text:
# Nonperturbative Techniques for QED Bound States Talk presented at the MRST conference, University of Rochester, 8-9 May, 2000.

## 1 Introduction

The study of QED bound states tests our understanding of nonperturbative field theory, and of the techniques used to study these nonperturbative phenomena. Comparison of theoretical predictions to precision experiments gives the best determination of various fundamental constants (e.g. $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ from hydrogen spectral lines, $`m_\mu `$ from the muonium hyperfine splitting). Once all of the relevant constants are determined, a disagreement in the theory-experiment comparison can act as a signal to new physics.

Given these motivations to study precision bound state QED, there are some difficulties which must be addressed. Two of these difficulties are the complexity of relativistic formalisms, and the cumbersome nature of bound state perturbation theory.

Traditionally (although this tradition appears to be shifting), precision bound state calculations have been performed in relativistic formalisms, using the Bethe-Salpeter equation or one of its variants. A drawback of the integrated approach of such a formalism, which does not distinguish between low-momentum and high-momentum contributions (since this would violate relativistic invariance), is the difficulty in choosing an optimal gauge. For instance, Coulomb gauge could be most effective for parts of the calculation involving low momentum, but is cumbersome for high-momentum where Feynman gauge may be more appropriate. However in Feynman gauge, spurious low-order contributions appear which, though cancelling in the end, make it difficult to determine exactly which Feynman diagrams must be evaluated to obtain a given accuracy. When a low energy effective theory is used to separate high- and low-momentum modes in a systematic way, the appropriate gauge can be chosen independently for both momentum regions. Technical simplifications of this sort result from the effective theory taking advantage of the essentially nonrelativistic character of the system.

Bound state perturbation theory involves nontrivial sums over intermediate states, and in high orders the terms to be evaluated increase in number and complexity. Another problem is the reliance on an unperturbed state which forms the basis for perturbations. This is not such a problem in the single particle case, where the familiar Schrödinger-Coulomb wavefunctions are an obvious choice, but for multiparticle systems such as helium no analytic unperturbed wavefunction is known. These difficulties can be overcome by solving the effective theory nonperturbatively 111 The low-energy effective theory will still be determined perturbatively, as an expansion in $`\alpha `$ and the typical atomic velocity $`v`$. It is the effective theory, and not QED itself, which will then be solved nonperturbatively. .

In the rest of the talk, after mentioning some examples of low-energy effective theories, I demonstrate, in stages, the construction of an effective Hamiltonian for the hydrogen atom with leading relativistic and radiative corrections, in the approximation of a structureless, infinite mass nucleus222 The ideas here are in most cases a rewording, and in others a slight extension of the presentation in Ref.. . Ref.  gives a more modern application, to the decay rate of orthopositronium.

## 2 Low-Energy Effective Theories

An example of a low-energy effective theory is NRQED (nonrelativistic QED) field theory, described by the Lagrangian

$`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(E^2B^2)+\psi ^{}(i_te\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{D^2}{2m}}`$
$`+c_1{\displaystyle \frac{D^4}{8m^3}}+c_2{\displaystyle \frac{e}{2m}}\sigma B+c_3{\displaystyle \frac{e}{8m^2}}E+c_4{\displaystyle \frac{e}{8m^2}}\{iDE\times \sigma \}+\mathrm{})\psi `$
$`+(\psi \chi )`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{d_1}{mM}}\psi ^{}\sigma \psi \chi ^{}\sigma \chi +{\displaystyle \frac{d_2}{mM}}\psi ^{}\psi \chi ^{}\chi +\mathrm{},`$
together with a cutoff prescription, at momentum scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Here $`D=+ieA`$ is the covariant derivative and $`\psi ,\chi `$ are Pauli spinor fields. $`c_1,c_2,\mathrm{},d_1,d_2,\mathrm{}`$ are renormalization constants which must be determined by matching the predictions of NRQED to those of QED. The local operators parameterized by $`d_1,d_2,\mathrm{}`$ account for the short-distance/ high-momentum states which are excluded by the cutoff .

Another, and familiar, example of a low-energy effective theory is nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, described by a Hamiltonian,

$`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2m}}+V_{\mathrm{long}\mathrm{range}}(r)+{\displaystyle \frac{d_1}{m^2}}\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }^3(r)+{\displaystyle \frac{d_2}{m^4}}(^2\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }^3(r))+{\displaystyle \frac{d_3}{m^4}}𝐩\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }^3(r)𝐩+\mathrm{}.`$ (2)
$`V_{\mathrm{long}\mathrm{range}}(r)`$ includes all long range interactions (the analogue of those operators parameterized by $`c_i`$ in Eq.(2) ). The remaining operators are the leading terms in an expansion of local operators. The structure of $`V_{\mathrm{long}\mathrm{range}}(r)`$ and the values of the coefficients $`d_i`$ are determined by matching predictions of the effective theory to those of the true theory (in the present case, QED) 333 Alternatively, NRQED field theory could be used in an intermediate step: NRQED matched to QED, QM matched to NRQED. . It is on the effective Hamiltonian which we will focus, and for which we will formulate our nonperturbative implementation.

## 3 The Schrödinger-Coulomb Problem

First, consider the Schrödinger-Coulomb problem, where the “true” theory has Hamiltonian

$$H_{\mathrm{SC}}=\frac{p^2}{2m}\frac{(Z\alpha )}{r}.$$
(3)
We will treat this as an example problem, to demonstrate the basic ideas in a familiar setting.

Our goal here is to build an effective Hamiltonian in the form of Eq.(2), which describes the theory defined by $`H_{\mathrm{SC}}`$. We first introduce a cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }m`$ which effectively removes states of momentum $`p>\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ from the theory. This is reasonable, since for such large momenta, $`e^+e^{}`$ pair creation and other relativistic effects become important in QED 444 It happens that $`H_{\mathrm{SC}}`$ is well defined without a UV cutoff, so that introducing one may seem artificial here. However, when relativistic corrections are included, a cutoff is essential. And even in the present case, there are numerical advantages to having the cutoff in place — for example, fewer basis functions are required in the matrix diagonalization. . The particular cutoff we choose is in the form of a gaussian multiplying the momentum space potential:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\right)_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{q^2}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{q^2}}e^{\frac{q^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}},`$
where the second line is the Fourier transform of the first:

$$\left(\frac{1}{r}\right)_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{d^3q}{(2\pi )^3}e^{i𝐪𝐫}\frac{4\pi }{q^2}e^{\frac{q^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}=\frac{1}{r}\mathrm{erf}(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }r}{\sqrt{2}}),$$
(5)
with $`\mathrm{erf}(x)`$ the error function. Introducing the cutoff modifies the Coulomb potential at small distances $`r<1/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. With this form of the cutoff, a natural choice for the local operator $`\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }^3(r)`$ is:

$$\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }^3(r)=\frac{d^3q}{(2\pi )^3}e^{i𝐪𝐫}e^{\frac{q^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2r^2}{2}}$$
(6)
The other local operators in Eq.(2) are derived from $`\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }^3(r)`$ by differentiation.

