text:
# Brane world in a texture

## I Introduction

The idea of large extra dimensions has attracted much attention since it was introduced . In particular, the Randall-Sundrum scenario opened a distinct view of extra dimensions by taking a nonfactorizable geometry into an account . The scenario contains two 3-branes with nonzero tensions. One brane has a positive tension, and the other has a negative tension. The extra dimension is compact. The bulk is filled with a negative cosmological constant. The nonfactorizable geometry (the warp factor) of the extra dimension and the brane tensions are determined solely by the bulk cosmological constant.

The warp factor is peaked on the positive-tension brane, and decreases exponentially towards the negative-tension brane. The effective-particle scale is also peaked on the positive-tension brane, and decreases exponentially along the extra dimension due to the warp factor. Planck-scale particles are confined to the positive-tension brane, and TeV-scale particles are in the negative-tension brane.

The localization of gravity in this scenario has been investigated in Refs. . The massless graviton which is responsible for 4D gravity is localized on the positive-tension brane. The amplitude of the zero-mode graviton is highest there, and decreases away from that brane. However, the observer on the TeV brane sees gravity as essentially four dimensional even though the zero-mode amplitude is very small . This is mainly because the effect of massive Kaluza-Klein gravitons is suppressed.

The scenario was posited by string theoretic motivations. Subsequent work realized the four dimensional universe more naturally, as a sub-manifold associated with topological defects formed by a matter condensate in the extra dimensions . The defect solution determines the warped metric, and binds both gravitons and matter fields to a four dimensional internal space. Previous work has mainly focused on core defects such as domain walls, cosmic strings, and monopoles.

In this paper, we investigate brane physics induced by a global O(2) texture formed in an extra dimension . Textures are somewhat different from core defects. Global textures are produced when a continuous global symmetry $`G`$ is broken to a group $`H`$. The resulting homotopy group $`\pi _D(G/H)`$ is nontrivial, and the vacuum manifold is $`S^D`$; for $`G=\text{O}(N)`$ models, $`H=\text{O}(N1)`$ and $`D=N1`$. The mapping from the physical space to the vacuum manifold is $`R^DS^D`$.

After the symmetry is broken, the scalar field takes only the vacuum-expectation value which is the broken-symmetry state. There is no place in the physical space where the scalar field remains in the unbroken-symmetry state. This is the key difference between textures and core defects.

For a global O(2) texture, the mapping is $`R^1S^1`$. We identify the physical space $`R^1`$ with the extra dimensional space. After the scalar field completes its winding in the vacuum manifold, two spatial points on the boundaries of the physical space are mapped into the same point in the vacuum manifold. These two points are identified, and the extra dimension becomes compact.

The extra dimension is curved by the texture. The strength of the curvature depends on the symmetry-breaking scale of the texture. This curved geometry of the extra dimension sets the particle hierarchy as well as the Planck-mass hierarchy in the extra dimension. Thus, the role of the cosmological constant in the Randall-Sundrum scenario is replaced by the texture.

The model has two 3-branes of nonzero tension. The one has a positive, and the other has a negative tension. The particle-hierarchy scale between the two branes is determined solely by the symmetry-breaking scale. The Planck-scale particles are confined to the positive-tension brane. In order to have the particle scale be TeV on the negative-tension brane, the symmetry-breaking scale needs to be super 5D Planckian scale.

Gravity on the TeV brane is essentially four dimensional even though the amplitude of massless gravitons is relatively small. The higher dimensional effect of massive Kaluza-Klein gravitons is strongly suppressed on this brane. This result is similar to that of Ref. .

The structure of this paper is as following. In Sec. II, we present the model and derive field equations. In Sec. III, we obtain solutions and discuss the particle hierarchy. In Secs. IV and V, we study gravitons, and we conclude in Sec. VI.

## II The model and field equations

Let us consider an O(2) texture formed in one extra dimension. The vacuum manifold is $`S^1`$, and it is mapped to $`R^1`$ which we set to be the extra dimensional space. We shall consider a texture of one winding number. We assume that the extra dimension is compact with the $`Z_2`$ symmetry. The two spatial points in the extra dimension, at which the field takes the same value, are identified. Then the orbifold is $`S^1/Z_2`$.

The action describing the model of an O(2) texture and 3-branes in five dimensions is

$$𝒮=d^5x\sqrt{g}\left[\frac{}{16\pi G_N}\frac{1}{2}_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^a^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^a\frac{\lambda }{4}(\mathrm{\Phi }^a\mathrm{\Phi }^a\eta ^2)^2\right]_id^4x\sqrt{h}\sigma _i(\mathrm{\Phi }^a),$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$ is the scalar field with $`a=1,2`$, $`\eta `$ is the symmetry-breaking scale, $`\sigma _i`$ is the tension of the $`i`$-th brane, and $`g`$ ($`h`$) is the 5D (4D) metric density. For later convenience, we define $`\kappa ^2=8\pi G_N=1/M_{}^3`$, where $`M_{}`$ is the fundamental 5D Planck mass.

We adopt a conformally flat metric ansatz,

$$ds^2=g_{MN}dx^Mdx^N=B(y)(\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dy^2).$$
(2)
Here, we assume that the 3-brane is flat.

We take the scalar field to reside in the vacuum manifold, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a\mathrm{\Phi }^a=\eta ^2`$. The scalar field is of the form,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^a=\eta [\mathrm{cos}\chi (y),\mathrm{sin}\chi (y)],$$
(3)
where $`\chi (y)`$ is the phase factor in the field space. In this case, the nonlinear $`\sigma `$-model approximation is applied, and the coupling $`\lambda `$ appearing in the action is treated as a Lagrange multiplier. In this case, the scalar-field equation is

$$^A_A\mathrm{\Phi }^a=\frac{(^A\mathrm{\Phi }^b)(_A\mathrm{\Phi }^b)}{\eta ^2}\mathrm{\Phi }^a+\frac{\sqrt{h}}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\sigma _i(\mathrm{\Phi }^a)}{\mathrm{\Phi }^a}\delta (y_i),$$
(4)
where we have included the contribution of the branes.

The energy-momentum tensor of the texture and the branes is given by

$$T_N^M=^M\mathrm{\Phi }^a_N\mathrm{\Phi }^a\frac{1}{2}\delta _N^M_A\mathrm{\Phi }^a^A\mathrm{\Phi }^a\frac{\sqrt{h}}{\sqrt{g}}\sigma _i(\mathrm{\Phi }^a)\delta (y_i)\text{diag}(1,1,1,1,0).$$
(5)
The Einstein’s equation for the given metric and energy-momentum tensor leads to

$`G_\mu ^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{B}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{B^{\prime \prime }}{B}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{B}}\right)^2\right]=\kappa ^2\eta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\chi ^2}{2B}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{\sqrt{B}}}\left[\sigma _I(\mathrm{\Phi }^a)\delta (y)+\sigma _{II}(\mathrm{\Phi }^a)\delta (yy_{})\right],`$ (6)
$`G_y^y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{B}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{B}}\right)^2\right]=\kappa ^2\eta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\chi ^2}{2B}}.`$ (7)
Here, we assumed that there are two branes located at $`y=0`$ and $`y=y_{}`$, which will be justified in the next section.

The scalar-field equation leads to

$$\chi ^{\prime \prime }+\frac{3}{2}\frac{B^{}}{B}\chi ^{}=\frac{2\sqrt{B}}{\eta ^2}\left[\frac{\sigma _I}{\chi }\delta (y)+\frac{\sigma _{II}}{\chi }\delta (yy_{})\right].$$
(8)
## III The solutions

The solutions to the Einstein and the scalar-field equations presented in the previous section are

$`B(y)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[b_0\chi _0(|y|+y_0)\right]^{2/3},`$ (9)
$`\chi (y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{sign}(y)}{b_0}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|y|}{y_0}}+1\right),`$ (10)
where $`b_0=(\sqrt{3}/2)\kappa \eta `$. $`y_0`$ and $`\chi _0`$ are the integration constants. For convenience, we define a new constant, $`B_0=b_0\chi _0`$. If we perform a coordinate transformation to recast the solution into the form which contains the warp factor, the metric becomes
$$ds^2=\left[\frac{4}{3}B_0(|z|+z_0)\right]^{1/2}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dz^2.$$
(11)   This type of solutions appear in the 5D model with a free scalar field. (See, for example, Ref. .) However, as it will be discussed in the next few paragraphs, the texture imposes distinctly different boundary conditions which, for instance, allow the geometry to avoid a naked singularity.  We can take $`y_0>0`$ and $`B_0>0`$ without changing physics.

Let us discuss the solutions in detail. The solutions are plotted in Fig.1. In order to fix one integration constant in $`\chi (y)`$, we have already set $`\chi (y=0)=0`$. The phase factor $`\chi `$ varies from $`\pi `$ to $`\pi `$ for the scalar field to complete one winding in the vacuum manifold. We set the boundary as $`\chi (y=y_{})=\pi `$, and $`\chi (y=y_{})=\pi `$, which gives,

$$y_{}=y_0(e^{b_0\pi }1)y_0(e^{3n}1),$$
(12)
where we defined $`n=b_0\pi /3=(\pi /2\sqrt{3})\kappa \eta `$. (We shall refer to $`n`$ as the symmetry-breaking scale from now on.) Since we assume the $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold, $`y=y_{}`$ and $`y=y_{}`$ are identified, where their $`\chi `$-value corresponds to the same point in the vacuum manifold.

The gravitational field $`B(y)`$ is chosen to preserve $`Z_2`$ symmetry about $`y=0`$ and $`y=y_{}`$. Also, $`\chi (y)`$ is chosen so that the physical quantities determined by it should preserve $`Z_2`$ symmetry. Then, the observers at $`y=0`$ and $`y=y_{}`$ see that the extra dimension is symmetric. Such a symmetry can be obtained when we place two 3-branes of nonzero tension at $`y=0`$ and $`y=y_{}`$.

When we identify $`y=y_{}`$ with $`y=y_{}`$, $`\chi `$ will not be continuous there. However, this is not a problem since $`\chi =\pi `$ and $`\chi =\pi `$ represent the same point in the vacuum manifold. Therefore, $`\chi `$ is continuous on the brane at $`y=y_{}`$ as seen in Fig.1. In this sense, this texture of one winding number can be regarded equivalently as $`1/w`$ section of the texture of $`w`$ winding number.

Let us evaluate the brane tension from the boundary conditions on the branes. If we plug the solutions (9) and (10) in the Einstein equations, we obtain the brane tensions at two boundaries. The tension of the first brane at $`y=0`$ is given by

$$\sigma _I=\frac{2}{\kappa ^2(B_0y_0)^{1/3}y_0}<0.$$
(13)
We note that the tension is always negative.

To evaluate the tension of the second brane at $`y=y_{}`$, we recast the solutions in a slightly different form,

$`B(y)`$ $`=`$ $`[B_0(|yy_{}|+y_{}+y_0)]^{2/3},`$ (14)
$`\chi (y)`$ $`=`$ $`\text{sign}(yy_{})\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b_0}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|yy_{}|+y_{}}{y_0}}+1\right)\pi \right]+\pi .`$ (15)
Note that the solutions are unchanged in the bulk. From the Einstein equations, the tension of the second brane is given by

$$\sigma _{II}=\frac{2}{\kappa ^2[B_0(y_0+y_{})]^{1/3}(y_0+y_{})}=\frac{2}{\kappa ^2(B_0y_0)^{1/3}y_0e^{4n}}>0,$$
(16)
which is always positive. The ratio of the tensions is $`|\sigma _I/\sigma _{II}|=e^{4n}`$. $`\sigma _I`$ always has the larger magnitude.

In addition, from the scalar-field equation (8), we have

$$\frac{\sigma _I}{\chi }=\frac{\sigma _{II}}{\chi }=0.$$
(17)
We find that the tension is negative on the first brane where the gravitational field $`B(y)`$ is lowest, and is positive on the second brane where $`B`$ is highest. This is similar to the Randall-Sundrum model (RSI) .

Now, let us evaluate the proper distance between two branes. It is given by

$$l=_0^y_{}\sqrt{B(y)}𝑑y=\frac{3}{4}(B_0y_0)^{1/3}y_0(e^{4n}1)=\frac{3}{2\kappa ^2}\left(\frac{1}{\sigma _I}+\frac{1}{\sigma _{II}}\right).$$
(18)
Remarkably, the proper distance is determined by the sum of the inverse tensions of two branes. Thus, the three physical quantities, $`\sigma _I`$, $`\sigma _{II}`$, and $`l`$, are related to one another. Once one of the tensions is determined, the other tension is automatically determined for a given symmetry-breaking scale ($`n`$), and the proper distance between the branes is set.

