text:
# On the Behavior of the Effective QCD Coupling 𝛼_𝜏(𝑠) at Low ScalesResearch partially supported by the Department of Energy under contract DE–AC03–76SF00515 and the Swedish Research Council under contract F 620-359/2001

## I Introduction

One of the major uncertainties in making reliable predictions in quantum chromodynamics (QCD) is to understand the theory at low momentum scales where the coupling becomes large and non-perturbative effects become important. In fact, it is well known that perturbation theory itself is not well defined in the infrared domain, since the perturbative series is asymptotic. For infrared-safe quantities the non-perturbative effects can be parameterized as power corrections of the form $`c_n(\mathrm{\Lambda }/Q)^n`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the QCD-scale and $`Q`$ is the hard scale of the process considered. The coefficients $`c_n`$ cannot be calculated in general, but in some cases such as the event-shapes in $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ annihilation, one can determine the dominating power $`n`$ and also find relations between the $`c_n`$ for different observables by using the operator product expansion  or renormalon calculus (for a review see ref. ).

The behavior of fixed-order perturbation theory at low momentum scales is governed by the running coupling $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(k^2)`$. The conventional coupling $`\alpha _{\overline{\text{MS}}}(k^2)`$, defined using the modified minimal subtraction renormalization scheme and dimensional regularization, is analytically singular at a scale $`k^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\text{MS}}}^2`$. This nonphysical behavior leads to a number of difficulties, including renormalon $`n!`$ growth of the coefficients when one makes perturbative expansions of physical observables in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme. These problems can be traced to the fact that integrals over the running coupling which appear in bubble graphs are ill-defined due to the non-analyticity of the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ coupling.

There also exists the possibility to define a running coupling which stays finite in the infrared. One such example is the “time-like” effective coupling which is used in the dispersive approach . In this approach, an observable is written as an integral over a process dependent characteristic function times a universal “time-like” effective coupling. The idea is that such a coupling may give an effective measure of the interaction at low scales . Power corrections can then be written as process dependent moments over the effective coupling.

An alternative procedure is to define the fundamental coupling of QCD from a given physical observable . These couplings, called effective charges, are all-order resummations of perturbation theory and include all non-perturbative effects. Since these physical charges correspond to the complete theory of QCD, it is guaranteed that they are analytic and non-singular. For example, it has been shown that unlike the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ coupling, a physical coupling is analytic across quark flavor thresholds . Furthermore, we expect that a physical coupling should stay finite in the infrared when the momentum scale goes to zero. In turn, this means that integrals over the running coupling are well defined for physical couplings. An additional question is whether the physical couplings freeze to a constant value in the infrared.

Once such a physical coupling $`\alpha _{\mathrm{phys}}(k^2)`$ is chosen, other physical quantities can be expressed as expansions in $`\alpha _{\mathrm{phys}}`$ by eliminating the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ coupling which now becomes only an intermediary . In such a procedure there are in principle no further renormalization scale ($`\mu `$) or scheme ambiguities. The physical couplings satisfy the standard renormalization group equation for its logarithmic derivative, $`\mathrm{d}\alpha _{\mathrm{phys}}/\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}k^2=\widehat{\beta }_{\mathrm{phys}}[\alpha _{\mathrm{phys}}(k^2)]`$, where the first two terms in the perturbative expansion of the Gell-Mann Low function $`\widehat{\beta }_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ are scheme-independent at leading twist whereas the higher order terms have to be calculated for each observable separately using perturbation theory.

Quantum field theoretic predictions which relate physical observables cannot depend on theoretical conventions such as the choice of renormalization scheme or scale ($`\mu `$). The most well-known example is the perturbative “generalized Crewther relation”  in which the leading twist QCD corrections to the Bjorken sum rule for polarized deep inelastic scattering at a given lepton momentum transfer $`Q^2`$ are related through a geometric series to the QCD corrections to $`R_{\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}}`$ at a corresponding CM energy squared, $`s^{}=s^{}(Q^2)`$, independent of renormalization scheme, $`(1+\alpha _R(s^{})/\pi )(1\alpha _{g_1}(Q^2)/\pi )=1`$ . The ratio of the scales $`s^{}/Q^2`$ has been computed to NLO in PQCD. Such leading-twist predictions between observables are called “commensurate scale relations” and are identical for conformal and nonconformal theories . In addition, the conformal coefficients are free of the renormalon factorial growth

For example, in QED, the Gell-Mann Low running coupling $`\alpha _{\mathrm{QED}}(k^2)=\frac{\alpha (k_0^2)}{1\mathrm{\Pi }(k^2,k_0^2)}`$, which is formally defined from the renormalization of the dressed photon propagator, is a physical coupling since it could be determined from a measurement of the part of the potential $`V(k^2)`$ between two infinitely heavy test charges which is linear in their charges; i.e., $`4\pi \alpha _{\mathrm{QED}}(k^2)=k^2V_{\mathrm{lin}}(k^2)`$. Using the skeleton expansion , the coefficients in perturbative expansions of other physical quantities are identical to that in a theory which is conformal, since all effects of the non-zero $`\widehat{\beta }`$ function are already summed into the integrals over the running coupling. By the mean value theorem, the same is also true for the standard perturbative expansion if the scale, at which to evaluate the coupling, is properly chosen .

It is not as simple to identify a suitable physical coupling to be used in the case of QCD. For a skeleton expansion to be possible, the Abelian part of the coupling should coincide with the Gell-Mann Low coupling, since QCD becomes an Abelian theory in the analytic limit $`N_\mathrm{c}0`$ at fixed $`C_\mathrm{F}\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$ and fixed $`n_\mathrm{f}/C_\mathrm{F}`$ . A possible candidate for a physical coupling in QCD which fulfills this requirement is the $`\alpha _V(k^2)`$ scheme defined from the potential between two heavy test color charges . However, in contrast to the Abelian case, this definition is problematic since the “$`H`$graphs” which arise from gluon exchange diagrams with a horizontal gluon rung connecting the “first” and “last” exchanged gluons have an infrared sensitivity which depends on the details of the test charge wavefunction . Another possible generalization of the Gell-Man Low coupling to non-Abelian theories is the “pinch” scheme  which rearranges the contributions to scattering amplitudes to insure a structure $`\alpha _{\mathrm{pinch}}(k^2)=\frac{\alpha _{\mathrm{pinch}}(k_0^2)}{1\mathrm{\Pi }(k^2,k_0^2)}`$ similar to that of QED. As in QED, expansions in the pinch scheme have the same structure as those of a conformal theory. The pinch charge is a promising physical scheme, but at this time the complexity of higher order calculations in this scheme and its indirect connection to measurements has prevented its practical implementation, although recently there has been attempts to make an all-orders definition of a QCD effective charge .

In this note we will discuss an alternative definition of a physical coupling for QCD which has a direct relation to high precision measurements of the hadronic decay channels of the $`\tau ^{}\nu _\tau \mathrm{h}^{}`$. Details on the extraction of $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(m_\tau ^2)`$ from $`\tau `$ decays can be found in refs.  (for some recent developments in the extraction of $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(m_\tau ^2)`$ from $`\tau `$ decays see for example ).

Let $`R_\tau `$ be the ratio of the hadronic decay rate to the leptonic one. Then $`R_\tau R_\tau ^0\left[1+\frac{\alpha _\tau }{\pi }\right]`$, where $`R_\tau ^0`$ is the zeroth order QCD prediction, defines the effective charge $`\alpha _\tau `$. Throughout this paper we will concentrate on non-strange decay modes and thus $`R_\tau ^0=3S_{\mathrm{EW}}|V_{\mathrm{ud}}|^2`$ where $`S_{\mathrm{EW}}=1.0194`$ is an electroweak correction term  and $`|V_{\mathrm{ud}}|^2=0.9512\pm 0.0008`$  is the relevant CKM matrix element. The data for $`\tau `$ decays is well-understood channel by channel, thus allowing a precise separation of vector and axial-vector decay modes which can therefore be studied separately.

The measured invariant mass spectrum for the non-strange hadronic decay modes can also be used to study hypothetical $`\tau `$-leptons with a smaller mass, $`m_\tau ^{}<m_\tau `$ . In this way the $`\tau `$-decay data allows us to study the behavior of the coupling $`\alpha _\tau (s)`$ in the region $`0sm_\tau ^2`$ and address the question whether this physical coupling freezes in the infrared.

## II Extracting $`\alpha _\tau (s)`$ from data on $`\tau `$-decays

The experimental data on the non-strange hadronic $`\tau `$-decays can be used to define the hadronic decay rate normalized to the leptonic one for a hypothetical $`\tau `$-lepton with mass in the range $`0<m_\tau ^{}<m_\tau `$ in the following way :

$$R_\tau ^{\mathrm{V}/\mathrm{A}}(m_\tau ^{}^2)12\pi S_{\mathrm{EW}}|V_{\mathrm{ud}}|^2\underset{0}{\overset{m_\tau ^{}^2}{}}\frac{\mathrm{d}s}{m_\tau ^{}^2}\left(1\frac{s}{m_\tau ^{}^2}\right)^2\left[\left(1+2\frac{s}{m_\tau ^{}^2}\right)\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{V}/\mathrm{A}}^{(1)}(s)+\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{V}/\mathrm{A}}^{(0)}(s)\right],$$
(1)
where $`2\pi \mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{V}/\mathrm{A}}^{(1)}(s)=v/a(s)`$ are the spectral functions for the measured non-strange hadronic final states with angular momentum $`J=1`$. The scalar contribution $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{V}/\mathrm{A}}^{(0)}(s)`$ is assumed to vanish for the vector current and is given by the single pion pole for the axial current. The above definition coincides with the standard definition in the case $`m_\tau ^{}=m_\tau `$. Note, however, that the right-hand side above uses $`m_\tau ^{}`$ instead of $`m_\tau `$ not only in the upper integration limit but also in the kinematic prefactors. This way the end-point is suppressed in the same way for the hypothetical $`\tau `$-lepton as for the real one . The ratio $`R_\tau ^{\mathrm{V}/\mathrm{A}}(m_\tau ^{}^2)`$ is thus defined as if a hypothetical lepton of mass $`m_\tau ^{}`$ existed.

