text:
# Special relativity constraints on the effective constituent theory of hybrids

## I  Introduction

Hybrid mesons, in particular those with exotic quantum numbers, will play important role in the phenomenology of confinement and studies of low energy gluons. For example, decay patterns of gluonic excitations in hybrid mesons are expected to be quite different from those that characterize ordinary meson resonances. It is predicted that exotic meson decays are dominated by the so-called “S+P” channels that contain pairs of mesons, one with the valence quark-anti-quark pair in the $`S`$-wave relative motion, and the other with a pair in a $`P`$-wave, e.g., $`\pi b_1`$, $`\pi f_1`$, or $`\pi a_1`$ isgur . In contrast, non-exotic meson decays are dominated by “S+S” channels, such as $`\pi \pi `$, $`\rho \rho `$, $`K\overline{K}`$, etc. These predictions are based on a simple, non-relativistic constituent-quark picture. However, the lightest exotic mesons are expected to be as heavy as $`1.62`$ GeV and their decays will produce mesons that move relativistically. Therefore, this article addresses the issue of constraints that special relativity imposes on the constituent picture of such decays. The other basic requirement satisfied by the relativistic approach developed here is that in principle it is derivable from quantum field theory in agreement with rules of renormalization group for low energy parameters in the constituent Hamiltonians.

In order to analyze data from experiments where photons are absorbed on a hadronic target and produce intermediate hadronic states with masses on the order of 1.5-2.5 GeV, which subsequently decay into mesons $`\pi `$, $`\rho `$, or $`b`$, one must construct a viable picture of strongly interacting bound states. These states, especially $`\pi `$-mesons, move with velocities comparable to the speed of light, and the whole photo-production and decay process cannot be described using wave functions for hadrons at rest, or in slow motion. At the same time, the principles of quantum field theory have to be obeyed precisely if one demands a clear connection between a phenomenological constituent picture of the process and QCD. Lessons from QED are of great value but QCD interactions are much stronger and pose additional problems with non-perturbative and relativistic effects, which QED is not telling us how to solve beyond Feynman’s perturbation theory.

So far, theoretical insights into the exotic mesons structure are provided by lattice simulations lat1 , and Coulomb-gauge QCD CG , in addition to model studies PP1 ; PP2 . It follows from these studies that the lowest mass and spin exotic mesons are most probably dominated by a constituent gluon coupled to a constituent quark-anti-quark pair. In a more complete picture, one would like the exotic candidate states to be obtainable, at least in principle, from a precisely defined relativistic Hamiltonian for QCD. The decay process should be described by the same Hamiltonian. To satisfy these requirements, one would have to derive the effective constituent particles from quantum field theory. The derivation would have to include description of the constituents’ spin and angular momenta, and how rotating and boosting of bound states to high velocities is accomplished. Such comprehensive relativistic constituent picture is not yet established in QCD and hadronic constituents are far from being understood as well as the non-relativistic constituents of atoms are in QED. However, there exist reasonable theoretical grounds for hope that the required relativistic description of effective quarks and gluons can be found using renormalized light-front (LF) QCD Hamiltonians in $`A^+=0`$ gauge. The reasons for the hope go beyond the pioneering works of Lepage and Brodsky LB  and Wilson et al. W6 , and include results that suggest that the effective constituents are derivable in a perturbative renormalization group calculus for the corresponding creation and annihilation operators GQCD . The same calculus is also suggested to be able to produce all generators of the Poincaré algebra in the form ready to use in the effective-particle Fock-space basis SGTM . If these generators were available, the desired construction of hadrons, including exotic hybrid states and fast moving mesons, could be carried out precisely enough to make specific predictions for partial waves branching ratios in decay amplitudes, and the QCD constituent theory of hybrids could be put to definite tests.

The LF approach is a potential alternative to the standard form of Hamiltonian dynamics, where states evolve in usual time. There, rotational symmetry is kinematical, but one needs to worry about boosting the constituent wave functions for the fast moving bound states and their constituents RQM . Nevertheless, much progress has been achieved in building the constituent representation in the usual Coulomb-gauge quantization in the rest frame CG ; CG2 . The connection between bare field quanta and quasi-particles, corresponding to a constituent basis, was obtained and related to spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking. Furthermore, in the gluonic sector, the Coulomb-gauge canonical quantization reproduces the the lattice gauge theory results for the spectrum of the low-lying gluon modes, e.g., glueballs, and the excited heavy-quark adiabatic potential lat1 . Still, the Lorentz boost covariance of observables in the instant formulation in Minkowski space is not yet established, and poses problems analogous to rotational symmetry issue in the boost invariant LF scheme. Both are major theoretical challenges. Here, we will concentrate on the rotational symmetry in the LF description of hadrons in terms of their constituents.

Note, however, that the LF QCD path is not sufficiently developed for immediate identification of all important features of the effective constituent dynamics in hadronic processes. The theory requires initial guidance from phenomenological analysis to begin scanning through and cataloging of the infinite set of potentially relevant operators that are allowed to appear in the effective QCD Hamiltonian. In view of the magnitude of the task, before one dives into the full complexity of LF QCD, one should first find out if rotational symmetry of observables has any chance to be obtained in the boost-invariant picture of hadronic states made of a small number of effective-particle Fock-components. The common belief is that a physically adequate relativistic scheme cannot be achieved using a small number of degrees of freedom. The structural integrity requirement for the effective-particle LF-scheme thus implies that the rotational symmetry condition should be possible to satisfy with some natural easiness, visible already in the most elementary versions of the scheme. Therefore, the question of how hard it is to build a rotationally symmetric model of a hybrid decay amplitude with a minimal number of constituents needs to be answered before a search for approximate solutions to quantum field theory in terms of effective constituents is pursued on a larger scale. Here, we report results of the feasibility test for this scheme, which were obtained with all possible simplifications one could afford preserving only the most basic and universal constraints of special relativity, quantum field theory, and renormalization group for effective particles. All details beyond the core features are removed for transparency of the bottom-line structure.

In principle, the dynamics of hadronic constituents is determined by the effective-particle Hamiltonian. Once such a Hamiltonian is constructed, one can attempt to solve the corresponding Schrödinger equation and calculate the hybrid decay in terms of the effective-particle interactions and states. The basic study reported here is carried out instead by simplifying the initial canonical Hamiltonian theory to the ultimate minimum, deriving the effective theory in a crudest lowest-order approximation, and using model wave functions typical for phenomenology instead of self-consistent solutions of the currently unknown effective theory. Thus, in practice, we calculate a transition amplitude for a hand-made one three-effective-particle bound state to decay into two hand-made two-effective-particle bound states, and we check if the result has any chance to respect rotational symmetry.

This paper is organized as follows. Section II describes the key elements of the constituent scheme used here. It is assumed that the interaction responsible for the hybrid decay comes from an effective Hamiltonian obtained from a local quantum field theory via renormalization group procedure for effective particles. Section III describes details of the model states of hybrids and mesons, and the transition amplitude for the hybrid decay into the two mesons. Wave functions of the incoming and outgoing states are written down on the basis of well-known phenomenology, but without solving the effective Schrödinger equation. Nevertheless, we allow a whole set of free parameters in them in order to cover a large range of possible structures and find out if it is possible (and if so, then for what choices of the parameters) to obtain rotationally symmetric results. Numerical results from our review of the angle dependence of the decay amplitude are discussed in Section IV. Section V draws conclusions that concern phenomenological studies of hybrid production and decay processes and can be directly useful in comparing data from future experiments with a theory of effective particles in QCD.

## II  Key elements

In order to remove the basic issues of spin, gauge invariance, current conservation, and effective mass of gluons, from the preliminary constituent study, and to focus on general quantum mechanical and relativistic features of the effective particle dynamics, one can assume that gluons are scalars. In order to do better than that at the current level of understanding of the effective gluon dynamics, one would have to clearly answer questions concerning Lorentz transformation properties of massive gluons with spin one and only two, instead of three polarization states. Since the answer is lacking, the issue is avoided by the arbitrary simplification.

With the gluon spin issue removed, the scalar-iso-scalar bare gluon can still be coupled to an iso-doublet of bare quarks like in a Yukawa theory. Thus, the bare “gluon” has only color as in QCD, while the coupling to bare quarks is given by the term

$$_{int}=g\overline{\psi }A^at^a\psi ,$$
(1)
where the gluon field does not have a vector index. In this model, the first order solution of renormalization group equations for the effective gluon coupling to effective quarks produces the term SGMW

$$gf_\lambda \overline{\psi }_\lambda A_\lambda ^at^a\psi _\lambda ,$$
(2)
where $`\lambda `$ denotes the renormalization group parameter. It has dimension of mass. Its scale can be intuitively associated with the transverse size of the effective particles and $`f_\lambda `$ denotes the vertex form factor. The width of the form factor in momentum space is given by $`\lambda `$. The effective particles that can be considered appropriate for the lowest Fock-sector picture of hadrons are expected to emerge when $`\lambda `$ is lowered by solving similarity renormalization group equations for Hamiltonians down to the scale of hadronic masses, possibly to the values on the order of 1 to several GeV, when one aims at description of a hybrid meson in terms of a quark-anti-quark pair and a gluon.

The factor $`g`$ stands for the vertex strength function $`v_\lambda `$ that at some value of the momentum transfer defines a running coupling constant in the Hamiltonian GQCD , denoted by $`g_\lambda `$. In the first order solution of renormalization group equations, $`v_\lambda `$ equals $`g`$. In higher orders, this coupling would be replaced by $`g_\lambda `$ and the latter could be quite large in QCD when $`\lambda `$ is of the order of hadronic masses. However, the large coupling is not sufficient to make the effective interaction strong enough to wash out the constituent picture of the individual hadrons, as it would happen in a local canonical theory with equally large coupling constants. The reason is that the vertex form factor cuts off interactions with momentum transfers larger than $`\lambda `$, and they are effectively much weaker, like in nuclear physics. Therefore, the bound state picture with a small number of massive constituents may be still valid when $`\lambda `$ is small. Eq.(2) provides also a potentially valid structure for at least a part of the interaction responsible for the decay of a model constituent “gluon” into the effective quark and anti-quark pair. The “gluon” decay factor in the model hybrid decay amplitude can thus be assumed to be given by the product of the form

$$gf_\lambda (12)\overline{u}_1v_2,$$
(3)
times the corresponding color factor $`\chi _{c1}^{}t^a\chi _{c2}`$. One may simplify the constituent picture even farther for the purpose of this study, and replace fermionic quarks by scalars, too. The required interaction, analogous to (1), would be

$$H_{int}=g\xi ^{}A^at^a\xi ,$$
(4)
where $`\xi `$ is the colored scalar quark field, and the interaction factor in the decay, analogous to (3), would reduce to

$$gf_\lambda (12),$$
(5)
the color factor being the same as for fermions. Both cases of spin-1/2 and spin-0 constituents are described in this paper to show that the features they display are general and independent of spin. This is one of the reasons why one can expect them to occur also in the future QCD calculations.

