text:
# Observations of a doubly driven V system probed to a fourth level in laser-cooled rubidium

## I Introduction

The optical properties of coherently prepared atoms have been much studied in recent years. The simplest case is when one transition is resonantly pumped with a strong coherent laser beam and the resulting dressed system probed from a third level in a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, V or cascade configuration. These systems can exhibit electromagnetically-induced transparency (EIT) where quantum interference effects allow a resonant probe beam to propagate without absorption and with greatly-enhanced dispersion . The EIT effect has been exploited in a variety of applications: gain without inversion , ground state cooling of trapped atoms, ultra-slow light-speed propagation , quantum non-demolition measurements  and efficient non-linear optical processes . This has lead to interest in more complex systems involving multiple electromagnetic fields interacting with either a single transition  or with several transitions  . In particular there is now huge interest in exploiting non-linearities in four-level systems with applications in quantum optics  and four-wave mixing .

Four-level systems of various configurations can be excited with different pumping schemes. Several theoretical studies have considered three-level ladder configurations coherently prepared by two strong laser beams . They predict a three-peak spectrum when the lowest or highest of the three levels is probed via a fourth level or monitored by fluorescence. When the two dressing beams are on resonance this spectrum has the form of a Doppler-free three-photon absorption peak situated centrally within an EIT window . More generally, the positions and intensities of the three peaks are functions of the Rabi frequencies and detunings of the two strong beams. The trajectories of the peaks as a function of Rabi frequencies and detunings have been described in doubly dressed analyses . None of these three studies was accompanied by experimental verifications.

In this paper we consider a similar scheme to those of references  but with the two strong pump beams, or coupling beams as we shall call them, connecting a ground or metastable level to two excited levels. The resulting dressed V system can then be probed from another ground or metastable level, as illustrated in Figure 1(a). An experimental realisation in 87Rb cooled in a magneto-optic trap (MOT) is indicated in Figure 1(b). Our interest in this system stems from our current programme of work on the strong cross- and self-phase modulation expected in the N-configuration of Figure 1, and the main aim of this paper is to characterise the weak-probe spectrum of this system. For this task we have to be concerned not only with the behaviour of the ideal four-level model (Figure 1(a)) but also with light shifts due to off-resonant interactions with other nearby hyperfine levels and the effects of level degeneracies in the 87Rb system. Because our experiments are carried out in a Rb MOT, we are free to propagate our beams in any desired directions, and to choose coupling beams on different optical transitions that are well-separated in frequency thus avoiding potentially complex mutual light shifts induced by the two beams, although some simple light shifts and the effects of the trapping beams do have to be taken into account in the system of Figure 1(a).

Many manifestations of Zeeman degeneracy have been reported in EIT experiments: optical pumping among Zeeman levels and to other levels , coherent population trapping by the coupling beam , the inversion of EIT dips (i.e. electromagnetically induced absorption) , and absorption of the probe beam on Zeeman transitions that are not coupled by the pump beam. These latter uncoupled absorptions are a constant feature of our probe spectra, superimposed on the V system spectra we are interested in.

This paper is organised as follows. Section II presents a dressed state analysis of the strongly-pumped model V system of Figure 1(a), showing the expected dependance of the probe absorption spectrum on Rabi frequencies and detunings. Section III describes the experimental arrangement and presents EIT spectra with the first coupling field $`C_1`$ applied and the second coupling field $`C_2`$ switched off, thus showing the effects of light shifts and uncoupled absorptions in a relatively simple system. Our main results are presented in Section IV where both coupling fields are applied and probe spectra obtained for various coupling field intensities and detunings. The spectra are interpreted using the 4-state theory of Section II modified phenomenologically by the light shift and uncoupled absorption effects described in Section III. We justify the use of the four-state model and we describe the origin of the uncoupled absorptions relevant to our experiments in the Appendix.

## II Theory

Figure 1(a) shows a four state N configuration, although for the purposes of this discussion we shall consider it as a three state V scheme formed by the states $`|a`$, $`|c`$ and $`|d`$ and strong coupling fields $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ of frequencies $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$, probed weakly on the $`|b|d`$ transition. The Hamiltonian describing the system consisting of the atom and the two coupling fields can be written down in the semiclassical and rotating wave approximations as

$`=𝒜+`$

where

$`𝒜`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1|aa\left|+\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2\right)\right|cc|`$
$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_1}{2}}\left(|da|+|ad|\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_2}{2}}\left(|ca|+|ac|\right).`$
$`𝒜`$ and $``$ represent the atomic and interaction parts of the Hamiltonian $``$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=\omega _1\omega _{da}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_2=\omega _2\omega _{ca}`$) is the detuning of coupling field $`C_1`$ ($`C_2`$) from the $`|a|d`$ ($`|a|c`$) transition and $`\omega _{\beta \alpha }`$ is the transition frequency of the $`|\alpha |\beta `$ transition for $`\alpha ,\beta =a,b,c,d`$. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_j=𝐝_j𝐄_j`$ is the Rabi frequency for field $`j=1,2`$ where the field $`𝐄_j`$ interacts only with its quasi-resonant transition with electric dipole moment $`𝐝_j`$. We have chosen units such that $`\mathrm{}=1`$ so energies are measured in units of frequency.

Because there are three basis states which describe the system, in the most general case, we expect a characteristic three line spectrum when performing probe absorption experiments. Writing out the Hamiltonian in matrix form gives

$$=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Delta }_1\hfill & \mathrm{\Omega }_2/2\hfill & \mathrm{\Omega }_1/2\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }_2/2\hfill & \mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2\hfill & 0\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }_1/2\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right].$$
(1)
Following the method in Shore  we derive the doubly dressed state energies

$`_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}p\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{3}}\right)`$
$`_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}p\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{3}}\right)`$
$`_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}p\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{3}}\right)`$
with

$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_1+\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$
$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1(\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_1^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2\right)`$
$`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_1^2\mathrm{\Delta }_2\mathrm{\Omega }_1^2\right)`$
$`p`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\alpha ^23\beta }`$
$`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{27\gamma +2\alpha ^39\alpha \beta }{2p^3}}.`$
The corresponding dressed state vector for energy $`_\nu `$ is

$`|𝒟_\nu ={\displaystyle \frac{\left(_\nu \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_2}{2}|a+\left(_\nu \left(_\nu \mathrm{\Delta }_1\right)\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_1^2}{4}\right)|c+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2}{4}|d\right)}{𝒩_\nu }}`$

with

$`𝒩_\nu =\sqrt{_\nu ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2}{4}}+\left(_\nu \left(_\nu \mathrm{\Delta }_1\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_1^2}{4}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_1^2\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2}{16}}}`$

being the normalisation constant and $`\nu =1,2,3`$ indexing the dressed state.

We now consider the special case of mutual resonance of the two coupling fields, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=\mathrm{\Delta }_2=0`$. In this case the dressed state energies and vectors are

$`_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_1^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2}`$
$`_2`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_1^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2}`$
and

$`|𝒟_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|a+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_2}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_1^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2}}}|c+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_1^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2}}}|d\right)`$
$`|𝒟_2`$ $`=`$ $`0|a{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_1^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2}}}|c+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_2}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_1^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2}}}|d`$
$`|𝒟_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|a+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_2}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_1^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2}}}|c+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_1^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2}}}|d\right).`$
These results can be used to predict the spectrum obtained when probing the doubly driven $`|c|d`$ transition via the $`|b|d`$ transition with a weak field of frequency $`\omega _p`$ and detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p=\omega _p\omega _{db}`$. The resulting spectrum can be thought of as being made up of a Rabi split doublet, with effective Rabi frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{eff}}=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_1^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2},`$ and a three-photon resonance absorption peak at $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p=0`$. The central peak is strictly only on the three-photon resonance (i.e. satisfies $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p\mathrm{\Delta }_1+\mathrm{\Delta }_2=0`$) when $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$, or in appropriate limits. However, for simplicity we shall refer to the central peak as a three-photon absorption peak when it closely approximates this resonance condition. We note that the probe coupling will be dominated by the $`|b|d`$ transition as the other transitions are significantly off resonance in the bare atomic basis. Also, in the strong coupling regime ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2>>\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$), which applies in our experiments, almost all the population is optically pumped into the state $`|b`$ with negligible population in the dressed states. Under these conditions the probe absorption will be proportional to the coefficient $`A_\nu =\left|d|𝒟_\nu \right|^2`$. This implies that the peaks corresponding to the absorption from state $`|b`$ to the outer states $`|𝒟_1`$ and $`|𝒟_3`$ will have equal heights and dominate the spectrum in the limit $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1/\mathrm{\Omega }_2>>1`$, whilst the three-photon absorption peak, corresponding to absorption to $`|𝒟_2`$, will dominate in the limit $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2/\mathrm{\Omega }_1>>1`$. Graphs showing the energy levels $`_\nu `$ and coefficients $`A_\nu `$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2/\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ are presented in Figures 2(a) and (b) respectively. These results are similar to those presented for a ladder system by Wei et al.

## III Experimental arrangement, light shifts and EIT effects

The experimental setup is shown schematically in Figure 3. The cold 87Rb sample contains between $`10^7`$ and $`10^8`$ atoms in a region of diameter approximately $`3mm`$ in a standard MOT similar to the one used in our previous work on EIT.

The laser fields are obtained from external-cavity grating-controlled diode lasers (ECDL) in master and master-slave arrangements. The frequency of each master laser is monitored by saturated absorption in a room temperature Rb cell and can be locked via electronic feedback. In all master-slave arrangements, there is an acousto-optic modulator which shifts the frequency of the slave relative to the frequency of the master. All laser fields, except for the second coupling field, were derived from $`780nm`$ laser diodes, whilst the second coupling field was derived from a $`795nm`$ laser diode.

The trapping lasers $`T`$ (not shown in Figure 3) are derived from a master-slave system. They are locked and detuned by $`13MHz`$ from the $`5S_{1/2}F=2`$ to $`5P_{3/2}F=3`$ transition. The trapping beam diameters are $`1cm`$ and the total average intensity in the cold atom sample is $`60mW/cm^2`$.

The probe beam $`P`$ is derived from an ECDL and is scanned across the $`5S_{1/2}F=2`$ to $`5P_{3/2}F=2`$ transition by piezo-control of the external cavity. $`P`$ has an average intensity $`2mW/cm^2`$ in a diameter $`1mm`$.

The coupling beam $`C_1`$ and the trap repumping field $`R`$ are derived from the same laser which is the slave of a locked ECDL. They are resonant with the $`5S_{1/2}F=1`$ to $`5P_{3/2}F=2`$ transition. The average intensity of $`C_1`$ is $`400mW/cm^2`$ in a roughly elliptical profile $`2mm\times 4mm`$.

A second coupling beam $`C_2`$ is derived from an ECDL and is quasi-resonant with the $`5S_{1/2}F=1`$ to $`5P_{1/2}F=2`$ transition at $`795nm`$ (the D1 line). For resonant experiments, $`C_2`$ was locked, but for detuned experiments it was stepped using the external cavity piezo with the frequency determined by an optical spectrum analyser. The average intensity of $`C_2`$ can be varied up to a maximum of $`300mW/cm^2`$, in a beam diameter $`1.3mm`$.

