text:
# Asymptotics of 10𝑗 symbols

## 1. Introduction

In the Ponzano–Regge model of 3-dimensional Riemannian quantum gravity , an amplitude is associated with each tetrahedron in a triangulation of spacetime. The amplitude depends on the tetrahedron’s six edge lengths, which are assumed to be quantized, taking values proportional to $`2j+1`$ where $`j`$ is a half-integer spin. One can compute this amplitude either by evaluating an $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ spin network shaped like a tetrahedron, or by doing an integral. Approximating this integral by the stationary phase method, Ponzano and Regge argued that when all six spins are rescaled by the same factor $`\lambda `$, the $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ asymptotics of the amplitude are given by a simple function of the volume of the tetrahedron and the Regge calculus version of its Einstein action. Nobody has yet succeeded in making their argument rigorous, but Roberts  recently proved their asymptotic formula by a different method. This result lays the foundation for a careful study of the relation between the Ponzano–Regge model and classical general relativity in 3 dimensions.

Our concern here is whether a similar result holds for the Barrett–Crane model of *4-dimensional* Riemannian quantum gravity . In this model an amplitude is associated with each 4-simplex in a triangulation of spacetime. This amplitude, known as a $`10j`$ symbol, is a function of the areas of the 10 triangular faces of the 4-simplex. Each triangle area is proportional to $`2j+1`$, where $`j`$ is a spin labelling the triangle. The amplitude can be computed by evaluating an $`\mathrm{SU}(2)\times \mathrm{SU}(2)`$ spin network whose edges correspond to the triangles of the 4-simplex:

There is also an integral formula for the $`10j`$ symbol . The problem is to understand the asymptotics of the $`10j`$ symbol as all 10 spins are rescaled by a factor $`\lambda `$ and $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$.

Barrett and Williams  applied a stationary phase approximation to the integral for the $`10j`$ symbol, focusing attention on stationary phase points corresponding to nondegenerate 4-simplices with the specified face areas. They showed that each such 4-simplex contributes to the $`10j`$ symbol in a manner that depends on its Regge action. They pointed out the existence of contributions from degenerate 4-simplices, but did not analyse them.

In Section 2 of this paper we begin by applying Barrett and Williams’ estimate of the $`10j`$ symbols to the case where all 10 spins are equal. We find that the contribution of their stationary phase points to the $`10j`$ symbols is of order $`\lambda ^{9/2}`$. However, our numerical calculations show that the $`10j`$ symbols are much larger, of order $`\lambda ^2`$. This means we must look elsewhere to explain the asymptotics of the $`10j`$ symbol.

In Section 3 we analyse the contribution of ‘degenerate 4-simplices’ to the integral for the $`10j`$ symbols. They do not correspond to stationary phase points in the integral for the $`10j`$ symbols; instead, the integrand has a strong maximum at these points. We argue that the contribution of a small neighborhood of these points is asymptotically proportional to $`\lambda ^2`$. We give a formula expressing the constant of proportionality as an integral over the space of degenerate 4-simplices. We also reduce this to an explicit integral in 5 variables.

In Section 4, we numerically compare these results to the $`10j`$ symbols as calculated using the algorithm developed by Christensen and Egan . Our formula for the contribution of degenerate 4-simplices closely matches the actual asymptotics of the $`10j`$ symbols. Thus, even though our argument that these asymptotics are dominated by degenerate 4-simplices is not rigorous, we feel confident that the resulting formula is correct.

In Section 5 we discuss a new sort of spin network, associated to the representation theory of the Euclidean group, which arises naturally in our analysis of the contribution of degenerate 4-simplices. Generalizing our results on the Riemannian $`10j`$ symbols, we conjecture formulas for the asymptotics of a large class of Riemannian spin networks in terms of these new ‘degenerate spin networks’. We verify this conjecture in a number of simple cases.

In Section 6 we formulate a similar conjecture for Lorentzian spin networks. Taken with the previous one this conjecture implies that the $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ asymptotics of a Lorentzian spin network in this class are the same, up to a constant, as those of the corresponding Riemannian spin network. For example, as $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$, the Lorentzian $`10j`$ symbol should be asymptotic to $`1/16`$ times the corresponding Riemannian $`10j`$ symbol! We conclude by presenting some numerical evidence that this is the case.

## 2. Stationary Phase Points

The $`10j`$ symbols can be defined using a Riemannian spin network — also known as a ‘balanced’ spin network  — whose underlying graph is the complete graph on five vertices. The ten edges of the graph are labelled with half-integer spins $`j_{kl}=0,\frac{1}{2},1,\mathrm{}`$, where $`k`$ and $`l`$ refer to the vertices connected by each edge. In this approach, an edge labelled by the spin $`j`$ corresponds to the representation $`jj`$ of $`\mathrm{Spin}(4)=\mathrm{SU}(2)\times \mathrm{SU}(2)`$, and the $`10j`$ symbols are computed using the representation theory of this group.

However, to analyse the asymptotics of the $`10j`$ symbol, it is easier to use the integral formula due to Barrett . This is:

(1)
$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \text{}=(1)^{_{k<l}2j_{kl}}_{(S^3)^5}\underset{k<l}{}K_{2j_{kl}+1}^R(\varphi _{kl})\frac{dh_1}{2\pi ^2}\mathrm{}\frac{dh_5}{2\pi ^2},\end{array}$$

where $`S^3`$ is the unit 3-sphere in $`^4`$ equipped with its usual Lebesgue measure, $`\varphi _{kl}`$ is the angle between the unit vectors $`h_k`$ and $`h_l`$, and the kernel $`K^R`$ is given by:

(2)
$$K_a^R(\varphi ):=\frac{\mathrm{sin}a\varphi }{\mathrm{sin}\varphi }.$$

The normalizing factors in the integral come from the fact that the volume of the unit 3-sphere is $`2\pi ^2`$.

The $`10j`$ symbol gives the amplitude for a 4-simplex with specified triangle areas. Each vertex of the above graph corresponds to a tetrahedron in this 4-simplex, and each edge of the graph corresponds to the unique triangle shared by two of these tetrahedra. In this picture, the spin $`j_{kl}`$ determines the area of the triangle shared by the $`k`$th and $`l`$th tetrahedra. The precise formula for this area is somewhat controversial , but given the integral formula for the $`10j`$ symbols, we find it convenient to assume the area is proportional to $`2j_{kl}+1`$. Ignoring the constant factor, we thus define triangle areas by:

$$a_{kl}=2j_{kl}+1.$$

In what follows, we study the behaviour of the $`10j`$ symbol as all these triangle areas $`a_{kl}`$ are multiplied by a large integer $`\lambda `$. This is not the same as multiplying the spins $`j_{kl}`$ by $`\lambda `$. However, note that as $`j_{kl}`$ ranges over all spins, $`a_{kl}`$ ranges over all positive integers. This means that if we multiply the areas $`a_{kl}`$ by any positive integer $`\lambda `$, we can find new spins $`J_{kl}`$ corresponding to the new areas by solving $`\lambda a_{jk}=2J_{kl}+1`$.

It is shown in  that the integral in (1) is nonnegative. Accordingly, we will concentrate on analysing the asymptotics of the absolute value of the $`10j`$ symbol, given by the integral alone:

(3)
$$\left|\text{}\right|:=_{(S^3)^5}\underset{k<l}{}K_{\lambda a_{kl}}^R(\varphi _{kl})\frac{dh_1}{2\pi ^2}\mathrm{}\frac{dh_5}{2\pi ^2},$$

where for simplicity we have left out the spins labelling the spin network edges, which are now $`J_{kl}`$.

Barrett and Williams  express the numerator in the kernel $`K^R`$ as a difference of exponentials, which allows them to rewrite the integrand in equation (3) as a sum of $`2^{10}`$ terms, each consisting of an exponential times the function:

(4)
$$f(h_1,\mathrm{},h_5)=\underset{k<l}{}\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{kl}}.$$

This function is unbounded as any of the $`\varphi _{kl}`$ tend to zero or $`\pi `$, but if the regions of the domain where that occurs are set aside for a separate analysis, the integral over the remaining region becomes amenable to a stationary phase approximation . The relevant phase is simply:

(5)
$$S(h_1,\mathrm{},h_5)=\underset{k<l}{}\lambda a_{kl}\varphi _{kl}.$$

The phases of the $`2^{10}`$ exponentials arising from the product of the kernels include variants of $`S`$ with all possible signs for the ten terms. However, Barrett and Williams use the invariance of the integrand under the transformations $`h_kh_k`$ to break the integral into $`2^5`$ identical parts, according to whether $`h_k=\pm n_k`$, where $`n_k`$ are the outward normals of a 4-simplex whose five tetrahedra lie in the hyperplanes normal to the $`h_k`$. They then focus on the region where all the $`h_k=n_k`$, and show that of the $`2^{10}`$ phases, only $`S`$ and its opposite have stationary points in this region, and they occur when the $`\varphi _{kl}`$ are the angles between the outward normals to the tetrahedra of a 4-simplex whose ten faces have areas given by $`\lambda a_{kl}`$. In this case the $`h_k`$ can be interpreted as the outward normals to the five tetrahedra, the $`\varphi _{kl}`$ are the angles between these normals, and $`\lambda a_{kl}`$ is the area of the face shared by the tetrahedra numbered $`k`$ and $`l`$. Interpreted this way, $`S`$ is precisely the Regge action for the 4-simplex.

This means that the relevant stationary phase points are those of a much simpler integral:

(6)
$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \frac{1}{2^5}f(h_1,\mathrm{},h_5)(e^{iS(h_1,\mathrm{},h_5)}+e^{iS(h_1,\mathrm{},h_5)})\frac{dh_1}{2\pi ^2}\mathrm{}\frac{dh_5}{2\pi ^2}.\end{array}$$

To carry out a stationary phase approximation of this integral we must note that the stationary phase ‘point’ determined by the geometry of a 4-simplex is not actually a single point in the 15-dimensional manifold $`(S^3)^5`$, but rather a whole 6-dimensional submanifold, since the geometry of the 4-simplex is invariant under the 6-parameter rotation group $`\mathrm{SO}(4)`$. However, the same invariance can be used to remove this complication. Since the functions $`f`$ and $`S`$ are invariant under the action of $`\mathrm{SO}(4)`$, they pass to the quotient space $`(S^3)^5/\mathrm{SO}(4)`$, and we obtain:

(7)
$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \frac{1}{2(2\pi )^{10}}_{(S^3)^5/\mathrm{SO}(4)}f(x)(e^{iS(x)}+e^{iS(x)})𝑑\mu (x),\end{array}$$

where $`d\mu `$ is the result of pushing forward Lebesgue measure on $`(S^3)^5`$ to this quotient space. A factor of $`1/2`$ here accounts for the complication that simultaneously negating all the $`h_k`$ has the same action as $`I`$, an element of $`\mathrm{SO}(4)`$, and so the discrete symmetries used to obtain (6) already entailed taking the quotient by a 2-element subgroup of $`\mathrm{SO}(4)`$.

Now, the stationary phase approximation  of an $`n`$-dimensional integral

$$f(x)e^{iS(x)}𝑑x$$

is a sum over stationary points $`x_i`$ of the function $`S`$:

$$(2\pi )^{n/2}\underset{i}{}\frac{f(x_i)}{|detH(x_i)|^{1/2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[iS(x_i)+\frac{i\pi }{4}\sigma (H(x_i))\right],$$

where $`H(x_i)`$ is the matrix of second partial derivatives of $`S`$ at the point $`x_i`$, and $`\sigma (H(x_i))`$ is the signature of this matrix, i.e., the number of positive eigenvalues minus the number of negative eigenvalues. This approximation assumes there are finitely many stationary points, all with $`detH(x_i)0`$. Applying this to the case at hand, and neglecting points where some of the angles $`\varphi _{kl}`$ are $`0`$ or $`\pi `$, we obtain Barrett and Williams’ stationary phase approximation of the $`10j`$ symbols:

(8)
$$\left|\text{}\right|_{\mathrm{stat}}:=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{11/2}}\underset{i}{}\frac{f(x_i)}{|detH(x_i)|^{1/2}}\mathrm{cos}\left[S(x_i)+\frac{\pi }{4}\sigma (H(x_i))\right],$$

where the sum is over the 4-simplices $`x_i`$ with the specified face areas.

