format: text

text:
# Extraction of electromagnetic neutron form factors through inclusive and exclusive polarized electron scattering on polarized 3He target

## I Introduction

Besides the deuteron, polarized 3He appears to be a useful target to extract information on the electromagnetic neutron form factors. This proposal goes back to  and has been emphasized again by . It is based on the fact that the principal S-state dominates the 3He wave function by more than 90 % and in this state the polarization is carried solely by the neutron. Needless to say that the knowledge of the electromagnetic form factors of the neutron is basic to get insight into the distribution of charge and magnetization inside the neutron. We refer to  and  for experimental and theoretical work on that topic extracting information on the neutron form factors. In this article we would like to analyze two experiments  on the processes $`\stackrel{}{{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{})`$ and $`\stackrel{}{{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}n)`$ with the aim to extract the magnetic and electric neutron form factors at certain $`Q^2`$ values. This theoretical analysis will be based on Faddeev solutions for the 3N continuum and the 3N bound state belonging to the same 3N Hamiltonian. We shall also use realistic NN forces. For the inclusive process we carried through an analysis before , but now it refers to a new more accurate experiment  and also the theory will be improved by including mesonic exchange currents. The analysis  of the exclusive experiment by consistent Faddeev solutions for the 3N continuum and 3He has not been done before to the best of our knowledge.

In section II we shall investigate the inclusive process and in section III the exclusive one. We close with an outlook in section IV.

## II Extraction of the magnetic form factor of the neutron

In this section we shall analyze a measurement of $`\stackrel{}{{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{})`$ carried through at Jlab . We refer to  for the detailed theoretical formalism and restrict ourselves to describe only its extensions. That article will henceforth be cited as I and equations thereof by (I.\*). In I we used only a single nucleon current operator. Now we add two-body exchange current operators. The central Faddeev-like equation given in Eq. (I.28) is derived under the assumption that the operator $`C`$ has the form of (I.29). In I this simply meant that $`C`$ is a sum of three single particle operators. However, what really enters the derivation of Eq. (I.28) is, that the operator $`C`$ can be decomposed into three parts such that $`C^{(i)}`$ is symmetrical under exchange of particles $`jk`$ with $`jik`$. The operator $`C`$ has the physical meaning of a component of the current operator. Thus we can simply add two-body currents, which naturally decompose in a 3N system into three parts and therefore $`C^{(1)}`$ in Eq. (I.28) will be now a sum of two terms:

$$C^{(1)}=C_{\mathrm{sing}}^{(1)}+C_{\mathrm{exch}}^{(23)}$$
(1)
The first term is the single-nucleon current used in I and $`C_{\mathrm{exch}}^{(23)}`$ is the corresponding component of a two-body current acting on particles 2 and 3. As a consequence there will occur now an additional driving term in Eq. (I.28) of the form $`(1+tG_0)C_{\mathrm{exch}}^{(23)}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{{}_{}{}^{3}He}m>`$.

The following steps in I concern the partial wave representation. Since the spherical components $`C_{\pm 1}^{(23)}`$ of the two-body current operator are tensor operators and behave like the single nucleon components used in I, the conditions (I.36-37) and as a consequence (I.38) remain valid. The symmetry properties (I.41-44) based on the partial wave decomposed forms remain also valid for the additional two-body currents. This follows from their explicit forms as given in . Then the following expressions leading to the final forms of the four response functions (I.52-55) remain valid.

For the two-body currents we follow the Riska prescription , which via the continuity equation relates NN forces and exchange currents in a model independent manner, as it is often referred to. We choose the AV18 NN force model  and restrict ourselves to the dominant $`\pi `$\- and $`\rho `$-like parts. We refer to  for more details and to  for the partial wave expansion of the two-body currents. In case of Bonn B , which we also use as another NN force model, we choose standard $`\pi `$\- and $`\rho `$-meson exchange currents augmented by the strong form factors used in Bonn B. For the proton electromagnetic form factors we took the Höhler  parametrization, which at $`Q^2`$= 0.1 and 0.2 $`\mathrm{GeV}^2/c^2`$ agrees perfectly with the data.

To theoretically analyze the data from  the experimental conditions have to be taken into account. The incoming electron beam energy was $`E`$= 778 MeV. The central electron scattering angles for $`Q^2`$= 0.1 and 0.2 $`\mathrm{GeV}^2/c^2`$ were $`\theta _e`$= 24.44  and 35.5 , respectively. The spread in the electron angles were $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _e`$= $`\pm `$ 1.6  and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _e`$= $`\pm `$ 3.4 . For $`Q^2`$= 0.1 (0.2) $`\mathrm{GeV}^2/c^2`$ or values close to it the virtual photon energies were chosen between 30–90 MeV (80–140 MeV) with a central value of 60 MeV (110 MeV). Each of these two $`\omega `$-ranges were divided into 7 bins of length 10 MeV.

The three-fold cross section for inclusive scattering has the well known form (Eq. (I.3))

$$\frac{d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}\sigma }{d\widehat{k}^{}dk_0^{}}=\sigma _{\mathrm{Mott}}\left\{v_LR^L+v_TR^T+h\left(v_{TL^{}}R^{TL^{}}+v_T^{}R^T^{}\right)\right\}.$$
(2)
Here $`\sigma _{\mathrm{Mott}}`$ is the Mott cross section, $`v_i`$ are analytically known kinematical factors and the $`R^i`$ are inclusive response functions divided into two groups. The first one is present for unpolarized electrons, the second one goes with the helicity $`h`$ of the electron beam. The primed response functions also depend on the orientation of the 3He spin in relation to the photon direction (see Eqs. (I.56-57)). The corresponding angles are denoted by $`\theta ^{}`$ and $`\varphi ^{}`$. The cross section in Eq. (2) was averaged over the 10 MeV wide $`\omega `$-bins and over the angular spread around the central electron scattering angles. In order to perform the averaging a sufficiently fine grid in $`\theta _e`$ and $`\omega `$ has been chosen for which the four response functions have been calculated. This required quite a few hundred solutions of the corresponding Faddeev equations. The actual averaging was performed via a Monte Carlo procedure based on the response functions known on the grid of electron angles and electron energies. This Monte Carlo procedure takes into account the finite momentum and angular acceptance of the experiment.

The asymmetry is defined as

$$A=\frac{\frac{d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}\sigma }{d\widehat{k}^{}dk_0^{}}|_{h=1}\frac{d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}\sigma }{d\widehat{k}^{}dk_0^{}}|_{h=1}}{\frac{d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}\sigma }{d\widehat{k}^{}dk_0^{}}|_{h=1}+\frac{d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}\sigma }{d\widehat{k}^{}dk_0^{}}|_{h=1}}.$$
(3)
This ratio is formed out of the averaged cross sections. As a consequence one arrives at (see Eq. (I.58))

$$A_{average}=\frac{𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }\sigma _{\mathrm{Mott}}\left\{v_T^{}\stackrel{~}{R}^T^{}\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}+v_{TL^{}}\stackrel{~}{R}^{TL^{}}\mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}\mathrm{cos}\varphi ^{}\right\}}{𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }\sigma _{\mathrm{Mott}}\left\{v_LR^L+v_TR^T\right\}}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{\Sigma }},$$
(4)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ stands for the averaging. (We factored off the $`\theta ^{}\varphi ^{}`$-dependence introducing the response functions with tilde). For $`\theta ^{}`$= 0  or close to it one focuses on $`\stackrel{~}{R}^T^{}`$ and a corresponding $`A_T^{}`$, which in a plane wave impulse approximation (PWIA) is essentially proportional to $`\left(G_M^n\right)^2`$ (see Eq. (I.77)). In the actual experiment one has to live with $`\theta ^{}`$ 10  (7.8 ) for $`Q^2`$= 0.1 (0.2) $`\mathrm{GeV}^2/c^2`$ and the corresponding $`\varphi ^{}`$ is close to 0  or 180 .

The searched for magnetic form factor of the neutron was parameterized as

$$G_M^n\left(Q^2\right)\lambda G_M^n\left(Q^2\right)|_{\mathrm{model}},$$
(5)
where $`G_M^n\left(Q^2\right)|_{\mathrm{model}}`$ was taken from . In order to keep the computer time below an acceptable limit the averaging process was performed only for $`\lambda `$= 1. For the $`\lambda `$-values in the neighborhood of $`1`$ it was assumed that the change for $`A_T^{}`$ from point geometry (fixed $`\omega `$ and central electron angles) to the averaged case is the same as for $`\lambda `$= 1. Because of the smallness of the $`\lambda `$ interval around $`\lambda `$= 1 (see below) this is highly plausible. In this manner one generated for each $`\lambda `$-value theoretical $`A_T^{}`$-values according to the seven $`\omega `$-bins. The final step is the adjustment of the magnetic form factor of the neutron, $`G_M^n`$. Out of the seven $`\omega `$-bins three central values in the QFS region were selected (for $`Q^2`$= 0.1 $`\mathrm{GeV}^2/c^2`$ $`\omega `$= 50, 60, 70 MeV and for $`Q^2`$= 0.2 $`\mathrm{GeV}^2/c^2`$ $`\omega `$= 100, 110, 120 MeV) and an additional averaging was performed

$$\overline{A}\frac{\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}A_j\mathrm{\Sigma }_j}{_{i=1}^3\mathrm{\Sigma }_i}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_j}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_j}\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_j}{_{i=1}^3\mathrm{\Sigma }_i}\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_j}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_j}w_j=\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}A_jw_j$$
(6)
The indices $`i`$ and $`j`$ refer to the three experimental bins. In the third equality weight factors $`w_j`$ are introduced, which in the actual performance were taken from the experiment (counts related to the unpolarized cross section).

In this manner one arrives at the $`\lambda ^2`$-dependence of $`\overline{A}`$, which turned out to be rather close to a straight line. This is depicted in Figs. 1 and 2 for $`Q^2`$= 0.1 and 0.2 $`\mathrm{GeV}^2/c^2`$, respectively, together with the experimental values. One reads off the $`\lambda `$-values leading to $`G_M^n`$ values as given in Table I. There $`G_M^n(dipole)=\mu _n/(1+Q^2/0.71)^2`$, where $`\mu _n`$ is the magnetic moment of the neutron.

Having adjusted $`G_M^n`$ we can display the $`\omega `$-dependence of $`A_T^{}`$ in Figs. 3 and 4 in comparison to the experimental values. We see an essentially perfect agreement between theory and experiment. We also show the theoretical result without MEC’s but including the full final state interaction. Clearly the MEC’s provide an important shift and should be not neglected. Also the final state interaction itself plays a very important role since the PWIA result (see Figs. 5 and 6) is far off. Note our PWIA neglects all final state interactions.

The electric form factor of the neutron, $`G_E^n`$, is not yet very well known (see section III), but enters into our calculation. Its effect is totally negligible as can be seen in Figs. 7 and 8. There we compare $`A_T^{}`$ (for point geometry) evaluated with $`G_E^n`$ according to  and putting it to zero.

For point geometry we also performed full fledged calculations based on the AV18 NN force  and the $`\pi `$\- and $`\rho `$-like exchange currents according to the Riska prescription . Both calculations, for Bonn B and AV18 agree very well as shown in Figs. 9 and 10.

