text:
# A new ab initio method of calculating 𝑍_{𝑒𝑓𝑓} and positron annihilation rates using coupled-channel T-matrix amplitudes

## I Introduction

Positron, being an antiparticle, interacts intimately (short-range interaction) with atomic electrons due to the absence of any restriction imposed by the Pauli Exclusion principle. Thus their annihilation studies, namely, the Positron annihilation spectroscopy and Positronium annihilation lifetime spectroscopy have emerged as two front line research areas, as they are expected to provide a more detail account of their close interactions with the target and bear the potential of various modern technological applications .

Up until now, the theoretical study of annihilations rate requires the evaluation of the scattering wave function. However, it is of fundamental importance to note that most scattering calculations (T-, K-, S-matrix) yield directly the scattering amplitudes; not the wave function. Thus, the evaluation of $`Z_{eff}`$ normally requires a separate calculation for the wave function using these scattering amplitudes (like those in ref.), or need to adopt of a different methodology that will yield the scattering wave function directly. Ryzhikh and Mitroy  have used the T-matrix formulation to evaluate the scattering wave function which has subsequently been used to evaluate $`Z_{eff}`$. Gribakin  has used an approximate form of the T-matrix equation to evaluate $`Z_{eff}`$. Here, we present a new ab-initio theoretical formulation based on the integral equation formalism, whereby $`Z_{eff}`$ and hence the annihilation rates can be exactly calculated using on-shell and half-offshell T-matrix scattering amplitudes but without any explicit use of the scattering wave function.

Theoretically, the positron annihilation rates ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) are expressed in terms of $`Z_{eff}`$, the effective number of target electrons available to the incoming positron as :

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`\pi r_0^2cZ_{eff}N\text{ sec}^{}1`$ (1)
And $`Z_{eff}`$ is defined in terms of the scattering wave function $`|\psi _k^+`$ as

$`Z_{eff}(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _k^+|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\delta (𝐫_j𝐱)|\psi _k^+`$ (2)
where $`r_0`$ is the classical electron radius; $`c`$ is the speed of light; $`4\pi r_0^2c`$ is the non-relativistic electron-positron annihilation rate; $`\pi r_0^2c`$ is the same for the spin-averaged case of two-gamma annihilation (which excludes electron-positron triplet state contribution and considers only singlet state annihilation). $`N`$ is the number density of atoms or molecules in the medium; $`\delta `$ is the Dirac $`\delta `$-function; $`𝐱`$ and $`𝐫_j`$ are the positron and the electron co-ordinates.

Here we present a new formulation whereby the r.h.s of equation 2 is represented exactly by the onshell and half-offshell coupled-channel T-matrix scattering amplitudes, thus facilitating the evaluation of $`Z_{eff}`$ without any explicit use of the scattering wave function. When a positron collides with a target, it can have direct as well as rearrangement scattering. So, we present our formulation in two different sections consisting of I) direct (elastic and inelastic) scattering and II) direct plus rearrangement (positronium formation) scattering.

## II Positron Annihilation Considering the Direct Scattering Channels

In this section, we consider the direct scattering of positrons from atomic ($`\varphi _n`$) targets where the total wave function is expanded as :

$`\psi _k^+(𝐱,𝐫_1,𝐫_2,\mathrm{}𝐫_N)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}F_n(𝐱)\varphi _n(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,\mathrm{}𝐫_N)`$ (3)
where $`F_n`$’s are the expansion coefficients, representing the motion of the positron with momentum $`𝐤`$; $`𝐫_j`$ is the co-ordinate of the $`jth`$ electron and $`𝐱`$ is that of the positron. The total Hamiltonian is partitioned as

$`H=H_d^0+V_d`$ (4)
where $`H_d^0`$ is the unperturbed part of the total Hamiltonian in the direct scattering channel of the positron and the atom and $`V_d`$ is the positron-atom interaction potential. The unperturbed and the total Hamiltonians satisfy the following eigen-value equations:

$`H_d^0|k\varphi _n`$ $`=`$ $`E|k\varphi _n`$ (5)
$`(H_d^0+V_d)|\psi _k^+`$ $`=`$ $`E|\psi _k^+`$ (6)
where $`E=k^2/2m_A`$ is the total energy; $`_A`$ is the binding energy of the initial target atom ($`\varphi _n`$); $`m`$ and $`𝐤`$ are the reduced mass and the onshell momentum of the positron. With the eigen-value equations 5 and 6 for the unperturbed and the total Hamiltonians, one can write the Lippmann-Schwinger equation for the scattering wave function $`|\psi _k^+`$ as :

$`|\psi _k^+=|k\varphi _n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{EH_d^0+i0}}V_d|\psi _k^+`$ (7)
Using the closure relation $`(2\pi )^3_{n^{\prime \prime }}d^3k^{\prime \prime }|k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}|=1`$, and using the T-matrix definition: $`V_d|\psi _k^+=T|k\varphi _n`$, in eqn(7), we arrive at the expression for the total scattering wave function in terms of the $`T`$-matrix elements:

$`|\psi _k^+=|k\varphi _n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{n^{\prime \prime }=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle d^3k^{\prime \prime }\frac{|k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}|T|k\varphi _n}{EE_n^{\prime \prime }+i0}}`$ (8)
The total scattering wave function can be evaluated from this equation . However, we generally solve it for the scattering T-matrix amplitudes obtained by multiplying eqn.(8) by $`V_d`$ and projecting with $`k^{}\varphi _n^{}|`$ and using the T-matrix definition: $`V_d|\psi _k^+=T|k\varphi _n`$:

$`k^{}\varphi _n^{}|T|k\varphi _n`$ $`=`$ $`k^{}\varphi _n^{}|V_d|k\varphi _n`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{n^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle d^3k^{\prime \prime }\frac{k^{}\varphi _n^{}|V_d|k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}|T|k\varphi _n}{EE_n^{\prime \prime }+i0}}`$ (10)
Eqn.(9), in its one-dimensional partial-wave form (eqn.28), is exactly solved using the matrix inversion method . Simultaneous equations are formed by replacing $`k^{}`$ with various values of $`k^{\prime \prime }`$ on which the radial integral over $`dk^{\prime \prime }`$ is discretized. The solutions of the simultaneous equations give us the both-onshell ($`k^{}\varphi _n^{}|T|k\varphi _n`$) and half-offshell ($`k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _n^{}|T|k\varphi _n`$) $`T`$-matrix amplitudes for various values of $`k^{\prime \prime }`$, where $`𝐤,𝐤^{}`$ are on shell momenta and $`𝐤^{\prime \prime }`$ are the off-shell ones. While the solutions for the onshell $`T`$-matrix elements reflect the asymptotic behavior of the wave function and provide the physical cross sections, the half-offshell elements are usually thrown away. We understand that the latter might contain the short-range properties of the wave function and they together with the on-shell elements can lead to an exact evaluation of the $`Z_{eff}`$. We multiply eqn.8 from left by $`_{j=1}^N\delta (𝐱𝐫_j)=\mathrm{\Delta },\text{ (say)}`$ and project it by $`\psi _k^+|`$ to obtain:

$`\psi _k^+|\mathrm{\Delta }|\psi _k^+`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _k^+|\mathrm{\Delta }|k\varphi _n`$ (11)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{n^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle d^3k^{\prime \prime }\frac{\psi _k^+|\mathrm{\Delta }|k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}|T|k\varphi _n}{EE_n^{\prime \prime }+i0}}`$ (12)
At this stage, to calculate $`Z_{eff}`$, which is equivalent to $`\psi _k^+|\mathrm{\Delta }|\psi _k^+`$ (see eqn.2), we have two options: 1) using equation 8, substitute for $`\psi _k^+|`$ in the $`r.h.s`$ of (11) or 2) evaluate $`\psi _k^+|\mathrm{\Delta }|k\varphi _n`$ separately and substitute in eqn(11). The first case leads to a complicated equation as follows:

$`\psi _k^+|\mathrm{\Delta }|\psi _k^+`$ $`=`$ $`k\varphi _n|\mathrm{\Delta }|k\varphi _n`$ (13)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{n^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle d^3k^{\prime \prime }\frac{k\varphi _n|T|k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}|\mathrm{\Delta }|k\varphi _n}{EE_n^{\prime \prime }i0}}`$ (14)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{n^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle d^3k^{\prime \prime }\frac{k\varphi _n|\mathrm{\Delta }|k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}|T|k\varphi _n}{EE_n^{\prime \prime }+i0}}`$ (15)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle \underset{n^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle d^3k_1^{\prime \prime }d^3k_2^{\prime \prime }\frac{k\varphi _n|T|k_1^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}k_1^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}|\mathrm{\Delta }|k_2^{\prime \prime }\varphi _m^{\prime \prime }k_2^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{m^{\prime \prime }}|T|k\varphi _n}{(EE_n^{\prime \prime }i0)(EE_m^{\prime \prime }+i0)}}`$ (16)
This equation, although can be solved numerically, needs an extra effort to evaluate the principal value part of the last term, which contains a product of two singularities arising out of the product of Greens functions. We, therefore, look for the evaluation of $`k\varphi _n|\mathrm{\Delta }|\psi _k^+`$ by projecting eqn(8) with $`k\varphi _n|\mathrm{\Delta }`$:

$`k^{}\varphi _n^{}|\mathrm{\Delta }|\psi _k^+`$ $`=`$ $`k^{}\varphi _n^{}|\mathrm{\Delta }|k\varphi _n`$ (18)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{n^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle d^3k^{\prime \prime }\frac{k^{}\varphi _n^{}|\mathrm{\Delta }|k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}|T|k\varphi _n}{EE_n^{\prime \prime }+i0}}`$ (19)
We solve this equation exactly (which is a very straight forward numerical summation) and substitute the complex conjugate of $`k^{}\varphi _n^{}|\mathrm{\Delta }|\psi _k^+`$ in eqn(11) to get $`Z_{eff}`$. However, like the T-matrix equation, we solve them in their one-dimensional partial wave form. To arrive at the corresponding partial wave equations for (18) and (11), we define the matrices $`D`$ and $`Z`$ as:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }|\psi _k^+`$ $`=`$ $`D|k\varphi _n`$ (20)
$`\psi _k^+|D`$ $`=`$ $`k\varphi _n|Z`$ (21)
and rewrite eqn(18) and eqn(11) formally in terms of them:

