format: text

text:
# Hadronic Parity Violation and Inelastic Electron-Deuteron Scattering

## I Introduction

Parity-violating (PV) inelastic electron-nucleus scattering is an important tool in the study of hadron structure Musolf et al. (1994). In combination with PV elastic electron-proton ($`e`$-$`p`$) scattering, measurements of the PV quasielastic (QE) electron-deuteron ($`e`$-$`d`$) asymmetry allow a separate determination of the strangeness magnetic form factor, $`G_M^{(s)}(Q^2)`$, and the isovector axial vector form factor, $`G_A^{(e)(T=1)}(Q^2)`$. Knowledge of $`G_M^{(s)}(Q^2)`$ provides a window on the role played by sea-quarks in the electromagnetic structure of the nucleon. The axial vector form factor, in contrast, is sensitive to nucleon structure effects in higher-order, electroweak radiative corrections. These corrections, which depend on the species of lepton probe (hence, the “$`e`$” superscript), share features with corrections relevant to other precision electroweak measurements, such as the PV asymmetry in polarized neutron $`\beta `$-decay. The proper interpretation of such measurements relies on an adequate understanding of electroweak radiative corrections McKeown and Ramsey-Musolf (2002).

Recently, the SAMPLE collaboration has performed a separate determination of $`G_M^{(s)}`$ and $`G_A^{(e)(T=1)}`$ at $`Q^2=0.1`$ (GeV/$`c`$)2 using PV $`e`$-$`p`$ and PV QE $`e`$-$`d`$ scattering Mueller et al. (1997); Spayde et al. (2000); Hasty et al. (2000). The results indicate a value for $`G_A^{(e)(T=1)}`$ consistent with zero. At tree-level, one expects $`G_A^{(e)(T=1)}(Q^2=0)=1.267`$, while radiative corrections reduce the magnitude by roughly $`40\pm 20\%`$ Zhu et al. (2000); Musolf and Holstein (1990). These corrections include potentially significant hadronic contributions that are responsible for the estimated theoretical uncertainty. To make the measured value of $`G_A^{(e)(T=1)}`$ close to zero would require additional effects not included in the calculation of Refs. Zhu et al. (2000); Musolf and Holstein (1990).

One possibility, which we explore in this paper, is the contribution from the PV nucleon-nucleon ($`NN`$) interaction. The latter induces small admixtures of opposite parity states into the deuteron as well as the scattered $`np`$ partial waves. These parity admixtures contribute to the PV asymmetry when a $`\gamma `$ is exchanged between the electron and target111Current conservation also implies the presence of PV electromagnetic two-body current contributions, as we discuss below.. Moreover, in contrast to the effect of $`Z^0`$ exchange, these hadronic PV effects in $`\gamma `$-exchange give rise to a term in the asymmetry which does not vanish at $`Q^2`$ = 0. For sufficiently small $`Q^2`$, this term would dominate the asymmetry. One might ask, then, whether the omission of this term in the interpretation of the SAMPLE deuterium measurement is responsible for the apparent, anomalously large radiative corrections entering $`G_A^{(e)(T=1)}`$.

Below, we show that the magnitude of this $`Q^2`$-independent hadronic PV contribution is too small to account for the observed $`G_A^{(e)(T=1)}`$ effect. Based on simple scaling arguments, the relative importance of the $`Q^2`$-independent contribution – compared to the “canonical” $`Z^0`$-exchange induced asymmetry – goes as $`10^4m_N^2/Q^2`$. Thus, at the SAMPLE kinematics, $`Q^2=0.1`$ (GeV/$`c`$)2, we expect the hadronic PV contribution to generate at most a few parts in a thousand correction to the asymmetry – far short of what would be needed to close the gap between the theoretical and experimental values for $`G_A^{(e)(T=1)}`$.

We also carry out an explicit calculation of the hadronic PV contribution and verify the expectations based on these scaling arguments. Our computation follows on the work of Refs. Hwang and Henley (1980); Hwang et al. (1981), in which the hadronic PV contribution to PV threshold deuteron electro- disintegration was studied, and the calculation of Ref. Küster and Arenhövel (1997), which treated PV QE $`e`$-$`d`$ scattering. In the latter analysis, only parity-mixing in the deuteron wave function was considered. In the present study, we also include the contributions from parity mixing in the final $`e`$-$`d`$ scattering states as well as from PV two-body currents. Our results are consistent with both of these earlier calculations, but give a more complete treatment of the QE case.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we review the formalism for PV QE scattering and hadronic PV, identify the relevant operators and matrix elements to be computed, and present the scaling arguments for the relative magnitude for the hadronic PV contribution. Section III gives a discussion of the bound and scattering state wave functions, which we determine first in the plane wave approximation and subsequently using the Argonne $`V_{18}`$ potential. We present the results of our calculation in Section IV, where we consider two cases: threshold electro-disintegration and QE scattering. Figs. 7, 8, 12, and 13, which show various contributions to the PV asymmetries as a function of $`Q^2`$, summarize the main results of this work. A summary discussion appears in Section V.

## II PV Electron Scattering and Hadronic PV

### II.1 Basic Formalism

The PV asymmetry for inclusive $`e`$-$`d`$ scattering of an unpolarized target can be expressed in terms of two response functions: $`W^{EM}`$, the parity-conserving (PC) electromagnetic (EM) response, and $`W^{PV}`$, the PV response arising from the interference of EM and PV neutral current amplitudes. One may decompose the former in terms of the longitudinal and transverse response functions

$`W^{EM}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}\left[v_LF_L^2(q)+v_TF_T^2(q)\right]|_{\omega =E_fE_i},`$ (1)
$`F_L^2(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{J0}{}}F_{CJ}^2(q),`$ (2)
$`F_T^2(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{J1}{}}\left[F_{EJ}^2(q)+F_{MJ}^2(q)\right],`$ (3)
where $`v_{L,T}`$ are the standard kinematic coefficients (will be defined later), $`q^\mu (\omega ,\stackrel{}{q})`$ is the four momentum transfered into the nuclear system ($`E_i`$ and $`E_f`$ are its initial and final energy). The $`F_{XJ}(q)`$, $`X=C,E,M`$, are the charge, transverse electric, and transverse magnetic multipole matrix elements depending on $`q=|\stackrel{}{q}|`$. They are defined through multipole operators, $`\widehat{O}^C=\widehat{M}`$, $`\widehat{O}^E=\widehat{T}^{el}`$, and $`\widehat{O}^M=i\widehat{T}^{mag}`$ de Forest and Walecka (1966); Walecka (1975); Musolf et al. (1994), as222The extra “$`i`$” for $`\widehat{T}^{mag}`$ is introduced so that when real wave functions are used, the form factor $`F_M`$ is real.

$$F_{XJ}(q)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2J_i+1}}\underset{T=0,1}{}(1)^{T_fM_T}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}T_f& T& T_i\\ M_{T_f}& 0& M_{T_i}\end{array}\right)J_f,T_f\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\widehat{O}_{J,T}^X(q)\mathrm{}\mathrm{}J_i,T_i,$$
(4)
where the $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ denotes reduced matrix elements in both angular momentum and isospin Musolf et al. (1994). In the spherical basis, while a collective quantum label $`a`$ refers to $`(E_a,L_a,S_a,J_a,M_{J_a},T_a,M_{T_a})`$, the sum $`_f`$ runs over all indexes except $`E_f`$ and $`M_{J_f}`$ because they have been carried out to get Eq. (1).

For the PV response, one has

$`W^{PV\left(Z\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}\left[v_LW_{AV}^L(q)+v_TW_{AV}^T(q)+v_T^{}W_{VA}^T^{}(q)\right]|_{\omega =E_fE_i},`$ (5)
$`W_{AV}^L(q)`$ $`=`$ $`g_A^e{\displaystyle \underset{J0}{}}F_{CJ}(q)\stackrel{~}{F}_{CJ}(q),`$ (6)
$`W_{AV}^T(q)`$ $`=`$ $`g_A^e{\displaystyle \underset{J1}{}}\left[F_{EJ}(q)\stackrel{~}{F}_{EJ}(q)+F_{MJ}(q)\stackrel{~}{F}_{MJ}(q)\right],`$ (7)
$`W_{VA}^T^{}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`g_V^e{\displaystyle \underset{J1}{}}\left[F_{EJ}(q)\stackrel{~}{F}_{MJ_5}(q)+F_{MJ}(q)\stackrel{~}{F}_{EJ_5}(q)\right],`$ (8)
where the $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{X_{(5)}}`$ refer to weak, neutral current multipole matrix elements and the “5” subscript indicates multipole projections of the axial vector current. The $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{X_{(5)}}`$ are defined in a similar fashion as Eq. (4) – up to different coupling constants, however, for the axial form factors, it is $`\widehat{M}^_5`$ and $`\widehat{T}^{el_5}`$ which have additional factors of $`i`$ while $`\widehat{T}^{mag_5}`$ is without one Musolf et al. (1994)333In Ref. Musolf et al. (1994), $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{XJ}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{XJ_5}`$ are defined with an extra $`1/2`$ and $`1/2`$ factor. It is found that the minus sign in Ref. Musolf et al. (1994) is a typographical error. The $`1/2`$ factor is absorbed here in the overall scale $`A_{LR}^0`$. . The kinematic coefficients, $`v_L`$, $`v_T`$, and $`v_T^{}`$ are

$`v_L`$ $`=`$ $`(Q^2/q^2)^2,`$ (9)
$`v_T`$ $`=`$ $`(Q^2/q^2)^2/2+\mathrm{tan}^2(\theta /2),`$ (10)
$`v_T^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{(Q^2/q^2)^2+\mathrm{tan}^2(\theta /2)}\mathrm{tan}(\theta /2),`$ (11)
where $`Q^2=q^2\omega ^2`$, $`\theta `$ is the scattering angle of electron.