We can easily say something about the $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ behavior of this quantity without actually evaluating it. Each stationary point $`x_i`$ is independent of $`\lambda `$, so $`f(x_i)`$ will be constant as $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$, while $`S(x_i)`$ will grow linearly, as will its matrix of second derivatives, $`H(x_i)`$. This is a $`9\times 9`$ matrix, since $`(S^3)^5/\mathrm{SO}(4)`$ is 9-dimensional, so its determinant will grow as $`\lambda ^9`$. It follows that:

(9)
$$\left|\text{}\right|_{\mathrm{stat}}=O(\lambda ^{9/2}).$$

However, cancellation between different stationary points could in principle make this a misleading overestimate. Thus it seems worthwhile to explicitly evaluate the sum in equation (8), at least in a simple special case.

In what follows we evaluate this sum for the case of a $`10j`$ symbol with all edges labelled by the same spins. In other words, we calculate the stationary phase approximation of the amplitude for a regular 4-simplex.

The first step, which would be useful more generally, is to find explicit coordinates on the quotient space $`(S^3)^5/\mathrm{SO}(4)`$ and describe the measure $`d\mu `$ in these terms. To do this, we exploit the fact that any configuration of the five unit vectors $`h_k`$ can be rotated into one that belongs to a 9-dimensional subspace of the original domain. Specifically, if we express the vectors $`h_k`$ in polar coordinates

$$h_k=(\mathrm{cos}\psi _k,\mathrm{sin}\psi _k\mathrm{cos}\theta _k,\mathrm{sin}\psi _k\mathrm{sin}\theta _k\mathrm{cos}\varphi _k,\mathrm{sin}\psi _k\mathrm{sin}\theta _k\mathrm{sin}\varphi _k),$$

where $`0\psi _k,\theta _k\pi `$ and $`0\varphi _k2\pi `$, any set of $`h_k`$ can be rotated in such a way that the following restrictions are met:

(10a) $`h_1`$ $`=(1,0,0,0)`$ $`\psi _1=\theta _1=\varphi _1=0`$
(10b) $`h_2`$ $`=(\mathrm{cos}\psi _2,\mathrm{sin}\psi _2,0,0)`$ $`\theta _2=\varphi _2=0`$
(10c) $`h_3`$ $`=(\mathrm{cos}\psi _3,\mathrm{sin}\psi _3\mathrm{cos}\theta _3,\mathrm{sin}\psi _3\mathrm{sin}\theta _3,0)`$ $`\varphi _3=0.`$
By means of this ‘gauge-fixing’ we can use the remaining 9 variables $`\psi _2,`$ $`\psi _3,`$ $`\psi _4,`$ $`\psi _5,`$ $`\theta _3,`$ $`\theta _4,`$ $`\theta _5,`$ $`\varphi _4,`$ $`\varphi _5`$ as coordinates on the quotient space. To describe the measure $`d\mu `$ in these coordinates recall that in polar coordinates, Lebesgue measure on the unit 3-sphere is given by

(11a)
$$dh_k=\mathrm{sin}^2\psi _k\mathrm{sin}\theta _kd\psi _kd\theta _kd\varphi _k.$$

Since $`h_1`$ is completely fixed we omit $`dh_1`$ from the formula for $`d\mu `$, only inserting a factor $`2\pi ^2`$ due to the volume of the 3-sphere. Since $`h_2`$ and $`h_3`$ are partially fixed we replace $`dh_2`$ and $`dh_3`$ by
(11b) $`\stackrel{~}{dh}_2`$ $`=4\pi \mathrm{sin}^2\psi _2d\psi _2`$
(11c) $`\stackrel{~}{dh}_3`$ $`=2\pi \mathrm{sin}^2\psi _3\mathrm{sin}\theta _3d\psi _3d\theta _3.`$
We thus obtain

(12)
$$d\mu =2\pi ^2\stackrel{~}{dh}_2\stackrel{~}{dh}_3dh_4dh_5.$$

Next, we determine the stationary points of the function $`S`$ in the case where all ten spins are equal, neglecting points where some of the angles $`\varphi _{kl}`$ are $`0`$ or $`\pi `$ — that is, where some of the vectors $`h_k`$ are parallel or anti-parallel. Recall that these stationary points correspond to nondegenerate 4-simplices having all 10 face areas equal. One obvious candidate is the regular 4-simplex. However, we must rule out the possibility that there are other, *non-regular* 4-simplices for which all the faces have identical areas. Since we are excluding degenerate 4-simplices from the current analysis, we can appeal to a theorem of Bang  which states that if all the faces of a non-degenerate tetrahedron have the same area, they are all congruent. It follows that if all ten triangles in a non-degenerate 4-simplex have the same area, they too are all congruent. Now, each of the ten edges of a 4-simplex is shared by three triangles, so we can treat each edge as a triple of congruent line segments that happen to be superimposed, giving a total of 30 in all. If all the triangles were congruent isoceles triangles, each with one side of length $`L`$, then ten of these 30 line segments would be of length $`L`$. However, there is no way to partition ten line segments into congruent triples. The same argument rules out scalene triangles. So the faces must be equilateral, and the 4-simplex must be regular.

We must therefore find all sets of unit vectors $`h_k`$ which satisfy the gauge-fixing conditions in equation (10) and form the outward normals of a regular 4-simplex. One choice is:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill n_1& =(1,0,0,0)\hfill \\ \hfill n_2& =(\frac{1}{4},\frac{\sqrt{15}}{4},0,0)\hfill \\ \hfill n_3& =(\frac{1}{4},\frac{\sqrt{5/3}}{4},\sqrt{5/6},0)\hfill \\ \hfill n_4& =(\frac{1}{4},\frac{\sqrt{5/3}}{4},\frac{\sqrt{5/6}}{2},\frac{\sqrt{5/2}}{2})\hfill \\ \hfill n_5& =(\frac{1}{4},\frac{\sqrt{5/3}}{4},\frac{\sqrt{5/6}}{2},\frac{\sqrt{5/2}}{2}).\hfill \end{array}$$

These vectors have mutual dot products of $`\frac{1}{4}`$. They represent a single point in our 9-dimensional domain:

(13a) $`\psi _2=\psi _3=\psi _4=\psi _5=\mathrm{cos}^1(\frac{1}{4})`$
(13b) $`\theta _3=\theta _4=\theta _5=\mathrm{cos}^1(\frac{1}{3})`$
(13c) $`\varphi _4=\mathrm{cos}^1(\frac{1}{2})=\frac{2\pi }{3}`$
(13d) $`\varphi _5=\mathrm{cos}^1(\frac{1}{2})=\frac{2\pi }{3}.`$
The only other choice comes from interchanging $`\varphi _4`$ and $`\varphi _5`$. This yields another regular 4-simplex.

Now we take the phase (5) and specialise to the case where all the spins $`j_{kl}`$ are equal, say to $`j`$. Setting $`a=2j+1`$, and working in our chosen coordinates, we obtain

(14)
$$S(\psi _2,\psi _3,\psi _4,\psi _5,\theta _3,\theta _4,\theta _5,\varphi _4,\varphi _5)=\lambda a\underset{k<l}{}\mathrm{cos}^1(h_kh_l)$$

The partial derivatives of $`S`$ are all zero at the point described by (13). Symbolic computer calculations show that at this point the matrix of second derivatives of $`S`$ has 5 positive eigenvalues and 4 negative ones, and a determinant of:

$$\sqrt{\frac{5}{3}}\frac{5}{2}(\frac{2}{3})^{11}(\lambda a)^9.$$

Applying this result to (8) at the point described by (13), working in our chosen coordinates, redefining the function $`f`$ to include the measure (12) as well as the kernel denominators (4), and multiplying by a factor of two to account for the second point where $`\varphi _4`$ and $`\varphi _5`$ are interchanged, we obtain:

(15)
$$\left|\text{}\right|_{\mathrm{stat}}=\frac{24(\frac{3}{5})^{\frac{3}{4}}}{5\pi ^{\frac{3}{2}}}(\lambda a)^{9/2}\mathrm{cos}\left[10\mathrm{cos}^1(\frac{1}{4})\lambda a+\frac{\pi }{4}\right]$$

The above expression consists of an oscillating term times a function proportional to $`\lambda ^{9/2}`$. In short, the estimate

$$\left|\text{}\right|_{\mathrm{stat}}=O(\lambda ^{9/2})$$

is sharp, at least for the case of 10 equal spins.

However, our numerical calculations of the $`10j`$ symbols exhibit very different behaviour. Rather than being of order $`\lambda ^{9/2}`$, they appear to be much larger, of order $`\lambda ^2`$. Also, they exhibit no discernable oscillations. In the next section we argue that these results are explained by the contribution of ‘degenerate 4-simplices’.

## 3. Degenerate Points

The absolute value of the kernel

(16)
$$K_a^R(\varphi )=\frac{\mathrm{sin}a\varphi }{\mathrm{sin}\varphi }$$

has maxima when the angle $`\varphi `$ equals $`0`$ or $`\pi `$, and these maxima become ever more sharply peaked as $`a\mathrm{}`$. This means that as $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$, the integrand in equation (3) becomes very large at ‘degenerate points’, where some of the vectors $`h_k`$ are either parallel or anti-parallel. We have made a detailed study of the ‘fully degenerate’ points, where all the vectors $`h_k`$ are either parallel or anti-parallel. It is plausible to expect the contribution from a neighborhood of these points to dominate the integral for the $`10j`$ symbol, at least asymptotically as $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$, since in this region we are integrating a product of kernels, all of which are near their greatest possible absolute value. In the next section we shall present numerical evidence that this is in fact the case.

The value of the kernel is positive at $`\varphi =0`$, but at $`\varphi =\pi `$ its sign is positive when $`2j`$ is even and negative otherwise, where $`a=2j+1`$. At first glance, this appears to allow the possibility that parallel and anti-parallel degenerate points might cancel each other for certain values of the spins. In fact, cancellation can occur only when the $`10j`$ symbol vanishes. The integrand in (1) is the product of ten kernels, so it will be positive when all the $`h_k`$ are parallel. If $`h_1`$ is replaced by its opposite, the four $`\varphi _{1l}`$ will change from zero to $`\pi `$, leading to an overall sign change of $`(1)^{2(j_{12}+j_{13}+j_{14}+j_{15})}`$. However, for the $`10j`$ symbol to be non-zero, the spins at each vertex must sum to an integer . Therefore, if the $`10j`$ symbol is non-zero, the sign of the integrand will remain positive. The same argument applies if any subset of the $`h_k`$ are reversed.

In the integral in equation (3), fully degenerate points occur in 3-dimensional submanifolds of the domain, but we can apply the same gauge-fixing principles as we used to analyse the stationary points, in this case simply fixing $`h_1=(1,0,0,0)`$. There are then 16 discrete fully degenerate points in the restricted domain: those where $`h_k=\pm h_1`$ for $`k=2,\mathrm{},5`$. Restricting the integral to the vicinity of these points we obtain

(17)
$$\left|\text{}\right|_{\mathrm{deg}}:=16_U\underset{k<l}{}K_{\lambda a_{kl}}^R(\varphi _{kl})\frac{dh_2}{2\pi ^2}\mathrm{}\frac{dh_5}{2\pi ^2},$$

where $`U`$ is a small open ball around the point $`(h_1,h_1,h_1,h_1)(S^3)^4`$.

We approximate this quantity by noting that when $`\varphi `$ is small, the kernel in (16) is close to:

(18)
$$K_a^D(\varphi ):=\frac{\mathrm{sin}a\varphi }{\varphi }$$

We call this quantity the ‘degenerate kernel’. As we shall see in Section 5, this is the analog of the original kernel in a spin-network formalism where the space of constant curvature, $`S^3`$, is replaced by three-dimensional Euclidean space, and the group $`\mathrm{SO}(4)`$, the isometry group of $`S^3`$, is replaced by the Euclidean group of isometries of $`^3`$.

Similarly, the integral over a small subset of $`(S^3)^4`$ can be approximated by an integral over a subset of $`(^3)^4`$, and the angle $`\varphi _{kl}`$ between unit vectors $`h_k`$ and $`h_l`$ in $`S^3`$ replaced by the Euclidean distance $`r_{kl}=|x_kx_l|`$ between vectors $`x_k`$ and $`x_l`$ in $`^3`$. In terms of these new Euclidean variables, the restriction $`h_1=(1,0,0,0)`$ is replaced by $`x_1=(0,0,0)`$.

Thus, when $`\lambda `$ is large, we have:

(19)
$$\left|\text{}\right|_{\mathrm{deg}}16_U\underset{k<l}{}K_{\lambda a_{kl}}^D(|x_kx_l|)\frac{dx_2}{2\pi ^2}\mathrm{}\frac{dx_5}{2\pi ^2},$$

where now $`U`$ is a small open ball around the origin of $`(^3)^4`$.

