format: text

text:
# Space-Based Gravity Detector for a Space Laboratory

## 1 Introduction

The problem of the registration of gravitational waves and investigation of their properties is too difficult to suppose that realization of the projects like LIGO will immediately solve all problems. When the detectors with high sensitivity will begin operate, the problems of identification of the signals will then appear. Under the surcumstances the using of other types of the detectors would be very useful. One of them is considered in this paper ( See also , )

## 2  A Peculiarity of Magnetically Interacting Superconducting Solenoids

The detector is based on the a peculiarity of magnetically interacting superconducting solenoids that was discovered theoretically by a group of Ukrainian engineers .

Consider a pair of the superconducting solenoids $`A`$ and $`B`$ in line (Fig. 1) in the weightless state . If the solenoids carry the persistent currents $`I_1`$ and $`I_2`$ , it can be shown that the complete energy of the system is given by

$$U=(L_2Q_1^22MQ_1Q_2L_1Q_2^2)/2D.$$
(1)
where $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ are the solenoids inductances , $`M`$ is the mutual inductance of the solenoids that is the function of the distance $`x`$ between the solenoids centers, $`D=L_1L_2M^2,`$ $`Q_1`$and $`Q_2`$ are the constant fluxes in the solenoids.

The solenoids are attracted by the Ampere force $`F=W/x`$ affecting the solenoids.

The peculiarity of this interaction is that at the condition $`Q_1<<Q_2`$ the Ampere force change its sign at some distance $`x=x_0`$ between the solenoids, and the function $`W(x)`$ has the minimum . At this position the solenoids in the weightless state are in a week stable equilibrium condition.

A typical dependence of the force $`F`$ of the distance $`x`$ (in CGS units) is given in Fig. 2 . The parameters of the solenoids are : the inductances are $`1.15Hn.`$ , the lengths are $`5cm.`$, the radiuses are $`5cm.`$, $`Q_1=1.15Wb`$ , $`Q_2=Q_1/100`$ .

Our experimental investigations confirm this result .

## 3  The Magnetically Coupled Solenoids as a Detector of Tidal Accelerations

Consider the properties of the system, formed by a pair of superconducting solenoids in weightless state, in the field of a gravitational wave with the frequency $`\nu `$ extending during the time interval $`t_0`$ perpendicularly to $`AB`$ \- direction. This system is a nonlinear oscillator, the small oscillations of which in $`AB`$ \- direction are described by the differential equation

$$m\ddot{q}+R(\dot{q})+pq=f(t).$$
(2)
In eq.(2) $`q=xx_0`$ is a small deviation from the equilibrium position , $`\dot{q}=q/t`$ , $`\ddot{q}=\dot{q}/t`$ , $`R(\dot{q})`$ is the air resistance, $`p=U^{\prime \prime }(x_0)`$ is the stiffness of the ”magnetic spring”, $`f(t)=ma_g\mathrm{sin}(\omega t)`$ at $`0<t<t_0`$ and $`f(t)=0`$ at $`t>t_0`$ , $`m`$ is the mass of the system , $`\omega =2\pi \nu `$ and $`a_g=\omega ^2hx_0/2`$ is the amplitude of the tidal acceleration, caused by the gravitational wave.

If 1-type superconductors are used in the solenoids, the air resistance $`R(\dot{q})`$ is the key cause of the oscillations damping in the given system. .For an ideal gas the function $`R(\dot{q})=b\dot{q}|\dot{q}|`$, where $`b`$ , is a constant .

The typical sizes are: $`R=510cm`$ ,$`x=3040cm`$ , The proper frequency is less than $`1Hz`$ and can reach $`10^4Hz.`$

Fig. 4 shows the response $`q(t)`$ (in CGS units system) of the detector to the gravitational wave with the dimenssionless amplitude $`h=10^{20}`$ that shows Fig. 3.

## 4 Noises

The detector under study is a nonlinear oscillator. Using the Chandasekhar results concerning a linear oscillator and the method of the statistic linearization for the function $`R(\dot{q})`$ we have found that the the root-mean-square magnitude of the thermal fluctuations is : $`<q^2>^{1/2}=\sigma _q`$ where

$$\sigma _q^2(t)=\frac{4b^2}{(2\pi )^{1/2}m\omega _0^2}\frac{kT}{m}t^2\left[1\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(2\omega _0t)}{2\omega _0^2t)^2}\right]$$
(3)
For example, if $`m=10^4gm`$ , $`\nu _0=0.01s`$, $`t=100s`$ , $`b=10^4gm/cm`$, then the root-mean-square magnitude of the thermal fluctuations is : $`<q^2>^{1/2}=10^{20}cm`$. Thus, in spite of the small mass the detector has a very low level of the thermal noise.

The inhomogeneity of the Earth and spacecraft gravitational fields leads to more serious problems. The tidal acceleration of the solenoids due to inhomogeneity of the Earh gravity field is much larger than the useful signal . This problem can be solved only by choosing a geostationary or a very distant from the Earth of the spacecraft orbit.However, it should be noted that just this fact allows to use the detector as an excellent gravity gradiometer for the investigation of the Earth gravity field .

It is necessary to take into account the fluctuations in the gravity gradient within the spacecraft , instability of the temperature of the solenoids, posibilty of a ”piezoeffect” in superconductors , , - and other measuremens noises. As a result, we estimate the minimal relative shift of the solenoids available for the measurements as the magnitude of the order of $`10^{18}cm`$ .

We mean that the solenoids $`A`$ and $`B`$ are inside a supeconducting shield.

Consider briefly the physical principles of the solenoids relative shift measurement caused by the gravitational-wave bursts. The idea is to measure the change in the proper magnetic flux of one of the solenoids by the SQUID attached to the solenoids. A superconducting quantum- interferometer device (SQUID) is attached to the solenoid and coupled to the other one inductively by a flux transformer . The results of the SQUID measurements are transmitted by radio by means of a conversion ”voltage - frequency” and by using an isotropic active antenna. Such a method of the solenoids shift measurement is insensitive to micrometeorite impacts and other forces affecting the spacecraft.

## 5 Conclusion

The detector under consideration is a very promising device for gravitational waves and other gravitational space-based experimental projects. (See also the paper ). It is a technically difficult project that needs further detail study.

## 6 References


text:
# References

Obtaining a New Representation for the Golden
Ratio by Solving a Biquadratic Equation
Leonardo Mondaini1,2
1Department of Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton AB, Canada
2Grupo de Física Teórica e Experimental, Departamento de Ciências Naturais,
Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro RJ, Brazil
Email: mondaini@ualberta.ca, mondaini@unirio.br

Abstract
In the present work we show how different ways to solve biquadratic equations can lead us to different representations of its solutions. A particular equation which has the golden ratio and its reciprocal as solutions is shown as an example.
Keywords
Golden Ratio; Algebraic Equations; Recreational Mathematics; History of Mathematics

1. Introduction

The study of algebraic equations has occupied the brightest mathematical minds throughout many centuries. We must highlight among the main results of the studies in this area, the attainment of the formula for resolution of the general quadratic equations which, along with the formula for resolution of the general cubic equations achieved by Niccolo Fontana (Tartaglia)111Usually the formula for resolution of the general cubic equation is attributed to Girolamo Cardano, and being thus it receives his name. A more detailed description about the dispute for the priority of this solution can be found in ., led to the creation of complex numbers, since the application of these formulas led to a “misterious” thing: the square root of a negative number. The solution of general quartic equations by Ludovico Ferrari (a pupil of Cardano) comes to complete this picture, once it was established that a solution by radicals for generic equations of degree equal to or greater than 5 cannot be achieved (a result proved for the first time by the prodigies Niels Abel and Evariste Galois). In the present work, which may be classified into the field of recreational mathematics and is devoted to stimulate the interest of readers with pre-university level mathematical background as a way of inspiring their further study on the subject, we will focus on an interesting aspect associated to a particular kind of quartic equation, namely, the biquadratic one.

The rest of this work is organized as follows. A particular equation which has the golden ratio and its reciprocal as solutions is presented in Section 2. In Sections 3 and 4, we solve this equation by using two different algorithms. Finally, in Section 5, we present our concluding remarks.

