format: text

text:
# Introduction

## Introduction

Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering (DVCS)  is the cleanest hard process which is sensitive to the Generalized Parton Distributions (GPD), the most popular version of which is probably represented by the Skewed Parton Distributions (SPD), and has been the subject of extensive theoretical investigations for a few years. First experimental data became recently available (see e.g. ) and much more data are expected from JLAB, DESY, and CERN in the near future. In the present note we shall limit ourself to the case of the pion target, although our consideration can be applicable to any target.

The crossing version is then provided by the process $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi \overline{\pi }`$ with a highly virtual photon but small hadronic invariant mass $`W`$. It was recently investigated in the framework of QCD factorization. It allows to study the pion pair produced in the isoscalar channel, where the huge $`\rho `$-meson peak is absent. This process is analogous to the single pion production, described by the pion transition form-factor, being the long time object of QCD studies . In particular, the generalized distribution amplitude (GDA), describing the non-perturbative stage of this process, is a natural counterpart of the pion light cone distribution amplitude. From the other side, it may be considered as a crossing counterpart of pion SPD  and related to it  by making use of the suitable polynomial basis.

The alternative (and quite elegant) description of non-perturbative stage of DVCS and other hard exclusive processes is provided by Double Distributions (DD) . They naturally explain the polynomiality of SPD and can be a good starting point for the model-building. At the same time, it is not clear how one can express DD in terms of the hadronic matrix element and extract them, at least in principle, from the data.

In this note we study the crossing properties of the double distributions. We conclude, that both mentioned channels may be described by the common DD, while SPD and GDA may be obtained by its integration over the straight lines constituting the various angles with the coordinate axes. This would allow us to recover the DD from the SPD and GDA by making use of the inverse Radon transform - the mathematical tool widely used for computer tomography. We discuss the ambiguities resulting from the presence of the so-called Polyakov-Weiss (PW) terms in DD and find their close analogy with that for the recovering of the vector potential from the magnetic field. We also outline the possible applications of the method and its further development.

## Double distributions in the crossing related channels

Let us start with the following symmetric representation of the matrix elements of twist-2 non-local operators (c.f. )

$`p^{}|\overline{\psi }\left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{2}}\right)\gamma z\psi \left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{2}}\right)|p=(2Pz){\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle _{|x|1}^{1|x|}}𝑑ye^{ixPziy\mathrm{\Delta }z/2}F(x,y,\mathrm{\Delta }^2)`$ (1)
$`+(\mathrm{\Delta }z){\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle _{|x|1}^{1|x|}}𝑑ye^{ixPziy\mathrm{\Delta }z/2}G(x,y,\mathrm{\Delta }^2);`$
$`p^{},p|\overline{\psi }\left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{2}}\right)\gamma z\psi \left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{2}}n\right)|0=(2Pz){\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle _{|x|1}^{1|x|}}𝑑ye^{ixPziy\mathrm{\Delta }z/2}f(x,y,\mathrm{\Delta }^2)`$
$`+(\mathrm{\Delta }z){\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle _{|x|1}^{1|x|}}𝑑ye^{ixPziy\mathrm{\Delta }z/2}g(x,y,\mathrm{\Delta }^2);`$
where we (in order to express the crossing properties in the most simple way) adopted the common notations for both channels: $`P=(p+p^{})/2,\mathrm{\Delta }=p^{}p=2\xi P+\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$, while $`p,p^{}`$ are the initial and final momenta of pion in the DVCS channel, respectively. In the $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi \overline{\pi }`$ channel, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ corresponds to the total momentum of pion pair while $`2P`$ is the relative momentum of pions.

The skewedness parameter varies in the region $`0<\xi <1`$ for the DVCS channel and $`|\xi |>1`$ for the $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi \overline{\pi }`$ channel, respectively. In what follows we restrict ourselves to the leading twist level, neglecting the transverse momentum $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$.

The crossing symmetry states that in the different channels the matrix elements are described by the common analytical functions, so that one may relate them by analytical continuation. One should note the crucial advantage of the DD for the studies of crossing properties, namely, that $`\xi `$ does not enter explicitly to their definition. The only variable, which should be continued for DD is therefore $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ which is equal to t in the DVCS channel and to the squared invariant mass of the pion pair $`W^2`$ in the $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi \overline{\pi }`$ channel. The dependence on these variables is entirely non-perturbative and is a subject of separate investigation. This dependence is beyond the scope of our studies, and we shall put both $`t`$ and $`W^2`$ to zero. This point is the common unphysical point for the both channels, so one may conclude, that

$`F(x,y,0))=f(x,y,0);G(x,y,0)=g(x,y,0)`$ (2)
The Skewed Parton Distribution are related to the Double ones by the integration over straight lines . The symmetric skewed distribution is related to symmetric double distributions F and G by the formula, being the straightforward generalization of .

$`H(z,\xi )={\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle _{|x|1}^{1|x|}}𝑑y(F(x,y)+\xi G(x,y))\delta (zx\xi y).`$ (3)
In turn, the Generalized Distribution Amplitudes, describing the non-perturbative stage of hadron pair production, may be related to the respective Double Distributions in an analogous way:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(t,1/\xi )={\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle _{|x|1}^{1|x|}}𝑑y(g(x,y)+{\displaystyle \frac{f(x,y)}{\xi }})\delta (tx/\xi y)`$ (4)
Note the difference with the original definition of GDA , where skewedness was defined by the fraction of the pair momentum carried by the one of the produced pions, while here it is defined (in the more symmetric way) by the difference of their momenta. As a result, the analytic continuation between $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`H`$ is provided by the formula:

$`H(z,\xi )=sign(\xi )\mathrm{\Phi }({\displaystyle \frac{z}{\xi }},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi }})`$ (5)
Contrary to (2), SPD and GDA, which are depending on $`\xi `$ explicitly, correspond to the different regions of this variable: $`\xi <1`$ for SPD and $`|\xi |>1`$ for GDA. In what follows, we shall consider SPD in the ’extended’ region, on the whole real axis, assuming that for $`|\xi |>1`$ it should be substituted by GDA from (5), while the region $`1<\xi <0`$ is accessible by the use of symmetries.

These discrete symmetries of the SPD and GDA may be now described in the unified way. Namely, the symmetries of DD with respect to its second argument

$`F(x,y)=F(x,y);G(x,y)=G(x,y),`$ (6)
correspond to either T-invariance for SPD, or charge conjugation invariance for GDA. This is not surprising, as the T-invariance, first studied in the case of the forward twist-3 matrix elements , corresponds to the interchange of both hadrons and partons, in complete analogy with charge conjugation. Note that the reality of the scalar function (SPD or DD) plays the crucial role in such a derivation. At the same time, GDA may acquire the non-trivial imaginary phases due to cut in $`W^2`$. However, it is only the real part of GDA which is described by crossing (2), while the imaginary parts requires the separate study of the analytical continuation in $`W^2`$. Also, as soon as the chosen definition of GPD preserves P -invariance, such a similarity of T- and C- invariance is related to CPT-theorem. Note that the action of the T transforms GDA to another objects: $`0|\overline{\psi }\left(\frac{z}{2}\right)\gamma z\psi \left(\frac{z}{2}n\right)|p^{},p`$, describing the appearance of $`h\overline{h}`$ pair in the initial, rather than in the final state. Unfortunately, they, strictly speaking, cannot be accessed in the process of $`h\overline{h}`$-annihilation to the $`\gamma ^{}\gamma `$ pair, being the crossing version of DVCS and $`h\overline{h}`$ production, as the mass of virtual photon, which should provide the ’hard’ scale, is constrained by the kinematics to be smaller than $`s=W^2`$, which is assumed to be the ’soft’ parameter. At the same time, one may consider the $`h\overline{h}`$ (in reality, probably $`p\overline{p}`$) annihilation to the pair of two real photons at (moderately) large $`s`$ as a crossing version of the large angle (real) Compton scattering, which is known to be described by GPD . This may give access to the $`p\overline{p}`$ GDA, very difficult otherwise.

The relations (6) lead to the following symmetry properties for SPD and GDA

$`H(x,\xi )=H(x,\xi );\mathrm{\Phi }(z,\xi )=\mathrm{\Phi }(z,\xi ),`$ (7)
The additional symmetry properties emerge if the pions are in the definite isospin state (where we assume that more general symmetry (6,7) also holds)

$`F^{I=0}(x,y)=F^{I=0}(x,y);G^{I=0}(x,y)=G^{I=0}(x,y),`$
$`F^{I=1}(x,y)=F^{I=1}(x,y);G^{I=1}(x,y)=G^{I=1}(x,y)`$
$`H^{I=0}(x,\xi )=H^{I=0}(x,\xi );\mathrm{\Phi }^{I=0}(z,\xi )=\mathrm{\Phi }^{I=0}(z,\xi )=\mathrm{\Phi }^{I=0}(z,\xi )`$
$`H^{I=1}(x,\xi )=H^{I=1}(x,\xi );\mathrm{\Phi }^{I=1}(z,\xi )=\mathrm{\Phi }^{I=1}(z,\xi )=\mathrm{\Phi }^{I=1}(z,\xi ).`$ (8)
For simplicity, we shall limit ourselves for the time being to the case of DD $`F(x,y)`$ only, neglecting the Polyakov-Weiss  term, resulting from the function $`G(x,y)`$. This approximation is self-consistent in the case of $`I=1`$ .

## Double distributions from the inverse Radon transform

We now make the key observation, that the relation between SPD and DD is nothing else than a particular case of the Radon transform . As soon as all the possible lines crossing the compact region are considered, one is dealing with the mapping between functions of two variables (because each line is characterized just by two real numbers). As soon as the transformed function is continuous, it may be recovered by making use of the inverse Radon transform. This procedure is known to be the key ingredient of the numerous applications , covering, say, medicine, optics and geophysics. We are going to suggest its application in (non-perturbative) QCD.

As soon as Radon transform is a new instrument in this field, it makes sense to present briefly the derivation of its inversion, which is actually very simple. It is more convenient to present it by parameterizing the straight line in a slightly different way: by using the unit vector $`\stackrel{}{\xi }=(cos\varphi ,sin\varphi )`$ orthogonal to it, instead of skewedness $`\xi `$, and its distance from the origin $`p`$ instead of the argument of the skewed distribution $`z`$. The correspondence to (3) is obvious.

$`R(p,\stackrel{}{\xi })={\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle _{|x|1}^{1|x|}}𝑑yf(x,y)\delta (p\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{\xi }),`$ (9)
$`\xi =tg\varphi ,z=p/cos\varphi ;H(z,\xi )=R(p,\stackrel{}{\xi })|cos\varphi |.`$ (10)
The most convenient way to invert the transform is to use its relation to Fourier transform. Indeed, the Fourier transform of the function $`f(\stackrel{}{x})f(x,y)`$ may be written in the form

$`F(\stackrel{}{q})={\displaystyle d^2\stackrel{}{x}e^{i\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{q}}f(\stackrel{}{x})}={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t\delta (t\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{q}){\displaystyle d^2\stackrel{}{x}e^{i\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{q}}f(\stackrel{}{x})}`$ (11)
Here the integration is performed in the whole $`(x,y)`$ plane, while the correct integration limits are provided by the zero value of the function $`f`$ outside region (1). It is instructive to specify the direction of $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ by the unite vector $`\stackrel{}{\xi }`$, which would be shown in a moment to be an argument of the Radon transform

$`F(\stackrel{}{\xi }\lambda )={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t\delta (t\lambda \stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{\xi }){\displaystyle d^2\stackrel{}{x}e^{i\lambda \stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{\xi }}f(\stackrel{}{x})}=_{t\lambda t}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t\delta (t\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{\xi }){\displaystyle d^2\stackrel{}{x}e^{i\lambda \stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{\xi }}f(\stackrel{}{x})}=`$
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{i\lambda t}{\displaystyle d^2\stackrel{}{x}\delta (t\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{\xi })f(\stackrel{}{x})}={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{i\lambda t}R(t,\stackrel{}{\xi })`$ (12)
As a result, the two-dimensional Fourier transform may be represented as a combination of one dimensional Fourier transform and Radon transform ***This is actually the core of the relation between DD and SPD, being, respectively, the two-dimensional and one-dimensional Fourier transforms of the same matrix element.. Consequently, inverting the two-dimensional Fourier transform in the polar coordinates and making use of (Double distributions from the inverse Radon transform), the function may be expressed through its Radon transform

$`f(\stackrel{}{x})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle d^2\stackrel{}{q}e^{i\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{q}}F(\stackrel{}{q})}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\lambda 𝑑\lambda {\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\varphi e^{i\lambda \stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{\xi }}F(\lambda \stackrel{}{\xi })=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\lambda 𝑑\lambda {\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\varphi e^{i\lambda \stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{\xi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑pe^{i\lambda p}R(p,\stackrel{}{\xi })`$ (13)
This formula already expresses the function $`f(x,y)`$ in terms of its Radon transform and the rest of derivation consists of its simplification. The latter starts with the change of variables $`\varphi ^{}=\varphi ,p^{}=p\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{\xi }`$

$`f(\stackrel{}{x})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\lambda 𝑑\lambda {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑p^{}e^{i\lambda p^{}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\varphi ^{}R(p^{}+\stackrel{}{\xi }\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{\xi })`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\lambda 𝑑\lambda {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑pe^{i\lambda p}\overline{R}(p,\stackrel{}{x}).`$
Here $`\overline{R}(p,\stackrel{}{x})`$ is, obviously, the average of the Radon transform over all the straight lines, tangent to the circle of radius $`p`$ and center in the actual point $`\stackrel{}{x}`$.

