text:
# On the dynamics of interfaces in the ferromagnetic XXZ chain under weak perturbations

## 1. Introduction

The quantum ferromagnetic Heisenberg model has received a great deal of interest in recent years. We shall concentrate here on the one-dimensional model. The starting point was the discovery of interface ground states in the anisotropic XXZ Heisenberg chain by Alcaraz, Salinas and Wreszinski  and independently by Gottstein and Werner . These interface ground states display two regions of opposite magnetization separated by a domain wall whose thickness depends on the anisotropy. Explicit expressions for the ground states exist for all values of the spin, see Section 2.

The next important contribution was the proof of completeness of the infinite volume ground states (in the sense of local stability) and the proof of a positive gap above the ground states for any amount of anisotropy and any value of the spin. The spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ model is $`SU_q(2)`$ symmetric which was used to determine the exact value of the gap. This was accomplished by Koma and Nachtergaele  and Matsui .

The existence of a spectral gap for general $`j`$ was proven by Koma, Nachtergaele and Starr . Recently, it was proven by Caputo and Martinelli  that the gap for spin $`j`$ scales asymptotically like $`j`$, however, no precise values are known. This verifies a conjecture stated in , and comes as a surprise since the spin-$`j`$ Ising chain (which can be considered as the XXZ chain with infinite anisotropy) always has a gap equal to 1.

There has been a lot of progress over the last two decades on the dynamics of classical spin systems, or lattics gas systems. For instance, for the Ising model the Glauber and Kawasaki dynamics have been studied extensively. Here, we only want to mention the work by Schonmann and Shlosman  on the relaxation in the Ising model which is similar to what we want to study in the quantum XXZ chain. A quantum model which has been studied in detail is the one-dimensional XY model, by Antal, Rácz, Rákos, and Schütz  at zero temperature and by Ogata  at non-zero temperature. More recently, Aschbacher and Pillet  studied non-equilibrium steady states in the same model at non-zero temperature. This is of great interest also in the context of entropy production. The XY model (in one dimension) is easier to deal with than the XXZ model since it can be mapped to a model of free fermions (see  and ).

Interfaces and their response to magnetic fields are of great physical and technological interest, for instance in storing and reading information on magnetic devices. The concept of a magnetic domain was first introduced by Pierre Weiss, already in 1906. It was in 1935 in a seminal paper that Landau and Lifshitz presented a theoretical treatment of domain walls and their motion when a magnetic field is applied. Although the Landau-Lifshitz equation was rigorously derived in the mean-field limit by Moser, Prets, and Spitzer , its predictions do not universally hold true for all magnetic materials. Thus we want to understand the dynamical behavior of domain walls in a quantum model, in which they occur naturally as ground states, namely in the XXZ model.

The dynamics we consider is generated by the XXZ kink Hamiltonian perturbed by a magnetic field. As in many similar cases, we introduce a scaling where the strength of the perturbation, say the coupling constant $`\lambda `$ for a magnetic field, tends to 0 and the microscopic time scale to infinity such that their product, which we denote by $`\tau `$, is kept fixed. We obtain the following results about this limit: (i) For external magnetic fields of bounded spatial support that are sufficiently regular functions of time, the leading contribution to the time evolution is identified as the reduced dynamics determined by the time averaged field projected onto the ground state space of the unperturbed model with an error term of order $`\lambda ^{1\delta },\delta (0,1)`$ (Theorem 3.3); (ii) If the spectrum of the unperturbed model has a gap between the ground states and the rest of the spectrum, and the rest of the spectrum is absolutely continuous, the next-to-leading order term is of order $`\lambda `$ (Theorem 3.5); (iii) Analysis of the reduced dynamics for uniform, time-independent magnetic fields, reveals a markedly different behavior depending on whether or not the field has a non-vanishing component in the $`z`$ direction. If the $`z`$ component vanishes, the reduced dynamics for the magnetization profile is “ballistic”, while if there is a non-vanishing component of the field in the $`z`$ direction, the magnetization profile evolves periodically.

In Section 2 we define the model and state the assumptions on the magnetic field. We derive the leading dynamics and its first correction in Section 3. In Section 4 we analyze the leading dynamical behavior in more detail for a uniform field and comment on small perturbations thereof. Two appendices provide some auxiliary results on the magnetization profile in the kink ground states of the XXZ chain and on the spectrum of the Stark-Jacobi operator.

## 2. The model

### 2.1. Finite chain Hamiltonian

In this paper we shall only consider the spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ chain. Unless stated otherwise, our results extend to higher values of the spin. As usual, let us denote by $`\mathrm{\Delta }>1`$ the anisotropy parameter. The kink Hamiltonian on the chain $`[a,b]`$ is defined as

(1)
$$H[a,b]=\underset{x=a}{\overset{b1}{}}\left[\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(S_x^1S_{x+1}^1+S_x^2S_{x+1}^2)+S_x^3S_{x+1}^3\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{𝟏}\right]\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Delta }^2}(S_a^3S_b^3),$$

where the spin operators at position $`x`$, $`S_x^1,S_x^2,S_x^3`$ satisfy the usual commutation relations, $`[S_x^\alpha ,S_x^\beta ]=i\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }S_x^\gamma `$. We have added the kink boundary condition, $`\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Delta }^2}(S_a^3S_b^3)`$ which makes the model $`SU_q(2)`$ invariant and displays the full set of kink ground states which we derive next. It is convenient to introduce another parameter, $`0<q<1`$, such that $`q+q^1=2\mathrm{\Delta }`$. One can show that

$$H=\underset{x=a}{\overset{b1}{}}P_{xx+1}^q,$$

where $`P_{xx+1}^q`$ is the orthogonal projection onto the vector $`q||`$. By introducing the $`q`$-deformed lowering operator

$$S^{}=\underset{x=a}{\overset{b}{}}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{}S_x^{}t_{x+1}\mathrm{}t_b$$

with $`t=q^{2S^3}`$, we can express all $`ba+2`$ ground states as $`(S^{})^k|\mathrm{},k=0,1,\mathrm{},ba+1`$, since $`[H,S^{}]=0`$. Clearly, these vectors run through all possible eigenspaces of the total $`S^3`$ component, which obviously commutes with $`H[a,b]`$. The uniqueness of the ground states follows, for instance, by a Perron-Frobenius argument.

More explicitly, let us denote the eigenvectors of the total $`S^3`$ component by $`|(m_x)`$, where $`(m_x)\{\pm \frac{1}{2}\}^{ba+1}`$ and $`S_y^3|(m_x)=m_y|(m_x)`$. Then, as was found by Alcaraz, Salinas and Wreszinski , these ground states are (up to normalization)

(2)
$$\psi _m=\underset{(m_x)}{}\underset{x=a}{\overset{b}{}}q^{x(1m_x)/2}|(m_x),$$

where the sum runs over all sets $`(m_x)`$ such that $`_xm_x=m`$, which is the total $`S^3`$ eigenvalue. As the $`\psi _m`$ are not normalized, we also define $`|m=\psi _m/\psi _m`$. If $`m=\pm (ba+1)`$ is maximal/minimal, then we have the all spin-up/down state, i.e., the magnetization profile in the $`z`$ direction equals $`m|S_x^3|m=\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ for all $`x`$.

### 2.2. Infinite chain kink Hamiltonian

The infinite volume kink Hamiltonian is defined in the standard way via the generator of the Heisenberg dynamics on the algebra of quasi-local observables, $`𝒜`$. This algebra is the norm closure of the algebra of local observables,

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{loc}}=\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda },|\mathrm{\Lambda }|<\mathrm{}}{}𝒜_\mathrm{\Lambda },𝒜_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\underset{x\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}\mathrm{Mat}_{}(2).$$

We prefer to work in the GNS Hilbert space representation of the infinite volume kink states. To this end we introduce the incomplete tensor product Hilbert space

(3)
$$=\overline{\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda },|\mathrm{\Lambda }|<\mathrm{}}{}\left(\underset{x\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^2\underset{y\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}\mathrm{\Omega }(y)\right)},$$

where

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(y)=\{\begin{array}{cc}|\hfill & \text{ if }y0\\ |\hfill & \text{ if }y>0\end{array}.$$

Let us define the vector

(4)
$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{y}{}\mathrm{\Omega }(y),$$

which is a vector in $``$. We also define the (unnormalized) GNS vector

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mathrm{𝖦𝖭𝖲}}=\underset{k0}{}\underset{x_1<\mathrm{}<x_k0<y_1<\mathrm{}<y_k}{}q^{_{j=1}^k(y_jx_j)}\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}S_{x_j}^1S_{y_j}^1\mathrm{\Omega }.$$

The set of vectors $`\psi =A\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mathrm{𝖦𝖭𝖲}}`$, where $`A`$ is a local observable, constitute a dense subspace of $``$. In this representation, the kink Hamiltonian is now defined by

(5)
$$HA\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mathrm{𝖦𝖭𝖲}}=\underset{[a,b]}{lim}[H[a,b],A]\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mathrm{𝖦𝖭𝖲}}.$$

Next we state the assumptions on the magnetic field by which we perturb the kink Hamiltonian.

###### Assumption 2.1.

Let $`\times (x,t)\stackrel{}{B}(x,t)^3`$ denote a magnetic field which has spatial support in some finite set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and is absolutely continuous with bounded derivative (as a function of time). Let $`V(t)=_x\stackrel{}{B}(x,t)\stackrel{}{S}_x`$. We further impose a scaling on the strength and the variation of $`V`$, and define

(6)
$$V^\lambda (t)=\lambda V(\lambda t).$$

Clearly, $`H+V^\lambda (t)`$ is a selfadjoint operator with domain $`𝒟(H)`$. The reason for our assumption on the support of $`B`$ is that if we want to consider, for simplicity, a time independent and translation invariant magnetic field, then, in general, $`e^{it(H+V)}`$ is not a strongly continuous group of unitaries on $`𝒟(H)`$. The application of $`V`$ on a ground state will no longer be in the Hilbert space $``$. This is no contradiction to the fact that the unperturbed time evolution is strongly continuous in the Heisenberg picture, i.e., on the algebra of (quasi-local) observables $`𝒜`$, since $`V`$ would no longer be quasi-local.

We could extend the class in (2.1) to perturbations relatively bounded to $`H`$ (with relative bound less than 1 to ensure selfadjointness according to the Theorem by Kato-Rellich) but this does also not allow to consider uniform fields, and we therefore stick to bounded perturbations.

We shall first find the leading dynamics, and then consider the limit as the spatial support of $`\stackrel{}{B}(x,t)`$ tends to infinity.

## 3. Dynamics

###### Lemma 3.1 (Dyson series).

Let $`U^\lambda (t,t_0)`$ be the solution to the time dependent Schrödinger equation

$$i\frac{d}{dt}U^\lambda (t,t_0)=(H+V^\lambda (t))U^\lambda (t,t_0)$$

with $`V^\lambda `$ satisfying (2.1). Then for $`\varphi 𝒟(H)`$ and $`N`$

(7) $`e^{itH}U^\lambda (t,t_0)\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\varphi +{\displaystyle \underset{0<n<N}{}}(i)^n{\displaystyle _{t_0t_n\mathrm{}t_1t}}𝑑𝐭V^\lambda (t_1,t_1)\mathrm{}V^\lambda (t_n,t_n)\varphi `$
$`+𝐄_N\varphi ,`$
where we used the notation $`d𝐭=dt_1\mathrm{}dt_n`$, and $`V(t,t)=e^{itH}V(t)e^{itH}`$. The error term, $`𝐄_N`$, is bounded by $`\frac{|tt_0|^N}{N!}(\lambda V)^{N1}`$, which converges to 0 as $`N\mathrm{}`$ uniformly for $`t`$ on compacts; we use $`V=sup\{V(s);st_0\}`$.

###### Proof.

We may assume that $`t_0=0`$ and $`\lambda =1`$. Setting $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t)=e^{itH}U(t)`$, then for $`\varphi 𝒟(H)`$ we have $`\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{\Omega }(t)\varphi =iV(t,t)\mathrm{\Omega }(t)\varphi `$. Integrating over $`t`$ and iterating we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(t)\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\varphi +{\displaystyle \underset{0<n<N}{}}(i)^n{\displaystyle _{0t_n\mathrm{}t_1t}}𝑑𝐭V(t_1,t_1)\mathrm{}V(t_n,t_n)\varphi `$
$`+`$ $`(i)^N{\displaystyle _{0t_{N1}\mathrm{}t_1t}}𝑑𝐭V(t_1,t_1)\mathrm{}V(t_{N1},t_{N1})\mathrm{\Omega }(t_{N1})\varphi .`$
The error estimate follows then easily. ∎

We discuss next a formula for the iterated $`t`$ integral allowing us to decide which energy terms contribute at what rate. To this end we consider the set $`𝒢_n`$ of directed graphs $`G`$ with vertex set equal to $`\{n+1,n,\mathrm{},1\}`$ and bonds satisfying the following rules. 1) The direction of a bond is from a higher to a lower value of $`n`$. 2) There is exactly one bond for every site $`1kn`$, leading to it from a site $`p(k)>k`$, although many bonds can originate from a certain site. We call the bond $`b(k)=(p(k),k)`$, and define $`\mathrm{}(b(k))=p(k)k`$ the length of this bond, and $`\mathrm{}(G)=\mathrm{}(b(k))`$ the length of the graph $`G`$. 3) If there is a bond between $`i`$ and $`j`$, then there is no bond possible between $`k`$ and $`l`$ if ($`k>b(i)`$ and $`l<b(i)`$) or ($`k>i`$ and $`l<i`$) or ($`k<b(i)`$, $`l>i`$). In other words, there are no crossing bonds, and no bonds properly nested. (With these rules, the digraphs $`G`$ are equivalent to the set of all compositions, i.e., all finite ordered sequences of positive integers. To a digraph $`G=\{b(1),\mathrm{},b(n)\}`$, we associate the composition $`[p(1)1,p(p(1))p(1),p(p(p(1)))p(p(1)),\mathrm{}]`$. $`𝒢_n`$ is the set of all compositions which sum to $`n`$.)

