text:
# Effective theory of the Δ(1232) in Compton scattering off the nucleon

## I Introduction

Compton scattering on the proton ($`\gamma `$p) and the deuteron ($`\gamma `$D) provides a clean and unique probe of nucleon electromagnetic structure, revealing information different to that obtained in electron scattering. During the past decade a number of excellent experimental programs have been dedicated to these two processes (see Refs. Hal93 ; MacG95 ; LEGS97 ; LEGS01 ; MAMI01  and Lu94 ; Ho99 ; Lu02 ; Ko00 ; Ko02 , respectively). At low photon energies, these experiments probe the static properties of the nucleon, such as its electric charge, magnetic moment, and polarizabilities. Above the pion-production threshold, the process becomes dominated by the excitation of resonances, most prominently the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(1232)–isobar. Many theoretical methods aim at understanding this process in both the low-energy and the resonance region. In particular, significant progress has been made recently using dispersion relations DR ; DR2  and effective Lagrangian models PaS95 ; Giessen ; KoS01 . On the other hand, previous calculations using chiral perturbation theory ($`\chi `$PT) appear to work only at low photon energies—energies at or below the pion-production threshold Bab97 ; McG01 . This present study attempts to extend these $`\chi `$PT calculations above the pion threshold and into the Delta-resonance region.

In the low-energy regime $`\chi `$PT seems to work extremely well. At next-to-leading order (NLO), i.e., third order in small momenta \[$`=O(q^3)`$\], heavy-baryon (HB) $`\chi `$PT predicts, for the electric and magnetic polarizabilities Be93 ; BKM :

$`\alpha _p=\alpha _n={\displaystyle \frac{5\pi \alpha }{6m_\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{4\pi f_\pi }}\right)^2=12.2\times 10^4\text{fm}^3,`$ (1)
$`\beta _p=\beta _n={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha }{12m_\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{4\pi f_\pi }}\right)^2=1.2\times 10^4\text{fm}^3,`$ (2)
where $`\alpha =e^2/4\pi 1/137`$, $`g_A1.26`$, $`f_\pi 93`$ MeV, $`m_\pi 139`$ MeV 111Throughout this paper the designations LO, NLO, etc. refer to the order in the $`\gamma `$N amplitude. These one-loop results are, strictly speaking, leading-order predictions for $`\alpha _p`$ and $`\beta _p`$, but we refer to them as next-to-leading order (NLO) since Eq. (1) is derived by considering the NLO result for the nucleon Compton amplitude.. Since there are no Compton counter-terms present at $`O(q^3)`$, this is a genuine prediction of $`\chi `$PT. A prediction which—at least for the proton—is in remarkable agreement with recent extractions of these quantities from low-energy data, e.g. Be02 :

$`\alpha _p`$ $`=`$ $`(12.1\pm 1.1\pm 0.5)\times 10^4\mathrm{fm}^3,`$ (3)
$`\beta _p`$ $`=`$ $`(3.2\pm 1.1\pm 0.1)\times 10^4\mathrm{fm}^3,`$ (4)
where the first error is statistical and the second represents the theory error of the fit to data.

However, the agreement of the NLO HB$`\chi `$PT prediction with the experimental $`\gamma `$p cross-section data is good only up to photon energies $`\omega 100`$ MeV Bab97 . The recent NNLO \[$`O(q^4)`$\] calculation McG01  agrees with experiment to slightly higher energies, but above $`\omega 120`$ MeV significant discrepancies begin to appear, most notably at backward angles. This is perhaps not surprising, since the Delta-isobar excitation is not included explicitly in this chiral expansion. And, as we shall argue, the breakdown scale of $`\chi `$PT without an explicit Delta is set essentially by the Delta-nucleon mass difference:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M_\mathrm{\Delta }M_N293\text{MeV}.$$
(5)
Thus, to extend the region of $`\chi `$PT applicability to $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }`$, the Delta must be included as an explicit degree of freedom.

The Delta contribution for the Compton amplitude had already been analyzed using chiral effective Lagrangians with explicit Deltas in Refs. But92 ; Ber93 ; He97 . These studies focused mainly on nucleon polarizabilities. The predictions made in Refs. But92 ; Ber93 ; BKM  are obscured by off-shell ambiguities, in particular by the so-called “off-shell parameters” which control the infamous spin-1/2 sector of the spin-3/2 Delta field. In a “reasonable” range for these parameters the Delta contribution to $`\beta _p^{(\mathrm{\Delta })}`$ varies between 0 and $`14\times 10^4`$ fm3 Ber93 . In contrast, Hemmert et. al. He97 , to next-to-leading order in their small scale expansion (SSE) He98 , find a result which is independent of the off-shell parameters, and thus is apparently a reliable prediction. But this prediction for the Delta-contribution to the magnetic polarizability is $`\beta _p^{(\mathrm{\Delta })}9\times 10^4`$ fm3, in dramatic contradiction with experiment He98B . (For an attempt to remedy this using a “modified SSE” see Ref. Gr02 .)

In this work we include the Delta in the chiral Lagrangian in a fashion somewhat different to this literature. First of all, the Lagrangian is written such that the unphysical spin-1/2 components of the Delta field decouple from observables Pa98 ; PaT99 , hence no “off-shell parameters” appear. This feature of our Lagrangian, besides removing the redundant parameters, allows us to dress the Delta-pole contribution in a manifestly covariant way.

Furthermore, we set up our power-counting scheme so that it is both closely connected to the usual $`\chi `$PT without explicit Deltas in the low-energy region $`\omega m_\pi `$, and extends to the Delta region $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }`$. This is achieved by recognizing the hierarchy of scales:

$$m_\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }1\text{GeV},$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ stands for the “high-energy scale”, the breakdown scale of the theory. Therefore, our scheme is rather different from the SSE of Refs. He97 ; He98  (see also Ref. JM91 ), where the Delta-nucleon mass-difference is assumed to be of order $`m_\pi `$ (i.e., $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\pi `$). A more detailed comparison of our scheme and the SSE will be given below.

With the three-scale hierarchy (6) one in principle has two small expansion parameters: $`m_\pi /\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We regard both of them as roughly the same size and so introduce a single small parameter:

$$\delta =\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\frac{m_\pi }{\mathrm{\Delta }}.$$
(7)
Note that this implies that $`m_\pi `$ scales as $`\delta ^2`$.

The validity of the scale hierarchy (6) and the expansion in powers of $`\delta `$ (which we shall refer to as the $`\delta `$-expansion) is to be judged by the success of the resultant effective-field-theory (EFT) description of processes involving the excitation of Delta. We regard the results we shall present here for $`\gamma `$p scattering as significant evidence in favor of this EFT expansion.

To obtain the NLO result for $`\gamma `$N scattering in our scheme for both the low-energy and the Delta regions, the Delta-pole contribution to this process must be dressed, and then added to the NLO HB$`\chi `$PT result. This introduces two free parameters which characterize the strength of the $`\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ transition: $`g_M`$ and $`g_E`$. Adjusting these parameters we find very good agreement with the experimental $`\gamma \text{p}`$ differential cross section up to $`\omega 300`$ MeV, thereby extending the domain of applicability of chiral EFT into the Delta region. At the same time we also find reasonable values for the nucleon polarizabilities.

In the next section we introduce the Lagrangian for the Delta and discuss its properties. Section III then describes the $`\delta `$-expansion for Compton scattering on the proton. In particular, we show that for $`\omega m_\pi `$ the power counting is very similar to that of HB$`\chi `$PT, while for $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }`$ the power counting mandates resummation of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ propagator, thereby dressing the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and giving it a finite width. In Section IV we summarize the elements of our calculation, and then in Section V we present and discuss the results of our NLO calculation for the differential cross section, as well as for the spin-independent polarizabilities $`\alpha _p`$, $`\beta _p`$. We conclude in Section VI.

## II The Chiral Lagrangian

The pion-nucleon sector of the HB$`\chi `$PT Lagrangian is well discussed in the literature, see e.g. BKM . The terms relevant for our purposes are 222Our conventions: metric tensor $`g^{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$; $`\gamma `$-matrices $`\gamma ^\mu `$, $`\gamma ^5=i\gamma ^0\gamma ^1\gamma ^2\gamma ^3`$, $`\{\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma ^\nu \}=2g^{\mu \nu }`$; fully antisymmetrized products of $`\gamma `$-matrices $`\gamma ^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}[\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma ^\nu ]=\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu g^{\mu \nu }`$, $`\gamma ^{\mu \nu \alpha }=\frac{1}{2}\{\gamma ^{\mu \nu },\gamma ^\alpha \}=i\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\gamma _\beta \gamma _5`$, $`\gamma ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{2}[\gamma ^{\mu \nu \alpha },\gamma ^\beta ]=i\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\gamma _5`$; spinor indices are omitted. :

$``$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}D_\mu ^{ab}\pi _aD^{\mu bc}\pi _c\frac{1}{2}m_\pi ^2\pi ^2+\overline{N}\left[i\gamma DM_N{\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{2f_\pi }}(\gamma D\pi _a)\tau _a\gamma _5+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{4M_N}}\gamma ^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }\right]N`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{32\pi ^2f_\pi }}F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }\pi _3+\mathrm{},`$
where $`\pi _a`$ represents the isovector pseudoscalar pion field, $`N`$ is the isodoublet spinor field of the nucleon, $`\tau _a`$ are the isospin Pauli matrices, $`D_\mu =_\mu ieQA_\mu `$, with $`Q`$ representing the electric charge isospin operator ($`Q_\pi =i\epsilon ^{ab3}`$, $`Q_N=\frac{1}{2}(1+\tau _3)`$), $`A_\mu `$ the electromagnetic field, $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$, $`\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }`$, and $`\kappa `$ is the anomalous magnetic moment of the nucleon ($`\kappa _p1.79`$, $`\kappa _n1.91`$).

Next we specify the terms involving the Delta field. Describing the Delta field by an isospin-3/2 spin-3/2 Rarita-Schwinger (RS) vector-spinor $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu (x)`$, we write the Delta piece of the chiral Lagrangian in the following form:

$``$ $`=`$ $`_{RS}+_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}+_{\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }}+\mathrm{},`$ (9)
$`_{RS}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\mu \left(i\gamma ^{\mu \nu \alpha }_\alpha M_\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\right)\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu ,`$ (10)
$`_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ih_A}{2f_\pi M_\mathrm{\Delta }}}\overline{N}T_a^{}\gamma ^{\mu \nu \lambda }(_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_\nu )_\lambda \pi ^a+\text{H.c.},`$ (11)
$`_{\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3e}{2M_N(M_N+M_\mathrm{\Delta })}}\overline{N}T_3^{}\left(ig_M\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }g_E\gamma _5F^{\mu \nu }\right)_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_\nu +\text{H.c.}`$ (12)
These are the free spin-3/2 Lagrangian, and the $`\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ couplings respectively. Here $`T_a`$ are the isospin 1/2 to 3/2 transition matrices satisfying $`T_a^{}T_b=\frac{2}{3}\delta _{ab}\frac{1}{3}i\epsilon _{abc}\tau _c`$.

We have kept only the couplings that are linear in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ field and lowest order in the pion and the photon fields. In principle, there are many other couplings ($`\pi \pi NN`$, $`\pi \pi N\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$, etc.), represented in Eqs. (8) and (9) by the dots, that are required by the chiral and electromagnetic-gauge symmetries. However, they are not relevant for our calculation at the order we will be considering.

