text:
# Noncommutative Topological Theories of Gravity

## I Introduction

The idea of the noncommutative nature of space-time coordinates is quite old ref1 . Many authors have extensively studied it from the mathematical ref2 , as well as field theoretical points of view (for a review, see for instance douglas ; szabo ).

Recently, noncommutative gauge theory has attracted a lot of attention, specially in connection with M(atrix) connes  and string theory ref3 . In particular, Seiberg and Witten ref3  have found noncommutativity in the description of the low energy excitations of open strings (possibly attached to D-branes) in the presence of a NS constant background $`B`$field. Moreover, they have observed that, depending on the regularization scheme of the two dimensional correlation functions, Pauli-Villars or point splitting, ordinary and noncommutative gauge fields can be induced from the same worldsheet action. Thus, the independence of the regularization scheme tells us that there is a relation of the resulting theory of noncommutative gauge fields, deformed by the Moyal star-product, or Kontsevich star product for systems with general covariance, with a gauge theory in terms of usual commutative fields. This relation is the so-called Seiberg-Witten map.

In string theory, gravity and gauge theories are realized in very different ways. The gravitational interaction is associated with a massless mode of closed strings, while Yang-Mills theories are more naturally described in open strings or in heterotic string theory. Furthermore, as mentioned, string theory predicts a noncommutative effective Yang-Mills theory. Thus the question emerges, whether a noncommutative description of gravity would arise from it. This is a difficult question and it will not be addressed here. However, in a recent paper ardalan , gravitation on noncommutative D-branes has been discussed.

In this context, recently Chamseddine has made several proposals for noncommutative formulations of Einstein’s gravity cham ; cham1 ; cham2 , where a Moyal deformation is done. Moreover, in cham1 ; cham2 , he gives a Seiberg-Witten map for the vierbein and the Lorentz connection, which is obtained starting from the gauge transformations, of $`SO(4,1)`$ in the first work, and of $`U(2,2)`$ in the second one. However, in both cases the actions are not invariant under the full noncommutative transformations. Namely, in cham1  the action does not have a definite noncommutative symmetry, and in cham2  the Seiberg-Witten map is obtained for $`U(2,2)`$, but the action is invariant under the subgroup $`U(1,1)\times U(1,1).`$ These actions deformed by the Moyal product, with a constant noncommutativity parameter, are not diffeomorphism invariant. However, as pointed out in these works, cham1 ; cham2 , they could be made diffeomorphism invariant, substituting the Moyal $`_M`$-product by the Kontsevich $`_K`$-product. For other recent proposals of noncommutative gravity, see moffat ; chandia ; nishino ; nair ; klemm ; dosdim .

Further, as shown in wess1 ; wess2 ; wess3 ; wess4 ; wess5 , starting from the Seiberg-Witten map, noncommutative gauge theories with matter fields based on any gauge group can be constructed. In this way, a proposal for the noncommutative standard model based on the gauge group product $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ has been constructed wess6 . In these developments, the key argument is that no additional degrees of freedom have to be introduced in order to formulate noncommutative gauge theories. That is, although the explicit symmetry of the noncommutative action corresponds to the enveloping algebra of the limiting commutative symmetry group, it is also invariant with respect to this commutative group, fact made manifest by the Seiberg-Witten map.

In this paper, following these results, we present a first step towards a noncommutative theory of gravity in four dimensions, fully symmetric under the noncommutative symmetry.

We make a proposal for a noncommutative topological quadratic theory of gravity from which the corresponding topological invariants of Riemannian manifolds, the Euler characteristic and the signature, can be obtained. These invariants should classify gravitational instantons. Further, in this context of noncommutative gravity, we explore the notion of gravitational instanton. Other possible global aspects of noncommutative gravity like gravitational anomalies will be briefly addressed as well.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we quickly review the noncommutative gauge theories. In section 3 the main features of topological quadratic gravity are introduced, for the $`SO(3,1)`$ gauge group, by means of the complex formulation based on the self-dual topological quadratic gravity. In section 4 we present noncommutative topological gravity, with explicit results up to order $`\theta ^3`$. In section 5, based in the study of the global properties of the noncommutative version of the Lorentz and diffeomorphism groups, we explore the possibility of a definition of noncommutative gravitational instantons, as well as local gravitational anomalies for a theory of gravity. Finally, section 6 contains our conclusions.

## II Noncommutative Gauge Symmetry and the Seiberg-Witten Map

We start this section with conventions and properties of noncommutative spaces for future reference. For a recent review see e.g. zachos . Noncommutative spaces can be understood as generalizations of the usual quantum mechanical commutation relations, by the introduction of a linear operator algebra $`𝒜`$, with a noncommutative associative product,

$$[\widehat{x}^\mu ,\widehat{x}^\nu ]=i\theta ^{\mu \nu },$$
(1)
where $`\widehat{x}^\mu `$ are linear operators acting on the Hilbert space $`L^2(𝐑^n)`$ and $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }=\theta ^{\nu \mu }`$ are real numbers. The Weyl-Wigner-Moyal correspondence establishes (under certain conditions) an isomorphic relation between $`𝒜`$ and the algebra of functions on $`𝐑^n`$, the last with an associative and noncommutative $``$-product, the Moyal product, given by

$$f(x)g(x)\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{2}\theta ^{\mu \nu }\frac{}{\epsilon ^\mu }\frac{}{\eta ^\nu }\right)f(x+\epsilon )g(x+\eta )\right]_{\epsilon =\eta =0}.$$
(2)
In order to avoid causality problems we will take $`\theta ^{0\nu }=0.`$

Due to the fact that we will be working with nonabelian groups, we must include also matrix multiplication, so a $``$-product will be used as the matrix multiplication with $``$-product. Inside integrals, this product has the property Tr$`f_1f_2f_3\mathrm{}f_n=\mathrm{Tr}f_nf_1f_2f_3\mathrm{}f_{n1}`$. In particular, the trace of the integral of the product of two functions has the property that Tr$`f_1f_2=\mathrm{Tr}f_1f_2`$.

Let us consider a gauge theory with a hermitian connection, invariant under a symmetry Lie group G, with gauge fields $`A_\mu `$,

$$\delta _\lambda A_\mu =_\mu \lambda +i[\lambda ,A_\mu ],$$
(3)
where $`\lambda =\lambda ^iT_i`$, and $`T_i`$ are the generators of the Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ of the group G, in the adjoint representation. These transformations are generalized for the noncommutative theory as,

$$\delta _\lambda \widehat{A}_\mu =_\mu \widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+i\left[\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\stackrel{}{,}\widehat{A}_\mu \right],$$
(4)
where the noncommutative parameters $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ have some dependence on $`\lambda `$ and the connection $`A`$. The commutators $`\left[A\stackrel{}{,}B\right]ABBA`$ have the correct derivative properties when acting on products of noncommutative fields.

Due to noncommutativity, commutators like $`\left[\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\stackrel{}{,}\widehat{A}_\mu \right]`$ take values in the enveloping algebra of $`𝒢`$ in the adjoint representation, $`𝒰(𝒢,\mathrm{ad})`$. Therefore, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and the gauge fields $`\widehat{A}_\mu `$ will also take values in this algebra. In general, for some representation $`R`$, we will denote $`𝒰(𝒢,R)`$ the corresponding section of the enveloping algebra $`𝒰(𝒢)`$. Let us write for instance $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^IT_I`$ and $`\widehat{A}=\widehat{A}^IT_I`$, then,

$$\left[\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\stackrel{}{,}\widehat{A}_\mu \right]=\left\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^I\stackrel{}{,}\widehat{A}_\mu ^J\right\}[T_I,T_J]+\left[\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^I\stackrel{}{,}\widehat{A}_\mu ^J\right]\{T_I,T_J\},$$
(5)
where $`\{A\stackrel{}{,}B\}AB+BA`$ is the noncommutative anticommutator. Thus all the products of the generators $`T_I`$ will be needed in order to close the algebra $`𝒰(𝒢,\mathrm{ad})`$. Its structure can be obtained by successive computation of commutators and anticommutators starting from the generators of $`𝒢`$, until it closes,

$$[T_I,T_J]=if_{IJ}^{}{}_{}{}^{K}T_K,\{T^I,T^J\}=d_{IJ}^{}{}_{}{}^{K}T_K.$$

The field strength is defined as $`\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \widehat{A}_\nu _\nu \widehat{A}_\mu i[\widehat{A}_\mu \stackrel{}{,}\widehat{A}_\nu ]`$, hence it takes also values in $`𝒰(𝒢,\mathrm{ad})`$. From Eq. (4) it turns out that,

$$\delta _\lambda \widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }=i\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right).$$
(6)
We see that these transformation rules can be obtained from the commutative ones, just by replacing the ordinary product of smooth functions by the Moyal product, with a suitable product ordering. This allows constructing in simple way invariant quantities.

If the components of the noncommutativity parameter $`\theta `$ are constant, then Lorentz invariance is spoiled. In order to recover it cham1 ; cham2 ; wess3  one should change the Moyal star product by the Kontsevich star product $`_K`$ kontsevich . However, as a result of the diffeomorphism invariance, for an even dimensional (symplectic) spacetime $`X`$, there exists a local coordinate system (which coincides with Darboux’s coordinate system) in which $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ is constant. Therefore, without loss of generality, the Kontsevich product can be reduced to the Moyal one, which will be used from now on.

The fact that the observed world is commutative, means that there must be possible to obtain it from the noncommutative one by taking the limit $`\theta 0`$. Thus the noncommutative fields $`\widehat{A}`$ are given by a power series expansion on $`\theta `$, starting from the commutative ones $`A`$,

$$\widehat{A}=A+\theta ^{\mu \nu }A_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}+\theta ^{\mu \nu }\theta ^{\rho \sigma }A_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^{(2)}+\mathrm{}.$$
(7)
The coefficients of this expansion are determined by the Seiberg-Witten map, which states that the symmetry transformations of (7), given by (4), are induced by the symmetry transformations of the commutative fields (3). In order that these transformations be consistent, the transformation parameter $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ must satisfy wess2 ,

$$\delta _\lambda \widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\eta )\delta _\eta \widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\lambda )i[\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\lambda )\stackrel{}{,}\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\eta )]=\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(i[\lambda ,\eta ]).$$
(8)
Similarly, the coefficients in Eq. (7) are functions of the commutative fields and their derivatives, and are determined by the requirement that $`\widehat{A}`$ transforms as (4), wess5 .