With the given solution for the gravitational field, let us discuss the particle hierarchy of the model. We follow the same reasoning that was used in Ref. . The induced metric on the brane located at $`y=y_i`$ is

$$g_{\mu \nu }^i=g_{MN}(x^\mu ,y=y_i)=[B_0(y_i+y_0)]^{2/3}\eta _{\mu \nu },$$
(19)
and the metric on the second brane is

$$g_{\mu \nu }^{II}=g_{MN}(x^\mu ,y=y_{})=(B_0y_0)^{2/3}e^{2n}\eta _{\mu \nu }.$$
(20)
Let us consider Higgs-like particles on the brane at $`y_i`$. The action containing such particles is written as

$`𝒮_i`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g^i}[g_i^{\mu \nu }D_\mu H^{}D_\nu H+\lambda (|H|^2v_i^2)^2]}`$ (21)
$`=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g^{II}}\left[\left(\frac{y_i}{y_0}+1\right)^{2/3}e^{2n}g_{II}^{\mu \nu }D_\mu H^{}D_\nu H+\left(\frac{y_i}{y_0}+1\right)^{4/3}e^{4n}\lambda (|H|^2v_i^2)^2\right]}.`$ (22)
If we rescale the Higgs field by $`\overline{H}=(y_i/y_0+1)^{1/3}e^nH`$, the effective action which describes the particles on the brane at $`y_i`$ is given by

$$𝒮_{eff}=d^4x\sqrt{g^{II}}[g_{II}^{\mu \nu }D_\mu \overline{H}^{}D_\nu \overline{H}+\lambda (|\overline{H}|^2v_{eff}^2)^2].$$
(23)
The particles on the brane at $`y_i`$ are effectively described by the metric of the second brane $`g^{II}`$, and the effective symmetry-breaking scale becomes

$$v_{eff}=\left(\frac{y_i}{y_0}+1\right)^{1/3}e^nv_i.$$
(24)
The effective-particle scale is largest on the second brane, and flows along the extra dimension by a power law. The particle hierarchy between the two branes at $`y=0`$ and $`y=y_{}`$ is completely determined by the symmetry-breaking scale of the texture. We assume that Planck-scale particles are confined to the second brane. If we wish the particle scale on the first brane to be of TeV, it requires $`n35`$ ($`\kappa \eta 38`$). Therefore, the model requires only that the symmetry-breaking scale should be slightly supermassive to the fundamental 5D Planck mass scale.

From Eq. (24) we observe that the desired particle hierarchy is set up only if the location of the brane $`y_i`$ is very close to the first brane at $`y=0`$. This is because the gravitational field is a power-law function of $`y`$, rather than an exponentional one. From now on, we assume that our world is located on the first, TeV, brane.

## IV Localization of gravity

In this section, we investigate the localization of gravitons. Let us consider a small perturbation $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ to the background metric,

$$ds^2=B(y)\left\{\left[\eta _{\mu \nu }+\frac{h_{\mu \nu }}{B(y)}\right]dx^\mu dx^\nu +dy^2\right\}.$$
(25)
We assume that the only nonzero components are $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ ($`h_{\mu y}=h_{yy}=0`$), and apply a transverse-traceless gauge on $`h_{MN}`$, $`h_{MN|}{}_{}{}^{N}=0`$ and $`h_M^M=0`$, where the vertical bar denotes the covariant derivative with respect to the background metric. The Einstein’s equation for $`h_{MN}`$ reads

$$h_{MN|A}{}_{}{}^{A}+2R_{MANB}^{(B)}h^{AB}2R_{A(M}^{(B)}h_{N)}^A+\frac{2(6N)}{N2}\kappa ^2\sigma _i\delta (y_i)h_{MN}=0.$$
(26)
Here, the superscript $`(B)`$ represents that the quantity is evaluated in the unperturbed background metric, and $`N=5`$. We search the solution of a form, $`h_{\mu \nu }=h(y)\widehat{e}_{\mu \nu }e^{ip_\mu x^\mu }`$. In order to cast Eq. (26) into a nonrelativistic Schrödinger-type equation, we define a new function by $`\widehat{h}(y)=B^{1/4}h(y)`$, then the equation leads to

$$\left[\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2}{dy^2}+V(y)\right]\widehat{h}(y)=\frac{m^2}{2}\widehat{h}(y),$$
(27)
where the 4D graviton mass is determined by $`\mathrm{}^{(4)}h=p_\mu p^\mu h=m^2h`$, and the potential is

$$V(y)=\frac{1}{8(|y|+y_0)^2}\mathrm{\Sigma }_I\delta (y),$$
(28)
on the first brane, and

$$V(y)=\frac{1}{8(|yy_{}|y_{}y_0)^2}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{II}\delta (yy_{}),$$
(29)
on the second brane. Note that the $`V`$’s are the same in the bulk. The coefficients in the front of the delta functions are

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6y_0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\kappa ^2(B_0y_0)^{2/3}\sigma _I={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6y_0}}\left[14(B_0y_0)^{1/3}\right],`$ (30)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{II}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6(y_0+y_{})}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\kappa ^2[B_0(y_0+y_{})]^{2/3}\sigma _{II}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6y_0e^{3n}}}\left[14(B_0y_0)^{1/3}e^n\right].`$ (31)
For the zero mode, $`m=0`$, the solution to the equation (27) is

$$\widehat{h}_0^I(y)=\sqrt{|y|+y_0}[a_1+a_2\mathrm{ln}(|y|+y_0)].$$
(32)
Here, the superscript $`I`$ denotes that the solution is valid in the bulk and on the first brane. If we consider the original form of the perturbation to the background metric, this solution gives

$$ds^2=B(y)\left\{[\eta _{\mu \nu }+[b_1+b_2\chi (y)]\widehat{e}_{\mu \nu }e^{ip_\mu x^\mu }]dx^\mu dx^\nu +dy^2\right\}.$$
(33)
The first term of the zero-mode wave function turns out to be a constant contribution to the perturbation. This is analogous to that the amplitude of tensor perturbations stays constant on super-horizon scales in the standard four dimensional theory. This type of the solution is the only zero mode that arises in the other models. The second term of the wave function is the contribution of the scalar field $`\chi (y)`$ to the perturbation.

Note that neither of these two terms solely satisfy the boundary conditions on the branes. The zero mode must be a combination of these two terms. This is not true in the other models. Their boundary conditions usually require only one term in the zero-mode wave function.

Now, let us determine the coefficients of the solution considering boundary conditions on two branes. In order to consider the boundary condition on the second brane at $`y=y_{}`$, we need to recast the solution in

$$\widehat{h}_0^{II}(y)=\sqrt{|yy_{}|+y_{}+y_0}[a_1+a_2\mathrm{ln}(|yy_{}|+y_{}+y_0)].$$
(34)
If we plug solutions (32) and (34) into Eq. (27), we get two conditions at the boundaries, $`y=0`$ and $`y=y_{}`$,

$$\frac{a_1}{a_2}=\frac{2}{1+2\mathrm{\Sigma }_Iy_0}+\mathrm{ln}y_0=\frac{2}{1+2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{II}y_0e^{3n}}+\mathrm{ln}(y_0e^{3n}).$$
(35)
These conditions eliminate one of the two constants ($`a_1`$ or $`a_2`$) in the wave function, and determine $`(B_0y_0)^{1/3}`$. Using the expressions for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_I`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{II}`$, in Eqs. (30) and (31), and by defining $`\beta (B_0y_0)^{1/3}`$, the above condition reduces to

$$e^n\beta ^2\left[1+e^n+\frac{1}{2n}(1e^n)\right]\beta +1=0.$$
(36)
Therefore, $`\beta `$ is a function of $`n`$ only, and is determined by solving this polynomial equation. The solution is plotted in Fig.2. The solution exists above some critical value $`nn_c1.44`$. There are two solutions of $`\beta `$ for a given $`n`$, and the solutions are in the range, $`0<\beta <1`$. We call the upper branch of the solution $`\beta _p`$, and the lower $`\beta _n`$.

Applying the normalization condition, $`_0^y_{}|\widehat{h}_0(y)|^2𝑑y=e_l`$, determines the remaining constant of the wave function, where $`e_l`$ is the unit length. The zero-mode wave function is then

$$\widehat{h}_0(y)=[2y_0^2(\alpha _1e^{6n}+\alpha _2)/e_l]^{1/2}\sqrt{|y|+y_0}\left[\frac{2}{s_1}+\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{|y|}{y_0}+1\right)\right],$$
(37)
where

$`s_1`$ $`=`$ $`1+2\mathrm{\Sigma }_Iy_0={\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\left[1(B_0y_0)^{1/3}\right],`$ (38)
$`s_2`$ $`=`$ $`1+2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{II}y_0e^{3n}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\left[1(B_0y_0)^{1/3}e^n\right],`$ (39)
$`\alpha _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{s_1^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9n^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{6n}{s_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{3n}{2}},`$ (40)
$`\alpha _2`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{s_1^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\right).`$ (41)
All of these constants are the function of $`n`$ only, via $`\beta (n)`$. $`s_2`$ is defined here for future convenience.

The ratio between the amplitudes on the first and second branes is

$$\frac{|\widehat{h}_0(y_{})|^2}{|\widehat{h}_0(0)|^2}=e^{3n}\left(1\frac{3}{2}s_1n\right)^2.$$
(42)
For $`n=35`$, the amplitude of the zero mode is much larger on the second brane than the first brane. The amplitude of the wave function is plotted in Fig.3. For the $`\beta _n`$ solution, the amplitude is largest on the second brane, while for the $`\beta _p`$ solution, it is largest somewhere between the first and the second brane. There exists a point where the amplitude vanishes for both solutions.

With the zero-mode wave function, the Newtonian gravitational potential between the test mass $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ separated by the distance $`r`$ on the brane, is given by

$$V_{Newt}(r)=\frac{G_N|\widehat{h}_0(y)|^2}{|\widehat{h}_0(y)|^2𝑑y}\frac{M_1M_2}{r}$$
(43)
The 4D gravitational constant on the first brane is given by

$$G_4(y=0)=G_N\frac{|\widehat{h}_0(0)|^2}{e_l}=G_N\frac{2}{y_0s_1^2(\alpha _1e^{6n}+\alpha _2)}.$$
(44)
Since $`G_4(0)=1/M_{Pl}^2`$ and $`G_N=1/M_{}^3`$, $`y_0`$ is expressed by the fundamental mass scale

$$y_0=\frac{1}{M_{}}\left(\frac{M_{Pl}}{M_{}}\right)^2\frac{2}{s_1^2(\alpha _1e^{6n}+\alpha _2)}.$$
(45)
If we require that the fundamental 5D Planck mass $`M_{}`$ should be of TeV scale, the above formula determines the value of $`y_0`$.

Therefore, all the constants in the model have been determined. Requiring the particle hierarchy between two branes, the symmetry-breaking scale of the texture was determined ($`n35`$). The boundary condition of the zero-mode graviton fixes $`\beta =(B_0y_0)^{1/3}`$ for a given $`n`$. Finally, $`y_0`$ is determined by the requirement of the hierarchy between the 4D and the 5D Planck mass.

Since we have determined all the constants, let us estimate some physical quantities determined by those constants. The quantities are shown in Table I for $`n=35`$. Since there are two values of $`\beta `$ for a given $`n`$, two values for each quantity have been presented. $`\beta `$ and $`y_0`$ are evaluated by Eq. (36) and Eq. (45). The large difference between $`\sigma _I`$ and $`\sigma _{II}`$ is already implied in their formulae, Eqs. (13) and (16). Since the proper distance $`l`$ between the two branes is determined by the sum of the inverse tensions, its numerical scale is mainly determined by the inverse of the smaller tension, $`\sigma _{II}`$.

For $`\beta _p`$, the proper distance $`l`$ is reasonably large. This separation will not be disturbed by quantum fluctuations of the particles on the TeV brane. On the other hand, for $`\beta _n`$, the separation is far smaller than the particle-length scales on the brane. This length scale will be easily disturbed. Therefore, from now on, we shall consider only the $`\beta _p`$-solution.

## V Massive Kaluza-Klein gravitons

In this section, we study massive Kaluza-Klein (KK) gravitons. Since our model is a compactified one, there exists a discrete spectrum of massive modes. The solution of the mass eigenvalue equation (27) is given by

$$\widehat{h}_m^I(y)=\sqrt{|y|+y_0}\left\{c_1J_0[m(|y|+y_0)]+c_2Y_0[m(|y|+y_0)]\right\},$$
(46)
where $`J`$ ($`Y`$) is the Bessel function of the first (second) kind. In the limit of small argument of the Bessel function, $`m(|y|+y_0)1`$, the first term reduces to the first term of the zero-mode wave function, and the second does to the second. Therefore, the zero-mode wave function is a limit of the massive-mode wave function when $`m0`$. This fact will help us later in analyzing the correction to the Newtonian gravitational potential from very light modes.

