text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The problem of invisible mass , is acknowledged to be among the greatest puzzles of modern cosmology and theory of elementary particles. The most direct evidence for the existence of large quantities of dark matter in the Universe comes from the astronomical observation of the motion of visible matter in galaxies . One does neither know the identity of the dark matter nor whether there is one or more type of its structure elements. The most commonly discussed theoretical elementary particle candidates are a massive neutrino, a sypersymmetric neutralino and the axion. It is self-evident that existence of such particles is a great question.

So, at present time there is a good probability that the set of elementary particles is by no means limited by those particles, the evidence for whose is proved by experience. Moreover, we are evidently free to look for more deep reasons for the existence of new particles unusual in many respects. Here the theory of structure elements of the so-called dark matter is derived from the first principles and all properties of these particles are listed at the end.

## 2  Geometrical framework

According to the modern standpoint a fundamental physical theory is the one that possesses a mathematical representation whose elements are smooth manifold and geometrical objects defined on this manifold. Most physicists today consider a theory be fundamental only if it does make explicit use of this concept. It is thought that curvature of the manifold itself provides an explanation of gravity. Within the manifold, further structure are defined-vector fields, connexions, particle path and so forth- and these are taken to account for the behavior of physical world. This picture is so generally accepted and it is based on such a long history of physical research, that there is no reason to question it.

Geometry on manifold M with a local coordinate system $`x^i,i=0,1,2,3,`$ is defined by the metric $`g_{ij}`$ and linear (affine) connexion $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ik}^j.`$ Tensor field $`g_{ij}`$ is symmetric, $`g_{ij}=g_{ji},`$ but linear connexion $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ik}^j`$ is nonsymmetric with respect to the covariant indices, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ik}^j\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ki}^j`$ in the general case and in any way does not link with the metric $`g.`$ Really, these notions define, on a manifold M, different geometric operations. Namely, a metric on a manifold defines at every point the scalar product of vectors from the tangent space and linear connection gives the translation along any path on M.

## 3 Symmetry

Symmetry on a manifold can be introduced as follows. Consider the Einstein law of gravity $`R_{ij}=0.`$ Let $`g_{ij}`$ be a solution of the equations $`R_{ij}=0`$ and $`f^i(x)`$ are four functions defined by the demand that all expressions in the formula

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_{ij}(x)=f_i^k(x)f_j^l(x)g_{kl}(f(x)),$$

where $`f_i^k(x)=_if^k(x),`$ have the meaning. It can be shown that $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{ij}(x)`$ is a symmetric tensor and a new solution of the Einstein eqs. $`R_{ij}=0.`$ The point transformation $`x^if^i(x)`$ is a local diffeomorphism. All such transformations form a group of local diffeomorphisms. As it follows from the above statement, the group thus defined is a symmetry group of gravitation interactions. It should be noted that it is the most general group of coordinate transformations.

Another very general group of transformations on M can be defined as follows. Consider the most general linear transformation of vector fields

$$\overline{V}^i=S_j^iV^j,$$

where $`\overline{V}^i`$ and $`V^i`$ are components of vector fields, $`S_j^i`$ are components of a tensor field of the type $`(1,1),`$$`\mathrm{det}(S_j^i)0.`$ Of two tensor fields $`S_j^i`$ and $`T_j^i`$ of the type (1,1) a tensor field $`P_j^i=S_k^iT_j^k`$ of the type (1,1) may be constructed, called their product. With the operation of multiplication thus defined, the set of tensor fields of the type (1,1) with a nonzero determinant forms a group, denoted by $`G_i.`$ This is a most general gauge group on a manifold. It can be shown that the diffeomorphism group is the group of external automorphisms of the gauge group, i.e. the gauge group is invariant under the transformations of the group $`\mathrm{Diff}(M).`$ Thus, we have a nontrivial unification of these symmetries.

The tensor fields can transform under the gauge transformations in different ways. We will say that a tensor field $`T`$ of the type $`(m,n)`$ has the gauge type $`(p,q)`$ if under the transformations of the gauge group there is the correspondence

$$\overline{T}=\underset{p}{\underset{}{S\mathrm{}S}}T\underset{q}{\underset{}{S^1\mathrm{}S^1}},$$

where $`0pm,`$$`0qn,`$ and $`S^1`$ is the transformation inverse to $`S,S^1=(T_j^i),S_k^iT_j^k=\delta _j^i.`$ From the equations $`R_{ij}=0`$ which express the Einstein law of gravity one can find that the Einstein gravitational potentials $`g_{ij}`$ have the gauge type $`(0,0).`$

## 4  Main Conjecture

Now, we have the possibility to put forward the idea that the group of gauge symmetry $`G_i`$ defines properties of a new form of matter called the dark matter. From the theory of linear vector spaces and for the reasons of symmetry and simplicity it follows that there is a single quantity which can be put in correspondence with hypothetical particles of this matter. This quantity is a tensor field of the type $`(1,1),\mathrm{\Psi }_j^i,`$ and the gauge type $`(1,1).`$ Since under the action of the gauge group a tensor field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is transformed as follows

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}=S\mathrm{\Psi }S^1,$$

then scalars $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^i=Tr\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j^i\mathrm{\Psi }_i^j=Tr(\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi })`$ are evidently invariants of the gauge group $`G_i`$. It is known from the theory of linear operators that there also exist other invariants, but in what follows we will only use the invariant $`Tr(\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }).`$

To derive the nontrivial gauge invariant equations for $`\mathrm{\Psi },`$ first of all investigate the link between the linear connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ik}^j.`$ and gauge group $`G_i.`$ To this end consider the properties of covariant derivative with respect to linear connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ik}^j`$ from the standpoint of gauge symmetry in question. The covariant derivative of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ with respect to the affine connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ik}^j)`$ can be written in the form

$$_i\mathrm{\Psi }=_i\mathrm{\Psi }+[\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,\mathrm{\Psi }].$$

The use of the matrix notation is rather evident and does not require special explanations. Let $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_i=(\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{ik}^j)`$ is another affine connection on $`M`$ and $`\overline{}_i`$ denotes the covariant derivative with respect to this connection. Then

$$\overline{}_i\mathrm{\Psi }=_i\mathrm{\Psi }+[\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_i,\mathrm{\Psi }],$$

where $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_i=\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_i.`$ Substituting, into the above relation, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}=S\mathrm{\Psi }S^1`$ instead of $`\mathrm{\Psi },`$ we get

$$\overline{_i}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}=S(_i\mathrm{\Psi })S^1+[\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_iS_iS^1,\mathrm{\Psi }].$$

From this it follows that

$$\overline{}_i\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}=S(_i\mathrm{\Psi })S^1$$
(1)
if $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_i=S_iS^1,`$ or that is the same,

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_i=\mathrm{\Gamma }_i+S_iS^1.$$
(2)
Let

$$(B_{ij}^{}{}_{l}{}^{k})=B_{ij}=_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_j_j\mathrm{\Gamma }_i+[\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,\mathrm{\Gamma }_j]$$

be the Riemann tensor of the affine connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$, then from (2) it follows that

$$\overline{B}_{ij}=SB_{ij}S^1,$$
(3)
where $`\overline{B}_{ij}`$ is the Riemann tensor of the connection $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_i.`$ Thus, from (2) and (3) it follows that in the framework of the gauge group $`G_i`$ one can consider the affine connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ik}^j.`$ as the gauge field and the tensor $`B_{ij}`$ as the strength tensor of this field. According to (1) a tensor field $`_i\mathrm{\Psi }`$ has the same gauge type as $`\mathrm{\Psi },`$ but this is not true for the second covariant derivative of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ or $`B_{ij}.`$ For this reason it is necessary to introduce the important notion of the gauge covariant derivative, which does not change the gauge type of the quantity in question.

Let $`T`$ be a tensor field (tensor density) of the gauge type $`(1,1),`$ then by definition

$$D_iT=_iT+[\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,T]$$

is the gauge covariant derivative. For example, for the Riemann tensor we have

$$D_iB_{jk}=_iB_{jk}+[\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,B_{jk}].$$

As it must be, for the field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ the gauge covariant derivative coincides with the standard covariant derivative, $`D_i\mathrm{\Psi }=_i\mathrm{\Psi }.`$ In the general case the operator $`D_i`$ is not general covariant, since $`D_iT`$ will not always be a tensor field together with $`T.`$ However, the commutator $`[D_i,D_j]`$ is always general covariant, because

$$[D_i,D_j]T=[B_{ij},T].$$

From this we get the important relation for the Riemann tensor

$$[D_i,D_j]B_{kl}=[B_{ij},B_{kl}]$$
(4)
Thus, the gauge symmetry shows that not only the Einstein gravitational potentials $`g_{ij}`$ but also the tensor field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and gauge field $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ are to be treated as primary fields tightly connected with the symmetry and geometry on the manifold. Before writing the simplest gauge invariant equations, that express the law of interaction of these fields, it must be noted that all the three fields have geometrical interpretation. For the field $`g_{ij}`$ it is well known, so we dwell only on the geometrical interpretation of the fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma },`$ considered as a whole.

Let $`\delta V^i=dV^i+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^i\dot{x}^jV^kdt`$ be an infinitesimal change of the vector field $`V`$ on a curve $`\gamma (t)`$ and $`S_j^i=\delta _j^i+\mathrm{\Psi }_j^idt`$ be an infinitesimal gauge transformation. We assume that at every moment of time $`t`$ an infinitesimal change of a vector $`V`$ along a curve $`\gamma (t)`$ is equal to an infinitesimal linear transformation of the vector field $`V`$ induced by the gauge group, $`\delta V^i=\mathrm{\Psi }_j^iV^idt.`$ Thus, we obtain a system of ordinary linear homogeneous differential equations for $`V^i(t)`$

$$\frac{dV^i}{dt}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^i\frac{dx^j}{dt}V^k=\mathrm{\Psi }_j^iV^j.$$

from which it follows that a composite geometrical object $`(\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Gamma }_i)`$ defines the general law of translations of a vector field along the given curve $`\gamma (t).`$

## 5  Field Equations

Now we shall assume that the field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ has the gauge type (1,1), under the action of the gauge group the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$\- field is transformed by the law (2) and construct a $`G_i`$-invariant theory of the interaction of those fields. The simplest gauge invariant Lagrangian of the field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ has the form

$$L_\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{2}Tr(D_i\mathrm{\Psi }D^i\mathrm{\Psi }m^2\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }),$$
(5)
where $`m`$ is a constant, $`D_i=g^{ij}D_j.`$ From (5) by the variation with respect to $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ we obtain the following equations

$$D_i(\sqrt{|g|}D^i\mathrm{\Psi })+m^2\sqrt{|g|}\mathrm{\Psi }=0,$$
(6)
where $`|g|`$ is the absolute value of the determinant of the matrix $`(g_{ij}).`$ When deriving (6) one should take into account that $`Tr(D_i\mathrm{\Psi })=_i(Tr\mathrm{\Psi }).`$ In accordance with (6) one can consider $`m`$ as the mass of a particle defined by the field $`\mathrm{\Psi }.`$ The simplest Lagrangian of the gauge field $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a direct consequence of (3)

$$L_\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{1}{4}Tr(B_{ij}B^{ij}),$$
(7)
where $`B^{ij}=g^{ik}g^{jl}B_{kl}.`$ Varying the Lagrangian $`L=L_\mathrm{\Psi }+L_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with respect to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with the help of the relation $`\delta B_{ij}=D_i\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_jD_j\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ we obtain the following equations of the gauge field $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$

$$D_i(\sqrt{|g|}B^{ij})=\sqrt{|g|}J^j,$$
(8)
the right hand side of which contains the tensor field of the third rank

$$J^i=[\mathrm{\Psi },D^i\mathrm{\Psi }].$$
(9)
This field obviously has the gauge type $`(1,1).`$ The tensor current $`J^i`$ has to satisfy the equation

$$D_i(\sqrt{|g|}J^i)=0,$$
(10)
as in accordance with (4) , $`D_iD_j(\sqrt{|g|}B^{ij})0.`$ From (6) and (9) it follows that $`J^i`$ really satisfies equation (10) and thus the system of equations (6) , (8) is consistent.

