format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Significant evidence has accumulated in recent years suggesting that in two different regimes, Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays (UHECRs) and multi-TeV photons, the universe is more transparent than what it was expected to be. UHECRs interact with the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) and produce pions. TeV photons interact with the Infra Red (IR) photons and produce electron-positron pairs. These interactions should make observations of UHECRs with $`E>5\times 10^{19}`$eV (the GZK limit)  or of gamma-rays with $`E>20`$TeV from distant sources unlikely . Still UHECRs above the GZK limit and 20TeV photons from Mk 501 are observed.

Numerous solutions have been proposed for the UHECR paradox (see  for a recent review). Most of these solutions require new Physics. There are practically no proposals concerning the TeV-$`\gamma `$ paradox (see however, ). It is striking that there are some common features in these otherwise apparently unrelated paradoxes. In both cases low energy photons interact with high energy particles. The reactions should take place because when Lorentz transformed to the CM frame the low energy photon have sufficient energy to overcome an intrinsic threshold. In both cases the CM energies are rather modest ($`100`$ MeV for UHECRs and $`1`$ MeV for the TeV photons) and the physical processes involved are extremely well understood and measured in the laboratory. In both cases we observe particles above a seemingly robust threshold and the observations can be considered as a “threshold anomaly”. It is remarkable that in spite of these similarities at present there is only one mechanism that could resolve both paradoxes: a mechanism based on the single, however drastic, assumption of a violation of ordinary Lorentz invariance.

The possibility that the cosmic-ray threshold anomaly could be a signal of violation of ordinary Lorentz invariance had already been emphasized in Refs. . In this work we combine these earlier points with the very recent suggestion  that Lorentz-invariance violation could be the origin of the TeV-$`\gamma `$ threshold anomaly. We analyze a general phenomenological framework for the description of the type of Lorentz-invariance deformation (LID) that could be induced by non-trivial short-distance structure of space-time, and we ask whether there are choices of LID parameters that would simultaneously solve the two threshold anomalies while satisfying the constraints imposed by the fact that the results of experimental searches  of energy-dependent relative delays between the times of arrival of simultaneously emitted photons are still consistent with ordinary Lorentz invariance. We obtain, under these assumptions, strict limits on the possible parameter space of LID. The fact that one is at all able to give a quantitative description of both threshold anomalies with a simple two-parameter LID model provides encouragement for the interpretation of the data as a sign of LID; moreover, it is quite remarkable that the values expected from quantum-gravity considerations (most notably the energy scale characterizing the deformation being given by the Planck scale) are in agreement with the strict limits we derive.

We review in Sections 2 and 3 the observational background and the theoretical problems related to the observations of UHECRs (Section 2) and TeV photons (Section 3). In Section 4 we describe a special (two parameter) model for LID and we obtain limits on these two parameters. In Section 5 we describe a more general five-parameter LID formalism and again we constrain the parameter space with the available data. In Section 6 we compare our formalism with the Coleman and Glashow  formalism for Planck-scale-independent Lorentz invariance violations. We summarize our results in section 7. Appendix A is devoted to the $`\kappa `$-Minkowski space-time, which is an example of quantum-gravity motivated space-time that allows a simple illustration of some of the structures here considered.

## 2 UHECRs and the GZK paradox

The high energy cosmic rays (CR) spectrum depicts a clear break at $`5\times 10^{18}`$eV. This break is accompanied by a transition in the CR composition from nuclei to protons. Above this break the spectrum behaves (with a decreasing statistical certainty due to the small number of events) as a single power law $`N(E)E^{2.7}`$ all the way up to $`3.2\times 10^{20}`$eV , the highest energy CR observed so far.

A sufficiently energetic CMBR photon, at the tail of the black body thermal distribution, is seen in the rest frame of an Ultra High Energy (UHE) proton with $`E>5\times 10^{19}`$eV as a $`>140`$MeV photon, above the threshold for pion production. UHE protons should loose energy due to photopion production and should slow down until their energy is below the GZK energy111The exact composition of UHECRs is unknown and it is possible that UHECRs are heavy nuclei rather than protons. In this case such nuclei would undergo photodisintegration when interacting with CMBR photons. The threshold energy for a photodisintegration of a nuclei is several MeV. It just happens to be true, purely as a result of a numerical coincidence, that the threshold is reached when the energy of a typical nuclei, say Fe, is $`5\times 10^{19}`$eV. Thus the GZK paradox is insensitive to the question of what is the exact composition of UHECRs.. The process stops when CMBR photons energetic enough to produce pions are not sufficiently abundant . The proton’s mean free path in the CMBR decreases exponentially with energy (down to a few Mpc) above the GZK limit ($`5\times 10^{19}`$eV). Yet more than 15 CRs have been observed with nominal energies at or above $`10^{20}\pm 30\%`$ eV.

There are no astrophysical sources capable of accelerating particles to such energies within a few tens of Mpc from us (at least not in the direction of the observed UHECRs). Furthermore if the CRs are produced homogeneously in space and time, we would expect a break in the CR spectrum around the GZK threshold: below the threshold we would observe CRs from the whole universe; above the threshold we would observe CRs only from the nearest few Mpc. The corresponding jump by a factor of $`30100`$ in the extrapolated number counts above and below the threshold, is not seen.

Numerous solutions have been proposed to resolve the GZK paradox (see  for a recent review). These solutions include, among others, new physics solutions like the decay of topological defects, weakly interacting messengers like $`S_0`$ or neutrinos with anomalous cross sections at high energies (the ‘Z-burst” model). Conventional astrophysics solutions like acceleration of UHECRs by GRBs or local AGNs require the ad hoc assumption that Earth is located in a not generic place in space-time (we should be nearer than average to a typical source by a factor of 5) as well as very strong intergalactic magnetic fields . Another conventional solution, the acceleration of Fe nuclei by magnetars in the galactic halo, requires a new, otherwise unobserved, population of galactic halo objects. Clearly there is no simple conservative solution to this puzzle.

From the point of view of our LID phenomenology it is important to notice that for a solution of the GZK paradox it would be necessary (and sufficient) for LID to push the threshold energy upwards by a factor of six. In fact, the mean free path of a $`5\times 10^{19}`$eV proton is almost a Gpc, while the highest observed UHECR energy is $`3.2\times 10^{20}`$eV.

## 3 TeV photons from Mk 501 and Mk 421

HEGRA has detected high-energy photons with a spectrum ranging up to 24 TeV  from Markarian 501 (Mk 501), a BL Lac object at a redshift of 0.034 ($`157`$ Mpc). This observation indicates a second paradox of a similar nature. A high energy photon propagating in the intergalactic space can interact with an IR background photon and produce an electron-positron pair if the CM energy is above $`2m_ec^2`$. The maximal wavelength of an IR photon that could create a pair with a 10 TeV photon is 40$`\mu m`$. As the cross section for pair creation peaks at a center of mass energy of about $`3m_ec^2`$, 10 TeV photons are most sensitive to 30$`\mu `$M IR photon and the mean free path of these photons depends on the spectrum of the IR photons at the $`1540\mu `$M range. These wavelengths scale like 10TeV/$`E`$ for different energies.

There have been several attempts to model the IR background resulting from different cosmological evolutionary models . Recently, new data from DIRBE at 2.2$`\mu M`$ , at 60 and 100 $`\mu `$M  and at 140 and 240 $`\mu `$M , and from ISOCOM at 15$`\mu `$M  suggest that the IR background is even higher. According to these data the flux of IR photons is $`2.5\times 10^5`$erg cm-2sec-1sr-1 around 60-120 $`\mu `$M and falls off by an order of magnitude towards 15 $`\mu `$M. This decrease is important as it would lead to a much shorter mean free path for 20TeV photons as compared to the mean free path of 10TeV photons.

It was originally suggested that the expected break, corresponding to hard-photon disappearance in the IR background, in the GeV-to-TeV spectrum of AGNs could be used to determine the IR background spectrum. This would have been based on searches of a distance-dependent break in the spectrum of various AGNs. However, no apparent break is seen in the spectrum of MK 501 at $`20`$TeV range, where the optical depth seems to exceed unity. Using current IR background estimates Coppi and Aharonian  find an optical depth of 5 for 20TeV photons from MK 501 (see also ). This optical depth increases rapidly with energy. Thus, photons at these energies are exponentially suppressed, unless they somehow evade the pair-production process.

Unlike the GZK paradox only a few solutions have been proposed for the TeV-$`\gamma `$ paradox. First, it is possible that there is an upturn in the intrinsic spectrum emitted by Mk 501. Such an upturn would compensate for the exponential suppression at this region. Clearly this is an extremely fine-tuned solution as the expected energy of this upturn should somehow be tuned to the energy at which the optical depth from MK 501 to Earth is unity. This energy scale is distance dependent and it puts us in a very special position relative to the source. It is of course possible that the IR intensity has been overestimated. A shift in the energy estimate of HEGRA would also explain the paradox. Finally Harwit, Protheroe and Biermann  suggest that multiple TeV photons may be emitted coherently by Mk 501 and if they arrive at Earth very close in time and space they may be confused with a single photon event with higher energy.

With current data, $`10`$TeV photons from Mk 501 could reach Earth, while $`20`$TeV photons are exponentially suppressed. This happens mainly because of the rapid fall off of the IR spectrum below 60$`\mu `$m. We conclude that a LID upwards shift of the threshold energy by a factor of two would resolve this paradox.

Having discussed the relevance of Mk 501 for the emergence of the TeV-$`\gamma `$ threshold anomaly we turn now to TeV photons from Mk 421 (another BL Lac object at a redshift of 0.031, corresponding to $`143`$Mpc). It is not clear if the spectrum of this source extends high enough to pose a paradox comparable to the one indicated by Mk 501. However, we note here the simultaneous (within the experimental sensitivity) arrival of 1TeV photons and 2TeV from this source. This was used to limit the time-of-flight differences between photons of different energies to less than 200 seconds. This in turn allowed to establish, through an analysis of the type proposed in Ref. , an upper limit on Planck-scale-induced LID  which will be a key element of our analysis. We call these constraints in the following time-of-flight constraints.

## 4 Lorentz-invariance-violating dispersion relation

We start by considering first, a class of dispersion relations (following  for $`\alpha =1`$, and  for a general $`\alpha `$) which in the high-energy regime takes the form:

$$E^2\stackrel{}{p}^2m^2\eta E^2\left(\frac{E}{E_p}\right)^\alpha \eta \stackrel{}{p}^2\left(\frac{E}{E_p}\right)^\alpha .$$
(1)
$`m`$, $`E`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ denote the mass, the energy and the (3-component) momentum of the particle, $`E_p`$ is the Planck energy scale ($`E_p10^{22}`$MeV), while $`\alpha `$ and $`\eta `$ are free parameters characterizing the deviation from ordinary Lorentz invariance (in particular, $`\alpha `$ specifies how strongly the magnitude of the deformation is suppressed by $`E_p`$). Clearly, in (1) the “speed-of-light constant” $`c`$ has been set to one. (Note however that in this framework $`c`$ is to be understood as the speed of low-energy massless particles .) Also notice that in (1) we wrote the deformation term in two ways, as a $`E^2(E/E_p)^\alpha `$ correction and as a $`p^2(E/E_p)^\alpha `$ correction, which are equivalent within our present analysis based exclusively on high-energy data, for which $`Ep`$, but would be different when studied with respect to low-energy data. (Of course, a given short-distance picture of space-time will have only one dispersion relation; for example, in “$`\kappa `$-Minkowski space-time”, the space-time which we describe in Appendix A in order to illustrate in an explicit framework some of the structures relevant for our analysis, one encounters a deformation of type $`p^2(E/E_p)^\alpha `$.)

In previous works \[31-35,9\] a slightly different notation had been used to describe this same class of deformations, which in particular replaced our $`\eta `$ by two quantities: the scale $`E_{QG}|\eta |^{1/\alpha }E_p`$ and a sign variable $`\xi _\pm \eta /|\eta |`$. The $`\alpha `$,$`\eta `$ notation turns out to be more suitable for the description of the technical aspects of the analysis discussed here, but it is useful to keep in mind that the scale of Lorentz-deformation is obtained as $`|\eta |^{1/\alpha }E_p`$.

As hinted by the presence of the Planck scale, our interest in deformed dispersion relations of type (1) originates from the fact that such deformations have independently emerged in theory work on quantum properties of space-time. We postpone the discussion of this motivation to the next Section, where we also clarify which types of generalizations of (1) could also be motivated by Planck-scale physics.