Viewed from the second brane, the solution is recast in the form,

$$\widehat{h}_m^{II}(y)=\sqrt{|yy_{}|+y_{}+y_0}\left\{c_1J_0[m(|yy_{}|+y_{}+y_0)]+c_2Y_0[m(|yy_{}|+y_{}+y_0)]\right\}.$$
(47)
Similarly to the zero-mode case, on the two branes, these solutions (46) and (47) provide two conditions from Einstein equations. The ratio of the coefficients is determined by

$$\frac{c_1}{c_2}=\frac{s_1Y_0(my_0)2my_0Y_1(my_0)}{s_1J_0(my_0)2my_0J_1(my_0)}=\frac{s_2Y_0(my_0e^{3n})2my_0e^{3n}Y_1(my_0e^{3n})}{s_2J_0(my_0e^{3n})2my_0e^{3n}J_1(my_0e^{3n})},$$
(48)
where $`s_1`$ and $`s_2`$ were defined in Eqs. (38) and (39). Then, the wave function reads

$$\widehat{h}_m^I(y)=c_2\sqrt{|y|+y_0}\left\{\frac{s_1Y_0(my_0)2my_0Y_1(my_0)}{s_1J_0(my_0)2my_0J_1(my_0)}J_0[m(|y|+y_0)]+Y_0[m(|y|+y_0)]\right\},$$
(49)
where $`c_2`$ is determined by the normalization,

$`c_2^2/e_l`$ $`=`$ $`\{y_0^2e^{6n}(s_2^2+4m^2y_0^2e^{6n}){\displaystyle \frac{[J_0(my_0e^{3n})Y_1(my_0e^{3n})J_1(my_0e^{3n})Y_0(my_0e^{3n})]^2}{[s_2J_0(my_0e^{3n})2my_0e^{3n}J_1(my_0e^{3n})]^2}}`$ (50)
$``$ $`y_0^2(s_1^2+4m^2y_0^2){\displaystyle \frac{[J_0(my_0)Y_1(my_0)J_1(my_0)Y_0(my_0)]^2}{[s_1J_0(my_0)2my_0J_1(my_0)]^2}}\}^1.`$ (51)
The wave function $`\widehat{h}_m^{II}(y)`$ is written in a similar way.

In addition to determining the ratio $`c_1/c_2`$, Eq. (48) determines the Kaluza-Klein mass spectrum. Unfortunately, it seems impossible to get an analytic description for $`m`$ from the above equation. In order to view the mass spectrum, we construct a mass-spectrum function from Eq. (48),

$`F_m(my_0)`$ $`=`$ $`[s_1Y_0(my_0)2my_0Y_1(my_0)][s_2J_0(my_0e^{3n})2my_0e^{3n}J_1(my_0e^{3n})]`$ (52)
$``$ $`[s_1J_0(my_0)2my_0J_1(my_0)][s_2Y_0(my_0e^{3n})2my_0e^{3n}Y_1(my_0e^{3n})].`$ (53)
The zeroes of this function give the mass eigenvalues. It is plotted in Fig.4 for $`n=35`$ and for $`\beta _p`$. A few of the light modes are shown in the plot. As usual in the compactified model, the mass gap is about the inverse of the extra dimension size, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m1/y_{}1/y_0e^{3n}`$.

Now, let us discuss the contribution of the light KK modes to the Newtonian gravitational potential. The correction from the KK modes on the first brane is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }V_{Newt}(r)=\frac{M_1M_2}{r}\underset{j}{}\frac{G_N|\widehat{h}_m(0)|^2}{e_l}e^{m_jr},$$
(54)
where $`e_l`$ comes from the normalization of the wave function. As it was mentioned in the beginning of this section, in the limit of $`m(|y|+y_0)1`$, the wave function $`\widehat{h}_m(y)`$ reduces to the zero-mode wave function $`\widehat{h}_0(y)`$. If we consider the mass gap, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m(y_{}+y_0)1`$, the above limit is achieved only when $`y`$ is small: At the location of the second brane, the above limit cannot be achieved. Hence, on the first brane, for very light KK modes, the wave function is very close to that of the zero mode. The KK coupling constant is then approximately the zero-mode coupling which is the 4D Planck scale, $`G_N|\widehat{h}_m(0)|^2/e_lG_N|\widehat{h}_0(0)|^2/e_l`$. The light KK modes couple as weakly as the zero mode does on the first brane.

Even if the coupling is weak, the correction should be suppressed by the exponential Yukawa factor. Otherwise, its contribution to the Newtonian potential will not be negligible. The exponential factor is negligible when $`m_jr1`$, therefore,

$$r\frac{1}{m_j}\frac{y_0e^{3n}}{j}\frac{10^{11}}{j}\text{TeV}^1\frac{10^{27}}{j}\text{mm}.$$
(55)
This range is much smaller than the current experimental resolution which is of order 1mm. Therefore, the effect of the light KK modes to the Newtonian potential is negligible in the regime where gravity is measured currently.

To study the very massive KK modes, first, let us evaluate the mass spectrum more precisely. For the large-mass limit, $`my_01`$, the spectrum function $`F_m`$ in Eq. (53) reduces to

$$F_m\frac{\pi my_0}{2}\left\{(s_1s_2+4m^2y_0^2e^{3n})\mathrm{sin}[my_0(1e^{3n})]2my_0(s_1e^{3n}s_2)\mathrm{cos}[my_0(1e^{3n})]\right\},$$
(56)
where we have used the asymptotic formulae of the Bessel functions for the large argument, $`J_n(x)\sqrt{2/\pi x}\mathrm{cos}(xn\pi /2\pi /4)`$, and $`Y_n(x)\sqrt{2/\pi x}\mathrm{sin}(xn\pi /2\pi /4)`$. In order to obtain the mass spectrum, we require $`F_m=0`$ which reduces to

$$\mathrm{tan}[my_0(e^{3n}1)]=\frac{2my_0(s_1e^{3n}s_2)}{s_1s_2+4m^2y_0^2e^{3n}}.$$
(57)
Then, for large $`m`$, the mass spectrum is approximately given by

$$m_j\frac{j\pi }{y_0(e^{3n}1)}=\frac{j\pi }{y_{}}.$$
(58)
This spectrum provides approximately the same mass gap that we guessed for the light modes.

With this mass spectrum, the sum in the correction to the Newtonian potential (54) converges. Similarly to the light modes, the Yukawa factor suppresses the correction efficiently when $`r(10^{27}/j\pi )\text{mm}`$. Therefore, the contribution of the very massive KK modes to the Newtonian potential is also very small.

To estimate the KK coupling constant of the very massive modes, we obtain an approximate description of $`\widehat{h}_m(y)`$ from Eq. (49). Then, we find

$$G_N\frac{|\widehat{h}_m(0)|^2}{e_l}\frac{G_N}{y_{}}\frac{10^{11}}{M_{}^2}.$$
(59)
This is almost an MeV-scale coupling which is very large. However, as it was shown earlier, the potential is strongly suppressed by the Yukawa factor, so the total correction is very small within the experimental resolution.

Before we close this section, let us investigate if there are any tachyonic-graviton modes. Usually the solutions of a Sturm-Liouville type equation possess $`n`$-nodes for a given eigenvalue $`E_n`$. There exists the lowest eigenvalue $`E_0`$ of which the corresponding eigenfunction does not have any zero. The zero-mode wave function (37) of our model possesses one zero regardless of the value of the symmetry-breaking scale $`n`$. Therefore, we suspect there exists one tachyonic mode, $`m^2<0`$, which is the lowest mode of the solutions.

In order to see if there exists a tachyonic mode, we may use exactly the same analysis as we made for the regular modes. For tachyonic modes, the mass-spectrum function $`F_m`$ in Eq. (53) becomes complex after we replace $`m=iM`$, where $`M`$ is real. The zero of $`|F_m|`$ corresponds to the tachyonic mode if there is any. We perform numerical calculations to search the zero of $`|F_m|`$. There result shows that there is one zero of $`|F_m|`$. (See Fig.5.)

Since there exists a tachyonic mode in the gravitational perturbations, the brane becomes unstable. Even if we found the static solutions of the model, the stability is disturbed by the growing perturbation due to the tachyonic mode. However, it is too early to conclude that the model is completely unstable. We have considered only the tensorial part of gravitational perturbations. In order to investigate the stability in full considerations, we need to include the perturbations of the scalar field as well as the radion . If we take those perturbations into an account, the story of the stability may change.

## VI Conclusions

We investigated a brane model in five dimensions provided by an O(2) texture formed in one extra dimension. It has two branes of nonzero tension, and the extra dimension is compact. One brane has a positive tension, and the other has a negative tension. In order to satisfy the boundary conditions on the two branes, the symmetry-breaking scale of the texture needs to be slightly super-Planckian. The gravitational field (or warp factor) is a power-law function of the extra coordinate, $`y`$. (The warp factor has a power $`1/2`$ in $`y`$.) The warp factor is highest on the positive-tension brane, and lowest on the negative-tension brane.

Even though the warp factor is not an exponential function of $`y`$, the particle hierarchy between two branes is well set up by an exponential factor produced solely by the symmetry-breaking scale of the texture. In order to achieve a proper particle hierarchy, the symmetry-breaking scale needs to be $`\eta 38/\sqrt{8\pi G_N}`$. Planck-scale particles are then confined to the positive-tension brane, and TeV-scale particles are confined to the negative-tension brane.

The magnitude of the tension is larger on the negative-tension brane by an exponential factor of the symmetry-breaking scale. The proper separation between two branes is completely determined by the two tensions. For the value of $`\eta `$ given above, it is order of $`10^4\text{TeV}^1`$. This separation will be stable against the quantum fluctuations of the particles on the branes.

Four dimensional gravity is recovered on the TeV brane. As in the RSI model, the amplitude of the zero-mode graviton wave function is suppressed on the TeV brane compared with that on the Planck brane. In fact, this is how we have a very weak coupling of four dimensional gravity in our world. However, this suppression of the tensor-mode gravity makes the scalar-mode gravity more significant, which is not damped. In this case, 4D gravity deviates from the standard Einstein gravity to Brans-Dicke gravity .

Since the extra dimension is compact, there exists a discrete spectrum of massive Kaluza-Klein modes. On the TeV brane, light-mode gravitons couple as weakly as the zero mode does. Their contribution to the Newtonian potential is suppressed by the Yukawa factor. The heavy-mode gravitons couple very strongly, at an MeV scale, but they are again suppressed in the regime where gravity is currently measured. Therefore, the observer on the TeV brane essentially sees gravity as four dimensional.

Other than the zero mode and the massive Kaluza-Klein modes, there also exists a tachyonic mode. Due to this mode the brane will be unstable. However, to complete discussing the stability of the model, we need to include the perturbations of the scalar field and the radion. We hope we get back to this in the future.

###### Acknowledgements.

I am grateful to Katherine Benson for encouraging me working on a texture model. I also thank Christos Charmousis, Stephen Davis, Jihad Mourad, and Takahiro Tanaka for helpful discussions.


format: text

text:
# The double outburst of the unique object V838 Mon

### Acknowledgments.

J. P. O. and T. T. are grateful to SOC and LOC for the support. This study was supported by Polish KBN Grants No. 5 P03D 003 20 & No. 5 P03D 013 21. We are grateful to the VSNET observers.

## References

Bowen, I.S. 1947, PASP, 59, 196

Brown, N.J. 2002, IAU Circ. No. 7785

Iijima, T. 2002, IAU Circ. No. 7786

Munari, U., Henden, A., Kiyota, S., et al. 2002, A&A, 389, L51

Zwitter, T., Munari, U. 2002, IAU Circ. No. 7812


text:
# Three-Quark Light-Cone Amplitudes of The Proton And Quark-Orbital-Motion Dependent Observables

## I introduction

In the simplest model of the proton, the valence quarks are moving in the $`s`$-orbit and the proton spin is constructed from the quark spins. This picture has been ruled out definitely by the EMC data Ashman et al. (1989) and the follow-up experiments, SMC, E142, E143, E152, E153, and HERMES Filippone and Ji (2001). One then expects that the quarks in the proton must have non-zero orbital angular momentum and/or the gluons must carry part of the proton spin. When the orbital angular momenta of quarks and gluons are none-zero, the nucleon is intrinsically deformed. An interesting question is how big is the deformation? or how much does the quark orbital angular momentum contribute to the spin of the nucleon? A few years ago one of us derived a sum rule, relating the total angular momentum carried by quarks to an integral over the relevant generalized parton distributions (GPDs)Ji (1997a); Muller et al. (1994). The orbital angular momentum can be obtained by subtracting the measured quark helicity contribution. This observation has lead to very active studies of GPDs and their measurements in hard exclusive processesJi (1998); Radyushkin (2000); Goeke et al. (2001).

There are, in fact, many observables which are potentially sensitive to the orbital angular momentum of the quarks, although they do not directly measure the orbital angular momentum itself. For example, the Pauli form factor $`F_2(Q^2)`$ of the proton, which has been measured recently using the recoil polarization technique at JLab Jones et al. (2000); Gayou et al. (2002), has long been recognized as an observable related to the light-cone amplitudes with non-zero orbital angular momentum Brodsky and Drell (1980); Jain and Ralston (1993); Brodsky et al. (2001a). The twist-three spin-dependent structure function $`g_T(x)=g_1(x)+g_2(x)`$ vanishes in the naive parton model, and its interpretation requires quarks’ orbital motionIoffe et al. (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1984); Kane et al. (1978); Jaffe and Ji (1991). The generalized parton distributions such as $`E(x,\xi ,Q^2)`$ were introduced to characterize quark orbital angular momentum in the first place Ji (1997a); Hoodbhoy et al. (1999a, b). And finally, the transverse-momentum dependent parton distributions Soper (1979); Sivers (1990, 1991); Anselmino et al. (1995); Mulders and Tangerman (1996); Boer and Mulders (1998) contain rich and direct information about the quark orbital motion Brodsky et al. (2002a, b); Collins (2002); Ji and Yuan (2002). A natural question is can one correlate all these observables in terms of light-cone wave functions in a minimally-model-dependent way? This paper is an attempt in this direction.

