format: text

text:
# Mesonic cloud contribution to the nucleon and Δ masses

## I Introduction

One of the most challenging problems  facing contemporary physics is the understanding of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) in the region of confined quarks. Lattice QCD has made great progress in its ability to calculate physical quantities but it remains far distant from being able to calculate something like the nucleon wave function. Models of the nucleon and the excited baryons are thus necessary. It is possible that the relationship between lattice gauge calculations and nature may initially proceed through phenomenological models, chiral expansions, and effective Lagrangians that produce parameters that are more amenable to lattice calculations than might be the measurable quantities themselves.

Models of baryons based on confined quarks are capable of producing a number of the measured properties of the baryons. We are here interested in a specific question. How do you model the pion (and other meson) cloud contributions  to the structure of the nucleon and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$? We take the approach that the meson-nucleon interaction cannot be treated perturbatively. The results we find are consistent with this assumption. There exists very accurate data  for pion-nucleon scattering. In understanding the pion-nucleon system, we believe that this data must be used as a constraint. The elastic scattering pion-nucleon amplitude contains the nucleon pole which occurs at a pion mass below elastic threshold. The residue of the pole is the square of the physical nucleon wave function. Thus the mesonic cloud contribution to the nucleon is intimately related to the scattering data, just as the scattering wave function from a potential is not independent of the bound state wave functions for that same potential. The question is how to use the pion-nucleon data to constrain models of the pionic cloud of the single nucleon and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$?

A first step in answering this question is presented here. We adopt a model in which the coupling is of the form $`\pi +NN,\mathrm{\Delta }`$. We then investigate how to calculate pion-nucleon scattering given this model of the interaction. There exists a large number  of models of pion-nucleon scattering. We require a model which contains the pion-nucleon pole term, both because such a term has long been known to be physically present in the amplitude and because this is how we will be able to extract information on the nucleon itself from the model. We believe we should begin with the spin-isospin channel which is dominant at low energies, the $`P_{33}`$ channel. In this channel, we assume that the dominant physics arises from the crossed nucleon pole, Fig. 1b, and the direct $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ production, Fig. 1c, utilized as the lowest order driving terms of the theory. The model is then conceptually the same as the Cloudy Bag Model . Expressions for the scattering amplitude within this model have been derived in  and . We find here that a more complete treatment of the renormalization of the nucleon mass and the pion-nucleon coupling constant provides a new result which when fit to the data gives qualitatively different results from these previous works.

The model is formulated in such a way as to produce an interesting piece of information concerning the structure of the nucleon and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The physical picture of the nucleon that underlies the model is that there is a core composed of the valence quarks surrounded by a mesonic cloud. Within the model, one can calculate the mass of a baryon in the absence of the coupling to the mesons. This mass, here referred to alternately as the bare mass or unrenormalized mass, is a property of the valence quarks only. Symmetry arguments should apply well to the valence quarks, which we assume to have a reasonably simple structure, and not so well to the physical particles, given we find they have significant mesonic cloud contributions. Thus the process of modeling the mesonic cloud and removing its contribution to baryonic properties can provide insight into the simpler valence quark structure.

We here address the question, given the model interaction, how can one best solve for elastic pion-nucleon scattering. There is a second important question which we do not address. How does one generate the underlying model of the pion-nucleon interaction from meson-quark or quark-quark interactions. For example, in the Cloudy Bag Model , the pion-nucleon coupling is generated by coupling the pion to the valence quarks at the surface of an MIT bag  in such a way as to preserve chiral symmetry. Such a model is of the type we envision underlying this work. The underlying model of the coupling produces the form factor for the $`\pi +NN,\mathrm{\Delta }`$ interactions. Pion nucleon scattering does not seem to be sensitive to the exact function chosen for the form factor, so we defer discussion of the source of the pion-nucleon coupling as a separate problem, and treat the form factor as a phenomenological quantity whose range is to be determined from data.

The formalism developed here has a finite mass target, uses invariant phase space and normalizations, and works with the invariant amplitude that is free of kinematic singularities. In Sec. II we provide expressions for quantities needed to develop the model — the model interaction, the approximate crossing relation used, and the pole terms of the pion-nucleon scattering amplitude. In Sec. III we review separately the Chew-Low model, where the coupling is $`\pi +NN`$, and the Lee model, where the coupling is $`\pi +N\mathrm{\Delta }`$. A relationship between the models is found which leads us in Sec. IV to a new solution for the scattering amplitude when both interactions are present. In Sec. V, the parameters of the model are fit to the $`P_{33}`$ pion-nucleon phase shifts. In the Conclusions, the results of this work are summarized and thoughts on future work are presented.

## II Model interaction and crossing relation

We first need a model interaction, an approximate crossing relation, and expressions for the pole terms in the pion-nucleon scattering amplitude. For pion-nucleon scattering, we propose using an interaction composed of three point functions, $`\pi +NN^{}`$. In the $`P_{33}`$ channel that we will examine here, the dominate physics arises from $`N^{}=N`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Anticipating future applications to the higher baryon resonances, we will for now treat $`N^{}`$ as any baryon state. A three point coupling is given by

$$H_I^i=\frac{d^3p^{}}{2E_p^{}}\frac{d^3p}{2E_p}\frac{d^3k}{2\omega _k}𝐩^{}|H_I^i|𝐩,𝐤b_𝐩^{}^ib^^N𝐩a_𝐤+h.c.$$
(1)
with $`i`$ labeling the the $`N^{}`$ baryon, $`b_𝐩^{}^i`$ the creation operator for baryon $`i`$ with momentum $`𝐩^{}`$, $`b_𝐩^^N`$ the destruction operator for a nucleon with momentum $`𝐩`$, $`a_𝐤`$ the destruction operator for a pion of momentum $`𝐤`$, and $`h.c.`$ the hermitian conjugate of the previous term. We reintroduce spin and isospin labels, and use Lorenz covariance, rotational invariance, and isospin invariance, to write the interaction as

$`𝐩^{},j,j_3,\tau ,\tau _3|H_I^i|𝐩,s_3^N,\tau _3^N;𝐤,\tau _3^\pi `$ $`=`$ $`2E_p^{}\delta (𝐩^{}𝐩𝐤)`$ (3)
$`if_{j\tau \mathrm{}}^iC({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},\tau _3^N,1,\tau _3^\pi ;\tau ,\tau _3)𝒴_{\mathrm{}}^{jj_3}(\theta _q,\varphi _q)^{}q^{\mathrm{}}v_{\mathrm{}}^{j\tau }(q^2),`$
with $`j`$ and $`\tau `$ the spin and isospin of the $`N^{}`$ and where

$$𝒴_{\mathrm{}}^{jj_3}(\theta _q,\varphi _q)=\underset{m,s_3^N}{}C(\mathrm{},m,\frac{1}{2},s_3^N;jj_3)Y_\mathrm{}m(\theta _q,\varphi _q).$$
(4)
Note the factor $`2E_p^{}`$ which accompanies the momentum conserving $`\delta `$-function to insure covariance, and the explicit constructions introduced to maintain rotational invariance and isospin invariance. For our model we take two terms in the interaction, one that couples to a particle with $`j=1/2`$, $`\tau =1/2`$ and one with $`j=3/2`$, $`\tau =3/2`$, providing a coupling to the nucleon and to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ respectively. The momentum $`q`$ is defined as the momentum of the pion in the reference frame where the total momentum is zero, $`𝐩+𝐤=0`$. The factor $`q^{\mathrm{}}`$ is incorporated to produce the correct threshold behavior. For the coupling $`\pi +NN`$, this may be written in a more familiar form by using

$$q\underset{m,s_3^N}{}C(1,m,\frac{1}{2},s_3^N;\frac{1}{2},j_3)Y_\mathrm{}m^{}(\theta _q,\varphi _q)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi }}\frac{1}{2},j_3|\stackrel{}{\sigma }𝐪|s_3^n.$$
(5)
The construction given in Eq. 3 is general and can be used for any value of the spin $`j`$ and isospin $`\tau `$ of the intermediate baryon. The construction of the state $`|𝐩,s_3^N;𝐤`$ and the definition of the state $`|𝐪,s_3^N`$ including Wigner spin precession, which we do not include here, is described in detail in Ref.  for a spin 1/2 particle and in  for particles of arbitrary spin.

The pion-nucleon amplitude will contain the direct pion-nucleon pole, Fig. 1a, given by

$$q^{}|t_\alpha ^{pole}|q=\delta _{\alpha ,1}\lambda _\alpha \frac{v__N(q^{})v__N(q)}{W_qm__N}$$
(6)
The subscript $`\alpha `$ is an abbreviation for $`j,\tau ,\mathrm{}`$. The residue of the nucleon pole term in the $`P_{11}`$ channel is related to the conventional definition of the pion-nucleon coupling constant $`f_{_{\pi NN}}^2`$ by $`\lambda _1=12(m__N/m_\pi )f_{_{\pi NN}}^2`$.

In addition to the the direct nucleon pole term, there will also be crossed nucleon pole terms, Fig. 1b. These crossed nucleon pole terms are $`U`$-channel singularities while the direct term is an $`S`$-channel singularity. In dynamic models, it is very difficult  to work with the crossed channels as $`U`$-channels. We will here approximate the $`U`$-channel crossed terms by an $`S`$-channel singularity. The simplest approximation is

$$q|t_\alpha (W+2m__N)|q^{}=\underset{\beta }{}A_{\alpha \beta }q^{}|t_\beta (W)|q,$$
(7)
with the crossing matrix given by

$$A_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{9}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 8& 8& 16\\ 2& 1& 8& 4\\ 2& 8& 1& 4\\ 4& 4& 4& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(8)
If we apply relationship 7 to the direct nucleon pole term in Eq. 6 to generate the crossed nucleon pole terms, we find for the total

$`q^{}|t_\alpha ^{pole}|q=\delta _{\alpha 1}\lambda _\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{q^{}qv__N(q^{})v__N(q)}{W_qm__N}}`$ $`+`$ $`\lambda _\alpha ^x{\displaystyle \frac{q^{}qv__N(q^{})v__N(q)}{W_q+m__N}},`$ (9)
with $`\lambda _\alpha ^x`$ given by $`\{1/9,2/9,2/9,4/9\}\lambda _1`$, for $`\alpha =1,4`$ representing the $`P_{11}`$, $`P_{13}`$. $`P_{31}`$, and $`P_{33}`$ channels.