While our analysis is motivated by the role that the deformed dispersion relation (1) might have in quantum gravity, one could of course consider (1) quite independently of quantum gravity222Having mentioned that of course the deformation (1) could be considered independently of its quantum-gravity motivation, let us also mention in passing that even outside the quantum-gravity literature there is a large amount of work on the theory and phenomenology of violations of Lorentz invariance (see, e.g., the recent Refs. , which also provide a good starting point for a literature search backward in time).. The quantum-gravity intuition would then be seen as a way to develop a theoretical prejudice for plausible values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\eta `$. In particular, corrections going like $`(E/E_p)^\alpha `$ typically emerge in quantum gravity as leading-order pieces of some more complicated analytic structures . This provides, of course, a special motivation for the study of the cases $`\alpha =1`$ and $`\alpha =2`$. \[$`f(E/E_p)1+a_1(E/E_p)^{n_1}+\mathrm{}`$.\] Moreover, the fact that in quantum gravity the scale $`E_{QG}`$ is expected to be somewhere between the GUT scale and the Planck scale corresponds to the expectation that $`\eta `$ should not be far from the range $`1\eta 10^{3\alpha }`$.

### 4.1 Deformed thresholds from deformed dispersion relations

We intend to discuss the implications of Eq. (1) for the evaluation of threshold momenta. Before doing that let us briefly summarize the derivation of the equation describing the threshold in the ordinary Lorentz-invariant case. Relevant for our phenomenological considerations is the process in which the head-on collision between a soft photon of energy $`ϵ`$ and momentum $`q`$ and a high-energy particle of energy $`E_1`$ and momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}_1`$ leads to the production of two particles with energies $`E_2`$,$`E_3`$ and momenta $`\stackrel{}{p}_2`$,$`\stackrel{}{p}_3`$. At threshold (no energy available for transverse momenta), energy conservation and momentum conservation imply

$$E_1+ϵ=E_2+E_3,$$
(2)
$$p_1q=p_2+p_3;$$
(3)
moreover, using the ordinary Lorentz-invariant relation between energy and momentum, one also has the relations

$$q=ϵ,E_i=\sqrt{p_i^2+m_i^2}p_i+\frac{m_i^2}{2p_i},$$
(4)
where $`m_i`$ denotes the mass of the particle with momentum $`p_i`$ and the fact that $`p_1`$ (and, as a consequence, $`p_2`$ and $`p_3`$) is a large momentum has been used to approximate the square root.

The threshold conditions are usually identified by transforming this laboratory-frame relations into CM-frame relations and imposing that the CM energy be equal to $`m_2+m_3`$; however, in preparation for the discussion of deformations of Lorentz invariance it is useful to work fully in the context of the laboratory frame. There the threshold value $`p_{1,th}`$ of the momentum $`p_1`$ can be identified with the requirement that the solutions for $`p_2`$ and $`p_3`$ as a function of $`p_1`$ (with a given value of $`ϵ`$) that follow from Eqs. (2), (3) and (4) should be imaginary for $`p_1<p_{1,th}`$ and should be real for $`p_1p_{1,th}`$. This straightforwardly leads to the threshold equation

$$p_{1,th}\frac{(m_2+m_3)^2m_1^2}{4ϵ}.$$
(5)
This standard Lorentz-invariant analysis is modified  by the deformations codified in (1). The key point is that Eq. (4) should be replaced by

$$ϵ=q+\eta \frac{q^{1+\alpha }}{2E_p^\alpha },E_ip_i+\frac{m_i^2}{2p_i}+\eta \frac{p_i^{1+\alpha }}{2E_p^\alpha }.$$
(6)
Combining (2), (3) and (6) one obtains a deformed equation describing the $`p_1`$-threshold:

$$p_{1,th}\frac{(m_2+m_3)^2m_1^2}{4ϵ}+\eta \frac{p_{1,th}^{2+\alpha }}{4ϵE_p^\alpha }\left(\frac{m_2^{1+\alpha }+m_3^{1+\alpha }}{(m_2+m_3)^{1+\alpha }}1\right).$$
(7)
where we have included only the leading corrections (terms suppressed by both the smallness of $`E_p^1`$ and the smallness of $`ϵ`$ or $`m`$ were neglected).

### 4.2 Phenomenology

Early phenomenological interest in the proposal (1) came from studies based on time-of-flight analyses  of photons associated with gamma-ray bursts or with Mk 421. According to (1) (and assuming that there is no leading-order deformation of the standard relation $`v=dE/dp`$) one would predict  energy-dependent relative delays between the times of arrival of simultaneously emitted massless particles:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{T}=\eta \frac{(\alpha +1)}{2}\frac{E^\alpha E^\alpha }{E_p^\alpha },$$
(8)
where $`T`$ is the (average) overall time of travel of simultaneously emitted massless particles and $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ is the relative delay between the times of arrival of two massless particles of energies $`E`$ and $`E^{}`$. The fact that such time delays have not yet been observed allows us to set bounds on the $`\alpha ,\eta `$ parameter space. In particular, data showing (approximate) simultaneity of arrival of TeV photons from Mk 421 were used  to set the bound $`|\eta |<310^2`$ for $`\alpha =1`$. The same data were used in Ref.  to set a more general $`\alpha `$-dependent bound on $`\eta `$.

We combine these existing bounds with the assumption that indeed the UHECR and TeV-$`\gamma `$ threshold anomalies are due to LID (1). The fact that the scale $`E_p`$ is very high might give the erroneous impression that the new term going like $`p_{1,th}^{2+\alpha }/E_p^\alpha `$ present in Eq. (7) could always be safely neglected, but this is not the case . For given values of $`\alpha ,\eta `$ one finds values of $`ϵ`$ that are low enough for the “threshold anomaly”  (displacement of the threshold) to be significant. For certain combinations $`\alpha ,\eta ,ϵ`$ the threshold completely disappears, i.e. Eq. (7) has no solutions. Assuming (7) one would predict dramatic departures from the ordinary expectations of Lorentz invariance; in particular, if $`\alpha \eta 1`$, according to (7) one would expect that the Universe be transparent to TeV photons. The corresponding result obtainable in the UHECRs context would imply that the GZK cutoff could be violated  even for much smaller negative values of $`\eta `$. Positive values of $`\eta `$ would shift the thresholds in the opposite direction (e.g. they would imply an even stricter limit than the GZK one) and are therefore not consistent with the hypothesis that UHECR and TeV-$`\gamma `$ threshold anomalies be due to LID (1).

In Figure 1 we provide a quantitative description of the region of the $`\alpha ,\eta `$ parameter space which would provide a solution to both the UHECR and TeV-$`\gamma `$ threshold anomalies while satisfying the time-of-flight constraints  that are still consistent with ordinary Lorentz invariance. The curve describing the time-of-flight constraints was obtained using the information that there is  an upper bound of order 200 seconds to the difference in time of arrivals of 2TeV photons and 1TeV photons simultaneously emitted by Mk 421 (at redshift of 0.031). The two threshold-anomaly curves reported in Figure 1 were obtained using Eq. (7) with $`m_1=0`$ and $`m_2=m_3=510^5`$eV (TeV photons $`\gamma +\gamma e^++e^{}`$ threshold analysis) and with $`m_1=m_2=9.410^8`$eV and $`m_3=1.410^8`$eV (UHECR $`p+\gamma p+\pi `$ threshold analysis333The dominant contribution to the GZK cutoff actually comes from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance, so one might find appropriate to replace the sum of the proton mass and the pion mass with the mass of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the UHECR threshold formula. However, the difference between $`m_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`m_p+m_\pi `$ would only introduce a relatively small correction in our UHECR limit which is not our dominant lower limit (a much stricter limit comes from the TeV-$`\gamma `$ anomaly). Moreover, once the contribution to GZK from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is avoided one would still have a (weakened) GZK cutoff from non-resonant photopion production and this would anyway lead to the limit we use.). In light of the analysis of the experimental situation provided in Sections 2 and 3, we obtained the UHECRs curve by requiring sufficient LID to explain the factor-6 threshold shift $`510^{19}`$eV$`310^{20}`$eV, while for the TeV photons curve we required a factor-2 threshold shift $`10`$TeV $`20`$TeV. Even though the shift is more significant in the UHECR context, it is the requirement to explain the TeV-$`\gamma `$ threshold anomaly that provides a more stringent constraint, as one should expect since in our LID, which is motivated by Planck-scale physics, the violation of ordinary Lorentz invariance is suppressed by some power of the ratio $`E/E_p`$.

Considering the diverse origin and nature of the three relevant classes of experimental data that we are considering, the fact that there is a region of the $`\alpha ,\eta `$ parameter space consistent with all these constraints is non-trivial, and this in turn provides encouragement for the interpretation of the threshold anomalies as manifestations of LID. Moreover, it is quite striking that this region of parameter space, in spite of being relatively small, does contain one of the two mentioned quantum-gravity-motivated scenarios: $`\alpha =1`$ and $`1<\eta <10^3`$. The other quantum-gravity-motivated scenario, the one with $`\alpha =2`$ and $`1<\eta <10^6`$, is outside the relevant region of parameter space, being consistent with the absence of relative time delays and the UHECR threshold anomaly but being inconsistent with threshold anomaly for multi-TeV photons.

Concerning the consistency of the interpretation of the threshold anomalies as manifestations of LID it is also important to observe that the modified dispersion relation (1), in spite of affecting so significantly the GZK and TeV-$`\gamma `$ thresholds, does not affect significantly the processes used for the detection of the relevant high-energy particles. For the significance of the threshold modification a key role is played, as evident from equation (7), by the smallness of the energy of the background photons. The effect of (1) on atmospheric interactions of the relevant high-energy particles is instead suppressed by the fact that in these atmospheric interactions the “targets”, nuclei or electrons, have energies much higher than those of the background photons.

## 5 A more general LID formalism

Having shown that the simple two-parameter family of Lorentz-invariance-violating dispersion relations (1) provides a solution of the UHECRs and TeV-$`\gamma `$ threshold paradoxes, we turn now to a more general five-parameter LID formulation. The motivation for this formulation comes primarily from theory work on short-distance (so called, “quantum gravity”) properties of space-time, in which modifications of space-time symmetries are encountered quite naturally. In particular, quantum-gravity effects inducing some level of nonlocality or noncommutativity would affect even the most basic flat-space continuous symmetries, such as Lorentz invariance. This has been recently emphasized in various quantum-gravity approaches \[31-33,39-50\] based on critical or noncritical string theories, noncommutative geometry or canonical quantum gravity. While we must be open to the possibility that some symmetries are completely lost, it appears plausible that some of them are not really lost but rather replaced by a Planck-scale-deformed version. Some mathematical frameworks which could consistently describe such deformations have emerged in the mathematical-physics literature . An example of these structures is discussed in Appendix A.

### 5.1 The five-parameter formalism

The fact that a simple two-parameter family of Lorentz-invariance-violating dispersion relations (1) is consistent with all available data is of course of encouragement for the LID hypothesis, but, especially since relevant data are expected to improve rapidly in the coming years, it is also important to establish how much room for generalizations of (1) is available in the general framework of Planck-scale-induced LID.

One way to generalize (1) would involve attributing different independent values of $`\alpha ,\eta `$ to different particles. We shall not pursue this (however phenomenologically viable) possibility, since the focus of the present article is on deformations of Lorentz symmetry which could be induced by non-trivial space-time structure, and such deformations would most likely treat “democratically” all particles. In any case, it is clear that models attributing different independent values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\eta `$ to each particle end up having a very large number of free parameters and available data will not be very effective in constraining such models. We shall come back to this point in Section 6, where we consider the alternative (Planck-scale independent) Coleman and Glashow  scheme for Lorentz-invariance-violation. In fact, that scheme corresponds to the choice $`\alpha =0`$ and an independent value of $`\eta `$ for each particle.

