text:
# Far-Infrared Emission from Dust in the ISOPHOT Virgo Cluster Deep Sample

## 1 Introduction

The ISOPHOT Virgo Cluster Deep Survey (Tuffs et al. 2002; Popescu et al. 2002) represents the deepest survey (both in luminosity and surface brightness terms) of normal galaxies yet measured in the Far-Infrared (FIR). The survey consists of 63 gas-rich Virgo Cluster galaxies selected from the Virgo Cluster Catalog (VCC; Binggeli, Sandage & Tammann 1985; see also Binggeli, Popescu & Tammann 1993) and measured using the ISOPHOT instrument (Lemke et al. 1996) on board ISO (Kessler et al. 1996).

The fundamental incentive for choosing the VCC as the basis of a statistical sample for ISOPHOT was that a luminosity- and volume - limited sample of cluster periphery and cluster core galaxies representative of the field and cluster environments, respectively, could be observed down to the least luminous dwarf galaxies reachable with ISOPHOT. This should allow an investigation of the
strength and time-dependence of all manifestations of star formation activity and its relation to intrinsic galaxy properties such as Hubble type or sheer overall size. From an observational point of view the Virgo cluster has the advantage that it is situated at high galactic latitude and is close to the ideal distance for the detection of dwarf galaxies with ISOPHOT. The VCC has also a full representation of morphological types of normal gas rich galaxies, including quiescent systems and even, to some extent, low surface brightness objects, ranging from bright ($`B_\mathrm{T}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}`$) giant spirals down to blue compact dwarfs (BCDs) and irregular galaxies at the completeness level of $`B_\mathrm{T}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}18}`$. Thus, the VCC is ideal for providing the basis for statistical investigations of the FIR properties of gas rich galaxies in the local universe spanning a broad range in star-formation activity and morphological types, including dwarf systems.

## 2 The observations

The observations were done using the C100 and C200 detectors, in ISOPHOT’s “P32” observing mode (Tuffs & Gabriel 2002a,b), which uses the focal plane chopper in conjunction with a spacecraft raster to rapidly sample large areas of sky. The observing wavelengths were 60, 100 and 170 $`\mu `$m. The “P32” mode allowed the entire optical extent of each target down to the 25.5 mag arcsec-2 B-band isophote and adjacent background to be scanned, while still maintaining a spatial oversampling. This allowed both spatially integrated FIR photometry as well as information on the morphology of the galaxies in the FIR to be extracted. The data were reduced using the new P32 software algorithm of Tuffs & Gabriel (2002a,b). An example of an observation of the Sb spiral VCC 66 is given in Fig. 1.

From the 63 galaxies observed (61 galaxies at all three FIR wavelengths and 2 galaxies only at 100 and 170 $`\mu `$m) we detected 54 galaxies at least at one wavelength and 40 galaxies at all three wavelengths. The averaged 3 $`\sigma `$ upper limits for integrated flux densities of point sources at 60, 100 and 170 $`\mu `$m are 43, 33 and 58 mJy, respectively. The faintest 3 $`\sigma `$ upper limits at the three wavelengths are 30, 20 and 40 mJy.

The sample of VCC galaxies selected for ISOPHOT also formed a substantial part of samples observed with ISO using the ISOCAM MIR camera in pass bands centred at 6.9 and 15 $`\mu `$m (Boselli et al. 1997b, 1998) and the LWS at the 158 $`\mu `$m \[CII\] fine structure gas cooling line (Leech et al. 1999). In particular, the latter observations provide complementary information about the energetics of the interstellar gas, the sources of \[CII\] emission within the interstellar medium (Pierini et al. 1999, 2001), and the role played by different stellar populations in the gas heating.

## 3 The FIR spectral energy distributions

We fitted the observed spectral energy distributions (SEDs) with a superposition of two modified black-body functions, physically identified with a localised warm dust emission component associated with HII regions (whose temperature was constrained to be 47 K), and a diffuse emission component of cold dust. The two temperature components are in fact predicted by the SED modelling of Popescu et al. (2000a), which self-consistently analyses the UV/optical/NIR and the FIR/submm SEDs, and can account for both the integrated flux densities and the surface brightness distribution over the whole spectral range. The model111Full details of the model are given by Popescu et al. (2000a), Misiriotis et al. (2001) and Popescu & Tuffs (2002a)., which includes solving the radiative-transfer problem for a realistic distribution of absorbers and emitters, considering realistic models for dust, taking into account the grain-size distribution and stochastic heating of small grains and the contribution of HII regions, has not only the power to derive the star-formation rates and star-formation histories, but can also predict the relative contribution of the young and old stellar populations to the dust emission as a function of wavelength (see Fig. 3). Despite the complexity of the model, which calculates a continuous distribution in dust temperatures, it can be seen that a natural outcome of this modelling technique is the prediction of a diffuse cold component of dust emission powered by a combination of non-ionising UV and optical-NIR photons, and a warm component of dust emission corresponding to the ensemble of discrete HII regions. This corresponds to what we have seen in the ISOPHOT maps of Virgo galaxies.

Thus, the emerging result from the FIR SED fits was that most of the Virgo galaxies from our sample require both warm and cold dust emission components to be fitted. The cold dust temperatures is broadly distributed, with a median of 18 K (Popescu et al. 2002), some $`810`$ K lower than would have been predicted by IRAS. The corresponding dust masses were correspondingly found to be increased by factors of typically $`613`$ with respect with previous IRAS determinations. As a consequence, the derived gas-to-dust ratios are much closer to the canonical value of$`160`$ for the Milky Way but with a broad distribution of values (Popescu et al. 2002).

A good linear correlation is found between the “warm FIR” luminosities and the H$`\alpha `$ equivalent widths (EW), supporting the assumptions of our constrained spectral energy distribution (SED) fit procedure. We also found a good non-linear correlation between the “cold FIR” luminosities and the H$`\alpha `$ EWs, consistent with the prediction of Popescu et al. (2000a) that the FIR-submm emission should mainly be due to diffuse non-ionising UV photons. Both the “warm” and the “cold” FIR luminosity components are non-linearly correlated with the (predominantly non-thermal) radio luminosities (Popescu et al. 2002). The validity of the FIR-radio correlation was thus tested using for the first time measurements of the bulk of the dust emission in quiescent normal galaxies, making this a highlight result of the ISOPHOT Virgo investigation.

Another highlight result is the calculation of the percentage of stellar light re-radiated by dust. Previous estimates based on the IRAS Bright Galaxy Sample (BGS; Soifer & Neugebauer 1991) have established a canonical value of 30% for the fraction of starlight to be re-radiated in the FIR in the local universe. However, this value refers to relatively bright FIR sources in which the bulk of the dust emission is radiated in the IRAS 60 and 100 $`\mu `$m bands, and is not representative of quiescent systems like the Virgo galaxies. In addition it takes no account of measurements longwards of 120 $`\mu `$m, not available at that time. The percentage of stellar light re-radiated by dust was investigated by Xu & Buat (1995), using an indirect estimate for the total FIR luminosity. With the advantage of the new ISOPHOT data we calculate this percentage by using for the first time measurements of the bulk of the dust emission in quiescent normal galaxies.

By combining the luminosity of dust emission with the observed UV/optical/NIR luminosities derived from the data of Schröder & Visvanathan (1996), Boselli et al. (1997), Rifatto, Longo & Capaccioli (1995) and Deharveng et al. (1994) we show that the mean percentage is $`30\%`$ for the later spirals in the ISOPHOT Virgo Cluster Deep Sample (Popescu & Tuffs 2002b). This value is the same as the canonical value of 30$`\%`$ obtained for the IRAS BGS by Soifer & Neugebauer (1991). This is probably due to the fact that there are two factors influencing this percentage, and working in opposite directions. The addition of the ISO cold dust luminosity increases the FIR contribution to the total bolometrics. But our sample consists of more quiescent galaxies than those from BGS and we expect them to have smaller FIR contributions. By the same token, it is probable that the contribution of dust emission to the total luminosity of the BGS galaxies will be greater than the 30$`\%`$ derived from IRAS.

## 4 Trends with Hubble type

Of particular interest are the results concerning the trends with Hubble type. A tendency was found for the temperatures of the cold dust component to become colder, and for the cold dust surface densities (normalised to optical area) to increase with increasing lateness in the Hubble type (Figs. 4a,b). A particularly surprising result was the low dust temperatures (ranging down to less than 10 K) and large dust masses associated with the Virgo Im and Blue Compact Dwarf (BCD) galaxies. Another important trend is the increase of the normalised (to K band magnitude) FIR luminosity as we progress from the early to the later Hubble types (Fig. 4c). This result was later confirmed by Bendo et al. (2002) for the RSA (Revised Shapley-Ames Catalog) sample. A related result was also obtained by Pierini et al. (1999) for the LWS data on Virgo galaxies, where a strong correlation of normalised \[CII\] emission with H$`\alpha `$ equivalent widths was interpreted as a trend of increasing star-formation rate along the Hubble sequence.

Finally, we found an increase of the ratio of the dust emission to the total stellar emitted output along the Hubble sequence. This correlation is quite strong, ranging from typical values of $`15\%`$ for early spirals to up to $`50\%`$ for some late spirals (Popescu & Tuffs 2002b). This, together with the trend for a decrease in the temperature of the cold dust, would suggest a trend of increasing opacities with increasing star-formation activity. The extreme BCDs can have even higher percentages of their bolometric output re-radiated in the thermal infrared. This correlation can be also interpreted as a sequence from normal to dwarf gas rich galaxies, with the dwarfs having an increased contribution of the FIR output to the total bolometric output. These findings could be important for our perception of the distant Universe, where, according to the hierarchical galaxy formation scenarios, gas rich dwarf galaxies should prevail. We would then expect these galaxies to make a higher contribution to the total FIR output in the early Universe than previously expected. This, together with the cosmic-ray driven winds, in which grains can survive and be inserted in the surrounding intergalactic medium (Popescu et al. 2000b), could potentially change our view of the high redshifted Universe.

## 5 Cold dust in the Virgo BCDs

Perhaps the most intriguing result of this investigation are the masses and temperatures of the cold dust derived for the Im and BCD galaxies in our sample. These systems are clearly differentiated from the spirals, having the highest dust mass surface densities (normalised to optical size), and the lowest dust temperatures. This is a particularly unexpected result, since the IRAS observations of BCDs could be accounted for in terms of dust heated locally in HII regions, with temperatures of 30 K or more.