$`k^{}\varphi _n^{}|D|k\varphi _n`$ $`=`$ $`k^{}\varphi _n^{}|\mathrm{\Delta }|k\varphi _n`$ (22)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{n^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle d^3k^{\prime \prime }\frac{k^{}\varphi _n^{}|\mathrm{\Delta }|k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}|T|k\varphi _n}{EE_n^{\prime \prime }+i0}}`$ (23)
and

$`k\varphi _n|Z|k\varphi _n`$ $`=`$ $`k\varphi _n|\overline{D}|k\varphi _n`$ (24)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{n^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle d^3k^{\prime \prime }\frac{k\varphi _n|\overline{D}|k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}|T|k\varphi _n}{EE_n^{\prime \prime }+i0}}`$ (25)
where $`\overline{D}`$ is the complex conjugate of $`D`$. Using a partial wave decomposition of the form:

$`k^{}\varphi _n^{}|X|k\varphi _n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{J}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{M}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{L}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{M_L}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{L^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{M_L^{}}{}}L^{}l^{},M_L^{}m_l^{}|JMY_{L^{}M_L^{}}^{}(\widehat{𝐤^{}})`$ (27)
$`Ll,M_Lm_l|JMY_{LM_L}(\widehat{𝐤})X_J(n^{}l^{}L^{}k^{},nlLk)`$
where, $`XT,V,D,\mathrm{\Delta },\text{or}\text{ }Z`$; $`n,l`$ are the principal and orbital quantum number of the target and $`L`$ is the orbital quantum number of the moving positron in the initial state; primed quantities denote the same for the final state. With the above expansion, the scattering T-matrix equation and the above two equations for the $`D`$\- and $`Z`$-matrices reduce to:

$`T_J(\tau ^{},k^{};\tau ,k)`$ $`=`$ $`V_J(\tau ^{},k^{};\tau k)`$ (28)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^{\prime \prime }}{4\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{\tau ^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑k{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }k_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}\frac{V_J(\tau ^{},k^{};\tau {}_{}{}^{\prime \prime },k^{\prime \prime })T_J(\tau {}_{}{}^{\prime \prime },k^{\prime \prime };\tau ,k)}{k_{\tau ^{\prime \prime }}^2k{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}+i0}}`$ (29)
$`D_J(\tau {}_{}{}^{},k^{};\tau ,k)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_J(\tau {}_{}{}^{},k^{};\tau k)`$ (30)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^{\prime \prime }}{4\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{\tau ^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑k^{\prime \prime }k_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_J(\tau {}_{}{}^{},k^{};\tau {}_{}{}^{\prime \prime },k^{\prime \prime })T_J(\tau {}_{}{}^{\prime \prime },k^{\prime \prime };\tau ,k)}{k_{\tau ^{\prime \prime }}^2k{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}+i0}}`$ (31)
$`Z_J(\tau {}_{}{}^{},k^{};\tau ,k)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{D}_J(\tau {}_{}{}^{},k^{};\tau k)`$ (32)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^{\prime \prime }}{4\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{\tau ^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑k^{\prime \prime }k_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}\frac{\overline{D}_J(\tau {}_{}{}^{},k^{};\tau {}_{}{}^{\prime \prime },k^{\prime \prime })T_J(\tau {}_{}{}^{\prime \prime },k^{\prime \prime };\tau ,k)}{k_{\tau ^{\prime \prime }}^2k{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}+i0}}`$ (33)
where $`\tau (nlL)`$ and $`\tau ^{}(n^{}l^{}L^{})`$; $`m^{\prime \prime }`$ is the reduced mass of the projectile in the intermediate state (here, $`m^{\prime \prime }=m=1`$ in au). We suppress the suffix $`d`$ from $`V_d`$ for convenience.

In terms of partial wave $`Z`$-matrices, $`Z_{eff}(k^2)`$ comes out to be:

$`Z_{eff}(k^2)={\displaystyle \underset{J}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2J+1}{4\pi }}Z_J(nlLk;nlLk)`$ (34)
While eqn.(28) is generally used to study positron-atom scattering, eqs.(30) and (32) are particularly useful to evaluate $`Z_{eff}`$ from the onshell and half-offshell T-matrix outputs of eqn.28). We shall present a simple numerical account on $`e^+`$-He scattering to verify the code and compare the numbers, but beforehand we present a general formula for $`Z_{eff}`$ by inserting eqn.(30) into eqn.(32). This latter is of particular interest, as it will explicitly demonstrate how the $`Z_{eff}`$ is dependent on the T-matrices. For this, we first rewrite eqs.(28), (30) and (32) in the following notations:

$`T_{k^{}k}`$ $`=`$ $`V_{k^{}k}iV_{k^{}k^{}}T_{k^{}k}+V_{k^{}k^{\prime \prime }}G_0(k^{},k^{\prime \prime })T_{k^{\prime \prime }k}`$ (35)
$`D_{k^{}k}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{k^{}k}i\mathrm{\Delta }_{k^{}k^{}}T_{k^{}k}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{k^{}p^{\prime \prime }}G_0(k^{},p^{\prime \prime })T_{p^{\prime \prime }k}`$ (36)
$`Z_{k^{}k}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{D}_{k^{}k}i\overline{D}_{k^{}k^{}}T_{kk}+\overline{D}_{k^{}q^{\prime \prime }}G_0(k^{},q^{\prime \prime })T_{q^{\prime \prime }k}`$ (37)
where summations over intermediate states are implied and off-shell momenta are represented by $`k^{\prime \prime }`$, $`p^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`q^{\prime \prime }`$. In the above, we have used the following relation for the complex Greens function

$`G_0^+(k^2k_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2k_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}+i0}}=i\pi \delta (k^2k_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2})+{\displaystyle \frac{P}{k^2k_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}}}`$ (38)
to expand it into real and imaginary parts; $`P`$ represents principal value integration; $`G_0`$ represents the real (principal value) part of $`G_0^+`$. Inserting $`\overline{D}_{kk}`$ in eqn(37) we obtain an explicit relation for $`Z_{eff}(k^2)Z_{kk}`$:

$`Z_{kk}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{kk}+i\mathrm{\Delta }_{kk}[T_{kk}^{}T_{kk}]+T_{kp^{\prime \prime }}G_0\mathrm{\Delta }_{p^{\prime \prime }k}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{kq^{\prime \prime }}G_0T_{q^{\prime \prime }k}`$ (39)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{kk}|T_{kk}|^2+T_{kp^{\prime \prime }}G_0\mathrm{\Delta }_{p^{\prime \prime }q^{\prime \prime }}G_0T_{q^{\prime \prime }k}`$ (40)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{kk}+2\mathrm{\Delta }_{kk}\text{Im}[T_{kk}]+\mathrm{\Delta }_{kk}|T_{kk}|^2+T_{kp^{\prime \prime }}G_0\mathrm{\Delta }_{p^{\prime \prime }k}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{kq^{\prime \prime }}G_0T_{q^{\prime \prime }k}`$ (41)
$`+`$ $`T_{kp^{\prime \prime }}G_0\mathrm{\Delta }_{p^{\prime \prime }q^{\prime \prime }}G_0T_{q^{\prime \prime }k}`$ (42)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pq}`$ corresponds to plane-wave value of $`Z_{eff}`$ for the initial and final momenta $`p`$ and $`q`$. Im$`[T_{kk}]`$ and $`|T_{kk}|^2`$ are proportional to physical cross sections (representing the asymptotic behavior of the wave function). Others are interference terms, linear and quadratic in the half-offshell T-matrix elements, and expected to play a crucial role at low and intermediate energies. To understand their role, and to check the normalizations of equations 30 and 32, we provide a numerical test below.

### A Numerical test to equations 30, 32

To test the formulations of the equations 30, 32 (Equation 28 is well established in literature) we perform sample calculation on $`e^+`$-He elastic scattering, considering only the static interaction \[keeping summation over $`\tau ^{\prime \prime }`$ He$`(1s^2)`$\], and evaluate the $`Z_{eff}`$ using the resulting onshell and half-offshell T-matrix elements. We use atomic units throughout and use delta-function normalization for the plane wave.

We note that equations {28,30,32} and {35,36,37} are equivalent. In figure 1, first we plot the dotted curve which is obtained considering only the plane wave parts (first term of the $`r.h.s`$) of eqs.(35), (36) and (37). This plane wave approximation gives a value of $`Z_{eff}=2.0(=Z)`$ as was expected and provides the normalization. Next we consider first two terms of the $`r.h.s`$ of eqs.(35), (36) and (37) and plot the result as dashed curve. This approximation is equivalent of considering the plane wave and the onshell T-matrix contributions of equations (28), (30) and (32) leaving aside the half-offshell contribution (particular integral part of the Greens function). We obtain a lower value of $`Z_{eff}`$ with increasing energies, signaling the manifestation of a repulsive potential at higher energies. Now, the solid curve is obtained with all the three terms of eqs.(35), (36), and (37). That is, considering both the onshell and the half-offshell contributions together with the plane wave. The static potential in a $`e^+`$-He scattering is repulsive and consequently it lowers the value of $`Z_{eff}`$ (and hence the annihilation rate). We compare the solid curve with the results of a Schwinger Multi-Channel (SMC) calculation on $`e^+`$-He with the same physical content (considering static interaction only) . Both the curves agree quite well. The marginal difference in the $`Z_{eff}`$ value between the present and the SMC calculation is supposed to be acceptable since, the wave functions for Helium used in these two calculations are different (we use the Roothaan-Hatree-Fock five-term wave function of Clementi and Roetti  for He) and also the T-matrix and the SMC formulations are different.

