text:
# Two-Pion Decay Widths of Excited Charm Mesons

## 1 Introduction

The pion decay widths of excited charm mesons, the $`D`$ mesons, which are formed of one light flavor quark (antiquark) and a charm antiquark (quark) provide the best observables for determining the coupling of pions to light constituent quarks, as the pions do not couple to the charm quarks. The coupling strength of the pion to the light flavor constituent quark is determined by the axial coupling constant $`g_A^q`$ of the quark. The theoretically indicated values for $`g_A^q`$ , which fall in the range 0.75 to 1.0, have been shown to be consistent with extant empirical information on the single pion decay widths of the ground state and excited charm mesons . The uncertainty margin derives from the fact that only upper limits have been set experimentally  on the widths of the $`D^{}`$ mesons, while the total decay widths of the orbitally excited $`L=1`$ $`D_1(2420)`$ and $`D_2^{}(2460)`$ charm meson states are known only within a very wide uncertainty range. As the latter lie well above the threshold, not only for single pion but also for two pion decay, it would be particularly instructive to obtain theoretical predictions for as well as empirical information on the branching ratios for the latter decay modes.

We here report a calculation of the two-pion decay widths of the excited $`L=1`$ charm meson states, by extending a similar earlier calculation of the widths of their single pion decay modes . The charm mesons consisting of a light quark (or antiquark) $`q`$ and a heavy antiquark (or quark) $`\overline{Q}`$ are here treated as relativistic two-particle systems described by wavefunctions which have been obtained as solutions to the covariant Blankenbecler-Sugar equation  in ref. . The interaction between the $`q`$ and the $`\overline{Q}`$ (or the $`\overline{q}`$ and the $`Q`$) is described as a combined linear confining and screened one-gluon exchange interaction, with parameters determined so as to obtain a satisfactory prediction of the empirically known part of the $`D`$ meson spectrum .

The model for emission of two pions from the light constituent quarks employed is the conventional chiral pion-quark pseudovector coupling model, which includes a Weinberg-Tomozawa type term for constituent quarks. The only parameter in this amplitude is the axial coupling of the light constituent quarks $`g_A^q`$, as the quark mass is fixed by the Hamiltonian model used to determine the $`D`$ meson spectrum and wavefunctions. In addition to the single quark amplitude for two-pion emission, we also consider the interaction current contribution to the vector current of the $`q\overline{Q}`$ system, which is associated with intermediate antiquark terms. This exchange current contribution to the Weinberg-Tomozawa interaction is found to interfere destructively with the single quark amplitude and to bring about a reduction of the calculated width for the two pion decay of the $`L=1`$ $`D`$ mesons by about 25%.

The amplitude for two-pion decay is found to be mainly spin-independent, which is in accordance with the current empirical information on the $`\pi \pi `$ decays of the analogous strange $`K`$ mesons. The $`\pi \pi `$ decay width of the $`D_2^{}`$ meson is predicted to be about 3 MeV. For the $`D_1`$ meson, the corresponding number is found to be 1 MeV. Estimates are also given for the $`\pi \pi `$ decay widths of the hitherto undiscovered $`D`$ meson states with $`L=1`$, i.e. the spin triplet $`D_0^{}`$ and the spin singlet $`D_1^{}`$. The masses of these two states are predicted in ref.  to be $`2340`$ and $`2390`$ MeV respectively. The $`\pi \pi `$ decay width of the $`D_0^{}`$ is here found to be small (of the order one tenth of an MeV, whereas that of the $`D_1^{}`$ is predicted to be about 7 MeV. This variation is a natural consequence of the rather small phase space available for these decays, combined with the significant spin-spin and spin-orbit splittings between various $`D`$ meson states.

This paper is divided into 4 sections. In section 2 the operator for two-pion emission from a single quark is described along with a derivation of the corresponding decay widths. In section 3 the exchange current contribution to the two-pion decay width is calculated. Section 4 contains a concluding discussion.

## 2 The Decay Rate for $`\pi \pi `$ decay

### 2.1 Single Quark Amplitude for Two-Pion Decay

The emission of two pions from a $`D`$ meson may be described by the pseudovector Lagrangian, which constitutes the lowest order chiral coupling for pions to constituent quarks:

$$=i\frac{g_A^q}{2f_\pi }\overline{\psi }_q\gamma _5\gamma _\mu _\mu \stackrel{}{\varphi }_\pi \stackrel{}{\tau }\psi _q.$$
(1)
Here $`g_A^q`$ denotes the axial coupling constant of pions to light constituent quarks, and $`f_\pi `$ is the pion decay constant, the empirical value of which is 93 MeV. The axial coupling constant is conventionally taken to be equal to, or somewhat less than, unity . This coupling gives rise to Born term and crossed Born amplitudes of conventional form, Fig. 1 (a,b), for the emission of two pions from an interacting constituent quark.

The chiral model for the two-pion decay amplitude is completed by the Weinberg-Tomozawa (WT) interaction, which is described by the Lagrangian

$$_{\mathrm{WT}}=\frac{i}{4f_\pi ^2}\overline{\psi }_q\gamma _\mu \stackrel{}{\tau }\stackrel{}{\varphi }_\pi \times _\mu \stackrel{}{\varphi }_\pi \psi _q.$$
(2)
This interaction leads to the contact amplitude that is described by the diagram c) in Fig. 1. The Born amplitude (Fig. 1a) may be expressed as

$$T_\mathrm{B}=i\left(\frac{g_A^q}{2f_\pi }\right)^2\overline{\psi }_q\gamma _5\gamma k_b\frac{1}{\gamma p_aim_q}\gamma _5\gamma k_a\psi _q\tau _b\tau _a.$$
(3)
Here $`m_q`$ denotes the mass of the light constituent quark, which in ref.  was obtained as 450 MeV, as this value led to an optimal description of the charm meson spectrum within the model considered. Similarly the crossed Born amplitude (Fig. 1b) takes the form

$$T_{\mathrm{CB}}=i\left(\frac{g_A^q}{2f_\pi }\right)^2\overline{\psi }_q\gamma _5\gamma k_a\frac{1}{\gamma p_bim_q}\gamma _5\gamma k_b\psi _q\tau _a\tau _b.$$
(4)
The general isospin decomposition of the two-pion emission amplitude for constituent quarks is, in analogy with that for nucleons,

$$T=\delta _{ab}T^++\frac{1}{2}[\tau _b,\tau _a]T^{}.$$
(5)
The general invariant expression for for the amplitudes $`T^+`$ and $`T^{}`$ is in turn

$$T^\pm =\overline{u}(p^{})\left(A^\pm i\gamma QB^\pm \right)u(p).$$
(6)
In these expressions, the four-vector $`Q`$ denotes the combination $`Q=(k_bk_a)/2`$, where $`k_a`$ and $`k_b`$ are the four-momenta of the emitted pions. The commutator of the SU(2) generators may be expressed as $`[\tau _b,\tau _a]=2iϵ_{abc}\tau _c`$. In this notation the Born, crossed Born and Weinberg-Tomozawa amplitudes are, respectively

$$T_\mathrm{B}=i\left(\frac{g_A^q}{2f_\pi }\right)^2\left(\gamma Q+2im_q+4m_q^2\frac{\gamma Q}{p_a^2+m_q^2}\right)\left(\delta _{ba}+\frac{1}{2}[\tau _b,\tau _a]\right),$$
(7)
$$T_{\mathrm{CB}}=i\left(\frac{g_A^q}{2f_\pi }\right)^2\left(\gamma Q+2im_q4m_q^2\frac{\gamma Q}{p_b^2+m_q^2}\right)\left(\delta _{ba}\frac{1}{2}[\tau _b,\tau _a]\right),$$
(8)
$$T_{\mathrm{WT}}=i\gamma Q\frac{1}{2f_\pi ^2}\frac{1}{2}[\tau _b,\tau _a].$$
(9)
Comparison of these amplitudes with eq. (6) yields the desired expressions for the sub-amplitudes $`A^\pm `$ and $`B^\pm `$, which are

$`A^+`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A^q}{2f_\pi }}\right)^24m_q,`$ (10)
$`A^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (11)
$`B^+`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A^q}{2f_\pi }}\right)^24m_q^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{sm_q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{um_q^2}}\right],`$ (12)
$`B^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A^q}{2f_\pi }}\right)^2\left(2+4m_q^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{sm_q^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{um_q^2}}\right]\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2f_\pi ^2}}.`$ (13)
Here the identities $`p_a^2=s`$ and $`p_b^2=u`$, where $`s`$ and $`u`$ are the invariant Mandelstam variables, have been used. These results for the $`A`$ and $`B`$ amplitudes are formally equivalent to the corresponding results for the two-pion emission amplitude for nucleons . Note that in eq. (13), the contribution from the Weinberg-Tomozawa interaction tends to cancel the constant term in the $`B^{}`$ amplitude that arises from the Born terms. If the axial coupling constant $`g_A^q`$ is taken to equal 1, then this cancellation is exact.

### 2.2 The Width for Two-Pion Decay

When excited $`D`$ mesons decay by emission of pions, it is only the light constituent quark component that couples to the pions. Although pion decay from a single non-interacting quark is kinematically impossible, the pion emission amplitude nevertheless involves the charm antiquark indirectly through the bound state wave function in the matrix element of the single quark pion emission operator. The role of two quark emission operators that involve the interaction between the light quark and charm antiquark, with pion emission from the former, will be considered below in section 3.

The general expression for the two pion decay width of an excited $`D`$ meson may be written in the form:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=(2\pi )^4\frac{d^3k_a}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d^3k_b}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d^3P_f}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{|T_{fi}|^2}{4\omega _a\omega _b}\delta ^{(4)}(P_f+k_a+k_bP_i).$$
(14)
Here $`k_a`$ and $`k_b`$ denote the four-momenta of the two emitted pions, $`P_i`$ and $`P_f`$ denote those of the initial and final state $`D`$ mesons while $`\omega _a`$ and $`\omega _b`$ denote the energies of the emitted pions. Since the constituents of the $`D`$ mesons form bound states, their normalization factors are included in the spinors $`\overline{u}(p^{})`$ and $`u(p)`$ in eq. (6). In the laboratory frame $`P_i^0=M_i`$. By introducing the variables $`\stackrel{}{Q}=(\stackrel{}{k}_b\stackrel{}{k}_a)/2`$ and $`\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{k}_b+\stackrel{}{k}_a`$, the decay width expression may be rewritten as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{d^3qd^3Q}{(2\pi )^5}\frac{|T_{fi}|^2}{4\omega _a\omega _b}\delta \left(\sqrt{q^2+M_f^2}+\omega _a+\omega _bM_i\right).$$
(15)
Here the energy factors are defined as $`\omega _a=\sqrt{m_\pi ^2+(\stackrel{}{q}/2\stackrel{}{Q})^2}`$ and $`\omega _b=\sqrt{m_\pi ^2+(\stackrel{}{q}/2+\stackrel{}{Q})^2}`$ respectively. The remaining delta function may be used to fix the variable $`Q`$, so that finally the expression for the differential width becomes

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\mathrm{\Omega }_q}=\frac{1}{4}\frac{1}{(2\pi )^4}_0^{q_f}𝑑qq^2_1^1𝑑z\frac{Q_f^2(q,z)}{\omega _a(q,z)\left(Q_f+\frac{qz}{2}\right)+\omega _b(q,z)\left(Q_f\frac{qz}{2}\right)}|T_{fi}|^2.$$
(16)
Here it is understood that in order to obtain the total widths for two-pion decay, eq. (16) is to be integrated over $`\mathrm{\Omega }_q`$ yielding an additional factor $`4\pi `$. In eq. (16), the variable $`z`$ is defined by $`\stackrel{}{Q}\stackrel{}{q}=Qqz`$. With this notation the pion energies $`\omega _a`$ and $`\omega _b`$ are given by the expressions $`\omega _a=\sqrt{m_\pi ^2+Q_f^2+q^2/4Q_fqz}`$ and $`\omega _b=\sqrt{m_\pi ^2+Q_f^2+q^2/4+Q_fqz}`$, where the fixed variable $`Q_f`$ is given by

$$Q_f^2=\frac{(E_fM_i)^4(4m_\pi ^2+q^2)(E_fM_i)^2}{4(E_fM_i)^24q^2z^2}.$$
(17)
Here $`E_f`$ denotes the energy of the final state $`D`$ meson and is given by $`E_f=\sqrt{q^2+M_f^2}`$. In all these expressions, $`m_\pi `$ denotes the pion mass. Since different charge states are not considered in this paper, an average pion mass of 137 MeV has been used throughout the calculations. The cutoff momentum $`q_f`$ corresponds to the maximal momentum of any one of the final state particles, e.g. the final state $`D`$ meson. Thus $`q_f`$ corresponds to the q-value of a decay of the form $`D^{}DX`$, where $`D^{}`$ and $`D`$ are the appropriate $`D`$ meson states and $`X`$ is a particle with mass $`M_X=2m_\pi `$. The appropriate values for $`q_f`$ are listed along with the employed $`D`$ meson masses in Table 1.

