text:
# Relativistic solution of Iordanskii problem in multi-constituent superfluid mechanics

## 1 Introduction

For a simple perfect fluid with asympotically uniform density $`\overline{\rho }`$ say, the Magnus effect of a uniform background flow with relative velocity $`v^i`$ say in the rest frame of a vortex in the direction of a 3 dimensional unit vector $`\mathrm{}^i`$ results in a force per unit length given by the well known (non-relativistic) Joukowsky formula as

$$_i=\kappa \overline{\rho }\epsilon _{ijk}\mathrm{}^j\overline{v}^k,$$
(1)
where $`\kappa `$ is the relevant velocity circulation integral.

The question raised by Iordanskii  of how this formula should be generalisd to the case of Landau’s 2 constituent model for superfluid $`^4`$He at finite temperature has been a subject of controversy: the most widely accepted  prescription is that of Sonin , but various alternatives have been proposed by other authors . The present work clarifies the issue by demonstrating the existence of an elegant generalisation of the Joukowsky formula (1) for an extensive class of perfect multiconstituent fluid models, including, as well as the Landau model, the Andreev Bashkin model  for a mixture of superfluid $`^4`$He with (“normal”) $`^3`$He. (However our analysis does not cover the more complicated subject  of superfluid $`^3`$He).

For technical convenience (not to mention the consideration that it is more accurate in contexts such as that of neutron star matter) the work is carried out using a (special) relativistic formulation .

## 2 Perfect multiconstituent fluid dynamics

As well as including the original Landau model in the (not so simple) Galilean limit , two independent lines of early development of relativistic (and thus technically simpler) perfect multiconstituent fluid theory – using currents  and momenta  respectively as independent variables in (suitably constrained) variational formulations – were subsequently shown to be entirely equivalent: the independent momentum covectors $`\mu _\nu ^_\mathrm{X}`$ of the latter aproach are identifiable just as the dynamical conjugates of the independent conserved current vectors $`n__\mathrm{X}^\nu `$ on which the former approach was based. In the latter approach, which is the most convenient for our present purpose, the fundamental equation of state characterising a particular perfect multiconstituent fluid model is given by specifying the dependence of the relevant generalised pressure function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ on the independent momentum covectors $`\mu _\nu ^_\mathrm{X}`$, and the associated current vectors $`n__\mathrm{X}^\nu `$ are then obtained as the corresponding partial derivatives in the infinitesimal variation formula

$$\delta \mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{^\mathrm{X}}{}n__\mathrm{X}^\nu \delta \mu _\nu ^_\mathrm{X}.$$
(2)
For such a model, the complete set of equations of motion consists just of a set of particle and vorticity conservation laws of the form

$$_\nu n__\mathrm{X}^\nu =0,n__\mathrm{X}^\nu w_{\nu \sigma }=0.$$
(3)
where, for any particular constituent with label X the corresponding generalised vorticity 2-form is defined as the exterior derivative

$$w_{\nu \sigma }^_\mathrm{X}=_\nu \pi _\sigma ^_\mathrm{X}_\sigma \pi _\nu ^_\mathrm{X},\pi _\nu ^_\mathrm{X}=\mu _\nu ^_\mathrm{X}+e^_\mathrm{X}A_\nu $$
(4)
of the generalised momentum covector $`\pi _\nu ^_\mathrm{X}`$, whose specification allows for the possibility of coupling to an electromagnetic field

$$F_{\nu \sigma }=_\nu A_\sigma _\sigma A_\nu ._\sigma F^{\sigma \nu }=4\pi J^\nu ,$$
(5)
with current and electromagnetic stress tensor given by

$$J^\nu =\underset{^\mathrm{X}}{}e^_\mathrm{X}n__\mathrm{X}^\nu ,T_{\mathrm{F}\nu }^\sigma =\frac{1}{4\pi }\left(F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \sigma }\frac{1}{4}F^{\mu \rho }F_{\mu \rho }g_\nu ^\sigma \right),$$
(6)
where $`e^_\mathrm{X}`$ is the electric charge, if any, per particle of the X th species.

In such a model a (flat space) conservation law of the usual form

$$_\nu T_\sigma ^\nu =0,$$
(7)
will be satisfied by the relevant total stress energy tensor, which takes the form

$$T_\nu ^\sigma =\underset{^\mathrm{X}}{}n__\mathrm{X}^\sigma \mu _\nu ^_\mathrm{X}+\mathrm{\Psi }g_\nu ^\sigma +T_{\mathrm{F}\nu }^\sigma =\underset{^\mathrm{X}}{}n__\mathrm{X}^\sigma \pi _\nu ^_\mathrm{X}+\mathrm{\Psi }g_\nu ^\sigma J^\sigma A_\nu +T_{\mathrm{F}\nu }^\sigma .$$
(8)
The transport law (3) for the vorticities is such that they will remain zero if they are zero initially. Thus we shall have

$$w_{\nu \sigma }^_\mathrm{X}=0,$$
(9)
not just for cases of superfluidity or superconductivity (i.e. cases for which the momentum covector is the gradient of a condensate phase scalar) but even for “normal” constituents in configurations of the kind to be considered here, in which a perturbing vortex moves through an asymptotically uniform medium characterised by vanishing of the asymptotic background value (indicated here by an overhead bar) not just of the current (as is necessary for uniformity) but also of the electromagnetic field, and (in an appropriate gauge) of its vector potential,

$$\overline{J}{}_{}{}^{\nu }=0\overline{F}_{\nu \sigma }=0,\overline{A}_\sigma =0.$$
(10)
This must necessarily be the case (the Meissner effect), with the implication that the uniform background value of the stress energy density tensor will be given simply by

$$\overline{T}{}_{}{}^{\sigma }{}_{\nu }{}^{}=\underset{^\mathrm{X}}{}\overline{n}__\mathrm{X}^\sigma \overline{\pi }_\nu ^_\mathrm{X}+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}g_\nu ^\sigma ,$$
(11)
whenever even just a single one of the uniform background constituents is superconducting (since $`e^_\mathrm{X}F_{\nu \sigma }=`$ $`_\nu \pi _\sigma ^_\mathrm{X}_\sigma \pi _\nu ^_\mathrm{X}w_{\nu \sigma }^_\mathrm{X}`$).

## 3 Specification of lift force on vortex

The subject of this investigation is an asymptotically uniform vortex configuration that is stationary with respect to a rest frame characterised by a uniform timelike unit symmetry generating vector field $`k^\mu `$ say, and that is aligned in the direction of a uniform orthogonal spacelike unit symmetry generating vector field $`\mathrm{}^\mu `$ in a flat background spacetime using Minkowski coordinates. Provided the corresponding conditions of stationarity and longitudinal symmetry apply to $`F_{\nu \sigma }`$ not just outside but even within the vortex core region, they will be applicable to the potential $`A_\sigma `$ in a suitable gauge, and hence also, not just to the gauge independent covectors $`\mu _\nu ^_\mathrm{X}`$ but to the corresponding generalised momenta $`\pi _\nu ^_\mathrm{X}`$ as well. In view of the vanishing (9) of the vorticity vectors (4), the condition that the momentum covectors should be invariant with respect to the action of the the uniform symmetry generating vector fields $`k^\nu `$ and $`\mathrm{}^\nu `$ can be seen to imply the uniformity of corresponding sets of generalised Bernouilli constants,

$$k^\nu \pi _\nu ^_\mathrm{X}=k^\nu \overline{\pi }_\nu ^_\mathrm{X},\mathrm{}^\nu \pi _\nu ^_\mathrm{X}=\mathrm{}^\nu \overline{\pi }_\nu ^_\mathrm{X}.$$
(12)
The force per unit length, $`_\nu `$ acting on such a stationary longitudinally invariant vortex can be evaluated as the integral round a circuit $`s`$ say surrounding the vortex in an orthogonal 2-plane in the form

$$_\nu =f_\nu 𝑑s,$$
(13)
where $`ds`$ is the proper distance element given by $`ds^2=g_{\nu \sigma }dx^\nu dx^\sigma `$ and $`f_\nu `$ is the local force density that is given by

$$f_\nu =\nu _\sigma T_\nu ^\sigma ,$$
(14)
in terms of the unit normal covector $`\nu _\sigma `$ which will be given in terms of the antisymmetric background measure tensor $`\epsilon _{\lambda \mu \nu \sigma }`$ by

$$\nu _\sigma ds=^{}\epsilon _{\sigma \nu }dx^\nu ,^{}\epsilon _{\sigma \nu }=\mathrm{}^\rho \epsilon _{\rho \sigma \nu },\epsilon _{\rho \sigma \nu }=k^\mu \epsilon _{\mu \rho \sigma \nu }.$$
(15)
## 4 Generalised Joukowski theorem

It is to be observed that, as a consequence of the conservation law (7), it makes no difference what circuit is employed for evaluating $`_\nu `$. We are thus allowed to choose a circuit sufficiently far out for reliability of our smoothed fluid description (whose physical validity might be questionable near the core) to be ensured, and also for the deviation from the uniform background value $`\overline{T}_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\sigma }`$ to be evaluated as a linear perturbation:

$$T_\nu ^\sigma \overline{T}{}_{}{}^{\sigma }{}_{\nu }{}^{}=\delta T_\nu ^\sigma +O\{\delta ^2\}.$$
(16)
Since the force integral for the unperturbed uniform background must evidently vanish, $`\overline{}_\nu =0`$ by symmetry, the corresponding value in the presence of the vortex will be given by

$$_\nu =\delta _\nu +O\{\delta ^2\}.$$
(17)
Using (2) and (11) it can immediately be seen that the required first order variation will be given by

$$\delta T_\nu ^\sigma =\underset{^\mathrm{X}}{}\left(\overline{\pi }_\nu ^_\mathrm{X}\delta n__\mathrm{X}^\sigma +\overline{n}__\mathrm{X}^\sigma \delta \pi _\nu ^_\mathrm{X}g_\nu ^\sigma \overline{n}__\mathrm{X}^\rho \delta \pi _\rho ^_\mathrm{X}\right).$$
(18)
Using the decomposition of the 4-dimensional spacetime metric in the form $`g_\sigma ^\nu =\eta _\sigma ^\nu +_\sigma ^\nu `$ as the sum of the (rank 2) operators of projection respectively parallel to and orthogonal to the vortex given by $`\eta _\sigma ^\nu =k^\nu k_\sigma +\mathrm{}^\nu \mathrm{}_\sigma `$, and $`_\sigma ^\nu =^{}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{}\epsilon _{\mu \sigma }^{}`$ and using the possibility of taking the Bernouilli constants (produced by parallel projection) outside the integration, (18) provides a result expressible simply as

$$\delta _\nu =\underset{^\mathrm{X}}{}\left(\overline{n}__\mathrm{X}^\sigma {}_{}{}^{}\epsilon _{\sigma \nu }^{}\delta 𝒞^_\mathrm{X}+\overline{\pi }_\nu ^_\mathrm{X}\delta D__\mathrm{X}\right),$$
(19)
where for each species X the corresponding momentum circulation integral $`𝒞^_\mathrm{X}`$ and current outflux integral $`D__\mathrm{X}`$ are defined by

$$𝒞^_\mathrm{X}=\pi _\nu ^_\mathrm{X}𝑑x^\nu ,D__\mathrm{X}=n__\mathrm{X}^\sigma \nu _\sigma 𝑑s.$$
(20)
The irrotationality condition (9) ensures that $`𝒞^_\mathrm{X}`$ is independent of the choice of circuit, and the current conservation law (3) ensures that the same will apply to $`D__\mathrm{X}`$, which furthermore will simply vanish, $`D__\mathrm{X}=0`$, provided there is no current creation in the vortex core. Thus by the fact that the uniform background value of the circulation integrals must also vanish, $`\overline{𝒞}{}_{}{}^{_\mathrm{X}}=0`$, and by taking the limit in which the circuit is taken to a very large distance outside, one obtains an exact net force formula of the simple form

$$_\nu =^{}\epsilon _{\sigma \nu }\underset{^\mathrm{X}}{}𝒞^_\mathrm{X}\overline{n}__\mathrm{X}^\sigma .$$
(21)
This result is the required (relativistic, multiconstituent) generalisation of Joukowsky’s well known formula (1) for the single constituent case. What it means is that each constituent contributes an amount proportional to, but orthogonal to, its asymptotic current vector, with a coefficient given by the corresponding momentum circulation integral.

## 5 Application to the Landau model

The particular example that motivated this work is that of superfluid $`^4`$He at finite temperature, as described by the Landau model in terms of just two constituents with conserved 3-dimensional current densities $`n__\alpha ^i=n__\alpha v__\alpha ^i`$ and $`n__\beta ^i=n__\beta v__\beta ^i`$ of which the first represents Helium atoms, i.e. “dressed” alpha particles, characterised by a “rest mass” $`m__\alpha `$, and the second represents units of entropy, characterised by a vanishing rest mass $`m__\beta =0`$. As in the less specialised case of the 2 constituent (zero temperature) limit of the Andreev Bashkin model for which the second constituent is $`^3`$He with non vanishing rest mass, $`m__\beta 3m__\alpha /4`$, the Newtonian limit description can be formulated in terms of a total mass density and 3 dimensional mass current

$$\rho =\rho __\alpha +\rho __\beta ,\rho ^i=\rho __\alpha v__\alpha ^i+\rho __\beta v__\beta ^i,$$
(22)
where $`\rho __\alpha =m__\alpha n__\alpha `$ and $`\rho __\beta =m__\beta n__\beta `$, so that the latter vanishes in the particular case of the Landau model. The total mass current is identifiable with the total momentum density $`\rho _i=n__\alpha \mu _i^_\alpha +n__\beta \mu _i^_\beta `$, in which, due to the effect of “entrainment” (which is describable in terms of “effective masses” that are different from the bare masses) the vanishing of the second contribution to the mass current does not imply absence of the second momentum contribution proportional to $`\mu _i^_\beta `$.