The fact that the noncommutative gauge fields take values in the enveloping algebra, has the consequence that they have a bigger number of components than the commutative ones, unless the enveloping algebra coincides with the Lie algebra of the commutative theory, as is the case of $`U(N)`$. However, the physical degrees of freedom of the noncommutative fields can be related one to one to the physical degrees of freedom of the commutative fields by the Seiberg-Witten map ref3 , fact used in references wess1 ; wess2 ; wess3 ; wess4 ; wess5  to construct noncommutative gauge theories, in principle for any Lie group.

In order to obtain the Seiberg-Witten map to first order, the noncommutative parameters are first obtained from Eq. (8) ref3 ; wess1 ; wess2 ; wess3 ; wess4 ; wess5 ,

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\lambda ,A)=\lambda +\frac{1}{4}\theta ^{\mu \nu }\{_\mu \lambda ,A_\nu \}+𝒪\left(\theta ^2\right).$$
(9)
Then, from Eqs. (4) and (7), the following solution is given

$$\widehat{A}_\mu \left(A\right)=A_\mu \frac{1}{4}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }\{A_\rho ,_\sigma A_\mu +F_{\sigma \mu }\}+𝒪\left(\theta ^2\right),$$
(10)
and then for the field strength it turns out that,

$$\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }=F_{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{4}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }\left(2\{F_{\mu \rho },F_{\nu \sigma }\}\{A_\rho ,D_\sigma F_{\mu \nu }+_\sigma F_{\mu \nu }\}\right)+𝒪\left(\theta ^2\right).$$
(11)
The higher coefficients in Eq. (7) can be obtained from the observation that the Seiberg-Witten map preserves the operations of the commutative function algebra, hence the following differential equation can be written ref3 ,

$$\delta \theta ^{\mu \nu }\frac{}{\theta ^{\mu \nu }}\widehat{A}(\theta )=\delta \theta ^{\mu \nu }\widehat{A_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}}(\theta ),$$
(12)
where $`\widehat{A_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}}`$ is obtained from $`A_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}`$ in Eq. (7), by substituting the commutative fields by the noncommutative ones under the $``$-product.

Let us take the generators $`T^i`$ of the Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ to be hermitian, then the generators $`T^I`$ of the corresponding enveloping algebra can be chosen to be also hermitian, for instance if they are given by the symmetrized products $`:T^{i_1}T^{i_2}\mathrm{}T^{i_n}:`$. Further, the noncommutative transformation parameters $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\lambda ,A)`$ are functions, whose arguments are matrices. Let us now substitute the matrix products inside $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\lambda ,A)`$, by $`MN\frac{1}{2}\{M,N\}\frac{i}{2}(i[M,N])`$, for any two matrices $`M`$ and $`N`$. Hence $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\lambda ,A)`$ can be understood as a function whose nonlinear part of depends polynomially, with complex numerical coefficients, on anticommutators $`\{,\}`$ and commutators $`i[,]`$, of $`\lambda `$, $`A`$, and their derivatives. With this understanding, we will continue to write it as $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\lambda ,A)`$, and we have

$$[\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\lambda ,A)]^{}=\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{}(\lambda ^{},A^{}),$$
(13)
where $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{}`$ is obtained by complex conjugating the mentioned numerical coefficients.

Let us now consider the hermitian conjugation of the transformation law (3), $`(\delta _\lambda A_\mu )^{}=_\mu \lambda ^{}+i[\lambda ^{},A_\mu ^{}]`$. From it and (8), taking into account (13), we get,

$$\delta _\lambda ^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{}(\lambda ^{},A^{})\delta _\eta ^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{}(\lambda ^{},A^{})i[\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{}(\lambda ^{},A^{})\stackrel{}{,}\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{}(\eta ^{},A^{})]=\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{}(i[\lambda ^{},\eta ^{}],A^{}).$$
(14)
Comparing this equation with (8), with the mentioned convention, it can be seen that the noncommutative parameters satisfy $`[\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\lambda ,A)]^{}=\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\lambda ^{},A^{})`$. From the transformation law (4), a similar conclusion can be obtained for the noncommutative connection, $`[\widehat{A}_\mu (A)]^{}=\widehat{A}_\mu (A^{})`$, as well for the field strength, $`[\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }(A)]^{}=\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }(A^{})`$. By this means, if we have a group with real parameters and hermitian generators, with a hermitian connection, then the noncommutative connection and the noncommutative field strength will be also hermitian.

## III Topological Gravity

In this section we shortly review four-dimensional topological gravity. We start from the following $`SO(3,1)`$ invariant action

$$I_{TOP}=\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_G^P}{2\pi }\mathrm{Tr}_XRR+i\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_G^E}{2\pi }\mathrm{Tr}_XR\stackrel{~}{R},$$
(15)
where $`R`$ is the field strength, corresponding to a $`SO(3,1)`$ connection $`\omega `$

$$R_{\mu \nu }^{ab}=_\mu \omega _\nu ^{ab}_\nu \omega _\mu ^{ab}+\omega _\mu ^{ac}\omega _{\nu c}^b\omega _\mu ^{bc}\omega _{\nu c}^a,$$
(16)
$`X`$ is a four dimensional closed pseudo-Riemannian manifold and $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{\mu \nu }^{ab}=\frac{i}{2}\epsilon _{}^{ab}{}_{cd}{}^{}R_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{cd}`$ is the dual with respect to the group. Here the coefficients are the gravitational analogs of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$vacuum in QCD ref7 ; ref8 ; ref9 .

In this action, the connection satisfies the first Cartan structure equation, which relates it to a given tetrad. This action can be written as the integral of a divergence, and a variation of it with respect to the tetrad vanishes, hence it is metric independent, and therefore topological.

The action (15) arises naturally from the MacDowell-Mansouri type action ref10 . A similar construction can be done for $`(2+1)`$-dimensional Chern-Simons gravity ref11 . Keeping this philosophy in mind, action (15) can be rewritten in terms of the self-dual and anti-self-dual parts, $`R^\pm =\frac{1}{2}(R\pm \stackrel{~}{R})`$, of the Riemann tensor as follows:

$$I_{TOP}=\mathrm{Tr}_X\left(\tau R^+R^++\overline{\tau }R^{}R^{}\right)=\mathrm{Tr}_X\left(\tau R^+R^++\overline{\tau }\overline{R^+}\overline{R^+}\right),$$
(17)
where $`\tau =\left(\frac{1}{2\pi }\right)\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_G^E+i\mathrm{\Theta }_G^P\right)`$, and the bar denotes complex conjugation. In local coordinates on $`X`$, this action can be rewritten as

$$I_{TOP}=2\mathrm{R}e\tau _Xd^4x\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }R_{\mu \nu }^{+}{}_{}{}^{ab}R_{\rho \sigma ab}^+,$$
(18)
Therefore, it is enough to study the complex action,

$$I=_Xd^4x\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }R_{\mu \nu }^{+}{}_{}{}^{ab}R_{\rho \sigma ab}^+.$$
(19)
Further, the self-dual Riemann tensor satisfies, $`\epsilon _{}^{ab}{}_{cd}{}^{}R_{\mu \nu }^{+}{}_{}{}^{cd}=2iR_{\mu \nu }^{+}{}_{}{}^{ab}`$. This tensor has the useful property that it can be written as a usual Riemann tensor, but in terms of the self-dual components of the spin connection, $`\omega _\mu ^{+ab}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\omega _\mu ^{ab}\frac{i}{2}\epsilon _{}^{ab}{}_{cd}{}^{}\omega _\mu ^{cd}\right)`$, as

$$R_{\mu \nu }^{+ab}=_\mu \omega _\nu ^{+ab}_\nu \omega _\mu ^{+ab}+\omega _\mu ^{+ac}\omega _{\nu c}^{+b}\omega _\mu ^{+bc}\omega _{\nu c}^{+a}.$$
(20)
In this case, the action (18) can be rewritten as,

$$I=_Xd^4x\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\left[2R_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{0i}(\omega ^+)R_{\rho \sigma 0i}(\omega ^+)+R_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{ij}(\omega ^+)R_{\rho \sigma ij}(\omega ^+)\right].$$
(21)
Now, we define $`\omega _{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{i}=i\omega _\mu ^{+0i}`$, from which we obtain, by means of the self-duality properties, $`\omega _\mu ^{+ij}=\epsilon _{}^{ij}{}_{k}{}^{}\omega _{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{k}`$. Then it turns out that

$`R_{\mu \nu }^{oi}(\omega ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`i(_\mu \omega _\nu ^i_\nu \omega _\mu ^i+2\epsilon _{jk}^i\omega _\mu ^j\omega _{\nu c}^k)=i_{\mu \nu }^i(\omega )`$ (22)
$`R_{\mu \nu }^{ij}(\omega ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \omega _\nu ^{+ij}_\nu \omega _\mu ^{+ij}2(\omega _\mu ^i\omega _\nu ^j\omega _\nu ^i\omega _\mu ^j)=\epsilon _k^{ij}_{\mu \nu }^k(\omega ).`$ (23)
This amounts to the decomposition $`SO(3,1)=SL(2,𝐂)\times SL(2,𝐂)`$, such that $`\omega _\mu ^i`$ is a complex $`SL(2,𝐂)`$ connection. If we choose the algebra $`s\mathrm{}(2,𝐂)`$ to satisfy $`[T_i,T_j]=2i\epsilon _{ij}^kT_k`$ and Tr$`(T_iT_j)=2\delta _{ij}`$, then we can write

$$I=\mathrm{Tr}_Xd^4x\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }_{\mu \nu }(\omega )_{\rho \sigma }(\omega ),$$
(24)
where, $`_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \omega _\nu _\nu \omega _\mu i[\omega _\mu ,\omega _\nu ]`$ is the field strength. This action is invariant under the $`SL(2,𝐂)`$ transformations, $`\delta _\lambda \omega _\mu =_\mu \lambda +i[\lambda ,\omega _\mu ]`$.

