text:
# Analyticity and power corrections in hard-scattering hadronic functions

## Abstract

Demanding the analyticity of hadronic observables (calculated in terms of power series of the running coupling) as a whole, we show that they are free of the Landau singularity. Employing resummation and dispersion-relation techniques, we compute in a unifying way power corrections to two different hard-scattering functions in perturbative QCD: the electromagnetic pion form factor to leading order and the inclusive cross section of the Drell-Yan process. In the second case, the leading nonperturbative power correction in $`b\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ gives rise to a Sudakov-like exponential factor in the impact parameter space which provides enhancement rather than suppression.

preprint:   UA/NPPS-01-01 RUB-TPII-22/00

1. Introductory remarks
One of the most crucial questions in comparing QCD with experimental data is whether predictions derived at the parton level can claim validity also at the hadron level. Would we be able to calculate binding (confinement) effects of quarks and gluons reliably, this problem would be only marginal because then calculated (i.e., partonic) and physical observables would almost coincide. Lacking such a theoretical scheme, the strategy must be to make perturbative predictions less sensitive to nonperturbative effects. Since parton binding effects become important at large distances (i.e., small momenta), we must ensure that sensitivity of hadronic observables to the large-distance domain is minimized (infrared safety). For such infrared-improved observables, one may expect that deviations between theory and experiment, originating from the differences between partons and hadrons, become practically irrelevant.

Normally, large-distance effects are factorized into universal, wave-function parts that cannot be treated perturbatively. However, infrared (IR) sensitivity may also reside in the initially separated hard part that should describe partonic subprocesses involving by definition hard propagators and hard vertices. In fact, beyond leading order, this assumption cannot a priori be satisfied because the momentum flow in such Feynman diagrams may become much smaller than the large scale of the process, say, the momentum transfer $`Q^2`$. More precisely, the average gluon momentum $`<k>`$ flowing inside a partonic subprocess decreases with the order of the perturbation expansion and may eventually become proportional to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$, implying that the resummed perturbation series is defined only up to a certain power accuracy. To make the result of the perturbative calculation unambiguous, one has to compensate this power correction in the perturbative sector by a corresponding term of the same form, originating from the nonperturbative regime.

In processes which involve the emission of virtual gluon quanta of low momentum, the strategy must be to resum their contributions to all orders of the strong coupling constant. This gives rise to exponentially suppressing factors of the reaction amplitude (or cross-section) of the Sudakov type with exponents containing double and single logarithms of the large mass scale. However, because of the Landau singularity of the running coupling at transverse distances $`b1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ (where $`b`$ is the impact parameter conjugate to the parton’s transverse momentum $`k_{}`$), an essential singularity appears in the Sudakov factor. Thus, one has to consider power corrections of $`𝒪\left(b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2\right)`$, which, though negligible for small $`b`$ relative to logarithmic corrections $`\mathrm{ln}\left(b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2\right)`$, may become important for larger values of the impact parameter.

In this letter we will describe a general methodology to treat power series in the running strong coupling. To be more precise, we will address these questions having recourse to two processes: one to which the OPE applies, namely the pion electromagnetic form factor at leading perturbative order, and another, the Drell-Yan process, to which the OPE is not applicable. The first one is a typical example of an exclusive process with registered hadrons in the initial and final states (for a recent review, see, e.g., Ste99 ). The Drell-Yan mechanism, on the other hand, has two identified hadrons in the initial state and a lepton pair (plus unspecified particles) in the final state, whose transverse momentum distribution is proportional to the large invariant mass of the materialized photon.

Our goal in the second case is to obtain not only the usual resummed (Sudakov) expression, comprising logarithmic corrections due to soft-gluon radiation, but also to include the leading power correction as well, specifying, in particular, its concomitant coefficient. This becomes possible within a theoretical scheme, which models the IR behavior of the running coupling by demanding analyticity of physical observables (in the complex $`Q^2`$ plane) as a whole – as opposed to imposing analyticity of individual powers, i.e., order by order in perturbation theory –, while preserving renormalization-group invariance (references and additional information can be found in the recent surveys Shi00 ; SS99 ).

Our own physical viewpoint can be summarized as follows: One option to access nonperturbative effects is to change degrees of freedom and replace QCD by some low-energy effective theory. The other option, and that actually adopted here, is to retain the usual QCD degrees of freedom, but to demand that hadronic observables, calculated perturbatively with them, are analytic as a whole in the $`Q^2`$ plane. This analytization condition entails a singularity-free expression for the strong running coupling in both the spacelike and the timelike region, rendering hadronic observables IR safe. In this way, we are able to calculate explicitly in our second example the $`b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2`$ power correction to the Drell-Yan cross-section and show that after exponentiation it amounts to a Sudakov type factor that can compete in magnitude with the resummed double logarithms due to gluonic radiative corrections because it has the reverse sign, whence providing enhancement rather than suppression. The properties of this new factor are addressed and its (almost) Gaussian dependence on $`b`$ is discussed and compared to previous works KS95 ; ASS98 .

2. Power corrections to pion form factor
Following the rationale of analyticity in the sense just described, the leading-order factorized pion form factor reads ER80 ; LB80

$$\left[Q^2F_\pi \left(Q^2\right)\right]_{\mathrm{an}}=_0^1𝑑x_0^1𝑑y\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_\pi ^{\mathrm{out}}(y,Q^2)T_\mathrm{H}(x,y,Q^2,\alpha _s\left(\widehat{Q}^2\right))\mathrm{\Phi }_\pi ^{\mathrm{in}}(x,Q^2)\right]_{\mathrm{an}},$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\pi (x,Q^2)`$ is the process-independent pion distribution amplitude, encoding the nonperturbative binding dynamics of the valence quarks at the resolution scale $`Q^2`$, each carrying light-cone momentum fractions $`x_1=x`$ (quark) and $`x_2=1x\overline{x}`$ (antiquark) $`(x_i=k_i^+/P^+)`$ of the pion’s momentum $`P^\mu `$, and the superscripts in and out denote, respectively, incident (incoming) and final (outgoing) intact pions.

Employing the asymptotic pion distribution amplitude, evolution effects can be neglected Mue94  and the analyticity requirement resides only in the hard-scattering part. Hence, we have

$$\left[Q^2F_\pi \left(Q^2\right)\right]_{\mathrm{an}}=A_0^1𝑑x_0^1𝑑yxy\overline{x}\overline{y}\left[T_\mathrm{H}(x,y,Q^2,\alpha _s\left(\widehat{Q}^2\right))\right]_{\mathrm{an}},$$
(2)
where to leading perturbative order, the hard-scattering amplitude is given by

$$T_\mathrm{H}^{(1)}(x,y,Q^2,\alpha _s\left(\widehat{Q}^2\right))=16\pi C_F\left[\frac{2}{3}\frac{\alpha _s\left(Q^2\overline{x}\overline{y}\right)}{\overline{x}\overline{y}}+\frac{1}{3}\frac{\alpha _s\left(Q^2xy\right)}{xy}\right]$$
(3)
and the constant $`A`$ takes account of the correct normalization of the pion distribution amplitude. Had we not imposed the requirement of analytization, expression (2) would lead to an asymptotic series in the coupling constant $`\alpha _s\left(Q^2\right)`$ that is not Borel summable, as noticed by Agaev Aga96  (see also Aga98 ).

Global analytization Shi00 ; Shi99  (see also GI99 ; BRS00 ) now means that

$$\left[\alpha _s^n\left(Q^2\right)\right]_{\mathrm{an}}\frac{1}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\xi }{\xi +Q^2iϵ}\rho ^{(n)}(\xi ),$$
(4)
where the spectral density $`\rho ^{(n)}(\xi )`$ is the dispersive conjugate of all powers $`n`$ of $`\alpha _s`$. For the leading-order expression under consideration the spectral density is Rad82 ; KP82 ; Piv92 ; SS97

$$\rho \left(Q^2\right)=\mathrm{Im}\alpha _s\left(Q^2\right)=\frac{\pi }{\beta _1}\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}^2\frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}+\pi ^2}$$
(5)
with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$. Then Eq. (4) reduces to

$$\left[\alpha _s\left(Q^2\right)\right]_{\mathrm{an}}=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_C\frac{dz}{zQ^2+iϵ}\alpha _s(z),$$
(6)
where $`C`$ is a closed contour in the complex $`z`$-plane with a branch cut along the negative real axis, so that ($`\beta _1=\beta _0/4\pi `$ with $`\beta _0=112N_f/3`$)

$$\left[\alpha _s\left(Q^2\right)\right]_{\mathrm{an}}=\frac{1}{\beta _1}\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}+\frac{1}{1\frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right),$$
(7)
an expression recently proposed by Shirkov and Solovtsov SS97 .

