format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The usual way to approach scalar quantum electrodynamics (SQED) is by performing the electromagnetic minimal coupling in the free Lagrangian of Klein-Gordon (KG) scalar field theory . An alternative way is to start from the free Duffin-Kemmer-Petiau (DKP) Lagrangian instead of the KG one.

The free DKP theory is a theory for scalar and vector fields  given by a Lagrangian formally similar to that of spinorial QED. The fundamental differences are the algebraic relations satisfied by the $`\beta ^\mu `$ matrices in DKP theory, which play the role analogous to $`\gamma ^\mu `$ in spinor QED.

It is known that in the free field case the DKP and KG theories are equivalent, both in classical and quantum pictures . However, there are still no general proofs of equivalence between these theories when interactions and decays of unstable particles are taken into account  (in this context see also references , which relate different results by using both DKP and KG formalisms with strong interactions). Some progress in this direction has been made recently. For instance, it was shown that both theories are equivalent in the classical level for the cases of minimal interaction with electromagnetic  and gravitational  fields . Strict proofs of equivalence between both theories were also given for the cases of interaction of the quantized scalar field with classical and quantized electromagnetic, Yang-Mills and external gravitational fields .

Perhaps one of the most evident advantages in working with this theory is the fact that derivative couplings do not appear between DKP and the gauge field (this property has been used by Gribov recently, who employed the vector sector of DKP theory to study the quark confinement problem ). Such property will result in manifestly covariant expressions for the interaction Hamiltonian and the vacuum expectation values of time ordered products of fields. Another advantages are the formal similarity with spinor QED (which facilitates the adaptation to the scalar case of technics developed formerly in the spinor case ) and the fact that this formalism allows an unified treatment of the scalar and vector fields.

One of the difficulties in working with SQED based on KG equation (SQED-KG) is the presence of a term of second order in the coupling constant in the interaction Hamiltonian, which causes trouble in proving gauge invariance . In SQED based on DKP theory it was achieved, by an effective approach, that this second order term does not contribute to S-matrix, and thus it can be neglected when we construct the Feynman rules for the theory .

In this paper we will consider SQED-DKP in the framework of Epstein-Glaser causal perturbative method. This method was formulated to give a mathematical rigorous treatment of ultraviolet divergences in quantum field theory. In this framework such divergences do not appear anywhere in the calculations due to the correct splitting of causal distributions into its advanced and retarded parts . Our goals are to obtain a non-effective and mathematically well defined theory for SQED-DKP and recover the results of the corresponding effective theory already obtained in the usual perturbative approach. In addition, this work must be viewed as an initial step in the attempts to rigorously establish the renormalizability of the theory which is still an open question.

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we present the DKP theory. In section 3 we review the main features of the Epstein-Glaser causal method and present the basis to construct the second order S matrix. In section 4 we consider Compton scattering and address the question of how the propagator of the effective theory emerges in the causal approach. In this context the gauge invariance plays a crucial role. In section 5 we calculate the scalar vacuum polarization tensor. In section 6 we calculate the self-energy and, by using an Ward identity, also the vertex correction in the limit of zero momentum transfer. In section 7 we make our concluding remarks. The implications of gauge invariance are presented in the Appendix.

## 2 Duffin-Kemmer-Petiau theory

The free DKP theory is given by the Lagrangian

$$=\frac{i}{2}\overline{\psi }\beta ^\mu \stackrel{}{}_\mu \psi m\overline{\psi }\psi ,$$
(1)
where $`\psi `$ is a multicomponent wave function, $`\overline{\psi }=\psi ^{}\eta ^0,`$ and $`\eta ^0=2\left(\beta ^0\right)^21.`$ $`\beta ^\mu `$ are a set of matrices $`\left(\mu =0,1,2,3\right)`$ satisfying the algebraic relations

$$\beta ^\mu \beta ^\nu \beta ^\rho +\beta ^\rho \beta ^\nu \beta ^\mu =\beta ^\mu g^{\nu \rho }+\beta ^\rho g^{\mu \nu }.$$
(2)
The equations of motion are then

$$\left(i\beta ^\mu _\nu m\right)\psi =0\text{ and }\overline{\psi }\left(i\beta ^\mu _\nu +m\right)=0.$$
(3)
It is known  that the algebra (2) has only three irreducible representations, whose degrees are 1, 5 and 10. The first one is trivial, having no physical content. The second and the third ones correspond, respectively, to the scalar and vectorial representations. In this work we shall restrict us to the scalar case.

Defining $`q/`$$`=\beta ^\mu q_\mu `$ and using relations (2) it can be shown that, for any four-vector $`q`$ the following relation is satisfied

$$q/^2(q/^2q^2)=0.$$
(4)
By using this relation and the plane wave solutions for the equations of motion we can verify that $`p^2=m^2.`$

As an ilustrative example of an explicit representation of (2) we can get

$`\beta ^0`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right);\beta ^1=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right);`$ (16)
$`\beta ^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right);\beta ^3=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (27)
Using this specific representation we can construct explicitly projection operators and show that not all components of the field $`\psi `$ are independent. For a detailed explanation we refer to references . Here we only quote the explicit form of $`\psi `$ in this representation:

$$\psi =\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{i}{\sqrt{m}}_0\phi \\ \frac{i}{\sqrt{m}}_1\phi \\ \frac{i}{\sqrt{m}}_2\phi \\ \frac{i}{\sqrt{m}}_3\phi \\ \sqrt{m}\phi \end{array}\right),(\mathrm{}+m^2)\phi =0.$$
(28)
Thus we readily see that not all components of $`\psi `$ can be independent. Actually, we can choose only two of these components as independent ones. We shall make use of this explicit representation in the remainder of this work only for ilustrating the arguments, being our results valid for any scalar representation of relations (2).

Now we apply the standard procedure of canonical quantization in the free Lagrangian (1) and obtain

$$[\psi _a^{}(x),\overline{\psi ^+}_b(y)]=\frac{1}{i}S_{ab}^+(xy)\text{ }\text{and }[\overline{\psi ^{}}_a(x),\psi _b^+(y)]=\frac{1}{i}S_{ba}^{}(yx)\text{ ,}$$

where $`\psi ^{}`$ and $`\psi ^+`$ contains only annihilation and creation operators, respectively and

$$S_{ab}^\pm (x)=\frac{1}{m}[i/(i/+m)]_{ab}\mathrm{}^\pm (x),$$
(29)
where

$$\mathrm{}^\pm (x)=\frac{(\pm )i}{(2\pi )^3}d^4p\text{ }\delta (p^2m^2)\theta (\pm p^0)\text{e}^{ip.x}$$
(30)
are the positive (negative) frequency parts of the Pauli-Jordan distribution

$$\mathrm{}(x)=\mathrm{}^+(x)+\mathrm{}^{}(x).$$

As it is well known, this later distribution has causal support  and can be written as

$$\mathrm{}(x)=\mathrm{}^{\text{ret}}(x)\mathrm{}^{\text{adv}}(x),$$
(31)
where $`\mathrm{}^{\text{ret}}(x)`$ and $`\mathrm{}^{\text{adv}}(x)`$ have, respectively, retarded and advanced supports with respect to the point $`x.`$ Analogously we define

$$S(x)S^+(x)+S^{}(x).$$
(32)
We can see directly that this distribution also has a causal support, since it is a linear combination of derivatives of $`\mathrm{}(x),`$ and the differentiation of a causal distribution does not affect the causal property of its support. Now, by (29) and (31), it is possible to write

$$S(x)=S^{\text{ret}}(x)S^{\text{adv}}(x)\text{ ,}$$
(33)
where

$$S^{\text{ret}}(x)=\frac{1}{m}[i/(i/+m)]\mathrm{}^{\text{ret}}(x)\text{and }S^{\text{adv}}(x)=\frac{1}{m}[i/(i/+m)]\mathrm{}^{\text{adv}}(x)\text{ .}$$
(34)
As we will see in the next section, the above splitting of $`S(x)`$ in retarded and advanced parts is not the unique possible.

The interaction with electromagnetic field is introduced by the minimal substitution $`_\mu _\mu ieA_\mu `$ in the Lagrangian (1), which becomes

$``$ $`=`$ $`_\text{F}+_\text{I}\text{ ;}`$ (35)
$`_\text{F}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\overline{\psi }\beta ^\mu \stackrel{}{_\mu }\psi m\overline{\psi }\psi \text{ ;}`$ (36)
$`_\text{I}`$ $`=`$ $`e\overline{\psi }\beta ^\mu \psi A_\mu \text{ ,}`$ (37)
where we have used $`e>0`$.

## 3 The Epstein-Glaser causal approach

In the Epstein-Glaser’s causal method  the $`S`$-matrix is constructed without any reference to Hamiltonian formalism, its explicit form being obtained by making use of certain physical conditions – with causality playing a major role. In this approach the S-matrix is viewed as an operator-valued distribution given by the perturbative series

$$S(g)=1+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}d^4x_1\mathrm{}d^4x_nT_n(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)g(x_1)\mathrm{}g(x_n),$$
(38)
where $`g(x)`$ is a c-number test function supposed to belong to the Schwartz space, $`g(x)𝒮(𝐑^4)`$. The symmetric $`n`$-point functions $`T_n(X)`$ ($`X\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$) are the basic building blocks to be inductively constructed, from the knowledge of $`T_1(x)`$, by means of the requirements of causality

$$S(g_1+g_2)=S(g_1)S(g_2),\mathrm{i}f\mathrm{s}uppg_1>\mathrm{s}uppg_2,$$
(39)
and translational invariance

$$U(a,\mathrm{𝟏})S(g)U(a,\mathrm{𝟏})^1=S\left(g(xa)\right).$$
(40)
In the above equations $`U(a,\mathrm{𝟏})`$ is an usual representation of the Poincaré group $`𝒫_+^{}`$ in the Fock space and the notation $`\mathrm{s}uppg_1>\mathrm{s}uppg_2`$ signify that all points in the support of $`g_2(x)`$ occur at times previous than all points in the support of $`g_1(x)`$.

In terms of the $`n`$-point functions $`T_n`$ these causality and translation invariance conditions are given by

$`T_n(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)=`$ $`T_m(x_1,\mathrm{},x_m)T_{nm}(x_{m+1},\mathrm{},x_n),`$
$`\mathrm{i}f\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_m\}>\{x_{m+1},\mathrm{},x_n\},`$
and

$$U(a,\mathrm{𝟏})T_n(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)U(a,\mathrm{𝟏})^1=T_n(x_1+a,\mathrm{},x_n+a),$$
(42)
respectively.

