format: text

text:
# Radiative Corrections to the 𝐾_{𝑒3}^± Decay Revised

## 1 Motivation

For corrections due to virtual photons see figure 1, for corrections due to real photons see figure 2.

The $`K_{e3}`$ decay is important since it is the cleanest way to measure the $`V_{us}`$ matrix element of the CKM matrix. If one uses the current values for $`V_{ud}`$, $`V_{us}`$, and $`V_{ub}`$ taken from the PDG then $`|V_{ud}|^2+|V_{us}|^2+|V_{ub}|^2`$ misses unity by $`2.2`$ standard deviations which contradicts the unitarity of the CKM matrix and might indicate physics beyond the Standard Model. The uncertainty brought to the above expression by $`V_{us}`$ is about the same as uncertainty that comes from $`V_{ud}`$. Therefore reducing the error in the $`V_{us}`$ matrix element would reduce substantially the error in the whole unitarity equation. Reliable radiative corrections, potentially of the order of a few percent are necessary to extract the $`V_{us}`$ matrix element from the $`K_{e3}`$ decay width with high precision.

Calculations of the radiative corrections to the $`K_{e3}`$ decay were performed independently by E.S.Ginsberg and T.Becherrawy in the late 60’s . Their results for corrections to the decay rate, Dalitz plot, pion and positron spectra disagree, in some places quite sharply; for example Ginsberg’s correction to the decay rate is $`0.45\%`$ while that of Becherrawy is $`2\%`$ (corresponding to corrections to the total width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of 0.45 and 2 respectively). We have decided to perform a new calculation since results of the experiments will become available soon and to explore the causes of the discrepancies in the previous calculations. Recently a revision of E. Ginsberg’s paper, with numerical estimation of the radiation corrections  was published.

Our paper is organized as follows. The introduction (Section 2) is devoted to the short review of kinematics of the elastic decay process (without emission of real photon). In Section 3 we put the results concerning the virtual and soft real photons’ emission contribution to the differential width. In Section 4 we consider the hard photon emission including both the inner bremsstrahlung (IB) and the structure-dependent (SD) contributions and derive an expression for the differential width by starting with the Born width and adding the known structure functions in the leading logarithmical approximation (the so-called Drell-Yan picture of the process). We give the explicit expressions for the non-leading contributions. In Section 5, we summarize our results and compare them with those in the previously published papers.

Appendix A contains the details of calculations of virtual and real soft photons emission.

Appendix B contains the details of description of hard photon emission both by IB and SD mechanisms. Our approach to study the hard photon emission differs technically from the ones used in papers .

Appendix C contains the explicit formulae for description of SD emission including the interference of IB and SD amplitudes.

Appendix D is devoted to analysis of Dalitz-plot distribution and the properties of Drell-Yan conversion mentioned above.

Appendix E contains the list of the formulae used for the numerical integration.

Appendix F contains the details of kinematics of radiative kaon decay and,besides the analysis of relations of our and paper  technical approaches.

In tables 1,2 and graphics (fig. (3,4,5,6)) the result of numerical estimation of Born values and the correction to Dalitz-plot distribution and pion and positron spectra are given.

## 2 Introduction

The lowest order perturbation theory (PT) matrix element of the process $`K^+(p)\pi ^0(p^{})+e^+(p_e)+\nu (p_\nu )`$ has the form

$$M=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{us}^{}F_\nu (t)\overline{u}(p_\nu )\gamma _\nu (1+\gamma _5)v(p_e)$$
(1)
where $`F_\nu (t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(p+p^{})_\nu f_+(t)`$. Dalitz plot density which takes into account the radiative corrections (RC) of the lowest order PT is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dydz}}=𝒞a_0(y,z)(1+\delta (y,z))\left(1+\lambda _+{\displaystyle \frac{t}{m_\pi ^2}}\right)^2={\displaystyle \frac{d^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(y,z)}{dydz}}(1+\delta (y,z)),`$ (2)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0={\displaystyle \frac{d^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}{dydz}𝑑y𝑑z},\mathrm{\Gamma }={\displaystyle \frac{d^2\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dydz}𝑑y𝑑z},`$
where the momentum transfer squared between kaon and pion is:

$$t=(pp^{})^2=M_K^2(1+r_\pi z)=M_K^2R(z).$$

We accept here the following form for the strong interactions induced form factor $`f_+(t)`$:

$$f_+(t)=f_+(0)\left(1+\lambda _+\frac{t}{m_\pi ^2}\right),$$
(3)
according to PDG $`\lambda _+=0.0276\pm 0.0021`$. From now on we’ll use $`M^2`$ instead of $`M_K^2`$. We define

$$𝒞=\frac{M^5G_F^2|V_{us}|^2}{64\pi ^3}|f_+(0)|^2,$$
(4)
and

$$a_0(y,z)=(z+y1)(1y)r_\pi +O(r_e).$$
(5)
Here we follow the notation of :

$$r_em_e^2/M^2,r_\pi m_\pi ^2/M^2;$$
(6)
where $`m_e`$, $`m_\pi `$, and $`M_K`$ are the masses of electron, pion, and kaon; two convenient kinematical variables are

$$y2pp_e/M^2,z2pp^{}/M^2.$$
(7)
In the kaon’s rest frame, which we’ll imply throughout the paper, $`y`$ and $`z`$ are the energy fractions of the positron and pion:

$$y=2E_e/M,z=2E_\pi /M.$$
(8)
The region of $`y,z`$-plane where $`a_0(y,z)>0`$ we will named as a region $`D`$. Later, when dealing with real photons we’ll also use

$$x=2\omega /M.$$
(9)
with $`\omega `$-real photon energy.

The physical region for $`y`$ and $`z`$ (further called $`D`$ -region) is

$`2\sqrt{r_e}y1+r_er_\pi ,`$
$`F_1(y)F_2(y)zF_1(y)+F_2(y),`$
$`F_1(y)=(2y)(1+r_e+r_\pi y)/\left[2(1+r_ey)\right],`$
$`F_2(y)=\sqrt{y^24r_e}(1+r_er_\pi y)/\left[2(1+r_ey)\right];`$ (10)
or, equivalently,

$`2\sqrt{r_\pi }z1+r_\pi r_e,`$
$`F_3(z)F_4(z)yF_3(z)+F_4(z),`$
$`F_3(z)=(2z)(1+r_\pi +r_ez)/[2(1+r_\pi z)],`$
$`F_4(z)=\sqrt{z^24r_\pi }(1+r_\pi r_ez)/[2(1+r_\pi z)].`$ (11)
For our aims we use the simplified form of physical region (omitting the terms of the order of $`r_e`$):

$$2\sqrt{r_e}y1r_\pi ,c(y)z1+r_\pi $$
(12)
with

$$c(y)=1y+\frac{r_\pi }{1y}$$

or,

$$2\sqrt{r_\pi }z1+r_\pi ,b_{}(z)yb(z)$$
(13)
with

$$b_{}(z)=1\frac{1}{2}\left(z+\sqrt{z^24r_\pi }\right),$$

$$b(z)=1\frac{1}{2}\left(z\sqrt{z^24r_\pi }\right).$$

For definiteness we give here the numerical value for Born total width. It is:

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{G_F^2M_K^5|V_{us}f_+(0)|^2}{64\pi ^3}𝑑y𝑑za_0(y,z)(1+\lambda _+\frac{t}{m_\pi ^2})^2\hfill \\ \hfill =5.36|V_{us}f_+(0)|^2\times 10^{14}MeV.\end{array}$$
(14)
Comparing this value with PDG result: $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{K_+e3})_{exp}=(2.56\pm 0.03)\times 10^{15}MeV`$ we conclude

$$(V_{us}f_+(0)|)_{\alpha =0}=0.218\pm 0.002.$$
(15)
## 3 Virtual and soft real photon emission

Taking into account the accuracy level of 0.1% for determination of $`\rho /\rho _0`$ we will drop terms of order $`r_e`$. We will distinguish 3 kinds of contributions to $`\delta `$: from emission of virtual, soft real, and hard real photons in the rest frame of kaon: $`\delta =\delta _V+\delta _S+\delta _H`$. Standard calculation (see Appendix A for details) allows one to obtain the following contributions:
from the soft real photons

$$\delta _S=\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\left\{\left(L_e2\right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ}{\lambda }+\frac{1}{2}L_e\frac{1}{4}L_e^2+1\frac{\pi ^2}{6}\right\}\left(1+O(r_e)\right),$$
(16)
from the virtual photons $`\delta _V=\delta _C+\delta _{PLM}`$ that make up charged fermion’s renormalization, $`\delta _C`$ (throughout this paper we use Feynman gauge):

$$\delta _C=\frac{\alpha }{2\pi }\left\{\left[\frac{1}{2}L_\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{ln}r_e+\mathrm{ln}\frac{M^2}{\lambda ^2}\frac{9}{4}\right]+\left[L_\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{ln}\frac{M^2}{\lambda ^2}\frac{3}{4}\right]\right\},$$
(17)
here $`L_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/M^2)`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is ultraviolet momentum cutoff, the first term in the curly braces comes from positron, the second one from kaon; and for the diagram in fig1(f) in the point like meson (PLM) approximation, $`\delta _{PLM}`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta _{PLM}=\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }\left\{L_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}^2r_e2L_e+\mathrm{ln}\frac{M^2}{\lambda ^2}L_e1+2\mathrm{ln}^2y+2\mathrm{ln}y+2Li_2(1y)\right\}.\end{array}$$
(18)
When these contributions are grouped all together the dependence on $`\lambda `$ (fictitious ”photon mass”) disappears. According to Sirlin’s prescription  we set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=M_W`$. The result can be written in the form:

$$\begin{array}{c}1+\delta _S+\delta _C+\delta _{PLM}=S_W[1+\frac{\alpha }{\pi }[(L_e1)(\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }+\frac{3}{4})\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{\pi ^2}{6}+\frac{3}{4}Li_2(1y)\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{ln}y]],S_W=1+\frac{3\alpha }{4\pi }L_W.\end{array}$$
(19)
In the above equations $`L_e=2\mathrm{ln}y+\mathrm{ln}(1/r_e)`$, and $`L_W=\mathrm{ln}(M_W^2/M^2)`$; $`M_W`$ is the mass of $`W^\pm `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ/E_e`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ`$ is the maximal energy (in the rest frame of kaon) of a real soft photon. We imply $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵM/2`$. For the details of eqs (16), (17), (18), and (19) see Appendix A.

Contribution from soft photon emission from structure–dependent part (such as for example, interaction with resonances and intermediate $`W^\pm `$) is small, of the order

$$\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ}{M}1$$

and thus is also neglected.

## 4 Hard photon emission. Structure function approach

Next we need to calculate contributions from hard photons. We have to distinguish between inner bremsstrahlung (IB) and the structure-dependent (SD) contributions: $`\delta _H=\delta _{IB}+\delta _{int}+\delta _{SD}`$, where $`\delta _{int}`$ is the interference term between the two. The terms $`\delta _{int}`$ and $`\delta _{SD}`$ are considered in the framework of the chiral perturbation theory (ChPT) to the orders of $`(p^2)`$ and $`(p^4)`$ and find their contribution to be at the level of $`0.2\%`$ (see appendix C).

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta _H=\frac{\alpha }{2\pi a_0(y,z)}\{(L_e1)(\mathrm{\Psi }(y,z)a_0(y,z)(2\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }+\frac{3}{2}))\hfill \\ \hfill 2a_0(y,z)\mathrm{ln}\frac{b(z)y}{y\mathrm{\Delta }}\}+\delta ^{hard},\end{array}$$
(20)
with $`\delta ^{hard}`$ given below.

Extracting the short-distances contributions in form of replacement $`𝒞𝒞S_W`$ it is useful to split $`\delta `$ (see eq.(2))in the form

$$\delta (y,z)=\delta _L+\delta _{NL},$$
(21)
where $`\delta _L`$ is the leading order contribution, it contains the ’large logarithm’ $`L_e`$ and $`\delta _{NL}`$ is the non–leading contribution, it contains the rest of the terms.

$`\delta _L`$ contains terms from $`\delta _C`$, $`\delta _S`$, $`\delta _{PLM}`$, and the contribution from the collinear configuration of hard IB emission (in the collinear configuration the angle between the positron and the emitted photon is small). $`\delta _L`$ turns out to be

$$\delta _L=\frac{\alpha (L_e1)}{2\pi a_0(y,z)}\mathrm{\Psi }(y,z).$$
(22)
First we note that the kinematics of hard photon emission does not coincide with the elastic process (Region D, the strictly allowed boundaries of the Dalitz plot). In hard photon emission an additional region in the $`y,z`$ plane, namely $`y<b_{}(z)`$ appears. The nature of this phenomenon is the same as the known phenomenon of the radiative tail in the process of hadron production at colliding $`e^+e^{}`$ beams.

The quantity $`\mathrm{\Psi }(y,z)`$ has a different form for Region $`D`$ and outside it:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(y,z)=\mathrm{\Psi }_>(y,z),z>c(y),2\sqrt{r_e}<y<1r_\pi ;$$
(23)
and

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(y,z)=\mathrm{\Psi }_<(y,z),z<c(y),2\sqrt{r_e}<y<1\sqrt{r_\pi }.$$
(24)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_<(y,z)=0`$ when $`y>1\sqrt{r_\pi }`$ . Functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_<,\mathrm{\Psi }_>`$ are studied in Appendix D.