Since states with non-zero strangeness can be excluded, all of the hadrons in the final state can be assumed to arise from $`\tau ^{}\nu _\tau \overline{\mathrm{u}}\mathrm{d}`$. We can then define effective charges $`\alpha _\tau ^{\mathrm{V}/\mathrm{A}}(m_\tau ^{}^2)`$ for the vector and axial-vector decay modes as follows:

$$R_\tau ^{\mathrm{V}/\mathrm{A}}(m_\tau ^{}^2)\frac{R_\tau ^0}{2}\left[1+\frac{\alpha _\tau ^{\mathrm{V}/\mathrm{A}}(m_\tau ^{}^2)}{\pi }\right].$$
(2)
Notice that the combination $`R_\tau ^\mathrm{V}R_\tau ^\mathrm{A}`$ does not receive a perturbative QCD contribution at leading twist; thus if QCD is correct this contribution should be power law suppressed at high energies. It is thus natural to identify the complimentary $`R_\tau ^\mathrm{V}+R_\tau ^\mathrm{A}`$ combination which has canonical perturbative QCD contributions as the preferred QCD effective charge, $`\alpha _\tau (m_\tau ^{}^2)`$, defined by

$$R_\tau (m_\tau ^{}^2)=R_\tau ^\mathrm{V}(m_\tau ^{}^2)+R_\tau ^\mathrm{A}(m_\tau ^{}^2)R_\tau ^0\left[1+\frac{\alpha _\tau (m_\tau ^{}^2)}{\pi }\right].$$
(3)
For completeness, we also recall how one can use experimental data to measure the decay ratio of hypothetical $`\tau `$-leptons for masses well above $`m_\tau `$ . Just as in the case of $`\tau `$-leptons one can define a local unintegrated effective charge $`\alpha _R(s)`$ directly from the annihilation data:

$$R_{\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}}(s)=\frac{\sigma (\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{hadrons})}{\sigma (\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{})}R_{\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}}^0\left[1+\frac{\alpha _R(s)}{\pi }\right],$$
(4)
where $`R_{\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}}^0`$ is the zeroth order QCD prediction. If we assume isospin invariance, then the decay ratio of a hypothetical $`\tau `$-lepton in the vector channel $`R_\tau ^\mathrm{V}(m_\tau ^{}^2)`$ can be written as a spectral integral with weight $`f(x)=\left(1x\right)^2\left(1+2x\right)`$, where $`x=s/m_\tau ^{}^2`$, of the annihilation cross section $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\gamma ^{}\mathrm{hadrons}`$ in the isospin $`I=1`$ channel. This allows the measurement of $`\alpha _\tau ^V(m_\tau ^{}^2)`$ well above the physical mass of the $`\tau `$ . We thus can relate the $`\alpha _\tau ^V`$ and $`\alpha _R^{(I=1)}`$ effective charges:

$$\alpha _\tau ^V(m_\tau ^{}^2)=\frac{{\displaystyle _0^{m_\tau ^{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}s}{m_\tau ^{}^2}}f\left({\displaystyle \frac{s}{m_\tau ^{}^2}}\right)\alpha _R^{(I=1)}(s)}{{\displaystyle _0^{m_\tau ^{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}s}{m_\tau ^{}^2}}f\left({\displaystyle \frac{s}{m_\tau ^{}^2}}\right)}.$$
(5)
The mean value theorem then implies

$$\alpha _\tau ^V(m_\tau ^{}^2)=\alpha _R^{(I=1)}(s^{}),0s^{}m_\tau ^{}^2,$$
(6)
a form of commensurate scale relation. In the case of three flavors ($`n_\mathrm{f}=3`$) the above relation is still valid to next-to-next-to-leading order even if one does not restrict oneself to the $`I=1`$ channel. To next-to-leading order in $`\alpha _R`$ the scale $`s^{}`$ is given by (see for example )

$$s^{}=m_\tau ^{}^2\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{19}{12}\frac{169}{576}\left(11\frac{2}{3}n_\mathrm{f}\right)\frac{\alpha _R}{\pi }\right].$$
(7)
Before continuing we also note that as an alternative definition of a hypothetical $`\tau `$-lepton with mass above $`m_\tau `$ one could use $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{V}^{(1)}(s)`$ measured from $`\tau `$-decays for the integration region $`0<s<m_\tau ^2`$ and data from $`R_{\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}}(s)`$ in the $`I=1`$ channel for the remaining integration region $`m_\tau ^2<s<m_\tau ^{}^2`$.

The empirical behavior of the decay ratios $`R_\tau `$, $`R_\tau ^\mathrm{V}`$, $`R_\tau ^\mathrm{A}`$, and $`R_\tau ^\mathrm{V}R_\tau ^\mathrm{A}`$ using data on $`\tau `$-decays as determined by the OPAL collaboration at LEP  are shown in fig. 1.

There are several striking features:

1. the $`R_\tau ^\mathrm{V}R_\tau ^\mathrm{A}`$ combination tends to vanish at high scales, showing that only higher dimensional operators contribute. This is a highly non-trivial test of QCD.
2. The $`R_\tau `$ contribution has only a slow variation in the low mass range.

The corresponding effective charges $`\alpha _\tau `$, $`\alpha _\tau ^\mathrm{V}`$, and $`\alpha _\tau ^\mathrm{A}`$ as well as the difference $`\alpha _\tau ^\mathrm{V}\alpha _\tau ^\mathrm{A}`$ are shown in Fig. 2.

Based on the analysis by the OPAL collaboration , the experimental value of the coupling $`\alpha _\tau (s)=0.621\pm 0.008`$ at $`s=m_\tau ^2`$ corresponds to a value of $`\alpha _{\overline{\text{MS}}}(M_Z^2)=(0.117`$-$`0.122)\pm 0.002`$, where the range corresponds to three different perturbative methods used in analyzing the data. This result is, at least for the fixed order and renormalon resummation methods, in good agreement with the world average $`\alpha _{\overline{\text{MS}}}(M_Z^2)=0.117\pm 0.002`$ . However, from the figure we also see that the effective charge only reaches $`\alpha _\tau (s)0.9\pm 0.1`$ at $`s=1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, and it even stays within the same range down to $`s0.5\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. This result is in good agreement with the estimate of Mattingly and Stevenson  for the effective coupling $`\alpha _R(s)0.85`$ for $`\sqrt{s}<0.3\mathrm{GeV}`$ determined from $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ annihilation, especially if one takes into account the perturbative commensurate scale relation, $`\alpha _\tau (m_\tau ^{}^2)=\alpha _R(s^{})`$ where, for $`\alpha _R=0.85`$, we have $`s^{}0.10m_\tau ^{}^2`$ according to Eq. (7). As we will show in more detail in the next section, this behavior is not consistent with the coupling having a Landau pole but rather shows that the physical coupling is much more constant at low scales, suggesting that physical QCD couplings are effectively constant or “frozen” at low scales.

At the same time, it should be recognized that the behavior of $`\alpha _\tau (s)`$ in the region $`s<1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ is more and more influenced by non-perturbative effects as the scale is lowered. Even though the dominant non-perturbative effects cancel in the sum of the vector and axial-vector contributions as can be seen by looking at the corresponding effective charges individually. Looking at $`\alpha _\tau ^\mathrm{V}(s)`$, we see that it more or less vanishes as the integration region moves to the left of the two-pion peak in the hadronic spectrum. In the same way the behavior of $`\alpha _\tau ^\mathrm{A}(s)`$ at small scales is governed by the single pion pole.

## III Analysis of the infrared behavior of $`\alpha _\tau (s)`$

In order to be able to analyze the infrared behavior of the effective coupling $`\alpha _\tau (s)`$ in more detail, we will compare with (a) the fixed-order perturbative evolution of the $`\alpha _\tau (s)`$ coupling on the one hand, and (b) with the evolution of couplings that have non-perturbative or all-order resummations included in their definition. For the latter case, many different schemes have been suggested, and we will concentrate on two of them: the one-loop “time-like” effective coupling $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}(s)`$ , and the modified $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_V`$ coupling calculated from the static quark potential using perturbative gluon condensate dynamics .

The perturbative couplings evolve according to the standard evolution equation

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}a_\mathrm{s}(s)}{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}s}=\beta _0a_\mathrm{s}^2(s)\beta _1a_\mathrm{s}^3(s)\beta _2a_\mathrm{s}^4(s)\beta _3a_\mathrm{s}^5(s)\mathrm{},$$
(8)
where $`a_\mathrm{s}(s)=\alpha _\mathrm{s}(s)/(4\pi )`$. The first two terms in the $`\beta `$-function, $`\beta _0`$ and $`\beta _1`$, are universal at leading twist whereas the higher order terms are scheme dependent. Currently the $`\beta `$-function is known to four loops ($`\beta _3`$) in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme and to three loops ($`\beta _2`$) in the $`\alpha _\tau `$ scheme. In the latter case there also exists an estimate of the four-loop term. For completeness these terms are summarized in the appendix.

Fig. 3 shows a comparison of the experimentally determined effective charge $`\alpha _\tau (s)`$ with solutions to the evolution equation (8) for $`\alpha _\tau `$ at two-, three-, and four-loop order normalized at $`m_\tau `$. It is clear from the figure that the data on $`\alpha _\tau (s)`$ does not have the same behavior as the solution of the (universal) two-loop equation which is singular***The same divergent behavior would also be seen at three- and four-loop order in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme where both $`\beta _2`$ and $`\beta _3`$ are positive for $`n_\mathrm{f}=3`$. at the scale $`s1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. However, at three loops the behavior of the perturbative solution drastically changes, and instead of diverging, it freezes to a value $`\alpha _\tau 2`$ in the infrared. The reason for this fundamental change is, of course, the negative sign of $`\beta _{\tau ,2}`$. At the same time, it must be kept in mind that this result is not perturbatively stable since the evolution of the coupling is governed by the highest order term. This is illustrated by the widely different results obtained for three different values of the unknown four loop term $`\beta _{\tau ,3}`$ which are also shownThe values of $`\beta _{\tau ,3}`$ used are obtained from the estimate of the four loop term in the perturbative series of $`R_\tau `$, $`K_4^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}=25\pm 50`$ .. Still, it may be more than a mere coincidence that the three-loop solution freezes in the infrared. Recently it has been argued that $`\alpha _R(s)`$ freezes perturbatively to all orders . Given the commensurate scale relation (6) this should also be true perturbatively for $`\alpha _\tau (s)`$. It is also interesting to note that the central four-loop solution is in good agreement with the data all the way down to $`s1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$.

The one-loop “time-like” effective coupling

$$\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}(s)=\frac{4\pi }{\beta _0}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{arctan}\left[\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{ln}\frac{s}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right]\right\}$$
(9)
is obtained from the analytic continuation of the one-loop coupling $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(Q^2)=(4\pi )/[\beta _0\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)]`$ which defines the spectral density $`\mathrm{d}\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}(s)/\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}s=[\alpha _\mathrm{s}(s+iϵ)\alpha _\mathrm{s}(siϵ)]/(2\pi i)`$ in the same way as $`R_{\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}}(s)`$ is related to the Adler $`D`$-function. The resulting effective coupling is finite in the infrared and freezes to the value $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}(s)=4\pi /\beta _0`$ as $`s0`$. It is also instructive to expand the “time-like” effective coupling for large $`s`$,

$`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{\beta _0\mathrm{ln}\left(s/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right)}}\left\{1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{\mathrm{ln}^2\left(s/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^4}{\mathrm{ln}^4\left(s/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right)}}+\mathrm{}\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(s)\left\{1{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2\beta _0^2}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _\mathrm{s}(s)}{4\pi }}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^4\beta _0^4}{5}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _\mathrm{s}(s)}{4\pi }}\right)^4+\mathrm{}\right\}.`$
This shows that the “time-like” effective coupling is a resummation of $`(\pi ^2\beta _0^2\alpha _\mathrm{s}^2)^n`$-corrections to the “space-like” coupling which occurs in the analytic continuation. The “time-like” effective coupling can also be defined to higher orders (for a recent review see ) but the infrared behavior persists also in these cases.

The form for the finite coupling $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ given in Eq. (9) obeys standard PQCD evolution at LO. Thus one can have a solution for the perturbative running of the QCD coupling which obeys asymptotic freedom but does not have a Landau singularity.

The evolution of the modified $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_V(Q^2,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{gc}}^2)`$ coupling is to leading order governed by the evolution equation,

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\stackrel{~}{a}_V(Q^2,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{gc}}^2)}{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}Q^2}=\stackrel{~}{\beta }_0(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{gc}}/Q)\stackrel{~}{a}_V^2(Q^2,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{gc}}^2),$$
(10)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{\beta }_0(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{gc}}/Q)=512\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{gc}}^2}{Q^2}+\left(12\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{gc}}^3}{Q^3}6\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{gc}}}{Q}+\frac{3}{2}\frac{Q}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{gc}}}\right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q+2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{gc}}}{Q2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{gc}}}\frac{2}{3}n_\mathrm{f}.$$
(11)
The difference compared to the ordinary evolution equation is thus that the gluonic contribution to $`\beta _0`$ freezes out at a scale $`Q\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{gc}}`$ – the scale of the gluon condensate.