For the purposes of power counting we rearrange the interaction Lagrangian according to the number of small quantities (momentum, pion mass, and factors of $`e`$) that each term carries:

$`_I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}^{(i)},`$
$`^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{2f_\pi }}\overline{N}(\gamma \pi _a)\tau _a\gamma _5N+{\displaystyle \frac{ieQ_\pi g_A}{2f_\pi }}\overline{N}\gamma A\pi \tau \gamma _5N+e\overline{N}Q_N\gamma AN+_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }},`$
$`^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{4M_N}}\overline{N}\gamma ^{\mu \nu }NF_{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}(ieQ_\pi \pi A\pi +\text{H.c.})+e^2Q_\pi ^2A^2\pi \pi +_{\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(g_M)},`$ (13)
$`^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`_{\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(g_E)},`$
$`^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{32\pi ^2f_\pi }}F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }\pi _3.`$
### II.1 Spin-3/2 gauge invariance

It is important to note that our $`N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ couplings, besides being chiral and gauge invariant, are invariant under the following local (gauge) transformation of the spin-3/2 field:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu (x)\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu (x)+_\mu ϵ(x),$$
(14)
where $`ϵ`$ is a spinor. This invariance ensures that the spin-3/2 field has the correct number of spin degrees of freedom (i.e., $`2s+1=4`$), cf. Pa98 ; PaT99 .

As the result of this additional symmetry, any vertex involving a Delta field, $`\Gamma ^\mu (p,\mathrm{})`$, with $`\mu `$ being the vector index and $`p`$ the 4-momentum of the Delta, will obey the transversality condition:

$$p_\mu \Gamma ^\mu (p,\mathrm{})=0.$$
(15)
Using the well-known form of the spin-3/2 propagator:

$$S^{\mu \nu }(p)=\frac{1}{p/M_\mathrm{\Delta }}\left[g^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{3}\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu +\frac{1}{3M_\mathrm{\Delta }}(\gamma ^\mu p^\nu \gamma ^\nu p^\mu )+\frac{2}{3M_\mathrm{\Delta }^2}p^\mu p^\nu \right].$$
(16)
it is easy to show that the spin-1/2 sector of the RS propagator decouples PaT99  and one may equivalently use the following propagator:

$$\stackrel{~}{S}_{\mu \nu }(p)=\frac{1}{p/M_\mathrm{\Delta }}𝒫_{\mu \nu }^{(3/2)}(p)$$
(17)
where $`𝒫_{\mu \nu }^{(3/2)}(p)=g_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu \frac{1}{3p^2}(p/\gamma _\mu p_\nu +p_\mu \gamma _\nu p/)`$ is the spin-3/2 projection operator.

As a matter of fact, it is then also possible to replace the vertices as follows:

$$\stackrel{~}{\Gamma }_\mu (p,\mathrm{})=𝒫_{\mu \nu }^{(3/2)}\Gamma ^\nu (p,\mathrm{}).$$
(18)
In this theory $`\stackrel{~}{\Gamma }`$ and $`\Gamma `$ are completely equivalent. Nevertheless, vertices $`\stackrel{~}{\Gamma }`$ are sometimes more convenient in actual calculations. For example, the $`\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vertex from Eq. (11):

$$\Gamma ^\mu (p,k)=(g/M_\mathrm{\Delta })\gamma ^{\mu \alpha \beta }p_\alpha k_\beta ,$$
(19)
where $`gh_A/2f_\pi `$ and $`k`$ is the pion 4-momentum, can be replaced by

$$\stackrel{~}{\Gamma }_\mu (p,k)=(g/M_\mathrm{\Delta })p/𝒫_{\mu \nu }^{3/2}(p)k^\nu ,$$
(20)
where we have used: $`p^\mu 𝒫_{\mu \nu }^{3/2}(p)=0=\gamma ^\mu 𝒫_{\mu \nu }^{3/2}(p)`$ . Furthermore, using $`𝒫^{3/2}𝒫^{3/2}=𝒫^{3/2}`$ and $`[p/,𝒫^{3/2}(p)]=0`$, Delta-exchange amplitudes are computed effortlessly, e.g.,

$$\Gamma ^\mu (p,k^{})S_{\mu \nu }(p)\Gamma ^\mu (p,k)=\stackrel{~}{\Gamma }^\mu (p,k^{})\stackrel{~}{S}_{\mu \nu }(p)\stackrel{~}{\Gamma }^\mu (p,k)=\frac{g^2}{p/M_\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{p^2}{M_\mathrm{\Delta }^2}𝒫_{\mu \nu }^{(3/2)}(p)k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }k^\nu .$$
(21)
### II.2 Relation to conventional $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ couplings

Our $`N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ couplings are rather different from the usual ones of, e.g. Refs. BKM ; Ber93 ; He97 ; He98 ; PaS95 . As a rule, standard couplings do not have the spin-3/2 gauge symmetry (14). Exceptions are the $`\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ coupling of Jones and Scadron JoS73 , which obviously satisfies (15), and the couplings used by Kondratyuk and Scholten KoS01 . We have adopted the Jones and Scadron convention for the magnetic (M1) coupling, $`g_M`$ in Eq. (12).

Other conventional couplings, including the $`G_1`$, $`G_2`$ representation of the $`\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vertex, do not have the spin-3/2 gauge symmetry. As a result they involve the unphysical lower-spin sectors of the spin-3/2 field, and hence observables become dependent on arbitrary “spin-1/2 backgrounds” associated with “off-shell parameters” of the Delta. Other pathologies (see Ref. Pa98  and references therein)—all of which can be traced back to the fact that the couplings violate the degrees-of-freedom-counting constraints of the free theory—also occur in these theories.

One can establish a relation between the “inconsistent” and “consistent” couplings using field transformations Pa01 , but this relation holds only in perturbation theory 333Even then, it holds only if the “naive” Feynman rules apply in the inconsistent theory, which, strictly speaking, is not true Pa98 . and so is not strictly applicable when resummation of the Delta contributions is necessary, as is the case in the computation of the next section.

## III Compton amplitude in the $`\delta `$–expansion

In Compton scattering the momenta of the particles are characterized by the photon energy $`\omega `$. For very low photon energies pions can be “integrated out” of the theory with all non-analytic effects associated with their production being replaced by a power series in $`\omega /m_\pi `$ (see, for instance Refs. pionless ). Clearly, the condition for this EFT to be effective is $`\omega m_\pi `$. If, instead, we want to develop an EFT for $`\omega m_\pi `$ we must treat both $`\omega `$ and $`m_\pi `$ as low-energy scales, which means that pions must appear in the theory as explicit degrees of freedom.

Similarly for the next relevant scale: $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_\mathrm{\Delta }M_N293`$ MeV. A theory which does not treat it as a low-energy scale is effective only for $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }`$. $`\chi `$PT without explicit Deltas is an example of such an EFT. There only $`m_\pi `$ is treated as a small scale, and it is assumed that $`\omega m_\pi \mathrm{\Delta }`$. To extend this description to the Delta region, $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }`$, we need to adopt $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as a low-energy scale and include the Delta as an explicit degree of freedom. Thus, we naturally arrive at the scale hierarchy:

$$m_\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(22)
This hierarchy complies with the assumption of $`\chi `$PT: $`m_\pi \mathrm{\Delta }`$, and so $`\chi `$PT still gives the dominant effects in the theory if $`\omega m_\pi `$. At the same time (22) allows us to extend $`\chi `$PT to the Delta region.

In developing our power counting below, we will often keep the dependence of amplitudes on $`m_\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ explicit, so that the behavior of the amplitudes in the (independent) chiral ($`m_\pi 0`$) or the large-$`N_c`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$) limits is manifest largeNpapers . Nevertheless, for the purposes of assigning an overall size to the amplitude arising from a particular graph or set of graphs we would like to have one expansion parameter:

$$\delta \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\frac{m_\pi }{\mathrm{\Delta }},$$
(23)
where we conservatively adopt $`\mathrm{\Lambda }600`$ MeV, the scale introduced by the excitation energy of the next baryon resonance. In fact, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ will represent not only this scale but all of the various high-energy scales, such as $`m_\rho `$, $`M_N`$, $`M_\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and $`4\pi f_\pi `$. Obviously, in this counting, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ scales as $`\delta `$, while $`m_\pi `$ scales as $`\delta ^2`$.

While $`\delta `$ is of order one half, the expansion in powers of $`\delta `$, is, in principle, no worse than $`\chi `$PT, which is an expansion in $`m_\pi /\mathrm{\Delta }`$, or the SSE He98 , which is an expansion in powers of $`\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Note that, since Eq. (23) is not necessarily true in worlds with other values of $`N_c`$, $`m_q`$, etc., once that equation is employed, the connection to the limits $`m_q0`$ and $`N_c\mathrm{}`$ is lost unless the chiral and large-$`N_c`$ limits are taken simultaneously with $`m_\pi N_c^2`$ held fixed.

We assign to each graph an overall $`\delta `$-counting index, $`\alpha `$, which simply tells us that the graph is of size $`e^2\delta ^\alpha /\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Because we deal with two different low-energy scales in our EFT, the index $`\alpha `$ has two different expressions, depending on whether the photon energy $`\omega `$ is in the vicinity of $`m_\pi `$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. For a graph with $`L`$ loops, $`N_\pi `$ pion propagators, $`N_N`$ nucleon propagators, $`N_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ Delta propagators, and $`V_i`$ vertices of dimension $`i`$, the index is

$$\alpha =\{\begin{array}{cc}2\alpha _{\chi \mathrm{P}T}N_\mathrm{\Delta },& \omega m_\pi ;\\ \alpha _{\chi \mathrm{P}T}N_\mathrm{\Delta },& \omega \mathrm{\Delta },\end{array}$$
(24)
where $`\alpha _{\chi \mathrm{P}T}=_iiV_i2+4LN_N2N_\pi `$ is the index of the graph in $`\chi `$PT without explicit Deltas.

In deriving this power-counting we have used the fact that no graphs containing vertices with powers of $`m_\pi ^2`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ occur up to the order to which we work. Such vertices do arise in higher-order graphs though. In general then, a vertex with $`j`$ derivatives, $`k`$ insertions of the quark mass, and $`l`$ powers of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-N mass difference scales as $`\omega ^jm_\pi ^{2k}\mathrm{\Delta }^l`$, and so has overall dimension $`i=j+2k+l`$. Denoting the number of such vertices by $`V_{jkl}`$, the $`\delta `$-index of an arbitrary graph is:

$$\alpha =\{\begin{array}{cc}\underset{jkl}{}(2j+4k+l)V_{jkl}+2(4LN_N2N_\pi 2)N_\mathrm{\Delta },\hfill & \omega m_\pi ;\hfill \\ \underset{jkl}{}(j+4k+l)V_{jkl}+4L2N_N2N_\pi N_\mathrm{\Delta },\hfill & \omega \mathrm{\Delta },\hfill \end{array}$$

which obviously reduces to Eq. (24) if only vertices with $`k=l=0`$ are present.

In the region $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }`$, there is an important exception to this scaling rule: graphs that are one-Delta-reducible (O$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$R), such as those in Fig. 1, scale not as $`\delta ^\alpha `$ but as

$$\delta ^\alpha \left(\frac{1}{\omega \mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^{N_{O\mathrm{\Delta }R}},$$
(25)
where $`N_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the equation for $`\alpha `$ now counts only the one-Delta-irreducible propagators, while $`N_{O\mathrm{\Delta }R}`$ is the number of O$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$R propagators. In the low-energy region this does not affect the power-counting, however in the region $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }`$ these graphs can be dramatically enhanced. This forces us to resum all the O$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$R contributions, which amounts to dressing the Delta propagator, thus ameliorating the divergence which otherwise occurs at the Delta pole, and producing a width for the Delta of roughly the experimentally-observed size.

