given by Eq. (4) and $`\alpha _P^{}(0)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$.

We use a very simple model for the wave function of the constituent quark inside a hadron, namely,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{\alpha }{\pi \sqrt{3}}e^{\frac{\alpha }{2}\left({\scriptscriptstyle x_i^2}\right)}$$
(7)
where the constant $`\alpha `$ is connected to the electromagnetic radius of proton $`R_{electr}^2`$ :

$$\alpha =1/R_{electr}^2,$$
(8)
and we take $`R_{electr}^2=15.6GeV^2`$.

### 2.2 $`\sigma _{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}`$ in the CQM

Armed with the knowledge that was discussed above, we can calculate the contributions of the single Pomeron exchange to our processes (see Fig. 4).

In the case of the single inclusive process we have only one diagram, of Fig. 4-a, all other contributions are cancelled due to the AGK cutting rules . This diagram gives us

$$f_1(Y)=\frac{d\sigma }{dy}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}18}g_0^2ae^{\mathrm{\Delta }Y};$$
(9)
we have here a combinatorial factor 9 for three quarks in each proton, and an additional factor 2. Indeed, we use the s-channel unitarity equation in the form:

$$2ImA_{el}=|A_{el}|^2+G_{in},$$
(10)
and we see that for the one Pomeron exchange, which is related to the $`G_{in}`$ and therefore to the cut Pomeron, we have an additional 2. This will be our usual prescription for the cut Pomeron. For the double inclusive cross section we have contributions of several diagrams, given in Fig. 4-b.

1. Let us demonstrate, step by step, how to perform the calculations in this model. We have for Fig. 4-b :

$$D_1(y_1,y_2)=4\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}9}\frac{dt}{16\pi }e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}e^{|t|(4R_{quark}^2+2\alpha _P^{}Y)}.$$
(11)
Here 9 is a combinatorial factor, 4 comes from the AKG rules (2 for each cut Pomeron). We introduce also the constituent quark radius $`R_{quark}^2`$ in order to take into account the $`t`$ \- dependence of the quark - Pomeron vertex, which we parametrize in the simplest Gaussian form: $`g_{qP}(t)=g_0\mathrm{exp}[R_{quark}^2t]`$. Integrating this expression over $`|t|`$, we obtain

$$D_1(y_1,y_2)=\frac{9}{8\pi }\frac{g_0^4a^2\alpha e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}}{\alpha _P^{}Y+R_{quark}^2}.$$
(12)
2. The second diagram of Fig. 4-b is somewhat more complicated. First of all, we define the form factor for this type of diagrams:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }\left(x_1x_2x_3\right)|^2\delta \left(\stackrel{}{x}_1+\stackrel{}{x}_2+\stackrel{}{x}_3\right)e^{iqx_1iqx_2}𝑑x_1𝑑x_2𝑑x_3=e^{\frac{|t|}{2\alpha }}$$
(13)
This gives

$$D_2(y_1,y_2)=4\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}36}\frac{dt}{16\pi }e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}e^{|t|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}(\alpha _P^{}Y+\frac{1}{2\alpha })},$$
(14)
where 36 is the combinatorial factor for this type of configurations, and we obtain for this diagram:

$$D_2(y_1,y_2)=\frac{9}{\pi }\frac{g_0^4a^2\alpha e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}}{1+2\alpha \alpha _P^{}Y}.$$
(15)
3. The third diagram in Fig. 4-b gives

$$D_3(y_1,y_2)=4\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}36}\frac{dt}{16\pi }e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}e^{|t|(2\alpha _P^{}Y+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}R_{quark}^2+\frac{1}{2\alpha })}.$$
(16)
Here we used the same vertex, and after the integration we get

$$D_3(y_1,y_2)=\frac{9}{\pi }\frac{g_0^4a^2\alpha e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}}{1+4\alpha \left(\alpha _P^{}Y+R_{quark}^2\right)}.$$
(17)

Now we are ready to use our equation ( 1) and to estimate the possible dependence of $`\sigma _{eff}`$ on the quark radius $`R_{quark}^2`$. For the $`\sigma _{eff}`$ we can write

$$\sigma _{eff}=m\frac{f(y_1)f(y_2)}{2\left(D_1\left(R_{quark}^2\right)+D_2\left(R_{quark}^2\right)+D_3\right)}.$$
(18)
In Fig. 5 we plot the value of $`\sigma _{eff}`$ from Eq. (1) as a function of $`R_{quark}^2`$ for $`m=1`$, $`y_1=y_2=Y/2`$. One can see that at any value of the unknown size of the constituent quark the value of $`\sigma _{eff}`$ turns out to be larger than the experimental value.

The conclusion we derive from this simple model is quite obvious: in CQM the “soft” Pomeron exchange for quark-quark scattering cannot explain the CDF result of the double parton cross section. However, the experimental value of $`\sigma _{eff}`$ obtained from the high $`p_t`$ jet production can be described by a “hard” Pomeron. Indeed, in this case we have to consider $`\alpha _P^{}=0`$ and Fig. 5-b shows that we have $`\sigma _{eff}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}15}mb`$ for $`R_{quark}^20.05GeV^2`$. We would like to emphasize that the double parton shower cross section $`\sigma _{eff}`$ is very sensitive to the size of the constituent quark in the CDF kinematics since the CDF measures the jet production by “hard” Pomeron for which $`\alpha _P^{}(0)=0`$.

### 2.3 $`𝐑(𝐭)=\frac{𝐝\sigma _{\mathrm{𝐞𝐥}}^{\mathrm{𝐃𝐈𝐒}}/\mathrm{𝐝𝐭}}{𝐝\sigma _{\mathrm{𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐥}}^{\mathrm{𝐃𝐈𝐒}}/\mathrm{𝐝𝐭}}\mathrm{𝐢𝐧}\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞}\mathrm{𝐂𝐐𝐌}`$

In the single Pomeron exchange model the cross section for DIS diffraction and elastic scattering can be described by two diagrams in Fig. 6.

The first diagram in Fig. 6 leads to

$$\frac{d\sigma _1^D}{dt}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}3}g_0^2e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}e^{2|t|(\alpha _H^{}Y+R_{quark}^2)}.$$
(19)
In this process the “hard” Pomeron contributes, so $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_H\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.3}`$ and $`\alpha _H^{}(0)=0`$. It should also be stressed that the contribution of this diagram to the total cross section (integrated over $`t`$) is very sensitive to the value of $`R_{quark}`$ ($`D_1\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}/R_{quark}^2`$) since this contribution is proportional to $`1/(\alpha _P^{}Y+R_{quark}^2)`$, and for the “hard ” Pomeron $`\alpha _P^{}(0)=0`$.

The second diagram in Fig. 6 depends only slightly on the value of the quark radius, and can be described as follows:

$$\frac{d\sigma _2^D}{dt}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}6}g_0^2e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}e^{|t|\left(\frac{1}{2\alpha }+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}(\alpha _H^{}Y+R_{quark}^2)\right)}.$$
(20)
For the elastic cross section we have

$$\frac{d\sigma _2^{el}}{dt}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}9}g_0^2e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}e^{|t|\left(\frac{1}{3\alpha }+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}(\alpha _H^{}Y+R_{quark}^2)\right)}.$$
(21)
Here we used the expression for the simplest form factor in this model:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(x_1,x_2,x_3)|^2\delta \left(\stackrel{}{x_1}+\stackrel{}{x_2}+\stackrel{}{x_3}\right)e^{iqx_1}𝑑x_1𝑑x_2𝑑x_3=e^{\frac{|t|}{6\alpha }}.$$
(22)
Now we define our $`d\sigma _{inel}^{DIS}/dt`$ as a difference between these two contributions. Fig. 7 shows the value of the ratio $`R(t)`$ , given by Eq. (2). One can easily see that this ratio depends neither on the value of $`R_{quark}`$, nor on the value of the “hard” Pomeron intercept $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Hence, it can be considered as a crucial test of our model.

Comparing two pictures: Fig. 5 and Fig. 7, we conclude that $`\sigma _{eff}`$ can be described using the small value of $`R_{quark}`$ and the “hard” Pomeron approach with $`\alpha _P^{}=0`$, while $`R`$ does not depend on $`R_{quark}`$ and $`\alpha _P^{}=0`$, and the obtained shape of R for a given t is close to the experimental graph in . It follows from this simple exercise that we have to check the description of high energy scattering in the CQM including the ”triple” Pomeron vertex. But before doing this, in order to clarify the question of the possible value of triple Pomeron vertex and other parameters in this model, we will examine our model by fitting the data on total, elastic and diffractive dissociation cross sections.