Varying the Lagrangian $`L=L_\mathrm{\Psi }+L_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with respect to $`g^{ij}`$ we obtain the so-called metric tensor of energy-momentum of the considered system of interacting fields

$$T_{ij}=Tr(D_i\mathrm{\Psi }D_j\mathrm{\Psi })+Tr(B_{ik}B_j{}_{}{}^{k})+g_{ij}L,$$
(11)
where $`B_j{}_{}{}^{k}=B_{jl}g^{kl}.`$ If the fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ satisfy equations (6) and (8), then one can show that the metric tensor of the energy-momentum satisfies the well-known equations

$$T^{ij}{}_{;i}{}^{}=0$$

where the semicolon denotes as usual the covariant derivative with respect to the Levi-Civita connection belonging to the field $`g_{ij}`$

$$\{_{jk}^i\}=\frac{1}{2}g^{il}(_jg_{kl}+_kg_{jl}_lg_{jk}).$$

It is evident that the metric tensor energy-momentum is gauge invariant.

Now we can write down the full action for the fields $`g_{ij},\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Gamma }`$

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{c^3}{G}}{\displaystyle R\sqrt{|g|}d^4x}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}{\displaystyle Tr(D_i\mathrm{\Psi }D^i\mathrm{\Psi }+m^2\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi })\sqrt{|g|}d^4x}`$ (12)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{4}}{\displaystyle Tr(B_{ij}B^{ij})\sqrt{|g|}d^4x},`$
where $`R`$ is the scalar curvature, $`G`$ is the Newton gravitational constant and $`\mathrm{}`$ is the Planck constant. From the geometrical interpretation of the fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ it follows that they have the dimension $`sm^1.`$ As all coordinates can be considered to have the dimension $`sm,`$ the action $`S`$ has a correct dimension. It is necessary to substantiate only why we have introduced the Planck constant $`\mathrm{}`$ into the full action $`S`$ and not, say, the constant of interaction $`\epsilon `$ with the gauge field $`\mathrm{\Gamma },`$ similar to the electric charge of the electron $`e.`$

Consider the infinitesimal transformations of the diffeomorphism group , $`\overline{x}^i=x^i+K^i(x)dt.`$ If under such transformations the gravitational potentials $`g_{ij}`$ do not vary, i.e. the vector field $`K^i(x)`$ satisfies the Killing equations

$$K^i_ig_{jl}+g_{il}_jK^i+g_{ji}_lK^i=K_{j;l}+K_{l;j}=0,$$

then the vector field $`P^i=T^{ij}K_j`$ will satisfy the equation $`P^i{}_{;i}{}^{}=0.`$ Integrating this equation we obtain the conservation law. The Killing equations impose severe constraints on the gravitational potentials. Thus, the Killing equations are completely integrable if the tensor of curvature of the metric $`g_{ij}`$ satisfies the equations:

$$R_{ijkl}=\frac{R}{12}(g_{ik}g_{jl}g_{il}g_{jk}).$$

In the general case the Killing equations have no solutions at all and there are no conservation laws. This result allows us to understand the absence of the constant of interaction of matter fields with the gravitational field similar to the electric charge $`e`$ and why the Newton gravitational constant $`G`$ does not enter into the equations of matter fields. It is impossible to switch on or switch off the gravitational field. It does not admit the existence of the gravitational screen, the ”gravitational charge” does not exist as an invariant fundamental notion.

Now consider infinitesimal gauge transformations $`S_j^i=\delta _j^i+\mathrm{\Omega }_j^idt.`$ If under such transformations the gauge field $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ does not vary, i. e. the tensor field $`\mathrm{\Omega }_j^i`$ satisfies the equations

$$^i\mathrm{\Omega }_k^j+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{il}^j\mathrm{\Omega }_k^l\mathrm{\Omega }_l^j\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ik}^l=_i\mathrm{\Omega }_k^j=0,$$

then the vector field $`Q^i=Tr(J^i\mathrm{\Omega }),`$ where $`J^i`$ is a tensor current (9), will satisfy the equation $`Q^i;i=0.`$ Integrating this equation we obtain the conservation law as usual. The equation $`_i\mathrm{\Omega }_k^j=0,`$ like the Killing equations, imposes severe constraints, in the given case, on the gauge field $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i.`$ Thus, the equation $`_i\mathrm{\Omega }_k^j=0`$ is completely integrable, if the strength tensor $`B_{ij}`$ satisfies the equations $`B_{ij}^{}{}_{l}{}^{k}=1/4B_{ij}^{}{}_{m}{}^{m}\delta _l^k.`$ So, in the considered case, generally speaking, there are no conservation laws too. From this fact it is natural to conclude, that there is no special coupling constant ( like the electric charge) of the gauge field $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with the field of matter $`\mathrm{\Psi }.`$ The gauge field $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is impossible to screen. In the known sense, the Planck constant $`\mathrm{}`$ is analogous to the Newton gravitational constant $`G.`$ The Planck constant $`\mathrm{}`$ characterizes the intensity of interactions of the field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ with the gauge field $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.`$ Interactions in question has a pure quantum nature. From this consideration one can conclude that non-abelian gauge fields and gravity are not in the scope of perturbation theory and we need new approaches here.

## 6  General Physical Interpretation

Varying the full action (12) with respect to $`g^{ij}`$ we derive the Einstein equations

$$R_{ij}\frac{1}{2}g_{ij}R=l^2T_{ij},$$

where $`l=\sqrt{\mathrm{}G/c^3}`$ is the Planck length and $`T_{ij}`$ is the metric tensor of energy-momentum (11). Thus, it is shown that the problem formulated above has the solution. A tensor field of the second rank $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j^i`$ describes unknown gravitating particles which, as it was shown earlier, are a single source of the gauge field $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ that is known as the affine connection in geometry. As it is known, the affine connection has always played a fundamental role in all attempts to develop General Relativity from the very start of its creation ,,. The conclusion drawn here that the affine connection has a conserved energy-momentum tensor and therefore may be a source of gravitational field radically changes the view on that object. In this connection it should be emphasized that equations (6) and (8) can be considered on the background of the Minkowski spacetime. It is enough to suppose that $`g_{ij}`$ is the Minkowski metric.

It is not difficult to show that for the field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ there is no nontrivial gauge invariant equations of the first order. Let $`S`$ be an element of the gauge group; obviously, $`(S)`$ also belongs to that group. Further, under the gauge transformation $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}=S\mathrm{\Psi }S^1`$ the same transformation of the field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ corresponds to different elements $`S`$ and $`(S)`$ of the gauge group. We have remarked these properties because they characterize the bose particles.

The equations of motion for a test particle in external gravitational and gauge fields have the form

$$\frac{d^2x^i}{ds^2}+\{_{jk}^i\}\frac{dx^j}{ds}\frac{dx^k}{ds}+\frac{\mathrm{}}{mc}\omega ^i{}_{j}{}^{}\frac{dx^j}{ds}=0,$$

where $`\omega _{ij}=Tr(Bij)=_iQ_j_jQ_i`$ and $`Q_i=Tr(\mathrm{\Gamma }_i)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ik}^k.`$ An additional gauge force acting on a test particle has the quantum nature and the same form that the Lorentz force. However, the new force has one essential feature which can be seen from a rather general consideration. Taking the trace of equations (8) and taking into account that in accordance with (9), $`Tr(J^i)0,`$ one obtains that if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ satisfies equations (6) and (8), then $`\omega _{ij}`$ will satisfy the equations $`\omega ^{ij}{}_{;i}{}^{}=0.`$ These equations are the same as the Maxwell equations without sources. From this one can conclude that the new gauge invariant force connected with the gauge field $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can neither be central nor Coulomb.

## 7  Summary

In accordance with the theory developed above, the main properties of particles of dark matter are as follows:

1. These particles practically do not interact with the known elementary particles. Really, it is impossible to construct the Lagrangian of interaction of the field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ with other known fields being invariant with respect to the transformations of the gauge group in question.

2. However, these particles, as it is established, interact gravitationally.

3. The spin of particles equals 1. To see this, one can remind that any real matrix has the canonical (Jordan) form . In one case, for example, $`\mathrm{\Psi }=diag(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3,\lambda _4),`$ where $`\lambda _i`$ are roots of the characteristic equation $`|\mathrm{\Psi }\lambda E|=0.`$ Besides, it should be noted that the expansion $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }1/4Tr(\mathrm{\Psi })E+1/4Tr(\mathrm{\Psi })E=\mathrm{\Psi }_0+1/4Tr(\mathrm{\Psi })E`$ is gauge invariant. Thus, the field $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ has three degrees of freedom and we have deal with the Bose particles.

4. The mass of the particles is a single parameter of the theory. However, under the natural condition $`m=m_p=\sqrt{\mathrm{}c/G}`$ we shall obtain the theory free from parameters completely.

5. We have not deep reasons to introduce complex value wave function and hence electric charge of particles equal zero.

So, actually all is known about unknown particles. However, experience remains a sole criterion of the validity of a mathematical construction for the physics. Last but not least. If the suggested physical interpretation of the theory is true, then the evidences of the existence of the dark matter, obtained from the astronomical observations, show that the macroscopic quantum effects can appear not only on the scale of solid (superconductivity) but also on the scale of the galaxies.


format: text

text:
# Oxygen isotopic ratios in first dredge-up red giant stars and nuclear reaction rate uncertainties revisited

## 1 Introduction

Observations of abundances and abundance ratios in stars yield powerful constraints on models of internal processes in stars. In particular, the predicted abundance evolution of stars of a given mass and metallicity depends on both mixing and nuclear burning processes. While it is customary to provide observational results with some estimate or analysis of the associated errors, this is seldomly done for theoretical abundance predictions. This is partly due to the fact that quantitative uncertainties on the input physics is not available and that theoretical model uncertainties (in particular for poorly understood mixing processes) are hard to make. Finally, a systematic error propagation in stellar models can be computationally demanding and the effort has often not been justified in the past. However, new spectroscopic observations with unprecedented precision will be available in the near future, and one has the impression that stellar physics in general is entering a new high-precision era. In this context it seems necessary to reconsider the question of abundance prediction uncertainties in a quantitative way.

