text:
# Non-Markovian collision integral in Fermi-systems

## 1 Introduction

The dissipative properties of many-body systems, specifically transport coefficients for viscosity as well as the damping of the collective excitations, are strongly governed by the interparticle collisions. In semi-classical approach these collisions are described by collision integral in kinetic equation. It allows us to involve a viscosity into motion equations similar to the phenomenological Navier-Stockes ones -. An advantage of such approach is a conceptual clarity and a possibility to use many results from a general macroscopic physics.

For correct description of the collision relaxation rates in systems with a fast variation of the mean field, it is necessary to incorporate the memory (retardation) effects -. We investigate the form of the non-Markovian linearized collision integral with retardation using the Kadanoff-Baym equations for Green functions. This method enables immediately to take into account self-consistent mean field.

The non-Markovian collision term of the semiclassical linearized Vlasov-Landau equation was obtained with the use of the Kadanoff-Baym equations for the Green functions in Refs. . The kinetic equation was considered in one-component Fermi liquid with the use of the linear approximation on deviation from overall equilibrium with a nonequilibrium distribution function $`\delta f=f(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{r},t)\overline{f}(\overline{ϵ})\mathrm{exp}(i\omega t)`$, where $`f(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ is an exact distribution function and $`\overline{f}`$ is an equilibrium distribution function at equilibrium single-particle energy $`\overline{ϵ}`$. An expression for linearized collision integral was obtained in the Born approximation on two-body collisions in the following general form:

$$J(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{r},t)=J^{(1)}(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{r},t)+J^{(2)}(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{r},t),$$
(1)
where the first component corresponds to variation of the distribution function and second one is connected with variation $`\delta U=ϵ(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{r},t)\overline{ϵ}`$ of mean field with $`ϵ(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ for actual single-particle energy.

One can see that this relationship does not agree with general form of the linearized Landau-Vlasov equation in Fermi liquid in the limiting case of the states with week time-dependence of nonequilibrium component of distribution function, when $`\delta f/t0`$. Indeed, the linearized Landau-Vlasov equation in quasi-homogeneous systems can be presented in the following form:

$$\frac{\delta f}{t}+\frac{p}{m}(\stackrel{}{\widehat{p}}\frac{}{\stackrel{}{r}})\delta \overline{f}=J,$$
(2)
where $`\delta \overline{f}`$ is a linear deviation of the exact distribution function $`f(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ from the distribution function of the equilibrium shape $`\overline{f}(ϵ)`$ evaluated with actual single-particle energy $`ϵ=\overline{ϵ}+\delta U`$,

$$\delta \overline{f}=\delta f\frac{d\overline{f}}{d\overline{ϵ}}\delta U=\delta f\overline{f}(ϵ).$$
(3)
The derivative $`\delta f/t`$ can be omitted in Eq. (2) for slightly time-dependent states and the collision integral should be a functional, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, of the $`\delta \overline{f}`$,

$$J=\mathrm{\Psi }(\delta \overline{f})\frac{p}{m}(\stackrel{}{\widehat{p}}\frac{}{\stackrel{}{r}})\delta \overline{f},$$
(4)
in order to the Landau-Vlasov equation would be fulfilled in this case. The relationships (1) and (4) are generally in contradictions and derivation of the form of non-Markovian collision integral from Refs.  can be revised.

It was pointed in Refs.  that collisional integrals of the type (4), $`JJ(\delta \overline{f})`$, are general form of the collision integrals between quasiparticles in Fermi liquid without retardation and they lead to a local equilibrium state described by distribution function $`f_{l.e.}`$ = $`\overline{f}(ϵ=\overline{ϵ}+\delta U)`$. Due to this we use in the following this terminology.

In this contribution an expression for non-Markovian collision integral of the linearized Vlasov-Landau transport equation from Refs.  is modified in Sect. 2 for the case of slightly time-dependent states,i.e. in a form which allows for reaching the local equilibrium in system.

In Sect.3 calculations of the relaxation times and damping width of the collective vibration in nuclear matter with the use collision integral with retardation effect are presented.

## 2 Non-Markovian linearized collision integral within semiclassical approach

In order to obtain linearized Vlasov-Landau equation with collision integral we use the mixed $`\{\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{r}\}`$ Weyl-Wigner representation for single-particle Green functions (correlation functions) $`G^>(1,1^{})`$, $`G^<(1,1^{})`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}f(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{r},t)g^<(t,t;\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{r})=𝑑\stackrel{}{r}^{^{}}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{r}^{^{}})g^<(t,t;\stackrel{}{r}+\frac{\stackrel{}{r}^{^{}}}{2},\stackrel{}{r}\frac{\stackrel{}{r}^{^{}}}{2});\hfill \\ \stackrel{}{r}^{^{}}=\stackrel{}{r_1}\stackrel{}{r}_1^{},\stackrel{}{r}=\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{}{r}_1\stackrel{}{r}_1^{}),\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
where $`f(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ is one-body distribution function and Green functions are determined by

$$\begin{array}{c}G^>(1,1^{})=i\mathrm{\Psi }(1)\mathrm{\Psi }^+(1^{}),t_1>t_1^{^{}},\hfill \\ G^<(1,1^{})=i\mathrm{\Psi }^+(1^{})\mathrm{\Psi }(1),t_1<t_1^{^{}}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
Here, $`\mathrm{\Psi }^+(1)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }(1)`$ are the operators of creation and annihilation of a fermion; the symbol $`1`$ includes both space and time variables, namely, $`1\{\stackrel{}{r}_1,t\}`$ (we omit isotopic and spin variables); and the expectation values in Eq.(6) are calculated for the ground state or for the ensemble of initial states if a temperature of system is not zero.

The Green functions $`G^>(1,1^{^{}})`$ and $`G^<(1,1^{^{}})`$ satisfy the Kadanoff-Baym equation

$$\begin{array}{c}\left[i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t_1}+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}_1^2U(1)\right]G^{><}(1,1^{^{}})=I_1^{><}(1,1^{^{}})I_2^{><}(1,1^{^{}}),\hfill \\ \left[i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t_1^{^{}}}+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}_1^{^{}}^2U(1^{^{}})\right]G^{><}(1,1^{^{}})=J_1^{><}(1,1^{^{}})J_2^{><}(1,1^{^{}}),\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
where the single-particle potentials $`U(1)`$, $`U(1^{^{}})`$ are determined by the relations

$$\begin{array}{c}U(1)G^{><}(1,1^{^{}})=𝑑\stackrel{}{r}_2\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(\stackrel{}{r}_1,\stackrel{}{r}_2,t_1)G^{><}(\stackrel{}{r}_2,t_1;1^{}),\hfill \\ U(1^{})G^{><}(1,1^{})=𝑑\stackrel{}{r}_2G^{><}(1;\stackrel{}{r}_2,t_1^{})\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(\stackrel{}{r}_2,\stackrel{}{r}_1^{},t_1^{})\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
with

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \mathrm{\Sigma }_0(\stackrel{}{r}_1,\stackrel{}{r}_2,t)& =& i\delta (\stackrel{}{r}_1\stackrel{}{r}_2)𝑑\stackrel{}{r}v(|\stackrel{}{r}_1\stackrel{}{r}|)G^<(\stackrel{}{r},t_1;\stackrel{}{r},t_1)\hfill \\ & & +iv(|\stackrel{}{r}_1\stackrel{}{r}_2|)G^<(\stackrel{}{r}_1,t_1;\stackrel{}{r}_2,t_1),\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
and $`v(|\stackrel{}{r}_1\stackrel{}{r}_2|)`$ for two body potential.

The functions $`I_{1,2}^{><}`$ and $`J_{1,2}^{><}`$ are correlation integrals of the form

$$\begin{array}{c}I_1^{><}(1,1^{^{}})=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}_{t_0}^{t_1}𝑑t_2\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }^>(1,2)\mathrm{\Sigma }^<(1,2)\right]G^{><}(2,1^{^{}}),\hfill \\ I_2^{><}(1,1^{^{}})=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}_{t_0}^{t_1^{^{}}}𝑑t_2\mathrm{\Sigma }^{><}(1,2)\left[G^>(2,1^{^{}})G^<(2,1^{^{}})\right],\hfill \\ J_1^{><}(1,1^{^{}})=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}_{t_0}^{t_1}𝑑t_2\left[G^>(1,2)G^<(1,2)\right]\mathrm{\Sigma }^{><}(2,1^{^{}}),\hfill \\ J_2^{><}(1,1^{^{}})=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}_{t_0}^{t_1^{^{}}}𝑑t_2G^{><}(1,2)\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }^>(2,1^{^{}})\mathrm{\Sigma }^<(2,1^{^{}})\right].\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
These correlation integrals have the general form with allowance for retardation effect. It is assumed as usually that interaction between particles start at the time $`t_0=\mathrm{}`$.

In order to obtain the Landau-Vlasov equation the following suggestions are adopted : A) Born approximation for two-body scattering; B) the time variation of the nonequilibrium distribution function $`\delta f\mathrm{exp}(i\omega t)`$ is taken periodic one with real frequency during all interval of the time changing ($`\mathrm{}t^{}t`$); C) linear approximation on deviation of one-body Green functions from their equilibrium values are used; D) Fermi system is considered as quasi-homogeneous one in coordinate space.

The linearized Vlasov-Landau equation has the form (2) and can be presented as

$$\frac{d}{dt}f(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{r},t)+\{\epsilon ,f\}=J(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{r},t).$$
(11)
Here,

$$\{\epsilon ,f\}\frac{}{\stackrel{}{p}}\epsilon \frac{}{\stackrel{}{r}}f\frac{}{\stackrel{}{r}}\epsilon \frac{}{\stackrel{}{p}}f$$

are the Poisson brackets and

$$ϵ(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{r},t)=\frac{p^2}{2m}+U(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{r},t)$$
(12)
is the classical energy of a particle in the mean field $`U(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{r},t)=\overline{ϵ}+\delta U(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{r},t)`$, where expression for $`\delta U`$ can be expressed in terms of the Landau interaction amplitude $`F(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{p}^{^{}})`$ for two-body collision scattering matrix:

$$\delta U=\frac{g}{N_F}\frac{d\stackrel{}{p}^{^{}}}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}F(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{p}^{^{}})\delta f(\stackrel{}{p}^{^{}},\stackrel{}{r};t),$$
(13)
where $`N_F=2p_Fm^{}/(g\pi ^2\mathrm{}^3),p_F`$ is the Fermi momentum, $`m^{}`$ is the effective mass of nucleon and $`g`$ is the spin degeneracy factor.