$`\delta _{NL}`$ contains contributions from $`\delta _C`$, $`\delta _{PLM}`$, from SD part of hard photons and from the interference term of SD and IB parts of hard radiation.

$$\delta _{NL}=\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\eta (z,y),$$
(25)
where

$$\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\eta (y,z)=\delta ^{hard}+\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\left[\frac{3}{4}\frac{\pi ^2}{6}Li_2(1y)\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{ln}y\mathrm{ln}((b(z)y)/y)\right],$$
(26)
and for the case when the variables $`y,z`$ are inside $`D`$ region:

$$\delta ^{hard}=\frac{\alpha }{2\pi a_0(y,z)}Z_2(y,z);$$
(27)
$$Z_2(y,z)=2Rphot_{1D}(y,z)+Rphot_{2D}(y,z)+\underset{0}{\overset{b(z)y}{}}𝑑x𝒥(x,y,z).$$
(28)
Explicit expressions for $`Rphot_{1,2}`$ and $`𝒥`$ are given in appendix B. The Born value and the correction to Dalitz-plot distribution $`\mathrm{\Delta }(y,z)=\delta (y,z)a_0(y,z)`$ is illustrated in tables 1,2.

We see that the leading contribution from virtual and soft photon emission is associated with the so called $`\delta `$–part of the evolution equation kernel:

$$(\delta _C+\delta _S+\delta _{PLM})^{leading}=\frac{\alpha }{2\pi }\left(L_e1\right)\frac{a_0(t,z)}{a_0(y,z)}P_\delta ^{(1)}\left(\frac{y}{t}\right)\frac{dt}{t}$$
(29)
where

$$P_\delta ^{(1)}(t)=\delta (1t)\left(2\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }+\frac{3}{2}\right).$$
(30)
The contribution of hard photon kinematics in the leading order can be found with the method of quasireal electrons  as a convolution of the Born approximation with the $`\theta `$–part of evolution equation kernel $`P_\theta (z)`$:

$$\delta _H^{leading}\frac{\alpha }{2\pi }\left(L_e1\right)\frac{dt}{t}\frac{a_0(t,z)}{a_0(y,z)}P_\theta ^{(1)}\left(\frac{y}{t}\right)$$
(31)
where

$$P_\theta ^{(1)}(z)=\frac{1+z^2}{1z}\theta (1z\mathrm{\Delta }).$$
(32)
In such a way the whole leading order contribution can be expressed in terms of convolution of the width in the Born approximation with the whole kernel of the evolution equation:

$$P^{(1)}(z)=\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }0}{lim}\left(P_\delta ^{(1)}(z)+P_\theta ^{(1)}(z)\right).$$
(33)
This approach can be extended to use nonsinglet structure functions $`D(t,y)`$ :

$`d\mathrm{\Gamma }^{LO}(y,z)={\displaystyle \underset{max[y,b_{}(z)]}{\overset{b(z)}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(t,z)D({\displaystyle \frac{y}{t}},L_e),t=x+y,`$ (34)
$`D(z,L)=\delta (1z)+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}LP^{(1)}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha L}{2\pi }}\right)^2P^{(2)}(z)+\mathrm{},`$
$`P^{(i)}(z)={\displaystyle \underset{z}{\overset{1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}P^{(1)}(x)P^{(i1)}({\displaystyle \frac{z}{x}}),i=2,3,\mathrm{}.`$
One can check the validity of the useful relation:

$$\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑zP^{(1)}(z)=0.$$
(35)
The above makes it easy to see that in the limit $`m_e0`$ terms that contain $`m_e`$ do not contribute to the total width in correspondence with Kinoshita–Lee–Nauenberg (KLN) theorem  as well as with results of E.Ginsberg . Keeping in mind the representation

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(y,z)=\underset{max[y,b_{}(z)]}{\overset{b(z)}{}}\frac{dt}{t}a_0(t,z)P^{(1)}\left(\frac{y}{t}\right),$$
(36)
one can get convinced (see Appendix D) that the leading logarithmical contribution to the total width as well as one to the pion spectrum is zero due to:

$$\underset{2\sqrt{r_\pi }}{\overset{1+r_\pi }{}}𝑑z\underset{0}{\overset{b(z)}{}}𝑑y\mathrm{\Psi }(y,z)=0.$$
(37)
Using the general properties of the evolution equations kernels, eq(4) one can see that KLN cancellation will take place in all orders of the perturbation theory. The spectra in Born approximation are (we omit terms $`O(r_e)10^6`$):
For pion

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝒞}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}{dz}}=\varphi _0(z),`$ (38)
$`\varphi _0(z)=\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _+}{r_\pi }}R(z)\right)^2{\displaystyle \underset{b_{}(z)}{\overset{b(z)}{}}}𝑑ya_0(y,z)=\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _+}{r_\pi }}R(z)\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left(z^24r_\pi \right)^{3/2},`$
and for positron

$$\begin{array}{c}f(y)=\frac{1}{𝒞}\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}{dy}=\hfill \\ \hfill f_0(y)\left[1+\frac{2}{3}\left(\frac{\lambda _+}{r_\pi }\right)\frac{y(1r_\pi y)}{1y}+\frac{1}{6}\left(\frac{\lambda _+}{r_\pi }\right)^2\frac{y^2(1r_\pi y)^2}{(1y)^2}\right],\\ \hfill f_0(y)=\frac{y^2(1r_\pi y)^2}{2(1y)}.\end{array}$$
(39)
The corrected pion spectrum in the inclusive set-up of experiment when integrating over the whole region for $`y`$ ($`0<y<b(z)`$) have a form $`\varphi _0(z)+(\alpha /\pi )\varphi _1(z)`$ with

$$\begin{array}{c}\varphi _1(z)=(1+\frac{\lambda _+}{r_\pi }R(z))^2[\underset{0}{\overset{b_{}(z)}{}}dy[\mathrm{\Psi }_<(y,z)\mathrm{ln}ya_0(y,z)\mathrm{ln}\frac{b(z)y}{b_{}(z)y}+\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{Z}_2(y,z)]+\underset{b_{}(z)}{\overset{b(z)}{}}dy[\mathrm{\Psi }_>(y,z)\mathrm{ln}y+a_0(y,z)Z_1(y,z)+\frac{1}{2}Z_2(y,z)]],\end{array}$$
(40)
the quantities $`Z_1,\stackrel{~}{Z}_2`$ explained in Appendix E. This function do not depend on $`\mathrm{ln}(1/r_e)`$. Pion spectrum in the exclusive set-up ($`y,z`$ in the region $`D`$) will depend on $`L_e`$. It’s expression is given in the Appendix E.

Numerical estimation of pion spectrum is illustrated in figure (3,5).

The inclusive positron spectrum with the correction of the lowest order is $`f(y)+(\alpha /\pi )f_1(y)`$ with $`f(y)`$ given above and:

$$\begin{array}{c}f_1(y)=\frac{1}{2}\left(L_e1\right)I(y)\underset{c(y)}{\overset{1+r_\pi }{}}a_0(y,z)\left(1+\frac{\lambda _+}{r_\pi }R(z)\right)^2\mathrm{ln}((b(z)y)/y)𝑑z+\hfill \\ \hfill \left(\frac{3}{4}\frac{\pi ^2}{6}\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{ln}yLi_2(1y)\right)f(y)+\frac{1}{2}\underset{c(y)}{\overset{1+r_\pi }{}}Z_2(y,z)\left(1+\frac{\lambda _+}{r_\pi }R(z)\right)^2𝑑z+\\ \hfill \theta (1\sqrt{r_\pi }y)\underset{2\sqrt{r_\pi }}{\overset{c(y)}{}}𝑑z(1+\frac{\lambda _+}{r_\pi }R(z))^2[(1/2)\stackrel{~}{Z}_2a_0(y,z)\mathrm{ln}\frac{b(z)y}{b_{}(z)y}],\end{array}$$
(41)
with

$$I(y)=j_0(y)+\left(\frac{\lambda _+}{r_\pi }\right)j_1(y)+\left(\frac{\lambda _+}{r_\pi }\right)^2j_2(y),$$
(42)
$$\begin{array}{c}j_0(y)=\underset{y}{\overset{1r_\pi }{}}\frac{dt}{t}\underset{c(t)}{\overset{1+r_\pi }{}}𝑑za_0(t,z)P^{(1)}(\frac{y}{t})=\hfill \\ \hfill (2\mathrm{ln}\frac{1r_\pi y}{y}+\frac{3}{2})f_0(y)+\frac{r_\pi ^2(1+y^2)}{2(1y)}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1y}{r_\pi }+\\ \hfill \frac{1}{12}(1r_\pi y)[15r_\pi 2r_\pi ^2+y(413r_\pi )17y^2];\end{array}$$
(43)
explicit expressions for $`j_1(y)`$ and $`j_2(y)`$ are given in Appendix D.

Numerical estimation of positron spectrum is illustrated in figure (4,6).

One can check the fulfillment of KLN cancellation of singular in the limit $`m_e0`$ terms for the total width correction:$`_0^{1r_\pi }I(y)𝑑y=0`$. The expression for $`j_0(y)`$ agree with A(2) from the 1966 year paper of Eduard Ginsberg .

We put here the general expression for differential width of hard photon emission which might be useful for construction of Monte Carlo simulation of real photon emission in $`K_{e3}`$:

$$d\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma ^{hard}=d\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\frac{\alpha }{2\pi }\frac{dx}{x}\frac{dO_\gamma }{2\pi a_0(y,z)}T,$$
(44)
with

$$x=\frac{2\omega }{M}>\frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ}{M}=y\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ}{E_e},\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ}{E_e}1;$$
(45)
and $`dO_\gamma `$ is an element of photon’s solid angle. The quantity $`T`$ is explained in Appendix B.

For soft photon emission we have

$$d\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma ^{soft}=d\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\frac{\alpha }{2\pi }\frac{dx}{x}\frac{dO_\gamma }{2\pi }\left[1\frac{r_e}{(1\beta _eC_e)^2}+\frac{y}{1\beta _eC_e}\right],x<y\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ}{E_e}.$$
(46)
Integrating over angles within phase volume of hard photon we obtain the spectral distribution of radiative kaon decay:

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_0dx}=\frac{\alpha }{2\pi }\frac{1}{a_0(y,z)}[\frac{a_0(x+y,z)}{x(x+y)^2}((y^2+(x+y)^2)(L_e1)+x^2)\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{2}{x}a_0(y,z)2(\frac{R(z)}{x+y}y)+𝒥(x,y,z)],\\ \hfill y\mathrm{\Delta }<x<b(z)y,\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ}{E_e}1.\end{array}$$
(47)
## 5 Discussion

Structure–dependent contribution to emission of virtual photons (see Fig 1 d), e)) can be interpreted as a correction to the strong formfactor of $`K\pi `$ transition, $`f_+(t)`$. We assume that this formfactor can be extracted from experiment and thus do not consider it. The problem of calculation of RC to $`K_{e3}`$ and especially the formfactors in the framework of CHpT with virtual photons was considered in a recent paper .

As in paper  we assume a phenomenological form for the hadronic contribution to the $`K\pi `$ vertex, but here we use explicitly the dependence of the form factor in the form

$$f_+(t)=f_+(0)\left(1+\frac{\lambda _+}{r_\pi }R(z)\right).$$
(48)
We assume that the effect of higher order ChPT as well as RC to the formfactors can be taken as a multiplicative scaling factor for $`f_+(0)`$, which we take from of a recent paper .

We assume such an experiment in which only one positron in the final state is present, but place no limits on the number of photons. The ratio of the LO contributions in the first order to the Born contribution is a few percent, and for the second order it is about

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha L_e}{2\pi }}\right)^20.03\%.`$ (49)
Due to non-definite sign structure of the leading logarithm contribution (see eq(22)) there are regions in the kinematically allowed area where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(y,z)|`$ is close to zero. In these regions the non-leading contributions become dominant.

The contribution of the channels with more than 1 charged lepton in the final state as well as the vacuum polarization effects in higher orders may be taken into account by introducing the singlet contribution to the structure functions. The effect will be at the level of 0.03% and we omit them within the precision of our calculation.

The contribution of the $`O(p^4)`$ terms  turns out to be small. Indeed, one can see that they are of the order $`O(\alpha L_9^r,(\overline{p}/\mathrm{\Lambda }_c)^2)O(10^2\%)`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c=4\pi F_\pi 1.2GeV`$ ($`F_\pi =93MeV`$ is the pion life time constant), where $`\overline{p}`$ is the characteristic momentum of a final particle in the given reaction, $`\overline{p}^2M^2/16F_\pi ^2`$. So the terms of the orders $`O(p^4)`$ and $`O(p^6)`$ can be omitted within the accuracy of $`O\left(\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\times 10^2\right)O\left(10^4\right)`$.

Our main results are given in formulae (2,21,22,26-28) for Dalitz plot distribution ; (38-41) for pion and positron spectra;(47) for hard photon emission;(53) for the value $`|V_{us}|`$, in the tables and figures. The accuracy of these formulas is determined by the following:

1. we don’t account higher order terms in PT, the ones of the order of $`(\alpha L_e/\pi )^n,n2`$ which is smaller than $`0.03\%`$
2. structure–dependent real hard photon emission contribution to RC we estimate to be at the level of $`0.0005`$.
3. higher order CHPT contributions to the structure dependent part are of the order $`0.05\%`$

All the percentages are taken with respect to the Born width. All together we believe the accuracy of the results to be at the level of $`0.01`$. So the final result of our calculation may be written in the form

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}=\left(1+\delta (1\pm 0.01)\right)$$
(50)
the terms on the RHS are given in (21, 22, 25).

Here is the list of improvements comparing with the older calculations :

1. we eliminate the ultra–violet cutoff dependence by choosing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=M_W`$,
2. we describe the dependence on the lepton mass logarithm $`L_e`$ in all orders of the perturbation theory and explain why the correction to the total width does not depend on $`m_e`$,
3. we treat the strong interaction effects by the means of CHPT in its lowest order $`O(P^2)`$ and show that the next order contribution is small,
4. we give an explicit formulas for the total differential cross section and explicit results for corrections to the Dalitz plot and particle spectra that might be used in experimental analysis.

