text:
# Interface Fluctuations under Shear

## Abstract

Coarsening systems under uniform shear display a long time regime characterized by the presence of highly stretched and thin domains. The question then arises whether thermal fluctuations may actually destroy this layered structure. To address this problem in the case of non-conserved dynamics we study an anisotropic version of the Burgers equation, constructed to describe thermal fluctuations of an interface in the presence of a uniform shear flow. As a result, we find that stretched domains are only marginally stable against thermal fluctuations in $`d=2`$, whereas they are stable in $`d=3`$.

The dynamics of phase separation in systems quenched below their critical temperature is substantially modified when an external shear is applied. This is true both for the case of conserved dynamics (spinodal decomposition in binary fluids), and non-conserved dynamics (coarsening in Ising spin systems). In the simplest theoretical case where the sample is confined between two boundaries moving at a constant relative velocity, intuition suggests that the growing domain structure becomes anisotropic, with domains highly stretched in the direction of the flow. This fact is now well established by many experimental  and theoretical investigations : it has been shown that the growth of the domains is enhanced along the flow direction, while it is less clear whether the transverse growth rate is unaffected by the shear or depressed by it. In either case, the long time effect of the shear is to form a structure of very long and (relatively) thin domains.

A natural question in this context is to what extent this layered structure is stable against thermal fluctuations: long and thin domains may develop fluctuations, transverse to their main axis, that grow large enough to break them. Similar stretching-and-breaking mechanisms have been proposed before , in particular to argue that the anisotropic domain growth may eventually reach a steady state at late times . However, the effect of the shear is not only to stretch the domains, but also to smooth their surfaces, and the net result of the two effects is difficult to predict. In order to clarify this problem a suitable model for the growth of a surface under shear must be analyzed.

Unfortunately, not many analytic studies of domain growth under shear exist. In particular, conserved dynamics and spinodal decomposition have been analytically considered mainly in the limit of infinite dimension of the order parameter , where no domain interfaces are present. The situation is better in the simpler case of non-conserved dynamics, where zero-temperature coarsening under shear has recently been studied analytically . Our task is therefore to study the effect of thermal fluctuations in the case of non-conserved dynamics under shear. To this end we will introduce a stochastic equation for a scalar field $`h(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ representing the height of a fluctuating interface above its flat ground state. This equation will take into account the smoothing effect of the shear flow, which in fact gives origin to a non-linearity of the Burgers type.

Consider an interface separating two regions with opposite order parameter. When the temperature is small but non-zero, there will be some fluctuations, resulting in a non-flat profile parametrized by the height $`h(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$. In the following, we will indicate with $`d`$ the total dimension of the space, and with $`d^{}`$ the dimension of the substrate spanned by $`\stackrel{}{x}`$, that is $`d=d^{}+1`$. In the absence of shear, the free energy cost of a non-flat profile is given by $`F=(\sigma /2)𝑑\stackrel{}{x}(\stackrel{}{}h)^2`$, where $`\sigma `$ is the surface tension, and the corresponding Langevin equation coincides with the standard Edwards-Wilkinson (EW) growth equation ,

$$_th=\nu ^2h+\xi ,$$
(1)
where $`\nu `$ is a diffusion coefficient (equal to $`\sigma `$ divided by a kinetic coefficient) and $`\xi (\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ is a delta-correlated noise,

$$\xi (\stackrel{}{x},t)\xi (\stackrel{}{x}^{},t^{})=D\delta (\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{})\delta (tt^{}).$$
(2)
The noise strength $`D`$ is proportional to the temperature. As is well known, due to its linearity a simple scaling analysis of the EW equation gives the exact critical exponents. Under the rescaling $`xbx,tb^{z_0}t`$ and $`hb^{\chi _0}h`$, we have $`\nu b^{z_02}\nu `$ and $`Db^{z_02\chi _0d+1}D`$. By imposing scale invariance, we obtain $`z_0=2`$ and $`\chi _0=(3d)/2`$. Even though the EW equation is not suitable for describing interface fluctuations when a shear is present, it is interesting to see what the EW exponents would predict for the stability of the stretched domains. For $`d=2`$ the investigation of  gives two length scales, $`L_{}(t)=O(t)`$ and $`L_{}=O(1)`$ (up to logarithmic factors). Within the context of the EW equation the transverse fluctuations will grow as

$$ht^{\chi _0/z_0}F(t/L_{}^{z_0}),$$
(3)
where $`F`$ is a scaling function with the limiting forms $`F(0)=\mathrm{const}`$, $`F(s)s^{\chi _0/z_0}`$ for $`s\mathrm{}`$. In writing down (3) we have assumed that $`L_{}`$ is a fixed length scale, while actually it is growing with time. The interpretation of (3) is, however, simple. If $`tL_{}^{z_0}`$, the domains are coarsening faster than the interfacial fluctuations, and we can effectively set $`L_{}`$ to infinity. Then $`ht^{\chi _0/z_0}`$. On the other hand, if $`tL_{}^{z_0}`$, the fluctuations are coarsening faster than the domains and eventually equilibrate on the scale $`L_{}`$. This corresponds to the large argument limit of the scaling variable in (3), giving $`hL_{}^{\chi _0}`$. Combining these two limits gives

$$h\mathrm{min}(t^{\chi _0/z_0},L_{}^{\chi _0}).$$
(4)
In $`d=2`$, this gives $`ht^{1/4}`$, while $`L_{}=0(1)`$. Thus, thermal fluctuations would eventually disrupt the domain structure and destroy the coarsening state. In $`d=3`$, on the other hand, it has been found that  $`L_{}(t)=O(t^{3/2})`$ and $`L_{}(t)=O(t^{1/2})`$. In this case, $`\chi _0=0`$ (logs), so conventional EW thermal roughening would not destroy the domains, since $`hL_{}`$. As we shall see, the inclusion of shear in equation (1) will modify these results. In particular, the instability of the domains in $`d=2`$ will be reduced, while stability in $`d=3`$ will be confirmed.

When a shear flow is present the EW equation must be modified. We will consider a standard shear velocity profile $`\stackrel{}{u}`$, with flow along the $`x`$ direction and shear gradient perpendicular to the surface. Let us label this last direction by $`z`$, such that,

$$\stackrel{}{u}=\gamma z\stackrel{}{e}_x,$$
(5)
where $`\gamma `$ is the shear rate. In this way we break the symmetry between the $`x`$ direction and the remaining $`(d^{}1)`$ directions $`\stackrel{}{x}_{}`$. Note that the growth is orthogonal to the shear flow: this is what happens to the domain walls in the long-time limit of a coarsening process under shear. The field $`h(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ is now dragged in the $`x`$ direction by an amount proportional to $`h`$ itself, that is $`_t_t+\gamma h_x`$. The correct equation for $`h(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ therefore becomes,

$$_th+\gamma h_xh=\nu _x_{xx}h+\nu _{}_{}^2h+\xi ,$$
(6)
where we have introduced separate diffusion constants, $`\nu _x`$ and $`\nu _{}`$. For $`d^{}=1`$ ($`d=2`$) equation (6) is nothing other than the Burgers equation . This can be mapped onto the KPZ equation  with space-correlated noise, via the transformation $`h=_x\widehat{h}`$, i.e. $`hh\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{h})^2`$, yielding the KPZ equation for $`\widehat{h}`$. Such a case has been studied in . In generic dimension equation (6) is anisotropic and was first introduced in , in the context of a model of sandpiles, and further studied in . A standard method for the analysis of stochastic non-linear equations is the dynamic renormalization group (RG) approach, first used in this context in . Here, we will briefly review those RG results for equation (6) which are most relevant for our purpose. We start the analysis of equation (6) by finding the bare scaling dimensions of the parameters. Under the anisotropic rescaling,

$$xbx,\stackrel{}{x}_{}b^\zeta \stackrel{}{x}_{},tb^zt,hb^\chi h,$$
(7)
we obtain,

$`\nu _x`$ $``$ $`b^{z2}\nu _x,\nu _{}b^{z2\zeta }\nu _{},\gamma b^{\chi +z1}\gamma ,`$ (8)
$`D`$ $``$ $`b^{z2\chi 1(d2)\zeta }D.`$ (9)
Inserting the EW exponents $`\chi _0`$ and $`z_0`$ found above for $`\gamma =0`$ into the scaling equation for $`\gamma `$ gives: $`\gamma b^{(5d)/2}\gamma `$, showing that $`d_c=5`$ is the critical dimension below which the nonlinearity becomes relevant. Thus, for $`d<5`$ the EW exponents are no longer correct and an RG approach becomes necessary.

Burgers equation is known to be invariant under a Galilean transformation. In the present context, we have an equivalent symmetry, namely the invariance of equation (6) under a coordinate transformation which preserves the original form of the shear flow. Indeed, from (5) we have $`x\gamma ht`$, and therefore if we vertically shift the interface, $`hh+h_0`$, the equation is invariant provided that we make the transformation $`xx+\gamma h_0t`$. Basically, this is just translational invariance in the $`z`$ direction. This symmetry is important, because it implies that $`\gamma `$ cannot be perturbatively corrected in a RG analysis and therefore we must set to zero its bare scaling dimension. In this way a relation between dynamic and growth exponents is obtained, $`\chi +z=1`$. The remarkable feature of equation (6) is that there are two further parameters whose bare scaling dimensions are not perturbatively changed, namely $`\nu _{}`$ and $`D`$. This happens because the $`\gamma `$-vertex in equation (6) carries in Fourier space a factor $`k_x`$ that can generate neither terms $`O(k_{}^2)`$ in the self- energy, contributing to a renormalization of $`\nu _{}`$, nor terms $`O(1)`$ in the renormalized noise, contributing to the renormalization of $`D`$ . We can therefore set to zero the bare scaling dimensions of $`\nu _{}`$ and $`D`$, obtaining in this way two extra relations among the fixed point exponents: $`z=2\zeta `$ and $`z=2\chi +1+(d2)\zeta `$. Therefore, for $`d5`$, we have ,

$$z=\frac{6}{8d},\chi =\frac{2d}{8d},\zeta =\frac{3}{8d}.$$
(10)
From (7) and (10) we can infer the scaling form for the correlation function in Fourier space, defined by $`h(\stackrel{}{k},\omega )h(\stackrel{}{k}^{},\omega ^{})=C(\stackrel{}{k},\omega )\delta (\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{k}^{})\delta (\omega +\omega ^{})`$. We have,

$$C(\stackrel{}{k},\omega )=\frac{1}{k_x^{2z}}f(\frac{\omega }{k_x^z},\frac{|\stackrel{}{k}_{}|}{k_x^\zeta }),$$
(11)
where $`f`$ is a scaling function.

It is useful to rescale coordinates and field in order to identify the effective coupling constant of equation (6). The change of variables,

$`h`$ $``$ $`\left(D/\nu _x^{2d/2}\nu _{}^{d/21}\right)^{1/2}h,x_{}\left(\nu _{}/\nu _x\right)^{1/2}x_{},`$ (12)
$`t`$ $``$ $`(1/\nu _x)t,\xi \left(D\nu _x^{d/2}/\nu _{}^{d/21}\right)^{1/2}\xi ,`$ (13)
amounts to setting $`\nu _x=\nu _{}=D=1`$ and replacing the vertex $`\gamma `$ by the effective vertex

$$\widehat{\gamma }=\frac{\gamma D^{1/2}}{\nu _x^{2d/4}\nu _{}^{d/41/2}}.$$
(14)
As expected, for $`d=d_c=5`$ this quantity is dimensionless. Using standard RG methods (see, for example, ) it is possible to obtain the one-loop RG flow equation for the effective coupling constant $`U=c\widehat{\gamma }^2`$, where $`c=\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(3d/2\right)/[8(4\pi )^{d/21}]`$. The flow equation reads:

$$\frac{dU}{dl}=(5d)U\frac{1}{2}(8d)^2U^2.$$
(15)
The trivial fixed point, $`U=0`$, becomes stable above the critical dimension $`d_c=5`$, giving the EW exponents $`z_0,\chi _0`$, corresponding to $`\zeta =\zeta _0=1`$. No other physical $`(U>0)`$ fixed point exists in this phase. The effect of the shear on thermal roughening is therefore negligible above dimension $`d_c=5`$ and domain wall fluctuations are isotropic (in the $`d^{}`$-dimensional subspace parallel to the mean orientation of the wall). On the other hand, in dimension $`d<5`$ there is an attractive fixed point at $`U=2ϵ/9+O(ϵ^2)`$, with $`ϵ=d_cd`$. The effective coupling constant is of order $`ϵ`$, such that close to the critical dimension the RG expansion is under control. This fixed point controls the large-scale behavior of equation (6) for $`d<5`$ and is associated with the non-trivial exponents (10).