Details of the dressing are given below. By definition, once dressing is performed a O$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$R graph can have only one Delta propagator, and such a graph then scales as:

$$\delta ^\alpha \left(\frac{1}{\omega \mathrm{\Delta }\Sigma }\right),$$
(26)
where $`\Sigma `$ is the self-energy. The expansion for $`\Sigma `$ begins at $`\delta ^3`$, and so in the domain $`|\omega \mathrm{\Delta }|\delta ^3`$ the O$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$R graphs are enhanced by $`\delta ^2`$ over the value expected from Eq. (24). Thus, the correct index of a O$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$R graph in the region $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }`$ is

$$\alpha =\alpha _{\chi \mathrm{PT}}N_\mathrm{\Delta }2.$$
(27)
As a result, for instance, the $`s`$-channel-pole Delta graph of Fig. 1(a), which is the simplest O$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$R graph, is promoted from NNLO in the low-energy region to LO in the Delta region.

The rest of this section is organized as follows: before giving a detailed explanation of Compton counting in the $`\delta `$-expansion we make a few comments on how our scheme compares to standard HB$`\chi `$PT and to the SSE of Ref. He97 ; He98 . We then discuss power counting for the low-energy region $`\omega m_\pi `$. In subsection III.3 we explain the central issue for the higher-energy domain $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }`$: the dressing of the Delta pole. Then in subsection III.4 we elucidate the impact of this dressing on the counting for Compton scattering graphs.

### III.1 Comparison with HB$`\chi `$PT/SSE

In HB$`\chi `$PT the Delta is not included as an explicit “low-energy” degree of freedom in the Lagrangian. Instead it is integrated out of the theory, producing a low-energy theory that, in principle, breaks down for $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }`$. Power counting of graphs is then performed in terms of the index $`q`$, where

$$q\frac{\omega }{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\frac{m_\pi }{\mathrm{\Lambda }},$$
(28)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is usually assumed to be of order 1 GeV, although the omission of explicit Deltas suggests instead $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

Hemmert et al. He97 ; He98  introduced the “small-scale expansion” (SSE) (see also the earlier Ref. JM91 ), where the EFT expansion parameter is:

$$ϵ\frac{m_\pi }{\mathrm{\Lambda }},\frac{\omega }{\mathrm{\Lambda }},\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}.$$
(29)
The SSE treats $`m_\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as the same scale, and hence the Delta must be included explicitly in both energy domains: $`\omega m_\pi `$ and $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }`$.

This overemphasizes the importance of the Delta somewhat at low energies. In contrast, in the low-energy region, the $`\delta `$-expansion amplitude is akin to that of HB$`\chi `$PT. In the region $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }`$ the dressing of the Delta implemented here is not performed in either HB$`\chi `$PT—naturally, since Deltas are “high-energy” degrees of freedom—or the SSE—as for $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }m_\pi `$ all $`\pi N`$ loop effects are a small correction to the “bare” Delta propagator.

The table below summarizes the relationship of the $`\delta `$-expansion to HB$`\chi `$PT and the SSE.

### III.2 Power counting for $`\omega m_\pi `$

Here we make the identification $`\omega ,m_\pi \delta ^2`$. Graphs without Delta propagators then scale exactly as in $`\chi `$PT, but with small momenta $`q\delta ^2`$ 444The electron charge is usually counted as one power of $`q`$ in $`\chi `$PT, and thus $`O(q^3)=O(e^2q)`$ for Compton scattering. Here we do not count the factor of $`e^2`$ that is present in all Compton graphs when assessing the $`\delta `$-index of a graph.. The general index of such a graph is then given by Eq. (24). The leading contribution then comes from the sum of the relativistic nucleon Born graph (with $`V_1=2`$, $`N_N=1`$, $`L=N_\pi =N_\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$) depicted in Fig. 2(a) and its crossed partner. Both graphs behave as $`e^2/\omega \delta ^2`$ as $`\omega 0`$. But the divergent parts cancel in the sum, as the low-energy theorem tells us they must LET . The dominant term for small $`\omega `$ is given by the “Thomson amplitude”:

$$T^{(\mathrm{Th})}=\frac{(𝒵e)^2}{M_N}\epsilon ^{}\epsilon ,$$
(30)
with $`\epsilon `$ and $`\epsilon ^{}`$ the photon’s initial- and final-state polarization vectors. This, obviously, is $`O(\delta ^0)`$.

When the expansion of the relativistic graphs Fig. 2(a) and 2(b) in powers of $`\omega `$ is made there are also pieces $`e^2\omega =O(\delta ^2)`$. These form part of the NLO amplitude. The rest of the NLO amplitude is obtained from graphs which have index $`\alpha =2`$: nucleon tree graphs with the anomalous magnetic moment coupling (i.e., $`V_2=2`$, $`N_N=1`$, $`L=N_\pi =N_\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$), see Fig. 2(c), and the $`\pi ^0`$ exchange graph 2(d), involving the WZW anomaly, which has $`V_1=V_4=1`$, $`N_\pi =1`$, $`L=N_N=N_\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$.

Next we consider $`\pi `$N-loop contributions to $`\gamma `$N scattering. After making a heavy-baryon expansion of our relativistic Lagrangian, in order to avoid difficulties with the appearance of the scale $`M_N`$ inside loops 555The ideal solution to this difficulty would be to use infrared regularization BL99  to compute the $`\pi N`$ loops. But the result of such a computation should only differ from the HB$`\chi `$PT one by terms suppressed by $`\delta `$. Such terms are higher order than we are considering here., we construct the leading loop graphs from vertices in $`^{(1)}`$. This yields the graphs of Fig. 3, together with their crossed partners, as reviewed in Ref. BKM . These graphs are specified by $`L=1`$, $`N_N=1`$, $`N_\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ and either $`V_1=V_2=2`$, $`N_\pi =3`$ or $`V_1=2`$, $`N_\pi =1`$ or $`V_1=2`$, $`V_2=1`$, $`N_\pi =2`$, and hence all have $`\alpha =2`$. They are the only loop graphs with this counting index if we adopt Coulomb gauge and employ the heavy-baryon expansion. Explicit computation BKM ; McG01  reveals that the sum of these graphs indeed produces a Compton amplitude that behaves as:

$$T^{(\pi N\mathrm{loop})}=\frac{e^2}{(4\pi f_\pi )^2}\frac{\omega ^2}{m_\pi }F^{(1)}\left(\frac{\omega }{m_\pi }\right),$$
(31)
where $`F^{(1)}`$ is a non-analytic function whose form is given in detail for the various possible spin and polarization structures in Refs. BKM ; McG01  and in Appendix A. $`F^{(1)}`$ has the property that $`F^{(1)}1`$ for $`\omega \stackrel{<}{}\text{ }m_\pi `$. A crucial feature of Eq. (31) is the fact that the sum of these leading loop graphs is proportional to $`\omega ^2`$. This is also a consequence of the low-energy theorem LET .

The counting formula (24) indicates that loop graphs with insertions from the second-order $`\chi `$PT Lagrangian $`^{(2)}`$ are down by two further powers of $`\delta `$, being of $`O(\delta ^4)`$. Relativistic corrections to Eq. (31) are suppressed by $`\omega /M`$, and so are also $`O(\delta ^4)`$. Some loop graphs at $`O(\delta ^4)`$ require renormalization, and the corresponding counterterms must be included. Meanwhile, graphs with two $`\pi `$N loops are $`O(\delta ^6)`$ in this counting. Thus—at least in this energy domain—it is not until $`O(\delta ^6)`$ that two-pion intermediate states contribute to the $`\gamma `$N amplitude. And graphs involving additional $`\pi `$N rescatterings are similarly suppressed. Considering more loops and/or insertions with more derivatives only serves to further increase the $`\delta `$-index of graphs. Thus unitarity (in both the $`\pi `$N and $`\pi \pi `$N channels) is violated in our calculation, but the violation is always an effect of an order beyond that at which we work.

Graphs containing the Delta begin to contribute at $`O(\delta ^3)`$. The tree graph with two M1 $`\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vertices—see Fig. 1(a)—has $`\alpha =3`$ ($`V_2=2`$, $`N_\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$, $`L=N_N=N_\pi `$). Meanwhile, the counting of the one-$`\pi \mathrm{\Delta }`$-loop graphs, Fig. 4, is analogous to that for the $`\pi N`$ loops, the only difference being that now $`N_N=0`$, $`N_\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$ instead of $`N_N=1`$, $`N_\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$. This results in the sum of the graphs in Fig. 4 being $`O(\delta ^3)`$, i.e. scaling as:

$$T^{(\mathrm{\Delta }\pi \mathrm{loop})}=\frac{e^2}{(4\pi f_\pi )^2}\frac{\omega ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}H^{(1)}(\frac{\omega }{\mathrm{\Delta }},\frac{m_\pi }{\mathrm{\Delta }}),$$
(32)
where $`H^{(1)}`$ is a non-analytic function which is of order 1 for $`m_\pi /\mathrm{\Delta }\delta `$, and $`\omega /\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{<}{}\text{ }1`$. Equation (32) is consistent with the low-energy theorem, and agrees with the explicit computation performed for these loops in Ref. He98 .

In summary: in the $`\delta `$-expansion the Thomson term is the leading mechanism for Compton scattering on the nucleon at low energies, $`\omega m_\pi `$. In this region pion loops are suppressed by one power of $`\omega m_\pi \delta ^2`$, exactly as in HB$`\chi `$PT. If explicit Deltas are included in the theory the leading Delta-pole and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\pi `$-loop graphs are suppressed by $`\delta ^3`$ relative to leading. They thus occur one order higher in the $`\delta `$-expansion than the $`N\pi `$ loop graphs of Fig. 3. They are, however, still one power of $`\delta ^1`$ larger than graphs arising from $`^{(2)}`$ insertions in $`\pi N`$ loop graphs.

### III.3 Dressing the Delta

The key issue for the theory in the region $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the treatment of the Delta pole. One-$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-reducible (O$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$R) graphs must be resummed in order to remove the divergence which otherwise occurs when $`p/=M_\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

Formally, all O$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$R graphs can be summed via the series:

$$S_{\mu \nu }(p)=S_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}(p)+S_{\mu \mu ^{}}^{(0)}(p)\Sigma ^{\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}(p)S_{\nu ^{}\nu }^{(0)}(p)+\mathrm{},$$
(33)
where $`\Sigma ^{\mu \nu }(p)`$ is the full one-Delta-irreducible (O$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$I) Delta self-energy, and $`S_{\mu \nu }(p)`$ ($`S_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}(p)`$) is the dressed (bare) Delta propagator.

The function $`\Sigma _{\mu \nu }`$ has a $`\delta `$-expansion of its own:

$$\Sigma _{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^{(3)}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^{(4)}+\mathrm{}.$$
(34)
This expansion begins at $`O(\delta ^3)`$, with the graphs depicted in Fig. 5, together with the counterterms necessary for their renormalization. Insertions from $`_{\pi N}^{(2)}`$ generate effects in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(4)}`$. These effects include relativistic corrections to the leading heavy-baryon result $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(3)}`$. Two-loop contributions to the self-energy—including the leading effect of the $`N\pi \pi `$ channel—first occur in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(5)}`$, and are thus smaller by $`\delta ^2`$ than the dominant piece of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

If:

$$|\omega \mathrm{\Delta }|\delta ^3$$
(35)
and we keep only the third-order piece of the self-energy then all terms on the right-hand side of Eq. (33) are the same order. A perturbative expansion of the right-hand side—which is certainly valid for $`|\omega \mathrm{\Delta }|\delta ^2`$ or larger—is no longer appropriate. Instead, if (35) holds, the whole series must be resummed, giving:

$$S_{\mu \nu }(p)=\frac{1}{p/M_\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\Sigma }^{(3)}(p)}𝒫_{\mu \nu }^{(3/2)}(p).$$
(36)
Eq. (35) then defines precisely what we mean by $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }`$.