### 2.4 Total, elastic and diffractive dissociation processes in the CQM

Let us check, how well our model, CQM, describes experimental data on total, elastic and diffractive dissociation processes. In the simplest case, without the triple Pomeron vertex corrections and additional Pomeron exchanges, we have the following contribution for the total cross section:

$$\sigma _{total}\left(Y\right)=18g_0^2e^{\mathrm{\Delta }Y}.$$
(23)
Due to our s-channel unitarity constraint we write here again an additional factor two for the cut Pomeron. For the elastic cross section one can obtain

$$\sigma _{Elastic}\left(Y\right)=\frac{81}{16\pi }\frac{g_0^4e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}}{2\alpha _P^{}Y+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}R_{quark}^2+2/(3\alpha )}.$$
(24)
We define also how to calculate the diffractive dissociation process. First of all, we take into account the sum of diffractive and elastic processes. We have to calculate several types of diagrams, see Fig. 8. The answer for these diagrams is the following:

$$\sigma \left(Y\right)=\frac{9}{32\pi }\frac{g_0^4e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}}{\alpha _P^{}Y+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}R_{quark}^2}+\frac{9}{4\pi }\frac{g_0^4\alpha e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}}{1+2\alpha \alpha _P^{}Y}+\frac{9}{2\pi }\frac{g_0^4\alpha e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}}{1+4\alpha (\alpha _P^{}Y+R_{quark}^2)}.$$
(25)
The experimental value of the diffractive dissociation cross section, single and double together, is equal to:

$$\sigma _{Diffr}\left(Y\right)=\sigma \left(Y\right)\sigma _{Elastic}\left(Y\right).$$
(26)
The result of the fitting is presented in Figs. 10 \- 12. We see that we have to include into our consideration the diagrams of the next order, with the triple Pomeron vertex and with the double Pomeron exchange. Taking into account these corrections, which are given by diagrams of the type of Fig. 9, we obtain better a fit, see Figs. 10 \- 12.

We present the analytical expressions for these contributions in the Appendix; they are rather simple. Let us note also that we calculated both the single and double diffractive dissociation processes, and we plotted a graph with single diffractive dissociation data. Hence, it is not surprising that the obtained curve is above the experimental points. So, in this model we obtained the following parameters: for the Pomeron-quark vertex and intercept $`g_{PQ}^2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}9}GeV^2`$ ,$`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.08}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.09}`$, and for the value of the triple Pomeron vertex $`\frac{\gamma }{\mathrm{g}_0}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.013}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.015}`$. The conclusion is that the value of the triple Pomeron vertex is not small and the contribution of next order corrections is important.

## 3 Triple Pomeron interaction in CQM

In this section we are going to calculate the same processes as in the previous section, but taking into account the triple Pomeron interaction. We would like to see how this interaction changes the $`R_{quark}`$ dependence of the amplitude, and we will try to find a reasonable value of the quark radius to be used in the CQM based phenomenology.

### 3.1 $`\sigma _{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}`$ in one loop calculation

The triple Pomeron interaction leads to a number of new diagrams presented in Fig. 13 which we have to add to the Fig. 4 diagrams. It should be stressed that there are many diagrams which, due to the AGK cancellations , do not contribute to double inclusive production.

The diagrams with triple Pomeron interaction in the case of a single inclusive process are presented in Fig. 14. These diagrams are the simplest ones with the triple Pomeron vertex, which we denote by $`\gamma `$, and where we take $`y_1=y_2=Y/2`$. So, we have the following additional contributions to the single inclusive process.

1. The first diagram of Fig. 14 is

$$f_2(Y)=\frac{9}{8\pi }g_0^4e^{\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^{Y/2}\frac{dxe^{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}{R_{quark}^2+\alpha _P^{}x}.$$
(27)
2. The second diagram of Fig. 14 gives

$$f_3(Y)=\frac{9}{\pi }g_0^4e^{\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\alpha \left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^{Y/2}\frac{dxe^{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}{1+4\alpha \alpha _P^{}x}.$$
(28)

We have more complicated contributions for the double inclusive cross section. Indeed, these are all diagrams of Fig. 13 and Fig. 15. The analytical expressions for these diagrams are given in the Appendix.

Now, using Eq. (1) again, we estimate the dependence of $`\sigma _{eff}`$ on $`R_{quark}^2`$ in the case of one Pomeron loop. We have:

$$\sigma _{eff}=m\frac{\left(f_1(y_1)+f_2(y_1)+f_3(y_1)\right)\left(f_1(y_2)+f_2(y_2)+f_3(y_2)\right)}{2\left(D_1+D_2+D_3+D_4+D_5+D_6+D_7+D_8+D_9+D_{10}+D_{11}+D_{12}+D_{13}\right)}.$$
(29)
We calculate the case of symmetrical pair production, where $`m=1`$ and $`y_1=y_2=\frac{Y}{2}`$, and we take a “hard” Pomeron in this calculation, $`\alpha _P^{}=0`$. We have already considered the important question of the numerical value of the triple Pomeron vertex $`\gamma `$. Fitting the diffraction dissociation data we obtained that $`\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.014}`$. This is not such a small number, the one loop corrections influence and change our results. Indeed, in Fig. 16 the value of $`\sigma _{eff}`$ is plotted as a function $`R_{quark}^2`$, where we used Eq. 29 for the calculations.

We see that indeed, the corrections change the result, obtained in the previous calculation. However, the change is not so crucial. For a “hard” Pomeron the value of $`\sigma _{eff}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}15}mb`$ is achieved for $`R_{quark}^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.08}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.07}GeV^2`$. The conclusion is that in order to explain the CDF result for the double parton cross section we need the triple Pomeron vertex, but the value of $`R_{quark}^2`$ still remains very small.

### 3.2 R(t) in one loop calculation

In the case of triple Pomeron interaction we have an additional number of diagrams which contribute to the elastic cross section of DIS and to the inelastic diffraction in DIS. First of all, consider the diagrams of DIS, presented in Figs. 17 and 18, which describe elastic and proton diffraction processes together. The expressions corresponding to these diagrams are also presented in the Appendix.

In these diagrams we defined by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.08}`$ and $`\alpha _P^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.2}`$ the intercept and the slope of the “soft” Pomeron, and by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.3}`$ and $`\alpha _H^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ the intercept and the slope of the “hard” Pomeron. We also introduced $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{\Delta }_S\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

The calculation of the elastic cross section in DIS for one loop leads to:

$$\frac{d\sigma _2^{el}}{dt}=\frac{9}{8\pi }g_0^4e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^Y\frac{dxe^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}x}}{\alpha _P^{}x+\frac{1}{4\alpha }}e^{|t|(2\alpha _H^{}Y+R_{quark}^2\alpha _H^{}x+\frac{\alpha _P^{}x}{2}+\frac{7}{24\alpha })}$$

$$\frac{9}{16\pi }g_0^4e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^Y\frac{dxe^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}x}}{\alpha _P^{}x+R_{quark}^2}e^{|t|(2\alpha _H^{}Y+\frac{3R_{quark}^2}{2}\alpha _H^{}x+\frac{\alpha _P^{}x}{2}+\frac{1}{6\alpha })}.$$
(30)
Here $`\frac{d\sigma _{inel}^{DIS}}{dt}`$ is considered as the difference between the contributions of diagrams of Figs. 17, 18 and of the elastic cross section. Now we are ready get the ratio $`R(t)`$, which is given by Eq. (2). The result is shown in Fig. 19-a. Actually, there is a fast exponential fall of the curve, due the parametrization chosen for our vertices. Therefore we present also the graph Fig. 19-b, where, instead of the simplest Gaussian parametrization $`e^{tR_{quark}^2}`$, we introduce a more realistic form factor $`F_{elastic}(|t|)=1/(1+|t|/\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.72})^2`$ for the calculation of the elastic cross section. For the calculation of the diffraction dissociation cross section we also take a different form factor $`F_{diffr}(|t|)=1/(1+|t|/2\alpha )`$, which is the first term of the expansion of $`e^{|t|/2\alpha }`$, which we used before as the parametrization for the form factor in the case of diffractive dissotiacion at the “tree” level.

We see, that we obtain here a better fit.

The obtained result for the one loop calculation is, in this simplest estimations, not so different from the “tree” calculation, in spite of the fact that in one loop calculation the radius of the quark, $`R_{quark}^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.08}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.1}GeV^2`$ is involved. And it seems that in the order to obtain a better fit to this data, we have to consider corrections, where more realistic form factors will be taken into account.

## 4 Conclusion

In this paper we demonstrate that the new beautiful experimental data on double parton shower effective cross section (CDF, Tevatron) and on the ratio of elastic and inelastic diffraction production in DIS (ZEUS, HERA) can be described in the framework of the naive Constituent Quark Model (CQM). The value of the quark radius turns out to be small: it is equal to $`R_{quark}^2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.07}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.1}GeV^2`$. This smallness can be considered as an argument supporting the idea that constituent quarks are the correct degrees of freedom for soft (long distance) interactions. It should be stressed also that we reached a satisfactory description of the experimental data by introducing only the triple Pomeron interaction. This means that the constituent quarks do not exhaust all degrees of freedom of soft high energy interaction. Much work is needed to build a comprehensive theoretical approach for long distance interaction and we consider the fact that the CQM describes all data of soft interaction, as our small contribution to the solution of this complicated problem.

## 5 Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Asher Gotsman, Uri Maor and Eran Naftali for many informative and encouraging discussions on the sabject of this paper. The research of S.B. and E.L. was supported in part by the GIF grant \# I-620-22.14/1994, by the BSF grant # 9800276 and by the Israel Science Foundation founded by the Israeli Academy of Science and Humanities.