Recasting now the strong coupling in the form

$$\alpha _s(z)=\frac{1}{\beta _1}\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}\frac{z}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}=\pm _0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\sigma \mathrm{exp}\left(\sigma \beta _1\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/z\right),$$
(8)
with the plus sign corresponding to the case $`|z|/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2>1`$ and the minus one to $`|z|/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2<1`$, and inserting it into Eq. (2), we find after some standard manipulations the Borel transform of the scaled pion form factor at leading perturbative order:

$$\left[Q^2F_\pi \left(Q^2\right)\right]_{\mathrm{an}}^{(1)}=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\sigma \mathrm{exp}\left(\sigma \beta _1\mathrm{ln}Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right)\stackrel{~}{\pi }(\sigma )_{\mathrm{an}}^{(1)}.$$
(9)
Here the Borel image of the form factor reads

$`\stackrel{~}{\pi }(\sigma )_{\mathrm{an}}^{(1)}=`$ $`16\pi C_FA{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi \beta _1\sigma \right)}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑y\overline{x}\overline{y}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\xi }{\xi +xy}}`$ (10)
$`\left[\xi ^{\sigma \beta _1}\mathrm{\Theta }\left(\xi {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{Q^2}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)^{2\sigma \beta _1}\xi ^{\sigma \beta _1}\mathrm{\Theta }\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{Q^2}}\xi \right)\right].`$
We stress that this expression has no IR renormalons in contrast to approaches which use the conventional one-loop $`\alpha _s`$ parameterization (see, e.g., Aga96 ; Aga98 ). Carrying out the integrations, we then obtain the following final result

$`\stackrel{~}{\pi }(\sigma )_{\mathrm{an}}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`16\pi C_FA{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi \beta _1\sigma \right)}{\pi \beta _1\sigma }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{Q^2}}\right)^{1\beta _1\sigma }{\displaystyle _0^{Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dw}{1+w}}\varphi \left({\displaystyle \frac{w\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{Q^2}}\right)`$ (11)
$`\times \left[{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(1,1;1+\beta _1\sigma ;{\displaystyle \frac{w}{1+w}})+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1\sigma }{1+\beta _1\sigma }}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(1,1;2+\beta _1\sigma ;{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+w}})\right]`$
with $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ being the hypergeometric function and $`\varphi (w)`$ denoting the abbreviation

$$\varphi (w)=(1+w)\mathrm{ln}w2(1w)(\varphi (w)0\text{when}w1).$$
(12)
Inserting this expression into Eq. (9), the integration over the Borel parameter $`\sigma `$ can be performed without any ambiguity to arrive at the following result for the pion form factor (in leading order)

$$\left[Q^2F_\pi \left(Q^2\right)\right]_{\mathrm{an}}^{(1)}=16\pi C_FA\frac{1}{\beta _1}_0^1𝑑w\varphi (w)\left[\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{wQ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)}+\frac{1}{1\frac{wQ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right].$$
(13)
Hence, the remaining integration can be carried out analytically and the final result is

$`\left[Q^2F_\pi \left(Q^2\right)\right]_{\mathrm{an}}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`16\pi C_FA{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta _1}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{Q^2}}[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)2][\mathrm{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}1)]`$ (14)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}{Q^4}}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)+2\right]\left[\mathrm{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^4}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}1\right)\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{Q^2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{Q^2}}\right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}1\right]`$
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{Q^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}{Q^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{Q^2}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{Q^2}}){\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{Q^2}}\right)^n\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^2}}[1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{Q^2}}\right)^n]\}\}.`$
It is important to notice that the above expression remains analytic all the way down to the limit $`\frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}1`$. This is to be contrasted with the corresponding result found by Agaev in Aga96  (his equation (16)) which comes out divergent in this limit and has to be regularized.

For the physically relevant case $`Q^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$, Eq. (14) simplifies to

$`\left[Q^2F_\pi \left(Q^2\right)\right]_{\mathrm{an}}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`16\pi C_FA\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\alpha _s\left(Q^2\right)+𝒪\left(\alpha _s^2\right)\right]`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta _1}}16\pi C_FA{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{Q^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}1\right){\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}+3\right]`$
$`+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}{Q^4}}\right),`$
where $`\mathrm{Li}_2`$ is the di-logarithm (or Spence) function, defined by

$$\mathrm{Li}_2(x)=_0^x\frac{dt}{\mathrm{ln}t}.$$
(16)
The computation carried out above can be extended to any desired order of the hard-scattering amplitude $`T_\mathrm{H}`$. The resulting expressions are always well-defined without the need of employing any (additional) IR regularization KSS01 .

3. Power corrections to Drell-Yan process
As a second example of our methodology, we discuss the derivation of power corrections to the inclusive Drell-Yan cross-section with the large scale $`Q^2`$ being here the invariant lepton pair mass. Power corrections to this process with the help of renormalons have been discussed in KS95 ; QS91 ; CS93 ; AZ95 ; BB95 . Let us start our discussion here by evaluating the logarithmic derivative111We take the logarithmic derivative because perturbative QCD predicts not the absolute magnitude of reaction amplitudes, but only their variation with momentum. The derivative also eliminates the collinear divergence related to the integrations over $`k^\pm `$. of the unrenormalized expression for the eikonalized Drell-Yan cross-section KM93  (see also Ste87 ) after exponentiation of infrared divergences to the lowest order of perturbation theory, adopting here and below for the ease of comparison the notations of Korchemsky and Sterman KS95 :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}W_{\mathrm{DY}}}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(1)}\left(Q^2\right)`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`4C_F\mu ^{2ϵ}{\displaystyle \frac{d^{22ϵ}k_{}}{(2\pi )^{22ϵ}}\frac{1}{k_{}^2}\alpha _s\left(k_{}^2\right)\left(\mathrm{e}^{i𝐤_{}𝐛}1\right)}.`$
The argument of the strong coupling is taken to depend on the transverse momentum $`k_{}^2`$ in order to account for higher-order quantum corrections, originating from momentum scales larger than this CG80 ; KT82 . It is obvious that the above integral is not well-defined at very small mass scales owing to the singularities of the one (or higher) loop QCD running coupling in this region. This makes its evaluation at the edge of phase space sensitive to their regularization. The effect of regularizing the $`k_{}`$ integration in the infrared region amounts to including power corrections to the original perturbative result which are the footprints of soft gluon emission at the kinematic boundaries to the non-perturbative QCD regime SSK00 .

By the same reasoning as applied in the previously considered case, we impose analytization as a whole, and using Eq. (8), we perform the $`k_{}`$ integration in (17) to obtain

$$\left[\mathrm{\Pi }^{(1)}\left(Q^2\right)\right]_{\mathrm{an}}=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\sigma \mathrm{e}^{\sigma \beta _1\mathrm{ln}\left(4/b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right)}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\mathrm{an}}^{(1)}(\sigma )$$
(18)
with the Borel transform given by

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\mathrm{an}}^{(1)}(\sigma )`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{4C_F}{\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2b^2}{4}}\right)^ϵ\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi \sigma \beta _1\right){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d\xi g(\xi )[\xi ^{\sigma \beta _1}\mathrm{\Theta }(\xi {\displaystyle \frac{b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{4}})`$ (19)
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{4}}\right)^{2\sigma \beta _1}\xi ^{\sigma \beta _1}\mathrm{\Theta }({\displaystyle \frac{b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{4}}\xi )],`$
where

$$g(\xi )=\frac{d^{22ϵ}q}{(2\pi )^{22ϵ}}\frac{1}{q^2}\frac{1}{q^2+\xi }\left(\mathrm{e}^{2i𝐪\widehat{𝐛}}1\right).$$
(20)
Combining denominators in Eq. (20) and carrying out the integrations over $`\xi `$, we then find

$`\left[\mathrm{\Pi }^{(1)}\left(Q^2\right)\right]_{\mathrm{an}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\pi }}\left(\mu ^2b^2\pi \right)^ϵ{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d\sigma \mathrm{e}^{\sigma \beta _1\mathrm{ln}\left(4/b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\sigma \beta _1\right)}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma \beta _1+ϵ}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\sigma \beta _1ϵ)`$ (21)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{(n+1)!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{4}}\right)^{n+1\sigma \beta _1ϵ}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n+1\sigma \beta _1ϵ}}]{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\pi \beta _1}}f({\displaystyle \frac{b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{4}}),`$
where

$`f\left({\displaystyle \frac{b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{4}}\right)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(n+1)!}}[{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{2}}+1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{si}(\pi (n+1))}{\pi }}][\left({\displaystyle \frac{b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{4}}\right)^{n+1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n1,{\displaystyle \frac{b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{4}})`$ (22)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n+1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{4}}\right)^{n+1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n2,1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{n+1}}]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(n!)^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{4}}\right)^n\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{4}}+\psi (n+1)\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(n!)^2}}(1)^{n+1}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{s}\mathrm{i}(\pi n)}{\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{4}}\right)^n\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n+1}}+\psi (n+1)\right]`$
with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,y)`$, denoting the incomplete Gamma function GR80 ,

$$\mathrm{si}(x)=_x^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{sin}t}{t}𝑑t=\frac{\pi }{2}+_0^x\frac{\mathrm{sin}t}{t}𝑑t,$$
(23)
and $`\psi (x)=(d/dx)\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)`$.

At this point some important remarks are in order. The first term in Eq. (21), viz., the integral over $`\sigma `$, diverges for $`\sigma \beta _1=0`$, i.e., for small values of $`\alpha _s\left(k_{}\right)`$ (or equivalently for large transverse momenta $`k_{}`$). This ultraviolet (UV) divergence is taken care of by the defect of the dimension $`ϵ`$ within the $`\overline{MS}`$ renormalization scheme we have adopted. Were it not for the terms containing powers of $`b\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, our expression (21) and that found by Korchemsky and Sterman in KS95  (namely, their equation (18)) would be the same. In our case, however, the imposition of analytization cures all divergences related to IR renormalons that are generated by the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-functions whenever $`\sigma \beta _1`$ is an integer different from zero. On the other hand, when $`\sigma \beta _1`$ is an integer different from zero, say, $`\sigma \beta _1=m`$, then the integrand in Eq. (21) takes the form

$$\frac{(1)^{m1}}{(m!)^2}\left(\frac{b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{4}\right)^m\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{e}^B\frac{b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{4}\right)+\stackrel{}{\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\frac{(1)^n}{(n+1)!m!}\left(\frac{b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{4}\right)^{n+1}\frac{1}{n+1m},$$
(24)
where

$$B=1\gamma _E+\underset{k=1}{\overset{m1}{}}\frac{1}{k+1}$$
(25)
and the prime on the sum symbol reminds that the term $`n=m1`$ is excluded. (Obviously, for $`m=1`$ the sums above vanish.)