The results provided in figure-1 are aimed at checking the new equations vis-a-vis other methodologies where we considered the static interaction. Formally, to arrive at a physically converged result for the $`Z_{eff}`$, full expansion basis indicated in equations 30 and 32 need to be employed like the case for the scattering T-matrix equation 28. However, in practice it has been found that the positron-scattering cross sections do not converge easily unless real and virtual effects of the rearrangement channel of positronium (Ps) formation is considered in the theoretical formulation. So, for a converged description of the scattering and annihilation we need to consider the Ps formation channel explicitly in the theoretical formulation. However, the above formulation is suitable for employing model polarization potentials alongside the static potential so as to arrive at a meaningful physically converged result without being confined in the ab initio framework.

## III Positron Annihilation Considering the Direct and the Ps-formation Channels.

When the possibility of a real or virtual positronium formation is considered, through the capture of a target electron by the incident positron, the theoretical formulation for a single electron target differs from a multi electron target in the sense that for the latter case the Ps-target(ion) wave function need to be formally antisymmetrized. Here, we discuss them in two different sections A and B.

### A Single Electron Target

For positron scattering from a single electron target, the total wave function (3) can be expanded (considering Ps formation) as :

$`\psi _k^+(𝐱,𝐫_1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}F_n(𝐱)\varphi _n(𝐫_1)+{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}𝒢_\nu (\rho _1)\chi _\nu (𝐭_1)`$ (43)
where $`\rho _1=(𝐫_1+𝐱)/2`$ and $`𝐭_1=𝐫_1𝐱`$. $`𝒢_\nu `$ and $`\chi _\nu `$ represent the moving and the bound-state ($`\nu `$-th) positronium atom. The total Hamiltonian is now partitioned as:

$`H=H_d^0+V_d=H_c^0+V_c`$ (44)
where $`H_d^0`$, $`H_c^0`$ are the unperturbed Hamiltonians in the direct ($`d`$) and capture ($`c`$) channels satisfying the eigen-value equations

$`H_d^0|k\varphi _n`$ $`=`$ $`E_n|k\varphi _n`$ (45)
$`H_c^0|k\chi _\nu `$ $`=`$ $`E_\nu |k\chi _\nu `$ (46)
and $`V_d`$ and $`V_c`$ are the interaction potentials therein. $`E_n=k_x^2/2_A`$ and $`E_\nu =k_{Ps}^2/4_{Ps}`$; $`_A`$ and $`_{Ps}`$ are the binding energies of the initial target atom and the rearranged positronium atom; $`k_x`$ and $`k_{Ps}`$ are the momenta of the positron and the positronium. In terms of the two-cluster channel-Greens-functions $`G_d^0=(EH_d^0)^1`$ and $`G_c^0=(EH_c^0)^1`$, we take the Lippmann-Schwinger integral equation for the wave function as :

$`|\psi _k^+=|k\varphi _n+G_d^0T_d|k\varphi _n+G_c^0T_c|k\varphi _n`$ (47)
where, $`T_d`$ and $`T_c`$ are defined as $`V_d|\psi _k^+=T_d|k\varphi _n`$ (here $`T_dT`$ of section-I) and $`V_c|\psi _k^+=T_c|k\varphi _n`$. Using the following closure relations for the direct and the rearrangement channels,

$`1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{n^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑k^{\prime \prime }|k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}|}`$ (48)
$`1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu ^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑k^{\prime \prime }|k^{\prime \prime }\chi _{\nu ^{\prime \prime }}k^{\prime \prime }\chi _{\nu ^{\prime \prime }}|}`$ (49)
we rewrite eqn.(47) as:

$`|\psi _k^+`$ $`=`$ $`|k\varphi _n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{n^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle d^3k^{\prime \prime }\frac{|k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}|T_d|k\varphi _n}{EE_n^{\prime \prime }+i0}}`$ (50)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu ^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle d^3k^{\prime \prime }\frac{|k^{\prime \prime }\chi _{\nu ^{\prime \prime }}k^{\prime \prime }\chi _{\nu ^{\prime \prime }}|T_c|k\varphi _n}{EE_\nu ^{\prime \prime }+i0}}`$ (51)
Here, $`E_n^{\prime \prime }=k_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}/2_A`$ and $`E_\nu ^{\prime \prime }=k_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}/4_{Ps}`$ are the off-shell energies in the direct (d) and the capture (c) channels. We construct the coupled equations by 1) multiplying this equation with $`V_d`$ and projecting out with $`k^{}\varphi _n^{}|`$ and 2) multiplying this equation with $`V_c`$ and projecting out with $`k^{}\chi _\nu ^{}|`$

$`k^{}\varphi _n^{}|T_d|k\varphi _n`$ $`=`$ $`k^{}\varphi _n^{}|V_d|k\varphi _n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{n^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle d^3k^{\prime \prime }\frac{k^{}\varphi _n^{}|V_d|k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}|T_d|k\varphi _n}{EE_n^{\prime \prime }+i0}}`$ (52)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu ^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle d^3k^{\prime \prime }\frac{k^{}\varphi _n^{}|(E_\nu ^{\prime \prime }+V_cE_n^{})|k^{\prime \prime }\chi _{\nu ^{\prime \prime }}k^{\prime \prime }\chi _{\nu ^{\prime \prime }}|T_c|k\varphi _n}{EE_\nu ^{\prime \prime }+i0}}`$ (53)
$`k^{}\chi _\nu ^{}|T_c|k\varphi _n`$ $`=`$ $`k^{}\chi _\nu ^{}|V_c|k\varphi _n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{n^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle d^3k^{\prime \prime }\frac{k^{}\chi _\nu ^{}|V_c|k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}|T_d|k\varphi _n}{EE_n^{\prime \prime }+i0}}`$ (54)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu ^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle d^3k^{\prime \prime }\frac{k^{}\chi _\nu ^{}|V_c|k^{\prime \prime }\chi _{\nu ^{\prime \prime }}k^{\prime \prime }\chi _{\nu ^{\prime \prime }}|T_c|k\varphi _n}{EE_\nu ^{\prime \prime }+i0}}`$ (55)
where in eqn.(52), we use $`V_d=H_c^0+V_cH_d^0`$ (see eqn.44) and also use the eigen-value equations (45,46). Once the above coupled-equations are solved and we are equipped with the T-matrix amplitudes $`p\varphi _n^{}|T_d|k\varphi _n`$ and $`q\chi _\nu ^{}|T_c|k\varphi _n`$ for on-shell and off-shell values for the momenta $`p`$ and $`q`$, we can get $`Z_{eff}`$ in terms of them. To deduce $`Z_{eff}`$, in terms of T-matrices, we project equation (51) by $`\psi _k^+|\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and arrive at:

$`\psi _k^+|\mathrm{\Delta }|\psi _k^+`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _k^+|\mathrm{\Delta }|k\varphi _n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{n^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle d^3k^{\prime \prime }\frac{\psi _k^+|\mathrm{\Delta }|k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}|T_d|k\varphi _n}{EE_n^{\prime \prime }+i0}}`$ (56)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu ^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle d^3k^{\prime \prime }\frac{\psi _k^+|\mathrm{\Delta }|k^{\prime \prime }\chi _{\nu ^{\prime \prime }}k^{\prime \prime }\chi _{\nu ^{\prime \prime }}|T_c|k\varphi _n}{EE_\nu ^{\prime \prime }+i0}}`$ (57)
Now, $`\psi _k^+|`$ from eqn(51) may be substituted in the $`r.h.s`$ of eqn(56) to arrive at a direct expression for $`Z_{eff}`$. However, that will lead to a complicated equation like (13). We rather develop simpler equations to evaluate $`\psi _k^+|\mathrm{\Delta }|k\varphi _n`$ and $`\psi _k^+|\mathrm{\Delta }|k\chi _\nu `$ and substitute them back in eqn(56). For this, we project eqn(51) from left by $`k^{}\varphi _n^{}|\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`k^{}\chi _\nu ^{}|\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and obtain:

$`k^{}\varphi _n^{}|\mathrm{\Delta }|\psi _k^+`$ $`=`$ $`k^{}\varphi _n^{}|\mathrm{\Delta }|k\varphi _n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{n^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle d^3k^{\prime \prime }\frac{k^{}\varphi _n^{}|\mathrm{\Delta }|k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}|T_d|k\varphi _n}{EE_n^{\prime \prime }+i0}}`$ (58)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu ^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle d^3k^{\prime \prime }\frac{k^{}\varphi _n^{}|\mathrm{\Delta }|k^{\prime \prime }\chi _{\nu ^{\prime \prime }}k^{\prime \prime }\chi _{\nu ^{\prime \prime }}|T_c|k\varphi _n}{EE_\nu ^{\prime \prime }+i0}}`$ (59)
$`k^{}\chi _\nu ^{}|\mathrm{\Delta }|\psi _k^+`$ $`=`$ $`k^{}\chi _\nu ^{}|\mathrm{\Delta }|k\varphi _n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{n^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle d^3k^{\prime \prime }\frac{k^{}\chi _\nu ^{}|\mathrm{\Delta }|k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}|T_d|k\varphi _n}{EE_n^{\prime \prime }+i0}}`$ (60)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu ^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle d^3k^{\prime \prime }\frac{k^{}\chi _\nu ^{}|\mathrm{\Delta }|k^{\prime \prime }\chi _{\nu ^{\prime \prime }}k^{\prime \prime }\chi _{\nu ^{\prime \prime }}|T_c|k\varphi _n}{EE_\nu ^{\prime \prime }+i0}}`$ (61)
The above two equations are very straight forward to solve as one need to carry only numerical integrations with known values of $`T_d`$, $`T_c`$ and the calculated plane-wave matrix elements concerning $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as inputs. We are not interested to repeat the calculations for $`T_d`$ and $`T_c`$ and rather hope that the existing T-matrix results  may be applied to calculate $`Z_{eff}`$.