The PV response functions $`W_{AV}^{T,L}`$ arise from electron axial vector ($`A`$) $`\times `$ hadronic vector current ($`V`$) interactions, while $`W_{VA}^T^{}`$ is generated by the $`V(e)\times A(\text{had}.)`$ interaction. At tree-level in the Standard Model (SM), the electron vector coupling to the $`Z^0`$ is suppressed: $`g_V^e=1+4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W0.1`$ (the axial vector coupling is $`g_A^e=1`$).

In terms of these response functions, the PV QE asymmetry due to $`Z^0`$\- exchanges is

$$A_{LR}^{(Z)}=\frac{G_\mu Q^2}{4\sqrt{2}\pi \alpha }\frac{W^{PV\left(Z\right)}}{W^{EM}}.$$
(12)
For quasielastic kinematics, $`\omega `$ and $`q`$ are related, *viz*, $`\omega q^2/2m_N`$.

### II.2 Hadronic PV Effects

Hadronic PV effects in the target generate O($`\alpha `$) corrections to the tree-level contributions for $`W_{VA}^T^{}`$. These hadronic PV effects arise when a photon, rather than a $`Z^0`$, is exchanged between the electron and hadron. Because the vector $`\gamma ee`$ coupling $`Q^e=1`$ is an order of magnitude larger than $`g_V^e`$, one expects the relative importance of the hadronic PV effects – compared to the tree-level amplitude – to be of order

$$R_A\frac{8\sqrt{2}\pi \alpha }{G_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi ^2}\frac{1}{14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}\frac{g_\pi }{g_A}0.01,$$
(13)
where $`g_\pi =3.8\times 10^8`$ sets the scale for hadronic PV interactions, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi =4\pi F_\pi 1`$ GeV gives the scale of chiral symmetry breaking, and $`g_A=1.267\pm 0.004`$. In the case of elastic $`e`$-$`N`$ scattering, hadronic PV arises via diagrams of the type in Fig. 1.

These corrections induce a PV $`\gamma NN`$ coupling, or anapole moment. The latter has been used in the one-body estimate of $`R_A`$ given in Refs. Zhu et al. (2000); Musolf and Holstein (1990). Those analyses indicate hadronic PV-induced anapole corrections of $`6\pm 20\%`$.

Two-body hadronic PV contributions arise from the diagrams in Fig. 2. Figs. 2(a) and (b) indicate parity-mixing in the initial and final state wave functions, while Fig. 2(c) indicates the PV two-body EM current contribution. Each contributes to an effective axial vector EM transition amplitude, whose effects appear as corrections to the $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{XJ_5}(q)`$ multipole matrix elements.

In computing the parity-mixing matrix elements, we use the model PV Hamiltonian given in Ref. Desplanques et al. (1980):

$`H_{PV}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\pi NN}h_\pi ^1}{4\sqrt{2}m_N}}(i\stackrel{}{\tau }_1\times \stackrel{}{\tau }_2)_z(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1+\stackrel{}{\sigma }_2)\stackrel{}{u}_\pi (\stackrel{}{r})`$ (14)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\rho NN}}{2m_N}}\left(h_\rho ^0\stackrel{}{\tau }_1\stackrel{}{\tau }2_2+{\displaystyle \frac{h_\rho ^1}{2}}(\stackrel{}{\tau }_1+\stackrel{}{\tau }_2)_z+{\displaystyle \frac{h_\rho ^2}{2\sqrt{6}}}(3\tau _{1z}\tau _{2z}\stackrel{}{\tau }_1\stackrel{}{\tau }_2)\right)`$
$`\times `$ $`[(1+\mu _v)i\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1\times \stackrel{}{\sigma }_2\stackrel{}{u}_\rho (\stackrel{}{r})+(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1\stackrel{}{\sigma }_2)\stackrel{}{v}_\rho (\stackrel{}{r})]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\omega NN}}{2m_N}}\left(h_\omega ^0+{\displaystyle \frac{h_\omega ^1}{2}}(\stackrel{}{\tau }_1+\stackrel{}{\tau }_2)_z\right)`$
$`\times `$ $`[(1+\mu _s)i\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1\times \stackrel{}{\sigma }_2]\stackrel{}{u}_\omega (\stackrel{}{r})+(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1\stackrel{}{\sigma }_2)\stackrel{}{v}_\omega (\stackrel{}{r})]+`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4m_N}}(\stackrel{}{\tau }_1\stackrel{}{\tau }_2)_z(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1+\stackrel{}{\sigma }_2)(g_{\omega NN}h_\omega ^1\stackrel{}{v}_\omega (\stackrel{}{r})g_{\rho NN}h_\rho ^1\stackrel{}{v}_\rho (\stackrel{}{r}))`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\rho NN}}{4m_N}}h_\rho ^1^{}(i\stackrel{}{\tau }_1\times \stackrel{}{\tau }_2)_z(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1+\stackrel{}{\sigma }_2)\stackrel{}{u}_\rho (\stackrel{}{r}),`$
where the $`h_M^{(X)}`$ and $`g_{MNN}`$ are the weak, PV and strong, PC meson-nucleon couplings, respectively; and $`\stackrel{}{u}_\alpha (\stackrel{}{r})=[\stackrel{}{p}_1\stackrel{}{p}_2,e^{m_\alpha r}/r]`$, $`\stackrel{}{v}_\alpha (\stackrel{}{r})=\{\stackrel{}{p}_1\stackrel{}{p}_2,e^{m_\alpha r}/r\}`$. Values for the $`h_M^{(X)}`$ have been predicted theoretically using a variety of approaches. For purposes of our calculation, we will adopt the so-called DDH “best values” and “reasonable ranges" of Ref. Desplanques et al. (1980). The latter are consistent with constraints obtained from a variety of hadronic and nuclear PV experiments, as discussed in Refs. Adelberger and Haton (1985); Haeberli and Holstein (1995).

Current conservation requires that one include contributions from PV two-body currents to the PV multipole matrix elements. These currents have been derived in Ref. Haxton et al. (2001, 2002) from the diagrams in Fig. 2(c). Complete expressions for the coordinate space current operators could be found in Ref. Haxton et al. (2002). To illustrate the structure of these operators, however, we give the complete two-body current operator associated with the $`\pi ^\pm `$-exchange component of $`H_{PV}`$:

$`J_\mu (\stackrel{}{y},\stackrel{}{x}_1,\stackrel{}{x}_2)^{PV,\pi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{eg_{\pi NN}h_\pi ^1}{8\sqrt{2}\pi m_N}}(\stackrel{}{\tau }_1\stackrel{}{\tau }_2\tau _{1z}\tau _{2z})(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1\delta ^{(3)}(\stackrel{}{y}\stackrel{}{x}_1)+\stackrel{}{\sigma }_2\delta ^{(3)}(\stackrel{}{y}\stackrel{}{x}_2)`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1\stackrel{}{}_1\stackrel{}{\sigma }_2\stackrel{}{}_2)(\stackrel{}{x}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{m_\pi }}\stackrel{}{_y})(\delta ^{(3)}(\stackrel{}{y}\stackrel{}{x}_1)+\delta ^{(3)}(\stackrel{}{y}\stackrel{}{x}_2)))`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{e^{m_\pi x}}{x}}\mu =1,2,3`$
$``$ $`O(v/c)^2\mu =0,`$
where $`\stackrel{}{x}_i`$ denotes the position of the $`i`$-th nucleon and $`x=|\stackrel{}{x}|=|\stackrel{}{x}_1\stackrel{}{x}_2|`$. Inclusion of these PV two-body currents guarantees that the the continuity equation, $`\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{J}=i[\widehat{H},\rho ]`$, is satisfied at the operator level of the PV NN interaction.

Current conservation may also be implemented in writing down the various multipole operators. Since nuclear model calculations based on realistic potentials generally break current conservation, it is useful to implement the latter via the form of the multipole operator. A well-known example is Siegert’s theorem Siegert (1937), which allows one to rewrite the $`J=1`$ transverse electric multipole operator, $`\widehat{T}_{J=1}^{el}`$, in terms of the electric dipole operator (the $`J=1`$ charge multiple) in the long wavelength limit. An extended version of this theorem Friar and Fallieros (1984) allows one to implement the constraints of current conservation for transverse electric operators of arbitrary $`J`$ and momentum transfer. In general, one has Musolf (1989)

$$\widehat{T}_J^{el}(q)=\widehat{S}_J^{el}(q)+\widehat{R}_J^{el}(q).$$
(16)
For $`J=1`$, one has

$`\widehat{S}_1^{el}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}}{\displaystyle d^3x[\rho (\stackrel{}{x})\stackrel{}{x},\widehat{H}]},`$ (17)
$`\widehat{R}_1^{el}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{9}}{\displaystyle d^3x\stackrel{}{Y}_{111}^{M_J}(\mathrm{\Omega }_x)\stackrel{}{x}\times \stackrel{}{j}}.(\stackrel{}{x}),`$ (18)
where $`\stackrel{}{Y}_{JL1}^{M_J}`$ is the vector spherical harmonic.

Note that in the long wavelength limit, $`\widehat{S}_1^{el}(q)`$ gives the leading contribution to $`F_{E1}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{E1}`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{E1_5}`$. For elastic electron scattering, hermiticity and time-reversal invariance require that $`F_{E1}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{E1}`$ must vanish. Moreover, contributions from $`\widehat{S}_1^{el_5}(q)`$ also vanish for elastic scattering, since the commutator in Eq. (17) leads to a factor of $`\omega =E_fE_i=0`$. A non-vanishing contribution arises from $`\widehat{R}_1^{el_5}(q)`$, whose matrix element constitutes the nuclear anapole moment contribution. The latter is proportional to $`Q^2`$ which cancels the $`1/Q^2`$ from the photon propagator to produce a $`Q^2`$-independent scattering amplitude at lowest order. This contribution is kinematically indistinguishable from the $`Z^0`$-exchange contribution to $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{E1_5}`$ and, thus, represents a simple multiplicative correction to the tree-level axial vector response.

