text:
# Dynamics of Nonlocality for A Two-Mode Squeezed State in Thermal Environment

## I INTRODUCTION

Quantum nonlocality is one of the most profound features of quantum mechanics. It enables current developments of quantum information theory encompassing quantum teleportation, quantum computation, and quantum cryptography . There have been studies on tests of quantum nonlocality versus local realism. Bell suggested an inequality which any local hidden variable theory must obey . Several types of Bell’s inequalities were derived in terms of two-body correlation functions of two measurement variables at distant places  for the test of quantum nonlocality of a spin-1/2 or SU(2) system.

A spin-1/2 system can be utilized as a qubit for quantum computation. Quantum nonlocality of the spin-1/2 system is required as a quantum channel to teleport an unknown qubit state . In fact, it is possible to teleport not only a two-dimensional spin-1/2 quantum state but also a $`N`$-dimensional state  and a continuous-variable state . The type of the quantum channel depends on the dimension of Hilbert space of an unknown quantum state. For the teleportation of a continuous-variable state, the quantum channel should be in an entangled continuous-variable state such as the two-mode squeezed state . Recently, practical implementation of the quantum teleportation for the continuous-variable state has been realized experimentally using the two-mode squeezed field . In the quantum teleportation, the most important ingredient is the quantum nonlocality of the channel which can be easily destroyed in the nature. In this paper we are interested in how the thermal environment affects the quantum nonlocality of the two-mode squeezed field.

Quantum nonlocality of an entangled continuous-variable state has been discussed using the Schmidt form for entangled nonorthogonal states  and the quadrature-phase homodyne measurement . A given state is nonlocal when it violates any Bell’s inequality. In fact, a state does not have to violate all the possible Bell’s inequalities to be considered quantum nonlocal. A state is quantum nonlocal for the given Bell’s inequality which is violated by the measurement of the state. Banaszek and Wódkiewicz defined Bell’s inequality based on the parity measurement and they found that the two-mode squeezed state violates the Bell’s inequality, showing quantum nonlocality .

In this paper we study the dynamic behavior of the quantum nonlocality based on the parity measurement for the two-mode squeezed state in the thermal environment. A measurement of the degree of quantum nonlocality is defined here by the maximal violation of Bell’s inequality. The nonlocality is stronger for the squeezed state with a larger degree of squeezing. It is found that the nonlocality disappears more rapidly in the thermal environment as the initial state is squeezed more.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, Bell’s inequality based on the parity measurement is discussed. The parity measurement is directly related to the Wigner function. In Sec. III, the two-mode master equation is solved for the dynamics of the Wigner function of the initial two-mode squeezed state. The convolution theory is utilized in the solution . We investigate the dynamic behavior of the quantum nonlocality measured by the maximum violation of Bell’s inequality for the two-mode squeezed state in the thermal environment in Sec. IV.

## II Bell’s inequality by parity measurement

It is important to choose the type of measurement variables when testing nonlocality for a given state. In the original EPR gedanken experiment , Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen considered the positions (or the momenta) of two particles as the measurement variables to discuss the two-body correlation. Bell  argued that the EPR wave function does not exhibit nonlocality because its Wigner function $`W(x_1,p_1;x_2,p_2)`$ is positive everywhere, allowing the description by a local hidden variable theory. Munro showed that various types of Bell’s inequalities are not violated in terms of the homodyne measurements of two particles . To the contrary, Banaszek and Wódkiewicz  examined even and odd parities as the measurement variables and showed that the EPR state and the two-mode squeezed state are nonlocal in the sense that they violate Bell’s inequalities such as Clauser and Horne inequality and Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt inequality.

The even and odd parity operators, $`\widehat{O}_e`$ and $`\widehat{O}_o`$, are the projection operators to measure the probabilities of the field having even and odd numbers of photons, respectively:

$$\widehat{O}_e=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|2n2n|;\widehat{O}_o=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|2n+12n+1|.$$
(1)
The Wigner function at the origin of phase space for a state of the density operator $`\widehat{\rho }`$ is proportional to the mean parity :

$$W(0)=(2/\pi )\text{Tr}\left[(\widehat{O}_e\widehat{O}_o)\widehat{\rho }\right].$$
(2)
Further, the Wigner function $`W(\alpha )`$ at the phase point $`\alpha `$ is the mean parity for the displaced original state

$$W(\alpha )=(2/\pi )\text{Tr}[(\widehat{O}_e\widehat{O}_o)\widehat{D}(\alpha )\widehat{\rho }\widehat{D}^{}(\alpha )]$$
(3)
where $`\widehat{D}(\alpha )`$ is the displacement operator .

So far the argument has been confined to the parity measurement of a single-mode field. As the quantum nonlocality can be discussed for two-mode fields, we thus define the quantum correlation operator based on the joint parity measurements:

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{ab}(\alpha ,\beta )=\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_e^a(\alpha )\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_e^b(\beta )\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_e^a(\alpha )\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_o^b(\beta )`$ (4)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_o^a(\alpha )\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_e^b(\beta )+\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_o^a(\alpha )\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_o^b(\beta )`$ (5)
where the superscripts $`a`$ and $`b`$ denote the modes and the displaced parity operator, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{e,o}(\alpha )`$, is defined as

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{e,o}(\alpha )=\widehat{D}(\alpha )\widehat{O}_{e,o}\widehat{D}^{}(\alpha ).$$
(6)
The displaced parity operator acts like a rotated spin projection operator in the spin measurement. We can easily derive that the local hidden variable theory imposes the following Bell’s inequality

$`|B(\alpha ,\beta )||\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{ab}(\alpha ,\beta )+\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{ab}(\alpha ,\beta ^{})`$ (7)
$`+\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{ab}(\alpha ^{},\beta )\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{ab}(\alpha ^{},\beta ^{})|2`$ (8)
where we call $`B(\alpha ,\beta )`$ as the Bell function.

By a simple extension of the relation (3), the two-mode Wigner function is found to be proportional to the mean of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{ab}`$ such that $`W(\alpha ,\beta )=(4/\pi ^2)`$ Tr$`[\widehat{\rho }_{ab}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{ab}(\alpha ,\beta )]`$ for the two-mode state of the density operator $`\widehat{\rho }_{ab}`$. The Bell function (7) can then be written in terms of the Wigner functions at different phase-space points,

$$B(\alpha ,\beta )=\frac{\pi ^2}{4}\left[W(0,0)+W(\alpha ,0)+W(0,\beta )W(\alpha ,\beta )\right].$$
(9)
The type of Bell’s inequality in Eq. (7) was first discussed by Clauser, Horne, Shimony, and Holt . Clauser and Horne later found another type of inequality which can be also expressed in phase space using the quasiprobability $`Q`$ function . The $`Q`$ function is related to the probability of the state having no photons. The lower and upper critical values of the Clauser-Horne Bell’s inequality is -1 and 0.

We have seen that the two-mode Wigner function is useful to test quantum nonlocality of the given field so that, in the next section, we find the evolution of the Wigner function for the initial two-mode squeezed state coupled with the thermal environment.

## III Time evolution of two-mode squeezed states in thermal environment

The two-mode squeezed state is the correlated state of two field modes $`a`$ and $`b`$ that can be generated by a nonlinear $`\chi ^{(2)}`$ medium . The two-mode pure squeezed state is obtained by applying the unitary operator on the two-mode vacuum

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{ab}(\sigma )=\mathrm{exp}\left(\sigma \widehat{a}\widehat{b}+\sigma ^{}\widehat{b}^{}\widehat{a}^{}\right)|0_a,0_b$$
(10)
where $`\sigma =s\mathrm{exp}(i\phi )`$ and $`\widehat{a}`$ ($`\widehat{b}`$) is an annihilation operator for the mode $`a`$ ($`b`$). The value of $`s`$ determines the degree of squeezing. The larger $`s`$ is, the more the state is squeezed.

The Wigner function corresponding to the squeezed state is the Fourier transform of its characteristic function $`C_W(\zeta ,\eta )`$ ,

$$C_W(\zeta ,\eta )=\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\widehat{\rho }\mathrm{exp}(\zeta \widehat{a}^{}\zeta ^{}\widehat{a})\mathrm{exp}(\eta \widehat{b}^{}\eta ^{}\widehat{b})\right\}.$$
(11)
For the two-mode squeezed state of the density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }=|\mathrm{\Psi }_{ab}(\sigma )\mathrm{\Psi }_{ab}(\sigma )|`$, the Wigner function is written as

$`W_{ab}(\alpha ,\beta )={\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi ^2}}\mathrm{exp}[2\mathrm{cosh}(2s)(|\alpha |^2+|\beta |^2)`$ (12)
$`+2\mathrm{sinh}(2s)(\alpha \beta +\alpha ^{}\beta ^{})].`$ (13)
The correlated nature of the two-mode squeezed state is exhibited by the $`\alpha \beta `$ cross-term which vanishes when $`s=0`$.

The Fokker-Planck equation (in Born-Markov approximation) describing the time evolution of the Wigner function in the interaction picture can be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{W_{ab}(\alpha ,\beta ,\tau )}{\tau }}={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha _i=\alpha ,\beta }{}}[{\displaystyle \frac{}{\alpha _i}}\alpha _i+{\displaystyle \frac{}{\alpha _i^{}}}\alpha _i^{}`$ (14)
$`+2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+\overline{n}){\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\alpha _i\alpha _i^{}}}]W_{ab}(\alpha ,\beta ,\tau ),`$ (15)
where we have assumed that the two modes of the environment are independent each other and the energy decay rates of the two modes are same and denoted by $`\gamma `$. The two modes have the same average thermal photon number $`\overline{n}`$. By solving the Fokker-Planck equation (14), we get the time evolution of the Wigner function at time $`\tau `$ to be given by the convolution of the original function and the thermal environment ,

$`W_{ab}(\alpha ,\beta ,\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{t(\tau )^4}}{\displaystyle d^2\zeta d^2\eta W_a^{th}(\zeta )W_b^{th}(\eta )}`$ (16)
$`\times W_{ab}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha r(\tau )\zeta }{t(\tau )}},{\displaystyle \frac{\beta r(\tau )\eta }{t(\tau )}},\tau =0\right),`$ (17)
where the parameters $`r(\tau )=\sqrt{1e^{\gamma \tau }}`$ and $`t(\tau )=\sqrt{e^{\gamma \tau }}`$. $`W^{th}(\zeta )`$ is the Wigner function for the thermal state of the average thermal photon number $`\overline{n}`$:

$$W^{th}(\zeta )=\frac{2}{\pi (1+2\overline{n})}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2|\zeta |^2}{1+2\overline{n}}\right).$$
(18)
Performing the integration in Eq. (16), the Wigner function for the initial two-mode squeezed state evolving in the thermal environment is obtained as

$`W_{ab}(\alpha ,\beta ,\tau )=𝒩\mathrm{exp}[E(\tau )(|\alpha |^2+|\beta |^2)`$ (19)
$`+F(\tau )(\alpha \beta +\alpha ^{}\beta ^{})]`$ (20)
where

$`E(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2r(\tau )^2(1+2\overline{n})+2t(\tau )^2\mathrm{cosh}2s}{D(\tau )}}`$ (21)
$`F(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2t(\tau )^2\mathrm{sinh}2s}{D(\tau )}}`$ (22)
$`D(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`t(\tau )^4+2r(\tau )^2t(\tau )^2(1+2\overline{n})\mathrm{cosh}2s`$ (24)
$`+r(\tau )^4(1+2\overline{n})^2`$
and $`𝒩`$ is the normalization factor. In the limit of $`s=0`$, the $`\alpha \beta `$-cross term vanishes and the state can be represented by the direct product of each mode states such that $`W_{ab}(\alpha ,\beta ,\tau )=W_a(\alpha ,\tau )W_b(\beta ,\tau )`$. It is obvious that the Wigner function (19) exhibits the local characteristics in this limit.