The unexpected result that large amounts of cold dust exist in some Virgo BCDs was interpreted by us as being indicative of dust surrounding the optical galaxy, originating in an external dust reservoir fact, in two cases direct evidence was found of resolved emission at 170 micron on scales of up to 10 kpc. To qualitatively account for the FIR and optical extinction characteristics of BCDs, Popescu et al. (2002) proposed two scenarios invoking collisionally or photon-heated emission from grains originating in the surrounding intergalactic medium. In the one scenario, grains are swept up from a surrounding protogalactic cloud and heated collisionally in an optically thin wind bubble blown from the BCD. In the other, the grains are taken to be photon-heated in an optically thick disk surrounding the optical galaxy. The disk is indicative of a massive gas/dust accreting phase which makes dwarf galaxies sporadically bright optical-UV sources when viewed out of the equatorial plane of the disk. In both scenarios the dust does not have a galactic origin, but needs to exist in the immediate vicinity of the galaxies, where it can either be heated by winds or can accrete into the dwarfs.


format: text

text:
# Unconventional Superconductivity in MgCNi3

## Introduction.

The discussion of unconventional superconductivity is usually limited to systems with $`p`$\- or $`d`$-wave pairing. It has been noted recently that unconventional properties can also appear in systems with a multicomponent “$`s`$-wave” order parameter (OP) arising from a conventional phonon mechanism Agterberg . Multi-band superconductivity has been first studied shortly after the development of the BCS theory SuhlLeggett  and has experienced a revival during recent years in connection with a variety of superconductors, including MgB2, RNi2B2C, Sr2RuO4, and many others Materials . In a multiband superconductor, in which the intraband pairing interaction is most attractive in the $`s`$-wave channel, each Fermi surface (FS) sheet can develop a nearly-isotropic $`s`$-wave OP. If the interband Cooper pair scattering is repulsive, however, a nontrivial relative OP phase configuration can exist between the bands Agterberg . In general such a state can break symmetries in addition to $`U(1)`$, such as the time-reversal symmetry, responsible for unconventional behavior.

We propose here that the antiperovskite compound HeCava  $`\mathrm{MgCNi}_3`$ could be a realization of this type of unconventional superconductor. The thermodynamic properties, and the observation of a Hebel-Slichter peak in NMR-measurements Singer , suggest conventional pairing. In contrast, a zero-bias conductance peak has been observed in the quasiparticle tunneling spectra Mao . Interpreting this as evidence for subgap Andreev bound states at the surface would point towards unconventional superconductivity Mao ; Rosner . These two seemingly contradictory observations can be reconciled within a multiband $`s`$-wave picture as outlined above. Our aim is to consider this type of unconventional superconductivity as a working hypothesis, and analyze observable properties that could be tested. Here we report briefly our main results; more details will be given later in a separate publication.

In $`\mathrm{MgCNi}_3`$, the important electron bands are mainly derived from a hybridization of the Ni $`3d`$ with the C $`2p`$ orbitals. From band structure calculations BandStructure , the main features of the FS are three pill-shaped hole pockets centered around the $`X`$-points, and a nearly spherical electron FS around the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-point, see Fig. 1. Since these four FS sheets together comprise the largest part of the electron density of states (DOS) at the Fermi level, we ignore some minor additional sheets, namely the smaller cigar-shaped pockets along the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-$`R`$ lines, and the “jungle gym” structure along $`M`$-$`R`$ BandStructure .

## Nature of superconductivity in $`\mathrm{𝑀𝑔𝐶𝑁𝑖}_\mathit{3}`$.

Throughout this letter we maintain the viewpoint that superconductivity in $`\mathrm{MgCNi}_3`$ is mainly driven by the three symmetry-related bands around the $`X`$-points, since their Fermi velocity is quite low in some momentum directions, resulting in a large DOS BandStructure . These bands furthermore constitute what distinguishes $`\mathrm{MgCNi}_3`$ from most “ordinary” BCS superconductors, and therefore are likely to contain the source of any unusual phenomena. Each of these three bands can individually develop an $`s`$-wave-like OP $`\eta _a`$, identical in magnitude by symmetry, where $`a=1,2,3`$ is the band index. The repulsive Cooper pair scattering between these pockets, mediated by the Coulomb interaction, stabilizes an unconventional state satisfying $`\eta _a=\eta _1\omega ^{m(a1)}`$, where $`m=\pm 1`$ and $`\omega =e^{2\pi i/3}`$. The corresponding order parameter is $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_m=\eta _1+\omega ^m\eta _2+\omega ^m\eta _3`$.

This can be understood if we view the Cooper pair scattering as an intrinsic Josephson coupling between different bands, which gives rise to the Josephson energy

$$E=J\left\{\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _{12})+\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _{23})+\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _{31})\right\},$$
(1)
where $`\varphi _{ab}`$ is the phase difference between bands $`a`$ and $`b`$. The coupling energies are identical by symmetry. If $`J`$ is positive, this energy is minimized by $`\varphi _{12}=\varphi _{23}=\varphi _{31}=\pm 2\pi /3`$. This two-fold degenerate state breaks time reversal symmetry.

If the coupling between the $`X`$-pockets and the central $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-band is strong enough, an unconventional state whose gap function has the $`k`$-space structure $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\pm 1}(𝐤)k_x^2+\omega ^{\pm 1}k_y^2+\omega ^1k_z^2`$ can be induced on the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-band as well, even if this band on its own would favor standard $`s`$-wave pairing. The $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{\pm 1}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\pm 1}`$ order parameters belong to the same two-dimensional representation $`E_g`$ of the cubic point group $`O_h`$, but only $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\pm 1}`$ has all the features of a “usual” unconventional state, namely a non-trivial phase dependence of its gap function on the FS sheet, and even nodal points at $`k_x^2=k_y^2=k_z^2`$. On the $`X`$-bands, the (singular) nodal points would fall in the region between the FS sheets.

## Impurity bound states.

The phase differences between the $`X`$-pockets, as well as the induced unconventional state on the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-band, can give rise to scattering-induced subgap states. Such states arise from an interference effect of Bogoliubov quasiparticles that experience a phase shift when scattered between regions of the FSs with different OP phase Tanaka . For simplicity we will treat $`X`$-bands and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-band separately, neglecting quasiparticle scattering processes between the two. In the presence of an impurity at the origin, the $`X`$-bands are described by the Bogoliubov-de Gennes (BdG) equations

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}E_𝐤^aϵ& \mathrm{\Delta }_a\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_a^{}& E_𝐤^aϵ\end{array}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐤^a+\frac{1}{N}\underset{𝐤^{}b}{}\left(\begin{array}{cc}g_{ab}& 0\\ 0& g_{ab}\end{array}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐤^{}^b=0,$$
(2)
where $`a,b=1\mathrm{}3`$ label the three $`X`$-pockets, $`E_𝐤^a`$ denotes the kinetic energy of electrons in band $`a`$ with lattice momentum $`𝐤`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐤^a=(u_𝐤^a,v_𝐤^a)`$ is a Nambu spinor, $`g_{ab}=g_0\delta _{ab}+g_1(1\delta _{ab})`$ denotes intraband and interband impurity scattering matrix elements, and $`N`$ is the number of unit cells in the sample. In this approximation the gap functions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_a=\mathrm{\Delta }_X\omega ^{a1}`$ are spatially invariant, even in the vicinity of an impurity. Eq. (2) is invariant under a $`120^{}`$ rotation about the $`[111]`$-axis, since only the phase difference between the bands is physically relevant. This leads to the distinction of three sectors of eigenstates, corresponding to the three eigenvalues $`1`$, $`\omega `$, and $`\omega ^2`$, of the rotation operator, where only the first two contain subgap states. In each sector, Eq. (2) reduces to an effective one-band model, e.g. for the first eigenvalue:

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}E_𝐤^1ϵ& \mathrm{\Delta }_X\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_X^{}& E_𝐤^1ϵ\end{array}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐤+\frac{1}{N}\underset{𝐤^{}}{}\left(\begin{array}{cc}g_s& 0\\ 0& g_a\end{array}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐤^{}=0,$$
(3)
where the symmetrized and “antisymmetrized” impurity scattering matrix elements are

$$g_s=\underset{a}{}g_{ab}=g_0+2g_1,g_a=\underset{a}{}\omega ^{ab}g_{ab}=g_0g_1.$$
(4)
Note that the electron and hole components of the quasiparticles experience a different impurity scattering potential. For the second sector, $`g_s`$ and $`g_a`$ are interchanged in Eq. (3). It is standard to solve these equations for the bound state energies $`ϵ`$, with the result $`ϵ/\mathrm{\Delta }_X=\pm \mathrm{cos}\left(\theta _s\theta _a\right),`$ where the scattering phase shifts are given by $`\theta _{s,a}=\mathrm{arctan}\left[\pi N_X(ϵ_F)g_{s,a}\right],`$ $`N_X(ϵ_F)`$ being the partial density of states of a single $`X`$-pocket at the Fermi level. On the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-sheet the analogous single-band formulation gives $`ϵ/\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }=\pm 1/\sqrt{1+(\pi N_\mathrm{\Gamma }(ϵ_F)g_\mathrm{\Gamma })^2}`$, where $`g_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ corresponds to the isotropic scattering strength. Hence strong $`s`$-wave impurity scattering can lead to subgap bound states, with energy close to zero, for all bands.

## Surface bound states

Subgap states arise also from the reflection of quasiparticles at the surface. From the BdG equations, one obtains the bound state energies (in the limit of an infinite surface barrier)

$$ϵ=\pm \frac{\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{in}}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{out}}}{|\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{in}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{out}}|},$$
(5)
if the constraint $`\mathrm{min}(|\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{in}}|^2,|\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{out}}|^2)\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{in}}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{out}}`$ is satisfied Tanaka . If the order parameter amplitudes are equal, this expression reduces to $`ϵ=\pm |\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{in}}|\mathrm{cos}\left[\left(\varphi _{\text{in}}\varphi _{\text{out}}\right)/2\right].`$ Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{in}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{out}}`$ denote the order parameters “seen” by the incoming and outgoing particle, respectively, and $`\varphi _{\text{in}}`$ and $`\varphi _{\text{out}}`$ are their respective phases. For specular scattering the momentum component parallel to the surface is conserved. At a $`[100]`$-surface, no subgap states appear on any band, since the phase difference is zero. At a $`[110]`$-surface, the scattering processes can connect two $`X`$-pockets with a phase difference of $`2\pi /3`$, so that we expect subgap states with an energy $`ϵ\mathrm{\Delta }_X/2`$ here. On the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-band, with $`d`$-like OP $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{+1}`$ given above, a straightforward calculation yields

$$ϵ=\pm \mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[3(k_z/k_F)^21\right]/2,$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the maximum bulk gap, and $`k_z`$ is the $`z`$-component of the quasiparticle momentum. For the $`[111]`$ surface, the situation is qualitatively similar on the $`X`$-sheets, and for the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-band we get

$$ϵ=\pm (\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}3\psi ,$$
(7)
where the angles $`\theta `$ and $`\psi `$ provide a representation in spherical coordinates, so that

$$\frac{𝐤}{k_F}=\frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\sqrt{3}}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\\ 1\end{array}\right)+\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\psi }{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\\ 0\end{array}\right)+\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\psi }{\sqrt{6}}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\\ 2\end{array}\right).$$
(8)
The above bound state spectra lead to a subgap DOS

$$N(ϵ)=\frac{\sqrt{2}A}{3}\left\{\sqrt{\frac{1\lambda }{1+2\lambda }}+\sqrt{\frac{1+\lambda }{12\lambda }}\theta \left(\frac{1}{2}\lambda \right)\right\}$$
(9)
at a $`[110]`$ surface, and

$$N(ϵ)=A\text{arcosh}\left(\frac{1}{2\lambda }\right)\theta \left(\frac{1}{2}\lambda \right)$$
(10)
at a $`[111]`$ surface. Here $`\lambda =ϵ/\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`A=(4/\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Gamma })(k_Fa/2\pi )^2`$, and $`a`$ is the lattice constant. Note that in addition to a sharp peak centered at $`ϵ=0`$, a broad range of subgap states with nonzero energy is generated.