Let us now turn our attention to the second term in Eq. (21). Evaluating further this term and retaining only the leading contributions in $`b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$, we finally obtain

$$f\left(b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right)=a_0a_1\frac{b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{4}\mathrm{ln}\frac{b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{4}+a_2\frac{b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{4}+𝒪\left(b^4\mathrm{\Lambda }^4\right),$$
(26)
in which the following abbreviations

$`a_0`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`a_1`$ $``$ $`A_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{si}(\pi )}{\pi }}3.18`$
$`a_2`$ $``$ $`A_0\gamma _\mathrm{E}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{A_n}{n+1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{A_{n+1}}{(n+2)(n+1)}}\right]+A_0\mathrm{\Gamma }(2,1)+\psi (2)+{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{s}\mathrm{i}(\pi )}{\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}+\psi (2)\right]`$ (27)
$``$ $`2.51`$
have been used with $`\gamma _E=0.5772\mathrm{}`$ being Euler’s gamma function and

$$A_n=\frac{1}{(n+1)!}\left[\frac{(1)^n}{2}+1+\frac{\mathrm{si}(\pi (n+1))}{\pi }\right].$$
(28)
Though the integral in Eq. (21) (i.e., the first term) cannot be computed in closed form, it can be expanded in terms of powers of $`b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$. The only singularity of the integrand is a single UV pole at $`\sigma \beta _1=0`$, which is regularized dimensionally. For $`\sigma \beta _1`$ an integer, both terms inside the bracket have poles, but they mutually cancel so that their sum is singularity free and therefore the integral is well defined. Retaining terms of order $`b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$, it is apparent from expression (24) that the main contribution stems from the leading renormalon $`\sigma \beta _1=1`$. The result is

$$\left[\mathrm{\Pi }^{(1)}\left(Q^2\right)\right]_{\mathrm{an}}=\left[\mathrm{\Pi }^{(1)}\left(Q^2\right)\right]_{\mathrm{PT}}+\left[\mathrm{\Pi }^{(1)}\left(Q^2\right)\right]_{\mathrm{pow}}$$
(29)
with the perturbative part being defined by

$$\left[\mathrm{\Pi }^{(1)}\left(Q^2\right)\right]_{\mathrm{PT}}=\frac{C_F}{\pi \beta _1}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{ln}\left(C/b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right)}{\mathrm{ln}\left(Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right)},$$
(30)
where, within the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme, we have set for the renormalization scale (the collinear limit) $`\mu ^2=2Q^2`$. Notice that this leading-order result coincides with the one obtained by Korchemsky and Sterman (Eq. (20) in KS95 ). Power corrections in the impact parameter $`b`$ are encoded in the second contribution ($`b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^21`$):

$$\left[\mathrm{\Pi }^{(1)}\left(Q^2\right)\right]_{\mathrm{pow}}=S_0+b^2S_2\left(b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right)+𝒪\left(b^4\mathrm{\Lambda }^4\right),$$
(31)
where

$$S_0=\frac{C_F}{\pi \beta _1}a_0=0$$
(32)
and

$$S_2\left(b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right)=\frac{C_F}{4\pi \beta _1}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2a_1\mathrm{ln}\frac{b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{4}a_2$$
(33)
with the constants $`a_0`$, $`a_1`$, and $`a_2`$ already introduced in Eq. (27).

Hence, the Drell-Yan cross-section $`W_{\mathrm{DY}}`$, comprising the leading logarithmic perturbative contribution (alias the leading Sudakov exponent $`S_{\mathrm{PT}}`$) and including the first power correction in $`b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ reads

$$W_{\mathrm{DY}}(b,Q)=\mathrm{exp}\left[S_{\mathrm{PT}}(b,Q)b^2S_2(b,Q)+\mathrm{}\right],$$
(34)
$`S_2(b,Q)`$ $``$ $`S_2\left(b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right)\mathrm{ln}Q+\text{const}.`$ (35)
Note that the $`Q`$-dependence arises due to collinear interactions, i.e., through the integration of Eq. (17). While the Sudakov factor, representing the perturbative tail of the hadronic wave function Ste99 ; SSK00 ; Ste95 , suppresses constituent configurations which involve large impact space separations, the exponentiated power corrections in $`b^2`$ (leaving aside the constant term $`S_0`$), which are of nonperturbative origin, provide enhancement for such configurations, since $`S_2\left(b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right)`$ (see Fig. 1) is always negative. The consequence is that combining (resummed) logarithmic radiative corrections and power-behaved corrections in $`b`$, the latter arising from soft (nonperturbative) gluon emission and being therefore universal, the net result is less suppression of the Drell-Yan cross-section KS95 . Here we have an immediate link with the work of Akhoury et al. ASS98  who pointed out within the renormalon approach KS95  that the form of the exponent in Eq. (34) is the same as for the Fourier-transformed pion wave function. In both cases the leading power correction in $`b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ has an exponential (Gaussian) form.222Let us mention in this context that the Gaussian dependence on the impact parameter $`b`$ for the Drell-Yan process was already noticed by Collins and Soper CS81  in their Sudakov analysis. However, and most importantly, with our method we can go beyond their analysis and specify the absolute normalization of the power correction that cannot be fixed within perturbation theory. In our Drell-Yan calculation, this coefficient, see Eq. (33), can be computed explicitly, and it turns out to have the opposite sign relative to theirs and depend logarithmically on the impact parameter. The upshot is that the inclusion of power corrections leads to an enhancement of the pion wave function in $`b`$ space, counteracting partly this way the suppression provided by the familiar Sudakov factor, similar in this respect to the observation made in SSK00 , with the endpoint region $`b\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$ (where $`b\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is not a small expansion parameter and therefore Eq. (31) becomes inaccurate) being less enhanced relative to small $`b`$ transverse distances (cf. Fig. 1).

4. Conclusions
We have focused on two specific cases – the pion form factor at leading power in $`Q^2`$ and the Drell-Yan process – which expose all the salient features of the proposed analytization methodology. On account of analytization of hadronic functions as a whole, the dispersive conjugate of the running coupling is defined unambiguously. Moreover, and even more important, one can calculate not only the power of power corrections to hadronic processes, but also their concomitant coefficients because this approach does not contain an IR renormalon ambiguity from the outset. In this way, we were able to compute explicitly the first power correction in $`\frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$ to the pion form factor, as well as a Sudakov-type factor to the Drell-Yan cross-section which contains the leading power correction in $`b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$. Further applications and phenomenological implications of our approach will be pursued in forthcoming publications.

###### Acknowledgements.

We wish to thank Alexander Bakulev, Johannes Blümlein, Christos Ktorides, Sergey Mikhailov, Dmitri V. Shirkov, and Wolfram Schroers for stimulating discussions. This work was supported in part by travel grants by the COSY Forschungsprojekt Jülich/Goeke (A.I.K.) and Athens University (N.G.S.).


format: text

text:
# Some remarks on the thermal and vacuum fluctuations of a massive scalar field

## I Introduction

There is an interesting effect that arises in the study of quantum fields when comparing the physical observables in an inertial frame and a uniformly accelerated one: it happens that a particle detector standing on the accelerated frame perceives a thermal bath of particles not seen by the inertial one . The precise mathematical statement that describes this kind of situation relating, among other things, the thermal bath temperature and the constant acceleration, is known as the “Thermalization Theorem” (see  and references there in). So it becomes natural to compare quantities like the thermal fluctuations of a field seen by an inertial frame and the vacuum fluctuations of the same field seen by a uniformly accelerated one, when using the corresponding relation between the temperature and the acceleration.

On a recent paper, the thermal fluctuations for a massive scalar field in the Rindler wedge were obtained . This work included the comparison of the Minkowski vacuum fluctuations seen by a uniformly accelerated observer and the Minkowski thermal fluctuations seen by an inertial one. For simplicity, the detailed calculations behind those results were omitted there. They are the main topic of this paper. The main results are derived for small masses.

In section II the thermal fluctuations in Minkowski spacetime are considered. In section III the Minkowski vacuum fluctuations seen by a uniformly accelerated frame are studied. Section IV comments the main physical result derived from the comparison of both situations and also comments some of the technicalities involved in the calculations. In the Appendix it is shown the derivation of the series and expansions needed in the main text. This derivation includes the use of the Riemann-Lebesgue lemma in a pair of cases.

## II Thermal fluctuations in Minkowski spacetime

It was seen in  that for a scalar field $`\varphi (x)`$, of mass $`M`$, in thermal equilibrium with a heat bath at temperature $`T`$ and in four dimensional Minkowski spacetime, the thermal average $`\varphi ^2(x)`$ is given by

$`\varphi ^2(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\omega ^2+2M\omega \right)^{1/2}}{e^{(M+\omega )/T}1}}𝑑\omega .`$ (1)
In the same reference it was also seen that for $`M/T1`$ this expression behaves as

$`\varphi ^2(x)={\displaystyle \frac{T^2}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{MT}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{8\pi ^2}}\left(\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{4\pi T}}+\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right),`$ (2)
where $`\gamma `$ is the Euler constant and $`\mathrm{log}`$ is the neperian logarithm.