In fact the most general Lorentz-covariant form of $`\Sigma ^{\mu \nu }(p)`$ is rather complicated: it contains up to 10 independent scalar functions. As a result the dressed propagator does not generally have the form (36). This is a consequence of using “inconsistent” spin-3/2 couplings—ones that do not obey the symmetry under (14). If, however, couplings which are consistent in that sense are used then the Delta self-energy can be written as:

$$\Sigma ^{\mu \nu }(p)=\Sigma (p)𝒫^{(3/2)\mu \nu }(p),$$
(37)
with $`\Sigma (p)`$ akin to the usual fermion self-energy: $`\Sigma (p)=A(p^2)p/+B(p^2)`$, where $`A`$ and $`B`$ are scalar functions. Dressing then affects only the spin-3/2 piece of the propagator and the form (36) results. The divergence at $`p/=M_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is ameliorated, and no further resummation is necessary. $`\delta `$-counting indicates that the effects of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(n)}`$ for $`n4`$ can be included by perturbing around the propagator (36).

Delta propagators of this form have been used in other authors’ extensions of chiral perturbation theory to the resonance region unitarizers ; Lutz ; Tor02 , although in these works it is not clear why only the spin-3/2 sector is dressed. Note that in contrast to the work of, for instance, Ref. Lutz , we do not dress the nucleon pole by $`\pi N`$ loops. Arguments analogous to those of this subsection suggest that nucleon dressing is only necessary from a power-counting point of view for $`\omega 0`$, and there $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p)`$ is purely real. As we shall now see, after renormalization the real part of $`\Sigma ^{(3)}`$ plays a negligible role in the propagator (36).

In Eq. (36) the quantity $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{(3)}`$ indicates that we are resumming the renormalized third-order Delta self-energy. The explicit renormalization of this quantity will be performed elsewhere. Here we make a more general argument which constrains the form and importance of any renormalized self-energy appearing in Eq. (36).

First, observe that the general Lorentz structure of the self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ results in:

$$S_{\mu \nu }(p)=\frac{Z(p^2)}{p/M(p^2)}𝒫_{\mu \nu }^{(3/2)}(p),$$
(38)
with $`Z`$ and $`M`$ scalar functions of $`p^2`$. After mass, wave function, and coupling constant renormalization these can be written as:

$`Z(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`1+(p^2M_\mathrm{\Delta }^2)f_Z(p^2)+i\text{Im}Z(p^2);`$ (39)
$`M(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`M_\mathrm{\Delta }+(p^2M_\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^2f_M(p^2)+i\text{Im}M(p^2),`$ (40)
with $`f_Z`$ and $`f_M`$ real functions of $`p^2`$.

Substituting these forms into Eq. (38) we find that:

$$S_{\mu \nu }(p)=\frac{1+i\text{Im}Z(p^2)}{p/M_\mathrm{\Delta }i\text{Im}M(p^2)}𝒫_{\mu \nu }^{(3/2)}(p)+O\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right).$$
(41)
In the region (35) the pole piece is $`O(\delta ^3)`$, while the remaining “background” terms are $`O(\delta ^0)`$. Thus any corrections to $`S_{\mu \nu }(p^2)`$ from $`\text{Re}Z(p^2)`$ or $`\text{Re}M(p^2)`$ are three powers of $`\delta `$ beyond leading. Corrections from $`\text{Im}Z(p^2)`$ are equally suppressed, since it too is $`O(\delta ^3)`$.

Thus, up to corrections which are N3LO, it is sufficient to compute only $`\text{Im}M(p^2)`$. Provided that $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }+m_\pi `$ this comes exclusively from Fig. 5(a). A straightforward calculation gives:

$$\text{Im}M(s)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}{2}=\left(\frac{h_A}{2f_\pi }\right)^2\frac{s+M_N^2m_\pi ^2}{24\pi M_\mathrm{\Delta }^2}k^3\theta (k),$$
(42)
where $`k`$ is the on-shell value of the pion three-momentum:

$$k=\{[s(M_N+m_\pi )^2][s(M_Nm_\pi )^2]/(4s)\}^{1/2}\delta .$$
(43)
Thus, the width is $`O(\delta ^3)`$, as promised.

The final form of the resummed $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ propagator is then:

$$S_{\mu \nu }(p)=\frac{1}{p/M_\mathrm{\Delta }+\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(p^2)}𝒫_{\mu \nu }^{(3/2)}(p),$$
(44)
If this propagator appears in a O$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$`\gamma `$N graph and (35) is satisfied then it scales as $`\delta ^3`$.

### III.4 Power counting for $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }`$

The effect of this modified scaling for the Delta propagator is that (dressed) O$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$R graphs become the dominant effects for $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }`$. Their $`\delta `$-index is given by Eq. (27). The Delta-pole graph Fig. 1(a), with M1 $`\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vertices (i.e., $`V_2=2`$, $`N_\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$), has $`\alpha =1`$ in the region (35) and gives the leading contribution there. The graph of Fig. 1(h) with one E2-coupling (i.e., $`V_2=1`$, $`V_3=1`$) has $`\alpha =0`$, and hence is of next-to-leading order (NLO) if $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }`$.

Meanwhile the O$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$R graphs of Fig. 1(b)–(g) (and their time-reversed partners) are characterized by $`L=N_N=N_\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$ and either $`V_1=V_2=N_\pi =2`$ or $`V_2=N_\pi =1`$, $`V_1=2`$. They too have $`\alpha =0`$ and contribute at NLO. These loop graphs are divergent and must be renormalized. This is achieved via graph 1(h). The loop effects may then be included in the calculation by the use of an energy-dependent E2-coupling: $`g_Eg_E(s)`$. The leading effect here again arises from the imaginary part of the loops, hence:

$$g_E(s)=g_E+i\left(\frac{g_Ah_A}{4f_\pi ^2}\right)\frac{s+M_N^2m_\pi ^2}{24\pi s}\frac{M_Nk^2}{\omega _\gamma }\frac{2M_N(M_N+M_\mathrm{\Delta })}{3M_\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _\gamma }\left[Q_0(\omega _k/k)Q_2(\omega _k/k)\right]\theta (k),$$
(45)
where $`\omega _\gamma =(sM_N^2)/2\sqrt{s}`$, $`\omega _k=\sqrt{m_\pi ^2+k^2}`$, while $`k`$ is given by Eq. (43), and $`Q_l`$ is the $`l`$th Legendre function of the second kind.

NLO effects can also be obtained by considering corrections from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(4)}`$ to the leading Delta self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(3)}`$. More complicated electromagnetic couplings and higher-order terms in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ lead to effects of NNLO in the $`\delta `$-expansion of O$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$R graphs.

What is the $`\delta `$-index of graphs without a Delta pole? O$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$I graphs such as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\pi `$ and $`N\pi `$ loops obey Eq. (24)—they are not enhanced. They retain a positive $`\delta `$ index, and so are at least NNLO in this counting.

One might wonder how to reconcile this with Eq. (31) which seems to suggest that the $`\delta `$-scaling of the dominant $`\pi N`$ loops will be, for $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }`$:

$$e^2\frac{\omega ^2}{m_\pi }=e^2\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}=e^2\delta ^0.$$
(46)
This conclusion is erroneous because $`F^{(1)}`$ is not $`O(1)`$ if $`\omega /m_\pi `$ is large. If $`\omega /m_\pi 1`$ the loop functions should be expanded about the large-$`\omega `$ limit, not the small $`\omega `$ one, and doing so results in:

$$T^{(\pi N\mathrm{loop})}=\frac{e^2}{(4\pi ^2f_\pi )^2}\left[c_1\omega +d_1m_\pi +c_3\frac{m_\pi ^2}{\omega }+c_5\frac{m_\pi ^4}{\omega ^3}+\mathrm{}\right].$$
(47)
Assigning $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`m_\pi \mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ we see that this series, rather than one in increasing powers of $`\omega `$ is the correct one for the “medium-energy” regime $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }m_\pi `$. This is completely opposite to a polarizability expansion in increasing powers of $`\omega `$. In our approach $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }`$ is sufficiently far from threshold that a power-series expansion around $`\omega =0`$ of Delta contributions is not very enlightening.

## IV In practice

### IV.1 Defining the NLO calculation

To perform a complete NLO calculation in the whole energy region, $`0<\omega \stackrel{<}{}\text{ }\mathrm{\Delta }`$, we include all of the nucleon pole and $`\pi N`$ loop graphs of Figs. 2 and 3, together with their crossed partners. To these we add the O$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$R graphs of Fig. 1, which in the low-energy region contribute at NNLO and above, but for $`|\omega \mathrm{\Delta }|\delta ^3`$ give effects of leading and next-to-leading order. We also include the O$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$R graph with two $`g_E`$ $`\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ couplings, even though it is formally NNLO.

We keep all of these effects in both kinematic regions. Note that this means we are always keeping contributions that are, strictly speaking, beyond the order to which we work. This is done in order to provide a smooth transition between the two different photon energy domains. For the same reason, in both regions we always use the resummed Delta propagator (44).

The power counting of Sec. III.3 indicates that at NLO we must include effects due to the $`O(\delta ^4)`$ piece of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(4)}`$. The heavy-baryon graphs which contribute to the $`O(ϵ^4)`$ self-energy in a heavy-baryon calculation with explicit Deltas FM01  are shown in Fig. 6. The relativistic calculation of the Delta width that led to Eq. (42) already includes the effects of the graphs (a) and (b). As for graph (c), this graph gives a contribution to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which behaves as FM01 :

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^{6(c)}(p)\frac{(b_3+b_8)h_A}{f_\pi ^2}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{k^2}{k^2m_\pi ^2}\frac{vk}{v(pk)}.$$
(48)
The imaginary part of this graph is proportional to $`\omega km_\pi ^2`$ (with $`k`$ given by Eq. (43)), so while it is $`O(ϵ^4)`$ in the SSE, in our counting it is $`O(\delta ^6)`$, and so well beyond the order to which we work. Thus the result (42) is is already accurate up to corrections of relative order $`\delta ^2`$.

The $`u`$-channel Delta-pole graph is NNLO throughout this entire energy region and is not included in our Compton amplitude. Therefore, by looking at its effect on cross sections we can estimate the importance of NNLO contributions.

### IV.2 Covariant decomposition of the Compton amplitude

To compute the amplitude of Compton-scattering on a spin-1/2 target in a manifestly Lorentz and gauge invariant form, we specify it in terms of eight scalar amplitudes $`A_1\mathrm{}A_8`$ (instead of the usual six):

$$M_{fi}=e^2\overline{u}(p^{})\underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}A_i(s,t)O_i^{\mu \nu }_{}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{}(q^{})_\nu (q)u(p)$$
(49)
where $`p^{}`$, $`p`$ (and $`q^{}`$, $`q`$) are the final and initial 4-momenta of the nucleon (and photon), respectively; $`u`$ is the free nucleon spinor, $`_\mu `$ is a modified photon polarization vector:

$$_\mu (q)=\epsilon _\mu \frac{P\epsilon }{Pq}q_\mu ,$$
(50)
with $`P=p+p^{}`$ . Tensors $`O_i`$ are given by:

$`O_1^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`g^{\mu \nu }`$
$`O_2^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`q^\mu q_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }`$
$`O_3^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ^{\mu \nu }`$
$`O_4^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`g^{\mu \nu }(q^{}\gamma q)`$
$`O_5^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`q^\mu q_{}^{}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}\gamma ^{\alpha \nu }\gamma ^{\mu \alpha }q_\alpha q_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }`$ (51)
$`O_6^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`q^\mu q_{}^{}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}\gamma ^{\alpha \nu }\gamma ^{\mu \alpha }q_\alpha q_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }`$
$`O_7^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`q^\mu q_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }(q^{}\gamma q)`$
$`O_8^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`i\gamma _5ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }q_\alpha ^{}q_\beta .`$
Mandelstam variables $`s,t,u`$ are defined as usual:

$`s`$ $`=`$ $`(p+q)^2=M_N^2+2pq`$
$`t`$ $`=`$ $`(q^{}q)^2=2qq^{}`$ (52)
$`u`$ $`=`$ $`(pq^{})^2=M_N^22pq^{}`$
where we have used the onshell conditions: $`q^2=q_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=0`$, $`p^2=p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=M_N^2`$. Note that $`Pq=\frac{1}{2}(su)=Pq^{}`$.