The pseudo-velocity $`v__\mathrm{S}^i`$ that is commonly referred to as the “superfluid velocity” is defineable by $`v_{{}_{\mathrm{S}}{}^{}i}=m__\alpha ^1\mu _i^_\alpha `$. In the Landau case (unlike the generic Andreev Bashkin case) it is not possible to define an analogous pseudo velocity for the other consituent, because of the vanishing of $`m__\beta `$, and the quantity commonly denoted as $`v__\mathrm{N}^i`$ and known as the “normal” velocity is simply identifiable with the velocity of the entropy current, i.e. $`v__\mathrm{N}^i=v__\beta ^i`$. In a mass and momentum decomposition of the commonly used (effectively “mongrel”) form

$$\rho =\rho __\mathrm{S}+\rho __\mathrm{N},\rho ^i=\rho __\mathrm{S}v__\mathrm{S}^i+\rho __\mathrm{N}v__\mathrm{N}^i,$$
(23)
the coefficients $`\rho __\mathrm{S}`$ and $`\rho __\mathrm{N}`$ must not be confused with $`\rho __\alpha `$ and $`\rho __\beta `$ (of which the latter is zero in the Landau case characterised by by $`\rho =\rho __\alpha `$). In the Landau case, as well as in the generic Andreev Bashkin case, there are two independently conserved momentum circulation integrals,

$$𝒞^_\alpha =\mu _i^_\alpha 𝑑x^i,𝒞^_\beta =\mu _i^_\beta 𝑑x^i,$$
(24)
of which, by the superfluidity property, the former is quantised, $`𝒞^_\alpha =h`$. Since $`m__\alpha 0`$ we can write

$$𝒞^_\alpha =m__\alpha \kappa __\mathrm{S},𝒞^_\beta =m__\beta \kappa __\mathrm{S}+\frac{\rho __\mathrm{N}}{n__\beta }(v_{{}_{\mathrm{N}}{}^{}i}v_{{}_{\mathrm{S}}{}^{}i})𝑑x^i,\kappa __\mathrm{S}=v_{{}_{\mathrm{S}}{}^{}i}𝑑x^i,$$
(25)
in terms of the pseudo-velocity circulation integral $`\kappa __\mathrm{S}`$, which has no “normal” analogue in the Landau case, because of the vanishing of $`m^_\beta `$. Thus (in the rest frame of the vortex) using the notation $`{}_{}{}^{}\epsilon _{ij}^{}=\epsilon _{ijk}\mathrm{}^k`$, one finally obtains a non-relativistic force formula of the form

$$_i=^{}\epsilon _{ij}\left(\kappa __\mathrm{S}\overline{\rho }__\alpha \overline{v}__\alpha ^j+𝒞^_\beta \overline{n}__\beta \overline{v}__\beta ^j\right)=\kappa __\mathrm{S}\overline{\rho }__\mathrm{S}^{}\epsilon _{ij}\overline{v}__\mathrm{S}^j+_{{}_{\mathrm{I}}{}^{}i},$$
(26)
where in this last version the first term is what is commonly referred to as the “superfluid Magnus force” contribution, while the remaining “Iordanskii” correction term is found to be given by

$$_{{}_{\mathrm{I}}{}^{}i}=\left(𝒞^_\beta \overline{n}__\beta +\kappa __\mathrm{S}(\overline{\rho }__\mathrm{N}\overline{\rho }__\beta )\right)^{}\epsilon _{ij}\overline{v}__\mathrm{N}^j.$$
(27)
The third term in this expression is needed for the generic Andreev Bashkin case, but drops out for the special Landau case characterised by $`\rho __\beta =0`$.

If, as well as setting $`\rho __\beta `$ to zero, one adopts the plausible supposition that the “normal” circulation will vanish, $`𝒞^_\beta =0`$, then the first term also drops out so that our formula will reduce to a form that is in exact agreement with the result that was derived by Sonin and confirmed, on the basis of a more rigorous microscopic analysis of phonon dynamics, by Stone.

This widely accepted conclusion has however been vigorously contested by Thouless and coworkers  who have used a more sophisticated – though not obviously more reliable – kind of microscopic analysis to argue that the Iordanskii force term $`_{{}_{\mathrm{I}}{}^{}i}`$ vanishes, leaving just the purely “superfluid” term (namely $`{}_{}{}^{}\epsilon _{ij}^{}\kappa __\mathrm{S}\overline{\rho }__\mathrm{S}\overline{v}__\mathrm{S}^j`$) in (26). As prima facie evidence in favour of this dissident conclusion, it is to be observed that in the limit when there is no relative flow at all (i.e. $`\overline{v}__\mathrm{S}^i=\overline{v}__\mathrm{N}^i=0`$) then – as a requirement for compatibility with strict stationarity – the long term effect of the small “normal” viscosity contribution that was neglected in the preceeding analysis will impose a rigidity condition to the effect that $`v__\mathrm{N}^i=0`$ throughout. This imperative entails small deviations from strict irrotationality of the normal constituent except in the incompressible case for which the ratio $`\rho __\mathrm{N}/n__\beta `$ is exactly uniform, and it ensures in any case by (25) that the normal momentum circulation round a circuit at large distance will be given by the formula $`𝒞^_\beta =\left(m__\beta \overline{\rho }__\mathrm{N}/\overline{n}__\beta \right)\kappa __\mathrm{S}`$ whose substitution in (27) does indeed give, $`_{{}_{\mathrm{I}}{}^{}i}=0`$. However this simple counter argument is inconclusive because – as shown every time an ordinary light aircraft takes off – the stationary circulation value due to the long term effect of slight deviations from strictly inviscid behaviour will change as a function of the relative flow velocity.

To sum up, the present work shows how the Iordanskii force is given simply as a function of the (in the inviscid limit conserved) “normal” momentum circulation integral $`𝒞^_\beta `$, but the issue of the appropriate value for this parameter in a realistic steady flow confguration is beyond the scope of a perfectly conducting fluid treatment such as is provided here. Experience with the analogous aerofoil problem in the context of aircraft engineering suggests that the final resolution of this issue may involve subtleties that have have eluded even the most sophisticated analysis available so far.

We wish to thank Uwe Fischer, Michael Stone, and Grigori Volovik for instructive conversations.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The notion that the effective low energy field theory of string modes is given essentially by the partition function of the corresponding string sigma model, has a long history . In particular Witten  suggested that (a certain expression derived from) the partition function for the bosonic open string on a disc, with a boundary term giving the contribution of open string fields, was a candidate for open string field theory. This has been called boundary string field theory (BSFT) in the recent literature. This theory has been used to study Sen’s arguments111For a review see . on tachyon condensation . The most remarkable aspect of this is that with the quadratic profile for the tachyon, for which one could calculate the partition function exactly , exact agreement with the expected ratio of bosonic D-brane tensions  was obtained. In the superstring case, where it was postulated that the BSFT was given exactly by the partition function, one also obtained  the correct tension ratio  between the BPS and non-BPS branes.

Now in these calculations the emergence of the right ratio seems to be somewhat mysterious, arising from the constant term in the asymptotic behavior of the Gamma function! The purpose of this note is to relate this calculation to previous calculations of the D-brane tension; in particular to the boundary state formalism and the t-duality argument. Many of the ingredients for our discussion have been presented in papers by other authors. In particular the use of open/closed string duality in the compactified string formalism to calculate the normalization of the boundary state in the bosonic case has been done in  (see also ). The relation of the boundary tachyon coupling RG flow to the change in boundary conditions from Neumann to Dirichlet has been discussed in . What we do here is to put all these ideas together to demonstrate that open/closed string duality leads to the correct D-tension formulae (for BPS and non-BPS branes) and to elucidate the relation to T-duality and the BSFT method.

## 2 Boundary state formalism, open/closed string duality

The boundary state formalism was used to discuss open closed string duality in a series of papers by the authors of  and in . We will follow closely the development given in the former reference and that in  where the boundary state formalism was first applied to non-BPS branes.

Let us first quote some standard formulae in order to establish our conventions. The string action (in flat space) is given by (setting $`\alpha ^{}=2`$)

$$S=\frac{1}{4\pi }𝑑w𝑑\overline{w}\left(_wX^\mu _{\overline{w}}X_\mu +\psi ^\mu _{\overline{w}}\psi _\mu +\stackrel{~}{\psi }^\mu _w\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\mu \right).$$
(2.1)
We will work in the double Wick rotated formalism as in  in order to avoid introducing the ghost sector. So we will take $`\mu =0,1,\mathrm{}7`$ to be directions transverse to the light cone directions which are taken to be $`\mu =8,9`$. (i.e. we have Wick rotated $`X^9iX^9,X^0iX^0)`$. The disadvantage is that we are really now discussing D-instantons rather than D-branes and we are confined to $`p7`$ but the results obviously will apply to D-branes after Wick rotating back. The procedure should be completely equivalent to working with ghosts and is simply a much less cumbersome way of getting at the right results which in fact should actually be valid for all $`p9`$. We will also put the system on a torus with radii $`R^\mu `$ since one of our objects is to demonstrate the relation to T-duality.

Closed string channel:

The closed string solution is

$$X^\mu =x_0^\mu 2i\frac{n^\mu }{R^\mu }\tau w^\mu R^\mu \sigma +i\underset{m0}{}\frac{1}{m}\left(\alpha _m^\mu e^{im(\sigma +i\tau )}+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_m^\mu e^{im(\sigma i\tau )}\right)$$
(2.2)
$`\psi (w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{rϵ𝒵+\nu }{}}\psi _r^\mu e^{ir(\sigma +i\tau )}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\psi }(\overline{w})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{rϵ𝒵+\nu }{}}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_r^\mu e^{ir(\sigma i\tau )}`$ (2.3)
The (anti) commutation relations are

$`[\alpha _m^\mu ,\alpha _n^\nu ]=[\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_m^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^\nu ]=m\delta ^{\mu \nu }\delta _{m,n},[\alpha _m^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^\nu ]=0,`$
$`\{\psi _r^\mu ,\psi _s^\nu \}=\{\stackrel{~}{\psi }_r^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{\psi }_s^\nu \}=\delta _{r,s}\delta ^{\mu \nu },\{\psi _r^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{\psi }_s^\nu \}=0`$ (2.4)
The closed string Hamiltonian is

$`H=L_0+\overline{L}_o`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{R^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle w^2R^2}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(\alpha _m^\mu \alpha _{m\mu }+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_m^\mu \stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{m\mu })`$ (2.5)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{r=𝒵+\nu }{}}(r:\psi _r^\mu \psi _{r\mu }:+r:\stackrel{~}{\psi }_r^\mu \stackrel{~}{\psi }_{r\mu }:)+C_c`$
with $`C_c=1`$ in the NSNS sector and $`C_c=0`$ in the RR sector.

In the closed string channel we need to calculate the amplitude

$$Z^c(l)=<Dp|e^{2\pi lH_c}|Dp>$$
(2.6)
for the emission and absorption of a closed string state between two (or the same) $`Dp`$ branes. The latter are constructed in terms of boundary states $`|Bp,\eta >`$ that satisfy the following boundary conditions .

$`(\alpha _m+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_m)^\mu |Bp,\eta >=0,(\psi _r+i\eta \stackrel{~}{\psi }_r)^\mu |Bp,\eta >=0,\mu =0,\mathrm{},p`$
$`(\alpha _m\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_m)^\mu |Bp,\eta >=0,(\psi _ri\eta \stackrel{~}{\psi }_r)^\mu |Bp,\eta >=0,\mu =p+1,\mathrm{},7`$ (2.7)
where $`\eta =\pm `$ for the two spin structures. The solution to these conditions is

$$|Bp,\eta >_i=g_p^i\mathrm{exp}\left\{\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n}\alpha _n^\mu T_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^\nu +i\eta \underset{r=𝒵^+\frac{1}{2}}{}\psi _r^\mu T_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{\psi }_r^\nu \right\}|Bp,\eta >_i^0$$
(2.8)
Here the index $`i`$ goes over NSNS and RR sectors and $`T`$ is a diagonal $`8\times 8`$ matrix with -1 for the Neumann ($`\mu =0,\mathrm{},p`$) directions and +1 for the Dirichlet ($`\mu =p+1,\mathrm{},7`$) directions. The ground state is an eigenstate of momentum with eigenvalue zero in the N directions and is an eigenstate of position in the D directions. Also we have

$$\frac{1}{4i}g_p^{RR}=g_p^{NSNS}g_p.$$

Using these formulae we can calculate the amplitude $`Z`$ in the various sectors and we get

$$<Bp\pm |e^{2\pi lH_c}|Bp\pm >_{NSNS}=g_p^2f(R)\frac{\theta _{00}(0,2il)^4}{\eta (2il)^{12}}$$
(2.9)
$$<Bp\pm |e^{2\pi lH_c}|Bp>_{NSNS}=g_p^2f(R)\frac{\theta _{01}(0,2il)^4}{\eta (2il)^{12}}$$
(2.10)
$$<Bp\pm |e^{2\pi lH_c}|Bp\pm >_{RR}=16g_p^2f(R)\frac{\theta _{10}(0,2il)^4}{\eta (2il)^{12}}$$
(2.11)
$$<Bp\pm |e^{2\pi lH_c}|Bp>_{RR}=16g_p^2f(R)\frac{\theta _{11}(0,2il)^4}{\eta (2il)^{12}}=0$$
(2.12)
where

$$f(R)\underset{\mu ϵ}{}\theta _{oo}(0,il\frac{(R^\mu )^2}{2})\underset{\mu ϵ}{}\theta _{oo}(0,il\frac{2}{(R^\mu )^2}).$$
(2.13)
In the above we have put $`=\{\mu =0,\mathrm{},p\},=\{\mu =p+1,\mathrm{},9\}`$.