2. An interesting equation

We start by considering the following characteristic equation

$$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\mathrm{det}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{𝒜}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\lambda }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{,}$$
(1)
where $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{𝒜}`$ is a $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{4}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\times }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{4}`$ symmetric real matrix defined by

$$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{𝒜}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\left(}\begin{array}{cccc}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{0}& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{0}& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{0}\\ \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{0}& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{0}\\ \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{0}& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{0}& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}\\ \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{0}& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{0}& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{0}\end{array}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\right)}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{,}$$
(2)
and $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}`$ is the corresponding $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{4}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\times }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{4}`$ identity matrix. Notice that we can rewrite equation (1) in the following way

$$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\left|}\begin{array}{cccc}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\lambda }& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{0}& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{0}\\ \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\lambda }& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{0}\\ \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{0}& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\lambda }& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}\\ \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{0}& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{0}& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\lambda }\end{array}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\right|}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{,}$$
(3)
or

$$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\lambda }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{4}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{3}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\lambda }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{.}$$
(4)
This simple biquadratic equation displays an interesting feature. The form its solutions are expressed depends, apparently, on the algorithm used for solving it. Even more interesting is the fact that one of these algorithms yields the numbers $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\sqrt{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{5}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{/}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}`$ and $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\sqrt{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{5}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{/}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}`$ (as well as their respective symmetrical ones) as solutions, which are the most known representation of this ubiquitous mathematical phenomenon, namely, the golden ratio , and its reciprocal. This famous number appears historically as the solution of the quadratic equation

$$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{x}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{x}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{a}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{a}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{,}$$
(5)
which is related to the geometrical problem of dividing a given line segment $`\overline{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{A}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{B}}`$ into what is called the golden section, which the celebrated astronomer Johannes Kepler called “one of the two Jewels of Geometry” (the second one being the Pythagorean theorem). Translated into mathematical language, the golden section means that the segment $`\overline{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{A}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{B}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{a}`$ is cut at a point $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{C}`$ so that the whole segment is in the same ratio to the larger part $`\overline{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{A}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{C}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{x}`$ as $`\overline{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{A}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{C}}`$ is to the other part, $`\overline{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{C}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{B}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{a}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{x}`$. That is

$$\frac{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{a}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{x}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{=}\frac{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{x}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{a}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{x}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{;}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{x}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{>}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{a}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{x}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{.}$$
(6)
This, in turn, leads to the quadratic equation $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{x}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{x}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{a}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{a}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}`$ already mentioned, the positive root of which is $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{x}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{a}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\sqrt{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{5}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{/}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}`$. Notice that when $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{a}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}`$, the value $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{x}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\sqrt{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{5}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{/}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}`$ is the reciprocal of the golden ratio, i.e., 0.6180339…In the next sections we will apply two different algorithms in order to solve the equation (4).

3. First Algorithm

Firstly, we will solve equation (4) by using an algorithm very similar to the one originally employed by Ludovico Ferrari in his solution for the quartic equations (polynomial equations of the fourth degree)222The goal of Ferrari’s algorithm for solving the general quartic is to have perfect squares in both sides of the equation.. In order to do that, we start by observing that equation (4) can be also rewritten in the following way:

$$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\lambda }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{4}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{3}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\lambda }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\lambda }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{4}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\lambda }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\lambda }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{,}$$
(7)
or

$$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\lambda }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{4}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\lambda }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\lambda }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{.}$$
(8)
The left side of this equation, a perfect square, may be trivially simplified as

$$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\lambda }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\lambda }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{,}$$
(9)
which implies that

$$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\lambda }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\pm }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\lambda }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{,}$$
(10)
or

$$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\lambda }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\lambda }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{.}$$
(11)
When solving the above equations by using the well-known quadratic formula, we find that the solutions for the equation with $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\lambda }`$ are given by

$$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\lambda }_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\{}\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\sqrt{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{5}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}}\hfill & \\ \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\frac{\sqrt{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{5}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}}\hfill & \end{array}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{,}$$
(12)
whereas for the equation with $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\lambda }`$ (which is identical to equation (5) with $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{a}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}`$) we have the following solutions

$$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\lambda }_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\{}\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\sqrt{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{5}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}}\hfill & \\ \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\frac{\sqrt{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{5}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}}\hfill & \end{array}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{.}$$
(13)
Thus, the complete set of solutions of the original biquadratic equation is given by

$$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\lambda }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\{}\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\sqrt{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{5}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}}\hfill & \\ \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\frac{\sqrt{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{5}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}}\hfill & \\ \frac{\sqrt{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{5}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}}\hfill & \\ \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\frac{\sqrt{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{5}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}}\hfill & \end{array}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{,}$$
(14)
where we remind again the reader that $`\frac{\sqrt{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{5}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}}`$ is the usual representation for the golden ratio, and $`\frac{\sqrt{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{5}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}}`$ is its reciprocal.

4. Second Algorithm

The second algorithm follows the conventional method to solve biquadratic equations. In such method we start by considering the following change of variables

$$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\lambda }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}$$
(15)
which allows us to reduce the equation (4) to the form

$$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\eta }^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{3}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{.}$$
(16)
A direct application of the quadratic formula yields the solutions

$$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\eta }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\{}\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\sqrt{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{5}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{3}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}}\hfill & \\ \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\frac{\sqrt{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{5}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{3}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}}\hfill & \end{array}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{.}$$
(17)
Since $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\lambda }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\pm }\sqrt{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\eta }}`$, we then have the following set of solutions for the original equation333The solutions are displayed so as to indicate a direct correspondence with the set of solutions obtained with the first algorithm.

$$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\lambda }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\{}\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{\frac{\sqrt{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{5}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{3}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}}}\hfill & \\ \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\sqrt{\frac{\sqrt{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{5}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{3}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}}}\hfill & \\ \sqrt{\frac{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{3}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\sqrt{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{5}}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}}}\hfill & \\ \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\sqrt{\frac{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{3}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{}\sqrt{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{5}}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}}}\hfill & \end{array}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{,}$$
(18)
5. Concluding Remarks

We saw that apparently distinct solutions are obtained by solving equation (4) by two different algorithms. However, we can easily verify that they are identical. Just compute the square of $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\sqrt{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{5}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{/}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}`$ and check it! We have then obtained a new representation for the golden ratio, namely

$$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\rho }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{=}\frac{\sqrt{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{5}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{=}\sqrt{\frac{\sqrt{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{5}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{3}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{.}$$
(19)
Acknowledgments

This work has been supported in part by CNPq.


text:
# Radiative corrections and parity nonconservation in heavy atoms

## Abstract

The self-energy and the vertex radiative corrections to the effect of parity nonconservation in heavy atoms are calculated analytically in orders $`Z\alpha ^2`$ and $`Z^2\alpha ^3\mathrm{ln}(\lambda _C/r_0)`$, where $`\lambda _C`$ and $`r_0`$ being the Compton wavelength and the nuclear radius, respectively. The value of the radiative correction is $`0.85\%`$ for Cs and $`1.41\%`$ for Tl. Using these results we have performed analysis of the experimental data on atomic parity nonconservation. The obtained values of the nuclear weak charge, $`Q_W=72.90(28)_{exp}(35)_{theor}`$ for Cs, and $`Q_W=116.7(1.2)_{exp}(3.4)_{theor}`$ for Tl, agree with predictions of the standard model. As an application of our approach we have also calculated analytically dependence of the Lamb shift on the finite nuclear size.

Atomic parity nonconservation (PNC) has now been measured in bismuth Bi , lead Pb , thallium Tl , and cesium Cs . Analysis of the data provides an important test of the standard electroweak model and imposes constraints on new physics beyond the model, see Ref. RPP . The analysis is based on the atomic many-body calculations for Tl, Pb, and Bi Dzuba1  and for Cs Dzuba2 ; Blundell  (see also more recent Refs. Kozlov ; DFG ). Both the experimental and the theoretical accuracy is best for Cs. Therefore, this atom provides the most important information on the standard model in the low-energy sector. The analysis performed in Ref. Cs  has indicated a deviation of the measured weak charge value from that predicted by the standard model by 2.5 standard deviations $`\sigma `$.

In the many-body calculations Dzuba1 ; Dzuba2 ; Blundell  the Coulomb interaction between electrons was taken into account, while the magnetic interaction was neglected. The contribution of the magnetic (Breit) electron-electron interaction was calculated in the papers Der ; DHJS . It proved to be much larger than a naive estimate, and it shifted the theoretical prediction for PNC in Cs.

Radiative correction to the nuclear weak charge due to renormalization from the scale of the W-boson mass down to zero momentum has been calculated long time ago, see Refs. Mar1 ; Mar2 . This correction is always accounted in the analysis of data. However, another important class of radiative corrections was lost in the analysis of atomic PNC. This fact has been pointed out in the recent work Sushkov  that demonstrated that there are corrections $`Z\alpha ^2`$ caused by the strong electric field of the nucleus. Here Z is the nuclear charge and $`\alpha `$ is the fine structure constant. The simplest correction of this type is due to the Uehling potential. It has been calculated numerically in Ref. W  and analytically in our paper MiSu . In the paper MiSu  we have also analyzed the general structure of the strong field radiative corrections. It has been shown that except of the usual perturbative parameter $`Z\alpha `$ there is an additional parameter $`\mathrm{ln}(\lambda _C/r_0)`$ where $`\lambda _C`$ is the electron Compton wavelength and $`r_0`$ is the nuclear radius.

In this letter we present the results of calculations of the strong field radiative corrections to the atomic PNC effect in orders $`Z\alpha ^2`$ and $`Z^2\alpha ^3\mathrm{ln}(\lambda _C/r_0)`$. Details of calculations will be presented elsewhere Mil . Using our results we reanalize the experimental data. Agreement with the standard model is excellent. As an application of our approach we have also calculated the dependence of the Lamb shift on the finite nuclear size. Agreement of our analytical formula with results of previous computations CJS93 ; JS  is perfect.