Our approach starts with the light-cone expansion of the proton state truncated to the minimum Fock sector with just three valence quarks Lepage and Brodsky (1980); Brodsky et al. (1998). Unlike the light-cone amplitudes studied in the exclusive processes Chernyak and Zhitnitsky (1984); King and Sachrajda (1987); Chernyak et al. (1989); Braun et al. (1999, 2000), we keep the full dependence on the transverse momenta of the quarks. Some previous studies in this direction can found in Refs.Botts and Sterman (1989); Bolz and Kroll (1996); Diehl et al. (1999). Clearly, this truncation is ideal: we do not have the gluon and sea quark degrees of freedom; we do not have manifest rotational symmetry and gauge invariance. However, the truncation can be improved systematically by including higher Fock components, for example, adding one or more pair of sea quarks and/or one or more gluons, etc. Therefore, in this study we will ignore certain artifacts arising from this specific truncation.

Based on our work here, one can go on to parameterize the three-quark amplitudes and fit to the experimental data. The amplitudes thus determined are phenomenological, and in principle cannot be compared with those solved from QCD directly. However, a comparison helps to determine the importance of the three quark amplitudes vs. multi-particle Fock amplitudes. One may also consider the phenomenological amplitudes as the effective proton wave function after integrating out the gluon and sea quark degrees of freedom, although the integrations are hard to implement in practice.

By committing ourselves to the light-cone amplitudes, we are also committing to the light-cone gauges $`A^+=0`$ Kogut and Soper (1970). One can in principle add light-cone links between the quark fields to make the light-cone amplitudes gauge-invariant, but we do not find a compelling reason to do this. One subtlety about the light-cone gauge is that it requires additional gauge fixing Mueller and Qiu (1986); Slavnov and Frolov (1987); Antonov (1988). Depending on whether the additional gauge condition is time-reversal invariant or not, the wave function amplitudes are real or fully complex. In the latter case, the final state interaction effects are contained in the amplitudes Kovchegov (1997); Ji and Yuan (2002); Belitsky et al. (2002).

Our plan of the presentation is as follows. We start in Sec. II by writing down the matrix elements of three-quark light-cone operators between proton state and the QCD vacuum, which serve to define a complete set of light-cone amplitudes within the truncation. We simplify these matrix elements using color, flavor, spin, and discrete symmetries. We then invert them in Sec. III to find the three-quark light-cone wave functions. As we have explained in Ref. Burkardt et al. (2002), there are many advantages in this construction. One is that the cut-off dependence of the light-cone amplitudes can be studied directly from the matrix elements. We derived the scale evolution equation of the individual Fock contributions to the parton densities in Burkardt et al. (2002). Another is that these matrix elements may be calculated in the nucleon models or lattice QCD: it is not necessary to construct a model of the nucleon directly in the light-cone frame. Finally, the large-momentum behavior of the nucleon amplitudes can be determined from Bethe-Salpeter-like equations governing the matrix elements. In Sec. IV, we calculate a number of physical observables which are directly linked to the amplitudes with non-zero quark orbital angular momentum.

## II Three-quark light-cone matrix elements

In this section, we are interested in classifying the matrix elements of three-quark operators between the proton and QCD vacuum. Since much of the discussion depends on the use of light-cone coordinates and light-cone gauge, we start by reminding the reader some salient features of the light-cone technology, and a more detailed exposition can be found in Lepage and Brodsky (1980); Brodsky et al. (1998).

The light-cone time $`x^+`$ and coordinate $`x^{}`$ are defined as $`x^\pm =1/\sqrt{2}(x^0\pm x^3)`$. Likewise we define Dirac matrices $`\gamma ^\pm =1/\sqrt{2}(\gamma ^0\pm \gamma ^3)`$. The projection operators for Dirac fields are defined as $`P_\pm =(1/2)\gamma ^{}\gamma ^\pm `$. Any Dirac field $`\psi `$ can be decomposed into $`\psi =\psi _++\psi _{}`$ with $`\psi _\pm =P_\pm \psi `$. $`\psi _+`$ is a dynamical degrees of freedom and has the canonical expansion,

$`\psi _+(\xi ^+=0,\xi ^{},\xi _{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k_{}}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^+}{2k^+}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}[b_\lambda (k)u(k\lambda )e^{i(k^+\xi ^{}\stackrel{}{k}_{}\stackrel{}{\xi }_{})}`$ (1)
$`+d_\lambda ^{}(k)v(k\lambda )e^{i(k^+\xi ^{}\stackrel{}{k}_{}\stackrel{}{\xi }_{})}].`$
Likewise, for the gluon fields in the light-cone gauge $`A^+=0`$, $`A_{}`$ is dynamical and has the expansion,

$`A_{}(\xi ^+=0,\xi ^{},\xi _{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k_{}}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^+}{2k^+}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}[a_\lambda (k)ϵ(k\lambda )e^{i(k^+\xi ^{}\stackrel{}{k}_{}\stackrel{}{\xi }_{})}`$ (2)
$`+a_\lambda ^{}(k)ϵ^{}(k\lambda )e^{i(k^+\xi ^{}\stackrel{}{k}_{}\stackrel{}{\xi }_{})}].`$
$`\psi _{}`$ and $`A^{}`$ are dependent variables.

The key observation in Ref. Burkardt et al. (2002) is that the light-cone Fock expansion of a hadron state is completely defined by the matrix elements of a special class equal-light-cone-time quark-gluon operators between the QCD vacuum and the hadron. These operators are specified as follows: Take the + component of the Dirac field $`\psi _+`$ and the $`+`$-component of the gauge field $`F^+`$. \[We sometimes label the $``$ components with index $`i=1,2`$.\] Assume all these fields are at light-cone time $`x^+=0`$, but otherwise with arbitrary dependence on other spacetime coordinates. Products of these fields with the right quantum numbers (spin, flavor, and color) define a set of operator basis. \[This has been done in the past for light-cone amplitudes in which all fields are separated along the light-cone, see for example Braun et al. (1999).\] Clearly, these operators are not gauge-invariant although one can gauge-invariantize them by inserting light-cone links extending from the locations of the fields to infinity for every field. Since all fields are at different spacetime points in the transverse direction, the operators do not require additional renormalization subtractions apart from the usual wave function renormalization. The matrix elements of all these operators between the hadron state and the QCD vacuum contain complete information about the hadron wave function.

In the following two subsections, we will use the above method to study the matrix elements of operators constructed out of three quark fields between proton and the QCD vacuum. We discuss separately the cases for the two up-quarks coupling to helicity-zero and one.

### II.1 Two Up-Quarks Coupling To Helicity-Zero

When the two up-quarks are coupled to helicity-0, we define the following two matrix elements,

$`0|u_+^{Ta}(\xi _1)C\gamma ^+u_+^b(\xi _2)d_+^c(\xi _3)ϵ^{abc}|P`$
$`=`$ $`\varphi ^{(1)}(1,2,3)\gamma _5U_++(i_1^i\varphi ^{(2)}(1,2,3)+i_2^i\varphi ^{(2)}(2,1,3))\gamma _5\gamma ^iU_+`$
$`+\stackrel{~}{}_1^i_2^i\varphi ^{(3)}(1,2,3)U_+,`$
(4)
$`0|u_+^{Ta}(\xi _1)C\gamma ^+\gamma _5u_+^b(\xi _2)d_+^c(\xi _3)ϵ^{abc}|p`$
$`=`$ $`\varphi ^{(4)}(1,2,3)U_++(i_1^i\varphi ^{(5)}(1,2,3)i_2^i\varphi ^{(5)}(2,1,3))\gamma ^iU_+`$
$`+\stackrel{~}{}_1^i_2^i\gamma _5\varphi ^{(6)}(1,2,3)U_+,`$
where $`a,b,c=(1,2,3)`$ are color indices of the quarks, $`C`$ is the charge conjugation matrix ($`C=i\gamma ^2\gamma ^0`$), and $`|P`$ is the proton state with momentum $`P^\mu `$ and Dirac spinor $`U_+(P)`$. The arguments 1, 2, and 3 in the scalar functions $`\varphi ^{(i)}`$ stand for $`(\xi _1^{},\stackrel{}{\xi }_1)`$, $`(\xi _2^{},\stackrel{}{\xi }_2)`$, and $`\xi _3^{},\stackrel{}{\xi }_3)`$, and the functional dependence on transverse coordinates are of type $`\stackrel{}{\xi }_i\stackrel{}{\xi }_j`$ only. The up and down quark fields are represented by $`u`$ and $`d`$, respectively. The index $`i`$ goes over the transverse coordinates 1, 2. In the above equations, we have used the symmetry relations ($`T`$ stands for transpose)

$`u_+^{Ta}(\xi _1)C\gamma ^+u_+^b(\xi _2)ϵ^{abc}`$ $`=`$ $`u_+^{Ta}(\xi _2)C\gamma ^+u_+^b(\xi _1)ϵ^{abc},`$ (5)
$`u_+^{Ta}(\xi _1)C\gamma ^+\gamma _5u_+^b(\xi _2)ϵ^{abc}`$ $`=`$ $`u_+^{Ta}(\xi _2)C\gamma ^+\gamma _5u_+^b(\xi _1)ϵ^{abc},`$
which imply

$`\varphi ^{(1)}(1,2,3)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi ^{(1)}(2,1,3),\varphi ^{(6)}(1,2,3)=\varphi ^{(6)}(2,1,3),`$
$`\varphi ^{(3)}(1,2,3)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi ^{(3)}(2,1,3),\varphi ^{(4)}(1,2,3)=\varphi ^{(4)}(2,1,3).`$ (6)
The matrix elements have an overall dependence on $`\xi _1+\xi _2+\xi _3`$ through a phase factor $`e^{i(\xi _1+\xi _2+\xi _3)P/3}`$, which we assumed has been factorized implicitly. The remaining dependence is on the differences of the coordinates, for example, $`\xi _1\xi _2`$ and $`\xi _2\xi _3`$, because of the translational invariance. Therefore, the partial derivative $`_3^i`$ is not independent of $`_1^i`$ and $`_2^i`$, and has been omitted. We have not included the structure $`\stackrel{~}{}^i\gamma ^i`$ in these equations because it is the same as $`^i\gamma ^i\gamma _5`$ when acting on $`U_+`$ using $`\gamma ^i\gamma ^+\gamma ^{}U_+=0`$. We use the shorthand $`\stackrel{~}{}^i=ϵ^{ij}^j`$ ($`ϵ^{12}=1`$). Similarly the structure $`\stackrel{~}{}_1^i_2^i_1^j\gamma ^jU_+`$ can be reduced to the existing ones.

We can simplify the above equations by adding them and applying the chiral projection operators $`P_{L,R}=(1\gamma _5)/2`$

$`20|u_{+R}^{Ta}(\xi _1)C\gamma ^+u_{+L}^b(\xi _2)d_{+R}^c(\xi _3)ϵ^{abc}|P`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`\left[\varphi ^{(1)}(1,2,3)\varphi ^{(4)}(1,2,3)\right]U_{+R}+\stackrel{~}{}_1^i_2^i\left[\varphi ^{(3)}(1,2,3)\varphi ^{(6)}(1,2,3)\right]U_{+R}`$
$`+[i_1^i(\varphi ^{(2)}(1,2,3)\varphi ^{(5)}(1,2,3))+i_2^i(\varphi ^{(2)}(2,1,3))+\varphi ^{(5)}(2,1,3))]\gamma ^iU_{+L}.`$
The two-up quarks have been paired to helicity-zero, and the remaining down quark is projected to be right-handed. We can further simplify the above equation by introducing the new amplitudes,

$`0|u_{+R}^{Ta}(\xi _1)C\gamma ^+u_{+L}^b(\xi _2)d_{+R}^c(\xi _3)ϵ^{abc}/\sqrt{6}|P`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`\psi ^{(1)}(1,2,3)U_{+R}+i^2_1^ii\stackrel{~}{}_2^i\psi ^{(2)}(1,2,3)U_{+R}+\left[i_1^i\psi ^{(3)}(1,2,3)+i_2^i\psi ^{(4)}(1,2,3)\right]\gamma ^iU_{+L},`$
where $`\psi `$’s have no specific symmetry properties because the two up quarks are not in the same helicity state. If the nucleon is right-handed, we split the above equation into two

$`0|u_{+R}^{Ta}(\xi _1)C\gamma ^+u_{+L}^b(\xi _2)d_{+R}^c(\xi _3){\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{abc}}{\sqrt{6}}}|P=[\psi ^{(1)}(1,2,3)+i^2_1^ii\stackrel{~}{}_2^i\psi ^{(2)}(1,2,3)]U_{+R},`$ (9)
$`0|u_{+R}^{Ta}(\xi _1)C\gamma ^+u_{+L}^b(\xi _2)d_{+L}^c(\xi _3){\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{abc}}{\sqrt{6}}}|P=[i_1^i\psi ^{(3)}(1,2,3)+i_2^i\psi ^{(4)}(1,2,3)]\gamma ^iU_{+R}.`$ (10)
In our convention $`^i=/x^i`$ and $`\gamma ^i`$ is that of Bjorken and Drell Bjorken and Drell (McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 1965).