In the papers of E.Ginsberg the structure-dependent emission was not considered. T.Becherrawy, on the other hand, did include it, and this will give rise to differences in the Dalitz plot. In addition, Ginsberg used the proton mass as the momentum cutoff parameter.

We do not consider the evolution of coupling constant effects in the regions of virtual photon momentum modulo square from the quantities of order $`M_\rho ^2`$ up to $`M_Z^2`$,which can be taken into account  (and for details see ) by replacing the quantity $`S_W`$ by the $`S_{EW}=1+(\alpha /\pi )\mathrm{ln}(M_Z^2/M_\rho ^2)=1.0232`$. Taking this replacement into account our result for the correction to the total width is

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}=1+\delta =1.02,$$
(51)
which results in

$$|V_{us}f_+(0)|=0.214\pm 0.002.$$
(52)
So the correction to the total width is $`+2\%`$ while Ginsberg’s result is $`0.45\%`$ and Becherrawy’s is $`2\%`$. Neither Ginsberg nor Becherrawy used the factor $`S_{EW}`$, and this factor (1.023) accounts for most of the difference between Ginsberg’s and our result. Electromagnetic corrections become negative and have an order of $`10^3`$. The effect of the SD part, which E.Ginsberg did not consider, is small, of the order of 0.1%.

We use the value of formfactor $`f_+(0)=0.9842\pm 0.0084`$ calculated in the paper  in the framework of ChPT, including virtual photonic loops and terms of order $`O(p^6)`$ of ChPT. To avoid double counting we use the mesonic contribution to $`f_+^{mes}(0)=1.0002\pm 0.0022`$ and the $`p^6`$ terms one $`f_+(0)|_{p^6}=0.016\pm 0.0008`$). Our final result is:

$$|V_{us}|=0.21715\pm 0.0055.$$
(53)
In estimating the uncertainty we take into account the uncertainties arising from structure-dependent emission $`\pm 0.005`$, theoretical errors of order $`\pm 0.0003`$, experimental error $`\pm 0.0022`$ and the ChPT error in $`p^6`$ terms $`0.0008`$.

In tables 1,2 we give corrections to the distributions in the Dalitz-plot $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }/(dydz)a_0(y,z)+(\alpha /\pi )\mathrm{\Delta }(y,z)`$.

In figures (3-6) we illustrate the corrections to the pion and positron spectra. Here we see qualitative agreement for the positron spectrum and disagreement with the pion spectrum obtained by E.Ginsberg.

## 6 Acknowledgements

We are grateful to S.I.Eidelman for interest to this problem, and to E. Swanson for constructive critical discussions. One of us (E.K.) is grateful to the Department of Physics and Astronomy of the University of Pittsburgh for the warm hospitality during the last stages of this work, A.Ali for valuable discussion and V.N.Samoilov for support. The work was supported partly by grants RFFI 01-02-17437 and INTAS 00366 and by USDOE DE FG02 91ER40646.

| $`z/y`$ | 0.07 | 0.15 | 0.25 | 0.35 | 0.45 | 0.55 | 0.65 | 0.75 | 0.85 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1.025 | 3.83 | 4.37 | 3.71 | 2.01 | -0.21 | -2.47 | -4.31 | -5.11 | -3.81 |
| 0.975 |  | 3.76 | 3.49 | 2.07 | 0.05 | -2.07 | -3.83 | -4.61 | -3.35 |
| 0.925 |  |  | 3.26 | 2.13 | 0.32 | -1.67 | -3.35 | -4.11 | -2.88 |
| 0.875 |  |  | 3.04 | 2.18 | 0.58 | -1.26 | -2.86 | -3.60 | -2.39 |
| 0.825 |  |  |  | 2.25 | 0.85 | -0.86 | -2.37 | -3.08 | -1.88 |
| 0.775 |  |  |  |  | 1.14 | -0.41 | -1.83 | -2.51 | -1.28 |
| 0.725 |  |  |  |  | 1.39 | -0.04 | -1.39 | -2.03 | -0.72 |
| 0.675 |  |  |  |  |  | 0.38 | -0.86 | -1.48 |  |
| 0.625 |  |  |  |  |  |  | -0.35 | -0.89 |  |
| 0.580 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | -0.23 |  |

Table 1. Correction to Dalitz plot distribution $`\mathrm{\Delta }(y,z)=a_0(y,z)\delta (y,z)\times 10^3`$ (see eq (2)).

| $`z/y`$ | 0.07 | 0.15 | 0.25 | 0.35 | 0.45 | 0.55 | 0.65 | 0.75 | 0.85 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1.025 | 0.0084 | 0.069 | 0.126 | 0.163 | 0.181 | 0.178 | 0.156 | 0.114 | 0.051 |
| 0.975 |  | 0.026 | 0.089 | 0.131 | 0.153 | 0.156 | 0.139 | 0.101 | 0.0437 |
| 0.925 |  |  | 0.051 | 0.099 | 0.126 | 0.134 | 0.121 | 0.088 | 0.036 |
| 0.875 |  |  | 0.014 | 0.066 | 0.099 | 0.111 | 0.104 | 0.076 | 0.029 |
| 0.825 |  |  |  | 0.0337 | 0.071 | 0.089 | 0.086 | 0.064 | 0.021 |
| 0.775 |  |  |  |  | 0.043 | 0.066 | 0.069 | 0.051 | 0.014 |
| 0.725 |  |  |  |  | 0.016 | 0.044 | 0.051 | 0.039 | 0.006 |
| 0.675 |  |  |  |  |  | 0.021 | 0.034 | 0.026 |  |
| 0.625 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 0.016 | 0.014 |  |
| 0.580 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 0.003 |  |

Table 2. Dalitz plot distribution in Born approximation $`a_0(y,z)`$.

## 7 Appendix A

Here we explain how to calculate $`\delta _S`$, $`\delta _C`$, $`\delta _{PLM}`$ and how to group them into eq(19).

Contribution from emission of a soft real photon can be written in a standard form in terms of the classical currents:

$$\delta _S=\frac{4\pi \alpha }{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d^3q}{2\omega }(\frac{p}{pq}\frac{p_e}{p_eq})^2|_{\omega =\sqrt{\overline{q}^2+\lambda ^2}<\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ},$$
(54)
where $`\lambda `$ is fictitious mass of photon. We use the following formulas:

$$\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{d^3q}{2\omega }\left(\frac{p}{pq}\right)^2=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ}{\lambda }\right)1;$$

$$\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{d^3q}{2\omega }\left(\frac{p_e}{p_eq}\right)^2=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ}{\lambda }\right)\frac{1}{2}L_e;$$

$$\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{d^3q}{2\omega }\frac{2(pp_e)}{(pq)(p_eq)}=L_e\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ}{\lambda }\right)\frac{\pi ^2}{6}\frac{1}{4}L_e^2.$$
(55)
From them we obtain the eq(16).

Consider now radiative corrections that arise from emission of virtual photons (excluding SD virtual photons).

Feynman graphs containing self–energy insertion to positron and kaon Green functions (Fig.1,b,c) can be taken into account by introducing the wave function renormalization constants $`Z_e`$ and $`Z_K`$: $`M_0M_0(Z_KZ_e)^{1/2}`$. We use the expression for $`Z_e`$ given in the textbooks ; the expression for $`Z_K`$ is given in the paper . The result is eq(17).

Now consider the Feynman graph in which a virtual photon is emitted by kaon and absorbed by positron or by $`W`$–boson in the intermediate state (Fig.1,d,e,f). This long distance contribution is calculated using a phenomenological model with point–like mesons as a relevant degrees of freedom. To calculate the contribution from the region $`|k|^2<\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the ultra violet cutoff) we use the following expressions for loop momenta scalar, vector, and tensor integrals:

$$Re\frac{d^4k}{i\pi ^2}\frac{1,k^\mu ,k^2}{(k^2\lambda ^2)((kp)^2M^2)((kp_e)^2m_e^2)}=I,I^\mu ,J.$$
(56)
A standard calculation yields:

$`I={\displaystyle \frac{1}{yM^2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{\lambda ^2}}L_e+\mathrm{ln}^2y+Li_2(1y){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{ln}^2r_e\right\};`$ (57)
$`I^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{yM^2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{y\mathrm{ln}y}{1y}}p^\mu +p_e^\mu \left({\displaystyle \frac{y\mathrm{ln}y}{1y}}+L_e\right)\right\};`$
$`J=L_\mathrm{\Lambda }+{\displaystyle \frac{y\mathrm{ln}y}{1y}}+1.`$
where $`L_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/M^2)`$ and we omitted terms of the order of $`O(m_e^2/M^2)`$. As a result we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{d^4k}{i\pi ^2}\frac{(1/4)Spp_\nu (p+p^{})(\widehat{p}_e+\widehat{k})(2\widehat{p}\widehat{k})p_e(p+p^{})}{(k^2\lambda ^2)((kp)^2M^2)((kp_e)^2m_e^2)}=2M^4a_0(y,z)\times \hfill \\ \hfill \left\{L_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}^2r_e2L_e+\mathrm{ln}\frac{M^2}{\lambda ^2}L_e1+2\mathrm{ln}^2y+2\mathrm{ln}y+2Li_2(1y)\right\}.\end{array}$$
(58)
In a series of papers  A.Sirlin has conducted a detailed analysis of UV behaviour of amplitudes of processes with hadrons in 1–loop level. He showed that they are UV finite (if considered on the quark level), but the effective cutoff scale on loop momenta is of the order $`M_W`$. For this reason we choose

$$L_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_W^2}{M^2}.$$

The sum $`\delta _S+\delta _C+\delta _{PLM}`$ yields eq(19)

## 8 Appendix B

The matrix element of the radiative $`K_{e3}`$ decay

$$K^+(p)\pi ^0(p^{})+e^+(p_e)+\nu (p_\nu )+\gamma (q)$$
(59)
with terms up to $`O(p^2)`$ in CHPT  has the form

$$M^{hard}=\frac{G}{2}f_+V_{us}^{}\sqrt{4\pi \alpha }\overline{u}(p_\nu )Q_\mu ^{hard}(1+\gamma _5)v(p_e)ϵ^\mu (q),$$
(60)
where

$`Q_\mu ^{hard}=Q_\mu ^e+Q_\mu ^\pi +Q_\mu ^{SD}=Q_\mu ^{IB}+Q_\mu ^{SD};`$ (61)
$`Q_\mu ^{IB}=\left(\widehat{p}+\widehat{p}^{}\right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{p}_e\widehat{q}+m_e)\gamma _\mu }{2p_eq}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu }{pq}}\right];`$
$`Q_\mu ^{SD}=\gamma _\nu R_{\mu \nu }.`$
where tensor $`R_{\mu \nu }`$ describes (see eq(4.17) in ) the structure–dependent emission (fig 2(c)).

$$R_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }\frac{q_\nu p_\mu }{pq}.$$
(62)
Singular at $`\chi =2p_eq0`$ terms which provide contribution containing large logarithm $`L_e`$ arises only from $`Q_\mu ^e`$. To extract the corresponding terms we introduce four–vector $`v=(x/y)p_eq`$, and $`x`$ – is the energy fraction of the photon (9). Note that $`v0`$ when $`\chi 0`$. Separating leading and non–leading terms and letting $`f_+(t)=1`$, i.e. neglecting form factor’s momentum dependence, we obtain:

$$\delta _H=\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }^{hard}}{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}=\frac{\alpha }{2\pi a_0(y,z)}\frac{dx}{x}\frac{dO_\gamma }{2\pi }T,x>y\mathrm{\Delta }.$$
(63)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}T=\frac{x^2}{8}\underset{spins}{}|\overline{u}(p_\nu )(Q_{IB}^{hard}+Q_{SD}^{hard})(1+\gamma _5)v(p_e)|^2=\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{ya_0(x+y,z)}{x+y}\left[\frac{y^2+(x+y)^2}{y^2(1\beta _eC_e)}2\frac{(1\beta _e)(x+y)}{y(1\beta _eC_e)^2}\right]\frac{ya_0(x+y,z)}{x+y}+𝒫.\end{array}$$
(64)
The quantity $`𝒫`$ contains some non–leading contributions from the IB part and the ones that arise from the structure–dependent part:

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒫=\left(\frac{p_eq}{M^2}\left(\frac{p_\nu q}{M^2}+z\frac{2y}{x+y}\left(1xy\right)\right)+\frac{p^{}v}{M^2}\frac{y(2xy)}{x+y}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill (\frac{xM^2}{4yp_eq}(y^2+(x+y)^2)1))\frac{M^2x^2}{8p_eq}(T_v+\frac{2}{x}T_{1v})\frac{x^2}{8}(T_{RR}+2T_R),\end{array}$$
(65)
with

$$T_v=\frac{1}{4M^4}Sp(\widehat{p}+\widehat{p}^{})\widehat{p}_\nu (\widehat{p}+\widehat{p}^{})\widehat{v};$$

$$T_{1v}=\frac{1}{4M^6}Sp(\widehat{p}+\widehat{p}^{})\widehat{p}_\nu (\widehat{p}+\widehat{p}^{})\widehat{v}\widehat{p}\widehat{p}_e;$$

$$T_{RR}=R_{\mu \lambda }R_{\mu \sigma }\frac{1}{4M^2}Sp\widehat{p}_\nu \gamma _\lambda \widehat{p}_e\gamma _\sigma ;$$

$$T_R=R_{\mu \lambda }\frac{1}{4M^2}Sp\widehat{p}_\nu (\widehat{p}+\widehat{p}^{})\left[\frac{p_\mu }{pq}\frac{(\widehat{p}_e+\widehat{q})\gamma _\mu }{\chi }\right]\widehat{p}_e\gamma _\lambda .$$
(66)
To calculate these traces we use the following expressions for the scalar products of the 4–momenta (in units $`M`$):

$$p^2=1,q^2=0,p_\nu ^2=0,p^{}_{}{}^{}2=r_\pi ,p_e^2=0,pp_e=\frac{y}{2},$$

$$pp^{}=\frac{z}{2},pq=\frac{x}{2},pp_\nu =\frac{1}{2}\left(2yzx\right),$$

$$p^{}p_\nu =\frac{1}{2}\left(1xyr_\pi +A_e\right),p^{}q=\frac{1}{2}\left(xA_eA_\nu \right),$$

$$p^{}p_e=\frac{1}{2}\left(yR(z)+A_\nu \right),p_\nu q=\frac{1}{2}A_\nu ,p_eq=\frac{1}{2}A_e,$$

$$p_ep_\nu =\frac{1}{2}\left(R(z)A_eA_\nu \right),pv=0,p_ev=\frac{1}{2}A_e,$$

$$qv=\frac{1}{2}\frac{x}{y}A_e,p^{}v=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{x+y}{y}\stackrel{~}{A}_\nu +A_e\right),$$

$$p_\nu v=\frac{1}{2y}\left(xA_e+(x+y)\stackrel{~}{A}_\nu \right),$$

$$\stackrel{~}{A}_\nu =A_\nu \frac{x}{x+y}R(z).$$

Three terms in the rhs of (64) have a completely different behavior.