Even a modest attempt at a self-consistent dynamical solution of a relativistic field-theoretic model with coupled three-body and two-body bound states is a large project. Our goal here is not to carry out such project but to find out if the proposed scheme has a chance to produce rotationally symmetric decay amplitude. Moreover, even if a constituent picture may satisfy the special relativity constraints, the correct effective QCD theory is not known yet. In order to see how strong the relativity constraints are, the simplest thing to do is to assume that the outgoing mesons and decaying hybrid are both scalars and iso-scalars, and to write down candidates for their wave functions in the effective constituent basis with a priori unknown parameters that are constrained only by reasonable guesses about their natural sizes. If the rotational symmetry constraints cannot be satisfied within this class of models, it is unlikely that a simple constituent model can ever be built in more complex cases with additional dynamical constraints. Thus, for example, we assume here only that a meson has a Gaussian momentum-space relative-motion wave function with width $`\beta `$. Its spatial radius is of the order of $`1/\beta `$ (if $`\beta `$ is not too large in comparison to the constituent masses and the meson mass since relativistic effects may change connection between $`\beta `$ and the radius making it less constraining KS ). Thus, in the first approximation, a meson of size 0.5 fm is expected to have $`\beta 0.4`$ GeV. In the theory of scalar effective constituents, no further considerations are required for constructing plausible test candidates for the relative-motion wave functions, and none is incorporated here.

In the more complex case of fermions, one has to decide in addition how to combine spins in the wave functions for effective constituents. Solutions of effective fermion theory are also not known, and one is currently in the similar position here as in trying to guess hadronic wave functions in phenomenological studies in the nonrelativistic quark model Isgur1 . The simplest standard phenomenological procedure is to assume that the spin wave functions for the lowest effective Fock components are the same as for multiplets of Poincaré group representations for free particles, i.e., products of free Dirac spinors in the case of fermions. For scalar (colorless) hadrons made of $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs, one would use spin factors of the form $`\overline{u}_1v_2`$ (the color factor would be $`\chi _{c1}^{}\chi _{c2}`$). The spin amplitudes would be multiplied by the relative momentum-dependent factors that would be of similar form as in the scalar case.

The relative-motion scalar wave-function factors represent binding and allow for shifting the total free energy of the intermediate constituent particles away from that of the energy shell value for the hybrid itself and the outgoing meson products. This shift in energy is associated with conservation of the total three-momentum of all particles. In the LF Hamiltonian dynamics, however, the conserved momenta are not the same as in the dynamics developed in Minkowski’s time. Instead, the conserved momentum components (in conventional notation) are $`p^+=p^0+p^3`$ and $`p^{}`$, where $`=`$ 1, or 2. The role of energy is played by $`p^{}`$, which for a free particle of mass $`m`$ would be $`p^{}=(p^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+m^2)/p^+`$.

The key Lorentz invariance test, associated with the complicated dynamics of rotations in the LF coordinates, is reduced to the question if the off-shell energy shift in the direction of $`p^{}`$ does, or does not introduce significant artificial angular asymmetries in the model hybrid decay amplitude. For example, can one avoid a sizable dependence of the amplitude on the angles at which the scalar mesons fly away from the scalar hybrid decay event in the hybrid center of mass system of reference? If such angle dependence would unavoidably develop in the simplest scalar or fermion model to intolerable degree, one would have to doubt that the simple constituent picture could suddenly become valid in QCD. If rotational symmetry can be approximately obtained, one could hope that proceeding along the line outlined in Refs. SGTM  and SGMW , corrections can be refined and eventually a precise theory obtained.

It was mentioned earlier in Section I that when seeking Hamiltonian dynamics for effective particles in the instant (or usual time) form, one would have to make tests of boost invariance. One could then say that the deviations from rotational symmetry one may observe in a LF approach provide a measure of how large deviations from boost covariance can be expected in models based on the standard form of field-theoretic constituent dynamics, even if they respect rotational symmetry in some frame of reference exactly.

## III  The model

The $`q\overline{q}`$-meson and $`q\overline{q}g`$-hybrid wave functions are constructed by analogy with decomposing a product of representations of the Lorentz group for two and three noninteracting particles into irreducible representations defined by their invariant mass and $`J^{PC}`$ quantum numbers. The free-particle on-shell invariant mass constraint corresponds to a state with a wave function proportional to a $`\delta `$-function in the invariant mass. In the model, mesons are constructed by superposing such states in the form of an integral with a Gaussian wave-function factor that depends on the invariant mass Lor , or, equivalently, on the length of the corresponding center-off-mass momenta. Before a theoretically sound, realistic constituent Hamiltonian in QCD is identified, such approach to building models of the non-perturbative hadron structure is quite common, e.g., in the constituent models, or, with some variation, in QCD sum rules.

### III.1 $`q\overline{q}`$ Mesons

The two-constituent (or $`q\overline{q}`$) meson state is written as

$$|p=\underset{12}{}[12]p^+\stackrel{~}{\delta }(1+2p)\mathrm{\Psi }_{J^{PC}}(1,2)b_1^{}d_2^{}|0,$$
(6)
where $`1`$ and $`2`$ collectively represent all quantum numbers of the quark and anti-quark, i.e. the LF 3-momenta, $`p^+`$, $`p^{}`$, spins, and charges, respectively. The (free) Lorentz-invariant integration measure, denoted in Eq. (6) and similarly later by $`[12]`$, is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dk_1^+d^2k_1^{}}{16\pi ^3k_1^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk_2^+d^2k_2^{}}{16\pi ^3k_2^+}}={\displaystyle \frac{dx_{12}d^2k_{12}^{}}{16\pi ^3x_{12}(1x_{12})}}{\displaystyle \frac{dP_{12}^+dP_{12}^{}}{16\pi ^3P_{12}^+}},`$ (7)
where for all three components of the 3-momenta, $`P_{12}=k_1+k_2`$, $`k_{12}=(1x_{12})k_1x_{12}k_2`$, and $`x_{12}=k_1^+/P_{12}^+`$. Also, $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }(1+2p)=16\pi ^3\delta (P_{12}^+p^+)\delta ^2(P_{12}^{}p^{})`$. Due to the kinematical nature of Lorentz boost invariance of the LF scheme, even in the fully interacting theory, the coordinates $`P_{12}^{+,}`$, $`x_{12}`$, and $`k_{12}^{}`$, enable one to separate the relative constituent motion from the bound-state center-of-mass motion. In general, in the $`n`$-particle case, the relative-motion variables that are independent of the bound-state momentum $`p`$ are given by ($`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$)

$$x_ik_i^+/p^+,k_i^{}k_i^{}x_ip^{}.$$
(8)
For given quantum numbers $`J^{PC}`$, the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{J^{PC}}(1,2)`$ is a product of color, flavor, spin, and orbital parts, and can be written as,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{J^{PC}}(1,2)=\chi _{c_1}^{}C\chi _{c_2}\chi _{i_1}^{}I\chi _{i_2}\chi _{s_1}^{}S(1,2)\chi _{s_2}\psi _p(1,2),$$
(9)
with $`C=1/\sqrt{3}`$ for a color singlet, $`I=1/\sqrt{2}`$ for an iso-scalar, and $`I=\stackrel{}{\tau }/\sqrt{2}`$ for an iso-vector meson. Since iso-spin is irrelevant for our studies of Lorentz symmetry, further explicit consideration of the model is limited to iso-scalar meson states.

The model spin-wave function $`\chi ^{}S(1,2)\chi `$ originates from the product of free Dirac spinors. In this analysis, however, we do not perform a detailed phenomenological study for all exotic meson decay channels and we are not concerned about particulars of the spin-orbit couplings for the corresponding $`q\overline{q}`$ states. For example, $`J^{PC}=0^+`$, $`q\overline{q}`$-meson wave function could involve the product $`\overline{u}_1\gamma _5v_2`$ as the spin factor. However, for the critical check if the rotational symmetry can be obtained at all, we do not need to insist on constructing states with arbitrary $`J^{PC}`$ quantum numbers for the mesons in question (here, two, or three, non-interacting constituents). Instead, we choose a simplest scalar form $`\overline{u}_1v_2`$ for all decay products. This ansatz already introduces some spin-orbit structure and we can use it to check the sensitivity of our numerical estimates to the presence of relativistic spin-orbit couplings. Note that in the calculation of decay amplitude the spins of the constituents are summed over and it does not matter what spin basis on chooses. Nevertheless, the natural choice in the LF scheme is to use Melosh spinors,

$`u(k\sigma )=B(k,m_q)u(0\sigma ),`$
$`v(k\sigma )=B(k,m_q)v(0\sigma ),`$
$`v(k\sigma )=Cu^{}(k\sigma )=i\gamma ^2u^{}(k\sigma ),`$ (10)
with

$$B(k,m)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{k^+m}}[\mathrm{\Lambda }_+k^++\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}(m+k^{}\alpha ^{})],$$
(11)
which represents a LF-symmetry boost from rest to momentum $`k`$ for a free particle of mass $`m`$, using conventions $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pm =\frac{1}{2}\gamma _0\gamma ^\pm `$, $`u^T(0\sigma )=\sqrt{2m_q}[\chi _\sigma ^T,0]`$, $`v^T(0\sigma )=\sqrt{2m_q}[0,\xi _\sigma ^T]`$, and $`\xi _\sigma =i\sigma ^2\chi _\sigma `$. Adopting these conventions, one obtains

$$S(1,2)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{x_{12}(1x_{12})}}\left[m_q(2x_{12}1)\sigma ^3+k_{12}^{}\sigma ^{}\right]i\sigma ^2.$$
(12)
The orbital wave function $`\psi _p(1,2)\psi _p(\stackrel{}{k}_{12})`$ is chosen to be Gaussian, i.e.,

$$\psi _p(\stackrel{}{k}_{12})=N_p\sqrt{\frac{_{12}}{2m_q}}\sqrt{\frac{1}{2(_{12}^24m_q^2)}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\stackrel{}{k}_{12}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{2\beta _p^2}\right]$$
(13)
where the 3-vector $`\stackrel{}{k}_{12}`$ has the $``$ components equal to $`k_{12}`$ and the $`z`$-component is defined by DN ,

$$_{12}^2=(k_1+k_2)^2=\frac{m_q^2+k_{12}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{x_{12}(1x_{12})}=4(\stackrel{}{k}_{12}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+m_q^2),$$
(14)
so that $`k_{12}^3=(x_{12}1/2)_{12}`$. Note that the subscript $`p`$ in $`\psi _p(\stackrel{}{k}_{12})`$ is not supposed to mean that $`\psi _p(\stackrel{}{k}_{12})`$ depends on the bound state momentum $`p`$, but rather that the wave function corresponds to the meson with quantum numbers collectively denoted by $`p`$, and the notational simplification should not be a source of confusion when we consider three mesons simultaneously.

