text:
# References

Adjoint operators and perturbation theory of black holes

R. Cartas-Fuentevilla
Instituto de Física, Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Ap. postal J-48 72570, Puebla Pue., México, and Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago, 5640 S. Ellis Ave., Chicago, Illinois 60637

We present a new approach for finding conservation laws in the perturbation theory of black holes which applies for the more general cases of non-hermitian equations governing the perturbations. The approach is based on a general result which establishes that a covariantly conserved current can be obtained from a solution of any system of homogeneous linear differential equations and a solution of the adjoint system. It is shown that the results obtained from the present approach become essentially the same (with some differences) to those obtained by means of the traditional methods in the simplest black hole geometry corresponding to the Schwarzschild spacetime. The future applications of our approach for studying the perturbations of black hole spacetimes in string theory is discussed.

PACS numbers: 04.20.Jb, 04.40.Nr
Running title: Adjoint operators and….

I. INTRODUCTION

The problem we consider here is in many ways an old one, the scattering of test fields by a black hole background. Several methods for solving this problem have been applied, wave mechanical scattering, semiclassical methods, etc. These methods treat the scattering of massless waves from black holes in a manner completely analogous to the Schrödinger scattering of matter waves in an effective potential. More specifically, in the scheme of the classical Einstein-Maxwell theory, after separation of harmonic time and angular dependence, the coupled gravitational and electromagnetic perturbations of the Reissner-Nordström black hole (which contains the perturbations of the Schwarzschild black hole as a special case) can be described in terms of solutions of a Schrödinger-type equation (see  and references therein). The special properties of such an equation are widely known, but we shall discuss them briefly for clarifying our aims. Before all, this equation is Hermitian (self-adjoint), which is directly connected with the constancy of the Wronskian of two solutions, which in turn, permits to establish a conservation relation between incoming energy flux from infinity, the flux back out to infinity, and the energy crossing the horizon of the black hole (see  and references therein). However, when one considers the general (coupled) perturbations of some solutions in the framework of the modern theories such as string theories involving nonminimally coupled scalar fields, the field perturbations appear to be governed by non-hermitian systems , and in this manner the above ideas for hermitian systems are no longer applied. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that similar conservation relations can be obtained for any non-hermitian equation systems using the concept of the adjoint of a linear operator; the hermitian case becomes only a particular one. These results are of interest for understanding scattering phenomena in the setting of modern theories, and possibly in other areas of physics. However, in the present work we shall apply our approach to the simplest black hole spacetime, the Schwarzschild solution, mainly for two reasons. First, for demonstrating that the present approach gives essentially the same very known results (however, see ) in the perturbation theory for that solution. Second, for clarifying our basic ideas in the simplest case.

The plan of this paper is as follows. Section II presents the general relationship between adjoint operators and covariantly conserved currents. The corresponding currents for the gravitational and electromagnetic perturbations of the Schwarzschild solution and their separations of harmonic time and angular dependence are given also in this section. The asymptotic solutions at the spatial infinity and at the horizon for the non-hermitian equations governing the perturbations are discussed in Sec. III. In Sec. IV we calculate the field perturbations, fluxes of energy, and using the results of the previous sections, the conservation relations are established. Furthermore, the energy reflection and transmission coefficients are discussed. Finally, in Sec. V we discuss the conclusions and the future applications of our present approach.

II. ADJOINT OPERATORS AND CONSERVED CURRENTS

In Refs.  it has been shown that there exists a conserved current associated with any system of homogeneous linear partial differential equations that can be written in terms of a self-adjoint operator. This result is limited for a self-adjoint system, for which the corresponding conserved current depends on a pair of solutions admitted by such a system. However, as we shall see below, there exists a more general possibility that extends for systems of equations which are not self-adjoint necessarily. The demonstration is very easy, following the basic idea of Refs. :

In accordance with Wald’s definition , if $``$ corresponds to a linear partial differential operator \[such as the non-hermitian operators governing the potentials $`\psi _\mathrm{G}`$ and $`\psi _\mathrm{E}`$ in Eqs. (2) and (7) below\] which maps $`m`$-index tensor fields into $`n`$-index tensor fields, then, the adjoint operator of $``$, denoted by $`^{}`$, is that linear partial differential operator mapping $`n`$-index tensor fields into $`m`$-index tensor fields such that

$$g^{\rho \sigma \mathrm{}}[(f_{\mu \nu \mathrm{}})]_{\rho \sigma \mathrm{}}[^{}(g^{\rho \sigma \mathrm{}})]^{\mu \nu \mathrm{}}f_{\mu \nu \mathrm{}}=_\mu J^\mu ,$$
(1)
where $`J^\mu `$ is some vector field.

From Eq. (1) we can see that this definition automatically guarantees that, if the field $`f`$ is a solution of the linear system $`(f)=0`$ and $`g`$ a solution of the adjoint system $`^{}(g)=0`$, then $`J^\mu `$ is a covariantly conserved current (which depends on the fields $`f`$ and $`g`$). This fact means that for any homogeneous equation system, one can always to construct a conserved current taking into account the adjoint system. This general result contains the self-adjoint case as a particular one. The physical meaning of such a conserved current will depend on each particular case.

With this result, our purpose is to reach the same physical conclusions reached in Ref. , starting directly from non-hermitian Eqs. (2) and (14) (without invoking the hermitian equivalent system (21) of that reference). These equations represent the type of systems of equations that one can obtain for describing the perturbations of the exact solutions in the modern theories, but that, however, do not appear to take the form of a hermitian system.

In the following, the formulae and notation of Ref.  will be used extensively.

A. Gravitational perturbations

As it is well known, gravitational perturbations of Schwarzschild solution can be described in terms of the scalar potential $`\psi _\mathrm{G}`$ satisfying

$$𝒪_\mathrm{G}^{}(\psi _\mathrm{G})=[(\mathrm{\Delta }+2\gamma +\mu )(D+3\rho )(\overline{\delta }2\overline{\beta })(\delta +4\beta )3\mathrm{\Psi }_2]\psi _\mathrm{G}=0,$$
(2)
which can be obtained from Eqs. (2) and (4) of Ref. . Equation (2) corresponds to the adjoint system of the decoupled equation satisfied by the perturbed Weyl spinor $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}`$ according to Wald’s method :

$$𝒪_\mathrm{G}(\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B})=[(D5\rho )(\mathrm{\Delta }4\gamma +\mu )(\delta 2\beta )(\overline{\delta }+4\overline{\beta })3\mathrm{\Psi }_2]\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}=0,$$
(3)
in this manner, from Eqs. (1)–(3) and considering that the tetrad components $`D`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\delta `$, and $`\overline{\delta }`$ are defined by $`l^\mu _\mu `$, $`n^\mu _\mu `$, $`m^\mu _\mu `$, $`\overline{m}^\mu _\mu `$, respectively, and that they act on scalar fields we have the following continuity equation

$$_\mu \left[\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}[n^\mu (D+3\rho )\psi _\mathrm{G}\overline{m}^\mu (\delta +4\beta )\psi _\mathrm{G}]+\psi _\mathrm{G}[m^\mu (\overline{\delta }+4\overline{\beta })\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}l^\mu (\mathrm{\Delta }4\gamma +\mu )\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}]\right]=0.$$
(4)
In order to separate the time and angular dependence, we have consider the expressions (6) and (41) of Ref.  for $`\psi _\mathrm{G}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}`$ in terms of the harmonic time and the spin-weighted spherical harmonics, and we obtain

$$_r\left[\chi (\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}_r\psi _\mathrm{g}\psi _\mathrm{g}_r\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B})2(_r\chi )\psi _\mathrm{g}\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}\right]=0,$$
(5)
where $`\chi =r^22Mr`$, and we have used the expressions (3a) and (4) of Ref.  for the background spin coefficients and the tetrad and preserved the same symbol for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}`$ as describing its radial dependence, $`\psi _\mathrm{g}`$ is the corresponding one for $`\psi _\mathrm{G}`$. Therefore, Eq. (5) implies that there exists a conserved quantity which will be denoted by $`K_\mathrm{G}`$:

$$\chi (\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}_r\psi _\mathrm{g}\psi _\mathrm{g}_r\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B})2(_r\chi )\psi _\mathrm{g}\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}K_\mathrm{G}.$$
(6)
B. Electromagnetic perturbations

Similarly, the electromagnetic perturbations are described in terms of the scalar potential $`\psi _\mathrm{E}`$ which satisfies

$$𝒪_\mathrm{E}^{}(\psi _\mathrm{E})=[(D+\rho )(\mathrm{\Delta }+2\gamma +\mu )(\delta +4\beta )(\overline{\delta }2\overline{\beta })6\mathrm{\Psi }_2]\psi _\mathrm{E}=0,$$
(7)
and its adjoint system for the component of perturbed electromagnetic field $`\phi _0^\mathrm{B}`$ :

$$𝒪_\mathrm{E}(\phi _0^\mathrm{B})=[(\mathrm{\Delta }4\gamma +\mu )(D3\rho )(\overline{\delta }+4\overline{\beta })(\delta 2\beta )6\mathrm{\Psi }_2]\phi _0^\mathrm{B}=0,$$
(8)
and following the same procedure employed in the gravitational case we obtain the corresponding continuity equation:

$$_\mu \left[\phi _0^\mathrm{B}[l^\mu (\mathrm{\Delta }+2\gamma +\mu )\psi _\mathrm{E}m^\mu (\overline{\delta }2\overline{\beta })\psi _\mathrm{E}]+\psi _\mathrm{E}[\overline{m}^\mu (\delta 2\beta )\phi _0^\mathrm{B}n^\mu (D3\rho )\phi _0^\mathrm{B}]\right]=0.$$
(9)
After the separation of the time and angular dependences (see Eqs. (15) and (42) of Ref. ), Eq. (9) yields a conserved quantity for electromagnetic perturbations:

$$\left[\chi (\psi _\mathrm{e}_r\phi _0^\mathrm{B}\phi _0^\mathrm{B}_r\psi _\mathrm{e})+(_r\chi )\psi _\mathrm{e}\phi _0^\mathrm{B}\right]K_\mathrm{E},$$
(10)
where $`\phi _0^\mathrm{B}`$ has been preserved as describing its radial dependence and $`\psi _\mathrm{e}`$ corresponds to that for $`\psi _\mathrm{E}`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}`$ appearing in Eq. (4) is invariant under the ordinary gauge transformations of the metric perturbations , the current itself has the same invariance property; something similar occurs with $`\phi _0^\mathrm{B}`$ appearing in Eq. (9) and the corresponding current, as opposed to the currents constructed by means of the approaches of Refs.  and Refs. . Similarly $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}`$ and $`\phi _0^\mathrm{B}`$ are independent on the perturbed tetrad gauge freedom (see  are references therein). These properties are important when $`K_\mathrm{G}`$ and $`K_\mathrm{E}`$ are evaluated.

On the other hand, the covariantly conserved currents given in Eqs. (4) and (9) depend on the background field and on the solutions admitted by the corresponding original system and its adjoint system. However, by noting that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}(\phi _0^\mathrm{B})`$ in Eqs. (4)–(6) (Eqs. (9) and (10)) is defined in terms of derivatives of $`\overline{\psi }_\mathrm{G}(\overline{\psi }_\mathrm{E})`$ according to Eqs. (41) and (42) of Ref. , our conserved currents depend actually on a single complex solution of the corresponding equation for the potential.

For establishing our conservation relation for the field perturbations, the idea is to evaluate the constants $`K_\mathrm{G}`$ and $`K_\mathrm{E}`$ at the two asymptotic regions, the spatial infinity and the horizon, and then it will be clarified the physical meaning of these constants. With this purpose, in the next section the asymptotic forms of the potentials $`\psi _\mathrm{G}`$ and $`\psi _\mathrm{E}`$ at those regions will be determined, since all the quantities of interest are defined in terms of them.

