text:
# The 2𝑝-2ℎ electromagnetic response in the quasielastic peak and beyond

## I Introduction

Two particle–two hole states in nuclei can be excited through the action of two-body electromagnetic (EM) currents that enter via Noether’s theorem and the requirement of minimal coupling once an effective Lagrangian (embodying baryonic and mesonic degrees of freedom) is invoked. The currents reflect the dual role played by mesons in nuclear structure studies: mesons carry both the force which accounts for the binding of nuclei and the currents (in particular the EM current) which respond to external fields impinging on the nucleus. Accordingly, the natural classification into MEC and correlation currents follows. In particular, both substantially contribute to the inclusive, inelastic scattering of electrons from nuclei in the excitation energy domain extending through the quasielastic peak (QEP) to high inelasticity, the region we shall explore in the present paper.

A long-standing issue of hadronic modeling is the difficulty of treating currents and interactions consistently, that is, of respecting gauge invariance by fulfilling the continuity equation. The model employed in the present study, the relativistic Fermi gas (RFG) model, has special advantages over most others: gauge invariance can be respected and fully relativistic modeling, while not easy, can be undertaken. Given the focus of modern electron scattering experiments on kinematics where the energies and momenta transferred to the nucleus are large, and thus where relativity is expected to be important, one has strong motivation to explore such models in which fundamental symmetries can be maintained, even at the expense of accepting their obvious dynamical limitations. Given the necessity to break the problem down into tractable pieces, in the present work we forgo the issue of gauge invariance and focus on a fully relativistic description of the MEC contribution to the EM excitation of the 2p-2h states of the RFG. This is already a non-trivial computational problem and thus the issue of how gauge invariance can be maintained (which is presently also being explored in other work) is left for future presentation.

Furthermore, we shall limit our attention in this work to the roles played by the pion and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in obtaining the MEC contributions specifically to the transverse response $`R_T`$. The relevance of the $`\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in $`R_T`$ for the physics of the quasielastic regime is well-established and, moreover, we wish to compare our results with the only existing fully relativistic computation of the 2p-2h MEC contribution to $`R_T`$, namely that of Dek94  (quoted as DBT in the following). That this is to our knowledge the only previous study of this type is not surprising. Indeed, to carry out our project it has been necessary to compute a very large number of terms. Specifically, to get the direct contribution (see below) we have had to compute about 3000 terms, whereas to get the exchange contribution (which, as we shall see, comes into play only via the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-isobar) it has been necessary to compute more than 100,000 terms. The analytic manipulation of the traces of the relativistic currents has been done using the algebraic computer program FORM Ver00 , and the numerical computation of the individual relativistic contributions requires up to seven-dimensional Monte Carlo integrations.

To make direct comparison between our results and those of DBT we have used exactly the same form factors and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-width of the latter, although more modern versions of these quantities can straightforwardly be incorporated — in future work we will update our predictions by doing so. In order to appreciate the importance of Lorentz covariance, we have calculated $`R_T`$ for the RFG not only fully relativistically, but also in the non-relativistic limit. For the latter a few calculations are available, specifically those carried out in Dek94 ; Van80 ; Alb84 ; Gil97 . As we shall see, in the current work some important differences between the DBT results and our results in the high energy domain are found, notably in the non-relativistic approximations obtained in the two studies.

## II Two-Body Meson-Exchange Currents in Free Space

In Fig. 1 we display the free-space two-body isovector MEC entering in our calculation. Using the labelling in the figure and defining the four-momenta $`k_1=p_1^{}p_1`$ and $`k_2=p_2^{}p_2`$ (the four-momentum carried by the virtual photon is then $`q=k_1k_2`$) their relativistic expression is111In this section the current “operators” should actually be regarded as the spin-isospin operator parts of the corresponding matrix elements between the two-particle states specified in the diagrams of Fig. 1.

$$𝑱_f^\mu (k_1,k_2)=i\frac{1}{V^2}\frac{f_{\pi NN}^2f_{\gamma \pi \pi }}{\mu _\pi ^2}(𝝉^{(1)}\times 𝝉^{(2)})_3\mathrm{\Pi }(k_1)_{(1)}\mathrm{\Pi }(k_2)_{(2)}(k_2k_1)^\mu $$
(1)
for the pion-in-flight current (diagram (g)) and

$$𝑱_s^\mu (k_1,k_2)=i\frac{1}{V^2}\frac{f_{\pi NN}f_{\gamma \pi NN}}{\mu _\pi ^2}(𝝉^{(1)}\times 𝝉^{(2)})_3\left[\mathrm{\Pi }(k_2)_{(2)}(\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^5)_{(1)}\mathrm{\Pi }(k_1)_{(1)}(\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^5)_{(2)}\right]$$
(2)
for the seagull (or contact) current (diagrams (e) and (f)). In the above

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(k)_{(i)}=\frac{\left(\text{/}k\gamma ^5\right)_{(i)}}{k^2\mu _\pi ^2},$$
(3)
$`\mu _\pi `$ and $`M`$ are the pion and nucleon masses, respectively, $`V`$ is the (large) volume enclosing the Fermi gas and $`f_{\pi NN}`$ ($`f_{\pi NN}^2/4\pi =0.08`$) the pseudo-vector pion-nucleon coupling constant. The other coupling constants are $`f_{\gamma \pi \pi }=1`$ and $`f_{\gamma \pi NN}=f_{\pi NN}`$; for simplicity, here we omit the form factors (but they are included in the calculations of the response). The index $`(i)`$ attached to the vertex operators distinguishes between the two interacting nucleons.

The $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ current is derived from the Peccei pseudo-vector Lagrangian and reads

$`𝑱_\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu (k_1,k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\pi NN}f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}f_{\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }}}{2M\mu _\pi ^2}}\{[({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\tau _3^{(2)}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{3}}(𝝉^{(1)}\times 𝝉^{(2)})_3)\left(j_{(a)}^\mu (p_a,k_2,q)\gamma _5\right)_{(1)}`$ (4)
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\tau _3^{(2)}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{3}}(𝝉^{(1)}\times 𝝉^{(2)})_3)\left(\gamma _5j_{(b)}^\mu (p_b,k_2,q)\right)_{(1)}]\mathrm{\Pi }(k_2)_{(2)}+(12)\}.`$
It corresponds to diagrams (a)-(d) of Fig. 1. In the above equations $`M_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ denotes the isobar mass, $`p_ap_1q`$, $`p_bp_1^{}+q`$ and $`f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}=0.54`$, $`f_{\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }}=5`$ yield the strength of the coupling of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to the EM and pionic fields, respectively.

In Eq. (4) the following definitions have been introduced:

$$j_{(a)\mu }(p,k,q)=(4k_\beta \text{/}k\gamma _\beta )S^{\beta \gamma }(p,M_\mathrm{\Delta })\frac{1}{2}\left(\gamma _\mu \text{/}q\gamma _\gamma +q_\mu \gamma _\gamma \right)$$
(5a)
and
$$j_{(b)\mu }(p,k,q)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\gamma _\beta \text{/}q\gamma _\mu +q_\mu \gamma _\beta \right)S^{\beta \gamma }(p,M_\mathrm{\Delta })(4k_\gamma \gamma _\gamma \text{/}k);$$
(5b)
the analogous expressions associated with the diagrams (c) and (d) are simply obtained through the interchange ($`12`$) as indicated in Eq. (4), which also implies $`p_ap_c`$ and $`p_bp_d`$ ($`p_cp_2q`$, $`p_dp_2^{}+q`$).

Furthermore, the Rarita-Schwinger (RS) $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ propagator, namely

$$S^{\beta \gamma }(p,M_\mathrm{\Delta })=\frac{\gamma p+M_\mathrm{\Delta }}{p^2M_{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\left(g^{\beta \gamma }\frac{\gamma ^\beta \gamma ^\gamma }{3}\frac{2p^\beta p^\gamma }{3M_{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\frac{\gamma ^\beta p^\gamma \gamma ^\gamma p^\beta }{3M_\mathrm{\Delta }}\right),$$
(6)
is used (we employ here the metric $`a_\mu b^\mu =a^0b^0𝒂𝒃`$).

In the Appendix, the explicit expressions of Eqs. (5a-b) are reported.

### The non-relativistic limit for the currents

The above given currents are the basic ingredients required in modeling $`R_T`$. Since one of our goals is to assess the quality of a given non-relativistic approximation for $`R_T`$, we also need the corresponding matrix elements of the currents in that limit. Under the assumption that the momenta of the nucleons involved in the response are small in comparison to their rest mass (which may or may not be valid) one obtains222For brevity, the momentum labels implicitly include the spin ($`\sigma `$) and isospin ($`\tau `$) quantum numbers.

$`J_f(𝒌_1,𝒌_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2M)^2}{V^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\pi NN}^2f_{\gamma \pi \pi }}{\mu _\pi ^2}}4\tau _1\delta _{\tau _1,\tau _2}\delta _{\tau _1^{},\tau _1}\delta _{\tau _2^{},\tau _2}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _{\sigma _1^{}}^{}𝝈𝒌_1\chi _{\sigma _1}}{𝒌_1^2+\mu _\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _{\sigma _2^{}}^{}𝝈𝒌_2\chi _{\sigma _2}}{𝒌_2^2+\mu _\pi ^2}}\left(𝒌_2𝒌_1\right),`$
$`J_s(𝒌_1,𝒌_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2M)^2}{V^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\pi NN}f_{\gamma \pi NN}}{\mu _\pi ^2}}4\tau _1\delta _{\tau _1,\tau _2}\delta _{\tau _1^{},\tau _1}\delta _{\tau _2^{},\tau _2}`$ (8)
$`\times \left[\chi _{\sigma _1^{}}^{}𝝈\chi _{\sigma _1}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _{\sigma _2^{}}^{}𝝈𝒌_2\chi _{\sigma _2}}{𝒌_2^2+\mu _\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _{\sigma _1^{}}^{}𝝈𝒌_1\chi _{\sigma _1}}{𝒌_1^2+\mu _\pi ^2}}\chi _{\sigma _2^{}}^{}𝝈\chi _{\sigma _2}\right]`$
and

$`J_\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒌_1,𝒌_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8Mf_{\pi NN}f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}f_{\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }}}{3V^2\mu _\pi ^2}}\{[iB\delta _{\tau _1^{}\tau _1}\delta _{\tau _2^{}\tau _2}(𝒒\times 𝒌_2)\delta _{\sigma _1^{}\sigma 1}`$
$`A\delta _{\tau _1,\tau _2}\delta _{\tau _1^{},\tau _1}\delta _{\tau _2^{},\tau _2}\chi _{\sigma _1^{}}^{}[𝒒\times (𝒌_2\times 𝝈)]\chi _{\sigma _1}]\tau _2{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _{\sigma _2^{}}^{}𝝈𝒌_2\chi _{\sigma _2}}{𝒌_2^2+\mu _\pi ^2}}+(12)\},`$
(9)
where