In terms of the 3-vector $`\stackrel{}{k}_{12}`$, the integration measure over the relative motion of the two constituents, is given by

$$\frac{dx_{12}d^2k_{12}^{}}{16\pi ^3x_{12}(1x_{12})}=\frac{4d^3\stackrel{}{k}_{12}}{16\pi ^3_{12}}.$$
(15)
The normalization condition $`p|p^{}=p^+\stackrel{~}{\delta }(pp^{})`$, implies,

$$\frac{1}{16\pi ^3}\frac{4d^3k_{12}}{_{12}}2(_{12}^24m_q^2)|\psi _p(1,2)|^2=1,$$
(16)
and

$$N_p=\frac{2\pi ^{3/4}}{\beta _p}\sqrt{\frac{2m_q}{\beta _p}}.$$
(17)
When we consider scalar constituents, the spin factor $`2(_{12}^24m_q^2)`$ is absent and the second square-root factor in Eq. (13) is removed, so that the normalization constant remains the same.

### III.2 Hybrid Meson

The construction of the hybrid meson state is analogous.

$$|h=\underset{123}{}[123]h^+\stackrel{~}{\delta }(1+2+3h)\mathrm{\Psi }_{J^{PC}}(1,2,3)b_1^{}d_2^{}a_3^{}|0,$$
(18)
where the color, flavor, spin, and orbital wave-function factors are given by

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{J^{PC}}(1,2,3)`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _{c_1}^{}C_h^{c_3}\chi _{c_2}\chi _{i_1}^{}I_h\chi _{i_2}\chi _{s_1}^{}S_h(1,2)\chi _{s_2}`$ (19)
$`\times `$ $`\psi _h(1,2,3),`$
with $`C_h^{c_3}=t^{c_3}/2`$, $`I_h=1/\sqrt{2}`$, and the quark-anti-quark spin wave function is again of the from $`\overline{u}_1v_2`$, so that

$$S_h(1,2)=\frac{1x_3}{\sqrt{x_1x_2}}\left[m_q\frac{x_1x_2}{1x_3}\sigma ^3+k_q^{}\sigma ^{}\right]i\sigma ^2.$$
(20)
The kinematical momentum variables satisfy Eq. (8) with $`p^+,p^{}`$ replaced with the hybrid LF-3-momentum, $`h`$. Similarly, the 3-particle integration measure is given by,

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{dk_i^+d^2k_i^{}}{16\pi ^3k_i^+}=\frac{4d^3k_q}{16\pi ^3_q}\frac{d^3k_g_{qg}}{16\pi ^3\sqrt{m_g^2+k_g^2}\sqrt{_q^2+k_g^2}},$$
(21)
where the relative momentum 3-vectors $`\stackrel{}{k}_q=(k_q^{},k_q^3)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}_g=(k_g^{},k_g^3)`$, are defined by

$`k_q^{}=(x_2k_1x_1k_2)/(1x_3),`$
$`k_q^3=\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_1}{1x_3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)_q,`$ (22)
and

$`k_g^{}=(1x_3)k_3^{}x_3(k_1^{}+k_2^{}),`$
$`k_g^3={\displaystyle \frac{x_3^2(_q^2+k_g^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})(1x_3)^2(m_g^2+k_g^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})}{2x_3(1x_3)_{qg}}}.`$ (23)
$`_q`$ and $`_{qg}`$ are the quark-anti-quark and quark-anti-quark-gluon invariant masses,

$$_q^2=(k_1+k_2)^2=(1x_3)^2\frac{m_q^2+k_q^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{x_1x_2},$$
(24)
$`_{qg}^2`$ $`=`$ $`(k_1+k_2+k_3)^2`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_q^2+k_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{x_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_q^2+k_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{x_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_g^2+k_3^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{x_3}}h^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_q^2+k_g^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{1x_3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_g^2+k_g^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{x_3}}.`$
In terms of the relative momenta, the 3-particle orbital wave function $`\psi _h(1,2,3)\psi _h(\stackrel{}{k}_q,\stackrel{}{k}_g)`$ is assumed to be

$`\psi _h(\stackrel{}{k}_q,\stackrel{}{k}_g)`$ $`=`$ $`N_h\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{_q}{2m_q}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2m_q+m_g}{_{qg}}}}`$ (26)
$`\times `$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{m_g^2+\stackrel{}{k}_g^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}{m_g}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{_q^2+\stackrel{}{k}_g^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}{2m_q}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{8\stackrel{}{k}_q^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}}`$
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{k}_q^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{2\beta _{hq}^2}}\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{k}_g^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{2\beta _{hg}^2}}\right].`$
Its structure follows from the requirement that it is a product of two Gaussian functions of the momenta $`\stackrel{}{k}_q`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}_g`$, with additional factors chosen so that the wave function normalization condition has a nonrelativistic appearance of a six-dimensional integral over the momenta. In the normalization condition $`h|h^{}=h^+\stackrel{~}{\delta }(hh^{})`$, fermion spinors introduce a factor, which is compensated by the factor $`(8\stackrel{}{k}_q^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})^{1/2}`$ in the wave function. This factor is dropped when we consider scalar constituents. So, in both cases of the fermion and scalar constituents the normalization constant is the same and equals

$$N_h=\frac{2\pi ^{3/4}}{\beta _{hq}}\sqrt{\frac{2m_q}{\beta _{hq}}}\frac{2\pi ^{3/4}}{\beta _{hg}}\sqrt{\frac{8m_qm_g}{2m_q+m_g}\frac{1}{\beta _{hg}}}.$$
(27)
### III.3 Decay

The constituent-gluon decay into a constituent quark-anti-quark pair is assumed to be driven by the Hamiltonian interaction term obtained from first-order solution to the renormalization group equations for effective particle Hamiltonians in quantum field theory. In QCD, the decay amplitude of a hybrid meson into two mesons, calculated in first order in this interaction term, has the form

$$pb|H_{IQCD\lambda }|h=\stackrel{~}{\delta }(p+bh)𝒜(p,b,h),$$
(28)
where the interaction term is given by GQCD

$`H_{IQCD\lambda }={\displaystyle \underset{123}{}}{\displaystyle [123]\stackrel{~}{\delta }(1+23)gf_\lambda (1,2,3)}`$
$`\chi _{c_1}^{}t^{c_3}\chi _{c_2}\chi _{i_1}^{}\chi _{i_2}\chi _{s_1}^{}S_{QCD}(1,2,3)\chi _{s_2}b_1^{}d_2^{}a_3,`$ (29)
The spin-factor $`\chi _{s_1}^{}S_{QCD}(1,2,3)\chi _{s_2}`$ equals $`\overline{u}_1\overline{)}\epsilon _3v_2`$ and $`\epsilon _3`$ denotes the constituent-gluon polarization four-vector. The form factor $`f_\lambda `$ is given by

$$f_\lambda (1,2,3)=f_\lambda (_q^2m_{g0}^2)=\mathrm{exp}\left[_q^4/\lambda ^4\right],$$
(30)
since the effective gluon mass $`m_{g0}`$ is zero in the first-order $`H_{QCD\lambda }`$.

In our elementary study of the Poincaré symmetry constraints on the constituent picture, the spin factor $`\chi _{s_1}^{}S_{QCD}(1,2,3)\chi _{s_2}`$ is replaced by $`\overline{u}_1v_2`$, which one would obtain in the same scheme in Yukawa theory SGMW , and, using $`\kappa _{12}^{}=x_2k_1^{}x_1k_2^{}`$, $`S_{QCD}(1,2,3)`$ is set equal to

$$S(1,2)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{x_1x_2}}[m_q(x_1x_2)\sigma ^3+\kappa _{12}^{})\sigma ^{}]i\sigma ^2,$$
(31)
i.e., we remove the gluon spin effects by assuming it is a spin-0 particle instead.

For convenience of normalization of the coupling constant in the test calculation, $`g`$ is written as $`g=g_\lambda v_\lambda `$ and $`v_\lambda =\mathrm{exp}\left[16m_q^4/\lambda ^4\right]`$, so that for a pair produced at the threshold given by the constituent quark masses, $`gf_\lambda =g_\lambda `$, which is kept the same in all cases, corresponding to $`\alpha _\lambda =g_\lambda ^2/(4\pi )=1`$.

In the decay, both meson states, $`|p`$ and $`|b`$ in the product $`|pb=|p|b`$, are constructed in the same way and may differ only trough the meson mass parameter, $`m_p`$ or $`m_b`$, and the width of the orbital wave-function $`\psi `$, $`\beta _p`$ or $`\beta _b`$. Thus, the decay amplitude is a sum of two terms,

$$𝒜(p,b,h)=A(p,b,h)+B(p,b,h),$$
(32)
that are schematically shown in Fig. 1.