With our modified Hamiltonian, we no longer expect to solve the eigenvalue problem for the energies analytically; instead, we look for a numerical solution 555Since an analytic solution takes the form of a series expansion in $`\alpha `$, a numerical approach is more natural as a nonperturbative tool. . Two approaches can be implemented easily:
(i) Differential Equation Integration: With $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ expressed as a differential operator, the Schrödinger equation is:

$$\left(\frac{1}{2m}^2+V(r)\right)\psi (r)=E\psi (r).$$
(7)
Together with appropriate boundary conditions ($`\psi (r\mathrm{})=0`$, $`\psi (r0)`$ finite), this eigenvalue problem can be solved using standard numerical differential equation integration routines.

(ii) Matrix Diagonalization: This technique will be our main focus, it being more readily adaptable than the differential equation method when radiative corrections are introduced. Elements of a (linearly independent, but not necessarily orthogonal) basis are first chosen, for example:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{lm}^i(𝐫)=Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi )r^le^{\frac{r^2}{2R_i^2}}.$$
(8)
where $`Y_{lm}`$ is a spherical harmonic and $`R_i`$ runs over an appropriate range of distance scales. We now take matrix elements of all operators involved: (for clarity, we replace the three indices $`i,l,m`$ above by a single index)

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^i|p^2|\mathrm{\Phi }^j`$ $``$ $`(p^2)^{ij}`$ (9)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }^i|V|\mathrm{\Phi }^j`$ $``$ $`V^{ij}`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }^i|\mathrm{\Phi }^j`$ $``$ $`W^{ij}.`$
Now taking matrix elements of the Schrödinger equation, we obtain:

$$\left(\frac{1}{2m}(p^2)^{ij}+V^{ij}\right)\psi _j=EW^{ij}\psi _j,$$
(10)
or as matrices:

$$\left(\frac{1}{2m}p^2+V\right)\psi =EW\psi ,$$
(11)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Phi }^j\psi _j`$, and repeated indices are summed over. Since we have not taken our basis elements to be orthonormal, $`W^{ij}\delta ^{ij}`$. To recover a more standard form, define, as matrices,

$`W^{\frac{1}{2}}p^2W^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{p^2}`$ (12)
$`W^{\frac{1}{2}}VW^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$
$`W^{\frac{1}{2}}\psi `$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }.`$
Then Eq.(11), upon multiplying both sides by $`W^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ becomes:

$$\left(\frac{1}{2m}\stackrel{~}{p^2}+\stackrel{~}{V}\right)\stackrel{~}{\psi }=E\stackrel{~}{\psi }.$$
(13)
This matrix eigenvalue equation can be solved easily using standard matrix diagonalization routines666 See for example Ref. . For the relatively small computer time required for the problems treated here, a commercial program like “Maple” or “Mathematica” works fine. .

The long range potential of Eq.(2) is

$$V_{\mathrm{long}\mathrm{range}}(r)=(Z\alpha )\left(\frac{1}{r}\right)_\mathrm{\Lambda }V_C.$$
(14)
To complete the determination of $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, we must evaluate the necessary local operator coefficients $`d_1,d_2,\mathrm{}`$. First, we should decide which coefficients must be evaluated, and to what accuracy. This is accomplished by noting that

$$\psi _0|\frac{d_1}{m^2}\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }^3(r)|\psi _0\frac{d_1}{m^2}|\psi _0|^2d_1m\alpha ^3.$$
(15)
So, to determine energy levels through, say, $`𝒪(m\alpha ^6)`$, we need determine $`d_1`$ through $`𝒪(\alpha ^3)`$. Terms parameterized by $`d_2`$ and $`d_3`$ contain two more powers of $`p/m\alpha `$, and so contribute at $`𝒪(d_2m\alpha ^5)`$, $`𝒪(d_3m\alpha ^5)`$ to the energy.

We will implement the matching procedure between the true and effective theory by perturbative matching of scattering amplitudes for the process $`𝐤𝐥`$. The lowest order scattering amplitude (the Born term) is simply the momentum space potential: (here $`𝐪=𝐥𝐤`$ is the momentum transfer)

$`𝐥|T|𝐤`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi (Z\alpha )}{q^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d_1}{m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d_2}{m^4}}q^2+{\displaystyle \frac{d_3}{m^4}}𝐥𝐤\right)e^{\frac{q^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi (Z\alpha )}{q^2}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{d_1}{m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi (Z\alpha )}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{d_2}{m^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi (Z\alpha )}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}}\right)q^2+{\displaystyle \frac{d_3}{m^4}}𝐥𝐤+𝒪(k^4).`$
The first term matches the $`𝒪(\alpha )`$ result of the “true” Coulomb theory. Requiring the other terms to vanish, through $`𝒪(\alpha )`$, gives:

$`d_1^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi {\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}`$ (17)
$`d_2^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m^4}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}}`$ (18)
$`d_3^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (19)
where $`d_1=(Z\alpha )d_1^{(1)}+(Z\alpha )^2d_2^{(2)}+(Z\alpha )^3d_3^{(3)}+\mathrm{}`$, $`d_2=(Z\alpha )d_2^{(1)}+\mathrm{}`$, $`d_3=(Z\alpha )d_3^{(1)}+\mathrm{}`$.

At $`𝒪(\alpha ^2)`$, our power counting shows that we need only evaluate $`d_1^{(2)}`$. To do so, we consider threshold scattering amplitudes in the true and effective theories 777 Here we are using the relation $`T_{lk}=V_{lk}+V_{lp}G_p(E)T_{pk}`$, where $`G_p(E)=(Ep^2/(2m)+iϵ)^1`$ is the nonrelativistic propogator and for the scattering state, $`E=k^2/(2m)`$. :

$`\underset{k0}{lim}𝐥|T_{\mathrm{true}}^{(2)}|𝐤𝐥|T_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(2)}|𝐤={\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}}[{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{p^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{p^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{p^2}}`$ (20)
$`({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{p^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d_1^{(1)}}{m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d_2^{(1)}}{m^4}}p^2)e^{\frac{p^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2m}{p^2}}\right)({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{p^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d_1^{(1)}}{m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d_2^{(1)}}{m^4}}p^2)e^{\frac{p^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}]+{\displaystyle \frac{d_1^{(2)}}{m^2}}`$
Requiring this quantity to vanish yields:

$`d_1^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\pi }\left({\displaystyle \frac{10}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\right)^320{\displaystyle \frac{d_2^{(1)}}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m}}+6\left({\displaystyle \frac{d_2^{(1)}}{4\pi }}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m}}\right)^5\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{71\sqrt{\pi }}{96}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\right)^3.`$
By a similar calculation at $`𝒪(\alpha ^3)`$, with the above calculated values of $`d_2^{(1)}`$ and $`d_1^{(2)}`$ 888 For energy levels correct through $`𝒪(m\alpha ^5)`$, it would be sufficient to include only $`d_1^{(1)}`$ and $`d_1^{(2)}`$, with $`d_2=0`$. The value of $`d_1^{(2)}`$ would then be given by Eq.(3) at $`d_2^{(1)}=0`$. ,

$$d_1^{(3)}=\left(\frac{5\sqrt{3}}{72}+\frac{1633}{384}\right)\left(\frac{m}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^4.$$
(22)
A comparison of the first few $`S`$ -state energy levels calculated both with and without counterterms are shown in Table 1. As expected, with counterterms included the energy levels are in agreement with the Coulomb spectrum through $`𝒪(m\alpha ^6)`$. This matching procedure can be extended systematically to higher orders.