Fig. 4 shows a comparison of the experimentally determined effective charge $`\alpha _\tau (s)`$ with the one-loop “time-like” effective coupling $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}(s)`$ and the modified $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_V`$ coupling calculated from the static quark potential using perturbative gluon condensate dynamics. In both cases the solutions have been normalized to the data at $`m_\tau `$. In addition, when solving the evolution equation for $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_V`$ (10) we have used the value $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{gc}}=581\mathrm{MeV}`$ which makes the solution to the one-loop evolution equation (8) agree with the data at $`m_\tau `$ if one sets $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{gc}}`$. As can be seen from the figure, the data on $`\alpha _\tau (s)`$ agrees well qualitatively with both of these simple examples of freezing couplings down to the scale $`s1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. Below this scale the non-perturbative effects in $`\alpha _\tau (s)`$ associated with the single pion pole in the axial vector current and the double pion peak in the vector current starts to dominate and makes a direct comparison with models which do not contain the spectrum of hadrons less meaningful.

## IV Conclusions

The results of this paper show the advantages of defining the QCD coupling directly from a physical observable. The resulting effective coupling can be defined even at low scales, it is finite and analytic, and it has no scheme or renormalization scale ambiguities. As we have shown, the hadronic decays of the $`\tau `$ lepton can be used to determine the effective charge $`\alpha _\tau (m_\tau ^{}^2)`$ for a hypothetical $`\tau `$-lepton with mass in the range $`0<m_\tau ^{}<m_\tau `$. The high precision of $`\tau `$ hadronic decay data thus provides a precise standard definition for the fundamental QCD coupling. QCD predictions for other observables can then be expressed as functions of this coupling $`\alpha _\tau (s)`$, thus relating observable to observable.

An important feature of $`\alpha _\tau (s)`$ is its apparent near constant behavior at low mass scales. The empirical results using the OPAL data are consistent with the freezing of the physical coupling at mass scales $`s=m_\tau ^{}^2`$ of order $`1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ with a magnitude $`\alpha _\tau 0.9\pm 0.1`$. These results contrast dramatically with standard expectations of a divergent coupling based on the universal two-loop coupling which becomes infinite at small mass scales. At higher orders of perturbation theory for the beta function, the behavior of the coupling is scheme dependent and in addition it is dominated by the highest order term. In the physical $`\alpha _\tau `$-scheme the behavior of the coupling in the infrared is not so clear. At 3-loops the $`\alpha _\tau (s)`$ coupling has an infrared fixed point whereas at higher orders the behavior of the coupling is not known. Estimates of the 4-loop term indicate both an infrared fixed point as well as a divergent behavior.

Recently it has been argued by Howe and Maxwell  that the effective charge $`\alpha _R(s)`$ has an infrared fixed point to all orders in perturbation theory. Given the commensurate scale relation between $`\alpha _\tau `$ and $`\alpha _R`$ this should then also be true for $`\alpha _\tau (s)`$. A simple example of the mechanism behind such a perturbative infrared fixed point is given by the effective “time-like” one-loop coupling $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}(s)`$ which agrees well qualitatively with the empirically determined coupling. Another mechanism which also gives an infrared fixed point in qualitative agreement with the data is given by the perturbative gluon condensate dynamics. These simple examples show that indeed the empirical behavior $`\alpha _\tau (s)`$ is consistent with an infrared fixed point.

As we have discussed in the introduction, effective charges defined from different observables are related in perturbative QCD to each other at leading twist through commensurate scale relations . The perturbative coefficients which appear in these relations are identical to those in conformal QCD; i.e. the theory defined with a zero $`\beta `$ function. The effects of the nonzero $`\beta `$ function of physical QCD are absorbed into the scale of the effective couplings. Examples are the relations between $`\alpha _R`$ and $`\alpha _\tau `$ and the generalized Crewther relation, which relates the effective charge defined from the Bjorken sum rule for $`g_1(x,Q^2)`$ to the Adler coupling defined from $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ annihilation through a geometric series .

Since $`\alpha _\tau (m_\tau ^2)`$ has effectively constant behavior at small mass scales, the commensurate scale relations between $`\alpha _\tau `$ and other physical couplings imply that at leading twist all effective charges have a similar fixed-point behavior in the infrared regime. In particular, our results are consistent with the infrared freezing of $`\alpha _R`$ at low $`s`$ obtained by Mattingly and Stevenson .

The commensurate scale relations  can of course also be used at larger scales in order to compare experimental results from different observables. For example, the $`\alpha _\tau `$ effective charge can be evolved to the commensurate scale of another observable which one wants to compare with. This way the results can be compared directly, free of theoretical conventions, instead of by first extracting $`\alpha _{\overline{\text{MS}}}(M_Z^2)`$ and then comparing. Beyond leading twist one can also include power-corrections in the commensurate scale relations and determine non-perturbative parameters in a standard way. Ultimately one could also envision to use a physical effective charge in the dispersive approach. As we have shown, the four-loop evolution of $`\alpha _\tau `$ with $`K_4^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}=25`$ gives a good description of the data down to $`s1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ and could thus be used as an effective model for the $`\alpha _\tau `$ coupling in the low-energy regime.

The near constancy of the effective QCD coupling at small scales helps explain the empirical success of dimensional counting rules for the power law fall-off of form factors and fixed angle scaling (for a review see ref. ). As shown in ref. , one can calculate the hard scattering amplitude $`T_H`$ for such processes  without scale ambiguity in terms of the effective charge $`\alpha _\tau `$ or $`\alpha _R`$ using commensurate scale relations. The effective coupling is evaluated in the regime where the coupling is approximately constant, in contrast to the rapidly varying behavior from powers of $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$ predicted by perturbation theory (the universal two-loop coupling). For example, the nucleon form factors are proportional at leading order to two powers of $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$ evaluated at low scales in addition to two powers of $`1/q^2`$; The pion photoproduction amplitude at fixed angles is proportional at leading order to three powers of the QCD coupling. The essential variation from leading-twist counting-rule behavior then only arises from the anomalous dimensions of the hadron distribution amplitudes.

The large magnitude that we find $`\alpha _\tau 0.9\pm 0.1`$ also implies a substantially larger normalization for the pion form factor and other exclusive observables than estimates based on a canonical value $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}0.3`$. The corresponding larger value of $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}^n`$ associated with the exchange of $`n`$ gluons in the hard scattering amplitude could eliminate much of the discrepancy between data and previous estimates of the PQCD predictions for the normalization of exclusive hard scattering amplitudes.

## A The $`\beta `$-function in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ and $`\alpha _\tau `$ schemes

The perturbative expansion of the $`\beta `$ function is given by,

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}a_\mathrm{s}(s)}{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}s}=\beta _0a_\mathrm{s}^2(s)\beta _1a_\mathrm{s}^3(s)\beta _2a_\mathrm{s}^4(s)\beta _3a_\mathrm{s}^5(s)\mathrm{},$$
(A1)
where $`a_\mathrm{s}(s)=\alpha _\mathrm{s}(s)/(4\pi )`$. The first two terms in the $`\beta `$-function ,

$`\beta _0`$ $`=`$ $`11{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}n_\mathrm{f},`$
$`\beta _1`$ $`=`$ $`102{\displaystyle \frac{38}{3}}n_\mathrm{f},`$
are universal at leading twist whereas the higher order terms are scheme dependent. In the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme the first two scheme dependent coefficients are known :

$`\beta _2^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2857}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{5033}{18}}n_\mathrm{f}+{\displaystyle \frac{325}{54}}n_\mathrm{f}^2,`$ (A2)
$`\beta _3^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{149753}{6}}+3564\zeta _3\left({\displaystyle \frac{1078361}{162}}+{\displaystyle \frac{6508}{27}}\zeta _3\right)n_\mathrm{f}`$ (A4)
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{50065}{162}}+{\displaystyle \frac{6472}{81}}\zeta _3\right)n_\mathrm{f}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1093}{729}}n_\mathrm{f}^3.`$
In case of the $`\alpha _\tau `$ scheme, $`\beta _{\tau ,2}`$ is known exactly whereas for $`\beta _{\tau ,3}`$ there are only estimates.

Since the three- and four-loop coefficients in the $`\beta `$-function are known in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme, the corresponding coefficients (or estimates thereof) can be obtained from the perturbative expansion of $`\alpha _\tau `$ in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme. Starting from the perturbative expansion of the Adler D-function for the photon vacuum polarization:

$$D(s)=4\pi ^2s\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Pi }^\gamma (s)}{\mathrm{d}s}=\underset{f}{}Q_f^2\left(1+\underset{n=1}{\overset{4}{}}D_n\frac{\alpha _\mathrm{s}^n(s)}{\pi ^n}\right),$$
(A5)
with the known coefficients

$`D_1`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (A6)
$`D_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{365}{24}}11\zeta _3\left({\displaystyle \frac{11}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\zeta _3\right)n_\mathrm{f},`$ (A7)
$`D_3^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{87029}{288}}{\displaystyle \frac{1103}{4}}\zeta _3+{\displaystyle \frac{275}{6}}\zeta _5+\left({\displaystyle \frac{7847}{216}}+{\displaystyle \frac{262}{9}}\zeta _3{\displaystyle \frac{25}{9}}\zeta _5\right)n_\mathrm{f}`$ (A9)
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{151}{162}}{\displaystyle \frac{19}{27}}\zeta _3\right)n_\mathrm{f}^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{55}{72}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}\zeta _3\right){\displaystyle \frac{\left({\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}Q_f\right)^2}{N_\mathrm{c}{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}Q_f^2}}`$
one can calculate the following expression for $`\alpha _\tau `$ where $`n_\mathrm{f}=3`$ is assumed for the $`\beta _n`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _\tau (s)}{\pi }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{\overline{\text{MS}}}(s)}{\pi }}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{19}{48}}\beta _0+K_2\right){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{\overline{\text{MS}}}^2(s)}{\pi ^2}}`$ (A13)
$`+\left\{\left[{\displaystyle \frac{265}{1152}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}\pi ^2\right]\beta _0^2+{\displaystyle \frac{19}{192}}\beta _1+{\displaystyle \frac{19}{24}}\beta _0K_2+K_3^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}\right\}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{\overline{\text{MS}}}^3(s)}{\pi ^3}}`$
$`+\{[{\displaystyle \frac{3355}{18432}}{\displaystyle \frac{19}{768}}\pi ^2]\beta _0^3+[{\displaystyle \frac{1325}{9216}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{384}}\pi ^2]\beta _0\beta _1+{\displaystyle \frac{19}{768}}\beta _2^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$
$`+[({\displaystyle \frac{265}{384}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\pi ^2)\beta _0^2+{\displaystyle \frac{19}{96}}\beta _1]K_2+{\displaystyle \frac{19}{16}}\beta _0K_3^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}+K_4^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}\}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{\overline{\text{MS}}}^4(s)}{\pi ^4}},`$
where, as is customary in the $`\tau `$ literature, we use the following notation for the $`D_n`$ with $`\mathrm{f}=\{\mathrm{u},\mathrm{d},\mathrm{s}\}`$:

$`K_1`$ $`=`$ $`D_1=1,`$ (A14)
$`K_2`$ $`=`$ $`D_2(n_\mathrm{f}=3)={\displaystyle \frac{299}{24}}9\zeta _3,`$ (A15)
$`K_3^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ $`=`$ $`D_3^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(n_\mathrm{f}=3)={\displaystyle \frac{58057}{288}}{\displaystyle \frac{779}{4}}\zeta _3+{\displaystyle \frac{75}{2}}\zeta _5`$ (A16)
$`K_4^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ $``$ $`25\pm 50,`$ (A17)
The last coefficient above is only an estimate  but it is often used to evaluate the uncertainty resulting from the missing higher order terms.

