format: text

text:
# The pionic width of the 𝜔(782) meson within a well-defined, unitary quantum field theory of (anti-)particles and (anti-)holes

## 1 Introduction

Pions are fundamental particles of effective formulations for the description of strong interactions, not only because they are the first discovered mediators of nuclear forces, but also since most hadrons created in experiment may decay either directly, or through a cascade of decay processes, into pions, which subsequently evaporate into photons, neutrinos, and leptons. In this article we will study the decay process of the $`\omega `$(782) meson.

In the unitarised meson model (NUMM) of Ref.  it was found that, among the various two-meson channels which couple to the non-strange quark+anti-quark system with the $`\omega `$(782) quantum numbers, the $`\rho `$(770)$`\pi `$ channel is the main responsible for the correct central mass position of the $`\omega `$(782) meson. This model observation does not stand alone, but was already suggested as early as in 1962 by M. Gell-Mann, D. Sharp, and W.G. Wagner , and has been studied in a number of publications  since. It is moreover supported by experiment, as we will explain below.

In the NUMM one considers implicit mixing of the non-strange and strange $`q\overline{q}`$ sectors through their common $`K\overline{K}`$, $`K^{}\overline{K}`$, $`K\overline{K}^{}`$, and $`K^{}\overline{K}^{}`$ channels. The resulting system simultaneously describes both the $`\omega `$(782) and $`\varphi `$(1020) mesonic states, and their radial excitations. As a consequence, the NUMM $`\varphi `$(1020) mesonic state contains a small non-strange $`q\overline{q}`$ component, which fully mimics the three-pion decay width through its $`\rho `$(770)$`\pi `$ partial decay width. From experiment one deduces that at least 80 percent of the three-pion decay mode of the $`\varphi `$(1020) meson stems from a cascade process through $`\rho `$(770)$`\pi `$ . Hence, when in the NUMM the non-strange component of the $`\varphi `$(1020) meson cascades dominantly through $`\rho `$(770)$`\pi `$ into three pions, then one may safely assume that the non-strange component of its partner, the $`\omega `$(782) meson, also does.

However, with $`\rho `$ and $`\pi `$ masses of about 760 MeV and 140 MeV, respectively, in the NUMM the $`\rho `$(770)$`\pi `$ channel is closed for the $`\omega `$(782) meson. Consequently, in the NUMM one ends up with a bound state (or infinitely sharp resonance) for the model’s $`\omega `$ meson. There are two ways out of that situation: either one assumes the existence of many $`\rho `$ mesons, for instance with a Breit-Wigner-like probability distribution around the central resonance position , or one takes a complex value for the $`\rho `$ mass. Both cases evidently describe the cascade process

$$\omega \rho \pi (2\pi )\pi .$$
(1)
Substitution in the NUMM of the $`\rho `$(770)$`\pi `$ channel by a variety of $`\rho \pi `$ channels, each with a different, but real, $`\rho `$-meson mass, obviously leads to the numerical difficulty of needing to handle very many coupled channels and, moreover, to the rather ad hoc choice of their probability distribution, whereas opting for a complex $`\rho `$-meson mass gives rise to non-unitarity.

The reason for the present study is that the $`\omega `$ width is a clean application and test of a recently developed technique which allows for complex masses without violating unitarity. This formalism, the Unitary Effective Resonance Model (UERM), has been developed for fermionic degrees of freedom in order to consistently treat the dynamics of baryonic resonances .

In this paper the UERM will be extended to bosonic systems. The resulting model will then be applied to the description of the effective two-pion system with the $`\rho `$-meson quantum numbers.

The organisation of this paper is as follows. In section 2 the concept of the UERM is extended to a well-defined quantum field theory (QFT) of scalar, pseudoscalar and vector bosonic (anti-) particles and (anti-)holes with infinitesimal or non-zero width. Several interpretational points of this QFT are addressed. In section 3 we calculate the UERM result for the cascade process (1), which consistently demonstrates the indirect generation of the partial decay width of a “real” $`\omega `$ meson into three pions via the formation of an intermediate resonant $`\rho `$ meson. The conclusions and a discussion are presented in section 4.

## 2 The UERM extension to bosons

The present theoretical understanding of particle dynamics at low and intermediate energies is formulated in terms of effective field theories (EFTs), i.e., QFTs of effective degrees of freedom, which are assumed to be the low-energy limit of underlying field theories describing the dynamics of elementary (point-like) degrees of freedom. Some of the effective degrees of freedom may be considered stable, like pions in strong interactions, others are experimentally known to have finite lifetimes, like the $`\rho `$ meson, which shows they are complex dynamical systems under time evolution. In this paper we address the question of how to incorporate the latter effective degrees of freedom in a consistent way in the EFT for mesons. For effective fermionic degrees of freedom with finite lifetimes, like baryonic resonances, the formalism has been extensively described in Ref. . Here we study the extension to effective bosonic degrees of freedom, leading to a well-defined QFT of particles, anti-particles, holes, and anti-holes.

The UERM is not only well-defined with respect to boundary conditions and unitarity, it reproduces the results obtained within the commonly used QFTs in the fermionic sector exactly, while yielding small, yet non-trivial corrections in the bosonic sector stemming from the negative-energy states of bosons here defined to be bosonic holes and anti-holes. Moreover, it puts the field-theoretic treatment of bosonic degrees of freedom on the same footing as that of the fermions, it provides a new interpretation of the meaning of anti-particles and holes, and it allows a field-theoretic treatment of effective degrees of freedom with a non-zero width. The concept of a Dirac sea is no longer necessary and the Klein-Gordon equation is allowed to have negative-energy solutions without immediate Bose-Einstein condensation of bosonic states to infinite negative energy.

Furthermore, there is a close correspondence between Fock state vectors in UERM and (anti-) Gamow states in quantum mechanics (QM). Here, the Fock state vectors of (anti-)particles in UERM correspond to Gamow states in QM, whereas the Fock state vectors of (anti-)holes in UERM correspond to anti-Gamow states in QM. As a consequence several properties of states with non-zero or infinitesimal width can also be observed and studied in quantum-mechanical models treating resonances on the basis of (anti-)Gamow states . The presence of anti-Gamow states in scattering theory is essential in order to consistently handle time-reversal invariance and to restore unitarity, like the existence of (anti-)holes in UERM, which can be studied in more detail using separable potentials .

### 2.1 (Anti-)particles and (anti-)holes

#### 2.1.1 Introduction

Consider the generating functional of a real free bosonic field $`\varphi (x)`$ with the free action $`S_0[\varphi ]`$ in Minkowski space (metric tensor $`g_{\mu \nu }=`$ diag$`(+,,,)`$):

$`Z_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle D[\varphi ]\mathrm{exp}\left(iS_0[\varphi ]\right)}`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle D[\varphi ]\mathrm{exp}\left(id^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}x\frac{1}{2}\left((_\mu \varphi (x))(^\mu \varphi (x))m^2\varphi ^2(x)\right)\right)}.`$
This generating functional is only a well-defined convergent Gaussian path integral, if the (real) mass $`m`$ of the boson is analytically continued into the complex plane by introducing an infinitesimal negative imaginary part, to yield an exponential fall off of the integrand. Hence, one has to perform the replacement $`mM=mi\epsilon `$ with $`\epsilon `$ being real, positive, and infinitesimally small.

A consequence of this substitution becomes more evident if we allow for a finite width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/2`$, i.e., $`M=mi\mathrm{\Gamma }/2`$. The action (and therefore also the effective action) and the Hamilton operator are no longer hermitian, which yields a non-unitary S matrix or Dyson operator. The eigenstates of the Hamilton operator (or the Fock states) are no longer orthogonal, and, simply speaking, the “bras” ($`<\mathrm{}|`$) are no longer hermitian conjugates of the “kets” ($`|\mathrm{}>`$). Of course, the same arguments also apply to a free fermionic field. The, at least infinitesimal, non-hermiticity of the Hamilton operator is indicating that the Fock space in QFT, or the Hilbert space in QM, is incomplete. This problem has been solved for charged fermionic resonance fields of finite width within the UERM  by consistently introducing additional fields in the Lagrangian in order to restore the unitarity of the theory.

In the same way as in the fermionic case, the real bosonic field $`\varphi (x)`$ has to be replaced by a “quasi-real” field $`\varphi (x)`$ and its hermitian conjugate $`\varphi ^+(x)`$. In order to include isospin at this stage, i.e., charged fields, we start with $`N`$ “quasi-real” fields $`\varphi _r(x)`$ ($`r=1,\mathrm{},N`$) of equal complex mass $`M=mi\mathrm{\Gamma }/2`$, yielding the following free Lagrangian for what we traditionally call $`N`$ “real” (i.e. uncharged) bosons:

$`L_\varphi ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left((_\mu \varphi _r(x))(^\mu \varphi _r(x))M^2\varphi _r(x)\varphi _r(x)\right)+`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left((_\mu \varphi _r^+(x))(^\mu \varphi _r^+(x))M^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\varphi _r^+(x)\varphi _r^+(x)\right).`$
The term in the first line of formula (3) is well known. It is reponsible for the description of particles and anti-particles, while the term in the second line is absent in traditional QFTs. This term is describing what we will call holes and anti-holes. As we will see later on, with respect to movement in the forward time direction, the real part of the energy of particles and anti-particles is positive, whereas the real part of the energy of holes and anti-holes is negative. On the other hand, with respect to movement in the backward time direction, the real part of the energy of particles and anti-particles is negative, whereas the real part of the energy of holes and anti-holes is positve. So with respect to movement in the forward time direction, particles and anti-particles minimise their energy, whereas holes and anti-holes maximise their energy. With respect to movement in the backward time direction, particles and anti-particles maximise their energy, whereas holes and anti-holes minimise their energy. In our language, anti-particles are objects with opposite additive quantum numbers (e.g. charge, parity, $`\mathrm{}`$) as compared to the respective particles, except for the energy. Anti-holes have opposite additive quantum numbers as compared to the respective holes, except for the energy. This is why, with respect to the forward time direction, the energy of annihilation radiation of a particle and an anti-particle is positive and larger than or equal to twice the mass of the particle, whereas the energy of the annihilation radiation of a hole and an anti-hole is less than or equal to twice the (negative) mass of the hole. So, in the UERM there no longer exists an identification of anti-particles and holes.

The distinction between anti-particles and holes (or particles and anti-holes) seems to be quite arbitrary for objects with inifinitesimal width, yet for the field-theoretic description of systems of non-zero width it is crucial.

#### 2.1.2 Canonical quantisation of “quasi-real” boson fields

The classical equations of motion are obtained in the standard manner by varying the action $`S=d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}xL_\varphi ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}(x)`$ with respect to the fields $`\varphi _r(x)`$ and $`\varphi _r^+(x)`$ ($`r=1,\mathrm{},N`$):

$$(^2+M^2)\varphi _r(x)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},(^2+M^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})\varphi _r^+(x)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$
(4)
Obviously, equations (4) are pairwise complex conjugate to each other, i.e., pairwise equivalent, while each equation contains two coupled equations for the real and imaginary part of $`\varphi _r(x)`$ and $`\varphi _r^+(x)`$, respectively. The standard canonical conjugate momenta to the fields $`\varphi _r(x)`$ and $`\varphi _r^+(x)`$ are ($`r=1,\mathrm{},N`$)

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_r(x)=\frac{\delta L_\varphi ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}(x)}{\delta (_0\varphi _r(x))}=_0\varphi _r(x),\mathrm{\Pi }_r^+(x)=\frac{\delta L_\varphi ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}(x)}{\delta (_0\varphi _r^+(x))}=_0\varphi _r^+(x).$$
(5)
Canonical quantisation in configuration space yields the non-vanishing equal-time commutation relations ($`r,s=1,\mathrm{},N`$)

$`[\varphi _r(\stackrel{}{x},t),\mathrm{\Pi }_s(\stackrel{}{y},t)]`$ $`=`$ $`i\delta ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})\delta _{rs}`$
$`[\varphi _r^+(\stackrel{}{x},t),\mathrm{\Pi }_s^+(\stackrel{}{y},t)]`$ $`=`$ $`i\delta ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})\delta _{rs}.`$ (6)
The classical equations of motion (4) can be solved by a standard Laplace transform. The corresponding transformation for the field operators reads ($`\omega (|\stackrel{}{k}|)=\sqrt{|\stackrel{}{k}|^2+M^2}`$ with Re$`(\omega (|\stackrel{}{k}|))0`$, $`k^\mu =(\omega (|\stackrel{}{k}|),\stackrel{}{k})`$, and $`k^\mu =(\omega ^{}(|\stackrel{}{k}|),\stackrel{}{k})`$)($`r=1,\mathrm{},N`$)

$`\varphi _r(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\omega (|\stackrel{}{k}|)}\left[a(\stackrel{}{k},r)e^{ikx}+c^+(\stackrel{}{k},r)e^{ikx}\right]}`$
$`\varphi _r^+(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\omega ^{}(|\stackrel{}{k}|)}\left[c(\stackrel{}{k},r)e^{ik^{}x}+a^+(\stackrel{}{k},r)e^{ik^{}x}\right]}.`$ (7)
The consistent non-vanishing commutation relations for creation and annihilation operators in momentum space are ($`r,s=1,\mathrm{},N`$)

$`[a(\stackrel{}{k},r),c^+(\stackrel{}{k}^{},s)]`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi )^3\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\omega (|\stackrel{}{k}|)\delta ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}^{})\delta _{rs}`$
$`[c(\stackrel{}{k},r),a^+(\stackrel{}{k}^{},s)]`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi )^3\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\omega ^{}(|\stackrel{}{k}|)\delta ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}^{})\delta _{rs}.`$ (8)
At this point it can been seen that creation and annihilation operators are not hermitian conjugate to one another.

