format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

This letter addresses the incorporation of isotropic materials with negative refractive index ,  in fractal filters inspired by Cantor dusts , .

The emergence of Cantor dusts, bars and cakes during the late 19th century has been described at some length by Mandelbrot . Briefly, the simplest Cantor dust is formed by dividing the closed interval $`[0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}]`$ into 3 pieces and removing the center open piece $`(1/3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}/3)`$, repeating the trifurcation–and–removal process on the remaining intervals $`[0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/3]`$ and $`[2/3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}]`$, and continuing in that fashion ad infinitum. The fractal (similarity) dimension of the resulting dust is $`\mathrm{log}2/\mathrm{log}30.6309`$. Similar structures in $`p`$–dimensional space, ($`p=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{}`$), can be constructed via spatial convolution . In particular, the constructs called Cantor bars appear to have captured the imagination of optical–filter researchers, as recounted recently by Lehman , because of their putatively self–similar response properties in the frequency domain .

The materials of choice for optical Cantor filters are isotropic dielectric with relative permittivity $`ϵ_r`$. Although $`ϵ_r`$ is a complex–valued function of frequency, the usual practice in optics is to ignore dissipation by setting $`\mathrm{Im}\left[ϵ_r\right]=0`$. In the area of fractal optics, with emphasis still on understanding basic interactions in nonperiodic multilayers, dispersion is also ignored . The structural self–similarity of the Cantor bars is then expected to result in the self–similarity of the spectral reflectance/transmittance responses of optical Cantor filters to normally incident light . Truly, physically realizable Cantor filters are not actually fractal but pre–fractal instead  — so that the spectral self–similarity can only be approximate .

On examining the available literature, two questions arise. First, will the situation change for Cantor filters made of isotropic dielectric–magnetic materials (with relative permeability denoted by $`\mu _r>1`$)? Second, will the situation change if both $`ϵ_r<0`$ and $`\mu _r<0`$?

The second question arose because of the supposed verification of the existence of negative refractive index (NRI) by Shelby et al.  last year. Experiments performed on certain composite materials with oriented microstructure suggested that these materials are endowed with negligible dissipation as well as NRI in some appreciably wide frequency band in the centimeter–wave regime. Also called left–handed materials by some researchers (despite possessing no handedness), in NRI materials the phase velocity is pointed opposite to the direction of energy flow (and attenuation) , . Although the extant experimental results are not perfect , , the essential conclusion of the existence of NRIs appears undeniable. As NRIs can potentially lead to exciting new technologies , theoretical consideration is warranted.

In this letter, we answer the two questions posed earlier in a unified way. Section 2 is devoted to the theory of reflection and transmission of normally incident plane waves by Cantor multilayers. Numerical results are presented and discussed in Section 3.

## 2 Theory

A Cantor multilayer is constructed sequentially as follows: Take a layer of thickness $`\mathrm{}_0`$ made of a certain material with $`ϵ_r`$ and $`\mu _r`$ as its constitutive parameters. Call this layer a multilayer of order $`N=0`$. Next, cascade two multilayers of order $`N=0`$ inserting a space of thickness $`\mathrm{}_0/f`$, $`f1`$, in between. Call this a multilayer of order $`N=1`$. Its total thickness $`\mathrm{}_1=(2+1/f)\mathrm{}_0`$. Continue in this manner. Thus, a multilayer of order $`N+1`$ is formed by inserting a space of thickness $`\mathrm{}_N/f`$ between two multilayers of order $`N`$. The thickness of a multilayer of order $`N+1`$ is then $`\mathrm{}_{N+1}=(2+1/f)\mathrm{}_N=(2+1/f)^{N+1}\mathrm{}_0`$. The fractal dimension of the multilayer is given by

$$𝒟=\frac{\mathrm{log}2}{\mathrm{log}(2+1/f)},$$
(1)
which concept is applicable strictly in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$.

Let a Cantor multilayer of order $`N`$ occupy the space $`0z\mathrm{}_N`$. Suppose a plane wave is normally incident on this multilayer from the vacuous half–space $`z0`$, with $`\lambda _0`$ denoting its wavelength. Therefore, a reflected plane wave also exists in the same half–space. Furthermore, a transmitted plane wave is engendered in the vacuous half–space $`z\mathrm{}_N`$. The corresponding electric field phasors are given by

$$\underset{¯}{E}(z)=\underset{¯}{u}_x\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{exp}(ik_0z)+\rho _N\mathrm{exp}(ik_0z),\hfill & z0\hfill \\ \tau _N\mathrm{exp}\left[ik_0(z\mathrm{}_N)\right],\hfill & z\mathrm{}_N\hfill \end{array},$$
(2)
where $`k_0=2\pi /\lambda _0`$ is the wavenumber in vacuum; $`\rho _N`$ and $`\tau _N`$ are the reflection and the transmission coefficients, respectively, both complex–valued; and $`(\underset{¯}{u}_x,\underset{¯}{u}_y,\underset{¯}{u}_z)`$ is the triad of cartesian unit vectors. An $`\mathrm{exp}(i\omega t)`$ time–dependence is implicit, where $`\omega =k_0/(ϵ_0\mu _0)^{1/2}`$ is the angular frequency, while $`ϵ_0`$ and $`\mu _0`$ are the permittivity and the permeability of vacuum, respectively.

The coefficients $`\rho _N`$ and $`\tau _N`$ can be easily determined using a 2$`\times `$2 matrix algebra . After defining the two matrixes

$$𝖠=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& \mu _0\\ ϵ_0& 0\end{array}\right],𝖡=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& \mu _0\mu _r\\ ϵ_0ϵ_r& 0\end{array}\right],$$
(3)
the matrixes $`𝖬_p`$, $`0pN`$, are iteratively computed as

$$𝖬_{p+1}=𝖬_p\text{ }\text{}\text{ }e^{i\omega (\mathrm{}_p/f)𝖠}\text{ }\text{}\text{ }𝖬_p,0pN1,$$
(4)
beginning with

$$𝖬_0=e^{i\omega \mathrm{}_0𝖡}.$$
(5)
The boundary value problem for the electromagnetic fields then involves the solution of the equation

$$\tau _N\left[\begin{array}{c}1\\ \eta _0^1\end{array}\right]=𝖬_N\text{ }\text{}\text{ }\left[\begin{array}{c}(1+\rho _N)\\ \eta _0^1(1\rho _N)\end{array}\right],$$
(6)
where $`\eta _0=(\mu _0/ϵ_0)^{1/2}`$ is the intrinsic impedance of vacuum. The principle of conservation of energy entails that $`|\rho _N|^2+|\tau _N|^21`$, with the equality coming in when the multilayer is made of a non–dissipative material.

## 3 Numerical results and discussion

Following normal practice, we implemented the foregoing equations to compute $`\rho _N`$ and $`\tau _N`$ for non–dissipative and non–dispersive materials. We varied the quantity $`\zeta =k_0\mathrm{}_0`$ for various values of $`N`$, while keeping $`ϵ_r`$ and $`\mu _r`$ fixed.

The spectrums of $`|\rho _N|^2`$ and $`|\tau _N|^2`$ turned to be identical to the ones reported in the literature ,  for optical Cantor filters (i.e., with $`ϵ_r>1`$ and $`\mu _r=1`$). Those for $`\left\{ϵ_r>1,\mu _r>1\right\}`$ and $`\left\{ϵ_r<0,\mu _r<0\right\}`$ turned to be qualitatively similar, and therefore do not need reproduction here.

As $`\zeta `$ increases from zero, the fundamental layer thickness $`\mathrm{}_0`$ becomes an increasingly significant fraction of the wavelength $`\lambda _0=2\pi /k_0`$, and eventually surpasses $`\lambda _0`$. In other words, layers are electrically thin for small $`\zeta `$, and an increase in $`\zeta `$ amounts to magnification. Therefore we evaluated the value $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_N`$ of $`\zeta `$ at which the first minimum of $`|\tau _N|`$ occurs as $`\zeta `$ increases from zero, thereby reckoning $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_N`$ as a reasonable parameter containing structural information on the chosen multilayers. If indeed the structural self–similarity of Cantor multilayers would result in their spectral self–similarity, we expect the relationship

$$\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_N=2^{N/𝒟}\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_0$$
(7)
to emerge from our numerical investigations.

Figures 1 and 2 contain plots of $`\mathrm{log}\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_N`$ versus $`N`$ for Cantor multilayers made with positive refractive index (PRI) materials ($`\left\{ϵ_r=3,\mu _r=1.02\right\}`$ or $`\left\{ϵ_r=4,\mu _r=1.02\right\}`$), and for Cantor multilayers made with their NRI analogs ($`\left\{ϵ_r=3,\mu _r=1.02\right\}`$ or $`\{ϵ_r=4,`$ $`\mu _r=1.02\}`$). The factor $`f=1`$ for Figure 1, and $`f=2`$ for Figure 2. Two conclusions can be immediately drawn from these two figures as follows:

* The relationship $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_N=2^{N/𝒟_{PRI}}\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_0`$ satisfied by Cantor multilayers with PRI materials is a power law with $`𝒟_{PRI}>𝒟`$, and could be fractalesque .
* The data for Cantor multilayers with NRI materials indicates two different regimes, one for small $`N`$ and the other for large $`N`$, the second regime characterized by a power law.

The foregoing conclusions suggest that the effect of NRI materials on electromagnetic fields must be substantively different from that of PRI materials, for the anomalous first regime to arise for Cantor multilayers with NRI materials. Furthermore, in the present context, the difference must be evident definitely for order $`N=0`$.

Hence, we analyzed the planewave response of a single layer to obtain

$$\rho _0=\frac{(\eta _r^21)\mathrm{sin}\beta }{(\eta _r^2+1)\mathrm{sin}\beta +2i\eta _r\mathrm{cos}\beta }$$
(8)
and

$$\tau _0=\frac{2i\eta _r}{(\eta _r^2+1)\mathrm{sin}\beta +2i\eta _r\mathrm{cos}\beta }.$$
(9)
Here, the relative impedance $`\eta _r=+\sqrt{\mu _r/ϵ_r}`$ must be positive real, while the sign of $`\beta =k_0\mathrm{}_0\sqrt{\mu _rϵ_r}`$ has to be positive/negative for PRI/NRI materials . Denoting the phase of a complex number $`\xi `$ by $`\mathrm{}\xi `$, we conclude from the foregoing equations that

$$\left\{ϵ_rϵ_r,\mu _r\mu _r\right\}\left\{|\rho _0||\rho _0|,|\tau _0||\tau _0|,\mathrm{}\rho _0\mathrm{}\rho _0,\mathrm{}\tau _0\mathrm{}\tau _0\right\}.$$
(10)
In light of the relationship (10), let us compare a PRI layer and a NRI layer — labeled $`a`$ and $`b`$, respectively — such that $`\mu _{r_a}=\mu _{r_b}>0`$ and $`ϵ_{r_a}=ϵ_{r_b}>0`$, while the wavenumber $`k_0`$ is fixed. If the thicknesses of the two layers are such that the sum $`\beta _a+|\beta _b|`$ is an integral multiple of $`2\pi `$, then (8) and (9) yield $`\rho _{0_a}=\rho _{0_b}`$ and $`\tau _{0_a}=\tau _{0_b}`$. Thus, a PRI layer of a certain thickness is equivalent to a NRI layer of different thickness, in terms of the complex–valued reflection and transmission coefficients at a fixed wavelength. But the thickness of the equivalent NRI layer is wavelength–dependent — which implies that a PRI Cantor multilayer is equivalent at different wavelengths to different NRI Cantor multilayers. Not surprisingly therefore, the spectral characteristics of a PRI and a NRI Cantor multilayers with the same $`\mathrm{}_0`$ are not isomorphic.