Finally, the resulting non-universal $`\beta `$-function coefficients in the $`\alpha _\tau `$-scheme are then given by:

$`\beta _{\tau ,2}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _2^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{299}{6}}+36\zeta _3\right)\beta _1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{169}{144}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\pi ^2\right)\beta _0^3`$ (A19)
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{26713}{36}}+472\zeta _3+600\zeta _51296\zeta _3^2\right)\beta _0`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{79813}{16}}+6552\zeta _3+5400\zeta _5243\pi ^211664\zeta _3^2789,`$ (A20)
$`\beta _{\tau ,3}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _3^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{299}{3}}+72\zeta _3\right)\beta _2^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{89401}{36}}3588\zeta _3+1296\zeta _3^2\right)\beta _1`$ (A23)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1819}{432}}\beta _0^4+({\displaystyle \frac{845}{144}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}\pi ^2)\beta _1\beta _0^2+({\displaystyle \frac{12673115}{27}}+555556\zeta _3`$
$`179400\zeta _5+129600\zeta _3\zeta _5+101952\zeta _3^2186624\zeta _3^3+128K_4^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}})\beta _0`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{585179735}{144}}+4820288\zeta _31614600\zeta _5+1166400\zeta _3\zeta _5`$ (A25)
$`+1000512\zeta _3^28640\pi ^21679616\zeta _3^3+1152K_4^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}46776+1152K_4^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}.`$
Our results agree with the numerical results published in .


format: text

text:
# Microscopics of meson degrees of freedom in nucleons and mesons in nuclei - what can be seen in the process of quasielastic knockout of mesons by high-energy electrons

## 1 Inroduction

1. The quasielastic knock-out (q.e.k.) of protons out of nuclei by high energy electrons was used as mighty tool for investigation of nucleus structure . Then the concept of q.e.k. was extended  to the knock-out of electrons out of atoms and molecules and by this method very important results for the structure of these microobjects were obtained. For recent time in the literature, the notion of quasielastic knock out is often discussed in hadron physics . In general, this term means that in a process almost whole four momentum of a probe is transferred to only one degree of freedom - for instance to nucleon in the process of photoproduction of pions on nuclei.

We have extended this notion to the quasielastic knock out of mesons from nucleon and nuclei and use this notion to clarify some physical problems. In general, the set of diagrams gives contributions to the process of photo- or electroproduction of pions on nucleons. For example, in Fig. 1 we show several such diagrams (with pseudoscalar interaction).

In the case of photoproduction all of these diagrams play very important role. However at sufficiently high square momentum transfer $`Q^2`$ ($`Q^21`$ (GeV/$`c`$)2, and total invariant mass of hadrons $`W`$ 2 GeV/$`c`$ (in order to exclude the contributions of resonances) the situation becomes very simple - for longitudinal photons the ”pion in flight diagram”, that is the diagram with pion pole in $`t`$-channel, becomes dominant. This was shown in our previous papers . It means that in the longitudinal electroproduction in the mentioned kinematics the real knock-out of pion from nucleon takes place. Thus from experimental data one can extract the momentum distribution of pion in nucleon and their spectroscopic factors i.e. the number of pions. This notion opens a new possibility for direct investigation of meson structure of nucleon and relevant problems. The similar considerations are also valid for electroproduction of pions by transverse virtual photons and we have here the knock-out of vector mesons with simultaneous transformation of them into pion (the phenomenon of ”deexitation” that is similar to the deexitation of alpha - particles in nuclei). It can also provide a valuable information on the dynamic of vector mesons in nucleon.

2. Now let’s make several remarks about terms in which we shall discuss these problems. The cross section of electroproduction has the following form:

$$\frac{d\sigma (\gamma ^{}pn\pi ^+)}{dWdt}\epsilon \sigma _L+\sigma _T$$
(1)
where $`\epsilon `$ is a usual polarization parameter of the virtual photon, $`t`$ \- momentum square transferred to nucleon, $`\sigma _L`$, $`\sigma _T`$ \- longitudinal and transverse cross sections. Analytically the hadron part of pion in flight diagram of Fig.1 is written as follows:

$$\frac{M(pn\pi ^+)}{k^2m_\pi ^2}=\frac{M(pn\pi ^+)}{k_0e_k}\frac{1}{k_0+e_k}=<n|a_{\pi ^+}|p>\frac{1}{k_0+e_k}$$
(2)
where $`a_{\pi ^+}`$ is an operator of virtual pion absorption, $`k_0`$ \- zero component of transferred from nucleon to photon four vector, $`e_k`$ \- energy of the virtual pion with momentum $`k`$ in the rest frame of proton, $`p`$ and $`n`$ \- proton and neutron, $`M(pn\pi ^+)`$ \- invariant amplitude of transformation $`M(pn\pi ^+)`$. It is important to point out that this equation takes into account simultaneously the diagrams going ”forward and backward” in time, and that we work in the lab system. The quantity $`<n|a_{\pi ^+}|p>`$ defines the momentum distribution of pions in proton and we call it ”wave function” and designate by $`\mathrm{\Psi }_p^{n\pi }`$. This wave function is normalized by the condition:

$$𝑑\tau |\mathrm{\Psi }_p^{n\pi }(k)|^2=S_p^{n\pi }$$
(3)
where $`d\tau =d^3k/((4\pi )^3E_pE_n)`$, $`E_{p,n}`$ \- energies of proton and neutron, $`S_p^{n\pi }`$ is a spectroscopic factor of pion in nucleon. It determines the number of pions participating in production of the channel. The sum of the spectroscopic factors over all final channels will give the total number of positive pions in nucleon.

As a result, we get that the longitudinal cross section of pion electroproduction has the following form:

$$\frac{d\sigma _L(\gamma ^{}pn\pi ^+)}{dt}|\mathrm{\Psi }_p^{n\pi }(k)|^2F_{\gamma \pi \pi }^2(Q^2)$$
(4)
where $`t=k^2`$ and $`F_{\gamma \pi \pi }^2(Q^2)`$ \- electromagnetic formfactor of pion, $`Q^2`$ \- ”mass” of the virtual photon.

## 2 Check of $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ fluctuation model

It is well known, that the hadrons are effective degrees of freedom and the hadron dynamics should be a phenomenological one. The important ingredient of this phenomenology is the coupling constants of meson with baryons. Now when an ”attack” on hadrons world is wide underway the number of constant becomes big and it is necessary to search for notions, that can unite the description of hadrons. It is naturally, that the search for unification should be based on quark-gluon degrees of freedom. One way to realize this unification is to introduce the coupling between quarks and mesons. Then the coupling with baryons comes out as a result of some averaging over quark structure of baryons. Partially this was done in the paper . But this approach entails also many parameters. It is proved that an old model of $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ fluctuation has definite advantages. On diagram level this model is presented in Fig.2.

The advantage of this approach based on the fact that the five quarks in the final system can be transformed into hadron by many different ways. This permits one on the same footing to consider and therefore to relate the whole set of meson-baryons coupling constants, for instance pion-baryon, kaon-baryon, vector meson-baryon and so on. The formal aspects of this rearrangement were considered in our papers  and will not be discussed here. Calculated momentum distributions and formfactors of pions and kaons in nucleon are shown in Fig.3,4.

One can see that discussed momentum distributions are very interesting and they demand further investigation.

In conclusion we would like to remark that $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$-fluctuation is probably closely related with scalar quark condensate. This is one more reason to investigate this model.

## 3 Mesons in nuclei

Over past years, the problem of pions in nuclei was discussed in literature  many times. For instance, a very well known paper has a title ”Where is the pions in nuclei” . We can nott dwell on the details of this very interesting questions and confine ourselves with the statement that now the problem is partially clear - in any case, the pions in nuclei predicted by RPA approach were detected and sharp contradiction between prediction of the theory and (p,n) experiment, that was a base for the title of paper , was probably removed. In a sense, one really sees the pions in nuclei injected there by RPA correlations . New nontrivial aspects of the nuclear pion problem were considered in the paper .

Nevertheless the problem of mesons in nuclei is far from its full solution and probably that we will meet here the unexpected and nontrivial phenomena.

The first modern nontrivial notion of meson’s injection into nuclei was propounded by Migdal . Now it seems clear that his notion of pion condensate in nuclei is not realized. But there exists another concept of pion condensate propounded by Preparata . Preparata’s idea is closely related to the effect of Dicke  that is known in atomic physics for several tens of years.

The point is: let’s suppose that one has a system of $`N`$ exited atoms. Then as long as radioactive transitions take place the probability of transitions becomes bigger and bigger and in the ”middle” - i.e. when about one half of exited atoms is left - the probability becomes as much as $`N^2/4`$. At large $`N`$ the increase of probability becomes fantastic! Preparata has assumed that in nuclei something similar can take place if one takes into account $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-resonance. In this case, one has $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ excited atoms, $`N`$ atom in the ground state, pion $``$ photon. According to an estimate by Preparata if one takes into account the existence of such transitions the increasing of self-energy of whole nucleus will result in gain of energy that amounts 60 MeV per one nucleon! Thus, a heavy nucleus can consist of three coherently vibrating subsystems $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-nucleons, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-resonances and pions. With the usual way of investigation it is not simple task to observe such a substructures. We suggest to use for this purpose the quasielastic knock out of pions. In Fig.5,

it is shown the momentum distribution of pions that are injected into nuclei by Preparata mechanism in comparison with trivial injection by independent nucleons. We see that the momentum distributions of pions, injected by usual mechanisms (independent nucleons) and Preparata mechanism are drastically different and measurement of pion momentum distribution helps to prove whether there exists a collective strengthening of pions in nuclei.


text:
# Derivation of Einstein’s Equation from a New Type of four Dimensional Superstring

## Abstract

A new type of superstring in four dimension is proposed which has the central charge 26. The Neveu Schwarz and the Ramond vacua are both tachyonic. The self energy of the scalar tachyon cancels from the contribution of the fermionic loop of the Ramond sector. The NS tachyonic vacuum is used to construct a massless graviton. Coulombic vector excitations of zero mass, referred as a ‘Newtonian’ graviton are also shown to exist. The propagators are explicitly evaluated. Following the method of Weinberg, we deduce the Einstein’s field equation of general relativity.

The string theory has come to prominence due to appearance of the graviton in the mass spectrum of Nambu-Goto string. The researches on this line has been to develop gravity from a ten dimensional superstring by writing the group invariant but nonrenormalisable supergravity Lagrangian and studying the phenomenology arising therefrom at low energies. Recently one of us deo  has proposed a new type of superstring having central charge 26 and two tachyons whose self energies cancel. The salient features are given below for completeness.

There is an effective dimensional reduction by adding 11 fermions which are the Lorentz vectors in SO(3,1) bosonic sector, $`\psi ^{\mu ,j}`$, j=1,..,6 ; $`\varphi ^{\mu ,k}`$, k=7,..,11 in the world sheet ($`\tau ,\sigma `$), to the 4 bosonic co-ordinates $`X^\mu (\sigma ,\tau )`$. The action is deo

$$S=\frac{1}{2\pi }d^2\sigma \left[_\alpha X^\mu ^\alpha X_\mu i\overline{\psi }^{\mu ,j}\rho ^\alpha _\alpha \psi _{\mu ,j}+i\overline{\varphi }^{\mu ,k}\rho ^\alpha _\alpha \varphi _{\mu ,k}\right].$$
(1)
The upper indices (j,k) refer to rows and the lower indices to columns. Here $`\psi ^{\mu ,j}=\psi ^{(+)\mu ,j}+\psi ^{()\mu ,j}`$ but
$`\varphi ^{\mu ,k}=\varphi ^{(+)\mu ,k}\varphi ^{()\mu ,k}`$ where $`+,`$ refer to the positive and the negative parts of the Majorana massless fermions. There are in all 13 metric ghosts, two bosonic and eleven fermionic. In the Lorentz metric, the fermionic sector light cone action is

$$S_{l.c.}=\frac{i}{2\pi }d^2\sigma \underset{\mu =0,3}{}\left(\overline{\psi }^{\mu j}\rho ^\alpha _\alpha \psi _{\mu j}\overline{\varphi }^{\mu k}\rho ^\alpha _\alpha \varphi _{\mu k}\right)$$

contributes eleven to the central charge like the super conformal Faddeev-Popov ghosts. They will be eliminated from the Fock space by the susidiary conditions. $`\rho `$-matrices are given in deo  and gr  along with other objects.