Another way to generalize the dispersion relation (1) is to include other deformation terms. In a space-time with some non-trivial structure at distances of order $`E_p^1`$ one could expect that probes with energy much smaller than $`E_p`$ should obey a dispersion relation of type:

$$E^2p^2m^2=F(E,p,m;E_p),$$
(9)
where $`F`$ is some general function with units of mass (or energy) squared and such that $`F0`$ for $`E_p\mathrm{}`$. Actually, in studies, such as ours, looking only for the leading correction, one of the arguments of $`F`$ can be suppressed: one makes a subleading error by using $`E^2p^2m^2=0`$ to express one of the variables in $`F`$ in terms of the other variables. One could for example express $`F`$ as a function of $`p`$ and $`m`$ only: $`F(p,m;E_p)`$. Moreover, the fact that we are only looking for the leading correction in the high-energy regime444It is perhaps worth emphasizing that the low-energy expansion of $`F(p,m;E_p)`$ may look quite different from its corresponding high-energy expansion. In the high-energy regime ($`pm`$) the premium is on the leading dependence on $`p`$ while in the low-energy regime ($`pm`$) the leading dependence on $`m`$ is dominant. allows us to approximate $`F`$ with its leading (if any) power dependence on $`E_p`$ and (within a given power dependence on $`E_p`$) leading dependence on $`p`$: $`F(p,m;E_p)\eta p^{2+\alpha \sigma }m^\sigma E_p^\nu `$. In the high-energy regime there is therefore scope for considering the three-parameter family of dispersion relations

$$E^2p^2m^2\eta p^{2+\alpha \sigma }m^\sigma E_p^\alpha ,$$
(10)
where, of course, it is understood that $`m^\sigma =1`$ whenever $`\sigma =0`$, even when $`m=0`$. (The parameter $`\sigma `$ has been introduced to characterize the type of dependence of the deformation term on the mass $`m`$, and therefore in our notation there is the implicit prescription that $`m^\sigma 1`$ in the formally ambiguous combined limit $`\sigma 0`$, $`m0`$.)

Besides the structure of the dispersion relation a LID can also affect the law of sum of momenta. Since our emphasis is here on the phenomenology of LIDs, rather than on their formal/mathematical analysis, we limit our discussion of the motivation for this type of effect to the example of non-commutative geometry (the “$`\kappa `$-Minkowski space-time”) considered in Appendix A. As that example clarifies, it is natural to consider a two-parameter class of modifications of the law of sum of (parallel) momenta $`K_1+K_2K_1+K_2+\delta (K_1K_2)^{(1+\beta )/2}E_p^\beta `$. For our threshold analyses this corresponds to

$$p_1ϵp_1ϵ\delta \frac{(p_1ϵ)^{(1+\beta )/2}}{E_p^\beta }p_1ϵ,p_2+p_3p_2+p_3+\delta \frac{(p_2p_3)^{(1+\beta )/2}}{E_p^\beta }.$$
(11)
Overall we consider a five-parameter space: $`\alpha ,\eta ,\sigma `$ for the dispersion relation and $`\beta ,\delta `$ for the description of possible deformations (11) of the law of addition of momenta. The analysis reported in the preceding Section corresponds of course to the $`\sigma 0`$, $`\delta 0`$ limit of this more general five-parameter ($`\alpha ,\eta ,\sigma ,\beta ,\delta `$) phenomenology.

As appropriate for the present preliminary status of the experimental situation and the fact that the two-parameter phenomenology analyzed in the previous Section turned out to give a fully satisfactory description of the data, we shall only provide here a preliminary and partial exploration of the enlarged five-parameter space. Our exploration of this parameter space will also be more detailed in some directions and less detailed in others. In particular, we shall limit our analysis to two classes of scenarios, one with $`\sigma =0`$ and one with $`\sigma =2,\delta =0`$. This will be sufficient for a qualitative understanding of how different portions of our five-parameter space compare with the present experimental situation.

Retaining the leading corrections in $`E_p^1`$, the threshold analysis in the general five-parameter ($`\alpha ,\eta ,\sigma ,\beta ,\delta `$) LID scenario leads to the threshold equation:555Note that actually the threshold is not necessarily anomalous; in particular, as we already observed in Ref. , when $`\alpha =\beta =1`$, $`\sigma =0`$ and $`\eta =\delta `$ there is a cancellation and the deformed symmetries lead to the same threshold equation obtained with undeformed symmetries.

$`p_{1,th}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(m_2+m_3)^2m_1^2}{4ϵ}}+\eta {\displaystyle \frac{p_{1,th}^{2\sigma }}{4ϵ}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_2^{1+\alpha }+m_3^{1+\alpha }}{(m_2+m_3)^{1+\alpha \sigma }}}m_1^\sigma \right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_{1,th}}{E_p}}\right)^\alpha `$
$`\delta {\displaystyle \frac{p_{1,th}^2}{2ϵ}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{m_2m_3}}{m_2+m_3}}\right)^{1+\beta }\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_{1,th}}{E_p}}\right)^\beta .`$
In the following sections we apply this equation to several specific cases. To simplify the discussion we provide here explicit expressions for the threshold for photopion production:

$`E_{GZK,th}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{7\times 10^{19}\mathrm{eV}}{ϵ/0.001\mathrm{eV}}}[1+\eta 10^{22.210.9\sigma 8.15\alpha }((0.87^{1+\alpha }+0.13^{1+\alpha })1.15^\sigma 1)`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_{GZK,th}}{7\times 10^{19}\mathrm{eV}}}\right)^{2\sigma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_{GZK,th}/7\times 10^{19}\mathrm{eV}}{E_p/10^{19}\mathrm{GeV}}}\right)^\alpha `$
$`\delta 10^{22.18.15\beta }\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_{GZK,th}}{7\times 10^{19}\mathrm{eV}}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_{GZK,th}/7\times 10^{19}\mathrm{eV}}{E_p/10^{19}\mathrm{GeV}}}\right)^\beta ],`$
and for pair creation threshold:

$`E_{\gamma ,th}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{25\mathrm{TeV}}{ϵ/0.01\mathrm{eV}}}[1+\eta 10^{14.87.7\sigma 14.6\alpha }(2^{\sigma \alpha }\delta _{\sigma ,0}^K)\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_{\gamma ,th}}{25\mathrm{T}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}}\right)^{2\sigma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_{\gamma ,th}/25\mathrm{TeV}}{E_p/10^{19}\mathrm{GeV}}}\right)^\alpha `$ (14)
$`\delta 10^{14.814.9\beta }\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_{\gamma ,th}}{25\mathrm{T}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_{\gamma ,th}/25\mathrm{TeV}}{E_p/10^{19}\mathrm{GeV}}}\right)^\beta ],`$
where we found convenient to introduce the “Kronecker delta”, here denoted with $`\delta ^K`$ to differentiate it from our parameter $`\delta `$, to compactly write this equation consistently with our conventions for the $`m_10`$ limit. \[In deriving Eq. (14) from Eq. (5.1) it is necessary to take into account that, consistently with the conventions and notations we introduced (see, in particular, the comments made immediately after Eq. (10)), in the limit $`m_10`$ the term $`m_1^\sigma `$ must be handled according to $`m_1^\sigma 0`$ if $`\sigma 0`$ and according to $`m_1^\sigma 1`$ if $`\sigma =0`$. Of course, the reader can verify by direct calculation that this prescription gives the correct threshold conditions that follow from Eq. (10) in the two cases $`\sigma =0`$ and $`\sigma 0`$, and reproduces the threshold condition (7) obtained in the preceding Section (which was devoted to the case $`\sigma =0,\delta =0`$).\]

### 5.2 Phenomenology with $`\sigma =2,\delta =0`$

In the case $`\sigma =2,\delta =0`$ there is no deformed law of addition of momenta and the threshold equation takes the form

$$p_{1,th}\frac{(m_2+m_3)^2m_1^2}{4ϵ}+\eta \frac{p_{1,th}^\alpha }{4ϵE_p^\alpha }\left(\frac{m_2^{1+\alpha }+m_3^{1+\alpha }}{(m_2+m_3)^{\alpha 1}}m_1^2\right).$$
(15)
For $`\sigma 0`$ the LID term in (10) vanishes for massless particles. Thus, in general in all $`\sigma 0`$ cases (like the one we discuss in this Subsection) the time of flight constraints  do not limit the LID parameters.

The constraints obtainable by interpreting the UHECR and TeV-$`\gamma `$ threshold anomalies as manifestations of LID suggest that this interpretation is quite unnatural in the case $`\sigma =2,\delta =0`$. The condition that both threshold be pushed upwards leads to the constraints $`\eta >0`$, $`\alpha <1.195`$. Moreover, in order to describe the threshold anomaly for multi-TeV photons one should also make the awkward requirement $`\eta >10^{15\alpha }`$. Having provided in the previous section an elegant solution of the threshold paradoxes using $`\sigma =0`$ we do not pursue further this scenario which appears to require a higher level of fine tuning.

Scenarios with $`\sigma 0`$ might regain some interest if there are significant new developments in the understanding of the threshold anomalies that will point in this direction. In the present experimental and theoretical situation we find appropriate to make in the following the assumption that $`\sigma =0`$.

### 5.3 General aspects of the phenomenology with $`\sigma =0`$

For $`\sigma =0`$ one is left with a four-parameter space on which significant information can be gained by combining data on possible time of flight delays, which will only constrain, through the prediction (8), the parameters $`\alpha ,\eta `$, and data on the threshold anomalies, which, through (5.1), are relevant for all four parameters $`\alpha ,\eta ,\beta ,\delta `$.

It is important to observe that positive (discovery) results on both the thresholds and the time delays would allow to determine the values of all four parameters. If eventually the mentioned time delays are actually observed, and if they are observed in signals from a collection of sources diverse enough to allow the determination of the energy dependence of the time delays, we would then be able to use (8) to fix $`\alpha `$ and $`\eta `$. Then, knowing $`\alpha `$ and $`\eta `$, a determination of the thresholds could be used to fix $`\beta `$ and $`\delta `$.

While waiting for these eventual discoveries, one can use the present upper limits on LID in relative time delays and (preliminary evidence of) lower limits on LID in threshold anomalies to reduce the allowed portion of the four-parameter space. We subdivide the discussion of this type of phenomenological analysis in three cases: $`\alpha <\beta `$, $`\alpha =\beta `$ and $`\alpha >\beta `$.

### 5.4 Phenomenology with $`\alpha <\beta `$ (and $`\sigma =0`$)

The case $`\alpha <\beta `$ (and $`\sigma =0`$) is essentially analogous to the case considered in the preceding Section with the two-parameter $`\alpha ,\eta `$ phenomenology. In fact, for $`\alpha <\beta `$ the threshold corrections associated with the deformation of the law of addition of momenta are suppressed by factors of order $`(E/E_p)^{\beta \alpha }`$ with respect to the threshold corrections associated with the deformed dispersion relation. The constraints derived for $`\alpha ,\eta `$ in the preceding Section would still be valid and, as long as we have only lower or upper limits (rather than definite discoveries), no constraint could be put on $`\beta ,\delta `$.

### 5.5 Phenomenology with $`\alpha =\beta `$ (and $`\sigma =0`$)

For $`\alpha =\beta `$ (and $`\sigma =0`$) the upper limit on time-of-flight LID still constrains only $`\alpha ,\eta `$, but the constraints on $`\alpha ,\eta `$ obtainable by interpreting the UHECR and TeV-$`\gamma `$ threshold anomalies as manifestations of LID are weakened by allowing also a deformed law of addition of momenta. In practice the parameters $`\alpha ,\eta `$ and $`\beta ,\delta `$ can in a sense “share the burden” of explaining the threshold anomalies. To illustrate this mechanism we show in Figure 2 the constraints on $`\eta ,\delta `$ that are obtained for $`\alpha =\beta =1`$ (and $`\sigma =0`$).

### 5.6 Phenomenology with $`\alpha >\beta `$ (and $`\sigma =0`$)

For $`\alpha >\beta `$ (and $`\sigma =0`$) the threshold corrections associated with the deformed dispersion relation are suppressed by factors of order $`(E/E_p)^{\alpha \beta }`$ with respect to the threshold corrections associated with the deformation of the law of addition of momenta. Therefore the interpretation of the UHECR and TeV-$`\gamma `$ threshold anomalies as manifestations of LID imposes constraints (lower bounds on LID) on the parameters $`\beta ,\delta `$. As always, the upper limit on time-of-flight LID constrains only $`\alpha ,\eta `$. It is worth noticing that if future data should indicate that there is no LID relative time-delay effect but there are LID threshold anomalies this scenario with $`\alpha >\beta `$ would become favored.

Figure 3 depicts the limits on $`\beta ,\delta `$ that follow, when $`\alpha >\beta `$, from interpreting the UHECR and TeV-$`\gamma `$ threshold anomalies as manifestations of LID. The limits on $`\alpha ,\eta `$ due to the upper limit on time-of-flight LID are still the same as in Figure 1 (but, as just mentioned, the two threshold-anomaly curves in Figure 1 do not apply when $`\alpha >\beta `$).