The difference is very noticeable for small $`N`$ in Figures 1 and 2. As $`N`$ increases, the value of $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_N`$ decreases for both PRI and NRI multilayers — in other words, the fundamental layer of thickness $`\mathrm{}_0`$ becomes electrically thinner at the first transmittance minimum and, therefore, a weaker reflector as well as a stronger transmitter. Structural characteristics then dominate over the consequences of (10), because $`|\rho _0|0`$ and $`|\tau _0|1`$. As the difference between PRI and NRI multilayers lessens with increasing $`N`$, the latter also begin to evince power–law characteristics.

The crossover between the anomalous and the power–law regimes for NRI multilayers takes place at a higher value of $`N`$ as $`f`$ increases. This general trend is indicated by Figures 1 and 2 as well as calculations for other values of $`f`$.

To conclude, we have shown that the planewave reflection and transmission spectrums of a Cantor multilayer made of an isotropic dielectric–magnetic material with positive refractive index shows power–law characteristics which indicate spectral self–similarity. However, if the same multilayer were to be made of a material with negative refractive index, then the power–law nature is not going to be evident when the interaction between the material layers and the interleaving vacuous spaces is substantial (the small–$`N`$ regime). The existence of this anomalous regime can be attributed to the reflection/transmission phase reversal of a NRI layer in relation to its PRI analog. If that interaction is insubstantial (the large–$`N`$ regime), the structural features would dominate the constitutive features, and the power–law characteristics would be evident also for the NRI Cantor multilayer.

Acknowledgement We thank an anonymous reviewer for the suggestion to examine the large–$`N`$ responses.


text:
# A Poisson structure on compact symmetric spaces

## 1. Introduction and the Poisson structure $`\pi _0`$ on $`U/K_0`$.

Let $`𝔤_0`$ be a real semi-simple Lie algebra, and let $`𝔤`$ be its complexification. Fix a Cartan decomposition $`𝔤_0=𝔨_0+𝔭_0`$ of $`𝔤_0`$, and let $`𝔲`$ be the compact real form of $`𝔤`$ given by $`𝔲=𝔨_0+i𝔭_0`$. Let $`G`$ be the connected and simply connected Lie group with Lie algebra $`𝔤`$, and let $`G_0,K_0`$, and $`U`$ be the connected subgroups of $`G`$ with Lie algebras $`𝔤_0,𝔨_0`$, and $`𝔲`$ respectively. Then $`K_0=G_0U`$, and $`U/K_0`$ is the compact dual of the non-compact Riemannian symmetric space $`G_0/K_0`$. In this paper, we will define a Poisson structure $`\pi _0`$ on $`U/K_0`$ and study some of its properties.

The definition of $`\pi _0`$ depends on a choice of an Iwasawa–Borel subalgebra of $`𝔤`$ relative to $`𝔤_0`$. Recall  that a Borel subalgebra $`𝔟`$ of $`𝔤`$ is said to be Iwasawa relative to $`𝔤_0`$ if $`𝔟𝔞_0+𝔫_0`$ for some Iwasawa decomposition $`𝔤_0=𝔨_0+𝔞_0+𝔫_0`$ of $`𝔤_0`$. Let $`Y`$ be the variety of all Borel subalgebras of $`𝔤`$. Then $`G`$ acts transitively on $`Y`$ by conjugations, and $`𝔟Y`$ is Iwasawa relative to $`𝔤_0`$ if and only if it lies in the unique closed orbit of $`G_0`$ on $`Y`$ . Denote by $`\tau `$ and $`\theta `$ the complex conjugations on $`𝔤`$ with respect to $`𝔤_0`$ and $`𝔲`$ respectively. Throughout this paper, we will fix an Iwasawa–Borel subalgebra $`𝔟`$ relative to $`𝔤_0`$ and a Cartan subalgebra $`𝔥𝔟`$ of $`𝔤`$ that is stable under both $`\tau `$ and $`\theta `$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ be the set of roots for $`𝔥`$ determined by $`𝔟`$, and let $`𝔫`$ be the complex span of root vectors for roots in $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$, so that $`𝔟=𝔥+𝔫`$. Let $`𝔞=\{x𝔥:\theta (x)=x\}`$. Let $`𝔞_0=𝔞𝔤_0`$ and $`𝔫_0=𝔫𝔤_0`$. Then $`𝔤_0=𝔨_0+𝔞_0+𝔫_0`$ is an Iwasawa decomposition of $`𝔤_0`$.

We can define a Poisson structure $`\pi _0`$ on $`U/K_0`$ as follows: let $`,`$ be the Killing form of $`𝔤`$. For each $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }^+`$, choose a root vector $`E_\alpha `$ such that $`E_\alpha ,\theta (E_\alpha )=1`$. Let $`E_\alpha =\theta (E_\alpha )`$, and let $`X_\alpha =E_\alpha E_\alpha `$ and $`Y_\alpha =i(E_\alpha +E_\alpha )`$. Then $`X_\alpha ,Y_\alpha 𝔲`$ for each $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }^+`$. Set

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{1}{4}\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }^+}{}X_\alpha Y_\alpha 𝔲𝔲,$$

and define the bi-vector field $`\pi _U`$ on $`U`$ by

$$\pi _U=\mathrm{\Lambda }^r\mathrm{\Lambda }^l,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^r`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^l`$ are respectively the right and left invariant bi-vector fields on $`U`$ with value $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at the identity element. Then $`\pi _U`$ is a Poisson bivector field, and $`(U,\pi _U)`$ is the Poisson-Lie group defined by the Manin triple $`(𝔤,𝔲,𝔞+𝔫)`$ .

The group $`G`$ acts on $`U`$ from the right via $`u^g=u_1`$, if $`ug=bu_1`$ for some $`bAN`$, where $`A=\mathrm{exp}𝔞`$ and $`N=\mathrm{exp}𝔫`$. Therefore every subgroup of $`G`$, for example $`AN`$ or $`G_0`$, also acts on $`U`$. The symplectic leaves of $`\pi _U`$ are precisely the orbits of the right $`AN`$-action. These leaves are parameterized by the torus $`T=\mathrm{exp}(i𝔞)`$ and the Weyl group $`W`$ of $`(U,𝔥)`$. The Poisson structure $`\pi _U`$ is both left and right $`T`$-invariant, and it descends to the so-called Bruhat Poisson structure on $`T\backslash U`$, whose symplectic leaves are precisely the Bruhat cells of $`T\backslash UB\backslash G`$ as the orbits of the Borel group $`B=TAN`$. We refer to  for details.

###### Proposition 1.1.

There exists a Poisson structure $`\pi _0`$ on $`U/K_0`$ such that the natural projection $`p:(U,\pi _U)(U/K_0,\pi _0)`$ is a Poisson map. The symplectic leaves of the Poisson structure $`\pi _0`$ are precisely the projections of the $`G_0`$-orbits on $`U`$ via the map $`p`$.

Proof. To show that the Poisson structure $`\pi _U`$ descends to the quotient $`U/K_0`$, it is enough to show that the annihilator space $`𝔨_0^{}`$ of $`𝔨_0`$ inside $`𝔲^{}`$, which is identified with $`𝔞+𝔫`$, is a Lie subalgebra of $`𝔞+𝔫`$. The bilinear form which is used in this identification is the imaginary part of the Killing form $`,`$ of $`𝔤`$. We observe that being a real form of $`𝔤`$, $`𝔤_0`$ is isotropic with respect to $`\mathrm{Im},`$, which implies that $`𝔨_0^{}𝔞_0+𝔫_0`$. It then follows for dimension reason that $`𝔨_0^{}=𝔞_0+𝔫_0`$, which is a Lie subalgebra of $`𝔞+𝔫`$.

For the statement concerning the symplectic leaves of $`\pi _0`$, we observe that $`(X,\pi _0)`$ is a $`(U,\pi _U)`$-Poisson homogeneous space, and then apply \[10, Theorem 7.2\].

Q.E.D.

###### Remark 1.2.

For the case when the Satake diagram of $`𝔤_0`$ has no black dots, the Poisson structure $`\pi _0`$ was considered by Fernandes in .

In this paper, we will study some properties of the symplectic leaves of $`\pi _0`$. Recall that $`Y`$ is the variety of all Borel subalgebras of $`𝔤`$. We will show that the set of symplectic leaves of $`\pi _0`$ is essentially parameterized by the set of $`G_0`$-orbits in $`Y`$, which have been studied extensively because of their importance in the representation theory of $`G_0`$. More precisely, let $`q:UY`$ be surjective map $`u\mathrm{Ad}_u^1𝔟Y`$. Then the map $`𝒪p(q^1(𝒪))`$ gives a bijective correspondence between the set of $`G_0`$-orbits in $`Y`$ and the set of $`T`$-orbits of symplectic leaves in $`U/K_0`$. In particular, there are finitely many families of symplectic leaves. In each family leaves are translates of one another by elements in $`T`$. Moreover, $`\pi _0`$ has open symplectic leaves if and only if $`𝔤_0`$ has a compact Cartan subalgebra, in which case, the number of open symplectic leaves is the same as the number of open $`G_0`$-orbits in $`Y`$, and each open symplectic leaf is diffeomorphic to $`G_0/K_0`$. When $`X`$ is Hermitian symmetric, the Poisson structure $`\pi _0`$ is shown to be the sum of the Bruhat Poisson structure  and a multiple of any non-degenerate invariant Poisson structure.

We also show that the $`U`$-invariant Poisson cohomology $`H_{\pi _0,U}^{}(U/K_0)`$ is isomorphic to the De Rham cohomology of $`U/K_0`$. The full Poisson cohomology and some further properties of $`\pi _0`$ will be studied in a future paper.

Throughout the paper, if $`Z`$ is a set and if $`\sigma `$ is an involution on $`Z`$, we will use $`Z^\sigma `$ to denote the fixed point set of $`\sigma `$ in $`Z`$.

## 2. Symplectic leaves of $`\pi _0`$ and $`G_0`$-orbits in $`Y`$.

By Proposition 1.1, symplectic leaves of $`\pi _0`$ are precisely the projections to $`U/K_0`$ of $`G_0`$-orbits in $`U`$. Here, recall that $`G_0`$ acts on $`U`$ as a subgroup of $`G`$, and $`G`$ acts on $`U`$ from the right by

(2.1)
$$u^g=u_1,\mathrm{if}ug=bu_1\mathrm{for}bAN,$$

where $`uU`$ and $`gG`$. It is easy to see that the above right action of $`G`$ on $`U`$ descends to an action of $`G`$ on $`T\backslash U`$. On the other hand, the map $`UY:u\mathrm{Ad}_u^1𝔟`$ gives a $`G`$-equivariant identification of $`Y`$ with $`T\backslash U`$. This identification will be used throughout the paper. The $`G_0`$-orbits on $`Y`$ have been studied extensively (see, for example,  and ). In particular, there are finitely many $`G_0`$-orbits in $`Y`$. We will now formulate a precise connection between symplectic leaves of $`\pi _0`$ and $`G_0`$-orbits in $`Y`$.

Let $`X=U/K_0`$. For $`xX`$, let $`L_x`$ be the symplectic leaf of $`\pi _0`$ through $`x`$. Since $`T`$ acts by Poisson diffeomorphisms, for each $`tT`$, the set $`tL_x=\{tx_1:x_1L_x\}`$ is again a symplectic leaf of $`\pi _0`$. Let

$$𝒮_x=\underset{tT}{}tL_xX.$$

For $`yY`$, let $`𝒪_y`$ be the $`G_0`$-orbit in $`Y`$ through $`y`$. Let $`p:UX=U/K_0`$ and $`q:UY=T\backslash U`$ be the natural projections.