The first one corresponds to the kinematic region of collinear emission, when photon is emitted along positron’s momentum. The relevant phase volume has essentially 3–particles form:

$$\begin{array}{c}(d\varphi _4)^{coll}=\left(\frac{d^3p_e}{2ϵ_e}\frac{d^3q}{2\omega }\frac{d^3p^{}}{2ϵ^{}}d^4p_\nu \delta (p_\nu ^2)\delta ^4(pp_ep_\nu p^{}q)\right)^{coll}=\hfill \\ \hfill M^4\frac{\pi ^2}{64}\beta _\pi zdzydyxdxdO_\gamma dC_{e\pi }\delta (1xyz+r_\pi +\frac{x+y}{y}\frac{zy}{2}(1\beta _\pi C_{e\pi })+\frac{2p_eq}{M^2})=\\ \hfill \frac{y}{x+y}M^4\frac{\pi ^2}{32}dO_\gamma xdxdydz.\end{array}$$
(67)
The limits of photon’s energy fraction variation are $`y\mathrm{\Delta }<x<b(z)y`$. The upper limit is imposed by the Born structure of the width in this kinematical region.

The second term corresponds to the contribution from emission by kaon. The relevant kinematics is isotropic.

The kinematics of radiative kaon decay and the comparison of our and E.Ginsbergs approaches is given in Appendix F.

The third term corresponds to the rest of the contributions which contain neither collinear nor infrared singularities.

Performing the integration over photon’s phase volume provided $`y,z`$ are in the $`D`$ region we obtain:

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{dx}{x}\frac{dO_\gamma }{2\pi }T=\underset{y\mathrm{\Delta }}{\overset{b(z)y}{}}\frac{dx}{x}\frac{y^2}{(y+x)^2}a_0(y+x,z)[\frac{y^2+(y+x)^2}{y^2}(L_e1)+\frac{x^2}{y^2}]\hfill \\ \hfill 2\underset{y\mathrm{\Delta }}{\overset{b(z)y}{}}\frac{dx}{x}[a_0(y,z)+x(\frac{R(z)}{x+y}y)]+\underset{0}{\overset{b(z)y}{}}𝑑x𝒥,\end{array}$$
(68)
we obtain (27) with

$$Rphot_{1D}=\underset{0}{\overset{b(z)y}{}}𝑑x(\frac{R(z)}{x+y}y)=R(z)\mathrm{ln}\frac{b(z)}{y}y(b(z)y);$$
(69)
$$\begin{array}{c}Rphot_{{}_{2}{}^{}D}(y,z)=\underset{0}{\overset{b(z)y}{}}𝑑x\frac{xa_0(y+x,z)}{(y+x)^2}=\left(R(z)+y(2z)\right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{b(z)}{y}+\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{2}\left(b(z)y\right)\left(2\frac{R(z)}{b(z)}+42zb(z)+y\right),\end{array}$$
(70)
and

$$𝒥(x,y,z)=\frac{1}{x}\frac{dO_\gamma }{2\pi }𝒫.$$
(71)
One can check that the sum of RC arising from hard, soft and virtual photons do not depend on the auxiliary parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

We note that the leading contribution from hard part of photon spectra can be reproduced using the method of quasi real electrons . <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1 the formula (10) in  should read
$$d\mathrm{\Gamma }_b=\frac{2ϵ^{}d^3\sigma _{0b}}{d^3p^{}}|_{\stackrel{}{p}^{}=\stackrel{}{p}_3+\stackrel{}{k}}dW_{\stackrel{}{p}_3+\stackrel{}{k}}(k)\frac{d^3p_3}{2ϵ_3.}$$

Now we concentrate on the contribution of the third term in the RHS of (64).

To perform the integration over the phase volume of final states it is convenient to use the following parameterization (see Appendix F):

$$d\varphi _4=\frac{d^3p^{}d^3p_ed^3p_\nu d^3q}{2ϵ^{}2E_e2ϵ_\nu 2\omega }\delta ^4\left(pp^{}p_ep_\nu q\right)=\beta _\pi \frac{\pi ^2}{16}M^4dydzxdx\frac{dC_edC_\pi }{\sqrt{D}},$$
(72)
with

$`D=\beta _\pi ^2(1C^2C_\pi ^2C_e^2+2CC_\pi C_e),\beta _\pi =\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4r_\pi }{z^2}}},`$ (73)
$`C=\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{}{p}_e,\stackrel{}{p^{}}),C_e=\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p}_e),C_\pi =\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p^{}}).`$
The neutrino on–mass shell (NMS) condition provides the relation

$$1\beta _\pi C=\frac{2}{yz}\left[x+y+z1r_\pi \frac{xz}{2}\left(1\beta _\pi C_\pi \right)\frac{xy}{2}\left(1C_e\right)\right].$$
(74)
For the aim of further integration of $`𝒫`$ over angular variables we put it in the form:

$`𝒫=xP_1{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{A}_\nu }{A_e}}+xP_2+P_3A_e+P_4A_\nu +P_5A_\nu A_e,`$ (75)
$`A_e={\displaystyle \frac{xy}{2}}\left(1C_e\right),`$
$`A_\nu =xA_e{\displaystyle \frac{xz}{2}}\left(1\beta _\pi C_\pi \right).`$
and

$`P_1={\displaystyle \frac{y}{2}}\left(1xy\right);`$ (76)
$`P_2={\displaystyle \frac{R(z)}{x+y}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(z(2x+3y+1)+2x^2+4xy+3y^22x3y2\right);`$
$`P_3=1zy{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x\left(x+y+z\right);`$
$`P_4=1+x+y+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}xy;P_5=1.`$
Angular integration can be performed explicitly, we have

$$\frac{\beta _\pi dC_\pi }{\pi \sqrt{D}}=\frac{y}{\sqrt{A}},\frac{\beta _\pi C_\pi dC_\pi }{\pi \sqrt{D}}=\frac{y(x+yyt)}{z\beta _\pi A^{3/2}}[2R(z)(x+y)(2z)+xyt)],$$
(77)
with

$$A=(x+y)^22xyt,t=1C_e.$$
(78)
Performing the integration over $`C_\pi `$ we have:

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{x}\frac{dC_\pi \beta _\pi }{\pi \sqrt{D}}𝒫=\frac{2y}{A^{3/2}}\left(\left(yx\right)\left(1\frac{z}{2}\frac{R}{x+y}\right)\frac{1}{2}y\left(x+yxt\right)\right)P_1+\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{y}{A^{1/2}}(P_2+\frac{y}{2}tP_3)+(P_4+\frac{xy}{2}tP_5)\times \\ \hfill \left\{\frac{y}{A^{1/2}}\left(1\frac{z}{2}\frac{y}{2}t\right)+\frac{y}{A^{3/2}}\left(x+yyt\right)\left(R(x+y)\left(1\frac{z}{2}\right)+\frac{xy}{2}t\right)\right\}.\end{array}$$
(79)
The following integrals are helpful in integrating the above expression. We define

$$I_n^m=_0^2\frac{dtt^m}{\sqrt{A^n}},m=0,1,2,3;n=1,3.$$
(80)
Then

$`I_1^0={\displaystyle \frac{4}{\sigma }},I_1^1={\displaystyle \frac{8(x+y+\sigma )}{3\sigma ^2}},`$
$`I_1^2={\displaystyle \frac{16}{15\sigma ^3}}\left(3\sigma ^2+3(x+y)\rho +5(x+y)^2\right),`$
$`I_3^0={\displaystyle \frac{4}{\rho \sigma (x+y)}},I_3^1={\displaystyle \frac{8}{\rho \sigma ^2}},I_3^2={\displaystyle \frac{16}{3\rho \sigma ^3}}\left(2(x+y)+\sigma \right),`$
$`I_3^3={\displaystyle \frac{32}{5\rho \sigma ^4}}\left(\sigma ^2+2(x+y)\rho +4(x+y)^2\right),`$
where $`\rho =|xy|`$ and $`\sigma =x+y+\rho `$.

The first term in $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }^{hard}`$ together with the leading contributions from virtual and soft real photons was given in the form required by RG approach eq(36).

The non–leading contributions, $`\delta ^{hard}`$ from hard photon emission, include SD emission, IB of point–like mesons as well as the interference terms. It is free from infrared and mass singularities and given above (27) with

$$𝒥(x,y,z)=P_1R_1+P_2yI_1^0+P_3\frac{y^2}{2}I_1^1+\frac{y}{2}P_4R_4+\frac{xy^2}{4}P_5R_5,$$
(82)
and

$`R_1={\displaystyle \frac{y}{x+y}}\left(yx\right)\left((2z)(x+y)2R(z)\right)I_3^0y^2((x+y)I_3^0xI_3^1),`$
$`R_4=\left(2z\right)I_1^0yI_1^1+(2R(z)(x+y)(2z))((x+y)I_3^0yI_3^1)+`$
$`xy((x+y)I_3^1yI_3^2),`$
$`R_5=\left(2z\right)I_1^1yI_1^2+(2R(z)(x+y)(2z))((x+y)I_3^1yI_3^2)+`$
$`xy((x+y)I_3^2yI_3^3).`$
## 9 Appendix C

The contribution to $`\delta ^{hard}`$ from SD emission have the form:

$$\delta _{SD}^{hard}=\frac{\alpha }{2\pi a_0(y,z)}\underset{0}{\overset{b(z)}{}}𝑑xJ^{SD}(x,y,z),$$
(83)
where

$$J^{SD}(x,y,z)=Q_1R_1+yQ_2I_1^0+\frac{y^2}{2}Q_3I_1^1+\frac{y}{2}Q_4R_4+\frac{xy^2}{4}Q_5R_5,$$
(84)
with $`R_i`$ given in Appendix B and

$`Q_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}y\left(x+y\right),`$
$`Q_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left[2x(x+2y+z2)+3y(y+z2)\right],`$
$`Q_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left[8+(z+y)(4+3x)2x+3x^2\right],`$
$`Q_4={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left[4y+4x+3xy\right],Q_5={\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}.`$ (85)
The contribution to the total width have a form:

$$\delta ^{SD}=\frac{\alpha }{2\pi }\frac{𝑑y𝑑z(1+\frac{\lambda _+}{r_\pi }R(z))^2\underset{0}{\overset{N}{}}𝑑xJ^{SD}(x,y,z)}{𝑑y𝑑za_0(y,z)(1+\frac{\lambda _+}{r_\pi }R(z))^2}.$$
(86)
Numerical estimation gives:

$$\delta ^{SD}=0.005.$$
(87)
## 10 Appendix D

The function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, defined as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(y,z)=\underset{b_{}(z)}{\overset{b(z)}{}}\frac{dt}{t}a_0(t,z)P^{(1)})(\frac{y}{t}),$$
(88)
contains a restriction on the domain of integration, namely $`t`$ exceed $`y`$ or equal to it,which is implied by the kernel $`P^{(1)}(y/t)`$. Explicit calculations give:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_<(y,z)=\underset{b_{}(z)}{\overset{b(z)}{}}\frac{dt}{t}a_0(t,z)\frac{y^2+t^2}{t(ty)}=[R(z)y(2z)]\mathrm{ln}\frac{b(z)}{b_{}(z)}+\hfill \\ \hfill 2a_0(y,z)\mathrm{ln}\frac{b(z)y}{b_{}(z)y}+\frac{1}{2}(b(z)^2b_{}(z)^2),\\ \hfill 2\sqrt{r_e}<y<1\sqrt{r_\pi },\mathrm{\Psi }_<(y,z)=0,y>1\sqrt{r_\pi }.\end{array}$$
(89)
and

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_>(y,z)=\underset{y}{\overset{b(z)}{}}\frac{dt}{t}a_0(t,z)P^{(1)}(\frac{y}{t})=a_0(y,z)[2\mathrm{ln}\frac{b(z)y}{y}+\frac{3}{2}]\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{2}(b(z)^2y^2)+(b(z)y)(2yz+b_{}(z))+[R(z)y(2z)]\mathrm{ln}\frac{b(z)}{y}.\end{array}$$
(90)
One can convince the validity of the relations:

$$j_0(y)=\underset{2\sqrt{r_\pi }}{\overset{c(y)}{}}𝑑z\mathrm{\Psi }_<(y,z)+\underset{c(y)}{\overset{1+r_\pi }{}}𝑑z\mathrm{\Psi }_>(y,z);$$
(91)
and

$$\underset{0}{\overset{b_{}(z)}{}}𝑑y\mathrm{\Psi }_<(y,z)+\underset{b_{}(z)}{\overset{b(z)}{}}𝑑y\mathrm{\Psi }_>(y,z)=0.$$
(92)
The last relation demonstrates the KLN cancellation for the pion spectrum obtained by integration of the corrections over $`y`$ in the interval $`0<y<b(z)`$.