Finally we mention that we also included $`\pi `$\- and $`\rho `$-exchange currents with an intermediate $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (in a static approximation). Their effects was very small and lead to an estimated change of $`G_M^n`$ by less than 2 %.

The data in Figs. 3-10 are radiatively corrected. This thorough procedure was performed with the help of numerous full fledged Faddeev calculations and will be described in a separate article .

Our $`G_M^n`$ value extracted from that inclusive experiment on 3He agrees very well with results achieved in recent experiments on the deuteron . This is shown in Fig. 11 together with other data.

We refrained from a theoretical analysis of data taken in the same experiment at higher $`Q^2`$-values , since one has to expect that relativity will play a non-negligible role. This is left to a future investigation.

## III Extraction of the electric form factor of the neutron

In this section we shall analyze a measurement of $`\stackrel{}{{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}n)`$ carried through at MAMI  with the aim to extract $`G_E^n`$. Our theoretical formalism has been described in . Nevertheless to clearly shed light onto the reactions going on after the virtual photon has been absorbed we would like to lay out the multiple rescatterings and their summation into a Faddeev like integral equation. In the literature erroneously often just the very first few terms are taken into account. In a graphical representation the full photon-induced break-up process is an infinite sum of the type shown in Fig. 12. We assumed the absorption of the photon on a single nucleon. Obviously the diagrams can be generalized by photon absorption processes on two or three nucleons. This infinite sequence of processes has its algebraic counterparts

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`\left(j(1)+j(2)+j(3)\right)|\mathrm{\Psi }_{{}_{}{}^{3}He}`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`\left(t_{12}+t_{23}+t_{31}\right)G_0\left(j(1)+j(2)+j(3)\right)|\mathrm{\Psi }_{{}_{}{}^{3}He}`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k<l}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m<nk<l}{}}t_{mn}G_0t_{kl}G_0j(i)|\mathrm{\Psi }_{{}_{}{}^{3}He}+\mathrm{}`$ (9)
It is convenient to introduce the notation $`t_{ij}t_k`$ ($`ijk`$ = $`123`$ etc.) and $`PP_{12}P_{23}+P_{13}P_{23}`$. Then it requires little work to put Eq. (9) into the form

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+P\right)j(1)|\mathrm{\Psi }_{{}_{}{}^{3}He}`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`\left(1+P\right)t_1G_0\left(1+P\right)j(1)|\mathrm{\Psi }_{{}_{}{}^{3}He}`$ (11)
$`+`$ $`\left(1+P\right)t_1G_0Pt_1G_0\left(1+P\right)j(1)|\mathrm{\Psi }_{{}_{}{}^{3}He}+\mathrm{}`$ (12)
The first term contains no final state interaction and we split off, what we shall call plane wave impulse approximation (PWIA),

$$N^{\mathrm{PWIA}}j(1)|\mathrm{\Psi }_{{}_{}{}^{3}He}$$
(13)
and call the whole term

$$N^{\mathrm{PWIAS}}\left(1+P\right)j(1)|\mathrm{\Psi }_{{}_{}{}^{3}He},$$
(14)
where S stands for full antisymmetrisation. All the additional terms contain rescattering contributions of increasing oder in the NN $`t`$-operator:

$`N^{\mathrm{rescatt}}`$ $``$ $`\left(1+P\right)[t_1G_0+t_1G_0Pt_1G_0+\mathrm{}]\left(1+P\right)j(1)|\mathrm{\Psi }_{{}_{}{}^{3}He}`$ (15)
$``$ $`\left(1+P\right)|U.`$ (16)
A more general inspection reveals that

$`|U=\left(1+t_1G_0P+t_1G_0Pt_1G_0P+\mathrm{}\right)t_1G_0\left(1+P\right)j(1)|\mathrm{\Psi }_{{}_{}{}^{3}He},`$ (17)
where inside the bracket the operator sequence $`t_1G_0P`$ occurs in increasing powers. As an immediate consequence one derives

$`|U=t_1G_0\left(1+P\right)j(1)|\mathrm{\Psi }_{{}_{}{}^{3}He}+t_1G_0P|U,`$ (18)
which is the central integral equation for the amplitude $`|U`$. Via Eq. (16) it provides the whole rescattering amplitude (up to the symmetrisation $`\left(1+P\right)`$). This integral equation is of the Faddeev type because of the typical Faddeev structure of its kernel. The same kernel occurs for 3N scattering processes , only the driving term is different there.

An often used approximation for quasielastic processes in the literature is

$`Nj(1)|\mathrm{\Psi }_{{}_{}{}^{3}He}+t_{23}G_0j(1)|\mathrm{\Psi }_{{}_{}{}^{3}He}N^{\mathrm{FSI23}}.`$ (19)
Here antisymmetrisation in the final state is neglected and one rescattering in the NN $`t`$-operator $`t_{23}`$ is only allowed for the two spectator nucleons (which do not absorb the photon). This amplitude is also sometimes called PWIA, but not in this article.

Needless to say that the full amplitude, now supplemented by the proper vector indices for the current operator is identical to the standard form of the nuclear matrix element

$`N^\mu =\mathrm{\Psi }_f^{()}|{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}j^\mu (i)|\mathrm{\Psi }_{{}_{}{}^{3}He}.`$ (20)
We refer to  for the verification.

The sixfold differential cross section for the exclusive process under discussion has the well known form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}}\sigma }{d\widehat{k}^{}dk_0^{}d\widehat{p}_ndp_n}}=\sigma _{\mathrm{Mott}}p_n^2{\displaystyle \frac{pm_N}{2}}`$

$`\times {\displaystyle }d\widehat{p}\{v_LR^L+v_TR^T+v_{TT}R^{TT}+v_{TL}R^{TL}+h(v_{TL^{}}R^{TL^{}}+v_T^{}R^T^{})\}.`$ (21)
Here $`\widehat{k}^{}`$, $`k_0^{}`$, $`\widehat{p}_n`$, $`p_n`$, $`p`$, $`\widehat{p}`$ in turn are the unit vector in the direction of the scattered electron, its energy, the unit vector of the knocked out neutron, its momentum, the magnitude of the relative momentum of the undetected two protons and finally the unit vector pointing into the direction of that relative momentum.

Throughout this article we use a strictly nonrelativistic notation.

The information on $`G_E^n`$ magnified by the product with $`G_M^n`$ is contained in $`R_{TL^{}}`$ as can be explicitely seen working out PWIA  (see also ). In order to isolate the primed structure functions one forms an asymmetry $`A`$ of the cross section with respect to the electron helicities $`h=\pm 1`$. One finds the well known result

$`A={\displaystyle \frac{𝑑\widehat{p}\left(v_{TL^{}}R^{TL^{}}+v_T^{}R^T^{}\right)}{𝑑\widehat{p}\left(v_LR^L+v_TR^T+v_{TT}R^{TT}+v_{TL}R^{TL}\right)}}`$ (22)
In the experiment two perpendicular polarization axis for the spin of 3He have been chosen, $`\stackrel{}{S}_{}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{S}_{}`$, leading to $`A_{}`$ and $`A_{}`$. In an optimal set up $`\stackrel{}{S}_{}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{S}_{}`$ would be parallel and perpendicular to the direction of the virtual photon. Then it is well known from the expression for PWIA that under this approximation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{A_{}}{A_{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{G_E^n}{G_M^n}}`$ (23)
Therefore the aim will be to extract $`G_E^n`$ from the measured value of that ratio. This is under the assumption that $`G_M^n`$ is sufficiently well known. Our contribution in this article is to show that the final state interaction (FSI) does not wash out the signal for $`G_E^n`$ and that taking FSI into account is crucial.

We shall now describe the experimental conditions under which the data were taken. The electron- and neutron-detectors covered a wide range of angles as displayed in Figs. 13-14. Depending on the electron scattering angle $`\theta _e`$ only neutron momenta within certain cuts were accepted as shown in Table II. Since the energy of the scattered electron was not measured (except for excluding pion-production) the direction of the virtual photon was not known. However it was possible to correlate the directions of the photon and the knocked out neutron in the following manner . Take the relative momentum $`p`$ of the two undetected protons to be zero. Then for fixed values of $`\widehat{k}^{}`$, $`\widehat{p}_n`$ and $`p_n`$, $`k_0^{}`$ and therefore $`\stackrel{}{Q}`$, the virtual photon momentum, follow kinematically. Now only those angles were allowed such that the angle between $`\stackrel{}{Q}`$ and $`\widehat{p}_n`$ was smaller or equal to 6 . In our theoretical analysis we also took that constraint into account. As an example we show in Fig. 15 the allowed region for the neutron angles for given values of $`\theta _e`$ = 43 , $`\varphi _e`$ = 0 , $`p_n`$ = 530 MeV/c and $`p`$ = 0 (solid curve). In reality there is a distribution of $`p`$-values, see Fig. 16 below. Consequently for that region of neutron angles also other events with $`p0`$ contribute, which belong to different directions of $`\stackrel{}{Q}`$. This is also shown in Fig. 15. In the worst case the angle between $`\widehat{Q}`$ and $`\widehat{p}_n`$ can be as large as 9  for the tails of the $`p`$-distribution.

Since the energy of the scattered electron has not been measured the cross section reduces to a five-fold one

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}}\sigma }{d\widehat{k}^{}d\widehat{p}_ndp_n}}={\displaystyle \frac{m_N}{2}}\sigma _{\mathrm{Mott}}p_n^2`$

$`\times {\displaystyle }dk_{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}p{\displaystyle }d\widehat{p}\{v_LR^L+v_TR^T+v_{TT}R^{TT}+v_{TL}R^{TL}+h(v_{TL^{}}R^{TL^{}}+v_T^{}R^T^{})\}.`$ (24)
We convert the $`k_{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}`$ integration into one over $`p`$, take into account the experimental acceptances and end up with the summed up cross section

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{k}^{}}}𝑑\widehat{k}^{}\sigma _{\mathrm{Mott}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Delta }p_n}}𝑑p_np_n^2{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{p}_n}}𝑑\widehat{p}_n{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{p}\rho }`$

$`\times \left\{v_LR^L+v_TR^T+v_{TT}R^{TT}+v_{TL}R^{TL}+h\left(v_{TL^{}}R^{TL^{}}+v_T^{}R^T^{}\right)\right\}.`$

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }\left\{v_LR^L+v_TR^T+v_{TT}R^{TT}+v_{TL}R^{TL}+h\left(v_{TL^{}}R^{TL^{}}+v_T^{}R^T^{}\right)\right\}}.`$ (25)
In our nonrelativistic formulation $`\rho `$ has the form

$`\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{2m_Np^2}{\sqrt{\left(k\mathrm{cos}\theta _e\stackrel{}{p}_n\widehat{k}^{}2m_N\right)^2+4m_N\left(k+ϵ_{{}_{}{}^{3}He}\right)4p^23p_n^2k^2+2\stackrel{}{p}_n\stackrel{}{k}}}}`$ (26)
Since we shall form asymmetries there is no need to determine the value of the covered phase space. Using $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$ for the two 3He-spin directions one can form the two asymmetries $`A_{},A_{}`$ for the $``$ and $``$ orientations of the 3He spin and finally their ratio $`V`$

$`V{\displaystyle \frac{A_{}}{A_{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }\left(v_{TL^{}}R^{TL^{}}+v_T^{}R^T^{}\right)_{}}{𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }\left(v_{TL^{}}R^{TL^{}}+v_T^{}R^T^{}\right)_{}}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}.`$ (27)
The “1” in Eq. (27) denotes the corresponding ratio for the helicity independent parts of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$. It turned out that this latter ratio was extremely close to 1 (within less than 0.1 %).