We can show that $`|𝒢_n|=2^{n1}`$. It is clear that $`|𝒢_1|=1`$. If we have a graph $`G𝒢_n`$, then we may construct two new graphs in $`𝒢_{n+1}`$. Let us denote the $`n+2`$nd vertex by 0, then 0 may be connected to 1 whose graph we denote by $`G_1`$. The only other possibility is to join 0 with $`p(1)`$ and we call the graph $`G_2`$. We define signs for the graphs, inductively. Let $``$ be the unique graph with vertex set $`\{2,1\}`$ and bond from 2 (left) to 1 (right), then we set $`\sigma ()=1`$. Using the above construction, we define the sign by $`\sigma (G_1)=\sigma (G)`$, and $`\sigma (G_2)=\sigma (G)`$. Some graphs are shown in Figure 1.

Given a sequence of numbers $`k_j:\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}jn`$, for any graph $`G𝒢_n`$ and vertex $`i`$ we define $`k(i;G)=_{iji+\mathrm{}(b(i))1}k_j`$.

###### Lemma 3.2.

Let $`E_j:1jn+1`$ and $`k_j:1jn`$ be two sequences of numbers, then

(8) $`{\displaystyle _{0t_n\mathrm{}t_1t}}𝑑𝐭{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}e^{it_j(E_{j+1}E_j+i\lambda k_j)}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{G𝒢_n}{}}\sigma (G)\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{E_{p(j)}E_j+i\lambda k(j;G)}}\right)\left(e^{it(E_{p(1)}E_1+i\lambda k(1;G))}1\right).`$
###### Proof.

We can easily check this by induction. The formula is obviously correct for $`n=1`$. Assuming that the formula is true for $`n1`$, we may write the $`n`$ fold integral as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{G𝒢_{n1}}{}}\sigma (G)\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{E_{p(j)}E_j+i\lambda k(j;G)}}\right)`$
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^t}dt_1(e^{it_1(E_{p(2)}E_1+i\lambda k(2;G)+i\lambda k_1)}e^{it_1(E_2E_1+i\lambda k_1)}).`$
The vertex set of the graphs $`G𝒢_{n1}`$ is here $`\{n+1,\mathrm{},2\}`$. Now, in the first term of the integrand we have that $`p(2;G)=p(1;H),k(1;H)=k(2;G)+k_1,\sigma (H)=\sigma (G)`$, where $`H`$ is the graph on $`\{n+1,\mathrm{},1\}`$ which agrees on $`n+1,\mathrm{},2`$ with $`G`$ plus a bond connecting 1 with the same site as 2. In the second term we have a bond between 1 and 2, and by our rules hence a change of the sign. We can combine this into a sum over all graphs $`H𝒢_n`$, which verifies the formula. ∎

In the following theorem we identify the leading term in the limit when $`\lambda 0`$, and $`t\mathrm{}`$, such that $`\tau =\lambda t`$ is constant. Here, $`\tau `$ can be interpreted as a macroscopic time scale. We shall use the spectral decomposition of the Hamiltonian

(9)
$$H=_0^{\mathrm{}}E𝑑P(E),$$

such that for any $`\varphi `$, we have

$$\varphi =_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑P(E)\varphi .$$

###### Theorem 3.3 (Leading dynamics).

Let $`\varphi `$, and let $`V`$ satisfy Assumption (2.1). Then, for all $`\delta `$, $`1>\delta >0`$, there exists a $`\lambda _0`$ depending on $`V,\tau ,\varphi `$ and $`\delta `$ such that for $`0<\lambda <\lambda _0`$

(10)
$$e^{i\lambda ^1\tau H}U^\lambda (\lambda ^1\tau )\varphi _0^{\mathrm{}}𝕋\left(e^{iP(E)_0^\tau 𝑑tV(t)P(E)}\right)𝑑P(E)\varphi <\lambda ^{1\delta }.$$

$`𝕋`$ means time ordering, i.e., $`𝕋(V(s)V(t))=V(s)V(t)`$ if $`s>t`$, and zero otherwise.

###### Proof.

We may assume that $`\varphi =1`$. Let $`N`$ be an integer which we choose later. We may write ($`t=\lambda ^1\tau `$)

$`e^{itH}U^\lambda (\lambda ^1\tau )\varphi {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝕋\left(e^{iP(E)_0^\tau 𝑑tV(t)P(E)}\right)𝑑P(E)\varphi `$
$`|𝐄_N|+\left|\mathrm{\Sigma }_N\mathrm{\Sigma }_N^{}\right|+|𝐄_N^{}|.`$
Here, $`𝐄_N`$ is the error term from equation (7), and $`𝐄_N^{}`$ the remainder term of the power series for the exponential function in $`𝕋\left(e^{iP(E)_0^\tau 𝑑tV(t)P(E)}\right)\varphi `$ to the order $`N1`$, whereas $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_N^{}`$ refers to their finite sums.

First we take care of the error terms $`𝐄_N`$ and $`𝐄_N^{}`$ by choosing $`N=N(\lambda ;V,\tau )`$ such that

$$\frac{1}{V}\frac{(\tau V)^N}{N!}<\frac{1}{3}\lambda ^{1\delta }.$$

This can be accomplished with $`N=C\mathrm{ln}\lambda `$ and the constant $`C`$ depending on $`V`$ and $`\tau `$.

Second, we investigate the limit $`(\lambda 0,t\mathrm{},\lambda t\tau )`$ for the $`n`$-th term in the finite Dyson series. By inserting the spectral resolution for $`H`$ (9), the $`n`$-th term in $`e^{itH}U^\lambda (t)\varphi `$ equals

(11)
$$(i\lambda )^n_{[0,t]^n}𝑑𝐭_{_+^{n+1}}𝑑𝐄_n\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}e^{it_j(E_{j+1}E_j)}𝕋\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}P(E_j)V(\lambda t_j)\right)dE_{n+1}\varphi .$$

In order to perform the $`t`$ integration we write $`V`$ as its inverse Laplace transform. Let $`c_1<c_2<\mathrm{}<c_n<0`$, then we obtain

$`(i\lambda )^n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi i)^n}}{\displaystyle _{c_1i\mathrm{}}^{c_1+i\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _{c_ni\mathrm{}}^{c_n+i\mathrm{}}}𝑑𝐤{\displaystyle _{_+^{n+1}}}𝑑𝐄_n`$
$`\times {\displaystyle _{[0,t]^n}}d𝐭{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}e^{it_j(E_{j+1}E_j+i\lambda k_j)}𝕋\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}P(E_j)\widehat{V}(k_j)\right)dP(E_{n+1})\varphi .`$
By using formula (8) we can do the $`t`$ integration, and obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi i)^n}}{\displaystyle _{c_1i\mathrm{}}^{c_1+i\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _{c_ni\mathrm{}}^{c_n+i\mathrm{}}}𝑑𝐤{\displaystyle _{_+^{n+1}}}𝑑𝐄{\displaystyle _{[0,t]^n}}𝑑𝐭{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}e^{it_j(E_{j+1}E_j+i\lambda k_j)}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{G𝒢_n}{}}\sigma (G)\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{E_{p(j)}E_j+i\lambda k(j;G)}}\right)\left(e^{it(E_{p(1)}E_1+i\lambda k(1;G))}1\right)`$
$`\times 𝕋\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}P(E_j)\widehat{V}(k_j)\right)dP(E_{n+1})\varphi .`$
Here, it is convenient to have $`c_i`$’s such that there are no zeros in the denominator. We observe here the crucial fact that in order to find a term of the order 1, all $`E_j`$ have to be equal. We may now go back to (11), change coordinates and conclude that in this limit we get

$`(i\lambda )^n{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{[0,t]^n}}𝑑𝐭𝕋\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}P(E)V(\lambda t_j)\right)𝑑P(E)\varphi `$
$`=`$ $`(i)^n{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝕋\left({\displaystyle _0^\tau }𝑑tP(E)V(t)\right)^n𝑑P(E)\varphi .`$
Finally, we have to bound the sum of all other terms in the finite Dyson series which individually tend to 0 as $`\lambda 0`$, and are contained in $`\left|\mathrm{\Sigma }_N\mathrm{\Sigma }_N^{}\right|`$. As there are $`2^{n1}`$ terms in formula (8), we immediately obtain the bound

$$\left|\mathrm{\Sigma }_N\mathrm{\Sigma }_N^{}\right|\frac{\lambda }{2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\frac{(2\tau V)^n}{n!},$$

which in turn is bounded by $`\frac{1}{3}\lambda ^{1\delta }`$ if we choose $`\lambda <\lambda _0`$ with $`\lambda _0`$ such that $`e^{2\tau V}<\frac{2}{3}\lambda _0^\delta `$. ∎

If $`H\varphi =0`$ is a kink ground state of $`H`$, then the leading term equals

(12)
$$𝕋\left(e^{i_0^\tau P(0)V(t)P(0)}\right)\varphi .$$

This expression will be further analyzed for a specific choice of $`V`$ in Section 4.

Note that so far we did not use any specific spectral properties of the Hamiltonian, and thus Theorem 3.3 is valid, for instance, for any value of the spin.

We know that $`\sigma (H)\{0\}[1\mathrm{\Delta }^1,\mathrm{})`$, using the theorem of  that there is a gap of $`1\mathrm{\Delta }^1`$ above the infinite volume ground states. If we decompose the kink Hamiltonian on $``$ as the sum of a kink plus a droplet Hamiltonian, i.e., $`H_{}^+=H_{(\mathrm{},y]}^++H_{(y,\mathrm{})}^{}`$ with $`y`$, then we get approximate eigenvectors by tensoring a kink ground on $`(\mathrm{},y]`$ (and with interface far to the left of $`y`$) with eigenvectors of $`H_{(y,\mathrm{})}^{}`$. In the case $`y=\mathrm{}`$ the spectrum of the latter has been shown by Babbitt and Gutkin  to be $`\{0\}[1\mathrm{\Delta }^1,\mathrm{})`$. Their analysis follows the earlier work by Babbitt and Thomas  for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$ proving the completeness of the Bethe ansatz eigenfunctions in the infinite volume limit and thereby also showing that the spectrum is absolutely continuous.

This way, one obtains $`\sigma (H)=\{0\}[1\mathrm{\Delta }^1,\mathrm{})`$. But this construction does not give the nature of the spectrum in the interval in $`[1\mathrm{\Delta }^1,\mathrm{})`$. We plan to address this issue in the future; for now we state the following hypothesis.

###### Hypothesis 3.4.

The spectrum of the spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ kink Hamiltonian $`H`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }>1`$ has no other point spectrum than 0, and the rest is absolutely continuous, equal to $`[1\mathrm{\Delta }^1,\mathrm{})`$.

By assuming this information we can identify the first correction to the leading term given in Theorem 3.3 for ground states, and we show that it is $`𝒪(\lambda )`$. For simplicity, we state the result only for time independent fields and leave the general case to the reader. The main argument in the proof below, however, is carried out for a time dependent field.

###### Theorem 3.5 (First order correction).

Let $`\varphi `$ be a (normalized) ground state of the spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ kink Hamiltonian, $`V`$ a perturbation as in Assumption (2.1) and $`H`$ satisfying Hypothesis (3.4). Then,

(13) $`e^{i\lambda ^1\tau H}e^{i\lambda ^1\tau (H+\lambda V)}\varphi e^{i\tau P(0)V}\varphi \lambda {\displaystyle _{1\mathrm{\Delta }^1}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{E}}P(E)Ve^{i\tau P(E)V}\varphi `$
$`P(0)V(e^{i\tau [P(0)V+\lambda H^1(\mathrm{𝟏}P(0))V]}e^{i\tau P(0)V})\varphi =o(\lambda ).`$
###### Proof.