For the inelastic transition of interest here, matrix elements of $`\widehat{S}_1^{el_5}(q)`$ do not vanish, nor do they contain a power of $`Q^2`$ to cancel the $`1/Q^2`$ from the photon propagator ($`q^2Q^2`$ at low energies). The scattering amplitude associated with this operator goes as $`1/Q^2`$ at low-$`Q^2`$. When multiplied by the factor of $`Q^2`$ in Eq. (12), this term thus generates a $`Q^2`$\- independent, non-vanishing contribution to $`A_{LR}`$ at low-$`Q^2`$, in contrast to the $`Z^0`$-exchange asymmetry which vanishes at $`Q^2=0`$. For sufficiently low-$`Q^2`$, the $`Q^2`$-independent hadronic PV EM contribution will dominate the asymmetry. As we show below, such a kinematic region may be reached in principle with threshold PV electro-disintegration. For PV QE scattering at the kinematics of Ref. Hasty et al. (2000), however, the effects of hadronic PV appear to be negligible.

At the kinematics of QE electron scattering, a tower of final state partial waves contribute to the amplitude, and one must include the effects of $`J>1`$ multipole matrix elements (both transverse electric and transverse magnetic). This situation contrasts with threshold disintegration, where only the lowest $`J`$ partial waves may be reached. As we show in Section IV, the multipole contributions to the PV QE asymmetry (due to hadronic PV) saturate for $`J7`$. All multipole matrix elements having $`J>1`$ carry factors of $`Q^2`$, so that they do not contribute to the $`Q^2`$-independent term in the PV asymmetry. Nevertheless, the sum of their effects represents a tiny correction to the $`Z^0`$-exchange asymmetry.

It is useful to illustrate how PV NN effects contribute to the various multipole matrix elements entering the axial response, $`W_{VA}^T^{}`$. Consider, for example, a transition from the deuteron ground state to the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ continuum state. In the absence of the tensor force component of the strong $`NN`$ interaction, the deuteron ground state is pure $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$. The PV $`NN`$ interaction will mix $`P`$-states into these $`S`$-waves. In ordinary perturbation theory, one has

$`|^3S_1`$ $``$ $`|^3S_1+|\stackrel{~}{{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}},`$ (19)
$`|^1S_0`$ $``$ $`|^1S_0+|\stackrel{~}{{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}},`$ (20)
where the parity mixtures (denoted with a tilde “~”) are

$`|\stackrel{~}{{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1,3}{}}|^kP_1{\displaystyle \frac{^kP_1|H_{PV}|^1S_0}{E_0E_k}},`$ (21)
$`|\stackrel{~}{{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`|^3P_0{\displaystyle \frac{^3P_0|H_{PV}|^1S_0}{E_0^{}E_1^{}}}.`$ (22)
For this $`J_i=1`$ to $`J_f=0`$ transition, only $`J=1`$ multipole operators contribute. For the PC $`\gamma `$-exchange contribution, one has only the magnetic dipole transition between the un-mixed $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ initial and final state components, resulting in a non-zero $`F_{M1}`$ form factor. For the PV $`Z^0`$-exchange amplitude, only the operator $`\widehat{T}_1^{el_5}(q)`$ contributes, connecting the un-mixed $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ components and leading to a non-zero $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{E1_5}`$. The PV NN interaction also contributes to the latter in three ways: (a) a non-vanishing matrix element of $`\widehat{T}_1^{el}(q)`$ between the initial state $`|^3S_1`$ and the final state $`|^3P_0`$ parity admixture, (b) non-vanishing matrix elements of $`\widehat{T}_1^{el}(q)`$ between the $`|^{1,3}P_1`$ mixture in the initial state and the final state $`|^1S_0`$; (c) matrix elements of the PV two-body current operator $`\widehat{T}_1^{el_5}(q)`$ between the $`|^3S_1`$ and $`|^1S_0`$ components. All other contributions are higher-order in the weak interaction and can be neglected. The analysis is similar when the $`D`$-state components of the deuteron and scattering state induced by the tensor force are included, as is the analysis for transitions to higher partial waves.

Because the hadronic PV contributes to the asymmetry by inducing axial photonic couplings, to incorporate these in the expression of Eq. (12), one only has to modify axial form factors $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{XJ_5}`$ by

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_{XJ_5}\stackrel{~}{F}_{XJ_5}+\beta \stackrel{~}{F}_{XJ_5}^{(\gamma )},$$
(23)
where

$$\beta =\frac{8\sqrt{2}\pi \alpha }{G_\mu Q^2}\frac{Q^e}{g_V^e}.$$
(24)
The EM axial form factors may be decomposed as

$`\stackrel{~}{F}_{XJ_5}^{(\gamma )}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2J_i+1}}}{\displaystyle \underset{T=0,1}{}}(1)^{T_fM_T}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}T_f& T& T_i\\ M_{Tf}& 0& M_{Ti}\end{array}\right)`$ (27)
$`\times `$ $`\left\{J_f,T_f\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\widehat{O}_{J,T}^X(q)\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{J_i,T_i}+\stackrel{~}{J_f,T_f}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\widehat{O}_{J,T}^X(q)\mathrm{}\mathrm{}J_i,T_i+J_f,T_f\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\widehat{O}_{J,T}^{X_5}(q)\mathrm{}\mathrm{}J_i,T_i\right\},`$ (28)
where $`|\stackrel{~}{J_i,T_i}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{J_f,T_f}|`$, and $`\widehat{O}_{J,T}^{X_5}(q)`$ (the two-body PV EM operators) represent the effects caused by hadronic PV. One may then express the asymmetry due to hadronic PV (through the radiative corrections) as

$$A_{LR}^{(\gamma )}=2\frac{W^{PV\left(\gamma \right)}}{W^{EM}},$$
(29)
where

$$W^{PV\left(\gamma \right)}=v_T^{}\underset{f}{}\underset{J1}{}\left[F_{EJ}(q)\stackrel{~}{F}_{MJ_5}^{(\gamma )}(q)+F_{MJ}(q)\stackrel{~}{F}_{EJ_5}^{(\gamma )}(q)\right]|_{\omega =E_fE_i}.$$
(30)
A simple scaling argument allows us to estimate the relative impact of the two-body hadronic PV contribution. For backward-angle scattering as studied in the SAMPLE experiments, $`v_T^{}v_Tv_L`$, so the ratio of asymmetry due to hadronic PV, Eq. (29), and $`Z^0`$, Eq. (12) is

$$\frac{A_{LR}^{(\gamma )}}{A_{LR}^{(Z)}}\frac{8\sqrt{2}\pi \alpha }{G_\mu Q^2}\frac{W^{PV\left(\gamma \right)}}{W^{PV\left(Z\right)}}\frac{8\sqrt{2}\pi \alpha }{G_\mu Q^2}\frac{\stackrel{}{j}_{PV}^\gamma }{\stackrel{}{j}^Z},$$
(31)
While $`\stackrel{}{j}^Z`$ at backward angles is dominated by the magnetic NC component and scales as $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$, $`\stackrel{}{j}_{PV}^\gamma `$ scales as $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ times an additional factor introduced by hadronic PV. Using Eq. (15) for a guidance, this factor is roughly

$$\frac{g_{\pi NN}h_\pi ^1}{8\sqrt{2}\pi }\frac{e^{m_\pi x}}{m_Nx}.$$
(32)
With $`g_{\pi NN}13.45`$, and $`h_\pi 4.5\times 10^7`$, the scaling rule is

$$\frac{A_{LR}^{(\gamma )}}{A_{LR}}\frac{m_N^2}{Q^2}\frac{e^{m_\pi x}}{m_Nx}\times 10^3,$$
(33)
where we have also included the NC magnetic form factor $`\stackrel{~}{G}_M(Q^2)`$ in the denominator. For small $`Q^2`$, one has $`\stackrel{~}{G}_M\mu _V=4.70`$. Taking $`x1`$ fm, $`e^{m_\pi x}/(m_Nx)0.1`$, therefore at $`Q^20.1`$ (GeV/$`c`$)2, we have $`A_{LR}^{(\gamma )}/A_{LR}^{(Z)}`$ in the order of a few 0.1%.

## III Two-body wave functions

In order to compute PV matrix elements in Eq. (28), we need two-body wave functions. The latter are solutions of the Schrödinger equation

$$(H_0+H_{PV})|\psi +\stackrel{~}{\psi }=E|\psi +\stackrel{~}{\psi }.$$
(34)
Since $`H_{PV}`$ is much smaller than $`H_0`$, first-order perturbation should work well in this process. That is, Eq.(34) can be solved in two steps: first, the PC part $`|\psi `$ is determined by solving

$$(EH_0)|\psi =0,$$
(35)
and second, the PV admixture $`|\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ is determined from

$$(EH_0)|\stackrel{~}{\psi }=H_{PV}|\psi ,$$
(36)
with $`|\psi `$ obtained in the first step. In what follows, we explore two different approaches, one using the plane wave approximation – which ignores the final state strong interaction (FSI) – and one using a potential model calculation, which includes the FSI.

### III.1 Plane Wave Approximation

Although the plane wave approximation is naïve and simple, we employ it as a toy-model calculation to achieve some initial insights. In addition, the computation of Ref. Küster and Arenhövel (1997) employed a plane wave Green’s function to compute the PV admixture in the deuteron, though un-mixed deuteron wavefunction was obtained using the Bonn potential. By comparing the plane wave computation with the potential model solution (see below), we hope to obtain a sense of the errors introduced by the plane wave approximation.

In this approach, all the radial components of scattering partial waves are spherical Bessel function, $`j_L(pr)`$, where $`L`$ is the relative orbital angular momentum and $`p`$ is the relative momentum.