Appendix

## Appendix A The next order corrections

The next order corrections are the corrections where the double Pomeron exchange and triple Pomeron vertex are included. In the case of the total cross section there are the following additional contributions:

$$\sigma _{total}^1\left(Y\right)=\frac{9}{32\pi }\frac{g_0^4e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}}{\alpha _P^{}Y+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}R_{quark}^2}\frac{9}{4\pi }\frac{g_0^4\alpha e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}}{1+2\alpha \alpha _P^{}Y}\frac{9}{2\pi }\frac{g_0^4\alpha e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}}{1+4\alpha (\alpha _P^{}Y+R_{quark}^2)}$$

$$\frac{9}{8\pi }g_0^4e^{\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^Y\frac{dxe^{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}{R_{quark}^2+\alpha _P^{}x}\frac{9}{\pi }g_0^4e^{\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\alpha \left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^{Y/2}\frac{dxe^{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}{1+4\alpha \alpha _P^{}x}+$$

$$\frac{9}{128\pi ^2}g_0^6e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^Y\frac{dxe^{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}{\left(2\alpha ^{}Y+\frac{7R_{quark}^2}{2}\frac{\alpha _P^{}x}{2}\right)\left(R_{quark}^2+\alpha _P^{}x\right)}+$$

$$\frac{9}{64\pi ^2}g_0^6e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^Y\frac{dxe^{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}{\left(2\alpha ^{}Y+\frac{7R_{quark}^2}{2}\frac{\alpha _P^{}x}{2}+\frac{1}{2\alpha }\right)\left(R_{quark}^2+\alpha _P^{}x\right)}+$$

$$\frac{9}{32\pi ^2}g_0^6e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^Y\frac{dxe^{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}{\left(4\alpha ^{}Y+3R_{quark}^2\alpha _P^{}x+\frac{1}{\alpha }\right)\left(R_{quark}^2+\alpha _P^{}x\right)}+$$

$$\frac{9}{16\pi ^2}g_0^6e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^Y\frac{dxe^{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}{\left(4\alpha ^{}Y+3R_{quark}^2\alpha _P^{}x+\frac{3}{2\alpha }\right)\left(R_{quark}^2+\alpha _P^{}x\right)}+$$

$$\frac{9}{64\pi ^2}g_0^6e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^Y\frac{dxe^{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}{\left(\left(3R_{quark}^2+2\alpha _P^{}Y\right)\left(\frac{1}{4\alpha }+\alpha _P^{}x\right)\frac{\alpha _P^{}_{}{}^{}2x^2}{2}\right)}$$

$$\frac{9}{64\pi ^2}g_0^6e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^Y\frac{dxe^{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}{\left(2\alpha ^{}Y+2R_{quark}^2\frac{\alpha _P^{}x}{2}+\frac{3}{8\alpha }\right)\left(\frac{1}{4\alpha }+\alpha _P^{}x\right)}+$$

$$\frac{9}{32\pi ^2}g_0^6e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^Y\frac{dxe^{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}{\left(2\alpha _P^{}Y\frac{\alpha _P^{}x}{2}+\frac{7}{8\alpha }\right)\left(\frac{1}{4\alpha }+\alpha _P^{}x\right)}+$$

$$\frac{9}{32\pi ^2}g_0^6e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^Y\frac{dxe^{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}{\left(\left(R_{quark}^2+2\alpha _P^{}Y+\frac{1}{2\alpha }\right)\left(\frac{1}{4\alpha }+\alpha _P^{}x\right)\frac{\alpha _P^{}_{}{}^{}2x^2}{2}\right)}.$$
(31)
For the elastic cross section we have in the next order:

$$\sigma _{Elastic}^1\left(Y\right)=\frac{81}{128\pi ^2}g_0^6e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^Y\frac{dxe^{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}{\left(2\alpha ^{}Y+\frac{3R_{quark}^2}{2}\frac{\alpha _P^{}x}{2}+\frac{1}{6\alpha }\right)\left(R_{quark}^2+\alpha _P^{}x\right)}$$

$$\frac{81}{64\pi ^2}g_0^6e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^Y\frac{dxe^{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}{\left(2\alpha ^{}Y+R_{quark}^2\frac{\alpha _P^{}x}{2}+\frac{13}{24\alpha }\right)\left(\frac{1}{4\alpha }+\alpha _P^{}x\right)}.$$
(32)
And for sum of elastic and diffractive dissotiation cross sections we have:

$$\sigma _{Elastic+diffr}^1\left(Y\right)=\frac{9}{8\pi }g_0^4e^{\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^Y\frac{dxe^{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}{R_{quark}^2+\alpha _P^{}x}.+\frac{9}{\pi }g_0^4e^{\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\alpha \left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^{Y/2}\frac{dxe^{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}{1+4\alpha \alpha _P^{}x}$$

$$\frac{27}{128\pi ^2}g_0^6e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^Y\frac{dxe^{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}{\left(2\alpha ^{}Y+\frac{7R_{quark}^2}{2}\frac{\alpha _P^{}x}{2}\right)\left(R_{quark}^2+\alpha _P^{}x\right)}$$

$$\frac{27}{64\pi ^2}g_0^6e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^Y\frac{dxe^{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}{\left(2\alpha ^{}Y+\frac{7R_{quark}^2}{2}\frac{\alpha _P^{}x}{2}+\frac{1}{2\alpha }\right)\left(R_{quark}^2+\alpha _P^{}x\right)}$$

$$\frac{27}{32\pi ^2}g_0^6e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^Y\frac{dxe^{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}{\left(4\alpha ^{}Y+3R_{quark}^2\alpha _P^{}x+\frac{1}{\alpha }\right)\left(R_{quark}^2+\alpha _P^{}x\right)}$$

$$\frac{27}{16\pi ^2}g_0^6e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^Y\frac{dxe^{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}{\left(4\alpha ^{}Y+3R_{quark}^2\alpha _P^{}x+\frac{3}{2\alpha }\right)\left(R_{quark}^2+\alpha _P^{}x\right)}$$

$$\frac{27}{64\pi ^2}g_0^6e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^Y\frac{dxe^{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}{\left(\left(3R_{quark}^2+2\alpha _P^{}Y\right)\left(\frac{1}{4\alpha }+\alpha _P^{}x\right)\frac{\alpha _P^{}_{}{}^{}2x^2}{2}\right)}$$

$$\frac{27}{64\pi ^2}g_0^6e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^Y\frac{dxe^{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}{\left(2\alpha ^{}Y+2R_{quark}^2\frac{\alpha _P^{}x}{2}+\frac{3}{8\alpha }\right)\left(\frac{1}{4\alpha }+\alpha _P^{}x\right)}$$

$$\frac{27}{32\pi ^2}g_0^6e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^Y\frac{dxe^{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}{\left(2\alpha _P^{}Y\frac{\alpha _P^{}x}{2}+\frac{7}{8\alpha }\right)\left(\frac{1}{4\alpha }+\alpha _P^{}x\right)}$$

$$\frac{27}{32\pi ^2}g_0^6e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^Y\frac{dxe^{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}{\left(\left(R_{quark}^2+2\alpha _P^{}Y+\frac{1}{2\alpha }\right)\left(\frac{1}{4\alpha }+\alpha _P^{}x\right)\frac{\alpha _P^{}_{}{}^{}2x^2}{2}\right)}.$$
(33)
## Appendix B Diagrams which contribute to the double inclusive cross section

1. First diagram of Fig. 15:

$$D_4(Y)=\frac{9}{4\pi }g_0^4e^{\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_{Y/2}^Y\frac{dxe^{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}{R_{quark}^2+\alpha _P^{}x}.$$
(34)
2. Second diagram of Fig. 15:

$$D_5(Y)=\frac{18}{\pi }g_0^4e^{\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\alpha \left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_{Y/2}^Y\frac{dxe^{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}{1+4\alpha \alpha _P^{}x}.$$
(35)
3. First diagram of Fig. 13

$$D_6(Y)=\frac{9}{64\pi ^2}g_0^6e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^{Y/2}\frac{dxe^{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}{\left(2\alpha ^{}Y+\frac{7R_{quark}^2}{2}\frac{\alpha _P^{}x}{2}\right)\left(R_{quark}^2+\alpha _P^{}x\right)}.$$
(36)
4. Second diagram of Fig. 13 gives

$$D_7(y)=\frac{9}{32\pi ^2}g_0^6e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^{Y/2}\frac{dxe^{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}{\left(2\alpha ^{}Y+\frac{7R_{quark}^2}{2}\frac{\alpha _P^{}x}{2}+\frac{1}{2\alpha }\right)\left(R_{quark}^2+\alpha _P^{}x\right)}.$$
(37)
5. Third diagram of Fig. 13 gives

$$D_8(Y)=\frac{9}{16\pi ^2}g_0^6e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^{Y/2}\frac{dxe^{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}{\left(4\alpha ^{}Y+3R_{quark}^2\alpha _P^{}x+\frac{1}{\alpha }\right)\left(R_{quark}^2+\alpha _P^{}x\right)}.$$
(38)
6. Fourth diagram of Fig. 13

$$D_9(Y)=\frac{9}{8\pi ^2}g_0^6e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^{Y/2}\frac{dxe^{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}{\left(4\alpha ^{}Y+3R_{quark}^2\alpha _P^{}x+\frac{3}{2\alpha }\right)\left(R_{quark}^2+\alpha _P^{}x\right)}.$$
(39)
7. Fifth diagram of Fig. 13

$$D_{10}(Y)=\frac{9}{32\pi ^2}g_0^6e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^{Y/2}\frac{dxe^{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}{\left(\left(3R_{quark}^2+2\alpha _P^{}Y\right)\left(\frac{1}{4\alpha }+\alpha _P^{}x\right)\frac{\alpha _P^{}_{}{}^{}2x^2}{2}\right)}.$$
(40)
8. Sixth diagram of Fig. 13

$$D_{11}(Y)=\frac{9}{32\pi ^2}g_0^6e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^{Y/2}\frac{dxe^{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}{\left(2\alpha ^{}Y+2R_{quark}^2\frac{\alpha _P^{}x}{2}+\frac{3}{8\alpha }\right)\left(\frac{1}{4\alpha }+\alpha _P^{}x\right)}.$$
(41)
9. Seventh diagram of Fig. 13

$$D_{12}(Y)=\frac{9}{16\pi ^2}g_0^6e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^{Y/2}\frac{dxe^{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}{\left(2\alpha _P^{}Y\frac{\alpha _P^{}x}{2}+\frac{7}{8\alpha }\right)\left(\frac{1}{4\alpha }+\alpha _P^{}x\right)}.$$
(42)
10. Eighth diagram of Fig. 13

$$D_{13}(Y)=\frac{9}{16\pi ^2}g_0^6e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^{Y/2}\frac{dxe^{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}{\left(\left(R_{quark}^2+2\alpha _P^{}Y+\frac{1}{2\alpha }\right)\left(\frac{1}{4\alpha }+\alpha _P^{}x\right)\frac{\alpha _P^{}_{}{}^{}2x^2}{2}\right)}.$$
(43)

