text:
# How unique is the Asymptotic Normalisation Coefficient (ANC) method?

## I Introduction

Considerable effort, both theoretical and experimental, has been devoted in the last few years to the analysis of nuclear capture reactions. At the energies relevant for Astrophysics, (p,$`\gamma `$) or ($`\alpha ,\gamma `$) reactions have very low cross section values due to the Coulomb barrier repulsion. Thus, in many cases, the only access to the low energy region is through model dependent extrapolations of the higher energy data. In addition to this experimental limitation, many reactions of astrophysical interest involve radioactive beams which cannot be performed using conventional experimental techniques. The Coulomb dissociation  and the asymptotic normalisation coefficients (ANCs) extracted from transfers  have been put forward recently as alternative methods to obtain information about the astrophysical S-factors. As recognised by the physics community, while very appealing, these methods need to be subject to severe tests in order to assess their validity . The aim of this work is to check upon the validity of the ANC method.

Given the limited sets of data for peripheral transfer reactions, the results presented here may not be conclusive. However, we hope that this work will underline the present difficulties in validating the method and motivate further measurements.

We firstly describe the ANC method (section II). Then, we analyse in detail the different reactions that will be used in the present work (section III). Particular attention will be paid to the characteristics of the data. Finally we present a discussion of the results and conclusions in section IV.

## II A systematic study on proton transfer reactions

The ANC method for the transfer reaction

$`A+aB+b(a=b+x,B=A+x),`$ (1)
relies on two assumptions. Firstly, the reaction mechanism used to describe the transfer mechanism should give direct information of the nuclear overlap integrals $`A|B`$, $`a|b`$. The differential cross section is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu _\mathrm{i}\mu _\mathrm{f}}{4\pi ^2\mathrm{}^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_b}{k_a}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2J_A+1)(2J_a+1)}}{\displaystyle |T_{fi}|^2},`$ (2)
with $`\mu _\mathrm{i}`$, $`\mu _\mathrm{f}`$ the reduced masses for the initial ($`Aa`$) and final ($`bB`$) channels and $`k_a,k_b`$ the incident and outgoing momenta in the centre-of-mass frame. The DWBA reaction mechanism has been used to analyse the differential cross section for the transfer reaction. The transition amplitude for the transfer reaction process in the post form is

$`T_{fi}={\displaystyle \mathrm{\Psi }_f^{()}_{AB}|V_{xb}+V_{bA}U_{bB}|_{ab}\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{(+)}}.`$ (3)
In this equation $`\mathrm{\Psi }_f^{()}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{(+)}`$ are the distorted waves in the final and initial channels respectively. $`_{AB}`$ and $`_{ab}`$ are the nuclear overlap integrals $`A|B`$ and $`a|b`$. The remnant term, $`V_{bA}U_{bB}`$, (where $`V_{bA}`$ is the interaction between the projectile core and the target A and $`U_{bB}`$ the optical potential for the outgoing channel), is usually small and may be neglected but will be included in our calculations.

Secondly, according to the ANC method, the transfer reaction should be peripheral so that the asymptotic part of the overlap integrals gives the dominant contribution to the transition amplitude. For example, outside the range $`R_N`$ of the $`A`$-$`x`$ nuclear interaction, the overlap integral $`A|B`$ becomes

$`_{AB\mathrm{}j}C_{AB\mathrm{}j}W_{\eta \mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2}}(2\kappa r)/rrR_N`$ (4)
where $`W_{\eta \mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2}}(2\kappa r)`$ is the Whittaker function, $`\eta =Z_AZ_xe^2\mu /\kappa `$ the Sommerfeld parameter, $`\kappa =\sqrt{2\mu ϵ}/\mathrm{}`$, $`\mu `$ and $`ϵ`$ the reduced mass and the binding energy for the ($`A`$$`x`$) system. $`C_{AB\mathrm{}j}`$ is the the asymptotic normalisation coefficient (ANC) for the overlap function $`A|B`$, related to the asymptotic normalisation of the single particle (s.p.) wave function $`b_{AC\mathrm{}j}`$ and a spectroscopic factor $`𝒮`$ by

$`C_{AB\mathrm{}j}=𝒮^{1/2}b_{AB\mathrm{}j}.`$ (5)
The ANC $`C_{AB\mathrm{}j}`$ defines the vertex for the virtual transitions $`BA+x`$ as shown in fig.(1). It has been shown  that as long as the reaction is peripheral, the ANC is independent of the details of the s.p. parameters used to describe the nucleus B ground state. That is, the effect of different s.p. parameters (which result in different s.p. asymptotic normalisations) is compensated by the deduced experimental spectroscopic factors such that the ANCs become independent of the s.p. model.

For proton transfer reactions, the extracted ANCs gives an alternative method of determining the zero energy cross section for the capture reaction $`A+pB+\gamma `$ or alternatively S$`{}_{1A}{}^{}(0)`$ , providing of course that the overlap integral $`a|b`$ is known. The spectroscopic factor is obtained (by a $`\chi ^2`$ fit) from the ratio between the data and the DWBA calculation in the forward angle region and defined here as $`𝒮_{\mathrm{exp}}`$. To simplify notation we shall omit the angular momenta quantum numbers from the ANCs.

By choosing appropriate beam energies and scattering angles such that the transfer reaction remains peripheral this method is expected to provide a unique, structure model independent ANC.

The ANC method was firstly applied for extracting the S17-factor from the study of the reaction 7Be(d,n)8B . The peripheral character of the reaction and the dependence on the optical potential for the incoming and outgoing channels have been recently studied . It was shown that for the DWBA analysis, the optical potentials for the entrance and outgoing channels need to be known in order to minimise uncertainties on the extracted S-factors .

The ANC method was also applied for extracting the S17-factor from the study of the 10B(7Be,8B)9Be reaction . The transfer differential cross section was measured with high accuracy using an 84 MeV 7Be radioactive beam, in the forward angle region, to ensure its peripheral character. The optical potentials for the incoming and outgoing channels were derived from folding model calculations and validated by the elastic data. From the measured transfer differential cross section the asymptotic normalisation for the virtual transitions 8B $`^7`$Be + p and thus the S17(0) was extracted assuming that the ANC for the 10B $`^9`$Be + p vertex was known. This ANC was determined in the same way from the analysis of 9Be(10B,9Be)10B at an incident energy of 100 MeV .

Due to the increasing interest on this method it is timely to perform tests, to ensure its applicability. A first test of the ANC method was made in  where the proton transfer reaction 16O(3He,d)17F was analysed. It was shown in that work that the deduced S–factor for the capture reaction 16O(p,$`\gamma `$)17F agreed well with the capture data. In the present work further tests are performed.

Given the ANC $`C_{AB\mathrm{}j}`$, the question we address here is: how unique is this value, deduced from different proton transfer reactions or from the same reaction but at different energies, assuming that the peripheral character is satisfied ? For the present analysis we choose the case of the ANC for the 10B $`^9`$Be + p vertex here called C19. This choice was motivated by the accurate forward angle data for the transfer reaction 9Be(10B,9Be)10B, measured at a laboratory energy of 100 MeV, together with good knowledge of the optical potentials . A literature search was then performed to find proton transfer data at low energy from which independent values for C19 could be extracted. In order to reduce the uncertainties associated with the lack of knowledge of the optical potential for the incoming and outgoing channel, our search was restricted to cases where elastic scattering data was available, whenever it was possible for both the incoming and outgoing channels. With these requirements in mind, the set of reactions used to study the uniqueness property are shown in table (VI).