## 4 Relativistic Corrections

The leading relativistic corrections to the Schrödinger-Coulomb Hamiltonian take the form :

$$\delta H=\frac{p^4}{8m^3}+\frac{\pi (Z\alpha )}{2m^2}\delta ^3(r)+\frac{(Z\alpha )}{4m^2}\frac{𝐋\sigma }{r^3}.$$
(23)
We can immediately see problems with these corrections as they stand, if we are to solve nonperturbatively. At high momentum, the $`p^4`$ term dominates over $`p^2`$, causing the Hamiltonian spectrum to be unbounded from below. Also, the $`\delta `$-function is too singular and all second-and higher order perturbations involving this term will be divergent. To remedy these problems, we introduce a cutoff:

$`\delta ^3(r)`$ $``$ $`\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }^3(r),`$ (24)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^3}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\right)^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\right)_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{},`$ (25)
giving the cutoff Darwin and spin-orbit potentials:

$`V_D={\displaystyle \frac{\pi (Z\alpha )}{2m^2}}\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }^3(r)`$ (26)
$`V_{SO}={\displaystyle \frac{(Z\alpha )}{4m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\right)_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}𝐋\sigma .`$ (27)
For the $`p^4`$ term, we choose to work with an equivalent form  999Here we could also apply the cutoff directly to the $`p^4`$ operator, for example $`p^4\mathrm{exp}(p^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)`$. The other form happens to make evaluation of the counterterms more convenient since then only the free propogator $`p^2/(2m)`$ appears in scattering calculations. :

$$p^4(2m)^2(EV)^2,$$
(28)
which defines our kinetic energy correction potential:

$$V_K(E)=\frac{1}{2m}(EV_C)^2,$$
(29)
where $`V_C`$ is the cutoff Coulomb potential.

Working through $`𝒪(m\alpha ^5)`$, the only counterterms necessary are $`d_1^{(1)}`$, which is given in Eq.(17), and $`d_1^{(2)}`$, which must be recalculated with the relativistic corrections in place:

$$d_1^{(2)}=\sqrt{\pi }\left(\frac{10}{3}\left(\frac{m}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^3\frac{m}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\frac{1}{8}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m}\right).$$
(30)
(This calculation is similar to that of Eq.(20), but with $`T_{\mathrm{true}}`$ now referring to the scattering amplitude of QED in the external field approximation.)

## 5 Radiative Corrections

It remains to include the effects of radiative corrections—in the language of Coulomb gauge, the effect of the transverse radiation field. Our analysis is complicated here by the fact that soft photons, of energy $`Em\alpha ^2`$, can no longer be described by instantaneous potentials in the electron’s Hamiltonian, since their characteristic propogation time ($`\delta t1/E`$) can be comparable to bound state timescales ($`\delta t1/(m\alpha ^2)`$). We can deal with this by expanding the state space to include two channels: one with just the electron, another with the electron and a transverse photon. The wavefunction now has components in both sectors:

$$\psi =\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _e\\ \psi _{e\gamma }\end{array}\right).$$
(31)
The new terms in the Hamiltonian which describe the coupling between channels are:

$$\delta H=H_\gamma \frac{e}{m}𝐩𝐀(𝐫),$$
(32)
where

$$H_\gamma =\frac{d^3q}{(2\pi )^3}\underset{ϵ(𝐪)}{}\omega _qa_{𝐪,ϵ(𝐪)}^{}a_{𝐪,ϵ(𝐪)}$$
(33)
is the photon kinetic energy operator, and

$$𝐀(𝐫)=\frac{d^3q}{(2\pi )^3}\underset{ϵ(𝐪)}{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\omega _q}}(a_{q,ϵ(q)}e^{i𝐪𝐫}+h.c).$$
(34)
For photons of momentum $`qm\alpha `$ (i.e. $`q<m\alpha ^2`$), the multipole expansion is valid:

$$𝐀(𝐫)=𝐀(0)+𝐫𝐀(0)+\mathrm{}$$
(35)
For $`qm\alpha ^2`$ (i.e. $`q>m\alpha `$), the photon propogation is effectively instantaneous, and can be described by instantaneous potentials in the electron Hamiltonian. So, denoting the potentials already present (Coulomb and relativistic corrections) by $`V`$, our coupled channel Hamiltonian takes the form:

$$H\frac{p^2}{2m}+V+H_\gamma \frac{e}{m}pA(0)+\mathrm{}$$
(36)
where the dots represent any new instantaneous potentials generated by interaction with the transverse photon sector.

The coupled channel problem can be reduced to an effective energy-dependent Hamiltonian acting only on the electron subspace. In general, if the coupled Schrödinger equation has the form:

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}H_e& H^{}\\ H^{}& H_e+H_\gamma \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _e\\ \psi _{e\gamma }\end{array}\right)=E\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _e\\ \psi _{e\gamma }\end{array}\right),$$
(37)
then the effective Hamiltonian is

$$H=H_e+H^{}(EH_eH_\gamma )^1H^{}.$$
(38)
In the present case,

$`H_e`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2m}}+V`$ (39)
$`H^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{m}}𝐩𝐀(0),`$
and $`H_\gamma `$ is given by Eq.(33). Eq.(38) can be evaluated explicity. Including radiative photon modes of momentum 101010 Taking $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\gamma m`$ instead of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\gamma m\alpha `$ avoids the appearance of factors $`\mathrm{ln}\alpha `$ in higher order contact terms, but is not essential. The difference will be accounted for by the remaining instantaneous interactions—see Eq.(45).  $`q\mathrm{\Lambda }_\gamma m`$, and assigning the photon a mass $`\lambda `$ to control infrared divergences,

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`H_e+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi m^2}}p^i[{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\gamma }}dq{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{q_\lambda ^2}}(\delta ^{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{q^iq^j}{q_\lambda ^2}})`$
$`+{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\gamma }}dq{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{q_\lambda ^2}}(\delta ^{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{q^iq^j}{q_\lambda ^2}})({\displaystyle \frac{q_\lambda }{EH_eq_\lambda }}+1)]p^j,`$
with $`q_\lambda \sqrt{q^2+\lambda ^2}`$.

