text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

For dilute alkali-metal atoms in magnetic or magneto-optical traps at very low temperatures, the Bose-Einstein condensation has been achieved1 in 1995 and the Fermi quantum degeneracy2 in 1999. These results have renewed the theoretical investigation on Bose and Fermi gases.

In the experiments with Bosons, the system is weakly-interacting and the thermodynamical properties depend on the s-wave scattering length (for a review see Ref. 3). Nevertheless, by using Feshback resonances, it is now possible to modify and also switch-off the atom-atom interaction.4 In the case of Fermions, the s-wave scattering between atoms in the same hyperfine state is inhibited due the Pauli principle. It follows that at low temperature the dilute Fermi gas, in a fixed hyperfine state, is practically ideal.2

In previous papers we analyzed ground-state and vortex properties of Bose condensates in different external potentials: harmonic potential,5-10, toroidal potential11 and double-well potential.12 Recently, we have also afforded the study of the thermodynamics of interacting Bose gases in harmonic potential.13,14

In this paper, we investigate the thermal properties of both Bose and Fermi ideal gases in a generic confining external potential. All the calculations are performed by assuming a D-dimensional space. Such an assumption is motivated by esthetic criteria but also by recent experiments with degenerate gases in systems with reduced or fractal dimension.3 We analyze in detail the isotropic power-law potential, from which one easily deduces the results of a rigid box and a harmonic trap.

## 2 Confined Ideal Fermi and Bose Gases

Let us consider a confined quantum gas of non-interacting identical Fermions (or Bosons) in D-dimensional space. In the grand canonical ensemble of equilibrium statistical mechanics,15 the average number $`N_\alpha `$ of particles in the single-particle state $`|\alpha `$ with energy $`ϵ_\alpha `$ is given by

$$N_\alpha =\frac{1}{e^{\beta (ϵ_\alpha \mu )}\pm 1},$$
(1)
where the sign $`+`$ ($``$) is for Fermions (Bosons), $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential and $`\beta =1/(kT)`$ with $`k`$ the Boltzmann constant and $`T`$ the absolute temperature. In general, given the single-particle function $`N_\alpha `$, the average total number $`N`$ of particles of the system reads

$$N=\underset{\alpha }{}N_\alpha .$$
(2)
This condition fixes the chemical potential $`\mu `$. Thus, $`\mu `$ is a function of $`\beta `$ and $`N`$. In the case of Fermions, $`\mu `$ has no limitations and at zero temperature $`\mu `$ is called Fermi energy $`E_F`$. From the Fermi energy $`E_F`$ one immediately obtains the Fermi temperature $`T_F=E_F/k`$. Below the Fermi temperature, the Fermions begin to fill the lowest available single-particle states in accordance with the Pauli exclusion Principle: one has the Fermi quantum degeneracy.15 In the case of Bosons, $`\mu `$ cannot be higher than the lowest single-particle energy level $`ϵ_0`$, i.e., it must be $`\mu <ϵ_0`$. When $`\mu ϵ_0`$ the function $`N_0`$ diverges and consequently also $`N`$ diverges. The physical meaning is that the lowest single-particle state becomes macroscopically occupied and one has the so-called Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC).15 It is a standard procedure to calculate the condensed fraction $`N_0/N`$ and also the BEC transition temperature $`T_B`$ by studying the non divergent quantity $`NN_0`$ at $`\mu =ϵ_0`$ as a function of the temperature.3,15

In the semiclassical limit, the D-dimensional system is described by a continuum of states15-17 and, instead of $`ϵ_\alpha `$, one uses the classical single-particle phase-space energy $`ϵ(𝐫,𝐩)`$, where $`𝐫=(r_1,\mathrm{},r_D)`$ is the position vector and $`𝐩=(p_1,\mathrm{},p_D)`$ is the linear momentum vector. In this way one obtains from Eq. (1) the single-particle phase-space distribution

$$n(𝐫,𝐩)=\frac{1}{e^{\beta (ϵ(𝐫,𝐩)\mu )}\pm 1}.$$
(3)
Note that the accuracy of the semiclassical approximation is expected to be good if the number of particles is large and the energy level spacing is smaller then $`kT`$.15-17 Because of the Heisenberg principle, the quantum elementary volume of the single-particle 2D-dimensional phase-space is given by $`(2\pi \mathrm{})^D`$, where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the Planck constant.16 It follows that the average number $`N`$ of particles in the D-dimensional space can be written as

$$N=\frac{d^D𝐫d^D𝐩}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^D}n(𝐫,𝐩)=d^D𝐫n(𝐫)=d^D𝐩n(𝐩),$$
(4)
where

$$n(𝐫)=\frac{d^D𝐩}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^D}n(𝐫,𝐩)$$
(5)
is the spatial distribution, and

$$n(𝐩)=\frac{d^D𝐫}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^D}n(𝐫,𝐩)$$
(6)
is the momentum distribution. It is important to observe that the total number $`N`$ of particle can also be written as

$$N=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ϵ\rho (ϵ)\frac{1}{e^{\beta (ϵ\mu )}\pm 1},$$
(7)
where $`\rho (ϵ)`$ is the density of states. It can be obtained from the semiclassical formula

$$\rho (ϵ)=\frac{d^D𝐫d^D𝐩}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^D}\delta (ϵϵ(𝐩,𝐫)),$$
(8)
where $`\delta (x)`$ is the Dirac delta function.

In the case of Fermions, at zero temperature, i.e., in the limit $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ where $`\mu E_F`$ (the Fermi energy), the phase-space distribution (3) becomes

$$n(𝐫,𝐩)=\mathrm{\Theta }\left(E_Fϵ(𝐫,𝐩)\right),$$
(9)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$ is the Heaviside step function.15,16

In the case of Bosons, below the BEC transition temperature $`T_B`$, the equation (3) describes only the non-condensed thermal cloud. Thus, the semiclassical quantization renormalizes the exact Bose distribution (1) that is divergent. Because there is not an unique way to translate wave-functions into a phase-space distribution,16 one cannot introduce an exact single-particle phase-space distribution for the Bose condensate. Nevertheless, the exact spatial distribution of the Bose condensate is $`n_0(𝐫)=|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)|^2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)`$ is called order parameter or macroscopic wave-function of the condensate, normalized to the number $`N_0`$ of condensed Bosons. For an ideal Bose gas, the function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)`$ is simply the eigenfunction of the lowest single-particle state of the system. In this paper we do not study the density profiles of the Bose condensed fraction because, for a non-interacting gas, their shape is not temperature dependent: only their normalization is a function of temperature. Actually, to calculate the BEC transition temperature $`T_B`$ and the condensed fraction $`N_0/N`$ it is sufficient to study the non-condensed fraction (thermal cloud). (For a recent discussion of the properties of the Bose condensate, see Ref. 3 and also Ref. 5-14).

## 3 Gases in External Potential

Let us consider the ideal Fermi (Bose) gas in a confining external potential $`U(𝐫)`$ and in a D-dimensional space. The classical single-particle energy is defined as

$$ϵ(𝐫,𝐩)=\frac{𝐩^2}{2m}+U(𝐫),$$
(10)
where $`𝐩^2/(2m)`$ is the kinetic energy and $`m`$ is the mass of the particle. The D-dimensional vectors $`𝐫=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_D)`$ and $`𝐩=(p_1,\mathrm{},p_D)`$ are respectively the position and momentum of the particle.

First, we note that, by using Eq. (8) and Eq. (10), the semiclassical density of states can be written as

$$\rho (ϵ)=\left(\frac{m}{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}\right)^{\frac{D}{2}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{2})}d^D𝐫\left(ϵU(𝐫)\right)^{\frac{(D2)}{2}}.$$
(11)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)`$ is the factorial function. Then, we introduce the Fermi and Bose functions.18,19

DEFINITION 1. The Fermi function is given by

$$f_n(z)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑y\frac{ze^yy^{n1}}{1+ze^y},$$

and the Bose function is

$$g_n(z)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑y\frac{ze^yy^{n1}}{1ze^y},$$

where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)`$ is the factorial function.