A spherical two-body model is used for describing the ground state of each (B = A + p) system. We take a Woods-Saxon potential with radius of 1.25 fm, diffuseness a=0.65 fm, and depth adjusted to give the appropriate binding energy ($`ϵ`$(p + 9B) = 6.5858 MeV, $`ϵ`$(p + 12C) = 1.93435 MeV, and $`ϵ`$(p + d) = 5.4935 MeV). A spin-orbit term with the same geometry parameters and depth of 2.06 MeV was included. The 10B g.s. was then described as $`p_{3/2}`$ proton coupled to the 9Be(3/2-) core ($`p_{3/2}3/2^{}`$), the 13N g.s. as ($`p_{1/2}0^+`$) and the 3He g.s. as ($`s_{1/2}1^+`$). The two-body $`p^9`$Be s.p. model is not expected to provide a complete description for the 10B system. In fact, the core ground state is close to the $`\alpha \alpha n`$ threshold and other terms may contribute significantly to the wave function. Within the present reaction mechanism framework, the incompleteness of the two-body model in describing the composite nucleus is taken into account through the extracted spectroscopic factor $`𝒮_{\mathrm{exp}}`$.

In order to extract the ANC $`C_{19}^2`$ from reaction ($`𝒜`$), we proceed in the same way as in . The transfer reaction ($``$) provides similarly information on the $`C_{19}^2`$. The $`{}_{}{}^{10}\mathrm{B}(\mathrm{d},^3\mathrm{He})^9\mathrm{Be}`$ reaction ($`𝒞`$) can be expressed in terms of the product $`C_{19}^2C_{12}^2`$ where $`C_{12}`$ is the ANC for the vertex $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}d+p`$ given in . As for reaction ($`𝒟`$), the DWBA cross section can be expressed in terms of the product $`C_{19}^2C_{112}^2`$ where $`C_{112}`$ is the ANC constant for the transition 13N $``$ p + 12C, that was extracted from the transfer reaction ($``$). In all cases the calculations were performed using FRESCO .

## III Results

The experimental analysis

The elastic and transfer experimental differential cross sections, for all the reactions we are considering, are shown in figs.(2-7). For each transfer reaction, we firstly determine a set of optical potential parameters that fit the elastic channels. In doing the elastic fit we take into account the whole angular range available. The starting parameters for this fit were taken from sets found in the literature at a nearby projectile energy. These were chosen to have considerable differences in order to truly evaluate the uncertainties on the ANCs due to the choice of optical potentials. The parameters for these optical potentials are collected in the Appendix.

The ANC is directly related to $`𝒮_{\mathrm{exp}}`$ (see eq.(5)). For a given pair of optical potentials (entrance and exit channels) $`𝒮_{\mathrm{exp}}`$ is the normalisation of the forward angle DWBA cross section coming from a $`\chi ^2`$ fit to the transfer data. The quality of the fit (the accuracy with which the DWBA predicted angular distribution is able to reproduce the angular dependence of the data) is quantified by $`\chi ^2=\frac{1}{N_{\mathrm{exp}}}_i\left(\frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{exp}}(i)𝒮_{\mathrm{exp}}\sigma _{\mathrm{Theo}}(i)}{\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{\mathrm{exp}}(i)}\right)^2`$ with $`N_{\mathrm{exp}}`$ the number of experimental points. These optical potentials are presented in tables (VI-VI). To evaluate the effect of different choices of optical potentials on the calculated transfer differential cross section, we also show in these tables the corresponding $`\chi ^2`$ values for the transfer.

Since the aim of this method is to extract an overall normalisation of the transfer data, it is not only essential to have data with low statistical errors but, more importantly, low systematic errors. The uncertainty in the target thickness is a large contributor to the systematic error, except for the data in  where special attention was paid to this issue. For the (d,n) reactionm the neutron efficiency uncertainty is also quite significant. Other typical errors that may arise are due to beam collection or error in solid angle, but are much lower than those mentioned above. The systematic errors for the set of reactions are collected in table (VI), according to the information in the literature. It is evident from table (VI) that only the normalisation error of the data from  has the desired low value.

Another source of error could come from the angular range from which data is being considered. We must ensure that the peripheral character of the transfer reaction is satisfied. A large number of experimental points in the forward angle region (where the transfer is clearly peripheral) is desirable, but in most cases non-existent. For this reason, we have taken a forward angle subset of the data: the first 7 points. Even then some sets have angular ranges up to $`40^{}`$ (see table VI). In two cases a smaller set of data points had to be chosen. The worst example we have considered is for the (d,n) reactions.

Finally, there will be errors on the derived ANCs arising from uncertainties on the optical potentials since the elastic data does not totally probe the interaction. The ANC errors shown in table(VI) and quoted in the text are associated only with the optical potential uncertainties.

An overall panorama of the errors involved when using this method is given in fig.(8). It is clear from what has been presented in this section that our results should be interpreted as indicators until further measurements are available. They underline the need for further experimental work, before definite conclusions on the uniqueness property of the ANC method can be drawn.

$`{}_{}{}^{9}\mathrm{Be}(^{10}\mathrm{B},^9\mathrm{Be})^{10}\mathrm{B}`$

The reaction 9Be(10B,9Be)10B is particularly adequate for extracting the ANC since it has the same vertex for the incoming and outgoing channels. The experimental spectroscopic factor $`𝒮_{\mathrm{exp}}`$ should then be proportional to $`C_{19}^4`$. The elastic and transfer data at Elab=100 MeV was taken from . We take four sets of Wood-Saxon optical model potentials for the incoming elastic channel: the first two obtained by a fitting procedure to elastic data shown in fig.(2a) and the others taken from Mukhamedzhanov et al. . For this particular reaction, the starting parameter set used in fitting the elastic data was taken from Comer  at 40 MeV. The fits to the elastic scattering are shown in fig.(2a). The calculated DWBA transfer cross section renormalised by the spectroscopic factor, fig.(2b), reproduces quite well the transfer data at small angles.

We note that, the calculated ANC is not strongly dependent on the details of the optical potentials pinned by the elastic data. Even if unrealistically shallow potentials are used, the ANC hardly changes. Thus, in this case, the uncertainties associated with the choice of the optical potentials are very small.

The calculated reaction cross section as a function of the partial wave, fig.(9a), clearly shows that this reaction is peripheral. In fact, the cross section at Elab=100 MeV peaks around L=24 corresponding to an impact parameter of 7.29 fm which is significantly greater than the sum of the 9Be and 10B interaction radius . For that reason the reaction cross section only becomes significantly smaller for a cuttoff radius much bigger than the interaction radius. We obtained for the ANC, $`C_{19}^2`$= 4.9 $`\pm `$ 0.25 fm-1, where, as mentioned before, the error is associated with an optical potential uncertainty. This is in good agreement with the value obtained in .