The probe $`P`$ and the second coupling field $`C_2`$ are linearly polarised in the horizontal plane whilst the coupling field $`C_1`$ is linearly polarised in the vertical direction. The angle between the coupling fields $`C_1`$and $`C_2`$ is about $`175^{}`$ while the probe propagates at an angle of about $`20^{}`$ with respect to $`C_1`$. These angles were found to give a good overlap of the probe with the coupling fields in the MOT. The paths of all three beams are coplanar.

We show in the Appendix how our arrangement of polarisations gives a good approximation to three separate sets of N configurations of the type depicted in Figure 1(a), together with uncoupled absorption. Although we can qualitatively account for the uncoupled absorptions, the relative populations of the various subsystems will be effected by the trap dynamics and optical pumping between the schemes. Complete modelling of these effects is beyond the scope of this work and we have therefore not presented a quantitative theoretical estimate of the uncoupled absorption strength.

While $`C_2`$ is turned off, $`C_1`$ and $`P`$ form a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-type EIT system. Figure 4(a) shows the probe absorption versus probe detuning with $`C_1`$ locked to the $`5S_{1/2}F=1`$ to $`5P_{1/2}F=2`$ transition in the saturated absorption cell, and with $`C_2`$ turned off. The probe detuning is taken to be zero when the probe frequency is equal to the $`5S_{1/2}F=2`$ to $`5P_{3/2}F=2`$ transition frequency in the saturated absorption cell. It is seen that the spectrum consists of a central peak situated between the two Autler-Townes peaks of a standard asymmetric EIT profile expected with detuned coupling field. The detuning of $`C_1`$ is due to the fact that the $`5S_{1/2}F=1`$ level of the sample is light-shifted with respect to the same level in the saturated absorption cell because of the interaction of $`C_1`$ with neighbouring transitions (mainly the $`5S_{1/2}F=1`$ to $`5P_{3/2}F=1`$). We have estimated this light shift to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }_17MHz`$. The central peak in the spectrum is caused by $`P`$ probing Zeeman sublevels that are not coupled by $`C_1`$ (as discussed in the Appendix). We call this peak the uncoupled absorption peak; in our previous work  we were unable to resolve this peak since the coupling field was too weak. It is to be noted that all three peaks in Figure 4(a) are displaced by approximately $`9MHz`$ with respect to the saturated absorption transition. This is because the trapping beams $`T`$ act as a detuned coupling field with $`P`$ in a V-type EIT configuration, as can be seen from Figure 1(b). This splits each of the three peaks into two, one of which is very much larger than the other because $`T`$ is detuned by $`13MHz`$. Of the smaller peaks, only the one corresponding to the red detuned Autler-Townes peak is just visible in this trace. We note that the linewidths of our spectra, which are seen to be up to three times the natural linewidth of our Doppler-free sample, are broadened by beam profile inhomogeneities, variations of Clebsch-Gordan coefficients between different Zeeman transitions and the spread in the intensities of the six interfering trapping beams in the MOT.

## IV Three peak spectra of the V system

We now describe the spectra obtained when probing the V system in the N configuration of Figure 1. The probe absorption spectrum shown in Figure 4(b) was obtained with $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ tuned to their respective transitions in saturated absorption cells; these are the same conditions that applied in Figure 4(a) except that now $`C_2`$ is switched on and at its maximum intensity. A comparison of the two figures shows that the height $`h_c`$ of the central peak is larger in Figure 4(b) due to the appearance of the three-photon absorption peak on top of the uncoupled absorption peak, as predicted in the Section II. There is also an increase in the splitting, $`\delta _{13}=_1_3`$, of the two Autler-Townes peaks. We have taken a series of probe spectra for different powers $`P_2`$ of $`C_2`$. The results are shown in Figures 5(a)&(b), where the height $`h_c`$ and the splitting $`\delta _{13}`$ are plotted against the power $`P_2`$. The theoretical fits in these figures were obtained from the theory in Section II, as follows. We assume that the contribution of the three-photon absorption peak is proportional to $`A_2=`$ $`\left|d|𝒟_2\right|^2,`$ and that both coupling fields have a common detuning of $`\mathrm{\Delta }=7MHz`$ from their respective transitions in the sample due to the $`C_1`$ \- induced light shift of the $`5S_{1/2}F=1`$ level. We find, to first order in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$,

$`\delta _{13}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_1^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2}+𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\right)^2`$
$`h_c`$ $`=`$ $`h_{uc}+B{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_1^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2}}+𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\right)^3`$
where $`h_{uc}`$ is the height of the uncoupled absorption peak, i.e. the height of the central peak when $`C_2`$ is turned off, and $`B`$ is a constant. These equations have been fitted to the data points and the resulting curves shown in Figure 5(a)&(b). The fit in Figure 5(a) gives $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1=62\pm 2MHz`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2=(22\pm 2MHz/mW^{1/2})P_2^{1/2}`$ with a maximum of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2=44\pm 5MHz`$. These Rabi frequencies are consistent with the values estimated from the parameters of beams $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ and the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients of the transitions. The fit in Figure 5(b) gives $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2/\mathrm{\Omega }_1=0.8\pm 0.3`$ for maximum $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$, which is consistent with the previous fit; it also yields the constant $`B=3\pm 1`$ that determines the relative heights of the uncoupled absorption peak and the three-photon absorption peak. We note that for maximum power of $`C_2`$ the three-photon absorption peak accounts for approximately $`0.4`$ of the total central peak height.

We now consider the case where $`C_2`$ has its maximum intensity and its detuning is stepped across the $`5S_{1/2}F=1`$ to $`5P_{1/2}F=2`$ transition, with $`C_1`$ tuned to the saturated absorption line. The detuning of $`C_2`$ is measured by a calibrated spectrum analyser with respect to the saturated absorption line. The traces obtained are plotted in Figure 6. It is seen that as $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ is stepped from the red towards the blue, the uncoupled absorption peak, labelled $`U`$, remains fixed in position as expected, but the peaks labelled 1, 2 an 3 migrate towards the red, with the central peak 2 moving across the uncoupled absorption. The positions of peaks 1, 2 and 3 are shown as points in Figure 7 with the curves showing the corresponding theoretical expectations based on a detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=`$ $`7MHz`$ of $`C_1`$. We note that this behaviour is qualitatively similar to that predicted for a ladder system in . We note also that the anticrossings in Figure 7 are similar to subharmonic resonances described in , although because the two coupling fields are applied to different transitions, only the first subharmonic resonances (at $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2=`$ $`\pm \mathrm{\Omega }_1/2`$ in the limit of small $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2)`$ are observed in the present study.

## V Conclusions

We have presented a dressed state analysis and an experimental study of a doubly-driven V-system probed from a fourth level in an N configuration. The experiments show the growth of the three-photon absorption peak and the increasing separation of the Autler-Towns peaks as the second coupling field intensity is increased. The migration of the three-peak probe absorption spectrum as the detuning of one of the coupling fields is changed is also observed. Our experiments have been carried out in a laser-cooled 87Rb sample using the levels $`5P_{3/2}F=2`$, $`5S_{1/2}F=1`$ and $`5P_{1/2}F=2`$, probed on the $`5S_{1/2}F=2`$ to $`5P_{3/2}F=2`$ transition. After taking account of light shifts, the effects of the trapping beams and the uncoupled absorptions in this real system, the measured spectra are in good agreement with the analytical predictions. This investigation is important for the understanding of a physically realisable N-system that might be used in cross-phase modulation, photon blockade and other related studies.

## VI Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the EPSRC for financial support on this project and Dr T. B. Smith (Open University) for useful discussions. We would also like to thank Roger Bence, Fraser Robertson and Robert Seaton (Open University) for technical assistance.

## VII Appendix

This Appendix justifies our use in Section II of a 4-state model to describe our experiment and also shows the origin of the uncoupled absorptions. Figure 8(a) illustrates the individual Zeeman states of the hyperfine levels coupled by the probe $`P`$ (fine lines) and two driving fields $`C_1`$ (thick lines) and $`C_2`$ (double lines) . All three fields are linearly polarised with the polarisation of $`C_1`$ orthogonal to the polarisations of $`P`$ and $`C_2`$ as shown in Figure 3. This particular choice of orthogonal linear polarisations was chosen because it reduced the uncoupled absorption of the probe field at the frequency of the $`5S_{1/2}F=2`$ to $`5P_{3/2}F=2`$ transition. Also shown are the corresponding Clebsch-Gordan coefficients. The states $`|m_X`$ are labeled in terms of the magnetic quantum number $`m`$ and $`X`$, where $`X`$ is one of $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$ or $`d`$ which correspond to the $`5S_{1/2}F=1`$, $`5S_{1/2}F=2`$, $`5P_{1/2}F=2`$ and $`5P_{3/2}F=2`$ levels respectively in Figure 1(b).

The figure shows that the coupling field $`C_1`$ (thick lines) alone provides a doubly-driven V configuration as well as a separate quadruply-driven ‘W’ configuration. Taking account of the additional states coupled by the fields $`C_2`$ and $`P`$ it appears that a six state and, separately, a nine state model are necessary to describe the dynamics of our experiment. The three states, $`|0_b`$, $`|2_c`$ and $`|2_c`$ do not interact with any fields. Surprisingly, however, this complex structure reduces to sets of simple coupled systems with the following change of basis :

$`|m,\pm _X`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|m_X\pm |m_X\right)`$
$`|\alpha _d`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|0_d+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}}|2,+_d`$
$`|\beta _d`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}}|0_d{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|2,+_d.`$
Figure 8(b) shows the transitions in this new basis. Three doubly-driven V configurations, of the type shown in Figure 1(a), are clearly evident in the new basis. Also shown are the effective Clebsch-Gordan coefficients for the new transformed transitions. The dashed lines in Figure 8(b) represent transitions probed by field $`P`$ but not directly coupled by either of the coupling fields $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$. They correspond to what we call uncoupled absorptions of the probe.

The five coupled states on the left of Figure 8(b) shows that the (relatively weak) field $`P`$ simultaneously probes a doubly-driven V configuration as well as the $`|2,_b`$ to $`|\beta _d`$ transition. In the steady state, the $`|2,_b`$ to $`|\beta _d`$ transition simply causes additional scattering of field $`P`$ and so essentially this five-state system can be treated as a four-state N configuration with an additional uncoupled absorption. The underlying probe absorption profile is due essentially to three separate N configurations (solid lines) with two uncoupled absorptions (dashed lines).

Each N configuration has a different set of (effective) Clebsch-Gordan coefficients, and so the Rabi frequencies for the fields $`P`$, $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ differ from one N configuration to the next. Since the position of the peaks in the probe absorption spectrum depend on the Rabi frequencies $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$, the absorption peaks due to each N configuration occur at different probe detunings. However, these differences are relatively small, corresponding to about a 10% shift in the separation of Autler-Townes peaks. A single four-state model, as given in Section II, is therefore sufficient to model our experiment, provided we allow for broadened absorption peaks.