$`A=2{\displaystyle \frac{2M_\mathrm{\Delta }+M\frac{2M^2}{3M_\mathrm{\Delta }}+\frac{M^3}{3M_\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}{(M_\mathrm{\Delta }^2M^2)}}=2{\displaystyle \frac{6M_\mathrm{\Delta }^23MM_\mathrm{\Delta }+M^2}{3M_\mathrm{\Delta }^2(M_\mathrm{\Delta }M)}}`$ (10a)
and
$`B=2{\displaystyle \frac{2M_\mathrm{\Delta }+3M+\frac{2M^2}{3M_\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{M^3}{3M_\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}{(M_\mathrm{\Delta }^2M^2)}}=2{\displaystyle \frac{6M_\mathrm{\Delta }^2+3MM_\mathrm{\Delta }M^2}{3M_\mathrm{\Delta }^2(M_\mathrm{\Delta }M)}}.`$ (10b)
It should be noted, however, that this is not the only possible choice for a non-relativistic $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ current. For instance the one employed in Van80  and Alb84  indeed has the same structure as Eq. (9), but occurs with coefficients given by the following expressions

$`A=2{\displaystyle \frac{(2M_\mathrm{\Delta }+M)}{M_\mathrm{\Delta }^2M^2}}\text{and}B=2{\displaystyle \frac{(2M_\mathrm{\Delta }+3M)}{M_\mathrm{\Delta }^2M^2}},`$ (11)
which are obtained by disregarding the last two terms in the numerator of Eq. (10a-b). Note that these terms have opposite sign and affect the magnitude of the coefficients $`A`$ and $`B`$, in opposite direction, by less than 10%333Obviously, the expressions in Eqs. (11) can be obtained by using the simplified form for the RS $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ propagator, $`S^{\beta \gamma }(p,M_\mathrm{\Delta })=(\text{/}p+M_\mathrm{\Delta })/(p^2M_\mathrm{\Delta }^2)g^{\beta \gamma }`$, the other terms giving contributions which are either zero or proportional to $`1/M_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`1/M_\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$. Note that the second term, namely $`\gamma ^\beta \gamma ^\gamma /3`$, never contributes to EM processes.. The non-relativistic $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-current employed in DBT is again given by Eq. (9), however with coefficients

$`A={\displaystyle \frac{8}{3(M_\mathrm{\Delta }M)}}\text{and}B=2A,`$ (12)
derived by setting $`M=M_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the numerator of the right hand side of Eqs. (10a-b). The 2p-2h response function is stable with respect to these different definitions of the coefficients $`A`$ and $`B`$ (the changes amounting to a few percent).

## III The response function

We turn now to the 2p-2h transverse response function, which can be obtained through the hadronic tensor. The latter is defined according to444In the previous sections, the nucleon momenta $`p_i`$ and $`p_i^{}`$ were arbitrary. From now on, we will indicate with $`p_i`$ and $`p_i^{}`$, respectively, momenta below (holes) and above (particles) the Fermi momentum $`k_F`$. The pion momenta have, as before, $`k_i=p_i^{}p_i`$.

$`W_{\mu \nu }(q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^3V}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{V^4}{(2\pi )^{12}}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d𝒑_1^{}d𝒑_2^{}d𝒑_1d𝒑_2}{16E_{𝒑_1^{}}E_{𝒑_2^{}}E_{𝒑_1}E_{𝒑_2}}\delta ^{(4)}(q+p_1^{}+p_2^{}p_1p_2)}`$ (13)
$`\times F|𝑱_\mu ^{}|p_1^{}p_2^{}p_1p_2p_1^{}p_2^{}p_1p_2|𝑱_\nu |F,`$
where $`|F`$ represents the Fermi sphere, $`E_𝒑=\sqrt{𝒑^2+M^2}`$, $`𝑱𝑱_\pi +𝑱_\mathrm{\Delta }=𝑱_f+𝑱_s+𝑱_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the factor 1/4 accounts for the identity of the 2 particles and 2 holes in the final states.

Being concerned with $`R_T`$ in the present work, actually we only need the spatial components of $`W_{\mu \nu }`$ (in fact only the $`\mu =\nu =1`$ and 2 components in the combination $`11+22`$, since the unpolarized transverse response is the focus). That is, we have

$`R_T(𝒒,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^3V}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{V^4}{(2\pi )^{12}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝒑_1^{}d𝒑_2^{}d𝒑_1d𝒑_2}{16E_{𝒑_1^{}}E_{𝒑_2^{}}E_{𝒑_1}E_{𝒑_2}}\theta (|𝒑_1^{}|k_F)\theta (|𝒑_2^{}|k_F)\theta (k_F|𝒑_1|)}`$ (14)
$`\times \theta (k_F|𝒑_2|)\delta [\omega (E_{𝒑_1^{}}+E_{𝒑_2^{}}E_{𝒑_1}E_{𝒑_2})]\delta ^{(3)}(𝒒+𝒑_1^{}+𝒑_2^{}𝒑_1𝒑_2)`$
$`\times 2{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \tau }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}(\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{q_iq_j}{𝒒^2}})[J_i^{}(𝒑_1^{}𝒑_1,𝒑_2^{}𝒑_2)J_j(𝒑_1^{}𝒑_1,𝒑_2^{}𝒑_2)`$
$`J_i^{}(𝒑_1^{}𝒑_1,𝒑_2^{}𝒑_2)J_j(𝒑_1^{}𝒑_2,𝒑_2^{}𝒑_1)].`$
This expression explicitly displays the direct and exchange contribution stemming from the antisymmetrization of the 2p-2h final states in Eq. (13). In Eq. (14) the $`J_i`$ are the matrix elements of the currents in Eqs. (1), (2) and (4) in momentum space. Note that we define the excitation energy as $`\omega =q_0`$.

By eliminating one of the integrations via the $`\delta ^{(3)}`$, a simpler expression for the transverse response emerges:

$`R_T(𝒒,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V}{2(2\pi )^9}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒑_1^{}𝑑𝒑_1𝑑𝒑_2\theta (|𝒑_1^{}|k_F)\theta (|𝒑_2^{}|k_F)\theta (k_F|𝒑_1|)\theta (k_F|𝒑_2|)}`$ (15)
$`\times \delta [\omega (E_{𝒑_1^{}}+E_{𝒑_2^{}}E_{𝒑_1}E_{𝒑_2})]{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \tau }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{V^4}{16E_{𝒑_1^{}}E_{𝒑_2^{}}E_{𝒑_1}E_{𝒑_2}}}\left(\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{q_iq_j}{𝒒^2}}\right)`$
$`\times \left[J_i^{}(𝒌_1,𝒌_2)J_j(𝒌_1,𝒌_2)J_i^{}(𝒌_1,𝒌_2)J_j(𝒌_1^{},𝒌_2^{})\right],`$
where now $`𝒑_2^{}=𝒒+𝒑_1+𝒑_2𝒑_1^{}`$. The exchange term in Eq. (15) depends on the pionic momenta $`𝒌_i^{}`$ defined as $`𝒌_1^{}=𝒑_1^{}𝒑_2`$, $`𝒌_2^{}=𝒑_2^{}𝒑_1`$.

By exploiting the remaining $`\delta `$-function and with some algebra, the integral defining the transverse response can be reduced to seven dimensions. In previous work where only the direct term and the non-relativistic limit were considered, it turned out to be possible to reduce the integration to a bi-dimensional one; but now for the relativistic expression, this is no longer possible, even for the direct term.

As anticipated in the Introduction the traces of the relativistic currents typically generate a huge number of terms, so that it is not practical to report explicitly the expressions used in the numerical calculations of the relativistic responses. However, in the Appendix we give the formulae for the direct pion and pion/$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ contributions, the only ones having sizes suitable for publication.

Numerical integrations have been performed using Monte Carlo techniques, varying the sample size until a standard deviation better than 1% is reached. The number of configurations required for such an accuracy is $`10^6÷10^7`$. A more stringent test of the accuracy in the numerical calculations can be obtained in the case of the direct non-relativistic contribution, since this can be reduced to a two-dimensional integral Van80  and done through standard quadrature. Also here the agreement is at the 1% level.

### The non-relativistic limit

Before addressing the issue of the numerical evaluation of the fully relativistic problem, below we report the non-relativistic limit of the integrands in Eq. (15), to be referred to as $`_T^D(𝒌_1,𝒌_2;𝒒,\omega )`$ and $`_T^E(𝒌_1,𝒌_2;𝒌_1^{},𝒌_2^{};𝒒,\omega )`$, for the direct and exchange contributions, respectively. This will allow us to connect the various pieces contributing to the transverse response to specific Feynman diagrams and to ascertain from whence the major contributions arise. While the relativistic expressions for the transverse response function are quite cumbersome, the non-relativistic limit provides a relatively simple and controllable environment in which to check the correctness of the calculations. We also remark that our expression for $`_T^D`$ will turn out to differ somewhat from the one derived in DBT (no explicit formula is given there for the exchange part).

For the purely pionic contribution and for the interference between the pionic and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ current we get, respectively,

$`_T^{D\pi }(𝒌_1,𝒌_2;𝒒,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V^4}{(2M)^4}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \tau }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\left(\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{q_iq_j}{𝒒^2}}\right)J_i^\pi (𝒑_1^{}𝒑_\mathrm{𝟏},𝒑_2^{}𝒑_2)J_j^\pi (𝒑_1^{}𝒑_\mathrm{𝟏},𝒑_2^{}𝒑_2)`$
$`=`$ $`128F_{\gamma NN}^2(q^2)\{{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\pi NN}^4f_{\gamma \pi \pi }^2}{\mu _\pi ^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒌_{1T}^2𝒌_1^2𝒌_2^2F_{\pi NN}^2(𝒌_1^2)F_{\pi NN}^2(𝒌_2^2)}{(𝒌_1^2+\mu _\pi ^2)^2(𝒌_2^2+\mu _\pi ^2)^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\pi NN}^2f_{\gamma \pi NN}^2}{2\mu _\pi ^4}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{𝒌_1^2F_{\pi NN}^4(𝒌_1^2)}{(𝒌_1^2+\mu _\pi ^2)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒌_2^2F_{\pi NN}^4(𝒌_2^2)}{(𝒌_2^2+\mu _\pi ^2)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(𝒌_{1T}𝒌_{2T})F_{\pi NN}^2(𝒌_1^2)F_{\pi NN}^2(𝒌_2^2)}{(𝒌_1^2+\mu _\pi ^2)(𝒌_2^2+\mu _\pi ^2)}}\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\pi NN}^3f_{\gamma \pi NN}f_{\gamma \pi \pi }}{\mu _\pi ^4}}({\displaystyle \frac{𝒌_{1T}^2𝒌_1^2F_{\pi NN}^3(𝒌_1^2)F_{\pi NN}(𝒌_2^2)}{(𝒌_1^2+\mu _\pi ^2)^2(𝒌_2^2+\mu _\pi ^2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒌_{2T}^2𝒌_2^2F_{\pi NN}^3(𝒌_2^2)F_{\pi NN}(𝒌_1^2)}{(𝒌_1^2+\mu _\pi ^2)(𝒌_2^2+\mu _\pi ^2)^2}})\}`$
and