### B Many Electron Target

For multi-electron targets the formulation is very much similar to that of section IIA, except few fundamental changes. Without repeating the whole thing, we thus mention here about the necessary changes. For the positron scattering from a multi-electron target, the capture channel need to be explicitly antisymmetrized and expressed as:

$`\psi _k^+(𝐱,𝐫_1,𝐫_2,..𝐫_N)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}F_n(𝐱)\varphi _n(𝐫_1,\mathrm{}.,𝐫_N)+𝒜_1{\displaystyle \underset{\nu \mu }{}}𝒢_{\nu \mu }(\rho _1)\chi _\nu (𝐭_1)\phi _\mu (𝐫_2,\mathrm{},𝐫_N)`$ (62)
where $`\phi `$ represents the residual target ion and $`𝒜_1`$ is the antisymmetrization operator, which antisymmetrizes electron 1 with other target electrons. The initial target wave function $`\varphi `$ is supposed to be antisymmetrized implicitly. The total Hamiltonian is now partitioned as: $`H=H_d^0+V_d=H_{c(j)}^0+V_{c(j)}`$; where $`H_{c(j)}^0`$ and $`V_{c(j)}`$ are the unperturbed Hamiltonian and the Ps-target(ion) interaction potential in the capture channel of the positronium formation, with the $`j`$-th electron being attached to the positron. Accommodating the Pauli exclusion principle for the rearrangement channel, the Lippmann-Schwinger integral equation is now written as:

$`|\psi _k^+=|k\varphi _n+G_d^0T_d|k\varphi _n+𝒜_jG_{c(j)}^0T_{c(j)}|k\varphi _n`$ (63)
where $`T_d`$ and $`T_c`$ are defined as $`V_d|\psi _k^+=T_d|k\varphi _n`$ (here $`T_dT`$ of section-I) and $`V_{c(j)}|\psi _k^+=T_{c(j)}|k\varphi _n`$. Using following closure relations for the direct and the rearrangement channels:

$`1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{n^{\prime \prime }=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑k^{\prime \prime }|k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}|}`$ (64)
$`1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu ^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu ^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑k^{\prime \prime }|k_j^{\prime \prime }\chi _{\nu ^{\prime \prime }}\phi _{\mu ^{\prime \prime }}k_j^{\prime \prime }\chi _{\nu ^{\prime \prime }}\phi _{\mu ^{\prime \prime }}|}`$ (65)
and proceeding in a similar way, we represent the Lippmann-Schwinger equation 63 as:

$`|\psi _k^+`$ $`=`$ $`|k\varphi _n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{n^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle d^3k^{\prime \prime }\frac{|k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}k^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{n^{\prime \prime }}|T_d|k\varphi _n}{EE_n^{\prime \prime }+i0}}`$ (66)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu ^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu ^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle d^3k^{\prime \prime }\frac{𝒜_j|k_j^{\prime \prime }\chi _{\nu ^{\prime \prime }}\phi _{\mu ^{\prime \prime }}k_j^{\prime \prime }\chi _{\nu ^{\prime \prime }}\phi _{\mu ^{\prime \prime }}|T_{c(j)}|k\varphi _n}{EE_{\nu \mu }^{\prime \prime }+i0}}`$ (67)
The rest of the procedures are exactly similar to those described in section IIA and are not repeated here.

In summary, we present a new ab initio methodology to calculate $`Z_{eff}`$ from physical (onshell) and virtual (half-offshell) scattering T-matrix amplitudes, without any use of the scattering wave function. The formulation presented here is for positron annihilation in atoms, but it could be universally applied to other annihilation studies as long as the dynamics of the interacting particles (or clusters) can be described by the well-known Lippmann-Schwinger type equation. The methodology is exact and can act as an useful tool for the annihilation studies as most of the scattering theories (T-matrix, K-matrix, S-matrix) yield directly the scattering amplitudes. Performing elastic scattering and employing elastic-channel T-matrix amplitudes (on- and off-shell) we reproduce the corresponding $`Z_{eff}`$ result and demonstrate the utility of the methodology. A similar T-matrix formulation for the pick-off annihilation of ortho-positronium is under way and will be published soon.

The work has been carried out under financial support from FAPESP, Brazil through project number 99/06844-7. I gratefully acknowledge various discussions with Dr. T. Frederico, Dr. J. S. E. Germano of our department and Dr. M. A. P. Lima and Mr. M. Varella of UNICAMP, SP, Brazil.

Figure Caption:

Figure 1. Theoretical values of $`Z_{eff}`$ in various approximations as a function of positron energy for the target of atomic helium.


format: text

text:
# References

Hadronic string and chiral symmetry breaking***Talk given at 12th International Seminar on High Energy Physics QUARKS’2002 Novgorod, Russia, June 1-7, 2002

A. A. Andrianov

St.Petersburg State University, Russia and INFN, Bologna, Italy

and

D. Espriu

University of Barcelona, Spain

Abstract

We assume that QCD can be effectively described with string-like variables. The hadronic string is built over the chirally non-invariant QCD vacuum by means of the boundary interaction with background chiral fields associated with pions. By making this interaction compatible with the conformal symmetry of the string and with the unitarity constraint on chiral fields we reconstruct the equations of motion for the latter ones and furthermore recover the Lagrangian of non-linear sigma model of pion interactions. The estimated chiral structural constants of Gasser and Leutwyler fit well the phenomenological values.

1. Introduction

The history of attempts to describe the hadrons in the framework of a string theory beyond or within QCD encompasses already more than 30 years (see,- as well as the reviews -). The commonly cited arguments to justify the stringy description of QCD are the dominance of planar gluon diagrams in the large $`N`$ limit being interpreted as the world-sheet of a string, the expansion in terms of surfaces built out of plaquettes in strong-coupling lattice QCD, and the incarnation of Regge phenomenology within QCD.

There is a motivated agreement that in a certain kinematic regime the Nambu-Goto or the Polyakov string action may be satisfactory. Here we focus on low-energy properties of string-generated particle states and it is known for a long time that the hadronic amplitudes derived from such type of strings are not quite physically consistent. To illuminate their flaws we recall the original Veneziano amplitude, which can be derived from Nambu-Goto string and supposedly describes the scattering amplitude of four pions. One can show that in this amplitude the scalar resonance is a tachyon and the vector state (which we should identify with the rho particle) is massless. At last such an amplitude does not have the appropriate Adler zero, i.e. the property that at $`s=t=0`$ the pion scattering amplitude vanishes.

It is quite conceivable that the main reason for the presence of a tachyon in the spectrum and the wrong chiral properties lies in a wrong choice of the vacuum. A possible way to take into account the non-perturbative properties of the QCD vacuum was suggested in  and developed in . Namely, one can assume that in QCD chiral symmetry breaking takes place and the massless (in the chiral limit) pseudoscalar mesons form the background of the QCD vacuum, whereas other massive excitations are assembled into a string. The massless pion fields can be collected in a unitary matrix $`U(x)`$ belonging to $`SU(2)`$ group (here we consider non-strange Goldstone mesons only). It describes excitations around the non-perturbative vacuum breaking the chiral symmetry. From the string point of view $`U(x)`$ is nothing but a bunch of couplings involving the string variable $`x_\mu (\tau ,\sigma )`$. It has to be coupled to the boundary of the string where flavor is attached. Our goal is to find a consistent string propagation in this non-perturbative background.

An essential property of string theory is conformal invariance. Since it must hold when perturbing the string around any vacuum we demand the new coupling to chiral fields, living on the boundary, to preserve it.

Thus our proposal is to introduce the general reparameterization-invariant boundary interaction to chiral fields and derive all the divergences induced by this interaction. We shall need additional dimensional operators in the boundary action to renormalize divergences. From the condition of vanishing $`\beta `$ functions for $`U(x)`$ the equations of motion for chiral fields are obtained in the low-momentum (derivative) expansion. We consistently implement the unitarity constraint on the chiral fields and locality of the chiral Lagrangian and finally calculate the $`O(p^4)`$ terms of the Gasser and Leutwyler effective Lagrangian. A strikingly good correspondence with their phenomenological values is found.

2. Pion interaction to the QCD string and Diagrammar

The hadronic string in the conformal gauge is described by the following conformal field theory action which has four dimensional Euclidean space-time as target space

$$𝒲_{str}=\frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}d^{2+ϵ}\sigma \left(\frac{\phi }{\mu }\right)^ϵ_ix_\mu _ix_\mu ,$$
(1)
where for $`ϵ=0`$ one takes $`x_\mu =x_\mu (\tau ,\sigma )`$, $`\mathrm{}<\tau <\mathrm{},0<\sigma <\mathrm{}`$, $`i=\tau ,\sigma `$, $`\mu =1,\mathrm{},4`$. The conformal factor $`\phi (\tau ,\sigma )`$ is introduced to restore the conformal invariance in $`2+ϵ`$ dimensions. The Regge trajectory slope (related to the inverse string tension) is known to be universal $`\alpha ^{}0.9`$ GeV-2 .

We would like to couple in a chiral invariant manner the matrix in flavor space $`U(x)`$ containing the meson fields to the string degrees of freedom while preserving general covariance in the two dimensional coordinates and conformal invariance under local scale transformations of the two-dimensional metric tensor.

Since the string variable $`x`$ does not contain any flavor dependence, we introduce two dimensionless Grassmann variables (‘quarks’) living on the boundary of the string sheet: $`\psi _L(\tau ),\psi _R(\tau )`$. They transform in the fundamental representation of the light flavor group ($`SU(2)`$ in the present paper). A local hermitean action $`S_b=𝑑\tau L_f`$ is then introduced on the boundary $`\sigma =0`$ to describe the interaction with background chiral fields $`U(x(\tau ))=\mathrm{exp}(i\pi (x)/f_\pi )`$, where the normalization scale is set to $`f_\pi 93MeV`$, the weak pion decay constant.

The boundary Lagrangian is chosen to be reparameterization invariant and in its minimal form reads

$`L_f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}i(\overline{\psi }_LU(1z)\dot{\psi }_R\dot{\overline{\psi }_L}U(1+z)\psi _R`$ (2)
$`+\overline{\psi }_RU^+(1+z^{})\dot{\psi }_L\dot{\overline{\psi }_R}U^+(1z^{})\psi _L),`$
herein and further on a dot implies a $`\tau `$ derivative: $`\dot{\psi }d\psi /d\tau `$.