The square of Clebsch-Gordan coefficients of the dashed transitions is $`1/6`$. We can compare this with the different scheme in which all fields are linear polarised along the same axis. In this case there are two uncoupled absorption transitions from $`|\pm 2_b`$ to $`|\pm 2_d`$ for which the square of the corresponding Clebsch-Gordan coefficients is $`2/3`$. That is, the absorption of the uncoupled transitions in the parallel-linear polarisation scheme is four times that of the orthogonal-linear polarisation scheme for the same degree of occupation. This clearly shows the advantage of our choice of polarisation scheme.

In our experiment, new atoms are continuously moving into and out of the interaction region, the trapping magnetic fields produce Zeeman mixing amongst ground states and the trapping field weakly couples the $`5S_{1/2}F=2`$ level to the upper $`5P_{3/2}F=3`$ level. All these effects tend to redistribute population amongst the states of the $`5S_{1/2}F=2`$ level. The treatment of these effects to calculate the relative occupations of the $`5S_{1/2}F=2`$ states is, however, beyond the scope of this work. Thus, while we can identify the transitions responsible for the uncoupled absorptions and justify our polarisation scheme, we have no quantitative estimates of the strength of the absorptions.

Finally we note that state $`|0_b`$, uncoupled by any field, is a dark state. Away from resonance conditions that produce other dark states, all atoms would eventually decay to this state and so the steady state would be one of complete transparency of the probe field. However, the above mechanisms which tend to redistribute the population of the $`5S_{1/2}F=2`$ level will also tend to depopulate the state $`|0_b`$.


format: text

text:
# Unconventional decay law for excited states in closed many-body systems

## Abstract

We study the time evolution of an initially excited many-body state in a finite system of interacting Fermi-particles in the situation when the interaction gives rise to the “chaotic” structure of compound states. This situation is generic for highly excited many-particle states in quantum systems, such as heavy nuclei, complex atoms, quantum dots, spin systems, and quantum computers. For a strong interaction the leading term for the return probability $`W(t)`$ has the form $`W(t)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2t^2)`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2`$ as the variance of the strength function. The conventional exponential linear dependence $`W(t)=C\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)`$ formally arises for a very large time. However, the prefactor $`C`$ turns out to be exponentially large, thus resulting in a strong difference from the conventional estimate for $`W(t)`$.

It is known that highly excited states can be treated as “chaotic” ones in many-body systems, such as complex atoms , multicharged ions , nuclei  and spin systems . This happens due to a very high density of many-particle states, which strongly increases with an increase of energy. For example, in the case of $`n`$ Fermi-particles occupying the finite number $`m`$ of “orbitals” (single-particle states), the total number $`N`$ of many-body states grows exponentially fast with an increase of the number of particles, $`N=m!/n!(mn)!\mathrm{exp}(c_0n)`$. Correspondingly, the density $`\rho _f`$ of those many-body states which are directly coupled by a two-body interaction, also grows very fast . Therefore, even a relatively weak interaction between the particles can lead to a strong mixing between unperturbed many-body states (“basis states”). As a result, an exact (perturbed) eigenstate is represented by a chaotic superposition of a large number of components of basis states.

The number of principal basis components in such chaotic eigenstates can be estimated as $`N_{pc}\mathrm{\Gamma }/D`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the spreading width of a typical component, that can be estimated using the Fermi golden rule, and $`D^1(E)`$ is the total density of many-body states. In the case of a quantum computer, the interval between multiqubit energy levels $`D1/N`$ is extremely small, and practically it is impossible to resolve these levels. Moreover, both the temperature and finite time of computer operations lead to an energy uncertainty $`\delta ED`$. A similar situation occurs for an electron which enters a many-electron quantum dot. In these cases the analysis of stationary chaotic eigenstates is not an adequate to real physical problems and one needs to consider the time evolution of wave functions. In this Letter we extend the quantum chaos approach to the problem of time evolution of an initially excited basis state.

Exact many-body eigenstates $`|k`$ of the Hamiltonian $`H=H_0+V`$ of interacting Fermi-particles can be expressed in terms of simple shell-model basis states $`|f`$ of $`H_0`$,

$$|k=\underset{f}{}C_f^{(k)}|f;|f=a_{f_1}^+\mathrm{}a_{f_n}^+|0.$$
(1)
Here $`|0`$ is the ground state, $`a_s^+`$ is the creation operator and $`C_f^{(k)}`$ are components of an exact eigenstate in the unperturbed basis.

In application to quantum computer models the Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ describes a number of non-interacting qubits (two-level systems), and $`V`$ stands for the interqubit interaction needed for a quantum computation ( we assume time-independent $`V`$). In this case the basis state $`|f>`$ is a product of single qubit states, $`a_s^+`$ is the spin-raising operator (if the ground state $`|0`$ corresponds to spins “down”), and chaotic eigenstates $`|k`$ are formed by the residual interaction $`V`$.

Below we consider the time evolution of the system, assuming that initially ($`t=0`$) the system is in a specific basis state $`|i`$ (in the state with certain spins “up” for a quantum computer). This state can be expressed as a sum over exact eigenstates,

$$|i=\underset{k}{}C_i^{(k)}|k,$$
(2)
therefore, the time-dependent wave function reads as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=\underset{k,f}{}C_i^{(k)}C_f^{(k)}|f\mathrm{exp}(iE^{(k)}t).$$
(3)
Here $`E^{(k)}`$ are the eigenvalues corresponding to the eigenstates $`|k>`$. The sum is taken over the eigenstates $`|k>`$ and basis states $`|f>`$ (in what follows, we put $`\mathrm{}=1`$).

The probability $`W_i=|A_i|^2=|i|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)|^2`$ to find the system in the state $`|i>`$ is determined by the amplitude

$`A_i=i|\mathrm{exp}(iHt)|i={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|C_i^{(k)}|^2\mathrm{exp}(iE^{(k)}t)`$ (4)
$`{\displaystyle P_i(E)\mathrm{exp}(iEt)𝑑E}.`$ (5)
Here we replaced the summation over a large number of the eigenstates by the integration over their energies $`EE^{(k)}`$, and introduced the strength function (SF) $`P_i(E)`$ which is also known in the literature as the local spectral density of states,

$$P_i(E)\overline{|C_i^{(k)}|^2}\rho (E).$$
(6)
Here $`\rho (E)`$ is the density of states of the total Hamiltonian $`H`$, and the average is performed over a number of states with close energies.

In chaotic systems the strength function $`P_i(E)`$ is known to have the Breit-Wigner form for a relatively weak interaction, and is close to the Gaussian for a strong interaction . Recently, the following approximate general expression has been analytically found ,

$$P_i(E)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(E)}{(E_i+\delta _iE)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(E)^2/4},$$
(7)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(E)2\pi \overline{\left|V_{if}\right|^2}\rho _f(E).$$
(8)
which is derived by making use of the approach described in Ref.. Here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(E)`$ is some function of the total energy, $`\delta _i`$ is the correction to the unperturbed energy level $`E_i`$ due to the residual interaction $`V_{if}`$, and $`\rho _f(E)`$ is the density of the basis states $`|f`$ directly connected with a given state $`|i`$ by the matrix element $`V_{if}`$. The above result has been derived for the so-called Two-Body Random Interaction (TBRI) model  which describes $`n`$ interacting Fermi-particles distributed over $`m`$ orbitals, with an assumption that two-body matrix elements are completely random.

It is shown  that for a large number of particles the function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(E)`$ has the Gaussian form with the variance which depends on the model parameters. In the case of a relatively small (but non-perturbative) interaction (when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i2\pi \rho _fV_0^22\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$ with $`V_0^2=V_{if}^2`$), the function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)`$ is very broad (i.e. it does not change significantly within the energy intervals $``$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$) and can be treated as constant, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. In the other limit case of a strong interaction, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$, the dependence $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)`$ in (7) is the leading one.

The knowledge of the strength function allows one to describe the dynamics of wave packets in the energy space. It is easy to find the evolution of $`W_i(t)`$ on a small time scale. Let us subtract the energy $`E_iH_{ii}`$ of the initial state in the exponent and make a second order expansion in $`EE_i`$ in Eq.(4). This gives the following result,

$$A_i=\mathrm{exp}(iE_it)\left(1\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2t^2/2\right)$$
(9)
and

$$W_i(t)=1\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2t^2.$$
(10)
Here the width $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$ of the SF is determined through the second moment, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2=\underset{fi}{}V_{if}^2`$, which for the TBRI model is ,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2=\frac{1}{4}V_0^2n(n1)(mn)(mn+3),$$
(11)
with $`V_0^2`$ standing for the variance of the off-diagonal elements ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2`$ for a quantum computer model can be found in Ref.).

Note that for a strong residual interaction, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$, the time dependence (10) is also correct for a longer time . Indeed, both the strength function and density of states in this limit are described by the Gaussian functions with the variance $`\sigma ^2=\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2`$ (see details in  \- ),

$$P_i(E)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \sigma ^2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(EE_c)^2}{2\sigma ^2}\right],$$
(12)
$$\rho (E)=\frac{N}{\sqrt{2\pi \sigma ^2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{E^2}{2\sigma ^2}\right).$$
(13)
Therefore, at the center of the energy spectrum, $`E_c=0`$, Eq.(4) results in the Gaussian time dependence for $`A_i(t)`$ and $`W_i(t)`$,

$$A_i=\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2t^2/2\right),$$
(14)
$$W_i(t)\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2t^2\right).$$
(15)
Now let us consider large times. In this limit the result can be obtained by evaluation of the integral in Eq.(4) in the complex $`E`$-plane. Specifically, one should close the contour of integration in the bottom part of the complex plane ($`ImE<0`$), in order to provide a vanishing contribution at infinity. Then, the large time limit is given by the pole of the strength function (7), closest to the real $`E`$-axis. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ and $`\delta _i`$ in Eq.(6) do not depend on $`E`$, the integration gives the conventional exponential decay $`W_i=\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)`$ . However, the energy dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is necessary to provide the finite second moment $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2`$ of the strength function. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }<\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$, the closest pole is given by $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=2ImE_p`$, where $`E_p`$ is the solution of the equation $`E_p=E_i+\delta _i(E_p)i\mathrm{\Gamma }(E_p)/2`$ with a minimal imaginary part. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$, then we have $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. As a result, we obtain an exponential dependence for large $`t`$,

$$W_i(t)=C\mathrm{exp}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}t),$$
(16)
with some constant $`C`$.