The decomposition in eq. (5) is convenient with respect to the summation over the isospins of the pions, leading to

$$\underset{\mathrm{isospin}}{}|T_{fi}|^2=3T^+T^++6T^{}T^{}.$$
(18)
For calculational purposes, it is useful to split eq. (6) into spin independent and spin-dependent parts as

$$T^\pm =\alpha ^\pm +i\stackrel{}{\sigma }_q\stackrel{}{\beta }^\pm .$$
(19)
Here, the amplitude $`\alpha `$ will contain, in addition to the spin independent amplitude $`A`$, the spin-independent contributions that arise from the $`\gamma Q`$ term in eq. (6), while $`\stackrel{}{\beta }`$ will contain all the spin-dependent terms contained in the expression eq. (6). Consider first the non-relativistic limit. In that limit, the expressions for $`\alpha `$ and $`\stackrel{}{\beta }`$ become

$`\alpha ^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`A^\pm +\left(Q_0{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{P}\stackrel{}{Q}}{m_q}}\right)B^\pm ,`$ (20)
$`\stackrel{}{\beta }^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{q}\times \stackrel{}{Q}}{2m_q}}B^\pm ,`$ (21)
where $`Q_0`$ is defined as $`(\omega _b\omega _a)/2`$ and $`\stackrel{}{P}`$ is defined as $`\stackrel{}{P}=\left(\stackrel{}{p}_q^{}+\stackrel{}{p}_q\right)/2`$. Because two pion decays of charm mesons with $`L=1`$ to the ground states with $`L=0`$ are considered here, the largest contribution is expected to arise from the $`\stackrel{}{P}`$ dependent term in the spin independent amplitude $`\alpha ^\pm `$.

Evaluation of the expression (18) requires spin sums for both the spin independent and spin-dependent terms in eq. (19). The spin independent part of the amplitude requires evaluation of the spin sums

$$\frac{1}{2J+1}\underset{M=J}{\overset{J}{}}LSJM\left|\alpha ^{}\left(\frac{1\stackrel{}{\sigma }_q\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{\overline{Q}}}{4}\right)\alpha \right|LSJM,$$
(22)
$$\frac{1}{2J+1}\underset{M=J}{\overset{J}{}}LSJM\left|\alpha ^{}\left(\frac{3+\stackrel{}{\sigma }_q\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{\overline{Q}}}{4}\right)\alpha \right|LSJM,$$
(23)
for decay to the spin singlet $`D`$ and spin triplet $`D^{}`$ mesons respectively. For two-pion decay of the spin triplet $`D_1(2420)`$ and $`D_2^{}(2460)`$ mesons the spin independent amplitude gives no contribution for decay to the ground state $`D`$ meson (22). The contribution given by the expressions above is $`|\alpha |^2`$ to the decay rate to the spin triplet $`D^{}`$ meson (23).

The corresponding spin sums for the $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_q\stackrel{}{\beta }`$ dependent term in eq. (19) are somewhat more complicated. For initial states with $`L=1,S=1`$ they may be expressed as in ref. , giving

$$\frac{1}{2J+1}\underset{M=J}{\overset{J}{}}11JM\left|\frac{\stackrel{}{\beta }^2}{3}\frac{S_{12}(\stackrel{}{\beta })}{6}\right|11JM,$$
(24)
for decay to spin singlet ($`D`$) final states, and

$$\frac{1}{2J+1}\underset{M=J}{\overset{J}{}}11JM\left|\frac{2\stackrel{}{\beta }^2}{3}+\frac{S_{12}(\stackrel{}{\beta })}{6}\right|11JM,$$
(25)
for decay to spin triplet ($`D^{}`$) final states. In eqs. (24) and (25), $`S_{12}(\widehat{\beta })`$ is defined as the tensor operator $`S_{12}(\widehat{\beta })=3\stackrel{}{\sigma }_q\widehat{\beta }\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{\overline{Q}}\widehat{\beta }\stackrel{}{\sigma }_q\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{\overline{Q}}`$. Given these spin sums, and the state vectors for the spin 1 $`P`$-state $`D`$ mesons,

$$|1SJM=\underset{ls}{}\left(11ls|JM\right)\frac{u_1(r)}{r}Y_{1l}(\widehat{r})|1s+\underset{l}{}\left(10l0|JM\right)\frac{u_1(r)}{r}Y_{1l}(\widehat{r})|00,$$
(26)
where $`|1s`$ denotes a spin triplet state with $`s_z=s`$, the following spin summed squared amplitudes for the two-pion decays of the spin triplet $`D_2^{}`$, $`D_1`$ and $`D_0^{}`$ mesons are obtained:

$`|T|_{D_2^{}D^{}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`3\left[|\alpha ^+|^2+2|\alpha ^{}|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}\left(|\stackrel{}{\beta }^+|^2+2|\stackrel{}{\beta }^{}|^2\right)\right],`$ (27)
$`|T|_{D_1D^{}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`3\left[|\alpha ^+|^2+2|\alpha ^{}|^2+|\stackrel{}{\beta }^+|^2+2|\stackrel{}{\beta }^{}|^2\right],`$ (28)
$`|T|_{D_0^{}D^{}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`3\left[|\alpha ^+|^2+2|\alpha ^{}|^2\right],`$ (29)
$`|T|_{D_2^{}D}^2`$ $`=`$ $`3\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}\left(|\stackrel{}{\beta }^+|^2+2|\stackrel{}{\beta }^{}|^2\right)\right],`$ (30)
$`|T|_{D_1D}^2`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (31)
$`|T|_{D_0^{}D}^2`$ $`=`$ $`3\left[|\stackrel{}{\beta }^+|^2+2|\stackrel{}{\beta }^{}|^2\right].`$ (32)
From the above results, it follows that for the $`\pi \pi `$ decays of the spin triplet $`D_1`$ meson, there is no contribution for two-pion decay to the $`D`$ states. For the spin singlet $`D_1^{}`$ meson, similar expressions hold, with the modification that the spin-independent amplitudes now only contribute to decay to $`D`$ states. For the spin-dependent terms, one has to consider the following additional spin sums

$$\frac{1}{3}\underset{M=1}{\overset{1}{}}101M\left|\frac{S_{12}(\stackrel{}{\beta })}{6}\right|101M,$$
(33)
for decay to spin singlet $`D`$ final states, and

$$\frac{1}{3}\underset{M=1}{\overset{1}{}}101M\left|\stackrel{}{\beta }^2+\frac{S_{12}(\stackrel{}{\beta })}{6}\right|101M,$$
(34)
for decay to spin triplet $`D^{}`$ final states. Application of these spin sums yields then the desired expressions for the spin summed squared amplitudes for two-pion decay of the spin singlet $`D_1^{}`$ meson:

$`|T|_{D_1^{}D^{}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`3\left[|\stackrel{}{\beta }^+|^2+2|\stackrel{}{\beta }^{}|^2\right],`$ (35)
$`|T|_{D_1^{}D}^2`$ $`=`$ $`3\left[|\alpha ^+|^2+2|\alpha ^{}|^2\right].`$ (36)
In the non-relativistic limit, the following two radial matrix elements are required for the numerical evaluation of the above amplitudes:

$`_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3m_q}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r\left[u_0^{}(r)u_1(r)u_0(r)u_1^{}(r)2{\displaystyle \frac{u_0(r)u_1(r)}{r}}\right]j_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{qr}{2}}\right),`$ (37)
$`_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑ru_0(r)u_1(r)j_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{qr}{2}}\right).`$ (38)
Here $`u_0`$ and $`u_1`$ denote the reduced radial wavefunctions that are obtained by numerical solution of the Blankenbecler-Sugar equation in ref.  for states with $`L=0,1`$ respectively.

In the following calculation, the non-local combinations of the kinematic variables, which appear in the denominators in the Born term amplitudes $`B^+`$ and $`B^{}`$, have been approximated by their corresponding expectation values. For calculational convenience, the approximation $`E_qm_q`$ has likewise been made. The kinematical variables $`\stackrel{}{Q}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ have, in addition to the energies of the emitted pions, been treated without approximation. The resulting expressions are then obtained as

$`B^+`$ $``$ $`4m_q^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A^q}{2f_\pi }}\right)^2\{[m_\pi ^2+\stackrel{}{P}\stackrel{}{q}2\stackrel{}{P}\stackrel{}{Q}+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2}}\stackrel{}{Q}\stackrel{}{q}2m_q\omega _a]^1`$ (39)
$`[m_\pi ^2+\stackrel{}{P}\stackrel{}{q}+2\stackrel{}{P}\stackrel{}{Q}+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2}}+\stackrel{}{Q}\stackrel{}{q}2m_q\omega _b]^1\},`$
$`B^{}`$ $``$ $`4m_q^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A^q}{2f_\pi }}\right)^2\{[m_\pi ^2+\stackrel{}{P}\stackrel{}{q}2\stackrel{}{P}\stackrel{}{Q}+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2}}\stackrel{}{Q}\stackrel{}{q}2m_q\omega _a]^1`$ (40)
$`+[m_\pi ^2+\stackrel{}{P}\stackrel{}{q}+2\stackrel{}{P}\stackrel{}{Q}+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2}}+\stackrel{}{Q}\stackrel{}{q}2m_q\omega _b]^1\}+{\displaystyle \frac{1g_A^{q\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{2f_\pi ^2}}.`$
The contribution to the decay rate from the spin independent $`\alpha ^+`$ amplitude in (19) may then be expressed as

$$|T|_{\alpha ^+}^2=3|\alpha ^+|^2=3\left[A^+_1+B^+\left(\frac{\omega _b\omega _a}{2}_1\frac{Q_fz}{2}_0\right)\right]^2$$
(41)
for all decays to $`D^{}`$ final states. Note that the matrix elements here are $`q`$-dependent. Similarly, by using the $`B^{}`$ amplitude, the contribution to $`|T|^2`$ from the $`\alpha ^{}`$ term becomes

$$|T|_\alpha ^{}^2=6|\alpha ^{}|^2=6\left(B^{}\right)^2\left[\frac{\omega _b\omega _a}{2}_1\frac{Q_fz}{2}_0\right]^2,$$
(42)
for all decays to $`D^{}`$ final states. Here $`\omega _a`$ and $`\omega _b`$ are defined as for eq. (16). In addition, the $`B^+`$ and $`B^{}`$ amplitudes also contribute through the spin dependent amplitudes $`\stackrel{}{\beta }^+`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\beta }^{}`$ (19). In the case of the decay mode $`D_2^{}D^{}\pi \pi `$, these contributions may be expressed as

$$|T|_\beta ^{}^2=\frac{18}{5}|\stackrel{}{\beta }^{}|^2=\frac{3}{2}\frac{q^2Q_f^2(1z^2)}{m_q^2}\left(B^{}\right)^2\frac{3}{5}_1^2,$$
(43)
and

$$|T|_{\beta ^+}^2=\frac{9}{5}|\stackrel{}{\beta }^+|^2=\frac{3}{4}\frac{q^2Q_f^2(1z^2)}{m_q^2}\left(B^+\right)^2\frac{3}{5}_1^2.$$
(44)
The corresponding expressions for the remaining decay modes of the spin triplet $`L=1`$ $`D`$ mesons to which the spin-dependent amplitudes contribute may be inferred from eqs. (27-32): For the decay $`D_2^{}D\pi \pi `$, the factors 3/5 on the r.h.s. of eqs. (43) and (44) are to be replaced by 2/5, and for the decays $`D_0^{}D\pi \pi `$ and $`D_1D^{}\pi \pi `$, those factors equal 1. That is also the case for the decay of the spin singlet $`D_1^{}`$ meson to $`D^{}\pi \pi `$ (36). The total decay widths are obtained by adding the contributions from eqs. (41,42,43) and (44), and inserting them into eq. (16). In the numerical evaluation of the expressions (39) and (40), the terms $`\stackrel{}{P}\stackrel{}{q}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{P}\stackrel{}{Q}`$ in the denominators have been approximated by their respective expectation values:

$`\stackrel{}{P}\stackrel{}{q}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{qm_q}{2}}_0,`$ (45)
$`2\stackrel{}{P}\stackrel{}{Q}`$ $`=`$ $`Q_fzm_q_0.`$ (46)
Note that despite the appearance of the matrix element $`_0`$ in the above expressions, no non-relativistic approximation is implied.