As an initial step in this direction, we have chosen specifically the dependence of oxygen isotopic ratio predictions in giant stars on nuclear reaction rate uncertainties. The oxygen isotopic ratios are of particular interest because they are affected not only by nucleosynthesis but also by mixing processes which are not yet very well understood. The latter is evident from the spectroscopic properties of giant stars which are not entirely consistent with standard stellar evolution models (Harris, Lambert, & Smith, 1985; Harris et al., 1987; Boothroyd & Sackmann, 1999). Therefore it is important to quantitatively know the uncertainties arising from nucleosynthesis in order to help constrain mixing processes using observations. In addition, the oxygen isotope predictions are important for the interpretation of pre-solar corundum (Al2O3) from meteorites for which oxygen isotopic ratios can be measured with high precision (e.g. Huss et. al., 1994; Nittler et al., 1997).

During the main sequence (MS) evolution of low- and intermediate-mass stars, partial H-burning in the envelope produces 17O, 13C, and 14N while 12C, 15N, and 18O are destroyed (Fig. 1). The abundance of 16O in the envelope is essentially unchanged for stellar mass $`1.5\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$. For more massive stars, core convection on the early MS reaches out to $`25`$ per cent of the stellar mass, leaving behind core processed material as it retreats, including destroyed 16O (e.g. Schaller, Schaerer, Meynet, & Maeder, 1992). Evidence of the retreating core convection is seen in the 2 and 3$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ cases in Fig. 1 at the bottom of the envelope where the H and 16O are depleted.

At the end of the MS phase hydrogen is exhausted in the core, causing the core to contract and the envelope to expand and cool. Envelope convection descends into the star as the envelope temperature drops. Regions previously affected by cool H-burning are homogenised, leading to a change of surface abundances (1st dredge-up, 1dup hereafter). As a result of this mixing, theory predicts the 16O/17O ratio decrease from initially $`2600`$ to a few hundred, depending on stellar mass while the 16O/18O ratio increases only marginally by $`20`$ per cent from the initial value of about 500, weakly dependent on mass. For many stars, this is in fair agreement with spectroscopic observations. For example, Harris & Lambert (1984) find for K-giants $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}/^{17}\mathrm{O}`$ ratios in the range $`300\mathrm{}1000`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}/^{18}\mathrm{O}425\mathrm{}600`$. Similarly, some corundum oxygen isotopes are in rough agreement with standard 1dup model predictions (e.g. SEAL203 in Choi, Huss, & Wasserburg (1998) has $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}/^{17}\mathrm{O}=355`$ and a solar $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}/^{18}\mathrm{O}`$ ratio) while many others require either non-solar initial $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}/^{18}\mathrm{O}`$ ratios (Huss et. al., 1994; Boothroyd, Sackmann, & Wasserburg, 1994; Timmes, Woosley, & Weaver, 1995) or non-standard mixing processes.

The dependence of oxygen isotopic ratios on the $`{}_{}{}^{17}\mathrm{O}`$ proton capture nuclear reactions has been studied before by El Eid (1994) and Boothroyd, Sackmann, & Wasserburg (1994). They considered the effect of a new determination of these reactions by Landre et al. (1989) and found that the uncertainty of the $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}/^{17}\mathrm{O}`$ predictions is dominated by the uncertainty of these rates for stars with initial masses larger than $`2.5\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$.

In this paper we include seven reactions in a systematic analysis of the influence of rate uncertainties on the predicted oxygen isotopic ratios in red giant branch (RGB) stars. In addition to addressing this scientific question, we also want to demonstrate and test the method of evaluating model error propagation described here. Sect. 2 describes the method and computations. In Sect. 3 the uncertainty in the modeled oxygen isotopic ratios of RGB stars is analysed for significant reaction rate uncertainties and comparisons are made to observations and other models. A summary is in the final section.

## 2 Method and Models

The nucleosynthesis and mixing considered here do not alter the structural evolution. Therefore we can efficiently post-process a time sequence of full stellar models to analyse the behaviour of nucleosynthesis and mixing in the envelope under variations of the input nuclear reaction rates. A sequence is post-processed many times, each time with a different set of values for the reaction rates (within published uncertainty) to obtain a Monte Carlo (MC) estimate of error propagation into the surface abundance predictions. In the following subsections we describe the stages of this method in more detail.

### 2.1 Evolution code

A time sequence of stellar models is generated by the EVOL code (see Herwig, 2000; Blöcker, 1995, and references therein). At each time step the four partial differential equations of stellar structure are solved on a 1D Lagrangian grid, with the OPAL opacity tables from Iglesias & Rogers (1996). A standard nuclear reaction network, including the PP-chains and the CNO tri-cycle, is incorporated.

The treatment of mixing, in particular the use of convective overshooting, is not essential to this study because we are interested here in the differential impact of the uncertainties of nuclear reaction rates. However, there is some agreement that the hydrodynamical properties of convection inevitably result in some turbulent mixing into the neighboring stable layers, defined by the convective boundary where the acceleration of streams disappears. Models of convection in the hydrodynamical framework predict that the turbulent velocity field decays roughly exponentially (e.g. Xiong, 1985; Freytag, Ludwig, & Steffen, 1996; Asida & Arnett, 2000). However, the extent of overshooting is not the same at all convective boundaries. This is evident from hydrodynamical simulations, for example by Freytag, Ludwig, & Steffen (1996) who find $`f_{ov}=0.25`$ for the shallow surface convection of A-stars and $`f_{ov}=1.0`$ for white dwarfs. Herwig, Bloecker, Schoenberner, & El Eid (1997) found that $`f_{ov}=0.02`$ reproduces the results of Schaller, Schaerer, Meynet, & Maeder (1992) who fitted the observed width of the main sequence with an instantaneous treatment of overshooting of $`0.2H_p`$. This order of magnitude for core convection overshooting was confirmed by 2D hydrodynamical models by Deupree (2000). For a situation with an extended, deep envelope, like during the first dredge-up, an estimate of overshooting efficiency is more difficult. Alongi, Bertelli, Bressan, & Chiosi (1991) found that the position of the RGB luminosity bump can be aligned with observation with an envelope overshooting three times the value required for the core overshooting (see, however, Cassisi & Salaris, 1997). Blöcker et al. (1998) found that overshooting at the bottom of the solar convection zone in excess of $`f_{ov}=0.07`$ would cause too much lithium destruction (see also Schlattl & Weiss, 1999). In view of the ambiguous evidence we decided to use the same value as for the main sequence core convection at the bottom of the descending envelope convection during the first dredge-up evolution.

For the core convection we use no overshooting in the 1$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ cases, $`f_{ov}=0.008`$ in the 1.5$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ sequence and $`f_{ov}=0.016`$ for the 2$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ and 3$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ cases. The mixing efficiency in the envelope is chosen to be $`f_{env}=0.016`$ for all cases. The Reimer’s mass loss formulae (Reimers, 1975) with $`\eta =0.5`$ for $`M<1.7\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\eta =1.0`$ for $`M>1.7\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ is employed, starting at the bottom of the RGB.

### 2.2 Post-processing code and the Monte Carlo Scheme

Our post-processing code takes the stellar structure from the full stellar evolution model sequences generated by EVOL as input and recomputes abundance changes due to nucleosynthesis and mixing. The code is fully implicit, iterative, and couples mixing with nucleosynthesis using adaptive step size and full error control.

All reactions in the post-processing code use NACRE reaction rates (Angulo et al., 1999), which include estimates on upper and lower limits. We have used the electronic web tool *Netgen* (Jorissen & Goriely, 2001) to retrieve the tabulated rates. The full network of nuclear reactions is the same as in the full stellar evolution code, but rates for a predefined set of seven reactions were systematically altered.

If one is interested in knowing the abundance uncertainty of a particular species, then inspection of its production and destruction reactions may reveal to which reaction uncertainty the abundance is most sensitive. For example, 18O is mainly destroyed rather than produced in the envelope. Hence, the surface abundance of 18O after 1dup ought to be most sensitive to the one of the two major reactions which consume it. Reaction $`{}_{}{}^{18}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\alpha )^{15}\mathrm{N}`$ has a larger nominal rate than $`{}_{}{}^{18}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\gamma )^{19}\mathrm{F}`$ and accordingly this reaction must be most important to 18O. While such a qualitative consideration is straightforward it is harder to estimate the quantitative effect of the uncertainty of this reaction because the combined effects of $`{}_{}{}^{18}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\alpha )`$ and the other reactions when the temperature profile evolves before equilibrium is reached and core convection on the early main sequence may affect the envelope abundances.

Manipulating the rates of one reaction that is part of a larger network will not necessarily reveal the whole picture, especially when equilibrium abundances are not achieved. This is true in particular for a general network situation in which reaction flows may be redirected due to uncertainties of reactions that are involved in branchings. In order to have a tool available which can readily be applied to any nucleosynthesis and mixing scenario we decided to take a general and flexible approach by combining post-process calculations with an MC scheme, as described below. With this approach we could, for example, also study more complex situations like the dependence of the $`s`$-process in asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars on nuclear reaction rate uncertainties.

For each MC iteration the reaction rate for reaction $`x`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{i}^\mathrm{x}(\mathrm{T})=\xi _\mathrm{i}^\mathrm{x}(\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{u}^\mathrm{x}(\mathrm{T})\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{n}^\mathrm{x}(\mathrm{T}))+\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{n}^\mathrm{x}(\mathrm{T}),1\xi _\mathrm{i}^\mathrm{x}0$$
(1)
$$\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{i}^\mathrm{x}(\mathrm{T})=\xi _\mathrm{i}^\mathrm{x}(\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{n}^\mathrm{x}(\mathrm{T})\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{l}^\mathrm{x}(\mathrm{T}))+\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{n}^\mathrm{x}(\mathrm{T}),0>\xi _\mathrm{i}^\mathrm{x}1$$
(2)
where $`1\xi _\mathrm{i}^\mathrm{x}1`$, and $`\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{u}^\mathrm{x},\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{n}^\mathrm{x},\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{l}^\mathrm{x}`$ are the upper, nominal, and lower rates respectively. We choose a Gaussian distribution to the random variable $`\xi _i`$ which peaks at zero and has an e-folding distance at $`\xi _i=.55`$ so that the extreme values are populated at 1.8$`\sigma `$. Note that while the distribution on $`\xi _i`$ is symmetric, the distribution of $`\mathrm{R}(\mathrm{T})`$ is not.

### 2.3 Details of the computed models

With the stellar evolution code we generated seven sequences of stellar structure models for a range of initial mass and metallicity. Each sequence was followed from the beginning of the MS to just after the end of the 1dup. The stellar model sequences together with the mass coordinate of the deepest penetration of the 1dup ($`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{dup}}`$) and the maximum temperature achieved at that mass coordinate are listed in Table 1. The maximum envelope temperature was achieved at about $`\frac{4}{5}`$ of the MS lifetime for all cases. The envelopes of the 2–3$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ cases receive matter from the core due to core convection on the early MS. For these cases, Table 1 also shows the maximum temperature achieved at the centre of the star ($`T_c`$) from the beginning of the MS to when the core convection no longer overlaps with the envelope. These temperatures are the maximum that part of the surface material, after 1dup, was exposed to.