In the following lines we will derive this last result with some detail. Using the substitution $`\omega =vTM`$, the integral in (1) may be written as

$`\varphi ^2(x)={\displaystyle \frac{T^2}{2\pi ^2}}I\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{T}}\right)`$ (3)
where

$`I(\alpha )={\displaystyle _\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{v}{e^v1}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{v^2}}\right)^{1/2}𝑑v.`$ (4)
Here we are interested in the behaviour of $`I(\alpha )`$ for small, but positive, real values of $`\alpha `$. For this purpose we start considering the Taylor series

$`(1z)^{1/2}=1{\displaystyle \frac{z}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_kz^k,|z|<1,`$ (5)
where

$`a_k={\displaystyle \frac{135\mathrm{}(2k3)}{k!2^k}}(k=2,3,\mathrm{}).`$ (6)
Using $`z=\alpha ^2/v^2`$ in (5) , substituing in (4) and integrating term by term, leads to

$`I(\alpha )={\displaystyle _\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{v}{e^v1}}𝑑v{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{2}}{\displaystyle _\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^v1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dv}{v}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_k\alpha ^{2k}{\displaystyle _\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^v1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dv}{v^{2k1}}}.`$ (7)
Although the series in (5) is not valid when $`z=1`$ (that is, when $`v=\alpha `$), and this has been used in (7), it is not difficult to prove that the contribution of this isolated value is null when the series is integrated term by term. Now, in (7) we have that

$`{\displaystyle _\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{v}{e^v1}}𝑑v={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{4}}+\mathrm{}`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle _\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^v1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dv}{v}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\gamma \mathrm{log}(2\pi ))+\mathrm{}`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle _\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^v1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dv}{v^{2k1}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2k1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^{2k1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(2k2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^{2k2}}}+\mathrm{}(k=2,3,\mathrm{}),`$ (10)
where the “$`\mathrm{}`$” denote higher order corrections in $`\alpha `$. The details of the derivation of these three formulas are given in Appendix I. Now, substituing (8), (9) and (10) in (7), leads to

$`I(\alpha )={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}+{\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_k}{2k1}}\right)\alpha +\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\mathrm{log}(2\pi )\gamma )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_k}{2k2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{log}\alpha \right)\alpha ^2+`$ (11)
$`+\mathrm{}.`$ (12)
In Appendix II we prove that for $`a_k`$ given in (6) the infinite sums appearing in (12) are given by

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_k}{2k1}}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\text{and}{\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_k}{2k2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}`$ (13)
So, substituing these results in (12) we have that

$`I(\alpha )={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\alpha \left(\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{4\pi }})+\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{4}}+\mathrm{}.`$ (14)
Upon substitution of (14) in (3) this leads precisely to equation (2), in leading order.

## III Minkowski vacuum fluctuations seen from a uniformly accelerated frame

In this section we refer the reader to Ref.  (and references there in), where a detailed study of the Minkowski vacuum fluctuations, $`\varphi ^2(x)`$, of a massive scalar field $`\varphi (x)`$, as seen from a uniformly accelerated frame, has been done. If $`a`$ is the proper acceleration of the frame, then

$`\varphi ^2(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}F(\omega )𝑑\omega ,`$ (15)
where $`F(\omega )`$ is given in formulas $`(4112b)`$, $`(4113b)`$ and $`(4510)`$ of Ref.  and may be written as

$`F(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{e^{2\pi \omega /a}1}}d_4(\omega )`$ (16)
with

$`d_4(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{2}{(\omega /a)^2|\mathrm{\Gamma }(i\omega /a)|^2}}{\displaystyle _{M/a}^{\mathrm{}}}x\{K_{i\omega /a}(x)\}^2𝑑x,`$ (17)
in the case of four dimensional Minkowski spacetime. In (17) $`K_{i\omega /a}(x)`$ is the modified Bessel function of the second kind with purely imaginary index $`\mu =i\omega /a`$ (it is a real function).

In  it was given as a result that $`\varphi ^2(x)`$ in (15) behaves, for $`M/a1`$, as

$`\varphi ^2(x)={\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{48\pi ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{8\pi ^2}}(\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{2a}}+\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{M}{2a}})^2)).`$ (18)
Since the derivation of this result involves, as an intermediate step, the correction of a result found in the literature , we will do it here with some detail. We have done it in two steps. In the first one we obtain $`d_4(\omega )`$ for small values of $`M/a`$ and using this result, together with the relations in (15) and (16), we arrive to expression (18) in the second step.

i) Expression for $`d_4(\omega )`$ for $`M/a1`$

Using formulas $`6.5213`$ and $`8.3321`$ of the Gradshteyn tables , we have that that

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}x\{K_{i\nu }(x)\}^2𝑑x={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\nu ^2|\mathrm{\Gamma }(i\nu )|^2\text{(}\nu \text{ being a real number)}.`$ (19)
Using this result for $`\nu =\omega /a`$, we may write (17) as

$`d_4(\omega )=1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(\omega /a)^2|\mathrm{\Gamma }(i\omega /a)|^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{M/a}}x\{K_{i\omega /a}(x)\}^2𝑑x.`$ (20)
Now we look for the leading behaviour of $`K_{i\omega /a}(x)`$ for small values of $`x`$, since these are the ones that give a contribution in the integral in (20) when $`M/a1`$. The modified Bessel function of the second kind $`K_\beta (x)`$ is defined as (see , for example)

$`K_\beta (x)={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\beta \pi /2}J_\beta (ix)e^{i\beta \pi /2}J_\beta (ix)}{\mathrm{sin}(\beta \pi )}}`$ (21)
where

$`J_\beta (x)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{2}}\right)^\beta {\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^j}{j!\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+1+\beta )}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{2}}\right)^{2j}`$ (22)
is the Bessel function of the first kind. In (21) and (22) $`\beta `$ is an arbitrary complex number that, in the first case, must be different from any integer number. In the cases of integer values of $`\beta `$, $`K_\beta (x)`$ is defined as the limit situation in (21).

It is a direct consequence of (21) and (22) that for small values of $`x`$, $`K_{i\nu }(x)`$ behaves as

$`K_{i\nu }(x)=|\mathrm{\Gamma }(i\nu )|\mathrm{cos}(\nu \mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{x}{2}})\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{\Gamma }(i\nu ))+\mathrm{},`$ (23)
where $`\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{\Gamma }(i\nu )`$ is the argument of the complex function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(i\nu )`$ and “$`\mathrm{}`$” denotes a term that vanishes as $`x0^+`$. This is a peculiar result, not specifically mentioned in commonly cited mathematical tables like Gradshteyn’s  or Abramowitz’s , due to the purely imaginary index: it says that for small values of $`x`$ the function $`K_{i\nu }(x)`$ oscillates infinitely. Now, after substituing (23) in (20) with $`\nu =\omega /a`$, direct integration leads to

$`d_4(\omega )=1{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{2\omega ^2(1+\omega ^2/a^2)}}\{2\mathrm{cos}^2({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{a}}\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{M}{2a}})\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{\Gamma }({\displaystyle \frac{i\omega }{a}}))+`$ (24)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{a}}\mathrm{sin}2({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{a}}\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{M}{2a}})\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{\Gamma }({\displaystyle \frac{i\omega }{a}}))+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{a^2}}\}+`$ (25)
$`+(\text{Higher order mass corrections}).`$ (26)
This last expression is quite different from the one mistakenly derived in equation $`(4525)`$ of Ref. .

ii) Expression for $`\varphi ^2(x)`$ for $`M/a1`$

Using equation (26) in (16) and then in (15), $`\varphi ^2(x)`$ may be written as

$`\varphi ^2(x)={\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{48\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{cos}^2(\sigma x\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{\Gamma }(ix))+x\mathrm{sin}2(\sigma x\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{\Gamma }(ix))+x^2}{(e^{2\pi x}1)x(1+x^2)}}𝑑x+`$ (27)
$`+(\text{Higher order massive corrections}),`$ (28)
where

$`\sigma =\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{M}{2a}})`$ (29)
and where the first term, $`a^2/(48\pi ^2)`$, has been obtained as $`a^2\zeta (2)/(8\pi ^4)`$ ($`\zeta (z)`$ being the Riemann Zeta function). The condition $`M/a1`$ is now equivalent to $`\sigma 1`$. Then, to study the behaviour of the integral in (28) for big values of $`\sigma `$ we proceed as follows. We start using the trigonometric identities

$`2\mathrm{cos}^2(\alpha \beta )=2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha +2\mathrm{cos}^2\beta \mathrm{cos}(2\alpha )+\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha )\text{and}`$
$`\mathrm{sin}2(\alpha \beta )=\mathrm{cos}(2\beta )\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha )\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )\mathrm{cos}(2\alpha )`$
in equation (28), with $`\alpha =\sigma x`$ and $`\beta =\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{\Gamma }(ix)`$, arriving to

$`\varphi ^2(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{48\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{4\pi ^2}}\{2{\displaystyle _{0^+}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(\sigma x)}{e^{2\pi x}1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}+`$ (30)
$`+{\displaystyle _{0^+}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{cos}^2(\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{\Gamma }(ix))x\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{\Gamma }(ix))+x^2}{(e^{2\pi x}1)x(1+x^2)}}\mathrm{cos}(2\sigma x)𝑑x+`$ (31)
$`+{\displaystyle _{0^+}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{x\mathrm{cos}(2\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{\Gamma }(ix))+\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{\Gamma }(ix))}{(e^{2\pi x}1)(1+x^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(2\sigma x)}{x}}dx\}+`$ (32)
$`+(\text{Higher order massive corrections}).`$ (33)
Then, for each of the integrals in (33) we have that

$`{\displaystyle _{0^+}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(\sigma x)}{e^{2\pi x}1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{\mathrm{sinh}\sigma }})`$ (34)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\sigma \mathrm{log}\sigma \mathrm{log}2+\mathrm{})`$ (35)
$`{\displaystyle _{0^+}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{cos}^2(\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{\Gamma }(ix))x\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{\Gamma }(ix))+x^2}{(e^{2\pi x}1)x(1+x^2)}}\mathrm{cos}(2\sigma x)𝑑x=0+\mathrm{}`$ (36)
$`{\displaystyle _{0^+}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{x\mathrm{cos}(2\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{\Gamma }(ix))+\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{\Gamma }(ix))}{(e^{2\pi x}1)(1+x^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(2\sigma x)}{x}}𝑑x={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+\mathrm{},`$ (37)
where the “$`\mathrm{}`$” denote a term that vanishes as $`\sigma \mathrm{}`$.