Open string channel
The solution with N boundary conditions is (omitting the space time index)

$$X=x+4i\frac{n}{R}\tau +i2\underset{m0}{}\frac{\mathrm{cos}n\sigma }{m}e^{m\tau }\alpha _m,$$
(2.14)
where $`m`$ is an integer characterizing the Kaluza-Klein momentum while that for D boundary conditions is

$$X=x+2wR+i2\underset{m0}{}\frac{\mathrm{sin}n\sigma }{m}e^{m\tau }\alpha _m$$
(2.15)
where $`w`$ is the winding number. Note that for simplicity we are taking the two branes to be coincident. The Hamiltonian is

$$H=L_o=2\underset{}{}\frac{n^2}{R^2}+\frac{1}{2}\underset{}{}(wR)^2+\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\alpha _m^\mu \alpha _{m\mu }+\frac{1}{2}\underset{r=𝒵+\nu }{}r:\psi _r^\mu \psi _{r\mu }:+C_o$$
(2.16)
where $`C_o=\frac{1}{2}/0`$ in NS/R sectors.

Calculating now in the open string channel we have

$$Z_{\alpha \beta }^o=\mathrm{tr}_\alpha e^{2\pi tH_o}e^{i\pi \beta F}=\underset{\mu ϵ}{}\theta _{oo}(0,\frac{i4t}{(R^\mu )^2})\underset{\mu ϵ}{}\theta _{oo}(0,it(R^\mu )^2)\frac{\theta _{\alpha \beta }(0,it)^4}{\eta (it)^{12}}$$
(2.17)
where $`t=\frac{1}{2l}`$. Using the modular transformation properties of the theta functions we get

$$Z_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{\underset{}{}R^\mu /\sqrt{2}}{_{}R^\mu /\sqrt{2}}\frac{1}{2^4}\frac{\sqrt{l}^{\mathrm{\#}+\mathrm{\#}}}{\sqrt{l}^8}f(R)\frac{\theta _{\alpha \beta }(0,it)^4}{\eta (it)^{12}}$$
(2.18)
Now in conformal field theory we would have just equated this to the corresponding closed string expression (2.9) if we had only the eight non-light cone directions. However in string theory even in the light cone gauge the zero modes go over ten directions so that in the above $`\mathrm{\#}+\mathrm{\#}=10`$ rather than 8. So the actual equation is

$$\frac{dt}{2t}Z_{\alpha \beta }^o(t)=𝑑lZ_{\beta \alpha }^c(l).$$
(2.19)
This then gives222Note that since $`\frac{dt}{2t}=\frac{dl}{2l}`$ one gets an extra factor of $`\frac{1}{2l}`$ inside the $`l`$ integral that cancels the extra factor of $`l`$ in the numerator of (2.18). after restoring $`\alpha ^{}`$,

$$g_p^2=\frac{\underset{}{}R^\mu }{_{}R^\mu }\frac{\alpha ^{4p}}{2^5}.$$
(2.20)
Actually the properly projected closed string sectors requires that we take the appropriate left and right GSO projections so that the correct boundary states are333See for example  for a recent review.,

$`|Bp>_{NSNS}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|Bp+>_{NSNS}|Bp+>_{NSNS})`$ (2.21)
Thus we have

$$𝑑l<Bp|e^{2ilH_c}|Bp>_{NSNS}=𝑑t\mathrm{tr}_{NSR}e^{2\pi tH_o}$$
(2.22)
The open string channel is not GSO projected and so there is an open string tachyon. Thus the boundary state (2.21) in fact represents the non-BPS D-brane (for odd (even) $`p`$ in type IIA (IIB))444For an explanation of why the other values of $`p`$ do not give non-BPS states see for instance .. The BPS D brane states are given by

$$|Dp>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|Bp>_{NSNS}+|Bp>_{RR})$$
(2.23)
where $`|Bp>_{RR}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|Bp+>_{RR}+|Bp>_{RR})`$ is the GSO projected RR state. Then we have

$$𝑑l<Dp|e^{2ilH_c}|Dp>_{NSNS}=𝑑t\mathrm{tr}_{NSR}\frac{1}{2}(1+(1)^F)e^{2\pi tH_o}$$
(2.24)
so that the open string tachyon is projected out. Because of the zero modes and the GSO projection in the RR sector the construction is consistent only for $`p`$ even (odd) in the IIA (IIB) theory.

## 3 D brane tension

Let us compute the overlap of the BPS and non-BPS boundary states with the one graviton/dilaton state (with zero momentum). (For definiteness we will take the tensor component in say the 00 direction which is longitudinal for all $`p`$).

$$|g>=\psi _{\frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{\frac{1}{2}}|0>_{NSNS}$$
(3.1)
The overlap with the non-BPS state gives

$$<g|Bp>_{NSNS}=i\sqrt{2}g_p$$
(3.2)
while that with the BPS state is (see (2.23))

$$<g|Dp>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}<g|Bp>_{NSNS}=ig_p$$
(3.3)
The coupling to the graviton should be proportional to the tension of the brane and so the above is just Sen’s result  (see also ) that the non-BPS tension is $`\sqrt{2}`$ times the corresponding BPS tension. Let us now derive the exact formula for the tension of the branes. On the one hand we have the formula (2.20) for $`g_p`$ and on the other we have argued above that it must be proportional to the tension. Since $`g_p`$ is dimensionless we may therefore write,

$$g_p=\left(\frac{R_0\mathrm{}R_p}{R_{p+1}\mathrm{}R_9}\frac{\alpha ^{4p}}{2^5}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}=CT_p\underset{\mu =0}{\overset{p}{}}2\pi R_\mu $$
(3.4)
So we have

$$\frac{T_p}{T_{p1}}\frac{\underset{\mu =0}{\overset{p}{}}2\pi R_\mu }{_{\mu =0}^{p1}2\pi R_\mu }=\frac{g_p}{g_{p1}}=\frac{R_p}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}$$
(3.5)
giving,

$$\frac{T_p}{T_{p1}}=\frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}$$
(3.6)
This is exactly the formula obtained from T-duality  and is to be expected since the passage from N boundary conditions to D boundary conditions can be effected by T-duality. Indeed the $`R`$ dependence in $`g_p`$ reflects that as noted in , since for each such switch of boundary conditions $`R\frac{\alpha ^{}}{R}`$ in (2.20) . The absolute normalization can be fixed as in  by defining the coupling constant $`g`$ to be the ratio of the F string to the D string i.e. writing $`T_1=g^1\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}`$. Then we get555The original formula derived by Polchinski  had a factor of the gravitational coupling in it since it was derived by comparing the string calculation to the low energy effective action. The formula in (3.7) was derived in . The comparison between the two fixes the gravitational coupling in terms of the string scale and the string coupling. The latter also follows from the Dirac quantization rule.

$$C=\frac{g\alpha ^5}{2\pi \sqrt{R_0\mathrm{}R_9}}\mathrm{and}T_p=\frac{g^1}{(2\pi )^p\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}^{p+1}}.$$
(3.7)
If we remain within a particular theory (say IIA) then we can start with $`p=9`$ (which in this case is non-BPS brane) and then change boundary conditions in one direction to get the (BPS) 8-brane etc. What the discussion of the above two paragraphs shows is that as one goes down in $`p`$ the value of the normalization constant (after acounting for the world volume factor) effectively changes by $`\sqrt{2}\frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}`$ when we go from non-BPS to BPS D-branes.

## 4 Relation to BSFT

In this section we will show following  how the boundary state can be written as a path integral. In particular we will show that the normalization coefficient will be given by the integral over the modes of the sigma model field on the boundary of a disc of the classical action. This then relates the previous calculation to that of  (see also ).

The idea is to first construct the boundary state corresponding to having N boundary conditions in all directions. The boundary state with some D directions is then going to be obtained by adding a ‘tachyon’ term that will result in RG flow to a new fixed point that will correspond to D boundary conditions as in .

Let us first just consider the bosonic sector and focus on one coordinate. At $`\tau =0`$ (and confining ourselves to the winding number zero sector) we expand

$$X(\sigma ,0)=x_0+\underset{m0}{}|m|^{\frac{1}{2}}(a_me^{im\sigma }+\stackrel{~}{a}_me^{im\sigma })$$
(4.1)
where we have written (as in ) for later convenience

$$\alpha _m=i\sqrt{m}a_m,\alpha _m=i\sqrt{m}a_m,\mathrm{etc}.$$
(4.2)
Define also $`\widehat{x}_m=a_m+\stackrel{~}{a}_m^{},\widehat{\overline{x}}_m=a_m^{}+\stackrel{~}{a}_m,m>0`$. The eigenstate of these operators which is also an eigenstate of total momentum with eigenvalue zero is,

$$|x,\overline{x}>=\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}_mx_ma_m^{}\stackrel{~}{a}_m+a_m^{}x_m+\overline{x}_m\stackrel{~}{a}_m^{}}|0>$$
(4.3)
where $`a_m|0>=\stackrel{~}{a}_m|0>=0m>0,\widehat{p}|0>=0`$. Note that the first term in the exponential is simply the bulk bosonic action evaluated with the solution that is regular in the upper half plane (or interior of the disc)

$$X(\sigma ,\tau )=x_0+\underset{m>0}{}m^{\frac{1}{2}}(x_me^{im\sigma }+\overline{x}_me^{im\sigma })e^{m\tau }.$$
(4.4)
This state is normalized and satisfies the completeness relation,

$$[dx][d\overline{x}]|x,\overline{x}><x,\overline{x}|=1,[dx]=\underset{m>1}{}dx_m.$$
(4.5)
The boundary state is then written as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi },b>=[dx][d\overline{x}]e^{S(x,\overline{x})}|x,\overline{x}>$$
(4.6)
where $`S`$ is a boundary action. When the latter is zero we have a state with N boundary conditions i.e.

$$|\mathrm{\Psi },b>_0=[dx][d\overline{x}]|x,\overline{x}>=\underset{m>0}{}e^{a_m^{}\stackrel{~}{a}_m^{}}|0>.$$
(4.7)
For the fermion in the NS sector we have (at $`\tau =0`$) the expansions,

$$\psi (\sigma ,0)=\underset{r}{}\psi _re^{ir\sigma },\stackrel{~}{\psi }(\sigma ,0)=\underset{r}{}\psi _re^{ir\sigma },$$
(4.8)
where $`rϵ𝒵\frac{1}{2}`$. The Majorana conditions give $`\psi _r=\psi _r^{},\stackrel{~}{\psi }_r=\stackrel{~}{\psi }_r^{}`$. The fermionic position eigenstate  is666We’ve redefined the $`\theta `$ coordinate in  in order to be able to write the amplitude as a classical action.

$$|\theta ,\overline{\theta };\pm >=\underset{r>0}{}exp\{i\overline{\theta }_r\theta _r\pm i\psi _r^{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_r^{}+i\sqrt{2}\psi _r^{}\theta _r\sqrt{2}\overline{\theta }_r\stackrel{~}{\psi }_r^{}\}|0>$$
(4.9)
with $`\psi _r|0>=\stackrel{~}{\psi }_r|0>=0`$. This state satisfies the boundary conditions

$$(\sqrt{2}\overline{\theta }_r\psi _r^{}i\stackrel{~}{\psi }_r)|\theta ,\overline{\theta };\pm >=0,(i\sqrt{2}\theta _r\psi _r\pm i\stackrel{~}{\psi }_r^{})|\theta ,\overline{\theta };\pm >=0.$$
(4.10)
The analog of the bosonic boundary state (4.6) is

$$|\mathrm{\Psi },\theta >=\underset{r}{}d\overline{\theta }_rd\theta _re^{S(\theta )}|\theta ,\overline{\theta }>$$
(4.11)
Now let us put in the tachyon boundary term

$$S_T=\frac{1}{8\pi }_{\tau =0}𝑑\sigma (T^2+\theta ^\mu _\mu T_\sigma ^1\theta ^\nu _\nu T)$$

where

$$\theta =\theta (\sigma ,\tau )=\underset{r>0}{}(\theta _re^{ir\sigma }+\overline{\theta }_re^{ir\sigma })e^{r\tau }$$
(4.12)
is defined in terms of the boundary coordinates $`\theta _r`$ introduced above and is regular in the upper half $`w(=\sigma +i\tau )`$ plane (or in the interior of the disc $`|z|<1`$ in terms of the coordinate $`z=e^{iw}`$ ). If we use this expansion for $`\theta `$ we get for the classical bulk fermionic action

$$S_\psi =\frac{1}{2\pi }𝑑\sigma 𝑑\tau (\theta _w\theta +\theta _{\overline{w}}\theta )=i\underset{r>0}{}\overline{\theta }_r\theta _r,$$
(4.13)
as in . This is the first term in the exponential in the definition of the boundary state (4.9) and it was in order to get this agreement with the bulk action that we redefined $`\theta `$ from that given in .