Before we shall present our results for $`V`$ as a function of a parametrisation of $`G_E^n`$ we would like to give some insight into the functions entering Eq. (27). For some fixed directions of $`\widehat{k}^{}`$ and $`\widehat{p}_n`$ and some value of $`p_n`$ contained in the domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ we define the quantities

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ^\alpha {\displaystyle 𝑑\widehat{p}R_\beta ^\alpha },`$ (28)
which depend on $`p`$. For $`\alpha `$ we choose $`T^{}`$ and $`TL^{}`$ and $`\beta `$ corresponds to $``$ and $``$-orientations of the 3He spin. Fig. 16 tells us that indeed the distribution of the $`p`$-values is peaked at low values, where the maxima occur at kinetic energy values of relative motion of the two protons of about 0.4 MeV. At around 140 MeV/c the $`p`$-distribution has essentially vanished. Those curves in Fig. 16 refer to full FSI. In contrast the corresponding curves for PWIA, displayed in Fig. 17, show a much wider $`p`$-distribution, which has intriguing consequences as described below.

Next let us choose a fixed $`k_0^{}`$-value, $`k_0^{}`$ = 650 MeV/c, and again fixed angles $`\theta _e`$ = 40 , $`\varphi _e`$ = 0 , $`\theta _n`$ = 49.48 , and $`\varphi _n`$ = 180  all chosen out of the large domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In Fig. 18 we display the magnitudes of one of the amplitudes $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^T^{}`$, now as a function of $`p_n`$. The others are qualitatively similar. We compare different approximate treatments of the final state to the full calculation. The pure PWIA drops strongly with decreasing $`p_n`$. This is a simple consequence of the fact that the 3He wave function drops with increasing momenta. Choosing Jacobi momenta as arguments of the 3He wave function the photon momentum $`\stackrel{}{Q}`$ enters as $`\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{p}_n\stackrel{}{Q}`$, where $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ is the relative momentum of the neutron in relation to the two protons. The decrease of the 3He wave function with increasing $`q`$ explains the PWIA curve in Fig. 18. In case of the symmetrized PWIAS the photon can also be absorbed by the two protons, which leads to $`\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{p}_n`$ and the occurrence of $`\stackrel{}{Q}`$ in the other Jacobi momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}_{23}`$ as $`\stackrel{}{p}_{23}=\stackrel{}{p}\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{Q}`$. As a consequence the two additional amplitudes in PWIAS start to contribute at lower $`p_n`$-values, which can clearly be seen in Fig. 18. The curve denoted as FSI23 is based on the final state interaction among the two final protons. This reduced final state interaction has apparently a strong effect even near the quasi elastic peak. Again including full antisymmetrisation in the final state, but keeping only a first order final state interaction, leads to strong deviations at low neutron momenta. This is denoted by FSI23S in Figs. 18-22. Finally the full FSI (including of course antisymmetrisation in the final state) leads to a behavior, which is similar to FSI23 near the upper end of $`p_n`$ but deviates then from all other curves for lower $`p_n`$ values.

Since the experiment under discussion emphasizes the large $`p_n`$-values in accordance with at least approximate quasi-free scattering conditions, we display in Figs. 19-22 the magnitudes of the four $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ^\alpha `$ amplitudes restricted to the domain seen in the experiment. We see a coincidence of PWIA and PWIAS in the restricted $`p_n`$ interval and a spread of curves for the other cases. Especially the FSI is clearly distinct from FSI23 for $`R_{}^{TL^{}}`$ and $`R_{}^{TL^{}}`$.

The ratios of asymmetries for point geometries inside the domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ vary very much and depend extremely strongly on the treatment of the final 3N state. A few more or less arbitrarily chosen cases are displayed in Figs. 23-25. In each case we see the ratio for PWIA, PWIAS, FSI23, FSI and an additional case, FSIn. In the latter case we put the electric form factor of the proton, $`G_E^p`$, to zero (the contribution of $`G_M^p`$ is insignificant ). This has been done to demonstrate the presence and importance of the photon absorption on the two protons. Consequently averaging over asymmetries related to point geometries is not advisable. Instead summing up cross sections first as in Eq. (25) and then forming asymmetries is what has to be done.

Let us now show our results for the ratio of asymmetries given in Eq. (27). We parametrize $`G_E^n`$ by multiplying three models for $`G_E^n`$ by a factor $`\lambda `$. We choose the ones by Gari-Krümpelmann . Fig. 26 shows various theoretical ratios $`V`$ against $`\lambda `$ in comparison to the experimental value of $`V^{\mathrm{exp}}`$ = ( -7.26 $`\pm `$ 1.14 ) % . The largest $`\lambda `$-value results for FSI, followed by PWIAS, then PWIA and finally FSI23. The four results for $`G_E^n\lambda G_E^n|_{\mathrm{model}}`$ are plotted in Fig. 27 in the range of $`Q^2`$ values touched in that experiment. This refers to one of the three models. Finally we show in Fig. 28 $`G_E^n`$ as extracted through FSI and including the spread caused by the experimental error. Superimposed on the spread caused by the experimental error we see small variations due to the three different choices of $`G_E^n`$-models. For the central values around $`Q^2`$ = 0.40 $`\mathrm{GeV}^2/c^2`$ that model dependence is totally negligible. All our results are displayed in Table III, where we have taken the average of the highest and lowest values in Fig. 28. This average thus takes into account uncertainties of both, model dependence for $`G_E^n`$ and experimental errors.

It is astonishing that PWIAS (and PWIA) are relatively close to the value based on FSI. This is due to an accidental conspiracy. The slower decrease in the $`p`$-distribution for PWIA(S) shown in Fig. 17 causes smaller energies of the scattered electrons than for FSI. As a consequence the photon-direction deviates more strongly in case of $`\stackrel{}{S}_{}`$ from 90  than for FSI. This leads to a strongly modified contribution $`(𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }v_T^{}R^T^{})_{}`$ for PWIAS in comparison to using FSI. In addition because of the lacking FSI there are smaller protonic contributions. This together, as a detailed investigation shows , yields the accidental result, that PWIAS is close to the full result. The fact that PWIA(S) yields an unrealistic result could be verified by measuring the $`p`$-distribution for the response functions.

Our final result for FSI, $`G_E^n`$ = 0.052 $`\pm `$ 0.0038 at $`Q^2`$ = 0.40 $`\mathrm{GeV}^2/c^2`$, is added in Fig. 29 to the ones extracted from processes on the deuteron. There is a fair agreement. Also added is another result achieved at MAMI  at a higher $`Q^2`$-value. No FSI corrections have been taken into account in that case.

Our present result leaves room for improvement. The effect of MEC’s like in section II is still to be explored and due to the relatively high $`Q^2`$-value one cannot exclude that relativistic effects might be noticeable. This is left to future investigations.

## IV Summary and Outlook

We have extracted from two measurements on $`\stackrel{}{{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{})`$ and $`\stackrel{}{{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}n)`$ the magnetic and electric neutron form factors at certain $`Q^2`$-values. Our results are based on consistent Faddeev solutions for the 3N continuum and the 3N bound state. Modern NN forces have been used. In case of the inclusive reaction leading to $`G_M^n`$ we added $`\pi `$\- and $`\rho `$-like two-body exchange currents to the single nucleon current. Their effects were substantial. In the exclusive process only a single nucleon current operator has been used, which leaves room for improvement. In both cases a strictly nonrelativistic formulation has been used, which also should be improved. Our values for $`G_M^n`$ and $`G_E^n`$ agree well with the values extracted from processes on the deuteron.

From 3N scattering it is known that the most modern data-equivalent NN forces lead in nearly all cases to results, which are very close together. We consider this robustness to be an important insight which gives confidence to those choices of the 3N Hamiltonian. In the case of photon-induced processes a corresponding verification of robustness against interchanges of NN forces and consistent MEC’s is still missing. This refers not only to the 3N system but to the 2N system as well. Also generally accepted and feasible relativistic formalisms have still to be worked out.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (J.G. and H.K.), the Polish Committee for Scientific Research under Grant No. 2P03B03914 and the Science and Technology Cooperation Germany-Poland. One of us (W.G.) would like to thank the Foundation for Polish Science for the financial support during his stay in Cracow. We would like to thank Dr. H. Gao and Dr. D. Dutta for providing us with detailed information about their experiment and data analysis. The numerical calculations have been performed on the PVP machines of the NERSC, USA, on the Cray T90 of the NIC in Jülich, Germany, and on the VPP300 machine of the RWTH in Aachen, Germany.


text:
# ENTRAINMENT OF AN INERTIAL REFERENCE FRAME BY AN ACCELERATED GRAVITATING SHELL

## 1 Introduction

Before the theory of general relativity was conceived, Einstein published the paper Is there a gravitational interaction similar to electromagnetic induction? , in which the effect of an accelerated shell on a test body placed inside it was discussed. The problem was analyzed using semi-classical concepts (here we use the term classical in the sense of Newton’s gravitation), and Einstein had come to the following result (in linear approximation with respect to the acceleration): the test body is driven by the shell with acceleration $`a_{body}=\frac{3M}{2R}a_{shell}`$, where $`M`$ is the shell mass and $`R`$ is its radius.

After the formulation of the theory of general relativity, Lense and Tirring  considered a similar problem. They studied the entrainment of inertial reference frames by material currents on the basis of Einstein’s linearized equations. The results were applied to analyzing a rotating shell, and they obtained the well-known solution in which the reference frame inside the shell rotates with the frequency $`\omega _{i.f.}=\frac{4}{3}\frac{M}{R}\omega _{shell}`$. Later Brill and Cohen  calculated a metric for a rotating shell assuming a linear approximation in $`\omega `$, and this metric was identical to Kerr’s one outside the shell. In the case $`\frac{M}{R}1`$, it reduced to that calculated by Lense and Thirring.

Here we analyze an accelerated shell having at our disposal Einstein’s equations. In that sense we have much more advantage than Einstein had. Using the linear approximation of general relativity we shall consider several different statements of the problem. In one case, we shall demonstrate the well-known and methodologically important result that in the case of the general relativity one should take into account the full energy-momentum tensor of the all objects relevant to given problem. In the other case, the incorrect and mainly paradoxical results will be received.

The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 takes into account only the EMT of the shell. Section 3 analyzes a closed system of a shell + a massless string driving the shell. It is shown that tension in the string and shell lead to the additional terms in the expression for the acceleration of the probe body. But in this case again we have the incorrect result. The reason for that is quite different from the first example and we shall investigate it for the methodological purposes. Finally, Section 4 analyses a consistent model, namely a charged shell in a DC electric field. It is shown that the EMT of the electromagnetic field also contributes to the acceleration of the reference frame.