The exact expression for the integral in (35) can be found in formula $`3.95121`$ of , for example. The results in (36) and (37) are consequences of the Riemann-Lebesgue lemma (see Ref. , for example). Both results are derived in Appendix III.

Now, substituing (35), (36) and (37) in (33) (with $`\sigma =\mathrm{log}(\frac{M}{2a})`$), we arrive to

$`\varphi ^2(x)={\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{48\pi ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{8\pi ^2}}(\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{M}{a}})+\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{M}{2a}}))+`$ (38)
$`+(\text{Higher order massive corrections}),`$ (39)
which is equivalent to equation (18).

## IV Discussions and Final Remarks

The thermal fluctuations in Minkowski spacetime and the Minkowski vacuum fluctuations seen from a uniformly accelerated frame have been treated for a massive scalar field in four dimensions. The calculations for small masses have been explicitly done in this work and they constitute an important basis for the results accomplished in , namely, that an accelerated observer (with proper acceleration $`a`$) does not see the Minkowski vacuum as a Minkowski thermal bath of temperature

$`T={\displaystyle \frac{a}{2\pi }},`$ (40)
if the scalar field is massive. This can be seen in equations (2) and (18), using the relation (40): both expressions only agree if the field mass is zero. The same conclusion can be reached if the situation is analized for large masses , although this case has not been studied here.

The derivation of $`\varphi ^2(x)`$ in (18) deserves some technical observations that we now comment.

As mentioned in section III, the basic equations for calculating it have been taken from Ref. . Indeed, the expression for $`d_4(\omega )`$ in (17) is literally taken from , but the small mass approximation in $`(4525)`$ of it is mistakenly done, leading to a result different from the one in (26). Both expressions are complicated and the easiest way of comparing them is by analizing their behaviour when $`\omega 0^+`$. While equation (26) gives a finite value

$$1\frac{M^2}{a^2}(\gamma ^2\gamma +\frac{1}{2}),$$

for $`d_4(\omega )`$, equation $`(4525)`$ gives a divergent one of the type

$$\frac{M^2}{2\omega ^2}.$$

This difference is crucial, since the vacuum fluctuations seen from a uniformly accelerated frame are calculated as an integral of $`d_4(\omega )`$ with respect to $`\omega `$ (see equations (15) and (16)).

Another observation is the usefulness of the Riemann-Lebesgue lemma in calculating the leading behaviour of integrals of functions that involve sines and cosines, like the one in equation (28).

Finally, the checking of equation (18) was done in , by means of comparing it with the vacuum fluctuations of a massive scalar field in a conical spacetime, leading to complete agreement.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author is thankful to Dr. Edisom Moreira Jr. for many insights and useful discussions.

## APPENDIX

### I. Derivation of the expansions in (8), (9) and (10)

Let us consider the function

$`F_k(\alpha )={\displaystyle _\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^v1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dv}{v^{2k1}}}(k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}),`$ (41)
which may be written as

$`F_k(\alpha )=c_k+{\displaystyle _\alpha ^1}{\displaystyle \frac{v}{e^v1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dv}{v^{2k}}},`$ (42)
with

$`c_k={\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^v1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dv}{v^{2k1}}}.`$ (43)
Now, we recall the power series of the generating function of the Bernoulli numbers, namely

$`{\displaystyle \frac{v}{e^v1}}={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}B_n{\displaystyle \frac{v^n}{n!}}=1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}v^2+\mathrm{}(|v|<2\pi )`$ (44)
where the $`B_n`$ are the Bernoulli numbers.

Substituing (44) in (42) and integrating term by term leads to the following behaviour for $`F_k(\alpha )`$:

$`d_k+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2k1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^{2k1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(2k2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^{2k2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6(2k3)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^{2k3}}}+\mathrm{}`$ if $`k=0,2,3,4,\mathrm{},`$ (45)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}\alpha +d_1+\mathrm{}`$ if $`k=1,`$ (46)
where $`d_k`$ ($`k=0,1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$) is the overall constant term coming out from the integration and the “$`\mathrm{}`$” denote higher order terms in $`\alpha `$.

We now analize separately the cases $`k=0`$, $`k=1`$ and $`k=2,3,4,\mathrm{}`$.

i) Case of $`k=0`$

In this case, equation(LABEL:Fp2) gives

$`{\displaystyle _\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{v}{e^v1}}𝑑v=d_0\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\alpha ^2+\mathrm{}.`$ (48)
To derive the value of the constant term $`d_0`$, we consider the limit $`\alpha 0^+`$ in (48), giving

$`d_0={\displaystyle _{0^+}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{v}{e^v1}}𝑑v=\zeta (2)={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}.`$ (49)
So, the results in (49) and (48) lead to the expansion in equation (8).

ii) Case of $`k=1`$

In this case, equation (LABEL:Fp2) gives

$`{\displaystyle _\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^v1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dv}{v}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}\alpha +d_1+\mathrm{}.`$ (50)
Finding out the numerical expression for $`d_1`$ is quite more complicated than the constant term $`d_0`$ in the previuos case, as we will see now.

From (50) we can conclude that

$`d_1=\underset{\alpha 0^+}{lim}\left({\displaystyle _\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^v1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dv}{v}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}\alpha \right),`$ (51)
which may be written as

$`d_1={\displaystyle _{0^+}^1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^v1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{dv}{v}}+{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^v1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{dv}{v}}.`$ (52)
In order to find $`d_2`$ using known formulas from mathematical tables, we rewrite expression (52) in the following form:

$`d_1=\underset{\mu 0^+}{lim}\left\{{\displaystyle _{0^+}^{\mathrm{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^v1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mu v}}{v}}𝑑v{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mu v}}{v}}𝑑v\right\},`$ (53)
where

$`{\displaystyle _{0^+}^{\mathrm{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^v1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mu v}}{v}}𝑑v=\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu )(\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\mathrm{log}\mu +\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}(2\pi )`$ (54)
and

$`{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mu v}}{v}}𝑑v=\text{Ei}(\mu ),`$ (55)
$`\text{Ei}(x)`$ being the Exponential Integral function (see formulas $`3.4274`$ and $`8.2111`$ in  for the results in (54) and (55), respectively).

Now we use the expansions

$`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu )=\mathrm{log}\mu \gamma \mu +{\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^k}{k}}\zeta (k)\mu ^k`$ (56)
and

$`\text{Ei}(\mu )=\gamma +\mathrm{log}\mu +{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mu )^k}{kk!}},`$ (57)
(see  and formula $`8.2141`$ in , respectively) in (54) and (55), leading to

$`{\displaystyle _{0^+}^{\mathrm{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^v1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mu v}}{v}}𝑑v{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mu v}}{v}}𝑑v={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\gamma \mathrm{log}(2\pi )\}+𝒪(\mu \mathrm{log}\mu ).`$ (58)
Then, substituing (58) in (53) and taking the corresponding limit leads to

$`d_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\gamma \mathrm{log}(2\pi )\}.`$ (59)
So, the results in (59) and (50) lead to the expansion in equation (9).

iii) Case of $`k=2,3,4,\mathrm{}`$

In this case, equation (LABEL:Fp2) may be written as

$`{\displaystyle _\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^v1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dv}{v^{2k1}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2k1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^{2k1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(2k2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^{2k2}}}+\mathrm{},`$ (60)
which is the result already mentioned in equation (10). There is no interest in determining the value of the constant term in this expansion since it is a higher order term, of no importance in our present calculations.

### II. Derivation of the infinite sums in (13)

Starting from the expansion of $`(1z)^{1/2}`$ in a power series (given in (5) ) with $`z=x^2`$, we can derive the relations

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_kx^{2k2}={\displaystyle \frac{1x^2/2(1x^2)^{1/2}}{x^2}},{\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_kx^{2k3}={\displaystyle \frac{1x^2/2(1x^2)^{1/2}}{x^3}},`$ (61)
which are valid for $`0<x<1`$.

Integrating each relation from $`0^+`$ to $`1^{}`$, we have that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_k}{2k1}}={\displaystyle _{0^+}^1^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1x^2/2(1x^2)^{1/2}}{x^2}}𝑑x,{\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_k}{2k2}}={\displaystyle _{0^+}^1^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1x^2/2(1x^2)^{1/2}}{x^3}}𝑑x.`$ (62)
After finding the primitive for each integrand we finally have that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_k}{2k1}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{(1x^2)^{3/2}}{x}}+x(1x^2)^{1/2}+\mathrm{arcsin}x{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\right\}|_{0^+}^1^{}`$ (63)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}`$ (64)
and

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_k}{2k2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{(1x^2)^{3/2}}{x^2}}+(1x^2)^{1/2}\mathrm{log}((1x^2)^{1/2}+1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}\right\}|_{0^+}^1^{}`$ (65)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}},`$ (66)
which are the infinite sums appearing in (13).