## III Chew-Low and Lee models

Before investigating the model with both couplings, $`\pi +NN`$ and $`\pi +N\mathrm{\Delta }`$, we examine models where only one coupling is present. By investigating these, particularly how each model handles the renormalization of the nucleon mass, we will learn how to solve the combined model. The Lee model  consists of choosing an interaction of the form $`\pi +N\mathrm{\Delta }`$. We will also need to consider the case where the coupling is $`\pi +NN`$ and thus use $`N^{}`$ to represent either $`N`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The second order diagram is of the form of an energy-dependent separable potential,

$$q^{}|𝒱_\alpha ^{eff}|q=\lambda _\alpha ^{(0)}\frac{q^{}qv__N^{}(q^{})v__N^{}(q)}{W_qm__N^{}^{(0)}},$$
(10)
and serves as a driving term for the linear Lippman-Schwinger equation. We have attached superscript zeros to the coupling constant and the mass of the $`N^{}`$ to remind us that these are not renormalized quantities. We also examine the case where the second order term is of the form of a crossed Lee type interaction. From Eq. 7, this would be

$$q^{}|𝒱_\alpha ^{eff}|q=\lambda _\alpha ^{x(0)}\frac{q^{}qv__N^{}(q^{})v__N^{}(q)}{W_q+2m__Nm__N^{}^{(0)}},$$
(11)
with $`\lambda _\alpha ^{x(0)}`$ calculated from $`\lambda _\alpha ^{(0)}`$ using Eq. 7. Since these are of the form of an energy dependent separable potential, the solution for the scattering matrix follows by inserting the effective potential into the Lippman-Schwinger equation.

$$q^{}|t_\alpha (W_q)|q=q^{}|𝒱_\alpha ^{eff}(W_q)|q+\frac{q^{\prime \prime }dq^{\prime \prime }}{4E_{q^{\prime \prime }}\omega _{q^{\prime \prime }}}\frac{q^{}|𝒱_\alpha ^{eff}(W_q)|q^{\prime \prime }q^{\prime \prime }|t_\alpha (W_q)|q}{W_qW_{q^{\prime \prime }}+i\eta }.$$
(12)
The phase space factor arises from the use of invariant normalizations and working with the invariant amplitude. This equation is also known  as the Kadyshevski equation.

Parameterize $`q^{}|t_\alpha (W_q)|q`$ by

$$q^{}|t_\alpha (W_q)|q=\lambda _\alpha ^{(0)}q^{}qv__N^{}(q^{})v__N^{}(q)/𝒟_\alpha ^L(W_q),$$
(13)
with $`\lambda _\alpha ^{(0)}`$ replaced by $`\lambda _\alpha ^{x(0)}`$ if the driving term is the crossed term, Eq. 11. The result for the denominator function $`𝒟_\alpha ^L(W_q)`$ is, for the direct driving term of Eq. 10,

$$𝒟_\alpha ^L(W_q)=W_qm__N^{}^{(0)}\lambda _\alpha ^{(0)}\frac{q^{\prime \prime 2}dq^{\prime \prime }}{4E_{q^{\prime \prime }}\omega _{q^{\prime \prime }}}\frac{q^{\prime \prime 2}v__N^{}^2(q^{\prime \prime })}{W_qW_{q^{\prime \prime }}+i\eta },$$
(14)
or for the crossed driving term of Eq. 11

$$𝒟_\alpha ^L(W_q)=W_q+2m__Nm__N^{}^{(0)}\lambda _\alpha ^{x(0)}\frac{q^{\prime \prime 2}dq^{\prime \prime }}{4E_{q^{\prime \prime }}\omega _{q^{\prime \prime }}}\frac{q^{\prime \prime 2}v__N^{}^2(q^{\prime \prime })}{W_qW_{q^{\prime \prime }}+i\eta }.$$
(15)
The question we need to address is what happens if the intermediate state, the $`N^{}`$, is actually the nucleon itself. For the remainder of this section, we set $`N^{}=N`$. In this case we would rewrite the results in terms of the physical, i.e. renormalized, nucleon mass. The direct and crossed nucleon pole terms, Eq. 9, arise from a zero of $`𝒟_\alpha ^L(W_q)`$ at $`W_q=m__N`$, or $`𝒟_\alpha ^L(W_q=m__N)=0`$. This gives

$$m__N^{(0)}=m__N\lambda _\alpha ^{(0)}\frac{q^{\prime \prime 2}dq^{\prime \prime }}{4E_{q^{\prime \prime }}\omega _{q^{\prime \prime }}}\frac{q^{\prime \prime 2}v__N^2(q^{\prime \prime })}{m__NW_{q^{\prime \prime }}},$$
(16)
and the same result (with $`\lambda _\alpha ^{(0)}`$ replaced by $`\lambda _\alpha ^{x(0)}`$) for the crossed driving term. If we substitute Eq. 16 into Eqs. 14 and 15 to eliminate the unrenormalized nucleon mass, we find

$$𝒟_\alpha ^L(W_q)=W_qm__N(W_qm__N)\lambda _\alpha ^{(0)}\frac{q^{\prime \prime 2}dq^{\prime \prime }}{4E_{q^{\prime \prime }}\omega _{q^{\prime \prime }}}\frac{q^{\prime \prime 2}v__N^2(q^{\prime \prime })}{(W_{q^{\prime \prime }}m__N)(W_qW_{q^{\prime \prime }}+i\eta }),$$
(17)
for the direct driving term, and for the crossed driving term find

$$𝒟_\alpha ^L(W_q)=W_q+m__N(W_qm__N)\lambda _\alpha ^{(0)}\frac{q^{\prime \prime 2}dq^{\prime \prime }}{4E_{q^{\prime \prime }}\omega _{q^{\prime \prime }}}\frac{q^{\prime \prime 2}v__N^2(q^{\prime \prime })}{(W_{q^{\prime \prime }}m__N)(W_qW_{q^{\prime \prime }}+i\eta }).$$
(18)
If we now make a change in notation, and define a coupling constant, $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_\alpha ^{(0)}`$, by

$$\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_\alpha ^{(0)}=\{\begin{array}{c}\lambda _\alpha ^{(0)}\\ \lambda _\alpha ^{x(0)}\end{array},$$
(19)
then both cases, the direct and crossed driving terms, can be accommodated by using Eq. 17 with $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_\alpha ^{(0)}`$ as the coupling constant. The minus that arises from the crossed diagram propagator has been absorbed into the coupling constant for notational convenience.

Finally, we identify the residue of the nucleon pole as the renormalized coupling constant, $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_\alpha `$. This implies

$$\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_\alpha }\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_\alpha ^{(0)}}=\frac{q^{\prime \prime }dq^{\prime \prime }}{4E_{q^{\prime \prime }}\omega _{q^{\prime \prime }}}\frac{q^{\prime \prime 2}v(q^{\prime \prime })}{(W_{q^{\prime \prime }}m__N)^2}.$$
(20)
Substituting this back into Eqs. 13 and 17 gives the scattering matrix,

$$q^{}|t_\alpha |q=\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_\alpha q^{}qv__N(q^{})v__N(q)/𝒟_\alpha ^{CL}(W_q),$$
(21)
with $`𝒟_\alpha ^{CL}(W_q)`$ given by

$$𝒟_\alpha ^{CL}(W_q)=(W_qm__N)\left(1\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_\alpha (W_qm__N)\frac{q^{\prime \prime 2}dq^{\prime \prime }}{4E_{q^{\prime \prime }}\omega _{q^{\prime \prime }}}\frac{1}{(W_{q^{\prime \prime }}m__N)^2}\frac{q^{\prime \prime 2}v__N^2(q^{\prime \prime })}{W_qW_{q^{\prime \prime }}+i\eta }\right).$$
(22)
This is the result for the Chew-Low model  in the no crossing approximation generalized for a finite nucleon mass. What we have found is that the Lee model, Eq. 10, and its crossed generalization, Eq. 11, are equivalent to the Chew-Low model if the intermediate state in the Lee model is taken to be the nucleon. The relation of the Lee model to the Chew-Low model with a direct driving term was first noticed in Ref. . The generalization here to the crossed driving term is important as it will be needed in the next section. The Lee models, direct and crossed, are written naturally in terms of the unrenormalized mass and coupling constant while the Chew-Low result is the equivalent written in terms of renormalized quantities.

It is interesting to note that the two Lee models, direct and crossed, differ in form when written in terms of unrenormalized quantities, but produce the same algebraic results when written in terms of renormalized quantities. Even when written in terms of renormalized quantities, however, the direct and crossed models are not equivalent. For the crossed driving term, the coupling constant $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_\alpha `$ is negative; it has been redefined to absorb the minus sign from the crossed propagator for the purpose of giving an algebraic similarity of the two models.

The renormalization of the nucleon mass, however, is the same for the two models when written in terms of the coupling constants $`\lambda _\alpha ^{(0)}`$ or $`\lambda _\alpha ^{x(0)}`$. This is important as this relation maintains for both cases the physical requirement that $`m__N^{(0)}>m_N`$, i.e. the addition of a degree of freedom, here the pion-nucleon channel, lowers the energy of a state.

## IV Combined Model

We now return to the question of solving for the scattering amplitude for an interaction which contains both a $`\pi +NN`$ and a $`\pi +N\mathrm{\Delta }`$. We limit the problem to the “no crossing” approximation. This approximation includes crossed terms through second order and their iterates. It is best understood in terms of the Low equation  where crossing symmetry is manifest. We can understand why dropping the crossed term is a reasonable approximation, even though its contribution  to the scattering is not negligible. Examine the analytic structure of the pion-nucleon amplitude in the complex $`W_q`$ plane. We picture this structure in Fig. 2, where we have employed the approximate crossing relation of Eq. 7. The no crossing approximation that we are using sets the left-hand cut to zero and compensates by increasing the residue of the nucleon pole. The physics we are examining is given by the scattering amplitude evaluated with the complex energy approaching the right-hand cut from above. In this region, the energy dependence of the actual nucleon pole term plus the crossing cut can be reasonably approximated by a pole with a modified residue. This approach does, however, preclude the use of the physical pion-nucleon coupling constant in the model.

We begin with a combination of Lee model driving terms, Eqs. 10 and 11. In the no crossing approximation, the scattering amplitude for a single interaction requires the solution of a linear equation. The solution for the scattering amplitude for an interaction which is the sum of the two terms is also a linear equation. In this work we will treat the dominant $`P_{33}`$ channel. The model combines the diagrams of Fig. 1b and Fig. 1c, with unrenormalized couplings and masses, as the driving terms. We believe this to be the dominant physics in the $`P_{33}`$ channel.