## 6 Comparison with the Coleman-Glashow scheme

Coleman and Glashow  have recently introduced a different scheme (denoted CG scheme hereafter) for violation of Lorentz invariance. Modifying the elementary particles Lagrangian they suggest a scheme in which there is a different maximum attainable velocity, $`c_a`$, for each particle. The relevant dispersion relations take the form

$$E^2p^2c_a^2=m^2c_a^4,$$
(16)
where the index $`a`$ labels the particle. In the language developed in Sections 4 and 5 these dispersion relations (16) involve two terms, one with $`\alpha =0`$ and $`\sigma =0`$ and the other with $`\alpha =0`$ and $`\sigma =2`$. The particle-dependence of $`c_a`$ could be described by allowing for a different independent value of $`\eta `$ for each fundamental particle. At high energies, in which we are interested, the $`\alpha =0,\sigma =0`$ term dominates and $`\eta _a=c^2c_a^22c(cc_a)`$. The condition $`\alpha =0`$ reflects the fact that the CG scheme is not motivated by Planck-scale physics. The possibility for each particle to get its own independent value of $`\eta `$ reflects the fact that this scheme is not intended as a description of deformations of Lorentz invariance due to non-trivial short-distance space-time structure. (If a deformation of Lorentz symmetry is induced by the structure of space-time we expect that it would affect all particles in the same way. Such a symmetry deformation might allow for a dependence of the correction terms on the mass and the spin of the particle but the parameters of the model should not depend on the mass, spin or other quantum numbers of the particles.)

Using again the language we developed in Sections 4 and 5 one can also give an intuitive characterization of the way in which the CG scheme and the scheme considered here are alternative to one another as strategies for obtaining threshold anomalies. In fact, in that language one could describe undeformed thresholds666The fact that there are no UHECR and TeV-$`\gamma `$ threshold anomalies in our scheme for $`\alpha =0,\sigma =0,\delta =0`$ can be easily derived directly from the corresponding dispersion relation. This is also implicit in Figure 1, which shows that $`|\eta |\mathrm{}`$ as $`\alpha 0`$. Also notice that undeformed thresholds are not only obtained for $`\alpha =0,\sigma =0,\delta =0`$: the thresholds become undeformed also, for example, in the limit $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$ approached keeping $`\sigma =0,\delta =0`$. However the undeformed-threshold point $`\alpha =0,\sigma =0,\delta =0`$ is best suited for a comparison between our scheme and the CG scheme. as associated with $`\alpha =0,\sigma =0,\delta =0`$, independently of the value of $`\eta `$. This corresponds to the fact that in the CG scheme there are of course no threshold anomalies if all $`c_a`$’s take the same value ($`c_a=c\eta /(2c)`$). Threshold anomalies are generated in the CG scheme by deforming the threshold conditions in the direction that corresponds to keeping $`\alpha =0,\sigma =0,\delta =0`$ but allowing different independent values of $`c_a`$ for each fundamental particle. On the contrary, in our scheme the threshold anomalies are obtained by allowing for deviations from $`\alpha =0,\sigma =0,\delta =0`$ while keeping a single (particle-independent) $`\eta `$.

In light of these comments it is not surprising that threshold anomalies within the CG scheme take the characteristic “$`c_ac_b`$” dependence. In particular, as already observed in Ref. , the description of the UHECR threshold anomaly requires (together with conditions on $`c_\mathrm{\Delta }c_p`$) that $`c_\pi c_p>10^{24}`$. ($`c_\pi `$ and $`c_p`$ are the $`c_a`$’s for pions and protons respectively.) We observe that a resolution of the TeV-$`\gamma `$ threshold anomaly within the CG scheme requires the additional condition $`c_ec_\gamma >510^{16}`$. This combines with the absence  of vacuum Cerenkov radiation by electrons with energies up to 500GeV in such a way that $`c_ec_\gamma `$ is bound to $`510^{16}<c_ec_\gamma <510^{13}`$. There is therefore a relatively narrow range of allowed values for $`c_ec_\gamma `$ just like777Note however that, while the TeV-$`\gamma `$ threshold anomaly is used in both, not all the experimental constraints used by the two phenomenological analysis are the same. In particular, the time-of-flight upper bound on LID was not used to establish $`510^{16}<c_ec_\gamma <510^{13}`$. we found in Section 4 a relatively narrow allowed region of the $`\alpha ,\eta `$ parameter space.

One important difference between the two schemes is that in our Planck-scale-motivated LID the allowed region of parameter space is found exactly where quantum-gravity intuition would have sent us searching for new physics, while in the CG scheme values of $`c_ec_\gamma `$ in the range $`510^{16}<c_ec_\gamma <510^{13}`$ do not have any special significance. Another important difference between the two schemes is that while the same $`\alpha ,\eta `$ parameters of our scheme for LID are also constrained by UHECR threshold data, in the CG scheme $`c_ec_\gamma `$ does not play any role in the equation for the UHECR threshold and vice versa. Any future development in the UHECR threshold data would leave $`c_ec_\gamma `$ unaffected. On the contrary, the plausibility of the Planck-scale-motivated LID will be strongly affected by future UHECR threshold data: if the lower limit on the threshold continues to be pushed higher the overall consistency and appeal of the LID model would increase, while the discovery of the threshold not much higher than the present $`310^{20}`$eV lower limit would (unless the TeV-$`\gamma `$ threshold anomaly is eventually understood as a result of systematic errors) rule out the model considered in Section 4.

While the scheme considered here is more tightly constrained by high-energy data (because all high-energy data set constraints to the same few space-time related parameters), the CG scheme is constrained more tightly than ours by low-energy data. The parameters we considered in the present Article, dealing exclusively with the high-energy regime, are practically unconstrained by low-energy data since, as discussed in Section 5, the LID we considered here might emerge in quantum gravity as the leading order in the high-energy expansion of an analytic function whose low-energy expansion looks quite different. On the contrary the CG scheme takes a fixed (energy-independent) value of its parameters $`c_a`$ and therefore high-energy and low-energy data can be combined to obtain stricter limits.

## 7 Summary and outlook

In the present Article we took as working assumption that the UHECR and TeV-$`\gamma `$ threshold anomalies do not have a simple explanation (whereas, especially for the case of TeV photons, it might still be legitimate to explore the possibility that systematic experimental errors be responsible for the paradox, and other solutions exist for the GZK paradox) and we attempted to test the plausibility of a description of the anomalies in terms of a Planck-scale-induced deformation of Lorentz symmetry. The results reported in Section 4 certainly indicate that this description is plausible. Had we not been considering such a dramatic departure from conventional physics, we would have probably gone as far as stating that the LIDs we considered provide a compellingly simple description of the anomalies. We do feel that the results of Section 4, also taking into account that there is no other known common explanation of the two threshold paradoxes, provide motivation for additional theory work on the speculative idea of LID and for additional experimental studies aimed at testing the class of Planck-scale-induced LID here considered.

While presently-available data do not in any way invite one to look beyond the simplest two-parameter LID examined in Section 4, in preparation for future studies, especially the expected improvement of the experimental input, we have developed in Section 5 a general parameterization that may prove useful for future attempts to constrain (even rule out) Planck-scale-induced LID. We have emphasized the fact that Planck-scale-induced LID, since it should reflect the structure of space-time, can be characterized by a small number of parameters. In the high-energy regime we found that a very general description of (the leading effects of) Planck-scale-induced LID only requires five parameters and we described how the determination of a few thresholds together with measurements of the speed of very-high-energy particles could fix all five parameters. While we have considered a very general class of LID, it should be stressed that we postponed to future studies the analysis of an important class of further generalizations of Planck-scale-induced LID : deformation terms involving a dependence on polarization/spin of the particles.

In closing we would also like to emphasize the fact that the experimental data here considered represent an important sign of maturity for the general programme of “Planck-length phenomenology” . Whether or not Planck-scale-induced LID turns out to successfully describe future experimental data, the fact that at present we are confronted with experimental paradoxes whose solution could plausibly involve the Planck length, and that certainly the relevant class of observations will eventually be able to rule out various pictures of the short-distance (possibly quantum) structure of space-time, shows that, contrary to popular folklore, some experimental guidance can be obtained for the search of theories capable of unifying gravitation and quantum mechanics. This confirms the expectations, which were based on analyses of the sensitivity of various classes of experiments , that emerged from the general quantum-gravity studies reported in Refs.  and from analogous studies, primarily focusing on the hypothesis that the unification of gravitation and quantum mechanics should involve non-critical strings, reported in Ref. .

We thank Daniele Fargion and Glennys Farrar for many informative discussions on UHECRs.

## Appendix A: $`\kappa `$-Minkowski space-time

In order to illustrate in an explicit framework some of the structures relevant for our analysis of LID, in this Appendix we give a brief descrition of the “$`\kappa `$-Minkowski” non-commutative space-time, which was developed in Refs. . The simplicity of $`\kappa `$-Minkowski, which is basically an ordinary Minkowski space-time on which however one postulates that the time coordinate does not commute with the space coordinates ($`[x_i,t]x_i/E_p`$), renders it very useful for the purpose of illustrating the new conceptual elements required by space-times with a nontrivial short-distance structure.

A first point that deserves being emphasized is the connection between flat nontrivial space-times and quantum gravity. In quantum gravity one has the general intuition  that ordinary classical commutative space-times should emerge from some more fundamental underlying picture. To very compact (Planckian-energy) probes space-time should look completely different from an ordinary classical space-times. On the contrary probes of very low energy should not be affected in any noticeable way by the nontrivial short-distance structure of space-time. In the intermediate regime (mid-energy probes ) one would expect to be able to use roughly the same language of ordinary classical space-times, but with the necessity to introduce some new concepts (such as the little element of noncommutativity of $`\kappa `$-Minkowski) reflecting the leading-order effects of quantum-gravity at low energies. This hierarchy of regimes is to be expected not only in high-curvature space-times (where classical-gravity effects are stronger), but also in space-times that appear to be trivial and flat to very-low-energies probes. $`\kappa `$-Minkowski is  a model (toy model?) of how a probe of relatively high energy could perceive a space-time that instead appears to be trivially Minkowski to probes of very low energy.

In $`\kappa `$-Minkowski a relation of type (1) can be obtained as a direct consequence of the $`\kappa `$-Poincaré invariance  of this space-time. $`\kappa `$-Minkowski therefore provides an example of the mentioned scenario in which an ordinary symmetry is violated but there is no “net loss of symmetries” (the 10-generator Poincaré symmetry is replaced by the 10-generator $`\kappa `$-Poincaré symmetry). It is in order to capture the essence of these situations that one introduces the terminology “symmetry deformation” (in alternative to “symmetry violation” which could be reserved for cases with a net overall loss of symmetries). In Sections 4 and 5 we denominate our scheme as a LID just to emphasize that the equations we use do not necessarily reflect a loss of symmetry (whether or not they do imply a net loss of symmetry depends on the underlying algebraic structures that lead to those equations in a given space-time picture).

Importantly, consistency with the non-commutative nature of $`\kappa `$-Minkowski space-time also requires  that the law of addition of momenta be accordingly modified. This modification emerges at the level of the $`\kappa `$-Poincaré (Hopf) algebra, and of course requires physical interpretation (particle momenta in a noncommutative space-time are a new concept). A prescription suitable for handling the ambiguities due to the non-commutative nature of $`\kappa `$-Minkowski space-time was given recently in Ref. , and in the cases here of interest, which always involve the sum of parallel momenta of two particles (at threshold particles are produced at rest in the CM frame), it reduces (in leading order in $`E_p^1`$) to the prescription that the sum of momenta $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ can be handled with ordinary algebraic methods upon the replacement $`K_1+K_2K_1+K_2+\delta K_1K_2/E_p`$, where $`\delta `$ is a parameter analogous to $`\eta `$. In the analyses reported in Sections 4 and 5 this would imply $`p_1ϵp_1ϵ\delta p_1ϵ/E_p`$ and $`p_2+p_3p_2+p_3+\delta p_2p_3/E_p`$, and actually, since of course we have been here only interested in the leading $`E_p^1`$ effect and $`ϵp_2p_3p_1`$, one can neglect the term of order $`p_1ϵ/E_p`$ while retaining the term of order $`p_2p_3/E_p`$.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The study of meson-baryon scattering is one of the most challenging topics of particle physics at low and intermediate energies. Firstly, because there exist accurate experimental data and secondly because it provides an excellent scenario where Chiral Symmetry Breaking (ChSB) can be tested. Unlike the light pseudo-scalar meson–meson scattering, the role played by ChSB in the pseudo-scalar meson–baryon scattering case turns out to be more subtle and the construction of an Effective Field Theory (EFT) to describe the latter processes becomes more cumbersome. In the light meson–meson sector the expansion parameter is $`p^2/(4\pi f)^2`$, being $`p^\mu `$ the four-momentum of the Goldstone bosons  and $`f`$ the corresponding meson weak decay constant. Since the baryon mass is already of the order of $`4\pi f`$, such an expansion does not work in practice for the meson–baryon sector, though some efforts were undertaken . This drawback was overcome by formulating a new consistent derivative expansion for baryons in a chiral effective field theory , called Heavy Baryon Chiral Perturbation Theory (HBChPT). HBChPT is a reformulation of Chiral Perturbation Theory (ChPT) with baryons where the baryon mass is shifted from the propagator to the interaction couplings of the EFT 333This program was firstly suggested, consistently formulated and experimentally tested in the case of heavy quark ($`Q=`$ $`b`$, $`c`$) physics .. In this way higher orders are suppressed either by powers of $`p^2/(4\pi f)^2`$ or by powers of $`p/M`$, where $`M`$ is the baryon mass and $`p`$ is either the light pseudo-scalar meson mass or the off-shellness of the baryon, respectively. Recently, a fully relativistic formulation consistent with the power counting proposed in HBChPT has been proposed , but there is so far a lack of practical applications.