### III. Application of the Riemann-Lebesgue lemma to the integrals in (36) and (37)

In this section we refer the reader to Chapter 9 of Ref.  for further details about the Riemann-Lebesgue lemma. For our present purposes we may formulate this lemma as saying that

$`\underset{\rho \mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _{0^+}^{\mathrm{}}}f(x)\mathrm{cos}(\rho x)𝑑x=0,`$ (67)
for a function $`f(x)`$ such that

$`{\displaystyle _{0^+}^{\mathrm{}}}f(x)𝑑x`$ (68)
converges absolutely. The theorem is equally valid if $`\mathrm{cos}(\rho x)`$ in (67) is changed by $`\mathrm{sin}(\rho x)`$.

A corollary of the Riemann-Lebesgue lemma is that

$`\underset{\rho \mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _{0^+}^{\mathrm{}}}f(x){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\rho x)}{x}}𝑑x={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}f(0^+),`$ (69)
for the same type of function as in (67). Now, let us consider the functions

$`f_1(x)={\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{cos}^2(\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{\Gamma }(ix))x\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{\Gamma }(ix))+x^2}{(e^{2\pi x}1)x(1+x^2)}}`$ (70)
and

$`f_2(x)={\displaystyle \frac{x\mathrm{cos}(2\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{\Gamma }(ix))+\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{\Gamma }(ix))}{(e^{2\pi x}1)(1+x^2)}},`$ (71)
for $`xϵ(0,\mathrm{})`$, coming as part of the integrands in the integrals of (36) and (37). For both functions the only possible divergence happens when $`x0^+`$. In the next lines we will see that such a divergence does not exist, in either case. For this purpose we start considering the expansions

$`\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{\Gamma }(ix))=2\gamma x+𝒪(x^3),`$ (72)
$`\mathrm{cos}(2\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{\Gamma }(ix))=1+2\gamma ^2x^2+𝒪(x^4)\text{and}`$ (73)
$`\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{\Gamma }(ix))=\gamma x+𝒪(x^3),`$ (74)
for $`x>0`$, which are a direct consequence of the Laurent series for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)`$( see , for example) with $`z=ix`$. So, in (70) and (71) it is possible to conclude that for $`x>0`$

$`f_1(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}(\gamma ^2\gamma +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+𝒪(x)\text{and}f_2(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}(\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+𝒪(x),`$ (75)
meaning that both functions are finite as $`x0^+`$.

Since $`f_1(x)`$ and $`f_2(x)`$ have no singularities and they decay exponentially for $`x\mathrm{}`$ (see equations (70) and (71) ), the requirement of absolute convergence in (68) is satisfied by them. Therefore, the Riemann-Lebesgue lemma (67) and its corollary (69) are valid, leading respectively to

$`\underset{\rho \mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _{0^+}^{\mathrm{}}}f_1(x)\mathrm{cos}(\rho x)𝑑x=0,`$ (76)
and

$`\underset{\rho \mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _{0^+}^{\mathrm{}}}f_2(x){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\rho x)}{x}}𝑑x={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}).`$ (77)
These two last results are equivalent to the ones in (36) and (37), respectively, after substituing $`\rho `$ by $`2\sigma `$ in both limits.


text:
# Finite sums of commutators

## 1. Introduction

It was shown in  that in finite von Neumann algebras, elements with central trace zero are sums of at most 10 commutators. The $`C^{}`$-algebra case was considered in . The main result there states that if the unit of a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`A`$ is properly infinite (i.e. there exists two orthogonal projections $`p,qA`$ equivalent to $`1`$), then any hermitian element is a sum of at most five self-adjoint commutators. In this paper we consider the more general case of unital $`C^{}`$-algebras $`A`$ without tracial states and improve the previous result of T. Fack. Note that if the unit of $`A`$ is properly infinite, then $`A`$ has no tracial states. The converse is known to be false, at least when $`A`$ is non-simple (see  for further details). $`C^{}`$-algebras without tracial states have several nice characterizations, such as . This paper contains also another simple proof of the latter result of \[3, Lemma 1\].

## 2. The result

Given $`a,bA`$, their commutator is $`[a,b]=abba`$. A self-adjoint commutator is just a commutator of the form $`[a^{},a]=a^{}aaa^{}`$.

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`A`$ be a unital $`C^{}`$-algebra. Then the following are equivalent:

1. $`A`$ has no tracial states.
2. There exist an integer $`n2`$, and elements $`b_1,b_2,\mathrm{},b_nA`$ such that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}b_i^{}b_i`$ $`=`$ $`1`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}b_ib_i^{}`$ $`<`$ $`1`$
3. There exist an integer $`n2`$ such that any element of $`A`$ can be expressed as a sum of $`n`$ commutators and any positive element can be expressed as a sum of at most $`n`$ self-adjoint commutators.

###### Remark 2.

The equivalence of $`1`$ and $`2`$ is just \[3, Lemma 1\]. As mentioned, we give here a new simple proof.

###### Remark 3.

The integer $`n`$ appearing in both $`2`$ and $`3`$ above represents the same number. Thus, if the unit of $`A`$ is properly infinite, there exists two isometries $`v_1,v_2A`$ with orthogonal ranges. Let $`b_i=(1/\sqrt{2})v_i`$ for $`i=1,2`$. Then $`b_1^{}b_1+b_2^{}b_2=1`$ and $`b_1b_1^{}+b_2b_2^{}=1/2`$, thus the property from $`2`$ is achieved with $`n=2`$. Therefore positive elements are sums of $`2`$ commutators and self-adjoint elements are sums of 4 commutators.

###### Proof.

The implication $`(3)(1)`$ is trivial.

$`(1)(2)`$. Consider

$$R=\{\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}(a_i^{}a_ia_ia_i^{});s1,a_iA\}$$

the set of finite sums of self-adjoint commutators of $`A`$. Note that $`RA_{sa}`$ is a real vector subspace of $`A_{sa}`$. Put $`\delta =\text{dist}(1,R)`$.

We show that $`\delta <1`$. Suppose the contrary, i.e. $`\delta =1`$. This is equivalent to

$$t+x|t|,xR.$$

It follows that $`\phi (t+x)=t`$ is a real bounded functional on $`1+R`$ of norm $`1`$. By the Hahn–Banach theorem it can be extended to a norm-$`1`$ functional on $`A_{sa}`$ and furthermore to a bounded complex functional on $`A`$, denoted also by $`\phi `$. Observe that $`\phi `$ is necessarily a tracial state on $`A`$, which contradicts our hypothesis.

Because $`\delta <1`$, there exist some elements $`a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_mA`$ such that $`t_0=1_{i=1}^m(a_i^{}a_ia_ia_i^{})<1`$. In particular we have

(1)
$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}a_ia_i^{}1+t_0+a_i^{}a_i.$$

Let $`k=_{i=1}^ma_i^{}a_i`$ and $`a_{m+1}=(k_{i=1}^ma_i^{}a_i)^{1/2}`$. Then we have

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{m+1}{}}a_i^{}a_i=k$$

but on the other hand, by (1) we have also

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{m+1}{}}a_ia_i^{}1+t_0+k.$$

The required properties are now fullfilled with $`n=m+1`$ and $`b_i=(1/\sqrt{k})a_i`$.

$`(2)(3)`$. Suppose that $`b_1,b_2,\mathrm{},b_n`$ are as in $`(3)`$. Define $`\varphi (a)=b_iab_i^{}`$. Then $`\varphi `$ is a bounded positive map on $`A`$ with norm $`\mathrm{\Phi }=b_ib_i^{}<1`$. It follows that $`Id_A\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is invertible in the Banach algebra $`(A)`$ of bounded maps on $`A`$. Let

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=(Id_A\mathrm{\Phi })^1.$$

Note that $`\mathrm{\Psi }=_{i=0}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$, thus $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is positive too. By definition of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, for any $`aA`$ we have

$$a=(Id_A\mathrm{\Phi })(\mathrm{\Psi }(a))=\mathrm{\Psi }(a)\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}b_i\mathrm{\Psi }(a)b_i^{}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}[b_i^{},b_i\mathrm{\Psi }(a)],$$

so $`a`$ is a finite sum of almost $`n`$ commutators If moreover $`a`$ is a positive element in $`A`$ then

$$a=(Id_A\mathrm{\Phi })(\mathrm{\Psi }(a))=\mathrm{\Psi }(a)\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}b_i\mathrm{\Psi }(a)b_i^{}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}[\mathrm{\Psi }(a)^{1/2}b_i^{},b_i\mathrm{\Psi }(a)^{1/2}]$$

so $`a`$ is a finite sum of at most $`n`$ self-adjoint commutators. ∎

## 3. Questions

For a infinite $`C^{}`$-algebra $`A`$ (in the sense of this paper) let $`n(A)`$ be the least positive integer such that any element of $`A`$ is a sum of almost $`n(A)`$ commutators. In all the example we know, we have $`n(A)=2`$. We believe that it’s unlikely to be always the case.

In  it was shown that, if $`A`$ is an unital exact $`C^{}`$-algebra, then there exist an integer $`m`$ such that $`𝕄_m(A)`$ is properly infinite. It follows that $`n(𝕄_m(A))=2`$. Then a simple computation shows that $`n(A)2m^2`$. It would be interesting to answer the inverse problem, that is: assuming $`n(A)`$ is known, estimate the least positive integer such that $`n(𝕄_n(A))=2`$.


text:
# Measuring the Higgs CP property at a Photon Linear Collider

## I Introduction

In the Standard Model (SM), the electroweak symmetry breaking results in a physical neutral CP-even Higgs boson. There also exist various models extended by increasing Higgs fields, such as the multi-Higgs doublet model where there are extra two neutral and two charged physical Higgs bosons for each additional doublet. If CP is a good symmetry in the Higgs sector, one of the extra neutral bosons is CP-even and the other is CP-odd. If CP is not invariant, all of the Higgs states which have same quantum numbers except for the CP property can be mixed in their mass eigenstates. Then, physical Higgs bosons do not have definite CP parity.