For the $`P_{33}`$ channel, the driving term for the combined model is

$$q^{}|𝒱^{eff}(W)|q=\lambda _N^{(0)}\frac{q^{}qv__N(q^{})v__N(q)}{W_q+2m__Nm__N^{(0)}}+\lambda _\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)}\frac{q^{}qv__\mathrm{\Delta }(q^{})v__\mathrm{\Delta }(q)}{W_qm__\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)}},$$
(23)
where we have dropped the spin-isospin index $`\alpha `$ with the understanding that we are addressing specifically the $`P_{33}`$ channel. The algebra simplifies if we write the effective potential, Eq. 23, as

$$q^{}|𝒱^{eff}|q=\underset{i,j}{}v_i(q^{})q^{}\left(\underset{k}{}G_{ik}^{(0)}(W)\lambda _{kj}^{(0)}\right)v_j(q)q$$
(24)
with $`i=1,2`$ representing $`N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ respectively, and

$$G_{ij}^{(0)}\left(\begin{array}{cc}(W+2m__Nm__N^{(0)})^1& 0\\ 0& (Wm_\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)})^1\end{array}\right),$$
(25)
and

$$\lambda _{ij}=\delta _{ij}\lambda _i^{(0)}.$$
(26)
Defining the T-matrix as

$$q^{}|t(W)|q=\underset{i,j}{}v_i(q^{})q^{}\tau _{ij}(W)v_j(q)q,$$
(27)
and inserting this and Eq. 24 into the Lippman-Schwinger equation, Eq. 12, gives a $`2\times 2`$ matrix equation,

$$\left\{[G^{(0)}(W)]^1\lambda \epsilon (W)\right\}\tau (W)=\lambda $$
(28)
where inverting $`G^{(0)}(W)`$ is trivial since it is diagonal, and $`\epsilon (W)`$ is defined by

$$\epsilon _{ij}(W)\frac{q^{\prime \prime 2}dq^{\prime \prime }}{4\omega _{q^{\prime \prime }}E_{q^{\prime \prime }}}\frac{q^{\prime \prime 2}v_i(q^{\prime \prime })v_j(q^{\prime \prime })}{WW_{q^{\prime \prime }}+i\eta }.$$
(29)
The matrix $`\tau _{ij}(W)`$ is given explicitly by

$`\tau _{ij}(W)`$ (30)
$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\lambda __N^{(0)}[Wm_\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)}\lambda _\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)}\epsilon _{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}(W)]& \lambda _\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)}\lambda __N^{(0)}\epsilon _{\mathrm{\Delta }N}(W)\\ \lambda __N^{(0)}\lambda _\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)}\epsilon _{N\mathrm{\Delta }}(W)& \lambda _\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)}[W+2m__Nm__N^{(0)}\lambda __N^{(0)}\epsilon _{_{NN}}(W)]\end{array}\right)/𝒟(W),`$ (31)
with

$`𝒟(W)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(Wm_\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)}\lambda _\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)}\epsilon _{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}(W)\right)\left(W+2m__Nm__N^{(0)}\lambda __N^{(0)}\epsilon _{_{NN}}(W)\right)`$ (32)
$``$ $`\lambda _\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)}\lambda __N^{(0)}\epsilon _{N\mathrm{\Delta }}(W)\epsilon _{\mathrm{\Delta }N}(W).`$ (33)
We may remove the unrenormalized nucleon mass as a parameter by fixing the location of the nucleon pole in the scattering amplitude at its physical value. The nucleon pole occurs when $`𝒟(W=m__N)=0`$, which gives

$$m__N^{(0)}=m__N\lambda __N^{(0)}\epsilon _{_{NN}}(m__N)\frac{\lambda __N^{(0)}\lambda _\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)}/,\epsilon _{N\mathrm{\Delta }}\epsilon _{\mathrm{\Delta }N}}{m__Nm_\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)}\lambda _\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)}\epsilon _{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}(m__N)}.$$
(34)
Algebraically eliminating the unrenormalized nucleon mass by substituting Eq. 34 into Eqs. 31 and 33 does not yield any simplification. We thus adopt the numerical approach of using Eq. 34 to calculate numerically the value of $`m__N^{(0)}`$ and then use this value in calculating Eqs. 31 and 33. We also do not find any simple expression for the renormalized pion-nucleon coupling constant. Rather than using complicated algebraic expressions, we calculate the renormalized coupling constant numerically by calculating the scattering amplitude near the nucleon pole.

In Refs.  approximate expressions for the scattering amplitude arising from the same Hamiltonian as is being used here were derived. In Ref. , the Chew series  was summed approximately, while in Ref.  a matrix $`N/D`$ approach was adopted. If we ignore the coupling to inelastic channels (set $`\widehat{\eta }=1`$ in Ref. ), these two approaches produced identically the same answer, something that seems to have been overlooked probably because of typos in both manuscripts. The question is how does this earlier result differ from that found here? The approximate summation of the Chew series in Ref.  is equivalent to the use here of the approximate crossing relation given in Eq. 7. Although the derivations are different, both produce the same approximation of the $`U`$-channel singularity as an $`S`$-channel singularity, so this is not a source of the resulting differences.

However, there are two differences between the earlier works and our result. The first is simply kinematic. The invariant phase space used here produces a factor $`2E_{q^{\prime \prime }}`$ in the intermediate integration that is absent in the earlier work. Since the earlier works treat the form factor $`v__N(q)`$ phenomenologically and adjust it to fit data, the form factor in these works contains implicitly this extra factor. This is true of a number of early models . Not explicitly including this phase space factor means that it is implicitly included in the definition of $`v__N(q)`$. The range parameter associated with $`v__N(q)`$ would then necessarily be constrained to be near the nucleon mass, or approximately 1 GeV/c.

In addition, the earlier models treat the renormalization of the nucleon mass differently than is done here. In the previous models, the renormalization of the nucleon mass would be given by Eq. 16; the last term in Eq. 34 would be absent. Renormalization is most easily understood in the absence of crossing. Think of a model for the $`P_{11}`$ channel with a direct nucleon pole and a Roper resonance, the $`N^{}(1440)`$. The physical nucleon would be a linear combination of the bare nucleon, the bare Roper, the bare nucleon plus a pion cloud, and the Roper plus a pion cloud. The mass renormalization would necessarily depend on the coupling constant $`\lambda __N^{}^{(0)}`$ and the form factor $`v__N^{}(q)`$. The residue of the nucleon pole must also contain terms with $`v__N^{}(q)`$ to reflect that the physical nucleon wave function contains an admixture of $`N^{}`$. Since Eq. 16 is independent of $`\lambda __N^{}^{(0)}`$ and $`v__N^{}(q)`$, it cannot be a complete and correct description of the mass renormalization. The $`P_{33}`$ channel is more subtle. In a complete model, the crossed nucleon pole term must have a physical nucleon with a mass renormalization that is identical to the renormalization in the direct nucleon pole term. It is through the crossed nucleon pole term that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance enters the mass renormalization. The underlying physics is that the nucleon contains a pion cloud plus bare delta coupled to $`j=1/2`$ component. The additional terms included in the mass renormalization in this work produce a more physical, more complete, and more complex model of the nucleon. However, as can easily be seen  in the simple Chew-Low model, the renormalization of the nucleon mass and coupling constant will only be independent of the spin-isospin channel if the model is fully crossing symmetric. Thus a definitive understanding of mass renormalization awaits the construction of such a model.

## V Results

These results, Eqs. 27, 31, 33, and 34, are applied to elastic pion-nucleon scattering in the dominant $`P_{33}`$ channel. First, an extension of the model is to be made. For separable potential models , the Chew-Low model , and the Lee model , the coupling of the pion-nucleon channel to inelastic meson-production channels was found to be significant. In both cases, $`N/D`$ arguments were used to incorporate into the model the effect of this coupling without having to model explicitly the inelastic channels. Since our model is equivalent to an energy-dependent potential model, the arguments from the original work  apply. The on-shell t-matrix in channel $`\alpha `$ is parameterized as

$$q|t_\alpha (W_q)|q=\frac{4\mathrm{}^2W_q}{\pi q}\eta _\alpha \mathrm{sin}\delta _\alpha e^{i\delta _\alpha }.$$
(35)
To include the effects of coupling to inelastic channels, the integral $`\epsilon _{ij}(W)`$ in Eq. 29 is to be replaced by

$$\epsilon _{ij}(W)\frac{q^{\prime \prime 2}dq^{\prime \prime }}{4\omega _{q^{\prime \prime }}E_{q^{\prime \prime }}}\frac{1}{\eta (q^{\prime \prime })}\frac{q^{\prime \prime 2}v_i(q^{\prime \prime })v_j(q^{\prime \prime })}{WW_{q^{\prime \prime }}+i\eta }.$$
(36)
The change is the inclusion in the integral of $`\eta (q)^1`$, where $`\eta (q)`$ is defined by

$$\eta (q)\frac{\sigma _{in}(q)}{\sigma _{tot}(q)},$$
(37)
with $`\sigma _{in}(q)`$ ($`\sigma _{tot}(q)`$) the measured inelastic cross section (total cross section) in channel $`\alpha `$. The most general form of a potential which leads to this result is given in  while for the Lee model, this form results  from the doorway concept — the system couples only to the inelastic channels by first proceeding through a resonant state. Unitarity in the presence of inelastic channels as embodied in Eq. 35 is identically satisfied by the use of Eq. 36.

We assume that the form factor for coupling to the nucleon and to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are identical. We choose

$$v__N(q)=v_\mathrm{\Delta }(q)=v(q)=e^{q^2/\beta ^2}.$$
(38)
The identity of these form factors follows from the assumption that the bare nucleon and the bare $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are composed of valence quarks with the same spatial structure, differing only in their spin-isospin structure. The selection of a Gaussian as the functional form could be motivated by a constituent quark model . However, previous work has indicated little sensitivity to the specific function chosen for the form factor. It is best to view this simply as a choice of a convenient function that provides a cutoff with a range parameter to be determined by the data.

Before examining the combined model, we first examine results from the Chew-Low model and the Lee model separately. This will help us to understand the results that emerge from the combined model. Once the coupling to the inelastic channels has been incorporated into the Chew-Low model, it produces results  which are an excellent reproduction of the data. We depict this in Fig. 3 where we plot the phase of the scattering amplitude $`\delta _{33}(q)`$, Eq. 35, versus the center-of-momentum momentum $`q`$. The dots are the data from Ref.  and the solid curve is the result of the Chew-Low model. This two parameter, a coupling constant and a range for the form factor, model not only fits well the region dominated by the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`q`$ 300 MeV/c but continues to fit well for several hundred MeV above this $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ region. The data in the region from threshold to $`q=`$ 300 MeV/c is determined by three parameters — the position and the width of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ and the behavior of the phase $`\delta _{33}`$ as it approaches zero. The Chew-Low model, generalized to include the coupling to inelastic channels, naturally reproduces with two parameters the three parameters which characterize the data.