The final step in our analysis is to compute any remaining instantaneous potentials, by comparing our effective theory to QED. We do this by examining the $`𝒪(\alpha )`$ correction to the QED scattering amplitude, which can be written in terms of vertex form factors, and a vacuum polarization contribution:

$$T_{\mathrm{true}}=\frac{4\pi (Z\alpha )}{q^2}F_1+\frac{4\pi (Z\alpha )}{4m^2}\left(1\frac{2i𝐥\times 𝐤\sigma }{q^2}\right)F_2+\frac{4\pi (Z\alpha )}{q^2}\left(\frac{\alpha }{15\pi }\frac{q^2}{m^2}\right),$$
(41)
with

$`F_1`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{3\pi m^2}}q^2\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}+𝒪(\lambda )\right)+𝒪(q^4)`$ (42)
$`F_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}+𝒪(q^2)`$ (43)
To this we must compare the $`𝒪(\alpha )`$ contribution coming from Eq.(5) 111111 Here wavefunction renormalization must be taken into account, since the potential is energy-dependent. :

$$T_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{4\pi (Z\alpha )}{q^2}\left[\frac{\alpha }{3\pi m^2}q^2\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_\gamma }{\lambda }\frac{5}{6}\right)\right].$$
(44)
Comparing Eqs.(41) and (44), we see that potentials:

$`V_{F1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha (Z\alpha )}{3m^2}}\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_\gamma }}+{\displaystyle \frac{11}{24}}\right)\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }^3(r)`$ (45)
$`V_{F2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(Z\alpha )}{4m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}\left(4\pi \delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }^3(r)2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\right)^{}𝐋\sigma \right)`$ (46)
$`V_{VP}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha (Z\alpha )}{15m^2}}\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }^3(r),`$ (47)
associated with $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ form factors, and vacuum polarization, respectively, must be added to our effective theory. Having determined these potentials, we now set $`\lambda =0`$, and evaluate the $`𝒪(\alpha )`$ piece of Eq.(5121212 The first term in square brackets in Eq. (5) is absorbed by a mass renormalization. “LS” stands for “Lamb shift”, since this potential accounts for the dominant part of this effect. Note also that a cutoff in the form $`\mathrm{exp}(p^2/2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)`$ has been included in $`V_{LS}`$. :

$$V_{LS}(E)=\frac{2\alpha }{3\pi m^2}e^{\frac{p^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}p^i(\frac{p^2}{2m}+V_CE)\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\gamma }{\frac{p^2}{2m}+V_CE}p^ie^{\frac{p^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}.$$
(48)
We can now present the complete effective Hamiltonian, including leading relativistic and radiative corrections:

$$H_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{p^2}{2m}+V_C+V_{\mathrm{rel}}+V_{\mathrm{rad}}+V_{\mathrm{ct}},$$
(49)
where $`V_C`$ is the cutoff Coulomb potential, $`V_{\mathrm{rel}}=V_K(E)+V_D+V_{SO}`$ incorporates relativistic corrections, $`V_{\mathrm{rad}}=V_{LS}(E)+V_{F1}+V_{F2}+V_{VP}`$ contains the radiative corrections, and $`V_{\mathrm{ct}}=(d_1^{(1)}/m^2+(Z\alpha )d_1^{(2)}/m^2)\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }^3(r)`$ is the counterterm potential. For this application, we have (Eqs. (17),(30) )

$`d_1^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi {\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}},`$
$`d_1^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\pi }\left({\displaystyle \frac{10}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\right)^3{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m}}\right).`$
The spectrum of this Hamiltonian can be readily determined using matrix diagonalization 131313 The necessary matrix elements of the various operators between gaussian basis functions are listed in the appendix. , and reproduces (Table 2) the well-known result through $`𝒪(m\alpha ^5)`$  :

$`E(n,j,l)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m(Z\alpha )^2}{2n^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m(Z\alpha )^4}{2n^3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{j+1/2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4n}}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m\alpha (Z\alpha )^4}{\pi n^3}}[\delta _{l,0}({\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\mathrm{ln}(Z\alpha )^1+{\displaystyle \frac{10}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{15}})`$
$`+(1\delta _{l,0})\left({\displaystyle \frac{j(j+1)l(l+1)3/4}{2l(l+1)(2l+1)}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\mathrm{ln}k_0(n,l)].`$
It is worth noting that higher order terms , including ones containing $`\mathrm{ln}(\alpha )`$, appear automatically when the theory is solved nonperturbatively. This can be important in high orders when the appearance of factors $`(\mathrm{ln}\alpha )^n`$, for large enough $`n`$, causes poor convergence of series expansions.

Acknowledgements. The work presented here was done in collaboration with Peter Lepage. I also thank Jonathan Sapirstein for useful conversations, and Patrick Labelle for a proofreading of the manuscript.

## Appendix: Matrix Elements for Gaussian Basis

Following is a list of matrix elements between basis functions

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{lm}^i(𝐫)=Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi )r^le^{\frac{r^2}{2R_i^2}}.$$
(51)
It is convenient to define the quantity $`R_{ij}=(R_i^2+R_j^2)^{1/2}`$. Then the matrix elements are: (a factor $`\delta _{m_i,m_j}\delta _{l_i,l_j}`$ is suppressed)

$`\left[r^n\right]_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`2^{l+(n+1)/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}+l+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}\right)R_{ij}^{3+2l+n}`$ (52)
$`\left[p^2\right]_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l+3/2}{R_{ij}^2}}\left[r^0\right]_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_i^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_j^4}}\right)\left[r^2\right]_{ij}`$ (53)
$`\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\right)_\mathrm{\Lambda }\right]_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2(l+1)}}}2^l\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{da}}\right)^l\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a\sqrt{1+a}}}\right]_{a=1/(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2R_{ij}^2)}`$ (54)
$`\left[\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }^3(𝐫)\right]_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2^{l+1/2}}{4\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }^{2l}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}+l\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(1+\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2R_{ij}^2}\right)^{l+3/2}}}`$ (55)
$`\left[^2\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }^3(𝐫)\right]_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`3\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\left[\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }^3(𝐫)\right]_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{2^{l+3/2}}{4\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }^{2l2}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}+l\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(1+\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2R_{ij}^2}\right)^{l+5/2}}}`$ (56)
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\right)_\mathrm{\Lambda }\right]_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2l}}}\{2^{l1}({\displaystyle \frac{d}{da}})^l\left[\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1+a}+1}{\sqrt{1+a}1}}\right]_{a=1/(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2R_{ij}^2)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2^l}{\sqrt{\pi }}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(1+\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2R_{ij}^2}\right)^{l+1/2}}}\}`$
For the operator $`p^i`$ appearing in $`V_{LS}`$, we concentrate on the ground state, with $`l=0`$. To first order in $`V_{LS}`$, we need only consider coupling between $`S`$\- and $`P`$\- states ($`SPS`$ transitions)141414 Higher orders will introduce $`SPDPS`$ transitions, but these are suppressed by several powers of $`\alpha `$. . Here the sum over spherical harmonics results in the replacement $`_ip^i(\mathrm{})p^i(ip_r)(\mathrm{})(ip_r)`$, where $`ip_r=d/dr`$, and:

$$\left[ip_r\right]_{ij}=\delta _{l_i,1}\delta _{l_j,0}\left(\frac{[r^1]_{ij}}{R_j^2}\right)+\delta _{l_i,0}\delta _{l_j,1}\left(\frac{[r^1]_{ji}}{R_i^2}\right).$$
(59)
Radially excited states ($`l>0`$) can be treated similarly; for instance $`l=1`$ requires a sum over couplings between $`P`$\- and $`S`$\- and between $`P`$\- and $`D`$-states.