###### Proposition 2.1.

Let $`xX`$ and $`yY`$ be such that $`p^1(x)q^1(y)\mathrm{}`$. Then

$$p(q^1(𝒪_y))=𝒮_x,\mathrm{and}q(p^1(𝒮_x))=𝒪_y.$$

Proof. Let $`up^1(x)q^1(y)`$, and let $`u^{G_0}`$ be the $`G_0`$-orbit in $`U`$ through $`u`$. It is easy to show that

$$q^1(𝒪_y)=p^1(𝒮_x)=\underset{tT}{}t(u^{G_0}).$$

Thus,

$$p(q^1(𝒪_y))=\underset{tT}{}tp(u^{G_0})=𝒮_x,$$

and

$$q(p^1(𝒮_x))=q(u^{G_0})=𝒪_y.$$

Q.E.D.

###### Corollary 2.2.

Let $`𝒪_Y`$ be the collection of $`G_0`$-orbits in $`Y`$, and let $`𝒮_X`$ be the collection of all the subsets $`𝒮_x,xX`$. Then the map

$$𝒪_Y𝒮_X:𝒪p(q^1(𝒪))$$

is a bijection with the inverse given by $`𝒮q(p^1(𝒮))`$.

We now recall some facts about $`G_0`$-orbits in $`Y`$ from  which we will use to compute the dimensions of symplectic leaves of $`\pi _0`$. Since  is based on the choice of a Borel subalgebra in an open $`G_0`$-orbit in $`Y`$, we will restate the relevant results from  in Proposition 2.3 to fit our set-up.

Let $`𝔱=i𝔞`$ be the Lie algebra of $`T`$, and let $`N_U(𝔱)`$ be the normalizer subgroup of $`𝔱`$ in $`U`$. Set

$$𝒱=\{uU:u\tau (u)^1N_U(𝔱)\}.$$

Then $`u𝒱`$ if and only if $`\mathrm{Ad}_u^1𝔥`$ is $`\tau `$-stable. Clearly $`𝒱`$ is invariant under the left translations by elements in $`T`$ and the right translations by elements in $`K_0`$. Set

$$V=T\backslash 𝒱/K_0.$$

Then we have a well-defined map

$$V𝒪_Y:v𝒪(v),$$

where for $`v=TuK_0V`$, $`𝒪(v)`$ is the $`G_0`$-orbit in $`Y`$ through the point $`\mathrm{Ad}_u^1𝔟Y`$. Let $`W=N_U(𝔱)/T`$ be the Weyl group. Then we also have the well-defined map

$$\psi :VW:v=TuK_0u\tau (u)^1TW.$$

For $`wW`$, let $`l(w)`$ be the length of $`w`$.

###### Proposition 2.3.

1) The map $`v𝒪(v)`$ is a bijection between the set $`V`$ and the set $`𝒪_Y`$ of all $`G_0`$-orbits in $`Y`$;

2) For $`vV`$, the co-dimension of $`𝒪(v)`$ in $`Y`$ is equal to $`l(\psi (v)w_bw_0)`$, where $`w_0`$ is the longest element of $`W`$, and $`w_b`$ is the longest element of the subgroup of $`W`$ generated by the black dots of the Satake diagram of $`𝔤_0`$.

###### Remarks 2.4.

1) Since $`\tau `$ leaves $`𝔞`$ invariant, it acts on the set of roots for $`𝔥`$ by $`(\tau \alpha )(x)=\alpha (\tau (x))`$ for $`x𝔞`$. We know from  that the black dots in the Satake diagram of $`𝔤_0`$ correspond precisely to the simple roots $`\alpha `$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ such that $`\tau (\alpha )=\alpha `$. Moreover, if $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ and if $`\tau (\alpha )\alpha `$, then $`\tau (\alpha )\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$;

2) We now point out how Proposition 2.3 follows from results in . Let $`u_0U`$ be such that $`𝔟^{}:=\mathrm{Ad}_{u_0}𝔟`$ lies in an open $`G_0`$-orbit in $`Y`$ and $`𝔥^{}:=\mathrm{Ad}_{u_0}𝔥`$ is $`\tau `$-stable. The pair $`(𝔤_0,𝔟^{})`$ is called a standard pair in the terminology of \[13, No.1.2\]. Let $`𝔱^{}=\mathrm{Ad}_{u_0}𝔱`$, $`T^{}=u_0Tu_0^1`$, and $`N_U(𝔱^{})=u_0N_U(𝔱)u_0^1`$. Let

$$𝒱^{}=\{u^{}U:u^{}\tau (u^{})^1N_U(𝔱^{})\},$$

and let $`V^{}=T^{}\backslash 𝒱^{}/K_0`$. For $`v^{}=T^{}u^{}K_0`$, let $`𝒪(v^{})`$ be the $`G_0`$-orbit in $`Y`$ through the point $`\mathrm{Ad}_u^{}^1𝔟^{}Y`$. Then \[13, Theorem 6.1.4(3)\] says that the map $`V^{}𝒪_Y:v^{}𝒪(v^{})`$ is a bijection between the set $`V^{}`$ and the set $`𝒪_Y`$ of $`G_0`$-orbits in $`Y`$, and \[13, Theorem 6.4.2\] says that the co-dimension of $`𝒪(v^{})`$ in $`Y`$ is the length of the element $`\varphi (v^{})`$ in the Weyl group $`W^{}=N_U(𝔱^{})/T^{}`$ defined by $`u^{}\tau (u^{})^1N_U(𝔱^{})`$. Since $`𝔟=\mathrm{Ad}_{u_0}^1𝔟^{}`$ lies in the unique closed $`G_0`$-orbit in $`Y`$, it follows from \[13, No. 1.6\] that $`u_0\tau (u_0)^1N_U(𝔱^{})`$ defines the element in $`W^{}`$ that corresponds to $`w_bw_0W`$ under the natural identification of $`W`$ and $`W^{}`$. It is also easy to see that $`𝒱^{}=u_0𝒱`$, and if $`v^{}=T^{}u^{}K_0V^{}`$ and $`v=T(u_0^1u^{})K_0V`$ for $`u^{}𝒱^{}`$, then $`𝒪(v^{})=𝒪(v)`$, and $`\varphi (v^{})W^{}`$ corresponds to $`\psi (v)w_bw_0W`$ under the natural identification of $`W`$ and $`W^{}`$. It is now clear that Proposition 2.3 holds. Statement 2) of Proposition 2.3 can also be seen directly from Lemma 3.2 below;

3) Starting from a complete collection of representatives of equivalence classes of strongly orthogonal real roots for the Cartan subalgebra $`𝔥^\tau `$ of $`𝔤_0`$, it is possible, by using Cayley transforms, to explicitly construct a set of representatives of $`V`$ in $`𝒱`$. This is done in \[12, Theorem 3\].

4) The three involutions $`\tau ,w_0`$ and $`w_b`$ on $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }^+(\mathrm{\Delta }^+)`$ commute with each other. Indeed, since $`\tau `$ commutes with the reflection defined by every black dot on the Satake diagram, $`\tau `$ commutes with $`w_b`$. We know from Remark (2.4) that $`\tau w_b(\mathrm{\Delta }^+)=\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$, so $`\tau w_b`$ defines an automorphism of the Dynkin diagram of $`𝔤`$. It is well-known that $`w_0`$ is in the center of the group of all automorphisms of the Dynkin diagram of $`𝔤`$ (this can be checked, for example, case by case). Thus $`w_0`$ commutes with $`\tau w_b`$. To see that $`w_0`$ commutes with $`w_b`$, note by directly checking case by case that $`w_0`$ maps a simple black root on the Satake diagram of $`𝔤_0`$ to another such simple black root. Thus $`w_0w_bw_0`$ is still in the subgroup $`W_b`$ of $`W`$ generated by the set of all black simple roots. It follows that $`w_0w_b`$ and $`w_bw_0=w_0(w_0w_bw_0)`$ are in the same right $`W_b`$ coset in $`W`$. Since $`l(w_0w_b)=l(w_bw_0)=l(w_0)l(w_b)`$, we know that $`w_0w_b=w_bw_0`$ by the uniqueness of minimal length representatives of right $`W_b`$ cosets in $`W`$. Thus $`w_0`$ commutes with both $`\tau `$ and $`w_b`$. These remarks will be used in the proof of Lemma 3.2.

## 3. Symplectic leaves of $`\pi _0`$.

Recall that $`p:UU/K_0`$ and $`q:UY=T\backslash U`$ are the natural projections. For each $`vV=T\backslash 𝒱/K_0`$, set

$$𝒮(v)=p(q^1(𝒪(v)))U/K_0.$$

By Corollary 2.2, we have a disjoint union

$$U/K_0=\underset{vV}{}𝒮(v).$$

Moreover, each $`𝒮(v)`$ is a union of symplectic leaves of $`\pi _0`$, all of which are translates of each other by elements in $`T`$. Thus it is enough to understand one single leaf in $`𝒮(v)`$. Recall that $`G`$ acts on $`U`$ from the right by $`(u,g)u^g`$ as described in (2.1).

###### Lemma 3.1.

For every $`uU`$, the map

$$(G_0u^1(AN)u)\backslash G_0/K_0U/K_0:(G_0u^1(AN)u)g_0K_0u^{g_0}K_0,g_0G_0,$$

gives a diffeomorphism between the double coset space $`(G_0u^1(AN)u)\backslash G_0/K_0`$ and the symplectic leaf of $`\pi _0`$ through the point $`uK_0U/K_0`$.

Proof. Consider the $`G_0`$-action on $`U`$ as a subgroup of $`G`$. By (2.1), the induced action of $`K_0`$ on $`U`$ is by left translations. It is easy to see that the stabilizer subgroup of $`G_0`$ at $`u`$ is $`G_0u^1(AN)u`$. Let $`u^{G_0}`$ be the $`G_0`$-orbit in $`U`$ through $`u`$. Then

$$u^{G_0}(G_0u^1(AN)u)\backslash G_0.$$

Since the action of $`K_0`$ on $`u^{G_0}`$ by left translations is free, we see that the double coset space $`(G_0u^1(AN)u)\backslash G_0/K_0`$ is smooth. Lemma 3.1 now follows from Proposition 1.1.

Q.E.D.

Assume now that $`u𝒱`$. To better understand the group $`G_0u^1(AN)u`$, we introduce the involution $`\tau _u`$ on $`𝔤`$:

$$\tau _u=\mathrm{Ad}_u\tau \mathrm{Ad}_u^1=\mathrm{Ad}_{u\tau (u^1)}\tau :𝔤𝔤.$$

The fixed point set of $`\tau _u`$ in $`𝔤`$ is the real form $`\mathrm{Ad}_u𝔤_0`$ of $`𝔤`$. We will use the same letter for the lifting of $`\tau _u`$ to $`G`$. Since $`\tau _u`$ leaves $`𝔞`$ invariant, it acts on the set of roots for $`𝔥`$ by $`(\tau _u\alpha )(x)=\alpha (\tau _u(x))`$ for $`x𝔞`$. Recall that associated to $`v=TuK_0V`$ we have the Weyl group element $`\psi (v)w_bw_0`$. Let

$$N_v=N(\dot{w}N^{}\dot{w}^1),$$

where $`\dot{w}U`$ is any representative of $`\psi (v)w_bw_0W`$.