The system will eventually assimilate with the environment which can be seen in the Wigner function, at the limit of $`\tau \mathrm{}`$,

$$W_{ab}(\alpha ,\beta )=\frac{4}{\pi ^2(1+\overline{n})^2}\mathrm{exp}[\frac{2}{(1+2\overline{n})}(|\alpha |^2+|\beta |^2)].$$
(25)
This is the direct product of two thermal states in modes $`a`$ and $`b`$.

## IV Evolution of quantum nonlocality

Substituting Eq. (19) into Eq. (9), we find the evolution of the nonlocality for the initial two-mode squeezed state in the thermal environment. The Bell function $`B`$ at time $`\tau `$ is written by

$`B(\alpha ,\beta ,\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2𝒩}{4}}\mathrm{exp}\{1+\mathrm{exp}[E(\tau )|\alpha |^2]`$ (26)
$`+\mathrm{exp}[E(\tau )|\beta |^2]\mathrm{exp}[E(\tau )(|\alpha |^2+|\beta |^2)`$ (27)
$`+2F(\tau )|\alpha \beta |\mathrm{cos}\theta ]\},`$ (28)
where $`\theta _\alpha `$ and $`\theta _\beta `$ are the phases of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ and $`\theta =\theta _\alpha +\theta _\beta `$. When $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =1`$, the Bell function $`B_m(|\alpha |,|\beta |,\tau )`$ is described by the absolute values $`|\alpha |`$ and $`|\beta |`$. $`B_m`$ is symmetric in exchanging $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ such that $`B_m(|\alpha |,|\beta |,\tau )=B_m(|\beta |,|\alpha |,\tau )`$. It is straightforward to show that $`BB_m`$ at any instance of time $`\tau `$. In order to find the evolution of the nonlocality, the maximal value $`|B|_{max}`$ of the Bell function $`B`$ is calculated by the steepest decent method  and using the properties of $`B_m(|\alpha |,|\beta |,\tau )`$. We say the field is quantum-mechanically nonlocal as $`|B|_{max}`$ is larger than 2 and the nonlocality is stronger as $`|B|_{max}`$ gets larger.

The initial two-mode squeezed state is always nonlocal as $`|B|_{max}>2`$ for $`s>0`$. $`|B|_{max}`$ increases monotonously as the degree $`s`$ of squeezing increases. The state becomes maximally nonlocal with $`|B|_{max}2.19055`$ as $`s\mathrm{}`$. In an intermediate time $`0<\tau <\mathrm{}`$, the pure squeezed state evolves to a two-mode mixed squeezed state and nonlocality is lost at a certain evolution time. Figs. 1 and 2 show $`|B|_{max}`$ versus the dimensionless time $`r(\tau )`$ defined in Eq. (16). We find that the nonlocality initially prepared persists until the characteristic time $`\tau _c(s,\overline{n})`$ depending on the temperature of the thermal environment and the initial squeezing. In Fig. 1 it is found that, when the environment is the vacuum, $`|B|_{max}`$ decreases as time proceeds. After reaching at the minimum value, $`|B|_{max}`$ increases to 2 which is the value of $`|B|_{max}`$ for the vacuum. Even though it is not clearly seen in the figure due to the scale of the figure, for any $`\overline{n}0`$ thermal environment, $`|B|_{max}`$ increases to its value for the thermal field after it decreases to a minimum. In Fig. 1, as $`\overline{n}`$ gets larger $`|B|_{max}`$ decreases much faster and further.

In Figs. 2, we identify an interesting phenomenon that the larger the initial degree of squeezing the more rapidly $`|B|_{max}`$ decreases. We analyze the reason why $`|B|_{max}`$ decreases more rapidly as the initial squeezing is larger as follows.

The two-mode squeezed state (10) can be represented by the continuous superposition of two-mode coherent states (A similar analysis was done for a single-mode squeezed state )

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{ab}(\sigma )=d^2\alpha G(\alpha ,\sigma )|\alpha ,\alpha ^{}\text{e}^{i\phi }$$
(29)
where the Gaussian weight function

$$G(\alpha ,\sigma )=(\pi \mathrm{sinh}s)^1\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(\frac{1\mathrm{tanh}s}{\mathrm{tanh}s}\right)|\alpha |^2\right].$$
(30)
As $`s`$ gets larger, the weight of a large $`\alpha `$ state is greater so that the contribution of $`|\alpha ,\alpha ^{}\text{e}^{i\phi }`$ of a large $`\alpha `$ becomes more important in the continuous superposition (29).

The quantum interference between coherent component states is the key of quantum nature of the field. The quantum interference is destroyed by the environment. The speed of destruction depends on the distance between the coherent component states and the average thermal energy of the environment . This is a reason why the macroscopic quantum superposition state is not easily seen in the nature. In the continuous superposition (29) we find that as the degree of squeezing is larger, the superposition extends further so that the quantum interference can be destroyed more easily. The quantum nonlocality in the two-mode squeezed state is also originated from the quantum interference between the coherent component states which can be destroyed easily as the contribution of the large amplitude coherent state becomes important.

In fact the uncertainty increases to its maximum and decreases to the value of the environment when a single-mode squeezed state is influenced by the thermal environment . The uncertainty increases faster as the degree of squeezing is larger. This can be explained using the same argument as the lost of quantum nonlocality.

In Fig. 2(a), when the environment is in the vacuum, it is found that the characteristic time $`\tau _c(s,\overline{n})`$ to lose the quantum nonlocality is shorter as the initial degree of squeezing is larger. In Fig. 2(b), when the non-zero temperature thermal environment ($`\overline{n}0`$) is concerned, we find that the larger degree of squeezing does not necessarily result in the shorter characteristic time $`\tau _c(s,\overline{n})`$. This clearly shows that the characteristic time is a function of the average number of thermal photons as well as the degree of squeezing. However, it is still true that $`|B|_{max}`$ decreases faster (the slope of its curve is steeper) when $`s`$ is larger. It is also found that $`|B|_{max}`$ decreases faster for $`\overline{n}0`$ than for $`\overline{n}=0`$.

We have studied the dynamic behavior of the nonlocality for the two-mode squeezed state in the thermal environment. The two-mode squeezed state can be used for the quantum channel in quantum teleportation of a continuous variable state. The two-mode squeezed state is found to be a nonlocal state regardless of its degree of squeezing and the higher degree of squeezing brings about the larger quantum nonlocality. As the squeezed state is influenced by the thermal environment the nonlocality is lost. The rapidity of the loss of nonlocality depends on the initial degree of squeezing and the average thermal energy of the environment. The more strongly the initial field is squeezed, the more rapidly the maximum nonlocality decreases. This has been analyzed extensively.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Professor J.W. Noh for bringing Ref. to our attention. This work is supported by the BK21 Grant of the Korea Ministry of Education and by the Sogang University Research Grants in 1999.


format: text

text:
# QED correction to radiative tail from elastic peak in DIS

## I Introduction

Deep inelastic scattering (DIS) is one of the powerful tools in investigating a nucleon nature. Recent experiments at CERN, DESY and SLAC have provided very precise data in the wide kinematical region. The modern level of data analysis in experiments on DIS requires careful consideration of the QED radiative effects which can give substantial contribution to measured quantities. Usually the radiative photon cannot be registered in a detector. As is well understood the corrections due to soft photons and loop effects cannot be separated from observables in principle. Hence their contribution has to be calculated theoretically and subtracted from observed data. The lowest order radiative corrections were first calculated by Mo and Tsai . Covariant approach utilized in  was applied to unpolarized  and polarized  DIS. Second order correction to DIS cross section in the leading approximation is discussed in  and recently in . For completeness we cite the papers  in which the correction was calculated within a framework of electroweak theory basically for HERA kinematics. The excellent review of the lowest order RC can be found, say, in .

One of the important contribution to RC comes from a so called radiative tail from elastic peak (or simply elastic radiative tail), when final hadronic state is pure nucleon but the invariant mass of unobserved particle system (a radiated photon and this nucleon) is the same as in the main Born-level process. Consequently events detected can correspond to the main process as well as to the elastic radiative tail. The calculation in the lowest order of QED is standard and the results are included in many FORTRAN codes intending to perform the RC procedure of experimental data (see review  and more recently developed codes ). Several papers  were devoted to electroweak correction to elastic radiative tail. Numerical analysis of the elastic radiative tail shows that its contribution is very important and can exceed the main measured process at the Born level. Therefore the next step is to calculate QED correction to the elastic radiative tail with the maximal possible accuracy. So far only the leading correction to elastic radiative tail due to double bremsstrahlung, which is part of the total second order correction, was treated numerically  and the attempt to calculate the correction exactly was done in .

The structure of the cross section of elastic radiative tail is the following

$$\sigma ^{ERT}\underset{Q_{hmin}^2}{}\text{d}Q_h^2𝒦(Q_h^2,Q^2,W^2)^2(Q_h^2),$$
(1)
where $`Q_h^2`$ is a momentum square transferred to hadronic system, and $`Q^2`$ and $`W^2`$ are leptonic kinematical variables measured. The quantity $`𝒦`$ is a kinematical factor known exactly and $``$ is a nuclear form factor. Due to rapid fall of the form factor squared as a function of $`Q_h^2`$ the main integration region is close to the lower integration limit. In papers  this fact was used to construct an approximation where $`Q_h^2`$ is considered as a small parameter of order of the proton mass squared. In this paper we will also use this approximation to analyze the correction to elastic radiative tail. Application of Sudakov technique will allow us to obtain compact explicit formulae for processes considered. The first effect which has to be considered is the one-loop correction and the emission of additional real photon. We will analyze both of them at leading and next-to-leading levels. Another effect contributing to the cross section is a lepton pair creation. We will calculate it in the leading log approximation.

Obtaining a second order correction to deep inelastic scattering is the main motivation of this paper. However our results can be used in other cases. For instance, they can be considered as a radiative correction in measurements with hard photon detected in coincidence with scattered lepton (see , for example), that allows one to reach kinematical regions otherwise unreachable. That is why we do not concretize our notation usually used in DIS but instead try to keep it as general as possible. In the next section we introduce our notation and obtain results for the cross section of single bremsstrahlung using Sudakov technique. In section III we give results for one-loop corrections. Double bremsstrahlung and contributions due to pair production are considered in sections IV and V and final remarks are given in section VI. Some technical details are discussed in Appendices.

## II Single bremsstrahlung

We study the process

$`e(p_1)+p(p_2)e(p_1^{})+\gamma (k_1)+p(p_2^{}),s=2p_1p_2,`$ (2)
$`Q_h^2=(p_2p_2^{})^2,Q^2=2p_1p_1^{},k_1^2=0,`$ (3)
$`p_1^2=p_1^{}_{}{}^{}2=m^2,p_2^2=p_2^2^{}=M^2,q^2=O_h^2,`$ (4)
in the kinematical region

$$sQ^2>Q_h^2M^2,2p_2p_1^{}s.$$
(5)
The expression for differential cross section in Born approximation looks (details are given in the Appendix A):

$`2\epsilon _1^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^3\sigma _0^\gamma }{\text{d}^3p_1^{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha ^3}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^2𝐪}{(𝐪^2+Q_{\mathrm{min}}^2)^2}\frac{1}{1b}\mathrm{\Phi }^\gamma \mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{prot}}},`$ (6)
with $`b=2p_2p_1^{}/s`$ the energy fraction of the scattered electron. We imply the Sudakov parameterization of the 4-momenta in the problem (see Appendix A).