The result of summing over all quantum numbers except momenta can be written in the term $`A(p,b,h)`$ as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{c_3}{}}Tr\left[C_p^{}C_h^{c_3}C_b^{}t^{c_3}\right]Tr\left[I_p^{}I_hI_b^{}\right]`$
$`Tr\left[S_p^{}(1,4)S_h(1,2)S_b^{}(5,2)S_{QCD}(5,4)\right],`$ (33)
and in $`B(p,b,h)`$ as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{c_3}{}}Tr\left[C_p^{}t^{c_3}C_b^{}C_h^{c_3}\right]Tr\left[I_p^{}I_b^{}I_h\right]`$
$`Tr\left[S_p^{}(1,4)S_{QCD}(1,2)S_b^{}(5,2)S_h(5,4)\right].`$ (34)
The full expression for the amplitude including the momentum integrals, is given in the Appendix.

## IV Numerical results

This Section describes how the decay amplitude $`𝒜`$ depends on the angle $`\theta `$ between the direction of flight of one of the mesons (the meson $`p`$) and the arbitrarily chosen $`z`$-axis, in the hybrid rest frame of reference, and how this dependence changes when the parameters of the model are varied. A true solution of QCD would not have this much freedom of varying parameters. However, if the model were found unable to satisfy the requirement of rotational symmetry with reasonable accuracy for any choice of the parameters introduced here, our effective LF constituent picture with only lowest Fock sectors could be dismissed as a good approximation to start with.

Since the decaying hybrid and the outgoing mesons are constructed to be scalars, one should obtain an amplitude that does not depend on $`\theta `$ (the LF approach respects rotational symmetry around the $`z`$-axis and all amplitudes we consider are automatically constant as functions of the azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$). No dependence on $`\theta `$ is always obtained when the sum of masses of the outgoing mesons is smaller by only a few MeV than the mass of the hybrid. In this case, both outgoing mesons move with speeds that are small in comparison to the speed of light. When at least one of the mesons becomes light and the available mass defect forces it to move fast, the amplitude begins to deviate from a constant. This is illustrated in Fig. 2. In Fig. 2a, we illustrate what happens in the model with scalar constituents representing quarks, and Fig. 2b shows what happens in the version with quarks represented by fermions. The same convention of two versions, a) for scalar and b) for fermion constituents, is kept in all graphs that follow.

Fig. 2 shows that in the case of one of the decay products being light, such as the $`\pi `$-meson, the decay amplitude develops practically 100 % deviation from rotational symmetry. This is clearly not acceptable and invalidates the initial picture based on a conventional choice of the model parameters, given in the first column of Table 1, labeled 2a,b. The reason is that when the light meson moves against the $`z`$-axis direction, its longitudinal momentum,

$$p^+=\sqrt{m_p^2+|\stackrel{}{p}|^2}+p^3,$$
(35)
becomes small. As a result of the $`+`$-momentum conservation, the quarks that make up this light meson must carry small fractions of the parent, hybrid momentum $`h^+`$. This configuration is suppressed if one employs parameters that would be naively considered as valid in a nonrelativistic model. In that case, the gluon decay vertex is taken directly from quantum field theory without the renormalization group form factor $`f_\lambda `$.

However, varying parameters of the model one can observe that the drastic violation of rotational symmetry is not always present. Since the number of mass parameters is 10, and varying all of them produces a huge number of combinations to investigate, one is faced with a problem of how to do a systematic test. The condition of obtaining an amplitude that does not depend on the angle $`\theta `$ (an infinite number of conditions) is so strong that it may easily be impossible to achieve a constant amplitude with a small set of parameters. It turns out, however, that one can obtain small variation with angle for selected sets of the parameters that are discussed below.

The results are based on a systematic computer-added manual review of about 6000 cases and subsequent numerical minimization of the amplitude variation with respect to $`\theta `$. Since the six dimensional integrals were carried out using Monte Carlo integration (using the procedure vegas vegas ), the accuracy of the result of integration (standard deviation output from vegas) varied from a typical 0.1 - 0.3 % to 2 % in the worst cases, and the minimization of angle dependence (Powell’s procedure Powell ) had to be carried out with a somewhat worse accuracy. Therefore, variations of the parameters that caused smaller variations of the amplitude $`𝒜`$ with $`\theta `$ than 1% could not be kept under precise control. Thus, in the obtained sets of parameters, displayed in Table 1 with three significant digits, the first is stable, while the second is highly probable and the third can be considered a result of statistical fluctuation. Figs. 3 and 4 describe the two dominant effects that we found scanning the space of parameters, and Fig. 5 shows results of the final searches for the local minima in the angle dependence. The error bars indicate the size of three standard deviations obtained in the Monte Carlo routine.

Since the decay of a hybrid into one meson as heavy as $`b_1`$ and another as light as $`\pi `$ is of key interest, the mass parameters $`m_h=1.9`$ GeV, $`m_b=1.235`$ GeV and $`m_p=0.1375`$ GeV are kept constant. The other seven parameters were first chosen to be (all in units of GeV, which will be omitted in the discussion) $`m_q=0.3`$, $`m_g=0.8`$, $`\beta _p=\beta _b=\beta _{hg}=\beta _{hq}=0.4`$ and $`\lambda =4.0`$. Then a code calculated $`3^7`$ cases (each for 35 different values of $`\theta `$) with each of the 7 parameters changing through 3 values obtained by multiplying the initial values by 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0. The resulting cases were reviewed manually and additional calculations were performed to verify trends visible in the samples. This way the two generic features illustrated on examples in Figs. 3 and 4 were identified.

Fig. 3 shows two cases, a) for scalar, and b) for fermion quarks, of what happens with the decay amplitude when one makes the quark-anti-quark pair in the hybrid smaller and smaller in size in position space ($`\beta _{hq}`$ grows from 1 to 5 GeV). The amplitudes are lowered at small angles while they remain more or less stable around $`\theta =180^{}`$. This effect results from the fact that the larger domain of momenta of quarks in the hybrid is sampled by the same momentum-space wave functions of mesons, and they see less of the total probability of finding the quark-anti-quark pair in the hybrid, while the large relative momentum-tail is sampled in a similar way. Thus, the deficiency observed in Fig. 2 at large angles can disappear if the quark-anti-quark pair in the hybrid is made small in its spatial size. This is understandable since quarks are allowed to move with momenta so large that they can easily have small longitudinal fractions $`x`$ required in the light meson, $`p`$, when it flies out against $`z`$-axis. However, in both cases a) and b) the amplitude overshoots for large $`\theta `$ and a flat case is not achieved. This is easier to see in Fig. 4, which concerns the case of the lowest curves of $`\beta _{hq}=5.0`$ GeV from Fig. 3. Note that the remaining variation with angle is about thrice smaller in the case of fermions than in the scalar model, where it is still at the 100 % level.

Fig. 4 shows another tendency in the parameter space that is related to a reduction of the overshooting due to large $`\beta _{hq}`$ visible in Fig. 3. Namely, the pair of quarks that originate from the hybrid decay via gluon dissociation, have their relative momentum limited by the renormalization group form factor $`f_\lambda `$. In a bare quantum field theory, $`\lambda =\mathrm{}`$ and no such suppression is present. However, when one lowers $`\lambda `$, the gluon cannot be turned into a pair of very fast moving quarks through the effective interaction, and the amplitude is suppressed again. The interplay of $`\beta _{hq}`$ and $`\lambda `$ turns out to be the key ingredient of the model that at the end allows it to produce small deviations from a constant in the amplitude $`𝒜`$ as a function of $`\theta `$.

Detailed minimization of the $`\theta `$-dependence leads to the four cases shown in Fig. 5. The deviation from constant was measured using the sum of squares of deviations from the average value, or maximum of the modulus of deviations from the average. The values of masses, wave function widths, and form factor parameters that produce the minimal angle variations, are given in Table 1 in the last four columns. The remarkable feature is that the required $`q\overline{q}`$-wave function in the hybrid has roughly the same width as the form factor in the effective vertex and this width is systematically much larger than other width parameters (see Table 1).

These results can be interpreted as that the requirement of rotational symmetry in our relativistic LF-constituent picture, forces the hybrid’s constituents to form a system made of a small-size quark-anti-quark-pair and a gluon, and the pair is about 5 to 10 times smaller than the distance between the gluon and the pair. In principle, this picture resembles a gluonium made of two gluons AP , but with one of the gluons replaced by a $`q\overline{q}`$-pair. The observed correlation between $`\beta _{hq}`$ and $`\lambda `$, suggests that the $`q\overline{q}`$-pair can be seen to originate dynamically from a decay of one gluon in a gluonium, a picture perhaps derivable from a well-defined $`H_{QCD\lambda }`$.

The amplitudes still depend on the other parameters than $`\beta _{hq}`$ and $`\lambda `$, and those can be varied in a considerable ranges causing residual changes in the angle dependence. The most pronounced effect is that flattest amplitudes are systematically arrived at when quark masses take only one of two values, about 160-170 MeV or about 370 MeV. Since in quantum field theory such as QCD one can associate the large renormalization group scale $`\lambda `$ with the smaller rather than the larger quark masses, it appears to be a remarkably consistent feature of the effective constituent approach that the lighter quark mass cases lead to amplitudes that vary less in $`\theta `$ than for the heavier quarks.

## V Conclusion

The numerical study described in this work shows that constraints imposed by requirements of rotational symmetry on parameters of a crude LF constituent model of a relativistic decay of a hybrid can be satisfied even if the model assumes that only lowest effective-particle Fock-space components are included in the wave functions of the participating hadrons. Since the boost symmetry is kinematical in the LF quantum field theory, and the model is built to be compatible with the rules of renormalized LF Hamiltonian dynamics for effective particles, it is interesting that a self-consistent picture of the hybrid state in such a simple class of models emerges without major obstacles as soon as one introduces the right width $`\lambda `$ of the effective vertex form factor. The key renormalization group aspect of the constituent model is that the special-relativity symmetry constraints are satisfied only approximately. The accuracy is expected to improve when the renormalization group equations for effective constituent theory are solved including higher order terms than the first considered here, and when the resulting constituent dynamics is solved precisely, which together would be analogous to restoring rotational symmetry in lattice gauge theory.