III. ASYMPTOTIC EXPANSIONS

A. At the spatial infinity

Since $`\psi _\mathrm{G}`$ has spin weight –2, we seek solutions of Eq. (2) of the form

$$\psi _\mathrm{G}=\psi _\mathrm{g}(r)e^{i\omega t}{}_{2}{}^{}Y_{jm}^{}(\theta ,\phi ),$$
(11)
after substituting (11) into Eq. (2), one gets a linear ordinary differential equation for $`\psi _\mathrm{g}(r)`$. Such a system has essentially the same form of Eq. (2) just making the substitutions $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`D`$, and $`(\overline{\delta }2\overline{\beta })(\delta +4\beta )`$ by $`\frac{\chi }{2r^2}𝒟^{}`$, $`𝒟`$, and $`\frac{\eta ^2}{2r^2}`$ respectively (see Eqs. (8) and (9) of Ref. ).

We assume the following general expression for the asymptotic solution of $`\psi _\mathrm{g}(r)`$ at the spatial infinity111In fact, this is essentially the same asymptotic form for $`\psi _\mathrm{g}`$ as obtained from Eqs. (6), (23), and (44) of Ref. ; see also the paragraph after Eqs. (43) of same reference.:

$$\psi _\mathrm{g}\underset{n}{}A_nr^ne^{i\omega r_{}}+\underset{m}{}B_mr^me^{i\omega r_{}},$$
(12)
$`A_n`$ and $`B_m`$ are (complex) constant coefficients. Of course, the summations in Eq. (12) start with the leading terms. Substituting (12) into Eq. (2) we obtain

$$\psi _\mathrm{g}Ar^1e^{i\omega r_{}}+(Br^3+B_2r^2+B_1r+B_0+B_1r^1)e^{i\omega r_{}},$$
(13)
where only the leading term of the form $`e^{i\omega r_{}}`$ is displayed (we have omitted the subindices in the coefficients for the leading terms for simplicity), since it is the only one involved in the calculations below. For the terms of the form $`e^{i\omega r_{}}`$, it is necessary to consider the asymptotic series up to the fifth term, since this term gives the leading contribution for the outgoing mode in $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}`$ 222This is very easy to see, since $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}}(r)=𝒟^4\psi _g`$, it is straightforward to demonstrate that $`𝒟^4r^me^{i\omega r_{}}=(m3)(m2)(m1)mr^{m4}e^{i\omega r_{}}`$, and then the leading contribution comes from the term $`m=1`$. This fact is related with the so called “peeling property” ., which will be important for evaluating the constant $`K_\mathrm{G}`$. Equation (2) beside setting the leading terms, gives a recurrence relation for the $`A^{}s`$ and another for the $`B^{}s`$. In particular, we can find that

$$B_1=\frac{B}{96\omega ^4}\left|\frac{\eta ^2}{2}(\eta ^2+2)+6i\omega r_+\right|^2,$$
(14)
which will be the only relation that we shall need for our purpose. In a fully similar way we can obtain, from Eq. (7), the following asymptotic form of $`\psi _e`$ corresponding to electromagnetic perturbations:

$$\psi _\mathrm{e}ar^1e^{i\omega r_{}}+(br+b_0+b_1r^1)e^{i\omega r_{}},$$
(15)
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are the constant coefficients for the leading terms and

$$b_1=\frac{b}{8\omega ^2}(\eta ^2+2)^2.$$
(16)
B. At the horizon

For the asymptotic expansions of the ingoing modes at the horizon, it is convenient to introduce the new radial variable

$$yrr_+,r_+=2M(\mathrm{horizon}\mathrm{of}\mathrm{the}\mathrm{black}\mathrm{hole}),$$
(17)
and then to perform an expansion of Eq. (2) and (7) at the leading order in $`1/y`$, in a similar way to that performed at the leading orders in $`r`$ in the previous section. We have for the gravitational case that

$$\psi _\mathrm{g}Cy^2e^{i\omega r_{}},$$
(18)
and

$$\psi _\mathrm{e}cye^{i\omega r_{}},$$
(19)
for the electromagnetic one; $`C`$ and $`c`$ are constant coefficients.

IV. CONSERVATION RELATIONS AND REFLECTION AND TRANSMISSION COEFFICIENTS FOR THE ENERGY

The relevant quantities for wave amplitudes and energy fluxes can be obtained directly from our potentials $`\psi _\mathrm{G}`$ and $`\psi _\mathrm{E}`$ (without involving the functions $`X_k`$, $`Y_k`$ and $`Z_k`$ of Ref. ) by noting from Eqs. (41) and (42) of Ref.  that

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}}`$ $`=`$ $`[𝒟^4\psi _\mathrm{g}(r)]e^{i\omega t}{}_{2}{}^{}Y_{jm}^{},`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }_4^\mathrm{B}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2(\eta ^2+2)}{4r^4}}\psi _\mathrm{g}(r)e^{i\omega t}{}_{2}{}^{}Y_{jm}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{3iM\omega }{r^4}}\overline{\psi _\mathrm{g}(r)}e^{i\omega t}\overline{{}_{2}{}^{}Y_{jm}^{}},`$ (20)
for gravitational waves, and

$`\overline{\phi _0^\mathrm{B}}`$ $`=`$ $`[𝒟^2\psi _\mathrm{e}(r)]e^{i\omega t}{}_{1}{}^{}Y_{jm}^{},`$
$`\overline{\phi _2^\mathrm{B}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\eta ^2+2)}{2r^2}}\psi _\mathrm{e}(r)e^{i\omega t}{}_{1}{}^{}Y_{jm}^{},`$ (21)
for electromagnetic waves.

In this manner, from Eqs. (13), (15), (20), and (21) one finds that at the spatial infinity:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}r\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}}`$ $``$ $`\left[4\omega ^4Ae^{i\omega (t+r_{})}+{\displaystyle \frac{6B_1}{r^4}}e^{i\omega (tr_{})}\right]{}_{2}{}^{}Y_{jm}^{},`$
$`r\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }_4^\mathrm{B}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2(\eta ^2+2)}{4}}Be^{i\omega (tr_{})}{}_{2}{}^{}Y_{jm}^{}3iM\omega \overline{B}e^{i\omega (tr_{})}\overline{{}_{2}{}^{}Y_{jm}^{}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}r\overline{\phi _0^\mathrm{B}}`$ $``$ $`\left[2\omega ^2ae^{i\omega (t+r_{})}+{\displaystyle \frac{b_1}{r^2}}e^{i\omega (tr_{})}\right]{}_{1}{}^{}Y_{jm}^{},`$
$`r\overline{\phi _2^\mathrm{B}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\eta ^2+2)}{2}}be^{i\omega (tr_{})}{}_{1}{}^{}Y_{jm}^{}.`$ (22)
Similarly, from Eqs. (17)–(19), (20), and (21) one finds that, at the horizon,

$`y^2\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}}`$ $``$ $`4i\omega Cr_+(1i\omega r_+)|1+2i\omega r_+|^2e^{i\omega (t+r_{})}{}_{2}{}^{}Y_{jm}^{},`$
$`y\overline{\phi _0^\mathrm{B}}`$ $``$ $`2i\omega cr_+(12i\omega r_+)e^{i\omega (t+r_{})}{}_{1}{}^{}Y_{jm}^{}.`$ (23)
Note that at level of the quantities of Eqs. (22) and (23) for the waves amplitudes, the description is essentially the same as given by the quantities of Eqs. (47) and (48) of the Ref. ; in fact, making a comparison with those quantities we can find relations between the corresponding coefficients:

$`4\omega ^2A`$ $`=`$ $`[\eta ^2(\eta ^2+2)\pm 12iM\omega ]A_2^{(\pm )},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{B}{4\omega ^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`B_2^{(\pm )},`$
$`2\omega a`$ $`=`$ $`i\eta (\eta ^2+2)A_1^{(\pm )},`$
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`2i\omega \eta B_1^{(\pm )},`$
$`r_+(1i\omega r_+)(12i\omega r_+)C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\eta ^2(\eta ^2+2)\pm 12iM\omega ]D_2^{(\pm )},`$
$`r_+(12i\omega r_+)c`$ $`=`$ $`\eta (\eta ^2+2)D_1^{(\pm )}.`$ (24)
On the other hand, from the fact that, in particular $`K_\mathrm{G}|_{r_{}+\mathrm{}}=K_\mathrm{G}|_r_{}\mathrm{}`$ (see Eq. (6) and the paragraph at the end of Sec. II), from Eqs. (13), (18), first of Eqs. (22) and (23) one finds that

$$(3B\overline{B_1}2\omega ^4|A|^2)=\frac{r_+^2}{2}|1+i\omega r_+|^2|1+2i\omega r_+|^2|C|^2,$$
(25)
where $`B_1`$ is given in Eq. (14). Similarly, from Eqs. (10), (15), (19), third of Eqs. (22), and second of Eqs. (23), one finds that, in the electromagnetic case,

$$2(2\omega ^2|a|^2+b\overline{b_1})=r_+^2|1+2i\omega r_+|^2|c|^2,$$
(26)
where $`b_1`$ is given in Eq. (16).

Furthermore, using the (limiting) formulae given in Eqs. (51)–(53), and (56) in Ref.  and our expressions (22) and (23), we find that

$`dE_{\mathrm{in}}^{\mathrm{grav}}/dt`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\omega ^6}{\pi }}|A|^2,`$
$`dE_{\mathrm{in}}^{\mathrm{em}}/dt`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\omega ^4}{\pi }}|a|^2,`$
$`dE_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{grav}}/dt`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64\pi \omega ^2}}[\eta ^4(\eta ^2+2)^2+144M^2\omega ^2|B|^2,`$
$`dE_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{em}}/dt`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\eta ^2+2)^2}{8\pi }}|b|^2,`$
$`dE_{\mathrm{hole}}^{\mathrm{grav}}/dt`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{\pi }}r_+^2|1+i\omega r_+|^2|1+2i\omega r_+|^2|C|^2,`$
$`dE_{\mathrm{hole}}^{\mathrm{em}}/dt`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{2\pi }}r_+^2|1+2i\omega r_+|^2|c|^2.`$ (27)
Thus, from Eqs. (25)–(27) we obtain that

$`dE_{\mathrm{in}}^{\mathrm{grav}}/dt`$ $`=`$ $`dE_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{grav}}/dt+dE_{\mathrm{hole}}^{\mathrm{grav}}/dt,`$
$`dE_{\mathrm{in}}^{\mathrm{em}}/dt`$ $`=`$ $`dE_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{em}}/dt+dE_{\mathrm{hole}}^{\mathrm{em}}/dt,`$ (28)
which show explicity that the energy carried by the gravitational or the electromagnetic perturbations is conserved. We point out that, the “conservation relations” (25) and (26) (such as those in Ref. ) can be properly interpreted as expressions of the conservation of energy only after the energy fluxes (27) are derived. In this manner, the original continuity equations (4) and (9) for non-hermitian systems lead, finally, to a conserved quantity, the energy for the field perturbations. Furthermore, from expressions (27) one finds that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dE_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{grav}}/dt}{dE_{\mathrm{in}}^{\mathrm{grav}}/dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[\eta ^4(\eta ^2+2)^2+144M^2\omega ^2]}{256\omega ^8}}{\displaystyle \frac{|B|^2}{|A|^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{|B_2^{(\pm )}|^2}{|A_2^{(\pm )}|^2}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dE_{\mathrm{hole}}^{\mathrm{grav}}/dt}{dE_{\mathrm{in}}^{\mathrm{grav}}/dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_+^2|1+i\omega r_+|^2|1+2i\omega r_+|^2}{4\omega ^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{|C|^2}{|A|^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{|D_2^{(\pm )}|^2}{|A_2^{(\pm )}|^2}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dE_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{em}}/dt}{dE_{\mathrm{in}}^{\mathrm{em}}/dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\eta ^2+2)^2}{16\omega ^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{|b|^2}{|a|^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{|B_1|^2}{|A_1|^2}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dE_{\mathrm{hole}}^{\mathrm{em}}/dt}{dE_{\mathrm{in}}^{\mathrm{em}}/dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_+^2|1+2i\omega r_+|^2}{4\omega ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{|c|^2}{|a|^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{|D_1|^2}{|A_1|^2}},`$ (29)
where the second equalities follow from the relations (24). Thus, our energy reflection and transmission coefficients for the field perturbations coincide with those in Ref.  given in terms of the reflection and transmission coefficients for the potential barriers appearing in the Schrödinger-type equations. However, it is worth to point out that, in the present approach, it has not been mentioned explicity the existence of some “efective potential barriers”. Furthermore, in this approach, there exists, in general, only one reflection or transmission coefficient for each field perturbation, avoiding the “redundance” which appears in the traditional approach because the existence of various potential barriers.