$`_T^{D\{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\}}(𝒌_1,𝒌_2;𝒒,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V^4}{(2M)^4}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \tau }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\left(\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{q_iq_j}{𝒒^2}}\right)`$
$`\times \left[J_i^\pi (𝒌_1,𝒌_2)J_j^\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒌_1,𝒌_2)+J_i^\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒌_1,𝒌_2)J_j^\pi (𝒌_1,𝒌_2)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`32A{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\pi NN}^2f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}f_{\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }}}{3\mu _\pi ^2M}}F_{\gamma NN}(q^2)F_{\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }}(q^2)`$
$`\times \{{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\pi NN}f_{\gamma \pi \pi }}{\mu _\pi ^2}}F_{\pi NN}^2(𝒌_1^2)F_{\pi NN}(𝒌_2^2)F_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝒌_1^2){\displaystyle \frac{2𝒒^2𝒌_1^2𝒌_{1T}^2}{(𝒌_1^2+\mu _\pi ^2)^2(𝒌_2^2+\mu _\pi ^2)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\gamma \pi NN}}{\mu _\pi ^2}}[F_{\pi NN}^3(𝒌_1^2)F_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝒌_1^2){\displaystyle \frac{2𝒌_1^2(𝒌_1𝒒)}{(𝒌_1^2+\mu _\pi ^2)^2}}`$
$`+F_{\pi NN}^2(𝒌_1^2)F_{\pi NN}(𝒌_2^2)F_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝒌_2^2){\displaystyle \frac{𝒒^2𝒌_{1T}^2}{(𝒌_1^2+\mu _\pi ^2)(𝒌_2^2+\mu _\pi ^2)}}]+(12)\}.`$
From the different coupling constants in Eqs. (III) and (III) it is easy to identify the contributions arising from the pion-in-flight and seagull currents. The topologically different diagrams are shown in Figs. 4 and 4.

Finally, for the contribution to $`_T^D`$ of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ current alone, one has

$`_T^{D\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝒌_1,𝒌_2;𝒒,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V^4}{(2M)^4}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \tau }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\left(\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{q_iq_j}{𝒒^2}}\right)`$ (18)
$`\times J_i^\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒑_1^{}𝒑_\mathrm{𝟏},𝒑_2^{}𝒑_2)J_j^\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒑_1^{}𝒑_\mathrm{𝟏},𝒑_2^{}𝒑_2)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8f_{\pi NN}^2f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}^2f_{\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }}^2}{9M^2\mu _\pi ^4}}F_{\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }}^2(q^2)𝒒^2`$
$`\times \{[F_{\pi NN}^2(𝒌_1^2)F_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}^2(𝒌_1^2)(B^2{\displaystyle \frac{2𝒌_{1T}^2𝒌_1^2}{(𝒌_1^2+\mu _\pi ^2)^2}}+A^2{\displaystyle \frac{(𝒌_1^2+𝒌_{1L}^2)𝒌_1^2}{(𝒌_1^2+\mu _\pi ^2)^2}})`$
$`+F_{\pi NN}(𝒌_1^2)F_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝒌_1^2)F_{\pi NN}(𝒌_2^2)F_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝒌_2^2)A^2{\displaystyle \frac{𝒌_{1T}^2𝒒^2}{(𝒌_1^2+\mu _\pi ^2)(𝒌_2^2+\mu _\pi ^2)}}]`$
$`+(12)\},`$
where the first two terms on the right-hand side correspond to the diagrams (a)–(c) of Fig. 4, and the last one to the diagrams (d)–(f). In this case six distinct diagrams contribute.

In Eqs. (III), (III) and (18) $`𝒌_L`$ and $`𝒌_T`$ indicate the longitudinal and transverse components of the vector $`𝒌`$ with respect to the direction fixed by $`𝒒`$. Furthermore, in the appropriate places, the hadronic monopole form factors

$`F_{\pi NN}(k^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi ^2\mu _\pi ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi ^2k^2}},`$ (19a)
$`F_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}(k^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}^2k^2}}`$ (19b)
and the EM ones
$`F_{\gamma NN}(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_D^2)^2}},`$ (19c)
$`F_{\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }}(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`F_{\gamma NN}(q^2)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_3^2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (19d)
have been introduced. In the non-relativistic expressions the hadronic form factors have been taken in the static limit. The cut-offs have been chosen as in DBT, namely $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi =1300`$ MeV, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}=1150`$ MeV, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_D^2=0.71`$ GeV2, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2=M+M_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3^2=3.5`$ GeV2. This choice clearly makes it possible a direct comparison between our results for $`R_T`$ and those of DBT.

For completeness, we give also the formulae of the (smaller) exchange contributions to the integrand of Eq. (15), $`_T^E(𝒌_1,𝒌_2;𝒌_1^{},𝒌_2^{};𝒒,\omega )`$, in the non-relativistic limit. The purely pionic contribution is identically zero, as a consequence of charge conservation and of the fact that the photon does not couple to a neutral pion. For the interference between pion and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (Fig. 6) we have

$`_T^{E\{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\}}(𝒌_1,𝒌_2;𝒌_1^{},𝒌_2^{};𝒒,\omega )=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{V^4}{(2M)^4}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \tau }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\left(\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{q_iq_j}{𝒒^2}}\right)\left[J_i^\pi (𝒌_1,𝒌_2)J_j^\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒌_1^{},𝒌_2^{})+J_i^\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒌_1,𝒌_2)J_j^\pi (𝒌_1^{},𝒌_2^{})\right]`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{16f_{\pi NN}^3f_{\gamma \pi \pi }f_{\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }}f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}}{3\mu _\pi ^4M}}B𝒒^2\{{\displaystyle \frac{(𝒌_2\times 𝒌_2^{})_L^2}{(𝒌_2^2+\mu _\pi ^2)(𝒌_2^2+\mu _\pi ^2)}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝒌_1^2+\mu _\pi ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝒌_1^2+\mu _\pi ^2}}]+(12)\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{8f_{\pi NN}^3f_{\gamma \pi NN}f_{\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }}f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}}{3\mu _\pi ^4M}}B\{{\displaystyle \frac{(𝒒𝒌_2)𝒌_2^2+(𝒒𝒌_2^{})𝒌_2^2(𝒒𝒌_2^{})(𝒌_2𝒌_2^{})(𝒒𝒌_2)(𝒌_2𝒌_2^{})}{(𝒌_2^2+\mu _\pi ^2)(𝒌_2^2+\mu _\pi ^2)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(𝒒𝒌_1)𝒌_2^2(𝒒𝒌_2^{})(𝒌_1𝒌_2^{})}{(𝒌_1^2+\mu _\pi ^2)(𝒌_2^2+\mu _\pi ^2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(𝒒𝒌_1^{})𝒌_2^2(𝒒𝒌_2)(𝒌_1^{}𝒌_2)}{(𝒌_1^2+\mu _\pi ^2)(𝒌_2^2+\mu _\pi ^2)}}+(12)\}.`$ (20)
The contribution of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ alone (Fig. 6) is instead

$`_T^{E\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝒌_1,𝒌_2;𝒌_1^{},𝒌_2^{};𝒒,\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{V^4}{(2M)^4}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \tau }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\left(\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{q_iq_j}{𝒒^2}}\right)J_i^\pi (𝒌_1,𝒌_2)J_j^\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒌_1^{},𝒌_2^{})`$ (21)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{4f_{\pi NN}^2f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}^2f_{\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }}^2}{9M^2\mu _\pi ^4}}𝒒^2\{B^2[{\displaystyle \frac{(𝒌_1𝒌_1^{})(𝒌_{1T}𝒌_{1T}^{})}{(𝒌_1^2+\mu _\pi ^2)(𝒌_1^2+\mu _\pi ^2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(𝒌_1𝒌_2^{})(𝒌_{1T}𝒌_{2T}^{})}{(𝒌_1^2+\mu _\pi ^2)(𝒌_2^2+\mu _\pi ^2)}}+(12)]`$
$`+AB[{\displaystyle \frac{2(𝒌_1\times 𝒌_1^{})_L^22k_{1L}k_{1L}^{}(𝒌_1𝒌_1^{})+k_{1L}^2𝒌_1^2+k_{1L}^2𝒌_1^2}{(𝒌_1^2+\mu _\pi ^2)(𝒌_1^2+\mu _\pi ^2)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2(𝒌_1\times 𝒌_2^{})_L^22k_{1L}k_{2L}^{}(𝒌_1𝒌_2^{})+k_{2L}^2𝒌_1^2+k_{1L}^2𝒌_2^2}{(𝒌_1^2+\mu _\pi ^2)(𝒌_2^2+\mu _\pi ^2)}}+(12)]\}.`$
Equations (III), (III) and (18) could in principle be compared with Eq. (5.11) of DBT; however, the overall normalization of the latter is not correct, since its dimension is not consistent with its definition (namely of being the transverse part of the amplitude $`𝒯`$ given in Eq. (4.8) of DBT); moreover, the relative weights of the interference and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ contributions with respect to the pionic one differ, in our calculations, by a factor 2 and 4, respectively, from those of Eq. (5.11) of DBT. These factors, however, are not able to explain the marked difference between our results and those in that paper. Note that although the authors of DBT write down exactly the same expressions as we do for the non-relativistic MEC currents, actually they state that the non-relativistic procedure to get their Eq. (5.11) is applied at the level of the hadronic tensor, that is by reducing the (cumbersome) exact relativistic response.

In Fig. 7 we now compare our results with those of DBT, where the non-relativistic $`R_T`$ (without the exchange contribution) is shown for $`q=550`$ MeV/c (left) and for $`q=1140`$ MeV/c (right), with an atomic mass number of 56 and utilizing a Fermi momentum $`k_F=1.3`$ fm-1. The latter value is employed for the sake of comparison with DBT, although in fact it is more appropriate for heavier nuclei.

It is clearly apparent in the figure that our predictions differ significantly from those of DBT: while the discrepancy is mild for moderate values of $`\omega `$ (roughly, those encompassing the QEP), it becomes striking at higher energies, namely in the region of the so-called dip and of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-peak. Here our transverse response function in the proximity of the lightcone turns out to be larger by about a factor two at $`q=550`$ MeV/c and by over a factor three at $`q=1140`$ MeV/c.