The linearized collision integral has form (1) with (see, Eqs.(42),(43) and (45),(46) of Ref. for details)

$$J^{(j)}(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{r},t)=2\frac{d\stackrel{}{p}_2d\stackrel{}{p}_3d\stackrel{}{p}_4}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^6}W(\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_2,\stackrel{}{p}_3,\stackrel{}{p}_4)\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{p})B^{(j)}(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{r},t).$$
(14)
Here, $`W(\{\stackrel{}{p}_i\})=(d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega })4(2\pi \mathrm{})^3/m^2`$ is the probability of two-body collisions with the initial momenta $`\stackrel{}{p}_1=\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{p}_2`$ and final ones $`\stackrel{}{p}_3,\stackrel{}{p}_4`$; $`d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is in-medium differential cross-section (in Born approximation);

$$\begin{array}{c}B^{(1)}(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{r},t)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{4}{}}\delta f_k(t)\frac{Q(\{\overline{f}_j\})}{\overline{f}_k}[\delta _+(\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{ϵ}+\mathrm{}\omega )+\delta _{}(\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{ϵ}\mathrm{}\omega )],\hfill \\ B^{(2)}(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{r},t)=Q(\{\overline{f}_j\})\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(\delta U(t))}{\mathrm{}\omega }\{[\delta _+(\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{ϵ}+\mathrm{}\omega )\delta _+(\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{ϵ})][\delta _{}(\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{ϵ}\mathrm{}\omega )\delta _{}(\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{ϵ})]\},\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
where $`\overline{f}_k\overline{f}(\stackrel{}{p}_k,\stackrel{}{r})`$; $`Q(\{\overline{f}_j\})/\overline{f}_k`$ are the derivatives of the is the Pauli blocking factor $`Q`$ with respect to $`\overline{f}_k`$,

$$Q(\{\overline{f}_j\})=(1\overline{f}_1)(1\overline{f}_2)\overline{f}_3\overline{f}_4\overline{f}_1\overline{f}_2(1\overline{f}_3)(1\overline{f}_4).$$
(16)
The $`\overline{ϵ}_i=\overline{ϵ}(\stackrel{}{p}_i,\stackrel{}{r})`$ and $`\delta U_j`$ are the equilibrium single-particle energy and the variation of the mean field for particle with momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}_i`$ respectively; $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{ϵ}=\overline{ϵ}_1+\overline{ϵ}_2\overline{ϵ}_3\overline{ϵ}_4,`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\delta U)\delta U_1+\delta U_2\delta U_3\delta U_4,`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{p}=\stackrel{}{p}_1+\stackrel{}{p}_2\stackrel{}{p}_3\stackrel{}{p}_4.`$ The equilibrium distribution function $`\overline{f}_k\overline{f}(\stackrel{}{p}_k,\stackrel{}{r})`$ depends on the equilibrium single-particle energy $`\overline{ϵ}_k\overline{ϵ}(\stackrel{}{p}_k,\stackrel{}{r})`$: $`\overline{f}_k=\overline{f}(\overline{ϵ}_k)`$. It equals the Fermi function evaluated at the temperature $`T`$, $`\overline{f}(\overline{ϵ}_k)=1/[1+\mathrm{exp}((\overline{ϵ}_k\mu )/T)]`$.

Note that the generalized functions $`\delta _+`$, $`\delta _{}`$ appearing in Eq. (15) include also integral contribution,

$$\delta _+(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^0𝑑\tau e^{ix\tau }=\frac{i}{2\pi }\frac{1}{x+i0}=\frac{1}{2}\delta (x)\frac{1}{2\pi i}𝒫(\frac{1}{x}),\delta _{}(x)=\delta _+^{}(x),$$
(17)
where $`\delta (x)`$ is the delta function and the symbol $`𝒫`$ denotes the principal value of integral contribution. The integral terms of the $`\delta _\pm `$, corresponding to virtual transitions, are usually rejected in the $`J`$ because they assumed to be included by renormalizing the interactions between particles . This corresponds to substitution of the $`\delta (x)/2`$ for $`\delta _\pm `$ in Eq. (15), i.e., to taking into account real transitions with conservation of energy. We will consider below only these transitions.

Now we will modify the expression for quantity $`B^{(1)}`$. We present the nonequilibrium component $`\delta f`$ of the distribution function in the form

$$\delta f(\stackrel{}{p}_j,\stackrel{}{r},t)=\nu (\stackrel{}{p}_j,\stackrel{}{r},t)\frac{\overline{f}(\overline{ϵ}_j)}{\overline{ϵ}_j}.$$
(18)
Then the quantity $`B^{(1)}`$ can be written as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill B^{(1)}(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{r},t)& =& \frac{1}{2}\underset{k=1}{\overset{4}{}}\nu _k\frac{Q(\{\overline{f}_j\})}{\overline{ϵ}_k}[\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{ϵ}+\mathrm{}\omega )+\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{ϵ}\mathrm{}\omega )]\hfill \\ & =& \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\nu Q(\{\overline{f}_j\})\frac{}{\mathrm{}\omega }[\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{ϵ}+\mathrm{}\omega )+\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{ϵ}\mathrm{}\omega )]\delta B^{(1)},\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu \nu _1+\nu _2\nu _3\nu _4`$, $`\nu _k=\nu (\stackrel{}{p}_k,\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ and

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \delta B^{(1)}& =& \frac{1}{2}\underset{k=1}{\overset{4}{}}\frac{}{\overline{ϵ}_k}\{\nu _kQ(\{\overline{f}_j\})[\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{ϵ}+\mathrm{}\omega )+\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{ϵ}\mathrm{}\omega )]\}\hfill \\ & +& \frac{1}{2}\underset{k=1}{\overset{4}{}}Q(\{\overline{f}_j\})[\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{ϵ}+\mathrm{}\omega )+\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{ϵ}\mathrm{}\omega )]\frac{\nu _k}{\overline{ϵ}_k}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
The first component in the Eq.(20) determines a probability flux of colliding particles which is connected with possibility of variation of the energy $`\overline{ϵ}_k`$ when the values of other energies ($`\overline{ϵ}_{jk}`$ and $`\mathrm{}\omega `$) are fixed. This term should be equal zero because of fixing the total energy in initial or final states and therefore it does not contribute to the total number of the collisions $`𝒩`$:

$$𝒩(\widehat{p})_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ϵJ(\widehat{p},ϵ),\widehat{p}\stackrel{}{p}/p.$$
(21)
A relative dynamical component $`\nu _k`$ of the distribution function is slowly dependent on energy and it can be considered (at least for low temperatures $`Tϵ_F`$) as a function of the momentum direction rather than of the momentum: $`\nu _k\nu (\stackrel{}{p}_k,\stackrel{}{r},t)=\nu (\widehat{p}_k,ϵ_F,\stackrel{}{r},t)`$. Therefore the second component in the Eq.(20) is also negligible and the term $`\delta B^{(1)}`$ should be omitted from the Eq.(19), $`\delta B^{(1)}=0`$. The expressions for $`B^{(j)}`$ take the form

$$\begin{array}{c}B^{(1)}(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{r},t)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\nu Q(\{\overline{f}_j\})\frac{}{\mathrm{}\omega }[\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{ϵ}+\mathrm{}\omega )+\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{ϵ}\mathrm{}\omega )],\hfill \\ B^{(2)}(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{r},t)=\frac{1}{2}Q(\{\overline{f}_j\})\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(\delta U(t))}{\mathrm{}\omega }\{[\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{ϵ}+\mathrm{}\omega )\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{ϵ})][\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{ϵ}\mathrm{}\omega )\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{ϵ})]\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
The shift in energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{ϵ}`$ by $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ in the arguments of the $`\delta `$-functions of the expressions (1), (14), (22) for the collision integral agrees with the interpretation of the collisions in the presence of the collective excitations proposed by Landau . According to this interpretation, high-frequency oscillations in Fermi liquid can be considered as phonons, that are absorbed and created at the two-particle collisions.

As it was discussed in the introduction, the form of expressions 1), (14), (22) for collision integral is not correct in general case and an additional modification of these expressions are needed. The incorrectness results from approximations which were made at the kinetic equation derivation.

Because of assumptions both on undamped behaviour of the distribution function throughout all time interval ($`\mathrm{}t^{}t\mathrm{}`$) and on small magnitude of two-body interaction, one can expect overestimation of retardation effects in the foregoing expression for collision integral. It means that from physical point of view this relationship should be fulfilled only in the case of small $`\omega `$.

Therefore, we replace the derivatives of the form $`\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{ϵ}+\mathrm{}\omega )/\mathrm{}\omega `$ and $`\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{ϵ}\mathrm{}\omega )/\mathrm{}\omega `$ in $`B^{(1)}`$ of the Eq.(22) by the finite differences $`(\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{ϵ}+\mathrm{}\omega )\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{ϵ}))/\mathrm{}\omega `$ and $`(\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{ϵ})\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{ϵ}\mathrm{}\omega ))/\mathrm{}\omega `$, respectively. Then we combine the resulting expression together with contribution $`B^{(2)}`$ arising from mean-field variation and finally obtain the linearized collision integral for Fermi liquid in the following form

$$J(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{r},t)=\frac{d\stackrel{}{p}_2d\stackrel{}{p}_3d\stackrel{}{p}_4}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^6}W(\{\stackrel{}{p}_i\})\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{p})\mathrm{\Delta }\chi Q\frac{\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ+\mathrm{}\omega )\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ\mathrm{}\omega )}{\mathrm{}\omega }.$$
(23)
Here, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi \chi _1+\chi _2\chi _3\chi _4`$; $`\chi _k=\chi (\stackrel{}{p}_k,\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ is a function determining relative deviation of distribution function from local equilibrium state, $`\delta \overline{f}`$, (3):

$$\delta \overline{f}=\delta f\frac{d\overline{f}}{d\overline{ϵ}}\delta U=f(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{r},t)f_{l.e.}=\chi \frac{d\overline{f}}{d\overline{ϵ}},\chi =\nu +\delta U.$$
(24)
With the use of the algebraic relation

$$[(1\overline{f}_1)(1\overline{f}_2)\overline{f}_3\overline{f}_4\overline{f}_1\overline{f}_2(1\overline{f}_3)(1\overline{f}_4)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{T}\right)]\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ\pm \mathrm{}\omega )=0,$$
(25)
the Eq. (23) can be presented as

$$\begin{array}{c}J(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{r},t)=\hfill \\ \frac{d\stackrel{}{p}_2d\stackrel{}{p}_3d\stackrel{}{p}_4}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^6}W(\{\stackrel{}{p}_i\})\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{p})\mathrm{\Delta }\chi \overline{f}_1\overline{f}_2(1\overline{f}_3)(1\overline{f}_4)\left[\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{}\omega ,T)\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{}\omega ,T)\right],\hfill \end{array}$$
(26)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{}\omega ,T)=\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ+\mathrm{}\omega )[\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{}\omega /T)1]/2\mathrm{}\omega `$.