Let us now introduce a linear tachyon profile as in  and for simplicity take it to be along one coordinate direction. So

$$T=yX$$
(4.14)
Using the expansions (4.4) and (4.12) we then get

$$S_T=\frac{u}{4}(x_0^2+2\underset{m>0}{}m^1x_m\overline{x}_m)+\underset{r>0}{}\frac{u}{r}\overline{\theta }_r\theta _r$$
(4.15)
where $`u=y^2`$. With this tachyon profile the boundary state (the product of (4.6) and (4.11)) can be easily evaluated since the integrals are Gaussian. We find777Ignoring a $`u`$ independent infinite product of 2’s and $`\pi `$ ’s

$$|B,u>_{NSNS}=\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{r=\frac{1}{2}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1+\frac{u}{r})}{(1+\frac{u}{m})}e^{(1\frac{2}{1+u/m})a_m^{}\stackrel{~}{a}_m^{}i(1\frac{2}{1+u/r})\psi _r^{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_r^{}}|0>_{\pi R}^{\pi R}𝑑x_0e^{\frac{u}{4}x_0^2}|x_0>$$
(4.16)
Clearly this boundary state is such that it satisfies Neumann boundary conditions (appropriate to the $``$ directions) for $`u=0`$ and Dirichlet conditions (appropriate to the $``$ directions) as $`u\mathrm{}`$ (see (2)). Thus the state (2.21) or the first term of (2.23) may be written alternatively as products of (4.16) with $`u=0`$ in the $``$ directions and $`u\mathrm{}`$ in the $``$ directions. The overlap with the one graviton state (3.3) is now given by (calling the ratio of the infinite products $`F(u)`$

$$C\underset{\mu ϵ}{}(2\pi R^\mu )\underset{\mu ϵ}{}F(u_\mu )_{\pi R}^{\pi R}e^{\frac{u_\mu }{4}(x_0^\mu )^2}$$
(4.17)
in the limit $`u_{}\mathrm{}`$. C is essentially the $`u`$ (and hence $`p`$) independent constant determined earlier.

The ratio of infinite products in the above $`F(u)`$ has been evaluated (after regularization) in  and takes the value $`\frac{\sqrt{2\pi }4^uu\mathrm{\Gamma }(u)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2u)}`$. As shown in these papers the correct tension ratio is obtained from this formula. What we have demonstrated above is that this is a consequence of the fact that what is evaluated there is essentially the normalization constant $`g_p`$ of the boundary state.

## 5 Acknowledgments

I wish to thank Joe Polchinski for a discussion. This work is partially supported by the Department of Energy contract No. DE-FG02-91-ER-40672.


text:
# GRECP/RCC calculation of the spectroscopic constants for the HgH molecule and its cation

## I Introduction

The HgH molecule has been studied in the last few decades both experimentally (see, e.g., references Porter ) and theoretically (references Das , among others). The calculations used 12-, 18- or 20-electron relativistic effective core potentials (RECPs), all-electron quasirelativistic methods, and a variety of approaches accounting for electron correlation. The goals of the theoretical investigations included the explanation and systematization of available experimental data, as well as assessing the accuracy and reliability of methods for calculating molecules containing heavy elements.

A 20-electron generalized relativistic effective core potential (20e-GRECP) has been generated for mercury  and tested in numerical two-component Hartree-Fock (HF) calculations by comparison with other RECP and all-electron Dirac-Fock (DF) studies. The suitability of the GRECP for describing correlation effects was examined in atomic calculations. Significant improvement in the accuracy of reproducing all-electron Dirac-Coulomb data for the GRECP as compared with other RECPs treating explicitly the same number of electrons was demonstrated in these calculations. Here we present GRECP calculations of spectroscopic constants for the HgH molecule and its cation in the framework of the relativistic coupled cluster (RCC) method.

## II The GRECP method

The GRECP method has been described in detail elsewhere. In this method, the radial oscillations of the valence and outer core spinors are smoothed in the inner core region of an atom to reduce the number of primitive Gaussian basis functions required for appropriate description of these spinors in subsequent molecular calculations. This smoothing also allows one to exclude the small components of the four-component Dirac spinors from the GRECP calculations, with relativistic effects being taken into account by j-dependent effective potentials. These $`U_{nlj}`$ potentials are derived by inversion of the nonrelativistic-type HF equations in the $`jj`$-coupling scheme for a “pseudoatom”, in which the inner core electrons are removed:

$`U_{nlj}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{nlj}^1(r)[({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐝^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝐝𝐫}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}{\displaystyle \frac{l(l+1)}{2r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Z_{ic}}{r}}\stackrel{~}{𝐉}(r)+\stackrel{~}{𝐊}(r)`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`\epsilon _{nlj})\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{nlj}(r)+{\displaystyle \underset{n^{}n}{}}\epsilon _{n^{}nlj}\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{n^{}lj}(r)],`$ (2)
where $`Z_{ic}`$ is the charge of the nucleus and inner core electrons, $`\stackrel{~}{𝐉}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝐊}`$ are Coulomb and exchange operators calculated with the $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{nlj}`$ pseudospinors, $`\epsilon _{nlj}`$ are the one-electron energies of the corresponding spinors, and $`\epsilon _{n^{}nlj}`$ are off-diagonal Lagrange multipliers. The GRECP components, $`U_{nlj}`$, are usually fitted by Gaussian functions to be employed in molecular calculations with Gaussian basis sets. Potentials in conventional RECPs are constructed only for nodeless pseudospinors, because division by zero appears in equation (2) for pseudospinors with nodes. This problem is overcome in the GRECP method by interpolating the potentials in the vicinity of these nodes. This allows one to generate different potentials, $`U_{clj}`$ and $`U_{vlj}`$, for outer core and valence pseudospinors, unlike the conventional RECP approach.

The GRECP operator has the form

$`𝐔`$ $`=`$ $`U_{vL}^{\mathrm{AGREP}}(r)+{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{L1}{}}}\left[U_{vl}^{\mathrm{AGREP}}(r)U_{vL}^{\mathrm{AGREP}}(r)\right]𝐏_l+{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{L}{}}}𝐔_{vl}^{\mathrm{EGSOP}}𝐏_l`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{c}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{L}{}}}𝐔_{cl}^{\mathrm{AGREP}}(r)𝐏_l+{\displaystyle \underset{c}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{L}{}}}𝐔_{cl}^{\mathrm{EGSOP}}𝐏_l,`$ (4)
$`𝐏_l={\displaystyle \underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}}|lmlm|,`$

where $`|lmlm|`$ is the projector on the spherical function $`Y_{lm}`$ and $`L`$ is one more than the highest orbital angular momentum of the inner core spinors.

The $`𝐔`$ operator may be split into spin-averaged and spin-dependent parts. The first part includes spin-averaged generalized relativistic effective potentials (AGREP), given by

$`U_{vl}^{\mathrm{AGREP}}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l+1}{2l+1}}U_{vl+}(r)+{\displaystyle \frac{l}{2l+1}}U_{vl}(r),`$ (5)
$`𝐔_{cl}^{\mathrm{AGREP}}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l+1}{2l+1}}𝐕_{cvl+}(r)+{\displaystyle \frac{l}{2l+1}}𝐕_{cvl}(r),`$ (6)
$`𝐕_{cvl\pm }(r)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[U_{cl\pm }(r)U_{vl\pm }(r)\right]\stackrel{~}{𝐏}_{cl\pm }(r)+\stackrel{~}{𝐏}_{cl\pm }(r)\left[U_{cl\pm }(r)U_{vl\pm }(r)\right]`$ (7)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{c^{}}{}}\stackrel{~}{𝐏}_{cl\pm }(r)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{U_{cl\pm }(r)+U_{c^{}l\pm }(r)}{2}}U_{vl\pm }(r)\right]\stackrel{~}{𝐏}_{c^{}l\pm }(r),`$ (8)
where $`\stackrel{~}{𝐏}_{cl\pm }(r)`$ is the radial projector on the outer core pseudospinor $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{cl\pm }(r)`$ and $`\pm `$ means $`j=|l\pm 1/2|`$. Obviously, these components can be used to account for spin-independent relativistic effects in codes employing the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }S`$-coupling scheme. The other terms in $`𝐔`$ are the components of the effective spin-orbit interaction operator, called effective generalized spin-orbit potentials (EGSOP),

$`𝐔_{vl}^{\mathrm{EGSOP}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{2l+1}}[U_{vl+}(r)U_{vl}(r)]𝐏_l\stackrel{}{𝐥}\stackrel{}{𝐬},`$ (9)
$`𝐔_{cl}^{\mathrm{EGSOP}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{2l+1}}[𝐕_{cvl+}(r)𝐕_{cvl}(r)]𝐏_l\stackrel{}{𝐥}\stackrel{}{𝐬}.`$ (10)
Two of the major features of the GRECP method are generation of effective potential components for pseudospinors which may have nodes, and adding non-local terms with projectors on the outer core pseudospinors (second line in equation (4)) to the standard semi-local terms (first line in equation (4)) of the effective potential operator. Other distinctive features of the GRECP generation as compared to previous RECP schemes  are given in reference Comment1 . As pointed out earlier, the form (4) of the GRECP operator is optimal for calculating states in which changes in occupation numbers of outer core shells relative to the state used for the GRECP generation are much smaller than 1.

## III The RCC method

The Fock-space RCC method has been described in previous papers and reviews, and only a brief summary is given here. Starting from the nonrelativistic-type Hamiltonian $`𝐇`$ containing the AGREP operator $`𝐔^{\mathrm{AGREP}}`$, the one-electron HF orbitals are obtained in an SCF procedure. Matrix elements of the EGSOP operator, $`𝐔^{\mathrm{EGSOP}}`$, as well as other one- and two-electron integrals, are calculated in the basis of the resulting spin-orbitals. Spin-orbit interaction (described by the $`𝐔^{\mathrm{EGSOP}}`$ operator) and correlation are then included by the two-component Fock-space coupled-cluster (CC) method, using the exponential valence-universal wave operator $`𝛀=\mathrm{exp}(𝐓)`$. The RCC expansion is currently truncated at the singles and doubles level (RCC-SD). The nonrelativistic CC (NRCC) version, in which the spin-orbit interaction is not taken into account, allows one to include also the triple cluster amplitudes (NRCC-SDT). In the Fock-space CC method one starts from a reference state (closed-shell in our implementation), correlates it, then adds (or removes) one electron, recorrelating the new $`N+1`$ (or $`N1`$) electron system, and so on, until all the states of interest are attained. The electrons can be added in (or removed from) a number of valence spin-orbitals, resulting in a multireference approach characterized by a model space $`P`$ of some selected states. The cluster amplitudes are determined at the stage (or Fock-space sector) where they first appear and are not changed at higher sectors, leading to a valence-universal wave operator. The effective Hamiltonian

$$𝐇_{\mathrm{eff}}=\mathrm{𝐏𝐇}𝛀𝐏,$$
(11)
where $`𝐏`$ is the projector onto the model space $`P`$, is diagonalized to give simultaneously the energies of all $`P`$-space states correlated at the RCC-SD level relative to the correlated energy of the reference state.

Two series of Fock-space calculations were performed. The ground state of the HgH+ ion served as reference in the first series (denoted RCC-SD-1), and the Fock-space scheme was

$$\mathrm{HgH}^+\mathrm{HgH},$$
(12)
with electrons added in the lowest unoccupied $`\sigma `$ and $`\pi `$ orbitals of HgH+. The second series (RCC-SD-2) started from the ground state of the HgH- ion as reference, using the Fock-space scheme

$$\mathrm{HgH}^{}\mathrm{HgH}\mathrm{HgH}^+,$$
(13)
with electrons removed from the highest occupied $`\sigma `$ orbital of HgH-.

The MOLGEP  and MOLCAS  codes were employed in the molecular GRECP/SCF calculations. The RCC-SD and NRCC-SDT program packages were interfaced with the MOLGEP/MOLCAS codes, allowing two-component GRECP/RCC-SD calculations in the intermediate coupling scheme and one-component AGREP/NRCC-SDT calculations in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }S`$ coupling scheme. Nonrelativistic kinetic energy operators and relativistic effective $`j`$-dependent potentials were employed in the two-component calculations.

## IV Basis set

The basis set for mercury was optimized in atomic RCC-SD calculations with the help of the procedure proposed earlier. The basis functions were generated in HF calculations of numerical orbitals for some neutral atomic or positively charged ionic states. The HFJ code  was employed for the HF calculations with the GRECP.

We start with a HF calculation of the $`6s^2`$ state of Hg with the GRECP operator to obtain numerical $`5s_{1/2},5p_{1/2},5p_{3/2},5d_{3/2},5d_{5/2},6s_{1/2}`$ pseudospinors. The $`6p_{1/2}`$ and $`6p_{3/2}`$ pseudospinors are then derived from numerical calculations for the $`LS`$ averages of the $`[6s^1]6p^1`$ configuration. The configuration notation used here puts in square brackets shells frozen after the initial calculation of the $`6s^2`$ state; the $`5s,5p`$ and $`5d`$ shells are understood to be in the square brackets and are dropped for brevity.