## 2 Uniformly Accelerated Shell

Let’s choose a frame system $`x^i=(t,x,y,z)`$ build on the base ofbuilt on ”the rigid rod lattice”, which is stationary with respect to the far stars. Here $`t`$ is time synchronized with the remote clocks. Let a rigid infinitesimally thin shell of the radius $`R`$ be accelerated along the $`z`$-axis at the constant acceleration $`a`$. (All limitations on $`R`$ and $`a`$ will be written below.) Now our frame is influenced by the shell and as a result it is not inertial. A free falling probe will move with some acceleration $`𝐚_{body}`$ with respect to ”the rigid rod lattice”. We can use the system of such probe to construct an inertial frame system (obviously, it is a question of the local inertial frame systems). So we can say that the inertial frame systems are intrained by the accelerated shell.

It’s obvious that in the given case it is practically impossible to find the exact solution of Einstein’s equations. So we shell work in the weak field limit and with all velocities less than light: $`R_gR`$ and $`Ra1`$, where $`R_g=2M`$ is the shell gravitational radius and $`a`$ is its acceleration ($`c=G=1`$). In this case, Einstein’s equations are reduced to the following form

$$\mathrm{}\overline{h}_{ik}=16\pi T_{ik},$$
(1)
where $`h_{ik}=\overline{h}_{ik}\frac{1}{2}\eta _{ik}\overline{h}`$, $`\overline{h}=\overline{h}_{ik}\eta ^{ik}`$, $`g_{ik}=\eta _{ik}+h_{ik}`$, and $`\eta _{ik}=\text{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$.

The general solution of Eq.(1) (which satisfies given the boundary conditions) is expressed as

$$\overline{h}_{ik}(𝐫,t)=4\frac{T_{ik}(𝐫^{},t^{})}{|𝐫𝐫^{}|}d^3𝐫^{},$$
(2)
where $`t^{}=t|𝐫𝐫^{}|`$ is ”retarded time”.

The points of the rigid rod frame system move along the trajectories $`x^\alpha =const`$, where $`\alpha =1,2,3`$. As we explained above, that motion is noninerial (nongeodesic) and characterized by the acceleration 4-vector $`w^i=\frac{𝐃u^i}{dS}(0,𝐚_{body})`$, where $`u^i=\frac{dx^i}{dS}=(u^0,0,0,0)`$ is the velocity 4-vector. So we have

$$(𝐚_{body})_\alpha =\frac{𝐃u^i}{dS}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ik}^\alpha u^iu^k=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}^\alpha (u^0)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}^\alpha =\dot{h}_{0\alpha }\frac{1}{2}_\alpha h_{00}.$$

Here $`_\alpha \frac{}{x^\alpha },\dot{h}_{0\alpha }\frac{h_{0\alpha }}{t}`$. From Eq.(2) and the relations $`h_{0\alpha }\overline{h}_{0\alpha },h_{00}=\frac{1}{2}_i\overline{h}_{ii}`$ we have

$$(𝐚_{body})_\alpha =4\frac{\dot{T}_{0\alpha }(𝐫^{},t^{})}{|𝐫𝐫^{}|}d^3𝐫^{}+_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi },$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }=_i\frac{T_{ii}(𝐫^{},t^{})}{|𝐫𝐫^{}|}d^3𝐫^{}`$. It is obvious from the axial symmetry that $`(𝐚_{body})_x=(𝐚_{body})_y=0`$ and $`(𝐚_{body})_za_{body}0`$. Note that the expression for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ includes the non-covariant summation over $`i`$ but not the covariant trace.

In (3) we have the $`T_{00},T_{\alpha \alpha }`$ and $`T_{0\alpha }`$ components of the EMT that describe mass distribution, tensions and energy-momentum currents respectively in the all bodies. One cannot drop any of these terms without detailed consideration. Let’s try to calculate $`𝐚_{body}`$ from the assumption that the acceleration is determined only by the mass distribution, i.e. $`T_{00}`$ corresponding to the shell (which we regard as the most massive body in our system). This assumption is based on the Newtonian gravity and finiteness of the gravity propagation speed only. So, let’s keep only $`T_{00}`$ of the shell in (3).

In our calculations, we retain only the terms linear in $`a`$. This means that we should ignore relativistic effects proportional to $`\frac{v^2}{c^2}a^2`$. In the approximation of isotropic matter distribution the energy-momentum tensor is given by

$$𝐓=(\rho +p)𝐮𝐮p𝐠,$$
(4)
where $`\rho `$ is the density of matter and $`pa`$ is pressure. Therefore we obtain

$$T^{00}=(\rho +p)(u^0)^2pg^{00}\rho (u^0)^2,$$

$$u^0=\frac{dt}{dS}\frac{1}{1+\beta a_{body}z}1\beta a_{body}z,$$

where $`\beta `$ is of order one. In the last expression we have to drop the $`\beta a_{body}z`$ term because it leads to a correction of order $`\left(\frac{R_g}{R}\right)^2a`$. This is beyond the accuracy of our approximation.

Taking in account the shell acceleration and that at $`t=0`$ its center of mass is at rest at the origin, we have an expression for $`T^{00}(𝐫,t)`$

$$T^{00}(𝐫,t)=\frac{M}{4\pi R^2}\delta \left[|𝐫\frac{1}{2}𝐚t^2|R\right]\rho \left(𝐫\frac{1}{2}𝐚t^2\right)\rho (𝐫)\frac{1}{2}𝐚t^2\rho (𝐫).$$
(5)
It is obvious that the first summand does not contribute to the acceleration $`a_{body}`$. (This follows from the spherical symmetry and it can also be seen from (3) where the differentiation with respect to $`z`$ would yield zero). By combining Eqs. (3) and (5), we obtain

$$a_{body}=\frac{1}{2}𝐚_z|𝐫𝐫^{}|^{}\rho (𝐫^{})d^3𝐫^{}.$$

We are interesting in the acceleration of the free body at $`t=0`$ when shell comes to rest. So, everywhere and particularly in Eq.(5), we will set $`t=0`$, i.e. $`t^{}=|𝐫𝐫^{}|`$. Close to the point of origin we have

$$|𝐫𝐫^{}|r^{}\widehat{𝐫}^{}𝐫,$$

where $`\widehat{𝐫}^{}=\frac{𝐫^{}}{r^{}}`$. For the same reason that we have dropped the first summand in Eq. (5) we should omit the first term independent of r in the last expression. Finally, we have

$`a_{body}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝐚{\displaystyle }(\widehat{𝐫}^{})_z^{}\rho (𝐫^{})d^3𝐫^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝐚{\displaystyle }d^3𝐫^{}\rho (𝐫^{})^{}(\widehat{𝐫}^{})_z`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝐚{\displaystyle d^3𝐫^{}\rho (𝐫^{})\left(\frac{\widehat{𝐳}^{}}{r^{}}\frac{\widehat{𝐫}^{}z^{}}{r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\right)}.`$
After integration over the angular variables (which is trivial owing to the spherical symmetry of the configuration) we obtain an absurd result

$$a_{body}=\frac{1}{3}\frac{Ma}{R}.$$
(6)
On the basis of general arguments one could assume that $`a_{body}`$ should be of the order of $`(R_g/R)a`$, but there is no reason whatsoever why $`𝐚_{body}`$ should point in the direction opposite to that of $`𝐚`$.

It is obvious, that the paradox appeared because our system is not closed. Bodies causing shell acceleration and tensions and energy-momentum currents in those bodies were not taken into consideration. The intuition based on the Newton’s law of gravity obviously let us down.

Contribution of Eq. (6) to the probe body acceleration is due to retarding effect of the gravity signals emitted by the shell. Because of analogous reason there is electric field $`𝐄=\frac{2q𝐚}{3c^2R}`$ in the center of an accelerated sphere with charge $`q`$.

## 3 A Shell Driven by a String

To correct the above situation, let us start with the following “simple” model: the shell accelerated by an infinitely long, massless string (Fig. 1). The word “simple” is in quotation marks because, as will be shown below, this model lacks a clear physical sense: there is no such string (at least in the frame of classical physics).

Now $`a_{body}=a_0+a_1+a_2`$, where $`a_0`$ is determined by the first summand in Eq. (3), $`a_1`$ is the acceleration of the probe body calculated in the previous section considering only the shell motion, and $`a_2`$ takes into account all other factors: tensions in the shell and string, “the spool” on which string is wound, and alsothe distant body that is located at a distance $`L`$ from the shell and on which “the spool” is fixed. Let the mass of that body along with “the spool” be $`m`$. Then its contribution to the $`a_{body}`$ is of the order of $`m/L^2`$ and one can neglect it if $`L`$ is large enough. So, $`a_2=a_2^{tension}+a_2^{string}`$. To begin with consider the term due to tension in the shell:

$$a_2^{tension}=_z\frac{_\alpha T_{\alpha \alpha }(𝐫^{},0)}{|𝐫𝐫^{}|}d^3𝐫^{},$$
(7)
where $`\alpha =1,2,3`$. It was taken into account because $`T_{\alpha \alpha }`$ is of first order in $`a`$ we can put in it (and due to the same reason, in the first summand in Eq. (3))$`t^{}=0`$.

The expression for $`_\alpha T_{\alpha \alpha }`$ of shell is derived in the Appendix:

$$\underset{\alpha }{}T_{\alpha \alpha }=\frac{Ma}{4\pi R}\mathrm{cos}\theta \delta (rR)=aR\rho (r)\mathrm{cos}\theta .$$
(8)
After expanding $`1/|𝐫𝐫^{}|`$ up to the first order in $`𝐫`$, one receives from Eqs. (7) and (8):

$$a_2^{tension}=\frac{Ma}{3R}.$$

Comparing this result to Eq. (6), one can see that contribution to the acceleration of the probe due to the shell alone is zero: tensions in the shell have compensated the effect due to mass.

Now, let’s consider $`a_2^{string}`$. Since the string has zero mass and is infinitesimally thin, we can write down the only nonzero component of the string EMT, taking into account the axial symmetry, as

$$T_{zz}(x,y,z)=D\theta (zR)\delta (x)\delta (y).$$

The constant $`D`$ is calculated from Eq. (A.3) in the Appendix. Using that formula, one can receive that string acts on shell with the force

$$F_x=F_y=0,$$

$$F_z=T_{zz}𝑑f_z=T_{zz}𝑑x𝑑y=D=Ma.$$

Thus, we have

$$T_{zz}=aM\theta (zR)\delta (x)\delta (y).$$

Now it is easy to calculate the contribution of the string EMT to $`a_{body}`$:

$$a_2^{string}=\frac{Ma}{R}.$$
(9)
The easiest way to calculate $`a_0`$ is to use Eq. (4):

$$T_{0\alpha }(𝐫,t)=(\rho +p)u_0u_\alpha \rho u_\alpha \rho (𝐯)_\alpha ,$$

$$\dot{T}_{0\alpha }(𝐫,t)\rho (𝐚)_\alpha .$$

Therefore

$$a_0=4\frac{Ma}{R}.$$
(10)
Hence the total acceleration of the probe body rested at the center of shell which is accelerated by infinitely thin massless string is

$$a_{body}=\frac{3M}{R}a\frac{3R_g}{2R}a.$$
(11)
If one pays attention to the sign in Eq. (9) which tells us that the probe is repulsed by the stretched massless string, doubts about Eq. (11) appear. From Eq. (3) and the expression for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ one can see that this gravitational repulsion appears in the case

$$\underset{i}{}T_{ii}<0.$$
(12)
For the homogeneous body this means that $`ϵ+3p<0`$, i.e. $`p<\frac{ϵ}{3}`$. There are no known bodies or fields with such a property.