Obviously imperfection on realistic surfaces would destroy the transverse translational symmetry and lead to diffuse scattering. Consequently, subgap states can appear even at a $`[100]`$ surface, and the bound state spectrum would be generally more smeared. The zero-bias features observed in quasiparticle tunneling can be interpreted as a signature of these Andreev bound states at the surface Mao . In this way we have reconciled the observed standard form of the Hebel-Slichter peak, which results from the coherence effects of the $`s`$-wave pairing on each $`X`$-band, with the presence of subgap surface states due to the unconventional phase structure of the OP.

Additionally, we would like to emphasize that the presence of subgap states is also connected with pair breaking. In this sense, non-magnetic disorder would have an impact in this material on the the superconducting transition temperature unlike in a conventional superconductor. Interestingly, it was experimentally found that introducing C-vacancies lowers $`T_c`$, whereby this type of disorder is non-magnetic Doping .

## Ginzburg-Landau (GL) theory.

A GL description allows a qualitative analysis of spontaneous currents, which are connected with the presence of subgap states Tanaka , and of possible phase transitions between states with different OP symmetry. In its general form, it requires three OPs $`\eta _a`$, $`a=1\mathrm{}3`$, one for each $`X`$-pocket, and three OPs $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\pm 1}`$ on the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ sheet:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_mk_x^2+\omega ^mk_y^2+\omega ^mk_z^2\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\eta }_m=\eta _1+\omega ^m\eta _2+\omega ^m\eta _3\hfill \end{array}\}\text{with}m=0,\pm 1,$$
(11)
where the same index $`m`$ corresponds to phases of identical symmetry on the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$\- and $`X`$-sheets. We focus on the $`X`$-bands with the $`\eta `$ OPs, since their superconductivity is likely strongest. For repulsive Cooper pair scattering between different $`X`$-pockets, $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_0`$ has a lower transition temperature than the degenerate $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{+1}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_1`$ phases, and will therefore be neglected here. The GL free energy density is then

$`f_X`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=\pm 1}{}}\left\{a|\stackrel{~}{\eta }_m|^2+b_1|\stackrel{~}{\eta }_m|^4+K_1|𝐃\stackrel{~}{\eta }_m|^2\right\}`$
$`+`$ $`b_2|\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{+1}|^2|\stackrel{~}{\eta }_1|^2+K_2\{(𝐃_{+1}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{+1})^{}𝐃_1\stackrel{~}{\eta }_1+c.c\},`$
where $`𝐃=(D_x,D_y,D_z)=i\frac{2e}{\mathrm{}c}𝐀`$, and $`𝐀`$ is the vector potential. We also introduce the differential operators $`_m=(_x,\omega ^m_y,\omega ^m_z)`$ and $`𝐃_m=(D_x,\omega ^mD_y,\omega ^mD_z)`$. The current density is then

$$𝐣=\frac{4e}{\mathrm{}c}\underset{m=\pm 1}{}\text{Im}\left\{K_1\stackrel{~}{\eta }_m^{}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_m+K_2\stackrel{~}{\eta }_m^{}_m\stackrel{~}{\eta }_m\right\}.$$
(13)
## Currents around an impurity.

If the impurity does not break any point group symmetries, it will introduce a term $`f_{\text{imp}}=S\left(|\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{+1}|^2+|\stackrel{~}{\eta }_1|^2\right)\delta ^3(𝐫)`$ in the free energy. In an $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{+1}`$ bulk state also an $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_1`$ component will be induced around this defect. Denoting the deviations of $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{+1}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_1`$ from their bulk value by $`\delta \stackrel{~}{\eta }_\pm `$, we arrive at the GL equations (to first order in S)

$`\left[2a+K_1^2\right]\delta \stackrel{~}{\eta }_{+1}+K_2_1^2\delta \stackrel{~}{\eta }_1`$ $`=`$ $`S\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{+1}^{\text{bulk}}\delta ^3(𝐫),`$
$`\left[2b+K_1^2\right]\delta \stackrel{~}{\eta }_1+K_2_{+1}^2\delta \stackrel{~}{\eta }_{+1}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (14)
where $`2b=ab_2|\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{+1}^{\text{bulk}}|^2`$. These equations can be solved in Fourier space, giving rise to the currents

$$𝐣_q=\frac{4ie}{\mathrm{}c}\frac{S|\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{+1}^{\text{bulk}}|^2K_2^2\text{Im}\left[Q^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐪}\right]}{(2aK_1q^2)(2bK_1q^2)K_2|Q|^2},$$
(15)
where $`\stackrel{~}{𝐪}=(q_x,\omega q_y,\omega ^2q_z)`$ and $`Q=q_x^2+\omega q_y^2+\omega ^2q_z^2`$. This corresponds to a angular structure

$$𝐣(𝐫)(x(y^2z^2),y(z^2x^2),z(x^2y^2))/r^3,$$
(16)
which is an octupole. Consequently, the resulting magnetic field has a basic quadrupolar structure with corrections of angular momentum $`l=4`$, i.e. the field vanishes directly at the impurity site.

## Surface currents.

At a boundary or interface, the following surface terms enter the GL expansion:

$$f_{\text{surf}}=\delta (x^{})[S_1(|\stackrel{~}{\eta }_+|^2+|\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{}|^2)+S_2(\stackrel{~}{\eta }_+^{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{}+c.c.)],$$
(17)
where $`x^{}=𝐧𝐫`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }=n_x^2+\omega n_y^2+\omega ^2n_z^2`$, and $`𝐧=(n_x,n_y,n_z)`$ is the surface normal. A calculation similar to that for the impurity current yields a surface current

$$𝐣|\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{+1}^{\text{bulk}}|^2\text{Im}\left[\stackrel{~}{\omega }^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐧}\right],$$
(18)
which is localized on a length scale comparable to the correlation length. Here $`\stackrel{~}{𝐧}=(n_x,\omega n_y,\omega ^2n_z)`$. A spontaneous current is generated at a $`[110]`$ surface, where $`\text{Im}\left[\stackrel{~}{\omega }^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐧}\right](1,1,0)`$, but not at $`[100]`$ or $`[111]`$ surfaces, where $`\text{Im}\left[\stackrel{~}{\omega }^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐧}\right]`$ is zero.

## Competition between $`d`$\- and $`s`$-wave OPs.

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\pm 1}`$ is an externally induced OP that competes with the “natural” $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ OP on the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ band, which has a different ($`s`$-wave like) symmetry than the inducing source. If the gap introduced by $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\pm 1}`$ is large enough, it will govern the quasiparticles on the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-Fermi surface entirely and be the only OP of this band. Weakening this induced pairing state, however, can open the door for a state with a finite $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$-component. Therefore, at $`T=0`$ a quantum phase transition is possible for the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-band as a function of the impurity concentration. To illustrate this at least on a qualitative level, we consider the GL theory describing this competition,

$`f_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0,+1}{}}\left\{a_m^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_m|^2+b_m^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_m|^4\right\}+\gamma |\mathrm{\Psi }_{+1}|^2|\mathrm{\Psi }_0|^2`$ (19)
$`+g(\mathrm{\Psi }_{+1}^{}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{+1}+c.c.),`$
where we regard $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{+1}`$ as an external OP that is assumed to be constant, and ignore any feedback of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-band on the $`X`$-bands. For $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{+1}=0`$, only the $`s`$-wave state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ is stable, and the coexistence of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{+1}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ is energetically disfavored. Hence $`a_{+1}^{}`$ and $`\gamma `$ are positive, while $`a_0^{}`$ is negative at temperatures below $`T_{c0}`$ ($`<T_c`$), the transition temperature of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$. The phase of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ is determined by additional terms involving $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$, which were omitted in the above expression. These are small, since $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ is suppressed by the coupling to the $`X`$-bands, so that the phase of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ is only weakly pinned. Collective phase modes may hence be relevant near the transition KumarWoelfle .

We may influence the strength of the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{+1}`$-component by non-magnetic impurities which with increasing concentration suppress this unconventional pairing channel of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-band, while the “$`s`$-wave” state is basically unaffected. The growing concentration of impurities, $`n_{\text{imp}}`$, leads to the increase of $`a_{+1}^{}`$, causing the decrease of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{+1}`$. A continuous onset of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ occurs when $`a_0^{}+\gamma |\mathrm{\Psi }_{+1}|^2=0`$ is satisfied. However, if the coupling coefficient $`\gamma `$, i.e. the repulsion between the two OPs, is sufficiently strong, then a first order transition is favored within this model, see Fig. 2. In both cases the new phase appearing corresponds to the coexistence of the two OP, since $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{+1}`$ enforced from “outside” can never be eliminated completely.

## Conclusions.

In summary, we have shown that the — at first glance contradictory — experimental results on $`\mathrm{MgCNi}_3`$ (Hebel-Slichter peak in NMR and zero-bias anomaly in tunneling spectra) can be reconciled by a multi-band unconventional superconducting state, where the OP on the dominant FS sheets is $`s`$-wave like, but with non-trivial phase relations between the bands. The resulting state violates time reversal symmetry. Subgap Andreev bound states and spontaneous currents are signatures of such a state that are accessible to experiment. Our specific predictions about the direction dependence of surface bound state energies can be tested in tunneling experiments on single crystals. The spontaneous impurity-induced currents can be verified by zero-field muon relaxation measurements Luke , while the spontaneous surface currents might be observed by scanning SQUID or Hall probes. Furthermore, the induced superconducting state on the central $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-band can undergo a transition from a “$`d`$-wave” state to an “$`s+d`$”-wave state with increasing impurity concentration. The first- or second-order transition (see Fig. 2) may or may not occur, depending on the precise values of microscopic parameters. Such a transition may leave their signature in thermodynamic quantities such as specific heat, London penetration depth, or ultrasound absorption. Eventually we believe that MgCNi3 could be the exciting case of an unconventional superconducting state due to its multi-band structure Agterberg .