In the case of a Riemannian manifold $`X`$, the signature and the Euler topological invariants of $`X`$, are the real and imaginary parts of (24)

$`\sigma (X)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24\pi ^2}}\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle _X}d^4x\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }_{\mu \nu }(\omega )_{\rho \sigma }(\omega ),`$ (25)
$`\chi (X)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\pi ^2}}\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle _X}d^4x\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }_{\mu \nu }(\omega )_{\rho \sigma }(\omega ).`$ (26)
## IV Noncommutative Topological Gravity

We wish to have a noncommutative formulation of the $`SO(3,1)`$ action (15). Its first term, can be straightforwardly made noncommutative, in the same way as for usual Yang-Mills theory,

$$\mathrm{Tr}_X\widehat{R}\widehat{R}.$$
(27)
If the $`SO(3,1)`$ generators are chosen to be hermitian, for example in the spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ representation given by $`\gamma ^{\mu \nu }`$, then from the discussion at the end of the second section, it turns out that $`\widehat{R}_{\mu \nu }`$ is hermitian and consequently (27) is real.

Instead, for the second term of (15) such an action cannot be written, because it involves the Levi-Civita symbol, an invariant Lorentz tensor, but which is not invariant under the full enveloping algebra. However, as mentioned at the end of the preceding section, this term can be obtained from Eq. (24).

Thus, in general we will consider as the noncommutative topological action of gravity, the $`SL(2,𝐂)`$ invariant action,

$$\widehat{I}=\mathrm{Tr}_Xd^4x\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\widehat{}_{\mu \nu }\widehat{}_{\rho \sigma },$$
(28)
where $`\widehat{}_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \widehat{\omega }_\nu _\nu \widehat{\omega }_\mu i[\widehat{\omega }_\mu \stackrel{}{,}\widehat{\omega }_\nu ]`$, is the $`SL(2,𝐂)`$ noncommutative field strength. This action does not depend on the metric of X. Indeed, as well as the commutative one, it is given by a divergence,

$$\widehat{I}=\mathrm{Tr}_Xd^4x\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }_\mu \left(\widehat{\omega }_\nu _\rho \widehat{\omega }_\sigma +\frac{2}{3}\widehat{\omega }_\nu \widehat{\omega }_\rho \widehat{\omega }_\sigma \right).$$
(29)
Thus, a variation of (28) with respect to the noncommutative connection, will vanish identically because of the noncommutative Bianchi identities,

$$\delta _{\widehat{\omega }}\widehat{I}=8\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\delta \widehat{\omega }_\mu \widehat{D}_\mu \widehat{R}_{\rho \sigma }0,$$
(30)
where $`\widehat{D}_\mu `$ is the noncommutative covariant derivative.

Further, from the first Cartan structure equation, the SO(3,1) connection, and thus its $`SL(2,𝐂)`$ projection $`\omega _\mu ^i`$, can be written in terms of the tetrad and the torsion. Furthermore, from the Seiberg-Witten map, the noncommutative connection can be written as well as $`\widehat{\omega }(e)`$. Therefore, a variation of the action (28) with respect to the tetrad of the action, can be written as

$$\delta _e\widehat{I}=8\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\delta _e\widehat{\omega }_\mu (e)\widehat{D}_\mu \widehat{R}_{\rho \sigma }0,$$
(31)
hence it is topological, as the commutative one.

Thus, we see from (29) that, in a $`\theta `$power expansion of the action, each one of the resulting terms will be independent of the metrics, as well as they will be given by a divergence. Thus, unless these terms vanish identically, they will be topological. Furthermore, the whole noncommutative action, expressed in terms of the commutative fields by the Seiberg-Witten map, is invariant under the SO(3,1) transformations. Thus, each term of the expansion will be also invariant. Thus these terms will be topological invariants.

The action (28) is not real, as well as the limiting commutative action. Hence, it is not obvious that the signature (27) will be precisely its real part. In this case we could neither say that $`\widehat{\chi }(X)`$ is given by its imaginary part. In fact we could only say that $`\widehat{\chi }(X)`$ could be obtained from the difference of (28) and (27). However, the real and the imaginary parts of (28) are invariant under SL(2,C) and consequently under SO(3,1), and thus they are the natural candidates for $`\widehat{\sigma }(X)`$ and $`\widehat{\chi }(X)`$, as in (25) and (26). In order to write down these noncommutative actions as an expansion in $`\theta `$, we will take as generators for the algebra of $`SL(2,𝐂)`$, the Pauli matrices. In this case, to second order in $`\theta `$, the Seiberg-Witten map for the Lie algebra valued commutative field strength $`_{\mu \nu }=_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{i}(\omega )\sigma _i`$, is given by

$$\widehat{}_{\mu \nu }=_{\mu \nu }+\theta ^{\alpha \beta }_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^{(1)}+\theta ^{\alpha \beta }\theta ^{\gamma \delta }_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta \gamma \delta }^{(2)}+\mathrm{},$$
(32)
where, from Eq. (11) we get,

$$\theta ^{\rho \sigma }_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^{(1)}=\frac{1}{2}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }\left[2_{\mu \rho }^i_{\nu \sigma i}\omega _\rho ^i\left(_\sigma _{\mu \nu i}+D_\sigma _{\mu \nu i}\right)\right]\mathrm{𝟏},$$
(33)
where $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is the unity 2$`\times `$2 matrix. Further, by means of Eq. (12), we get,

$`\theta ^{\rho \sigma }\theta ^{\tau \theta }_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma \tau \theta }^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }\theta ^{\tau \theta }(\epsilon _{jk}^i[i_\tau _{\mu \rho }^j_\theta _{\nu \sigma }^k+_\tau \omega _\rho ^j_\theta (_\sigma +D_\sigma )_{\mu \nu }^k]`$
$`\omega _\rho ^i_\tau \omega _\sigma ^j_\theta _{\mu \nu j}+_{\mu \rho }^i[2_{\nu \tau }^j_{\sigma \theta j}\omega _\tau ^j(_\theta +D_\theta )_{\nu \sigma j}]`$
$`_{\nu \rho }^i\left[2_{\mu \tau }^j_{\sigma \theta j}\omega _\tau ^j(_\theta +D_\theta )_{\mu \sigma j}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega _\tau ^j(_\theta \omega _{\rho j}+_{\theta \rho j})(_\sigma +D_\sigma )_{\mu \nu }^i`$
$`2\omega _\rho ^i\{2_\sigma _{\mu \tau }^j_{\nu \theta j}_\sigma [\omega _\tau ^j(_\theta +D_\theta )_{\mu \nu j}]\})\sigma _i.`$ (34)
Therefore, to second order in $`\theta `$, the action (28) will be given by,

$$\widehat{I}=\mathrm{Tr}_Xd^4x\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\left[_{\mu \nu }_{\rho \sigma }+2\theta ^{\tau \vartheta }_{\mu \nu }_{\rho \sigma \tau \vartheta }^{(1)}+\theta ^{\tau \theta }\theta ^{\vartheta \zeta }\left(2_{\mu \nu }_{\rho \sigma \tau \theta \vartheta \zeta }^{(2)}+_{\mu \nu \tau \theta }^{(1)}_{\rho \sigma \vartheta \zeta }^{(1)}\right)\right].$$
(35)
Taking into account (33), we get that the first order term is proportional to Tr$`(\sigma _i)`$ and thus vanishes identically. Further using (34), we finally get,

$`\widehat{I}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _X}d^4x\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\{2_{\mu \nu }^i_{\rho \sigma i}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\theta ^{\tau \theta }\theta ^{\vartheta \zeta }[\epsilon _{ijk}R_{\mu \nu }^i[_\vartheta R_{\rho \tau }^j_\zeta R_{\sigma \theta }^k_\vartheta \omega _\tau ^j_\zeta (_\theta +D_\theta )R_{\rho \sigma }^k]`$ (36)
$`+`$ $`[R_{\mu \tau }^iR_{\nu \theta i}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega _\tau ^i(_\theta +D_\theta )R_{i\mu \nu }][R_{\rho \vartheta }^jR_{\sigma \zeta j}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega _\vartheta ^j(_\zeta +D_\zeta )R_{\rho \sigma j}]`$
$`+`$ $`R_{\mu \nu }^i\{R_{i\sigma \theta }[2R_{\rho \vartheta }^jR_{\tau \zeta j}\omega _\vartheta ^j(_\zeta +D_\zeta )R_{\rho \tau j}]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(_\theta +D_\theta )R_{\rho \sigma i}\omega _\vartheta ^j(_\zeta \omega _{\tau j}+R_{\zeta \tau j})`$
$`+`$ $`\omega _{\theta i}[_\tau (R_{\rho \vartheta }^jR_{\sigma \zeta j}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\tau \omega _\vartheta ^j(_\zeta +D_\zeta )R_{\rho \sigma j}]\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R_{\mu \nu }^i\omega _{\tau i}_\vartheta \omega _\theta ^j_\zeta R_{\rho \sigma j}]\},`$
where the second order correction does not identically vanish.