We analyze the $`n`$-th term in the finite Dyson series and treat the error terms as before by choosing first $`N=N(\lambda ,V,\tau )`$. The spectral resolution of $`H`$ has now the form $`\mathrm{𝟏}=P(0)+_{1\mathrm{\Delta }^1}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑P(E)`$. We have seen above that to leading order all energies $`E_i`$ have to be equal to 0. According to (8), terms of the order $`\lambda `$ come from sequences $`(E_mE_l):\{m<l\}G`$ such that all but one pair is non-zero. We represent such sequences graphically by polygons with $`n+1`$ vertices. We draw a horizontal line between the vertices $`k`$ and $`k+1`$ whenever $`E_k=E_{k+1}`$, an upward line if $`E_k>E_{k+1}=0`$, and a downward line if $`0=E_k<E_{k+1}`$.

By our rules for the graphs $`G𝒢_n`$, the only possible polygons contributing to the order $`𝒪(\lambda )`$ are of the form displayed in Figure 2.

Using Hypothesis 3.4 we shall show that, in fact, only $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ contribute to $`𝒪(\lambda )`$ while $`P_3`$ and $`P_4`$ are of lower order. We shall now consider the contributions from $`P_1,P_2,P_3`$ and $`P_4`$ to formula (11). Let us start with polygon $`P_1`$, i.e., we have a sequence $`0=E_{n+1}<E_n=\mathrm{}=E_1=E`$. In

$`{\displaystyle _0^{t_{n1}}}𝑑t_ne^{it_nE}V(\lambda t_n)\varphi =`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{iE}}\left(e^{it_{n1}E}V(\lambda t_{n1})V(0)\right)\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{iE}}{\displaystyle _0^{t_{n1}}}𝑑t_ne^{it_nE}V(\lambda t_n)\varphi `$
we can use that, by our assumption on the spectrum of $`H`$ and the Riemann-Lebesgue Lemma, the leading term is $`\frac{i}{E}V(0)`$, and the rest is $`o(1)`$, where $`o(1)`$ depends on the inverse gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }/(\mathrm{\Delta }1)`$ and $`sup\{V(s):s[0,\tau ]\}`$. Then, up to $`o(1)`$ we have

$`\lambda {\displaystyle _{1\mathrm{\Delta }^1}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑E{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E}}(i\lambda )^{n1}{\displaystyle _{0t_1\mathrm{}t_{n1}}}𝑑𝐭{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}P(E)V(\lambda t_j)P(E)V(0)\varphi `$
$`=`$ $`\lambda {\displaystyle _{1\mathrm{\Delta }^1}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑E{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E}}(i)^{n1}𝕋\left({\displaystyle _0^\tau }𝑑\tau _1P(E)V(\tau _1)\right)^{n1}P(E)V(0)\varphi ,`$
where we have used a change of variables as in the proof of Theorem 3.3. This gives the first correction term in (13).

Next, we consider the polygon $`P_2`$ with all energies equal to 0 except for $`E_m=E>0`$ with $`2mn`$. Then, the contribution of $`P_2`$ to the $`n`$-th term in the Dyson series is equal to

$`(i\lambda )^{m+1}{\displaystyle _{1\mathrm{\Delta }^1}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑E{\displaystyle _{0t_m\mathrm{}t_1t}}𝑑𝐭_me^{it_{m1}E+it_mE}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{m1}{}}}P(0)V(\lambda t_j)\right]A(\lambda t_m)`$
with

$$A(\lambda t_m)=P(E)V(\lambda t_m)(i\lambda )^{nm1}_{0t_n\mathrm{}t_m}𝑑𝐭_{nm}\underset{j=m+1}{\overset{n}{}}P(0)V(\lambda t_j)\varphi .$$

Note that $`A(0)=0`$. In order to simplify matters, we let $`V`$ be time independent and perform the time integration. Hence, we get (to leading order)

$`\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{(i\lambda t)^{n1}}{(n1)!}}{\displaystyle _{1\mathrm{\Delta }^1}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑E{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E}}\left(P(0)V\right)^{m1}P(E)V\left(P(0)V\right)^{nm}\varphi `$
$`=`$ $`\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{(i\tau )^n}{(n1)!}}\left(P(0)V\right)^{m1}H^1(\mathrm{𝟏}P(0))V\left(P(0)V\right)^{nm}\varphi .`$
Now we can easily sum up the contributions of all $`n2`$ polygons of the form $`P_2`$, and obtain the $`n`$-th term in the power series of the exponential in the second correction term in (13) up to errors $`o(\lambda )`$.

Finally, we prove that the other two kinds of polygons contribute of lower order. For the polygon $`P_3`$, (11) equals

$$(i\lambda )_0^t𝑑t_1e^{it_1E}P(E)B(\lambda t_1),$$

with

$$B(\lambda t_1)=(i\lambda )^{n1}_{0t_n\mathrm{}t_1}𝑑𝐭V(\lambda t_1)\underset{j=2}{\overset{n}{}}P(0)V(\lambda t_j)\varphi .$$

$`B(0)=0`$, and by integration by parts we get

$`(i\lambda ){\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑t_1e^{it_1E}P(E)B(\lambda t_1)={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{E}}e^{itE}P(E)B(\lambda t)+o(\lambda )`$
by our assumption on $`H`$.

For a sequence of the form $`P_4`$, with $`E=E_1=\mathrm{}=E_m>E_{m+1}=\mathrm{}=E_{n+1}=0`$. Then, the expression in formula (11) equals

$$(i\lambda )^m_{0t_m\mathrm{}t}𝑑𝐭e^{it_mE}\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}P(E)V(\lambda t_j)C(\lambda t_m),$$

with

$$C(\lambda t_m)=(i\lambda )^{nm}_{0t_n\mathrm{}t_m}𝑑𝐭\underset{j=m+1}{\overset{n}{}}P(0)V(\lambda t_j)\varphi .$$

Integration by parts in the first integral shows that this term is $`o(\lambda )`$; in fact, if we assumed $`V`$ to be $`m`$ times differentiable, then it would be $`o(\lambda ^m)`$. ∎

Notice also that the first correction term of the order $`\lambda `$ contains the information on the whole spectrum while the leading term only depends on the highly reduced space of ground states, which we analyze in the next Section.

## 4. Leading dynamics

In this Section we consider the leading dynamics generated by $`P(0)VP(0)`$. We start with a uniform magnetic field $`V_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for which we determine an explicit expression as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$.

### 4.1. Uniform time-independent magnetic field

Let $`\stackrel{}{B}(x,t)=\stackrel{}{B}`$ be a constant vector, and thus $`V_\mathrm{\Lambda }=_{x\mathrm{\Lambda }}\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{S}_x`$. We shall consider $`K_\mathrm{\Lambda }=P(0)V_\mathrm{\Lambda }P(0)`$ as a Jacobi operator (i.e., tridiagonal) on $`\mathrm{}^2()`$. Since $`H`$ from (1) commutes with global rotations in the $`xy`$ plane, we choose a new basis $`|n,U=U^1|n`$ of $`P(0)`$, where $`U`$ satisfies $`UV_\mathrm{\Lambda }U^1=_{x\mathrm{\Lambda }}\sqrt{B_1^2+B_2^2}S_x^1+B_3S_x^3`$. In other words, $`U=_xe^{i\theta S_x^3}`$, where $`(B_1,B_2)=(\sqrt{B_1^2+B_2^2}\mathrm{cos}\theta ,\sqrt{B_1^2+B_2^2}\mathrm{sin}\theta )`$.

When taking the infinite volume limit we have to renormalize the total $`S^3`$ component, and define

(14)
$$S^3=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{|x|n}{}S_x^3.$$

In the new basis, we have

$`m,U|K_\mathrm{\Lambda }|n,U`$
$`=`$ $`m|P(0)UV_\mathrm{\Lambda }U^1P(0)|n`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}}\sqrt{B_1^2+B_2^2}m|[S_x^++S_x^{}]|n+B_3m|S_x^3|n`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{B_1^2+B_2^2}a_\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)(\delta (m,n1)+\delta (m,n+1))+B_3b_\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)\delta (n,m),`$
where the index $`n`$ denotes the eigenvalue of the renormalized total $`S^3`$ component. In Appendix A we calculate $`a=lim_\mathrm{\Lambda }a_\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)`$, see equation (22). Notice that the limit is independent of $`n`$ by translation invariance. The function $`b_\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)`$ satisfies $`|b_\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)||\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$, and $`lim_\mathrm{\Lambda }b_\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)=n`$ for all $`n`$.

For finite $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`K_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a trace class operator, and the spectrum is pure point, accumulating to zero. We now discuss the case when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be the lattice Laplacian with unit off-diagonal entries and zero diagonal terms on $`\mathrm{}^2()`$, and let $`W(n)=n`$ be the Stark potential. Then we define the Stark-Jacobi operator,

(15)
$$K_0=\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }+\gamma W$$

with $`\alpha =\sqrt{B_1^2+B_2^2}a`$ and $`\gamma =B_3`$.

The operator $`K_0`$ is selfadjoint with dense domain $`𝒟(K_0)=\{f\mathrm{}^2():(nf(n))_n\mathrm{}^2()\}`$. This follows from the fact that $`W`$ is selfadjoint on $`𝒟(K_0)`$, and that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is bounded and selfadjoint.

As for the continuous case, one can find the spectrum explicitly but it turns out to have rather different properties. Only in the case $`\gamma =0`$ we shall have pure absolutely continuous spectrum which is equal to $`[2\alpha ,2\alpha ]`$. As soon as $`\gamma 0`$, the spectrum is pure point. The latter is analyzed in the following lemma, and the generalization to higher dimensions is given in Appendix B.

###### Lemma 4.1.

Let $`K_0=\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }+\gamma W`$ be the Stark-Jacobi operator (15), and $`\gamma 0`$. Then, $`\text{spec}(K_0)=\gamma `$ is pure point spectrum with simple eigenvectors $`\varphi _m(n)=J_{mn}(2\alpha /\gamma )`$; $`J_n`$ denotes the (ordinary) Bessel function of order $`n`$.

###### Proof.

By Fourier transforming the eigenvalue equation $`\alpha \varphi (n1)+\alpha \varphi (n+1)+\gamma n\varphi (n)=\lambda \varphi (n)`$, we obtain

$$\left(2\alpha \mathrm{cos}k+i\gamma \frac{d}{dk}\right)\varphi (k)=\lambda \varphi (k),$$

where $`k[\pi ,\pi ]`$. This is solved by $`\varphi (k)=e^{i(2\alpha \mathrm{sin}k\lambda k)/\gamma }`$. The periodicity condition $`\varphi (k+2\pi )=\varphi (k)`$ shows that $`\lambda \gamma `$. Note, that $`_m\varphi _m(k)=2\pi \delta (k)`$ which proves that these (mutually orthogonal) eigenfunctions are complete. In configuration space we thus have

$`\varphi _m(n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{2\alpha }{\gamma }\mathrm{sin}k+k(nm)\right)𝑑k=J_{nm}\left(\frac{2\alpha }{\gamma }\right).`$
###### Lemma 4.2.

The kernel for the reduced dynamics generated by $`P(0)VP(0)`$, and hence of $`K_0`$, has the following form:

(16) $`x,U|e^{itP(0)V_{}P(0)}|n,U`$ $`=`$ $`\left[e^{iK_0t}\delta _n\right](x)`$
$`=`$ $`J_{nx}\left(\frac{4\alpha }{\gamma }\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\gamma t}{2})\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[i\left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma t\pi }{2}}x+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma t+\pi }{2}}n\right)\right].`$
###### Proof.

$`e^{iK_0t}\delta _n(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}e^{i\gamma mt}\varphi _m(x)\varphi _m|\delta _n`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}e^{i\gamma mt}J_{xm}(\frac{2\alpha }{\gamma })J_{nm}(\frac{2\alpha }{\gamma })`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}e^{i\gamma nt}e^{i\gamma mt}J_{mn+x}(\frac{2\alpha }{\gamma })J_m(\frac{2\alpha }{\gamma })`$
$`=`$ $`e^{i\gamma nt}e^{i(\pi \gamma t)(xn)/2}J_{nx}\left(\frac{4\alpha }{\gamma }\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\gamma t}{2})\right).`$
The last step is content of Graf’s addition theorem, see , formula (9.1.79). ∎

For future ease of notation, we define $`w=\frac{4\alpha }{\gamma }\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\gamma t}{2})`$, and $`\chi =\frac{\pi \gamma t}{2}`$.