The scaling exponent $`\chi `$ of the interface height is zero for $`d=2`$, while it is negative, $`\chi =1/5`$, for $`d=3`$. From equation (4), with $`\chi _0`$ and $`z_0`$ replaced by the new exponents $`\chi `$ and $`z`$, we see that in the two-dimensional case the highly elongated domains are only marginally stable against thermal fluctuations, since $`L_{}^\chi =O(1)`$, $`t^{\chi /z}=O(1)`$, and $`L_{}=O(1)`$ (up to logarithms in each case). A thermally-induced stretching-and-breaking mechanism cannot, therefore, be excluded in this case. On the other hand, for $`d=3`$ a negative value of $`\chi `$ means that thermal fluctuations of the interfaces saturate at late times. Thus, in the three-dimensional case thermal roughening is depressed by the shear and the flow-induced layered structure of the domains is stable against thermal fluctuations.

In this work we have shown that interface fluctuations under shear, in a system with non-conserved order parameter, can be described by a stochastic differential equation, with an anisotropic Burgers non-linearity, and that the critical exponents are known exactly. In this way it was possible to assess the stability of domains in the late time regime of a system subject to a uniform shear flow.

AB thanks R.K.P. Zia for a useful discussion. This work was supported by EPSRC grant GR/L97698 (AC and AJB), and by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia grant BD/21760/99 (RDMT).


format: text

text:
# Doubling of the bands in overdoped 𝐵𝑖₂𝑆𝑟₂𝐶𝑎𝐶𝑢₂𝑂_{8+𝛿}-probable evidence for c-axis bilayer coupling

## Abstract

We present high resolution ARPES data of the bilayer superconductor $`Bi_2Sr_2CaCu_2O_{8+\delta }`$ (Bi2212) showing a clear doubling of the near $`E_F`$ bands. This splitting approaches zero along the $`(0,0)(\pi ,\pi )`$ nodal line and is not observed in single layer $`Bi_2Sr_2CuO_{6+\delta }`$ (Bi2201), suggesting that the splitting is due to the long sought after bilayer splitting effect. The splitting has a magnitude of approximately $`75meV`$ near the middle of the zone, extrapolating to about $`100meV`$ near the $`(\pi ,0)`$ point.

One of the central features of the cuprate superconductors is that their physical properties depend strongly on the number of $`CuO`$ planes (n) per unit cell. For example, increasing n from 1 to 3 almost universally results in large enhancements in the superconducting $`T_c`$ . This would seem to argue for the importance of some sort of coupling between the $`CuO`$ planes within a unit cell. Despite this, there have been essentially no direct observations of the intracell coupling between the planes, and the vast majority of theoretical models for the cuprates focus on a single $`CuO`$ plane, i.e. on the limit of zero intra and intercell c-axis coupling.

In this letter, we present the first high energy/momentum resolution angle resolved photoemission (ARPES) data of a cuprate superconductor which shows a clear doubling of the bands in the normal state. The splitting is observed in the double layer compound $`Bi_2Sr_2CaCu_2O_{8+\delta }`$ (Bi2212) but is much weaker or absent in the single layer compound $`Bi_2Sr_2CuO_{6+\delta }`$ (Bi2201). The splitting approaches zero along the $`(0,0)(\pi ,\pi )`$ nodal line and is maximal at $`\overline{M}(\pi ,0)`$, and appears to be larger for overdoped samples. These trends point towards an intracell c-axis coupling between the $`CuO`$ planes (bilayer splitting) as the likely origin of the splitting, although other effects such as microscopic phase separation may play a role. In addition to the new physics of this coupling, our new findings may help resolve the recent controversy about the electron-like  and hole-like  Fermi surfaces which have recently been measured on Bi2212.

The experiments were carried out at the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory (SSRL), Stanford, CA, at the Advanced Light Source (ALS), Berkeley, and at the Synchrotron Radiation Center (SRC), Stoughton, WI. At each facility we used a Scienta 200mm energy analyzer running angle mode to simultaneously collect up to 84 individual Energy Distribution Curves (EDCs) along an $`14^o`$ angular slice. The angle resolution was about $`0.08^o`$ along the angular slice (the $`\theta `$ direction) and about $`0.4^o`$ in the perpendicular direction (the $`\varphi `$ direction). At the experimental photon energy $`h\nu =24.7eV`$, the Brillouin Zone edge $`(\pi /a)`$ will be $`20^o`$ and the corresponding momentum resolution will be $`(\mathrm{\Delta }k_x,\mathrm{\Delta }k_y)(0.008\pi /a,0.04\pi /a)`$ with $`a`$ the lattice constant. The energy resolution was better than $`20meV`$ determined from the $`1090\%`$ width of a gold reference which was in electric contact with the sample and was used to determine the Fermi Energy $`E_F`$. Data is shown from a lightly overdoped Bi2212 sample with a $`T_c=85K`$ and a lightly overdoped Bi2201 samples with $`T_c5K`$. The photon polarization direction was along the $`\theta `$ direction and the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,0)Y(\pi ,\pi )`$ high symmetry line. All data shown here was normalized by using the spectral weight in the high binding energy window $`(0.8eV,0.6eV)`$ only .

Figure 1$`𝐚`$ shows the schematic plot of the commonly accepted Fermi Surface (FS) topology of Bi2212  in part of the first Brillouin Zone. The thick yellow lines are the main FS and the thin yellow lines are the FS produced by the crystal distortion (the superstructure, labeled “S.S.”). Figure 1$`𝐛`$ is the intensity distribution of the ARPES spectral weight at $`E_F`$ in the normal state of a lightly overdoped Bi2212 sample, with the $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ space location of this panel indicated in figure 1$`𝐚`$. Modulo matrix element effects, the high intensity locus at $`E_F`$ should represent the FS topology . In panel $`𝐛`$, one can see that the main FS splits into two branches, one produced by band A and the other by B. This splitting behavior can also be seen in the superstructure FS, even though the intensity is much weaker there. This behavior is not expected within the generic FS topology shown by the yellow lines in figure 1$`𝐚`$.

In order to examine the splitting of these bands more carefully, we examine the $`\stackrel{}{k}`$-dependence of the states as a function of binding energy. Figure 2$`𝐚`$ shows data along the blue line $`(\varphi =7^o)`$ in figure 1$`𝐚`$, with the main band crossing $`E_F`$ near the center of the window. The so-called ”main band”, which shows up as the high intensity feature, disperses from binding energy $`0.12eV`$ (around emission angle $`\theta =6^o`$) towards $`E_F`$. Around $`\theta =12^o`$, another weaker feature appears at slightly deeper binding energy. This two-peak structure (labeled “A” and “B” here) can be easily seen in the energy distribution curve (EDC) shown in panel $`𝐛`$, which was taken at $`\theta =12^o`$ (vertical white line in panel $`𝐚`$). We emphasize that such two-peak structure in EDC is self-evident without any analysis on the data. However, further quantitative determination of the peak positions, FS crossings, or splitting is difficult from the EDCs, as a detailed understanding of their line shape and background is still unclear. In addition, the Fermi function distorts the line shape near the Fermi energy.

On the other hand, it is now well established that for relatively dispersive states the Momentum Distribution Curves (MDCs, intensity versus emission angle $`\theta `$ with fixed binding energy) have a simple line shape which can be modeled by a simple Gaussian or Lorentzian function . This is equivalent to saying that the electron self-energy is essentially $`\stackrel{}{k}`$-independent over the narrow $`\stackrel{}{k}`$-range of a MDC peak. A further advantage of the MDC method is that it won’t be affected by the Fermi function cutoff, so in principle one can track ARPES features all the way up to or even above $`E_F`$. Figure 2$`𝐜`$ shows the MDCs from the data of 2$`𝐚`$ over the full $`\theta `$ range and from $`10meV`$ above $`E_F`$ to $`60meV`$ below. The MDC at $`E_F`$ is further shown in panel $`𝐝`$ (blue dots), along with a fitting (red line) of the main band into two separate Lorentzian peaks A and B and the superstructure band into two corresponding features (green lines), plus a linear background (black dash line). For the fit, the angular width, position, and intensity of each feature was allowed to vary. It was found that the angular width of both branches were essentially identical, and the intensity ratio and the angular splitting between the branches found to be roughly constant as a function of binding energy (see figure 2$`𝐞`$). The high quality fits allow an accurate determination of the peak positions for each component. Such fits were performed for each MDC at $`E_F`$ between the $`\varphi `$ angles of $`3^o`$ and $`8^o`$ . In this way the white dots of figure 1$`𝐚`$ were determined which, as expected, perfectly match the high intensity locus.

The energy splitting of these two bands can be most accurately found by fitting the MDC peaks for a range of energies. Figure 2$`𝐞`$ shows the results of the fits from the $`\varphi =7^o`$ data of 2$`𝐜`$. The black dots are the peak centroids $`(\theta ,`$ in degree) for each of the components of the main band. The energy splitting can then be measured as the separation between the two MDC branches, which is immediately seen to be $`75meV`$.

There are several possible origins for the band splitting, both intrinsic and extrinsic. We begin by discussing and ruling out the extrinsic effects. First among these is the possibility that the sample surface was slightly multifaceted, which each facet contributing to a feature at a slightly different angle. This is not the case, as a post-cleave laser reflection plus optical inspection revealed angular deviations no greater than $`0.2^o`$, while the angular splitting of the states is on the order of $`2^o`$. X-ray Laue and LEED reflections showed sharp spots as well, indicating high quality crystalline of the samples. We also considered the possibility that there may be Bi2201 intergrowths in the Bi2212 samples, which would be very difficult to detect from magnetization or x-ray measurements. In this possibility, it could be imagined that one of the branches was due to Bi2212 and the other to Bi2201. One could possibly imagine this effect causing the splitting on one cleave, but not on the numerous cleaves we have studied. Also, we have cooled a sample down to $`35K`$ which is below $`T_c`$ for Bi2212 and above the $`T_c`$ for Bi2201. Since the superconducting gap was observed in both branches, it rules out the possibility of the Bi2201 contamination.

Two main intrinsic possibilities exist: (a) the bilayer splitting due to the intracell c-axis coupling, and (b) microscopic phase separation into hole rich and hole poor regions each with distinct bands and Fermi surfaces. We first discuss option (a), which we believe to be much more likely. We first remind the reader that in the bilayer splitting scenario, the electronic states from each of the two CuO planes per unit cell will couple, breaking their degeneracy. One set (antibonding) will increase in energy while the other (bonding) will decrease. Within this picture we make the assignment on the figures as peak A=antibonding and peak B=bonding. Important information is garnered by comparing the spectra to that of the single layer compound Bi2201, which can not exhibit bilayer splitting. Figure 3$`𝐚`$ shows an MDC at $`E_F`$ from the $`\varphi =7^o`$ angular slice of a lightly overdoped Bi2201 sample taken under the identical experimental configuration as that of figure 2. Unlike figure 2$`𝐝`$, a single Lorentzian function alone is enough to produce a very good fit to either the main or superstructure band. This indicates that there is no splitting of the bands in Bi2201, at least not one with a similar magnitude as observed in Bi2212. This Bi2201 data also helps rule out other possible origins for the band doubling since the crystal structures for Bi2212 and Bi2201 are very similar. For example, if the additional band in Bi2212 was a $`BiO`$ band or a $`Cu_{3d_{3z^2r^2}}O_{2p}`$ hybrid  then we would expect to see them showing up in Bi2201 as well. The lack of the apparent doubling in Bi2201 seems to argue against microscopic phase separation, however since the mechanism for the phase segregation is not completely conclusive, we hold this as a less likely mechanism.