$`{}_{}{}^{9}\mathrm{Be}(\mathrm{d},\mathrm{n})^{10}\mathrm{B}`$

The reaction 9Be(d,n)10B provides direct information on the $`C_{19}^2`$ as the vertex for the deuteron is well known. We performed calculations for 2 different deuteron laboratory energies: 7 and 15 MeV.

At 7 MeV we used transfer data from Park  and elastic data for 9Be(d,d) at 6.3 MeV from Djaloeis . For the incoming channel, optical model potential parameters were obtained from fitting the data shown in fig.(3 a). For the outgoing channel, the potential parameters were taken from Dave and Gould . As follows from the fig.(3 b), the calculated transfer differential cross section describes quite well the data. We extracted an ANC of $`C_{19}^2`$ = 4.8 $`\pm `$ 0.35 fm-1 which is in good agreement with our previous result obtained from the analysis of reaction $`𝒜`$.

At 15 MeV we also used transfer data from Park  and elastic 9Be(d,d) at 15 MeV from Armstrong  published by . Four entrance potential parameter sets were obtained fitting the data. The outgoing parameter set was taken from  at the appropriate energy. As can be seen from fig.(3 c), and fig.(3 d) the 4 parameter sets used describe quite well the elastic data, but none is able to reproduce satisfactory the transfer data in the low angle region ($`\theta 20^{}`$). As a result, the calculated ANCs depend crucially on both the input parameter set type, surface or volume (about 20 %), and on the low angle region chosen to minimise $`\chi ^2`$ in order to obtain $`𝒮_{\mathrm{exp}}`$ (vide table(VI)). The derived value for the ANC at this energy is $`C_{19}^2`$ = 6.09 $`\pm `$ 0.54 fm-1 which is higher than that found by . As can be concluded from fig.(11a) and fig.(11c), while the reaction is peripheral at 7 MeV, this is no longer the case for 15 MeV. Thus, this data is not useful for the purpose of this work.

$`{}_{}{}^{10}\mathrm{B}(\mathrm{d},^3\mathrm{He})^9\mathrm{Be}`$

The proton pickup reaction 10B(d,3He)9Be has two different vertices, 10B $`^9`$Be + p and 3He $``$ d + p, and therefore the experimental spectroscopic factor will be proportional to the ANCs product $`C_{19}^2C_{12}^2=𝒮_{\mathrm{exp}}b_{19}^2b_{12}^2`$.

The transfer and elastic data for this reaction at Elab=11.8 MeV was taken from . For the entrance channel, one parameter set was obtained fitting the elastic data shown in fig.(4a). For the exit channel, we used three parameter sets from literature: the first from , the second from  and the third from . The description of transfer data shown in fig.(4b) is very reasonable, specially for the low angle region. The analysis of the reaction cross section as a function of the partial wave number shows that this transfer reaction is peripheral fig.(9b). By renormalising the calculated DWBA differential cross section from the data we obtained $`C_{19}^2C_{12}^2=19.17\pm 1.82`$ fm-2. For the 3He $``$ d + p vertex, we used the value taken from  $`C_{12}^2`$ = 3.9 $`\pm `$ 0.06 fm-1. Consequently, we get $`C_{19}^2`$ = 4.92 $`\pm `$ 0.54 fm-1, in good agreement with the result of .

$`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}(^{10}\mathrm{B},^9\mathrm{Be})^{13}\mathrm{N}`$

We proceed in our systematics by looking at other proton stripping reactions involving 9Be. A candidate for which measured data was found is 12C(10B,9Be)13N at 100 MeV . The elastic scattering fig.(5a) was taken from . We also take the same data for the outgoing channel due to the absence of experimental measurements for this channel. When fitting the elastic data for the incoming channel, we obtain fouor parameter sets. The optical potential parameters for the outgoing elastic channel were taken to be the same but with an appropriate radius as discussed in the Appendix. The calculated DWBA cross section describes quite well the transfer data shown in fig.(5b) specially for sets 2, 3 and 4.

As this reaction has two different vertices for the two composite nuclei, $`{}_{}{}^{10}\mathrm{B}^9\mathrm{Be}+\mathrm{p}`$ and 13N $`^{12}`$C + p, the experimental spectroscopic factor $`𝒮_{\mathrm{exp}}`$ will be proportional to the ANCs product, $`C_{19}^2C_{112}^2=𝒮_{exp}b_{19}^2b_{112}^2`$. We obtained $`C_{19}^2C_{112}^2=7.4\pm 0.5\mathrm{fm}^2`$.

$`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}(\mathrm{d},\mathrm{n})^{13}\mathrm{N}`$

In order to extract $`C_{19}^2`$ from the results obtained with the last reaction, it is necessary to extract $`C_{112}^2`$ from another independent reaction. We chose the 12C(d,n)13N reaction at two different energies: 9 and 12.4 MeV.

At 9 MeV we used transfer data available from two different sources, Davis et al.  and Schelin et al. . We take 3 sets of potential parameters from fitting the entrance channel elastic data of  shown in fig.(6a), and one set for the exit channel data of  for 13C(n,n) at 10 MeV shown in fig.(6b). As shown in fig.(6c) the shape of the calculated DWBA differential cross section adjusts much better to Davis’s data than to Schelin’s in the low angle region, $`\theta 35^{}`$. Not surprisingly the derived spectroscopic factors from the two data sets differ by 30 $`\%`$. We found $`C_{112}^2=2.56\pm 0.37`$ for  and $`C_{112}^2=3.31\pm 0.45`$ for . Again, these errors are associated only with the optical potential uncertainty. Using the results for the ANC product from reaction 12C(10B,9Be)13N we obtain respectively $`C_{19}^2`$ = 2.98 $`\pm `$ 0.63 fm-1 and $`C_{19}^2`$ = 2.30 $`\pm `$ 0.47 fm-1.

An energy average differential cross section data, at 12.4 MeV, is given in Schelin’s work  (using 13.0 MeV data and 11.8 MeV data of Mutchler ). For the entrance channel we used the Matusevich  experimental points at 13.6 MeV fig.(7a). The exit channel data was taken from  for 13C(n,n) at 12 MeV fig.(7b). Three parameter set fits were obtained for the deuteron potential and one for the neutron potential.

As follows from fig.(7c), a good agreement in the low angle region ($`\theta 40^{}`$) is achieved between the data and the calculated cross section. The calculated spectroscopic factors lead us to $`C_{112}^2`$ = 1.65 $`\pm `$ 0.2 fm-1. Using the ANC product from the reaction for 12C(10B,9Be)13N, one obtains $`C_{19}^2`$ = 4.6 $`\pm `$ 0.9 fm-1.

We note from figures (11b) and (11d) that while the reaction $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}(\mathrm{d},\mathrm{n})^{13}\mathrm{N}`$ is peripheral at 9 MeV, the situation is rather unclear at 12.4 MeV. Although the impact parameter is greater than the 12C interaction radius , the reaction cross section drops significantly for a cutoff radius Rcut = 1 fm.