The $`R_i`$ should take values which cover the range from $`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to $`1/(m\alpha )`$. For example, the values of Table 1 were generated using $`R_i=R_{\mathrm{min}}(R_{\mathrm{max}}/R_{\mathrm{min}})^{i/N}`$, with $`i=0..N`$, $`N=60`$, $`R_{\mathrm{min}}=0.1/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`R_{\mathrm{max}}=100/(m\alpha )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=m`$, $`\alpha =0.02`$. For problems with more than one angular momentum channel, a separate set of basis functions should be used for both channels, e.g. $`N_S`$ S-states and $`N_P`$ P-states for the hydrogen atom problem with radiative corrections.


format: text

text:
# Anti-Kaon Induced Reactions on the Nucleon*footnote **footnote *Work supported by BMBF and GSI Darmstadt

## I Introduction

One major goal in hadron physics is to find the properties of resonances. In the sector of $`N^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonances there exists a huge amount of data especially from $`\pi N`$ reactions. The properties of most of these resonances are known quite well  from various analyses of the experimental data (see for example ) and models that are able to describe these data, as for example . This situation changes when we look at resonances with strangeness $`1`$. Here the properties of some resonances are not settled at all (e.g. in the $`P_{01}`$ partial wave there might be one or two resonances with barely known masses and widths). In order to learn more about these resonances and also the coupling constants involving strange baryons, we have extended the model of  to the strangeness $`1`$ sector (i.e. the asymptotic states are $`\overline{K}N`$, $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and $`\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }`$).

Reference  sets the framework of the present calculation. Using the $`K`$ matrix approximation, $`\pi `$ and $`\gamma `$ induced reactions on the nucleon with final states $`\pi N`$, $`\gamma N`$, $`\pi \pi N`$, $`\eta N`$, $`K\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and since last year also $`K\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, were calculated. Also on the basis of  Bennhold et al.  are investigating nucleon and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonances. In their latest publication , special emphasis is put on the photoproduction of kaon hyperon states. Especially with the inclusion of the final state $`K\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ it was possible to extend the energy range up to $`\sqrt{s}=2`$ GeV and thus to investigate the resonances around 1900 MeV. For the photoproduction it is very important to maintain gauge invariance after introducing form factors. Using a form factor prescription by Haberzettl  yields an excellent agreement between experimental data and model calculations.

In general, experimental observables are very well described with the model in ; however, there is a problem concerning the final states $`K\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`K\mathrm{\Sigma }`$; the angular differential cross sections for the $`\pi `$ induced reactions do not agree with experiment. In the reactions $`\pi NK\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ or $`K\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ there are baryons and resonances with strangeness $`1`$ propagating in $`u`$-channel diagrams. Since these are nonresonant contributions and the couplings of the baryons and widths of the resonances are, if at all, poorly known, these diagrams were not included in .

The idea is now to determine these parameters in a calculation where they contribute in resonant diagrams, which is the case for $`\overline{K}`$ induced reactions on the nucleon.

In this paper we present our first results. Section II shows the concept of our calculation with the unitarity conserving $`K`$ matrix approximation, which reduces the Bethe-Salpeter equation from a system of coupled integral equations to the problem of matrix inversion. Section III covers the used Lagrange density and motivates the final states that have to be considered in the calculation. In section III A the used form factors are given and in the following section IV the experimental data that were used for the fit are discussed. Our results are presented in section V. Section VI contains conclusions and outlook.

## II The Model

All information of the scattering process is contained in the scattering matrix $`S`$. This matrix can be decomposed into a trivial part and the part that includes all information about reactions, the $`T`$-matrix

$$S=I+\mathrm{i}T.$$
(1)
The scattering equation that needs to be solved is the Bethe Salpeter equation (BSE). Schematically the BSE is given as illustrated in fig. 1. $`V`$ is the amplitude of the elementary interactions and is calculated using Feynman rules which follow from a Lagrangian that is given in section III. The two-particle propagator $`𝒢_{BS}`$ is given by the product of the baryon and the meson propagator. The integration over the loop momentum yields a system of coupled integral equations for all final states.

We introduce the Feynman amplitude $``$

$$𝒑_1𝒑_2|\mathrm{i}\widehat{T}|𝒌_A𝒌_B=(2\pi )^4\delta ^{(4)}(k_A+k_B(p_1+p_2))\mathrm{i}(k_A,k_Bp_1,p_2).$$
(2)
Taking out the spinors we define the amplitude $`M_{fi}`$

$$_{fi}=\overline{u}(p^{},s^{})M_{fi}u(p,s).$$
(3)
Then the BSE has the form

$$M(p^{},p;\sqrt{s})=V(p^{},p;\sqrt{s})+\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}V(p^{},k;\sqrt{s})𝒢_{BS}(k;\sqrt{s})M(k,p,\sqrt{s}).$$
(4)
To make this problem solvable we are using a $`K`$ matrix approximation. In our notation the $`K`$ matrix is defined by

$`K`$ $`=`$ $`V(p^{},p;\sqrt{s})+\mathrm{P}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}V(p^{},k;\sqrt{s})𝒢_{BS}(k;\sqrt{s})K(k,p,\sqrt{s})}`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`V(p^{},p;\sqrt{s})+{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}V(p^{},k;\sqrt{s})\mathrm{}𝒢_{BS}(k;\sqrt{s})K(k,p,\sqrt{s})},`$ (6)
where P stands for the principal value of the integral and $`\mathrm{}𝒢_{BS}`$ stands for the real part of the propagator. The latter contains the pole of the propagator as can be seen from the following. A propagator is given in the form

$$\frac{1}{a+\mathrm{i}ϵ}=\frac{a\mathrm{i}ϵ}{a^2+ϵ^2}\stackrel{ϵ0}{}\frac{1}{a}\mathrm{i}\pi \delta (a),$$
(7)
so the real part contains the pole and the imaginary part is proportional to a delta function with the on-shell condition as its argument.