$`\overline{R}(p,\stackrel{}{x})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\varphi R(p+\stackrel{}{\xi }\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{\xi }).`$ (15)
To present the inversion formula in its final form, one should use the integration by parts and substitute the formula for (one-dimensional) Fourier transform of the function $`sign(\lambda )`$

$`f(\stackrel{}{x})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}sign(\lambda )\lambda 𝑑\lambda 𝑑pe^{i\lambda p}\overline{R}(p,\stackrel{}{x})={\displaystyle \frac{i}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}sign(\lambda )𝑑\lambda 𝑑pe^{i\lambda p}\overline{R}_p^{}(p,\stackrel{}{x})=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{p}}\overline{R}_p^{}(p,\stackrel{}{x})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{p^2}}(\overline{R}(p,\stackrel{}{x})\overline{R}(0,\stackrel{}{x})),`$ (16)
where the last equality explores once more the integration by parts and the fact, that $`\overline{R}(p,\stackrel{}{x})=\overline{R}(p,\stackrel{}{x})`$. Recalling the definitions (3,15), one may express the double distributions directly in terms of skewed ones (c.f. ):

$`f(x,y)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{p^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\varphi |cos\varphi |(H(p/cos\varphi +x+ytg\varphi ,tg\varphi )H(x+ytg\varphi ,tg\varphi ))=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{z^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\xi (H(z+x+y\xi ,\xi )H(x+y\xi ,\xi )).`$ (17)
As one clearly see, to recover the double distribution one indeed should know the skewed distribution in an ’extended’ region $`\mathrm{}<z,\xi <\mathrm{}`$. The values $`\xi <0`$ and $`,|z|,|\xi |>1`$ are described by the crossing and symmetry relations. (5,7). it is easy to check by numerical integrations, that GPD obtained from various model DD  may be recovered with the reasonable accuracy.

As it often happened before in the history of the various Radon transform applications , some of its ingredients were rediscovered in the framework of GPD also. In fact, the basic inversion formula in the form of triple integral (similar to (Double distributions from the inverse Radon transform)) was introduced in the framework of GPD by A.V. Radyushkin  (see also ). Also, the polynomiality condition  is well known in the general framework of Radon transform as the Cavalieri conditions . The term is related to the interesting geometric interpretation, so far not mentioned in the context of DD. Consider the first ($`n=0`$) moment. It is nothing else than the volume of the figure, limited by the surface $`z=f(\stackrel{}{x})`$ and the plane $`x,y`$. At the same time, $`R(\stackrel{}{\xi },p)`$ may be interpreted as a surface of the section of this figure by the plane, containing the line $`p=\stackrel{}{\xi }\stackrel{}{x}`$ and $`z`$ axis. The first moment is then expressing the volume of the figure in terms of the surfaces of its intersection with the set of parallel planes. Obviously, the direction of these planes is unimportant, so that the moment does not depend on $`\stackrel{}{\xi }`$. The contact with the classical Cavalieri principle may be achieved by the particular choice of $`f(\stackrel{}{x})=1`$ everywhere in the region where it is defined. In that case one is dealing with the surface of this region, represented by the lengths of the set of parallel lines. Again it does not depend on their direction and $`\stackrel{}{\xi }`$.

## Polyakov-Weiss terms and two-dimensional magneto-statics

Let us note that separation of the functions $`F`$ and $`G`$ is, generally speaking, impossible, as soon as only the information about leading twist SPD (GDA) is available. Indeed, using the integration by parts and assuming that DD turn to zero at the boundary, one can absorb the factors $`zP,z\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to the definitions of DD and rewrite (3) in the following way:

$`p^{}|\overline{\psi }\left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{2}}\right)z\gamma \psi \left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{2}}\right)|p`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle _{|x|1}^{1|x|}}𝑑ye^{ixPziy\mathrm{\Delta }z/2}N(x,y)`$ (18)
$`N(x,y)={\displaystyle \frac{F(x,y)}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{G(x,y)}{y}},`$ (19)
One may absorb the factor $`zP`$ to the definition of the SPD in the analogous way. As a result, the ’effective’ DD $`N(x,y)`$ is related by the Radon transform to the ’effective’ SPD, which is just the derivative $`\frac{H(z,\xi )}{z}`$ of standard SPD. Consequently, it is only possible to recover the effective DD, while separation of the individual contributions from $`F`$ and $`G`$ is, generally speaking, impossible.

It is interesting, that this ambiguity is completely analogous to the one arising in the problem of the recovery of the electromagnetic vector potential from the magnetic field (with a zero total flux). Indeed, denoting $`G(x,y)=A_x,F(x,y)=A_y,N(x,y)=B_z`$, we can write (19) as $`\stackrel{}{B}=rot\stackrel{}{A}`$. Consequently, the effective distribution $`N(x,y)`$ does not change when $`F`$ and $`G`$ undergo the following ’gauge transformation’

$`F(x,y)F(x,y)+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (x,y)}{y}},`$
$`G(x,y)G(x,y){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (x,y)}{x}},`$
$`\alpha (x,y)=\alpha (x,y),`$ (20)
where the last equation follows from T- (or C-) invariance \[6). One may try to choose

$`\alpha (x,y)={\displaystyle ^x}𝑑tG(t,y),`$ (21)
so that the $`G`$ term is completely eliminated. In order to preserve the symmetry properties (Double distributions in the crossing related channels) after the gauge transformation, the boundary conditions in (21) should be chosen in a following way:

$`\alpha (x,y)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle _{|y|1}^x}𝑑tG(t,y){\displaystyle _x^{1|y|}}𝑑tG(t,y)\right).`$ (22)
However, these boundary conditions are the zero ones in the points $`x=\pm (1|y|)`$, which in this case gurantees the preservation of zero boundary conditions for $`F`$ and $`G`$, only if

$`{\displaystyle _{|y|1}^{1|y|}}𝑑xG(x,y)=0,`$ (23)
which is indeed true for the case of $`I=1`$ due to the symmetry properties (Double distributions in the crossing related channels). Consequently. in this case, when function $`G`$ is not required by the polynomiality , it may be completely eliminated by the gauge transformation. At the same time, for $`I=0`$ it is, generally speaking, impossible to assume simultaneously the zero boundary conditions at $`x=1|y|`$ and $`x=|y|1`$ and eliminate $`G`$ completely. However, it is possible to reduce $`G(x,y)`$ to the function of one variable:

$`G(x,y)d(y)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(1|y|)}}{\displaystyle _{|y|1}^{1|y|}}𝑑xG(x,y),`$ (24)
by the following choice of the gauge:

$`\alpha (x,y)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle _{|y|1}^x}𝑑tG(t,y){\displaystyle _x^{1|y|}}𝑑tG(t,y)\right)xd(y).`$ (25)
Here the $`x`$-independent contribution to $`G(x,y)`$ is provided by the last term which guarantees the zero boundary condition, One can change in this boundary-correcting term the linear function to the step one,

$`\alpha _{PW}(x,y)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle _{|y|1}^x}𝑑tG(t,y){\displaystyle _x^{1|y|}}𝑑tG(t,y)sign(x)D(y)\right)`$
$`=\theta (x<0){\displaystyle _{|y|1}^x}𝑑tG(t,y)\theta (x>0){\displaystyle _x^{1|y|}}𝑑tG(t,y),`$ (26)
where $`D(y)`$ determines the resulting expression for $`G`$ which now resides at $`x=0`$:

$`G(x,y)\delta (x)D(y)=\delta (x){\displaystyle _{|y|1}^{1|y|}}𝑑tG(t,y).`$ (27)
The existence of such a gauge transformation justifies the original suggestion  to consider this special form of $`G(x,y)`$.

## Discussion and Conclusions

We studied crossing properties of Generalized Parton Distributions and showed, that Radyushkin’s Double Distributions express them in the most simple way. Namely, they simultaneously describe, up to $`t`$ and $`W^2`$ dependence, the DVCS and two-photon production of hadron pairs. This allows, in principle, to recover them from the data in the both channels, making use of the inverse Radon transform, solving therefore a problem of Radon tomography in the field of non-perturbative QCD. We also considered the ambiguity due to the Polyakov-Weiss terms and showed, that it is completely analogous for the gauge ambiguity of the vector potential of the static two-dimensional magnetic field. The observable quantity is in this sense ’effective’ DD $`N(x,y)`$, which may be decomposed to the the $`F`$ and $`G`$ structures, adopting the particular gauge condition.

The development of the method may, first of all, include the more refined versions of Radon transform (see e.g. numerous Refs. in ), which would allow to use the limited range of angles of Radon projections (limited range of $`\xi `$). In that case, one may essentially limit the required input, and in particular, avoid the use of both channels. Also, one might include the possibilities of the singularities of recovered functions . Other natural development would be to include the twist 3 contributions . Another interseting opportunity may be provided by the process $`\gamma ^{}\gamma 3\pi `$, the GDA  for which depend on the two light-cone fractions. The correspondent ’Triple Distributions’ would depend on three variables, so to recover them one should consider the tomography in three-deimensional space, which (like for any odd-dimensional space) is known  to have the local form due to the Hyugens principle.

Moreover, the Radon transform might be useful in the more general context of quantum field theory. Especially interesting seems to be its application to the general problem of crossing invariance, as it allows to consider (instead of functions in the different regions of their variables) the different projections of the common function, as it was discussed here in the particular case of GPD.

Another interesting application may arise from the fact, that inverse Radon transform naturally recovers information about the interior of some region, which makes a contact to the famous holographic principle . One could add here, that Radon transform technique is known for a years to be one of the main tools in the field of optical holography .

## Acknowlegments.

I would like to thank A.V. Radyushkin and C. Weiss for the enlightening discussions of the various aspects of the double distributions. I am also thankful to M. Diehl and D. Müller for useful discussions and comments. This work was partially supported by DFG, RFFI grant 00-02-16696 and INTAS Project 587 (Call 2000).


text:
# D-Branes from 𝑁 D(-1)-Branes in Bosonic and Type IIA String Theory.

## 1 Introduction

The boundary String Field Theory (BSFT)  111In this paper we use the name of the theory proposed in . is a version of open string field theory in which the classical configuration space is a space of two-dimensional world-sheet theories on the disk which are conformal in the interior of the disk and which have arbitrary boundary actions. The boundary conformal theories correspond to the solutions of classical equations of motion. In the recent papers  (For the world-sheet approach to this problem, see ) the BSFT was used in the analysis of the tachyon condensation on the unstable D-brane systems in string theories (For review and extensive list of references, see ). It was shown that BSFT is very effective tool for the study of this problem. In particular, it was shown that:

* The condensation to the closed string vacuum and to lower dimensional branes involves excitations of only one mode of string field-tachyon.
* The exact tachyon potential can be computed in BSFT and its qualitative features agree with the Sen conjecture .
* The exact tachyon profiles corresponding to the tachyon condensation to the lower dimensional D-brane give rise to descent relations between the tensions of various branes  which again agree with those expected .

The problem of tachyon condensation was also studied from the point of view of Witten’s open string field theory . In contrast with BSFT, the tachyon condensation in general involves giving the expectation values of infinite number of component fields. As a consequence, only approximate results are available.

In this note we would like to study the problem of the tachyon condensation on the system of $`N`$ D-instantons in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ in the framework of BSFT. This system has been studied in the low energy approximation in  and in the language of the Witten’s open string field theory in . The problem of the tachyon condensation on the system of D0-branes has been also studied in  from the point of view of the action obtained from BSFT, where the abelian action given in  was generalised to the non-abelian case.

The results presented in this paper can be considered as an additional support for the approach given in . More precisely, in this paper we will study the problem of the tachyon condensation in system of $`N`$ D-instantons in bosonic and type IIA theory 222In the same way we could study unstable D0-branes in type IIB theory. in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$. We will see that the problem of tachyon condensation is again extremely simple from the point of view of BSFT. In particular, we will calculate the partition sum on the disk, which is basic ingredient of BSFT, for configurations of D-instantons corresponding to higher dimensional D-branes (For review of the construction of higher dimensional D-branes from the lower dimensional ones, see ) with the tachyon field turned on. This approach is similar to the study of the systems of $`N`$ D-instantons in the boundary state formalism . We hope that our approach can bring new facts about the tachyon condensation on the system of N D-instantons and emergence of all D-branes from the lower dimensional ones. In particular, we hope that this approach could have some relation to the Matrix theory.