The $`\stackrel{}{k}`$-space dependence of the splitting of the two bands is also consistent with the bilayer splitting effect. Symmetry arguments dictate that the coupling between the planes should vanish along the $`(0,0)(\pi ,\pi )`$ symmetry line and grow as the $`(\pi ,0)`$ region is approached, exactly as the data in figure 1 shows. More precisely, the bilayer splitting has been parameterized by $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{k})=0.5t_{}(cos(k_xa)cos(k_ya))^2`$ which has a maximum splitting of $`2t_{}`$ at $`(\pi ,0)`$ . Using this equation to parameterize the overdoped data of figure 1 and 2, we find a $`t_{}`$ of $`55meV`$ and an extrapolated splitting at $`(\pi ,0)`$ of $`110meV`$. This is small compared to the band structure prediction of nearly $`300meV`$  implying important correlation effects present in the system, but it is still larger than or comparable to other important energy scales $`(T_c,T^{},J)`$ meaning that it is an effect which should not be ignored for the physics of these compounds.

Although we have not yet carried out a full doping study, our preliminary data indicates that near-optimal or underdoped samples have a smaller splitting effect. This smaller splitting, as well as the broader peaks associated with less heavy doping, make the detection of the splitting much more difficult, probably explaining why this effect has not been observed previously. We also note that it would be harder to argue for the existence of the splitting from the conventional EDCs because the lineshapes are poorly known. For the MDC’s which have only been used extensively in the past year or so, the lineshape is simple and additional peaks can be more readily seen, even if the peaks are not as sharp or splitting as large as it is in the data shown here. Additionally, much effort has been concentrated along either the $`(0,0)(\pi ,\pi )`$ nodal line where the splitting vanishes, or near the $`(\pi ,0)`$ point where the superstructure bands contaminate the data and give additional peaks. Hence for a clear determination of the bilayer splitting effect it is important to study the middle of the zone, as done here.

Also relevant to why it may not have been previously detected are the matrix element effects, which may strengthen one of the peaks at the expense of the other. For example, for the data of figure 1 and 2, a large out-of-plane component of the photon polarization was used, which helped to enhance the already-weak B peak. The identical data taken with a more in-plane photon polarization shows a much weaker B peak, as shown in figure 3$`𝐛`$ and 3$`𝐜`$, however the fitting result produces same amount of the splitting in energy (data not shown here). The major difference between the data with less grazing photon incidence angle (case in figure 3) and more grazing angle (case in figure 1 and 2) is the relative intensity of peak A and B which makes the feature B barely visible in figure 3$`𝐛`$. Of course, the relative strength of A compared to B can also depend on other parameters, most notably the photon energy, for which oscillations in the relative magnitude of the branches may exist.

Although the bilayer splitting scenario is convincing, we note that there is increasing evidence for microscopic phase separation in BSCCO and related compounds, and such an explanation for the band splitting is hard to completely rule out . However, if this is the explanation a couple of important restrictions can be made from this study: (1) The degree of phase separation should be larger for Bi2212 than Bi2201. (2) There would be metallic regions of two dominant types (possibly with other insulating regions) as the MDCs show two main peaks. (3) The angular width of each MDC peak is on the order of $`1^o`$ HWHM or $`0.04\dot{A}^1`$, giving a mean free path for scattering $`l=1/\mathrm{\Delta }k25\dot{A}`$ which sets the minimal domain size in the sample.

From our new data, we see that the B piece of FS matches the traditional hole-like piece of FS very well , while the A piece deviates in $`\stackrel{}{k}`$-space significantly and approaches $`\overline{M}(\pi ,0)`$. While an extrapolation is required, it appears that the A piece probably remains centered around $`Y(\pi ,\pi )`$, i.e. it remains to be hole-like. However, it comes close enough to $`(\pi ,0)`$ that a very small amount of $`k_z`$ dispersion of this band could easily push it back and forth across $`(\pi ,0)`$, making it either electron-like or hole-like. Experimentally, $`k_z`$ is varied by changing photon energies, which also should affect the intensity ratio of the two components. Assuming a small amount of $`k_z`$ dispersion, this would give a very natural explanation for the recent controversy over the FS topology, in which the existence of an electron-like portion centered around $`(0,0)`$ has been suggested  as well as denied .

Such a $`k_z`$ dispersion would come from a c-axis intercell coupling, and while this has yet to be directly observed, we note that the existence of the intracell coupling shown here makes the non-vanishing intercell coupling more plausible. Recent optical measurements on Tl-based cuprates do suggest the presence of this interlayer coupling . Similar to the intralcell coupling, symmetry arguments tell us that the intercell coupling should vanish along the $`(0,0)(\pi ,0)`$ nodal line and should be largest near $`(\pi ,0)`$, precisely where they would need to be to resolve the controversy. However, how to connect above argument and Bi2201 FS topology at $`33eV`$ is still not clear to us.

In summary, we have shown that in the normal state of Bi2212 there is a doubling of the band structure. Near the middle of the zone the angular splitting is a little more than $`2^o`$ and the energy splitting is roughly $`75meV`$. The $`\stackrel{}{k}`$-dependence of the splitting is consistent with that expected from bilayer splitting, and if we parameterize this, we obtain a intra-cell coupling $`t_{}`$ of $`55meV`$. Another less likely origin for the splitting is the microscopic phase separation. Similar results on even more heavily overdoped samples have been independently obtained by the Stanford group as well . We acknowledge sample preparation help from J. Koralek and beamline support from H. Hochst, S. Kellar and D.H. Lu. This work was supported by the NSF Career-DMR-9985492 and the DOE DE-FG03-00ER45809. SSRL and the ALS are operated by the DOE, Office of Basic Energy Sciences and the SRC is supported by the NSF.


text:
# Two results on tilings of quadriculated annuli

## 1 Connectivity

We assume that the squares in a quadriculated annulus $`A`$ are colored in a checkerboard pattern and that the numbers of black and white squares are equal. Without loss, $`A`$ is embedded in the plane. 1991 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 05B45, Secondary 05A15, 05C50, 05E05. Keywords and phrases Quadriculated surfaces, tilings by dominoes, dimers. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of CNPq, Faperj and Finep.

Let $`T_A`$ be the set of domino tilings of $`A`$. Two tilings are adjacent if they differ by a flip, a $`90^{}`$ rotation of two dominoes filling a $`2\times 2`$ square. Assign the counterclockwise (resp. clockwise) orientation to the boundary of white (resp. black) squares. A flip is positive (resp. negative) if in the original $`2\times 2`$ square the two sides of squares from center to boundary not trespassing dominoes point outwards (resp. inwards), as in Figure 1. The attribution of signs to flips is exact in the sense any closed sequence of flips contains the same number of positive and negative flips (this follows easily from properties of height functions and sections as discussed in ; height functions were introduced by Thurston in ).

When are two tilings joined by a sequence of flips? They clearly must have the same flux across a cut: in Figure 2, the two tilings have different fluxes. Indeed, flips don’t alter flux.

Something else may happen to prevent connectivity: the presence of ladders as in Figure 3, where annuli have been sliced open. Flips don’t change ladders.

Boundaries of ladders are walls. Tilings don’t trespass walls. Thus, for the intent of studying tilings, walls decompose annuli into independent disks and narrow annuli (as in Figure 4). There is no real loss in considering, for the purposes of this paper, wall-free annuli. Fortunately, there are no other obstructions to connectivity:

###### Theorem 2 ()

Let $`A`$ be a wall-free quadriculated annulus. Two tilings of $`A`$ can be joined by flips if and only if they have the same flux.

## 2 The $`q`$-flux polynomial

We will define the volume $`\nu (t)`$ of a tiling $`tT_A`$; volume increases by one when applying a positive flip. The $`q`$-flux polynomial $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A(p,q)`$ will $`(p,q)`$-count tilings with respect to flux and volume.

Open the annulus $`A`$ by a cut $`\xi `$ in order to obtain a track segment $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as in Figure 5; the annulus is obtained by identifying the vertical sides, which both correspond to the cut $`\xi `$. Draw a graph $`G_A`$ whose vertices are centers of squares of $`A`$ and whose edges join vertices of squares sharing a side. In $`G_\mathrm{\Delta }G_A`$ choose a maximal tree and assign weight 1 to its edges (solid segments in the figure). Assign weight $`p`$ to an arbitrarily chosen edge in $`G_AG_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (i.e., an edge crossing the cut). Now consider a $`2\times 2`$ square contained in $`A`$: say a positive flip on the square takes edges $`e_0,e_1`$ to edges $`e_2,e_3`$. The weights $`w_0,w_1,w_2,w_3`$ assigned to these four edges must satisfy $`w_2w_3=qw_0w_1`$: these requirements uniquely determine weights on all edges of $`G_A`$.

For each tiling $`tT_A`$, the Kasteleyn weights above obtain a signed monomial $`\pm p^{\varphi (t)}q^{\nu (t)}`$ by multiplying the weights of the edges asociated to dominoes in $`t`$. By construction, a positive flip preserves the flux $`\varphi `$ and increases the volume $`\nu `$ by one. This also shows how to define the volume of a tiling of a quadriculated disk (there is no flux variable).

Why are the weights signed? So that we can construct a Kasteleyn matrix $`M_A`$ whose determinant, the $`q`$-flux polynomial, $`(p,q)`$-counts tilings, i.e.,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_A(p,q)=\underset{tT_A}{}p^{\varphi (t)}q^{\nu (t)}=\pm det(M_A).$$

Rows and colums of $`M_A`$ correspond to black and white squares in $`A`$ and entries are given by weights. The reader should recognize the construction above as an extension of Kasteleyn’s (). For the example in Figure 5,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_A(p,q)`$ $`=q^{18}p^2(q^{36}p^4+`$
$`(q^{36}+3q^{35}+3q^{34}+4q^{33}+6q^{32}+6q^{31}+7q^{30}+6q^{29}+6q^{28}+7q^{27}+`$
$`6q^{26}+6q^{25}+7q^{24}+6q^{23}+6q^{22}+4q^{21}+3q^{20}+3q^{19}+q^{18})p^3+`$
$`(q^{30}+3q^{29}+3q^{28}+4q^{27}+9q^{26}+12q^{25}+16q^{24}+24q^{23}+33q^{22}+`$
$`41q^{21}+45q^{20}+51q^{19}+57q^{18}+51q^{17}+45q^{16}+41q^{15}+`$
$`33q^{14}+24q^{13}+16q^{12}+12q^{11}+9q^{10}+4q^9+3q^8+3q^7+q^6)p^2+`$
$`(q^{18}+3q^{17}+3q^{16}+4q^{15}+6q^{14}+6q^{13}+7q^{12}+6q^{11}+6q^{10}+7q^9+`$
$`6q^8+6q^7+7q^6+6q^5+6q^4+4q^3+3q^2+3q+1)p+1)`$
We are ready to state our main result.

###### Theorem 3

Let $`A`$ be a balanced bicolored wall-free quadriculated annulus.

1. All non-zero roots of the polynomial $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A(p,1)`$ are roots of unity.
2. Let $`q>0`$ be fixed: all non-zero roots of the $`q`$-flux polynomial $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A(p,q)`$ are distinct, negative numbers.

In the example above, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A(p,1)=p^2(p^4+p^3+p^2+p+1)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A(p,1)=p^2(p^4+91p^3+541p^2+91p+1)`$ (with roots approximately equal to $`84.619`$, $`6.2077`$, $`.16109`$ and $`.011818`$).

## 3 The connection matrix

A cut $`\xi `$ transforms an annulus $`A`$ into a track segment $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with left and right attachments. The $`n`$-th cover $`A^n`$ of $`A`$ can be obtained by juxtaposing $`n`$ copies $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Delta }_{n1}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and then closing up, i.e., identifying extreme attachments. There are copies $`\xi _{i+0.5}`$ of the cut between $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{i+1}`$, $`i=0,\mathrm{},n1`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n=\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. A tiling of $`A^n`$ restricts to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ yielding a tiling of the track segment $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$: notice that such tilings include half-dominoes belonging to dominoes trespassing the cuts $`\xi _{i\pm 0.5}`$ across a certain set of sides of squares.