The polarization changes of the field perturbations are analyzed at the level of Eqs. (47) and (48) in Ref. , therefore, the conclusions of that reference are also valid in our present approach (see paragraph after Eq. (23)).

V. CONCLUDING REMARKS

In conclusion, we have demonstrated that one can obtain essentially the same physical results, starting from a manifestly non-hermitian system, to those obtained from the traditional approach via (hermitian) Schrödinger-type equations. This suggests that a fully similar analysis can be performed in the perturbations of exact solutions in the setting of the modern theories, where, as pointed out in Sec. I, non-hermitian systems appear. In particular those solutions corresponding to black holes in string theory, for which some results analogous to those traditionally known for classical black holes have not established still. Works along these lines are in progress and will be the subject of forthcoming communications.

On the other hand, although the result on the existence of conserved currents in Sec. II has been established assuming only tensor fields and the presence of a single equation, such a result can be extended in a direct way to equations involving spinor fields, matrix fields, and the presence of more than one field . The possible applications of this very general result in the theories involving gravity and matter fields (and other areas of physics) are open questions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author wants to thank Dr. G. F. Torres del Castillo for his comments on the manuscript and suggestions. The author would like to thank Professor R. M. Wald for the kind hospitality provided at The Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago. The author acknowledges the financial support received from CONACYT and the Sistema Nacional de Investigadores.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Einstein gravity (general relativity) is based on two key elements: (1) pseudo-Riemannian geometry (Lorentzian geometry) — the geometric notions derived from the Einstein Equivalence Principle, and (2) specific field equations for the Ricci tensor. It is the second of these elements that Sakharov addresses in developing his notion of “induced gravity”.? There are by now a number of versions of “induced gravity” on the market, some of which focus primarily on particle physics and others which focus primarily on (semiclassical) gravity.

To set the general framework:

* Assume you are given a Lorentzian manifold.
* Make no assumptions about the dynamics of this geometry; leave it free to flap in the breeze. Do not attempt to quantize geometry/gravity itself, but quantize everything else. (The geometry is considered as a classical background.)
* Consider one-loop quantum field theory on this manifold.
* Then at one loop the effective action is guaranteed to contain terms of the form:

$$\mathrm{d}^4x\sqrt{g}\left\{c_0+c_1R(g)+c_2(\text{}R^2\text{})\right\}.$$
(1)
Compare this with the standard Lagrangian for Einstein gravity

$$\mathrm{d}^4x\sqrt{g}\left\{\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{R(g)}{16\pi G}+K(\text{}R^2\text{})+_{\mathrm{matter}}\right\}.$$
(2)
That is: the one loop effective action automatically contains terms proportional to the cosmological constant, the Einstein–Hilbert action, plus “curvature-squared” terms.

This is the central observation, and it is extremely suggestive, but is it enough for us to recover all the interesting aspects of gravity? It is the answer to this last question that generates all the interest, and all the difficulties and subtleties.

## 2 One-loop matter affects classical gravity

Start by considering the one-loop contribution to the effective action for a (possibly non-minimally coupled) scalar field:

$$𝒮_g=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}det(\mathrm{\Delta }_g+m^2+\xi R)=\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Delta }_g+m^2+\xi R).$$
(3)
In Feynman diagram language this determinant represents the sum of all one-loop diagrams coupled to an arbitrary number of classical external gravitons. (Even though we have not at this stage defined gravity, we have defined the notion of geometry. To connect with particle physics language we temporarily assume that the geometry is close to flat, expand the spacetime metric as $`g_{ab}=\eta _{ab}+h_{ab}`$, and Fourier transform the $`h_{ab}(x)`$. The resulting $`h_{ab}(k)`$ are defined to be “external gravitons”. Once you have developed this Feynman diagram picture, purely as an aid to visualization, there is no need to remain close to flat space as the determinant formula continues to make excellent sense even for highly curved and/or topologically nontrivial manifolds.) For Feynman diagrams whose only external legs are classical gravitons, particle-particle interactions will contribute only at two-loops or higher.

The determinant can be rigorously defined by a number of different techniques (e.g, zeta functions ?,?). It is somewhat more useful to adopt an explicit cutoff. Use the standard identity

$$\mathrm{ln}(b/a)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{d}x}{x}\left[e^{ax}e^{bx}\right].$$
(4)
Now define Tr to include a trace over both spacetime and any internal indices

$$\text{Tr}[]\mathrm{d}^4x\text{tr}[]$$
(5)
and adopt Schwinger’s proper time formalism.aaaThere is nothing particularly special about Schwinger’s regularization — for instance, we could just as easily use Pauli–Villars regularization. On the other hand, zeta functions or dimensional regularization are a trifle tricky because they are in a sense too powerful, and have the effect of “hiding” some of the interesting terms.  This yields the simple expression

$$𝒮_g=𝒮_{g_0}+\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{d}s}{s}\left[\mathrm{exp}(s[\mathrm{\Delta }_g+m^2+\xi R])\mathrm{exp}(s[\mathrm{\Delta }_{g_0}+m^2+\xi R_0])\right].$$
(6)
Note that this computes the *difference* in the one-loop contribution to the effective that comes from comparing two different metrics ($`g`$ and $`g_0`$) defined on the *same* topological manifold. ($`g_0`$ is simply any convenient reference metric.) Since this expression is ultraviolet divergent, one should regularize with a short distance cutoff. Note that dimensionally $`[s]=M^2=L^2[\kappa ^2]`$. The regularized but unrenormalized one-loop contribution to the effective action is then

$$𝒮_g=𝒮_{g_0}+\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}_{\kappa ^2}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{d}s}{s}\left[\mathrm{exp}(s[\mathrm{\Delta }_g+m^2+\xi R])\mathrm{exp}(s[\mathrm{\Delta }_{g_0}+m^2+\xi R_0])\right].$$
(7)
Now use the heat kernel expansion as $`s0`$:?,?

$$\mathrm{exp}(s[\mathrm{\Delta }_g+m^2+\xi R])=\frac{\sqrt{g}}{(4\pi s)^2}\left[a_0(g)+a_1(g)s+a_2(g)s^2+\mathrm{}\right].$$
(8)
The coefficients $`a_n`$ are variously denoted the Seeley–DeWitt coefficients, Hamidew coefficients, or the Minakshisundarum–Pliejel coefficients. ? They are universal functions of the spacetime geometry, and we do not need to know their explicit form just yet. Then

$`𝒮_g`$ $`=`$ $`𝒮_{g_0}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\pi ^2}}\text{Tr}\{[a_0(g)a_0(g_0)]{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^4}{2}}+[a_1(g)a_1(g_0)]\kappa ^2`$ (9)
$`+[a_2(g)a_2(g_0)]\mathrm{ln}(\kappa ^2/m^2)\}+\text{UV finite.}`$
That is, the use of the heat kernel expansion has permitted us to isolate the both the form and severity of potential divergences — a result that is of course well known and is the basis, in one form or another, of essentially all work in curved-space quantum field theory. ? (For that matter, the occurrence of quartic, quadratic, and logarithmic divergences is quite standard in flat-space QFT.)

If we now consider Dirac/Weyl spinors, then provided there is no net chiral anomaly, we can square the Dirac operator to write

$`𝒮`$ $`=`$ $`+\mathrm{ln}det([\gamma D]+m)`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}det([\gamma D]^2+m^2)`$
$`=`$ $`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}det\left(\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}R+m^2\right).`$
Note the relative minus sign; in fact all fermions contribute with a relative minus sign. Summing over all particles, bose plus fermi:

$`𝒮_g`$ $`=`$ $`𝒮_{g_0}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\pi ^2}}\text{Str}\{[a_0(g)a_0(g_0)]{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^4}{2}}+[a_1(g)a_1(g_0)]\kappa ^2`$ (11)
$`+[a_2(g)a_2(g_0)]\mathrm{ln}(\kappa ^2/m^2)\}+\text{UV finite.}`$
Here we have introduced the “supertrace” operator Str, which sums over all particle species but weights fermi fields with a relative minus sign. Specifically

$$\text{Str}[]\text{Tr}\left[()^F\right].$$
(12)
Note that the usefulness of this “Str” object is *not* limited to supersymmetric theories, it makes perfectly good sense in arbitrary QFTs, and is simply a useful notational and bookkeeping trick.

Working from any of many standard references it is easy to see?

$$a_0(g)=1.$$
(13)
$$a_1(g)=k_1R(g)m^2.$$
(14)
$`a_2(g)`$ $`=`$ $`k_2C_{abcd}C^{abcd}+k_3R_{ab}R^{ab}+k_4R^2+k_5^2R`$ (15)
$`m^2k_1R(g)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^4.`$
where the dimensionless constants $`k_i`$ depend on the particular particle species being considered. The form of these coefficients can be deduced by power counting and the fact that they must be scalar invariants of the spacetime geometry. The particular coefficients involving the $`m^2`$ and $`m^4`$ terms are easily deduced by combining a Taylor expansion of $`\mathrm{exp}(sm^2)`$ with the corresponding $`m=0`$ Seeley–DeWitt expansion. Not all of the terms in $`a_2`$ are truly independent. Upon integration

$$\sqrt{g}a_2(g)=\sqrt{g}\left\{k_2^{}C_{abcd}C^{abcd}+k_4^{}R^2m^2k_1R(g)+\frac{1}{2}m^4\right\}.$$
(16)
The $`k_5`$ term has been discarded because it is a total divergence, while the $`k_3`$ term can be eliminated using the integral formula for the 4-dimensional Euler characteristic. $`k_2^{}`$ and $`k_4^{}`$ are suitable linear combinations of $`k_2`$, $`k_3`$, and $`k_4`$. For most of the qualitative discussion below we will not need to know specific values for the $`k_i`$.

Suppose we now define str by

$$\text{Str}[]d^4x\text{str}[]$$
(17)
and proceed to unwrap the above results by collecting terms based on their geometrical form:

$`𝒮_g`$ $`=`$ $`𝒮_{g_0}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\pi ^2}}\{\text{str}[{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^4}{2}}m^2\kappa ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{m^4}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{m^2}}\right)]{\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}^4x[\sqrt{g}\sqrt{g_0}]`$ (18)
$`+\text{str}\left[k_1\kappa ^2k_1m^2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{m^2}}\right)\right]{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^4x\left[\sqrt{g}R(g)\sqrt{g_0}R(g_0)\right]}`$
$`+\text{str}\left[k_2^{}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{m^2}}\right)\right]{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^4x\left[\sqrt{g}C^2(g)\sqrt{g_0}C^2(g_0)\right]}`$
$`+\text{str}\left[k_4^{}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{m^2}}\right)\right]{\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}^4x[\sqrt{g}R^2(g)\sqrt{g_0}R^2(g_0)]\}`$
$`+\text{UV finite.}`$
It is now trivial to extract the coefficients in the one-loop effective action. Define the gravitational couplings as follows

$$\mathrm{d}^4x\sqrt{g}\left\{\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{R(g)}{16\pi G}+K_2C_{abcd}C^{abcd}+K_4R^2+_{\mathrm{matter}}\right\}.$$
(19)
Then explicitly keeping track of potential zero-loop (tree level) contributionsbbbOf course, admitting the possibility of zero-loop contributions is anti-Sakharov in spirit, but we shall see uses for this abberant behaviour later.