Note that, in order to conform as closely as possible with the DBT approach, we have accounted for the initial state binding of the two holes by phenomenologically inserting a 70 MeV energy shift $`\overline{ϵ}_2`$ in the energy conserving $`\delta `$-function appearing in the response function555This amounts to replacing $`E_{𝒑_1}+E_{𝒑_2}`$ by $`E_{𝒑_1}+E_{𝒑_2}\overline{ϵ}_2`$.. In a non–relativistic framework this binding energy merely produces a shift of $`R_T`$ toward higher $`\omega `$ values. In the same spirit and to comply with gauge invariance, we have added (as in DBT) to the pion-in-flight current in Eq. (LABEL:eq:piinflight) two terms, to be viewed as the coupling of the virtual photon to a fictitious particle of mass equal to the $`\pi NN`$ cutoff, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$, in spite of the very minor role these terms play in shaping the transverse response.

Furthermore, it is worth also remarking that our present calculations agree with the previous findings of Van80 ; Alb84 . On the other hand, the computation of DBT does not agree with a previous one presented by the same authors in Dek92 , notwithstanding that both of them employ the same set of values for the parameters and the kinematic conditions. Indeed, the former is lower than the latter by about 25%.

In the light of these new results, we anticipate contributions from MEC effects in the region beyond the QEP of a magnitude not previously foreseen in most previous work. Because the studies of Van80 ; Alb84  were applied to moderate momenta and to a restricted range of transferred energies (not exceeding 300 MeV, in fact) owing to their non-relativistic nature, it is only in the studies of DBT that suggestions for such large effects can be found.

In the next section we shall explore whether or not the fully relativistic treatment and the inclusion of the exchange terms modify this finding.

## IV Results in the relativistic regime

### Direct Contributions

In Fig. 8 we display our relativistic results both without and with the energy shift $`\overline{ϵ}_2`$, for the same conditions as those of Fig. 7. The exchange contribution is neglected here as well as in all the other figures of this subsection and considered separately below. In Fig. 8 we also compare our relativistic predictions both with those of DBT and with our non-relativistic results.

From the figure we observe the following.

a) The fully relativistic calculation differs considerably under some circumstances from the fully non-relativistic approximation (i. e., the solid and dotted curves in Fig. 8, respectively). Specifically relativity implies an increase of $`R_T`$ over the non-relativistic results in the region up to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ peak. Specifically, the overall effects are small in the domain of the QEP, are modest in the dip region and are substantial in the region of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-peak. In the region beyond the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ peak, relativity instead yields a substantial reduction of the response with respect to the non-relativistic predictions. Of course, a hybrid approach can also be adopted in which spinor matrix elements and kinematics are kept non-relativistic, but the dynamic $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ propagator is used — this is discussed below.

b) The present relativistic and DBT relativistic calculations are in essential agreement at $`q=550`$ MeV/c and up to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ peak for $`q=1140`$ MeV/c.

c) In the dip following the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ peak and above it up to the light cone, our transverse response is larger by about a factor two-to-three with respect to the DBT results.

d) At variance with the non-relativistic case, the binding energy not only shifts the relativistic $`R_T`$ toward higher energies, but also increases it.

e) Roughly speaking two effects are especially important in determining the characteristic behavior seen in Fig. 8. One is the peaking produced by the dynamic $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ propagation and the second is the basic phase space available to the two-nucleon ejection process. For instance, the strong rise of $`R_T`$ close to the light-cone at $`q=1140`$ MeV/c comes from the growth of the available phase space. We have checked this by setting all of the current matrix elements entering in Eq. (15) to unity and finding qualitatively the same behavior as in the full calculation.

To gain deeper insight into the transverse response, we display its individual contributions in Fig. 9 (for the non-relativistic case) and in Fig. 10 (for the relativistic one). In both instances the contribution of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to $`R_T`$ is seen to be overwhelming (although this $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-dominance is mildly reduced by relativity), the more so at the larger momentum transfer. This feature strongly suggests the need for an appropriate treatment of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ degrees of freedom in obtaining EM responses over the whole kinematical regime under study. In particular the dynamical propagation of the latter appears to be essential, as discussed below. This in turn implies that a realistic accounting of the width of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ should be undertaken: here, again for ease of comparison with DBT, we have treated this problem as they did.

Specifically, we have included the width through the replacement $`M_\mathrm{\Delta }M_\mathrm{\Delta }i\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)/2`$ in the energy denominator of Eq. (6), but not in the spinor factor. As far as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)`$ is concerned, $`s`$ being the square of the energy of the decaying $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in its rest frame, we have adopted the same expression as in DBT.

To assess the crucial role played in $`R_T`$ by the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ propagator more fully, in Fig. 11 we display the relativistic transverse response (hence computed with the dynamical $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ propagator) together with those obtained by neglecting the frequency dependence of $`S^{\beta \gamma }(p,M_\mathrm{\Delta })`$ (the width of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ being neglected as well) in the two possible choices of a static ($`p_0=0`$) and of a constant $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ propagator. The extreme sensitivity of $`R_T`$ to $`S^{\beta \gamma }(p,M_\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is clearly shown by the results in the figure.

One can understand even better the importance of treating correctly the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ propagation by comparing the full relativistic results with a calculation employing the non-relativistic $`\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vertices, but retaining the relativistic, dynamical energy dependence in the denominator of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ propagator, $`p^2M_\mathrm{\Delta }^2+iM_\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In other words, one can invoke a hybrid model in which everything is kept non-relativistic, but where the dynamic dependence in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ propagator is retained. The results are mixed. If one wishes to study only the region extending through the peak seen in Fig. 11 out to the light-cone and wishes only to work at relatively small momentum transfers such as those in the figure, then this hybrid approach is reasonably good, incurring errors typically of $`10÷15\%`$.

However, this is not a general statement. First, if one addresses higher $`q`$-values, much larger relativistic effects are apparent and the hybrid approach is not very successful. For instance, at $`q=2`$($`3`$) GeV/c the typical error made at the peak is $`60(100)\%`$. Secondly, if one focuses on the scaling region — as we shall in the follow-up study that is presently in progress — then even at relatively low values of $`q`$ the effects of relativity (i. e., effects other than the nature of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ propagator) are large. For instance, even at $`q=1140`$ MeV/c one finds effects exceeding 100% in the scaling region. This is not apparent in the figures presented here, since the cross sections are so small in that region. However, this does not mean that the scaling region is irrelevant — quite the opposite, the total cross section is also very small (but measurable) and the 2p-2h MEC effects are far from negligible. The details will be presented in the near future in a separate paper.

Next let us comment on several general features that characterize the response in the 2p-2h sector in contradistinction with the 1p-1h case. In particular, the clean theoretical separation between the 1p-1h and the 2p-2h contributions holds only in the pure RFG framework. Here, moreover, the 1p-1h response is strictly confined to the well-known kinematical domain. In finite nuclei, or even in a correlated infinite Fermi system, neither of the above statements is valid any longer. We stick however to the pure RFG because this is the only model that allows us to maintain the fundamental principles of Lorentz covariance, gauge invariance and translational invariance.

The 2p-2h response function resides on the entire spacelike domain of the $`(\omega ,q)`$-plane, in contrast to the 1p-1h case, which, as mentioned above, is constrained to a limited region — for recent fully relativistic studies of the 1p-1h response see Ama02 ; Ama02a ; Ama03 . Since momentum conservation involves only the total momentum there is no limitation on the momentum of a particle taking part in the 2p-2h excitations and hence the energy of the latter will vary over a broad range extending from $`\omega =0`$ to the light-cone.

In summary, naively the 2p-2h response function $`R_T(q,\omega )`$ might not be expected to display any particular structure, but rather to appear as a broad background. As a matter of fact, as we have seen, $`R_T(q,\omega )`$ indeed displays structure, but related not to the nuclear spectrum involved but to the role played by the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance. Furthermore, we have found that it grows with $`\omega `$, reflecting the associated growth of the phase space. Indeed the density per unit energy of the 2p-2h excitations goes as $`\omega ^3`$.

### Exchange Contributions

Considering the purely pionic MEC currents, it is well known Alb90  that the 1p-1h excited states of the RFG are reached only through the exchange term of the related MEC diagrams. In contrast the 2p-2h states are reached only through the direct term. The origin of these kinds of “selection rules” stems, in the first case, from the spin-isospin saturation of the RFG, in the second from the impossibility of fulfilling charge conservation in the exchange contribution for the diagrams displayed in Fig. 4.

The $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-current, however, eludes the above constraints. It provides a direct contribution in the 1p-1h sector of the RFG spectrum, as well as an exchange contribution in the 2p-2h sector, both alone and through the interference with the pionic currents.

The exchange contributions are included together with the (larger) direct ones in Fig. 12. Two features are immediately apparent from the figure. First, the impact of relativity on the exchange terms is as substantial as it is for the direct ones. Moreover, as for the direct case, the exchange response is first enhanced in the region of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and then dampened by the relativistic effects as one approaches the light cone.

Second, the relative magnitude of the exchange terms is seen to increase both with the energy transfer and with the momentum transfer. The fraction of the total relativistic response due to exchange goes from roughly 4% at low $`\omega `$ to 29% at the light cone for $`q=550`$ MeV/c and from 7% to 39% for $`q=1140`$ MeV/c. Thus, the exchange contribution, while not the dominant one in the kinematical situations we have explored, appears to us not only far from negligible, but also potentially interesting in connection with scaling (see below).

Finally, as for the direct case, note that the present calculation of the non-relativistic exchange contribution agrees with the calculation at lower momenta reported in Van80 , whereas does not agree with that of DBT. The relativistic response, on the other hand, roughly agrees with DBT.

## V Conclusions

In this paper we have carried out a fully relativistic calculation of the MEC contribution of 2p-2h excitations to the transverse inclusive response within the context of the RFG. These excitations are reached through the action of the MEC including the part associated with the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ degrees of freedom. We have compared our results with those of DBT, the only existing relativistic study before the present one and we have pointed out similarities and differences between the two studies. To gauge the difficulty of this project it might help to stress again, as anticipated in the Introduction, that the number of terms we have computed to get $`R_T`$ amounts to over $`100,000`$.

Several new aspects contained in the present study bear highlighting. In particular, while the fully relativistic results obtained here roughly agree with those reported by DBT, some substantial differences occur, especially as the lightcone is approached. Furthermore, our non-relativistic results are completely in accord with our own previous work; however, they are not in agreement with DBT in many circumstances. Indeed, the strongest disagreements occur at high inelasticity and suggest to us that one should exercise extreme caution when invoking traditional non-relativistic approximations in such a regime.

Going beyond the extreme non-relativistic approximation Sch01 , one can invoke various classes of hybrid modeling where some, but not all, of the features of the fully relativistic model are retained Ryc01 ; Mac93 ; Bof91 . We have pursued such an approach in which the dynamic $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ propagator is kept, but otherwise everything is taken to be non-relativistic. The results are interesting: at modest $`q`$ (say 1 GeV/c or less) and at high $`\omega `$ the hybrid approach is quite good, incurring only $`10÷15\%`$ error. However, at higher $`q`$-values, even in the high $`\omega `$ region, and at low $`\omega `$, even for modest $`q`$, the hybrid approach is not very successful and relativistic effects are important.