A shape at an attachment is a set of sides contained in the attachment. Tilings of a track segment $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ thus induce shapes on both attachments. In particular, shape determines flux. A pair of shapes on the attachments of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ describes a pruning of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (a smaller disk or a union of disks) by removing the squares with sides belonging to either shape, as in Figure 6. If two sides of the same square are selected, pruning is not defined. Tilings of the track segment with prescribed shapes are in natural bijection with tilings of the pruned segment. Pairs of shapes for which pruning is not defined are not induced by any tilings of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

We now construct the c͡onnection matrix $`C_\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Order shapes so that flux is non-decreasing. Rows and columns of $`C_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ correspond to shapes at the left and right attachments. Given a pair of shapes, the associated entry $`q`$-counts tilings of the pruned segment (the entry is 0 if pruning is not defined). We do not discuss how to compare volumes of tilings on different prunings—this introduces a certain ambiguity, given by possible multiplication of entries of the matrix by different powers of $`q`$; the issue is resolved via height functions in . Thus, the matrix $`C_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is block diagonal with blocks $`C_{\mathrm{\Delta },f}`$ labeled by $`f`$, the value of the flux. Also,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_A(p,q)=p^{}q^{}\underset{f}{}(\mathrm{tr}C_{\mathrm{\Delta },f})p^f.$$

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }^n`$ be the juxtaposition of $`n`$ copies of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Delta }^n`$ is obtained by cutting $`A^n`$ across any $`\xi _{i+0.5}`$. The connection matrix of $`C_{\mathrm{\Delta }^n}`$ is $`(C_\mathrm{\Delta })^n`$: essentially, entries of the $`n`$-th power of the adjacency matrix of a graph count paths of length $`n`$ between two vertices.

The polynomial $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{A^n}(p,q)`$ admits two useful descriptions. From the previous paragraph,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{A^n}(p,q)=p^{}q^{}\underset{f}{}(\mathrm{tr}(C_{\mathrm{\Delta },f})^n)p^f.$$

The second relates the roots $`\lambda _i`$ of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A(p,q)`$ (in $`p`$ for fixed $`q`$) with the roots $`\lambda _{i,n}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{A^n}(p,q)`$:

$$\lambda _{i,n}=(1)^{n+1}\lambda _i^n.$$

This follows from constructing a Kasteleyn matrix $`M_{A^n}`$ from $`M_A`$ and diagonalizing both matrices by exploiting the obvious action of $`/(n)`$ over $`A^n`$.

## 4 The proof

We begin with item (a). Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a track segment obtained from cutting $`A`$. Consider, for a fixed value $`f`$ of the flux and $`q=1`$, the blocks $`C_{\mathrm{\Delta }^n,f}=(C_{\mathrm{\Delta },f})^n`$ of the connection matrix $`C_{\mathrm{\Delta }^n}`$ of the juxtaposition $`\mathrm{\Delta }^n`$. From the left hand side of the equality, the block entries $`1`$-count the numbers of tilings of (unions of) disks obtained by pruning, or are equal to zero in case pruning is not defined. From Theorem 1, these entries, for all $`n`$, take very few values.

Thus, for all $`n`$, there are only finitely many possible values for the matrices $`C_{\mathrm{\Delta }^n,f}`$. In particular, there are powers $`n_0`$ and $`n_1`$ such that, for all values $`f`$ of the flux, we have $`C_{\mathrm{\Delta }^{n_0},f}=C_{\mathrm{\Delta }^{n_1},f}`$, implying in turn the equality of the polynomials $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{A^{n_0}}(p,1)=\mathrm{\Phi }_{A^{n_1}}(p,1)`$. Without loss, $`n_0`$ and $`n_1`$ can be taken to be powers of 2 so that $`n_1=n^{}n_0`$ for a natural number $`n^{}>1`$. Combine this fact with the relationship $`\lambda _{i,n}=(1)^{n+1}\lambda _i^n`$ to learn that, up to signs, raising to $`n^{}`$ induces a permutation on the set of roots of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{A^{n_0}}(p,1)`$. For a sufficiently high power $`n^{\prime \prime }`$ of $`n^{}`$, raising to $`n^{\prime \prime }`$ keeps all roots of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{A^{n_0}}(p,1)`$ fixed: the nonzero roots are therefore roots of unity, and item (a) is proved.

The proof of (b) takes a different route. Take $`q>0`$ fixed throughout the proof. The first step is to prove that each block $`C_{\mathrm{\Delta },f}`$ has a simple eigenvalue $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_f>0`$ of absolute value larger than that of any other eigenvalue.

A shape is bi-active if a tiling of the bi-infinite band $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{}`$ exists with the prescribed shape at the cut $`\xi _{0.5}`$. The bi-active submatrix $`C_{,\mathrm{\Delta },f}`$ is the intersection of rows and columns of $`C_{\mathrm{\Delta },f}`$ associated with bi-active shapes. We leave it to the reader to check that the corresponding submatrix of $`(C_{\mathrm{\Delta },f})^n`$ equals $`(C_{,\mathrm{\Delta },f})^n`$ and that the spectra of $`C_{\mathrm{\Delta },f}`$ and $`C_{,\mathrm{\Delta },f}`$ coincide, up to null eigenvalues; details are given in .

We now show that sufficiently large powers of $`C_{,\mathrm{\Delta },f}`$ have only positive entries, i.e, that for a given track segment $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and a value $`f`$ of the flux, there exists an integer $`N`$ such that for all $`n>N`$ and any two bi-active shapes $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`r`$, there exists a tiling of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^n`$ with these prescribed shapes at the left and right attachments. We proceed to join $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`r`$ by a tiling of a long track segment $`\mathrm{\Delta }^n`$. By hypothesis, $`\mathrm{}`$ extends as a tiling to the right of $`\xi _{0.5}`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}`$: since there are only finitely many shapes, two cuts $`\xi _{I_L+0.5}`$ and $`\xi _{I_L+P_L+0.5}`$ see the same shape. By repeating this chunk of tiling, $`\mathrm{}`$ also extends as an eventually periodic tiling with period $`P_L`$ after an initial stretch of length $`I_L`$. Similarly, $`r`$ also extends as an eventually periodic tiling with period $`P_R`$ and final stretch of length $`F_R`$, say, to the left of $`\xi _{n+0.5}`$.

Assume without loss that $`P_L`$ and $`P_R`$ are both even, $`I_L0(modP_LP_R)`$ and $`F_Rn(modP_LP_R)`$; call $`t_I`$ and $`t_F`$ the restrictions of the infinite tilings above to $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{I_L}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{F_R}`$. Both infinite tilings restricted to periodic stretches (i.e., tilings of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{P_L}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{P_R}`$) by replication give rise to tilings $`t_L`$ and $`t_R`$ of the annulus $`A^{P_LP_R}`$ (and thus of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{P_LP_R}`$). It is not too hard to see that if $`A`$ is wall-free than so is $`A^{P_LP_R}`$ (see  for details). From Theorem 2, there exists a sequence of flips connecting these tilings. Call the tilings in this sequence $`t_L=t_0,t_1,\mathrm{},t_M=t_R`$.

We would like to join shapes $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`r`$ by a tiling obtained by juxtaposing $`t_I,t_0,t_1,\mathrm{},t_M,t_F`$: this is not quite correct since $`t_i`$ and $`t_{i+1}`$ may differ at the common cut. This difficulty is circumvented by constructing tilings $`t_{i+0.5}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{P_LP_R}`$ with the same left shape as $`t_i`$ and the same right shape as $`t_{i+1}`$ and then juxtaposing $`t_I,t_{0.5},t_{1.5},\mathrm{},t_{M0.5},t_F`$. More precisely, if $`t_i`$ and $`t_{i+1}`$ have the same left shape take $`t_{i+0.5}=t_i`$; otherwise, take $`t_{i+0.5}`$ to coincide with $`t_i`$ on the left $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{P_LP_R/2}`$ subsegment and with $`t_{i+1}`$ on the right subsegment. This obtains a tiling in $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{I_L+(M1)P_LP_R+F_R}`$: since this number is congruent to $`n`$ modulo $`P_LP_R`$, the desired tiling can be obtained, for sufficiently large $`n`$, by inserting copies of $`t_M`$ before $`t_F`$.

The Perron-Frobenius theorem () applied to $`C_{,\mathrm{\Delta },f}`$ then completes the proof of the first step.

Label the nonzero roots of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A(p,q)`$ as $`|\lambda _1||\lambda _2|\mathrm{}|\lambda _m|>0`$. Assume by induction that $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{k1}`$ are real negative and that

$$|\lambda _1|>\mathrm{}>|\lambda _{k1}|>|\lambda _k|=\mathrm{}=|\lambda _k^{}|>|\lambda _{k^{}+1}|,$$

with $`k^{}k`$. We must prove that $`k=k^{}`$ and that $`\lambda _k`$ is real negative. Consider the usual symmetric function

$$\sigma _k(x_1,\mathrm{},x_m)=\underset{1i_1<\mathrm{}<i_km}{}x_{i_1}\mathrm{}x_{i_k}.$$

From what we have seen above,

$$\mathrm{tr}C_{\mathrm{\Delta },f_{\mathrm{max}}k}=a^n\sigma _k((\lambda _1)^n,\mathrm{},(\lambda _m)^n)=(1+o(1))\mathrm{\Lambda }_{f_{\mathrm{max}}k}^n$$

when $`n`$ goes to infinity. Here $`ap^{f_{\mathrm{max}}}`$ is the leading monomial of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A(p,q)`$.

The expression $`\sigma _k((\lambda _1)^n,\mathrm{},(\lambda _m)^n)`$ is the sum of $`k^{}k+1`$ terms of the form $`((1)^k\lambda _1\lambda _2\mathrm{}\lambda _{k1}\lambda _{\mathrm{}})^n`$, $`\mathrm{}=k,\mathrm{},k^{}`$ and other terms which grow at exponentially smaller rates. Thus

$$(1)^{kn}\lambda _1^n\lambda _2^n\mathrm{}\lambda _{k1}^n(\lambda _k^n+\mathrm{}+\lambda _k^{}^n)=(1+o(1))(\mathrm{\Lambda }_k/a)^n$$

whence

$$b_k^n+\mathrm{}+b_k^{}^n=1+o(1)$$

where $`b_{\mathrm{}}=\lambda _{\mathrm{}}/|\lambda _{\mathrm{}}|`$. The upshot is that $`b_k,\mathrm{},b_k^{}`$ belong to the unit circle and we can take arbitrarily large $`n`$ such that $`2(k^{}k+1)|b_{\mathrm{}}^n1|<1`$ for all $`\mathrm{}`$ and therefore

$$|(k^{}k+1)(b_k^n+\mathrm{}+b_k^{}^n)|<1/2,$$

a contradiction unless $`k=k^{}`$. Finally, $`b_k=1`$ and $`\lambda _k`$ is real negative. This concludes the proof of item (b).

As an application of (b), we state the result below. A sequence $`a_k`$ of non-negative real numbers is log-concave if $`a_k^2a_{k1}a_{k+1}`$ for all $`k`$. In particular, log-concave sequences are either monotone or unimodal.

###### Corollary 4

Let $`q`$ be a fixed positive real number and let $`a_f`$ be the coefficient of $`p^f`$ in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A(p,q)`$. Then the sequence $`a_f`$ is log-concave.

Nicolau C. Saldanha and Carlos Tomei
Depto. de Matemática, PUC-Rio
R. Mq. de S. Vicente 225
Rio de Janeiro, RJ 22453-900, Brazil
nicolau@mat.puc-rio.br
tomei@mat.puc-rio.br


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The existence of the Odderon , the partner of the Pomeron which is odd under charge conjugation $`C`$, is an important prediction of perturbative QCD. In the leading order, the Odderon appears as a bound state of three reggeized gluons. Its experimental observation is a strong challenge for the experimentalists. Promising scattering processes where the exchange of the Odderon may be seen include the difference between the $`pp`$ and $`p\overline{p}`$ cross-sections and the diffractive production of particles with a C-odd exchange, such as photo- and electroproduction of pseudoscalar mesons (PS). From the theoretical point of view, some of the latter processes are of particular interest, namely those where the presence of a large momentum scale provides some justifications for the use of perturbative QCD. This includes, in particular, the diffractive production of charmed pseudoscalar mesons, for example the $`\eta _c`$. Correspondingly, a large amount of literature has been devoted to this class of diffractive processes. For large photon virtualities $`Q^2`$, for heavy mass PS mesons (such as $`\eta _c`$), and for large momentum transfers the relevant impact factors for the transition $`\gamma (\gamma ^{})`$PS have been be calculated perturbatively . As to the Odderon exchange, first studies have used the simplest form, the exchange of three noninteracting gluons in a C=-1 state. Another line of Odderon investigations, persued by the Heidelberg group, uses a non-perturbative model for the Odderon, based on the idea of a “stochastic QCD vacuum” . Numerical estimates for the cross sections turn out to be very different in these two approaches: the nonperturbative Odderon models tend to give substantially larger cross sections . Evidently, to guide the experimental search for signatures of the Odderon we have to clarify these discrepancies. In this paper we follow the perturbative approach and make use of the recently discoverd new Odderon solution.

