text:
# A Conjecture about Hadrons

## I Introduction

Understanding the observed structure and decay patterns of the hadrons continues to be a Holy Grail for nuclear and particle physicists. A vast amount of information about hadrons presently exists, and the ongoing experimental program to measure hadronic properties continues to flourish with a wealth of high precision data streaming in from Jefferson Laboratory, and other facilities. During the past decade or so important progress has been made toward understanding hadrons from a fundamental perspective with tools such as the large-$`N_c`$ limit of QCD  and an increasingly powerful effort in lattice QCD. In this work we return to ideas about the relation between the high-energy behavior of scattering amplitudes and the low-energy properties of hadrons developed long ago in Ref. . These ideas were cast in a modern framework by Weinberg , who has long advocated their central role in hadronic physics. By comparing models in this framework with data we are led to conjecture that in the chiral limit, the spectrum of hadrons is comprised of decoupled, reducible chiral multiplets, and that axial matrix elements between the states in each reducible chiral multiplet are determined by the mass spectrum. We develop a simple rule for constructing the ground-state chiral multiplets of the hadrons.

The observations and arguments we use are conceptually straightforward but have deep implications. One considers forward pion-hadron scattering in the chiral limit of QCD, where pions are derivatively coupled to hadrons involved in any given process via the axial-current operator . The general analytic structure of the scattering amplitude enables the amplitude at very low energies, described by an appropriate effective field theory of hadrons, to be related to the behavior of the scattering amplitude at asymptotically high energies. By working in a collinear frame in which the pion-hadron interaction conserves the helicity of the hadron, and noting the absence of isospin-one ($`I=1`$) Regge-trajectories with $`\alpha _1(0)1`$ in the crossed $`t`$-channel *** The forward scattering amplitudes have the following asymptotic behavior with $`\omega `$:    $`\left(_{\beta h^{},\alpha h}^{()\lambda }(\omega )\right)_{I=1}`$ $`\underset{\omega \mathrm{}}{}`$ $`\omega ^{\alpha _1(0)1},\left(_{\beta h^{},\alpha h}^{(+)\lambda }(\omega )\right)_{I=0,2}\underset{\omega \mathrm{}}{}\omega ^{\alpha _{0,2}(0)},`$  (1)  where $`h,h^{}`$ are the isospin indices of the initial and final state hadron while $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are the isospin indices of the initial and final state pion. , one can show that the matrix elements of the axial current between hadron states of helicity $`\lambda `$, $`X_\lambda ^\alpha `$, along with the isospin matrices, $`T^\alpha `$, form an $`SU(2)_LSU(2)_R`$ chiral algebra,

$`[T^\alpha ,X_\lambda ^\beta ]`$ $`=`$ $`iϵ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }X_\lambda ^\gamma ,[X_\lambda ^\alpha ,X_\lambda ^\beta ]=iϵ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }T^\gamma ,`$ (2)
for two-flavor QCD, and $`SU(N_f)_LSU(N_f)_R`$ for QCD with $`N_f`$ flavors . In arriving at eq. (2) it has been assumed that the low-energy amplitude is saturated by single-particle pole diagrams. The absence of $`I=2`$ Regge-trajectories with $`\alpha _2(0)0`$ in the crossed $`t`$-channel allows one to derive algebraic relations involving the axial-current matrix elements and the hadronic mass matrix, $`M`$,

$`[X_\lambda ^\alpha ,[X_\lambda ^\beta ,M^2]]`$ $``$ $`\delta ^{\alpha \beta },[X_\lambda ^\alpha ,[X_\lambda ^\beta ,MJ_{x,y}]]\delta ^{\alpha \beta },`$ (3)
where $`J_{x,y}`$ are angular-momentum generators in the transverse direction (where we have chosen $`z`$ to be the collinear direction). One can show  that the first commutator in eq. (3) implies that $`M^2`$ is a sum of two components: one transforms as a chiral singlet, $`M_\mathrm{𝟏}^2`$, and one as the isosinglet component of a $`(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})`$ representation, $`M_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟐}}^2`$, of $`SU(2)_LSU(2)_R`$. The second commutator in eq. (3) implies that the same is true for $`MJ_{x,y}`$. There is a further constraint on the structure of the mass matrix arising from the empirical fact that the cross section for inelastic diffractive scattering is significantly smaller than that for elastic scattering. If the inelastic scattering cross section were to vanish asymptotically then

$`[M_\mathrm{𝟏}^2,M_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟐}}^2]=0.`$ (4)
We will present results both with and without this constraint. From the constraints in eq. (2) and eq. (3) Weinberg  showed that

1. any set of hadronic states that furnish a representation of the commutation relations in eq. (2) and eq. (3) in which, for each helicity, any given isospin appears at most once, must be degenerate.
2. any set of degenerate hadronic states that furnish a representation of the commutation relations in eq. (2) and eq. (3) also furnish a representation of an $`SU(4)O(3)`$ algebra.

It follows that by assuming only that the $`I=J`$ tower of baryon states that naturally arises in the large-$`N_c`$ limit of QCD saturates the commutation relations in eq. (2) and eq. (3), the states in the tower must be degenerate and the axial matrix elements must be those of the naive constituent quark model (NCQM)  By NCQM we mean the barest form of the constituent quark model (CQM) where there are no spin-dependent interaction between quarks arising from either the phenomenological “gluon exchange”  or “pseudo-Goldstone boson exchange”  as in the chiral quark model, i.e. the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and nucleon are degenerate.. By construction they exhibit a spin-flavor $`SU(4)O(3)`$ symmetry (which becomes a contracted $`SU(4)O(3)`$ symmetry in the large-$`N_c`$ limit ). The ground-state chiral multiplet has been constructed for the $`I=J`$ tower and shown to give the (contracted) spin-flavour $`SU(4)`$ results .

These are indeed beautiful results and allow one to understand how the NCQM can provide a rigorous mnemonic for describing properties of hadrons in the chiral limit with a single assumption about the hadronic spectrum. However, there are certain aspects of this construction that we wish to investigate further. First, if we want to understand hadrons in QCD with $`N_c=3`$, we need to consider schemes which saturate the commutation relations in eq. (2) and eq. (3) with more than just the ground-state $`I=J`$ tower. Put another way, if we want to understand $`1/N_c`$ corrections to the picture described above then we must consider more complicated saturation schemes that allow mixings between the large-$`N_c`$ tower states (which for $`N_c=3`$ contains only the nucleon and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) and other states . Second, there are non-zero mass splittings between the low-lying baryons that will survive in the chiral limit which must appear in any consistent description. Third, while the ratio of axial matrix elements of the NCQM agree reasonably well with available experimental data, their absolute values are too large by $`30\%`$.

## II The Light Baryons

Consider the lowest-lying baryons with valence structure composed of up and down quarks only, such as the nucleon and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-resonance. The only representations of $`SU(2)_LSU(2)_R`$ that contain only $`I=\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`I=\frac{3}{2}`$ states are $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})`$, $`(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})`$, $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟒})`$, $`(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟏})`$, $`(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟑})`$ and $`(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟐})`$. Given one’s bias from the NCQM, it is natural to consider chiral multiplets that are completely filled out by the nucleon and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-resonance alone. Clearly there is only a small number of chiral-multiplets (for each helicity state) that these hadrons can belong to, without admixtures of other states. For the $`\lambda =\frac{1}{2}`$ helicity states they are $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟒})`$, $`(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟒})`$, $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟏})`$, $`(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟏})`$, $`(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟑})`$ and $`(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟐})`$, while for the $`\lambda =\frac{3}{2}`$ helicity states they are $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟒})`$ and $`(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟏})`$. Given the results of W1 and W2 it is clear that the only mass spectrum possible for all of these chiral embeddings, either reducible or irreducible, is one in which the nucleon and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are degenerate, and have axial matrix elements that are those of the NCQM. Clearly the degenerate masses and the excessively-large axial-current matrix elements render these multiplet structures insufficient. However, from the NCQM point of view one uses this as a starting point and perturbatively includes contributions that appear somewhat natural, such as spin-dependent quark interactions and the quenching of the constituent quark axial coupling from $`g_A^{(q)}=1`$ to some lesser value to reproduce the nucleon axial matrix elements. In deriving the algebraic constraints, the analysis has been performed in the chiral limit and single-particle contributions have been taken to saturate the commutators. Given the small value of the pion mass and the extensive studies in chiral perturbation theory in the nucleon-$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ sector , the quark masses will not bring the NCQM chiral multiplet structure into agreement with data. Furthermore, the saturation of the commutators with single-particle states is precisely the assumption that one makes in constructing the low-energy effective field theory description of the $`\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ system, and this construction is very successful. Thus, one is led to conclude that the NCQM chiral multiplet structure is incomplete and likely not a sensible basis for a perturbative expansion.

To determine the minimal realistic chiral multiplet structure, consider the isospin content of the QCD interpolating fields that have non-zero overlap with the nucleon or $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$,

$`\epsilon _{abc}q^aq^bq^c\frac{1}{2}^+\frac{1}{2}^+\frac{3}{2}^+,`$ (5)
where $`a,b,c`$ are color indices and all the Dirac and flavour indices have been suppressed. We have used the schema $`I^P`$ where $`P`$ is parity. This interpolating field contains an additional $`I=\frac{1}{2}`$ baryon beyond the nucleon and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

We conjecture that a chiral multiplet which describes the low-lying hadrons is the minimal chiral representation which includes all of the isospin multiplets in the QCD interpolator for that hadron at least once, and for which there is no degeneracy within the multiplet, unless required by an additional symmetry like heavy-quark symmetry or flavor $`SU(3)`$ symmetry.

Consider the ground-state chiral multiplet for the $`\lambda =\frac{1}{2}`$ baryons. From eq. (5) we require a representation that contains at least two $`I=\frac{1}{2}`$ states and one $`I=\frac{3}{2}`$ state, all of like-parity. In order to avoid degeneracy within the multiplet while allowing pion transitions we require a representation with nonvanishing matrix elements of $`M_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟐}}^2`$. Hence the ground-state chiral multiplet for the $`\lambda =\frac{1}{2}`$ baryons is uniquely determined by the conjecture to be $`(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟑})(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})`$  Parity interchanges $`SU(2)_L`$ and $`SU(2)_R`$ representations. Therefore if we assign the $`\lambda =+\frac{1}{2}`$ states to an $`(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟑})(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})`$ representation, parity requires that the $`\lambda =\frac{1}{2}`$ states are in the $`(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟐})(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})`$ representation .. This multiplet was considered by Weinberg  (and also by Gilman and Harari ). As discussed in detail below, the additional baryon in the chiral multiplet is identified as the Roper resonance, $`N(1440)`$ . The actual Dirac and lorentz structure of the interpolating fields is not at all obvious to us. An early discussion of this problem can be found in work by Casher and Susskind  and a recent discussion can be found in Ref. .

The helicity states of the nucleons, $`N`$, and excited nucleons, $`N^{}`$, are in $`I=\frac{1}{2}`$ representations of $`SU(2)_I`$, described by a tensor with a single fundamental index. Likewise, the helicity states of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s and the excited $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s are in $`I=\frac{3}{2}`$ representations of $`SU(2)_I`$, described by a symmetric tensor with three fundamental indices. We will now construct the $`(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟑})(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})`$ representation which contains $`N`$, $`N^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. At leading order (LO) in the chiral expansion the axial matrix elements are defined through the currents

$`J_{,LO}^{\alpha ,5}=g_AN_{}^{}T^\alpha N_{}+g_A^{}(N_{}^{}T^\alpha N_{}^{}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)+g_A^{\prime \prime }N_{}^{}T^\alpha N_{}^{}`$ (6)
$`𝒞_{\mathrm{\Delta }N}(\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}N_{}^{}T^\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_{}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)𝒞_{\mathrm{\Delta }N^{}}(\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}N_{}^{}T^\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_{}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)`$ (7)
$`_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^{}T^\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_{},`$ (8)
$`J_{,LO}^{\alpha ,5}=_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^{}T^\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ (9)
for the $`\lambda =\frac{1}{2}`$ helicity states ($``$) and $`\lambda =\frac{3}{2}`$ helicity states ($``$), respectively. The NCQM places the $`N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}`$-dimensional representation of spin-flavor $`SU(4)`$, and the $`N^{}`$ and a $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ in the $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}^{}`$ representation. This leads to the familiar NCQM predictions: $`g_A=g_A^{\prime \prime }=\frac{5}{3}`$, $`g_A^{}=0`$, $`𝒞_{\mathrm{\Delta }N}=2`$ and $`_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}=3`$.