Out of the full stellar evolution model sequences about 32 to 36 models for 1–1.5$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ cases and 82 to 119 models for 2–3$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ were chosen for post-processing. The bulk of extra models used in the 2–3$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ cases were put on the first half of the MS, when core convection was retreating, leaving behind material processed in the core. At least 4 models were put near the time of deepest 1dup to ensure that a precise mixing depth was achieved. We post-processed the whole star for 2–3$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ but only the envelope layers affected by the 1dup for 1–1.5$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$. In this study we ignore any extra mixing processes that might occur later on the RGB, like cool bottom processing (Wasserburg, Boothroyd, & Sackmann, 1995). The choice of stellar cases spans 1$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ to 3$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ with solar metallicity and additional cases for 1$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ and 2$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ where the metallicity is lower. For the lower metallicity cases we have scaled all three oxygen isotopes with Z, not taking into account the anti-correlation of the $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}/^{18}\mathrm{O}`$ with Z reported by Timmes, Woosley, & Weaver (1995). To facilitate comparison, the initial oxygen isotope ratios were chosen to be $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}/^{17}\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{i}=2465`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}/^{18}\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{i}=442`$, the same as in El Eid (1994).

Fig. 1 shows example abundance profiles produced by the post-processing code using the nominal reaction rates, together with the 1dup mark. One can see that 17O is particularly sensitive to the maximum depth of the 1dup for the 1$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ and 1.5$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ cases because of the sharp rise in 17O at the bottom of the 1dup (Landre et al., 1990). The reduced 16O at the bottom of the envelope, from where core convection retreated, enhances the sensitivity to the maximum depth of the 1dup for the 2$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ and 3$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ cases.

The seven CNO cycle reactions which are included in the analysis are listed in Table 2 in decreasing order of $`\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{n}(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{T}=7)`$. The reaction $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\gamma )^{17}\mathrm{F}`$ is followed by a rapid $`\beta ^+`$ decay and draws from a large reservoir of 16O to produce 17O. Reaction $`{}_{}{}^{17}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\gamma )^{18}\mathrm{F}`$ consumes 17O to produce 18O. Branching off from this series are reactions $`{}_{}{}^{18}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\alpha )^{15}\mathrm{N}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{18}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\gamma )^{19}\mathrm{F}`$, which consume 18O, and $`{}_{}{}^{17}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\alpha )^{14}\mathrm{N}`$, which consumes 17O. For the 1$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ cases, reaction $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\gamma )^{17}\mathrm{F}`$ is slow enough and 16O is abundant enough that the 16O reservoir is effectively not changing in the envelope. This is not true for 2–3$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ (see Fig. 1), and therefore reactions $`{}_{}{}^{15}\mathrm{N}(\mathrm{p},\gamma )^{16}\mathrm{O}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{19}\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{p},\alpha )^{16}\mathrm{O}`$ should receive attention in these cases because they affect the production of 16O. Fig. 2 shows the nominal, upper and lower limits on these reaction rates for the relevant temperature range.

## 3 Results

The primary result from the MC simulations are quantified model uncertainties in the oxygen isotopic ratios due to reaction rate uncertainties. Secondly, we assess the individual contribution from each of the considered reaction uncertainties on isotopic ratio uncertainties.

An MC simulation was carried out for each of the cases in Table 1 and the results are summarized in Table 3 and Fig. 8. The isotopic ratio uncertainties are derived from the distribution of points in triple isotope plots. The upper error bars for $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}/^{18}\mathrm{O}`$ are defined to be the location of a horizontal line separates $`2`$ per cent of the points above the line, and $`98`$ per cent of the points are below. The lower error bar is where $`98`$ per cent are above and $`2`$ per cent are below. Error bars for $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}/^{17}\mathrm{O}`$ are defined similarly. Therefore, the total number of MC points that lie outside of the error bars is $`8`$ per cent. This scheme helps ensure that the errors bars are nearly invariant to the number of iterations. There were 200 iterations for each 1–1.5$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ case, and at least 400 iterations for each $`>1.5\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ case, which are already more time consuming due to a greater number of input models. More iterations are needed for the $`>1.5\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ cases because there are 3 instead of 2 influential reaction rate uncertainties.

### 3.1 The triple isotope plots from the MC simulation

Fig. 3 shows a typical result from an MC simulation. Each point on the triple oxygen isotope plot represents the isotopic ratios after the 1dup for one iteration. The set of $`\xi _i^x`$ for each iteration allows one to locate points with reaction rates far from the nominal value. In Fig. 3 a symbol associated with reaction $`x`$ is over-plotted if $`|\xi _i^x|>0.7`$ (i.e. $`>1.4\sigma `$) is satisfied for that reaction. Multiple symbols may be over-plotted for individual iterations. In this way the oxygen isotopic ratios from iterations for which reaction $`x`$ was near an upper or lower limit are flagged. The distribution of the flagged iterations can reveal the relative importance of the uncertainties of the reactions considered. Symbols for reactions that do not dominate the isotopic uncertainties can appear everywhere in the cloud of points, indicating that a rate far from the nominal value for these reactions does not cause any preferred location in the plot (reaction $`{}_{}{}^{15}\mathrm{N}(\mathrm{p},\gamma )^{16}\mathrm{O}`$ for example). The lack of symbols from reaction $`{}_{}{}^{18}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\alpha )^{15}\mathrm{N}`$ in a horizontal band through the central region of the plot indicates that its reaction rate uncertainty overwhelmingly dominates the others in affecting the $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}/^{18}\mathrm{O}`$ error. Reaction $`{}_{}{}^{18}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\alpha )^{15}\mathrm{N}`$ causes scatter on the ordinate because it destroys 18O. Fig. 6 shows this more clearly.

For the 3$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ case shown, reactions $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\gamma )^{17}\mathrm{F}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{17}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\alpha )^{14}\mathrm{N}`$ are responsible for the scatter on the abscissa because they most strongly affect 17O. This fact is not clear from Fig. 6 because neither one clearly dominates. With random $`\xi _i`$ there are many iterations where there is a cancelling effect, leading to points in the middle part of the cloud. In order to demonstrate this we do 15 separate runs of the post-processing code. In the first run, all rates are held at nominal. In the subsequent 14 runs, each of the 7 reaction rates takes its upper, then lower value while the other rates remain at the nominal value. The result of the 15 runs is illustrated in Fig. 4 for the $`3\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ case. Reaction $`{}_{}{}^{17}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\alpha )^{14}\mathrm{N}`$ affects the abscissa and reaction $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\gamma )^{17}\mathrm{F}`$ affects the ordinate secondly, but primarily affects the abscissa, as one might expect from inspection of the CNO network. Fig. 5 shows a similar 15 combination run on the 1.5$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ case. For masses $`1.5\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ the envelope does not receive matter processed in the core, and hence the surface abundances are a product of nuclear processing at cooler temperatures. As a result, uncertainty of the $`{}_{}{}^{17}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\alpha )^{14}\mathrm{N}`$ reaction loses all of its effect on 16O/17O uncertainty for stellar mass $`1.5\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ cases. Fig. 7 shows the absence of points in the centre for the dominant reactions.

The point distribution in the MC triple isotope plots of course depends on the choice of the e-folding distance for the random variable $`\xi _i`$. The distributions typically have patterns due to the asymmetric nature of reaction rate uncertainties. For example the bimodal distrubution in Fig. 6 (high point density in the lower half and low density for larger 16O/18O) is a consequence of the large upper limit for reaction $`{}_{}{}^{18}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\alpha )^{15}\mathrm{N}`$.

### 3.2 Discussion of reaction uncertainties

Reaction $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\gamma )^{17}\mathrm{F}`$ has a relatively low uncertainty (Fig. 2). For example at $`\mathrm{log}T=7.4`$ the upper and lower limit according to the NACRE compilation are $`\pm 30`$ per cent. This reaction derives its effect from the large (virtually constant) reservoir of 16O which leads to a strong production rate of 17O. Although the reaction rate of $`{}_{}{}^{17}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\alpha )^{14}\mathrm{N}`$ is about two times greater than that of $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\gamma )^{17}\mathrm{F}`$, 17O is produced because the abundance of 16O is about 3000 times greater than that of 17O. Hence, the uncertainty in reaction $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\gamma )^{17}\mathrm{F}`$ is more important to the surface abundance of 17O.111Production (or destruction) rate is $`r=N_aN_b\sigma \upsilon `$, where $`N_a`$ and $`N_b`$ are the molar densities of the reactants and $`\sigma \upsilon =R`$ is the reaction rate. In the past, reaction rates for $`{}_{}{}^{17}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\alpha )^{14}\mathrm{N}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{17}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\gamma )^{18}\mathrm{F}`$ were very uncertain (see Sect. 3.2 El Eid, 1994). With the modern, smaller NACRE uncertainty, uncertainty in reaction $`{}_{}{}^{17}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\alpha )^{14}\mathrm{N}`$ is still relevant to the 17O/16O 1dup predictions for the 2–3$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ cases. Modern uncertainty in reaction $`{}_{}{}^{17}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\gamma )^{18}\mathrm{F}`$, however, is not significant in the cases studied here.

For the 2–3$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ cases, reactions $`{}_{}{}^{17}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\alpha )^{14}\mathrm{N}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\gamma )^{17}\mathrm{F}`$ (starred triangles and triangles respectively in Fig. 4) have a similar influence on 16O/17O. In the 2–3$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ cases the combined effect of the uncertainty in these two reaction rates can cooperate to give some extreme 16O/17O values as well as partially cancel to give points in the central part of the cloud.

Reaction $`{}_{}{}^{18}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\alpha )^{15}\mathrm{N}`$ strongly effects the isotopic abundances because its uncertainty is very large at the envelope temperatures of these stellar cases. Also note that reaction $`{}_{}{}^{18}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\gamma )^{19}\mathrm{F}`$ has no noticeable effect on 18O. Even though the error for this reaction is very large, reaction $`{}_{}{}^{18}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\alpha )^{15}\mathrm{N}`$ is faster and therefore more important to the destruction of 18O.

The effect of stellar mass and metallicity on the isotope ratio uncertainties is detectable mostly in 16O/17O. The 16O/18O uncertainty is typically $`+20/5`$ per cent due to reaction $`{}_{}{}^{18}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\alpha )^{15}\mathrm{N}`$. For cases $`>1.5\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$, with higher temperatures (2$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$, Z=0.001 and 3$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$, Z=0.02 especially) greater 16O destruction and 17O production can be seen at the surface. Hence, the destruction rate of 17O rivals its production from 16O, so the effect of uncertainty in reaction $`{}_{}{}^{17}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\alpha )^{14}\mathrm{N}`$ is visible at the surface.

The interaction between the core and envelope convection for the $`>1.5\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ cases means different temperature environments are seen by some of the dredged up material, than are seen by the $`1.5\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ cases. This adds to the complexity and has a very noticeable impact on the propogation of reaction rate uncertainty to surface abundances because it means uncertainties at a wider variety of temperatures become important.