We now inspect closer the reduced time evolution of the magnetization profile of a kink ground state localized at 0. Defining

$$m(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }},x,t)=0,U|e^{itP(0)VP(0)}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}\stackrel{}{S}_x)e^{itP(0)VP(0)}|0,U$$

for any vector $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}𝕊^2`$, we calculate

$`m(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }},x,t)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m,m^{}}{}}0,U|e^{itP(0)VP(0)}|m,Um,U|\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}\stackrel{}{S}_x^3|m^{},Um^{},U|e^{itP(0)VP(0)}|0,U`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m,m^{}}{}}e^{i\chi (m^{}m)}J_m(w)J_m^{}(w)m|R_\theta (\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }})\stackrel{}{S}_x|m^{},`$
where $`R_\theta `$ is rotation about the $`z`$ axis by an angle $`\theta `$. (Note this is the opposite rotation as that used to go from $`P(0)VP(0)`$ to $`K_0`$.) Taking $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\widehat{e}_3`$, and defining $`m^3(x,t)=m(\widehat{e}_3,x,t)`$, we have

$`m^3(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m,m^{}}{}}e^{i\chi (m^{}m)}J_m(w)J_m^{}(w)m|S_x^3|m^{}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}J_m^2(\frac{4\alpha }{\gamma }\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\gamma t}{2}))m|S_x^3|m.`$
Similarly, defining $`m^1(x,t)=m(\widehat{e}_1,x,t)`$, and observing that $`R_\theta (\widehat{e}_1)=a\widehat{e}_1b\widehat{e}_2`$, where $`a=\mathrm{cos}\theta =B_1/\sqrt{B_1^2+B_2^2}`$ and $`b=\mathrm{sin}\theta =B_2/\sqrt{B_1^2+B_2^2}`$, we have

$`m^1(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m,m^{}}{}}e^{i\chi (m^{}m)}J_m(w)J_m^{}(w)m|[aS_x^1bS_x^2]|m^{}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m,m^{}}{}}e^{i\chi (m^{}m)}J_m(w)J_m^{}(w)m|\left[{\displaystyle \frac{a+ib}{2}}S_x^++{\displaystyle \frac{aib}{2}}S_x^{}\right]|m^{}.`$
We now observe a phase condition on $`|m`$ that guarantees $`m|S^{}|m^{}`$ is real. This means that

$`m^1(x,t)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m,m^{}}{}}e^{i\chi (m^{}m)}J_m(w)J_m^{}(w)\left({\displaystyle \frac{aib}{2}}m|S_x^{}|m^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{a+ib}{2}}m^{}|S_x^{}|m\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\chi }(aib)}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\chi }(a+ib)}{2}}\right]{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}J_m(w)J_{m+1}(w)m|S_x^{}|m+1`$
$`=`$ $`[a\mathrm{cos}(\chi )+b\mathrm{sin}(\chi )]{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}J_m(w)J_{m+1}(w)m|S_x^{}|m+1`$
$`=`$ $`[a\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\gamma t}{2})+b\mathrm{cos}(\frac{\gamma t}{2})]{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}J_m(\frac{4\alpha }{\gamma }\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\gamma t}{2}))J_{m+1}(\frac{4\alpha }{\gamma }\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\gamma t}{2}))m|S_x^{}|m+1.`$
Notice that for $`\gamma 0`$ the motion is periodic whose period $`2\pi \gamma ^1`$ is solely determined by the field in the $`z`$ direction. The profile $`m^3(x,t)`$ is given by an absolutely convergent series. Therefore, pointwise convergence implies convergence on compacts. As the function is periodic in $`t`$ and thus the image is a compact interval, the profile stays exponentially localized for all times.

However, as $`\gamma 0`$

(17) $`m_{\gamma =0}^3(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}J_m^2(2\alpha t)m|S_x^3|m,`$
(18) $`m_{\gamma =0}^1(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`b{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}J_m(2\alpha t)J_{m+1}(2\alpha t)m|S_x^+|m1.`$
Next, we analyze $`m_{\gamma =0}^3(x,t)`$ in more detail. A very similar situation has been studied by Antal et al  in the context of the time evolution of the XX model. We follow their analysis. Although we have just derived explicit formulas for the profiles, which can be analyzed numerically, we prefer to have simpler expressions. As we shall show, for large $`x`$ and $`t`$, $`m^3(x,t)`$ will be a function of the velocity $`v=\frac{x}{t}`$, only. To this end we define the discrete derivative of $`m^3(x,t)`$ as

$`\varphi _x^{}(v)`$ $`:=`$ $`t\left[m_{\gamma =0}^3(x+1,t)m_{\gamma =0}^3(x,t)\right]_{\frac{x}{t}=v}`$
$`=`$ $`\frac{x}{v}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}J_m^2(\frac{x\alpha }{v})0|S_{xm1}^3S_{xm}^3|0,`$
and study the limit $`lim_x\mathrm{}\varphi _x^{}(v)`$. Note that $`0|S_{xm1}^3S_{xm}^3|00`$ for all $`x`$ and $`m`$ because the profile of the kinks is a decreasing function. If we define $`p(m)=0|S_{m1}^3S_m^3|0`$, then since it is a telescoping sum

$$\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p(m)=\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}0|S_m^3|0\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}0|S_m^3|0=1,$$

i.e., $`p(m)`$ is a probability distribution. All moments of $`p`$ are finite and the first moment of $`p`$ is $`\frac{1}{2}`$. In fact $`p(m)e^{c|m|}`$ for some positive $`c`$ depending on $`\mathrm{\Delta }>1`$ (see Lemma A.1.1). Thus,

$$\varphi _x^{}(v)=\underset{m}{}\frac{x}{v}J_{m+x}^2(\frac{x\alpha }{v})p(m).$$

We used the fact that $`J_n(x)^2=J_n(x)^2=J_n(x)^2`$. One may easily bound $`\frac{x}{v}J_{xm}^2(\frac{x\alpha }{v})`$ uniformly in $`x`$ and $`m`$, which our asymptotics will show (see below). Hence, we may interchange the limits $`x\mathrm{}`$ and the sum, to calculate

$$\underset{x\mathrm{}}{lim}\varphi _x^{}(v)=\underset{m}{}p(m)\underset{x\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{x}{v}J_{m+x}^2(\frac{x\alpha }{v}).$$

We distinguish between the two cases $`v>2\alpha `$, and $`v<2\alpha `$. The asymptotic behavior will be very different in these two cases. Let us start with $`v>2\alpha `$. Then by (9.3.2) in , asymptotically for large $`x`$

$`2\frac{x\alpha }{v}J_{m+x}^2(\frac{2x\alpha }{v})`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{x}{m+x}\frac{2(m+x)\alpha }{x}J_{m+x}^2\left((m+x)\frac{2x\alpha }{(m+x)v}\right)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{\frac{v^2}{4\alpha ^2}1}}}e^{\frac{2x\alpha }{v}(1\sqrt{\frac{v^2}{4\alpha ^2}1})}.`$
Since $`p(m)`$ is a probability measure, which decays exponentially, the bound above shows that $`\varphi _x^{}(v)`$ is exponentially small, and $`lim_x\mathrm{}\varphi _x^{}(v)=0`$, which implies that $`\varphi (v):=lim_x\mathrm{}\varphi _x(v)=\frac{1}{2}`$. This behavior is not surprising for it just means a finite speed of propagation, which has to be less than $`2\alpha `$.

However for $`0v<2\alpha `$, the behavior of the Bessel functions changes, cf (9.3.3), :

$$\frac{2x\alpha }{v}J_{m+x}^2(\frac{2x\alpha }{v})\frac{2}{\pi \sqrt{1\frac{v^2}{4\alpha ^2}}}\mathrm{cos}^2\left(x\sqrt{\frac{\alpha ^2}{4v^2}1}x\mathrm{arccos}(\frac{v}{2\alpha })\frac{\pi }{4}\right).$$

This implies that for large $`x`$

$`\varphi _x^{}(v)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha \pi \sqrt{1\frac{v^2}{4\alpha ^2}}}}\mathrm{cos}^2\left(x\sqrt{\frac{4\alpha ^2}{v^2}1}x\mathrm{arccos}(\frac{v}{2\alpha })\frac{\pi }{4}\right).`$
For $`v<2\alpha `$ we recover the function $`\varphi (v)`$ by integration, (we switch the limit and integral by dominated convergence, since $`\varphi _x^{}(v)`$ is uniformly bounded in $`x`$ and $`v`$ for $`v[0,\frac{2}{\alpha }ϵ]`$), i.e.,

$`\varphi (v)`$ $`:=`$ $`\underset{x\mathrm{}}{lim}\varphi _x(v)={\displaystyle _0^v}𝑑y\underset{x\mathrm{}}{lim}\varphi _x^{}(y)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\mathrm{arcsin}(\frac{v}{2\alpha }).`$
The oscillating cosine contributes an average factor $`\frac{1}{2}`$ to the integral. Using symmetry, and collecting terms, we have shown that

(19)
$$\underset{t\mathrm{}:x=vt}{lim}m_{\gamma =0}^3(x,t)=\varphi (v)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}+\frac{1}{2}& \text{for}& v<2\alpha \\ \frac{2}{\pi }\mathrm{arcsin}(\frac{v}{2\alpha })& \text{for}& 2\alpha <v<2\alpha \\ \frac{1}{2}& \text{for}& v>2\alpha \end{array}.$$

The importance behind a further analysis of the profile perpendicular to the $`z`$ direction is that it allows us to decide whether the state is rotated by the perturbation into the $`xy`$ plane or whether there is ballistic diffusion of the interface. Comparing equations (17) and (18), we see that the main difference is a replacement of the probability measure $`p(m)=0|S_{m1}^3S_m^3|0`$ by the signed measure $`\stackrel{~}{p}(m)=1|S_m^+S_{m1}^+|0`$. One can easily determine that $`|\stackrel{~}{p}(m)|<C_1e^{c|m|}`$ (see Lemma A.1.2). However, now $`\stackrel{~}{p}(m)`$ oscillates, and again because of a telescoping sum,

$$\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\stackrel{~}{p}(m)=\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}1|S_m^+|0\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}1|S_m^+|0=00=0.$$

Since we have determined that for any fixed finite $`m`$, $`lim_x\mathrm{}\frac{x}{v}J_{m+x}^2(\frac{2x\alpha }{v})`$ is a fixed function of $`v/2\alpha `$ independent of $`m`$, and in particular this implies the same limit for $`lim_x\mathrm{}\frac{x}{v}J_{m+x}(\frac{2x\alpha }{v})J_{m+x+1}(\frac{2x\alpha }{v})`$, the oscillation of $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ implies that

$`\underset{x\mathrm{},x=vt}{lim}\psi _x^{}(v)`$ $`:=`$ $`t\left[m_{\gamma =0}^1(x+1,t)m_{\gamma =0}^1(x,t)\right]_{\frac{x}{t}=v}`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{x\mathrm{}}{lim}b{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\stackrel{~}{p}(m)\underset{x\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{x}{v}J_{m+x}(\frac{2x\alpha }{v})J_{m+x+1}(\frac{2x\alpha }{v})`$
$`=`$ $`0.`$
This does not say that the profile in the $`xy`$ plane is vanishing. Quite on the contrary, it means that it stays exponentially concentrated around the kink at 0, and does not follow the ballistic motion of the third component.

Let us shortly comment on time dependent uniform fields with time dependent Stark-Jacobi operator $`K(t)=\alpha (t)\mathrm{\Delta }+\gamma (t)W`$. It is easy to see that if $`B_3(t)=0`$ then we just have to replace $`\alpha t`$ by $`_0^t\alpha (s)𝑑s`$. E.g.,

$$m^3(x,t)=\underset{m}{}J_m^2(2_0^t\alpha (s)ds)m|S_x^3|m.$$

We have not been able to derive explicit expressions in the general case, but one can show, for instance, by repeated use of Graf’s addition theorem, that there is a function $`F`$ such that

$$m^3(x,t)=\underset{m}{}J_m^2(F(\alpha (t),\gamma (t))m|S_x^3|m.$$

In these time dependent cases, a scaling limit as before does not exist.

### 4.2. General infinitely extended fields

Since a thorough discussion would be out of the scope of this paper, we only want to convince the reader that the leading dynamics of the “many-body” Hamiltonian leads to a well studied one-body problem which has seen great progress in recent years.

Let us start with the simplest case when the magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}(n)`$ is asymptotically uniform with non-zero third component. I.e., we assume that there is a vector $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ and some $`p>1`$ such that $`(B_3(n)B_3)n\mathrm{}^p()`$, and $`(B_{1,2}(n)B_{1,2})\mathrm{}^p()`$. Let $`K`$ denote the Jacobi operator corresponding to this vector field. Then $`K`$ is a compact perturbation of the Stark-Jacobi operator $`K_0`$ in (15). By Weyl’s Theorem, $`K`$ has pure point spectrum and the motion is quasi-periodic and the interface stays localized at 0.

The case of a perturbation of a uniform field with $`B_3=0`$ is much more complicated. If we perturb by a field in the $`z`$ direction, which corresponds to adding a potential to the (discrete) Laplace operator, then we are in the widely studied case of a (discrete) Schrödinger operator.

The effect of a perturbation of $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ in the $`xy`$ plane, however, is non-local. I.e., if we change $`B_1`$ at 0 into $`B_1(0)`$, then the off-diagonal matrix element computed from

$$n|\underset{x}{}B_1(x)S_x^+|n1=B_1n|\underset{x}{}S_x^+|n1+(B_1(0)B_1)n|S_0^+|n1$$

is effected for all $`n`$, although exponentially localized at the impurity at 0. By a rotation, one can map this Jacobi operator into a Schrödinger operator. Any non-uniform perturbation of the uniform case by a bounded perturbation will modify the spectrum of the reduced Jacobi operator, as was recently proven by Killip and Simon .