### II.2 Two Up-Quarks Coupling To Helicity-One

When the two up quarks are coupled to helicity-1, we define the matrix element,

$`0|u_+^{aT}(\xi _1)Ci\sigma ^{+i}u_+^b(\xi _2)d_+^c(\xi _3)ϵ^{abc}/\sqrt{6}|P`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`\varphi ^{(7)}(1,2,3)\gamma ^i\gamma _5U_++\left(i_1^i\varphi ^{(8)}(1,2,3)+i_2^i\varphi ^{(8)}(2,1,3)\right)\gamma _5U_+`$
$`+\left(\stackrel{~}{}_1^i\varphi ^{(9)}(1,2,3)+\stackrel{~}{}_2^i\varphi ^{(9)}(2,1,3)\right)U_+`$
$`+[i_1^{(i}i_1^{j)}\varphi ^{(10)}(1,2,3)+i_2^{(i}i_2^{j)}\varphi ^{(10)}(2,1,3)`$
$`+i_1^{(i}i_2^{j)}\varphi ^{(11)}(1,2,3)+i^2(_1^i_2^j_2^i_1^j)\varphi ^{(12)}(1,2,3)]\gamma ^j\gamma _5U_+,`$
where the parentheses on a pair of indices indicate symmetrization and subtraction of the trace. The symmetry between two up-quarks yields

$`\varphi ^{(7)}(1,2,3)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi ^{(7)}(2,1,3),\varphi ^{(11)}(1,2,3)=\varphi ^{(11)}(2,1,3),`$
$`\varphi ^{(12)}(1,2,3)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi ^{(12)}(2,1,3).`$ (12)
When inserting an additional $`\gamma _5`$ between the two up quark fields, and using $`\sigma ^{+i}\gamma _5=iϵ^{ij}\sigma ^{+j}`$, we obtain a similar expression,

$`0|u_+^{aT}(\xi _1)Ci\sigma ^{+i}\gamma _5u_+^b(\xi _2)d_+^c(\xi _3)ϵ^{abc}/\sqrt{6}|P`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`\varphi ^{(7)}(1,2,3)\gamma ^iU_++\left(\stackrel{~}{}_1^i\varphi ^{(8)}(1,2,3)+\stackrel{~}{}_2^i\varphi ^{(8)}(2,1,3)\right)\gamma _5U_+`$
$`+\left(i_1^i\varphi ^{(9)}(1,2,3)+i_2^i\varphi ^{(9)}(2,1,3)\right)U_+`$
$`i[i\stackrel{~}{}_1^{(i}i_1^{j)}\varphi ^{(10)}(1,2,3)+i\stackrel{~}{}_2^{(i}i_2^{j)}\varphi ^{(10)}(2,1,3)`$
$`+i\stackrel{~}{}_1^{(i}i_2^{j)}\varphi ^{(11)}(1,2,3)+i^2(\stackrel{~}{}_1^i_2^j\stackrel{~}{}_2^i_1^j)\varphi ^{(12)}(1,2,3)]\gamma ^j\gamma _5U_+,`$
where we have used $`\gamma ^i=iϵ^{ij}\gamma ^j\gamma _5`$, valid when acting on $`U_+`$.

Combining Eqs. (11) and (13), we obtain the matrix elements of the quark fields in definite chirality states. For example, when the two up-quarks are right-handed, and the down quark left-handed, the total helicity of the quarks is 1/2. In this case, we have

$$0|u_{+R}^{Ta}(\xi _1)Ci\sigma ^{+i}u_{+R}^b(\xi _2)d_{+L}^c(\xi _3)ϵ^{abc}/\sqrt{6}|P=[\varphi ^{(7)}(1,2,3)+i(i_1i\stackrel{~}{}_2)\varphi ^{(12)}(1,2,3)]\gamma ^iU_{+R},$$
(14)
where we have used the relations $`\gamma ^iU_{+R}=i\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^iU_{+R}`$ and $`^{(i}^{j)}\gamma ^jU_{R+}=0`$ with $`_1^i=_1^iiϵ^{ij}_1^j`$. The isospin symmetry imposes the following constraint,

$`0|u_{+R}^{Ta}(\xi _1)Ci\sigma ^{+i}u_{+R}^b(\xi _2)d_{+L}^c(\xi _3)ϵ^{abc}|P`$
$`+`$ $`0|d_{+R}^{Ta}(\xi _1)Ci\sigma ^{+i}u_{+R}^b(\xi _2)u_{+L}^c(\xi _3)ϵ^{abc}|P`$
$`+`$ $`0|u_{+R}^{Ta}(\xi _1)Ci\sigma ^{+i}d_{+R}^b(\xi _2)u_{+L}^c(\xi _3)ϵ^{abc}|P=0.`$ (15)
Using Fierz identity, one can show

$`u_{+R}^{Ta}(\xi _1)Ci\sigma ^{+i}d_{+R}^b(\xi _2)u_{+L}^c(\xi _3)ϵ^{abc}`$ $`=`$ $`u_{+R}^{Ta}(\xi _1)C\gamma ^+d_{+R}^b(\xi _2)\gamma ^iu_{+L}^c(\xi _3)ϵ^{abc},`$
$`d_{+R}^{Ta}(\xi _1)Ci\sigma ^{+i}u_{+R}^b(\xi _2)u_{+L}^c(\xi _3)ϵ^{abc}`$ $`=`$ $`u_{+R}^{Ta}(\xi _2)C\gamma ^+d_{+R}^b(\xi _3)\gamma ^iu_{+L}^c(\xi _1)ϵ^{abc},`$ (16)
which means that $`\varphi ^{(7,12)}`$ are not independent amplitudes,

$`\varphi ^{(7)}(1,2,3)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi ^{(1)}(1,3,2)+\psi ^{(1)}(2,3,1),`$
$`\varphi ^{(12)}(1,2,3)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi ^{(2)}(1,3,2)\psi ^{(2)}(2,3,1).`$ (17)
Hence we write,

$`0|u_{+R}^{Ta}(\xi _1)Ci\sigma ^{+i}u_{+R}^b(\xi _2)d_{+L}^c(\xi _3){\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{abc}}{\sqrt{6}}}|P`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`\left[\psi ^{(1)}(1,3,2)+\psi ^{(1)}(2,3,1)+i(i_1i\stackrel{~}{}_2)\left(\psi ^{(2)}(1,3,2)\psi ^{(2)}(2,3,1)\right)\right]\gamma ^iU_{+R},`$
which contains no new amplitude.

If all quarks are right-handed, the total helicity of the quarks is 3/2. We need one unit of orbital angular momentum (projection on the z-direction) to construct the helicity of the proton. We write,

$`20|u_{+R}^{Ta}(\xi _1)Ci\sigma ^{+i}u_{+R}^b(\xi _2)d_{+R}^c(\xi _3)ϵ^{abc}/\sqrt{6}|P`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`\left[i_1^i\varphi ^{(8+9)}(1,2,3)+i_2^i\varphi ^{(8+9)}(2,1,3)\right]U_{+R},`$
where $`\varphi ^{(8+9)}=\varphi ^{(8)}+\varphi ^{(9)}`$. The isospin symmetry leads to the following relation

$$\varphi ^{(8+9)}(1,2,3)+\varphi ^{(8+9)}(1,3,2)\varphi ^{(8+9)}(3,1,2)\varphi ^{(8+9)}(3,2,1)=0.$$
(20)
If we define

$$\psi ^{(8+9)}(1,2,3)/2=\psi ^{(5)}(1,2,3)\psi ^{(5)}(1,3,2),$$
(21)
the above constraint is solved. Therefore,

$`0|u_{+R}^{Ta}(\xi _1)Ci\sigma ^{+i}u_{+R}^b(\xi _2)d_{+R}^c(\xi _3){\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{abc}}{\sqrt{6}}}|P`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`\left[i_1^i\left(\psi ^{(5)}(1,2,3)\psi ^{(5)}(1,3,2)\right)+i_2^i\left(\psi ^{(5)}(2,1,3)\psi ^{(5)}(2,3,1)\right)\right]U_{+R},`$
which defines a new amplitude $`\psi ^{(5)}`$.

When the two up quarks are left-handed and the down quark right-handed, the total quark helicity is $`1/2`$. We again need one unit of orbital angular momentum to construct the proton helicity. The orbital angular momentum can either be on the first or second particle,

$`20|u_{+L}^{Ta}(\xi _1)Ci\sigma ^{+i}u_{+L}^b(\xi _2)d_{+R}^c(\xi _3)ϵ^{abc}/\sqrt{6}|P`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`\left[i_1^{i+}\varphi ^{(89)}(1,2,3)+i_2^{i+}\varphi ^{(89)}(2,1,3)\right]U_{+R},`$
where $`_1^{i+}=_1^i+iϵ^{ij}_1^j`$ and so on. Using the constraint from the isospin symmetry, one can express $`\varphi ^{(89)}`$ in terms of $`\psi ^{(3)}`$ and $`\psi ^{(4)}`$,

$$\varphi ^{(89)}(1,2,3)/2=\psi ^{(4)}(3,1,2)\psi ^{(3)}(3,1,2)\psi ^{(3)}(3,2,1).$$
(24)
Hence we write

$`0|u_{+L}^{Ta}(\xi _1)Ci\sigma ^{+i}u_{+L}^b(\xi _2)d_{+R}^c(\xi _3){\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{abc}}{\sqrt{6}}}|P`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`[i_1^{i+}(\psi ^{(4)}(3,1,2)\psi ^{(3)}(3,1,2)\psi ^{(3)}(3,2,1))+(12)]U_{+R},`$
which does not contain any new amplitude.

When all quarks are left-handed, the total quark helicity is $`3/2`$; two units of orbital angular momentum are need to construct the nucleon helicity. Taking the appropriate projection of the above equations, we get

$`20|u_{+L}^{Ta}(\xi _1)Ci\sigma ^{+i}u_{+L}^b(\xi _2)d_{+L}^c(\xi _3)ϵ^{abc}/\sqrt{6}|P`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`\left[i_1^{(i+}i_1^{j)}\varphi ^{(10)}(1,2,3)+i_2^{(i+}i_2^{j)}\varphi ^{(10)}(2,1,3)+i_1^{(i+}i_2^{j)}\varphi ^{(11)}(1,2,3)\right]\gamma ^jU_{+R},`$
where $`\varphi ^{(10)}`$ describes the state in which the same quark carrys two units of angular momentum, and $`\varphi ^{(11)}`$ describes each up quark carrying one unit of angular momentum. The constraint from the isospin symmetry relates $`\varphi ^{(11)}`$ to $`\varphi ^{(10)}`$

$$\varphi ^{(11)}(1,2,3)=\varphi ^{(10)}(1,2,3)+\varphi ^{(10)}(2,1,3)\varphi ^{(10)}(1,3,2)\varphi ^{(10)}(2,3,1).$$
(27)
Following our convention, we rename $`\varphi ^{(10)}(1,2,3)/2`$ to $`\psi ^{(6)}(1,2,3)`$, and Eq. (26) becomes

$`0|u_{+L}^{Ta}(\xi _1)Ci\sigma ^{+i}u_{+L}^b(\xi _2)d_{+L}^c(\xi _3){\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{abc}}{\sqrt{6}}}|P`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`[i_1^{(i+}i_1^{j)}\psi ^{(6)}(1,2,3)+i_2^{(i+}i_2^{j)}\psi ^{(6)}(2,1,3)`$
$`+i_1^{(i+}i_2^{j)}(\psi ^{(6)}(1,2,3)+\psi ^{(6)}(2,1,3)\psi ^{(6)}(1,3,2)\psi ^{(6)}(2,3,1))]\gamma ^jU_{+R},`$
which contains the new amplitude $`\psi ^{(6)}`$.

## III The three-quark light-cone wave function of the proton

The matrix elements considered in the previous section can be calculated in models such as the MIT bag or QCD sum rules or lattice field theory. Once they are known, one can invert the equations to get the light-cone wave function of the proton in the minimal Fock sector. In this section, we work out the light-cone wave function in terms of these matrix elements. The expression allows us to calculate the physical observables of the proton in the next section.

Consider first the case in which all quarks are coupled to helicity 1/2. Define the measure for the quark momentum integrations,

$`d[1]d[2]d[3]`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_1dx_2dx_3}{\sqrt{2x_12x_22x_3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\stackrel{}{k}_1d^2\stackrel{}{k}_2d^2\stackrel{}{k}_3}{(2\pi )^9}}`$ (29)
$`\times 2\pi \delta (1x_1x_2x_3)(2\pi )^2\delta ^{(2)}(\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2+\stackrel{}{k}_3).`$
where $`x_i`$ are the fraction of the nucleon momentum carried by the quarks, and $`\stackrel{}{k}_i`$ are their transverse momenta. We introduce a Fock component for a right-handed proton,

$`|P_{1/2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d[1]d[2]d[3]\left(\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(1)}(1,2,3)+i(k_1^xk_2^yk_1^yk_2^x)\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(2)}(1,2,3)\right)}`$ (30)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{abc}}{\sqrt{6}}}u_a^{}(1)\left(u_b^{}(2)d_c^{}(3)d_b^{}(2)u_c^{}(3)\right)|0,`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(1,2)}`$ are functions of quark momenta with argument 1 represents $`x_1`$ and $`k_1`$ and so on. The dependence on the transverse momenta is of form $`\stackrel{}{k}_i\stackrel{}{k}_j`$ only. The $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(2)}`$ amplitude has a pre-factor $`k_1^xk_2^yk_1^yk_2^x`$ which signals the contributions from quarks with non-zero orbital angular momentum, although all magnetic quantum numbers sum to zero. Using the above state, the matrix elements shown in Eqs. (9) and (18) can be calculated. We find the relation between the wave function amplitudes and the matrix elements

$`\psi ^{(\alpha )}(\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d[1]d[2]d[3]\sqrt{x_12x_22x_3}e^{i(x_1P^+\xi _1^{}\stackrel{}{k}_1\stackrel{}{\xi }_1)}}`$ (31)
$`\times e^{i(x_2P^+\xi _2^{}\stackrel{}{k}_2\stackrel{}{\xi }_2)}e^{i(x_3P^+\xi _3^{}\stackrel{}{k}_3\stackrel{}{\xi }_3)}\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(\alpha )}(1,2,3),`$
where $`\alpha =1,2`$.