The organisation of the paper is as follows. In section (2) we give a brief review of BSFT. In section (3) we present the calculation of the partition function for D-instantons in the bosonic string theory. In particular, we will show that with the background configuration of $`N`$ D-instantons well known from the matrix theory  we are able to obtain all even dimensional D-branes from the point of view of BSFT. Then we extend this approach to the case of odd dimensional D-branes. However, to find such a solution we should turn on the tachyon mode in the BSFT and study its condensation in the same way as in .

In section (4) we will analyse the same problem in the superstring BSFT, using the recent proposal  relating BSFT action and the superstring partition sum on the disk. We will again see that from the system of $`N`$ D-instantons we obtain all D-branes in type IIA theory. In conclusion (5) we outline our results and suggest possible extension of our work.

## 2 A brief review of the boundary string field theory

In this section we review the basic facts about boundary string field theory . A general string field configuration in the boundary string field theory (or background independent string field theory, in any case BSFT) is associated with a boundary operator of ghost number one in the world-sheet theory of matter and ghost system. We will take the world-sheet to be a disk with unit radius and the metric

$$ds^2=d\rho ^2+\rho ^2d\tau ^2,0<\rho <1,\tau <0,2\pi >.$$
(1)
If $`\left\{𝒪_I\right\}`$ denotes a set of boundary vertex operators of ghost number 1, we can expend a general operator $`𝒪`$ of ghost number 1 as

$$𝒪=\underset{I}{}\lambda ^I𝒪_I.$$
(2)
We shall restrict to the operators of the form $`𝒪=c𝒱=_Ic\lambda ^I𝒱_I`$ where $`c`$ is the ghost field and $`𝒱=_I\lambda ^I𝒱_I`$ is a boundary operator in matter theory. In this case, a string field configuration associated with the operator $`c𝒱`$ is described by the world-sheet action

$$S=S_{Bulk}+_0^{2\pi }\frac{d\tau }{2\pi }𝒱(\tau ),$$
(3)
where $`S_{Bulk}`$ denotes the bulk world-sheet action corresponding to the closed string background. When we restrict to the trivial background, then $`S_{Bulk}`$ describes of conformal field theory (CFT) of free 26 scalar fields $`X^\mu `$ 333In this paper we consider the space-time with Euclidean signature and the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }=\delta _{\mu \nu }`$. and the $`(b,c)`$ ghost system. For non-abelian case, the boundary interaction $`𝒱`$ is promoted to $`N\times N`$ matrix and the path integral measure on the disk is weighted with

$$e^{S_{Bulk}}\mathrm{Tr}P\mathrm{exp}\left(_0^{2\pi }\frac{d\tau }{2\pi }𝒱\right).$$
(4)
For such configurations, the bosonic string field theory action $`S(\lambda ^I)`$ is obtained as a solution of equation

$$\frac{S}{\lambda ^I}=\frac{K}{2}\frac{d\tau }{2\pi }\frac{d\tau ^{}}{2\pi }𝒪_I(\tau )\{Q_B,𝒪(\tau ^{})\}_𝒱,$$
(5)
where $`<\mathrm{}>_𝒱`$ denotes correlation function in the world-sheet field theory described by the action (3), $`Q_B`$ is BRST charge and $`K`$ is normalisation constant which has been fixed in  as

$$K=T_p,T_p=\frac{2\pi }{(4\pi ^2\alpha ^{})^{(p+1)/2}}.$$
(6)
It is clear that (5) determines action up to additive constant.

It was also shown in  that the action (5) is related to the partition sum on the disk $`Z(\lambda )`$ via

$$S=\left(\underset{I}{}\beta ^I\frac{}{\lambda ^I}+1\right)Z(\lambda ).$$
(7)
This definition also fix the ambiguity in the definition of the action by the requirement that at the fix points of the boundary RG (at which $`\beta (\lambda ^{})=0`$)

$$S(\lambda ^{})=Z(\lambda ^{}).$$
(8)
These results corresponds to abelian $`U(1)`$ case. The generalisation to the non-abelian case seams to be nontrivial task thanks to the presence of the path-ordered product in the boundary interaction terms. Instead of address this problem in this paper, we will proceed in slightly different way. The main point of our calculation will be the partition sum on the disk that, as we have seen, plays the prominent role in the abelian case. We will calculate the partition sum for different configurations of D-instantons and we will show that it corresponds to the partition sum for specific D-brane in particular background. Then we use well known results from the abelian case to obtain the correct tension of the resulting D-brane. The correctness of our analysis will be especially seen in the supersymmetric case where it was conjectured  that the partition sum is equal to the space-time action. It would be certainly nice to obtain non-abelian action directly from BSFT theory, especially in bosonic case. We hope to return to this problem in the future.

In the next section we will calculate the partition sum in the bosonic theory for $`N`$ D-instantons and we will show that from this configuration all D-branes in bosonic string theory naturally emerge.

## 3 D-instantons in BSFT

In this section we would like to show that through the configuration of $`N`$ D(-1)-branes (D-instantons) in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ it is possible to obtain all D-branes of even and odd dimensions from the BSFT theory. We begin with the construction of even dimensional D-branes in bosonic string theory. The starting point is the evaluation of the partition sum on the disk

$$Z=<\mathrm{Tr}P\mathrm{exp}\left(i_0^{2\pi }𝑑\tau \mathrm{\Phi }_I_nX^I(\tau )\right)>,$$
(9)
where $`\tau `$ is a coordinate labelling the boundary of the disk and $`P`$ is the path-ordering defined as

$$Pe^{{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\tau M(\tau )}}=\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\tau ^1\mathrm{}𝑑\tau ^N\theta (\tau _{12})\mathrm{}\theta (\tau _{N1,N})M(\tau _1)\mathrm{}M(\tau _N),\theta (\tau _{12})=\theta (\tau _1\tau _2).$$
(10)
In (9) $`\mathrm{\Phi }_I,I=1,\mathrm{},26`$ are Hermitean matrices describing the background configuration of $`N`$ D-instantons and $`X^I(\tau )`$ is a string field living on the boundary of the world-sheet and $`_n`$ is a normal derivative to the boundary of the world-sheet. In the following we will always presume the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$.

Let us consider the background configuration

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_a=\mathrm{\Phi }_a,[\mathrm{\Phi }_a,\mathrm{\Phi }_b]=i\theta _{ab},a,b=1,\mathrm{},2p,\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha =0,\alpha =2p+1,\mathrm{},26.$$
(11)
We will show that this configuration corresponds to D(2p-1)-brane siting in the origin of the transverse space labelled with coordinates $`x^\alpha ,\alpha =2p+1,\mathrm{},26`$ and with the the gauge field background turned on its world-volume with the constant field strength $`F_{ab}=\theta _{ab}`$.

From (11) we see that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ are equivalent to the quantum mechanics operators with nontrivial commuting relations. Then we can use the well known relation between the trace over Hilbert space and the path integral

$`\mathrm{Tr}P\mathrm{exp}\left(i{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau H(\tau )}\right)={\displaystyle q\left|\mathrm{exp}\left(i𝑑\tau H(\tau )\right)\right|q}=`$
$`={\displaystyle [dq][dp]\mathrm{exp}\left(i𝑑\tau \left[p(\tau )\dot{q}(\tau )H(p(\tau ),q(\tau ))\right]\right)},`$
with $`\dot{q}=_\tau q`$ and where $`p`$ is a momentum conjugate to $`q`$. In our case, the Hamiltonian is

$$H(\tau )=\mathrm{\Phi }_a_nX^a(\tau ).$$
(13)
with the operators $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$. Then we can rewrite the trace in (9) as a path integral

$$\underset{a=1}{\overset{2p}{}}[\varphi _a]\mathrm{exp}\left(i𝑑\tau (\frac{1}{2}\varphi _a(\tau )\theta ^{ab}\dot{\varphi }_b(\tau )+\varphi _a(\tau )_nX^a(\tau ))\right),$$
(14)
with $`\theta _{ac}\theta ^{cb}=\delta _a^b`$. We can easily perform the integration over $`\varphi `$. Firstly, the kinetic term is equal to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \varphi _a(\tau )\theta ^{ab}\dot{\varphi }_b(\tau )}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}\varphi _a(\tau ^{})i\delta (\tau ^{}\tau )\theta ^{ab}\dot{\varphi }_b(\tau )}=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}\varphi _a(\tau ^{})i\delta (\tau ^{}\tau )\theta ^{ab}\varphi _b(\tau )},=_\tau ,^{}=_\tau ^{},`$
so that the path integral is equal to (up to numerical factor)

$`{\displaystyle [d\varphi ^a]\mathrm{exp}\left(𝑑\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}\left[\frac{1}{2}\varphi _a(\tau ^{})\mathrm{}(\tau ^{},\tau )^{ab}\varphi _b(\tau )\varphi _a(\tau )i_nX^a(\tau )\right]\right)}=`$
$`=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}_nX^a(\tau )\mathrm{}(\tau ,\tau ^{})_{ab}^1_nX^b(\tau ^{})}\right),\mathrm{}(\tau ^{},\tau )^{ab}=i\delta (\tau ^{}\tau )\theta ^{ab}.`$
To proceed further we must calculate $`\mathrm{}^1`$ that should obey

$$_0^{2\pi }𝑑\tau ^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{}^1(\tau \tau ^{\prime \prime })\mathrm{}(\tau ^{\prime \prime }\tau ^{})=\delta (\tau \tau ^{})\frac{1}{2\pi },\delta (\tau \tau ^{})=\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{n}{}e^{in(\tau \tau ^{})}.$$
(17)
From this definition we easily obtain

$$\mathrm{}(\tau ^{},\tau )^{ab}=\theta ^{ab}\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{n}{}ne^{in(\tau ^{}\tau )}\mathrm{}(\tau ,\tau ^{})_{ab}^1=\theta _{ab}\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{n}{}\frac{1}{n}e^{in(\tau \tau ^{})}.$$
(18)
We expand the string field as

$$X^a(\tau ,\rho )=\sqrt{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}\underset{n=\mathrm{},n0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\rho ^nX_n^ae^{in\tau },_nX^a(\tau ,\rho =1)=\sqrt{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}\underset{n=\mathrm{},n0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}nX_n^ae^{in\tau }.$$
(19)
Note that there is no zero mode thanks to the Dirichlet boundary conditions. Then (3) is equal to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}_nX^a(\tau )\mathrm{}(\tau ,\tau ^{})_{ab}^1_nX^b(\tau ^{})}=\alpha ^{}\pi {\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}m\theta _{ab}X_m^aX_m^b,`$
that agrees precisely with the expression

$$S=\frac{i}{2}_0^{2\pi }𝑑\tau F_{ab}X^a(\tau )\dot{X}^b(\tau )=\pi \alpha ^{}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}nF_{ab}X_n^aX_n^b,F_{ab}=\theta _{ab},$$
(21)
arising from the term

$$S=i_0^{2\pi }𝑑\tau A_a(X^a)_\tau X^a(\tau ).$$
(22)
in case of the constant field strength. As a result, we have obtained the partition sum on the disk for a D(2p-1)-brane in the presence of the gauge field $`F_{ab}`$. Since the gauge field corresponds to the marginal operator, the partition sum is equal to space-time action that is the Dirac-Born-Infeld action

$$S=T_{2p1}d^{2p}x\sqrt{det(\delta _{ab}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ab})}.$$
(23)
We must mention that the construction presented above is an analogue of the construction of even dimensional D-branes from the low-energy action for $`N`$ D-instantons  based on the Matrix theory (For nice review, see ).