In order to construct the ground-state baryon chiral multiplet consistent with our conjecture, we introduce the fields $`S_a`$, $`T_{a,bc}`$ to include the $`\lambda =+\frac{1}{2}`$ helicity states and the field $`D_{abc}`$ to include the $`\lambda =+\frac{3}{2}`$ helicity states. The field $`S_a`$ transforms as $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})`$ under $`SU(2)_LSU(2)_R`$; that is, $`SLS`$, while the field $`D_{abc}`$ transforms as $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟒})`$ under $`SU(2)_LSU(2)_R`$; that is, $`DLLLD`$. It is straightforward to embed an $`I=\frac{1}{2}`$ and an $`I=\frac{3}{2}`$ state into a single irreducible representation of $`SU(2)_LSU(2)_R`$, the $`(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟑})`$. The field $`T_{a,bc}`$ transforms as $`TRLLT`$, and in terms of fields transforming as $`I=\frac{1}{2}`$, $`S_T`$, and $`I=\frac{3}{2}`$, $`D_T`$, $`T`$ can be written as

$`T_{a,bc}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}\left(S_{T,b}ϵ_{ac}+S_{T,c}ϵ_{ab}\right)+D_{T,abc}.`$ (10)
We also introduce a spurion field, $`v_b^a`$, which transforms as $`vLvR^{}`$, such that $`v_b^a=M_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟐}}^2\delta _b^a`$. The free-field dynamics of the helicity states are determined by the two-dimensional effective Lagrange densities constructed from the available tensors,

$`_{}`$ $`=`$ $`_+T^{a,bc}_{}T_{a,bc}+_+S^a_{}S_aM_{\mathrm{𝟏}T}^2T^{a,bc}T_{a,bc}M_{\mathrm{𝟏}S}^2S^aS_a`$ (12)
$`𝒜(T^{a,bc}v_a^dS_bϵ_{cd}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.),`$
$`_{}`$ $`=`$ $`_+D^{a,bc}_{}D_{a,bc}M_{\mathrm{𝟏}D}^2D^{a,bc}D_{a,bc},`$ (13)
where $`𝒜`$ is an undetermined parameter and $`x_\pm =z\pm t`$ with $`z`$ the collinear direction. Notice that the helicity components of the baryons act as scalar fields. The current operators that satisfy the constraints imposed by eq. (2) and eq. (3) take the form

$`\widehat{T}_{}^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`T^{a,bc}\left(T^\alpha \right)_a^dT_{d,bc}+2T^{a,bc}\left(T^\alpha \right)_b^dT_{a,dc}+S^a\left(T^\alpha \right)_a^dS_d,`$ (14)
$`\widehat{X}_{}^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`T^{a,bc}\left(T^\alpha \right)_a^dT_{d,bc}2T^{a,bc}\left(T^\alpha \right)_b^dT_{a,dc}S^a\left(T^\alpha \right)_a^dS_d,`$ (15)
$`\widehat{T}_{}^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`3D^{abc}\left(T^\alpha \right)_a^dD_{dbc},`$ (16)
$`\widehat{X}_{}^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`3D^{abc}\left(T^\alpha \right)_a^dD_{dbc}.`$ (17)
The mass eigenstates are linear combinations of the chiral eigenstates with a mixing angle $`\psi `$. Setting $`M_{\mathrm{𝟏}T}^2=M_{\mathrm{𝟏}D}^2`$ one can easily check that the commutators of eq. (2) and eq. (3) are satisfied. Diagonalizing the mass matrix and matching to the chiral perturbation theory current in eq. (9) leads to

$`g_A=1+\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{cos}^2\psi ,g_A^{}=\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{cos}\psi ,g_A^{\prime \prime }=1+\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{sin}^2\psi ,`$ (18)
$`𝒞_{\mathrm{\Delta }N}=2\mathrm{cos}\psi ,𝒞_{\mathrm{\Delta }N^{}}=2\mathrm{sin}\psi ,_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}=3,`$ (19)
$`M_N^2\mathrm{cos}^2\psi +M_N^{}^2\mathrm{sin}^2\psi =M_\mathrm{\Delta }^2,`$ (20)
where $`\psi `$ is the mixing angle between the two $`I=\frac{1}{2}`$ multiplets §§§We believe the mass relation in Ref.  to be incorrect.. If we further impose the inelastic diffraction constraint, we find that $`M_{\mathrm{𝟏}T}^2=M_{\mathrm{𝟏}S}^2`$ and consequently $`\psi =\frac{\pi }{4}`$, which corresponds to maximal mixing  This choice of the mixing angle corresponds to a discrete symmetry of the free lagrange density which interchanges $`S`$ and $`S_T`$ . In all cases we study in this paper, the constraint of no inelastic diffraction corresponds to a discrete symmetry of the collinear field theory.. This then gives

$`g_A=\frac{4}{3},g_A^{}=\frac{1}{3},g_A^{\prime \prime }=\frac{4}{3},`$ (21)
$`𝒞_{\mathrm{\Delta }N}=\sqrt{2},𝒞_{\mathrm{\Delta }N^{}}=\sqrt{2},_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}=3,`$ (22)
$`M_\mathrm{\Delta }^2M_N^2=M_N^{}^2M_\mathrm{\Delta }^2.`$ (23)
These values are impressively close to those in nature and it is conceivable that the agreement may improve as the physical values are extrapolated to the chiral limit. Using the nucleon and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ masses as input one finds $`M_N^{}=1467\mathrm{MeV}`$, consistent with the Roper resonance. Notice that both $`g_A`$ and $`𝒞_{\mathrm{\Delta }N}`$ are decreased from their NCQM in the direction of experiment (see Table I). The phenomenology of the axial couplings in this scenario is discussed in detail in Ref. . Recent work on $`\pi N\pi \pi N`$ scattering by Fettes  has determined a range for the higher-order contributions to the axial current in chiral perturbation theory, described by the constant $`\overline{d}_{16}`$. The range of values for $`\overline{d}_{16}`$ is consistent with a value of $`g_A=\frac{4}{3}`$ in the chiral limit. Finally, we point out that it is likely that since the Roper-nucleon mass splitting is less than the chiral symmetry breaking scale, the non-vanishing quark-mass corrections to this chiral multiplet can be computed using chiral perturbation theory .

## III The Heavy Baryons

For baryons containing one heavy quark one naturally considers the NCQM states as being partners, such as the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$, the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++,+,0}`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++,+,0}`$ in the charmed sector. The minimal chiral multiplet structure for these states gives a continuous spectrum of axial-current matrix elements when the algebraic constraints of eq. (2) and eq. (3) are imposed. However, also requiring heavy-quark symmetry (HQS) yields the axial coupling constants of the NCQM. An interpolating field for the heavy baryons takes the form

$`\epsilon _{abc}Q^aq^bq^c0^+1^+,`$ (24)
where $`Q`$ denotes a heavy quark The discussion also holds for strange baryons such as the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ or $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. and again we have used the schema $`I^P`$ where $`P`$ is parity. In order to describe the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q`$, the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_Q`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_Q^{}`$ two copies of the heavy-baryon interpolator must be present, and thus a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q^{}`$ will be present in the ground-state chiral multiplet. The unique chiral multiplet consistent with our conjecture is $`(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})`$. One additional ingredient in the heavy-quark sector that is absent in the light-quark sector is heavy quark spin-symmetry (HQSS). In the experimentally-determined heavy-baryon spectrum, the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_Q`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_Q^{}`$ are identified as members of an irreducible representation of HQSS, and become degenerate in the heavy quark limit. HQSS greatly simplifies the form of the axial-current matrix elements and one finds

$`J_{Q,LO}^{\alpha ,5}`$ $`=`$ $`g_2(\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{Tr}\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }_Q^{}T^\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }_Q\right]+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{Tr}\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }_Q^{}T^\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }_Q^{}\right]+\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}(\mathrm{Tr}\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }_Q^{}T^\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }_Q\right]+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.))`$ (25)
$`+`$ $`g_3(\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q^{}\mathrm{Tr}\left[T^\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }_Q\right]\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q^{}\mathrm{Tr}\left[T^\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }_Q^{}\right]+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)`$ (26)
$`+`$ $`g_3^{}(\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q^{}\mathrm{Tr}\left[T^\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }_Q\right]\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q^{}\mathrm{Tr}\left[T^\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }_Q^{}\right]+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.),`$ (27)
$`J_{Q,LO}^{\alpha ,5}`$ $`=`$ $`g_2\mathrm{Tr}\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }_Q^{}T^\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }_Q^{}\right].`$ (28)
The NCQM values for the axial couplings are $`g_2=2`$ and $`g_3=\sqrt{2}`$ .

We will now construct the $`(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})`$ representation that contains $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_Q`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_Q^{}`$. We introduce the fields $`\lambda _1`$, $`Z`$ and $`Y`$ to describe the $`\lambda =\frac{1}{2}`$ helicity states and the field $`Q`$ to describe the $`\lambda =\frac{3}{2}`$ helicity state. $`\lambda _1`$ transforms as $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})`$ under the chiral group, $`Z_b^a`$ transforms as $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})`$ under the chiral group, $`ZLZL^{}`$, and $`Y_b^a`$ transforms as $`(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})`$ under the chiral group, $`YLYR^{}`$, with $`Y_0`$ the $`I=0`$ component, and $`Y_1`$ the $`I=1`$ component. The field $`Q_b^a`$ transforms as $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})`$ under the chiral group, $`QLQL^{}`$. The free-field dynamics of the helicity states are determined by the two-dimensional effective Lagrange densities constructed from $`\lambda _1`$, $`Z`$ and $`Y`$,

$`_{}`$ $`=`$ $`_+\lambda _1^{}_{}\lambda _1+\mathrm{Tr}\left[_+Y^{}_{}Y\right]+\mathrm{Tr}\left[_+Z^{}_{}Z\right]M_{\mathrm{𝟏}Y}^2\mathrm{Tr}\left[Y^{}Y\right]`$ (29)
$``$ $`M_{\mathrm{𝟏}Z}^2\mathrm{Tr}\left[Z^{}Z\right]M_{\mathrm{𝟏}\lambda _1}^2\lambda _1^{}\lambda _1(𝒜_1\mathrm{Tr}\left[Y^{}Zv\right]+𝒜_2\mathrm{Tr}\left[Y^{}v\right]\lambda _1+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.),`$ (30)
$`_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\left[_+Q^{}_{}Q\right]M_{\mathrm{𝟏}Q}^2\mathrm{Tr}\left[Q^{}Q\right],`$ (31)
where $`𝒜_{1,2}`$ are unknown constants. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q^{()}`$ mass eigenstates are linear combinations of the $`\lambda _1`$ and $`Y_0`$ fields with a mixing angle $`\psi `$, while the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_Q^{()}`$ mass eigenstates are linear combinations of the $`Z`$ and $`Y_1`$ fields, with mixing angle $`\varphi `$. The constraints imposed by eq. (2) and eq. (3) along with HQSS have a non-trivial solution for the axial coupling constants and masses

$`g_2=2,g_3=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}\psi ,g_3^{}=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}\psi ,`$ (32)
$`M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q}^2\mathrm{cos}^2\psi +M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q^{}}^2\mathrm{sin}^2\psi =M_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_Q^{()}}^2.`$ (33)
Imposing the constraint in eq. (4) arising from the absence of inelastic diffractive scattering requires $`\psi =\frac{\pi }{4}`$ which gives

$`g_2=2,g_3=g_3^{}=1,`$ (34)
$`M_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_Q^{()}}^2M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q}^2=M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q^{}}^2M_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_Q^{()}}^2,`$ (35)
or $`\psi =0`$, which decouples the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^{}`$ as a stand-alone $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})`$ representation and recovers the NCQM values for the heavy-baryon multiplet axial transitions ($`g_2=2`$, $`g_3=\sqrt{2}`$ and $`g_3^{}=0`$).