REMARK 1. The Fermi and Bose functions are connected by the relation $`f_n(z)=g_n(z)`$. For $`|z|<1`$ the two functions can be written as

$$g_n(z)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{z^i}{i^n},$$

$$f_n(z)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^{i+1}\frac{z^i}{i^n}.$$

One finds also that $`g_n(1)=\zeta (n)`$, where $`\zeta (n)`$ is the Riemann $`\zeta `$-function.18,19

Now we state two theorems about ideal Fermi and Bose gases in external potential. Remind that we work in the semiclassical limit.3,15-16

THEOREM 1.1 For an ideal Fermi gas in an external potential $`U(𝐫)`$ and D-dimensional space, the finite temperature spatial distribution is given by

$$n(𝐫)=\frac{1}{\lambda ^D}f_{\frac{D}{2}}\left(e^{\beta (\mu U(𝐫))}\right),$$

where $`\lambda =(2\pi \mathrm{}^2\beta /m)^{1/2}`$ is the thermal length and $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential. The zero temperature spatial distribution is

$$n(𝐫)=\left(\frac{m}{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}\right)^{D/2}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{2}+1)}\left(E_FU(𝐫)\right)^{\frac{D}{2}}\mathrm{\Theta }\left(E_FU(𝐫)\right),$$

where $`E_F`$ is the Fermi energy.

Proof. One finds the spatial distribution from the Eq. (5) by integrating over momenta the Eq. (3) (with the sign $`+`$). In particular, one has

$$n(𝐫)=\frac{d^D𝐩}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^D}\frac{1}{e^{\beta (\frac{𝐩^2}{2m}+U(𝐫)\mu )}+1}=$$

$$=\frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{}^2)^D}\frac{D\pi ^{\frac{D}{2}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{2}+1)}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑p\frac{p^{D1}e^{\beta (\mu U(𝐫))}e^{\beta (\frac{p^2}{2m})}}{1+e^{\beta (\mu U(𝐫))}e^{\beta (\frac{p^2}{2m})}},$$

where $`D\pi ^{\frac{D}{2}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{2}+1)`$ is the volume of the D-dimensional unit sphere. Then, with the position $`y^2=\beta \frac{p^2}{2m}`$ and using the Fermi function $`f_{\frac{D}{2}}(z)`$ with $`z=e^{\beta (\mu U(𝐫))}`$, one gets the finite temperature spatial distribution. Finally, one obtains the zero-temperature result by observing that

$$n(𝐫)=\frac{d^D𝐩}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^D}\mathrm{\Theta }\left(E_F\frac{𝐩^2}{2m}U(𝐫)\right)=$$

$$=\frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{}^2)^D}\frac{D\pi ^{\frac{D}{2}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{2}+1)}\mathrm{\Theta }\left(E_FU(𝐫)\right)_0^{\sqrt{2m(E_FU(𝐫))}}𝑑pp^{D1}=$$

$$=\frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{}^2)^D}\frac{D\pi ^{\frac{D}{2}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{2}+1)}\mathrm{\Theta }\left(E_FU(𝐫)\right)\frac{1}{D}\left(\sqrt{2m(E_FU(𝐫)}\right)^D,$$

where the spatial distribution is taken from the Eq. (8). $`\mathrm{}`$

In the same way, but using the sign $``$ in Eq. (3) and the Bose function $`g_{\frac{D}{2}}(z)`$ with $`z=e^{\beta (\mu U(𝐫))}`$, one can easily prove also the following theorem.

THEOREM 1.2 For an ideal Bose gas in an external potential $`U(𝐫)`$, the finite temperature non-condensed spatial distribution is given by

$$n(𝐫)=\frac{1}{\lambda ^D}g_{\frac{D}{2}}\left(e^{\beta (\mu U(𝐫))}\right),$$

where $`\lambda =(2\pi \mathrm{}^2\beta /m)^{1/2}`$ is the thermal length and $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential. $`\mathrm{}`$

These two theorems are the generalization, of the formulas for ideal homogenous Fermi and Bose gases in a box of volume $`V`$ (for $`D=3`$ see Ref. 15). They show that, in the semiclassical limit, the non-homogenous results are obtained with the substitution $`\mu \mu U(𝐫)`$, also called local density approximation. In particular, with $`U(𝐫)=0`$, from the previous theorems, one obtains the Fermi temperature $`T_F`$ and the Bose temperature $`T_B`$ for quantum gases in a rigid box, by imposing the normalization condition (4). The results are

$$E_F=kT_F=\left(\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}{m}\right)\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{D}{2}+1\right)n\right]^{2/D}$$

and

$$kT_B=\left(\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}{m}\right)\left(\frac{n}{\zeta (\frac{D}{2})}\right)^{2/D},$$

where $`n=N/V`$ is the homogenous density of particles (again, for $`D=3`$ see Ref. 15).

In general, to find the momentum distribution, the Fermi temperature and the Bose temperature, it is necessary to specify the external potential. In many experiments with alkali-metal atoms, the external trap can be accurately modelled by a harmonic potential.3 More generally, one can consider power-law potentials, which are important for studying the effects of adiabatic changes in the trap. The density of states of a quantum gas in the power-law potential $`U(𝐫)=Ar^n`$ can be calculated from Eq. (11) and reads

$$\rho (ϵ)=\left(\frac{m}{2\mathrm{}^2}\right)^{\frac{D}{2}}\left(\frac{1}{A}\right)^{\frac{D}{\alpha }}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{\alpha }+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{2}+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{2}+\frac{D}{\alpha })}ϵ^{\frac{D}{2}+\frac{D}{\alpha }1}.$$
(12)
We can now state two theorems about ideal Fermi and Bose gases in isotropic power-law potentials.

THEOREM 2.1 Let us consider an ideal Fermi gas in a power-law isotropic potential $`U(𝐫)=Ar^n`$ with $`r=|𝐫|=(_{i=1}^Dx_i^2)^{1/2}`$. The finite temperature momentum distribution is given by

$$n(𝐩)=\frac{1}{(2\mathrm{}\sqrt{\pi })^D}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{n}+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{2}+1)}\left(\frac{1}{\beta A}\right)^{\frac{D}{n}}f_{\frac{D}{n}}\left(e^{\beta \left(\mu \frac{𝐩^2}{2m}\right)}\right).$$

The zero temperature momentum distribution is

$$n(𝐩)=\frac{1}{(2\mathrm{}\sqrt{\pi })^D}\left(\frac{1}{A}\right)^{\frac{D}{n}}\left(E_F\frac{𝐩^2}{2m}\right)^{\frac{D}{n}}\mathrm{\Theta }\left(E_F\frac{𝐩^2}{2m}\right).$$

The Fermi energy $`E_F`$ and the Fermi temperature $`T_F`$ are given by

$$E_F=kT_F=\left[\left(\frac{2\mathrm{}^2}{m}\right)^{\frac{D}{2}}A^{\frac{D}{n}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{2}+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{n}+1)}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{D}{2}+\frac{D}{n}+1\right)N\right]^{\frac{1}{\frac{D}{2}+\frac{D}{n}}},$$

where $`N`$ is the number of Fermions in the gas.