Similarly to the second order term (34), the third order term for $`\widehat{}`$ can be computed by means of Eq. (12). The result is given by a rather long expression, which however is proportional to the unity matrix $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, like (33). Thus the third order term in (35), given by

$$2\theta ^{\tau _1\theta _1}\theta ^{\tau _2\theta _2}\theta ^{\tau _3\theta _3}\mathrm{Tr}_X\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\left(_{\mu \nu }_{\rho \sigma \tau _1\theta _1\tau _2\theta _2\tau _3\theta _3}^{(3)}+_{\mu \nu \tau _1\theta _1}^{(1)}_{\rho \sigma \tau _2\theta _2\tau _3\theta _3}^{(2)}\right),$$
(37)
vanishes identically, because $`^{(2)}`$ is proportional to $`\sigma _i`$. Thus, (36) is valid to third order. In fact, it seems that all its odd order terms vanish.

## V Towards Noncommutative Gravitational Instantons and Anomalies

### V.1 Towards Noncommutative Gravitational Instantons

In the Euclidean signature, the action (15), with local Lorentz group $`SO(4)`$, is proportional to a linear combination of integer valued topological invariants, the Euler $`\chi (X)`$ and the signature $`\sigma (X)`$, which characterize the gravitational instantons. In fact, $`\sigma (X)`$ and $`\chi (X)`$ are the analogue of the instanton number $`k`$ of $`SU(2)`$-Yang-Mills instantons, which is a manifestation of the gauge group topology, through $`k\pi _3(SU(2))`$. These topological invariants $`\chi `$ and $`\sigma `$, should of course include the corresponding boundary and $`\eta `$-invariant terms. Gravitational instantons are finite action solutions of the self-dual Einstein equations, which are asymptotically Euclidean swh , or asymptotically locally Euclidean (ALE) gi , at infinity (for a review, see ginstantons ). Then one would ask about the possibility to get gravitational instanton solutions in noncommutative gravity. The first natural step would be to analyze the positive action conjecture pac , in the context of noncommutative gravity, although it would requires a more complete version of noncommutative gravity. However, it is possible to give some generic arguments, and we will focus on the description of the global aspects, by analyzing invariants $`\chi `$ and $`\sigma `$ in the noncommutative context. In order to do that, we concentrate in the spin connection dependence, leaving the explicit metrics for later analysis.

In the previous section, from explicit computations of the noncommutative corrections (in the noncommutative parameter $`\theta `$) of the topological invariants (see Eq. (36)), we got that they do not vanish at $`𝒪(\theta ^2)`$, hence the classical topological invariants are clearly modified. Thus, the use of the Seiberg-Witten map for the Lorentz group leads to essentially modified invariants $`\widehat{\chi }`$ and $`\widehat{\sigma }`$, which would characterize ‘noncommutative gravitational instantons’. Further, the corresponding deformed equation under the Seiberg-Witten map, $`\widehat{R}_{\mu \nu }^+=0,`$ does admit an expansion in $`\theta `$ with the term at the zero order being $`R_{\mu \nu }^+`$. Thus these corrections should be associated to the $`\theta `$corrections of the self-duality equation $`R_{\mu \nu }^+=0`$. Furthermore, we could expect for the gravitational instantons similar effects as for the case of Yang-Mills instantons ns ; ref3 , where the singularities of moduli space are resolved by the noncommutative deformations.

We already know from models of the minisuperspace in quantum cosmology, that noncommutative gravity leads to a version of noncommutative minisuperspace ncqc . Thus, one would expect some new physical effects from the moduli space of metrics of a noncommutative gravity theory, which may help to resolve spacetime singularities.

### V.2 Comments on Gravitational Anomalies in Noncommutative Spaces

* A Brief Survey on Gravitational Anomalies

The study of topological invariants, leads us also to other nontrivial topological effects, like the anomalies, in our gravitational case. Gravitational anomalies, as well as gauge anomalies, are classified in local and global anomalies. In this paper we will mainly focus on local anomalies, whereas global anomalies will be mentioned as reference for future work.

Local anomalies are associated to the lack of invariance of the quantum one-loop effective action, under infinitesimal local transformations. There are different types of local gravitational anomalies, depending on the type of transformations, like the Lorentz (or automorphisms) anomaly, and the diffeomorphisms anomaly.

Let $`𝒢_0^L`$ be the group of vertical automorphisms of the frame bundle over the spacetime $`X`$. In a local trivialization, the frame bundle $`𝒢_0^L`$ can be identified with the set of continuous maps from $`X`$ to $`SO(4)`$, which approach to the identity at infinity, i.e. $`𝒢_0^LMap_0(X,SO(4))\{g:XSO(4),g\mathrm{continuous}\}`$. Let $`𝒲`$ be the space of gauge field configurations, which consists of all spin connections $`\omega _\mu ^{ab}(x)`$ with appropriate boundary conditions, and let $`=𝒲/𝒢_0^L`$. The automorphisms group $`𝒢_0^L`$ acts on $`𝒲`$ in such a way that one can construct the gauge bundle: $`𝒢_0^L𝒲\stackrel{\pi }{}`$. In spacetimes $`X`$ of $`n=dimX=2m`$ dimensions, the existence of the local Lorentz gravitational anomaly is associated to the non-triviality of the non-torsion part of the homotopy of $``$, i.e. $`\pi _2()\pi _1(𝒢_0^L)=\pi _{2m+1}(SO(2m))1.`$ For instance for $`X=S^4,`$ we get the pure topological torsion $`\pi _1(𝒢_0^L)\pi _5(SO(4))=\pi _5(SU(2)\times SU(2))=𝐙_2𝐙_2`$. Thus, in four dimensions there is no local Lorentz anomaly. However, in $`n=4k+2`$ dimensions, for $`k=0,1,\mathrm{}`$, it certainly exists.

For local diffeomorphisms transformations, the moduli space involves a richer phase space structure, given by the quotient space of the Teichmüller space, and the mapping class group. These anomalies can exist only for $`n=4k+2`$ dimensions for $`k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$. However, mixed local Lorentz and diffeomorphism anomalies can exist in $`2k+2`$ dimensions anomaly .

Global gravitational Lorentz anomalies arise from the fact that Lorentz transformations are disconnected, which is related to the nontrivial topology of the group $`𝒢_{\mathrm{}}^L=𝒢^L/𝒢_0^L`$, where $`𝒢^L`$ is the set of local Lorentz transformations which have a limit at infinity. In particular for $`X=S^4`$, $`\pi _0(𝒢_{\mathrm{}}^L)\pi _4(SO(4))=\pi _4(SU(2)\times SU(2))=𝐙_2𝐙_2`$, and a nontrivial global Lorentz anomaly arises. Similarly, the global gravitational diffeomorphisms anomalies are related to the disconnectedness of the mapping class group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}^+`$, i.e. $`\pi _0(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}^+)1`$ global .

* Noncommutative Local Lorentz Anomalies

Let us turn to the noncommutative side. The noncommutative version of the the Lorentz group will be denoted by $`\widehat{SO(4)}`$, and it is defined in terms of some suitable operator algebra on a real Hilbert space. Here and in the following, unless otherwise stated, the noncommutative spaces and groups corresponding to the ones in the preceding section, will be denoted by hated ones. Following harvey , we propose that $`\widehat{SO(4)}`$ will be given by the set of compact orthogonal operators $`𝐎_{cpt}()`$, defined on the separable real Hilbert space $``$. The compactness property avoids the Kuiper theorem, which states that the set of pure orthogonal operators $`𝐎()`$ has trivial homotopy groups kuiper . However, the restriction to subalgebras of normed orthogonal operators $`𝐎_p()=\{\alpha |\alpha =\mathrm{𝟏}+K\}`$ has very important consequences. Here $`K`$ stands for compact, finite rank, trace class and Hilbert-Schmidt operator. By a mathematical result palais , the family of normed operator algebras $`(𝐎_p(),||||_p),`$ with the $`L^p`$norm given by $`D_p=(\mathrm{Tr}|D|^p)^{1/p}`$, together with the set $`(𝐎_{cpt}(),||||_{\mathrm{}}),`$ have exactly the same stable homotopy groups as $`SO(\mathrm{})`$ (defined through the Bott periodicity theorem). Further, the stable homotopy groups of $`SO(\mathrm{})`$, $`\pi _j(SO(\mathrm{}))`$, are given by $`𝐙_2`$ for $`j=0`$, $`𝐙_2`$ for $`j=1`$, $`𝐙`$ for $`j=3`$, and $`1`$ otherwise. Also these groups have Bott periodicity mod 8, i.e. $`\pi _n(SO(\mathrm{}))=\pi _{n+8}(SO(\mathrm{}))`$. Thus, the stable homotopy groups of $`\widehat{SO(4)}=𝐎_{cpt}()`$ are in general nontrivial, and new topological effects in noncommutative gravity theories are possible.

Le us turn now to the noncommutative analogue of the local Lorentz anomaly. It is determined by the nontrivial non-torsion part of homotopy groups of a suitable noncommutative version of the Lorentz group $`\widehat{𝒢}_0^L`$, which could be defined as the set $`\widehat{𝒢}_0^LMap_0(X,𝐎_{cpt}())`$. The noncommutative local Lorentz anomaly is detected by the homotopy group $`\pi _2(\widehat{})=\pi _1(\widehat{𝒢}_0^L)=\pi _j(𝐎_{cpt}())1`$ for $`j=0,1,3`$ mod 8. For $`j=0,1`$ we have $`\pi _j(𝐎_{cpt}())=𝐙_2`$, while for $`j=3`$, $`\pi _j(𝐎_{cpt}())=𝐙`$. Thus for $`j=3`$ a non-torsion part is detected, and therefore the existence of a local Lorentz anomaly.

Finally, in the global perspective, the Seiberg-Witten map can be regarded as a map $`SW:\widehat{}`$, which preserves the infinitesimal Lorentz transformation (the gauge equivalence relation), and thus the locally Lorentz invariant observables of the theory. The Seiberg-Witten map is not well defined globally since both spaces $``$ and $`\widehat{}`$ are different, and their corresponding topologies can be different as well. However, in some specific cases the operator representation of the Seiberg-Witten map is quite useful to define the Seiberg-Witten map globally poly .