The representation (49) is obtained by writing down the most general covariant structure (for the onshell situation) and imposing the electromagnetic current-conservation condition. Thus this representation incorporates both covariance and gauge-invariance in a manifest way.

The amplitudes $`A_i`$ are most easily computed in the following Lorenz-invariant gauge:

$$P\epsilon =0=P\epsilon ^{}.$$
(53)
This condition can also be achieved in the Coloumb gauge ($`\epsilon _0=0=\epsilon _0^{}`$) by going to the Breit frame: $`\stackrel{}{P}=0`$.

In the Coloumb gauge, the structures $`O_1`$$`O_6`$ exactly match the ones in the standard decomposition (e.g. LET ; BKM ), while $`O_7`$ and $`O_8`$ can be reduced to linear combinations of $`O_3`$, $`O_5`$ and $`O_6`$:

$`O_7`$ $`=`$ $`(\omega ^2+\frac{1}{2}t)[tO_3+O_5]\omega ^2O_6,`$ (54)
$`O_8`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\omega (tO_3+O_5O_6).`$ (55)
In particular, the results for the nucleon-exchange (Born) graphs, the anomaly graph, and the Delta exchange graphs are specified in terms of the amplitudes $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_8`$ in Appendix A. As our calculation of these graphs is fully relativistic, it differs from that of HB$`\chi `$PT in Refs. BKM ; He97  by terms of $`O(\delta )`$.

Meanwhile, for the $`\pi N`$ loop graphs depicted in Fig. 3, we have used the $`O(q^3)`$ HB$`\chi `$PT result of Refs. BKM ; McG01 . This is done in order to avoid difficulties with the treatment of the nucleon-mass-scale $`M_N`$ inside the loops. The amplitude obtained in a fully-relativistic calculation of these loops would differ from the result used here by terms of $`O(\omega /M)`$ and $`O(m_\pi /M)`$, i.e. terms down by $`\delta ^2`$. The loop contributions are given in Appendix A.

We do include one particular relativistic effect because we write the photon energy $`\omega `$ that appears in the loop functions as $`\omega =\sqrt{s}M_N`$. The standard choices for $`\omega `$—c.m. photon energy BKM , Breit-frame photon energy McG01 —differ from this by terms which are of N3LO in our counting. We adopt this prescription in order to ensure that the Compton amplitude’s $`\pi N`$ cut occurs at the correct value of $`s`$.

## V Results and Discussion

### V.1 Differential cross sections for $`\gamma `$p scattering

There are no $`\gamma `$N contact terms at NLO in the $`\delta `$-expansion. This leaves us with three EFT parameters which must be fixed using the data: $`g_E`$, $`g_M`$, and $`h_A`$. For $`h_A`$ we adopt the phenomenological value $`h_A=2.81`$ ($`f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}^2/4\pi 0.35`$), which corresponds to a Delta width $`\Gamma (M_\mathrm{\Delta }^2)111`$ MeV—consistent with the range given by the Particle Data Group PDG02 . This value of $`h_A`$ is roughly 5% larger than that obtained from the large-$`N_c`$ relation $`h_A=\frac{3}{\sqrt{2}}g_A`$.

This leaves us with two free parameters: $`g_M`$ and $`g_E`$ of the $`\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ coupling (12). They represent the strength of, respectively, the M1 and E2 $`\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ transitions.

In principle these are relatively well known from pion photoproduction. In particular, their ratio is related to the $`R_{EM}=E2/M1`$ ratio:

$$R_{EM}=\frac{g_E\mathrm{\Delta }}{2g_M(M_N+M_\mathrm{\Delta })g_E\mathrm{\Delta }}\times 100\%.$$
(56)
The determination of this ratio has recently been the subject of experimental programs at JLab and MAMI. The present PDG value is $`R_{EM}=(2.5\pm 1.0)\%`$ PDG02 . However, this number is measured only indirectly through the extraction of the ratio of the pion-photoproduction multipoles at the Delta-resonance position. These multipoles are affected by a number of background processes and the relationship (56) is only strictly true at leading order in the $`\delta `$-expansion for the $`\gamma `$p$`\pi `$p amplitude. To fully understand the constraint that pion photoproduction places on $`g_E/g_M`$ in this EFT a higher-order calculation of $`\gamma `$p$`\pi `$p using the $`\delta `$-expansion is necessary. (For an attempt to compute this process in the SSE see Ref. KC98 .) Absent such a calculation, here we regard $`g_M`$ and $`g_E`$ as free parameters and fit them to get the best agreement with $`\gamma `$p cross-section data. An important future test of the usefulness of the $`\delta `$-expansion will be whether the resultant value for $`g_E/g_M`$ is ultimately consistent with that found from pion photoproduction data using the same framework.

The results for the differential cross section at several different energies are presented in Figs. 7 and 8. The long-dashed orange curve represents a calculation which includes only the Born graphs of Fig. 2. The dashed blue curve is the result when the $`\pi N`$ loops of Fig. 3 are added, and so gives the $`O(q^3)`$ prediction of HB$`\chi `$PT. Finally, the complete NLO calculation in the $`\delta `$-expansion is represented by the solid red curve. The sharp rise at backward angles as $`\omega `$ increases past the pion-production threshold is now reproduced in the theory. This sharp rise is very difficult to obtain in $`\chi `$PT without explicit Deltas.

In Figs. 7 and 8 we also show a theoretical error band, demarcated by the red dots. This is obtained by estimating the size of the NNLO contribution in the following way:

$$T\text{(theor. err.)}=\frac{e^2}{M_N}\epsilon ^{}\epsilon \times \{\begin{array}{cc}\omega ^2/\mathrm{\Delta },\hfill & \omega m_\pi \hfill \\ \omega ,\hfill & \omega \mathrm{\Delta }.\hfill \end{array}$$
(57)
The error band in Figs. 7 and 8 is plotted with the border between the two kinematic domains at $`\omega =200`$ MeV. The band is an estimate of how far we expect the NNLO corrections to change the results. It may overestimate the theoretical error since our calculation already includes a number of NNLO contributions: relativistic effects coming from tree graphs, Delta-exchange—which is NNLO for $`\omega m_\pi `$—and $`\pi N`$ loops—which are NNLO for $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }`$.

The fit of the cross section favors the following values for the $`\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ parameters:

$$g_M=2.6\pm 0.2,g_E=6.0\pm 0.9,$$
(58)
The solid line in Figs. 7 and 8 gives the result for the central values of $`g_M`$ and $`g_E`$. The uncertainty in Eq. (58) is found by varying these couplings until the experimental cross section in the Delta region is no longer within the theoretical error band.

The resulting value of $`g_M`$ is consistent with the large $`N_c`$ value: $`g_M=\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}(1+\kappa _p)2.63`$, while the value of $`g_E`$ is considerably different from phenomenological expectations. For instance, from $`R_{EM}=2.5\%`$ and Eq. (56) one would expect $`g_E=1`$. This problem dramatizes the importance of performing an analogous calculation of pion photoproduction to check the consistency of the $`\delta `$-expansion.

Next we would like to note that, although formally the imaginary and real parts of $`g_E(s)`$ of Eq. (45) are the same order, numerically the imaginary part is smaller by at least a factor of six. $`\text{Im}g_E(s)`$ has a negligible impact on the angular distributions shown in Figs. 7 and 8.

The NLO prediction for the differential cross section’s energy-dependence is shown in Fig. 9 for a scattering angle of $`90^o`$. The solid purple line is the result when only $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-pole mechanisms are included and $`g_M`$ and $`g_E`$ are chosen according to (58). The solid red line gives the result of our NLO calculation. Individual contributions from Born graphs and $`\pi N`$ loops are given by the orange dashed and green short-dashed lines respectively. The $`O(q^3)`$ prediction of HB$`\chi `$PT is represented by the blue dashed line. This figure shows our NLO calculation of the Delta width is in good agreement with the data. This lends support to our adoption of the value $`h_A=2.81`$. However, it must be pointed out that since our EFT was only designed for $`0\omega \stackrel{<}{}\text{ }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the agreement at the higher energies which is seen in Fig. 9 is probably somewhat fortuitous.

### V.2 Polarizabilities

The results for the nucleon polarizabilities are worked out in Appendix B. The leading contribution to polarizabilities is from $`\pi N`$ loops and hence is exactly the same as in HB$`\chi `$PT, see Eq. (1). On the other hand, our results for the Delta contributions differ from earlier ones in several ways:

1. First of all, in contrast to the results of Refs. Ber93 ; PaS95 , they are independent of “off-shell parameters”.
2. The leading SSE result of Ref. He97  for the magnetic polarizability is also free of off-shell parameters (in the SSE they enter at NLO). Formally, the result of Appendix B agrees with that found in Ref. He97 —apart from a higher-order relativistic effect which is numerically only of order 10%:

$$\beta _N^{(\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{this}\mathrm{work}}=\frac{2}{2+\mathrm{\Delta }}\beta _N^{(\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{SSE}}.$$

However, our fit to the cross section prefers a significantly smaller value of the $`\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ coupling than was used in Ref. He97  and this leads to a markedly smaller numerical result for $`\beta _p^{(\mathrm{\Delta })}`$.
3. Perhaps most importantly, our NLO calculation includes neither $`u`$-channel Delta-exchange nor $`\pi \mathrm{\Delta }`$ loops, since both are NNLO in the $`\delta `$-expansion. In fact, the Delta contributions quoted in Appendix B stem from both the $`s`$\- and $`u`$-channel Delta exchange graphs. However, the NLO calculation presented above has no $`u`$-channel graph. Thus to find the polarizabilities that correspond to the cross-section calculation of the previous subsection one must halve the Delta pieces of polarizabilities given in Appendix B.

All of these effects produce a Delta-contribution to the magnetic polarizability that is significantly smaller than that found in previous EFT calculations with explicit Deltas But92 ; Ber93 ; He97 ; He98B :

$$\beta _p^{(\mathrm{\Delta })}=\frac{\alpha g_M^2}{(M_N+M_\mathrm{\Delta })^2\mathrm{\Delta }}=(2.7\pm 0.4)\times 10^4\text{fm}^3.$$
(59)
The Delta contribution to the electric polarizability comes solely from the $`s`$-channel Delta-pole with two $`g_E`$ couplings:

$$\alpha _p^{(\mathrm{\Delta })}=\frac{\alpha g_E^2}{(M_N+M_\mathrm{\Delta })^3}=(2.0\pm 0.7)\times 10^4\text{fm}^3.$$
(60)
The observant reader will have noticed that the inclusion of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ contributions in the polarizabilities is not, strictly speaking, consistent at NLO in our power counting. The $`s`$-channel Delta pole is, like its $`u`$-channel counterpart, NNLO for $`\omega 0`$. In spite of this we have included the Delta contributions in the results shown in Table 2. The numbers there represent the polarizabilities corresponding to the cross-section calculation already presented.