Proof. One finds the finite temperature momentum distribution from the Eq. (6) and by integrating over space coordinates the Eq. (3) (with the sign $`+`$). In particular, one has

$$n(𝐩)=\frac{d^D𝐫}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^D}\frac{1}{e^{\beta (\frac{𝐩^2}{2m}+Ar^n\mu )}+1}=$$

$$=\frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{}^2)^D}\frac{D\pi ^{\frac{D}{2}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{2}+1)}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r\frac{r^{D1}e^{\beta (\mu \frac{p^2}{2m})}e^{\beta Ar^n}}{1+e^{\beta (\mu \frac{p^2}{2m})}e^{\beta Ar^n}},$$

where again $`D\pi ^{\frac{D}{2}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{2}+1)`$ is the volume of the D-dimensional unit sphere. Setting $`y^2=\beta Ar^n`$ and using the definition of Fermi function $`f_{\frac{D}{2}}(z)`$ with $`z=e^{\beta (\mu \frac{p^2}{2m})}`$, one finds the first formula of the theorem. The zero-temperature results are obtained by observing that

$$n(𝐩)=\frac{d^D𝐫}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^D}\mathrm{\Theta }\left(E_F\frac{𝐩^2}{2m}U(𝐫)\right)=$$

$$=\frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{}^2)^D}\frac{D\pi ^{\frac{D}{2}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{2}+1)}\mathrm{\Theta }\left(E_F\frac{p^2}{2m}\right)_0^{A^{\frac{1}{n}}(E_F\frac{𝐩^2}{2m})^{1/n}}𝑑rr^{D1}=$$

$$=\frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{}^2)^D}\frac{D\pi ^{\frac{D}{2}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{2}+1)}\mathrm{\Theta }\left(E_F\frac{p^2}{2m}\right)\frac{1}{D}\left(A^{\frac{1}{n}}(E_F\frac{𝐩^2}{2m})^{1/n}\right)^D,$$

where the momentum distribution is taken from the Eq. (9). The Fermi energy $`E_F`$ and the Fermi temperature $`T_F`$ are found from the normalization condition of the zero-temperature momentum distribution. Namely, one finds

$$N=d^D𝐩\frac{1}{(2\mathrm{}\sqrt{\pi })^D}\left(\frac{1}{A}\right)^{\frac{D}{n}}\left(E_F\frac{𝐩^2}{2m}\right)^{\frac{D}{n}}\mathrm{\Theta }\left(E_F\frac{𝐩^2}{2m}\right)=$$

$$=\frac{1}{(2\mathrm{}\sqrt{\pi })^D}\left(\frac{1}{A}\right)^{\frac{D}{n}}_0^{\sqrt{2mE_F}}𝑑pp^{D1}\left(E_F\frac{p^2}{2m}\right)^{\frac{D}{n}}.$$

Setting $`x=\frac{p^2}{2m}`$ and observing18,19 that

$$_0^{E_F}𝑑xx^{\frac{D}{2}1}(E_Fx)^{\frac{D}{n}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{2})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{n}+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{D}{2}+\frac{D}{n}+1\right)}E_F^{\frac{D}{2}+\frac{D}{n}},$$

one obtains

$$N=\left(\frac{m}{2\mathrm{}^2}\right)^{\frac{D}{2}}\left(\frac{1}{A}\right)^{\frac{D}{n}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{2})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{n}+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{D}{2}+\frac{D}{n}+1\right)}E_F^{\frac{D}{2}+\frac{D}{n}}.$$

Finally, by inverting this formula one gets the Fermi energy $`E_F`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

THEOREM 2.2 Let us consider an ideal Bose gas in a power-law isotropic potential $`U(𝐫)=Ar^n`$ with $`r=|𝐫|=(_{i=1}^Dx_i^2)^{1/2}`$. The finite temperature non-condensed momentum distribution is given by

$$n(𝐩)=\frac{1}{(2\mathrm{}\sqrt{\pi })^D}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{n}+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{2}+1)}\left(\frac{1}{\beta A}\right)^{\frac{D}{n}}g_{\frac{D}{n}}\left(e^{\beta \left(\mu \frac{𝐩^2}{2m}\right)}\right).$$

The Bose transition temperature $`T_B`$ reads

$$kT_B=\left[\left(\frac{2\mathrm{}^2}{m}\right)^{\frac{D}{2}}A^{\frac{D}{n}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{2}+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{n}+1)}\frac{1}{\zeta (\frac{D}{2}+\frac{D}{n})}N\right]^{\frac{1}{\frac{D}{2}+\frac{D}{n}}}$$

and the condensed fraction is

$$\frac{N_0}{N}=1\left(\frac{T}{T_B}\right)^{\frac{D}{2}+\frac{D}{n}},$$

where $`N`$ is the number of Bosons in the gas.

Proof. The finite temperature momentum distribution can be found by following the procedure used in the proof of the previous theorem: from the Eq. (6) and by integrating over space coordinates the Eq. (3) (but with the sign $``$). It follows that one must use the Bose function $`g_{\frac{D}{2}}(z)`$ with $`z=e^{\beta (\mu \frac{p^2}{2m})}`$. At the BEC transition temperature $`T_B`$, the chemical potential $`\mu `$ is zero and at $`\mu =0`$ the number $`N`$ of particles can be analytically determined. One has

$$N=d^D𝐩\frac{1}{(2\mathrm{}\sqrt{\pi })^D}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{n}+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{2}+1)}\left(\frac{1}{\beta A}\right)^{\frac{D}{n}}g_{\frac{D}{n}}\left(e^{\beta \frac{𝐩^2}{2m}}\right)=$$

$$=\frac{1}{(2\mathrm{}\sqrt{\pi })^D}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{n}+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{2}+1)}\frac{D\pi ^{\frac{D}{2}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{2}+1)}\left(\frac{1}{\beta A}\right)^{\frac{D}{n}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{i^{\frac{D}{2}}}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑pp^{D1}e^{i\beta \frac{p^2}{2m}},$$

where the Bose function has been written as a power series (see Remark 1). Setting $`x=i\beta \frac{p^2}{2m}`$ and observing18,19 that

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xx^{\frac{D}{2}}e^x=\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{D}{2}+1\right),$$

and also

$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{i^{\frac{D}{2}+\frac{D}{n}}}=\zeta \left(\frac{D}{2}+\frac{D}{n}\right),$$

one obtains

$$N=\left(kT\right)^{\frac{D}{2}+\frac{D}{n}}\left(\frac{m}{2\mathrm{}^2}\right)^{\frac{D}{2}}\left(\frac{1}{A}\right)^{\frac{D}{n}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{n}+1)\zeta (\frac{D}{2}+\frac{D}{n})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{2}+1)}.$$

By inverting the function $`N=N(T)`$ one finds the transition temperature $`T_B`$. Below $`T_B`$, a macroscopic number $`N_0`$ of particle occupies the single-particle ground-state of the system. It follows that the previous equation gives the number $`NN_0`$ of non-condensed particles and the condensed fraction is $`N_0/N=1(T/T_B)^{D/2+D/n}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

This last theorem generalizes the BEC results obtained with $`D=3`$ by Bagnato, Pritchard and Kleppner.17

It is important to observe that from the two previous theorems one easily derives the thermodynamic properties of quantum gases in harmonic traps and in a rigid box. In fact, by setting $`n=2`$ and $`A=m\omega ^2r^2/2`$ one gets the formulas for the Bose and Fermi gases in a harmonic trap (in the case of a anisotropic harmonic potential, $`\omega `$ is the geometric average of the frequencies of the trap). The results for a rigid box are instead obtained by letting $`\frac{D}{n}0`$, where the density of particles per unit length is given by $`N/\mathrm{\Omega }_D`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D=D\pi ^{\frac{D}{2}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{2}+1)`$ is the volume of the D-dimensional unit sphere.

Finally, one notes that in the formula of the BEC transition temperature $`T_B`$ it appears the function $`\zeta (\frac{D}{2}+\frac{D}{n})`$. Because $`\zeta (x)<\mathrm{}`$ for $`x>1`$ but $`\zeta (1)=\mathrm{}`$,17,18 one easily deduces the following corollary.

COROLLARY 1. Let us consider an ideal Bose gas in a power-law isotropic potential $`U(𝐫)=Ar^n`$ with $`r=|𝐫|=(_{i=1}^Dx_i^2)^{1/2}`$. BEC is possible if and only if the following condition is satisfied

$$\frac{D}{2}+\frac{D}{n}>1,$$

where $`D`$ is the space dimension and $`n`$ is the exponent of the confining power-law potential. $`\mathrm{}`$

This is a remarkable inequality. For example, for $`D=2`$ one finds the familiar result that there is no BEC in a homogenous gas ($`\frac{D}{n}0`$) but BEC is possible in a harmonic trap ($`n=2`$). Moreover, one obtains that for $`D=1`$ BEC is possible with $`1<n<2`$.