We would like to thank D.F. Agterberg, Ch. Helm, H. Kusunose, and T.M. Rice for helpful discussions. This work was financially supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation.


text:
# On The Origin of Universe

Proceedings I Einstein Centenary Symposium, 303-307

Amongst various theories concerning the large scale structure of the Universe and its origin, the big-bang or evolutionary theory and steady state theory have been extensively discussed and developed. According to big-bang idea, the Universe started from a very hot and dense (infinite density) matter with the greatest expansion rate at the beginning and then slowing down steadily. On the other hand, steady state theory assumes that the expansion has always been going on at just its present rate and the matter is continually created to compensate for the background material. These theories are, however, inadequate to answer the following questions: What was the state before the creation of the Universe ? And, where does the Universe expand ? In the first model, the question that what happened before the big-bang can not be answered. In steady state theory the question cannot be asked meaningfully since it is assumed that the Universe as observed from a particular position and at a particular epoch is same as that observed from any other position and at any other epoch. The matter is postulated to be created from nothing. The status of the answer to the second question is very much unclear and confused in both theories.

An attempt is made to answer some of these questions starting from a new hypothesis 1  on space-time interaction contained in two postulates stated below:

* There is a state, ’Superspace’ which has its own energy called fundamental energy,
* Time is something which operates upon the state ’Superspace’ to transform the fundamental energy to known form of energy thereby creating Universe.

It would be appropriate to discuss briefly the meaning of the terms ’Superspace’ and space-time interaction. The state ’Superspace’ is the state before the creation of the Universe. By the universe, I mean the whole aggregate of objects consisting of matter or radiation or both. The state where neither matter nor radiation existed is called thc ’Superspace’. The energy of this state is the source for the creation of the Universe and therefore it is called the fundamental energy. Superspace by its definition acquires certain peculiar characteristics. We know that identical objects are indistinguishable, the perfect symmetry requires the absence of any discontinuity and measurement loses its meaning for infinite extent. The concepts of dimensionality, origin and boundary are, therefore, meaningless for the state ’Superspace’. The fundamental energy is uniformly distributed throughout the ’Superspace’. The second postulate gives a special place to time as a dynamical operator. The fundamental energy associated with the ’Superspace’ is transformed to some radiation, when time operates upon the ’Superspace’. The space time interaction, as I call it, where started, can not be asked because of the perfect symmetry of ’Superspace’. However, there was certainly a beginning for our Universe, because every change has beginning. Moreover, once the interaction takes place, a finite, bounded and well defined region will come into existence. The measurement sense of both space and time also enters into picture as soon as space-time interaction takes place. That the energy conversion took place in zero time or instantaneously has no meaning implies that some finite elementary time interval, $`\tau `$, exists during which fundamental energy gets transformed into some radiation. The Nature should not be irregular and partial for any specific time then implies that in each time interval $`\tau `$, an amount of energy, $`F`$ gets converted to some radiation.

Thus the elementary time interval, $`\tau `$, is a basic and absolute unit of time provided by the Nature. Further the product of $`F`$ and $`\tau `$ is also constant. Now the converted energy in the form of radiations should be contained somewhere. Let us make the simplest and natural assumption to regard this spatial region as a sphere of volume $`V_e`$. Since fundamental energy is uniformly distributed and an equal amount of energy, $`F`$ is converted in each time interval, $`\tau `$, the volume of the Universe also increases in the steps of $`V_e`$. If the energy density is denoted by $`\rho `$, then $`\rho V_e=F`$. All the time intervals are the integral multiples of the elementary time interval but, for convenience, we replace the discrete time by a continuous time. Then at time $`t`$, the volume of the Universe is given by $`V=V_et/\tau `$. The radius, $`R`$, and the rate of radial expansion, $`v`$, are easily calculated to be

$`R`$ $`=`$ $`Kt^{1/3}`$
$`v`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dR}{dt}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}Kt^{2/3}`$ (1)
where $`K=(3V_e/4\pi \tau )^{1/3}`$. Neglecting the second and higher order terms in $`\tau /t`$, the expression for the incremental radius $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$ from time $`t`$ to $`t+\tau `$ is given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }R={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}K\tau t^{2/3}.`$ (2)
Assuming that $`F\tau =h`$, Planck’s constant, for the typical values of $`\rho =1.9\times 10^9`$ erg cms-3, $`\tau =5.4\times 10^{44}`$ sec and age of the Universe, $`t=2\times 10^{10}`$ years, we get the following results: $`V_e6.5\times 10^{25}`$ cm3, $`R5.65\times 10^{28}`$ cm and $`v2.997\times 10^{10}`$ cm/sec. If we identify $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$ with the Planck’s length, $`(hG/2\pi c^3)^{1/2}`$ where $`G`$ is gravitational constant and $`c`$ is the velocity of light, then the value of $`G`$ is calculated to be $`6.707\times 10^8\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{gm}^1\mathrm{sec}^2`$. The radius of the Universe and the gravitational constant $`G`$ calculnted here are in reasonable agreement with their values calcurated in other models. If we take $`\tau =4.4x10^{24}`$ sec, then it turns out that $`R10^{14}`$ cm, $`v10^8`$ cm/sec and $`G10^5\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{gm}^1\mathrm{sec}^2`$. Therefore it seems that the value of $`\tau `$ equal to $`5.4\times 10^{44}`$ sec is close to the actual value of $`\tau `$ , though the uncertainty in other parameters $`\rho `$ and age of the Universe restricts the validity of this value of $`\tau `$ also.

Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$ is not constant, we note that the Gravitational constant varies with time. If $`c`$ is assumed to be constant, then $`Gt^{4/3}`$. We must point out here that according to Dirac’s large number hypothesis 2  $`Gt^1`$.

The most interesting result is that $`vc`$. Does it mean that the velocity of light is not constant, because $`vt^{2/3}`$ ? The velocity of light dictates every physical process, though it is not clear, why. Einstein himself was aware of this criticism for giving such a fundamental role to the velocity of light 3 . Here we have an explanation for it. The radial expansion rate determines the maximum attainable velocity in the Universe. It is very I satisfying principle indeed, in our model because outside the physical spatial boundary of our Universe, there is the ’Superspace’ containing fundamental energy. Now no energy signal can penetrate this ( Superspace’ because it is incompressible nd nonempty. Therefore. the restriction on the velocity of any signal that it can not exceed the radial expansion rate will make it impossible to cross the boundary of the Universe. Therefore the physical processes including the velocity of light-are guided bya cosmic principle.

In the simple model, one can easily calculate that the velocity of light at $`t=10^{10}`$ yrs. was $`4.7579739\times 10^{10}`$ cm/sec and it will be $`2.287395\times 10^{10}`$ cm/sec. at $`t=3\times 10^{10}`$ yrs.

The variation of the light velocity with time will alter the concepts of fundamental constants. Dirac 4  argued that not all the three fundamental constants $`h/2\pi ,c\mathrm{and}e`$ are fundamental. at least one is derived. If the fine structure constant is considered independent of time then e should also vary with time, since $`h/2\pi `$ is fundamental in our model. Dirac however insisted that $`c`$ plays such an important role in four dimensional picture that it must be fundamental. Only the experiments can decide. but we expect so many new and interesting consequences will follow in case we consider that the velocity of light is not constant.

Finally we would like to give a few remarks regarding the origin of the gravitational force. One can see that $`Gt^{10/3}`$, as $`v=ct^{2/3}`$. Now, is gravity a real field ? Let us discuss it in our model. It is now a well established fact that matter energy can be converted to radiation energy and vice versa. We now invoke the principle of naturality and condensation and conservation principle of energy.

The former demands that every physical system has a tendency to attain its original state. When applied to the present situation, we find that because the ’Superspace’ had uniform and homogeneous distribution of fundamental energy, the energy in the Universe always has a tendency to be uniformly distributed throughout the space. The condensation and conservation principle can be stated as follows. The energy conversion takes place in such a manner that the energy density increases, i.e. fundamental energy density $`<`$ radiation energy density $`<`$ matter energy density. The source of the matter and radiation in the Universe is the fundamental energy therefore. local energy conservation principle is a necessary corollary of our hypothesis because we can not get more energy than what is contained in ’Superspace’. When radiation and matter are created, the empty space is created inside the Universe. The naturality principle then brings out a pressure kind of thing which manifests as an attractive force. Thus qualitatively we can understand the gravitational force, which seems to be an apparent interaction.

Although a number of problems such as red shift, microwave back-ground radiation etc. have not been touched upon and the model presented here is far from being complete in the sense that the details of the large scale structure of Univarse are not discussed, the conceptual and philosophical profoundness of this model are its attractive features.


text:
# Regge Asymptotics of the Scattering Amplitude in Ladder Approximation

## 1 Introduction

Many experimental and theoretical investigations of behavior of the scattering amplitude in the deeply inelastic region lead to a great interest for ladder models. The ladder approximation for the scattering amplitude in field theory models was early used for explanation of Regge behavior at high energies  and also for constructing of multiperiferic model . As it is known the summation of the ladder diagrams leads always to the integral Bethe-Salpeter (BS) equations for the scattering amplitude. Exact solutions of the BS type ladder equations for forward scattering amplitudes in some scalar models were obtained by different methods and behavior of the amplitudes were investigated in the Regge and Bjorken regions \[4-6\]. The solution method of BS equation for an imaginary part of the scattering amplitude at small momentum transfers in $`\lambda \phi ^3`$-theory was considered in . In Ref.  BS equation for the imaginary part of forward fermion-boson scattering amplitude has been investigated. The imaginary part of the forward scattering amplitude at small momentum transfers has been studied in quantum scalar electrodynamics in ladder approximation . It is schown that high energy amplitudes have the Regge asymptotic. However, there are not investigations of fermion scattering amplitudes at nonzero momentum transfers in the ladder approximation.

In the present work we construct BS type integral equations system for the imaginary part of the fermion-boson scattering amplitude in the ladder approximation. The method of solution of such equations in the Regge energy region is presented. It is shown that exchanging mass impact signlificantly for the Regge asymptotic behavior at high energies.