We expect that in an NNLO $`\delta `$-expansion calculation the Delta’s effect on $`\beta _p`$ will roughly double. $`\alpha _p`$ will also be modified, thanks to the graphs in Fig. 4 and the $`u`$-channel Delta-pole graph with two $`g_E`$ couplings. Estimating these effects gives the theory error bars which appear in the second line of the table. We note that, even though NNLO effects make a significant difference in the values for $`\alpha _p`$ and $`\beta _p`$, their impact on the low-energy differential cross section is not large, being represented by the theoretical error band in Fig. 7. This suggests that the extraction of polarizabilities from Compton data is a delicate process.

## VI Concluding remarks

The expansion developed in this paper for the $`\gamma `$N amplitude is based on the scale hierarchy $`m_\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The EFT expansion parameter employed here is $`\delta `$, which represents both the ratio of $`m_\pi `$ to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the ratio of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The success of the resulting “$`\delta `$-expansion” is to be judged by its efficacy as an EFT of Compton scattering.

The existence of two different low-energy scales in the theory forces us to develop independent power countings for the two different photon-energy regimes. For $`\omega m_\pi `$ the Compton amplitude obtained is exactly that of $`\chi `$PT up to effects from the Delta which are down by $`\delta ^3`$ relative to leading. On the other hand, if $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }`$, O$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$R graphs dominate the Compton amplitude. Resummation of the Delta self-energy is necessary in these graphs. The Delta propagator appearing in them acquires a finite, energy-dependent, width. Up to effects suppressed by $`\delta ^3`$ this is the only correction to the Delta propagator that is necessary. Vertex corrections also appear at NLO in this region.

We performed a calculation of the $`\gamma `$N amplitude which includes all effects that are of leading or next-to-leading order in the region $`\omega m_\pi `$, as well as all effects that are of leading or next-to-leading order in the region $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }`$. The sum of all of these pieces of the amplitude defines our NLO calculation. Thus, in each of the two regions considered, mechanisms of NNLO in that particular region are included in the calculation. Nevertheless, effects of relative order $`\delta ^3`$ (e.g. $`\mathrm{\Delta }\pi `$ loops) are omitted in the low-energy region, while effects of relative order $`\delta ^2`$ (e.g. two-loop dressing of the Delta) are omitted in the higher-energy domain. These neglected effects define the theoretical error bar of our calculation.

Note that in this calculation tree-level graphs are computed relativistically, while for loop graphs we use the HB$`\chi `$PT result. While this gives the correct $`\gamma `$N amplitude up to the order to which we work, a fully-relativistic treatment of $`\pi `$N loops would be more aesthetically pleasing.

After fitting the only two free parameters in our theory, the E2 and M1 $`\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ couplings, good agreement with the low-energy $`\gamma `$p data is found. The spin-independent polarizabilities $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ that result from our NLO calculation are in reasonable agreement with contemporary extractions from data MAMI01 ; Be02 .

The development of the $`\delta `$-expansion opens up a number of avenues for further study. Higher-order calculations of Compton scattering on the nucleon will be necessary to see if the good agreement found at NLO persists, and if the expansion in powers of $`\delta `$ is well-behaved or not. Also, the use of the $`\delta `$-expansion in other processes, e.g. pion photoproduction, is an important potential future application. Indeed, the EFT presented here should ultimately be judged by its success in simultaneously describing data on nucleon Compton scattering, pion photoproduction, and $`\pi `$N scattering. Only then can the reliability of the EFT, and hence of our extraction of $`g_E`$ and $`g_M`$ from $`\gamma `$N data to NLO in the $`\delta `$-expansion, really be judged.

The use of the $`\delta `$-expansion in two-nucleon systems might also reap significant rewards. We plan to use the amplitude developed here, together with consistent two-body currents, in a calculation of $`\gamma `$D scattering Gr03 . It is also possible that the $`\delta `$ expansion could be profitably employed to organize the Delta contributions to the chiral nucleon-nucleon potential developed in Refs. Or96 ; Ep99 ; EM01 .

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Sergey Kondratyuk and Olaf Scholten for comments on the manuscript. D. R. P. thanks Harald Grießhammer and Thomas Hemmert for useful discussions and the Benasque Centre for Science for its hospitality during part of this work. This research was supported by the U. S. Department of Energy under grants DE-FG02-93ER40756, DE-FG02-02ER41218, and by the National Science Foundation under grant NSF-SGER-0094668.

## Appendix A Results for Compton invariant amplitudes

We define the photon energy as: $`\omega =(pq)/M_N=(sM_N^2)/2M_N`$. The results for the invariant amplitudes are presented in the nucleon mass units ($`M_N=1`$). Below $`𝒵=1`$ for the proton, $`𝒵=0`$ for the neutron. Expressions for the Delta-exchange are obtained using the algebraic manipulation program Form FORM .

### A.1 Nucleon $`s`$-channel:

$`A_1(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[𝒵^2+\frac{1}{4}(𝒵+\kappa )^2t+\frac{1}{2}\kappa ^2(\omega +\frac{1}{4}t)\right]`$
$`A_2(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2\omega }}\left[𝒵+\frac{1}{2}\kappa (1+\frac{1}{4}\omega +\frac{1}{8}t)\right]`$
$`A_3(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`A_1(\omega ,t)`$
$`A_4(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\omega }}\left[(𝒵+\kappa )^2+\frac{1}{2}\kappa ^2\omega \right]`$
$`A_5(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(𝒵+\kappa )^2}{4\omega }}`$ (61)
$`A_6(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒵(𝒵+\kappa )}{4\omega }}`$
$`A_7(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{16\omega }}`$
$`A_8(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`A_4(\omega ,t)`$
### A.2 $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ anomaly graph:

$$A_8(\omega ,t)=\frac{g_A}{(2\pi f_\pi )^2}\frac{2𝒵1}{tm_{\pi ^0}^2},A_1,\mathrm{},A_7=0.$$
(62)
### A.3 Delta $`s`$-channel:

$`A_1(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`F(\omega ,\mathrm{\Delta })\{\frac{2}{3}(\omega ^2+\frac{1}{2}t)(2+\mathrm{\Delta })G_M^2\frac{2}{3}\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }G_E^2`$
$`+`$ $`\frac{2}{3}\omega ^3(G_M^2+G_E^2G_MG_E)+\frac{1}{8}t^2G_M^2`$
$`+`$ $`\omega t[(2+\frac{5}{6}\mathrm{\Delta }+\frac{7}{6}\omega +\frac{1}{4}t)G_M^2\frac{1}{6}(2+\mathrm{\Delta }+\omega )G_MG_E+\frac{1}{6}\omega G_E^2]\}`$
$`A_2(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`F(\omega ,\mathrm{\Delta })\{\frac{2}{3}(2+\mathrm{\Delta })G_M^2\frac{1}{3}\omega [(8+3\mathrm{\Delta })G_M^2+2\mathrm{\Delta }G_E^2(2+\mathrm{\Delta })G_MG_E]`$
$`+`$ $`\omega ^2(\frac{7}{6}G_M^2+\frac{5}{6}G_E^2\frac{2}{3}G_MG_E)`$
$`+`$ $`t[\frac{1}{12}(1\mathrm{\Delta })G_M^2\frac{1}{12}G_E^2+\frac{1}{3}\omega (\frac{1}{2}G_M^2+G_E^2+\frac{5}{4}G_MG_E)+\frac{1}{32}t(G_M+G_E)^2]\}`$
$`A_3(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`F(\omega ,\mathrm{\Delta })\{\frac{1}{3}\omega ^2[2G_M^2+\mathrm{\Delta }(G_M^2G_E^2)]\frac{1}{3}\omega ^3(G_M^2+G_E^24G_MG_E)`$
$`+`$ $`t[\frac{1}{6}(2+\mathrm{\Delta })G_M^2+\frac{1}{3}\omega G_M(G_M(\frac{3}{2}+\mathrm{\Delta })+G_E(2+\mathrm{\Delta }))`$
$`+`$ $`\omega ^2(\frac{11}{12}G_M^2\frac{1}{12}G_E^2+\frac{1}{3}G_MG_E)+\frac{1}{4}tG_M^2(\frac{1}{2}+\omega )]\}`$
$`A_4(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`F(\omega ,\mathrm{\Delta })\{\frac{1}{3}(2+\mathrm{\Delta })G_M(G_M+\omega G_E)\omega (1+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Delta })G_M^2`$ (63)
$`+`$ $`\frac{1}{3}\omega ^2(G_M^2+G_E^2G_MG_E)+\frac{1}{2}tG_M^2(\frac{1}{2}+\omega )\}`$
$`A_5(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`F(\omega ,\mathrm{\Delta })\{\frac{1}{3}(2+\mathrm{\Delta })G_M^2\frac{1}{6}\omega [2(1+\mathrm{\Delta })G_M^2+\mathrm{\Delta }G_E^2+(2+\mathrm{\Delta })G_MG_E]`$
$``$ $`\omega ^2G_M(G_MG_E)+\frac{1}{4}t[G_MG_E+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }G_M(G_M+G_E)\omega G_M(G_MG_E)]\}`$
$`A_6(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`F(\omega ,\mathrm{\Delta })\{\omega G_M[G_M+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }(G_M+G_E)]+\omega ^2G_M(G_MG_E)`$
$`+`$ $`\frac{1}{4}t[G_M^2+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }G_M(G_M+G_E)+\omega G_M(G_MG_E)]\}`$
$`A_7(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`F(\omega ,\mathrm{\Delta })\{(2+\mathrm{\Delta })(\frac{7}{12}G_M^2+\frac{1}{2}G_MG_E)\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{\Delta }G_E^2`$
$`+`$ $`\omega (\frac{7}{12}G_M^2\frac{5}{12}G_E^2\frac{1}{3}G_MG_E)+\frac{1}{16}t(G_M+G_E)^2\}`$
$`A_8(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`F(\omega ,\mathrm{\Delta })\{\frac{4}{3}(2+\mathrm{\Delta })G_M^2+\omega [4(1+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Delta })G_M^2\frac{2}{3}(2+\mathrm{\Delta })G_MG_E]`$
$`+`$ $`\frac{1}{6}\omega ^2(G_M^2+G_E^24G_MG_E)\frac{1}{2}tG_M^2(\frac{1}{2}+\omega )\}`$
with $`G_{M,E}=\frac{3}{2(2+\mathrm{\Delta })}g_{M,E}`$ and

$$F(\omega ,\mathrm{\Delta })=\frac{2}{3}\frac{1}{sM_\mathrm{\Delta }^2+iM_\mathrm{\Delta }\Gamma (s)}=\frac{2}{3}\frac{1}{2\omega \mathrm{\Delta }(2+\mathrm{\Delta })+iM_\mathrm{\Delta }\Gamma (\omega )},$$
(64)
where $`\frac{2}{3}=T_3^{}T_3`$ is the isospin factor, and the width $`\Gamma `$ is given by Eq. (42).

The corresponding $`u`$-channel graphs are obtained by crossing so that the crossing-symmetric amplitude is given by

$`A_i(\omega ,t)+A_i(\omega ^{},t),\text{for}i=1,2,8`$
$`A_i(\omega ,t)A_i(\omega ^{},t),\text{for}i=3,\mathrm{},7`$
with $`\omega ^{}=pq^{}=(1u)/2`$.