For the usual string we have $`|p|ϵ\rho `$, where $`|p|\frac{F}{d^2}=\frac{Ma}{d^2}`$ and $`\rho `$ is string density and $`d`$ is its diameter. Such string accelerates a probe body with the usual Newtonian acceleration $`a_N\frac{\rho d^2}{R}`$. It follows, that

$$a_N\frac{|p|d^2}{R}\frac{Ma}{R}.$$

So, in the experiment with the shell driven by a string, it would impossible to detect the effect of inertial frame entrainment because it is hidden under the much more substantial effect from the string gravitational attraction. Though one can speak only about the gedankenexperiment because entrainment effect is so small that it cannot be detected. For example, additional phase incursion for the laser beam past through an accelerated body would be $`10^{40}`$ in typical laboratory experiment.

Keeping this conclusion in mind, let us proceed to the consistent system, namely a charged shell driven by an electric field.

## 4 Charged Shell

A shell with charge $`q`$ (Fig. 2) is placed in the field $`𝐄_0`$ generated by charge $`Q`$. The charge is sufficiently far away (at the distance $`L`$) so that one can consider the field $`𝐄_0`$ as homogeneous and neglect the gravitational effect of the charge $`Q`$ onto a probe. The shell acceleration is

$$𝐚=\frac{q𝐄_0}{M},E_0=\frac{Q}{L^2}.$$
(13)
Let us calculate the tension generated in the shell (Fig. 3). The charge and mass of the dashed section are

$$q_1=q\frac{1+\mathrm{cos}\theta }{2},M_1=M\frac{1+\mathrm{cos}\theta }{2},$$

respectively, where $`\theta `$ is the angle of spherical frame system with a polar axis $`z`$ directed along $`𝐚`$. This section is acted upon by the inertial force $`𝐅_{in}=M_1𝐚`$ and electrostatic force $`𝐅_{el}=q_1𝐄_0`$. Due to the axial symmetry, the tension tensor can be expressed as (see Appendix for detailed calculations)

$$T_{\alpha \beta }=\left[A(\theta )\widehat{\theta }_\alpha \widehat{\theta }_\beta +B(\theta )\widehat{\phi }_\alpha \widehat{\phi }_\beta \right]\delta (rR),$$

where $`\widehat{\theta },\widehat{\phi }`$ are unit vectors tangent to the sphere and directed along meridians and parallels respectively.

Then, from Eq. (A.3) and the formula $`d𝐟=\widehat{\theta }r\mathrm{sin}\theta d\phi dr`$ follows the condition for the force balance along z-axis:

$$\frac{q𝐄_0(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta )}{2}\frac{m𝐚(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta )}{2}+𝐅=0,$$

where $`𝐅=2\pi A(\theta )R\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \widehat{z}`$. It follows from this equation and Eq. (13) that $`A(\theta )=0`$.

To find $`B(\theta )`$, let us consider the balance condition for $`r`$-components (see Fig. 4).Using a relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }q𝐄_0=\mathrm{\Delta }M𝐚`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }q`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ are the charge and mass of a shell element and calculations similar to those from Appendix, one can show that $`B(\theta )=0`$. So, the external electrical field doesn’t cause tensions in the freely moving shell. In fact, this is obvious because the electric forces are exactly balanced by the inertia forces in the accelerated frame system.

The contribution to $`a_{body}`$ due to the first summand in Eq. (3) is again determined by Eq. (10): presence of the field doesn’t change this result. Indeed, using a conservation law for the full energy-momentum tensor $`T_{ik}`$, for $`k=0`$ we have

$$\dot{T}_{0\alpha }=\frac{T_\alpha ^0}{t}=\frac{T_\alpha ^\beta }{x^\beta }=\frac{T_{\beta \alpha }}{x^\beta },$$

$$\frac{\dot{T}_{0\alpha }(𝐫^{},t)}{|𝐫𝐫^{}|}d^3𝐫^{}=\frac{}{x^\beta }\frac{T_{\beta \alpha }(𝐫^{},t)}{|𝐫𝐫^{}|}d^3𝐫^{}$$

(as we said above, one should neglect signal delay).

Now, one should set $`t=0`$ in Eq. (3), leave only the field contribution and neglect terms of the order of $`v^2/c^2`$, particularly magnetic field. The electrostatic field inside stopped shell is zero, so this field doesn’t contribute to $`a_{body}`$.

Let us now simplify the second tern in Eq. (3). Because one should neglect signal delay in $`T_{\alpha \alpha }`$ and in $`T_{00}`$ vise versa, we have to take it into account, let us perform expansion in the powers of $`t^{}=|𝐫𝐫^{}|`$:

$`h_{00}(𝐫,t)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{T_{00}(𝐫^{},t^{})}{|𝐫𝐫^{}|}d^3𝐫^{}}2{\displaystyle \frac{T_{\alpha \alpha }(𝐫^{},t^{})}{|𝐫𝐫^{}|}d^3𝐫^{}}`$
$``$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{T_{00}(𝐫^{},0)}{|𝐫𝐫^{}|}d^3𝐫^{}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{T_{00}(𝐫^{},0)}{t}d^3𝐫^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2T_{00}(𝐫^{},0)}{t^2}|𝐫𝐫^{}|d^3𝐫^{}}`$
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{T_{\alpha \alpha }(𝐫^{},0)}{|𝐫𝐫^{}|}d^3𝐫^{}}.`$
Then we have

$$\frac{T_{00}}{t}d^3𝐫=\frac{T^{00}}{t}d^3𝐫=\frac{T^{0\beta }}{x^\beta }d^3𝐫=0,$$

$$\frac{^2T_{00}}{t^2}=\frac{^2T^{00}}{t^2}=\frac{}{t}\frac{T^{0\beta }}{x^\beta }=\frac{}{x^\beta }\frac{^2T^{\beta 0}}{t}=\frac{^2T^{\beta \alpha }}{x^\alpha x^\beta }.$$

Thus, the second term in Eq. (3) is expressed as follows:

$`(𝐚_{body})_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`(𝐚_0)_\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_{\beta \gamma }(𝐫,0)}{r^3}\left(3\delta _{\beta \gamma }x_\alpha +\delta _{\alpha \beta }x_\gamma +\delta _{\alpha \gamma }x_\beta \frac{3x_\alpha x_\beta x_\gamma }{r^2}\right)d^3𝐫}+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_\alpha T_{00}(𝐫,0)}{r}d^3𝐫}=`$
$`=`$ $`(𝐚_0)_\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐫}{r}_\alpha T_{\beta \gamma }(𝐫,0)\left(3\delta _{\beta \gamma }\frac{x_\beta x_\gamma }{r^2}\right)}+{\displaystyle \frac{_\alpha T_{00}(𝐫,0)}{r}d^3𝐫}`$
$``$ $`(𝐚_0)_\alpha +(𝐚_1)_\alpha +(𝐚_2)_\alpha ,`$
where through $`(𝐚_2)_\alpha `$ we denoted the summand with $`T_{00}`$.

The tensor $`T_{\alpha \beta }`$ is equal to the sum of a tension tensor of the shell and field. Tensions in a shell are due to acceleration and mutual repulsion of the shell parts. As it was shown above, the former is zero. One can also neglect the latter because they are of the order of $`q^2`$ and we are only interested in linear terms (and this means linearity in $`q`$). Thus, in this approximation we should take into account only $`T_{\alpha \beta }`$ of the electromagnetic field:

$$T_{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{4\pi }\left(\frac{1}{2}E^2\delta _{\alpha \beta }E_\alpha E_\beta \right),$$

where $`𝐄=𝐄_0+𝐄_1`$,

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}𝐄_0& =& E_0\widehat{𝐳}\hfill \\ 𝐄_1& =& \theta (rR)\frac{q𝐫}{r^3}\text{ is the field generated by the shell}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Since we retain only the terms linear in $`q`$,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill E^2& & E_0^2+2𝐄_0𝐄_1\hfill \\ \hfill E_\alpha E_\beta & & E_{0\alpha }E_{0\beta }+E_{0\alpha }E_{1\beta }+E_{0\beta }E_{1\alpha }\hfill \end{array}.$$

The terms quadratic in $`E_0`$ can be made infinitesimal by removing the charge $`Q`$ to infinite distance (Eq. (13)).

Thus, we have the following expression for $`T_{\alpha \beta }`$ linear in $`q`$:

$$T_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{qE_0}{4\pi r^2}(\widehat{z}_\gamma \delta _{\alpha \beta }\widehat{z}_\alpha \delta _{\gamma \beta }\widehat{z}_\beta \delta _{\alpha \gamma })\widehat{r}_\gamma \theta (rR)\frac{qE_0}{4\pi r^2}K_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\widehat{r}_\gamma \theta (rR).$$

Now $`𝐚_1`$ can be expressed in the form convenient for calculations:

$$(𝐚_1)_\alpha =2\pi _0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r\frac{qE_0}{4\pi r^2}K_{\alpha \beta \gamma }3\delta _{\beta \gamma }\widehat{r}_\delta \widehat{r}_\gamma +\delta _{\alpha \beta }\widehat{r}_\delta \widehat{r}_\gamma +\delta _{\alpha \gamma }\widehat{r}_\delta \widehat{r}_\beta 3\widehat{r}_\alpha \widehat{r}_\beta \widehat{r}_\gamma \widehat{r}_\delta \theta (rR),$$

where the angular brackets $`\mathrm{}`$ denote averaging over angles. After this averaging, we have

$`(𝐚_1)_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r{\displaystyle \frac{2aE_0}{5\pi r}}\theta (rR)(K_{\beta \beta \alpha }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}K_{\alpha \beta \beta })=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r{\displaystyle \frac{2aE_0}{5\pi r}}\theta (rR)[\widehat{z}_\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(3\widehat{z}_\alpha )]=0.`$
Now let us calculate the contribution due to $`T_{00}`$, i.e. $`𝐚_2`$:

$$𝐚_2=J,\text{ where}J=\frac{T_{00}(𝐫^{},0)}{|𝐫𝐫^{}|}d^3𝐫^{}=J_1^{shell}+J_2^{field}.$$

It is obvious that the summand due to the shell, i.e. $`J_1^{shell}`$, is spherically symmetrical (the Lorentz contraction, proportional to $`a^2`$, is superfluous in our approximation). Therefore, it is clear that $`J_1|_{𝐫=0}=0`$. The only remaining contribution is that due to the electric field, $`J_2^{field}`$:

$$T_{00}\frac{E^2}{8\pi },\text{ where }𝐄=𝐄_0+𝐄_1.$$

The term linear in $`q`$ and $`𝐄_0`$ is equal to

$$\frac{qE_0}{4\pi r^2}(\widehat{𝐫}\widehat{bfz})\theta (rR).$$

Expanding $`1/|𝐫𝐫^{}|`$ in $`𝐫`$, we obtain

$`𝐚_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{qE_0}{4\pi r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\theta (r^{}R)(\widehat{𝐫}^{}\widehat{𝐳})(\frac{\widehat{𝐫}^{}}{r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}𝐫)d^3𝐫^{}}=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{qE_0}{4\pi }}4\pi {\displaystyle _R^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐫^{}}{r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}(\widehat{𝐫}^{}\widehat{𝐳})\widehat{𝐫}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{qE_0}{3R}}\widehat{𝐳}.`$
Taking into account Eq. (12), the final result is

$$𝐚_{body}=\frac{13M}{3R}𝐚=\frac{13R_g}{6R}𝐚,$$

i.e. the total effect is the entrainment of the probe in the direction of the acceleration vector.