Note that due to gauge invariance condition

$$q^\rho J_\rho ^{(1)}(\alpha _qp_2+q_{})^\rho J_\rho ^{(1)}=0,$$
(7)
the quantity $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\gamma `$ is constructed out of $`(1/s)p_2J^{(1)}`$ which may be rearranged as follows:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}p_2^\mu J_\mu ^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s}{s_1}}|𝐪|e_q^\mu J_\mu ^{(1)},e_q={\displaystyle \frac{𝐪}{|𝐪|}},`$ (8)
$`s_1`$ $`=`$ $`s\alpha _q=(p_1^{}+k_1)^2+𝐪^2m^2.`$ (9)
Thus $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\gamma `$ vanishes for small $`𝐪^2`$. The explicit expression for $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{prot}}`$ is found to be

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{prot}}=2(F_1^2+\frac{𝐪^2}{M^2}F_2^2).$$
(10)
For $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\gamma `$ we have (we refer for further details to the Appendix A):

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{(1b)^2b(1+b^2)𝐪^2}{n_1n}},`$ (11)
with

$`n=(𝐩_1^{}b𝐪)^2,n_1=(𝐩_1^{}𝐪)^2.`$ (13)
Another fact is that both $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\gamma /𝐪^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{prot}}`$ do not vanish in the limit of small momentum transfer $`|𝐪|`$, thus providing the logarithmic enhancement upon performing the $`Q_h^2𝐪^2`$ integration (Weizsäcker-Williams approximation). Indeed, the quantity $`Q_{\mathrm{min}}^2`$ entering the cross section is a small quantity,

$$Q_{\mathrm{min}}^2=M^2\left(\frac{Q^2}{(1b)s}\right)^2M^2.$$
(14)
For completeness we put the phase volume of the scattered electron in terms of Sudakov variables:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^3p_1^{}}{2\epsilon _1^{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}b}{2b}}\text{d}^2𝐩_1^{},Q^2=2p_1p_1^{}={\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_1^{}_{}{}^{}2}{b}}.`$ (15)
Note that the requirement $`Q^2>Q_h^2`$ provides the absence of singularities while doing an integration over $`\text{d}^2𝐪`$.

## III Virtual and soft photons emission contribution

The correction coming from the emission of virtual and soft photons (in the cms reference frame) can be drawn out of paper , in which the radiative corrections to the Compton tensor were calculated

$`2\epsilon _1^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^3\sigma _{B+V+S}}{\text{d}^3p_1^{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\epsilon _1^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^3\sigma _0^\gamma }{\text{d}^3p_1^{}}}[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ (16)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+b^2}}(\tau _{11}+b(\tau _{12}+\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{12})+b^2\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{11})],`$ (17)
with

$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`2(L1)(2\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}b)+3L_h\mathrm{ln}^2b`$ (18)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}+2\text{Li}_2\left(\mathrm{cos}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}\right),`$ (19)
$`L`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{m^2}},L_h=\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_h^2}{m^2}},`$ (20)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{E}},\text{Li}_2(x)={\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{x}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}(1y)}{y}}\text{d}y.`$ (21)
The Born cross section after substitution of Eq. (11) into Eq. (6) and neglect of sub-leading terms becomes

$`2\epsilon _1^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^3\sigma _0^\gamma }{\text{d}^3p_1^{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha ^3}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^2\mathrm{𝐪𝐪}^2}{(𝐪^2+Q_{\mathrm{min}}^2)^2}\frac{(1b)(1+b^2)}{b(Q^2)^2}\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{prot}}},`$
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }E,E`$ are the upper bound on the undetectable soft photon energy, and the energy of the initial electron, respectively; $`\theta `$ is the angle in the laboratory reference frame between the initial and the scattered electron momenta. Somewhat cumbersome functions $`\tau _{ij}`$ are explicitly given in the Appendix D. It should be noted that they do not contain any large logarithms but include the quantity $`Q_h^2`$ which is small in our approximation. If one keeps only non-zero terms in the expansion over $`Q_h^2`$ then

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\tau _{11}+b(\tau _{12}+\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{12})+b^2\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{11}\right)=\left[3\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{Q_h^2(1b)}}1\right]`$ (22)
$`\times (1+b^2)+4b\mathrm{log}(1b)+[b^2+(1b)^2]`$ (23)
$`\times \left[\mathrm{log}^2{\displaystyle \frac{(1b)}{b}}+\pi ^2\right]+[1+(1b)^2]\mathrm{log}^2(1b)`$ (24)
$`+(32b)\mathrm{log}b,`$ (25)
The logarithms $`\mathrm{log}Q_h^2`$ cancel out exactly in the sum of (22) and $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$.

## IV Two hard photons emission contribution

We will consider now the process of two hard photons emission:

$$e(p_1)+p(p_2)e(p_1^{})+\gamma (k_1)+\gamma (k_2)+p(p_2^{}).$$
(26)
The relevant contribution to the cross section looks

$`2\epsilon _1^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^3\sigma }{\text{d}^3p_1^{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^4}{8\pi ^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^2𝐪}{(𝐪^2+Q_{\mathrm{min}}^2)^2}\frac{\text{d}x_1\text{d}^2𝐤_1}{x_1x_2}\mathrm{\Phi }^{\gamma \gamma }\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{prot}}},`$ (27)
$`Q_{\mathrm{min}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`M^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{s_1}{s}}\right)^2,s_1=(p_1^{}+k_1+k_2)^2,`$ (28)
with the expression for $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{prot}}`$ given earlier. The explicit form of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\gamma \gamma }`$ can be found in the Appendix B. The integration over $`\text{d}^2𝐤_1`$ may be performed using the integrals given in the Appendix C.

Concerning the region $`Q_h^2Q^2`$, the result is found to be ***Upon applying the crossing transformation to the amplitude of $`e\overline{e}`$ annihilation to $`\gamma \gamma \gamma `$ presented in paper .

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\gamma \gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`16𝐪^2\{{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{s_1^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{s_1^2(1+b^2)}{d_1d_2d_1^{}d_2^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d_1^2+d_1^{}_{}{}^{}2}{bs_1^2d_2d_2^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d_2^2+d_2^{}_{}{}^{}2}{bs_1^2d_1d_1^{}}}]`$ (29)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{Q^4}}(1+𝒫_{12})[{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{d_1^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_2^2(b^2+(1x_1)^2)}{b(1x_1)^3}}`$ (30)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{d_1^{}_{}{}^{}2}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_2^2b^2(1+(1x_2)^2)}{(1x_2)^3}}]\}.`$ (31)
with the notations introduced

$`s_1={\displaystyle \frac{𝐤_1^2}{x_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐤_2^2}{x_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_1^{}_{}{}^{}2}{b}},d_i={\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_i}}(m^2x_i^2+𝐤_i^2),`$ (32)
$`d_i^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_ib}}[m^2x_i^2+(x_i𝐩_1^{}b𝐤_i)^2],`$ (33)
where $`x_{1,2}`$ are the energy fractions of hard photons, $`x_1+x_2+b=1`$. Besides we use the relations

$$𝐤_1+𝐤_2+𝐩_1^{}=0,2qp_1^{}=s_1b,s_1=2qp_1=s\alpha _q.$$

An integration over $`\text{d}^2𝐤_1`$ may be performed analytically and to a logarithmic accuracy it boils down to

$$\frac{\text{d}^2𝐤_1}{\pi }[\frac{1}{d_1};\frac{1}{d_2};\frac{1}{d_1^{}};\frac{1}{d_2^{}}]=L[x_1;x_2;\frac{x_1}{b};\frac{x_2}{b}].$$
(34)
The resulting contribution (again to a logarithmic accuracy) takes the following form

$`{\displaystyle \text{d}^2𝐤_1\mathrm{\Phi }^{\gamma \gamma }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi 𝐪^2L}{b(Q^2)^2}}(1+𝒫_{12})x_2^2`$ (35)
$`\times `$ $`[(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1x_1)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{(1x_2)^2}})(1+b^2)`$ (36)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{(1x_1)^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b^4}{(1x_2)^4}}],`$ (37)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`<`$ $`x_i<1b\mathrm{\Delta }.`$ (38)
Carrying out the integration of Eq. (29) over $`\stackrel{}{k}_1`$ and $`x_1`$ to a next-to-leading accuracy we obtain for the contribution to the differential cross section coming from emission of two hard photons,

$$2\epsilon _1^{}\frac{\text{d}^3\sigma ^{\gamma \gamma }}{\text{d}^3p_1^{}}=\frac{2\alpha ^4}{\pi ^3}\frac{\text{d}^2𝐪}{(𝐪^2+Q_{\mathrm{min}}^2)^2}\frac{𝐪^2(T_{LL}+T_{NLO})}{b(Q^2)^2}\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{prot}}$$
(39)
where the leading and next-to-leading contributions read

$`T_{LL}`$ $`=`$ $`(L1)[4(1b)(1+b^2)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1b}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$ (40)
$`+`$ $`(1b)(1b^2)\mathrm{ln}b{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(1b)(72b+7b^2)],`$ (41)
$`T_{NLO}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{b^4+6b^2+1}{1+b}}\mathrm{log}^2b`$ (46)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(3b^2)(3b)\mathrm{log}b`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}(1b)(b^2+b+1)\mathrm{log}(1b)`$
$`(1b)[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(15b^22b+15)`$
$`+2(\text{Li}_2(b){\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}){\displaystyle \frac{b^4+6b^2+1}{1b^2}}].`$
There are two possible experimental setups we concern with: the first one in which a recoil proton is registered, and the second — pure inclusive setup — with only a final lepton observed. Definitely, NLO contribution obtained can be counted valid only for the former experimental setup, while in the latter case one can use the expression given above only to a LL accuracy.

The general answer for the cross section in Born approximation with the lowest order correction to the leading approximation is a sum of the contributions coming from virtual and real soft photons emission given above as well as from two hard photons emission and is free from dependence on the auxiliary parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

The graphs given below illustrate behavior featured by the complete QED RC contribution to the cross section of DIS as well as the comparative contributions of the LL, NLO terms and of the correction due to pair production.

## V Contribution of lepton pair production

Consider now the hard pair production process that takes place at the same order of perturbation theory as the two hard photon emission. In the same way we may conclude that the soft pair case as well as the case of double collinear kinematics does not contribute to the radiative tail. Therefore we may consider only semi-collinear kinematics of hard pair production of which there exist two different mechanisms . One of these is the two photon mechanism of pair creation. An electron from that pair having momentum $`p_1^{}`$ is detected in experiment and the scattered electron moves close to the initial electron direction. This kinematics permits us to apply the Weizsäcker-Williams approximation,

$`2\epsilon _1^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^3\sigma _{\mathrm{pair}}^{(1)}}{\text{d}^3p_1^{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha ^4}{\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^2𝐪}{(𝐪^2+Q_{\mathrm{min}}^2)^2}\frac{𝐪^2L}{b(Q^2)^2}\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{prot}}}`$ (47)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\beta _{}}{(1\beta _{})^4}}((1\beta _{}b)^2+b^2)(1+\beta _{}^2),`$ (48)
$`s_1`$ $`=`$ $`Q^2{\displaystyle \frac{1\beta _{}}{\beta _+}},b+\beta _{}+\beta _+=1.`$ (49)
The second mechanism is characterized by the bremsstrahlung mechanism of pair creation, with an electron from a pair to be detected. Leaving details to the Appendix E let us present here the result

$`2\epsilon _1^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^3\sigma _{\mathrm{pair}}^{(2)}}{\text{d}^3p_1^{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha ^4}{\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^2𝐪}{(𝐪^2+Q_{\mathrm{min}}^2)^2}\frac{𝐪^2L}{(Q^2)^2}\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{prot}}}`$ (50)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b(1+\beta _{}^2)\text{d}\beta _{}}{(1\beta _{})^4}}[(1b\beta _{})^2+b^2]`$ (51)
$`s_1`$ $`=`$ $`Q^2{\displaystyle \frac{1\beta _{}}{b\beta _{}}}.`$ (52)
The integration over $`\beta _{}`$ can be performed analytically with additional assumption that $`Q_{\mathrm{min}}^2`$ has no $`\beta _{}`$ dependence. The result for the sum of these contributions is found to be

$`2\epsilon _1^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^3\sigma _{\mathrm{pair}}}{\text{d}^3p_1^{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha ^4}{\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^2𝐪}{(𝐪^2+Q_{\mathrm{min}}^2)^2}\frac{𝐪^2L(1+b^2)}{b(Q^2)^2}\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{prot}}}`$ (53)
$`\times `$ $`\left(1b+2(1+b)\mathrm{log}b+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3b}}(1b^3)\right).`$ (54)
## VI Discussion and conclusion

In the paper presented the correction to radiative tail from elastic peak is studied in the kinematics when a final lepton is measured. Using Sudakov technique the contributions of loops (16), double photon bremsstrahlung (39) and a pair production (47,50) are calculated.