The physical picture of a hybrid meson that one can now attempt to uncover by performing the detailed calculations in QCD, has the following spatial structure. A quark-anti-quark-pair of small size and a gluon move around a common center, and this system of two objects is not far from a gluonium. In the latter case, one has a second gluon, instead of the small quark-anti-quark pair. Solution of the QCD Hamiltonian eigenvalue problem has a chance to be approximated this way only in terms of renormalized effective particles, for which the similarity renormalization group width parameter is comparable to the size of the wave-function parameters. The key difficulty of the calculation will be to properly include the constituent-gluon spin.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by KBN grant No. 2 P03B 016 18 (SDG) and the US Department of Energy under contract DE-FG02-87ER40365 (APS). SDG would like to acknowledge the financial support and outstanding hospitality of the Nuclear Theory Center at Indiana University, where part of this work was done. SDG also thanks Mr. and Mrs. D. W. Elliott, of the Elliott Stone Company, Inc., Bedford, Indiana, for supplementary financial support.

*

## Appendix A

In the model without gluon spin, one substitutes

$$S_{QCD}(i,j)=S_p(i,j)=S_b(i,j)=S_h(i,j)=S(i,j),$$
(36)
and obtains

$`𝒜(p,b,h)=(1){\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_\lambda }{(16\pi ^3)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_{14}d^2\kappa _{14}^{}}{x_{14}(1x_{14})}\frac{dx_{52}d^2\kappa _{52}^{}}{x_{52}(1x_{52})}\frac{1}{x_3}}`$
$`\times N_pN_bN_h\psi _p^{}(1,4)\psi _b^{}(5,2)T(1,2,4,5)\left[A(1,2,4,5)+B(1,2,4,5)\right]`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_\lambda }{(16\pi ^3)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k_b}{_b}\frac{d^3k_p}{_p}\frac{1}{x_3}N_pN_bN_h\psi _p^{}(\stackrel{}{k}_{14})\psi _b^{}(\stackrel{}{k}_{52})T(1,2,4,5)\left[A(1,2,4,5)+B(1,2,4,5)\right]},`$ (37)
where

$$A(1,2,4,5)=\psi _h(1,2,3)f_\lambda (_{45}^2),$$
(38)
$$B(1,2,4,5)=\psi _h(5,4,3)f_\lambda (_{12}^2),$$
(39)
and

$$T(1,2,4,5)=Tr\left[S^{}(1,4)S(1,2)S^{}(5,2)S(5,4)\right],$$
(40)
with $`S(i,j)=\overline{u}_iv_j`$, or

$$S(i,j)=\frac{\left[m_q(x_ix_j)\sigma ^3+(x_jk_i^{}x_ik_j^{})\sigma ^{}\right]i\sigma ^2}{\sqrt{x_ix_j}},$$
(41)
which give $`T(1,2,4,5)`$ equal to

$$2\frac{(\stackrel{}{y}_1\stackrel{}{y}_2)(\stackrel{}{y}_3\stackrel{}{y}_4)(\stackrel{}{y}_1\stackrel{}{y}_3)(\stackrel{}{y}_2\stackrel{}{y}_4)+(\stackrel{}{y}_1\stackrel{}{y}_4)(\stackrel{}{y}_2\stackrel{}{y}_3)}{x_1x_2x_3x_4},$$
(42)
where

$`\stackrel{}{y}_1`$ $`=`$ $`[m_q(x_1x_4),x_4k_1^{}x_1k_4^{}],`$
$`\stackrel{}{y}_2`$ $`=`$ $`[m_q(x_1x_2),x_2k_1^{}x_1k_2^{}],`$
$`\stackrel{}{y}_3`$ $`=`$ $`[m_q(x_5x_2),x_2k_5^{}x_5k_2^{}],`$
$`\stackrel{}{y}_4`$ $`=`$ $`[m_q(x_5x_4),x_4k_5^{}x_5k_4^{}].`$ (43)
An alternative expression is

$`T(1,2,4,5)`$ $`=`$ $`(_{14}^24m_q^2)(_{52}^24m_q^2)`$ (44)
$``$ $`(_{15}^24m_q^2)(_{42}^24m_q^2)`$
$`+`$ $`(_{12}^24m_q^2)(_{45}^24m_q^2).`$
In both parts of the amplitude, $`A`$ and $`B`$, one has $`x_p=p^+/h^+`$, $`x_b=b^+/h^+=1x_p`$. In meson $`p`$, one has $`\stackrel{}{k}_{14}\stackrel{}{k}_p`$, so that $`_{14}=_p=2\sqrt{m_q^2+\stackrel{}{k}_p^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}`$, and the following relations hold: $`x_{14}=(\sqrt{m_q^2+\stackrel{}{k}_p^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}+k_p^3)/_p`$, $`k_1^+=x_{14}p^+`$, $`x_1=x_{14}x_p`$, $`k_4^+=(1x_{14})p^+`$, $`x_4=(1x_{14})x_p`$, $`k_1^{}=x_{14}p^{}+k_p^{}`$, $`k_4^{}=(1x_{14})p^{}k_p^{}`$. In meson $`b`$, one has $`\stackrel{}{k}_{52}\stackrel{}{k}_b`$, so that $`_b=2\sqrt{m_q^2+\stackrel{}{k}_b^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}=_{52}`$, and the analogous relations are: $`x_{52}=(\sqrt{m_q^2+\stackrel{}{k}_b^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}+k_b^3)/_b`$, $`k_5^+=x_{52}b^+`$, $`x_5=x_{52}x_b`$, $`k_2^+=(1x_{52})b^+`$, $`x_2=(1x_{52})x_b`$, $`k_5^{}=x_{52}b^{}+k_b^{}`$, $`k_2^{}=(1x_{52})b^{}k_b^{}`$. Evaluating the quarks’ invariant masses in the hybrid and decay vertex, one then obtains

$`_{12}^2`$ $`=`$ $`(x_1+x_2)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+m_q^2}{x_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+m_q^2}{x_2}}\right]`$ (45)
$``$ $`(k_1^{}+k_2^{})^2,`$
and

$`_{54}^2`$ $`=`$ $`(x_5+x_4)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k_5^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+m_q^2}{x_5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_4^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+m_q^2}{x_4}}\right]`$ (46)
$``$ $`(k_5^{}+k_4^{})^2.`$
In the part $`A`$ of the decay amplitude, one has

$$\stackrel{}{k}_q^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=_{12}^2/4m_q^2,$$
(47)
and

$$\stackrel{}{k}_g^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=\frac{\left[_{123}^2\left(_{12}+m_g\right)^2\right]\left[_{123}^2\left(_{12}m_g\right)^2\right]}{4_{123}^2},$$
(48)
where

$`_{123}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+m_q^2}{x_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+m_q^2}{x_2}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(k_1+k_2)^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+m_g^2}{1x_1x_2}}(k_1+k_2+k_3)^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}.`$
Similarly, in the part $`B`$, one has

$$\stackrel{}{k}_q^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=_{54}^2/4m_q^2,$$
(50)
and

$$\stackrel{}{k}_g^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=\frac{\left[_{543}^2\left(_{54}+m_g\right)^2\right]\left[_{543}^2\left(_{54}m_g\right)^2\right]}{4_{543}^2},$$
(51)
where

$`_{543}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_5^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+m_q^2}{x_5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_4^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+m_q^2}{x_4}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(k_5+k_4)^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+m_g^2}{1x_5x_4}}(k_5+k_4+k_3)^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}.`$


format: text

text:
# Lyman-Break Galaxies and the Reionization of the Intergalactic MediumBased on observations taken with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. (AURA) under NASA contract NAS5–26555

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Studies over the past several years have revealed a nascent population of galaxies at redshifts $`z=24`$ with properties that are in many ways similar to those of local starburst galaxies (Giavalisco et al. 1996; Steidel et al. 1996). These galaxies are identified by their strong UV continuum emission and by the presence of strong spectral breaks at Lyman $`\alpha `$ and the Lyman limit (rest-frame 1216Å and 912Å, respectively). Near-infrared photometry of such Lyman-break galaxies (LBGs) provides access to the rest-frame optical portion of their spectra, and hence greatly improves the constraints on their stellar populations (Sawicki & Yee 1998). Two recent studies (Papovich et al. 2001, hereafter referred to as PDF01; and Shapley et al. 2001) have explored a broad range of stellar population models for LBGs, varying age, star-formation timescales $`\tau _{\mathrm{SF}}`$, metallicities $`Z`$, and reddening $`E(BV)`$. Our goal in this paper is to examine the implications of these stellar-population models for LBGs at higher redshift. This is a simple thought experiment. In reality we expect star-formation histories to be more complex than these simple models (which, for example, ignore chemical evolution entirely) and we expect galaxy merging to be extremely important at these high redshifts. Nevertheless, the spectral-energy distributions (SEDs) of the individual galaxies at $`z3`$ should reflect the products of this evolution, and some of the broad implications for star-formation rates vs. time are relatively insensitive to the details.

One motivation for exploring galaxy evolution at $`z>5`$ is to understand the connection between galaxies and the physical conditions in the intergalactic medium (IGM). Observations of QSO absorption lines indicate that the IGM was highly ionized out to redshifts $`z6`$, while very recent observations suggest that it was more neutral at higher redshifts (Becker et al. 2001; Djorgovski et al. 2001). It is not known if the sources of ionization were stars or quasars, or whether the stars responsible for the reionization had a mass function at all similar to that observed in the Milky Way. Estimates for the number of ionizing photons needed to reionize the IGM range from 1 to 15 photons per H atom (Madau et al. 1999; Haiman et al. 2001), requiring UV luminosity densities at $`z6`$ at least as high as those observed at $`z=3`$. If the stellar populations responsible for reionization formed with an initial mass function (IMF) similar to that observed in present-day stellar populations, then the remnants of these populations must account for a portion of the light emitted by $`z=3`$ LBGs. It is thus interesting to explore whether simple models can provide sufficient reionizing photons at $`z6`$ without violating the stellar-population constraints for the $`z3`$ LBGs.