The difficulty with the Chew-Low model is that it does not contain a quark $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ state and the excellent fit results  from a cutoff given by $`\beta =`$ 2285 MeV/c. This is a much higher momentum cutoff than is indicated by any other data. Earlier  applications of the Chew-Low model did not include the nucleon phase space factor and thus they gave $`\beta `$ 1 GeV, but this was because the nucleon phase space had been implicitly contained in the definition of the form factor in these works.

The Lee model alone is not expected to fit well the data. This is because the low-energy data is dominated by the nucleon pole and the scattering amplitude from this model does not contain this pole. It has been pointed out  that the data can indeed be fit but that this requires a factor of $`\omega _q^{1/2}`$ in the form factor, i.e. an artificially low momentum cutoff. The best fit for the Lee model is shown as the dashed line in Fig. 3. In order to better understand this result, we plot in Fig. 4 the quantity $`q^3\mathrm{cot}\delta /(W_qm__N)`$. This quantity removes the $`q^3`$ threshold behavior and also removes the energy dependence $`(W_qm__N)^1`$ induced by the nucleon pole. The solid curve in Fig. 4 is again the Chew-Low curve. This curves demonstrates better the quality of the fit for $`q`$ 300 MeV, and emphasizes more the difference between the data and the model at the higher energies. The dashed curve in Fig. 4 is the best fit results for the Lee model. This demonstrates that this model is able to fit the position and the width of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ but not the data below and above the resonance. The fit presented here is a compromise at fitting reasonably the data both below and above the resonance. One can fit well the data below the resonance, for example, but then the fit just above the resonance, $`q`$ 200 MeV becomes very poor. This is even though the model has three free parameters — the coupling constant, the form factor cutoff range, and the bare mass of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The range of the form factor for the fit presented is $`\beta =`$ 400 MeV/c.

The question that these results present is how can a model which combines the two interactions, $`\pi +NN,\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$, be accommodated by the data? The answer is given in Fig. 5 where we present four curves which are all reasonable fits to the data. The curves correspond to four values of the cutoff parameter, $`\beta =`$ 400, 500, 800, and 1100 MeV/c. These are four values from the continuum set of values of $`\beta `$ which produce good fits to the data. The values for the parameters of the model that correspond to these values of $`\beta `$ are given in Table I.

As the Chew-Low model already reproduces well the data, we find a continuum of solutions for the combined model. The combined model contains four free parameters, the range of the form factor, two coupling constants, and the bare mass of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The data is able to fix three out of the four parameters, but not all four. In Fig. 6 we again present the quantity $`q^3\mathrm{cot}\delta /(W_qm__N)`$. We see that the fits are excellent for $`q`$ 300 MeV/c. Above this region, we do not require an exact fit to the phase shifts. Comparing Figs. 4 and 6 we see that the curves for the combined model with $`\beta =`$ 400 MeV/c and $`\beta =`$ 1100 MeV/c are inferior to the Chew-Low model. In this case we have found a local minimum as the true minimum would be to set the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ coupling to zero and use the Chew-Low results.

We believe Fig. 6 to be somewhat misleading. Above the the resonance, the $`P_{33}`$ amplitude is quite small and does not contribute significantly to pion-nucleon scattering. This is illustrated in Fig. 7 where we plot the total elastic cross section, $`\sigma _e\mathrm{}^{tot}`$. The four curves for the four values of $`\beta `$ are plotted, but because they differ only by an amount that is about a line width, they are hard to distinguish. The lower limit on $`\beta `$ of 400 MeV/c is firm. Going lower than this gives results which are not compatible with the data for $`q`$ 300 MeV/c. Our choice of an upper limit of 1100 MeV/c is not so firm. If we were to include only data below 300 MeV/c then excellent fits would result for $`\beta `$ extending all the way up to the Chew-Low results of 2250 MeV/c. The upper limit of 1100 MeV/c results from requiring a fit in the region of $`q`$ 500 MeV/c.

We are fitting phase shifts which are not data themselves, but parameters extracted from data. This prohibits a statistical analysis of what is an acceptable fit. However, the results given in Ref.  indicate that the phases above $`q=`$ 300 MeV/c are well determined so we include a criteria of a reasonable fit to these data, where we define reasonable by making a judgment from the results in Figs. 5 and 6. Allowing $`\beta `$ to be larger than 1100 MeV/c gives curves which are significantly further away from the data in the region $`q`$ 500 MeV/c.

Another consideration is that there are theoretical systematic errors. The assumption we have made for the underlying interaction does not include a small four-point interaction which might be important for $`q`$ 400 MeV/c. We have assumed an infinite nucleon mass form for the crossed driving terms; there might be small corrections to this in this region. We have used the no crossing approximation assuming that increasing the residue of the nucleon pole term would compensate. This is true over a limited momentum region, and we do not know how accurately and over what region this is valid. Thus a value for $`\beta `$ greater than 1100 MeV/c cannot be absolutely excluded.

What is certain is that the data in the $`P_{33}`$ channel is not sufficient to uniquely determine the parameters of the model. This data will fix three of the parameters as a function of a fourth. We find, if we impose a fit to the phase shifts in the region near $`q=`$ 400 MeV/c, $`\beta =750\pm 350`$ MeV/c. The same criteria would also allow the Chew-Low model as a satisfactory fit to the data. The values of the unrenormalized coupling constants, $`\lambda __N^{(0)}`$ and $`\lambda _\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)}`$, are depicted in Fig. 7 as a function of the cutoff parameter $`\beta `$. We see that for the larger values of $`\beta `$ the theory is fitting the data with a model that is primarily the Chew-Low model; the small differences between the Chew-Low model and the data is being corrected by a small addition of the coupling to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. As the cutoff $`\beta `$ decreases, the balance shifts. At the lowest value of $`\beta `$, 400 MeV/c, the interaction is predominantly the coupling to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ but with a not negligible contribution from the Chew-Low interaction. In Fig. 7 we also depict the renormalized pion-nucleon coupling constant as a function of $`\beta `$. For $`\beta `$ greater than about 500 MeV/c, the renormalized coupling constant is reasonably independent of $`\beta `$. The renormalized coupling constant obtains from an extrapolation of the low energy data to the subthreshold energy $`W_q=m__N`$ and thus should be approximately independent of the model. We find for $`f_{\pi NN}^2`$ the range $`f_{\pi NN}^2=0.142\pm .004`$ if we restrict the range of $`\beta `$ to 500 to 1100 MeV/c. This is larger than the value , $`f_{\pi N}^2=0.076`$, recently extracted from nucleon-nucleon scattering. The difference arises, as mentioned earlier, because we have neglected the left-hand crossing cut depicted in Fig. 2 and compensated by an increase in the coupling constant.

The renormalization constant $`Z_c\lambda __N/\lambda __N^{(0)}`$ gives an indication of whether the mesonic cloud effects can be treated perturbatively. We find $`Z_c=`$ 1.25 for $`\beta =`$ 400 MeV/c and 1.51 for $`\beta =`$ 500 MeV/c. From there it rises rapidly to a value of 2.46 for $`\beta =`$ 1100 MeV/c. Thus a perturbative treatment of the mesonic cloud is not adequate except in the region of low cutoffs below about 500 MeV/c.

Invoking SU(6) would fix the ratio of the coupling constants

$$R=\frac{\lambda _\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)}}{\lambda __N^{(0)}}=\left(\frac{f_{\mathrm{\Delta }N\pi }^{(0)}}{f_{NN\pi }^{(0)}}\right)^2.$$
(39)
This would provide one additional relationship among the parameters and give a unique solution for the model, as was done in . However, none of the solutions which we find has a value of $`R`$ as large as the SU(6) prediction.

Of the continuum of solutions which we find, those with smaller $`\beta `$ are of the same character as the solution proposed in Ref. . These solutions have a relatively low momenta cutoff and describe the physical resonance as predominantly arising from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with small corrections from the Chew-Low interaction.

The model developed here allows one to extract the bare mass of the nucleon and the the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The mass of these baryons in the absence of the coupling to mesons can be associated with the mass of the the state made up only of valence quarks. Symmetry arguments should be more valid for the simple valence quark states than for the more complex physical particles. In Fig. 8 we present the bare mass of the nucleon and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as a function of the cutoff $`\beta `$. The bare mass of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`m_\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)}`$, is one of the parameters fit to the data. The bare mass of the nucleon, $`m__N^{(0)}`$, is calculated from Eq. 34. As $`\beta `$ 0, the bare masses approach the physical masses. The nucleon bare mass rises nearly linearly with $`\beta `$ reaching a value of about 1300 MeV for $`\beta =`$ 1100 MeV/c. On the other hand, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ bare mass rises to a maximum of 1700 MeV for $`\beta `$ near 850 MeV/c and then falls slowly. For $`\beta =`$ 1300 MeV/c the curves cross and the bare $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ mass becomes smaller than the bare mass of the nucleon.

An important number is the difference in the bare masses, $`\delta m^{(0)}=m__N^{(0)}m_\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)}`$. In a quark model this difference would be accounted for by a residual gluon exchange interaction. We find $`\delta m^{(0)}=`$ 330 MeV for $`\beta =`$ 400 MeV/c, as compared to 294 MeV, the difference between the energy at which the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance occurs and the nucleon mass. The mass difference reaches a peak value of 450 MeV for $`\beta =`$ 850 MeV/c and falls to 225 MeV for $`\beta =`$ 1100 MeV/c.

For the Chew-Low model, the incorporation of the coupling to the inelastic channels  enabled the model to fit well the data. We find that setting $`\eta (q)`$ equal to one in Eq. 36, thus neglecting the coupling to inelastic channels, does not prevent excellent fits to the data. Although no longer necessary for a good fit, the coupling to the inelastic channels is a real physical phenomenon and thus including $`\eta (q)`$ is the more physical model. The inclusion of $`\eta (q)`$ generalizes the model effectively to include the coupling of the nucleon and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to any meson-baryon or multi-meson baryon channels without having to model those channels explicitly.

## VI Conclusions

We have examined the question of how to solve for the elastic scattering amplitude when the underlying Hamiltonian is assumed to be of the form $`\pi +NN,\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$. We provide a new solution that is an extension of the work in Refs.  and . The model makes use of the observation that the Chew-Low model in the no crossing approximation, with either a direct or crossed driving term, is a linear model when written in terms of the unrenormalized mass and coupling constant. The new model, although quite similar to the earlier models, differs in the way that it treats the renormalization of the nucleon mass.