As the velocities of the confined quarks and antiquarks in the $`D`$ mesons are close to that of light, the non-relativistic approximation for the amplitudes is not reliable. Therefore, eqs. (20) and (21) should be replaced by the analogous unapproximated forms

$`\alpha ^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E^{}+m_q}{2E^{}}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E+m_q}{2E}}}[A^\pm (1{\displaystyle \frac{P^2q^2/4}{(E^{}+m_q)(E+m_q)}})+B^\pm \{Q_0(1+{\displaystyle \frac{P^2q^2/4}{(E^{}+m_q)(E+m_q)}})`$ (47)
$`\stackrel{}{P}\stackrel{}{Q}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{E+m_q}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E^{}+m_q}}){\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{Q}\stackrel{}{q}}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{E+m_q}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E^{}+m_q}})\}],`$
and

$`\stackrel{}{\beta }^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E^{}+m_q}{2E^{}}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E+m_q}{2E}}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{A^\pm B^\pm Q_0}{(E+m_q)(E^{}+m_q)}}\stackrel{}{q}\times \stackrel{}{P}+B^\pm [\stackrel{}{P}\times \stackrel{}{Q}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{E+m_q}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E^{}+m_q}})`$ (48)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{q}\times \stackrel{}{Q}}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{E+m_q}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E^{}+m_q}})]\}.`$
Thus, relativistic counterparts to eqs. (41-44) are required. As a consequence, eqs. (41) and (42) should be replaced by the expressions

$$|T|_{\alpha ^+}^2=3|\alpha ^+|^2=3\left[A^+_{1+}^{\mathrm{rel}}+B^+\left(\frac{\omega _b\omega _a}{2}_1^{\mathrm{rel}}\frac{Q_fz}{2}_0^{\mathrm{rel}}\right)\right]^2,$$
(49)
and

$$|T|_\alpha ^{}^2=6|\alpha ^{}|^2=6\left(B^{}\right)^2\left[\frac{\omega _b\omega _a}{2}_1^{\mathrm{rel}}\frac{Q_fz}{2}_0^{\mathrm{rel}}\right]^2.$$
(50)
Here the relativistic matrix elements $`_1^{\mathrm{rel}}`$ are defined as

$`_{1\pm }^{\mathrm{rel}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r^{}r^{}u_0(r^{}){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑rru_1(r){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑PP^2{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑vf_{\mathrm{BS}}(P,v)`$ (51)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{q/4+Pv}{\sqrt{P^2+q^2/16+Pqv/2}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E^{}+m_q}{2E^{}}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E+m_q}{2E}}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{P^2q^2/4}{(E^{}+m_q)(E+m_q)}}\right)`$
$`j_0\left(r^{}\sqrt{P^2+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{Pqv}{2}}}\right)j_1\left(r\sqrt{P^2+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{16}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Pqv}{2}}}\right),`$
where the last term in eq. (47) has been neglected because of its smallness. Similarly, the relativistic matrix element $`_0^{\mathrm{rel}}`$ is obtained as

$`_0^{\mathrm{rel}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r^{}r^{}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑rr{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑PP^2{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑vf_{\mathrm{BS}}(P,v)`$ (52)
$`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E^{}+m_q}{2E^{}}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E+m_q}{2E}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{E+m_q}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E^{}+m_q}}\right)\left[u_0^{}(r^{})u_1(r)u_0(r^{})u_1^{}(r)2{\displaystyle \frac{u_0(r^{})u_1(r)}{r}}\right]`$
$`j_0\left(r^{}\sqrt{P^2+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{Pqv}{2}}}\right)j_0\left(r\sqrt{P^2+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{16}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Pqv}{2}}}\right).`$
In the non-relativistic limit, these matrix elements reduce to the forms of eqs. (38) and (37) respectively. In the above equations, the factor $`f_{\mathrm{BS}}(P,v)`$ arises in the reduction of the amplitude from the form appropriate to the Bethe-Salpeter equation to that of the Blankenbecler-Sugar equation, and is defined as

$$f_{\mathrm{BS}}(P,v)=\frac{M_Q+m_q}{\sqrt{(E+E_c)(E^{}+E_c^{})}}.$$
(53)
Here $`M_Q`$ denotes the mass of the heavy (anti)quark. The energy factors $`E`$,$`E^{}`$ and $`E_c`$,$`E_c^{}`$ are defined as

$$E=\sqrt{m_q^2+P^2+Pqv+q^2/4},E^{}=\sqrt{m_q^2+P^2Pqv+q^2/4},$$
(54)
for the light quark $`q`$, and

$$E_c=\sqrt{M_Q^2+P^2+Pqv+q^2/4},E_c^{}=\sqrt{M_Q^2+P^2Pqv+q^2/4},$$
(55)
for the heavy (anti)quark $`Q`$. In addition, eqs. (43) and (44) should also be replaced by analogous relativistic forms. These may be obtained as

$$|T|_\beta ^{}^2=6\left(B^{}\right)^2\frac{3}{5}\left[\frac{qQ_f\sqrt{1z^2}}{2}_{\beta 1}^{\mathrm{rel}}\frac{\omega _b\omega _a}{2}q_{\beta 2}^{\mathrm{rel}}\right]^2,$$
(56)
for the contribution from $`\stackrel{}{\beta }^{}`$, and

$$|T|_{\beta ^+}^2=3\frac{3}{5}\left\{A^+q_{\beta 2}^{\mathrm{rel}}+B^+\left[\frac{qQ_f\sqrt{1z^2}}{2}_{\beta 1}^{\mathrm{rel}}\frac{\omega _b\omega _a}{2}q_{\beta 2}^{\mathrm{rel}}\right]\right\}^2,$$
(57)
for the corresponding one from $`\stackrel{}{\beta }^+`$. Here the matrix elements are defined as

$`_{\beta 1}^{\mathrm{rel}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r^{}r^{}u_0(r^{}){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑rru_1(r){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑PP^2{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑vf_{\mathrm{BS}}(P,v)`$ (58)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{q/4+Pv}{\sqrt{P^2+q^2/16+Pqv/2}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E^{}+m_q}{2E^{}}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E+m_q}{2E}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{E^{}+m_q}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E+m_q}}\right)`$
$`j_0\left(r^{}\sqrt{P^2+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{Pqv}{2}}}\right)j_1\left(r\sqrt{P^2+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{16}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Pqv}{2}}}\right),`$
and

$`_{\beta 2}^{\mathrm{rel}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r^{}r^{}u_0(r^{}){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑rru_1(r){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑PP^3{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑v\sqrt{1v^2}f_{\mathrm{BS}}(P,v)`$ (59)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{q/4+Pv}{\sqrt{P^2+q^2/16+Pqv/2}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E^{}+m_q}{2E^{}}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E+m_q}{2E}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(E^{}+m_q)(E+m_q)}}`$
$`j_0\left(r^{}\sqrt{P^2+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{Pqv}{2}}}\right)j_1\left(r\sqrt{P^2+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{16}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Pqv}{2}}}\right).`$
With exception of a factor $`m_q^1`$, the matrix element (58) reduces to the form (38) in the non-relativistic limit. In these expressions, the $`\stackrel{}{P}\times \stackrel{}{Q}`$ term in eq. (48) has been dropped because of its smallness. Furthermore, it turns out that eq. (59) is numerically much smaller than eq. (58). Overall, the contributions from the amplitudes $`\alpha ^+`$ and $`\alpha ^{}`$ are dominant, whereas those from $`\stackrel{}{\beta }^+`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\beta }^{}`$ represent only small corrections. This feature is in accordance with the current experimental status for the analogous decays of the excited strange mesons, for which the decay mode $`K_2^{}K\pi \pi `$ has not yet been seen, although the decays of the $`K_2^{}`$ meson are otherwise well studied. In eqs. (56) and (57), it is again understood that the factor 3/5 is to be replaced as for eqs. (43) and (44) when different decay modes are considered. The constituent quark and $`D`$ meson masses used are listed in Table 1. The numerical results obtained by using the relativistic expressions are given in Table 2. For comparison the corresponding non-relativistic results are presented in Table 3. The non-relativistic treatment leads to overpredictions by a factor $`3`$.

The results for the two-pion decay width of the positive parity charm mesons with $`L=1`$ shown in Table 2 reveal a strong sensitivity to the strength of the pion coupling to the light constituent quarks as measured by the axial coupling constant of the constituent quarks. This is of course as expected, as the calculated decay widths are proportional to the 4th power of $`g_A^q`$. Also, because of the large (140 MeV) splitting between the $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$ states and the significant spin-orbit splittings of the $`L=1`$ charm mesons, it turns out that the values of the maximal kinematically allowed momentum transfer $`q_f`$ as given in Table 1 show marked variation. Consequently, some decays are kinematically favored, while others, in particular $`D_0^{}D^{}\pi \pi `$, are strongly inhibited by the small phase space available. Hence the two-pion decay widths of the $`L=1`$ $`D`$ mesons are very sensitive to the spin-orbit structure of the quark-antiquark interaction. The same conclusion was also reached in ref.  concerning the single pion decays of the $`L=1`$ $`D`$ mesons. In the absence of empirical information and definite QCD lattice calculations , the energies of the hitherto undiscovered $`D_0^{}`$ and $`D_1^{}`$ mesons have here been taken to equal those found in the calculation of ref. .

The predicted total decay widths of the $`L=1`$ $`D`$ mesons in the single quark approximation may be obtained by adding the calculated two-pion decay widths in Table 2 to those for single pion decay obtained in ref. . With $`g_A^q=1`$ the total calculated $`\pi \pi `$ decay width of the $`D_2^{}(2460)`$ is 3.8 MeV and that of the $`D_1(2420)`$ is 1.7 MeV. If these values are added to the corresponding calculated values for single pion decay obtained in ref. , the total calculated width of the $`D_2^{}(2460)`$ comes to 19.5 MeV, which is well within the uncertainty margin of the empirical value $`25_7^{+8}`$ MeV for the total decay width . In the case of the $`D_1(2420)`$ meson the total calculated width for single and two-pion decay comes to 15.3 MeV, which is close to the empirical uncertainty margin of the total decay width $`18.9_{3.5}^{+4.6}`$ MeV . Reduction of the value for $`g_A^q`$ to 0.87 brings the calculated values for the total width for $`\pi `$ and $`\pi \pi `$ decay a bit below the empirical values for the total widths. Likewise, employment of the two-quark contribution considered in the next section has the effect of reducing the calculated $`\pi \pi `$ widths. The final results for the $`\pi \pi `$ widths are listed in Table 5, along with predictions for the total widths of the $`L=1`$ $`D`$ mesons.

This apparent slight underprediction of the total decay widths may actually be a desirable situation in view of the fact that it is kinematically possible for other decay modes, mainly $`\pi \pi \pi `$ and $`\eta `$-meson decay, to contribute to the total widths of these mesons, even though there is very little phase space available for such decays. However, in view of the large systematical uncertainties involved in the experimental determination of the total widths of the $`D_2^{}`$ and $`D_1`$ mesons, the uncertainty margins quoted by ref.  may be on the narrow side.

## 3 Two-Quark Contribution to the Decay Width

It is instructive, for the purpose of determining the two-quark contribution to the decay width, to rewrite the Weinberg-Tomozawa Lagrangian, eq. (2) in the form of a current-current coupling:

$$_{\mathrm{WT}}=\frac{1}{4f_\pi ^2}\stackrel{}{V}_\mu \stackrel{}{\varphi }_\pi \times _\mu \stackrel{}{\varphi }_\pi .$$
(60)
Here $`\stackrel{}{V}_\mu =i\overline{\psi }_q\gamma _\mu \psi _q\stackrel{}{\tau }`$ is the isovector current of the light constituent quark and $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }_\pi \times _\mu \stackrel{}{\varphi }_\pi `$ is the current of the two-pion system. Given this expression it becomes very natural to describe the irreducible two-quark contribution to the two-pion production operator by means of two-quark interaction current contributions to the isovector current $`\stackrel{}{V}_\mu `$.