The action (1) is invariant under the transformations

$`\delta X^\mu =\overline{ϵ}(e^j\psi _j^\mu e^k\varphi _k^\mu ),`$ (2)
$`\delta \psi ^{\mu ,j}=ie^j\rho ^\alpha _\alpha X^\mu ϵ,`$ (3)
$`\delta \varphi ^{\mu ,k}=ie^k\rho ^\alpha _\alpha X^\mu ϵ,`$ (4)
with $`ϵ`$ as the constant anticommutating spinor. $`e^j`$ and $`e^k`$ are the two unit component c-number row vectors with the property that $`e^je_j^{}=\delta _j^{}^j`$ and $`e^ke_k^{}=\delta _k^{}^k`$ and it follows that $`e^je_j`$=6 and $`e^ke_k`$=5.

The commutator of two supersymmetric transformation is a translation

$$[\delta _1,\delta _2]X^\mu =a^\alpha _\alpha X^\mu ,$$
(5)
where $`a^\alpha =2i\overline{ϵ}_1\rho ^\alpha ϵ_2`$. Similar are the results for the spinors $`\psi ^{\mu ,j}=e^j\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu `$ and $`\varphi ^{\mu ,k}=e^k\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu `$ where

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu =e^j\psi _j^\mu e^k\varphi _k^\mu .$$
(6)
It is easy to verify that $`\delta X^\mu =\overline{ϵ}\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu `$, $`\delta \mathrm{\Psi }^\mu =i\rho ^\alpha _\alpha X^\mu ϵ`$ and $`[\delta _1,\delta _2]\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu =a^\alpha _\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }^\mu `$.

Thus $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu `$ is the supersymmetric partner of $`X^\mu `$. Introducing another supersymmetric pair, the zweibein $`e_\alpha (\sigma ,\tau )`$ and the ‘gravitino’ $`\chi _\alpha =_\alpha ϵ`$, the local 2d supersymmetric action is gr

$$S=\frac{1}{2\pi }d^2\sigma e[h^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha X^\mu _\beta X_\mu i\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\mu \rho ^\alpha _\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }_\mu +2\overline{\chi }_\alpha \rho ^\beta \rho ^\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }^\mu _\beta X_\mu +\frac{1}{2}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_\mu \overline{\chi }_\beta \rho ^\beta \rho ^\alpha \chi _\alpha .].$$
(7)
The variation of this equation with respect to $`\chi ^\alpha `$ and $`e_b^\alpha `$ leads to the equations for current and energy momentum tensors. In the gauge where the gravitino $`\chi _\alpha `$ wii be zero, and $`e_\alpha ^a=\delta _\alpha ^a`$,

$$J_\alpha =\frac{\pi }{2e}\frac{\delta S}{\delta \overline{\chi }^\alpha }=\frac{1}{2}\rho ^\beta \rho _\alpha \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\mu _\beta X_\mu \frac{1}{2}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_\mu \rho _\alpha \rho ^\beta \chi _\beta =0,$$
(8)
$$T_{\alpha \beta }=_\alpha X^\mu _\beta X_\mu \frac{i}{2}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\mu \rho _{(\alpha }_{\beta )}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu (trace)=0.$$
(9)
In the light cone basis $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }=(\psi ^+,\psi ^{})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=(\varphi ^+,\varphi ^{})`$, the above equations translate to

$$J_\pm =_\pm X_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_\pm ^\mu =0,$$
(10)
and

$$T_{\pm \pm }=_\pm X^\mu _\pm X_\mu +\frac{i}{2}\psi _\pm ^{\mu ,j}_\pm \psi _{\pm \mu ,j}\frac{i}{2}\varphi _\pm ^{\mu k}_\pm \varphi _{\pm \mu ,k}=0$$
(11)
where $`_\pm =\frac{1}{2}(_\tau \pm _\sigma )`$. The component constraints are

$`_\pm X_\mu \psi _\pm ^{\mu ,j}=_\pm X_\mu e^j\mathrm{\Psi }_\pm ^\mu =0,j=1,2\mathrm{}6.`$ (12)
$`_\pm X_\mu \varphi _\pm ^{\mu ,k}=_\pm X_\mu e^k\mathrm{\Psi }_\pm ^\mu =0,k=7,\mathrm{}11.`$ (13)
These eleven constraints are enough to eliminate the extra eleven Lorentz metric fermionic ghosts from physical spectrum. However, there will be one current constraint, equation (10), from which the eleven follow. So there will be eleven subsidiary current generators combinable to one and eleven pairs of $`(\beta ^j,\gamma ^j)`$, $`(\beta ^k,\gamma ^k)`$ ghosts combinable to one pair $`(\beta ,\gamma )`$ for the construction of nilpotent BRST charge.

We write the action $`S_F^{l.c.}`$ in terms of light cone superpartner $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm `$. The Hilbert space is supplemented by a space where particles obey bose statistics and the light cone fermions are Grassmanians $`\theta ,\overline{\theta }`$. In particular, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^+(\overline{\theta })=\frac{1}{2}\overline{\theta }\overline{\gamma }`$ and $`\rho ^\alpha \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}(\theta )=\frac{1}{2}\theta \beta ^\alpha `$. Integrating over $`\theta \overline{\theta }`$, we obtain $`S_F^{l.c.}=\frac{1}{2\pi }d^2\sigma \overline{\gamma }_\alpha \beta ^\alpha `$. Standard text book results follow. For the two groups of fermions, the group invariant constraints are

$$_\pm X_\mu e^k\varphi _{\pm k}^\mu =_\pm X_\mu e^j\psi _{\pm j}^\mu =0.$$
(14)
In the covariant formulation, the total number of physical degrees of freedom is the total number forty four minus the total number of constraints. Due to the above four constraints ( 14), there are 40 physical space time fermionic modes in the theory.

SO(3,1) has Dirac spinorial representation denoted by $`\theta _{j,\delta }`$ and $`\theta _{k,\delta },where\delta =1,2,3,4`$. So we can construct a genuine space time spinor with four components

$$\theta _\delta =\underset{j=1}{\overset{6}{}}e^j\theta _{j\delta }\underset{k=7}{\overset{11}{}}e^k\theta _{k\delta }.$$
(15)
The Green Schwarz action gr  exhibiting local four dimensional N=1 supersymmetry is

$$S=\frac{1}{2\pi }d^2\sigma \left(\sqrt{g}g^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Pi }_\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }_\beta +2iϵ^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha X^\mu \overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu _\beta \theta \right),$$
(16)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ are the Dirac gamma matrices and

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\alpha ^\mu =_\alpha X^\mu i\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _\alpha \theta .$$
(17)
It is difficult to quantise this action, so we fall back on the Neveu-Schwarz ne  and the Ramond ra  formulations with the G.S.O gl  projection. The GSO operator is to project out the odd number of fermionic modes from the Hilbert space and is defined as

$$G=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+()^F\right).$$
(18)
where F is the fermion number. The forty fermionic modes can be placed in five identical groups, each group containing eight of them. The total partition function is that of a group of eight, raised to the power of five. It has been shown by Seiberg and Witten se  that the partition function of eight fermions with Neveu-Schwarz and Ramond boundary conditions, vanish due to the famous Jacobi equality among the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-functions. Thus the total product partition functions of the string states vanish. This is also the condition for a local supersymmetry.

The commutators and anticommutators between fields follow from the action of equation(1). The fields can be quantised in the usual way gr . Let the bosonic quanta be denoted by $`\alpha _m^\mu `$, the ($`b_{r,j}^\mu ,b_{r,k}^\mu `$) with r half integral be the quanta of ($`\psi _j^\mu `$, $`\varphi _j^\mu `$) satisfying NS boundary condition and ($`d_{m,j}^\mu `$ , $`d_{m,k}^\mu `$) with m integral, satisfying Ramond boundary condition. The nonvanishing commutation and anticommutation relations are

$$[\alpha _m^\mu ,\alpha _n^\nu ]=m\delta _{m,n}g^{\mu \nu },$$
(19)
$`\{b_r^{\mu ,j},b_s^{\nu ,j^{}}\}`$ $`=`$ $`g^{\mu \nu }\delta ^{j,j^{}}\delta _{r,s},`$
$`\{b_r^{{}_{}{}^{}\mu ,k},b_s^{{}_{}{}^{}\nu ,k^{}}\}`$ $`=`$ $`g^{\mu \nu }\delta ^{k,k^{}}\delta _{r,s},`$ (20)
$`\{d_m^{\mu ,j},d_n^{\nu ,j^{}}\}`$ $`=`$ $`g^{\mu \nu }\delta ^{j,j^{}}\delta _{m,n},`$
$`\{d_m^{{}_{}{}^{}\mu ,k},d_n^{{}_{}{}^{}\nu ,k^{}}\}`$ $`=`$ $`g^{\mu \nu }\delta ^{k,k^{}}\delta _{m,n}.`$ (21)
The phase of the creation operator is such that for r, m $`>`$ 0, $`b_r^{}=b_r^{}`$ and $`d_m^{}=d_m^{}`$ It is necessary to identify the relations $`b_r^{\mu ,j}=e^jB_r^\mu ,b_r^{\mu ,k}=e^kB_r^\mu `$, such that $`B_r^\mu =e^jb_{r,j}^\mu e^kb_{r,k}^\mu `$. Similarly for the d, $`d^{}`$; $`D_m^\mu =e^jd_{m,j}^\mu e^kd_{m,k}^\mu `$. The Virasoro generators

$`L_m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }𝑑\sigma e^{im\sigma }T_{++}`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}:\alpha _n\alpha _{m+n}:+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{rz+\frac{1}{2}}{}}(r+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m):(b_rb_{m+r}b_r^{}b_{m+r}^{}):NS`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}:\alpha _n\alpha _{m+n}:+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m):(d_nd_{m+n}d_n^{}d_{m+n}^{}):,R`$
$`G_r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }𝑑\sigma e^{ir\sigma }J_+={\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\alpha _nB_{n+r},NS`$ (23)
$`F_m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\alpha _nD_{n+m}.R`$ (24)
satisfy the super Virasoro algebra v

$`[L_m,L_n]`$ $`=`$ $`(mn)L_{m+n}+{\displaystyle \frac{C}{12}}(m^3m)\delta _{m,n},`$ (25)
$`[L_m,G_r]`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}mr)G_{m+r},NS`$ (26)
$`\{G_r,G_s\}`$ $`=`$ $`2L_{s+r}+{\displaystyle \frac{C}{3}}(r^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}})\delta _{r,s},`$ (27)
$`[L_m,F_n]`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}mn)F_{m+n},R`$ (28)
$`\{F_m,F_n\}`$ $`=`$ $`2L_{m+n}+{\displaystyle \frac{C}{3}}(m^21)\delta _{m,n},m0.`$ (29)
Since, from equation (11), $`<T_{\pm \pm }(z)T_{\pm \pm }(\omega )>=\frac{26}{2}(z\omega )^4`$ \+ ……, the central charge C=26. It is worth while to note that $`<T_{\pm \pm }^{l.c.}(z)T_{\pm \pm }^{l.c.}(\omega )>=\frac{11}{2}(z\omega )^4`$ with central charge 11. The terms, containing the central charge C=26, are the anomaly terms due to the normal ordering gr . As is well known, they are cancelled by the contribution from the conformal ghosts (b,c).

This is also known that all anomalies will cancel if the normal ordering constant of $`L_o`$ is equal to one. We define the physical states as satisfying

$`(L_o1)|\varphi >`$ $`=`$ $`0,L_m|\varphi >=0,G_r|\varphi >=0forr,m>0,:NSBosonic`$ (30)
$`L_m|\psi >`$ $`=`$ $`F_m|\psi >=0form>0,:RFermionic`$ (31)
$`(L_o1)|\psi >_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`(F_o^21)|\psi >_\alpha =0.`$ (32)
So we have

$$(F_o+1)|\psi _+>_\alpha =0and(F_o1)|\psi _{}>_\alpha =0$$
(33)
These conditions shall make the string model ghost free.