### 3.3 Comparison with observations and other models

Our isotopic ratios, with the nominal rates, agree with results from Boothroyd, Sackmann, & Wasserburg (1994) that predict a strong dependence of 16O/17O on stellar mass. With increasing stellar mass from 1$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ to 2$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$, 16O/17O decreases from 2500 to 100 for Z=0.02 in Fig. 8 (i.e. 16O destruction in the envelope increases for $`>1.5\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ and the 17O production is increased in all cases). Our predictions show increasing 16O/17O with increasing mass for the $`>2\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ cases, producing a minimum at about 2$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$, the same as in El Eid (1994) (see also Boothroyd, Sackmann, & Wasserburg, 1994). The inset in Fig. 8 shows model predictions by El Eid (1994) and this study (asterisks and filled boxes respectively) for 2$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ and 3$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$. The difference between our 16O/17O predictions and those of El Eid (1994) is partially explained by our different choice for the important $`{}_{}{}^{17}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\alpha )^{14}\mathrm{N}`$ reaction rate. The lower limit on this rate, used in this study, is similar to the rate used to predict the asterisks. Uncertainty in the treatment of mixing processes, which is not propagated with the MC simulations, likely makes the largest contribution to the difference.

The dependence of oxygen abundance ratios on stellar metallicity is tied to dependence of structure (temperature) to metallicity. The predicted ratios for the two 1$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ cases are indistinguishable given the calculated uncertainty. The predictions for three 2$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ cases are distingushable. Lower metallicity produces higher temperatures and greater overall 18O destruction, causing higher 16O/18O for those cases.

Spectroscopic observations of the isotope ratios in RGB stars from Harris & Lambert (1984); Harris, Lambert, & Smith (1988) are also shown in Fig. 8 and Table 4. These stars are either ascending the RGB for the first time or are undergoing core He-burning on the blue loops. Hence, the surface abundances of these stars have been changed by the 1dup. The mass-16O/17O relationship is roughly obeyed by these observatations (see El Eid, 1994, for a discussion).

The prediction band in Fig. 8 was from an initial 16O/18O which is 10 per cent smaller than the solar value, giving predictions that overlap with all but one of the spectroscopic observations. However, the number of post-1dup observations below solar (16O/18O=498) and below the band predicted from initial 16O/18O=442 is worth noticing. When there is a slight shift in the initial oxygen isotopic ratios, there is a proportional shift in the modeled post-1dup ratios (as shown by Boothroyd, Sackmann, & Wasserburg, 1994). Hence, if the model prediction of about a $`15`$ per cent increase in 16O/18O after 1dup is correct, then some of the stars with spectroscopic data in Fig. 8 (circles) must have had initial 16O/18O values $`30`$ per cent less than solar (super-solar metallicity). In addition, the post-1dup spectroscopic data shown in Fig. 8 roughly correlate with \[Fe/H\] measurments compiled by Taylor (1999) (Table 4), but indicate a pre-solar metallicity. There is currently no reason to believe that 18O is not depleted in the envelope during the MS. A possible explaination is additional mixing above the core that further depletes 16O in the envelope, leading to an decreased 16O/18O after 1dup. Testing this hypothesis will be appropriate when more precise spectroscopic observations become available.

Pre-solar meteoritic inclusions have been linked to giant stars due to their specific isotopic abundance signatures (Huss et. al., 1994; Zinner, 1998). The rather large spread of their oxygen isotopic ratios implies additional mechanisms at work (like intital isotope ratio variations or extra mixing processes). The variations of isotope ratios in grains are much larger than the model uncertainties due to nuclear reaction rates. However, better nuclear data would be required to improve the identification of these extra mechansims.

## 4 Conclusions

In this paper we quantify the uncertainty in oxygen isotopic ratios due to uncertain reaction rates. These results may help to motivate and prioritize new laboratory measuremtents of reaction rates. Reaction rate uncertainty for $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\gamma )^{17}\mathrm{F}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{18}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\alpha )^{15}\mathrm{N}`$ are significant to oxygen isotope ratios for all of the stellar cases studies here. Reaction $`{}_{}{}^{17}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\alpha )^{14}\mathrm{N}`$ competes with $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\gamma )^{17}\mathrm{F}`$ for dominance in 16O/17O uncertainty for the 2–3$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ cases because of the interaction between core mixing and subsequent envelope mixing. Of course, this result is based on the assumption that the estimated uncertaities in the reaction rates (NACRE upper and lower limits) are appropriate.

In general, reactions with large uncertainties, and reactions with slow reaction rates but large production/destruction rates and any uncertainty create the largest uncertainty in isotopic ratios. The MC scheme demonstrated here efficiently finds the most problematic rates and provides a means of quantifying uncertainties for a particular stellar environment.

The model uncertainties calculated here are from reaction rate uncertainties only. The total model uncertainty in oxygen istopic ratios definitly has contributions from uncertainty in mixing processes. This problem will become more tractable as the uncertainties due to reaction rates are made smaller.

## Acknowledgments

J. S. is greatful for support from the Herzberg Institude for Astrophysics, a division of the National Reasearch Council of Canada. F. H. appreciates support from Dr. D. A. VandenBerg through his Operating Grant from the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada. F. H. thanks Dr. A. C. Shotter for his interest in this work and the hospitality at TRIUMF, Vancouver, BC. F. H. would also like to thank Dr. C. Iliadis for stimulating discussions and his hospitality at TUNL, Durham, NC.


text:
# Existence of a novel metallic ferromagnetic phase in models for undoped manganites

## Abstract

The existence of a novel metal-insulator transition in the ferromagnetic state of models for undoped manganites is here discussed using numerical techniques applied to the $`e_\mathrm{g}`$-orbital degenerate Hubbard model tightly coupled with Jahn-Teller distortions. The ground-state phase diagram is presented in the plane defined by the electron-phonon coupling $`\lambda `$ and Coulomb interaction $`u`$. In contrast to the standard one-band Hubbard model for cuprates, the metallic phase is found to exist for finite values of both $`\lambda `$ and $`u`$ in the present $`e_\mathrm{g}`$-orbital Hubbard model even at half-filling, due to the Fermi-surface topology which is incompatible with the staggered orbital ordering concomitant to the insulating phase. Based on the present results, a possible scenario for Colossal Magneto-Resistive effect is discussed in undoped manganites.

One of the most interesting issues in recent research activities in condensed matter physics has been the elucidation of the mechanism of Colossal Magneto-Resistance (CMR) phenomena in manganites. Tokura ; Dagotto1 ; Dagotto2  Recently, it has been widely recognized that the CMR effect appears when the ground-state of manganites can be converted from insulating to ferromagnetic (FM) metallic by a small magnetic field. The stability of the FM metallic phase in manganites is understood due to the double-exchange (DE) mechanism, based on the strong Hund’s rule coupling between mobile $`e_\mathrm{g}`$ electrons and localized $`t_{2\mathrm{g}}`$ spins. On the other hand, the insulating phase in manganites occurs due to the coupling between degenerate $`e_\mathrm{g}`$ electrons and Jahn-Teller (JT) distortions of MnO6 octahedra, leading to various types of charge and/or orbital ordering, as observed experimentally.Dagotto1

In undoped RMnO3 (R=rare earth lanthanide ions), the parent compound of CMR manganites for most R-ions, the A-type antiferromagnetic (AFM) insulating phase appears with the C-type ordering of the $`(3x^2`$$``$$`r^2)`$\- and $`(3y^2`$$``$$`r^2)`$-orbitals.Hotta1  Quite recently, for R=Ho, a novel AFM phase called the “E-type” spin structure phase has been reported as the ground-state,Munoz ; Kimura  but this state is also insulating with the same orbital ordering as that of the A-AFM phase.Hotta2  In general, the metallic phase in manganites has been widely considered to appear only after holes are doped into such insulating undoped materials. Namely, by substituting La by alkaline earth ions such as Sr and Ca, holes are doped into the $`e_\mathrm{g}`$-electron band and, due to the DE mechanism, the FM metallic phase is generated. Most of the discussion in manganites has been concentrated on the phases induced by hole doping into the A- or E-AFM state with different values in the bandwidth of carriers. In this framework, it is implicitly assumed that the undoped system is always $`insulating`$.

However, in the theoretical phase diagram for undoped manganites, which has been obtained by the numerical analysis of the DE model coupled with the JT distortions, a FM metallic phase has been observed for weak electron-lattice coupling region.Hotta1 ; Hotta2 ; Yunoki  This phase did not receive much attention since the focus of previous papers was on the insulating phases. In fact, while it is an interesting possibility to have a metallic phase for RMnO3, its existence has not yet been confirmed even from the theoretical viewpoint, since the previous calculations were carried out in small-size clusters and in addition the Coulomb interaction was not included explicitly. If the FM metallic phase is confirmed to exist adjacent to the A- or E-AFM insulating state in the undoped limit, the CMR effect could in principle occur even without hole doping. Here, recall that at the heart of the CMR phenomena is the two-phase competition between FM metallic and insulating phases.Dagotto1 ; Dagotto2  The insulating phase in undoped manganites has been widely recognized both from experimental and theoretical investigations, while the existence of the FM metallic phase has not been explored, in spite of its potential importance.

In this paper, it is attempted to show the existence of the FM metallic phase in undoped manganites. For this purpose, the spinless $`e_\mathrm{g}`$-orbital Hubbard model tightly coupled to JT distortions is analyzed by using numerical techniques such as relaxation method for distortions and Lanczos algorithm for exact diagonalization. For small electron-phonon coupling or Coulomb interaction, an orbital disordered phase specified with metallic characteristics is observed in two and three dimensions, while in one dimension, the orbital-ordered insulating phase is obtained except for the non-interacting case. In the phase diagram depicted in the plane spanned by the electron-phonon coupling and Coulomb interaction, the metallic phase is found to exist in a wide range of relevant parameters. Then, it is concluded here that the metallic phase should exist even in undoped manganites, and its experimental confirmation by suitable chemical substitutions for RMnO3 should represent a new challenge to experimentalists of Mn oxides.

Models for manganites include five important ingredients such as the kinetic term for the $`e_\mathrm{g}`$ electrons, the Hund coupling between mobile $`e_\mathrm{g}`$ electrons and localized $`t_{2\mathrm{g}}`$ spins, the electron-lattice coupling between $`e_\mathrm{g}`$ electrons and distortions of the MnO6 octahedra, the Coulomb interaction among $`e_\mathrm{g}`$ electrons, and the AFM coupling between neighboring $`t_{2\mathrm{g}}`$ spins. Hotta3  Fortunately, for the purposes of this paper it is not necessary to consider all these interactions. Namely, since the FM phase is our focus here, $`e_\mathrm{g}`$-electron spins can be assumed to be perfectly polarized from the outset due to the strong Hund coupling between $`e_\mathrm{g}`$ electrons and $`t_{2\mathrm{g}}`$ spins. Then, in the present work a spinless model including only charge and orbital degrees of freedom can be used.