Making use of these requirements we are able to construct the $`T_n`$, order by order, from the explicit form of $`T_1(x)`$. It is known that, based on general arguments such as correspondence , $`T_1=i_I^{(1)},`$ where $`_I^{(1)}`$ is the term of first order in coupling constant in the interaction Lagrangian and is written in terms of free fields .

Now, let us sketch the inductive procedure (for a detailed account see ). Suppose that all $`T_m(X)`$, with $`mn1`$ are known, then one can define the distributions

$`A_n^{^{}}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{P_2}{}}\stackrel{~}{T}_{n_1}(X)T_{nn_1}(Y,x_n),`$
$`R_n^{^{}}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{P_2}{}}T_{nn_1}(Y,x_n)\stackrel{~}{T}_{n_1}(X),`$
where $`P_2`$ stands for all partitions $`P_2:\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n1}\}=XY`$, $`XØ`$ into disjoint subsets with $`X=n_1`$, $`Yn2`$. In (LABEL:arli) $`\stackrel{~}{T}_n(X)`$ refers to the $`n`$-point distributions corresponding to a series for the $`S^1`$-matrix analogous to (38) and can be obtained by formal inversion of $`S(g)`$, giving

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_n(X)=\underset{r=1}{\overset{n}{}}()^r\underset{P_r}{}T_{n_1}(X_1)\mathrm{}T_{n_r}(X_r),$$
(44)
where $`P_r`$ indicates all partitions of $`X`$ into $`r`$ disjoint subsets: $`X=X_1\mathrm{}X_r`$, $`X_jØ`$, $`|X_j|=n_j`$. Of course, since all $`T_m(X)`$, $`mn1`$ are given by the induction hypothesis, also the $`\stackrel{~}{T}_m(X)`$ with $`mn1`$ are known.

If in (LABEL:arli) the sums are extended in order to include the empty set $`X=Ø`$ we get

$`A_n(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{P_2^0}{}}\stackrel{~}{T}_{n_1}(X)T_{nn_1}(Y,x_n)`$
$`=`$ $`A_n^{^{}}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)+T_n(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n),`$
$`R_n(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{P_2^0}{}}T_{nn_1}(Y,x_n)\stackrel{~}{T}_{n_1}(X)`$
$`=`$ $`R_n^{^{}}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)+T_n(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n),`$
where $`P_2^0`$ stands for all partitions $`P_2^0:\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n1}\}=XY`$. A glance at equations (LABEL:ar) shows that $`A_n`$ and $`R_n`$ are not known because they contain the unknown $`T_n`$. However, the distribution defined by

$$D_n(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)R_nA_n=R_n^{^{}}A_n^{^{}},$$
(46)
is known.

Making use of causality it turns out that $`R_n`$ has retarded support and $`A_n`$ has advanced support, i.e.

$$\mathrm{s}uppR_n(X)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n1}^+(x_n),\mathrm{s}uppA_n(X)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n1}^{}(x_n),$$
(47)
with

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n1}^\pm (x)\{(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n1})x_j\overline{V}^\pm (x),j=1,\mathrm{},n1\},`$
(48)
$`\overline{V}^\pm (x)=\{y(yx)^20,\pm (y^0x^0)0\}.`$
The distribution $`D_n`$ has causal support, $`\mathrm{s}uppD_n\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n1}^+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n1}^{}`$. In fact, a general proof of the causal support of $`D_n`$ only exists for $`n3`$ – for $`n=2`$ we must verify this explicitly. Then, decomposing $`D_n`$ in advanced and retarded distributions we obtain the $`T_n`$ distribution by (LABEL:ar).

The operator-valued distributions which we shall have to split are of the form

$$D_n(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)=\underset{k}{}:\underset{j}{}\overline{\psi }(x_j)d_n^k(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)\underset{l}{}\psi (x_l)\underset{m}{}A(x_m):,$$
(49)
where $`\psi `$, $`\overline{\psi }`$ are the free boson fields of DKP theory and $`A`$ stands for the free gauge boson fields. In this expression $`d_n^k`$ are numerical tempered distributions, $`d_n^k𝒮^{^{}}(𝐑^{4\mathrm{n}})`$, with causal support. Because of the translation invariance, it is sufficient to put $`x_n=0`$ and consider

$$d(x)d_n^k(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n1},0)𝒮^{^{}}(𝐑^\mathrm{m}),𝐦=4𝐧4.$$
(50)
The nontrivial step is the splitting of the numerical causal distribution $`d`$ in the advanced and retarded distributions $`a`$ and $`r`$, respectively. From the fact that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(0)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(0)=\{0\}`$ we can see that the behaviour of $`d(x)`$ in $`x=0`$ (or, in momentum space, $`p=\mathrm{}`$) is crucial in the splitting problem. With this in mind, a classification of the distributions is given in which $`d(x)𝒮^{^{}}(𝐑^\mathrm{m})`$ is called singular of order $`\omega `$ if its Fourier transform $`\widehat{d}(p)`$ has a quasi-asymptotics $`\widehat{d}_0(p)`$ at $`p=\mathrm{}`$

$$\underset{\delta 0}{lim}\rho (\delta )\widehat{d}(\frac{p}{\delta }),\stackrel{}{\varphi }(p)=\widehat{d}_0,\stackrel{}{\varphi },$$
(51)
($`\stackrel{}{\varphi }`$ is the inverse Fourier transform of $`\varphi `$), with power-counting function $`\rho (\delta )`$ satisfying

$$\underset{\delta 0}{lim}\frac{\rho (c\delta )}{\rho (\delta )}=c^\omega ,$$
(52)
for each $`c>0`$. Of course, there is an equivalent definition in the coordinate space , but, since the splitting is more easily performed in the momentum space, this one is sufficient for our purposes.

Then, we have two distinct cases : $`i)`$ $`\omega <0`$ – in this case the solution of the splitting problem is unique and the retarded distribution can be defined by multiplication by step functions; $`ii)`$ $`\omega 0`$ – now the solution can be no longer obtained by multiplying $`d`$ by step functions and, after a careful mathematical treatment, it may be shown that the retarded distribution is given by the “central splitting solution”

$$\widehat{r}(p)=\frac{i}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑t\frac{\widehat{d}(tp)}{(ti0)^{\omega +1}(1t+i0)}.$$
(53)
This solution has the very important feature that it preserves the symmetries of the theory, in special Lorentz covariance and gauge invariance. However, in contrast with the case $`\omega <0`$, the solution of the splitting problem (53) is not the unique one and, in momentum space, the general solution is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{r}(p)=\widehat{r}(p)+\underset{a=0}{\overset{\omega }{}}C_ap^a,$$
(54)
where the $`C_a`$ are constant coefficients which are not fixed by the causal structure – we need additional physical conditions in order to determine them.

In expression (54) use is made of the minimal distribution splitting condition which says that the singular order cannot be raised in the splitting. This condition, crucial for a correct prediction of the anomalous magnetic moment in QED4  and in the analysis of the dynamic mass generation in (2+1) dimensions , will also be useful here.

Now we apply the inductive steps above to construct the two-point distributions for SQED-DKP theory. Then, the one-point distribution for the DKP field interacting with electromagnetic field is given formally by $`i`$ times the interaction term (37) in the Lagrangian (35),

$$T_1(x)=ie:\overline{\psi }(x)\beta ^\mu \psi (x):A_\mu (x)=\stackrel{~}{T}_1(x)\text{ ,}$$
(55)
where all fields entering in this expression are free fields and $`e`$ is the physical charge. The normal ordering is necessary in order to have a well defined expression for the product of field operators at the same point.

To go from $`n=1`$ to $`n=2`$ we take (55) and construct the distributions $`A_2^{^{}}(x_1,x_2)`$ and $`R_2^{}(x_1,x_2)`$ from expressions (LABEL:ar). So, we have

$`A_2^{^{}}(x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`e^2:\overline{\psi }(x_1)\beta ^\mu \psi (x_1)::\overline{\psi }(x_2)\beta ^\nu \psi (x_2):A_\mu (x_1)A_\nu (x_2)\text{;}`$ (56)
$`R_2^{^{}}(x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`e^2\text{ }:\overline{\psi }(x_2)\beta ^\nu \psi (x_2)::\overline{\psi }(x_1)\beta ^\mu \psi (x_1):A_\mu (x_1)A_\nu (x_2)\text{ ,}`$ (57)
and then

$`D_2(x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`e^2\{:\overline{\psi }(x_2)\beta ^\nu \psi (x_2)::\overline{\psi }(x_1)\beta ^\mu \psi (x_1):`$ (59)
$`:\overline{\psi }(x_1)\beta ^\mu \psi (x_1)::\overline{\psi }(x_2)\beta ^\nu \psi (x_2):\}A_\mu (x_1)A_\nu (x_2)\text{.}`$
By using Wick’s Theorem this expression can be written as a sum of terms, each of them consisting of a product of field operators and Wick contractions . In this work we shall be concerned to the terms corresponding to Compton scattering, vacuum polarization and self-energy. From these we will determine the vertex correction via an Ward identity. These terms are given by

$`D_2^{\text{Com}}(x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`e^2\beta _{ab}^\mu \beta _{cd}^\nu `$ (60)
$`\times \{:\overline{\psi }_a(x_1)\psi _d(x_2)::A_\mu (x_1)A_\nu (x_2):[\stackrel{}{\overline{\psi }_c(x_2)\psi _b}(x_1)\stackrel{}{\psi _b(x_1)\overline{\psi }_c}(x_2)]`$
$`+:\psi _b(x_1)\overline{\psi }_c(x_2)::A_\mu (x_1)A_\nu (x_2):[\stackrel{}{\psi _d(x_2)\overline{\psi }_a}(x_1)\stackrel{}{\overline{\psi }_a(x_1)\psi _d}(x_2)]\}\text{ ;}`$
$`D_2^{\text{Vac}}(x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`e^2\beta _{ab}^\mu \beta _{cd}^\nu :A_\mu (x_1)A_\nu (x_2):`$ (61)
$`\times [\stackrel{}{\overline{\psi }_c(x_2)\psi _b}(x_1)\stackrel{}{\psi _d(x_2)\overline{\psi }_a}(x_1)\stackrel{}{\overline{\psi }_a(x_1)\psi _d}(x_2)]\text{ ,}`$
$`D_2^{\text{self}}(x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`e^2\beta _{ab}^\mu \beta _{cd}^\nu `$ (62)
$`\times \{:\overline{\psi }_a(x_1)\psi _d(x_2):[\stackrel{}{\overline{\psi }_c(x_2)\psi _b}(x_1)\stackrel{}{A_\nu (x_2)A_\mu }(x_1)`$
$`\stackrel{}{\psi _b(x_1)\overline{\psi }_c}(x_2)\stackrel{}{A_\mu (x_1)A_\nu }(x_2)]`$
$`+:\psi _b(x_1)\overline{\psi }_c(x_2):[\stackrel{}{\psi _d(x_2)\overline{\psi }_a}(x_1)\stackrel{}{A_\nu (x_2)A_\mu }(x_1)`$
$`\stackrel{}{\overline{\psi }_a(x_1)\psi _d}(x_2)\stackrel{}{A_\mu (x_1)A_\nu }(x_2)]\}\text{ ,}`$
where the Wick contractions are defined as