The phase shifts in the dominant $`P_{33}`$ channel were fit by the model. However, the data are not capable of uniquely determining the parameters of the model. Good fits to the data are found for a continuum of values for the model parameters. We find the cutoff range for the pion-nucleon form factor to be given by $`\beta =750\pm 350`$ MeV/c. Perturbative treatments of the mesonic cloud are found not to be accurate unless the cutoff parameter is in the low range, $`\beta `$ 500 MeV/c. Of the continuum of solutions found, a subset with a low momentum cutoff and a $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance that is predominantly the bare $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is qualitatively similar to the Cloudy Bag solution . An important feature of the model is its ability to calculate the unrenormalized masses of the nucleon and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. For the nucleon, we find $`m__N^{(0)}=1200\pm 200`$ MeV, and for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`m_\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)}=1500\pm 200`$ MeV. The difference in the bare masses, a quantity which would be accounted for by a residual gluon interaction, is found to be $`\delta m^{(0)}=350\pm 100`$ MeV.

Since the $`P_{33}`$ data alone are not capable of uniquely determining the parameters of the model, a further generalization of the model is needed. If we are to use pion-nucleon scattering to determine the parameters of the model, then the next step would be to include additional spin-isospin channels. A crossing symmetric model would require the simultaneous treatment of the $`P_{11}`$, $`P_{13}`$, $`P_{31}`$, and $`P_{33}`$ channels. Several techniques have been developed  to solve the infinite nucleon mass, crossing symmetric Low equation for the Chew-Low interaction. The model used here is already more complex than the simple Chew-Low model and in order to produce physical results would have to be expanded to include the $`\pi +NN^{}(1440)`$ interaction. Ways of generalizing the formalism of  to this more complex situation are being investigated.

In Ref.  the Lee model was used to fit the D- and F-wave pion-nucleon resonances. The unrenormalized resonant mass were observed  to be more nearly degenerate than the physical resonance energies. The model did not use form factors which were consistent with each other. Each channel had a Gaussian form factor with a range that was independently adjusted. Crossing symmetry was also not included. The model was developed as input for pion-nucleus calculations  and not intended to address the question of the bare masses of the baryons. It will be interesting to see if a more consistent model produces bare masses which remain more nearly degenerate.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported in part by the US Department of Energy under grant DE-FG02-96ER40975. The Southeastern Universities Research Association (SURA) operates the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility under DOE contract DE-AC05-84ER40150.


text:
# Dust emission from 3C radio galaxies and quasars: New ISOBased on observations with the Infrared Space Observatory ISO, an ESA project with instruments funded by ESA Member States (especially France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) and with the participation of ISAS and NASA. observations favour the unified scheme.

## 1 Introduction

From an observational point of view, at least a dozen classes of Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) are discernible. Conceptionally, however, there is widespread agreement that most, if not all, of these different AGNs contain a massive black hole ($`M_{bh}10^6`$ M ) and that accretion onto this provides the main source of energy. It seems natural, therefore, to explain their differences by observational selection effects and thus restrict the large variety of observed object classes. Such selection effects could be differences in the evolutionary phase or the aspect angle which might be important if AGNs are not spherically symmetric objects.

Indeed, already the earliest “maps” of Cygnus A (= 3C 405) revealed the bi-polar morphology of the radio source (Jennison & Das Gupta, 1953). The detection of very bright spots of radio emission (“hot spots”) in this double lobed radio source by Hargrave and Ryle (1974), which can be connected by a straight line through the central galaxy, led Scheuer (1974) and Blandford and Rees (1974) to the concept of “beams” or “jets” which continuously feed the lobes with kinetic energy. In the hot spots this energy is converted partly into relativistic particles which then emit synchrotron radiation while gyrating around magnetic field lines. The jet model for the most luminous radio galaxies (and quasars) is in itself highly non-symmetric. But the full implications for the emitted radiation pattern were only realized in 1977 when Scheuer and Readhead argued that the apparent super-luminal motions detected in the milliarcsecond structure of some quasars (Whitney et al. 1971) are caused by jet velocities close to the speed of light. The Doppler boosting of the radiation from a relativistic jet generates an extremely anisotropic radiation pattern. A few years later, Miller & Antonucci (1983) detected a broad emission line spectrum (i.e. a Seyfert I spectrum) in the polarized (scattered) light from the Seyfert II galaxy NGC 1068, pointing to the possibility that the appearance of thermal radiation from AGNs also might be aspect dependent.

Many proposals have been put forward to unify observationally distinct classes on the basis of different aspect angles (i.e. the angle between the source axis and the line-of-sight). Most notable of these “unified schemes” are those for flat and steep spectrum quasars (Orr & Browne 1982), for Seyfert I and Seyfert II galaxies (Antonucci & Miller 1985), and for BL Lacertae Objects and FRI radio galaxies (Urry & Padovani 1995). Excellent reviews about unified schemes and their limitations have been given by Lawrence (1991) and Antonucci (1993).

The most radical proposal for the unification of radio-loud objects was presented by Barthel (1989) who argued on the basis of the apparent size distribution that the most luminous radio sources (that is the FR II sources in the 3C catalogue) may represent an intrinsically identical class of objects, only differing by the angle between the radio axis and the line-of-sight. At its time, this was rather revolutionary in the sense that two classes with vastly different optical appearance (some of the brightest optical quasars and some of the faintest galaxies known at that time) were postulated to be intrinsically the same.

A necessary ingredient in this radio galaxy/quasar unification is obviously not only Doppler boosting of the non-thermal radiation from the jet but also a non-spherical obscuration (analogous to that inferred for the Seyfert II galaxies). If the jet axis and the plane of an obscuring disk or “torus” (i.e. a disk with height similar to radius and a central hole) are perpendicular to each other, the emergence of (intrinsically) isotropic thermal radiation also can depend on the aspect angle. Support for this view came from the observations of the so-called “alignment effect” in powerful, high-redshift radio galaxies (Chambers et al. 1987, McCarthy et al. 1987), the emission line regions of which are often very extended and closely aligned with the radio axis. This could naturally be understood if a quasar hidden by the torus obscuration from our line-of-sight provides the immense UV luminosity which is required to excite the emission lines.

Conservation of energy implies that the “hidden quasar light” does not just “disappear” in radio galaxies, but is converted into another form of energy. In the most popular model, in which the quasar is hidden by the dusty torus (on the line-of-sight $`A_\mathrm{V}>50`$ mag is needed) the quasar light is absorbed by this torus and the UV-optical radiation is heating the dust. The signature of this warm dust is indeed well detected in the mid- and far-infrared spectra of the brightest quasars (see e.g. Haas et al. 2000). Since the thermal dust radiation (at temperatures between 30 and a few hundred Kelvin) is emitted isotropically, and even the large optical depths required for obscuring the optical light completely could hardly suppress the re-radiation at $`\lambda >20\mu `$m, one expects that the mid- and far-infrared thermal bump should provide an almost orientation-independent measure of the core UV-optical luminosity (see Fig. 1)

Thus, a direct test of the radio galaxies/quasars unification should be possible when selecting a sample of radio sources on the basis of an isotropically emitted radiation (e.g. the low frequency radiation from the extended lobes, which gives a time average of the kinetic jet power ejected from the core) and measuring their thermal core power by observing the dust emission between 10 and 200 $`\mu `$m. If the unified scheme is correct, then the objects classified as a radio “galaxy” must exhibit a mid- and far-infrared bump comparable to those classified as quasars. Note that the infrared radiation could be contaminated by the beamed synchrotron spectrum of flat-spectrum quasars which smoothly runs from the radio to the optical wavelength regimes. Thus the detection of a thermal bump above this synchrotron component is required.

The 3CR sample (Bennett 1962a,1962b) is selected at 178 MHz, a frequency at which most sources are dominated by the very extended radio lobes. This sample, therefore, should suffer from the least possible orientation bias. On the other hand it contains many rather bright quasars which are within the reach of the sensitivity provided by the ISOPHOT instrument on board of the Infrared Space Observatory (ISO) and should therefore provide the best sample to test the radio galaxy/quasar unification by its mid- to far-infrared properties.

First attempts to test the unified scheme along these lines have been undertaken on the basis of the 12 – 100 $`\mu `$m data from the IRAS satellite. Heckman et al. (1992) could detect only 6 out of 117 radio galaxies and quasars in their sample of 3CR sources with $`z>0.3`$ scanned by IRAS. Since this number is too small to derive a meaningful conclusion, they superimposed all IRAS maps of the radio galaxies and quasars, respectively, thus constructing averaged “super-maps” of the IR emission from the two samples. On that basis they conclude that 3C quasars on average are $`4\times `$ more luminous at 60 to 100 $`\mu `$m than a comparable sample of radio galaxies. This is in pronounced contrast with the expectation from the unified scheme. Later a similar conclusion was reached by Hes, Barthel & Hoekstra (1995) who found that only 6% of the 3CR radio galaxies at $`0.3<z<0.8`$ but 37% of the quasars are detected on the finally calibrated IRAS scans. Although this observational conflict with the purely aspect-dependant unified scheme already has triggered several theoretical models to produce a pronounced anisotropy of the mid- and far-infrared emission (e.g. Pier & Krolik, 1992, 1993), it cannot be overlooked that the IRAS results are far from conclusive: First, their wavelength coverage and sensitivity are not sufficient to correct for the contribution by a (beamed) synchrotron component to the FIR spectra of the quasars. Second, the “super-maps” could severely be affected by fine-structure in the galactic cirrus such that one single object located in a cirrus depression could alter the result of the whole sample. Therefore, it seems mandatory to reach sensitivities which suffice to detect individual sources and the shape of their spectral energy distributions up to 200 $`\mu `$m before firm conclusions can be drawn.

Here we report a comparative study of 3CR radio galaxies and quasars which was undertaken as part of the ISO European Central Quasar Programme . The pointed observations with ISOPHOT led to much deeper detection limits than those reached by IRAS. New millimeter observations with the IRAM 30 m telescope help to determine the synchrotron contribution at mid- to far-infrared wavelengths. We observed 10 radio galaxies and 10 quasars. With 13 of these sources detected we are for the first time in the position to compare radio galaxies and quasars on the basis of individual detections, rather than on the basis of sample averaged “super-maps”. Some preliminary results of our study have already been published (Haas et al. 1998).

## 2 Sample selection and data base.

For the ISO European Central Quasar Programme we have selected various samples of quasars. In order to test the unified scheme for powerful radio galaxies and quasars, we did not only select quasars from the 3CR catalogue but included the same number of objects which have been classified as radio galaxies (optical identifications from Spinrad et al. 1985). The basic idea has been to observe pairs of radio galaxies and quasars, the members of which are closely matched in their extended lobe luminosity (as measured at 178 MHz) and redshift in order to keep evolutionary effects on a cosmic time scale in check.