## VI Concluding Remarks

In this paper, we propose a noncommutative version for topological gravity with quadratic actions. We start by the complex action (28), in terms of the self-dual and antiself-dual connections, and which contains both the signature and the Euler topological invariants (for a Riemannian manifold). This action is then written as a $`SL(2,𝐂)`$ action, whose noncommutative counterpart can be obtained in the same way as in the Yang-Mills case, by means of the Seiberg-Witten map. We compute this action up to third $`\theta `$-order, and we obtain that the first and the third order vanish, but the second order is different from zero. The action to this order is given by (36). It seems that all odd $`\theta `$-orders vanish identically.

The noncommutative signature and the Euler topological invariants are given by the real and imaginary parts of (28). For a Riemannian manifold, these topological invariants characterize gravitational instantons. Thus the study of noncommutative topological invariants should allow us, through the Seiberg-Witten map, to deform gravitational instantons into noncommutative versions for them. In order to make explicit computations, specific gravitational (noncommutative) metrics have to be chosen. In this context, it would be very interesting to give a noncommutative formulation for dynamical gravity, following the lines of this work. This analysis will be reported in a forthcoming paper ashtekar .

Similarly to the gauge theories case, we propose a definition of noncommutative local gravitational Lorentz anomaly, by a suitable definition of the noncommutative Lorentz group $`\widehat{SO(4)}`$ in compact spacetime of Euclidean signature. The application of these ideas to the diffeomorphism transformations connected to the identity might predict new nontrivial noncommutative gravitational effects, which should be computed explicitly as a noncommutative correction to the gravitational contribution to the chiral anomaly. The usual gravitational correction was computed for the standard commutative case in Refs. salam ; anomaly . Moreover, this effect can also be regarded as a noncommutative gravitational correction of the local chiral anomaly in noncommutative gauge theory. This latter case of the pure noncommutative gauge field was discussed recently in Refs. ncanomaly . It would be very interesting to pursue this way and compare with the results given recently by Perrot perrot .

Regarding noncommutative global Lorentz anomalies, in order to understand them, we would need to specify the connected components of the corresponding group $`\widehat{𝒢}_{\mathrm{}}^L`$. In this case one would have to compute $`\pi _1(\widehat{𝒲}/\widehat{𝒢}_{\mathrm{}}^L)=\pi _0(\widehat{𝒢}_{\mathrm{}}^L)1`$. Of course a suitable operator definition of $`\widehat{𝒢}_{\mathrm{}}^L`$ is necessary like in the case of the local Lorentz anomaly. This is a difficult open problem.

Finally, the ALE gravitational instantons is an important case of gravitational instantons, which can be obtained as smooth resolutions of A-D-E orbifold singularities $`𝐂^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ being an A-D-E finite subgroup of $`SU(2)`$. These gravitational instantons are classified through the Kronheimer construction kronheimer , which is the analogue construction to the ADHM construction of Yang-Mills instantons. There is a proposal to extend the ADHM construction to the noncommutative case ns . Thus, it would be interesting to give the noncommutative analogue of the Kronheimer construction of ALE instantons.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by CONACyT México Grants Nos. 37851E and 33951E, as well as by the sabbatical grants 020291 (C.R.) and 020331 (O.O.).


format: text

text:
# QCD based quark description of 𝜋-𝜋 scattering up to the 𝜎 and 𝜌 region

## I  Introduction

As the lightest hadron, the Goldstone boson of spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking and dominant particle governing the nucleon-nucleon interaction, the pion occupies a special position in hadronic physics. Accordingly, $`\pi `$-$`\pi `$ scattering has attracted considerable interest even though the cross section is not directly measurable. In particular, a variety of theories have been utilized to make scattering predictions: at low energies, current algebra/PCAC Weinberg (1966), chiral perturbation theory Weinberg (1967, 1979); Gasser and Leutwyler (1984); Donoghue et al. (1988) and bosonization models with pion fields Roberts et al. (1994); Quantum Hadrodynamic \[QHD\] meson exchange models and unitarized relativistic coupled channels Pichowsky et al. (2001) for intermediate energies; Regge theory at moderately higher energies; perturbative QCD at very high energies. These in turn have been confronted by experimental phase shift analyses Grayer et al. (1974); Srinivasan et al. (1975); Rosselet et al. (1977); Kaminski et al. (2000) yielding reasonable agreement. However, there have been very few non-perturbative, relativistic covariant quark predictions which is the thrust of this paper.

This work applies the quark Dyson–Schwinger \[DSE\] and meson Bethe–Salpeter \[BSE\] equations Roberts and Williams (1994); Roberts and Schmidt (2000); Alkofer and von Smekal (2001), in the rainbow-ladder approximation, to $`\pi `$-$`\pi `$ scattering and extends our previous threshold analysis Bicudo et al. (2002) which reproduced Weinberg’s low energy theorem Weinberg (1966) and the Adler zero. The approach is QCD based, renormalizable, relativistic, rigorously covariant, embodies crossing and chiral symmetry, and contains only two predetermined parameters that provide a realistic, comprehensive description of the light meson spectra and decays Maris and Roberts (1997); Maris and Tandy (1999, 2000a, 2000b); Jarecke et al. (2002). Our key finding is that the model correctly predicts all three isospin amplitudes measured at low energies and also reproduces the observed $`\sigma `$ and $`\rho `$ resonances at higher energies. Our framework can thus assess phenomenological meson exchange models which require resonances as input and we find such models are quite reasonable.

This paper is organized into four sections. Section II formulates the scattering problem and addresses the main approximation: the rainbow truncation of the DSE for the quark propagator and the ladder truncation of the BSE for the pion as a quark-antiquark bound state. This section also details the quark annihilation and exchange diagrams and relates the amplitudes for these processes to the various isospin scattering amplitudes for total $`\pi `$-$`\pi `$ isospin zero, one and two. Section III presents large scale, supercomputer calculations for forward and backward scattering and compares results to an effective meson exchange model where the coupling constants and pole masses are a prerequisite. Finally, conclusions are summarized in section IV and supporting mathematical details are provided in an appendix.

## II  Meson scattering in the Dyson–Schwinger approach

### II.1  Dyson–Schwinger Equations

The DSE for the renormalized quark propagator having four momenta $`p`$ in Euclidean space is

$`S(p)^1`$ $`=`$ $`iZ_2/p+Z_4m_q(\mu )+`$ (1)
$`Z_1{\displaystyle _q^\mathrm{\Lambda }}g^2D_{\mu \nu }(k)\frac{\lambda ^\alpha }{2}\gamma _\mu S(q)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ^\alpha (q,p),`$
where $`D_{\mu \nu }(k)`$ is the dressed-gluon propagator, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ^\alpha (q,p)`$ the dressed-quark-gluon vertex with color index $`\alpha =1\mathrm{}8`$, and $`k=pq`$. The notation $`_q^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ represents $`_q^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}`$. The most general propagator solution of Eq. (1) has the form $`S(p)^1=i/pA(p^2)+`$ $`B(p^2)`$ and is renormalized at spacelike $`\mu ^2`$ according to $`A(\mu ^2)=1`$ and $`B(\mu ^2)=m_q(\mu )`$ with $`m_q(\mu )`$ being the current quark mass. We use the Euclidean metric where $`\{\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _\nu \}=2\delta _{\mu \nu }`$, $`\gamma _\mu ^{}=\gamma _\mu `$ and $`ab=a_ib_i_{i=1}^4a_ib_i`$.

Mesons are described by the Bethe–Salpeter amplitude \[BSA\], $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_H`$, which is a solution of the homogeneous BSE for $`q^a\overline{q}^b`$ bound states given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_H^{a\overline{b}}(p_+,p_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _q^\mathrm{\Lambda }}K(p,q;P)`$ (2)
$`\times S^a(q_+)\mathrm{\Gamma }_H^{a\overline{b}}(q_+,q_{})S^b(q_{}),`$
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are flavor indices, $`p_+=p+\eta P`$ and $`p_{}=p(1\eta )P`$ are the outgoing and incoming quark momenta respectively, and $`q_\pm `$ is defined similarly. The kernel $`K`$ is the renormalized, amputated $`q\overline{q}`$ scattering kernel that is irreducible with respect to a pair of $`q\overline{q}`$ lines. This equation has solutions at discrete values of $`P^2=m_H^2`$, where $`m_H`$ is the meson mass. By then imposing the canonical normalization condition for $`q\overline{q}`$ bound states, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_H`$ is uniquely determined. Mesons with different spin, parity and C parity, such as pseudo-scalar, vector, etc., are characterized by different Dirac structures. The most general decomposition for pseudoscalar bound states is Maris and Roberts (1997)

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{PS}(q_+,q_{})=\gamma _5[iE(q^2,qP;\eta )+/PF(q^2,qP;\eta )`$ (3)
$`+/kG(q^2,qP;\eta )+\sigma _{\mu \nu }P_\mu q_\nu H(q^2,qP;\eta )],`$
where the invariant amplitudes $`E`$, $`F`$, $`G`$ and $`H`$ are Lorentz scalar functions of $`q^2`$ and $`qP`$. For eigenstates of C parity, these amplitudes are appropriately odd or even in the C odd variable $`qP`$. In the case of the $`0^+`$ pion, for example, the amplitude $`G`$ is odd in $`qP`$, the others are even. Note also that these amplitudes explicitly depend on the momentum partitioning parameter $`\eta `$. However, provided Poincaré invariance is preserved, the resulting physical observables are $`\eta `$ independent Maris and Roberts (1997); Maris and Tandy (1999, 2000b).