From the unitarity of the $`S`$-matrix, $`S^{}S=I`$, follows

$$\mathrm{i}(TT^{})=T^{}T,$$
(8)
and using the BSE we get

$$MM^{}=2\mathrm{i}M^{}\mathrm{}(𝒢_{BS})M.$$
(9)
Thus, in order to keep unitarity we must preserve the imaginary part of the propagator. The real part, on the other hand, plays no role for unitarity, so we simply neglect it

$$\mathrm{}(𝒢_{BS})=0.$$
(10)
This is the same as putting the intermediate particles on their mass shell. In  and  it is shown that this is a reasonable assumption for energies not too close to a particle production threshold.

With this approximation the propagator $`𝒢_{BS}`$ becomes

$$𝒢_K=\mathrm{i2}\pi ^2\delta (k_B^2m_B^2)\delta (k_M^2m_M^2)\theta (k_B^0)\theta (k_M^0)(k/_B+m_B)$$
(11)
and from (6) we get

$$K=V.$$
(12)
With the delta functions in the propagator the integral in the BSE (4) is easy to evaluate and the problem reduces to the inversion of an $`n\times n`$ matrix, if $`n`$ is the number of energetically allowed channels.

Using

$$(k/_B+m_B)=\underset{s}{}u(k_B,s)\overline{u}(k_B,s)$$
(13)
and going back to the notation of the amplitudes including the spinors (3) we get

$$=(I\mathrm{i}𝒦)^1𝒦,$$
(14)
where $`𝒦=𝒱=\overline{u}Vu`$.

## III The Lagrange density

In order to calculate the entries of the matrix $`𝒦`$ all elementary diagrams must be calculated. We restrict ourselves to tree level diagrams (cf. fig. 2) using the physical masses and charges for the asymptotic particles and $`t`$-channel mesons. The parameters of $`N`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and resonances in $`u`$-channel diagrams are taken from  and .

The channels included in the calculation are $`\overline{K}N`$, $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and $`\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }`$. These are the dominant contributions in the relevant energy interval (fig. 3). Because we have to fix the particle properties in this phenomenological model with the help of experimental data, we will include more channels as soon as reliable data are available.

In order to calculate the $`s`$-, $`t`$-, and $`u`$-channel diagrams for the relevant channels we are using the following Lagrange density:

$`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\mathrm{i}/m_\mathrm{\Psi })\mathrm{\Psi }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\mu ^\mu m_\phi ^2)\phi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}v_{\mu \nu }v^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v_\mu v^\mu m_v^2`$ (15)
$`+`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_R(\mathrm{i}/m_R)\mathrm{\Psi }_R+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_R^\alpha (\mathrm{i}/m_R)\mathrm{\Psi }_{R\alpha }`$ (16)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\phi \mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }}}{2m_\mathrm{\Psi }}}[\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _5\gamma _\mu (^\mu \phi )\mathrm{\Psi }+h.c.]`$ (17)
$``$ $`g_{v\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }}[\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\gamma _\mu v^\mu \kappa _{v\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{\mu \nu }}{4m_\mathrm{\Psi }}}v^{\mu \nu })\mathrm{\Psi }+h.c.]`$ (18)
$``$ $`\mathrm{i}g_{v\phi \phi }[\phi (_\mu \phi )v^\mu +h.c.]`$ (19)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\phi \mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }_R}}{m_R+m_\mathrm{\Psi }}}[\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_R^{}\gamma _\mu (^\mu \phi )\mathrm{\Psi }+h.c.]`$ (20)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\phi \mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }_R}}{m_Rm_\mathrm{\Psi }}}[\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_R^+\gamma _\mu \gamma _5(^\mu \phi )\mathrm{\Psi }+h.c.]`$ (21)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\phi \mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }_{\frac{3}{2}}}}{m_\pi }}[\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_R^\alpha [g_{\alpha \mu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+2z_{\phi \mathrm{\Psi }})\gamma _\alpha \gamma _\mu ]\gamma _5(^\mu \phi )\mathrm{\Psi }+h.c.]`$ (22)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\phi \mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }_{\frac{3}{2}}}}{m_\pi }}[\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_R^{\alpha +}[g_{\alpha \mu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+2z_{\phi \mathrm{\Psi }})\gamma _\alpha \gamma _\mu ](^\mu \phi )\mathrm{\Psi }+h.c.]`$ (23)
The kinetic and mass terms are given in the first two lines. $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ refers to the Baryons (N, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$), $`\phi `$ to pseudo scalar mesons (K, $`\pi `$), $`v^\mu `$ stands for the vector mesons ($`K^{}`$, $`\varphi `$, $`\rho `$, $`a_0`$), $`\mathrm{\Psi }_R^\pm `$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_R^{\alpha \pm }`$ are referring to Spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\frac{3}{2}`$ resonances resp. ($`\pm `$ stands for the parity of the resonance).

Pseudo scalar mesons and the spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ baryons are coupled by pseudo vector coupling terms. Baryons and vector mesons are coupled by the superposition of vector and tensor coupling terms and $`\kappa _{v\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ determines the relative strength. The spin $`\frac{3}{2}`$ resonances are treated in the Rarita-Schwinger formalism as a product of a spin $`1`$ vector and a spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ spinor, so in the coupling term the $`z_{\phi \mathrm{\Psi }}`$ parameters determine the off shell behavior of the resonance, which means the parameters affect the appearance of the spin $`\frac{3}{2}`$ resonances in spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ channels.

The isospin factors for each vertex are listed in appendix A. These factors are chosen in a way to consistently decompose the amplitudes into the different possible isospin channels.

Note that we do not introduce explicit background terms in our study but instead generate the background consistently from the $`u`$\- and $`t`$-channel diagrams.

### A Form Factors

As we are not dealing with-point like particles, we have to introduce hadronic form factors in order to take care of the inner structure of the particles which is important at the vertices. The shape of the form factors is taken from  because our goal is one consistent model for all meson- and photon-induced reactions on the nucleon.

These shapes are given by the following functions:

$`F(q^2,m^2)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4+(q^2m^2)^2}}`$ (24)
in $`s`$\- and $`u`$\- channel, where $`q^2=s`$ or $`q^2=u`$ resp., and

$`F_t(t,m^2)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4+((t_{thresh}m^2)/2)^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4+(t(t_{thresh}+m^2)/2)^2}}`$ (25)
in $`t`$-channel diagrams. Here $`t_{thresh}`$ is the value of $`t`$ at threshold. $`m`$ is the mass of the propagating particle and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the form factor parameter. Note that purely mesonic vertices are not multiplied by a form factor, i.e. the $`t`$-channel diagrams contain only one form factor.

There are four different form factor parameters $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, one for all $`t`$-channels, one for all spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ resonances, one for the Spin $`\frac{3}{2}`$ resonances and the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ parameter for diagrams with a propagating asymptotic baryon (Born diagrams) which is taken from .