In this section we analyze obtained contributions numerically. Both the relative contributions of the processes considered and the total correction to the lowest order process are investigated within kinematical conditions of experiments on electron DIS at TJNAF and DESY (both for HERA and for HERMES). It is convenient to define the following quantities:

$$\delta =\frac{\sigma _L+\sigma _N+\sigma _p}{\sigma _0},\delta _{L,N,p}=\frac{\sigma _{L,N,p}}{\sigma _0}.$$
(55)
Here $`\sigma _0`$ stands for the cross section of radiative tail from elastic peak (6). Other $`\sigma `$’s constitute the next order results. The quantity $`\sigma _p`$ is a direct sum of two mechanisms of pair creations (47,50), whereas $`\sigma _L`$ and $`\sigma _N`$ are the leading (including mass singularities terms $`\mathrm{log}(Q^2/m^2)`$) and next-to-leading (independent of leptonic mass) terms.

They are obtained upon summing up expressions given in Eqs. (16) and (39) after cancellation of infrared divergence.

The quantities $`\delta `$ and $`\delta _{L,N,p}`$ are presented in Figs. 1 and 2. As is clearly seen the corrections have a steep dependence on $`y`$ and a poor one on $`x`$ (or $`Q^2`$) and $`s`$. Figure 2 shows results for $`\sqrt{s}=7GeV`$, however very similar plots can be produced for the two other cases considered. Having analyzed results obtained the following conclusions could be drawn.

The relative radiative correction to elastic radiative tail is important practically everywhere. The modern level of data analysis and very high experimental accuracies achieved in current experiments on DIS require that a generalization of standard radiative correction procedure be made in order to include a second order radiative correction. An extremely interesting region where the correction considered is important is actually high $`y`$ domain. Remind, that this one (up to $`y`$0.95) is under investigation at TJNAF.

The main contribution to a second order radiative correction comes from the effect of pair creation. Asymptotical behavior of $`\sigma _p`$ for small $`b=1y`$ is $`1/b^2`$ whereas the other cross sections feature only $`1/b`$ behavior. That is in fact a reason of the large correction in the region of high $`y`$. In the paper presented this particular contribution is calculated in the leading approximation only, therefore a study of the correction, induced by a pair production, at the next-to-leading level is highly desirable.

The relative contribution of the next-to-leading correction $`\sigma _N`$ is not small with respect to the leading log contribution $`\sigma _L`$. In the region of large $`y`$ the relative contribution $`\sigma _N/\sigma _L`$ does not exceed 5%, whereas for small $`y`$ it can reach as much as 20–30%. From the other hand the next-to-leading contribution completely fixes all uncertainties of leading log approximation thus leaving unknown only terms proportional to lepton mass squared and $`Q_h^2`$, which is effectively small due to behavior of form factors.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank P.Kuzhir for useful discussions and comments. The work of IA was partially supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE–AC05–84ER40150. EAK and BGS acknowledge support of RFBR via grant No. 99-02-17730.

## Appendix A. Details of matrix element calculus: the case of single photon bremsstrahlung

Using the Sudakov decomposition of the 4-vectors in the problem

$`p_1^{}=\alpha _1^{}\stackrel{~}{p}_2+b\stackrel{~}{p}_1+p_1^{},k_1=\alpha _1\stackrel{~}{p}_2+x_1\stackrel{~}{p}_1+k_1,`$ (A.1)
$`q=p_2p_2^{}=\alpha _q\stackrel{~}{p}_2+\beta _q\stackrel{~}{p}_1+q_{},`$ (A.2)
$`p_2^{}=\alpha _2^{}\stackrel{~}{p}_2+\beta _2^{}\stackrel{~}{p}_1+p_2^{},v_{}p_1=v_{}p_2=0,`$ (A.3)
$`\stackrel{~}{p}_1=p_1p_2{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{s}},\stackrel{~}{p}_2=p_2p_1{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{s}},`$ (A.4)
we have excluded parameters $`\alpha _1,\alpha _1^{},\beta _q`$ using the on–shell conditions

$`p_2^{}_{}{}^{}2M^2=s\beta _q(1\alpha _q)𝐪^2\alpha _qM^2=0,`$ (A.5)
$`p_1^{}_{}{}^{}2=sb\alpha _1^{}𝐩_1^{}_{}{}^{}2=0,k_1^2=sx_1\alpha _1𝐤_1^2=0,`$ (A.6)
besides

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{prot}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s^2}}\mathrm{Sp}\{(\widehat{p}_2^{}+M)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho (\widehat{p}_2+M)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\sigma p_1^\rho p_1^\sigma \},`$ (A.7)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho `$ $`=`$ $`F_1(q^2)\gamma _\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{\mu \rho }q^\mu }{2M}}F_2(q^2).`$ (A.8)
Here $`F_{1,2}(q^2)`$ are the Dirac and Pauli form factors of a proton. For $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\gamma `$ we have:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{s^2}}\mathrm{Sp}\{\widehat{p}_1^{}O_\mu \widehat{p}_1\stackrel{~}{O}^\mu \},`$ (A.9)
$`O_\mu =\widehat{p}_2{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{p}_1\widehat{k}_1}{2p_1k_1}}\gamma _\mu +\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{p}_1^{}+\widehat{k}_1}{2p_1^{}k_1}}\widehat{p}_2,`$ (A.10)
and then

$$q^2=Q_h^2=\frac{1}{1\alpha _q}[𝐪^2+M^2\alpha _q^2][𝐪^2+Q_{\mathrm{min}}^2],$$
(A.11)
with $`Q_{\mathrm{min}}^2`$ given in the text. The matrix element

$$M=\frac{1}{q^2}J_\sigma ^{(1)}\overline{u}(p_2^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho u(p_2)g^{\rho \sigma },$$
(A.12)
using the Gribov representation for the metric tensor

$$g^{\rho \sigma }=g_{}^{\rho \sigma }+\left(\frac{2}{s}\right)(\stackrel{~}{p}_2^\rho \stackrel{~}{p}_1^\sigma +\stackrel{~}{p}_2^\sigma \stackrel{~}{p}_1^\rho )\left(\frac{2}{s}\right)\stackrel{~}{p}_2^\sigma \stackrel{~}{p}_1^\rho ,$$
(A.13)
may be put in a form

$$M=\frac{2s}{q^2}\left(\frac{1}{s}p_2^\sigma J_\sigma ^{(1)}\right)\left(\frac{1}{s}\overline{u}(p_2^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho u(p_2)p_1^\rho \right).$$
(A.14)
Note that each expressions in the parentheses on the RHS of Eq. (A.14) do not depend on $`s`$ in the limit $`s\mathrm{}`$. The expression for $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\gamma `$ may be transformed using the following reduced expression

$`O_\mu =x_1[sb\gamma _\mu ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_1}})`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_1}}b\gamma _\mu \widehat{q}\widehat{p}_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\gamma _\mu \widehat{p}_2\widehat{q}],`$ (A.15)
$`x_1`$ $`=`$ $`1b.`$ (A.16)
to take the form given in Eq. (11).

## Appendix B. Details of matrix element calculus: the case of double photon bremsstrahlung

Let’s first demonstrate that the matrix element of the process

$$\gamma ^{}(q)+e(p_1)e(p_1^{})+\gamma (k_1)+\gamma (k_2)$$
(B.1)
is explicitly proportional to $`𝐪`$ for small values of the latter, which is in fact the requirement of gauge invariance with respect to the virtual photon. The matrix element is described by six diagrams. With regard to the gauge invariance this set can be separated out to the two subsets in each of which the gauge condition is satisfied independently. Introducing the photon-permutating operator $`𝒫_{12}`$ we bring the matrix element to the form:

$`=(1+𝒫_{12})Q,Q=_1+_2+_3,`$ (B.2)
where

$`_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{dd_1}}\overline{u}(p_1^{})\widehat{p}_2(\widehat{p}_1\widehat{k}_1\widehat{k}_2+m)`$ (B.4)
$`\times \widehat{e}_2^{}(\widehat{p}_1\widehat{k}_1+m)\widehat{e}_1^{}u(p_1),`$
$`_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d_1d_2^{}}}\overline{u}(p_1^{})\widehat{e}_2^{}(\widehat{p}_1\widehat{k}_1+\widehat{q}+m)\widehat{p}_2`$ (B.5)
$`\times `$ $`(\widehat{p}_1\widehat{k}_1+m)\widehat{e}_1^{}u(p_1),`$ (B.6)
$`_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d^{}d_2^{}}}\overline{u}(p_1^{})\widehat{e}_2^{}(\widehat{p}_1\widehat{k}_1+\widehat{q}+m)`$ (B.8)
$`\times \widehat{e}_1^{}(\widehat{p}_1+\widehat{q}+m)\widehat{p}_2u(p_1),`$
and

$`d`$ $`=`$ $`d_1+d_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_1x_2}}(x_1\stackrel{}{k}_2x_2\stackrel{}{k}_1)^2,`$
$`d^{}`$ $`=`$ $`d_1^{}+d_2^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_1x_2}}(x_1\stackrel{}{k}_2x_2\stackrel{}{k}_1)^2.`$
The permutation operator $`𝒫_{12}`$ for the photons acts the following way

$`𝒫_{12}f(k_1,e_1;k_2,e_2)=f(k_2,e_2;k_1,e_1),𝒫_{12}^2=1.`$
The quantity $`Q`$ is gauge invariant regarding the virtual photon $`k`$ since all permutations of this photon have been taken into account. Therefore $`Q`$ is proportional to $`q_{}`$ in the limit of $`q_{}0`$. Indeed, making use of the relations

$`Q=p_{2\mu }Q^\mu ,q_\mu Q^\mu =(\alpha _q\stackrel{~}{p}_2+q_{})_\mu Q^\mu =0,`$ (B.9)
we immediately obtain (neglecting the small contribution $`\beta _qp_\mu Q^\mu 1/s`$)

$`Q={\displaystyle \frac{q_\mu }{\alpha _q}}Q^\mu .`$ (B.10)
Then transform the quantities $`_j`$ to such a form that the noticed low $`q_{}`$ behavior is present in their sum $`Q`$ explicitly. The reason is that in this case all individual large (compared to $`q_{}`$) contributions are mutually cancelled. The first step is to use the Dirac equations $`\widehat{p}_1u(p_1)=mu_1`$, $`\overline{u}(p_1^{})\widehat{p}_1^{}=m\overline{u}(p_1^{})`$ and to rearrange the amplitudes $`_j`$ of Eq. (B.4),