The strong relativistic enhancement makes PNC radiative corrections different from previously considered radiative corrections to the hyperfine structure. The relativistic enhancement factor is proportional to $`R(\lambda _C/(Z\alpha r_0)^{2(1\gamma )}`$, where $`\gamma =\sqrt{1(Z\alpha )^2}`$. The factor is $`R`$3 for Cs and $`R9`$ for Tl, Pb, and Bi Kh . The logarithmic enhancement of radiative corrections mentioned above is closely related to the existence of the factor $`R`$. The Feynman diagram for the leading contribution to the PNC matrix element between $`p_{1/2}`$ and $`s_{1/2}`$ states as well as diagrams for radiative corrections are shown in Fig.1(a) and Fig.1(b-f), respectively.

The diagram Fig.1(b) corresponds to a modification of the electron wave function because of the vacuum polarization. This correction calculated analytically in Ref. MiSu  reads

$$\delta _b=\alpha \left(\frac{1}{4}Z\alpha +\frac{2(Z\alpha )^2}{3\pi \gamma }\left[\mathrm{ln}^2(b\lambda _C/r_0)+f\right]\right),$$
(1)
where $`b=\mathrm{exp}(1/(2\gamma )C5/6)`$, $`C0.577`$ is the Euler constant, and $`f1`$ is some smooth function of $`Z\alpha `$ independent of $`r_0`$. Hereafter we denote by $`\delta `$ the relative value of the correction. So, Eq. (1) represents the ratio of diagrams Fig.1(b) and Fig.1(a).

The renormalization of the nuclear weak charge $`Q_W`$ from the scale of the W-boson mass down to $`q=0`$ was performed in Refs. Mar1 ; Mar2 . However, as it has been pointed out in Ref. MiSu , atomic experiments correspond to $`q1/r_030`$MeV. The correction due to renormalization from $`q=0`$ to $`q=1/r_0`$ is described by diagrams Fig.1(c) and Fig.1(d). It has the form MiSu

$$\delta _{cd}=\frac{4\alpha Z}{3\pi Q_W}(14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)\mathrm{ln}(\lambda _C/r_0)0.1\%,$$
(2)
where $`\theta _W`$ is the Weinberg angle, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W0.2230`$, see Ref. RPP .

Diagrams Fig.1(e) and Fig.1(f) correspond to the contributions of the electron self-energy operator and the vertex operator, respectively. Each of these diagrams is not invariant with respect to the gauge transformation of the electromagnetic field while their sum is gauge invariant. It has been demonstrated in Ref. MiSu  that the correction $`\delta _e+\delta _f`$ is of the form

$$\delta _{ef}=\delta _e+\delta _f=A\mathrm{ln}(b\lambda _C/r_0)+B,$$
(3)
where $`A`$ and $`B`$ are some functions of $`Z\alpha `$, and the constant $`b`$ is defined after Eq.(1) In the present paper we derive the functions $`A`$ and $`B`$ analytically in the leading approximation in the parameter $`Z\alpha `$, when $`A\alpha (Z\alpha )^2`$ and $`B\alpha (Z\alpha )`$.

The simplest part of the work is calculation of the $`\alpha (Z\alpha )`$ contribution to $`B`$. It is convenient to use the Fried-Yennie gauge FY  together with the effective operators approach Eides  where the corrections under discussion coincide with that for the forward scattering amplitude, see Fig.2.

The result of our calculation for the non-logarithmic term in Eq.(3) reads

$$B=\alpha (Z\alpha )\left(\frac{7}{12}+2\mathrm{ln}2\right).$$
(4)
For calculation of the function $`A`$ (the logarithmic part in Eq. (3)) we have used the Feynman gauge. There are two contributions to $`A`$, the self-energy contribution, $`A_{SE}`$, given by the diagram Fig.1(e), and the vertex contribution $`A_V`$ given by Fig.1(f). It is convenient to represent the self-energy operator as a series in powers of the Coulomb field of the nucleus, $`𝚺=𝚺_0+𝚺_1+𝚺_2+\mathrm{}`$, see Fig.3, and perform calculations in the momentum space.

Distances $`r_0r\lambda _C`$ where the logarithmic terms come from correspond to momenta $`mp1/r_0`$, where $`m`$ is the electron mass. Therefore, the mass and the electron binding energy can be neglected in electron propagators. It is necessary to make the ultraviolet regularization of the operators $`𝚺_0`$ and $`𝚺_1`$. Each of the operators depends on the parameter of the regularization. However, the contribution of $`𝚺_{01}=𝚺_0+𝚺_1`$ to $`A_{SE}`$ is independent of the regularization parameter because of the Ward identity. The operator $`𝚺_2`$ does not require any regularization. Our results for contributions of $`𝚺_{01}`$ and $`𝚺_2`$ to $`A_{SE}`$ read

$`A_{01}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (Z\alpha )}{\pi }},`$
$`A_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (Z\alpha )}{6\pi }}(\pi ^29),`$
$`A_{SE}`$ $`=`$ $`A_{01}+A_2={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (Z\alpha )^2}{6\pi }}(\pi ^23).`$ (5)
Next is the logarithmic contribution of the vertex operator described by Fig.1(f). The coordinate representation is the most convenient for this part of the problem, and we use this representation. We have also used an integral representation of the Green function derived in Ref.MS82  (see also Ref. LeeM ). Keeping in mind the contact nature of the PNC interaction and the logarithmic accuracy of the calculation, one can demonstrate that only the angular momentum $`j=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/2`$ is significant in the partial expansion of the electron Green’s function in the external Coulomb field. A part of the vertex independent of $`Z\alpha `$ requires an ultraviolet regularization and hence is dependent of the regularization parameter. However, due to the Ward identity, the contribution corresponding to this part cancels out exactly the renormalization of the wave function, see e.g. Ref. Pach96 . Another part is dependent on $`Z\alpha `$ and gives the following contribution to the logarithmic term in Eq. (3)

$`A_V={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (Z\alpha )^2}{\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{17}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}\right).`$ (6)
Together with Eq. (Radiative corrections and parity nonconservation in heavy atoms) this gives the final result for $`A`$

$`A={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (Z\alpha )^2}{\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{15}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}\right).`$ (7)
Thus, according to Eqs. (3), (4), and (7) the total relative correction to the PNC matrix element due to the self-energy and the vertex operators reads

$`\delta _{ef}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha [(Z\alpha )({\displaystyle \frac{7}{12}}+2\mathrm{ln}2)`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(Z\alpha )^2}{\pi }}({\displaystyle \frac{15}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}})\mathrm{ln}(b\lambda _C/r_0)].`$
This correction is plotted in Fig. 4 versus the nuclear charge $`Z`$ (the long-dashed line). The solid line in the same figure shows the total radiative correction to the PNC effect that includes both $`\delta _{ef}`$ (Eq. (8) and $`\delta _b`$ (Eq. (1)).

The radiative shift of the atomic energy levels (Lamb shift) depends on the finite nuclear size. This correction has a very similar structure to that of the PNC radiative correction since the effective sizes of the perturbation sources in both cases are much smaller than $`\lambda _C`$. The self-energy and the vertex corrections to the finite-nuclear-size effect (SEVFNS) for $`s_{1/2}`$-state have been calculated earlier analytically in order $`\alpha (Z\alpha )`$ in Refs.Pach93 ; PG . The corrections for $`1s_{1/2}`$-, $`2s_{1/2}`$-, and $`2p_{1/2}`$-states have been calculated numerically exactly in $`Z\alpha `$ in Refs.CJS93 ; Blun92 ; LPSY . The structure of higher in $`Z\alpha `$ corrections and their logarithmic dependence on the nuclear size has not been understood. We have applied our approach to the SEVFNS problem and found the following expression for the $`s_{1/2}`$-state relative correction

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha [(Z\alpha )({\displaystyle \frac{23}{4}}4\mathrm{ln}2)`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(Z\alpha )^2}{\pi }}({\displaystyle \frac{15}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}})\mathrm{ln}(b\lambda _C/r_0)].`$
Linear in $`Z\alpha `$ term agrees with results of Refs. Pach93 ; PG . The logarithmic term coincides with that in Eq. (8) for the PNC correction. Moreover, the logarithmic term in the SEVFNS correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ for $`p_{1/2}`$ state is also equal to that in Eqs.(8) and (9). The reason for this equality is very simple. The logarithmic terms come from small distances ($`r<<\lambda _C`$) where the electron mass can be neglected. When the mass is neglected the relative matrix elements for the PNC radiative correction and for SEVFNS are equal. The correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ given by Eq. (9) is shown in Fig. 4 by the dashed line. Results of the computations CJS93 ; JS  for $`1s`$ and $`2s`$ states are shown by circles and diamonds, respectively. The agreement is perfect.

It is interesting to find also the $`\alpha (Z\alpha )`$-term in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$. Using our result for the logarithmic term in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ and results of numerical calculations of this correction for $`2p_{1/2}`$-state, Ref. CJS93 ; JS , we find that the coefficient in $`\alpha (Z\alpha )`$-term is $`1.9`$.