In order to describe odd dimensional D-brane we should include the tachyon into the boundary interaction term for $`N`$ D-instantons and study its tachyon condensation. Let us include this matrix valued tachyon field. In this case the boundary action has a form

$$S_{bound}=\frac{1}{2\pi }𝑑\tau Ti𝑑\tau \mathrm{\Phi }_a_nX^a(\tau )=i𝑑\tau \left(\frac{i}{2\pi }T+\mathrm{\Phi }_a_nX^a(\tau )\right),$$
(24)
where $`T`$ does not depend on the world-sheet field $`X(\tau )`$ as it should be for D-instanton background. In order to obtain D(2p-2)-brane we propose the tachyon field in the form

$$T=u(\mathrm{\Phi }_2)^2,$$
(25)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are given as in (11). For simplicity we consider the matrix $`\theta _{ab}`$ in the form

$$\theta _{ab}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \theta & 0\\ \theta & 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \theta _{ij}\end{array}\right),i,j=3,\mathrm{},2p.$$
(26)
In this case the partition sum is equal to

$`Z=<e^{S_{bound}}>=<\mathrm{Tr}P\mathrm{exp}\left(i{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \left[\frac{i}{2\pi }u(\mathrm{\Phi }_2)^2+\mathrm{\Phi }_a_nX^a(\tau )\right]}\right)>=`$
$`=<\mathrm{Tr}P\mathrm{exp}(i{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\tau H(\tau ))>.`$
As in the case of pure gauge field we rewrite this expression using the path integral formalism. The factor $`\mathrm{}(\tau \tau ^{})^{ij}`$ is the same as in the case of the boundary interaction without tachyon studied above and for $`x,y=1,2`$ we obtain from the expression

$`i{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau L(\tau )}=i{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \left(\frac{1}{2}\varphi _x(\tau )\theta ^{xy}\dot{\varphi }_y(\tau )+\frac{i}{2\pi }u(\mathrm{\Phi }_2(\tau ))^2+_nX^x(\tau )\varphi _x(\tau )\right)}=`$
$`={\displaystyle 𝑑\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}\left(\frac{1}{2}\varphi _x(\tau ^{})\mathrm{}(\tau ^{},\tau )^{xy}\varphi _y(\tau )i\varphi _x(\tau )_nX^x(\tau )\right)},x,y=1,2,`$
$`\mathrm{}(\tau ^{},\tau )^{xy}=i\delta (\tau ^{}\tau )\theta ^{xy}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}u\delta (\tau ^{}\tau )\delta ^{2x},`$
or more precisely

$`\mathrm{}(\tau ^{}\tau )^{xy}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left(n\theta ^{xy}{\displaystyle \frac{u}{\pi }}\delta ^{2x}\right)e^{in(\tau \tau ^{})}={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}E_n^{xy}e^{in(\tau \tau ^{})},`$
$`E_n^{xy}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \frac{1}{\theta }n\\ \frac{1}{\theta }n& \frac{1}{\pi }u\end{array}\right),(E_n)_{xy}^1={\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^2}{n^2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{\pi }u& \frac{n}{\theta }\\ \frac{n}{\theta }& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (33)
$`\mathrm{}^1(\tau \tau ^{})_{xy}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}(E_m)_{xy}^1e^{im(\tau \tau ^{})},`$
so that the partition sum corresponding to $`X^x,x=1,2`$ is equal to

$$Z=<\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}𝑑\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}_nX^x(\tau )\mathrm{}^1(\tau \tau ^{})_{xy}_nX^y(\tau ^{})\right)>,$$
(35)
where we have

$$\frac{1}{2}𝑑\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}_nX^x(\tau )\mathrm{}^1(\tau \tau ^{})_{xy}_nX^y(\tau ^{})=\frac{\alpha ^{}\pi }{2}\underset{m=\mathrm{},m0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(m\theta _{xy}X_m^xX_m^y\frac{\theta ^2}{\pi }X_m^1uX_m^1\right).$$
(36)
We see that the second term above corresponds to

$$\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}u\underset{n=\mathrm{},n0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}X_n^1X_n^1=\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{2\pi }𝑑\tau uX^1(\tau )X^1(\tau ),$$
(37)
where we have made a substitution

$$u\theta ^2u,$$
(38)
and where we have used the fact that in the original instanton model the zero modes $`X_0^a`$ are missing. When we combine the previous expression with the gauge field term $`A_i_\tau X^i(\tau )`$ whose emergence is the same as in the pure gauge field case, we obtain the partition sum on the disk in the well known form

$$Z=<e^{S_{bound}}>=<\mathrm{exp}\left(_0^{2\pi }𝑑\tau \left[\frac{1}{2\pi }u(X^1(\tau ))^2iA_a(X(\tau ))_\tau X^a(\tau )\right]\right)>.$$
(39)
Now it is easy to find the value of the action for the resulting object, following the recent results . For our purpose we will closely follow . We must also stress that thanks to the form of the boundary interaction (39) which corresponds to D(2p-1)-brane with the background gauge field, we should include the zero mode of the string field $`X^a(\tau )`$ into our analysis since we have effectively replaced the Dirichlet boundary conditions with the boundary conditions appropriate for the study of the tachyon condensation on the D(2p-1)-brane.

It is clear that the gauge field $`F_{ij}`$ decouples from the tachyon term and consequently contributes to the partition function with the factor

$$d^{2p2}x\sqrt{det(\delta _{ij}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ij})}.$$
(40)
The contribution from the $`x,y=1,2`$ sector is almost the same as in

$$𝑑x^2\sqrt{v}e^{\gamma v}e^a\mathrm{\Gamma }(v),v=\frac{1}{1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}\theta )^2}2\alpha ^{}u,$$
(41)
where the integral over $`x^2`$ is a consequence of the existence of the zero mode in $`X^2(\tau )`$. In the previous expression we have also included the constant part of the tachyon $`a`$ which would correspond in the original matrix model to the term $`a1_{N\times N}`$. The whole partition function is equal to

$$Z(v,a,F)=Ke^a\sqrt{v}e^{\gamma v}\mathrm{\Gamma }(v)d^{2p1}x\sqrt{det(\delta _{ij}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ij})},$$
(42)
where $`K`$ is a numerical factor which will be determined in a moment. As was shown in  the space-time action is then equal to

$$S(a,v,F)=(va\frac{}{a}v\frac{}{v}+1)Z(a,v,F),Z(v)=\sqrt{v}e^{\gamma v}\mathrm{\Gamma }(v).$$
(43)
Using this equation we determine the normalisation factor $`K`$ as in . We can expect that for $`u0`$ this action should reduce to the DBI action with the gauge field $`F`$ and with the tachyon potential

$$S(T,F)=T_{2p1}d^{2p}xe^T\sqrt{det(\delta _{ab}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ab})}+O(T),T_{2p1}=\frac{2\pi }{(4\pi ^2\alpha ^{})^p}.$$
(44)
In order to determine the factor $`K`$ we evaluate this action on the tachyon profile $`T=a+u(x^1)^2`$ and compare this result with the partition function (42) in the limit $`u0`$. The previous expression gives

$`S(T,F)=T_{2p1}{\displaystyle d^{2p1}x\sqrt{det(\delta _{ab}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ab})}e^ae^{u(x^1)^2}𝑑x^1}=`$
$`=T_{2p1}{\displaystyle d^{2p1}xe^a\sqrt{det(\delta _{ab}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ab})}\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{u}}},`$
and when we compare this result with (42) evaluated for small u we obtain

$`Z(a,v,F)=K{\displaystyle d^{2p1}xe^a\sqrt{det(\delta _{ij}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ij})}\frac{1}{\sqrt{v}}}=`$
$`=K{\displaystyle d^{2p1}xe^a\sqrt{det(\delta _{ij}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ij})}\sqrt{1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}\theta )^2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}u}}}K=T_{2p1}\sqrt{2\pi \alpha ^{}}.`$
Now we are ready to calculate the tension of the resulting D(2p-2)-brane, following . Variation of this action with respect to $`a`$ gives

$$\frac{\delta S}{\delta a}=[v+av\frac{}{v}]Z(v)=0a^{}=v+v\frac{d\mathrm{ln}Z(v)}{dv},$$
(47)
and the action evaluated with this value of $`a^{}`$ is

$$S(a^{},v,F)=\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Theta }(v))Kd^{2p1}x\sqrt{det(\delta _{ij}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ij})},\mathrm{\Theta }(x)=xx\frac{d\mathrm{ln}Z(x)}{dx}+\mathrm{ln}Z(x).$$
(48)
As was shown in  the minimum of $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$ corresponds to $`x`$ going to infinity. In this limit we have

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(x)=\mathrm{log}\sqrt{2\pi }+\frac{1}{6x}+O(\frac{1}{x^2}),x\mathrm{},$$
(49)
which gives the value of the action

$$S=T_{2p1}\sqrt{4\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}d^{2p1}x\sqrt{det(\delta _{ij}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ij})}.$$
(50)
With using $`T_{2p1}\sqrt{4\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}=T_{2p2}`$ we see that the previous expression is an exact value of the action for D(2p-2)-brane with the background gauge field $`F_{ij}`$. Note that this action does not depend on the gauge field $`F_{xy}`$.

We have seen in this section that from the configurations of $`N`$ D-instantons in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ we obtain all D-branes in the bosonic string theory. We have analysed this system in the framework of BSFT which again leads to the correct result as in . In the next section we extend this analysis to the case of non-BPS and BPS D-branes in type IIA theory. Extension to the type IIB theory is straightforward, we simply start with the configuration of unstable D0-branes.

## 4 D-instantons in the superstring boundary string field theory

In this section we would like to analyse the same problem in the context of the superstring boundary string field theory. In this case the calculation is simpler since as was conjectured in  444Similar approach to this problem has also been discussed in  where many references on the relevant papers can be found. the space-time action $`S`$ is equal to the disk partition sum

$$S(\lambda _I)=Z(\lambda _I),Z(\lambda _I)=<e^{S_{bound}(\lambda _I)}>.$$
(51)
The bulk action is

$$S_{Bulk}=\frac{1}{4\pi }d^2z\left(\frac{2}{\alpha ^{}}X^\mu X_\mu +\psi ^\mu \overline{}\psi _\mu +\stackrel{~}{\psi }^\mu \stackrel{~}{\psi }_\mu \right).$$
(52)
The mode expansion at the boundary of the disk is  (in NS sector)

$$\psi ^\mu (\tau )=\underset{r=1/2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\psi _r^\mu e^{ir\tau }+\psi _r^\mu e^{ir\tau }\right).$$
(53)
and the bulk action

$$S_{Bulk}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}nX_n^\mu X_n^\nu \delta _{\mu \nu }+i\underset{r=1/2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}r\psi _r^\mu \psi _r^\nu \delta _{\mu \nu },\mu ,\nu =1,\mathrm{},10.$$
(54)
The next step is to introduce the boundary interactions which should be invariant under supersymmetry transformations. This can be done by working in boundary superspace  with coordinates $`\widehat{\tau }=(\tau ,\theta )`$ and

$$𝐗^\mu =X^\mu +\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}\theta \psi ^\mu ,D=_\theta +\theta _\tau .$$
(55)
The simplest example of supersymmetric boundary action corresponds to gauge field. For abelian gauge field the supersymmetric boundary action is

$`i{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau 𝑑\theta A_\mu (𝐗)D𝐗^\mu }=i{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau 𝑑\theta (A_\mu (X)+_\nu A_\mu (X)\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}\theta \psi ^\nu )(\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}\psi ^\mu +\theta _\tau X^\mu )}=`$
$`=i{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \left(A_\mu (X(\tau ))_\tau X^\mu +\frac{1}{2}\alpha ^{}F_{\mu \nu }\psi ^\mu \psi ^\nu \right)},`$
where we have used

$$\theta ^2=0,𝑑\theta =0,𝑑\theta \theta =1.$$
(57)
In case of Dirichlet boundary conditions for $`x^a,a,b=p+1,\mathrm{},10`$ and Neumann boundary conditions for $`x^\mu ,\mu ,\nu =1,\mathrm{},p`$ we will write the boundary action as

$`i{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau 𝑑\theta \left(A_\mu (𝐗^\mu )D𝐗^\mu +\mathrm{\Phi }_a(𝐗^\mu )\stackrel{~}{D}𝐗^a\right)}=`$
$`i{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \left(A_\mu (X^\mu (\tau ))_\tau X^\mu (\tau )+\frac{1}{2}\alpha ^{}F_{\mu \nu }\psi ^\mu (\tau )\psi ^\nu (\tau )\right)}`$
$`i{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \left(\mathrm{\Phi }_a(X^\mu (\tau ))_nX^a(\tau )+\alpha ^{}_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_a(X^\mu (\tau ))\psi ^\mu (\tau )\psi ^a(\tau )\right)},`$
where we have used the fact that the background fields are functions of the string fields $`X^a(\tau )`$ obeying Neumann boundary conditions and we have defined

$$\stackrel{~}{D}=_\theta +\theta _n.$$
(59)
Non-abelian extension is given (In case of all Neumann boundary conditions, generalisation to the case of lower dimensional D-branes is straightforward as we will see in case of D-instantons.)