## Appendix C Diagrams wich contribute to the total inelastic diffraction in DIS

1. The first diagram of Fig. 17 gives

$$\frac{d\sigma _3^D}{dt}=\frac{3}{16\pi }g_0^4e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^Y\frac{dxe^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}x}}{\alpha _P^{}x+R_{quark}^2}e^{|t|(2\alpha _H^{}Y+\frac{3R_{quark}^2}{2}\alpha _H^{}x+\frac{\alpha _P^{}x}{2})}.$$
(44)
2. From second diagram of Fig. 17 we obtain

$$\frac{d\sigma _4^D}{dt}=\frac{3}{8\pi }g_0^4e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^Y\frac{dxe^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}x}}{\alpha _P^{}x+R_{quark}^2}e^{|t|(2\alpha _H^{}Y+\frac{3R_{quark}^2}{2}\alpha _H^{}x+\frac{\alpha _P^{}x}{2}+\frac{1}{2\alpha })}.$$
(45)
3. Third diagram of Fig. 17

$$\frac{d\sigma _5^D}{dt}=\frac{3}{8\pi }g_0^4e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^Y\frac{dxe^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}x}}{\alpha _P^{}x+\frac{1}{4\alpha }}e^{|t|(2\alpha _H^{}Y+R_{quark}^2\alpha _H^{}x+\frac{\alpha _P^{}x}{2}+\frac{3}{8\alpha })}.$$
(46)
4. Fourth diagram of Fig. 17 gives

$$\frac{d\sigma _6^D}{dt}=\frac{3}{8\pi }g_0^4e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Y}\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)_0^Y\frac{dxe^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}x}}{\alpha _P^{}x+\frac{1}{4\alpha }}e^{|t|(2\alpha _H^{}Y+R_{quark}^2\alpha _H^{}x+\frac{\alpha _P^{}x}{2}+\frac{1}{8\alpha }\frac{1}{8\alpha +32\alpha ^2\alpha _P^{}x})},$$
(47)
5. And the last diagram of Fig. 18 leads to:

$$\frac{d\sigma _7^D}{dt}=6g_0^2\left(\frac{\gamma }{g_0}\right)e^{|t|R_{quark}^2}\frac{1e^{(2\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_S)Y}}{2\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_S}.$$
(48)


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

On the amplification of sound (acoustic phonons) by absorption of laser

radiation in cylindrical quantum wires

Nguyen Quoc Hung, Nguyen Vu Nhan, Nguyen Quang Bau

Faculty of Physics, Hanoi University of Science

334 Nguyen Trai Str., Thanh Xuan, Ha Noi

## Abstract

Based on the quantum transport equation for the electron-phonon system, the absorption coefficient of sound (acoustic phonons) by absorption of laser radiation in cylindrical quantum wires is calculated for the case of monophoton absorption and the case of multiphoton absorption. Analytical expressions and conditions for the absorption of sound are obtained. Differences between the two cases of monophoton absorption and of multiphoton absorption are discussed; numerical computations and plots are carried out for a GaAs/GaAsAl quantum wire. The results are compared with bulk semiconductors and quantum wells.

1. Introduction The theory of amplification of sound (acoustic phonons) by absorption of laser radiation in bulk semiconductors and quantum wells has been widely studied in \[1$`÷`$6\]. In  the problem was restricted to bulk semiconductors with monophoton absorption and multiphoton absorption processes. In  the problem was considered for quantum wells with monophoton and multiphoton absorption processes, or in a quantizing magnetic field that does not have the restriction conditions of Ref . All these authors showed that the absorption coefficient of sound can be negative in some regions of values of acoustic wave vector $`q`$, or it turns into the amplification coefficient of sound. In order to continue these ideas, in this paper we study theoretically the amplification of sound by absorption of laser radiation in cylindrical quantum wires with monophoton absorption and multiphoton absorption processes. To do so, we establish quantum transport equation for phonon. Solving this equation, we obtain analytical expressions for the coefficients and the conditions for the amplification of of sound.

2. Quantum transport equation for acoustic phonons Consider a cylindrical quantum wire with radius $`R`$ and potential: $`\{\begin{array}{ccc}V(\stackrel{}{r})=0& & r<R\\ V(\stackrel{}{r})=\mathrm{}& & r>R\end{array}`$.
Solving Schrödinger equation we obtain the wave function and the energy spectrum for electron :

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(r,\theta )=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi R}}\frac{1}{J_{n+1}(A_{n,l})}J_n\left(\frac{A_{n,l}r}{R}\right)e^{\pm in\theta }& & r<R\\ 0& & r>R\end{array},\epsilon _{n,l}(\stackrel{}{k})=\frac{k^2}{2m^{}}+\frac{A_{n,l}^2}{2m^{}R^2}.$$

$`A_{n,l}`$ is the $`l^{th}`$ root of Bessel equation of order $`n:J_n(x);n,l`$ are quantum numbers; $`m^{}`$ is the effective mass of electron; $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ is the electron wave vector (along the wire’s axis: $`z`$ axis). Thus in second quantization representation, the Hamiltonian for the electron-phonon system in a quantum wire in external field can be written as:

$`H(t)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n,l,\stackrel{}{k}}{}}\epsilon _{n,l}\left(\stackrel{}{k}e\stackrel{}{A}(t)\right)a_{n,l,\stackrel{}{k}}^+a_{n,l,\stackrel{}{k}}+{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{q}}{}}\omega _\stackrel{}{q}b_\stackrel{}{q}^+b_\stackrel{}{q}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n,l,n^{},l^{},\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{q}}{}}C_{n,l,n^{},l^{}}(\stackrel{}{q})a_{n,l,\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{q}}a_{n^{},l^{},\stackrel{}{k}}(b_\stackrel{}{q}^++b_\stackrel{}{q}).`$ (1)
Where $`a_{n,l,\stackrel{}{k}}^+`$ and $`a_{n,l,\stackrel{}{k}}`$ ($`b_\stackrel{}{q}^+`$ and $`b_\stackrel{}{q}`$) are the creation and annihilation operators of electron (phonon); $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ is the phonon wave vector; $`C_{n,l,n^{},l^{}}(\stackrel{}{q})`$ is the interaction coefficient of electron-acoustic phonon scattering; $`\stackrel{}{A}(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\stackrel{}{E}_0\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }t)`$ is the potential vector, depends on the external field. All formulae are written in units where $`h=1`$ and $`c=1`$. Process in a similar way to Ref , from (1), we obtain the quantum transport equation for acoustic phonons in quantum wires:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}<b_\stackrel{}{q}>_t+i\omega _\stackrel{}{q}<b_\stackrel{}{q}>_t={\displaystyle \underset{n,l,n^{},l^{}}{}}|C_{n,l,n^{},l^{}}(\stackrel{}{q})|^2{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}}[n_{n,l}(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{q})n_{n^{},l^{}}(\stackrel{}{k})]{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^t}<b_\stackrel{}{q}>_{t_1}\times `$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{\nu ,s=\mathrm{}}{}}J_\nu \left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right)J_s\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right)\mathrm{exp}\{i[\epsilon _{n^{},l^{}}(\stackrel{}{k})\epsilon _{n,l}(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{q})](t_1t)i\nu \mathrm{\Omega }t_1+is\mathrm{\Omega }t\}dt_1,`$ (2)
Where the symbol $`<x>_t`$ means the usual thermodynamics average of operator $`x;n_{n,l}(\stackrel{}{k})`$ is the distribution function of electron; $`\lambda ={\displaystyle \frac{e\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{E}_0}{m^{}\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$.