###### Lemma 3.2.

For any $`u𝒱`$ and $`v=TuK_0V`$,

1) $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+\tau _u(\mathrm{\Delta }^+)=\mathrm{\Delta }^+(\psi (v)w_bw_0)(\mathrm{\Delta }^+)`$;

2) $`N_v`$ is $`\tau _u`$-invariant and $`G_0u^1Nu=u^1(N_v)^{\tau _u}u=(u^1N_vu)^\tau `$ is connected;

3) the map

(3.1)
$$M:(G_0u^1Tu)\times (G_0u^1Au)\times (G_0u^1Nu)G_0u^1(TAN)u$$

given by $`M(g_1,g_2,g_3)=g_1g_2g_3`$ is a diffeomorphism.

Proof. 1) Recall that $`\psi (v)W`$ is the element defined by $`u\tau (u)^1N_U(𝔱)`$. Then $`\tau _u(\alpha )=\psi (v)\tau (\alpha )`$ for every $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }`$. Thus $`\tau _u(\alpha )\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ if and only if $`\psi (v)\tau (\alpha )\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$, which is in turn equivalent to $`w_0\tau w_b\psi (v)\tau (\alpha )\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ because $`w_0\tau w_b(\mathrm{\Delta }^+)=\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$. Since the three involutions $`w_0,\tau `$ and $`w_b`$ commute with each other by Remark 2.4, we have $`w_0\tau w_b\psi (v)\tau =(\psi (v)w_bw_0)^1`$. This proves 1).

2) We know from 1) that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+(\psi (v)w_bw_0)(\mathrm{\Delta }^+)`$ is $`\tau _u`$-invariant. Thus $`N_v`$ is $`\tau _u`$-invariant. Clearly $`u^1(N_v)^{\tau _u}uG_0u^1Nu`$. Let $`N_v^{}=N\dot{w}N\dot{w}^1`$. Then $`N=N_vN_v^{}`$ is a direct product, and we know from 1) that $`\tau _u(N_v^{})N^{}`$. Suppose now that $`nN`$ is such that $`u^1nuG_0u^1Nu`$. Write $`n=mm^{}`$ with $`mN_v`$ and $`m^{}N_v^{}`$. Then from $`\tau _u(n)=n`$ we get $`\tau _u(m^{})=\tau _u(m^1)nN^{}N=\{e\}`$. Thus $`m^{}=e`$, and $`n=m(N_v)^{\tau _u}`$. Since the exponential map for the group $`u^1(AN)u`$ is a diffeomorphism, $`(u^1(AN)u)^\tau `$ is the connected subgroup of $`u^1(AN)u`$ with Lie algebra $`(\mathrm{Ad}_u^1(𝔞+𝔫))^\tau `$. This shows 2).

We now prove 3). Since $`\mathrm{Ad}_u^1𝔥`$ is $`\tau `$-invariant, the Lie algebra $`𝔤_0\mathrm{Ad}_u^1𝔟`$ of $`G_0u^1(TAN)u`$ is the direct sum of the Lie algebras of the three subgroups on the left hand side of (3.1). Thus the map $`M`$ is a local diffeomorphism. It is also easy to see that $`M`$ is one-to-one. Thus it remains to show that $`M`$ is onto. Suppose that $`hTA`$ and $`nN`$ are such that $`u^1(hn)uG_0`$. Then $`\tau _u(hn)=hn.`$ Write $`n=mm^{}`$ with $`mN_v`$ and $`m^{}N_v^{}`$. Then from $`\tau _u(hn)=hn`$ we get $`\tau _u(m^{})=\tau _u(m^1)\tau _u(h^1)hnN^{}HN=\{e\}`$. Thus $`m^{}=e`$, and $`\tau _u(h)=h`$ and $`n=m(N_v)^{\tau _u}`$. If $`h=ta`$ with $`tT`$ and $`aA`$, it is also easy to see that $`\tau (h)=h`$ implies that $`\tau _u(t)=t`$ and $`\tau _u(a)=a`$.

Q.E.D.

In particular, we see that $`G_0u^1(AN)u`$ is a contractible subgroup of $`G_0`$. Since Lemma 3.1 states that the symplectic leaf of $`\pi _0`$ through the point $`uK_0`$ is diffeomorphic to $`(G_0u^1(AN)u)\backslash G_0/K_0`$, we see that this leaf is the base space of a smooth fibration with contractible total space and fiber. Thus we have:

###### Proposition 3.3.

Each symplectic leaf of the Poisson structure $`\pi _0`$ is contractible.

###### Remark 3.4.

Since $`dim(Y)=dim((G_0u^1(TA)u)\backslash G_0)`$, it is also clear from 3) of Lemma 3.2 that the codimension of $`𝒪(v)`$ in $`Y`$ is $`l(\psi (v)w_bw_0)`$. See Proposition 2.3.

It is a basic fact  that associated to each $`G_0`$-orbit in $`Y`$ there is a unique $`G_0`$-conjugacy class of $`\tau `$-stable Cartan subalgebras of $`𝔤`$. For $`u𝒱`$ and $`v=TuK_0V`$, the $`G_0`$-conjugacy class of $`\tau `$-stable Cartan subalgebras of $`𝔤`$ associated to $`𝒪(v)`$ is that defined by $`\mathrm{Ad}_u^1𝔥`$. The intersection $`(\mathrm{Ad}_u^1𝔥)𝔤_0`$ is a Cartan subalgebra of $`𝔤_0`$. Regard both $`\tau `$ and $`\psi (v)`$ as maps on $`𝔥`$ so that $`\psi (v)\tau =\tau _u|_𝔥:𝔥𝔥`$. Then we have

$$(\mathrm{Ad}_u^1𝔥)𝔤_0=(\mathrm{Ad}_u^1𝔥)^\tau =\mathrm{Ad}_u^1(𝔥^{\psi (v)\tau }).$$

Since $`\psi (v)\tau `$ commutes with $`\theta `$, it leaves both $`𝔱=𝔥^\theta `$ and $`𝔞=𝔥^\theta `$ invariant, and we have

$$(\mathrm{Ad}_u^1𝔥)𝔤_0=\mathrm{Ad}_u^1(𝔱^{\psi (v)\tau }+𝔞^{\psi (v)\tau }).$$

The subspaces $`\mathrm{Ad}_u^1(𝔱^{\psi (v)\tau })`$ and $`\mathrm{Ad}_u^1(𝔞^{\psi (v)\tau })`$ are respectively the toral and vector parts of the Cartan subalgebra $`(\mathrm{Ad}_u^1𝔥)𝔤_0`$ of $`𝔤_0`$. Set

(3.2) $`t(v)`$ $`=`$ $`dim(𝔱^{\psi (v)\tau })=dim(\mathrm{Ad}_u^1(𝔱^{\psi (v)\tau }))=dim(G_0u^1Tu)`$
(3.3) $`a(v)`$ $`=`$ $`dim(𝔱^{\psi (v)\tau })=dim(\mathrm{Ad}_u^1(𝔞^{\psi (v)\tau }))=dim(G_0u^1Au).`$
###### Theorem 3.5.

For every $`vV`$,

1) every symplectic leaf $`L`$ in $`𝒮(v)`$ has dimension

$$dimL=dim(𝒪(v))dim(K_0)+t(v),$$

so the co-dimension of $`L`$ in $`U/K_0`$ is $`a(v)+l(\psi (v)w_bw_0)`$;

2) the family of symplectic leaves in $`𝒮(v)`$ is parameterized by the quotient torus $`T/T^{\psi (v)\tau }`$.

Proof. Let $`u`$ be a representative of $`v`$ in $`𝒱U`$. Let $`x=uK_0U/K_0`$, and let $`L_x`$ be the symplectic leaf of $`\pi _0`$ through $`x`$. We only need to compute the dimension of $`L_x`$. Let $`u^{G_0}`$ be the $`G_0`$-orbit in $`U`$ through $`u`$. We know from Lemma 3.1 that $`u^{G_0}(G_0u^1(AN)u)\backslash G_0`$, and that $`u^{G_0}`$ fibers over $`L_x`$ with fiber $`K_0`$. Thus $`dimL_x=dimu^{G_0}dimK_0`$. On the other hand, since

$$𝒪(v)(G_0u^1(TAN)u)\backslash G_0,$$

we know that $`u^{G_0}`$ fibers over $`𝒪(v)`$ with fiber $`(G_0u^1(TAN)u)/(G_0u^1(AN)u)`$, which is diffeomorphic to $`G_0u^1Tu`$ by Lemma 3.2. Thus $`dimu^{G_0}=dim𝒪(v)+t(v)`$, and we have

$$dimL_x=\mathrm{dim}(𝒪(v))\mathrm{dim}(K_0)+t(v).$$

The formula for the co-dimension of $`L_x`$ in $`U/K`$ now follows from the facts that the co-dimension of $`𝒪(v)`$ in $`Y`$ is $`l(\psi (v)w_bw_0)`$ and that $`t(v)+\alpha (v)=dimT`$.

Let $`tT`$. Then $`tL_x=L_x`$ if and only if there exists $`g_0G_0`$ such that $`tuK_0=u^{g_0}K_0U/K_0`$. By replacing $`g_0`$ by a product of $`g_0`$ with some $`k_0K_0`$, we see that $`tL_x=L_x`$ if and only if there exists $`g_0G_0`$ such that $`tu=u^{g_0}`$, which is equivalent to $`btuG_0u^1`$ for some $`bAN`$. By Lemma 3.2, this is equivalent to $`tTuG_0u^1=T^{\psi (v)\tau }`$.

Q.E.D.

By \[14, Proposition 1.3.1.3\], for every $`vV`$, we can always choose $`u𝒱`$ representing $`v`$ such that $`𝔤_0\mathrm{Ad}_u^1𝔞=(\mathrm{Ad}_u^1𝔞)^\tau 𝔞^\tau `$. When $`𝒪(v)`$ is open in $`Y`$, $`𝔤_0\mathrm{Ad}_u^1𝔥`$ is a maximally compact Cartan subalgebra of $`𝔤_0`$ , which is unique up to $`G_0`$-conjugation. Let $`𝔥_1`$ be any maximally compact Cartan subalgebra of $`𝔤_0`$ whose vector part $`𝔞_1`$ lies in $`𝔞_0=𝔞^\tau `$, and let $`𝔞_0^{}`$ be any complement of $`𝔞_1`$ in $`𝔞_0`$. Let $`A_0^{}=\mathrm{exp}𝔞_0^{}A_0`$. We have the following corollary of Lemma 3.1 and Theorem 3.5.

###### Corollary 3.6.

A symplectic leaf of $`\pi _0`$ has the largest dimension among all symplectic leaves if and only if it lies in $`𝒮(v)`$ corresponding to an open $`G_0`$-orbit $`𝒪(v)`$. Such a leaf is diffeomorphic to $`A_0^{}N_0`$.

###### Corollary 3.7.

The Poisson structure $`\pi _0`$ has open symplectic leaves if and only if $`𝔤_0`$ has a compact Cartan subalgebra. In this case the number of open symplectic leaves of $`\pi _0`$ is the same as the number of open $`G_0`$-orbits in $`Y`$, and each open symplectic leaf is diffeomorphic to $`G_0/K_0`$.