Information continues to be accumulated about the properties and decays of baryons containing heavy quarks (for a recent review of experimental data see Ref. , and references therein and also the particle data group ). Ideally, one would like to have detailed information on b-baryons so as to be as close to the HQ limit as nature will allow. However, there is much more information on charmed baryons, simply due to the number that have been produced in the laboratory. Experimentally, the measured width of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++})=17.9_{3.2}^{+3.8}\pm 4.0\mathrm{MeV}`$, which fixes the axial coupling $`g_3`$ to be $`|g_3|=0.95\pm 0.08\pm 0.08`$. This value is significantly smaller than the NCQM value of $`|g_3|=\sqrt{2}`$, but consistent with $`|g_3|=1`$ that one obtains with $`\psi =\frac{\pi }{4}`$. Thus our conjecture predicts there to be a chiral partner to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{}`$, the positive-parity $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^{}`$ with a mass of $`M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^{}}2688\mathrm{MeV}`$ that is the analogue of the Roper in the light baryon sector and is not yet observed. The axial coupling between the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^{}`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{}`$ is predicted to be $`|g_3^{}|=1`$. The fact that the charmed spectrum is not as close to the heavy-quark limit as one would like means that the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^{}`$ mass may be somewhat heavier than we have estimated here.

## IV The Light Mesons

In the case of the light mesons, our conjecture has been proven to be true in the large-$`N_c`$ limit of QCD  using eq. (2), eq. (3) and eq. (4). The $`\lambda =0`$ helicity states of the $`\pi `$, $`\rho `$, $`f_0`$ and $`a_1`$ form a chiral quartet that is decoupled from the other mesons. This provides a QCD-based interpretation of the work by Gilman and Harari  in which it was shown that the complete set of Adler-Weisberger sum-rules in the pion sector could be satisfied with just these four meson states. The one free mixing angle introduced by Gilman and Harari is predicted to be $`\psi =\frac{\pi }{4}`$ and gives a $`\rho `$ width that is consistent with experiment. We now demonstrate how these results are implied by our conjecture. In effect, we will see that our conjecture recovers precisely the full saturation scheme of Gilman and Harari . The interpolating fields for the mesons are of the form $`\overline{q}^aq_a`$ and contain isospin representations $`I=01`$ only. The chiral multiplets which can give rise to these isospins and no others are $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})`$, $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})`$, $`(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})`$, and $`(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})`$. As the mesons have $`\lambda =0`$ helicity states normality, $`\eta P(1)^J`$, constrains the structure of the mass matrix and axial currents. Moreover, $`G`$-parity adds a new complication as there is an additional symmetry, $`G\eta `$, which commutes with the axial operator, $`\widehat{X}_\alpha `$. Hence one should consider sectors with $`G\eta =+1`$ and $`G\eta =1`$ separately. Meson interpolators with space-time quantum numbers, $`J^{PC}`$, of pseudoscalar, vector, axialvector and scalar character decompose to

$`\left(\overline{q}^aq_a\right)_P`$ $``$ $`0_{}^{}1_+^{},\left(\overline{q}^aq_a\right)_V0_{}^+1_+^+,`$ (36)
$`\left(\overline{q}^aq_a\right)_A`$ $``$ $`0_{}^{}1_+^{},\left(\overline{q}^aq_a\right)_S0_+^+1_{}^+,`$ (37)
where we use the schema $`I_{G\eta }^\eta `$. Consider first the sector with $`G\eta =+1`$ which includes the pion. Since normality interchanges $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})`$ and $`(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})`$, the minimal reducible representation that allows for non-zero mass splittings is $`(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})`$ which corresponds to $`1_+^{}`$, $`1_+^{}`$, $`1_+^+`$ and $`0_+^+`$ from eq. (37). (This representation is denoted by $`vt`$ in Ref. .) Hence the pion belongs to a chiral representation composed of the $`\lambda =0`$ helicity states of $`\pi `$, $`f_0(600)`$, $`\rho (770)`$ and $`a_1(1260)`$. We introduce the fields $`h`$, $`k`$ and $`t`$ which transform as $`hLhL^{}`$, $`kRkR^{}`$ and $`tLtR^{}`$ under chiral transformations, and whose free-field dynamics are described by the Lagrange density

$`_0^+`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\left[_+t^{}_{}t\right]+\mathrm{Tr}\left[_+h^{}_{}h\right]+\mathrm{Tr}\left[_+k^{}_{}k\right]M_{\mathrm{𝟏}t}^2\mathrm{Tr}\left[t^{}t\right]`$ (40)
$`M_{\mathrm{𝟏}+}^2\mathrm{Tr}\left[(h+k)^{}(h+k)\right]M_\mathrm{𝟏}^2\mathrm{Tr}\left[(hk)^{}(hk)\right]`$
$`(𝒜\mathrm{Tr}\left[t^{}(hv+v^{}k)\right]+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.),`$
where $`𝒜`$ is an unknown constant and the current operators are

$`\widehat{T}_0^\alpha =\mathrm{Tr}\left[t^{}T^\alpha tt^{}tT^\alpha \right]+2\mathrm{Tr}\left[h^{}T^\alpha h+k^{}T^\alpha k\right],`$ (41)
$`\widehat{X}_0^\alpha =\mathrm{Tr}\left[t^{}T^\alpha t+t^{}tT^\alpha \right]+2\mathrm{Tr}\left[h^{}T^\alpha hk^{}T^\alpha k\right].`$ (42)
One makes the following particle identifications

$`\rho =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[hk],a_1=\mathrm{cos}\psi t_1+\mathrm{sin}\psi \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[h+k],`$ (43)
$`\pi =\mathrm{sin}\psi t_1+\mathrm{cos}\psi \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[h+k],f_0=t_0,`$ (44)
which lead to

$`\rho ^0|\widehat{X}_0^1i\widehat{X}_0^2|\pi ^+=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}\psi ,f_0|\widehat{X}_0^1i\widehat{X}_0^2|\pi ^+=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}\psi ,`$ (45)
$`\rho ^0|\widehat{X}_0^1i\widehat{X}_0^2|a_1^+=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}\psi ,f_0|\widehat{X}_0^1i\widehat{X}_0^2|a_1^+=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}\psi ,`$ (46)
$`M_{a1}^2=M_\rho ^2+M_{f_0}^2,M_\rho ^2=\mathrm{sin}^2\psi M_{a1}^2.`$ (47)
The absence of inelastic diffractive scattering, as encapsulated in eq. (4), requires that $`\psi =\frac{\pi }{4}`$ which, through the decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho \pi \pi )283\mathrm{cos}^2\psi \mathrm{MeV}`$, is in excellent agreement with experiment. This value of the mixing angle is consistent with the large and uncertain widths of $`f_0`$ and $`a_1`$. (It is interesting that the mixing angle takes a value halfway between the sigma model scenario ($`\psi =\frac{\pi }{2}`$) where $`\pi `$ is paired with the scalar $`f_0`$ in a degenerate multiplet, and the vector-limit scenario  ($`\psi =0`$) where $`\pi `$ is paired with the vector $`\rho `$ in a degenerate multiplet.) One also obtains the well-known mass relation

$`M_\rho ^2=M_\sigma ^2=M_{a1}^2M_\rho ^2.`$ (48)
The phenomenology of this embedding is discussed in detail in Refs. , and expressed in terms of chiral perturbation theory parameters in Ref. .

Next we consider the sector with $`G\eta =1`$. The minimal representation with mass splittings is $`(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})`$ which corresponds to $`0_{}^{}`$, $`0_{}^{}`$, $`0_{}^+`$ and $`1_{}^+`$ from eq. (37). This chiral representation is composed of the $`\lambda =0`$ helicity states of $`\eta `$, $`\omega (782)`$, $`a_0(980)`$ and $`f_1(1285)`$. In order to construct this chiral multiplet, we introduce the fields $`\lambda _1`$, $`\lambda _2`$ which transform as $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})`$ and $`y_b^a`$ which transforms as a $`(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})`$ under the chiral group, $`yLyR^{}`$ with $`I=0`$ component $`y_0`$, and $`I=1`$ component, $`y_1`$. The free-field dynamics of the helicity-zero states are determined by the two-dimensional effective Lagrange density constructed from $`\lambda _1`$, $`\lambda _2`$ and $`y`$,

$`_0^{}`$ $`=`$ $`_+\lambda _1^{}_{}\lambda _1+_+\lambda _2^{}_{}\lambda _2+\mathrm{Tr}\left[_+y^{}_{}y\right]`$ (51)
$`M_{\mathrm{𝟏}y}^2\mathrm{Tr}\left[y^{}y\right]M_{\mathrm{𝟏}\lambda _1}^2\lambda _1^{}\lambda _1M_{\mathrm{𝟏}\lambda _2}^2\lambda _2^{}\lambda _2`$
$`(𝒜_1\mathrm{Tr}\left[y^{}v\right]\lambda _1+𝒜_2\mathrm{Tr}\left[y^{}v\right]\lambda _2+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.),`$
where $`𝒜_{1,2}`$ are unknown constants, and the axial-current operator is

$`\widehat{X}_0^\alpha =\mathrm{Tr}\left[y^{}T^\alpha y+y^{}yT^\alpha \right].`$ (52)
Since $`\omega `$ carries opposite normality to $`\eta `$ and $`f_1`$, it is necessarily unmixed ($`𝒜_1=0`$) and transforms as a chiral singlet. Hence we have the particle identifications

$`\eta =\mathrm{cos}\psi \lambda _2+\mathrm{sin}\psi y_0,f_1=\mathrm{sin}\psi \lambda _2+\mathrm{cos}\psi y_0,`$ (53)
$`a_0=y_1,\omega =\lambda _1,`$ (54)
and we find the following non-trivial solution for the axial coupling constants and masses,

$`a_0^+|\widehat{X}_0^1+i\widehat{X}_0^2|f_1=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}\psi ,a_0^+|\widehat{X}_0^1+i\widehat{X}_0^2|\eta =\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}\psi ,`$ (55)
$`M_{f_1}^2\mathrm{cos}^2\psi +M_\eta ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\psi =M_{a_0}^2.`$ (56)
The masses in this multiplet are well-known experimentally and using the mass relation to fix the mixing angle gives $`\psi =44.5^o`$, in excellent agreement with the inelastic diffraction constraint imposed by eq. (4). The predicted value for the $`f_1`$ width, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(f_1a_0\pi )76\mathrm{cos}^2\psi \mathrm{MeV}`$, is then quite respectable. The value for the $`a_0`$ width, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(a_0\eta \pi )647\mathrm{sin}^2\psi \mathrm{MeV}`$, would appear to over predict the (rather uncertain) experimental width. However, as in the case of the $`a_1`$ and $`f_0`$, one should not expect to do better in the scalar sector given the assumptions that have been made.

Finally, we consider the remaining degrees of freedom necessary to fill out the interpolators of eq. (37): the $`\lambda =1`$ ($``$) components of $`\rho `$, $`a_1`$, $`\omega `$ and $`f_1`$. Evidently, these states are in two decoupled $`(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})`$ representations. One immediately finds

$`\rho ^+|\widehat{X}_{}^1+i\widehat{X}_{}^2|\omega =\sqrt{2},a_1^+|\widehat{X}_{}^1+i\widehat{X}_{}^2|f_1=\sqrt{2},`$ (57)
$`M_\rho ^2=M_\omega ^2,M_{a_1}^2=M_{f_1}^2,`$ (58)
and hence the masses of the $`G\eta =\pm 1`$ sectors are related by eq. (3). While the mass relations are in excellent agreement with data, the axial couplings cannot be confronted with data at present.