In Ref. simple extrapolation formula for $`W_i(t)`$ has been suggested, that interpolates (for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }<\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$) between the small (10) and large (16) time dependencies,

$$W_i(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^4}{4\mathrm{\Delta }_E^4}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2t^2}\right).$$
(17)
The transition between the Gaussian regime and simple exponential decay occurs near the time $`t_c\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2t_c^2\mathrm{\Gamma }t_c`$. This gives an estimate, $`C\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2}\right)`$, for the constant $`C`$. Indeed, for $`t<t_c`$ the quadratic exponential decay, $`\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2t^2\right)`$, is slower than the linear one, $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)`$. The matching of these two dependencies would naturally require the above expression for $`C`$. Thus, the constant $`C`$ can be large if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }>\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$. The transition from one regime of the time dependence of $`W_i(t)`$ to another is schematically shown in Fig.1.

This qualitative result is supported by a more detailed consideration. In many-body systems the dependence $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)`$ can be approximated by the Gaussian function since the density of final states $`\rho _f(E_f)`$ in Eq.(8) is typically close to the Gaussian . This provides us with an approximate formula for the strength function (tested by the numerical calculations ),

$$P(E)=B\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(EE_0)^2}{2\sigma ^2}\right]}{(EE_0)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2/4}.$$
(18)
It can be used, in conjunction with Eq.(4), to study the time dependence $`W_i(t)`$. Strictly speaking, this formula is valid near the center of the energy spectrum, otherwise one should take into account distortion effects near the edges of the energy spectrum.

Due to the normalization conditions, $`P(E)𝑑E=1`$ and $`E^2P(E)𝑑E=\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2`$, we have the following relations ,

$$\frac{1}{B}=2\left[1\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\sigma \sqrt{8}}\right)\right]\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{8\sigma ^2}\right),$$
(19)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2=B\left\{\sigma \sqrt{2\pi }\frac{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{8\sigma ^2}\right)\left[1\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\sigma \sqrt{8}}\right)\right]\right\}$$
(20)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ is the error function.

The return probability $`W(t)`$ corresponding to the strength function (18) is defined by the integral,

$$A(t)=B\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑E\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{E^2}{2\sigma ^2}iEt\right)}{\left(EE_0\right)^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4}}$$
(21)
The time dependencies of $`A(t)`$ and $`W(t)`$ for small time are given by Eqs.(14-15). If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\sigma `$, the region of the applicability of these equations is very narrow. Indeed, in this case $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2\frac{\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\sqrt{2\pi }}`$ and the condition $`tt_c\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2}\frac{1}{\sigma }`$ results in the relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2t^21`$ . The absolute value of the amplitude $`A(t)`$ in this case is given by the series in the parameter $`(\sigma t)^2=(t/t_c)^2`$ ,

$$|A(t)|=1\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\sigma }{\sqrt{2\pi }}t^2+\frac{1}{24}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\sigma ^3}{\sqrt{2\pi }}t^4+\mathrm{}$$
(22)
For large time, $`tt_c=1/\sigma `$, the calculation of the integral in Eq.(20) gives

$$W(t)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }t\right)$$

for the return probability. Here the correction $`\frac{1}{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2}\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\sigma \sqrt{2\pi }}`$ is small. Indeed, the strength function in this case is close to the Lorentzian which gives a simple dependence $`W(t)=\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)`$ for the decay.

Another limit case of a strong interaction, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$ (or, the same, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\sigma `$), is more delicate. In this case the strength function is close to the Gaussian with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E\sigma `$ and $`t_c`$ is large, $`t_c\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\sigma ^2}\frac{1}{\sigma }`$. The leading dependence of $`W(t)`$ in this case is the Gaussian, $`W(t)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2t^2)`$ . Only for a long time $`t\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\sigma ^2}`$ it becomes the simple exponential function,

$$W(t)\frac{\pi ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{8\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{4}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }t\right)$$
(23)
It is important to stress that even for a large time the return probability $`W(t)`$ has large correction factor $`\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{4}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{(\mathrm{\Delta }E)^2}\right)`$, in addition to the standard decay law $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)`$.

Due to a finite number of particles, there are specific important features in the dynamics of wave packets, namely, the damped oscillations and the break of the decay for $`W_i(t)`$ . The number of basis components $`|f`$ within the energy shell $`\left|E_0E_f\right|\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{\Gamma },\sigma )\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is finite. Therefore, the decay stops if $`W_i`$ is close to the equilibrium value defined as $`W_{\mathrm{}}\overline{W_i(t\mathrm{})}3N_{pc}^1`$. Here $`N_{pc}`$ is the number of principal components in an eigenstate, $`N_{pc}\mathrm{\Delta }/D`$ , where $`D=\rho ^1`$ is the mean energy interval between all many-body levels. Note that the value of $`W_{\mathrm{}}`$ is still at least 3 times larger than $`W_f=N_{pc}^1`$ for any other component $`f`$ , $`\overline{W_i(\mathrm{})}`$ $`\overline{W_f(\mathrm{})}`$ (see, details in ).

The equilibrium occurs because the average decay flux is equal to the average return flux. However, the return flux leads to the damped oscillations of $`W_i(t)`$ and to the oscillations of a current number of the principal components $`N_{pc}(t)`$. These oscillations arise because the decay flux “reflects” from the edges of the energy shell, when all components within this shell are populated. Period of these oscillations is about $`n_c/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the inverse decay time, and $`n_c`$ is the number of “classes” in the Hilbert space. This number can be defined as the number of interaction steps in the perturbative chain $`H_{0\alpha _1}H_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}...H_{\alpha _k\alpha _{n_c}}`$, needed to populate all basis states within the energy shell. For example, in the TBRI model with 6 particles and $`12`$ orbitals, the number of steps is $`n_c=3`$ since each two-body interaction $`H_{ik}`$ moves only two particles to new orbitals.

In conclusion, we have studied generic features of the return probability $`W(t)`$ for a system to be found in an initially excited many-body state. Due to the two-body interaction between Fermi-particles, the wave packet in the energy representation spreads over all basis states within the energy shell. The dependence $`W(t)`$ for small time is determined by a ballistic spread of the packet and is given by the expression (10). For large time, the decrease of $`W(t)`$ is determined by the form of the strength function $`P(E)`$ . We have analyzed the behavior of $`W(t)`$ by making use of the analytical expression for $`P(E)`$, which is obtained for any strength of random two-body interaction between finite number of interacting Fermi-particles.

We have shown that for the Breit-Wigner form of $`P(E)`$ (relatively weak interaction) the decay of $`W(t)`$ on a large time scale has the conventional exponential dependence, $`W(t)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)`$. On the other hand, for the Gaussian form of $`P(E)`$ (strong interaction) the time dependence $`W(t)`$ turns out to be of very specific. Namely, the leading term gives the quadratic exponential dependence, $`W(t)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2t^2)`$, and only for a very large time the conventional exponential linear dependence formally recovers. However, in this case an additional prefactor $`C`$ appears before the exponent, which turns out to be exponentially large, thus resulting in a strong modification of the standard exponential estimate for $`W(t)`$.

This work was supported by the Australian Research Council. One of us (F.M.I.) gratefully acknowledges the support by CONACyT (Mexico) Grant No. 34668-E. The authors are grateful to M.Yu. Kuchiev for valuable discussions.


text:
# Melosh Construction Of Relativistic Three-Quark Baryon Wave Functions

## I Introduction

In light front dynamics  (LF) and in Dirac’s point form of relativistic few-body physics ,, hadron wave functions may be boosted kinematically, that is, independent of interactions. Because form factors depend on boosted wave functions this attractive feature has motivated many recent electroweak form factor calculations .

Because there is no spontaneous creation of massive fermions in LF dynamics that is quantized on the null plane, the quantized vacuum is fairly simple, so that a constituent Fock space expansion is practical where partons are directly related to the hadron.

Here we construct relativistic baryon basis states in light front dynamics, although all important results are also valid in the point form, where four-velocities are replacing the light cone momentum variables. The null plane is invariant under seven of the ten Poincaré generators. A subgroup of six of these generators form the stability group that acts transitively on states of a given mass-shell hyperboloid. As a result, the total momentum separates from the internal momentum variables . This is one of the reasons why LF dynamics is usually formulated in momentum space. Thus, wave functions depend only on the relative momentum variables and, being invariant under kinematic Poincaré transformations, are completely determined once they are known at rest.

Except for Sect. III we deal with nucleon basis states. Except for Sect. V, we have applications in mind to spacelike electroweak form factors in the Breit frame (with momentum transfer $`q^+=q^0+q^3=0`$) of LF dynamics excluding the complications of timelike exclusive processes (which can be treated ). As a rule, applications involve truncating the Fock space expansion by particle number, which does not violate Lorentz invariance because in LF dynamics the boost operators are kinematic, that is, do not contain interactions.

Three-quark wave functions for the nucleon have been constructed in the constituent quark model as products of a totally symmetric momentum and a nonstatic spin-flavor wave function which is an eigenstate of the spin and total angular momentum (squared) and its projection on the light cone axis. When nonstatic spin-flavor wave functions are built from the nonrelativistic quark model (NQM) via Melosh rotations , (see ref.  for a review and refs.) they form a Hilbert space of relativistic three-quark states that we shall call the Pauli-Melosh basis. It is in one-to-one correspondence with the NQM and manifestly orthogonal.

An alternative effective field theory approach starts from three-quark nucleon interaction Lagrangians  in light front dynamics which provide the nonstatic spin-flavor wave functions in a Dirac matrix representation. When the triangle Feynman diagram for a form factor is projected to the null-plane the radial momentum wave functions are defined in terms of three-quark-nucleon vertex functions and a totally symmetric energy denominator (three-quark propagator). Based on Lorentz covariance, parity and SU(2) isospin invariance there are eight independent couplings and three totally symmetric couplings. This Dirac basis is manifestly Lorentz covariant under kinematic transformations.

Here we wish to address the problem in that there are significantly more relativistic hadron wave functions in the Dirac basis than compared to the Pauli-Melosh basis. For example, there are three nucleon states compared to the single S-state of the NQM in the static limit and five N(1535) states.

The alternative Bargmann-Wigner basis  (BW), which is in one-to-one correspondence with the Dirac basis , sheds light on this problem from another point of view. It is based on the equivalence of the infinite momentum frame (IMF) and light front dynamics which implies that quarks bound in a hadron in the IMF are all collinear, that is, have equal velocities $`p_i/m=P/M,`$ where $`M`$ is the baryon mass and $`m`$ a constituent quark mass. The BW basis constructs three-quark baryon Fock states in terms of baryon Dirac spinors ($`U,V`$). There is only one totally symmetric nucleon basis state ($`UUU`$). It corresponds to the nucleon ground state of the Pauli-Melosh basis. The other two totally symmetric three-quark states of the BW and Dirac bases contain two Dirac $`V`$-spinors and one $`U`$-spinor.