One of the notable advantages of a photon linear collider (PLC) is to provide information about the CP property of the Higgs boson by use of linear polarizations of colliding photons. Defining $`J_z=0`$ two-photon states as $`|++`$ and $`|`$ where $`\pm `$ indicate their helicities with $`\mathrm{}`$ units, the CP transformation leads to the other states: $`CP|++=|`$, $`CP|=|++`$. Then, the CP eigenstates are $`(|+++|)`$ and $`(|++|)`$; the former is a $`J_z=0`$ component of parallel polarized photons and couples to a CP-even Higgs boson ($`H`$) , and the latter is of perpendicularly polarized photons and couples to a CP-odd one ($`A`$). However, because colliding beams at PLC are generated by the Compton back-scattering between high energy electrons and laser photons, the energy spectrum of $`\sqrt{s}_{\gamma \gamma }`$ distributes broadly and the degrees of polarizations depend strongly on $`\sqrt{\tau }\sqrt{s}_{\gamma \gamma }/\sqrt{s}_{ee}`$, where $`\sqrt{s}_{\gamma \gamma }`$ and $`\sqrt{s}_{ee}`$ are the center-of-mass energy of $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions and $`e^\pm e^{}`$ collisions at parent LC. In the case of the $`500`$ GeV LC, linear polarizations can be used effectively for relatively light Higgs bosons whose masses are less than about a few hundred GeV. For heavier Higgs bosons, it is necessary that the electron energy is raised or we use other methods, conventionally.

We propose one method where we take advantage of interference between Higgs-production and background amplitudes with circular polarized beams. A broad peak of the $`\sqrt{s}_{\gamma \gamma }`$ spectrum in the range where the degrees of circular polarizations become large is helpful to the method, because we have an interest in the energy dependence of the interference effects.

## II CP invariant case

As an example, we consider the process $`\gamma \gamma t\overline{t}`$ which receives contribution from the Higgs-exchanged $`s`$-channel diagram and the top-quark-exchanged $`t,u`$-channel ones. The helicity-dependent cross sections are expressed as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^{\lambda _1\lambda _2\sigma \overline{\sigma }}}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}\left|_\varphi ^{\lambda _1\lambda _2\sigma \overline{\sigma }}\right|^2+\left|_{cont}^{\lambda _1\lambda _2\sigma \overline{\sigma }}\right|^2+2Re\left[_\varphi ^{\lambda _1\lambda _2\sigma \overline{\sigma }}_{cont}^{\lambda _1\lambda _2\sigma \overline{\sigma }}\right],`$ (1)
where $`_\varphi `$ and $`_{cont}`$ are the helicity amplitudes of Higgs resonance ($`\varphi `$ = $`H`$ or $`A`$) and top continuum processes, $`\lambda _{1,2}`$ denote the helicities of colliding photons in $`\mathrm{}`$ units, $`\sigma `$ and $`\overline{\sigma }`$ the final $`t`$ and $`\overline{t}`$ helicities in the center-of-mass frame in $`\mathrm{}/2`$ (we also write $`1`$ ($`+1`$) as $`L`$ ($`R`$).).

Let us notice interference terms in the above cross sections. From helicity-dependence of $`_\varphi `$ CPinv , we find

$`sgn\left[_\varphi ^{\lambda \lambda RR}_{cont}^{\lambda \lambda RR}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`sgn\left[_\varphi ^{\lambda \lambda LL}_{cont}^{\lambda \lambda LL}\right]\mathrm{for}H,`$
$`sgn\left[_\varphi ^{\lambda \lambda RR}_{cont}^{\lambda \lambda RR}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`sgn\left[_\varphi ^{\lambda \lambda LL}_{cont}^{\lambda \lambda LL}\right]\mathrm{for}A.`$ (2)
Then, it is possible to distinguish $`H`$ from $`A`$ by observing this difference in the cross section with circular polarized photons. Numerical results are shown in Fig. 1 (a,b). For definiteness, we use the MSSM (minimal SUSY SM) prediction for the total and partial widths for $`A`$ adopted in ref. CPinv . It is found that little interference is observed for $`H`$ (long-dashed curves) because the interference effects for final $`t_L\overline{t}_L`$ and $`t_R\overline{t}_R`$ events cancel each other. On the other hand, the effects for $`A`$ (solid curves) can be large due to additive interference for both events.

There is another observable sensitive to CP parity. When the decay of a top quark is taken into account, the cross sections for the processes $`\gamma _{\lambda _1}\gamma _{\lambda _2}bW^+\overline{b}W^{}`$ can be written by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{bW}^{\lambda _1\lambda _2}}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ,\overline{\lambda }}{}}`$ $`\{`$ $`\left|^{\lambda _1\lambda _2LL}\right|^2\left|𝒟_L^\lambda \right|^2\left|\overline{𝒟}_L^{\overline{\lambda }}\right|^2+\left|^{\lambda _1\lambda _2RR}\right|^2\left|𝒟_R^\lambda \right|^2\left|\overline{𝒟}_R^{\overline{\lambda }}\right|^2`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`2Re\left[^{\lambda _1\lambda _2LL}^{\lambda _1\lambda _2RR}\right]Re\left[𝒟_L^\lambda \overline{𝒟}_L^{\overline{\lambda }}𝒟_R^\lambda \overline{𝒟}_R^{\overline{\lambda }}\right]`$
$``$ $`2Im\left[^{\lambda _1\lambda _2LL}^{\lambda _1\lambda _2RR}\right]Im\left[𝒟_L^\lambda \overline{𝒟}_L^{\overline{\lambda }}𝒟_R^\lambda \overline{𝒟}_R^{\overline{\lambda }}\right]\}.`$
Here, the decay amplitudes for the processes $`t_\sigma b_{}W_\lambda ^+`$ and $`\overline{t}_{\overline{\sigma }}\overline{b}_+W_{\overline{\lambda }}^{}`$ are defined as $`𝒟_\sigma ^\lambda `$ and $`\overline{𝒟}_{\overline{\sigma }}^{\overline{\lambda }}`$, the explicit forms of which are in the appendix of ref. D-ron . We notice the azimuthal angles of $`b`$ and $`\overline{b}`$ in the $`t`$ and $`\overline{t}`$ rest frame. Describing them as $`\varphi `$ and $`\overline{\varphi }`$, they appear in the third and fourth terms in Eq. 3:

$`Re\left[𝒟_L^\lambda \overline{𝒟}_L^{\overline{\lambda }}𝒟_R^\lambda \overline{𝒟}_R^{\overline{\lambda }}\right]\mathrm{cos}(\varphi \overline{\varphi }),`$
$`Im\left[𝒟_L^\lambda \overline{𝒟}_L^{\overline{\lambda }}𝒟_R^\lambda \overline{𝒟}_R^{\overline{\lambda }}\right]\mathrm{sin}(\varphi \overline{\varphi }).`$ (4)
Therefore, we obtain

$`\mathrm{sin}(\varphi \overline{\varphi })={\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \mathrm{sin}(\varphi \overline{\varphi })\frac{d\sigma _{bW}^{\lambda _1\lambda _2}}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }}}{{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{bW}^{\lambda _1\lambda _2}}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }}}}Im\left[^{\lambda _1\lambda _2LL}^{\lambda _1\lambda _2RR}\right].`$ (5)
When colliding photons are polarized to be $`+1`$, $`Im\left[^{++LL}^{++RR}\right]Im\left[_\varphi ^{++LL}_{cont}^{++RR}\right]`$ is satisfied considering $`\left|_{cont}^{++RR}\right|\left|_{cont}^{++LL}\right|`$. Since the Higgs-production amplitudes $`_H^{++LL}`$ and $`_A^{++LL}`$ have opposite signs in the MSSM-type models, $`\mathrm{sin}(\varphi \overline{\varphi })`$ tells us the CP parity of the Higgs boson. A numerical calculation is shown in Fig. 1(c). Though the quantity turns out to be rather small because of cancellation between the contributions from longitudinally and transversely polarized $`W`$’s, we can recover the sensitivity to the CP parity by taking account of $`W`$-decay distributions.

## III CP non-invariant case

When the CP symmetry is not conserved in the Higgs potential, the helicity amplitudes for the Higgs-production are denoted by

$`_\varphi ^{\lambda _1\lambda _2\sigma \overline{\sigma }}={\displaystyle \frac{e\alpha }{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{m_W}}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{sm_\varphi ^2+im_\varphi \mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi }}\left[a_\gamma +\lambda _1b_\gamma \right]\left[\sigma \beta _ta_tib_t\right]\delta _{\lambda _1\lambda _2}\delta _{\sigma \overline{\sigma }}.`$ (6)
where $`a_\gamma `$ and $`a_t`$ are proportional to the CP-even components of vertices, $`\varphi \gamma \gamma `$ and $`\varphi t\overline{t}`$, $`b_\gamma `$ and $`b_t`$ to the CP-odd components. Since {$`a_\gamma ,b_\gamma `$} or/and {$`a_t,b_t`$} have non-zero values simultaneously, they induce complicated interference. Moreover, the amplitudes include six parameters for vertices; $`a_\gamma ,b_\gamma `$ are complex, whereas $`a_t,b_t`$ are real. Therefore, we need at least six observables to determine the CP property completely and are urged to use linear polarizations as well. All observables obtained from various polarizations (including the mixture of linear and circular ones) are exhibited in ref. CPninv .

## IV Conclusions

We have discussed measurement of the CP property of the Higgs boson at PLC. It has been found that we can extract information about the CP property of the Higgs boson from the observation of interference effects between Higgs-production and background amplitudes. If the Higgs boson have definite CP parity, this method can be powerful in high $`\sqrt{\tau }`$ region where linear polarizations of colliding photons become useless conventionally.