3. The amplification of sound in quantum wires with monophoton absorption process Using Fourier transformation, from (2), with $`\delta +0`$, we have:

$`(\omega \omega _\stackrel{}{q})B_\stackrel{}{q}(\omega )`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n,l,n^{},l^{}}{}}|C_{n,l,n^{},l^{}}(\stackrel{}{q})|^2{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}}[n_{n^{},l^{}}(\stackrel{}{k})n_{n,l}(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{q})]\times `$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{\nu ,s=\mathrm{}}{}}J_\nu \left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right)J_s\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{B_\stackrel{}{q}[\omega +(s\nu )\mathrm{\Omega }]}{[\epsilon _{n^{},l^{}}(\stackrel{}{k})\epsilon _{n,l}(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{q})\omega \nu \mathrm{\Omega }i\delta ]}},`$
Where $`B_\stackrel{}{q}(\omega )`$ is the Fourier transformation of $`<b_\stackrel{}{q}>_t`$. Neglecting the terms of two or higher order in the interaction coefficient $`C_{n,l,n^{},l^{}}(\stackrel{}{q})`$, we have the dispersion equation:

$`\omega \omega _\stackrel{}{q}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n,l,n^{},l^{}}{}}|C_{n,l,n^{},l^{}}(\stackrel{}{q})|^2{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}}[n_{n^{},l^{}}(\stackrel{}{k})n_{n,l}(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{q})]\times `$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{\nu =\mathrm{}}{}}J_\nu ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{[\epsilon _{n^{},l^{}}(\stackrel{}{k})\epsilon _{n,l}(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{q})\omega _\stackrel{}{q}\nu \mathrm{\Omega }i\delta ]}}.`$
From this we obtain the general formula for absorption coefficient of acoustic phonons in quantum wires:

$`\alpha (\stackrel{}{q})`$ $`=\pi {\displaystyle \underset{n,l,n^{},l^{}}{}}|C_{n,l,n^{},l^{}}(\stackrel{}{q})|^2{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}}[n_{n^{},l^{}}(\stackrel{}{k})n_{n,l}(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{q})]\times `$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{\nu =\mathrm{}}{}}J_\nu ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right)\delta \{\epsilon _{n^{},l^{}}(\stackrel{}{k})\epsilon _{n,l}(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{q})\omega _\stackrel{}{q}\nu \mathrm{\Omega }\},`$ (3)
here $`\delta (x)`$ is the Dirac delta function. In this section, we study the monophoton absorption process, thus the parameter in the Bessel function is small: $`\lambda \mathrm{\Omega }`$. Assume the electron is non-degenerate, we obtain the expression for the sound absorption coefficient:

$`a(\stackrel{}{q})`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{m^{}n_0\lambda ^2}{4q\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,l,n^{},l^{}}{}}|C_{n,l,n^{},l^{}}(\stackrel{}{q})|^2\times `$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{A_{n^{},l^{}}^2}{2m^{}k_BTR^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m^{}}{2k_BTq^2}}(a^2+\mathrm{\Omega }^2)\right]\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n,l,n^{},l^{}}(\stackrel{}{q},\mathrm{\Omega }),`$ (4)
where $`n_0`$ is the electron density, $`k_B`$ is the Boltzmann constant, $`a={\displaystyle \frac{A_{n,l}^2A_{n^{},l^{}}^2}{2m^{}R^2}}+\omega _\stackrel{}{q}+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2m^{}}}`$, and

$`A_{n,l,n^{},l^{}}(\stackrel{}{q},\mathrm{\Omega })`$ $`=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _\stackrel{}{q}}{2k_BT}}\right)\{\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{m^{}a\mathrm{\Omega }}{k_BTq^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2k_BT}})sh\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _\stackrel{}{q}+\mathrm{\Omega }}{2k_BT}}\right)+`$
$`+\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{m^{}a\mathrm{\Omega }}{k_BTq^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2k_BT}})sh\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _\stackrel{}{q}\mathrm{\Omega }}{2k_BT}}\right)\}.`$
Due to the $`\delta `$ function in Eq.(3), the momentum must satisfy the condition:

$$k\left|\frac{q}{2}+\frac{m^{}}{2}\left(\frac{A_{n,l}^2A_{n^{},l^{}}^2}{2m^{}R^2}+\omega _\stackrel{}{q}\right)\pm \frac{m^{}}{q}\mathrm{\Omega }\right|.$$
$`(5)`$
From Eq.(4), we see that when $`\omega _\stackrel{}{q}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the absorption coefficient is negative, or in orther word , it is the amplification coefficient of sound: $`\alpha (\stackrel{}{q})<0`$:

$`\alpha (\stackrel{}{q})`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{m^{}n_0\lambda ^2}{2q\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,l,n^{},l^{}}{}}|C_{n,l,n^{},l^{}}(\stackrel{}{q})|^2\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{A_{n^{},l^{}}^2}{2m^{}k_BTR^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m^{}a^2}{2k_BTq^2}})\times `$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _\stackrel{}{q}}{2k_BT}}{\displaystyle \frac{m^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{2k_BTq^2}}\right]sh\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2k_BT}}\right)sh\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m^{}\mathrm{\Omega }}{k_BTq^2}}\left(\omega _\stackrel{}{q}+{\displaystyle \frac{A_{n,l}^2A_{n^{},l^{}}^2}{2m^{}R^2}}\right)\right].`$ (6)
4. The amplification of sound in quantum wires with multiphoton absorption process Assume the parameter in Bessel function is large: $`\lambda \mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the electron is non-degenerate, use approximate formula :

$$\underset{\nu }{}J_\nu ^2\left(\frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right)\delta (E\nu \mathrm{\Omega })=\frac{\theta (\lambda ^2E^2)}{\pi \sqrt{\lambda ^2E^2}}.\theta (x)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}1& & x>0\\ 0& & x<0.\end{array}$$

From the general formula (3), we obtain the analytical expression of the coefficient of sound:

$`\alpha (\stackrel{}{q})`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^{\frac{1}{2}}n_0m^{}}{2q}}\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{m^{}\lambda ^2}{2k_BTq^2}}){\displaystyle \underset{n,l,n^{},l^{}}{}}|C_{n,l,n^{},l^{}}(\stackrel{}{q})|^2\times `$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{\nu =0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\nu +\frac{1}{2}\right)}{\nu !}}[\chi _{n,l}\left({\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2m^{}}}\right)\chi _{n^{},l^{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2m^{}}}\right)],`$ (7)
where:

$`\chi _{n,l}(x)`$ $`=\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{A_{n,l}^2}{2m^{}k_BTR^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m^{}}{2q^2k_BT}}({\displaystyle \frac{A_{n,l}^2A_{n^{},l^{}}^2}{2m^{}R^2}}+x+\omega _\stackrel{}{q})^2]\times `$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{{\displaystyle \frac{A_{n,l}^2A_{n^{},l^{}}^2}{2m^{}R^2}}+x+\omega _\stackrel{}{q}}}\right)^\nu I_\nu \left[{\displaystyle \frac{m^{}\lambda }{q^2k_BT}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{A_{n,l}A_{n^{},l^{}}}{2m^{}R^2}}+x+\omega _\stackrel{}{q}\right)\right],`$
$`I_\nu (x)`$ is the complex Bessel function of order $`\nu `$. From the $`\theta `$ function above, we derive the momentum condition:

$$k<\pm \frac{q}{2}+\frac{A_{n,l}^2A_{n^{},l^{}}^2}{2qR^2}+\frac{m^{}}{q}|\lambda |.$$
$`(8)`$
Note that if

$$\chi _{n,l}\left(\frac{q^2}{2m^{}}\right)<\chi _{n^{},l^{}}\left(\frac{q^2}{2m^{}}\right),$$
$`(9)`$
then $`\alpha (\stackrel{}{q})<0`$, which means we have the amplification coefficient of sound.

5. Discussion From the obtained result (4), we plotted the dependence of the absorption coefficient of sound on wave vector (figure 1), on wave vector and laser frequency (figure 2), and on temperature $`\beta =kT`$ (figure 3) for the case of monophoton absorption in a GaAs/GaAsAl quantum wire with $`R=100\stackrel{}{A},m=0.067m_0,\mathrm{}=1,c=1`$. Note that the plots include both positive region and negative region (which means we have the regions of sound absorption and sound amplification). In figure 1, we can see a maximum in the amplification of sound at $`q0.0004`$ meV, while the maximum for the case of absorption of sound (the positive region in the graph) is obtained at $`q0.0012`$ meV. The graph has a similar form with the correspondent graph in quantum wells , except that the region of wave vector is different. Figure 2 shows the dependence of $`\alpha `$ on phonon’s wave vector and laser frequency. Note that the maximum and the minimum of $`\alpha `$ do not change with laser frequency. Instead, the absorption coefficient decreases slightly with increasing laser frequency. Figure 3 is plotted for the dependence of $`\alpha `$ on temperature $`\beta =kT`$, with $`k`$ is Boltzmann constant. The laser frequency is 50 meV. Figure 3a is plotted with a value of $`q0.0004`$ meV (the minimum of ( in Fig.1), whereas figure 3b is plotted with a value of $`q0.0012`$ meV (the maximum of $`\alpha `$ in Fig.1). Both graphs show that the absorption or amplification is strongest when $`\beta `$ is in the interval of $`0.05`$ and $`0.1`$ meV. The formulae (4), (7) are carried out only when the conditions (5), (8) are satisfied. That is, only phonons with proper momentum are absorbed or amplified. In the limiting case when $`\omega _\stackrel{}{q}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (for monophoton absorption), $`\alpha (\stackrel{}{q})<0`$ and we have the amplification coefficient of sound, or the number of phonon is increased with time. These formulae are more complicated than the correspondent formulas in quantum wells due to the intricate dependence of the electron wave function and energy spectrum on Bessel function. With bulk semiconductors, because of the continuance of the energy spectrum, the dependence has a completely different form . In the case of multiphoton absorption, the absorption coefficient and the momentum condition intricately depend on the variable (the exponential and the complex- Bessel function). The dependence on the complex - Bessel function $`I_v(z),z`$ varies with the intensity of the laser radiation field $`\left(\lambda ={\displaystyle \frac{e\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{E}_0}{m^{}\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right)`$ showed that the amplification of sound depends on the intensity of the radiation field with the order greater than two, while the dependence in the case of monophoton absorption is of the order two. When the condition (9) is satisfied, we also have the amplification of sound. Compare these formulae with the expressions in  we realize the difference for both the dependence and the momentum conditions.