Turn to the case where the quark helicities sum to $`1/2`$. The corresponding Fock component can be written as

$`|P_{1/2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d[1]d[2]d[3]\left((k_1^x+ik_1^y)\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(3)}(1,2,3)+(k_2^x+ik_2^y)\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(4)}(1,2,3)\right)}`$ (32)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{abc}}{\sqrt{6}}}\left(u_a^{}(1)u_b^{}(2)d_c^{}(3)d_a^{}(1)u_b^{}(2)u_c^{}(3)\right)|0.`$
The matrix elements in Eqs. (10) and (25) can be calculated, and the resulting $`\psi ^{(3,4)}`$ are related to the above amplitudes in the same way as in Eq. (31). One might suspect if additional independent amplitudes can be constructed by adding terms with structure $`k_1^xk_2^yk_1^yk_2^x`$. A careful examination indicates that they can be reduced to the already existing ones.

When the quark helicity is added to $`3/2`$, the Fock component is

$`|P_{3/2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d[1]d[2]d[3](k_1^x+ik_1^y)\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(5)}(1,2,3)}`$ (33)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{abc}}{\sqrt{6}}}u_a^{}(1)\left(u_b^{}(2)d_c^{}(3)d_b^{}(2)u_c^{}(3)\right)|0.`$
Calculating the matrix element in Eq. (22), we find $`\psi ^{(5)}(\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3)`$ is the Fourier transformation of $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(5)}(k_1,k_2,k_3)`$.

Finally, we consider the case when the quark helicity adds to $`3/2`$, the Fock component is

$`|P_{3/2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d[1]d[2]d[3](k_1^x+ik_1^y)(k_3^x+ik_3^y)\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(6)}(1,2,3)}`$ (34)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{abc}}{\sqrt{6}}}u_a^{}(1)\left(d_b^{}(2)u_c^{}(3)u_b^{}(2)d_c^{}(3)\right)|0.`$
Using this, we calculate the matrix elements in Eq. (28) and find $`\psi ^{(6)}(\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3)`$ is just the Fourier transformation of $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(6)}(k_1,k_2,k_3)`$.

The complete three-quark light-cone Fock expansion of the proton has the following form,

$$|P=|P_{3/2}+|P_{1/2}+|P_{1/2}+|P_{3/2}.$$
(35)
Many interesting proton observables can be calculated using the above wave function as we will show in the next section.

Using the results in the previous section, one can also construct a proton state with the negative helicity $`|P`$. All the wave function amplitudes are the same, except that the quark helicities are flipped, $`k^x\pm ik^y`$ becomes $`k^xik^y`$, and some signs are added,

$`|P_{1/2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d[1]d[2]d[3]\left(\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(1)}(1,2,3)+i(k_1^xk_2^yk_1^yk_2^x)\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(2)}(1,2,3)\right)}`$ (36)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{abc}}{\sqrt{6}}}u_a^{}(1)\left(u_b^{}(2)d_c^{}(3)d_b^{}(2)u_c^{}(3)\right)|0,`$
$`|P_{1/2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d[1]d[2]d[3]\left((k_1^xik_1^y)\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(3)}(1,2,3)+(k_2^xik_2^y)\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(4)}(1,2,3)\right)}`$ (37)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{abc}}{\sqrt{6}}}\left(u_a^{}(1)u_b^{}(2)d_c^{}(3)d_a^{}(1)u_b^{}(2)u_c^{}(3)\right)|0,`$
$`|P_{3/2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d[1]d[2]d[3]()(k_1^x+ik_1^y)\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(5)}(1,2,3)}`$ (38)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{abc}}{\sqrt{6}}}u_a^{}(1)\left(u_b^{}(2)d_c^{}(3)d_b^{}(2)u_c^{}(3)\right)|0,`$
$`|P_{3/2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d[1]d[2]d[3]()(k_1^xik_1^y)(k_3^xik_3^y)\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(6)}(1,2,3)}`$ (39)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{abc}}{\sqrt{6}}}u_a^{}(1)\left(d_b^{}(2)u_c^{}(3)u_b^{}(2)d_c^{}(3)\right)|0.`$
The same expressions can be obtained from Jacob and Wick’s method Jacob and Wick (1959),

$$(1)^{s\lambda }|P\lambda =\widehat{Y}|P\lambda ,$$
(40)
where $`\widehat{Y}`$ is the parity operation followed by a $`180^{}`$ rotation in the $`y`$-direction, and $`s`$ is the spin and $`\lambda `$ the helicity.

### III.1 Constraints From Time-Reversal And Parity

Consider the proton state $`|P`$. Under parity, the 3-components of the proton momentum change the sign: $`(P^0,\stackrel{}{P})`$ becomes $`(P^0,\stackrel{}{P})`$. Under time-reversal, the momentum changes in the same way. Therefore under combined time-reversal and parity, the momentum of the proton does not change. Neither do the quark momenta. On the other hand, helicity changes sign under the combined parity and time reversal, and hence the proton state $`|P`$ becomes $`|P`$. Similar changes occur for the quark states.

Under time-reversal, one must replace C-numbers with their complex conjugates. Thus under the combined time reversal and parity, a positive-helicity proton state becomes a negative helicity one $`|P`$ with wave function amplitudes complex-conjugated, quark helicity flipped, and $`k^x\pm ik^y`$ becoming $`k^xik^y`$. Moreover, there is a sign change of $`(1)^{s\lambda }`$ from time-reversal. The resulting state $`|P`$ is exactly the same as that in Eqs. (36-39), except all amplitudes are complex conjugated. Hence if time-reversal symmetry applies, all the wave function amplitudes must be real,

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(i)}=\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(i)},i=1,2,3,4,5,6,$$
(41)
which is true in many model calculations.

The above result, however, is only correct if the gauge condition is also invariant under the discrete symmetries. In light-cone gauge, $`A^+=0`$ does not fix the gauge completely, additional boundary conditions for the gauge field must be specified Mueller and Qiu (1986); Slavnov and Frolov (1987); Antonov (1988). This additional gauge fixing might not be invariant under the combined parity and time-reversal. For example, the advanced and retarded boundary conditions transform into each other under time-reversal; however the principal value prescription is self-conjugating. In the former case, the wave function amplitudes are no longer constrained by the above condition. Therefore, although the final-state-interaction gauge links vanish in the momentum-dependent parton distributions in the light-cone gauge, the imaginary part of the wave function amplitudes can reproduce the final state interaction effects Brodsky et al. (2002a, b); Collins (2002); Ji and Yuan (2002). In the following discussion, we use the advanced boundary condition and hence the imaginary parts of the amplitudes do not vanish.

## IV Observables depending on Quark orbital angular momentum

As we have explained in Introduction, the quark orbital angular momentum in the proton is certainly non-zero. To determine it experimentally, one has to measure the relevant generalized parton distributions Ji (1997a). On the other hand, there are many other nucleon observables which are sensitive to the quark orbital angular momentum, although they do not measure it directly. The most familiar example is the Pauli form factor $`F_2(Q^2)`$ of the nucleon. In light-cone quantization, $`F_2(Q^2)`$ is an helicity-flip observable which depends on the interference between the wave function amplitudes differing in one unit of orbital angular momentum Brodsky and Drell (1980); Jain and Ralston (1993).

We have to caution, however, that when the gauge fields are taken into account explicitly, some orbital angular momentum effects discussed here cannot be cleanly separated from the gluon contributions. In fact, the quark angular momentum

$$L_q=d^3x\psi ^{}\stackrel{}{x}\times (i\stackrel{}{D})\psi ,$$
(42)
does contain the gluon contribution through the gauge potential in the covariant derivative. In the example of the electron magnetic moment in quantum electrodynamics, the photon Fock component plays an important role Brodsky and Drell (1980). Hence, some results in this section can only make sense if considered as an effective description after integrating out the gluon degrees of freedom.

In the quark models, the need for a quark orbital angular momentum can sometimes be avoided by large constituent quark masses. The quarks can have significant spin flips through the mass term. Then some observables discussed in this section are directly proportional to the constituent masses Feynman (Benjamin, New York, 1972). In QCD, because the light flavors have negligible masses, the quark spin flips cannot occur and the orbital angular momentum and gluon angular momentum are thereby essential.

We start by calculating the hadron helicity-flip transverse-momentum dependent parton distributions. The twist-three distributions are found to be simply the integrals over the appropriate transverse-momentum dependent distributions. After this, we calculate the generalized parton distribution and electromagnetic form factors, with $`E(x,\xi ,Q^2)`$ and $`F_2(Q^2)`$ as examples.

### IV.1 Transverse-Momentum Dependent Parton Distributions

The transverse momentum dependent parton distributions were first introduced by Collins and Soper to describe Drell-Yan production Soper (1979); Collins and Soper (1981) and later by Sivers to describe the single spin asymmetry in hadron-hadron scattering Sivers (1990, 1991). A classification of the leading distributions in terms of spin and chirality can be found in Ref. Mulders and Tangerman (1996); Boer and Mulders (1998). Recently, there has been much interest in measuring these distributions in the semi-inclusive deep-inelastic scattering Airapetian et al. (2000, 2001); Brodsky et al. (2002a); Anselmino et al. (1997); Mulders and Tangerman (1996); Boer and Mulders (1998); Efremov et al. (2001); Ma et al. (2002); Bacchetta et al. (2002).

Let us first recapitulate the classification, and in the process, we introduce some new notations which we believe are easy to systematize. For an unpolarized nucleon target, one can introduce the unpolarized quark distribution $`f_1(x,k_{})q(x,k_{})`$ and time-reversal odd transversely-polarized quark distribution $`h_1^{}(x,k_{})\delta q(x,k_{})`$ arising from the final-state or initial-state interactions, where $`x`$ and $`k_{}`$ are the longitudinal momentum fraction and transverse momentum of the quark, respectively. For a longitudinally-polarized nucleon, one introduces a longitudinally-polarized quark distribution $`g_{1L}(x,k_{})\mathrm{\Delta }q_L(x,k_{})`$ and a transversely-polarized distribution $`h_{1T}^{}(x,k_{})\delta q_L(x,k_{})`$. Finally, for a transversely-polarized nucleon, one introduces a spin-independent distribution $`f_{1T}^{}(x,k_{})q_T(x,k_{})`$ arising from final and/or initial state interactions, and a longitudinally-polarized quark polarization $`g_{1T}(x,k_{})=\mathrm{\Delta }q_T(x,k_{})`$, a symmetrical transversely-polarized quark distribution $`h_{1T}(x,k_{})=\delta q_T(x,k_{})`$ and an asymmetric transversely-polarized quark distribution $`h_{1T}^{}(x,k_{})=\delta q_T^{}(x,k_{})`$.

Out of the eight distributions, four of them are related to the nucleon helicity flip and are the main interest in this subsection: unpolarized and longitudinally-polarized quark distributions in a transversely-polarized target, $`q_T(x,k_{})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_T(x,k_{})`$, and transversely-polarized quark distributions in an unpolarized and longitudinally-polarized nucleon, $`\delta q(x,k_{})`$ and $`\delta q_L(x,k_{})`$. Two of them, $`q_T(x,k_{})`$ and $`\delta q(x,k_{})`$, are non-zero only when there are initial and final state interactions.

Unlike the usual Feynman parton distributions, there are some important subtleties about the transverse-momentum dependent parton distributions. First is gauge invariance and universality. Each of these distributions can be gauge-invariantized in different ways depending on choices of gauge links and the results are different. Which one appears in a particular process requires a careful study. In the Drell-Yan process studied by Collins and Soper Collins and Soper (1981), the distributions are defined in axial gauges. In deep-inelastic scattering, it has been shown that the gauge links are in the future direction along the light-cone. If the light-cone gauge is used, an additional gauge link at spatial infinity is required to render the distributions independent of additional gauge fixing Belitsky et al. (2002). Different versions of the distributions appear in different hard processes imply that the universality of these distributions are lost. For example, the transverse-momentum dependent parton distributions measured in DIS cannot be used to make predictions of the cross sections for Drell-Yan. For processes such as jet production in hadron-hadron scattering, it is not yet clear which version of the distributions is relevant.

Another issue is infrared divergences. The distributions involving light-cone gauge links have infrared divergences, which are cancelled after integrating out parton transverse momentum. Physically, the infrared divergences can be understood in the following way. The transverse-momentum dependent distributions can be measured in DIS through single-jet production. However, the single-jet cross section is not well-defined because the vertex correction has infrared divergence. The divergence is cancelled by the soft gluon radiation. Since a hard gluon radiation is considered as a two-jet event, one must introduce an infrared cut-off to separate the single from double jet event. In the following discussion, we implicitly assume the infrared cut-off is there when needed.