The parity admixture, in first-order perturbation expansion, is expressed as

$$|\stackrel{~}{\psi }=\underset{\varphi }{}|\varphi \frac{1}{E_\psi E_\varphi }\varphi |H_{PV}|\psi ,$$
(37)
where $`|\varphi `$ forms a complete eigenbasis. This could be computed if one knows the Green’s function

$$G(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y})=\underset{\varphi }{}\frac{\stackrel{}{x}|\varphi \varphi |\stackrel{}{y}}{E_\psi E_\varphi }.$$
(38)
In the plane wave basis, closed-form Green’s functions exist for both calculations of deuteron and final state mixing.

For the deuteron mixing, the transition involves a bound state (binding energy $`E_B<0`$) to continuum state transition, therefore, $`E_BE_\varphi <0`$. The Green’s function is

$`G^{(𝒟)}(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{L,S,J,M_J,T,M_T}{}}\delta _{LST}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\gamma m_N\right)`$ (39)
$`\times `$ $`i_L(\gamma r_<)k_L(\gamma r_>)𝒴_{JLS}^{M_J}(\mathrm{\Omega }_x)𝒴_{JLS}^{M_J}(\mathrm{\Omega }_y)\chi _T^{M_T}\chi _T^{M_T},`$
where $`\gamma =\sqrt{m_N|E_B|}`$; $`i_L(\gamma r)`$ and $`k_L(\gamma r)`$ are the modified spherical Bessel functions of the first and third kind; $`r_<(r_>)`$ refers to the smaller (larger) radial coordinate of $`x`$ and $`y`$; $`𝒴`$ and $`\chi `$ denote the spin-angular and isospin wave functions. The factor $`\delta _{LST}`$, which is 1 if $`L+S+T`$ is an odd number and 0 otherwise, enforces the generalized Pauli principle.

For the final state mixing, because of the pole at $`E_\psi =E_\varphi `$, we must add a small imaginary number $`\pm iϵ`$ to the energy denominator, as in the scattering problem. In this way, we obtain a retarded (advanced) Green’s function corresponding to the $`iϵ`$ ($`+iϵ`$) prescription. However, only the real part of this Green’s function gives a non-vanishing response function. The real part is equivalent to the average of retarded and advanced ones

$`\overline{G}^{()}(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{L,S,J,M_J,T,M_T}{}}\delta _{LST}(m_Np_{})`$ (40)
$`\times `$ $`j_L(p_{}r_<)n_L(p_{}r_>)𝒴_{JLS}^{M_J}(\mathrm{\Omega }_x)𝒴_{JLS}^{M_J}(\mathrm{\Omega }_y)\chi _T^{M_T}\chi _T^{M_T},`$
where $`p_{}`$ is the relative momentum of the final state and $`n_L(p_{}r)`$ is the spherical Neumann wave functions.

Illustrative results for the plane wave calculation are given in Figs. 3 and 5. We note that, in comparison with the complete, coupled channel potential model computation (see below), use of the plane wave Green’s function overestimates the degree of parity-mixing in the deuteron ground state. For parity-mixing in the scattering states, we also find a mismatch between the two approaches, though no systematic pattern emerges as to the magnitude or sign of the difference. The problem may be particularly severe for the 3S1 and 3D1 scattering states which, in the plane wave approach, are not automatically orthogonal to the deuteron wave function $`|𝒟`$. Although one might attempt to solve this problem by implement orthogonality by hand, viz,

$$|^3S_1,^3D_1_{}=|^3S_1,^3D_1|𝒟𝒟|^3S_1,^3D_1,$$
(41)
it is questionable whether this ad hoc solution is rigorously correct. For these reasons, then, we rely only on the coupled channel potential model computation to determine the nuclear PV contribution to the inelastic asymmetry.

### III.2 Potential Model Calculation

Although the $`NN`$ potential determined directly from solving QCD is not available, a variety of modern phenomenological potentials successfully fit $`NN`$ scattering data (below 350 MeV or so) as well as deuteron properties with reasonable $`\chi ^2`$ values. Here, we use the Argonne $`V_{18}`$ potential (AV18) Wiringa et al. (1995).

The PC scattering wave function,

$$\stackrel{}{r}|E,L,S,J,M_J,T,M_T=\sqrt{\frac{2m_Nk}{\pi }}\frac{u_{JLS}(r)}{r}𝒴_{JLS}^{M_J}\chi _T^{M_T},$$
(42)
where $`u(r)`$ denotes the radial wave function; $`k=\sqrt{m_NE}`$; and the overall constant is fixed by the normalization condition $`E^{}\mathrm{}|E\mathrm{}=\delta (E^{}E)\mathrm{}`$, is determined by solving the Schrödinger equation. This task is eventually reduced to integrating a one-dimensional differential equation for the radial component and solving for the phase shift. However, due to the tensor force, for $`J>0`$, states having quantum numbers $`(L,S,J)=(J1,1,J)`$ and $`(J+1,1,J)`$ are coupled, requiring that one solve a coupled set of differential equations. The normalization for radial wave functions are fixed by their asymptotic forms. For the uncoupled channel problem, one has

$$u_{JLS}(r\mathrm{})=r\mathrm{sin}(kr+L\pi /2+\delta _{JLS}),$$
(43)
where $`\delta _{JLS}`$ denotes the phase shift. For the coupled channel problem, the convention introduced by Blatt and Biedenharn (BB) Blatt and Biedenharn (1952), with two eigenphases shifts $`\delta _J^{(1)}`$, $`\delta _J^{(2)}`$ and a mixing parameter $`ϵ_J`$, is adopted.444The “nuclear bar” convention, defined in Ref. Stapp et al. (1957), is more commonly used in literature. However, the phase parameters of these two conventions are totally interchangeable. The reason for our choice is that all the wave functions are purely real in BB convention. The two orthogonal, real solutions are

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}u_{L=J1}^{(1)}\\ u_{L=J+1}^{(1)}\end{array}\right)(r\mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`r\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}ϵ_J\mathrm{sin}(kr+(J1)\pi /2+\delta _J^{(1)})\\ \mathrm{sin}ϵ_J\mathrm{sin}(kr+(J+1)\pi /2+\delta _J^{(1)})\end{array}\right),`$ (48)
$`\left(\begin{array}{c}u_{L=J1}^{(2)}\\ u_{L=J+1}^{(2)}\end{array}\right)(r\mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`r\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{sin}ϵ_J\mathrm{sin}(kr+(J1)\pi /2+\delta _J^{(2)})\\ \mathrm{cos}ϵ_J\mathrm{sin}(kr+(J+1)\pi /2+\delta _J^{(2)})\end{array}\right).`$ (53)
It should be noted that while we will still refer to solution 1(2) as $`{}_{}{}^{3}[J1]_{J}^{}`$($`{}_{}{}^{3}[J+1]_{J}^{}`$) state, it contains a component involving the other channel. We have verified our calculations by reproducing the experimental phase shifts.

The deuteron wave function,

$$\stackrel{}{r}|𝒟,M_J=\left\{\frac{u(r)}{r}𝒴_{101}^{M_J}+\frac{w(r)}{r}𝒴_{121}^{M_J}\right\}\chi _0^0,$$
(54)
is obtained by solving the eigenvalue problem for binding energy $`E_B`$ and $`D/S`$ ratio. The asymptotic and normalization conditions are

$`u(r1)r,u(r1)rk_0(\gamma r)`$ (55)
$`w(r1)r^3,w(r1)rk_2(\gamma r)`$ (56)
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑r[u^2(r)+w^2(r)]}=1.`$ (57)
Although one can follow a similar strategy and obtain the PV wave functions by the Green’s function method mentioned in previous subsection, it is not straightforward to do so; the unperturbed wave functions are too complex to allow one to obtain analytical results as in the case of plane waves. Therefore, following the same approach as in Ref. Hwang et al. (1981), we directly solve the inhomogeneous equation, Eq. (36).

The basic idea is to solve the problem twice, once with the “source” term off (thus a homogeneous equation as solving the PC wave function) and then with the source term on. A general solution for the inhomogeneous equation, $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_g`$, can be expressed as a linear combination of solutions for the homogeneous equation, called the complimentary solutions, $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_c(i)`$, plus the particular solution, $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$. Therefore, in order to obtain the particular solution,

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }=\stackrel{~}{\psi }_g\underset{i}{}\alpha _i\psi _c(i),$$
(58)
the complimentary part has to be fully subtracted. Thus, we must determine $`\alpha _i`$, $`i=1`$…N, N being the number of coupled equations.

In the case of solving scattering wave function, the asymptotic behaviors of both $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_g`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_c`$ can be expressed as linear combinations of incoming and outgoing spherical waves. While the interactions cause phase shifts of outgoing waves, the incoming waves are not altered. This observation tells us that, $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$, the parity-mixed component induced by the PV $`NN`$ interaction, should not contain any incoming component. Using this result, $`\alpha _i`$ are solution when the incoming wave components of $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_g`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_c(i)`$ completely cancel in Eq.(58).