For the rest of this section we assume that $`X=U/K_0`$ is an irreducible Hermitian symmetric space. In this case, there is a parabolic subgroup $`P`$ of $`G`$ containing $`B=TAN`$ such that $`u_0K_0u_0^1=UP`$ for some $`u_0U`$. It is proved in  that the Poisson structure $`\pi _U`$ on $`U`$ projects to a Poisson structure on $`U/(UP)`$, which can be regarded as a Poisson structure on $`U/K_0`$, denoted by $`\pi _{\mathrm{}}`$, via the $`U`$-equivariant identification

$$X=U/K_0U/(UP):uK_0uu_0^1(UP).$$

Since $`(X,\pi _{\mathrm{}})`$ is also $`(U,\pi _U)`$-homogeneous, the difference $`\pi _0\pi _{\mathrm{}}`$ is a $`U`$-invariant bivector field on $`X`$. On the other hand, $`X`$ carried a $`U`$-invariant symplectic structure which is unique up to scalar multiples. Let $`\omega _{\mathrm{inv}}`$ be such a symplectic structure, and let $`\pi _{\mathrm{inv}}`$ be the corresponding Poisson bi-vector field. Then since every $`U`$-invariant bi-vector field on $`X`$ is a scalar multiple of $`\pi _{\mathrm{inv}}`$, we have

###### Lemma 3.8.

There exists $`b`$ such that $`\pi _0=\pi _{\mathrm{}}+b\pi _{\mathrm{inv}}`$.

The family of Poisson structures $`\pi _{\mathrm{}}+b\pi _{\mathrm{inv}}`$, $`b`$, has been studied in . We also remark that when $`X`$ is Hermitian symmetric, it is shown in  that there is a way of parameterizing the $`G_0`$-orbits in $`Y`$, and thus symplectic leaves of $`\pi _0`$ in $`X`$, using only the Weyl group $`W`$. We refer the interested reader to \[13, Section 5\].

###### Example 3.9.

Consider the case $`𝔤=𝔰𝔩(2,)`$, $`𝔤_0=𝔰𝔩(2,)`$. We have $`U=\mathrm{SU}(2)`$, and $`K_0`$ is the subgroup of $`U`$ isomorphic to $`S^1`$ given by:

$$K_0=\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}t& \mathrm{sin}t\\ \mathrm{sin}t& \mathrm{cos}t\end{array}\right),t\right\}.$$

The space $`X=U/K_0`$ can be naturally identified with the Riemann sphere $`S^2`$ via the map

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ \overline{b}& \overline{a}\end{array}\right)z=\frac{\mathrm{Im}(a)+i\mathrm{Im}(b)}{\mathrm{Re}(a)+i\mathrm{Re}(b)},$$

where $`M\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ with $`|a|^2+|b|^2=1`$ and $`z`$ is a holomorphic coordinate on $`X\{\mathrm{pt}\}`$. Then the Poisson structure $`\pi _0`$ is given by

$$\pi _0=i(1|z|^4)\frac{}{z}\frac{}{\overline{z}}.$$

Therefore there are two open symplectic leaves for $`\pi _0`$, which can be thought of as the Northern and the Southern hemispheres. Every point in the Equator, corresponding to $`|z|=1`$, is a symplectic leaf as well. It is interesting to notice that the image of a symplectic leaf in $`U`$ given by:

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+|z|^2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}z& 1\\ 1& \overline{z}\end{array}\right),z$$

is the union of the Northern and the Southern hemispheres and a point in the Equator. All three are Poisson submanifolds of $`S^2`$.

###### Remark 3.10.

Let $``$ be the variety of Lagrangian subalgebras of $`𝔤`$ with respect to the pairing $`\mathrm{Im},`$, as defined in . Then $`G`$ acts on $``$ by conjugating the subalgebras. The variety $``$ carries a Poisson structure $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ defined by the Lagrangian splitting $`𝔤=𝔲+(𝔞+𝔫)`$ such that every $`U`$-orbit (as well as every $`AN`$-orbit) is a Poisson subvariety of $`(,\mathrm{\Pi })`$. Consider the point $`𝔤_0`$ of $``$ and let $`X^{}`$ be the $`U`$-orbit in $``$ through $`𝔤_0`$. Then we have a natural map

$$𝒥:U/K_0X^{}.$$

The normalizer subgroup of $`𝔤_0`$ in $`U`$ is not necessarily connected but always has $`K_0`$ as its connected component. Thus $`𝒥`$ is a finite covering map. It follows from  that the map $`𝒥`$ is Poisson with respect to the Poisson structure $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ on $`X^{}`$.

## 4. Invariant Poisson cohomology of $`(U/K_0,\pi _0)`$.

Let $`\chi ^{}(X)`$ stand for the graded vector space of the multi-vector fields on $`X`$. Recall that the Poisson coboundary operator, introduced by Lichnerowicz , is given by:

$$d_{\pi _0}:\chi ^i(X)\chi ^{i+1}(X),d_{\pi _0}(V)=[\pi _0,V],$$

where $`[,]`$ is the Schouten bracket of the multi-vector fields . The Poisson cohomology of $`(X,\pi _0)`$ is defined to be the cohomology of the cochain complex $`(\chi ^{}(X),d_{\pi _0})`$ and is denoted by $`H_{\pi _0}^{}(X)`$. By , the space $`(\chi ^{}(X))^U`$ of $`U`$-invariant multi-vector fields on $`X`$ is closed under $`d_{\pi _0}`$. The cohomology of the cochain sub-complex $`((\chi ^{}(X))^U,d_{\pi _0})`$ is called the $`U`$-invariant Poisson cohomology of $`(X,\pi _0)`$ and we denote it by $`H_{\pi _0,U}^{}(X)`$. We have the following result from \[10, Theorem 7.5\], adapted to our situation $`X=U/K_0`$, which relates the Poisson cohomology of a Poisson homogeneous space with certain relative Lie algebra cohomology. Recall that $`G_0`$, as a subgroup of $`G`$, acts on $`U`$ by (2.1), and thus $`C^{\mathrm{}}(U)`$ can be viewed as a $`𝔤_0`$-module. We also treat $``$ as the trivial $`𝔤_0`$-module:

###### Proposition 4.1.

$$H_{\pi _0}^{}(X)H^{}(𝔤_0,𝔨_0,C^{\mathrm{}}(U)),\text{ and }H_{\pi _0,U}^{}(X)H^{}(𝔤_0,𝔨_0,),$$

We will compute the cohomology space $`H_{\pi _0}^{}(X)`$ in a future paper. The Poisson homology of $`\pi _0`$ for $`X=^n`$ was computed in . For the $`U`$-invariant Poisson cohomology, we have

###### Theorem 4.2.

The $`U`$-invariant Poisson cohomology of $`(U/K_0,\pi _0)`$ is isomorphic to the De Rham cohomology $`H^{}(X)`$, or, equivalently, to the space of $`G_0`$-invariant differential forms on the non-compact dual symmetric space $`G_0/K_0`$.

Proof. By \[2, Corollary II.3.2\], $`H^q(𝔤_0,𝔨_0,)`$ is isomorphic to $`(^q𝔮_0^{})^{𝔨_0}`$, where $`𝔮_0`$ is the radial part in the Cartan decomposition $`𝔤_0=𝔨_0+𝔮_0`$. This space is isomorphic the space of $`G_0`$-invariant differential $`q`$-forms on the space $`G_0/K_0`$. Since $`𝔲=𝔨_0+i𝔮_0`$, and $`U`$ is compact, we obtain

$$H^q(𝔤_0,𝔨_0,)H^q(𝔲,𝔨_0,)H^q(U/K_0).$$

Q.E.D.

## Acknowledgements.

We thank Sam Evens for many useful discussions. The first author was partially supported by NSF grant DMS-0072520. The second author was partially supported by NSF(USA) grants DMS-0105195 and DMS-0072551 and by the HHY Physical Sciences Fund at the University of Hong Kong.


text:
# Phenomenological tests for the freezing of the QCD running coupling constant

## I Introduction

The interface between perturbative and nonperturbative QCD has been studied for many years. To know how far we can go with perturbative calculations and how we can match these ones with nonperturbative quantities, obtained through sophisticated theoretical or phenomenological approaches, will probably still require several years of confront between these methods. However there are phenomenological indications that this connection may not be abrupt and the transition from short distance (where quark and gluons are the effective degrees of freedom) to long distance (hadron) physics is indeed a smooth one . Actually it has been suggested that the strong coupling constant freezes at a finite and moderate value , and this behavior could be the reason for the claimed soft transition. The freezing of the QCD running coupling at low energy scales could allow to capture at an inclusive level the nonperturbative QCD effects in a reliable way .

The aspects described above reflect a perspective to attack the short and long-distance QCD interface from the perturbative side. On the other direction we have nonperturbative methods to investigate the infrared QCD behavior. One of these methods, based on the study of gauge-invariant Schwinger-Dyson equations, concluded that an infrared finite coupling constant could be obtained from first principles . A list of nonperturbative attempts to determine the infrared behavior of the gluon coupling constant and propagator can be found in Ref., where it is also pointed out that the nonperturbative results for these quantities may differ among themselves due to the intricacies of the nonperturbative methods and to not always controllable approximations.

Recently new theoretical results about the infrared behavior of the gluon propagator and the running coupling constant appeared in the literature. We have a renormalization group analysis implying in an infrared finite coupling , and also new numerical lattice studies simulating the gluon propagator, all of them consistent with an infrared finite behavior . But the most interesting for us are the new solutions for the gluon and ghost Schwinger-Dyson equations that have been obtained with better approximations . The absence of certain angular approximations in the integrals of the Schwinger-Dyson equations (SDE) are some of the improvements in the Refs., which led to a value for the infrared coupling constant at the origin ($`\alpha _s(0)`$) roughly a factor $`O(3)`$ below the previous ones .

Assuming that the coupling constant and the gluon propagator are infrared finite we can divide the Schwinger-Dyson solutions for the gluon propagator in two classes. One where the gluon propagator is identical to zero at the momentum origin  and another where the propagator is roughly of order $`1/m_{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$, where $`m_g`$ is the dynamical gluon mass. In Ref. the phenomenological calculation of the asymptotic pion form factor was used to show that the experimental data seems to prefer the Cornwall’s solution for the coupling and gluon propagator.

In this work we will extend our approach  to others observable quantities, testing the recent nonperturbative results obtained for $`\alpha _s`$ and for the gluon propagators. These tests span from a purely perturbative calculation to cross sections containing some model dependence. We verify that these quantities are affected by the infrared behavior of the coupling in different amounts. However we can certainly see that the existent data can be used to test and distinguish different nonperturbative calculations of the infrared QCD behavior.

There are several important points to stress. The SDE solutions represent attempts of a very ambitious program aiming to obtain the behavior of the coupling constant at all scales. Of course, these equations contain approximations and there are even questionings about the definition of the coupling in the infrared, but once these facts are assumed and knowing that in Nature there must be only one coupling constant we should be able to compare these results to the data. Some of the tests we propose here are purely perturbative, but they still can say something about the approximations used to obtain $`\alpha _s`$. Another point is that the whole idea of a running charge is that it is to be used in a skeleton expansion of graphs representing a process, an expansion which automatically subsumes infinitely many graphs, in a scheme emphasized by Brodsky and collaborators . But if, contrary to many phenomenological evidences , the infrared value of the coupling constant were large enough (how large depends on the process), it is hard to see how one can make sense out of inserting such a large value into perturbative expressions. This point is at the heart of the discussions that we shall present in this paper. The SDE solutions are determined forcing its high energy behavior to be identical to the perturbative one, after this is done the infrared behavior is totally dictated by the equations. This procedure is a natural one because at large momenta the coupling constant is perturbative and the QCD determination of the leading S matrix terms is meaningful, although the perturbative quantities depend on an infrared parametrization hidden in the QCD scale ( $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$).

