text:
# References

SIT-HEP/MT-1

STUPP-00-160

March, 2000

Canonical formulation of $`N=2`$ supergravity

in terms of the Ashtekar variable

Motomu Tsuda ***e-mail: tsuda@sit.ac.jp

Laboratory of Physics, Saitama Institute of Technology

Okabe-machi, Saitama 369-0293, Japan

and

Takeshi Shirafuji e-mail: sirafuji@post.saitama-u.ac.jp

Physics Department, Saitama University

Urawa, Saitama 338-8570, Japan

Abstract
We reconstruct the Ashtekar’s canonical formulation of $`N=2`$ supergravity (SUGRA) starting from the $`N=2`$ chiral Lagrangian derived by closely following the method employed in the usual SUGRA. In order to get the full graded algebra of the Gauss, $`U(1)`$ gauge and right-handed supersymmetry (SUSY) constraints, we extend the internal, global $`O(2)`$ invariance to local one by introducing a cosmological constant to the chiral Lagrangian. The resultant Lagrangian does not contain any auxiliary fields in contrast with the 2-form SUGRA and the SUSY transformation parameters are not constrained at all. We derive the canonical formulation of the $`N=2`$ theory in such a manner as the relation with the usual SUGRA be explicit at least in classical level, and show that the algebra of the Gauss, $`U(1)`$ gauge and right-handed SUSY constraints form the graded algebra, $`G^2SU(2)`$. Furthermore, we introduce the graded variables associated with the $`G^2SU(2)`$ algebra and we rewrite the canonical constraints in a simple form in terms of these variables. We quantize the theory in the graded-connection representation and discuss the solutions of quantum constraints.

1. Introduction

The nonperturbative canonical treatment of supergravity (SUGRA) in terms of the Ashtekar variable  was firstly discussed about the simplest $`N=1`$ theory in . In this theory the chiral Lagrangian was constructed by using the self-dual connection which couples to only a right-handed spin-3/2 field, and this Lagrangian has two kinds of right- and left-handed supersymmetry (SUSY) invariances in the first-order formalism. Therefore two types of the SUSY constraints, which generate those SUSY transformations, appear in the canonical formulation. Fülöp  and Armand-Ugon et al.  showed that in $`N=1`$ chiral SUGRA the $`SU(2)`$ algebra generated by the Gauss-law constraint is graded by means of the right-handed SUSY constraint. All the constraints were also rewritten in a simple form in  towards a loop representation of quantum canonical SUGRA, by using graded connection and momentum variables associated with the graded algebra which is called the $`GSU(2)`$ algebra . 111In Ref.  it is pointed out that the algebra of $`GSU(2)`$ corresponds to the super Lie algebra, $`Osp(1/2)`$. Furthermore the spin network states  of SUGRA was recently constructed in  based on the representation of this graded algebra.

The extension of the Ashtekar’s canonical formulation to $`N=2`$ extended SUGRA was mainly developed in the context of the 2-form gravity . The chiral Lagrangian of $`N=2`$ SUGRA was constructed in  based on the $`N=1`$ 2-form SUGRA  with auxiliary fields which are needed to write the chiral (2-form) Lagrangian: It was proved that the SUSY algebra is not closed at the level of transformation algebra on auxiliary fields, but actually closes at the level of the canonical formulation. On the other hand, in  the canonical formulation of the BF theory as a toplogical field theory  was derived for an appropriate graded algebra of $`SU(2)`$ (which henceforth will be referred to as $`G^2SU(2)`$ 222 The algebra of $`G^2SU(2)`$ corresponds to the super Lie algebra, $`Osp(2/2)`$ . following ), and it was shown that the $`G^2SU(2)`$ BF theory subject to some algebaic constraints can be cast into the $`N=2`$ 2-form SUGRA.

In this paper we reconstruct the Ashtekar’s canonical formulation of $`N=2`$ SUGRA starting from the $`N=2`$ chiral Lagrangian derived by closely following the method employed in the usual SUGRA. In Sec. 2 we present the globally $`O(2)`$ invariant Lagrangian of $`N=2`$ chiral SUGRA slightly modified from the Lagrangian in . In order to get the full graded algebra of the Gauss, $`U(1)`$ gauge and right-handed SUSY constraints, we extend in Sec. 3 the internal, global $`O(2)`$ invariance to local one by introducing a cosmological constant to the chiral Lagrangian. The resultant Lagrangian does not contain any auxiliary fields in contrast with the 2-form SUGRA and the SUSY transformation parameters are not constrained at all. In Sec. 4 we derive the canonical formulation of the $`N=2`$ theory in such a manner as the relation with the usual SUGRA be explicit at least in classical level, and we show that the algebra of the Gauss, $`U(1)`$ gauge and right-handed SUSY constraints form the graded algebra, $`G^2SU(2)`$. In Sec. 5 we introduce the graded variables associated with the $`G^2SU(2)`$ algebra and rewrite the canonical constraints in a simple form in terms of these variables. We quantize the theory in the graded-connection representation and discuss the solutions of quantum constraints in Sec. 6. Our conclusions are included in Sec. 7.

2. The globally $`O(2)`$ invariant Lagrangian

Firstly we present the chiral Lagrangian of $`N=2`$ SUGRA constructed in . The independent variables are a tetrad $`e_\mu ^i`$, two (Majorana) Rarita-Schwinger fields $`\psi _\mu ^{(I)}`$, a Maxwell field $`A_\mu `$ and a (complex) self-dual connection $`A_{ij\mu }^{(+)}`$ which satisfies $`(1/2)ϵ_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{kl}A_{kl\mu }^{(+)}`$ $`=iA_{ij\mu }^{(+)}`$. 333 Greek letters $`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}`$, are spacetime indices, Lattin letters $`i,j,\mathrm{}`$, are local Lorentz indices and $`(I),(J),\mathrm{}(=(1),(2))`$, denote $`O(2)`$ internal indices. We take the Minkowski metric $`\eta _{ij}=\mathrm{diag}(1,+1,+1,+1)`$ and the totally antisymmetric tensor $`ϵ_{ijkl}`$ is normalized as $`ϵ_{0123}=+1`$. We define $`ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ and $`ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ as tensor densities which take values of $`+1`$ or $`1`$. The $`N=2`$ chiral Lagrangian density in terms of these variables is written in first-order form as

$`_{N=2}^{(+)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }e_\mu ^ie_\nu ^jR_{ij\rho \sigma }^{(+)}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\overline{\psi }_{R\mu }^{(I)}\gamma _\rho D_\sigma ^{(+)}\psi _{R\nu }^{(I)}{\displaystyle \frac{e}{2}}(F_{\mu \nu }^{()})^2`$ (2.1)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\sqrt{2}}}\overline{\psi }_\mu ^{(I)}\{e(F^{\mu \nu }+\widehat{F}^{\mu \nu })+i\gamma _5(\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }+\stackrel{~}{\widehat{F}}^{\mu \nu })\}\psi _\nu ^{(J)}ϵ^{(I)(J)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(\overline{\psi }_{L\mu }^{(I)}\psi _{R\nu }^{(J)})\overline{\psi }_{R\rho }^{(K)}\psi _{L\sigma }^{(L)}ϵ^{(I)(J)}ϵ^{(K)(L)},`$
which is globally $`O(2)`$ invariant. Here $`e`$ denotes $`\mathrm{det}(e_\mu ^i)`$, $`ϵ^{(I)(J)}=ϵ^{(J)(I)}`$ and $`F^{()\mu \nu }:=(1/2)(F^{\mu \nu }+ie^1\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu })`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }=(1/2)ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F_{\rho \sigma }`$. The covariant derivative $`D_\mu ^{(+)}`$ and the curvature $`R_{}^{(+)ij}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}`$ are

$`D_\mu ^{(+)}:=_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}A_{ij\mu }^{(+)}S^{ij},`$
$`R_{}^{(+)ij}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}:=2(_{[\mu }A_{}^{(+)ij}{}_{\nu ]}{}^{}+A_{}^{(+)i}{}_{k[\mu }{}^{}A_{}^{(+)kj}{}_{\nu ]}{}^{}),`$ (2.2)
while $`\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }`$ in the second line of (2.1) is defined as

$$\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }:=F_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\overline{\psi }_\mu ^{(I)}\psi _\nu ^{(J)}ϵ^{(I)(J)}.$$
(2.3)
Note that we have used $`(F_{\mu \nu }^{()})^2`$ as the Maxwell kinetic term in Eq. (2.1), which allows us to rewrite the canonical constraints in terms of the graded variables associated with the graded algebra, $`G^2SU(2)`$, as will be explained later. In this respect the chiral Lagrangian of Eq. (2.1) differs from that constructed in .

The last four-fermion contact term in Eq. (2.1) is pure imaginary but this term is necessary to reproduce the Lagrangian of the usual $`N=2`$ SUGRA in the second-order formalism. Indeed, if we solve the equation $`\delta _{N=2}^{(+)}/\delta A^{(+)}=0`$ with respect to $`A_{ij\mu }^{(+)}`$ and use the obtained solution in the first two terms in Eq. (2.1), then those terms give rise to a number of four-fermion contact terms, which are complex with the imaginary term being written as

$$\frac{i}{8}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }T_{\lambda \mu \nu }T{}_{}{}^{\lambda }{}_{\rho \sigma }{}^{}=\frac{i}{16}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(\overline{\psi }_{R\mu }^{(I)}\gamma _\lambda \psi _{R\nu }^{(K)})\overline{\psi }_{R\rho }^{(J)}\gamma ^\lambda \psi _{R\sigma }^{(L)}ϵ^{(I)(J)}ϵ^{(K)(L)},$$
(2.4)
where the torsion tensor is defined by $`T{}_{}{}^{i}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}=2D_{[\mu }e_{\nu ]}^i`$ with $`D_\mu e_\nu ^i=_\mu e_\nu ^i+A{}_{}{}^{i}{}_{j\mu }{}^{}e_{\nu }^{j}`$. The last term in Eq. (2.1), on the other hand, can be rewritten as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(\overline{\psi }_{L\mu }^{(I)}\psi _{R\nu }^{(J)})\overline{\psi }_{R\rho }^{(K)}\psi _{L\sigma }^{(L)}ϵ^{(I)(J)}ϵ^{(K)(L)}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{16}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(\overline{\psi }_{R\mu }^{(I)}\gamma _\lambda \psi _{R\nu }^{(K)})\overline{\psi }_{R\rho }^{(J)}\gamma ^\lambda \psi _{R\sigma }^{(L)}ϵ^{(I)(J)}ϵ^{(K)(L)}`$ (2.5)
by using a Fierz transformation, and exactly cancels with the pure imaginary term of Eq. (2.4). Therefore the $`_{N=2}^{(+)}[\mathrm{second}\mathrm{order}]`$ of $`N=2`$ chiral SUGRA is reduced to that of the usual one up to imaginary boundary terms; namely, we have

$`_{N=2}^{(+)}[\mathrm{second}\mathrm{order}]=`$ $`_{N=2\mathrm{usual}\mathrm{SUGRA}}[\mathrm{second}\mathrm{order}]`$ (2.6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}_\mu \{ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(\overline{\psi }_\nu ^{(I)}\gamma _\rho \psi _\sigma ^{(I)}+2iA_\nu _\rho A_\sigma )\}.`$
Note that a boundary term quadratic in the Maxwell field $`A_\mu `$ appears in (2.6) since we choose $`(F_{\mu \nu }^{()})^2`$ as the kinetic term in Eq. (2.1).