The most significant interaction current contribution to the isovector current of the charm mesons is the ”pair” current that is associated with the scalar confining interaction between the constituent quarks. This current, which is illustrated by the Feynman diagrams in Fig. 2, represents a relativistic correction term, which arises in the elimination of the small components of the quark spinors. In the non-relativistic approximation it can be described as a renormalization of the isovector current of the light constituent quark by the confining interaction, either in terms of interaction correction to the constituent quark mass or as an explicit additional term .

In the non-relativistic limit, the isovector current $`\stackrel{}{V}_\mu =(i\stackrel{}{V}_0,\stackrel{}{V})`$ of the light constituent quark takes the form

$$\stackrel{}{V}=\frac{1}{2m_q}(\stackrel{}{p}_q^{}+\stackrel{}{p}_qi\stackrel{}{\sigma }_q\times \stackrel{}{q})\stackrel{}{\tau },$$
(61)
where $`m_q`$ is the light constituent quark mass and $`\stackrel{}{p}_q`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_q^{}`$ are the initial and final quark momenta respectively. The corresponding expression for the ”pair” current that is associated with the confining interaction is then obtained as

$$\stackrel{}{V}_c=\frac{V_c(k)}{m_q}\stackrel{}{V}.$$
(62)
Here $`V_c(k)`$ is the (formal) Fourier transform of the confining interaction, and the momentum transfer $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ is defined as the difference between the final and initial momenta of the charm (anti)quark: $`\stackrel{}{k}=\stackrel{}{p}_Q^{}\stackrel{}{p}_Q`$. Within the non-relativistic approximation it now becomes a straightforward task to take this two-quark contribution to the two-pion production operator  into account. The most significant contribution may be included by modifying that part of the amplitude $`B^{}`$ in the expression for $`\alpha ^{}`$ (eq. (20)), which arises from the Weinberg-Tomozawa Lagrangian, according to the following prescription:

$$\frac{1}{2f_\pi ^2}\frac{1}{2f_\pi ^2}\left(1\frac{V_c(r)}{m_q}\right).$$
(63)
Here $`V_c(r)`$ is the scalar confining interaction, which in the wavefunction model of ref.  has the form $`V_c(r)=crb`$, with $`c=1120`$ MeV/fm and $`b=320`$ MeV. This replacement should only be made for terms that are associated with the spatial current coupling, i.e. for those that contain the momentum transfer $`\stackrel{}{Q}`$. A similar modification should also be made in the expression for $`\beta ^{}`$ (eq. (21)), but as that contribution is already very small compared to those from the spin-independent $`\alpha `$ terms, see Table 2, it will not be considered in this paper.

The hyperfine interaction that is modeled as screened one-gluon exchange (OGE) between the quark and the antiquark also contains a central component which gives a contribution to the isovector exchange current. This contribution may be obtained as :

$$\stackrel{}{V}_g=\frac{V_g(k)}{2m_q^2}\left[\frac{m_q}{M_Q}(\stackrel{}{p}_Q^{}+\stackrel{}{p}_Q+i\stackrel{}{\sigma }_Q\times \stackrel{}{k})+i\stackrel{}{\sigma }_q\times \stackrel{}{k}\right].$$
(64)
In the above expression for the OGE exchange current, the $`M_Q^1`$ dependent term arises from the spatial current coupling $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }_q\stackrel{}{\gamma }_{\overline{Q}}`$ term, and the second term from the charge coupling $`\gamma _q^4\gamma _{\overline{Q}}^4`$ term in the the OGE interaction. $`V_g(k)`$ denotes the form of the OGE interaction in momentum space, which is conveniently expressed as

$$V_g(k)=\frac{16\pi }{3}\frac{\alpha _\mathrm{S}(k^2)}{k^2},$$
(65)
where a color factor of 4/3 has been included. In the interaction model used in ref. , the running coupling constant was taken to have the following screened form:

$$\alpha _\mathrm{S}(k^2)=\frac{12\pi }{27}\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}[(k^2+4m_g^2)/\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2]},$$
(66)
where the parameters $`m_g`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ were obtained as $`m_g=240`$ MeV and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0=280`$ MeV respectively. In case of the $`\pi \pi `$ decay of the $`D`$ meson states with $`L=1`$, the term with the sum of charm quark momenta in eq. (64), gives the largest contribution. As this term is inversely proportional to the mass of the charm quark, it is evident that the gluon exchange contribution will be smaller than the corresponding contribution from the exchange current (62) that is associated with the confining interaction. This main term of the isovector exchange current that is associated with the OGE interaction may be taken into account in the non-relativistic approximation by modifying eq. (63) to read

$$\frac{1}{2f_\pi ^2}\frac{1}{2f_\pi ^2}\left(1\frac{V_c(r)}{m_q}+\frac{V_g(r)}{M_Q}\right),$$
(67)
where $`V_g(r)`$ is the central component of the one-gluon exchange potential. For a bare OGE interaction one would have $`V_g(r)=4\alpha _\mathrm{S}/3r`$. This simple expression is however significantly modified by the running coupling as given by eq. (66). This effect may be included as in ref. , by expressing $`V_g(r)`$ as

$$V_g(r)=\frac{4}{3}\frac{2}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑kj_0(kr)\alpha _\mathrm{S}(k^2).$$
(68)
This form reduces to the static OGE potential given above, if the running coupling $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}`$ is taken to be constant. Note that the relativistic corrections arising from the quark and antiquark spinors have not been included in the above expression, since it is more natural to place them in the expression for the matrix element instead. Moreover, comparison of these expressions with those obtained for the confining interaction shows that the net effect of the exchange current that is associated with OGE will have the same sign as that, which is associated with the confining interaction.

In the expressions (62) and (64), one factor of $`1/m_q`$ represents the static limit of the propagator of the intermediate negative energy light constituent quark. In view of the results obtained in the previous section, this static limit is expected to give rise to a considerable overestimate of the two-quark amplitude contribution. A more realistic treatment may be obtained if the static propagator $`1/m_q`$ is replaced by the symmetrized form $`4/(2m_q+E+E^{})`$ as in ref. . Thus in the relativistic case, the appropriate replacement of the Weinberg-Tomozawa term would be the following extension of the replacement (67):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2f_\pi ^2}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2f_\pi ^2}}[1\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(E_c+M_Q)(E_c^{}+M_Q)}{4E_cE_c^{}}}}\{V_c\left({\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{r}+\stackrel{}{r}^{}|}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{4}{2m_q+E+E^{}}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{P^2q^2/4}{(E_c^{}+M_Q)(E_c+M_Q)}})`$ (69)
$`V_g\left({\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{r}+\stackrel{}{r}^{}|}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{4m_q}{2m_q+E+E^{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_c^{}+M_Q}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_c+M_Q}})\}]`$
where the factors containing $`E_c^{}`$ and $`E_c`$ arise from the spinors of the heavy antiquark line in Fig. 2. To take the relativistic effects into account demands employment of the relativistic version of the matrix element $`_0^{\mathrm{rel}}`$ also in the case of the exchange current contribution. First of all, the contribution to the decay rate from the $`\alpha ^{}`$ term, eq. (50), should be modified to take into account the two-quark contributions to the Weinberg-Tomozawa interaction. This can be accomplished by replacing eq. (50) with

$$|T|_\alpha ^{}^2=6\left[B^{}\left(\frac{\omega _b\omega _a}{2}_1^{\mathrm{rel}}\frac{Q_fz}{2}_0^{\mathrm{rel}}\right)+\frac{1}{2f_\pi ^2}\frac{Q_fz}{2}\left(_0^{\mathrm{Conf}}_0^{\mathrm{OGE}}\right)\right]^2.$$
(70)
The appropriate forms for the relativistic two-quark matrix elements in the above equation can be obtained by multiplying the expression for $`_0^{\mathrm{rel}}`$ with the relativistic factors included in eq. (69) above. In addition, the argument $`|\stackrel{}{r}+\stackrel{}{r}^{}|/2`$ of the potentials will be approximated by the expression $`\sqrt{(r^{}_{}{}^{}2+r^2)/2}`$. The resulting forms for the two-quark matrix elements in eq. (70) are then obtained as

$`_0^{\mathrm{Conf}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r^{}r^{}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑rr\left[u_0^{}(r^{})u_1(r)u_0(r^{})u_1^{}(r)2{\displaystyle \frac{u_0(r^{})u_1(r)}{r}}\right]{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑PP^2{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑vf_{\mathrm{BS}}(P,v)`$ (71)
$`V_c\left(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{r^{}_{}{}^{}2+r^2}{2}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{4}{2m_q+E+E^{}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(E+m_q)(E^{}+m_q)}{4EE^{}}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{E+m_q}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E^{}+m_q}}\right)`$
$`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(E_c+M_Q)(E_c^{}+M_Q)}{4E_cE_c^{}}}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{P^2q^2/4}{(E_c^{}+M_Q)(E_c+M_Q)}})j_0\left(r^{}\sqrt{P^2+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{Pqv}{2}}}\right)`$
$`j_0\left(r\sqrt{P^2+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{16}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Pqv}{2}}}\right),`$
for the confining interaction, and

$`_0^{\mathrm{OGE}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r^{}r^{}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑rr\left[u_0^{}(r^{})u_1(r)u_0(r^{})u_1^{}(r)2{\displaystyle \frac{u_0(r^{})u_1(r)}{r}}\right]{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑PP^2{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑vf_{\mathrm{BS}}(P,v)`$ (72)
$`V_g\left(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{r^{}_{}{}^{}2+r^2}{2}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{4m_q}{2m_q+E+E^{}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(E+m_q)(E^{}+m_q)}{4EE^{}}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{E+m_q}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E^{}+m_q}}\right)`$
$`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(E_c+M_Q)(E_c^{}+M_Q)}{4E_cE_c^{}}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_c+M_Q}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_c^{}+M_Q}}\right)j_0\left(r^{}\sqrt{P^2+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{Pqv}{2}}}\right)`$
$`j_0\left(r\sqrt{P^2+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{16}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Pqv}{2}}}\right),`$
for the OGE interaction. The numerical results that follow when eq. (70) is employed are displayed for the most important decay modes in Table 4.

## 4 Discussion

In the absence at the present time of experimental data on the two-pion decay widths of the $`D`$ mesons, it is instructive to compare the calculated results with the empirical knowledge of the analogous pionic decay modes of the positive parity strange mesons. The $`K_2^{}(1430)`$ state, which is the strange analog of the $`D_2^{}(2460)`$ has a width of $``$ 13 MeV for $`\pi \pi `$ decay . Given the smaller phase space and much narrower radial wavefunctions, the present calculated $`\pi \pi `$ decay width value of 3.1 MeV for the $`D_2^{}(2460)`$ hence appears to be reasonable. Furthermore, in ref. , the branching ratio $`K_2^{}K^{}\pi `$ is given as $`(24.7\pm 1.5)\%`$ while that for $`K_2^{}K^{}\pi \pi `$ is reported to be $`(13.4\pm 2.2)\%`$. Thus, the available experimental data indicates that for this particular decay mode, the width for $`\pi \pi `$ decay ought to be $`55\%`$ of the width for $`\pi `$ decay. If the current calculation is compared to that in ref. , the ratio of $`D_2^{}D^{}\pi \pi `$ to $`D_2^{}D^{}\pi `$ is obtained as $`60\%`$ for $`g_A^q=1`$. One may thus conclude that a width for $`D_2^{}D^{}\pi \pi `$ of 3 MeV, as obtained in the current calculation, is what would be expected by comparison with the corresponding decays of the strange $`K`$ mesons. The present results also appear realistic in view of the fact that the empirical nonobservation of the decay mode $`K_2^{}K\pi \pi `$ indicates that the amplitude for two-pion decay is mainly of spin-independent character.

The strange analog of the $`D_1(2420)`$ state is most likely a mixture of the $`K_1(1270)`$ and the $`K_1(1400)`$ states. The two-pion decay modes of these two states are dominated by $`\rho `$ meson decay. As $`\rho `$meson decay is kinematically impossible for the $`D_1(2420)`$ as well as the other $`L=1`$ $`D`$ mesons, these decay modes have little bearing on the decays of the latter. Addition of the calculated decay widths for single- and two-pion decay gives predictions for the total widths of the $`L=1`$ $`D`$ meson states. These results are shown in Table 5.