Except for $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$, which can only be mixed into each other, all the other uncoupled states, $`{}_{}{}^{1,3}L_{J=L}^{}`$ could have mixtures from $`{}_{}{}^{3}[L1]_{L}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}[L+1]_{L}^{}`$ states. For the coupled states, $`{}_{}{}^{3}[L=J1]_{J}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}[L=J+1]_{J}^{}`$, both mix to $`{}_{}{}^{1,3}J_{J}^{}`$. If the mixture is an uncoupled state, and we have

$`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_c`$ $``$ $`ae^{i(krL\pi )}+be^{i(krL\pi )},`$ (59)
$`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_g`$ $``$ $`ce^{i(krL\pi )}+de^{i(krL\pi )},`$ (60)
then

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }=\stackrel{~}{\psi }_g\frac{c}{a}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_c.$$
(61)
When the mixtures are coupled, a two channel calculation is needed. If one has

$`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_c(i=1,2)`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}a(i,1)e^{i(kr(J1)\pi )}+b(i,1)e^{i(kr(J1)\pi )}\\ a(i,2)e^{i(kr(J+1)\pi )}+b(i,2)e^{i(kr(J+1)\pi )}\end{array}\right),`$ (64)
$`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_g(i=1,2)`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}c(i,1)e^{i(kr(J1)\pi )}+d(i,1)e^{i(kr(J1)\pi )}\\ c(i,2)e^{i(kr(J+1)\pi )}+d(i,2)e^{i(kr(J+1)\pi )}\end{array}\right),`$ (67)
then

$`\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_g(1)\alpha _1(1)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_c(1)\alpha _2(1)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_c(2),`$ (68)
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_g(2)\alpha _1(2)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_c(1)\alpha _2(2)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_c(2),`$ (69)
with

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha _1(i)\\ \alpha _2(i)\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a(1,1)& a(2,1)\\ a(1,2)& a(2,2)\end{array}\right)^1\left(\begin{array}{c}c(i,1)\\ c(i,2)\end{array}\right).$$
(70)
Note that all the coefficients here are complex. This implies that the mixed wave functions are also complex. However, in our framework, only the real part will contribute to the response function $`W^{PV\left(\gamma \right)}`$ and, thus, to the asymmetry.

Various criteria exist for testing the numerical solutions: i) they should satisfy the differential equation, ii) they should be independent of the initial conditions used to integrate the differential equation, iii) they should be proportional to the source term, i.e., if the source term doubles, the solution should also double. These conditions are employed to make sure we obtain the correct solutions.

As for the parity admixture of deuteron, it is determined using the same procedure. Since one is dealing with a bound state however, the asymptotic behavior is given by a linear combination of modified spherical Bessel functions, $`i_L`$ and $`k_L`$. The physically realistic solution is obtained by completely subtracting the $`i_L`$ component, because it exponentially diverges.

## IV Results and discussion

First, we compare the two approaches discussed in Section III. Fig. 3 shows an example of the comparison between the plane wave scattering states and the ones obtained from the potential model calculations (in our case, it is AV18). Though at $`E_{rel}=1`$ MeV, the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ solutions look almost the same, the plane wave $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ state differs from the more realistic solution by a large phase shift as well as in its radial shape at small distances. Note that the latter difference is important because the PV $`NN`$ interaction is very sensitive to the short range behavior of wave functions. Therefore, the plane wave approximation is not adequate. Fig. 4 shows the PV mixtures for these $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ states, $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ respectively. They are similar to the results of Ref. Hwang et al. (1981), which were obtained by using Reid soft-core potential, but slightly differ in magnitudes. For the deuteron mixing, the $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}`$ state is induced only by $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ exchanges ($`\mathrm{\Delta }T=0`$), while the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{}`$ is induced dominantly by the $`\pi `$ exchange; both results are plotted in Fig. 5. Also shown by the dotted lines in the same figure are the solutions of the plane wave Green’s function. Though these curves are similar in shape, the potential model calculation gives smaller amplitudes and different small-$`r`$ radial dependence than plane waves. From now on, we only present results from the potential model calculation which is more realistic.

As the impact of $`G_A^{(e)(T=1)}`$ on $`A_{LR}`$ is more important at backward angles, we first examine the extreme case: $`\theta =180^{}`$. Subsequently, we present results relevant to SAMPLE kinematics. The maximum $`Q^2`$ we consider is 0.15 (GeV/*c)2,* and the saturation behavior shown in Fig. 6 justifies truncation of the sum over final scattering states at total angular momenta $`J_f7`$.

Fig. 7 indicates how the backward angle cross section and asymmetry vary with $`Q^2`$, ranging from 0.01 to 0.15 (GeV/$`c`$)2 at the QE peak. It is clear that the asymmetry due to two-body hadronic PV (plotted with a magnification of 100) is insignificant compared with the contribution of tree-level $`Z^0`$-exchange plus radiative corrections, which includes nucleon anapole effects. The curve for $`Z^0`$-exchange asymmetry, plotted using the static approximation result in Ref. Musolf et al. (1994) with parametrized nucleon form factors, shows the expected proportionality to $`Q^2`$. The curve for hadronic PV shows a 0.05% correction to $`A_{LR}^{(Z)}`$ at $`Q^2=0.1`$ and a 0.3% correction at $`Q^2=0.04`$. We note that these results are consistent with simple scaling arguments as Eq. (33). Although there is some enhancement for $`A_{LR}^{(\gamma )}`$ as $`Q^2`$ decreases, even at $`Q^20.01`$, near the threshold for QE kinematics, the correction is less than 5%.

A detailed breakdown of various hadronic PV contributions is shown in Fig. 8. The deuteron mixing, rather insensitive to the $`Q^2`$ of the explored region, is the dominant contribution for $`Q^20.03`$. Its correction to $`A_{LR}^{(Z)}`$ at $`Q^2=0.1`$ is approximately 0.1%, and 0.3% at $`Q^2=0.04`$. These values are consistent in the order of magnitude with the results of Ref. Küster and Arenhövel (1997), which used Bonn potential to calculate the PC wave functions and the plane wave Green’s function to calculate the parity mixture in deuteron. On the other hand, the final state mixing and PV meson exchange currents, though comparatively smaller, do have a combined contribution which could be as large as half of the contribution from deuteron mixing for $`Q^20.03`$. They are also more sensitive to $`Q^2`$ and become important when approaching the QE threshold.

Away from the QE peak, the dependence of the cross section and asymmetry on final electron energy are shown in Fig. 9 for 194 and 120 MeV beams. Since the scattered electrons are detected via the Čerenkov radiation (the threshold is about 20 MeV), scattered electrons with $`E_e^{}`$ 150 and 100 MeV, respectively, are detected. However, judging from the cross section plot, only regions about peak energy $`\pm `$ 20 and 10 MeV, respectively, are important for these two cases. When these asymmetries are further plotted as ratios to $`A_{LR}^{(Z)}`$, as shown in Fig. 10, we observe that the correction could become as large as a few percent. Notice, however, that the corrections change sign roughly when crossing the QE ridge. Hence, corrections from these two regions cancel after integration, thereby, keeping the total correction small. A similar feature was also found in the calculation of Ref. Diaconescu et al. (2000), where PC two-body effects were considered.

The setup of SAMPLE experiments actually cover the angular range from $`130^{}`$ to $`170^{}`$, the average angles of the detectors are: $`138.4^{}`$, $`145.9^{}`$, $`154.0^{}`$, and $`160.5^{}`$ Ito (2001). The corresponding cross sections and asymmetries are plotted in Fig. 11. The general trend is that when the angle gets smaller, the cross section becomes larger and the asymmetry becomes smaller. However, the overall behaviors are not too different from the $`\theta =180^{}`$ case.

Summarizing these observations, we conclude that the two-body hadronic PV effects in QE $`e`$-$`d`$ scattering are negligible. However, the situation changes in the kinematic region of threshold disintegration as shown in Fig. 12. At $`Q^210^4`$(GeV/$`c`$)2, these two are comparable555The $`Z^0`$ asymmetry is plotted using the same formula from the static approximation. Although there are also two-body effects, the $`Q^2`$-dependence still governs the overall behavior., and hadronic PV dominates when moving toward lower $`Q^2`$ region. Here again, the magnitude of $`Q^2`$ at which the hadronic PV and $`Z^0`$-exchange contributions are commensurate is roughly what one would expect based on the simple scaling arguments of Eq. (33). The detailed breakdown given in Fig. 13 shows that the final state mixing has the most important contribution and that PV meson exchange currents are also significant. The deuteron mixing, still rather independent of $`Q^2`$ evolution, becomes negligible. We also point out that while our calculation in this kinematic region is consistent with Hwang et al.’s Hwang et al. (1981) at $`Q^20.0001`$ GeV2/$`c^2`$ , we obtain larger asymmetries as one approaches the threshold region. The reason is that we use a potential (AV18) which has a much softer core than the Reid soft-core potential. Thus, the behavior of the wave function at low energy and small distance is important for studies of hadronic PV at threshold, including experiments like the photo-disintegration of deuteron, radiative neutron capture, and neutron spin rotation.

## V Conclusions

The theoretical analysis of PV electron scattering asymmetries requires that one take into account effects which may, in principle, cloud the intended interpretation of an experimental result. In this study, we have analyzed the effects of parity violating NN interactions which give rise to a non-vanishing inelastic $`eD`$ asymmetry at the photon point. Our results indicate that for the QE kinematics relevant to the SAMPLE experiment, these effects generate a negligible contribution to the PV asymmetry. Moreover, contributions arising from each side of the QE peak produce cancellations when integrated over detector acceptances, thereby generating an additional suppression of the nuclear PV contamination. From this standpoint, then, the PV QE asymmetry provides a theoretically clean environment for studying electroweak nucleon form factors, such as $`G_A^{(e)(T=1)}(Q^2)`$. On the other hand, PV effects in the threshold region can become dominant, with asymmetries as large as a few $`\times 0.1`$ ppm. Hence, near-threshold electro- or photo-disintegration of the deuteron could provide a tool for probing the PV NN interaction.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank T. Ito, R.D. McKeown, T.W. Donnelly, and B. Jennings for useful discussions; J. Carlson, M. Paris, and R. Schiavilla for making available to us – prior to publication – the results of their analogous computation of nuclear PV contributions to the QE asymmetry and for comments on our analysis; and the hospitality of Institute for Nuclear Theory where part of this work has been accomplished. C.-P.L. would also like to thank G.A. Miller for useful discussions on obtaining the wave functions. This work was support in part under DOE contract Nos. DE-FG03-02ER41215 and DE-FG03-00ER41132, and NSF grant No. PHY-0071856.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The study of supersymmetric theories leads to the change of our understanding of space-time symmetry algebras and of space-time itself. Instead of Poincaré algebra, which is a semidirect product of Lorentz algebra on an Abelian algebra of vectorial generators of space-time translations, now we have additional ”translations” by tensorial charges, which are carried by branes . These charges appear in the anticommutator of supercharges, the most general among such an algebras is that of M-theory, where anticommutator of supercharges includes all possible tensors, namely vector, membrane and five-brane:

$`\{\overline{Q},Q\}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu P_\nu +\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \nu }Z_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }Z_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma },`$ (1)
$`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}`$ $`=`$ $`0,1,2,\mathrm{..10}.`$
Similar algebras exist in lower dimensions, below we shall consider the minimal algebras, i.e. algebras with minimal number of spinors $`Q`$. It is shown in  that many results in an M-theory can be derived directly from algebra (1). Particularly, properties of brane states of M-theory can be studied, which is natural, since all branes are unitary irreps of (1). Let’s consider the bosonic subalgebras of these super-Poincaré algebras, e.g. for $`11d`$ case (1) that is Lorentz $`M_{\mu \nu }`$, momenta $`P_\mu `$, membrane charge $`Z_{\mu \nu }`$ and 5-brane charge $`Z_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }`$. We shall call such an algebras ”tensorial Poincaré” and denote them $`(M_{\mu \nu };P_\mu ,Z_{\mu \nu },\mathrm{})`$. Actually they are a semidirect products of Lorentz algebra $`M_{\mu \nu }`$ with Abelian algebra of generators $`P_\mu ,Z_{\mu \nu },\mathrm{}`$. So bosonic subalgebra of M-theory is $`(M_{\mu \nu };P_\mu ,Z_{\mu \nu },Z_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma })`$, in our notations.

The natural approach to (1) from the point of view of modern field theory is to try to construct the field theories, invariant w.r.t. such (super)-algebras, the first step of such approach should be the construction of their unitary irreps. That can be achieved by Wigner’s method of inducing representation from the unitary irreps of little group , . Next will be the construction of relativistic free field equations, the space of solutions of which will give, modulo gauge invariance, another description of unitary irreps of tensorial Poincaré. Already at that step the generalization of space-time will be required, because one have to introduce a tensorial coordinates dual to tensorial charges. Such an approach was elaborated in ,  for tensorial Poincaré $`(M_{\mu \nu };Z_{\mu \nu })`$ in the space with two times, particularly with the aim of study the SO(2,10) invariance hypothesis of M-theory . The little groups of branes are calculated for some cases in , . Then interaction terms have to be constructed, which have to maintain gauge invariances - for conventional Poincaré case they are often determined by that requirement. For the simplest 4d, (actually (2+2)d) case an interaction terms are constructed in  just by such requirement. Also, the presence of tensorial charges requires the reconsideration of spin-statistics theorem. That theorem can be considered as a rule, assigning the definite statistics to the irreps of Poincaré algebra. Now, for (1) type algebras (actually for their bosonic subalgebras, i.e. tensorial Poincaré), since the classification of irreps is substantially different from that for usual Poincaré, one has to rederive spin-statistics theorem, the first steps in that direction were done in , where spin-statistics for preons  is considered.

In , the $`OSp(2M)`$ (conformal) invariant approach to (free) higher spin theories is developed, on the basis of generalized space-time. It is interesting and intriguing, that this approach leads to the same kind of space-time, as field theory approach of  . As we shall see below, there are more precise connections between these approaches.

The new feature of tensorial Poincaré algebras is that they have subalgebras which itself are tensorial, or sometimes usual, Poincaré algebras. Irreps of this algebra (and corresponding group) can be decomposed into irreps of that subgroups. That will be the subject of study of present paper. This should help for a (future) study of whether superstring/M-theory can be described in this way, as some theory in space-time with coordinates dual to all tensorial central charges. So, we shall study what irreps of say particle Poincaré, or another tensorial Poincaré are making up the given irrep of given tensorial Poincaré. Hence the title of paper: branes content of branes’. In this paper the problem is not solved in whole generality, but, for some interesting cases is reduced to standard problems in group theory (harmonic analysis) and answers are given in simple cases. Actually even in 4d there exist another subalgebras, which we shall call ”pure branes” subalgebras (see below) with respect to which irreps can be decomposed, also.

At d=4 tensorial Poincaré includes vector - an energy-momentum $`P_\mu `$, and second-rank antisymmetric tensor - membrane (domain wall) charge $`Z_{\mu \nu }`$. The corresponding susy theory includes one Majorana spinor, with susy relation:

$`\{\overline{Q},Q\}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu P_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \nu }Z_{\mu \nu },`$ (2)
$`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}`$ $`=`$ $`0,1,2,3.`$
We denote the numeric value of rhs (on the subspace when it has definite value) by $`k_\alpha ^\beta `$ (for this and similar relations in other dimensions) , and corresponding values for $`P_\mu `$ and $`Z_{\mu \nu }`$ as $`p_\mu (k),z_{\mu \nu }(k)`$:

$`k=\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu p_\mu (k)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \nu }z_{\mu \nu }(k)`$ (3)
One natural subalgebra is usual (particle, i.e. vectorial) Poincaré, which includes Lorentz plus $`P_\mu `$ generators, ($`M_{\mu \nu };P_\mu `$). For that case we show in Sect.2 that 1/2 BPS massive membrane representation contains all representations of particle Poincaré, with given mass and different spins, each spin appearing once. For 3/4 BPS (preon - ) representation, characterized by $`k_{\alpha \beta }=\lambda _\alpha \lambda _\beta `$, the answer is similar - after decomposition of simplest (scalar) irrep of little group of preons we obtain all massless representations of particle Poincaré, one for each helicity. This last result can be interpreted as a group theory point of view on Vasiliev’s result . Although the context is different - the $`OSp(8)`$ invariant equations of motion in generalized space-time are considered, and problem of construction of Cauchy surface is discussed in , mathematically the considerations are similar. The little group of preons is $`T_2`$ \- two-dimensional Euclidean translations. That coincides exactly with the $`T_2`$ factor of little group of massless particle with momenta of preon, $`p(k_{\alpha \beta })=p(\lambda _\alpha \lambda _\beta )`$. Remind that little group of massless particles is semidirect product of $`SO(2)`$ with $`T_2`$, $`SO(2)T_2`$. So one can say that excited states of preons correspond to the non-trivial representations of that, usually trivially represented, factor of little group of massless particles. Moreover, we can consider the other subalgebra, namely $`M_{\mu \nu },Z_{\mu \nu }`$, i.e. that of Lorentz generators plus membrane charge only. Mathematically it is perfectly possible, but physically considerations of such an algebras has to be justified. Particularly, it seems to be impossible to write down the supersymmetry algebra with such subalgebras, because the requirement of positivity of eigenvalues of corresponding term in (2) can’t be satisfied. This differs from 12d susy algebra  by signature, the two time dimension in 12d make it possible to have susy algebra without vector charge. But even in usual one-time signature case, consideration of bosonic algebras is not forbidden by any general considerations, and, particularly, the unitary irreps of that algebras can be constructed. In that case we obtain the result, that the little group of tensor $`z_{\mu \nu }(k_{\alpha \beta })=z_{\mu \nu }(\lambda _\alpha \lambda _\beta )`$ taken for preon representation is same $`T_2`$ subgroup of 2d Euclidean translations factor of massless particle’s little group. So, excited (i.e. with non-trivial representations of little group) representations of ”pure membrane” algebra ($`M_{\mu \nu };Z_{\mu \nu }`$) corresponds to excited $`T_2`$ generators of massless particles’ little group in usual Poincaré-invariant theories. Usually that generators are represented trivially, by zero operators, because unitary irreps of little group are required to be finite-dimensional which leads to non-trivial representation of SO(2) subgroup of $`SO(2)T2`$ little group only, otherwise the unitary representation of this noncompact group would be infinite dimensional. This sheds some light on that factor of little group of massless particles and one can conjecture, that corresponding excitations will appear in full theory of 4d super Poincaré with tensorial charges. One can conjecture, also, that self-consistent ”pure branes” theory may exist. Similar phenomena happens in higher dimensions. In Sections 2, 3, 4, 5 we consider the decompositions of representations of minimal tensorial Poincaré in dimensions 4,6,10 and 11 for different BPS states, mainly for preons, i.e. those with maximal number of supersymmetries survived. In 11d case (Section 5) a new phenomenon appears. In dimensions $`d<11`$, preons are orbits of corresponding Lorentz group, i.e. are quotients G/H, where H is the little group, a subgroup of Lorentz group G. So, each spinor $`\lambda _\alpha `$ can be transformed into any other spinor $`\sigma _\alpha `$, there is no different kinds of preons, and one can speak about a preon representation of a (super)Poincaré. At 11d space of spinors is 32 dimensional, but orbits are generically 25 dimensional, so there are at least 7 invariants, distinguishing preons in 11d. Correspondingly, the irreps of 11d (super) algebra will be labelled by that invariants.

In Conclusion results and prospects are discussed.

## 2 (1+3)d

Let’s consider the minimal supersymmetry algebra in 4d Minkowski space-time (2). That includes one Majorana spinor $`Q`$ (4 real components), Lorentz generators $`M_{\mu \nu }`$ (6), energy-momentum vector $`P_\mu `$ (4) and brane (domain wall) charge $`Z_{\mu \nu }`$ (6). Lhs of (2) is 4x4 real (more exactly, with reality conditions, following from those on Majorana spinor $`Q`$ in a given representation of gamma matrices, see below) matrix with 10 independent components, which number coincides with the number of independent real generators in rhs.