## 4 Conclusions

By using the grand canonical ensemble of statistical mechanics and the semiclassical approximation, we have derived some thermodynamic properties of ideal quantum gases in a generic isotropic power-law confining external potential. We have calculated the density of states, spatial and momentum distributions and obtained analytical formulas for the Fermi energy, the BEC transition temperature and the Bose condensed fraction. Note that nowadays the spatial and momentum density profiles are quantities easily experimentally measured. We have also shown that BEC in an isotropic power-law potential is possible if and only if $`D/2+D/n`$, where $`D`$ is the space dimension and $`n`$ is the exponent of the confining power-law potential.

The present investigation is the starting point for future analyses of interacting quantum gases in D-dimensional space and generic trapping potential.

## References

1 M.H. Anderson, J.R. Ensher, M.R. Matthews, C.E. Wieman and E.A. Cornell, “Observation of Bose-Einstein condensation in a dilute atomic vapor”, Science 269, 198-201 (1995).

2 B. DeMarco and D.S. Jin, “Onset of Fermi degeneracy in a trapped atomic gas”, Science 285, 1703-1706 (1999).

3 F. Dalfovo, S. Giorgini, L.P. Pitaevskii and S. Stringari, “Theory of Bose-Einstein condensation in trapped gases”, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 463-512 (1999).

4 S. Inouye, M.R. Andrews, J. Stenger, H.J. Meisner, D.M. Stamper-Kurn and W. Ketterle, “Observation of Feshback resonances in a Bose-Einstein condensate”, Nature 392, 151-154 (1998).

5 L. Salasnich, “The role of dimensionality in the stability of a confined condensed Bose gas”, Mod. Phys. Lett. B 11, 1249-1254 (1997).

6 L. Salasnich, “Note on the role of dimensionality in the stability of a confined condensed Bose gas: reply to a comment”, Mod. Phys. Lett. B 12, 649-651 (1998).

7 E. Cerboneschi, R. Mannella, E. Arimondo and L. Salasnich, “Oscillation frequencies for a Bose condensate confined in a triaxially anisotropic magnetic trap”, Phys. Lett. A 249, 245-500 (1998).

8 L. Salasnich, “Self-trapping, quantum tunneling and decay rates for a Bose gas with attractive nonlocal interaction”, Phys. Rev. A 61, 015601 (2000).

9 L. Salasnich, “Time-dependent variational approach to Bose-Einstein condensation”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 14, 1-11 (2000).

10 L. Salasnich, “Resonances and chaos in the collective oscillations of a trapped Bose condensate”, Phys. Lett. A, vol. 266, 187-192 (2000).

11 L. Salasnich, A. Parola and L. Reatto, “Bose condensation in a toroidal trap: ground state and vortices”, Phys. Rev. A 59, 2990-2995 (1999).

12 L. Salasnich, A. Parola and L. Reatto, “Bose condensate in a double-well trap: ground state and elementary excitations”, Phys. Rev. A 60, 4171-4174 (1999).

13 B. Pozzi, L. Salasnich, A. Parola and L. Reatto, “Thermodynamics of trapped Bose condensate with negative scattering length”, J. Low Temp. Phys. 113, 57-77 (2000).

14 L. Salasnich, “BEC in nonextensive statistical mechanics”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 14, 405-410 (2000).

15 K. Huang, Statistical Mechanics (John Wiley, New York, 1987).

16 A.M.O. De Almeida, Hamiltonian Systems: Chaos and Quantization (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1988).

17 V. Bagnato, D.E. Pritchard and D. Kleppner, “Bose-Einstein condensation in an external potential”, Phys. Rev. A 35, 4354-4358 (1987).

18 M. Abramowitz and I.A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions, (Dover, New York 1965).

19 I.S. Gradshteyn and I.M. Ryzhik Table of Integrals, Series, and Products (Academic Press, Orlando, 1980).


format: text

text:
# 1 Numerical values of the OMC form factors in Eqs. () and (), calculated for each chiral order with the use of 𝑔_𝐴=1.267 and 𝑔_{𝜋𝑁}=13.4.

USC(NT)-Report-00-4

October 6, 2000

Capture rate and neutron helicity asymmetry for ordinary muon capture on hydrogen
Shung-ichi Ando111E-mail:sando@nuc003.psc.sc.edu, Fred Myhrer222E-mail:myhrer@sc.edu, and Kuniharu Kubodera333E-mail:kubodera@sc.edu
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208

Applying heavy-baryon chiral perturbation theory to ordinary muon capture (OMC) on a proton, we calculate the capture rate and neutron helicity asymmetry up to next-to-next-to-leading order. For the singlet hyperfine state, we obtain the capture rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=695`$ sec-1 while, for the triplet hyperfine state, we obtain the capture rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=11.9`$ sec-1 and the neutron asymmetry $`\alpha _1=0.93`$. If the existing formalism is used to relate these atomic capture rates to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{liq}}`$, the OMC rate in liquid hydrogen, then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{liq}}`$ corresponding to our improved values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ is found to be significantly larger than the experimental value, primarily due to the updated larger value of $`g_A`$. We argue that this apparent difficulty may be correlated to the specious anomaly recently reported for $`\mu ^{}+pn+\nu _\mu +\gamma `$, and we suggest a possibility to remove these two “problems” simply and simultaneously by reexamining the molecular physics input that underlies the conventional analysis of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{liq}}`$.

PACS: 11.80.Cr, 12.39.Fe, 23.40.-S

1. Introduction

Muon capture on a proton is a valuable source of information about $`g_P`$, the pseudoscalar coupling constant of the nucleon weak current . One can study two processes, ordinary muon capture (OMC) and radiative muon capture (RMC):444 In this article OMC and RMC always refer to capture in a hydrogen target.

$`\mu ^{}+p\nu _\mu +n(\mathrm{OMC}),`$ (1)
$`\mu ^{}+p\nu _\mu +n+\gamma (\mathrm{RMC}).`$ (2)
Heavy-baryon chiral perturbation theory (HBChPT) is well suited for describing these processes, which involve small enough energy-momentum transfers to render the HBChPT series rapidly convergent. We report here our HBChPT calculation for OMC up to next-to-next-to-leading order. To explain the motivation and significance of our work, we first describe briefly the current status of OMC and RMC.

The OMC rate in liquid hydrogen, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{liq}}`$, has been measured with 5% accuracy :

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{liq}}^{exp}=460\pm 20\text{[sec}\text{-1}\text{]}.`$ (3)
Theoretically, one first calculates the atomic OMC rates for a proton, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$, where the suffix “0” (“1”) refers to the singlet (triplet) hyperfine state of the hydrogen atom. To compare with experiment, one needs a theoretical framework to relate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{liq}}`$. For convenience, we refer to this framework as the “atom-liquid” translation formulae. A great deal of experimental and theoretical effort has been invested on these translation formulae . In Refs. , $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ were calculated using the phenomenologically parametrized weak nucleon form factors with the PCAC value for $`g_P`$. If we combine these estimates with the existing atom-liquid translation formulae, the resulting $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{liq}}^{theor}`$ agrees with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{liq}}^{exp}`$ within the experimental error . In HBChPT, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ were calculated up to next-to-leading order (NLO) by Bernard et al. ; it was also reported that a one-loop level calculation reproduces the known analytical PCAC correction for $`g_P`$, see Refs. . On the other hand, the precise empirical determination of $`g_P`$ is hampered by the 5% error in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{liq}}^{exp}`$; the sensitivity of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{liq}}^{exp}`$ to $`g_P`$ is rather modest because the fixed momentum transfer in OMC ($`q^2=0.88m_\mu ^2`$) suppresses the contribution of the $`g_P`$ term, which contains the pion-pole structure $`\frac{1}{q^2m_\pi ^2}`$.