It has been recently suggested in Ref. K  that the following ”precise relation” $`\delta _{ef}=(\mathrm{\Delta }_s+\mathrm{\Delta }_p)/2`$ is valid. Values of the corrections obtained in our work do not agree with this relation. The ”derivation” in Ref. K  is based on the obviously wrong assumption that there is a gauge in which the vertex contributions to $`\delta _{ef}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ vanish simultaneously. Although it is possible to vanish the vertex correction to each of these quantities by chousing an appropriate gauge, these are three different gauges. This is why the above relation is wrong.

Now we can perform a consistent analysis of the experimental data on atomic parity violation since all the contributions are known. In our analysis for Cs we have included the theoretical value of the PNC amplitude from Refs. Dzuba2 ; Blundell ; Kozlov ; DFG  as well as $`0.61\%`$ correction due to the Breit interaction DHJS , $`0.42\%`$ radiative correction calculated in the present work, $`0.2\%`$ neutron skin correction Der1 , $`0.08\%`$ correction due to the renormalization of $`Q_W`$ from the atomic momentum transfer $`q30`$MeV down to $`q=0`$ MiSu , and $`+0.04\%`$ contribution from the electron-electron weak interaction MiSu . Using these theoretical results we obtain from the data Cs  the following value of the nuclear weak charge $`Q_W`$ at zero momentum transfer

$$Cs:Q_W=72.90\pm (0.28)_{ex}\pm (0.35)_{theor}.$$
(10)
This value agrees with prediction of the standard model, $`Q_W=73.09\pm 0.03`$, see Ref. RPP . We have used the neutron skin correction in our analysis. However, in our opinion, status of the correction is not quite clear because data on the neutron distribution used in Ref. Der1  are not quite consistent with the data on neutron distributions obtained from proton scattering, see e. g. Ref. LIYAF .

In the analysis for Tl we have included the theoretical value of the PNC amplitude from Refs. Dzuba1 , as well as $`0.88\%`$ correction due to the Breit interaction rescale , $`0.51`$% radiative correction calculated in the present work, $`0.2\%`$ neutron skin correction, $`0.08\%`$ correction due to the renormalization of $`Q_W`$ from the atomic momentum transfer $`q30`$MeV down to $`q=0`$ MiSu , and $`+0.01\%`$ contribution from the electron-electron weak interaction MiSu . Using these theoretical results we obtain from the data Tl  the following value of the nuclear weak charge $`Q_W`$ at zero momentum transfer

$$Tl:Q_W=116.7\pm (1.2)_{ex}\pm (3.4)_{theor}.$$
(11)
This agrees with prediction of the standard model, $`Q_W=116.7\pm 0.1`$, see Ref. RPP .

Concluding, we have calculated analytically for the first time all the strong electric field radiative corrections to the effect of atomic parity violation. This calculation has allowed us to perform a consistent analysis of the experimental data. Agreement with the standard model is within $`0.5\sigma `$.

A.I.M gratefully acknowledge School of Physics at the University of New South Wales for warm hospitality and financial support during a visit.


text:
# A Lattice Fermion Doublet With A Generalization Of The Ginsparg-Wilson Relation

## 1 Introduction

In this paper we present a new discretization of the Dirac equation. In comparison with staggered fermions  it creates not four but only two flavours of Dirac fermions. This has been reached by placing not only different spin components, but also their real and imaginary parts into different nodes. These sixteen steps of freedom (two fermions) can be understood, in some sense, as the result of “doubling” of a real scalar step of freedom $`\phi (n)`$ on the lattice.

Moreover, these two fermions live on different sub-lattices ($`\psi _o`$ on “odd” nodes, $`\psi _e`$ on “even” nodes), thus, we obtain also a single fermion (eight steps of freedom) on the lattice by omitting half of the lattice nodes. But, if the neutrino is a Dirac particle, all fermions appear in doublets of Dirac particles. In this context, the appearance of a fermion doublet in this discretization may be not a bug but a feature which allows to explain why Dirac particles appear in such doublets.

In our approach the complex structure is an operator among others. Moreover, there is no natural complex structure, but, instead, a quaternionic structure. The nature of this structure is a topic of future research.

Once a complex structure is defined, we have to define the operator $`\gamma ^5`$ on the grid. Now, there is no exact chiral symmetry. Instead, we obtain formulas for some operators $`\gamma ^5`$ on the grid which define a generalization of the Ginsparg-Wilson relation.

## 2 A Real Representation Of The Dirac Algebra

We forget – for some time – about the complex structure. Instead of the usual representations with four complex fields, we use an eight-dimensional real representation of the operators $`\gamma ^\mu `$ defined here by their linear combination with $`_\mu `$:

$$\gamma ^0_0\gamma ^i_i=_{def}\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}\hfill _0& \hfill _1& \hfill _2& & \hfill _3& & & \\ \hfill _1& \hfill _0& & \hfill _2& & \hfill _3& & \\ \hfill _2& & \hfill _0& \hfill _1& & & \hfill _3& \\ & \hfill _2& \hfill _1& \hfill _0& & & & \hfill _3\\ \hfill _3& & & & \hfill _0& \hfill _1& \hfill _2& \\ & \hfill _3& & & \hfill _1& \hfill _0& & \hfill _2\\ & & \hfill _3& & \hfill _2& & \hfill _0& \hfill _1\\ & & & \hfill _3& & \hfill _2& \hfill _1& \hfill _0\end{array}\right)$$
(1)
In the context of this representation, it seems also natural to define (by their linear combination with scalar parameters $`m_i`$) the following operators $`\beta ^i`$:

$$m_i\beta ^i=_{def}\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}& \hfill m_1& \hfill m_2& & \hfill m_3& & & \\ \hfill m_1& & & \hfill m_2& & \hfill m_3& & \\ \hfill m_2& & & \hfill m_1& & & \hfill m_3& \\ & \hfill m_2& \hfill m_1& & & & & \hfill m_3\\ \hfill m_3& & & & & \hfill m_1& \hfill m_2& \\ & \hfill m_3& & & \hfill m_1& & & \hfill m_2\\ & & \hfill m_3& & \hfill m_2& & & \hfill m_1\\ & & & \hfill m_3& & \hfill m_2& \hfill m_1& \end{array}\right)$$
(2)
The following operator equation holds:

$$(\gamma ^0_0\gamma ^i_i+m_i\beta ^i)^2=\mathrm{}+\delta ^{ij}m_im_j$$
(3)
This can be easily seen – this operator iterates three times, in each coordinate direction, the same trick:111This observation also suggests how to iterate this construction to arbitrary dimension.

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& (m_i+_i)I\\ (m_i_i)I& A\end{array}\right)^2=(A^2+(m_i+_i)(m_i_i)I)\left(\begin{array}{cc}I& 0\\ 0& I\end{array}\right)$$
(4)
As follows immediately, the $`\gamma ^\mu `$ define a representation of the Dirac matrices, and the matrices $`\beta ^i`$ fulfil the following anticommutation relations:

$$\beta ^i\beta ^j+\beta ^j\beta ^i=\delta ^{ij}$$
(5)
and anticommute with all $`\gamma ^\mu `$:

$$\beta ^i\gamma ^\mu +\gamma ^\mu \beta ^i=0$$
(6)
It is also easy to see (and to generalize to arbitrary dimension) that

$$\gamma ^0(\gamma ^1\beta ^1)(\gamma ^2\beta ^2)(\gamma ^3\beta ^3)=1.$$
(7)
## 3 Complex Structures

In this representation we have not yet defined a complex structure. There are several things in the standard approach to Dirac fermions which depend on them.

First, in the standard approach a Hermitean scalar product $`.,.`$ is widely used. We have only a standard Euclidean scalar product $`(.,.)`$ yet. Now, for a complex structure $`i`$ these notions are closely related in a simple way:

The Hermitean scalar product defines an Euclidean scalar product by

$$(\psi ,\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}(\psi ,\varphi +\varphi ,\psi $$
(8)
so that $`(i\psi ,i\varphi )=(\psi ,\varphi )`$. For a complex structure $`i`$, $`i^2=1`$, with this property this Hermitean scalar product is defined by the Euclidean scalar product by defines the Hermitean scalar product

$$\psi ,\varphi =(\psi ,\varphi )i(\psi ,i\varphi ).$$
(9)
Thus, we should not care about the Hermitean scalar product, the Euclidean scalar product is all we need. Note also that for a complex linear operator $`A`$, which is a real linear operator with $`[A,i]=0`$, the Hermitean adjoint operator $`A^+`$ and the Euclidean adjoint operator $`A^{}`$ cooinside: $`A^{}\psi ,\varphi =\psi ,A\varphi `$. As a consequence, the classical properties of the $`\gamma `$-matrices

$$(\gamma ^\mu )^+=\gamma ^0\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^0$$
(10)
are equivalent to

$$(\gamma ^\mu )^{}=\gamma ^0\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^0.$$
(11)
These properties are fulfilled in our representation for the standard Euclidean scalar product $`(.,.)`$ in $`^8`$.