The experimental situation concerning this reaction is rather unsatisfactory due to different available data at 9 MeV. In the works of Davis  and Shelin , a contribution due to compound nucleus formation to the cross section is estimated using the Hauser-Feshbach statistical model. For the $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}(\mathrm{d},\mathrm{n})^{13}\mathrm{N}`$ reaction at 12.4 MeV, the calculated compound nucleus cross section lead to an overestimation of the cross section at large angles. The Hauser-Feshbach model is then clearly inadequate in this case. Arbitrary reduction factors can be found in  producing a large uncertainty on the derived spectroscopic factors and ANCs. In order to extract a meaningful ANC factor from a transfer reaction, the reaction mechanism should be properly understood.

Since no information on the uncertainty of the absolute cross section for reaction $`𝒟`$ is given  the C19 thus extracted should not be used to validate the ANC method. Agravating the situation are the differences between the 12C(d,n) data sets suggesting that the C$`_{112}`$ are not sufficiently reliable to be taken into account.

## IV Conclusions

We have determined the ANC for the 10B $`^9`$Be + p using a set of proton-transfer reactions at different energies. The calculated ANCs from the different reactions reproduced in fig.(8) clearly reveals the present experimental situation if one wants to check the validity of the ANC method. The sum of the contributions of the statistical, optical potential and systematic uncertainties is in most cases quite large. The graph evidently shows that, from a particular set of transfer reactions (those that are clearly peripheral and have quotable normalisation errors), the uniqueness property of the ANC is satisfied. However, with the present data, we cannot undoubtedly conclude if this property is fulfilled.

More data for both, the transfer and elastic channels, with good resolution and carefully normalised cross sections in the forward angular region, is crucial if we want to unambiguously check the uniqueness of the ANCs. The elastic data is essential to reduce the optical parameter uncertainties. In the measurements special attention should be paid to minimise the uncertainty on the target thickness. For (d,n) reaction it is important to reduce as much as possible the neutron efficiency error, given that this may be a large source of uncertainty.

Even though the DWBA method is widely used, care should be taken to fully understand the reaction mechanisms before extracting the ANCs. Early studies on the deuteron breakup effects on the differential cross section indicate  that DWBA analysis may not be a useful tool to study deuteron transfer reactions. However, even nowadays, these reactions are still used to extract ANCs . More data on deuteron transfer reactions is necessary in order to have a better understanding of the mechanisms and to check if they can be used to extract the ANCs. Generally, further tests on the ANC method, focusing on the reaction mechanism, should also be performed.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by Fundação de Ciência e Tecnologia (Portugal) through grant Praxis PCEX/C/FIS/4/96. We would like to thank L. Trache for providing us with the experimental results for the 9Be(10B, 9Be)10B reaction and elastic data.

## Appendix

We collect in tables (VI-VI) the optical potential parameters obtained by fitting the elastic channels. The potentials are calculated using the following expressions:

$`\mathrm{Real}\mathrm{central}:`$ $`U_R`$ $`=V{\displaystyle \frac{f(r)}{1+f(r)}},`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{Imaginary}\mathrm{central}\mathrm{volume}:`$ $`U_I`$ $`=W{\displaystyle \frac{f(r)}{1+f(r)}},`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{Imaginary}\mathrm{central}\mathrm{surface}:`$ $`U_W`$ $`=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}W_d{\displaystyle \frac{f(r)}{(1+f(r))^2}},`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{Spin}\mathrm{Orbit}:`$ $`U_{SO}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{4}{ra_{SO}}}V_{SO}{\displaystyle \frac{f(r)}{(1+f(r))^2}}\stackrel{}{l}.\stackrel{}{s},`$ (9)
with $`f(r)=e^{\frac{rR}{a_i}}`$ and $`R=r_iA_T^{1/3}`$ except the 12C(10B,9Be)13N case where $`R=r_i(A_P^{1/3}+A_T^{1/3})`$. For all set of optical potentials, we use $`r_i=r_0`$ for real central, etc.


format: text

text:
# Contents

## 1 Introduction and Summary

The world-volume theory on the D-brane of a bosonic string theory contains a tachyonic mode. It has been conjectured that the tachyon potential has a non-trivial extremum where the potential energy of the tachyon exactly cancels the tension of the D-brane, and that this configuration represents the closed string vacuum without any D-brane. It has been further conjectured that various tachyonic lump solutions on the D-brane world-volume represent D-branes of lower dimensions. These conjectures and their generalisations to superstring theories have been tested by various methods,. However, since the exact effective action for the tachyon field is not known, there is no direct proof of these conjectures.

In this paper we point out that in the $`p`$-adic string theory introduced in  (see  for a review) we can explicitly check these conjectures. It should be emphasised that although the $`p`$-adic ‘string’ is an exotic object, the spacetime it describes is the familiar one333A different type of $`p`$-adic string was considered in . . In the $`p`$-adic open string theory, which in modern language can be regarded as the world-volume theory of a space-filling D-brane, the exact classical action of the tachyon field and various solutions of the equations of motion are known. Among the known non-trivial solutions is a translationally invariant solution with the property that it is a local minimum of the potential, and that the propagator of the tachyon field describing fluctuations around this background has no physical pole. Thus this configuration has no physical open string excitations, and is naturally identified with the vacuum without a D-brane. The exact tachyon equation of motion of the $`p`$-adic string theory also has classical lump solutions for all codimension $`1`$, which approach the vacuum solution far away from the core of the soliton. If the original open string theory is formulated in $`(d1,1)`$ dimensional space-time444 There is as yet no compelling reason for a critical dimension in $`p`$-adic string theory, but the so called adelic formula relating the product of four tachyon amplitudes in $`p`$-adic strings for all primes $`p`$ to that in the bosonic string suggests that they all have the same critical dimension $`d=26`$., then such a lump solution of codimension $`(dq1)`$ describes a solitonic $`q`$-brane. We show that the world-volume theory on the solitonic $`q`$-brane agrees with the expected world-volume theory on a Dirichlet $`q`$-brane in the $`p`$-adic string theory, to the extent that we can compare them with the present knowledge. This provides strong evidence that these lump solutions can be identified as lower dimensional D-branes.

The paper is organised as follows. In section 2 we summarise the exact effective action of the tachyon in the $`p`$-adic string theory, the known solutions of the equation of motion derived from the action and their properties. In section 3 we analyse the world-volume theory of the solitonic $`q`$-brane, and in section 4 we compare this with the world-volume theory of a Dirichlet $`q`$-brane. Section 5 contains some comments on further extension of this work, and ends with speculation on its possible application to the study of tachyon condensation in ordinary bosonic string theory.

## 2 Solitonic $`q`$-branes of $`p`$-adic string theory

In ref. $`p`$-adic string theory was defined as follows. Consider the expressions for various amplitudes in ordinary bosonic open string theory, written as integrals over the boundary of the world-sheet which is the real line R. Now replace the integrals over R by integrals over the $`p`$-adic field $`𝐐_p`$ with appropriate measure, and the norms of the functions in the integrand by the $`p`$-adic norms. These rules were subsequently derived from a local action defined on the “world-sheet” of the $`p`$-adic string. Using $`p`$-adic analysis, it is possible to compute $`N`$ tachyon amplitudes at tree-level for all $`N3`$.