The explicit expressions for $`j_1(y)`$ and $`j_2(y)`$ are:(for $`j_0(y)`$ see (42)).

$$\begin{array}{c}j_1(y)=\frac{y^3(1r_\pi y)^3}{3(1y)^2}\left(2\mathrm{ln}\frac{1r_\pi y}{y}+\frac{3}{2}\right)+\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{r_\pi ^2}{3(1y)^2}\left[3(1y)(1+y^2)+r_\pi (y^3+3y2)\right]\mathrm{ln}\frac{1y}{r_\pi }\\ \hfill \frac{1r_\pi y}{36(1y)^2}[(1y)^2(43y^315y^23y1+r_\pi (83y^2+26y+11)+3r_\pi ^3)+\\ \hfill r_\pi ^2(31y^315y^239y+47)],\end{array}$$
(93)
$$\begin{array}{c}j_2(y)=\frac{y^4(1r_\pi y)^4}{12(1y)^3}\left(2\mathrm{ln}\frac{1r_\pi y}{y}+\frac{3}{2}\right)+\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{r_\pi ^2}{12(1y)^3}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1y}{r_\pi }[6(1+y^2)(1y)^24r_\pi (1y)(2y^3y^2+4y3)+\\ \hfill r_\pi ^2(y^4+6y^28y+3)]+\frac{1r_\pi y}{720(1y)^3}[(1y)^3(247y^488y^328y^28y3)\\ \hfill r_\pi (1y)^3(733y^3+341y^2+129y+57)\\ \hfill r_\pi ^2(1y)(707y^4808y^3+212y^2408y+717)\\ \hfill +r_\pi ^3(173y^472y^3492y^2+1048y477)12r_\pi ^4(1y)^3].\end{array}$$
(94)
## 11 Appendix E

Collection of the relevant formulae.

The Dalitz-plot distribution in the region $`D`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{𝒞S_{EW}}\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dydz}=\left(1+\lambda _+\frac{t}{m_\pi ^2}\right)^2\left(a_0(y,z)+\frac{\alpha }{\pi }[\frac{1}{2}(L_e1)\mathrm{\Psi }_>(y,z)+a_0(y,z)Z_1+\frac{1}{2}Z_2]\right),\hfill \\ \hfill Z_1=\frac{3}{4}\frac{\pi ^2}{6}\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{ln}y\mathrm{ln}((b(z)y)/y)Li_2(1y).\end{array}$$
(95)
The function $`Z_2`$ is defined in (28). Correction to the total width (we include the contribution of the region outside the region $`D`$), $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(1+\delta )`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}1+\delta =S_{EW}+\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\frac{1}{𝑑z𝑑ya_0(y,z)\left(1+\frac{\lambda _+}{r_\pi }R(z)\right)^2}[\underset{0}{\overset{1r_\pi }{}}I(y)\mathrm{ln}ydy+\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{2\sqrt{r_\pi }}{\overset{1+r_\pi }{}}dz(1+\frac{\lambda _+}{r_\pi }R(z))^2[\underset{0}{\overset{b_{}(z)}{}}dy[a_0(y,z)\mathrm{ln}\frac{b(z)y}{b_{}(z)y}+(1/2)\stackrel{~}{Z}_2(y,z)]+\\ \hfill \underset{b_{}(z)}{\overset{b(z)}{}}dy[a_0(y,z)Z_1+(1/2)Z_2]],\end{array}$$
(96)
with

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{Z}_2(y,z)=Rphot_{2A}(y,z)2Rphot_{1A}(y,z)+_{b_{}(z)y}^{b(z)y}𝑑x𝒥(x,y,z);\hfill \\ \hfill Rphot_{1A}(y,z)=R(z)\mathrm{ln}\frac{b(z)}{b_{}(z)}y(b(z)b_{}(z))\\ \hfill Rphot_{2A}(y,z)=_{b_{}(z)y}^{b(z)y}\frac{dxx}{(x+y)^2}a_0(x+y,z)=\\ \hfill (b(z)b_{}(z))(1\frac{z}{2}+2y)(y(2z)+R(z))\mathrm{ln}\frac{b(z)}{b_{}(z)}.\end{array}$$
(97)
The expression in big square brackets in right-hand side of (95) can be put in the form:

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{2\sqrt{r_\pi }}{\overset{1+r_\pi }{}}\varphi _1(z)𝑑z=\underset{2\sqrt{r_e}}{\overset{1r_\pi }{}}f_1(y)𝑑y=0.035\hfill \end{array}$$
(98)
which results in $`\delta =0.02`$. For the aim of comparison with E. Ginsberg result we must put here

$$\lambda _+=0,I(y)=j_0(y),M_W=M_p,$$
(99)
as was mentioned above we have reasonable agreement with E. Ginsberg results. For the inclusive set-up of experiment (energy fraction of positron is not measured) we have for pion energy spectrum given above (40). When we restrict ourselves only by the region $`D`$ the spectrum becomes dependent on $`\mathrm{ln}(1/r_e)`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{𝒞S_{EW}}\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dz}=\{\varphi _0(z)+\frac{\alpha }{\pi }[(1/2)P(z)(\mathrm{ln}(1/r_e)1)+\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{b_{}(z)}{\overset{b(z)}{}}dy[\mathrm{\Psi }_>(y,z)\mathrm{ln}y+a_0(y,z)Z_1+\frac{1}{2}Z_2]]\left\}\right(1+\frac{\lambda _+}{r_\pi }R(z))^2,\end{array}$$
(100)
with

$$\begin{array}{c}P(z)=\frac{1}{6}b_{}(z)^2(3b(z)+b_{}(z))\mathrm{ln}\frac{b(z)}{b_{}(z)}+\frac{1}{3}(b(z)b_{}(z))^3\mathrm{ln}\frac{b(z)b_{}(z)}{b(z)}\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{6}b_{}(z)(b(z)b_{}(z))(3b_{}(z)+b(z)).\end{array}$$
(101)
## 12 Appendix F

Our approach to study the radiative kaon decay has an advantage compared to the one used by E. Ginsberg – it has a simple interpretation of electron mass singularities based on Drell-Yan picture. The  approach to study noncollinear kinematics is more transparent than ours one. We remind the reader of some some topics of  paper. One can introduce the missing mass square variable

$$l=(p_\nu +k)^2/M^2=A_\nu =(ME_\pi E_e)^2/M^2(\stackrel{}{p}_\pi +\stackrel{}{p}_e)^2/M^2.$$
(102)
the limits of this quantity variation at fixed $`y,z`$ are pu by the last term: for collinear or anticollinear kinematics of pion and positron 3-momenta. Being expressed in terms of $`y,z`$ they are (we consider the general point of Dalitz-plot and omit positron mass dependence):

$$0<l<b_{}(z)(b(z)y),$$
(103)
for the $`y,z`$ in the $`D`$ region and

$$b(z)(b_{}(z)y)<l<b_{}(z)(b(z)y),$$
(104)
for the case when they are in the region $`A`$ outside $`D`$:

$$0<y<b_{}(z),2\sqrt{r_\pi }<z<1+r_\pi .$$
(105)
For our approach with separating the case of soft and hard photon emission we must modify the lower bound for $`l`$ in the region $`D`$. It can be done using another representation of $`l`$:

$$l=x[1(y/2)(1C_e)(z/2)(1\beta C_\pi )],$$
(106)
with $`C_e,C_\pi `$-the cosine of the angles between photon 3-momentum and positron and pion ones, $`\beta =\sqrt{1m^2/E_\pi ^2}`$-is the pion velocity. Maximum of this quantity is $`b(z)`$. Taking this into account we obtain for the region oh hard photon

$$x>2\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon /M=y\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon /E_e<<1,$$
(107)
for the region $`D`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}y\mathrm{\Delta }<x<b(z)y,yb(z)\mathrm{\Delta }<l<b_{}(z)(b(z)y);\hfill \end{array}$$
(108)
and for region $`A`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}b_{}(z)y<x<b(z)y,b(z)(b_{}(z)y)<l<b_{}(z)(b(z)y).\hfill \end{array}$$
(109)
In particular for the collinear case we must choice $`C_e=1;C_\pi =1`$, which corresponds to $`x+y<b(z)`$. Let infer this condition using the NMS condition :

$$\begin{array}{c}(P_kp_ep_\pi k)^2/M^2=R(z)xy+(xy/2)(1C_e)+\hfill \\ \hfill (xz/2)(1\beta C_\pi )+(yz/2)(1\beta C_{e\pi })=0.\end{array}$$
(110)
In collinear case we have $`C_e=1;C_\pi =C_{e\pi }`$.From NMS condition we obtain $`1\beta C_\pi =(2/z(x+y))(x+yR(z))`$. Using this value we obtain $`l_{coll}=R(z)x/(x+y)`$. Using further the relation $`R(z)=b(z)b_{}(z)`$ we obtain again $`x<b(z)y`$ in the case of emission along positron.

Comparing the phase volumes in general case calculated in our approach with using NMS condition with  approach we obtain the relation:

$$x𝑑x\frac{dO_\gamma }{4\pi }=𝑑l𝑑\gamma ,𝑑\gamma =\frac{d^3p_\nu }{E_\nu }\frac{d^3k}{k_0}\frac{\delta ^4(Pp_\nu k)}{2\pi }.$$
(111)
The non–leading contribution arising from hard photon emission considered above:

$$I_{IB}=\frac{dx}{x}\frac{dO_\gamma }{4\pi }𝒫_{IB},$$
(112)
with

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒫_{IB}=xG_1\frac{\stackrel{~}{A}_\nu }{A_e}+xG_2+G_3A_e+G_4A_\nu +G_5A_eA_\nu ,\hfill \\ \hfill G_1=\frac{y}{4}(2yx),\\ \hfill G_2=\frac{R(z)}{2(x+y)}+\frac{x^2}{2}+\frac{1}{2}x(z+2y)+\frac{1}{4}(2z+3y(y+z))1;\\ \hfill G_3=\frac{1}{8}x^2\frac{1}{8}x(2+z+y)\frac{1}{2}(y+z);G_4=\frac{1}{8}x(4+y)+\frac{1}{8}y1;\\ \hfill G_5=\frac{1}{4},\end{array}$$
(113)
(note that $`G_i+Q_i=P_i`$, see appendix B and C) can be transformed to the form:

$$\begin{array}{c}I_{IB}=(1/4)dl[42y4z(1/4)R(z)+(1/4)l+y\mathrm{ln}\frac{(R(z)l)^2}{l}\hfill \\ \hfill 2\mathrm{ln}\frac{y^2R(z)^2}{l(l+y(2z))}+[z+(3/2)y(y+z)2+(1/4)l(4+y)]I_{10}\\ \hfill (1/2)I_{11}((1/2)l+y+z)I_{21}+I_z].\end{array}$$
(114)
Here we use the list of integrals obtained in the paper of :

$`I_{mn}={\displaystyle 𝑑\gamma \frac{1}{(kP_K/M^2)^m(kp_e/M^2)^n}};`$ (115)
$`I_{10}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{s}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2yz+s}{2yzs}};I_{20}=4/l;I_{00}=1;`$
$`I_{1,0}=(2yz)/2;I_{11}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{yl}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{y^2}{l}};`$
$`I_{01}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{R(z)l}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{(R(z)l)^2}{lr_e}};`$
$`I_{11}={\displaystyle \frac{R(z)(2yz)(2+yz)l}{s^2}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2l(y(2yz)2R(z)+2l)}{s^3}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2yz+s}{2yzs}};`$
$`I_{21}={\displaystyle \frac{2(y(2yz)+2l2R(z))}{s^2}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{R(z)(2yz)(2+yz)l}{s^3}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2yz+s}{2yzs}},`$
$`s=\sqrt{(2yz)^24l}.`$
Besides we need two additional ones:

$`I_e={\displaystyle 𝑑\gamma \frac{1}{(kp_e/M^2)(2(kP_K/M^2)+y}}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{yR(z)}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{y^2R(z)^2}{l(l+y(2z))r_e}};`$ (116)
$`I_z={\displaystyle 𝑑\gamma \frac{1}{(kP_K/M^2)(2(kP_K/M^2)+y}}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{ys}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2l+ys+y(2yz)}{2l+ysy(2yz)}}.`$
One can see the cancellation of mass singularities (terms containing $`\mathrm{ln}(1/r_e)`$) in the expression $`I_{IB}`$.

Numerical calculations in agreement (within few percent) of this and the given above expressions.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The interacting, superconformal field theories (SCFT) living on a stack of $`N`$ M2- or M5-branes are not well understood. An improved understanding of these M-branes should lead eventually to a better understanding of M-theory itself, a theory that encompasses all the different super string theories and is one of the best hopes for a quantum theory of gravity. While the full M-brane theories remain mysterious, the low energy, large $`N`$ behavior is conjectured to be described well, via the AdS/CFT correspondence , by certain classical solutions to eleven dimensional supergravity equations of motion. Recent work on AdS/CFT correspondence by Son, Starinets, and Policastro  provides a prescription for writing Minkowski space two-point functions for these types of theories. We take advantage of this prescription to calculate viscosities and diffusion constants for M-brane theories in this low energy limit, thus generalizing the work of  for D3-branes.