$`_1`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}(p_1^{})\{{\displaystyle \frac{s\beta _1^{}}{d_1}}\widehat{e}_2^{}(\widehat{p}_1\widehat{k}_1+m)\widehat{e}_1^{}`$ (B.11)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d_1}}\widehat{p}_2\widehat{q}\widehat{e}_2^{}(\widehat{p}_1\widehat{k}_1+m)\widehat{e}_1^{}\}u(p_1),`$ (B.12)
$`_2`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}(p_1^{})\{+{\displaystyle \frac{s(1x_1)}{d_1d_2^{}}}\widehat{e}_2^{}(\widehat{p}_1\widehat{k}_1+m)\widehat{e}_1^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d_2^{}}}\widehat{e}_2^{}\widehat{p}_2\widehat{e}_1^{}`$ (B.14)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d_1d_2^{}}}\widehat{e}_2^{}\widehat{q}\widehat{p}_2(\widehat{p}_1\widehat{k}_1+m)\widehat{e}_1^{}\}u(p_1),`$
$`_3`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}(p_1^{})\{{\displaystyle \frac{s}{d^{}d_2^{}}}\widehat{e}_2^{}(\widehat{p}_1\widehat{k}_1+m)\widehat{e}_1^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{s}{d^{}d_2^{}}}\widehat{e}_2^{}\widehat{q}\widehat{e}_1^{}`$ (B.16)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d^{}d_2^{}}}\widehat{e}_2^{}(\widehat{p}_1^{}+\widehat{k}_2+m)\widehat{e}_1^{}\widehat{q}\widehat{p}_2\}u(p_1).`$
From these formulae it can be noted that the last terms in $`_1,_2,_3`$, up to terms of the order of

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{E^2}},\theta ^2,{\displaystyle \frac{m}{E}}\theta ,`$
are proportional to $`q_{}`$,

$`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{p}}_2\widehat{q}=\widehat{\stackrel{~}{p}}_2(\alpha _q\widehat{\stackrel{~}{p}}_2+\beta _q\widehat{p}+\widehat{q}_{})=\widehat{\stackrel{~}{p}}_2\widehat{q}_{}=\widehat{q}\widehat{\stackrel{~}{p}}_2.`$ (B.17)
Next, one can see that the sum of the first three terms in Eqs. (B.11) is also proportional to $`q_{}`$ since (for more details see )

$`A{\displaystyle \frac{b}{d_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1x_1}{d_1d_2^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d^{}d_2^{}}},A|_{q_{}0}=0.`$ (B.18)
Finally we consider the sum of the second terms of the quantities $`_2,_3`$ given in Eqs. (B.11). Using the relations (, Eq.(21)) and

$`(p_1^{}+k_1+k_2)^2=(p_1k)^2=m^2𝐤^2s\alpha _k,`$
one immediately gets

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\stackrel{~}{p}}_2}{d_2^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{s(\alpha _q\widehat{\stackrel{~}{p}}_2+\widehat{q}_{})}{d^{}d_2^{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{s\widehat{q}_{}}{d^{}d_2^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\stackrel{~}{p}}_2𝐪^2}{d^{}d_2^{}}}.`$ (B.19)
Therefore, from Eqs. (B.17), (B.18), (B.19) it is clearly seen that the property illustrated by Eq. (B.10)

$`\left(_1+_2+_3\right)|_{q_{}0}=0`$
is evidently satisfied and consequently the quantity $`Q=_{j=1}^3_j`$ became a sum of terms explicitly proportional to $`q_{}`$,

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}(p_1^{})\{As\widehat{e}_2^{}(\widehat{p}_1\widehat{k}_1+m)\widehat{e}_1^{}`$ (B.20)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d_1}}\widehat{\stackrel{~}{p}}_2\widehat{q}_{}\widehat{e}_2^{}(\widehat{p}_1\widehat{k}_1+m)\widehat{e}_1^{}`$ (B.21)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐪^2}{d^{}d_2^{}}}\widehat{e}_2^{}\widehat{e}_1^{}\widehat{\stackrel{~}{p}}_2+{\displaystyle \frac{s}{d^{}d_2^{}}}\widehat{e}_2^{}\widehat{q}_{}\widehat{e}_1^{}`$ (B.22)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d_1d_2^{}}}\widehat{e}_2^{}\widehat{q}_{}\widehat{\stackrel{~}{p}}_2(\widehat{p}_1\widehat{k}_1+m)\widehat{e}_1^{}`$ (B.23)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d^{}d_2^{}}}\widehat{e}_2^{}(\widehat{p}_1^{}+\widehat{k}_2+m)\widehat{e}_1^{}\widehat{q}_{}\widehat{\stackrel{~}{p}}_2\}u(p_1).`$ (B.24)
Calculating the contribution of the trace $`\mathrm{Sp}\{p_1^{}Qp_1\stackrel{~}{Q}\}`$ we neglect masses whose contribution to the quantity $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\gamma \gamma }`$ may be restored using the general prescription . The corresponding correction has the form:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_m\mathrm{\Phi }^{\gamma \gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`(1+𝒫_{12})\{{\displaystyle \frac{4m^2}{d_1^{}_{}{}^{}2}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_2^2y_1(1+y_1^2)}{(1x_2)^2}}`$ (B.25)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐪^2}{(𝐪y_1𝐩_1^{})^2(𝐪𝐩_1^{}/b)^2}}`$ (B.26)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4m^2}{d_1^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2^2z_1(1+z_1^2)𝐪^2}{(𝐪𝐩_1^{})^2(𝐩_1^{}(1\beta _2)𝐪)^2}}\},`$ (B.27)
where

$`y_1={\displaystyle \frac{1x_2}{b}},\beta _2={\displaystyle \frac{x_2}{1x_1}},z_1={\displaystyle \frac{b}{1x_1}}.`$ (B.28)
## Appendix C. Evaluation of 2-dimensional integrals

The azimuthal integration may be performed making use of the following equality:

$`J_{12\mathrm{}n}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\varphi {\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}[a_i+b_i\mathrm{cos}(\varphi \varphi _i)]^1`$ (C.1)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_k}}{\displaystyle \underset{jk}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{b_k}{b_{kj}+\text{i}r_k\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _k\varphi _j)}},`$ (C.2)
with

$`r_i`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{a_i^2b_i^2},|a_i|>|b_i|,`$
$`b_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`b_ia_jb_ja_i\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _i\varphi _j).`$
It is curious to note that the absence of the imaginary part provides an interesting algebraic identity. For $`n=2,n=3`$ it looks

$`J_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d_{12}}}({\displaystyle \frac{b_1}{r_1}}b_{12}+{\displaystyle \frac{b_2}{r_2}}b_{21}),d_{12}=a_{12}^2r_1^2r_2^2,`$ (C.3)
$`a_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`a_1a_2b_1b_2\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _1\varphi _2),`$ (C.4)
$`J_{123}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b_1^2}{r_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_{12}a_{13}r_1^2a_{23}}{d_{12}d_{13}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b_2^2}{r_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_{21}a_{23}r_2^2a_{13}}{d_{12}d_{23}}}`$ (C.5)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b_3^2}{r_3}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_{31}a_{32}r_3^2a_{12}}{d_{31}d_{32}}}.`$ (C.6)
This form is convenient for a subsequent integration over $`\text{d}𝐤_1^2`$.

## Appendix D. NLO contributions from virtual and soft photon emission

To avoid the misprints we use here the notations of the paper

$`s`$ $`=`$ $`d_1^{},t=d_1,u=Q^2,`$ (D.1)
$`s+t+u`$ $`=`$ $`q^2,\stackrel{~}{f}(s,t)=f(t,s),a=s+t,`$ (D.2)
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`s+u,c=u+t.`$ (D.3)
The quantities $`\tau _{ij}`$ encountered in the text (see Eq. (16)) may be written as

$`\tau _{11}`$ $`=`$ $`G(1+{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{s^2}})\stackrel{~}{G}(2+{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{t^2}})+2[{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{st}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2u}{a}}`$ (D.4)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{a^2}}(u^2bt)]l_{qu}+{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{tc^2}}(2c+t)l_{qs}+{\displaystyle \frac{2us}{s}}l_{qt}`$ (D.5)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{a}}(btu^2)4u2q^2+t{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{c}}\right],`$ (D.6)
$`\tau _{12}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{s^2}}(us)G+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t^2}}(uq^2st)\stackrel{~}{G}2[{\displaystyle \frac{uq^2}{st}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2us+t}{a}}`$ (D.7)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{a^2}}(u^2cs)]l_{qu}+{\displaystyle \frac{2c+t}{c^2}}(s{\displaystyle \frac{u}{t}}q^2)l_{qs}`$ (D.8)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{bs}}(2us)l_{qt}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{a}}(u^2cs)+8u+3t`$ (D.9)
$``$ $`s+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{c}}us],`$ (D.10)
and the additional notations look

$`l_{qu}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{u}},l_{qs}=\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{s}},l_{qt}=\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{t}},l_{ut}=\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{u}{t}},`$ (D.11)
$`G`$ $`=`$ $`l_{qu}(l_{qt}+l_{ut})+2\text{Li}_2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{t}{q^2}}\right)`$ (D.13)
$`2\text{Li}_2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{u}}\right)2\text{Li}_2(1).`$
## Appendix E. Semi-collinear kinematics of pair creation

The matrix element in the kinematics (2) may be put in a form (we extract the coupling constant):

$$M^{(1)}=\frac{1}{q_1^2}J_\nu I_\mu g^{\mu \nu },J_\nu =\overline{u}(p_{})\gamma _\nu u(p_1),$$
(E.1)
where the current $`I`$ describes a pair production by the photon with momentum $`q_1`$ off a proton. Using the Sudakov form of the 4-vectors $`p_{}`$ and $`q`$ with basic 4-vectors $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$,

$$p_{}=\alpha _{}\stackrel{~}{p}_2+\beta _{}\stackrel{~}{p}_1+p_{},q=\alpha _q\stackrel{~}{p}_2+\beta _q\stackrel{~}{p}_1+q_{},$$

the representation of the metric tensor

$$g_{\nu \mu }=g_{\nu \mu }+\frac{2}{s}p_{2\nu }p_{1\mu }$$

and the gauge condition

$$Iq=I(\beta _qp_1+q_{})=0,\beta _q+\beta _{}=1,$$

we obtain for the matrix element squared and summed over spin states of electron:

$$|M^{(1)}|^2=\frac{1}{(q_1^2)^2}\left[2q_1^2𝐈^2+\frac{8}{\beta _q^2}\left(𝐩_{}𝐈\right)^2\right].$$
(E.2)
To calculate the quantity $`𝐈^2`$, we again present it in a form

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`e_{q_1}𝐈=e_{q_1}^\mu e_q^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{2s|\stackrel{}{q}|}{q^2s_1}}p_{2\rho }Y_\rho \overline{u}(p_1^{})O_{\mu \nu }v(p_+),`$ (E.3)
$`s_1`$ $`=`$ $`(p_2+q_1)^2,Y_\rho =\overline{u}(p_2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho u(p_2^{}).`$ (E.4)
The phase volume is transformed the way to take the following form

$$\text{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }_4=(2\pi )^8\frac{1}{8s\beta _{}\beta _+b}\text{d}^2q\text{d}^2p_{}\text{d}\beta _{}.$$
(E.5)
Using

$$|\overline{u}(p_1^{})O_{\mu \nu }v(p_+)e_{q_1}^\mu e_q^\nu |^2=8\left[\frac{b}{\beta _+}+\frac{\beta _+}{b}\right],$$

we obtain the result for the cross section given in the text.