As indicated by Table 5, the present calculation of the two pion decay widths of the $`L=1`$ charm mesons completes the calculation of the corresponding single pion decay widths of ref. . The calculations show that, if the charm mesons are described as two-particle systems formed of one light flavor constituent quark and one charm antiquark, where only the light quark couples to pions, a fair description of the presently known decay widths of these mesons may be obtained. Given the chiral form for the coupling between the pions and the light constituent quarks, a better description of the total pionic decay widths obtains with the value $`g_A^q=1`$ than with smaller values, even though the empirical data are still very crude at this time. If other decay modes, such as $`\pi \pi \pi `$ and $`\eta `$ decay should turn out to give appreciable contributions to the total decay widths of the positive parity charm mesons, a somewhat smaller value for $`g_A^q`$ may be favored. However, as $`\pi \pi \pi `$ decay has so far not been detected for the strange $`K_2^{}`$ meson  and since the $`\eta `$ decay width of that same state is empirically found to be very small, that possibility is apparently not supported by experiment at this time. From the calculations of ref. , one may conclude that the width of the decay mode $`D_2^{}D\eta `$ is probably less than 0.25 MeV.

Furthermore there is the possibility of two-pion decay of the $`D_2^{}`$ and $`D_1`$ mesons through an intermediate $`D_1^{}`$ which is close to its mass shell, an effect which has been investigated by ref. . There, this mechanism was found to contribute significantly to the two-pion decay widths, although the effect is very sensitive to the widths and spin-orbit splittings of the $`L=1`$ $`D`$ mesons and is thus very difficult to estimate.

Finally it should be noted that the results are quite sensitive to the exact form of the $`B^{}`$ amplitude, as given by eq. (40). Therefore, crude approximations have to be avoided in the case of this amplitude. If the $`B^{}`$ amplitude is treated non-relativistically, which implies dropping the nonlocal and $`\stackrel{}{Q}`$ dependent terms altogether, large overestimates of that contribution to the $`\pi \pi `$ decay widths will result.

Acknowledgments

We are indebted to Professor M. Robilotta for instructive discussions. DOR thanks the W. K. Kellogg Radiation Laboratory of the California Institute of Technology for its hospitality during the completion of this work. Research supported in part by the Academy of Finland by grant No. 43982.


format: text

text:
# Interacting fermions and domain wall defects in 2+1 dimensions

## 1 Introduction

It is a well-known fact that, in an odd dimensional spacetime, a domain wall defect in the mass term of a Dirac field induces a fermionic zero mode localized on the defect . This effect is known to occur even in the presence of an external gauge field, if the corresponding electromagnetic field is contained in the defect hyperplane. Different aspects of this kind of system have been studied both for static , and dynamical  defects. As far as we know, however, possible effects due to interactions between the fermions have not been considered for this system. In this article, we shall study the stability of this kind of configuration when the electromagnetic interaction between the fermions is turned on. That the localization phenomenon should survive this interaction is not apriori evident. For example, for a static configuration, the Coulomb repulsion between the localized charges could be so important as to spread the charge density out over a large region, since the charge density due to the zero mode shall induce an electromagnetic field normal to the defect hypersurface. On the other hand, we note that our study may be thought of as a domain-wall analog of the consideration of the self consistent vacuum currents in the presence of vortices .

This paper is organized as follows: in section 2, we introduce the model and derive a self-consistent equation based in some approximations. This equation is solved for two different mass profiles in section 3. Finally, in section 4 we discuss the effects of the non-zero modes and present our conclusions.

## 2 The model

The Euclidean action $`S`$, for the system we shall consider, is given by

$$S=S_F+S_G$$
(1)
where

$$S_F=d^3x\overline{\psi }(x)[\overline{)}+ie\overline{)}A(x)+M(x)]\psi (x)$$
(2)
is the fermionic action, and

$$S_G=d^3x\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }$$
(3)
the Maxwell action, which defines the gauge field dynamics. $`x=(x_0,x_1,x_2)`$ denote the Euclidean coordinates, and the Hermitian $`\gamma `$ matrices are assumed to be in an irreducible $`2\times 2`$ representation of the Dirac algebra, verifying the anticommutation relations $`\{\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _\nu \}=2\delta _{\mu \nu }`$. The complete Green’s functions can be derived from the generating functional

$$𝒵[j_\mu ;\overline{\eta },\eta ]=𝒟A_\mu 𝒟\overline{\psi }𝒟\psi \mathrm{exp}\{S[\overline{\psi },\psi ;A]$$

$$+d^3x[j_\mu (x)A_\mu (x)+\overline{\eta }(x)\psi (x)+\overline{\psi }(x)\eta (x)\}$$
(4)
where we included source terms for the gauge and fermionic fields. The fermion mass is regarded as an external classical ‘field’, dependent on the $`x_2`$ coordinate only. We also fix the number of defects to one, by requiring $`M(x)`$ to cross $`0`$ once, at $`x_2=0`$, say.

By applying the property that the functional integral of a (functional) derivative vanishes to equation (4), we derive the ‘quantum equations of motion’

$$0=𝒟A_\mu 𝒟\overline{\psi }𝒟\psi [\frac{\delta S}{\delta A_\mu (x)}j_\mu (x)]\mathrm{exp}\{S[\overline{\psi },\psi ;A_\mu ]$$

$$+d^3x[j_\mu (x)A_\mu (x)+\overline{\eta }(x)\psi (x)+\overline{\psi }(x)\eta (x)]\}$$
(5)
for $`A_\mu `$, and

$$0=𝒟A_\mu 𝒟\overline{\psi }𝒟\psi [\frac{\delta S}{\delta \overline{\psi }(x)}\eta (x)]\mathrm{exp}\{S[\overline{\psi },\psi ;A_\mu ]$$

$$+d^3x[j_\mu (x)A_\mu (x)+\overline{\eta }(x)\psi (x)+\overline{\psi }(x)\eta (x)]\},$$
(6)
for $`\overline{\psi }`$ (the adjoint equation is trivially obtained). Taking the functional derivative with respect to $`\eta (y)`$ in (6), and putting all the external sources equal to zero afterwards, we find that equations (5) and (6) reduce to:

$$_\mu F_{\mu \nu }(x)=J_\nu (x)$$
(7)
and

$$[\overline{)}+ie\overline{)}A(x)+M(x)]\psi (x)\overline{\psi }(y)=\delta (xy),$$
(8)
where:

$$J_\nu (x)=ie\overline{\psi }(x)\gamma _\nu \psi (x)$$
(9)
and

$$F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu 𝒜_\nu _\nu 𝒜_\mu ,𝒜_\mu =A_\mu .$$
(10)
Equation (7) is an inhomogeneous ‘classical’ Maxwell equation, with the average gauge field $`𝒜_\mu =A_\mu `$ playing the role of the classical gauge field, and the average (vacuum) fermionic current $`J_\mu `$ as its source. Equation (8) involves the expectation values $`\psi \overline{\psi }`$ and $`A\psi \overline{\psi }`$. Of course, an exact treatment would require the use of an infinite set of coupled equations involving all the different Green’s functions of the system. In order to find a simpler and closed system of equations, we make the following approximation:

$$A_\mu (x)\psi (x)\overline{\psi }(y)A_\mu (x)\psi (x)\overline{\psi }(y)=𝒜_\mu (x)S_𝒜(x,y),$$
(11)
where we introduced $`S_𝒜(x,y)`$, which denotes the fermionic propagator in the presence of an ‘external field’ $`𝒜(x)`$, which corresponds to the average gauge field. This amounts to a sort of mean field approximation, where the gauge field is treated classically. To make the approximation involved more explicit, we note that the (exact) three point function appearing in (11) can be written in the equivalent form:

$$A_\mu (x)\psi (x)\overline{\psi }(y)=𝒟AA_\mu (x)x|(\overline{)}+ie\overline{)}A+M)^1|ye^{S_G[A]\mathrm{\Gamma }_F[A]}$$
(12)
where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_F[A]=\mathrm{log}det[\overline{)}+ie\overline{)}A+M].$$
(13)
The approximation (11) is obtained from (12) by replacing $`A`$ by its saddle point value. Namely, the approximation amounts to using the (leading) saddle point approximation, where the ‘action’ which is minimized at the saddle point is the bare Maxwell action plus an effective contribution $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_F[A]`$ coming from the fermionic determinant.

Equation (11) is sufficient to close the system of equations, since then (8) becomes:

$$[\overline{)}+ie\overline{)}𝒜(x)+M(x)]S_𝒜=\delta (xy).$$
(14)
It is now important to realize that the average current can be expressed as a functional of $`𝒜`$, as follows:

$$J_\mu (x)=ie\mathrm{tr}\left[\gamma _\mu \psi (x)\overline{\psi }(x)\right]=ie\mathrm{tr}\left[\gamma _\mu S_𝒜(x,x)\right].$$
(15)
Equation (7), together with (15), define a closed system of equations, which allows us to find the average gauge field $`𝒜`$, and then the current density induced in that background. The equation that determines $`𝒜`$ is obtained by replacing $`J_\mu `$ by its expression (15) in (7):

$$_\mu F_{\mu \nu }(x)=ie\mathrm{tr}\left[\gamma _\mu S_𝒜(x,x)\right],$$
(16)
which, in general, and depending on the approximation used to evaluate $`S_𝒜`$, will be a non-linear integro-differential equation. The non-linearity comes from the fermionic propagator $`S_𝒜`$, which is defined as :

$$S_{\alpha \beta }(x,y)=x,\alpha 𝒟^1y,\beta ,$$
(17)
where $`𝒟=(\overline{)}+ie\overline{)}𝒜+M)`$.

We shall now look for particular solutions of the coupled set of equations, under some restrictions and simplifying approximations. We shall restrict ourselves to static, purely electric solutions, with no electric current (hence, no magnetic field). In the Coulomb gauge, the only remaining component for the (average) gauge field is $`𝒜_0`$, which is determined by the equation

$$^2V=ietr[\gamma _0S_V(x,x)],$$
(18)
where $`V=𝒜_0`$.

Our approach to solve the system of equations shall be to first evaluate the fermionic propagator in the external potential $`V`$. Then, we shall find the corresponding vacuum charge density as a functional of $`V`$, and insert it into the Gauss law (18) to determine $`V`$. The resulting $`V`$ can then be used to fix the precise form of the charge density. We will be able to say that there are localized modes if the system admits solutions where the charge density is confined to a small region around the defect. Of course, we shall have to make some assumptions also on the allowed boundary conditions for the fields. The choice of these conditions is also part of the kind of ansatz used, and also on the amount of generality one wants to introduce into the treatment.