We review the LBG stellar population constraints in §2. In §3 we turn the clock back on the stellar-population models and compute $`\dot{\rho }_{\mathrm{SFR}}(z)`$ to higher redshift. In §4 we discuss the implications and in §4.3 we discuss the modifications of $`SFR(t)`$ or the IMF that might be required to account for both the $`z4`$ LBG luminosity function and reionization. Throughout this paper we adopt the cosmological parameters $`h,\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{tot}},\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7,1.0,0.3,0.7.`$

## 2 Lyman-break galaxy stellar populations

Papovich et al. (2001) studied a sample of spectroscopically-confirmed LBGs from the Hubble Deep Field North (HDF) in the redshift range $`2.0z3.5`$. The data included UV-optical photometry from WFPC2, J and H-band photometry from NICMOS, and $`\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{s}`$-band photometry from the KPNO 4m Mayall telescope (Dickinson 1998). Fluxes were determined from profile-weighted photometry, which accounts for the PSF variations and image blending. Stellar-population models from the 2000 version of the Bruzual & Charlot (1993) code were fit to 31 galaxies, varying metallicity, e-folding timescale $`\tau _{\mathrm{SF}}`$, age, IMF (Salpeter, Miller-Scalo, Scalo), extinction, and extinction law (Calzetti et al. 2000, SMC). The geometric mean of the best-fit ages for the sample is 0.12 Gyr for the solar metallicity case. Thus a typical galaxy observed at $`z=3.0`$ would have “formed” at $`z=3.15`$. Papovich et al. (2001) showed there to be very few galaxies at $`z=3`$, even considering those that might have escaped Lyman-break selection, with colors consistent with significantly older ages.

Shapley et al. (2001) analyzed $`G,,J,`$ and $`K_s`$ photometry for a sample of galaxies with spectroscopic redshifts $`2.2<z<3.4`$. Colors were determined from isophotal apertures on PSF-matched images. Solar-metallicity stellar-population models from the 1996 incarnation of the Bruzual & Charlot (1993) code were fit, with various values of $`\tau _{\mathrm{SF}}`$, age, and extinction. The Calzetti (1997) attenuation law was adopted, and the published paper reports results only for the best-fit continuous star-formation models ($`\tau _{\mathrm{SF}}=\mathrm{}`$) to the 74 galaxies for which acceptable fits were obtained. The median best-fit age for this sample is 0.32 Gyr, implying a formation redshift $`z=3.4`$ for a typical galaxy observed at $`z=3`$.

Clearly, the inferred ages for monotonic star-formation histories in these two studies are very young. Papovich et al. (2001) also found that a substantial fraction of the stellar mass could be hidden in a “maximally old” passively evolving population that formed instantaneously at $`z=\mathrm{}`$. Inferred LBG masses typically increase by a factor of 3 in such models. For our purposes, the interesting point is that the star-formation rate appears unlikely to have been constant over a Hubble time — i.e. $`M_s/t_H`$, the stellar mass divided by the Hubble time at the LBG redshift, is typically much less than the measured SFR at $`z3`$. This generic conclusion is unlikely to be very sensitive to the details of the stellar-population models.

## 3 Turning back the clock

In exploring the implications of these models, we shall consider three limiting cases: ($`i`$) a single burst of star formation, ($`ii`$) continuous star formation starting at some time $`t`$, and ($`iii`$) a two-burst model. Multiple burst models would be intermediate between these cases. Figure 1 shows the star-formation rate as a function of redshift inferred for each galaxy in the PDF01 sample for solar-metallicity models. Models with $`0.2Z_{}`$ give younger ages and higher star-formation rates. The top two panels of Figure 1 show single-burst models with $`SFRe^{t/\tau _{\mathrm{SF}}}`$ and continuous star-formation models. In the burst models only one out of the 31 galaxies would have been present at $`z=6`$. In the oldest continuous-star-formation models, six out of 31 or 19% would have been present at $`z=6`$. Figure 1c shows the results for the best-fit solar-metallicity continuous-star-formation models of Shapley et al. (2001). The models imply that only 17% of the galaxies were present at $`z=6`$.

Models of type ($`iii`$) with two distinct episodes of star formation allow more star formation at higher redshift. Papovich et al. (2001) fit maximally-old models to their LBG sample, deriving constraints on the mass of an old population that formed with a Salpeter IMF in an instantaneous burst at $`z=\mathrm{}.`$ This model quantifies how much stellar mass can be hidden “underneath the glare” of the younger population. The star-formation rate predicted at $`z=6`$ from such maximally old components is zero, because all star-formation happened at higher redshift. Starbursts induced by mergers are likely to be spread out over a range of redshift. If the older burst in the LBGs is put at redshift lower than $`z=\mathrm{}`$, the mass in the burst must be lower. Rather than fit a whole suite of models of different burst redshifts, we can, to a good approximation, scale the allowable mass in the old component by a power-law fading model. By fitting the B-band luminosity vs. time for $`10^7<t<2\times 10^9\mathrm{yr}`$, we find $`L_\mathrm{B}t^{0.8}`$ for a Salpeter IMF for an instantaneous burst in the Bruzual & Charlot solar-metallicity models. The B band is chosen because the older burst population contributes mostly longward of $`\lambda _{\mathrm{rest}}=3000`$ Å (See PDF01, Fig. 19). This fading exponent is slightly shallower than that adopted by Hogg & Phinney (1997), because of the narrower age range used for our estimate. A Scalo IMF would fade more gradually, as would a lower-metallicity model. The allowed mass in a burst as a function of age is $`M(z)=M_{\mathrm{max}}(\mathrm{age}/t_H)^{0.8},`$ where $`M_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is the maximum mass allowed in an instantaneous burst formed at $`z=\mathrm{}`$. If each galaxy had an instantaneous probability $`P(z)`$ of forming stars in a burst of typical duration $`\delta t`$, then the average SFR per galaxy from an ensemble of such galaxies would be $`M(z)P(z)/\delta t.`$ For simplicity we adopt a constant $`P(z)`$ from $`z=10`$ to the observed LBG redshift $`z_{\mathrm{obs}}`$. (We consider varying $`P(z)`$ in §4.3.) The ensemble-average star-formation rate is thus $`\xi (z)=M(z)/(t_{\mathrm{obs}}t_{10})`$, where $`t_{10}`$ is the age of the universe at $`z=10`$, and $`t_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ is the age of the universe at the redshift of the LBG. In the current generation of semi-analytic hierarchical models, the rate of star-formation due to mergers decreases at $`z>3`$ (Cole et al. 2000; Somerville et al. 2001). Therefore our assumption of constant $`P(z)`$ puts a higher proportion of star-formation at high redshift.

Figure 1d shows the SFR vs. redshift implied by such a stochastic model for two individual galaxies in the PDF01 sample. The low-redshift spikes in the star-formation rate correspond to the young component that dominates the light at the observed redshift; the star-formation progressing to higher redshift represents the mean for an ensemble of stochastic bursts. Obviously any single galaxy would simply show two spikes of star formation for this kind of model, but if we consider such a galaxy as a proxy for millions of others, the star-formation history shown in the figure represents the maximal rate of star-formation due to stochastic bursts as a function of redshift.

The results become clearer if we consider the entire sample of galaxies. Figure 2 shows the evolution of $`\dot{\rho }_{\mathrm{SFR}}(z)`$ with time relative to that $`z=3`$ computed by summing up the models shown in the previous figures. The top panel shows the monotonic star-formation histories. For these cases the inferred co-moving density of star formation declines dramatically from $`z=3`$ to higher redshift. The stochastic burst model is shown by the solid curve in Fig. 2b. Even if we put the maximum mass allowed in stochastic-starbursts at redshifts $`z>z_{\mathrm{observed}}`$, the star-formation rate at $`z=6`$ is still a factor of 3 below that at $`z=3`$.

## 4 Implications

### 4.1 The Luminosity Function at $`z4`$

All of the star-formation histories considered so far imply a dramatic decline in star formation rate by $`z=4`$. However the observed LBG rest-frame UV luminosity functions are very similar at $`z=3`$ and $`z=4`$, and the integrated star-formation rates derived therefrom differ only by a factor of $`1.1\pm 0.4`$ (Steidel et al. 1999). Thus the star-formation histories derived from the $`z=3`$ LBGs are in direct conflict with the star-formation rates derived for the $`z=4`$ LBGs.

### 4.2 Reionization

If all of the ionizing photons come from star formation, Madau et al. (1999) estimate that the amount of star-formation needed is

$$\dot{\rho }_{\mathrm{SFR}}0.013f_{\mathrm{esc}}^1(\frac{1+z}{6})^3(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_bh_{50}^2}{0.08})^2C_{30}M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^3,$$
(1)
where $`f_{\mathrm{esc}}`$ is the mean fraction of Lyman-continuum radiation that escapes from galaxies, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ is the baryon density, $`h_{50}`$ is the Hubble constant in units of $`50\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$, and $`C_{30}=30n_{\mathrm{HII}}^2/\overline{n}_{\mathrm{HII}}^2`$ is the ionized hydrogen clumping factor. Adopting $`f_{\mathrm{esc}}=0.1`$, the required density of star-formation for reionization in this model is a factor of 1.3 times higher than the dust-corrected $`\dot{\rho }_{\mathrm{SFR}}`$ at $`z3`$ measured by Steidel et al. (1999). 111 The value of $`f_{\mathrm{esc}}`$ is highly uncertain. Measurements by Steidel et al. (2001) give a flux ratio $`F(900\AA /F(1500\AA )0.2`$ for a sample of galaxies $`z3.4`$ (but see Giallongo et al. (2002)). This is higher than most stellar population models predict even if $`f_{\mathrm{esc}}=1`$. On the other hand, the estimated mean dust attenuation factor for Lyman break galaxies is 4.4 at $`\lambda =1500`$Å (Steidel et al. 1999), implying $`f_{\mathrm{esc}}0.2`$ even ignoring neutral hydrogen opacity. In contrast, the star-formation rates inferred from the SED fits imply a sharp decrease in $`\dot{\rho }_{\mathrm{SFR}}`$ between $`z=3`$ and $`z=6`$. For the monotonic star-formation histories, this decrease is at least one order of magnitude. Even for the case of stochastic bursts the star-formation rate is still well below that needed for reionization. The problem becomes even more severe if a significant fraction of the baryons are already collapsed into minihalos at the time of reionization. In this case the required number of ionizing photons increases by a factor of 10-20 (Haiman et al. 2001), and all models fall short even if $`f_{\mathrm{esc}}=1`$.