It can be seen in a simple way. Applying $`L_o`$ condition the state $`\alpha _1^\mu |0,k>`$ is massless and the $`L_1`$ constraint gives the Lorentz condition $`k^\mu |0,k>=0`$ implying a transverse photon and Gupta Bleuler impose that $`\alpha _1^0|\varphi >=0`$. Applying $`L_2,L_3\mathrm{}.`$, constraints, one obtains $`\alpha _m^0|\varphi >=0`$. Further, since $`[\alpha _1^0,G_{r+1}]|\varphi >=0`$,$`B_r^0|\varphi >=0`$ and $`b_{rj}^0|\varphi >=e_jB_r^0|\varphi >=0`$; $`b_{rk}^0|\varphi >=e_kB_r^0|\varphi >=0`$. All the time components are eliminated from Fock space.

From fourier transforms and defination, the eleven subsidiary physical state conditions are

$`G_r^j|\varphi >`$ $`=`$ $`e^jG_r|\varphi >=0,G_r^k|\varphi >=e^kG_r|\varphi >=0,forr>0,NS`$ (34)
$`F_m^j|\varphi >`$ $`=`$ $`e^jF_m|\varphi >=0,F_m^k|\varphi >=e^kF_m|\varphi >=0,form>0.R`$ (35)
We now proceed to write the nilpotent BRST charge. The part which comes from the usual conformal Lie algebra technique is

$$(Q_1)^{NS,R}=(L_mc_m)^{NS,R}\frac{1}{2}(mn):c_mc_nb_{m+n}:ac_0;Q_1^2=0fora=1.$$
(36)
The eleven pairs of commuting ghost quanta ($`\beta _r,\gamma _r`$) of ghost fields ($`\beta (\tau ),\gamma (\tau )`$), satisfying $`d\gamma =d\beta =0`$, needed for subsidiary current generator operator conditions (34) and (35), are related as

$`\beta _r^j`$ $`=`$ $`e^j\beta _r,\beta _r^{}_{}{}^{}k=e^k\beta _r,\beta _r=e^j\beta _{r,j}e^k\beta _{r,k}^{},`$ (37)
$`\gamma _r^j`$ $`=`$ $`e^j\gamma _r,\gamma _r^{}_{}{}^{}k=e^k\gamma _r^{},\gamma _r=e^j\gamma _{r,j}e^k\gamma _{r,k}^{}.(NS)`$ (38)
There are identical ones for the Ramond sector with half integral ‘r’ replaced by integral ‘m’ . The light cone ghost quanta satisfy $`\{b_r^{+,j},b_s^{,l}\}=\delta _{r,s}\delta ^{j,l}`$ and $`\{b_r^{{}_{}{}^{}+,k},b_s^{{}_{}{}^{},m}\}=\delta _{r,s}\delta ^{k,m}`$, where as $`[\gamma _s^j,\beta _r^j^{}]=\delta _{r,s}\delta ^{j,j^{}}`$ and $`[\gamma _s^k,\beta _r^k^{}]=\delta _{r,s}\delta ^{k,k^{}}`$ and it follows that $`[\gamma _s,\beta _r]=\delta _{r,s}`$. All that we want to know is the conformal dimensions, $`\gamma `$ with $`\frac{1}{2}`$, and $`\beta `$ with $`\frac{3}{2}`$,

$$[L_m,\gamma _r^{(j,k)}]=(\frac{3}{2}m+n)\gamma _{r+m}^{(j,k)},[L_m,\beta _r^{(j,k)}]=(\frac{1}{2}mn)\beta _{r+m}^{(j,k)}.$$
(39)
Using the Graded Lie algebra, we get the additional BRST charge.

$`Q_{NS}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle G_r\gamma _r}{\displaystyle \gamma _r\gamma _sb_{r+s}},`$
$`Q_R^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle F_m\gamma _m}{\displaystyle \gamma _m\gamma _nb_{n+m}}.`$ (40)
It is to be noted that the products

$$G_r\gamma _r=G_r^j\gamma _{r,j}G_r^k\gamma _{r,k},$$

so that all the eleven pairs of ghosts are present in the charge. As constructed, the BRST charge

$$Q_{BRST}=Q_1+Q^{},$$
(41)
is such that $`Q_{BRST}^2=0`$ in both NS and R sector deo . In proving $`\{Q^{},Q^{}\}+2\{Q_1,Q^{}\}=0`$, we have used the fourier transforms, wave equations and integration by parts to show that $`r^2\gamma _r\gamma _s\delta _{r,s}=_r_s\gamma _r\gamma _s\delta _{r,s}=0`$. The theory is unitary and ghost free.

The mass spectrum is

$`NS:\alpha ^{}M^2`$ $`=`$ $`1,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},0,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},1,{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{}.,`$
$`R:\alpha ^{}M^2`$ $`=`$ $`1,0,1,2,3\mathrm{}..`$ (42)
The GSO projection eliminates the half integral masses. The scalar bosonic vacuum energy $`<0|(L_o^{NS}1)^1|0>`$ is cancelled by the fermionic energy $`<0|(F_o1)^1(F_o+1)^1|0>`$, the negative sign arising due to the normal ordering of the fermions. In both the sectors, we have the Regge trajectories $`\alpha ^{}M^2=1,0,1,2,3\mathrm{}.`$ .

Thus, satisfying ourselves that we have an anomaly free, ghost free and harmless but useful tachyons, we attempt to tackle the problem of gravitational field theory from the above string theory. Let us construct tensors like $`b_{\frac{1}{2}i}^\mu b_{\frac{1}{2}j}^\nu `$. For simplicity, we drop the suffix $`\frac{1}{2}`$. Consider the string state

$$𝐚^{\mu \nu }(p)=\underset{i,j}{}C^{ij}(b_i^\mu b_j^\nu +b_i^\nu b_j^\mu 2\eta ^{\mu \nu }b_i^\lambda b_j^\lambda )|0,p>.$$
(43)
This is symmetric and traceless. Further $`L_o`$ will be taken as the free Hamiltonian $`H_o`$ in the interaction representation. Operating on this state, one gets $`L_0𝐚^{\mu \nu }(p)=0`$. So this is massless. Further $`p_\mu 𝐚^{\mu \nu }=p_\nu 𝐚^{\mu \nu }=0`$ if $`C^{ij}=C^{ji}`$. If $`C^{ij}`$ is symmetric, a little algebra shows that

$$G_{\frac{1}{2}}𝐚^{\mu \nu }(p)=[G_{\frac{1}{2}},𝐚^{\mu \nu }(p)]=0.$$
(44)
Thus $`𝐚^{\mu \nu }(p)`$ satisfy all the physical state conditions due to Virasoro algebraic relations. This is the graviton. The commutator is

$$[𝐚^{\mu \nu }(p),𝐚^{\lambda \sigma }(q)]=2\pi |C|^2\delta ^4(pq).$$
(45)
To switch over to the quantum field theory, we define the gravitational field by space time fourier transform of $`𝐚^{\mu \nu }(p)`$

$$𝐚^{\mu \nu }(x)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d^3p}{\sqrt{2p^o}}\left[𝐚^{\mu \nu }(p)e^{ipx}+𝐚^{\mu \nu }(p)e^{ipx}\right],$$
(46)
with the commutator

$$[𝐚^{\mu \nu }(x),𝐚^{\lambda \sigma }(y)]=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d^3p}{2p^o}[e^{ip(xy)}e^{ip(xy)}]f^{\mu \nu ,\lambda \sigma },$$
(47)
where

$$f^{\mu \nu ,\lambda \sigma }=g^{\mu \lambda }g^{\nu \sigma }+g^{\nu \lambda }g^{\mu \sigma }g^{\mu \nu }g^{\lambda \sigma }.$$
(48)
The Feynman propagator is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mu \nu ,\lambda \sigma }(xy)=<0|T(𝐚^{\mu \nu }(x)𝐚^{\lambda \sigma }(y))|0>=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^4}d^4pe^{ip(xy)}\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mu \nu ,\lambda \sigma }(p),$$
(49)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mu \nu ,\lambda \sigma }(p)=\frac{1}{2}f^{\mu \nu ,\lambda \sigma }\frac{1}{p^2iϵ}.$$

This is the propagator of the graviton in the interaction representation.

As already noted in this superstring theory there is also a massless vector following from the $`L_0`$ condition acting on $`\alpha _1^\mu |0,p>`$ with Lorentz relation $`p^\mu |0,p>`$=0, due to the $`L_1`$ condition. With the help of a time like vector $`n^\mu `$ , we can construct another traceless second rank ‘Newtonian’(N) tensor

$$𝐚_{N,1}^{\mu \nu }=(n^\mu \alpha _1^\nu +n^\nu \alpha _1^\mu g^{\mu \nu }(n\alpha _1)|0,p>_{NS}.$$
(50)
There are several points which are conflicting. While forming the commutator like equation(47) ,we will arrive at a term with $`g^{\mu \nu }g^{\lambda \sigma }`$ which is already there in the graviton propagator. So there will be over counting. Secondly, $`n\alpha _1\alpha _1^o`$ and is excluded in the Fock space, but is necessary for vanishing of the trace.

We now proceed to construct the propagators, remembering that this is local and there is no pole at $`|𝐩|^2=p_{o}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ except in the $`g^{\mu \nu }g^{\lambda \sigma }`$ term

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{N,1}^{\mu \nu ,\lambda \sigma }=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{f_N^{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }}{|𝐩|^2}\frac{g^{\mu \nu }n^\lambda n^\sigma +g^{\lambda \sigma }n^\mu n^\nu }{|𝐩|^2}\frac{g^{\mu \nu }g^{\lambda \sigma }}{p^2}\right),$$
(51)
where

$$f_N^{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }=g^{\mu \lambda }n^{\nu \sigma }+g^{\mu \sigma }n^{\nu \lambda }+g^{\nu \lambda }n^{\mu \sigma }+g^{\mu \lambda }g^{\nu \sigma }g^{\mu \nu }n^\lambda n^\sigma g^{\lambda \sigma }n^\mu n^\nu .$$
(52)
We have still the traceless tensor $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }(p)`$ we  and the creation operator $`L_1|o,𝐩>`$. Since
$`<o,p|L_1L_1|o,p>`$=2, we construct a third traceless tensor,

$$𝐚_{N,2}^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }L_1|o,p>_R.$$
(53)
The propagator is simply

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{N,2}^{\mu \nu ,\lambda \sigma }=\frac{1}{2(p^2iϵ)}\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Pi }^{\lambda \sigma }.$$
(54)
The gradient terms do not contribute when contracted with conserved energy momentum tensor. Ignoring the gradient terms

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }g^{\mu \nu }+\frac{p^2}{|𝐩|^2}n^\mu n^\nu ,$$

leading to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{N,2}^{\mu \nu ,\lambda \sigma }=\frac{1}{2(p^2iϵ)}\left(g^{\mu \nu }g^{\lambda \sigma }+(g^{\mu \nu }n^\lambda n^\sigma +n^\mu n^\nu g^{\lambda \sigma })\frac{p^2}{|𝐩|^2}+n^\mu n^\nu n^\lambda n^\sigma \frac{(p^2)^2}{|𝐩|^4}\right).$$
(55)
The total ‘Newtonian’ graviton propagator is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_N^{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }=\frac{1}{2}\frac{f^{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }}{|𝐩|^2}+\frac{1}{2}n^\mu n^\nu n^\lambda n^\sigma \frac{(p^2)}{|𝐩|^4}.$$
(56)
In all