The approximation (19) exhibits very simple scaling behaviour. First, note that the degenerate kernel (18) obeys the identity:

(20)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill K_{\lambda a}^D(r)& =\frac{\mathrm{sin}\lambda ar}{r}\hfill \\ & =\lambda K_a^D(\lambda r)\hfill \end{array}$$

This allows the scaling of (19) to be deduced from a linear change of variables, $`y_k=\lambda x_k`$:

(21)
$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill 16_U\underset{k<l}{}K_{\lambda a_{kl}}^D(|x_kx_l|)\frac{dx_2}{2\pi ^2}\mathrm{}\frac{dx_5}{2\pi ^2}\\ \hfill =16\lambda ^2_{\lambda U}\underset{k<l}{}K_{a_{kl}}^D(|y_ky_l|)\frac{dy_2}{2\pi ^2}\mathrm{}\frac{dy_5}{2\pi ^2},\end{array}$$

where $`\lambda U`$ is the result of rescaling the neighborhood $`U`$ by a factor of $`\lambda `$. If the integral on the right hand side of this equation converges in the limit $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$, we obtain the asymptotic formula:

(22)
$$\left|\text{}\right|_{\mathrm{deg}}16\lambda ^2_{(^3)^4}\underset{k<l}{}K_{a_{kl}}^D(|y_ky_l|)\frac{dy_2}{2\pi ^2}\mathrm{}\frac{dy_5}{2\pi ^2}.$$

We call this integral the ‘degenerate $`10j`$ symbol’. Apart from the factor of $`16\lambda ^2`$, the integral here can be interpreted as the evaluation of a spin network with edges labelled by unitary irreducible representations of the Euclidean group: the group of isometries of Euclidean 3-space. We discuss this interpretation in more detail in Section 5.

While elegant, the integral in (22) is difficult to compute numerically, very much like the integral for the Lorentzian $`10j`$ symbol. To obtain a more convenient form for evaluation, we make use of the Kirillov trace formula:

$$\frac{\mathrm{sin}|x|}{|x|}=\frac{1}{4\pi }_{S^2}\mathrm{exp}(ix\xi )𝑑\xi ,$$

where $`x`$ is a vector in $`^3`$, and the integral is over the unit 2-sphere with its standard measure. This formula is easily confirmed by choosing spherical coordinates such that the $`z`$-axis is parallel to the vector $`x`$. For our purposes we shall rewrite it as follows:

(23)
$$K_a^D(|x|)=_{S(a)}\mathrm{exp}(ix\xi )𝑑\xi ,$$

where $`S(a)`$ is the 2-sphere of radius $`a`$ embedded in $`^3`$, but where $`d\xi `$ is the induced Lebesgue measure divided by $`4\pi a`$, to hide some annoying constants that would otherwise appear in this formula. Using this we can rewrite (22) as:

(24)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \left|\text{}\right|_{\mathrm{deg}}& \frac{16\lambda ^2}{(2\pi ^2)^4}_{(^3)^4}_𝒳\mathrm{exp}(i\underset{k<l}{}(y_ky_l)\xi _{kl})𝑑\xi _{12}\mathrm{}𝑑\xi _{45}𝑑y_2\mathrm{}𝑑y_5\hfill \\ & =\frac{\lambda ^2}{\pi ^8}_{(^3)^4}_𝒳\mathrm{exp}(i(y_2,y_3,y_4,y_5)F(\xi _{12},\mathrm{}\xi _{45}))𝑑\xi _{12}\mathrm{}𝑑\xi _{45}𝑑y_2\mathrm{}𝑑y_5\hfill \\ & =\lambda ^22^{12}\pi ^4_𝒳\delta ^{12}(F(\xi _{12},\mathrm{},\xi _{45}))𝑑\xi _{12}\mathrm{}𝑑\xi _{45},\hfill \end{array}$$

where

$$𝒳=\underset{k<l}{}S(a_{kl})$$

is a Cartesian product of 2-spheres with the measures described above, and $`F:𝒳^{12}`$ is defined by:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill F(\xi _{12},\mathrm{},\xi _{45})=(& \xi _{12}+\xi _{23}+\xi _{24}+\xi _{25},\hfill \\ & \xi _{13}\xi _{23}+\xi _{34}+\xi _{35},\hfill \\ & \xi _{14}\xi _{24}\xi _{34}+\xi _{45},\hfill \\ & \xi _{15}\xi _{25}\xi _{35}\xi _{45}).\hfill \end{array}$$

If

$$𝒩=\{\xi 𝒳:F(\xi )=0\}$$

then the final integral in (24) will be well-behaved so long as at each point $`\xi 𝒩`$ the differential of $`F`$ has maximal rank, namely 12. When this is the case $`𝒩`$ is an 8-dimensional submanifold of $`𝒳`$, and the integral reduces to:

(25)
$$\left|\text{}\right|_{\mathrm{deg}}\lambda ^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{12}\pi ^4_𝒩|J(\xi )|^1𝑑\xi $$

Here $`d\xi `$ is the Lebesgue measure on $`𝒩`$ induced by the Riemannian metric on $`𝒳`$, but divided by a factor of $`_{k<l}4\pi a_{kl}`$, since we have divided the Lebesgue measure on each sphere by a factor of $`4\pi a_{kl}`$. If we choose local coordinates $`(x^1,\mathrm{},x^{20})`$ on $`𝒳`$ near $`\xi 𝒩`$ such that $`x^1,\mathrm{},x^8`$ are zero on $`𝒩`$, then $`|J(\xi )|`$ is the Jacobian determinant of $`F`$ as a function of the remaining 12 variables $`x^9,\mathrm{},x^{20}`$.

One way to get solutions of $`F=0`$ is to start with 4-simplices in $`^3`$: that is, 5-tuples of points in $`^3`$, together with the ten triangles and five tetrahedra determined by these points. Given such a 4-simplex, let $`\xi _{kl}`$ be the vector that is normal to the triangle shared by the $`k`$th and $`l`$th tetrahedra, and has length equal to the area of this triangle. As shown in , the four vectors $`\xi _{kl}`$ normal to the triangles in any one tetrahedron must sum to zero, with appropriate signs:

(26)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \xi _{12}+\xi _{23}+\xi _{24}+\xi _{25}& =& 0\hfill \\ \hfill \xi _{13}\xi _{23}+\xi _{34}+\xi _{35}& =& 0\hfill \\ \hfill \xi _{14}\xi _{24}\xi _{34}+\xi _{45}& =& 0\hfill \\ \hfill \xi _{15}\xi _{25}\xi _{35}\xi _{45}& =& 0\hfill \\ \hfill \xi _{12}+\xi _{13}+\xi _{14}+\xi _{15}& =& 0.\hfill \end{array}$$

Each vector appears twice in these formulas, with opposite signs, since the outwards-pointing normal to one tetrahedron is the inwards-pointing normal to another. The first four equations say that $`F=0`$; the last is an algebraic consequence of the rest. If $`|\xi _{kl}|=a_{kl}`$, the vectors $`\xi _{kl}`$ thus determine a point in $`𝒩`$.

This suggests that we think of points of $`𝒩`$ as ‘degenerate 4-simplices’. However, not every point of $`𝒩`$ comes from a 5-tuple of points in $`^3`$ this way. To see this, note that two 5-tuples in $`^3`$ determine the same point in $`𝒩`$ if they are translates of each other. The space of 5-tuples modulo translation has dimension $`3\times 53=12`$, but the space of solutions of equation (26) has dimension $`304\times 3=18`$. Thus there are simply not enough 5-tuples of points in $`^3`$ to account for all solutions of equation (26). We shall still call points of $`𝒩`$ ‘degenerate 4-simplices’, because it is a useful heuristic. However, it is important to take this phrase with a grain of salt.

Of course, for the space $`𝒩`$ to be nonempty, there must *exist* a solution of $`F=0`$. This imposes certain restrictions on the numbers $`a_{kl}`$. For example, there will be a solution of $`\xi _{12}+\xi _{13}+\xi _{14}+\xi _{15}=0`$ if and only if these ‘tetrahedron inequalities’ hold:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}a_{12}& & a_{13}+a_{14}+a_{15}\hfill \\ a_{13}& & a_{12}+a_{14}+a_{15}\hfill \\ a_{14}& & a_{12}+a_{13}+a_{15}\hfill \\ a_{15}& & a_{12}+a_{13}+a_{14}.\hfill \end{array}$$

In general $`𝒩`$ will be empty if the four numbers $`a_{kl}`$ corresponding to the faces of any one tetrahedron violate the tetrahedron inequalities. In this case the degenerate $`10j`$ symbols vanish. Similarly, the Riemannian $`10j`$ symbols vanish if the spins $`j_{kl}`$ violate the tetrahedron inequalities , and for the same sort of geometrical reason .

For computational purposes it is helpful to rewrite the integral for the degenerate $`10j`$ symbols in yet another way. To do this, first we note that we can exploit $`\mathrm{SO}(3)`$ invariance to convert (25) to an integral over the 5-dimensional manifold $`𝒩/\mathrm{SO}(3)`$, by rotating the $`\xi _{kl}`$ in $`𝒳`$ so that they lie in the 17-dimensional subspace where $`\xi _{23}`$ is fixed at $`(0,0,a_{23})`$, and $`\xi _{34}`$ lies in the $`x>0`$ half of the $`xz`$-plane. This corresponds to integrating over all possible values for $`\xi _{23}`$, inserting a factor equal to the volume of $`S(a_{23})`$ with our chosen measure, which is $`a_{23}`$, and also integrating over all possible azimuthal coordinates for $`\xi _{34}`$ and inserting a factor of $`2\pi `$.

In what follows, we will choose coordinates so that the $`12\times 12`$ matrix $`J(\xi )`$ whose determinant we require is block diagonal, with two $`3\times 3`$ blocks and one $`6\times 6`$ block.

It turns out to be convenient to parameterise $`\xi _{34}`$, not by its angle from the $`z`$-axis, but by the length

$$s_1:=|\xi _{23}\xi _{34}|.$$

Since $`\xi _{13}+\xi _{23}=\xi _{34}+\xi _{35}`$, these four vectors can be positioned to form the sides of a (possibly non-planar) quadrilateral. Then $`s_1`$ is the length of one of the diagonals. With the vectors $`\xi _{23}`$ and $`\xi _{34}`$ fixed and the lengths of $`\xi _{13}`$ and $`\xi _{35}`$ specified, the only remaining freedom this quadrilateral has, if it is to remain closed, is the ‘hinge angle’, $`\alpha _1`$, between the two triangles that meet along the diagonal. The vectors $`\xi _{13}`$ and $`\xi _{35}`$ have 4 degrees of freedom in all, and specifying $`\alpha _1`$ removes one of them, leaving 3 which break the quadrilateral. With our chosen measure on $`𝒩`$, the product of the measure for the coordinates we are integrating over, and the Jacobian determinant for the 3 that break the quadrilateral, is:

$$\frac{1}{(4\pi )^3a_{23}}.$$

We can treat a second 4-tuple of vectors more or less identically. If the vector $`\xi _{12}`$ has an azimuthal angle of $`\varphi `$, and we define

$$s_2:=|\xi _{23}\xi _{12}|,$$

then the quadrilateral formed by $`\xi _{23},\xi _{12},\xi _{25}`$ and $`\xi _{24}`$ can be assigned a ‘hinge angle’ of $`\alpha _2`$. This specifies all the degrees of freedom that allow this quadrilateral to remain closed. Once again, the product of the measure for the coordinates we are integrating over, and the Jacobian determinant for the 3 that break the quadrilateral, is:

$$\frac{1}{(4\pi )^3a_{23}}.$$

So far, we have specified 5 degrees of freedom for $`𝒩/\mathrm{SO}(3)`$: $`s_1`$, $`s_2`$, $`\alpha _1`$, $`\alpha _2`$ and $`\varphi `$. No further continuous degrees of freedom remain. The three vectors we have yet to specify must form triangles that complete two quadrilaterals with vectors that have already been parameterised, and because these two triangles have a vector in common, there is no ‘hinge’ freedom left.

Specifically, the three vectors $`\xi _{14},\xi _{15}`$ and $`\xi _{45}`$ must form a tetrahedron by fitting over a triangular base that has, as two of its sides, the vectors:

$`v`$ $`:=\xi _{35}+\xi _{25}`$
$`w`$ $`:=\xi _{24}\xi _{34}.`$
Given their fixed lengths, this determines $`\xi _{14},\xi _{15}`$ and $`\xi _{45}`$ completely, apart from the freedom to locate the apex of the tetrahedron on either side of the plane spanned by $`v`$ and $`w`$. This freedom can be accounted for with a factor of 2 in the integral. The final contribution to the Jacobian comes from a $`6\times 6`$ block involving all the coordinates of $`\xi _{14},\xi _{15}`$ and $`\xi _{45}`$, and with our chosen measure this is:

$$\frac{1}{(4\pi )^36V(a_{14},a_{15},a_{45},|w|,|vw|,|v|)},$$

where $`V`$ is the volume of the tetrahedron as a function of its edge lengths.