Standard HBChPT has been applied to the $`\pi N`$ system several times already in subsequently higher orders  and successful fits in the close to threshold region have been found. On the other hand HBChPT, as it is also the case for ChPT in the meson sector, is unable to describe resonances, which clearly indicate the appearance of non-perturbative chiral dynamics. Resonances, play a crucial role in meson-baryon systems. For instance, the low and intermediate energy $`\pi N`$ scattering is mostly dominated by the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ resonance, since it is close to threshold and its coupling to pions and nucleons turns out to be quite strong . Hence, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ degrees of freedom are often explicitly incorporated in any effective approach aiming at describing low and intermediate energy pion-nucleon dynamics to some degree of accuracy -.

Exact Unitarity plays a crucial role in the description of resonances, since at the corresponding energy the scattering amplitude takes its maximum possible value. HBChPT only restores unitarity perturbatively and hence even the computation of phase-shifts becomes ambiguous beyond perturbation theory. Actually, in previous works the unitarization program of HBChPT for the lowest $`S`$ and $`P`$ partial wave amplitudes obtained in has already been studied up to third order in the chiral expansion, by using the Inverse Amplitude Method (IAM) either in its most straightforward version  or within an improved IAM 444The literature on unitarization methods is vast. References in the present context can be traced from Ref. .. We note here that since the unitarity correction takes first place at NNLO in HBChPT one needs to go to that order in order to unitarize à la IAM.

The aim of the present work is to show how a unitarization framework based on the Bethe-Salpeter Equation (BSE)  and HBChPT to lowest order yields to a very simple expression for the scattering amplitude which preserves unitarity and provides a satisfactory description of $`\pi N`$ elastic scattering data. Our work can be regarded as a natural extension of the approach previously proposed in Refs.  and  for $`\pi \pi `$ scattering to the physics of the $`\pi N`$ system.

We have concentrated our attention into the $`P_{33}`$ ($`L_{2I2J}`$) channel, and show that the existence of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance can be understood in terms of the $`\pi N`$ interactions constrained to HBChPT. Hence there is no particular need to include the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-degrees of freedom explicitly in order to provide a successful description of the experimentally observed phase-shifts. The extension to other partial waves as well as higher order contributions in HBChPT will be analyzed and presented elsewhere .

## 2 The Bethe-Salpeter Equation and the Elastic $`P_{33}`$ $`\pi N`$ Amplitude in HBChPT.

The BSE for the elastic $`\pi N`$ scattering amplitude ($`T^I`$) in a given isospin channel ,$`I`$, reads

$`t_P^I(q,q^{})`$ $`=`$ $`v_P^I(q,q^{})+\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}t_P^I(k,q^{})D(k)S(Pk)v_P^I(q,k)}`$ (1)
with

$`T_P^I(q,q^{})_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}_\sigma ^{}(Pq^{})t_P^I(q,q^{})u_\sigma (Pq)`$
$`V_P^I(q,q^{})_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}_\sigma ^{}(Pq^{})v_P^I(q,q^{})u_\sigma (Pq)`$ (2)
where the kinematical variables are given in Fig. 1 and $`V^I`$, $`D`$ and $`S`$ are the two particle irreducible amputated Green function, pion and nucleon propagators respectively. $`t^I`$, $`v^I`$ and $`u`$ are matrices and a spinor 555We use the normalization $`\overline{u}u=2M`$. in the nucleon Dirac space and finally, $`\sigma ,\sigma ^{}`$ are nucleon spin indices (helicity, covariant spin, etc…). The normalization of the amplitude $`T^I`$ is determined by its relation with the center or mass (CM) differential cross section, in the isospin channel $`I`$, and it is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}(\stackrel{}{q^{}},\sigma ^{}\stackrel{}{q},\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64\pi ^2s}}\left|T_P^I(q,q^{})_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}\right|^2`$ (3)
where $`s=P^2`$. Rotational, parity and time reversal invariances ensures for the on shell particles

$`T_P^I(q,q^{})_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}=8\pi \sqrt{s}\left\{𝒜^I(s,\theta )\delta _{\sigma \sigma ^{}}+\mathrm{i}^I(s,\theta )\left(\widehat{n}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\right)_{\sigma ^{}\sigma }\right\}`$ (4)
with $`\theta `$ the CM angle between the initial and final pion three momentum and $`\widehat{n}`$ a unit three-vector orthogonal to $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{q^{}}`$. Partial waves, $`f_{IL}^J(s)`$, are related to $`𝒜,`$ by

$`𝒜^I(s,\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{L}{}}\left[(L+1)f_{IL}^{L+\frac{1}{2}}(s)+Lf_{IL}^{L\frac{1}{2}}(s)\right]P_L(\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$
$`^I(s,\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{L}{}}\left[f_{IL}^{L+\frac{1}{2}}(s)f_{IL}^{L\frac{1}{2}}(s)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{dP_L(\mathrm{cos}\theta )}{d\theta }}`$ (5)
The phase of the amplitude $`T^I`$ is such that the relation between the partial wave amplitudes and phase-shifts is the usual one, $`f_{IL}^J(s)=e^{\mathrm{i}\delta _{IL}^J(s)}\mathrm{sin}\delta _{IL}^J(s)/|\stackrel{}{q}|_{CM}`$. Hence, on-shell unitarity implies for $`s(m+M)^2`$

$$\mathrm{Im}[f_{IL}^J(s)]^1=|\stackrel{}{q}|_{CM}=\frac{\lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}}(s,M^2,m^2)}{2\sqrt{s}}$$
(6)
with $`M=938.27`$ MeV, $`m=139.57`$ MeV, the nucleon and pion masses respectively, and $`\lambda (x,y,z)=x^2+y^2+z^22xy2xz2yz`$.

Note that, to solve Eq. (1) both the off-shell potential and amplitude are required. Clearly, for the exact potential $`V^I`$ and propagators $`D`$ and $`S`$, the BSE provides an exact solution of the scattering amplitude $`T^I`$ . Obviously an exact solution for $`T^I`$ is not accessible, since $`V^I`$, $`D`$ and $`S`$ are not exactly known. We propose an expansion along the lines of HBChPT both for the exact potential ($`V^I`$) and the exact propagators.

The lowest order of the HBChPT expansion in the $`P_{33}`$ channel leads to

$`V_P^{I=\frac{3}{2}}(q,q^{})_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}`$ $``$ $`V_P^{I=\frac{3}{2}}(q,q^{})_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}|_{\mathrm{crossed}}+V_P^{I=\frac{3}{2}}(q,q^{})_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}|_{\mathrm{contact}}`$
$`V_P^{I=\frac{3}{2}}(q,q^{})_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}|_{\mathrm{crossed}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{f}}\right)^2\overline{u}_\sigma ^{}(Mv+p^{}){\displaystyle \frac{SqSq^{}}{v(pq^{})+\mathrm{i}ϵ}}u_\sigma (Mv+p)`$
$`V_P^{I=\frac{3}{2}}(q,q^{})_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}|_{\mathrm{contact}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4f^2}}\overline{u}_\sigma ^{}(Mv+p^{})(vq+vq^{})u_\sigma (Mv+p)`$
$`D(k)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2m^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ}}S(p){\displaystyle \frac{1}{vp+\mathrm{i}ϵ}}`$ (7)
where the velocity $`v`$ is a time-like unit four-vector, in terms of which the nucleon momenta can be written as $`Pq(^{})=Mv+p(^{})`$ with $`vp(^{})<<M`$. The EFT can be written in terms of nucleon fields $`N_v(x)`$ with a definite velocity $`v^\mu `$ which are related to the original nucleon fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ by $`N_v(x)=e^{\mathrm{i}M\overline{)}vvx}\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$. On the other hand, $`S_\mu =\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\gamma _5\sigma _{\mu \nu }v^\nu `$ is defined in terms of the velocity and the Dirac matrices666The following properties are satisfied
$$Sv=0S^2=\frac{3}{4}\{S_\mu ,S_\nu \}=\frac{1}{2}\left(g_{\mu \nu }v_\mu v_\nu \right)[S_\mu ,S_\nu ]=\mathrm{i}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \alpha }v^\rho S^\alpha $$
(8)  with $`ϵ_{0123}=+1`$ .. Finally, $`f=92.4`$ MeV and $`g_A=1.26`$ are the pion weak decay constant and the vector axial coupling, respectively. Note that because of isospin conservation, the direct Born term does not contribute to the $`I=\frac{3}{2}`$ potential. Likewise due to angular momentum conservation the contact term does not contribute either to the $`P_{33}`$ $`\pi N`$ scattering and we will ignore it from now on. Thus at lowest order, the BSE (Eq. (1)) for the $`P_{33}`$ channel reads:

$`t_P^{I=\frac{3}{2}}(q,q^{})`$ $`=`$ $`2\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{f}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{SqSq^{}}{v(pq^{})+\mathrm{i}ϵ}}+2\mathrm{i}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{f}}\right)^2{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}t_P^{I=\frac{3}{2}}(k,q^{})\times `$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2m^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{vPMvk+\mathrm{i}ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{SqSk}{vPMv(k+q)+\mathrm{i}ϵ}}`$
We look for solutions to the above equation, suggested by a one-loop calculation, of the form

$`t_P^{I=\frac{3}{2}}(q,q^{})`$ $`=`$ $`A(vq,vq^{})SqSq^{}+B(vq,vq^{})Sq^{}Sq`$ (10)
where $`A,B`$ are functions of two variables to be determined. Note that, as a simple one loop calculation shows, there appears a new dependence ($`Sq^{}Sq`$) not present in the lowest order potential $`V^{I=\frac{3}{2}}`$. That is similar to what happens in standard HBChPT . The Eq. (9) determines the functions $`A,B`$, which turn out to satisfy the following integral equations

$`A(vq,vq^{})`$ $`=`$ $`2\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{f}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{vPMv(q+q^{})+\mathrm{i}ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{f}}\right)^2\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{k^2(vk)^2}{k^2m^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ}}`$ (11)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{vPMvk+\mathrm{i}ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{A(vk,vq^{})}{vPMv(k+q)+\mathrm{i}ϵ}}`$
$`B(vq,vq^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{f}}\right)^2\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{k^2(vk)^2}{k^2m^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ}\frac{1}{vPMvk+\mathrm{i}ϵ}}`$ (12)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A(vk,vq^{})B(vk,vq^{})}{vPMv(k+q)+\mathrm{i}ϵ}}`$
The above set of linearly coupled integral equations needs to be regularized, solved and renormalized. This program is highly non-trivial, and hence to draw solutions to these equations we will make use of the analytical structure of the involved functions.