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\text{str}\left[\frac{\kappa ^4}{2}m^2\kappa ^2+\frac{m^4}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\kappa ^2}{m^2}\right)\right]+\text{UV finite.}$$
(20)
$$\frac{1}{G}=\frac{1}{G_0}\frac{1}{2\pi }\text{str}\left[k_1\kappa ^2k_1m^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\kappa ^2}{m^2}\right)\right]+\text{UV finite.}$$
(21)
$$K_2=(K_2)_0+\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\text{str}\left[k_2^{}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\kappa ^2}{m^2}\right)\right]+\text{UV finite.}$$
(22)
$$K_4=(K_4)_0+\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\text{str}\left[k_4^{}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\kappa ^2}{m^2}\right)\right]+\text{UV finite.}$$
(23)
These are *regulated* but *unrenormalized* one-loop expressions describing the influence of the matter sector on the gravitational couplings. We see that armed with a knowledge of the particle spectrum and the cutoff, the one-loop QFT-induced changes in the gravitational couplings are calculable. With these formulae in hand, it is now easy to go back to Sakharov’s paper? and see where his ideas were coming from. It is also important to note that it is at this stage that the road diverges. There are at least four main directions one can take —

* Sakharov: Demand one-loop dominance.
* Pauli: Demand one-loop finiteness.
* Frolov–Fursaev: Demand one-loop calculability.
* Renormalizability: Demand one-loop calculability for certain *differences*.

The same one-loop formulae can then have rather different implications depending on the route you take. After a brief digression on observational bounds, let us consider the major options in turn.

## 3 Experimental/Observational bounds

Regarding the gravitational couplings, we have good experimental data on Newton’s constant $`G`$, while for the cosmological constant we are certainly safe in asserting

|8πGΛ|
<10120MPlanck4.
<8𝜋𝐺Λsuperscript10120superscriptsubscript𝑀Planck4|8\pi G\;\Lambda|\mathrel{\mathchoice{\lower 3.0pt\vbox{\halign{$\displaystyle\hfill#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 3.0pt\vbox{\halign{$\textstyle\hfill#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 3.0pt\vbox{\halign{$\scriptstyle\hfill#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 3.0pt\vbox{\halign{$\scriptscriptstyle\hfill#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}}10^{-120}\;M_{\mathrm{Planck}}^{4}. (24)
Current observational data indeed favours the stronger statement

$$8\pi G\mathrm{\Lambda }+10^{123}M_{\mathrm{Planck}}^4.$$
(25)
In contrast, constraints on the dimensionless numbers $`K_2`$ and $`K_4`$ are quite weak (amazingly weak). The linearized theory leads to a weak-field potential of Yukawa form?

$$\varphi (r)\frac{1}{r}\frac{4}{3}\frac{\mathrm{exp}(M_{\mathrm{Planck}}r/\sqrt{K_2})}{r}+\frac{1}{3}\frac{\mathrm{exp}(M_{\mathrm{Planck}}r/\sqrt{K_4})}{r}.$$
(26)
Note that the strength of the Yukawa terms is fixed and it is only their ranges that depend on $`K_{2/4}`$.

Negative values for $`K_2`$ and $`K_4`$ lead to objectionable tachyonic behaviour. (For instance, the static potential would not limit to the Newtonian value at large distances but would instead oscillate wildly between zero and $`8/3`$ times the standard Newtonian value. In addition the linearized theory then exhibits various instabilities.?)

Positive values for $`K_2`$ and $`K_4`$ are constrained by the fact that we have directly tested the inverse square law for gravity down to approximately the millimeter scale, implying MPlanck/K
>1013 GeV
>subscript𝑀Planck𝐾superscript1013 GeVM_{\mathrm{Planck}}/\sqrt{K}\mathrel{\mathchoice{\lower 3.0pt\vbox{\halign{$\displaystyle\hfill#\hfil$\cr>\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 3.0pt\vbox{\halign{$\textstyle\hfill#\hfil$\cr>\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 3.0pt\vbox{\halign{$\scriptstyle\hfill#\hfil$\cr>\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 3.0pt\vbox{\halign{$\scriptscriptstyle\hfill#\hfil$\cr>\crcr\sim\crcr}}}}10^{-13}\hbox{ GeV}. That is

K2/4
<10+64.
<subscript𝐾24superscript1064K_{2/4}\mathrel{\mathchoice{\lower 3.0pt\vbox{\halign{$\displaystyle\hfill#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 3.0pt\vbox{\halign{$\textstyle\hfill#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 3.0pt\vbox{\halign{$\scriptstyle\hfill#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 3.0pt\vbox{\halign{$\scriptscriptstyle\hfill#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}}10^{+64}. (27)
This direct experimental bound leaves considerable maneuvering room. (Various “fifth force” experiments currently in progress are likely to improve these bounds somewhat in the not too distant future.?) Indirect arguments, based on using the $`K_4`$ term to drive cosmological inflation suggest?

$$K_4(10^{+11},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{+15}).$$
(28)
(Cosmology is rather insensitive to the $`K_2`$ term since the Weyl tensor is identically zero in all FRW backgrounds.) There is certainly considerable room for deriving better phenomenological and observational bounds on these parameters.

## 4 Sakharov: one-loop dominance

Sakharov’s own interpretation of the manner in which one-loop matter influences gravity was this:?

* Set all tree-level constants to zero.
* Assume one-loop physics is dominant.
* Assume most dimensionless numbers of order one.
* Assume $`\kappa M_{\mathrm{Planck}}`$; so there is an explicit cutoff at the Planck scale.
* Quietly agree to ignore $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`K_2`$, and $`K_4`$.

Then the Newton constant is “induced” at one-loop. Keeping only the dominant terms in the divergence

$$\frac{1}{G}\frac{1}{2\pi }\text{str}[k_1]\kappa ^2;\text{str}[k_1]1.$$
(29)
This is the key observation: an approximate formula for Newton’s constant as a function of the cutoff $`\kappa `$ and selected features of the particle spectrum (encoded in $`\text{str}[k_1]`$). It is this conjectured connection between Newton’s constant and particle physics that has led to so much attention being given to this idea. (Over 260 citations as of February 2002.) This route certainly paints a coherent and attractive physical picture — but is there real predictive power? And is it possible to say more?

For instance, if we try to say something about the other gravitational couplings:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{1}{64\pi ^2}\text{str}[I]\kappa ^4;\text{str}[I]0.$$
(30)
$$K_2\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\text{str}[k_2^{}]\mathrm{ln}(\kappa ^2/\mu ^2)1.$$
(31)
$$K_4\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\text{str}[k_4^{}]\mathrm{ln}(\kappa ^2/\mu ^2)1.$$
(32)
Note that powers dominate over logarithms (wherever possible), and that the smallness of the observed cosmological constant is very much put in by hand. (More on this below.) In contrast $`K_2`$ and $`K_4`$ are naturally dimensionless numbers of order unity; which is certainly compatible with experiment.

## 5 Pauli: QFT compensation

A different interpretation of (some of) these formulae can be traced back all the way to Wolfgang Pauli. The key discussion is contained in his 1950 lectures on quantum field theory (the “Feldquantisierung”).? Because Pauli was working in flat space, not curved, his comments were directed towards the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (which he rephrased in terms of the net zero-point energy of the QFT).cccOne particularly transparent way of seeing that the shift in the cosmological constant as formulated above is equivalent to the net zero point energy is to note that?
$$_0^\kappa k^2\sqrt{m^2+k^2}𝑑k=\frac{\kappa ^4}{4}+\frac{m^2\kappa ^2}{4}\frac{m^4\mathrm{ln}(\kappa ^2/m^2)}{8}+\text{finite}.$$
The left hand side is manifestly proportional to the zero point energy, while the right hand side precisely yields the one-loop shift in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Pauli did not himself consider Newton’s constant $`G`$, but the relevant extensions are straightforward.

Step 1: To guarantee a one-loop finite result for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ you need:?

$$\text{str}(I)=\text{str}(m^2)=\text{str}(m^4)=0.$$
(33)
Once these finiteness constraints are enforced, the one-loop contribution to the cosmological constant isdddIndeed, as Pauli points out, if you now add the additional restriction $`\text{str}[m^4\mathrm{ln}(m^2/\mu ^2)]`$ then the one loop contribution to the cosmological constant (zero point energy) is not just finite, it’s zero.

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0+\frac{1}{64\pi ^2}\text{str}\left[m^4\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m^2}{\mu ^2}\right)\right]+\text{two loops.}$$
(34)
These finiteness constraints are a fore-runner of the idea of supersymmetry, and were certainly known to many of the developers of supersymmetry (SUSY). They give tight constraints on the particle physics content of the model; constraints that are certainly *not* satisfied by the standard model (SM), and certainly require “beyond the standard model” (BSM) physics. For instance, these constraints are satisfied by arbitrary SUSY theories prior to spontaneous symmetry breakdown (SSB), and by all of the non-SUSY one-loop finite QFTs.? Note the quantity $`\mu `$ appearing here is simply any convenient mass scale chosen to make the argument of the logarithm dimensionless, and that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is independent of $`\mu `$ thanks to the constraint $`\text{str}(m^4)=0`$.

Step 2: Now extend Pauli’s compensation idea to curved space. If you additionally assume

$$\text{str}(k_1)=\text{str}(k_1m^2)=0,$$
(35)
then the one-loop contribution to Newton’s constant is finite and

$$\frac{1}{G}=\frac{1}{G_0}\frac{1}{2\pi }\text{str}\left[k_1m^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m^2}{\mu ^2}\right)\right]+\text{two loops.}$$
(36)
Note that the finiteness constraint $`\text{str}(k_1)=0`$ is completely at odds with Sakharov’s original version of the induced gravity proposal. Also note that this constraint guarantees that $`G`$ is independent of $`\mu `$.

Arranging these secondary finiteness constraints is considerably more complicated, the relevant coefficients being given in Table I. The vanishing of $`\text{str}(k_1)`$ and $`\text{str}(k_1m^2)`$ are now *very* strong constraints on the particle content. These constraints are not derivable from unbroken SUSY alone, nor does one necessarily need SUSY to satisfy these constraints. A suitable toy model has been presented by Frolov and Fursaev.?

Step 3: For the final stage, you need to additionally assume

$$\text{str}(k_2^{})=\text{str}(k_4^{})=0$$
(37)
in order to render the one-loop contributions to the “$`R^2`$” coupling constants finite. Under this assumption

$$K_{2/4}=(K_{2/4})_0\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\text{str}\left[k_{2/4}^{}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m^2}{\mu ^2}\right)\right]+\text{two loops.}$$
(38)
Note that $`k_2^{}`$ and $`k_4^{}`$ are rather messy coefficients that seem to follow no particular pattern. The quantities in Table I were generated from the corresponding results presented in Birrell and Davis.? (No explicit toy model satisfying these Step 3 constraints in addition to Steps 1 and 2 is currently known; it appears that one would need to include higher-spin fields.)