## IV Experimental Data

In this model we need to adjust parameters like the resonance masses and widths to experimental data. Thus the accuracy of the extracted parameters obviously depends on the quality of the available experimental data. All experiments concerned with strangeness $`1`$ resonances were carried out more than twenty years ago. The error bars are quite large, and different experiments are often contradictory.

We are mainly using a partial wave analysis (PWA)  which included a large amount of data and was performed for the three channels we calculate ($`\overline{K}N`$, $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }`$). This is an energy dependent PWA, which means that there were already some assumptions made about resonance properties; furthermore there is no error given in . We thus have to add some realistic error in order to use  together with other data. The errors we use are

$$\mathrm{\Delta }T=\mathrm{Max}(0.12T;\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.012}).$$
(26)
Almost all other PWAs (e.g. , ) are single channel analyses for the $`KN`$ channel. As there are large deviations comparing the PWA of  to the one of  (especially in the $`S_{01}`$ channel) we do not want to take  as the only source of experimental information. In addition, therefore, we use total cross sections for $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ final states which are taken from  (because all experiments were done before  was published, this data collection can be considered complete for total cross sections). For the $`\overline{K}N`$ channel there are also differential cross sections available, so we are using the publications given in table I. All cross sections are measured with the initial state $`K^{}p`$. There are also data for $`\overline{K}^0n`$ reactions, but for those the error bars are even larger.

With this set of experimental data we adjust the parameters of our model (table II). Since spin $`\frac{5}{2}`$ resonances are not included in our calculation we do not go beyond $`E_{cm}=1.72`$ GeV, because at higher energies we expect a strong influence of the resonances $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1820)`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1830)`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(1775)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(1915)`$ on cross sections. A reliable extraction of spin $`\frac{3}{2}`$ and $`\frac{1}{2}`$ resonance properties would not be possible if contributions of these states were present in the data.

## V Results

In this section we show the partial wave amplitudes and differential cross sections, calculated with the parameter set that yields the least $`\chi ^2`$ in the fit.

### A Partial Waves

Following  the nomenclature differs from the non-strange case: $`L_{I,2J}`$ labels the amplitude with angular momentum $`L`$, isospin $`I`$ and total spin $`J`$.

As already mentioned in section IV, there are a number of uncertainties in the analysis . For example, in the $`S_{01}`$ amplitude (fig. 4) the authors of  had problems fixing the $`KN`$ width of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1670)`$, which explains the deviations from our calculation.

The situation for the $`P_{01}`$ amplitude is not quite clear. There might be one or two resonances in this partial wave . In our calculation we take only one resonance into account, since a second resonance does not decrease the $`\chi ^2`$ significantly. It is difficult to disentangle background and resonant effects in the available data; more accurate data would help clarifying this situation.

No resonant contribution with quantum numbers $`P_{03}`$ is found, which is consistent with . The background contributions alone already describe this partial wave amplitude very well.

The two established resonances $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1520)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1690)`$ are clearly seen in the $`D_{03}`$ amplitude where the fit works quite well.

In the considered energy range there is no resonant contribution to the $`S_{11}`$ amplitude. Including the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(1750)`$ might improve the fit, but the parameters are not well known and it is not possible to determine them in a fit constrained to energies below $`E_{cm}=1.72`$ GeV.

The $`P_{11}`$ amplitude is in nice agreement with . Only for the $`\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ final state there are some discrepancies, but this is clear since the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(1660)`$ was not included in the $`\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ channel of .

Describing the $`P_{13}`$ amplitude is difficult, because there is no resonance in this partial wave. In addition the magnitude is quite small, so it does not contribute much to the cross sections.

Our description of the $`D_{13}`$ is in good agreement with , only for the $`\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ final state the PWA by  has a slightly different mass for the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(1670)`$ resonance.

It would be very helpful to have an energy independent PWA of experimental data in these channels, since all energy dependent analyses already contain some assumptions about resonance properties.

### B Cross Sections

We show a comparison of calculated total (fig. 9) and differential cross sections (fig. 10) with the experimental data used in the fit. The agreement is good within the errorbars but it can also be seen in fig. 9 that the experimental data are somewhat contradictory (especially for $`K^{}p\pi ^0\mathrm{\Lambda }`$).

In figs. 11 through 13 we show as predictions the calculated differential cross sections for the reactions $`K^{}p\overline{K}^0n`$, $`K^{}p\pi ^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ and $`K^{}p\pi ^0\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The energies are chosen in view of the upcoming data from the Crystal Ball collaboration .

### C Coupling Constants

During the fit we adjusted the coupling constants to experimental data. The couplings to final states are given in table III in comparison with refs.  and . The numbers from  are calculated within a sum rule approach with $`SU(3)`$ breaking and should be considered as a qualitative guide. The ones from  are calculated within a parametrisation of QCD that goes back to , within this approach these numbers should have an accuracy of about 10%. Concrete values of coupling constants are hard to find in the literature and show large deviations. All the coupling constants that we obtained in our parametrisation from fitting to experimental data have to be seen within the framework of this $`K`$ matrix calculation. Since the experimental data have error bars larger than 10% the extracted parameters cannot be more accurate. In addition, with only total cross sections for the $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ final states it is not possible to disentangle resonant and different background contributions (see also the comments on spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ resonances in the following section).

Comparing the $`F/D`$ ratios (as defined in ) that fit our couplings show that these couplings are not $`SU(3)`$ symmetric. The actual values are of minor importance.

### D Resonances

In tables IV and V we show the extracted properties of all the included resonances. The masses for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(1385)`$ were taken from , because they are rather accurately known and cannot be determined in our fit due to their values below the $`\overline{K}N`$ threshold.

The values that are labeled ’$`K`$ matrix’ are the ones that are used in the calculation. The resonance widths are used to calculate the coupling constants which enter the $`K`$ matrix.

With the help of the speed technique we extracted the resonance parameters from our partial wave amplitudes. The concept is as follows , :

The ansatz for a resonance is given by a Breit-Wigner shape (cf. )

$$T(W)=T_{back}(W)+\frac{\mathrm{x}\mathrm{\Gamma }/2\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Phi }}}{m_RW\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Gamma }/2},$$
(27)
where $`W=\sqrt{s}`$, $`m_R`$ is the mass of the resonance, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ its width and $`\mathrm{x}=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_f}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for partial widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$ of the resonance’s decay into initial and final state. Under the assumption that the background ($`T_{back}`$) can be considered constant compared to the resonant contributions in the vicinity of the resonance, one gets

$$\frac{dT}{dW}\frac{\mathrm{x}\mathrm{\Gamma }/2\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Phi }}}{(m_RW\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)^2}.$$
(28)
The speed is defined by

$$Sp(W)=\left|\frac{dT}{dW}\right|\frac{\mathrm{x}\mathrm{\Gamma }/2}{(m_RW)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2/4}.$$
(29)
Fitting the parameters of the Breit-Wigner shape to the calculated speed we can extract the desired properties of the resonances.