The $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{5s},\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{5p},\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{5d},\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{6s},\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{6p}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{5p},\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{5d},\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{6p}`$ numerical radial orbitals are derived from the HF orbitals $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{nl\pm }`$, with $`\pm `$ denoting $`j=l\pm 1/2`$, by

$`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{ns}(r)=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{ns+}(r),`$ (14)
$`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{nl}(r)=`$ $`N[\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{nl+}(r)+\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{nl}(r)]`$ $`\text{ for }l=1,2,`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{nl}(r)=`$ $`N^{}[\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{nl+}(r)\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{nl}(r)]`$ $`\text{ for }l=1,2,`$ (16)
where $`N`$ and $`N^{}`$ are normalization factors. The reference basis set is constructed from the $`5s,5p,5d,6s,6p`$ orbitals. An RCC-SD calculation with the GRECP operator is carried out in this basis with the 18 external electrons of Hg correlated. The Hg+ and Hg2+ have, obviously, one or two fewer correlated electrons. The Fock-space scheme for this calculation is

$$\mathrm{Hg}^{2+}\mathrm{Hg}^+\mathrm{Hg},$$
(17)
with electrons added in the $`6s`$ and $`6p`$ one-electron states.

The next stage involves HF calculations of a series of $`7p`$ orbitals with the AGREP operator for configurations corresponding to the neutral Hg and a set of Hgn+ ions, namely $`[5d^{10}6s^1]7p^1`$, $`[5d^{10(n1)}]7p^1`$ ($`n=1,2,\mathrm{}10`$), $`[5p^{6(n11)}]7p^1`$ ($`n=11,12,\mathrm{}16`$), etc. The frozen $`5p`$ and $`5d`$ orbitals in these calculations are obtained from Eq. (15). The $`7p`$ orbitals derived this way are localized in different spatial regions. A series of Schmidt-orthogonalized basis sets is now formed by adding each of these $`7p`$ orbitals to the reference basis. Basis sets obtained by addition of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{5p}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{6p}`$ orbitals are also included. An RCC-SD calculation of nine low-lying states (the ground $`6s^2`$ $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$, excited $`6s^16p^1`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0,1,2}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}`$ states of the neutral atom, $`6s^1`$ $`{}_{}{}^{2}S_{1/2}^{}`$ and $`6p^1`$ $`{}_{}{}^{2}P_{1/2,3/2}^{}`$ of Hg+, and $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ of Hg2+) with the GRECP operator is performed for each of these bases. Similar series of calculations are carried out for the $`7s`$ orbitals instead of the $`7p`$, and also for the $`6d,5f,5g`$ orbitals. The principal quantum number of these virtual orbitals is taken to be one higher than the maximum principal quantum number of the corresponding orbitals in the reference basis set, to avoid large overlap of the new and previously selected orbitals. For each basis set, the largest change among all possible one-electron transition (excitation or ionization) energies between the nine states listed above relative to the results of the reference basis set is found. This change is then multiplied by a factor of $`1/(2l+1)`$, where $`l`$ is the angular momentum quantum number of the added orbital. The orbital which gives the largest energy change is added to the reference basis set. The procedure is repeated for the next series of virtual orbitals, resulting in a step by step expansion of the reference basis and diminution of changes in the transition energies. The procedure is terminated when the largest transition energy change after adding the orbital goes down to about 15 cm-1. The numerical radial orbitals are then approximated by Gaussian functions and a $`(14,12,9,3,2)/[7,7,4,2,1]`$ basis set for molecular calculations is finally produced. This algorithm of basis set generation is designed to account primarily for correlation and spin-orbit effects which have different contributions to the states under consideration, so that possible omissions in the resulting basis will cause nearly state-independent errors and give accurate transition energies.

It is important to note that the average radii and space localization of the $`f`$ and $`g`$ correlation functions generated above are intermediate between those of the $`5d`$ and $`6s,6p`$ functions. These $`f`$ and $`g`$ functions describe primarily correlation between valence and outer core ($`5d`$) electrons. The transition energy changes (without the $`1/(2l+1)`$ factor) resulting from the addition of the $`5f`$, $`5g`$, and $`6f`$ functions are up to 5800, 790, and 240 cm-1, respectively.

The $`(8,4,3)/[4,2,1]`$ basis set from the ANO-L library  is used for hydrogen.

## V Results and discussion

As demonstrated in an earlier publication, the energy contributions from correlations with the $`5s`$ and $`4f`$ shells of Hg largely cancel each other. These electrons may therefore be frozen in correlation calculations, with resulting errors of up to 200 cm-1 in one-electron excitation or ionization energies. The molecular RCC-SD calculations in the present paper are carried out with 19 correlated electrons of HgH (18 for HgH+). The molecular orbital originating from the $`5s`$ orbital of Hg is frozen after the HF calculation, while the $`4f,4d,4p,4s`$ and deeper core electrons of Hg are excluded from explicit consideration by using the 20e-GRECP.

The computational effort in RCC-SD calculations increases rapidly with the size of the basis. The highest orbital angular momentum in the basis was therefore set to 4 ($`g`$-type harmonics). This truncation leads to errors of up to 400 cm-1 in one-electron transition (excitation and ionization) energies of the Hg atom (Ref. Mosyagin1 ). However, errors for transitions which do not involve excitation or ionization of the tightly bound $`6s`$ electron are below 150 cm-1. The inherent 20e-GRECP errors are up to 100 cm-1 (Ref. Mosyagin1 ). Errors caused by using intermediate rather than $`jj`$ coupling are up to 100 cm-1, as one can deduce from Table I, which reports results of the 20e-GRECP/RCC-SD calculation on the Hg atom with the 18 external electrons correlated in the $`(14,12,9,3,2)/[7,7,4,2,1]`$ basis described above. The Fock-space scheme employed is

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\mathrm{Hg}^{2+}& & \mathrm{Hg}^+& & \mathrm{Hg}& & \mathrm{Hg}^{}\\ & & & & & & \\ & & & & \mathrm{Hg}^{}& & \end{array}$$
(18)
with electrons added in the $`6p`$, $`7s`$, $`7p`$ orbitals and removed from the $`6s`$ orbital.

In a previous paper, describing atomic Hg calculations, it was concluded that neglect of virtual triple excitations is the main cause for the differences between experimental data and results of a 34-electron RCC-SD calculations with a large basis including up to $`h`$-type functions ($`l5`$). The contribution of triples is estimated in the present work by resorting to spin-averaged (i.e., with AGREP only) calculations and assuming that triples correction to the shells correlated does not change much upon going to the fully relativistic scheme. These corrections are taken as the differences between the AGREP/NRCC-SDT and AGREP/NRCC-SD total energies for each state. The $`[7,7,4,2,1]`$ Hg basis generated above was used, and two cases were considered, with 12 and 18 electrons correlated (12e-T and 18e-T) in the Hg atom. Table I shows that differences between the RCC-SD(12e-T) and RCC-SD(18e-T) results are relatively small. It is therefore sufficient to take into account in molecular calculations triple cluster excitations of the 12 external electrons of Hg. The approximate inclusion of triple excitations for 18 electrons in the intermediate coupling RCC-SD calculations leads to an average error of 270 cm-1 relative to experiment in the six transitions listed in Table I. The largest error is 540 cm-1, for the excitation to the $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}`$ state. Considering the Fock-space scheme (18) and the approximations employed, this is in line with results expected from the RCC-SDT method.

Molecular GRECP/RCC-SD and AGREP/NRCC-SDT calculations were carried out for 13 internuclear distances from 2.637 to 3.837 a.u., with intervals of 0.1 a.u. Molecular spectroscopic constants were calculated by the Dunham method in the Born-Oppenheimer approximation, using the DUNHAM-SPECTR code.

The effect of basis set superposition errors (BSSEs) in the 19-electron RCC-SD calculation is demonstrated in Table II. These errors are quite sizable, up to 1800 cm-1 for dissociation energies. The main contribution to the BSSE arises from correlation in the core region. Details of the BSSE calculation may be found in Ref. BSSE . These errors are mainly due to limitations on the size of the basis which can be used practically in molecular RCC calculation. As stated in section IV, the algorithm for generating the basis set aims primarily to optimize excitation and ionization energies of the lowest lying states in mercury. Since the transitions considered involve changes in valence shell occupation only, the resulting basis may be nearly complete in the valence region but deficient in the core region. The BSSE will therefore have weak dependence on the valence-shell configuration, and may be estimated quite accurately by the counterpoise correction (CPC) method. Table II shows that different valence states used to calculate the CPC yield very similar spectroscopic constants. The basis generated above is therefore compact enough and can be used in precise calculations provided the CPC correction is applied. All the GRECP/RCC-SD and AGREP/NRCC-SDT results reported in subsequent tables were corrected using CPCs calculated for the Hg $`6s^2`$ state with a ghost H atom. CPCs calculated for the ground state of the H atom are about 1 cm-1, and are therefore ignored.

Results for the ground states of HgH and HgH+ are collected in Table III. RCC-SD spectroscopic constants have sizable errors; they also show considerable differences between the two Fock-space schemes. Such differences are caused by the truncation of the CC cluster operator, and indicate significant contributions of higher excitations. The effect of virtual triple excitations to individual state energies was estimated from the difference of AGREP/NRCC-SDT and AGREP/NRCC-SD values. Two sets of triples calculations were carried out, correlating 3 and 13 electrons, and denoted by (3e-T) and (13e-T), respectively. The full RCC-SD basis was used for 3 electrons, but a reduced basis,  on Hg and  on H, was used in the 13-electron case. Spectroscopic constants of the HgH ground state which include 13-electron triples corrections are in very good agreement with experiment. Dependence on the Fock-space scheme is also minimal. Similar behavior is exhibited by the ground state of HgH+. Here, results obtained with scheme (12) (i.e. in the $`(0,0)`$ Fock-space sector) are slightly better that those of scheme (13) (in the $`(2,0)`$ sector) as might be expected. Still, differences are rather small.

Results for the excited $`{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{1/2}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{3/2}^{}`$ states with the leading $`\sigma ^2\pi ^1`$ configuration are presented in table IV. The triples corrections to the spectroscopic constants are smaller than for the HgH ground state, so that the RCC-SD values are in good agreement with experiment. Inclusion of triple excitations does produce some improvement.

## VI Summary and conclusion

Generalized relativistic effective core potentials were used in the framework of the Fock-space relativistic coupled-cluster method to calculate spectroscopic constants of HgH and HgH+ ground states as well as HgH low excited states. Twenty one electrons were treated explicitly in the molecule, of which 19 were correlated by RCC. Basis set superposition errors were evaluated by counterpoise correction, and contributions of triple excitations of the external 13 electrons were estimated (without accounting for spin-orbit coupling) in a reduced basis. The resulting spectroscopic constants of the HgH and HgH+ states are in very good agreement with experiment, with errors on the order of a few mbohr for $`R_e`$, tens of wavenumbers for excitation energies and vibrational frequencies, and proportionately for other properties.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by INTAS grant No 96–1266. A T and N M thank the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grants No 99–03–33249 and 01–03–06335). Work at TAU was supported by the Israel Science Foundation and by the U.S.-Israel Binational Science Foundation. Calculations were mostly carried out at TAU. N M thanks J H van Lenthe for remarks made at the recent Conference on Electron Correlations in a Relativistic Framework. The authors are grateful to A B Alekseyev for discussions.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Studies of high-energy processes with polarization are of fundamental importance in understanding structure of matter. For example, The European Muon Collaboration (EMC) and SLAC experiments on deep inelastic scattering of longitudinally polarized muons on longitudinally polarized target have catalyzed an extraordinary outburst of theoretical activity. With increasing energy of colliders, processes involving many final-state particles ( $`23`$, $`24`$, $`25`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ ) are an important part the present collider’s physics.

The above-listed directions of high-energy physics have a point of intersection. The calculation of cross sections for these processes is difficult if you used conventional approach. This approach is to square the Feynman amplitude and therefore it is very inconvenient to implement if the number of Feynman diagrams and the number of final state particles are large.

An alternative approach is to compute the Feynman amplitudes symbolically or numerically. The idea of calculating Feynman amplitudes is as old as the conventional approach. For example, covariant method of calculating amplitudes have developed more thirty years ago -.

Many different methods are proposed for calculating the Feynman diagrams. A particular spinor technique for massless external fermions was introduced by the CALCUL collaboration -. Generalizations of CALCUL approach to the massive fermion case exist -, but only for specific choice of the spin projection. We call a this choice KS-spin projection or simple KS-states (these fermion states often are called helicity states, but it is not correct).

A few methods of analytical calculations of reactions with massive fermions are convenient for computer symbolic calculations. Except the above mentioned method of group CALCUL, it is important to mention methods proposed in Refs. ,. So in Ref. a compact formalism of evaluating matrix elements based on the insertion in spinor lines of a complete set of states build up of unphysical spinors was proposed, that has allowed to create a high speed program of evaluations of Feynman amplitudes.

The aim of this paper is to present a spinor techniques method for calculating the amplitudes of processes involving massive fermions with arbitrary polarizations. This approach lead to expressions of Feynman amplitudes in terms of spinor products. As an illustration we apply our method to compute amplitudes and cross sections of the electron-positron annihilation into fermions-pairs for various usual spin projection of fermion states (helicity, KS-states, spin $`z`$-projection of the fermion in its rest frame).

## 2 Spinor techniques for massless fermions

In this section we briefly recall the spinor techniques of Refs.-, but with small modifications.