## 2  BS equation for the imaginary part of the scattering amplitude

BS equation for the imaginary part of the scattering amplitude $`F_{\alpha \beta }(p,p^{};k,k^{})`$ for the fermion $`\left(\psi \right)`$ and scalar boson $`\left(\varphi \right)`$ with exchanging scalar particle $`\left(\phi \right)`$in the theory with $`L_{int.}=g\left[\overline{\psi }\stackrel{}{\psi }\right]\phi ++\lambda \phi \varphi ^2`$ is

$$\overline{\psi }\left(p^{}\right)F_{\alpha \beta }(s,t;p^2,p^2;k^2,k^2)\psi \left(p^{}\right)=$$

$$=\pi \lambda g\overline{\psi }\left(p^{}\right)\delta _+\left[\left(p+p^{}\right)^2\mu ^2\right]\theta \left(p_0+p_0^{}\right)\delta _{\alpha \beta }\psi \left(p^{}\right)+$$

$$+\frac{\pi \lambda g}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}\frac{\overline{\psi }(p^{})F_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}(s^{},t;\left(pq\right)^2,\left(kq\right)^2)\psi \left(p^{}\right)\left(\widehat{p}\widehat{q}+m\right)_{\alpha ^{}\beta }}{\left[\left(pq\right)^2m^2\right]\left[\left(kq\right)^2m^2\right]}\times $$

$$\times \delta _{\alpha \beta }\delta _+\left(q^2\mu ^2\right)\theta \left(q_0\right)d^4q,$$
(1)
where $`p,p^{}`$ and $`k,k^{}`$\- 4-momenta of the initial and final particles, respectively.

The amplitude $`F_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the function of the six invariants $`p^2,p^2,k^2,k^2,t=\left(pk\right)^2,s=\left(p+p^{}\right)^2`$. The amplitude $`F_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}`$ is the function of the following invariants: $`s^{}=\left(p+p^{}q\right)^2,t,\left(pq\right)^2,\left(kq\right)^2.\mu `$ is the mass of the exchanging particle, i.e., the mass on the ladders, and $`m`$ is the mass of other propogators(the masses of the scalar $`\left(\varphi \right)`$ and spinor $`\left(\psi \right)`$ particles are taken equal to each other for simplicity).

In the case $`p^2=m^2,k^2=m^2,k^2=m^2`$ the amplitude $`\overline{\psi }\left(p^{}\right)F_{\alpha \beta }\psi \left(p^{}\right)`$ expand on Lorentz invariants scalars

$$\overline{\psi }\left(p^{}\right)\left[f_1\widehat{p}+f_2\widehat{p}^{}+f_3\widehat{p}\widehat{p}^{}+f_4\right]\psi \left(p^{}\right)$$
(2)
Using Dirac equation $`\left(\left(\widehat{p}^{}m\right)\psi \left(p^{}\right)=0\right)`$ we can express the amplitude $`F_{\alpha \beta }`$ in terms of the two form-factors $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$

$$\left[\widehat{p}F_1(s,t;p^2)+F_2(s,t;p^2)\right]\overline{\psi }\left(p^{}\right)\psi \left(p^{}\right),$$
(3)
where $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ are linear combinations: $`F_1=f_1+f_3m,F_2=f_2m+f_4`$. The amplitude $`F_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}`$ has the form

$$\left(\widehat{p}\widehat{q}\right)F_1(s^{},t;\left(pq\right)^2,\left(kq\right)^2)+F_2(s^{},t;\left(pq\right)^2,\left(kq\right)^2).$$
(4)
Taking into account Eq. (3) and (4) the Eq. (1) can be rewritten in the following form

$$\left[\widehat{p}F_1(s,t;p^2)+F_2(s,t;p^2)\right]\overline{\psi }\left(p^{}\right)\psi \left(p^{}\right)=$$

$$=\pi \lambda g\delta _+\left(s\mu ^2\right)\theta \left(p_0+p_0^{}\right)\overline{\psi }\left(p^{}\right)\psi \left(p^{}\right)+$$

$$+\frac{\pi \lambda g}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}\frac{\left(\widehat{p}\widehat{q}+m\right)\left[\left(\widehat{p}\widehat{q}\right)F_1(s^{},t;\left(kq\right)^2)+F_2(s^{},t;\left(kq\right)^2)\right]}{\left[\left(pq\right)^2m^2\right]\left[\left(kq\right)^2m^2\right]}\times $$

$$\times \overline{\psi }\left(p^{}\right)\psi \left(p^{}\right)\delta _+(q^2\mu ^2)\mathrm{\Theta }(q_0)d^4q.$$
(5)
Here the spinors $`\psi \left(p^{}\right)`$ are normalized in the standard form

$$\underset{n=1,2}{}\psi _\alpha ^r\left(p^{}\right)\overline{\psi }_\beta ^r\left(p^{}\right)=\frac{\left(\widehat{p}^{}+m\right)_{\alpha \beta }}{2m}.$$

Summing upon $`r`$ we have

$$\left[\widehat{p}F_1(s,t;p^2)+F_2(s,t;p^2)\right]\left(m+\widehat{p^{}}\right)=\pi \lambda g\delta _+\left(s\mu ^2\right)\left(m+\widehat{p^{}}\right)\theta \left(p_0+p_0^{}\right)+$$

$$+\frac{\pi \lambda g}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}\frac{\left(\widehat{p}\widehat{q}+m\right)\left[\left(\widehat{p}\widehat{q}\right)F_1(s^{},t;\left(kq\right)^2)+F_2(s^{},t;\left(kq\right)^2)\right]}{\left[\left(pq\right)^2m^2\right]\left[\left(kq\right)^2m^2\right]}\times $$

$$\times \left(m+\widehat{p}^{}\right)\delta _+\left(q^2\mu ^2\right)\theta \left(q_0\right)d^4q.$$
(6)
Calculating the traces in Eq. (6) we have

$$pp^{}F_1(s,t;p^2)+mF_2(s,t;p^2)=m\pi \lambda g\delta _+\left(s\mu ^2\right)\theta \left(p_0+p_0^{}\right)+$$

$$+\frac{\pi \lambda g}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}\frac{\delta _+\left(q^2\mu ^2\right)\theta \left(q_0\right)d^4q}{\left[\left(pq\right)^2m^2\right]\left[\left(kq\right)^2m^2\right]}\times $$

$$\times [F_1(s^{},t;(kq)^2)[m(pq)^2+mp^{}(pq)]+.$$

$$+F_2(s^{},t;(kq)^2)[p^{}(pq)+m^2].],$$

(7)
$$mp^2F_1(s,t;p^2)+pp^{}F_2(s,t;p^2)=\pi \lambda g\delta _+\left(s\mu ^2\right)\theta \left(p_0+p_0^{}\right)pp^{}+$$

$$+\frac{\pi \lambda g}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}\frac{\delta _+\left(q^2\mu ^2\right)\theta \left(q_0\right)d^4q}{\left[\left(pq\right)^2m^2\right]\left[\left(kq\right)^2m^2\right]}\times $$

$$\times [F_1(s^{},t;(kq)^2)[pp^{}(pq)^2+m^2p(pq)]+$$

$$+F_2(s^{},t;(kq)^2)[mp(pq)+mpp^{}].],$$

the second equation in system (7) is obtained by multiplying Eq. (6) on $`\widehat{p}`$ and further calculating of the traces.

## 3 Analises of the Equations

The equations (7) have quite complex kernels and their exact solutions are probably imposible. So analysing the system (7) at high energies in the kinematic region $`s>>\mu ^2,m^2;k^2=m^2`$ the form of equations can be simplified. Then Eqs. (7) takes the form

$$pp^{}F_1(s,t;p^2)=\frac{\pi \lambda g}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}\frac{\delta _+\left(q^2\mu ^2\right)\theta \left(q_0\right)d^4q}{\left[\left(pq\right)^2m^2\right]\left[\left(kq\right)^2m^2\right]}\times $$

$$\times \left[mp^{}\left(pq\right)F_1(s^{},t;\left(kq\right)^2)+p^{}\left(pq\right)F_2(s^{},t;\left(kq\right)^2)\right],$$

(8)
$$pp^{}F_2(s,t;p^2)=$$

$$=\frac{\pi \lambda g}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}\frac{pp^{}\left(pq\right)^2F_1(s^{},t;\left(pq\right)^2,\left(kq\right)^2)\delta _+\left(q^2\mu ^2\right)\theta \left(q_0\right)d^4q}{\left[\left(pq\right)^2m^2\right]\left[\left(kq\right)^2m^2\right]}.$$

Let us divide both parts of the Eqs.(8) on relativistic invariant $`pp^{}`$. Then,

$$F_1(s,t;p^2)=$$

$$=\frac{\pi \lambda g}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}\frac{mF_1(s^{},t;\left(pq\right)^2,\left(kq\right)^2)+F_2(s^{},t;\left(pq\right)^2,\left(kq\right)^2)}{\left[\left(pq\right)^2m^2\right]\left[\left(kq\right)^2m^2\right]}\times $$

$$\times \left(1\frac{p^{}q}{pp^{}}\right)\delta _+\left(q^2\mu ^2\right)\theta \left(q_0\right)\delta _+\left[\left(p+p^{}q\right)^2s^{}\right]\theta \left(p_0+p_0^{}q_0\right)d^4qds^{},$$
(9)
$$F_2(s,t;p^2)=\frac{\pi \lambda g}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}\frac{\left(pq\right)^2F_1(s^{},t;\left(pq\right)^2,\left(kq\right)^2)}{\left[\left(pq\right)^2m^2\right]\left[\left(kq\right)^2m^2\right]}\times $$

$$\times \delta _+\left(q^2\mu ^2\right)\theta \left(q_0\right)\delta _+\left[\left(p+p^{}q\right)^2s^{}\right]\theta \left(p_0+p_0^{}q_0\right)d^4qds^{},$$

where the integrand is multiplied by

$$1=\delta _+\left[\left(p+p^{}q\right)^2s^{}\right]\theta \left(p_0+p_0^{}q_0\right)𝑑s^{}.$$

Note, that when particle with momentum $`p`$ is on the mass surface $`\left(p^2=m^2\right)`$ at $`s\mathrm{},`$ the Regge asymptotic $`s^{\alpha \left(t\right)}`$ is not the solution of the system (9).