Our original sample contained 16 quasar/galaxy pairs in the redshift range $`0.15<z<2.1`$. When our observations with the chopped photometry mode of ISOPHOT early in the mission led to less satisfactory results, we decided that an optimum observation strategy had first to be developed before the complete sample was observed. In the end only 17 sources of the original sample could be observed with ISOPHOT. For 3C 273, which was contained in our original sample, we found an observation (by H. Smith) in the public domain of the ISO Data Archive. Two more radio galaxies (3C 437, 3C 405) were later included in our list in order to replace other radio galaxies which had dropped out of the visibility zone. Thus our observed sample of 3CR sources contains 10 quasars and 10 radio galaxies, but only 3 of the originally matched pairs. In order to match the remaining galaxies and quasars as closely as possible along the original idea new pairs had to be formed. Note that one original pair (3C368–3C287) has been broken up in this process and we had to join the prominent sources 3C 405 (Cygnus A) and 3C 48 together although their redshift and 178 MHz power are rather different (see Table 1).

### 2.1 ISO Data

The observations were performed with ISOPHOT (Lemke et al. 1996), the photometer on board ISO (Kessler et al. 1996). The observing modes comprise chopped measurements and, adopted in the course of the ISO mission, small raster maps. The on-source integration time was chosen between 16 and 360 s, depending on the source and cirrus brightness, and the detector and filter combination. The apertures used in flux derivation are 23$`\mathrm{}`$ circular for 4.8–25$`\mu `$m (P1, P2 detectors), and 46$`\mathrm{}`$ square for 60–100$`\mu `$m (i.e. when chopping, then only the central pixel of the $`3\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}`$ pixels C100 array is used). For 120–180$`\mu `$m they are 92$`\mathrm{}`$ square in case of maps (where the source is centered on a pixel of the C200 array) and 184$`\mathrm{}`$ square in the case of chopped observations (where the source is centered in the mid of the $`2\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ pixels C200 array).

The data were reduced using the Interactive Analysis tool (PIA V7.3 and V8.1) – details and special refinements of the data analysis are described in Haas et al. (2000). The uncertainty of the absolute calibration is about 30%.

The observations were performed either in chopping mode or by scanning mini-maps (cf. Table 1). For this comparative study it is essential that the different observing modes do not bias the detection statistics. Fortunately, we cannot find any obvious dependence between observing mode and sensitivity: For example, at 60 and 100 $`\mu `$m the only two cases with maps are both on QSOs, but one of them (3C138) remains undetected, while one (3C380) which was not detected in the chopped mode, is now detected using the sensitive raster map (Fig. 2). Although this biases the statistics slightly in favour of quasars, 3C380 is by chance just the one case, where the FIR emission is clearly dominated by non-thermal synchrotron radiation (see below).

Furthermore, detections may be hampered by bright cirrus as well as by cosmic particles hitting the detectors. Again, we cannot find any difference with respect to either galaxies or quasars. This is illustrated for the 60 and 100 $`\mu `$m data:

Fig. 3 (top) shows source flux versus background brightness. Galaxies and quasars are equally well distributed over the range of background brightness. At low background (less than 8.5 MJy/sr) all five sources are detected, two galaxies and three quasars (one being 3C380 with the lowest flux which is seen only on the raster map). At higher background non-detections are frequent. Remarkably, some chopped data (3C 20, 3C4̇7, 3C 368) yielded rather faint flux detections at a background brightness comparable to that underneath 3C 138, while for this source only upper limits could be achieved on the raster maps. Nevertheless, these detections seem reliable since their 60 to 100 $`\mu `$m flux ratio implies a dust temperature well above typical cirrus values.

The fact that a couple of upper limits are at quite high flux levels could be caused by cosmic ray hits. Fig. 4 shows the chopped sequence of 3C 9 and 3C 298, both at the same background level. While the sequence of 3C 298 immediately shows the on–off oscillation pattern typical for a clear source detection, that of 3C 9 is irregular and disturbed. Obviously, increased cosmic rates have limited the detections. We checked that the orbit positions of our galaxy and quasar observations were randomly distributed, and the glitch rates show no significant bias with respect to either galaxies or quasars (Fig. 3, bottom).

### 2.2 New millimeter data

In order to constrain the synchrotron contribution, additional 1.3 mm continuum observations were obtained for 11 sources of our sample (see Table 1). They were carried out in several campaigns between 1996 and 1999 at the IRAM 30 m telescope on Pico Veleta, Spain, using the MPIfR 19 channel bolometer (Kreysa et al. 1998) in standard ON–OFF–OFF–ON beam switching mode. The atmospheric transmission was determined by measurement series at various zenith distances (sky dips); the calibration was established by observations of Uranus. The absolute uncertainty of the 1.3 mm fluxes is estimated to be around 25%.

### 2.3 Supplementary data from the literature

Most of the literature flux values were found in the NED and SIMBAD data bases, in particular those for the IRAS detections. The optical fluxes are mainly compiled in Spinrad et al. (1985). The mm fluxes are measured by Steppe et al. (1988, 1992). Further sub-mm data are found for 3C 405 (Robson et al. 1998) and for 3C 324 (Best et al. 1998).

Special monitoring including the years 1983 of the IRAS measurements and 1996 of the ISO measurements was reported for 3C 273 by Stevens et al. (1998), by Türler et al. (1999) and by Hans Ungerechts (IRAM, private communication). Additionally, monitoring data at millimeter wavelengths are available for 3C 380 from Steppe et al. (1988, 1992).

## 3 Results

### 3.1 Spectral energy distributions

The ISOPHOT flux measurements of the 10 pairs in our sample are listed in Table 1. Sources which have been detected at least at the $`3\sigma `$ level have their 3C number highlighted in bold face. In addition, new IRAM observations at 1300 $`\mu `$m have been obtained for 11 sources, seven of which have been detected. Four of the quasars (3C 47, 3C 48, 3C 273, 3C 298) and the nearby radio galaxy Cygnus A (3C 405) had already been detected by IRAS (see 60 $`\mu `$m fluxes in the last column). Leaving aside the variable quasar 3C 273 (see below) the ISO fluxes are on average $`(25\pm 20)\%`$ fainter than the IRAS fluxes. With eight new detections in the FIR, we increased the detection rate by more than twofold compared to IRAS. However, seven of 20 sources (3 quasars and 4 radio galaxies) remain undetected at all wavelengths to the limits of the ISO observations.

The measured spectral energy distributions (SEDs) are shown in Fig. 5 supplemented by data from the literature. They reveal signatures of two emission components:
(A) Synchrotron emission: For one of the quasars (3C 380) the ISO photometry and the mm flux can be fitted by a power-law $`\nu ^{0.75}`$ which joins smoothly into the radio spectrum (near minimum) of this highly variable source. Obviously, the mid- to far-infrared SED is totally dominated by synchrotron emission from the radio core which exhibits the flattest radio spectrum in our sample. Note that the level of the synchrotron power-law is so high that even a luminous (1011L) dust component could easily be hidden underneath.

In 1983, at the epoch of the IRAS observations, the mid- to far-infrared SED of 3C 273 was entirely dominated by synchrotron emission. However, at the time of the ISO measurments in July 1996 the 60 to 100 $`\mu `$m fluxes of 3C 273 were about 50% lower than measured by IRAS. This low synchrotron activity is consistent with the results of monitoring the source at other wavelengths (see Fig.1 in Stevens et al. 1998 and 1.3 and 3.3 mm monitoring with IRAM by Hans Ungerechts, private communication). The variability alone indicates that the FIR flux of 3C 273 contains a considerable synchrotron contribution, at least during the phases of high flux, like in 1983. Using the mm fluxes in 1996 and a synchrotron spectrum $`\nu ^{1.1}`$ as reference (see Fig. 5), we find that only at the longest wavelengths (170, 180 $`\mu `$m) the ISO measurements are consistent with a pure synchrotron power-law, while the flux values between 60 and 120 $`\mu `$m straddle significantly above that power-law. We attribute this to the presence of thermal dust emission, which only can be detected in 3C 273 when the synchrotron core is in a low state of activity.
(B) Thermal dust emission: In all detected radio galaxies and at least four quasars the mid- to far-infrared SED exhibits a “bump” well in excess of the synchrotron component. We interpret this as signature of emission from dust with temperatures between 30 and several hundred Kelvin as is commonly seen in the infrared SEDs of quasars (e.g. Haas et al. 2000). Modified blackbodies with an emissivity proportional to $`\lambda ^2`$ are fitted to the data. In the cases with good signal/noise ratio the dust emission has to be fitted by more than one single blackbody of a certain temperature (see Fig. 5).

Fortunately, the low synchrotron activity of 3C 273 at the time of the ISO observations enabled the detection of a thermal contribution to the FIR spectrum. In fact, the ISO FIR spectrum between 60 and 100 $`\mu `$m with values around 1100 and 1300 mJy lies well above the extrapolation of the mm-submm spectrum towards the IR: F$`{}_{\nu }{}^{}=354\mathrm{mJy}\times (\nu /\nu _{60})^{1.1}`$ (dashed line in Fig. 5). We take this excess as an indication of the presence of a thermal bump in 3C 273 which contributes roughly 500 mJy at both 60 and 100 $`\mu `$m.

Note that in all seven cases for which we derive only upper limits, these limits still allow for the presence of a stong thermal bump well above the synchrotron component.

### 3.2 Pair-wise comparison of the spectral energy distributions

As outlined above, we intend to test the unified scheme by the comparison of radio galaxy / quasar pairs which are matched both in extended radio luminosity and redshift. Accordingly, our results are presented in a pair-wise manner in Fig. 5. The pairs are sorted according to the redshift of the radio galaxy.

Altogether, seven quasars and six radio galaxies have been detected in at least two ISOPHOT bands. For those five pairs in which both the radio galaxy and the quasar has been detected we indicate the individual multi-temperature black-bodies which best fit the data. The sole exception is 3C 380 for which we cannot find any significant mid- to far-infrared flux above the interpolated synchrotron component. Since also its partner galaxy could not be detected by ISOPHOT this pair remains inconclusive for the purpose of testing the radio galaxy/quasar unification hypothesis. Two more inconclusive pairs are 3C 324 – 3C 287 and 3C 437 – 3C 9, the latter being the pair with the highest redshifts in our sample. In all of these four sources the upper limits are so high that luminous thermal components are still clearly compatible with the data. Thus, our present sample tests the unification hypothesis out to redshifts $`z1.2`$.

The two detected pairs at the highest redshift are 3C 65 – 3C 298 and 3C 368 – 3C 309.1. As will be seen below, it is of high significance for our conclusion that in both pairs the thermal bump in the radio galaxy and in the quasar are of comparable strength. Moreover, all four sources show detections at mid-infrared wavelengths revealing the existence of a hot dust component commonly found in AGNs.