Let us introduce the orthonormal four-vector basis in Minkowski space 111These are covariant four vectors

$$n_0=(1,0,0,0),n_1=(0,1,0,0),n_2=(0,0,1,0),n_3=(0,0,0,1).$$
(1)
They satisfy the completeness relation:

$$n_0^\mu n_0^\nu n_1^\mu n_1^\nu n_2^\mu n_2^\nu n_3^\mu n_3^\nu =g^{\mu \nu }$$
(2)
by means of which an arbitrary 4-vector $`p`$ can be written as:

$$p=pn_0n_0pn_1n_1pn_2n_2pn_3n_3.$$
(3)
Using (1) we can define light-like vectors

$$b_0=n_0n_3,b_3=n_0+n_3,b_\lambda =n_1+i\lambda n_2,\lambda =\pm 1$$
(4)
with following properties:

$$b_0b_\lambda =0,b_3b_\lambda =0,b_0b_3=2,b_+b_{}=2,$$
(5)
$$\frac{1}{2}\left(b_0^\mu b_3^\nu +b_3^\mu b_0^\nu b_+^\mu b_{}^\nu b_{}^\mu b_+^\nu \right)=g^{\mu \nu }.$$
(6)
Next we define basic spinor  $`U_\lambda \left(b_0\right)`$ by specifying the corresponding projection operator and phase condition:

$$U_\lambda \left(b_0\right)\overline{U}_\lambda \left(b_0\right)=\omega _\lambda \overline{)}b_0,$$
(7)
$$\frac{\lambda }{2}\overline{)}b_\lambda U_\lambda \left(b_0\right)=U_\lambda \left(b_0\right)$$
(8)
with matrix $`\omega _\lambda =1/2\left(1+\lambda \gamma _5\right).`$ Our $`b_0`$ corresponds to the vector called $`k_0=(1,1,0,0)`$ in Ref. and instead of $`k_1=(0,0,1,0)`$ we use $`b_\lambda `$.

The CALCUL spinor techniques for calculating processes with massless external fermions involve the following operations:

1 step: The arbitrary massless spinor $`U_\lambda \left(p\right)`$ of momentum $`p`$ and helicity $`\lambda `$ is defined in terms of basic spinor

$$U_\lambda \left(p\right)=\frac{\overline{)}p}{\sqrt{2pb_0}}U_\lambda \left(b_0\right),$$
(9)
where $`pconstb_0`$.

2 step: Using the spinor Chisholm identity

$$\gamma ^\mu \left\{\overline{U}_\lambda \left(p\right)\gamma _\mu U_\lambda \left(k\right)\right\}=2U_\lambda \left(k\right)\overline{U}_\lambda \left(p\right)+2U_\lambda \left(p\right)\overline{U}_\lambda \left(k\right)$$
(10)
and the equation for any real four-vector $`p`$ with $`p^2=0`$

$$\overline{)}p=\underset{\lambda }{}U_\lambda \left(p\right)\overline{U}_\lambda \left(p\right)$$
(11)
we can reduce the amplitudes of processes with massless fermions to expressions involving spinor products (or inner products)

$$s_\lambda (p,k)\overline{U}_\lambda \left(p\right)U_\lambda \left(k\right)=s_\lambda (k,p).$$
(12)
The remaining possible spinor products vanish due to helicity conservation or are reduced to $`s_\lambda `$ with the help the of the relation

$$V_\lambda \left(p\right)=U_\lambda \left(p\right),$$

where $`V_\lambda \left(p\right)`$ is the bispinor of an antifermion.

As an illustration we present the amplitudes for $`e^+e^{}f\overline{f}`$, where $`f`$ is fermion ($`fe`$). The Feynman diagrams for this process are show in Fig.1. Using standard rules the amplitude can be written as

$$T(\lambda _1,\lambda _2;\nu _1,\nu _2)=\frac{4\pi \alpha }{s}\left[T_\gamma (\lambda _1,\lambda _2;\nu _1,\nu _2)+T_{Z^0}(\lambda _1,\lambda _2;\nu _1,\nu _2)\right],$$
(13)
where

$$T_\gamma (\lambda _1,\lambda _2;\nu _1,\nu _2)=Q_f\overline{V}_{\lambda _2}(p_2,s_{p_2})\gamma _\mu U_{\lambda _1}(p_1,s_{p_1})\overline{U}_{\nu _1}(k_1,s_{k_1})\gamma ^\mu V_{\nu _2}(k_2,s_{k_2}),$$
(14)
$`T_{Z^0}(\lambda _1,\lambda _2;\nu _1,\nu _2)=R_z\left(g^{\mu \nu }q^\mu q^\nu /M_Z^2\right)`$
$`\overline{V}_{\lambda _2}(p_2,s_{p_2})\gamma _\nu \left(g_v^eg_a^e\gamma _5\right)U_{\lambda _1}(p_1,s_{p_1})\overline{U}_{\nu _1}(k_1,s_{k_1})\gamma _\mu \left(g_v^fg_a^f\gamma _5\right)V_{\nu _2}(k_2,s_{k_2}),`$ (15)
with $`s=q^2=(p_1+p_2)^2`$, $`R_z=\left(G_FM_Z^2s\right)/\left(2\sqrt{2}\pi \alpha \left(sM_Z^2\right)\right)`$. The $`g_v^f,g_a^f`$ are fermion couplings and $`\alpha =e^2/(4\pi )`$, $`G_F`$ are the fine-structure and the Fermi constant respectively, $`Q_f`$ is the $`f`$ charge in units $`e`$ . The notation $`s_p`$ for bispinors indicates that fermion with momentum $`p`$ has fixed polarization vector $`s_p`$. Using (10), the nonzero amplitude in massless case can be written in terms of the spinor products (12):

$`T(\lambda ,\lambda ;\nu ,\nu )={\displaystyle \frac{8\pi \alpha }{s}}\left(Q_f+R_z\left(g_v^e\lambda g_a^e\right)\left(g_v^f\nu g_a^f\right)\right)`$
$`\left[\delta _{\lambda ,\nu }s_\lambda (k_1,p_2)s_\lambda (p_1,k_2)+\delta _{\lambda ,\nu }s_\lambda (p_2,k_2)s_\lambda (k_1,p_1)\right].`$ (16)
Thus, in the evaluation of the Feynman diagrams with the help of spinor techniques the spinor products are important ’building’ blocks.

The spinor product (12) due to equations (7)-(8) reduces to the trace 222 $`ϵ(b_0,b_\lambda ,p,k)=ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }b_0^\mu b_\lambda ^\nu p^\rho k^\sigma `$, $`ϵ^{0123}=1`$

$`s_\lambda (p,k)={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{Tr\left(\omega _\lambda \overline{)}b_0\overline{)}p\overline{)}k\overline{)}b_\lambda \right)}{\sqrt{b_0p}\sqrt{b_0k}}}=`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{[p.b_0k.b_\lambda k.b_0p.b_\lambda ]iϵ(b_0,b_\lambda ,p,k)}{\sqrt{b_0p}\sqrt{b_0k}}}=`$ (18)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \left[pb_0kb_\lambda kb_0pb_\lambda \right]}{\sqrt{b_0p}\sqrt{b_0k}}}.`$ (19)
From Eqs.(4),(6) for a real light-like vector $`p`$ it follows that

$$\left|pb_+\right|=\left|pb_{}\right|=\sqrt{pb_0pb_3}.$$
(20)
If we define

$$pb_0=p^0p^zp^{},pb_3=p^0+p^zp^+,pb_\lambda =\sqrt{p^+p^{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\lambda \phi _p\right),$$
(21)
then it follows that

$$s_\lambda (p,k)=\lambda \left(\sqrt{p^{}k^+}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\lambda \phi _k\right)\sqrt{p^+k^{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\lambda \phi _p\right)\right).$$
(22)
The spinor product (22) of two four-vectors is not more complicated than the dot Minkowski product $`p.k`$. It is important, that definition of the spinor product (22) is valid for any real 4-vectors, including also $`b_0`$ and $`b_3`$.

There are several possibilities to calculate the amplitude (13). We can construct an orthonormal basis (1) with the help of the physical vectors $`p_1,p_2,k`$

$$n_0=\frac{p_1+p_2}{\sqrt{2p_1p_2}},n_3=\frac{p_2p_1}{\sqrt{2p_1p_2}},n_1^\mu =ϵ(\mu ,n_0,n_3,n_2),n_2^\mu =\frac{ϵ(\mu ,p_1,p_2,k_1)}{\sqrt{2p_1p_2p_1k_1p_2k_1}}$$
(23)
and obtain an analytic expression for the amplitude in terms of dot products.

Also, using (22), we can write the amplitude in terms of the components of the momenta. Finally, we have the possibility of calculating numerically the amplitude with the help of Eqs.(16), (22).

## 3 Spinor techniques for massive fermions

Our procedure will be similar to that presented in the above section. Let us consider bispinors, which are related to the basic spinor (see appendix of Ref.) by

$$U_\lambda (p,s_p)=\frac{\tau _u^\lambda (p,s_p)}{\sqrt{b_0\left(p+m_ps_p\right)}}U_\lambda \left(b_0\right),$$
(24)
$$V_\lambda (p,s_p)=\frac{\tau _v^\lambda (p,s_p)}{\sqrt{b_0\left(p+m_ps_p\right)}}U_\lambda \left(b_0\right),$$
(25)
where the projection operators $`\tau _u^\lambda (p,s_p),\tau _v^\lambda (p,s_p)`$ are

$$\tau _u^\lambda (p,s_p)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\overline{)}p+m_p\right)\left(1+\lambda \gamma _5\overline{)}s_p\right),$$
(26)
$$\tau _v^\lambda (p,s_p)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\overline{)}pm_p\right)\left(1+\lambda \gamma _5\overline{)}s_p\right).$$
(27)
We obtain

$`\overline{)}pU_\lambda (p,s_p)=m_pU_\lambda (p,s_p),\overline{)}pV_\lambda (p,s_p)=m_pV_\lambda (p,s_p),`$
$`\gamma _5\overline{)}s_pU_\lambda (p,s_p)=\lambda U_\lambda (p,s_p),\gamma _5\overline{)}s_pV_\lambda (p,s_p)=\lambda V_\lambda (p,s_p)`$ (28)
i.e. the bispinors $`U_\lambda (p,s_p)`$ and $`V_\lambda (p,s_p)`$ satisfy Dirac equation and spin condition for massive fermion and antifermion. We also found, that the bispinors of fermion and antifermion (24)-(25) are related by

$$V_\lambda (p,s_p)=\lambda \gamma _5U_\lambda (p,s_p),\overline{V}_\lambda (p,s_p)=\overline{U}_\lambda (p,s_p)\lambda \gamma _5.$$
(29)
Let us analyze how many spinor products there are for massive fermions. Obviously, the case of massive fermions is more difficult in comparison with the massless one. In the general case for calculating the matrix elements sixteen spinor products are necessary while in the massless case there are only two. However, it is possible to achieve essential simplification.

We notice that the spinor products are not all linearly independent. Using relations (29) we can show, that only eight products are linearly independent. We define these basic spinor products  for massive fermions as

$$\overline{U}_\lambda (p,s_p)U_\lambda (k,s_k),\overline{U}_\lambda (p,s_p)U_\lambda (k,s_k),\overline{V}_\lambda (p,s_p)U_\lambda (k,s_k),\overline{V}_\lambda (p,s_p)U_\lambda (k,s_k).$$
(30)
As one can see below, the basic spinor products (30) can be calculated with the help of two functions.

The matrix $`\gamma _5`$ is the operator of a spin for massless bispinor i.e.

$$\gamma _5U_\lambda \left(b_0\right)=\lambda U_\lambda \left(b_0\right).$$
(31)
Then the definition of bispinors (24)-(25) can be rewritten as

$$U_\lambda (p,s_p)=\frac{\chi (p,s_p,+1)}{2\sqrt{b_0\left(p+m_ps_p\right)}}U_\lambda \left(b_0\right),$$
(32)
$$V_\lambda (p,s_p)=\frac{\chi (p,s_p,1)}{2\sqrt{b_0\left(p+m_ps_p\right)}}U_\lambda \left(b_0\right),$$
(33)
with the function

$$\chi (p,s_p,a)=\left(\overline{)}p+am_p\right)\left(1+a\overline{)}s_p\right).$$
(34)
Let us introduce the following functions:

$$\upsilon (p,k,s_p,s_k,\lambda ,a)\frac{\lambda }{8}\frac{Tr\left(\omega _\lambda \overline{)}b_0\chi ^{}(p,s_p,a)\chi (k,s_k,+1)\overline{)}b_\lambda \right)}{\sqrt{b_0\left(p+m_ps_p\right)}\sqrt{b_0\left(k+m_ks_k\right)}},$$
(35)
$$w(p,k,s_p,s_k,\lambda ,a)\frac{1}{4}\frac{Tr\left(\omega _\lambda \overline{)}b_0\chi ^{}(p,s_p,a)\chi (k,s_k,+1)\right)}{\sqrt{b_0\left(p+m_ps_p\right)}\sqrt{b_0\left(k+m_ks_k\right)}}.$$
(36)
All the basic spinor products are reduced then to functions (35)–(36):

$`\overline{U}_\lambda (p,s_p)U_\lambda (k,s_k)`$ $`=`$ $`\upsilon \left(p,k,s_p,s_k,\lambda ,a=+1\right),`$
$`\overline{U}_\lambda (p,s_p)U_\lambda (k,s_k)`$ $`=`$ $`w\left(p,k,s_p,s_k,\lambda ,a=+1\right),`$
$`\overline{V}_\lambda (p,s_p)U_\lambda (k,s_k)`$ $`=`$ $`\upsilon \left(p,k,s_p,s_k,\lambda ,a=1\right),`$
$`\overline{V}_\lambda (p,s_p)U_\lambda (k,s_k)`$ $`=`$ $`w\left(p,k,s_p,s_k,\lambda ,a=1\right).`$ (37)
As for the massless fermions, the spinor products (37) can be calculated through the components of vectors $`p,k,s_p,s_k`$. Certainly, the analytical expressions (37) are more complex on a comparision with the appropriate formulas (19),(22).