The collision integral of the form (23) or (26) depends on the variation $`\delta \overline{f}`$, $`JJ(\delta \overline{f})`$. It was mentioned in the introduction this behaviour is in line with general properties of the Vlasov-Landau equation in the Fermi-liquid  at $`\delta f/t=0`$. It provides driving distribution function towards its local equilibrium value. This behaviour is in line with general properties of the Vlasov-Landau equation in the Fermi-liquid  at $`\delta f/t=0`$. The expressions (23), (26) depend only on the occupation probability $`𝒫_{2p2h}\overline{f}_1\overline{f}_2(1\overline{f}_3)(1\overline{f}_4)`$ of the 2p-2h states in the phase space. This fact leads to interpretation of the collision damping with linearized collision term as the relaxation process due to the coupling of one-particle and one-hole states to more complicated $`2p2h`$ configurations.

The form of the collision integral (26) in the Markovian limit ($`\omega 0`$) coincides with the standard expression for the collision integral in Fermi-liquid without retardation effects  because in this case the term in square brackets of Eq.(26) tends to the value $`\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ)/T`$.

The equation (23) for some special explicit form of the quantity $`\chi _j`$ was used at first in Refs. . The derivation of the collision integral (23) is performed in Ref.  within framework of the extended time-dependent Hartree-Fock model. The expressions for the distortion functions $`\chi _j`$ corresponding to a perturbation approach on collision term and including the amplitudes of the random phase approximation were used in this method.

Note that the expression for the collision integral in two-component Fermi-system is obtained from Eq.(26) in the same manner as done in Ref. under the assumption that chemical potentials and the equilibrium distribution functions are the same for protons and neutrons.

## 3 Calculations of the relaxation times and nuclear matter viscosity

The collision integral can be used to calculate collisional relaxation times governing the dissipative properties of different physical quantities . Below we calculate relaxation times, $`\tau _{\mathrm{}}^{(\pm )}`$, of collective vibrations in two-component nuclear matter consisting of neutron and protons subsystems. These collective relaxation times is determined by interparticle collisions within the distorted layers of the Fermi surface with multipolarity $`\mathrm{}`$:

$$\frac{1}{\tau _{\mathrm{}}^{(\pm )}}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ϵ_1𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_pJ_c^{(\pm )}(\widehat{p},ϵ_1)Y_\mathrm{}0(\widehat{p})/_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ϵ_1𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_p\delta f^{(\pm )}Y_\mathrm{}0(\widehat{p}),$$
(27)
where $`Y_\mathrm{}m(\widehat{p})`$ is the spherical harmonic function and $`J^{(\pm )}(\widehat{p},ϵ)`$ are the linear combinations of the collision integrals for protons $`J_p`$ and neutrons $`J_n`$ in nuclear matter: $`J^{(\pm )}=(J_p\pm J_n)/2`$; $`\delta f^{(\pm )}=(\delta f_p\pm \delta f_n)/2`$. These times are proportional to the relaxation times $`\tau _c^{(\pm )}`$ defining the damping widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_c^{(\pm )}(L)`$ of the isoscalar $`(+)`$ and the isovector $`()`$ vibrations with frequency $`\omega `$  in regime of rare collisions with $`\omega \tau _c^{(\pm )}1`$ in the Fermi liquid. In particular, the collisional damping widths of giant resonances with dipole ($`L=1`$) and quadrupole ($`L=2`$) multipolarities resemble the widths in the relaxation rate approach

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_c^{(\pm )}(L)=\mathrm{}/\tau _c^{(\pm )}(L),\tau _c^{()}(L=1)=\tau _{\mathrm{}=1}^{()},\tau _c^{(+)}(L=2)=\tau _{\mathrm{}=2}^{(+)},$$
(28)
in the case when nuclear fluid dynamical model with relaxation is used . The collisional damping width of zero sound in the Fermi liquid with its relative velocity $`S_r1`$ is also given by Eq.(28) but with the use of the $`\tau _{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}^{(+)}\tau _2^{(+)}`$ for $`\tau _c^{(\pm )}(L)`$. The time $`\tau _{\mathrm{}=2}^{(+)}`$ at $`\omega =0`$ is the thermal relaxation time determining the viscosity coefficient of the Fermi liquid .

The time $`\tau _{\mathrm{}=2}^{(+)}`$ at $`\omega =0`$ is the thermal relaxation time determining the viscosity coefficient of the Fermi liquid.

The analytical expressions for collective relaxation times of the damping of the collective vibrations with frequency $`\omega `$ has the following general form in low-temperature and low-frequency limits ($`T,\mathrm{}\omega ϵ_F`$)

$$\frac{\mathrm{}}{\tau _{\mathrm{}}^{(\pm )}}=\frac{1}{\alpha _{\mathrm{}}^{(\pm )}}\left\{(\mathrm{}\omega )^2+(2\pi T)^2\right\},\frac{1}{\alpha _{\mathrm{}}^{(\pm )}}=\frac{2m}{3\pi \mathrm{}^2}\left[<\sigma _{av}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{}}^{(+)}>+<\sigma _{pn}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{}}^{(\pm )}>\right],$$
(29)
where $`\sigma _{av}^{}=(\sigma _{nn}^{}+\sigma _{pp}^{})/2`$; $`\sigma _{jj^{}}^{}d\sigma _{jj^{}}/d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is in-medium differential cross-section for scattering of the nucleons $`j`$ and $`j^{}`$ ( here, $`j=n`$ or $`p`$, and similarly $`j^{}=p`$ or $`n`$). The symbol $`<\mathrm{}>`$ in Eq.(29) denotes averaging over angles of the relative momenta of the colliding particles,

$$<(\mathrm{})>=\frac{1}{\pi }_0^\pi 𝑑\varphi \mathrm{sin}(\varphi /2)_0^\pi 𝑑\theta (\mathrm{}).$$
(30)
The functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{}}^{(\pm )}`$ define the angular constraint on nucleon scattering within the distorted layers of the Fermi surface with multipolarity $`\mathrm{}`$:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{}}^{(\pm )}=1\pm P_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{cos}\varphi )P_{\mathrm{}}((\widehat{p}_3\widehat{p}_1))P_{\mathrm{}}((\widehat{p}_4\widehat{p}_1)),$$
(31)
where the scalar products $`(\widehat{p}_3\widehat{p}_1)`$ and $`(\widehat{p}_4\widehat{p}_1)`$ are given as

$`(\widehat{p}_3\widehat{p}_1)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}^2(\varphi /2)+\mathrm{sin}^2(\varphi /2)\mathrm{cos}\theta ,`$
$`(\widehat{p}_4\widehat{p}_1)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}^2(\varphi /2)\mathrm{sin}^2(\varphi /2)\mathrm{cos}\theta .`$ (32)
Due to the momentum conservation and conditions $`p_i`$= $`p_F`$, the angle $`\theta `$ agrees with the scattering angle in the center-of-mass reference frame of two nucleons. The angle $`\varphi `$ defines the magnitudes of the relative momenta $`\stackrel{}{k}_i=(\stackrel{}{p}_2\stackrel{}{p}_1)/2`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}_f=(\stackrel{}{p}_4\stackrel{}{p}_3)/2`$ before and after collision, respectively. The value of total momentum, $`\stackrel{}{P}=\stackrel{}{p}_1+\stackrel{}{p}_2`$, also depends on a magnitude of the $`\varphi `$. We have

$$\stackrel{}{k}_i\stackrel{}{k}_f=k^2\mathrm{cos}\theta ,k^2=k_i^2=k_f^2=p_F^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\varphi /2),\stackrel{}{P}^2=4p_F^2\mathrm{cos}^2(\varphi /2).$$
(33)
Therefore the relative kinetic energy $`E_{rel}`$ of two nucleons as well as the energy of centrum mass motion $`E_{cm}`$ are dependent on angle $`\varphi `$

$$E_{rel}=k^2/m=2ϵ_F\mathrm{sin}^2(\varphi /2),E_{cm}=P^2/2m=2ϵ_F\mathrm{cos}^2(\varphi /2)$$
(34)
and the total energy $`E_{tot}=E_{rel}+E_{cm}`$ holds only fixed, $`E_{tot}=2ϵ_F`$. Therefore the in-medium differential cross-sections $`\sigma _{j,m}^{}`$ of two nucleon scattering depend on the relative momenta $`\stackrel{}{k}_i`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}_f`$ at fixed total energy rather then at fixed relative kinetic energy $`E_{rel}`$, because the magnitude of $`E_{rel}`$ changes with angle $`\varphi `$ between colliding particles. The transfer momenta $`\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{k}_i\stackrel{}{k}_f=\stackrel{}{p}_3\stackrel{}{p}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{q}^{}=(\stackrel{}{k}_i+\stackrel{}{k}_f)=\stackrel{}{p}_1\stackrel{}{p}_4`$ for scattering due to direct and exchange interactions respectively are also functions of the $`\varphi `$ and $`\theta `$: $`q=2k(\varphi )\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)`$ and $`q^{}=2k(\varphi )\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)`$.

Now we estimate the collisional relaxation times in the case of the isotropic scattering with independent of energy the angle-integrated cross sections $`\sigma _{jj^{}}`$. Performing angular integration in (29) with the use of Eqs.(30) and (31) we find that $`1/\tau _{\mathrm{}<\mathrm{}_0^{(\pm )}}^{(\pm )}=0`$ and

$$\frac{\mathrm{}}{\tau _{\mathrm{}}^{(\pm )}}=\frac{1}{\alpha _{\mathrm{}}^{(\pm )}}\left[(\mathrm{}\omega /2\pi )^2+T^2\right],\frac{1}{\alpha _{\mathrm{}}^{(\pm )}}=\frac{8m}{3\mathrm{}^2}\left[c_{\mathrm{}}\sigma _{av}+d_{\mathrm{}}^{(\pm )}\sigma _{np}\right],$$
(35)
$$c_{\mathrm{}}=1\frac{2(1)^{\mathrm{}}}{2\mathrm{}+1},d_{\mathrm{}}^{()}=\frac{1(1)^{\mathrm{}}}{2\mathrm{}+1},d_{\mathrm{}}^{(+)}=d_{\mathrm{}=0}^{()}=c_{\mathrm{}=0}=c_{\mathrm{}=1}=0,$$

where $`\sigma _{av}`$ = $`[\sigma _{pp}+\sigma _{nn}+2\sigma _{np}]/4`$ is the in-medium spin-isospin averaged nucleon-nucleon cross section. The magnitude of the in-medium cross section $`\sigma _{jj^{}}`$ is taken usually proportional to the value of the free space cross section $`\sigma _{jj^{}}^{(f)}`$ with a factor $`F=\sigma _{jj^{}}/\sigma _{jj^{}}^{(f)}`$, so that the parameter $`\alpha _{\mathrm{}}^{(\pm )}`$ can be rewritten in the form

$$\alpha _{\mathrm{}}^{(\pm )}=\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{}}^{(\pm )}/F,\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{}}^{(\pm )}=4.18/\left[c_{\mathrm{}}+1.3d_{\mathrm{}}^{(\pm )}\right],MeV.$$
(36)
Here, the values $`\sigma _{av}^{(f)}=3.75fm^2`$ and $`\sigma _{np}^{(f)}=5fm^2`$ are adopted ; they correspond to the free space cross sections near Fermi energy. The dependence on $`\mathrm{}`$ for relaxation times $`\tau _{\mathrm{}}^{(\pm )}\tau _{\mathrm{},f}^{(\pm )}`$ with the use of free space cross sections is shown in Fig. 1; $`\mathrm{}\omega =13.43MeV`$. The Figs. 2,3 describe relative relaxation times versus multipolarity $`\mathrm{}`$ for cross section parameterizations using Gogny and Skyrme effective two-body forces with parameters from . The relative relaxation times presented in Fig. 3 were calculated using cross section on Fermi surface. Solid and dashed lines connect the values which correspond to isoscalar and isovector modes of vibrations respectively.