## 3 Elastic Unitarity and On-Shell Dispersion Relations.

For on-shell scattering and at leading order in the $`1/M`$ expansion, implicit in HBChPT formalism, LAB and CM systems coincide. Then, choosing $`v^\mu =(1,\stackrel{}{0})`$ and taking into account that in the infinitely heavy nucleon limit $`vq=vq^{}=vPM=\sqrt{m^2+\stackrel{}{q}_{CM}^2}=(sM^2+m^2)/2\sqrt{s}\omega `$, the pion energy, we find

$$f_{3/2,1}^{3/2}(\omega )=\frac{1}{24\pi }(\omega ^2m^2)A(\omega )$$
(13)
where $`A(\omega )A(\omega ,\omega )`$ for on-shell scattering. The function $`B`$ enters in the $`P_{31}`$ pion-nucleon scattering amplitude, and we will discuss it elsewhere . Elastic unitarity, Eq. (6), applied to the function $`A(\omega )`$ requires for $`\omega >m`$

$$\mathrm{Im}A^1(\omega )=\frac{1}{24\pi }(\omega ^2m^2)^{\frac{3}{2}}$$
(14)
From Eq. (11), the on-shell function $`A(\omega )`$ satisfies, for $`\omega >m`$,

$`A(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`2\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{f}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{f}}\right)^2\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{k^2(vk)^2}{k^2m^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ}}`$ (15)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega vk+\mathrm{i}ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{A(vk,\omega )}{vk\mathrm{i}ϵ}}`$
The function $`A(\omega )`$ above develops an imaginary part from two difference sources: the elastic channel and the inelastic channel corresponding to $`\pi N\pi \pi N`$ process, as can be seen in Fig. (2). To obtain, Eq. (14) we have completely neglected all possible in-elasticities. We are going to proof that the solution of the Eq. (15) automatically satisfies the elastic unitarity condition, given in Eq. (14), provided the pion energy, $`\omega `$, is such that we are below the two pion threshold or, equivalently, if the latter contribution to $`\mathrm{Im}A(\omega )`$ is neglected. This can be easily seen by standard operator methods by writing Eq. (11) in an operator form

$`A(\omega ,\omega ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`U(\omega ,\omega ^{})+{\displaystyle 𝑑\nu U(\omega ,\nu )G(\nu )A(\nu ,\omega ^{})}`$ (16)
with an obvious identification of the kernel $`U`$ and $`G(\nu )`$ given by

$`G(\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{k^2(vk)^2}{k^2m^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ}\frac{1}{\alpha vk+\mathrm{i}ϵ}\delta (\nu vk)}`$ (17)
with $`\alpha =vPM`$. If the inelastic $`\pi N\pi \pi N`$ channel is not considered, the potential $`U(\omega ,\omega ^{})`$ can be considered to be real, so that the corresponding i$`ϵ`$ can be ignored. Thus, one gets

$`A(\omega ,\omega ^{})A^{}(\omega ^{},\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\nu A^{}(\omega ^{},\nu )\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{iIm}G(\nu )A(\omega ,\nu )}`$ (18)
By direct application of Cutkosky’s rules, we get from Eq. (17)

$`2\mathrm{i}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}G(\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\left[k^2(vk)^2\right](2\mathrm{i}\pi )^2\delta ^+(k^2m^2)\delta (\alpha vk)\delta (\nu vk)}`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(m^2\alpha ^2)\delta (\alpha \nu )2\mathrm{i}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}J_0(\alpha )`$
where $`\delta ^+(k^2m^2)=\theta (k^0)\delta (k^2m^2)`$ and the one-loop function

$`J_0(\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{k^2m^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ}\frac{1}{\alpha vk+\mathrm{i}ϵ}}`$ (20)
has been defined. It is linearly divergent and hence two subtractions are needed to make it convergent ,

$`J_0(\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`K_0+K_1\alpha +\overline{J}_0(\alpha )`$ (21)
$`\overline{J}_0(\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\alpha ^2m^2}}{4\pi ^2}}\{\mathrm{arcosh}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{m}}\mathrm{i}\pi \};\alpha >m`$ (22)
where $`K_0`$ and $`K_1`$ are related to the divergent constants $`J_0(0)`$ and $`J_0^{}(0)`$. Finally, in the infinite nucleon mass limit, $`\omega =\omega ^{}=\alpha `$, and Eq.(18) reduces to the unitarity condition of Eq.(14).

An exact solution of the BSE (15) contains both elastic and two pion inelastic contributions, even though Eq. (15) constitutes a lowest order approximation. This feature makes a practical solution of that equation very difficult, mainly due to the non-locality in the momentum variable of the exchanged nucleon. On the other hand, we have seen that the solution of Eq. (15) exactly satisfies the unitarity condition of Eq.(14) when in-elasticities are neglected. Besides, the inelastic contributions start at $`𝒪(1/f^4)`$, but they are not complete because terms of the same order have not even been included in the iterated potential and propagator (vertex correction and self-energy insertion). Thus, we propose to solve the BSE (15) in the limit in which the inelastic $`\pi N\pi \pi N`$ channel does not contribute to the imaginary part of $`A(\omega )`$, although this channel may contribute to the real part of $`A(\omega )`$ as a subthreshold effect. To do that, we make use of the analytical structure of $`A^1(\omega )`$ in the complex $`\omega `$ plane implied by the BSE to the lowest order considered. Once that the two pion channel contribution to $`\mathrm{Im}A(\omega )`$ is neglected, $`A^1(\omega )`$ only has a right hand cut, with branch points in $`\omega =m`$ and infinity , and a discontinuity through the cut determined by Eq. (14),

$$A^1(\omega +\mathrm{i}ϵ)A^1(\omega \mathrm{i}ϵ)=2\mathrm{i}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}A(\omega +\mathrm{i}ϵ)=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{12\pi }(\omega ^2m^2)^{\frac{3}{2}}$$
(23)
On the other hand $`A^1(\omega )`$ is not expected to have poles which would correspond to zeros777Note that the kinematical zero at $`\omega =m`$ has been factorized out of $`A(\omega )`$ and thus of the cross section. Under these circumstances and as demanded by the asymtotic behaviour deduced from Eq. (23), , a four-times subtracted dispersion relation for $`A^1(\omega )`$ is needed, which then reads888Note that, in this case, $`A^1(\omega )`$ and $`(\omega ^2m^2)J_0(\omega )/6`$ have the same analytical structure, and therefore they can only differ by a polynomial in $`\omega `$. for $`\omega >m`$:

$`A^1(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f^2\omega }{2g_A^2}}+P(\omega )+(\omega ^2m^2)\overline{J}_0(\omega )/6`$
$`P(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`m^3\left(c_0+c_1({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{m}}1)+c_2({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{m}}1)^2+c_3({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{m}}1)^3\right)`$ (24)
The coefficients $`c_i`$ might be expanded in powers of $`1/f^2`$. In the former equation we have explicitly separated the lowest Born term ($`\omega f^2/2g_A^2`$) which only affects to the linear coefficient in $`\omega `$. Thus, we have $`c_{0,1,2,3}=𝒪(1)`$ in the infinite nucleon mass limit. We would like to make a few remarks:

* The structure of the solution, Eq. (24), of Eq. (15), agrees with the findings of Ref. , where it was shown that in the case of ChPT in the meson-meson sector, to get the on-shell amplitude, the off-shellness of the BSE could be ignored, as long as a renormalized potential is iterated. With this philosophy in mind, Eq. (15) becomes

$`A^1(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`H(\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{\omega f^2}{2g_A^2}}`$
$`H(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{k^2(vk)^2}{k^2m^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ}\frac{1}{\omega vk+\mathrm{i}ϵ}}`$ (25)
The divergent Integral $`H(\omega )`$ is related to $`J_0(\omega )`$, $`H(\omega )=(\omega ^2m^2)J_0(\omega )/6+P_1(\omega )`$, with $`P_1(\omega )`$ a polynomial in the variable $`\omega `$ of degree one. The above equation, is equivalent to Eq. (24). Note, that in this approximation, the nucleon propagator which enters in the iterated potential, see Eq. (7), has been taken out of the integral and hence it can never be put on the mass-shell. This is the reason why the approximate solution given in Eq. (25) does not contain the inelastic channel $`N\pi \pi `$ contribution (see Fig. 2) and thus it can coincide with the solution of Eq. (24), based only on the elastic unitarity requirement.
* If one is going to neglect explicitly the inelastic channel, then only the nucleon propagator $`1/(\omega vk+\mathrm{i}ϵ)`$ contributes to the elastic cut. This suggests to make a Taylor expansion around $`\omega `$ in the integral of Eq. (15), it is to say

$`{\displaystyle \frac{k^2(vk)^2}{k^2m^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{A(vk,\omega )}{vk\mathrm{i}ϵ}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k^2\omega ^2}{k^2m^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{A(\omega )}{\omega }}+𝒪(vk\omega )`$ (26)
The leading order of this expansion yields again to Eq. (24).

## 4 Numerical Results

To prove the usefulness of our main result, Eq. (24), we perform a direct $`\chi ^2`$ fit to the experimental phase shift in the $`P_{33}`$ channel  from threshold up to $`\sqrt{s}=`$1500 MeV. We have assigned a 3% uncertainty to the phase shift as in  plus a systematic error of one degree to the data (similar treatments are followed in  and ).

The $`\chi ^2`$ fit yields the following numerical values for the parameters:

$`c_0=0.045\pm 0.021`$ $`c_1=0.29\pm 0.08`$
$`c_2=0.17\pm 0.09`$ $`c_3=0.16\pm 0.03,`$ (27)
with $`\chi ^2/\mathrm{d}.\mathrm{o}.\mathrm{f}.=0.2`$. The description of the data from threshold to the region well above the resonance is pretty good as can be clearly seen in Fig. 3 (upper solid line).

On the other hand, the above coefficients can also be obtained from the $`𝒪(1/f^4)`$ HBChPT pieces obtained in Refs.  and . Matching the BSE scattering amplitude to that obtained in either of the above references, and in the infinite nucleon mass limit, we find

$`P(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6\pi m^2\omega ^2}{(\omega ^2m^2)g_A^4}}\times \left(mt^{(3,3)}4\pi \overline{J}_0(\omega )[t^{(1,1)}]^2\right)|_{\mathrm{Pol}.\mathrm{of}\mathrm{degree}3\mathrm{in}(\omega m)}`$ (28)
where the dimensionless amplitudes $`t^{(3,3)}`$ and $`t^{(1,1)}`$ are defined in Ref. . They depend only on $`\omega /m`$, $`g_A`$ and the Low Energy Constants (LEC’s):$`\stackrel{~}{b}_1+\stackrel{~}{b}_2`$, $`b_{16}\stackrel{~}{b}_{15}`$ and $`b_{19}`$ in the notation of Ref. . The right hand side in Eq. (28) is not a polynomial by itself, because it contains chiral logs stemming from the left hand cut, and it has to be Taylor expanded around $`\omega =m`$ to comply with the polynomial structure of Eq. (24).

Using the values obtained in Ref.  for the LEC’s and translated into the notation of  as shown in Table I of Ref.  (Set II entry) we find after Montecarlo propagation of errors, the lower solid and dash–dotted lines in Fig. 3 and estimates for the coefficients $`c_{0,1,2,3}`$

$`c_0^{\mathrm{th}}=0.001\pm 0.003`$ $`c_1^{\mathrm{th}}=0.038\pm 0.006`$
$`c_2^{\mathrm{th}}=0.064\pm 0.005`$ $`c_3^{\mathrm{th}}=0.036\pm 0.002`$ (29)
Obviously, the structure of the Eq. (24) which ensures exact elastic unitarity, allows for a satisfactory fit to data, as long as the contributions coming from two pion production are small and the left-hand-cut contribution can be modeled, in the scattering region, by a polynomial of the third degree in the variable $`\omega m`$.

In the extreme static approximation, the HBChPT estimate of the polynomial $`P(\omega )`$ provides the bulk of the resonant shape, although it is far from describing accurately the data. Similar conclusions, within the IAM scheme, were reached in Ref. . There also, it was shown that the $`1/Mf^2`$ corrections (NLO in the chiral expansion) are extremely important. This might explain the big discrepancies between the set of parameters of Eqs. (27) and (29). Results in Eq. (27) are obtained from a best fit to data and effectively incorporate, buried in the fitted parameters, all higher order corrections, in particular the above mentioned $`1/Mf^2`$ pieces.

## 5 Conclusions

In this paper we have dealt with the study of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ resonance as it arises in $`\pi N`$ scattering in the $`P_{33}`$ channel. We have used HBChPT as a perturbative guide to implement in a sensible way the constraints imposed by chiral symmetry. The Bethe-Salpeter equation provides, in addition, a workable scheme where unitarity is exactly restored up to the level imposed by the corresponding kernel and, moreover, allows for an identification of the infinite set of diagrams being summed up. In the case of $`\pi N`$ scattering in the $`P_{33}`$ channel we have used HBChPT to lowest order as input. The BSE is able, out of its divergence structure, to generate some of the higher order counter-terms required in standard HBChPT in the form of subtraction constants for the divergent integrals. Actually, our BSE amplitude admits a very good fit to the experimental phase shifts in terms of four subtraction constants. Nevertheless, their fitted values differ, at least within estimated errors, from those deduced from HBChPT. The discrepancy may be understood because the NLO ($`1/Mf^2`$) contributions are comparable to the LO ($`1/f^2`$) ones, and hence the matching procedure of the BSE solution to standard HBChPT amplitudes induces large numerical corrections. This situation is not new and was already encountered in previous studies based on the IAM  which require a similar matching procedure of unitarized amplitudes to the standard ones of HBChPT. As we see, however, the amount of work required to describe the $`\pi N`$ scattering data within the BSE, and in particular, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ resonance is drastically smaller than that needed for the IAM. In addition, as we pointed out in Ref.  for the meson-meson problem, one can search for systematic improvement and convergence in a BSE framework. A full study of the $`\pi N`$ system along these lines is left for future research .