Combining these results, we can rewrite (25) as:

(27)
$$\left|\text{}\right|_{\mathrm{deg}}\frac{\lambda ^2}{96\pi ^4a_{23}}_{s_1}_{s_2}_{\alpha _1}_{\alpha _2}_\varphi \frac{ds_1ds_2d\alpha _1d\alpha _2d\varphi }{V(a_{14},a_{15},a_{45},|w|,|vw|,|v|)}.$$

The integrals over the $`s_i`$ are taken over intervals determined by the four sides of the quadrilaterals for which they are the diagonal lengths, and the angular variables range from $`0`$ to $`2\pi `$, with the proviso that any part of the domain where the tetrahedron is not geometrically possible must be excluded. In numerical calculations, this can be dealt with by setting the integrand to zero wherever Cayley’s determinant formula for the squared volume of the tetrahedron yields a negative value.

We note that the integrand here is unbounded, and we have not proved that (27) converges, but our numerical calculations suggest that it does.

## 4. Numerical Data

To test our hypothesis that the asymptotics of $`10j`$ symbols are dominated by the contribution of degenerate 4-simplices, we used the algorithm described in  to calculate values for several sets of $`10j`$ symbols. The figure below shows log-log plots for the absolute values of the Riemannian $`10j`$ symbols as a function of $`\lambda `$, where $`\lambda `$ is the parameter by which the areas $`a_{kl}`$ were multiplied. The legend shows the base spins $`j_{kl}`$; multiplying $`a_{kl}`$ by $`\lambda `$ was achieved by replacing the $`j_{kl}`$ with:

$$J_{kl}=\lambda j_{kl}+\frac{\lambda 1}{2}.$$

The lines on the plot show the $`\lambda ^2`$ asymptotic behaviour described by equation (27); the integrals were evaluated numerically with Lepage’s VEGAS algorithm , and found to have values of 0.680, 0.341, 0.209, 0.110, 0.0841 and 0.0446 respectively.

In summary, our numerical data supports the following conjecture. Let us say that the spins $`j_{kl}`$ are ‘admissible’ if for each vertex in the $`10j`$ symbol, the spins labelling the four incident edges satisfy the tetrahedron inequalities and sum to an integer. Then:

###### Conjecture 1.

If the ten spins $`j_{kl}`$ are admissible, the $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ asymptotics of the Riemannian $`10j`$ symbols are given by:

$$\left|\text{}\right|16\lambda ^2_{(^3)^4}\underset{k<l}{}K_{2j_{kl}+1}^D(|y_ky_l|)\frac{dy_2}{2\pi ^2}\mathrm{}\frac{dy_5}{2\pi ^2}.$$

In the next two sections we generalize this conjecture to a large class of Riemannian and Lorentzian spin networks, including the Lorentzian $`10j`$ symbols.

The reader may have wondered why we consider asymptotics of the $`10j`$ symbols as *areas* are rescaled, instead of *spins*. The reason is that they are much simpler. We also calculated values for sets of $`10j`$ symbols where the spins $`j_{kl}`$ were multiplied by $`\lambda `$. The figure below shows log-log plots for the absolute values of the Riemannian $`10j`$ symbols with spins $`\lambda j_{kl}`$, where the $`j_{kl}`$ match those shown in the legend for the previous figure:

Since the areas $`2\lambda j_{kl}+1`$ are asymptotic to a series of values $`2\lambda j_{kl}`$ that are proportional to $`\lambda `$, the data might be expected to exhibit $`\lambda ^2`$ scaling. And in fact, in cases A-D, that is exactly what is seen. Furthermore, numerically evaluating the integral (27) with $`a_{kl}=2j_{kl}`$ provided the correct coefficients for lines on the plot which are asymptotic to the data; these coefficients were 2.73, 0.987, 0.472 and 0.165 respectively.

For cases E and F, the $`10j`$ symbols have one or more vertices at the ‘border of admissibility’: that is, vertices where three of the spins labelling incident edges sum to equal the fourth spin, making one of the tetrahedron inequalities a strict equality. These vertices are marked with heavy dots on the legend. Setting $`a_{kl}=2j_{kl}`$ in (27) in these cases yields a coefficient of zero, because the domain for at least one variable of integration, the quadrilateral diagonal length $`s_1`$, was reduced to a single point. Empirically, the data here appears to scale as $`\lambda ^3`$.

While $`10j`$ symbols with one or two vertices on the border of admissibility have $`\lambda ^3`$ asymptotics with spin rescaling, $`10j`$ symbols with three or more vertices on the border of admissibility appear to decay exponentially as their spins are multiplied by $`\lambda `$, as illustrated in the log-linear plot below:

To prove convergence of the partition function in our newly formulated version of the Barrett–Crane model , it will probably be necessary to understand the $`\lambda ^3`$ and exponential decay of borderline-admissible $`10j`$ symbols under spin rescaling. However, these are more delicate phenomena than we are prepared to tackle here.

## 5. Degenerate Spin Networks

Though the Riemannian $`10j`$ symbols are given by an integral over a product of copies of $`S^3`$, we have seen that when we rescale the areas by a large constant $`\lambda `$, this integral is dominated by the contribution of a very small patch of this space, which can be approximated by a product of copies of $`^3`$. Indeed, by a change of variables we can think of the $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ limit as one in which the radius of $`S^3`$ approaches infinity, so that it degenerates to Euclidean 3-space.

The Riemannian $`10j`$ symbols can also be described using the representation theory of $`\mathrm{SO}(4)`$, the isometry group of $`S^3`$. This suggests that the $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ asymptotics of the $`10j`$ symbols can be described in terms of the representation theory of the Euclidean group $`\mathrm{E}(3)`$, the isometry group of $`^3`$.

To do this, we introduce certain spin networks associated to $`\mathrm{E}(3)`$ which we call ‘degenerate spin networks’. These are more closely analogous to the Lorentzian spin networks defined in  than to the Riemannian spin networks we have been discussing so far, because the edge labels are not restricted to discrete values, and the group representations are infinite-dimensional. However, all three sorts of spin network form part of a unified theory, as outlined below:    geometry signature symmetry group homogeneous space    Riemannian (++++) $`\mathrm{SO}(4)`$ $`S^3`$  degenerate ($`0`$+++) $`\mathrm{E}(3)`$ $`^3`$  Lorentzian ($``$+++) $`\mathrm{SO}(3,1)`$ $`H^3`$   The rotation group $`\mathrm{SO}(4)`$ and the Lorentz group $`\mathrm{SO}(3,1)`$ consist of linear transformations of $`^4`$ with determinant 1 that preserve metrics of signature (++++) and ($``$+++), respectively. Similarly, the Euclidean group $`\mathrm{E}(3)`$ is isomorphic to the group of linear transformations of $`^4`$ with determinant 1 that preserve the singly degenerate metric with signature ($`0`$+++). The groups $`\mathrm{SO}(4)`$ and $`\mathrm{SO}(3,1)`$ both ‘contract’ to $`\mathrm{E}(3)`$, meaning that they have it as a limiting case if one forms the isometry group of the metric $`\mathrm{diag}(ϵ,1,1,1)`$ and lets $`ϵ0`$ and $`ϵ0`$, respectively.

This makes it plausible that the asymptotics of not only Riemannian but also *Lorentzian* spin networks can be calculated using degenerate spin networks. In this section we state a precise conjecture along these lines for a large class of Riemannian spin networks, and present some supporting evidence. In Section 6 we do the same for Lorentzian spin networks.

We begin by describing degenerate spin networks and how to evaluate them. The representations $`jj`$ labelling edges of a Riemannian spin network are representations not just of $`\mathrm{Spin}(4)`$, but actually of $`\mathrm{SO}(4)`$. As emphasized by Freidel and Krasnov , these representations are precisely the eigenspaces of the Laplacian on $`S^3`$, which is the homogeneous space $`\mathrm{SO}(4)/\mathrm{SO}(3)`$. Similarly, the representations labelling edges of a Lorentzian spin network are the eigenspaces of the Laplacian on hyperbolic 3-space, $`H^3=\mathrm{SO}_0(3,1)/\mathrm{SO}(3)`$ — here we must take the connected component of the Lorentz group to get just one sheet of the hyperboloid. Following this pattern, the representations labelling edges of a degenerate spin network should be the eigenspaces of the Laplacian on $`^3=\mathrm{E}(3)/\mathrm{SO}(3)`$.

In fact, there is one representation of this sort for each positive real number $`a`$. Any complex function on $`^3`$ with $`^2f=a^2f`$ can be written as:

(28)
$$f(x)=_{\xi S(a)}\widehat{f}(\xi )\mathrm{exp}(i\xi x)𝑑\xi ,$$

where $`S(a)`$ is the 2-sphere of radius $`a`$ centered at the origin of $`^3`$, and $`d\xi `$ is the induced Lebesgue measure divided by $`4\pi a`$. Defining an inner product on these solutions by

$$f,g=_{\xi S(a)}\overline{\widehat{f}(\xi )}\widehat{g}(\xi )𝑑\xi ,$$

we form a Hilbert space $`_a`$ consisting of all solutions $`f`$ with $`f,f<\mathrm{}`$. This Hilbert space becomes a representation of the Euclidean group where each group element $`g`$ acts via $`(gf)(x)=f(g^1x)`$. In fact, this representation is unitary and irreducible. The functions $`\mathrm{exp}(i\xi x)`$ form a ‘basis’, in the sense that any element of $`_a`$ can be expressed as in equation (28) for a unique square-integrable function $`\widehat{f}`$ on the sphere.

We define a ‘degenerate spin network’ to be a directed graph with each edge $`e`$ labelled by a representation of this form, or equivalently, a positive number $`a_e`$. An intertwiner between tensor products of these representations can be defined at each vertex by taking the product of functions from the representations labelling the *incoming* edges, multiplying it by the product of complex conjugates of functions from representations labelling the *outgoing* edges, and integrating the result over $`^3`$. Given this, the standard way to evaluate such a spin network  would be to take a ‘trace’: that is, integrate over a basis label $`\xi _eS(a_e)`$ for each edge of the graph. The result would be:

$$_{\underset{vV}{}^3}\underset{eE}{}\left[_{S(a_e)}\mathrm{exp}(i(x_{s(e)}x_{t(e)})\xi _e)𝑑\xi _e\right]\underset{vV}{}\frac{dx_v}{2\pi ^2}.$$

Here $`E`$ denotes the set of edges of the graph, $`V`$ denotes its set of vertices, and the vertices $`s(e)`$ and $`t(e)`$ are the source and target of the edge $`e`$.

However, just as in the Lorentzian case , this gives a divergent integral, because the integrand is invariant when we simultaneously translate all the vectors $`x_v^3`$ by the same amount. More generally, if the underlying graph of our spin network consists of several connected components, and we translate the vectors $`x_v`$ where $`v`$ lies in any one component, the integrand does not change. To keep things simple, let us consider only spin networks whose underlying graph is *connected*. In this case we can sometimes obtain a well-defined integral by ‘gauge-fixing’ one of the vectors rather than integrating over it: that is, setting $`x_{v_1}=x^3`$ for some vertex $`v_1V`$. If we let $`V^{}=V\{v_1\}`$, this gives the following formula for evaluating a degenerate spin network with edges labelled by the numbers $`a_e`$:

(29)
$$I^D(a)=_{\underset{vV^{}}{}^3}\underset{eE}{}\left[_{S(a_e)}\mathrm{exp}(i(x_{s(e)}x_{t(e)})\xi _e)𝑑\xi _e\right]\underset{vV^{}}{}\frac{dx_v}{2\pi ^2}.$$

As in the Lorentzian case , one can show that if this integral converges, the result does not depend on our choice of the special vertex $`v_1`$ or the point $`x^3`$. Assuming the integral does converge, we can use the Kirillov trace formula (23) to reexpress it as:

(30)
$$I^D(a)=_{\underset{vV^{}}{}^3}\underset{eE}{}\left[K_{a_e}^D(|x_{s(e)}x_{t(e)}|)\right]\underset{vV^{}}{}\frac{dx_v}{2\pi ^2}.$$

When the evaluation of a degenerate spin network converges, it always obeys a very simple scaling law as we multiply all the edge labels $`a_e`$ by the same constant $`\lambda `$. Using the scaling property of the degenerate kernel noted in equation (20), we find that

(31)
$$I^D(\lambda a)=\lambda ^{|E|3(|V|1)}I^D(a),$$

where $`|E|`$ is the number of edges in the underlying graph and $`|V|`$ is the number of vertices.