I would like to thank K. Hagiwara for valuable discussions and G.C. Cho for helpful comments.


text:
# Production of MSSM Higgs Bosons in 𝛾𝛾 Collisions

## 1 Introduction

The search for Higgs bosons is one of the most important endeavors of present and future experiments. The minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model \[MSSM\] contains two isospin doublets of Higgs fields which materialize, after electroweak symmetry breaking, in five elementary Higgs particles : two neutral CP-even ($`h,H`$), one neutral CP-odd ($`A`$) and two charged ($`H^\pm `$) Higgs bosons. The MSSM Higgs sector can be described, in leading order, by two independent parameters which are in general chosen as the pseudoscalar mass $`M_A`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =v_2/v_1`$, i.e. the ratio of the two vacuum expectation values of the scalar Higgs fields. While the mass of the lightest CP-even Higgs boson $`h`$ is bounded to Mh

<
[-0.07cm]
130subscript𝑀

<
[-0.07cm]
130M_{h}\raisebox{-3.69899pt}{~{}\shortstack{$<$ \\
[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~{}130 GeV , the masses of the heavy Higgs bosons $`H,A,H^\pm `$ are expected to be of the order of the electroweak scale up to about 1 TeV. The heavy Higgs bosons are nearly mass degenerate. An important property of the SUSY couplings is the enhancement of the bottom Yukawa couplings with increasing $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The negative direct search for the MSSM Higgs particles at LEP2 yields lower limits Mh,H,A

>
[-0.07cm]
90subscript𝑀𝐻𝐴

>
[-0.07cm]
90M_{h,H,A}\raisebox{-3.69899pt}{~{}\shortstack{$>$ \\
[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~{}90 GeV for the neutral Higgs masses .

Extensive studies have demonstrated that, while the light Higgs boson $`h`$ of the MSSM can be found at the LHC, the heavy Higgs bosons $`H,A`$ may escape discovery for intermediate values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ . At $`e^+e^{}`$ linear colliders heavy MSSM Higgs bosons can only be found in associated production $`e^+e^{}HA`$  according to the decoupling theorem. In the first phase of the TESLA collider with a total $`e^+e^{}`$ energy of 500 GeV the heavy Higgs bosons can thus be discovered with masses up to about 250 GeV. To extend the mass reach, the $`\gamma \gamma `$ option of TESLA can be used in which high-energy photon beams are generated by Compton backscattering of laser light . Higgs particles can be formed as resonances in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions : $`\gamma \gamma h,H,A`$. Center-of-mass energies of about 80% of the $`e^+e^{}`$ collider energy and a high degree of longitudinal photon polarization can be reached at the $`\gamma \gamma `$ collider. Integrated luminosities $`=300`$ fb-1 are expected per annum . Photon colliders therefore provide a useful instrument for the search of heavy Higgs bosons not accessible elsewhere .

## 2 Analysis

Branching ratios. As promising examples for MSSM Higgs production in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions the two decay modes $`H,Ab\overline{b}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }^0`$ have been investigated for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =7`$ and pseudoscalar masses 200 GeV $`M_A800`$ GeV, i.e. the blind region at LHC. The additional MSSM parameters for the gaugino sector have been chosen as $`M_2=\mu =200`$ GeV assuming a universal gaugino mass at the GUT scale. They correspond to neutralino masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{1,2,3,4}^0}=93,161,214,256`$ GeV and to chargino masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{1,2}^\pm }=162,258`$ GeV.

The branching ratios \[??\] (excluding invisible decays into $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ pairs) are presented in Fig. 1. For moderate Higgs masses the $`b\overline{b}`$ decay modes turn out to be dominant, while for large Higgs masses the dominant role is played by the chargino and neutralino decay modes. The decays to $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ and $`t\overline{t}`$ pairs are suppressed with respect to $`b\overline{b}`$ decays by nearly an order of magnitude.

Signal. At LO, the Higgs boson production in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions with equal helicities is mediated by loop contributions of all charged particles . Sfermions, however, are assumed to be very heavy and effectively decoupled in the present analysis. The NLO QCD corrections consist of the two-loop corrections to the quark triangle loops of the photonic Higgs couplings and the NLO corrections to the final Higgs decays into quark-antiquark pairs ($`b\overline{b}`$). The two-loop corrections to the Higgs couplings to photons are of moderate size, if the quark mass inside the triangle loop is chosen as the running quark mass at a typical scale fixed by the c.m. energy of the process . The NLO QCD corrections to the final Higgs decays into bottom quarks generate large logarithms, which however can be absorbed in the running Yukawa coupling at the scale of the c.m. energy . After inserting the running quark masses, the total QCD corrections increase the signal cross section by about 20–40%.

Backgrounds. The main background processes $`\gamma \gamma b\overline{b}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}`$ are pure QED reactions in lowest order. Since the signals are generated for equal photon helicities, this configuration can be enhanced by choosing opposite helicities for the incoming laser photons and electrons/positrons in the initial state . The NLO QCD corrections for polarized photon beams have been calculated in Ref. . For $`b\overline{b}`$ production they turn out to be moderate for photons of opposite helicities but large for photons of equal helicity. The differential cross section for photons of equal helicity is suppressed by a factor $`m_b^2/s`$ at LO due to a helicity flip of the bottom quark line. This suppression, however, is removed by gluon radiation and the size of the cross section increases to order $`\alpha _s`$. Moreover, there are large Sudakov and non-Sudakov logarithms due to soft gluon radiation and soft gluon and bottom exchange in the virtual corrections  which must be resummed. In order to suppress the gluon radiation we have selected slim two-jet configurations in the final state, defined within the Sterman–Weinberg criterion. If the radiated gluon energy is larger than 10% of the total $`\gamma \gamma `$ energy and if the opening angle between all three partons in the final state is more than 20o, the event is classified as three-jet event and rejected. The contamination of $`b\overline{b}`$ final states by the processes $`\gamma \gamma c\overline{c}`$ can be kept under experimental control by $`b`$ tagging.

Interference. The interference between the signal and background processes has been taken into account properly. This part receives contributions only from configurations with equal photon helicities in the initial state. We have determined the NLO QCD corrections to quark final states  including the resummation of the large (non-)Sudakov logarithms. The QCD corrections to the interference term are large.

## 3 Results and Conclusions

$`b\overline{b}`$ channel. We assume that a rough scan in the $`e^+e^{}`$ energy will first be performed which will provide preliminary evidence for the observation of a Higgs boson in the $`\gamma \gamma `$ resonance channel. Since the luminosity spectrum for photons of equal helicity is strongly peaked at about 80% of the $`e^+e^{}`$ c.m. energy , the maximum of the spectrum will be tuned in the second step to the value of the pseudoscalar Higgs mass $`M_A`$ at which the signal peak in the energy scan appeared. The experimental analysis will be optimized subsequently for the heavy Higgs boson search. A cut in the scattering angle of the final bottom quark ($`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.5`$) strongly reduces the background while it affects the signal process only moderately. By collecting $`b\overline{b}`$ final states with a resolution in the invariant mass $`M_A\pm 3`$ GeV, which is expected to be achieved at the photon collider , the sensitivity to the combined $`H`$ and $`A`$ resonance peaks above the background is strongly increased.

The result for the peak cross section is shown in Fig. 2 as a function of the pseudoscalar mass $`M_A`$. It can be inferred from the figure that the background is strongly suppressed against the signal. Significances of the heavy Higgs boson signals sufficient for a discovery of the Higgs particles up to about 70–80% of the $`e^+e^{}`$ c.m. energy can be reached. At a 500 GeV $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider the $`H,A`$ bosons with masses up to about 400 GeV can be discovered in the $`b\overline{b}`$ channel at the photon collider, while for $`\sqrt{s_{ee}}`$ above 800 GeV the range can be extended to about 600 GeV . For heavier Higgs masses the signal rate becomes too small for detection.

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }^0`$ channels. For the MSSM parameters introduced above, the heavy Higgs bosons have significant decay branching ratios to pairs of charginos and neutralinos, cf. Figs. 1. However, due to the integer chargino charge, the chargino background from continuum production is in general more than an order of magnitude larger than the signal. Pairs of neutralinos cannot be produced in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions at leading order so that neutralino decays open a potential discovery channel for the heavy Higgs bosons $`H,A`$, see also Ref. . This is obvious for moderate Higgs masses below the chargino decay threshold. Detailed analyses of the topologies in the final state are needed, however, to separate the neutralinos from the background charginos above the threshold. For example, the signal channel $`\gamma \gamma H,A\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ leads, if the sfermions are heavy, in the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ cascade decay predominantly to the hadronic final states $`jj+E/`$ whereas the continuum process $`\gamma \gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ generates the distinct final state $`W^{}W^{}+E/`$ with $`jjjj+E/`$ jet topologies. Thus, the neutralino decays are expected to provide novel discovery channels of the heavy Higgs bosons at a photon-photon collider.

Summary. It has been shown in this report that the heavy Higgs bosons $`H`$ and $`A`$ of the minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model MSSM can be discovered for intermediate values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ up to masses of about 400 GeV at a photon-photon collider in the first phase of the linear collider project. The mass reach can be extended beyond 600 GeV at a TeV collider. The discovery potential in this region of the supersymmetric parameter space is unique since neither at the LHC nor in the respective $`e^+e^{}`$ phase of the linear collider this region is accessible.

Acknowledgements. Thanks go to M. Krämer, M. Spira and P.M. Zerwas for the fruitful collaboration on the project. I am indebted to the organizers for the invitation to the workshop.