## Acknowledgments

This research was supported by DGES PB98–1367 and by the Junta de Andalucía FQM0225.


text:
# Conformal Field Theory Correlators From sine-Gordon Model on AdS Spacetime # e-mail:sshfeng@yahoo.com; ssfeng@ustc.edu.cn

## 1 Introduction

The well-known Maldacena conjecture proposed two years ago brought to the string theory a revolution: it unravels a relation between Yang-Mills theory and string theory and thus sheds light on the final unification of all interactions. Although the original conjecture referred to the type-IIB string theory on AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times S^5`$ and the $`𝒩=4,d=3+1`$U(N) super-Yang-Mills theory, it seems valid in general: a quantum field theory in the bulk of d+1 dimensional anti-de Sitter spacetime (AdSd+1) with some boundary conditions corresponds to a conformal field theory(CFT) on the boundary. Though an exact proof of the conjecture is still lacking, its validity can be confirmed by a number of tests-. The mathematical scheme of the correspondence was formulated explicitly by Witten  and independently by Polyakov et al . For a scalar field $`\varphi `$ in AdSd+1, it is

$$Z_{\mathrm{AdS}}[\varphi _0]=_{\varphi _0}𝒟\varphi \mathrm{exp}(I[\varphi ])Z_{\mathrm{CFT}}[\varphi _0]=<\mathrm{exp}(_\mathrm{\Omega }d^dx𝒪\varphi _0)>$$
(1)
The path-integral on the l.h.s. is calculated under the restriction that the field $`\varphi `$ approaches to $`\varphi _0`$ on the boundary. The correspondence says that this path-integral is to be identified with the r.h.s. which is the partition of a CFT on the boundary with $`\varphi _0`$ playing the role of a current coupled to a conformal operator $`𝒪`$. The r.h.s. thus enables us to calculate the correlators of $`𝒪`$ of the CFT on the boundary. Since the conformal invariance determines the 2- and 3-point functions, the nontrivial ones are the cases for $`n3`$. ( So far, the correspondence (1) is still a kind of guesswork which is only more explicit than the original Maldacena’s statement. There must be some field-theoretic reason behind. One may regard (1) as the dilaton sector of the type-IIB string theory and corresponding CFT is the corresponding sector of the full super-Yang-Mills theory.)
The free $`\varphi `$-theory was considered in  and the general interacting cases were studied in . Yet a careful investigation shows that the consideration of  is not enough for the case of the sine-Gordon(sG) theory. This is the very purpose of the present paper. The action of the sG theory in AdS spacetime is

$$I[\varphi ]=_\mathrm{\Omega }d^{d+1}x\sqrt{g}[\frac{1}{2}(\varphi )^2\frac{m^2}{\beta ^2}(\mathrm{cos}\beta \varphi 1)]$$
(2)
The classical equation of motion reads

$$^2\varphi \frac{m^2}{\beta }\mathrm{sin}\beta \varphi =0$$
(3)
or

$$^2\varphi m^2\varphi =m^2(\frac{1}{\beta }\mathrm{sin}\beta \varphi \varphi )J(\varphi )$$
(4)
The free field case is a limit of $`\beta 0`$. If we write

$$\frac{m^2}{\beta ^2}(1\mathrm{cos}\beta \varphi )=\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi ^2+\underset{n3}{}\frac{\lambda _n}{n!}\varphi ^n$$
(5)
we have

$$\lambda _{2n+1}=0,\lambda _{2n}=(1)^{2n}m^2\beta ^{2(n1)}$$
(6)
Eq(4) can also be cast into the form

$$(^2m^2)\varphi =\underset{n3}{}\frac{\lambda _n}{(n1)!}\varphi ^{n1}$$
(7)
as the eq(3) in . The difference is that here there is only one parameter:$`\beta `$. As usual, the dominant contribution to the path-integral in the l.h.s. of (1) comes from the classical path satisfying the equation of motion (3). So as an approximation, we are for the moment interested in the classical solution to (3) with a given Dirichlet boundary condition $`\varphi (x_0,𝐱)_\mathrm{\Omega }=\varphi _0`$. We would like to emphasize that the nonlinearity of the equation of motion renders it to have possibly more than one solutions to the Dirichlet problem. It is a nontrivial problem whether different solutions lead to the same correlators of the boundary CFT. Using the covariant Green’s function satisfying

$$(^2m^2)G(x,y)=\frac{\delta (xy)}{\sqrt{g(x)}}$$
(8)
and the boundary condition $`G(x,y)_{x\mathrm{\Omega }}=0`$. The classical equation of motion can be expressed equivalently as

$$\varphi (x)=_\mathrm{\Omega }d^d𝐲\sqrt{h}n^\mu \frac{}{y^\mu }G(x,y)\varphi (y)+_\mathrm{\Omega }d^{d+1}y\sqrt{g(y)}G(x,y)\underset{n3}{}\frac{\lambda _n}{(n1)!}\varphi ^{n1}$$
(9)
This integral equation can be employed to obtain approximate solutions by recursion.
In section 2 we give a review of the study of free $`\varphi `$ case while presenting a detailed derivation of the connection of the result in and that in  of the $`ϵ`$-boundary problem. In section 3 we study the case for sG theory.

## 2 The free-$`\varphi `$ case: a review

We use the representation of AdSd+1 as the upper half-space($`x_0>0`$) with the metric

$$ds^2=\frac{1}{x_0^2}\underset{i=0}{\overset{d}{}}dx_i^2$$
(10)
The scalar curvature $`R=d(d+1)`$. The boundary of AdS is identified with $`x=0`$ and the single point $`x_0=\mathrm{}`$. The solution of the classical equation of motion

$$(^2m^2)\varphi =[x_0^2\underset{i=0}{\overset{d}{}}_i^2x_0(d1)_0m^2]\varphi =0$$
(11)
can be obtained

$$x_0^{d/2}e^{i𝐤𝐱}I_\alpha (kx_0);x_0^{d/2}e^{i𝐤𝐱}K_\alpha (kx_0)$$
(12)
where $`\alpha =\sqrt{\frac{d^2}{4}+m^2}`$. $`𝐤`$ is the momentum $`d`$-vector and $`k=|𝐤|`$. $`I_\alpha `$ and $`K_\alpha `$ are the Bessel functions. The modes in (12 are linearly independent and constitute a complete basis of the Hilbert space. As in quantum mechanics, the Green’s function can be expressed as $`G(x,y)=_n\frac{\psi _n(x)\psi _n^{}(y)}{\lambda _n},\lambda _n`$ are the eigenvalues corresponding to the eigenfunctions $`\psi _n`$, here we have

$$G(x,y)=\frac{d^d𝐤}{(2\pi )^d}x_0^{d/2}e^{i𝐤(𝐱𝐲)}(y_0^{d/2})\{\begin{array}{cc}I_\alpha (kx_0)K_\alpha (ky_0)& \mathrm{for}x_0<y_0\\ K_\alpha (kx_0)I_\alpha (ky_0)& \mathrm{for}x_0>y_0\end{array}$$
(13)
It can also be expressed as

$$G(x,y)=\frac{c}{2\alpha }\xi ^\mathrm{\Delta }F(\frac{d}{2},\mathrm{\Delta };\alpha +1,\frac{1}{\xi ^2})$$
(14)
where $`F`$ denotes the hypergeometric function and

$$\xi =\frac{1}{2x_0y_0}[\frac{1}{2}((xy)^2+(xy^{})^2)+\sqrt{(xy)^2(xy^{})^2}]$$
(15)
in which $`y^{}=(y_0,y)`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }=d/2+\alpha ,c=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta })(\pi ^{d/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha ))`$.
Since the classical solution of $`\varphi `$ in terms of the boundary value $`\varphi _0`$ involves the determinant of metric at the boundary which is singular, the $`ϵ`$-description of the asymptotic boundary is necessary: one first solve the problem at $`x_0=ϵ`$ and then take the limit $`ϵ0`$ in the very end. The corresponding Green’s function is

$$G_ϵ(x,y)=G_0(x,y)+\frac{d^d𝐤}{(2\pi )^d}(x_0y_0)^{d/2}e^{i𝐤(𝐱𝐲)}K_\alpha (kx_0)K_\alpha (ky_0)\frac{I_\alpha (kϵ)}{K_\alpha (kϵ)}$$
(16)
Now we calculate the normal derivative of $`G_ϵ`$ at the $`ϵ`$-boundary. For $`x_0y_0`$ since

$$G_ϵ(x,y)=\frac{d^d𝐤}{(2\pi )^d}e^{i𝐤(𝐱𝐲)}x_0^{d/2}K_\alpha (kx_0)y_0^{d/2}[K_\alpha (ky_0)\frac{I_\alpha (kϵ)}{K_\alpha (kϵ)}I_\alpha (ky_0)]$$
(17)
so

$$\frac{}{y_0}G_ϵ(x,y)_{y_0=ϵ}=\frac{d^d𝐤}{(2\pi )^d}e^{i𝐤(𝐱𝐲)}x_0^{d/2}K_\alpha (kx_0)ϵ^{d/2}\frac{1}{K_\alpha (kϵ)}(kK_\alpha ^{^{}}(ky_0)I_\alpha (kϵ)kK_\alpha (kϵ)I_\alpha ^{^{}}(ky_0))_{y_0=ϵ}$$
(18)
Using

$$K_\alpha (z)=\frac{\pi }{2\mathrm{sin}\alpha \pi }[I_\alpha (z)I_\alpha (z)]$$
(19)
we have the Wronskian determinant

$$\left|\begin{array}{cc}I_\alpha & K_\alpha \\ I_\alpha ^{^{}}& K_\alpha ^{^{}}\end{array}\right|=\frac{\pi }{2\mathrm{sin}\alpha \pi }\left|\begin{array}{cc}I_\alpha & I_\alpha \\ I_\alpha ^{^{}}& I_\alpha ^{^{}}\end{array}\right|$$
(20)
Since $`I_\alpha (z)=e^{\frac{\nu \pi }{2}i}J_\alpha (iz)`$ we have

$$\left|\begin{array}{cc}I_\alpha & I_\alpha \\ I_\alpha ^{^{}}& I_\alpha ^{^{}}\end{array}\right|=\frac{2\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{\pi z}$$
(21)
therefore

$$(kK_\alpha ^{^{}}(ky_0)I_\alpha (kϵ)kK_\alpha (kϵ)I_\alpha ^{^{}}(ky_0))_{y_0=ϵ}=ϵ^1$$
(22)
Thus

$$\frac{}{y_0}G_ϵ(x,y)_{y_0=ϵ}=x_0^{d/2}ϵ^{d/21}\frac{d^d𝐤}{(2\pi )^d}e^{i𝐤(𝐱𝐲)}\frac{K_\alpha (kx_0)}{K_\alpha (kϵ)}$$
(23)
Now we study the asymptotic behavior of the l.h.s. of (23). Using

$$\underset{z0}{lim}z^\alpha K_\alpha (z)=2^{\alpha 1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )$$
(24)
we have in the limit $`lim_{z0}`$

$$\frac{d^d𝐤}{(2\pi )^d}e^{i𝐤(𝐱𝐲)}\frac{K_\alpha (kx_0)}{K_\alpha (kϵ)}=\frac{ϵ^\alpha }{2^{\alpha 1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )}\frac{d^d𝐤}{(2\pi )^d}e^{i𝐤𝐫}k^\alpha K_\alpha (kx_0)$$
(25)
where $`𝐫=𝐱𝐲`$. We write

$$\frac{d^d𝐤}{(2\pi )^d}e^{i𝐤𝐫}k^\alpha K_\alpha (kx_0)=2_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑t_0^+\mathrm{}\frac{dk_0}{2\pi }k_0^{\alpha +1}K_\alpha (k_0x_0)e^{itk_0^2}\frac{d^d𝐤}{(2\pi )^d}e^{it𝐤^2i𝐤𝐫}$$
(26)
Using

$$\frac{d^d𝐤}{(2\pi )^d}e^{it𝐤^2i𝐤𝐫}=e^{i\frac{𝐫^2}{4t}}\frac{\pi ^{d/2}}{(2\pi )^dt^{d/2}}\{\begin{array}{c}e^{i\pi d/4}t<0\\ e^{i\pi d/4}t>o\end{array}$$
(27)
We have

$$\frac{d^d𝐤}{(2\pi )^d}e^{i𝐤𝐫}k^\alpha K_\alpha (kx_0)=\frac{2\pi ^{d/2}}{(2\pi )^d}_0^+\mathrm{}dt_0^+\mathrm{}\frac{dk_0}{2\pi }k_0^{\alpha +1}K_\alpha (k_0x_0)t^{d/2}[e^{i\pi d/4}e^{i(tk_0^2+\frac{𝐫^2}{4t})}+c.c]$$
(28)
Using (formula 3.471-11 in )