Before making further interpretations of creation and annihilation operators, it is useful to construct the free Hamilton operator in the standard manner, i.e.,

$`H_\varphi ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}x\left[\underset{r}{}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_r(x)(_0\varphi _r(x))+(_0\varphi _r^+(x))\mathrm{\Pi }_r^+(x)\right)L_\varphi ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}(x)\right]}`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}{\displaystyle d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}k\frac{1}{2}\omega (|\stackrel{}{k}|)\left(c^+(\stackrel{}{k},r)a(\stackrel{}{k},r)+a(\stackrel{}{k},r)c^+(\stackrel{}{k},r)\right)}+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}{\displaystyle d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}k\frac{1}{2}\omega ^{}(|\stackrel{}{k}|)\left(a^+(\stackrel{}{k},r)c(\stackrel{}{k},r)+c(\stackrel{}{k},r)a^+(\stackrel{}{k},r)\right)}.`$
Keeping in mind that the the words “creation” and “annihilation” are associated with the forward time direction, we can read off from formula (9) the simple identifications

$`c^+`$ $``$ $`\text{creation operator of (uncharged) bosonic particle},`$
$`a^+`$ $``$ $`\text{creation operator of (uncharged) bosonic hole},`$
$`c`$ $``$ $`\text{annihilation operator of (uncharged) bosonic hole},`$
$`a`$ $``$ $`\text{annihilation operator of (uncharged) bosonic particle}.`$ (10)
As the (anti-)particle and (anti-)hole subsectors of the Hamilton operator are not hermitian, the left and right eigenvectors of these parts of the Hamiltonian are not just related by hermitian conjugation. Hence, the Hamilton operator $`H_\varphi ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}`$ is “diagonal” in a more generalised sense. For example, the “diagonal” matrix elements of $`H_\varphi ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}`$ corresponding to one-(anti-)particle or one-(anti-) hole states, are $`<0|aH_\varphi ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}c^+|0>`$ and $`<0|cH_\varphi ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}a^+|0>`$, while the vanishing “off-diagonal” matrix elements are $`<0|cH_\varphi ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}c^+|0>`$ and $`<0|aH_\varphi ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}a^+|0>`$. A similiar discussion applies in general to the calculation of expectation values.

It is straightforward to evaluate the following identity for the Feynman propagator of an uncharged bosonic field ($`r,s=1,\mathrm{},N`$):

$`i\mathrm{\Delta }_F(xy)\delta _{rs}`$ $`=`$ $`<0|T(\varphi _r(x)\varphi _s(y))|0>=i{\displaystyle \frac{d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{e^{ik(xy)}}{k^2M^2}\delta _{rs}}.`$
#### 2.1.3 Canonical quantisation of the “complex” boson field

In order to proceed in the standard manner, we also consider the simplest case of a charged bosonic field, i.e., $`N=2`$ (an example would be the $`\rho ^\pm `$ system). We can define as usual the eigenstates of positive and negative charge by $`\varphi _\pm (x)=(\varphi _1(x)\pm i\varphi _2(x))/\sqrt{2}`$. Inserting these states into (3) we obtain the free Lagrangian

$`L_\varphi ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`(_\mu \varphi _+(x))(^\mu \varphi _{}(x))M^2\varphi _+(x)\varphi _{}(x)+`$ (12)
$`+`$ $`(_\mu \varphi _{}^+(x))(^\mu \varphi _+^+(x))M^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\varphi _{}^+(x)\varphi _+^+(x).`$
Without loss of generality we have chosen an asymmetric field ordering, which is very suitable for the quantisation of the system. If we make the replacement $`\varphi _{}(x)\varphi _R(x)`$ and $`\varphi _+(x)\varphi _L^+(x)`$, we are back to the notation of Ref. , but now for the charged bosonic case. For the free Lagrangian we then obtain

$`L_\varphi ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`(_\mu \varphi _L^+(x))(^\mu \varphi _R(x))M^2\varphi _L^+(x)\varphi _R(x)+`$ (13)
$`+`$ $`(_\mu \varphi _R^+(x))(^\mu \varphi _L(x))M^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\varphi _R^+(x)\varphi _L(x).`$
The Lagrange equations of motion are now

$$(^2+M^2)\varphi _\pm (x)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},(^2+M^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})\varphi _{}^+(x)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$
(14)
The standard canonical momenta conjugate to the fields $`\varphi _\pm (x)`$ and $`\varphi _\pm ^+(x)`$ are

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\pm (x)=\frac{\delta L_\varphi ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}(x)}{\delta (_0\varphi _\pm (x))}=_0\varphi _{}(x),\mathrm{\Pi }_\pm ^+(x)=\frac{\delta L_\varphi ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}(x)}{\delta (_0\varphi _\pm ^+(x))}=_0\varphi _{}^+(x).$$
(15)
Canonical quantisation in configuration space yields the non-vanishing equal-time commutation relations

$`[\varphi _\pm (\stackrel{}{x},t),\mathrm{\Pi }_\pm (\stackrel{}{y},t)]`$ $`=`$ $`i\delta ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})`$
$`[\varphi _\pm ^+(\stackrel{}{x},t),\mathrm{\Pi }_\pm ^+(\stackrel{}{y},t)]`$ $`=`$ $`i\delta ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}).`$ (16)
The Laplace transformation for the charged field operators gives

$`\varphi _\pm (x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\omega (|\stackrel{}{k}|)}\left[a_\pm (\stackrel{}{k})e^{ikx}+c_{}^+(\stackrel{}{k})e^{ikx}\right]}`$
$`\varphi _\pm ^+(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\omega ^{}(|\stackrel{}{k}|)}\left[c_{}(\stackrel{}{k})e^{ik^{}x}+a_\pm ^+(\stackrel{}{k})e^{ik^{}x}\right]},`$ (17)
with the following non-vanishing commutation relations for creation and annihilation operators in momentum space:

$`[a_\pm (\stackrel{}{k}),c_\pm ^+(\stackrel{}{k}^{})]`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi )^3\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\omega (|\stackrel{}{k}|)\delta ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}^{})`$
$`[c_\pm (\stackrel{}{k}),a_\pm ^+(\stackrel{}{k}^{})]`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi )^3\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\omega ^{}(|\stackrel{}{k}|)\delta ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}^{}).`$ (18)
The Hamilton operator is

$`H_\varphi ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}k{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega (|\stackrel{}{k}|)(c_+^+(\stackrel{}{k})a_+(\stackrel{}{k})+c_{}^+(\stackrel{}{k})a_{}(\stackrel{}{k})`$ (19)
$`+a_+(\stackrel{}{k})c_+^+(\stackrel{}{k})+a_{}(\stackrel{}{k})c_{}^+(\stackrel{}{k}))`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}k{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega ^{}(|\stackrel{}{k}|)(a_{}^+(\stackrel{}{k})c_{}(\stackrel{}{k})+a_+^+(\stackrel{}{k})c_+(\stackrel{}{k})`$
$`+c_{}(\stackrel{}{k})a_{}^+(\stackrel{}{k})+c_+(\stackrel{}{k})a_+^+(\stackrel{}{k})).`$
Again keeping in mind that the words “creation” and “annihilation” are associated with the forward time direction, we can read off the following identifications (starting with a positively charged particle):

$`c_+^+`$ $``$ $`\text{creation operator of (charged) bosonic particle},`$
$`c_{}^+`$ $``$ $`\text{creation operator of (charged) bosonic anti-particle},`$
$`a_+^+`$ $``$ $`\text{creation operator of (charged) bosonic anti-hole},`$
$`a_{}^+`$ $``$ $`\text{creation operator of (charged) bosonic hole},`$
$`a_+`$ $``$ $`\text{annihilation operator of (charged) bosonic particle},`$
$`a_{}`$ $``$ $`\text{annihilation operator of (charged) bosonic anti-particle},`$
$`c_+`$ $``$ $`\text{annihilation operator of (charged) bosonic anti-hole},`$
$`c_{}`$ $``$ $`\text{annihilation operator of (charged) bosonic hole}.`$ (20)
Obviously, we can make the identifications $`a_\pm =(a_1\pm ia_2)/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`c_\pm =(c_1\pm ic_2)/\sqrt{2}`$. The Feynman propagator of a charged bosonic field reads

$$i\mathrm{\Delta }_F(xy)=<0|T(\varphi _{}(x)\varphi _+(y))|0>=i\frac{d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{e^{ik(xy)}}{k^2M^2}.$$
(21)
#### 2.1.4 Introduction of resonant bosonic vector fields

In Ref.  it was observed that in the fermionic case a consistent redefinition of spinors is necessary. Hence, in order to introduce resonant bosonic vector fields we must similarly find a consistent formulation of polarisation vectors for resonant vector mesons. The problematic point about the definition of a polarisation operator for a resonant field becomes more obvious here than in the case of a spinor. The reason is simple: one defines a momentum-dependent polarisation vector of a vector particle (quasi-real mass $`M=mi\epsilon `$) by boosting the constant rest-frame polarisation vector, i.e., one defines the polarisation vectors by

$`\epsilon ^{\mu \lambda _z}(\stackrel{}{p})`$ $`=`$ $`(\epsilon ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\lambda _z}(\stackrel{}{p}),\stackrel{}{\epsilon }^{\lambda _z}(\stackrel{}{p}))=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu (\stackrel{}{p})\epsilon ^{\nu \lambda _z}(\stackrel{}{0})`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{\epsilon }^{\lambda _z}}{M}},\stackrel{}{\epsilon }^{\lambda _z}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{\epsilon }^{\lambda _z}}{M(\omega (|\stackrel{}{p}|)+M)}}\stackrel{}{p}).`$
Here, $`\mu `$ is a Lorentz index with $`\mu =0,1,2,3`$ and $`\lambda _z=0,\pm 1`$ is the polarisation index. The properties of the three polarisation vectors of such a massive vector boson are well known:

$`p_\mu |_{p^0=\omega (|\stackrel{}{p}|)}\epsilon ^{\mu \lambda _z}(\stackrel{}{p})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}`$
$`(1)^{\lambda _z}\epsilon ^{\lambda _z}(\stackrel{}{p})\epsilon ^{\lambda _z^{}}(\stackrel{}{p})`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{\lambda _z}\epsilon ^{\mu \lambda _z}(\stackrel{}{p})\epsilon _\mu ^{\lambda _z^{}}(\stackrel{}{p})=\delta ^{\lambda _z\lambda _z^{}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _z}{}}(1)^{\lambda _z}\epsilon ^{\mu \lambda _z}(\stackrel{}{p})\epsilon ^{\nu \lambda _z}(\stackrel{}{p})`$ $`=`$ $`g^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{p^\mu p^\nu }{M^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}.`$ (23)
The question is now how to extend this description to a resonant particle with complex mass $`M=mi\mathrm{\Gamma }/2`$. Or in other words: what is the correct boost matrix for a resonant field? Is it the real boost matrix based on velocities $`\stackrel{}{\beta }`$ or is it the complex boost matrix based on momenta, energies, and complex masses? As the definition of the orbital angular momentum is based on momenta ($`\stackrel{}{L}=\stackrel{}{r}\times \stackrel{}{p}`$ ) and not on velocities, we prefer here to choose the complex boost matrix based on momenta, energies, and complex masses, i.e., we make the definition

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu (\stackrel{}{p})=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega (|\stackrel{}{p}|)}{M}}& & {\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}^T}{M}}\\ & & \\ {\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}}{M}}& & 1_3+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p}^T}{M(M+\omega (|\stackrel{}{p}|))}}\end{array}\right).`$ (27)
The consequence is, of course, that a boost of a resonance field from a real space-time point will lead to complex space-time, which is not so unnatural though, as a resonant particle will decay in the future, i.e., it will disappear from space-time. Of course, it would be interesting to discuss what is the meaning of the words energy conservation (or, in general, the conservation of quantum numbers), simultaneity, and causality for resonant fields, and to find the answer to the question where in the complex space-time is the rest frame of a moving resonant particle like the $`\rho `$ meson.