$`\stackrel{}{\psi _a(x)\overline{\psi }_b}(y)`$ $``$ $`[\psi _a^{}(x),\overline{\psi }_b^+(y)]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}S_{ab}^+(xy)\text{ ;}`$ (63)
$`\stackrel{}{\overline{\psi }_a(x)\psi _b}(y)`$ $``$ $`[\overline{\psi _a^{}}(x),\psi _b^+(y)]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}S_{ba}^{}(yx)\text{ ;}`$ (64)
$`\stackrel{}{A_\mu (x)A_\nu }(y)`$ $``$ $`[A_\mu ^{}(x),A_\nu ^+(y]\text{ }=ig_{\mu \nu }D_0^+(xy)\text{ ,}`$ (65)
and $`S_{ab}^+(x)`$ and $`S_{ba}^{}(x)`$ are given by (29). $`D_0^+(x)`$ is the positive frequency part of the zero mass Pauli-Jordan distribution, $`D_0^+(x)=\frac{i}{(2\pi )^3}d^4p`$ $`\delta (p^2)\theta (p^0)`$e-ip.x.

## 4 The Compton scattering

We denote respectively by $`D_2^\text{I}(x_1,x_2)`$ and $`D_2^{\text{II}}(x_1,x_2)`$ the first and second terms inside curl brackets in (60). By using (63) and 64) we have

$`D_2^\text{I}(x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`ie^2\beta _{ab}^\mu \beta _{cd}^\nu :\overline{\psi }_a(x_1)\psi _d(x_2)::A_\mu (x_1)A_\nu (x_2):`$ (66)
$`\times \{S_{bc}^{}(x_1x_2)+S_{bc}^+(x_1x_2)\}`$
$`=`$ $`ie^2\beta _{ab}^\mu \beta _{cd}^\nu :\overline{\psi }_a(x_1)\psi _d(x_2)::A_\mu (x_1)A_\nu (x_2):S_{bc}(x_1x_2)`$ (67)
where we used the definition (32). The first term inside curl brackets in (66) cames from $`R_2^\text{I}(x_1,x_2),`$ whereas the second cames from $`A_2^\text{I}(x_1,x_2)`$. Similarly,

$`D^{\text{II}}(x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`ie^2\beta _{ab}^\mu \beta _{cd}^\nu :\psi _b(x_1)\overline{\psi }_c(x_2)::A_\mu (x_1)A_\nu (x_2):`$ (69)
$`\times \{S_{da}^+(x_2x_1)S_{da}^{}(x_2x_1)\}`$
$`=`$ $`ie^2\beta _{ab}^\mu \beta _{cd}^\nu :\psi _b(x_1)\overline{\psi }_c(x_2)::A_\mu (x_1)A_\nu (x_2):`$
$`\times \{S_{da}(x_2x_1)\}\text{,}`$
where again the first term inside curl brackets in (69) cames from $`R_2^{\text{II}}(x_1,x_2)`$ and so on. As we said in Section 2, the distribution $`S(x)`$ has causal support. Then, we have verified explicitly that the distributions (67) and (69) have causal support too.

Since $`S(x)`$ itself is the numerical distribution we must split into retarded and advanced parts in equations (67) and (69), a splitting solution is trivially obtained from (33). But, since $`S(x)`$ has singular order $`\omega =0`$ –as we can verify by (51)and (52) – this splitting is not unique. So, accordingly with (54), the general solution for the retarded distribution in configuration space is

$$\stackrel{~}{r}\left(x\right)=S^{\text{ret}}(x)+C\delta (x)\text{,}$$

where $`C`$ is an arbitrary constant. Now we construct the numerical distribution $`t^\text{I}(x_1,x_2)`$ from (LABEL:ar),

$$t^\text{I}(x_1,x_2)=\stackrel{~}{r}(x_1,x_2)r^{}(x_1,x_2)\text{ ,}$$
(70)
where $`r^{}(x_1,x_2)`$ is the numerical distribution associated with $`R_2^\text{I}(x_1,x_2)`$, which is obtained from the first term inside curl brackets in (66). Then,

$`t^\text{I}(x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`S^{\text{ret}}(x_1x_2)S^{}(x_1x_2)+C\delta (x_1x_2)`$ (71)
$`=`$ $`S^\text{F}(x_1x_2)+C\delta (x_1x_2)\text{ ,}`$
where we have defined

$$S^\text{F}(x)S^{\text{ret}}(x)S^{}(x)=S^{\text{adv}}(x)+S^+(x)\text{ }=\frac{1}{m}i/(i/+m)^\text{F}(x)\text{ ,}$$
(72)
where $`^\text{F}(x)`$ is the usual Feynman scalar propagator.

In a similar way we find (note that the reference point for splitting is $`x_2`$)

$`t^{\text{II}}(x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`S^{\text{adv}}(x_2x_1)+S^+(x_2x_1)+C^{}\delta (x_2x_1)`$ (73)
$`=`$ $`S^\text{F}(x_2x_1)+C^{}\delta (x_2x_1)\text{ .}`$
The constants $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$ will be determined later by the requirements of charge conjugation and gauge invariance.

Now the complete two-point distribution for Compton scattering is given by

$$T_2^{\text{Compton}}(x_1,x_2)=T_2^\text{I}(x_1,x_2)+T_2^{\text{II}}(x_1,x_2),$$
(74)
where

$$T_2^\text{I}(x_1,x_2)=ie^2:\overline{\psi }(x_1)\beta ^\mu t^\text{I}(x_1,x_2)\beta ^\nu \psi (x_2)::A_\mu (x_1)A_\nu (x_2):$$

and

$$T_2^{\text{II}}(x_1,x_2)=ie^2:\overline{\psi }(x_2)\beta ^\nu t^{\text{II}}(x_1,x_2)\beta ^\mu \psi (x_1)::A_\mu (x_1)A_\nu (x_2):.$$

It is very simple to require charge conjugation invariance of the theory . Here we only quote the condition that arise from this invariance, namely

$$C=C^{}.$$

Thus we can immediately see that

$$T_2^\text{I}(x_1,x_2)=T_2^{\text{II}}(x_2,x_1),$$

what implies that $`T_2^{\text{Compton}}(x_1,x_2)`$ is symmetric in its arguments, as it would be.

In the Appendix we calculate the remaining constant $`C`$ by requiring gauge invariance of the theory. There we find (see eq. (112))

$$C=\frac{I}{m}\text{ ,}$$

where $`I`$ is the $`5\times 5`$ identity matrix. Turning this result into (71) and (73) we obtain

$`t^\text{I}(x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\{S^\text{F}(x_1x_2){\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{I}}{m}}\delta (x_1x_2)\}`$
$`=`$ $`t^{\text{II}}(x_2,x_1)\text{ .}`$
We denote the distribution inside the curl brackets in the above expressions as

$$T^\text{c}(x)S^\text{F}(x)\frac{\widehat{I}}{m}\delta (x)\text{ .}$$
(75)
It is direct to see that this distribution is the Green function for the DKP equation, i. e.,

$$(i/m)T^\text{c}(x)=\delta (x)\text{ .}$$
(76)
So, in this sense the distribution (75) is the correct “propagator” for the DKP scalar particle, that is the same as the “effective” propagator of references . For later use, we write this propagator in the momentum space

$$\widehat{T}^\text{c}(p)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2m}\left[\frac{p/(p/+m)}{p^2m^2+i0}1\right]\text{ .}$$
(77)
With the above results we write finally the two-point distribution for the Compton scattering:

$`T_2^{\text{Compton}}(x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`ie^2\{:\overline{\psi }(x_1)\beta ^\mu T^\text{c}(x_1x_2)\beta ^\nu \psi (x_2):`$ (78)
$`+:\overline{\psi }(x_2)\beta ^\nu T^\text{c}(x_2x_1)\beta ^\mu \psi (x_1):\}:A_\mu (x_1)A_\nu (x_2):.`$
## 5 The vacuum polarization

Now we consider the term (61), associated with scalar vacuum polarization. After substituting the explicit form of Wick contractions, this term is given by

$`D_2^{\text{Vac}}(x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`e^2:A_\mu (x_1)A_\nu (x_2):`$
$`\times \text{Tr}\{\beta ^\mu S^{}(x_1x_2)\beta ^\nu S^+(x_2x_1)\beta ^\nu S^{}(x_2x_1)\beta ^\mu S^+(x_1x_2)\}\text{ ,}`$
where the first term inside curl brackets cames from $`R^{}(x_1x_2)`$ and the second from $`A^{}(x_1x_2)`$. Making $`y=x_1x_2`$ and defining

$$P^{\mu \nu }(y)e^2\text{Tr}\{\beta ^\mu S^+(y)\beta ^\nu S^{}(y)\}\text{ ,}$$

we write (LABEL:D6) in the form

$$D_2^{\text{Vac}}(x_1,x_2)=\{P^{\mu \nu }(y)P^{\nu \mu }(y)\}:A_\mu (x_1)A_\nu (x_2):\text{ .}$$
(80)
This distribution has a causal support, as required. To see this we use the fact that $`S(x)`$ has a causal support and write the term inside curl brackets in the above expression as

$$\beta ^\mu [S(y)\beta ^\nu S^+(y)S^+(y)\beta ^\nu S(y)]\text{ .}$$

Before splitting the causal distribution above, we consider the Fourier transform of $`P^{\mu \nu }(y)`$,