A further restriction is obtained by requiring $`CP`$ invariance,

$$UU^+,\psi _L\psi _R.$$
(3)
The above Lagrangian is $`CP`$ symmetric for $`z=z^{}=ia`$. The fulfillment of this symmetry happens to be crucial to preserve conformal symmetry in the presence of the added boundary interaction.

Now we expand the function $`U(x)`$ in powers of the string coordinate field $`x_\mu (\tau )=x_{0\mu }+\stackrel{~}{x}_\mu (\tau )`$ around a constant $`x_0`$,

$$U(x)=U(x_0)+\stackrel{~}{x}_\mu (\tau )_\mu U(x_0)+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{x}_\mu (\tau )\stackrel{~}{x}_\nu (\tau )_\mu _\nu U(x_0)+\mathrm{}.$$
(4)
and look for the potentially divergent one particle irreducible diagrams.The two-fermion, $`N`$-boson vertex operators are generated by the expansion (4), from the generating functional $`Z_b=\mathrm{exp}(iS_b)`$ and eq.(2). Each additional loop comes with a power of $`\alpha ^{}`$. One can find a resemblance to the familiar derivative expansion of chiral perturbation theory .

The free fermion propagator is

$$\psi _R(\tau )\overline{\psi }_L(\tau ^{})=\psi _L(\tau )\overline{\psi }_R(\tau ^{})^{}=U^1(x_0)\theta (\tau \tau ^{}),$$
(5)
if we impose $`CP`$ symmetry for unitary chiral fields $`U(x)`$.

The free boson propagator projected on the boundary is

$$x_\mu (\tau )x_\nu (\tau ^{})=\delta _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Delta }(\tau \tau ^{})=2\delta _{\mu \nu }\alpha ^{}\mathrm{ln}(|\tau \tau ^{}|\mu ).$$
(6)
The normalization of the string propagator is inferred  from the definition of the kernel of the N-point tachyon amplitude for the open string . In dimensional regularization one adopts $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)\alpha ^{}/ϵ`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(0)=0`$.

To implement the renormalization process we perform a loop (equivalent to a derivative) expansion, proceed to determine the counterterms required to make the theory finite and further on to impose a vanishing beta functional for the coupling $`U(x)`$ to implement the absence of conformal anomaly.

3. Renormalization at one and two loops

Using the above set of Feynman rules one arrives at the one-loop divergent part of the propagator,

$$\theta (AB)U^1\delta UU^1,\delta U\mathrm{\Delta }(0)\left[\frac{1}{2}_\mu ^2U\frac{3+z^2}{4}_\mu UU^1_\mu U\right].$$
(7)
This divergence is eliminated by introducing an appropriate counterterm $`UU+\delta U`$. Conformal symmetry is restored (the beta-function is zero) if the above contribution vanishes, $`\delta U=0`$.

Let us find out for which value of $`z`$ this variation of $`U`$ is compatible with its unitarity.

$$\delta (UU^+)=U\delta U^++\delta UU^+=0.$$
(8)
A simple calculation shows that this takes place for $`z=\pm i`$. The related local classical action which has $`\delta U=0`$ as equation of motion is

$$W^{(2)}=\frac{f_\pi ^2}{4}d^4x\text{tr}\left[_\mu U_\mu U^+\right],$$
(9)
i.e. the well known non-linear sigma model of pion interactions.

We have thus found the chiral action induced by the QCD string. It has all the required properties of locality, chiral symmetry and proper low momentum behavior (Adler zero) and describes massless pions. However $`f_\pi `$, the overall normalization scale, cannot be predicted from these arguments.

Before proceeding to a full two loop calculation we have to check whether the minimal Lagrangian (2) is sufficient to renormalize also the vertices containing the boson legs. It turns out that it is not.

To obtain the divergences for vertices with external boson lines we introduce an external background boson field $`\overline{x}_\mu `$ and split $`x_\mu =\overline{x}_\mu +\eta _\mu `$. The free propagator for the fluctuating field $`\eta _\mu `$ coincides with the one for $`x_\mu `$.

The total one-loop divergence in the vertex with two fermions and one boson line can be represented by the following vertex operator in the Lagrangian

$$\frac{i}{2}\left(\overline{\psi }_L\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}\dot{\psi }_R\dot{\overline{\psi }_L}\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}\psi _R\right)+\text{h.c.},\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1,2)}\overline{x}_\mu (\tau )(1z)\left[_\mu \left(\delta U\right)\varphi _\mu \right].$$
(10)
The terms proportional to derivatives of $`\delta U`$ are automatically eliminated by the renormalization of the one-loop propagator. But the part proportional to $`\varphi _\mu `$ remains and to absorb these divergences new counterterms are required. The latter ones can be parameterized with three bare constants $`g_1`$ , $`g_2`$ and $`g_3`$, which are real if the $`CP`$ symmetry for $`z=z^{}`$ holds

$`\mathrm{\Delta }L_{bare}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}(1z^2)\overline{\psi }_L((g_1zg_2)_\nu \dot{U}U^1_\nu U(g_1+zg_2)_\nu UU^1_\nu \dot{U}`$ (11)
$`+2zg_3_\nu UU^1\dot{U}U^1_\nu U)\psi _R+\text{h.c.}`$
Renormalization is accomplished by subtraction,

$$g_i=g_{i,r}\mathrm{\Delta }(0).$$
(12)
The constants $`g_{i,r}`$ are finite, but in principle scheme dependent. The counterterms are of higher dimensionality than the original Lagrangian (2) and the couplings $`g_i`$ are of dimension $`\alpha ^{}`$. Since (2) was the most general coupling permitted by the symmetries of the model, one concludes that conformal symmetry seems to be broken by these boundary couplings already at tree level. However in spite of the fact that the new couplings are dimensional, it turns out  that their contribution into the trace of the energy-momentum tensor vanishes once the requirements of unitarity of $`U`$ and $`CP`$ invariance are taken into account. Therefore conformal invariance is not broken at the order we are working.

On the other hand the appearance of new vertices changes the fermion propagator. One obtains from such terms the following contribution to the propagator

$`\theta (AB){\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\mathrm{\Delta }(0)(1z^2)U^1\{2(g_{1,r}z^2g_{2,r})_\rho UU^1_\mu _\rho UU^1_\mu U`$ (13)
$`(1+z)(g_{1,r}+zg_{2,r})_\rho UU^1_\mu UU^1_\rho _\mu U`$
$`(1z)(g_{1,r}zg_{2,r})_\rho _\mu UU^1_\rho UU^1_\mu U`$
$`+4z^2g_{3,r}_\rho UU^1_\mu UU^1_\rho UU^1_\mu U\}U^1`$
$``$ $`\theta (AB)\mathrm{\Delta }(0)U^1\delta ^{(4)}UU^1,`$
One should add this divergence to the one-loop result, thereby modifying the $`U`$ field renormalization and equations of motion

$$\overline{\delta }U=\mathrm{\Delta }(0)\left[\frac{1}{2}_\mu ^2U\frac{3+z^2}{4}_\mu UU^1_\mu U+\delta ^{(4)}U\right]=0.$$
(14)
This is one source of $`O(p^4)`$ terms and we shall see that there is another contribution at two loops.

As to other vertices it can be proved  that any diagram with an arbitrary number of external boson lines and two fermion lines, i.e. any vertex of those generated by the perturbative expansion of (2) is rendered finite by the previous counterterms. This completes the renormalization program at one loop.

There are 10 two-loop one-particle irreducible diagrams which are analytically calculated in . The divergences in the propagator consist of the double divergent part, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2(0)`$ and of the single divergent contributions, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)`$. The substantial part of these divergences is fully renormalized by performing the one-loop renormalization and taking into account the renormgroup evolution.

Some single-pole divergences remain however. Namely, there are divergences linear in $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)`$ which come from irreducible two-loop diagrams with maximal number of vertices. These divergences appear to be

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)U^1\delta _{2l}^{(4)}U^1`$ $``$ $`c\mathrm{\Delta }(0)[U^1_\rho UU^1_\mu UU^1_\mu UU^1_\rho UU^1`$ (15)
$`U^1_\rho UU^1_\mu UU^1_\rho UU^1_\mu UU^1].`$
with $`c=\alpha ^{}(1z^2)^2/8=\alpha ^{}/2`$ for $`z=\pm i`$. This term survives after adding all the counterterms. It must therefore modify the equation of motion (refeom4) at the next order in the $`\alpha ^{}`$ expansion, $`\delta ^{(4)}U\delta ^{(4)}U+\delta _{2l}^{(4)}`$. Its presence allows for non zero solutions for the coupling constants $`g_i`$ and therefore for nonzero values for the Gasser-Leutwyler $`O(p^4)`$ coefficients.

4. Local integrability of equations of motion

The equation of motion, $`\delta U=0`$, can be obtained from the dimension-two local action (9), involving a unitary matrix $`U(x)`$, only for $`z=\pm i`$. If the four-derivative part of equations of motion can be derived from dimension-four operators in a local effective Lagrangian then certain constraints are to be imposed on constants $`g_{i,r}`$.

Such a Lagrangian has only two terms compatible with the chiral symmetry,

$$^{(4)}=f_\pi ^2\text{tr}\left(K_1_\mu U_\rho U^+_\mu U_\rho U^++K_2_\mu U_\mu U^+_\rho U_\rho U^+\right).$$
(16)
Other terms containing $`_\mu ^2U`$ are reduced to the set (16) with the help of the dimension-two equations of motion.