3. Gauging the $`O(2)`$ invariance

The global $`O(2)`$ invariance of Eq. (2.1) can be gauged by introducing a minimal coupling for $`\psi _\mu ^{(I)}`$ and $`A_\mu `$, which automatically requires a spin-3/2 mass-like term and a cosmological term in the Lagrangian . These three terms are written as

$`_{\mathrm{cosm}}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\overline{\psi }_\mu ^{(I)}\gamma _\rho \psi _\nu ^{(J)}A_\sigma ϵ^{(I)(J)}`$ (3.1)
$`\sqrt{2}i\lambda e\overline{\psi }_\mu ^{(I)}S^{\mu \nu }\psi _\nu ^{(I)}+6\lambda ^2e`$
with the gauge coupling constant $`\lambda `$. Here the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is related to $`\lambda `$ as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=6\lambda ^2`$. Note that the first term of Eq. (3.1) is comparable with the kinetic term of $`\psi _{R\mu }^{(I)}`$ in Eq. (2.1), since this term can be rewritten as

$$\frac{\lambda }{2}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\overline{\psi }_\mu ^{(I)}\gamma _\rho \psi _\nu ^{(J)}A_\sigma ϵ^{(I)(J)}=\lambda ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\overline{\psi }_{R\mu }^{(I)}\gamma _\rho \psi _{R\nu }^{(J)}A_\sigma ϵ^{(I)(J)}.$$
(3.2)
We denote the chiral Lagrangian as the sum of Eqs. (2.1) and (3.1); namely,

$$^{(+)}:=_{N=2}^{(+)}+_{\mathrm{cosm}}.$$
(3.3)
Because of Eq. (2.6), the $`^{(+)}`$ of Eq.(3.3) in the second-order formalism is invariant under the SUSY transformation of the usual gauged $`N=2`$ SUGRA  given by

$`\delta e_\mu ^i=`$ $`i\overline{\alpha }^{(I)}\gamma ^i\psi _\mu ^{(I)},`$
$`\delta A_\mu =`$ $`\sqrt{2}ϵ^{(I)(J)}\overline{\alpha }^{(I)}\psi _\mu ^{(J)},`$
$`\delta \psi _\mu ^{(I)}=`$ $`2\{D_\mu [A(e,\psi ^{(I)})]\alpha ^{(I)}\lambda ϵ^{(I)(J)}A_\mu \alpha ^{(J)}\}`$ (3.4)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}ϵ^{(I)(J)}\left(\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }\gamma ^\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}eϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\widehat{F}^{\rho \sigma }\gamma ^\nu \gamma _5\right)\alpha ^{(J)}`$
$`\sqrt{2}i\lambda \gamma _\mu \alpha ^{(I)}`$
with $`A_{ij\mu }(e,\psi ^{(I)})`$ in $`\delta \psi _\mu ^{(I)}`$ being defined as the sum of the Ricci rotation coefficients $`A_{ij\mu }(e)`$ and $`K_{ij\mu }`$ which is expressed as

$$K_{ij\mu }=\frac{i}{4}(\overline{\psi }_{[i}^{(I)}\gamma _\mu \psi _{j]}^{(I)}+\overline{\psi }_{[i}^{(I)}\gamma _j\psi _{\mu ]}^{(I)}\overline{\psi }_{[j}^{(I)}\gamma _i\psi _{\mu ]}^{(I)}).$$
(3.5)
On the other hand, the first-order (i.e.,“off-shell”) SUSY invariance of $`^{(+)}`$ may be realized by introducing the right- and left-handed SUSY transformations as in the case of $`N=1`$ chiral SUGRA .

4. The canonical formulation of $`N=2`$ chiral SUGRA

Starting with the chiral Lagrangian $`^{(+)}`$ of Eq. (3.3), let us derive the canonical formulation of $`N=2`$ chiral SUGRA by means of the (3+1) decomposition of spacetime. For this purpose we assume that the topology of spacetime $`M`$ is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times R`$ for some three-manifold $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ so that a time coordinate function $`t`$ is defined on $`M`$. Then the time component of the tetrad can be defined as 444Latin letters $`a,b,\mathrm{}`$ are the spatial part of the spacetime indices $`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}`$, and capital letters I, J, $`\mathrm{}`$ denote the spatial part of the local Lorentz indices i, j, $`\mathrm{}`$.

$$e_t^i=Nn^i+N^ae_a^i.$$
(4.1)
Here $`n^i`$ is the timelike unit vector orthogonal to $`e_{ia}`$, i.e., $`n^ie_{ia}=0`$ and $`n^in_i=1`$, while $`N`$ and $`N^a`$ denote the lapse function and the shift vector, respectively. Furthermore, we give a restriction on the tetrad with the choice $`n_i=(1,0,0,0)`$ in order to simplify the Legendre transform of Eq. (3.3). Once this choice is made, $`e_{Ia}`$ becomes tangent to the constant $`t`$ surfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`e_{0a}=0`$. Therefore we change the notation $`e_{Ia}`$ to $`E_{Ia}`$ below. We also take the spatial restriction of the totally antisymmetric tensor $`ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ as $`ϵ^{abc}:=ϵ_{}^{abc}{}_{t}{}^{}`$, while $`ϵ^{IJK}:=ϵ_{}^{IJK}{}_{0}{}^{}`$.

Under the above gauge condition of the tetrad, the (3+1) decomposition of Eq. (3.3) yields the kinetic terms, 555 For convenience of calculation we use the two-component spinor notation in the canonical formulation. Two-component spinor indices $`A,B,\mathrm{}`$, and $`A^{},B^{},\mathrm{}`$, are raised and lowered with antisymmetric spinors $`ϵ^{AB},ϵ_{AB}`$, and their conjugates $`ϵ^{A^{}B^{}},ϵ_{A^{}B^{}}`$, such that $`\psi ^A=ϵ^{AB}\psi _B`$ and $`\phi _B=\phi ^Aϵ_{AB}`$. The Infeld-van der Waerden symbol $`\sigma _{iAA^{}}`$ are taken in this paper to be $`(\sigma _0,\sigma _I):=(i/\sqrt{2})(I,\tau _I)`$ with $`\tau _I`$ being the Pauli matrices. We also define the symbol $`\sigma _{}^{B}{}_{IA}{}^{}`$ (which is called the $`SU(2)`$ soldering form in ) by using $`n^{AA^{}}=n^i\sigma _{}^{AA^{}}{}_{i}{}^{}`$ as $`\sigma {}_{IA}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{B}:=\sqrt{2}i\sigma _{IAA^{}}n^{BA^{}}=(i/\sqrt{2})(\tau _I)_{AB}`$.

$$_{\mathrm{kin}}^{(+)}=\stackrel{~}{E}_I^a\dot{𝒜}{}_{}{}^{I}{}_{a}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\pi }{}_{}{}^{(I)}{}_{A}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}\dot{\psi }{}_{}{}^{(I)A}{}_{a}{}^{}+{}_{}{}^{+}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}^{a}\dot{A}_a,$$
(4.2)
where $`𝒜{}_{}{}^{I}{}_{a}{}^{}:=2A{}_{0}{}^{(+)}_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{I}`$ and ($`\stackrel{~}{\pi }{}_{}{}^{(I)}_{}^{a}{}_{A}{}^{}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{+}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}^{a}`$) are defined by 666 The derivative for fermionic variables is treated as the left derivative unless stated otherwise.

$`\stackrel{~}{\pi }{}_{}{}^{(I)}{}_{A}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^{(+)}}{\delta \dot{\psi }_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{(I)A}}}=\sqrt{2}iϵ^{abc}E_c^I\overline{\psi }{}_{}{}^{(I)A^{}}{}_{b}{}^{}\sigma _{IAA^{}}^{},`$ (4.3)
$`{}_{}{}^{+}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}^{a}:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^{(+)}}{\delta \dot{A}_a}}=\stackrel{~}{\pi }^a+i\stackrel{~}{B}^a`$ (4.4)
with

$`\stackrel{~}{\pi }^a:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{2N^2}}q^{ab}\{2(F_{tb}N^dF_{db})`$ (4.5)
$`\sqrt{2}(\overline{\psi }_t^{(I)}\psi _b^{(J)}N^d\overline{\psi }_d^{(I)}\psi _b^{(J)})ϵ^{(I)(J)}\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\sqrt{2}}}ϵ^{abc}\overline{\psi }_b^{(I)}\gamma _5\psi _c^{(J)}ϵ^{(I)(J)},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{B}^a=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^{abc}F_{bc}.`$ (4.6)
In Eq. (4.5) the Majorana spinors $`\psi _\mu ^{(I)}`$ are used for simplicity. On the other hand, the constraints are obtained from the variation of $`^{(+)}`$ with respect to Lagrange multipliers. Here we raise, in particular, the Gauss, $`U(1)`$ gauge, right-handed SUSY and left-handed SUSY constraints expressed by the canonical variables as follows; namely, 777 We note that the $`{}_{}{}^{+}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}^{a}`$ appears in Eqs. (4.8), (4.9) and (4.10). If we use $`(F_{\mu \nu })^2`$ as the Maxwell kinetic term in Eq. (2.1), the $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }^a`$ (and not $`{}_{}{}^{+}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}^{a}`$) will appear in Eq. (4.8), and it is not possible to rewrite the canonical constraints in terms of the graded variables.