The overall conclusion is that one can keep all the one-loop effects of matter on the gravity sector finite, at the cost of very strong constraints on the particle spectrum, requiring rather specific BSM physics. But maybe the price paid is too high? Indeed Pauli finishes his own comments with the observation:

> These requirements are so extensive that it is rather improbable that they are satisfied in reality.

(And Pauli was only concerned with Step 1; the particle masses and their influence on the cosmological constant. His technique was completely unable to even begin addressing Newton’s constant and $`K_{2/4}`$ as influenced by the $`k_i`$’s and their constraints.)

## 6 Frolov–Fursaev: one-loop calculability

Suppose we boldly assume *both* Pauli compensation and Sakharov one-loop dominance. That is, assume all finiteness constraints:

$$\text{str}(I)=\text{str}(m^2)=\text{str}(m^4)=0.$$
(39)
$$\text{str}(k_1)=\text{str}(k_1m^2)=0.$$
(40)
$$\text{str}(k_2^{})=\text{str}(k_4^{})=0.$$
(41)
And in addition, assume all zero-loop (tree level) coefficients are zero. This is (essentially) the Frolov–Fursaev variant of Sakharov’s proposal.? (Note that in the specific model they implement, Frolov and Fursaev do not impose finiteness/calculability on $`K_2`$ and $`K_4`$, and only impose the first two lines of constraints.) Then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`G`$, and $`K_{2/4}`$ are one-loop *calculable*:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=+\frac{1}{64\pi ^2}\text{str}\left[m^4\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m^2}{\mu ^2}\right)\right]+\text{two loops.}$$
(42)
$$\frac{1}{G}=\frac{1}{2\pi }\text{str}\left[k_1m^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m^2}{\mu ^2}\right)\right]+\text{two loops.}$$
(43)
$$K_{2/4}=\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\text{str}\left[k_{2/4}^{}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m^2}{\mu ^2}\right)\right]+\text{two loops.}$$
(44)
In contrast to Sakharov’s original idea,? the cutoff has now disappeared. Given a particle spectrum that satisfies the finiteness constraints, the one-loop induced gravitational couplings are unambiguous. This is a very interesting proposal, but it requires *very* tight interlocking constraints (extended Pauli compensation) on the particle spectrum to permit it to work.

## 7 Renormalizability: invariance constraints

Suppose we want to be a little less ambitious, perhaps the interlocking constraints of Pauli compensation seem excessive, perhaps Sakharov’s version of one-loop dominance with an explicit cutoff seems inelegant: Is there anything interesting you can say just using “standard” renormalization theory?

By this I mean that we are asking that particle physics be at least one-loop renormalizable in an arbitrary classical background gravitational field — note that I am not placing any constraints on renormalizability of gravity itself. (Indeed at this stage “gravity” is a purely descriptive statement about the existence of curved spacetime and has no dynamics.) Instead I am imposing the much weaker condition that particle physics does not violently damage classical Einstein gravity. The very fact that both particle physics and classical Einstein gravity work reasonably well on the surface of planet Earth is good evidence that this is a quite reasonable physical demand.

Then renormalization in the gravity sector does indeed allow you to absorb the one-loop divergences into the zero-loop bare quantities — but you are allowed to do this once and once only. Once you have renormalized, you are not allowed to change your mind about how big an infinity you dump into the zero-loop bare quantities.

In particular: This means that QFTs can naturally be assigned to equivalence classes under renormalization of the gravity sector. As one tunes the QFT coupling constants, so that the QFT goes through a phase transition or SSB, then the masses in the particle spectrum change, (and the very content of the particle spectrum changes due to Higgs particles being eaten by gauge bosons). Then gravitationally-equivalent QFTs are defined by demanding that the coefficients of $`\kappa ^4`$, $`\kappa ^2`$, and $`\mathrm{log}(\kappa ^2/\mu ^2)`$ in the regulated effective action are not allowed to change. (Otherwise you are doing the equivalent of changing the zero of energy in the middle of the calculation, or worse.) That is, as the QFT goes through a phase transition or SSB, some specific quantities should be held *invariant*, and in particular:

$$\delta \text{str}(I)=\delta \text{str}(m^2)=\delta \text{str}(m^4)=0.$$
(45)
$$\delta \text{str}(k_1)=\delta \text{str}(k_1m^2)=0.$$
(46)
$$\delta \text{str}(k_2^{})=\delta \text{str}(k_4^{})=0.$$
(47)
Note that as long as one is working strictly in flat space, the invariance constraints involving the $`\text{str}(k_i)`$ would never appear. The invariance constraints involving $`\text{str}(m^n)`$ appear only if you take the net zero of energy seriously — and it has been traditional in flat-space QFT to simply ignore the overall net zero and only ask questions about excitations.

Some of these constraints are automatically satisfied — (1) Changing the coupling constants, even if one induces SSB or a phase transition does not change the net number of fermions or bosons so $`\delta \text{str}[I]=0`$ automatically. (2) As one goes through SSB a Higgs scalar is “eaten” by a gauge boson which becomes massive. However $`k_1`$ for a massive vector is calculated by adding $`k_1`$ for a minimally coupled scalar to $`k_1`$ for a massless vector. Other particles may acquire mass but do not change their intrinsic character. Thus $`\delta \text{str}[k_1]=0`$ provided all the Higgs particles are minimally coupled scalars \[$`\xi =0`$\]. (3) The same argument applies to $`\delta \text{str}[k_2^{}]`$ and $`\delta \text{str}[k_4^{}]`$, without now any constraint on the curvature coupling. Thus the only nontrivial invariance constraints are

$$\delta \text{str}(m^2)=\delta \text{str}(m^4)=\delta \text{str}(k_1m^2)=0.$$
(48)
We can view these invariance constraints as demanding that for gravitationally-equivalent QFTs there are strong correlations between mass changes in the fermi and bose sectors. It is far from trivial to satisfy these constraints, but it is certainly much easier to do this than to satisfy the much stronger (extended) Pauli finiteness constraints. Provided these invariance constraints are satisfied then the gravitational couplings have finite *changes* as one varies the parameters that are one-loop calculable:

$$\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }=+\frac{1}{64\pi ^2}\delta \text{str}\left[m^4\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m^2}{\mu ^2}\right)\right]+\text{two loops.}$$
(49)
$$\delta \left(\frac{1}{G}\right)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\delta \text{str}\left[k_1m^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m^2}{\mu ^2}\right)\right]+\text{two loops.}$$
(50)
$$\delta K_{2/4}=\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\delta \text{str}\left[k_{2/4}^{}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m^2}{\mu ^2}\right)\right]+\text{two loops.}$$
(51)
In this case, if you know the *change* in the particle spectrum, and can verify that it satisfies the invariance constraints, then you can calculate (at one-loop) finite changes in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`G`$, and $`K`$. (Note these changes are $`\mu `$-independent.)

To reiterate: these invariance constraints are *not* satisfied by the standard model (SM) as you modify the Higgs couplings or the Yukawa couplings. That is: In the SM coupled to classical gravity (the curved-space SM), even after you renormalize, all of the gravitational couplings, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`G`$, and $`K`$, are “unstable” in the sense that they still suffer infinite shifts whenever the SM coupling constants vary infinitesimally. This is one particularly acute version of the “cosmological constant problem” (itself a variant of the “hierarchy problem”) demonstrating why “beyond the standard model” (BSM) physics is essential. It is not just $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ that is at risk, the Newton constant $`G`$ is also subject to potentially disastrous sensitivity to the coupling constants. Even if BSM physics patches up the invariance constraints, one should still expect finite shifts in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`G`$, and $`K`$. Can these be made compatible with experiment/observation?

Order unity changes in $`K_{2/4}`$ are not a problem since the experimental bounds on these constants are so poor. Assuming our invariance constraints, uncertainties in the Newton constant due to uncertainties in the coupling constants are of fractional order $`\mathrm{\Delta }g(M_{EW}/M_{Planck})^2\mathrm{\Delta }g\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}10}^{34}`$, and unlikely to cause immediate concern. It is changes in the cosmological constant that still prove challenging. It is still distressingly easy to generate a “large” shift in the cosmological constant. (That is, “large” as far as cosmology/astrophysics is concerned, consisting of numerous partially-cancelling terms each of which is individually $`O(M_{EW}^4)`$; this is “small” from a particle physics perspective but would still seem to require some fine tuning.)

Suppose now that instead of comparing two different QFTs with different couplings we want to consider a single definite QFT as a function of renormalization scale. Then the the discussion is better rephrased in terms of $`\beta `$-functions and anomalous dimensions ($`\gamma `$-functions). Define, in the usual particle physics fashion

$$\beta _g\mu \frac{g}{\mu };\gamma _m\frac{\mu }{m}\frac{m}{\mu }.$$
(52)
Then one can define differential versions of the invariance constraints:

$$\text{str}\left[\gamma _mm^2\right]=\text{str}\left[\gamma _mm^4\right]=\text{str}\left[k_1\gamma _mm^2\right]=0,$$
(53)
though the physics interpretation is now rather different. These differential versions of the invariance constraints greatly simplify the gravitational $`\beta `$-functions so that

$`\beta _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\pi ^2}}\left\{\text{str}\left[m^4\right]2\text{str}\left[\gamma _mm^4\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)\right]\right\}+\text{two loops.}`$ (54)
$`\beta _{1/G}`$ $`=`$ $`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\left\{\text{str}\left[k_1m^2\right]\text{str}\left[k_1\gamma _mm^2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)\right]\right\}+\text{two loops.}`$ (55)
$`\beta _{K_{2/4}}`$ $`=`$ $`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16^2\pi }}\left\{\text{str}\left[k_{2/4}^{}\right]\text{str}\left[k_{2/4}^{}\gamma _m\right]\right\}+\text{two loops.}`$ (56)
(Because of the constraints, the apparent explicit $`\mu `$ dependence is again an illusion.) If we now move into a region where the particle masses are approximately constant $`\gamma _m0`$, explicit integration of the beta functions is trivial: the gravitational couplings exhibit standard logarithmic running. Indeed the one-loop regulated formulae for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`G`$, and $`K_{2/4}`$ now lead to:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mu )=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mu _0)\frac{1}{64\pi ^2}\text{str}\left[m^4\right]\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{\mu _0^2}\right)+\text{two loops.}$$
(57)
$$\frac{1}{G(\mu )}=\frac{1}{G(\mu _0)}+\frac{1}{2\pi }\text{str}\left[k_1m^2\right]\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{\mu _0^2}\right)+\text{two loops.}$$
(58)
$$K_{2/4}(\mu )=K_{2/4}(\mu _0)+\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\text{str}\left[k_{2/4}^{}\right]\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{\mu _0^2}\right)+\text{two loops.}$$
(59)
These formulae should be understood with all the usual particle physics caveats regarding the physical interpretation of the renormalization point $`\mu `$. They are useful shorthand for estimating the strength of the dressed gravitational vertex (classical external gravity dressed with one-loop matter) in scattering experiments at an energy scale $`\mu `$. One should *not* blindly insert these running couplings into the classical field equations.

All in all, it is clear that even quite ordinary straightforward applications of usual ideas of renormalizability have quite powerful implications in curved spacetime — not only can we extract information regarding classical gravity, but we can turn around and use classical gravity to suggest interesting constraints on the particle spectrum.

## 8 Variants

You can also construct variations on these four main themes by mixing and matching. For instance one attractive variant of the original Sakharov approach is to improve its treatment of the cosmological constant by using the Pauli finiteness constraints to deal with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, while reserving Sakharov’s cutoff approach for the Newton constant $`G`$ and $`K_{2/4}`$.

Similarly a variant on one-loop calculability (which is closer in detail, though not in spirit, to what Frolov and Fursaev actually do) is to use combined Pauli finiteness and Sakharov one-loop dominance on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`G`$, but take care of $`K_{2/4}`$ using standard renormalization theory.