## 4  Solutions of equations

Look for the solutions of Eqs. (9) in the Regge region in the form

$$F_1(s,t;p^2)c_1\left(\frac{s^{}}{m^2}\right)^{\alpha \left(t\right)}\frac{1}{p^2},F_2c_2m\left(\frac{s}{m^2}\right)^{\alpha \left(t\right)},$$
(10)
where $`c_1`$and $`c_2`$ are constants. Correspondingly,

$`F_1(s^{},t;\left(pq\right)^2)`$ $``$ $`c_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{s^{}}{m^2}}\right)^{\alpha \left(t\right)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(pq\right)^2}},`$
$`F_2(s^{},t;p^2)`$ $``$ $`c_2m\left({\displaystyle \frac{s^{}}{m^2}}\right)^{\alpha \left(t\right)}.`$
Substituting Eqs.(10) and (11) into Eq.(9) we obtain

$$\frac{c_1}{p^2}=\frac{\pi \lambda g}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}\frac{\delta _+\left(q^2\mu ^2\right)\theta \left(q_0\right)\delta _+\left[\left(p+p^{}q\right)^2s^{}\right]\theta \left(p_0+p_0^{}q_0\right)}{\left[\left(pq\right)^2m^2\right]\left[\left(kq\right)^2m^2\right]}\times $$

$`\times `$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{p^{}q}{pp^{}}}\right)\left[c_1m\left({\displaystyle \frac{s^{}}{s}}\right)^{\alpha \left(t\right)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(pq\right)^2}}+c_2m\left({\displaystyle \frac{s^{}}{s}}\right)^{\alpha \left(t\right)}\right]ds^{}d^4q,`$
$`c_2m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \lambda g}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _+\left(q^2\mu ^2\right)\theta \left(q_0\right)\delta _+\left[\left(p+p^{}q\right)^2s^{}\right]\theta \left(p_0+p_0^{}q_0\right)}{\left[\left(pq\right)^2m^2\right]\left[\left(kq\right)^2m^2\right]}}\times `$
$$\times c_1\left(\frac{s^{}}{s}\right)^{\alpha \left(t\right)}ds^{}d^4q.$$

Then we get the particle with momentum $`k`$ on the mass surface $`k^2=m^2`$ and the particle with momentum $`p`$ near the mass surface $`pm^2,`$ suppousing that corrections to the amplitude due to the exit for the mass surface is of the order $`\frac{p^2m^2}{s},\frac{k^2m^2}{s}.`$

In the s.m.c.: $`p=(p_0,𝐩),p^{}=(p_0^{},𝐩)p+p^{}=(p_0+p_0^{},0)`$ we determine $`s`$ as total energy. Taking $`q=(q_0,𝐪)`$ it can be shown that the argument of the second $`\delta `$-function in Eq. (12) has the form: $`\left(p+p^{}q\right)^2s^{}=ss^{}+m^22\sqrt{s}q_0,`$ because the first $`\delta `$-function give $`q^2=\mu ^2`$. So using the spherical coordinates $`d^4q=\left|𝐪\right|^2d\left|𝐪\right|dq_0d\mathrm{\Omega },`$ where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\phi `$, and integrating on $`𝐪,`$and $`q_0`$ using the $`\delta `$functions, and further on $`\phi `$ we get

$$\frac{c_1}{m^2}=\frac{\pi ^2\lambda g}{8\left(2\pi \right)^4|𝐩^2|\sqrt{s}}\frac{\left(\frac{s^{^{}}}{s}\right)^{\alpha \left(t\right)}\left(\frac{c_1}{m}+c_2m\right)}{\eta \left(\beta +z\right)\sqrt{\beta ^2+2\beta z_0z+z^2+z_0^21}}\times $$

$$\times \left(1\frac{ss^{}}{s\sqrt{s}}\left(\frac{\sqrt{s}}{2}+|𝐩|z\right)\right)dzds^{},$$
(13)
$$\frac{c_2}{c_1}m=\frac{\pi ^2\lambda g}{8\left(2\pi \right)^4|𝐩^2|\sqrt{s}}\frac{\left(\frac{s^{}}{s}\right)^{\alpha \left(t\right)}}{\eta \left(\beta +z\right)\sqrt{\beta ^2+2\beta z_0z+z^2+z_0^21}}𝑑s^{}𝑑z,$$

where $`z=\mathrm{cos}\theta =\mathrm{cos}\left(𝐩^{}𝐪\right),z_0=\mathrm{cos}\theta _0=\mathrm{cos}\left(𝐩^{}𝐤\right),`$ $`\theta `$scattering angle, $`\left|𝐩\right|=\sqrt{\frac{𝐭}{\mathrm{𝟐}\left(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝟏}\right)}},\eta =\frac{ss^{}}{2\sqrt{s}},\beta =\frac{ss^{}}{4|𝐩|\eta }.`$

In the case of the small momentum transfers scattering we can change $`z_0=1+ϵ\left(ϵ1\right)`$ under the integral and obtaine Eq. (13) in the form

$$\frac{1}{m^3}=\frac{G}{|𝐩|^2\sqrt{s}}(\frac{1}{m^2}+\frac{c_2}{c_1})\frac{dzds^{}}{\eta \left(\beta +z\right)^2\sqrt{1+2ϵH}}\left(\frac{s^{}}{s}\right)^{\alpha \left(t\right)}\times $$

$$\times \left[1\frac{ss^{}}{s\sqrt{s}}\left(\frac{\sqrt{s}}{2}+𝐩z\right)\right],$$
(14)
$$\frac{c_2}{c_1}m=\frac{G}{|𝐩|^2\sqrt{s}}\frac{dzds^{}}{\eta \left(\beta +z\right)^2\sqrt{1+2ϵH}}\left(\frac{s^{}}{s}\right)^{\alpha \left(t\right)},$$

where $`G=\frac{\lambda g}{128\pi ^2},H=\frac{1+\beta z}{\left(\beta +z\right)^2},`$ and we ignore $`ϵ^2`$ in the ”denominator” of the kernels in Eq. (14).

Expanding the kernel in Eq. (14) on $`ϵ`$ and using the first two terms we get

$$\frac{1}{m^3}=\frac{G}{|𝐩|^2\sqrt{s}}(\frac{1}{m^2}+\frac{c_2}{c_1})\frac{dzds^{}}{\eta \left(\beta +z\right)^2}\left(\frac{s^{}}{s}\right)^{\alpha \left(t\right)}(1ϵ\frac{\beta z+1}{\left(\beta +z\right)^2})\times $$

$$\times \left[1\frac{ss^{}}{s\sqrt{s}}\left(\frac{\sqrt{s}}{2}+|𝐩|z\right)\right],$$
(15)
$$\frac{c_2}{c_1}m=\frac{G}{|𝐩|^2\sqrt{s}}\frac{dzds^{}}{\eta \left(\beta +z\right)^2\sqrt{1+2ϵH}}\left(\frac{s^{}}{s}\right)^{\alpha \left(t\right)}.$$

The integration limits on $`z`$ and $`s^{}`$ are determined from the kinematic condition $`\left|\mathrm{cos}\theta \right|==\left|\frac{\left(\mathrm{𝐩𝐪}\right)}{\left(𝐩^2𝐪^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\right|1`$ and threshold condition: $`s\mu ^2:1z1`$, $`0s^{}s`$, correspondingly.

Integrating on $`z`$ (in this case we neglect $`\frac{\mathrm{ln}s}{s}`$type term due to their very slow increasing at $`s\mathrm{}`$) we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m^3}}=IG\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{c_2}{c_1}}\right),`$
(16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{c_2}{c_1}}m=IG.`$
Here,

$$I=\frac{2}{\left|𝐩\right|^2\sqrt{s}}\underset{0}{\overset{s}{}}\frac{ds^{}}{\eta }\left(\frac{s^{}}{s}\right)^{\alpha \left(t\right)}\left[\frac{1}{1\beta ^2}+ϵ\frac{1}{3\left(1\beta ^2\right)^2}\right].$$

Expressing $`c_2`$ through $`c_1`$ we get (16) in the form

$$\frac{m\left(1\pm \sqrt{5}\right)}{8G}=\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}\frac{y\left(1y\right)^{\alpha \left(t\right)}}{\nu ^2+y^2}𝑑y+ϵ\frac{\left|𝐩\right|^2}{3m^2}\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}\frac{y^3\left(1y\right)^{\alpha \left(t\right)}}{\left(\nu ^2+y^2\right)^2}𝑑y,$$
(17)
where $`y=1\frac{s^{}}{s},\nu ^2=\frac{\mu ^2}{m^2}.`$ The first integral in Eq. (17) is reduced to the sum of the two hypergeometric Gauss functions. The second integral is the special case, ”Pikar integral” which can be transformed to the hypergeometric Appel function with the two variables. So we have,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+1\right)\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+2\right)=_2F_1(1,2;\alpha \left(t\right)+3;i\frac{m}{\mu })+$$

$$+_2F_1(1,2;\alpha \left(t\right)+3;i\frac{m}{\mu })+$$
(18)
$$+\frac{\omega (ϵ,t)}{\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+3\right)\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+4\right)}F_1(4,2,2;\alpha \left(t\right)+5;i\frac{m}{\mu };i\frac{m}{\mu }),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{32\pi ^2\mu ^2\left(1\pm \sqrt{5}\right)}{\lambda gm},\omega (ϵ,t)=ϵ\frac{\left|𝐩\right|^2}{\mu ^2}.`$ Let us note that the expression (18) at $`\omega =0`$ coinsides with the result for the forward scattering .

The Appel function $`F_1`$ is more difficult for studing than the Gauss function $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}.`$ But using the known representation of $`F_1`$ function through the degenerate hypergeometric function of the order $`(3,2)`$ with one variable , we can write Eq.(18) in the form

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+1\right)\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+2\right)=_2F_1(1,2;\alpha \left(t\right)+3;i\frac{m}{\mu })+$$

$$+_2F_1(1,2;\alpha \left(t\right)+3;i\frac{m}{\mu })+$$
(19)
$$+\frac{\omega (ϵ,t)}{\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+3\right)\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+4\right)}_3F_2\left(\begin{array}{c}2,\frac{5}{2},2;\\ \frac{\alpha \left(t\right)+5}{2},\frac{\alpha \left(t\right)+6}{2};\frac{m^2}{\mu ^2}\end{array}\right),$$

where,

$`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\alpha ,\beta ;\gamma ;z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\alpha \right)_n\left(\beta \right)_n}{\left(\gamma \right)_nn!}}z^n,\gamma 0,1,2,\mathrm{},`$
$`{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _{3;}& & \\ \beta _{1,}\beta _2;z& & \end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\alpha _1\right)_n\left(\alpha _2\right)_n\left(\alpha _3\right)_n}{\left(\beta _1\right)_n\left(\beta _2\right)_nn!}}z^n,\beta _1,\beta _20,1,2,\mathrm{},;`$ (23)
$`\left(\alpha \right)_n,\left(\beta \right)_n,\left(\gamma \right)_n`$ are the Pokhhammer symbols. Using Eq.(20) we can rewrite Eq.(19) in the form

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+1\right)\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+2\right)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\left(1\right)_n\left(2\right)_n}{\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+3\right)_nn!}\left[\left(i\frac{m}{\mu }\right)^n+\left(i\frac{m}{\mu }\right)^n\right]+$$

$$+\frac{\omega (ϵ,t)}{\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+3\right)\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+4\right)}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\left(2\right)_n\left(\frac{5}{2}\right)_n\left(2\right)_n}{\left(\frac{\alpha \left(t\right)+5}{2}\right)_n\left(\frac{\alpha \left(t\right)+6}{2}\right)_nn!}\left(\frac{m^2}{\mu ^2}\right)^n.$$
(24)
For determination of the explicit form of the Regge power $`\alpha \left(t\right)`$ we consider the three extremal cases:

1) the big exchanging masses $`\frac{m^2}{\mu ^2}<1`$. In this case the series (21) is absolutely converted. Taking into account the first member $`(n=0)`$ in Eq. (21) we get 4-th order algebraic equation, which allows us in principle to obtain the values of $`\alpha \left(t\right)`$ (see Appendix A). In the limit $`\omega (ϵ,t)=0`$ we get the expression for $`\alpha `$

$$\alpha =\frac{3}{2}\pm \frac{1}{2}\left[1+\frac{m\lambda g}{4\pi ^2\mu ^2\left(1\pm \sqrt{5}\right)}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
(25)
that coinsides with the result of  for forward scattering.