Since RMC is free from this kinematic constraint, it can be a more sensitive probe of $`g_P`$, despite its extremely small branching ratio. A recent TRIUMF experiment succeeded in measuring $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{RMC}}/dE_\gamma `$, the absolute photon spectrum for RMC in liquid hydrogen . If one uses atomic RMC amplitudes calculated in the phenomenological minimal coupling method , and if one adopts the existing atom-liquid translation formulae, then the observed $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{RMC}}/dE_\gamma `$ cannot be reproduced unless $`g_P`$ is artificially increased from its PCAC value by as much as 50 %. However, such a large deviation of $`g_P`$ from its PCAC value is extremely unlikely according to an HBChPT calculation . This very astonishing feature reported for $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{RMC}}/dE_\gamma `$ motivated reexamination of the formalism used in  to calculate the RMC amplitude, and several calculations based on HBChPT have been carried out . A next-to-leading order (NLO) calculation  indicates that HBChPT essentially reproduces $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{RMC}}/dE_\gamma `$ given in . A next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) calculation  has confirmed that the HBChPT expansion converges rapidly and that loop corrections to $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{RMC}}/dE_\gamma `$ are tiny. Furthermore, a recent calculation  that incorporates the explicit $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ degrees of freedom into a tree-diagram HBChPT calculation suggests that the inclusion of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ modifies the spectrum only by 5%, a result consistent with the earlier finding of Beder and Fearing . This change is not large enough to remove the above-mentioned anomalous $`g_P`$ value. Thus the systematic analyses based on HBChPT strongly indicate that no drastic changes in the atomic RMC amplitudes from the existing estimates should be expected. It then seems likely that the $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{RMC}}/dE_\gamma `$ problem is caused by the currently adopted atom-liquid translation formulae.

Meanwhile, an experiment that uses a hydrogen gas target to directly measure $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ with 1% accuracy is planned at PSI . The use of the gas target eliminates ambiguities due to the molecular capture processes. The envisaged 1% accuracy will significantly increase precision with which the empirical value of $`g_P`$ is determined. We note, however, that, to make comparison between theory and experiment at the 1% level, the existing estimate of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ based on an HBChPT calculation up to NLO needs to be improved. First, one must ascertain that the input physical constants like $`f_\pi `$ and $`g_A`$ have sufficient precision. Secondly, NNLO loop corrections need to be evaluated555 The transition amplitude of OMC was calculated in HBChPT up to NNLO by Fearing et al. , but the capture rate was not explicitly given in that work. .

In this article we present an HBChPT calculation for OMC up to NNLO in which the influence of uncertainties in the low-energy constants is carefully examined. In addition to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$, we calculate the neutron helicity asymmetry (to be defined later). It is found that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ obtained here is significantly larger than the previous estimates , whereas $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ essentially agrees with the literature values. The larger value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ is primarily due to the updated larger value of $`g_A`$. A second main point of our paper is to discuss the observational ramifications of our new estimates. If we use the new values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ together with the “standard” atom-liquid translation formulae , the resulting $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{liq}}^{\mathrm{theor}}`$ turns out to be significantly larger than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{liq}}^{exp}`$ in Eq. (3), another possible indication that the existing atom-liquid translation formulae may require reexamination. We shall argue that this difficulty is probably related to the above-mentioned “anomaly” in RMC, and that there is possibility to resolve these two problems simply and simultaneously by invoking a molecular mixing parameter discussed by Weinberg .

2. Heavy-baryon chiral perturbation theory (HBChPT)

HBChPT is a low energy effective field theory of QCD, which has a systematic perturbative expansion in powers of $`Q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi `$, where $`Q`$ is a small typical four-momentum scale characterizing a process in question, or the pion mass $`m_\pi `$; $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi `$ is the chiral scale, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi 4\pi f_\pi m_N1`$ GeV. A typical scale $`Q`$ in muon capture (both OMC and RMC) is the muon mass $`m_\mu =105.7`$ MeV, and hence $`Q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi 0.1`$. One therefore expects a rapid convergence of relevant chiral perturbation series for muon capture; the explicit HBChPT calculations  are consistent with this expectation.

The effective chiral Lagrangian is expanded as

$`={\displaystyle _{\overline{\nu }}}=_0+_1+_2+\mathrm{}.`$ (4)
The subscript $`\overline{\nu }`$ denotes the order of terms, $`\overline{\nu }=d+n/22`$, where $`n`$ is the number of nucleon lines and $`d`$ the number of derivatives or powers of $`m_\pi `$ involved in a vertex. The terms relevant to our calculation are

$`_0`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{N}\left[ivD+2ig_AS\mathrm{\Delta }\right]N+f_\pi ^2\mathrm{Tr}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _+}{4}}\right),`$ (5)
$`_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_N}}\overline{N}\left[(vD)^2D^2+2g_A\{v\mathrm{\Delta },SD\}i(1+b_5)[S^\alpha ,S^\beta ]f_{\alpha \beta }^+\right]N,`$ (6)
$`_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi f_\pi )^2}}\overline{N}\left[c_3v^\alpha [D^\beta ,f_{\alpha \beta }^+]+c_{13}g_AS^\alpha [D^\beta ,f_{\alpha \beta }^{}]+ic_{14}g_AS^\alpha [D_\alpha ,\chi _{}]\right]N+_{1/m_N^2},`$ (7)
where $`_{1/m_N^2}`$ is the $`1/m_N^2`$ Lagrangian given in Ref. . Furthermore

$`D_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`_\mu +\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ,`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\xi ^{},_\mu \xi ]{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\xi ^{}F_\mu ^R\xi {\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\xi F_\mu ^L\xi ^{},F_\mu ^{R,L}={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{\tau }}{2}}(\stackrel{}{v}_\mu \pm \stackrel{}{a}_\mu ),`$ (9)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\xi ^{},_\mu \xi \}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\xi ^{}F_\mu ^R\xi +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\xi F_\mu ^L\xi ^{},`$ (10)
$`f_{\mu \nu }^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\xi ^{}F_{\mu \nu }^R\xi \pm \xi F_{\mu \nu }^L\xi ^{}\right),F_{\mu \nu }^{R,L}=_\mu F_\nu ^{R,L}_\nu F_\mu ^{R,L}i[F_\mu ^{R,L},F_\nu ^{R,L}],`$ (11)
$`\chi ^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\xi ^{}\chi \xi ^{}\pm \xi \chi ^{}\xi ,\chi =m_\pi ^2,\xi =\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{}{\tau }\stackrel{}{\pi }/2f_\pi ).`$ (12)
In these expressions $`\stackrel{}{v}_\mu `$ and $`\stackrel{}{a}_\mu `$ are the isovector vector and axial-vector external fields, respectively; $`v^\mu =(1,\stackrel{}{0})`$ is the velocity four-vector, and $`S^\mu =(0,\stackrel{}{\sigma }/2)`$ is the nucleon spin operator. We ignore the isospin breaking effect and use $`m_N=(m_p+m_n)/2`$ as the nucleon mass666 In calculating the transition amplitudes we ignore isospin breaking but, in evaluating the phase space, we do retain the neutron-proton mass difference (see later). . Our effective Lagrangian contains the low energy constants (LECs), $`b_5`$, $`c_3`$, $`c_{13}`$ and $`c_{14}`$.777 Our notations for the LECs are different from those in Ref. . The relations between them are    $`b_5=c_6,c_3=B_{10},c_{13}=2(4\pi f_\pi )^2B_{24}/g_A,c_{14}=B_{23}.`$   The LECs, $`b_5`$, $`c_{13}`$ and $`c_{14}`$, are finite constants fixed by experiments. To one-loop order, $`b_5`$ = $`\kappa _V+g_A^2m_\pi m_N/4\pi f_\pi ^2`$, where $`\kappa _V`$ =3.706 is the isovector anomalous magnetic moment. The constant $`c_{13}`$ is fixed by the mean square axial radius deduced from (anti) neutrino-proton scattering, $`r_A=0.65`$ fm ; its numerical value is $`c_{13}`$ = $`(4\pi f_\pi )^2\frac{r_A^2}{3}`$ = 4.88. The parameter $`c_{14}`$ is fixed by the GT discrepancy defined by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{GT}1{\displaystyle \frac{g_Am_N}{f_\pi g_{\pi N}}}={\displaystyle \frac{2m_\pi ^2}{(4\pi f_\pi )^2}}c_{14},`$ (13)
where $`g_{\pi N}`$ is the $`\pi NN`$ coupling constant. The one-loop diagrams are renormalized by $`c_3`$. Integrating in $`d=42ϵ`$ dimension, we have

$`c_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(1+5g_A^2)R+c_3^R,\mathrm{with}R={\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}+1\gamma +\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \mu ^2}{m_\pi ^2}},`$ (14)
where $`\gamma =0.5772\mathrm{}`$, and the mass scale $`\mu `$ is a parameter in dimensional regularization. Note that we include $`\mu `$ into $`c_3^R`$ to avoid the $`\mu `$ dependence in the amplitudes. The parameter $`c_3^R`$ is fixed by the empirical radius of the isovector Dirac form factor $`r_1^V^2=0.585`$ fm2 . Thus, from $`\frac{r_1^V^2}{6}=\frac{c_3^R}{(4\pi f_\pi )^2}\frac{1+7g_A^2}{96\pi ^2f_\pi ^2},`$ we deduce $`c_3^R=5.39`$ (5.42) with $`g_A=1.26`$ (1.267).