### 4.3 What Kind of Starbursts are Needed?

In the discussion above, we adopted a uniform starburst probability $`P(z)`$ and found that such a model was unable to produce enough photons at $`z6`$ to account for reionization (while at the same time fitting $`z=3`$ LBG SEDs). One simple modification would be to increase the burst probability at high redshift. Keeping $`P(z)`$ uniform, we require that bursts occur with uniform probability over the redshift range $`z_{\mathrm{min}}<z<z_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and vary $`z_{\mathrm{min}}`$ and $`z_{\mathrm{max}}`$ until the SFR at $`z=6`$ equals that at $`z=3`$. Independent of $`z_{\mathrm{max}}`$ we find that values of $`z_{\mathrm{min}}>4.4`$ are required to achieve this. Thus, LBG evolution would be characterized by an early epoch of star-formation responsible for reionization, followed by a lull, followed by increased star formation at $`z3.`$ This kind of behavior might be caused by reheating of the IGM during reionization (Cen & McDonald 2001). However, such a scenario would increase the discrepancy at $`z=4.`$

More star formation can be hidden in bursts if the bursts fade faster. For a first-order estimate, we adopt a power-law fading model $`L(t)t^\zeta `$. For a Salpeter IMF in the B band $`\zeta =0.8`$. We vary $`\zeta `$ until the UV luminosity density at $`z=6`$ equals that at $`z=3`$. We find that a fading exponent $`\zeta =1.1`$ is required. As shown by the dashed curve in Fig. 2b, such a model still falls short of the observed luminosity-density at $`z=4`$, but is within the uncertainties. If the IMF is a powerlaw $`\varphi (M)dMM^{(1+x)}`$, a fading exponent $`\zeta =1.1`$ requires an IMF slope $`x=0.5`$ compared to the Salpeter value $`x=1.35`$ (for an instantaneous-burst solar-metallicity stellar population). A steeper fading slope $`\zeta =1.2`$ (corresponding to an IMF slope $`x=0.3`$) is needed to bring $`\dot{\rho }_{\mathrm{SFR}}`$ at $`z=4`$ to within a factor of 1.3 of that at $`z=3`$. Lower metallicities require even more top-heavy IMFs. Options other than varying the IMF are of course possible (e.g. evolved stellar populations could be hidden by dust that builds up over timescales of $`10^8`$ to $`10^9`$ yrs). However, the requirement for faster-than-Salpeter fading is robust. Furthermore, the fading must be even faster if galaxies on average have more than two burst episodes.

## 5 Conclusion

In summary, we find that the monotonic star-formation histories that best match $`z=3`$ LBG spectra fail (by a large factor) to provide enough photons to reproduce the luminosity density at $`z=4`$ or to reionize the IGM at $`z6`$. Even stochastic-burst models, which permit factors of $`310`$ more mass to be formed at higher redshift, fail to resolve the shortfall. We are left with a variety of more complex alternatives.

(1) If we require that the stellar populations responsible for reionization formed with typical Galactic IMF ($`x1.35`$), and that such star formation did not show a pronounced gap between $`z=6`$ and $`z=3`$, then we must conclude that the remnants of the stellar populations responsible for reionization do not reside in $`z=3`$ Lyman-break galaxies. This is possible, for example, if undetected dwarf galaxies with number-densities higher than the extrapolation of the LBG luminosity function dominate the ionizing background.

(2) The spectral energy distributions of $`z=3`$ LBGs allow for a separate epoch of normal-IMF star formation at very high redshift provided that such star formation ceased by $`z6`$, leaving a gap in star-formation until $`z4`$. This solution to the reionization problem glosses over the need to explain the $`z=4`$ LBG luminosity function.

(3) Reionization could have been caused by stellar populations heavily weighted toward massive stars (Larson 1998; Abel et al. 2000; Oh et al. 2001). If this phenomenon was confined to high redshift (e.g. high-mass, zero-metallicity Population III stars), then the remnants could reside in lower redshift LBGs as black holes or neutron stars. This solution to the reionization problem also fails to solve the $`z=4`$ LBG problem.

(4) Both problems can be resolved if the star formation in LBGs was episodic and the stars formed with a top-heavy IMF. Bursts of star formation associated with mergers are a natural consequence of hierarchical models of galaxy formation, and are incorporated to varying degrees into many of the current semi-analytical models (Kauffmann & Haehnelt 2000; Cole et al. 2000; Somerville et al. 2001). With the assumption that the starburst probability $`P(z)`$ is constant over $`3z<10`$, we find that an IMF slope $`x0.30.5`$ would be required to explain both the relative constancy of the LBG luminosity function over the range $`2<z<4.5`$ and plausibly provide enough star formation at $`z6`$ to reionize the IGM. Top-heavy IMFs could in principle result from higher ISM pressure during mergers (Padoan et al. 1997; Chiosi et al. 1998; but see Scalo et al. 1998). Local tests are difficult to carry out because the remnants of the massive stars responsible for producing the UV photons at high redshift are neutron stars or black holes today. In the Galactic bulge, the best fit slope for the mass-function for $`M<1M_{}`$ is $`x=0.33`$ (Zoccali et al. 2000). Micro-lensing experiments (Udalski et al. 1994; Alcock et al. 1997) do not yet rule out the possibility that this slope could have continued up to $`100M_{}`$. More direct constraints on the star-formation histories of LBGs will improve greatly over the next few years with the advent of the Space Infrared Telescope Facility and the Advanced Camera for Surveys and ultimately the Next Generation Space Telescope.

We would like to thank our collaborators on the HDF observations for their many contributions to this work. We thank Jennifer Lotz and Mauro Giavalisco for valuable discussions. Support for this work was provided by NASA through grant GO07817.01-96A from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, under NASA contract NAS5-26555.


text:
# Structure Factor in the Presence of Shear - an RPA Calculation

## Abstract

We consider the structure factor of a system of colloidal particles immersed in a host liquid. Each particle is assumed to be affected by forces due to other particles, a drag force proportional to the velocity of the particle relative to the local velocity of the fluid and a fluctuating random noise. The effect of the particles on the velocity field of the host liquid is neglected. The problem is treated within the RPA approximation which is a widely used tool in many body theory. The validity of the RPA result is discussed.

We consider a system of identical particles immersed in a host liquid subject to an external linear shear flow. Such systems have beed studied experimentally and numerically for the last two decades  \- . The results of those studies showed not only distortion of the structure factor due to the external shear, but also more dramatic effects like shear induced ordering and jamming. The theoretical explanations were first given in a paper by S. Hess , followed by a number of other papers that tackled the problem from different angles  \- . It seems, however, that in spite of substantial advances made over the years, a simple and full theoretical description is still lacking. In the present paper we will obtain the shear dependent structure factor using an RPA approximation employed on an extension of the exact collective coordinates Fokker-Planck equation derived recently by Edwards and Schwartz . The whole method is based on borrowing approximations that proved simple and effective in the study of quantum mechanical many body systems. Such methods have been applied in the past ,  and much more simply recently  to obtain the Percus-Yevick (PY)  equation for a classical hard sphere system. We hope to produce the analog of the hard sphere PY equation for the case of shear flow in the very near future.

Our starting point is an assumption concerning the forces acting on each particle. We assume that each particle is affected due to forces applied by the other particles, by a drag force proportional to its velocity relative to the local velocity of the liquid and by a fluctuating noise which is assumed to be uncorrelated for different particles. It is further assumed that the velocity field of the liquid is given externally and is unaffected by the motion of the particles. This assumption will be checked in a future publictaion. We can say at present, that the main effect we expect from the inclusion of the modification of the velocity field by the system of particles is a modification of the interaction between particles and a modification of the noise. In any case, our present model is described by the set of Langevin equations

$$\gamma [\dot{\stackrel{}{r}_i}\stackrel{}{V}(\stackrel{}{r}_i)]=_i\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}w(\stackrel{}{r}_i\stackrel{}{r}_j)+\stackrel{}{\eta }_i(t),$$
(1)
where $`\stackrel{}{r}_i`$ is the radius vector of the $`i`$’th particle, $`\stackrel{}{V}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ is the divergenceless velocity field of the liquid, $`\gamma `$ is the friction constant, $`N`$ is the number of particles, $`w`$ is the two body potential between particles and $`\stackrel{}{\eta }_i(t)`$ is a random force acting on the $`i`$’th particle obeying

$$\eta _i^k(t)=0$$
(2)
and

$$\eta _i^k(t)\eta _j^l(t^{})=2\sigma \delta _{ij}\delta _{kl}\delta (tt^{}),$$
(3)
where $`k`$ and $`l`$ denote cartesian components of a vector. The Langevin equation above leads in a standard way to a Fokker-Planck equation for the probability distribution of particle coordinates, $`P`$

$$\frac{P}{t}=\frac{1}{\gamma }\underset{i,k}{}\frac{}{r_{ik}}\left[kT\frac{P}{r_{ik}}+\frac{U}{r_{ik}}P\gamma V_k(\stackrel{}{r}_i)P\right]LP,$$
(4)
where

$`U{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}w(|\stackrel{}{r}_i\stackrel{}{r}_j|)`$

is the total potential energy, and $`kT\frac{\sigma }{\gamma }`$. Since the particles are identical, the only relevant physical observables are functionals of the density

$$\rho (\stackrel{}{r})\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\delta (\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}_i).$$
(5)
To be specific, we assume that our $`N`$ particles are enclosed in a cubic box of volume $`V`$ with periodic boundary conditions. The natural collective coordinates are the Fourier transforms of the density

$$\rho _\stackrel{}{q}(\{\stackrel{}{r_i}\})N^{\frac{1}{2}}\rho (\stackrel{}{r})e^{i\stackrel{}{q}.\stackrel{}{r}}d^3r\text{ for }\stackrel{}{q}0\text{ with }q_i\frac{2\pi n_i}{V^{\frac{1}{3}}}.$$
(6)
The Fokker-Planck equation for the probability distribution of particle coordinates can be transformed into a Fokker-Planck equation for the probability distribution of collective coordinates by following the procedure outlined by Edwards and Schwartz . We note first, that the probability distribution of the collective coordinates, $`\widehat{P}(\left\{\rho _\stackrel{}{q}\right\})`$, is given by

$$\widehat{P}(\left\{\rho _\stackrel{}{q}\right\})P(\left\{\stackrel{}{r_i}\right\})\underset{\stackrel{}{q}0}{}\delta \left(\rho _\stackrel{}{q}N^{\frac{1}{2}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}e^{i\stackrel{}{q}.\stackrel{}{r}_j}\right)\underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}d^3r_l.$$
(7)
Therefore if $`O(\{\stackrel{}{r_i}\})`$ is an observable that can be written as $`O(\{\rho _\stackrel{}{q}(\{\stackrel{}{r_i}\})\})`$, then its thermodynamic average can be calculated by