The solutions that we shall discuss have different values for $`\alpha _s(0)`$. It could be argued that the value of $`\alpha _s(0)`$ for one of these SDE solutions is too small to explain chiral symmetry breaking in the usual model with essentially one-gluon exchange . It has been known for many years that this sort of model of chiral symmetry breaking doesn’t work, precisely because it does require such large values for $`\alpha _s(0)`$. In QCD, unlike QED, chiral symmetry breaking is easily explained –indeed, required by– confinement, as numerous authors in the eighties have explained in detail. A value of $`\alpha _s(0)`$ of order one or larger would be grotesquely out of line with many other phenomena, such as non-relativistic potentials for charmonium . Finally, this is also what comes out when performing an analytic perturbation theory . Moreover, the fact is that the nonperturbative solutions do not have only different $`\alpha _s(0)`$ values but they also run differently near the infrared. The different infrared parametrization and running will leave a signal in the comparison with the experimental data.

The distribution of the paper is the following: In Section II we present a comparison between the most recent calculations of the infrared behavior of the QCD running coupling constant. Section III compares the nonperturbative value of $`\alpha _s`$ with its value measured in $`\tau `$-lepton decay into nonstrange hadrons. In Section IV we discuss the effects of a frozen coupling constant in the diagonal elements of the $`\rho `$ vector meson helicity density matrix that are produced in the $`\chi _{c2}\rho \rho `$ decay. Section V is devoted to a discussion of the $`\gamma \pi _0`$ transition form factor. In Section VI we revisit the calculation of Ref., where the Pomeron model of Landshoff and Nachtmann for elastic proton-proton scattering was used to restrict the value of the dynamical gluon mass, in the light of the new SDE solutions. The same model is used in Section VII to compute the exclusive $`\rho `$ production in deep inelastic scattering. Section VIII contains our conclusions.

## II Infrared Behavior of the Running Coupling Constant

In this Section we present the results for the running coupling constant obtained recently through the solution of SDE for the gluon and ghost sectors of QCD. As remarked in Ref. and in our introduction, it is important to stress that the different solutions appear due to the different approximations made to solve the SDE, which, unfortunately, are necessary due to their complicated structure.

The most recent calculations of the $`\alpha _s`$ infrared behavior do not make use of an approximate angular integration in the SDE, resulting in a value of $`\alpha _s(0)`$ a factor of $`O(3)`$ below the former results. This is the case of the $`\alpha _s(q^2)`$ determined by Fischer and Alkofer which is given by

$$\alpha _{sA}(x)=\frac{\alpha _A(0)}{\mathrm{ln}(e+a_1x^{a2}+b_1x^{b2})},$$
(1)
where

$`\alpha _A(0)=2.972`$,

$`a_1=5.292\text{GeV}^{2a_2}`$,

$`a_2=2.324`$,

$`b1=0.034\text{GeV}^{2b_2}`$,

$`b2=3.169`$.

We also have an ansatz for the running coupling proposed by Bloch. Its expression for $`\alpha _s(q^2)`$ has the following fit :

$`\alpha _{sB}(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha (l\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2)=`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c_0+l^2}}\left[c_0\alpha _0+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{\beta _0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{log}(l)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l1}}\right)l^2\right]`$
where $`l=q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2`$, $`c_0=15`$, $`\alpha _0=2.6`$, and $`\beta _0=11\frac{2}{3}n_f`$, where $`n_f`$ is the number of flavors.

Equation (1) has been obtained solving the coupled SDE for the gluon and ghost propagators in the Landau gauge. Eq. (2) is an ansatz motivated by earlier results done with the help of the angular approximation. Both are consistent with a gluon propagator that vanishes in the infrared. The difference in the couplings, which is clearly displayed in Fig.(1), is that Bloch fix the scale of the coupling constant at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}=300`$MeV while Alkofer and Fischer  fix it comparing to the experimental input at $`\alpha _s(M_Z)`$, unfortunately their calculation when compared to a perturbative expression for coupling constant in the MOM scheme lead to a value $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}=715`$MeV which seems to be too large. The difference between the values of $`\alpha _s(0)`$ is negligible, while the difference at intermediate momenta is going to be transferred to the phenomenological quantities that we will compute.

The other expression for the running coupling constant that we will use in the next sections is the one determined by Cornwall many years ago

$$\alpha _{sC}(q^2)=\frac{4\pi }{\beta _0\mathrm{ln}\left[(q^2+4M_g^2(q^2))/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right]},$$
(4)
where $`M_g(q^2)`$ is a dynamical gluon mass given by,

$$M_g^2(q^2)=m_g^2\left[\frac{\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{q^2+4m_{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)}{\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{4m_{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)}\right]^{12/11}$$
(5)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$) is the QCD scale parameter. This solution is the only one that has been obtained in a gauge invariant procedure. The gluon mass scale has to be found phenomenologically. A typical value is

$$m_g=500\pm 200\text{M}eV$$
(6)
for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=300`$ MeV. The Bloch and Cornwall’s expression at large momenta map perfectly into the perturbative running coupling, as can be seem in Fig.(1). We will refer to these different results as model A, B and C respectively.

## III $`\tau `$–Lepton Decay Rate into Nonstrange Hadrons

The tests of the running coupling constant behavior that we shall discuss will depend on the exchange of gluons at different levels, i.e. the softer is the exchanged gluon the more we can test the nonpertubative behavior of $`\alpha _s`$. The physics of the $`\tau `$-lepton decay rate into nonstrange hadrons is one where QCD can be confronted with experiment to a very high precision. The measurement of $`\alpha _s`$ in these decays and its comparison with the nonperturbative expressions will correspond to what can be called our most perturbative test.

The normalized $`\tau `$-lepton decay rate into nonstrange hadrons ($`h_{S=0}`$) is given by

$`R(\tau )|_{S=0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau h_{S=0}\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau l\overline{\nu }\nu )}}`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`N_c\left|V_{ud}\right|^2S_{ew}(1+\delta _{ew}+\delta _P+\delta _{NP}),`$ (8)
where $`N_c`$ is the number of colors, the flavor mixing matrix element is $`\left|V_{ud}\right|^2=0.9511\pm 0.0014`$ and $`S_{ew}=1.0194`$ and $`\delta _{ew}=0.001`$ are electroweak corrections. The nonperturbative corrections are small and consistent with zero, $`\delta _{NP}=0.003\pm 0.003`$. In particular, these corrections are not directly related to the nonperturbative infrared behavior of $`\alpha _s`$. The term $`\delta _P`$ represents the perturbative QCD effects and its value can be calculated if we have $`R(\tau )|_{S=0}`$. With the experimental result obtained by the ALEPH Collaboration, $`R(\tau )|_{s=0}^{expt}`$=3.492$`\pm 0.016`$, and the other values above one can estimate the perturbative corrections:

$$\delta _P^{expt}=0.203\pm 0.007.$$
(9)
On the other hand $`\delta _P`$ can be calculated in the framework of perturbative QCD and, in the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ scheme, is given by the expansion

$$\delta _P^{th}=\left(\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }\right)+5.2023\left(\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }\right)^2+26.366\left(\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }\right)^3+\mathrm{},$$
(10)
where $`\alpha _s`$ is the running coupling constant taken at the scale of the $`\tau `$-lepton mass $`M_\tau =1.777`$GeV. Substituting Eq.(9) in the left hand side of Eq.(10) and solving the resulting polynomial equation in $`\alpha _s`$ one obtain

$$\alpha _s^{expt}=0.3404\pm 0.0073.$$
(11)
Now we can compare the above experimental result with the different values of the nonperturbative running coupling at the $`\tau `$-lepton mass scale. Some comments are in order before such comparison is performed. The nonperturbative couplings have been obtained in the case of zero flavors. When we compare the perturbative to the nonperturbative results it should be understood that the introduction of fermions will affect the three models in the same direction (increasing $`\alpha _s(0)`$) and this effect would be small for a small number of flavors . Another point is that Eq.(10) has a renormalization scheme dependence, while the nonperturbative solutions have been obtained in one unrelated approach. However the nonperturbative couplings of the three models are obtained forcing the matching with the perturbative running coupling at very large momenta and at leading order there is no problem with scheme dependence, in such a way that the comparison can be made but not with the precision of the experimental result. Using Eqs. (1) to (4) (with $`m_g=500`$ MeV and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=300`$ MeV) instead of the perturbative running coupling we obtain

$$\alpha _{sA}=0.676,\alpha _{sB}=0.354,\alpha _{sC}=0.348.$$
(12)
As one could expect only the last two results are compatible with Eq.(11), and the model A fail at a level much above the one where we could claim that any scheme dependence is important. This shows the importance of the scale used to fix the coupling constant. Note that Alkofer and Fischer  (model A) constrain the coupling comparing its value to the experimental one of $`\alpha _s(M_Z)`$, which seems to be the most rigorous way of doing it, unfortunately their calculation lead to a value $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}=715`$MeV, which is too high when compared to most of the values found in the literature. As the $`\tau `$-lepton mass scale is one where we believe that perturbative QCD can already be applied we have to conclude that the SDE solutions of model A does not describe the experimental data at such energies. Model B does it quite well but it was fitted to a smaller $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ value. Note that the model A does not fit the data not because it has a large value for $`\alpha _s(0)`$, which is not so different from the model B, but because the running coupling of model A decreases much more slowly.

As we claimed previously, this test is the most perturbative one in the sense that it does not involve the introduction of hadronic wave functions directly in the calculation. In the next sections we always will need to introduce some extra hadronic information besides the coupling and gluon propagator. It is important to stress that this result does not settle the question about which one is the correct solution of gluonic SDE, it only give hints to which approximations may be or not suitable to be performed when solving these equations.

## IV Effects of a frozen coupling constant in the amplitudes of the $`\chi _{c2}\rho \rho `$ decay

It is known, for a long time, that a dynamical gluon mass can affect quarkonium decays . In the study of Refs.  it can be noted that the dynamical mass effect is relevant in the study of their hadronic decays mostly due to phase space factors. Therefore not all quarkonium decays are good candidates to probe the infrared behavior of the running coupling constant, because the effects of phase space overwhelms the changes in the running coupling.

It is also known that the exclusive quarkonium production in $`p\overline{p}`$ or $`pp`$ interactions and subsequent decay is strongly dependent on the internal structure of the hadrons involved, which are described by their hadronic wave functions. In the inclusive case the important dependence is on the distribution function. Perturbative QCD fixes the asymptotic form of these functions as $`q^2\mathrm{}`$ and their general evolution, but in any realistic calculation they have to be taken as phenomenological quantities, to be experimentally determined via a set of physical information and then used in other processes.

Even when we are dealing with heavy quarks, and try to propose tests for the interface between perturbative and non-perturbative QCD, we verify that we cannot test the infrared behavior of quarks and gluons vertex and propagators independently of hadronic wave or distribution functions. In this Section we discuss the effects of a frozen coupling constant in the measurement of the $`\rho `$ vector meson helicity density matrix that are produced in the $`\chi _{c2}\rho \rho `$ decay. This is a case where the infrared behavior of the coupling is entangled with the behavior of the wave or distribution functions. We advance that in Section V we will discuss a more ordinary case where the wave function is well known, and where it is possible to study the QCD infrared behavior with less uncertainty .

Some time ago Anselmino and Murgia  considered the $`\chi _{c2}\rho \rho `$ decay process of polarized charmonium states created in $`p\overline{p}`$ or $`pp`$ interactions and have shown how the observation of the polarization of the vector meson, via a measurement of its diagonal helicity density matrix elements, neatly depends on the $`\rho `$ wave function and helps in discriminating between different kinds of these quantities.

The study of Ref. provide an interesting arena to introduce the effects of a frozen running coupling constant. Our result will show that depending on the form of the wave function we could observe a larger or smaller effect of the freezing in the infrared, showing how the nonperturbative behaviors of wave (or distribution) functions with the ones of the effective coupling can become entangled.