$$e^{S_A}=\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{P}e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\tau 𝑑\theta A_\mu (𝐗)D𝐗^\mu }},$$
(60)
where the symbol $`\widehat{P}`$ is defined as

$$\widehat{P}e^{{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\widehat{\tau }M(\widehat{\tau })}}=\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\widehat{\tau }_1\mathrm{}𝑑\widehat{\tau }_N\mathrm{\Theta }(\widehat{\tau }_{12})\mathrm{\Theta }(\widehat{\tau }_{23})\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Theta }(\widehat{\tau }_{N1,N})M(\widehat{\tau }_1)M(\widehat{\tau _2})\mathrm{}M(\widehat{\tau }_N),$$
(61)
where $`d\widehat{\tau }=d\tau d\theta ,\widehat{\tau }_{12}=\tau _1\tau _2\theta _1\theta _2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is a step function whose expansion is equal to $`\mathrm{\Theta }(\widehat{\tau }_1\widehat{\tau }_2)=\theta (\tau _1\tau _2)\delta (\tau _1\tau _2)\theta _1\theta _2`$. As was shown in , these contact terms are essential for world-sheet supersymmetry and they are also crucial for gauge invariance as they contribute with the $`[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]`$ in the field strength. More precisely, the integration over $`\theta `$ gives the result

$$e^{S_A}=\mathrm{Tr}Pe^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\tau [A_\mu (X)_\tau A^\mu +{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}F_{\mu \nu }\psi ^\mu \psi ^\nu ]}},F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu i[A_\mu ,A_\nu ].$$
(62)
It is easy to generalise this boundary interaction to the case of lower dimensional Dp-branes. We will mainly consider D-instantons and for them the boundary interaction is

$$e^{S_A}=\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{P}\mathrm{exp}\left(i𝑑\widehat{\tau }\mathrm{\Phi }_I\stackrel{~}{D}𝐗^I\right)=\mathrm{Tr}P\mathrm{exp}\left(i𝑑\tau \left[\mathrm{\Phi }_I_nX^I(\tau )i\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}[\mathrm{\Phi }_I,\mathrm{\Phi }_J]\psi ^I(\tau )\psi ^J(\tau )\right]\right),$$
(63)
with $`I,J=1,\mathrm{},10`$. As in bosonic case, the description of even dimensional D-branes is very straightforward and corresponds to the natural emergence of these D-branes in the matrix models . Let us consider the background configuration in the form

$$[\mathrm{\Phi }_a,\mathrm{\Phi }_b]=i\theta _{ab},a=1,\mathrm{},2p,\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha =0,\alpha =2p+1,\mathrm{},10.$$
(64)
Then the fermionic term in (63) is equal to

$$i\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}[\mathrm{\Phi }_a,\mathrm{\Phi }_b]\psi ^a(\tau )\psi ^b(\tau )=\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}\theta _{ab}\psi ^a(\tau )\psi ^b(\tau )1_{N\times N}.$$
(65)
We see that this term is proportional to the unit matrix so that the following expression can be taken out the trace

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(i𝑑\tau \frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}\theta _{ab}\psi ^a(\tau )\psi ^b(\tau )\right).$$
(66)
Now it is easy to see, following the calculations presented in section (3), that this D-instantons configurations describe D(2p-1)-brane with the background gauge field $`F_{ab}=\theta _{ab}`$ with the boundary action

$$e^{S_A}=\mathrm{exp}\left(i𝑑\tau \left[A_a(X)_\tau X^a(\tau )+\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}F_{ab}\psi ^a(\tau )\psi ^b(\tau )\right]\right),F_{ab}=_aA_b_bA_a=\theta _{ab}.$$
(67)
Consequently the action evaluated on this particular D-instanton background is equal to

$$S(F)=Z(F)=<e^{S_A}>=\sqrt{2}T_{2p1}d^{2p}x\sqrt{det(\delta _{ab}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ab})}.$$
(68)
In order to describe odd dimensional D-brane we should include the tachyon in the boundary action and calculate its condensation. The inclusion of tachyon into the boundary interaction in supersymmetric case has been done in . We introduce superfield $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\xi +\theta F`$ living on the boundary of the disk. Now the tachyon boundary action is (For all $`𝐗(\tau )`$ obeying Neumann boundary conditions)

$$e^{S_{bound}}=\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{P}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{d\widehat{\tau }}{2\pi }(\mathrm{\Gamma }D\mathrm{\Gamma }+T(𝐗))\mathrm{\Gamma }\right).$$
(69)
In abelian case we can easily perform the integration over $`\theta `$. When we also integrate out the auxiliary field $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we obtain

$$e^{S_{bound}}=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{4}\frac{d\tau }{2\pi }\left[T(X)^2+(\psi ^\mu _\mu T)\frac{1}{_\tau }(\psi ^\nu _\nu T)\right]\right).$$
(70)
The generalisation of this action to the case of $`N`$ D-branes with Neumann boundary conditions in $`x^a,a=1,\mathrm{},k`$ and Dirichlet boundary conditions in $`x^i,i=k+1,\mathrm{},10`$ is

$`S(\mathrm{\Phi },T)=Z(\mathrm{\Phi },T)=<e^{S_AS_{bound}}>=`$
$`=<\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{P}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle 𝑑\widehat{\tau }\left[\frac{1}{2\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }D\mathrm{\Gamma }+\frac{1}{2\pi }T(𝐗^a)\mathrm{\Gamma }+iA_a(𝐗^a)D𝐗^a+i\mathrm{\Phi }_i(𝐗^a)\stackrel{~}{D}X^i\right]}\right)>.`$
In the following we will consider $`N`$ D(-1)-branes with the boundary interaction

$$e^{S_{bound}S_A}=\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{P}\mathrm{exp}\left(𝑑\widehat{\tau }\left[\frac{1}{2\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }D\mathrm{\Gamma }+\frac{1}{2\pi }T\mathrm{\Gamma }+i\mathrm{\Phi }_I\stackrel{~}{D}𝐗^I\right]\right),I=1,\mathrm{},10.$$
(72)
The basic idea is the same as in previous section (3). We start with performing the integration over $`\theta `$. In order do that, we express the previous expression using the elegant formalism  in which the boundary action has a form

$$e^{S_AS_{Bound}}=[d\widehat{\eta }][d\widehat{\overline{\eta }}]\mathrm{exp}\left(𝑑\widehat{\tau }\left[\widehat{\overline{\eta }}_bD\widehat{\eta }^b+\frac{1}{2\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }D\mathrm{\Gamma }+\widehat{\overline{\eta }}_a[\frac{1}{2\pi }T_b^a\mathrm{\Gamma }+i\mathrm{\Phi }_{bI}^a\stackrel{~}{D}𝐗^I]\widehat{\eta }^b\right]\right),$$
(73)
where the fields $`\widehat{\eta }^a=\eta ^a+\theta \chi ^a,\widehat{\overline{\eta }}_a=\overline{\eta }_a+\theta \chi _a`$ transform in antifundamental and fundamental representation of $`U(N)`$. The integration over $`\theta `$ gives

$`S_{bound}+S_A=I={\displaystyle }d\tau (\overline{\eta }_a\dot{\eta }^a\overline{\chi }_a\chi ^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\xi \dot{\xi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}F^2+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left(\overline{\eta }_aT_b^a\xi \chi ^b+\overline{\eta }_aT_b^aF\eta ^b\overline{\chi }_aT_b^a\xi \eta ^b\right)`$
$`i\overline{\eta }_a\mathrm{\Phi }_{bI}^a\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}\psi ^I\chi ^bi\overline{\eta }_a\mathrm{\Phi }_{bI}^a_nX^I\eta ^bi\overline{\chi }_a\mathrm{\Phi }_{bI}^a\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}\psi ^I\eta ^b),`$
In the previous expression $`a,b=1,\mathrm{},N`$ are matrix indices, $`I=1,\mathrm{},10`$ are space-time indices. As a next thing we integrate out the auxiliary field $`\chi ^a,\overline{\chi }_a`$ which gives

$`I={\displaystyle }d\tau (\overline{\eta }_a\dot{\eta }^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\xi \dot{\xi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}F^2+`$
$`+\overline{\eta }_a[{\displaystyle \frac{i\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}{2\pi }}\xi \psi ^I[\mathrm{\Phi }_I,T]_b^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}T_b^aFi\mathrm{\Phi }_{bI}^a_nX^I{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}[\mathrm{\Phi }_I,\mathrm{\Phi }_J]_b^a\psi ^I\psi ^J]\eta ^b).`$
We rewrite the path integral over $`\overline{\eta },\eta `$ in (4) as a trace with path ordering $`P`$ so that we obtain

$`<e^{S_{bound}S_A}>=<\mathrm{Tr}P\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle }d\tau [{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\xi \dot{\xi }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}F^2+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}{2\pi }}\xi \psi ^I[\mathrm{\Phi }_I,T]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}TF+i\mathrm{\Phi }_I_nX^I+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}[\mathrm{\Phi }_I,\mathrm{\Phi }_J]\psi ^I\psi ^J])>.`$
Let us consider the ansatz

$$T=u\mathrm{\Phi }_2,[\mathrm{\Phi }_x,\mathrm{\Phi }_y]=iϵ_{xy}\theta ,,x,y=1,2,[\mathrm{\Phi }_i,\mathrm{\Phi }_j]=i\theta _{ij},i,j=3,\mathrm{},2p,$$
(77)
so that $`\theta `$ in $`[\mathrm{\Phi }_a,\mathrm{\Phi }_b]=i\theta _{ab}`$ has a form

$$\theta =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \theta & 0\\ \theta & 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \theta _{ij}\end{array}\right),i,j=3,\mathrm{},2p.$$
(78)
Then the previous expression is equal to

$`<e^{S_{bound}S_A}>=<{\displaystyle }[d\varphi _a]\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle }d\tau [{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}i\varphi _a\theta ^{ab}\dot{\varphi }_b{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\xi \dot{\xi }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}F^2+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}{2\pi }}\xi \psi ^1u\theta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}u\varphi _2F+i\varphi _a_nX^a+{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha ^{}}{2}}\theta _{ab}\psi ^a\psi ^b])>.`$
The integration over auxiliary field $`F`$ gives

$$F(\tau )=\frac{1}{2}u\varphi _2(\tau )$$
(80)
and we have

$`<e^{S_{bound}S_A}>=<{\displaystyle }[d\varphi _a]\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle }d\tau [i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi _a\theta ^{ab}\dot{\varphi }_b{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\xi \dot{\xi }+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}{2\pi }}\xi \psi ^1u\theta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}u^2(\varphi _2)^2+i\varphi _a_nX^a+{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha ^{}}{2}}\theta _{ab}\psi ^a\psi ^b])>.`$
We can take out the following expression from the path integral over $`\varphi `$

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(𝑑\tau \left[\frac{1}{2\pi }\xi \dot{\xi }+\frac{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}{2\pi }\xi \psi ^1u\theta +\frac{i\alpha ^{}}{2}\theta _{ab}\psi ^a\psi ^b\right]\right).$$
(82)
Next calculation is the same as in previous section (3). The $`i,j=3,\mathrm{},2p`$ components give the same result as in the case of even dimensional D-brane without exciting tachyon and the integration over $`x,y=1,2`$ gives

$`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}_nX^x(\tau )\mathrm{}(\tau \tau ^{})_{xy}^1_nX^y(\tau ^{})}\right),`$
$`\mathrm{}(\tau \tau ^{})_{xy}^1={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(E_n)_{xy}^1e^{in(\tau \tau ^{})},(E_n^1)_{xy}={\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^2}{n^2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{4\pi }u^2& \frac{n}{\theta }\\ \frac{n}{\theta }& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (85)
which together with the $`F_{ij}`$ and $`F_{xy}`$ terms gives the result

$$Z=<\mathrm{exp}\left(𝑑\tau \left[\frac{1}{2\pi }\xi \dot{\xi }+\frac{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}{2\pi }\xi \psi ^1u\frac{1}{8\pi }u^2(X^1)^2+iA_a(X^a)_\tau X^a+\frac{i\alpha ^{}}{2}\theta _{ab}\psi ^a\psi ^b\right]\right)>,$$
(87)
where we have made replacement $`u\theta u`$. We can also integrate out the auxiliary field $`\xi `$ which leads to

$$\dot{\xi }(\tau )=\frac{u\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}{2}\psi ^1(\tau )\xi (\tau )=\frac{u\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}{2}\frac{1}{_\tau }\psi ^1(\tau )$$
(88)
and we obtain the same expression as in

$`<e^{S_AS_{bound}}>=<\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle }d\tau [{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}(u^2(X^1)^2+\alpha ^{}u^2\psi ^1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{_\tau }}\psi ^1)+`$
$`+iA_a(X^a)_\tau X^a+{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha ^{}}{2}}F_{ab}\psi ^a\psi ^b])>,F_{ab}=\theta _{ab}.`$
Then it is easy to see that the tachyon condensation really leads to the emergence of odd dimensional D-brane exactly in the same way as in . The partition function is equal to

$$Z=Kd^{2p1}xZ(a,v)_{fermi}\sqrt{det(\delta _{ij}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ij})},v=\frac{\alpha ^{}u^2/2}{1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}\theta )^2}.$$
(90)
with

$$Z(a,v)_{fermi}=4^v\frac{Z_1(v)^2}{Z_1(2v)},Z_1(v)=\sqrt{v}e^{\gamma v}\mathrm{\Gamma }(v),$$
(91)
and where $`K`$ is a numerical factor that will be determined as in section (3). When we calculate the partition sum for constant tachyon $`T=a1_{N\times N}`$ we obtain the exact tachyon potential $`e^{\frac{a^2}{4}}`$ multiplied with the DBI term $`\sqrt{det(\delta _{ab}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ab})}`$ arising from the partition sum calculated in the pure gauge field background. Then we can expect that for a slowly varying tachyon field the action corresponds to the non-BPS D(2p-1)-brane action is

$$S=\sqrt{2}T_{2p1}d^{2p}xe^{T^2/4}\sqrt{(1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}\theta )^2)det(\delta _{ij}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ij})}+O(T),$$
(92)
This action evaluated on the tachyon profile $`T=ux^1`$ should be equal to the partition sum in the limit $`u0`$. From this requirement we can determine the overall normalisation constant in the partition sum as well as the normalisation of the tachyon kinetic term . However for our purposes it is sufficient to obtain the normalisation term $`K`$ only. Then the action (92) evaluated on the tachyon profile $`T(x)=ux^1`$ is equal to

$`\sqrt{2}T_{2p1}{\displaystyle d^{2p1}x\sqrt{(1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}\theta )^2)det(\delta _{ij}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ij})}𝑑x^1e^{u^2(x^1)^2/4}}=`$
$`=2{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{u}}\sqrt{2}T_{2p1}{\displaystyle d^{2p1}x\sqrt{(1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}\theta )^2)det(\delta _{ij}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ij})}}.`$
On the other hand, in the limit $`u0`$ we have

$$Z(v)_{fermi}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{v}}+O(v),v0,$$
(94)
so that the partition function is equal to

$$Z=K\frac{\sqrt{2}\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}u^2}}d^{2p1}x\sqrt{(1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}\theta )^2)det(\delta _{ij}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ij})}$$
(95)
and consequently

$$K=\sqrt{2}T_{2p1}\sqrt{\pi \alpha ^{}}.$$
(96)
Using this result it is easy to see that the action arising from the tachyon condensation is equal to (In this case the tachyon condensation corresponds to $`u\mathrm{}`$ )

$`S=Z(\mathrm{})=\sqrt{2\pi \alpha ^{}}T_{2p1}\sqrt{2\pi }{\displaystyle d^{2p1}x\sqrt{det(\delta _{ij}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ij})}}=`$
$`=T_{2p2}{\displaystyle d^{2p1}x\sqrt{det(\delta _{ij}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ij})}},`$
where we have used

$$Z(v)\sqrt{2\pi }+O(v^1),u\mathrm{}.$$
(98)
The result (4) is a correct value of the action for D(2p-2)-brane with the background gauge field strength $`F_{ij}`$.