Returning to the introduction of bosonic field operators, we can now consistently write down the Laplace transformation of bosonic resonant vector field operators like the $`\rho `$ meson ($`\chi _{t_z}`$ represent the isospinors):

$`\varphi ^\mu (x)={\displaystyle \underset{t_z}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _z}{}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\omega (|\stackrel{}{k}|)}}`$
$`[\epsilon ^{\mu \lambda _z}(\stackrel{}{k})\chi _{t_z}a(\stackrel{}{k},\lambda _z,t_z)e^{ikx}`$
$`+(1)^{\lambda _z}\epsilon ^{\mu \lambda _z}(\stackrel{}{k})\chi _{t_z}^+c^+(\stackrel{}{k},\lambda _z,t_z)e^{ikx}]`$
$`\varphi ^{+\mu }(x)={\displaystyle \underset{t_z}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _z}{}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\omega ^{}(|\stackrel{}{k}|)}}`$ (28)
$`[(1)^{\lambda _z}(\epsilon ^{\mu \lambda _z}(\stackrel{}{k}))^{}\chi _{t_z}c(\stackrel{}{k},\lambda _z,t_z)e^{ik^{}x}`$
$`+(\epsilon ^{\mu \lambda _z}(\stackrel{}{k}))^{}\chi _{t_z}^+a^+(\stackrel{}{k},\lambda _z,t_z)e^{ik^{}x}].`$
Using these field operators, it is now straightforward to calculate the corresponding Feynman propagator ($`\varphi ^\mu (x)=\underset{t_z}{}\underset{\lambda _z}{}\varphi _{t_z}^{\mu \lambda _z}(x)`$ ):

$`i\mathrm{\Delta }_F^{\mu \nu }(xy)\delta ^{\lambda _z\lambda _z^{}}\delta _{t_zt_z^{}}=<0|T(\varphi _{t_z}^{\mu \lambda _z}(x)\varphi _{t_z^{}}^{\nu \lambda _z^{}}(y))|0>=`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{e^{ik(xy)}}{k^2M^2}\left(g^{\mu \nu }+\frac{k^\mu k^\nu }{M^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}\right)\delta ^{\lambda _z\lambda _z^{}}\delta _{t_zt_z^{}}}.`$
The quantisation of resonant vector fields is analogous to the quantisation of resonant scalar fields.

### 2.2 Interactions

Following the discussion of the free QFTs, it is now interesting to study the consistent implementation of interactions. Let us start with a quasi-real (uncharged) bosonic QFT ($`N=1`$), for which we consider the interaction ($`\varphi ^3`$-theory) Lagrangian

$`L_\varphi (x)`$ $`=`$ $`L_\varphi ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}(x)+L_\varphi ^{int}(x)`$
$`L_\varphi ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left((_\mu \varphi (x))(^\mu \varphi (x))M^2\varphi (x)\varphi (x)\right)+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left((_\mu \varphi ^+(x))(^\mu \varphi ^+(x))M^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\varphi ^+(x)\varphi ^+(x)\right)`$
$`L_\varphi ^{int}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}g_3\varphi ^3(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}g_{2,1}\varphi ^2(x)\varphi ^+(x)`$ (30)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}g_3^{}(\varphi ^+(x))^3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}g_{2,1}^{}\varphi (x)(\varphi ^+(x))^2,`$
where $`g_3`$ and $`g_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},1}`$ are, for the moment, arbitrary complex coupling constants. The interaction terms containing both $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi ^+`$ fields need special consideration, as they yield direct interactions between (anti-)particles and (anti-)holes. The consequence of these terms is that e.g. a particle can lower its energy by creating an infinite number of holes, whereas a hole can increase its energy by creating an infinite number of particles. This situation is commonly called “radiation catastrophe” and has been cured in the fermionic case by the introduction of a Dirac sea, whereas in the bosonic case the Bose-Einstein condensation of particles to infinite negative energies has been avoided by forbidding the existence of the negative-energy states of the Klein-Gordon equation. This asymmetric and arbitrary treatment of the problem of fermionic and bosonic negative-energy states in QFT is quite unsatisfactory, as was pointed out e.g. in Chapter 1 of .

In order to avoid the “radiation catastrophe” in a way which is symmetric for fermions and bosons, the following rule has to be made up<sup>4</sup><sup>4</sup>4With respect to Ref. , the rule is equivalent to demanding the diagonal elements of the vertex matrix to be zero.

:
Direct interactions between (anti-)particles and (anti-)holes aren’t allowed!
As a consequence for the Lagrangian under consideration, formula (30), we have to set $`g_{2,1}=g_{2,1}^{}=0`$.

## 3 The $`𝝎\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟕𝟖𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}𝝅`$ partial decay width

### 3.1 The standard lowest-order chiral Lagrangian of the $`𝝎𝝆𝝅`$ system

The $`\omega \rho \pi `$ system can be described in a simple meson picture by the phenomenological “effective” Lagrangian

$$L(x)=L_\omega ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}(x)+L_\rho ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}(x)+L_\pi ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}(x)+L_{\omega \rho \pi }^{int}(x)+L_{\rho \pi \pi }^{int}(x)+\mathrm{}.$$
(31)
For the determination of the respective Lagrangians, we will follow Ref. , based on the “hidden-symmetry approach” of Ref. . First we define the SU(3)-octet matrix for the pseudoscalar mesons by:

$`P`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^0}{\sqrt{2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _8}{\sqrt{6}}}& & \pi ^+& & K^+\\ \pi ^{}& & {\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^0}{\sqrt{2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _8}{\sqrt{6}}}& & K^0\\ K^{}& & \overline{K}^0& & {\displaystyle \frac{2\eta _8}{\sqrt{6}}}\end{array}\right).`$ (35)
Here we made the reasonable approximation $`\eta _3\pi ^0`$, i.e., we assume that $`\eta _8`$ does not contain any $`\pi ^0`$-component. The corresponding matrix for the “ideally mixed” vector-meson-octet — “ideal mixing” is suggested to good accuracy by nature (see e.g. the Quark Model section of Ref. ) — can be introduced by:

$`V`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^0}{\sqrt{2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\sqrt{2}}}& & \rho ^+& & K^+\\ \rho ^{}& & {\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^0}{\sqrt{2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\sqrt{2}}}& & K^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}\\ K^{}& & \overline{K}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}& & \varphi \end{array}\right).`$ (39)
The lowest-order interactions between VPP and PVV systems in the “hidden-symmetry” Lagrangian is described by the terms ($`\epsilon ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0123}}=1`$)

$`L_{VPP}^{int}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`ig\text{Tr}\left[V_\mu P(^\mu P)V_\mu (^\mu P)P\right]`$
$`L_{VVP}^{int}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_\pi }{\sqrt{2}}}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\text{Tr}\left[(_\mu V_\nu )(_\alpha V_\beta )P\right].`$ (40)
For the interaction in the $`\omega \rho \pi `$ system, these Lagrangians yield for “ideal mixing” of the neutral vector mesons involved

$`L_{\rho \pi \pi }^{int}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}g\stackrel{}{\rho }_\mu (x)\left[\stackrel{}{\pi }(x)\times (^\mu \stackrel{}{\pi }(x))\right]`$
$`L_{\omega \rho \pi }^{int}(x)`$ $``$ $`G_\pi \epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }(_\mu \omega _\nu (x))(_\alpha \stackrel{}{\rho }_\beta (x))\stackrel{}{\pi }(x),`$ (41)
Henceforth we will use for couplings the notation of Ref. , i.e., $`g=g_{\rho \pi \pi }/\sqrt{2}`$, $`f=\sqrt{2}F_\pi 132`$ MeV with $`F_\pi 93`$ MeV and $`G_\pi =\sqrt{2}gg_{\omega \pi ^0\gamma }`$. The order of accuracy of the relation between the couplings and the vector-meson masses of the “hidden-symmetry” Lagrangian, i.e., $`m_\rho ^2m_\omega ^2m_V^2=2g^2f^20.60`$ GeV<sup>2</sup>, suggests to what accuracy our later results have to be interpreted.

Lagrangian (31) is quasi-hermitian and consists of quasi-real meson fields only. If one tries to take into account the observed finite decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho `$ of the $`\rho `$ meson into two pions, one will have to include higher-loop terms up to infinite order in perturbation theory to simulate the resonant $`\rho `$ intermediate state.

### 3.2 Determination of $`𝚪\mathbf{(}𝝎\mathbf{}𝝆𝝅\mathbf{}𝝅𝝅𝝅\mathbf{)}`$ from an effective Lagrangian based on the well-defined QFT

In order to perform a tree-level calculation without loops<sup>5</sup><sup>5</sup>5This is in the spirit of the loop shrinking that appears in  in the treatment of the L$`\sigma `$M Lagrangian and the extraction of finite information out of its lowest-order loop diagrams., which is containing the essential information of the calculation within a quasi-real theory to all orders of perturbation theory, one can replace the Lagrangian of quasi-real fields by an effective Lagrangian containing resonant fields, which then have to be treated consistently within the well-defined QFT.

In practical calculations, one may obtain such a physically realistic $`\rho `$ resonance in a coupled-channel approach, by also including several virtual two-meson channels, as for instance is done in Ref. . This $`\rho `$ resonance will then serve as an input in the effective-Lagrangian approach to calculate the leading-order $`\omega `$ decay width.

The $`\rho `$ meson is described within such an effective Lagrangian by a resonant degree of freedom with a complex constant<sup>6</sup><sup>6</sup>6This assumption of course neglects the momentum dependence of the pole paramaters $`m_\rho `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho `$. “mass” $`M_\rho =m_\rho i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho /2`$, whereas the $`\omega `$ and $`\pi `$ mesons, due to their comparatively small decay widths, can be treated as quasi-real fields. The effective Lagrangian of the $`\omega \rho \pi `$ system in the well-defined QFT will then be

$`L^{}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\omega _{\mu \nu }(x)\omega ^{\mu \nu }(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m_\omega i\epsilon )^2\omega _\mu (x)\omega ^\mu (x)`$ (42)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\stackrel{}{\rho }_{\mu \nu }(x)\stackrel{}{\rho }^{\mu \nu }(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_\rho ^2\stackrel{}{\rho }_\mu (x)\stackrel{}{\rho }^\mu (x)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left((_\mu \stackrel{}{\pi }(x))(^\mu \stackrel{}{\pi }(x))(m_\pi i\epsilon )^2\stackrel{}{\pi }(x)\stackrel{}{\pi }(x)\right)`$
$`+G_\pi ^{}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }(_\mu \omega _\nu (x))(_\alpha \stackrel{}{\rho }_\beta (x))\stackrel{}{\pi }(x)`$
$`\sqrt{2}g^{}\stackrel{}{\rho }_\mu (x)[\stackrel{}{\pi }(x)\times (^\mu \stackrel{}{\pi }(x))]+\mathrm{})+\text{h.c.}.`$
Some important questions are now: How will the parameters $`G_\pi ^{}`$ and $`g^{}`$ of the effective Lagrangian change when compared to the original Lagrangian? Will they develop a complex phase? What are the compensating interaction terms in the effective Lagrangian which guarantee the quasi-reality of the effective action in the (anti-)particle and the (anti-)hole sector. How will the phase-space integral change, if there are resonant fields in the final state? Some of these questions we try to answer in the following discussion. For simplicity we choose $`G_\pi ^{}G_\pi `$ and $`g^{}g`$. If the thus calculated partial $`\omega `$ width into three pions turns out to be within the range of the experimental measurements, then this assumption should be reasonable, otherwise it will have to be reconsidered.