To find the fermion propagator in the presence of the external field $`V`$, we shall use the perturbative expansion of $`𝒟^1`$ in powers of $`V`$, namely, we decompose $`𝒟`$ as follows:

$$𝒟=𝒟_0+𝒱,$$
(19)
where

$$𝒟_0=\overline{)}+M(x)$$
(20)
and

$$𝒱=ie\gamma _0V(x).$$
(21)
Thus, $`𝒟^1`$ is naturally expanded as:

$$𝒟^1=𝒟_0^1𝒟_0^1𝒱𝒟_0^1+𝒟_0^1𝒱𝒟_0^1𝒱𝒟_0^1\mathrm{}$$
(22)
We note that the ‘free’ propagator $`𝒟_0^1`$ includes the mass field and its space dependence exactly. This must be so, since the defect changes the spectrum of the Dirac field, an effect that cannot be described perturbatively. To find the inverse of $`𝒟_0`$, we use the equivalent expression:

$$𝒟_0^1=(𝒟_0^{}𝒟_0)^1𝒟_0^{}.$$
(23)
which requires finding the inverse of the Hermitian operator

$$_0=𝒟_0^{}𝒟_0.$$
(24)
This is a much simpler task than inverting $`𝒟_0`$, and it allows one to dimensionally reduce the problem. To see this, we follow the procedure of , of which we give a lightning review here. First we write:

$$𝒟_0=(a+\widehat{/})P_L+(a^{}+\widehat{/})P_R,$$
(25)
where $`\widehat{\overline{)}}=\gamma _0_0+\gamma _1_1`$. We define the operators $`a^{}`$ and $`a`$, that act on functions of the $`x_2`$ coordinate as

$$a=_2+Ma^{}=_2+M,$$
(26)
and the projectors $`P_L`$, $`P_R`$:

$$P_L=\frac{1+\gamma _2}{2},P_R=\frac{1\gamma _2}{2}.$$
(27)
These projectors behave like chirality projectors from the point of view of the $`1+1`$ dimensional theory which describes the chiral zero mode. This decomposition makes it possible to disentangle the dynamics corresponding to the $`x_2`$ coordinate from the coordinates $`\widehat{x}=(x_0,x_1)`$. The ‘dimensional reduction’ can be seen to arise at the level of the operator $`_0`$:

$$_0=(h\widehat{\overline{)}}^2)P_L+(\stackrel{~}{h}\widehat{\overline{)}}^2)P_R,$$
(28)
where

$$h=a^{}a\stackrel{~}{h}=aa^{}.$$
(29)
To expand the fermionic fields, we define $`\varphi _n`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_n`$, eigenstates of the operators $`h`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$, respectively. We denote by $`\lambda _n^2`$ their (common) eigenvalues:

$$h\varphi _n=\lambda _n^2\varphi _n,\stackrel{~}{h}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_n=\lambda _n^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_n,$$
(30)
$$\varphi _n\varphi _m=\delta _{nm},\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_n\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_m=\delta _{nm},$$
(31)
since the spectra coincide, except for $`\lambda _n=0`$, and the eigenvalues are of course positive. The $`\lambda _n=0`$ eigenvalue will, by assumption, be present only for $`h`$. This will depend of course on the mass profile near the defect, i.e. the zero of the mass. Since the sign of $`\lambda _n`$ is arbitrary, we take it positive by convention.

Thus, the fermionic fields can be expanded as:

$$\psi (\widehat{x},x_2)=\underset{n}{}[\varphi _n(x_2)\psi _L^{(n)}(\widehat{x})+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_n(x_2)\psi _R^{(n)}(\widehat{x})],$$
(32)
$$\overline{\psi }(\widehat{x},x_2)=\underset{n}{}[\overline{\psi }_L^{(n)}(\widehat{x})\varphi _n^{}(x_2)+\overline{\psi }_R^{(n)}(\widehat{x})\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_n^{}(x_2)].$$
(33)
The spinors that carry the dependence on $`\widehat{x}`$ are defined by:

$$\psi _{L,R}^{(n)}(\widehat{x})=P_{L,R}\psi ^{(n)}(\widehat{x}),\overline{\psi }_{L,R}^{(n)}(\widehat{x})=\overline{\psi }^{(n)}(\widehat{x})P_{R,L},$$
(34)
where $`\psi _{L,R}^{(n)}`$ denotes a general bidimensional fermionic field (one for each value of the index $`n`$). In terms of this expansion, the fermionic action becomes:

$$S=S_L^{(0)}+\underset{n}{}S^{(n)}$$
(35)
where $`S_L^{(0)}`$ denotes the action for a chiral left-handed fermion in $`1+1`$ dimensions, while $`S^{(n)}`$ is a massive Dirac action, also in $`1+1`$ dimensions, with a mass equal to $`\lambda _n`$ (the sign of the mass is irrelevant in $`1+1`$ dimensions).

Since

$$_0^1=(h\widehat{/}^2)^1P_L+(\stackrel{~}{h}\widehat{/}^2)^1P_R,$$
(36)
the free propagator becomes

$$𝒟_0^1=(h\widehat{/}^2)^1P_L(a^{}\widehat{/})+(\stackrel{~}{h}\widehat{/}^2)^1P_R(a\widehat{/}).$$
(37)
Translation invariance along the $`x_0`$ and $`x_1`$ coordinates suggests the use of a potential depending only on $`x_2`$, $`𝒱=𝒱(x_2)`$. To find the propagator in configuration space, we need to evaluate the following expression:

$$S_{\alpha \beta }(x,y)=(𝒟_0^1)_{\alpha \beta }(x,y)(𝒟_0^1𝒱𝒟_0^1)_{\alpha \beta }(x,y)+\mathrm{}$$
(38)
with $`𝒱=𝒱(x_2)`$. In the perturbative expansion for the propagator, we insert expansions of the identity constructed with intermediate states corresponding to eigenstates of the operator $`_0`$. Using the fact that each eigenvalue $`\lambda _n`$ corresponds to the effective mass of a two dimensional mode, and that the lowest mode is massless (the zero mode), it is natural to keep only the zero mode in the intermediate states as a first approximation. Note that the mass $`\lambda _n`$ of the non zero modes is separated from the zero mode by a finite gap whose magnitude is controlled by the profile of the mass near the defect (see ref. ). With this in mind, we shall first use the leading approximation of keeping just the zero mode, and then make a quantitative evaluation of the error involved in this procedure, by including the correction corresponding to the lowest massive mode. On the other hand, we shall keep the full dependence in the potential, namely, we shall use no truncation for the perturbative series in $`𝒱`$. To implement this approximation, we introduce projectors $`P_0`$ along the zero mode. They are explicitly given by

$$P_0=\varphi _0\varphi _0^{}\underset{n}{}\psi _L^{(n)}\overline{\psi }_L^{(n)}.$$
(39)
Taking this into account, after some algebra one can show that, in this approximation, the propagator is given by:

$$S_{\alpha \beta }(x,y)\varphi _0^{}(x_2)\varphi _0(y_2)x_0,x_1,\alpha \frac{\widehat{/}+ie\gamma _0V_{0,0}P_L}{(\widehat{}+ie\gamma _0V_{0,0})^2}y_0,y_1,\beta .$$
(40)
In this expression there appears the average of $`V`$ in the zero mode which is denoted by:

$$V_{0,0}=\varphi _0|V|\varphi _0.$$
(41)
It is worth noting that this result is approximate in the sense that only the zero mode has been included, but all the powers of $`A_\mu `$ have been added, as it is evident from the non-linear dependence of the propagator on $`A_\mu `$. The charge density is evaluated by multiplying by $`\gamma _0`$, taking the Dirac trace, and finally calculating the coincidence limit $`xy`$. Inserting the result so obtained for the charge density as a functional of the potential into (18) yields:

$$\frac{^2}{x_2^2}V(x_2)=\varphi _0(x_2)\varphi _0^{}(x_2)\frac{d^2k}{2\pi }\frac{ik_0+ieV_{0,0}}{(ik_0+ie\gamma _0V_{0,0})^2}.$$
(42)
The momentum space integral has both linear and logarithmic divergences. Using a symmetric limit kind of regularization, we see that (42) can be expressed as:

$$\frac{^2}{x_2^2}V(x_2)=\varphi _0(x_2)\varphi _0^{}(x_2)\frac{e^2V_{0,0}}{2}.$$
(43)
It is remarkable that, as a consequence of the fact that we are only keeping the zero mode, the expression for the charge density becomes linear in the potential. This happens in spite of the fact that we have kept all the powers of the potential in the fermionic propagator, since the result is a consequence of the fact that massless two dimensional $`QED`$ is exactly solvable , with the exact fermionic determinant being quadratic in the gauge field.

We have obtained an integro-differential equation involving derivatives of $`V`$ and its average on the lowest energy mode. To solve it self-consistently, we first derive from (43) (by integration) an equation for $`V`$, depending also the average of the potential. Then, as a second step, we shall insert this average into (43) in order to obtain the explicit profile of the potential as a function of $`x_2`$. At this point, it is clear that the existence of a self-consistent solution depends on the particular form of the zero modes appearing in eq. (43). This differential equation will have a solution only if the charge density is localized in such a way that the integrals involved are well defined. In particular, the zero modes need to be localized around the defect. It was shown in reference  that in $`2n+1`$ dimensions the zero mode has the form

$$\eta e^{_a^{x_2}𝑑yM(y)},$$
(44)
where $`\eta `$ is an spinor independent of $`x_2`$.

## 3 Examples

In what follows we will discuss the possible solutions of eq. (43) for two different kinds of mass profiles.

* Step-like defect.

Given a mass of the form:

$$M(x_2)=\mathrm{\Lambda }(2\mathrm{\Theta }(x_2)1).$$
(45)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a constant with the dimensions of a mass, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the Heaviside function, there is only one zero mode , which can be explicitly written as:

$$\varphi _0(x_2)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }|x_2|}.$$
(46)
In this case, the differential equation becomes

$$\frac{^2}{x_2^2}V(x_2)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }e^2V_{0,0}e^{2\mathrm{\Lambda }|x_2|},$$
(47)
and integrating it twice we obtain for the potential $`V`$

$$V(x_2)=a+\frac{1}{8\mathrm{\Lambda }}e^2V_{0,0}e^{2\mathrm{\Lambda }|x_2|},$$
(48)
where $`a`$ is a constant, to be related later to the chemical potential. In this expression we have not included a term that corresponds to a constant electric field in the $`x_2`$ direction, because it could be eliminated by choosing appropriate boundary conditions (such as vanishing density of charges at infinity).

In order to find a self-consistent solution for the potential we evaluate the expectation value of $`V`$, which is expressed by (48), in the zero mode

$$V_{0,0}=a+\frac{1}{8\mathrm{\Lambda }}e^2V_{0,0}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x|\varphi _0(x)|^2e^{2\mathrm{\Lambda }|x|}.$$
(49)
Thus, $`V_{0,0}`$ is easily seen to be given by

$$V_{0,0}=\frac{a}{1\frac{e^2}{16\mathrm{\Lambda }}}.$$
(50)
Therefore, the potential written in terms of the zero modes results

$$V(x_2)=|\varphi _0(x)|^2\frac{2ae^2}{16\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{\Lambda }e^2}.$$
(51)
Notice that the solution is only stable if the electromagnetic coupling constant and the mass coupling constant satisfy the bound: $`e^2<16\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, which means that the strength of the interaction (repulsion) between the electrons cannot be larger than the scale given by the height of the defect. We note that ‘stability’ refers here to the property of having a confining potential. We see that in this case, i.e., for an step-like mass and keeping only the zero energy mode, there exist a self-consistent solution for the fermionic interaction potential. In other words, even in the case of interacting electrons, the fermions are localized in the $`x_2`$ direction and can only move along the defect.

The interpretation of $`a`$ as a chemical potential proceeds from the fact that the Gauss law (47), combined with (50), means that the charge density of the configuration is

$$\rho (x_2)=a\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }e^2}{2(1\frac{e^2}{16\mathrm{\Lambda }})}e^{2\mathrm{\Lambda }|x_2|},$$
(52)
and (by integrating over $`x_2`$) one sees that the total charge is proportional to the constant $`a`$.
* Linear defect.

Assuming than the mass can be expanded as a power series in $`x_2`$, for small enough $`x_2`$ we only keep the first order term:

$$M(x_2)=M^{}(0)x_2,$$
(53)
where we assume $`M^{}(0)0`$ being $`M^{}`$ the first derivative of the mass. For this mass profile we can still find the zero mode by defining

$$h=_2^2M^{}+M^2x_2^2.$$
(54)
which is an harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian. The lowest energy mode is:

$$\varphi _0(x_2)=(\frac{|M^{}|}{\pi })^{1/4}e^{\frac{|M^{}|}{2}x_2^2}.$$
(55)
Following the same steps as in the previous example we find that the potential can be written in terms of the zero mode as

$$V(x_2)=a+_B^{x_2}𝑑y_A^y𝑑z|\varphi _0(z)|^2(\frac{e^2a}{2e^2C}),$$
(56)
where

$$C=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x_2|\varphi _0(x_2)|^2_B^{x_2}𝑑y_A^y𝑑z|\varphi _0(z)|^2.$$
(57)
Thus we see that also in this case there exists a self-consistent solution for the Gauss law, for a charge density localized around the defect. However there is a necessary condition for the existence of this localized mode. The wave function of the zero mode has to vanish rapidly outside the region of the space where the mass can be approximated linearly. A quantitative criterion for the validity of this condition can be found in reference .

In summary, up to know we have shown the existence of localized solutions if we keep only the lowest energy modes in the expansion of the fermionic propagator. This solution depends on the mass profile, and it is non-perturbative in the electromagnetic interaction between the fermions. We have neglected the (more energetic) massive modes based on the fact that the terms on the action that come from these modes go as $`\frac{1}{\lambda _n^2}`$, where $`\lambda _n`$ is the mass of the mode . Therefore, for a large and steep enough mass, our approximation will be valid. In particular, for a linear defect, the mass of the modes is proportional to the slope of the mass profile. Therefore, by changing this slope we could make $`\lambda _n`$ arbitrarily large.