## 5 Conclusion

The main aim of this methodological paper was to elucidate the role of the energy-momentum tensor in the general relativity, taking as an example a shell moving at the constant acceleration. The paper would be useful for the development of the “relativistic intuition” of the beginners in gravity. In particular, it was demonstrated that the removal from the full EMT of the parts that seem to be unimportant from the point of view of Newton’s gravity law, leads to incorrect and, usually, paradoxical results.

## 6 Appendix. Tension Tensor in a Rigid Thin Shell Accelerated by a String

One can neglect tensions $`T_{r\alpha }`$ , where $`\alpha =r,\theta ,\phi `$ are components of the spherical frame system with a polar axis directed along the string. Owing to the axial symmetry, only the following components of the tension tensor are nonzero:

$$T_{\theta \theta },T_{\phi \phi }.$$
(A.1)
Taking the above into account, the most general form of $`T_{\alpha \beta }`$ is

$$T_{\alpha \beta }=\left[A(\theta )\widehat{\theta }_\alpha \widehat{\theta }_\beta +B(\theta )\widehat{\phi }_\alpha \widehat{\phi }_\beta \right]\delta (rR),$$
(A.2)
where $`\widehat{\theta },\widehat{\phi }`$ are unit vectors tangent to the arcs $`\phi =const`$ and $`\theta =const`$ (see Fig. 3).

Let us consider the balance condition for forces in the accelerated frame system. The mass of shell section corresponding to the polar angles $`\theta <\theta ^{}<\pi `$ (the dashed section in Fig. 3) is:

$$M(\theta )=\frac{M}{2}(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta ).$$

The force acting on this section (it is obvious that in this motion only the $`z`$-components of the force is nonzero) is

$$F_\alpha =T_{\alpha \beta }(d𝐟)_\beta ,$$
(A.3)
where $`d𝐟`$ is an element of the surface restricting given body. In our case $`d𝐟`$ is an element of the sphere on the circle $`\theta =const`$ within the range of the azimuth angle $`(\phi ,\phi +d\phi )`$: $`\widehat{\theta }d𝐟=r\mathrm{sin}\theta drd\phi `$. Then, from Eqs. (A.2) and (A.3) we obtain

$$𝐅=A(\theta )R\mathrm{sin}\theta \widehat{\theta }𝑑\phi =2\pi RA(\theta )R\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \widehat{𝐳}.$$

This force is compensated by the force of inertia $`𝐅=M(\theta )a\widehat{𝐳}`$. Hence

$$A(\theta )=\frac{Ma}{4\pi R}\frac{(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )}.$$
(A.4)
The singularity at $`\theta =0`$ is related to the fact that the infinitely thin string is attached to the sphere exactly at this point.

In order to calculate $`B(\theta )`$, let us consider the equilibrium of an arbitrary shell element in the radial direction (Fig. 3). The forces $`𝐅_1`$ and $`𝐅_2`$ are perpendicular to the parallels $`\theta =const`$, and $`𝐅_3`$ and $`𝐅_4`$ to the meridians $`\phi =const`$. Using Eqs. (A.1) and (A.2), we can express these forces as

$$\{\begin{array}{c}𝐅_{\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐}}=\widehat{\theta }A(\theta )R\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{\Delta }\phi \hfill \\ 𝐅_{\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟒}}=\widehat{\phi }B(\theta )R\mathrm{\Delta }\theta \hfill \end{array}.$$

The radial component of the net force is

$$\widehat{𝐫}𝐅=\left(A(\theta )+B(\theta )\right)R\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{\Delta }\phi \mathrm{\Delta }\theta .$$

Adding this result with the radial component of the inertia force

$$𝐅_{rad}^{inert}=\frac{Ma}{4\pi }\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{\Delta }\phi \mathrm{\Delta }\theta $$

and equating the result with zero, we obtain the equilibrium condition

$$A(\theta )+B(\theta )=\frac{Ma}{4\pi R}\mathrm{cos}\theta .$$

¿From this and from Eq. (A.4), we obtain

$$B(\theta )=\frac{Ma}{4\pi R}\frac{(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta +\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta )}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }.$$

¿From this result and Eqs. (A.2) and (A.4), we derive Eq. (8).


text:
# 1 INTRODUCTION

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Recent experimental studies in small particle systems of nanometric size have brought renewed interest in these kind of systems because of their anomalous magnetic properties at low temperatures. Among the static properties, experiments have shown that in these systems the hysteresis loops display high closure fields and do not saturate even at fields of the order of 50 Tesla  which indicates that the anisotropy fields cannot be the only responsible mechanism for the magnetization reversal. Low magnetization as compared to bulk, shifted loops after field cooling and irreversibilities between the field cooling and zero field cooling processes even at high fields are also observed . On the other hand, the time-dependence of the magnetization, in particular the existence of aging phenomena , indicates that there must be some kind of freezing preventing the system to evolve towards equilibrium.

Whether these phenomena can be ascribed to intrinsic properties of the particle itself (surface disorder which creates an exchange field on the core of the particle), or they are due to a collective effect induced by interparticle interactions  has been the object of controversy in recent years and up to the moment there is no model giving a clear-cut explanation of this phenomenology although simulation results for general small particle systems  and in particular for maghemite  have been recently published . In order to elucidate this controversy we present the results of a Monte Carlo simulation of a single spherical particle which aims to clarify what is the specific role of the finite size and the surface on the magnetic properties of the particle, disregarding the interparticle interactions effects.

## 2 MODEL

$`\gamma `$-Fe2 O3, maghemite, is one of the most commonly studied nanoparticle compounds  presenting the above mentioned phenomenology. Maghemite is a ferrimagnetic spinel in which the magnetic Fe3+ ions with spin $`5/2`$ are disposed in two sublattices with different coordination with the O2- ions. Each unit cell has 8 tetrahedric (T) and 16 octahedric (O) sites and in the real material one sixth of the O sites has randomly distributed vacancies. Thus, the spins in the T sublattice have $`N_{TT}=4`$ nearest neighbours in T and $`N_{TO}=12`$ in O and the spins in the O sublattice have $`N_{OO}=6`$ nearest neighbours in O and $`N_{OT}=6`$ in T. In our model the Fe3+ magnetic ions are represented by Ising spins $`S_i^\alpha `$ distributed in two sublattices $`\alpha =T,O`$ of linear size $`N`$ unit cells, thus the total number of spins is ($`24N^3`$). The choice of Ising spins allows to reproduce a case with strong uniaxial anisotropy while keeping computational efforts within reasonable limits.

The spins interact via antiferromagnetic exchange interactions with the nearest neighbours on both lattices and with an external magnetic field $`H`$, and the corresponding Hamiltonian of the model is

$`/k_B={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta =T,O}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N_\alpha }{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N_{\alpha \beta }}{}}}J_{\alpha \beta }S_i^\alpha S_{i+n}^\beta h{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =T,O}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N_\alpha }{}}}S_i^\alpha .`$ (1)
The reduced magnetic field $`h=\mu H/k_B`$ is in temperature units. The values of the nearest neighbour exchange constants for maghemite are  $`J_{TT}=21K`$, $`J_{OO}=8.6K`$, $`J_{TO}=28.1K`$. We have used periodic boundary conditions to simulate the bulk properties and free boundaries for a spherically shaped particle with $`D`$ unit cells in diameter when studying finite size effects. In the latter case two different regions are distinguished in the particle: the surface formed by the outermost unit cells and an internal core of diameter $`D_{Core}`$ unit cells. The size of the studied particles ranges from $`D=3`$ to $`6`$ corresponding to real particle diameters from 30 to 50 Å.

## 3 RESULTS and DISCUSSION

In Fig. 1 we present the thermal dependence of the total equilibrium magnetization for a system with periodic boundaries and two different particle sizes. First of all we note that the transition temperature does not depend significantly on the system size and has roughly the experimental value of the bulk (T$`{}_{c}{}^{}`$ 900 K), taking into account that in the simulations the value of the spin has been set to 1 instead of 5/2. On the contrary, the ordering temperature for the spherical particle with free boundaries decreases with decreasing particle size. For the D=3 particle the total magnetization is dominated by the contribution of the surface, and the core, which includes only few spins, is almost uncoupled from the surface and follows the bulk behaviour. For D=6, the core and the surface are more coupled and the total magnetization is an average of surface and core contributions. In agreement with experimental observations, $`M_{Total}`$ increases with decreasing particle size at a finite T, tending to the bulk value.

To see what is the effect of a magnetic field on the magnetic order we have studied the field cooled (FC) magnetization at different cooling fields. The simulation procedure has been started from a disordered state at a temperature well above Tc which is progressively reduced at a constant rate. The results for periodic boundaries show that at high enough fields there is a maximum in the FC curve slightly below Tc that is due to the competition between the ferromagnetic order induced by the field and the spontaneous ferrimagnetic order below Tc (see Fig. 2a). This feature is also observed for the spherical particles but progressively disappears as the particle size is decreased (see Figs. 2b and 2c). This fact is much more pronounced in the core than in the surface due to the frustration induced by broken links at the particle boundary. As the particle size is decreased, the total magnetization becomes dominated by the contribution of the surface spins independently of the magnetic field (note that the continuous and dot-dashed lines in Fig. 2c superimpose for the D= 3 particle).

Independently of the particle size and the cooling field, the core magnetization tends to the bulk value at low T because below Tc the core tends to order ferrimagnetically. The shape of the FC curves for the core resemble the one for periodic boundaries even for the smallest particle, where the total magnetization is competely dominated by the surface and the core contains only 5% of the total number of spins. However, this phenomenon is not observed in the surface contribution due to the fact that the FC strongly depends on the magnetic field even at temperatures below Tc. The ferrimagnetic order is less perfect in the surface and the magnetic field induces ferromagnetic ordering at much lower field values.

Finally, we have simulated hysteresis loops for two particle sizes at a temperature $`T=20K`$ well below Tc (see Fig. 3). First of all, let us note that the saturation field and the high field susceptibility increase as the particle size is reduced (compare the continuous lines of Fig. 2a and Fig. 2b) reducing the squareness of the loops, an effect that is due to the increasing importance of the surface contribution in the smallest particles. The hysteresis loop of the core is squared for both particle sizes: the core suddenly reverses as a whole, coherently rotating at the coercive field. In contrast, the surface hysteresis loop has a shape similar to the total magnetization loop, closing at the same field than the core but with coercive fields lower than the closure field as the particle size decreases. This indicates that the surface gradually reverses its magnetization and that the surface spins rotation is not coherent as in the core.