### II.2  Rainbow-ladder truncation

We use the rainbow-ladder truncation for the system of Dyson–Schwinger and Bethe–Salpeter equations \[DSBS\]. In particular, the rainbow truncation of the quark DSE, Eq. (1), is

$$Z_1g^2D_{\mu \nu }(k)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ^\alpha (q,p)𝒢(k^2)D_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{free}}(k)\gamma _\nu \frac{\lambda ^\alpha }{2},$$
(4)
where $`D_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{free}}(k=pq)`$ is the free gluon propagator in Landau gauge, and $`𝒢(k^2)`$ is an effective $`\overline{q}q`$ interaction that reduces to the perturbative QCD running coupling in the ultraviolet region. The corresponding ladder truncation of the BSE, Eq. (2), is

$$K(p,q;P)𝒢(k^2)D_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{free}}(k)\frac{\lambda ^\alpha }{2}\gamma _\mu \frac{\lambda ^\alpha }{2}\gamma _\nu ,$$
(5)
where $`k=pq`$. The two truncations combine to consistently produce vector and axial-vector vertices satisfying the respective Ward–Takahashi identities. In the axial case, this ensures that in the chiral limit the ground state pseudoscalar mesons are the massless Goldstone bosons associated with chiral symmetry breaking Maris and Roberts (1997); Maris et al. (1998). For vector mesons it yields a conserved electromagnetic current if the impulse approximation is used to calculate the electromagnetic form factor Maris and Tandy (2000b). Furthermore, this truncation was found to be particularly suitable for the flavor octet pseudoscalar and vector mesons since the next-order corrections in a quark-gluon skeleton graph expansion significantly cancel Bender et al. (1996).

### II.3  $`\pi `$-$`\pi `$ scattering

There are different types of diagrams that contribute to $`\pi `$-$`\pi `$ scattering, or more general, meson-meson scattering, such as quark annihilation or quark exchange diagrams. It is convenient to first discuss these different types of contributions in the impulse approximation, even though the impulse approximation is known to be insufficient Bicudo et al. (2002). The more correct treatment is given in the next subsection.

Figure 1 depicts the entire class of diagrams that constitute the impulse approximation for the scattering amplitude.

Each diagram can be associated with a specific amplitude that is a function of the Mandelstam variables $`s=(P_1+P_2)^2`$, $`t=(P_1P_3)^2`$, and $`u=(P_1P_4)^2`$, where $`P_1`$, $`P_2`$ ($`P_3`$, $`P_4`$) are the incoming (outgoing) pion momenta. The external pions are on-shell, yielding $`P_i^2=m_\pi ^2`$ in the Euclidean metric. At threshold $`s=4m_\pi ^2`$, $`t=u=0`$, and the physical region has $`s<4m_\pi ^2`$. Momentum conservation requires $`s+t+u=4m_\pi ^2`$, so that the amplitudes, which we chose to express as functions of $`s`$, $`t`$, and $`u`$, only depend on two independent variables. Alternatively the amplitudes could be represented as function of the pion center-of-momentum \[c.m.\] energy $`\omega =\sqrt{s}/2`$ and the c.m. scattering angle $`\theta `$ with $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta )=(ut)/(u+t)`$. Then forward (backward) scattering, $`\theta =0`$ ($`\theta =180`$), corresponds to $`t=0`$ ($`u=0`$).

Because there are only two distinct microscopic scattering mechanisms, quark annihilation and quark exchange, there are actually only two distinct amplitudes, $`D`$ and $`E`$, respectively. Thus, all six diagrams in Fig. 1 can be represented by these two

diagram I: $`D(s,t,u)`$ (6)
diagram II: $`E(s,t,u)`$ (7)
diagram III: $`D(s,u,t)`$ (8)
diagram IV: $`D(s,t,u)`$ (9)
diagram V: $`E(s,u,t)`$ (10)
diagram VI: $`D(s,u,t).`$ (11)
These amplitudes can be calculated from integrals involving the quark propagators and pion BSAs, e.g.

$`D(s,t,u)=2N_c{\displaystyle _q^\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{Tr}[S(k+P_1)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi (k+P_1,k)S(k)`$ (12)
$`\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi (k,kP_2)S(kP_2)\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\pi (kP_2,k+P_1P_3)`$
$`\times S(k+P_1P_3)\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\pi (k+P_1P_3,k+P_1)].`$
Note that for $`\pi `$-$`\pi `$ scattering, $`E`$ is symmetric under interchange of $`u`$ and $`t`$ (indicated hereafter by a semicolon), $`E(s;u,t)=E(s;t,u)`$, whereas $`D`$ is symmetric in $`s`$ and $`t`$, $`D(s,t;u)=D(t,s;u)`$. Furthermore, one can relate $`E`$ to $`D`$: $`E(s;t,u)=D(u,t;s)`$. However, we find it more convenient to retain and calculate both $`D`$ and $`E`$ independently since this affords a sensitive numerical check on our computer codes.

The three isospin amplitudes, $`T_I`$, for $`\pi `$-$`\pi `$ scattering are specific combinations of these amplitudes (see the appendix for further details).

$`T_0(s,t,u)`$ $`=`$ $`3(D(s,t;u)+D(s,u;t))`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(E(s;t,u)+E(s;u,t)),`$
$`T_1(s,t,u)`$ $`=`$ $`2(D(s,t;u)D(s,u;t)),`$ (14)
$`T_2(s,t,u)`$ $`=`$ $`E(s;u,t)+E(s;t,u).`$ (15)
Crossing symmetry and Bose statistics requires the even isospin amplitudes to be symmetric in exchange of $`u`$ and $`t`$ and only contain even partial waves. Similarly the isospin one amplitude must be antisymmetric in interchange of $`u`$ and $`t`$ and have only odd partial waves. Hence at threshold $`T_1(4m_\pi ^2,0,0)=0`$ but the isospin zero and two amplitudes $`T_0`$ and $`T_2`$ are nonzero.

### II.4  Beyond the impulse approximation

As documented in Ref. Bicudo et al. (2002), the impulse approximation combined with the rainbow-ladder truncation is insufficient to describe $`\pi `$-$`\pi `$ scattering and it is necessary to include the ladder kernel as indicated in Fig. 2.

Thus, for amplitude $`D`$ we need to calculate and add an infinite series of $`s`$-channel ladder diagrams as well as an infinite series of $`t`$-channel ladder diagrams to the impulse term. Similarly for amplitude $`E`$, we must add and compute an infinite series of $`t`$-channel and $`u`$-channel ladder diagrams.

These infinite set of ladder diagrams can be calculated by solving an inhomogeneous BSE in ladder truncation

$`F(p,P_i,P_j)=F_0(p,P_i,P_j)+{\displaystyle _q^\mathrm{\Lambda }}𝒢(k^2)D_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{free}}(k)`$ (16)
$`\times \frac{\lambda ^\alpha }{2}\gamma _\mu S(q_+)F(q,P_i,P_j)S(q_{})\frac{\lambda ^\alpha }{2}\gamma _\nu `$
where now $`q_\pm =q\pm (P_i+P_j)`$ for $`i,j=1,2`$ ($`s`$-channel ladders) or $`q_\pm =q\pm (P_iP_j)`$ for $`i=1,2`$ and $`j=3,4`$ ($`t`$\- and $`u`$-channel ladders). Here, $`F_0(p,P_i,P_j)`$ is an inhomogeneous term of the type $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi S\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi `$; e.g. for the $`s`$-channel ladder contribution to configuration $`D`$ we have $`i=1`$, $`j=2`$ and

$`F_0(p,P_1,P_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi (p+Q_+,pQ_{})S(pQ_{})`$ (17)
$`\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi (pQ_{},pQ_+)`$
where $`Q_\pm =(P_1\pm P_2)/2`$. This is similar to solving the inhomogeneous BSE for the quark-photon vertex, as done in Refs. Maris and Tandy (2000a, b). The Dirac structure is indeed of equal complexity, in both cases there are eight independent terms. Thus, $`F`$ can be written as

$`F(p,P_i,P_j)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}O_nf_n(p^2,pP_i,pP_j)`$ (18)
with

$`O_1(p,P_i,P_j)`$ $`=`$ $`1`$ (19)
$`O_2(p,P_i,P_j)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma p`$ (20)
$`O_3(p,P_i,P_j)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma P_i`$ (21)
$`O_4(p,P_i,P_j)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma P_j`$ (22)
$`O_5(p,P_i,P_j)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma p\gamma P_i`$ (23)
$`O_6(p,P_i,P_j)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma p\gamma P_j`$ (24)
$`O_7(p,P_i,P_j)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma P_i\gamma P_j`$ (25)
$`O_8(p,P_i,P_j)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma p\gamma P_i\gamma P_j.`$ (26)
Note that the $`f_n`$ are functions of three independent variables: $`p^2`$, $`pP_i`$ and $`pP_j`$, in contrast to the quark-photon vertex, which has only two independent variables.

## III  Numerical results

We consider only forward and backward scattering which simplifies the numerical analysis compared to scattering for arbitrary angles. However, since $`F`$ is a function of three independent variables for any given $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$, there is a significant increase in the numerical effort to solve Eq. (16) when compared to the inhomogeneous BSE for the quark-photon vertex. We discretize the three independent variables on a three-dimensional grid and solve by iteration, starting with $`F_0`$. If there are no singularities, the number of iterations for convergence is about 20 to 30. The actual calculations are done on a parallel processor supercomputer (IBM SP) and scale reasonably well, typically 2 to 3 CPU minutes on 32 processors per external $`P_i,P_j`$. Since there are two sets of ladder diagrams for both configurations $`D`$ and $`E`$, about 5 CPU hours per external momentum variable is required. The iterative procedure is significantly less efficient near a singularity, yet the entire parallel calculation still scales reasonable well.