$`𝒢_I:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^{(+)}}{\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }_t^I}}=𝒟_a\stackrel{~}{E}_I^a{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}\stackrel{~}{\pi }{}_{}{}^{(I)}{}_{A}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}\sigma {}_{I}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{A}{}_{B}{}^{}\psi {}_{}{}^{(I)B}{}_{a}{}^{}=0,`$ (4.7)
$`g:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^{(+)}}{\delta A_t}}=_a{}_{}{}^{+}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}^{a}+\lambda \psi {}_{}{}^{(I)A}{}_{a}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\pi }{}_{}{}^{(J)}{}_{A}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}ϵ_{}^{(I)(J)}=0,`$ (4.8)
$`{}_{}{}^{R}𝒮_{A}^{(I)}:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^{(+)}}{\delta \psi _{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{(I)A}}}=𝒟_a\stackrel{~}{\pi }{}_{}{}^{(I)}{}_{A}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}{}_{}{}^{+}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}^{a}\psi {}_{}{}^{(J)B}{}_{a}{}^{}ϵ_{AB}^{}ϵ^{(I)(J)}`$ (4.9)
$`+\lambda (2i\stackrel{~}{E}_I^a\sigma {}_{}{}^{I}{}_{AB}{}^{}\psi {}_{}{}^{(I)B}{}_{a}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\pi }{}_{}{}^{(J)}{}_{A}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}A_{a}^{}ϵ^{(I)(J)})=0,`$
$`{}_{}{}^{L}𝒮_{A}^{(I)}:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^{(+)}}{\delta \rho _{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{(I)A}}}`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}\stackrel{~}{E}_I^a\stackrel{~}{E}_J^b(\sigma ^I\sigma ^J){}_{A}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{B}[2(𝒟_{[a}\psi {}_{}{}^{(I)C}{}_{b]}{}^{}\lambda A_{[a}\psi {}_{}{}^{(J)C}{}_{b]}{}^{}ϵ_{}^{(I)(J)})ϵ_{BC}`$ (4.10)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}\lambda ϵ_{abc}\stackrel{~}{\pi }{}_{}{}^{(I)}{}_{B}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}E^2ϵ_{def}ϵ_{agh}(\sigma ^I\sigma ^J\sigma ^K\sigma ^L){}_{A}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{B}ϵ_{}^{(I)(J)}\stackrel{~}{E}_I^e\stackrel{~}{E}_J^f\stackrel{~}{E}_K^g\stackrel{~}{E}_L^h\stackrel{~}{\pi }{}_{}{}^{(J)}_{}^{d}{}_{B}{}^{}`$
$`\times [ϵ^{abc}\{F_{bc}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}ϵ_{CD}(\psi {}_{}{}^{(K)C}{}_{b}{}^{}\psi {}_{}{}^{(L)D}{}_{c}{}^{})ϵ^{(K)(L)}\}+i{}_{}{}^{+}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}^{a}]=0,`$
where the Lagrange multipliers, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t^I`$ and $`\rho _{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{(I)A}`$, are defined by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_t^I:=2A^{(+)}{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{I}{}_{t}{}^{},\rho {}_{}{}^{(I)A}{}_{t}{}^{}:=E^1\overline{\psi }_{A^{}t}^{(I)}n^{AA^{}},$$
(4.11)
and the covariant derivatives on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are

$`𝒟_a\stackrel{~}{E}_I^a:=_a\stackrel{~}{E}_I^a+iϵ_{IJK}𝒜{}_{}{}^{J}{}_{a}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{E}_{}^{Ka},`$
$`𝒟_a\stackrel{~}{\pi }{}_{}{}^{(I)}{}_{A}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}:=_a\stackrel{~}{\pi }{}_{}{}^{(I)}{}_{A}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}𝒜{}_{A}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{B}{}_{a}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\pi }{}_{}{}^{(I)}{}_{B}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}.`$ (4.12)
The left-handed SUSY constraint of Eq. (4.10) is not polynomial because of the factor $`E^2`$, but the rescaled $`E^2({}_{}{}^{L}𝒮_{A}^{(I)})`$ becomes polynomial because

$$E^2=\frac{1}{6}ϵ_{abc}ϵ^{IJK}\stackrel{~}{E}_I^a\stackrel{~}{E}_J^b\stackrel{~}{E}_K^c.$$
(4.13)
The above canonical constraints (except for the Gauss constraint) have expressions different from those for the $`N=2`$ 2-form SUGRA . This seems to originate from difference in the definition of momentum variables, in particular the momentum conjugate to the Maxwell field.

Now, by using the non-vanishing Poisson brackets 888The Poisson brackets are defined for canonical variables $`(q^i,\stackrel{~}{p}_i)`$ by using the right and left derivatives as $`\{F,G\}:=d^3z[(\delta ^RF/\delta q^i(z))(\delta ^LG/\delta \stackrel{~}{p}_i(z))(1)^i(\delta ^RF/\delta \stackrel{~}{p}_i(z))(\delta ^LG/\delta q^i(z))]`$ with $`i=0`$ for an even (commuting) $`q^i`$ while $`i=1`$ for an odd (anticommuting) $`q^i`$. among the canonical variables,

$`\{𝒜{}_{}{}^{I}{}_{a}{}^{}(x),\stackrel{~}{E}{}_{J}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}(y)\}=\delta _J^I\delta _a^b\delta ^3(xy),`$
$`\{\psi {}_{}{}^{(I)A}{}_{a}{}^{}(x),\stackrel{~}{\pi }{}_{}{}^{(J)}{}_{B}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}(y)\}=\delta ^{(I)(J)}\delta _B^A\delta _a^b\delta ^3(xy),`$
$`\{A_a(x),{}_{}{}^{+}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}^{b}(y)\}=\delta _a^b\delta ^3(xy),`$ (4.14)
we show that the Gauss, $`U(1)`$ gauge and right-handed SUSY constraints of Eqs. (4.7)-(4.9) form the graded algbra, $`G^2SU(2)`$. In fact, if we define the smeared functions,

$`𝒢_I[\mathrm{\Lambda }^I]:={\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}d^3x\mathrm{\Lambda }^I𝒢_I,`$
$`g[a]:={\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}d^3xag,`$
$`{}_{}{}^{R}𝒮_{A}^{(I)}[\xi ^{(I)A}]:={\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}d^3x\xi ^{(I)A}{}_{}{}^{R}𝒮_{A}^{(I)}`$ (4.15)
for convenience of the calculation, the Poisson brackets of $`𝒢_I,g`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{R}𝒮_{A}^{(I)}`$ are obtained as

$`\{𝒢_I[\mathrm{\Lambda }^I],𝒢_J[\mathrm{\Gamma }^J]\}=𝒢_I[\mathrm{\Lambda }^I],`$
$`\{𝒢_I[\mathrm{\Lambda }^I],g[a]\}=0=\{g[a],g[b]\},`$
$`\{𝒢_I[\mathrm{\Lambda }^I],{}_{}{}^{R}𝒮_{A}^{(I)}[\xi ^{(I)A}]\}={}_{}{}^{R}𝒮_{A}^{(I)}[\xi ^{(I)A}],`$
$`\{g[a],{}_{}{}^{R}𝒮_{A}^{(I)}[\xi ^{(I)A}]\}=\lambda {}_{}{}^{R}𝒮_{A}^{(I)}[\xi ^{\prime \prime (I)A}],`$
$`\{{}_{}{}^{R}𝒮_{A}^{(I)}[\xi ^{(I)A}],{}_{}{}^{R}𝒮_{B}^{(J)}[\eta ^{(J)B}]\}=\lambda 𝒢_I[\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\prime \prime I}]+g[a^{}]`$ (4.16)
with the parameters, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^I,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\prime \prime I},\xi ^{(I)A},\xi ^{\prime \prime (I)A}`$ and $`a^{}`$, being defined as

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^I:=iϵ^{IJK}\mathrm{\Lambda }_J\mathrm{\Gamma }_K,`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\prime \prime I}:=2i\xi ^{(I)A}\eta ^{(J)B}\sigma {}_{}{}^{I}{}_{AB}{}^{}\delta _{}^{(I)(J)},`$
$`\xi ^{(I)A}:={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^I\xi ^{(I)B}\sigma {}_{IB}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{A},`$
$`\xi ^{\prime \prime (I)A}:=a\xi ^{(J)A}ϵ^{(I)(J)},`$
$`a^{}:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\xi ^{(I)A}\eta ^{(J)B}ϵ_{AB}ϵ^{(I)(J)}.`$ (4.17)
The algebra of Eq. (4.16) coincides with the graded algebra, $`G^2SU(2)`$, which was first introduced in  in the framework of the BF theory.

5. The graded variables associated with the $`G^2SU(2)`$ algebra

In $`N=1`$ chiral SUGRA, the graded variables of $`GSU(2)`$ was introduced based on the graded algebra which is satisfied by the Gauss and right-handed SUSY constraints . These graded variables simplify the expressions of all the canonical constraints, and therefore it becomes easier to find exact solutions of quantum constraints .

In order to introduce the graded variables of $`G^2SU(2)`$ in $`N=2`$ chiral SUGRA, let us define the generators

$$J_{\widehat{i}}:=(J_I,J_\alpha ,J_8),$$
(5.1)
which satisfy the same algebra as that of the constraints

$$C_{\widehat{i}}:=(𝒢_I,{}_{}{}^{R}𝒮_{\alpha }^{},g_8),$$
(5.2)
where $`({}_{}{}^{R}𝒮_{\alpha }^{},g_8)`$ stand for $`({}_{}{}^{R}𝒮_{A}^{(I)},g)`$, and the index $`\widehat{i}`$ runs over $`(I,\alpha ,8)`$ with $`\alpha :=(I)A`$. Namely, we suppose that the $`J_{\widehat{i}}`$ satisfy the $`G^2SU(2)`$ algebra

$$[J_{\widehat{i}},J_{\widehat{j}}\}=f{}_{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{k}}J_{\widehat{k}}^{}$$
(5.3)
with $`f_{}^{\widehat{k}}{}_{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}{}^{}`$ being the structure constant determined from Eq. (4.16). The fundamental representation of this algebra is given by

$`J_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),J_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& i& 0& 0\\ i& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),J_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),`$
$`J_1^{(1)}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\sqrt{2}}}}i\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),J_2^{(1)}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\sqrt{2}}}}i\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),`$
$`J_1^{(2)}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\sqrt{2}}}}i\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),J_2^{(2)}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\sqrt{2}}}}i\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right),`$
$`J_8=\lambda \left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (5.4)
The supertrace  of the bilinear forms, $`\mathrm{STr}(J_{\widehat{i}}J_{\widehat{j}})`$, is given by

$`\mathrm{STr}(J_IJ_J)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _{IJ},\mathrm{STr}(J_\alpha J_\beta )=\mathrm{STr}(J_A^{(I)}J_B^{(J)})=\sqrt{2}\lambda ϵ_{AB}\delta ^{(I)(J)},`$
$`\mathrm{STr}(J_8J_8)=2\lambda ^2,\mathrm{STr}(J_IJ_\alpha )=0=\mathrm{STr}(J_IJ_8)=\mathrm{STr}(J_\alpha J_8),`$ (5.5)
where the supertrace for a $`G^2SU(2)`$ matrix $`M`$ is defined by $`\mathrm{STr}(M)=M_{11}+M_{22}M_{33}M_{44}`$. We introduce the metric $`g_{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}`$ for $`G^2SU(2)`$, which is of block-diagonal form, by

$$g_{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}:=2\mathrm{STr}(J_{\widehat{i}}J_{\widehat{j}})=(\delta _{IJ},2\sqrt{2}\lambda ϵ_{AB}\delta ^{(I)(J)},4\lambda ^2).$$
(5.6)
Here we nomalize $`g_{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}`$ so that the condition $`g_{IJ}=\delta _{IJ}`$ be satisfied. The inverse $`g^{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}`$ is given by

$$g^{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}=(\delta ^{IJ},\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}\lambda }ϵ^{AB}\delta ^{(I)(J)},\frac{1}{4\lambda ^2}).$$
(5.7)
We shall lower or raise the index $`\widehat{i}`$ by using $`g_{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}`$ and $`g^{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}`$. For example, the $`J^{\widehat{i}}`$ with upper index $`\widehat{i}`$ is defined by $`J^{\widehat{i}}:=g^{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}J_{\widehat{j}}`$.