The magnitudes of the relaxation times are different for isoscalar and isovector modes of vibrations and they are dependent on the multipolarity $`\mathrm{}`$. The collisional relaxation times rather slowly vary with collective motion mode at isotropic scattering with energy independent free cross sections. As seen from the Fig. 3, the relaxation times calculated with effective interaction between nucleons are greater than that ones with cross-section in free space. It means that in-medium cross-section between nucleons in nuclear matter is smallest than in free space ($``$ 20 % for Skyrme forces and $``$ 60 % for Gogny interaction). The relaxation times $`\tau _{\mathrm{}}^{(\pm )}`$ depend on frequency $`\omega `$ due to the memory effects in the collision integral. The temperature dependence arises from smearing out the equilibrium distribution function near the Fermi momentum in heated nuclei. The collisional rates $`1/\tau _{\mathrm{}}^{(\pm )}`$ are quadratic both in temperature and in frequency with the same relationship between the components much as in the zero sound attenuation factor of heated Fermi liquid within the Landau prescription .

According to response function approach the damping width of giant isovector dipole resonance (GDR) at the temperature $`T`$ is presented in the form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(T)=2q\gamma \frac{E_r^2+E_0^2}{(E_r^2E_0^2)^2+(2\gamma E_r)^2},$$
(37)
where $`\gamma `$ is determined by relaxation time $`\tau _c(\mathrm{}\omega =E_r,T)`$,

$$\gamma =\frac{\mathrm{}}{\tau _c(\mathrm{}\omega =E_r,T)},$$
(38)
$`E_r`$ is an energy of giant dipole resonance; $`E_0=41A^{1/3}`$ MeV. Here, we determine quantity $`q`$ from equality of the GDR width in cold nuclei with corresponding experimental value $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{exp}`$: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(T=0)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{exp}`$ The temperature dependence of the GDR width according to Eq.(38) in atomic nuclei $`{}_{}{}^{208}Pb`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{120}Sn`$ are shown on Figs.6. Experimental data are taken from Refs. and they are indicated by points. The relaxation time $`\tau _c`$ is taken as equal to $`\tau _{\mathrm{}=1}^{()}`$: dash lines in Fig. 4 correspond to calculations with Skyrme forces; dash-dot lines - Gogny interaction; solid lines - calculations with free space cross-section for two-nucleon collisions. The temperature behaviour of the damping width is in rather close agreement with the ones of experimental data.

It is seen from Figs. 4 that in rare collision regime the dependence of the GDR widths on the collective vibration frequency and the temperature has the following form $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}\omega )^2+4(\pi T)^2`$ , which corresponds to the Landau’s prescription .

The relaxation times rather slowly vary with multipolarity of the Fermi surface distortions governed by collective motion and two-body collisions. It gives possibility to use approximately the relaxation time ansatz for collision integral.

This work is supported in part by the IAEA(Vienna) under contract 302-F4-UKR-11567.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Open string field theory, containing in an elegant way a kinetic term and one cubic interaction for string field, is invariant under a non-trivial gauge transformation. In terms of components of string field, this action includes kinetic terms for open string tachyon, for massless gauge field and for infinite number of massive fields, and cubic interaction among them. Being non-perturbative and having off-shell tachyon, it is believed that this theory might provide a direct approach to study the physics of unstable D-brane, in particular, appearance of closed string fields at the stable point of the tachyon potential.

Similar to the ordinary gauge theory one can, in principle, evaluate, for instance, the tree level S-matrix elements of external massless fields. However, in contrast to the ordinary gauge theory, one finds a tower of massive poles in the amplitude indicating the coupling between massless and massive fields in the cubic string theory. Even more, one loop calculation shows that off-shell closed string states appear in the S-matrix elements. Unitarity then implies that the closed string states must also appear as on-shell states in the theory. Recently, such states introduced to the theory as some sort of gauge invariant operators which include on-shell closed string vertex operators.

It has been suggested in  that the correlation function of these gauge invariant operators could be interpreted as the on-shell S-matrix elements of their corresponding closed string states. Using the truncated method, the tree level correlation function of two such operators corresponding to closed string tachyon or graviton has been explicitly evaluated in  up to level two. It has been shown in that paper that up to some contact terms they are exactly the same as S-matrix elements of two closed string tachyons or gravitons in perturbative bosonic string theory. An interesting observation in  is that the tree level correlation of two gauge invariant operators may contain off-shell closed string states upon adding back the infinite tower of truncated open string states.

In the present paper we would like to extend the calculation in  to the case of correlation functions of one gauge invariant operator corresponding to closed string tachyon or graviton, and two on-shell open string tachyons or massless states. To compare with the corresponding S-matrix elements in bosonic string theory, we also evaluate, explicitly, the S-matrix elements of one closed string tachyon or graviton and two open string tachyons or massless vertex operators. Expanding the latter amplitudes in terms of tachyon, massless and infinite number of massive poles, and keeping only poles up to level two, we find exact agreement between the amplitudes in the two theories up to some contact terms. We expect that the discrepancy in the contact terms of the amplitudes in the two theories to be related to the fact that in string field theory side we have only level truncated results. Adding all contact terms resulting from all poles of amplitude in string field theory, one should find all contact terms of the corresponding amplitude in the bosonic string theory side as well.

The decay amplitudes in bosonic string theory have all infinite number of poles in a single beta function with one unconstrained Mandelstam variable $`s=\alpha ^{}(k_1+k_2)^2/2`$ where $`k`$’s are external open string momenta. When open string states are massless, the low energy limit($`\alpha ^{}0`$) is $`s0`$. We shall show that the leading contact terms of the decay amplitude in this limit are reproduced exactly by DBI action, as expected. This calculation shows that the open string tachyon potential does not have linear term. When the open string states are tachyon, at the top of tachyon potential one should not in general take the low energy limit of the amplitude. Indeed, similar amplitude in the superstring theory has been analysed in  where it has been shown that the leading contact terms of the decay amplitude at low energy limit $`s1/2`$ ($`\alpha ^{}0`$) are reproduced exactly by BSFT effective action while in the limit $`s0`$ ( at the top of the tachyon potential) they are reproduced exactly by tachyonic DBI action111Note that our convention for $`s`$ here is minus the $`s`$ in .. We shall show in the present paper that the leading contatc terms of the decay amplitude in bosonic string theory in the limit $`s0`$ (not $`\alpha ^{}0`$ when open string states are tachyon ) are reproduced exactly by tachyonic DBI action .

An outline of the paper is as follows. In the next section, using the string field truncated up to level two, we evaluate the decay amplitudes of two open string tachyons or gauge fields to one closed string tachyon or graviton in the cubic string field theory. In section 3, we evaluate the same amplitudes in the bosonic string theory. All infinite tower of massive states appears as off-shell poles of the beta function in these amplitudes. Using an expansion for the beta function, and keeping only poles up to level two, we show that up to some contact terms the amputated amplitudes are exactly the same as the amplitudes evaluated in the cubic string field theory. In section 4, we expand the exact form of the amplitudes in the bosonic string theory at $`s0`$ and show that their leading contact terms are exactly reproduced by the tachyonic DBI action. The last section is devoted to a short discussion.

## 2 Cubic String Field Theory

The cubic open string field theory action is given by

$`S(\mathrm{\Psi })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{\Psi }Q\mathrm{\Psi }}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{}}{3\alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }},`$ (1)
where $`g_{}`$ is the open string coupling, $`Q`$ is the BRST charge with ghost number one, and the string field, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, is a ghost number one state in the Hilbert space of the first-quantized string theory. This field can be expanded using the Fock space basis as 222Here, we use the convention fixed in  that uses the V and N matrices for projecting a space-time field to its component in the world-volume and transverse spaces, respectively. So in this convention $`\mu ,\nu =0,1,2,\mathrm{},25`$, and $`A_\mu \alpha _1^\mu =AV\alpha _1+AN\alpha _1`$. Our conventions also set $`\alpha ^{}=2`$.

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^{p+1}k(\varphi +A_\mu \alpha _1^\mu +i\alpha b_1c_{}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}B_\mu \alpha _2^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}B_{\mu \nu }\alpha _1^\mu \alpha _1^\nu `$
$`+`$ $`\beta _{}b_2c_{}+\beta b_1c_1+ik_\mu \alpha _1^\mu b_1c_{}+\mathrm{})c_1|k.`$
The SFT action (1) is invariant under the gauge transformation, $`\delta \mathrm{\Psi }=Q\mathrm{\Lambda }+g_{}\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Psi }`$. By choosing so-called Feynman-Siegel gauge $`b_{}|\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$ we will carry out gauge-fixing. In this gauge the truncated field up to level two reads

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^{p+1}k(\varphi (k)+A_\mu (k)\alpha _1^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}B_\mu (k)\alpha _2^\mu +`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}B_{\mu \nu }(k)\alpha _1^\mu \alpha _1^\nu +\beta (k)b_1c_1)c_1|k.`$
The corresponding string vertex is given by

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^{p+1}k[\varphi (k)c(0)+iA_\mu (k)cX^\mu (0){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}B_\mu (k)c^2X^\mu (0)`$ (4)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}B_{\mu \nu }(k)cX^\mu X^\nu (0){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta (k)^2c(0)]e^{2ikX(0)}.`$ (5)
In writing the above vertex, we have used the doubling trick . Hence, the world-sheet field $`X^\mu (z)`$ in above equation is only holomorphic part of $`X^\mu (z,\overline{z})`$.