Variation of the previous Lagrangian supposedly saturate the dimension-four component of the equations of motion. Therefrom we identify this parameterization of constants with the coupling constants arising from the equations of motion (14) supplemented with (15) and after applying the $`O(p^2)`$ equations of motion. Then one obtains the following set of coefficients for the various chiral field structures

$`2(2K_1+K_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}(1z^2)(1\pm z)(g_{1,r}\pm zg_{2,r});`$
$`4K_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(1z^2)(g_{1,r}+z^2g_{2,r});2[(1z^2)K_1+K_2]=c;`$
$`2z^2K_2`$ $`=`$ $`0;4[K_1+K_2]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(1z^2)z^2g_{3,r}+c,`$ (17)
For $`z^2=1`$ only one solution is possible,

$$K_2=0,K_1=\frac{1}{4}c=\frac{\alpha ^{}}{8};g_{1,r}=g_{2,r}=g_{3,r}=4c.$$
(18)
Thus, comparing eq.(16) with the usual parameterization of the Gasser and Leutwyler Lagrangian,

$$L_1=\frac{1}{2}L_2=\frac{1}{4}L_3=\frac{1}{2}K_1f_\pi ^2=\frac{f_\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}{16}.$$
(19)
For $`\alpha ^{}=0.9`$ GeV-2 and $`f_\pi 93`$ MeV it yields $`L_20.910^3`$ which is quite a satisfactory result.

The relation $`L_1=1/2L_2=1/4L_3`$ was established earlier in bosonization models  and in the chiral quark model by means of a derivative expansion of quark determinant. However at that time its possible connection with a string description of QCD was not recognized. The first attempt to derive the chiral coefficients from the Veneziano-type dual amplitude was undertaken in where a similar relation was found but with different numerical values for the $`L_i`$. However the specific choice of dual amplitude in  cannot be related to any known hadron string.

Another check comes from the compatibility of the unitarity of $`U`$ and the equations of motion at the two-loop level. It turns out that if one accepts arbitrary real coefficients in the set of dimension-four operators then the only solution compatible with the unitarity is given by the parameterization with constants $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$.

In our talk we have reported on a simplified model of the QCD string. Requiring of its conformal invariance around a chirally non-invariant vacuum leads to the Gasser and Leutwyler Lagrangian. However the bosonic string action used here does not prevent large Euclidean world sheets from crumpling . It does not also describe correctly the high-temperature behavior of large $`N`$ QCD . To correct it, a QCD induced string must be modified  including operators breaking manifestly conformal symmetry on the world-sheet for large strings. Nevertheless we are concerned here with the low-energy string properties and therefore do not expect that the strategy and technique to derive the chiral field action needs any significant changes to be adjusted to a modified QCD string action.

We have restricted ourselves here to the $`SU(2)`$ global flavor group. In this case only parity-even terms in the equations of motion can be revealed from the simple fermion Lagrangian (2) and to obtain the parity-odd WZW Lagrangian relevant for the case of three flavors one has to extend the boundary fermion action supplementing one-dimensional fermions with true spinor degrees of freedom.

We express our gratitude to the organizers of the International Workshop QUARKS 2002 in Novgorod for hospitality. This talk is supported by MCyT FPA2001-3598 and CIRIT 2001SGR-00065 and the European Networks EURODAPHNE and EUROGRID, as well as by Grant RFFI 01-02-17152, Russian Ministry of Education Grant E00-33-208 and by The Program Universities of Russia: Fundamental Investigations (Grant 992612). By this work A.A. and D.E. contribute to the fulfillment of Project INTAS 2000-587.


text:
# Muon catalysis of superheavy element production in nucleus-nucleus fusion reaction

## I Introduction

The synthesis of superheavy elements (SHEs) was and still is an outstanding research object. The production cross section of SHEs with $`Z112`$ is very low and close to the limit of current experimental possibility \[1-4\]. Due to this it is of interest to find new types of reactions, which can induce fusion of two heavy nucleus. We show in the next section that muon bound with light nucleus induce SHE formation during nucleus-nucleus fusion reactions.

It is easy to understand qualitatively a influence of muon $`\mu ^{}`$ on the SHE fusion process, if we recollect that the wave function of $`1s`$ state of $`\mu ^{}`$ in a very heavy nucleus is located inside the nucleus kim . Therefore, negatively-charged muon inside heavy nucleus should effectively reduce the Coulomb repulsion between protons. Due to this the forces, inducing fission of compound nucleus and preventing fusion of two nuclei should decrease. Consequently, the SHE formation probability should rise due to $`\mu ^{}`$.

## II Catalysis of the SHE synthesis by muon

The process of SHE formation is subdivided into three steps dh ; d\_she . 1. The capture of two nuclei in an entrance-channel potential well and formation of a common nuclear system of two touching nuclei. 2. The formation of a spherical or nearly spherical compound nucleus during shape evolution from the common nuclear system of two touching nuclei to a compound nucleus. 3. The surviving of the excited compound nucleus due to evaporation of neutrons and $`\gamma `$-ray emission in competition with fission. The capture process depends on both the barrier thickness and pocket shape of entrance-channel potential between nuclei dn . The shape evolution step is determined by potential-energy landscape between the touching configuration of two colliding nuclei and the compound nucleus dh ; d\_she . Decay properties of the compound nucleus drastically depend on the fission barrier height dh ; d\_she . Therefore, enhancement of the SHE production in fusion reaction may be achieved by processes which (1) make capture pocket dipper and barrier of entrance-channel potential thinner, (2) increase the slope or reduce both barrier height and thickness of the potential-energy landscape between touching configuration of two colliding nuclei and compound nucleus, (3) increase the fission barrier height. Below we show that these three conditions can be met in a reaction between a light nucleus with captured $`\mu ^{}`$-meson $`L_\mu `$ and a heavy nucleus $`T`$.

The potential energy of $`L_\mu `$+$`T`$ system before touching can be approximated as

$$E_{L_\mu T}(R)=B_L+B_T+B_{L\mu }+V_{LT}(R)+V_{T\mu }(R),$$
(1)
where $`B_L`$ and $`B_T`$ are the binding energies of light $`L`$ and heavy $`T`$ nuclei, respectively, $`B_{L\mu }`$ is the binding energy of muon in the light nucleus $`L`$, $`V_{LT}(R)`$ is the interaction potential between the light and heavy nuclei related to Coulomb and nuclear forces at distance $`R`$ between their mass centers dn ; d\_pot , and $`V_{T\mu }(R)=e^2Z_T/R`$ is the Coulomb interaction between $`Z_T`$ protons in the heavy nucleus and the muon.

The potential energy of the compound nucleus with bound $`\mu ^{}`$ is connected with the binding energy of the compound nucleus $`B_{CN}`$ and with that of muon in the compound nucleus $`B_{CN\mu }`$, i.e.,

$$E_{CN}=B_{CN}+B_{CN\mu }.$$
(2)
The potential energy evaluated relatively to the ground state of compound nucleus with bound $`\mu ^{}`$, which formed during $`L_\mu `$+$`T`$ fusion reaction, is related to difference

$$\delta (R)=E_{L_\mu T}(R)E_{CN}.$$
(3)
It is useful to split $`\delta (R)`$ into contributions of pure nuclear $`\delta _N(R)`$ and muon-nuclear $`\delta _{N\mu }(R)`$ subsystems

$$\delta (R)=\delta _N(R)+\delta _{N\mu }(R),$$
(4)
where

$`\delta _N(R)=B_L+B_TB_{CN}+V_{LT}(R),`$ (5)
$`\delta _{N\mu }(R)=B_{L\mu }B_{CN\mu }+V_{T\mu }(R).`$ (6)
We see in (3)-(6) that the Coulomb interaction between muon and protons modifies the potential-energy landscape of fusing system. (Note that realistic landscape of potential-energy surface of fusing system depends on a great number of various collective coordinates. However, in (1),(3)-(6) we take into account only the most important collective coordinate, which describes the distance between mass centers of separated nuclei or elongation of fusing system upon the capture step.) At distance $`R_{CN}`$, which corresponds to the mass distance between left and right parts of compound nucleus, $`\delta _N(R_{CN})=\delta _{N\mu }(R_{CN})=0`$. If $`\delta _{N\mu }(R)`$ continuously decreases with reducing of $`R`$, then muon induces the SHE formation due to three effects. (1) A more dipper capture pocket is formed as a result of such $`R`$ dependence of $`\delta _{N\mu }(R)`$. Therefore, the capture state formation probability increases. (2) The potential-energy landscape of the muon-nuclear system becomes more favorable for shape evolution from captured states of two touching nuclei to the compound nucleus. (3) The muon-nuclear system exhibits a larger fission barrier height as compared to pure nuclear system, see also mu\_fis  and papers cited therein. Consequently, the fission or quasi-fission probability of muon-nuclear system get reducing as compared to the pure nuclear system.

In Table 1 we evaluate $`\delta _{N\mu }(R)`$ around barrier for several colliding systems, which can be used to the SHE production. The muon binding energies in muonic atoms is obtained by using Pustovalov parametrization kim ; mu\_b\_e  with nucleus charge radius $`R=1.2A^{1/3}`$ fm, where $`A`$ is the number of nucleons in the nucleus. The entrance-channel fusion barriers $`B_{gs}`$ and $`B_{gs\mu }`$, depths of entrance-channel capture potential well $`D_{pw}`$ and $`D_{pw\mu }`$ and bottom of capture pocket $`B_{cp}`$ and $`B_{cp\mu }`$ for the pure nuclear $`B_{gs}`$ and muon-nuclear systems, respectively, are given in Table 1. Quantities $`B_{gs}`$, $`B_{gs\mu }`$, $`B_{cp}`$ and $`B_{cp\mu }`$ are evaluated relatively to the compound-nucleus ground state. The parameters of entrance-channel potential wells for pure nuclear systems $`B_{gs}`$, $`D_{pw}`$ and $`B_{cp}`$, presented in Table 1, are taken from dn .

The muon induce fusion reactions, because as we see in Table 1 $`\mu ^{}`$ provides (1) an the increase of the entrance-channel pocket depth $`D_{pw\mu }>D_{pw}`$, (2) a change of the potential energy landscape from the touching configuration of two colliding nuclei to the spherical compound nucleus due to $`B_{gs\mu }>B_{gs}`$ and $`B_{cp\mu }>B_{cp}`$ and (3) an increase of the fission barrier height. Reasons for increasing both the fission barrier height and $`B_{gs\mu }`$ are similar, but for deformed nuclear shape, like in the case of fission barrier shape, the amplitude of fission barrier increase is smaller, then that for fusion barrier height. Therefore, all sequential stages of SHE formation during fusion reaction are induced by muon.