As is seen from Eq. (4.2), the sets of the fields,

$`𝒜{}_{}{}^{\widehat{i}}{}_{a}{}^{}:=(𝒜{}_{}{}^{I}{}_{a}{}^{},\psi {}_{}{}^{\alpha }{}_{a}{}^{}:=\psi {}_{}{}^{(I)A}{}_{a}{}^{},A_a^8:=A_a),`$ (5.8)
$`\stackrel{~}{}{}_{\widehat{i}}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}=(\stackrel{~}{E}{}_{I}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{a},\stackrel{~}{\pi }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}:=\stackrel{~}{\pi }{}_{}{}^{(I)}{}_{A}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{a},{}_{}{}^{+}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{8}^{a}:={}_{}{}^{+}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}^{a}),`$ (5.9)
play the role of the coordinate variables and their conjugate momenta, respectively. We shall refer to $`𝒜_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{i}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}_{}^{a}{}_{\widehat{i}}{}^{}`$ as the graded connection and the graded momentum, respectively.

Now let us define the graded variables $`𝒜_a`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}^a`$:

$$𝒜_a:=𝒜{}_{}{}^{\widehat{i}}{}_{a}{}^{}J_{\widehat{i}}^{},\stackrel{~}{}^a:=\stackrel{~}{}{}_{\widehat{i}}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}J_{}^{\widehat{i}}.$$
(5.10)
Then the kinetic terms of Eq. (4.2) are expressed as a simple form, $`2\mathrm{STr}(\stackrel{~}{}^a\dot{𝒜}_a)`$, due to the relation $`\mathrm{STr}(J^{\widehat{i}}J_{\widehat{j}})=(1/2)\delta _{\widehat{j}}^{\widehat{i}}`$. Furthermore, we can show that the divergence of $`\stackrel{~}{}^a`$ can be rewritten as

$`𝒟_a\stackrel{~}{}^a:=`$ $`_a\stackrel{~}{}^a+[𝒜_a,\stackrel{~}{}^a\}`$
$`=`$ $`_a\stackrel{~}{}{}_{\widehat{i}}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}J_{}^{\widehat{i}}+𝒜{}_{}{}^{\widehat{i}}{}_{a}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{}{}_{\widehat{j}}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}[J_{\widehat{i}},J^{\widehat{j}}\}`$
$`=`$ $`C_{\widehat{i}}J^{\widehat{i}}.`$ (5.11)
Therefore, the Gauss, $`U(1)`$ gauge and right-handed SUSY constraints are unified into the $`G^2SU(2)`$ Gauss law

$$𝒟_a\stackrel{~}{}^a=0.$$
(5.12)
The left-handed SUSY constraint can also be expressed by using the graded variables, $`𝒜_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{i}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}_{}^{a}{}_{\widehat{i}}{}^{}`$ as in the case of $`N=1`$ chiral SUGRA . Indeed, $`{}_{}{}^{L}𝒮_{A}^{(I)}`$ of Eq. (4.10) can be rewritten as

$`{}_{}{}^{L}𝒮_{A}^{(I)}=`$ $`\lambda ^1(C^{(I)}{}_{A}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}\widehat{k}}ϵ_{abc}^{}\stackrel{~}{}{}_{\widehat{i}}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}\stackrel{~}{}_{}^{b}{}_{\widehat{j}}{}^{}`$
$`+\lambda ^1E^2C^{(I)}{}_{A}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{l}\widehat{m}\widehat{n}\widehat{i}\widehat{j}\widehat{k}}ϵ_{def}^{}ϵ_{cgh}\stackrel{~}{}{}_{\widehat{l}}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{e}\stackrel{~}{}{}_{\widehat{m}}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{f}\stackrel{~}{}{}_{\widehat{n}}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{g}\stackrel{~}{}{}_{\widehat{i}}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{h}\stackrel{~}{}{}_{\widehat{j}}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{d})({}_{\widehat{k}}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}\pm 2i\lambda ^2\stackrel{~}{}{}_{\widehat{k}}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{c})`$
$`=`$ $`0,`$ (5.13)
where $`C^{(I)}_{}^{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}\widehat{k}}{}_{A}{}^{}`$ and $`C^{(I)}_{}^{\widehat{l}\widehat{m}\widehat{n}\widehat{i}\widehat{j}\widehat{k}}{}_{A}{}^{}`$ are defined by

$`C^{(I)}{}_{A}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{IJ\alpha }:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\sigma ^I\sigma ^J){}_{A}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{B}\delta _{}^{(I)(J)},`$ (5.14)
$`C^{(I)}{}_{A}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{LMNI\alpha 8}:={\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}(\sigma ^L\sigma ^M\sigma ^N\sigma ^I){}_{A}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{B}ϵ_{}^{(I)(J)}`$ (5.15)
while all other components vanish, and the signatures $`\pm `$ in the parenthesis of Eq. (5.13) are taken to be $`+`$ for $`\widehat{k}=I,8`$ while $``$ for $`\widehat{k}=\alpha `$. In Eq. (5.13) we have also defined $`^{\widehat{i}a}`$ as $`^{\widehat{i}a}=(1/2)ϵ^{abc}_{bc}^{}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{i}}`$ with

$`{}_{}{}^{\widehat{i}}{}_{ab}{}^{}:=`$ $`2_{[a}𝒜{}_{}{}^{\widehat{i}}{}_{b]}{}^{}+f{}_{\widehat{j}\widehat{k}}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{i}}𝒜{}_{}{}^{\widehat{j}}{}_{a}{}^{}𝒜_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{k}}`$
$`=`$ $`({}_{}{}^{I}{}_{ab}{}^{}+2i\lambda \psi {}_{}{}^{(I)A}{}_{[a}{}^{}\sigma {}_{}{}^{I}{}_{AB}{}^{}\psi {}_{}{}^{(I)B}{}_{b]}{}^{},`$ (5.16)
$`2(𝒟_{[a}\psi {}_{}{}^{(J)A}{}_{b]}{}^{}\lambda A_{[a}\psi {}_{}{}^{(J)A}{}_{b]}{}^{})ϵ^{(I)(J)},`$
$`F_{ab}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}ϵ_{AB}(\psi {}_{}{}^{(I)A}{}_{[a}{}^{}\psi {}_{}{}^{(J)B}{}_{b]}{}^{})ϵ^{(I)(J)}),`$
where $`{}_{}{}^{I}{}_{ab}{}^{}:=2_{[a}𝒜{}_{}{}^{I}{}_{b]}{}^{}+iϵ{}_{}{}^{I}{}_{JK}{}^{}𝒜{}_{}{}^{J}{}_{a}{}^{}𝒜_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{K}`$.

6. Quantization in the graded-connection representation

In this section, we consider the canonical quantization of $`N=2`$ chiral SUGRA in the graded-connection representation: Namely, quantum states are represented by wavefunctionals $`\mathrm{\Psi }[𝒜]`$, and operators of the graded variables $`(\widehat{𝒜}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{i}}{}_{a}{}^{},\widehat{\stackrel{~}{}}{}_{\widehat{i}}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{a})`$ act on $`\mathrm{\Psi }[𝒜]`$ as

$$\widehat{𝒜}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{i}}{}_{a}{}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }[𝒜]=𝒜{}_{}{}^{\widehat{i}}{}_{a}{}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }[𝒜],\widehat{\stackrel{~}{}}{}_{\widehat{i}}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}\mathrm{\Psi }[𝒜]=i\frac{\delta }{\delta 𝒜_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{i}}}\mathrm{\Psi }[𝒜],$$
(6.1)
where the signatures in front of the derivative $`(\delta /\delta 𝒜{}_{}{}^{\widehat{i}}{}_{a}{}^{})`$ are taken to be $``$ for $`\widehat{i}=I,8`$ while $`+`$ for $`\widehat{i}=\alpha `$. In $`N=1`$ chiral SUGRA , there are two main results about solutions of quantum constraints in the graded-connection representation of $`GSU(2)`$ as in the case of pure gravity . One is that with the factor-ordering of the triads to the right Wilson loops of the graded connection are annihilated by the quantum Gauss and right-handed SUSY constraints, and also annihilated by the quantum left-handed SUSY contraint for smooth loops (which do not have kinks or intersections). The other is that with ordering the triads to the left in the left-handed SUSY constraint the exponential of the Chern-Simons form built with the graded connection solves all quantum constraints with a cosmological constant.

Let us examine quantum constraints for the above two cases in $`N=2`$ chiral SUGRA, for which the left-handed SUSY constraint of Eq. (5.13) involves a nonpolynomial factor $`E^2`$ like the Hamiltonian constraint in the Einstein-Maxwell theory in the Ashtekar variable . Firstly, we consider Wilson loops of the graded connection for $`G^2SU(2)`$,

$$W_\gamma [𝒜]=\mathrm{STr}\left[P\mathrm{exp}\left(_\gamma 𝑑y^a𝒜_a(y)\right)\right],$$
(6.2)
where the path ordered exponential is used and $`\gamma `$ denotes loops on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The Wilson loops of Eq. (6.2) are $`G^2SU(2)`$ invariant so that they are annihilated by the quantum $`G^2SU(2)`$ Gauss law (5.12), and for smooth loops they are also annihilated by the rescaled left-handed SUSY constraint, $`\widehat{E}^2({}_{}{}^{L}\widehat{𝒮}_{A}^{(I)})`$. However, if the rescaled constraint is to be equivalent with the original constraint, then Eq. (6.2) fails to be solutions in $`N=2`$ chiral SUGRA as stated in  since the operator $`\widehat{E}^2`$ annihilates $`W_\gamma [𝒜]`$.

Secondly, we consider the exponential of the Chern-Simons form built with the graded connection of $`G^2SU(2)`$,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{CS}}[𝒜]=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2\lambda ^2}_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^3xϵ^{abc}\mathrm{STr}\left(𝒜_a_b𝒜_c+\frac{2}{3}𝒜_a𝒜_b𝒜_c\right)\right].$$
(6.3)
This is an exact state functional that solves all quantum constraints of $`N=2`$ chiral SUGRA: In fact, Eq. (6.3) is annihilated by the $`G^2SU(2)`$ Gauss law because of a $`G^2SU(2)`$ invariance for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{CS}}[𝒜]`$, while it is annihilated by the quauntum left-handed SUSY constraint for Eq. (5.13) with the factor-ordering of the triads to the left; namely,

$${}_{}{}^{L}\widehat{𝒮}_{A}^{(I)}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{CS}}[𝒜]=\mathrm{}\times \left({}_{\widehat{k}}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}+2\lambda ^2\frac{\delta }{\delta 𝒜_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{k}}}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{CS}}[𝒜]=0,$$
(6.4)
since $`(\delta /\delta 𝒜{}_{}{}^{\widehat{k}}{}_{c}{}^{})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{CS}}[𝒜]=(1/2\lambda ^2){}_{\widehat{k}}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{CS}}^{}[𝒜]`$. The $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{CS}}[𝒜]`$ of Eq. (6.3) coincides with the $`N=2`$ supersymmetric Chern-Simons solution obtained in .