The perturbative QCD Odderon has a rather long history. After several variational studies  a first analytic solution to the Odderon equation was constructed by Janik and Wosiek  and verified by Braun et al . It belongs to the lowest non-zero eigenvalue of the conformal integral of motion, $`Q_3`$. This solution has an intercept slightly below unity and, most important, vanishes if two of the three gluons are at the same point. This property leads to the disappointing result that this solution cannot couple to the perturbative $`\gamma `$PS vertex and therefore is irrelevant for photo and electroproduction of PS mesons. It may, however, play its role in purely hadronic processes, such as $`pp`$ or $`p\overline{p}`$ scattering. Recently a new solution for a bound state of three reggeized gluons with the Odderon quantum numbers has been found , which is quite different from the previous one. It corresponds to $`Q_3=0`$, has intercept unity, and, most important, it does couple to the $`\gamma `$PS transition vertex. The structure of the wave function of this solution is rather peculiar, so that one may expect substantial changes compared to the exchange of three noninteracting gluons. The purpose of this paper is to perform an analytic and numerical study of the exchange of this new odderon solution for the diffractive $`\eta _c`$ photo- and electroproduction. We follow the approach of , by replacing the three noninteracting gluons by the new Odderon state. As the main results, our cross sections are an order of magnitude larger than those of ; also, the $`t`$-dependence of our cross section exhibits an interesting dip structure which is not present in the case of noninteracting gluons.

## 2 The perturbative QCD Odderon which couples to $`\gamma `$-PS transition.

Let us first briefly recapitulate the main properties of the new odderon solution. For details we refer to . We remind that this solution has been shown  to be a particular case of a more general class of solutions: in the large $`N_c`$-limit there exist relations between eigenstates of different number of reggeized gluons, which connect solutions of different symmetry properties, and the Odderon solution is the simplest case that satisfies these relations.

In momentum space the Odderon wave function is constructed from the known Pomeron solutions $`E^{(\nu ,n)}`$ , which have the eigenvalues

$$\chi (\nu ,n)=\overline{\alpha _s}\left(2\psi (1)\psi (\frac{1+|n|}{2}+i\nu )\psi (\frac{1+|n|}{2}i\nu )\right),\overline{\alpha }_s=\frac{N_c\alpha _s}{\pi }.$$
(1)
One proves that

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{(\nu ,n)}(𝒌_1,𝒌_2,𝒌_3)=c(\nu ,n)\underset{(123)}{}\frac{(𝒌_1+𝒌_2)^2}{𝒌_1^2𝒌_2^2}E^{(\nu ,n)}(𝒌_1+𝒌_2,𝒌_3),$$
(2)
indeed satisfies the Odderon equation and has the same intercept (1), provided the Pomeron wave function is odd under the interchange of its arguments. This restricts the values of $`n`$ to odd numbers. The normalization factor $`c`$ in (2) can be chosen in such a way that the Odderon wave function will have the same norm as the Pomeron function

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(\nu ,n)}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(\nu ^{},n^{})}=\stackrel{~}{E}^{(\nu ,n)}|E^{(\nu ^{},n^{})}=w(\nu ,n)\delta (\nu \nu ^{})\delta _{nn^{}},$$
(3)
where the $`w(\nu ,n)`$ are known . In (3) the scalar product is defined as the integral of the two wave functions in momentum space, where the bra-vector has to be amputated (marked by a tilda). Condition (3) leads to

$$c(\nu ,n)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}\sqrt{\frac{g_s^2N_c}{3\chi (\nu ,n)}},$$
(4)
When including in (2) the colour structure $`d_{abc}`$ one should change the normalization by a factor $`\sqrt{N_c}/\sqrt{(N_c^24)(N_c^21)}`$.

In order to construct the full Greeen function we clearly need to know the complete set of solutions of the Odderon equation. At the moment we only have the symmetric solutions of  and the new solutions (2). The former ones are orthogonal to the photon impact factor and so irrelevant for our problem. At present we do not know if any other solution exists, apart from (2), which couples to the $`\gamma PS`$ transition vertex. So our results are strictly speaking restricted to the contribution of the exchange of the Odderon states with the wave function (refoddwave). Normalizing the Green function to reduce in the small coupling limit ($`\alpha _s0`$) to

$$\frac{1}{𝒌_1^2𝒌_2^2𝒌_3^2}\delta (𝒌_1𝒌_1^{})\delta (𝒌_2𝒌_2^{}).$$

and having in mind (3) we find the part of the Green function corresponding to (2) in the form:

$$G_3(y|𝒌_1,𝒌_2,𝒌_3|𝒌_1^{},𝒌_2^{},𝒌_3^{})=$$

$$\underset{\mathrm{odd}n}{}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\nu e^{y\chi (\nu ,n)}\frac{(2\pi )^2(\nu ^2+n^2/4)}{[\nu ^2+(n1)^2/4][\nu ^2+(n+1)^2/4]}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(\nu ,n)}(𝒌_1,𝒌_2,𝒌_3)\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{(\nu ,n)}{}_{}{}^{}(𝒌_1^{},𝒌_2^{},𝒌_3^{}).$$
(5)
## 3 The BFKL function in the momentum space.

In this section we present the BFKL Pomeron eigenstates in the momentum representation, which we need in order to construct the Green’s function in (5). This wave function is well known in the coordinate space  where its form is dictated by conformal invariance

$$E^{(h,\overline{h})}(𝒓_{10},𝒓_{20})=\left(\frac{r_{12}}{r_{10}r_{20}}\right)^h\left(\frac{\overline{r}_{12}}{\overline{r}_{10}\overline{r}_{20}}\right)^{\overline{h}},$$
(6)
where $`𝒓_{10}=𝒓_1𝒓_0`$ etc, $`h=(1+n)/2+i\nu `$, $`\overline{h}=(1n)/2+i\nu `$, and the standard complex notation for the two-dimensional vector is used on the right-hand side. Fourier transforming to momentum space one finds (see Appendix 1)

$$\stackrel{~}{E}_{h\overline{h}}(𝒌_1,𝒌_2)=\stackrel{~}{E}_{h\overline{h}}^A(𝒌_1,𝒌_2)+\stackrel{~}{E}_{h\overline{h}}^\delta (𝒌_1,𝒌_2),$$
(7)
where the first term denotes the analytic contribution, and the second one stands for the $`\delta `$-function terms. The analytic part is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{E}_{h\overline{h}}^A(𝒌_1,𝒌_2)=C\left(X(𝒌_1,𝒌_2)+(1)^nX(𝒌_2,𝒌_1)\right),$$
(8)
where $`h=(1+n)/2+i\nu `$ and $`\overline{h}=(1n)/2+i\nu `$ are the conformal weights. The coefficient $`C`$ is given by

$$C=\frac{(i)^n}{(4\pi )^2}h\overline{h}(1h)(1\overline{h})\mathrm{\Gamma }(1h)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\overline{h}).$$
(9)
The expression for $`X`$ in complex notation is given in terms of the hypergeometric functions

$$X(𝒌_1,𝒌_2)=\left(\frac{k_1}{2}\right)^{\overline{h}2}\left(\frac{\overline{k}_2}{2}\right)^{h2}F(1h,2h;2;\frac{\overline{k}_1}{\overline{k}_2})F(1\overline{h},2\overline{h};2;\frac{k_2}{k_1}).$$
(10)
The $`\delta `$-function part is

$$\stackrel{~}{E}_{h\overline{h}}^\delta (𝒌_1,𝒌_2)=\left[\delta ^{(2)}(𝒌_1)+(1)^n\delta ^{(2)}(𝒌_2)\right]\frac{i^n}{2\pi }2^{1h\overline{h}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\overline{h})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(h)}q^{\overline{h}1}q^{h1},𝒒=𝒌_1+𝒌_2.$$
(11)
Let us note that, when the Pomeron couples to an impact factor of a colourless object, $`\delta `$-function terms in the pomeron wave function do not give any contribution. However in our calculations it turns out that these terms play an important role.

In order to calculate the couplings of the exchanged Odderon to the proton and to the $`\gamma \eta _c`$ impact factors we need to know the Pomeron wave function $`E^{(\nu ,n)}`$ in momentum space for $`n=\pm 1`$ and around the value $`\nu =0`$. We start with the analytic part; we need to look at (10) which, for $`n=1`$, reads

$$X(𝒌_1,𝒌_2)=\left(\frac{k_1}{2}\right)^{i\nu 2}\left(\frac{\overline{k}_2}{2}\right)^{i\nu 1}F(i\nu ,1i\nu ;2;\frac{\overline{k}_1}{\overline{k}_2})F(1i\nu ,2i\nu ;2;\frac{k_2}{k_1}),$$
(12)
and we perform a Taylor expansion around the point $`\nu =0`$. The complicated expression (8) is drastically simplified at small values of $`\nu `$. In lowest order it is linear in $`\nu `$:

$$E_1^A(𝒌_1,𝒌_2)=\frac{\nu }{2\pi ^2q}\left(\frac{1}{k_1\overline{k}_2}\frac{1}{k_2\overline{k}_1}\right).$$
(13)
This function is odd in the azimuthal angle (i.e. antisymmetric under $`\phi \phi +\pi `$). So it is orthogonal to the two impact factors which are azimuthally even. For this reason a non-zero contribution only comes from the terms quadratic in $`\nu `$. Omitting those of them which have the same structure as (13) we find

$$E_2^A(𝒌_1,𝒌_2)=\frac{i\nu ^2}{2\pi ^2q}\left[\frac{1}{𝒌_2^2}\mathrm{ln}𝒌_1^2\frac{1}{𝒌_1^2}\mathrm{ln}𝒌_2^2+\left(\frac{1}{𝒌_1^2}\frac{1}{𝒌_2^2}\right)\mathrm{ln}q+\left(\frac{1}{\overline{k}_2𝒌_1^2}\frac{1}{\overline{k}_1𝒌_2^2}\right)\overline{q}\mathrm{ln}\overline{q}\right].$$
(14)
The $`\delta `$-function part is finite for $`\nu 0`$:

$$E_0^\delta (𝒌_1,𝒌_2)=\left[\delta ^{(2)}(𝒌_1)\delta ^{(2)}(𝒌_2)\right]\frac{i}{2\pi }\frac{1}{q}.$$
(15)
The constant $`C`$ in (9) (for $`n=1`$) becomes:

$$C=\frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}\nu (1+\nu ^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(1i\nu ).$$
(16)
To construct the Green’s function one has also to consider

$$\chi (\nu ,\pm 1)=\nu ^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\overline{\alpha }\zeta (3)+𝒪(\nu ^4)$$
(17)
and the $`\nu `$-dependence in the denominators of the integration measure in (5):

$$[\nu ^2+(n1)^2/4][\nu ^2+(n+1)^2/4]=\nu ^2(1+\nu ^2)$$
(18)
## 4 The transition amplitude

We study the process of the diffractive photo- or electroproduction of $`\eta _c`$ on the proton: $`\gamma ^{}p\eta _cp`$. It will be assumed that the proton remains intact, although it would be rather easy to include also its low-lying excitations. The differential cross-section is given by the formula

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dt}(\gamma (\gamma ^{})+p\eta _c+p)=\frac{1}{16\pi s^2}\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}|A^i|^2,$$
(19)
where $`A^i`$, $`i=1,2`$ is the photoproduction amplitude for a given transverse polarization $`i`$ of the photon $`i=1,2`$. The electroproduction cross-section can be obtained from (19) in a trivial manner (see ). The photoproduction amplitude $`A^i`$ is given by a convolution of the two impact factors, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_p`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma ^i`$, for the proton and for the $`\gamma \eta _c`$ transition, resp., with the Odderon Green function:

$$A^i=\frac{s}{32}\frac{5}{6}\frac{1}{3!}\frac{1}{(2\pi )^8}\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma ^i|G_3|\mathrm{\Phi }_p.$$
(20)
We shall assume that the c.m. energy squared, $`s`$, is much greater than the scales in the transition vertex: $`s>>Q^2,m_c^2,t`$. Using the definition of , namely $`x=(m_{\eta _c}^2+Q^2)/(s+Q^2)`$ and $`y=\mathrm{log}1/x`$, we are in the low-$`x`$ limit $`x1`$.