3. Atomic OMC rates and neutron helicity asymmetry: Formalism

The OMC process is effectively described by the current-current interaction. Thus the transition amplitude reads

$$M_{fi}=\frac{G_\mu V_{ud}}{\sqrt{2}}L_\alpha J^\alpha ,$$
(15)
where $`G_\mu V_{ud}G_\beta `$ is the Fermi constant, $`L_\alpha `$ is the leptonic weak current, and $`J^\alpha `$ is the nucleon weak current. The leptonic current is simply given by $`L_\alpha =\overline{u}_\nu \gamma _\alpha (1\gamma _5)u_\mu `$, whereas $`J^\alpha `$ is a much more complex object reflecting hadron dynamics. Here we evaluate $`J^\alpha `$ in HBChPT up to NNLO (one-loop) chiral order.

Since in HBChPT the nucleon current $`J^\alpha `$ is expanded in terms of $`1/m_N`$, it is convenient to write $`J^\alpha `$ in the Pauli-spinor form. The time and spatial components of the nucleon current $`J^\alpha =J_V^\alpha J_A^\alpha `$ are written as

$`J_V^0(q)=f_1^V(q),\stackrel{}{J}_V(q)=i\stackrel{}{\sigma }\times \widehat{q}f_2^V(q)+\widehat{q}f_3^V(q),`$ (16)
$`J_A^0(q)=\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{q}f_3^A(q),\stackrel{}{J}_A(q)=\stackrel{}{\sigma }f_1^A(q)+\widehat{q}(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{q})f_2^A(q),`$ (17)
where we have suppressed the initial- and final-nucleon spinors as well as the common factor $`2m_N`$. The form factors, $`f_i^V`$ and $`f_i^A`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$), introduced here may be referred to as the non-relativistic (NR) form factors. The relations between the NR form factors and the standard relativistic nucleon weak form factors are given in the Appendix. Note that $`f_1^V`$ and $`f_3^V`$ are in fact related by current conservation.

The NR form factors calculated up to one-loop order in HBChPT read

$`f_1^V`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{c_3^R}{(4\pi f_\pi )^2}}q^2{\displaystyle \frac{1+17g_A^2}{18(4\pi f_\pi )^2}}q^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4m_N^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}+\kappa _V\right)q^2`$ (18)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi f_\pi )^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(1+2g_A^2)m_\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1+5g_A^2}{6}}q^2\right]f_0(q),`$
$`f_2^V`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_N}}(1+\kappa _V)+{\displaystyle \frac{g_A^2}{64\pi f_\pi ^2m_\pi }}q^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{4\pi f_\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi (4m_\pi ^2q^2)}{4m_\pi }}m_0(q)\right]|\stackrel{}{q}|,`$ (19)
$`f_3^V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{q}|}{2m_N}},`$ (20)
$`f_1^A`$ $`=`$ $`g_A\left[1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{c_{13}}{2(4\pi f_\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8m_N^2}}\right)q^2\right],`$ (21)
$`f_2^A`$ $`=`$ $`g_A\left[{\displaystyle \frac{c_{13}}{2(4\pi f_\pi )^2}}+\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi (q)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2m_\pi ^2c_{14}}{(4\pi f_\pi )^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{8m_N^2}}\right)\right]|\stackrel{}{q}|^2,`$ (22)
$`f_3^A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{2m_N}}(1\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi (q)q^2)|\stackrel{}{q}|,`$ (23)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi (q)^1=(q^2m_\pi ^2)^1`$ is the renormalized pion propagator, and the one-loop functions are given by

$`f_0(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x\mathrm{ln}[1x(1x)q^2/m_\pi ^2],`$ (24)
$`m_0(\stackrel{}{q})`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+x(1x)\stackrel{}{q}^2/m_\pi ^2}}}.`$ (25)
The total OMC rate from a muonic hydrogen atom in a hyperfine state $`S`$ is given as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_S=K\frac{1}{2S+1}\underset{S_z,h}{}|M(h;S,S_z)|^2,$$
(26)
with

$$K\frac{|\varphi _\mu (0)|^2}{16\pi m_\mu m_p}\left(\frac{E_\nu }{E_\nu +\sqrt{m_n^2+E_\nu ^2}}\right).$$
(27)
The helicity amplitude $`M(h;S,S_z)`$ in Eq. (26) is specified by the final neutron helicity $`h`$ ($`h=L,R`$), the initial hyperfine spin $`S`$, and its $`z`$-component, $`S_z`$. In Eq. (27), $`E_\nu `$ is the final neutrino energy given by888See footnote 6.

$$E_\nu =\frac{(m_\mu +m_p)^2m_n^2}{2(m_\mu +m_p)}=99.15[\mathrm{MeV}].$$
(28)
The factor $`\varphi _\mu (0)`$ appearing in $`K`$ is the value at the origin of the radial wavefunction for the $`\mu ^{}`$-$`p`$ ground state; thus $`|\varphi _\mu (0)|^2=(\alpha m_\mu ^r)^3/\pi `$, where $`\alpha `$ is the fine structure constant and $`m_\mu ^r=m_\mu m_p/(m_\mu +m_p)`$.

When the neutron helicity is monitored, we define the neutron helicity asymmetry as

$`\alpha _S={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_S(L)\mathrm{\Gamma }_S(R)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_S(L)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_S(R)}},`$ (29)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S(L)`$ ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S(R)`$) is the rate of OMC from an initial atomic spin state, $`S`$, leading to a final left-handed (right-handed) neutron.999 Thus, if the neutron helicity is not monitored, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S=\mathrm{\Gamma }_S(L)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_S(R)`$.

In calculating the capture rates for different neutron helicities, it is convenient to choose the direction of the emitted neutrino as the $`z`$-axis. In general there are eight helicity amplitudes, but with this particular choice we have only three non-zero amplitudes. They are

$`M(L;0,0)={\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\sqrt{2}}}(f_1^V+2f_2^V+f_3^V+3f_1^A+f_2^A+f_3^A),`$ (30)
$`M(L;1,0)={\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\sqrt{2}}}(f_1^V2f_2^V+f_3^Vf_1^A+f_2^A+f_3^A),`$ (31)
$`M(R;1,1)=\beta (f_1^V+f_3^Vf_1^Af_2^Af_3^A),`$ (32)
where $`\beta 4G_\beta m_N\sqrt{m_\mu E_\nu }`$. Correspondingly, we have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(L)=K|M(L;0,0)|^2,\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(R)=0,\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(L)=K\frac{1}{3}|M(L;1,0)|^2`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(R)=K\frac{1}{3}|M(R;1,1)|^2`$.

4. Atomic OMC rates and neutron helicity asymmetry: numerical results

As emphasized above, at the level of precision of our concern, we need to be particularly careful about the accuracy of the input physical parameters. The most updated value of $`G_\beta `$ is $`G_\beta /\sqrt{2}=0.8030\pm 0.0008\times 10^5`$ GeV-2. For $`g_A`$ and $`g_{\pi N}`$, we use as the standard values $`g_A=1.267`$  and $`g_{\pi N}=13.4`$.