7. Conclusions

In this paper we have reconstructed the Ashtekar’s canonical formulation of $`N=2`$ SUGRA starting from the $`N=2`$ chiral Lagrangian derived by closely following the method employed in the usual SUGRA. We have modified the Maxwell kinetic term as $`(F_{\mu \nu }^{()})^2`$ in the globally $`O(2)`$ invariant Lagrangian obtained in . In addition we have gauged $`O(2)`$ invariance of the Lagrangian so that we have obtained the full graded algebra, $`G^2SU(2)`$, of the Gauss, $`U(1)`$ gauge and right-handed SUSY constraints in the canonical formulation. The left-handed SUSY constraint has the nonpolynomial factor $`E^2`$ as in the case of the Einstein-Maxwell theory in the Ashtekar variable .

We have introduced the graded variables $`(𝒜_a,\stackrel{~}{}^a)`$ associated with the $`G^2SU(2)`$ algebra and showed that the $`G^2SU(2)`$ Gauss law, $`𝒟_a\stackrel{~}{}^a=0`$, coincides with the Gauss, $`U(1)`$ gauge and right-handed SUSY constraints. We have also rewritten the left-handed SUSY constraint in terms of the graded variables. Based on the representation in which the graded connection is diagonal, we have examined the solutions of quantum constraints obtained in $`N=1`$ chiral SUGRA ; namely, Wilson loops of the graded connection, $`W_\gamma [𝒜]`$, and the exponential of the Chern-Simons form built with the graded connection, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{CS}}[𝒜]`$. If the left-handed SUSY constraint rescaled by $`E^2`$ is to be equivalent with the original constraint, then the Wilson loops of $`W_\gamma [𝒜]`$ fail to be solutions in $`N=2`$ chiral SUGRA since the operator $`\widehat{E}^2`$ annihilates $`W_\gamma [𝒜]`$. On the other hand, the exponential of the Chern-Simons form, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{CS}}[𝒜]`$, is an exact state functional that solves all quantum constraints of $`N=2`$ chiral SUGRA. This solution was first derived in  in the 2-form SUGRA, and later given in  based on the BF theory. In this paper we have obtained the same result starting from the chiral Lagrangian which is closely related to the usual SUGRA.

The extension to higher $`N`$ SUGRA is now investigated.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the members of Physics Department at Saitama University for discussions and encouragements. This work was supported by the High-Tech Research Center of Saitama Institute of Technology.


format: text

text:
# Budker INP 2000-22 Photon colliders: key problems, new ideasTalk at the 3nd Int.Workshop on Electron–Electron Interaction at TeV Energies, Santa Cruz, CA, USA, December 10–12, 1999. To be published in Int. J. Mod. Phys. A

## 1 Introduction.

Linear colliders (LC) in the range of a few hundred GeV to several TeV are under intense study in the world -. In addition to e+e- collisions, linear colliders provide a unique possibility to study $`\gamma \gamma `$ and $`\gamma `$e interactions at energies and luminosities comparable to those in e+e- collisions -. High energy photons can be produced using laser backscattering. This option has been included in the conceptual designs of the linear collider projects and the next goals are the Technical Design Reports which should be prepared within the next 1–2 years.

In this short time period we should clearly show that $`\gamma \gamma `$,$`\gamma `$e collisions can give new physics information in addition to e+e- collisions and that all technical problems of photon colliders have solutions. A key element in the project is a powerful laser system. Solution of this problem is vital for photon colliders. From the accelerator side polarized electron beams with very low emittances are required, smaller than those necessary for e+e- collisions (especially in the horizontal direction). At the beginning one can use the same electron beams as for e+e-, which is already acceptable for study of a good physics, but the luminosity in this case will be much lower than its real limit determined by collisions effects. In addition, there are many other technical aspects which should be developed and taken into account in the basic LC designs (before beginning of the construction).

In this paper we will briefly consider physics motivation, new ideas on laser schemes, ways to high luminosities and associated problems.

## 2 Physics

Physic motivation of photon colliders is quite clear. In general, the physics in $`\gamma \gamma `$,$`\gamma `$e collisions is complimentary to that in e+e- interactions. Some phenomena can best be studied at photon colliders. Several examples are given below.

The present “Standard” model predicts a very unique particle, the Higgs boson. It is very likely that its mass is about 100–200 GeV, i.e., lays in the region of the next linear colliders. In $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions the Higgs boson will be produced as a single resonance. This process goes via the loop and its cross section is very sensitive to all heavy (even super-heavy) charged particles. The graphs for effective cross section of the Higgs production in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions and in e+e- collisions can be found elsewhere . For $`M_H=`$ 120–250 GeV the effective cross section $`\gamma \gamma `$ in collisions is larger than that in e+e- collisions by a factor of about 6–30. The Higgs can be detected as a peak in the invariant mass distribution or can be searched for by energy scanning using the very sharp high energy edge of luminosity distribution .

The cross section of the process $`\gamma \gamma Hb\overline{b}`$ is proportional to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(H)\times Br(Hb\overline{b}`$). The branching ratio $`Br(Hb\overline{b})`$ can be measured with high precision in e+e- collisions . As a result, one can measure the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(H)`$ width at photon colliders with an accuracy better than 2-3% ,. The value of the two-photon decay width is determined by the sum of contributions to the loop of all heavy charge particles with masses up to infinity. So, it is a unique way to “see” particles which cannot be produced at the accelerators directly (maybe never).

The Higgs two-gluon decay width (which can be extracted from joint LHC, LC data) is also sensitive to heavy particles in the loop, but only to those which have strong interactions. These two measurements together with the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Z\gamma }(H)`$ width, which could be measured in $`\gamma `$e collisions, will allow us to “observe” and perhaps understand the nature of invisible heavy charged particles. This would be a great step forward in our understanding of the matter.

The second example is the charged pair production. Cross sections for the production of charged pairs in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions are larger than those in e+e- collisions by a factor of approximately 5–10 ,. The cross section of the scalar pair production in collisions of polarized photons near the threshold, is higher than that in e+e- collisions by a factor of 10–20 (see figures in Refs. ,). Near the threshold the cross section in the $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions is very sharp (while in e+e- it contains a factor $`\beta ^3`$) and can be used for measurement of particle masses. Note, that in e+e- collisions two charged pairs are produced both via annihilation diagrams with virtual $`\gamma `$ and $`Z`$ and also via exchange diagrams where new particles can contribute, while in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions it is pure QED process which allows the spin and charge of produced particles to be measured unambiguously.

In $`\gamma `$e collisions, charged particles with a mass higher than that in e+e- collisions can be produced (a heavy charged particle plus a light neutral), for example, supersymmetric charged particle plus neutralino or new W boson and neutrino. $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions also provide higher accessible masses for particles which are produced as a single resonance in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions (such as the Higgs boson).

A new theory “Quantum gravity effects in Extra Dimensions” proposed recently  suggests a possible explanation of the fact why gravitation forces are so weak in comparison with electroweak forces. It turns out that this extravagant theory can be tested at linear colliders, moreover, photon colliders are sensitive up to a factor of 2 higher quantum gravity mass scale than e+e- collisions .

## 3 Lasers, Optics

The new key element at photon colliders is a powerful laser system which is used for e$`\gamma `$ conversion. The laser system should have the following parameters: flash energy of 2-5 J with “diffraction” quality, wave length about 1 $`\mu `$m (for 2E = 500 GeV), pulse duration about 1 ps, repetition rate 10–15 kHz with the same pulse structure as for electron beams. Detailed consideration of requirements to lasers can be found elsewhere ,,, ,,,.

Picosecond Terawatt laser pulses can be produced using the chirped pulse technique which allowed a peak laser power to be increased by three order of magnitude during the last decade. The main problem at photon colliders is the high repetition rate and correspondingly very high average power, about 50 kW. An additional complication is due to the train structure of pulses at LC which means even larger average power inside the train. One very promising way to overcome this problem is discussed in this paper. It is an optical cavity approach, which allows a considerable reduction of the required peak and average laser power.

### 3.1 One-pass Laser Systems

Let me start with a discussion of a one pass laser system. One possible solution is the multi-laser system where pulses are combined into one train using Pockels cells . Several (about 20 in the NLC Zero Design Project) lasers allow spliting the average power between lasers and thus solving the problem with cooling of the amplifying medium. It is clear that these lasers should use crystals with high thermal conductivity, diode (semiconductor lasers) pumping with very high efficiency, adaptive optics. These topics were discussed at this workshop in a nice talk given by M. Perry. He pointed out two main problems for NLC laser system (these problems are not essential for TESLA):

1. Due to the short distance between electron bunches (2.8 ns between bunches, with 95 bunches in the train), the power of the diode pumping system should be very high, about 2 J/2.8 ns/efficiency, that is huge. The estimated cost of the diode system is about 100 M$.

2. Combining Pockels cells should be very fast (switching time is less than 3 ns) which is very difficult (or even impossible) for the considered powers.

In my opinion, the situation here is not so bad and there are ways to overcome these problems.

First, the storage time of most promissing crystals such as Yb:S-FAP is about 1 msec, so I do not understand why diodes should work only during 270 ns (length of the pulse train). The ratio of these times is 3700! These crystals can be pumped before the pulse train during more than 2 orders longer time! What is wrong? Discharge by spontaneous radiation can be suppresed by proper choice of geometry or (and) use of optical locks. Pulse energies in several sequential pulses passing one amplifier can be equalized by adjusting the pulse energies of incoming pulses. If all these is correct, one can decrease the pumping power at least by 2 orders of magnitude and there will be no problem.

The second problem also has a solution, see Fig. 1. Using Pockels cells we can prepare two trains of laser pulses with somewhat different average frequences ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$ bandwidth) and then join them using a chromatic combiner. Each of the trains is prepared in the following way.111The technique of combining pulses in the train using Pockels cells and thin-film-polarizers is explained elsewhere . At the beginning (before the final amplifiers) we manipulate with low energy pulses and prepare 10 short subtrains consisting of 5 pulses spaced by 2.8 ns. At this stage, power is low and there is no problem with Pockels cells. Then these subtrains are amplifiered and combined using Pockels cells into one train with the distance between subtrains equal to the length of one subtrain which is equal 6$`\times `$2.8 ns. Here we can use already rather slow Pockels cells with larger diameter, so that the power/cm2 can be much lower than that for 2.8 ns Pockels cells.

So, it seems, both problems have solutions. Of course, a final answer should be given by laser experts.

### 3.2 Multi-pass Laser Systems

To overcome the “repetition rate” problem in a radical way it is quite natural to consider a laser system where one laser bunch is used for e$`\gamma `$ conversion many times. Indeed, one Joule laser flash contains about $`10^{19}`$ laser photons and only $`10^{10}10^{11}`$ photons are knocked out in the collision with one electron bunch.

The simplest solution is to trap the laser pulse to some optical loop and use it many times . In such a system the laser pulse enters via the film polarizer and then is trapped using Pockels cells and polarization rotating plates. Unfortunately, such a system will not work with Terawatt laser pulses due to a self-focusing effect.