Relative influence of muon on the capture well and potential-energy landscape between the touching configuration of two colliding nuclei to the compound nucleus shape is stronger for the case of system with shallow pocket, as for reaction 86Kr$`{}_{\mu }{}^{}+_{}^{208}`$Pb$``$ $`{}_{}{}^{294}118`$, see in Table 1. Therefore muon catalysis may give possibility to use successfully reactions with shallow capture pocket.

The height of fusion barrier for muon-nuclear system, evaluated relatively the ground state of colliding system $`L_\mu +T`$, is lower then the one for pure nuclear system $`L+T`$ on $`Z_Te^2/R_b`$, where $`R_b`$ is the distance between nuclei at fusion barrier. It is necessary to take into account this shift at the choice of collision energy for $`L_\mu +T`$ system.

## III Conclusions

$`\mu ^{}`$ is a convenient particle for inducing compound-nucleus formation in reactions $`L_\mu +TSHE+xn+e^{}+\overline{\nu }_e+\nu _\mu `$, because its lifetime ($`2.2\times 10^6`$s pp ) is sufficient for making $`1s`$ bound state with a light projectile nucleus just before the collision with a target and induce fusion reaction. The process of SHE formation during nucleus-nucleus collision is fast relatively typical $`\mu ^{}`$ dynamic time. Therefore there is high probability of population of $`1s`$ bound state of $`\mu ^{}`$ in SHE during nuclear reaction time. Due to this we can use estimates for $`\delta _{N\mu }`$, presented in Table 1. The compound nucleus relatively rarely excited during the decay $`\mu ^{}`$ ($`\mu ^{}e^{}+\overline{\nu }_e+\nu _\mu `$ pp ). It is possible to make beam of muonic projectile $`L_\mu `$ by merging beams of strongly ionized projectile nucleus $`L`$ and of $`\mu ^{}`$ at the same velocities before the target. At such conditions nuclei should capture $`\mu ^{}`$ with high probability and $`\mu ^{}`$ should quickly populates $`1s`$ state.

Note that muon catalysis of thermonuclear reactions is also related to effective reduction of the Coulomb repulsion between protons and is well studied both theoretically and experimentally (see kim  and papers cited therein). Muon catalysis of thermonuclear reactions between two hydrogen isotopes is mainly related to reduction of both fusion barrier heights and thickness. In contrast to this muon catalysis of SHE production is connected with more complex processes as reduction of fusion barrier thickness, modification of capture pocket, variation of potential-energy landscape between capture and compound-nucleus shapes and rising of fission barrier height. The reduction of fusion barrier height, evaluated relatively to the ground state of two colliding nuclei, is also taken place in SHE production reactions with muonic projectiles.

Here we have briefly discuss main features of the muon catalysis of SHE production. Detail theoretical and experimental studies of the muon catalysis of heavy nucleus formation are needed.

## Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank W. Nörenberg and K.A. Bugaev for useful discussions and Yu.B. Ivanov for help. Author gratefully acknowledges support from GSI.


text:
# Brane universes tested by supernovae

## Abstract

We discuss observational constrains coming from supernovae Ia Perlmutter99  imposed on the behaviour of the Randall-Sundrum models. In the case of dust matter on the brane, the difference between the best-fit general relativistic model with a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term Perlmutter99  and the best-fit brane models becomes detectable for redshifts $`z>0.6`$. It is interesting that brane models predict brighter galaxies for such redshifts which is in agreement with the measurement of the $`z=1.7`$ supernova Riess01  and with the New Data from the High Z Supernovae Search Team schmit02 . We also demonstrate that the fit to supernovae data can also be obtained, if we admit the ”super-negative” dark energy $`p=(4/3)\varrho `$ on the brane, where the dark energy in a way mimics the influence of the cosmological constant. It also appears that the dark energy enlarges the age of the universe which is demanded in cosmology. Finally, we propose to check for dark radiation and brane tension by the application of the angular diameter of galaxies minimum value test.

The idea of brane universes has originated from Hořava and Witten hw  followed by Randall and Sundrum rs1+2 . Brane models admit new parameters which are not present in standard cosmology (brane tension $`\lambda `$ and dark radiation $`𝒰`$). From the astronomical observations of supernovae Ia Perlmutter99 ; Riess98  one knows that the universe is now accelerating and the best-fit model is for the 4-dimensional cosmological constant density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)},0}=0.72`$ and for the dust density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}=0.28`$ (index ”0” refers to the present moment of time). In other words, only the exotic (negative pressure) matter in standard cosmology can lead to this global effect. On the other hand, in brane models the $`\varrho ^2`$ quadratic contribution in the energy density even for a small negative pressure, contributes effectively as the positive pressure, and makes brane models less accelerating. In this paper we argue that in order to avoid this problem one requires much stronger negative pressure $`p<\varrho `$ matter to be present on the brane (cf. Ref. darkenergy ) unless the new HZT data shows the $`z>1`$ supernovae are brighter than expected Riess01 ; schmit02 .

In Ref. Szydlo02  we gave the formalism to express dynamical equations in terms of dimensionless observational density parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Following Refs. Dabrowski96 ; AJI+II ; AJIII  we introduce the notation useful for this purpose. In this notation the Friedmann equation for brane universes takes the form

$$\frac{1}{a^2}\left(\frac{da}{dt}\right)^2=\frac{C_{GR}}{a^{3\gamma }}+\frac{C_\lambda }{a^{6\gamma }}\frac{k}{a^2}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)}}{3}+\frac{C_𝒰}{a^4},$$
(1)
where $`a(t)`$ is the scale factor, $`k=0,\pm 1`$ the curvature index, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)}`$ the 4-dimensional cosmological contant, and $`\gamma `$ the barotropic index ($`p=(\gamma 1)\varrho `$, $`p`$ \- the pressure, $`\varrho `$ \- the energy density). In Eq. (1) we have defined the appropriate constants ($`\kappa _{(4)}^2=8\pi G`$) $`C_{GR}=(1/3)\kappa _{(4)}^2a^{3\gamma }\varrho `$, $`C_\lambda =1/6\lambda \kappa _{(4)}^2a^{6\gamma }\varrho ^2`$, $`C_𝒰=2/\kappa _{(4)}^2\lambda a^4𝒰`$ , and $`C_{GR}`$ is a of general relativistic nature, $`C_\lambda `$ comes as contribution from brane tension $`\lambda `$, and $`C_𝒰`$ as a contribution from dark radiation. Though in Refs. sopuerta ; Szydlo02  the Eq. (1) was studied using qualitative methods we just mention here that the cases $`\gamma =0`$ (cosmological constant), $`\gamma =1/3`$ (domain walls) and $`\gamma =2/3`$ (cosmic strings) can be exactly integrable in terms of elementary Dabreg02  or elliptic Dabrowski96  functions. For other values of $`\gamma =4/3;1;2`$, the terms of the type $`1/a^8`$ and $`1/a^{12}`$ appear, and the integration involves hyperelliptic functions. In particular, oscillating non-singular solutions appear for dark energy $`\gamma =1/3`$ Dabreg02 .

In order to study observational tests we now define dimensionless observational density parameters AJI+II ; AJIII

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{GR}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{(4)}^2}{3H^2}}\varrho ,\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda ={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{(4)}^2}{6H^2\lambda }}\varrho ^2,\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒰={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\kappa _{(4)}^2H^2\lambda }}𝒰,`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{H^2a^2}},\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)}}{3H^2}},`$ (2)
where the Hubble parameter $`H=\dot{a}/a`$, and the deceleration parameter $`q=\ddot{a}a/\dot{a}^2`$ , so that the Friedmann equation (1) can be written down in the form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{GR}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda +\mathrm{\Omega }_k+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒰=1.$$
(3)
Note that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒰`$ in (Brane universes tested by supernovae), despite standard radiation term, can either be positive or negative. Using (Brane universes tested by supernovae), the equation (1) can now be rewritten as (compare Eq.(10) of AJI+II )

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)}}=\frac{3\gamma 2}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_{GR}+(3\gamma 1)\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda +\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒰q.$$
(4)
It is also useful to express the curvature of spatial sections by observational parameters by using (3) and (4)

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_k=\frac{3\gamma }{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_{GR}+3\gamma \mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda +2\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒰q1.$$
(5)
These relations (4) and (5) allow to write down an explicit redshift-magnitude relation (a generalized Hubble law) for the brane models to study their compatibility with astronomical data which is the subject of the present paper. Obviously, the luminosity of galaxies depends on the present densities of the different components of matter content $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ given by (Brane universes tested by supernovae) and their equations of state reflected by the value of the barotropic index $`\gamma `$.