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_F^{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }=\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }+\mathrm{\Delta }_N^{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }.$$
(57)
In space time, the fourier transformed propagator is

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_N^{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }(xy)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle d^4pe^{ip(xy)}\mathrm{\Delta }_N^{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }(p)}`$ (58)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\left(f_N^{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }+n^\mu n^\nu n^\lambda n^\sigma \right)\delta (x^oy^o)D(𝐱𝐲)+n^\mu n^\nu n^\lambda n^\sigma \ddot{\delta }(x^oy^o)E(𝐱𝐲)\right],`$
where

$$E(𝐱)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}d^3qe^{i𝐪.𝐱}\frac{1}{|𝐪|^4}=E(o)\frac{|𝐱|}{4\pi },$$
(59)
and

$$D(𝐱)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^4}d^3qe^{i𝐪.𝐱}\frac{1}{|𝐪|^2}=\frac{1}{4\pi |𝐱|}.$$
(60)
Thus we have obtained the quantum field theoretic result of Weinberg we  from this new string theory. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_N^{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }(xy)`$ is highly divergent and to cancel this we must add to the free Hamiltonian $`H_o`$, an interaction Hamiltonian $`H_N^{}(t)`$ as specified below

$`H_N^{}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }d^3xd^3y(\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}2}\theta _o^\mu (𝐱,t)\theta _{\mu o}(𝐲,t){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _\mu ^\mu (𝐱,t)\theta _{oo}(𝐲,t)`$ (61)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{oo}(𝐱,t)\theta _\mu ^\mu (𝐲,t){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{oo}(𝐱,t)\theta _{oo}(𝐲,t))D(𝐱𝐲)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }d^3xd^3y\theta _{oo}(𝐱,t)\ddot{\theta }_{oo}(𝐲,t)E(𝐱𝐲).`$
As Weinberg puts it, ‘this term ugly as it seems, is precisely what is needed to generate Einstein Field Equations when we pass to Heisenberg representation’. $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ is the symmetric energy momentum tensor with vanishing divergence and includes the self energy of the gravitational field, the matter field and the Pauli term. In the Heisenberg representation, the spatial components are defined as

$$a_H^{ij}(x)\frac{1}{3}\delta ^{ij}\delta ^{kl}a_H^{kl}(x)=U(x^o)a^{ij}(x)U^1(x^o),$$
(62)
where

$$U(x^o)=e^{iH_ot}and_\mu ^\mu a^{ij}(x)=0,_ia^{ij}(x)=0.$$

The only nonvanishing commutator is

$$[a^{ij}(x),\dot{a}^{kl}(y)]=iD^{ij,kl}(𝐱𝐲).$$
(63)
To evaluate the D’s from the derived propagation function , we introduce a four vector $`\widehat{p}^\mu =(1,\widehat{p})`$ and note that

$$\widehat{p}^\mu =\frac{p^\mu +n^\mu (|𝐩|p_o)}{|𝐩|}.$$
(64)
The terms containing $`p^\mu `$ when contracted with conserved currents vanish. So we have the effective equality

$$\frac{n^\mu n^\nu }{|𝐩|^2}=\frac{1}{p^2}\left[\widehat{q}^\mu n^\nu +\widehat{q}^\nu n^\mu \widehat{q}^\mu \widehat{q}^\nu \right]+gradientterms.$$
(65)
With the poles at $`p^2`$, the Green’s functions are easily calculated. After some algebra, retaining the spatial parts, we get

$`D^{ij,kl}(𝐱𝐲)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\delta ^{ik}\delta ^{jl}+\delta ^{il}\delta ^{jk}\delta ^{ij}\delta ^{kl}]\delta ^{(3)}(𝐱𝐲)`$ (66)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[^i^k\delta ^{jl}+^i^l\delta ^{jk}+^l^k\delta ^{il}^i^j\delta ^{kl}^k^l\delta ^{ij}]D(𝐱𝐲)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}^i^j^k^lE(𝐱𝐲).`$
The solutions to the Heisenberg field equations are easily worked out and are given by Weinberg we . With $`\theta _{H,kl}`$ as the energy momentum tensor in the Heisenberg representation

$$^\mu _\mu \left[a_H^{ij}(𝐱,t)\frac{1}{3}\delta ^{ij}\delta _{kl}a_H^{kl}(𝐱,t)\right]=d^3yD^{ij,kl}(𝐱𝐲)\theta _{H,kl}(𝐲,t).$$
(67)
With Weinberg we also invent the time derivatives from the direct contact term

$`H_N^{}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }d^3xd^3y([\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}2}\theta _o^i(𝐱,t)\theta _{io}(𝐲,t){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _i^i(𝐱,t)\theta _{oo}(𝐲,t)`$ (68)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{oo}(𝐱,t)\theta _i^i(𝐲,t){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{oo}(𝐱,t)\theta _{oo}(𝐲,t)]D(𝐱𝐲)`$
$`+`$ $`\theta _{oo}(𝐱,t)\ddot{\theta }_{oo}(𝐲,t)E(𝐱𝐲)).`$
and define

$`a_H^{io}(𝐱,t)`$ $`={\displaystyle d^3y\theta _H^{io}(𝐲,t)D(𝐱𝐲)};^2a_H^{io}(x)=\theta _H^{io}(x),`$ (69)
$`a_{iH}^i(𝐱,t)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3y\theta _H^{oo}(𝐲,t)D(𝐱𝐲)};^2a_{iH}^o(x)={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\theta _H^{oo}(x),`$
$`a_H^{oo}(𝐱,t)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3y[\theta _H^{oo}(𝐲,t)+\theta _{Hi}^i(𝐲,t)]D(𝐱𝐲)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3y\ddot{\theta }^{oo}(𝐲,t)E(𝐱𝐲)},`$
$`^2a_H^{oo}(x)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{Hi}^i(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _H^{oo}(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\ddot{a}_{Hi}^i(x).`$
Using tracelessness condition and current conservation condition

$`_ia_H^{ij}(x)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}^j\theta _{Hi}^i(x),`$ (70)
$`_ia_{Ho}^i(x)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}_o\theta _{Hi}^i(x).`$
and after some algebra we arrive at the result obtained by Weinberg

$$R_H^{\mu \nu }(x)=\theta ^{\mu \nu }(x)+\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }\theta _\lambda ^\lambda (x),$$
(71)
where

$$R_H^{\mu \nu }(x)=^\mu _\mu a_H^{\mu \nu }(x)^\mu _\lambda a_H^{\lambda \nu }(x)^\nu _\lambda a_H^{\lambda \mu }(x)+^\mu ^\nu a_{H\lambda }^\lambda (x).$$
(72)
This equation can be put in the Einsteinian form

$$R_H^{\mu \nu }(x)\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }R_{H\lambda }^\lambda =\theta _H^{\mu \nu }(x).$$
(73)
Thus the presence of the tachyons in superstring theory has provided the massless states which have led to the construction of graviton and Newtonian graviton and finally enabled us to deduce the Einstein’s field equations following Weinberg. This was first deduced by S.N Gupta gu .We have made a direct contact from spin 2 quanta string amplitude to the field of the graviton with the help of the tachyonic vacuum. To our knowledge, this is the first direct derivation of the Einstein’s field equation from the superstring theory following Weinberg we . Since superstring theory is renormalisable,we hope that our research will help in probing further into the subtelities of Quantum Gravity.


text:
# A Search for Variations of Fundamental Constants using Atomic Fountain Clocks

Present address: \]Istituto Elettrotecnico Nazionale G. Ferraris , Strada delle Cacce 41, 10135 Torino, Italy Present address: \]Institutul National de Fizica Laserilor, Plasmei si Radiatiei, P.O. Box MG36, Bucaresti, Magurele, Romania

## Abstract

Over five years we have compared the hyperfine frequencies of $`{}_{}{}^{133}\text{Cs}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{87}\text{Rb}`$ atoms in their electronic ground state using several laser cooled $`{}_{}{}^{133}\text{Cs}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{87}\text{Rb}`$ atomic fountains with an accuracy of $`10^{15}`$. These measurements set a stringent upper bound to a possible fractional time variation of the ratio between the two frequencies : $`\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\nu _{\text{Rb}}}{\nu _{\text{Cs}}}\right)=(0.2\pm 7.0)\times 10^{16}\text{yr}^1`$ ($`1\sigma `$ uncertainty). The same limit applies to a possible variation of the quantity $`(\mu _{\text{Rb}}/\mu _{\text{Cs}})\alpha ^{0.44}`$, which involves the ratio of nuclear magnetic moments and the fine structure constant.

preprint: APS/123-QED

Since Dirac’s 1937 formulation of his large number hypothesis aiming at tying together the fundamental constants of physics Dirac37 , large amount of work has been devoted to test if these constants were indeed constant over time Dyson ; Uzan02 .

In General Relativity and in all metric theories of gravitation, variations with time and space of non gravitational fundamental constants such as the fine structure constant $`\alpha =e^2/4\pi ϵ_0\mathrm{}c`$ are forbidden. They would violate Einstein’s Equivalence Principle (EEP). EEP imposes the Local Position Invariance stating that in a local freely falling reference frame, the result of any local non gravitational experiment is independent of where and when it is performed. On the other hand, almost all modern theories aiming at unifying gravitation with the three other fundamental interactions predict violation of EEP at levels which are within reach of near-future experiments Damour94 ; Calmet02 . As the internal energies of atoms or molecules depend on electromagnetic, as well as strong and weak interactions, comparing the frequency of electronic transitions, fine structure transitions and hyperfine transitions as a function of time or gravitational potential provides an interesting test of the validity of EEP.

To date, very stringent tests exist on geological and cosmological timescales. The analysis of the Oklo nuclear reactor showed that, $`2\times 10^9`$ years ago, $`\alpha `$ did not differ from the present value by more than $`10^7`$ of its value Damour96 . Light emitted by distant quasars has been used to perform absorption spectroscopy of interstellar clouds. For instance, measurements of the wavelengths of molecular hydrogen transitions test a possible variation of the electron to proton mass ratio $`m_e/m_p`$ Ivanchik02 . Comparisons between the gross structure and the fine structure of neutral atoms and ions would indicate that $`\alpha `$ for a redshift $`z1.5`$ ($`10`$ Gyr) differed from the present value: $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha =(7.2\pm 1.8)\times 10^6`$ Webb01 . Today this is the only claim that fundamental constants might change.

On much shorter timescales, several tests using frequency standards have been performed Turneaure83 ; Godone93 ; Prestage95 . These laboratory tests have a very high sensitivity to changes in fundamental constants. They are repeatable, systematic errors can be tracked as experimental conditions can be changed.

In this letter we present results that place a new stringent limit to the time variation of fundamental constants. By comparing the hyperfine energies of 133Cs and 87Rb in their electronic ground state over a period of nearly five years, we place an upper limit to the rate of change of the ratio of the hyperfine frequencies $`\nu _{\text{Rb}}/\nu _{\text{Cs}}`$. Our measurements take advantage of the high accuracy ($`10^{15}`$) of several laser cooled Cs and Rb atomic fountains. According to recent atomic structure calculations Prestage95 ; Dzuba99 , these measurements are sensitive to a possible variation of the quantity $`(\mu _{\text{Rb}}/\mu _{\text{Cs}})\alpha ^{0.44}`$, where $`\mu `$’s are the nuclear magnetic moments. We anticipate major advances in these tests using frequency standards, thanks to recent advances in optical frequency metrology using femtosecond lasers StAndrews ; Bize02 .

In our experiments, three atomic fountains are compared to each other, using a hydrogen maser (H-maser) as a flywheel oscillator (Fig.1). Two fountains, a transportable fountain FOM, and FO1 FO1  are using cesium atoms. The third fountain is a dual fountain (DF) Bize01 , operating alternately with rubidium (DF$`_{\text{Rb}}`$) and cesium (DF$`_{\text{Cs}}`$). These fountains have been continuously upgraded in order to improve their accuracy from $`2\times 10^{15}`$ in 1998 to $`8\times 10^{16}`$ for cesium and from $`1.3\times 10^{14}`$ Bize99  to $`6\times 10^{16}`$ for rubidium.