## V The Heavy Mesons

Heavy mesons fall into degenerate doublets labeled by $`j_\pm ^P=(j_{\mathrm{}}\pm \frac{1}{2})^P_{\mathrm{}}`$, where $`P`$ ($`P_{\mathrm{}}`$) is the parity of the heavy meson (light degrees of freedom) and $`j`$ ($`j_{\mathrm{}}`$) is the angular momentum of the heavy meson (light degrees of freedom). The ground-state mesons have $`j_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`P_{\mathrm{}}=()`$ and are denoted $`P`$ ($`0^{}`$) and $`P^{}`$ ($`1^{}`$), while the first excited heavy-meson doublet also have $`j_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`P_{\mathrm{}}=(+)`$, and are denoted $`P_0^{}`$ ($`0^+`$) and $`P_1^{}`$ ($`1^+`$). Consider first the $`\lambda =0`$ heavy mesons. The axial couplings between the $`\lambda =0`$ states are defined as

$`P|\widehat{X}_0^\alpha |P^{}=gT^\alpha ,`$ (59)
$`P|\widehat{X}_0^\alpha |P_0^{}=P_1^{}|\widehat{X}_0^\alpha |P^{}=hT^\alpha ,`$ (60)
$`P_1^{}|\widehat{X}_0^\alpha |P_0^{}=g^{}T^\alpha .`$ (61)
Generally the heavy mesons are sums of any number of $`(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})`$ and $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})`$ representations. This case is particularly easy to analyze. Weinberg has shown that $`|g|1`$ , a bound which holds for all axial transitions among all heavy mesons . If one imposes the constraint of no inelastic diffraction, then Weinberg has further shown that $`|g|=0,1`$ are the only possibilities. Heavy meson interpolators with space-time quantum numbers, $`J^P`$, of pseudoscalar, vector, axialvector and scalar character decompose to

$`(\overline{Q}^aq_a)_P`$ $``$ $`\frac{1}{2}^{},(\overline{Q}^aq_a)_V\frac{1}{2}^+,`$ (62)
$`(\overline{Q}^aq_a)_S`$ $``$ $`\frac{1}{2}^+,(\overline{Q}^aq_a)_A\frac{1}{2}^{},`$ (63)
where we have used the schema $`I^\eta `$. These quantum numbers correspond to $`P`$, $`P^{}`$, $`P_0^{}`$ and $`P_1^{}`$, respectively. Now in order to construct states of definite normality we require at least the representation $`(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})`$, and we might naively place the ground state heavy mesons in this representation. HQSS then requires that $`M_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟐}}^2`$ vanish between these states and the absence of the $`PP`$ (required by normality) matrix element yields $`|g|=1`$, which is the NCQM value. Placing the excited doublet in an analogous multiplet then gives $`|g^{}|=1`$ and $`|h|=0`$ as well. However, there is a subtlety with these embeddings. As one moves away from the heavy-quark limit and turns on $`M_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟐}}^2`$, one finds that the $`P`$ and $`P^{}`$ masses are of the form $`M_\mathrm{𝟏}^2\pm M_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟐}}^2`$. However, the form of the leading spin-symmetry violating operator, $`\sigma G`$ with matrix elements parameterized by $`\lambda _2`$, requires that the spin-averaged combination $`3M_P^{}^2+M_P^2`$ be independent of $`M_P^{}^2M_P^2`$, and there is an analogous constraint for the excited doublet. Hence one expects that the ground- and first excited-state heavy mesons fill out a reducible $`(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})`$ representation. It is straightforward to show that

$`g=\mathrm{cos}(\theta +\varphi )=g^{},h=\mathrm{sin}(\theta +\varphi ),`$ (64)
where $`\theta `$ ($`\varphi `$) is the mixing angle between the states with $`\eta =1`$ ($`\eta =+1`$). The constraint of no inelastic diffraction implies $`\theta =\varphi =\frac{\pi }{4}`$ and one finds $`|g|=0`$, $`|h|=1`$, consistent with the theorem of Ref. .

Finally, we have the remaining degrees of freedom necessary to fill out the interpolators of eq. (37): the $`\lambda =1`$ ($``$) components of $`P^{}`$ and $`P_1^{}`$. The axial matrix elements between these states are

$`P^{}|\widehat{X}_{}^\alpha |P^{}=gT^\alpha ,P_1^{}|\widehat{X}_{}^\alpha |P_1^{}=g^{}T^\alpha ,`$ (65)
$`P_1^{}|\widehat{X}_{}^\alpha |P^{}=hT^\alpha .`$ (66)
Consistency with eq.(3) and eq. (64) requires that the $`\lambda =1`$ components of $`P^{}`$ and $`P_1^{}`$ be in a reducible $`(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})`$ with a mixing angle given by $`(\theta +\varphi )/2`$ which takes the value $`\frac{\pi }{4}`$ when the inelastic diffraction constraint of eq. (4) is imposed.

Experimentally, the coupling $`g=g_\pi `$ is known to be smaller than unity through different determinations. The width of the $`D^{}`$, combined with the branching fraction for $`D^{}D\pi `$, gives $`g=0.59\pm 0.01\pm 0.07`$  at tree-level in the chiral expansion, which is consistent with recent lattice QCD calculations , and with a determination from $`D^{}D\pi `$ and $`D^{}D\gamma `$ at order $`\sqrt{m_q}`$ in $`SU(3)`$ chiral perturbation theory . At order $`m_q`$ and $`1/m_c`$ in chiral perturbation theory  there are two solutions for $`g`$ derived from $`D^{}D\pi `$ and $`D^{}D\gamma `$. One solution, $`g=0.76\pm 0.03\pm 0.15`$ , is significantly larger than our prediction and it is unlikely that the discrepancy can be accounted for through chiral corrections. However, the second solution, $`g=0.27\pm 0.03\pm 0.04`$, is consistent with our conjecture and is conceivably non-zero because of quark mass effects alone. A small value of $`g`$ has also been found by Bardeen and Hill who developed a dynamical model that incorporates a chiral multiplet structure very similar to that found here .

## VI Conclusions

The observed high-energy behavior of pion-hadron scattering amplitudes, together with the assumption that pole graphs dominate the amplitude at low energies, is sufficient to provide algebraic constraints on the structure of hadronic axial-current matrix elements and mass matrices . These constraints allow one to prove that the $`\pi `$, $`\rho `$, $`f_0`$ and $`a_1`$ form a decoupled chiral multiplet in the large-$`N_c`$ limit of QCD . We have conjectured that the entire hadron spectrum is composed of decoupled reducible chiral representations and we have given a prescription for finding these multiplets. Our conjecture provides a map of the chiral structure of the QCD ground state. In summary, we find:

$`qqq:`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \lambda =\frac{1}{2}:& (\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟑})(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill \lambda =\frac{3}{2}:& (\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟒})\hfill \end{array}`$ (70)
$`Qqq:`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \lambda =\frac{1}{2}:& (\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill \lambda =\frac{3}{2}:& (\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})\hfill \end{array}`$ (75)
$`\overline{q}q:`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \lambda =0:& (\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})(G\eta =+1)\hfill \\ & (\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})(G\eta =1)\hfill \\ \hfill \lambda =1:& (\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})\hfill \end{array}`$ (80)
$`\overline{Q}q:`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \lambda =0:& (\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill \lambda =1:& (\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})\hfill \end{array}`$ (85)
for ground-state light baryons, heavy baryons, light mesons and heavy mesons, respectively. Evidently, the chiral multiplet structure that nature has chosen contains the minimal particle content necessary to saturate the interpolating fields for the hadrons, and to allow for non-zero mass splittings between members of the multiplet. The claim that chiral multiplets are small and decoupled might appear odd given that there are observed axial transitions —say in the light-baryon sector— from excited states to the ground-state multiplet. However, the decoupled chiral multiplets mix when the quark masses are turned on. Therefore, the smallness of the axial transitions from excited multiplets to the ground-state multiplet as compared to those within the ground-state multiplet is due to the smallness of the quark masses.

Our conjecture agrees with all experimental data available for the low-lying hadrons and leads to new and exciting predictions. We look forward to exploration of this conjecture both theoretically and experimentally.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank David Kaplan, Aneesh Manohar, Roxanne Springer and Iain Stewart for valuable discussions. This work is supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG03-00-ER-41132 (SRB) and Grant No. DE-FG03-97-ER-4014 (MJS).


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Virasoro algebra and current algebras are algebraic structures in conformal field theories (CFTs)  and string theory . According to the Zamolodchikov c-theorem  a unitary CFT corresponds to a fixed point of the renormalization group flow. So unitary CFTs and current algebras also play an important role in the study of 2D critical behaviours of statistical mechanics models.

Recently current superalgebras and their corresponding non-unitary CFTs have attracted much attention. The reason is partly as follows. One the one hand, representations of superalgebras are often indecomposable, and such indecomposable representations lead to logarithmic singularities in correlation functions: a character of so-called logarithmic CFTs (e.g. see e.g.  and reference therein). On the other hand, current superalgebras with zero superdimension have found various physical applications ranging from condensed matter physics to high energy physics. Particularly interesting are the applications in topological field theory  and the supersymmetric method  to the study of disordered systems . There the vanishing of Virasoro central charges and the existence of negative dimensional primary fields are essential .

Free field realization  is a common approach used in CFTs, representation theory of current (super)algebras and applications . From the viewpoint of application to disordered systems, most interesting are $`osp(N|N)`$ and $`gl(N|N)`$ current superalgebras . The representations of $`gl(1|1)`$ and $`osp(2|2)`$ current superalgebras at general level $`k`$ have been studied in details in .

In this paper we investigate the non-semisimple $`gl(2|2)`$ current superalgebra at general level $`k`$, relevant to the two-species random $`XY`$ and Dirac models. We construct its free field representation in the non-standard basis. Let us point out that a free field realization for the semisimple $`sl(2|2)`$ current superalgebra in the standard basis was obtained in . We moreover construct the Sugawara energy-momentum tensor and obtain three screen currents of the first kind.

## 2 Notations

Unlike bosonic algebras, the simple root system of superalgebras is not unique. In the case of $`gl(N|N)`$, the standard (distingished) basis has a single fermionic simple root. From physical application point of view, the non-standard basis where all simple roots are fermionic is more useful. In this paper, we will adapt the non-standard basis. In this basis, $`gl(2|2)`$ has simple raising generators $`E_{13}`$, $`E_{32}`$ and $`E_{24}`$, and simple lowering generators $`E_{31}`$, $`E_{23}`$ and $`E_{42}`$. The corresponding Cartan subalgebra is generated by

$`H_1=E_{11}+E_{33},H_2=E_{22}+E_{33},H_3=E_{22}+E_{44},`$
$`H_4=E_{11}+E_{22}E_{33}E_{44}+\alpha (E_{11}+E_{22}+E_{33}+E_{44}),`$ (2.1)
where $`\alpha `$ is an arbitrary parameter. That $`H_4`$ is not uniquely determined is a consequence of the fact that $`gl(2|2)`$ is non-semisimple. The defining representation of $`gl(2|2)`$ in the non-standard basis is given by

$`E_{13}=e_{13},E_{32}=e_{32},E_{24}=e_{24},`$
$`E_{31}=e_{31},E_{23}=e_{23},E_{42}=e_{42},`$
$`E_{12}=e_{12},E_{34}=e_{34},E_{14}=e_{14},`$
$`E_{21}=e_{21},E_{43}=e_{43},E_{41}=e_{41},`$
$`H_1=e_{11}+e_{33},H_2=e_{22}+e_{33},H_3=e_{22}+e_{44},`$
$`H_4=e_{11}+e_{22}e_{33}e_{44}+\alpha (e_{11}+e_{22}+e_{33}+e_{44}),`$ (2.2)
where $`e_{ij}`$ are the matrix with entry $`1`$ at the $`i`$-th row and $`j`$-th column, and zero elsewhere, The generators obey the (anti-) commutation relations:

$$[E_{ij},E_{kl}]=\delta _{jk}E_{il}(1)^{([i]+[j])([k]+[l])}\delta _{il}E_{jk},$$
(2.3)
where $`[1]=[2]=0,[3]=[4]=1`$ and

$`E_{11}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left((3\alpha )H_12H_2+(1\alpha )H_3+H_4\right),`$
$`E_{22}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left((1+\alpha )H_1+2H_2+(1\alpha )H_3+H_4\right),`$
$`E_{33}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left((1+\alpha )H_1+2H_2(1\alpha )H_3H_4\right),`$
$`E_{44}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left((1+\alpha )H_12H_2+(3+\alpha )H_3H_4\right).`$ (2.4)
The quadratic Casimir of $`gl(2|2)`$ is

$`C_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{A,B}{}}(1)^{g(B)}E_{AB}E_{BA}`$ (2.5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H_1(H_12){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H_3(H_3+2)(H_1H_3)H_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(H_1+H_3)H_4`$
$`+2E_{12}E_{21}2E_{13}E_{31}2E_{24}E_{42}2E_{14}E_{41}+2E_{32}E_{23}2E_{34}E_{43}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}(H_1+H_3)^2.`$
Because $`gl(2|2)`$ is non-semisimple, $`_AE_{AA}`$ is a central element and thus there is another quadratic Casimir

$$C_2=\underset{A,B}{}E_{AA}E_{BB}=\left(E_{11}+E_{22}+E_{33}+E_{44}\right)^2=\left(H_1+H_3\right)^2.$$

These two Casimir elements are useful in the following for the construction of Sugawara energy-momentum tensor.