Using the introduced effective Lagrangian $`L^{}(x)`$, the partial decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega \rho \pi \pi \pi \pi )`$ is calculated to lowest, though leading, order by (see e.g. p. 80 in Ref. )($`s=p^2=m_\omega ^2`$)

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\omega \rho \pi \pi \pi \pi }(\stackrel{}{p}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{s}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _z}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{t_{z1}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{t_{z2}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{t_{z3}}{}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k_1}{2\omega _\pi (|\stackrel{}{k}_1|)}\frac{d^3k_2}{2\omega _\pi (|\stackrel{}{k}_2|)}\frac{d^3k_3}{2\omega _\pi (|\stackrel{}{k}_3|)}\delta ^4(k_1+k_2+k_3p)}`$
$`|<\pi (\stackrel{}{k}_1,t_{z1})\pi (\stackrel{}{k}_2,t_{z2})\pi (\stackrel{}{k}_3,t_{z3})|T[i^2:L_{\rho \pi \pi }^{int}(0)::S_{\omega \rho \pi }^{int}:]|\omega (\stackrel{}{p},\lambda _z)>|^2.`$
To be more explicit, the in- and out-state vectors in terms of creation and annihilation operators are given by

$`<\pi (\stackrel{}{k}_1,t_{z1})\pi (\stackrel{}{k}_2,t_{z2})\pi (\stackrel{}{k}_3,t_{z3})|`$ $`=`$ $`<0|a_\pi (\stackrel{}{k}_3,t_{z3})a_\pi (\stackrel{}{k}_2,t_{z2})a_\pi (\stackrel{}{k}_1,t_{z1})`$
$`|\omega (\stackrel{}{p},\lambda _z)>`$ $`=`$ $`c_\omega ^+(\stackrel{}{p},\lambda _z)|0>.`$ (44)
The T matrix of the process can be simplified by Wick’s theorem<sup>7</sup><sup>7</sup>7Within the developed formalism for resonant fields, the proof of the validity of Wick’s theorem is straightforward, but for the (anti-)hole sector of the theory one has to replace the time-ordered particle propagators by the anti-time-ordered hole propagators.:

$`iT_{fi}=<\pi (\stackrel{}{k}_1,t_{z1})\pi (\stackrel{}{k}_2,t_{z2})\pi (\stackrel{}{k}_3,t_{z3})|T[i^2:L_{\rho \pi \pi }^{int}(0)::S_{\omega \rho \pi }^{int}:]|\omega (\stackrel{}{p},\lambda _z)>`$
$`=`$ $`i^2{\displaystyle d^4z<\pi (\stackrel{}{k}_1,t_{z1})\pi (\stackrel{}{k}_2,t_{z2})\pi (\stackrel{}{k}_3,t_{z3})|}`$
$`T[:\sqrt{2}g^{}\stackrel{}{\rho }_{\overline{\mu }}(x)\left[(^{\overline{\mu }}\stackrel{}{\pi }(x)\times \stackrel{}{\pi }(x))\right]|_{x=0}::G_\pi ^{}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }(_\mu \omega _\nu (z))(_\alpha \stackrel{}{\rho }_\beta (z))\stackrel{}{\pi }(z):]|\omega (\stackrel{}{p},\lambda _z)>`$ (45)
$`=`$ $`i^2{\displaystyle d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}ze^{ix(k_1+k_2)+iz(k_3p)}i\frac{d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{e^{ik(xz)}}{k^2M_\rho ^2}\left(g_{\overline{\mu }\beta }+\frac{k_{\overline{\mu }}k_\beta }{M_\rho ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}\right)}`$
$`\sqrt{2}g^{}G_\pi ^{}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\epsilon _{t_{z1}t_{z2}t_{z3}}i(k_1^{\overline{\mu }}k_2^{\overline{\mu }})(i)p_\mu \epsilon _\nu ^{\lambda _z}(\stackrel{}{p})_\omega (ik_\alpha )|_{x=0}+`$
$`+`$ terms obtained by cyclic permutation of indices 1, 2 and 3
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}k\frac{d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}z}{(2\pi )^4}e^{iz(k+k_3p)}\frac{1}{k^2M_\rho ^2}\left(k_{1\beta }+k_{2\beta }+\frac{(k_1k_2)kk_\beta }{M_\rho ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}\right)}`$
$`\sqrt{2}g^{}G_\pi ^{}\epsilon _{t_{z1}t_{z2}t_{z3}}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }p_\mu \epsilon _\nu ^{\lambda _z}(\stackrel{}{p})_\omega k_\alpha `$
$`+`$ terms obtained by cyclic permutation of indices 1, 2 and 3
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}k\delta ^4(k+k_3p)\frac{1}{k^2M_\rho ^2}\left(k_{1\beta }+k_{2\beta }\right)\sqrt{2}g^{}G_\pi ^{}\epsilon _{t_{z1}t_{z2}t_{z3}}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }p_\mu \epsilon _\nu ^{\lambda _z}(\stackrel{}{p})_\omega k_\alpha }`$
$`+`$ terms obtained by cyclic permutation of indices 1, 2 and 3
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}g^{}G_\pi ^{}\epsilon _{t_{z1}t_{z2}t_{z3}}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }p_\mu \epsilon _\nu ^{\lambda _z}(\stackrel{}{p})_\omega `$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_{3\alpha }(k_{1\beta }k_{2\beta })}{(pk_3)^2M_\rho ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_{1\alpha }(k_{2\beta }k_{3\beta })}{(pk_1)^2M_\rho ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_{2\alpha }(k_{3\beta }k_{1\beta })}{(pk_2)^2M_\rho ^2}}\right).`$
Before proceeding it is useful to make a short remark: so far all partial derivatives acting on the resonant $`\rho `$ fields were acting directly on the exponential function of the Laplace transform of the $`\rho `$ propagator. As a consequence, the partial derivatives were replaced by $`i`$ times plus or minus some real momentum. Therefore, we had no difficulties afterwards to replace the configuration integrals over these exponentials by four-momentum-conserving $`\delta `$-distributions and to perform the final four-momentum integration in the variable $`k`$. However, if we had some resonant fields in the initial or final states, the derivatives would act on the plane-wave exponentials of these fields, which would lead to a replacement of the derivatives by complex four-momenta. Even worse: the plane-wave exponentials would enter the configuration integrals, which would give four-momentum-conserving $`\delta `$-distributions. As they would now contain complex four-momenta, the resulting integrals would no longer be simple $`\delta `$-distributions, i.e., they could not be easily integrated away. The conclusion is that, for intermediate resonance fields we have no difficulties with the four-momentum-conserving $`\delta `$-distributions, whereas for resonance fields in the initial or final state we run into problems. Even worse, the overall four-momentum conservation in the phase-space integral would have to be reformulated for resonant fields in the final state. The next step is to perform the spin-isospin averaging of $`|iT_{fi}|^2`$. We obtain:

$`\overline{|iT_{fi}|^2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _z}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{t_{z1}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{t_{z2}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{t_{z3}}{}}|iT_{fi}|^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _z}{}}|\sqrt{2}g^{}G_\pi ^{}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }p_\mu \epsilon _\nu ^{\lambda _z}(\stackrel{}{p})_\omega `$ (46)
$`({\displaystyle \frac{k_{3\alpha }(k_{1\beta }k_{2\beta })}{(pk_3)^2M_\rho ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_{1\alpha }(k_{2\beta }k_{3\beta })}{(pk_1)^2M_\rho ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_{2\alpha }(k_{3\beta }k_{1\beta })}{(pk_2)^2M_\rho ^2}})|^2.`$
At this point we again have to make a remark. Only because the decaying $`\omega `$ meson is treated as a real particle, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega =\epsilon `$, we can use the following identity for its polarisation vector:

$$\underset{\lambda _z}{}\epsilon _\nu ^{\lambda _z}(\stackrel{}{p})_\omega (\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }}^{\lambda _z}(\stackrel{}{p})_\omega )^{}=g_{\nu \overline{\nu }}+\frac{p_\nu p_{\overline{\nu }}}{m_\omega ^2}.$$
(47)
As already described above, in general the relation $`(\epsilon _\mu ^{\lambda _z}(\stackrel{}{p}))^{}=(1)^{\lambda _z}\epsilon _\mu ^{\lambda _z}(\stackrel{}{p})`$ is no longer valid for objects with complex mass and has to be modified. Using these results we continue the spin-isospin averaging. In the end, using the symmetry of the phase-space integral under arbitrary permutations of the three mass degenerate pions in the final state we obtain the following expression for the partial width:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\omega \rho \pi \pi \pi \pi }(\stackrel{}{p}){\displaystyle \frac{|\sqrt{2}g^{}G_\pi ^{}|^2}{2\sqrt{s}(2\pi )^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k_1}{2\omega _\pi (|\stackrel{}{k}_1|)}\frac{d^3k_2}{2\omega _\pi (|\stackrel{}{k}_2|)}\frac{d^3k_3}{2\omega _\pi (|\stackrel{}{k}_3|)}\delta ^4(k_1+k_2+k_3p)}`$ (56)
$`\left\{\right|\begin{array}{ccccc}p^2& & k_3p& & (k_1k_2)p\\ pk_3& & k_3^2& & (k_1k_2)k_3\\ p(k_1k_2)& & k_3(k_1k_2)& & (k_1k_2)^2\end{array}|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|(pk_3)^2M_\rho ^2|^2}}`$
$`+\left|\begin{array}{ccccc}p^2& & k_3p& & (k_1k_2)p\\ pk_1& & k_3k_1& & (k_1k_2)k_1\\ p(k_2k_3)& & k_3(k_2k_3)& & (k_1k_2)(k_2k_3)\end{array}\right|`$
$`2\text{Re}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{((pk_3)^2M_\rho ^2)((pk_1)^2M_\rho ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})}}\right]\}.`$
Using four momentum contraints provided by the phase-space integral both determinats can be brought to the same form yielding:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\omega \rho \pi \pi \pi \pi }(\stackrel{}{p}){\displaystyle \frac{|\sqrt{2}g^{}G_\pi ^{}|^2}{2\sqrt{s}(2\pi )^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k_1}{2\omega _\pi (|\stackrel{}{k}_1|)}\frac{d^3k_2}{2\omega _\pi (|\stackrel{}{k}_2|)}\frac{d^3k_3}{2\omega _\pi (|\stackrel{}{k}_3|)}\delta ^4(k_1+k_2+k_3p)}`$
$`4\left|\begin{array}{ccccc}p^2& & k_3p& & pk_1\\ pk_3& & m_\pi ^2& & k_1k_3\\ pk_1& & k_1k_3& & m_\pi ^2\end{array}\right|`$
$`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|(pk_3)^2M_\rho ^2|^2}}+2\text{Re}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{((pk_3)^2M_\rho ^2)((pk_1)^2M_\rho ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})}}\right]\right\}.`$
In order to evaluate the phase-space integral, it is useful to introduce the Lorentz invariants $`s=p^2=m_\omega ^2`$ and

$$s_1=(k_1+k_2)^2=(pk_3)^3,s_2=(k_2+k_3)^2=(pk_1)^2.$$
(62)
The following Lorentz-invariant scalar products of four-momenta are relevant to our calculation:

$`2`$ $`pk_1=m_\pi ^2+ss_2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}2}pk_3=m_\pi ^2+ss_1,`$ (63)
$`2`$ $`k_1k_3=m_\pi ^2+ss_1s_2.`$
Application of these scalar products yields the following expression for the decay width:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\omega \rho \pi \pi \pi \pi }(\stackrel{}{p}){\displaystyle \frac{|\sqrt{2}g^{}G_\pi ^{}|^2}{2\sqrt{s}(2\pi )^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{4s}}{\displaystyle _{(2m_\pi )^2}^{(\sqrt{s}m_\pi )^2}}𝑑s_1{\displaystyle _{s_2^{}}^{s_2^+}}𝑑s_2`$
$`\left[s_1^2s_2+s_1s_2(ss_2+3m_\pi ^2)m_\pi ^2(sm_\pi ^2)^2\right]`$
$`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|s_1M_\rho ^2|^2}}+2\text{Re}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(s_1M_\rho ^2)(s_2M_\rho ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})}}\right]\right\}`$
or

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\omega \rho \pi \pi \pi \pi }(\stackrel{}{p}){\displaystyle \frac{|\sqrt{2}g^{}G_\pi ^{}|^2}{2\sqrt{s}(2\pi )^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{4s}}{\displaystyle _{(2m_\pi )^2}^{(\sqrt{s}m_\pi )^2}}𝑑s_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|s_1M_\rho ^2|^2}}{\displaystyle _{s_2^{}}^{s_2^+}}𝑑s_2`$
$`\left[s_1^2s_2+s_1s_2(ss_2+3m_\pi ^2)m_\pi ^2(sm_\pi ^2)^2\right]`$
$`\left\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(s_2\text{Re}\left[M_\rho ^2\right]\right)\left(s_1\text{Re}\left[M_\rho ^2\right]\right)+\text{Im}^2\left[M_\rho ^2\right]}{\left(s_2\text{Re}\left[M_\rho ^2\right]\right)\left(s_2\text{Re}\left[M_\rho ^2\right]\right)+\text{Im}^2\left[M_\rho ^2\right]}}\right\}.`$
with ($`\lambda (x,y,z)=x^2+y^2+z^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}xy\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}yz\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}zx`$)

$`s_2^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2s_1}}\left[s_1(ss_1+3m_\pi ^2)\pm \sqrt{\lambda (s,m_\pi ^2,s_1)\lambda (s_1,m_\pi ^2,m_\pi ^2)}\right],`$
$`M_\rho `$ $`=`$ $`m_\rho i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho }{2}},\text{Re}\left[M_\rho ^2\right]=m_\rho ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ^2}{4}},\text{Im}^2\left[M_\rho ^2\right]=m_\rho ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ^2.`$ (66)
For convenience, we can shift the integration variable $`s_2`$ by $`s_2=:\overline{s}_2+(ss_1+3m_\pi ^2)/2`$. Then, the factor $`\left[s_1^2s_2+s_1s_2(ss_2+3m_\pi ^2)m_\pi ^2(sm_\pi ^2)^2\right]`$ reduces to $`s_1((\overline{s}_2^+)^2\overline{s}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})`$, with $`\overline{s}_2^\pm :=\pm \sqrt{\lambda (s,m_\pi ^2,s_1)\lambda (s_1,m_\pi ^2,m_\pi ^2)}/(2s_1)`$. Using the new integration variable $`\overline{s}_2`$, we get for the decay width the expression

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\omega \rho \pi \pi \pi \pi }(\stackrel{}{p}){\displaystyle \frac{|\sqrt{2}g^{}G_\pi ^{}|^2}{2\sqrt{s}(2\pi )^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{4s}}{\displaystyle _{(2m_\pi )^2}^{(\sqrt{s}m_\pi )^2}}𝑑s_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|s_1M_\rho ^2|^2}}`$ (67)
$`\{{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\lambda ^3(s,m_\pi ^2,s_1)\lambda ^3(s_1,m_\pi ^2,m_\pi ^2)}}{6s_1^2}}+2s_1{\displaystyle _{\overline{s}_2^{}}^{\overline{s}_2^+}}d\overline{s}_2((\overline{s}_2^+)^2\overline{s}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\overline{s}_2+\frac{1}{2}(ss_1+3m_\pi ^2)\text{Re}\left[M_\rho ^2\right]\right)\left(s_1\text{Re}\left[M_\rho ^2\right]\right)+\text{Im}^2\left[M_\rho ^2\right]}{\left(\overline{s}_2+\frac{1}{2}(ss_1+3m_\pi ^2)\text{Re}\left[M_\rho ^2\right]\right)^2+\text{Im}^2\left[M_\rho ^2\right]}}\}.`$
For the $`s_1`$ integration we have to rewrite the modulus squared of the $`\rho `$ propagator in terms of the real and imaginary parts of the complex mass $`M_\rho =m_\rho i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho /2`$, i.e.,

$$\frac{1}{|s_1M_\rho ^2|^2}=\frac{1}{|s_1(m_\rho i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho }{2})|^2}=\frac{1}{(s_1m_\rho ^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ^2}{4})^2+m_\rho ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ^2}.$$
(68)
The two-dimensional integral in (67) can easily be evaluated numerically, after having set $`\sqrt{s}=m_\omega `$ and remembering the identities $`\lambda (s,m_\pi ^2,s_1)=(sm_\pi ^2s_1)^24m_\pi ^2s_1`$ and $`\lambda (s_1,m_\pi ^2,m_\pi ^2)=s_1(s_1\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}m_\pi ^2)`$. Substituting $`m_\omega =`$ 0.782 GeV, $`m_\pi =`$ 0.140 GeV, $`m_\rho =`$ 0.770 GeV, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho =`$ 0.151 GeV, we obtain for the double integral the result $`3.35\times 10^3`$ (GeV)<sup>6</sup>.

Furthermore, the coupling $`g^{}g=4.2(\pm 0.1)`$ has been determined from the decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})=g^2q_\pi ^3/(3\pi m_\rho ^2)=151.2\pm 1.2\text{MeV}`$ with $`q_\pi =\sqrt{\lambda (m_{\rho ^0}^2,m_{\pi ^+}^2,m_\pi ^{}^2)/(4m_{\rho ^0}^2)}=\sqrt{(m_{\rho ^0}^24m_{\pi ^\pm }^2)/4}`$, while $`G_\pi ^{}G_\pi =\sqrt{2}gg_{\omega \pi ^0\gamma }`$ follows from the partial decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega \pi ^0\gamma )\alpha _{_{\text{QED}}}g_{\omega \pi ^0\gamma }^2q_\gamma ^3/3`$ = 0.74 MeV, where $`q_\gamma =\sqrt{\lambda (m_\omega ^2,m_{\pi ^0}^2,0)/(4m_\omega ^2)}=(m_\omega ^2m_{\pi ^0}^2)/(2m_\omega )`$ = 0.379 GeV (see also Ref. ). With $`\alpha _{_{\text{QED}}}1/137`$, we thus get

$$g_{\omega \pi ^0\gamma }=\sqrt{\frac{3\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega \pi ^0\gamma )}{\alpha _{_{\text{QED}}}q_\gamma ^3}}=2.36\text{ GeV}^1,$$

which gives $`G_\pi ^{}`$ 14.0 GeV<sup>-1</sup>. Combining all, we finally obtain our prediction

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\omega \rho \pi \pi \pi \pi }`$ $`=`$ $`6.11\text{ MeV}.`$
In order to compare this with experiment, we must first try to determine which fraction of the total $`\omega `$ width of 8.44 MeV  is due to the cascade $`\omega \rho \pi \pi \pi \pi `$. Now, also according to the most recent Review of Particle Properties , the $`\omega `$ ows about 89% of its width to three-pion decays. However, part of this may be the result of direct, cascadeless $`3\pi `$ decays, which can be understood as OZI decays with the “simultaneous” creation of two $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs, or as a “quark-box contribution” in the language of Lucio-Martinez et al., Ref. . Unfortunately, there is no experimental information on the proportion of “direct” vs. (virtual) “cascade” decays of the $`\omega `$. Nevertheless, as already mentioned in the introduction, such information does exist for the $`\varphi `$(1020), according to which the $`\rho \pi `$ mode accounts for at least 80% of the total three-pion decays, provided that interference between the $`\rho \pi `$ and (direct) $`3\pi `$ modes is neglected . Considering that the $`3\pi `$ decays of the $`\varphi `$(1020) are due to its (small) non-strange ($`n\overline{n}`$) component, it seems reasonable to extrapolate this finding to the $`\omega `$(782). Thus, we get an estimated experimental width

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\omega \rho \pi \pi \pi \pi }^{\text{exp}}0.80\times 0.89\times 8.44\text{ MeV}=6.0\text{ MeV},$$

with an “upper bound” of $`0.89\times 8.44=7.5`$ MeV, which fully agrees with our UERM prediction.

Also note that our $`G^{}`$ of 14.0 GeV<sup>-1</sup> is in good agreement with the experimental data (14$`\pm `$2 GeV<sup>-1</sup> ), in particular as compared to the interpolated result for $`g_{\omega \rho \pi }`$ in Table I of Ref.  for a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{GSW}}(\omega 3\pi )`$ equal to the value we just found.

## 4 Conclusion and discussion

In the present paper we have extended a formalism, previously applied to fermions, to bosonic systems, i.e., charged and uncharged scalar, pseudoscalar and vector mesons. This method allows to handle, in a field-theoretic framework, resonant degrees of freedom in the intermediate state on the same footing as stable particles.

A simple yet topical application of the method to the three-pion decay of the $`\omega `$ meson, via the cascade process (1), results in an $`\omega `$ partial decay width in full agreement with experiment.

In principle, the formalism can be applied to many other known cascade processes, not only by effective field-theoretic methods, but also in quantum-mechanical coupled-channel approaches.

As already stated above, the application of the UERM to processes with resonant particles in the initial or final state is a task for future investigation, which may have a large impact on the understanding of how to construct relativistic optical “potentials”.

As an outlook, we also want to stress here several points that have non-trivial consequences for standard QFT, as induced by the UERM in the limit of vanishing width:

The extension of the UERM to massless fermions (like (anti-)neutrinos) is straightforward and well-defined, if one keeps the width of such degrees of freedom finite. Yet the so called “chiral symmetry” of such systems gets, within the UERM, a completely new meaning, as it leads to an interchange of the (anti-)particle and (anti-)hole sector of the theory, which cannot be resolved in an equivalent and adequate way by standard QFT. A simple example is the simultaneous existence of a conserved axial current (CAC) and an inequivalent partially conserved axial current (PCAC) in such a vector-current-conserving (CVC) theory.

The UERM treatment of massless bosons is only well-defined, if both the imaginary and real part of their self-energies stay at least infinitesimally non-zero. In case of a vanishing real part of the self-energy of bosons, the causality properties of (anti-)particles and (anti-)holes coincide, giving rise to formal pathologies, to be resolved only by careful limiting procedures.

Once this kind of complications are under control, it is a challenging task to extend the UERM to (massless) gauge bosons, and to investigate how to introduce and understand abelian and nonabelian local gauge symmetries within the UERM. After all, the consideration of gauge theories with chiral fermions within the UERM will lead to a much more well-defined and unambiguous treatment of the anomaly sector of such chiral gauge theories than in standard QFT.

## Acknowledgements

F.K. is thankful for the warm hospitality and excellent working atmosphere at the CFIF (IST) in Lisbon, and the Physics Department of Coimbra University. The critical remarks and very stimulating discussions on related topics with E. Akhmedov, A.R. Bohm, M. Dillig, L. Ferreira, A.I. Machavariani, P. Maris, A.A. Osipov, L.v. Smekal and J. Zinn-Justin are also gratefully acknowledged.
This work is partly supported by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia of the Ministério da Ciência e da Tecnologia of Portugal, under Grant no. PRAXIS XXI/BPD/20186/99 and under contract numbers PESO/P/PRO/15127/99, POCTI/35304/FIS/2000, and CERN/P/FIS/40119/2000.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The BFKL approach  gives the most common basis for the description of processes at large centre-of-mass energy $`\sqrt{s}`$ and fixed (not growing with $`s`$) momentum transfers $`\sqrt{t_i}`$ in the framework of perturbative QCD. This approach was developed originally in the leading logarithmic approximation (LLA), which means resummation of all terms of the type $`[\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}s]^n`$ ($`\alpha _s=g^2/(4\pi )`$ is the QCD coupling constant). Such approximation leads to a sharp increase of cross sections with $`s`$:

$$\sigma _{tot}^{LLA}\frac{s^{\omega _P^B}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}s}},\omega _P^B=\frac{g^2}{\pi ^2}N\mathrm{ln}2,$$
(1)
where $`\omega _P^B`$ is the LLA position of the most right singularity in the complex momentum plane of the $`t`$-channel partial wave with vacuum quantum numbers (Pomeron singularity), $`N`$ is the number of colours ($`N=3`$ for QCD). The Froissart bound $`\sigma _{tot}<C(\mathrm{ln}s)^2`$ is violated in LLA, so that LLA can not be applied at asymptotically large energies. The problem of unitarization of LLA results is extremely important from the theoretical point of view. But in the region of energies accessible for modern experiments it seems that the most important disadvantage of LLA is that neither the scale of $`s`$ nor the argument of the running coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$ are fixed in this approximation. To remove these uncertainties we have to know radiative corrections to LLA.