### A.4 HB$`\chi `$PT $`\pi N`$ loops

Defining $`\zeta =(\sqrt{s}M_N)/m_\pi `$ and $`\tau =2\zeta ^2(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$, where $`\theta `$ is the center-of-mass angle between the incoming and outgoing photon momenta, one finds BKM :

$`A_1(s,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_A^2m_\pi }{8\pi f_\pi ^2}}\left\{1\sqrt{1\zeta ^2}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\tau }{\sqrt{\tau }}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\tau }}{2}}I_1(\zeta ,\tau )\right]\right\},`$
$`A_2(s,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_A^2}{8\pi f_\pi ^2m_\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{2\tau }{(\tau )^{3/2}}}\left[I_1(\zeta ,\tau )I_2(\zeta ,\tau )\right],`$
$`A_3(s,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_A^2m_\pi }{8\pi ^2f_\pi ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\zeta }}\mathrm{arcsin}^2\zeta \zeta +2\zeta ^4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta I_3(\zeta ,\tau )\right],`$
$`A_4(s,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_A^2}{4\pi ^2f_\pi ^2m_\pi }}I_4(\zeta ,\tau ),`$
$`A_5(s,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_A^2}{8\pi ^2f_\pi ^2m_\pi }}[I_5(\zeta ,\tau )2\zeta ^2\mathrm{cos}\theta I_3(\zeta ,\tau )],`$
$`A_6(s,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_A^2}{8\pi ^2f_\pi ^2m_\pi }}[I_5(\zeta ,\tau )2\zeta ^2I_3(\zeta ,\tau )],`$ (65)
where

$`I_1(\zeta ,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{(1z)\sqrt{\tau }}{2\sqrt{1\zeta ^2z^2}}},`$
$`I_2(\zeta ,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z{\displaystyle \frac{2(1z)\sqrt{\tau (1\zeta ^2z^2)}}{4(1\zeta ^2z^2)\tau (1z)^2}},`$
$`I_3(\zeta ,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z{\displaystyle \frac{x(1x)z(1z)^3}{S^3}}\left[\mathrm{arcsin}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta z}{R}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta zS}{R^2}}\right],`$
$`I_4(\zeta ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z{\displaystyle \frac{z(1z)}{S}}\mathrm{arcsin}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta z}{R}},`$
$`I_5(\zeta ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z{\displaystyle \frac{(1z)^2}{S}}\mathrm{arcsin}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta z}{R}},`$ (66)
with

$$S=\sqrt{1\zeta ^2z^2\tau (1z)^2x(1x)},R=\sqrt{1\tau (1z)^2x(1x)}.$$
(67)
## Appendix B Results for polarizabilities

The nucleon electric ($`\alpha _N`$) and magnetic ($`\beta _N`$) polarizabilities:

$`\alpha _N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\omega ^2}}A_1^{(NB)}(0,0)+\alpha A_2^{(NB)}(0,0)={\displaystyle \frac{5\pi \alpha }{6m_\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{4\pi f_\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha g_E^2}{(M_N+M_\mathrm{\Delta })^3}},`$
$`\beta _N`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha A_2^{(NB)}(0,0)=2\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}A_1^{(NB)}(0,0)={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha }{12m_\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{4\pi f_\pi }}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha g_M^2}{(M_N+M_\mathrm{\Delta })^2\mathrm{\Delta }}},`$ (68)
where $`A_i^{(NB)}`$ are the amplitudes with the Born graphs subtracted.


format: text

text:
# Photoassociation spectroscopy of cold calcium atoms

## I Introduction

In photoassociation spectroscopy experiments within cold ensembles of atoms a bound molecule is formed under the influence of light. Such measurements can yield information about many atomic properties such as excited states lifetimes, ground state scattering lengths and long range potentials. Most of the experiments are performed with alkaline elements. However, due to their atomic fine and hyperfine structure theoretical calculations are in general very complicated to perform for these elements. In contrast, the most abundant isotopes of the alkaline earth metals show a non-degenerate ground state with no hyperfine splitting. This makes the comparison between experiment and theory easier than in the case of alkali metals. In Fig. 1a a simplified molecular level scheme is shown for the case of Ca2. The photoassociation connects the ground state asymptote to the molecular state $`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{u}^{+}`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$ is the frequency difference between the photoassociation laser and the asymptote 1S$`{}_{0}{}^{}+4\text{p}^1`$P1. Our first observations on photoassociation of Ca zin00  were performed with cold ensembles around 3 mK and with short trap lifetimes of about 50 ms only, which in total leads to a poor signal-to-noise ratio for the trap loss by photoassociation. Only for the deepest recorded vibrational level at the excited asymptote we were able to observe rotational structure on the vibrational transition. The line profile and line position were interpreted by the help of assumptions, like an averaged fixed frequency shift of all transitions by 50 MHz due to 3 mK samples.

Here we will report of a more complete series of measurements under improved conditions, doubling the spectral interval of measured photoassociation lines, giving clear rotational structure and performing a full line profile simulation to get the proper shift of the line center due to thermal averaging and the intensity of the association laser.

## II Experiment

The calcium atoms are cooled and trapped in a magnetooptical trap (MOT) using the strongly allowed transition at $`422.79`$ nm ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2.1610^8`$ s-1, see the level scheme in Fig. 1b). An overview of the experimental setup is shown in Fig. 2. The 423 nm radiation is generated by frequency doubling about 160 mW of a master-slave diode laser combination with a KNbO3 crystal inside an enhancement cavity. The output power at 423 nm is 36 mW with a linewidth of 300 kHz. A separate thermal Ca beam is used to keep the absolute frequency in resonance with the atomic transition. The MOT consists of three mutually orthogonal retroreflected beams with diameter of 10 mm and a power of 5 mW in each beam. The frequency of the trapping laser is red detuned by 29 MHz with respect to the resonance. The atoms are directly captured from the low velocity tail of the Boltzmann distribution of a thermal atomic beam. The magnetic field gradient generated by a pair of anti Helmholtz coils is $`910^3`$ T/cm. A repump laser at 672 nm is used to prevent trap losses via the $`{}_{}{}^{1}D_{1}^{}`$ state, thereby increasing the density of the atomic ensemble by a factor of four. Absorption imaging of the cloud on the cooling transition was used to determine the radius $`r`$ and the density $`n_0`$ of the trapped ensemble leading to typical values of $`r=0.3`$ mm and $`n_0=210^{10}\mathrm{cm}^3`$. The temperature of the ensemble was deduced independently from the ballistic expansion of the cloud and from the Doppler width of the excitation spectrum on the narrow 1S$`{}_{0}{}^{}^3`$P1 intercombination line ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2000`$ s-1), yielding $`2\text{mK}<T<3\text{mK}`$. With the repump laser turned on the lifetime of the trap is around 300 ms.

The light of the photoassociation laser is generated by a Stilben 3 dye laser pumped by a 3 W Ar+ UV laser. The output power is 100 mW at 423 nm with a linewidth of 1 MHz. The laser is frequency stabilized to a tunable high finesse cavity in vacuum. A tunable helium neon laser at 633 nm is stabilized to the same cavity and its beat frequency with an iodine stabilized helium neon laser is measured. By keeping the beat frequency constant the frequency of the photoassociation laser can be held fixed with an accuracy of $`\pm 2`$ MHz. Furthermore, with this scheme it is possible to scan the frequency of the photoassociation laser by approx. $`1.5`$ GHz with the same accuracy. The detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }f=f_{\mathrm{Ca}}f_{\mathrm{Laser}}`$ of the photoassociation laser with respect to the atomic resonance 1S$`{}_{0}{}^{}^1`$P1 was determined by measuring its beat frequency with the frequency stabilized trapping laser for detunings up to 20 GHz. For larger detunings the frequency of the photoassociation laser is determined by means of a wavemeter which allows absolute frequency measurements with an accuracy better than $`0.2`$ MHz. With the transition frequency of the atomic resonance determined the same way the detuning can be calculated.

The rate of photoassociation was measured by recording the increase of trap losses due to photoassociation which manifest themselves in a reduced trap fluorescence. The state of the photoassociated Ca dimer may undergo a state change to a molecular state dissociating into atoms which are no longer trapped (state changing collision), or the dissociative decay of the dimer may lead to a gain in kinetic energy high enough to allow the atoms of the pair to escape from the trap (radiative escape). The photoassociation laser was switched on and off by means of an acousto optical modulator (AOM) for time intervals of 500 ms which must be considerably larger than the trap lifetime of 300 ms to allow the trap to reach a new steady state. The intensity of the photoassociation laser was around 400 mW/cm2. Before and after each interaction period with the photoassociation laser the 423 nm trap fluorescence was detected by an avalanche photodiode. The collisional loss fraction is the ratio of the reduced signal due to photoassociation and the signal obtained without photoassociation. The trapping laser itself stayed on during the whole time. Due to intensity fluctuations of the trap fluorescence of 1 % to 2 % averaging is done over at least 30 s to increase the signal-to-noise ratio. The collisional loss fraction is directly proportional to the atomic density of the ensemble and, as long as saturation effects can be neglected, proportional to the intensity of the photoassociation laser.

We measured the collisional trap loss for detunings of the photoassociation laser ranging from $`0.6`$ GHz to 68 GHz below the atomic 1S$`{}_{0}{}^{}^1`$P1 transition. If counting the vibrational levels $`v^{}`$ from the asymptote starting at $`v^{}=1`$ this frequency interval corresponds to $`34v^{}72`$. To smaller $`v^{}`$ we were limited by the resonant interaction of the photoassociation beam with single atoms, pushing them out of the trap by radiation pressure. For higher $`v^{}`$ the measurements were limited by decreasing signal strength.

## III Theoretical Description

The theoretical description of photoassociation spectra consists of two parts: the precise determination of the bound states close to the dissociation limit and the modelling of bound-free transition together with its detection by trap loss. To describe the asymptotic level structure for a diatomic molecule like Ca2 we use the accumulated phase approximation which was described by VerHaar et al moe95 . The potential is given by the long range branch according to the atomic states at the asymptote. For Ca2 at the excited asymptote 1S$`{}_{0}{}^{}+_{}^{1}`$P1 the long range behaviour is dominated by the resonant dipole-dipole interaction and the centrifugal potential term for the rotational state $`J`$ which should have the correct behaviour for dissociating into an atom pair with non-vanishing atomic angular momentum; for the molecular state $`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{u}^{+}`$ it becomes:

$$U(R)=D\frac{C_3}{R^3}+\frac{\mathrm{}^2[J(J+1)+2]}{2\mu R^2}$$
(1)
Here $`D`$ is the asymptotic atom pair energy and $`C_3`$ is the dipole-dipole interaction constant which can be calculated from the transition moment of the 1S$`{}_{0}{}^{}^1`$P1 transition with frequency $`\omega _a`$ or from the natural linewidth $`\gamma _a`$ (all linewidths in this paper are in energy units) of this transition, giving $`C_3=3c^3\gamma _a/2\omega _{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}`$ for the molecular state $`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{u}^{+}`$, and $`\mu `$ is the reduced mass of the molecule. Because of applying only the potential branch at large internuclear separations we replace the left boundary condition (small $`R`$) for a bound state by a fixed phase which accumulates from small internuclear separation up to a large $`R`$, say $`R_0`$, which is still small enough compared to the classical outer turning point of the desired bound level. If the binding energy of asymptotic states is small compared to the kinetic energy for the vibrational motion around the minimum of the potential the accumulated phase up to $`R_0`$ is a very weakly varying function for all such asymptotic levels. Thus a fit of observed levels measured with respect to $`D`$ can be performed with the above potential branch and a simple power expansion of the phase with the binding energy as expansion coefficient. It is numerically easier to choose a weak variation of $`R_0`$ for a constant phase, where in our case we programmed a maximum of the wave function at the slowly varying $`R_0`$.