$$O=O(\{\rho _\stackrel{}{q}\})\widehat{P}(\left\{\rho _\stackrel{}{q}\right\})\underset{\stackrel{}{q}0}{}d\rho _\stackrel{}{q}.$$
(8)
(A similar transformation was used previously for the case of equilibrium statistical physics ). We now obtain the Fokker-Planck equation for $`\widehat{P}(\left\{\rho _\stackrel{}{q}\right\})`$ by multiplying eq. (4) by

$$\underset{\stackrel{}{q}0}{}\delta \left(\rho _\stackrel{}{q}N^{\frac{1}{2}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}e^{i\stackrel{}{q}.\stackrel{}{r}_j}\right),$$

and integrating over the particle coordinates. In ref.  that considered a system without shear, an explicit equation is obtained for $`\widehat{P}(\left\{\rho _\stackrel{}{q}\right\})`$. Therefore, here we need only to introduce the term corresponding to the shear. Since the Fokker-Planck equation is linear, the form we obtain is

$$\frac{\widehat{P}}{t}=L_0\widehat{P}+iN^{\frac{1}{2}}\underset{\stackrel{}{q},i,k}{}q_k\frac{}{\rho _\stackrel{}{q}}\left[e^{i\stackrel{}{q}.\stackrel{}{r}_i}V_k(\stackrel{}{r_i})P(\{\stackrel{}{r}_m\})\underset{\stackrel{}{p}0}{}\delta \left(\rho _\stackrel{}{p}N^{\frac{1}{2}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}e^{i\stackrel{}{p}.\stackrel{}{r}_j}\right)\underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}d^3r_l\right],$$
(9)
where $`L_0`$ is the linear operator obtained by Edwards and Schwartz . We do not dwell here on bringing the term due to the shear for a general divergenceless velocity field to the form $`\mathrm{\Delta }L\widehat{P}`$. We consider instead the special case of linear shear

$$\stackrel{}{V}(\stackrel{}{r})=Cx\widehat{z}.$$
(10)
In that case, the last term on the R.H.S of eq. (9) becomes

$$C\underset{\stackrel{}{q}}{}q_3\frac{\rho _\stackrel{}{q}}{q_1}\frac{\widehat{P}}{\rho _\stackrel{}{q}}.$$
(11)
The full form of eq. (9), including the specific $`L_0`$ is thus given by

$$\frac{\widehat{P}}{t}=\frac{kT}{\gamma }\underset{\stackrel{}{q}}{}\{q^2[\widehat{P}+\rho _\stackrel{}{q}\frac{\widehat{P}}{\rho _\stackrel{}{q}}+\frac{\overline{\rho }}{kT}w(\stackrel{}{q})\widehat{P}]\nu q_3\frac{\rho _\stackrel{}{q}}{q_1}\frac{\widehat{P}}{\rho _\stackrel{}{q}}+N^{\frac{1}{2}}\underset{\stackrel{}{p}}{}\stackrel{}{q}.\stackrel{}{p}[\rho _{\stackrel{}{q}+\stackrel{}{p}}\frac{^2\widehat{P}}{\rho _\stackrel{}{q}\rho _\stackrel{}{p}}+\frac{\overline{\rho }}{kT}w(\stackrel{}{p})\rho _{\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{p}}\rho _\stackrel{}{p}\frac{\widehat{P}}{\rho _\stackrel{}{q}}]\},$$
(12)
where $`\nu \frac{\gamma C}{kT}`$ and $`w(\stackrel{}{q})`$ is the Fourier transform of the inter-particle potential defined by

$$w(\stackrel{}{q})w(\stackrel{}{r})e^{i\stackrel{}{q}.\stackrel{}{r}}d^3r.$$
(13)
We will look for a stationary state of the system, hence the L.H.S vanishes. In order to keep the discussion simple, we will employ the RPA approximation on the R.H.S of eq. (12) by discarding all the third order terms except for those where one of the $`\rho `$’s is $`\rho _0=\sqrt{N}`$. (Note that derivatives with respect to $`\rho _0`$ do not appear). Thus, we’re left with the following equation for the stationary probability distribution:

$$\underset{\stackrel{}{q}}{}\left\{q^2\left[A^1(\stackrel{}{q})\widehat{P}+A^1(\stackrel{}{q})\rho _\stackrel{}{q}\frac{\widehat{P}}{\rho _\stackrel{}{q}}+\frac{^2\widehat{P}}{\rho _\stackrel{}{q}\rho _\stackrel{}{q}}\right]\nu q_3\frac{\rho _\stackrel{}{q}}{q_1}\frac{\widehat{P}}{\rho _\stackrel{}{q}}\right\}=0,$$
(14)
where $`A^1(\stackrel{}{q})1+\frac{\overline{\rho }}{kT}w(\stackrel{}{q})`$. We try a solution of eq. (14) of the form

$$\widehat{P}(\left\{\rho _\stackrel{}{q}\right\})e^{\frac{1}{2}_{\stackrel{}{q}0}S^1(\stackrel{}{q})\rho _\stackrel{}{q}\rho _\stackrel{}{q}}.$$
(15)
(We denote the pre factor of $`\rho _\stackrel{}{q}\rho _\stackrel{}{q}`$ in the above Gaussian form by $`S^1(\stackrel{}{q})`$ since if such a form does realy solve eq. (14) then that pre factor will be, as follows from eq. (8), the inverse of the structure factor we are looking for.) The combination of equations (15) and (14) yields the following equation for the structure factor:

$$\underset{\stackrel{}{q}}{}\left\{q^2\left[A^1(\stackrel{}{q})S^1(\stackrel{}{q})A^1(\stackrel{}{q})S^1(\stackrel{}{q})\rho _\stackrel{}{q}\rho _\stackrel{}{q}+S^2(\stackrel{}{q})\rho _\stackrel{}{q}\rho _\stackrel{}{q}\right]+\nu q_3S^1(\stackrel{}{q})\frac{\rho _\stackrel{}{q}}{q_1}\rho _\stackrel{}{q}\right\}=0.$$
(16)
The last term in eq. (16) can be rewritten as

$$\underset{\stackrel{}{q}}{}\nu q_3S^1(\stackrel{}{q})\frac{\rho _\stackrel{}{q}}{q_1}\rho _\stackrel{}{q}=\underset{\stackrel{}{q}}{}\frac{\nu }{2}q_3S^1(\stackrel{}{q})\frac{}{q_1}[\rho _\stackrel{}{q}\rho _\stackrel{}{q}].$$
(17)
Integrating eq. (17) by parts and combining the result with the rest of the terms in eq. (16) gives

$$\underset{\stackrel{}{q}}{}\left\{q^2\left[A^1(\stackrel{}{q})S^1(\stackrel{}{q})\right]+\left[q^2A^1(\stackrel{}{q})S^1(\stackrel{}{q})+q^2S^2(\stackrel{}{q})+\frac{\nu }{2}q_3S^2(\stackrel{}{q})\frac{S(\stackrel{}{q})}{q_1}\right]\rho _\stackrel{}{q}\rho _\stackrel{}{q}\right\}=0.$$
(18)
This equation for the static structure factor should hold for every collective coordinates configuration, $`\left\{\rho _\stackrel{}{q}\right\}`$, hence the following conditions must be obeyed:

$$\underset{\stackrel{}{q}}{}q^2\left[A^1(\stackrel{}{q})S^1(\stackrel{}{q})\right]=0$$
(19)
and

$$1\frac{S(\stackrel{}{q})}{A(\stackrel{}{q})}+\frac{\nu }{2}\frac{q_3}{q^2}\frac{S(\stackrel{}{q})}{q_1}=0.$$
(20)
Although it seems that the fact that there is a redundant condition here may cause trouble, it can be easily verified that any solution of the second condition also satisfies the first condition. Viewing the second condition as an ordinary differential equation in $`q_1`$ leads to a solution which depends on an initial condition. This condition is determined by applying the constraint that the structure factor must be finite for all the $`\stackrel{}{q}^{}s`$. The structure factor turns out to be

$$S(\stackrel{}{q})=\frac{2}{\nu q_3}_{q_1}^{sign(\nu q_3)\mathrm{}}𝑑q_1^{}q^2e^{\frac{2}{\nu q_3}_{q_1}^{q_1^{}}𝑑q_1^{\prime \prime }\frac{q^{\prime \prime 2}}{A(q^{\prime \prime })}},$$
(21)
where $`\stackrel{}{q}^{}(q_1^{},q_2,q_3)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{q}^{\prime \prime }(q_1^{\prime \prime },q_2,q_3)`$. This is the RPA dependence of the structure factor on the shear rate. A number of points have to be addressed now. The structure factor is given here in terms of the Fourier transform of the inter-particle potential, $`w(\stackrel{}{q})`$. In the case when $`w(\stackrel{}{q})`$ does exist, one may replace $`A^1(\stackrel{}{q})`$ in eq. (21) by the simplest RPA approximation for the structure factor in the absence of shear

$$S_0^1(\stackrel{}{q})=1+\frac{\overline{\rho }}{kT}w(\stackrel{}{q}).$$
(22)
Indeed, in the limit of zero shear rate, our calculation does yield the well known RPA result (22). However, The experience with non sheared liquids suggests that even when $`w(\stackrel{}{q})`$ exists, in most cases such RPA approximations produce bad results. A useful alternative is to turn eq. (22) around and to calculate an effective potential out of the externally given structure factor. This procedure actually replaces $`w(\stackrel{}{r})`$ by the Ornstein-Zernike direct correlation function. Rewriting eq. (21) using an externally given $`S_0^1(\stackrel{}{q})`$ recovers exactly the expression given by Ronis  for the structure factor in the presence of shear. However, a further study of the Ronis expression reveals an interesting discrepancy when hard spheres interactions are considered. The structure factor in the absence of shear, $`S_0(\stackrel{}{q})`$, must have the property that the associated pair distribution function vanishes within the hard spere diameter. Further more, $`S(\stackrel{}{q})`$, the structure factor in the presence of shear, must also have this property. Unfortunately, it seems that this property does not follow from the Ronis expression when inesrting the external expression for $`S_0(\stackrel{}{q})`$ given by Wertheim  \- Thiele  into the Ronis expression. We expect to deal with this problem in the very near future.