Policastro, Son, and Starinets  used their Minkowski space prescription to investigate the low-frequency, long-distance, finite temperature regime of the D3-brane theory. There is lore that the long-distance, low-frequency behavior of any interacting theory at finite temperature can be described well by fluid mechanics (hydrodynamics) . Although not rigorously proven, the idea is well supported by physical intuition about macroscopic systems. Hydrodynamics in turn provides rigorous constraints for the form of Minkowski space correlation functions. Once a few viscosities, diffusion constants, and other transport coefficients are known, the two-point functions are completely fixed .

Indeed, the authors of  found that the form of the Green’s functions calculated from supergravity was completely consistent with hydrodynamics for this D3-brane theory. Moreover, from these Green’s functions, they were able to extract a transport coefficient (a shear viscosity) and diffusion constants. The authors’ prescription for Minkowski space Green’s functions is a modification of the prescription for calculating Euclidean space Green’s function developed in . Both prescriptions use the gravitational description of the low energy theory on the brane for calculating correlation functions.

It is true that these same Green’s functions on a D3-brane can be calculated in a more traditional way using weakly coupled gauge theory . The low energy theory living on a stack of $`N`$ D3-branes is described via the AdS/CFT correspondence, alternately as $`𝒩=4`$ $`SU(N)`$ super Yang Mills or as type IIB supergravity in a $`AdS_5\times 𝐒^5`$ background. While the gravity calculation is good at strong ‘t Hooft coupling $`\lambda `$ (large curvature), the gauge theory calculation is good only for small $`\lambda `$. However, the $`N`$ and temperature dependence of these transport coefficients and diffusion constants should be and indeed is universal and independent of the method of calculation. Remarkably, the gravity calculation appears to be technically simpler than the equivalent calculation for weakly coupled gauge theory.

In contrast, the M-brane theories have no such alternate gauge theory description. However, there are still low-energy supergravity solutions from which we can extract analogous Minkowski space Green’s functions. Moreover, we can hope that M-branes, like D3-branes, have a hydrodynamic regime.

Indeed, based on the Minkowski space prescription of Son and Starinets , in the low-frequency, long-distance, finite temperature regime, we find that these M-brane theories have two-point functions which are completely consistent with a hydrodynamic interpretation. Generalizing , we calculate two-point functions for the conserved R-symmetry current and for components of the stress-energy tensor for these M-branes. Moreover, from these Green’s functions we are able to extract corresponding diffusion constants and also the viscosity. The $`N`$ dependence of these physical quantities may lead to a better understanding of M-brane theories.

It should be emphasized that the Son and Starinets prescription  for calculating Minkowski space correlators is not completely justified, and that this paper provides some limited additional evidence for their prescription. Turning the logic of the last two paragraphs around, we can argue that on general grounds we expected the M-branes to have a hydrodynamic description. Thus, it is reassuring that the prescription of  does indeed produce Green’s functions with the appropriate behavior. Also, we get results which are internally consistent. On general hydrodynamic grounds, we expect that $`D=\eta /(ϵ+P)`$ where $`D`$ is the diffusion constant calculated from the stress energy tensor, $`\eta `$ the viscosity, $`ϵ`$ the energy density, and $`P`$ the pressure. We check that this equation holds both for the M2-branes and M5-branes.

We begin by reviewing some essential facts about the non-extremal M2- and M5-brane backgrounds. As we are working at finite temperature, the extremal $`AdS_4\times 𝐒^7`$ and $`AdS_7\times 𝐒^4`$ supergravity solutions are not adequate. We need their nonextremal generalizations where we can associate a Hawking temperature to the horizon.

Next, we consider R-current correlation functions. Both M2- and M5-brane supergravity solutions have an R-symmetry which one can think of roughly as the rotational symmetry of the transverse sphere. From the form of the thermal R-current two-point functions, we extract a corresponding R-charge diffusion constant.

Having warmed up with the R-current correlators, we proceed to the more complicated example of stress-energy tensor two-point functions. From components of these two-point functions, we extract a diffusion constant and a viscosity for each M-brane theory.

Finally, we end with some comments about the $`N`$ dependence or lack thereof of the various diffusion constants and transport coefficients calculated. The motivation for this work came in large part out of the hope that some of these $`N`$ dependences might shed light on the underlying M-brane theories.

## 2 The Nonextremal Eleven Dimensional Supergravity Backgrounds

We begin by reviewing some essential facts about the non-extremal M2- and M5-brane supergravity solutions. Roughly speaking, these solutions represent what happens when a stack of M-branes is placed in flat 11-dimensional space and given some finite temperature $`T`$. The 11-dimensional space, close to the M-branes, separates into a product of a sphere and an asymptotically anti-de Sitter space. A horizon with Hawking temperature $`T`$ forms. These supergravity solutions are solutions to the equations of motion following from the eleven dimensional supergravity action

$$\frac{1}{2\kappa _{11}^2}d^{11}x(g)^{1/2}\frac{1}{4\kappa _{11}^2}(F_4F_4+\frac{1}{3}A_3F_4F_4).$$
(1)
where $`\kappa _{11}`$ is the gravitational coupling strength, and $`dA_3=F_4`$.

### 2.1 M5-brane

For the M5-brane, the nonextremal metric is

$$ds^2=H(r)^{1/3}\left[f(r)dt^2+d\stackrel{}{x}^2\right]+H(r)^{2/3}\left[\frac{dr^2}{f(r)}+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2\right]$$
(2)
where $`H(r)=1+R^3/r^3`$ and $`f(r)=1r_0^3/r^3`$. The quantity $`d\stackrel{}{x}^2`$ is a metric on flat, Euclidean $`^5`$. The term $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2`$ is the metric on a unit four sphere $`𝐒^4`$. The four form flux $`F_4`$ from the M5-branes threads this $`𝐒^4`$:

$$F_4=3R^3\mathrm{vol}(𝐒^4).$$
(3)
The quantization condition on the flux implies that $`N^3\kappa _{11}^2=2^7\pi ^5R^9`$ where $`N`$ is the number of M5-branes and $`\kappa _{11}`$ is the eleven dimensional gravitational coupling strength .

Taking the near-horizon limit $`rR`$, according to the AdS/CFT prescription  we can “zoom in” on the five-brane theory dynamics:

$$ds^2\frac{r_0}{uR}\left[f(u)dt^2+d\stackrel{}{x}^2\right]+\frac{R^2}{f(u)}\frac{du^2}{u^2}+R^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2.$$
(4)
We have made the coordinate transformation $`u=r_0/r`$. Spatial infinity, which is also now the boundary of an asymptotically anti-de Sitter space, corresponds to $`u=0`$. There is a horizon at $`u=1`$. The Hawking temperature of this horizon is

$$T=\frac{3}{4\pi }\frac{r_0^{1/2}}{R^{3/2}}.$$
(5)
Another important quantity characterizing this supergravity solution is the entropy density, which one finds by multiplying the horizon area by $`2\pi /\kappa _{11}^2`$ and dividing out by the volume of the gauge theory directions, $`x^1,x^2,\mathrm{},x^5`$ :

$$S=\frac{2^7\pi ^3}{3^6}N^3T^5.$$
(6)
We will use index conventions where $`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}`$ refer to the asymptotically $`AdS`$ directions, $`\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{}`$ index the M-brane directions only, and $`i,j,\mathrm{}`$ index the spatial M-brane directions.

### 2.2 M2-brane

An analogous nonextremal supergravity solution exists for a stack of M2-branes in eleven dimensional space. Now the metric takes the form

$$ds^2=H(r)^{2/3}\left[f(r)dt^2+dx^2+dy^2\right]+H(r)^{1/3}\left[\frac{dr^2}{f(r)}+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_7^2\right]$$
(7)
where $`H(r)=1+R^6/r^6`$ and $`f(r)=1r_0^6/r^6`$. The four form field strength is easier to think of in a dual language as a seven form field strength:

$$F_4=F_7=6R^6\mathrm{vol}(𝐒^7).$$
(8)
The quantization condition  on the field strength reveals that $`R^9\pi ^5=N^{3/2}\kappa _{11}^2\sqrt{2}`$.

We can again take a near horizon limit, $`rR`$, to find

$$ds^2\frac{r_0^4}{u^2R^4}\left[f(u)dt^2+dx^2+dy^2\right]+\frac{R^2}{4f(u)}\frac{du^2}{u^2}+R^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_7^2,$$
(9)
where $`u=r_0^2/r^2`$. The Hawking temperature is

$$T=\frac{3}{2\pi }\frac{r_0^2}{R^3},$$
(10)
and the entropy density is

$$S=\frac{8\sqrt{2}\pi ^2}{27}N^{3/2}T^2.$$
(11)
## 3 R-charge Diffusion for M2- and M5-branes

The R-charge interactions are mediated in the bulk by a gauge field $`F_{\mu \nu }^a`$. The starting point for calculating two-point R-charge correlators is the usual Maxwell action in the nonextremal backgrounds given above:

$$S=\frac{1}{4g_{SG}^2}d^dx\sqrt{g}F_{\mu \nu }^aF_{}^{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{a}.$$
(12)
Here $`d`$ is equal to 4 for the M2-branes and 7 for the M5-branes. The tensor $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is a metric on the asymptotically anti-de Sitter space. The calculation is similar to the Euclidean calculations in ; however we work with a Lorentzian signature and in a nonextremal background. The constant $`g_{SG}`$ can be set by compactifying the eleven dimensional supergravity action $`(\text{1})`$ on a $`𝐒^4`$ or $`𝐒^7`$. We will ignore this overall normalization for the Green’s functions for now. The reason is that our main interest in this section is the diffusion coefficient for the R-current which can be obtained simply from the location of the pole in the corresponding retarded Green’s functions. The overall normalization of the Green’s function is also related to the diffusion constant, but in a more complicated way via a Kubo-type formula.

Our calculations closely follow . We work in the gauge $`A_u=0`$. We use a Fourier decomposition

$$A_\mu =\frac{d^{d1}q}{(2\pi )^{d1}}e^{i\omega t+i𝐪𝐱}A_\mu (q,u).$$
(13)
Rotational invariance in the spatial directions allows one to simplify things further by choosing $`q^0=\omega `$, $`q^1=q`$, and all other $`q^i=0`$. The equations of motion for the $`A_\mu `$ are

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}_\nu \left[\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \rho }g^{\nu \sigma }\left(_\rho A_\sigma _\sigma A_\rho \right)\right]=0.$$
(14)
At this point, it becomes convenient to analyze the M2- and M5-brane cases separately.

### 3.1 R-charge and M5-branes

The equations of motion (14) for $`A_\mu `$ reduce to

$`\omega _5A_t^{}+fq_5A_x^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (15)
$`A_t^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u}}A_t^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{uf}}\left(\omega _5q_5A_x+q_5^2A_t\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (16)
$`A_x^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u}}A_x^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}}{f}}A_x^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{uf^2}}\left(q_5\omega _5A_t+\omega _5^2A_x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (17)
$`A_\alpha ^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u}}A_\alpha ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}}{f}}A_\alpha ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{uf^2}}\left(\omega _5^2fq_5^2\right)A_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (18)
where $`t`$ is $`x^0`$, $`x`$ is $`x^1`$, and $`\alpha `$ stands for any of the other $`x^i`$. We have introduced

$$\omega _5\frac{3}{4\pi T}\omega ;q_5\frac{3}{4\pi T}q.$$
(19)
The prime denotes the derivative with respect to $`u`$. The peculiar combinations of $`q_5^2`$, $`\omega _5q_5`$, and $`q_5^2`$ in the equations guarantee gauge invariance under the residual transformation $`A_tA_t\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`A_xA_x+q\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The first three equations are dependent; equations (15) and (16) imply equation (17).

Because of our choice of $`q`$-vector, the R-charge diffusion appears only in the $`A_t`$ and $`A_x`$ sector, and we begin with the first two equations, (15) and (16). These two equations can be combined to yield a single equation for $`A_t^{}`$:

$$A_t^{\prime \prime \prime }+\frac{f^{}}{f}A_t^{\prime \prime }+\frac{\omega _5^2q_5^2fff^{}}{uf^2}A_t^{}=0.$$
(20)
This second order equation for $`A_t^{}`$ does not appear to be analytically tractable. However, a solution can be obtained perturbatively for small $`q_5`$ and $`\omega _5`$. Following , we determine the behavior of $`A_t^{}`$ near the singular point $`u=1`$. Substituting $`A_t^{}=(1u)^\alpha F(u)`$, where $`F(u)`$ is a regular function, one finds that $`\alpha ^2=\omega _5^2/9`$. The “incoming wave” boundary condition described in  forces us to choose $`\alpha =i\omega _5/3`$.

Next, we solve for $`F(u)`$ perturbatively:

$$F(u)=F_0(u)+\omega _5F_1(u)+q_5^2G_1(u)+𝒪(\omega _5^2,\omega _5q_5^2,q_5^4),$$
(21)
where $`F_0(u)=uC`$ and

$`F_1(u)`$ $`=`$ $`iC\left[(u1)+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{6}}f_1(u){\displaystyle \frac{u}{\sqrt{3}}}f_2(u)\right],`$ (22)
$`G_1(u)`$ $`=`$ $`C\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1u)+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{\sqrt{3}}}f_2(u)\right],`$ (23)
where

$$f_1(u)=\mathrm{ln}\frac{1+u+u^2}{3};f_2(u)=\mathrm{tan}^1\left(\frac{1+2u}{\sqrt{3}}\right)\frac{\pi }{3}.$$
(24)
One of the two integration constants for $`F_0(u)`$ is set by requiring that $`F_0(u)`$ is well-behaved at $`u=1`$. The integration constants for all higher $`F_i(u)`$ and $`G_i(u)`$ are set by requiring that these functions vanish at $`u=1`$ as well.