For modelling the photoassociation profile we apply the theory developed by Bohn and Julienne boh99 . The coupling of the continuum at the ground state asymptote 1S$`{}_{0}{}^{}+_{}^{1}`$S0 by the laser field to the excited asymptote 1S$`{}_{0}{}^{}+_{}^{1}`$P1 leads to an excitation rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and an energy shift $`E_1`$ of the transition. The above paper shows that the trap loss probability by photoassociation for a collision pair with a kinetic energy $`\epsilon `$ can be written in the following form:

$$|S_{0l}|^2=\frac{(\gamma _s+\gamma _r)\mathrm{\Gamma }}{[\epsilon (\mathrm{\Delta }E_1)]^2+(\frac{\gamma _s+\gamma _r+\gamma _{ts}+\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2})^2}$$
(2)
$`S_{0l}`$ is the scattering matrix element of the process of two colliding atoms on the ground state via the bound intermediate state by the light field to the loss state $`l`$. $`\gamma _s`$ and $`\gamma _r`$ are the rates for state changing collisions and the radiative escape, respectively. $`\gamma _{ts}`$ is the molecular spontaneous decay back to trapped states. $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ represents the detuning between the excited molecular bound state with energy $`E_b(v,J)`$ and the laser frequency with respect to the ground state asymptote: $`\mathrm{\Delta }=E_b\mathrm{}\omega _L`$ (see Fig. 3). $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ must not be confused with $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$ which gives the detuning of the photoassociation laser (see Fig. 1a). In the theoretical description we will count the vibrational levels $`v`$ from the bottom of the potential well. With $`v_D`$ as the non-integer vibrational ‘quantum number’ derived from the vibrational phase of the hypothetical state exactly at the asymptote one gets the relation $`v=v_D(v_D\text{modulo}1)v^{}+1`$. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`E_1`$ can be evaluated in the reflection approximation, where the scattering wave function of the ground state potential for the scattering energy $`\epsilon `$ is only needed at the Condon point of the transition, the above mentioned paper gives the results:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2\pi (V_{0b})^2{\displaystyle \frac{E_b}{v}}{\displaystyle \frac{|f_0(R_C)|^2}{D_C}}`$ (3)
and

$`E_1=\pi (V_{0b})^2{\displaystyle \frac{E_b}{v}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_0(R_C)g(R_C)}{D_C}}.`$ (4)
Here the derivative of $`E_b`$ with respect to $`v`$ gives the vibrational spacing around the considered bound state, and $`f_0`$ and $`g_0`$ are the regular and irregular solution of the scattering function for kinetic energy $`\epsilon `$. $`R_C`$ is the Condon point of the potentials interacting by the laser field at the detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. $`D_C`$ is the potential gradient of the excited state at the Condon point, the contribution from the ground state potential plays no rule at large internuclear separation considered in the present case, because this behaves like 1/$`R^6`$ compared to 1/$`R^3`$ for the excited state. $`V_{0b}`$ is the laser interaction which is calculated with the help of the laser intensity $`I`$, the atomic natural width $`\gamma _a`$ and the molecular enhancement factor $`f_{\mathrm{mol}}`$ which is determined by the molecular symmetry $`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{u}^{+}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{g}^{+}`$ of the transition and is to good approximation here 2 (see for example the dipole formula in mac01 ):

$$(V_{0b})^2=\frac{6\pi c^2\gamma _af_{\mathrm{mol}}}{\omega _a^3}I$$

$`\omega _a`$ is the atomic transition frequency, here of the 1S0 to 1P1 transition. The photoassociation rate $`K(\mathrm{\Delta },T)`$ at the detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ from a thermal ensemble at temperature $`T`$ is then obtained by thermal averaging of the trap loss probability and summing over all contributing partial waves $`\mathrm{}`$ to the bound state $`J`$:

$$K(\mathrm{\Delta },T,J)=\frac{1}{hQ_T}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\epsilon e^{\frac{\epsilon }{kT}}\underset{\mathrm{}}{}(2\mathrm{}+1)|S_{0l}(\epsilon ,\mathrm{},J,\mathrm{\Delta },I)|^2$$

$`S_{0l}`$ is shown with all dependencies given in the equations above and $`Q_T`$ is the partition function for $`T`$ for the atom pairs with reduced mass $`\mu `$:

$$Q_T=\left(\frac{2\pi \mu kT}{h^2}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}$$

For the simulations of photoassociation profiles, especially for the comparison of relative intensities between different vibrational states, one needs a reliable estimate of $`\gamma _s`$ and $`\gamma _r`$ at least the relative function with vibrational states. The losses can be either state changing collisions or radiative escape processes, for both we need an inward motion of the photoassociated state. Thus an estimate of the relative probability of the loss will be the vibrational period of the state if one assumes that each crossing of the inner region of the potential leads to an equal amount of loss. The vibrational period can be estimated from the LeRoy-Bernstein formula ler70  for bound states close to the asymptote: $`E_b=DX(v_Dv)^i`$ where $`X`$ is a constant depending on $`C_n`$ of the long range behaviour and the reduced mass of the molecule. In the case of the dipole-dipole asymptote $`C_3`$ is involved and $`i`$ becomes 6. With this approximation the loss rate $`\gamma _s+\gamma _r`$ becomes proportional to $`6X(v_Dv)^5`$; this value was introduced into the simulations of the profiles. For calculating the eigenenergies with the accumulated phase approximation and the scattering wave function the conventional Numerov method was applied with sufficiently small integration steps, which was always checked by numerical convergence.

## IV Experimental Results

Figure 4 shows the trap loss spectrum for the vibrational levels $`v^{}=69`$ and 72 of the $`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{u}^{+}`$ state at a detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$ of the photoassociation laser around 52 GHz and 68 GHz from the atomic resonance. Three rotational lines corresponding to $`J=1,3\text{ and }5`$ are observed. The sample temperature is about 2 mK, at which the collisional partial waves with $`\mathrm{}6`$ have too low probability for leading to an observable signal of level $`J=7`$ of the excited state. The solid curve shows a simulated spectrum. It is obtained by starting with a potential that is known, e.g., from our earlier spectroscopic measurements zin00 , from which the eigenenergies of the rovibrational levels are calculated with the accumulated phase method. These do not necessarily coincide with the positions of the vibrational levels as measured in the experiments due to the finite temperature, AC Stark shifts and the potential itself. The position of rotational levels with $`J`$ values of 3 and 5 are shifted up to 120 MHz by these effects. The shift between the observed spectrum and the simulated one is used in an iteration procedure to modify the potential described by $`C_3`$ and the power expansion of $`R_0`$. After two to three iterations convergence is achieved. The procedure gives a $`C_3=0.5217(45)10^3\text{nm}^3\mathrm{cm}^1`$ resulting in an atomic decay rate of $`\gamma _a/\mathrm{}=2.150(19)10^8s^1`$. This value is smaller than that reported in zin00  by three times the error limit. This can be explained by the fact that in zin00  shifts of the line positions due to temperature have only been accounted for by a global shift of all frequencies of 50 MHz. From our new calculations presented here this is not justified and thus leads to a different value. It was also checked that the retardation effect of the dipole-dipole interaction mac01  must be included in the fit. Especially, the levels close to the asymptote 1S$`{}_{0}{}^{}+_{}^{1}`$P1 for $`v^{}<40`$ otherwise show non-negligible deviations.

It turns out that the relative height of the components of the rotational substructure depends significantly on the value of the scattering length for the ground state potential. For varying the scattering length in test calculations, one may change the potential slightly at the repulsive branch at small $`R`$ or around the minimum of the potential. The result are slight shifts of the last bound levels not only for $`\mathrm{}=0`$ but also for $`\mathrm{}0`$. Here for $`\mathrm{}=2`$ the position of the corresponding shape resonance moves to the asymptote for decreasing scattering length, which results in the variation of the intensity ratio of the peaks for $`J=1`$ and 3. Fig. 5 shows the numerical simulation of the vibrational level $`v^{}=69`$ for three different scattering lengths of $`52.4a_0`$, $`85.2a_0`$ and 324 $`a_0`$, respectively, with the Bohr radius $`a_0=0.0529\mathrm{}`$ nm. For clarity the curves are shifted in the vertical direction. The ratio of the $`J=1`$ and $`J=3`$ components and the deepness of the dip between the two components of all measured vibrational lines with resolved rotational substructure ($`v^{}62`$) are best reproduced by the potential with a scattering length of $`85.2a_0`$. The quite different form of the two other curves ($`52.4a_0`$ and 324 $`a_0`$) suggests that the scattering length lies somewhere between 50 $`a_0`$ and 300 $`a_0`$. This is the same order of magnitude of the scattering length as determined by other spectroscopic methods all02 .

In our previous photoassociation experiments on 40Ca zin00  it was not possible to determine the relative intensities of the vibrational lines. This was mainly due to the short trap lifetime of 50 ms which leads to maximum collisional trap loss fractions of 1 %. In the experiment reported here, the collisional loss fraction at the center of each vibrational line was measured (Fig. 6). For vibrational lines where the rotational structure is not resolved the collisional loss fraction at the expected maximum of the resonance line was determined (full circles). For large $`v^{}`$ the rotational structure is sufficiently resolved and the collisional loss fraction was measured at the position of the $`J=1`$ (full triangles) and the $`J=3`$ rotational lines (open triangles). The collisional loss fraction with the photoassociation laser tuned to the gap between two vibrational lines is shown by open circles. For $`v^{}<47`$ the vibrational lines begin to overlap and the collisional loss fraction does not drop to zero between two lines. Before and after each measurement session of approximately ten hours the atomic density was determined by taking absorption images on the cooling transition. Due to mechanical drifts in the setup the density decreased over this period of time by up to 20 %. A linear variation of the atomic density with time was taken into account to normalize the collisional loss fraction to a density of $`210^{10}`$ cm-3. In addition the change in the intensity of the photoassociation laser that showed fluctuations of approx. 10 % during a scan was corrected. From the measured variation of collisional trap losses with the intensity of the photoassociation laser (Fig. 7) the fluctuations were corrected to an intensity of 280 mW/cm2.

The curves in Fig. 6 depict the intensity variation of the trap loss as a function of the vibrational quantum number $`v^{}`$ as expected from theory where the functional form of the trap loss in its vibrational dependence is simplified being proportional to $`(v_Dv)^5`$ from the local vibrational spacing. This approach does not distinguish the contribution by state changing collisions from those by radiative escape. Thus at least a two-parameter ansatz would be necessary for which a functional model does not exist in the literature for describing the vibrational dependence. We were experimenting with different exponents for $`(v_Dv)`$ instead of 5 and with adding a constant to the loss rate as a second parameter which could model the different weights of the two mechanisms. Such an approach gives a nicer looking graph for the comparison between experiment and theory but not a convincing deeper physical insight. Thus we suppressed it, but we would prefer to indicate clearly with Fig. 6 the status of our present understanding.

## V Conclusion

In conclusion, photoassociation measurements on cold calcium atoms for an extended range of detunings of the photoassociation laser ranging from $`0.6`$ GHz to 68 GHz below the asymptote were performed and compared with full line profile simulations. We find good agreement between the observed and calculated spectra. The observed intensity ratio of $`J=1`$ and $`J=3`$ resonances determines the range of the ground state scattering length between 50 $`a_0`$ and 300 $`a_0`$ taking the long range behaviour as determined by spectroscopic experiments all02  or by theoretical predictions por01 . The measured relative intensities of the vibrational transitions are not well explained. New studies of loss mechanisms are needed or better electronic structure calculations on Ca2 would be desirable to improve on the model calculations which were published by Machholm et al. mac01 .

Up to now we only observed the creation of calcium dimers in the $`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{u}^{+}`$ state. Besides this, the formation of atom pairs in the $`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Pi }_{g}^{}`$ state is allowed due to retardation. Those vibrational levels should show up as very sharp features (a few MHz width) in the spectra mac01 . It may be possible to get signatures from these states in the experiment when switching to ultracold calcium atoms with a temperature of a few microkelvin.

We gratefully acknowledge O. Allard and A. Pashov for kindly providing us with their data for the potential curves. This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.