The $`gl(2|2)`$ current superalgebra at general level $`k`$ can be written as

$$J_{ij}(z)J_{kl}(w)=k\frac{str(E_{ij}E_{kl})}{(zw)^2}+\frac{1}{zw}\left(\delta _{jk}J_{il}(w)(1)^{(i+[j])([k]+[l])}\delta _{il}J_{jk}(w)\right),$$
(2.6)
where $`J_{ij}(z)`$ are currents corresponding to generators $`E_{ij}`$ and

$`J_{11}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left((3\alpha )J_1(z)2J_2(z)+(1\alpha )J_3(z)+J_4(z)\right),`$
$`J_{22}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left((1+\alpha )J_1(z)+2J_2(z)+(1\alpha )J_3(z)+J_4(z)\right),`$
$`J_{33}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left((1+\alpha )J_1(z)+2J_2(z)(1\alpha )J_3(z)J_4(z)\right),`$
$`J_{44}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left((1+\alpha )J_1(z)2J_2(z)+(3+\alpha )J_3(z)J_4(z)\right).`$
Here $`J_i(z)`$ are currents associated with $`H_i`$.

## 3 Free field realization

To obtain a free field realization, we first construct Fock space representation of $`gl(2|2)`$. The Fock space is constructed by the actions of the raising operators $`E_{13}`$, $`E_{32}`$, $`E_{24}`$, $`E_{12}`$, $`E_{34}`$ and $`E_{14}`$ on the lowest weight state. Define the lowest weight state $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }>`$ of $`gl(2|2)`$ by

$`E_{13}|\mathrm{\Lambda }>=E_{32}|\mathrm{\Lambda }>=E_{24}|\mathrm{\Lambda }>=E_{12}|\mathrm{\Lambda }>=E_{34}|\mathrm{\Lambda }>=E_{14}|\mathrm{\Lambda }>=0,`$
$`H_i|\mathrm{\Lambda }>=\mathrm{\Lambda }_i|\mathrm{\Lambda }>.`$ (3.7)
Then in the non-standard basis, the action of the operator $`e^A`$ with

$$A=\theta _{13}E_{13}+\theta _{32}E_{32}+\theta _{24}E_{24}+x_{12}E_{12}+x_{34}E_{34}+\theta _{14}E_{14}$$

on the lowest weight state $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }>`$ generates a coherent state of the algebra, where $`x_{ij}`$ are bosonic coordinates satisfying $`x_{12}x_{34}=x_{34}x_{12}`$ and $`[_{x_{ij}},x_{kl}]=\delta _{ik}\delta _{jl}`$ and $`\theta _{ij}`$ are fermionic coordinates obeying $`\theta _{ij}\theta _{kl}=\theta _{kl}\theta _{ij}`$ and $`\{_{\theta _{ij}},\theta _{kl}\}=\delta _{ik}\delta _{jl}`$.

We write

$$ge^A|\mathrm{\Lambda }>=d_ge^A|\mathrm{\Lambda }>,$$
(3.8)
where $`g`$ s a generator of $`gl(2|2)`$ and $`d_g`$ is the corresponding differential operator. By using the defining relations of $`gl(2|2)`$ and the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula, after a long algebraic manipulation we obtain

$`d_{E_{14}}=_{\theta _{14}},`$
$`d_{E_{12}}=_{x_{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{24}_{\theta _{14}},`$
$`d_{E_{34}}=_{x_{34}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{13}_{\theta _{14}},`$
$`d_{E_{13}}=_{\theta _{13}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{32}_{x_{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x_{34}_{\theta _{14}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\theta _{32}\theta _{24}_{\theta _{14}},`$
$`d_{E_{32}}=_{\theta _{32}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{13}_{x_{12}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{24}_{x_{34}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\theta _{13}\theta _{24}_{\theta _{14}},`$
$`d_{E_{24}}=_{\theta _{24}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{32}_{x_{34}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x_{12}_{\theta _{14}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\theta _{32}\theta _{13}_{\theta _{14}},`$
$`d_{H_1}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\theta _{32}_{\theta _{32}}x_{12}_{x_{12}}x_{34}_{x_{34}}\theta _{14}_{\theta _{14}},`$
$`d_{H_2}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_2+\theta _{13}_{\theta _{13}}\theta _{24}_{\theta _{24}}+x_{12}_{x_{12}}x_{34}_{x_{34}},`$
$`d_{H_3}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_3+\theta _{32}_{\theta _{32}}+x_{12}_{x_{12}}+x_{34}_{x_{34}}+\theta _{14}_{\theta _{14}},`$
$`d_{H_4}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_42\left(\theta _{13}_{\theta _{13}}\theta _{32}_{\theta _{32}}+\theta _{24}_{\theta _{24}}+\theta _{14}_{\theta _{14}}\right),`$
$`d_{E_{31}}=\theta _{13}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1x_{12}_{\theta _{32}}+\theta _{14}_{x_{34}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{13}\left(\theta _{32}_{\theta _{32}}+x_{12}_{x_{12}}+x_{34}_{x_{34}}+\theta _{14}_{\theta _{14}}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\theta _{13}\left(\theta _{32}\theta _{24}_{x_{34}}x_{12}\theta _{24}_{x_{34}}\right),`$
$`d_{E_{23}}=\theta _{32}\mathrm{\Lambda }_2+x_{12}_{\theta _{13}}x_{34}_{\theta _{24}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{32}\left(\theta _{13}_{\theta _{13}}\theta _{24}_{\theta _{24}}+x_{12}_{x_{12}}x_{34}_{x_{34}}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\theta _{32}\left(\theta _{13}x_{34}_{\theta _{14}}+x_{12}\theta _{24}_{\theta _{14}}\right),`$
$`d_{E_{42}}=\theta _{24}\mathrm{\Lambda }_3+x_{34}_{\theta _{32}}+\theta _{14}_{x_{12}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{24}\left(\theta _{32}_{\theta _{32}}+x_{12}_{x_{12}}+x_{34}_{x_{34}}+\theta _{14}_{\theta _{14}}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\theta _{24}\left(\theta _{13}\theta _{32}_{x_{12}}\theta _{13}x_{34}_{\theta _{14}}\right),`$
$`d_{E_{21}}=(x_{12}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{13}\theta _{32})\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(x_{12}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{13}\theta _{32})\mathrm{\Lambda }_2x_{12}\left(\theta _{13}_{\theta _{13}}+\theta _{32}_{\theta _{32}}+x_{12}_{x_{12}}\right)`$
$`\left(\theta _{14}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x_{12}\theta _{24}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{13}x_{34}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\theta _{13}\theta _{32}\theta _{24}\right)_{\theta _{24}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{32}\left(\theta _{14}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x_{12}\theta _{24}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{13}x_{34}\right)_{x_{34}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x_{12}\left(\theta _{14}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x_{12}\theta _{24}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{13}x_{34}\right)_{\theta _{14}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\theta _{13}\theta _{32}\left(\theta _{14}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x_{12}\theta _{24}\right)_{\theta _{14}},`$
$`d_{E_{43}}=(x_{34}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{32}\theta _{24})\mathrm{\Lambda }_2(x_{34}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{32}\theta _{24})\mathrm{\Lambda }_3x_{34}\left(\theta _{32}_{\theta _{32}}+\theta _{24}_{\theta _{24}}+x_{34}_{x_{34}}\right)`$
$`\left(\theta _{14}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x_{12}\theta _{24}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{13}x_{34}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\theta _{13}\theta _{32}\theta _{24}\right)_{\theta _{13}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{32}\left(\theta _{14}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x_{12}\theta _{24}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{13}x_{34}\right)_{x_{34}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x_{34}\left(\theta _{14}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x_{12}\theta _{24}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{13}x_{34}\right)_{\theta _{14}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\theta _{32}\theta _{24}\left(\theta _{14}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{13}x_{34}\right)_{\theta _{14}},`$
$`d_{E_{41}}=\left(\theta _{14}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x_{12}\theta _{24}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{13}x_{34}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\theta _{13}\theta _{32}\theta _{24}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$
$`\left(\theta _{14}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x_{12}\theta _{24}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{13}x_{34}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\theta _{13}\theta _{32}\theta _{24}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$
$`+\left(\theta _{14}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x_{12}\theta _{24}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{13}x_{34}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\theta _{13}\theta _{32}\theta _{24}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_3`$
$`+\theta _{13}\left(\theta _{14}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x_{12}\theta _{24}\right)_{\theta _{13}}\theta _{24}\left(\theta _{14}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{13}x_{34}\right)_{\theta _{24}}`$
$`\left(x_{12}x_{34}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x_{12}\theta _{32}\theta _{24}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{13}\theta _{32}x_{34}\right)_{\theta _{32}}`$
$`x_{12}\left(\theta _{14}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x_{12}\theta _{24}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\theta _{13}\theta _{32}\theta _{24}\right)_{x_{12}}`$
$`+x_{34}\left(\theta _{14}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{13}x_{34}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\theta _{13}\theta _{32}\theta _{24}\right)_{x_{34}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}x_{12}\theta _{24}\theta _{13}x_{34}_{\theta _{14}}.`$ (3.9)
It is straightforward to prove that the above differential operators satisfy the algebraic relations of $`gl(2|2)`$ algebra. From the differential operators realization, we see that the parameter $`\alpha `$ involved term has no contribution to the result.

With the help of the differential operator representation we can find the Wakimoto realization of $`gl(2|2)`$ current superalgebra in terms of two bosonic $`\beta `$-$`\gamma `$ pairs, four fermionic $`b`$-$`c`$ type systems and four free scalar fields $`\varphi _i`$. The free fields obey the following OPEs:

$`\beta _{ij}(z)\gamma _{kl}(w)=\gamma _{kl}(z)\beta _{ij}(w)={\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ik}\delta _{jl}}{zw}},`$
$`\psi _{ij}(z)\psi _{kl}^{}(w)=\psi _{kl}^{}(z)\psi _{ij}(w)={\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ik}\delta _{jl}}{zw}},`$
$`\varphi _i(z)\varphi _j(w)=str(H_iH_j)\mathrm{ln}(zw).`$ (3.10)
The free field realization of the $`gl(2|2)`$ current superalgebra is obtained by the substitution:

$`d_{E_{ij}}J_{ij}(z),d_{H_i}J_i(z),x_{ij}\gamma _{ij}(z),_{x_{ij}}\beta _{ij}(z),`$
$`\theta _{ij}\psi _{ij}(z),_{\theta _{ij}}\psi _{ij}^{}(z),\mathrm{\Lambda }_i\sqrt{k}\varphi _i(z)`$ (3.11)
in the differential operator realization of $`gl(2|2)`$ and a subsequent addition of anomalous terms linear in $`\psi _{ij}(z)`$ and $`\gamma _{ij}(z)`$ in currents associated with the lowering generators of $`gl(2|2)`$. It also turns out that one needs to add the “anomalous” term $`\varphi _1(z)+\varphi _3(z)`$ with an appropriate coefficient to the current $`J_4(z)`$. The result is