The constant $`C`$ can be related to the boundary values $`A_t^0`$ and $`A_x^0`$ using (16):

$$C=\frac{\omega _5q_5A_x^0+q_5^2A_t^0}{i\omega _5\frac{1}{2}q_5^2}.$$
(25)
The pole in $`C`$ is the same pole that appears in the retarded Green’s functions, as we will presently see. Having obtained $`A_t^{}`$, $`A_x^{}`$ follows from (15).

The solution to (18) can be obtained in a similar fashion:

$$A_\alpha =\frac{A_\alpha ^0(1u)^{i\omega _5/3}h(u)}{h(0)}+𝒪(\omega _5^2,\omega _5q_5^2,q_5^4)$$
(26)
where

$$h(u)=1+i\omega _5\left(\frac{1}{6}f_1(u)\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}f_2(u)\right)q_5^2\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}f_2(u).$$
(27)
The Green’s functions can now be calculated from the terms in the action which contain two derivatives with respect to $`u`$:

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g_{SG}^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑ud^6x\sqrt{g}g^{uu}g^{ij}_uA_i_uA_j}+\mathrm{}`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_0^2}{2R^3g_{SG}^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑ud^6x\frac{1}{u}\left[A_t^2f\underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{}}A_{x^i}^2\right]}.`$
Recall from  the procedure for calculating these Minkowski space Green’s functions for a scalar $`\varphi (u)`$. We extract the function $`A(u)`$ that multiplies $`(_u\varphi )^2`$ in the action:

$$S=\frac{1}{2}𝑑ud^6xA(u)(_u\varphi )^2.$$
(29)
Next, we express the bulk field $`\varphi `$ via its value $`\varphi _0`$ at the boundary $`u=0`$, $`\varphi (u,q)=f_q(u)\varphi _0(q)`$. By definition $`f_q(0)=1`$. Moreover, we impose an incoming-wave boundary condition on $`f_q(u)`$ at the horizon $`u=1`$ (when $`q`$ is timelike). The retarded (Minkowski space) Green’s function is then defined to be

$$G^R(q)=A(u)f_q(u)_uf_q(u)|_{u=0}.$$
(30)
Using this prescription, we find that the retarded Green’s functions for the R-current are

$`G_{tt}^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒞{\displaystyle \frac{q^2\delta ^{ab}}{i\omega D_Rq^2}}+\mathrm{},`$ (31)
$`G_{xt}^{ab}=G_{tx}^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒞{\displaystyle \frac{\omega q\delta ^{ab}}{i\omega D_Rq^2}}+\mathrm{},`$ (32)
$`G_{xx}^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒞{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2\delta ^{ab}}{i\omega D_Rq^2}}+\mathrm{},`$ (33)
$`G_{\alpha \alpha }^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒞\delta ^{ab}(i\omega +2D_Rq^2)+\mathrm{}.`$ (34)
where

$$𝒞=\frac{r_0^{3/2}}{R^{3/2}g_{SG}^2}N^3T^3.$$
(35)
and

$$D_R=\frac{3}{8\pi T}.$$
(36)
As expected, the $`G_{\alpha \alpha }`$ Green’s functions have no pole while the others do. From the location of the pole, we can read off the diffusion coefficient for the R-charge, $`D_R`$. We regard this value of $`D_R`$ as a prediction for the theory living on a stack of M5-branes at finite temperature. The power of $`T`$ in $`D_R`$ is forced by dimensional analysis. However, it is interesting that this value for $`D_R`$ is $`N`$ independent.

This expression for $`D_R`$ is subject to two kinds of correction. First, the supergravity approximates these M-branes well only at large $`N`$. Thus, there could be $`1/N`$ corrections. The second correction is not really a correction to $`D_R`$ but to the location of the pole itself. We could easily calculate the $`A_\mu `$ to higher order in $`q_5`$ and $`\omega _5`$. In this case, we would get corrections of order $`𝒪(q_5^2)`$ to the location of the pole.

Although we did not solve for $`g_{SG}`$ exactly, we can count powers of $`N`$ and $`T`$ in $`𝒞`$. The power of $`T`$ is forced by dimensional analysis. Tracing powers of $`N`$ is relatively easy. The coupling $`g_{SG}`$ is essentially $`\kappa _{11}`$ multiplied by lots of $`N`$ independent compactification factors, and $`\kappa _{11}N^{3/2}`$.

### 3.2 R-charge and M2-branes

We now redo this same calculation in the nonextremal M2-brane background (9). The differential equations for $`A_\mu `$ take the modified form

$`\omega _2A_t^{}+q_2fA_x^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (37)
$`A_t^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4f}}\left(\omega _2q_2A_x+q_2^2A_t\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (38)
$`A_x^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}}{f}}A_x^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4f^2}}\left(\omega _2q_2A_t+\omega _2^2A_x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (39)
$`A_y^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}}{f}}A_y^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4f^2}}\left(\omega _2^2fq_2^2\right)A_y`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (40)
where $`x^0=t`$, $`x^1=x`$, and $`x^2=y`$. We have defined the quantities

$$\omega _2\frac{3}{2\pi T}\omega ;q_2\frac{3}{2\pi T}q.$$
(41)
This system is very similar to the one encountered in the previous section. Equations (37) and (38) imply equation (39). We combine equations (37) and (38) to give a single differential equation for $`A_t^{}`$ alone:

$$A_t^{\prime \prime \prime }+\frac{f^{}}{f}A_t^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{4f^2}(\omega _2^2fq_2^2)A_t^{}=0.$$
(42)
We make the substitution $`A_t^{}=(1u)^{i\omega _2/6}F(u)`$ and solve for $`F(u)`$ perturbatively in $`\omega _2`$ and $`q_2^2`$:

$$F(u)=C(1+\omega _2F_1(u)+q_2^2G_1(u)+\mathrm{})$$
(43)
where

$`F_1(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{12}}f_1(u)+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\sqrt{3}}}f_2(u),`$ (44)
$`G_1(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}}f_2(u).`$ (45)
Using (38), we can solve for $`C`$ in terms of the boundary values of $`A_t`$ and $`A_x`$:

$$C=\frac{\omega _2q_2A_x^0+q_2^2A_t^0}{2(i\omega _2\frac{1}{2}q_2^2)}.$$
(46)
The pole in $`C`$ will be the same pole that appears in the R-current Green’s functions and hence is related to the diffusion coefficient.

The perturbative expression for $`A_x^{}`$ can be obtained from (37). We have already done the necessary work for calculating $`A_y`$. Note that (40) is the same differential equation as (42). Thus $`A_y=(1u)^{i\omega _2/6}F(u)`$ with $`F(u)`$ given by (43). The only change is that now $`C=A_y^0+𝒪(\omega _2,q_2^2)`$.

To extract the Green’s functions, we need to isolate the terms in the action with two $`u`$ derivatives:

$$S=\frac{r_0^2}{R^3g_{SG}^2}𝑑ud^3x\left[A_t^2fA_x^2fA_y^2+\mathrm{}\right].$$
(47)
From this expression, it is straightforward to see that

$`G_{tt}^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q^2\delta ^{ab}}{g_{SG}^2(i\omega D_Rq^2)}},`$ (48)
$`G_{xt}^{ab}=G_{tx}^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega q\delta ^{ab}}{g_{SG}^2(i\omega D_Rq^2)}},`$ (49)
$`G_{xx}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2\delta ^{ab}}{g_{SG}^2(i\omega D_Rq^2)}},`$ (50)
$`G_{yy}^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^{ab}}{g_{SG}^2}}\left(i\omega D_Rq^2\right)`$ (51)
where $`1/g_{SG}^2N^{3/2}`$ and the diffusion coefficient is

$$D_R=\frac{3}{4\pi T}.$$
(52)
This expression for $`D_R`$ is again $`N`$ independent.

## 4 Stress Energy Two Point Functions

To obtain more diffusion constants for our M-brane theory in the hydrodynamic limit, we compute the two-point function of the stress-energy tensor. According to the AdS/CFT prescription, this two-point function is related to small perturbations of the metric in the bulk theory. In particular, we consider $`g_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}+h_{\mu \nu }`$ where the unperturbed metric $`g_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}`$ is given by the asymptotically AdS pieces of the full eleven dimensional metrics (9) and (4). The transverse spherical parts of the eleven dimensional metrics we leave unchanged.

For this calculation, we can ignore the spherical piece of the metric and the four form field strength $`F_4`$. They do not enter at first order in the perturbations. For the asymptotically $`AdS_7`$ case, i.e. the five-brane case, we consider the compactified action

$$S=\frac{R^4\mathrm{Vol}(𝐒^4)}{2\kappa _{11}^2}\left[𝑑ud^6x\sqrt{g}(2\mathrm{\Lambda })+2d^6x\sqrt{g^B}K\right].$$
(53)
In the above, $``$ is the Ricci scalar and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=15/4R^2`$ is a cosmological constant arising from the integral over $`|F_4|^2`$ in the full eleven dimensional action. The metric $`g_{\alpha \beta }^B`$ is the metric induced on the boundary $`u=0`$ while $`K`$ is the extrinsic curvature of the boundary. There is an analogous action for the asymptotically $`AdS_4`$ case.

$$S=\frac{R^7\mathrm{Vol}(𝐒^7)}{2\kappa _{11}^2}\left[𝑑ud^3x\sqrt{g}(2\mathrm{\Lambda })+2d^3x\sqrt{g^B}K\right].$$
(54)
where the cosmological constant is now $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=12/R^2`$ instead.

The first step in computing the stress-energy two-point function is to solve the linearized Einstein’s equations

$$_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}=\frac{2}{d2}\mathrm{\Lambda }h_{\mu \nu }$$
(55)
where $`d`$ is either 4 (for asymptotically $`AdS_4`$) or 7 (for asymptotically $`AdS_7`$). By $`_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}`$, we mean everything in the Ricci curvature $`_{\mu \nu }`$ that is linear in $`h_{\mu \nu }`$.

The metric perturbations split up naturally into groups as follows. We take a Fourier decomposition of the metric perturbation, assuming that $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ depends on $`t`$ and $`x`$ as $`e^{i\omega t+iqx}`$, defining $`x^0=t`$, $`x^1=x`$, $`x^2=y`$, and so on. We choose a gauge such that $`A_{\mu u}=0`$. For the M5-brane case, there is a rotation group $`SO(4)`$ acting on the directions transverse to $`u`$, $`t`$, and $`x`$. The perturbations split according to whether $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ is a tensor, a vector, or a scalar under these rotations. For the asymptotically $`AdS_4`$ case, there is only one direction, the $`y`$ direction, transverse to the others. However, we can still consider the effect of sending $`yy`$. Under this transformation, the metric perturbations split into two groups according to whether $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ has an odd or an even number of $`y`$ indices. Stretching definitions, we will call the metric perturbation with only one $`y`$ index a vector mode. There is one remaining perturbation involving components of $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ with both no and two $`y`$ indices which we will call the scalar mode.

The modes are useful in different ways. The tensor mode allows us to compute a shear viscosity of the boundary theory using a Kubo formula. There is a diffusion pole in the vector mode which will allow us to calculate a diffusion constant. There is also a Kubo formula for these vector modes which will allow for another check of the viscosity. The scalar mode describes sound propagation on the boundary.

We will begin by computing the diffusion constant from the poles in the vector modes, both for asymptotically $`AdS_4`$ and $`AdS_7`$. The calculation is very similar to that of the R-charge diffusion constant. The relation should not be at all surprising because from an eleven dimensional standpoint, the $`A_\mu `$ vector potential is is in part a metric perturbation of the form $`h_{M\mu }`$ where $`M`$ is a spherical direction and $`\mu `$ is an asymptotically $`AdS`$ direction. Next, we will analyze the tensor mode for asymptotically $`AdS_7`$. We leave sound propagation for future work.

Sound propagation is the most involved of the three types of metric fluctuations. To consider a tensor fluctuation for the M5-brane, $`h_{yz}`$ is the only component of the metric fluctuations that needs to be nonzero. For the vector fluctuations, two components of $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ need to be nonzero, for example $`h_{xy}`$ and $`h_{ty}`$. For the scalar modes, all of the diagonal components of $`h_{\alpha \beta }`$ plus $`h_{xt}`$ must be nonzero. The resulting system of differential equations is less tractable than for the tensor or vector modes.