For the kinematics of bremsstrahlung mechanism the matrix element has a form

$$M^{(2)}=\frac{1}{k_1^2}I_\mu J_\nu g^{\mu \nu },k_1=p_++p_1^{}.$$
(E.6)
Here it is suitable to use alternative basis vectors of Sudakov parameterization

$`p_+`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _+q+b_+\stackrel{~}{p}_1^{}+p_+,k_1=a_1q+b_1\stackrel{~}{p}_1^{}+k_1,`$ (E.7)
$`g_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{s}}}q^\nu p_1^{}_{}{}^{}\mu ,k_1^2={\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_+^2+m^2b_1^2}{b_11}}>0.`$ (E.8)
Quite the same manipulations give

$$|M^{(2)}|^2=2k_1^2𝐈^2\frac{8}{b_1^2}\left(𝐤_1𝐈\right)^2.$$

Performing the integration over $`\text{d}^2(p_+)_{}`$ to a logarithmic accuracy and expressing the parameter $`b_1`$ in terms of the standard Sudakov decomposition with basic 4-vectors $`p_1,p_2`$

$$b_1=\frac{1\beta _{}}{b},$$

we immediately obtain the result given in the text.


text:
# Disorder Effects in Superconducting Multiple Loop Quantum Interferometers

\[

## Abstract

A theoretical study is presented on a number $`N`$ of resistively shunted Josephson junctions connected in $`\mathrm{𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑙}`$ as a disordered $`1D`$ array by superconducting wiring in such a manner that there are $`N1`$ individual SQUID loops with arbitrary shape formed. Under a constant current bias $`I>I_c`$, and irrespective of the degree of the disorder, but depending on the strength of magnetic field $`B`$, all junctions in the array oscillate at the $`\mathrm{𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑒}`$ frequency $`\nu _B`$. Computer simulations of the full non linear dynamics of a disordered junction array reveal: (i) the frequency $`\nu _B`$ is $`\mathrm{𝑛𝑜𝑡}`$ a periodic function of $`B`$, (ii) in the overdamped junction regime $`\nu _B`$ displays a sharp $`\mathrm{𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙}`$ minimum around $`B=0`$. For zero inductive coupling the problem becomes equivalent to a $`\mathrm{𝑣𝑖𝑟𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙}`$ single junction model.
PACS numbers: 85.25.Dq, 85.25.Am, 85.25.Cp

\]

So-called weak links, or Josephson junctions, are the basic active elements of superconductor quantum electronics. A key feature of a weak link between two superconductors, $`1`$ and $`2`$, is the property that there can flow a dissipationless macroscopic supercurrent $`I_s\left(\phi \right)`$ due to the tunneling of Cooper pairs with charge $`2e`$. This supercurrent depends on the gauge invariant phase difference $`\phi =\mathrm{\Theta }_1\mathrm{\Theta }_2+\frac{2e}{\mathrm{}c}_1^2<d𝐬,𝐀>`$ of the macroscopic BCS pairing wavefunctions on either side of the weak link. Josephson junctions made with modern fabrication techniques  often have a sandwich type layered geometry, with a thin non superconducting tunneling barrier in the middle between two thick superconducting electrodes. In recent time also other types of weak links, for example of the bi-crystal type, became important in high-temperature superconductors. For an ideal S-I-S junction the supercurrent is connected to the phase difference $`\phi `$ across the tunneling barrier by $`I_s\left(\phi \right)=I_c\mathrm{sin}\phi .`$ It is important to realize that the supercurrent $`I_s`$ flows stationary provided it does not exceed a characteristic critical current $`I_c`$, the so-called Josephson critical current, which determines the maximum dissipationless current that can flow across a tunneling barrier. In general, $`I_c`$ depends on the material properties of the junction, on temperature $`T`$, and also on magnetic field $`𝐁=rot𝐀`$. Applying to a Josephson junction a bias current $`I`$ with a constant strength $`I>`$ $`I_c`$, there appears a rapidly oscillating voltage signal $`V\left(t\right)`$ across the junction, which determines the rate of change of the time dependent phase difference $`\phi \left(t\right)`$ according to

$$\mathrm{}_t\phi \left(t\right)=2eV\left(t\right)$$
(1)
This is the fundamental non stationary Josephson relation which governs the physics of weak superconductivity. So, for $`I>`$ $`I_c`$ there flows, besides the dissipationless supercurrent $`I_s`$, also a dissipative normal current $`I_n`$ in the junction, whose physical origin is the transfer of single (unpaired) electrons.

Within the range of validity of the RCSJ model, the dissipative current may be described with sufficient accuracy as a superposition of an ohmic current, characterized by a parallel ohmic shunt resistance $`R`$, and a displacement current, which is characterized by a parallel geometric shunting capacitance $`C`$ describing electric polarization inside the tunnelling barrier. The total junction current $`I`$ is then:

$$I=I_c\mathrm{sin}\phi \left(t\right)+\frac{\mathrm{}}{2eR}_t\phi \left(t\right)+\frac{\mathrm{}C}{2e}_t^2\phi \left(t\right)$$
(2)
The time average

$$V=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{t}_0^t𝑑t^{}V(t^{})=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2e}\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\phi \left(t\right)\phi \left(0\right)}{t}$$
(3)
is the dc voltage part of the in general not sinusoidal voltage signal $`V(t)`$ across the electrodes of a Josephson junction. For a strongly overdamped junction, $`C=0`$, one finds, assuming a constant bias current $`I>I_c`$, a relatively simple formula: $`V=R\sqrt{I^2I_c^2}`$. The dc voltage $`V`$ is connected to the oscillation frequency $`\omega =2\pi \nu `$ of the voltage signal $`V\left(t\right)`$ by:

$$h\nu =2eV$$
(4)
This result for the voltage response function $`V`$ of a weak link suggests a spectroscopic interpretation. When a Cooper pair is transferred from the superconducting side $`1`$ to the superconducting side $`2`$ of the junction, under conditions where $`I>I_c`$, a microwave photon with energy $`2eV`$ is released in the form of one quantum of electromagnetic radiation (Josephson radiation).

As far as macroscopic quantum interference is concerned, it was actually known  long before the discovery of the Josephson effects, that magnetic flux threading the area of a superconducting ring, made out of a material that is thick compared to the magnetic penetration depth $`\lambda `$, should be quantized in units of the flux quantum $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\frac{hc}{2e}`$.

Technical applications of the physics of weak superconductivity include ultrasensitive quantum interferometers, which indeed combine the afore mentioned Josephson effects with flux quantization. Consider, as indicated schematically in Fig.(1a), a standard two junction SQUID (for simplicity with symmetric junction parameters) under the dc current bias $`I>`$ $`2I_c`$. Such a device is actually a flux-to-voltage transducer. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }=𝐁,𝐚=`$ $`\left|𝐁\right|\left|𝐚\right|\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$ be the magnetic flux threading the orientated area element $`𝐚`$ of the superconducting SQUID loop, where $`\alpha `$ is the angle between the normal vector of the orientated area element and the magnetic field vector $`𝐁`$, as depicted schematically in Fig.(1a). The total magnetic field, $`𝐁=𝐁^{\left(1\right)}+𝐁^{\left(2\right)}`$, is then a superposition of the primary  external magnetic field $`𝐁^{\left(1\right)}`$, which generates the flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\left(1\right)}=𝐁^{\left(1\right)},𝐚`$ one wants to detect, and a secondary  magnetic field $`𝐁^{\left(2\right)}`$ that results, for example, from the inductance $`L`$ (or other impedance effects) in the circuit. The screening current $`I_{sc}`$ circulating in the SQUID loop leads to a total flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }^{\left(1\right)}+\mathrm{\Phi }^{\left(2\right)}`$. Dependent on the secondary flux term, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\left(2\right)}=LI_{sc}`$, there exists an optimal size $`\left|𝐚_L\right|`$ for any SQUID loop . A dimensionless measure for the inductance of such a loop is $`\beta _L=\frac{LI_c}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}`$. Note also that a two junction SQUID cannot be directly employed as a detector of absolute strength of external magnetic field. This is because the voltage response function $`V_{xy}`$ of the SQUID, i.e. the time average of the rapidly oscillating voltage signal $`V_{xy}\left(t\right)`$ across the nodes $`x`$ and $`y`$ of the circuit, is a periodic function of the strength of external magnetic field, see Fig.(1a).

A straightforward extension of the standard two junction SQUID is sketched in Fig.(1b). This is a $`1D`$ array of $`N`$ adjacent Josephson junctions  connected in parallel. In particular, the area elements of the $`N1`$ SQUID loops formed in this manner are all equal, e.g. $`𝐚_n=𝐚_L`$ for all $`n`$. The voltage response signal $`V_{xy}`$ vs. strength $`\left|𝐁^{\left(1\right)}\right|`$ of external magnetic field of this array has the same period than a standard two junction SQUID with loop area $`\left|𝐚_L\right|`$, see Fig.(1b).

A more general quantum interference device is obtained when the area elements $`𝐚_n`$ of the $`N1`$ loops in the array differ in size and, possibly, in orientation, as depicted schematically in Fig.(1c). If the sizes $`\left|𝐚_n\right|`$ of the orientated area elements $`𝐚_n`$ of the individual superconducting loops are chosen in a disordered fashion the voltage response function $`V_{xy}`$ vs. $`\left|𝐁^{\left(1\right)}\right|`$ becomes nonperiodic, see Fig.(1c). Taking into account inductive couplings among the currents in the circuit, the maximum loop size in the disordered array should coincide with the corresponding optimal loop size of a standard two junction SQUID, i.e. $`\mathrm{max}\left|𝐚_n\right|=\left|𝐚_L\right|`$. The voltage response signal $`V_{xy}`$ vs. strength of magnetic field of a disordered junction array is, under a suitable dc current bias $`I`$, indeed a unique function of $`\left|𝐁\right|`$ around its narrow global minimum at $`\left|𝐁\right|=0`$. This suggests that it should be possible, e.g. by measuring control current(s) flowing through the wires of a set of suitably orientated compensation coil(s), to reconstruct absolute strength, orientation and even the phase of an incident primary magnetic field signal, i.e. to determine the full vector $`𝐁^{\left(1\right)}(t)`$.

The $`n`$-th Josephson junction in the array has, within the range of validity of the RCSJ model, optional individual junction parameters $`R_n`$, $`C_n`$ and $`I_{c,n}`$. The corresponding current $`I_n`$ flowing through the $`n`$-th Josephson junction is, according to Eq.(2), determined by the gauge invariant phase difference $`\phi _n\left(t\right)`$ across that junction. The total current $`I`$ flowing through the nodes $`x`$

and $`y`$, respectively, of the circuit is then obtained from Kirchhoff’s rule as the phase sensitive superposition of the individual junction currents $`I_n`$:

$`I={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}\left[I_{c,n}\mathrm{sin}\phi _n(t)+({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}C_n}{2e}}_t^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2eR_n}}_t)\phi _n\left(t\right)\right]`$ (5)
Note that the gauge invariant phase differences $`\phi _n`$ of adjacent Josephson junctions in the array are not independent, but are connected to each other by the condition of flux quantization:

$$\phi _n\phi _{n1}=\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}𝐁,𝐚_nmod2\pi $$
(6)
Here $`\left|𝐚_n\right|`$ is the area of the superconducting loop connecting adjacent Josephson junctions numbered as $`n`$ and $`n1`$, respectively, and $`𝐁`$ denotes the magnetic field threading the orientated area element $`𝐚_n`$ of this loop. Note that Eq.(6) applies quite generally, provided the superconducting material, out of which the connecting loops are made, is thick compared to the magnetic penetration depth $`\lambda `$. In this case there exists a path inside the wire connecting, say, junction $`n`$ with its neighbor junction $`n1`$, on which the superfluid velocity field $`𝐯_s`$ becomes negligible small. So, $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Theta }=\frac{2e}{c}𝐀`$ along this path. Since all junctions in the array are connected in parallel, the rapidly oscillating voltage $`V_n(t)`$ at the electrodes of a particular Josephson junction, numbered as $`n`$in the array, is related to the signal $`V_{xy}(t)`$ between the nodes $`x`$ and $`y`$ of the circuit by

$$V_{xy}(t)=V_n(t)+_{xny}d𝐬,𝐄\left(t\right)$$
(7)
By Faraday’s law the electric field $`𝐄`$ along an integration path $`xny`$, that starts at node $`x`$, traverses the tunneling barrier of the $`n`$-th Josephson junction just once, and then terminates at node $`y`$, is directly connected to the time derivative of the flux threading the area elements of the 1D array. Once the signal $`V_0(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{\mathrm{}}{2e}_t\phi _0(t)`$ is known the other voltage signals $`V_n(t)`$ across the electrodes of the $`n`$-th junction follow from

$$V_n(t)V_{n1}(t)=\frac{1}{c}_t𝐁\left(t\right),𝐚_n$$
(8)
Taking into account the Biot-Savart type inductive couplings among the currents flowing in the circuit prohibits further simplification. However, it follows directly from Eq.(6) that one can indeed eliminate from Eq.(5) all phase variables $`\phi _n(t)`$ in favor of a single phase, for example $`\phi _0(t)`$, provided the extremely simplifying assumption is made, that all inductive couplings vanish. In this case the problem of $`N`$ coupled Josephson junctions is mapped onto a virtual single Josephson junction model. With $`\frac{1}{R}=\frac{1}{N}_{n=0}^{N1}\frac{1}{R_n}`$, $`T_N=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2e}\frac{1}{I_cR}`$ and $`\varphi \left(t\right)=\phi _0(t)`$ there results a scalar differential equation determining the phase difference $`\varphi \left(t\right)`$:

$`\left|S_N\left(𝐁\right)\right|\mathrm{sin}\left[\varphi \left(t\right)+\delta _N\left(𝐁\right)\right]+T_N\left(RC_t^2+_t\right)\varphi \left(t\right)`$ (9)
$`=J_N{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}}T_N\left(RC_t^2𝐁\left(t\right),𝐚_C+_t𝐁\left(t\right),𝐚_R\right)`$ (10)
where we have defined ($`𝐚_0=\mathrm{𝟎}`$)

$`S`$ $`{}_{N}{}^{}(𝐁)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{I_{c,n}}{I_c}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi i}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}}𝐁,𝐚_m\right]`$ (11)
$`𝐚`$ $`{}_{R}{}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{R}{R_n}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}}𝐚_m,𝐚_C={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_n}{C}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}}𝐚_m`$ (12)
and $`J_N=\frac{I}{NI_c}`$, $`I_c=\frac{1}{N}_{n=0}^{N1}I_{c,n}`$, $`C=\frac{1}{N}_{n=0}^{N1}C_n`$. The complex function $`S_N\left(𝐁\right)=\left|S_N\left(𝐁\right)\right|e^{i\delta _N\left(𝐁\right)}`$ denotes the characteristic structure factor of the 1D Josephson junction array, as defined in Eq.(11). It is an extremely responsive function of strength and orientation of magnetic field, and it is strongly affected by the choice of the individual area elements $`𝐚_m`$. In general $`\left|S_N\left(𝐁\right)\right|`$ is very sensitive to permutations among the $`𝐚_m`$’s.

In the overdamped junction regime, $`C=0`$, under conditions where a constant current $`I`$ is biased such that $`1\left|S_N\left(𝐁\right)\right|/J_N`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\alpha _B`$, and assuming for simplicity a homogeneous static magnetic field $`𝐁`$ (and also time independent area elements $`𝐚_m`$), one finds an exact solution for the phase difference $`\phi _0(t)`$:

$`V_0(t)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2e}}_t\phi _0(t)=I_cR{\displaystyle \frac{J_N^2\left|S_N\left(𝐁\right)\right|^2}{J_N+\left|S_N\left(𝐁\right)\right|\mathrm{sin}\left(\omega _Bt\alpha _B\right)}}`$

For a static magnetic field $`𝐁`$ the voltage response function $`V_{xy}`$ measured between the nodes $`x`$ and $`y`$ of the circuit  is equal to the dc-part of the rapidly oscillating voltage signal $`V_0(t)`$. All Josephson junctions in the 1D array oscillate at the same frequency $`\omega _B=2\pi \nu _B`$, which is related to $`V_{xy}`$ by:

$$\frac{h}{2e}\nu _B=V_0=I_cR\sqrt{J_N^2\left|S_N\left(𝐁\right)\right|^2}=V_{xy}$$
(13)
Note that the oscillation frequency $`\nu _B`$ of such a local oscillator is even more sensitive to changes of strength or orientation of the external magnetic field $`𝐁`$ than the structure factor of the array itself, since $`\left|S_N\left(𝐁\right)\right|`$ enters Eq.(13) quadratically.

Consider, as a special case, an ordered array, consisting of $`N1`$ identical SQUID loops, such that $`𝐁,𝐚_n=\mathrm{\Phi }=𝐁,𝐚_L`$, and $`I_{c,n}=I_c`$ independent on the junction index $`n`$. Then the structure factor $`S_N\left(𝐁\right)`$ $`S_N^{\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)}`$ becomes a simple geometrical series:

$$S_N^{\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)}=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}N\right)}{N\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\right)}\mathrm{exp}\left[\pi i\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\left(N1\right)\right]$$
(14)
In Fig.(1b) one observes the usual narrowing proportional to $`\frac{1}{N}`$ of the width of the voltage response signal $`V_{xy}`$ around its minima. Note the periodicity property $`\left|S_N^{\left(\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Phi }_0\right)}\right|=\left|S_N^{\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)}\right|`$ for all $`N2`$. For $`N=2`$ Eq.(13) is the periodic voltage response of a symmetric two junction SQUID in the overdamped junction regime.

A structure factor with a much longer period may be obtained in a parallel junction array where the orientated area elements increase in size according to a linear relation:

$$𝐚_m=(2m1)𝐚_1$$
(15)
For simplicity, identical junction parameters $`R_n`$, $`C_n`$ and $`I_{c,n}`$ are assumed. Then:

$$S_N(𝐁)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[2\pi i\frac{𝐁,𝐚_1}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}n^2\right]$$
(16)
The total area occupied by such a Gaussian array is $`\left(N1\right)^2𝐚_1`$, where $`𝐚_1`$ is the smallest area element, and $`𝐚_{N1}=\left(2N3\right)𝐚_1`$ is the largest area element. Compare a Gaussian array, with $`N1`$ area elements as described in Eq.(15), with a periodic array, consisting of $`N_P1`$ identical SQUID-loops with size $`\left|𝐚_L\right|`$. For a useful comparison, both arrays should occupy the same total area: $`\left(N1\right)^2𝐚_1=\left(N_P1\right)𝐚_L`$. Also the largest area element in the Gaussian array should coincide with the area element of an optimal single SQUID-loop, i.e. $`𝐚_{N1}=𝐚_L`$. Both requirements together imply for $`N_P1`$ that the Gaussian array has the double number of junctions compared to a corresponding periodic junction array: $`N2N_P`$. To determine the period of the Gaussian array consider a case where the flux threading the area of the smallest element, $`𝐚_1`$, is equal to a rational multiple of half a flux quantum: $`𝐁,𝐚_1=\frac{M}{N}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{2}`$. Then the largest area element in the array, $`𝐚_{N1}`$, is threaded by a flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_M=\left(1\frac{3}{2N}\right)M\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. In this case the structure factor $`S_N(𝐁)S_N^{\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_M\right)}`$ may be determined using a result of C.F. Gauss:

$$S_N^{\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_M\right)}=\frac{1}{N}\underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}e^{\pi i\frac{M}{N}n^2}=\frac{e^{i\frac{\pi }{4}}}{\sqrt{NM}}\underset{n=0}{\overset{M1}{}}e^{\pi i\frac{N}{M}n^2}$$
(17)
Note the periodicity $`\left|S_N^{\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_M+\mathrm{\Phi }_{2N}\right)}\right|=\left|S_N^{\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_M\right)}\right|`$, with period $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{2N}=\left(2N3\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. Remarkably, for $`M=2`$, and $`N=N_1N_2`$ being the product of two prime numbers $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$, there holds the factorization:

$$S_N^{\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_2\right)}=\left(1\right)^{\frac{\left(N_11\right)\left(N_21\right)}{4}}S_{N_1}^{\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_2\right)}S_{N_2}^{\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_2\right)}$$
(18)
Apparently, such Gaussian junction arrays are governed by the laws of number theory (quadratic residues).

The long periodicity of the structure factor vs. flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\left(1\right)}`$ threading the largest area element $`𝐚_L`$ of Gaussian junction arrays is also visible in the calculated voltage response function $`V_{xy}`$, irrespective of the degree of the inductive coupling represented by the parameter $`\beta _L`$. This is illustrated in Fig.(2). Note the asymmetry of $`V_{xy}`$ under $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (for a constant bias current $`I`$) for finite inductive coupling. As far as disorder is concerned, we also find that $`V_{xy}`$ in Gaussian junction arrays is very responsive to adding small random fluctuations to the size distribution of the area elements, so that $`V_{xy}`$ becomes non periodic with a pronounced antipeak only around $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$. As $`\beta _L`$ increases, the difference $`\mathrm{max}V_{xy}\mathrm{min}V_{xy}`$ decreases, and the linewidth of the global minimum $`V_{xy}`$ around $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ ceases in this case to scale proportional to $`\frac{1}{N}`$. Note all this applies in the overdamped junction regime. Our results for weak damping will be published elsewhere .

We hope that an experimental verification of the predicted magnetic field dependence of the voltage response function of disordered $`1D`$ parallel Josephson junction arrays will stimulate the development of new types of robust superconducting quantum interferometers, which would allow (for the first time) a technically rather simple precision measurement of absolute strength of external magnetic fields.

Acknowledgments: We thank R.P. Huebener, R. Kleiner and T. Träuble for useful discussions. Support by ”Forschungsschwerpunktprogramm des Landes Baden-Württemberg” is gratefully acknowledged.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Since its introduction, string field theory held out the promise for nonperturbative studies of string theory. Recently Sen  has argued that open bosonic (string) field theory describes the dynamics of $`D\overline{D}`$ system with the tachyon providing the instability inherent in such pair. Tachyon condensation also describes the decay of a single unstable $`D`$-brane. In addition, according to  the kink and lump solutions of such field theory lead to lower dimensional branes. In recent work Sen and Zweibach  studied in detail tachyon condensation in 26D open string theory. This follows the earlier, pioneering work of Samuel and Kostelecky who were the first to consider the vacuum structure of string field theory . They used a level truncation scheme to generate an approximation for the tachyon effective potential. Following this scheme, results were found  that show great agreement in numerical values with the expected exact results. Similar results were recently obtained for superstring field theory . Impressive high level studies appeared in .

It is equally important to give a construction of non-constant kink and lump-like solutions. One can expect that it is for these that the stringy effects present in string field theory might play the most important role. One of the characteristic features present in construction of Witten’s version of the theory  is the appearance in the interaction of terms exponential in derivatives. These terms can be moved from the interaction to give a nontrivial kinetic term. They have frustrated early attempts for construction of nonperturbative soliton (or instanton) solutions of the theory.

In the present work, we consider this problem in numerical terms. Concentrating on the lump of open string theory, we develop methods for its numerical solution. In this we keep the nontrivial exponential terms characteristic of the string vertex interaction and simultaneously perform a level truncation. This, we argue is to provide a very good approximation to the exact result.

The content of the paper is as follows. After a short description of open SFT, we discuss some features relevant to the present work. We explain (based on earlier observations ) how and why the approach of keeping higher derivatives and simultaneous level truncation holds the promise for a good approximation. We then proceed to the numerical work.

While this work was in progress, there appeared the work of Ref. which considers the problem in its field theory limit.

## 2 Open String Field Theory

We begin by describing some features of open string field theory which are of relevance to the investigation that follows. One has the cubic action:

$$S=A|Q|A+\frac{g}{3}V_3||A|A|A$$
(1)
with Q being the first quantized BRST operator. The geometric, three string interaction is realized in the Hilbert space by the vertex

$$V_3|=0|\mathrm{exp}\{\alpha _{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{r}N_{nm}^{rs}\alpha _m^s+\alpha ^{}\mathrm{ln}\gamma \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}_r^2\}$$
(2)
Here the Neumann coefficient $`N^{rs}`$ are determined in terms of appropriate conformal mapping ,their explicit values are determined in .