There are many more interesting fields for which we would like to understand the time evolution of interfaces. A particularly simple case is a sharply localized field at a single site $`y`$, i.e., $`V=\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{S}_y`$. Here, one should rather approximate the time evolution by the projection of $`H+\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{S}_y`$ onto its low energy spectrum which seems to be separated by a gap from the rest of the spectrum, and which is similar to the spectrum of the unperturbed kink Hamiltonian. So far only the ground state and the gap above the ground state of this Hamiltonian have been studied by Contucci, Nachtergaele and Spitzer . We plan to pursue this in the future.

## Appendix A Magnetization profiles

The exact formula for the spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ magnetization profile of kink states in the $`z`$ direction was derived in , pp 55–58. Note that by rotational symmetry, $`n|S_x^1|n=n|S_x^2|n=0`$. We introduce the function

(20)
$$f(z)=\underset{k0}{}(1)^kz^kq^{k(k1)}.$$

###### Lemma A.1.

For the spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ infinite chain kink Hamiltonian we have the following profiles of the normalized kink state, $`|0`$ (which has total $`z`$ component 0):

1. If $`x>0`$, then

(21)
$$0|S_x^3|0=\frac{1}{2}+q^{2x}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^kq^{k(k+2x+1)},$$

while for $`x0`$ we have $`0|S_x^3|0=0|S_{1x}^3|0`$. Further, $`p(m)=0|S_{m1}^3S_m^3|0e^{c|m|}`$ with $`c`$ depending on $`q`$.
2. $`n|S_0^{}|n1=q^{|n|}f(q^{2|n|+2})`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{p}(m)=1|S_m^+S_{m1}^+|0`$ satisfies $`|\stackrel{~}{p}(m)|<C_1e^{c|m|}`$ with $`c`$ depending on $`q`$.
3. The number $`a`$ in the Stark-Jacobi operator (15) is equal to

(22)
$$a=n|\underset{x}{}S_x^1|n1=\frac{1}{2}\underset{k0}{}(1)^kq^{k(k+1)}\frac{1+q^{1+2k}}{1q^{1+2k}}.$$

###### Proof.

Here, we only show the key steps for Part 2 and 3; the details can be found in . The exponential localization of the measures $`p(m)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{p}(m)`$ can be deduced from the explicit formulas but it can also be done much easier by using the following estimate

(23)
$$\psi _0|[\frac{1}{2}+\text{sgn}(x)S_x^3]|\psi _0Cq^{|x|}$$

for some $`C=C(q)`$ independent of $`x`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }^+=_{x0}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\right)_{x>0}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{1}\right)`$. We define the so-called grand-canonical states

(24)
$$\psi (z)=\underset{x=\mathrm{}}{\overset{0}{}}(1+z^1q^xS_x^{})\underset{x=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1+zq^xS_x^+)\mathrm{\Omega }^+.$$

The reason for this definition is that

(25)
$$\psi (z)=\underset{n}{}\psi _nz^n.$$

It is clear that in the grand canonical ground state, for real $`z=q^\mu `$,

$$\frac{\psi (z)|S_x^3|\psi (z)}{\psi (z)|\psi (z)}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{q^{(x\mu )/2}q^{(\mu x)/2}}{\sqrt{q^{x\mu }+q^{\mu x}}},$$

which proves exponential localization of the interface in the grand canonical ground state. E.g., setting $`\mu =0`$, one has for $`x>0`$,

(26)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}\frac{q^{x/2}q^{x/2}}{\sqrt{q^x+q^x}}& =\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\sqrt{1+q^{2x}}1+q^x}{\sqrt{1+q^{2x}}}\hfill \\ & \frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}[1+\frac{1}{2}q^{2x}1+q^x]\hfill \\ & \frac{1}{2}+\frac{3}{4}q^x,\hfill \end{array}$$

and a similar inequality holds for $`x<0`$. Setting $`\mu =0`$, (i.e. $`z=1`$) we see that

$$\psi (1)|(\frac{1}{2}\pm S_x^3)|\psi (1)=\underset{n}{}\psi _n|(\frac{1}{2}\pm S_x^3)|\psi _n\psi _0|(\frac{1}{2}\pm S_x^3)|\psi _0,$$

using the fact that $`(\frac{1}{2}\pm S_x^3)`$ is a nonnegative operator. Hence,

$$\frac{\psi _0|[\frac{1}{2}\pm S_x^3]|\psi _0}{\psi _0|\psi _0}\frac{\psi (z)^2}{\psi _0^2}\frac{\psi (1)|[\frac{1}{2}\pm S_x^3]|\psi (1)}{\psi (1)|\psi (1)}.$$

Since $`(\psi (z)^2/\psi _0^2)<\mathrm{}`$, and using equation (26) we derive equation (23). This proves Part 1.

Next, using the $`q`$-binomial product theorem we get that

$`\psi (z)|S_0^+|\psi (z)`$ $`=`$ $`z^1{\displaystyle \underset{x=\mathrm{}}{\overset{1}{}}}(1+z^2q^{2x}){\displaystyle \underset{x=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1+z^2q^{2x})`$
$`=`$ $`z^1\left({\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|z|^{2n}{\displaystyle \frac{q^{n(n+1)}}{(q^2;q^2)_n}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|z|^{2n}{\displaystyle \frac{q^{n(n+1)}}{(q^2;q^2)_n}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`z^1{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|z|^{2n}{\displaystyle \frac{q^{|n|(|n|+1)}f(q^{2(|n|+1)})}{(q^2;q^2)_{\mathrm{}}}}.`$
Comparing powers of $`z`$ in (25) we have

$`n|S_0^+|n1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _n|S_0^+|\psi _{n1}}{\psi _{n1}\psi _n}}`$
$`=`$ $`q^{|n|}f(q^{2|n|+2}).`$
We have used that $`\psi _n^2=q^{n(n+1)}/(q^2;q^2)_{\mathrm{}}`$. Finally,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}n|S_x^+|n1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}x|S_0^+|x1`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}q^{|x|}{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}(1)^kq^{2(|x|+1)k+k(k1)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}(1)^kq^{k(k+1)}{\displaystyle \frac{1+q^{1+2k}}{1q^{1+2k}}}.`$
## Appendix B Stark-Jacobi Operator on $`^d`$

###### Lemma B.1.

Let $`Kf(\stackrel{}{n})=(\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }+\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{n})f(\stackrel{}{n})`$ be selfadjointly defined on $`𝒟(K)=\{f\mathrm{}(^d):(\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{n})f(\stackrel{}{n})\mathrm{}^2(^d)\}`$. If all $`\gamma _j`$ are non-zero and there is some $`\gamma _0`$ such that $`\gamma _j=a_j\gamma _0`$ with $`a_j`$ for all $`j=1,\mathrm{},d`$, i.e. if $`(\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _d)`$ are commensurable, then

$$\text{spec}(K)=\frac{\gamma ^2}{\text{lcm}(a_1,\mathrm{},a_d)\gamma _0},$$

where $`\text{lcm}(a_1,\mathrm{},a_d)`$ is the least common multiple. If all $`g_j`$ are nonzero, but they are not commensurable, i.e., there exists a pair $`\gamma _j`$, $`\gamma _k`$ such that $`\gamma _j/\gamma _k`$ is irrational, then $`\text{spec}(K)=`$ and the spectrum is dense pure point spectrum. In this case there is an eigenvalue at every point of the lattice

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}\frac{\gamma ^2}{\gamma _j}=\{\underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}a_j\gamma ^2/\gamma _j:a_1,\mathrm{},a_d\}.$$

However, if there are $`1l<d`$ non-zero components of $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }`$, say the first $`l`$, then

$$\text{spec}(K)=\text{cl}\left([2\alpha (dl),2\alpha (dl)]+\underset{j=1}{\overset{l}{}}(\frac{\gamma ^2}{\gamma _j})\right),$$

where $`\text{cl}(.)`$ is norm closure in $``$, and there is essential spectrum even when all $`\gamma _j`$ are commensurable.

###### Proof.

Let us assume first that all components are non-zero. In Fourier space we have the eigenvalue equation

$$\left(2\alpha \underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}\mathrm{cos}(k_j)+i\gamma \underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}\frac{\gamma _j}{\gamma }\frac{}{k_j}\lambda \right)\varphi (k)=0.$$

Let $`R=R(\gamma )`$ be an orthogonal matrix such that $`_{j=1}^dR_{ij}\frac{\gamma _j}{\gamma }=\delta (i,1)`$. (In particular this means $`R_{1j}=\frac{\gamma _j}{\gamma }`$.) Setting $`\stackrel{~}{k}=Rk`$, we get

$$\frac{}{\stackrel{~}{k}_1}\varphi (\stackrel{~}{k})=\frac{i}{\gamma }\left(\lambda 2\alpha \underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}\mathrm{cos}\left(\underset{m=1}{\overset{d}{}}R_{mj}\stackrel{~}{k}_m\right)\right)\varphi (\stackrel{~}{k}).$$

The solution is thus

$$\varphi (\stackrel{~}{k})=Ce^{\frac{i}{\gamma }\left(\lambda \stackrel{~}{k}_12\alpha _{j=1}^d(R_{1j})^1\mathrm{sin}(_{m=1}^dR_{mj}\stackrel{~}{k}_m)\right)}.$$

Using that $`R_{1j}=\frac{\gamma _j}{\gamma }`$ we have

(27)
$$\varphi (k)=Ce^{\frac{i}{\gamma }\left(\lambda _{j=1}^d\frac{\gamma _j}{\gamma }k_j2\alpha _{j=1}^d\frac{\gamma }{\gamma _j}\mathrm{sin}(k_j)\right)}.$$

Finally, the periodicity condition, $`\varphi (k_j+2\pi )=\varphi (k_j),j=1,\mathrm{},d`$ requires that

$$\lambda \frac{\gamma ^2}{\gamma _j}.$$

Now suppose that the first $`l`$ components of $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }`$ are non-zero and the rest are zero. According to the decomposition $`\mathrm{}^2(^d)=\mathrm{}^2(^l)\mathrm{}^2(^{dl})`$, we write $`K`$ as the sum of Stark-Jacobi operator $`K^{(l)}`$ acting on $`\mathrm{}^2(^l)`$ and $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }^{(l)}`$ acting on $`\mathrm{}^2(^{dl})`$. Hence the result follows. ∎


format: text

text:
# Unitarized pion-nucleon scattering amplitude from Inverse Amplitude Method

## I Introduction

Even though Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) is considered nowadays the theory of strong interactions, its application to low energy hadron physics is still far from a solved problem in physics. A great theoretical improvement was made by means of the method of Chiral Perturbation Theory (ChPT) , which is an effective theory derived from the basis of QCD. The method consists of writing down chiral Lagrangians for the physical processes and uses the conventional technique of the field theory for the calculations. It is a quite successful method when applied to meson processes.

In order to deal with baryons in the ChPT approach, the theory faced problems related to fixing the scale for momenta and quark mass expansion. This led eventually to a method known as Heavy Baryon Chiral Perturbation Theory (HBChPT) , which has been applied to describe pion-nucleon scattering from a complete effective Lagrangian calculated up to third order in small momenta . More recently the explicit degrees of freedom corresponding to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`N^{}`$ resonances have also been considered within HBChPT . One peculiar feature of ChPT is that it leads to partial waves satisfying only approximate elastic unitarity relation, since, for instance, the leading amplitude is a real function of energy in the physical region.

Unitarization methods have been applied to pion-nucleon scattering in the literature for a long time . An interesting approach to implement unitarity in HBChPT amplitude is the Inverse Amplitude Method (IAM) . This is a sort of N/D method that takes the leading contribution to the partial wave amplitude as the numerator $`N`$ and includes the imaginary part that comes from loop corrections in the denominator $`D`$. The expansion of $`D`$ yields the same structure of the original amplitude up to the order considered, plus corrections of higher orders, but is fully unitary. IAM partial wave amplitudes for pion-nucleon scattering have been constructed and fitted to the experimental phase shifts by fixing nine free parameters .

On the other hand, instead of working in an effective theory framework, one can use the hard-meson method of current algebra. In fact, current algebra approach was abandoned by several reasons but, as it is based on chiral symmetry, one expects that it gives equivalent results for meson processes. In fact, we have compared these two methods and concluded that quasi-unitarized current algebra amplitude is equivalent to ChPT one-loop calculation in the case of kaon-pion scattering and equivalent to one- and two-loop ChPT calculations for pion-pion scattering . In particular, both methods lead to amplitudes satisfying the same approximate unitarity relations.