The gauge invariant operators in string field theory have been constructed in . The general form of these operators are given by

$`𝒪`$ $`=`$ $`g_c{\displaystyle V\mathrm{\Psi }},`$
where $`g_c`$ is the closed string coupling and $`V`$ is an on-shell closed string vertex operator with ghost number two. In order to be gauge invariant, the closed string vertex operator has to be inserted at the midpoint of open string.

To make sense out of the abstract form of the open string field theory action, one can use CFT method. In this method the $``$-product between string fields transforms to the correlation function of string vertexes on a disk or upper-half plane . In the CFT language the action (1) and the gauge invariant operator (2) are given by 333 We assume that there is a normal order sign between fields at different points in the correlation functions.

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}f_2^{(2)}\mathrm{\Psi }(0)f_1^{(2)}(Q\mathrm{\Psi }(0))+{\displaystyle \frac{2g_o}{3}}f_1^{(3)}\mathrm{\Psi }(0)f_2^{(3)}\mathrm{\Psi }(0)f_3^{(3)}\mathrm{\Psi }(0),`$
$`𝒪`$ $`=`$ $`g_cV(i)\overline{V}(i)f_1^{(1)}\mathrm{\Psi }(0),`$ (6)
where $`f_k^{(n)}\mathrm{\Psi }(0)`$ denotes the conformal transformation of the vertex operator $`\mathrm{\Psi }(0)`$ by the conformal map $`f_k^{(n)}`$. In above equations, $`V(\overline{V})`$ denotes the holomorphic(antiholomorphic) part of the closed string vertex operators444Note that when vertexes are mapped on the boundary of a unit complex disk the midpoint of strings are mapped to center of disk. The conformal map that transforms the disk to upper-half plane maps the center of disk to $`i`$., $``$ denotes correlation function on the upper-half plane and the conformal map $`f_k^{(n)}`$ is

$`f_k^{(n)}(z_k)=g\left(e^{\frac{2\pi i}{n}(k2)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+iz_k}{1iz_k}}\right)^{\frac{2}{n}}\right),`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}1}kn,`$
where $`g(\zeta )=i\frac{\zeta 1}{\zeta +1}`$. The three point interaction in (6) has twist symmetry  which vanishes the interaction of three states that their level numbers add up to an odd number.

### 2.1 Decay amplitude in Cubic String Field Theory

S-matrix elements of open and closed string states can be evaluated in the cubic string field theory by evaluating explicitly the correlators in equation (6) and using the standard Feynman rules. In performing these correlators one should find the conformal transformation of the string vertex (5). These have been done in  for vertex up to level two. Then one ends up with some elementary correlators that can be done using the Wick theorem and the world sheet propagator $`<X^\mu (z)X^\nu (w)>=\eta ^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{ln}(zw)`$. In this way one finds momentum space propagators for tachyon, massless and massive states and their three points vertexes. Evaluation of the kinetic term in (6) gives the propagators of fields which for states, up to level two, are (see for example ),

$`\stackrel{~}{G}_T={\displaystyle \frac{i}{k^2\frac{1}{2}}}`$ ; $`(\stackrel{~}{G}_A)^{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{i\eta ^{\mu \nu }}{k^2}}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{G}_\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{i}{k^2+\frac{1}{2}}}`$ ; $`(\stackrel{~}{G}_{B^{(1)}})^{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{i\eta ^{\mu \nu }}{k^2+\frac{1}{2}}}`$
$`(\stackrel{~}{G}_{B^{(2)}})^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^{\mu \lambda }\eta ^{\nu \rho }+\eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\nu \lambda }}{k^2+\frac{1}{2}}}.`$ (7)
Evaluation of the correlator in the gauge invariant operator $`𝒪`$ for off-shell open string states up to level two has been done in ,

$`𝒪_\tau (p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig_c}{8}}e^{4\mathrm{ln}(2)pVp}(T+4i(pNA)+2i\sqrt{2}(pVB^{(1)})`$ (8)
$`8\sqrt{2}[(pNB^{(2)}Np){\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\mathrm{Tr}(B^{(2)})]\beta ),`$
$`𝒪_h(p,\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig_c}{8}}e^{4\mathrm{ln}(2)pVp}\left(Ta+4iA_\mu b^\mu +2i\sqrt{2}B_\mu c^\mu 8\sqrt{2}B_{\mu \nu }d^{\mu \nu }\beta a\right),`$
where $`\tau `$ and $`h`$ stand for on-shell closed string tachyon and graviton, respectively. The tachyon $`\tau `$ has on-shell condition $`p_\mu p^\mu =4/\alpha ^{}=2`$, and the graviton with polarization $`\epsilon ^{\mu \nu }=\epsilon ^{\nu \mu }`$ has the on-shell conditions $`p_\mu \epsilon ^{\mu \nu }=0=p_\mu p^\mu `$. We have also dropped in above and subsequent amplitudes the conservation of momentum factor, e.g., $`(2\pi )^{p+1}\delta (pV+k)`$ in above equations. The factors $`a,b^\mu ,c^\mu ,d^{\mu \nu }`$ are

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}(\epsilon D)pD\epsilon Dp,`$ (9)
$`b^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`apN^\mu +pD\epsilon D^\mu \epsilon ^\mu Dp,`$ (10)
$`c^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`apV^\mu 4pD\epsilon D^\mu 4\epsilon ^\mu Dk,`$ (11)
$`d^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`a(pN^\mu pN^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\eta ^{\mu \nu })+2(\epsilon D)^{\{\mu \nu \}}+2pD\epsilon D^{\{\mu }pN^{\nu \}}2\epsilon ^{\{\mu }DppN^{\nu \}}.`$
Now using the results in (8), one can easily read the vertex function for on-shell closed string and off-shell open string states up to level two. They are

$`\stackrel{~}{V}_{\tau T}={\displaystyle \frac{ig_c}{8}}2^{4pVp}`$ ; $`(\stackrel{~}{V}_{\tau A})^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{ig_c}{8}}(4i)(pN)^\mu 2^{4pVp}`$
$`(\stackrel{~}{V}_{\tau B^{(1)}})^{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{ig_c}{8}}(2i\sqrt{2})(pV)^\mu 2^{4pVp}`$ ; $`\stackrel{~}{V}_{\tau \beta }(k)={\displaystyle \frac{ig_c}{8}}(1)2^{4pVp}`$
$`(\stackrel{~}{V}_{\tau B^{(2)}})^{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{ig_c}{8}}(8\sqrt{2})\left[(pN)^\mu (pN)^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\eta ^{\mu \nu }\right]2^{4pVp}`$ ; $`\stackrel{~}{V}_{hT}={\displaystyle \frac{ig_c}{8}}(a)2^{4pVp}`$
$`(\stackrel{~}{V}_{hA})^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{ig_c}{8}}(4i)(b^\mu )2^{4pVp}`$ ; $`(\stackrel{~}{V}_{hB^{(1)}})^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{ig_c}{8}}(2i\sqrt{2})(c^\mu )2^{4pVp}`$
$`(\stackrel{~}{V}_{hB^{(2)}})^{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{ig_c}{8}}(8\sqrt{2})(d^{\mu \nu })2^{4pVp}`$ ; $`\stackrel{~}{V}_{h\beta }={\displaystyle \frac{ig_c}{8}}(a)2^{4pVp}`$ (12)
Using above vertexes and propagators (7), one can evaluate truncated S-matrix elements of any closed string tachyon or graviton. For example scattering amplitude of two tachyons or two gravitons from D-brane are

$`A(\tau _1,\tau _2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\varphi }{}}\stackrel{~}{V}_{\tau _1\varphi }\stackrel{~}{G}_\varphi \stackrel{~}{V}_{\varphi \tau _2},`$
$`A(h_1,h_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\varphi }{}}\stackrel{~}{V}_{h_1\varphi }\stackrel{~}{G}_\varphi \stackrel{~}{V}_{\varphi h_2},`$
where the summation is over off-shell fields $`\varphi \{T,A,B^{(1)},B^{(2)},\beta ,\mathrm{}\}`$ where dots represents the off-shell open staring states belonging to the levels more than two where we are not considering in our calculations. In , it was shown that the above scattering amplitudes produce exactly the same pole structure as the amplitudes in the bosonic string theory.

Now to evaluate decay amplitude of excited D-branes, i.e., S-matrix elements of open and closed string states, one has to find the vertex function for three open sting states as well. These can be done by performing the correlator in the second terms of action (6). Since we are interested in the tree level amplitudes for decaying two on-shell open string states to one closed string state, the vertex functions need to have only one off-shell leg.

#### 2.1.1 Two tachyons decay

The vertex functions with two on-shell tachyons and one off-shell open string states up to level two are

$`\stackrel{~}{V}_{T_1T_2T}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig_{}}{96\gamma }}(27)\gamma ^{4(1+k_1k_2)},`$
$`(\stackrel{~}{V}_{T_1T_2B^{(1)}})^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig_{}}{96\gamma }}(6i\sqrt{2})(k_1^\mu +k_2^\mu )\gamma ^{4(1+k_1k_2)},`$ (13)
$`(\stackrel{~}{V}_{T_1T_2B^{(2)}})^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig_{}}{96\gamma }}(8\sqrt{2})\left[(k_2^\mu k_1^\mu )(k_2^\nu k_1^\nu ){\displaystyle \frac{5}{16}}\eta ^{\mu \nu }\right]\gamma ^{4(1+k_1k_2)},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{V}_{T_1T_2\beta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig_{}}{96\gamma }}(11)\gamma ^{4(1+k_1k_2)},`$
and $`(\stackrel{~}{V}_{T_1T_2A})^\mu =0`$. The vanishing of $`(\stackrel{~}{V}_{T_1T_2A})^\mu `$ can also be understood from twist symmetry . According to this symmetry the vertex function of three open string states that their level numbers add up to an odd number is zero, e.g., level number of tachyon is zero and of gauge field is one, hence $`(\stackrel{~}{V}_{T_1T_2A})^\mu =0`$. In above equation $`\gamma =4/(3\sqrt{3})`$ and we have used the on-shell condition $`k_1^2=1/\alpha ^{}=1/2=k_2^2`$ for two tachyons. Now with above vertexes, the vertex functions in (12) and propagators (7), one can evaluate the tree level decay amplitude of two open string tachyons to one closed string tachyon or graviton, that is

$`A(T_1,T_2,\tau _3)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\varphi }{}}\stackrel{~}{V}_{T_1T_2\varphi }\stackrel{~}{G}_\varphi \stackrel{~}{V}_{\varphi \tau _3}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig_{}g_c}{6}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(2s1)\mathrm{ln}(4\gamma )}}{2s1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(2s+1)\mathrm{ln}(4\gamma )}}{2s+1}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{32}}(s+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\right]+\mathrm{}\right\},`$
where $`s=p_3Vp_3`$ and dots represent poles of more massive fields. In the above expression, those terms in each pole that have a factor which is a positive power of its denominator give only contact terms. Structure of these contact terms highly affected by individual contact terms of more massive poles, whereas, pole structure in each level is independent of poles of other levels. To compare level truncated scattering amplitudes in string field theory and in bosonic string theory, we keep tract of only pole structure of amplitudes, that is