The calculation of the radiative corrections has taken many years of a hard work. Two years ago the kernel of the BFKL equation was obtained in the next-to-leading order (NLO)  for the case of the forward scattering, i.e. for momentum transfer $`t=0`$ and the singlet colour representations the $`t`$-channel. In the $`\overline{MS}`$ renormalization scheme with a reasonable scale setting the corrections appear to be large, although they are not so large in non-Abelian physical renormalization schemes with BLM scale setting . The problem of large corrections was widely discussed in literature (see, for instance ). Several ways to cure the problem were suggested which provide an opportunity for application of the BFKL approach at NLO to high energy phenomenology.

An important way of development of the BFKL approach became the generalization of the obtained results to the non-forward scattering . For singlet colour representation in the $`t`$-channel, the generalized approach can be used directly for the description of a wide circle of physical processes, in particular, diffraction phenomena. The generalization for non-singlet colour states is also of great importance, especially for the antisymmetric colour octet state of two Reggeized gluons in the $`t`$-channel. This case is especially important since the BFKL approach is based on the gluon Reggeization, although the Reggeization is not proved at NLO. Therefore, at this order the Reggeization is a hypothesis which must be carefully checked. This can be done using the ”bootstrap” equations  appearing from the requirement of the compatibility of the gluon Reggeization with the $`s`$-channel unitarity.

In the next Section we remind the representation of scattering amplitudes in the BFKL approach. In Section 3 we discuss the results obtained for the non-forward BFKL kernel and present some of them. In Section 4 the same is done for the impact factors. The problem of ”bootstrap” is discussed in Section 5.

## 2 Scattering amplitudes in the BFKL approach

The BFKL approach is based on the remarkable property of QCD - the gluon Reggeization. Remind that we use the notion ”Reggeization” in a strong sense . For the process $`A+B`$ $`A^{}+B^{}`$ at large $`s`$ and fixed $`t(s=(p_A+p_B)^2,t=q^2,q=p_Ap_A^{})`$ it means that the part of the amplitude corresponding to the gluon quantum numbers (colour octet state and negative signature) in the $`t`$-channel has the Regge form

$$(𝒜_8^{})_{AB}^{A^{}B^{}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A^{}A}^c(q)\left[\left(\frac{s}{t}\right)^{j(t)}\left(\frac{s}{t}\right)^{j(t)}\right]\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B^{}B}^c(q),$$
(2)
where $`c`$ is a color index and $`j(t)`$ is the Regge trajectory passing through zero at $`t=1`$. Therefore the gluon in QCD lies on the Regge trajectory $`j(t)=1+\omega (t)`$ with $`\omega (0)=0`$, so that it appears to be not an elementary object (as well as quark, see ). $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{P^{}P}^c`$ in (2) are the particle-particle-Reggeon (PPR) vertices which do not depend on $`s`$. Notice that (2) represents correctly the analytical structure of the scattering amplitude, which is quite simple in this case.

The amplitudes with quantum numbers in the $`t`$\- channel different from the gluon ones are obtained in the BFKL approach using the unitarity relations. For this purpose one needs to know inelastic amplitudes. The main contributions in the unitarity relations come from the multi-Regge kinematics, where all produced particles are strongly ordered in the rapidity space and all their transverse momenta are fixed (not growing with $`s`$). In LLA only such kinematics does contribute. In the next-to-leading approximation (NLA), where terms with one extra power of $`\alpha _s`$ compared to LLA are kept, production of a pair of particles with rapidities of the same order is also admitted.

The production amplitudes have a complicated analytical structure even in the multi-Regge kinematics. Fortunately, we need to know only real parts of these amplitudes. Due to the gluon Reggeization they have a simple factorized form and can be presented as

$$𝒜_{AB}^{\stackrel{~}{A}\stackrel{~}{B}+n}=2s\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{A}A}^{c_1}(q_1)\left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{1}{t_i}\gamma _{c_ic_{i+1}}^{P_i}(q_i,q_{i+1})\left(\frac{s_i}{\sqrt{\stackrel{}{k}_{i1}^2\stackrel{}{k}_i^2}}\right)^{\omega (t_i)}\right]\frac{1}{t_{n+1}}\left(\frac{s_{n+1}}{\sqrt{\stackrel{}{k}_n^2\stackrel{}{k}_{n+1}^2}}\right)^{\omega (t_{n+1})}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{B}B}^{c_{n+1}}(q_{n+1}),$$
(3)
where $`\gamma _{c_ic_{i+1}}^{P_i}(q_i,q_{i+1})`$ are the so-called Reggeon-Reggeon-particle (RRP) vertices, i.e. the effective vertices for the production of the particles $`P_i`$ with momenta $`k_i`$=$`q_iq_{i+1}`$ in the collision of Reggeons with momenta $`q_i`$ and $`q_{i+1}`$ and colour indices $`c_i`$ and $`c_{i+1}`$, $`q_0p_A,q_{n+1}p_B,s_i=(k_{i1}+k_i)^2,k_0p_{\stackrel{~}{A}},k_{n+1}p_{\stackrel{~}{B}}`$, vector sign is used for denotation of components of momenta transverse to the plane of the initial momenta $`p_A,p_B`$. Pay attention that we have taken definite energy scales in the Regge factors in (3) as well as in (2). In principle, we could take an arbitrary scale $`s_R`$ ; in this case the PPR and RRP vertices would become dependent on $`s_R`$. Of course, physical results do not depend on the scale.

In LLA only one particle can be produced in each RRP vertex, and since our Reggeons are Reggeized gluons, this particle can be only a gluon. The situation changes in NLA, where one of the vertices can represent production of a pair of particles with fixed (not increasing with $`s`$) invariant mass. We can treat this kinematics using the effective vertices $`\gamma _{cc^{}}^{GG}`$ and $`\gamma _{cc^{}}^{Q\overline{Q}}`$ for production of two gluons and a quark-antiquark pair in Reggeon-Reggeon collisions. Analogously, we use effective vertices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\{(f)\}P}^c`$ for production of states $`\{(f)\}`$ containing an extra particle in the fragmentation region of the particle $`P`$ in the process of scattering of this particle off the Reggeon.

In the BFKL approach Pomeron appears as a compound state of two Reggeized gluons in the $`t`$\- channel in the colour singlet representation. In general case, the amplitude for the high energy process $`A+BA^{}+B^{}`$ at fixed momentum transfer $`\sqrt{t}`$ is presented in this approach as the convolution of the impact factors $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{A^{}A}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{B^{}B}`$, which describe the $`AA^{}`$ and $`BB^{}`$ transitions in the particle-Reggeon scattering processes, and the Green’s function $`G`$ for Reggeon-Reggeon scattering :

$$𝒜_{AB}^{A^{}B^{}}=\frac{is}{\left(2\pi \right)^{D1}}\frac{d^{D2}q_1}{\stackrel{}{q}_1^2\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}\frac{d^{D2}q_2}{\stackrel{}{q}_2^2\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}_{i\mathrm{}+\delta }^{i\mathrm{}+\delta }\frac{d\omega }{\text{sin}(\pi \omega )}\underset{,\nu }{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{A^{}A}^{(,\nu )}(\stackrel{}{q}_1;\stackrel{}{q};s_0)$$

$$\times \left[\left(\frac{s}{s_0}\right)^\omega \tau \left(\frac{s}{s_0}\right)^\omega \right]G_\omega ^{\left(\right)}(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q}_2,\stackrel{}{q})\mathrm{\Phi }_{B^{}B}^{(,\nu )}(\stackrel{}{q}_2;\stackrel{}{q};s_0).$$
(4)
Here and below $`q_i^{}q_iq`$, $`\stackrel{}{q}_i`$ are $`D2`$ dimensional vectors ($`D=4+2ϵ`$ is the space-time dimension different from $`4`$ to regularize the infrared singularities), $`q\stackrel{}{q}`$ is the momentum transfer in the process $`A+BA^{}+B^{}`$. The sum in (4) is taken over irreducible representations $``$ of the colour group, which are contained in the product of two adjoint representations, and over states $`\nu `$ from full sets of states for these representations; $`\tau `$ is the signature equal $`+1(1)`$ for symmetric (antisymmetric) representations and $`s_0`$ is an energy scale. $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{A^{}A}^{(,\nu )}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{B^{}B}^{(,\nu )}`$ are the projected on the states $`(,\nu )`$ impact factors, and $`G_\omega ^{\left(\right)}`$ are the Mellin transforms of the Green’s functions for Reggeon-Reggeon scattering. All dependence from $`s`$ is determined by $`G_\omega ^{\left(\right)}`$, which obey the equation :

$$\omega G_\omega ^{\left(\right)}(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q}_2,\stackrel{}{q})=\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\delta ^{\left(D2\right)}\left(\stackrel{}{q}_1\stackrel{}{q}_2\right)+\frac{d^{D2}r}{\stackrel{}{r}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\stackrel{}{r}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}𝒦^{\left(\right)}(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{r};\stackrel{}{q})G_\omega ^{\left(\right)}(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{q}_2;\stackrel{}{q}),$$
(5)
where the kernel is given by the sum of the ”virtual” part, defined by the gluon trajectory $`j(t)=1+\omega \left(t\right)`$, and the ”real” part $`𝒦_r^{\left(\right)}`$, related to the real particle production in Reggeon-Reggeon collisions:

$$𝒦^{\left(\right)}(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q}_2;\stackrel{}{q})=\left[\omega \left(\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\right)+\omega \left(\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\right)\right]\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\delta ^{\left(D2\right)}\left(\stackrel{}{q}_1\stackrel{}{q}_2\right)+𝒦_r^{\left(\right)}(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q}_2;\stackrel{}{q}).$$
(6)
In LLA both the gluon trajectory and the ”real” part of the kernel are pure gluonic:

$$\omega ^{\left(1\right)}\left(t\right)=\frac{g^2Nt}{2\left(2\pi \right)^{D1}}\frac{d^{D2}q_1}{\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}=\frac{g^2N\mathrm{\Gamma }(1ϵ)\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(ϵ)}{(4\pi )^{D/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2ϵ)}\left(\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\right)^ϵ,$$
(7)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)`$ is the Euler gamma-function, and

$$𝒦_r^{\left(\right)B}(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q}_2;\stackrel{}{q})=\frac{g^2c_R}{(2\pi )^{D1}}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}+\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{(\stackrel{}{q}_1\stackrel{}{q}_2)^2}\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\right),$$
(8)
where the superscript $`B`$ means the leading (Born) approximation and the colour group coefficients $`c_R`$ for the most important cases of the singlet $`(R=1)`$ and the antisymmetric octet $`(R=8)`$ representations are $`c_1=N,c_8=\frac{N}{2}.`$

The representation (4) for the scattering amplitudes, as well as the equation (5) for the Green’s function and the form (6) of the kernel, are valid in NLA as well as in LLA. Both the kernel of the BFKL equation and the impact factors are unambiguously defined in terms of the gluon Regge trajectory and the effective vertices for the Reggeon-particle interactions .