In this section we have studied the emergence of all D-branes in type IIA theory from the configurations of infinite many non-BPS D(-1)-instantons. Exactly in the same way we could proceed with the infinite many non-BPS D0-branes in type IIB theory.

## 5 Conclusion

In this paper we have tried to show that all D-branes in bosonic, type IIA and type IIB theory can emerge from configurations of infinite many D-instantons, in case of type IIB theory from infinite many D0-branes. We have studied this system from the point of view of BSFT and we have shown that we can very easily obtain correct values of the tensions of all D-branes.

However, many open questions remain. Firstly, it would be nice to obtain non-abelian action for D-instantons, or more generally for all non-abelian D-branes from the BSFT theory. It seams that this can be easily done in the case of supersymmetric string theory at least in some special cases . We hope to return to these questions in the future. It would be also interesting to study the D-brane anti-D-brane system in the framework suggested in this paper, following the general construction . We hope to return to this problem in the forthcoming publication.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Rikard von Unge for very helpful discussions. This work was supported by the Czech Ministry of Education under Contract No. 143100006.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

$`S_{q,N}^2`$ is a $`q`$–deformed version of the “ordinary” fuzzy sphere $`S_N^2`$ . It is covariant under the standard Drinfeld–Jimbo quantum group $`U_q(su(2))`$, and can be defined for both $`q`$ and $`|q|=1`$. The algebra of functions on $`S_{q,N}^2`$ is isomorphic to the matrix algebra $`Mat(N+1,)`$, but it carries additional structure which distinguishes it from $`S_N^2`$, related to its rotation symmetry under $`U_q(su(2))`$. For real $`q`$, we recover precisely the “discrete series” of Podles spheres . We describe its structure in general, including a covariant differential calculus and integration, and show how actions of Yang–Mills and Chern–Simons type arise naturally on this space. A much more detailed study of $`S_{q,N}^2`$ has been given by in . These considerations were motivated mainly by the work  of Alekseev, Recknagel and Schomerus, who study the boundary conformal field theory describing spherical $`D`$–branes in the $`SU(2)`$ WZW model at level $`k`$. These authors extract an “effective” algebra of functions on the $`D`$–branes from the OPE of the boundary vertex operators. This algebra is twist–equivalent  to the space of functions on $`S_{q,N}^2`$, if $`q`$ is related to the level $`k`$ by the formula

$$q=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{i\pi }{k+2}).$$
(1.1)
## 2 The space $`S_q^2`$

First, recall that an algebra $`𝒜`$ is a $`U_q(su(2))`$–module algebra if there exists a map

$`U_q(su(2))\times 𝒜`$ $``$ $`𝒜,`$
$`(u,a)`$ $``$ $`ua`$ (2.1)
which satisfies $`u(ab)=(u_{(1)}a)(u_{(2)}b)`$ for $`a,b𝒜`$. Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }(u)=u_{(1)}u_{(2)}`$ is the Sweedler notation for the coproduct of $`uU_q(su(2))`$.

A particularly simple way to define the $`q`$–deformed fuzzy sphere is as follows: Consider the spin $`\frac{N}{2}`$ representation of $`U_q(su(2))`$,

$$\rho :U_q(su(2))Mat(N+1,),$$
(2.2)
which acts on $`^{N+1}`$. With this in mind, it is natural to consider the simple matrix algebra $`Mat(N+1,)`$ as a $`U_q(su(2))`$–module algebra, by $`uM=\rho (u_1)M\rho (Su_2)`$. This defines $`S_{q,N}^2`$. It is easy to see that under this action of $`U_q(su(2))`$, it decomposes into the irreducible representations

$$S_{q,N}^2:=Mat(N+1,)=(1)(3)\mathrm{}(2N+1)$$
(2.3)
(if $`q`$ is a root of unity (1.1), this holds provided $`Nk/2`$, which we will assume here). Let $`\{x_i\}_{i=+,,0}`$ be the weight basis of the spin 1 components, so that $`ux_i=x_j\pi _i^j(u)`$ for $`uU_q(su(2))`$. One can then show that they satisfy the relations

$`\epsilon _k^{ij}x_ix_j`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_Nx_k,`$
$`g^{ij}x_ix_j`$ $`=`$ $`R^2.`$ (2.4)
Here

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_N=R\frac{[2]_{q^{N+1}}}{\sqrt{[N]_q[N+2]_q}},$$
(2.5)
$`[n]_q=\frac{q^nq^n}{qq^1}`$, and $`\epsilon _k^{ij}`$ and $`g^{ij}`$ are the $`q`$–deformed invariant tensors. For example, $`\epsilon _3^{33}=q^1q`$, and $`g^{11}=q^1,g^{00}=1,g^{11}=q`$. In , these relations were derived using a Jordan–Wigner construction. For $`q=1`$, the relations of $`S_N^2`$ are recovered, and for real $`q1`$ we obtain $`\epsilon _k^{ij}x_ix_j=R(qq^1)x_k`$ in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$.

### Real structure.

In order to define a real noncommutative space, one must specify a star structure on the algebra of functions. Since $`S_{q,N}^2`$ should decompose into unitary representations of $`U_q(su(2))`$, we restrict to the cases $`q`$ and $`|q|=1`$. In either case, the star structure on $`S_{q,N}^2=Mat(N+1,)`$ is defined to be the usual hermitean adjoint of matrices. In terms of the generators $`x_i`$, this becomes

$$x_i^{}=g^{ij}x_j,\text{if}q$$
(2.6)
and

$$x_i^{}=\omega x_i\omega ^1=x_j\rho (L_{}^{}{}_{k}{}^{j})q^2g^{ki},\text{if}|q|=1.$$
(2.7)
Here $`\omega \widehat{U}_q(su(2))`$ generates the quantum Weyl reflection ,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega )=^1\omega \omega ,\omega ^2=vϵ,v=S_2_1q^H,$$
(2.8)
and $`L_{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{i}=\pi _j^i(_1^1)_2^1U_q(su(2))`$. Using the map $`\rho `$ (2.2), this amounts to the star structure $`H^{}=H,(X^\pm )^{}=X^{}`$ defining the compact form $`U_q(su(2))`$ for both $`q`$ and $`|q|=1`$. In the case $`q`$, we have recovered precisely the discrete series of Podles spheres .

To summarize, $`S_{q,N}^2`$ is same algebra $`Mat(N+1,)`$ as $`S_N^2S_{q=1,N}^2`$, but its symmetry $`U_q(su(2))`$ acts on it in a way which is inequivalent to the undeformed case. It admits additional structure compatible with this symmetry, such as a differential calculus and an integral. This will be discussed next.

## 3 Differential calculus and integration

In order to write down Lagrangians, it is convenient to use the notion of an (exterior) differential calculus. A covariant differential calculus over $`S_{q,N}`$ is a graded bimodule $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=_n\mathrm{\Omega }^n`$ over $`S_{q,N}`$ which is a $`U_q(su(2))`$–module algebra, together with an exterior derivative $`d`$ which satisfies $`d^2=0`$ and the graded Leibnitz rule.

The structure of the calculus is determined by requiring covariance, and a systematic way to derive it is given in . Here we will simply quote the most important features. First, the modules $`\mathrm{\Omega }^n`$ turn out to be free over $`S_{q,N}`$ both as left and right modules222but not as bimodules with $`dim\mathrm{\Omega }^n=(1,3,3,1)`$ for $`n=(0,1,2,3)`$, and vanish for higher $`n`$. In particular, it is not possible to have a calculus with only “tangential” forms; this means that vector fields over $`S_{q,N}`$ will in general also contain “radial” components. As suggested by the dimensions, there exists a canonical map

$$_H:\mathrm{\Omega }^n\mathrm{\Omega }^{3n},$$
(3.1)
which satisfies $`(_H)^2=id`$, and respects the $`U_q(su(2))`$– and $`S_{q,N}`$–module structures. It satisfies furthermore

$$\alpha (_H\beta )=(_H\alpha )\beta $$

for any $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$. Moreover, there exists a special one–form

$$\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Omega }_{q,N}^1$$

which is a singlet under $`U_q(su(2))`$, and generates the calculus as follows:

$`df`$ $`=`$ $`[\mathrm{\Theta },f],`$
$`d\alpha ^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`[\mathrm{\Theta },\alpha ^{(1)}]_+_H(\alpha ^{(1)}),`$ (3.2)
$`d\alpha ^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`[\mathrm{\Theta },\alpha ^{(2)}]`$
for any $`fS_{q,N}`$ and $`\alpha ^{(i)}\mathrm{\Omega }^i`$. One can verify that

$$d\mathrm{\Theta }=\mathrm{\Theta }^2=_H(\mathrm{\Theta }),$$

and $`[f,\mathrm{\Theta }^3]=0`$ with $`\mathrm{\Theta }^30`$. There also exists a star structure  on $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ for both $`q`$ and $`|q|=1`$, which makes it a covariant $``$ calculus.

### Frame.

The most convenient basis to work with is the “frame” generated by one–forms $`\theta ^a\mathrm{\Omega }^1`$ for $`a=+,,0`$, which satisfy

$`[\theta ^a,f]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3.3)
$`\theta ^a\theta ^b`$ $`=`$ $`q^2\widehat{R}_{cd}^{ba}\theta ^d\theta ^c,`$ (3.4)
$`_H\theta ^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2[2]_{q^2}}}\epsilon _{bc}^a\theta ^c\theta ^b,`$
$`\theta ^a\theta ^b\theta ^c`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_N^2{\displaystyle \frac{q^6}{R^2}}\epsilon ^{cba}\mathrm{\Theta }^3.`$ (3.5)
Such $`\theta ^a`$ exist and are essentially unique. The disadvantage is that they have a somewhat complicated transformation law

$$u\theta ^a=u_1Su_3\pi _b^a(Su_2)\theta ^b.$$

One can alternatively use a basis of one–forms $`\xi _i`$ which transform as a vector under $`U_q(su(2))`$, but then the commutation relations are more complicated .

### Integration.

The unique invariant integral of a function $`fS_{q,N}^2`$ is given by its quantum trace as an element of $`Mat(N+1,)`$,

$$f:=\frac{4\pi R^2}{[N+1]_q}\text{Tr}_q(f)=\frac{4\pi R^2}{[N+1]_q}\text{Tr}(fq^H),$$

normalized such that $`1=4\pi R^2`$. Invariance means that $`uf=\epsilon (u)f`$. It is useful to define also the integral of forms, by declaring $`\mathrm{\Theta }^3`$ to be the “volume form”. Writing any 3–form as $`\alpha ^{(3)}=f\mathrm{\Theta }^3`$, we define $`\alpha ^{(3)}=f\mathrm{\Theta }^3:=f`$. Using the correct cyclic property of this integral, one can then verify Stokes theorem

$$𝑑\alpha ^{(2)}=[\mathrm{\Theta },\alpha ^{(2)}]=0.$$
(3.6)
## 4 Gauge Fields

Actions for gauge theories arise in a very natural way on $`S_{q,N}^2`$. We shall describe (abelian) gauge fields as one–forms

$$B=B_a\theta ^a\mathrm{\Omega }^1,$$

expanded in terms of the frames $`\theta ^a`$. They have 3 independent components, which means that $`B`$ has also a radial component. However, the latter cannot be disentangled from the other components, since it is not possible to construct a covariant calulus with 2 tangential components only.