The matrix element on the rhs of (20) involves the integration over $`\nu `$ coming from the Green function (5). This integration can be done in the saddle point approximation, since $`y>>1`$. The leading contribution will obviously come from the smallest values of $`|n|`$, i.e. $`n=\pm 1`$ and small $`\nu `$, when the integral acquires a form

$$𝑑\nu e^{\nu ^2\beta y}I(\nu ),\beta =2\alpha _s\zeta (3)$$
(21)
and $`I(\nu )`$ denotes the nonexponential part of the integrand. Since we expect the dominant contribution to the cross section to come from the kinematical region where $`t`$ is not large, there is one more large momentum scale in the problem, apart from the energy $`\sqrt{s}`$, namely, $`M=\sqrt{Q^2+4m_c^2}`$, which provides some basis for the use of perturbation theory. In principle, the position of the saddle point $`\nu _s`$ depends upon the relation between these two large scales. However in our kinematical region of small $`x`$, $`M`$ is much smaller than $`\sqrt{s}`$, so that $`\nu _s`$ is close to zero. As a result, we have to calculate the matrix elements of the two impact factors with the Odderon wave function with $`|n|=1`$ and small $`\nu `$.

The impact factor corresponding to the transition $`\gamma \eta _c`$ can be calculated perturbatively. Referring the reader to the original paper  for the details, we only quote the final result:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma ^i=bϵ_{ij}\frac{q_j}{𝒒^2}\left(\underset{(123)}{}\frac{(𝒌_1+𝒌_2𝒌_3)𝒒}{Q^2+4m_c^2+(𝒌_1+𝒌_2𝒌_3)^2}\frac{𝒒^2}{Q^2+4m_c^2+𝒒^2}\right).$$
(22)
with $`𝒒=𝒌_1+𝒌_2+𝒌_3`$ and

$$b=\frac{16}{\pi }e_cg_s^3\frac{1}{2}m_{\eta _c}b_0.$$
(23)
Here $`e_c=(2/3)e`$ is the electric charge of the charmed quark, and $`g_s`$ is the strong coupling constant. The constant $`b_0`$ can be determined from the known radiative width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta _c\gamma \gamma )`$= 7 KeV:

$$b_0=\frac{16\pi ^3}{3e_c^2}\sqrt{\frac{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }}{m_{\eta _c}}}.$$
(24)
Following  we denote

$$\phi (𝒌,𝒌^{})=\frac{(𝒌𝒌^{})(𝒌+𝒌^{})}{Q^2+4m_c^2+(𝒌𝒌^{})^2}.$$
(25)
Using the form (2) of the Odderon wave function one can show that the convolution of the Odderon wave function with the impact factor for the transition $`\gamma \eta _c`$ reduces to a convolution of the function $`\phi `$ and the Pomeron function $`E`$ :

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\gamma \eta _c}^i|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(\nu ,n)}`$ $`=bϵ_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{q_j}{𝒒^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c(\nu ,n)}}{\displaystyle d^2𝒌\phi (𝒌,𝒒𝒌)E^{(\nu ,n)}(𝒌,𝒒𝒌)}`$ (26)
$`bϵ_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{q_j}{𝒒^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}(|t|)^{i\nu }{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\pi }}V_\gamma ^{(\nu ,n)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|t|}{M^2}}\right),`$
where the Pomeron function is given in (7), and we have rescaled the momenta in the integrand by $`q=\sqrt{|t|}`$.

Note that (26) is sensitive to the $`\delta `$-function term present in the Pomeron wave function. In fact in  (26) has been proven by explicitly using the Pomeron wave function in the coordinate representation, which does contain such terms.

We could have chosen to calculate $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\gamma \eta _c}^i|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(\nu ,n)}`$ in a different way, directly from (2):

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\gamma \eta _c}^i|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(\nu ,n)}=3cd^2𝒍E^{(\nu ,n)}(𝒍,𝒒𝒍)g(𝒍),$$
(27)
where function $`g(𝒍)`$ is defined by

$$g(𝒍)=d^2𝒌\frac{𝒍^2}{𝒌^2(𝒍𝒌)^2}\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma ^i(𝒌,𝒍𝒌,𝒒𝒍),$$
(28)
factor $`3`$ comes from the symmetry of the impact factor and $`𝒌_1=𝒌`$, $`𝒌_2=𝒍𝒌`$ and $`𝒌_3=𝒒𝒍`$.

Now the $`\delta `$-function terms in $`E`$ give no contribution. Indeed, $`g(\mathrm{𝟎})=0`$ because of the $`𝒍^2`$ factor present in (28), and $`g(𝒒)=0`$ as the impact factor vanishes for $`𝒌_3=\mathrm{𝟎}`$. As a result, in the calculation of (27), one may freely add or subtract such $`\delta `$-function pieces in the Pomeron wave function . At $`\nu =\pm 1`$ and small $`\nu `$ factor $`c`$ behavies as $`1/\nu `$ (see (4) and (17) ). Therefore, to find the $`\gamma PS`$ form-factor in the lowest (first) order in $`\nu `$ one needs to know the BFKL function $`E^{(\nu ,,\pm 1)}`$ in the second order if one uses (27), but only in the zeroth order if one uses (26). One can show that both ways lead to the same answer. However, (27) needs numerical computation, and (26) gives the result in a trivial manner due to the simple structure of the zeroth order BFKL function (15). At $`|n|=1`$ and $`\nu 0`$ we find

$$V_\gamma ^{(0,\pm 1)}\left(\frac{t}{M^2}\right)=\frac{\sqrt{|t|/M^2}}{1+|t|/M^2}$$
(29)
In Fig. 1 we show a plot of this function in the region $`0|t|/M^210`$. We have verified by numerical computation that, starting from (27) and using for $`E^{(\nu ,n)}`$ only the analytic part, $`E_2^A`$, we get exactly the same answer for $`\nu 0`$.

The proton impact factor is non-perturbative. We use the parametrization proposed in :

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_p=d\left[F(𝒒,0,0)\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}F(𝒌_i,𝒒𝒌_i,0)+2F(𝒌_1,𝒌_2,𝒌_3)\right],$$
(30)
with

$$F(𝒌_1,𝒌_2,𝒌_3)=\frac{2a^2}{2a^2+(𝒌_1𝒌_2)^2+(𝒌_2𝒌_3)^2+(𝒌_3𝒌_1)^2},$$
(31)
$`d=8(2\pi )^2\overline{g}^3`$, and the scale parameter $`a=m_\rho /2`$. From the comparison with the two gluon exchange model for hadronic cross-sections the authors of  estimate $`\overline{g}^2/(4\pi )=1`$. The impact factor (30) satisfies the basic requirement that it vanishes when any of the three gluon momenta goes to zero. The calculation of the scalar product of the Odderon wave function with the proton impact factor is more cumbersome, since it amounts to the integration over the three-gluon phase space. Using the symmetry of the proton impact factor and the explicit form of the Odderon wave function (2) one finds

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_p|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(\nu ,n)}=3cdd^2𝒍E^{(\nu ,n)}(𝒍,𝒒𝒍)f(𝒍)=cd\frac{1}{(2a^2)^{1/2}}(t)^{i\nu }\frac{(i\nu ^2)^{}}{2\pi ^2}V_p^{(\nu ,n)}\left(\frac{|t|}{2a^2}\right),$$
(32)
where

$$f(𝒍)=d^2𝒌\frac{𝒍^2}{𝒌^2(𝒍𝒌)^2}\left[F(𝒒,0,0)\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}F(𝒌_j,𝒒𝒌_j,0)+2F(𝒌_1,𝒌_2,𝒌_3)\right]$$
(33)
and, as before, $`𝒌_1=𝒌`$, $`𝒌_2=𝒍𝒌`$ and $`𝒌_3=𝒒𝒍`$. To obtain the last expression in (32) we have again rescaled the momenta in the integral with respect to $`q`$ and extracted the factor $`i\nu ^2/2\pi ^2`$ having in mind that at small $`\nu `$ the contribution to (32) starts with the second order term of the BFKL function (14). Note that the integral (33) is infrared finite, since the square bracket vanishes if any of the gluon momenta go to zero. However, individual terms inside the square bracket are infrared divergent. Clearly, as in (27), only the analytic part of the Pomeron function $`E^A`$ contributes to (32).

Let us consider the rhs of (33). Two of the five terms are simple, since the $`F`$’s do not depend on the integration variable. They give

$$f_1=\left(F(𝒒,0,0)F(𝒒𝒍,𝒍,0)\right)d^2𝒌\frac{𝒍^2}{𝒌^2(𝒍𝒌)^2}=\left(F(𝒒,0,0)F(𝒒𝒍,𝒍,0)\right)2\pi \mathrm{ln}\frac{𝒍^2}{m^2}.$$
(34)
The two remaining terms in the sum inside the square brackets in (33) give identical contributions. Their sum is given by

$$f_2=\frac{2}{3}a^2d^2𝒌\frac{𝒍^2}{𝒌^2(𝒍𝒌)^2}\frac{1}{(𝒌𝒒/2)^2+ϵ},$$
(35)
where $`ϵ=\frac{1}{12}𝒒^2+\frac{1}{3}a^2`$. The last term in the sum gives:

$$f_3=\frac{2}{3}a^2d^2𝒌\frac{𝒍^2}{𝒌^2(𝒍𝒌)^2}\frac{1}{(𝒌𝒍/2)^2+\delta }.$$
(36)
where $`\delta =𝒍^2𝒍𝒒+(𝒒^2+a^2)/3`$. Both integrals, (35) and (36), thus reduce to a generic one

$$I=d^2𝒌\frac{1}{(𝒌^2+m^2)[(𝒌𝒍)^2+m^2][(𝒌𝒑)^2+b^2]},$$
(37)
corresponding to a general two-dimensional triangle diagram. We have introduce here a mass $`m`$ as an infrared regulator. Using the standard Feynman parametrization this integral can be transformed into an one-dimensional one which, after separating the infrared divergent contributions, can be done numerically. Some details about this procedure are discussed in Appendix 2 (note that (36) actually corresponds to a collinear case which, in principle, can be calculated analytically).

The resulting function $`f(𝒍)=f_1+f_2+f_3`$ is used to calculate the integral (32). Here only the analytic part, $`E_2^A`$, contributes. The calculation has been done numerically. We present the results for $`V_p^{(0,\pm 1)}`$ in Fig. 2. One observes that $`V_p`$ changes sign at $`|t|0.07`$ GeV<sup>2</sup>. As a consequence, the cross section will vanish at this point. Of course, this property is literally true only in the limit of asymptotically large energies where one can neglect the contributions of all other states $`\nu 0`$ and $`|n|>1`$.