For construction of unitary irreps of corresponding bosonic algebra $`(M_{\mu \nu };P_\mu ,Z_{\mu \nu })`$ we have to consider orbits of Lorentz group in the space of vector and tensor, construct a unitary irreps of stabilizer (little group) $`H`$ of a given point on that orbit, and induce in a standard way that representation to the representation of the whole Poincaré in the space of functions on the orbit with values in a given irrep of $`H`$. For an algebra (2) we shall consider the following orbits: particle, when $`Z_{\mu \nu }=0`$; preon, when $`k_{\alpha \beta }=\lambda _\alpha \lambda _\beta `$ ; BPS massive membrane; ”pure branes” orbit, with $`P_\mu =0`$ and different $`Z_{\mu \nu }`$. Little groups for particle case are well known, some other cases were considered in , ”pure branes” will be calculated here for a first time, as well as different decompositions of tensorial Poincaré irreps w.r.t. its different bosonic subalgebras.

Consider first the particle case. It means that we are considering usual Poincaré with $`M_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`P_\mu `$ generators. We should consider orbits of Lorentz group on the space of momenta $`p`$. Different orbits differs by values of Lorentz invariants, $`p^2`$ is one of them. The physical cases are $`p^20`$. For $`p^2=m^2>0`$ little group is $`SO(3)`$, representations are characterized by spin, integer or half-integer. For massless case little group is two-dimensional Euclidean Poincaré, i.e. a semidirect product of rotations $`SO(2)`$ and translations $`T_2`$ of two-dimensional Euclidean plane, $`SO(2)T_2`$. The known interacting field theories are using the finite-dimensional representations of $`SO(2)T_2`$, representing translations trivially, and representation of $`SO(2)`$ are classified by their (integer or half-integer) helicity. As we shall see below, non-trivial representations of translation generators corresponds to states of ”pure branes” theory.

Now consider the preon’s state, i.e. states with $`k_{\alpha \beta }=\lambda _\alpha \lambda _\beta `$, where $`\lambda _\alpha `$ is commuting Majorana 4d spinor. One calculation gives us simultaneously the statement that space of $`\lambda _\alpha `$ is a homogeneous space of Lorentz group $`SO(1,3)`$ and an algebra of its little group. Namely, we act by Lorentz generators on $`\lambda _\alpha `$ and find that its stabilizer is $`T_2`$ group, and dimensionality of orbit is 4, i.e. equal to that of whole space of spinors. We use Weyl representation of gamma-matrices:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu =\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma _\mu \\ \overline{\sigma }_\mu & 0\end{array}\right)`$ (4)
$`\sigma _\mu =(1,\sigma _i),\overline{\sigma }_\mu =(1,\sigma _i)`$ (5)
where $`\sigma ^i`$ are Pauli matrices. The similar relation defines our gamma matrices in any even dimension through gamma matrices of previous Euclidean dimension. Then (pseudo)Majorana condition on spinor can be deduced (see, e.g. ), 4d Majorana spinor $`\lambda _\alpha `$ satisfies

$`(\lambda _\alpha )^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^0\mathrm{\Gamma }^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^3\lambda _\beta `$ (6)
Then stabilizer algebra of e.g. Majorana spinor (1,0,0,1) is

$`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& a& b& 0\\ a& 0& 0& a\\ b& 0& 0& b\\ 0& a& b& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (7)
This corresponds to non-compact group $`T_2`$ of translations which coincides with that of massless particle, because little group of particle with $`p^2=p(k)^2`$ should contain that for $`k`$ as subgroup. This is right for any $`k`$, because stabilizer of $`k`$ is intersection of stabilizers of $`p_\mu (k)`$ and $`z_{\mu \nu }(k)`$. In our case $`p(k)^2=0`$, so little group for massless particle $`SO(2)T_2`$ contains as subgroup that of preons, i.e. $`T_2`$. These considerations are confirmed by dimensionality check: the orbit in four-momenta space is 3-dimensional cone $`SO(1,3)/(SO(2)T_2)`$, and preon orbit is four dimensional $`SO(1,3)/T_2`$. So, the particle representation is induction to the whole Poincaré of the representation of little group in the space of functions on $`SO(1,3)/(SO(2)T_2)`$ with values in unitary irreps of $`SO(2)T_2`$, irreps of preons are induction to the whole tensorial Poincaré from the representation of the little group in the space of functions on $`SO(1,3)/T_2`$, with values in unitary irreps of $`T_2`$. This last orbit is a fiber bundle over the first one with SO(2) fiber. For decomposition of representation of tensorial $`(M_{\mu \nu };P_\mu ,Z_{\mu \nu })`$ Poincaré w.r.t. the usual $`(M_{\mu \nu };P_\mu )`$ Poincaré we have to decompose the space of functions on that bundle into the space of functions on the base. So, we have to find the space of spinors, giving the same momenta $`p_\mu `$, i.e. fiber over given $`p_\mu `$, and define the action of $`SO(2)`$ on that fiber. Decomposition of the space of function on that fiber w.r.t. $`SO(2)`$ gives the helicity content of preon representation. The space of spinors giving same $`p_\mu `$, say $`p_\mu =(1,0,0,1)`$ is $`\lambda _2=\lambda _3=0,\lambda _4=\lambda _1^{},|\lambda _1|=1`$. $`SO(2)`$ transformations are acting on $`\lambda _1`$ by phase rotations, and space of functions gives the whole integer spectrum of helicities, each one once. For the space of double-valued functions (spinor type functions) the spectrum will consist of all half-integer helicities, each helicity appearing once. This result actually is identical to that of Vasiliev , as mentioned above.

It is natural to consider another subgroup of 4d tensorial Poincaré, namely $`(M_{\mu \nu };Z_{\mu \nu })`$. In that case we have to calculate $`Z_{\mu \nu }`$ for preons, find its little group and decompose preon’s little group representation w.r.t. that little group, i.e. decompose space of functions on a fiber over given $`z_{\mu \nu }(k)`$ w.r.t. that little group. Direct calculation for given $`k_\alpha ^\beta `$ gives

$`z_{\mu \nu }(k)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (8)
The stabilizer of this matrix is the same $`T_2`$ (7). So actually there is no fiber over this point, and irrep of $`(M_{\mu \nu };P_\mu ,Z_{\mu \nu })`$ gives an irrep of $`(M_{\mu \nu };Z_{\mu \nu })`$.

The above analysis can be repeated for other, not preon representations of tensorial Poincaré $`(M_{\mu \nu };P_\mu ,Z_{\mu \nu })`$. Take a BPS membrane state, with

$$P_\mu =(m,0,0,0),Z_{12}=Z_{21}=m$$
(9)
This is a 1/2 massive (membrane) BPS of susy algebra (2). One can find a little group for that configuration (), it is SO(2) (rotations around 3-rd axis), so orbit is SO(1,3)/SO(2). The little group for particle subalgebra is $`SO(3)`$, with orbit $`SO(1,3)/SO(3)`$. Correspondingly, fiber is $`SO(3)/SO(2)=S^2`$. So, for an e.g. representation, induced from trivial representation of SO(2) we have to decompose the space of functions on $`S^2`$ w.r.t. its invariance group SO(3). That is the sum of all representations of SO(3), with any spin, with multiplicity one. Decomposition w.r.t. the ”pure membrane” subalgebra $`(M_{\mu \nu },Z_{\mu \nu })`$ can be done provided we define the little group for tensor $`z_{\mu \nu }`$. That is $`SO(2)T_1`$, so orbit is $`SO(1,3)/SO(2)T_1`$, and fiber for decomposition of membrane representation on a ”pure membrane” representations is $`T_1`$.

## 3 6d

The 6d Minkowski space supersymmetry algebra we shall consider includes, besides Lorentz generators $`M_{\mu \nu }`$, the Weyl spinor $`Q_\alpha `$ (8 real components), vector $`P_{\mu \nu }`$ (6) and third rank self-dual tensor $`Z_{\mu \nu \lambda }^+`$ (10). Susy relation is

$`\{\overline{Q},Q\}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu P_\mu +\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \nu \lambda }Z_{\mu \nu \lambda }^+,`$ (10)
$`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}`$ $`=`$ $`0,1,2,3,4,5.`$
The lhs is 4x4 Hermitian matrix, with 16 real components, which coincides with number of real generators in rhs. Usually in 6d one considers symplectic Majorana-Weyl spinors, which, while having same number of real components, have a bigger invariance group - SU(2) instead of U(1) in our Weyl spinors case. But last one is simpler, and we consider that here.

The preon representation of (11) corresponds to r.h.s. matrix of rank one. That can be parameterized as $`k=\lambda \overline{\lambda }`$, where Weyl spinor $`\lambda `$ is defined up to phase transformation. The space of Weyl spinors $`\lambda `$ is a homogeneous space $`SO(1,5)/SO_L(3)T_4`$, where $`SO(3)_LT_4`$ is the stabilizer of spinors. The little group of preon representation, i.e. stabilizer of r.h.s. of (11), $`\lambda \overline{\lambda }`$, has an additional SO(2) factor: $`(SO_L(3)\times SO_R(2)T_4)`$. Namely, let’s take a Weyl spinor of e.g. form $`(1,0,0,0)`$, and transform that under SO(1,5) rotation. Then in our representation of gamma matrices the algebra of stabilizer of this spinor is given by following matrix:

$`\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}0& w_2& w_3& w_4& w_5& 0\\ w_2& 0& w_{23}& w_{24}& w_{25}& w_2\\ w_3& w_{23}& 0& w_{25}& w_{24}& w_3\\ w_4& w_{24}& w_{25}& 0& w_{23}& w_4\\ w_5& w_{25}& w_{24}& w_{23}& 0& w_5\\ 0& w_2& w_3& w_4& w_5& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (11)
which is a semidirect product of Abelian algebra of translations $`T_4`$ (with parameters $`w_2,w_3,w_4,w_5`$) and algebra $`so_R(3)`$ (remaining $`w`$-s). Algebra of phase transformations of a given spinor $`(1,0,0,0)`$ in our representation of gamma-matrixes are given by $`so_L(2)`$.