In this paper it is shown that a set of spin-rotated spinors are required to account for all three-quark-nucleon couplings, that is, all three non-static spin-flavor wave functions of the nucleon. Corresponding results are valid for Ns, the baryon octet and other baryons.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. II we introduce spin-rotated spinors based on the complete $`U,V`$ basis, which are used in Sect. IV to construct the complete basis of three-quark spin-flavor wave functions in LF dynamics. In Sect. III we provide the transformation between the BW and Dirac representations of the three-quark couplings for the nucleon, N(1520) and N(1535) in a transparent approach that avoids overlap matrix elements of both bases used in ref . After symmetrizing we find three and five spin-flavor components for nucleon and N(1520), N(1535), respectively. In Sect. IV we start from the instant form to construct the complete set of relativistic spin-flavor wave functions for positive-energy quarks. In Sect. V we consider the possibility of $`v`$-spinors in the wave functions and discuss their possible origin in light front dynamics. We discuss a physical interpretation of baryon states with $`v`$ spinors as part of transition amplitudes from three-quark states to quark-gluon or quark-Goldstone boson Fock states via flux-tube breaking at intermediate distances in QCD.

## II Spin-Rotated Light-Cone Spinors

When the bound quarks of the nucleon are in the infinite momentum frame (IMF), or equivalently in the null plane of light front dynamics (LF), they are all collinear

$`{\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{m_i}}={\displaystyle \frac{P}{M}},\mathrm{as}\mathrm{P}\mathrm{}.`$ (1)
The transformation to the IMF amounts to a change of the usual momentum variables

$`p^\mu =(p^0,𝐩)\mathrm{to}(\mathrm{p}^+=\mathrm{p}^0+\mathrm{p}^3,𝐩_{}=(\mathrm{p}^1,\mathrm{p}^2),\mathrm{p}^{}=\mathrm{p}^0\mathrm{p}^3)`$ (2)
to light cone momentum components. As in any Hamiltonian version of field theory, partons are on their mass shell so that the light cone energy $`p^{}=(m^2+𝐩_{}^2)/p^+>0,`$ in contrast to the square root ambiguity for $`p^0`$ in the instant form. In transitions the $`p^{}`$ variable is not conserved.

The usual instant-form quark spinors  $`u_\lambda ^{inst}(k),v_\lambda ^{inst}(k)`$ under this transformation to the IMF will change their form and become light-cone spinors $`u_\lambda ^{LC}(k),v_\lambda ^{LC}(k)`$ denoted by a superscript $`LC`$ (see ref.  for a review) and $`\lambda `$ is the helicity. Note that our $`v`$-spinors obey $`v_\lambda (k)=\gamma _5u_\lambda (k)`$ in contrast to $`v_\lambda =C\overline{u}_\lambda ^T`$ of ref. .

The total momentum spinors $`U_{}`$$`U_{}`$ of the nucleon satisfy the free Dirac equation

$`(\gamma PM)U_\lambda =0,`$ (3)
where $`M`$ is the nucleon mass, $`P`$ its total momentum. In the rest frame of the nucleon the total momentum spinors have the form $`U_{}^T=(1,0,0,0),U_{}^T=(0,1,0,0).`$ The corresponding $`V_{}`$$`V_{}`$ spinors satisfy

$`(\gamma P+M)V_\lambda =0,`$ (4)
and have the rest-frame forms $`V_{}^T=(0,0,1,0),V_{}=(0,0,0,1).`$ The $`U,V`$ spinors are the building blocks of the Bargmann-Wigner (BW) basis.

The unitary transformation between instant-form and light front spinors is given by the Melosh rotation matrices

$$u_\lambda ^{inst}=\underset{\xi }{}_{\lambda \xi }^{(1)}u_\xi ^{LC},v_\lambda ^{inst}=\underset{\xi }{}_{\lambda \xi }^{(2)}v_\xi ^{LC},$$
(5)
where $`\lambda `$ and $`\xi `$ represent the helicities and

$$_{\lambda \xi }^{(1)}=_{\lambda \xi }^{(2)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2k^+(m+k^0)}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}k^++m& k^R\\ k^L& k^++m\end{array}\right)_{\lambda \xi }.$$
(6)
Here $`k^{R,L}=k^1\pm ik^2`$ are conventional abbreviations for the quark momentum in the nucleon rest frame and $`m`$ is the quark mass. The Melosh matrix for a single quark can also be written as an overlap of a quark spinor and the nucleon spinors $`U_\lambda ,V_\lambda ,`$

$`\overline{u}_\xi ^{LC}U_\lambda ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{mk^+}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}k^++m& k^R\\ k^L& k^++m\end{array}\right)_{\lambda \xi }`$ (9)
$`\overline{v}_\xi ^{LC}V_\lambda ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{mk^+}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}k^++m& k^R\\ k^L& k^++m\end{array}\right)_{\lambda \xi }`$ (12)
in the nucleon rest frame, so that the Melosh rotations may be written in the shorter form

$`_{\lambda \xi }^{(1)}=N\overline{u}_\xi ^{LC}U_\lambda =_{\lambda \xi }^{(2)}=N\overline{v}_\xi ^{LC}V_\lambda ,`$ (13)
with normalization $`N=\sqrt{\frac{2m}{m+k^0}}`$. In any frame, therefore,

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{u}_{}^{LC}U_{}& \overline{u}_{}^{LC}U_{}\\ \overline{u}_{}^{LC}U_{}& \overline{u}_{}^{LC}U_{}\end{array}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{mMp^+P^+}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}Mp^++mP^+& P^Rp^+P^+p^R\\ P^+p^LP^Lp^+& Mp^++mP^+\end{array}\right).`$ (18)
In a different notation these Melosh rotations are considered in .

The block diagonal form of the transformations, Eq. 13, motivates us to define off-diagonal transformations

$`w_\lambda ^{inst}={\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\left(\overline{v}_l^{LC}U_\lambda \right)u_l^{LC},z_\lambda ^{inst}={\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\left(\overline{u}_l^{LC}V_\lambda \right)v_l^{LC},`$ (19)
so that

$`\overline{v}_\xi ^{LC}U_\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{mp^+}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}k^+m& k^R\\ k^L& k^++m\end{array}\right)_{\lambda \xi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^{}}}_{\lambda \xi }^{(3)}`$ (22)
$`\overline{u}_\xi ^{LC}V_\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{mp^+}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}k^+m& k^R\\ k^L& k^++m\end{array}\right)_{\lambda \xi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^{}}}_{\lambda \xi }^{(4)},`$ (25)
with normalization $`N^{}\sqrt{\frac{2m}{k^0m}}`$. These transformations are manifestly unitary and relate

$`w_\lambda ^{inst}={\displaystyle \underset{\xi }{}}_{\lambda \xi }^{(3)}v_\xi ^{LC},z_\lambda ^{inst}={\displaystyle \underset{\xi }{}}_{\lambda \xi }^{(4)}u_\xi ^{LC}.`$ (26)
The $`z_\lambda ^{inst},w_\lambda ^{inst}`$ spinors obey the Dirac equations

$`(\gamma km)z_\lambda ^{inst}(k)=0,(\gamma k+m)w_\lambda ^{inst}(k)=0.`$ (27)
We can see that the $`w^{inst}`$ and $`z^{inst}`$ spinors differ from $`u^{inst}`$ and $`v^{inst}`$ spinors only in replacing $`k^0+m`$ by $`k^0m`$. Thus in highly relativistic cases, $`k^0+mk^0m`$ and $`w_\lambda ^{inst}u_\lambda ^{inst}`$, $`z_\lambda ^{inst}v_\lambda ^{inst}.`$ In the static limit, however, the $`z^{inst},w^{inst}`$ spinors appear to diverge, but on closer inspection the static limit is finite yet depends on the direction in which it is taken. Let us approach the static limit so that

$`k^x=k\alpha ,k^y=k\beta ,k^z=k\gamma ,\alpha ^2+\beta ^2+\gamma ^2=1,\mathrm{as}\mathrm{k}0.`$ (28)
Then

$`\sqrt{k^0m}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{\sqrt{2m}}},{\displaystyle \frac{k^z}{\sqrt{k^0m}}}\gamma \sqrt{2m},{\displaystyle \frac{k^R}{\sqrt{k^0m}}}(\alpha +i\beta )\sqrt{2m}\mathrm{as}\mathrm{k}0,`$ (29)
and

$$(z_{}^{inst})^T=(\gamma ,\alpha +i\beta ,0,0)$$

remains finite and normalized to unity, but clearly depends on how one approaches the static limit. Similar results hold for the other three spinors.

In fact, the $`w^{inst},z^{inst}`$ spinors are directly related to the $`u^{inst},v^{inst}`$ spinors by the spin rotation

$`w_\lambda ^{inst}(k)=\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{k}v_\lambda ^{inst}(k),z_\lambda ^{inst}(k)=\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{k}u_\lambda ^{inst}(k),`$ (30)
where the unit vector $`\widehat{k}=\stackrel{}{k}/k,k=\sqrt{\stackrel{}{k}^2}`$. This spin rotation is clearly not well defined for $`k0`$. To prove this relation for $`z^{inst}`$, for example, we repeatedly substitute

$$\stackrel{}{k}^2=(k^0)^2m^2=(k^0m)(k^0+m)$$
(31)
in

$`\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{k}u^{inst}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{k^0+m}{2m}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{k}\\ \frac{k}{k^0+m}\end{array}\right)\chi ={\displaystyle \frac{k}{\sqrt{2m(k^0+m)}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{k^0+m}{k^2}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{k}\\ 1\end{array}\right)\chi `$ (32)
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{k^0m}{2m}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{k}}{k^0m}\\ 1\end{array}\right)\chi =z^{inst}.`$ (33)
The consistency of this ambiguity of the static limit with the nature of the $`UVV`$ invariants is discussed in Sect. IV.

The reason for introducing these spin rotated $`w`$ and $`z`$ spinors and their usefulness become transparent for multi-quark states only. But let us emphasize here already that we may view the matrix elements involved in Eq. 19 as unitary transformations from light cone to instant spinors via the BW (or IMF) baryon basis states $`U,V`$. We shall show that, for the resulting three-quark basis to be complete, one needs to go via $`V`$ states as well as $`U`$ states. In this sense Eq. 19 provides the missing off-diagonal elements from $`U_\lambda `$ to $`v_\lambda ^{}`$ and $`V_\lambda `$ to $`u_\lambda ^{}`$.

In Section IV we shall use these Melosh rotations for $`w`$ and $`z`$ states to construct all three-quark states of the Dirac and BW representations, which will make their equivalence manifest.

## III Conversion of Dirac to Bargmann-Wigner Basis

In this section we review the connection between two forms of nucleon wave functions, one in the Dirac basis and the other in the Bargmann-Wigner basis. We develop a simple and transparent method to establish the one-to-one correspondence between the Dirac and Bargmann-Wigner bases that avoids the evaluation of overlap matrix elements used in ref. .

When the nucleon is treated as a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ field, it is a third-rank spinor $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{[\alpha \beta ]\gamma }`$ which satisfies the free Dirac equation for each spinor index

$`(\gamma PM)_\alpha ^\alpha ^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{[\alpha ^{}\beta ]\gamma }=(\gamma PM)_\beta ^\beta ^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{[\alpha \beta ^{}]\gamma }=(\gamma PM)_\gamma ^\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{[\alpha \beta ]\gamma ^{}}=0.`$ (34)
These constraints and the total symmetry under permutation of the three spinor indices lead to the spinor form $`[(\gamma P+M)\gamma _5C]_{\alpha \beta }U_\lambda (P)`$ of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{[\alpha \beta ]\gamma }`$ , which is antisymmetric under the exchange of the $`\alpha ,\beta `$ indices. Here $`C=i\gamma ^2\gamma ^0`$ is the charge conjugation matrix.