$`\widehat{P}^{\mu \nu }(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑yP^{\mu \nu }(y)\text{e}^{ik.y}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{(2\pi )^2}}\text{Tr}{\displaystyle 𝑑y\beta ^\mu S^+(y)\beta ^\nu S^{}(y)\text{e}^{ik.y}\text{ .}}`$
Substituting into this expression the explicit forms of $`S^+(y)`$ and $`S^{}(y)`$ given by (29) and (30), we have

$`\widehat{P}^{\mu \nu }(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{(2\pi )^4m^2}}{\displaystyle }dp\text{Tr}\{\beta ^\mu p/(p/+m)\beta ^\nu (\text{ /}kp/)(\text{ /}kp/m)\}`$
$`\times \theta (p^0)\delta (p^2m^2)\theta (k^0p^0)\delta [(kp)^2m^2].`$
To compute the trace inside this integral we need the following trace properties :

$`\text{Tr}\{\beta ^{\mu _1}\beta ^{\mu _2}\mathrm{}\beta ^{\mu _{2n1}}\}`$ $`=`$ $`0\text{ ;}`$
$`\text{Tr}\{\beta ^{\mu _1}\beta ^{\mu _2}\mathrm{}\beta ^{\mu _{2n}}\}`$ $`=`$ $`g^{\mu _1\mu _2}g^{\mu _3\mu _4}\mathrm{}g^{\mu _{2n1}\mu _{2n}}+g^{\mu _2\mu _3}g^{\mu _4\mu _5}\mathrm{}g^{\mu _{2n}\mu _1}\text{ ,}`$
with $`n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$. So, we obtain

$$\text{Tr}\{\beta ^\mu p/(p/+m)\beta ^\nu (\text{ /}kp/)(\text{ /}kp/m)\}=m^2[4p^\mu p^\nu 2(k^\mu p^\nu +p^\mu k^\nu )+k^\mu k^\nu ]\text{ .}$$

When substituting this result into (LABEL:PMN), and taking into account the distribution $`\delta [(kp)^2m^2],`$ we observe that $`\widehat{P}^{\mu \nu }(k)`$ is a second rank symmetric tensor which satisfies

$$k_\mu \widehat{P}^{\mu \nu }(k)=0\text{ ,}$$

what means that the vacuum polarization term (80) is gauge invariant. Using this fact, we can write, as usual,

$$\widehat{P}^{\mu \nu }(k)=(k^\mu k^\nu k^2g^{\mu \nu })B(k^2)\text{ ,}$$

where

$$B(k^2)=\frac{1}{3k^2}\widehat{P}_\mu ^\mu (k)\text{ .}$$

The computation of $`\widehat{P}_\mu ^\mu (k)`$ is straightforward and the final result for $`\widehat{P}^{\mu \nu }(k)`$ is

$$\widehat{P}^{\mu \nu }(k)=\frac{e^2}{(2\pi )^4}\left(\frac{k^\mu k^\nu }{k^2}g^{\mu \nu }\right)\frac{\pi k^2}{6}\left(1\frac{4m^2}{k^2}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}\theta \left(k^24m^2\right)\theta (k^0)\text{ .}$$
(82)
Now, in momentum space the numerical distribution associated with (80), which we must split, is given by

$$\widehat{P}^{\mu \nu }(k)\widehat{P}^{\mu \nu }(k)=\frac{e^2}{(2\pi )^4}\left(\frac{k^\mu k^\nu }{k^2}g^{\mu \nu }\right)\widehat{d}(k)\text{ ,}$$
(83)
where

$$\widehat{d}(k)=\frac{\pi k^2}{6}\left(1\frac{4m^2}{k^2}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}\theta \left(k^24m^2\right)\text{sgn}(k^0)\text{ .}$$
(84)
As the tensor character of (83) does not matter in its splitting procedure, the problem reduces to the splitting of $`\widehat{d}(k)`$. To do this, we first determine the singular order $`\omega `$ of this distribution by using (51) and (52). So, we find $`\omega =2.`$ To simplify the calculations we make use of the fact that $`k`$ in (84) is timelike. So, we can choose a Lorentz frame such that $`k=(k^0,\stackrel{}{0}).`$ In this case the central splitting formula (53) can be written as :

$$\widehat{r}(k^0)=\frac{i}{2\pi }\left(k^0\right)^3_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑p^0\frac{\widehat{d}(p^0)}{(p^0i0)^3(k^0p^0+i0)}.$$

Substituting (84) into this integral and making the substitution $`s=(p^0)^2,`$ we obtain

$`\widehat{r}(k^0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{12}}\left(k^0\right)^4\{\text{P.V.}{\displaystyle \underset{4m^2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}ds{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s\left[\left(k^0\right)^2s\right]}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{4m^2}{s}})^{\frac{3}{2}}`$
$`i\pi \text{sgn}(k^0)\theta [\left(k^0\right)^24m^2]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(k^0\right)^2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{4m^2}{\left(k^0\right)^2}})^{\frac{3}{2}}\}.`$
The distribution $`\widehat{r}^{}(k^0)`$ comes from the term $`\widehat{P}^{\mu \nu }(k)`$ in (80). So,

$$\widehat{r}^{}(k^0)=\frac{\pi \left(k^0\right)^2}{6}\left(1\frac{4m^2}{\left(k^0\right)^2}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}\theta \left[\left(k^0\right)^24m^2\right]\theta (k^0).$$

Now the two-point distribution is given, in an arbitrary Lorentz frame, as

$`\widehat{t}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{r}(k)\widehat{r}^{}(k)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{12}}k^4{\displaystyle \underset{4m^2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s(k^2s+i0)}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4m^2}{s}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}.`$
Finally, the two-point distribution for the vacuum polarization in configuration space is given by

$$T_2^{\text{Vac}}(x_1,x_2)=i:A_\mu (x_1)\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }(x_1x_2)A_\nu (x_2):\text{,}$$

where

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{\mu \nu }(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ie^2}{(2\pi )^4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k^\mu k^\nu }{k^2}}g^{\mu \nu }\right)\widehat{t}(k)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k^\mu k^\nu }{k^2}}g^{\mu \nu }\right)\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}(k)`$
and

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}(k)=\frac{e^2}{12}k^4\underset{4m^2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑s\frac{1}{s(k^2s+i0)}\left(1\frac{4m^2}{s}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}\text{ .}$$
(85)
For $`0<k^2<4m^2,`$ the result of this integral can be writen as

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}(k)=\frac{e^2}{2}k^2\left[\frac{4m^2k^2}{3k^2}\left(\theta \text{cot}\theta 1\right)+\frac{1}{9}\right]\text{ ,}$$

where sin$`{}_{}{}^{2}\theta =\frac{k^2}{4m^2}`$ and $`\theta (0,\frac{\pi }{2}).`$

For spacelike $`k`$ we get

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}(k)=\frac{e^2m^2}{12\lambda (1\lambda )}\left[\left(1+\lambda \right)^3\text{ln}\lambda +\frac{8}{3}(1\lambda ^3)\right],$$

where $`k^2=\frac{(1\lambda )^2}{\lambda }m^2`$, and $`0<\lambda <1.`$ This result can be analytically extended for $`k^2>4m^2`$ by making $`1<\lambda <0`$ and taking ln$`\lambda =`$ln$`|\lambda |i\pi `$.

These results are not the most general solutions for the splitting problem, as we had to split a distribution with singular order $`\omega =2.`$ The most general solution $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}(k)`$ is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}(k)=\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}(k)+C_0+C_\mu k^\mu +C_2k^2,$$

where the normalization constants $`C_0`$, $`C_\mu `$ and $`C_2`$ are not determined by causality. They are determined from the requirements of a zero mass for the gauge field, parity invariance and the identification of $`m`$ with the physical observable mass. The procedure is the standard one and we simply quote the results: $`C_0=C_\mu =C_2=0.`$

## 6 The self-energy and vertex corrections

The self-energy of DKP particle is given by (62). After substituting the Wick contractions we obtain the following two terms:

$`D_\text{I}^{\text{self}}(x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`e^2:\overline{\psi }(x_1)\beta ^\mu [S^{}(x_1x_2)D_0^+(x_2x_1)`$ (86)
$`+S^+(x_1x_2)D_0^+(x_1x_2)\beta _\mu \psi (x_2):]\text{ ;}`$
$`D_{\text{II}}^{\text{self}}(x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`e^2:\overline{\psi }(x_2)\beta ^\mu [S^+(x_2x_1)D_0^+(x_2x_1)`$ (87)
$`+S^{}(x_2x_1)D_0^+(x_1x_2)\beta _\mu \psi (x_1):]\text{ .}`$
Therefore we note that

$$D_{\text{II}}^{\text{self}}(x_1,x_2)=D_\text{I}^{\text{self}}(x_2,x_1)\text{ .}$$
(88)
Let us first consider $`D_\text{I}^{\text{self}}(x_1,x_2)`$. From it we can determine the two-point distribution $`T_\text{I}^{\text{self}}(x_1,x_2).`$ From

$`D_\text{I}^{\text{self}}(x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`R_\text{I}^{}(x_1,x_2)A_\text{I}^{}(x_1,x_2)`$
$`=`$ $`R_\text{I}(x_1,x_2)A_\text{I}(x_1,x_2)`$
and

$`D_{\text{II}}^{\text{self}}(x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`R_{\text{II}}^{}(x_1,x_2)A_{\text{II}}^{}(x_1,x_2)`$
$`=`$ $`R_{\text{II}}(x_1,x_2)A_{\text{II}}(x_1,x_2)\text{ ,}`$
and using (88) we conclude that

$`R_{\text{II}}^{}(x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`A_\text{I}^{}(x_2,x_1)\text{ ;}`$
$`A_{\text{II}}^{}(x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`R_\text{I}^{}(x_2,x_1)\text{ ;}`$
$`R_{\text{II}}(x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`A_\text{I}(x_2,x_1)\text{ ;}`$
$`A_{\text{II}}(x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`R_\text{I}(x_2,x_1)\text{ .}`$
So, we have

$$T_\text{I}^{\text{self}}(x_1,x_2)=T_{\text{II}}^{\text{self}}(x_2,x_1)$$
(89)
and conclude that the two-point distribution for the self energy $`T^{\text{self}}(x_1,x_2)=T_\text{I}^{\text{self}}(x_1,x_2)+T_{\text{II}}^{\text{self}}(x_1,x_2)`$ is symmetric, as it would be. Moreover it suffices to compute one of the distributions, say $`T_\text{I}^{\text{self}}(x_1,x_2)`$, and the other will be given by (89).