However, there is one way to “create” a powerful laser pulse in the optical “trap” without any material inside. This very promising technique is discussed below. Shortly, the method is the following. Using the train of low energy laser pulses one can create in the external passive cavity (with one mirror having some small transparency) an optical pulse of the same duration but with much higher energy (pulse stacking). This pulse circulates many times in the cavity each time colliding with electron bunches passing the center of the cavity.

The idea of pulse stacking is simple but not trivial and not well known in the HEP community. This method is used now in several experiments on detection of gravitation waves. It was mentioned also in NLC ZDR , though without analysis and further development. In my opinion, pulse stacking is very natural for photon colliders and allows not only building a relatively cheap laser system for $`e\gamma `$ conversion, but gives us the practical way for realization of the laser cooling, i.e. opens up the way to ultimate luminosities of photon colliders.

As this is very important for photon colliders, let me consider this method in more detail . The principle of pulse stacking is shown in Fig. 2. The secret consists of the following. There is a well known optical theorem: at any surface, the reflection coefficients for light coming from one and the other sides have opposite signs. In our case, this means that light from the laser entering through a semi-transparent mirror into the cavity interferes with reflected light inside the cavity constructively, while the light leaking from the cavity interferes with the laser light reflected from the cavity destructively. Namely, this fact produces asymmetry between cavity and space outside the cavity!

Let R be the reflection coefficient, T the transparency coefficient and $`\delta `$ the passive losses in the right mirror. From the energy conservation $`R+T+\delta =1`$. Let $`E_1`$ and $`E_0`$ be the amplitudes of the laser field and the field inside the cavity. In equilibrium, $`E_0=E_{0,R}+E_{1,T}`$. Taking into account that $`E_{0,R}=E_0\sqrt{R}`$, $`E_{1,T}=E_1\sqrt{T}`$ and $`\sqrt{R}1T/2\delta /2`$ for $`R1`$, we obtain $`E_0^2/E_1^2=4T/(T+\delta )^2.`$ The maximum ratio of intensities is obtained at $`T=\delta `$, then $`I_0/I_1=1/\delta Q`$, where $`Q`$ is the quality factor of the optical cavity. Even with two metal mirrors inside the cavity, one can hope to get a gain factor of about 50–100; with multi-layer mirrors it can reach $`10^5`$. The TESLA collider has 2800 electron bunches in the train, so a factor of 1000 would be perfect for our goal, but even a factor of ten means a drastic reduction of the cost.

Obtaining high gains requires a very good stabilization of cavity size: $`\delta L\lambda /4\pi Q`$, laser wave length: $`\delta \lambda /\lambda \lambda /4\pi QL`$, and distance between the laser and the cavity: $`\delta s\lambda /4\pi `$. Otherwise, the condition of constructive interference will not be fulfilled. Besides, the frequency spectrum of the laser should coincide with the cavity modes, that is automatically fulfilled when the ratio of the cavity length and that of the laser oscillator is equal to an integer number 1, 2, 3… .

In HEP literature I have found only one reference on pulse stacking of short pulses ($`1`$ ps) generated by the free electron laser with the wave length of 5 $`\mu `$. They observed pulses in the cavity with 70 times the energy of the incident FEL pulses, though no long term stabilization was done.

Possible layout of the optics at the interaction region scheme is shown in Fig. 3. There are two optical cavities (one for each colliding electron beam) placed outside the electron beams. The required flash energy in this case is larger by a factor of 2 than in the case of head-on collisions but all other problems (holes in mirrors etc) are much simpler.

## 4 Luminosity of Photon Colliders in Current Designs

Some results of simulation of $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions at TESLA, ILC (converged NLC and JLC) are presented below in Table 1. Beam parameters were taken the same as those in e+e- collisions with the exception of the horizontal beta function at the IP which is taken (quite conservatively) equal to 2 mm for all cases, that is several times smaller than that in e+e- collisions. The conversion point (CP) is situated at distance $`b=\gamma \sigma _y`$. It is assumed that the “Compton” parameter $`x=4.6`$, electron beams have 85% longitudinal polarization and laser photons have 100% circular polarization.

The $`\gamma \gamma `$ luminosity in these projects is determined only by “geometric” ee-luminosity. With some new low emittance electron sources one can get, in principle, $`L_{\gamma \gamma }(z>0.65)>L_{\text{e}\text{+}\text{e}\text{-}}`$. The limitations and technical feasibility are discussed in the next section.

The normalized $`\gamma \gamma `$ luminosity spectra for a 0.5 TeV TESLA are shown in Fig. 4(left).

We see that, in the high energy part of the luminosity spectra, photons have a high degree of polarization, which is very important for many experiments. In addition to the high energy peak, there is a factor 5–8 larger low energy luminosity. The events in this region have a large boost and can be easily distinguished from the central high energy events. In the same Fig. 4 (left) you can see the same spectrum with an additional “soft” cut on the longitudinal momentum of the produced system which suppresses low energy luminosity to a negligible level.

Fig. 4 (right) shows the same spectrum with a stronger cut on the longitudinal momentum. In this case, the spectrum has a nice peak with the width at half of maximum about 7.5%. For two jet events one can obtain this nice “collider resolution” without accurate energy measurement in the detector applying only a cut on the acollinearity angle between jets ($`Hb\overline{b},\tau \tau `$, for example).

A similar table and distributions for the photon collider on the c.m.s. energy 130 GeV (Higgs collider) can be found elsewhere .

## 5 Ultimate $`𝜸𝜸`$, $`𝜸`$e Luminosities

In the current projects the $`\gamma \gamma `$ luminosities are determined by the “geometric” luminosity of the electron beams. Having electron beams with smaller emittances one can obtain a much higher $`\gamma \gamma `$ luminosity . Below are results of the simulation with the code which takes into account all main processes in beam-beam interactions . Fig. 5 shows dependence of the $`\gamma \gamma `$ (solid curves) and $`\gamma `$e (dashed curves) luminosities on the horizontal beam size. The vertical emittance is taken as in TESLA(500), ILC(500) projects (see Table 1). The horizontal beam size was varied by changing horizontal beam emittance keeping the horizontal beta function at the IP equal to 2 mm. One can see that all curves for $`\gamma \gamma `$ luminosity follow their natural behavior: $`Ł1/\sigma _x`$, with the exception of ILC at $`2E_0=1`$ GeV where at small $`\sigma _x`$ the effect of coherent pair creation  is seen. This means that at the same collider the $`\gamma \gamma `$ luminosity can be increased by decreasing the horizontal beam size (see Table 1) at least by one order ($`\sigma _x<10`$ nm is difficult due to some effects connected with the crab crossing). Additional increase of $`\gamma \gamma `$ luminosity by a factor about 3 (TESLA), 7(ILC) can be obtained by a further decrease of the vertical emittance . So, using beams with smaller emittances, the $`\gamma \gamma `$ luminosity at TESLA, ILC can be increased by almost 2 orders of magnitude. However, even with one order improvement, the number of “interesting” events (the Higgs, charged pairs) at photon colliders will be larger than that in e+e- collisions by about one order. This is a nice goal and motivation for photon colliders.

In $`\gamma `$e collision (Fig. 5, dashed curves), the behavior of the luminosity on $`\sigma _x`$ is different due to additional collision effects: beam repulsion and beamstrahlung. As a result, the luminosity in the high energy peak is not proportional to the “geometric” luminosity.

There are several ways of decreasing the transverse beam emittances (their product): optimization of storage rings with long wigglers, development of low-emittance RF (or pulsed photo-guns) with merging many beams with low charge and emittance . Here some progress is certainly possible. Moreover, there is one method which allows further decrease of beam cross sections by two orders of magnitude in comparison with current designs; it is a laser cooling ,,.

## 6 Conclusion

The physics program for photon $`\gamma \gamma `$, $`\gamma `$e colliders is very interesting and the additional cost of the second interaction region is certainly justified.

Special effort is required for the development of the laser and optics which are the key elements of photon colliders. The present laser technology has, in principle, all elements needed for photon colliders, the development of a practical scheme is the most pressing task now. Two laser schemes has been discussed in this paper. The optical cavity approach allows a considerable reduction of the required peak and average laser power.

The $`\gamma \gamma `$ luminosity at photon colliders can be higher than that in e+e- collisions, typical cross sections are also several times higher, so one could consider an X-factory (X = Higgs, W, etc.). The main problem here is the generation of polarized electron beams with very small emittances. Optimization of damping rings and development of low emittance multi-gun RF sources is the first step in this direction. The second step requires new technologies. The laser cooling of electron beams is one possible way of achieving ultimate $`\gamma \gamma `$ luminosity. Realization of this method depends on the progress of laser technology; especially promising is the method of laser pulse stacking pulses in an optical cavity.

sectionAcknowledgements I would like to thank Clem Heusch and Nora Rogers for organization of a nice Workshop which was one of the important steps towards e+e-, ee, $`\gamma `$e, $`\gamma \gamma `$ colliders.


text:
# A meson-exchange model of the associated photoproduction of vector mesons and N∗(1440) resonances

## 1 Introduction

The Roper resonance, the N$`{}_{1/2,1/2}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$(1440), is the first excited state of the nucleon. It is a broad state, with an estimated full width of 350 MeV, which couples strongly (60-70 $`\%`$) to the $`\pi `$-nucleon channel and significantly (5-10 $`\%`$) to the $`\sigma `$-nucleon (more properly ($`\pi \pi `$)$`{}_{Swave}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{I=0}`$-nucleon) channel .

The low excitation energy and the particular decay scheme of the Roper resonance suggest that it could play an important role in nuclear dynamics as virtual intermediate state. For example, a repulsive three-nucleon interaction can be generated by the $`\pi `$\- and $`\sigma `$-exchange components of the nucleon-nucleon interaction with an intermediate N(1440) . The corresponding graph is displayed in Fig. 1.

The importance of the three-nucleon interaction generated by this process depends on the $`\pi `$NN(1440) and $`\sigma `$NN(1440) coupling strengths. The uncertainty in the total width of the N(1440) and in its branching ratio to the $`\pi `$N channel implies that the $`\pi `$NN coupling constant is known with an accuracy of about 50$`\%`$. The indetermination in the effective $`\sigma `$NN coupling constant is much larger, typically a factor of 2-3. Consequently, the magnitude of the matrix element of the three-nucleon interaction of Fig. 1 in the triton groundstate for example will be quite uncertain. With a rather low value of the $`\sigma `$NN coupling constant, it has been shown in Ref.  that the repulsive three-nucleon contribution to the triton binding energy corresponding to the diagram of Fig. 1 gets largely cancelled by the attractive contribution of a similar diagram, in which the $`\sigma `$-exchange is replaced by the $`\omega `$-exchange. Were the $`\sigma `$NN coupling constant much larger, this cancellation would not occur, leading to a possibly significant repulsive three-body contribution to the triton binding energy. Such contribution would also influence the properties of the four-nucleon system .