However, in QCD and in quark models in particular the nucleon is no longer a local field. Various bound state nucleon wave function components may be related to different three-quark-nucleon vertices defined by corresponding interaction Lagrangians. Such an approach has recently  been adopted for a null-plane projection of the Feynman triangle diagram for spacelike electroweak form factors of the nucleon. From Lorentz invariance and symmetries under permutations of three quarks, a basis of Dirac $`\gamma `$-matrix representations has been constructed for the spin-flavor components of these couplings (see ref.  for a review) which is equivalent to the BW-basis. The specific spin coupling listed above reduces to the nonrelativistic quark model $`S`$-state in the static limit. This spin wave function dominates the applications of relativistic quark models.

The wave function of a proton can be written in the uds basis as

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}|P_{}\hfill & =\hfill & |\mathrm{mom}.[\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}()\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\mathrm{ud}\mathrm{du})\mathrm{u}\hfill & & \\ & +\hfill & (\mathrm{MS})_{\mathrm{spin}}(\mathrm{MS})_{\mathrm{isospin}}]|\mathrm{SU}(3)_{\mathrm{color}},\hfill & & \end{array}$$
(35)
where MS stands for the mixed symmetric combination.

In order to convert the spin structure of this wave function to Lorentz covariant form, we start rewriting two-particle spin wave functions in terms of Pauli matrices. We know that $``$ is the antisymmetric combination of two spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particles. If we recognize that $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\right)`$$`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{1}\right)`$ and carry out the direct product, then we get

$`\left(\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}}\right)\left(01\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{1}}\right)\left(10\right)\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)=i\sigma _2,`$ (38)
that is, the off-diagonal matrix $`\sigma _2`$ represents antisymmetric coupling. This identity has a similar form when we go to the four-dimensional Dirac space, where the basis is comprised of four-components Dirac spinors $`U_{},U_{},V_{},V_{}`$ of the nucleon from the previous Sect.II. For this case the decomposition takes the form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\alpha \beta }=(U_{}^\alpha U_{}^\alpha V_{}^\alpha V_{}^\alpha )_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \nu }\left(\begin{array}{c}U_{}^\beta \\ U_{}^\beta \\ V_{}^\beta \\ V_{}^\beta \end{array}\right)_\nu ,$$
(39)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is one of the sixteen Dirac matrices

$`\gamma ^\mu C,\sigma ^{\mu \nu }C(12\mathrm{symmetric}),`$ (40)
$`\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5C,\gamma _5C,C(12\mathrm{antisymmetric}).`$ (41)
The entries for the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ matrices have a twofold meaning: one as the coupling of the U,V spinors with different helicities and the other as the direct product of the spinor elements.

The above identity (39) is most easily checked in the nucleon rest frame. To see how to convert the $`G_i`$ of the Dirac basis in Table I into $`U,V`$ spinors we proceed in two steps. First we decompose the $`UV`$ coupling and then the spin structure. For example, for $`G_2\gamma _5CU^{}`$ because

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& \gamma _5C\hfill & =\hfill & \gamma _5i\gamma ^2\gamma ^0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)^{UV}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)^{spin}\hfill \\ & & =\hfill & \left(UV\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{U}{V}\right)()\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{}\right)\hfill \\ & & =\hfill & (UU+VV)(+).\hfill \end{array}$$
(42)
Including the third quark, we obtain

$`G_2=\gamma _5CU_{}`$ $`=`$ $`(UU+VV)(+)U^{}`$ (43)
$`=`$ $`U^{}U^{}U^{}+U^{}U^{}U^{}V^{}V^{}U^{}+V^{}V^{}U^{}.`$ (44)
The conversion to the BW basis for all the eight invariants in Table I proceeds in this way, and they are displayed in Table II.

The spin part of the wave function is constructed by choosing two of the quarks coupling via $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }^1)_{\alpha \beta }`$, abbreviated as $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$, with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ from Eqs. 39, 41 having definite permutation symmetry with respect to the exchange of the two spinor indices. The third quark index is added by combining a Dirac matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$, which is one of the basic sixteen 1, $`\gamma _5`$, $`\gamma ^\mu `$,$`\gamma _5\gamma ^\mu `$, $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }`$ with the nucleon spinor $`u_N(P)`$. Hence the total spinor components have the third-rank tensor structure

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{[\alpha \beta ]\gamma }=(\mathrm{\Gamma }^1)_{\alpha \beta }(\mathrm{\Gamma }^2u_N(P))_\gamma ,$$

which may be evaluated for $`u`$\- and $`v`$-spinors. In light front quark model applications, such as form factors defined by a triangle Feynman diagram, such spin couplings are sandwiched between $`u`$-spinors only and called spin wave functions. Next the isospin coupling is multiplied in with matching (12) permutation symmetry. However, baryon wave functions exhibit the totally symmetric form (12)3+(23)1+(31)2, except for the color part, so that we need to symmetrize the spin invariants (12)3 that we have constructed so far.

To make a totally symmetric spin-flavor wave function (without the color indices), we combine the (12) symmetric isospin $`\stackrel{}{\tau }\stackrel{}{\tau }\varphi _N`$ with the symmetric (12) spin coupling, where $`\varphi _N`$ is the isospin wave function of the nucleon. Similarly for the (12) antisymmetric combination, the mixed antisymmetric isospin combination is given by $`i\tau _2\varphi _N`$. Thus for the distinguishable (12)3 quark system we have the eight independent spin-isospin basis states shown in Table I.

Once we have the spinor invariants for the distinguishable quarks (12)3, we need to permute them according to (12)3+(23)1+(31)2. To simplify the basis further, we calculate the isospin matrix elements explicitly using the $`uds`$ basis, where in a proton, (12)3 denotes the quark configuration $`uud`$. Let us take $`G_1`$ as an example,

$`G_1=M{\displaystyle [\varphi _1^{}i\tau _2\varphi _2^{}\varphi _3\varphi _N]_{isospin}[(C)_{12}(u_N)_3]_{spin}}.`$ (45)
Under permutation,

$`S_1=M{\displaystyle [\varphi _1^{}i\tau _2\varphi _2\varphi _3^{}\varphi _N]_{isospin}[(C)_{12}(u_N)_3]_{spin}}+(23)1+(31)2`$ (46)
$`=[(23)1]_{spin}[(31)2]_{spin}.`$ (47)
Dropping the subscript $`spin`$ in the above equation, the totally symmetric coupling $`S_1`$ corresponding to $`G_1`$ becomes

$`S_1=(C)_{23}(u_N)_1(C)_{31}(u_N)_2.`$ (48)
Similarly for a (12) symmetric $`\stackrel{}{\tau }_{12}\stackrel{}{\tau }_3`$ coupling in isospin space we find the isospin matrix elements -2,1,1 for (12)3, (23)1 and (31)2 couplings, respectively. Then the symmetrized spinor invariant $`G_3`$ becomes

$`S_3=2M(\gamma ^\mu C)_{12}(\gamma _5\gamma _\mu u_N)_3+(23)1+(31)2.`$ (49)
In order to rearrange the (23)1 and (31)2 terms in (12)3 order, we use the Fierz rearrangement Table III (see also Table I of ref.) to get

$$S_1=(23)1(31)2=\frac{1}{2}G_3\frac{1}{4}G_7.$$
(50)
The final results are shown in Table IV. From Table IV, we can find out that there exist only three independent components, because there are five linear relationships between them, namely,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}S_1\hfill & =\hfill & S_2S_4,\hfill \\ S_3\hfill & =\hfill & 3S_4,\hfill \\ S_5\hfill & =\hfill & S_4S_6,\hfill \\ S_7\hfill & =\hfill & 12S_26S_4,\hfill \\ S_8\hfill & =\hfill & 3S_22S_4+2S_6.\hfill \end{array}$$
(51)
Thus, we can choose $`S_2,S_4,S_6`$ as the three independent couplings for the nucleon wave function.

The construction of spinor invariants for nucleon resonance states follows the same procdures except for replacing the total momentum spinor $`u_N`$ by a Rarita-Schwinger spinor for spin-$`\frac{3}{2}`$

$`U_\lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}^{},\mu }={\displaystyle \underset{m_1,m_2,m_1+m_2=\lambda }{}}C_{m_1m_2\lambda }^{1\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}}\widehat{ϵ}_{m_1}^\mu u_{m_2}`$ (52)
$`U_\lambda ^{\frac{3}{2}^{},\mu }={\displaystyle \underset{m_1,m_2,m_1+m_2=\lambda }{}}C_{m_1m_2\lambda }^{1\frac{1}{2}\frac{3}{2}}\widehat{ϵ}_{m_1}^\mu u_{m_2},`$ (53)
where $`u_m(P)`$ is a Dirac spinor, and the four mutually orthogonal vectors $`P^\mu `$, and the polarization vectors $`\widehat{ϵ}_{\pm ,0}^\mu `$ together form basis of Minkowski space. The Rarita-Schwinger spinor has eight independent components because it satisfies the constraint $`\gamma _\mu U_\lambda ^{\frac{3}{2},\mu }=0`$, which shows that there is no spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ contribution. The orthogonality between the spinors is guaranteed by that of the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients. The contraction between the relative momentum variables $`s_\mu `$ and $`U_{1/2}^{1/2,\mu }`$ gives

$`s_\mu U_{\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2},\mu }=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}}\left(s^zu_{}+s^Ru_{}\right)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}}(\gamma _5\gamma su_{}).`$ (54)
This is consistent with the spinor invariants for $`N^{}(1535)`$ constructed in reference , where the total momentum wave function was written as $`s_\mu u_\lambda `$ and contracted with $`\gamma ^\mu `$ instead of $`(s_\mu U_{\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2},\mu })`$ in our case.

For $`N^{}(1535),N^{}(1520)`$ the invariants are constructed by replacing the Dirac spinor by $`\gamma _5(s_\mu U_\lambda ^{(\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2}),\mu })`$ and are listed in Tables V and VI. The extra $`\gamma _5`$ is necessary for the correct parity. The symmetrization among the three quarks follows the same procedure as that for the nucleon and the results are listed in Table VII for the Dirac basis.

Because of the presence of the relative momentum $`s_\mu `$ ($`s_3=p_1p_2`$, etc.) the number of linear relations between the eight symmetrized states is reduced to three, namely

$`2(S_1^{^{}}+S_2^{^{}})S_7^{^{}}=0,`$ (55)
$`S_2^{^{}}+S_6^{^{}}S_3^{^{}}+S_5^{^{}}S_8^{^{}}=0,`$ (56)
$`4S_1^{^{}}+3S_3^{^{}}S_4^{^{}}S_7^{^{}}=0.`$ (57)
This means that there are now five independent spinor components for $`N^{}(1535),N^{}(1520)`$ each.