Two years ago, we developed an alternative procedure to unitarize a current algebra pion-nucleon scattering amplitude . The unitarity correction was built as follows. We started from a soft-pion amplitude  reproducing Weinberg prediction for S-wave scattering lengths  and constructed auxiliary functions in order to respect approximate unitarity. Considering known the imaginary parts of partial wave amplitudes, we used the dispersion relation technique to arrive at a quasi-unitarized amplitude written in terms of known functions and a two parameter polynomial part. Furthermore, we imposed exact crossing relations to Dirac amplitudes resulting very constrained partial waves. By this method, even in the absence of free parameters, the violation of unitarity of the resulting amplitudes seems to be very important mainly in the resonance region.

The motivation of the present work is to go beyond threshold by constructing partial wave amplitudes that respect the unitarity relation exactly. In the present paper, we reconsider the unitarity corrected amplitudes described above in order to construct IAM modified amplitudes. In the approximation used here, each partial wave requires a maximum of two parameters.

In the next section we present a summary of the basic formalism. In section III we present the procedure of Ref.  for obtaining quasi-unitary corrected amplitudes. In section IV we present the IAM unitarization procedure and the results.

## II Basic formalism

We consider the reaction $`\pi ^a(k)+N(p)\pi ^b(k^{})+N(p^{}),`$ which is described by the T-matrix amplitude

$$T^{ab}(p^{},k^{};p,k)=A^{ab}(s,t,u)+\frac{i}{2}(k\text{/}+k\text{/}^{})B^{ab}(s,t,u),$$
(1)
with $`s=(p+k)^2`$ , $`t=(k^{}k)^2`$ and $`u=(pk^{})^2`$.

In order to specify the various charge states, the invariant amplitudes $`A`$ and $`B`$ are decomposed as

$`A^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta ^{ab}A^++{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\tau ^b,\tau ^a]A^{},`$ (2)
$`B^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta ^{ab}B^++{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\tau ^b,\tau ^a]B^{}.`$ (3)
They exhibit the following symmetry properties under crossing:

$$A^^\pm (s,t,u)=\pm A^^\pm (u,t,s),B^^\pm (s,t,u)=B^^\pm (u,t,s);$$
(4)
the amplitudes corresponding to definite isospin $`1/2`$ and $`3/2`$ are given by

$$A_{1/2}=A^++2A^{},A_{3/2}=A^+A^{},$$

and similarly for $`B_{1/2},B_{3/2}`$ .

We work in the center of mass system, so that the four momenta are defined as

$$k=(\stackrel{}{k},w),k^{}=(\stackrel{}{k^{}},w),p=(\stackrel{}{k},E),\text{and}p^{}=(\stackrel{}{k^{}},E),$$

with $`|\stackrel{}{k}|=|\stackrel{}{k^{}}|,w=\sqrt{\stackrel{}{k}^2+m^2}`$ and $`E=\sqrt{\stackrel{}{k}^2+M^2}`$, $`M=.938`$ GeV and $`m=.140`$ GeV being the nucleon and the pion mass, respectively. The total energy and scattering angle are given, respectively, by $`W=E+w`$ and $`|\stackrel{}{k}|^2\mathrm{cos}\theta =\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k^{}},`$ thus, in terms of these quantities, one has $`s=W^2`$$`t=2|\stackrel{}{k}|^2(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ and $`u=2M^2+2m^2st`$.

For each isospin $`I`$ the Pauli amplitudes are

$`F_{1I}(s,\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E+M}{8\pi W}}\left[A_I(s,\mathrm{cos}\theta )+(WM)B_I(s,\mathrm{cos}\theta )\right],`$ (5)
$`F_{2I}(s,\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{EM}{8\pi W}}\left[A_I(s,\mathrm{cos}\theta )+(W+M)B_I(s,\mathrm{cos}\theta )\right].`$ (7)
Partial wave amplitudes $`f__I\mathrm{}^^\pm `$ are defined as

$`f_I\mathrm{}^\pm (s)`$ $`=`$ $`F_{1I\mathrm{}}(s)+F_{2I\mathrm{}\pm 1}(s),\text{where}`$ (8)
$`F_{iI\mathrm{}}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _1^{+1}}F_{iI}(s,x)P_{\mathrm{}}(x)𝑑x,\text{for}i=1,2\text{and}I={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}.`$ (9)
For elastic scattering we have $`\text{Im}f_I\mathrm{}^\pm (s)=|\stackrel{}{k}||f_I\mathrm{}^\pm (s)|^2,`$ which may be solved yielding

$$f_I\mathrm{}^\pm (s)=\frac{1}{|\stackrel{}{k}|}e^{i\delta _I\mathrm{}(s)}\mathrm{sin}\delta _I\mathrm{}(s),$$
(10)
where $`\delta _I\mathrm{}(s)`$ are real phase shifts.

## III Unitarization procedure

Let us recall the main points in our unitarization procedure. First, we consider an amplitude reproducing S-wave scattering lengths predicted by Weinberg. The low energy amplitude we start from is the soft-pion limit obtained by Osypowsky  using the Ward identity technique. The final expression for the four point function, related to pion-nucleon scattering, is written in terms of form factors and propagators. By estimating the contribution of each term at threshold one is led to assume that the low energy amplitudes are

$$A^{ca}=\frac{\mu __V}{8Mf^2}(us),B^{ca}=\frac{1+\mu __V}{2f^2},A^{ca+}=B^{ca+}=0,$$
(11)
where $`f=.094`$ GeV is the pion decay constant, $`\mu __V3.7`$ and the superscript ca stands for current algebra. These amplitudes lead to the well known Weinberg prediction for S-wave scattering lengths, namely $`a_0^+=0`$ and $`a_0^{}=0.077m^1`$, to be compared with the experimental values $`a_0^+=0.015\pm 0.015m^1`$ and $`a_0^{}=0.097\pm 0.003m^1`$.

We implemented unitarity for the low-energy pion-nucleon amplitude $`A^{ca}`$ and $`B^{ca}`$. From our previous analysis on meson scattering, we conjecture that the corrected amplitudes must satisfy

$$A_{\mathrm{}}(s)A_{\mathrm{}}^{ca}(s)+A_{\mathrm{}}^{(1)}(s)+𝒪(ϵ^2),\text{for}s(m_\pi +m_N)^2,\text{ and the same for}B_{\mathrm{}};$$

$`A^{(1)}`$ is a complex function and $`ϵ`$ is a small parameter characterizing the corrections.

For each isospin channel, soft-pion amplitudes are obtained from (9) as

$`f__0^{ca+}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`F_{_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}0}}}^{ca}(s)+F_{_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}1}}}^{ca}(s),f__2^{ca}(s)=F_{_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}1}}}^{ca}(s),`$
$`f__1^{ca}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`F_{_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}1}}}^{ca}(s)+F_{_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}0}}}^{ca}(s),f__1^{ca+}(s)=F_{_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}1}}}^{ca}(s),`$
where $`f_{\mathrm{}}^{ca\pm }`$ follow from $`A^{ca}`$ and $`B^{ca}`$. It is evident that Im $`f_{\mathrm{}}^{ca\pm }(s)=0`$, but this situation is inherent to soft-meson calculation.

We construct quasi-unitarized amplitudes by requiring that the corrections $`F_i\mathrm{}^{(1)}`$, for $`s(M+m)^2`$, have the following imaginary parts:

$`\text{Im}F_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}0}}^{(1)}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`|\stackrel{}{k}|\left(F_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}0}}^{ca\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}(s)+2F_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}0}}^{ca}(s)F_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}1}}^{ca}(s)\right),`$
$`\text{Im}F_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}0}}^{(1)}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`|\stackrel{}{k}|\left(F_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}0}}^{ca\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}(s)+2F_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}0}}^{ca}F_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}1}}^{ca}(s)\right),`$
$`\text{Im}F_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}1}}^{(1)}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`|\stackrel{}{k}|F_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}1}}^{ca\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}(s),\text{Im}F_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}1}}^{(1)}(s)=|\stackrel{}{k}|F_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}1}}^{ca\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}(s).`$
It guarantees that the quasi-unitarized partial waves $`f_{\mathrm{}}^\pm =f_{\mathrm{}}^{ca\pm }+f_{\mathrm{}}^{(1)\pm }`$ satisfy

$$\text{Im}f_{\mathrm{}}^\pm =|\stackrel{}{k}||f_{\mathrm{}}^{\pm ca}|^2.$$
(12)
Expressing functions $`A`$ and $`B`$ in terms of Pauli amplitudes, we construct the auxiliary functions

$`𝒜(s,\mathrm{cos}\theta _s)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left[a_1(s)𝒮(s)+a_2(s)𝒟(s)+3\mathrm{cos}\theta _sa_3(s)𝒬(s)\right],`$ (13)
$`(s,\mathrm{cos}\theta _s)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left[b_1(s)𝒮(s)+b_2(s)𝒟(s)+3\mathrm{cos}\theta _sb_3(s)𝒬(s)\right],`$ (14)
where

$$\text{Im}𝒮(s)=\frac{2|\stackrel{}{k}|}{W}A_0^{ca}(s),\text{Im}𝒟(s)=\frac{2|\stackrel{}{k}|}{W}B_0^{ca},𝒬(s)=\frac{2|\stackrel{}{k}|}{W}A_1^{ca}(s),$$

$`a_1(s)`$ $`=`$ $`(W+M)\left(F_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}0}}^{ca}+2F_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}1}}^{ca}\right)+(WM)(F_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}0}}^{ca}+2F_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}1}}^{ca}),`$
$`a_2(s)`$ $`=`$ $`(W^2M^2)\left(F_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}0}}^{ca}+2F_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}1}}^{ca}F_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}0}}^{ca}2F_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}1}}^{ca}\right),`$
$`a_3(s)`$ $`=`$ $`(W+M)F_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}1}}^{ca}+(WM)F_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}1}}^{ca},`$
$`b_1(s)`$ $`=`$ $`F_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}0}}^{ca}+2F_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}1}}^{ca}F_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}0}}^{ca}2F_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}1}}^{ca},`$
$`b_2(s)`$ $`=`$ $`(WM)\left(F_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}0}}^{ca}+2F_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}1}}^{ca}\right)+(W+M)\left(F_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}0}}^{ca}+2F_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}1}}^{ca}\right),`$
$`b_3(s)`$ $`=`$ $`F_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}1}}^{ca}F_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}1}}^{ca}.`$
In order to avoid kinematical singularities, we write subtracted dispersion relations for $`𝒮`$, $`𝒟`$ and $`𝒬`$ by introducing free parameters. At this point the present procedure must be handled in a different manner than done in Ref. . In the construction of the quasi-unitarized amplitudes we introduced only two parameters. On the other hand, in the present work, one must use up to two parameters for each partial wave, chosen from the set of parameters ($`\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3`$) in the expressions

$$𝒮(s)=s^2\lambda _1+A_0^{ca}(s)G(s),𝒟(s)=s^2\lambda _2+B_0^{ca}G(s),𝒬(s)=s^2\lambda _3+A_1^{ca}(s)G(s),$$

with

$$G(s)=\frac{s^3}{\pi }_{(M+m)^2}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\sqrt{\left[x(M+m)^2\right]\left[x(Mm)^2\right]}}{x^4(xs)}𝑑x.$$

One may argue that in the definition of the subtracted dispersion relations above, terms in powers of $`s`$ smaller than two are missing. This restricted choice of the number of subtraction constants is based on the fact that in the fitting process those extra free parameters do not provide qualitative improvement on the fits.

As done in our previous work, crossing properties and partial wave total isospin dependence are imposed to the corrected amplitudes, by taking

$`A^{(1)+}(s,t,u)`$ $`=`$ $`2𝒜(s,t)+(su),A^{(1)}(s,t,u)=𝒜(s,t)(su),`$
$`B^{(1)+}(s,t,u)`$ $`=`$ $`2(s,t)(su),B^{(1)}(s,t,u)=(s,t)+(su).`$
The corrections to partial wave amplitudes are calculated from (5) using (4) and are indicated by $`f_\mathrm{}I^{(1)}(s)`$. This was the final step of the procedure introduced in Ref. .

## IV Inverse Amplitude Method and results

The quasi-unitarized amplitudes from last section do not obey exact unitarity relation. In order to restore it, we apply the IAM to the corrected partial waves $`f_\mathrm{}I=f_\mathrm{}I^{ca}+f_\mathrm{}I^{(1)}`$, by writing

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_\mathrm{}I(s)=\frac{f_\mathrm{}I^{ca}(s)}{1f_\mathrm{}I^{(1)}(s)/f_\mathrm{}I^{ca}(s)}.$$

In order to fit IAM amplitudes to the experimental results of phase shifts one has to be cautious. As the inelasticity for some partial waves becomes important for energies less than 1.5 GeV, one has to introduce some criteria to define the validity region of the IAM. In the present paper we decided to fit our results to experimental phase shifts corresponding to dimensionless experimental amplitudes $`f_\mathrm{}I^{exp}`$ satisfying $`\text{Im}f_\mathrm{}I^{exp}|f_\mathrm{}I^{exp}|^2<0.1`$.