Next, the “classical” operator $`\gamma ^5=i\gamma ^0\gamma ^1\gamma ^2\gamma ^3`$ also depends on the complex structure. A natural replacement which does not depend on it – the expression $`\gamma ^0\gamma ^1\gamma ^2\gamma ^3`$ – we denote with $`\iota `$:

$$\iota =_{def}\gamma ^0\gamma ^1\gamma ^2\gamma ^3=\beta ^1\beta ^2\beta ^3\iota \gamma ^\mu +\gamma ^\mu \iota =0(\iota )^2=1$$
(12)
But, of course, we have to introduce a complex structure if we want to connect the Dirac fermion in the usual way with gauge fields. The properties we need for a complex structure $`i`$ are $`i^1=i^{}=i`$ and $`[\gamma ^\mu ,i]=0`$. Now, an interesting point is that there are several candidates for such a structure:

$`i`$ $`=\beta ^1\beta ^2`$ $`=\iota \beta ^3`$ (13)
$`j`$ $`=\beta ^2\beta ^3`$ $`=\iota \beta ^1`$ (14)
$`k`$ $`=\beta ^3\beta ^1`$ $`=\iota \beta ^2`$ (15)
which together define a quaternionic structure:222The classical representation $`ij=k`$ can be obtained using reverse signs for $`i,j,k`$, but we prefer this sign convention because it gives $`\gamma ^5=\beta ^3`$.

$$ij=ji=k;jk=kj=i;ki=ik=j;i^2=j^2=k^2=1$$
(16)
For each candidate $`i`$ for a complex structure, we obtain an own operator $`\gamma ^5=_{def}i\iota `$. Especially for $`i=\iota \beta ^3`$ we obtain $`\gamma ^5=\iota \beta ^3\iota =\beta ^3`$. Thus, it seems that to fix the complex structure we somehow have to break spatial symmetry, prefer one spatial direction.

## 4 Discretization Of The Dirac Equation

Our representation is appropriate for a discretization of the Dirac equation on a regular hyper-cubic lattice. It can be obtained in a quite simple way: We start with a naive central difference approximation

$$_i\psi (n)\frac{1}{2a_i}(\psi (n+a_i)\psi (na_i)).$$
(17)
This naive discretization leads to the problem of “fermion doubling”. The continuous limit of this set of discrete equations gives not only the original Dirac equation, but also additional, highly oscillating components, the “doublers”. In classical computations such doublers may be often ignored, but in quantum computations, where the number of steps of freedom is important (Pauli principle) this is no longer possible. We obtain in each direction a factor to, thus, $`2^4=16`$ doublers. Fortunately, eight pairs of doublers decouple in a really simple way: It is sufficient to hold only one of the eight real components $`\psi ^a`$ per node. On the three-dimensional reference cube $`(\epsilon _1,\epsilon _2,\epsilon _3)`$, $`\epsilon _i\{0,1\}`$ we obtain the following locations for the eight components:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\psi ^0\text{ located at }(\hfill & \hfill 0,0,0),\psi & {}_{}{}^{4}\text{ located at }(\hfill & \hfill 0,0,1);\\ \psi ^1\text{ located at }(\hfill & \hfill 1,0,0),\psi & {}_{}{}^{5}\text{ located at }(\hfill & \hfill 1,0,1);\\ \psi ^2\text{ located at }(\hfill & \hfill 0,1,0),\psi & {}_{}{}^{6}\text{ located at }(\hfill & \hfill 0,1,1);\\ \psi ^3\text{ located at }(\hfill & \hfill 1,1,0),\psi & {}_{}{}^{7}\text{ located at }(\hfill & \hfill 1,1,1);\end{array}$$
(18)
What remains are sixteen steps of freedom (eight steps of freedom on two time steps which we need because of our use of central differences in time) which corresponds to a doublet of Dirac fermions333 This is a variant of a well-known approach to solve the “fermion doubling” problem – so-called staggered fermions . The standard staggered grid approach reduces the doublers only by a factor four. Because we ignore the complex structure of the standard representation, we are free to place “real” and “imaginary” part of the complex fields into different nodes. This gives the additional reduction by factor two.. Note that our discretization may be interpreted as a way to discretize the d’Alembert equation for a single scalar step of freedom $`\phi (n)`$ with central differences, which gives $`2^4=16`$ doublers.

Now, the last doublet decouples too, but in a slightly less trivial way: We can distinguish “even” and “odd” nodes on the full space-time lattice. The central difference equations on even (odd) nodes connects only values on odd (even) nodes. Thus, we obtain two fermions $`\psi _e`$ and $`\psi _o`$ on even resp. odd nodes. On the four-dimensional reference cube $`(\epsilon _0,\epsilon _1,\epsilon _2\epsilon _3),\epsilon _i\{0,1\}`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\psi _e^0\text{ located at }(\hfill & \hfill 0,0,0,0),\psi _e& {}_{}{}^{4}\text{ located at }(\hfill & \hfill 1,0,0,1);\\ \psi _e^1\text{ located at }(\hfill & \hfill 1,1,0,0),\psi _e& {}_{}{}^{5}\text{ located at }(\hfill & \hfill 0,1,0,1);\\ \psi _e^2\text{ located at }(\hfill & \hfill 1,0,1,0),\psi _e& {}_{}{}^{6}\text{ located at }(\hfill & \hfill 0,0,1,1);\\ \psi _e^3\text{ located at }(\hfill & \hfill 0,1,1,0),\psi _e& {}_{}{}^{7}\text{ located at }(\hfill & \hfill 1,1,1,1);\end{array}$$
(19)
$$\begin{array}{cccc}\psi _o^0\text{ located at }(\hfill & \hfill 1,0,0,0),\psi _o& {}_{}{}^{4}\text{ located at }(\hfill & \hfill 0,0,0,1);\\ \psi _o^1\text{ located at }(\hfill & \hfill 0,1,0,0),\psi _o& {}_{}{}^{5}\text{ located at }(\hfill & \hfill 1,1,0,1);\\ \psi _o^2\text{ located at }(\hfill & \hfill 0,0,1,0),\psi _o& {}_{}{}^{6}\text{ located at }(\hfill & \hfill 1,0,1,1);\\ \psi _o^3\text{ located at }(\hfill & \hfill 1,1,1,0),\psi _o& {}_{}{}^{7}\text{ located at }(\hfill & \hfill 0,1,1,1);\end{array}$$
(20)
But, instead of removing one sub-mesh to describe a single Dirac fermion, we propose to accept above doublers as a way to describe a physically meaningful flavour doublet. Remarkably, if the neutrino is a standard Dirac particle, then all fermions of the standard model appear in doublets. The appearance of a fermion doublet in our approach may be, therefore, not a bug but a feature which allows to explain the existence of these doublets.

### 4.1 Lagrange Formalism

To define the Lagrange formalism on the lattice note that the equations for the $`\psi _o`$ are located at the nodes of $`\psi _e`$ and reverse. Therefore, we can use the Lagrangian

$$L=\psi _e(D\psi _o)=\psi _o(D\psi _e)$$
(21)
and obtain the equation for $`D\psi _{o/e}=0`$ as the Euler-Lagrange equation for $`\psi _{e/o}`$. We can also rewrite this Lagrangian as

$$L=\frac{1}{2}\phi (1)^{ϵ_0}\gamma ^0(D\phi )$$
(22)
### 4.2 Fermion Families and Lattice Distortions

We have observed that to fix the complex structure we somehow have to break spatial symmetry. But there is a simple way out of this. Instead of one scalar step of freedom $`\phi (n)`$ on the lattice, we can consider a vector field – thus, three components $`\phi ^i(n)`$. Now, each component has a natural “preferred direction” and, therefore, a natural complex structure.

Moreover, a vector on a lattice is a quite natural step of freedom. It is, for example, the natural way to describe lattice distortions with a shift vector field $`u^i(n)`$.

On the other hand, in the standard model we have three fermion families – three copies of each fermion. This suggests to explain on the kinematic level the three fermion families using the hypothesis that the fundamental steps of freedom of the “theory of everything” are three-dimensional vector fields $`u^i(n)`$ of spatial distortions.

## 5 Chiral Symmetry On The Lattice

One problem with standard staggered fermions  is that they have the wrong number of doublers (four) to allow a natural physical interpretation in the standard model. In our approach, we have only a pair of Dirac fermions, and pairs of fermions appear in the standard model as quark pairs as well as lepton pairs (if the neutrino is a Dirac particle).

The other problem is that there is exact chiral $`\gamma ^5`$ symmetry on the lattice. As a consequence, the doublers appear in pairs with reverse chiral charge. This does not fit the situation in the standard model (cf. ). Now, in our approach we do not have exact chiral $`\gamma ^5`$ symmetry. Instead, we have a replacement for this symmetry. This replacement fulfills properties which define a generalization of the famous Ginsparg-Wilson (GW) relation .