This leads to an exact action for the open string tachyon in $`d`$ dimensional $`p`$-adic string theory. This action is given in ref.

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^dx}`$ (2.1)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{p1}}{\displaystyle d^dx\left[\frac{1}{2}\varphi p^{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}}\varphi +\frac{1}{p+1}\varphi ^{p+1}\right]},`$
where $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes the $`d`$ dimensional Laplacian, $`\varphi `$ is the tachyon field (after a rescaling and a shift), $`g`$ is the open string coupling constant, and $`p`$ is an arbitrary prime number. We are using metric with signature $`(,+,+\mathrm{}+)`$. If we denote by $`(2\pi \alpha _p^{})^1`$ the ‘tension of the $`p`$-adic string’ as defined in ref., then our choice of units correspond to

$$\alpha _p^{}=\frac{\mathrm{ln}p}{2\pi }.$$
(2.2)
We have added a constant term to the Lagrangian density $``$ so that it vanishes at $`\varphi =0`$. Fig.1 shows the qualitative features of the tachyon potential for different values of $`p`$.

The equation of motion derived from this action is,

$$p^{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}}\varphi =\varphi ^p.$$
(2.3)
Different known solutions of this equation are as follows:

* The configuration $`\varphi =1`$ is the original vacuum around which we quantised the string555For $`p2`$, there is also an equivalent solution corresponding to $`\varphi =1`$. Since the action is symmetric under $`\varphi \varphi `$, we shall restrict our analysis to solutions with positive $`\varphi `$.. We shall call this the D-$`(d1)`$-brane solution. The energy density associated with this configuration, which can be identified as the tension $`T_{d1}`$ of the D-$`(d1)`$-brane configuration, is given by

$$T_{d1}=(\varphi =1)=\frac{1}{2g^2}\frac{p^2}{p+1}.$$
(2.4)
* The configuration $`\varphi =0`$ denotes a configuration around which there is no perturbative physical excitation. We shall identify this with the vacuum configuration. By definition we have taken the energy density of this vacuum to be zero.
* The configuration:

$$\varphi (x)=f(x^{q+1})f(x^{q+2})\mathrm{}f(x^{d1})F^{(dq1)}(x^{q+1},\mathrm{},x^{d1}),$$
(2.5)
with

$$f(\eta )p^{\frac{1}{2(p1)}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{p1}{p\mathrm{ln}p}\eta ^2\right),$$
(2.6)
describes a soliton solution with energy density localised around the hyperplane $`x^{q+1}=\mathrm{}=x^{d1}=0`$. This follows from the identity:

$$p^{\frac{1}{2}_\eta ^2}f(\eta )=\left(f(\eta )\right)^p.$$
(2.7)
We shall call (2.5), with $`f`$ as in (2.6), the solitonic $`q`$-brane solution. Let us denote by $`x_{}=(x^{q+1},\mathrm{},x^{d1})`$ the coordinates transverse to the brane and by $`x_{}=(x^0,\mathrm{},x^q)`$ those tangential to it. The energy density per unit $`q`$-volume of this brane, which can be identified as its tension $`T_q`$, is given by

$$T_q=d^{dq1}x_{}(\varphi =F^{(dq1)}(x_{}))=\frac{1}{2g_q^2}\frac{p^2}{p+1},$$
(2.8)
where,

$$g_q=g\left[\frac{p^21}{2\pi p^{2p/(2p1)}\mathrm{ln}p}\right]^{(dq1)/4}.$$
(2.9)

From eqs.(2.4),(2.8) and (2.9) we see that the ratio of the tension of a $`q`$-brane to a $`(q1)`$-brane is

$$\frac{T_q}{T_{q1}}=\left[\frac{2\pi p^{\frac{2p}{p1}}\mathrm{ln}p}{p^21}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}=\frac{\sqrt{p^21}}{p^{\frac{p}{p1}}}\frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{\alpha _p^{}}}.$$
(2.10)
In the above equation we have used dimensional analysis and (2.2) to restore factors of $`\alpha _p^{}`$. Note that the ratio (2.10) is independent of $`q`$. This is a feature of the D-branes in ordinary bosonic string theory, and suggests that the solitonic $`q`$-branes of $`p`$-adic string theory should have interpretation as D-branes. This also suggests that the self-dual radius $`R_{sd}`$ of the $`p`$-adic string theory, where the tension $`2\pi R_{sd}T_q`$ of a wrapped $`q`$-brane is equal to the tension $`T_{q1}`$ of a $`(q1)`$-brane, is given by

$$R_{sd}=\frac{p^{p/(p1)}}{\sqrt{p^21}}\sqrt{\alpha _p^{}}.$$
(2.11)
Note that as $`p\mathrm{}`$, this approaches the formula for the self-dual radius in ordinary bosonic string theory.

## 3 World-volume theory on the solitonic $`q`$-branes

Let us now consider a configuration of the type

$$\varphi (x)=F^{(dq1)}(x_{})\psi (x_{}),$$
(3.1)
with $`F^{(dq1)}(x_{})`$ as defined in (2.5),(2.6). For $`\psi =1`$ this describes the solitonic $`q`$-brane. Fluctuations of $`\psi `$ around 1 denote fluctuations of $`\varphi `$ localised on the soliton; thus $`\psi (x_{})`$ can be regarded as one of the fields on its world-volume. We shall call this the tachyon field on the solitonic $`q`$-brane world-volume666In the linearised approximation this tachyonic mode was discussed in ref... Substituting (3.1) into (2.3) and using (2.7) we get

$$p^{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}_{}}\psi =\psi ^p,$$
(3.2)
where $`\mathrm{}_{}`$ denotes the $`(q+1)`$ dimensional Laplacian involving the world-volume coordinates $`x_{}`$ of the $`q`$-brane. The action involving $`\psi `$ can be obtained by substituting (3.1) into (2.1):

$`S_q(\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`S\left(\varphi =F^{(dq1)}(x_{})\psi (x_{})\right)`$ (3.3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{p1}}{\displaystyle d^{q+1}x_{}\left[\frac{1}{2}\psi p^{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}_{}}\psi +\frac{1}{p+1}\psi ^{p+1}\right]},`$
where $`g_q`$ has been defined in eqn.(2.9).

Note that a solution of (3.2) gives an exact solution of the full equation of motion (2.3). Thus eq.(3.2) describes the dynamics of the mode $`\psi `$ on the $`q`$-brane world-volume exactly. This does not mean that there are no other modes on the $`q`$-brane world-volume; rather what this implies is that it is possible to obtain a consistent truncation of the world-volume theory of the $`q`$-brane by setting all the modes except $`\psi `$ to zero. In terms of scattering amplitudes this means that the tree level S-matrix on the $`q`$-brane world-volume, involving only external tachyon states, can be calculated exactly from the action (3.3).