At the two-loop level the gluon trajectory was calculated in . It has both gluon and quark contributions. In the case of $`n_f`$ massless quark flavors it can be presented as

$$\omega ^{(2)}(t)=\frac{g^2t}{(2\pi )^{D1}}\frac{d^{(D2)}q_1}{\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}\left[F(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q})2F(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q}_1)\right],$$
(9)
where

$$F(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q})=\frac{2g^2Nn_f\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2\frac{D}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\left(\frac{D}{2}\right)}{(4\pi )^{\frac{D}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(D\right)\left(\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\right)^{(2\frac{D}{2})}}\frac{g^2N^2\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{4(2\pi )^{D1}}\frac{d^{(D2)}q_2}{\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}(\stackrel{}{q}_2\stackrel{}{q})^2}$$

$$\times [\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{(\stackrel{}{q}_1\stackrel{}{q}_2)^2}\right)2\psi (D3)\psi (3\frac{D}{2})+2\psi (\frac{D}{2}2)+\psi (1)$$

$$+\frac{2}{(D3)(D4)}+\frac{D2}{4(D1)(D3)}],$$
(10)
$`\psi (x)=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(x)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(x).`$ Let us stress that we use perturbative expansion in terms of the bare coupling $`g`$ related to the renormalized coupling $`g_\mu `$ in the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme by the relation

$$g=g_\mu \mu ^ϵ\left[1+\left(\frac{11}{3}\frac{2}{3}\frac{n_f}{N}\right)\frac{\overline{g}_\mu ^2}{2ϵ}\right],\overline{g}_\mu ^2=\frac{g_\mu ^2N\mathrm{\Gamma }(1ϵ)}{(4\pi )^{2+ϵ}}.$$
(11)
In the limit $`ϵ0`$ we have :

$$\omega (t)=\overline{g}_\mu ^2\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}^2}{\mu ^2}\right)^ϵ\frac{2}{ϵ}\{1+\frac{\overline{g}_\mu ^2}{ϵ}[(\frac{11}{3}\frac{2}{3}\frac{n_f}{N})(1\frac{\pi ^2}{6}ϵ^2)$$

$$\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}^2}{\mu ^2}\right)^ϵ(\frac{11}{6}+(\frac{\pi ^2}{6}\frac{67}{18})ϵ+(\frac{202}{27}\frac{11\pi ^2}{18}\zeta (3))ϵ^2$$

$$\frac{n_f}{3N}(1\frac{5}{3}ϵ+(\frac{28}{9}\frac{\pi ^2}{3})ϵ^2))]\}.$$
(12)
## 3 Non-forward BFKL kernel

The general form of the kernel for arbitrary representation $``$ of the colour group in the $`t`$-channel is given by (6). The ”virtual” part of the kernel is universal (does not depend on $``$) and is determined by the gluon Regge trajectory. The ”real” part can be presented as :

$$𝒦_r^{\left(\right)}(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q}_2;\stackrel{}{q})=\frac{c_1c_1^{}|\widehat{𝒫}_{}|c_2c_2^{}}{2n_{}}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ds_{_{RR}}}{\left(2\pi \right)^D}\theta \left(s__\mathrm{\Lambda }s_{_{RR}}\right)\underset{\left\{f\right\}}{}\gamma _{c_1c_2}^{\left\{f\right\}}(q_1,q_2)\left(\gamma _{c_1^{}c_2^{}}^{\left\{f\right\}}(q_1^{},q_2^{})\right)^{}𝑑\rho _f$$

$$\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^{D2}r}{\stackrel{}{r}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\stackrel{}{r}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}𝒦_r^{\left(\right)B}(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{r};\stackrel{}{q})𝒦_r^{()B}(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{q}_2;\stackrel{}{q})\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{s__\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{q}_1)^2(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{q}_2)^2}\right),$$
(13)
where $`\widehat{𝒫}_{}`$ is the operator for projection of two-gluon colour state in the $`t`$-channel on the representation $`R`$, $`n_{}`$ is the number of independent states in $``$, $`q_1=\beta p_A+q_1`$ and $`q_2=\alpha p_Bq_2`$ are the Reggeon momenta, $`s_{_{RR}}=\left(q_1q_2\right)^2=s\alpha \beta (\stackrel{}{q}_1\stackrel{}{q}_2)^2`$, the sum $`\left\{f\right\}`$ is performed over all states $`f`$ which are produced in the Reggeon-Reggeon collisions and over all discreet quantum numbers of these states, $`d\rho _f`$ is the phase space element for such state,

$$d\rho _f=\frac{1}{n!}\left(2\pi \right)^D\delta ^{\left(D\right)}(q_1q_2_{if}k_i)\underset{if}{}\frac{d^{D1}k_i}{\left(2\pi \right)^{D1}2ϵ_i},$$
(14)
$`n`$ is a number of identical particles in the state $`f`$ . The second term in the r.h.s. of (13) serves for the subtraction of the contribution of the large $`s_{_{RR}}`$ region in the first term, in order to avoid a double counting of this region in the BFKL equation. The intermediate parameter $`s__\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in (13) must be taken tending to infinity. In LLA only the one-gluon production does contribute and (13) gives for the kernel its LLA value (8); in NLA the contributing states include also two-gluon and quark-antiquark states. At large $`s_{_{RR}}`$ only the contribution of the two-gluon production does survive in the first integral, so that the dependence on $`s__\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ disappears in (13) due to the factorization property of the two-gluon production vertex .

The remarkable properties of the kernel are

$$𝒦_r^{()}(0,\stackrel{}{q}_2;\stackrel{}{q})=𝒦_r^{()}(\stackrel{}{q}_1,0;\stackrel{}{q})=𝒦_r^{()}(\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{q}_2;\stackrel{}{q})=𝒦_r^{()}(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q};\stackrel{}{q})=0,$$
(15)
and

$$𝒦_r^{()}(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q}_2;\stackrel{}{q})=𝒦_r^{()}(\stackrel{}{q}_1^{},\stackrel{}{q}_2^{};\stackrel{}{q})=𝒦_r^{()}(\stackrel{}{q}_2,\stackrel{}{q}_1;\stackrel{}{q}).$$
(16)
The properties (15) mean that the kernel turns into zero at zero transverse momenta of the Reggeons and follow from the gauge invariance; (16) are the consequences of the symmetry of the r.h.s. of (13).

The most interesting representations $``$ are the colour singlet (Pomeron channel) and the antisymmetric colour octet (gluon channel). We have for the singlet case

$$c_1c_1^{}|\widehat{𝒫}_1|c_2c_2^{}=\frac{\delta _{c_1c_1^{}}\delta _{c_2c_2^{}}}{N^21},n_1=1,$$
(17)
and for the antisymmetric octet case

$$c_1c_1^{}|\widehat{𝒫}_8|c_2c_2^{}=\frac{f_{c_1c_1^{}c}f_{c_2c_2^{}c}}{N},n_8=N^21,$$
(18)
where $`f_{abc}`$ are the structure constants of the colour group.

The quark contribution to the ”real” part for any representation $``$ is given by a superposition of the Abelian and non-Abelian pieces . The Abelian piece was calculated many yes ago in the framework of Quantum Electrodynamics , but, unfortunately, it has rather complicated form and can not be presented here. In the gluon channel this piece is absent and the quark contribution in this channel has very simple form:

$$𝒦r^{\left(8\right)Q}(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q}_2;\stackrel{}{q})=\frac{g^4n_fN}{(2\pi )^{D1}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1ϵ)}{ϵ(4\pi )^{2+ϵ}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(2+ϵ)]}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(4+2ϵ)}\{\frac{(\stackrel{}{k}^2)^ϵ}{\stackrel{}{k}^2}(\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}+\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}})+\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}((\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}})^ϵ$$

$$(\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}})^ϵ(\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}})^ϵ)\frac{(\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}})}{\stackrel{}{k}^2}((\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}})^ϵ(\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}})^ϵ)+(\stackrel{}{q}_1\stackrel{}{q}_1^{},\stackrel{}{q}_2\stackrel{}{q}_2^{})\},$$
(19)
where $`\stackrel{}{k}=\stackrel{}{q}_1\stackrel{}{q}_2=\stackrel{}{q}_1^{}\stackrel{}{q}_2^{}`$. The properties (15),(16) are evident from (19).

The gluon piece of the ”real” part of the kernel includes contributions of the one-gluon and two-gluon productions. The one-gluon contribution is determined by the RRG-vertex and depends on the representation $``$ only through the numerical coefficient $`c_R`$ in the same way as in the Born case (8). The calculation of the RRG-vertex has a long history. The quark part of the vertex was calculated at once at arbitrary $`D`$ . Instead, in the gluon part firstly only the terms finite at $`ϵ0`$ were kept . But then it was understood that in order to find the BFKL kernel the RRG-vertex must be calculated at arbitrary $`D`$ in the region of small transverse momenta $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ of the produced gluon. It was done in . Later the results of  were obtained by another method in . But after all it appeared  that for the verification of the ”bootstrap” equation the vertex must be known at arbitrary $`D`$ in a wider kinematical region. Therefore it became clear that the vertex should be calculated at arbitrary $`D`$, especially taking into account that it can be used not only for the check of the ”bootstrap”, but, for example, in the Odderon problem at NLO and so on. Quite recently  the vertex and corresponding contribution to the non-forward BFKL kernel were calculated at arbitrary $`D`$.

The two-gluon contribution, analogously to the quark one, for any representation $``$ is given by a linear combination of two pieces. Only one of them enters in the antisymmetric octet kernel. It was calculated recently . In the case of arbitrary $`D`$ the integral representation was obtained.

We have not enough space here to show neither the one-gluon nor the two-gluon contributions at arbitrary $`D`$, so that we present only the sum of these contributions to the ”real” part of the BFKL kernel for the antisymmetric octet representation in the limit $`ϵ0`$ :

$$𝒦_r^{G(8)}(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q}_2;\stackrel{}{q})=\frac{g^2N}{2(2\pi )^{D1}}\{(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}+\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{\stackrel{}{k}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}})$$

$$\times \left(1+\frac{g^2N\mathrm{\Gamma }(1ϵ)(\stackrel{}{k}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}})^ϵ}{(4\pi )^{2+ϵ}}\left(\frac{11}{6ϵ}+\frac{67}{18}\zeta (2)+ϵ\left(\frac{202}{27}+7\zeta (3)+\frac{11}{6}\zeta (2)\right)\right)\right)$$

$$+\frac{g^2N\mathrm{\Gamma }(1ϵ)}{(4\pi )^{2+ϵ}}[\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}(\frac{11}{6}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{k}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}\right)+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}_1^2}{\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}\right)+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}_2^2}{\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}\right))$$

$$+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{ln}^2\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}\right)\frac{\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}+\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{2\stackrel{}{k}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}\mathrm{ln}^2\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}\right)+\frac{\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{\stackrel{}{k}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}\right)\left(\frac{11}{6}\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{\stackrel{}{k}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}4}}}\right)\right)$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}[\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}(\stackrel{}{k}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}})+2\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}+\frac{\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{\stackrel{}{k}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}(\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}})]$$

$$\times _0^1\frac{dx}{(\stackrel{}{q}_1(1x)+\stackrel{}{q}_2x)^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}(1x)+\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}x}{\stackrel{}{k}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}x(1x)}\right)]\}+\frac{g^2N}{2(2\pi )^{D1}}\{\stackrel{}{q}_i\stackrel{}{q}_i^{}\},$$
(20)
where $`\zeta (n)`$ is the Riemann zeta-function. Note, that the the one-gluon and the two-gluon contributions separately have singularities $`1/ϵ^2`$. Due to their cancellation the leading singularity of the kernel is $`1/ϵ`$. It turns again into $`1/ϵ^2`$ after subsequent integrations of the kernel because of the singular behaviour of the kernel at $`\stackrel{}{k}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}=0`$. The additional singularity arises from the region of small $`\stackrel{}{k}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}`$, where $`ϵ|\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{}{k}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}|1`$. Therefore we have not expanded in $`ϵ`$ the term $`\left(\stackrel{}{k}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\right)^ϵ`$. The terms $`ϵ`$ are taken into account in the coefficient of the divergent at $`\stackrel{}{k}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}=0`$ expression in order to conserve all giving nonvanishing in the limit $`ϵ0`$ contributions after the integrations.