Since the momentum transfer for OMC is fixed, we calculate the NR form factors for $`|\stackrel{}{q}|=E_\nu `$ and $`q^2=m_\mu ^22m_\mu E_\nu `$. The results for each order of HBChPT expansion are given in Table 1. The table clearly shows that the chiral perturbation series converges very rapidly. As for the helicity-dependent amplitudes, we obtain

$$M(L;0,0)=3.45\beta ,M(L;1,0)=0.77\beta ,M(R;1,1)=0.15\beta .$$
(33)
In Table 2 we give our numerical results for the atomic capture rates, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$, along with HBCHPT calculations of Bernard et al. . The second column labeled “This work” represents the results obtained in our NNLO-calculation. Comparing this column with the third column that gives the results of our NLO-calculation, we note that the NNLO corrections decrease $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ significantly (3.9%). Thus it is clear that, in order to achieve theoretical precision that matches the 1% accuracy of the planned PSI experiment on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ , one must take into account the NNLO terms.

We now turn to comparison with the other calculations quoted in Table 2. The estimates of Primakoff  and Opat  are based on the phenomenological parameterization of the weak nucleon current with $`g_P`$ fixed at its PCAC value; Primakoff retained the relativistic kinematics, whereas Opat used a non-relativistic expansion of the amplitudes in terms of $`1/m_N`$. Bernard et al.’s results come from an NLO-calculation  and an NNLO-calculation . The results of the two NNLO-calculations, the second and fourth columns in Table 2, exhibit a 1 % difference. Bernard et al. used a different value of $`g_A`$ ($`g_A=1.26`$). They also expanded the phase space and atomic wavefunction in Eq. (27) in powers of $`m_\mu /m_N`$. For the sake of comparison, suppose that, in our NNLO calculation we apply expansion of $`m_\mu /m_N`$ to the phase space, while keeping the exact atomic wavefunction, but ignoring neutron-proton ($`n`$-$`p`$) mass difference. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ calculated up to $`1/m_N^2`$ would become $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{1/m_N^2}=708`$ sec-1, which is to be compared with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=`$ 695 sec-1 in Table 2. If we expand both phase space and wavefunction, ignoring $`n`$-$`p`$ mass difference, we obtain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{1/m_N^2}=705`$ sec-1. The different $`1/m_N`$ expansion schemes show only a tiny numerical difference, but, the rates in both cases are enhanced by $``$ 2 % compared with the exact phase space case. This is due to ignoring the nucleon mass difference; the rate is proportional to $`E_\nu ^2`$ and $`E_\nu `$ increases by 1 % when the $`n`$-$`p`$ mass difference is ignored. In the present work we retain the exact final phase space and atomic wave-function;101010 We do not, however, include the finite-nucleon-size effect on the atomic wave-function; this effect is known to reduce the capture rate by $``$0.4 %, see e.g., Appendix 1 in Ref. . viz., we apply HBChPT expansion only to the transition amplitudes. On the other hand, the 1 % difference between the two NNLO-calculations in Table 2 may stem from differences in input parameters as well.

According to Table 2, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$’s calculated in HBChPT (our present result and those of Bernard et al.) have significantly larger values than the earlier theoretical estimates. This is primarily due to the fact that the modern HBChPT calculations employ an updated value of $`g_A`$, which is larger than the older values. Primakoff  used $`g_A=1.24`$, while Opat  used $`g_A=1.22`$. In order to illustrate the sensitivity of our results to the input physical parameters, we show in Table 3 the values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ corresponding to different values of $`g_A`$ and $`g_{\pi N}`$; the LEC $`c_{14}`$, which is determined by $`g_A`$ and $`g_{\pi N}`$ via Eq. (13), is also listed. As can be seen from the last four rows in the table, for a given value of $`g_A`$, variations in $`g_{\pi N}`$ causes only minor changes in the capture rates; even though these variations lead to a difference of a factor of $``$3 in $`c_{14}`$, the corresponding changes in the rates in the last four rows are modest; 1.3% for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ and 2.5% for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$. Thus the most crucial input parameter here is $`g_A`$.

Finally we discuss the helicity asymmetry. Due to the $`VA`$ weak interaction the final neutron is purely left-handed when an initial atomic state is in the hyperfine singlet state ($`S=0`$); thus we have $`\alpha _0=1`$ as a trivial identity. For the initial hyperfine triplet state ($`S=1`$), the final neutron can have both left- and right-handed helicity components, and therefore $`\alpha _1`$ can have a non-trivial value; our calculation gives $`\alpha _1=0.925`$. Thus almost all out-going neutrons are polarized left-handedly, a result consistent with Weinberg’s observation .

5. OMC rates for liquid hydrogen targets

As mentioned, in order to relate theoretical estimates of the atomic OMC rates to the capture rate measured in liquid hydrogen, one needs (in our terminology) the “atom-liquid” translation formulae. We briefly describe here the atomic and molecular physics input that underlies these formulae. A muon stopped in liquid hydrogen quickly forms a muonic atom ($`\mu `$-p) in its Bohr orbit. The atomic hyperfine triplet state (S=1) is rapidly transformed into the singlet state (S=0); this hyperfine transition rate is known to be $`\lambda _{10}1.7\times 10^{10}`$ sec-1 , indeed a very large value. A muonic atom and a hydrogen molecule collide with each other to form a $`p`$-$`\mu `$-$`p`$ molecule, predominantly in its ortho state (with the two proton spins parallel to each other). Let $`\lambda _{pp\mu }`$ be the rate of transition from the atomic hyperfine singlet state to the ortho $`p`$-$`\mu `$-$`p`$ molecular state. Meanwhile, the ortho $`p`$-$`\mu `$-$`p`$ molecular state decays to the lower-lying para $`p`$-$`\mu `$-$`p`$ molecular state. Let $`\lambda _{op}`$ stand for this decay rate. Taking into account these atomic and molecular processes, one relates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{liq}}`$, the OMC capture rate in liquid hydrogen, to the atomic capture rates ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$) via the formula

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{liq}}={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _0}{\lambda _0+\lambda _{pp\mu }}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{pp\mu }}{\lambda _0+\lambda _{pp\mu }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _0}{\lambda _0+\lambda _{op}}}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{om}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pm}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{op}}{\lambda _0}}\right),`$ (34)
where $`\lambda _0`$ is the muon decay rate, $`\lambda _0=0.455\times 10^6`$ sec-1. In this equation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{om}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pm}`$) represents the rate of muon capture from the ortho (para) $`p`$-$`\mu `$-$`p`$ molecular state. These rates are usually calculated using the formula,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{om}=2\gamma _O\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\right),\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pm}=2\gamma _P\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\right).`$ (35)
The factors $`2\gamma _O`$ and $`2\gamma _P`$ account for modifications of the muon wavefunction as it changes from the atomic Bohr orbit to the $`p`$-$`\mu `$-$`p`$ molecular state; according to Ref. , $`2\gamma _O=1.009`$ and $`2\gamma _P=1.143`$. The validity of Eq. (35) will be discussed later in the text.

As for $`\lambda _{pp\mu }`$, there are several conflicting experimental results, see e.g. Ref.. We quote here the lowest and highest reported values: $`\lambda _{pp\mu }^{exp}=1.89\pm 0.20\times 10^6`$ sec-1, and $`\lambda _{pp\mu }^{exp}=2.75\pm 0.25\times 10^6`$ sec-1. The current theoretical estimate $`\lambda _{pp\mu }^{th}=1.8\times 10^6`$ sec-1 lies near the lower edge of the lowest experimental value, which is a rather uncomfortable situation. Furthermore, the current experimental and theoretical values for $`\lambda _{op}`$ do not agree with each other: $`\lambda _{op}^{exp}=4.1\pm 1.4\times 10^4`$ sec-1  and $`\lambda _{op}^{th}=7.1\pm 1.2\times 10^4`$ sec-1 . Thus it seems fair to say that the existing “atom-liquid” formulae are not totally free from uncertainties and that these ambiguities can affect our interpretation of the OMC rate in liquid hydrogen.