### Acknowledgements

We acknowledge CESCA and CEPBA under coordination of C4 for the computer facilities. This work has been supported by CICYT through project MAT97-0404 and CIRIT under project SR-119.


text:
# Stückelberg Field Shiftting Quantization of Free-Particle on D-Dimensional Sphere

## I Introduction

The canonical quantization of the free-particle moving in a curved space is a fundamental theoretical problem that has been investigated intensively over last decades in different settings but remains a controversial problem in the literature. The relevance of this problem for the quantization on curvilinear surfaces is well appreciated and its quantization has been studied both in the path integral and in the canonical approach. The quantum picture however remains troubled by operator ordering ambiguities and the results following different approaches are not in complete agreement. While most investigations have been done towards understanding the quantum nature directly from the second-class formulation, a possible loophole to avoid problems would be the reformulation of the model as a gauge theory.

The proposal of this paper is the construction of a gauge invariant reformulation for the free point particle on the spherical surface through the Stückelberg field shiftting formalism. This is possible after the nonlinear implementation of the Stückelberg symmetry through the elimination of the Lagrange multiplier sector of the invariant theory.

The treatment of nonlinear systems as gauge theories was originally proposed by Kovner and Rosenstein , using an analogy with QED to disclose a symmetry hidden in the nonlinear sigma model (NLSM). An invariant version of this model was proposed by us to explain the results of  using the iterative constraint conversion approach. Recently, different authors proposed distinct first-class versions for the spherical model using the BFFT formalism.Due to the possibility of dealing with the nonlinear constraint of the massive Yang-Mills theory through the constraint conversion technique, this problem has experienced a revival . These works discuss the energy spectrum of the collective mode of the theory and put under suspicion the result proposed by Adkins, Nappi and Witten (ANW) in Ref..

It is worth mentioning that since the seminal work of Skyrme incorporating baryons in the NLSM low-energy description of the strong interactions, the investigation of nonlinear theories has attracted much attention. The NLSM is a very useful model present in all areas of physics. In condensed matter, for instance, it is used to describe systems ranging from anti-ferromagnetic spin-chains to certain materials exhibiting fractional quantum Hall effect. In lower dimensional physics, where it possess exact solution, it has became an important theoretical laboratory mainly due to its similarity to 4D nonabelian gauge theories with which it shares many features such as renormalizability, asymptotic freedom, dynamical mass generation, confinement and topological excitations. It has also been used in the theoretical investigation of the phenomenon of fractional spin and statistics in (2+1)D and nonabelian bosonization in (1+1)D.

In the study of the static properties of nucleons, done by Adkins et al, a collective semi-classical expansion is performed by the usual decomposition of the SU(2) matrix into the nonlinear sigma model action as,

$$U(r,t)=A(t)U(r)A(t)^1$$
(1)
where the matrix A(t) as $`A(t)=a^o+ia.\tau `$ satisfies the spherical constraint,

$$\varphi _1=a_ia_i1=0,\text{with}i=0,1,2,3.$$
(2)
The theory gets reduced to a nonlinear quantum mechanical model whose dynamics is governed by a Lagrangian dependent on $`a_i(t)`$ and $`\dot{a}_i(t)`$ playing the roles of the particle’s coordinate and velocity respectively. Similarly, the study of the fractional spin and statistics in the context of the O(3) NLSM is reduced to that of the quantum rotor through the semi-classical separation of the collective mode, reducing the problem to that of quantizing the spherical top. Recall that the spherical rotor is the paradigm of the second-class constrained system with field dependent Dirac brackets. Therefore the ambiguities resulting from the quantization of this model affect the results above mentioned. This leads to the necessity of new studies that may eventually shed some light over these questions.

## II The spherical gauge model

To evidentiate the problem that affects the quantization process of nonlinear model, let us begin quantizing the system with the Dirac’s method for second-class constraints. A free point particle with unitary mass moving on a flat D+1-dimensional Euclidean space is restricted to the D-spherical surface by the spherical constraint in configuration space

$$q_iq_iR^2=0.$$
(3)
R represents the radius of the sphere and $`q_i(t)`$, i=1,2,…,D, are the particle’s coordinates. The point particle has its dynamic governed by the Lagrangian

$$L=\frac{1}{2}\dot{q}^2+\lambda (q_iq_iR^2).$$
(4)
The corresponding Hamiltonian is,

$$H=\frac{1}{2}p_i^2\lambda (q_iq_iR^2).$$
(5)
The constraint analysis reveals the presence of four second-class constraints,

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ $`=`$ $`\pi _\lambda `$ (6)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ $`=`$ $`q^2c`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_3`$ $`=`$ $`p_iq_i`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_4`$ $`=`$ $`p_ip_i2\lambda q_iq_i.`$ (9)
The geometrical meaning of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3`$ is transparent. The constraint $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2=0`$ restrains the particle to move on the D-sphere surface, while $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3`$ means that the particle momentum remains tangent to nonlinear surface, without radial component during the motion. The remaining constraints, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_4`$, have no geometrical meaning and dynamical importance to the theory since they are artifacts of constructing the Hamiltonian formalism from the Lagrangian using the Legendre transformation. It occurs because the Lagrange multiplier $`\lambda `$, which enforces the nonlinear constraint in the Lagrangian formalism, is assumed to be an independent dynamical variable. In this way, the Hamiltonian formalism yields these extra constraints to suppress the dynamics of $`\lambda `$ and $`p_\lambda `$.

From the last condition of (6) the Lagrange multiplier could be computed explicitly as,

$$\lambda =\frac{1}{2}\frac{p^2}{q^2}.$$
(10)
The particle’s dynamic passes to be described by $`H=\frac{1}{2}p^2`$ and two constraints $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_2,\mathrm{\Omega }_3)`$. The symplectic structure on the physical phase space determined by these constraints is induced by the Dirac brackets,

$`\{q_i,q_j\}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\{p_i,p_j\}^{}=0,`$ (11)
$`\{q_i,p_j\}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`M_{ij},`$ (12)
$`\{p_i,p_j\}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`H_{ij}.`$ (13)
where

$`M_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{q_iq_j}{q^2}},`$ (14)
$`H_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(q_jp_iq_ip_j)}{q^2}}.`$ (15)
It may be stressed that the same results may be obtained from the simplified Lagrangean formulation with the proviso that the equation of motion of the eliminated variable must be mantained as a subsidiary condition to impart consistency in the canonical analysis. Next we present a proposal to express it as a gauge theory using the Stückelberg field shiftting formalism.

There are in the literature alternative methods to implement this proposal. We quote the BFFT and iterative methods that have attracted much attention in the literature. The BFFT conversion technique uses as many auxiliary variables as the number of second-class constraints. As mentioned, the analysis can be considerably simplified by eliminated the multiplier sector of the phase space using the noninvariant character of the constraints. The question that seems to be of importance is related to the elimination of this sector before or after the constraint conversion. The induced gauge symmetry over the spherical model becomes realized nonlinearly or linearly respectively, leading to distinct consequences. In the former case, worked out in , the multiplier is eliminated before the BFFT procedure, based on its second-class character. On the other hand, without elimination of the multiplier sector, the gauge symmetry is linearly implemented by the Stuckelberg procedure. Although we advocate the later procedure mostly because of its effectiveness and simplicity, we will show next that they indeed lead to (canonically) equivalent results.

Let us consider the construction of the Wess-Zumino terms through Stückelberg mechanism,

$`L_{WZ}(\theta ,\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`L(\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{\theta })L(\lambda )`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`\theta q_k\dot{q}_k.`$ (17)
An equivalent procedure using the iterative conversion of the nonlinear constraints was given in , whose gauge invariant Lagrangian was found to be

$$L=\frac{1}{2}\dot{q}_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\theta (q.\dot{q})+\lambda (q^2R^2),$$
(18)
where $`\theta `$ is the WZ variable. The corresponding Hamiltonian, obtained reducing the Lagrangian (18) to first-order, is

$$H=\frac{1}{2}p^2+\frac{1}{2}\theta ^2q^2\theta (q.p)\lambda (q^2R^2).$$
(19)
This theory has two chains of constraints whose primary members are,

$`\varphi _1=\pi _\lambda `$ $``$ $`0,`$ (20)
$`\psi _1=\pi _\theta `$ $``$ $`0.`$ (21)
Since these constraints must to satisfy some integrability condition, it is required the presence of secondary constraints that are, respectively,

$`\varphi _2=q^2R^2`$ $``$ $`0,`$ (22)
$`\psi _2=q.p\theta q^2`$ $``$ $`0,`$ (23)
and no more constraints are generated by following Dirac’s algorithm. Although a naive inspection shows the presence of second-class constraints, the computation of the Dirac matrix shows the presence of two zero-modes, indicating the existence of a two distinct set of constraints. One with two first-class constraints ($`\phi _k^{(1)}`$) and other with two second-class constraints ($`\phi _k^{(2)}`$), that are identified after a diagonalization of the Dirac matrix as,

$`\phi _1^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _1`$ (24)
$`\phi _2^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _22\psi _1`$ (25)
and

$`\phi _1^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _1`$ (26)
$`\phi _2^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _2.`$ (27)
The elimination of the second-class sector is done via the Dirac bracket reduction, as usual. It generates the following first-class Hamiltonian,

$$\overline{H}=\frac{1}{2}p_k\left(\delta _{km}\frac{q_kq_m}{q^2}\right)p_m$$
(28)
where the reduced first-class constraints now read,

$`\phi _1^{(1)}\overline{\phi }_1^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _1`$ (29)
$`\phi _2^{(1)}\overline{\phi }_2^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _2.`$ (30)
Similarly, the original Poisson brackets are now mapped into Dirac brackets,

$`\{q_i,q_j\}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (31)
$`\{p_i,p_j\}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (32)
$`\{q_i,p_j\}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}.`$ (33)
Notice that the Dirac brackets for this partial reduction of constraints has a canonical structure. This just reflects the result of the well known Maskawa-Nakashima theorem. This new Hamiltonian and sympletic structure define a pure first-class problem. By a simple inspection the correct equation of motion may be obtained from these objects. The symmetries transformations are generated by these constraints as $`\delta _i𝒪=\epsilon _i\{𝒪,\overline{\phi }_i^{(1)}\}^{}`$ ($`i=1,2`$ and $`𝒪=\lambda ,q_k,p_k`$),

$`\delta _1\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _1,`$ (34)
$`\delta _1q_i`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _1p_i=0,`$ (35)
and

$`\delta _2\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (36)
$`\delta _2q_i`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (37)
$`\delta _2p_i`$ $`=`$ $`2\epsilon _2q_i.`$ (38)
Notice that the coordinates $`q_i`$ are null eigenvectors of the matrix $`M_{ij}`$, defined in (14), acting as a phase space metric in the reduced Hamiltonian $`\overline{H}`$ in (28). To complete this discussion it is important to recall that the computation of the two set of constraints given in (24) and (26) was imperative to the development of this procedure. However, the splitting computation of the original set of constraints may be obscure. To avoid this problem a systematic alternative, based on the reduction of the set of constraints with the elimination of the superfluous constraints is next elaborate that will illuminate the full power of the Stückelberg formalism.