$`A(T_1,T_2,\tau _3)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig_og_c}{6}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2s1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1/8}{2s+1}}+\mathrm{}\right\},`$ (15)
where dots represent some contact terms as well more massive poles. Similarly, the decay amplitude of two tachyons to one graviton becomes

$`A(T_1,T_2,h_3)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\varphi }{}}\stackrel{~}{V}_{T_1T_2\varphi }\stackrel{~}{G}_\varphi \stackrel{~}{V}_{\varphi h_3}`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig_{}g_c}{6}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(2s1)\mathrm{ln}(4\gamma )}}{2s1}}a+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(2s+1)\mathrm{ln}(4\gamma )}}{2s+1}}({\displaystyle \frac{3}{32}}(s+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})a`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}[\mathrm{Tr}(\epsilon _3D)+p_3D\epsilon _3Dp_38(k_1k_2)\epsilon _3(k_1k_2)])+\mathrm{}\},`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig_og_c}{6}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2s1}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{8}[\mathrm{Tr}(\epsilon _3D)+p_3D\epsilon _3Dp_38(k_1k_2)\epsilon _3(k_1k_2)]}{2s+1}}+\mathrm{}\},`$
where $`a`$ is given in (10), and in the last equality we have again dropped some contact terms. We shall compare these amplitudes with the corresponding decay amplitudes in the bosonic string theory in section 3.

#### 2.1.2 One tachyon and one gauge field decay

The only non zero vertex function, allowed by the twist symmetry, for one on-shell tachyon, one on-shell gauge field and one off-shell state up to level two is

$`(\stackrel{~}{V}_{T_1A_2A})^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig_{}}{96\gamma }}(16)\left[(k_2^\mu k_1^\mu )(2k_1\zeta _2)\zeta _2^\mu \right]\gamma ^{4(1/2+k_1k_2)},`$
where we have used the on-shell conditions $`k_1^2=1/2`$ and $`k_2^2=0=k_2\zeta _2`$ where $`\zeta _2`$ is the polarization of the external gauge field. With this vertex and (12), (7) one can evaluate the following decay amplitude:

$`A(T_1,A_2,\tau _3)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\varphi }{}}\stackrel{~}{V}_{T_1A_2\varphi }\stackrel{~}{G}_\varphi \stackrel{~}{V}_{\varphi \tau _3}`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig_{}g_c}{6}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2s\mathrm{ln}(4\gamma )}}{2s}}(p_3N\zeta _2)+\mathrm{}\right\}.`$
In order to keep only massless pole, one should replace exponential factor by one, i.e., $`e^{2s\mathrm{ln}(4\gamma )}1`$. Similarly decay to graviton is

$`A(T_1,A_2,h_3)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\varphi }{}}\stackrel{~}{V}_{T_1A_2\varphi }\stackrel{~}{G}_\varphi \stackrel{~}{V}_{\varphi h_3}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig_{}g_c}{6}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2s\mathrm{ln}(4\gamma )}}{2s}}[a(p_3N\zeta _2)2p_3D\epsilon _3N\zeta _2]+\mathrm{}\right\},`$
where $`a`$ is given in (10) and again to keep only pole one should replace the exponential factor by one. In section 3, we shall compare these amplitudes with their corresponding amplitudes in bosonic string theory.

#### 2.1.3 Two gauge fields decay

The vertex functions for two on-shell gauge fields and one off-shell state up to level two extracted from the action (6) are

$`\stackrel{~}{V}_{A_1A_2T}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig_{}}{96\gamma }}(16)\left[(2k_2\zeta _1)(2k_1\zeta _2)\zeta _1\zeta _2\right]\gamma ^{4(k_1k_2)},`$ (20)
$`(\stackrel{~}{V}_{A_1A_2B^{(1)}})^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig_{}}{6\gamma }}({\displaystyle \frac{2i\sqrt{2}}{27}})\gamma ^{4(k_1k_2)}({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}3[\zeta _1\zeta _24(k_1\zeta _2)(k_2\zeta _1)](k_1+k_2)^\mu `$
$`+8[(k_1\zeta _2)\zeta _1^\mu +\zeta _2^\mu (k_2\zeta _1)]{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}),`$
$`(\stackrel{~}{V}_{A_1A_2B^{(2)}})^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig_{}}{6\gamma }}({\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{27}})\gamma ^{4(k_1k_2)}({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}4(\zeta _1^\mu \zeta _2^\nu +\zeta _1^\nu \zeta _2^\mu )`$
$`[4(k_1k_2)^\mu (k_1k_2)^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}\eta ^{\mu \nu }][\zeta _1\zeta _24(k_1\zeta _2)(k_2\zeta _1)]`$
$`+8[(k_2\zeta _1)\zeta _2^\nu +\zeta _1^\nu (k_1\zeta _2)](k_1k_2)^\mu `$
$`+8[(k_2\zeta _1)\zeta _2^\mu +\zeta _1^\mu (k_1\zeta _2)](k_1k_2)^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{}{}})`$
$`\stackrel{~}{V}_{A_1A_2\beta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig_{}}{6\gamma }}({\displaystyle \frac{11}{27}})\gamma ^{4(k_1k_2)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\zeta _1\zeta _24(k_1\zeta _2)(k_2\zeta _1){\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\right),`$
and $`(\stackrel{~}{V}_{A_1A_2A})^\mu =0`$. Here again we have used the on-shell condition $`k_i^2=0=k_1\zeta _i`$ for $`i=1,2`$. Now decay amplitude of these two gauge fields to closed string tachyon becomes

$`A(A_1,A_2,\tau _3)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\varphi }{}}\stackrel{~}{V}_{A_1A_2\varphi }\stackrel{~}{G}_\varphi \stackrel{~}{V}_{\varphi \tau _3}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig_{}g_c}{6}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(2s1)\mathrm{ln}(4\gamma )}}{2s1}}[\zeta _1\zeta _24(k_1\zeta _2)(k_2\zeta _1)]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(2s+1)\mathrm{ln}(4\gamma )}}{2s+1}}({\displaystyle \frac{3}{32}}(s+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})[\zeta _1\zeta _24(k_1\zeta _2)(k_2\zeta _1)]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}[\zeta _1\zeta _2+4(k_1\zeta _2)(k_2\zeta _1)8(p_3N\zeta _1)(p_3N\zeta _2)])+\mathrm{}\}.`$
In this case to retain only poles, one should replace each exponential by one and drop also the term in the third line above. Similarly the decay to graviton becomes

$`A(A_1,A_2,h_3)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\varphi }{}}\stackrel{~}{V}_{A_1A_2\varphi }\stackrel{~}{G}_\varphi \stackrel{~}{V}_{\varphi h_3}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig_{}g_c}{6}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(2s1)\mathrm{ln}(4\gamma )}}{2s1}}a[\zeta _1\zeta _24(k_1\zeta _2)(k_2\zeta _1)]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(2s+1)\mathrm{ln}(4\gamma )}}{2s+1}}({\displaystyle \frac{3}{32}}(s+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})a[\zeta _1\zeta _24(k_1\zeta _2)(k_2\zeta _1)]`$
$`(\zeta _2\epsilon _3D\zeta _1+\zeta _1\epsilon _3D\zeta _2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}[\zeta _1\zeta _24(k_1V\zeta _2)(k_2\zeta _1)]`$
$`\times [\mathrm{Tr}(\epsilon _3D)+p_3D\epsilon _3Dp_38(k_1k_2)\epsilon _3(k_1k_2)]`$
$`+a[(k_1\zeta _2)(k_2\zeta _1)(p_3N\zeta _2)(p_3N\zeta _1)]`$
$`+2(k_1\zeta _2)[p_3D\epsilon _3V\zeta _1+2\zeta _1V\epsilon _3(k_1k_2)]`$
$`+2(k_2\zeta _1)[p_3D\epsilon _3V\zeta _22\zeta _2V\epsilon _3(k_1k_2)]`$
$`+2[(p_3N\zeta _2)p_3D\epsilon _3N\zeta _1+(p_3N\zeta _1)p_3D\epsilon _3N\zeta _2]{\displaystyle \frac{}{}})+\mathrm{}\}.`$
where $`a`$ is given in (10). Here again one should replace the exponential factors by one and drop the term in third line above to retain only poles. In the next section we shall evaluate the same decay amplitudes in the bosnic string theory and compare with the above results.

## 3 Decay amplitude in Bosonic String Theory

The decay amplitude of excited stable and unstable D-branes in superstring theory have been studied in . In this section we shall study decay amplitudes of excited unstable D-brane in the bosonic string theory. These amplitudes are given by world-sheet correlation function of some open and closed string vertex operators, that is

$`A`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}V_o{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}V_c,`$
where the open string tachyon and gauge field vertex operators, and closed string tachyon and graviton vertex operators are given as

$`V_T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑xe^{2ikX(x)}};k^2=1/2,`$
$`V_A`$ $`=`$ $`\zeta _\mu {\displaystyle 𝑑xX^\mu e^{2ikX(x)}};k^2=0,k\zeta =0,`$
$`V_\tau `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2ze^{ipX(z)}e^{ipDX(\overline{z})}};p^2=2,`$
$`V_h`$ $`=`$ $`(\epsilon D)_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle d^2zX^\mu e^{ipX(z)}X^\nu e^{ipDX(\overline{z})}};p^2=0,p\epsilon =0=\epsilon p,`$
where in our convention we have set the normalization of all vertices to one, and restore them by normalizing properly the scattering amplitudes. We are interested in the world sheet tree level S-matrix elements of two open string states and one closed string state. They can be evaluated by using the world sheet propagator $`<X^\mu (z)X^\nu (w)>=\eta ^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{ln}(zw)`$ and Wick theorem. After performing the correlators, one ends up with a multi integral whose integrand has SL(2,R) symmetry reflecting the conformal symmetry that maps upper-half plane to itself. This symmetry is usually gauged away by fixing world sheet position of one open string vertex operators at infinity and the closed string vertex operator at $`z=i`$. Then the remaining integral over position of the other vertex operator gives a beta function. We begin with presenting in some details the result for decay amplitude of two open string tachyons to one closed string tachyon.