The high $`\omega `$ region, including the peak produced by the dynamic $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ propagator and the rise seen as the light-cone is approached when $`q`$ is large, might pose some problems for high-energy photoreactions. The latter are related in the familiar way (see, for example, DeF66 ) to the inclusive electron scattering transverse response by

$$\sigma _\gamma ^{\text{tot}}=2\pi ^2\frac{\alpha }{\omega }R_T(q,q),$$
(22)
$`\alpha `$ being the fine-structure constant.

In context, it is important to note that, while one cannot go from these results directly to studies of (e,e’NN) or ($`\gamma `$,NN) reactions (see, e. g., Refs. Car94 ; Ryc98 ; Giu01 ), since the RFG is not well-suited to modeling such semi-inclusive processes, the understanding gained in the present work concerning relativistic effects, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ propagator effects, etc., likely can have an impact, for instance via improved descriptions of current operators for use in other approaches. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ propagator provides just one example: it produces a prominent peak in the 2p-2h transverse response and apparently is an important contribution in the total cross section. It is also very dependent on the specifics assumed, such as what model is taken for the propagator, how medium effects are or are not incorporated, how off-shellness is handled, etc. In particular, in view of continuing discussions about the off-shell behavior of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ inside the nuclear medium Pas98  and of our findings in this work, the 2p-2h transverse response may provide an ideal place in which to explore such issues.

Clearly, this is not the intent of the present work. Here we wish only to make contact with the work of DBT, using exactly their ingredients and only in future work will we return to address some of these interesting issues.

In particular, in the near future our intent is to address the difficult issue of the gauge invariance as was explored in the 1p-1h sector in Ama02 ; Ama02a ; Ama03 . This requires the introduction of 2p-2h correlation currents in addition to the MEC. Only when this task is accomplished will a consistent (namely, gauge invariant), Lorentz covariant and translational invariant description of the inclusive responses (both longitudinal and transverse) within the RFG framework be achieved.

Furthermore, we are now in a position to study the degree to which these responses fulfill or violate $`y`$-scaling of first type (namely in the momentum transfer $`q`$) and of second type (namely in $`k_F`$) — see Don99 ; Don99a ; Mai02 . An exploration of these issues is currently being undertaken for the 2p-2h MEC and will be presented in a forthcoming paper, which will also focus on the important theme of the interplay between the scaling violations arising from the MEC action in both 1p-1h and 2p-2h sectors.

## VI Acknowledgments

This work has been supported in part by the INFN-MIT Bruno Rossi Exchange Program and by MURST and in part (TWD) by funds provided by the U.S. Department of Energy under cooperative research agreement No. DE-DC02-94ER40818.

*

## Appendix A

For completeness, in this appendix we report some of the detailed formulae used for the relativistic calculation.

We start by giving the explicit expressions for Eqs. (5a-b) which enter in the relativistic $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-current:

$`j_{(a)}^\mu (p,k,q)`$ $`=`$ $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3M_\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}(4(kp)p^2\gamma ^\mu \text{/}q8(kp)(qp)\gamma ^\mu \text{/}p+8(kp)p_\mu \text{/}q\text{/}p.`$ (23a)
$`.p^2\text{/}k\gamma ^\mu \text{/}q\text{/}p4q^\mu (kp)p^2\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}+q^\mu p^2\text{/}k\text{/}p)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3M_\mathrm{\Delta }}}(4(kp)\gamma ^\mu \text{/}q\text{/}pp^2\text{/}k\gamma ^\mu \text{/}q+2(qp)\text{/}k\gamma ^\mu \text{/}p.`$
$`.2p_\mu \text{/}k\text{/}q\text{/}p4(kp)q^\mu \text{/}p+q^\mu p^2\text{/}k)`$
$`+\left(\text{/}k\gamma ^\mu \text{/}q\text{/}p2\text{/}p\gamma ^\mu \text{/}q\text{/}k3q^\mu \text{/}k\text{/}p+4q^\mu (kp)\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}\right)`$
$`+2M_\mathrm{\Delta }(\gamma ^\mu \text{/}q\text{/}k+q^\mu \text{/}k)\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(p^2M_\mathrm{\Delta }^2)}},`$
$`j_{(b)}^\mu (p,k,q)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _0\left(j_{(a)}^\mu (p,k,q)\right)^{}\gamma _0`$ (23b)
Useful relations follow from momentum conservation: $`q^\mu +k_1^\mu +k_2^\mu =0`$, $`𝒌_{1T}+𝒌_{2T}=0`$ and $`q=q_L=k_{1L}k_{2L}`$. We also reiterate the definitions: $`p_ap_1q`$, $`p_bp_1^{}+q`$, $`p_cp_2q`$, $`p_dp_2^{}+q`$, $`k_ip_i^{}p_i`$.

Next, in the following formulae, we quote explicitly the integrand entering in the direct contributions to the transverse response, limiting ourselves to the full pionic contribution and to the pionic-$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ interference, since the pure $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ contribution corresponds to a far too lengthy expression to be reported here. We use the notation $`E_{𝒑_1}E_{𝒑_1^{}}E_{𝒑_2}E_{𝒑_2^{}}`$. The hadronic form factors are not explicitly displayed.

Pionic contribution:

$`_T^{D\pi }(k_1,k_2;q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V^4}{16}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \tau }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\left(\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{q_iq_j}{𝒒^2}}\right)J_i^\pi (k_1,k_2)J_j^\pi (k_1,k_2)`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V^4}{16}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \tau }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=x,y}{}}J_m^\pi (k_1,k_2)J_m^\pi (k_1,k_2)`$
$`=`$ $`32{\displaystyle \frac{M^4}{\mu _\pi ^4}}\{f_{\pi NN}^4f_{\gamma \pi \pi }^2{\displaystyle \frac{4𝒌_{1T}^2k_1^2k_2^2}{(k_1^2\mu _\pi ^2)^2(k_2^2\mu _\pi ^2)^2}}`$
$`+f_{\pi NN}^2f_{\gamma \pi NN}^2[{\displaystyle \frac{2𝒌_{1T}^2}{(k_1^2\mu _\pi ^2)(k_2^2\mu _\pi ^2)}}({\displaystyle \frac{k_1^2(M^2+p_{20}p_{20}^{}p_{2L}p_{2L}^{})}{M^2(k_1^2\mu _\pi ^2)^2}}+(12))]`$
$`f_{\pi NN}^3f_{\gamma \pi NN}f_{\gamma \pi \pi }[{\displaystyle \frac{4𝒌_{1T}^2k_1^2}{(k_1^2\mu _\pi ^2)^2(k_2^2\mu _\pi ^2)}}+(12)]\};`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-pion interference contribution:

$`_T^{D\{\mathrm{\Delta }\pi \}}(k_1,k_2;q)={\displaystyle \frac{V^4}{16}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \tau }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=x,y}{}}\left[J_m^\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1,k_2)J_m^\pi (k_1,k_2)+J_m^\pi (k_1,k_2)J_m^\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1,k_2)\right]`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16M^2f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}f_{\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }}}{3\mu _\pi ^4}}\{f_{\pi NN}^3f_{\gamma \pi \pi }[{\displaystyle \frac{k_2^2\underset{m}{}\left[k_1^m\left(_a^m(p_1,p_1^{};q)_b^m(p_1,p_1^{};q)\right)\right]}{(k_1^2\mu _\pi ^2)(k_2^2\mu _\pi ^2)^2}}+(12)]`$
$`+`$ $`f_{\pi NN}^2f_{\gamma \pi NN}[{\displaystyle \frac{k_2^2\left(𝒮_a(p_1,p_1^{};q)+𝒮_b(p_1,p_1^{};q)\right)}{4M(k_2^2\mu _\pi ^2)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\underset{m}{}k_2^m\left(_a^m(p_1,p_1^{};q)+_b^m(p_1,p_1^{};q)\right)}{2(k_1^2\mu _\pi ^2)(k_2^2\mu _\pi ^2)}}`$
$`+(12)]\};`$
pure $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ contribution:

$`_T^{D\mathrm{\Delta }}(k_1,k_2;q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V^4}{16}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \tau }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=x,y}{}}\left(J_m^\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1,k_2)J_m^\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1,k_2)\right)`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\pi NN}^2f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}^2f_{\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }}^2}{3\mu _\pi ^4}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=x,y}{}}\{[({\displaystyle \frac{_a^m(p_1,p_1^{};q)_b^m(p_2,p_2^{};q)}{3(k_1^2\mu _\pi ^2)(k_2^2\mu _\pi ^2)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{k_2^2}{(k_2^2\mu _\pi ^2)^2}}[𝑻𝒓\left\{(\text{/}p_1M)j_{(b)}^m(p_a,k_2,q)(\text{/}p_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+M)j_{(a)}^m(p_a,k_2,q)\right\}`$
$`+𝑻𝒓\left\{(\text{/}p_1+M)j_{(a)}^m(p_b,k_2,q)(\text{/}p_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}M)j_{(b)}^m(p_b,k_2,q)\right\}`$
$`.{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}𝑻𝒓\left\{(\text{/}p_1+M)j_{(a)}^m(p_b,k_2,q)(\text{/}p_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}M)j_{(a)}^m(p_a,k_2,q)\right\}])+(12)]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{_a^m(p_1,p_1^{};q)_a^m(p_2,p_2^{};q)+_b^m(p_1,p_1^{};q)_b^m(p_2,p_2^{};q)}{3(k_1^2\mu _\pi ^2)(k_2^2\mu _\pi ^2)}}\}.`$
In the previous equations the following definitions have been introduced:

$`_a^m(p,p^{};q)`$ $``$ $`𝑻𝒓\left\{(\text{/}pM)(\text{/}p^{}+M)j_{(a)}^m(pq,qp^{}+p,q)\right\}`$ (27f)
$`=`$ $`𝑻𝒓\left\{(\text{/}pM)(\text{/}p^{}+M)j_{(a)}^m(p_\mathrm{\Delta },k_\pi ,q)\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_\mathrm{\Delta }^2M_\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{4q^2}{3M_\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}[p^m(pq)p^m(p^{}q)+2p^m(pp^{})][p_\mathrm{\Delta }^24(k_\pi p_\mathrm{\Delta })]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4M^2}{3M_\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}\left\{4(k_\pi p_\mathrm{\Delta })\left[p^m(p^{}q)p^m(pq)+2p^mq^2\right]q^2p_\mathrm{\Delta }^2(p^m+p^m)\right\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{8M}{3M_\mathrm{\Delta }}}\{k_\pi ^m[4(k_\pi p_\mathrm{\Delta })(qp_\mathrm{\Delta })p_\mathrm{\Delta }^2q^2+2(qp_\mathrm{\Delta })^2]`$
$`2p^m[q^2(k_\pi p_\mathrm{\Delta })+(k_\pi q)(q_\mathrm{\Delta })+2(k_\pi q)(k_\pi p_\mathrm{\Delta })]\}`$
$`+4\left\{q^2\left[p^m(qp)p^m(qp^{})\right]+2(pp^{})\left[p^mq^2+2p^m(qp^{})2p^m(qp_\mathrm{\Delta })\right]\right\}`$
$`+4M^2\{4p^m[(qp_\mathrm{\Delta })p^m(p^{}q)]q^2(p^m+p^m)\}+8MM_\mathrm{\Delta }k_\pi ^mq^2\},`$
$`_b^m(p,p^{};q)`$ $``$ $`𝑻𝒓\left\{(\text{/}p+M)(\text{/}p^{}M)j_{(b)}^m(p^{}+q,qp^{}+p,q)\right\}`$ (27g)
$`=`$ $`𝑻𝒓\left\{(\text{/}p^{}M)(\text{/}p+M)j_{(a)}^m(p^{}+q,qp^{}+p,q)\right\}=_a^m(p^{},p;q).`$
$`𝒮_a(p,p^{};q)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=x,y}{}}𝑻𝒓\left\{(\text{/}pM)\gamma ^m(\text{/}p^{}+M)j_{(a)}^m(pq,qp^{}+p,q)\right\}`$ (28f)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=x,y}{}}𝑻𝒓\left\{(\text{/}pM)\gamma ^m(\text{/}p^{}+M)j_{(a)}^m(p_\mathrm{\Delta },k_\pi ,q)\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{8M}{3M_\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}\{4(k_\pi p_\mathrm{\Delta })[2(qp_\mathrm{\Delta })((p^{}_\mathrm{\Delta })(qp1))p_\mathrm{\Delta }^2(qp1).`$
$`.𝒑_T^2(q^2+(qpp1))+𝒑_T𝒑_T(qp_\mathrm{\Delta })]+p_\mathrm{\Delta }^2[q^2(k_\pi p)(qk_\pi )(p^{}p_\mathrm{\Delta }).`$
$`.3(qp^{})(k_\pi p_\mathrm{\Delta })(qp_\mathrm{\Delta })(k_\pi p^{})+𝒌_{\pi T}𝒑_T(q^2+(qp^{}))`$
$`𝒑_T𝒑_T^{}(qk_\pi )]\}+{\displaystyle \frac{8M^3}{3M_\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}\{8(qp_\mathrm{\Delta })(k_\pi p_\mathrm{\Delta })p_\mathrm{\Delta }^2(qk_\pi )\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{16q^2}{3M_\mathrm{\Delta }}}\{(qp^{})(k_\pi p)(qp)(k_\pi p^{})(qk_\pi )(pp^{})4(p_\mathrm{\Delta }k_\pi )(pp^{}).`$
$`.+𝒑_T𝒑_T^{}[p_\mathrm{\Delta }^2(p_\mathrm{\Delta }k_\pi )]\}+{\displaystyle \frac{16M^2}{3M_\mathrm{\Delta }}}\{(qk_\pi )[(pp^{})+p_\mathrm{\Delta }^2](qp)(k_\pi p^{}).`$
$`+2q^2(k_\pi p^{})+3(qp^{})(k_\pi p)4(qp^{})(k_\pi q)+2(qp_\mathrm{\Delta })(k_\pi p_\mathrm{\Delta })`$
$`𝒑_T^2(q^2+(qp^{}))+𝒑_T𝒑_T^{}(qp_\mathrm{\Delta })\}+8M\{q^2(k_\pi p)(qk_\pi )(p^{}p_\mathrm{\Delta }).`$
$`.+(qp^{})(k_\pi p_\mathrm{\Delta })(qp_\mathrm{\Delta })(k_\pi p^{})+𝒌_{\pi T}𝒑_T(qp^{})2𝒌_{\pi T}𝒑_T^{}(qp_\mathrm{\Delta }).`$
$`.+𝒑_T^2[q^2+2(qp^{})]𝒑_T𝒑_T^{}[(qp)+(qp^{})]\}8M^3\{(qk_\pi )\}`$
$`+16M_\mathrm{\Delta }\left\{(pp^{})\left[q^2+2(qp^{})\right]+𝒑_T𝒑_T^{}\left[q^2+(qp^{})\right]𝒑_T^2(qp)\right\}`$
$`+16M_\mathrm{\Delta }M^2\{q^22(qp)\}\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_\mathrm{\Delta }^2M_\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}`$
and
$`𝒮_b(p,p^{};q)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=x,y}{}}𝑻𝒓\left\{(\text{/}p+M)\gamma ^m(\text{/}p^{}M)j_{(b)}^m(p^{}+q,qp^{}+p,q)\right\}=𝒮_a(p^{},p;q).`$
In Eqs. (27f) and (LABEL:eq:RDasdir) we used $`p_\mathrm{\Delta }=pq`$ and $`k_\pi =qp^{}+p`$ to simplify the expressions. Eqs. (27g) and (28) are consequences of the identities: $`j_{(a,b)}^m(p,k,q)=j_{(a,b)}^m(p,k,q)`$ and Eq. (23b).

The traces indicated in Eq. (26) involve thousands of terms and are not included here.

From Eqs. (24)–(26) the non-relativistic limit of Eq. (III) can be obtained by assuming that all the nucleonic momenta are much smaller than the nucleon rest mass.


format: text

text:
# Heavy Quark Free Energies and Screening in SU(2) Gauge Theory

## I Introduction

The study of the free energy of a static heavy quark-antiquark pair in a medium of color charges at some temperature $`T`$ has recently become a hot topic of statistical $`QCD`$ okacz00 -zantow03 . The main reason is the fact that such free energy is related to the potential between quarks and antiquarks, which is of fundamental importance both for understanding deconfinement and in heavy quark phenomenology at finite temperature MS ; DPS . The study of static quark free energies (Polyakov loop correlators) is also important for constructing effective theories at the deconfinement transition pisarski

The presence of the medium affects the quark-antiquark interaction in a non trivial way. Such modifications of interactions is usually studied in terms of the free energy of a static quark-antiquark pair separated by some distance $`R`$. So far most studies concentrated on the behavior of the static quark-antiquark free energy at large distances, $`R1/T`$ okacz00 ; engels87 ; irback91 ; below the deconfinement temperature $`T_c`$ such behavior is characterized by a temperature dependent string tension, above $`T_c`$ by exponential screening which is governed by a temperature dependent (Debye) screening mass. However, it turned out that the free energies of static quark-antiquark exhibit a quite complex temperature behavior already at short distances $`R<1/T`$ attig88 ; engels89 ; petr02 ; okacz02 . Furthermore, the detailed study of the free energy at short distances allows to define a renormalized order parameter okacz02 . As far as the physics of heavy quarkonia is concerned, the detailed structure of the static quark-antiquark free energy at short distances is even more important than its large distance behavior. Though the large distance behavior of the color averaged potential was extensively studied in Refs. okacz00 ; engels87 ; irback91  the problem was not completely settled. This is partly due to finite size effects and very large statistics needed in such studies.

In this paper we want to study various features of the heavy quark free energy in $`SU(2)`$ gauge theory at finite temperature. The study of $`SU(2)`$ lattice gauge theory has at least two advantages: the simulations are not so time consuming as in $`SU(3)`$ and the deconfinement transition is second order, which has interesting consequences on the behavior of the free energy near the critical temperature $`T_c`$. In general, the heavy quark free energy depends on the color channel one considers; for a complete analysis we investigated the singlet, the triplet and the color averaged channels. In particular the study of the color singlet free energy is of interest because it is the most relevant quantity as far as the physics of heavy quarkonia at finite temperature is concerned. We examined both the short and the long-distance behavior of the free energies, below and above the deconfinement temperature. We devoted a special attention to the issue of screening, in that we determined the Debye masses at various temperatures.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section II we define the free energy of a static quark-antiquark pair in color singlet, color triplet and color averaged channels and discuss the choice of the simulation parameters. The basic features of the static quark-antiquark free energies are also discussed there. In section III we present the numerical results below $`T_c`$. Section IV deals with free energies above deconfinement and determination of the screening masses. In section V we define the renormalized Polyakov loop for SU(2) gauge theory following Ref. okacz02 . Finally section VI contains our conclusions.

## II Free Energies in SU(2) Gauge Theory

On the lattice the free energy of a static quark-antiquark pair in the gluonic medium is determined by correlation functions of temporal Wilson lines $`L`$,

$$L(\stackrel{}{R})=\underset{\tau =0}{\overset{N_\tau 1}{}}U_0(\stackrel{}{R},\tau ),$$
(1)
$`TrL`$ is also referred to as the Polyakov loop. Following Refs. mclerran81 ; nadkarni86  we introduce the color singlet and triplet free energy of a static quark-antiquark pair

$$e^{F_1(R,T)/T+C}=\frac{1}{2}Tr(L(\stackrel{}{R})L^{}(\stackrel{}{0})),$$
(2)
$$e^{F_3(R,T)/T+C}=\frac{1}{3}TrL(\stackrel{}{R})TrL^{}(\stackrel{}{0})\frac{1}{6}TrL(\stackrel{}{R})L^{}(\stackrel{}{0})$$
(3)
as well as the color averaged free energy defined by

$$e^{F_{avg}(R,T)/T+C}=\frac{1}{4}TrL(\stackrel{}{R})TrL^{}(\stackrel{}{0}).$$
(4)
The latter can be written as a thermal average of the free energies in singlet and triplet channels, hence the name,

$$e^{F_{avg}(R,T)/T}=\frac{1}{4}e^{F_1(R,T)/T}+\frac{3}{4}e^{F_3(R,T)/T}.$$
(5)
The normalization constant $`C`$ can be defined in different ways. In the deconfined phase it is customary to set $`C=\mathrm{ln}|\frac{1}{2}TrL|^2`$. Another possibility is to fix it by normalizing the singlet free energy to the zero temperature heavy quark potential okacz02 .

The main problem with the definitions of the singlet and triplet free energies (2)-(3) is that these definitions are not gauge invariant, as the Wilson line is not a gauge invariant quantity. The only manifestly gauge invariant quantity is the color averaged free energy. This is the reason why singlet and triplet free energies were not studied in much detail so far. It was recently showed by Philipsen that gauge invariant definitions of the singlet and triplet free energies can be achieved by replacing the Wilson line in Eqs. (2), (3) by a gauge invariant Wilson line defined by

$$\stackrel{~}{L}(\stackrel{}{R})=\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(\stackrel{}{R})L(\stackrel{}{R})\mathrm{\Omega }(\stackrel{}{R})$$
(6)
The $`SU(2)`$ matrix $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\stackrel{}{R})`$ is constructed from eigenvectors of the spatial covariant Laplacian (see Ref. ophil02  for further details). Furthermore it was shown that this definition is equivalent to the definitions of the singlet and triplet free energies in Coulomb gauge. Since the determination of eigenvectors of the covariant Laplacian is computationally very expensive we fix the Coulomb gauge to calculate the singlet and triplet free energies.