6. Conclusion In conclusion, we want to emphasize that:

1. The quantum transport equation for phonon in quantum wires was established, which has a similar form with those in quantum wells and bulk semiconductors.
2. Analytical expressions and conditions for the absorption coefficient of sound (acoustic phonons) were first obtained in the case of monophoton absorption and multiphoton absorption. In proper conditions, the absorption coefficient of sound is negative and turns out to be the amplification coefficient of sound.
3. The results are general and avoided the approximations used in . The dependence of the absorption coefficients of sound is more complicated than those in the case of quantum wells and bulk semiconductors.

Reference

1. Nguyen Quang Bau, Vu Thanh Tam, Nguyen Vu Nhan, Military science and technology magazine, No 24, 3 (1998) 38.
2. Nguyen Quang Bau, Nguyen Vu Nhan, Nguyen Manh Trinh. Proceedings of IWOMS ’99, Hanoi 1999, 869.
3. Nguyen Quang Bau, Nguyen Vu Nhan, Chhoumm Navy, VNU. Journal of science, Nat.sci., 15 (1999) 1.
4. E.M. Epstein, Radio Physics, 18 (1975) 785.
5. E.M. Epstein, Lett. JETP, 13 (1971) 511.
6. Peiji Zhao, Phys. Rev., B49 (1994) 13589.
7. Nguyen Quang Bau, Nguyen Van Huong, J. Science of HSU, Physics, 3 (1990) 8.
8. Nguyen Hong Son, Shmelev G. M, Epstein E. M, Izv. VUZov USSR, Physics, 5 (1984) 19.
9. L. Sholimal, Tunnel effects in semiconductors and applications, Moscow, (1974).
10. Gold and Ghazali, Phys. Rev. B41 (1990) 8318.

Figure

1. Dependence of absorption coefficient of sound on wavevector with $`\beta =0.08`$ meV, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=50`$ meV, $`\mathrm{}=1,c=1`$.
2. Dependence of absorption coefficient on wave vector and laser frequency, with $`\beta =0.08`$ meV, $`\mathrm{}=1,c=1`$.
3. Dependence of absorption coefficient on temperature. Figure 3a is plotted at $`q=0.0004`$ meV and figure 3b at $`q=0.0012`$ meV, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=50`$ meV, $`\mathrm{}=1,c=1`$.


text:
# Effective masses of diquarks

## 1  Introduction

Mesons are color-singlet bound states of a quark and an antiquark. In addition to quark-antiquark bound states, one could also ask the question whether or not there are quark-quark bound states, by studying the corresponding Bethe–Salpeter equation \[BSE\] for bound states. Such states are of course not colorless in QCD, and are therefore expected to be confined, if they exist at all. Nevertheless, the masses of these states can serve as an indication for the relevant mass scales of quark-quark correlations. Such diquark correlations could play a role inside baryons: two quarks bound in a color antitriplet configuration can couple with a quark to form a color-singlet baryon. Indeed, recent studies of baryons as bound states of a quark and a (confined) diquark are quite successful in describing baryons . Also some lattice simulations  indicate the existence of correlations in diquark channels.

Here we report ground state meson and color-antitriplet diquark masses based on the rainbow-ladder truncation of the set of Dyson–Schwinger equations \[DSEs\] . This covariant approach accommodates quark confinement and implements QCD’s one-loop renormalization group behavior. The model we apply has previously been shown to give an efficient description of the masses and electroweak decay constants of the light pseudoscalar and vector mesons  and their interactions . This calculation will provide information to guide the improvement of quark-diquark models of baryons and assists in developing an intuitive understanding of lattice simulations.

## 2  Dyson–Schwinger Equations

The DSE for the renormalized quark propagator in Euclidean space is

$`S(p)^1`$ $`=`$ $`iZ_2/p+Z_4m_q(\mu )+Z_1{\displaystyle _q^\mathrm{\Lambda }}g^2D_{\mu \nu }(k)\frac{\lambda ^i}{2}\gamma _\mu S(q)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ^i(q,p),`$ (1)
where $`D_{\mu \nu }(k=pq)`$ is the dressed-gluon propagator, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ^i(q,p)`$ the dressed-quark-gluon vertex with color-octet index $`i=1,\mathrm{},8`$, and $`Z_2`$ and $`Z_4`$ are the quark wave-function and mass renormalization constants. The notation $`_q^\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{\Lambda }d^4q/(2\pi )^4`$ stands for a translationally invariant regularization of the integral, with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ being the regularization mass-scale. The regularization is removed at the end of all calculations, by taking the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$. We use the Euclidean metric where $`\{\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _\nu \}=2\delta _{\mu \nu }`$, $`\gamma _\mu ^{}=\gamma _\mu `$ and $`ab=_{i=1}^4a_ib_i`$. The most general solution of Eq. (1) has the form $`S(p)^1=i/pA(p^2)+`$ $`B(p^2)`$ and is renormalized at spacelike $`\mu ^2`$ according to $`A(\mu ^2)=1`$ and $`B(\mu ^2)=m_q(\mu )`$ with $`m_q(\mu )`$ being the current quark mass.

### 2.1  Meson Bethe–Salpeter Equation

Mesons are color-singlet quark-antiquark bound states. They are solutions of the homogeneous Bethe–Salpeter equation \[BSE\] for $`q\overline{q}`$ bound states

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_M^{\alpha \beta }(p_+,p_{})\delta _{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _q^\mathrm{\Lambda }}K_{ac;db}^{\alpha \gamma ;\delta \beta }(p_+,q_+;q_{},p_{})`$ (2)
$`S^{\gamma \gamma ^{}}(q_+)\mathrm{\Gamma }_M^{\gamma ^{}\delta ^{}}(q_+,q_{})\delta _{cd}S^{\delta ^{}\delta }(q_{}),`$
where $`p_+=p+\eta P`$ and $`p_{}=p(1\eta )P`$ are the outgoing and incoming quark momenta respectively, and $`q_\pm `$ is defined similarly, see also Fig. 1.

The greek superscripts are spinor indices, and the roman subscripts are color indices running from 1 to 3; for simplicity we consider one flavor here. The kernel $`K`$ is the renormalized, amputated $`q\overline{q}`$ scattering kernel that is irreducible with respect to a pair of $`q\overline{q}`$ lines.

This equation has solutions at discrete values of $`P^2=m_M^2`$, where $`m_M`$ is the meson mass. Together with the canonical normalization condition for $`q\overline{q}`$ bound states, it completely determines $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_M`$, the bound state Bethe–Salpeter amplitude \[BSA\]. The different types of mesons, such as pseudo-scalar, vector, etc. are characterized by different Dirac structures. The most general decomposition for pseudoscalar bound states is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{PS}(q_+,q_{})`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _5[iE(q^2,qP;\eta )+/PF(q^2,qP;\eta )`$ (3)
$`+/kG(q^2,qP;\eta )+\sigma _{\mu \nu }P_\mu q_\nu H(q^2,qP;\eta )],`$
where the invariant amplitudes $`E`$, $`F`$, $`G`$ and $`H`$ are Lorentz scalar functions of $`q^2`$ and $`qP`$. Note also that these amplitudes explicitly depend on the momentum partitioning parameter $`\eta `$. However, so long as Poincaré invariance is respected, the resulting physical observables are independent of this parameter . If $`\eta =\frac{1}{2}`$, these amplitudes are appropriately odd or even in the charge parity odd quantity $`qP`$ for charge eigenstates. In the case of the $`0^+`$ pion, for example, the amplitude $`G`$ is odd in $`qP`$, the others are even.

The most general decomposition for scalar mesons can be obtained from that for a pseudoscalar mesons by dropping the $`\gamma _5`$. For the $`0^{++}`$, the amplitude $`F`$ is odd in $`qP`$, the others are even, if we use the same notation as for the pseudoscalars. A vector meson has more Dirac structures: a massive vector meson being transverse, the general decomposition of a such a BSA requires eight covariants , the dominant structure being

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{\text{dom}}(q_+,q_{})`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\delta _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{P_\mu P_\nu }{P^2}}\right)\gamma _\nu V_1(q^2,qP;\eta ).`$ (4)
For the $`1^{}`$ $`\rho `$ meson, the function $`V_1(q^2,qP;\eta =\frac{1}{2})`$ is even in $`qP`$.

### 2.2  Diquark bound states

Diquarks are quark-quark correlations. In QCD, with $`N_c=3`$, these states are necessarily colored and therefore believed to be confined. Two quarks can be coupled in either a color sextet or a color antitriplet. Single gluon exchange leads to an (effective) interaction that is attractive for diquarks in a color antitriplet configuration, but the interaction is repulsive in the color sextet channel . Furthermore, it is the diquark in a color antitriplet that can couple with a quark to form a color-singlet baryon. Thus we will only consider in diquarks in a color antitriplet configuration.

Using the antisymmetric tensor $`ϵ_{abc}`$ as a representation of the antitriplet , the corresponding diquark bound states can be described by solutions of the homogeneous BSE

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_D^{\alpha \beta }(p_+,p_{})ϵ_{abc}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _q^\mathrm{\Lambda }}K_{ad;be}^{\alpha \gamma ;\beta \delta }(p_+,q_+;p_{},q_{})`$ (5)
$`S^{\gamma \gamma ^{}}(q_+)\mathrm{\Gamma }_M^{\gamma ^{}\delta ^{}}(q_+,q_{})ϵ_{dec}S^{\delta \delta ^{}}(q_{}),`$
where $`p_+=p+\eta P`$ and $`p_{}=p+(1\eta )P`$ are now both outgoing quark momenta (and similarly for $`q_+`$ and $`q_{}`$). This is schematically depicted in Fig. 2; note the difference in the argument and the order of the indices of the second quark propagator and of the kernel $`K`$ compared to the meson BSE, Eq. (2).