The processes that we consider are the exclusive

$$p\overline{p}\chi _{c2}\rho \rho $$
(13)
or the inclusive

$$pp\chi _{c2}+X\rho \rho +X$$
(14)
production of a pair of $`\rho `$ vectors with the subsequent decay

$$\rho \pi \pi ,$$
(15)
and the quantity experimentally observed is the angular distribution of either one of the pions in the helicity rest frame of the decaying $`\rho `$.

The pion angular distribution depends of the spin state of the $`\rho `$ via the elements of its helicity density matrix $`\rho _{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}(\rho )`$:

$`W(\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Phi })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4\pi }}[\rho _{0,0}\mathrm{cos}^2\mathrm{\Theta }+(\rho _{1,1}\rho _{1,1})\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{cos}^2\mathrm{\Phi }+(\rho _{1,1}+\rho _{1,1})\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (17)
$`\sqrt{2}(Re\rho _{1,0})\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }],`$
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are, respectively, the polar and azimuthal angles of the pion as it emerges from the decay of the $`\rho `$, in the $`\rho `$ helicity rest frame. Eq. (17) can be integrated over $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ or $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ generating polar and azimuthal distributions, which can be measured and give information on $`\rho _{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}(\rho )`$. The details of this procedure (i.e. the vector meson helicity density matrix calculation for massless quarks) can be found in Ref. and references therein.

The helicity density matrix of the $`\rho `$ meson are

$$\rho _{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}=0,\lambda \lambda ^{},\rho _{0,0}=12\rho _{1,1}$$
(18)
$$\rho _{1,1}=\rho _{1,1}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{1+3\frac{|\text{Ã}_{0,0}|^2}{|\text{Ã}_{1,1}|^2}F(\theta )},$$
(19)
where the reduced amplitudes $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}`$ are given in Eqs. (2.10), (2.11) and (2.14), (2.15) of Ref. and do not depend on the $`\rho `$ production angles $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$, but do depend on the wave functions. Eq. (19) has the same form both for exclusive and inclusive $`\rho `$ production, but the dependence on the production angle $`\theta `$ is different in the two cases

$$F^{ex}(\theta )=\frac{\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta )}{1+\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta )},$$
(20)
$$F^{in}(\theta )=\frac{\mathrm{sin}^4(\theta )}{1+6\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta )+\mathrm{cos}^4(\theta )}.$$
(21)
The ratio of reduced amplitudes $`|\text{Ã}_{0,0}|^2/|\text{Ã}_{1,1}|^2`$ appearing in Eq.(19) are computed as a function of the $`\rho `$ longitudinally $`(L,\lambda =0)`$ and transversely $`(T,\lambda =\pm 1)`$ polarized vector mesons wave functions, which are indicated respectively by $`\phi _L`$ and $`\phi _T`$, and correspondent decay constants given by $`f_L`$ and $`f_T`$. This ratio is equal to

$$\frac{|\text{Ã}_{0,0}|}{|\text{Ã}_{1,1}|}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\left(\frac{f_L}{f_T}\right)^2\frac{|I_{0,0}|}{|I_{1,1}|}$$
(22)
where

$`I_{1,1}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x𝑑y\phi _T(x,\text{}_x^2)\phi _T(y,\text{}_y^2){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(xyM_\chi ^2)\alpha [(1x)(1y)M_\chi ^2]}{xy(1x)(1y)(2xyxy)}}`$ (23)
$`I_{0,0}=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x𝑑y\phi _L(x,\text{}_x^2)\phi _L(y,\text{}_y^2){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(xyM_\chi ^2)\alpha [(1x)(1y)M_\chi ^2]}{xy(1x)(1y)(2xyxy)}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{(xy)^2}{2xyxy}}\right].`$ (24)
In the above equations $`M_\chi =3.6\text{GeV}`$ is the $`\chi _{c2}`$ mass and $`\text{}_x=\mathrm{min}(x,1x)Q`$.

To calculate the helicity density matrix $`\rho _{1,1}`$ we choose two different sets of $`\phi _L`$ and $`\phi _T`$: a set of symmetric distribution amplitudes

$$\phi _L=\phi _T=6x(1x)$$
(25)
and the QCD sum rules amplitudes

$`\phi _L(x,`$ $`\text{}_x^2`$ $`)=6x(1x)\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}C_2^{3/2}(2x1)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\text{}_x^2)}{\alpha _s(\mu _L^2)}}\right]^{2/3}\}`$ (26)
$`\phi _T(x,\text{}_x^2)=6x(1x)\left\{\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\text{}_x^2)}{\alpha _s(\mu _T^2)}}\right]^{4/25}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}C_2^{3/2}(2x1)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\text{}_x^2)}{\alpha _s(\mu _T^2)}}\right]^{52/75}\right\}`$ (27)
where $`\mu _L^2=0.5(\text{GeV}/c)^2`$, $`\mu _T^2=0.25(\text{GeV}/c)^2`$, and $`C_z`$ denotes Gegembauer polynomials. In both cases we assume $`f_L=f_T`$.

Our results for the exclusive process (Eq.(13)) are displayed in Fig.(2) and Fig.(3). Fig.(2) shows $`\rho _{1,1}`$ as a function of the $`\rho `$-meson production angle $`\theta `$, computed with the symmetric wave function whereas Fig.(3) was calculated with the QCD sum rule amplitudes. Both figures show curves for different behaviors of the running coupling constant, the one of Eq.(3) obtained by Bloch and the one of Eq.(4) obtained by Cornwall with $`m_g=600`$ MeV and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=300`$ MeV. The calculations for model A are not shown in the figures. The results for this model are similar to the ones of model B with curves located in the opposite direction to the curves of model C.

As claimed by Anselmino and Murgia  the measurement of the helicity matrix element $`\rho _{1,1}`$ of the vector meson in the $`\chi _{c2}\rho \rho `$ can indeed discriminate differences between wave (or distribution) functions, but the effect of different running couplings is not negligible and one effect can mask the other. Of course, this is not an easy experiment, but is a feasible one. If the measurement is performed with high precision it can provide information about the infrared behavior of the coupling constant.

The curves for the inclusive process (Eq.(14)) are displayed in Fig.(4) and Fig.(5). Fig.(4) shows $`\rho _{1,1}`$ as a function of the $`\rho `$-meson production angle $`\theta `$, computed with the symmetric distribution amplitude whereas Fig.(5) was calculated with the QCD sum rule amplitudes. The differences in the curves are of the same order as in the exclusive case.

Note that in both cases (exclusive or inclusive) the values of $`\rho _{1,1}`$ is modified by a factor of $`O(23)`$ when we use the wave functions obtained through QCD sum rules. This is expected because they have a stronger dependence on $`\alpha _s(q^2)`$. The difference occurs at different angles for the exclusive and inclusive $`\chi _{c2}`$ production. Actually, it is surprising that in such a delicate experiment, where the effects of the running coupling appear in a ratio like the one described by Eq.(22), there is still a clear signal of the dependence on the infrared value of the coupling constant. In this section we verified how the infrared behavior of the coupling can be masked by the nonperturbative wave functions. In the next sections we will look at processes where the effects of wave or distribution functions are not so pronounced or are better known.

## V The $`\gamma \pi _0`$ transition form factor

When making predictions within perturbative QCD, we are always confronted with problems like the choice of distribution amplitudes as discussed in the previous section, the choice of renormalization scale $`\mu `$ and scheme for the coupling constant, etc… However there are calculations that have been discussed extensively in the literature, processes where the measurement is more sensitive only to the asymptotic distribution amplitude of a particular hadron, and where an optimal renormalization scale has been estimated. This was the case of the pion form factor discussed in Ref., and is the case of the $`\gamma \pi _0`$ transition form factor to be described here.

The photon-to-pion transition form factor $`F_{\gamma \pi }(Q^2)`$ is measured in single-tagged two-photon $`e^+e^{}e^+e^{}\pi ^0`$ reactions. The amplitude for this process has the factorized form

$$F_{\gamma \pi }(Q^2)=\frac{4}{\sqrt{3}}_0^1𝑑x\varphi _\pi (x,Q^2)T_{\gamma \pi }^H(x,Q^2),$$
(28)
where the hard scattering amplitude $`T_{\gamma \pi }^H(x,Q^2)`$ is given by

$$T_{\gamma \pi }^H(Q^2)=\frac{1}{(1x)Q^2}[1+𝒪(\alpha _s)].$$
(29)
Using an asymptotic form for the pion distribution amplitude $`\varphi _\pi =\sqrt{3}f_\pi x(1x)`$ we obtain

$$Q^2F_{\gamma \pi }(Q^2)=2f_\pi \left(1\frac{5}{3}\frac{\alpha _V(Q^{})}{\pi }\right)$$
(30)
where $`Q^{}=\mathrm{exp}^{3/2}Q`$ is the estimated Brodsky-Lepage-Mackenzie scale for the pion form factor in the scheme discussed in Ref..

In Fig.(6) we compare the photon to pion transition form factor with CLEO data . The curves were computed with different expressions for the infrared behavior of the running coupling constant. We assumed $`f_\pi 93\text{MeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=300`$ MeV. Using the running coupling constant given by the expression of Eq.(3) we obtain a fit for the photon-pion transition form factor very far from the experimental data. The result obtained when we use Eq.(1) is not shown and gives an even worse fit. The infrared value of the coupling constant is so large in the case of the coupling constants given by Eqs.(3) and (1), that we are not sure that the perturbative result can be trusted even at such large momentum scale.

The infrared coupling constants related to the class of SDE solutions consistent with an infrared finite propagator that vanishes at origin of momenta, are much stronger than most of the phenomenological estimates of the frozen $`\alpha _s(0)`$ value that we quoted in Ref. ($`\alpha _s(0)0.7\pm 0.3`$), and are at the origin of the strange lower curve of Fig.(6). Notice that due to the large scale of momenta involved in this process it is not expected that higher order corrections are still important. The data is only compatible with Eq.(4), which has a smoother increase towards the infrared region. Perhaps this behavior is actually indicating that the transition to the infrared should be a soft one. Again the result for model A is not shown because it is even worse than the one of model B.

Note that in Fig.(6) the curves obtained with the Cornwall’s coupling constant do not show large variation in the full range of uncertainty of the dynamical gluon mass (see Eq.(6)). It is interesting that its behavior is quite stable in this case as well as for the pion form factor studied in Ref.. If we had large variations of the infrared coupling constant with the gluon mass scale we could hardly propose any reliable phenomenological test for its freezing value. We stress that the results are obtained for a perturbative scale of momenta and it seems that we have to choose between two possibilities: This process cannot be predicted by perturbative QCD up to a scale of several GeV, or some of the ESD solutions are predicting a too large value of the coupling constant in the infrared and the approximations made to determine these solutions are too crude.

## VI Elastic differential cross section for pp scattering

We have verified in Section IV one case where the behavior of the coupling constant in the infrared is entangled with the one of the distribution amplitudes. In Section V it was shown a classic QCD calculation where the asymptotic behavior of the wave function is more important than the infrared one, leading to a cleaner test for the nonperturbative behavior of the coupling constant. Here we will discuss a test for the infrared QCD behavior that makes use of a phenomenological model for diffractive interactions . In this case we will also make use of a hadronic wave function, but the main source of uncertainty is in the fact that we assume a model for elastic scattering containing a series of approximations, which are beyond the scope of a pure QCD calculation.