The little group of 6d massless particles is $`SO(4)T_4`$ (given by (11) without restrictions on the elements of middle 4 by for 4 antisymmetric matrix) so fiber for decomposition of preon representation w.r.t. the particles representations is $`SO(4)/(SO_R(3)\times SO_L(2)SO(3)/SO(2)`$. So, we have to decompose the space of functions (considering simplest representation, with little group represented trivially) on $`SO(4)/(SO_R(3)\times SO_L(2))SO(3)/SO(2)`$ w.r.t. the SO(4) rotations. As we see, one of SO(3) factors of SO(4) (we consider the covering group) is represented trivially, for other SO(3) factor representations of all spins appear, with multiplicity one.

Similarly to previous Section, we can consider ”pure 3-brane” algebra, i.e. $`(M_{\mu \nu },Z_{\mu \nu \lambda })`$ algebra. In that case for our spinor $`(1,0,0,0)`$ the $`Z_{\mu \nu \lambda }`$ tensor has non-zero components $`Z_{125}=Z_{134}=Z_{256}=Z_{346}`$ (and those with permutations of indexes) only, and its little group is ($`SO_L(3)\times SO_R(2))T_4`$, i.e. coincide with that of preons. So the fiber for decomposition of preon representation w.r.t. 3-brane algebra is trivial, and one has one ”pure 3-brane” irrep in decomposition of preon irreps.

## 4 10d

For 10d Minkowski space minimal supersymmetry algebra includes, besides Lorentz generators $`M_{\mu \nu }`$, Majorana-Weyl spinor $`Q`$ (16 real components), vector $`P_\mu `$ (10) and fifth rank self-dual tensor $`Z_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }^+`$ (126). Susy relation is given by

$`\{\overline{Q},Q\}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu P_\mu +\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }Z_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }^+,`$ (12)
$`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}`$ $`=`$ $`0,1,2,\mathrm{},9`$
The lhs is 16x16 symmetric (after right multiplication on charge conjugation C matrix) matrix, with 136 real components, which coincide with count of real generators in rhs. Consider corresponding bosonic algebra $`M_{\mu \nu };P_\mu ,Z_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }^+`$ and its preon representation, when rhs (after C multiplication) is $`\lambda _\alpha \lambda _\beta `$. The 16d space of spinors $`\lambda _\alpha `$ is homogeneous space $`SO(1,9)/SO(7)T_8`$, where action of $`SO(7)`$ on $`T_8`$ is defined by its insertion, in its spinorial representation, into adjoint representation of $`SO(8)`$. So, the little group is $`SO(7)T_8`$. In our gamma matrices representation the above statements appear as follows: the Weyl condition is selecting first 16 components of general 32d spinor, the Majorana condition requires $`Q_1=Q_6^{},Q_2=Q_5^{},Q_3=Q_8^{},Q_4=Q_7^{}`$. Then calculation of stabilizer of specific spinor with, e.g. non-zero and equal to 1 first and sixth components only gives a Lorentz generator matrix

$`\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccc}0& w_2& w_3& w_4& w_5& w_6& w_7& w_8& w_9& 0\\ w_2& 0& c_1& c_2& c_3& c_4& c_5& c_6& c_7& w_2\\ w_3& c_1& 0& w_{34}& w_{35}& w_{36}& w_{37}& w_{38}& w_{39}& w_3\\ w_4& c_2& w_{34}& 0& w_{45}& w_{46}& w_{47}& w_{48}& w_{49}& w_4\\ w_5& c_3& w_{35}& w_{45}& 0& w_{56}& w_{57}& w_{58}& w_{59}& w_5\\ w_6& c_4& w_{36}& w_{46}& w_{56}& 0& w_{67}& w_{68}& w_{69}& w_6\\ w_7& c_5& w_{37}& w_{47}& w_{57}& w_{67}& 0& w_{78}& w_{79}& w_7\\ w_8& c_6& w_{38}& w_{48}& w_{58}& w_{68}& w_{78}& 0& w_{89}& w_8\\ w_9& c_7& w_{39}& w_{49}& w_{59}& w_{69}& w_{79}& w_{89}& 0& w_9\\ 0& w_2& w_3& w_4& w_5& w_{106}& w_7& w_8& w_9& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (13)
where $`c_1=w_{46}w_{57}+w_{89},c_2=w_{36}+w_{58}+w_{79},c_3=w_{37}w_{48}w_{69},c_4=w_{34}+w_{59}w_{78},c_5=w_{35}w_{49}+w_{68},c_6=w_{39}+w_{45}w_{67},c_7=w_{38}+w_{47}w_{56}`$.

The structure of algebra (13) is the following: it is the semidirect product of $`T_8`$ \- Abelian algebra of matrices (13) with non-zero first row, last row, first and last columns only, and remaining matrices. This last algebra, represented by middle 8x8 matrices of (13, is spinor representation of SO(7), based on a real representation of 7d gamma matrices. Such representation can be constructed with the help of multiplication table of octonions, as shown in .

The little group for massless particle is $`SO(8)T_8`$, the fiber for decomposition of preon representation of is $`SO(8)/SO(7)=S^7`$. Correspondingly, the decomposition of simplest representation of preons, i.e. that in the space of scalar functions on orbit, with respect to particle subalgebra $`(M_{\mu \nu };P_\mu )`$ is given by the sum of symmetric tensor representations with multiplicity 1 (, Section 10.3).

## 5 11d

For 11d Minkowski space supersymmetry algebra includes Lorentz generators $`M_{\mu \nu }`$, the Majorana spinor $`Q_\alpha `$ (32 real components), vector $`P_\mu `$ (11), second rank tensor $`Z_{\mu \nu }`$ (55) and fifth rank tensor $`Z_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }`$ (462). Anticommutator of supercharges is given by (1). The lhs is 32x32 real symmetric matrix, with 528 real components, which coincide with count of real generators in rhs. The strong difference with previous cases is in that space of 11d spinors is not a homogeneous manifold of Lorentz group $`SO(1,10)`$, so it is not correct to define the representation by simply stating that rank of rhs of (1) is one, hence it is equal to $`\lambda _\alpha \lambda _\beta `$ with some spinor $`\lambda _\alpha `$. One has to define the values of additional invariants which separate the homogeneous sub-manifolds in the space of spinors $`\lambda _\alpha `$. The number of such invariants should be at least 7, because stabilizer of e.g. spinor with non-zero (and equal to 1) entries at first and sixth places only (this is a particular Majorana spinor in our gamma matrices representation, see previous Section) is 30-dimensional group $`SO(7)T_9`$, so dimensionality of quotient $`SO(1,10)/SO(7)T_9`$ is $`5530=25`$, which is 7 units less than dimensionality of spinor’s space. So, one has at least 7 kinds of preons, the values of invariants, which distinguish them, simultaneously are labelling irreps of tensorial Poincaré $`(M_{\mu \nu };P_\mu ,Z_{\mu \nu },Z_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma })`$. For the orbit considered we can look for a stabilizer of vector $`P_\mu `$ and second-rank tensor $`Z_{\mu \nu }`$, i.e. consider the decomposition w.r.t. the $`(M_{\mu \nu };P_\mu ,Z_{\mu \nu })`$ subalgebra. The corresponding stabilizer is $`SO(8)T_9`$, so fiber is $`SO(8)/SO(7)=S^7`$, and according to general results (, Section 10.3), for the simplest case of trivial representation of little group, the space of functions on $`S^7`$ contains all symmetric tensors representations (one row Young diagram), each one once. Next, it is not difficult to define stabilizer of second rank membrane tensor $`Z_{\mu \nu }`$, which is necessary for decomposition w.r.t. the ”pure membrane” subalgebra $`(M_{\mu \nu },Z_{\mu \nu })`$. That is again $`SO(8)T_9`$. Finally, we comment on the decomposition of preon’s state w.r.t. the massless particle (which corresponds to preons). Since little group for massless particle is $`SO(9)T_9`$ for decomposition of preons w.r.t. particles we obtain a fiber $`SO(9)/SO(7)`$. The final answer can be obtained both directly, by decomposing the space of functions on $`SO(9)/SO(7)`$ w.r.t. SO(9) group, or, using previous result, in two stages - first decomposing w.r.t. particle + membrane subalgebra, i.e. taking fiber SO(8)/SO(7) and then decomposing the space of functions on fiber SO(9)/SO(8), with values in each of representations, obtained on a previous stage. According to the general theorem , results should be the same.

## 6 Conclusion

We have calculated little groups (algebras) for different orbits of tensorial Poincaré algebras at different dimensions. That groups are useful in construction of irreps of corresponding (super)Poincaré algebras with tensorial charges, in discussion of spin-statistics for branes , etc. We use these results for decomposition of scalar irreps of tensorial Poincaré algebra w.r.t. the proper subalgebras with highest rank tensor removed. I.e. for d=4,6,10 it is the decomposition w.r.t. the subalgebra $`M_{\mu \nu };P_\mu `$, at 11d complete result is obtained for subalgebra $`M_{\mu \nu };P_\mu ,Z_{\mu \nu }`$. Results obtained permit the consideration of other cases, also. It seems that present approach provide group’s theory point of view on Vasiliev’s results , and can be helpful there in higher dimensions. We show, that at d=11 preon  states are not defined by simply stating that r.h.s of (1) has rank one, and is square of some spinor, but one should define the specific orbit to which that spinor belongs, which generally requires definition of 7 parameters. This fact requires further study of what is real difference in representations of tensorial Poincaré for different preon orbits. Also results on a little groups can be extended to other subalgebras of tensorial Poincaré algebras, as well as to other algebras, corresponding to theories with extended supersymmetries, or (6d case) formulations of the same algebra with different symmetry group. The most relevant next steps are extension of construction , ,  of field theories with tensorial Poincaré algebra as space-time symmetry on some of representations, discussed in the present paper.

## 7 Acknowledgements

This work is supported partially by INTAS grant #99-1-590. I’m indebted to R.Manvelyan for discussions.