2) the small exchanging masses $`\left(\mu <m\right).`$ As we have noted the generalized hypergeometric function of $`(3,2)`$ order is defined as the sum of generalized hypergeometric series (see Eqs.(20)) in its convergence and as analytic continuation of this series at $`z1`$ . The analytical continuation can be obtained, in the special case, using series near the special points $`z=\mathrm{}`$ (i.e. $`\mu <m`$) and $`z=1`$ (i.e.$`\mu =m`$). Using the representation for $`{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}`$

$${}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _{3;}\\ \beta _1,\beta _2;z\end{array}\right)=\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\begin{array}{c}\beta _1,\beta _2\\ \alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3\end{array}\right]\underset{n=1}{\overset{3}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\begin{array}{c}\alpha _n,\left(\alpha _3\right)^{}\alpha _n\\ \left(\beta _2\right)\alpha _n\end{array}\right]\times $$

$$\times \left(e^\pi z^1\right)_2^{\alpha _n}F_1(1+\alpha _n\left(\beta _2\right),\alpha _n;1+\alpha _n\left(\alpha _3\right)^{};z^1),$$
(26)
( the prime means that $`1+\alpha _n\alpha _l`$ at $`n=l`$ is absent), where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\begin{array}{c}\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3\\ \beta _1,\beta _2\end{array}\right]=\frac{\underset{n=1}{\overset{3}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha _n\right)}{\underset{l=1}{\overset{3}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\beta _l\right)},$$

and Eqs. (20) and the analytic continuation of the hypergeometric Gauss function in the logarithmic case

$${}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\alpha ,\alpha +m;\gamma ;z)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha +m\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\gamma \right)}=\frac{\left(z\right)^{\alpha m}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\gamma \alpha \right)}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\left(\alpha \right)_{n+m}\left(1\gamma +\alpha \right)_{n+m}}{n!\left(m+n\right)!}z^n\times $$

$$\times \left[\mathrm{ln}\left(z\right)+h_n\right]+$$

$$+\left(z\right)^\alpha \underset{n=0}{\overset{m1}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(mn\right)\left(\alpha \right)_nz^n}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\gamma \alpha n\right)n!},$$
(27)
where $`h_n=\psi \left(1+m+n\right)+\psi \left(1+n\right)\psi \left(\alpha +m+n\right)\psi \left(\gamma \alpha mn\right),\psi `$ is the logarithm derivative of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$function. So Eq. (19) can be rewritten in the following form

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha \left(t\right)+1)=\frac{\mu ^2}{m^2}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\left(1\alpha \left(t\right)\right)_{n+1}}{n!\left(n+1\right)!}\times $$

$$\times [(i\frac{m}{\mu })^n(\mathrm{ln}\left(i\frac{m}{\mu }\right)+\psi (1+n)\psi (\alpha \left(t\right)+1n))+$$

$$+\left(i\frac{m}{\mu }\right)^n(\mathrm{ln}(i\frac{m}{\mu })+\psi (1+n)\psi (\alpha \left(t\right)+1n))]$$
(28)
$$\omega (ϵ,t)\frac{e^{\frac{5}{2}\pi }\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+5\right)\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+6\right)}{16\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+1\right)\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+2\right)\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+3\right)\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+4\right)}\times $$

$$\times \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\left(\frac{1\alpha \left(t\right)}{2}\right)_n\left(\frac{5}{2}\right)_n}{\left(\frac{3}{2}\right)_nn!}(\frac{\mu ^2}{m^2})^{\frac{5}{2}n},$$

and explicit form of the Regge power $`\alpha \left(t\right)`$ can be found in principle. Neglecting the first members in the sum in Eq.(25) (when $`n=0`$) and using

$$\psi \left(\alpha +1\right)=\gamma +\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\alpha }{n\left(\alpha +n\right)},$$

($`\gamma =0,5772156649\mathrm{}`$-Euler-Maccheroni constant) we get

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{\mu ^2}{m^2}\left[\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mu ^2}{m^2}\psi \left(\alpha \left(t\right)+1\right)\right]$$

$$\omega (ϵ,t)\frac{\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+5\right)\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+6\right)}{16\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+1\right)^2\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+2\right)\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+3\right)\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+4\right)}\times $$

$$\times e^{\frac{5}{2}\pi }\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{m^2}\right)^{\frac{5}{2}},$$
(29)
which gives the principle possibility to obtain the values of $`\alpha \left(t\right)`$ (see Appendix A).

As it is known, the function $`\psi \left(\alpha +1\right)`$ has simple poles at points $`\alpha =0,1,2,3,\mathrm{},`$ and it changes the sign of the derivative when getting through the pole. At $`\omega (ϵ,t)0`$ and finite value coupling constant and the exchange mass (when $`\mu m`$) we get the known expression of $`\alpha `$ (see Ref. )

$$\alpha n\pm \left[\frac{16\pi ^2m\left(1\pm \sqrt{5}\right)}{\lambda g}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mu ^2}{m^2}\right],n=1,2,3,\mathrm{},$$
(30)
$$\left|\frac{16\pi ^2m\left(1\pm \sqrt{5}\right)}{\lambda g}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mu ^2}{m^2}\right|1.$$
(31)
It is seen from Eqs. (27) and (28) that in the case of the small exchanging masses the amplitude becomes non-analytical with respect to the coupling costant. It is nescesary to note that Eq.(28) leads to behavior of the amplitude that is in coincidence with Froissart restriction. Our results allow to state that only regular accounting of infrared singularities on the exchanging mass ($`\mu `$) ($`p^2m^2,k^2=m^2`$) can give the R6egge behavior of the scattering amplitude.

3) let us consider the case when the masses of exchanging $`\left(\mu \right)`$ and external $`\left(m\right)`$ particles are equal $`\left(\mu =m\right).`$ In this case Eq. (21) has the form

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+1\right)\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+2\right)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\left(1\right)_n\left(2\right)_n}{\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+3\right)_nn!}\left[\left(i\right)^n+\left(i\right)^n\right]+$$

$$+\frac{\omega (ϵ,t)}{\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+3\right)\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+4\right)}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\left(2\right)_n\left(\frac{5}{2}\right)_n\left(2\right)_n}{\left(\frac{\alpha \left(t\right)+5}{2}\right)_n\left(\frac{\alpha \left(t\right)+6}{2}\right)_nn!}\left(1\right)^n,$$
(32)
that allows to find $`\alpha \left(t\right)`$ (see Appendix A). Using only the first members in Eq. (29) we obtain for the Regge power $`\alpha `$ in the limit $`\omega (ϵ,t)0:`$

$$\alpha =\frac{3}{2}\pm \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1+\frac{\lambda g}{4\pi ^2\mu \left(1\pm \sqrt{5}\right)},}$$

that is in occordance with previously obtained results\[4-6,8\].

## Appendix A

In order to check the validity of the obtained results for the Regge power $`\alpha \left(t\right)`$ the numerical calculations have been performed in the following cases:

1) the large values of the exchanged mass $`\left(\mu >m\right).`$ Resticted ourselves by the first members of the series (21) we obtain the fourth order algebraic equation

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha ^4+10\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha ^3+\left(35\mathrm{\Lambda }2\right)\alpha ^2+\left(50\mathrm{\Lambda }14\right)\alpha +24\mathrm{\Lambda }24\omega =0,$$
($`\text{ }.`$1)
where

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{32\pi ^2\mu ^2\left(1\pm \sqrt{5}\right)}{m\lambda g},\omega =ϵ\frac{\left|𝐩\right|^2}{\mu ^2},$$

the numerical solution of which at $`\omega =10^3;\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}10}^2;\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}10}^1`$ and $`1),2)\frac{\mu }{m}=10;\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}100}`$ and $`\frac{\mu }{\lambda g}=10^2;10^1;1;10;10^2`$ allows to find the mean value of $`\alpha \left(t\right),`$ which at the all values of $`\omega ,\frac{\mu }{m},\frac{\mu }{\lambda }`$ is equal to $`2,5.`$ This is in agreement with the conclusions found in the Regge theory and with the experimental data .

2) the small values of the exchanged mass $`\left(\mu <<m\right).`$ At $`n=0`$ Eq. (25) can be rewritten as

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=2\frac{\mu ^2}{m^2}\left[\gamma \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mu ^2}{m^2}\frac{\alpha }{\alpha +1}\right]$$

$$\frac{\omega (ϵ,t)}{16}\frac{\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+5\right)\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+6\right)}{\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+1\right)^2\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+2\right)\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+3\right)\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+4\right)}\times $$
($`\text{ }.`$2)
$$\times e^{\frac{5}{2}\pi }\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{m^2}\right)^{\frac{5}{2}}.$$

Solving the Eq.(A.2) numerically at $`\omega =10^1;10^2;10^3:1)\frac{\mu }{m}<3;\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2})\frac{\mu }{m}<\frac{3}{2};\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3})\frac{\mu }{m}<10^1`$ (let us note, that the values of $`\frac{\mu }{m}`$ are chosen from the convergence of the hypergeometric functions $`{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}`$ and $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ in the case of analytical continuation $`\left|\mathrm{arg}\frac{\mu }{m}\right|<\pi `$ (see Eqs. (23)-(25)) and at values $`\frac{m}{\lambda g}=10^2;10;1;10^1;10^2`$ we get the mean value of $`\alpha \left(t\right)2,2.`$

3) to find the numerical values of $`\alpha `$ in the case of equal masses $`\left(\mu =m\right)`$ from Eq. (29) at $`n=0,`$ we find the 4-th order algebraic equation for $`\alpha \left(t\right)`$ in analogy with Eq. (A.1) with

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{32\pi ^2\mu }{\lambda g}\left(1\pm \sqrt{5}\right),\omega =ϵ\frac{\left|𝐩\right|^2}{\mu ^2};$$

the solution of which at $`\omega =10^1;\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^2;\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^3`$ and $`\frac{\mu }{\lambda g}=10^2;\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^1;\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1};\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10};\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^2`$ for each value of $`\omega `$ and $`\frac{\mu }{\lambda g}`$ are equal to $`2,5.`$

The obtained numerical results allow to state, that the exchanged masses and coupling costants influence on the behavior of the scattering amplitude is very small, that indicates the importance of the scattering with light particles in our model. It is also worth to no that a correction (terms multiplied to $`ϵ`$) to the forward scattering amplitude, at small values of the momentum transfer does not impact on the behavior of the amplitude.