In our numerical investigations we use the standard Wilson action. In order to get control over finite size effects, which become important in the vicinity of $`T_c`$, we have performed simulations at several different volumes. As we also want to investigate the short distance behavior of the free energies simulations were performed for $`N_\tau =4,6,8`$. To fix the temperature scale we have used the non-perturbative beta function of Ref. engels95 . We will also use $`T_c/\sqrt{\sigma }=0.69`$ fingberg93 , with $`\sigma `$ being the zero temperature string tension. The lattice volumes and the gauge coupling along with the corresponding temperatures used in our simulations are summarized in Table 1.

Calculations of the zero temperature potentials and of the free energy of a static quark-antiquark pair show violation of rotational symmetry at short distances. Since we are also interested in the behavior of the potential at short distances, we should try to remove these lattice artifacts. Following Ref. necco02  we replace $`F_i(r)`$ by $`F_i(r_I)`$ where

$$r_I^1=4\pi \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r})\frac{1}{_{i=1,3}\mathrm{sin}^2(k_i/2)}.$$
(7)
In this way we replace the lattice separation by the separation $`r_I`$ which corrects for the tree level artifacts in the Coulomb potential calculated on the lattice. When presenting the data on the free energy we will always do this replacement unless stated otherwise.

Let us now present some general features of our findings. First we have performed simulations at a fixed lattice spacing, corresponding to the gauge coupling $`\beta =2.5`$ at $`N_\tau =12`$ and $`N_\tau =6`$ corresponding to temperatures $`T=0.6T_c`$ and $`T=1.3T_c`$, respectively. The results are shown in Fig. 1 (left). At this value of the gauge coupling the ground state static quark-antiquark potential as well as the first two excited potentials at $`T=0`$ have been calculated perantonis  and we show them in Fig. 1 together with our data. The singlet free energies at short distances do not differ from the zero temperature potential and temperature dependence shows up only at $`r\sqrt{\sigma }>0.5`$. On the other hand we find that the triplet free energy is considerably smaller than the first excited potential at $`T=0`$. At small distances it was shown that the excited potential coincides with the perturbative octet (triplet) potential up to a non-perturbative constant brambilla00 . No such constant is expected in our definition of the triplet free energy which we expect to coincide with the perturbative one at short distances. At very short distances also the triplet free energy is temperature independent.

In most of our calculations we have varied the temperature $`T`$ by varying the lattice spacing $`a`$ (i.e. the gauge coupling $`\beta =4/g^2`$) for fixed temporal extent $`N_\tau `$. As both the free energy and the $`T=0`$ potential contain a lattice spacing dependent additive constant $`C`$ (c.f. Eqs. 2-5), some normalization prescription should be introduced in order to compare the free energies calculated at different temperatures. To do so we assume the following form for the zero temperature potential

$$V(r)/\sqrt{\sigma }=\frac{0.238}{r\sqrt{\sigma }}+r\sqrt{\sigma }+\frac{0.0031}{(r\sqrt{\sigma })^2}$$
(8)
This form was obtained in Ref. booth  by fitting the lattice data on the $`T=0`$ potential for $`r\sqrt{\sigma }>0.063`$ at $`\beta =2.85`$ apart from the constant which we have omitted. The violation of rotational invariance on the lattice was taken into account in the fit procedure. Thus equation (8) defines our convention for the continuum zero temperature potential. In some cases we need the $`T=0`$ potential at distances $`r\sqrt{\sigma }<0.063`$. In this case we use the 3-loop perturbative potential calculated in $`qq`$ scheme necco01  normalized to smoothly match the form defined by Eq. (8) at $`r\sqrt{\sigma }=0.07`$. We have also checked that the difference between the 3-loop and 2-loop results is negligible for our purposes. In what follows the normalization constant $`C`$ will be chosen such (unless stated otherwise) that the singlet free energy matches the $`T=0`$ potential at the shortest distance ($`r/a=1`$). In Fig. 1 (right) we show our results on static free energies calculated for $`N_\tau =4`$ and using this normalization convention. The free energies in the deconfined phase reach the same value at large distances (see Fig. 1). This is to be expected as at very large distances due to screening the free energy of color charges should be independent of their relative color orientation. What is more interesting is that at large distances the gap between the triplet and singlet free energy vanishes as well in the confinement phase though it is non-zero for the $`T=0`$ case. This issue will be discussed more in detail in the next section.

## III Results in the Confinement Phase

In this section we are going to present our numerical results in the confinement phase. In Fig. 2 we show the singlet and triplet free energies with the normalization described in the previous section. One can see that the temperature dependence of the singlet free energy is only visible at distances $`r\sqrt{\sigma }>2`$. The triplet free energy is also temperature independent at small distances; thermal effects become visible at $`r\sqrt{\sigma }>1.4`$. We also notice that there is a slight enhancement of the singlet free energy over the $`T=0`$ potential in the interval $`1<r\sqrt{\sigma }<2`$. A similar enhancement was observed also in the case of $`2+1`$ dimensional $`SU(2)`$ gauge theory at finite temperature ophil02  as well as in preliminary $`SU(3)`$ calculations zantow03 . As the color averaged free energy is a thermal average of singlet and triplet free energies, it would have a non-trivial temperature dependence even if the latter were temperature independent. This temperature dependence is larger the smaller the gap between the triplet and singlet contributions. In general one can say that the temperature dependence of the color averaged free energy at short and intermediate distances is mostly determined by the value and the temperature dependence of the color triplet contribution. If this continues to be true in full QCD, then some of the conclusions of Ref. DPS  (where the color averaged free energy was related to the meson masses) should be revised.

At large distances the color singlet, triplet and averaged free energy reach a common value which can be parametrized by a form

$$F_i(r,T)|_{rT1}=\sigma (T)r+A(T)\mathrm{ln}rT+B(T)$$
(9)
In Fig. 3 we show the color averaged free energy as well as the string tension obtained from it using the fit to Eq. 9. Because the deconfinement transition is of second order, the inverse correlation length (string tension) vanishes at $`T_c`$. As a result we have large finite size effects close to $`T_c`$. Indeed we found that on the $`32^3\times 4`$ lattice the string tension vanishes around $`0.97T_c`$. For this reason we performed simulations on the larger $`60^3\times 4`$ lattice close to $`T_c`$. We have seen that the values of $`\sigma (T)`$ we have obtained from our calculations on $`32^3\times 4`$ lattice agree with the results from the $`60^3\times 4`$ lattice up to $`0.92T_c`$. Above such temperature we adopt the results from the larger lattice. The final situation is illustrated in Fig. 3 (right), where the squares indicate the results from $`60^3\times 4`$, the crosses the ones from $`32^3\times 4`$. It is well known that $`\sigma (T)`$ vanishes near $`T_c`$ according to the power law $`\sigma (T)(T_cT)^\nu `$, where $`\nu =0.63`$ is the 3D Ising exponent for the correlation length. Therefore we tried to fit our data point by using the ansatz $`\sigma (T)=a(T_cT)^\nu [1+b(T_cT)^{1/2}]`$, with $`\nu =0.63`$. The best fit curve is shown in our plot and it reproduces very well our data. The values of $`\sigma (T)`$ found by us are considerably smaller than those obtained in Ref. engels87 . This is probably due to the fact that the lattice volumes used in Ref. engels87  were considerably smaller than ours.

## IV Results in the Deconfinement Phase: Screening

We start our discussion of the numerical results in the deconfined phase with Fig. 4, where we show the singlet free energy in units of $`\sqrt{\sigma }`$ normalized to the zero temperature potential at the shortest distance. As one can see the singlet free energy saturates at large distances, while at short enough distances it is temperature independent and coincides with the zero temperature potential. The distance in physical units, at which the temperature dependence enters, of course strongly depends on the value of the temperature, the higher the temperature the shorter is the distance where effects of the medium become visible. Also the distance where the singlet free energy saturates strongly depends on the temperature, it is getting larger as we approach $`T_c`$. Close to $`T_c`$ screening enters only at distances $`r\sqrt{\sigma }>1`$. This feature of the free energy is reflected in the temperature dependence of the screening masses which will be discussed below. Another interesting feature of the singlet free energy is that the value of the plateau of the free energy decreases with the temperature. Such a behavior of the singlet free energy was observed for $`SU(3)`$ gauge theory in Ref. okacz02 , where it was also argued that the reason for this is the presence of the entropy contribution.

For the further discussion of the results in the deconfined phase, especially for making comparisons with perturbation theory, it is more convenient and in fact customary (cf. okacz00 ; engels89 ) to choose the renormalization constant $`C`$ in Eqs. (2), (3) to be $`C=\mathrm{ln}|\frac{1}{2}TrL|^2`$. Furthermore the large distance behavior of the free energies should be discussed separately from their short distance behavior, where one would expect perturbation theory to work. In general it is expected that perturbation theory breaks down at distances $`r>1/g^2T`$ linde80 , with $`g`$ being the gauge coupling constant. As for the physically interesting temperature range one always has $`g1`$, perturbation theory may be applicable at distances $`rT<1`$. One of the predictions of perturbation theory is that $`3F_3(r,T)/F_1(r,T)1`$, for any $`r`$. In Fig. 5 we show this ratio for different temperatures. This ratio appears indeed to be constant for $`T>1.5T_c`$ but always smaller than $`1`$, even for the highest temperature we considered ($`16T_c`$). Similar results were found in Landau gauge in Refs. attig88 ; heller98 .

High temperature perturbation theory predicts that the color averaged free energy has the form mclerran81 ; nadkarni86a

$$\frac{F_{avg}(r,T)}{T}=\frac{3}{32}\frac{g^4}{(4\pi rT)^2}e^{2m_{D0}r}$$
(10)
at distances $`r>1/T`$, with $`m_{D0}`$ being the leading order Debye mass $`m_{D0}=\sqrt{2/3}gT`$. At distances $`r<1/T`$ the simple form (10) is no longer valid, though the $`1/r^2`$-like behavior is still expected due to cancellation between singlet and triplet contributions mclerran81 . Therefore we define the so-called screening function $`S(r,T)`$ by the formula

$$\frac{F_{avg}(r,T)}{T}=\frac{3}{32}\frac{1}{(rT)^2}S(r,T)$$
(11)
In Fig. 6 we show the numerical results for the square root screening function. As one can see from the figure, at high temperatures ($`T>2T_c`$) the screening function shows a mild $`r`$-dependence, which implies that the color averaged free energy behaves like $`1/r^2`$. The screening function $`S(r,T)`$ decreases with with increasing thenperature which one would expect if $`S(r,T)g^4(T)`$. At temperatures closer to $`T_c`$ the screening function decreases at small distances. Obviously, this behavior has nothing to do with screening and signals the breakdown of the high temperature expansion. As we approach $`T_c`$ $`F_{1,3}/T`$ is no longer small at small distances as shown in Fig. 6 and therefore the exponentials in Eq. (5) cannot be expanded. As a result of this, the cancellation between the singlet and triplet free energies no longer holds; moreover, since the singlet free energy is negative and the triplet one is positive (when working with normalization convention $`C=\mathrm{ln}|\frac{1}{2}TrL|^2`$) the color averaged free energy is dominated by the singlet contribution and behaves like $`1/r`$ at small distances. We also note that the free energies calculated for different $`N_\tau `$ (different lattice spacing) at $`3T_c`$ agree reasonably well. Similar agreement between the results calculated for different values of $`N_\tau `$ was observed for other temperatures too.