Returning to $`D_\text{I}^{\text{self}}(x_1,x_2)`$ in (86), we must first verify the causal property of the support of this distribution. The term into brackets can be writen as

$$S\left(x_1x_2\right)D_0^+\left(x_2x_1\right)+S^+\left(x_1x_2\right)D_0\left(x_1x_2\right)\text{ }$$

and, as $`S\left(x_1x_2\right)`$ and $`D_0\left(x_1x_2\right)`$ are causal distributions, so it is also
$`D_\text{I}^{\text{self}}(x_1,x_2)`$.

The numerical distribution we have to split is

$$d_\text{I}(y)=e^2\beta ^\mu \left[S^{}(y)D_0^+(y)+S^+(y)D_0^+(y)\right]\beta _\mu \text{ .}$$
(90)
We denote the two terms into brackets in this expression by

$$d_{}(y)=S^{}(y)D^+(y)=S^{}(y)D^{}(y)$$
(91)
and

$$d_+(y)=S^+(y)D^+(y)\text{ .}$$
(92)
Taking the Fourier transform of $`d_{}`$ and using the explicit form of Pauli-Jordan distributions we obtain

$$\widehat{d}_{}(p)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^4m}dq\text{ }/q(/q+m)\theta (q^0)\delta (q^2m^2)\theta (q^0p^0)\delta [(pq)^2]\text{ .}$$
(93)
By virtue of the deltas and thetas, we have that $`q^2=m^2`$, $`q^0<0`$, $`(pq)^2=0`$ and $`q^0p^0>0`$. So, $`p=(pq)+q`$ is the sum of two 4-vectors, one timelike and the other lightlike, both in the backward light cone. So, $`p`$ is timelike. Then we can choose a Lorentz frame such that $`p=(p^0,\stackrel{}{0})`$. We first consider the integral proportional to $`m`$ in the integrand of this expression:

$$I_{1\mu }=𝑑q\text{ }q^\mu \theta \left(q^0\right)\theta \left(q^0p^0\right)\delta \left(q^2m^2\right)\delta [(pq)^2]\text{ .}$$

For $`\mu 0`$ this integral vanishes by symmetry considerations. For $`\mu =0`$ the integral can be solved in a straightforward manner and results

$$I_{10}=\frac{\pi }{4}p^0\left(1\frac{m^4}{\left(p^0\right)^4}\right)\theta [(p^0)^2m^2]\theta \left(p^0\right)\text{ .}$$

The corresponding term in (93), in any reference frame, is given by

$$\widehat{d}_{}(p)_1=\frac{1}{(4\pi )^3}p/\left(1\frac{m^4}{p^4}\right)\theta (p^2m^2)\theta \left(p^0\right)\text{.}$$
(94)
Now we calculate the term proportional to $`/q^2`$ in (93):

$$I_{2\mu \nu }=𝑑q\text{ }q_\mu q_\nu \theta \left(q^0\right)\theta \left(q^0p^0\right)\delta \left(q^2m^2\right)\delta [(pq)^2]\text{ .}$$

Also this integral vanishes for $`\mu \nu `$ by symmetry reasons. By Lorentz invariance it must be proportional to $`g_{\mu \nu }.`$ The proportionality coefficient is determined by saturation with $`g^{\mu \nu }`$. Thus

$$I_{2\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{4}g_{\mu \nu }𝑑q\text{ }q^2\theta \left(q^0\right)\theta \left(q^0p^0\right)\delta \left(q^2m^2\right)\delta [(pq)^2]\text{ .}$$

This integral can now be easily solved and gets the following contribution to integral (93):

$$\widehat{d}_{}(p)_2=\frac{m}{2(4\pi )^3}g_{\mu \nu }\beta ^\mu \beta ^\nu \left(1\frac{m^2}{p^2}\right)\theta (p^2m^2)\theta \left(p^0\right)\text{ .}$$
(95)
Combining (94) and (95) into (93) we get the final result for $`\widehat{d}_{}(p)=\widehat{d}_{}(p)_1+\widehat{d}_{}(p)_2`$ :

$$\widehat{d}_{}(p)=\frac{1}{(4\pi )^3}\theta (p^2m^2)\theta \left(p^0\right)\left(1\frac{m^2}{p^2}\right)\left[\frac{m}{2}\beta ^\mu \beta _\mu +p/\left(1+\frac{m^2}{p^2}\right)\right]\text{ .}$$
(96)
Turning back to (90) we have

$`e^2\beta ^\mu \widehat{d}_{}(p)\beta _\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{(4\pi )^3}}\theta (p^2m^2)\theta \left(p^0\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{p^2}}\right)\left[2m+p/\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{p^2}}\right)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`\widehat{r}_\text{I}^{}(p)\text{,}`$
where we used the following algebraic relations for $`\beta `$ matrices

$$\beta ^\mu \beta ^\nu \beta _\mu =\beta ^\nu $$

andWe can show that this identity is valid using the usual scalar representation of section 2. As the r.h.s. is invariant under changes of representation, this result is general, i. e., representation independent.

$$\beta ^\mu \beta ^\nu \beta _\nu \beta _\mu =4\text{ .}$$

The distribution $`\widehat{d}_+(p)`$ is calculated in the same way and results

$$e^2\beta ^\mu \widehat{d}_+(p)\beta _\mu =\frac{e^2}{(4\pi )^3}\theta (p^2m^2)\theta \left(p^0\right)\left(1\frac{m^2}{p^2}\right)\left[2m+p/\left(1+\frac{m^2}{p^2}\right)\right]\text{ .}$$
(98)
Now, (LABEL:mario) and (98) together give

$$\widehat{d}_\text{I}(p)=\frac{e^2}{(4\pi )^3}\theta (p^2m^2)\left(1\frac{m^2}{p^2}\right)\left[2m+p/\left(1+\frac{m^2}{p^2}\right)\right]\text{sgn}(p^0)\text{ .}$$
(99)
We verify that the singular order of this distribution is $`\omega =1`$. We then split it by using the central splitting formula (53) with $`\omega =1`$. For $`p`$ timelike this yelds

$$\widehat{r}_\text{I}(p^0)=\frac{i}{2\pi }\left(p^0\right)^2_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑k^0\frac{\widehat{d}_1(k^0)}{(k^0i0)^2(p^0k^0+i0)}$$
(100)
We turn (100) into this integral and solve it by standard methods . For an arbitrary Lorentz frame we arrive at

$`\widehat{r}_\text{I}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ie^2}{4(2\pi )^4}}`$ (101)
$`\times `$ $`\{\left[\text{log}\right|1b^2|i\pi \text{sgn}\left(p^0\right)\theta (p^2m^2)][m(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b^2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{p/}{2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b^4}})]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p/}{2b^2}}m{\displaystyle \frac{p/}{4}}\}\text{ ,}`$
with $`b^2=\frac{p^2}{m^2}`$ . We can analitically extend this result for arbitrary complex $`p`$:

$`\widehat{r}_\text{I}^{\text{an}}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ie^2}{4(2\pi )^4}}\{\text{log}(1b^2)[m(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b^2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{p/}{2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b^4}})]`$ (102)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{p/}{2b^2}}m{\displaystyle \frac{p/}{4}}\}\text{ ,}`$
Combining (101) with (LABEL:mario), we obtain $`T_\text{I}^{\text{self}}(x_1,x_2)`$:

$$T_\text{I}^{\text{self}}(x_1,x_2)=ie^2:\overline{\psi }(x_1)\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(x_1x_2\right)\psi \left(x_2\right):\text{ ,}$$
(103)
where

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\left(p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`i\left[\widehat{r}_\text{I}(p)\widehat{r}_\text{I}^{}(p)\right]`$ (104)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ie^2}{4(2\pi )^4}}\{\left[\text{log}\right|1b^2|i\pi \theta (p^2m^2)][m(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b^2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{p/}{2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b^4}})]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{p/}{2b^2}}m{\displaystyle \frac{p/}{4}}\}\text{.}`$
This result is free of infrared divergences, because we have used the central splitting formula, which normalizes the solution at the point $`p=0.`$ Also, it is well defined on mass shell. Because $`\omega =1`$ we must add to this result a first order polynimial in $`p/`$ in order to get the general solution to the splitting problem. Thus,

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\left(p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ie^2}{4(2\pi )^4}}\{\left[\text{log}\right|1b^2|i\pi \theta (p^2m^2)][m(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b^2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{p/}{2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b^4}})]`$ (105)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{p/}{2b^2}}+C_0+C_1p/\}\text{.}`$
We now consider radiative corrections due to the self energy insertions into the DKP propagator. The complete propagator is

$$\widehat{T}_{\text{compl}}^\text{c}(p)=\widehat{T}^\text{c}(p)+\widehat{T}^\text{c}(p)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\left(p\right)\widehat{T}^\text{c}(p)+\widehat{T}^\text{c}(p)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\left(p\right)\widehat{T}^\text{c}(p)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\left(p\right)\widehat{T}^\text{c}(p)+\mathrm{}\text{ ,}$$

where $`\widehat{T}^\text{c}(p)`$ is given by (77). Formally summing this series we obtain

$`\widehat{T}_{\text{compl}}^\text{c}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{T}^\text{c}(p)}{1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\left(p\right)\widehat{T}^\text{c}(p)}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2m}}{\displaystyle \frac{p/(p/+m)p^2+m^2}{p^2m^2+i0[p/(p/+m)p^2+m^2]\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\left(p\right)}}\text{ .}`$
We require that $`m`$ be the physical mass of the DKP particle. This will be satisfied only if

$$[p/(p/+m)p^2+m^2]\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\left(p\right)|_{p^2=m^2}=0\text{.}$$

Substituting (105) into this condition we obtain the following restriction on the arbitrary constants $`C_0`$ and $`C_1`$:

$$C_0=m\left(\frac{1}{2}C_1\right)\text{ .}$$

This condition eliminates one of the arbitrary constants, say $`C_0`$. The remaining one will be related by an Ward identity to another arbitrary constant that will appear in the vertex distribution. In the Appendix we derive this Ward identity by requiring gauge invariance of the theory.