## 5 Numerical Results and Discussion

To find the final cross-sections from (19) and (20), we do the saddle point integration over $`\nu `$, then take the square module of the amplitude (20) and do the sum over the polarizations in (19). The latter step provides a factor $`1/|t|`$ (from the prefactors in (22)). The normalization factors $`c(\nu ,n)`$ of the Odderon solution which are contained in the Green’s function (5) cancel when, in (26), the scalar product of the Odderon wave function and the photon impact factor is computed. Collecting all pieces of our cross section formula we find

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dt}(\gamma (\gamma ^{})+p\eta _c+p)=\frac{2^45^2}{3^7}\frac{1}{(2\pi )^8}\frac{\alpha _{em}\alpha _s^2b_0^2}{\zeta (3)y}\frac{m_{\eta _c}^2}{(Q^2+4m_c^2)2a^2}\frac{1}{|t|}|V_\gamma ^{(0,\pm 1)}(t)|^2|V_p^{(0,\pm 1)}(t)|^2.$$
(38)
The differential cross sections for the two cases $`Q^2=0`$ and 25 GeV<sup>2</sup> and $`\sqrt{s}300`$ GeV are shown in Fig.3. We have taken $`\alpha _s`$ at the scale $`m_c^2+Q^2`$ (in  at $`Q^2=0`$ the scale was $`m_c^2`$). Independently of $`Q^2`$ the cross sections show a dip at small $`|t|0.07`$ GeV and a maximum at $`|t|0.22`$ GeV (roughly of the order of $`(m_\rho /2)^2`$. The dip comes from the zero present in the Odderon-proton coupling (Fig. 2). Its origin seems to be related to the symmetry properties of the Odderon solution: as it can be seen from (2), the Odderon wave function is a sum of three terms, each of which contains an antisymmetric Pomeron eigenfunction. A similar structure is present in the photon impact factor (22), whereas the proton impact factor (30) is completely symmetric. The convolution of the Odderon wave function with the photon impact factor has no zero in $`t`$, whereas the convolution with the proton leads to such a zero. Whether this feature is an artifact of the simple model for the proton impact factor that we have used, or whether it represents a general property of the Odderon-proton coupling we do not know. In our calculation, this dip is present in the leading high energy approximation; it may be that at finite energies (e.g. at HERA) the dip is (partially) filled by the exchange of nonleading Odderon states.

At $`t=0`$ the cross section vanishes, as in the case of a simple three gluon exchange. As one can see from Fig. 3, this happens at quite small $`t`$ and cannot be seen in the figure. A more detailed analysis of the behaviour in the region of very small $`t`$ requires, probably, a more accurate evaluation of the $`\nu `$-integral in the 3-gluon Green’s function. It would, however, not affect too much the dip structure or the value of the integrated cross section.

For the integrated cross sections we find $`50`$ pb and $`1.3`$ pb at $`Q^2=0`$ and 25 GeV<sup>2</sup>, respectively. Compared to the value of 11 pb predicted for $`Q^2=0`$ with a simple three-gluon exchange  we find an enhancement of about 5 times. For $`Q^2=25`$ GeV<sup>2</sup> the differential cross sections in  seem to indicate that one can simply scale the $`Q^2=0`$ cross section by 0.01 and obtain $`0.1`$pb. This implies that our cross-section is an order of magnitude larger. Note that compared to the simple three gluon exchange, we have a (weak) logarithmic suppression with energy. So the obtained enhancement effect is totally due to the coupling of our Odderon wave function to the impact factors.

In conclusion, by comparing the exchange of three noninteracting gluons with the exchange of the new odderon solution we find that the interaction between the exchanged gluons leads to a significant change in the scattering cross section. However, despite this improvement in accuracy, our numerical estimate of the $`\eta _c`$ cross section still suffers from a few theoretical uncertainties, in particular due to the Odderon-proton coupling. We believe that both the structure of the vertex and its overall normalization should be checked more carefully. As a possible strategy, one might study the exchange of the Odderon in $`pp`$ and $`p\overline{p}`$ scattering at large $`t`$ where the use of perturbative QCD can be justified. Using the same model , a comparison with experimental data on the difference of $`pp`$ and $`p\overline{p}`$ scattering fixes the overall normalization of the Odderon proton coupling. As to the general momentum structure of the vertex, the most sensitive test is the $`t`$-dependence in the small-$`t`$ region: the presence of a dip would support both the structure of the Odderon-proton vertex and of the Odderon state used in our calculation.
Acknowledgements: One of us (M.B.) thanks the University of Hamburg, the II.Institut für Theoretische Physik, and the DESY Theory Division for financial support and for their kind hospitality.

## Appendix 1. A momentum space representation of the Pomeron wave function in the non-forward direction

The Fourier transform of the function $`E^{(h,\overline{h})}`$ given by Eq. (6) is defined by

$$\stackrel{~}{E}_{h\overline{h}}(𝒌_1,𝒌_2)=\frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝒓_1}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝒓_2}{(2\pi )^2}\left(\frac{r_{12}}{r_1r_2}\right)^h\left(\frac{r_{12}^{}}{r_1^{}r_2^{}}\right)^{\overline{h}}e^{i(𝒌_1𝒓_1+𝒌_2𝒓_2)}.$$
(39)
The integrand in (39) becomes constant as $`|𝒓_{1,2}|\mathrm{}`$ and therefore contains terms proportional to $`\delta ^2(𝒌_1)`$ or $`\delta ^2(𝒌_2)`$. Therefore one expects to find

$$\stackrel{~}{E}_{h\overline{h}}(𝒌_1,𝒌_2)=\stackrel{~}{E}_{h\overline{h}}^A(𝒌_1,𝒌_2)+\stackrel{~}{E}_{h\overline{h}}^\delta (𝒌_1,𝒌_2),$$
(40)
where the first term denotes the analytic contribution and the second the $`\delta `$-like one.

We shall at first compute the analytic part of the Fourier transform. Since we are dealing with a distribution, it is convenient to consider a new, regularized, object

$$\stackrel{~}{E}_{h\overline{h},h_3\overline{h}_3}^{(reg)}(𝒌_1,𝒌_2)=\frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝒓_1}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝒓_2}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{\left(r_{12}\right)^{h_3}}{\left(r_1r_2\right)^h}\frac{\left(r_{12}^{}\right)^{\overline{h}_3}}{\left(r_1^{}r_2^{}\right)^{\overline{h}}}e^{i(𝒌_1𝒓_1+𝒌_2𝒓_2)},$$
(41)
with an independent conformal weigth $`h_3`$ for the $`r_{12}`$-terms. The integral (41) is well defined for $`\mathrm{}(h+\overline{h})<2`$, $`\mathrm{}(h_3+\overline{h}_3)>2`$ and $`\mathrm{}(h+\overline{h}h_3\overline{h}_3)>0`$. Strictly speaking, the last inequality holds, for example, for the $`𝒌_2\mathrm{𝟎}`$ case. When $`𝒌_2=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ one needs $`\mathrm{}(h+\overline{h}h_3\overline{h}_3)>2`$. In the calculation of the scalar product of the Pomeron function with test functions which vanishe at the points $`𝒌_1=0`$ or $`𝒌_2=0`$ we shall, therefore, consider the following prescription: $`\mathrm{\Phi }|E_{h\overline{h}}=lim_{h_3h}\mathrm{\Phi }|E_{h\overline{h},h_3\overline{h}_3}=\mathrm{\Phi }|lim_{h_3h}E_{h\overline{h},h_3\overline{h}_3}`$. This means that we shall be able to extract the analytic part of (39).

Introducing, for both external gluons of the Pomeron wave function, the complex variables

$$r=r_x+ir_yx+iy\kappa =\frac{k_xik_y}{2}$$

$$r^{}=r_xir_yxiy\kappa ^{}=\frac{k_x+ik_y}{2},$$
(42)
and remembering that $`h\overline{h}=n`$ and $`h_3\overline{h}_3=n_3`$, we get a double integral in the complex plane:

$$\stackrel{~}{E}_{h\overline{h},h_3\overline{h}_3}^{(reg)}(𝒌_1,𝒌_2)=\frac{\mathrm{d}^𝒞𝒓_1\mathrm{d}^𝒞𝒓_2}{(2\pi )^4}|r_1^2|^h|r_2^2|^h|r_{12}^2|^{h_3}r_1^nr_2^nr_{12}^{n_3}e^{i(\kappa _1r_1+\kappa _1^{}r_1^{}+\kappa _2r_2+\kappa _2^{}r_2^{})}.$$
(43)
By using the integral representation

$$x^u=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(u)}_0^{\mathrm{}}d\alpha \alpha ^{u1}e^{\alpha x}(\mathrm{}(x)>0,\mathrm{}(u)>0)$$
(44)
we arrive at the representation

$$E_{h\overline{h}}^{(reg)}(\kappa _1,\kappa _2)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(h)\mathrm{\Gamma }(h_3)}\frac{\mathrm{d}^𝒞𝒓_1\mathrm{d}^𝒞𝒓_2}{(2\pi )^4}(r_1^{}r_2^{})^nr_{12}^{n_3}e^{i(\kappa _1r_1+\kappa _1^{}r_1^{}+\kappa _2r_2+\kappa _2^{}r_2^{})}$$

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}d\alpha _1d\alpha _2d\alpha _3(\alpha _1\alpha _2)^{h1}\alpha _3^{h_31}e^{(\alpha _1r_1r_1^{}+\alpha _2r_2r_2^{}+\alpha _3r_{12}r_{12}^{})},$$
(45)
where, in order to fulfill the restrictions in Eq. (44), we need to require

$$\mathrm{}(h)>0,\mathrm{}(h_3)<0n>1,n_3<1.$$
(46)
The next step is to perform a suitable change of variables in order to do the spatial integrations. Thanks to the holomorphic separability of the integrand, the natural choice would be to use $`r_j`$ and $`r_j^{}`$ as independent integration variables. This can practically be achieved in the following way: first of all note that the whole integrand, regarded as a function of $`(x_1,y_1,x_2,y_2)`$, is analytic. Therefore, we can analytically continue to complex values of, say, $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$, and rotate the respective integration paths by negative angles. This can be done by putting $`y=e^{i\theta }w:w`$ for both $`j=1,2`$, and by simultaneously rotating the $`\alpha `$-integrations in such a way that $`\alpha =e^{i\varphi }\beta :\beta `$. The generic exponential in the second line in (45) becomes

$$e^{\alpha rr^{}}=e^{\alpha (x^2+y^2)}=e^{\beta e^{i\varphi }(x^2+e^{2i\theta }w^2)}=e^{\beta x^2e^{i\varphi }}e^{\beta w^2e^{i(\varphi 2\theta )}},$$
(47)
which does not grow for large $`x`$ and $`w`$ provided $`|\varphi |\pi /2,|\varphi 2\theta |\pi /2`$. Choosing the extreme case $`\varphi =\theta =\pi /2`$ we set $`y=iw,\alpha =i\beta `$ and perform the change of variables

$$\rho _j=x_j+w_j,\overline{\rho }_j=x_jw_j(j=1,2).$$
(48)
A further remark concerns the values of the complex momenta $`k_j`$: the exponential in the first line in (45) contains two factors

$$e^{i(k_xx+k_yy)}=e^{i(k_xxik_yw)}=e^{ik_xx}e^{k_yw}.$$
(49)
In order to have a meaningful integral, the values of the $`y`$-components of the momenta must be imaginary. Hence we have to introduce a slightly different notation with respect to Eq. (42)

$$\kappa =\frac{k_xik_y}{2};\overline{\kappa }=\frac{k_x+ik_y}{2}\kappa ^{};\kappa ,\overline{\kappa }$$
(50)
and to consider $`\kappa `$ and $`\overline{\kappa }`$ as independent variables. After this replacement we get

$$E_{h\overline{h}}^{(reg)}(\kappa _1,\kappa _2;\overline{\kappa }_1,\overline{\kappa }_2)=\frac{(i/2)^2(2\pi )^4}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(h)\mathrm{\Gamma }(h_3)}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{d}\overline{\rho }_1\mathrm{d}\overline{\rho }_2(\overline{\rho }_1\overline{\rho }_2)^n\overline{\rho }_{12}^{n_3}e^{i(\overline{\kappa }_1\overline{\rho }_1+\overline{\kappa }_2\overline{\rho }_2)}\times $$

$$i^{2hh_3}_0^{\mathrm{}}d\beta _1d\beta _2d\beta _3(\beta _1\beta _2)^{h1}\beta _3^{h_31}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}d\rho _1d\rho _2e^{i(\beta _1\rho _1\overline{\rho }_1+\beta _2\rho _2\overline{\rho }_2+\beta _3\rho _{12}\overline{\rho }_{12}\kappa _1\rho _1\kappa _2\rho _2)}.$$
(51)
The last integral in the above expression provides two delta functions constraining

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\kappa _1\\ \kappa _2\end{array}\right)=(\begin{array}{cc}\beta _1+\beta _3& \beta _3\\ \beta _3& \beta _2+\beta _3\end{array})\left(\begin{array}{c}\overline{\rho }_1\\ \overline{\rho }_2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\overline{\rho }_1\\ \overline{\rho }_2\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{\beta _1\beta _2+\beta _2\beta _3+\beta _3\beta _1}(\begin{array}{cc}\beta _2+\beta _3& \beta _3\\ \beta _3& \beta _1+\beta _3\end{array})\left(\begin{array}{c}\kappa _1\\ \kappa _2\end{array}\right).$$