To summarize what we have accomplished so far, the eight independent relativistic couplings can be transformed into equivalent linear combinations of direct products of three Dirac spinors, which can be either $`U_\lambda (P)`$, the positive energy spinors or $`V_\lambda (P)`$, the negative energy spinors, where $`\lambda `$ means helicity. This is what is called Bargmann-Wigner basis in ref.  as compared to the Dirac matrix representation or basis. While the invariants $`G_i`$ of the Dirac basis can be easily interpretated as couplings between the three quarks and the nucleon, the invariants expressed in the BW basis have the advantage of being more easily permuted. Moreover, in Sect. IV, we shall use the BW representation as a means of transforming the spin-flavor wave functions from the instant to the LF form.

## IV Three-Quark Nucleon States

With $`q^3N`$ couplings written in both Dirac and $`U,V`$ forms, we are ready to generate the nucleon wave functions being used in light front dynamics. For simplicity we consider only the spin structure of the nucleon, ignore its isospin and treat quarks as distinguishable.

The relativistic spinor basis is constructed from nonrelativistic Pauli spinors $`\chi `$. If we focus on the (12) quark pair, then the singlet pair state

$`|0,0{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _1,\lambda _2}{}}C_{\lambda _1\lambda _20}^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}0}\chi _{\lambda _1}\chi _{\lambda _2}`$ (58)
the first step of the relativistic generalization is to replace Pauli spinors by Dirac spinors of positive energy in the instant form

$`|0,0^{(uu)}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _1,\lambda _2}{}}C_{\lambda _1\lambda _20}^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}0}u_\lambda ^{inst}u_{\lambda _2}^{inst}.`$ (59)
Upon transforming the instant to light-front spinors, we apply the first part of Eq. (5) to get

$`|0,0^{(uu)}={\displaystyle \underset{\xi _1,\xi _2}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _1,\lambda _2}{}}\left(C_{\lambda _1\lambda _20}^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}0}_{\lambda _1\xi _1}^{(1)}_{\lambda _2\xi _2}^{(1)}\right)\right]u_{\xi _1}^{LC}u_{\xi _2}^{LC}.`$ (60)
Substituting Eq. (13) for $`_{\lambda \xi }^{(1)}`$ we obtain

$$|0,0^{(uu)}=\frac{2m}{m+k^0}\underset{\xi _1,\xi _2}{}\left[\overline{u}_{\xi _1}^{LC}(\underset{\lambda _1,\lambda _2}{}C_{\lambda _1\lambda _20}^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}0}U_{\lambda _1}U_{\lambda _2})(\overline{u}_{\xi _2}^{LC})^T\right]u_{\xi _1}^{LC}u_{\xi _2}^{LC}.$$
(61)
From the conversion of the Dirac basis to the BW-basis in the previous Section III, we know that in the nucleon rest frame

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _1,\lambda _2}{}}C_{\lambda _1\lambda _20}^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}0}U_{\lambda _1}U_{\lambda _2}={\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma _0}{2\sqrt{2}}}\gamma _5C`$ (62)
is valid. Therefore

$`|0,0^{(uu)}={\displaystyle \frac{2m}{\sqrt{2}(m+k^0)}}{\displaystyle \underset{\xi _1,\xi _2}{}}\left[\overline{u}_{\xi _1}^{LC}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma _0}{2}}\gamma _5C(\overline{u}_{\xi _2}^{LC})^T\right]u_{\xi _1}^{LC}u_{\xi _2}^{LC}.`$ (63)
This can be generalized to an arbitrary frame by boosting the nucleon to momentum P, so that we have

$`|0,0^{(uu)}={\displaystyle \frac{m\sqrt{2}}{m+k^0}}{\displaystyle \underset{\xi _1,\xi _2}{}}\left[\overline{u}_{\xi _1}^{LC}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma P+M}{2M}}\gamma _5C(\overline{u}_{\xi _2}^{LC})^T\right]u_{\xi _1}^{LC}u_{\xi _2}^{LC}.`$ (64)
Combining this quark pair state with the third quark we get precisely the three-quark state that is usually considered in applications of relativistic quark models.

Now we are ready to extend the spin coupling method to quark pairs constructed via $`V`$-spinors, that is, there are similar new components starting from $`z`$ spinors in the instant form,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}|0,0^{(zz)}\hfill & \hfill & _{\lambda _1,\lambda _2}C_{\lambda _1\lambda _20}^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}0}z_\lambda ^{inst}z_{\lambda _2}^{inst}\hfill \\ & =\hfill & _{\xi _1,\xi _2}\left[_{\lambda _1,\lambda _2}C_{\lambda _1\lambda _20}^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}0}_{\lambda _1\xi _1}^{(4)}_{\lambda _2\xi _2}^{(4)}\right]u_{\xi _1}^{LC}u_{\xi _2}^{LC}\hfill \\ & =\hfill & \frac{2m}{k^0m}_{\xi _1,\xi _2}\left[\overline{u}_{\xi _1}^{LC}(_{\lambda _1,\lambda _2}C_{\lambda _1\lambda _20}^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}0}V_{\lambda _1}V_{\lambda _2})(\overline{u}_{\xi _2}^{LC})^T\right]u_{\xi _1}^{LC}u_{\xi _2}^{LC}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(65)
From Eq. (65) and Eq. (61) we can form the linear combination

$$\frac{\sqrt{2}}{N^2}|0,0>^{(uu)}\frac{\sqrt{2}}{N^2}|0,0>^{(zz)}=\underset{\xi _1,\xi _2}{}[\overline{u}_{\xi _1}^{LC}\gamma _5C(\overline{u}_{\xi _2}^{LC})^T]u_{\xi _1}^{LC}u_{\xi _2}^{LC},$$
(66)
where in the next to last line we recall (Eq. 44)

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\gamma _5C\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(U_{}U_{}U_{}U_{}+V_{}V_{}V_{}V_{})\hfill \\ & =\hfill & _{\lambda _1,\lambda _2}C_{\lambda _1\lambda _20}^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}0}U_{\lambda _1}U_{\lambda _2}+_{\lambda _1,\lambda _2}C_{\lambda _1\lambda _20}^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}0}V_{\lambda _1}V_{\lambda _2}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(67)
Thus, from the linear combination of $`|0,0^{(uu)}`$ and $`|0,0^{(zz)}`$ we can construct the spinor invariant $`G_2`$ with positive spinors $`u_1`$ and $`u_2`$ in the Dirac representation. This means that, if we are to account for all eight invariants $`G_i`$ in Table I as independent spinor components with the positive energy spinors as in light-front dynamics, then it is necessary to include the $`z^{inst}`$ spinors.

With almost the same steps we find

$$\frac{\sqrt{2}}{N^2}|0,0^{(uu)}+\frac{\sqrt{2}}{N^2}|0,0^{(zz)}=\underset{\xi _1,\xi _2}{}[\overline{u}_{\xi _1}^{LC}\gamma _0\gamma _5C(\overline{u}_{\xi _2}^{LC})^T]u_{\xi _1}^{LC}u_{\xi _2}^{LC},$$
(68)
which is the quark pair part of $`G_6`$ in the rest frame of the nucleon. There are similar expressions for all other spin invariants.

We are now ready to complete the construction of relativistic, mixed-antisymmetric (MA) positive-energy three-quark spinor states.

From Eq. (19), we see that the $`U`$ and $`V`$ spinors come in when we transform the instant spinors to the light-front form. If we require the quark spinors to be of positive energy only, then there are only two ways to generate the $`u_i^{LC}`$

$$u_\lambda ^{inst}=N\underset{\xi }{}(\overline{u}_\xi ^{LC}U_\lambda )u_\lambda ^{LC},z_\lambda ^{inst}=N^{}\underset{\xi }{}(\overline{u}_\xi ^{LC}V_\lambda )u_\lambda ^{LC}.$$
(69)
Since in the $`UV`$ construction, the only allowed combinations are either three $`U`$s or two $`V`$s and one $`U`$ for parity reasons, in the instant form the quark spinors must be one of the following four combinations

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}UUU\hfill & :\hfill & |MA,\lambda ^{(uuu)}\hfill & \hfill & _{\lambda _3,\lambda }C_{0\lambda _3\lambda }^{0\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}}(_{\lambda _1,\lambda _2}C_{\lambda _1\lambda _20}^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}0}u_{\lambda _1}^{inst}u_{\lambda _2}^{inst})u_{\lambda _3}^{inst}\hfill \\ VVU\hfill & :\hfill & |MA,\lambda ^{(zzu)}\hfill & \hfill & _{\lambda _3,\lambda }C_{0\lambda _3\lambda }^{0\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}}(_{\lambda _1,\lambda _2}C_{\lambda _1\lambda _20}^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}0}z_{\lambda _1}^{inst}z_{\lambda _2}^{inst})u_{\lambda _3}^{inst}\hfill \\ & & |MA,\lambda ^{(zuz)}\hfill & \hfill & _{\lambda _3,\lambda }C_{0\lambda _3\lambda }^{0\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}}(_{\lambda _1,\lambda _2}C_{\lambda _1\lambda _20}^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}0}z_{\lambda _1}^{inst}u_{\lambda _2}^{inst})z_{\lambda _3}^{inst}\hfill \\ & & |MA,\lambda ^{(zzu)}\hfill & \hfill & _{\lambda _3,\lambda }C_{0\lambda _3\lambda }^{0\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}}(_{\lambda _1,\lambda _2}C_{\lambda _1\lambda _20}^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}0}u_{\lambda _1}^{inst}z_{\lambda _2}^{inst})z_{\lambda _3}^{inst}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(70)
This gives a total of four states. We know their linear independence from their Dirac basis representations. It can be shown that linear combinations of states constructed from the above four states can generate $`G_1`$$`G_2`$$`G_4`$ and $`G_6`$. And similarly starting from the mixed-symmetric combination we can generate the remaining four $`G_i`$ couplings. These results display the explicit separation of the Dirac matrix forms of three-quark-nucleon couplings into states whose Dirac spinor content and spin couplings are manifest. In ref.  it is shown that different quark-nucleon wave functions characterized by various $`G_i`$ have important physical consequences. For example, the nonrelativistic quark model (NQM) gives the same fall-off with increasing momentum transfer for electric ($`G_E^p`$) and magnetic ($`G_M^p`$) form factors of the proton. The Melosh rotated ground state wave function of the NQM is given by $`G_2+G_6`$. However, wave functions of $`G_2,`$ $`G_6`$ and $`G_2+G_6`$ type generate different slopes of $`G_E^p/G_M^p`$ as functions of momentum transfer , so that $`G_2`$ is in better agreement with recent data from Jefferson Laboratory  than $`G_2+G_6,`$ or $`G_6`$. For the neutron charge form factor the agreement of $`G_2`$ with the data and disagreement of $`G_2+G_6`$ and $`G_6`$ are even more pronounced.