The Hamiltonian $`H`$ studied here is, thus, given by the combination of three terms: $`H_{\mathrm{kin}}`$, $`H_{\mathrm{el}\mathrm{ph}}`$, and $`H_{\mathrm{el}\mathrm{el}}`$. The first term indicates the hopping motion of $`e_\mathrm{g}`$ electrons, written as

$$H_{\mathrm{kin}}=\underset{\mathrm{𝐢𝐚}\tau \tau ^{}}{}t_{\tau \tau ^{}}^𝐚d_{𝐢\tau }^{}d_{𝐢+𝐚\tau ^{}},$$
(1)
where $`d_{𝐢\mathrm{a}}`$ ($`d_{𝐢\mathrm{b}}`$) annihilates an $`e_\mathrm{g}`$-electron in the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ ($`d_{3z^2r^2}`$) orbital at site $`𝐢`$, $`𝐚`$ is the vector connecting nearest-neighbor sites, and $`t_{\tau \tau ^{}}^𝐚`$ is the hopping amplitude between $`\tau `$\- and $`\tau ^{}`$-orbitals along the $`𝐚`$-direction, expressed as $`t_{\mathrm{aa}}^𝐱`$=$`\sqrt{3}t_{\mathrm{ab}}^𝐱`$= $`\sqrt{3}t_{\mathrm{ba}}^𝐱`$=$`3t_{\mathrm{bb}}^𝐱`$=$`3t/4`$ for $`𝐚`$=$`𝐱`$, $`t_{\mathrm{aa}}^𝐲`$=$`\sqrt{3}t_{\mathrm{ab}}^𝐲`$= $`\sqrt{3}t_{\mathrm{ba}}^𝐲`$=$`3t_{\mathrm{bb}}^𝐲`$=$`3t/4`$ for $`𝐚`$=$`𝐲`$, and $`t_{\mathrm{bb}}^𝐳`$=$`t`$ with $`t_{\mathrm{aa}}^𝐳`$=$`t_{\mathrm{ab}}^𝐳`$=$`t_{\mathrm{ba}}^𝐳`$=0 for $`𝐚`$=$`𝐳`$, respectively.

The second term $`H_{\mathrm{el}\mathrm{ph}}`$ indicates the coupling of $`e_\mathrm{g}`$ electrons with distortions of MnO6 octahedra, given by

$`H_{\mathrm{el}\mathrm{ph}}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda {\displaystyle \underset{𝐢}{}}(Q_{1𝐢}n_𝐢+Q_{2𝐢}\tau _{\mathrm{x}𝐢}+Q_{3𝐢}\tau _{\mathrm{z}𝐢})`$ (2)
$`+`$ $`(1/2){\displaystyle \underset{𝐢}{}}(\beta Q_{1𝐢}^2+Q_{2𝐢}^2+Q_{3𝐢}^2),`$
where $`\lambda `$ is the dimensionless electron-phonon coupling constant, $`Q_{1𝐢}`$ is the breathing-mode distortion, and $`Q_{2𝐢}`$ and $`Q_{3𝐢}`$ are, respectively, the $`(x^2`$$``$$`y^2)`$\- and $`(3z^2`$$``$$`r^2)`$-type JT-mode distortions, $`n_𝐢`$= $`d_{𝐢\mathrm{a}}^{}d_{𝐢\mathrm{a}}`$\+ $`d_{𝐢\mathrm{b}}^{}d_{𝐢\mathrm{b}}`$, $`\tau _{\mathrm{x}𝐢}`$= $`d_{𝐢\mathrm{a}}^{}d_{𝐢\mathrm{b}}`$\+ $`d_{𝐢\mathrm{b}}^{}d_{𝐢\mathrm{a}}`$, and $`\tau _{\mathrm{z}𝐢}`$= $`d_{𝐢\mathrm{a}}^{}d_{𝐢\mathrm{a}}`$$``$ $`d_{𝐢\mathrm{b}}^{}d_{𝐢\mathrm{b}}`$. The second term in $`H_{\mathrm{el}\mathrm{ph}}`$ is the usual quadratic potential for distortions and $`\beta `$ is the ratio between the spring constants for breathing and JT distortion mode distortions. In this paper, the distortions are treated adiabatically.note

The third term $`H_{\mathrm{el}\mathrm{el}}`$ includes the Coulomb interactions, and it is given by

$$H_{\mathrm{el}\mathrm{el}}=u\underset{𝐢}{}n_{𝐢\mathrm{a}}n_{𝐢\mathrm{b}},$$
(3)
where $`n_{𝐢\tau }`$=$`d_{𝐢\tau }^{}d_{𝐢\tau }`$ and $`u`$ is the on-site Coulomb interaction. Note that $`u`$=$`U^{}`$$``$$`J`$, where $`U^{}`$ in the inter-orbital Coulomb interaction and $`J`$ is the Hund’s rule coupling in the standard notation for the multi-orbital model. In order to investigate the possibility of metal-insulator transition in $`H`$, the model can be analyzed from many perspectives, due to the combination of these three terms.

Let us start our discussion considering the JT model, defined as $`H_{\mathrm{JT}}`$=$`H_{\mathrm{kin}}`$+$`H_{\mathrm{el}\mathrm{ph}}`$, obtained by dropping $`H_{\mathrm{el}\mathrm{el}}`$. Since in this paper undoped manganites with one $`e_\mathrm{g}`$ electron per site are analyzed, it is clear that the oxygen ions that are shared by adjacent MnO6 octahedra are all active, and the concomitant distortions are $`not`$ independent from site to site. As a consequence, the cooperative effect is crucially important in this case. To consider this issue carefully, the simplest way is to optimize directly the displacement of shared oxygen ions by using relaxation techniques.Hotta1  In practice, considering sites $`𝐢`$ and $`𝐢+𝐚`$, the oxygen in between is only allowed to move along the $`𝐚`$-axis (i.e. buckling and rotations are simply neglected). Note that in one and two dimensions, some of the oxygen ions are not shared by neighboring octahedra. In this paper, for simplicity, the positions of such unshared oxygen ions are assumed to be fixed, since in the real materials those ions are not allowed to move freely due to the effect of compensating cations. In other words, the one-dimensional (1D) chain or the two-dimensional (2D) plane are not isolated, but they are embedded in a three-dimensional (3D) environment.

In Fig. 1, the main results for $`H_{\mathrm{JT}}`$ are summarized. For the 1D chain, it is emphasized that the JT distortion occurs for infinitesimal values of $`\lambda `$, consistent with Peierls instability concepts. This issue can be clearly understood by the opening of the Peierls gap in the band structure, as shown in Fig. 1(a). In this case, the orbital ordering with the alternation of $`3x^2`$$``$$`r^2`$ and $`y^2`$$``$$`z^2`$ orbitals, as shown in Fig. 1(b), is stabilized due to the cooperative JT distortions.Hotta3  On the other hand, for the 2D case the metal-insulator transition can be observed at a finite value of $`\lambda `$. To observe this, it is convenient to monitor the average value of the JT distortion $`Q`$=$`(1/N)_𝐢\sqrt{Q_{2𝐢}^2+Q_{3𝐢}^2}`$, where $`N`$ is the total number of sites. As shown in Fig. 1(c) using a 4$`\times `$4 cluster, $`Q`$ changes from zero to a finite value at $`\lambda `$$``$1.2, a clear indication of a metal-insulator transition. In this situation, the orbital-ordering pattern becomes bipartite as shown in Fig. 1(d), indicating that $`Q_{2𝐢}`$=$`q`$ for the “A” sublattice, while $`Q_{2𝐢}`$=$`q`$ for the “B” sublattice, with $`Q_{3𝐢}`$=0 for all sites. In other words, the distortion can be expressed by using a single parameter $`q`$, since it occurs in a cooperative manner and all distortions are correlated with one another. Thus, our task can be drastically reduced in the numerical optimization of distortions, since it is enough to minimize the total energy as a function of $`q`$. Such a calculation has been also performed and the result is expressed as the dashed-curve in Fig. 1(c) for 4$`\times `$4 cluster, in very good agreement with the results for the full optimization within the computational error-bars.

To obtain the 4$`\times `$4 cluster result of Fig. 1(c), anti-periodic boundary conditions are imposed to satisfy the closed-shell condition for the electron configuration in the non-interaction case. The small lattice size and use of special boundary conditions may raise concerns about the existence of the metal-insulator transition in the bulk limit. To clarify lattice size effects, calculations in momentum space have been performed by imposing the twisted boundary condition with the Bloch phase on the unit cell of 2$`\times `$2 or 4$`\times `$4 lattice. The difference in the size of the unit cell appears in the sharpness of the transition, indicating that the period of the distortion becomes large at and near the transition region. As shown by solid circles in Fig. 1(c), again we observe clear indications of a metal-insulator transition, although the critical value is reduced. This fact suggests that the present metal-insulator transition is $`not`$ spurious of a finite-size cluster. As mentioned above, in the 2D case, the distortion has been expressed as a single parameter $`q`$. This is also true in the results for the momentum space calculation, as indicated by the solid curves in Fig. 1(c), again in good agreement with the full-optimized results.

Let us consider the reason why the metallic phase can exist even at half-filling. To clarify this point, it is quite useful to depict the Fermi-surface. As shown in Fig. 1(e), the nesting vector is $`(\pi ,0)`$ or $`(0,\pi )`$, not $`(\pi ,\pi )`$. These nesting vectors are $`not`$ compatible with the staggered orbital ordering pattern (Fig. 1(d)) that is stabilized increasing $`\lambda `$. This is one of the remarkable features of the multiorbital $`e_\mathrm{g}`$-electron system, which is not specific to two dimensionality. In fact, in the results for the 3D case, as shown in Fig. 1(f), we also observe the metal-insulator transition at a finite value of $`\lambda `$. The dotted curves are obtained by using the 2$`\times `$2$`\times `$2 unit cell where the twisted boundary condition with the Bloch phase is imposed, while the solid circles are results for a 4$`\times `$4$`\times `$4 unit cell. Except for the sharpness in the transition, in both cases, a signal for a metal-insulator transition is clearly obtained. In this case, the orbital ordering pattern becomes very complicated, as shown in Fig. 1(g). Note that this pattern repeats periodically on lattice larger than 2$`\times `$2$`\times `$2. In the 3D case, an intrinsic incompatibility between the Fermi surface and the orbital ordering pattern is also found. Even without invoking the numerical results discussed before, the qualitative arguments presented here related with the lack of nesting effects in $`H_{\mathrm{JT}}`$ at small $`\lambda `$ strongly suggests the presence of a metallic phase in two and three dimensions.

Now let us turn our attentions to the effect of Coulomb interactions by considering the Hubbard-like model, $`H_\mathrm{C}`$=$`H_{\mathrm{kin}}`$+$`H_{\mathrm{el}\mathrm{el}}`$, namely dropping $`H_{\mathrm{el}\mathrm{ph}}`$ in this case. This model is analyzed by exact diagonalization to measure the orbital correlation defined as $`T_z(𝐪)`$=$`(1/N)`$ $`_{𝐢,𝐣}e^{i𝐪(𝐢𝐣)}\tau _{z𝐢}\tau _{z𝐣}`$. In the 1D case (not shown), $`T_z(\pi )`$ becomes dominant for infinitesimal value of $`u`$, indicating that the metallic phase does not exist in the 1D systems except for the non-interacting case, as is well known in the standard Hubbard model at half-filling. However, in higher dimensions the situation is quite different. Figure 2(a) denotes the results for a 2D lattice with 10 sites, showing that the $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ component becomes dominant for larger value of $`u`$. However, as discussed above, the topology of the Fermi-surface is incompatible with the $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ correlation, and as a consequence $`T_z(\pi ,\pi )`$ is no longer dominant in the small-$`u`$ region.comment  In the 3D case with 2$`\times `$2$`\times `$2 cube, a sudden increase of the $`(\pi ,\pi ,\pi )`$ component is observed at $`u`$$``$16, since a level crossing occurs in this case. The orbital ordering pattern shown in Fig. 1(g) does not show $`(\pi ,\pi ,\pi )`$ correlation due to the cooperative effect. Without the cooperative distortion, it is natural that $`(\pi ,\pi ,\pi )`$ correlation becomes dominant, as deduced from the large-$`u`$ limit. Unfortunately, since it is difficult to enlarge the lattice size for the exact diagonalization, it cannot be proven exactly that the metal-insulator transition for $`H_\mathrm{C}`$ occurs in the bulk limit. However, the results are highly suggestive that the staggered component in the orbital correlation becomes dominant in the $`e_\mathrm{g}`$-orbital Hubbard model only at large value of $`u`$. At small couplings, a metal should be stabilized.