If, for simplicity, we restrict ourselves to positive values of the $`\kappa `$’s, it is apparent from the second equality in the above expression that the positivity of the $`\beta `$’s forces the $`\overline{\rho }`$-integrals to contribute only in the positive real half-plane. At this point we split the $`\overline{\rho }`$-integral into two pieces: the first takes into account the region $`\overline{\rho }_2<\overline{\rho }_1`$ and the second the remaining one $`\overline{\rho }_2>\overline{\rho }_1`$. The first contribution reads

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{d}\overline{\rho }_1_0^{\overline{\rho }_1}\mathrm{d}\overline{\rho }_2(\overline{\rho }_1\overline{\rho }_2)^n\overline{\rho }_{12}^{n_3}e^{i(\overline{\kappa }_1\overline{\rho }_1+\overline{\kappa }_2\overline{\rho }_2)}\times $$
(52)
$$_0^{\mathrm{}}d\beta _1d\beta _2d\beta _3(\beta _1\beta _2)^{h1}\beta _3^{h_31}\delta (\beta _1\overline{\rho }_1+\beta _3\overline{\rho }_{12}\kappa _1)\delta (\beta _2\overline{\rho }_2\beta _3\overline{\rho }_{12}\kappa _2).$$

We can factorize the above expression in the product of two independent integrals by means of the change of variables $`\lambda _i=\beta _i\overline{\rho }_i:i=1,2,3,(\overline{\rho }_3\overline{\rho }_{12})`$, which yields

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{d}\overline{\rho }_1_0^{\overline{\rho }_1}\mathrm{d}\overline{\rho }_2(\overline{\rho }_1\overline{\rho }_2)^{nh}\overline{\rho }_{12}^{n_3+h_3}e^{i(\overline{\kappa }_1\overline{\rho }_1+\overline{\kappa }_2\overline{\rho }_2)}\times $$

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}d\lambda _1d\lambda _2d\lambda _3(\lambda _1\lambda _2)^{h1}\lambda _3^{h_31}\delta (\lambda _1+\lambda _3\kappa _1)\delta (\lambda _2\lambda _3\kappa _2).$$
(53)
The $`\overline{\rho }`$-integrals are easily evaluated by setting $`x=\overline{\rho }_2/\overline{\rho }_1`$, which casts the inner integral into an integral representation of the confluent hypergeometric function $`{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ (see, e.g., Eq. (13.2.1) of ). The outer integral then becomes a Laplace transform of the $`{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ times a power (see Eq. (7.621.4) of ). The result for the first factor of Eq. (53) is (remember $`nh=\overline{h}`$)

$$i^{\overline{h}_32\overline{h}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\overline{h})\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\overline{h}_3)\mathrm{\Gamma }(22\overline{h}+\overline{h}_3)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\overline{h}+\overline{h}_3)}\overline{\kappa }_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\overline{h}\overline{h}_32}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(1\overline{h},22\overline{h}+\overline{h}_3;2\overline{h}+\overline{h}_3;\frac{\overline{\kappa }_2}{\overline{\kappa }_1}).$$
(54)
All the restrictions in the above formulas are automatically fulfilled because of Eq. (46). The $`\lambda `$-integral in Eq. (53) transforms into

$$\kappa _1^{hh_31}\kappa _2^{h1}_0^1dyy^{h_31}(1y)^{h1}\left(1+\frac{\kappa _1}{\kappa _2}y\right)^{h1},$$
(55)
which is just an integral representation for the hypergeometric function (see, e.g., Eq. (15.3.1) in ) and yields

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(h)\mathrm{\Gamma }(h_3)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(hh_3)}\kappa _1^{hh_31}\kappa _2^{h1}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(h_3,1h;hh_3;\frac{\kappa _1}{\kappa _2}),$$
(56)
provided Eq. (46) holds. The second contribution to (51), coming from the region $`\overline{\rho }_2>\overline{\rho }_1`$, is simply evaluated by the replacements $`\overline{\rho }_1\overline{\rho }_2,\beta _1\beta _2`$, which give

$$_{\overline{\rho }_2>\overline{\rho }_1}=(1)^{n_3}_{\overline{\rho }_2<\overline{\rho }_1}\left(\begin{array}{c}\kappa _1\kappa _2\\ \overline{\kappa }_1\overline{\kappa }_2\end{array}\right),$$
(57)
where the parity factor stems from the change of sign of $`\overline{\rho }_{12}`$ in the power with exponent $`n_3`$.

To derive the final expression for the Pomeron wave function in momentum space we have to analytically continue in the conformal weights to their physical values $`h_3=h,\overline{h}_3=\overline{h}`$ and $`\kappa _y`$ $`\overline{\kappa }=\kappa ^{}`$. To do this in Eq. (56) we use the relation (see Eq. (15.1.2) in )

$$\underset{h_3h}{lim}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(hh_3)}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(h_3,1h;hh_3;\frac{\kappa _1}{\kappa _2})=h(1h)\frac{\kappa _1}{\kappa _2}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(1h,2h;2;\frac{\kappa _1}{\kappa _2}).$$
(58)
Putting together Eqs. (54,56,57,58), and rearranging some $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-function factors according to the relation

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{h})\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\overline{h})=(1)^n\mathrm{\Gamma }(h)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1h)(h\overline{h}=n𝒩),$$
(59)
we obtain the final expression

$$E_{h\overline{h}}^A(\kappa _1,\kappa _2)=\frac{h(1h)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1h)\overline{h}(1\overline{h})\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\overline{h})}{i^n(4\pi )^2}\times $$

$$[\kappa _1^{\overline{h}2}\kappa _2^{h2}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(1h,2h;2;\frac{\kappa _1}{\kappa _2}){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(1\overline{h},2\overline{h};2;\frac{\kappa _2^{}}{\kappa _1^{}})+(1)^n\{12\}].$$
(60)
As a check, we show in the following that the above function is an eigenfunction of the Casimir operator of the Möbius group. In the coordinate representation, in complex notation, one has

$$\left((r_{12})^2_1_2+h(h1)\right)\left(\frac{r_{12}}{r_1r_2}\right)^h=0,$$
(61)
together with a similar equation in the antiholomorphic variables. In the momentum representation, these equations read are given by

$$\left((_{\kappa _1}_{\kappa _2})^2\kappa _1\kappa _2+h(h1)\right)E_{h\overline{h}}(\kappa _1,\kappa _2)=0,$$
(62)
and an analogous result holds for its antiholomorphic counterpart. From the general property of scaling invariance we know that

$$E_{h\overline{h}}(\kappa _1,\kappa _2)=\kappa _1^{h2}\kappa _1^{\overline{h}2}E_{h\overline{h}}(1,\frac{\kappa _2}{\kappa _1}),$$
(63)
which is satisfied by (60). Changing the variables $`\kappa _1p_1,\kappa _2/\kappa _1p_2`$ transforms (62) into

$$\left(\left(_{p_1}\frac{1+p_2}{p_1}_{p_2}\right)^2p_1^2p_2+h(h1)\right)p_1^{h2}E_{h\overline{h}}(1,p_2)=0.$$
(64)
Taking the derivative with respect to $`p_1`$, we are left with a differential equation in the $`p_2`$ variable only. We represent it in terms of a new variable $`y=p_2`$:

$$\left(y(1y)_y^2+(22(2h)y)_y(h1)(h2)\right)E_{h\overline{h}}(1,y)=0.$$
(65)
This is the well known hypergeometric equation. A linearly independent set of its solutions is given by the Kummer solutions $`u_1,u_4`$ (formulas (2.9.1) and (2.9.13) in ):

$$u_1(y)={}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(1h,2h;2;y),u_4(y)=(y)^{h2}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(1h,2h;2;\frac{1}{y}).$$
(66)
These solutions match exactly the structure in (60), which is therefore a solution of (62).

One can arrive directly at (60) by trying to construct a single-valued function from the two linearly independent solutions, and by further fixing the correct normalization. Note that $`\delta `$-like terms do not appear in this approach, since we treat the holomorphic and antiholomorphic momenta as independent variables. The fact that, in principle, the two sectors do not simply commute (as one can see considering the two dimensional Poisson equation with a $`\delta `$-like source) gives origin to the appearence of the $`\delta `$-like terms.

Let us now consider the $`\delta `$-like contributions. These are present when $`\rho _1\mathrm{}`$ or $`\rho _2\mathrm{}`$. Summing these two contributions one obtains

$$\stackrel{~}{E}_{h\overline{h}}^\delta (𝒌_1,𝒌_2)=\left[\delta ^{(2)}(𝒌_1)+(1)^n\delta ^{(2)}(𝒌_2)\right]\frac{i^n}{2\pi }2^{1h\overline{h}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\overline{h})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(h)}q^{\overline{h}1}q^{h1},𝒒=𝒌_1+𝒌_2.$$
(67)
## Appendix 2. Integrals appearing in the coupling to the nucleon

In order to do the integral (37) we use the Feynman parametrization

$$\frac{1}{ABC}=2_0^1x𝑑x_0^1𝑑y\frac{1}{D^3},$$

where

$$D=xyA+x(1y)B+(1x)C.$$

In our case

$$D=xy(𝒌^2+m^2)+x(1y)((𝒌𝒍)^2+m^2)+(1x)((𝒌𝒑)^2+b^2)=(𝒌x(1y)𝒍(1x)𝒑)^2+R,$$

where

$$R=x(1y)𝒍^2+(1x)(𝒑^2+b^2)+xm^2(x(1y)𝒍+(1x)𝒑)^2.$$
(68)
Shifting the integration momentum and doing the momentum integration we find the integral over $`x`$ and $`y`$

$$I=\pi _0^1x𝑑x_0^1𝑑y\frac{1}{R^2}.$$
(69)
One of the integrations (say, of $`y`$) can be done analytically. We present

$$R(y)=\alpha +\beta y+\gamma y^2,$$

where

$$\alpha =x(1x)(lp)^2+(1x)b^2+xm^2,\beta =x(2x1)l^2+2x(1x)pl,\gamma =x^2l^2.$$

The discriminant $`\mathrm{\Delta }=4\alpha \gamma \beta ^2`$ is negative, so that the integral over $`y`$ gives

$$J=\frac{\beta +2\gamma }{\mathrm{\Delta }R(1)}\frac{\beta }{\mathrm{\Delta }R(0)}+\frac{2\gamma }{\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\beta +2\gamma \sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\beta +2\gamma +\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\frac{\beta +\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\beta \sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}.$$
(70)
One finds that at $`x0`$ the integral $`J`$ behaves as $`1/x`$, so that the integration over $`x`$ is convergent around this point. At $`x1`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is finite in the limit $`m0`$. However, in the limit $`x1`$ both $`R(0)`$ and $`R(1)`$ behave as $`1/(1x)`$. So we have a logarithmic divergence at $`x=1`$, regularized by finite $`m`$. Evidently only the first two terms in (70) lead to this divergence. Therefore we can safely put $`m=0`$ in the third (logarithmic) term. In the vicinity of $`x=1`$ we find

$$JJ_0=\frac{1}{l^2}\left(\frac{1}{(1x)(p^2+b^2)+m^2}+\frac{1}{(1x)[(lp)^2+b^2]+m^2}\right).$$
(71)
The final integration over $`x`$ of this term will give

$$S=_0^1x𝑑xJ_0=\frac{1}{l^2}\left[\frac{1}{p^2+b^2}\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{p^2+b^2}{m^2}1\right)+\frac{1}{(lp)^2+b^2}\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{(lp)^2+b^2}{m^2}1\right)\right].$$
(72)
One easily checks that the singular contributions coming from $`f_2`$ and $`f_3`$ are cancelled by the singular part of $`f_1`$ (eq. (34)), so that the complete result is infrared finite.

To do the numerical calculation we present $`J=JJ_0+J_0J_r+J_0`$. The integral over $`x`$ of the term $`J_r=JJ_0`$ converges at $`x=1`$ and can be calculated numerically. The integral over $`x`$ of $`J_0`$ is given by (72).