$`J_{14}(z)=\psi _{14}^{}(z),`$
$`J_{12}(z)=\beta _{12}(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{24}(z)\psi _{14}^{}(z),`$
$`J_{34}(z)=\beta _{34}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{13}(z)\psi _{14}^{}(z),`$
$`J_{13}(z)=\psi _{13}^{}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{32}(z)\beta _{12}(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\gamma _{34}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\psi _{32}(z)\psi _{24}(z)\right)\psi _{14}^{}(z),`$
$`J_{32}(z)=\psi _{32}^{}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{13}(z)\beta _{12}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{24}(z)\left(\beta _{34}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\psi _{13}(z)\psi _{14}^{}(z)\right),`$
$`J_{24}(z)=\psi _{24}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{32}(z)\beta _{34}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\gamma _{12}(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\psi _{13}(z)\psi _{32}(z)\right)\psi _{14}^{}(z),`$
$`J_1(z)=i\sqrt{k}\varphi _1(z)\psi _{32}(z)\psi _{32}^{}(z)\beta _{12}(z)\gamma _{12}(z)\beta _{34}(z)\gamma _{34}(z)\psi _{14}(z)\psi _{14}^{}(z),`$
$`J_2(z)=i\sqrt{k}\varphi _2(z)+\psi _{13}(z)\psi _{13}^{}(z)\psi _{24}(z)\psi _{24}^{}(z)+\beta _{12}(z)\gamma _{12}(z)\beta _{34}(z)\gamma _{34}(z),`$
$`J_3(z)=i\sqrt{k}\varphi _3(z)+\psi _{32}(z)\psi _{32}^{}(z)+\beta _{12}(z)\gamma _{12}(z)+\beta _{34}(z)\gamma _{34}(z)+\psi _{14}(z)\gamma _{14}(z),`$
$`J_4(z)=i\sqrt{k}\varphi _4(z){\displaystyle \frac{2i}{\sqrt{k}}}\left(\varphi _1(z)+\varphi _3(z)\right)`$
$`2\left(\psi _{13}(z)\psi _{13}^{}(z)\psi _{32}(z)\psi _{32}^{}(z)+\psi _{24}(z)\psi _{24}^{}(z)+\psi _{14}(z)\psi _{14}^{}(z)\right),`$
$`J_{31}(z)=i\sqrt{k}\varphi _1(z)\psi _{13}(z)\gamma _{12}(z)\psi _{32}^{}(z)+\psi _{14}(z)\beta _{34}(z)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{13}(z)\left(\psi _{32}(z)\psi _{32}^{}(z)+\beta _{12}(z)\gamma _{12}(z)+\beta _{34}(z)\gamma _{34}(z)+\psi _{14}(z)\psi _{14}^{}(z)\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\psi _{13}(z)\left(\psi _{32}(z)\psi _{24}(z)\beta _{34}\gamma _{12}(z)\psi _{24}(z)\beta _{34}\right)+k\psi _{13}(z),`$
$`J_{23}(z)=i\sqrt{k}\varphi _2(z)\psi _{32}(z)+\gamma _{12}(z)\psi _{13}^{}(z)\gamma _{34}(z)\psi _{24}^{}(z)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{32}(z)\left(\psi _{13}(z)\psi _{13}^{}(z)\psi _{24}(z)\psi _{24}^{}(z)+\beta _{12}(z)\gamma _{12}(z)\beta _{34}(z)\gamma _{34}(z)\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\psi _{32}(z)\left(\psi _{13}(z)\gamma _{34}(z)\psi _{14}^{}(z)+\gamma _{12}(z)\psi _{24}(z)\psi _{14}^{}(z)\right)k\psi _{32}(z),`$
$`J_{42}(z)=i\sqrt{k}\varphi _3(z)\theta _{24}+\gamma _{34}(z)\psi _{32}^{}(z)+\psi _{14}(z)\beta _{12}(z)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{24}(z)\left(\psi _{32}(z)\psi _{32}^{}(z)+\beta _{12}(z)\gamma _{12}(z)+\beta _{34}(z)\gamma _{34}(z)+\psi _{14}(z)\psi _{14}^{}(z)\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\psi _{24}(z)\left(\psi _{13}(z)\psi _{32}(z)\beta _{12}(z)\psi _{13}(z)\gamma _{34}(z)\psi _{14}^{}(z)\right)+k\psi _{24}(z),`$
$`J_{21}(z)=i\sqrt{k}\varphi _1(z)(\gamma _{12}(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{13}(z)\psi _{32}(z))i\sqrt{k}\varphi _2(z)(\gamma _{12}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{13}(z)\psi _{32}(z))`$
$`\gamma _{12}(z)\left(\psi _{13}(z)\psi _{13}^{}(z)+\psi _{32}(z)\psi _{32}^{}(z)+\beta _{12}(z)\gamma _{12}(z)\right)`$
$`\left(\psi _{14}(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma _{12}(z)\psi _{24}(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{13}(z)\gamma _{34}(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\psi _{13}(z)\psi _{32}(z)\psi _{24}(z)\right)\psi _{24}^{}(z)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{32}(z)\left(\psi _{14}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma _{12}(z)\psi _{24}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{13}(z)\gamma _{34}(z)\right)\beta _{34}(z)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma _{12}(z)\left(\psi _{14}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma _{12}(z)\psi _{24}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{13}(z)\gamma _{34}(z)\right)\psi _{14}^{}(z)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\psi _{13}(z)\psi _{32}(z)\left(\psi _{14}(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma _{12}(z)\psi _{24}(z)\right)\psi _{14}^{}(z)+(k1/2)\gamma _{12}(z)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(k+1/6)\psi _{32}(z)\psi _{13}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(k+1/3)\psi _{13}(z)\psi _{32}(z),`$
$`J_{43}(z)=i\sqrt{k}\varphi _2(z)(\gamma _{34}(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{32}(z)\psi _{24}(z))i\sqrt{k}\varphi _3(z)(\gamma _{34}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{32}(z)\psi _{24}(z))`$
$`\gamma _{34}(z)\left(\psi _{32}(z)\psi _{32}^{}(z)+\psi _{24}(z)\psi _{24}^{}(z)+\beta _{34}(z)\gamma _{34}(z)\right)`$
$`\left(\psi _{14}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma _{12}(z)\psi _{24}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{13}(z)\gamma _{34}(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\psi _{13}(z)\psi _{32}(z)\psi _{24}(z)\right)\psi _{13}^{}(z)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{32}(z)\left(\psi _{14}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma _{12}(z)\psi _{24}(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{13}(z)\gamma _{34}(z)\right)\beta _{34}(z)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma _{34}(z)\left(\psi _{14}(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma _{12}(z)\psi _{24}(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{13}(z)\gamma _{34}(z)\right)\psi _{14}^{}(z)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\psi _{32}(z)\psi _{24}(z)\left(\psi _{14}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{13}(z)\gamma _{34}(z)\right)\psi _{14}^{}(z)(k+1/2)\gamma _{34}(z)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(k1/3)\psi _{24}(z)\psi _{32}(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(k1/6)\psi _{32}(z)\psi _{24}(z),`$
$`J_{41}(z)=i\sqrt{k}\varphi _1(z)\left(\psi _{14}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma _{12}(z)\psi _{24}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{13}(z)\gamma _{34}(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\psi _{13}(z)\psi _{32}(z)\psi _{24}(z)\right)`$
$`i\sqrt{k}\varphi _2(z)\left(\psi _{14}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma _{12}(z)\psi _{24}(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{13}(z)\gamma _{34}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\psi _{13}(z)\psi _{32}(z)\psi _{24}(z)\right)`$
$`+i\sqrt{k}\varphi _3(z)\left(\psi _{14}(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma _{12}(z)\psi _{24}(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{13}(z)\gamma _{34}(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\psi _{13}(z)\psi _{32}(z)\psi _{24}(z)\right)`$
$`+\psi _{13}(z)\left(\psi _{14}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma _{12}(z)\psi _{24}(z)\right)\psi _{13}^{}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\gamma _{12}(z)\psi _{24}(z)\psi _{13}(z)\gamma _{34}(z)\psi _{14}^{}(z)`$
$`\left(\gamma _{12}(z)\gamma _{34}(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma _{12}(z)\psi _{32}(z)\psi _{24}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{13}(z)\psi _{32}(z)\gamma _{34}(z)\right)\psi _{32}^{}(z)`$
$`\gamma _{12}(z)\left(\psi _{14}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma _{12}(z)\psi _{24}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\psi _{13}(z)\psi _{32}(z)\psi _{24}(z)\right)\beta _{12}`$
$`+\gamma _{34}(z)\left(\psi _{14}(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{13}(z)\gamma _{34}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\psi _{13}(z)\psi _{32}(z)\psi _{24}(z)\right)\beta _{34}(z)`$
$`\psi _{24}(z)\left(\psi _{14}(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{13}(z)\gamma _{34}(z)\right)\psi _{24}^{}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(k1)\psi _{24}(z)\gamma _{12}(z)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}\gamma _{12}(z)\psi _{24}(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(k+1)\psi _{13}(z)\gamma _{34}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}\gamma _{34}(z)\psi _{13}(z)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(k+1/2)\psi _{32}(z)\psi _{24}(z)\psi _{13}(z){\displaystyle \frac{k}{3}}\psi _{13}(z)\psi _{24}(z)\psi _{32}(z)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(k1/2)\psi _{13}(z)\psi _{32}(z)\psi _{24}(z)+k\psi _{14}(z).`$ (3.12)
We remark that even though the parameter $`\alpha `$ does not occur in the expression of the currents, it appears in the following OPE

$$J_4(z)J_4(w)=k\frac{8\alpha }{(zw)^2}+\mathrm{}.$$

So different choice of $`\alpha `$ will give different OPE of $`J_4(z)`$ with itself. It is straightforward to check that the above currents satisfy the OPEs of the $`gl(2|2)`$ current superalgebra given in the last section.

## 4 Energy-momentum tensor

The CFT associated with the $`gl(2|2)`$ current superalgebra is obtained by constructing the Sugawara energy-momentum tensor. The Sugawara tensor corresponding to the quadratic Casimir $`C_1`$ is given by

$`T_1(z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2k}}:{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}(1)^{g(j)}J_{ij}(z)J_{ji}(z):`$
$`=\beta _{12}(z)\gamma _{12}(z)+\beta _{34}(z)\gamma _{34}(z)\psi _{13}^{}(z)\psi _{13}(z)`$
$`\psi _{32}^{}(z)\psi _{32}(z)\psi _{24}^{}(z)\psi _{24}(z)\psi _{14}^{}(z)\psi _{14}(z)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left((\varphi _1(z))^2(\varphi _3(z))^2+\left(\varphi _1(z)+\varphi _3(z)\right)\varphi _4(z)\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\varphi _1(z)\varphi _3(z)\right)\varphi _2(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\sqrt{k}}}\left(^2\varphi _1(z)+^2\varphi _3(z)\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4+k\alpha }{4k}}\left(\varphi _1(z)+\varphi _3(z)\right)^2.`$ (4.13)
With respect to this tensor, all currents except $`J_4(z)`$ are primary fields. However, its OPE with $`J_4(z)`$ reads

$`T_1(z)J_4(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(zw)^2}}J_4(w)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(zw)}}J_4`$ (4.14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(zw)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4i}{\sqrt{k}}}\left(\varphi _1(w)+\varphi _3(w)\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(zw)}}{\displaystyle \frac{4i}{\sqrt{k}}}\left(^2\varphi _1(w)+^2\varphi _3(w)\right).`$
This means that $`T_1(z)`$ is not a corrent energy-momentum tensor of the theory.

Now the Sugawara tensor associated with the Casimir $`C_2`$ is

$$T_2(z)=\frac{1}{2k}:\underset{i,j}{}J_{ii}(z)J_{jj}(z):=\frac{1}{2}\left(\varphi _1(z)+\varphi _3(z)\right)^2.$$
(4.15)
It has a non-trivial OPE with current $`J_4(z)`$:

$$T_2(z)J_4(w)=\frac{4i\sqrt{k}}{(zw)^2}\left(\varphi _1(w)+\varphi _3(w)\right)+\frac{4i\sqrt{k}}{(zw)}\left(^2\varphi _1(w)+^2\varphi _3(w)\right).$$
(4.16)
Comparing the two above OPEs, we see that if we define

$$T(z)=T_1(z)+\frac{1}{k}T_2(z)$$
(4.17)
then all currents become primary with respect to $`T(z)`$ and moreover

$$T(z)T(w)=\frac{c/2}{(zw)^4}+\frac{2T(w)}{(zw)^2}+\frac{T(w)}{zw)},$$
(4.18)
where the central charge $`c=0`$. So $`T(z)`$ is the energy-momentum tensor of the $`gl(2|2)`$ current superalgebra. In terms of the free fields $`T(z)`$ reads

$`T(z)=\beta _{12}(z)\gamma _{12}(z)+\beta _{34}(z)\gamma _{34}(z)\psi _{13}^{}(z)\psi _{13}(z)`$
$`\psi _{32}^{}(z)\psi _{32}(z)\psi _{24}^{}(z)\psi _{24}(z)\psi _{14}^{}(z)\psi _{14}(z)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left((\varphi _1(z))^2(\varphi _3(z))^2+(\varphi _1(z)+\varphi _3(z))\varphi _4(z)\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\varphi _1(z)\varphi _3(z)\right)\varphi _2(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\sqrt{k}}}\left(^2\varphi _1(z)+^2\varphi _3(z)\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{4}}\left(\varphi _1(z)+\varphi _3(z)\right)^2.`$ (4.19)
## 5 Screening currents

An important object in the free field approach is screening current. Screening currents are primary fields with conformal dimension $`1`$, and their integrations give the screening charges. Screening currents communite with icurrent generators up to a total derivative. These properties ensure that screening charges may be inserted into correlators while the conformal or affine ward identities remain intact. For the present case, we find three screening currents,