With the help of the charge conjugation matrix $`C`$, which satisfies $`C^2=1`$ and $`C\gamma _\mu C=(\gamma _\mu )^T`$, we can rewrite the BSE for diquarks as

$`\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_D(p_+,p_{})C\right)^{\alpha \beta ^{}}ϵ_{abc}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{dec}{\displaystyle _q^\mathrm{\Lambda }}K_{ad;be}^{\alpha \gamma ;\beta \delta }(p_+,q_+;p_{},q_{})C^{\delta ^{\prime \prime }\delta }C^{\beta \beta ^{}}`$ (6)
$`S^{\gamma \gamma ^{}}(q_+)\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_D(q_+,q_{})C\right)^{\gamma ^{}\delta ^{}}S(q_{})^{\delta ^{}\delta ^{\prime \prime }}.`$
This equation resembles the meson BSE; in fact, using a skeleton expansion of the kernel $`K`$ one can show that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_D(q_+,q_{})C`$ satisfies a BSE whose Dirac structure is identical to that of the meson BSE for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_M(q_+,q_{})`$. Only its color structure is different, and that has important consequences .

As in the case of mesons, the different types of diquarks are characterized by different Dirac structures. Since the intrinsic parity of a quark-quark pair is opposite to that of a quark-antiquark pair, a scalar diquark BSA, or rather $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{D,\text{scal}}(q_+,q_{})C`$, has exactly the same form as a pseudoscalar meson BSA, Eq. (3). Similarly, an axialvector diquark BSA has the same decomposition as a vector meson BSA, and a pseudoscalar diquark BSA has the same form as a scalar meson BSA.

### 2.3  Two-body bound states in rainbow-ladder truncation

For practical calculations, we utilize the rainbow truncation of the quark DSE

$`Z_1g^2D_{\mu \nu }(k)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ^i(q,p)`$ $``$ $`𝒢(k^2)D_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{free}}(k)\gamma _\nu \frac{\lambda ^i}{2},`$ (7)
in combination with the ladder truncation of the BSE

$`K_{ac;db}^{\alpha \gamma ;\delta \beta }(p_+,q_+;q_{},p_{})`$ (8)
$`𝒢(k^2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^i}{2}}\right)_{ac}\left(\gamma _\mu \right)^{\alpha \gamma }D_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{free}}(k)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^i}{2}}\right)_{db}\left(\gamma _\nu \right)^{\delta \beta },`$
where $`D_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{free}}(k=pq=p_\pm q_\pm )`$ is the free gluon propagator in Landau gauge. These two truncations are consistent in the sense that the combination produces vector and axialvector vertices satisfying the respective Ward–Takahashi identities . In the axial case, this ensures that in the chiral limit the ground state pseudoscalar mesons are the massless Goldstone bosons associated with chiral symmetry breaking; with nonzero current quark masses it leads to a generalization of the Gell-Man–Oaks–Renner relation . In the vector case, this ensures conservation of the electromagnetic current .

If we insert this ladder kernel, Eq. (8), in the meson BSE, we get the ladder BSE for the meson BSA

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_M^{\alpha \beta }(p_+,p_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{Tr}_c\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^i}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^i}{2}}\right]{\displaystyle _q^\mathrm{\Lambda }}𝒢(k^2)D_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{free}}(k)`$ (9)
$`\left(\gamma _\mu S(q_+)\mathrm{\Gamma }_M(q_+,q_{})S(q_{})\gamma _\mu \right)^{\alpha \beta },`$
For the diquark bound states we obtain

$`\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_D(p_+,p_{})C\right)^{\alpha \beta }ϵ_{abc}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{dec}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^i}{2}}\right)_{ad}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^i}{2}}\right)_{be}{\displaystyle _q^\mathrm{\Lambda }}𝒢(k^2)D_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{free}}(k)`$ (10)
$`\left(\gamma _\mu S(q_+)\mathrm{\Gamma }_D(q_+,q_{})CS(q_{})\gamma _\mu \right)^{\alpha \beta }.`$
Comparing Eq. (9) with Eq. (10), we see that in ladder truncation the only difference between the meson BSE for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_M`$ and BSE for a color-antitriplet diquark, or rather, for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_DC`$, lies in the color factors. For the mesons, we have $`\mathrm{Tr}_c[\frac{\lambda ^i}{2}\frac{\lambda ^i}{2}]=4`$, and thus we get a factor of $`4/3`$ in front of the BSE integral. For the diquarks in a color antitriplet configuration on the other hand, we have

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^i}{2}}\right)_{ad}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^i}{2}}\right)_{be}ϵ_{dec}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}ϵ_{abc}.`$ (11)
Thus, in ladder truncation the effective interaction for the diquarks is reduced by a factor of two compared to the interaction in the meson channel. Beyond ladder truncation a more complex algebraic relation persists between the meson and diquark BSEs . We therefore expect that the diquarks with the lowest mass are the scalar diquarks (the diquark partners of the pseudoscalar mesons), followed by the axialvector and pseudoscalar diquarks .

The rainbow-ladder truncation is particularly suitable for the flavor octet pseudoscalar mesons and for the vector mesons, since the next-to-leading-order contributions in a quark-gluon skeleton graph expansion have a significant amount of cancellation between repulsive and attractive corrections . However, the BSE for diquarks, and also the scalar meson BSE, receive large repulsive corrections from these next-to-leading-order contributions. This will significantly change the scalar meson mass and corresponding BSA; the diquark bound states found in ladder truncation will in fact disappear altogether from the spectrum . Nevertheless, correlations will persist in the diquark channels and diquark masses found in ladder truncation can serve as a guide for parametrizing those correlations.

## 3  Numerical calculations

### 3.1  Model interaction

For our numerical calculations we employ a model for the effective coupling $`𝒢(k^2)`$ that has been developed through an efficient description of the masses and decay constants of the light pseudoscalar and vector mesons . This effective $`\overline{q}q`$ interaction is constrained by perturbative QCD in the ultraviolet and has a phenomenological infrared behavior. The form is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒢(k^2)}{k^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2Dk^2}{\omega ^6}}\mathrm{e}^{k^2/\omega ^2}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2\gamma _m(k^2)}{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left[\tau +\left(1+k^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2\right)^2\right]}},`$ (12)
with $`\gamma _m=12/(332N_f)`$ and $`(s)=(1\mathrm{exp}\frac{s}{4m_t^2})/s`$. The ultraviolet behavior is chosen to be that of the QCD running coupling $`\alpha (k^2)`$; the ladder-rainbow truncation then generates the correct perturbative QCD structure of the DSE-BSE system of equations. The first term implements the strong infrared support in the region $`0<k^2<1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ phenomenologically required  to produce a realistic value for the chiral condensate. We use $`m_t=0.5\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`\tau =\mathrm{e}^21`$, $`N_f=4`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}=0.234\mathrm{GeV}`$, and a renormalization scale $`\mu =19\mathrm{GeV}`$ which is well into the perturbative domain . The remaining parameters, $`\omega =0.4\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`D=0.93\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ along with the quark masses, are fitted to give a good description of the chiral condensate, $`m_{\pi /K}`$ and $`f_\pi `$.

Within this model, the quark propagator reduces to the one-loop perturbative QCD propagator in the ultraviolet region. In particular, the dynamical mass function $`M(p^2)=B(p^2)/A(p^2)`$ behaves like

$`M(p^2)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{m}_q}{\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{p^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2}\right]\right)^{\gamma _m}}},`$ (13)
where $`\widehat{m}_q`$ is the renormalization-point-independent explicit chiral-symmetry-breaking mass. In the chiral limit the behavior is qualitatively different

$`M_{\text{chiral}}(p^2)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2\gamma _m}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}q^0}{p^2\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{p^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2}\right]\right)^{1\gamma _m}}},`$ (14)
with $`\overline{q}q^0`$ the renormalization-point-independent chiral condensate . Its relation to the renormalization-dependent condensate

$`\overline{q}q^\mu =3Z_4{\displaystyle _q^\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{Tr}[S_{\text{chiral}}(p)],`$ (15)
is at one-loop level

$`\overline{q}q^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{ln}\mu /\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}})^{\gamma _m}\overline{q}q^0.`$ (16)
As demonstrated clearly in Ref. , this behavior of the mass function in the chiral limit is a keystone of the microscopic realization of Goldstone’s theorem in QCD: the quark condensate (and hence the pion mass) and other observables are materially dependent on the ultraviolet properties of the interaction.

In the infrared region both the wave function renormalization $`Z(p^2)=1/A(p^2)`$ and the dynamical mass function deviate significantly from the perturbative behavior, due to chiral symmetry breaking. Recent comparisons  of results from this rainbow DSE model to lattice QCD simulations  provide semiquantitative confirmation of the behavior generated by the present DSE model: a significant enhancement of $`M(p^2)`$ and a material enhancement of $`A(p^2)`$ below $`1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$.

The vector meson masses and electroweak decay constants produced by this model are in good agreement with experiments . The model’s prediction for the pion charge form factor $`F_\pi (Q^2)`$ is confirmed by the most recent Jlab data . The kaon charge radii and electromagnetic form factors are also described well , as is the weak $`K_{l3}`$ decay . The strong decays of the vector mesons into a pair of pseudoscalar mesons also agree reasonably well with experiments . The performance of this model for deep inelastic scattering phenomena can be gauged from that of a simplified version that has recently produced reasonable results for the pion valence quark distribution amplitude .