Let’s assume now that one of the complex structures, namely $`i=\iota \beta ^3`$, has been chosen. To understand chiral symmetry we have to define the operator $`\gamma ^5=\beta ^3`$ on the lattice. Note that it cannot be anymore a pointwise operator as for Wilson fermions and staggered fermions – it connects components which are located in different points. Now, we propose to consider the following operator as a candidate for $`\gamma ^5`$ on the lattice:

$$(\gamma ^5\varphi )(n_{even})=\varphi (n_{even}h_z),(\gamma ^5\varphi )(n_{odd})=\varphi (n_{odd}+h_z)$$
(23)
It is easy to see that it approximates the continuous $`\gamma ^5`$. More interesting is that some exact properties remain valid:

$$(\gamma ^5)^{}=\gamma ^5,(\gamma ^5)^2=1$$
(24)
We can also define, as an alternative, the operator $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^5`$ by

$$(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^5\varphi )(n_{even})=\varphi (n_{even}+h_z),(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^5\varphi )(n_{odd})=\varphi (n_{odd}h_z)$$
(25)
Similarly, we obtain

$$(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^5)^{}=\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^5,(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^5)^2=1$$
(26)
If we define the operators $`V,O`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^5=\gamma ^5V=\gamma ^5(1aO)`$

we obtain the Ginsparg-Wilson (GW) relation for $`O`$:

$$O\gamma ^5+\gamma ^5O=aO\gamma ^5O$$
(27)
Moreover, we have also the following important commutation properties with $`D`$

$$\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^5D+D\gamma ^5=0,\gamma ^5D+D\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^5=0,$$
(28)
$$VDDV=0,ODDO=0.$$
(29)
This allows to define two sets of chiral projector operators

$$\stackrel{~}{P}_\pm =\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \stackrel{~}{\gamma }^5),P_\pm =\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \gamma ^5).$$
(30)
Similar pairs of projectors play a central role in approaches to chiral gauge theory based on the GW relation (, ) and it’s generalizations () as domain wall fermions , Neuberger’s overlap operator , proposals by Fujikawa  and Chiu .

On the other hand, it should be noted that our approach does not fit exactly into these schemes. The operators $`V,O`$ do not have the spectral properties of the similar operators considered, for example, by ,. It seems that these differences may be understood as caused by different aims. The aim of the standard GW approach is to obtain a single Weyl fermion on the lattice, without any doublers. In our approach we allow some doubling which gives a pair of Dirac fermions on the lattice, but we want nontrivial chiral symmetry to allow nontrivial chiral interactions between the doublers.

If the properties of $`\gamma ^5,\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^5`$ we have found are sufficient to develop a consistent chiral gauge theory on this lattice remains to be shown. Note that the situation is further complicated by the non-pointwise character of the complex structure which remains to be understood.


text:
# Generalized Borel Transform Technique in Quantum Mechanics Partially supported by CONICET and ANPCyT-Argentina.

## Abstract

We present the Generalized Borel Transform (GBT). This new approach allows one to obtain approximate solutions of Laplace/Mellin transform valid in both, perturbative and non perturbative regimes. We compare the results provided by the GBT for a solvable model of quantum mechanics with those provided by standard techniques, as the conventional Borel sum, or its modified versions. We found that our approach is very efficient for obtaining both the low and the high energy behavior of the model.

Classification: 11.15 Bt - 12.38 Cy
Keywords: Quantum mechanics, Borel transform.

Recently, Penin and Pivovarov  presented a numerical analysis of renormalon techniques in quantum mechanics. They used a simple solvable model, namely a delta function scattering potential, to address the problem of resummation of perturbative series . In fact, this quantum mechanics potential can be considered as a confining one, mimicking the long sought property of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD). This is one of the many examples where the finite order perturbation theory predictions present uncertainties comparable with experimental errors . In all these cases one is forced to take into account, in a way or another, non-perturbative contributions. In connection with these difficulties, it is certainly instructive to study exactly solvable models so that the efficiency and precision of the different proposals  can be quantitatively checked. This analysis can help us to define criteria for selecting the appropriate approach to be used in more realistic cases as QCD is.

In reference  the delta function model is tackled by means of standard Borel summation techniques combined with the renormalon approach . On the other hand, we have recently introduced  a Generalized Borel Transform (GBT) that avoids the implementation of a perturbative expansion. This proposal was successfully applied  to obtain an analytic expression for the heavy quark-antiquark potential, valid for all distances.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the use and advantages of the GBT in the case of quantum mechanics and in particular in connection with the model studied in ref. . We are able to obtain analytic expressions valid in all the range of the variables.

We start by briefly summarizing ref.  in order to prepare the basic material of the delta potential that is further treated with our GBT approach.

The quantum mechanics model, analyzed first in the scattering region, is defined through the singular potential

$$V\left(r\right)=v\delta (ra);v,a=cte$$
(1)
and can be considered as a kind of confining (not completely) interaction. Usually, the dispersion relation related to this kind of singular potential is analyzed in analogy with dispersion relations in elementary particle theory . Here, to simplify the presentation, we consider only the $`s`$ \- wave amplitude and the study of the wave function at the origin. To analyze the scattering of a wave packet, one considers an integral of the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }\left(Q\right)1+F\left(Q\right)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\psi \left(q\right)W(q,Q)𝑑q$$
(2)
where,

$$W(q,Q)Q\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left(Q/q\right)}{q^2}$$

is a momentum distribution function normalized to one and,

$$\psi \left(q\right)=\left[1+\frac{v}{2q}\left(1\mathrm{exp}\left(2qa\right)\right)\right]^1$$
(3)
is the exact solution for the scattering of a plane wave in the ”Euclidean” region where the momentum $`q>0`$ is obtained through a Wick rotation. This is possible whenever $`m=1/a>\left|v\right|`$ and consequently there are no bound states present.

The perturbative solution in eq. (2) suffers of the same difficulties present in perturbative QCD and it mimics some general features of renormalons.

We start the analysis with the perturbative treatment in order to make explicit the difficulties of the standard method. At high energies $`\left(qm\right)`$ one can write

$$\psi ^{as}\left(q\right)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\alpha \left(q\right)\right)^n$$
(4)
where $`\alpha \left(q\right)v/2q`$ is the natural parameter of expansion in expression (3).

Replacing now the series (4) into (2) one obtains

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{as}\left(q\right)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}n!\left(\alpha \left(q\right)\right)^n$$
(5)
For $`v>0`$ , the theory is Borel summable  and the conventional Borel transform is

$$B\left(s\right)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(s\right)^n=\frac{1}{s+1}\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{as}\left(q\right)=\frac{1}{\alpha \left(q\right)}_0^{\mathrm{}}B\left(s\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(s/\alpha \left(q\right)\right)$$
(6)
Consequently, the approximate solution (5) results

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{as}\left(q\right)=\frac{1}{\alpha \left(q\right)}\mathrm{exp}\left(1/\alpha \left(q\right)\right)\mathrm{E}i(1,1/\alpha \left(q\right))$$
(7)
where

$$\mathrm{E}i(n,x)_1^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left(tx\right)dt}{t^n}n=1,2..x>0$$
(8)
A numerical comparison of the approximate expression (7) with the exact solution (2), presented in Figure 1, clearly shows that it is not a good approximation for intermediate values of $`qm`$.

An alternative approach  uses a modified perturbation theory and provides results of better precision at very small momenta. This technique starts by choosing, instead of $`\alpha (q)`$, a modified expansion parameter of the form

$$\alpha _\mu \left(q\right)\frac{v}{2q+\mu }\left(1+\frac{\mu v}{2q+\mu }\right)$$

where $`\mu =\mu (m,v)`$ is fitted using experimental information. In this model, the exact solution $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left(Q\right)`$ given in eq. (2), plays the role of experiment data.

The accuracy of the approximation and the optimal value of $`\mu `$ clearly depend on the range where data have to be fitted. Unfortunately, the value that optimize the result at very small $`Q,`$ does not fulfil this requirement at very large $`Q`$ as it is evident in Figure 1.

Hence, the method and its modification work reasonably well in providing an approximation to the exact solution but each one in different regimes of $`Q`$. They are not able to reproduce simultaneously, with sufficient precision, the exact result in both IR and UV regimes.

We have found that the Generalized Borel Transform  copes with that difficulty. This GBT approach was designed to obtain the approximate solution of any Laplace/Mellin transform in the wide range of the parameter involved.

In fact, when using our proposal, one is performing a whole class of transformations, depending on a parameter that we call $`\lambda `$. As it should be, the result does not explicitly depends on $`\lambda `$. Consequently, one can choose for this parameter the best adapted value in each particular problem under consideration. In practice, as one is performing an approximate calculation, one can get rid of $`\lambda `$ by means of a suitable saddle-point like technique.

Let us briefly present our technology in connection with a Laplace-Mellin transform presents when treating the quantum mechanical problem under analysis. In this case, we typically face a transformation like

$$S(g,a,n)=_0^{\mathrm{}}x^nH(x,a)\mathrm{exp}(gx)dx;g>0$$
(9)
where we have explicitly extracted a factor $`x^n`$ from the function to be transformed, because, at it will became clear after, this operation facilitates the implementation of our proposal.