Now we calculate the vertex distribution in the limit of zero tansferred momentum by making use of the Ward identity (117) deduced in the Appendix:

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\mu (p,p)=\frac{1}{\left(2\pi \right)^2}\frac{}{p_\mu }\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(p)\text{ .}$$

Substituting the explicit form of the self-energy (105) into this identity we obtain

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\mu (p,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ie^2}{4(2\pi )^6}}\left\{\right[\text{log}|1b^2|i\pi \theta (p^2m^2)]`$ (106)
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{2p^\mu }{mb^4}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{p/}{mb^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^\mu }{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b^4}}\right)\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2p^\mu }{m^2}}\left[\text{P.V.}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b^21}}i\pi \delta (b^21)\right]\left[m\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{p/}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b^4}}\right)\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{p^\mu p/}{m^2b^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^\mu }{2b^2}}+C_1\beta ^\mu \}\text{ .}`$
This result is well defined at $`p=0`$, but it is singular on mass shell $`p^2=m^2`$ due to the logarithmic term.

The above form of the vertex function suffices to study the physical meaning of the constant $`C_1`$, which will be done in conection to charge normalization. The physical charge is defined in the scattering of a scalar particle by an external electromagnetic field at low energies. Thus we must consider the contributions (in the limit of zero transferred momentum) to $`S`$ matrix from the terms containing $`C_1`$ in both self-energy and vertex distributions. Because of the above mentioned mass shell singularity, we must be care in taking the adiabatic limit. Making so, we can prove that all these contributions cancel themselves and conclude that this constant has no physical meaning. Nevertheless, it can be specified by requiring the vertex function to satisfy the central splitting condition, i. e.

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\mu (0,0)=0\text{ .}$$

Using this condition into (106) we obtain $`C_1=\frac{1}{4}.`$

## 7 Concluding remarks

In this paper we have considered scalar QED based on Duffin-Kemmer-Petiau equation in the framework of Epstein-Glaser causal method. We have given the basis to construct the second order S matrix and calculate the lowest order distributions for Compton scattering, vacuum polarization and self-energy. By using the gauge invariance requirement we determined the vertex correction from the self-energy one.

The starting point of the causal approach was the identification of the one-point distribution $`T_1(x),`$ which was given by the interaction term in the Lagrangian (35) of the theory, where all the fields entering that expression were free fields. Thus, the causal method specified completely the form of the interaction, giving us a non effective theory. After determining, by using gauge invariance, the finite normalization constant appearing in the two-point distribution for Compton scattering, this distribution was identified with the propagator of the DKP scalar field. Then, in the causal approach we have recovered, in a natural and even simpler way, the basic quantities from which it is constructed the usual effective theory. Namely, we identified $`iT^\text{c}(x)`$ as the effective propagator and $`e:`$ $`\overline{\psi }(x)\beta ^\mu \psi (x):`$ ($`\psi `$ and $`\overline{\psi }`$ being free fields) as the “vertex” (interaction).

At one loop level we have calculated the scalar vacuum polarization tensor, the self-energy and the vertex correction. We have determined all physically meaningful finite normalization constants from physical requirements as symmetries and mass and charge normalization. Our results agree with that obtained in the context of the effective theory. To do a complete analysis at one loop level, we would have to calculate as well the singular order of the four point distribution for scattering of two scalar particles. This problem is fundamentally important to study the renormalizability of the theory and is under our investigation presently. As future perspectives we can quote the use of the causal approach to study DKP field interacting with external gravitational fields.

## 8 Acknowlegdments

J.T.L. and B.M.P. thank respectively to CAPES-PICDT and CNPq for partial support. L.A.M and J.S.V. thank FAPESP for full support.

## Appendix: gauge invariance

The gauge invariance requirement allows us to determine the remaining arbitrary constant $`C`$, in the two-point distribution for Compton scattering, and to find a relation (Ward identity) between the self-energy and vertex distributions, thus relating the corresponding arbitrary constants.

As we saw, in the causal approach all the fields are free fields. Then, under a gauge transformation the electromagnetic field transforms as $`A_\mu (x)A_\mu (x)+_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$, whereas the matter fields $`\psi (x)`$ and $`\overline{\psi }(x)`$ remains unaffected. Here $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$ is a c-number scalar field that satisfies $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)=0`$ (Lorentz gauge) and vanishes at infinity.

The gauge invariance requirement amounts that in the adiabatic limit, $`g1`$, the S matrix must be invariant under such transformations, which implies the invariance of all the terms in the S matrix expansion (38). We write a generic $`n`$-point distribution normally ordered with respect to photon operators in the form

$$T_n(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)=\underset{l=0}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{1k_1<\mathrm{}<k_ln}{}t_{k_1\mathrm{}k_l}^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _l}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n):A_{\mu _1}(x_{k_1})\mathrm{}A_{\mu _l}(x_{k_l}):\text{ ,}$$

where $`t_{k_1\mathrm{}k_l}^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _l}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ contains only scalar operators and it is the sum of all graphs of order $`n`$ with only $`l`$ external photon lines, attached at the vertices $`x_{k_1},\mathrm{},x_{k_l}`$. The external scalar operators are arbitrary. Applying the gauge invariance requirement we arrive at the following condition :

$$\frac{}{x_{k_j}^{\mu _j}}t_{k_1\mathrm{}k_l}^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _l}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)=0\text{ ,}$$
(107)
for all $`1ln`$, all $`1jl`$, all $`1k_1<\mathrm{}<k_ln`$ and all $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)𝐑^{4\mathrm{n}}.`$

When we apply this condition for the two-point Compton distribution, we get at the condition

$$_\mu ^1Q^{\mu \nu }(x_1,x_2)=0,$$
(108)
where

$`Q^{\mu \nu }(x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`:\overline{\psi }(x_1)\beta ^\mu t^\text{I}(x_1,x_2)\beta ^\nu \psi (x_2):`$ (109)
$`+:\overline{\psi }(x_2)\beta ^\nu t^{\text{II}}(x_1,x_2)\beta ^\mu \psi (x_1):`$
$`=`$ $`Q^{\nu \mu }(x_2,x_1)\text{ .}`$
and $`_\mu ^1`$ means derivative with respect to $`x_1.`$

Turning (109), (71) and (73) into this last equation, the l.h.s. gives

$`_\mu ^1Q^{\mu \nu }(x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`:_\mu \overline{\psi }(x_1)\beta ^\mu [S^\text{F}(x_1x_2)C\delta (x_1x_2)]\beta ^\nu \psi (x_2):`$ (110)
$`:\overline{\psi }(x_1)\beta ^\mu [_\mu S^\text{F}(x_1x_2)C_\mu \delta (x_1x_2)]\beta ^\nu \psi (x_2):`$
$`:\overline{\psi }(x_2)\beta ^\nu [_\mu S^\text{F}(x_2x_1)+C_\mu \delta (x_2x_1)]\beta ^\mu \psi (x_1):`$
$`:\overline{\psi }(x_2)\beta ^\nu [S^\text{F}(x_2x_1)C\delta (x_2x_1)]\beta ^\mu _\mu \psi (x_1):\text{ .}`$
From the equation of scalar Feynman propagator

$$(\mathrm{}+m^2)\mathrm{}^\text{F}(x)=\delta (x)\text{ ,}$$

the relation (4) and definition (72), we have

$$i/S^\text{F}(x)=mS^\text{F}(x)+\frac{i}{m}/\delta (x)\text{ .}$$
(111)
Using this into (110), condition (108) yields

$$C=\frac{I}{m}\text{ ,}$$
(112)
where $`I`$ is the $`5\times 5`$ identity matrix.

Now we consider the three-point distributions corresponding to the vertex correction. We must consider four graphs, that are analogous to that we find in the vertex correction of spinor QED. Considering the photon line attached at the vertex $`x_3`$, the distribution $`t_3^\mu (x_1,x_2,x_3)`$ we must enter into condition (107) is

$`t_3^\mu (x_1,x_2,x_3)`$ $`=`$ $`:\overline{\psi }(x_1)\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu (x_1x_3,x_2x_3)\psi (x_2):`$
$`+:\overline{\psi }(x_1)\mathrm{\Sigma }(x_1x_2)T^\text{c}(x_2x_3)\beta ^\mu \psi (x_3):`$
$`+:\overline{\psi }(x_3)\beta ^\mu T^\text{c}(x_3x_1)\mathrm{\Sigma }(x_1x_2)\psi (x_2):`$
$`+:\overline{\psi }(x_1)\beta ^\rho \psi (x_1):g_{\rho \nu }D_0^\text{F}(x_1x_2)\mathrm{\Pi }^{\nu \mu }(x_2x_3)`$
$`+x_1x_2\text{ ,}`$
where $`T^\text{c}`$ is the “effective DKP propagator” given in (75). Thus we have

$`_\mu ^3t_3^\mu (x_1,x_2,x_3)`$ $`=`$ $`:\overline{\psi }(x_1)[_\mu ^3\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu (x_1x_3,x_2x_3)]\psi (x_2):`$
$`+:\overline{\psi }(x_1)\mathrm{\Sigma }(x_1x_2)_\mu ^3\left[T^\text{c}(x_2x_3)\beta ^\mu \psi (x_3)\right]:`$
$`+:_\mu ^3\left[\overline{\psi }(x_3)\beta ^\mu T^\text{c}(x_3x_1)\right]\mathrm{\Sigma }(x_1x_2)\psi (x_2):`$
$`+:\overline{\psi }(x_1)\beta ^\rho \psi (x_1):g_{\rho \nu }D_0^\text{F}(x_1x_2)\left[_\mu ^3\mathrm{\Pi }^{\nu \mu }(x_2x_3)\right]`$
$`+x_1x_2\text{ .}`$
For the brackets in the second and third lines we have

$`_\mu ^3\left[T^\text{c}(x_2x_3)\beta ^\mu \psi (x_3)\right]`$ $`=`$ $`i\delta (x_2x_3)\psi (x_3)\text{ ;}`$
$`_\mu ^3\left[\overline{\psi }(x_3)\beta ^\mu T^\text{c}(x_3x_1)\right]`$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{\psi }(x_3)\delta (x_3x_1)\text{ ,}`$
where we have used the DKP equation and the fact that $`T^\text{c}`$ is the corresponding DKP Green function (see eq. (76)). Turning these results into (Appendix: gauge invariance) and taking into account the delta distributions, we obtain