Our sample contains two pairs (3C 325 – 3C 138 and 3C 280 – 3C 286) in which only one of the partners could be detected at 60 and 100 $`\mu `$m. In Fig. 5 we plot the thermal bump of the detected partner underneath the upper limits of the undetected source. This emphazises that the upper limits allow for thermal emission of the same level in both members of the pair. It is, therefore, not astonishing that we find a quasar with its paired galaxy undetected as well as the opposite case.

It should be noted that in our current sample the two pairs at the lowest redshift are the most problematic ones:
The pair 3C 405 – 3C 48 is rather poorly matched in redshift and extended radio power because it was formed essentially out of two loose ends (see sample selection, Section 2, above). Nevertheless, since the radio power of the galaxy 3C 405 (Cygnus A, $`F_{178\mathrm{M}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{z}}=8700`$ Jy) is higher than that of the quasar despite being at more than $`6\times `$ lower redshift, the asymmetries in this pair are balanced and should not bias the full sample.

The pair 3C 20 – 3C 273 is well matched in redshift and extended radio power. While 3C 20 is an archetypical FR II radio galaxy with hot spots of very high surface brightness111The synchrotron spectrum of one of the hot spots in 3C 20 extends even to optical frequencies (Meisenheimer et al. 1997)., the quasar 3C 273 has rather unique properties: Its radio jet of exceptional surface brightness shows a synchrotron spectrum reaching to optical and even X-ray frequencies (Röser et al. 2000). However, even on the most sensitive VLA maps the source appears one-sided with no trace whatsoever of extended radio emission on the side opposite to the jet. Most of the extended radio emission even at low frequencies originates from the very bright hot spot at the termination point of the radio jet. Thus, the flux at 178 MHz does not refer to “lobe” emission alone. On top of that, the core displays a very strong and highly variable synchrotron spectrum which extends to $`\lambda 1\mu `$m. This makes the determination of the thermal FIR emission rather uncertain (see above). We conclude, therefore, that the unique source 3C 273 does not seem ideally suited to investigate the general properties of 3CR sources. In general, it has to be remarked that our sample of 3C quasars contains several flat spectrum quasars, the beamed synchrotron spectra of which extend well into the mid- to far-infrared wavelength region (3C 273, 3C 380, 3C 309.1, and propably 3C 138). As long as the thermal bump from dust emission peaks out well above the synchrotron component this does not affect our comparison. However, it should be noted that – on average – the synchrotron component of the quasars in our sample is more than $`10\times `$ brighter than that in radio galaxies.

## 4 Discussion

The present sample of 3CR radio galaxies and quasars has been selected as pairs of objects which match as close as possible in their extended lobe emission at very low frequency and in redshift. As outlined in the introduction, any unified scheme which regards them as members of the same parent population of objects seen under various aspect angles w.r.t. the radio axis, predicts that the dust emission properties should be identical. This obviously holds only for the sample average. Individual pairs might differ by factors of 10 due to different dust masses and the source geometry (see e.g. the wide variety of the IR spectra of PG quasars, Haas et al. 2000).

There are two ways to test the unification hypothesis:

* The most straightforward test simply compares the detection statistics. According to this test the 3C radio galaxies and quasars in our sample are indistinguishable: Among the 10 pairs we found 5 for which both the quasar and the radio galaxy is detected by ISOPHOT, one with only the quasar, and one with only the radio galaxy being detected. In the remaining 3 pairs we could neither detect the quasar nor the galaxy. Note that all detected sources show a significant signal at least in one of the 60 and 100 $`\mu `$m bands.

If we extend our sample by including the 4 radio galaxy – quasar pairs which have been observed with ISOPHOT by van Bemmel, Barthel & deGrauuw (2000), and have been selected and evaluated along identical lines as ours, we end up with 7 pairs in which both the radio galaxy and the quasar is detected, 3 pairs with only the quasar, and 1 pair with only the radio galaxy being detected. Thus, also the extended sample is in good statistical agreement with the expectation of the unified scheme in its most simple form.

On the other hand, this result is in stark conflict with the results derived from IRAS (Heckman et al. 1992, Hes et al. 1995) which indicate that radio galaxies are about $`4\times `$ fainter at 60 $`\mu `$m than quasars. We therefore perform a second test:

* If the unified scheme is correct, not only the detection statistics (which might be misleading due to varying detection limits, see above) but also the emitted FIR power should be the same for objects of identical core luminosity. If we measure the core power by the kinetic energy which is channeled via the jets into the lobes (that is by the radio power $`\nu F_\nu `$ at $`\nu =178`$MHz) the ratio of the dust to radio emission: $`R_{dr}\nu F_\nu (\mathrm{FIR})/\nu F_\nu (178\mathrm{M}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{z})`$ should be identical for galaxies and quasars.

The top panel of Fig. 6 displays this ratio as a function of redshift for our sample. All detected quasars cluster around values of $`R_{dr}150`$ with a total spread of less than a factor of three (exception: 3C 380 in which we only see a synchrotron component). If we assume that only a tiny fraction of the kinetic power in the jets (on the order of a few percent, see Rawlings & Saunders 1991 and Meisenheimer et al. 1997) is converted into synchrotron radiation at 178 MHz, we find that the kinetic jet power and the luminosity emitted by dust closely agree.

In general, we cannot find any remarkable differences between the distribution of quasars and galaxies – again in agreement with the unified scheme. The only exception is Cygnus A at very low redshift and with unusually high radio power (Barthel & Arnaud 1996) showing $`R_{dr}<10`$. Although the total spread of about a factor of ten in the $`R_{dr}`$ of radio galaxies would be consistent with a spread in FIR luminosities similar to that found in PG quasars (Haas et al. 2000), we note a trend with redshift in the sense that at redshift $`z<0.5`$ the typical $`R_{dr}`$ seems to be 4 times lower than at $`z1`$. We identify two groups: Radio galaxies at $`z<0.5`$ with $`R_{dr}50`$ (sole exception: 3C 67 from the van Bemmel et al. sample) and those at $`z0.8`$ with $`R_{dr}150`$ which is also typical for the quasars. The alternative hypothesis that $`R_{dr}`$ is primarily correlated with radio power is not supported (see bottom panel of Fig. 6) since e.g. the radio galaxies 3C 405, 3C 295, 3C 368, 3C 325 and 3C 65 cover only a factor of 2 in radio power while their $`R_{dr}`$ varies by more than a factor of 30.

The fact that $`R_{dr}`$ correlates better with redshift than with luminosity can be understood if the thermal power of a radio source is primarily controlled by the fueling rate which should be higher at large redshifts when violent mergers have been more frequent than today. The dependance of $`R_{dr}`$ on redshift also provides a natural explanation for the apparent discrepancy between our result (1) and the IRAS results: Counting on the superior sensitivity of the pointed ISOPHOT observations we deliberately biased our sample towards the high-redshift galaxies and quasars in the 3CR sample, while most IRAS samples are dominated by objects at moderate ($`z<0.8`$) or low redshift ($`z<0.3`$, Heckman et al. 1994).

The redshift dependance of the $`R_{dr}`$ in 3C radio galaxies is in intriguing coincidence with the statistical properties of the so-called “alignment effect” between the orientation of extended emission line regions (EELRs) around luminous radio galaxies and their radio axis (Chambers et al. 1987, McCarthy et al. 1987): Good to perfect alignments ($`\mathrm{\Delta }PA|PA(\mathrm{EELR})PA(\mathrm{radio})|<20\mathrm{°}`$) are commonly found in 3C galaxies above $`z=0.6`$ while low redshift radio galaxies show hardly any significant alignment (Baum et al. 1988). The most popular explanation for this finding assumes that the aligned radio galaxies at high redshift contain a quasar core which emits its ionizing UV predominantly along the radio axis. In this interpretation the alignment effect could be used as further independent evidence for the unified scheme. In fact, three of the radio galaxies in our sample (3C 280, 3C 324, 3C 368) have long been known for their perfectly aligned and very extended emission line region ($`D>20`$ kpc). In one of these sources, 3C 368, we find a strong mid- and far-infrared source with a luminosity of $`2\times 10^{13}\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{}}`$; in 3C 324 we can only determine a rather high upper limit which is still compatible with a luminous quasar. Only 3C 280 (which has the smallest EELR of the three) seems to lie at the low end of the $`R_{dr}`$ distribution.

Additionally, our sample contains one radio galaxy, 3C 65, which has been suspected to contain a hidden quasar (Lacy et al. 1995, Simpson et al. 1999). Indeed, together with 3C 351 and the archetypical quasar 3C 48, this radio galaxy exhibits the largest $`R_{dr}`$ in our sample. From the three radio galaxies at $`z>0.8`$ detected with ISOPHOT, only 3C 325 has not been suspected of containing a quasar core on the basis of optical or NIR observations. Unfortunately, our MIR sensitivity for this source does not suffice to draw any conclusions about the presence of warm dust emitting at $`\lambda <30\mu `$m. The same is true for the low-redshift galaxies 3C 20 and 3C 460. On the basis of the present data one cannot exclude the possibility that part of the FIR luminosity is generated by a starburst in the radio galaxy without direct connection to the active core. In fact, one might speculate what fraction of the FIR radiation (from dust at temperature $`<50`$ K) in the other sources of our sample could be attributed to starburst activity in the host galaxy. Better sampled mid-infrared spectral energy distributions or spectroscopic data would be required to settle this issue. If off-nuclear sturbursts play indeed an important role in the overall FIR emission at $`\lambda 60\mu `$m, the significance of the “FIR test” for unified schemes could be considerably weakened.

## 5 Conclusions

New ISOPHOT observations of 10 pairs of radio galaxies and quasars from the 3CR Catalogue between 5 and 180 $`\mu `$m cannot find any statistical difference between the detection rate of radio galaxies and quasars. This is in perfect agreement with the unified scheme proposed by Barthel (1989) which postulates that radio galaxies and quasars are intrinsically identical objects only differing by the angle between the radio axis and the line of sight.

In an attempt to quantify the unification further, we introduce the ratio of the dust to radio emission: $`R_{dr}\nu F_\nu (\mathrm{FIR})/\nu F_\nu (178\mathrm{M}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{z})`$. While for quasars $`R_{dr}`$ scatters by a factor of a few for all redshifts and radio powers, we find a clear trend with redshift for the radio galaxies:

At low redshifts $`z<0.8`$ hardly any of the galaxies reach the high dust-to-radio luminosity ratios $`R_{dr}150`$ typical for the quasars. This is roughly consistent with the conclusion drawn from the IRAS results that radio galaxies are about 4$`\times `$ weaker FIR sources than quasars. At the high redshift end $`z>0.8`$, however, several radio galaxies show thermal dust emission in the mid- and far-infrared which is in every aspect comparable to that of the IR brightest quasars. Beyond any doubt, these sources contain a hidden quasar and thus favour the unified scheme. Since our ISOPHOT sample contains a much higher fraction of high redshift radio galaxies than any other radio/galaxy sample observed before in the FIR, we find for the first time a good agreement with the prediction of the unified scheme.