## 4 Effect of the massive modes

We shall now study the problem of including one massive mode in our calculation in order to check whether there still exist localized solutions or not. It will provide also a quantitative idea about the error involved in considering only the lowest energy modes.

We proceed as follows: in the perturbative expansion for the fermion propagator (22), we consider only the projection of the operators $`𝒟_0^1`$ and $`𝒱`$ onto the two lowest energy modes. Then each factor $`𝒟_0^1`$ contributes with

$$𝒟_0^1\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1\varphi _1^{}\lambda _1P_L\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1^{}\widehat{/}P_R+\varphi _1\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1^{}\lambda _1P_R\varphi _1\varphi _1^{}\widehat{/}P_L\varphi _0\varphi _0^{}\widehat{/}P_L.$$
(58)
For an even $`V(x_2)`$, selection rules imply the vanishing of the matrix elements $`V_{n,m}`$, $`V_{n,\stackrel{~}{m}}`$ and $`V_{\stackrel{~}{n},\stackrel{~}{m}}`$.

Replacing (58) into ( 22), and keeping only the non-vanishing matrix elements of $`V`$, the first order correction in $`𝒱`$ to the fermion propagator (i.e., correction to ( 58)) is:

$$𝒟_0^1𝒱𝒟_0^1\frac{ie\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1\varphi _1^{}}{(\lambda _1^2\widehat{}^2)^2}[\widehat{/}\lambda _1\gamma ^0V_{\stackrel{~}{1},\stackrel{~}{1}}^0\lambda _1\gamma ^0V_{1,1}\widehat{/}]P_L$$

$$+\frac{ie\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1\varphi _0^{}}{(\lambda _1^2\widehat{}^2)\widehat{}^2}[\lambda _1\gamma ^0V_{1,0}\widehat{/}]P_L+\frac{ie\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1^{}}{(\lambda _1^2\widehat{}^2)^2}[\lambda _1^2\gamma ^0V_{1,1}+\widehat{/}\gamma ^0V_{\stackrel{~}{1},\stackrel{~}{1}}\widehat{/}]P_R$$

$$+\frac{ie\varphi _1\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1^{}}{(\lambda _1^2\widehat{}^2)^2}[\widehat{/}\lambda _1\gamma ^0V_{1,1}\lambda _1\gamma ^0V_{\stackrel{~}{1},\stackrel{~}{1}}\widehat{/}]P_R+\frac{ie\varphi _0\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1^{}}{(\lambda _1^2\widehat{}^2)\widehat{}^2}[\widehat{/}\lambda _1\gamma ^0V_{1,1}]P_R$$

$$+\frac{ie\varphi _1\varphi _1^{}}{(\lambda _1^2\widehat{}^2)^2}[\lambda _1^2\gamma ^0V_{\stackrel{~}{1},\stackrel{~}{1}}+\widehat{/}\gamma ^0V_{1,1}\widehat{/}]P_L+\frac{ie\varphi _1\varphi _0^{}}{(\lambda _1^2\widehat{}^2)\widehat{}^2}[\widehat{/}\gamma ^0V_{1,0}\widehat{/}]P_L$$

$$+\frac{ie\varphi _0\varphi _1^{}}{(\lambda _1^2\widehat{}^2)\widehat{}^2}[\widehat{/}\gamma ^0V_{0,1}\widehat{/}]P_L+\frac{ie\varphi _0\varphi _0^{}}{(\widehat{}^2)^2}[\widehat{/}\gamma ^0V_{0,0}\widehat{/}]P_L.$$
(59)
Notice that in this case it is not possible to obtain a non-perturbative expression for the fermion propagator due to the fact that we are taking into account massive modes as well as the massless one. In order to write the Gauss law we need to compute

$$tr(\gamma _0𝒟^1)\frac{ie(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1^{}+\varphi _1\varphi _1^{})}{(\lambda _1^2\widehat{}^2)}_0+\frac{ie\varphi _0\varphi _0^{}}{(\widehat{}^2)}_0$$

$$+\frac{ie\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1^{}}{(\lambda _1^2\widehat{}^2)^2}[\lambda _1^2V_{1,1}+(2_0^2\widehat{}^2)V_{\stackrel{~}{1},\stackrel{~}{1}}]+\frac{ie\varphi _1\varphi _1^{}}{(\lambda _1^2\widehat{}^2)^2}[\lambda _1^2V_{\stackrel{~}{1},\stackrel{~}{1}}+(2_0^2\widehat{}^2)V_{1,1}]$$

$$+\frac{ie(\varphi _1\varphi _0^{}+\varphi _0\varphi _1^{})}{(\lambda _1^2\widehat{}^2)\widehat{}^2}[(2_0^2\widehat{}^2)V_{0,1}]+\frac{ie\varphi _0\varphi _0^{}}{(\widehat{}^2)^2}[(2_0^2\widehat{}^2)V_{0,0}].$$
(60)
Taking the Fourier transform in the above expression and regularizing the integrals by a symmetric limit, the Gauss law becomes

$$\frac{^2}{x_2^2}V(x_2)=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1(x_2)\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1^{}(x_2)\frac{e^2V_{1,1}}{2}+\varphi _1(x_2)\varphi _1^{}(x_2)\frac{e^2V_{\stackrel{~}{1},\stackrel{~}{1}}}{2}.$$
(61)
Thus we have obtained a differential equation whose solution will depend on the localization properties of the fermionic modes around the defect.

In the case of a mass that can be approximated by a linear function of $`x_2`$ near the defect, it is simple to check that

$$\varphi _n=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{n+1},$$
(62)
therefore there is only one zero mode, and the Gauss equation becomes

$$\frac{^2}{x_2^2}V(x_2)=\varphi _0(x_2)\varphi _0^{}(x_2)\frac{e^2V_{1,1}}{2}+\varphi _1(x_2)\varphi _1^{}(x_2)\frac{e^2V_{0,0}}{2}.$$
(63)
Integrating this expression we find

$$V(x_2)=a+(\frac{e^2V_{1,1}}{2})_B^{x_2}𝑑y_A^y𝑑z|\varphi _0(z)|^2+(\frac{e^2V_{0,0}}{2})_B^{x_2}𝑑y_A^y𝑑z|\varphi _1(z)|^2.$$
(64)
Once again, we look for the self-consistent solutions for the expectation values of the potential. When computed on the two lowest energy modes, they are given by the solution of the equations:

$$V_{i,i}=a+(\frac{e^2V_{1,1}}{2})D_{i0}+(\frac{e^2V_{0,0}}{2})D_{i1},$$
(65)
where $`i=0,1`$ and $`D_{ij}`$ are:

$$2D_{ij}=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x_2|\varphi _i(x_2)|^2_B^{x_2}𝑑y_A^y𝑑z|\varphi _j(z)|^2.$$
(66)
Solving (65) we obtain

$$V_{0,0}=a\frac{1e^2D_{10}+e^2D_{00}}{(1e^2D_{01})(1e^2D_{10})e^4D_{11}D_{00}},$$

$$V_{1,1}=a\frac{1e^2D_{01}+e^2D_{11}}{(1e^2D_{01})(1e^2D_{10})e^4D_{11}D_{00}}.$$
(67)
We have found that, in the case of a linear mass, there exist a self-consistent solution of the Gauss equation to first order in the interaction potential, if we include apart from the zero mode, one massive mode. Notice that, for a linear mass around the defect, $`\varphi _n`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_n`$ are harmonic oscillator eigenstates. Far enough from the defect, the eigenstates decay exponentially (as a Gaussian function), ensuring that the charge density is localized around the defect in such a way that there is a solution for the Gauss equation. Obviously all the caveats regarding the range of validity of approximating the mass by a linear function, that we mention in the previous case, must be taken into account here.

Summarizing, we have considered a Dirac field in $`2+1`$ dimensions with a domain wall like defect in its mass, minimally coupled to a dynamical Abelian vector field. The mass of the fermionic field is assumed to have just one linear domain wall, externally fixed and unaffected by the dynamics. In the absence of electromagnetic interactions among the fermions, it is a well known fact that localized zero modes exist on the defect . We have studied here the effect of the fermionic interactions on these modes showing that, under some general conditions on the parameters, the localized zero modes stable under the electromagnetic interactions of the fermions.

## Acknowledgments

This work is partially supported by CONICET (Argentina), by ANPCyT through grant No.$`0303924`$ (AL), and by Fundación Antorchas (Argentina).


text:
# References

Non–hermitian oscillator–like Hamiltonians

and $`\lambda `$-coherent states revisited

Jules Beckers111email: Jules.Beckers@ulg.ac.be, José F. Cariñena§222email: jfc@posta.unizar.es333Corresponding author, Nathalie Debergh444Chercheur, Institut Interuniversitaire des Sciences Nucléaires, Bruxelles,
email: Nathalie.Debergh@ulg.ac.be and Giuseppe Marmo§§555email: Giuseppe.Marmo@na.infn.it

Theoretical and Mathematical Physics,Institute of Physics (B5), University of Liège,

B-4000 Liège 1 (Belgium)

§Departamento de Física Teórica, Universidad de Zaragoza,

50009 Zaragoza, Spain.

§§Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche, Universitá Federico II di Napoli and INFN, Sezione di Napoli

Complesso Universitario di Monte Sant’Angelo, Via Cintia, 80125 Napoli, Italy

## Abstract

Previous $`\lambda `$-deformed non-Hermitian Hamiltonians with respect to the usual scalar product of Hilbert spaces dealing with harmonic oscillator–like developments are (re)considered with respect to a new scalar product in order to take into account their property of self-adjointness. The corresponding deformed $`\lambda `$-states lead to new families of coherent states according to the DOCS, AOCS and MUCS points of view.

PACS: 03.65.Ca, 42.50.-p

Coherence and squeezing have recently been revisited  through new families of states depending on an extra $`\lambda `$-parameter. This real parameter has been introduced by exploiting the subnormal character  of the so-called (bosonic) creation operator acting on Fock spaces, a very well–known context inside harmonic oscillator–like developments.

A generalization of the factorization technique started by Schrödinger  was exploited in a recent paper  for analyzing some previous results on non-hermitian oscillator-like Hamiltonians with real spectra.

We recall (see e.g.  and references therein) that the classical factorization technique for a given Hamiltonian of a one-dimensional quantum system

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+V(x)$$
(1)
consists in finding a constant $`c`$ and a superpotential function $`W(x)`$ such that

$$Hc=A^{}A,$$
(2)
where

$$A=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\frac{d}{dx}+W(x)\right).$$
(3)
In this case, the operator $`A`$ intertwines $`H`$ with the partner Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ defined by $`\stackrel{~}{H}=AA^{}+c`$, i.e., $`AH=\stackrel{~}{H}A`$. Moreover, the adjoint operator $`A^{}`$ intertwines $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ with $`H`$, i.e., $`A^{}\stackrel{~}{H}=HA^{}`$. In the particular case of the harmonic oscillator,

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+\frac{x^2}{2},$$
(4)
the well–known annihilation and creation operators

$$a=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\frac{d}{dx}+x\right),a^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\frac{d}{dx}+x\right),$$
(5)
play the role of $`A`$ and $`A^{}`$, while $`c=\frac{1}{2}`$. We recall that the operators $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$, together with the identity $`1`$, generate the Heisenberg algebra characterized by

$$[a,a^{}]=1.$$
(6)
As it is well known, the commutation relations

$$[H,a]=a,[H,a^{}]=a^{},$$

can be used to obtain the full spectrum of the quantum harmonic oscillator operator. As $`H>0`$ there will be a state $`\psi _0`$ such that $`a\psi _0=0`$. Once it has been normalized it is given by

$$\psi _0=\pi ^{1/4}e^{\frac{1}{2}x^2},$$
(7)
and the normalized eigenstates corresponding to the eigenvalues $`E_n=(n+\frac{1}{2})`$, with $`n=0,1,\mathrm{}`$, are

$$\psi _n(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n!}}(a^{})^n\psi _0=\frac{\pi ^{\frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{\frac{n}{2}}}{\sqrt{n!}}e^{\frac{1}{2}x^2}H_n(x).$$
(8)
They form an orthonormal basis with respect to the standard inner product

$$\varphi _1,\varphi _2=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\overline{\varphi _1(x)}\varphi _2(x)𝑑x,$$
(9)
according to

$$_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}e^{x^2}H_n(x)H_m(x)𝑑x=\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^nn!\delta _{nm},$$
(10)
$`H_n(x)`$ being the very well-known Hermite polynomials . In that context $`x`$ and $`p=i\frac{d}{dx}`$ are self-adjoint operators associated with the important physical observables position and momentum, respectively.