$`_\mu ^3t_3^\mu (x_1,x_2,x_3)`$ $`=`$ $`:\overline{\psi }(x_1)\{_\mu ^3\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu (x_1x_3,x_2x_3)`$ (114)
$`+i\delta (x_2x_3)\mathrm{\Sigma }(x_1x_2)i\delta (x_1x_3)\mathrm{\Sigma }(x_1x_2)\}\psi (x_2):`$
$`=`$ $`0\text{ .}`$
This condition will be satisfied only if the term into curl brackets vanish. Thus we arrive to the desired Ward identity:

$$_\mu ^3\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu (x_1x_3,x_2x_3)+i\delta (x_2x_3)\mathrm{\Sigma }(x_1x_2)i\delta (x_1x_3)\mathrm{\Sigma }(x_1x_2)=0\text{ .}$$
(115)
Denoting

$$y_1=x_1x_3\text{ and }y_2=x_2x_3\text{,}$$

we can write

$$\frac{}{x_3^\mu }\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu (y_1,y_2)=(_1+_2)_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu (y_1,y_2)$$

and equation (115) becomes

$$(_1+_2)_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu (y_1,y_2)+i\delta (y_2)\mathrm{\Sigma }(y_1y_2)i\delta (y_1)\mathrm{\Sigma }(y_1y_2)=0\text{ .}$$

Taking the Fourier transformOur convention to the Fourier transform of a distribution $`F(y_1,y_2)`$ is
$$\widehat{F}(p_1,p_2)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^4}𝑑y_1𝑑y_2\text{ e}^{i(p_1y_1+p_2y_2)}F(y_1,y_2)$$
of this equation we arrive at

$$(p_1+p_2)_\mu \widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\mu (p_1,p_2)\frac{1}{\left(2\pi \right)^2}\left\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(p_1)\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(p_2)\right\}=0\text{ .}$$

Introducing the notation $`q=p_2,`$ $`p=p_1`$ and redefining $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\mu `$ as

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\mu (p,q)\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\mu (p,q),$$

we arrive at

$$(pq)_\mu \widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\mu (p,q)=\frac{1}{\left(2\pi \right)^2}\left\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(p)\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(q)\right\}\text{ .}$$
(116)
Taking the limit $`pq`$ we have

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\mu (p,p)=\frac{1}{\left(2\pi \right)^2}\frac{}{p_\mu }\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(p)\text{ ,}$$
(117)
which is the form of the Ward identity we use to determine the vertex correction in Section 7.


text:
# First Detection of Submillimeter [C I] Emission in the Small Magellanic Cloud

## 1 Introduction

Studies of the interstellar medium (ISM) in the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC) allow us to investigate star forming clouds that are poor in heavy elements. The SMC is indeed an excellent choice to study this phenomenon, because it is nearby ($`D61`$ kpc; Laney & Stobie 1994), has an unobscured line of sight and very small internal obscuration, and possesses the lowest metallicity among the nearby members of the Local Group ($`ZZ_{}/10`$; Dufour 1984). Because of their low metallicity, morphological irregularity, and active star formation, the Magellanic Clouds resemble primeval galaxies. Therefore, studies such as this will eventually allow us to draw conclusions about those much more elusive targets: the high-z primitive galaxies.

The depletion of heavy elements, and the consequent low dust-to-gas ratio ($`D/G_{\mathrm{SMC}}1/8D/G_{\mathrm{MW}}`$; Bouchet et al. 1985), affects the ISM by enhancing photodissociation. Because of its high abundance (i.e., strong self-shielding) and cross-shielding with atomic hydrogen lines, molecular hydrogen is mostly unaffected by $`Z`$. The usual tracer molecules such as CO, however, are efficiently destroyed in dust-poor systems. A much larger fraction of the ISM in these systems is thus expected to be occupied by photodissociation regions (PDRs; e.g., Tielens & Hollenbach 1985; Sternberg & Dalgarno 1995). Consequently, we expect the intensities of the spectral lines associated with the PDR (e.g., \[C II\], \[C I\]) to be enhanced when compared to molecular lines (e.g., 12CO ($`J=10`$)), resulting in increasing I\[CII\]/ICO and I\[CI\]/ICO ratios (Bolatto, Jackson, & Ingalls 1999).

The immediate purpose of this work is twofold: 1) to test for the existence of an increasing I\[CI\]/ICO ratio with decreasing metallicity $`Z`$3.1), and 2) to investigate the power of far-infrared (FIR) spectroscopic diagnostics and compare their results to those obtained using millimeter and submillimeter lines (§3.2). An I\[CI\]/ICO dependence on $`Z`$ could be useful for determining metallicities in high-z sources using only radio observations. The trend in I\[CI\]/ICO with $`Z`$ is also a test for the origin of neutral carbon inside molecular clouds. An increasing I\[CI\]/ICO ratio for decreasing $`Z`$ points to a PDR origin, while a flat $`\text{I}\text{[CI]}/\text{I}\text{CO}`$ ratio suggests that C0 is produced inside the CO cores by means other than UV photons.

Our SMC source, the N27 nebula, was first cataloged by Henize (1956). A later survey by Davies, Elliott and Meaburn (1976) calls it DEM40. Its associated IR peak is also known as LIRS49 (Schwering & Israel 1989). This region was mapped by the Swedish-ESO Submillimeter Telescope (SEST) in the ($`J=10`$) and ($`J=21`$) transitions of CO (Rubio et al. 1993), and studied in detail in several molecular transitions by Heikkilä et al. (1999). Albeit a weak emitter when compared to Galactic sources, the molecular cloud associated with N27 features some of the strongest CO ($`J=10`$) emission in the SMC (Israel et al. 1993).

## 2 Observations

### 2.1 Far Infrared Data

We observed N27 using the Long Wavelength Spectrometer (LWS) onboard the Infrared Space Observatory satellite (ISO), at $`R=\lambda /\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda 200`$. These LWS data are a 4160 second-long full-grating scan obtained on 20 December 1997 as part of the LOMETPDR project. The instrumental characteristics are described by Clegg et al. (1996), and the calibration of the ISO LWS instrument is described by Swinyard et al. (1996). The data pipeline was version 8.7 and the observations were processed using ISAP version 2.0. We averaged the spectra across scans and scan direction, but not across detectors, with the default wavelength spacing of 0.135 $`\mu `$m. The averaging was done after 2.5$`\sigma `$ clipping of outlying points. For the purposes of obtaining an IFIR estimate only, we joined the detectors together by offsetting them with the dark correction method in ISAP, using detector LW1 as the reference. Table 1 summarizes the spectroscopic results.

We can assess the calibration of the LWS data by comparing it with previous \[C II\] measurements of N27 featuring a similar beam size (Israel & Maloney 1993). The intensity measured by FIFI at the LWS pointing is I\[CII\]$`9\times 10^4`$ erg s-1 cm-2 sr-1. The LWS measured intensity after applying the recommended correction factors for beam size and extended source is I\[CII\]$`9.5\times 10^4`$ erg s-1 cm-2 sr-1, in remarkable agreement with the FIFI observations. The measurements listed in Table 1 include both corrections.

### 2.2 Submillimeter Data

We observed the \[C I\] (3P$`{}_{1}{}^{}_{}^{3}`$P0) transition of neutral atomic carbon at $`\nu 492.1607`$ GHz (609 $`\mu `$m) using AST/RO, the Antarctic Submillimeter Telescope and Remote Observatory located at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole base (Stark et al. 1997). The observations were obtained on 3 to 7 July of 1998, using the AST/RO SIS quasi-optical receiver, with a system temperature $`T_{sys}1800`$—2400 K. The backend was the 2048 channel low resolution AOS. The spectra were observed in position switching mode, chopping 15′ in Azimuth (same as R.A. at the pole). At 492 GHz the telescope beam had HPBW$`3.8\mathrm{}\pm 0.3`$. The forward efficiency determined from skydips was 70%, and it is assumed to be identical to $`\eta _{mb}`$. The pointing was better than $`30\mathrm{}`$. A $`6\mathrm{}\times 6\mathrm{}`$ region centered on this source was mapped on a 30″ grid, considerably oversampling the beam. The data were calibrated using the standard procedure for AST/RO, which includes sky, hot and cold load measurements every 30 minutes, and processed using the COMB package. The total accumulated integration time, after rejecting bad spectra, was 63 hours. The spectrum obtained after averaging all the observations together is shown in Fig. 1. A gaussian fit to the data gives $`v_{cen}=115.2\pm 1.4`$ km s-1, $`\mathrm{\Delta }v=9.3\pm 3.3`$ km s-1, and $`T_{max}=14\pm 4`$ mK (main beam brightness). The location of the \[C I\] line agrees very well with the strongest CO component, for which $`v_{cen}=114.5`$ km s-1 (Rubio et al. 1993).

The relatively weak \[C I\] emission from N27, combined with its small size and consequent beam dilution, produced a low signal-to-noise map. Thus the analysis in §3.1 will be focused on the averaged spectrum for the region.

## 3 Results and Discussion

### 3.1 Metallicity and the I\[CI\]/ICO Ratio

The prime motivation for this study is to determine the I\[CI\]/ICO intensity ratio in the SMC, an environment that because of its low metallicity and low dust-to-gas ratio should be dominated by PDRs (cf., §1). To do this we compare our \[C I\] data with the 12CO ($`J=10`$) map by Rubio et al. (1993). This map covers only a relatively small fraction of the area mapped in \[C I\], but it probably contains most of the CO emission: to obtain a I\[CI\]/ICO ratio we assume that there is no CO emission outside this region. The CO emission associated with N27 has two components, at 114.5 and 126.9 km s-1. For this analysis we have integrated the CO and \[C I\] data over the velocity range corresponding to the strongest component, at $`114`$ km s-1. In order to compute a ratio we have convolved the CO ($`J=10`$) integrated intensity data to the angular resolution of the \[C I\] map. Subsequently we sampled the convolved CO map at the positions observed in \[C I\], excluding those positions where \[C I\] spectra were discarded. These samples were averaged with the same weighting scheme used for \[C I\]. This procedure allows us to obtain a reliable average ratio for the N27 region, relatively insensitive to uncertainties in the \[C I\] beam size and pointing. The resulting intensities, integrated over the velocity interval 107—119 km s-1, are $`\text{I}\text{[CI]}0.132\pm 0.027`$ and $`\text{I}\text{CO}0.517\pm 0.052`$ K km s-1, yielding a ratio $`\text{I}\text{[CI]}/\text{I}\text{CO}0.26\pm 0.06`$. The corresponding cooling ratio (the ratio of intensities in erg s-1 cm-2 sr-1) is $`\text{I}\text{[CI]}/\text{I}\text{CO}19.9\pm 4.5`$. The uncertainties are $`1\sigma `$ and include the statistical errors as well as a 10% $`1\sigma `$ calibration uncertainty in the intensities, added in quadrature.