There are also variants of induced gravity in $`1+1`$ and $`2+1`$ dimensions,?,? where the curvature-squared terms quietly drop out. In contrast in $`5+1`$ dimensions (or higher) one would need to keep track of curvature-cubed terms (or higher) as well. Other possibilities abound, such as the inclusion of external dilaton fields or string-inspired moduli fields.

## 9 Summary and Discussion

One point that all approaches agree on is that one-loop matter effects lead to shifts in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`G`$, and $`K`$. Depending on your choices you can interpret these shifts using either —

* Sakharov: one-loop dominance.
* Pauli: one-loop finiteness.
* Frolov–Fursaev: one-loop calculable.
* Renormalization: calculable one-loop *changes*.

Whatever your viewpoint in this regard, the key point is this: *Even if Einstein gravity is not there at zero loops, it will automatically be generated at one-loop.*

Thus we have seen how Sakharov’s ideas have been very fruitful — and how they naturally lead in a number of different directions. There are still many interesting questions to answer just at the level of QFT and particle phenomenology. (Without requiring any particularly radical reassessment of our world-view.) In particular the finiteness constraints (or even the much weaker invariance constraints) place very interesting restrictions on the allowable spectrum of particles in BSM physics.

But Sakharov also teaches us a lot about gravity: Suppose you have a manifold that is “free to flap in the breeze”, on which you proceed to construct a QFT. Then the geometry of that manifold serves as a classical external field, and the effective action is a function of that geometry. Extremizing the effective action in the usual manner, because it automatically contains the classical gravitational action, automatically leads to semiclassical quantum gravity, at least at the one-loop level. (By semiclassical gravity I mean that the classical Einstein equations, plus curvature-squared corrections, are coupled to the expectation value of the quantum stress-energy tensor for all the quantized matter fields.)

The important point here is that gravity was never put into the quantum theory, and gravity was never quantized in any way shape or form. Nevertheless, classical gravity (meaning the inverse square law implicit in the Einstein equations and Einstein–Hilbert action) automatically emerges in the semiclassical limit. If you couple this with the observation that the only actual experiments we can (currently) perform with gravity also inhabit this same semiclassical realm, is there any real need to quantize gravity itself?

Most physicists would still answer this question in the affirmative — but then Sakharov’s ideas still have considerable impact: If we consider any candidate theory for quantum gravity (brane models, quantum geometry, lattice quantum gravity) then Sakharov’s scenario tells us that trying to derive the inverse square law from first principles is not the difficult step. Deriving the inverse square law, and all of Einstein gravity is in fact automatic once you have demonstrated the existence of Lorentzian manifolds — reasonably large reasonably flat arenas on which to set up a low-energy QFT.

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank Larry Yaffe for helpful comments and criticisms. This research was supported by the US DOE.


text:
# A simple functional form for proton-nucleus total reaction cross sections

## I introduction

Total reaction cross sections of nucleon scattering from nuclei (stable as well as radioactive) are the most basic nuclear observables DiGiacomo et al. (1980) being the sum of all the reaction processes induced during nuclear collisions. Reliable methods of predicting these values accurately and quickly are needed for a variety of applications Ramsey et al. (1998); applications which include the production of radioactive ion beams Geissel et al. (1995), studies of the relative abundances of the nuclei in galactic cosmic rays Wefel (1987), as well as for radiation shielding design for future space exploration vehicles Wilson et al. (1982). Some others of quite current interest concern the transmutation of long lived radioactive waste into shorter lived products using accelerator driven systems (ADS) Ikeda (2002); Gudowski et al. (2002); Sheng et al. (2002) and in predicting dosimetry for patients in radiation therapy Chadwick (2000). To be able to specify those total reaction cross sections in a simple functional form then has great utility for any associated evaluation such as of nucleon production in spallation calculations.

Recently Deb et al. (2001) nucleon-nucleus total reaction cross sections to 300 MeV for 12C and 208Pb have been predicted in good agreement with data. Cross sections were evaluated using $`g`$-folding optical potentials formed by full folding realistic two nucleon ($`NN`$) interactions with credible nucleon-based structure models of those nuclei. In particular, the ground state of 12C was specified from a complete $`(0+2)\mathrm{}\omega `$ shell model evaluation Deb et al. (2001), while that of 208Pb was obtained from a Skyrme-Hartree-Fock calculation Brown (2000). The effective interactions at each energy in the range to 300 MeV were defined from the $`NN`$ $`g`$ matrices (solutions of the Bruckner-Bethe-Goldstone equations) of the free $`NN`$ (BonnB) interactions. Consequently they vary with energy and the medium density. The resulting $`nA`$ optical potentials are complex, energy dependent and non-local. All details of the approach and numerous demonstrations of its successful use with targets spanning the entire mass range (3 to 238) are given in the recent review Amos et al. (2000). But each such prediction of nucleon scattering is an involved calculation that culminates with use of large scale computer programs, and those of DWBA98 Raynal (1998); Amos et al. (2000) in recent studies.

It would be very utilitarian if aspects of such scattering were indeed well approximated by a simple convenient functional form. We demonstrate herein that for the total reaction cross sections such a form may exist for nuclei spanning the mass range. In all we report results from 15 nuclei ranging in mass from 9 to 238. Also we have studied proton scattering for energies ranging from 20 MeV to 300 MeV.

## II A simple functional form for $`pA`$ total reaction cross sections

Initially we have used a set of $`g`$-folding optical potential calculations to specify proton-nucleus scattering $`S`$ matrices, i.e with energies $`Ek^2`$,

$$S_l^\pm S_l^\pm (k)=e^{2i\delta _l^\pm (k)}=\eta _l^\pm (k)e^{2i\mathrm{}\left[\delta _l^\pm (k)\right]},$$
(1)
where $`\delta _l^\pm (k)`$ are the (complex) scattering phase shifts and $`\eta _l^\pm (k)`$ are the moduli of the $`S`$ matrices. The superscript designates $`j=l\pm 1/2`$. Therefrom total reaction cross sections are predicted by

$`\sigma _R(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{k^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left\{(l+1)\left[1\left(\eta _l^+\right)^2\right]+l\left[1\left(\eta _l^{}\right)^2\right]\right\}`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{k^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\sigma _l^{(R)}(E).`$
The partial reaction cross sections $`\sigma _l^{(R)}(E)`$ so found we now take as ’data’, and such will be so specified hereafter. We note that there are discrepancies between the predictions of total reaction cross sections found using the $`g`$-folding approach and actual data due to limitations in that approach, e.g. in the structure model used to describe the ground state densities of some nuclei. However there have been so many successes with the approach Deb et al. (2001); Amos et al. (2000); Karataglidis et al. (2002) that we believe the functional form developed here on the basis of $`g`$-folding potential calculated values is pertinent with but minor refinement (of the values of the three parameter values) to reproduce actual measured total reaction cross sections.

As will be evident from the figures presented later, the results clearly suggest that such partial reaction cross sections can be described by a simple functional form such as

$$\sigma _l^{(R)}(E)=(2l+1)\left[1+e^{\frac{(ll_0)}{a}}\right]^1+ϵ(2l_0+1)e^{\frac{(ll_0)}{a}}\left[1+e^{\frac{(ll_0)}{a}}\right]^2,$$
(3)
in which the parameters, $`l_0(E,A)`$, $`a(E,A)`$, and $`ϵ(E,A)`$, should vary smoothly with energy and mass.

The summation giving the total reaction cross section can be limited to a value $`l_{max}`$ and the associated form tends appropriately to the known high energy limit. With increasing energy, $`l_{max}`$ becomes so large that the exponential fall of the functional form, Eq. 3, can be approximated as a straight vertical line ($`l_0=l_{max}`$). In that case, the total reaction cross section equates to the area of a triangle and

$$\sigma _R\frac{\pi }{2k^2}l_{max}(2l_{max}+1)\frac{\pi }{k^2}l_{max}^2.$$
(4)
Then with $`l_{max}kR`$, at high energies, $`\sigma _R\pi R^2`$; the geometric cross section as required.

For any dynamical situation in which numerous partial reaction cross sections contribute non-negligibly to the sum in Eq. 2, one can use the limit form

$$\sigma _R(E)=\frac{\pi }{k^2}\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\sigma _l^{(R)}(E)\frac{\pi }{k^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\sigma ^{(R)}(E;\lambda )𝑑\lambda .$$
(5)
Then with $`x=\frac{\lambda l_0}{a}`$ and using the basic integrals

$`{\displaystyle _{l_0/a}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+e^x}}𝑑x`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle _0^{l_0/a}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+e^x}}𝑑x+{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^x}{1+e^x}}𝑑x\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l_0}{a}}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}()^{n+1}e^{\frac{l_0}{a}n}`$
$`{\displaystyle _{l_0/a}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{1+e^x}}𝑑x`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle _0^{l_0/a}}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{1+e^x}}𝑑x+{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{xe^x}{1+e^x}}𝑑x\right]`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{l_0^2}{a^2}}+1.645+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}()^n\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^2}}\right)e^{\frac{l_0}{a}},`$
the integral observable is

$`\sigma ^{(R)}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{k^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\sigma _l^{(R)}(E){\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{k^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\sigma ^{(R)}(E;\lambda )𝑑\lambda `$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{k^2}}\{l_0(l_0+1)+3.29a^2+aϵ(2l_0+1)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}e^{n\frac{l_0}{a}}()^n[2a^2\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^2}}\}+(2l_0+1)\{aϵ{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\}]\}`$
$`\underset{n=1}{}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{k^2}}\{l_0(l_0+1)+3.29a^2+aϵ(2l_0+1)`$
$`+[(2l_0+1)\{1aϵ\}4a^2]e^{\frac{l_0}{a}}\}`$
We have used this (n=1) integral form for all energies and masses and, as could be expected, results are not good when the number of significant partial wave terms is small, as is the case for low energies. But from those comparisons, limit conditions for application of the integral representation are evident.

## III Results

We have calculated the partial reaction cross sections, $`\sigma _l`$(E), of the scattering of protons from 15 different nuclei, namely 9Be, 12C, 16O, 19F, 27Al, 40Ca, 63Cu, 90Zr, 118Sn, 140Ce, 159Tb, 181Ta, 197Au, 208Pb and 238U. The results from the calculations using the $`g`$-folding optical potentials (the data) were then fit using the simple functional form given in Eq. 3. The comparisons are displayed in Figs. 1 through 5. In these figures, the solid lines represent the results calculated using the simple functional form. The dots are the data. We have considered protons with 10 different energies for each nucleus and the partial reaction cross sections for each nucleus are shown in the figures by different symbols according to the proton energy. Specifically we use the symbol shown after each number for energies of 20 \[empty circles\], 30 \[filled circles\], 40 \[empty squares\], 50 \[filled squares\], 65 \[empty diamonds\], 100 \[filled diamonds\], 150 \[empty up triangles\], 200 \[filled up triangles\], 250 \[empty down triangles\] and 300 \[filled down triangles\] MeV. For each mass there is a clear progression in the data with energy; one that is similar over the entire mass range studied and, in fact, was the motivation for our search for an analytic function to describe all of that data.

At low energies, 20 MeV especially and for the light masses most evidently, there are few significant partial wave contributions to the reaction cross sections. The peak of these partial wave reaction cross section data thus is not large and occurs at small values of $`l`$. Concomitantly, the 3 parameter fit function will involve small values of $`l_0`$ and the fit to the (limited) data set may not be as uniquely determined as at higher energies, particularly as the associated variations of $`\sigma _l`$ (data and calculated result) are not dominated by the straight line factor ($`2l+1`$) at low $`l`$-values. Also the individual data values, for 20 MeV and light mass targets, are more sensitive to details of the actual optical potentials used than is the case for the corresponding problem of matching the $`\sigma _l`$ values at higher energies (and target mass) with the 3 parameter functional form.