$$_0^+\mathrm{}x^{\nu 1}e^{i\frac{\mu }{2}(x+\beta ^2/x)}𝑑x=i\pi \beta ^\nu e^{i\nu \pi /2}H_\nu ^{(1)}(\beta \mu )$$
(29)
($`H_\nu ^{(1)}(\beta \mu )`$ denotes the Hankel functions),we have

$$_0^+\mathrm{}𝑑tt^{d/2}e^{i(tk_0+\frac{𝐫^2}{4t})}=i\pi (\frac{r}{2k_0})^\nu e^{i\nu \pi /2}H_{d/21}^{(1)}(k_0r)=(_0^+\mathrm{}𝑑tt^{d/2}e^{i(tk_0+\frac{𝐫^2}{4t})})^{}$$
(30)
Therefore the integral

$$_0^+\mathrm{}𝑑k_0k_0^{\alpha +d/2}K_\alpha (k_0x_0)H_{d/21}^{(1)}(k_0r)$$

$$=_0^+\mathrm{}𝑑k_0k_0^\mathrm{\Delta }K_\alpha (k_0x_0)\frac{i}{\mathrm{sin}(\frac{d}{2}1)\pi }[e^{i\pi (d/21)}J_{d/21}(k_0r)J_{1d/2}(k_0r)]$$
(31)
is involved. Using (formula 6.576-1 in )

$$_0^+\mathrm{}𝑑xx^\lambda K_\mu (ax)J_\nu (bx)=\frac{b^\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{\nu \lambda +\mu +1}{2})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{\nu \lambda \mu +1}{2})}{2^{\lambda +1}a^{\nu \lambda +1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\nu )}F(\frac{\nu \lambda +\mu +1}{2},\frac{\nu \lambda \mu +1}{2};\nu +1;\frac{b^2}{a^2})$$
(32)
we have

$$_0^+\mathrm{}\frac{dk_0}{2\pi }k_0^\mathrm{\Delta }K_\alpha (k_0x_0)J_{d/21}(k_0r)=\frac{r^{d/21}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta })}{2\pi 2^{1\mathrm{\Delta }}x_0^{d/2+\mathrm{\Delta }}}(1+\frac{r^2}{x_0^2})^\mathrm{\Delta }$$
(33)
where we have used the formula $`F(\alpha ,\beta ;\beta ;z)=(1+z)^\alpha `$. Similarly

$$_0^+\mathrm{}\frac{dk_0}{2\pi }k_0^\mathrm{\Delta }K_\alpha (k_0x_0)J_{d/21}(k_0r)=0$$
(34)
where we have used that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1)=0`$. Therefore

$$_0^+\mathrm{}\frac{dk_0}{2\pi }k_0^{\alpha +d/2}K_\alpha (k_0x_0)H_{d/21}^{(1)}(k_0r)=\frac{i}{\mathrm{sin}(d/21)\pi }e^{i\pi (d/21)}\frac{r^{d/21}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta })}{2\pi 2^{1\mathrm{\Delta }}x_0^{d/2+\mathrm{\Delta }}}(1+\frac{r^2}{x_0^2})^\mathrm{\Delta }$$
(35)
Note that $`K_\nu `$ is real, we have hence

$$\frac{d^d𝐤}{(2\pi )^d}e^{i𝐤𝐫}k^\alpha K_\alpha (kx_0)=\frac{2^{d/2+\mathrm{\Delta }}\pi ^{d/2+1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta })}{(2\pi )^{d+1}}\frac{x_0^{\mathrm{\Delta }d/2}}{(x_0^2+r^2)^\mathrm{\Delta }}$$
(36)
Therefore in the limit $`lim_{ϵ0}`$

$$\frac{}{y_0}G_ϵ(x,y)_{y_0=ϵ}=ϵ^{\mathrm{\Delta }1}c(\frac{x_0}{x_0^2+r^2})^\mathrm{\Delta }$$
(37)
We thus have the solution to the $`ϵ`$-boundary problem

$$\varphi (x)=cϵ^{\mathrm{\Delta }d}d^d𝐲\varphi _ϵ(𝐲)(\frac{x_0}{x_0^2+𝐱𝐲^2})^\mathrm{\Delta }$$
(38)
Defining the boundary value of $`\varphi `$ at $`ϵ=0`$ as

$$\varphi _0(𝐱)=ϵ^{\mathrm{\Delta }d}\varphi _ϵ(𝐱)$$
(39)
we can arrive at the result of  obtained in a tricky way.
Using the expression for the $`ϵ`$-boundary problem

$$_0\varphi _{x_0=ϵ}=2\alpha cϵ^{2\alpha 1}d^d𝐲\frac{\varphi _ϵ}{𝐱𝐲^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}+\mathrm{}$$
(40)
we find the value of the free action as

$$I_{\mathrm{free}}=\frac{1}{2}d^d𝐱d^d𝐲2\alpha cϵ^{2(\mathrm{\Delta }d)}\frac{\varphi _ϵ(𝐱)\varphi _ϵ(𝐲)}{𝐱𝐲^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}+\mathrm{}$$
(41)
Obviously the limit $`lim_{ϵ0}`$ makes sense. We can readily get the 2-point correlator of the CFT on the boundary

$$<𝒪(𝐱)𝒪(𝐲)>=\frac{2\alpha c}{𝐱𝐲^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}$$
(42)
## 3 The sine-Gordon theory

Equation (9) can be written as

$$\varphi (x)=_\mathrm{\Omega }d^d𝐲K(x_0,𝐱;𝐲)\varphi (𝐲)+_\mathrm{\Omega }\sqrt{g(y)}G(x,y)J[\varphi (y)]$$
(43)
where

$$K(x_0,𝐱;𝐲)=c\frac{x_0^d}{(x_0^2+𝐱^2)^d}$$
(44)
We search for a series solution in terms of powers of $`\beta `$ for the sG theory. Defining $`\phi _n`$ by

$$\phi _0(x)=_\mathrm{\Omega }d^d𝐲K(x_0,𝐱;𝐲)\varphi _0(𝐲)$$
(45)
$$\phi _1(x)=_\mathrm{\Omega }d^{d+1}y\sqrt{g(y)}G(x,y)J[\phi _0(y)]$$
(46)
$$\phi _2(x)=_\mathrm{\Omega }d^{d+1}y\sqrt{g(y)}G(x,y)J[\phi _0(y)+\phi _1(y)]$$
(47)
et al. then

$$\phi (x)=\phi _0+\phi _1+\phi _2+\mathrm{}$$
(48)
We assume that this series converges. As an approximation, we take the first two terms

$$\varphi (x)\phi _0+\phi _1$$
(49)
Then the action corresponding to this classical path is

$`I[\varphi ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}d^{d+1}x\sqrt{g(x)}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}^\mu \phi _0_\mu \phi _0+^\mu \phi _0_\mu \phi _1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}^\mu \phi _1_\mu \phi _1+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\beta ^2}}[1\mathrm{cos}\beta (\phi _0+\phi _1)]\}`$ (50)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}d^{d+1}x\sqrt{g(x)}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[^\mu \phi _0_\mu \phi _0+m^2(\phi _0+\phi _1)^2]+^\mu \phi _0_\mu \phi _1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}^\mu \phi _1_\mu \phi _1`$ (52)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\beta ^2}}[1\mathrm{cos}\beta (\phi _0+\phi _1)]{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}(\phi _0+\phi _1)^2\}`$
We consider the second term

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }d^{d+1}x\sqrt{g(x)}^\mu \phi _0_\mu \phi _1=_{\mathrm{\Omega }_ϵ}\sqrt{h}d^d𝐱n^\mu \phi _1_\mu \phi _0$$
(53)
Since $`G(x,y)_{\mathrm{\Omega }_ϵ}=0`$, we see that $`\phi _{1\mathrm{\Omega }_ϵ}=0`$. Therefore

$$I[\varphi ]=I^{(0)}[\varphi ]+_\mathrm{\Omega }d^{d+1}x\sqrt{g(x)}\{m^2\phi _0\phi _1+\frac{1}{2}m^2\phi _1^2+\frac{1}{2}^\mu \phi _1_\mu \phi _1+\frac{m^2}{\beta ^2}[1\mathrm{cos}\beta (\phi _0+\phi _1)]\frac{m^2}{2}(\phi _0+\phi _1)^2\}$$
(54)
where

$$I^{(0)}[\varphi ]=_\mathrm{\Omega }d^{d+1}x\sqrt{g(x)}\frac{1}{2}(^\mu \phi _0_\mu \phi _0+m^2\phi _0^2)$$
(55)
We expand the rest part of $`I[\varphi ]`$ in terms of the powers of $`\beta `$. Since

$$\phi _1(x)=_\mathrm{\Omega }d^{d+1}y\sqrt{g(y)}G(x,y)\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^nm^2\beta ^{2n}}{(2n+1)!}\phi _0(y)$$
(56)
we see that $`\phi _1\beta ^2,\phi _0\phi _1\beta ^2,\phi _1^2\beta ^4.`$ So the part of order $`O(\beta ^2)`$ of $`I[\varphi ]`$ is

$`I^{(2)}[\varphi ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}d^{d+1}x\sqrt{g(x)}[m^2\phi _0(x){\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}d^{d+1}y\sqrt{g(y)}G(x,y){\displaystyle \frac{(m^2)\beta ^2}{3!}}\phi _0^3(y)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4!}}m^2\beta ^2\phi _0^4]`$ (57)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}d^d𝐱_1d^d𝐱_2d^d𝐱_3d^d𝐱_4\varphi _0(𝐱_1)\varphi _0(𝐱_2)\varphi _0(𝐱_3)\varphi _0(𝐱_4)`$ (59)
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{c^4m^2\beta ^2}{4!}}I_4(𝐱_1,𝐱_1,𝐱_3,𝐱_4){\displaystyle \frac{m^4\beta ^2}{3!}}J_4(𝐱_1,𝐱_1,𝐱_3,𝐱_4)]`$
where

$$I_4(𝐱_1,𝐱_1,𝐱_3,𝐱_4)=_\mathrm{\Omega }d^{d+1}y\frac{y_0^{4\mathrm{\Delta }(d+1)}}{[(y_0^2+𝐲𝐱_1^2)(y_0^2+𝐲𝐱_2^2)(y_0^2+𝐲𝐱_3^2)(y_0^2+𝐲𝐱_4^2)]^\mathrm{\Delta }}$$
(60)
introduced in  and

$$J_4(𝐱_1,𝐱_1,𝐱_3,𝐱_4):=d^{d+1}xd^{d+1}y(x_0y_0)^{(1+d)}G(x,y)K(x_0,𝐱;𝐱_1)K(y_0,𝐲;𝐱_2)K(y_0,𝐲;𝐱_3)K(y_0,𝐲;𝐱_4)$$
(61)
So we have

$$<𝒪(𝐱_1)𝒪(𝐱_2)𝒪(𝐱_3)𝒪(𝐱_4)>=c^4m^2\beta ^2I_4(𝐱_1,𝐱_1,𝐱_3,𝐱_4)+4m^4\beta ^2J_4(𝐱_1,𝐱_1,𝐱_3,𝐱_4)$$
(62)
It is seen that the both terms in (62) are of the same order so are equally important. It is a pity that both functions $`I_4`$ and $`J_4`$ are not analytically integrable. The two-point correlator is the same as that for the free $`\varphi `$ theory and the 3-point correlator vanishes for the sG theory.

## 4 Discussions

In this paper we studied the correlators of CFT on the boundary of AdSd+1 corresponding to the sine-Gordon theory in the bulk by the AdS/CFT correspondence. It is found that apart from $`I_4`$ in , there is another term which makes a contribution of the same order. So the general consideration for interacting $`\varphi `$-theories in  is not enough and a more careful consideration is necessary for different specific theories. We stress that in general, the interacting $`\varphi `$ theory may have more than one solutions to the classical Dirichlet problem and it is to be answered that they lead to the same correlators for the boundary CFT. It seems that the answer is yes, since perturbatively, the answer is pisitive and the AdS/CFT correspondence seems to ensure the uniqueness.

AcknowledgementWork supported by the NSF of China under Grant No. 19805004 and partially by the NSF of China through C.N. Yang and the Grant LWTZ-1298 of Chinese Academy of Science. The authors have also benefited a lot from the Workshop 2000 on QG-NCYM-String sponsored by the Center for Advanced Studies of Tsinghua University. The authors acknowledge Dr. J.X. Lu for reading the manuscript.