$`s_{13}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\psi _{13}^{}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta _{12}(z)\psi _{32}(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\gamma _{34}(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\psi _{32}(z)\psi _{24}(z)\right)\psi _{14}^{}(z)\right)\stackrel{~}{s}_{13}(z),`$
$`s_{32}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\psi _{32}^{}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta _{12}(z)\psi _{13}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{24}(z)\left(\beta _{34}(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\psi _{13}(z)\psi _{14}^{}(z)\right)\right)\stackrel{~}{s}_{32}(z),`$
$`s_{24}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\psi _{24}^{}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta _{34}(z)\psi _{32}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\gamma _{12}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\psi _{13}(z)\psi _{32}(z)\right)\psi _{14}^{}(z)\right)\stackrel{~}{s}_{24}(z),`$
where

$`\stackrel{~}{s}_{13}(z)=\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{k}}}\varphi _1(z)\},\stackrel{~}{s}_{32}(z)=\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{k}}}\varphi _2(z)\},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{s}_{24}(z)=\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{k}}}\varphi _3(z)\}.`$ (5.21)
The OPEs with the currents are

$`J_{31}(z)s_{13}(w)=_w\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{zw}}\stackrel{~}{s}_{13}(w)\right),`$
$`J_{23}(z)s_{13}(w)=\mathrm{},J_{42}(z)s_{13}(w)=\mathrm{},`$
$`J_{21}(z)s_{13}(w)=_w\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{zw}}\psi _{32}(w)\stackrel{~}{s}_{13}(w)\right),J_{43}(z)s_{13}(w)=\mathrm{},`$
$`J_{41}(z)s_{13}(w)=_w\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{zw}}(\gamma _{34}(w){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{32}(w)\psi _{24}(w))\stackrel{~}{s}_{13}(w)\right),`$
$`J_{23}(z)s_{32}(w)=_w\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{zw}}\stackrel{~}{s}_{32}(w)\right),`$
$`J_{31}(z)s_{32}(w)=\mathrm{},J_{42}(z)s_{32}(w)=\mathrm{},`$
$`J_{21}(z)s_{32}(w)=_w\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{zw}}\psi _{13}(w)\stackrel{~}{s}_{32}(w)\right),`$
$`J_{43}(z)s_{32}(w)=_w\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{zw}}\psi _{24}(w)\stackrel{~}{s}_{32}(w)\right),`$
$`J_{41}(z)s_{32}(w)=_w\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{zw}}\psi _{13}(w)\psi _{24}(w)\stackrel{~}{s}_{32}(w)\right),`$
$`J_{42}(z)s_{24}(w)=_w\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{zw}}\stackrel{~}{s}_{24}(w)\right),`$
$`J_{31}(z)s_{24}(w)=\mathrm{},J_{23}(z)s_{24}(w)=\mathrm{},`$
$`J_{43}(z)s_{24}(w)=_w\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{zw}}\psi _{32}(w)\stackrel{~}{s}_{24}(w)\right),J_{12}(z)s_{24}(w)=\mathrm{},`$
$`J_{41}(z)s_{24}(w)=_w\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{zw}}(\gamma _{12}(w)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{13}(w)\psi _{32}(w))\stackrel{~}{s}_{24}(w)\right).`$ (5.22)
All other OPEs are trivial.

## 6 Discussions

We have studied the non-semisimple current superalgebra $`gl(2|2)_k^{(1)}`$ at the general level $`k`$. We have constructed its Wakimoto free field representation and Sugawara energy-momentum tensor in the non-standard basis. We have found three screen currents of the first kind.

The motivation for this study is the application of the $`gl(2|2)`$ current superalgebra to disordered systems. To fully take the advantage of the CFT method, we need to construct its primary fields. There are two types of representations for this current superalgebra: typical and atypical representations. Atypical representations have no counterpart in the bosonic algebra setting and our understanding to such representations is still very much incomplete. So it is a highly non-trivial task to construct primary fields corresponding to the atypical representations. On the other hand, typical representations are similar to those appearing in a bosonic algebra, and so primary fields associated with the typical representations can be constructed by the usual procedure. Results for the primary fields will be published in a separate paper.

Acknowledgments:

This work is financially supported by Australian Research Council. One of the authors (Ding) is also supported partly by the Natural Science Foundations of China and a Fund from AMSS.


text:
# The nonlinear damping of Bose-Einstein condensate oscillations at ultra-low temperatures

## Abstract

We analyze the damping of the transverse breathing mode in an elongated trap at ultralow temperatures. The damping occurs due to the parametric resonance entailing the energy transfer to the longitudinal degrees of freedom. It is found that the nonlinear coupling between the transverse and discrete longitudinal modes can result in an anomalous behavior of the damping as a function of time with the partially reversed pumping of the breathing mode. The picture revealed explains the results observed in ch .

The problem of the damping of oscillations in a Bose-condensate at $`T=0`$ and, at least, at ultra-low temperatures within $`T<\mu T_c`$, $`\mu `$ being chemical potential and $`T_c`$ being Bose-condensation temperature, represents one of most interesting problems in the physics of Bose-Einstein condensation. The specific feature of the problem is associated with an isolation of the system from the environment and, therefore, absence of any sort of thermal bath. In this aspect the problem has much in common with the problem of the loss of coherence and the origin of energy dissipation in an isolated quantum many-particle system. Vast majority of experimental jin -mar  and theoretical pt-st -wi  efforts in this field are referred to the range of relatively high temperatures $`T\mathrm{}\omega _i`$ where $`\omega _i`$ are the frequencies of a parabolic trap. Under these conditions normal excitations in essence form an interior thermostat. The damping in the case concerned is associated with the interaction of oscillations and thermal excitations accompanying by direct transfer of energy to the thermal cloud.

In the work of authors Yu  the problem is considered for the damping of radial oscillations of the condensate in an elongated trap at $`T=0`$. The choice of the trap geometry was not casual. As is found in kss  for a 2D isotropic harmonic trap, the non-linear Schrödinger (Gross-Pitaevskii) equation has a scaling-invariant solution for the evolution of the condensate and non-condensate subsystems at an arbitrary variation of $`\omega (t)`$ in time. In this case the breathing mode in the 2D system does not decay irrespective of the magnitude of the amplitude. It was shown pr  that the unique properties result from the presence of a hidden symmetry in the description of such 2D system.

On the other hand, it is found in Yu  that the transverse breathing mode can experience a specific damping in an elongated trap. The origin of such damping lies in the parametric resonance connecting the breathing mode with longitudinal sound excitations. The parametric resonance arises from the radial oscillations of the density, resulting in oscillation of the longitudinal sound velocity. In fact, the results obtained give an appropriate description only for the initial stage of damping, see below.

Recently, it has been published very interesting experimental investigation on the damping of the breathing mode in an elongated trap at ultra-low temperatures $`T<\mu T_c`$ ch . The work contains a number of remarkable results. For the limited initial amplitude of oscillations characterized by the scale of relative variation $`\left|\delta R_{}/R_{}\right|0.030.04`$ for the transverse Thomas-Fermi radius, the authors have observed the slow and monotonous decay with the record quality factor $`Q=\omega _0/\gamma _02000`$. Here $`\omega _0=2\omega _{}`$ and $`\gamma _0`$ are the frequency of breathing mode and the damping rate, respectively. The temporal scale of damping is about 1 s. However, provided the initial amplitude is increased by a factor of three, the whole picture changes drastically. Here on the temporal scale of 200 ms the oscillation amplitude reduces by about three times. Next, the amplitude unexpectedly starts to grow, reaching the maximum of about one-half of the initial value, and then decays. The aim of the present study is to explain an anomalous picture of damping the breathing mode observed in ch .

The standard theory of parametric resonance implies an invariability for the amplitude of oscillation of one of parameters in the system. In the general case this corresponds to the steady feeding of energy. In the isolated system the situation is different. The amplitude of breathing mode $`b_{}`$ decreases in the course of the energy transfer into the subsystem of longitudinal excitations due to parametric resonance. In these conditions a nonlinear coupling between the transverse and longitudinal modes plays important role. If the parametric growth of the amplitude of longitudinal modes advances their relaxation, after a noticeable reduction of $`b_{}`$ one can expect a reverse nonlinear pumping of the transverse mode. As a result, the growth of $`b_{}`$ starts and only later it will be succeeded again by the normal damping of the breathing mode. A specific feature of the parametric resonance is its dependence on a product $`b_{}b_{}`$ of the transverse and longitudinal modes. For the smaller magnitude of $`b_{}\left(t=0\right)`$, if a typical time for the pumping of the longitudinal mode proves to be comparable with the relaxation time or larger, the damping regime changes significantly and the amplitude of the breathing mode decays gradually in time. The picture described for the nonlinear damping allows to explain the results observed in ch .

For the quantitative description of the picture of nonlinear damping, we consider a simple model assuming that the parametric amplification in an elongated trap is experienced by a single longitudinal mode with frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ close to a half of the transverse mode frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ and inverse relaxation time $`\gamma `$. We assume that the system is in the Thomas-Fermi regime and only long wavelength longitudinal sound modes are involved into the process.

The Hamiltonian of interacting excitations in the Bose-Einstein condensate within second quantization for the representation of noninteracting phonons can be written as (see, lp )

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_0+\widehat{H}^{},\\ \widehat{H}_0=\underset{s}{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_s\left(\widehat{c}_s^+\widehat{c}_s+\frac{1}{2}\right),\widehat{H}^{}=\frac{1}{2}md^3x\widehat{\stackrel{}{V}}\widehat{n}^{}\widehat{\stackrel{}{V}}.\end{array}$$
(1)
The operators of the alternating fraction of density $`\widehat{n}^{}`$ and velocity $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{V}}`$ have the form

$`\widehat{n}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}i\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_sn_{00}}{2mc_0^2}}\right)^{1/2}\left(\widehat{c}_s\chi _s\widehat{c}_s^+\chi _s^{}\right),`$ (2)
$`\widehat{\stackrel{}{V}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}c_0^2}{2m\mathrm{\Omega }_sn_{00}}}\right)^{1/2}\left(\widehat{c}_s\chi _s+\widehat{c}_s^+\chi _s^{}\right).`$ (3)
In these expressions $`n_{00}`$ is the magnitude of density $`n_0\left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)`$ at $`\stackrel{}{x}=0`$, $`c_0^2=\mu /m`$, and $`m`$ is the atom mass. The real eigenfunctions $`\chi _s\left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)`$ for noninteracting phonons in a trap are solutions of the equation (cp.st96 )

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_s^2\chi _s(\stackrel{}{x})+c_0^2\left(f\left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)\chi _s\left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)\right)=0,$$
(4)
where $`f\left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)=n_0\left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)/n_{00}`$.

Let us choose the breathing mode and one longitudinal mode in the excitation spectrum and, correspondingly, eigenfunctions $`\chi _{}(\stackrel{}{x})`$ and $`\chi _{}(\stackrel{}{x})`$. Accordingly, in this case there are two types of the vertices with integrals like $`J=d^3x\chi _{}(\stackrel{}{x})\chi _{}(\stackrel{}{x})\chi _{}(\stackrel{}{x})`$ and $`J^{}=d^3x\chi _{}(\stackrel{}{x})\chi _{}(\stackrel{}{x})\chi _{}(\stackrel{}{x})`$ In the Thomas-Fermi approximation the function $`f(x)`$ in Eq. (4) equals

$$f(\stackrel{}{x})=1\frac{r^2}{R_{}^2}\frac{z^2}{R_{}^2},$$
(5)
where $`R_{}=\sqrt{2\mu /m\omega _{}^2}`$ and $`R_{}=\sqrt{2\mu /m\omega _{}^2}`$ are the transverse and longitudinal Thomas-Fermi radii.