In Fig. 1, the partial reaction cross sections for proton scattering from 9Be (top), 12C (middle) and 16O (bottom) obtained from the functional form calculations are compared with our data. Despite the foregoing comment, the calculated values are in excellent agreement with most of this data. It is clear that the shapes of these cross sections for proton scattering from light nuclei and for energies 65 MeV and below, differ somewhat from those at 100 MeV and above. Such differences persist with heavier targets. Also as the nuclear mass increases, the linear factor is more evident.

The partial reaction cross sections for proton scattering from 19F, 27Al and 40Ca obtained from the calculations using the simple functional form are compared with data in Fig. 2 in the top, middle and bottom panels respectively. That data are quite well reproduced. But as noted before, only a small number of values are of significance at 20 MeV.

The predictions for the partial reaction cross sections for proton scattering from 63Cu to higher mass nuclei are in excellent agreement with our data and such is evident in Figs. 3, 4 and 5. For these targets, the dominance of the linear term ($`2l+1`$) of Eq. 3 in the fit to the low value partial wave data is evident for all energies including 20 MeV since now, even at that energy, a reasonable number of partial wave terms contribute significantly to the reaction cross sections. Then $`l_0`$ is large enough so that the Wood-Saxon function in Eq. 3 essentially is constant for $`0l5`$ or more.

In Fig. 6 and 7, we plot the parameter values found for each specific energy. Therein, different symbols now indicate different nuclei. Empty circles represent the results for 9Be, filled circles for 12C, empty squares for 16O, filled squares for 19F, empty diamonds for 27Al, filled diamonds for 40Ca, empty up triangles for 63Cu, filled up triangles for 90Zr, empty left triangles for 118Sn, filled left triangles for 140Ce, empty down triangles for 159Tb, filled down triangles for 181Au, empty right triangles for 197Au, filled right triangles for 208Pb and the stars depict the values for 238U. The $`l_0`$ parameter values are plotted as functions of $`kA^{1/3}`$ while the parameters $`a`$ and $`ϵ`$ are plotted as functions of $`k`$. It is clear that the parameters vary smoothly with energy. Of these, the linearity of $`l_0`$ with $`kA^{1/3}`$ is most evident and we find that

$$l_0(E,A)kR+2.3;R1.32A^{\frac{1}{3}},$$
(8)
is a best guess trend. Although, the variations of $`a`$ and $`ϵ`$ are not as smooth with $`k`$, overall they approximate roughly as linear variations with $`k`$. The respective trend lines are shown in Fig. 7. From this, we find

$$a(E,A)1.02k0.25;ϵ1.5$$
(9)
to be a simple mean value prescription that might be used in the integration formulas. However the spread of results about these means are significant. For best results then, one should consider each parameter set as points in an energy-mass tabulation and use a spline or similar interpolation to predict results for other energies, and perhaps, other nuclei. The best fit values of these parameters are available in tabular form Deb and Amos (2002).

The values of the total reaction cross sections determined using this simple functional form approximation are listed in Tables 1 and 2 as ratios to the actual values that were evaluated with the microscopic optical potentials, i.e. the data sums. In getting the results shown in the first table ($`R_I`$), the values of the three function parameters found from the fitting program (i.e. the tabulated parameter values Deb and Amos (2002)) were used to give the denominators. The results compare well to within a percent in most reflecting the quality of fit found by the search process. The ratios, $`R_{II}`$, that are listed in Table 2, were found by using instead the integral results obtained using the three parameter sets defined by the average trend function forms of Eqs. 8 and 9. In those calculations,

$$k=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}c}\sqrt{E^2m^2c^4},$$
(10)
was used in evaluating the denominators with the integral representation for the reaction cross sections.

These ratios indicate that the integral approximation is good to 5% (ratios in the range 0.95 to 1.05) in some but not all cases. Notably at low energies (20 and 30 MeV) for all masses, and for almost all energies for 12C, the reproductions are not good. Predominantly this was caused by the choice of linear forms for $`a`$ and $`ϵ`$. If on the other hand, the tabled values of the parameters are used in the $`n=1`$ formula of Eq. 7, the ratios again are one to within a few percent.

## IV Conclusions

The measured reaction cross sections for 20 to 300 MeV proton scattering from nuclei ranging in mass from 9Be to 238U are very well predicted by the calculations made using the $`g`$-folding model of the optical potential. Those calculated results gave a set of partial reaction cross sections in each case (for each angular momentum value of import) that vary smoothly with target mass and energy. Those variations are well reproduced by a simple 3 parameter function. The values of the parameters ($`l_0`$, $`a`$, $`ϵ`$) required to set those quality fits also are smooth functions of target mass and energy. We believe that such may be used as an interpolation tabulation with that simple functional sum to predict partial cross sections, and then by summation, the total reaction cross sections of proton-nucleus scattering. The extension of using an integral representation to specify the total reaction cross sections can be useful but also may diverge from measured values by 10% or more if a general linear (with $`k`$) behavior is adapted for the parameters $`a`$ and $`ϵ`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

This research was supported by a research grant from the Australian Research Council.


text:
# Dalitz Plot Analysis of the Decay 𝑫⁺→𝑲⁻𝝅⁺𝝅⁺ and Indication of a Low-Mass Scalar 𝑲𝝅 Resonance

## Abstract

We study the Dalitz plot of the decay $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ with a sample of 15090 events from Fermilab experiment E791. Modeling the decay amplitude as the coherent sum of known $`K\pi `$ resonances and a uniform nonresonant term, we do not obtain an acceptable fit. If we allow the mass and width of the $`K_0^{}(1430)`$ to float, we obtain values consistent with those from PDG but the $`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom of the fit is still unsatisfactory. A good fit is found when we allow for the presence of an additional scalar resonance, with mass $`797\pm 19\pm 43`$ MeV/c2 and width $`410\pm 43\pm 87`$ MeV/c2. The mass and width of the $`K_0^{}(1430)`$ become $`1459\pm 7\pm 5`$ MeV/c2 and $`175\pm 12\pm 12`$ MeV/c2, respectively. Our results provide new information on the scalar sector in hadron spectroscopy.

In this paper we present a Dalitz plot analysis of the Cabibbo-favored decay $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ using data from Fermilab experiment E791. Previous analyses of this decay e691-kpipi ; e687-kpipi  modeled the amplitude as the coherent sum of known $`K\pi `$ resonances and a uniform non-resonant (NR) term. They observed that the NR term is strongly dominant, unlike other $`D`$ decays, and that the sum of the decay fractions substantially exceeds unity, indicating large interference. Moreover, the fits did not describe the Dalitz plot distributions well. In our analysis, we obtain similar results but with higher statistics. We study variations in the underlying model, including changes in form factors, tuning of resonance parameters, and the addition of known and new resonance structures. In particular, we investigate the scalar sector for which there has been much uncertainty for many years.

This study is based on the Fermilab E791 sample of $`2\times 10^{10}`$ events produced from interactions of a 500 GeV/c $`\pi ^{}`$ beam with five thin target foils (one platinum, four diamond). Descriptions of the detector, data set, reconstruction, and vertex resolutions can be found in Ref. ref791 . A clean sample of $`K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ decays (charge-conjugate modes are implicit throughout this paper) was selected by requiring that the 3-prong decay (secondary) vertex be well-separated from the production (primary) vertex and located outside any solid material. The sum of the momentum vectors of the three tracks from the secondary vertex was required to point to the primary vertex, and each of the three tracks was required to pass closer to the secondary vertex than to the primary. We restricted the $`p_T^2`$ and $`x_F`$ ranges of the $`D^+`$ candidates to ensure an accurate model of our experiment in the Monte Carlo (MC) simulation. Finally, we required that the odd-charge track (track with charge opposite that of the $`D^\pm `$ candidate) from the secondary vertex be consistent with kaon identification in the Čerenkov counters cerenkov .

We fit the $`K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ invariant mass distribution shown in Fig. 1(a) by the sum of $`D^+`$ signal and background terms. The signal was represented by the sum of two Gaussians, with parameters determined by the fit. We used MC simulations and data to determine both the shape and the size of charm backgrounds. The significant sources are reflections from $`D_s^+K^{}K^+\pi ^+`$ (via $`\overline{K}^{}K^+`$ and $`\varphi \pi ^+`$), in which one kaon is misidentified as a pion. Other sources of charm background are either negligible or broadly distributed and thus safely included when we estimate combinatorial background, which was represented by an exponential function. The number of $`D^+`$ candidates obtained from the fit is $`16190\pm 139`$.

For the Dalitz plot analysis, we selected candidates in the $`K\pi \pi `$ mass range 1.85–1.89 GeV/c2 (crosshatched region in Fig. 1(a)). This results in 15090 events, with about 6% due to background. Fig. 1(b) shows the corresponding Dalitz plot, $`m_{12}^2`$ vs. $`m_{13}^2`$, in which the kaon candidate is labeled particle 1, and the plot is symmetrized with respect to the two pions (particles 2, 3).

To study the resonant structure in Fig. 1(b), an unbinned maximum likelihood fit is used. The likelihood $``$ is computed as $`=_{\mathrm{events}}\left[_{i=1}^3n_{B_i}𝒫_{B_i}+n_S𝒫_S\right]`$, where $`𝒫_{B_i}`$ and $`𝒫_S`$ are the normalized probability density functions (PDF’s) for background and signal, respectively, and $`n_{B_i}`$ and $`n_S`$ are their fractional contributions. Each background PDF is written as $`𝒫_{B_i}=\frac{1}{N_{B_i}}b_i(M)_{B_i}(m_{12}^2,m_{13}^2)`$, where $`N_{B_i}`$ is the normalization, $`b_i(M)`$ is the distribution in the $`K\pi \pi `$ mass spectrum, and $`_{B_i}`$ is the shape in the Dalitz plot. The shape of the combinatorial background is obtained from a fit to events above the signal peak in the $`K\pi \pi `$ mass range 1.92–1.96 GeV/c2. The shapes of the $`D_s^+\overline{K}^{}K^+`$ and $`D_s^+\varphi \pi ^+`$ backgrounds are from MC simulations.

The signal PDF is $`𝒫_S=\frac{1}{N_S}g(M)\epsilon (m_{12}^2,m_{13}^2)|𝒜|^2`$, where $`N_S`$ is the normalization, $`g(M)`$ describes the signal shape in the $`K\pi \pi `$ mass spectrum, and $`\epsilon (m_{12}^2,m_{13}^2)`$ is the acceptance across the Dalitz plot, including smearing. The signal amplitude $`𝒜`$ is a coherent sum of a uniform NR amplitude and resonant $`K\pi `$ amplitudes,

$$𝒜=a_0e^{i\delta _0}𝒜_0+\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}a_ne^{i\delta _n}𝒜_n(m_{12}^2,m_{13}^2),$$
(1)
where each term is Bose symmetrized for the pions: $`𝒜_n=𝒜_n[(\mathrm{𝟏𝟐})\mathrm{𝟑}]+𝒜_n[(\mathrm{𝟏𝟑})\mathrm{𝟐}]`$. The coefficients $`a_n`$ are magnitudes and the $`\delta _n`$ are relative phases.