We propose that Lagrangians for gauge fields should contain no explicit derivatives in the $`B`$ fields. The kinetic terms will then arise naturally upon a shift of the field $`B`$,

$$B=\mathrm{\Theta }+A.$$

The only Lagrangian of order $`3`$ in $`B`$ which after this shift contains no linear terms in $`A`$ is the “ Chern-Simons” action

$$S_{CS}:=\frac{1}{3}B^3\frac{1}{2}B_HB=\text{const}+\frac{1}{2}A𝑑A+\frac{2}{3}A^3.$$
(4.1)
Going to order 4 in $`B`$, we define the curvature as

$$F:=B^2_HB=dA+A^2,$$

using (3.2). Then a “Yang–Mills” action is naturally obtained as

$$S_{YM}:=F_HF=(dA+A^2)_H(dA+A^2).$$
(4.2)
These are precisely the kind of actions that have been found  in the string–induced low–energy effective action on $`D`$–branes in the $`SU(2)_k`$ WZW model, in the leading approximation.

### Acknowledgements

The author is very grateful for the collaboration with H. Grosse and J. Madore on the paper  which underlies this review, and to the organizers of the Euroconference “Brane New World and Noncommutative Geometry” for the invitation and support.


text:
# Two particle states, lepton mixing and oscillations

## I Introduction

The Standard Model (SM) of particle physics has proven to be a firm basis on which all our knowledge of this field rests since its construction 30 years ago . Precision tests performed in the last decade demonstrated in particular that it is also correct at the quantum level. Novel phenomena such as neutrino masses or supersymmetric particles, which cannot be accommodated within the SM, should not be thought to contradict it, but rather to guide us as to new physics beyond it. Nowadays, this hunt for new phenomena is the main topic in particle physics. In contrast to the search for supersymmetry, for which there is no positive signal so farWe should however mention that the annual modulation signal seen by the DAMA experiment can be consistently explained as the scattering of supersymmetric dark matter particles on their target nucleons . Also the experimental evidence for a light Higgs found at LEPII points towards low-energy supersymmetry ., there is mounting experimental evidence for neutrino oscillations. On the one hand, there are five solar neutrino experiments using different techniques that see a deficit in the solar neutrino flux . Although this deficit could have its origin in principle also in non-standard solar- or nuclear physics, it can be shown that these explanations are experimentally excluded . On the other hand, the case for an oscillation solution to the atmospheric neutrino deficit has become recently even stronger in the general perception. This is largely because both the zenith-angle distribution and the dependence of the ratio $`\nu _e/\nu _\mu `$ as function of the ratio (oscillation length)/(neutrino energy) found by the Superkamiokande collaboration support the neutrino oscillation hypothesis .

Most aspects of neutrino oscillations have been discussed extensively in the literature. The usual derivation, presented e.g. in Ref. , of the probability $`P`$ that a relativistic neutrino with momentum $`p`$ and flavor $`\alpha `$ has the flavor $`\beta `$ after the time $`t`$,

$$P_{\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta }=\left|\underset{l}{}U_{\alpha l}^{(\nu )}U_{\beta l}^{(\nu )}\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{i}E_lt\right)\right|^2,$$
(1)
uses only basic facts of quantum mechanics. Here, $`E_l=\sqrt{m_l^2+p^2}`$ is the energy of the neutrino mass eigenstate $`l`$ and the matrix $`U`$ is commonly chosen to represent the unitary transformation matrix between weak and mass eigenstates of the neutrino. In spite (or, perhaps, because) of the simplicity of its derivation, Eq. (1) raises several conceptual questions. The most prominent ones are if for the neutrino mass eigenstates a definite energy or momentum should be used, under which conditions the use of wave packets with smeared energy and/or momentum is necessary, the problem of coherence, and the connection between the quantum mechanical treatment and quantum field theory .

In this article we want to discuss a more basic question, namely why mixing in the lepton sector reveals itself experimentally in flavor oscillations of neutrinos but not of charged leptons. This question is motivated by the following simple fact: At the level of the Lagrangian describing the charged-current interactions of leptons,

$$_{CC}=\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}\underset{i,j}{}\overline{l}_{L,i}\gamma ^\mu V_{ij}\nu _{L,j}W_\mu ^{}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(2)
the mixing $`V=U^{(\mathrm{ch})}U^{(\nu )}`$ between charged leptons and neutrinos has two different sources: It could be ascribed either completely to mixing in the neutrino ($`V=U^{(\nu )}`$) or in the charged lepton sector ($`V=U^{(\mathrm{ch})}`$), or most probably to some superposition of both. Physical results do not depend on the particular decomposition of $`V`$ in the Standard Model with lepton mixingWe call SM with lepton mixing any model that allows non-zero neutrino masses but reproduces otherwise in the low-energy limit the SM. This means in particular that we do not consider sterile neutrinos.. Thus, knowing only the charged-current Lagrangian, one would not expect any fundamental difference between neutrinos and charged leptons in oscillation experiments. Main purpose of this article is to clarify the exact reason for this difference.

Another formulation of this question is to ask for which conditions it is allowed to neglect the charged lepton produced together with the neutrino in a two-particle state, e.g., in the decay of a pion or a real $`W`$ boson. We will show that there is a crucial difference between these two cases. While in the first one the charged lepton plays only a “spectator rôle” and can be neglected to a good approximation, in the second case the two-particle state has to be considered.

Furthermore, we shall address the question whether charged leptons can show an oscillation pattern. Usually it is argued that their oscillation frequencies are too high to be observable and moreover, that the coherence of wave packets corresponding to different mass eigenstates is lost under experimental conditions.

In general, an oscillation pattern is observed if 1) the distance between the source and the detector is smaller than the coherence length $`l_{\mathrm{coh}}`$ and 2) the size of the source and of the detector are smaller than the oscillation length $`l_{\mathrm{osc}}`$. In analogy to neutrino oscillations , the coherence length for charged leptons can be written as

$$l_{\mathrm{coh}}=\sigma \frac{2E^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2},$$
(3)
with the width of the wave packet $`\sigma `$, the energy $`E`$ and mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=m_i^2m_j^2`$ of the charged leptons. As an example we estimate $`l_{\mathrm{coh}}`$ for pion decay in flight with an energy of $`E_\pi 40`$ GeV. Using $`\sigma \gamma \tau `$ and the pion half life $`\tau =2.6\times 10^8`$ s one obtains $`l_{\mathrm{coh}}=𝒪(10^8`$ m). The oscillation length $`l_{\mathrm{osc}}=4\pi E/\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ would amount to $`𝒪(10^{11}`$ m). Consequently, the coherence condition could be met experimentally while the oscillation pattern would be smeared out. If this were the complete argument, one still could hope to derive information about $`V`$ measuring only charged leptons. We will show however, that it is necessary to measure the accompanying neutrino simultaneously in order to obtain any information on $`V`$.

## II Mixing in the lepton sector

Let us first recall how fermion mass matrices are diagonalized. Generally, the mass terms in the Lagrangian are given by

$$_{\mathrm{mass}}=\underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}\overline{\nu }_{L,\alpha }M_{\alpha \beta }^{(\nu )}\nu _{R,\beta }\underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}\overline{l}_{L,\alpha }M_{\alpha \beta }^{(\mathrm{ch})}l_{R,\beta }+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(4)
and the mass matrices $`M_{\alpha \beta }`$ are not hermitian or even diagonal in the basis of the weak eigenstates. (We denote the weak eigenstates $`\nu _\alpha =\{\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau \}`$ and $`l_\alpha =\{e,\mu ,\tau \}`$ by greek indices $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{}`$, and the mass eigenstates by latin indices $`i,j,\mathrm{}`$ Furthermore, we have assumed that the neutrinos have only Dirac mass terms to simplify the formulas). Since the mass matrices are not hermitian, they cannot be diagonalized by a simple unitary transformation. However, arbitrary mass matrices can be diagonalized by a biunitary transformation ,

$$M_{\mathrm{diag}}^{(\nu )}=U^{(\nu )}M^{(\nu )}T^{(\nu )},$$
(5)
where $`U^{(\nu )}U^{(\nu )}=T^{(\nu )}T^{(\nu )}=\mathrm{𝟏}`$. Then, the connection between weak and mass eigenstates is given by

$$\nu _{R,\alpha }=\underset{i}{}T_{\alpha i}^{(\nu )}\nu _{R,i},\nu _{L,\alpha }=\underset{i}{}U_{\alpha i}^{(\nu )}\nu _{L,i},$$
(6)
and similar equations hold for the charged leptons.

Inserting the transformations of Eq. (6) into the charged current Lagrangian of the SM,

$$_{CC}=\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}\underset{\alpha }{}\overline{l}_{L,\alpha }\gamma ^\mu \nu _{L,\alpha }W_\mu ^{}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(7)
results in

$$_{CC}=\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}\underset{i,j}{}\overline{l}_{L,i}\gamma ^\mu V_{ij}\nu _{L,j}W_\mu ^{}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(8)
where we introduced the analogue of the CKM matrix in the lepton sector , $`V=U^{(\mathrm{ch})}U^{(\nu )}`$. Since the charged current interaction involves only left-chiral fields of both charged leptons and neutrinos, the product of the two mixing matrices of the right-handed leptons, $`T^{(\mathrm{ch})}T^{(\nu )}`$, is unobservable.

In the case of massless neutrinos we can choose the neutrino mass eigenstates arbitrarily. In particular, we can set $`U^{(\nu )}=U^{(\mathrm{ch})}`$ for any given $`U^{(\mathrm{ch})}`$, hereby rotating away the mixing. This shows that neutrino masses are a necessary condition for non-trivial consequences of mixing in the lepton sector.

Finally, we recall that there are no flavor-changing neutral currents within the standard model: The neutral current Lagrangian is diagonal both in the weak eigenbasis,

$$_{NC}=\frac{g}{2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}\underset{\alpha }{}[\overline{\nu }_{L,\alpha }\gamma _\mu \nu _{L,\alpha }+\overline{l}_\alpha (g_V+g_A\gamma _5)\gamma _\mu l_\alpha ]Z^\mu $$
(9)
and in the mass basis

$$_{NC}=\frac{g}{2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}\underset{i}{}[\overline{\nu }_{L,i}\gamma _\mu \nu _{L,i}+\overline{l}_i(g_V+g_A\gamma _5)\gamma _\mu l_i]Z^\mu $$
(10)
due to the unitarity conditions, $`U^{(\nu )}U^{(\nu )}=\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`U^{(\mathrm{ch})}U^{(\mathrm{ch})}=\mathrm{𝟏}`$.

## III Pion decay and lepton mixing

Many neutrino oscillations experiments use as source for the initial lepton-neutrino state charged pions. In the SM without lepton mixing, a tree-level calculation gives for the ratio $`R`$ of $`\pi e\nu _e`$ and $`\pi \mu \nu _\mu `$ decay rates

$$R=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi e\nu _e)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi \mu \nu _\mu )}=\frac{m_e^2}{m_\mu ^2}\frac{(m_\pi ^2m_e^2)^2}{(m_\pi ^2m_\mu ^2)^2}1.28\times 10^4.$$
(11)
Since angular momentum conservation in the pion rest frame requires a helicity flip of the lepton, the $`S`$-matrix elements of these decays are proportional to the lepton masses $`m_\alpha `$ and, therefore, the branching into electrons is suppressed. Hence, the two-particle state $`|l^+\nu _\pi `$ created by a decaying positively charged pion is given by

$$|l^+\nu _\pi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{\alpha =e,\mu }{}m_\alpha (1m_\alpha ^2/m_\pi ^2)|l_\alpha ^+\nu _\alpha ,$$
(12)
where $`N`$ is a normalization constant. We have included the phase space factor $`1m_\alpha ^2/m_\pi ^2`$ into Eq. (12) because we assume that the state $`|l^+\nu _\pi `$ lives for a macroscopic time between its creation and detection. Therefore, both the lepton and the neutrino are approximately on their mass-shell.

Let us now examine what are the necessary changes if we want to account for lepton mixing. Inserting Eq. (6) into Eq. (12) we obtain

$$|l^+\nu (t)_\pi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}a_iV_{ij}|l_i^+\nu _je^{\mathrm{i}(E_i+E_j)t},$$
(13)
where $`a_i=m_i(1m_i^2/m_\pi ^2)`$.

We are ordering the mass eigenstates according to the value of $`m_i`$, i.e. $`m_{l_1}<m_{l_2}<m_{l_3}`$. Thus the state $`l_3`$ cannot be populated in pion decay and, therefore, is omitted in the summation. Furthermore, we have assumed that all three neutrinos masses are extremely small compared to the electron mass as it is suggested by the currently favored interpretation of neutrino oscillation experiments and cosmology. Therefore, we could omit safely new terms in the $`S`$-matrix element proportional to $`m_{\nu _i}`$, that in principle change the branching ratio Eq. (11) from its SM value . Note that the relative phases $`V_{ij}`$ of the different components $`|l_i^+\nu _j`$ are fixed by the Lagrangian, while the $`a_i`$ are real numbers. The time evolution of $`|l^+\nu (t)_\pi `$ is trivial, because we have expressed $`|l^+\nu (t)_\pi `$ as a sum over mass eigenstates.