We have already argued that the asymptotics of the Riemannian $`10j`$ symbols are governed by the corresponding degenerate spin network. We can generalize this argument as follows. Fix a connected graph. If we label each edge $`e`$ by a positive integer $`a_e`$ — or equivalently a spin $`j_e`$ with $`a_e=2j_e+1`$ — we obtain a Riemannian spin network, whose evaluation we define by:

(32)
$$I^R(a)=_{\underset{vV^{}}{}S^3}\underset{eE}{}K_{a_e}^R(d(x_{s(e)},x_{t(e)}))\underset{vV^{}}{}\frac{dx_v}{2\pi ^2}.$$

Here $`d(x,y)`$ is the distance between points $`x,y`$ in the unit 3-sphere in $`^4`$ as measured by the induced Riemannian metric. This formula is equivalent to the standard integral formula , except that we have omitted the usual signs in order to simplify the relationship to degenerate spin networks. Fixing a small open ball $`U`$ around some point $`(x,\mathrm{},x)_{vV^{}}S^3`$ we define the ‘degenerate contribution’ to this integral to be:

(33)
$$I_{\mathrm{deg}}^R(a)=2^{|V|1}_U\underset{eE}{}K_{a_e}^R(d(x_{s(e)},x_{t(e)}))\underset{vV^{}}{}\frac{dx_v}{2\pi ^2}.$$

Just as we included a factor of $`16`$ in equation (17), here we include a factor of $`2^{|V|1}`$ to take into account the contribution of anti-parallel degenerate points; as before there is no cancellation between these if the spins labelling edges incident to each vertex sum to an integer, as they must for the spin network to have a nonzero value. Using the same nonrigorous argument as in Section 3, we see that as $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$,

(34)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill I_{\mathrm{deg}}^R(\lambda a)& 2^{|V|1}_U\underset{eE}{}K_{\lambda a_e}^D(|x_{s(e)}x_{t(e)}|)\underset{vV^{}}{}\frac{dx_v}{2\pi ^2}\hfill \\ & =2^{|V|1}\lambda ^{|E|3(|V|1)}_{\lambda U}\underset{eE}{}K_{a_e}^D(|y_{s(e)}y_{t(e)}|)\underset{vV^{}}{}\frac{dy_v}{2\pi ^2}\hfill \\ & 2^{|V|1}\lambda ^{|E|3(|V|1)}I^D(a)\hfill \\ & =2^{|V|1}I^D(\lambda a),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`U`$ now denotes an open ball around the origin of $`_{vV^{}}^3`$, and we made the change of variables $`y_e=\lambda x_e`$.

In short, this argument suggests that the asymptotics of the degenerate contribution to the value of a Riemannian spin network are proportional to those of the corresponding degenerate spin network:

$$I_{\mathrm{deg}}^R(\lambda a)2^{|V|1}I^D(\lambda a),$$

and we know the latter are very simple:

$$I^D(\lambda a)=\lambda ^{|E|3(|V|1)}I^D(a).$$

This is particularly interesting when we also have

$$I^R(\lambda a)I_{\mathrm{deg}}^R(\lambda a),$$

because then we can compute the asymptotics of a Riemannian spin network by evaluating a degenerate spin network:

$$I^R(\lambda a)2^{|V|1}\lambda ^{|E|3(|V|1)}I^D(a).$$

When can we expect this to occur? Clearly we should at least demand that the degenerate contribution outweigh the contribution of stationary phase points. A simple power-counting argument as in Section 2 suggests that the contribution of stationary phase points is of order:

(35)
$$I_{\mathrm{stat}}^R(\lambda a)=\{\begin{array}{cc}O(\lambda ^{\frac{3}{2}|V|+3})\hfill & |V|>2\hfill \\ O(\lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}})\hfill & |V|=2\hfill \\ O(\lambda )\hfill & |V|=1,\hfill \end{array}$$

where the graphs with one or two vertices are different because there is less need for ‘gauge-fixing’. Comparing these asymptotics to those of the degenerate contribution, we can formulate the following:

###### Conjecture 2.

Given a connected graph with more than two vertices and $`|E|>\frac{3}{2}|V|`$, or two vertices and $`|E|>2`$, or one vertex and $`|E|>1`$, as $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ we have

$$I^R(\lambda a)2^{|V|1}\lambda ^{|E|3(|V|1)}I^D(a)$$

as long as the integral defining $`I^D(a)`$ converges and the spins $`j_e`$ labelling the edges incident to each vertex are admissible.

Here we say the spins labelling the edges incident to some vertex are ‘admissible’ if they sum to an integer and each is less than or equal to the sum of the rest. We do not yet have general criteria for when the integrals associated to Euclidean spin networks converge, and as we shall see, the relevant theorems are bound to be a bit different than in the Lorentzian case .

The simplest test of this conjecture is the ‘theta network’, with two vertices joined by three edges, labelled by positive integers $`a`$, $`b`$, and $`c`$. When the corresponding spins are admissible, the Riemannian theta network evaluates to:

(36)
$$\left(\text{}\right)^R=1.$$

The degenerate theta network can also be explicitly evaluated; assuming without loss of generality that $`abc`$:

(37)
$$\left(\text{}\right)^D=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & c>a+b\hfill \\ \frac{1}{4}\hfill & c=a+b\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}\hfill & c<a+b.\hfill \end{array}$$

Since the Riemannian network’s spins are admissible, the third inequality must hold for the corresponding areas $`a,b,c`$. Thus in this case the conjecture gives an *exact* formula for the Riemannian spin network.

The next simplest case is the ‘4$`j`$ symbol’: the spin network with two vertices joined by four edges, labelled by positive integers $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$ and $`d`$. Without loss of generality let us assume $`abcd`$. As noted in a previous paper in this series , the Riemannian 4$`j`$ symbol counts the dimension of a space of $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ intertwiners. Using this it follows that:

(38)
$$\left(\text{}\right)^R=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & b+cda\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}(a+b+cd)\hfill & dab+c<d+a\hfill \\ a\hfill & d+ab+c.\hfill \end{array}$$

The corresponding degenerate spin network evaluates to:

(39)
$$\left(\text{}\right)^D=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & b+cda\hfill \\ \frac{1}{4}(a+b+cd)\hfill & dab+c<d+a\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}a\hfill & d+ab+c,\hfill \end{array}$$

so the conjecture is again exact.

An interesting check on our hypotheses is the tetrahedral spin network. This has four vertices and $`|E|=\frac{3}{2}|V|`$, so the hypotheses of Conjecture 2 do not apply: we expect the stationary phase contribution to the Riemannian tetrahedral network to be comparable to the degenerate contribution. The degenerate tetrahedral network evaluates to:

(40)
$$\left(\text{}\right)^D=\frac{1}{24\pi V(a,b,c,d,e,f)},$$

where $`V(a,b,c,d,e,f)`$ is defined as the volume of the tetrahedron dual to the tetrahedral network. Each triangle in this dual tetrahedron corresponds to a vertex of the tetrahedral network, and the three sides of the triangle have lengths equal to the labels on the three edges incident to the network vertex:

(41)
$$V(a,b,c,d,e,f)=\text{the volume of}\text{}.$$

On the other hand, the Riemannian tetrahedral network evaluates to the square of the $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ tetrahedral network, the basic building-block of the Ponzano–Regge model. Thanks to the calculation of Ponzano and Regge , later made rigorous by Roberts , this means that:

(42)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \left(\text{}\right)^R& \frac{\mathrm{cos}^2(S+\frac{\pi }{4})}{12\pi V(\frac{a}{2},\frac{b}{2},\frac{c}{2},\frac{d}{2},\frac{e}{2},\frac{f}{2})}\hfill \\ & =\frac{1+\mathrm{cos}2(S+\frac{\pi }{4})}{24\pi V(\frac{a}{2},\frac{b}{2},\frac{c}{2},\frac{d}{2},\frac{e}{2},\frac{f}{2})}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Here we are dealing with a dual tetrahedron whose edge lengths are $`\frac{1}{2}a_{kl}`$, where $`a_{kl}`$ ranges over $`a,b,c,d,e,f`$ as $`1k<l4`$. This tetrahedron has Regge action

$$S=\underset{1k<l4}{}\frac{1}{2}a_{kl}\theta _{kl},$$

where $`\theta _{kl}`$ are the corresponding dihedral angles. Thus it appears that the asymptotics of the Riemannian tetrahedral network are a sum of two parts: a part equal to 8 times the degenerate tetrahedral network, and an oscillatory part coming from the stationary phase points.

When the edge lengths of the dual tetrahedron are such that it cannot exist in Euclidean space, the degenerate tetrahedral network evaluates to zero, and the Riemannian network obeys different asymptotics in which its evaluation exponentially decays with increasing spin.

## 6. Lorentzian Spin Networks

Now let us turn to Lorentzian spin networks . Each positive real number determines a unitary irreducible representation of the connnected Lorentz group $`\mathrm{SO}_0(3,1)`$ corresponding to an eigenspace of the Laplacian on $`H^3`$; however, we prefer to describe the evaluation using an integral formula. Fixing a connected graph with vertex set $`V`$ and edge set $`E`$, and labelling each edge $`e`$ by a positive real number $`a_e`$, we obtain a so-called ‘Lorentzian spin network’, whose evaluation is given by:

(43)
$$I^L(a)=_{\underset{vV^{}}{}H^3}\underset{eE}{}K_{a_e}^L(d(x_{s(e)},x_{t(e)}))\underset{vV^{}}{}\frac{dx_v}{2\pi ^2}.$$

As with degenerate spin networks, we have chosen a vertex $`v_1`$, set $`V^{}=V\{v_1\}`$, and let $`x_{v_1}`$ be any fixed point in $`H^3`$. Here $`H^3`$ is hyperbolic 3-space, i.e., the submanifold of Minkowski spacetime given by:

$$H^3=\{t^2x^2y^2z^2=1,t>0\}$$

with its induced Riemannian metric. We define the Lorentzian kernel $`K^L`$ by:

(44)
$$K_a^L(\varphi ):=\frac{\mathrm{sin}a\varphi }{\mathrm{sinh}\varphi }.$$

We warn the reader that this convention differs from that of most previous papers , which include a factor of $`a`$ in the denominator. Including that factor would divide any Lorentzian spin network by the product of its edge labels, so for example, it would divide the asymptotics of the Lorentzian $`10j`$ symbols as defined here by a factor of $`\lambda ^{10}`$.

The same line of argument by which we arrived at our conjecture concerning asymptotics of Riemannian spin networks applies to Lorentzian ones. The most important difference is that no factor of $`2^{|V|1}`$ appears, since there are no ‘antipodal points’ in hyperbolic space. We have not investigated criteria for the existence of stationary phase points, but where they are present their exponents will be the same as in the Riemannian case, leading us to make:

###### Conjecture 3.

Given a connected graph with more than two vertices and $`|E|>\frac{3}{2}|V|`$, or two vertices and $`|E|>2`$, or one vertex and $`|E|>1`$, as $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ we have

$$I^L(\lambda a)\lambda ^{|E|3(|V|1)}I^D(a)$$

as long as the integral defining $`I^D(a)`$ converges and the positive numbers $`a_e`$ labelling edges incident to each vertex are admissible.

Here we say the positive numbers labelling the edges incident to some vertex are ‘admissible’ if each is strictly less than the sum of the rest.

Again the simplest test of this conjecture is the Lorentzian theta network. Translating their result into our notation, a calculation of Barrett and Crane  shows that for any $`a,b,c>0`$,

$$\left(\text{}\right)^L=\frac{1}{4}\left[f(a+b+c)+f(ab+c)+f(a+bc)f(a+b+c)\right],$$

where

$$f(k)=\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{\pi }{2}k).$$

As the conjecture predicts, the asymptotics of this match those of the degenerate theta network, which are given by:

$$\left(\text{}\right)^D=\frac{1}{4}\left[\mathrm{sign}(a+b+c)+\mathrm{sign}(ab+c)+\mathrm{sign}(a+bc)\mathrm{sign}(a+b+c)\right].$$

It is worth noting that while the integral for the Lorentzian theta network converges even when we take the absolute value of the integrand, this fails for the degenerate theta network. This makes it more challenging to find criteria for convergence of degenerate spin networks, since we cannot simply mimic the theory that applies in the Lorentzian case .