### 4.1 Vector Modes and a Diffusion Constant for M5-branes

We consider a metric perturbation of the form $`h_{ty}0`$ and $`h_{xy}0`$ with all the other $`h_{\mu \nu }=0`$. Moreover, we make a Fourier decomposition such that

$`h_x^y`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\omega t+iqx}H_x(u),`$ (56)
$`h_t^y`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\omega t+iqx}H_t(u).`$ (57)
The linearized Einstein’s equations for $`H_x`$ and $`H_t`$ are

$`\omega _5H_t^{}+q_5H_x^{}f`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (58)
$`H_t^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{2}{u}}H_t^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{uf}}(\omega _5q_5H_x+q_5^2H_t)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (59)
$`H_x^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{3f}{uf}}H_x^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{uf^2}}(\omega _5q_5H_t+\omega _5^2H_x)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (60)
This system of equations is very similar to the systems (15)-(17) and (37)-(39) we solved in the previous sections and is tractable using exactly the same methods. We combine the first two equations (58) and (59) to get a single equation for $`H_t^{}`$:

$$H_t^{\prime \prime \prime }+\frac{2f3}{uf}H_t^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{uf^2}(\omega _5^2fq_5^2+6u^2f)H_t^{}=0.$$
(61)
We make the ansatz $`H_t^{}=C(1u)^{i\omega _5/3}F(u)`$ and solve for the regular function $`F(u)`$ perturbatively in $`\omega _5`$ and $`q_5`$:

$$F(u)=u^2+i\omega _5\left(\frac{1}{2}(u^21)+\frac{1}{6}u^2f_1(u)+\frac{u^2}{\sqrt{3}}f_2(u)\right)+\frac{q_5^2}{6}(1u^2).$$
(62)
Taking the limit $`u0`$, we solve for $`C`$ in terms of $`H_x^0`$ and $`H_t^0`$ using (59):

$$C=\frac{\omega _5q_5H_x^0+q_5^2H_t^0}{i\omega _5\frac{1}{3}q_5^2}.$$
(63)
To get the two-point functions, we need to isolate the terms in the action proportional to $`H_x^2`$ and $`H_t^2`$:

$$S=\frac{2^6\pi ^3}{3^7}N^3T^6𝑑ud^6x\frac{1}{u^2}\left[H_t^2fH_x^2+\mathrm{}\right].$$
(64)
A subtle point can be made about the Gibbons-Hawking term here. In order to isolate these $`H_\alpha ^2`$ terms in the action, we have integrated by parts terms of the form $`H_\alpha H_\alpha ^{\prime \prime }`$. During this integration by parts, boundary terms of the form $`H_\alpha H_\alpha ^{}`$ appear at $`u=0`$. One might think that these boundary terms will affect the overall normalization of the two-point functions, but they can’t. The reason is that the Gibbons-Hawking term is precisely of a form that cancels these particular boundary contributions. Recall that the extrinsic curvature is defined to be

$$K=^\mu n_\mu $$
(65)
where $`n_\mu `$ is a unit vector, normal to the boundary $`u=0`$. There is a piece of $`K`$ that looks like

$$2\sqrt{g^B}K=\sqrt{g}g^{uu}g^{\alpha \beta }g_{\alpha \beta ,u}|_{u=0}+\mathrm{},$$
(66)
which precisely cancels the boundary contribution from terms of the form $`H_\alpha H_\alpha ^{\prime \prime }`$.

From this quadratic piece of the action, we read off the retarded Green’s functions:

$`G_{ty,ty}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2^5\pi ^2N^3T^5q^2}{3^6(i\omega Dq^2)}},`$ (67)
$`G_{ty,xy}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2^5\pi ^2N^3T^5\omega q}{3^6(i\omega Dq^2)}},`$ (68)
$`G_{xy,xy}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2^5\pi ^2N^3T^5\omega ^2}{3^6(i\omega Dq^2)}}.`$ (69)
where the diffusion coefficient is

$$D=\frac{1}{4\pi T}.$$
(70)
There exists a Kubo formula (see for example ) for these two-point functions that will let us calculate the viscosity $`\eta `$. In particular

$$\eta =\underset{\omega 0}{lim}\left[\underset{q0}{lim}\frac{\omega }{q^2}\text{Im}G_{ty,ty}\right]=\frac{2^5\pi ^2}{3^6}N^3T^5.$$
(71)
There is a relation between the shear viscosity (71) and the diffusion constant (70): $`D=\eta /(ϵ+P)`$, where $`ϵ`$ is the energy density and $`P`$ is the pressure. The relation is a consequence of the conservation condition on the stress-energy tensor, $`_\alpha T^{\alpha \beta }=0`$, along with a linearized hydrodynamic equation for the purely spatial parts of the stress-energy tensor <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1 The bulk viscosity in these M-brane models is zero.

$$T^{ij}=P\delta ^{ij}\frac{\eta }{ϵ+P}\left(_iT^{0j}+_jT^{0i}\frac{2}{d2}\delta ^{ij}_kT^{0k}\right),$$
(72)
where $`d`$ is the dimension of $`AdS_d`$. Putting these two equations together, one finds a diffusion equation for the shear modes, i.e. the fluctuations of the momentum density $`T^{0i}`$ such that $`_iT^{0i}=0`$. The diffusion equation for $`T^{ty}`$ is $`_tT^{ty}=D_x^2T^{ty}`$ where $`D=\eta /(ϵ+P)`$.

This relation between $`\eta `$ and $`D`$ will let us check that our calculations are internally consistent. From the thermodynamic relation between the entropy density and the pressure, $`S=P/T`$, one can calculate $`P`$. Because the stress energy tensor is traceless, for the M5-branes $`ϵ=5P`$. One finds that indeed $`D=\eta /6P=1/4\pi T`$.

### 4.2 Vector Modes and a Diffusion Constant for M2-branes

The same story can be repeated almost verbatim for the M2-brane case. We take the analogous definition for $`H_x`$ and $`H_t`$, being careful to raise the indices of the $`h_{ty}`$ and $`h_{xy}`$ metric perturbations with the appropriate non-extremal M2-brane metric instead. The linearized Einstein’s equations for $`H_x`$ and $`H_t`$ are

$`\omega _2H_t^{}+q_2H_x^{}f`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (73)
$`H_t^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{2}{u}}H_t^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4f}}(\omega _2q_2H_x+q_2^2H_t)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (74)
$`H_x^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{3f}{uf}}H_x^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4f^2}}(\omega _2q_2H_t+\omega _2^2H_x)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (75)
Some small changes in the wave-vector dependent pieces of the differential equations are apparent, but otherwise the system is virtually identical to that of (58)-(60). We combine the first two equations (73) and (74) to get a single equation for $`H_t^{}`$:

$$H_t^{\prime \prime \prime }+\frac{f3}{uf}H_t^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{4f^2}(\omega _2^2fq_2^2)H_t^{}+\frac{2}{u^2f}(32f)H_t^{}=0.$$
(76)
We make the ansatz $`H_t^{}=C(1u)^{i\omega _2/6}F(u)`$ and solve for the regular function $`F(u)`$ perturbatively in $`\omega _2`$ and $`q_2`$:

$$F(u)=u^2+i\omega _2\left(\frac{1}{2}(u^2u)+\frac{1}{12}u^2f_1(u)\frac{u^2\sqrt{3}}{6}f_2(u)\right)+\frac{q_2^2}{12}(uu^2).$$
(77)
Taking the limit $`u0`$, we solve for $`C`$ in terms of $`H_x^0`$ and $`H_t^0`$ using (74):

$$C=\frac{\omega _2q_2H_x^0+q_2^2H_t^0}{2\left(i\omega _2\frac{1}{6}q_2^2\right)}.$$
(78)
To get the two-point functions, we need to isolate the terms in the action proportional to $`H_x^2`$ and $`H_t^2`$:

$$S=\frac{2^{5/2}\pi ^2}{3^4}N^{3/2}T^3𝑑ud^3x\frac{1}{u^2}\left[H_t^2fH_x^2+\mathrm{}\right]$$
(79)
From here, we read off the retarded Green’s functions:

$`G_{ty,ty}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2^{3/2}\pi N^{3/2}T^2q^2}{3^3(i\omega Dq^2)}},`$ (80)
$`G_{ty,xy}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2^{3/2}\pi N^{3/2}T^2\omega q}{3^3(i\omega Dq^2)}},`$ (81)
$`G_{xy,xy}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2^{3/2}\pi N^{3/2}T^2\omega ^2}{3^3(i\omega Dq^2)}}.`$ (82)
where the diffusion coefficient is again

$$D=\frac{1}{4\pi T}.$$
(83)
Invoking the Kubo formula, one finds from the normalization of the Green’s functions that the shear viscosity is

$$\eta =\frac{2^{3/2}\pi }{3^3}N^{3/2}T^2.$$
(84)
We can check that the diffusion constant $`D=1/4\pi T`$ is consistent with this formula for the viscosity, $`D=\eta /(ϵ+P)`$. Tracelessness of the stress energy tensor now implies that $`ϵ=2P`$. Using the fact that $`S=P/T`$, one finds that indeed $`D=\eta /3P=1/4\pi T`$.

### 4.3 Tensor Perturbations, M5-branes, and a Kubo Formula

We consider a perturbation of the non-extremal M5-brane metric of the form $`h_{yz}0`$ with all other $`h_{\mu \nu }=0`$. We decompose such a perturbation into Fourier modes, defining

$$h_y^ze^{i\omega t+iqx}\varphi (u).$$
(85)
The linearized Einstein equation for $`h_{yz}`$ becomes

$$\varphi ^{\prime \prime }\frac{2+u^3}{uf}\varphi ^{}+\frac{1}{uf^2}(\omega _5^2fq_5^2)\varphi =0.$$
(86)
This differential equation can be rewritten more simply as $`\mathrm{}h_y^z=0`$. Thus this particular metric perturbation can be thought of as a massless scalar.

We solve this differential equation in the same way we have solved the others in this paper: we define $`\varphi =C(1u)^{i\omega /3}F(u)`$ and solve for $`F(u)`$ perturbatively in $`\omega _5`$ and $`q_5`$. The result is

$$F(u)=1\frac{i\omega _5}{3}f_1(u)+q_5^2\left(\frac{1}{4}f_1(u)\frac{\sqrt{3}}{6}f_2(u)\right).$$
(87)
The constant $`C`$ can be re-expressed in terms of the boundary value of $`\varphi `$, $`C=\varphi _0/F(0)`$.

To calculate the two point function, we isolate the term in the action proportional to $`\varphi ^2`$:

$$S=\frac{2^6\pi ^3N^3T^6}{3^7}𝑑ud^6x\frac{f}{u^2}\varphi ^2+\mathrm{}.$$
(88)
From this expression, we find that the retarded Green’s function is

$$G_{yz,yz}=\frac{2^5\pi ^2T^5N^3}{3^6}\left(i\omega +\frac{3}{8\pi T}q^2\right).$$
(89)
According to , there is a Kubo formula which relates this Green’s function to the shear viscosity $`\eta `$. The formula states that

$$\eta =\underset{\omega 0}{lim}\left[\underset{q0}{lim}\frac{1}{\omega }\text{Im}G_{yz,yz}\right]=\frac{2^5\pi ^2}{3^6}N^3T^5$$
(90)
which matches (71).<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2 There are still other ways of calculating the viscosity through AdS/CFT correspondence. For example, the authors of  related the graviton absorption cross section by non-extremal D3-branes to the viscosity of finite temperature $`𝒩=4`$ $`SU(N)`$ super Yang-Mills theory. Presumably a similar calculation could be done for the non-extremal M2- and M5-brane supergravity solutions.

## 5 $`N`$-puzzles

The viscosities and diffusion constants calculated here present new $`N`$-puzzles, new questions about why particular $`N`$ dependences arise in these M-brane theories. From the gravitational point of view, the $`N`$ dependence comes from the gravitational coupling constant $`\kappa _{11}`$. What is missing is a direct understanding of how a field theoretic description of a stack of $`N`$ M-branes gives rise to the same $`N`$ dependences. While for D3-branes, the $`N`$ dependence could be understood perturbatively from $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory, for the M-branes, no equivalent of $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory exists (as yet) as an alternate description. To review, the diffusion constants for the M-branes are all $`N`$ independent (36, 52, 70, 83). The viscosities (71, 84) on the other hand have the same $`N`$ dependence as the entropy (6, 11) of the corresponding M2- or M5-brane theory. Note that the equation $`D=\eta /(ϵ+P)`$ relates the $`N`$ dependence of the viscosity to that of the entropy and of the diffusion constant $`D`$. But there is still at least one new unexplained $`N`$ dependence here.

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& S& \eta & D& D_R\\ & & & & \\ \text{D3-branes}\hfill & \frac{\pi ^2}{2}N^2T^3& \frac{\pi }{8}N^2T^3& \frac{1}{4\pi T}& \frac{1}{2\pi T}\\ \text{M5-branes}\hfill & \frac{2^7\pi ^3}{3^6}N^3T^5& \frac{2^5\pi ^2}{3^6}N^3T^5& \frac{1}{4\pi T}& \frac{3}{8\pi T}\\ \text{M2-branes}\hfill & \frac{8\sqrt{2}\pi ^2}{27}N^{3/2}T^2& \frac{2\sqrt{2}\pi }{27}N^{3/2}T^2& \frac{1}{4\pi T}& \frac{3}{4\pi T}\end{array}$$

The first M-brane $`N`$-puzzle was the entropy puzzle, the $`N^3`$ dependence of the M5-brane entropy (and also the $`N^{3/2}`$ dependence of the M2-brane entropy) . For the D3-branes, the $`N^2`$ dependence was more or less clearly the $`N^2`$ degrees of freedom of a $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory , but what could provide $`N^3`$ degrees of freedom?

A less well known $`N`$-puzzle comes from the $`N`$ dependence of the normalized three-point functions for M-branes. For D3-branes, the three-point functions scale as $`N^1`$, as can be easily understood from ’t Hooft counting. However, from , we know that the three-point functions for M5-branes scale as $`N^{3/2}`$ while for M2-branes, as $`N^{3/4}`$.

The original motivation for writing this paper arose precisely out of these $`N`$-puzzles, a feeling that these $`N`$ dependences might provide a key to better understanding M-brane theories. In particular, the more $`N`$ dependences we know, perhaps the better our chances of finding some pattern and unlocking the mysteries of M-theory.<sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3 For another $`N`$-puzzle involving the conformal anomaly, see .

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Gary Horowitz, Amulya Madhav, Joe Polchinski, Radu Roiban, Johannes Walcher, and Anastasia Volovich for discussions. I would also like to thank Igor Klebanov and especially Dam Thanh Son for correspondence. Finally, I would like to thank Oliver DeWolfe for comments on the manuscript. This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY99-07949.