Let us consider an observer located at $`r=0`$ at the moment $`t=t_0`$ which receives a light ray emitted at $`t=t_1`$ from the source of the absolute luminosity $`L`$ located at the radial distance $`r_1`$. The redshift z of the source is related to the scale factor $`a(t)`$ at the two moments of evolution by $`1+z=a(t_0)/a(t_1)a_0/a`$. If the apparent luminosity of the source as measured by the observer is $`l`$, then the luminosity distance $`d_L`$ of the source is defined by the relation

$$l=\frac{L}{4\pi d_L^2},$$
(6)
where

$$d_L=(1+z)a_0r_1\frac{𝒟_L(z)}{H_0},$$
(7)
and $`𝒟_L`$ is the dimensionless luminosity distance. The observed and absolute luminosities are defined in terms of K-corrected apparent and absolute magnitudes $`m`$ and $`M`$. When written in terms of $`m`$ and $`M`$, Eq.(6) yields

$$m(z)=+5\mathrm{log}_{10}[𝒟_L(z)],$$
(8)
where $`=M5\mathrm{log}_{10}H_0+25`$. For homogeneous and isotropic Friedmann models one gets AJIII

$$𝒟_L(z)=\frac{\left(1+z\right)}{\sqrt{𝒦}}S(\chi )$$
(9)
where $`S(\chi )=\mathrm{sin}\chi `$ for $`𝒦=\mathrm{\Omega }_{k,0}`$; $`S(\chi )=\chi `$ for $`𝒦=1`$; $`S(\chi )=\mathrm{sinh}`$ for $`𝒦=\mathrm{\Omega }_{k,0}`$. From the Friedmann equation (1) and the form of the FRW metric we have

$`\chi (z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_0H_0}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{z}{}}}\{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\lambda ,0}(1+z^{^{}})^{6\gamma }+\mathrm{\Omega }_{GR,0}(1+z^{^{}})^{3\gamma }`$
$`+\mathrm{\Omega }_{k,0}(1+z^{^{}})^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝒰,0}(1+z^{^{}})^4+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4),0}}\}^{1/2}dz^{^{}}.`$ (10)
Firstly, we will study the case $`\gamma =1`$ (dust on the brane; we will label $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{GR}`$ by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$). The case $`\gamma =2/3`$ (cosmic strings on the brane) has recently been studied in Singh1/3  where, in fact, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒰`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda `$ were neglected and where the term $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}(1+z^{^{}})^3`$ was introduced in order to admit dust matter on the brane. This case was already presented in a different framework in Ref. AJIII . Secondly, we will study the case $`\gamma =1/3`$ (dark energy on the brane darkenergy  \- we will label this type of matter with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_d`$ instead of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{GR}`$).

Now we test brane models using the sample of Ref. Perlmutter99 . In order to avoid any possible selection effects, we use the full sample (usually, one excludes two data points as outliers and another two points, presumably reddened, from the full sample of 60 supernovae). It means that our basic sample is the sample A of Ref. Perlmutter99 . We test our model using the likelihood method Riess98 .

First of all, we estimated the value of $``$ from the sample of 18 low redshift supernovae, also testing our result by the full sample of 60 supernovae taking $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda =0`$. We obtained $`=3.39`$ which is in a very good agreement with the results of Refs. Efstathiou99 ; Vishwakarma . Also, we obtained for the model of Ref. Perlmutter99  same value of $`\chi ^2=96.5`$.

Neglecting dark radiation $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝒰,0}=0`$ we formally got the best fit ($`\chi ^2=94.6`$) for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{k,0}=0.9`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}=0.59`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\lambda ,0}=0.04`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda },0}=1.27`$, which is completely unrealistic, because $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}=0.59`$ is too large in comparison with the observational limit (also $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{k,0}=0.9`$ is not very realistic from the observational point of view).

However, we should note that, in fact, we have an ellipsoid of admissible models in a 3D parameter space $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\lambda ,0}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)},0}`$ at hand. Then, we have more freedom than in the case of analysis of Ref. Perlmutter99  where they had only an ellipse in a 2D parameter space $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)},0}`$. For a flat model $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{k,0}=0`$ we obtain ”corridors” of possible models (1). Formally, the best-fit flat model is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}=0.01`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\lambda ,0}=0.09`$ $`\chi ^2=94.7`$ which is again unrealistic. In the realistic case we obtain for a flat model $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}=0.25`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\lambda ,0}=0.02`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)},0}=0.73`$ with $`\chi ^2=95.6`$. One should note that all realistic brane models require also the presence of the positive 4-dimensional cosmological constant ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)},0}0.7`$).

There is a question if we could fit a model with negative $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\lambda ,0}`$? For instance, in a flat Universe we could fit the model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}=0.35`$ (too much in comparison with the observational limits on the mass of the cluster of galaxies) $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\lambda ,0}=0.01`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda },0}=0.66`$ ($`\chi ^2=96.3`$). However, it is not possible to fit any models with more negative values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\lambda ,0}`$, regardless the Universe is flat or not.

In Fig.1 we present plots of redshift-magnitude relations against the supernovae data. One can observe that in both cases (best-fit and best-fit flat models) the difference between brane models and a pure flat model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)},0}=0`$ is largest for $`0.6<z<0.7`$ while it significantly decreases for the higher redshifts. It gives us a possibility to discriminate between general relativistic models and brane models when the data from high-redshift supernovae $`z>1`$ is available.On the other hand, the difference between the best-fit general relativistic model with a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term Perlmutter99  and the best-fit brane models becomes detectable for redshifts $`z>0.6`$. It is interesting that brane models predict brighter galaxies for such redshifts which is in agreement with the measurement of the $`z=1.7`$ supernova Riess01  and with the New Data from the High Z Supernovae Search Team schmit02 . In other words, if the farthest $`z>1`$ supernovae were brighter, the brane universes would be the reality.

One should note that we made our analysis without excluding any supernovae from the sample. However, from the formal point of view, when we analyze the full sample A, all models should be rejected even on the confidence level of 0.99. One of the reason could be the fact that the assumed error bars are too small. However, in majority of papers another solution is suggested. Usually, one excludes 2 supernovae as outliers, and 2 as reddened from the sample of 42 high-redshift supernovae and eventually 2 outliers from the sample of 18 low-redshift supernovae. We decided to use the full sample A as our basic sample because a rejection of any supernovae from the sample can be the source of lack of control for selection effects. However, for completness, we also made our analysis using samples B and C. It emerged that it does not significantly changes our results, though, increases quality of the fit. Formally, the best fit for the sample B is (56 supernovae) ($`\chi ^2=57.3`$): $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{k,0}=0.1`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}=0.17`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\lambda ,0}=0.06`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)},0}=0.87`$. For the flat model we obtain ($`\chi ^2=57.3`$): $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}=0.12`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\lambda ,0}=0.06`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)},0}=0.82`$, while for a ”realistic” model ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}=0.25`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\lambda ,0}=0.02`$) $`\chi ^2=57.6`$. Formally, the best fit for the sample C (54 supernovae) ($`\chi ^2=53.5`$) gives $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{k,0}=0`$ (flat) $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}=0.21`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\lambda ,0}=0.04`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)},0}=0.75`$, while for ”realistic” model ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}=0.27`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\lambda ,0}=0.02`$) $`\chi ^2=53.6`$.

One should note that we have also separately estimated the value of $``$ for the sample B and C. We obtained $`=3.42`$ which is again in a good agreement with the results of Ref. Efstathiou99  (for a ”combined” sample one obtains $`=3.45`$). However, if we use this value in our analysis it does not change significantly the results ($`\chi ^2`$ does not change more than $`1`$ which is a marginal effect for $`\chi ^2`$ distribution for 53 or 55 degrees of freedom).

In Fig. 2 we present a redshift-magnitude relation (Brane universes tested by supernovae) for brane models with dark energy ($`\gamma =1/3`$). Note that the theoretical curves are very close to that of Perlmutter99  which means that the dark energy cancels the positive-pressure influence of the $`\varrho ^2`$ term and can simulate the negative-pressure influence of the cosmological constant to cause cosmic acceleration. From the formal point of view the best fit is ($`\chi ^2=95.4`$) for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{k,0}=0.2`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{d,0}=0.7`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\lambda ,0}=0.1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒰=0.2`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)},0}=0`$ which means that the cosmological constant must necessarily vanish. From this result we can conclude that the dark energy $`p=(4/3)\varrho `$ can mimic the contribution from the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)}`$-term in standard models.

For the best-fit flat model ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{k,0}=0`$) we have ($`\chi ^2=95.4`$): $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{d,0}=0.2`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\lambda ,0}=0.1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒰=0.2`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)},0}=0.7`$.

Now let us briefly discuss the effect of brane parameters and dark energy onto the age of the universe which according to (1) is given by

$`H_0t_0={\displaystyle _0^1}\{\mathrm{\Omega }_{GR,0}x^{3\gamma +4}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\lambda ,0}x^{6\gamma +4}`$
$`+\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝒰,0}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{k,0}x^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)},0}x^4\}^{\frac{1}{2}}xdx,`$ (11)
where $`x=a/a_0`$. We made a plot for the dust $`\gamma =1`$ on the brane in Fig.3 which shows that the effect of quadratic in energy density term represented by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda `$ is to lower significantly the age of the universe. The problem can be avoided, if we accept the dark energy $`\gamma =1/3`$ darkenergy  on the brane, since the dark energy has a very strong influence to increase the age Dabreg02 . In Fig. 4 we made a plot for this case which shows how the dark energy enlarges the age.

Finally, let us study the angular diameter test for brane universes. The angular diameter of a galaxy is defined by

$$\theta =\frac{d(z+1)^2}{d_L},$$
(12)
where $`d`$ is a linear size of the galaxy. In a flat dust ($`\gamma =1`$) universe $`\theta `$ has the minimum value $`z_{min}=5/4`$. It is particularly interesting to notice that for flat brane models with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda 0,\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)}}0`$ the dark radiation can enlarge the minimum value of $`\theta `$ while the ordinary radiation lowers this value AJI+II , i.e.,

$$z_{min}=\frac{1}{2𝒰}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒰1+\sqrt{3\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒰+1}\right)\frac{5}{4}$$
(13)
for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒰0`$. This is a general influence of negative dark radiation onto the angular diameter size for brane models. One can also notice that there exists a restriction on the amount of negative dark radiation coming from (13) $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒰1/3)`$ which can serve as a test for the admissible value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒰=1/3`$ ($`z_{min}=2`$) in order to observe the minimum.

More detailed analytic and numerical studies Dabreg02  show that the increase of $`z_{min}`$ is even more sensitive to negative values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda `$ ($`\varrho ^2`$ contribution). Similarly as for the dark radiation $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒰`$, the minimum disappears for some large negative $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda `$. Positive $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒰`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda `$ make $`z_{min}`$ decrease. In Fig. 5 we present a plot from which one can see the sensitivity of $`z_{min}`$ to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒰`$. We have also checked Dabreg02  that the dark energy $`\mathrm{\Omega }_d`$ has very little influence onto the value of $`z_{min}`$.