### 3.2 Ground state mass spectrum of $`q\overline{q}`$ and $`qq`$ states

With this model we have calculated the masses of the lightest two-body bound states in the $`u,d,s`$ quark sector: pseudoscalar, scalar, and vector mesons, and scalar, pseudoscalar, and axialvector diquarks. As far as the flavor-singlet mesons are concerned, with the rainbow-ladder kernel only flavor-singlet states with “ideal mixing” are possible. This feature indicates a deficiency of the rainbow-ladder truncation for studying flavor-singlet pseudoscalar and scalar mesons (the flavor-singlet vector mesons are very close to ideal mixing).

Regarding the flavor structure of the diquarks, the Pauli principle prohibits the existence of flavor-singlet color-antitriplet scalar and pseudoscalar diquarks; the only possible $`ss`$ diquarks are axialvector diquarks . Nevertheless, in model studies such as this, one can consider the up/down quark masses to be equal to the strange quark mass, and calculate the corresponding meson and diquark masses. This indicates the dependence of the diquark masses on the current quark masses and allows for a comparison with other calculations. However, one should keep in mind that there are no scalar nor pseudoscalar $`ss`$ diquarks in 3-flavor QCD with realistic quark masses.

The bound state BSE has solutions at discrete values of $`P^2=m^2`$, where $`m`$ is the mass of the bound state. In order to determine the bound state masses, we introduce a parameter $`\lambda (P^2)`$, and turn the BSE into an eigenvalue problem for $`\lambda (P^2)`$

$`\frac{4}{3}{\displaystyle _q^\mathrm{\Lambda }}𝒢(k^2)D_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{free}}(k)\gamma _\mu S(q_+)\mathrm{\Gamma }(q_+,q_{})S(q_{})\gamma _\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\lambda (P^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(p_+,p_{}).`$ (17)
This equation has solutions for all $`P^2`$, but in general these solutions do not correspond to bound state solutions of the original BSE, Eqs. (9) and (10). Meson bound states with mass $`m`$ are described by solutions of Eq. (17) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p_+,p_{})=\mathrm{\Gamma }_M(p_+,p_{})`$ with $`\lambda (P^2=m^2)=1`$, whereas diquark bound states are described by solutions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p_+,p_{})=\mathrm{\Gamma }_D(p_+,p_{})C`$ with $`\lambda (m^2)=2`$ (remember that the color structure in the diquark BSE leads to a factor $`\frac{2}{3}`$ instead of $`\frac{4}{3}`$ , see Eq. (11)). In Fig. 3 we display the eigenvalues as function of $`P^2`$ in the up/down sector. From this figure we can simply read of the values of $`P^2`$ that give us the mass of a bound state.

Since we started from a Euclidean formulation, we have to make an analytic continuation to negative values of $`P^2`$ in order to determine the bound state solutions. For small masses, this is no problem; however, for larger masses this becomes numerically more and more cumbersome. Moreover, the quark propagator in rainbow truncation often has singularities at complex values of $`p^2`$ , which could be interpreted as a signal for confinement . Once the integration domain sampled in the BSE includes these singularities, one has to specify how to deal with these singularities. Alternatively, one can extrapolate the eigenvalues $`\lambda (P^2)`$ from the region where the analytic continuation is unambiguous to $`\lambda =1`$ for mesons, and to $`\lambda =2`$ for diquarks, whenever necessary. We followed the latter procedure, using several different extrapolating functions to reduce the numerical uncertainty. For the bound states with the largest mass, we estimate the error due to this extrapolation to be a few percent.

Our results are displayed in Table 1, and compared with results from rainbow-ladder truncation of the DSEs using a separable Ansatz for the interaction  and with lattice data  where available. Note that our calculation is done at realistic quark masses, whereas the lattice results are extrapolated to the chiral limit. For the strange quark we have taken the lattice data with $`m_V=m_\varphi `$. Compared to the lattice data, we find a larger splitting between the scalar and the axialvector diquark; also in the $`s\overline{s}`$ sector we find a significantly larger splitting between the pseudoscalar and vector meson. The lattice simulations do not report on scalar meson or pseudoscalar diquark masses.

Our results are qualitatively the same as the results of the separable model of Ref. , with the exception of the scalar mesons and pseudoscalar diquarks. We find the scalar and vector meson masses to be within 10% of each other, not only in the $`u/d`$ sector, but also in the $`us`$ and $`ss`$ sectors. Similarly, we also find the pseudoscalar diquark and axialvector diquark masses to be within about 10% of each other, whereas in the separable model the pseudoscalar diquark is much heavier than the axialvector diquark, or not bound at all. Also notice that the scalar meson and pseudoscalar diquark masses increase more rapidly with the quark mass than the vector meson and scalar diquark masses: e.g. the $`m_\sigma <m_\rho `$ but $`m_{0^+}^{s\overline{s}}>m_\varphi `$.

In Table 1 we also give the masses obtained using only the dominant covariant for the different bound states; e.g., retaining only $`E`$ in Eq. (3). This approximation changes the mass by about 20% both for the mesons and for the diquarks. Using the dominant covariants only tends to increase the difference between pseudoscalar meson masses and vector and scalar masses; we see a similar increase in the difference in the diquark channels.

The meson masses seem to be rather independent of the details of the effective interaction, as long as the interaction generates the observed amount of chiral symmetry breaking, as can be seen from Table 2. The parameters $`\omega `$ and $`D`$ were fitted in Ref.  to reproduce $`f_\pi `$ and the chiral condensate. Within this parameter range, the vector meson masses are almost independent of the parameters, and the scalar meson masses change by only 10%. The diquark masses are more sensitive to details of the effective interaction. Nevertheless, the lightest diquark is the scalar diquark, independent of the parameters, with the axialvector and pseudoscalar diquarks being about 150 to 250 MeV heavier.

### 3.3 Bethe–Salpeter amplitudes

The corresponding BSAs are similar for the different bound states. In Fig. 4 we have displayed the leading Chebyshev moments

$`f(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\pi }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\theta f(q^2,qP\mathrm{cos}\theta ;\eta =\frac{1}{2})`$ (18)
of the amplitudes associated with the canonical Dirac structure for the various mesons and diquarks in the up/down sector, all normalized to $`f(0)=1`$: $`E`$ for pseudoscalar and scalar bound states, see Eq. (3), and $`V_1`$ for vector and axialvector bound states, see Eq. (4).

In the infrared region, $`0<q^2<2\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, the canonical covariants can reasonably well be approximated by exponentials $`f(q^2)=\mathrm{exp}(q^2/\omega ^2)`$ with $`0.74\mathrm{GeV}<\omega <1.01\mathrm{GeV}`$, depending on the meson or diquark, see Table 3.

At large $`q^2`$, they all fall off like $`c/q^2`$ up to calculable logarithmic corrections . It is thus apparent that in all three channels, the diquark BSAs are narrower in momentum space than the corresponding meson BSAs, and thus wider in coordinate space. This is what one would expect, since the diquarks are less bound. It is intriguing that the scalar meson BSA is broader in momentum space than the pion BSA, and thus narrower in coordinate space. One expects the physical $`\sigma `$ state to include significant pion cloud contributions and to thus be significantly broader in coordinate space than the pion. In ladder BSE approximation, such physical contributions are not accommodated; also other terms beyond rainbow-ladder truncation are known to be important in the scalar channel. Clearly, additional study beyond ladder truncation is required in the scalar channel.

## 4 Concluding remarks

We have calculated the meson and color-antitriplet diquark masses using DSEs in rainbow-ladder truncation. The model parameters have previously been fixed by the calculation of $`f_\pi `$, $`m_\pi `$, $`m_K`$, and the chiral condensate, and it leads to a good description of the light pseudoscalar and vector mesons and their interactions. Using this model, we find that the lightest diquark bound states in a color antitriplet configuration is a scalar diquark, with a mass of about 800 MeV in the case of up and down quarks. The axialvector and pseudoscalar diquarks are about 150 to 250 MeV heavier than the scalar diquark. In the meson channel, we find a scalar meson with a mass slightly below the vector meson for up/down quarks, but slightly above the vector meson mass for strange quarks. These results are consistent with the notion of a (broad) $`\sigma `$-meson with a mass around 600 MeV, and with the mass splitting between the scalar and vector mesons in heavy quarkonia. The corresponding BSAs are all similar in shape, and can in the infrared region be described by a gaussian. For large relative momenta, they fall off like $`1/p^2`$, with calculable logarithmic corrections which is characteristic of QCD.

The ladder truncation is particularly suitable for the pseudoscalar mesons and for the vector mesons, because of cancellations in the higher-order contributions to the kernel. However, diquarks, and also the scalar meson, are expected to receive significant corrections from higher order terms in the kernel. This can significantly change the bound state mass and corresponding BSA; in particular the diquarks will no longer be a true bound state. Thus one should only consider these masses as an indication for the relevant mass scales of the diquark correlations. As such they should be useful in e.g. studies of baryons as a quark-diquark system.

Typically, studies of baryons as a quark-diquark bound state include both scalar and axialvector diquarks in a color antitriplet, but no pseudoscalar diquarks. The present study indicates that the mass scale of pseudoscalar diquarks is similar to that of axialvector diquarks. It may therefore be interesting to explore the influence of pseudoscalar correlations on quark-diquark models for baryons such as those of Refs. .

## Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Craig Roberts and Peter Tandy for useful discussions. This work is supported by DOE under grants No. DE-FG02-96ER40947 and DE-FG02-97ER41048 and benefitted from the computer resources at NERSC.