In Eq. (13), we have not displayed explicitly the finite lifetimes $`\tau =1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the states $`l_2`$ and $`\nu _{2,3}`$, because this point is not essential for our discussion. However, the finite lifetimes can be restored treating the energy as a complex number, $`E=(m^2+p^2)i\mathrm{\Gamma }/2`$ and noting that the decay products of $`|l^+\nu _\pi `$ do not interfere with it.

Apart from the large difference between the lifetime of $`l_2`$ and of $`\nu _{2,3}`$, there is another, more important, distinction between neutrinos and charged leptons. If one decomposes $`|l^+\nu _\pi `$ explicitly into its basis states, then

$$|l^+\nu _\pi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{3}{}}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}a_iU_{\alpha i}^{(\mathrm{ch})}|l_i^+\right)\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}U_{\alpha j}^{(\nu )}|\nu _j\right).$$
(14)
Defining a new basis appropriate for $`|l^+\nu _\pi `$ by

$$|l^+\nu _\pi =\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{3}{}}|l_\alpha ^+_\pi |\nu _\alpha _\pi $$
(15)
and comparing with Eq. (14), it follows that the neutrino state $`|\nu _\alpha _\pi `$ produced in pion decay is just a usual weak eigenstate, $`|\nu _\alpha _\pi =_{j=1}^3U_{\alpha j}^{(\nu )}|\nu _j=|\nu _\alpha `$. By contrast, the charged lepton state is $`|l_\alpha ^+_\pi =_{i=1}^2a_i/\sqrt{N}U_{\alpha i}^{(\mathrm{ch})}|l_i^+|l_\alpha ^+`$. We will see below that it is the presence of the prefactors $`a_1a_2`$ which allows the observation of neutrino oscillations in pion decay without detecting the charged lepton. Note however also that $`|l_\alpha ^+_\pi |l_\alpha ^+`$ even for $`a_1=a_2`$, because the component $`l_3`$ is missing.

Using $`a_2a_1`$, we can approximate $`|l^+\nu (t)_\pi `$ as

$$|l^+\nu (t)_\pi \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}V_{2j}|l_2^+\nu _je^{\mathrm{i}(E_2+E_j)t}$$
(16)
with $`a_2/\sqrt{N}1`$. Clearly, one obtains in this approximation only neutrino oscillations, because the charged lepton is in a pure mass eigenstate. Choosing furthermore $`V=U^{(\nu )}`$, we obtain the state normally considered as initial state in pion decay,

$$|l^+\nu _\pi \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}\delta _{2\alpha }U_{\alpha j}^{(\nu )}|l_2^+\nu _j=|l_2^+\nu _\mu .$$
(17)
The approximation $`a_2a_1`$ which is widely used in textbooks is numerically well justified. However, its use obscures the fact that even for the choice $`V=U^{(\nu )}`$, i.e. identifying mass and flavor eigenstates of the charged leptons, the charged lepton is nevertheless produced in a mixed state.

Let us now discuss different measurements of the exact two-particle state, Eq. (13). Since we are only interested in flavor oscillations, we do not consider possible momentum measurements of the two particles. Then, a measurement of the state $`|l^+\nu (t)_\pi `$ is complete if at time $`t`$ the quantum numbers $`i`$ or $`\alpha `$ of both the neutrino and the charged lepton are determined. In the case that only one quantum number is observed, the probability $`P(l)`$ of this measurement is obtained by summing over the quantum number of the unobserved particle, symbolically $`P(l)=_l^{}P(l,l^{})`$.

To begin with, we recall the case normally treated in the literature, namely that the neutrino flavor is detected while the lepton is not observed. In a first try, we associate the probability $`P(l_k,\nu _\alpha )=|l_k\nu _\alpha |l^+\nu (t)_\pi |^2`$ to the measurement of the lepton mass eigenstate $`k`$ and the neutrino flavor eigenstate $`\alpha `$ at time $`t`$. This would result in

$$l_k\nu _\alpha |l^+\nu (t)_\pi =\frac{a_k}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{l=1}{\overset{3}{}}V_{kl}U_{\alpha l}^{(\nu )}e^{\mathrm{i}(E_k+E_l)t},$$
(18)
i.e. in an amplitude which does not only depend on $`V`$ but also on the neutrino mixing matrix $`U^{(\nu )}`$. However, in practice one cannot observe the flavor of a neutrino directly. Instead, the flavor of the neutrino is determined looking at the mass eigenstates of the charged lepton $`l^{}`$ produced in a secondary charged current reaction, cf. Fig. 1.

Therefore, we should calculate

$$l_kl_m^{}|\widehat{H}_{CC}(t)|l^+\nu (t)_\pi =\frac{a_k}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{l=1}{\overset{3}{}}V_{kl}V_{ml}^{}e^{\mathrm{i}(E_k+E_l)t},$$
(19)
where the action of $`\widehat{H}_{CC}`$ destroys at time $`t`$ a neutrino $`\nu _\beta `$ and creates a superposition of mass eigenstates of charged leptons $`l_m^{}=U_{m\beta }^{(\mathrm{ch})}l_\beta `$. Here, $`\widehat{H}_{CC}`$ denotes the second quantized Hamiltonian of the usual charged-current interaction. The corresponding probability to measure the primary lepton $`l_k`$ from the pion decay and the secondary lepton $`l_m^{}`$ produced by the neutrino is

$`P(l_k,l_m^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a_k^2}{N}}\{{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{3}{}}}|V_{kl}|^2|V_{ml}|^2+2{\displaystyle \underset{n>l}{\overset{3}{}}}|V_{kl}V_{ml}^{}V_{kn}^{}V_{mn}|`$ (21)
$`\mathrm{cos}[(E_lE_n)t+\xi _{klmn}]\},`$
where $`\xi _{klmn}=\mathrm{arg}(V_{kl}V_{ml}^{}V_{kn}^{}V_{mn})`$. If both charged leptons are observed, the probability (21) shows clearly an oscillatory behavior.

In the case that only one of the two leptons is observed, the result is completely different depending on if the primary $`l_k`$ or the secondary $`l_m^{}`$ (as indicator for the neutrino flavor) is observed. In the first case, summing over $`m`$, we obtain

$$P(l_k)=\underset{m}{}P(l_k,l_m^{})=\frac{a_k^2}{N}$$
(22)
using the unitarity of $`V`$, i.e. $`_kV_{ik}V_{jk}^{}=\delta _{ij}`$. In the second case, we cannot make use of these unitarity relations because the prefactors $`a_k`$ depend on the summation index $`k`$. However, in the limit $`a_2a_1`$, the result simplifies and we obtain the well-known neutrino oscillation formula

$$P(l_m^{})=\underset{k}{}P(l_k,l_m^{})\left|\underset{l}{}V_{2l}V_{ml}^{}\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{i}E_lt\right)\right|^2.$$
(23)
Let us now comment shortly on the reason for this asymmetry. A flavor oscillation experiment measures the correlation between the flavor or mass quantum numbers of two particles. In the case of pion decay, we can use our knowledge about the initial state created in the decay as replacement for an actual measurement of the primary lepton. However, the kinematic of the decay does not give us any useful information about the neutrino state: all three flavor eigenstates are with equal probability produced. Therefore, the neutrino has to be measured via its secondary lepton to obtain an oscillation pattern.

From this discussion, it should became clear that the difference between charged leptons and neutrinos in $`|l^+\nu _\pi `$ is rather specific to the process considered: The V–A structure of the weak current together with angular momentum conservation forbid the decay of the spinless pion into two massless spin 1/2 particles. Therefore, the pion decay rate is proportional to the fermion masses $`m^2`$. Moreover, it is used that the neutrino masses can be neglected compared to the masses of the charged leptons. Therefore, the fact that we have no a-priori information about the neutrino but about the charged lepton is specific to pion decay.

Next, we want to discuss if it is possible to measure not the flavor of a neutrino but its mass without measuring the lepton. A possible way to do this is to use Cherenkov or transition radiation of the neutrino . In vacuum, neutrinos can interact with real photons whose squared four-momentum $`q^2`$ is zero only via their electromagnetic dipole or transition moments. In a medium, the photon acquires a more complicated dispersion relation ($`q^20`$) and, therefore, neutrinos can emit real photons without decaying, $`\nu _i\nu _i+\gamma `$. At least in principle, it is possible to reconstruct the mass of the radiating neutrino from the spectra of emitted photons.

The probability to find the neutrino in the mass eigenstate $`l`$ without measuring the charged lepton is

$$P(\nu _l)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{2}{}}P(l_k,\nu _l)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{k=1}{\overset{2}{}}a_k^2|V_{kl}|^2\frac{a_2^2}{N}|V_{2l}|^2.$$
(24)
In this case, we have the interesting result that $`P(\nu _l)`$ depends on the mixing matrix $`V`$ but does not show an oscillatory behavior. Compared to a flavor measurement which introduces an additional summation $`_jV_{jl}`$ in the probability amplitude, the phase of the probability amplitude of a mass measurement is constant and, consequently, no oscillation pattern can arise. On the other hand, $`P(\nu _l)`$ depends on $`V`$ because of the factors $`a_k`$. Consequently, it is possible to extract information on the mixing matrix $`V`$ measuring the mass eigenstate of the neutrino.

Finally, we comment briefly on charged lepton–neutrino states created in nuclear beta decay. Due to the low nuclear energies involved, only the state $`l_1`$ is produced and, therefore, the charged lepton is not only approximately but exactly in a pure state.

## IV $`W`$ decay and lepton mixing

We discuss now the evolution of the two-particle state $`|l\nu `$ created by a decaying real $`W`$ boson. The $`W`$ boson is a spin-1 particle and, therefore, can decay into two massless fermions. Neglecting small corrections of $`𝒪(m^2/m_W^2)`$, the state produced is equally populated for all three generations. Thus, while the state

$$|l^+\nu _W=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{3}{}}|l_\alpha ^+\nu _\alpha $$
(25)
is produced in the SM without lepton mixing by a decaying $`W^+`$, the state

$$|l^+\nu _W=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{3}{}}V_{ij}|l_i^+\nu _j$$
(26)
is created with mixing.

We can repeat now the discussion of different measurements similar to the case of $`|l^+\nu _\pi `$. The only change necessary is the replacement of $`a_k/\sqrt{N}`$ by $`1/\sqrt{3}`$. Hence, the probability to find the primary lepton in a mass eigenstate $`k`$ and the secondary lepton in $`l_m^{}`$ becomes

$`P(l_k,l_m^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\{{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{3}{}}}|V_{kl}|^2|V_{ml}|^2+2{\displaystyle \underset{n>l}{\overset{3}{}}}|V_{kl}V_{ml}^{}V_{kn}^{}V_{mn}|`$ (28)
$`\mathrm{cos}[(E_lE_n)t+\xi _{klmn}]\}.`$
In contrast to Eq. (21), the probability is now symmetric in $`l_k`$ and $`l_m^{}`$. In particular, the oscillation pattern vanishes now in both cases as long as only one particle is observed. Only when both the primary and the secondary lepton are observed, an oscillation pattern according to Eq. (28) is observed.

We note that the same observation was made in Ref. . There, the neutrino state produced in the decay of a real $`Z`$ was examined. The authors of  showed that also in this case neutrino flavor oscillations can be observed, although the neutrinos are produced by neutral-current interaction. Moreover, they showed that it is necessary to measure both neutrinos in order to observe a oscillation pattern. Thus, their results are in line with our findings presented above.

## V Conclusion

Flavor oscillations are observed by the detection of correlations between two states. In an ideal experiment, the composition of both states is measured. In experiments which use nuclear beta decay to produce the initial charged lepton–neutrino state the energy available is limited to nuclear energies. Only the state $`|l_1\nu _j`$ can be populated thus making a measurement of the charged lepton obsolete.

Experiments in which pion decay create the initial lepton–neutrino state, one exploits the known branching ratios into the different states $`|l_i\nu _j`$ as a substitute for the measurement of the charged lepton. These branching ratios differ only for different charged lepton mass eigenstates, but are the same for different neutrino states. Therefore, the knowledge of the branching ratios “replaces” only a measurement of the state of the charged lepton, and the measurement of the neutrino state is necessary to obtain information about lepton mixing. In contrast, the lepton–neutrino states produced in the decay of real $`W`$ Bosons are symmetrical in their branching ratios. If experiments were carried out with such initial states, both charged lepton and neutrino would be required to be measured in order to observe flavor oscillations. In summary, the specific nature of the initial state used in oscillation experiments explains the distinguished rôle of neutrinos compared to charged leptons.