An important role in the transformation of the matrix elements to basis spinor products is played by the spinor identities Chisholm of type (10). For a proof of relation (10) the Chisholm trace identity was used in Ref.:

$$\gamma ^\mu Tr(\gamma _\mu \overline{)}C_1\mathrm{}\overline{)}C_{2n+1})=2\left(\overline{)}C_1\mathrm{}\overline{)}C_{2n+1}+\overline{)}C_{2n+1}\mathrm{}\overline{)}C_1\right).$$
(38)
As an expression of the type $`\overline{U}_\lambda (p,s_p)\gamma _\mu U_\lambda (k,s_k)`$ is reduced to trace, using the formulas (24)-(25), (38) it is possible to obtain appropriate spinor identities for massive fermions. In this case we have four basic identities (compared to one in the massless case):

$`\gamma ^\mu \left\{\overline{U}_\lambda (p,s_p)\gamma _\mu U_\lambda (k,s_k)\right\}=U_\lambda (k,s_k)\overline{U}_\lambda (p,s_p)+U_\lambda (p,s_p)\overline{U}_\lambda (k,s_k)+`$
$`+V_\lambda (k,s_k)\overline{V}_\lambda (p,s_p)+V_\lambda (p,s_p)\overline{V}_\lambda (k,s_k),`$ (39)
$`\gamma ^\mu \left\{\overline{U}_\lambda (p,s_p)\gamma _\mu U_\lambda (k,s_k)\right\}=U_\lambda (k,s_k)\overline{U}_\lambda (p,s_p)U_\lambda (p,s_p)\overline{U}_\lambda (k,s_k)+`$
$`+V_\lambda (p,s_p)\overline{V}_\lambda (k,s_k)V_\lambda (k,s_k)\overline{V}_\lambda (p,s_p),`$ (40)
$`\gamma ^\mu \left\{\overline{V}_\lambda (p,s_p)\gamma _\mu U_\lambda (k,s_k)\right\}=U_\lambda (k,s_k)\overline{V}_\lambda (p,s_p)+V_\lambda (p,s_p)\overline{U}_\lambda (k,s_k)+`$
$`+V_\lambda (k,s_k)\overline{U}_\lambda (p,s_p)+U_\lambda (p,s_p)\overline{V}_\lambda (k,s_k),`$ (41)
$`\gamma ^\mu \left\{\overline{V}_\lambda (p,s_p)\gamma _\mu U_\lambda (k,s_k)\right\}=U_\lambda (k,s_k)\overline{V}_\lambda (p,s_p)+U_\lambda (p,s_p)\overline{V}_\lambda (k,s_k)`$
$`V_\lambda (k,s_k)\overline{U}_\lambda (p,s_p)V_\lambda (p,s_p)\overline{U}_\lambda (k,s_k).`$ (42)
The remaining possible combinations are reduced to the above ones with the help of relations (29). For massless fermions the relations (39) and (41) are identical (to within the replacement $`\lambda \lambda `$) and pass into (10), and Eqs.(40) and (42) both sides are zero.

Using (39)-(42), and Dirac equation we can write the analytical expression of a matrix element (13) in terms of spinor products. We represent the amplitude by $`T(\lambda ,\lambda ;\lambda ,\lambda )`$ for massive fermions with arbitrary polarizations as an example of our type of spinor techniques:

$`T(\lambda ,\lambda ;\lambda ,\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \alpha }{s}}\{(Q_f+R_z(g_a^eg_a^f+g_v^eg_v^f))`$
$`\left[\upsilon (k_1,p_2,\lambda ,1)\upsilon (p_1,k_2,\lambda ,1)+\upsilon (k_1,p_2,\lambda ,1)\upsilon (p_1,k_2,\lambda ,1)\right]`$
$`\lambda R_z\left(g_a^fg_v^e+g_a^eg_v^f\right)\left[\upsilon (k_1,p_2,\lambda ,1)\upsilon (p_1,k_2,\lambda ,1)+\upsilon (k_1,p_2,\lambda ,1)\upsilon (p_1,k_2,\lambda ,1)\right]`$
$`\left(Q_f+R_z\left(g_a^eg_a^fg_v^eg_v^f\right)\right)\left[w(k_1,p_1,\lambda ,1)w(p_2,k_2,\lambda ,1)w(k_1,p_1,\lambda ,1)w(p_2,k_2,\lambda ,1)\right]`$
$`\lambda R_z\left(g_a^fg_v^eg_a^eg_v^f\right)\left[w(k_1,p_1,\lambda ,1)w(p_2,k_2,\lambda ,1)w(k_1,p_1,\lambda ,1)w(p_2,k_2,\lambda ,1)\right]`$
$`4R_zg_a^eg_a^fm_km_pw(k_1,k_2,\lambda ,1)w(p_2,p_1,\lambda ,1)/M_Z^2\},`$ (43)
where we use the notation $`\upsilon (p_1,k_2,\lambda ,1)\upsilon (p,k,s_p,s_k,\lambda ,1)`$ (and a similar one for $`w`$). Analogous expressions can be written for other spin configurations of fermions. The amplitude with massive fermions looks more complicated than the massless one (16),but we will see below, that the amplitude (43) has a simple form.

## 4 Spinor products

Let us calculate the functions $`\upsilon (p,k,s_p,s_k,\lambda ,a)`$ and $`w(p,k,s_p,s_k,\lambda ,a)`$ for several spin projection of the fermion states.

The polarization vector $`s_p`$ of a fermion can be expressed through the momentum of the fermion as

$$s_p=\frac{pq_ppm_p^2q_p}{m_p\sqrt{(pq_p)^2m_p^2q_p^2}},$$
(44)
where $`q_p`$ is an arbitrary vector ($`q_pconstp`$). It is easy see, that $`s_p`$ satisfies to standard conditions:

$$s_p^2=1,ps_p=0.$$
(45)
Choosing

$$q_p=n_0=(1,0,0,0)$$
(46)
we find in this case that the state of polarization of a fermion is the helicity state .

Taking

$$q_p=b_0=n_0n_3$$
(47)
then the polarization vector (44) can be written as

$$s_p=\frac{p}{m_p}m_p\frac{b_0}{pb_0}.$$
(48)
Let us call the fermion states with this choice of the spin quantization vector the KS states(see ). As we see, helicity states and KS states are different in the general case.

Finally, if in the rest frame of the fermion $`s_p=n_3`$ (axis of spin projection is $`z`$-axis) we have the fermion polarized states, which will be called the $`z`$ states.

The spinor products can be rewritten as functions

$`\upsilon (p,k,s_p,s_k,\lambda ,a)\upsilon (p,k,q_p,q_k,\lambda ,a),`$
$`w(p,k,s_p,s_k,\lambda ,a)w(p,k,q_p,q_k,\lambda ,a).`$ (49)
For the calculation of the amplitudes it is often assumed that $`q_p=q_k=\mathrm{}q`$ i.e. all fermions have the same polarized states (helicity, KS, $`z`$ or another possible state). The spinor products $`\upsilon `$ and $`w`$ are denoted

$$\upsilon _{hel}(p,k,\lambda ,a),w_{hel}(p,k,\lambda ,a),\upsilon _{KS}(p,k,\lambda ,a),w_{KS}(p,k,\lambda ,a),\upsilon _z(p,k,\lambda ,a),w_z(p,k,\lambda ,a)$$
(50)
for helicity, KS and $`z`$ states respectively.

Using (35)-(36) we express the functions $`\upsilon `$ and $`w`$ through the components of the vectors. For the vectors $`p=(p^0,p^x,p^y,p^z)`$ and $`k=(k^0,k^x,k^y,k^z)`$ we obtain:

$`\upsilon _{hel}(p,k,\lambda ,a)={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \left(am_pm_k+\left(k^0+\left|\stackrel{}{k}\right|\right)\left(p^0+\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|\right)\right)}{\sqrt{4\left|\stackrel{}{k}\right|\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|\left(k^0+\left|\stackrel{}{k}\right|\right)\left(p^0+\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|\right)}}}`$
$`\left\{e^{i\lambda \phi _k}\sqrt{\left(\left|\stackrel{}{k}\right|+k^z\right)\left(\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|p^z\right)}e^{i\lambda \phi _p}\sqrt{\left(\left|\stackrel{}{k}\right|k^z\right)\left(\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|+p^z\right)}\right\},`$ (51)
$`w_{hel}(p,k,\lambda ,a)={\displaystyle \frac{\left(am_p\left(k^0+\left|\stackrel{}{k}\right|\right)+m_k\left(p^0+\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|\right)\right)}{\sqrt{4\left|\stackrel{}{k}\right|\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|\left(k^0+\left|\stackrel{}{k}\right|\right)\left(p^0+\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|\right)}}}`$
$`\left\{\sqrt{\left(\left|\stackrel{}{k}\right|k^z\right)\left(\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|p^z\right)}+e^{i\lambda \left(\phi _k\phi _p\right)}\sqrt{\left(\left|\stackrel{}{k}\right|+k^z\right)\left(\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|+p^z\right)}\right\},`$ (52)
$`\upsilon _{KS}(p,k,\lambda ,a)=\lambda \{e^{i\lambda \phi _k}\sqrt{p^0p^z}\sqrt{\left(k^0+k^z\right)m_k^2/\left(k^0k^z\right)}e^{i\lambda \phi _k}`$
$`\sqrt{k^0k^z}\sqrt{\left(p^0+p^z\right)m_p^2/\left(p^0p^z\right)}\},`$ (53)
$$w_{KS}(p,k,\lambda ,a)=am_p\sqrt{\left(k^0k^z\right)/\left(p^0p^z\right)}+m_k\sqrt{\left(p^0p^z\right)/\left(k^0k^z\right)},$$
(54)
$`\upsilon _z(p,k,\lambda ,a)={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\sqrt{4\left(k^0+m_k\right)\left(p^0+m_p\right)}}}`$
$`\{e^{i\lambda \phi _p}\sqrt{\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|^2(p^z)^2}[(a1)(k^0+m_k)+(a+1)k^z]`$
$`e^{i\lambda \phi _k}\sqrt{\left|\stackrel{}{k}\right|^2(k^z)^2}[(a1)(p^0+m_p)+(a+1)p^z]\},`$ (55)
$`w_z(p,k,\lambda ,a)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{4\left(k^0+m_k\right)\left(p^0+m_p\right)}}}`$
$`\{[(a+1)(k^0+m_k)+(1a)k^z](p^0+m_p)+[(a1)(k^0+m_k)`$
$`(1+a)k^z]p^z\lambda e^{i\lambda \left(\phi _p\phi _k\right)}\sqrt{\left(\left|\stackrel{}{k}\right|^2(k^z)^2\right)\left(\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|^2(p^z)^2\right)}(a+1)\}.`$ (56)
As one can see, the analytical expressions (51)-(56) looks a little bit more complicated in the corresponding relation (22). In the massless limit, the mass term in (51)-(54) can be dropped. As a result, for the functions $`\upsilon _{hel}`$ and $`\upsilon _{KS}`$ we obtain the expression (22). Since all $`z`$ states have only one spin projection ($`z`$-axis in rest frame), the massless limit is absent for these polarized states in general.

Let us consider possible unstable situations, which can arise in numerical calculations. There are the denominators in (51)-(56), hence the ambiguity of type $`0/0`$ can appear in the calculations. Obviously we have not problems with helicity for massive and massless fermions and $`z`$, KS states for massive fermions. If one chooses the vector $`k=(k^0,0,0,k^0)`$ (the massless fermion moving along $`z`$-axis), then the expressions for the KS states (53)-(54) contain the ambiguity of type $`0/0`$. In this situation for $`\upsilon _{KS}`$ and $`w_{KS}`$ we have the rule in the massless limit :
1 step. To take the mass of the fermion equal to zero.
2 step. Only after 1 step we calculate the spinor products through the components of the vectors.