In the following we use for $`\lambda _{pp\mu }`$ the value adopted in Ref. , $`\lambda _{pp\mu }=2.5\times 10^6`$ sec-1; for $`\lambda _{op}`$, we use two representative values: $`\lambda _{op}^{th}`$ and $`\lambda _{op}^{exp}`$. Using the OMC rates of Primakoff in Table 2 and $`\lambda _{op}^{th}`$, Bakalov et al.  obtained $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{liq}}=490\pm 10`$ sec-1, in good agreement with the data, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{liq}}^{exp}`$ = 460 $`\pm `$ 20 sec-1. However, if we use the values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ obtained in our NNLO-HBChPT calculation together with $`\lambda _{op}^{th}`$, then Eq. (34) gives a much larger rate, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{liq}}=518`$ sec-1. If we adopt $`\lambda _{op}=\lambda _{op}^{exp}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{liq}`$ becomes even larger: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{liq}=532`$ sec-1. Thus, the use of the updated values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ as obtained here in combination with the commonly used “atom-liquid translation formulae” spoils the previously reported good agreement between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{liq}}^{theor}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{liq}}^{exp}`$. So, in addition to the problem of the RMC photon spectrum discussed in the Introduction, another serious problem seems to be lurking in the OMC sector.

6. A mixing molecular parameter to fit the OMC and RMC data

In view of the fact that these two problems occur in the experiments involving liquid hydrogen targets, it seems of interest and of importance to reexamine the reliability of the formulae hitherto used in the literature to relate the atomic capture rates to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{liq}}`$. Although a thorough investigation of this issue is beyond the scope of this article, we wish to discuss here a particular aspect of molecular physics input which seems relevant to the present issue but so far has not been fully examined. Taking up an early observation made by Weinberg , consider the possibility that in liquid hydrogen two ortho molecular $`p`$-$`\mu `$-$`p`$ spin states, $`S_{p\mu p}`$ = 1/2 and 3/2 may be populated. If this indeed happens, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{om}`$ in Eq. (35) should be replaced with

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{om}^{}=\xi \mathrm{\Gamma }_{om}(1/2)+(1\xi )\mathrm{\Gamma }_{om}(3/2),`$ (36)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{om}(1/2)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{om}`$ of Eq. (35) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{om}(3/2)=2\gamma _O\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$. According to Weinberg , the mixing parameter $`\xi `$ can be in the range of $`0.5\xi 1`$. Only theoretical estimates of $`\xi `$ exist, and its literature value is $`\xi 1`$ ; to our knowledge $`\xi `$ has never been measured experimentally. To study the consequences of $`\xi 1`$, we have calculated $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{liq}}`$ with the use of Eqs. (34),(35),(36), for several values of $`\xi `$. For $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ we have used the results of our NNLO calculation while for $`\lambda _{op}`$ we have considered the two representative values discussed above: $`\lambda _{op}^{th}`$ and $`\lambda _{op}^{exp}`$. The results are shown in Table 4.

The table indicates that, if $`0.8\xi 0.9`$, the theoretical and experimental values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{liq}}`$ are in good agreement. 111111 If one replaces Eq. (34) with an older and simpler “atom-liquid” formula of Ref. , the OMC data can be fit with $`\xi =1`$, and the RMC data with $`\xi 0.95`$ within the framework of an NLO-HBChPT calculation, see Ref. .

We next argue that the introduction of $`\xi `$ in this range leads to resolution of the RMC problem as well. We first remark that Eqs. (34),(35),(36), can be used, mutatis mutandis, for RMC as well, in particular, for calculation of $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{RMC}}/dE_\gamma `$, the photon spectrum for RMC in liquid hydrogen. With the atomic RMC transition amplitudes previously obtained in a NNLO-HBChPT calculation , we have evaluated $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{RMC}}/dE_\gamma `$ for various values of $`\xi `$; the other atomic and molecular population parameters are kept fixed at the values used in Ref. : 6.1% atomic hyperfine singlet state, 85.4% ortho $`p`$-$`\mu `$-$`p`$ state and 8.5% para $`p`$-$`\mu `$-$`p`$ state. The results are shown in Fig. 1. The dashed line (lowest curve) represents the no-mixing case, $`\xi `$ = 1, which corresponds to $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{RMC}}/dE_\gamma `$ obtained in . For comparison , we also show in the figure (the solid line) the result obtained in a modified version of the Fearing model  wherein $`g_P`$ is taken to be 1.5 times the PCAC value. This line represents the best fit curve to the observed $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{RMC}}/dE_\gamma `$ in the analysis reported in . One can see from the figure that $`\xi `$ in the range of 0.8-0.9 leads to a photon spectrum that is satisfactorily close to the “observed” spectrum (solid line) for $`E_\gamma `$ $``$ 60 MeV.

7. Discussion and Conclusions

We have considered in our HBChPT calculation up to NNLO contributions. Some remarks on possible higher order effects are in order here. As discussed in Ref. , a one-loop diagram in N3LO which contains a vertex with the anomalous magnetic moment, $`\kappa _Vm_\mu /m_N0.5`$, can be comparable in size to the NNLO diagrams. This means that the correction to the capture rate due to the N3LO terms may reach the 1-2 % level. Thus, for a more precise theoretical prediction of the OMC rates, it can in principle be important to include the N3LO corrections, although the existing uncertainty in the values of $`g_A`$ and $`g_{\pi N}`$ may not warrant the effort. Moreover, at the level of N3LO, the isospin breaking effects as well as QED corrections  are expected to give sizable contributions.

In conclusion, we have carried out a HBChPT calculation of the atomic OMC rates to next-to-next-to-leading order. Our result indicates that, once the measurement of the hyperfine-singlet atomic OMC rate reaches 1% accuracy, as envisaged in a PSI experiment, theoretical predictions based on HBChPT must include at least NNLO corrections. Furthermore, we have shown that both the OMC rate and the RMC photon energy spectrum measured in liquid hydrogen can be reproduced by introducing the molecular mixing parameter $`\xi `$ in the range of $`\xi 0.8`$ to 0.9. It seems interesting to examine whether this range of $`\xi `$ is realistic.

Finally, we have shown that the neutron helicity asymmetry for OMC from a hyperfine triplet state is $``$93%.

Acknowledgment

The authors are grateful to Véronique Bernard, Thomas Hemmert and Ulf Meißner for kindly communicating the content of Ref.  and for extremely useful discussions. This work is supported in part by the NSF grant PHY-9900756.

APPENDIX

Assuming the absence of the second-class current, one can express the nucleon vector and axial currents in terms of four form factors:

$`J_V^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}_n(p^{})\left[G_V(q)\gamma ^\alpha +G_M(q){\displaystyle \frac{i\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }q_\beta }{2m_N}}\right]u_p(p),`$ (37)
$`J_A^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}_n(p^{})\left[G_A(q)\gamma ^\alpha \gamma _5+G_P(q){\displaystyle \frac{q_\beta }{m_\mu }}\gamma _5\right]u_p(p),`$ (38)
where $`G_V(q)`$, $`G_M(q)`$, $`G_A(q)`$, and $`G_P(q)`$ are the vector, weak-magnetism, axial-vector, and pseudo-scalar form factor, respectively; $`q=p^{}p`$ and $`u_p`$ ($`u_n`$) is the Dirac spinor for the proton (neutron). These standard relativistic form factors are related to the NR form factors, $`f_i^V`$’s and $`f_i^A`$’s, defined in Eq. (17). Up to $`𝒪(1/m_N^2)`$

$`f_1^V=G_V(q)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{8m_N^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{4m_N^2}}G_M(q),`$
$`f_2^V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_N}}\left[G_V(q)+G_M(q)\right]|\stackrel{}{q}|,f_3^V={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_N}}G_V(q)|\stackrel{}{q}|,`$
$`f_1^A`$ $`=`$ $`G_A(q)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{8m_N^2}}\right),f_2^A={\displaystyle \frac{G_P(q)}{2m_\mu m_N}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{8m_N^2}}\right)|\stackrel{}{q}|^2,`$
$`f_3^A={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_N}}\left(G_A(q)+{\displaystyle \frac{G_P(q)q^2}{2m_\mu m_N}}\right)|\stackrel{}{q}|.`$