We now use the wave function of the previous section to calculate the helicity-flip parton distributions. We first consider the case of a transversely polarized target. Introduce the quark density matrix,

$$=p^+\frac{d\xi ^{}d^2\xi _{}}{(2\pi )^3}e^{i(k^+\xi ^{}\stackrel{}{k}_{}\stackrel{}{\xi }_{})}PS|\overline{\psi }(0)L_0^{}L_\xi \psi (\xi )|PS,$$
(43)
where $`L_\xi `$ is the gauge link along the light-cone in the covariant gauges, $`S^\mu `$ is the polarization vector of the nucleon normalized to $`S_\mu S^\mu =1`$, $`p^\mu `$ is a light-cone vector such that $`p^{}=0`$. The distributions we are interested can be obtained from $``$ through the expansion Boer and Mulders (1998),

$$=\frac{1}{2M}\left[q_T(x,k_{})ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\gamma _\mu p_\nu k_\alpha S_\beta +\mathrm{\Delta }q_T(x,k_{})\gamma _5\overline{)}p(\stackrel{}{k}_{}\stackrel{}{S}_{})+\mathrm{}\right],$$
(44)
where $`M`$ is the nucleon mass. Inverting the above equation, we obtain

$`q_T(x,k_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{2ϵ^{ij}k_iS_j}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\xi ^{}d^2\xi _{}}{(2\pi )^3}e^{i(k^+\xi ^{}\stackrel{}{k}_{}\stackrel{}{\xi }_{})}PS_{}|\overline{\psi }(0)L_0^{}\gamma ^+L_\xi \psi (\xi )|PS_{}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }q_T(x,k_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{2k_iS_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\xi ^{}d^2\xi _{}}{(2\pi )^3}e^{i(k^+\xi ^{}\stackrel{}{k}_{}\stackrel{}{\xi }_{})}PS_{}|\overline{\psi }(0)L_0^{}\gamma ^+\gamma _5L_\xi \psi (\xi )|PS_{}}.`$ (45)
where the transversely-polarized nucleon in the $`x`$ direction is related to the helicity states by $`|S_x=(|+|)/\sqrt{2}`$.

If these distributions are calculated in the light-cone gauge with the advanced boundary condition for the gauge potential, the gauge links can be ignored, but the wave function amplitudes are complex Belitsky et al. (2002). Express the quark fields in term of Fock operators $`(x>0)`$,

$`q_T(x,k_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{2ϵ^{ij}k_iS_j}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4x(2\pi )^3V_3}}PS_{}|{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}q_\lambda ^{}(k)q_\lambda (k)|PS_{},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }q_T(x,k_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{2k_iS_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4x(2\pi )^3V_3}}PS_{}|{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}(1)^{(1/2\lambda )}q_\lambda ^{}(k)q_\lambda (k)|PS_{},`$ (46)
where $`V_3`$ is the 3-space volume. Using the above and the proton wave function from the previous section, we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Delta }q_T(x,k_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{k_{}^2}}{\displaystyle d[1]d[2]d[3]\sqrt{x_12x_22x_3}\mathrm{Re}[F_q]},`$
$`q_T(x,k_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{k_{}^2}}{\displaystyle d[1]d[2]d[3]\sqrt{x_12x_22x_3}\mathrm{Im}[F_q]}.`$ (47)
The functions $`F_q`$ for the u-quark is

$`F_u`$ $`=`$ $`2\{\delta ^{(3)}(kk_1)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_j^{(1,2)}(1,2,3)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_j^{(3,4)}(1,2,3)\delta ^{(3)}(kk_2)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_j^{(1,2)}(1,2,3)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_j^{(3,4)}(2,1,3)`$ (48)
$`+(\delta ^{(3)}(kk_1)+\delta ^{(3)}(kk_3))\stackrel{~}{\psi }_j^{(1,2)}(1,2,3)(\stackrel{~}{\psi }_j^{(3,4)}(2,1,3)+\stackrel{~}{\psi }_j^{(3,4)}(2,3,1))`$
$`+(\delta ^{(3)}(kk_1)+\delta ^{(3)}(kk_2))\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(5)}(1,2,3)\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(6+)}(1,2,3)\},`$
where

$`\delta ^{(3)}(kk_i)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (xx_i)\delta ^{(2)}(\stackrel{}{k}_{}\stackrel{}{k}_i),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_j^{(1,2)}(1,2,3)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(1)}(1,2,3)k^j(k_1^xk_2^yk_1^yk_2^x)\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(2)}(1,2,3))k^iϵ^{ij},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(3,4)j}(1,2,3)`$ $`=`$ $`k_1^j\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(3)}(1,2,3)+k_2^j\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(4)}(1,2,3),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(5)}(1,2,3)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(5)}(1,2,3)\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(5)}(1,3,2)),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(6+)}(1,2,3)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{k}_1^2\stackrel{}{k}_3\stackrel{}{k}_{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(6)}(1,2,3)+(\stackrel{}{k}_2^2\stackrel{}{k}_3\stackrel{}{k}_{}+\stackrel{}{k}_3^2\stackrel{}{k}_2\stackrel{}{k}_{})\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(6)}(2,1,3)`$ (49)
$`+\stackrel{}{k}_1^2\stackrel{}{k}_2\stackrel{}{k}_{}(\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(6)}(1,3,2)+\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(6)}(2,3,1)).`$
For the d-quark, on the other hand, we obtain

$`F_d`$ $`=`$ $`2\{\delta ^{(3)}(kk_3)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_j^{(1,2)}(1,2,3)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_j^{(3,4)}(1,2,3)`$ (50)
$`\delta ^{(3)}(kk_2)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_j^{(1,2)}(1,2,3)(\stackrel{~}{\psi }_j^{(3,4)}(2,1,3)+\stackrel{~}{\psi }_j^{(3,4)}(2,3,1))`$
$`+\delta ^{(3)}(kk_3)\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(5)}(1,2,3)\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(6+)}(1,2,3)\}.`$
If all the wave function amplitudes are real, $`q_T(x,k_{})`$ vanishes identically. $`q_T(x,k_{})`$ was first introduce by Sivers Sivers (1990, 1991) and it characterizes the azimuthal asymmetry in the quark transverse momentum distribution when the nucleon is transversely polarized. There is much interest in the this distribution in interpreting the single spin asymmetry measured in electron-proton deep inelastic scattering Airapetian et al. (2000, 2001); Brodsky et al. (2002a); Anselmino et al. (1997); Ma et al. (2002); Bacchetta et al. (2002); Efremov et al. (2001).

The other two helicity-flip distributions can be obtained from the quark density matrix $`M`$ through the following projection Boer and Mulders (1998)

$$=\frac{1}{2M}\left[\delta q(x,k_{})\sigma ^{\mu \nu }k_\mu p_\nu +\delta q_L(x,k_{})i\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\gamma _5p_\mu k_\nu (Sn)+\mathrm{}\right].$$
(51)
The transversely-polarized quark distribution in an unpolarized nucleon $`\delta q(x,k_{})`$ is novel, and has the similar physical origin as that of the experimental phenomenon where a hyperon produced in unpolarized elastic proton-proton scattering is polarized in the direction perpendicular to the production plane Bunce et al. (1976); Liang and Boros (2000). Invert the above equation, we arrive at

$`\delta q(x,k_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{2k_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\xi ^{}d^2\xi _{}}{(2\pi )^3}e^{i(k^+\xi ^{}\stackrel{}{k}_{}\stackrel{}{\xi }_{})}P|\overline{\psi }(0)L_0^{}\sigma ^{+i}L_\xi \psi (\xi )|P},`$
$`\delta q_L(x,k_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{2ϵ^{ij}k^j}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\xi ^{}d^2\xi _{}}{(2\pi )^3}e^{i(k^+\xi ^{}\stackrel{}{k}_{}\stackrel{}{\xi }_{})}PS_{||}|\overline{\psi }(0)L_0^{}\sigma ^{+i}L_\xi \psi (\xi )|PS_{||}}.`$ (52)
where $`i`$ can take either $`x`$ or $`y`$.

Inserting the plane wave expansion for the quark fields, we get

$`\delta q(x,k_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{k^x}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4x(2\pi )^3V_3}}iP|q_{}^{}(k)q_{}(k)q_{}^{}(k)q_{}(k)|P,`$
$`\delta q_L(x,k_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{ϵ^{xj}k^j}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4x(2\pi )^3V_3}}iPS_{||}|q_{}^{}(k)q_{}(k)q_{}^{}(k)q_{}(k)|PS_{||}.`$ (53)
Using the above and the proton wave function from the previous section, we obtain,

$`\delta q_L(x,k_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{k_{}^2}}{\displaystyle d[1]d[2]d[3]\sqrt{x_12x_22x_3}\mathrm{Re}[H_q]},`$
$`\delta q(x,k_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{k_{}^2}}{\displaystyle d[1]d[2]d[3]\sqrt{x_12x_22x_3}\mathrm{Im}[H_q]}.`$ (54)
The function $`H_q`$ is

$`H_u`$ $`=`$ $`2\{\delta ^{(3)}(kk_1)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_j^{(1,2)^{}}(1,2,3)(\stackrel{~}{\psi }_j^{(3,4)}(3,1,2)+\stackrel{~}{\psi }_j^{(3,4)}(3,2,1))`$ (55)
$`\delta ^{(3)}(kk_2)(\stackrel{~}{\psi }_j^{(1,2)^{}}(1,3,2)+\stackrel{~}{\psi }_j^{(1,2)^{}}(2,3,1))\stackrel{~}{\psi }_j^{(3,4)}(1,2,3)`$
$`\delta ^{(3)}(kk_2)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_j^{(1,2)}(1,2,3)(k_2^j\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(5)}(2,1,3)+k_1^j\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(5)}(1,2,3))`$
$`+\delta ^{(3)}(kk_1)(\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(6+)}(1,2,3)\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(3)}(1,2,3)+\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(6+)}(2,1,3)\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(4)}(1,2,3))\},`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_j^{(1,2)^{}}(1,2,3)=\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(1)}(1,2,3)k^j+(k_1^xk_2^yk_1^yk_2^x)\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(2)}(1,2,3))k^iϵ^{ij}`$. For the down quark,

$`H_d`$ $`=`$ $`2\{\delta ^{(3)}(kk_3)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_j^{(1,2)^{}}(1,2,3)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_j^{(3,4)}(1,2,3)`$ (56)
$`\delta ^{(3)}(kk_2)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_j^{(1,2)}(1,2,3)(k_1^j\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(5)}(1,2,3)+k_3^j\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(5)}(3,2,1))`$
$`+\delta ^{(3)}(kk_1)(\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(6+^{})}(1,2,3)\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(3)}(1,2,3)\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(6+)}(2,3,1)\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(4)}(1,2,3))\},`$
where

$`\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(6+^{})}(1,2,3)`$ $`=`$ $`(\stackrel{}{k}_2^2\stackrel{}{k}_3\stackrel{}{k}_{}+\stackrel{}{k}_3^2\stackrel{}{k}_2\stackrel{}{k}_{})(\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(6)}(2,1,3)+\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(6)}(3,1,2))`$ (57)
$`+\stackrel{}{k}_1^2\stackrel{}{k}_2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(6)}(2,3,1)+\stackrel{}{k}_1^2\stackrel{}{k}_3\stackrel{}{k}_{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(6)}(3,2,1).`$
If all amplitudes are real, $`\delta q(x,k_{})`$ vanishes identically.

### IV.2 Twist-Three Parton Distributions

It has been known for many years that the helicity flip phenomena in inclusive scattering are of higher twist effects (twist-three, to be exact). For example, the single spin asymmetry measured in pion production in polarized baryon (proton, hyperons) and unpolarized target scattering arises from hadron helicity flip Barone et al. (2002). The asymmetry is expected to vanish asymptotically like $`1/k_{}`$, where $`k_{}`$ is the pion transverse momentum Qiu and Sterman (1991). The other example is the $`g_2`$ structure function measured in inclusive DIS with transversely polarized nucleon targets. The structure function arises from the interference between photon scatterings with longitudinal and transverse polarizations and involves the helicity flip of the nucleon target because of the angular momentum conservation Jaffe and Ji (1992). The associated asymmetry goes like $`1/Q`$ where $`Q`$ is the virtual photon mass.

In both examples, the baryon helicity flip must be reflected in the hard scattering subprocesses. However, if the quark transverse momentum is neglected as one usually does in the Feynman parton model, the helicity flip cannot be managed through a massless quark; this has been considered as one of the difficulties in perturbative QCD Kane et al. (1978); Jackson et al. (1989). It turns out that the leading contribution to the baryon helicity flip comes from the quark orbital angular momentum and associated transversely-polarized gluons Efremov and Teryaev (1985); Qiu and Sterman (1991). This can be seen from the following light-cone expression for the $`g_2(x)`$ structure function Jaffe and Ji (1992)

$$g_T(x)=\frac{1}{4xM}\frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }e^{i\lambda x}PS_{}|\overline{\psi }(0)\overline{)}n\gamma _5\overline{)}S_{}i\overline{)}D_{}(\lambda n)\psi (\lambda n)|PS_{}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}..$$
(58)
In our approximation, the gluon potential in the covariant derivative is neglected. Using the three-quark wave function, we find,

$$g_T(x)=\frac{1}{2xM^2}k_{}^2\mathrm{\Delta }q_T(x,k_{})d^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}.$$
(59)
In fact, the above result holds for any nucleon wave function so long as the gluon potential in the covariant derivative can be ignored Mulders and Tangerman (1996). A word of caution, however, is appropriate. When the gauge potential is neglected, $`g_T(x)`$ is no longer gauge invariant. How it is possible then to express $`g_T(x)`$ in terms of the the gauge-invariant $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_T(x,k_{})`$? The answer is that the above relation is only true in light-cone gauge with the advanced prescription for the light-cone singularity. In any other gauge, the two have no relation.