Of the various other (infinite number of) modes living on the $`q`$-brane world-volume are the $`(dq1)`$ massless modes $`\xi ^i`$ associated with translations of the brane in the $`(dq1)`$ directions $`x_{}`$ transverse to the brane. Inclusion of these modes correspond to deformation of $`\varphi `$ of the form

$$\varphi (x)=F^{(dq1)}(x_{})\psi (x_{})+_{x_{}^i}F^{(dq1)}(x_{})\xi ^i(x_{})+\mathrm{}.$$
(3.4)
Substituting this in eq.(2.3), and comparing the coefficients of the independent functions $`\left(F(x_{})\right)^p`$ and $`\left(F(x_{})\right)^{p1}_{x_{}^i}F(x_{})`$ on both sides, we get the following equations of motion:

$`p^{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}_{}}\psi `$ $`=`$ $`\psi ^p+𝒪(\xi ^2)`$
$`p^{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}_{}}\xi ^i`$ $`=`$ $`\psi ^{p1}\xi ^i+𝒪(\xi ^2).`$ (3.5)
The above equations can be derived from the effective action:

$`S_q(\psi ,\xi ^i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{p1}}{\displaystyle }d^{q+1}x_{}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi p^{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}_{}}\psi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p+1}}\psi ^{p+1}`$ (3.6)
$`C\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\xi ^ip^{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}_{}}\xi ^i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi ^{p1}\xi ^i\xi ^i\}+𝒪(\xi ^3)].`$
$`C`$ is a normalisation constant whose value is not important to this order, as it can be changed by rescaling $`\xi ^i`$.

$`\psi =1`$ corresponds to the solitonic $`q`$-brane solution. For computing amplitudes involving the world-volume fields on the $`q`$-brane, we define the shifted field $`\sigma `$ and rescaled fields $`\chi ^i`$ through the relation

$$\psi =1+\frac{g_q\sigma }{p},\xi ^i=\frac{g_q}{\sqrt{pC}}\chi ^i,$$
(3.7)
and expand the action (3.6) in powers of $`\sigma `$ and $`\chi ^i`$. This gives

$`S_q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p}{p1}}{\displaystyle }d^{q+1}x_{}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma p^{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}_{}1}\sigma +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{p}{p+1}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{g_q\sigma }{p}})^{p+1}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{g_q}}{\displaystyle \frac{p}{2g_q^2}}`$ (3.8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\chi ^ip^{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}_{}}\chi ^i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{g_q\sigma }{p}})^{p1}\chi ^i\chi ^i+𝒪(\chi ^3)].`$
There is no linear term in $`\sigma `$ in action (3.8) reflecting the fact that $`\sigma =0`$ is a solution of the equation of motion. The momentum space $`\sigma `$ and the $`\chi ^i`$ propagators computed from this action are given by:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\sigma \sigma }(k)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^{\frac{1}{2}k^21}1}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\chi ^i\chi ^j}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^{\frac{1}{2}k^2}1}}\delta _{ij}.`$ (3.9)
The residues at the poles in the $`\sigma `$ and the $`\chi ^i`$ propagators (at $`k^2=2`$ and $`k^2=0`$ respectively) have the same values. This will help us compare the amplitudes involving $`\sigma `$’s and $`\chi ^i`$’s in the external legs.

## 4 Comparison with the world-volume theory on a Dirichlet $`q`$-brane

We shall now compare the world-volume action on the solitonic $`q`$-brane with that on the D-$`q`$-brane. We are immediately faced with the question whether it is possible to have Dirichlet branes in $`p`$-adic string theory. Fortunately, a ‘world-sheet’ approach to $`p`$-adic string has been developed in ref.. According to these authors, this ‘world-sheet’ is a so called Bruhat-Tits tree — a Bethe lattice with $`p+1`$ nearest neighbours — the ‘boundary’ of which is the field of $`p`$-adic numbers $`𝐐_p`$. The generalisation of the Polyakov action is the lattice discretisation of the action for free scalar fields corresponding to the target space coordinates. Now one can either choose Neumann or Dirichlet boundary conditions as in the case of ordinary strings. It was shown in  that Neumann boundary conditions leads to the tachyon amplitudes postulated in .

While this may be the proper way to define D-branes in $`p`$-adic string theory, we shall content ourselves with the continuation of the relevant formulæ from ordinary bosonic string theory. Thus, for our purposes the world-volume theory of a $`p`$-adic D-$`q`$-brane is defined by taking the expressions for various amplitudes for an ordinary D-$`q`$-brane, written as integrals over world-sheet coordinates of the appropriate vertex operators, and then replacing the integrals over real line by integrals over the $`p`$-adic field, with all the norms appearing in the integrand replaced by $`p`$-adic norms as in ref.. In principle one should be able to derive these rules from the world-sheet description in ref..

For amplitudes involving the external tachyons, described by the vertex operators of the type $`e^{ikX_{}}`$ with momentum $`k`$ restricted to lie along the world-volume of the D-$`q`$-brane, the computation of the amplitude is identical to the one described in ref.. Thus, following the analysis there, these S-matrix elements can be obtained from an effective action of the form:

$$\widehat{S}_q(\psi )=\frac{1}{\widehat{g}_q^2}\frac{p^2}{p1}d^{q+1}x_{}\left[\frac{1}{2}\psi p^{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}_{}}\psi +\frac{1}{p+1}\psi ^{p+1}\right],$$
(4.1)
where the tachyon field $`\psi `$ is shifted so that $`\psi =1`$ describes the D-$`q`$-brane, and $`\widehat{g}_q`$ denotes the coupling constant which characterises the strength of the interaction in the world-volume theory of the D-$`q`$-brane. Comparing this with (3.3) we see that the world-volume actions for the tachyon fields on the solitonic $`q`$-brane and the Dirichlet $`q`$-brane agree exactly if we choose:

$$\widehat{g}_q=g_q.$$
(4.2)
At present there is no independent derivation of $`\widehat{g}_q`$ in terms of $`g`$, and hence we cannot verify eqn.(4.2) independently777This is related to the problem of computing the tension of the D-$`q`$-brane independently.. But assuming (4.2) to be true, we have a complete agreement between the world-volume theories involving the tachyon fields on the D-$`q`$-brane and the solitonic $`q`$-brane.

Next we shall compare the amplitude $`\sigma \sigma \chi ^i\chi ^j`$ on the solitonic $`q`$-brane and the D-$`q`$-brane. First let us compute this on the solitonic $`q`$-brane using the action (3.8). The four Feynmann diagrams contributing to it have been shown in Fig.2. These can be easily evaluated, and the answer is:

$$A_{ij}(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4)=\delta _{ij}g_q^2\left[\frac{p2}{p}+\frac{p1}{p}\left\{\frac{1}{p^{k_1k_2+1}1}+\frac{1}{p^{k_1k_3+1}1}+\frac{1}{p^{k_1k_4+1}1}\right\}\right],$$
(4.3)
with the contribution to the four terms in the right hand side of (4.3) coming from the Feynman digrams (a), (b), (c) and (d) respectively in Fig.2. In deriving (4.3) we have used the mass-shell conditions