The $`\pi `$NN(1440) and $`\sigma `$NN(1440) coupling strengths play also a role in the dynamics of neutral pion production in proton-proton collisions near threshold . In $`pppp\pi ^0`$, $`\pi ^0`$ production on a single proton underestimates largely the cross section and the main $`\pi `$-exchange term is suppressed by the particular isospin structure of the reaction . The $`pppp\pi ^0`$ cross section is therefore directly related to short-range exchanges. The contribution from virtual intermediate N(1440) resonances is sizeable and enhances the cross section, unlike the contributions from the neighbouring N(1535) and N(1520) resonances which decrease it . The graph of Fig. 2 is the main term involving the excitation of the N(1440) resonance and again depends sensitively on the $`\pi `$NN(1440) and $`\sigma `$NN(1440) couplings.

The strong coupling of the N(1440) to the $`\pi `$N and $`\sigma `$N channels could also be of importance for the evolution of nonequilibrium nuclear systems. In heavy ion collisions at relativistic energies (E/A $``$ 1-2 GeV), baryon resonances are excited during the initial stage of the reaction, when the colliding nuclei form a very dense nuclear system . In later stages, their interactions and decays influence strongly the production of hadrons . It is particularly so for the production of subthreshold particles because the internal energy stored in intrinsic baryonic excitations increases the two-body phase space of the subsequent collisions and helps in making higher mass hadrons . In this perspective, the excitation of the N(1440) appears to play a major role in explaining the production of antiprotons in heavy ion collisions at subthreshold energies (E/A = 2 GeV) .

To describe relativistic heavy ion collisions starting from an effective Lagrangian of interacting baryons and mesons, the relevant meson-baryon couplings have to be determined. The standard procedure is to fix these couplings using measured decay rates and simple scattering processes in free space. For the specific investigation of the behaviour of the Roper resonance in relativistic heavy ion collisions, the relevant parameters were computed from the known partial decay rates of the N(1440) and by describing the available data on the $`pppN^{}(1440)`$ cross section using a one-boson exchange model . The $`\pi `$NN(1440) and $`\sigma `$NN(1440) coupling strengths are important inputs in such model. Coupled relativistic transport equations of the Boltzmann-Uehling-Uhlenbeck type for nucleons, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(1232)and N(1440) resonances have then been derived and solved to study consistently the mean fields and the in-medium two-body scattering cross sections of these baryons .

The need for a proper account of the effects of the N(1440) in the description of relativistic heavy ion collisions is particularly motivated by a recent result of the FOPI Collaboration at GSI . The comparison of (p, $`\pi ^+`$) and (p, $`\pi ^{}`$) pair cross sections in Ni+Ni reactions indicates the presence of I=1/2 resonance contributions with a mean free mass above the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(1232) mass. This contribution is of the order of 20 $`\%`$ . The low-energy tail of the N(1440) seems a natural explanation of this effect.

From the above discussion, it appears of much interest to single out processes where the excitation of the Roper resonance by the $`\pi `$-field, and even more importantly, by the $`\sigma `$-field dominates the dynamics. We suggest that the photoproduction of $`\omega `$\- and $`\rho `$-mesons off protons in association with the excitation of the target to a N(1440) resonance, the $`\gamma p\omega N^+(1440)`$ and the $`\gamma p\rho ^0N^+(1440)`$ reactions, studied in the proper kinematics (near threshold and at low q2) could be such processes.

Section 2 is devoted to a discussion of the $`\pi `$NN(1440) and $`\sigma `$NN(1440) couplings. Using a simple meson-exchange picture, the relation between these couplings and the $`\gamma p\omega N^+(1440)`$ and the $`\gamma p\rho ^0N^+(1440)`$ reaction cross sections near threshold is exhibited in Section 3. The calculated differential cross sections for the $`\gamma p\omega N^+(1440)`$ and the $`\gamma p\rho ^0N^+(1440)`$ processes and their dependence on the strength of the excitation of the Roper resonance by the $`\pi `$\- and $`\sigma `$-fields are presented in Section 4. We conclude by a few remarks in Section 5.

## 2 The $`\pi `$NN(1440) and $`\sigma `$NN(1440) couplings

### 2.1 The $`\pi `$NN(1440) coupling

The $`\pi `$NN(1440) coupling constant can be calculated from the partial decay width of the Roper resonance to the $`\pi `$N channel . We assume the pseudoscalar $`\pi `$NN coupling Lagrangian,

$$_{\pi NN^{}}^{int}=ig_{\pi NN^{}}\overline{N^{}}\gamma _5(\stackrel{}{\tau }\stackrel{}{\pi })N+h.c.,$$
(1)
where $`g_{\pi NN^{}}`$ is the $`\pi `$NN(1440) coupling constant. It is related to the partial decay width of the N(1440) into the $`\pi `$N channel by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N^{}\pi N}=3\frac{g_{\pi NN^{}}^2}{4\pi }\frac{EM_N}{M_N^{}^0}p(E),$$
(2)
where $`M_N^{}^0`$ is the Breit-Wigner mass of the Roper resonance, E the nucleon energy in the rest frame of the decaying N(1440) at the peak of the resonance,

$$E=\frac{M_N^{}^{\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}2}}+M_N^2m_\pi ^2}{2M_N^{}^0},$$
(3)
and $`p(E)`$ is the corresponding nucleon momentum. To compare to other derivations, it is useful to note the relation between $`g_{\pi NN^{}}`$ and $`f_{\pi NN^{}}`$,

$$\frac{g_{\pi NN^{}}^2}{4\pi }=\frac{f_{\pi NN^{}}^2}{4\pi }\frac{(M_N^{}^0+M_N)^2}{m_\pi ^2},$$
(4)
in which $`f_{\pi NN^{}}`$ is the coupling constant for the pseudovector $`\pi `$NN interaction Lagrangian,

$$_{\pi NN^{}}^{int}=\frac{f_{\pi NN^{}}}{m_\pi }\overline{N^{}}\gamma _5\gamma _\mu ^\mu (\stackrel{}{\tau }\stackrel{}{\pi })N+h.c..$$
(5)
Assuming that the branching ratio of the N(1440) resonance into the $`\pi `$N channel is 60-70 $`\%`$ of the total width (350$`\pm `$100) MeV , the partial decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N^{}N\pi }`$ is 228 MeV with an error bar of 82 MeV. Inserting these numbers in Eq. (2), we get

$$\frac{g_{\pi NN^{}}^2}{4\pi }=3.4\pm 1.2.$$
(6)
The value of $`g_{\pi NN^{}}^2/4\pi `$ obtained in Ref.  is 1.79. The value of $`f_{\pi NN^{}}^2/4\pi `$ corresponding to Eq. (6) is (0.011$`\pm `$0.004), to be compared to 0.031 used in Ref. , 0.018 in Ref.  and 0.008 in Ref. . The coupling constant of Ref.  is obtained using the nonrelativistic limit of Eq. (5).

### 2.2 The $`\sigma `$NN(1440) coupling

We describe the $`\sigma `$NN(1440) coupling by the interaction Lagrangian,

$$_{\sigma NN^{}}^{int}=g_{\sigma NN^{}}\overline{N^{}}\sigma N+h.c..$$
(7)
The relation between the $`\sigma `$NN(1440) coupling constant and the partial decay width of the Roper resonance into the ($`\pi \pi `$)$`{}_{Swave}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{I=0}`$-nucleon channel is model-dependent. We assume that it can be described by the process displayed in

Fig. 3. In this process, the $`\sigma \pi \pi `$ coupling is taken to be of the form

$$_{\sigma \pi \pi }^{int}=\frac{1}{2}g_{\sigma \pi \pi }m_\sigma ^0\overline{\pi }.\overline{\pi }\sigma ,$$
(8)
where $`m_\sigma ^0`$ is the $`\sigma `$-meson mass. The link between the coupling constant $`g_{\sigma NN^{}}`$ and the N(1440) $``$ N ($`\pi \pi )^{I=0}_{Swave}`$ decay rate depends on the mass and width of the intermediate $`\sigma `$-meson. The $`\sigma `$-meson under consideration in vector meson photoproduction (to be discussed in Section 3) is the effective degree of freedom accounting for the exchange of two uncorrelated as well as two resonating pions . Its mass is of the order of 500 MeV and it should be a broad object. The phase space available for the two-pion invariant mass ranges from 2$`m_\pi `$ until M$`{}_{N^{}}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$-MN, the latter mass difference being of the order of 500 MeV. The mass of the effective $`\sigma `$-meson is therefore very close to the edge of phase-space for the N(1440) $``$ N$`\pi \pi `$ decay.

Using Eqs. (7) and (8), the partial width for the N(1440) decay into the N ($`\pi \pi )^{I=0}_{Swave}`$ channel in the intermediate $`\sigma `$ model depicted in Fig. 3 is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N^{}N(\pi \pi )_{Swave}^{I=0}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\sigma NN^{}}^2}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{2m_\pi }{\overset{M_N^{}^0M_N}{}}}𝑑m_\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{(M_N^{}^0+M_N)^2m_\sigma ^2}{2M_N^{}^{\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}p(m_\sigma )W(m_\sigma ),`$ (9)
in which the nucleon 3-momentum $`p`$ and the $`\sigma `$ spectral function W read

$$p(m_\sigma )=\frac{[M_N^{}^{\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}2}}(M_N+m_\sigma )^2]^{1/2}[M_N^{}^{\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}2}}(M_Nm_\sigma )^2]^{1/2}}{2M_N^{}^0}$$
(10)
and

$$W(m_\sigma )=\frac{2\pi ^1m_\sigma m_\sigma ^0\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \pi \pi }(m_\sigma )}{(m_\sigma ^{\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}2}}m_\sigma ^2)^2+m_\sigma ^{\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \pi \pi }^2,(m_\sigma )}.$$
(11)
The energy-dependent width of the effective $`\sigma `$-meson is zero for $`m_\sigma ^2<4m_\pi ^2`$ and given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \pi \pi }(m_\sigma )=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \pi \pi }(m_\sigma ^0)\left[\frac{m_\sigma ^24m_\pi ^2}{m_\sigma ^{\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}2}}4m_\pi ^2}\right]^{1/2}$$
(12)
for $`m_\sigma ^2>4m_\pi ^2`$. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \pi \pi }(m_\sigma ^0)`$ denotes the width of the $`\sigma `$-meson at the peak of the resonance ($`m_\sigma ^0`$). The parameters are $`m_\sigma ^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \pi \pi }(m_\sigma ^0)`$. We fix $`m_\sigma ^0`$ to be 500 MeV. We assume, quite arbitrarily, that the $`\sigma `$-meson has a width of 250 MeV, as the available data  do not allow its determination from the $`\pi \pi `$ phase shifts. Evaluating the integral of Eq. (9) with these values of the parameters, we find