It is interesting to note that the rotational invariance imposes the following condition on $`g_T(x)`$ Feynman (Benjamin, New York, 1972)

$$_0^1𝑑xg_T(x)=_0^1𝑑xg_1(x).$$
(60)
Therefore, when the gluons are neglected, the rotational symmetry demands the quarks have non-vanishing orbital angular momentum. This is indeed true for a massless quark in the MIT bag model. However, it is possible that $`g_T(x)`$ may have a delta function at $`x=0`$ Burkardt and Koike (2002). In this case, the above is useless in constraining $`g_T(x)`$ at any non-zero $`x`$.

Similar analysis can be carried out for the twist-three distribution $`h_L(x)`$ which has the following expression,

$$h_L(x)=\frac{1}{4xM}\frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }e^{i\lambda x}PS_{}|\overline{\psi }(0)\overline{)}n\gamma _5i\overline{)}D_{}(\lambda n)\psi (\lambda n)|PS_{}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}..$$
(61)
Using the proton wave function, we find

$$h_L(x)=\frac{1}{xM^2}k_{}^2\delta q_L(x,k_{})d^2k_{},$$
(62)
which is again consistent with Mulders and Tangerman (1996) apart from a factor of 2. The twist-three distribution $`h_L(x)`$ can be measured in Drell-Yan scattering with the transversely-polarized protons scattering on longitudinally-polarized protons Jaffe and Ji (1992).

### IV.3 Generalized Parton Distributions

Generalized parton distributions (GPDs) were originally introduced to describe the angular momentum structure of the nucleon Ji (1997a, b). D. Mueller et al. encountered the same distributions earlier in searching for an observable whose scale evolution interpolates between those of the Feynman parton distributions and the quark distribution amplitudes in mesons Muller et al. (1994). Radyushkin defined the so-called double distributions which contain essentially the same information Radyushkin (1997). The new distributions contain all the form factors of the twist-two operators Ji (1998) and, in a special kinematic limit, reduce to the Feynman distributions. In this subsection, we calculate the helicity-flip GPDs using the three-quark wave function of the proton.

At the leading twist, there are eight GPDs for each quark flavor Hoodbhoy and Ji (1998); Diehl (2001), out of which four involve the nucleon helicity flip. In this paper we consider only $`E(x,\xi ,Q^2)`$ which is directly relevant for the spin structure of the nucleon Hoodbhoy et al. (1999a). Extending the calculation to other three is straightforward and will not be presented here. The definition of $`E(x,\xi ,Q^2)`$ follows from Ji (1997b)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }e^{i\lambda x}P^{}\left|\overline{\psi }_q\left(\frac{\lambda }{2}n\right)\overline{)}n𝒫e^{ig_{\lambda /2}^{\lambda /2}𝑑\alpha nA(\alpha n)}\psi _q\left(\frac{\lambda }{2}n\right)\right|P}`$
$`=H_q(x,\xi ,Q^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{U}(P^{})\overline{)}nU(P)+E_q(x,\xi ,Q^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{U}(P^{}){\displaystyle \frac{i\sigma ^{\mu \nu }n_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_\nu }{2M}}U(P),`$ (63)
where the explanation of various notations can be found in the original references.

To evaluate $`E(x,\xi ,Q^2)`$, we choose a coordinate system in which the momentum transfer $`q^\mu `$ vanishes along the $`+`$ direction,

$$q^+=0,Q^2=q_{}^2.$$
(64)
Then the initial and final nucleons have the same $`P^+`$ momenta. Their transverse momenta are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction (a Breit frame in the transverse direction). The energy-momentum conservation constrains $`q^{}=0`$. With these choices, we can only calculate the distribution at the skewness variable $`\xi =0`$. \[For $`\xi 0`$, one can use the coordinates in Ref. Brodsky et al. (2001b).\]

Our calculation follows a similar formula for $`F_2(Q^2)`$ in Ref. Brodsky and Drell (1980),

$$(q^xiq^y)E(x,\xi =0,Q^2)\frac{P^+}{M}=\frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }e^{i\lambda x}P^{}\left|\overline{\psi }(\frac{\lambda }{2}n)\gamma ^+\psi \left(\frac{\lambda }{2}n\right)\right|P.$$
(65)
For $`x>0`$, the bilocal operator reduces to quark creation and annihilation operators in the momentum space, and for $`x<0`$, it becomes antiquark creation and annihilation. The later contribution vanishes in the valence approximation.

Using the proton wave function from the previous section, one finds

$`E_u(x,\xi =0,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{q^x+iq^y}}{\displaystyle }d[1]d[2]d[3]\sqrt{x_12x_22x_3}\{A^{(1,2)}\varphi ^{(3,4)}(1,2,3)`$ (66)
$`A^{(3,4)}\varphi ^{(1,2)^{}}(1,2,3)A^{(5)}\varphi ^{(6)}(1,2,3)+A^{(6)}\varphi ^{(5)}(1,2,3)\},`$
where

$`\varphi ^{(1,2)}(1,2,3)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(1)}(1,2,3)+i(k_1^xk_2^yk_1^yk_2^x)\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(2)}(1,2,3),`$
$`\varphi ^{(1,2)^{}}(1,2,3)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(1)}(1,2,3)i(k_1^xk_2^yk_1^yk_2^x)\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(2)}(1,2,3),`$
$`\varphi ^{(3,4)}(1,2,3)`$ $`=`$ $`k_1^{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(3)}(1,2,3)+k_2^{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(4)}(1,2,3),`$
$`\varphi ^{(5)}(1,2,3)`$ $`=`$ $`k_1^+(\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(5)}(1,2,3)\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(5)}(1,3,2)),`$
$`\varphi ^{(6)}(1,2,3)`$ $`=`$ $`k_1^{}k_3^{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(6)}(1,2,3)k_1^{}k_2^{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(6)}(1,3,2).`$ (67)
And the functions $`A`$ are defined through

$`A^{(1,2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (xx_1)\varphi ^{(1,2)}(2^{},1^{\prime \prime },3^{})+\delta (xx_2)(2\varphi ^{(1,2)}(2^{\prime \prime },1^{},3^{})+\varphi ^{(1,2)}(3^{},1^{},2^{\prime \prime }))`$
$`+\delta (xx_3)(\varphi ^{(1,2)}(2^{},1^{},3^{\prime \prime })+\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(1,2)}(3^{\prime \prime },1^{},2^{})),`$
$`A^{(3,4)}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (xx_2)\varphi ^{(3,4)}(2^{\prime \prime },1^{},3^{})+\delta (xx_1)(2\varphi ^{(3,4)}(2^{},1^{\prime \prime },3^{})+\varphi ^{(3,4)}(2^{},3^{},1^{\prime \prime }))`$
$`+\delta (xx_3)(\varphi ^{(3,4)}(2^{},1^{},3^{\prime \prime })+\psi ^{(3,4)}(2^{},3^{\prime \prime },1^{})),`$
$`A^{(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (xx_1)(\varphi ^{(5)}(1^{\prime \prime },2^{},3^{})+\varphi ^{(5)}(2^{},1^{\prime \prime },3^{}))`$
$`+\delta (xx_2)(\varphi ^{(5)}(1^{},2^{\prime \prime },3^{})+\varphi ^{(5)}(2^{\prime \prime },1^{},3^{})),`$
$`A^{(6)}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (xx_1)(\varphi ^{(6)}(1^{\prime \prime },2^{},3^{})+\varphi ^{(6)}(2^{},1^{\prime \prime },3^{}))`$ (68)
$`+\delta (xx_2)(\varphi ^{(6)}(1^{},2^{\prime \prime },3^{})+\varphi ^{(6)}(2^{\prime \prime },1^{},3^{})),`$
where the transverse coordinates are $`i^{}=\stackrel{}{k}_ix_i\stackrel{}{q}_{}`$ and $`i^{\prime \prime }=\stackrel{}{k}_i+(1x_i)\stackrel{}{q}_{}`$, $`k_i^\pm =k_i^x\pm ik_i^y`$. The result depends on the interference of the wave function amplitudes with different quark orbital angular momentum.

Similarly for the d-quark,

$`E_d(x,\xi =0,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{q^x+iq^y}}{\displaystyle }d[1]d[2]d[3]\sqrt{x_12x_22x_3}\{B^{(1,2)}\varphi ^{(3,4)}(1,2,3)`$ (69)
$`B^{(3,4)}\varphi ^{(1,2)^{}}(1,2,3)B^{(5)}\varphi ^{(6)}(1,2,3)+B^{(6)}\varphi ^{(5)}(1,2,3)\},`$
where

$`B^{(1,2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (xx_3)\varphi ^{(1,2)}(2^{},1^{},3^{\prime \prime })+\delta (xx_1)(\varphi ^{(1,2)}(2^{},1^{\prime \prime },3^{})+\varphi ^{(1,2)}(3^{},1^{\prime \prime },2^{})),`$
$`B^{(3,4)}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (xx_3)\varphi ^{(3,4)}(2^{},1^{},3^{\prime \prime })+\delta (xx_2)(\varphi ^{(3,4)}(2^{\prime \prime },1^{},3^{})+\varphi ^{(3,4)}(2^{\prime \prime },3^{},1^{})),`$
$`B^{(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (xx_3)(\varphi ^{(5)}(1^{},2^{},3^{\prime \prime })+\varphi ^{(5)}(2^{},1^{},3^{\prime \prime })),`$
$`B^{(6)}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (xx_3)(\varphi ^{(6)}(1^{},2^{},3^{\prime \prime })+\varphi ^{(6)}(2^{},1^{},3^{\prime \prime })).`$ (70)
Although we have allowed $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ to be arbitrary in the above formulas, it is simpler to take it in the $`x`$ direction. With this choice, it is not difficult to see that the distributions are real.

### IV.4 The Pauli Form Factor

The $`F_2`$ form factor can be obtained from the sum rule Ji (1997a),

$$F_2(Q^2)=𝑑x[e_uE_u(x,\xi ,Q^2)+e_dE_d(x,\xi ,Q^2)],$$
(71)
where we have neglected the strange quark contribution. Recently, the Pauli form factor of the proton has been extracted from the recoil polarization Jones et al. (2000); Gayou et al. (2002), which differs significantly from the previous extraction. In the valence approximation, independent of $`Q^2`$, a non-zero $`F_2(Q^2)`$ is an indication of non-zero orbital angular momentum of the quarks in light-cone quantization. This point has been stressed in a number of recent papers which seek to explain the new Jlab data Miller and Frank (2002); Ralston and Jain (2002).

In large-$`Q^2`$ limit, we can use the asymptotic behavior of amplitudes to derive the asymptotic behavior of $`F_2(Q^2)`$. The result will be related to the leading and twist-three light-cone amplitudes introduced by Braun et al. Braun et al. (2000). We leave this subject to a future publication.

Finally, we pointed out that the $`B`$-form factor of the gravitational current can be obtained from the second moment of $`E(x,\xi ,Q^2)`$ Ji (1997a) and is also helicity-flipping. In Ref. Brodsky et al. (2001a), the $`B`$ form factor is calculated for the electron in quantum electrodynamics, with explicit involvement of orbital angular momentum.

## V Summary and Conclusion

This paper is motivated by determining the components of the proton wave function with non-zero orbital angular momentum. This of course can only be down in a certain truncation scheme, because the field-theoretical nucleon has an infinite number of non-vanishing amplitudes and there is no finite set of experiments which can determine them completely.

We use the valence quark models as a guide to truncate the light-cone expansion of the proton wave function. We can view this either as a starting point for a systematic expansion or as an effective theory in which gluons and sea quarks have been “integrated out”.

We classify the light-cone amplitudes with three quarks, and find that six independent amplitudes are needed for a complete description: two with $`L_z=0`$, three with $`L_z=1`$, and one with $`L_z=2`$. If the light-cone gauge fixing is invariant under combined parity and time-reversal, these amplitudes are real. Otherwise, they are complex. Apart from one of the $`L_z=0`$ amplitudes, the other five contain nontrivial quark orbital motion.

We calculated a number of nuclear observables which depend at least linearly on the amplitudes with non-zero orbital angular momentum. Therefore, a non-vanishing result of the experimental measurement is an unambiguous indication of the quark orbital angular momentum, barring the neglected gluonic contributions mentioned above.

It is our hope that multiple observables of this type can be explained by a unified set of phenomenological amplitudes with nontrivial orbital angular momentum. If not, one may systematically go beyond the minimal Fock component by including, for example, the gluon contributions. Ultimately, we hope to have a semi-realistic picture about the intrinsic deformation of the proton from experimental data.

The authors thank S. Brodsky for a number of useful discussions. This work was supported by the U. S. Department of Energy via grants DE-FG02-93ER-40762.