The integral in (20) can be presented in another form:

$$_0^1\frac{dx}{(\stackrel{}{q}_1(1x)+\stackrel{}{q}_2x)^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}(1x)+\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}x}{\stackrel{}{k}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}x(1x)}\right)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dz}{z+\stackrel{}{k}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{(\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}+\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}+z)^24\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}}$$

$$\times \mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}+\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}+z+\sqrt{(\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}+\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}+z)^24\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}}{\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}+\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}+z\sqrt{(\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}+\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}+z)^24\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}}\right).$$
(21)
It is possible also to express the integral in (20) in terms of dilogarithms, but this expression is not very convenient:

$$_0^1\frac{dx}{(\stackrel{}{q}_1(1x)+\stackrel{}{q}_2x)^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}(1x)+\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}x}{\stackrel{}{k}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}x(1x)}\right)=\frac{2}{|\stackrel{}{q}_1||\stackrel{}{q}_2|\mathrm{sin}\varphi }$$

$$\times \left[\mathrm{ln}\rho \mathrm{arctan}\frac{\rho \mathrm{sin}\varphi }{(1\rho \mathrm{cos}\varphi )}+Im\left(L\left(\rho \mathrm{exp}i\varphi \right)\right)\right],$$
(22)
where $`\varphi `$ is the angle between $`\stackrel{}{q}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{q}_2`$,

$$\rho =min(\frac{|\stackrel{}{q}_1|}{|\stackrel{}{q}_2|},\frac{|\stackrel{}{q}_2|}{|\stackrel{}{q}_1|}),L(z)=_0^z\frac{dt}{t}\mathrm{ln}(1t).$$
(23)
The symmetries (16) of the kernel are easily seen. The first of them is explicit in (20). To notice the second it is sufficient to change $`x(1x)`$ in the integral in (20).

In order to check that the kernel (20) turns into zero at zero transverse momenta of Reggeons one has to know the behaviour of the integral in (20). A suitable for this purpose representation is given in (21). From this representation one can see that singularities of the integral at zero transverse momenta of the Reggeons are not more than logarithmic. After this no problems remain to verify (15).

## 4 Non-forward impact factors

The impact factors can be expressed through the effective vertices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\{(f)\}P}^c`$. In the NLLA the representation takes the form :

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{P^{}P}^{(,\nu )}(\stackrel{}{q}_R;\stackrel{}{q};s_0)=cc^{}|\widehat{𝒫}_{}|\nu \frac{ds_{_{PR}}}{2\pi }\theta \left(s__\mathrm{\Lambda }s_{_{PR}}\right)\underset{\left\{f\right\}}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\left\{f\right\}P}^c(q_R)\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\left\{f\right\}P^{}}^c^{}(q_R^{})\right)^{}\left(\frac{s_0}{\stackrel{}{q}_R^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}\omega \left(\stackrel{}{q}_R^2\right)}$$

$$\times \left(\frac{s_0}{\stackrel{}{q}_R^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}\omega \left(\stackrel{}{q}_R^2\right)}d\rho _f\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^{D2}r}{\stackrel{}{r}^2\stackrel{}{r}^2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{P^{^{}}P}^{(,\nu )B}(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{q})𝒦_r^{\left(\right)B}(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{q}_R;\stackrel{}{q})\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{s_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{q}_R)^2s_0}\right).$$
(24)
Here $`s_{_{PR}}=\left(p_Pq_R\right)^2`$ is the squared particle-Reggeon invariant mass. The argument $`s_0`$ in the impact factor shows that it depends on the energy scale $`s_0`$ of the Mellin transformation in (4). Of course, this dependence disappears in the total expression for the amplitudes (4). The Born (LLA) impact factors $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{P^{^{}}P}^{(,\nu )B}`$ are given by the first term in the r.h.s. of (24) taken in the Born approximation. Note that for the Born case the integral over $`s_{_{PR}}`$ in (24) is convergent, so that the parameter $`s__\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ does not play any role. In NLA the independence of the impact factors on $`s__\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is guaranteed by the factorization properties of the effective vertices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\{(f)\}P}^c`$ .

The non-forward impact factors of gluon and quark were calculated at NLO in  and  correspondingly for arbitrary $``$. Their general form is rather complicated, so that we present here these impact factors only for the antisymmetric octet representation (we omit the superscript $`=8`$, since we consider below only this representation):

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{G^{}G}^a(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q},s_0)=\frac{ig^2\sqrt{N}}{2}T_{G^{}G}^a[\delta _{\lambda _G,\lambda _G^{}}\{1+\frac{\omega ^{(1)}(t)}{2}[\stackrel{~}{K}_1+(\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}\right)^ϵ+\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}\right)^ϵ1)$$

$$\times \left(\frac{1}{2ϵ}+\psi (1+2ϵ)\psi (1+ϵ)+\frac{11+7ϵ}{2(1+2ϵ)(3+2ϵ)}\frac{n_f}{N}\frac{(1+ϵ)}{(1+2ϵ)(3+2ϵ)}\right)$$

$$+\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{s_0}{\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}\right)+\frac{3}{2ϵ}+2\psi (1)\psi (1+ϵ)\psi (1+2ϵ)$$

$$\frac{9(1+ϵ)^2+2}{2(1+ϵ)(1+2ϵ)(3+2ϵ)}+\frac{n_f}{N}\frac{(1+ϵ)^3+ϵ^2}{(1+ϵ)^2(1+2ϵ)(3+2ϵ)}]\}$$

$$\frac{\delta _{\lambda _G,\lambda _G^{}}ϵ\omega ^{(1)}(t)}{2(1+ϵ)^2(1+2ϵ)(3+2ϵ)}(1+ϵ\frac{n_f}{N})],$$
(25)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{Q^{}Q}^a(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q},s_0)=\frac{ig^2\sqrt{N}}{2}T_{Q^{}Q}^a\delta _{\lambda _Q,\lambda _Q^{}}(1+\frac{\omega ^{(1)}(t)}{2}[\stackrel{~}{K}_1+(\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}\right)^ϵ+\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}\right)^ϵ)\{\frac{1}{2ϵ}$$

$$+\psi (1+2ϵ)\psi (1+ϵ)+\frac{11+7ϵ}{2(1+2ϵ)(3+2ϵ)}\frac{n_f}{N}\frac{(1+ϵ)}{(1+2ϵ)(3+2ϵ)}\}$$

$$+\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{s_0}{\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}\right)+2\psi (1)2\psi (1+2ϵ)\frac{3}{2(1+2ϵ)}\frac{1}{N^2}(\frac{1}{ϵ}\frac{(32ϵ)}{2(1+2ϵ)})]),$$
(26)
where $`T_{P^{}P}^a`$ are the matrix elements of the colour group generators in corresponding representations, $`\lambda _P`$ are the particle helicities and the function $`\stackrel{~}{K}_1`$ has the following integral representation:

$$\stackrel{~}{K}_1=\frac{(4\pi )^{2+ϵ}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+2ϵ)ϵ\left(\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\right)^ϵ}{4\mathrm{\Gamma }(1ϵ)\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(1+ϵ)}\frac{d^{D2}k}{(2\pi )^{D1}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{\stackrel{}{k}^2}\right)\frac{\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{q}_1)^2(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{q}_1^{})^2}.$$
(27)
The result of the integration of (27), in form of expansion in $`ϵ`$, can be found in .

Of course, the most interesting is the impact factor for virtual photon, since it is the impact factor of physical particle which can be calculated in perturbative QCD. In the leading order it differs only by a numerical factor from the QED case, which is known long ago. Unfortunately, at NLO this impact factor is not yet calculated, although some steps in this direction are done ,.

## 5 ”Bootstrap” of the gluon Reggeization

The ”bootstrap” condition for the kernel derived in Ref.  has the form

$$\frac{d^{D2}q_1}{\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}\left[\frac{d^{D2}q_2}{\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}𝒦^{\left(8\right)}(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q}_2;\stackrel{}{q})\omega (t)\right]=0,$$
(28)
where $`𝒦^{\left(8\right)}(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q}_2;\stackrel{}{q})`$ is the kernel of the non-forward BFKL equation in the gluon (antisymmetric octet) channel, $`\omega \left(t\right)=\omega ^{\left(1\right)}\left(t\right)+\omega ^{\left(2\right)}\left(t\right)`$ is the deviation of the gluon Regge trajectory from unity and $`t=\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}`$.

The fulfillment of this condition for the quark contribution to the kernel was shown in  at arbitrary $`D`$. In the one-loop approximation the trajectory is purely gluonic (see (7)). The quark contribution to the trajectory appears at the two-loop level and is given by the terms proportional to $`n_f`$ in (9), (10). The kernel $`𝒦^{\left(8\right)}(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q}_2;\stackrel{}{q}),`$ according to (6), is expressed through the trajectory and the ”real” part. The quark piece of the latter is given by (19). Using this equation together with (9), (10) for the quark contribution to the trajectory, we obtain

$$\frac{d^{D2}q_2}{\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_2^2}𝒦^{\left(8\right)Q}(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q}_2;\stackrel{}{q})=g^4n_fN\frac{1}{\left(2\pi \right)^{D1}}\frac{1}{\left(4\pi \right)^{2+ϵ}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1ϵ\right)}{ϵ}\frac{\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2+ϵ\right)\right]^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(4+2ϵ\right)}$$

$$\times \frac{d^{D2}q_2}{\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}\{\frac{\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{\stackrel{}{k}^2}((\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}})^ϵ+(\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}})^ϵ(\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}})^ϵ(\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}})^ϵ)$$

$$+\frac{\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}((\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}})^ϵ(\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}})^ϵ(\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}})^ϵ)+(\stackrel{}{q}_1\stackrel{}{q}_1^{})\},$$
(29)
where $`\stackrel{}{k}=\stackrel{}{q}_1\stackrel{}{q}_2`$, $`\stackrel{}{q}_i^{}=\stackrel{}{q}_i\stackrel{}{q}`$. Putting (29) in (28) and using (9), (10), it is easy to verify that the ”bootstrap” equation (28) is satisfied.

To demonstrate the fulfillment of the ”bootstrap” condition for the gluon piece of the kernel is not so simple. In  it was done for the terms in the gluon trajectory non-vanishing for $`ϵ0`$. Even for this purpose the knowledge of the ”real” part of the kernel $`𝒦_r^{G(8)}(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q}_2;\stackrel{}{q})`$ (20) is not sufficient on account of the singularity of the integration measure in (28) at zero momenta of scattered Reggeons. Fortunately, $`𝒦_r^{G(8)}(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q}_2;\stackrel{}{q})`$ turns into zero at this points (see (15)), so that at first sight these points could not bring additional singularities in $`ϵ`$. It would be so if integration over only one momentum was performed. But in the region where the momenta of two Reggeons (let us say, $`\stackrel{}{q}_1^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{q}_2^{}`$) turn into zero simultaneously, being of the same order, $`𝒦_r^{G(8)}(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q}_2;\stackrel{}{q})`$ does not vanish (as it can be easily seen in the example of the Born case (8)). Therefore, these regions can give additional singularities in $`ϵ`$; moreover, since integration over these regions leads to singularities, an expansion of, let us say, $`(\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})^ϵ`$ and $`(\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})^ϵ`$ is not possible anymore, so that we need to know about the kernel more than it is given by (24). This problem was solved in  and the fulfillment of the ”bootstrap” equation (28) was proved for the terms in $`\omega ^{(2)}`$ non-vanishing for $`ϵ0`$. After the calculation of the RRG vertex at arbitrary $`D`$  examination of the ”bootstrap” condition became possible at any you like dimension. This question is under consideration now.

The ”bootstrap” conditions for the impact factors derived in  are:

$$ig\frac{\sqrt{N}t}{\left(2\pi \right)^{D1}}\frac{d^{D2}q_1}{\stackrel{}{q}_1^2\stackrel{}{q}_1^2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{P^{^{}}P}^c(\stackrel{}{q}_1^{};\stackrel{}{q};s_0)$$

$$=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{P^{}P}^c(q)\omega ^{\left(1\right)}\left(t\right)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{P^{}P}^{c\left(B\right)}(q)\frac{1}{2}\left[\omega ^{\left(2\right)}\left(t\right)\left(\omega ^{\left(1\right)}\left(t\right)\right)^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}^2}{s_0}\right)\right].$$
(30)
The fulfillment of these conditions for the gluon and quark impact factors was demonstrated in  and  correspondingly at arbitrary $`D`$.

More strong conditions than (28),(30) were suggested in  (from another point of view they were considered in ). This suggestion is based on the requirement of Reggeization of the unphysical particle-Reggeon scattering amplitude with colour octet in the $`t`$-channel and negative signature. It was shown in ,  that the strong bootstrap conditions are satisfied in the case of the gluon and quark impact factors. It is rather intriguing, because their role is not yet clear.