Now, given a minimal numerable set of elements $`\{\phi _0,\phi _1,\mathrm{},\phi _n,\mathrm{}\}`$ of a separable Hilbert space $`(,(,))`$ whose closure is $``$, we can introduce a new inner product in $``$ by means of a bilinear form $`<,>`$ such that

$$\phi _n,\phi _m=\delta _{mn},$$

and a pair of operators $`A`$ and $`A^+`$ such that

$`A\phi _0=0,`$ (11)
$`A\phi _n=\sqrt{n}\phi _{n1},`$ (12)
$`A^+\phi _{n1}=\sqrt{n}\phi _n.`$ (13)
Consequently, the operators $`A`$ and $`A^+`$ so defined satisfy the Heisenberg algebra relation

$$[A,A^+]=1.$$
(14)
Consider the Hamiltonian $`H`$ defined by

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\{A,A^+\}=\frac{1}{2}(AA^++A^+A)=A^+A+\frac{1}{2}.$$
(15)
If we use it to define equations of motion we get the dynamics of the harmonic oscillator.

Indeed, as it was done in  for nonlinear coherent states, we can define a map $`D:\text{}\mathrm{Op}()`$ as follows:

$$D(z)=e^{(zA^+\overline{z}A)},$$

which defines a displacement operator. For any complex number $`z`$, let us define the state vectors $`|z`$ by

$$|z=D(z)\phi _0.$$

This is but a Weyl system in the Bargmann–Fock representation. The commutation rules of $`A`$, $`A^+`$ and $`H`$ being he same ones as for the standard one–dimensional harmonic oscillator, the dynamical evolution will preserve the set of such vectors $`|z`$ and the dynamics associated with $`H`$ on $`A`$ and $`A^+`$ will define a dynamics on  by requiring it to be equivariant with respect to the $`D`$–map. Indeed, given a $`z_0`$ at $`t=0`$, the state evolves because $`A`$ and $`A^+`$ depends on $`t`$ and for any time $`t`$ we can define

$$|z_t=e^{(z_tA^+\overline{z}_tA)}\phi _0,$$

giving rise, by derivation with respect to $`t`$ to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{dt}}`$ $`=iz,`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{z}}{dt}}`$ $`=i\overline{z}.`$
We can now consider the case of not only one, but a family $`A_\lambda ^+`$ of operators. The more general case of a two–parameter family proposed in  is quite similar. As already previously discussed , let us introduce the creation operator in the following way

$$A_\lambda ^+=a^{}+\lambda I,\lambda \text{},$$
(17)
where $`a^{}`$ is the adjoint of the annihilation operator $`a`$ given by (5), together with $`A_\lambda =a`$, and define

$$\varphi _{n\lambda }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n!}}(A_\lambda ^+)^n\psi _0,$$

where $`\psi _0`$ is the standard ground-state for the harmonic oscillator given by (7). Notice that $`\varphi _{0\lambda }=\psi _0`$ and $`A_\lambda ^+\varphi _{n\lambda }=\sqrt{n+1}\varphi _{n+1\lambda }`$.

As we suggested before we introduce a new inner product such that

$$h_\lambda (\varphi _{n\lambda },\varphi _{m\lambda })=\varphi _{n\lambda },\varphi _{m\lambda }=\delta _{nm}.$$

We can now compute the adjoint of $`A_\lambda ^+`$ with respect to the inner product $`,`$. Indeed it is given by the relation

$$\varphi _{n\lambda },(A_\lambda ^+)^{}\varphi _{m\lambda }=A_\lambda ^+\varphi _{n\lambda },\varphi _{m\lambda },$$

and therefore

$$\sqrt{n+1}\delta _{n+1,m}=\sqrt{m}\delta _{n,m1}=\varphi _{n\lambda },(A_\lambda ^+)^{}\varphi _{m\lambda },$$

from which we see that the adjoint of $`A_\lambda ^+`$ with respect to $`,`$ is given by

$$(A_\lambda ^+)^{}\varphi _{n\lambda }=\sqrt{n}\varphi _{n1\lambda },$$

i.e., $`(A_\lambda ^+)^{}=a`$, for any value of the parameter $`\lambda `$.

As $`a`$ and $`A_\lambda ^+`$ satisfy commutation relations as in (14), we can consider a Hamiltonian like in (15),

$$H_\lambda =A_\lambda ^+a+\frac{1}{2}=H_0+\lambda a,$$
(18)
and these developments lead to a non-Hermitian oscillator–like Hamiltonian  but with a real spectrum and specific eigenfunctions of special interest for discussing and comparing coherent as well as squeezed states with respect to already known ones . This is a direct consequence of the commutation rule $`[A_\lambda ,A_\lambda ^+]=1`$ and then $`\stackrel{~}{H}_\lambda =H_\lambda +1`$.

In fact, this non-Hermitian character was associated with the scalar product (9) of the current Hilbert spaces we are dealing with in the conventional approaches. However, the Hamiltonian is hermitian with respect to the alternative inner product $`,`$, because the conjugate of $`A_\lambda ^+`$ is $`a`$. The new product can be expressed by

$$\phi _1,\phi _2=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\overline{\phi _1(x)}\phi _2(x)\rho (\lambda ,x)𝑑x,$$
(19)
and the condition for $`a`$ to be the adjoint of $`A_\lambda ^+`$ is

$$\phi _1,A_\lambda ^+\phi _2=a\phi _1,\phi _2,$$
(20)
i.e.,

$$\frac{\rho }{x}+\sqrt{2}\lambda =0,$$
(21)
with general solution

$$\rho (\lambda ,x)=C(\lambda )\mathrm{exp}\left(\sqrt{2}\lambda x\right).$$
(22)
The arbitrary function $`C(\lambda )`$ can be fixed by imposing that $`\varphi _0,\varphi _0=1`$, and we will obtain

$$C(\lambda )=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}\right).$$
(23)
Mean values and information coming from Heisenberg relations are now easy to evaluate in the new $`\lambda `$-context. The following results come out by exploiting generalized Poisson integrals such as

$$_0^+\mathrm{}e^{lx^m}x^k𝑑x=\frac{1}{m}l^{\frac{k+1}{m}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{k+1}{m}\right),l>0,m>0,k>1.$$
(24)
We get

$$x_\lambda =\frac{\lambda }{\sqrt{2}},x^2_\lambda =n+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\lambda ^2}{2},(\mathrm{\Delta }x)_\lambda ^2=n+\frac{1}{2},$$
(25)
and

$$p_\lambda =i\frac{\lambda }{\sqrt{2}},p^2_\lambda =n+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\lambda ^2}{2},(\mathrm{\Delta }p)_\lambda ^2=n+\frac{1}{2},$$
(26)
showing that squeezing is not possible in this $`\lambda `$-context while coherence can be developed in the usual $`n=0`$-context . Moreover it is clear from these results that if $`x`$ is still Hermitian with respect to the new scalar product (18), $`p`$ is not. More precisely, it can be verified from (18) that the Hermitian conjugate of $`p`$ is $`p+i\sqrt{2}\lambda `$ implying that if we want to restore the Hermiticity for the momentum operator, we have to consider

$$p_\lambda i\frac{d}{dx}+i\frac{\lambda }{\sqrt{2}},$$
(27)
instead of $`p`$. We then have

$$p_\lambda _\lambda =0,p_\lambda ^2_\lambda =n+\frac{1}{2},(\mathrm{\Delta }p_\lambda )_\lambda ^2=n+\frac{1}{2}.$$
(28)
Let us now exploit the previous results and turn to the construction of new coherent states depending on $`\lambda `$. Following the DOCS (displacement operator coherent spates) point of view , it is straightforward to construct such states in terms of the new creation ($`A_\lambda ^+`$) and annihilation ($`a`$) operators through the displacement operator

$$D_\lambda (z)=e^{(\overline{z}a+zA_\lambda ^+)},$$

which allows us to introduce new coherent states,

$$|z,\lambda =D_\lambda (z)\psi _0,$$

whose coordinate representation will be

$$\psi _z(\lambda ,x)=e^{zA_\lambda ^{}\overline{z}a}\psi _0(x)=e^{\frac{1}{2}|z|^2}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{z^n}{\sqrt{n!}}\varphi _{n\lambda }(x),$$
(29)
which are such that

$$a\psi _z(\lambda ,x)=z\psi _z(\lambda ,x),$$
(30)
ensuring also the AOCS (annihilation operator coherent spates) point of view. Due to the fact that the normalization of these states with respect to the scalar product (18)

$$_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\overline{\psi _z(\lambda ,x)}\psi _z(\lambda ,x)\rho (\lambda ,x)𝑑x=1$$
(31)
is realized, we have the following mean values

$$x_z=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(z+\overline{z}\lambda ),$$
(32)
$$p_\lambda _z=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}(z+\overline{z}),$$
(33)
and similar results concerning $`<x^2>_z,<p_\lambda ^2>_z`$ finally leading to

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }x)_z^2=(\mathrm{\Delta }p_\lambda )_z^2=\frac{1}{2}.$$
(34)
The third and last point of view, the MUCS (minimal uncertainty coherent states) one, is thus also ensured in this context of new $`\lambda `$-coherent states.

Coming back to the classical interpretation, the configuration space of the system we are considering is the complex plane  that can be identified with $`\text{}^2`$ according to

$$z=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(q+ip),\overline{z}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(qip).$$
(35)
In this way we are choosing one of the possible complex structures in $`\text{}^2`$. We can define the inner product in  given by $`h(z,w)=\overline{z}w`$, whose real part provides one half of the standard Euclidean structure in $`\text{}^2`$, while the imaginary part gives us one half of the standard symplectic structure. The complex structure in $`\text{}^2`$ is defined by multiplication by $`i`$, i.e., $`Jz=iz`$, then $`J(q,p)=(p,q)`$. The tangent space to $`\text{}^2`$ at each point $`m\text{}^2`$ is identified in a natural way to $`\text{}^2`$ itself as a linear space. A local basis of the module of vector fields in $`\text{}^2`$ is made up by $`/q`$ and $`/p`$, and that of the differential forms by $`dq`$ and $`dp`$. The complexified of this space is also generated by

$$dz=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(dq+idp),d\overline{z}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(dqidp),$$
(36)
and similarly, for the dual basis of vector fields,

$$\frac{}{z}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\frac{}{q}i\frac{}{p}\right),\frac{}{\overline{z}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\frac{}{q}+i\frac{}{p}\right).$$
(37)
In these complex coordinates, the canonical symplectic form is

$$\omega =idzd\overline{z}.$$

Now, when comparing (5) with (35) we see that (17) can be seen in the classical approach as a transformation

$$zz_\lambda =z,\overline{z}\overline{z}_\lambda =\overline{z}+\lambda ,$$

which is a canonical transformation, but it does not preserve the Hamiltonian for the harmonic oscillator $`H(z,\overline{z})=h(z,\overline{z})`$, which transforms into

$$H_\lambda =H+\lambda z.$$
(38)
Therefore the dynamics

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=i\left(z\frac{}{z}\overline{z}\frac{}{\overline{z}}\right),$$

changes to

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda =\mathrm{\Gamma }i\lambda \frac{}{\overline{z}}.$$

However, the transformation being canonical, the image of closed orbits for the harmonic oscillator still remain closed, and moreover, the period is also constant as for the harmonic oscillator, therefore the quantum spectrum is equally spaced.

In summary, in the new variables the system is indeed an Harmonic Oscillator (both at the classical level and at the quantum level). However from the physical point of view, when we compare them in the same coordinate system, we find that they identify different physical systems because the equilibria points are different (at the classical level) and the vacua states are different at the quantum level. Even though they are represented abstractly by the algebra of the Harmonic Oscillator, their realizations identify different physical oscillators characterized by different zero modes. Thus the dynamics in the lambda variables has the same form as the other dynamics in the original coordinates. To compare them however, we need to express both in the same coordinate system and when this is done they are associated with different vector fields.