Fountain clocks operate as follows. First, atoms are collected and laser cooled in an optical molasses or in a magneto-optical trap in $`0.3`$ to $`0.6`$ s. Atoms are launched upwards, and selected in the clock level ($`m_F=0`$) by a combination of microwave and laser pulses. Then, atoms interact twice with a microwave field tuned near the hyperfine frequency, in a Ramsey interrogation scheme. The microwave field is synthesized from a low phase noise 100 MHz signal from a quartz oscillator, which is phase locked to the reference signal of the H-maser (Fig.1). After the microwave interactions, the population of each hyperfine state is measured using light induced fluorescence. This provides a measurement of the transition probability as a function of microwave detuning. Successive measurements are used to steer the average microwave field to the frequency of the atomic resonance using a digital servo system. The output of the servo provides a direct measurement of the frequency difference between the H-maser and the fountain clock.

The three fountains have different geometries and operating conditions: the number of detected atoms ranges from $`3\times 10^5`$ to $`2\times 10^6`$ at a temperature of $`1\mu `$K, the fountain cycle duration from 1.1 to 1.6 s. The Ramsey resonance width is between 0.9 and $`1.2`$ Hz. In measurements reported here the fractional frequency instability is $`(12)\times 10^{13}\tau ^{1/2}`$, where $`\tau `$ is the averaging time in seconds. Fountain comparisons have a typical resolution of $`10^{15}`$ for a 12 hour integration, and each of the four data campaigns lasts from 1 to 2 months during which an accuracy evaluation of each fountain is performed.

The 2002 measurements are presented in Fig.2, which displays the maser fractional frequency offset, measured by the Cs fountains FOM and DF$`_{\text{Cs}}`$. Also shown is the H-maser frequency offset measured by the Rb fountain DF$`_{\text{Rb}}`$ where the Rb hyperfine frequency is conventionally chosen to be $`\nu _{\text{Rb}}(1999)=\mathrm{6\hspace{0.17em}834\hspace{0.17em}682\hspace{0.17em}610.904\hspace{0.17em}333}`$Hz, our 1999 value. The data are corrected for the systematic frequency shifts listed in Table 1. The H-maser frequency exhibits fractional fluctuations on the order of $`10^{14}`$ over a few days, ten times larger than the typical statistical uncertainty resulting from the instability of the fountain clocks. In order to reject the H-maser frequency fluctuations, the fountain data are recorded simultaneously (within a few minutes). The fractional frequency differences plotted in Fig.2 b illustrate the efficiency of this rejection. DF is operated alternately with Rb and Cs, allowing both Rb-Cs comparisons and Cs-Cs comparisons (central part of Fig.2) to be performed.

Systematic effects shifting the frequency of the fountain standards are listed in Table 1. The quantization magnetic field in the interrogation region is determined with a $`0.1`$ nT uncertainty by measuring the frequency of a linear field-dependent “Zeeman” transition. The temperature in the interrogation region is monitored with 5 platinum resistors and the uncertainty on the black-body radiation frequency shift corresponds to temperature fluctuations of about 1 K Simon98 . Clock frequencies are corrected for the cold collision and cavity pulling frequency shifts using several methods Pereira02 ; Sortais00 . All other effects do not contribute significantly and their uncertainties are added quadratically. We searched for the influence of synchronous perturbations by changing the timing sequence and the atom launch height. To search for possible microwave leakage, we changed the power ($`\times 9`$) in the interrogation microwave cavity. No shift was found at a resolution of $`10^{15}`$. The shift due to residual coherences and populations in neighboring Zeeman states is estimated to be less than $`10^{16}`$. As shown in Wolf01 , the shift due to the microwave photon recoil is very similar for Cs and Rb and smaller than $`+1.4\times 10^{16}`$. Relativistic corrections (gravitational redshift and second order Doppler effect) contribute to less than $`10^{16}`$ in the clock comparisons.

For the Cs-Cs 2002 comparison, we find:

$$\frac{\nu _{\text{Cs}}^{\mathrm{DF}}(2002)\nu _{\text{Cs}}^{\mathrm{FOM}}(2002)}{\nu _{\text{Cs}}}=+12(6)(12)\times 10^{16}$$
(1)
where the first parenthesis reflects the $`1\sigma `$ statistical uncertainty, and the second the systematic uncertainty, obtained by adding quadratically the inaccuracies of the two Cs clocks (see Table 1). The two Cs fountains are in good agreement despite their significantly different operating conditions (see Table 1), showing that systematic effects are well understood at the $`10^{15}`$ level.

In 2002, the 87Rb frequency measured with respect to the average 133Cs frequency is found to be:

$$\nu _{\text{Rb}}(2002)=\mathrm{6\hspace{0.17em}834\hspace{0.17em}682\hspace{0.17em}610.904\hspace{0.17em}324}(4)(7)\text{Hz}$$
(2)
where the error bars now include DF$`_{\text{Rb}}`$, DF$`_{\text{Cs}}`$ and FOM uncertainties. This is the most accurate frequency measurement to date.

In Fig.3 are plotted all our Rb-Cs frequency comparisons. Except for the less precise 1998 data Bize99 , two Cs fountains were used together to perform the Rb measurements. The uncertainties for the 1999 and 2000 measurements were $`2.7\times 10^{15}`$, because of lower clock accuracy and lack of rigorous simultaneity in the earlier frequency comparisons Bize01 . A weighted linear fit to the data in Fig.3 determines how our measurements constrain a possible time variation of $`\nu _{\text{Rb}}/\nu _{\text{Cs}}`$. We find:

$$\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\nu _{\text{Rb}}}{\nu _{\text{Cs}}}\right)=(0.2\pm 7.0)\times 10^{16}\text{yr}^1$$
(3)
which represents a 5-fold improvement over our previous results Bize01  and a 100-fold improvement over the Hg+-H hyperfine energy comparison Prestage95 .

We now examine how this result constrains possible variations of fundamental constants. For an alkali with atom number $`Z`$, the hyperfine transition frequency can be approximated by:

$$\nu \alpha ^2\frac{\mu }{\mu _N}\left(\frac{m_e}{m_p}\right)R_{\mathrm{}}cF_{rel}(Z\alpha ),$$
(4)
where $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the Rydberg constant, $`c`$ the speed of light, $`\mu `$ the magnetic moment of the nucleus, $`\mu _N`$ the nuclear magneton. $`F_{rel}(Z\alpha )`$ is a relativistic function which strongly increases with $`Z`$ Prestage95 ; Karshenboim00 . For 133Cs, this Casimir relativistic contribution amounts to 40 % of the hyperfine splitting and $`\alpha \frac{ln(F_{rel}(Z\alpha ))}{\alpha }=0.74`$. For 87Rb, this quantity is 0.30 ref . Following Prestage95  and neglecting possible changes of the strong and weak interactions affecting $`\mu _{\text{Rb}}`$ and $`\mu _{\text{Cs}}`$, the sensitivity of the ratio $`\nu _{\text{Rb}}/\nu _{\text{Cs}}`$ to a variation of $`\alpha `$ is simply given by:

$$\frac{}{\mathrm{ln}\alpha }\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\nu _{\text{Rb}}}{\nu _{\text{Cs}}}\right)(0.300.74)=0.44.$$
(5)
Using equations 3 and 5, we thus set the new limit: $`\dot{\alpha }/\alpha =(0.4\pm 16)\times 10^{16}\text{yr}^1`$.

In contrast with Prestage95 , Ref.Karshenboim00  argues that a time variation of the nuclear magnetic moments must also be considered in a comparison between hyperfine frequencies. The magnetic moments $`\mu `$ can be calculated using the Schmidt model. For atoms with odd $`A`$ and $`Z`$ such as 87Rb and 133Cs, the Schmidt magnetic moment $`\mu ^{(s)}`$ is found to depend only on $`g_p`$, the proton gyromagnetic ratio. With this simple model, Ref.Karshenboim00  finds:

$$\frac{}{\mathrm{ln}g_p}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\nu _{\text{Rb}}}{\nu _{\text{Cs}}}\right)\frac{}{\mathrm{ln}g_p}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mu _{\text{Rb}}^{(s)}}{\mu _{\text{Cs}}^{(s)}}\right)2.0.$$
(6)
Attributing any variation of $`\nu _{\text{Rb}}/\nu _{\text{Cs}}`$ to a variation of $`g_p`$, equations 3 and 6 lead to: $`\dot{g_p}/g_p=(0.1\pm 3.5)\times 10^{16}\text{yr}^1`$. However, it must be noted that the Schimdt model is over simplified and does not agree very accurately with the actual magnetic moment.

Moreover, attributing all the time variation of $`\nu _{\text{Rb}}/\nu _{\text{Cs}}`$ to either $`g_p`$ or $`\alpha `$ independently is somewhat artificial. Theoretical models allowing for a variation of $`\alpha `$ also allow for variations in the strength of the strong and electroweak interactions. For instance, Ref.Calmet02  argues that Grand unification of the three interactions implies that a time variation of $`\alpha `$ necessarily comes with a time variation of the coupling constants of the other interactions. Ref.Calmet02  predicts that a fractional variation of $`\alpha `$ is accompanied with a $`40`$ times larger fractional change of $`m_e/m_p`$. In order to independently test the stability of the three fundamental interactions, several comparisons between different atomic species and/or transitions are required. For instance and as illustrated in Bize02 , absolute frequency measurements of an optical transition is sensitive to a different combination of fundamental constants: $`(\mu _{\text{Cs}}/\mu _N)(m_e/m_p)\alpha ^x`$, where $`x`$ depends on the particular atom and/or transition.

A more complete theoretical analysis going beyond the Schmidt model would clearly be very useful to interpret frequency comparisons involving hyperfine transitions. This is especially important as most precise frequency measurements, both in the microwave and the optical domain Bize02 ; Niering00 ; Udem01 , are currently referenced to the 133Cs hyperfine splitting, the basis of the SI definition of the second. The H hyperfine splitting, which is calculable to a high accuracy, has already been considered as a possible reference several decades ago. Unfortunately, despite numerous efforts, the H hyperfine splitting is currently measured to only 7 parts in $`10^{13}`$ (using H-masers), almost three orders of magnitude worse than the results presented in this letter.

In summary, by comparing 133Cs and 87Rb hyperfine energies, we have set a stringent upper limit to a possible fractional variation of the quantity $`(\mu _{\text{Rb}}/\mu _{\text{Cs}})\alpha ^{0.44}`$ at $`(0.2\pm 7.0)\times 10^{16}\text{yr}^1`$. In the near future, accuracies near 1 part in $`10^{16}`$ should be achievable in microwave atomic fountains, improving our present Rb-Cs comparison by one order of magnitude.

We anticipate that comparisons between rapidly progressing optical and microwave laser-cooled frequency standards currently developed in several laboratories will bring orders of magnitude gain in sensitivity. In order to have the full benefit of these advances, frequency comparisons with improved accuracy between these distant clocks will be necessary. Serving this purpose, a new generation of time/frequency transfer at the $`10^{16}`$ level is currently under development for the ESA space mission ACES which will fly ultra-stable clocks on board the international space station in 2006 Salomon01 . These comparisons will also allow for a search of a possible change of fundamental constants induced by the annual modulation of the Sun gravitational potential due to the elliptical orbit of the Earth Bauch02 .

The authors wish to thank T. Damour, J.P. Uzan, and P. Wolf for valuable discussions, A. Gérard and the electronic staff for technical assistance. This work was supported in part by BNM, CNRS and CNES. BNM-SYRTE and Laboratoire Kastler Brossel are Unités Associées au CNRS, UMR 8630 and 8552.