Restricting ourselves to these ranges in energy, we performed the fits of $`S_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}1}},S_{\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}1}},P_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}1}},P_{\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}1}},P_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}3}}\text{and}P_{\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}3}}`$ partial waves from the form $`\stackrel{~}{f}_\mathrm{}I`$ above to experimental data, thus fixing the free parameters $`\lambda _1`$, $`\lambda _2`$ and $`\lambda _3`$ independently, but only a maximum of two of them for each wave. Their values are presented in the Table.

The phase shifts thus obtained are shown in the figures, as functions of the cms energy, in GeV. In the same figures we plot the phase shifts obtained with the original quasi-unitarized amplitudes . In that case only $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _3`$ were considered, and their values were the same for all partial waves. Concerning our present results, we observe that it is possible to fit the phase shifts of our model to the experimental data (Ref. ). We also observe that, using the IAM, it is not possible to simultaneously fit two waves with the same values of parameters. The qualitative agreement with experimental data is an indication that the IAM allows one to access the resonance region of pion-nucleon scattering since some low energy chiral amplitude is given.

We would like to emphasize that in the construction of the quasi-unitarized amplitude there is no commitment on the existence of any resonance. They emerge as dynamical consequences of the unitarization procedure. Notice also that we do not include the nucleon pole in the low energy amplitude we started from.

In order to further explore the results that we have obtained, one should construct corrections in the next level of unitarity approximation for the partial waves, as outlined in the last equation of Ref. . We believe that the IAM applied to this new result will allow one to access the energy resonance region for higher angular momenta partial waves.


text:
# Introduction

## Introduction

The observation and confirmation of gluonic degrees of freedom in mesonic states is of great significance for QCD, which predicts the existence of glueballs (bound states of gluons) and of hybrids (quark-antiquark-gluon states). Calculations in lattice QCD give estimates of the likely masses of glueballs  and light-quark hybrids , and evidence for the excitation of gluonic degrees of freedom has emerged in several processes. Lattice calculations predict that the lightest glueball has $`J^{PC}=0^{++}`$ and is in the mass range 1.3 to 1.7 GeV. Experimentally  there is one more $`0^{++}`$ state in this mass range than can be accomodated by excited quark-antiquark states. The natural inference is that there is a glueball state present . A clear exotic resonance, $`\pi _1(1600)`$, with quantum numbers $`J^{PC}=1^+`$ which cannot be accessed by a pure quark-antiquark state, has been seen  in the $`\eta ^{}(958)\pi `$ channel in the reaction $`\pi ^{}N(\eta ^{}(958)\pi )N`$ and in the $`\rho ^0\pi ^{}`$ channel  in the reaction $`\pi ^{}N(\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{})N`$. Anomalously large hadronic decay modes of light-quark vector mesons, that is decays which are predicted to be very small in standard models , are observed in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation around 1.6 GeV. A favoured explanation  is to include vector hybrids which, on the basis of the $`\pi _1(1600)`$ mass, are expected to be in this mass region.

Apart from states with exotic quantum numbers, disentangling hybrids and glueballs from quark-antiquark states is difficult using only hadronic decay channels because of mixing. However, radiative transitions offer special opportunities. The coupling to the charges and spins of constituents reveals detailed information about wave functions and discriminates among models. In the case of gluonic excitations of the $`\pi `$ and $`\rho `$, that is hybrids, the spin structure differs from conventional excitations with the same overall $`J^{PC}`$. For example, in a hybrid $`1^{}`$ the $`q\overline{q}`$ are in a spin-singlet, while for the $`0^+`$ they are in a spin-triplet: in each case this is the reverse of what one is accustomed to. In the case of the scalar mesons a direct measure of their electromagnetic couplings gives information about the flavour content of the scalar states and could resolve the issue of $`G`$-$`q\overline{q}`$ mixing.

We have calculated  the rates for the radiative decays $`V^{}\gamma M`$, where the $`V^{}`$ are the $`2S`$ and $`1D`$ excitations of the $`\rho `$, $`\omega `$ and $`\varphi `$ in the 1.4 to 1.8 GeV mass range and the $`M`$ are positive C-parity $`q\overline{q}`$ states in the 1.2 to 1.7 GeV mass range. We label the vector states $`\rho _S`$, $`\rho _D`$, $`\omega _S`$, $`\omega _D`$, $`\varphi _S`$ and $`\varphi _D`$. Some of these vector decays are predicted to have branching ratios in excess of $`10^2`$ and will be measurable at existing and planned facilities, such as $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation by Initial State Radiation (ISR) at Babar and Belle, by direct $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation at the upgraded VEPP collider at Novosibirsk and by diffractive photoproduction following the upgrade at Jefferson Laboratory.

These radiative transitions serve two purposes, exploring the nature both of the initial excited vector state and that of the resultant meson. In  we concentrated on the former aspect. Here we emphasise the latter and extend the calculation to the radiative decays of the scalars to the ground-state vector mesons. There is again great potential for precise measurement of these decays, for example at CLEO via the decay $`J/\psi \gamma \gamma V`$ or at COMPASS via central production in high-energy proton proton collisions.

Radiative transitions of $`\rho ^{}`$ or $`\omega ^{}`$ to $`\gamma M`$ couple directly to the $`u\overline{u}`$$`\pm `$$`d\overline{d}`$ content of $`M`$. In similar vein, the analogous transitions involving $`\varphi ^{}`$ couple to the $`s\overline{s}`$ content of $`M`$. By comparing the relative rates for isovector ($`|M`$ $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|`$$`u\overline{u}`$$``$ \- $`|`$$`d\overline{d}`$$``$) and isoscalar ($`|M\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ $`|`$$`s\overline{s}`$$`+\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|`$$`u\overline{u}`$$``$ \+ $`|`$$`d\overline{d}`$$``$)) for a set of mesons $`M`$ of positive C-parity and the same $`J^P`$ it is possible in principle to determine the relative amount of $`s\overline{s}`$ and non-strange flavours in the $`M`$ wavefunction and hence to weigh the flavour content of the nonet. In the case where a glueball has mixed into the multiplet extending it to a decuplet, as is hypothesised  to be the case for the $`f_0(1370)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$, such transitions enable the role of the glueball to be disentangled and might even be able to estabish the mass of the “quenched” glueball . Furthermore, as we shall show, radiative decays of the scalar mesons to the ground-state vectors $`\rho (770)`$ and $`\varphi (1020)`$ are also sensitive probes of the glueball mixing in the scalars.

## The model

The details of the radiative decay calculation are described in . Wavefunctions for the excited vector mesons are found variationally from the Hamiltonian

$$H=\frac{p^2}{m_q}+\sigma r\frac{4}{3}\frac{\alpha _s}{r}+C$$
(1)
with standard quark model parameters $`m_q=0.33`$ GeV for $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks and 0.45 GeV for $`s`$ quarks, $`\sigma =0.18`$ GeV2 and $`\alpha _s=0.5`$. The wavefunctions are taken to be Gaussian of form $`\mathrm{exp}(p^2/(2\beta _M^2))`$ multiplied by the appropriate polynomials and $`\beta _M`$ treated as the variational parameter in $`H`$ for each of the $`1S,1P,2S,1D`$ states. Where data already exist good agreement was found.

For transitions involving excited states with nodes in their wavefunctions there is a priori concern about the stability of the calculations. This does not arise in the transitions we consider here, and the approximation of harmonic oscillator wave functions is ‘safe’. This can be seen, for example, in the $`1P1S`$ transitions. Using the operator relation $`\stackrel{}{p}=im_q[H\stackrel{}{r}]/2`$, where $`H`$ is the Hamiltonian (1), one obtains for the radial integrals of the wave functions the equality

$$B|p|A=\frac{im_q}{2}\omega B|r|A,$$
(2)
where $`A`$ is the initial meson, $`B`$ is the final meson, $`\omega =m_Am_B`$ and $`m_A`$ and $`m_B`$ are the model, not the physical masses. With Gaussian wave functions the radial integrals (up to a phase) are

$$B|p|A=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\beta ^5}{\beta _A^{5/2}\beta _B^{3/2}}$$
(3)
and

$$B|r|A=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\beta _A^{5/2}\beta _B^{3/2}}{\beta _0^5}$$
(4)
where

$$\beta ^2=\frac{1}{2}(\beta _A^2+\beta _B^2)$$
(5)
and

$$\beta _0^2=\frac{1}{2}(\beta _A^2+\beta _B^2)$$
(6)
From , $`\beta _A=0.274`$ GeV, $`\beta _B=0.313`$ GeV and the mass difference $`\omega =0.562`$ GeV. So we find

$$\frac{A|p|B}{m_q}=0.658$$
(7)
and

$$\frac{\omega A|r|B}{2}=0.616$$
(8)
The deviation between (7) and (8) is less than 10 percent so, as the squares enter the widths, the uncertainty due to the use of Gaussian wave functions is about 20 percent. This is appreciably less than the effects we are considering.

A similar exercise for $`1D1P`$ gives

$$\frac{B|p|A}{m_q}=1.088$$
(9)
and

$$\frac{\omega B|r|A}{2}=1.024$$
(10)
so in this case the uncertainty due to the use of Gaussian wave functions is less than 10 percent.

The pure electric-dipole ($`E1`$) transition is well-defined for heavy quarks but is certainly a bad approximation for light quarks. We include the magnetic quadrupole ($`M2`$) transition as well and there is a long history of success with this approach, even though the $`M2`$ terms are at the same order in $`p^2`$ as $`E1`$ corrections proportional to the anomalous magnetic moment of the constituents, spin-orbit terms, Thomas precession and binding effects. Some of these corrections can be calculated ; some can only be estimated . In any case, going beyond the leading approximation for the electric and magnetic amplitudes requires knowledge of the Lorentz nature of the confinement force.

The most notable successes of this approach, namely of calculating the leading terms for each of the relevant electric and magnetic multipoles, have been in reproducing the magnitudes and relative phases of over 100 helicity amplitudes for photoexcitation of the proton and neutron . These give a clear indication of which amplitudes are large or small, and of their relative sizes and signs. This success suggests that although corrections may be individually significant, their collective effect is small.

It is possible to go beyond such an approximation, but at the price of losing some predictive power. Within the general assumption that electromagnetic amplitudes are additive in the constituents, it is possible to obtain relations among the helicity amplitudes, angular distributions and widths for a set of states by normalising the reduced amplitude to some subset of observables .

This is the philosophy that we shall adopt. First, within the “leading multipole” hypothesis we can make two checks of our procedures.

(i) We find that our result for the decay $`f_1(1285)\gamma \rho `$ is in good accord with experiment .

(ii) We predict that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(f_2(1270)\gamma \rho )<\mathrm{\Gamma }(f_1(1285)\gamma \rho )`$, which appears also to be in accord with experiment in that there is no evidence for the radiative decay of the $`f_2(1270)`$ in either the MARKIII  or WA102  experiments, and both have strong $`f_2`$ signals.

Secondly, within the “single-quark-transition” hypothesis we can form a positivity constraint among a combination of the widths. This is satisfied by our explicit model dependent calculations, but enables us to draw a more general conclusion, namely that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(f_0\gamma \rho )\mathrm{\Gamma }(f_1\gamma \rho )`$.

## Vector meson decays

Our interest here is in the radiative decays of the $`\rho _D`$, which we identify with the $`\rho (1700)`$ , to $`f_0(1370)`$ and $`f_0(1510)`$ and of the (unobserved) $`\varphi _D`$, to which we assign a mass of about 1.9 GeV, to $`f_0(1710)`$. In the absence of glueball mixing we predict  $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho _D\gamma f_0^{n\overline{n}}(1370))900`$ keV, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho _D\gamma f_0^{n\overline{n}}(1500))600`$ keV (assuming that one or the other is a pure $`n\overline{n}`$ state) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi _D\gamma f_0^{s\overline{s}}(1710))200`$ keV. These widths can be changed substantially when glueball mixing is included, the degree of modification depending on the mass of the bare glueball.

Three different mixing scenarios have been proposed: the bare glueball is lighter than the bare $`n\overline{n}`$ state ; its mass lies between the bare $`n\overline{n}`$ state and the bare $`s\overline{s}`$ state ; or it is heavier than the bare $`s\overline{s}`$ state . We denote these three possibilities by L, M and H respectively. In  we identified potentially powerful ways of determining glueball mixing in the scalar mesons through the radiative transitions $`\rho _D\gamma f_0(1370)`$ and $`\gamma f_0(1500)`$. If the bare glueball is light ($`1300`$ MeV) it will mix strongly with the $`f_0^{n\overline{n}}(1370)`$ and dilute the 900 keV width which will be pushed into the other scalars, in particular into the $`f_0^{n\overline{n}}(1500)`$ reversing the relative magnitudes of the radiative widths. At the other extreme, the mixing of a heavy glueball ($`1700`$ MeV) does not materially affect the radiative width to the $`f_0(1370)`$ but severely depresses that to the $`f_0(1500)`$ to 100 keV or less. Thus the relative widths of $`\rho _D\gamma f_0(1370)`$ and $`\rho _D\gamma f_0(1500)`$ are sensitive to the glueball mass. There is similar sensitivity in the decays $`\varphi _D\gamma f_0(1500)`$ and $`\varphi _D\gamma f_0(1710)`$. For a light glueball the former is essentially zero and the latter is predicted to be $`170`$ keV. For a heavy glueball the situation is reversed, with the decay $`\varphi _D\gamma f_0(1500)`$ predicted to be about 260 keV and the decay $`\varphi _D\gamma f_0(1710)`$ to be essentially zero. These branching ratios are challenging but important as they open the possibility of weighing the $`n\overline{n}`$ and $`s\overline{s}`$ flavour content of the scalar states and determining the bare mass of the scalar glueball. The only question is whether experiment will be sensitive to such magnitudes.