Although it has been quite instructive to analyze the effects of the electron-phonon coupling and Coulomb interaction separately, both of them are simultaneously active in real materials. Thus, our final task here will be the study of the full model $`H`$=$`H_{\mathrm{kin}}`$+$`H_{\mathrm{el}\mathrm{ph}}`$+$`H_{\mathrm{el}\mathrm{el}}`$ by a combination of exact diagonalization for Coulomb interactions and optimization techniques for lattice distortions. It is a very hard task to perform the exact diagonalization at each step during the relaxation of the lattice distortion, but in order to depict the ground-state phase diagram, it is sufficient to analyze how the total energy changes when lattice deformations occur. As mentioned in the above paragraph, fortunately in the 2D lattice the cooperative distortion can be expressed using a single parameter $`q`$. In Fig. 3(a), the total energy difference is presented as a function of $`q`$ for several values of $`\lambda `$ at $`u`$=3. These results clearly indicate that the lattice distortion does not occur for $`\lambda `$$``$0.3, while the optimized state accompanies the lattice distortion for $`\lambda `$$``$0.3, since the energy minimum is located at a finite value of $`q`$. Thus, in order to detect the metal-insulator transition under reasonable CPU times, it is enough to monitor the change of the total energy for a very small value of $`q`$. If it is negative, it strongly suggests the occurence of lattice distortions. In actual calculations, the energy difference is evaluated for $`q`$=0.01. Using this procedure, the phase diagram for the 2D 10-site cluster is shown in Fig. 3(b). The results clearly indicate that the metallic phase exists, even in this case where both electron-phonon and Coulomb interactions are included. Note that the transition at $`\lambda `$=0 appears as a cross-over behavior as indicated above, but in the present calculations for non-zero $`\lambda `$, the boundary curve seems to converge to the cross-over point at $`u`$$``$7.5, consistent with Fig. 2(a).

Finally, the novel possibility of observing CMR effects in undoped manganites is here discussed. As mentioned in the introductory paragraph, in the theoretical phase diagram for the undoped limit, the FM metallic state has been observed adjacent to the A- or E-type AFM insulating phase.Hotta2  In the present work, it has been confirmed that such a metallic phase is $`not`$ spuriously caused by the small-cluster calculations, and moreover the phase does not disappear by adding Coulomb interactions. Thus, within the theoretical framework for CMR that it is based on the competition between FM metallic and insulating phases of any nature, CMR-like phenomena could occur even in undoped manganites, a very unexpected and challenging theoretical prediction.

In summary, the metal-insulator transition for undoped manganites has been discussed based on the $`e_\mathrm{g}`$ orbital Hubbard model tightly coupled to JT distortions. The existence of a novel FM metallic phase at zero hole doping has been shown, leading to the intriguing possibility of CMR effects even in RMnO3.

The author thanks E. Dagotto and K. Ueda for fruitful discussions and valuable comments. He is supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the present report, we continue consideration of aspects of the quark hadron duality, i.e. the equivalence of two complete sets of state vectors, saturating certain integral sum rules, one of the sets being the solution of the bound state problem with colour-confining interaction, while the other describes free partons. Further exploration of relations between exclusive and inclusive production of hadrons in processes induced by virtual and real photons is worthwhile as means of more extensive tests of approximations accompanying the description of the transition between hadron and quark-gluon degrees of freedom in QCD. The choice of sum rules satisfying the assumed duality condition is suggested by correspondence with the well-known results in the nonrelativistic theory of interaction of the radiation with matter. The message is that sum rules connected with the dipole moment fluctuation seem to be singled in both nonrelativistic  and relativistic regions . Following this idea, which has first been tested in the models of quantum field theory, we present, within the relativistic constituent quark model approach, the relations between two-photon decay widths of the lowest meson resonances following from the derived sum rules for polarized gamma-gamma cross sections.

## 2  Quark-hadron duality for the bremsstrahlung - <br>-weighted sum rules. The case of meson resonance photoexcitation

We first remind that applying the adopted duality principle of two complete sets of final state vectors (one - with the confined $`q\overline{q}`$-states representing the sum over all resonances, the other- with the ”gedanken” free $`q\overline{q}`$ -pair) to the Cabibbo-Radicati sum rule  for the pion, we get

$`<r^2>_{\pi ^\pm }={\displaystyle \frac{3}{4\pi ^2\alpha }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\nu }{\nu }}(\sigma (\gamma ^{}\pi ^+)\sigma (\gamma ^+\pi ^+))={\displaystyle \frac{3}{4\pi ^2F_\pi ^2}}`$ (1)
Further useful relations were obtained  from the assumed approximate equality of the derivatives

$$F_{\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi ^o}^{}(q^2)|_{q^20}F_{\gamma ^{}\pi ^\pm \pi ^\pm }^{}(q^2)|_{q^20}$$

of form factors normalized to unity at zero momentum transfers

$`m_q`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}\pi F_\pi ,(q=u,d)`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\pi ^oqq}^2}{4\pi }}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{6}}`$ (3)
where the numerical value of the pseudoscalar $`\pi qq`$-coupling constant followes from an analogue of the Goldberger-Treiman relation for quarks.

The successful local approximation for the $`\pi q\overline{q}`$ -vertex in the calculation of $`<r^2>_\pi `$ means that it should be approximately valid in computation of the radiative decays $`M^{}\gamma \pi `$ of the lowest meson resonances contributing to the sum rule (1). Therefore, a similar mechanism of the local annihilation of constituent quarks in the reactions $`q\overline{q}e^+e^{}`$ and $`q\overline{q}\gamma \pi `$ enables one to obtain, e.g., for the $`\omega `$ -meson

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega e^+e^{})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega \pi ^0\gamma )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ((q\overline{q})_\omega e^+e^{})}{\sigma ((q\overline{q})_\omega \pi ^0\gamma ))}}|_{s=m_\omega ^2}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{18}}({\displaystyle \frac{g_{\pi q\overline{q}}^2}{4\pi }})^1={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{3\pi }}`$ (4)
where $`(q\overline{q})|_\omega =(1/\sqrt{2})(u\overline{u}+d\overline{d})`$ and numerically the ratio of the widths turns out to be within the experimental uncertainties of the data. The seemingly paradoxical relevance of the local approximation combined with the application of the Goldberger-Treiman relation to the pion-quark vertex as compared to an appearing more general ”softened” description in which this vertex is described by a Bethe-Salpeter type equation, may be interpreted as an exemplification, in the considered context, of the twofold picture of the pion. As is well-known, the pion presents itself in twofold ways: on the one hand, its anomalously small mass suggests that it should be identified with the pseudo-Goldstone mode of dynamical breaking of chiral symmetry in QCD; on the other, it should be described equally well from the QCD Lagrangian in terms of current quarks, or in terms of the QCD motivated relativistic models of constituent quarks with strong attractive forces acting in the $`J^P=0^{}`$ channel. The complementarity of these pictures may also reflect a kind of duality between the effective hadronic description based on symmetries, and the microscopic description in terms of partons. This duality can be alternatively exploited in calculations of hadron properties. While the high momentum transfer reactions reveal characteristics of the quark and gluon distributions inside the pion, at low energies its role as a (pseudo)Goldstone boson mode became essential in describing the long-range structure and strength of its interaction with hadrons and effective hadronic constituent degrees of freedom , e.g.,constituent quarks. However, the inclusion of hadronic corrections to $`r^2_\pi `$ in the form of the one-pion-exchange graph contribution to the Cabibbo-Radicati sum rule, which provides the chiral corrections of the order $``$ log($`m_\pi )`$  in accordance with the theorem of Beg and Zepeda , definitely improves the agreement with data and one should have in mind this type of correction in other applications of the approach outlined.
We turn now to sum rules for meson resonances in photon-photon collisions. Varying the polarizations of colliding photons, one can show that the linear combination of certain $`\gamma \gamma q\overline{q}`$ cross-sections will dominantly collect, at low and medium energies most important for saturation of the integral sum rules considered, the $`q\overline{q}`$\- states with definite spin-parity and hence, by the adopted quark-hadron duality, the meson resonances with the same quantum numbers. The polarization structure of the transition matrix element $`M(J^{PC}2\gamma )`$ for the meson resonance with the spin-parity $`J^{PC}=0^+,0^{++},2^{\pm +}`$ is taken as follows:

$`M(0^{++}2\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`G_\mathrm{S}[(ϵ_1ϵ_2)(k_1k_2)(ϵ_1k_2)(ϵ_2k_1)],`$ (5)
$`M(2^{++}2\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`G_{\mathrm{T0}}[(ϵ_1ϵ_2)(k_1k_2)(ϵ_1k_2)(ϵ_2k_1)]k_1^\mu k_2^\nu e^{\mu \nu }`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`G_{\mathrm{T2}}[(k_1k_2)ϵ_1^\mu ϵ_2^\nu (ϵ_1k_2)k_1^\mu ϵ_2^\nu ]e^{\mu \nu }`$
$``$ $`G_{\mathrm{T2}}[(ϵ_2k_1)k_2^\mu ϵ_1^\nu +(ϵ_1ϵ_2)k_1^\mu k_2^\nu ]e^{\mu \nu },`$
$`M(0^+2\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`G_{\mathrm{PS}}\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }k_1^\mu k_2^\nu ϵ_1^\lambda ϵ_2^\sigma ,`$ (7)
$`M(2^+2\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`G_{\mathrm{PT}}\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }k_1^\mu k_2^\nu ϵ_1^\lambda ϵ_2^\sigma k_1^\alpha k_2^\beta e^{\alpha \beta },`$ (8)
where $`k_i^\mu `$ are the momenta of photons, $`ϵ_i^\nu (e^{\alpha \beta })`$ -polarization vector (tensor) of the photon (the tensor meson), $`G`$ \- corresponding coupling constants, $`G_{\mathrm{T}\lambda }`$ being the tensor meson coupling constants with the $`z`$-projection of the total angular momentum $`\lambda =0`$ or $`2`$, respectively.

It follows then that the combinations of the integrals over the bremsstrahlung-weighted and polarized $`\gamma \gamma q\overline{q}`$ cross-sections, $`I_{}(1/2)I_p,I_{}(1/2)I_p,I_p`$ will be related to low-mass meson resonances having spatial quantum numbers $`J^{PC}=0^+`$ and $`2^+`$, $`0^{++}`$ and $`2^{++}(\lambda =0)`$, $`2^{++}(\lambda =2)`$, if we confine ourselves to the mesons with spins $`J2`$ for further discussion.

The $`\gamma \gamma `$ \- cross-sections $`\sigma _{()}`$ (and the integrals thereof) refer to plane-polarized photons with the perpendicular (parallel) polarizations, and $`\sigma _p`$ corresponds to circularly polarized photons with parallel spins.