The $`UVV`$ invariants differ from $`UUU`$ in that they can not be obtained from a well defined static limit via Melosh rotation. This explains why the $`z,w`$ spinors do not have a well defined static limit which would circumvent this no-go theorem. In other words, the undefined static limit of the $`z,w`$ spinors is the price one pays for the canonical Melosh construction of all spin-flavor couplings of the Dirac basis.

## V Three-Quark States With Virtual Antiquarks

In a typical electromagnetic form factor calculation the one-body quark current is sandwiched between three-quark wave functions of the nucleon  that contain only $`u`$-quarks (see the $`uuuN`$ vertex of Fig.1a). No intermediate $`v`$-quarks occur in the triangle Feynman diagram because the quark propagator contains only a $`u`$-spinor piece with energy denominator $`p^{}\frac{𝐩_{}^2+m^2}{p^+}`$ in addition to the instantaneous part $`\frac{\gamma ^+}{2p^+}`$, and any $`v`$-spinor coupled to the virtual photon is eliminated in the Breit frame (by $`q^+=0`$). Nonetheless, the three-quark-nucleon and -baryon couplings may occur in Feynman diagrams sandwiched between $`u`$\- and $`v`$-spinors. In this context, we expect that $`v`$-states, and the $`vuuN`$ vertex of Fig.1b in particular, are generated by flux-tube breaking in QCD. In fact, in ref.  the phenomenologically successful <sup>3</sup>P<sub>0</sub> quark-pair creation model of hadron decays is generalized to the (color electric) flux tube breaking mechanism expected to occur in QCD at intermediate distances. Because it is conceptually simpler we keep the approximate <sup>3</sup>P<sub>0</sub> quark pair creation vertex with its characteristic spin coupling  $`\overline{u}(𝐩)v(𝐩)\sigma 𝐩`$ in our discussion. The spin matrix elements (in spherical basis) are the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients that couple the quark- antiquark spins to the triplet state. In hadronic decays the <sup>3</sup>P<sub>0</sub> vertex introduces the $`v`$-spinor that converts a three-quark spin-flavor invariant of $`uuu`$ type to $`vuu`$ type.

Now we are ready to extend the spin coupling method to quark pairs containing $`v`$-spinors and lift the restriction to positive energy spinors. Including two $`v^{inst}`$ spinors to maintain positive parity, and in analogy with Eq. (59) we have

$`|0,0^{(vv)}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _1,\lambda _2}{}}C_{\lambda _1\lambda _20}^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}0}v_\lambda ^{inst}v_{\lambda _2}^{inst}.`$ (71)
Applying the Melosh rotation $`_{\lambda \xi }^{(2)}`$ (Eq. 13), we obtain from Eq. 71

$$\begin{array}{ccc}|0,0^{(vv)}\hfill & =\hfill & _{\lambda _1,\lambda _2}C_{\lambda _1\lambda _20}^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}0}_{\xi _1,\xi _2}(_{\lambda _1\xi _1}^{(2)}v_{\xi _1}^{LC})(_{\lambda _2\xi _2}^{(2)}v_{\xi _2}^{LC})\hfill \\ & =\hfill & N^2_{\xi _1,\xi _2}\left[_{\lambda _1,\lambda _2}C_{\lambda _1\lambda _20}^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}0}(\overline{v}_{\xi _1}^{LC}V_{\lambda _1})(\overline{v}_{\xi _2}^{LC}V_{\lambda _2})\right]v_{\xi _1}^{LC}v_{\xi _2}^{LC}\hfill \\ & =\hfill & \frac{2m}{m+k^0}_{\xi _1,\xi _2}\left[\overline{v}_{\xi _1}^{LC}(_{\lambda _1,\lambda _2}C_{\lambda _1\lambda _20}^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}0}V_{\lambda _1}V_{\lambda _2})(\overline{v}_{\xi _2}^{LC})^T\right]v_{\xi _1}^{LC}v_{\xi _2}^{LC}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(72)
From the conversion in Section III, we recall that

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_{\lambda _1,\lambda _2}C_{\lambda _1\lambda _20}^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}0}V_{\lambda _1}V_{\lambda _2}\hfill & =\hfill & _{\lambda _1,\lambda _2}C_{\lambda _1\lambda _20}^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}0}U_{\lambda _1}U_{\lambda _2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\gamma _5C\hfill \\ & =\hfill & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\frac{1+\gamma _0}{2}\gamma _5C\gamma _5C)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\frac{\gamma _01}{2}\gamma _5C).\hfill \end{array}$$
(73)
Substituting Eq. (73) into Eq. (72) we get

$`|0,0^{(vv)}={\displaystyle \frac{m\sqrt{2}}{m+k^0}}{\displaystyle \underset{\xi _1,\xi _2}{}}\left[\overline{v}_{\xi _1}^{LC}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _01}{2}}\gamma _5C(\overline{v}_{\xi _2}^{LC})^T\right]v_{\xi _1}^{LC}v_{\xi _2}^{LC}.`$ (74)
Again, Eq. (74) can be generalized to a frame where the nucleon has momentum $`P`$, which gives

$`|0,0^{(vv)}={\displaystyle \frac{m\sqrt{2}}{m+k^0}}{\displaystyle \underset{\xi _1,\xi _2}{}}\left[\overline{v}_{\xi _1}^{LC}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma PM}{2M}}\gamma _5C(\overline{v}_{\xi _2}^{LC})^T\right]v_{\xi _1}^{LC}v_{\xi _2}^{LC}.`$ (75)
From Eq. 75 we can see that, by applying the Melosh transformation to the $`v^{inst}`$ spinors, a new component of the Dirac representation is generated. All others are constructed similarly.

For completeness we mention three-quark states of spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ and negative parity with a single $`v`$ spinor that we expect to play a role in sea-quark Fock states

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}vuu\hfill & :\hfill & |MA,\lambda ^{(wuu)}\hfill & \hfill & _{\lambda _3,\lambda }C_{0\lambda _3\lambda }^{0\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}}(_{\lambda _1,\lambda _2}C_{\lambda _1\lambda _20}^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}0}w_{\lambda _1}^{inst}u_{\lambda _2}^{inst})u_{\lambda _3}^{inst}\hfill \\ & & |MA,\lambda ^{(uwu)}\hfill & \hfill & _{\lambda _3,\lambda }C_{0\lambda _3\lambda }^{0\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}}(_{\lambda _1,\lambda _2}C_{\lambda _1\lambda _20}^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}0}u_{\lambda _1}^{inst}w_{\lambda _2}^{inst})u_{\lambda _3}^{inst}\hfill \\ & & |MA,\lambda ^{(uuw)}\hfill & \hfill & _{\lambda _3,\lambda }C_{0\lambda _3\lambda }^{0\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}}(_{\lambda _1,\lambda _2}C_{\lambda _1\lambda _20}^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}0}u_{\lambda _1}^{inst}u_{\lambda _2}^{inst})w_{\lambda _3}^{inst}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(76)
There are also the corresponding mixed symmetric $`vuu`$ spin invariants, which result from replacing the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients for pair spin $`0`$ by those for pair spin $`1`$.

A flux tube breaking in the nucleon, then, involves a quark pair creation event from the vacuum and generates an intermediate $`v`$-state, which may be converted by a valence gluon as in Fig.2a, or by a Goldstone boson in effective chiral field theory as in Fig.2b, into a $`u`$-spinor. Thus, these diagrams represent transition amplitudes from a three-quark Fock state to a three-quark-gluon or a three-quark-Goldstone boson Fock state mediated by quark pair creation. As suggested by chiral quark models, these Fock states are expected to contribute to the neutron charge form factor in particular, which relativistic quark model can not explain on the basis of the canonical ($`UUU`$) three-quark wave function alone. However, in scalar coupling ($`G_2`$ of Table I) the neutron charge form factor description improves . The $`vuu`$ states also enter and are probed by time-like weak processes discussed in ref. .

A key feature of the quark-nucleon coupling involving an antiquark is that the vertex function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is in general no longer directly related to the radial wave function. This point has been emphasized in recent analyses  of skewed parton distributions of deeply virtual Compton scattering (DVCS) from the proton. When the leading twist handbag diagram of DVC is integrated over the longitudinal momentum fraction $`x,`$ the integrand of the covariant triangle diagram results. In light-cone time-ordered perturbation theory the latter splits up into the standard form factor result involving the initial and final light-cone wave functions of the proton and the diagram shown in Fig. 3, where the photon momentum $`q^+>0`$ can no longer be chosen to vanish in DVCS. The antiquark-$`q^2`$-nucleon vertex function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ involves $`k^+q^+<0.`$ Using the Bethe-Salpeter equation for the proton projected to the null-plane, where it becomes the Weinberg equation, the negative momentum fraction may be shifted into the kernel $`V`$ of the equation of motion, whereas the proton light-cone wave function $`\psi `$ retains positive plus-momentum. In our case, using the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ pair creation amplitude $`g_p\overline{v}_1u_1,`$ the proton spin-flavor wave function $`\overline{u}_2\gamma _5C\overline{u}_3^T(\overline{u}_1u_N)\overline{u}_1\gamma _5C\overline{u}_3^T(\overline{u}_2u_N)`$ is converted through the $`u_1\overline{u}_1`$ spin sum to the spin-flavor vertex structure

$$\overline{u}_2\gamma _5C\overline{u}_3^T(\overline{v}_1(qk)u_N)\overline{v}_1(qk)\gamma _5C\overline{u}_3^T(\overline{u}_2u_N),$$

where the $`v`$-spinor has the proper positive plus-component as a consequence of the pair creation from the vacuum. The vertex function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }g_pR(M_0^2)(m_N^2M_0^2)`$ remains connected to the radial light-cone momentum wave function $`R`$ of the final proton state.

## VI Discussion And Conclusions

We have constructed relativistic three-quark states for the nucleon and several Ns in the Dirac representation and compared with the Bargmann-Wigner basis by systematically including all dynamically accessible matrix elements ($`\overline{u}V`$), ($`\overline{v}U`$), and ($`\overline{v}V`$). Our direct and transparent construction of the Dirac basis states makes its equivalence with the Bargmann-Wigner basis manifest, thus avoiding the evaluation of many-body overlap matrix elements of ref. . We have shown that in light front dynamics the nonstatic quark-baryon couplings (wave functions with zero static limit) can be constructed via unitary transformations from the instant form as well. Therefore, in a Lorentz covariant framework, they form part of a Hilbert space and should be treated on equal footing with the Melosh rotated nonrelativistic states. We also have compiled all linear relations among the symmetrized quark-nucleon couplings, as well as those for the N(1520) and N(1535) nucleon resonance states, from which the number of independent basis states follows. The Melosh transformations facilitate the construction of states with one or two antiquarks which are ingredients in transition amplitudes from three-quark to three-quark-gluon or three-quark-Goldstone boson Fock states.

## VII Acknowledgement

We are grateful for the support of the INPP at UVa.