In the isovector-scalar sector only the $`a_0(980)`$ is well-established. The mass, and even the existence, of the $`a_0(1450)`$ remains controversial. Its mass is a critical parameter in mass matrices for the mixing of the scalar glueball with the $`q\overline{q}`$ nonet. We predict $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega _D\gamma a_0(1450))610`$ keV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho _D\gamma a_0(1450))85`$ keV. Of course in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation or diffractive photoproduction the $`\rho _D`$ will be produced at approximately nine times the rate of the $`\omega _D`$, so the $`\gamma a_0(1450)`$ rates will be the same for both. Observation of the $`a_0(1450)`$ in radiative decays would have significant implications, particularly when coupled with the radiative decays to the isoscalar scalars.

Although our emphasis is on the radiative decays to scalars as a probe of their glueball content it is important to look at other decays as a check on the model. We find that the principal radiative decay mode of the $`\rho _D`$ is $`\gamma f_1(1285)`$, with an estimated width  of $`1100`$ keV. Although the decays of the $`f_1(1285)`$ are many-bodied, principally $`4\pi `$ and $`\eta \pi \pi `$, this is compensated for by its narrow width of 24 MeV. The largest radiative decay of the $`\omega _D`$ is found to be $`\gamma a_1(1260)`$, with a width $`1100`$ keV. Observation of these modes would confirm our calculations. The E852 experiment at Brookhaven has observed  the decay $`\omega (1640)\omega \eta `$. If the $`\omega (1640)\omega _D`$ then, in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ model, the partial width for this mode is predicted  to be 13 MeV. Thus, if the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ model is a good guide in this case, a measureable $`\omega (1640)\gamma a_1`$ is anticipated: as E852 have several thousand events in the $`\omega \eta `$ channel, it is possible that there could be several hundred $`\gamma a_1`$ events in their experiment.

## Scalar meson decays

Just as the radiative decays of excited vector states to the scalars provide sensitive tests of their parton content, so do the radiative decays of the scalars to the ground-state vectors. In our model these decays are given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(f_0\gamma V)=\frac{8}{3}\alpha p\frac{E_B}{m_A}\frac{\beta ^2}{m_q^2}F^2(1+\lambda \frac{p^2}{\beta ^2})^2I$$
(11)
where $`A`$ refers to the initial scalar meson, $`B`$ to the final vector ($`V`$) meson,

$$\lambda =\frac{\beta _A^2}{2(\beta _A^2+\beta _B^2)}$$
(12)
$$F=\frac{\beta ^4}{\beta _A^{5/2}\beta _B^{3/2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{p^2}{8(\beta _A^2+\beta _B^2)}\right)$$
(13)
where $`\beta `$ is given in (5) and $`I`$ is an isospin factor, $`\frac{1}{4}`$ for $`n\overline{n}\gamma \rho `$ and $`\frac{1}{9}`$ for $`s\overline{s}\gamma \varphi `$.

From , $`\beta _A=0.274`$ GeV, $`\beta _B=0.313`$ GeV for $`n\overline{n}`$ states and $`\beta _A=0.307`$ GeV, $`\beta _B=0.355`$ GeV for $`s\overline{s}`$ states. In the absence of glueball mixing it gives $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(f_0(1370)\gamma \rho )2300`$ keV, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(f_0(1710)\gamma \varphi )870`$ keV.

The width of the decay $`f_1(1285)\gamma \rho `$ is measured and provides a check on the model. This decay is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(f_1\gamma V)=\frac{8}{3}\alpha p\frac{E_B}{m_A}\frac{\beta ^2}{m_q^2}F^2(1+\lambda \frac{p^2}{\beta ^2}+\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^2\frac{p^4}{\beta ^4})I$$
(14)
which for an $`n\overline{n}`$ state predicts a width of 1400 keV. This compares well with the experimental value  of $`1320\pm 312`$ keV.

The decay $`f_2(1270)\gamma \rho `$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(f_2\gamma V)=\frac{8}{3}\alpha p\frac{E_B}{m_A}\frac{\beta ^2}{m_q^2}F^2(1\lambda \frac{p^2}{\beta ^2}+\frac{7}{10}\lambda ^2\frac{p^4}{\beta ^4})I$$
(15)
which is rather smaller than the others, due to the negative contribution of the $`p^2/\beta ^2`$ term. This predicts a width of 644 keV.

Experimentally this width is small as neither the MARKIII  nor the WA102  experiments has any evidence for it. The branching fractions for the radiative decay of $`J/\psi `$ to $`f_1(1285)`$ and $`f_2(1270)`$ are comparable , at $`(6.1\pm 0.9)\times 10^4`$ and $`(1.39\pm 0.14)\times 10^3`$ respectively, so the non-observation of any $`f_2(1270)`$ signal in the decay $`J/\psi \gamma (\gamma \rho )`$ is meaningful. A similar situation holds in central production in high-energy proton-proton interactions and one can deduce  an upper limit on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(f_2\gamma \rho )`$ of 500 keV at 95% confidence level. So it is reasonable to suppose that our results for the $`f_0`$ radiative decays are valid.

As in  we consider three scenarios for the glueball mass: light, medium and heavy. The predicted widths for the decays of $`f_0(1370)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$ to $`\gamma \rho `$ and $`\gamma \varphi `$ are given in table 1.

|  |  | $`\rho (770)`$ |  |  | $`\varphi (1020)`$ |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | L | M | H | L | M | H |
| $`f_0(1370)`$ | 443 | 1121 | 1540 | 8 | 9 | 32 |
| $`f_0(1500)`$ | 2519 | 1458 | 476 | 9 | 60 | 454 |
| $`f_0(1710)`$ | 42 | 94 | 705 | 800 | 718 | 78 |

Table 1. Effect of mixing in the scalar sector of the $`1^3P_0`$ nonet for radiative decays to $`\rho `$ and $`\varphi `$. The radiative widths, in keV, are given for three different mixing scenarios as described in the text: light glueball (L), medium-weight glueball (M) and heavy glueball (H).

It is clear from the table that the discrimination among the different mixing scenarios is strong. The decay $`f_0(1500)\gamma \rho `$ is perhaps the most interesting because of its comparatively narrow total width of $`120`$ MeV. This enhances the radiative decay branching fraction, which is $`2\%`$ for a light glueball, $`1\%`$ for a medium glueball and $`0.5\%`$ for a heavy glueball. The absolute magnitudes may vary by $`20\%`$ due to the uncertainties in the model, but the relative strengths manifested in the pattern above should be robust. Even allowing for the intrinsic uncertainties, there appears to be a solid conclusion that these rates are worth pursuing experimentally.

We now assess further the robustness of these results by looking at the more general structures that follow from the single-quark-transition property of the dynamics.

## Single quark transition

The results above depend upon the rather general assumption that electromagnetic amplitudes are additive in the constituents. Independent of details of binding dynamics, it is possible to obtain relations among the helicity amplitudes, and hence angular distributions and widths, that depend only on the assumption that the mesons are described as $`q\overline{q}`$ states in the $`P`$ and $`S`$ states respectively.

For example, in the electric-dipole approximation, the relative widths for transitions from $`f_J\gamma \rho `$ would be equal, apart from phase space corrections. Given the magnitude of one as input, the others immediately follow. While such results are a good approximation for heavy flavours , for the lighter $`u,d,s`$ flavours, significant magnetic-quadrupole may be expected, as is confirmed by the explicit calculations above. (Electric octupole contributions, while allowed in general for $`f_2\gamma V`$, will vanish if, as assumed here, the vector $`V`$ is a pure $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ state, and the $`f_2`$ is a pure $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}`$ state .)

Within this assumption that the electromagnetic transition amplitude is additive in the constituents  and that the relevant $`q\overline{q}`$ states can be classified as $`S,P`$ levels, sum rules can be obtained. We can of course check that these sum rules are satisfied in particular explicit models.

The most general decomposition of the helicity amplitudes for $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{}`$ radiative transitions into electric-dipole and magnetic-quadrupole terms is given in . The helicity amplitudes may be written as:

$`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$

$$A_0=\sqrt{2}(E_1+2E_R)$$
(16)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{}`$

$$A_0=\sqrt{3}(E_1+E_R+M)A_1=\sqrt{3}(E_1+E_RM)$$
(17)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}`$

$$A_0=(E_1E_R+3M)A_1=\sqrt{3}(E_1E_R+M)A_2=\sqrt{6}(E_1E_RM)$$
(18)
Here $`E_1`$ is the leading electric-dipole term, $`E_R`$ is the “extra” electric-dipole term and M is the magnetic-quadrupole term. In terms of our model, $`E_1`$ comes from the convection current and $`E_R`$ and $`M`$ from the spin-flip one (see equation (2) of ). The width for the decays $`V\gamma f_J`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(V\gamma f_J)=\frac{p^3}{3}\underset{\lambda }{}|A_\lambda |^2$$
(19)
and for the decays $`f_J\gamma V`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(f_J\gamma V)=\frac{p^3}{2J+1}\underset{\lambda }{}|A_\lambda |^2$$
(20)
Consider first the decays $`V\gamma f_J`$. For equal phase space and equal form factors, we can eliminate the $`|M|^2`$ term by the combination $`3\mathrm{\Gamma }(V\gamma f_1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(V\gamma f_2)`$. This leaves cross terms between $`E_1`$ and $`E_R`$ which are in general of indeterminate sign. However, these too can be eliminated by including $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(V\gamma f_0)`$ and a combination formed that is proportional to the sum $`|E_1|^2+|E_R|^20`$.

Thus, for equal phase space and equal form-factors, one would have

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho (2S)\gamma f_2)+7\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho (2S)\gamma f_0)3\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho (2S)\gamma f_1)$$
(21)
Similarly for the decays of pure $`n\overline{n}`$ $`f_J`$ states,

$$5\mathrm{\Gamma }(f_2\gamma \rho )+7\mathrm{\Gamma }(f_0\gamma \rho )9\mathrm{\Gamma }(f_1\gamma \rho )$$
(22)
It is straightforward to verify that (21) is satisfied by equations (17) to (19)444There is a sign error in equation (18) in . The sign of the $`G_EG_M`$ term should be negative, as it is in equation (A5). of  and that (22) is satisfied by (11), (14) and (15) of the present paper.

Given that empirically $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(f_1\gamma \rho )1500`$ keV, equation (22) implies that one or other of the $`f_2`$ or $`f_0`$ must have a radiative width of at least $`1000`$ keV. To the extent that there is no clear sign of the $`f_2\gamma \rho `$ decay in either the data sets of  one may anticipate that the $`f_0\gamma \rho `$ could be large, in line with our specific calculations. In any event, such states should be sought in $`\psi \gamma \gamma \rho `$.

## Conclusions

Our computations show that radiative decay rates can be large for some transitions. The limitation for detection of these processes seems to be one primarily of acceptance. These processes should be borne in mind when detectors for future experiments, for example at Hall D in Jefferson Lab, are being designed. We advocate that existing data be mined to seek evidence of radiative decays, for example in E852 where the decay $`\omega (1640)\gamma a_1`$ should be present at a reasonable rate. If radiative transitions are observed, then the use of radiative decays will be proven as a viable technique.

It is important to compare photoproduction and $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation as these give complementary information on the vector-meson wavefunctions. Jefferson Laboratory is an obvious place for the photoproduction studies, and as regards $`e^+e^{}`$, VEPP is the immediate natural candidate, though there is uncertainty as to whether its luminosity will be enough. DAFNE operating up to its maximum energy promises high luminosity in the future. Initial state radiation at BaBar, Belle and CLEO-c could give significant rates for $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation at $`\sqrt{s}2`$ GeV.

A complementary approach to the role of glue in the scalar wave functions is provided by the decays of the scalars to $`\gamma \rho `$ and $`\gamma \varphi `$. Both the $`f_0(1500)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$ have been clearly observed in the radiative decays $`J/\psi \gamma X`$, and we recommend that a detailed exploration of the scalar states should be planned as part of the CLEO-c programme.

Radiative transitions provide a new flavour filter that can clarify the nature of the scalar mesons in the 1.2-1.8 GeV region, in particular the role of glue in the scalar wavefunctions.

Acknowledgements

This work is supported, in part, by grants from the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, RFBR 00-15-96786, INTAS-RFBR 97-232 and the EU-TMR program “Eurodafne”, NCT98-0169.