### 3.1 Two tachyons decay

The decay amplitude of two open string tachyons and one closed string tachyon in bosonic string theory is given by the following correlation:

$`A(T_1,T_2,\tau _3)`$ $``$ $`V_{T_1}V_{T_2}V_{\tau _3}`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{ig_og_c}{12}}\right)2^{2s1}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x(xi)^s(x+i)^s`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{ig_og_c}{12}}\right)2^{2s1}B(s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{ig_og_c}{12}}\right)2\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2s1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}},`$
where in the last equality we have used the identity $`\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(s+1)=2^s\mathrm{\Gamma }(s/2+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(s/2+1/2)`$, to show that the result can be written in a form similar to the case of super string theory. We have also normalized the amplitude here and subsequent amplitudes in this section by factor $`\left(\frac{ig_og_c}{12}\right)`$, i.e., the same factor as in amplitudes in the string fields theory side. By looking at the poles of gamma function, one realizes that the amplitude has simple pole only when mediators are in even levels, i.e., their on-shell masses are $`s=m^2=1/2,1/2,3/2,\mathrm{}`$. This is consistent with the twist symmetry in the cubic string field theory. According to it when two legs of three point vertex function are tachyons, i.e., level zero, the other leg must be in even levels, i.e., $`m^2=1/2,1/2,3/2,\mathrm{}`$. Now to compare in more details the decay amplitude here with the corresponding amplitude in string field theory, we use the following pole expansion of the beta function:

$`B(\alpha ,\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha +n}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{n!}}(\beta 1)\mathrm{}(\beta n).`$ (32)
By making use of this pole expansion for beta function, the decay amplitude (31) becomes

$`A(T_1,T_2,\tau _3)`$ $`=`$ $`2\left({\displaystyle \frac{ig_og_c}{12}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^{(2s1)\mathrm{ln}(2)}}{2s1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{8}e^{(2s+1)\mathrm{ln}(2)}}{2s+1}}+\mathrm{}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`2\left({\displaystyle \frac{ig_og_c}{12}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2s1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1/8}{2s+1}}+\mathrm{}\right),`$
where in the last line above we dropped the contact terms resulting from each pole in the first line. Now comparing the first line above with the corresponding amplitude in (2.1.1), one realizes that the two amplitudes are not quit the same. The difference is in their contact terms, i.e., the second line above is exactly the same as the amplitude in (15). Similarly, the decay amplitude of two tachyons to one graviton or dilaton becomes

$`A(T_1,T_2,h_3)`$ $``$ $`V_{T_1}V_{T_2}V_{h_3}`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{ig_og_c}{12}}\right)2^{2s1}([\mathrm{Tr}(\epsilon _3D)+p_3D\epsilon _3Dp_3]B(s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$
$`4(k_1k_2)\epsilon _3(k_1k_2)B(s+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$
$`p_3D\epsilon _3Dp_3[B(s+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+2B(s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})]).`$
By looking at the poles of beta functions, one finds that the amplitude has no simple pole corresponding to states in odd levels which is consistent with the twist symmetry in string field theory side. Using the expansion (32) for the beta functions in above amplitude, one finds the following pole structure:

$`A(T_1,T_2,h_3)`$ $`=`$ $`2\left({\displaystyle \frac{ig_og_c}{12}}\right)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2s1}}(\mathrm{Tr}(\epsilon _3D)p_3D\epsilon _3Dp_3)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{8}[\mathrm{Tr}(\epsilon _3D)+p_3D\epsilon _3Dp_38(k_1k_2)\epsilon _3(k_1k_2)]}{2s+1}}+\mathrm{}),`$
where we have dropped some contact terms. This is exactly equal to the corresponding amplitude in string field theory side in the last equality in equation (16).

For later reference, we evaluate the amplitude (3.1) for dilaton by replacing $`\epsilon _{\mu \nu }=(\eta _{\mu \nu }p_\mu l_\nu l_\mu p_\nu )/\sqrt{24}`$ where $`pl=1`$, that is,

$`A(T_1,T_2,h_3)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{ig_og_c}{12\sqrt{24}}}\right)2^{2s1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\mathrm{Tr}(D)B(s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})4(2s)B(s+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\right),`$
as expected the auxiliary vector $`l_\mu `$ does not appears in the amplitude. In reaching to this result we have used the on-shell condition $`k_1^2=1/2=k_2^2`$.

### 3.2 One tachyon and one gauge field decay

The amplitude for decaying one open string tachyon and one gauge field to one closed string tachyon is

$`A(T_1,A_2,\tau _3)`$ $``$ $`V_{T_1}V_{A_2}V_{\tau _3}`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{ig_og_c}{12}}\right)2^{2s}B(s,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})(p_3N\zeta _2)`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{ig_og_c}{12}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{(p_3N\zeta _2)}{s}}+\mathrm{},`$
where in the last equality we have used the expansion (32) and dropped some contact terms. It is easy to see that this is equal to the pole of the decay amplitude in string field theory side (18). The amplitude in the second line above has simple poles only when the mediator is in any odd level, $`i.e.,m^2=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$. This is again consistent with twist symmetry in string field theory side, i.e., the tachyon is in zero level, the gauge field is in level one hence the third leg must be in odd level. Similarly the decay amplitude to graviton or dilaton is

$`A`$ $``$ $`V_{T_1}V_{A_2}V_{h_3}`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{ig_og_c}{12}}\right)2^{2s}([\mathrm{Tr}(\epsilon _3D)(p_3N\zeta _2)p_3D\epsilon _3N\zeta _2]B(s,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$
$`[(p_3N\zeta _2)p_3D\zeta _2Dp_3+p_3D\epsilon _3N\zeta _2]B(s,{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})`$
$`[4(p_3N\zeta _2)(k_1k_2)\epsilon _3(k_1k_2)`$
$`+4(k_1k_2)\epsilon _3N\zeta _2p_3D\epsilon _3N\zeta _2]B(s+1,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}))`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{ig_og_c}{12}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}(\mathrm{Tr}(\epsilon _3D)p_3D\epsilon _3Dp_3)(p_3N\zeta _2)2p_3D\epsilon _3N\zeta _2{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\right)+\mathrm{}.`$
In the last line we just retain pole structure up to level two. Here again one can see that the amplitude in last line above is exactly equal to the corresponding amplitude in string theory side (2.1.2), and check that the simple pole of the beta functions in the amplitude are consistent with the twist symmetry in string field theory side. Note that when the external massless vertex operator has world-volume polarization $`\zeta _2^a`$, the whole amplitudes above vanish. This predicts for the string field theory that the off-shell states in the 3-point vertex with two other states being on-shell tachyon and gauge field, does not couple with closed string tachyon or graviton in the gauge invariant operators (6).

### 3.3 Two gauge fields decay

The amplitude for decaying an unstable D-brane excited with two gauge fields to an unstable D-brane with no open string excited and one closed string tachyon is

$`A(A_1,A_2,\tau _3)`$ $``$ $`V_{A_1}V_{A_2}V_{\tau _3}`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{ig_og_c}{12}}\right)2^{2s1}(\zeta _1\zeta _2B(s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$
$`4(k_1\zeta _2)(k_2\zeta _1)B(s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})4(p_3N\zeta _1)(p_3N\zeta _2)B(s+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}))`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{ig_og_c}{12}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{2}{2s1}}\left(\zeta _1\zeta _24(k_1\zeta _2)(k_2\zeta _1)\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1/4}{2s+1}}\left(\zeta _1\zeta _2+4(k_1\zeta _2)(k_2\zeta _1)8(p_3N\zeta _1)(p_3N\zeta _2)\right)+\mathrm{},`$
where in the last equality again some contact terms are dropped. As a check of our calculation, one may replace each gauge field polarization with its momentum and find that the result is zero. In this case also the pole structure in the last equality above is exactly equal to the poles of the decay amplitude (2.1.3) in string field theory side, and the infinite number of simple poles of beta functions above are consistent with the twist symmetry. Similarly, the decay amplitude to graviton or dilaton is

$`A`$ $``$ $`V_{A_1}V_{A_2}V_{h_3}`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{ig_og_c}{12}}\right)2^{2s2}([{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}(\zeta _1\zeta _2)p_3D\epsilon _3Dp_3+4(k_1\zeta _2)(k_2\zeta _1)\mathrm{Tr}(\epsilon _3D){\displaystyle \frac{}{}}]B(s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}+(\zeta _1\zeta _2)\mathrm{Tr}(\epsilon _3D)B(s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+4(k_1\zeta _2)(k_2\zeta _1)p_3D\epsilon _3Dp_3B(s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}})`$
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}4(\zeta _1\zeta _2)(k_1k_2)\epsilon _3(k_1k_2)+4(p_3N\zeta _1)(p_3N\zeta _2)\mathrm{Tr}(\epsilon _3D){\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\right]B(s+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$
$`+16[{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}(k_1\zeta _2)(k_2\zeta _1)(k_1k_2)\epsilon _3(k_1k_2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(p_3N\zeta _1)(p_3N\zeta _2)p_3D\epsilon _3Dp_3`$
$`+(p_3N\zeta _1)\zeta _2N\epsilon _3Dp_3+(k_1\zeta _2)\zeta _1V\epsilon _3(k_13k_2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\zeta _1\epsilon _3D\zeta _2{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}]B(s+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})`$
$`+[{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}16(p_3N\zeta _1)(p_3N\zeta _2)(k_1k_2)\epsilon _3(k_1k_2)`$
$`+32(p_3N\zeta _1)\zeta _2N\epsilon _3(k_1k_2)+8\zeta _1\epsilon _3D\zeta _2{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}]B(s+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+(12){\displaystyle \frac{}{}}).`$
As a check of our calculations, we have replaced the gauge field polarization with its momentum and found that the amplitude vanishes. Now if one replaces the expansion (32) for the beta functions in above amplitude and drops the unwanted contact terms, one will find exactly the same pole structure as in the string field theory case (2.1.3). Also the simple poles of the above amplitude is consistent with twist symmetry in string field theory side.