Interestingly, there exists independent evidence from the “alignment effect” between the extended emission line region around radio galaxies and the radio axis that many of the most luminous radio galaxies at $`z0.6`$ contain a quasar.

On the basis of the current knowledge, we therefore propose the following refinement of Barthel’s unified scheme for luminous radio-sources: At $`z0.7`$ every galaxy with extended radio luminosity $`\nu F_\nu >3\times 10^{36}`$ W contains a quasar. At low redshift, even among the brightest radio galaxies there exist some sources with – compared to the radio power – under-luminous thermal cores. Maybe these “true” radio galaxies suffer from the exhaustion of the circum-nuclear fuel which governs the accretion rate onto the central black hole. The idea that many of today’s massive black holes are starving also finds support in the rapid decline of the density of optically selected quasars between $`z=3`$ and the local universe.

###### Acknowledgements.

It is a pleasure for us to thank Hans Ungerechts at IRAM for providing us with the monitoring fluxes of 3C273. For literature search and photometry NED and SIMBAD data bases were used. The development and operation of ISOPHOT and the Postoperation Phase are supported by MPIA and funds from Deutsches Zentrum für Luft-und Raumfahrt (DLR, formerly DARA). The ISOPHOT Data Centre is supported by DLR with funds from Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, grant No. 50 QI98013. The authors are responsible for the contents of this paper. The Interactive Analysis tool PIA is a joint development by the ESA Astrophysics Division and the ISOPHOT consortium. We thank an anonymous referee for valuable comments which greatly improved the original manuscript.


text:
# 1 The Covariant Quark–Diquark Model

## 1 The Covariant Quark–Diquark Model

In the last few years enormous experimental progress in studying hadronic properties in the few GeV regime has been made that encourages the study of relativistic, explicitly covariant models of baryons. We adopt a Green’s function approach and study the 3-quark correlation function whose poles signal the appearance of bound states, the baryons. To this end, the propagation of a single quark and of two quarks need to be investigated. For single quarks, it has been confirmed by Dyson–Schwinger studies  that they acquire a dynamically generated constituent mass by gluon dressing. Additionally these studies indicate that the quark propagator does not possess poles for real values of its momentum squared and is thus confined. Therefore we parameterize the single quark propagator (in Euclidean space) by

$`S^{(k)}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ip/m_q}{p^2+m_q^2}}f_k\left({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{m_q^2}}\right),`$ (1)
Quarks have a constituent mass $`m_q400`$ MeV. We remark that for setting the dressing function $`f_0=1`$, eq. (1) describes a free quark. Absence of real poles can be achieved by the choices

$`f_1(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{x+1}{x+1i/d}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x+1}{x+1+i/d}}\right\},`$ (2)
$`f_2(x)=1\mathrm{exp}\left[d\left(1+x\right)\right],f_3(x)=\mathrm{tanh}\left[d\left(1+x\right)\left(1+x^{}\right)\right].`$
For the first choice, the free mass pole is shifted to a pair of complex conjugate poles thereby mimicking creation and decay processes of quarks that cancel each other in physical processes. The second choice models the propagator as an entire analytical function, at the expense of an essential singularity at timelike infinity, $`p^2\mathrm{}`$. Applications of this form may be found in ref. . The third form prescribes a pole free form with an asymptotic free particle behavior in all directions of the complex momentum plane. This can be achieved only by adopting a non–analytic dressing function.

Equipped with models for the single quark propagator we investigate the relativistic 3–quark problem. We neglect any three–particle irreducible interaction graphs between the quarks, which defines the well–known Faddeev problem. For the 2–quark correlations, we observe that any two quarks within baryons have to be in a color $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}^c`$ representation and that the gluon exchange between quarks in the representation $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}^c`$ is attractive. Furthermore lattice results indicate strong diquark correlations in the scalar channel . This motivates a separable ansatz for the quark–quark $`t`$–matrix of the form

$$t_{\alpha \gamma ,\beta \delta }^{\text{sep}}(p,q,P)=\chi _{\gamma \alpha }(p)D(P)\overline{\chi }_{\beta \delta }(q)+\chi _{\gamma \alpha }^\mu (p)D^{\mu \nu }(P)\overline{\chi }_{\beta \delta }^\nu (q).$$
(3)
Here, $`P`$ is the total momentum of the incoming and the outgoing quark-quark pair, $`p`$ and $`q`$ are the relative momenta between the quarks. $`\chi _{\alpha \beta }(p)`$ and $`\chi _{\alpha \beta }^\mu (p)`$ are vertex functions of quarks with a scalar and an axialvector diquark, respectively. We parameterize the finite size of the diquark vertices by a dipole form. We take the associated width parameter, that directly influences the proton electric radius, to be of the order 300–400 MeV. The inclusion of axialvector diquarks is the minimal requirement to describe decuplet baryons and, as it turns out later, is crucial for describing the nucleon electromagnetic form factors correctly. For simplicity, the diquark propagators $`D^{[\mu \nu ]}`$ are taken to be free propagators of a spin–0 \[spin–1\] particle multiplied by the dressing functions defined in eq. (2).

Having imposed the separable ansatz (3) the Faddeev equations reduce to a coupled system of Bethe–Salpeter equations describing baryons as bound states of quarks and diquarks which interact by quark exchange. This interaction is by virtue of the color degree of freedom attractive and restores the Pauli principle. For the nucleon these equations reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p^{}}{(2\pi )^4}K(p,p^{},P)\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }^5\\ \mathrm{\Psi }^\mu ^{}\end{array}\right)(p^{},P)}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (4)
The interaction part of the kernel $`K`$,

$`K(p,p^{},P)`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi )^4\delta (pp^{})S^1(p_q)\left(\begin{array}{cc}D^1& 0\\ 0& (D^1)^{\mu ^{}\mu }\end{array}\right)(p_d)+`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\chi S^T(q)\overline{\chi }& \sqrt{3}\chi ^\mu ^{}S^T(q)\overline{\chi }\\ \sqrt{3}\chi S^T(q)\overline{\chi }^\mu & \chi ^\mu ^{}S^T(q)\overline{\chi }^\mu \end{array}\right),`$
is given by the quark exchange (for the definition of the involved momenta see Fig. 1). We have solved these equations without further reduction and thus obtained covariant spinorial wave functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{[\mu ]}`$.

In a study employing free quark and diquark propagators  we calculated the nucleon electromagnetic form factors. Gauge invariance and correct charge and norm were guaranteed by coupling the photon to all possible places in the kernel of the Bethe–Salpeter equation given in eq. (5). The results for the electric form factors (up to momentum transfers of 2.5 GeV2) are in good agreement with the experimental data, nevertheless it turned out to be impossible to obtain a simultaneous correct description of the nucleon magnetic moments and the mass of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ isobar. Due to the free particle thresholds $`m_q>411`$ MeV had to be chosen to obtain a bound $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and these constituent quark masses yielded proton magnetic moments $`\mu _p1.9`$. For lower masses $`m_q=360`$ MeV we found $`\mu _p2.5`$, thus illustrating the necessity to avoid the free–particle poles for the quarks. We found that 20–25 % axialvector correlations (measured by the ratio of the norm contributions stemming from $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu `$) are needed to describe the ratio of proton electric to magnetic form factor in accordance with experiment.

## 2 Production Processes and Quark Confinement

In ref.  we studied the processes $`\gamma pK\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`pppK\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ within the covariant diquark model in impulse approximation. These processes have been investigated experimentally . Assuming for the moment just scalar correlations to be present in $`p`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the impulse approximation for both processes is restricted to diquark spectator graphs of which the handbag–type ones are shown in Fig. 2. A kinematical analysis shows that the momentum $`q`$ of the intermediate quark is far in the timelike domain, thus, using free quarks and diquarks, amplitudes corresponding to the handbag diagrams would show unphysical thresholds. For this reason the dressing functions of eq. (2) have been introduced and the quality of their parameterization of the timelike domain can be assessed by studying the above mentioned production processes.

We solved the Bethe–Salpeter equations for nucleon, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the other octet baryons using the dressed propagators. For the non–analytic form ($`f_3`$) we found a violation of relativistic translation invariance. We calculated the electromagnetic form factors to further constrain model parameters. The formalism shortly described in the previous section had to be adapted to describe gauge–invariantly the photon couplings to quarks and diquarks. For the case of non–analytic propagators we found that the well–known Ball–Chiu construction (see e.g. refs. ) had to be modified in a way that depends on the frame that is used to calculate the form factors. Therefore already at this level it is safe to conclude that non–analytic propagators can be excluded in the search for an effective confinement parameterization due to the problems with relativistic invariance.

Dressing the quark–photon vertices leads to an enhancement of $`\mu _p`$, being close to the experimental value for all choices of the dressing function. The inclusion of 20 % axialvector correlations in the nucleon yields considerable improvements on the ratios $`\mu _p/\mu _n`$, $`G_E/G_M`$ and the values of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ hyperon masses. Therefore we have extended the study of the production processes to impulse approximation diagrams with the quark being spectator. These arise for a non–zero axialvector admixture in the baryon wave function. The results for kaon photoproduction are shown in Fig. 3. Here the most striking observation is the drastic increase of the cross section above threshold for the choice of the entire analytical function $`f_2`$. The latter is enhanced in the timelike region and thus the handbag diagram of figure 2 dominates, yielding completely unphysical results. For the other two choices, $`f_1`$ and $`f_3`$, the handbag diagram yields negligible cross sections compared to a $`t`$–channel $`K`$ exchange diagram. The overestimation of the cross section for the data sets using scalar and axialvector correlations is due to an oversimplified treatment of the kaon–quark vertex . The results for the process $`pppK\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, given in Fig. 4, show similar, unphysical enhancement of the cross section for the choice $`f_2`$ for the dressing function. For the other choices, total cross sections are too small and differential cross sections show a dip which is not seen in experiment. This indicates shortcomings of the impulse approximation, however, as for the form factors, the inclusion of axialvector correlations in the baryons yields considerable improvement.

In summary, a picture of the nucleon including scalar and axialvector diquark correlations together with an effective parameterization of confinement in form of dressing functions with complex conjugate poles seems to be worth further study.

Acknowledgements: The author wants to express his gratitude to the organizers for the invitation and for staging this pleasant workshop. He thanks S. Schmidt for support and his co–workers S. Ahlig, R. Alkofer, C. Fischer, H. Reinhardt, L. v. Smekal and H. Weigel. This work was supported by the DFG (We 1254/4-2 and Schm 1342/3-1) and COSY (4137660).