Our first fit, referred to as Model A, includes only well-established resonances and fixes their masses and widths to PDG pdg  values. This approach has been used in previous Dalitz-plot analyses (e.g., Refs. e687-kpipi ; argus ). The NR amplitude $`𝒜_0`$ is represented by a constant; i.e., it has no magnitude or phase variation across the Dalitz plot. Each resonant amplitude $`𝒜_n`$ ($`n>0`$) is written as $`𝒜_n=BW_nF_D^{(J)}F_n^{(J)}_n^{(J)}`$. The $`BW_n`$ factor is the relativistic Breit-Wigner propagator, $`BW_n=\{m_n^2m^2im_n\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(m)\}^1`$, where $`m`$ is the invariant mass of the $`K\pi `$ pair forming a resonance (either $`m_{12}`$ or $`m_{13}`$), $`m_n`$ is the resonance mass, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(m)`$ is the mass-dependent width. The factors $`F_D^{(J)}`$ and $`F_n^{(J)}`$ are Blatt-Weisskopf penetration factors blatt , which depend on the spin $`J`$ and the radii of the relevant mesons. In Model A, the radii are fixed as $`r_D=5`$ GeV-1 for the $`D`$ meson and $`r_R=1.5`$ GeV-1 for all $`K\pi `$ resonances argus . No form factors $`F`$ are used for scalar resonances. The term $`_n^{(J)}`$ accounts for the decay angular distribution. Ref. d3pi  gives detailed expressions for all these functions; note that we use the opposite sign for the $`BW_n`$ term, for easier comparison of our results to those of Ref. e687-kpipi .

For Model A, we fix the NR parameters to be $`a_0=1`$ and $`\delta _0=0`$, and include all well-established $`K\pi `$ resonances; the only free parameters of the fit are the magnitudes $`a_n`$ and phases $`\delta _n`$ of the resonances. The so-called decay fraction for each mode is obtained by integrating its intensity (squared amplitude) over the Dalitz plot and dividing by the integrated intensity with all modes present. The fit results are listed in Table 1. We observe contributions from the same channels reported previously e691-kpipi ; e687-kpipi ; i.e., a high NR decay fraction (over 90%), followed by $`\overline{K}_0^{}(1430)\pi ^+`$, $`\overline{K}^{}(892)\pi ^+`$, and $`\overline{K}^{}(1680)\pi ^+`$. We also measure a small but statistically significant contribution from $`\overline{K}_2^{}(1430)\pi ^+`$. No other resonances considered are found to contribute. The sum of the decay fractions is $`140\%`$, indicating a high level of interference.

To assess the quality of the fit, we developed a fast-MC algorithm which produces binned Dalitz plot densities according to signal and background PDF’s, including detector efficiency and resolution. A $`\chi ^2`$ is calculated from the difference between the binned Dalitz-plot-density distribution for data and that for fast-MC events generated using the parameters obtained from the fit of Model A. The $`\chi ^2`$ summed over all bins is 167 for 63 degrees of freedom ($`\nu `$). The largest contributions to this $`\chi ^2`$ come from bins at low $`K\pi `$ mass. In Fig. 2(a) we show the mass-squared projections; the top (bottom) plot shows the lower (higher) mass combination. The points represent data and the solid line represents fast-MC simulation of Model A. The main discrepancies occur below 0.6 (GeV/c2)2 and around 2.5 (GeV/c2)2. These discrepancies, and the large value of $`\chi ^2/\nu `$, motivated us to study alternative ways to model the decay amplitude.

For our second fit, Model B, we allow the mass and width of the scalar $`K_0^{}(1430)`$ resonance to float. In addition, we include form factors to account for the finite size of the decaying mesons in this scalar transition torn ; cleotau . The amplitude is written as $`F_D^{(0)}F_n^{(0)}BW_n`$, in which the form factors are Gaussian: $`F^{(0)}=\mathrm{exp}(p^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/(2k_0^2))`$. The factor $`p^{}`$ is the momentum of the decay products, $`k_0=\sqrt{6}/r`$, and $`r`$ is the decaying meson radius. These radii ($`r_D`$ and $`r_R`$ introduced above) become additional free parameters in the fit. The results of this fit are listed in the middle column of Table 1. The decay fractions obtained are very similar to those found for Model A, but the $`\chi ^2/\nu `$ is improved, dropping from 167/63 to 126/63. The mass and width of the $`K_0^{}(1430)`$ obtained by the fit are $`1416\pm 27`$ MeV/c2 and $`250\pm 21`$ MeV/c2 respectively, which are close to the PDG values of $`1412\pm 6`$ MeV/c2 and $`294\pm 23`$ MeV/c2 pdg . The meson radii obtained are $`r_D=0.8\pm 1.0`$ GeV-1 and $`r_R=1.8\pm 3.4`$ GeV-1.

Since Model B still does not give a satisfactory fit, we allow for an additional scalar amplitude (Model C). For this extra amplitude, we use Gaussian form factors similar to those used for the $`K_0^{}(1430)`$ thresh . The decay fractions and relative phases obtained by the fit are listed in the right-most column of Table 1. In the table we denote the additional scalar resonance as “$`\kappa `$”. In fact, discussions of the existence of such a resonance are found in the literature kapparef1 ; nokapparef . The fit results are very different from those obtained for Models A and B, the NR decay fraction drops from 90% to $`(13\pm 6)`$%; the $`\kappa \pi ^+`$ channel is dominant with a decay fraction of $`(48\pm 12)`$; and the sum of all fractions is $`90\%`$, with smaller interference effects. The $`\chi ^2/\nu `$ decreases to 46/63, substantially lower than those for Models A and B. For the $`K_0^{}(1430)`$ resonance, we measure $`m_{K_0^{}(1430)}=1459\pm 7\pm 12`$ MeV/c2 and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{K_0^{}(1430)}=175\pm 12\pm 12`$ MeV/c2. These values are significantly higher and narrower, respectively, than those given by the PDG pdg  which are taken from LASS lass . See also dunwoodie . The mass and width of the additional resonance ($`\kappa `$) are $`797\pm 19\pm 43`$ MeV/c2 and $`410\pm 43\pm 87`$ MeV/c2, respectively. The meson radii obtained in Model C are $`r_D=5.0\pm 0.5`$ GeV-1 and $`r_R=1.6\pm 1.3`$ GeV-1. The $`K\pi `$ mass-squared projections are shown in Fig. 2(b).

To better understand our results for Model C, we perform the following test. For Models B and C we use the fast-MC to generate an ensemble of 1000 “experiments,” with each experiment having a sample size Poisson-distributed around our observed sample size. For each experiment we calculate $`\mathrm{\Delta }w_{B,C}2(\mathrm{ln}_B\mathrm{ln}_C)`$, where $`_B`$ and $`_C`$ are the likelihood functions evaluated with parameters from Models B and C, respectively. For the ensemble generated without $`\kappa \pi ^+`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }w_{B,C}=123`$; i.e., Model B has greater likelihood. For the ensemble generated with $`\kappa \pi ^+`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }w_{B,C}=143`$; i.e., Model C has greater likelihood. In both cases the rms of the distributions is about 23. For the data, $`\mathrm{\Delta }w_{B,C}=123`$. This value is similar to that obtained for fast-MC events generated according to Model C, and it is very different from that of events generated according to Model B.

We investigate the stability of our results and estimate systematic errors from the following studies. We divide the total sample into disjoint subsamples according to $`D`$ charge, bins of $`p_T^2`$, $`x_F`$, and $`K\pi \pi `$ invariant mass, and repeat the analysis. We perform fit variations by changing fixed parameters of the fit: background parameterizations, and the mass and width of the $`K^{}(1680)`$. We also repeat the analysis for samples selected with tighter and looser event selection criteria. These studies lead to the systematic errors quoted in the text and Table 1. The mass obtained for the $`\kappa `$, and the mass and width obtained for the $`K_0^{}(1430)`$, are found to vary relatively little; e.g., $`m_\kappa `$ varies in the range 770–860 MeV/$`c^2`$. The width of the $`\kappa `$, and the $`\kappa \pi ^+`$ and NR decay fractions, are found to vary much more: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa `$ ranges from 298–543 MeV/$`c^2`$ and the decay fractions range from 28–63% and 31–5%, respectively. The largest NR fraction obtained (31%) remains substantially lower than that obtained without a $`\kappa `$ resonance.

We have also studied the stability of our results with respect to the theoretical model. For example, we modified the $`\kappa `$ Breit-Wigner to have a “running mass” term as proposed by Törnqvist torn . We varied the momentum dependence of the $`\kappa `$ form factors. We introduced Gaussian form factors for all other resonant states. We varied the shape of the NR term. In all cases we obtained similar results for the $`\kappa `$ mass and width within errors; however, the details of the parameterizations affect the relative $`\kappa \pi ^+`$ and NR contributions by up to a factor of two.

Finally, we have checked whether other models without a scalar $`\kappa `$ provide acceptable fits. We tried a toy model (T) by replacing the $`\kappa `$ complex Breit-Wigner by a Breit-Wigner amplitude with no phase variation. This model converged to a similar mass and width ($`871\pm 10`$ MeV/c2 and $`427\pm 23`$ MeV/c2, respectively) but with large decay fractions for this extra amplitude and for the NR amplitude, reflecting strong interference. The fast-MC gave $`\mathrm{\Delta }w_{T,C}=60`$ (rms of 16) for an ensemble generated according to Model C, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }w_{T,C}=60`$ for an ensemble generated with toy model parameters. For the data, $`\mathrm{\Delta }w_{T,C}=45`$; i.e., the data prefers that the additional amplitude have a phase variation and not just a larger amplitude at low $`K\pi `$ mass. We also replaced the scalar $`\kappa `$ resonance by vector and tensor resonances to test the angular distribution. The vector resonance model (V) converged to mass and width values of $`1103\pm 45`$ MeV/$`c^2`$ and $`350\pm 93`$ MeV/$`c^2`$, respectively, with a decay fraction of only 1.8% and a large NR fraction. The fast-MC gave $`\mathrm{\Delta }w_{V,C}=140`$ (rms of 23) for the ensemble generated according to Model C, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }w_{V,C}=140`$ for the ensemble generated with vector parameters. For the data, $`\mathrm{\Delta }w_{V,C}=116`$; i.e., the data prefers that the additional resonance be scalar rather than vector. We were not able to make the tensor model converge, the width being driven to large negative values. We also performed a variety of fits to study the NR shape bediaga  in variants of Model A, i.e., without an additional scalar amplitude. We fitted the NR amplitude to polynomials, and we also allowed for different interfering angular distributions, but none of these fits were as good as that of Model C.

In summary, we have performed a Dalitz plot analysis of the decay $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$. We compared models in which the signal amplitude $`𝒜`$ is the coherent sum of a uniform NR term and Breit-Wigner $`K\pi `$ resonances. Our best fit is obtained when we include an additional scalar resonance with a phase variation corresponding to that of a Breit-Wigner; this state subsequently accounts for about half of the decay rate. The mass and width obtained are $`797\pm 19\pm 43`$ MeV/c2 and $`410\pm 43\pm 87`$ MeV/c2, respectively. The fit mass and width of the $`K_0^{}(1430)`$ depend on whether this additional Breit-Wigner is included or not. When not included, $`m_{K^{}(1430)}=1416\pm 27`$ MeV/c2 and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{K^{}(1430)}=250\pm 21`$ MeV/c2 (statistical errors only), in agreement with PDG values pdg . When included, $`m_{K^{}(1430)}=1459\pm 7\pm 5`$ MeV/c2 and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{K^{}(1430)}=175\pm 12\pm 12`$ MeV/c2. Overall we conclude that the scalar contribution to $`𝒜`$ is not adequately described by the sum of a uniform non-resonant term and a $`K_0^{}(1430)`$ term. Including an additional scalar resonance in $`𝒜`$ results in a good fit to the data while the mass and the width of the $`K_0^{}(1430)`$ appear higher and narrower, respectively, than previous reported results.

We thank E. van Beveren and N. Törnqvist for useful discussions. We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the staffs of Fermilab and of all the participating institutions. This research was supported by CNPq (Brazil), CONACyT (Mexico), FAPEMIG (Brazil), the Israeli Academy of Sciences and Humanities, PEDECIBA (Uruguay), the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S.-Israel Binational Science Foundation, and the U.S. National Science Foundation.