## 4 Effective action

As pointed out by Sen in , the general structure of unstable D-brane action should be consistent with disk amplitude in string theory. In this section we would like to compare the disk amplitudes found in previous section with a tachyonic DBI action, i.e., an action which is consistent with the leading order terms of the amplitudes expanded for massless open string fields around $`\alpha ^{}0`$($`s0`$), and for open string tachyon around the top of the tachyon potential ($`s0`$). We propose the following tachyonic DBI action in the bosonic string theory which includes both open string and closed string tachyon555We explicitly restore $`\alpha ^{}`$ in this section.:

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`T_p{\displaystyle d^{p+1}xf(\tau )V(T)e^\mathrm{\Phi }\sqrt{det(P[g_{ab}+b_{ab}]+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ab}+2\pi \alpha ^{}_aT_bT)}},`$ (43)
where $`V(T)=1\pi T^2+O(T^3)`$ is the open string tachyon potential expanded around its maximum, $`f(\tau )=1+\tau +O(\tau ^2)`$ is the closed string tachyon coupling to the D-brane, and $`g_{ab}`$ is flat space metric $`\eta _{ab}`$ plus its graviton fluctuation. Here $`b_{ab},\mathrm{\Phi },A_a`$ and $`T`$ are the antisymmetric Kalb-Ramond tensor, dilaton, gauge field and the tachyon fluctuations, respectively. In above action $`P[\mathrm{}]`$ is also the pull-back of the closed string fields. For example, $`P[h_{ab}]=h_{ab}+2h_{ai}_bX^i+h_{ij}_aX^i_bX^j`$ in the static gauge. Now it is straightforward to expand (43) to find different couplings involving two open string states and one closed string state. When two open string states are massless, the couplings are

$`(X,X,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`T_p\left(\tau _aX^i^aX_i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}X^iX^j_i_j\tau \right),`$
$`(X,X,h)`$ $`=`$ $`T_p({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}h^a{}_{a}{}^{}_{b}^{}X^i^bX_i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h^{ab}_aX^i_bX_i`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_aX^i^aX^jh_{ij}+X^i^aX^j_ih_{aj}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}X^iX^j_i_jh^a{}_{a}{}^{}),`$
$`(A,A,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`T_p\tau \left({\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2}{4}}F_{ab}F^{ba}\right),`$
$`(A,A,h)`$ $`=`$ $`T_p\left({\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2}{8}}h^a{}_{a}{}^{}F_{bc}^{}F^{cb}+{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2}{2}}h_{ab}F^{bc}F_{ca}\right),`$
and $`(X,A,\tau )=0=(X,A,h)`$.

Now we would like to expand the decay amplitudes in section 3.1 at low energy limit, i.e., $`\alpha ^{}0`$ or $`s=\alpha ^{}k_1k_20`$, and compare with the above couplings. Expanding the beta functions in these amplitude around $`s=0`$, one finds the following leading order terms:

$`A(A_1,A_2,\tau _3)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{ig_og_c}{12}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}(\zeta _1\zeta _2)(\pi s)+4(k_1\zeta _2)(k_2\zeta _1)({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})+\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\right),`$
$`A(X_1,X_2,\tau _3)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{ig_og_c}{12}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}(\zeta _1\zeta _2)(\pi s)4(p_3\zeta _1)(p_3\zeta _2)({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})+\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\right),`$
$`A(A_1,A_2,h_3)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{ig_og_c}{12}}\right)({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}[(\zeta _1\zeta _2)\mathrm{Tr}(\epsilon _3D)4\zeta _1\epsilon _3\zeta _2](\pi s)`$
$`+[4(k_1\zeta _2)(k_2\zeta _1)\mathrm{Tr}(\epsilon _3D)+16(\zeta _1\zeta _2)k_1\epsilon _3k_2`$
$`16(k_1\zeta _2)\zeta _1\epsilon _3k_216(k_2\zeta _1)\zeta _2\epsilon _3k_1]({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})+\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}),`$
$`A(X_1,X_2,h_3)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{ig_og_c}{12}}\right)({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}[(\zeta _1\zeta _2)\mathrm{Tr}(\epsilon _3D)+4\zeta _1\epsilon _3\zeta _2](\pi s)`$
$`+[4(p_3\zeta _1)(p_3\zeta _2)\mathrm{Tr}(\epsilon _3D)+16(\zeta _1\zeta _2)k_1\epsilon _3k_2`$
$`16(p_3\zeta _1)\zeta _2\epsilon _3k_216(p_3\zeta _2)\zeta _1\epsilon _3k_1]({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})+\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}),`$
and $`A(A_1,X_2,\tau _3)=0=A(A_1,X_2,h_3)`$. The dots above represents terms with more than two open string momenta, which are related to the higher derivative terms in the effective action. Now it is a simple exercise to check that above leading terms of the decay amplitudes are reproduced exactly by the corresponding terms in (4) as expected. To have overall factors agreement as well, one should appropriately normalize fields in (43). This agreements insures us that the open string tachyon potential in (43) dose not have a linear terms. Having such a term , the field theory action would produce for example an amplitude for decaying two massless scalars to one graviton, i.e., $`h^a{}_{a}{}^{}\zeta _{1}^{}\zeta _2s/(12s)h^a{}_{a}{}^{}\zeta _{1}^{}\zeta _2s`$ which must be subtracted from string theory amplitude $`A(X_1,X_2,h_3)`$. Consequently the result would not be consistent with $`(X,X,h)`$ in (4). Similarly, above agreement predicts that the field theory does not have coupling $`TX^iX_i`$. It is important to note that the string field theory in its present field variables has this coupling (20), however using field redefinition , in another field variables this coupling can be disappeared .

The decay amplitudes in section 3.2 have simple pole at $`s0`$, hence one may expect that field theory should reproduce them. However, as above analysis predicts the tachyonic DBI action (43) does not have couplings $`T_aX^i^aX_i`$ or $`TX^iX_i`$, hence the field theory (43) does not produce the simple massless poles of the string theory amplitude. We expect that these massless simple poles are reproduced by the coupling $`X^i_i\tau `$ or $`X^i_ih^a_a`$ which are in (43) and higher derivative couplings like $`^a_aT_bX^i^bX_i`$ (or $`T_a_bX^i^a^bX_i`$) which are not included in the tachyonic DBI action666A similar argument is presented in  for consistency between sigma model approach effective action and S-matrix elements.. This means that the on-shell amplitudes in section 3.2 should have a factor like $`1=(2k_1^2)^2`$ that in off-shell case $`2k_1^21`$ produces higher derivative couplings in the field theory. Similarly the contact terms of the amplitudes around $`s0`$ also describe the higher derivative terms which lead to these on-shell contact terms.

Finally, the decay amplitudes in section 3.1 are smooth around the top of tachyon potential $`s0`$. Their expansion around this point are

$`A(T_1,T_2,\tau _3)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{ig_og_c}{12}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}(\pi s)+\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\right),`$
$`A(T_1,T_2,h_3)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{ig_og_c}{12}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\mathrm{Tr}(\epsilon _3D)(\pi s)+16(k_1\epsilon _3k_2)({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})+\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\right),`$
$`A(T_1,T_2,\mathrm{\Phi }_3)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{ig_og_c}{12\sqrt{24}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\mathrm{Tr}(D)(\pi s)4(2s)({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})+\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\right),`$
where dots represent terms that we expect them to be related to higher derivative terms. Using the fact that in this case $`s=1+2k_1k_2`$, one can easily verifies that these contact terms are reproduced exactly by the following couplings extracted from (43):

$`(T,T,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\pi T_p\tau \left(T^2+\alpha ^{}_aT^aT\right),`$
$`(T,T,h)`$ $`=`$ $`\pi T_p\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h^a{}_{a}{}^{}T_{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}h^a{}_{a}{}^{}_{b}^{}T^bT\alpha ^{}h^{ab}_aT_bT\right),`$
$`(T,T,\mathrm{\Phi })`$ $`=`$ $`\pi T_p\mathrm{\Phi }\left({\displaystyle \frac{(p11)}{12}}T^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(p13)}{12}}\alpha ^{}_aT^aT{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\right),`$
where in writing the last line we have used the fact that vertex operators in the string amplitudes correspond to Einstein frame metric, whereas, the metric in the tachyonic DBI action is string frame metric. The relation between them is $`g_S=e^{\varphi /6}g_E`$. The couplings in the first line above indicates that the tachyon has mass $`m^2=1/\alpha ^{}`$, as expected. The couplings in the second line indicates that the graviton couples to tachyon by making covariant the free action of tachyon. However, the couplings in the last line have a unique signature that imply the kinetic term of tachyon should appear under square root of a determinant as in (43). This ends our illustration of the complete consistency between S-matrix elements at $`s0`$ limit and tachyonic DBI action.

## 5 Discussion

In this paper, using gauge invariant operators corresponding to on-shell closed string states, 3-point interaction of open string field theory and standard Feynman rules, we have explicitly evaluated the amplitude for decaying two on-shell open string states in level zero or one and one closed string tachyon or graviton. In our calculation, the off-shell states propagating between the on-shell closed string state and two open string states in level more than two are truncated. We have then evaluated explicitly the same amplitudes in the bosonic string theory. Using an expansion for the beta function in these amplitudes, we have expand the amplitudes in terms of a tower of simple poles reflecting the off-shell states propagating between one on-shell closed string and two open string states, like in string field theory case. Truncating poles with more than level two, we have found that the results are exactly the same as in string field theory side up to some contact terms. To compare the contact terms of the amplitude in two theories as well, one needs the amplitude in string field theory side to have all infinite number of massive poles. This because individual contact terms of each massive pole has contribution to contact terms of the whole amplitude. It would be interesting then to find an exact tree level amplitude in string field theory side and compare with the exact form of the amplitude in the bosonic string theory found in section 3. Similar comparison has been done for the scattering amplitude of four open string tachyons in . Lastly, we have expanded the beta functions in the exact disk level decay amplitudes in the bosonic string theory case around $`s0`$ and found that their leading order terms can be fully described by the tachyonic DBI action (43).

The tachyonic DBI action produces only the leading terms of S-matrix elements expanded around top of the tachyon potential (not $`\alpha ^{}0`$ limit). Hence one may expect that the other terms of expansion have significant effect. So the field theory effective action of string theory at the top of the tachyon potential should have those contact terms as well, i.e., the action should have higher derivative terms as well. Interestingly, Sen has shown that some exact result of string theory, like production of a pressure-less gas with non-zero energy density at the late time of the tachyon condensation , can be derived also from the tachyonic DBI action  at minimum of the tachyon potential. Hence one may conclude that, as an effective action of string theory, although the higher derivative terms have important impact at the top of the tachyon potential, they have little effects at the minimum of the potential. Therefore, the tachyonic DBI action derived by studying S-matrix elements at the top of potential may be, in fact, effective action of string theory at the minimum of the tachyon potential.

In our calculation of decay amplitude we have ignored recoil of D-brane which allows us to ignore momentum conservation in the transverse directions and hence keep $`k_1k_2`$ arbitrary. This procedure of relaxing momentum conservation is in fact a particular way of off-shell extension of the S-matrix elements. It would be interesting also to extend the on-shell conditions $`k_1^2=1/2=k_2^2`$ to off-shell values as well. This might be possible by comparing the S-matrix elements in bosoinc string theory with the corresponding off-shell amplitudes in the string field theory side. In this way one may be able to find higher derivative corrections to the action (43). Alternatively, one may start from beginning with an off-shell approach to effective action like sigma model approach . In this approach one directly reads effective action from a sigma model partition function. It would be interesting then to see if the tachyonic DBI action (43) and its higher derivative corrections can be extracted in this way. We hope to answer these questions in our future works.

Acknowledgments: We would like to acknowledge useful conversations with M. Alishahiha. G.R.Maktabdaran was supported by Birjand university.