The Generalized Borel Transform (GBT) of $`S`$ is defined as

$$B_\lambda (s,a,n)\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{exp}[s/\eta ][\frac{1}{\lambda \eta }+1]^{\lambda s}S(g,a,n)d(1/\eta );\mathrm{R}e\left(s\right)<0$$
(10)
$`\lambda `$ being any real positive non zero value and where we have defined

$$1/\eta \lambda \left[\mathrm{exp}\left(g/\lambda \right)1\right]$$
(11)
This particular election of $`\eta `$ allows one to define the function $`u_\lambda \left(g\right)`$ monotonically increasing in the interval $`0<u_\lambda \left(g\right)<\mathrm{}`$, namely

$$u_\lambda \left(g\right)\frac{1}{\eta }\lambda \mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{1}{\lambda \eta }+1\right]$$
(12)
Consequently $`B_\lambda (s)`$ results in

$$B_\lambda (s,a,n)=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(su\right)S[g_\lambda \left(u\right),a,n][1+\lambda \eta \left(u\right)]du;\mathrm{R}e\left(s\right)<0$$

The last expression can be written as a Laplace transform

$$B_\lambda (s,a,n)=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(su\right)L_\lambda [g\left(u\right),a,n]du;\mathrm{R}e\left(s\right)<0$$

of the function $`L_\lambda [g\left(u\right),a,n]`$ there implicitly defined.

Replacing (9) and (11) in equation (10) we can easily test that the GBT is an analytic function on the negative Borel half-plane, such that its extension to the other half-plane also exists and is also analytic with a cut on the real positive axis. From this observation, $`S(g,a,n)`$ can be expressed in terms of the inverse Laplace transform integrated on the above mentioned cut

$$S(g,a,n)=\frac{1}{\left[\lambda \eta +1\right]}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[su_\lambda \left(g\right)\right]\mathrm{\Delta }B_\lambda (s,a,n)𝑑s$$
(13)
The main advantages of this proposal comes from the fact that it allows one to perform the calculations in terms of the parameter $`\lambda `$. Moreover, as it will become clear below, this approach avoids the implementation of a perturbative expansion. Each value of the parameter $`\lambda `$ defines a particular Borel Transform. This can be summarize by writing $`S(g,a,n)=T_\lambda ^1\left[T_\lambda \left(S(g,a,n)\right)\right]`$ where $`T_\lambda \left(S(g,a,n)\right)B_\lambda (s,a,n)`$ .

The discontinuity of the $`B_\lambda (s,a,n)`$ can be expressed as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }B_\lambda (s,a,n)=2\lambda \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑w\mathrm{exp}\left[T(w,\lambda ,s,a,n)\right]$$

where

$`T(w,\lambda ,s,a,n)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{ln}\left\{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\lambda \left(s+x\left(w\right)\right)\right]\right\}+\left\{\lambda \left[s+x\left(w\right)\right]1\right\}\mathrm{ln}\left(\lambda s\right)\lambda s`$
$`+w+\mathrm{ln}\left[x^nH(x,a)\right]`$
with $`x=\mathrm{exp}\left(w\right)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ represents de Euler gamma function. After the change of variables $`s=\lambda \mathrm{exp}\left(t\right)`$ one gets

$$S(g,a,n)=2\lambda ^2\left(1\mathrm{exp}\left(g/\lambda \right)\right)\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[G(w,t,g,\lambda ,a,n)\right]𝑑w𝑑t$$
(14)
with

$$G(w,t,g,\lambda ,a,n)=s\left(t\right)u_\lambda \left(g\right)+t+T[w,\lambda ,s\left(t\right),a,n]$$
(15)
In this way we can obtain the dominant contribution of the double integral using the steepest descent technique in the combined variables $`[t,w]`$. In so doing, one first computes the saddle point $`t_o(g,a,n)`$ and $`w_o(g,a,n)`$ in the limit $`\lambda 1`$. In this case, the saddle point is

$$t_o(g,a,n)=\mathrm{ln}\left\{\frac{x_o^2(g,a,n)}{f[x_o(g,a,n),a,n]}\right\}=;w_o(g,a,n)=\mathrm{ln}\left[x_o(g,a,n)\right]=$$
(16)
where $`x_o(g,a,n)`$ is the real and positive solution of the implicit equation coming from the extremes of the function $`G`$ in the asymptotic limit in $`\lambda `$, namely

$$x_o^2g^2=f(x_o,a,n)\left[f(x_o,a,n)+1\right]$$
(17)
and

$$f(x_o,a,n)1+n+x_o\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\left[H(x_o,a)\right]}{dx_o}$$
(18)
In the range of the parameters where $`f\left[x_o\left(g\right)\right]1`$ , we have retained the first order in the expansion of $`G`$ around the the saddle point. In so doing, it remains

$$S^{Ap}(g,a,n)4\pi \lambda ^2\left[1\mathrm{exp}\left(g/\lambda \right)\right]\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left[G(w_o,t_o,g,\lambda ,a,n)\right]}{\sqrt{D(t_o,w_o)}}$$
(19)
where

$$D(t_o,w_o)\frac{^2G}{w^2}\left|\frac{^2G}{t^2}\right|\left[\frac{^2G}{wdt}\right|]^2$$

Then one checks the positivity condition , in particular when the discriminant $`D(t_o,w_o)`$ of the second derivatives of $`G`$ at this point is positive. We can now obtain the approximate expression for the starting amplitude $`S(g,a,n)`$ (9):

$`S_{Ap}(g,a,n)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2\pi }e^{1/2}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{f(x_o,a,n)+1}{D(x_o,a,n)}}\right]^{1/2}x_o^{n+1}`$ (20)
$`H(x_o,a)\mathrm{exp}\left[f(x_o,a,n)\right]`$
where explicitly

$`D(x_o,a,n)`$ $`=`$ $`x_o{\displaystyle \frac{df(x_o,a,n)}{dx_o}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+f(x_o,a,n)\right]`$ (21)
$`+f(x_o,a,n)\left[1+f(x_o,a,n)\right]`$
with $`x_o(g,a,n),and`$ $`F`$ defined above in eq. (17) and (18), respectively.

Notice that the expression (20) is valid for functions $`H(x,a)`$ that fulfill the following general conditions:

1) the relation (17) must be biunivocal.

2) $`D(x_o,a,n)`$ has to be positive and $`\left[x_o\frac{df(x_o,a,n)}{dx_o}2f(x_o,a,n)\right]`$ has to be negative in $`x_o`$ .

3) $`f(x_o,a,n)1`$. This condition is fulfilled in particular when $`n1.`$

These conditions provide the range of values of the involved parameters where the approximate solution (20) is valid. Then, the calculation of the GBT simply consists on solving the implicit equation (17) to obtain the saddle point expression. In general, the functional complexity of $`H`$ can add constraints on the range of the parameters.

We are now prepared to study the amplitude coming from the delta potential, namely the wave packet

$`\mathrm{\Phi }\left(Q\right)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }\left(Q\right)}{Q}}={\displaystyle \frac{F\left(Q\right)+1}{Q}}={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}\left(Qx\right)dx}{1+vx/2\left[1\mathrm{exp}\left(2/xm\right)\right]}}`$ (22)
$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}H(x,v,m)\mathrm{exp}\left(Qx\right)𝑑x`$
On the other hand, the GBT is able to deal with

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_n\left(Q\right)=_0^{\mathrm{}}x^nH(x,v,m)\mathrm{exp}\left(Qx\right)𝑑x$$
(23)
The relation between (22) and (23)

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_n\left(Q\right)=()^n\frac{^n}{Q^n}\mathrm{\Phi }\left(Q\right)$$

can be inverted obtaining

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\left(Q\right)=()^n\underset{n}{\underset{}{𝑑Q\mathrm{}𝑑Q}}\mathrm{\Phi }_n\left(Q\right)+\underset{p=0}{\overset{n1}{}}c_p(v,m)Q^p$$
(24)
where the finite sum come from the indefinite integrations. Notice that all the coefficients vanish whenever the Laplace transform (22) fulfill the following asymptotic behavior

$$\underset{Q\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Phi }\left(Q\right)=0$$

Moreover, the expression (24) is valid for any value of $`n,`$ in particular when $`n1.`$ Consequently, the approximate solution reads

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{Ap}\left(Q\right)()^n\underset{n}{\underset{}{𝑑Q\mathrm{}𝑑Q}}\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{Ap}\left(Q\right)$$
(25)
where, for $`n1`$

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_n\left(Q\right)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{Ap}\left(Q\right)`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi /e\left[f(x_o,n)+1\right]}{D(x_o,n)}}}\left(x_o\right)^{n+1}H(x_o,v,m)\mathrm{exp}\left[f(x_o,n)\right]`$
is the approximate solution provided by GBT, with the $`D`$ and $`f`$ functions defined above (18) and (21).