$$k_1^2=k_4^2=2,k_2^2=k_3^2=0.$$
(4.4)
Let us now evaluate the same amplitude on the D-$`q`$-brane. The vertex operator associated with the mode $`\chi ^i`$ on the D-$`q`$-brane is given by888The notation $`X`$ is schematic, as care is needed to define the correct vertex operator that corresponds to the analogous one for ordinary string. $`X_{}^ie^{ikX_{}}`$. Inserting the $`\chi ^i`$ and $`\chi ^j`$ vertex operators carrying momenta $`k_2`$ and $`k_3`$ at 0 and 1 respectively, and the two $`\sigma `$ vertex operators carrying momenta $`k_1`$ and $`k_4`$ at $`x`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ respectively, we can express the amplitude as:

$$\widehat{A}_{ij}(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4)=\delta _{ij}\widehat{g}_q^2_{𝐐_p}𝑑x|x|^{k_1k_2}|1x|^{k_1k_3}.$$
(4.5)
Here $`||`$ denotes the $`p`$-adic norm and integral over $`x`$ is over the $`p`$-adic field. This is precisely the integral evaluated in . Using the identity

$$k_1k_2+k_1k_3+2=k_1k_4,$$
(4.6)
we can express this amplitude as

$$\widehat{A}_{ij}(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4)=\delta _{ij}(\widehat{g}_q)^2\left[\frac{p2}{p}+\frac{p1}{p}\left\{\frac{1}{p^{k_1k_2+1}1}+\frac{1}{p^{k_1k_3+1}1}+\frac{1}{p^{k_1k_4+1}1}\right\}\right].$$
(4.7)
This agrees precisely with eq.(4.3) for $`\widehat{g}_q=g_q`$.

In fact, it is possible to give a general argument showing that an amplitude with two external $`\chi `$ fields and $`N`$ external $`\sigma `$ fields for arbitrary $`N`$, computed from the action (3.8), agrees with the corresponding amplitude on a Dirichlet $`q`$-brane. To see this, let us consider the situation where we start with the action (2.1) with $`g`$ replaced by another coupling constant $`\overline{g}`$, and compactify999Alternatively, we can work with the uncompactified theory, but just examine those modes of $`\varphi `$ which carry either 0 or $`\pm \sqrt{2}`$ units of momentum in $`(dq1)`$ of the directions. $`(dq1)`$ directions on circles of radii $`1/\sqrt{2}`$. Let $`u^i`$ denote the compact coordinates and $`z^\mu `$ the non-compact ones, and consider an expansion of the field $`\varphi `$ of the form:

$$\varphi (x)=\stackrel{~}{\psi }(z)+\sqrt{\frac{C}{p}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{dq1}{}}\stackrel{~}{\xi }^i(z)\left(\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}u^i)\right)+\mathrm{}.$$
(4.8)
We have restricted $`\varphi `$ to be even under $`u^iu^i`$ for each $`i`$; this gives a consistent truncation of the theory at the tree level. The dots stand for higher momentum modes which will not be required for our analysis. Substituting this into (2.1) (with $`g`$ replaced by $`\overline{g}`$) we get the action:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{g}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{p1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{2}}}\right)^{dq1}{\displaystyle }d^{q+1}z[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\psi }p^{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}_z}\stackrel{~}{\psi }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p+1}}\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{p+1}`$
$`C\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\xi }^ip^{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}_z}\stackrel{~}{\xi }^i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{p1}\stackrel{~}{\xi }^i\stackrel{~}{\xi }^i\}+𝒪(\stackrel{~}{\xi }^3)+\mathrm{}],`$ (4.9)
If we identify

$$g_q^2=\overline{g}^2\left(\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2\pi }\right)^{dq1},$$
(4.10)
this action looks identical to the one in (3.6) with the fields $`\psi `$, $`\xi ^i`$ replaced by $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }^i`$ and the identification $`x_{}z`$. In particular we can define the analogues of eqs.(3.7)

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }=1+\frac{g_q\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}{p},\stackrel{~}{\xi }^i=\frac{g_q}{\sqrt{pC}}\stackrel{~}{\chi }^i,$$
(4.11)
and compute the S-matrix elements around the vacuum $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }=1`$ by expanding (4) in a power series in $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^i`$. Similarity of (4) and (3.6) (and hence (3.8)) shows that the S-matrix elements computed from the action (4) around the $`\psi =1`$ background are identical to those computed from (3.8) around the $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }=1`$ background. In particular the S-matrix element involving a $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^i`$, a $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^j`$, and an arbitrary number of $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ quanta for (4) is identical to the S-matrix element involving $`\chi ^i`$, $`\chi ^j`$ and an arbitrary number of $`\sigma `$ quanta in (3.8)101010Since the similarity of (3.6) and (4) holds only to quadratic order in $`\chi `$ ($`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$), we can only make this claim for two or less external $`\chi `$ ($`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$) particles..

On the other hand, the S-matrix elements computed from (4) have direct string theory interpretation, as the action is obtained by compactifying a $`p`$-adic string theory. In particular the amplitude $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^i\stackrel{~}{\chi }^j\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^N`$ is given in terms of correlation functions of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^j`$ and $`N`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ vertex operators on the upper half plane. The vertex operator for $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ is proportional to $`e^{ik.Z}`$, whereas that for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^i`$ is given by $`\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}U^i)e^{ik.Z}`$. Comparing this with the corresponding computation for the D-$`q`$-brane we see that the $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ vertex operator is identical to the $`\sigma `$ vertex operator with $`X_{}`$ replaced by $`Z`$. The $`\chi ^i`$ vertex operator on the D-$`q`$-brane, given by $`X_{}^ie^{ik.X_{}}`$, looks different from the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^i`$ vertex operator even after we identify $`X_{}`$ with $`Z`$. However if we note that on the boundary of the upper half plane the two point functions $`\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}U^i(x_1))\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}U^j(x_2))`$ and $`X_{}^i(x_1)X_{}^j(x_2)`$ are identical, both being equal to $`\delta _{ij}|x_1x_2|^2`$, we can conclude that these particular amplitudes in the compactified string theory are indeed identical to those on the D-$`q`$-brane.

To summarise, we have shown that the amplitudes $`\chi ^i\chi ^j\sigma ^N`$ computed from (3.8) are identical to the corresponding amplitudes in the compactified string theory, which in turn are identical to the corresponding ones on the D-$`q`$-brane. This establishes the desired result. In presenting this argument we have not been careful about the overall normalisation factors, but the equality already established for the amplitudes $`\sigma ^N`$ and $`\chi ^i\chi ^j\sigma \sigma `$ in the two theories guarantees that the overall normalisation factors also agree in the two theories.

This provides strong evidence that the solitonic $`q`$-branes of the $`p`$-adic string theory should be identified with Dirichlet $`q`$-branes.

It will be interesting to systematically extend this comparison to S-matrix elements involving more than two external $`\chi ^i`$ states, and also to S-matrix elements involving higher level states. It is not easy to establish this in all generality, however we can consider a subset of the massive modes on the $`q`$-brane and show the agreement between the S-matrix elements on the solitonic $`q`$-brane and D-$`q`$-brane with at most two of these states on the external leg.