Barrett and Crane also worked out the Lorentzian $`4j`$ symbols, obtaining:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (\text{})^L=\frac{1}{4}[g(& a+b+c+d)+g(ab+c+d)+g(a+bc+d)+g(a+b+cd)\hfill \\ \hfill g(& a+bcd)g(ab+cd)g(abc+d)g(a+b+c+d)],\hfill \end{array}$$

where

$$g(k)=\frac{k}{2}\mathrm{coth}(\frac{\pi }{2}k).$$

From equation (39) one can show:

$$\left(\text{}\right)^D=$$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{1}{4}[h(& a+b+c+d)+h(ab+c+d)+h(a+bc+d)+h(a+b+cd)\hfill \\ \hfill h(& a+bcd)h(ab+cd)h(abc+d)h(a+b+c+d)],\hfill \end{array}$$

where

$$h(k)=\frac{k}{2}\mathrm{sign}(k).$$

Thus the conjecture is also confirmed in this case.

Next, consider the tetrahedral spin network. As in the Riemannian case, Conjecture 3 does not apply, but we can still predict the asymptotic behaviour of the contribution of the fully degenerate point:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \left(\text{}\right)^L& \frac{1}{24\pi V(\lambda ,\lambda ,\lambda ,\lambda ,\lambda ,\lambda )}+SP\hfill \\ & =\frac{\sqrt{2}}{4\pi }\lambda ^3+SP,\hfill \end{array}$$

where ‘$`SP`$’ represents the contribution from stationary phase points, if any. Below is a log-log plot comparing this prediction to numerical data. The horizontal axis in this graph represents $`\lambda `$, while the vertical axis represents the value of the tetrahedral spin network.

The most interesting test of Conjecture 3 is the $`10j`$ symbol. If the conjecture is true, the Lorentzian $`10j`$ symbol should be asymptotic to the degenerate $`10j`$ symbol, and therefore asymptotic to $`1/16`$ times the Riemannian $`10j`$ symbol. Since the Riemannian $`10j`$ symbol is positive , this in turn would imply that the Lorentzian and degenerate $`10j`$ symbols are positive in the $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ limit.

It is difficult to compute the Lorentzian $`10j`$ symbol, but we have numerically checked the conjecture in the special case where all the edges are labelled by the same number $`\lambda `$. In this case the conjecture says that:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \left(\text{}\right)^L& :=_{(H^3)^4}\underset{k<l}{}K_\lambda ^L(\varphi _{kl})\frac{dx_2}{2\pi ^2}\mathrm{}\frac{dx_5}{2\pi ^2}\hfill \\ & \\ & .1706\lambda ^2,\hfill \end{array}$$

where of course the constant is not exact. Below we show a log-log plot comparing this prediction to data points obtained by computing the Lorentzian $`10j`$ symbols numerically. The horizontal axis represents $`\lambda `$, while the vertical axis represents the value of the $`10j`$ symbol.

Here we computed the Lorentzian $`10j`$ symbols by applying the VEGAS algorithm to evaluate the integral above using polar coordinates on $`H^3`$. The integral was reduced from 12 to 9 dimensions by exploiting the $`\mathrm{SO}_0(3,1)`$ invariance; the infinite domain was made compact by replacing the radial coordinate for each point, $`r_i`$, with a new variable $`t_i=r_i/(1+r_i)`$; and the domain was further reduced by exploiting a 24-fold symmetry present in the regular case. The large dimension and oscillatory nature of this integral make these calculations extremely computationally intensive.

The graph below shows the same Lorentzian $`10j`$ symbols multiplied by $`\lambda ^2`$, plotted on a linear scale to give a clearer picture of the rate of convergence towards the asymptote. The error bars are three times the standard deviation computed by the VEGAS algorithm. The coordinate system we used yielded the lowest standard deviations of several we tried, but there is no reason to believe that the estimates of the integral are drawn from a normal distribution, so this data should be treated with caution.

## 7. Conclusions

It appears that the asymptotics of both Riemannian and Lorentzian $`10j`$ symbols can be computed in terms of degenerate spin networks. For the mathematician, this claim still requires proof. Indeed, there is even an issue of rigor concerning our argument that degenerate spin networks asymptotically describe the contribution of fully degenerate points, since we have not proved that the limit

$$\underset{\lambda \mathrm{}}{lim}_{\lambda U}\underset{eE}{}K_{a_e}^D(|y_{s(e)}y_{t(e)}|)\underset{vV^{}}{}\frac{dy_v}{2\pi ^2}$$

exists. The ambitious mathematician could also try to prove more general versions of our conjectures, in which all the areas $`a_e`$ approach infinity, but not in fixed proportion to one another.

For the physicist, however, a more pressing question is: *what do these results imply for the physics of the Barrett–Crane model?* On the one hand, it is unsettling that the simple asymptotic behavior of the Ponzano–Regge model is not found here. The way degenerate geometries govern the asymptotics of the $`10j`$ symbols raises the possibility that in the limit of large spins, the Barrett–Crane model reduces to a theory of degenerate metrics. However, it is important to bear in mind that the physics of the Barrett–Crane model may not be controlled by the large-spin behavior of the $`10j`$ symbols — though certainly this affects the convergence of the partition function . Indeed, there are still major open questions about the right way to extract physics from spin foam models, and we hope that our work spurs on research on this subject.

### Note Added in Proof

After we submitted this article for publication, preprints of two forthcoming papers appeared, one by John Barrett and Chris Steele  and another by Laurent Freidel and David Louapre , both of which deal with the asymptotics of $`10j`$ symbols by somewhat different methods than our own, and both of which obtain results in agreement with our conjectures.

### Acknowledgements

We thank John Barrett and Chris Steele for helpful conversations, and note that we corrected two errors in an earlier draft of this paper (an excess factor of 2 in equation (15) and a false conjecture about stationary phase points in Lorentzian spin network evaluations) after reading a preprint of their forthcoming paper on the asymptotics of $`10j`$ symbols.

We also thank SHARCNet for providing the supercomputer at the University of Western Ontario on which we did some of our computations.


format: text

text:
# The rare decays of 𝐷 mesons

## Abstract

The flavor changing transitions in the $`cu\gamma `$, $`cu\gamma \gamma `$ and $`cul^+l^{}`$ offer the possibility to search for new physics in the charm sector. We investigate dominant decay mechanisms in the radiative decays $`DV\gamma `$, $`DP(V)l^+l^{}`$, $`D\gamma \gamma `$ and we discuss chances to see physics beyond the standard model in these decays. In addition, we analyze Cabibbo allowed $`DK\pi \gamma `$ decays with nonresonant $`K\pi `$, and we probe the role of light vector mesons in these decays.

The search for physics beyond the standard model has been focused on the down-like quark sector, while the up-like quark sector has been less researched. The rare $`D`$ decays offer an opportunity to investigate the FCNC effects in the charm sector. To date, no radiative or dilepton weak decay of $`D`$ has been detected. Only upper bounds have been established so far for a sizable number of the radiative or dilepton weak decay of $`D`$ mesons. The radiative decays $`D^0\rho ^0,`$ $`\omega ^0,`$ $`\varphi ,`$ $`\overline{K}^0`$ $`+\gamma `$ were recently bounded  to branching ratios in the $`10^4`$ range, which is approaching the standard model expectations (see, e.g.  where additional previous works are listed). The dilepton decays $`DPl^+l^{}`$, $`DVl^+l^{}`$ are the subject of intensive searches at CLEO and Fermilab  \- . Here again, with upper bounds of $`10^5`$ for branching ratios of the various modes one approaches the expectations of the standard model . The situation should improve in the future, due to new possibilities for observation of charm meson decays at BELLE, BABAR and Tevatron. Recently, upper limits in the $`10^510^4`$ range were established  also for $`D^0`$ dilepton decays with two nonresonant pseudoscalar mesons in the final state $`D^0(\pi ^+\pi ^{},K^{}\pi ^+,K^+K^{})`$ $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, though no comparable results are available yet for similar photonic decays.

The inclusive $`cu\gamma `$ transition is strongly GIM suppressed at one loop electroweak order giving the branching ratio of the order $`10^{18}`$. In our approach we include the $`cu\gamma `$ short distance contribution by using the Lagrangian

$$=AC_{7\gamma }^{\text{eff}}\frac{e}{4\pi ^2}F_{\mu \nu }\left[\overline{u}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}(1+\gamma _5)c\right],$$
(1)
where $`m_c`$ is a charm quark mass and $`A=(G_F/\sqrt{2})V_{us}V_{cs}^{}`$. We follow  and we take $`C_{7\gamma }^{\text{eff}}=(0.7+2i)\times 10^2`$. The branching ratio induced by this QCD corrected effective Lagrangian is $`\mathrm{BR}(cu\gamma )3\times 10^8`$. A variety of models beyond the standard model were investigated and it was found that the gluino exchange diagrams  within general MSSM give the largest enhancement

$$\frac{\mathrm{BR}(cu\gamma )_{\text{MSSM}}}{\mathrm{BR}(cu\gamma )_{\text{SM}}}10^2.$$
(2)
Unfortunately, the long distance physics screens such effects since it usually dominates the decay amplitude . The long distance contribution is induced by the effective nonleptonic $`|\mathrm{\Delta }c|=1`$ weak Lagrangian

$`=`$ $`A_{ij}[a_1\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)q_i\overline{q}_j\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)c`$
$`+a_2\overline{q}_j\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)q_i\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)c],`$ (3)
with $`A_{ij}=(G_F/\sqrt{2})V_{cq_j}^{}V_{uq_i}`$, accompanied by the emission of the virtual photon. Here $`q_{i,j}`$ denote the $`d`$ or $`s`$ quark fields. The effective Wilson coefficients are $`a_1=1.2`$ and $`a_2=0.5`$ . In our calculations of the long distance effects we use  the theoretical framework of heavy meson chiral Lagrangian . In the treatment of the $`D`$ mesons rare decays we use the factorization approximation for the calculation of weak transition elements. We consider the use of this approach to be justified by the ”near” success of the approach for the nonleptonic amplitudes. In Table 1 we present the branching ratios of $`DV\gamma `$ decays . The uncertainty is due to relative unknown phases of various contributions.

Although the branching ratios are dominated by the long distance contributions, the size of the short distance contribution can be obtained from the difference of the decay widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(D^0\rho ^0\gamma )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(D^0\omega \gamma )`$ . Namely, the long distance mechanism $`c\overline{u}d\overline{d}\gamma `$ overshadows the $`c\overline{u}u\overline{u}\gamma `$ transition in $`D^0\rho ^0\gamma `$ and $`D^0\omega \gamma `$, the $`\rho ^0`$ and $`\omega `$ mesons being mixture of $`u\overline{u}`$ and $`d\overline{d}`$. However, the LD contributions are mostly canceled in the ratio

$`R`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{BR}(D^0\rho ^0\gamma )\mathrm{BR}(D^0\omega \gamma )}{\mathrm{BR}(D^0\omega \gamma )}}`$
$`\mathrm{Re}{\displaystyle \frac{A(D^0u\overline{u}\gamma )}{A(D^0d\overline{d}\gamma )}},`$ (4)
which is proportional to the SD amplitude $`A(D^0u\overline{u}\gamma )`$ driven by $`cu\gamma `$. The ratio $`R`$ is $`6\pm 15\%`$ in the standard model , and can be enhanced up to $`𝒪(1)`$ in the MSSM. In addition to the $`cu\gamma `$ searches in the charm meson decays, we have suggested to search for this transition in $`B_cB_u^{}\gamma `$ decay , where the long distance contribution is much smaller.

The $`cul^+l^{}`$ amplitude is given by the $`\gamma `$ and $`Z`$ penguin diagrams and $`W`$ box diagram at one-loop electroweak order in the standard model, and is dominated by the light quark contributions in the loop. In Table 2 we give the $`cul^+l^{}`$ branching ratios calculated in the standard model and MSSM .

The amplitudes for exclusive decays $`DVl^+l^{}`$ and $`DPl^+l^{}`$ are dominated by the long distance contributions. The branching ratios for these decays, as obtained in , are given in Tables 3 and 4. In these Tables the first column represents the SD contributions, while in the second column the rates coming from the LD contributions are given. The rates for $`DVe^+e^{}`$ are comparable to those in Table 3 and can be found in .

There is a significant improvement of the experimental upper bounds for $`DPl^+l^{}`$ decay rates, as recently obtained by FOCUS , with new upper bounds of $`10^5`$ or less, close to the theoretical predictions . The allowed kinematic region for the dilepton mass $`m_{ll}`$ in the $`DPl^+l^{}`$ decay is $`m_{ll}=[2m_l,m_Dm_P]`$. The long distance contribution has resonant shape with poles at $`m_{ll}=m_{\rho ^0},m_\omega ,m_\varphi `$ . There is no pole at $`m_{ll}=0`$ since the decay $`DP\gamma `$ is forbidden. The short distance contribution is rather flat. The spectra of $`DPe^+e^{}`$ and $`DP\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ decays in terms of $`m_{ll}`$ are practically identical. The difference in their rates due to the kinematic region $`m_{ll}=[2m_e,2m_\mu ]`$ is small and we do not consider them separately.