For $`n`$ sufficiently large and $`Q>0`$, the explicit expression of the saddle point becomes $`x_o=\left(n+3/2\right)/Q`$. Then, we can substitute this expression into (26), obtaining the following approximate solution for the expression (23)

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{Ap}\left(Q\right)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2\pi }\left(n+1\right)^{n/2}\left(2+n\right)^{n/2+1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left(n3/2\right)}{Q^{n+1}\left\{1+v\left(n+3/2\right)/2Q\left[1\mathrm{exp}\left(2Q/\left(n+3/2\right)m\right)\right]\right\}}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+1\right)}{Q^{n+1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+G(n,Q)}}`$
If $`0<Q<\mathrm{}`$, then $`0<G(n,Q)<v/m<1`$ and we can expand to obtain

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{Ap}\left(Q\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+1\right)\underset{p=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\left[v\left(n+3/2\right)/2\right]^p}{Q^{p+n+1}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{p}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p}{k}\right)()^k\mathrm{exp}\left(2kQ/\left(n+3/2\right)m\right)$$
(27)
It is illustrative to separate the perturbative and nonperturbative contributions to this expression. To this end we analyze the first contribution, e.g., the term $`k=0`$. This correspond to the asymptotic solution on $`Q`$ . After, we add the terms with $`k0`$, corresponding to nonperturbative corrections.

For $`k=0`$, by solving the $`n`$-integrations, we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_o^{GBT}\left(Q\right)\underset{p=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\left[v\left(n+3/2\right)/2\right]^p}{Q^{p+1}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(p+1\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+1\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+p+1\right)}\frac{1}{Q}\underset{p=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\left[v/2\right]^p}{Q^p}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(p+1\right)$$

where in the last step, we have explicitly taken the limit $`n\mathrm{}.`$ Then, from eq.(22)

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_o^{GBT}\left(Q\right)\underset{p=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\alpha \left(Q\right)\right)^p\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(p+1\right)=\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{as}\left(Q\right)=\frac{1}{\alpha \left(Q\right)}\mathrm{exp}\left(1/\alpha \left(Q\right)\right)\mathrm{E}i(1,1/\alpha \left(Q\right))$$

Consequently, we have recovered the approximate solution (7) provided by the conventional Borel transform in the region where this one provides sensible results.

To determine the nonperturbative corrections, we must solve the $`n`$integrals

$$I_{n+p+1}\left(\right|a|,Q)=\underset{n}{\underset{}{𝑑Q\mathrm{}𝑑Q}}\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left(\left|a\right|Q\right)}{Q^{n+p+1}};a0$$

to get

$$I_{n+p+1}(\left|a\right|,Q)=\frac{()^{n+p}()^n}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+p+1\right)\left|a\right|^{n1}}\frac{d^{n+p}}{db^{n+p}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\left|a\right|b\right)\mathrm{E}i(n,\left|a\right|\left(b+Q\right))|_{b=0}$$

where $`\mathrm{E}i(n,x)`$ is defined in eq. (8). Then, one can carry out the $`\left(n+p\right)`$ derivations valued at $`b=0`$

$$I_{n+p+1}(\left|a\right|,Q)=\left|a\right|^{p+1}\mathrm{exp}\left(\left|a\right|Q\right)()^nG(n+p+1,p+2,\left|a\right|Q)$$
(28)
where $`G`$ is the confluent hypergeometric functions of second class.

Hence, replacing the expression (27) into (25) and using eq.(28) we can write

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{GBT}\left(Q\right)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_o^{GBT}\left(Q\right)`$
$`+\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}Q\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+1\right){\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p}{k}}\right)()^k\left[v\left(n+3/2\right)/2\right]^p\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2k}{\left(n+3/2\right)m}}\right]^{p+1}`$
$`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2k}{\left(n+3/2\right)m}}Q\right]G[n+p+1,p+2,{\displaystyle \frac{2k}{\left(n+3/2\right)m}}Q]`$
To perform the limit $`n\mathrm{}`$, we have used here the integral representation of $`G`$ . Then, we conclude that the approximate solution reads

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{GBT}\left(Q\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{as}\left(Q\right)4\frac{Q}{v}\underset{p=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p}{k}\right)()^{k+p}\left[\frac{v}{\sqrt{\frac{2m}{k}Q}}\right]^{p+1}K_{p+1}\left(2\sqrt{\frac{2k}{m}Q}\right)$$
(29)
where $`K_p`$ is the Bessel function of second class.

The approximate solution (29) converges rapidly to the exact solution (22). The nonperturbative corrections recover the corresponding dependence on $`m`$ . The deviation with respect to the exact solution obtained is certainly small within all the range of $`Q.`$ In particular, the second order approximation suffer a deviation lower than 4% for $`Q2`$ (see figure 1).

The test of the accuracy provided by the GBT is presented in Figure 1 where we have compared the ratio $`F_S^{GBT}\left(Q\right)/F\left(Q\right)`$ (line $`c`$) between our approximate analytical solution (29) up to second order ( $`k=2`$ ) and the numerical integration of the exact expression (22), with the corresponding to the Borel resummation technique $`F_S^{as}\left(Q\right)/F\left(Q\right)`$ (line $`a`$) and optimization of the PT $`F_{\mu =4}\left(Q\right)/F\left(Q\right)`$ (line $`b`$). This comparison has been performed for the particular values of the parameters $`m=3`$ and $`v=0.1.`$

Let us now turn to the case of an attractive potential. This corresponds to $`v<0`$, and can be studied by changing $`v\left|v\right|`$ in the previous definition of the potential. In this case the expression for the wave packet (5) is not Borel summable because now its conventional Borel transform (6) has a pole that does not allow the integration. This situation is similar to the one presents in infrared perturbative QCD . In this case the renormalon technique usually extends the result of Borel summation (7) by using the principal value (PV) prescription. Then adds a term, coming from the ambiguity generated by the pole, that represents the non perturbative contribution. Consequently, the series (5) results in the following approximate solution

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{NS}^{as}\left(Q\right)=\mathrm{\Psi }_{PV}^{as}\left(Q\right)+C\mathrm{exp}\left(1/\alpha \right)$$
(30)
where

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{PV}^{as}\left(Q\right)=\frac{1}{\alpha \left(Q\right)}\mathrm{exp}\left(1/\alpha \left(Q\right)\right)\overline{\mathrm{E}i}(1,1/\alpha \left(Q\right))$$

and

$$\overline{\mathrm{E}i}(1,1/\alpha \left(Q\right))P.V._1^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left(t/\alpha \right)dt}{t}$$
(31)
The first term in (30) has the same perturbative asymptotic expansion as the exact function (2) and the constant $`C`$ is obtained by using purely nonperturbative methods or is extracted from experiment. The optimal value obtained is $`C=0.06`$ (see ). However, the results (30) diverges strongly at small $`Q`$ (see figure 2, line $`a`$).

On the other hand, the alternative approach of the modified perturbation theory obtain the best approximate results for the value of the parameter $`\mu =3.6`$. The obtained result presents an improvement with respect to the previous approximate solution reducing the deviation at small $`Q`$ to approximately 20% but its lose the asymptotic exact behavior (see figure 2, line $`b`$).

The GBT follows the same steps presented in the case of the repulsive potential. Notice that previously, the term $`k=0`$ generates the asymptotic solution series (5) but now this series in non alternate. In this regime the approximate value for this sum is given by expression (31). The different behavior is related to the non perturbative contribution. As it was mentioned above, the renormalon technique shows that this contribution can be estimated through the ambiguity generated by the non analyticity of the conventional Borel transform. However, as we have shown in the case of a repulsive potential, the origin is in the remaining terms with $`k0`$ in the expansion of the binomial expression (27). In fact, those terms can not be taking into account in the renormalon technique. Thus, our approximate solution reads

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{NS}^{GBT}\left(Q\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{PV}^{as}\left(Q\right)4\frac{Q}{\left|v\right|}\underset{p=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p}{k}\right)()^k\left[\frac{\left|v\right|}{\sqrt{\frac{2m}{k}Q}}\right]^{p+1}K_{p+1}\left(2\sqrt{\frac{2k}{m}Q}\right)$$

As is was the case for the repulsive potential, our approximate solution has the correct behavior for all the range of the momentum $`Q`$. In fact, the deviation, when one considers up to second order ($`k=2`$), is lower than $`3.5\%`$ for $`Q2`$ (see figure 2, line $`c`$).

In Figure 2 we present the corresponding comparative plots of the ratio between the approximate solutions $`F_{NS}^{as},F_{\mu =3.6},F_{NS}^{GBT}`$ and the exact one $`F`$ for the attractive potential.

In Summary, we have presented an analytic expression for the wave packet valid for all the range of $`Q`$, based on the GBT. In the case of the summable Borel theory, our results show explicitly how the GBT complete the perturbative solution provided by conventional Borel transform by means of the adequate incorporation of nonperturbative contributions. In the non summable Borel theory case, besides obtaining sensible results, we have shown that the real origin of the nonperturvative contributions is not the Borel ambiguity.