We will compute the elastic differential cross section for pp scattering within the Landshoff-Nachtmann model (LN) for the Pomeron exchange . As discussed in Refs., this is a model where the Pomeron is represented by two-gluons exchange, and it is particularly dependent on the infrared properties of the gluon, not only on the coupling constant but also on the behavior of the gluon propagator. In this model one of the gluons carry most of the momentum exchanged in the interaction while the other seems to appear just to form the colorless Pomeron. Therefore besides the coupling constant we will also need the expressions for the gluon propagators obtained through the solutions of the SDE, although this dependence with the nonperturbative behavior of the gluon propagator is important only when the gluon is exchanged at low momentum. The gluon propagator in Landau gauge is written as

$$D_{\mu \nu }(q^2)=\left(\delta _{\mu \nu }\frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{q^2}\right)D(q^2),$$
(31)
where the expression for $`D(q^2)`$ obtained by Cornwall is given by

$$D^1(q^2)=\left[q^2+M_g^2(q^2)\right]bg^2\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{q^2+4M_g^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right].$$
(32)
We will also make use of the running coupling constant obtained by Fischer and Alkofer (model A) and their respective propagator $`D(q^2)=Z(q^2)/q^2`$, where $`Z(q^2)`$, in Landau gauge, is fitted by

$$Z(x)=\left(\frac{\alpha _{sA}(x)}{\alpha _A(\mu )}\right)^{1+2\delta }R^2(x),$$
(33)
and

$$R(x)=\frac{cx^\kappa +dx^{2\kappa }}{1+cx^\kappa +dx^{2\kappa }}$$
(34)
where the constants appearing in Eq.(33) and Eq.(34) are given by

$`\alpha _A(\mu ^2)=0.9676`$,

$`\kappa =0.5953`$,

$`\delta =9/44`$,

$`c=1.8934\text{GeV}^{2\kappa }`$,

$`d=4.6944\text{GeV}^{4\kappa }`$.

In the LN model the elastic differential cross can be obtained from

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dt}=\frac{|A(s,t)|^2}{16\pi s^2}$$
(35)
where the amplitude for elastic proton-proton scattering via two-gluon exchange can be written as

$$A(s,t)=is8\alpha _s^2\left[T_1T_2\right]$$
(36)
with

$$T_1=d^2kD\left(\frac{q}{2}+k\right)D\left(\frac{q}{2}k\right)|G_p(q,0)|^2$$
(37)
$`T_2={\displaystyle }`$ $`d^2kD\left({\displaystyle \frac{q}{2}}+k\right)D\left({\displaystyle \frac{q}{2}}k\right)G_p(q,k{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2}})\left[2G_p(q,0)G_p(q,k{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2}})\right]`$ (38)
where $`G_p(q,k)`$ is a convolution of proton wave functions

$$G_p(q,k)=d^2p𝑑\kappa \psi ^{}(\kappa ,p)\psi (\kappa ,pk\kappa q).$$
(39)
$`G_p(q,0)`$ is given by the Dirac form factor of the proton

$$F_1(t)=G_p(q,0)=\frac{4m^22.79t}{4m^2t}\frac{1}{(1t/0.71)^2}.$$
(40)
To estimate $`G_p(q,kq/2)`$ we assume a proton wave function peaked at $`\kappa =1/3`$ and obtain

$$G_p(q,k\frac{q}{2})=F_1\left(q^2+9\left|k^2\frac{q^2}{4}\right|\right)$$
(41)
Eq.(35) to Eq.(41) can be computed using the couplings and propagators discussed above. We compare the differential elastic cross-section for proton-proton scattering with the experimental data of Breakstone et al. at $`\sqrt{s}=53\text{G}eV`$ . The results have to be adjusted by a normalization factor $`s^{0.168}`$ which accounts for the energy dependent part of $`d\sigma /dt`$ . For large $`|t|`$ values, double-Pomeron exchange and three-gluon exchange are known to be important; we therefore do not expect to describe the data near and above $`t0.5\text{G}eV^2`$

The data of elastic proton-proton scattering is well fitted assuming a dynamical gluon mass of $`m_g=370\text{M}eV`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=300\text{M}eV`$. The calculation has a small variation with the value of $`m_g`$ and is more sensitive to the ratio $`m_g/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Using the coupling and propagator of Alkofer et al. (model A) we obtain a curve that is about one order of magnitude away from the experimental points. Unfortunately we do not have the propagator solution for model B and for this reason we do not show the results in this case, although we can guess that it would produce a curve in Fig.(7) between the curves of model A and C.

There is a striking difference between the two classes of SDE solutions that we discussed in the Introduction. In the case of Cornwall’s solution it is the product $`g^2D(q^2)`$ that behaves roughly as $`1/m_{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ as $`q^20`$ and this product has no $`g^2`$ dependence . This does not happen for the class of gluon propagators that seems to vanish at origin. As in this case the coupling is not canceled in the $`d\sigma /dt`$ calculation and as it is a factor of $`O(3)`$ larger, it is not difficult to understand the one order of magnitude difference in the result of the cross sections. This specific calculation is model dependent, however it is quite sensitive on the infrared behavior of the theory.

## VII Exclusive $`\rho `$ Production in Deep Inelastic Scattering

Donnachie and Landshoff  successfully described the process $`\gamma ^{}(q)p(P)\rho (r)p(P^{})`$ with a soft Pomeron exchange, and later they  considered Pomeron exchange as being the exchange of two gluons as in the previous section. Pursuing that idea Cudell  proposed the following expression for the polarized differential cross section for exclusive $`\rho `$ production:

$$\frac{d\sigma _j}{dt}=\left(\frac{\alpha _{elm}}{4w^4}\left|A_j\right|^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2\right)Z^2\left[3F_1(t)\right]^2,j=T,L,$$
(42)
where $`\alpha _{elm}1/137`$ is the electromagnetic coupling constant and $`w^2=(q+P)^2`$. The factor $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\sqrt{\frac{f_\rho m_\rho }{24}},$$
(43)
where $`f_\rho 30`$MeV is the $`\rho `$ form factor and $`m_\rho 770`$ MeV is the $`\rho `$ mass.

$$Z=\left(\frac{w^2}{w_0^2}\right)^{0.08+\alpha ^{}t},$$
(44)
with $`w_0^2=1/\alpha ^{}4`$GeV<sup>2</sup>. The Dirac form factor of the proton is

$$F_1(t)=\frac{4m_p^22.79t}{4m_p^2t}\frac{1}{(1t/0.71)^2},$$
(45)
where $`m_p`$ is the proton mass.

The amplitude is

$`A_j=i{\displaystyle \frac{8\sqrt{2}}{3\pi }}m_\rho P_j{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^2(t4k^2)}{(\mu _Q^2t)(\mu _Q^24k^2)}}\left[4\pi \alpha _nD\left(k^2+{\displaystyle \frac{t}{4}}\right)\right]^2,`$ (46)
$`\mu _Q^2=m_\rho ^2+Q^2,j=T,L`$ (47)
where $`P_T=w^2/2`$; $`P_L=P_T(m_\rho ^2+Q^2+t)/(2m_\rho Q)`$. In the last term of the integrand we have the frozen coupling constant $`\alpha _n=\alpha _s(0)`$ and the gluon propagator $`D(p^2)`$.

The total cross section can be obtained through the integral

$$\sigma _{total}(Q^2)=𝑑t\left(\frac{d\sigma _T}{dt}+\epsilon \frac{d\sigma _L}{dt}\right),\epsilon 0.85.$$
(48)
This cross section is dependent not only on the nonperturbative coupling constant but also on the gluon propagator as the calculation of the previous section. We compared the solutions of Alkofer et al. (model A) and Cornwall (model C). The reason for not using model B is the same as the one discussed in the previous section. With the running coupling constants (eqs. (1) and (4)) and their respective propagators (eqs. (33) and (32)) we obtain the results shown in Fig.(8), where they are compared with the experimental data from EMC and LAME. As explained in Ref. the model for exclusive $`\rho `$ production is consistent with experiment only in the range of momenta shown in the figure, at larger values of $`Q^2`$ there are other contributions to the cross section.

## VIII Conclusions

In this work we proposed phenomenological tests for the infrared behavior of running coupling constant that have been obtained through the nonperturbative solutions of Schwinger-Dyson equations of the QCD gluonic sector. We are only considering SDE solutions that are infrared finite. Although infrared divergent solutions have not been fully discarded, there are several indications that these QCD Green functions are well behaved in the infrared. Unfortunately due to the complexity of the SDE, approximations are still necessary to obtain these solutions and they lead to different expressions. Phenomenological tests are important because they are able to indicate which are the correct approximations that can be performed to solve SDE, selecting the solution that is compatible with the experimental data.

We studied the effects of a frozen coupling constant in the $`\tau `$-lepton decay rate into nonstrange hadrons. This is a typically perturbative test and, in particular, it shows the importance of the method used to fix the scale of the running coupling constant, which is different for the couplings shown in Eqs.(1) and (3) (model A and B). The measurement of the $`\rho `$ vector meson helicity density matrix that are produced in the $`\chi _{c2}\rho \rho `$ decay is one interesting experiment to be performed. The measurement of the diagonal matrix element provide information on the infrared behavior of the coupling constant as well as on the distribution amplitude. In this case both behaviors are entangled and a good knowledge on the distribution amplitude is needed in order to select a preferred behavior for the coupling constant. The experiment is not an easy one, but can be performed and will give information complementary to the others that we have discussed.

The effects of the infrared behavior of the coupling constant in the photon-to-pion transition form factor $`F_{\gamma \pi }(Q^2)`$ is much more interesting. The calculation probes the asymptotic behavior of the pion distribution amplitude and provide a cleaner test for the freezing of the coupling constant. The differences between the existent solutions obtained from SDE for $`\alpha _s(q^2)`$ are shown clearly in the comparison with the experimental data, which seems to select the coupling constant compatible with dynamical generation of a gluon mass.

The analysis of the differential cross section for proton-proton scattering and the cross section for exclusive $`\rho `$ production in deep inelastic scattering are also unambiguously selecting one specific behavior for the QCD Green functions in the infrared. In this case we made use of a model of diffractive scattering proposed by Landshoff and Nachtmann and it could be argued that the model has not been obtained from straightforward QCD calculations. However the model has a great success in the explanation of diffractive physics at low energy, and again the comparison with experimental data is consistent with the result obtained from the other phenomenological tests. Diffraction in this model is explained through the exchange of two gluons, where one of the gluons carries most of the momentum and the other is soft. Therefore the model actually probes the infrared region.

It is worth mentioning the influence of gauge invariance and presence of fermions in the solutions for the coupling constants that we have discussed. The Cornwall’s solution was obtained in a gauge invariant procedure, the others were obtained in Landau gauge. We do not expect that gauge invariance introduce a large effect in the result. In general solutions of SDE are relatively stable in respect to changes in the gauge choice, and we should expect that if the solutions minimize the vacuum energy the gauge dependence should disappear. The effect of the number of flavors in Cornwall’s solution is not so strong, and it appears in the coefficient $`\beta _0`$ of the coupling constant and in the gluon mass equation increasing the value of the frozen coupling. If a nonzero number of flavors produces any observable effect, this one should act in the same sense for all solutions. Therefore, we do not expect large changes in our results with the inclusion of fermion loops in the SDE solutions.

We conclude pointing out that Schwinger-Dyson equations provide a powerful tool to investigate the QCD infrared behavior. These are complicated equations whose solutions are determined only after some specific approximations leading to different expressions. These expressions can be phenomenologically tested, indicating which are the most reliable approximations. In the tests presented here only one solution, consistent with a dynamically generated mass for the gluon, was shown to be compatible with the experimental data.

## Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) (AAN), by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) (ACA,AAN) and by Coordenadoria de Aperfeiçoamento do Pessoal de Ensino Superior (CAPES) (AM).