Let wave functions $`\chi _s`$ be normalized by the Thomas-Fermi volume $`V=\frac{4}{3}\pi R_{}^2R_{}`$. Then, for function $`\chi _{}`$ we find readily from Eq.(4),

$$\chi _{}=\sqrt{\frac{35}{8V}}\left(12\frac{r^2}{R_{}^2}\frac{z^2}{R_{}^2}\right).$$
(6)
In first approximation in the limit $`\omega _{}^2\omega _{}^2`$ function $`\chi _{}`$ depends on $`z`$ alone (e.g.,st ). Hence, calculating integral $`J`$ with use of (6), we arrive at $`\left|J\right|\omega _{}^2/\sqrt{V}c_0^2`$. On the other hand, the estimate of $`J^{}`$ yields $`\left|J^{}\right|\omega _{}^2/\sqrt{V}c_0^2`$. In the strongly elongated trap we can retain only the terms with $`J`$ in $`H^{}`$. As a result, in Hamiltonian $`H^{}`$ there are only two terms from eight ones that can realize a quasi resonance coupling between these selected modes. Retaining only these terms, we represent the expression for $`H^{}`$ in the explicit form

$`\widehat{H}`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}gJ(\widehat{c}_{_{}}^+\widehat{c}_{_{}}^+\widehat{c}_{}\widehat{c}_{}^+\widehat{c}_{_{}}\widehat{c}_{_{}}),`$ (7)
$`g`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}c_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{}}{2mn_{00}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^2}}\right)^{1/2}.`$ (8)
In the Heisenberg representation

$$\frac{}{t}\widehat{c}_s=\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}[\widehat{c}_s,\widehat{H}].$$

Using Eqs. (1) and (7), we find

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{}{t}\widehat{c}_{}=i\mathrm{\Omega }_{}\widehat{c}_{}+2gJ\widehat{c}_{}^+\widehat{c}_{_{}}\\ \frac{}{t}\widehat{c}_{}=i\mathrm{\Omega }_{}\widehat{c}_{}gJ\widehat{c}_{_{}}\widehat{c}_{_{}}\end{array}$$
(9)
Let us go over into the classical Bose field in equations (9). This is a conventional transformation in treating excitations in the Bose-Einstein condensate, see, e.g., da . In addition, we note that even for the extremely low temperature 40 nK ch , there are 5 phonons at the longitudinal mode and hundreds at the excited transverse mode. Within the framework of the standard procedure

$$\widehat{c}_{}b_{}e^{i(\mathrm{\Omega }_{}t\phi _{})},\widehat{c}_{}b_{}e^{i(\mathrm{\Omega }_{}t\phi _{})}.$$
(10)
Here $`b_s`$ and $`\phi _s`$ are the slowly varying real quantities. Performing this transformation and separating the real and imaginary parts, we find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\overline{b}_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \overline{b}_{}\overline{b}_{}\mathrm{cos}\phi \gamma (\overline{b}_{}\overline{b}_{}(0)),`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\overline{b}_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha \overline{b}_{}^2\mathrm{cos}\phi ,`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\phi `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }+2\overline{b}_{}(1{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{b}_{}^2}{4\overline{b}_{}^2}})\mathrm{sin}\phi .`$ (13)
Here we have singled out the initial value $`b_{}(0)`$ for breathing mode amplitude and introduced a relative amplitudes $`\overline{b}_s=b_s/b_{}(0)`$ and the notation

$$\alpha =2g\left|J\right|b_{}(0),(J<0).$$
(14)
The phase $`\phi `$ is defined as

$$\phi (t)=\phi _{}(t)2\phi _{}(t)+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }t,\text{ }\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_{}2\mathrm{\Omega }_.$$
(15)
In the equation for the longitudinal (11) component we have introduced the term taking into account effective relaxation. Quantity $`b_{}(0)`$ is the initial equilibrium value $`b_{}.`$

A set of Eqs. (11)-(13) describes nonlinear damping of the breathing mode in the general case. Let us consider first the initial period provided $`b_{}(0)b_{}(0).`$ Omitting the ratio $`(b_{}/2b_{})^2`$ and neglecting variation of $`b_{}`$ in the Eq. (13) we arrive to the equation with separable variables. The solution of this equation can readily be found. For $`\left|\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }\right|<2\alpha `$

$$\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{tan}\frac{\phi }{2}+2\alpha \varkappa }{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{tan}\frac{\phi }{2}+2\alpha +\varkappa }=\varkappa t+C,$$
(16)
where $`\varkappa =\sqrt{\left(2\alpha \right)^2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }\right)^2}`$. For $`\varkappa t1`$, phase $`\phi `$ tends to a constant value. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }0`$, $`\phi \pi `$ and in Eqs. (11), (12) $`\mathrm{cos}\phi 1`$. As a result, solution of Eq. (11) can be represented as $`b_{}\mathrm{exp}[\left(\alpha \gamma \right)t]`$. An exponential growth with smaller decrement ($`\left|\mathrm{cos}\phi \right|<1)`$ holds for finite $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ if $`\left|\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }\right|<2\alpha `$ and $`\alpha \left|\mathrm{cos}\phi \right|>\gamma `$. This is a typical parametric resonance resulting in the damping of the transverse oscillations in the condensate Yu .

For an arbitrary time, the analysis requires a combined solution for all three nonlinear equations (11)-(13).

Let us find relation between the coefficients in this system and the physical parameters. The vibrational energy, associated with the breathing mode, equals $`E_{vib}\frac{4}{3}\mu N(\delta R_{}/R_{})^2,`$ where $`N`$ is the total number of particles. On the other hand, in accordance with definition (10), one has $`E_{vib}=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}b_{}^2`$. Thus $`b_{}(0)=\left(4\mu N/3\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}\right)^{1/2}\left|\delta R_{}/R_{}\right|_0,`$ where $`\left|\delta R_{}/R_{}\right|_0`$ is an initial value of a relative amplitude of the transverse oscillations. Estimating integral $`J`$ at the vertex of the interaction Hamiltonian (7), we find $`J0.4\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^2/V^{1/2}c_0^2.`$

Hence, determining coefficient $`\alpha `$ (14) and involving value of $`g`$ (8), we have

$$\alpha 0.3\omega _{}\left|\frac{\delta R_{}}{R_{}}\right|_0$$
(17)
In derivation we used the following relations $`N=\left(2/5\right)n_{00}V`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}/2=\omega _{}`$.

The parametric resonance requires nonzero amplitude $`b_{}(0)`$. For $`T=0`$, $`b_{}\left(0\right)`$ is the amplitude of zero-point oscillations. For $`T>\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ we have $`b_{}\left(0\right)(T/\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{})^{1/2}`$.

Let us turn to the relaxation in the longitudinal subsystem. The familiar dispersion law for longitudinal excitations $`\omega _k^2=\omega _{}^2k(k+3)/4`$ st ,fl  in combination with the mesoscopic character of the system results in a peculiar picture of relaxation. For a strongly elongated trap $`\omega _{}\omega _{}`$, frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ is met with large value $`k1`$. This state can decay into numerous pairs of excitations with integer indices satisfying condition $`k_1+k_2=k`$. It is interesting that the mismatch of resonances for different pairs changes only within interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega =\omega _{}/2÷3\omega _{}/4`$. Within the framework of the hydrodynamic approximation these processes are described by the same Hamiltonian $`H`$ (1) involving (2) and (3). Selecting a part of the interaction Hamiltonian responsible for the evolution of state $`k`$, we have

$$\widehat{H}^{}=\mathrm{}\underset{k^{}}{}B_k^{}(\widehat{c}_{_{kk^{}}}^+\widehat{c}__k^{}^+\widehat{c}_k\widehat{c}_k^+\widehat{c}__k^{}\widehat{c}_{_{kk^{}}})$$
(18)
A direct estimate of vertex $`B_k^{}`$ yields

$$B_k^{}2i\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{\mu N}\right)^{1/2}\left(\omega _k\omega _k^{}\omega _{kk^{}}\right)^{1/2}.$$

In the usual conditions $`\left|B_k^{}(k)\right|\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$. At $`T=0`$ the excited $`k`$-state spreads partially over $`k/2`$ pairs of states (for simplicity we imply that $`k`$ is even) with the inverse time of reducing the density

$$\frac{1}{\tau _k}\underset{k^{}}{\overset{k/2}{}}\frac{\left|B_k^{}(k)\right|^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _k^{}}.$$
(19)
All $`k`$ states appeared spread, in turn, over a large number of states. In these conditions, taking also into account the scatter of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _k^{}`$ and vertices $`B_k^{}`$, one can suppose that the probability for revival of $`k`$-state with a noticeable amplitude is negligible. In essence, relaxation occurs for the time about $`\tau _k`$ (19).

As concerns finite temperatures $`T>\mathrm{}\omega _k`$, the role of transitions with the involvement of low frequency states enhances. Hereupon, $`\left|B_{k_1}(k)\right|^2`$ is multiplied approximately by a factor $`T/\mathrm{}\omega _k^{}+T/\mathrm{}\omega _{kk^{}}=T\omega _k/\left(\mathrm{}\omega _k^{}\omega _{kk^{}}\right).`$ Then

$$\frac{1}{\tau _k}2k\omega _k\frac{T}{\mu }\frac{1}{N}\frac{\omega _k}{\mathrm{\Delta }\omega }.$$
(20)
The parameter $`\gamma `$ in Eq. (11) is $`(2\tau _k)^1.`$

Let us consider a solution of the system of nonlinear equations (11)-(13). We choose the parameters close to that of ch : $`\omega _{}=1150`$ s-1, $`\omega _{}=70`$ s-1, $`N=10^5`$, $`\mu =60`$ nK. The finiteness of temperature $`T=40`$ nK really affects only the magnitude of parameter $`\gamma `$, see (20). For these values of parameters $`k30`$ and coefficient $`\gamma `$ lie within interval $`5÷10`$ s-1. We take $`\gamma =7`$ s-1 for calculation. For initial condition $`\left|\delta R_{}/R_{}\right|_0=0.09`$, coefficient $`\alpha `$ (14) takes value $`\alpha 30`$ s-1. The spacing between the neighbor levels in the spectrum of longitudinal excitations is close to $`\omega _{}/2`$. Within the two-level model under consideration it is naturally to suppose that frequency $`\omega _{},`$ falling within this interval, is shifted to one of the levels. For calculating, we put $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }=15`$ s-1.

In Fig.1 the results of solving the system (11)-(13) are presented for the given values of $`\alpha `$, $`\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as solid lines. The time behavior of $`\left|\delta R_{}/R_{}\right|=\overline{b}_{}\left|\delta R_{}/R_{}\right|_0`$ is plotted in Fig.1a. A drastic reduction of the breathing mode amplitude for the relatively short interval of time is a direct manifestation of parametric resonance. This is especially clear from the burst-like growth of the amplitude for longitudinal oscillations $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{}(t)=\overline{b}_{}(t)\left|\delta R_{}/R_{}\right|_0`$, as is seen in Fig.1b. At some time moment the phase $`\phi `$ reaches value $`3\pi /2`$ ($`\pi /2`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }<0`$) and the reverse energy transfer from longitudinal into the transverse mode starts. In place of reduction, a nontrivial growth of the breathing mode amplitude starts. The growth is over when the phase reaches value $`5\pi /2`$ ($`\pi /2`$) and the normal trend recovers. Note that for the chosen magnitude of initial amplitude $`\left|\delta R_{}/R_{}\right|_0`$ or parameter $`\alpha `$, entire qualitative picture of nonlinear damping holds for a wide variation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

However, the picture of damping changes drastically if the initial amplitude is noticeably smaller. In Figs. 1a and 1b the same dependences for the case $`\left|\delta R_{}/R_{}\right|_0=0.035`$ are shown with the dashed lines, the other parameters being unchanged. We see a normal monotonic behavior for the amplitude reduction $`\left|\delta R_{}/R_{}\right|`$. As is seen from Fig. 1b, the damping occurs in the conditions of the relatively small-expressed parametric resonance. Herewith, phase $`\phi `$ changes within the limited boundaries.

The picture of nonlinear damping, found within the framework of solving a relatively simple model, explains the results observed in ch . We have chosen intentionally the magnitude of parameters close to that of ch  in order to make comparison more adequate. At the same a detailed quantitative comparison requires more elaborate model.

It is worthwhile to note that an additional damping due to extrinsic reasons can be significant for the slow dynamics at small value of amplitude $`\left|\delta R_{}/R_{}\right|_0`$. However, this damping will not play any noticeable role in the case of large magnitude of the amplitude. In this aspect the nonlinear damping is a purely intrinsic phenomenon.

It seems that the results obtained have a relatively general character. In fact, the typical feature of all systems used for studying Bose-Einstein condensation in ultracold gases is their mesoscopic character and separation from environment. In these conditions the problem of the damping of coherent oscillations in the condensate at $`T=0`$ or, at least, $`T<\mu T_c`$ acquires a special sounding. On one hand, this is connected with the problem of revealing the decay channel. On the other hand, provided such channel exists, the energy is transferred to the discrete degrees of freedom. In this case the analysis of energy relaxation requires involving nonlinear coupling between modes for the both dissipationless and dissipative kinetics. The problem considered in the present work is an instructive example of this general problem.

This work is supported by INTAS (project 2001-2344), by Netherlands Organization for Science Research (NWO), and by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research.