### III.1  Model truncation

We adopt the model framework and parameters that have been recently developed Maris and Tandy (1999) which provide a good description of the masses and decay constants of the light pseudoscalar and vector mesons. The Ansatz for the effective $`\overline{q}q`$ interaction is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒢(k^2)}{k^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2Dk^2}{\omega ^6}}\mathrm{e}^{k^2/\omega ^2}`$ (27)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2\gamma _m(k^2)}{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left[\tau +\left(1+k^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2\right)^2\right]}},`$
where $`\gamma _m=12/(332N_f)`$ and $`(s)=(1\mathrm{exp}\frac{s}{4m_t^2})/s`$. The ultraviolet behavior is chosen to be the QCD running coupling $`\alpha (k^2)`$; the ladder-rainbow truncation then generates the correct perturbative QCD structure for the DSBS system of equations. The first term implements the infrared strength in the region $`0<k^2<1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ where the chiral condensate is fit Hawes et al. (1998). We use $`m_t=0.5\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`\tau =\mathrm{e}^21`$, $`N_f=4`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}=0.234\mathrm{GeV}`$, and a renormalization scale $`\mu =19\mathrm{GeV}`$ which is in the perturbative domain Maris and Roberts (1997); Maris and Tandy (1999). The remaining parameters, $`\omega =0.4\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`D=0.93\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ and the $`u/d`$ degenerate quark mass, are determined by fitting the chiral condensate, $`m_\pi `$ and $`f_\pi `$. The predicted $`\rho `$ meson mass and electroweak decay constant are also in good agreement with observation Maris and Tandy (1999), as can be seen from Table 1. Further, without parameter readjustment, the model agrees remarkably well with the most recent Jlab data Volmer et al. (2001) for the pion charge form factor $`F_\pi (Q^2)`$ and the strong decay $`\rho \pi \pi `$ Jarecke et al. (2002).

### III.2 Results for isospin amplitudes near threshold

We first elucidate the importance of the ladder contributions, reaffirming that the impulse approximation is insufficient to describe $`\pi `$-$`\pi `$ scattering. In Fig. 3 the impulse approximation (dotted curve) is compared to the contributions from the entire $`s`$-channel and $`t`$-channel ladder diagrams for amplitude $`D(s,t;u)`$ at extreme forward and backward scattering angles. The total amplitude (solid curve) is noticeably different than the impulse amplitude, clearly indicating the ladder exchange diagrams are crucial. Also note that $`D(s,t;0)`$ is indeed symmetric in $`s`$ and $`t`$ as anticipated; within our numerical accuracy we also found that $`E(s;0,u)=E(s;u,0)=D(s,0;u)`$.

Not only is the deficiency of the impulse approximation clear, it is also essential that the full ladder of gluon exchanges be included, especially for kinematics near $`\pi `$-$`\pi `$ resonances. This is displayed in more detail in Fig. 4 where the effects from one, two, three, nine, and “infinitely many” $`s`$-channel gluon exchanges are compared. To reach effective convergence requires up to about 20 gluon exchanges away from the resonance region. However, near intermediate bound state poles ($`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$) convergence at the 1% level requires several hundred gluon exchanges.

Combining the amplitudes $`D`$ and $`E`$ with Eqs. (13)-(15) provides the different isospin scattering amplitudes which are displayed in Fig. 5. For comparison we also plot the amplitudes from leading-order chiral perturbation theory Donoghue et al. (1988) which are given in partial wave form

$`T_I=32\pi {\displaystyle \underset{L}{}}(2L+1)T_I^L(s)P_L(\mathrm{cos}\theta ).`$ (28)
For low energies the $`S`$ and $`P`$ waves dominate and are given by

$`T_0^0(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2sm_\pi ^2}{32\pi f_\pi ^2}}`$ (29)
$`T_2^0(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s+2m_\pi ^2}{32\pi f_\pi ^2}}`$ (30)
$`T_1^1(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s4m_\pi ^2}{96\pi f_\pi ^2}}.`$ (31)
Again recall that in the Euclidean metric $`s=4m_\pi ^2=0.076\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ at threshold.

Note the excellent agreement between tree-level chiral perturbation theory and our calculations at low energies. The deviation at higher energies represents contributions from $`\pi `$-$`\pi `$ resonances (scalar and vector meson bound states). These important physical effects are automatically included in the present approach and are discussed further in the next section.

Finally, we have calculated the dimensionless $`S`$ and $`P`$ wave scattering lengths $`a_I^L`$ in all three isospin channels

$`a_I^0`$ $`=`$ $`T_I^0(s=4m_\pi ^2)`$ (32)
$`a_1^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4m_\pi ^2}{s4m_\pi ^2}}T_1^1(s4m_\pi ^2)`$ (33)
We find $`a_0^0=0.17`$, $`a_1^1=0.036`$, and $`a_0^2=0.045`$. This agrees well with Weinberg’s theorem which is embodied in the tree-level chiral perturbation results

$`a_0^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{7m_\pi ^2}{32\pi f_\pi ^2}}=0.156`$ (34)
$`a_1^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2}{24\pi f_\pi ^2}}=0.030`$ (35)
$`a_2^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2m_\pi ^2}{32\pi f_\pi ^2}}=0.044.`$ (36)
A recent analysis Colangelo et al. (2001) of the experimental data Pislak et al. (2001) utilizes both two-loop chiral perturbation theory and a phenomenological description involving the Roy equations Roy (1971) and obtains $`a_0^0=0.220\pm 0.005`$, $`a_1^1=0.0379\pm 0.0005`$, and $`a_2^0=0.0444\pm 0.0010`$. Chiral perturbation theory is able to provide more accurate scattering lengths because they include higher order contributions from pion loops which is especially important for the isospin zero channel: one-loop chiral perturbation theory Gasser and Leutwyler (1984) gives $`a_0^0=0.200`$, compared to $`a_0^0=0.156`$ at leading order. In our present quark-based calculation pion loops are not included. However, they are clearly necessary for an accurate description of the data, in particular in the isospin-zero channel.

### III.3 Comparison with meson-exchange models

It is enlightening to compare the DSBS approach to the QHD formalism which has an established phenomenological legacy. For example, one could formulate a meson-exchange model with both scalar and vector mesons starting from the effective Lagrangian

$``$ $`=`$ $`_\pi +_\sigma +_\rho +_{\text{int}}`$ (37)
$`_{\text{int}}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{4\pi }\left(\stackrel{}{\varphi }_\pi \stackrel{}{\varphi }_\pi \right)^2+g_{\sigma \pi \pi }\varphi _\sigma \stackrel{}{\varphi }_\pi \stackrel{}{\varphi }_\pi `$ (38)
$`+g_{\rho \pi \pi }\stackrel{}{\varphi }_\rho ^\mu \stackrel{}{\varphi }_\pi \times _\mu \stackrel{}{\varphi }_\pi .`$
It entails meson masses and coupling constants which require phenomenological determination; it also requires a certain amount of fine-tuning in order to satisfy chiral constraints. The leading Feynman diagrams for $`\pi `$-$`\pi `$ scattering in such an approach are displayed in Fig. 6.

In a meson-exchange model using both scalar and vector mesons, the amplitude $`D(s,t;u)`$ corresponds to a contact term plus meson exchange contributions in the $`s`$ and $`t`$ channels; the amplitude $`E(s;t,u)`$ corresponds to the same contact term plus meson exchange contributions in the $`t`$ and $`u`$ channels. In order to calculate these meson exchange contributions, let us first specify the meson coupling constants $`g_{\sigma \pi \pi }`$ and $`g_{\rho \pi \pi }`$, which in impulse approximation are given by

$`g_{\sigma \pi \pi }=`$ (39)
$`4N_c{\displaystyle _q^\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{Tr}[S(k+P_1)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi (k+P_1,k)S(k)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi (k,kP_2)`$
$`\times S(kP_2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma (kP_2,k+P_1)]`$
$`g_{\rho \pi \pi }(P_1P_2)^\mu =`$ (40)
$`4N_c{\displaystyle _q^\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{Tr}[S(k+P_1)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi (k+P_1,k)S(k)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi (k,kP_2)`$
$`\times S(kP_2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ^\mu (kP_2,k+P_1)]`$
for on-shell scalar and vector mesons, $`(P_1+P_2)^2=m_\sigma ^2`$, $`m_\rho ^2`$ respectively.

Within the present model, we have $`m_\sigma ^2=0.449\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, $`g_{\sigma \pi \pi }=2.06\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_\rho ^2=0.549\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, and $`g_{\rho \pi \pi }=5.14`$ Jarecke et al. (2002). The corresponding width for the decay $`\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \pi \pi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\rho \pi \pi }^2}{48\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{(m_\rho ^24m_\pi ^2)^{\frac{3}{2}}}{m_\rho ^2}}`$ (41)
$`=`$ $`104\mathrm{MeV}`$ (42)
which is in reasonable agreement with the experimental $`\rho `$ width $`151\mathrm{MeV}`$; the difference could very well be explained by pion loops which are not included in the present approach. The decay width for the $`\sigma \pi \pi `$ is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \pi \pi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\sigma \pi \pi }^2}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{m_\sigma ^24m_\pi ^2}}{m_\sigma ^2}}`$ (43)
$`=`$ $`172\mathrm{MeV}`$ (44)
which is also quite reasonable for a broad $`\sigma `$ resonance (the factor $`\frac{3}{2}`$ comes from summing over the charged and neutral pions). However, it is known that the scalar BSE receives significant corrections beyond ladder truncation Bender et al. (1996), which could change this calculated decay width. In addition, pion loops should be incorporated self-consistently in the BSE approach for a more realistic calculation of the $`\sigma `$ and $`\rho `$ widths.

Next, consider for example the contribution of $`s`$-channel ladder diagrams to $`D(s,t;u)`$: scalar mesons contribute

$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\sigma \pi \pi }^2/4}{s+m_\sigma ^2}}`$ (45)
whereas vector mesons contribute

$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\rho \pi \pi }^2(ut)/4}{s+m_\rho ^2}}`$ (46)
near the bound state poles, and similarly for the $`t`$\- and $`u`$-channel ladder diagrams. The momentum-dependent factor in the numerator of the vector meson exchange contributions comes from $`(P_1P_2)(P_3P_4)=ut`$.