Evaluating cross-sections and elementary integrals we get the sum rules for radiative widths of resonances with different values of $`J^{PC}`$

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(PS_i2\gamma )}{m_{PS_i}^3}}+5{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(PT_j2\gamma )}{m_{PT_j}^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}Q(q)^2^2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha ^2}{m_q^2}}`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(S_i2\gamma )}{m_{S_i}^3}}+5{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }((T0)_j2\gamma )}{m_{T0_j}^3}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16\pi ^2}}[{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}Q(q)^2^2{\displaystyle \frac{5\pi \alpha ^2}{9m_q^2}}+{\displaystyle \underset{qq}{}}Q(qq)^2^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \alpha ^2}{9m_{qq}^2}}]`$ (10)
$`5{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }((T2)_i2\gamma )}{m_{T2_i}^3}}+(2J+1){\displaystyle \underset{R(J2;\lambda =2)}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(R2\gamma )}{m_R^3}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}Q(q)^2^2{\displaystyle \frac{14\pi \alpha ^2}{9m_q^2}}`$ (11)
All the integrals over the resonance cross sections are taken in the narrow width approximation and, further, the contributions of the states with $`J3`$ will be neglected. For generality of the consideration, we included the last term in (10) that corresponds to a possible role of scalar diquarks as constituent ”partons” composing, at least in part, the scalar meson nonets (for discussion of this acute problem in hadron spectroscopy see, e.g., minireview in  and references therein). Assuming no mixing between light and heavy quark sectors, one can read every sum rule separately for mesons constructed of the u-,d-, s-, and c-quarks. Moreover, one can split sum rules into the isovector and isoscalar resonance parts in the light quark sector, which enables one to carry a more detailed comparison with experimental data. For numerical estimation of radiative widths we use the mass values $`m_c=1.5`$ GeV, $`m_u=m_d240`$ MeV, $`m_s`$ is taken from  as expressed via the strangeness-changing GT-relation, $`m_s350`$ MeV, and for the diquark masses we take the values following from the extended chiral model including scalar diquarks into the low-energy effective Lagrangian approach : $`m_{qq}310÷330`$ MeV, $`m_{qs}545÷570`$ MeV, where $`q=u,d`$.

In the charm sector, from our sum rules we have obtained $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\eta _c)7.4(6.9\pm 1.7\pm 0.8)`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c0})6.1(3.76\pm 0.65\pm 1.81)`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c2})3.9[(0.53\pm 0.15\pm 0.23)]÷[(1.76\pm 0.47\pm 0.37)]`$ where the most recent results on the two-photon widths of resonances in the units $`keV`$ from  are given in parentheses and a smaller (larger) value for the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c2})`$ refers to the registered $`\chi _{c2}`$ \- decay final states $`2\pi ^+2\pi ^{}`$ ($`l^+l^{}\gamma `$) . The closeness of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }^{exp}(\eta _c)`$ to the value calculated from sum rules points to relative smallness of the higher resonance part of the spectrum, e.g., the radial excitations of pseudoscalar charmonia compared to the ground state contribution. The situation with the scalar charmonium seems to signal about a more important role of higher radial excitations. The cross section of the transition $`\gamma \gamma q\overline{q}(J^{PC}=2^{++})`$ is known  to fall much slower with rising photon energies as compared to the transitions to the states with $`J^{PC}=0^{\pm +}`$, and this is reflected by rather a large contribution from the higher resonances with larger masses and spins. The situation with the light tensor mesons is largely the same, and we shall instead focus on the pseudoscalar and scalar meson sum rules in the light quark sector.

Remarkably enough, the small upper bound of the radiative width of the pseudotensor $`\pi _2(1670)`$-resonance, reported recently by the L3 and ARGUS Collaborations  together with the known two-photon widths of $`\pi ^0`$-, $`\eta `$-, and $`\eta ^{}`$-mesons provide the fulfilment of the pseudoscalar sum rule within experimental uncertainties.

Concerning the nature of the low-lying scalar mesons, there is still no general agreement on where are the $`q\overline{q}`$ states, whether there is a glueball among the light scalars, and whether some of the many scalars are multiquark, or meson-meson bound states. One of the most economic viewpoints would be to try to identify low-mass scalars with the ground and radial excited $`q\overline{q}`$ states and the glueball mixed with quarkonia-type states . Another popular scheme consists in the hypothesis that above 1 GeV the scalar states form a conventional $`q\overline{q}`$ nonet mixed with the glueball, suggested by lattice QCD, while below 1 GeV the states also form a nonet, but of a more complicated nature . Namely, as implied by the attractive forces of QCD, the diquark configurations of the type $`(qq)_{\overline{3}}(\overline{q}\overline{q})_3`$ in S-wave, possibly, with some $`q\overline{q}`$ admixture in P-wave, can form a number of broad and low-lying resonances, which can also be identified with observed states. We apply the sum rule (12) for light scalar mesons to test both the afore-mentioned pictures of two nonets of scalar mesons. For the isovector mesons $`a_{S_1}a_0(980)`$ and $`a_{S_2}a_0(1450)`$ we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(S_i)}{m(S_i)^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{96\pi }}({\displaystyle \frac{5}{9m_{q}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9m_{qs}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}})`$ (12)
We take $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(a_0(980))0.3`$ keV , and $`m_{q,(qs)}=240(550)`$ MeV for a further numerical calculation. Let us consider first the ”ground + radial-excited” $`q\overline{q}`$-option for $`a_0(980)`$ and $`a_0(1450)`$-resonances. It follows then from the sum rule (12) with the second term (i.e., the diquark term, containing $`m_{qs}`$) omitted in the right-hand side:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(a_0(1450))`$ $``$ $`2.9keV`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(S_1)}{m(S_1)^3}}:{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(S_2)}{m(S_2)^3}}`$ $``$ $`1:4.34`$ (13)
While the absolute value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(a_0(1450))`$ looks reasonable, the ratio of the ”reduced couplings” squared (the second line in Eq.(13)) is not, in our opinion. In the potential nonrelativistic models, this ratio can essentially be interpreted as a ratio of derivatives of the meson radial wave function at the ”zero” interquark distance: $`|R_{S_1}^{}(0)|^2:|R_{S_2}^{}(0)|^2`$, and the situation of the ground-to-(1st)radial-state ratio such as given by Eq.(13) looks disfavouring (for example, in heavy quark systems obeying the Schrödinger equation with the QCD-motivated potentials $`|R_{1P}^{}(0)|^2:|R_{2P}^{}(0)|^21:1.2`$ for the nP-wave states ).

Following another option, we identify $`a_0(980)`$ and $`a_0(1450)`$ as generally mixed configurations $`(1/\sqrt{2})(u\overline{u}d\overline{d})`$ in P-wave and $`(1/\sqrt{2})((us)(\overline{u}\overline{s})(ds)(\overline{d}\overline{s}))`$ in S-wave. First, we note that if one takes $`a_0(980)`$ as the pure $`2q2\overline{q}`$ and $`a_0(1450)`$ as the pure $`q\overline{q}`$ -configuration, then one can obtain from the sum rule (12) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(a_0(980))0.12`$ keV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(a_0(1450))5.2`$ keV. The two-photon decay width of $`a_0(980)`$ turns out essentially lower than accepted value $`0.3`$ keV in that case. Therefore, it appears reasonable to correct the situation with the help of the mixing of two parton configurations. Tentatively, we accept the simplest case of the orthogonal mixing of two isovector $`|q\overline{q}>`$ and $`|(qs)(\overline{q}\overline{s})>`$ basis states, assuming also $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(a_0(980))=0.3`$ keV. Irrespectively of the mixing, the value $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(a_0(1450))3.5`$ keV follows just from the sum rule. Solving the following equation:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(S_1)}{m(S_1)^3}}`$ $`:`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(S_2)}{m(S_2)^3}}=`$
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3m_{qs}}}cos\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{5}}{3m_q}}sin\theta ]^2`$ $`:`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3m_{qs}}}sin\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{5}}{3m_q}}cos\theta ]^2,`$ (14)
for the mixing angle $`\theta `$, one obtains two solutions: $`\theta 12^o`$ and $`\theta 137^o`$, where the first (second) corresponds to the positive (negative) relative sign of the amplitudes $`A(a_0(980)2\gamma )`$ and $`A(a_0(1450)2\gamma )`$. The quark-flavour structure of physical resonance states is then

$`a_0(980)=0.691((us)(\overline{u}\overline{s})(ds)(\overline{d}\overline{s}))+0.147(u\overline{u}d\overline{d})`$
$`a_0(1450)=0.147((us)(\overline{u}\overline{s})(ds)(\overline{d}\overline{s}))+0.691(u\overline{u}d\overline{d}),`$ (15)
for the positive sign, and

$`a_0(980){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}((us)(\overline{u}\overline{s})+(ds)(\overline{d}\overline{s}))+u\overline{u}d\overline{d})`$
$`a_0(1450){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}((us)(\overline{u}\overline{s})(ds)(\overline{d}\overline{s})+u\overline{u}d\overline{d}),`$ (16)
for the negative one.

A smaller value of the mixing angle $`\theta `$ seems to conform better to the analysis of the strong decays of light scalars. The predicted large radiative width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(a_0(1450)`$ may present a potential difficulty for the explanation of the apparent absence of a resonance effect due to the excitation of $`a_0(1450)`$ in the mass spectrum of the $`K_{S}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}K_{S}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$\- pairs produced in the $`\gamma \gamma `$ -reaction . However, the detailed analysis of this situation requires simultaneous consideration of excitation of both isovector and closely lying isoscalar scalar resonances, which are expected (by analogy with the known effect of the tensor $`a_2(1320)`$ \- and $`f_2(1270)`$ \- resonance interference) to interfere destructively in the $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ decay channel. Unfortunately, it is presently impossible to analyse, via analogous sum rules, the very interesting and important isoscalar sector of light scalar mesons due to the lack of needed data on radiative widths.

## 3  Concluding remarks

We believe that the sum rules for resonance $`\gamma \gamma `$ interaction give, on the average, a good evidence for the relevance of quark- hadron duality in the considered context.

1.The application of the developed approach to derive and check the $`\gamma \gamma `$\- sum rules leads to especially good results for pseudoscalar mesons in both light and charm quark sector. A rapid decrease in the corresponding polarized $`\gamma \gamma `$ -cross section in the integral sum rule explains the sum rule saturation by the ground states of pseudoscalar mesons.
2.As it follows from sum rules to be saturated by the light scalar mesons, the $`\gamma \gamma `$ \- resonance couplings can give important information on the flavour and parton content of these states. One can hope that such information on the scalar mesons will be an essential part of interpreting these states. Further, the $`Q^2`$ dependence of the reaction $`\gamma ^{}\gamma f_0/a_0`$ on the photon virtuality could probe the spatial dependence of the wave function of these states.
3.The measurements of radiative decays of higher spin meson resonances would be very desirable and interesting in view of a demonstrated stronger dependence of the sum rule, including the higher spin, $`J2`$, on higher mass intermediate states and photon energies.
In conclusion, the author wishes to thank the organizers of the GDH-2002 Conference for invitation, warm hospitality, and support.
This work was partially supported by the RFBR grant No. 00-15-96737.