If another spin projection $`s_k`$ is interest of we can decompose the any bispinor $`U_\lambda (p,s_p)`$ in terms of the another bispinor $`U_\nu (k,s_k)`$ with the help of spinor products, using completeness relation of the bispinors (24)- (25):

$$\underset{\nu }{}\frac{U_\nu (k,s_k)\overline{U}_\nu (k,s_k)V_\nu (k,s_k)\overline{V}_\nu (k,s_k)}{2m_k}=1.$$
(57)
As an example we present the matrix of decomposition for KS and helicity states through the components of the momenta:

$$\frac{\overline{U}_\lambda (p,hel)U_\nu (p,KS)}{2m_p}=\delta _{\lambda ,\nu }\sqrt{\frac{\left(p^0+\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|\right)\left(\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|p^z\right)}{2\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|\left(p^0p^z\right)}}\lambda \delta _{\lambda ,\nu }e^{i\lambda \phi _p}\sqrt{\frac{\left(p^0\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|\right)\left(\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|+p^z\right)}{2\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|\left(p^0p^z\right)}}.$$
(58)
The other important building block is the element of the current $`J^\mu `$ defined as follows

$`J_u^\mu (p,k,s_p,s_k;\lambda ,\nu )\overline{U}_\lambda (p,s_p)\gamma ^\mu U_\nu (k,s_k),`$
$`J_v^\mu (p,k,s_p,s_k;\lambda ,\nu )\overline{V}_\lambda (p,s_p)\gamma _\mu U_\nu (k,s_k).`$ (59)
Using the completeness identity (6) we obtain that the current $`J`$ of type (59) can be written

$$J^\mu (p,k,s_p,s_k;\lambda ,\nu )=\frac{1}{2}\left(b_0Jb_3^\mu +b_3Jb_0^\mu b_+Jb_{}^\mu b_{}Jb_+^\mu \right)$$
(60)
It is easy to verify that the terms $`b_0J`$ and other are reduced then to spinor products $`\upsilon `$ and $`w`$. Using the analytical expressions (51)-(56) we obtain coefficients of decomposition (60) through the components of the vectors (see these coefficients for helicity states in appendix A).

We now have all the tools necessary to express any Feynman diagrams with arbitrary fermion polarizations in terms of the spinor products or the components of the momenta.

## 5 Application

As an illustration of our method we present the helicity and KS amplitudes for process $`e^+e^{}f\overline{f}`$. Should be noted, that the spinor techniques with functions (53)-(54)(KS states) are used for the calculating of amplitudes of $`e^+e^{}f\overline{f}+n\gamma `$ with massless electron and positron . Also we take the massless $`e^+`$ and $`e^{}`$. For completeness we have included expressions of helicity amplitude (13) with all massive fermion in appendix B.

We will work in the center of momentum system with the initial particles moving along $`z`$-axis. In this frame the momenta take the form

$`p_1={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s}}{2}}(1,0,0,1)fore^{},`$
$`p_2={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s}}{2}}(1,0,0,1)fore^+,`$
$`k_1={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s}}{2}}(1,\beta _ksin\theta ,0,\beta _kcos\theta )forf,`$
$`k_2={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s}}{2}}(1,\beta _ksin\theta ,0,\beta _kcos\theta )for\overline{f},`$ (61)
where $`s=(p_1+p_2)^2`$, $`\beta _k=\sqrt{14m_k^2/s}`$.

Using (43),(51)-(54) it is simple obtain the helicity and KS amplitudes:

$`T_{hel}(\lambda ,\lambda ,\nu _1,\nu _2)={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \alpha }{s}}(\delta _{\nu _1,\nu _2}\left\{(s)(1+\lambda \nu _1cos\theta )[Q_f+R_z(g_v^e\lambda g_a^e)(g_v^f\nu _1\beta _kg_a^f)]\right\}+`$
$`\delta _{\nu _1,\nu _2}\left\{2\lambda \sqrt{s}m_ksin\theta [Q_f+R_zg_v^f(g_v^e\lambda g_a^e)]\right\}),`$ (62)
$`T_{KS}(\lambda ,\lambda ,\nu _1,\nu _2)={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \alpha }{s}}(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{s}{1\beta _k^2cos^2\theta }}}\{\delta _{\nu _1,\nu _2}(1)\sqrt{s}\beta _ksin\theta (1+\lambda \nu _1\beta _kcos\theta )`$
$`[Q_f+R_z(g_v^e\lambda g_a^e)(g_v^f\nu _1g_a^f)]\}+\delta _{\nu _1,\nu _2}\{2(\lambda +\nu _1)m_k[Q_f+R_z(g_v^e\lambda g_a^e)`$
$`(g_v^f+\nu _1\beta _kg_a^fcos\theta )]\}).`$ (63)
The helicity amplitude (62) coincide with the amplitude, which was obtained in Ref. up to the phase factor.

In Eqs.(62) and (63) $`\nu _1,\nu _2`$ correspond to the values of the helicity and KS fermion’s polarization respectively. As one can see, the helicity and KS amplitudes have the different angular dependence for same values $`\nu _1,\nu _2`$ . In Fig.2 we represent the angular cross sections $`d\sigma _{1,1,1,1}^{KS}\left(z\right)/dz`$ and $`d\sigma _{RL,RL}^{hel}\left(z\right)/dz`$ ($`z=cos\theta `$) of the process $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}`$ with $`\sqrt{s}=0.5TeV`$.

From our example we see, that it is incorrect to call the KS states helicity ones (see,). It is to verify that the unpolarized cross sections, which can obtained from the helicity and KS amplitudes are coincide.

## 6 Concluding Remarks

We have presented a new spinor techniques method for calculating the amplitudes of processes involving massive fermions with arbitrary polarizations. The method allows one obtain to a Feynman amplitude in terms of spinor products.

We determined , that all possible spinor product can be calculated with the help of the two functions only. We have received the analytical expressions of spinor products for vectors of polarizations of fermions which frequently in the physical appendieces (helicity, KS and $`z`$-state). Are discussed possible unstable situations, which can arise in the numerical calculations.

Our procedure is not more complex than CALCUL spinor techniques for massless fermions. The method can be adopted to both analytical and numerical computations. The our variant of spinor techniques is convenient for a realization on the computer, as massless variant. As an example, all procedure of reduction of Feynman diagram to spinor products are constructed with the help of the simple rule-based program in Mathematica.

We obtained the spinor Chisholm identities for massive fermions with arbitrary polarization.

As an illustration, the expressions are given for the amplitudes of electron-positron annihilation into fermions-pairs for helicity and KS-states.

## 7 Acknowledgements

I express my gratitude to the Abdus Salam ICTP for warm hospitality and financial support. I am grateful to S.Randjbar-Daemi for the opportunity to work at ICTP. I am grateful to I.Caprini for the help and discussions of the results.

## 8 Appendix A

We can write the Feynman amplitudes in terms of the current object (59). For example the matrix element (14) can be rewritten in terms of the dot products of the $`J^\mu `$

$$T_\gamma (\lambda _1,\lambda _2;\nu _1,\nu _2)=Q_f(\nu _1\nu _2)\{J_v(p_2,p_1,s_{p_2},s_{p_1};\lambda _2,\lambda _1).J_v(k_1,k_2,s_{k_1},s_{k_2};\nu _1,\nu _2)\}.$$
(64)
Therefore, in the calculations the currents are important building blocks.

For massless fermions we can obtain any process in terms of the dot products $`J_v`$ ,$`J_u`$ and the four-vectors of reaction. This formalism ($`E`$-vector formalism) are used in Ref. . But the terms, which not reduce to the these dot products are exist, if the all fermions are massive.

Using (7), the dot product $`b_0J`$ reduces to the spinor products:

$$b_0J_u(p,k,s_p,s_k;\lambda ,\nu )\overline{U}_\lambda (p,s_p)\overline{)}b_0U_\nu (k,s_k)=\underset{\rho }{}\left\{\overline{U}_\lambda (p,s_p)U_\rho \left(b_0\right)\right\}\left\{\overline{U}_\rho \left(b_0\right)U_\nu (k,s_k)\right\}.$$
(65)
Thus we obtain analytical expressions of the current coefficients through the components of the vectors. For helicity states we have:

$`b_0J_u^{hel}(p,k,\lambda ,\lambda )=\lambda [\sqrt{\left(p^0+\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|\right)\left(k^0\left|\stackrel{}{k}\right|\right)}\sqrt{\left(1+\beta _z(k)\right)\left(1\beta _z(p)\right)}e^{i\lambda \phi _k}`$
$`\sqrt{\left(p^0\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|\right)\left(k^0+\left|\stackrel{}{k}\right|\right)}\sqrt{\left(1\beta _z(k)\right)\left(1+\beta _z(p)\right)}e^{i\lambda \phi _p}],`$ (66)
$`b_0J_u^{hel}(p,k,\lambda ,\lambda )=\sqrt{\left(p^0+\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|\right)\left(k^0+\left|\stackrel{}{k}\right|\right)}\sqrt{\left(1\beta _z(k)\right)\left(1\beta _z(p)\right)}+`$
$`\sqrt{\left(p^0\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|\right)\left(k^0\left|\stackrel{}{k}\right|\right)}\sqrt{\left(1+\beta _z(k)\right)\left(1+\beta _z(p)\right)}e^{i\lambda \left(\phi _p\phi _k\right)},`$ (67)
$`b_3J_u^{hel}(p,k,\lambda ,\lambda )=\lambda [\sqrt{\left(p^0\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|\right)\left(k^0+\left|\stackrel{}{k}\right|\right)}\sqrt{\left(1+\beta _z(k)\right)\left(1\beta _z(p)\right)}e^{i\lambda \phi _k}`$
$`\sqrt{\left(p^0+\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|\right)\left(k^0\left|\stackrel{}{k}\right|\right)}\sqrt{\left(1\beta _z(k)\right)\left(1+\beta _z(p)\right)}e^{i\lambda \phi _p}],`$ (68)
$`b_3J_u^{hel}(p,k,\lambda ,\lambda )=\sqrt{\left(p^0\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|\right)\left(k^0\left|\stackrel{}{k}\right|\right)}\sqrt{\left(1\beta _z(k)\right)\left(1\beta _z(p)\right)}+`$
$`\sqrt{\left(p^0+\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|\right)\left(k^0+\left|\stackrel{}{k}\right|\right)}\sqrt{\left(1+\beta _z(k)\right)\left(1+\beta _z(p)\right)}e^{i\lambda \left(\phi _p\phi _k\right)},`$ (69)
$`b_\nu J_u^{hel}(p,k,\lambda ,\lambda )=\left[\sqrt{\left(p^0\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|\right)\left(k^0+\left|\stackrel{}{k}\right|\right)}\sqrt{\left(p^0+\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|\right)\left(k^0\left|\stackrel{}{k}\right|\right)}\right]`$
$`\{\delta _{\lambda ,\nu }\sqrt{\left(1\beta _z(k)\right)\left(1\beta _z(p)\right)}\sqrt{\left(1+\beta _z(k)\right)\left(1+\beta _z(p)\right)}`$
$`(e^{i(\phi _k+\phi _p)}\delta _{\lambda ,1}\delta _{\nu ,1}e^{i(\phi _k+\phi _p)}\delta _{\lambda ,1}\delta _{\nu ,1})\},`$ (70)
$`b_\nu J_u^{hel}(p,k,\lambda ,\lambda )=\left[\sqrt{\left(p^0+\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|\right)\left(k^0+\left|\stackrel{}{k}\right|\right)}\sqrt{\left(p^0\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|\right)\left(k^0\left|\stackrel{}{k}\right|\right)}\right]`$
$`\{\sqrt{\left(1+\beta _z(k)\right)\left(1\beta _z(p)\right)}[\delta _{\lambda ,1}\delta _{\nu ,1}e^{i\phi _k}+\delta _{\lambda ,1}\delta _{\nu ,1}e^{i\phi _k}]`$
$`\sqrt{\left(1\beta _z(k)\right)\left(1+\beta _z(p)\right)}[\delta _{\lambda ,1}\delta _{\nu ,1}e^{i\phi _p}+\delta _{\lambda ,1}\delta _{\nu ,1}e^{i\phi _p}]\},`$ (71)
where $`\beta _z\left(k\right)=k^z/\left|\stackrel{}{k}\right|`$ and in Eqs.(70)-(71) $`\nu =\pm 1`$.

## 9 Appendix B

In the center of momentum system with the initial particles moving along $`z`$-axis, momenta of massive fermions take form:

$`p_1={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s}}{2}}(1,0,0,\beta _p)fore^{},`$
$`p_2={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s}}{2}}(1,0,0,\beta _p)fore^+,`$
$`k_1={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s}}{2}}(1,\beta _ksin\theta ,0,\beta _kcos\theta )forf,`$
$`k_2={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s}}{2}}(1,\beta _ksin\theta ,0,\beta _kcos\theta )for\overline{f},`$ (72)
where $`\beta _p=\sqrt{14m_p^2/s}`$. Using (43) and (51)-(52) we compute the helicity amplitudes :

$`T_{hel}(\lambda ,\lambda ,\nu _1,\nu _2)={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \alpha }{\sqrt{s}}}(\delta _{\nu _1,\nu _2}\sqrt{s}(1+\lambda \nu _1cos\theta )`$
$`[Q_f+R_z(g_v^e\lambda \beta _pg_a^e)(g_v^f\nu _1\beta _kg_a^f)]+\delta _{\nu _1,\nu _2}2\lambda m_ksin\theta [Q_f+R_zg_v^f(g_v^e\lambda \beta _pg_a^e)]),`$ (73)
$`T_{hel}(\lambda ,\lambda ,\nu _1,\nu _2)={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \alpha }{s}}(4m_km_p\delta _{\nu _1,\nu _2}[Q_fR_z(g_v^eg_v^f+\lambda \nu _1g_a^eg_a^f(s/M_Z^21)cos\theta )]`$
$`\delta _{\nu _1,\nu _2}m_p\sqrt{s}g_a^eR_zsin\theta [\beta _kg_v^f+\nu _1g_a^f(4m_k^2/M_Z^21)]).`$ (74)
These expressions have a compact form and in the massless limit for $`e^+`$ and $`e^{}`$ pass into (62).

## Figure captions

Fig. 1 Feynman diagrams for the process $`e^+e^{}f\overline{f}`$

Fig. 2 The angular cross section for the helicity and KS polarized states