From tables IV and V it can be seen that the parameters extracted via the speed technique and the $`K`$ matrix parameters are almost equal for spin $`\frac{3}{2}`$ resonances. This is due to the small width of all these resonances and the fact that there is not much background in these partial wave amplitudes. All these parameters are in very good agreement with the values given in .

The situation for the spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ resonances is completely different. There are large background contributions in these amplitudes. This is most dramatically the case for the $`P_{01}`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1600)`$ resonance for which the $`K`$ matrix analysis gives a pole mass of 1710 MeV whereas the speed analysis yields 1545 MeV. In this case, the speed technique is not applicable, since the background varies more than the resonant part of the amplitude. A similar problem occurs for the $`S_{01}`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1670)`$. Here the speed technique seems to show a quite narrow resonance with a width of 52 MeV, but the actual decay width, calculated from the coupling in the $`K`$ matrix, is almost 960 MeV. The careful examination of this puzzle shows, that off-shell contributions of the spin $`\frac{3}{2}`$ resonances $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1520)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1690)`$ together with resonant contributions from the very broad $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1670)`$ add up to the $`S_{01}`$ amplitude that is given in figs 4, 5 yielding a quite sharp peak in the speed plot. This example just shows that the definition of resonance properties by a Breit-Wigner shape in the speed technique may be quite different from the particle properties obtained from the $`K`$ matrix parameters.

This interplay of different contributions to a resonance-like structure in the amplitudes makes it hard to get a unique set of parameters, which describes the experimental data. With the available data it is not possible to disentangle the necessary contributions from Born-, $`u`$-channel, and resonant diagrams. In addition, the off shell parameters of the spin $`\frac{3}{2}`$ resonances play an important role. Better experimental data would surely lead to a more unique set of parameters in this field. The overall description is not bad, comparing the speed results to the experimental ones.

## VI Conclusions & Outlook

We have presented the first results of our calculations for $`\overline{K}`$ induced reactions on the nucleon. The model of  has been extended to the strangeness $`1`$ sector. All available data are described quite well within the given error bars. The extracted resonance masses and widths agree with the ones given in . Since the accuracy of the known parameters is not very high there is a lot of room for improvement. Some of the resonances are not established at all and will not be established before better experimental data are published.

Putting the calculations for $`\gamma `$, $`\pi `$ and $`\overline{K}`$ induced reactions on the nucleon together we have developed a consistent way of treating all hadronic reactions on the nucleon below $`1.72`$ GeV. Currently we are working on implementing the vector mesons $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ as asymptotic particles. As soon as there are better data available in the strangeness sector we will also start implementing more asymptotic states like e.g. $`\eta \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\pi \pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

Including spin $`\frac{5}{2}`$ resonances would certainly also improve the calculations and extend the accessible energy range, but here the problem of a consistent treatment is not solved up to now.

## Acknowledgements

We are grateful to B. Nefkens for extensive and helpful discussion on the Crystal Ball data. Special thanks go to T. Feuster for the original $`\pi N`$ code which was modified for our calculations.

## A Isospin Factors

The listed factors are contained in the Lagrange density and thus enter the amplitude at each vertex. Outgoing particles are noted with a $`\overline{bar}`$, so the outgoing $`\overline{K}^0`$ reads $`\overline{\overline{K}^0}`$.

The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }KN`$ vertex:

$`g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }KN}(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}pK^{}+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}n\overline{K}^0\overline{K}^{}\overline{p}\mathrm{\Lambda }+\overline{\overline{K}^0}\overline{n}\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ (A1)
The $`\mathrm{\Sigma }KN`$ vertex:

$`g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }KN}(\sqrt{2}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^+\overline{K}^0p+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0K^{}p+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0\overline{K}^0n+\sqrt{2}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}K^{}n`$ (A2)
$`+\sqrt{2}\overline{\overline{K}^0}\overline{p}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^++\overline{K}^{}\overline{p}\mathrm{\Sigma }^0+\overline{\overline{K}^0}\overline{n}\mathrm{\Sigma }^0+\sqrt{2}\overline{K}^{}\overline{n}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})`$ (A3)
The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ vertex:

$`g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }}(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\pi ^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\pi ^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^0+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}\overline{\pi }^+\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0\overline{\pi }^0\mathrm{\Lambda }+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^+\overline{\pi }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ (A4)
The $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ vertex:

$`g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }}(\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}\pi ^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}\pi ^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^0+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0\pi ^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0\pi ^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^++\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^+\pi ^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^+\pi ^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ (A5)
$`+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}\overline{\pi }^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0\overline{\pi }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}\overline{\pi }^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^+\overline{\pi }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^0+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0\overline{\pi }^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^+\overline{\pi }^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^+)`$ (A6)
The $`\mathrm{\Delta }\pi N`$ vertex:

$`g_{\mathrm{\Delta }\pi N}(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}}\overline{n}\mathrm{\Delta }^+\pi ^{}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}\overline{n}\mathrm{\Delta }^0\pi ^0+\overline{n}\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\pi ^+`$ (A7)
$`+\overline{p}\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}\pi ^{}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}\overline{p}\mathrm{\Delta }^+\pi ^0+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}}\overline{p}\mathrm{\Delta }^0\pi ^+`$ (A8)
$`+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^+\overline{\pi }^{}n\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^0\overline{\pi }^0n+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}\overline{\pi }^+n`$ (A9)
$`+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{++}\overline{\pi }^{}p\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^+\overline{\pi }^0p+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^0\overline{\pi }^+p)`$ (A10)
The $`N\pi N`$ vertex:

$`g_{N\pi N}(\overline{n}\pi ^0n\sqrt{2}\overline{n}\pi ^{}p+\sqrt{2}\overline{p}\pi ^+n\overline{p}\pi ^0p`$ (A11)
$`\overline{n}\overline{\pi }^0n\sqrt{2}\overline{p}\overline{\pi }^{}n+\sqrt{2}\overline{n}\overline{\pi }^+p\overline{p}\overline{\pi }^0p)`$ (A12)
The $`\mathrm{\Sigma }K\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vertex:

$`g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }K\mathrm{\Delta }}(\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^+K^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^+\overline{K}^0\mathrm{\Delta }^++\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0K^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ (A13)
$`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0\overline{K}^0\mathrm{\Delta }^0+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}\overline{K}^0\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}\overline{K}^0\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ (A14)
$`\overline{K}^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{++}\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}}\overline{\overline{K}^0}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^++\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}\overline{K}^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ (A15)
$`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}\overline{\overline{K}^0}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^0+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}}\overline{\overline{K}^0}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\overline{\overline{K}^0}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})`$ (A16)