The differential distribution for $`D^{+,0}\pi ^{+0}l^+l^{}`$  indicates that the high mass dilepton region might give an opportunity for detecting $`cul^+l^{}`$. Before making a definite statement on such possibility, we should examine this kinematical region of high dilepton mass in $`D\pi l^+l^{}`$ decays more closely. For instance, in this region the excited states of the vector mesons $`\rho `$, $`\omega `$ and $`\varphi `$ may become important. Even with the presence of these states we found that the only viable channel for investigating the $`cul^+l^{}`$ transition is $`D\pi l^+l^{}`$, in the kinematic region of the dilepton invariant mass $`m_{ll}`$ above the resonance $`\varphi `$, where the long distance contribution is reduced. The kinematics of the processes $`DVl^+l^{}`$ would be more favorable to probe the possible supersymmetric enhancement at small $`m_{ll}`$, but the long distance contributions in these channels are even more disturbing .

Motivated by the experimental efforts to observe rare D meson decays , and noticing that $`B_s\gamma \gamma `$ offers possibility to observe physics beyond the SM, we undertook an investigation of the $`D^0\gamma \gamma `$ decay . The short distance contribution is expected to be rather small, as already encountered in the one photon decays , hence the main contribution would come from long distance interactions. The total amplitude is dominated by terms proportional to $`a_1`$ that contribute only through loops with Goldstone bosons. Loop contributions proportional to $`a_2`$ vanish at this order. We remark that the contribution of the order $`𝒪(p)`$ does not exist in the $`D^0\gamma \gamma `$ decay, and the amplitude starts with contribution of the order $`𝒪(p^3)`$. The chiral loops of order $`𝒪(p^3)`$ are finite, as they are in the similar case of $`K\gamma \gamma `$ decays. At this order the amplitude receives also an annihilation type contribution proportional to the $`a_2`$ Wilson coefficient, given by the Wess-Zumino anomalous term coupling light pseudoscalars to two photons. Terms which contain the anomalous electromagnetic coupling of the heavy quark Lagrangian are suppressed compared to the leading loop effects . The invariant amplitude for $`D^0\gamma \gamma `$ decay can be written using gauge and Lorentz invariance in the following form,

$`M=[i`$ $`M^{()}\left(g^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{k_2^\mu k_1^\nu }{k_1k_2}}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`M^{(+)}ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }k_{1\alpha }k_{2\beta }]ϵ_{1\mu }ϵ_{2\nu },`$ (5)
where $`M^{()}`$ is a parity violating and $`M^{(+)}`$ a parity conserving part of the amplitude, while $`k_{1(2)}`$, $`ϵ_{1(2)}`$ are respectively the four momenta and the polarization vectors of the outgoing photons. We give in Table 5 the numerical results for the amplitudes originating from the different contributions.

Within this framework, the leading contributions are found to arise from the charged $`\pi `$ and $`K`$ mesons running in the chiral loops and our calculation predicts that the $`D2\gamma `$ decay is mostly a parity violating transition . We estimate that the total uncertainty is not larger than 50% , including possible effects from light resonances like $`\rho `$, $`K^{}`$, $`a_0(980)`$, $`f_0(975)`$. Accordingly, we conclude that the predicted branching ratio is

$$\mathrm{BR}(D^0\gamma \gamma )=(1.0\pm 0.5)\times 10^8.$$
(6)
We look forward to experimental attempts of detecting this decay. Our result suggests that the observation of $`D2\gamma `$ at a rate which is an order of magnitude larger than (6), could be a signal for the type of ”new physics” .

In addition to the $`D`$ meson rare decays in which the FCNC transitions might occur, we undertook a study of the Cabibbo allowed radiative decays $`D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+\gamma `$ and $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\gamma `$ with nonresonant $`K`$ $`\pi `$, which we consider to be the most likely candidates for early detection. Here we used the heavy quark chiral Lagrangian supplemented by light vector mesons, as the theoretical framework.

These decays are the charm sector counterpart of the $`K\pi \pi \gamma `$ decays, which have provided a wealth of information on meson dynamics. Using the factorization approximation for the calculation of weak transition elements we use the information obtained from semileptonic decays . The nonleptonic $`DK\pi `$ amplitude cannot be calculated accurately in the factorization approximation from the diagrams provided by our model. Such a calculation gives a rather good result for the $`D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+`$ channel but is less successful for the $`D^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ decay. In order to overcome this deficiency and to be able to present accurately the bremsstrahlung component of the radiative transition, we shall use an alternative approach for its derivation. It means, we take the experimental values for the $`DK\pi `$ amplitudes, in the calculation of the bremsstrahlung component. In order to accommodate this, we write the decay amplitude as

$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_f}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{cs}V_{du}^{}\{F_0[{\displaystyle \frac{q\epsilon }{qk}}{\displaystyle \frac{p\epsilon }{pk}}]`$
$`+F_1[(q\epsilon )(pk)(p\epsilon )(qk)]`$
$`+F_2\epsilon ^{\mu \alpha \beta \gamma }\epsilon _\mu v_\alpha k_\beta q_\gamma \},`$ (7)
where $`F_0`$ is the experimentally determined $`DK\pi `$ amplitude and $`F_1`$, $`F_2`$ are the form factors of the electric and magnetic direct transitions which we calculate with our model. When intermediate states appear to be on the mass shell, we use Breit Wigner formula. Thus, we get for the branching ratios of the electric transitions including bremsstrahlung, with $`|F_0|`$ determined experimentally and taking the photon energy cut $`E_c100`$MeV

$`\mathrm{BR}(D^+`$ $`\overline{K}^0\pi ^+\gamma )_{\text{PV,ex}}^{E_c}`$
$`=(2.32.5)\times 10^4.`$ (8)
For the $`D^0`$ radiative decay we get

$`\mathrm{BR}(D^0`$ $`K^{}\pi ^+\gamma )_{\text{PV,ex}}^{E_c}`$
$`=(4.36.0)\times 10^4.`$ (9)
The uncertainty in the $`F_0/F_1`$ phase is less of a problem in $`D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+\gamma `$ than in $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\gamma `$. If we take the bremsstrahlung amplitude alone as determined from the knowledge of $`|F_0|`$, disregarding the direct electric $`F_1`$ term, the above numbers are replaced by $`2.3\times 10^4`$ for $`D^+`$ decay and $`5.5\times 10^4`$ for the $`D^0`$ decay. The contribution of the direct parity violating term (putting $`F_0=0`$), is $`\text{BR}(D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+\gamma )_{\text{dir,PV}}=1.0\times 10^5`$ and $`\text{BR}(D^0K^{}\pi ^+\gamma )_{\text{dir,PV}}=1.64\times 10^4`$. For the parity conserving direct magnetic transition we get

$`\mathrm{BR}(D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+\gamma )_{\text{PC}}=2.0\times 10^5,`$ (10)
$`\mathrm{BR}(D^0K^{}\pi ^+\gamma )_{\text{PC}}=1.4\times 10^4.`$ (11)
Hence, the two direct transitions are predicted to be of about the same strength.

If we disregard the contribution of vector mesons to the direct part of the radiative decays, the parity-conserving part of the amplitude is considerably decreased, by one order of magnitude in the rate in $`D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+\gamma `$ decay and by two orders of magnitude in $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\gamma `$. On the other hand, their contribution is not felt in a significant way in the parity - violating part of the amplitudes. In any case, the detection of the direct part of these decays at the predicted rates, will constitute a proof of the important role of the light vector mesons.

We conclude by expressing the hope that the interesting features which these decays provide and were analyzed in , will bring to an experimental search in the near future.


text:
# A study of the electronic properties of liquid alkali metals. A self–consistent approach.

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The introduction of the diffraction model  together with the development of the pseudopotential concept, marked the beginning of extensive calculations of structural and electronic properties of liquid metals . Based on this concept one can justify the use of simple second–order perturbation theory for weak scattering systems like the alkalis. The most used expression in this Nearly–Free Electron (NFE) model is the well–known Ziman formula for the resistivity. Two key ingredients appear in it, namely the static structure factor $`S(q)`$ and the screened pseudopotential $`w(q)`$. These two quantities are not independent, since the pseudopotential determines the forces between the ions, which ultimately determine the structure of the liquid. Therefore $`S(q)`$ should be obtained from $`w(q)`$ and the result used in the evaluation of the electronic properties, and from the new electronic density one should again derive a new pseudopotential. This is what we call a self–consistent calculation of the electronic properties of a liquid metal.

Most of the calculations up to date are, with the exception of ab–initio Molecular Dynamics simulations, not self–consistent, i.e. for $`S(q)`$ one takes either one from an analysis of the experimental structure factor data, or one obtained from a model for the interatomic interactions, like hard spheres, with parameters fitted to experimental data. This model is then used as input either in an approximate scheme to solve the Ornstein–Zernike equations like the Percus–Yevick or (Modified) HyperNetted Chain, or in a liquid structure computer simulation. Then a pseudopotential is chosen and the electronic properties, for example the electronic density of states (EDOS), are calculated. There have been some attempts to study the properties in a self–consistent way in a more restricted sense, that is, using the same pseudopotential for the structure factor, thermodynamic properties and conductivity. However up to the present day such a scheme has failed: it leads to disagreement with either the electronic properties, or with the atomic properties.

There are at least two important exceptions in the previous works, which do make the calculations within the spirit of self–consistency. One is the work of Jank and Hafner , where molecular dynamics are performed with effective pair potentials derived from a given pseudopotential, and then some ionic configuration is selected to perform a Linearized–Muffin–Tin-Orbitals electronic calculation.

The other calculations, which are self–consistent, are the modern ab–initio molecular dynamics (AIMD) simulations. Using this method, we are only aware, in the case of alkali metals, of EDOS and conductivity calculations for Na and Rb at several temperatures .

In this work, we propose a completely different method, which does not rely on simulations, to obtain within a self–consistent scheme, the ionic structure and electronic properties of the liquid metal. Moreover, the theory for the calculations of the electronic properties which is the second–order Renormalized Propagator Perturbation Expansion (RPE) , satisfies the so–called Generalized Optical Theorem (GOT), which provides a second level of self–consistency in the theory, namely between the EDOS on the one hand and the conductivity on the other hand. This method is much faster and much less demanding than AIMD simulations, but, as we will show below, achieves the same level of agreement with experiment for weak scattering systems, like the alkali metals, when pseudopotentials of similar quality are used.

A similar RPE–type scheme to calculate the electronic structure has been applied before but only in a non self–consistent way (see for a discussion ): the integral equation for the self energy was approximated by neglecting the self energy in the right hand side of eq. 2.3 below.

The bare pseudopotentials used in this work were constructed from first principles using the Neutral PseudoAtom (NPA) method: one solves a system of one alkali atom immersed in an electron jellium in the Local Density Approximation (LDA). Linear Response Theory (LRT) was then applied to obtain the screened pseudopotential $`w(q)`$ on the one hand and the effective pair potential on the other hand; for details see . The structure factor $`S(q)`$ was obtained from the pair potential using the Modified HyperNetted Chain (MHNC) theory of liquids. This combination has already been applied successfully to the study of the static and dynamic structure factors of the liquid alkalis as well as the Na–K and Li–Na liquid alloys , the systems studied in this paper.

## 2 THEORY

We give here the essentials of the theory, further details can be found in . Atomic units with $`2m=1`$, $`\mathrm{}=1`$, $`e^2=1`$ are used throughout.

We consider a system of $`N`$ ions with their corresponding valence electrons in a volume $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Each valence electron moves in a self–consistent potential due to the ion cores and the other valence electrons. Therefore, we can write the single–particle Hamiltonian as: $`=_0+𝒱`$, where $`_0`$ is the kinetic energy operator and $`𝒱(𝐫)=_iw(|𝐫𝐑_i|)`$ is an effective one–electron potential which is taken to be the sum of spherically symmetric screened local pseudopotentials centered on each ion. The central quantity in this study is the one-electron Green function, $`G(𝐤,E)`$. The EDOS per atom, unit energy and unit volume is given by

$$n(E)=\frac{1}{\pi }\frac{d𝐤}{(2\pi )^3}\mathrm{Im}G(𝐤,E)$$
(2.1)
Moreover in terms of the so–called self–energy, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤,E)`$, the Green function can also be expressed as

$$G(𝐤,E)=(Ek^2\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤,E))^1$$
(2.2)
Within the second–order RPE , the self–energy is approximated by

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤,E)=\rho \frac{d𝐤^{}}{(2\pi )^3}w^2(|𝐤𝐤^{}|)S(|𝐤𝐤^{}|)G(𝐤^{},E),$$
(2.3)
where a constant term $`\rho w(q=0)`$ has been dropped using it as the energy origin, and $`\rho `$ denotes the atomic number density. This expression for the self energy is easily extended to liquid alloys by the substitution of $`w^2(q)S(q)`$ by $`_{i,j}(x_ix_j)^{1/2}w_i(q)w_j(q)S_{ij}(q)`$, where $`x_i`$ and stands for the concentration and $`w_i(q)`$ for the screened pseudopotential of the $`i`$th–component, whereas $`S_{ij}(q)`$ are the Ashcroft–Langreth partial static structure factors.