Figure 2 compares the I\[CI\]/ICO ratio in N27 to a sample of molecular clouds associated with star-forming regions in systems of different metallicities. This plot suggests that there is an increasing trend in the I\[CI\]/ICO ratio with decreasing metallicity $`Z`$, such that $`\text{I}\text{[CI]}/\text{I}\text{CO}Z^{0.5}`$. The scatter around this line is relatively large, as shown by the data for the Large Magellanic Cloud. Theoretical expectations notwithstanding, this scatter has made it difficult to identify a trend in past studies over a narrower range of metallicities (e.g., Bolatto et al. 2000a).

Shown also in Fig. 2 is a model for carbon in unresolved PDRs (Bolatto et al. 1999). This model consists of intensity ratios computed over a distribution of clumps with uniform excitation, where each spherical clump is divided in three concentric regions of C+, C0, and CO. The sizes of these regions depend on the metallicity (or the dust-to-gas ratio) of the ISM. While necessarily crude this model incorporates the effects of clumping, and the increase in the physical size of the PDR for decreasing metallicity. The growth of the PDR is mostly caused by the diminishing attenuation of the UV radiation, as the dust-to-gas ratio of the ISM decreases for smaller metallicities. In this scenario, the primary reason why the I\[CI\]/ICO ratio increases for decreasing metallicity is the reduction and eventual disappearance of the CO cores in the clumps.

Are the models for the I\[CI\]/ICO ratio as a function of $`Z`$ quantitatively consistent with the measurements? Bolatto et al. explore two possibilities: C0 produced in the growing PDR (model A), and C0 restricted to a region whose size does not change with metallicity (model B). This latter model predicts an essentially flat I\[CI\]/ICO ratio ($`\text{I}\text{[CI]}/\text{I}\text{CO}Z^{+0.1}`$). A similar result (constant $`\text{I}\text{[CI]}/\text{I}\text{CO}`$) would be obtained if C0 was produced inside the CO cores via unidentified chemical reactions. The slope predicted by model A in this metallicity range is slightly steeper than that suggested by the data, $`\text{I}\text{[CI]}/\text{I}\text{CO}Z^{0.8}`$. Whether this difference is actually significant is difficult to assert given the paucity of observations and the intrinsic scatter in the data. Nevertheless, several possibilities could explain this discrepancy: 1) an increase in CO excitation for decreasing metallicity (i.e., hotter molecular gas for diminishing $`Z`$), 2) clump-to-clump shielding preventing the efficient photodissociation of CO, 3) a dust-to-gas ratio not proportional to the oxygen abundance (but this would require the dust abundance to be a slower function of $`Z`$, e.g. D/G$`Z^{0.5}`$, when observations suggest D/G$`Z^2`$; Lisenfeld & Ferrara 1998), and 4) some fraction ($`30`$%) of the C0 produced inside the CO cores instead of the PDR. We conclude that, within the bounds imposed by the limitations of the models and the paucity of the measurements, the observed trend for the I\[CI\]/ICO ratio with metallicity shown in Fig. 2 agrees with theoretical expectations for mostly photodissociation-produced C0.

### 3.2 Physical Conditions

The FIR spectroscopic data can be used to determine the conditions prevalent in N27. Using Table 1 and the PDR models by Kaufman et al. (1999) we will find the UV field, $`\chi _{\mathrm{uv}}`$, and the gas density, $`n`$. The important FIR ISM diagnostics computed by Kaufman et al. are: 1) the \[O I\] (3P$`{}_{0}{}^{}_{}^{3}`$P1)/(3P$`{}_{1}{}^{}_{}^{3}`$P2) line ratio ($`\mathrm{I}_{145}/\mathrm{I}_{63}0.051\pm 0.006`$, according to our measurements), 2) the \[O I\] (3P$`{}_{1}{}^{}_{}^{3}`$P2) to \[C II\] (2P$`{}_{3/2}{}^{}_{}^{2}`$P1/2) line ratio ($`\mathrm{I}_{63}/\mathrm{I}_{158}0.42\pm 0.01`$), 3) the ratio of \[O I\] (3P$`{}_{1}{}^{}_{}^{3}`$P2)+\[C II\] (2P$`{}_{3/2}{}^{}_{}^{2}`$P1/2) to the FIR continuum (using the LWS spectrum we estimate $`\text{I}\text{FIR}1.1\times 10^2`$ erg s-1 cm-2 sr-1, yielding $`(\mathrm{I}_{63}+\mathrm{I}_{158})/\text{I}\text{FIR}0.012\pm 0.002`$), and 4) the \[C II\] (2P$`{}_{3/2}{}^{}_{}^{2}`$P1/2) intensity itself. These joint four diagnostics agree very well, placing N27 in the low density, $`n300`$$`1000`$ cm-3, moderate UV field, $`\chi _{\mathrm{uv}}30`$$`100\chi _0`$, region of the $`n\chi _{\mathrm{uv}}`$ diagrams ($`\chi _0`$ is the interstellar UV field in the vicinity of the Sun, $`\chi _01.6\times 10^3`$ erg cm-2 s-1; Habing 1968). The corresponding PDR temperature in these conditions is $`T_{pdr}200`$ K. The FIR continuum dust temperature, derived from the LWS spectrum, is $`T_d40`$ K.

The density and radiation field derived using millimeter and submillimeter lines, however, strongly disagree with the FIR results. This lack of agreement is not surprising, perhaps, since these lines probably originate in different regions of the ISM. A millimeter wavelength multiline excitation analysis using several molecular species was performed by Heikkilä et al. (1999), yielding $`n10^5`$ cm-3, $`T15`$ K, and visual extinction $`\text{A}\text{V}1`$ for N27. The I\[CI\]/ICO ratio determined in §3.1 strongly constrains the density according to the calculations by Kaufman et al. (1999), also resulting in $`n10^4`$$`10^5`$ cm-3 (albeit over a much larger area). Finally, using the 12CO ($`J=10`$) observations by Rubio et al. (1993) convolved to the FIFI beam we compute an accurate I\[CII\]/ICO ratio at the LWS pointing, yielding $`\text{I}\text{[CII]}/\text{I}\text{CO}7000`$. This ratio alone does not constrain either parameter very well, but implies $`\chi _{\mathrm{uv}}>100\chi _0`$ and when used in combination with the measured I\[CI\]/ICO ratio results in $`\chi _{\mathrm{uv}}10^4`$$`3\times 10^5\chi _0`$. This is not a fair comparison, however, since both the I\[CII\]/ICO and I\[CI\]/ICO ratios will be affected by the low metallicity and extinction of this source. Fortunately, Kaufman et al. (1999) provide some calculations for small $`Z`$ and AV. Using their model tracks for $`Z=0.1`$ and $`\text{A}\text{V}=1`$ we find $`n10^5`$ cm-3 and $`\chi _{\mathrm{uv}}30\chi _0`$ for N27, based on $`\text{I}\text{[CII]}/\text{I}\text{FIR}10^2`$ and $`\text{I}\text{CO}/\text{I}\text{FIR}10^6`$. These measurements are also consistent with $`n_{\mathrm{CO}}>n_{\mathrm{C}^+}`$ at a lower radiation field, if we allow the model tracks to be shifted in the abscissa as described by the model authors.

At any rate, the diagnostics including \[C I\] or molecular line observations are inconsistent with the density $`n10^3`$ cm-3 implied by the FIR transitions. Because in general the FIR lines are generated closer to the surface of the cloud, this discrepancy may indicate a real density gradient in the gas. Another possibility is that the mm-submm and FIR lines originate in different regions of the cloud, with the latter dominated by material in a more diffuse interclump medium, or perhaps associated with the H II region rather than the molecular cloud. A third possibility is that the FIR line ratios are significantly affected by $`Z`$ or AV, and using model results computed for Galactic metallicity and large AV is inappropriate. If this is the cause of the density discrepancy, however, it is remarkable that all four FIR diagnostics agree on essentially the same value for the density and radiation field. Independent of which explanation is correct, we conclude that: 1) the FIR and mm-submm measurements roughly agree on the radiation field intensity, although it is extremely important to use models with the appropriate $`Z`$ and AV, and 2) the mm-submm data systematically indicate a density about two orders of magnitude higher than that derived from FIR fine structure data.

## 4 Summary and Conclusions

We report new FIR and submillimeter observations of the star forming region N27 in the Small Magellanic Cloud. Using our measured intensities for the FIR continuum and \[O I\] and \[C II\] fine structure transitions, and comparing with existing model calculations (Kaufman et al. 1999), we derive the density and radiation field in N27 to be $`n300`$—1000 cm-3 and $`\chi _{\mathrm{uv}}30`$$`100\chi _0`$. In contrast, the density derived using millimeter and submillimeter data is two orders of magnitude higher, $`n10^5`$ cm-3, while the radiation field is similar or lower, $`\chi _{\mathrm{uv}}30\chi _0`$. The cause for this discrepancy is not clear, but we suggest that the FIR and the mm-submm lines arise in different parcels of gas, with the former perhaps dominated by the interclump medium or the H II region.

We have detected \[C I\] (3P$`{}_{1}{}^{}_{}^{3}`$P0) emission from the Small Magellanic Cloud for the first time. This is the lowest metallicity source in which submillimeter neutral carbon emission has been detected. Low metallicity, dust-poor environments are thought to be dominated by PDRs. Despite the factor of $`5`$ in metallicity spanned by N27 and Orion, however, the I\[CI\]/ICO ratio in N27 is only modestly larger than the I\[CI\]/ICO ratio in Orion. Nevertheless, when we study the ratio in several sources spanning more than an order of magnitude in metallicity, we find a noisy but convincing increasing trend in the I\[CI\]/ICO ratio for decreasing metallicity (Fig. 2). This trend is somewhat flatter than, but in rough agreement with, the modelling results by Bolatto et al. (1999). The existence of an increasing trend points to a photodissociation origin for most of neutral carbon inside molecular clouds, in agreement with standard PDR models.

This research was supported in part by grants NSF OPP 89-20223, NSF AST 98-03065, NASA JPL 96-1513, and made use of NASA ADS and the CDS databases. We wish to thank Mónica Rubio for providing the calibrated and baseline-removed CO ($`J=10`$) spectra, Frank Israel for the FIFI \[C II\] data, and Tom Bania for his useful comments.