## Appendix B

Let us represent the results of corrections to the amplitude $`\delta F_{p^2m^2,k^2m^2}`$ due to the exit off the mass shell. Integrating the equations (8) we supposed that when $`s>>\mu ^2,m^2`$ the corrections to the amplitude were of the following order $`\left(p^2m^2\right)/s,`$ $`\left(k^2m^2\right)/s.`$

It has been proved that the invariant amplitudes $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ have the Regge behaviour only in the case of taking into account the dependence on $`p^2`$ and $`k^2`$ in the amplitudes. Substituting the expressions (11) into Eq. (9) we have for $`\delta F_1`$ and $`\delta F_2`$

$$\delta F_1(s,t;p^2,k^2)_{p^2m^2,k^2m^2}=\frac{\pi \lambda g}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}\frac{\left[m\frac{c_1}{p^2}+mc_2\right]\left(\frac{s^{}}{m^2}\right)^{\alpha \left(t\right)}}{\left[\left(pq\right)^2m^2\right]\left[\left(kq\right)^2m^2\right]}\times $$

$$\times \delta _+\left(q^2\mu ^2\right)\theta \left(q_0\right)\delta _+\left[\left(p+p^{}q\right)^2s^{}\right]\theta \left(p_0+p_0^{}q_0\right)d^4qds^{},$$

($`\text{B}.`$1)
$$\delta F_2(s,t;p^2,k^2)_{p^2m^2,k^2m^2}=\frac{\pi \lambda g}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}\frac{c_1\left(\frac{s^{}}{m^2}\right)^{\alpha \left(t\right)}}{\left[\left(pq\right)^2m^2\right]\left[\left(kq\right)^2m^2\right]}\times $$

$$\times \delta _+\left(q^2\mu ^2\right)\theta \left(q_0\right)\delta _+\left[\left(p+p^{}q\right)^2s^{}\right]\theta \left(p_0+p_0^{}q_0\right)d^4qds^{}.$$

Let us solve the system (B.1) in s.m.c. where $`𝐩+𝐩^{}=0.`$ Integrating with respect to momentum variables with $`\delta `$ functions, and further on $`\phi `$, we obtain $`\left(s>>\mu ^2\right)`$

$$\delta F_1(s,t;p^2,k^2)_{p^2m^2,k^2m^2}=$$

$$=\frac{\lambda g\left(\frac{c_1}{p^2}m+c_2m\right)}{128\pi ^2\left|𝐩\right|\left|𝐤\right|\sqrt{s}}\frac{\left(\frac{s^{^{}}}{m^2}\right)^{\alpha \left(t\right)}}{\eta \left(\alpha +z\right)\sqrt{\beta ^2+2\beta z_0z+z^2+z_0^21}}𝑑z𝑑s^{},$$

($`\text{B}.`$2)
$$\delta F_2(s,t;p^2,k^2)_{p^2m^2,k^2m^2}=$$

$$=\frac{c_1\lambda g}{128\pi ^2\left|𝐩\right|\left|𝐤\right|\sqrt{s}}\frac{\left(\frac{s^{}}{m^2}\right)^{\alpha \left(t\right)}}{\eta \left(\alpha +z\right)\sqrt{\beta ^2+2\beta z_0z+z^2+z_0^21}}𝑑s^{}𝑑z,$$

where

$$\alpha =\frac{p^2m^22p_0\eta }{2\left|𝐩\right|\eta },\beta =\frac{k^2m^22k_0\eta }{2\left|𝐤\right|\eta },\eta =\frac{ss^{}}{2\sqrt{s}}.$$

In the case of small momenta transfer scattering we can change $`z_0=1+ϵ\left(ϵ1\right)`$ under the integrals and obtain (B.2) in the form

$$\delta F_1(s,t;p^2,k^2)_{p^2m^2,k^2m^2}=$$

$$=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\frac{c_1}{p^2}m+c_2m\right)}{\left|𝐩\right|\left|𝐤\right|\sqrt{s}}\frac{\left(\frac{s^{^{}}}{m^2}\right)^{\alpha \left(t\right)}}{\eta \left(\alpha +z\right)\left(\beta +z\right)\sqrt{1+2ϵH}}𝑑z𝑑s^{},$$

($`\text{B}.`$3)
$$\delta F_2(s,t;p^2,k^2)_{p^2m^2,k^2m^2}=$$

$$=\frac{c_1\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\left|𝐩\right|\left|𝐤\right|\sqrt{s}}\frac{\left(\frac{s^{}}{m^2}\right)^{\alpha \left(t\right)}}{\eta \left(\alpha +z\right)\left(\beta +z\right)\sqrt{1+2ϵH}}𝑑s^{}𝑑z,$$

where

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{\lambda g}{128\pi ^2},H=\frac{1+\beta z}{\left(\beta +z\right)^2}.$$

Expanding the kernel in (B.3) on $`ϵ`$ and using the first two terms: $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+2ϵH}}1ϵH`$ we get:

$$\delta F_1(s,t;p^2,k^2)_{p^2m^2,k^2m^2}=$$

$$=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\frac{c_1}{p^2}m+c_2m\right)}{\left|𝐩\right|\left|𝐤\right|\sqrt{s}}\left(\frac{s^{^{}}}{m^2}\right)^{\alpha \left(t\right)}\frac{ds^{}}{\eta }\frac{1}{\left(\alpha +z\right)\left(\beta +z\right)}\times $$

$$\times \left[1ϵ\frac{1+\beta z}{\left(\beta +z\right)^2}\right]dz,$$
($`\text{B}.`$4)
$$\delta F_2(s,t;p^2,k^2)_{p^2m^2,k^2m^2}=\frac{c_1\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\left|𝐩\right|\left|𝐤\right|\sqrt{s}}\left(\frac{s^{^{}}}{m^2}\right)^{\alpha \left(t\right)}\frac{ds^{}}{\eta }\frac{1}{\left(\alpha +z\right)\left(\beta +z\right)}$$

$$\left[1ϵ\frac{1+\beta z}{\left(\beta +z\right)^2}\right]dz.$$

Integrating over $`z`$ in the limit $`p^2k^2,s>>\mu ^2`$ we obtain

$$\delta F_1(s,t;p^2,k^2)_{p^2m^2,k^2m^2}=$$

$$=ϵ\frac{2\left|𝐩\right|\left|𝐤\right|\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\left(p_0\left|𝐤\right|k_0\left|𝐩\right|\right)^2}\left(\frac{c_1}{p^2}m+c_2m\right)\left(\frac{s}{m^2}\right)^{\alpha \left(t\right)}I,$$
($`\text{B}.`$5)
$$\delta F_2(s,t;p^2,k^2)_{p^2m^2,k^2m^2}=ϵ\frac{2\left|𝐩\right|\left|𝐤\right|\mathrm{\Lambda }c_1}{\left(p_0\left|𝐤\right|k_0\left|𝐩\right|\right)^2}\left(\frac{s}{m^2}\right)^{\alpha \left(t\right)}I,$$

where

$$I=\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}\frac{y\left(1y\right)^{\alpha \left(t\right)}}{\left(zy\right)^2}𝑑y,$$

($`\text{B}.`$6)
$$z=\frac{\left|𝐤\right|\left(p^2m^2\right)\left|𝐩\right|\left(k^2m^2\right)}{\sqrt{s}\left(p_0\left|𝐤\right|k_0\left|𝐩\right|\right)},y=1\frac{s^{}}{s}.$$

The integral (B.6) can be represented in terms of hypergeometric Gauss function . So,

$$\delta F_1(s,t;p^2,k^2)_{p^2m^2,k^2m^2}=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\frac{c_1}{p^2}m+c_2m)\left(\frac{s}{m^2}\right)^{\alpha \left(t\right)}K(s,t;;p^2,k^2),$$

($`\text{B}.`$7)
$$\delta F_2(s,t;p^2,k^2)_{p^2m^2,k^2m^2}=\mathrm{\Lambda }c_1\left(\frac{s}{m^2}\right)^{\alpha \left(t\right)}K(s,t;;p^2,k^2),$$

where

$$K(s^{},t;;p^2,k^2)=4ϵ\frac{\left|𝐩\right|\left|𝐤\right|s}{\left(\left|𝐤\right|\left(p^2m^2\right)\left|𝐩\right|\left(k^2m^2\right)\right)^2\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+1\right)\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+2\right)}\times $$

$$\times F(2,2;\alpha \left(t\right)+3;\frac{\left|𝐤\right|\left(p^2m^2\right)\left|𝐩\right|\left(k^2m^2\right)}{\sqrt{s}\left(p_0\left|𝐤\right|k_0\left|𝐩\right|\right)}).$$

## Appendix C

Since the imaginary part of the amplitude has the correct analytical properties, let us write the one variable dispersion relation

$$ReF=\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{F(s^{},t)}{s^{}s}𝑑s^{}$$
$`(\text{C.1)}`$
Substituting Eq.(11) into Eq.(C.1) we get

$$ReF_1(s,t)=\frac{c_1}{\pi p^2}\left(\frac{s}{m^2}\right)^{\alpha \left(t\right)}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{x^{\alpha \left(t\right)}}{x1}𝑑x,$$

$$ReF_2(s,t)=\frac{c_2m}{\pi }\left(\frac{s}{m^2}\right)^{\alpha \left(t\right)}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{x^{\alpha \left(t\right)}}{x1}𝑑x,$$

where $`x=\frac{s^{}}{s}.`$ The real part has the form

$$ReF_1(s,t)=\frac{c_1}{p^2}\left(\frac{s}{m^2}\right)^{\alpha \left(t\right)}ctg\left[\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+1\right)\pi \right],$$

$$ReF_2(s,t)=c_2m\left(\frac{s}{m^2}\right)^{\alpha \left(t\right)}ctg\left[\left(\alpha \left(t\right)+1\right)\pi \right].$$

From the obtained expressions for the real parts of the amplitudes, it is evident that they have also a power-like character in the Regge asymptotic form, which corresponds to the behavior of the amplitude at high energies.