Substituting the relation (2.2) into (2.3), an integral equation is obtained for the self–energy, which is solved for each energy, obtaining $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤,E)`$, $`G(𝐤,E)`$, and $`n(E)`$ for that energy from equation (2.1).

The static electrical conductivity is given by the Kubo–Greenwood equation

$$\sigma =𝑑E(f_{FD}(E)/E)\sigma (E)$$
(2.4)
where $`f_{FD}(E)`$ is the Fermi–Dirac distribution function and $`\sigma (E)`$ is the contribution of the electrons of energy $`E`$ to the conductivity, which is given by

$$\sigma (E)=\frac{8}{3\pi }\frac{d𝐤}{(2\pi )^3}\left(K(𝐤,E)\frac{1}{2}𝐤\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤\mathrm{Re}G(𝐤,E)\right),$$
(2.5)
where $`K(𝐤,E)`$ obeys the following integral equation

$$\frac{K(𝐤,E)}{\left|G(𝐤,E)\right|^2}=k^2+\frac{d𝐤^{}}{(2\pi )^3}\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐤,𝐤^{},E)\frac{𝐤\dot{𝐤}^{}}{k^{}^2}K(𝐤^{},E)$$
(2.6)
The vertex function, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐤,𝐤^{},E)`$, has still to be specified. A self–consistent calculation of the EDOS and the conductivity requires the self–energy and the vertex function to be related by the generalized optical theorem (GOT)

$$\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤,E)=\frac{d𝐤^{}}{(2\pi )^3}\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐤,𝐤^{},E)\mathrm{Im}G(𝐤^{},E)$$
(2.7)
We have chosen

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐤,𝐤^{},E)=\rho w^2(|𝐤𝐤^{}|)S(|𝐤𝐤^{}|)$$
(2.8)
which clearly satisfies the GOT when the second–order RPE expansion is made for the self–energy 2.3.

Finally, once $`\sigma (E)`$ has been obtained, the thermopower, $`S`$, can be calculated as a function of energy from the Mott relation

$$S=\frac{\pi ^2k_B^2T}{3|e|}\frac{d\mathrm{log}\sigma (E)}{dE}$$
(2.9)
## 3 NUMERICAL DETAILS

For the calculation of the self energy we used a linear mesh of about 400 points with a cut–off of the pseudopotential at $`4k_F`$. Results of the various electronic properties are well converged because a twice as high cut–off does give results which differ only by about .1 %. That such a cut–off is sufficient also follows from the observation that the second contribution to the conductivity is nearly independent of the energy.

The rather singular integrand appearing in the expressions for the self energy and the conductivity was calculated using a rational expansion up to second order in $`q`$ in each interval of the $`q`$–mesh, and were evaluated analytically. Checks using various integration schemes showed that this scheme gives a very reliable approximation of these $`q`$ integrals, with an estimated error of .1 % or less.

The iteration was started from the bottom of the band. Convergence of the self energy was obtained within 10 iterations – irrespective of its initialization. No mixing scheme was used. The convergence of the integral equation for the conductivity was rather slow near the bottom of the band, requiring some 20 to 50 iterations. For the DOS as a function of the energy from the bottom of the band to about $`2E_F`$ we used about 50 to 100 energy points. The solution of the integral equation for the conductivity showed oscillations as a function of energy when the $`q`$–mesh is taken too coarse.

## 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.

The preceding formalism has been applied to liquid alkali metals at thermodynamic conditions near the melting point as well as to liquid Li–Na and Na–K alloys at the temperatures $`T=725`$ K and $`T=373`$ K respectively. Calculations were also performed for the thermodynamic states considered by Silvestrelli et al  for liquid Na and Shimojo et al for liquid Rb .

The results obtained for the EDOS of the liquid alkalis, and liquid Li–Na and Na–K alloys are shown in figure 1. First, we note that the present results are, in general, very similar to those derived from the free electron model and only for Rb and Cs we see some structure appearing in the EDOS. The bottom of the band is only slightly shifted below the free–electron band; this shift increases on alloying from about 0.003 Ry. for the pure elements to 0.02 Ry for the alloys. We checked the validity of these results of the RPE by comparing it with results of the Quasi–Crystalline approximation (QCA)  and found only small changes in the total EDOS with respect to the RPE results.

The valence bands of the alkalis have been investigated by Indlekofer and Oelhafen  using various UPS excitation energies. There are two important characteristics observed in these valence band spectra: (i) the widths of the valence bands, i.e. the energy difference between the Fermi level and the bottom of the valence band, are narrower than the widths expected from free–electron behaviour, by some 15 to 25 %, and (ii) the spectra show a triangular shape, except for Li where it is parabolic. The same narrowing is observed in the crystalline state of alkalis , and has been attributed to electron correlation effects not taken into account in the Local Density Approximation .

The triangular shape has been shown to be consistent with a free electron EDOS, and is explained by the difference in cross sections of the valence electrons with different angular momentum for excitations in the UPS regime . In the RPE these different angular moment components are not available.

Although the present scheme is not able to account for the bandwidth reduction of the EDOS, it must be remarked that this is also the case with the AIMD simulations reported for liquid Na  and Rb . In both cases, the valence bands show an almost parabolic shape and a width similar to the free–electron model.

The electrical conductivity is calculated by solving the integral equation 2.6 for $`K(𝐤,E)`$ and using the vertex defined in 2.8. The electrical conductivity as a function of energy behaves in a similar way for all the systems studied. It is small near the bottom of the band, and then it increases to a broad maximum around the Fermi level, and then it decreases. The Fermi level is in all cases located before the maximum in $`\sigma (E)`$, so according to relation 2.9 leading always to a negative thermopower (see table 1). The sign of the thermopower agrees with the experimental values except for Li and Cs.

In table 1 we present the resistivity we calculated in the present RPE scheme together with those predicted by Ziman’s formula using the same structure factor and pseudopotential. The values of the latter approach are in most cases somewhat smaller than the RPE. The comparison with experimental data reveals discrepancies for Li and Cs, however, the discrepancies are smaller in the case of alloys.

In the case of Na at different temperatures we find that, although the structure factor is well reproduced, the values obtained for the conductivity are always smaller than the experimental ones, the discrepancy with experiment becoming smaller as the temperature increases. The same behaviour for the resistivity is obtained by Silvestrelli et al  in their AIMD studies for Na; moreover, the discrepancy with experiment is in their AIMD calculation larger for lower temperatures than in the RPE. They used the Topp–Hopfield pseudopotential for Na, which reproduced correctly the structure factor in all thermodynamic states. Moreover they performed computations with norm–conserving non-local pseudopotentials, even including core corrections, but no improvement was obtained for the conductivity values, compared with experiment.

For Rb, the AIMD of Shimojo et al , using a norm–conserving non–local Troullier–Martins pseudopotential, obtained conductivities which are much smaller than the experimental ones, whereas our calculations agree very well with experiment. It is also interesting to note that the structure factor was correctly reproduced both in the AIMD and in our calculations.

We also performed calculations for the atomic and electronic properties using the Fiolhais–Perdew pseudopotential , but did not obtain improved agreement with experiment.

## 5 CONCLUSIONS.

The above comparisons show that when suitable pseudopotentials are used, the combination of LRT, MHNC and RPE produces self–consistent results for the atomic and electronic properties of liquid alkali metals, which agree with modern state of the art AIMD methods, at least for alkalis for which results using both these methods are available. The agreement of our atomic structure factors with experiment is excellent. The agreement between theoretical and experimental electronic properties is less satisfactory. For Li and Cs, we find large discrepancies with experimental data for the resistivity and for thermopower of Li and Cs for we do not even find the right sign. No thermopower data are available from these AIMD simulations.

In our calculations we have found that for the pure alkali metals, the deviation of the EDOS from the free electron parabola is rather small, and it increases somewhat on alloying. The resistivity and thermopower agree reasonably well with experiment for Na, K, Rb and Na–K but is less satisfactory for Li and Cs, and as a consequence for the liquid Li–Na alloys in the Li–rich composition regime. It is known that the pseudopotential of Li and Cs has rather large non–local components, for Li because $`p`$ states are missing in the core, and for Cs because $`d`$ states are present near the Fermi level. Such non–local components of the pseudopotential do not seem to contribute much to the atomic structure, but could be of importance for the electronic properties. However, the use of a non–local pseudopotential by Shimojo  does not improve the AIMD result for the conductivity for Rb when compared with experiment. Note that for Rb we find good agreement with experiment. Such non–local components could alter the position of the maximum in $`\sigma `$ as a function of energy. Introducing relative stronger electron–ion scattering below the Fermi level, which would give a minimum in $`\sigma (E)`$, thus also changing the sign of the thermopower.

The larger bandwidth calculated for the EDOS compared with experiment has been attributed to electron correlations not taken into account in the LDA approximation. In our scheme we take these electron–electron interactions into account implicitly in the screened pseudopotential. To take these electron–electron interactions into account in a more explicit way would require the introduction of a self–energy in the r.h.s. of equation 2.3, and using the bare electron–ion potential: in terms of diagrams it means that instead of summing part of the electron–electron interactions in a screened electron–ion potential, one collects them in a medium propagator, which describes the motion of electrons including the electron–electron interactions between two scattering events on bare electron–ion potentials. This electron self–energy can be approximated for these NFE systems in the Random Phase Approximation (see ). The consequence of such a scheme for the conductivity is not an increase of the effective electron–ion scattering, but could result in a slight change of the EDOS at the Fermi level. Most of the changes in the EDOS should occur below the Fermi level. The EDOS at the Fermi level of Na is nearly given by the NFE model.

The discrepancy of the electronic transport properties with experimental results we attribute to the construction of the pseudopotential, and not to basic problems in our theory which should be valid for these weak scattering systems, as also follows from the comparison of our results for the resistivity and those obtained from the Ziman equation: we find only small corrections to the Ziman results.

The success of both the present approach and the AIMD in reproducing the experimental electronic properties appears to depend very much on the subtle details of the pseudopotential. The atomic structure and electronic structure and transport properties are determined by different parts of the pseudopotential. Electrons penetrate more into the core region and are also more sensitive to angular non–local components. So changes in these contributions not necessarily will affect the atomic structure.

The conclusion is that there exists accurate theoretical tools that can in principle give reliable self–consistent results for both the atomic and electronic properties of liquid (alkali) metals provided adequate pseudopotentials are used. However, considering the results of the present calculations, we conclude that most of the pseudopotentials proposed up to now for alkali metals, although good enough to describe the static and dynamic atomic structure, are not accurate enough to give good agreement also with the experimental electronic properties. Even for Na, which has always been considered as the simplest metal to describe.

In contrast to the pseudopotentials used in AIMD simulations our pseudopotentials are adjusted to the electron density in the liquid metal. We attribute the failure of our pseudopotentials to describe the EDOS to the linear screening approximation. Further checks are currently being undertaken. Preliminary results for a pseudopotential based on the electronic density show better agreement with experiment for the electronic properties, while preserving the good agreement of the atomic properties with experiment. We attribute the discrepancy between experiment and theory in case of the electronic transport properties to so–called nonlocal contributions to the pseudopotential, which in case of Li and Cs can be rather large.

We have shown that fully self–consistent ab–initio calculations, with as only input the chosen pseudopotential, using integral equation approximations for the static and dynamic atomic structure as well as for the electronic properties give results of the same reliability as AIMD simulations, under the condition that the electron–ion pseudopotential has been constructed well. The advantage of the present method is that it is much faster than the AIMD simulations and only requires minimal computational resources, and so the study of possible improvements in the construction of the pseudopotential taking into account non–local components and implementation of a scheme bare electron–ion potentials together with the electron–electron self energy can in principle easily be implemented and studied.

## Acknowledgments.

Work supported by the DGES (Grant PB95–0720–C0201), Junta de Castilla y Leon (Grant VA63/96) and the European Community TMR contract ERBFMBICT–950218 and from, and a grant from CNPq (300928/97–0) during the final stages of this work.

##