We start with the solitonic $`q`$-brane, and consider a generalisation of the expansion (3.4):

$$\varphi (x)=F^{(dq1)}(x_{})\psi (x_{})+\underset{r=1}{\overset{dq1}{}}\underset{\{i_1,\mathrm{}i_r\}}{}^{}_{x_{}^{i_1}}\mathrm{}_{x_{}^{i_r}}F^{(dq1)}(x_{})\xi ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_r}(x_{})+\mathrm{},$$
(4.12)
where $`^{}`$ above denotes sum over those indices $`\{i_1,\mathrm{}i_r\}`$ for which no two in the set are equal. In this case

$$_{x_{}^{i_1}}\mathrm{}_{x_{}^{i_r}}\left(F^{(dq1)}(x_{})\right)^p=p^r\left(F^{(dq1)}(x_{})\right)^{p1}_{x_{}^{i_1}}\mathrm{}_{x_{}^{i_r}}F^{(dq1)}(x_{}).$$
(4.13)
Substituting (4.12) into the equation of motion (2.3), and using eq.(4.13) we get

$`p^{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}_{}}\psi `$ $`=`$ $`\psi ^p+𝒪(\xi ^2)`$
$`p^{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}_{}}\xi ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_r}`$ $`=`$ $`p^{1r}\psi ^{p1}\xi ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_r}+𝒪(\xi ^2).`$ (4.14)
The action involving these fields is given by

$`S_q(\psi ,\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{p1}}{\displaystyle }d^{q+1}x_{}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi p^{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}_{}}\psi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p+1}}\psi ^{p+1}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{dq1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{i_1,\mathrm{}i_r\}}{}^{}}C_r\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\xi ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_r}p^{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}_{}+r1}\xi ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_r}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi ^{p1}\xi ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_r}\xi ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_r}\}+𝒪(\xi ^3)].`$
$`C_r`$ is a normalisation constant which can be absorbed into the definition of $`\xi ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_r}`$. From this we see that the mass-shell constraint for $`\xi ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_r}`$, in the $`\psi =1`$ background, is

$$k^2=2(1r).$$
(4.16)
In order to compare this with the world-volume theory on the D-$`q`$-brane, we need to first identify the vertex operator corresponding to the mode $`\xi ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_r}`$. We take this to be

$$V_{i_1\mathrm{}i_r}=X_{}^{i_1}\mathrm{}X_{}^{i_r}e^{ik.X_{}}.$$
(4.17)
This describes a physical state satisfying the same mass shell constraint as eq.(4.16) as long as the indices in the set $`\{i_1,\mathrm{}i_r\}`$ are all different.

We shall now compare the S-matrix elements computed from the action (4) with two or less external $`\xi `$-legs to that computed directly in the D-$`q`$-brane. For two external tachyons and two external $`\xi `$ we can do this explicitly and verify that it agrees with the corresponding computation on the D-$`q`$-brane. The computation is identical to the one discussed earlier. For arbitrary number of external tachyon legs, one can generalise the argument given for external $`\chi ^i`$-legs. The key ingredient of this argument is that the two point function of $`X_{}^{i_1}\mathrm{}X_{}^{i_r}e^{ik.X_{}}`$ and $`X_{}^{i_1^{}}\mathrm{}X_{}^{i_r^{}}e^{ik^{}.X_{}}`$ for the D-$`q`$-brane is identical to that between the vertex operators $`(\sqrt{2})^r\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}U^{i_1})\mathrm{}\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}U^{i_r})e^{ik.Z}`$ and $`(\sqrt{2})^r\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}U^{i_1^{}})\mathrm{}\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}U^{i_r^{}})e^{ik^{}.Z}`$ of the compactified string theory.

## 5 Comments

* We have shown that one can get a consistent truncation of the world-volume theory on a D-$`q`$-brane in $`p`$-adic string theory by keeping only the tachyonic mode. Thus by examining the tree level tachyon amplitudes in the world-volume theory we shall not discover the existence of the other modes. This suggests that there may be other (massless and massive) modes living on the world-volume of the space-filling D-$`(d1)`$-brane as well, inspite of the fact that there are no poles in the tachyon S-matrix elements corresponding to these states. Indeed, ref. attempted to generalise the $`p`$-adic string amplitudes to external vector states. If these modes are present they will give rise to new degrees of freedom on the solitonic $`q`$-brane, and will have to be taken into account in comparing the world-volume theory on the D-$`q`$-brane with that on the solitonic $`q`$-brane.
* It will also be of interest to compute the tension of a Dirichlet $`q`$-brane in the $`p`$-adic string theory independently, and compare with eq.(2.8) describing the tension of a solitonic $`q`$-brane. This will require careful analysis of the cylinder amplitude, and a proper understanding of the closed string sector of the theory.
* It has been shown in ref. that it is possible to assign Chan-Paton factors to the open string states of a $`p`$-padic string theory. This shows the existence of multiple D-$`(d1)`$-branes. Furthermore if there are massless gauge fields in the spectrum of open strings in the $`p`$-adic string theory, and if there is a T-duality transformation relating the D-$`(d1)`$-brane to D-$`q`$-brane, then by switching on Wilson lines corresponding to the gauge fields followed by a T-duality transformation, we can produce static configuration of D-$`q`$-branes separated in space. It will be interesting to examine if the equation of motion (2.3) admit such solutions. Ideas developed in ref. may be useful in this context.
* It is natural to ask if this analysis has any relevance to the ordinary bosonic string theory. Firstly, we would like to point out that even if the tachyon potential in the $`p`$-adic string theory is totally unrelated to that in the ordinary bosonic string theory, it can be regarded as a toy model which nicely illustrates the features expected of the full bosonic string field theory action. Besides, there is evidence of close relationship between tachyon amplitudes in the $`p`$-adic and ordinary bosonic string theory. Thus one might hope that the full tachyon effective action in bosonic string field theory is related in some way to the tachyon effective action in $`p`$-adic string theory.

In this direction, we cannot resist the temptation to point out some apparent similarities between the equation of motion (2.3) and that in the open bosonic string field theory. To lowest order in the level truncation scheme, the tachyon equation of motion in open bosonic string field theory may be written as

$$\left[\left(\alpha ^{}\mathrm{}+1\right)e^{c\alpha ^{}\mathrm{}}2\right]\varphi =\overline{g}\varphi ^2,$$
(5.1)
where $`c=\mathrm{ln}(3^3/4^2)`$, $`\overline{g}`$ is open string coupling constant after suitable normalisation, and $`\varphi `$ is related to the original tachyon field $`T`$ by a field redefinition $`T=e^{c\alpha ^{}\mathrm{}/2}\varphi +\overline{g}^1`$, so that $`\varphi =0`$ is the vacuum without any D-brane, and $`\varphi =1/\overline{g}`$ denotes the D-brane. If we drop the first and the third terms on the left hand side of eq.(5.1) by hand, then this equation, after suitable rescaling of $`x`$ and $`\varphi `$, reduces to eq.(2.3) for $`p=2`$. Of course there is no justification for dropping these terms, so we shall not pursue this matter any further; but it is not inconceivable that some exact relation between bosonic string field theory and $`p`$-adic string theory will be discovered in the future.

Acknowledgement: We wish to thank S. Mukhi for useful discussions.