A detailed, consistent evaluation of these diagrams generates the effective meson-exchange scattering amplitudes at tree level

$`T_0(s,t,u)`$ $`=`$ $`5C_{4\pi }`$ (47)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\sigma \pi \pi }^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{s+m_\sigma ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t+m_\sigma ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u+m_\sigma ^2}}\right)`$
$`+g_{\rho \pi \pi }^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{us}{t+m_\rho ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ts}{u+m_\rho ^2}}\right)`$
$`T_1(s,t,u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\rho \pi \pi }^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{2(ut)}{s+m_\rho ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{us}{t+m_\rho ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{ts}{u+m_\rho ^2}}\right)`$ (48)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\sigma \pi \pi }^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{t+m_\sigma ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u+m_\sigma ^2}}\right)`$
$`T_2(s,t,u)`$ $`=`$ $`2C_{4\pi }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\sigma \pi \pi }^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{t+m_\sigma ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u+m_\sigma ^2}}\right)`$ (49)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\rho \pi \pi }^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{us}{t+m_\rho ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ts}{u+m_\rho ^2}}\right).`$
We can now evaluate the accuracy of the meson exchange model by comparison with the full DSBS amplitude. A consistent assessment requires that the meson parameters (i.e. the coupling constants and meson masses) must be provided by the DSBS model. The only free parameter in the meson exchange model is $`C_{4\pi }`$, which can be fitted such that the meson exchange model agrees with the microscopic calculation away from the resonances. A value of $`C_{4\pi }4.8`$ provides reasonable agreement for both the isospin zero and two results over a large kinematic region. To reproduce Weinberg’s results for the scattering lengths $`a_0^0`$ and $`a_2^0`$ requires a fine-tuning between the meson masses and coupling constants in the meson exchange model. The meson exchange model with calculated $`m_\rho `$, $`m_\sigma `$, $`g_{\rho \pi \pi }`$, and $`g_{\sigma \pi \pi }`$ from the DSBS model cannot reproduce the Weinberg limit: $`a_0^0=0.156`$ requires $`C_{4\pi }=5.2`$, whereas $`a_0^0=0.044`$ requires $`C_{4\pi }=4.0`$. In contrast, the DSBS approach does reproduce the Weinberg limits correctly, while at the same time properly generating non-analytic effects from intermediate $`q\overline{q}`$ bound states such as $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ mesons.

Fig. 7 summarizes our comparative study for all three isospin amplitudes at forward scattering. The gray band indicates the sensitivity on $`C_{4\pi }`$ for $`4.0<C_{4\pi }<5.2`$. Notice that the $`\sigma `$ resonance naturally appears in the DSBS $`S`$ wave, isospin zero amplitude and agrees with the meson exchange amplitude quite accurately near the $`\sigma `$ mass region. Similarly the DSBS $`P`$ wave, isospin one amplitude is reasonably well reproduced by the meson exchange result, although we cannot numerically quite reach the $`\rho `$ pole. In between threshold and resonant regions the two approaches have some quantitative differences, however we conclude that the tree-level meson exchange approach is reasonable for simple predictions.

## IV Conclusion

Summarizing, we have performed a consistent relativistic quark formulation of $`\pi `$-$`\pi `$ scattering using the Dyson–Schwinger, Bethe–Salpeter framework. The DSBS approach provides contact with QCD and naturally includes the important features of gauge and Poincare invariance as well as both crossing and chiral symmetry. We have obtained numerical results which are in good agreement with the observed isospin scattering lengths and reproduce Weinberg’s theorem at threshold. Perhaps even more significant is the emergence of the $`\sigma `$ and $`\rho `$ resonances at the proper energy which reaffirms the QCD structure elements in the model. The latter permits a rigorous assessment of QHD meson exchange models which simply insert resonances phenomenologically. As we documented in detail, a simple QHD treatment appears reasonable, especially near resonances. Future work will confront data at higher energies and also address other flavored systems such as $`\pi `$-$`K`$ scattering.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by the Department of Energy under Grants DE-FG02-96ER40947 and DE-FG02-97ER41048. Calculations were performed with resources provided by the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center and the North Carolina Supercomputer Center.

*

## Appendix A Isospin decomposition

In terms of the $`u,d`$ flavor components, the single pion states are

$`|\pi ^+`$ $`=`$ $`|1,1=|u\overline{d}`$ (50)
$`|\pi ^0`$ $`=`$ $`|1,0=|(u\overline{u}d\overline{d})/\sqrt{2}`$ (51)
$`|\pi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`|1,1=|d\overline{u}.`$ (52)
The two-pion states then have isospin decomposition

$`|\pi ^\pm \pi ^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`|2,\pm 2`$ (53)
$`|\pi ^\pm \pi ^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|2,\pm 1\pm |2,\pm 1\right)`$ (54)
$`|\pi ^\pm \pi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}|2,0\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|1,0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}|0,0`$ (55)
$`|\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}}|2,0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}|0,0.`$ (56)
Using the latter equations, the physical $`\pi `$-$`\pi `$ scattering amplitudes can be related to the three isospin amplitudes by

$`\pi ^\pm \pi ^\pm |S|\pi ^\pm \pi ^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`T_2`$ (57)
$`\pi ^\pm \pi ^{}|S|\pi ^\pm \pi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}T_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}T_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}T_0`$ (58)
$`\pi ^\pm \pi ^0|S|\pi ^\pm \pi ^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}T_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}T_1`$ (59)
$`\pi ^\pm \pi ^{}|S|\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}T_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}T_0`$ (60)
$`\pi ^0\pi ^0|S|\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}T_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}T_0.`$ (61)
Not all six diagrams in Fig. 1 contribute to each $`\pi `$-$`\pi `$ scattering amplitude. In terms of the physical pion scattering amplitudes, we have

$`\pi ^\pm \pi ^\pm |S|\pi ^\pm \pi ^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`E(s,t,u)+E(s,u,t)`$ (62)
$`\pi ^\pm \pi ^{}|S|\pi ^\pm \pi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2D(s,t,u)`$ (63)
$`\pi ^\pm \pi ^0|S|\pi ^\pm \pi ^0`$ $`=`$ $`D(s,t,u)D(s,u,t)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(E(s,t,u)+E(s,u,t)\right)`$
$`\pi ^\pm \pi ^{}|S|\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ $`=`$ $`D(s,t,u)D(s,u,t)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(E(s,t,u)+E(s,u,t)\right)`$
$`\pi ^0\pi ^0|S|\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ $`=`$ $`D(s,t,u)+D(s,u,t)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(E(s,t,u)+E(s,u,t)\right).`$
Thus we find for the isospin amplitudes

$`T_0(s,t,u)`$ $`=`$ $`3\left(D(s,t,u)+D(s,u,t)\right)`$ (67)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(E(s,t,u)+E(s,u,t)\right)`$
$`T_1(s,t,u)`$ $`=`$ $`2\left(D(s,t,u)D(s,u,t)\right)`$ (68)
$`T_2(s,t,u)`$ $`=`$ $`E(s,t,u)+E(s,u,t).`$ (69)
The quark exchange diagram, $`E(s;t,u)`$, is symmetric in the last two arguments, $`t`$ and $`u`$, whereas the quark annihilation diagram, $`D(s,t;u)`$, is symmetric in the first two arguments, $`s`$ and $`t`$. Furthermore, the quark exchange and quark annihilation diagram are related to each other via

$`E(s;t,u)`$ $`=`$ $`D(u,t;s).`$ (70)
Thus, there is actually only one independent amplitude, say $`D(s,t;u)`$, where the symbol ; denotes the amplitude is symmetric in the first two arguments. In terms of this single amplitude, we have

$`T_0(s,t,u)`$ $`=`$ $`3D(s,t;u)+3D(s,u;t)`$ (71)
$`D(u,t;s)`$
$`T_1(s,t,u)`$ $`=`$ $`2D(s,t;u)2D(s,u;t)`$ (72)
$`T_2(s,t,u)`$ $`=`$ $`2D(u,t;s).`$ (73)
Finally, we recall the more conventional Weinberg amplitudes $`A`$, $`B`$, and $`C`$ defined by the standard scattering amplitude relation

$`\pi ^\gamma \pi ^\delta |S|\pi ^\alpha \pi ^\beta =A(s,t,u)\delta _{\alpha \beta }\delta _{\gamma \delta }`$ (74)
$`+B(s,t,u)\delta _{\alpha \gamma }\delta _{\beta \delta }+C(s,t,u)\delta _{\alpha \delta }\delta _{\beta \gamma }.`$
Here the indices $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$ and $`\delta `$ refer to the cartesian isospin projections ($`x,y,z`$) for the pion, which are related to the physical charge states by

$`|\pi ^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\left(|\pi ^x\pm i|\pi ^y\right)/\sqrt{2}`$ (75)
$`|\pi ^0`$ $`=`$ $`|\pi ^z.`$ (76)
An elementary isospin calculation immediately yields

$`T_0(s,t,u)`$ $`=`$ $`3A(s,t,u)+B(s,t,u)`$ (77)
$`+C(s,t,u)`$
$`T_1(s,t,u)`$ $`=`$ $`B(s,t,u)C(s,t,u)`$ (78)
$`T_2(s,t,u)`$ $`=`$ $`B(s,t,u)+C(s,t,u).`$ (79)
Then comparing with Eqs. (71)-(73) we can relate the three Weinberg amplitudes to the DSBS amplitude $`D`$

$`A(s,t,u)`$ $`=`$ $`D(s,t;u)+D(s,u;t)D(t,u;s)`$ (80)
$`B(s,t,u)`$ $`=`$ $`D(s,t;u)D(s,u;t)+D(t,u;s)`$ (81)
$`C(s,t,u)`$ $`=`$ $`D(s,t;u)+D(s,u;t)+D(t,u;s).`$
Since the Weinberg amplitudes satisfy

$`B(s,t,u)`$ $`=`$ $`A(t,s,u)`$ (83)
$`C(s,t,u)`$ $`=`$ $`A(u,t,s)`$ (84)
we can also use Eq. (80) to again derive $`B`$ and $`C`$

$`B(s,t,u)=D(s,t;u)+D(t,u;s)D(s,u;t)`$ (85)
$`C(s,t,u)=D(u,t;s)+D(s,u;t)D(s,t;u)`$ (86)
as an independent check.