Let us now discuss the large distance behavior of the free energies and the determination of the screening masses. We will restrict ourselves to the discussion of the color singlet and color averaged free energy as the color triplet free energy becomes very noisy at large distances and the present statistics does not allow to study it in detail.

Contrary to earlier studies okacz00 ; engels87 ; engels89 , where the screening masses were obtained using uncorrelated fit and the short and large distance behaviors of the free energy were not separate, here we use the correlated fit procedure of Ref. mckerr95 . From Fig. 6 it is clear that in the region $`rT<1`$ the color averaged free energy can be well described by almost unscreened $`1/r^2`$-like behavior. Therefore this region should not be considered for the determination of the screening masses. In our procedure the fit interval was chosen so that the fit yields a reasonable $`\chi ^2/(\mathrm{\#}D.o.F)`$. Thus, unlike in the uncorrelated fit used in Ref. okacz00 , there is no dependence of the screening masses on the fit interval. We determine the screening mass in the color singlet channel by fitting the data with a screened Coulomb (Yukawa-like) ansatz. In leading order perturbation theory, in fact, the most important contribution to the singlet free energy is given by the exchange of a single gluon. In the case of the color average free energy we used a more general fit ansatz <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1In fact in order to do the correlated fit we consider the connected correlators of Wilson lines, i.e. we subtract $`|TrL|^2`$ from the correlator. As far as we are interested only in the large distance behavior this is equivalent to fitting the free energies. Only in the thermodynamic limit the connected correlator vanishes at very large distance. Therefore we allow for a constant $`B`$ in our fit ansatz. It turns out, however, that this constant is compatible with zero within present statistical accuracy.:

$$\frac{F_{avg}}{T}=\frac{A}{R^d}\mathrm{exp}(\mu R)+B.$$
(12)
As possible values for the exponent $`d`$ we took $`d=1,2`$. The resulting values of the screening masses that we extracted are presented in Tables 2 and 3 for the singlet and the averaged channels, respectively. For determination of the screening masses we mostly use $`32^3\times 4`$ lattice.

We found that for the color averaged free energy the fits with $`d=1`$ and $`d=2`$ are both good for all temperatures, except near $`T_c`$, where we got a reasonable $`\chi ^2/(\mathrm{\#}D.o.F)`$ only for $`d=1`$. From our fit analysis it then comes out that we cannot choose between the two cases, which gives a systematic error of about $`30\%`$ on the screening masses. In order to eliminate this ambiguity, we have also calculated the plane-plane correlator, given by the formula:

$$C_{PL}(x_3)=TrL(x_3)TrL^{}(0)|TrL|^2$$
(13)
where $`L(x_3)_{x_1,x_2}L(x_1,x_2,x_3)`$. If the color averaged free energy has the form (12) with $`d=1`$, then $`C_{PL}(x_3)`$ should fall off with the distance as a simple exponential, which allows a direct determination of the screening mass. The results we found are reported for comparison in Table 3. We see that the values of the masses extracted from the plane-plane correlator agree in each case with the masses obtained from the point-point correlator when $`d=1`$. Furthermore, we have analyzed the effective masses extracted from $`C_{PL}(x_3)`$. They reach a plateau already at $`x_3T1`$, which makes the presence of power-like prefactors in $`C_{PL}(x_3)`$ at large distances very unlikely and thus implying that very likely $`d1`$. At high temperature dimensional reduction arguments suggest that $`d=1`$, as the large distance behavior of any static correlators is governed by exchange of a bound state of the effective three dimensional theory dimred .

For $`T=1.01T_c`$ the results refer to the $`48^3\times 4`$ lattice instead of $`32^3\times 4`$. In this case, in fact, the mass changes appreciably when one goes to the larger $`48^3\times 4`$ lattice. This is probably due to the large correlation length close to $`T_c`$. Further simulations on a $`60^3\times 4`$ lead to the same value of the mass we found on the $`48^3\times 4`$, which is then reliable as infinite volume limit at this temperature.

In Fig. 7 we show the screening masses extracted from the singlet free energy as a function of the temperature. There we also show the values of the screening masses obtained from the electric gluon propagator in Landau gauge heller98 ; rank  at $`T>1.2T_c`$. As one can see they are compatible with the singlet masses we have found. This is to be expected in perturbation theory. But as $`g1`$ in the temperature interval considered and the screening mass governs the large distance behavior of the free energy, this agreement is quite non-trivial. In Fig. 7 the color averaged screening masses are shown as well; we compared them with the lowest $`A_1^+`$ scalar screening mass (spatial glueball mass) obtained in Ref. datta98 . Dimensional reduction arguments dimred  suggest that these masses should agree at high temperature and the figure seems to indicate that this is indeed the case. Very recently the plane-plane correlators of Polyakov loops were studied in Ref. fiore03  for $`T=1.1105T_c`$ and $`T=1.227T_c`$ (we use the non-perturbative beta function engels95  to convert the gauge coupling of Ref. fiore03  to temperature). In Fig. 7 we show as well the corresponding screening masses (open triangles). Moreover we note that the color averaged screening masses obtained by us using fits with $`d=2`$ agree with findings of Refs. irback91 ; reisz93  where the same exponent was used. The color averaged screening mass should go to zero when $`TT_c`$ because it is just the inverse of the Polyakov loop correlation length, which diverges at $`T_c`$. On the other hand there is no a priori argument for which the singlet mass should vanish at the threshold. Fig. 7 indicates that both masses become very small near $`T_c`$.

## V The renormalized Polyakov loop

The last issue we would like to address is the renormalization of the Polyakov loop. It is known that if one takes the continuum limit at fixed temperature, the expectation value of the Polyakov loop vanishes, so that the usual definition does not really provide a physical order parameter for deconfinement. As we have already said at the beginning, the free energies on the lattice are always defined up to some renormalization constant. According to a recent work okacz02 , a suitable choice of such renormalization constant can lead to a new definition of the Polyakov loop. If the constant is chosen such that the singlet free energy matches the zero temperature heavy quark potential at short distances, one can define a ”renormalized” Polyakov loop $`L_{ren}`$ through the formula:

$$L_{ren}=\mathrm{exp}(F_{\mathrm{}}(T)/2T),$$
(14)
where $`F_{\mathrm{}}(T)`$ is the asymptotic value of the singlet free energy at the temperature $`T`$ (in fact, it does not depend on relative color orientation of the quark-antiquark pair, see above). We remind that we have renormalized the singlet free energy exactly in this way, so that, in our case, $`F_{\mathrm{}}(T)`$ is nothing but the height of the plateau of the curves in Fig. 4. Practically we took $`F_{\mathrm{}}(T)=F_1(N_\sigma /2,T)`$, which is the value of the free energy at the largest distance allowed on the lattice. In Fig. 8 we plot the renormalized Polyakov loop as function of the temperatures. When normalizing the singlet free energy to the $`T=0`$ potential at the shortest distance ($`r/a=1`$) we implicitly assume that there is no temperature dependence at this distance. This may not always be the case. Therefore we also calculate $`F_{\mathrm{}}(T)`$ and the corresponding $`L_{ren}`$ by normalizing the singlet free energy to the $`T=0`$ potential as well at $`r/a=\sqrt{2}`$. The difference in $`F_{\mathrm{}}(T)`$ ( $`L_{ren}`$) arising from these two normalizations give us an estimate of possible systematic errors. When quoting the error on the renormalized Polyakov loop we always add quadratically the systematic and the statistical errors. At variance with $`SU(3)`$, we now have a second order phase transition and a well defined scaling behavior of $`L_{ren}`$ at criticality. In order to check the scaling we have fitted the data on $`L_{ren}`$ using the standard ansatz in the interval $`T_c<T1.5T_c`$

$$L_{ren}(T)=c(TT_c)^\beta [1+b(TT_c)^\omega ],$$
(15)
with the exponents $`\beta `$ and $`\omega `$ fixed to their $`SU(2)`$ values $`\beta =0.3265`$ and $`\omega =1`$. The fit curve is shown in Fig. 8 (dashed line) and reproduces quite well the pattern of the data points. Considering only temperatures $`T<1.1T_c`$ it is possible to fit the data with $`b=0`$ and approximately same value of $`c`$.

## VI Conclusions

In conclusion we have studied the quark-antiquark free energies in $`SU(2)`$ gauge theory below and above the deconfinement temperature. We have found that the temperature dependence of the singlet free energy is much weaker than the temperature dependence of the color averaged free energy. Most of the temperature dependence of the color averaged free energy is due to the presence of the color triplet contribution and its temperature dependence. If this will hold for real QCD it may have important consequences in the heavy quarkonia phenomenology at finite temperature. At large distances the free energy in color singlet and triplet channel converge to a common value.

Above $`T_c`$ the color singlet free energy can be understood in terms of propagation of a non-perturbatively screened gluon. Through the detailed analysis of the point-point and plane-plane correlators as well as comparisons with other determinations of the screening masses we have established that the color averaged free energy is described by Yukawa law at large distances whereas at shorter distances it exhibits a more complex behavior. At low temperatures and short distances the color averaged free energy is dominated by the singlet contribution, while at higher temperatures it has $`1/r^2T`$ behavior and its temperature dependence is qualitatively the same as predicted by perturbation theory. Finally we have shown that the renormalized Polyakov loop defined in okacz02  has the correct scaling behavior near the critical temperature.

As an outlook we note that we have studied the free energy of static charges in fundamental representation. It will be interesting to investigate the free energy of static charges in other representations. Some work in this direction was done in redlich88 .

###### Acknowledgements.

It is a pleasure to thank J. Engels, O. Kaczmarek and F. Karsch for helpful discussions. We are grateful to A. Cucchieri, who provided us the gauge fixing routine. We would also like to thank the TMR network ERBFMRX-CT-970122 and the DFG Forschergruppe fFOR 339/2-1 or financial support. This work was partly supported by the U.S. Department of energy under Contract DE-AC02-98CH10886.