Let us recall that the theory in discussion (18) is known to possess four constraints. However, for systems with holonomous constraints imposed by Lagrange multipliers, some of these constraints only appear in the canonical process to eliminate the dynamics associated with the multiplier sector of variables. It is usual practice to use an improved Hamiltonian obtained by eliminating the Lagrange multiplier sector ab initio. This will keep only the meaningful geometrical constraints and simplify the analysis. However recall that the equation of motion associated to the (eliminated) multiplier sector is mantained as a consistency condition to the canonical structure associated to the simplified Lagrangean formulation. To eliminate the redundant constraints we proceed as follows. The Euler-Lagrange equations for $`\theta `$ and $`q_i`$, are solved,

$`q.\dot{q}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (39)
$`\ddot{q}_i+\dot{\theta }q_i2\lambda q_i`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (40)
respectively which determine the Lagrange multiplier as,

$$\lambda =\frac{1}{2q^2}(\dot{q}^2\dot{\theta }q^2).$$
(41)
The arbitrariness present in the multiplier reflects the gauge freedom induced over the system. Bringing this relation back into the WZ theory we find a new canonical structure given by the modified Hamiltonian,

$$\stackrel{~}{H}=\frac{1}{2R^2}q^2p^2\frac{q^2}{R^2}(q.p)\theta +\frac{1}{2R^2}\theta ^2(q^2)^2.$$
(42)
and the first-class, strongly involutive constraint

$$\omega _1=q^2R^22\pi _\theta 0,$$
(43)
which has no time evolution since,

$$\dot{\omega }_1=\{\omega _1,\stackrel{~}{H}\}=0.$$
(44)
On the other hand consistence with the first equation in (39) requires $`\pi _\theta `$ to have no time evolution of its own,

$$0=\dot{\pi }_\theta =\{\pi _\theta ,\stackrel{~}{H}\}.$$
(45)
This condition imposes a new constraint over the system as,

$$\omega _2=q.p\theta q^2$$
(46)
This canonical structure is similar to the one obtained in  and identical to that given in , after a convenient interchange the WZ variables $`(\theta \pi _\theta )`$ with a corresponding change of signs.

Note that after the elimination of the multiplier $`\lambda `$ some aspects of the model have changed. Here, $`\pi _\theta `$ is not a constraint but it is a canonical variable of the model that is absorbed by the nonlinear constraint, deforming the original spherical surface and destroying the constraint hierarchy given in (20) and (22). Consequently, after the exceeding constraints are eliminated, the remaining geometrical ones, and the gauge invariant model described by the Hamiltonian (42) are equivalent to the original first-class system given in (19). This reduced gauge invariant model has two first-class constraints $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$, that obey the strongly involutive algebra,

$`\{q^2R^22\pi _\theta ,\stackrel{~}{H}\}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (47)
$`\{q.p\theta q^2,\stackrel{~}{H}\}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (48)
which is in agreement with the issues of  and . These first-class constraints generate the following infinitesimal gauge transformations on the canonical variables in the complete extended space:

$`\delta _1q_i`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _1\{q_i,\omega _1\}=0,`$ (49)
$`\delta _1p_i`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _1\{p_i,\omega _1\}=2\epsilon _1q_i,`$ (50)
$`\delta _1\pi _\theta `$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _1\{\pi _\theta ,\omega _1\}=0,`$ (51)
$`\delta _1\theta `$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _1\{\theta ,\omega _1\}=2\epsilon _1,`$ (52)
and

$`\delta _2q_i`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _2\{q_i,\omega _2\}=\epsilon _2q_i,`$ (53)
$`\delta _2p_i`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _2\{p_i,\omega _2\}=\epsilon _2(p_i2\theta q_i),`$ (54)
$`\delta _2\pi _\theta `$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _2\{\pi _\theta ,\omega _2\}=\epsilon _2q_i^2,`$ (55)
$`\delta _2\theta `$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _2\{\theta ,\omega _2\}=0,`$ (56)
that agrees with those obtained in . The finite induced WZ gauge symmetries within the extended phase space are obtained from the gauge generating constraints by successive application on the canonical and the extended phase space variables,

$`q_i`$ $``$ $`e^{\epsilon _2}q_i,`$ (57)
$`p_i`$ $``$ $`e^{\epsilon _2}p_i+2q_i(\theta e^{\frac{\epsilon _2}{2}}(\theta +\epsilon _1)e^{\frac{\epsilon _2}{2}}),`$ (58)
$`\theta `$ $``$ $`\theta 2\epsilon _1,`$ (59)
$`\pi `$ $``$ $`\pi +(1e^{\epsilon _2})q^2.`$ (60)
Note that the group of transformations generated by the first-class constraints act nonlinearly on the extended phase space.

We stress that Kovner-Rosenstein’s hidden symmetry is indeed an induced symmetry of the Wess-Zumino sector over the phase space of the theory. This effect, as discussed above is clearly independent of the particular method of constraint conversion, being quite unique. Indeed the constraint $`\omega _1`$ in (43) is immediately transformed into the KR constraint generator with a special value for $`\pi _\theta `$. Interestingly, this also corresponds to a choice of initial condition in (45). This is revealed by gauge-fixing the WZ sector in such a way to recover the spherical constraint as the symmetry generator of the KR symmetry. Either way, this may be achieved by adding the gauge-fixing constraint,

$$\omega _3=\pi _\theta $$
(61)
to the set $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$. The $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega _1|_{\pi _\theta }`$ constraint now plays the role of Gauss law generator for the KR symmetry in the original phase space, under the Dirac bracket algebra generated by the second-class constraints $`\omega _2`$ and $`\omega _3`$. This reduced algebra has the same canonical structure as in (31) which is another illustration of the Maskawa-Nakashima theorem. The dynamics is controlled by the Hamiltonian (42) which on the constraint shell $`\omega _i0`$ reads,

$$H_{KR}=\frac{1}{2R^2}q^2p_k\left(\delta _{km}\frac{q_kq_m}{q^2}\right)p_m$$
(62)
which is seen to be the one postulate in . This purely first-class Hamiltonian structure leads to the correct field equations under the induced Dirac bracket algebra.

To realize the quantization it is necessary to introduce a gauge fixing term in order to fix the first-class nature of the gauss law. Choosing the gauge condition as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=p_D=0,$$
(63)
which is the canonical momentum conjugate to the coordinate $`q_D`$ and removes the dynamic of this coordinate. The Poisson brackets between the constraints $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is

$$\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Psi }\}=2q_D,$$
(64)
and as $`q_D0`$ on the spherical surface, they form a set of second-class constraints and the theory passes to have 2D remaining phase space variables. The Dirac brackets among the independent variables are

$`\{q_\alpha ,q_\beta \}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (65)
$`\{q_\alpha ,p_\beta \}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{\alpha \beta },`$ (66)
$`\{p_\alpha ,p_\beta \}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (67)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ represents the independent phase space variables. The noninvariant Hamiltonian in the reduced phase space is

$$H=\frac{1}{2R^2}p_\alpha g^{\alpha \beta }p_\beta ,$$
(68)
with the non-singular phase space metric,

$$g^{\alpha \beta }=\delta ^{\alpha \beta }\frac{q^\alpha q^\beta }{R^2}.$$
(69)
This Hamiltonian formulation of the problem has also been found by Abdalla and Banerjee  following a purely second-class approach to quantize the system. In the sequel we follow Ref. closely in order to find the spectrum of the skyrmion. Since this system is unconstrained the velocities obtained from the Hamilton’s equation of motion for $`q_\alpha `$,

$$\dot{q}_\alpha =g^{\alpha \beta }p_\beta ,$$
(70)
can be obtained in an unambiguous form from the canonical momenta by inverting the equation above,

$$p_\beta =g_{\alpha \beta }\dot{q}_\alpha ,$$
(71)
where $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the inverse of (69), being given by

$$g_{\alpha \beta }=\delta _{\alpha \beta }+\frac{q_\alpha q_\beta }{R^2q^2}.$$
(72)
In the quantization of nonlinear models the ordering of phase space fields cannot be neglected since the Dirac brackets are field dependent, as carried out in Ref.. Therefore, there arises an important question as how to one should settle the quantum Hamiltonian from its corresponding classical description. The answer resides on the preservation of the classical symmetries in the quantum scenario. In this way the corresponding quantum Hamiltonian is uniquely determined. Based in the quantum process developed in Ref. the quantization of the reduced nonlinear model (68) is accomplished if the reduced Hamiltonian is replaced by the corresponding Laplace-Beltrami operator defined as

$`\widehat{H}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{1/2}_\alpha g^{\alpha \beta }g^{1/2}_\beta ,`$ (73)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(R^2q^2)^{1/2}_\alpha g^{\alpha \beta }(R^2q^2)^{1/2}_\beta ,`$ (74)
where $`_\alpha =\frac{}{q_\alpha }`$ are the derivatives with respect to the D-dimensional curved space coordinates, and $`g`$ is the determinant of the metric $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ given by,

$`det[g_{\alpha \beta }]`$ $`=`$ $`exptrln\left(\delta _{\alpha \beta }+{\displaystyle \frac{a_\alpha a_\beta }{R^2q^2}}\right),`$ (75)
$`=`$ $`exptr{\displaystyle \frac{q_\alpha q_\beta }{q^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{R^2q^2}}\right),`$ (76)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{R^2q^2}}.`$ (77)
Due to this, the Hamiltonian operator (73) is related with the angular momentum in the reduced space,

$`L_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`q_\alpha p_\beta q_\beta p_\alpha =i\mathrm{}(q_\alpha _\beta q_\beta _\alpha ),`$ (78)
$`L_{\alpha D}`$ $`=`$ $`q_\alpha p_Dq_Dp_\alpha =i\mathrm{}q_D_\beta =i\mathrm{}(R^2q^2)^{1/2}_\beta ,`$ (79)
and therefore it is rewritten as,

$$\widehat{H}=\underset{\alpha \beta }{}\frac{L_{\alpha \beta }^2}{2R^2}.$$
(80)
Thus, we find that the quantum Hamiltonian is the conventional Schrödinger operator without any extra curvature term. Consequently, the energy spectrum reads,

$$E=\frac{1}{2R^2}l(l+D1),$$
(81)
in agreement with the result obtained by others authors.

At this stage it is interesting to put our result in a more realistic framework that might shed some light over the question. To this end we focus our discussions on the Skyrme model. There $`D=3`$ and consequently, the energy spectrum (81) becomes,

$$E=\frac{1}{2R^2}l(l+2),$$
(82)
that agrees with the result proposed by ANW. This completes our discussion.

## III Conclusion

In summary, the gauge symmetry of the nonlinear model is induced by phase space extension methods using the Stückelberg field shiftting constraint conversion, displaying the equivalence with the constraint conversion methods. Afterward the energy spectrum was obtained without additional constant term arising from the curvature of the D-sphere. Subsequently the Skyrme model was considered to study in this scenario and the energy spectrum was also obtained without extra terms.

To finish this section it is important to exchange some views about the reduction process for the multiplier sector: if it is reduced before or after the constraint conversion leads to distinct realizations of the WZ symmetry. We have verified that the procedure of reduction commutes with the constraint conversion process, leading to results canonically equivalents. This seems to be of importance for the analysis of nonabelian second-class systems as gauge theories where quadratic constraints are intrinsically defined. Finally, it becomes clear that the question regarding the construction of the generators of the WZ gauge symmetry cannot be tackled from this approach, in the sense that there is no plausible argument that favors any of the constraints as the leader of the constraint chain. If this question becomes an important issue for the analysis of the problem at hand then the use of the nonabelian BFFT method or the iterative constraint process seems unavoidable.

Acknowledgements: This work is supported in part by CNPq, CAPES, FINEP and FUJB, Brazilian reasearch agencies.