One of the main properties of the three-string vertex is an explicit appearance of higher derivative terms. They come in exponential form acting on each string field

$$|A\mathrm{exp}\left(\alpha ^{}\mathrm{ln}\gamma _\mu ^\mu \right)|A$$
(3)
with the constant

$$\gamma =\frac{3\sqrt{3}}{4}$$
(4)
The exponential terms are not relevant in studies of vacuum structure but they can have a nontrivial effect in any other nonzero momentum process. Concerning a systematic approximation or expansion scheme one notes the following. The masses of tachyon (and higher mass fields) are proportional to $`1/\alpha ^{}`$. In general $`\alpha ^{}`$ serves as a scale ,it can be scaled out in front of the SFT action. At a nonperturbative level, there is no small free parameter and no systematic expansion. Since one is not able(at present) to solve the theory in exact terms, one relies on seemingly and hoc approximations. Such is the process of level truncation. In order to understand more clearly the procedure involved and the relative relevance of particular terms, let us recall the original argument given for the level truncation in an unpublished work of ref.. Considering an approximate calculation of a nonzero momentum amplitude, for example for four tachyons one starts from:

$$A_s=_0^1𝑑xx^{s/22}V_{34}(\overline{3^{}})|b_0x^R|V_{12}(3^{}),$$
(5)
representing the $`s`$-chanel Feynman diagram.

Using the fact that $`x^R\alpha _nx^R=x^n\alpha _n`$, as well as similar results for $`b^{}s`$ and $`c^{}s`$, we have

$$A_s=_0^1𝑑xx^{s/22}V_{34}(\dot{3})b_0|V_{12}(\dot{3}).$$
(6)
The dot on $`V`$ indicates that $`a_n,b_n,c_n`$ have been replaced by $`x^n\alpha _n,x^nb_n,x^nc_n`$. Expanding in levels corresponds to expanding in powers of $`x=e^r`$. With the use the appropriate Neumann coefficients after a straightforward algebra one has

$$A_s=_0^1𝑑xx^{s/22}\left(1\frac{11^2}{3^6}x^2+\mathrm{}\right)e^{E(x)}.$$
(7)
The term in the exponent has the expansion

$`E(x)={\displaystyle \frac{s}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\gamma `$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{s}{2}}+2\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{2^3}{3^3}}x+{\displaystyle \frac{2^219}{3^6}}x^2+\mathrm{}\right)`$ (8)
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}+2\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{2^4}{3^3}}x{\displaystyle \frac{2^67^2}{3^{10}}}x^3+\mathrm{}\right)`$
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2^4}{3^3}}x+{\displaystyle \frac{2^3}{3^6}}x^2+\mathrm{}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{265^2}{23^6}}x^2+\mathrm{}\right).`$
This result can easily be rearranged into a form

$$A_s=_0^{z(1)}𝑑zz^{s/22}(1z)^{t/22}$$
(9)
where

$$z(x)=\frac{1}{\gamma ^2}x\left(1\frac{2^3}{3^3}x+\frac{2^2}{3^3}x^2+\mathrm{}\right).$$
(10)
For agreement with the exact result one would need to have z(1)=0.5 (the s and t -chanel diagrams are to cover the full range (0,1).To the present order in the level expansion we have $`z(1)0.50480`$ which is indeed very close to the exact value. A more significant observation is the fact that the main effect is contained in the $`\gamma ^2`$ factor present in the above expression . That term itself gives $`z(1)0.6`$. If we look up the origin of this factor, we see that it comes directly from the exponential higher derivative operator present in the vertex: since the intermediate states in the four point amplitude calculation are not on shell the exponential terms contribute giving the corresponding $`s`$ dependence.

In this nonzero momentum example, we conclude that it is advantageous to keep the higher derivatives exactly and that this followed by a level truncation is likely to give a good overall approximation. Naturaly one still expects this expansion to only be good for certain range of momenta.

Consider then the string field theory with the tachyon (level 0), but with the higher derivative terms kept exactly. The action evaluated originally in  reads

$$=\frac{1}{2}\left(_\mu T\right)^2+\frac{1}{2\alpha ^{}}T^2\frac{g}{3}\gamma ^3\stackrel{~}{T}^3\mathrm{with}\stackrel{~}{T}=e^{\mathrm{ln}\gamma ^2}T$$
(11)
The first sign that the presence of the exponential term in the cubic interaction profoundly influences the nature of the problem is seen in attempting to evaluate the asymptotics of a possible static solution. In ordinary field theories, kink and lump solution can be asymptoticaly characterized as

$$\varphi (x)\varphi _0+a_1e^{mx}$$
(12)
where $`\varphi _0`$ is the constant vacuum solution and $`m`$ is the physical mass of the scalar field. Based on this, one can write a systematic expansion for the lump

$$\varphi (x)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_ne^{nmx}$$
(13)
with the classical equations providing a recursion formula for coefficients $`a_n`$. The exponential decay $`e^{nmx}`$ has a physical meaning, the lump form factor receives a contribution from $`n`$ mesons. In attempting an analogue expansion in the case of string field theory, one meets a surprise. After moving the exponential into the kinetic term or equivalently denoting $`\stackrel{~}{T}=\varphi `$ the string theory tachyon field equation reads

$$\left(\left(_x^2+1\right)e^{c_x^2}2\right)\varphi (x)=\overline{g}\varphi (x)^2$$
(14)
with $`c=2\mathrm{ln}\gamma =\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}^3/4^2`$. The Ansatz

$$\varphi (x)\varphi _0+a,e^{\overline{m}x}$$
(15)
leads to an eigenvalue equation

$$(\overline{m}^2+1)e^{c\overline{m}^2}2=0$$
(16)
for $`\overline{m}`$. This equation turns out to have no real solution. With the exponential present the nature of the lump solution has changed from that of ordinary field theory. In particular the decay at asymtopic infinity in string field theory has to be stronger than a simple exponential. The non-exponential decay of the full lump (kink) solution signals that the form factor will have a more complex physical meaning. This feature also necessitates a purely numerical approach to the problem which we attempt in the next section.

## 3 Calculations and Results

The prescence of the higher derivative terms in $`(14)`$ prevent a numerical analysis directly in $`x`$ space. Upon transforming to momentum space, one finds the following nonlinear integral equation

$$\left(\left(1\stackrel{}{k}^2\right)e^{c\stackrel{}{k}^2}2\right)\varphi (\stackrel{}{k})=\overline{g}d^{25p}q\varphi (\stackrel{}{q})\varphi (\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{q}),$$
(17)
where $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ is a $`25p`$ dimensional vector. To solve an integral equation of this type, one typically discretizes the problem and solves the resulting matrix equation. In the case on hand, the resulting matrix equation is nonlinear and one is forced to search for the solution $`\varphi (\stackrel{}{k})`$ using a numerical minimization. It is computationally difficult and expensive to minimize functions with a large number of variables, and for this reason we have worked directly with a spherically symmetric ansatz for the tachyon field. Stable numerical solutions were obtained using a lattice having $`81`$ points. This implies a nonlinear minimization problem with $`81`$ parameters. The choice of a good objective function to be used in the minimization as well as an accurate initial guess are crucial to obtain a nontrivial solution. Indeed, in practice, we find that the majority of initial guesses lead to the trivial $`\varphi =0`$ solution. Our objective function was constructed as follows: Start by making an initial guess, $`\widehat{G}(k_n)`$ for the right hand side of $`(17)`$. This initial guess is used to compute a value for the tachyon wave function

$$\widehat{\varphi }(k_n)=\frac{\overline{g}\widehat{G}(k_n)}{\left(\left(1k_n^2\right)e^{ck_n^2}2\right)}.$$
(18)
The wave function $`\widehat{\varphi }(k_n)`$ can now be used to compute the value of the left hand side of $`(17)`$. However, this involves a convolution which must be performed with care. Evaluating the convolution directly in momentum space is not optimal: by exploiting the spherical symmetry of the wave function, the convolution can reduced to the integration over a single angle and a radius. The integrand contains the factor $`\widehat{\varphi }(p_n)\widehat{\varphi }(\delta _n)`$ with

$$\delta _n=|\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{p}|=\sqrt{p_n^2+k_m^22k_mp_n\mathrm{cos}(\theta _l)}.$$
(19)
In general, $`\delta _n`$ does not correpsond to a lattice point and one is forced to interpolate from the known points to find $`\widehat{\varphi }(\delta _n)`$. A much more efficient way of performing the convolution is by transforming to $`x`$ space, squaring the function and then transforming back to $`k`$ space. By using the spherical symmetry of wave function, the Fourier transform can be reduced to a single integration. Thus, the previous double integration has been replaced by two single integrations, which is more efficient. In addition, the integrations only require a knowledge of $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ at the lattice points. After convolving $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ with itself to obtain $`G(k_n)`$, the error, $``$ to be minimized is constructed as

$$=\underset{n}{}|G(k_n)\widehat{G}(k_n)|.$$
(20)
The minimization was performed using the fmins.m subroutine of MATLAB, which employs a simplex search method. A suitable initial guess is obtained by taking a function which initially falls off slightly faster than a Gaussian, but reaches zero at some finite momentum. As an example we have shown the wavefunction for the D20 brane below.

> Fig1: The wave function of the D20 brane as a function of the radial coordinate $`r`$. The plot was obtained by taking the Fourier transform of the numerical solution of equation $`(18)`$.

The above form for the wave function is typical. The value of the wave function at the origin in position space decreased from $`0.62`$ for the D24 brane to $`4.46`$ for the D18 brane. The point at which the wave function reaches zero is very nearly constant for all the Dp-branes considered here. In figure 2 we have shown the error in the D24 brane solution. The tensions of these solutions was evaluated directly in momentum space. For example, in the case of the D24 brane, we compute

$`\widehat{T}_{24}=2\pi ^2T_{25}`$ $`{\displaystyle }`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{2\pi }}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi (p)(p^21)e^{cp^2}\varphi (p)+\varphi (p)\varphi (p)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{3}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{2\pi }}\varphi (k)\varphi (p)\varphi (pk))`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2T_{25}}{6}}`$ $`{\displaystyle }`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{2\pi }}\left(\varphi (p)(p^21)e^{cp^2}\varphi (p)+2\varphi (p)\varphi (p)\right).`$ (21)
> Fig2: The error in the wave function of the D20 brane as a function of the radial coordinate in momentum space $`p`$. The plot shows $`/(_n\widehat{G}(k_n)`$ as a function of $`k_n`$.

In our conventions, a Dp-brane has tension

$$T_p=(2\pi )^{25p}T_{25}.$$
(22)
In the table below we compare our numerically evaluated tensions, $`\widehat{T}_p`$ with the above values.

| $`p`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`T_p`$ | $`\widehat{T}_p/T_p`$ | $`\varphi (0)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 24 | -29.4 | 0.706 | -0.63 |
| 23 | -27.5 | 0.725 | -0.86 |
| 22 | -14.3 | 0.857 | -1.19 |
| 21 | -8.3 | 0.917 | -1.63 |
| 20 | 6.4 | 1.064 | -2.26 |
| 19 | 25.3 | 1.253 | -3.15 |
| 18 | 64.0 | 1.640 | -4.46 |

Table I

> Values of the Dp brane tensions computed using the numerical tachyon lump solution. The parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_p`$ is defined as $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_p=\frac{\widehat{T}_pT_p}{T_p}\times 100.`$ $`\varphi (0)`$ is the value of the wavefunction at the origin in position space.

Clearly there is no obstacle for the existence of lower p-Brane solutions. The trend is that the static lump gives systematicaly a growing tension. This is actually opposite to what one finds in the extreme field theory limit. Concerning further improvement of present results one expects (esspecialy for lower p) the relevance of higher massive levels. It is next important to study the direction of their contributions. It is also relevant to perform a similar study in superstring theory.