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N^{}N(\pi \pi )_{Swave}^{I=0}}[MeV]=75.8\frac{g_{\sigma NN^{}}^2}{4\pi }[MeV].$$
(13)
The branching ratio of the N(1440) into the N ($`\pi \pi )^{I=0}_{Swave}`$ channel is 5-10 $`\%`$ of the total width of (350 $`\pm `$ 100) MeV . The partial decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N^{}N(\pi \pi )_{Swave}^{I=0}}`$ is therefore (26$`\pm `$16) MeV and Eq. (13) gives

$$\frac{g_{\sigma NN^{}}^2}{4\pi }=0.34\pm 0.21.$$
(14)
It is important to study the sensitivity of this value to both $`m_\sigma ^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \pi \pi }(m_\sigma ^0)`$. We have first varied $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \pi \pi }(m_\sigma ^0)`$ keeping $`m_\sigma ^0`$=500 MeV fixed. We find that the value of $`g_{\sigma NN^{}}^2/4\pi `$ increases slowly with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \pi \pi }(m_\sigma ^0)`$. When $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \pi \pi }(m_\sigma ^0)`$ varies from 200 to 300 MeV, $`g_{\sigma NN^{}}^2/4\pi `$ increases by about 6$`\%`$. The sensitivity of $`g_{\sigma NN^{}}^2/4\pi `$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \pi \pi }(m_\sigma ^0)`$ is therefore rather low. In contrast to this behaviour, the value of $`g_{\sigma NN^{}}^2/4\pi `$ depends strongly on $`m_\sigma ^0`$, because of the phase space limit mentioned above. Values of $`m_\sigma ^0`$ lower than 500 MeV will lead to a relative increase of the integral in Eq. (9) while larger masses (such that $`m_\sigma ^0`$ exceeds M$`{}_{N^{}}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$-MN) will reduce it. Fixing $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \pi \pi }(m_\sigma ^0)`$=250 MeV, we find that Eq. (14) becomes

$$\frac{g_{\sigma NN^{}}^2}{4\pi }=0.23\pm 0.14$$
(15)
for $`m_\sigma ^0`$=450 MeV and

$$\frac{g_{\sigma NN^{}}^2}{4\pi }=0.56\pm 0.35$$
(16)
for $`m_\sigma ^0`$=550 MeV. Small variations in the $`\sigma `$-meson mass around 500 MeV reflect strongly in the value of $`g_{\sigma NN^{}}^2/4\pi `$.

In Refs. , the effective $`\sigma `$-meson has no width and a mass $`m_\sigma ^0`$ of 410 MeV. Assuming the experimental partial decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N^{}N(\pi \pi )_{Swave}^{I=0}}`$ to be 35 MeV, the authors get $`g_{\sigma NN^{}}^2/4\pi `$=0.1 . The mass-dependence mentioned above is largely responsible for this small coupling constant. The scaling relation for the meson-NN and meson-NN coupling constants used in Refs.  yields $`g_{\sigma NN^{}}^2/4\pi `$=0.05. An effective value for g$`_{\sigma NN^{}}`$ has been derived recently from data  on the excitation of the Roper resonance in the inelastic scattering of $`\alpha `$ particles off proton targets . The reaction $`\alpha +p\alpha +X`$ is studied for incident $`\alpha `$ particles of 4.2 GeV. Missing energy spectra are measured at small angles (0.8, 2.0, 3.2 and 4.1) . The dominant inelastic processes contributing to the reaction are found to be the excitation of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance in the projectile (followed by the emission of a pion) and the excitation of the Roper resonance in the target. The latter process is described by the exchange of a $`\sigma `$-meson between the incident $`\alpha `$ particle and the proton target . In order to reproduce the missing energy spectrum at $`0.8^{}`$, the $`\sigma NN^{}`$(1440) coupling constant has to be quite large. The value corresponding to the best fit is g$`{}_{}{}^{2}{}_{\sigma NN^{}}{}^{}`$/4$`\pi `$ = 1.33 with a form factor F$`_{\sigma NN^{}}`$ = $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\sigma ^2m_\sigma ^{\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}2}})`$/ $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\sigma ^2q^2)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\sigma `$ = 1.7 GeV and $`m_\sigma ^0`$=550 MeV . Clearly, the $`\sigma NN^{}`$(1440) coupling needed in this case appears stronger than inferred from the partial decay width of the N(1440) in the N$`(\pi \pi )_{Swave}^{I=0}`$ channel. As remarked by the authors of Ref. , their $`\sigma `$-exchange interaction could simulate other exchanges of isoscalar character. It could also be that the strength observed in the missing energy spectrum around the position of the Roper resonance, after subtraction of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ background, should not be attributed entirely to the N(1440). The analysis of more exclusive experiments is in progress. Preliminary data on the p(d,d’)N reaction at incident deuteron energies of 2.3 GeV, where the excitation of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(1232) and of the N(1440) are separated by the detection of the decay proton, seem to indicate that the excitation of the Roper resonance predicted using the parameters of Ref.  is larger than the observed cross-section , typically by a factor of two. If this effect could be confirmed, it would suggest that the analysis of the p(d,d’)N reaction leads to an effective value of g$`_{\sigma NN^{}}`$ quite close to the phenomenological coupling constant given in Eq. (16) for $`m_\sigma ^0`$=550 MeV.

The coupling constants of the N(1440) to meson-nucleon channels determined from partial decay widths in this Section will be used later to describe vertices in t-channel meson-exchange processes. That these couplings are taken to be identical in both channels is in general an approximation. It is particularly so in the case of the effective $`\sigma `$-meson exchange which involves explicitly the resummation of many processes.

## 3 Meson-exchange model for the $`\gamma p\omega N^+(1440)`$ and the $`\gamma p\rho ^0N^+(1440)`$ reactions near threshold

The presently available data  on the photoproduction of $`\omega `$\- and $`\rho ^0`$-mesons off proton targets near threshold (E$`{}_{\gamma }{}^{}`$ 2 GeV) can be described at low momentum transfers ($`q^2`$ 0.5-0.6 GeV2) by a simple one-meson exchange model . Charge conjugation invariance forbids the exchange of vector mesons in this approximation. The cross section for the $`\gamma p\omega p`$ and $`\gamma p\rho ^0p`$ reactions are therefore obtained by summing $`\pi `$\- and $`\sigma `$-exchange contributions. Moreover the $`\pi `$\- and $`\sigma `$-exchanges play a very different role in the photoproduction of $`\omega `$\- and $`\rho ^0`$-mesons. The $`\gamma p\omega p`$ cross section can be understood as given entirely by $`\pi `$-exchange while the $`\gamma p\rho ^0p`$ reaction is dominated by $`\sigma `$-exchange . At higher energies, typically for E$`{}_{\gamma }{}^{}>`$ 2.5 GeV (i.e. $``$ 1.5 GeV above threshold), this simple meson-exchange model does no longer describe the data and the cross sections develop a large diffractive component.

The Roper resonance being the lowest excited state of the nucleon, with similar quantum numbers, it is tempting to use the meson-exchange model of Ref.  to describe the $`\gamma p\omega N^+(1440)`$ and $`\gamma p\rho ^0N^+(1440)`$ reactions close to threshold and at low q2. The cross sections for these processes in the limited kinematic regime mentioned above could be good experimental measures of the strength of the $`\pi NN^{}`$(1440)and $`\sigma NN^{}`$(1440) couplings.

The one-boson exchange contributions to the the $`\gamma p\omega N^+(1440)`$ and $`\gamma p\rho ^0N^+(1440)`$ reactions in the Vector Dominance Model  are shown in Figs. 4 and 5 respectively.

### 3.1 The $`\gamma p\omega N^+(1440)`$ reaction

We consider first the $`\gamma p\omega N^+(1440)`$ process (E$`{}_{}{}^{threshold}{}_{\gamma }{}^{}`$ = 2.16 GeV at the peak of the Roper Resonance) and follow closely the discussion of Ref. .

We expect the $`\sigma `$-exchange diagram to be completely negligible compared to the $`\pi `$-exchange diagram. From the experimental data  on the partial decay widths $`\omega \pi ^0\gamma `$ \[(0.72 $`\pm `$ 0.04) MeV\] and $`\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ \[(0.61 $`\pm `$ 0.21) keV\], it is easy to show, using the effective $`\omega \pi \gamma `$ and $`\omega \sigma \gamma `$ interaction Lagrangians of Ref. , that the coupling constant g$`{}_{}{}^{2}{}_{\omega \pi \gamma }{}^{}`$/4$`\pi `$ is about 100 times larger than g$`{}_{}{}^{2}{}_{\omega \sigma \gamma }{}^{}`$/4$`\pi `$. As discussed in Section 2, the $`\pi NN^{}`$(1440) coupling is also expected to be larger than the $`\sigma NN^{}`$(1440) coupling (g$`{}_{}{}^{2}{}_{\pi NN^{}}{}^{}`$/4$`\pi `$ $``$ 2-5 while g$`{}_{}{}^{2}{}_{\sigma NN^{}}{}^{}`$/4$`\pi `$ $``$ 0.1-1.0). We calculate therefore the differential cross section d$`\sigma `$/dq2 for the $`\gamma p\omega N^{}(1440)`$ reaction assuming $`\pi `$-exchange only.

We describe the $`\omega \pi \gamma `$ coupling as in Ref. . For completeness, we recall that we used in this work the $`\rho `$-dominance model of the vertex and the effective $`\omega \rho \pi `$ Lagrangian,

$$_{\omega \pi ^0\rho ^0}^{int}=\frac{g_{\omega \pi \rho }}{m_\omega }\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }^\alpha \rho ^{0\beta }^\delta \omega ^\rho \pi ^0,$$
(17)
with $`g_{\omega \pi \rho }^2/4\pi `$=6.7. The non-locality of the $`\omega \pi \rho `$ vertex is fixed from the study of the $`\omega \pi ^0\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ decay and given by the form factor F$`_{\omega \pi \rho }`$ = $`(m_\rho ^2m_\pi ^2)/(m_\rho ^2q^2)`$. We use for the $`\pi NN^{}`$(1440) vertex the coupling constant g$`{}_{}{}^{2}{}_{\pi NN^{}}{}^{}`$/4$`\pi `$ = 3.4 \[Eq. (6)\] and, rather arbitrarily, the same form factor as for the $`\pi NN`$ vertex , F$`_{\pi NN^{}}`$ = $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi ^2m_\pi ^2)`$/ $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi ^2q^2)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$ = 0.7 GeV.

Neglecting first the width of the Roper resonance, the expression for the differential cross section of the $`\gamma p\omega N^+(1440)`$ reaction reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dq^2}}^{\gamma p\omega N^+(1440)}=\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{g_{\pi \rho \omega }^2}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\pi NN^{}}^2}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{4g_\rho ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{}c)^2}{m_\omega ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_\gamma ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(M_N^{}^0M_p)^2q^2}{4M_p^2}}`$
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m_\omega ^2q^2}{m_\pi ^2q^2}}\right]^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi ^2m_\pi ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi ^2q^2}}\right]^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m_\rho ^2m_\pi ^2}{m_\rho ^2q^2}}\right]^2,`$ (18)
where $`E_\gamma `$ is the incident photon energy, $`q^2`$ the 4-momentum transfer and $`g_\rho `$ is defined by the current-field identity

$$𝒥_\mu ^{em}(I=1)=\frac{em_\rho ^2}{2g_\rho }\rho _\mu $$
(19)
and has the value $`g_\rho ^2`$ = 6.33 .

The large width of the Roper resonance should however be included in the calculation of the $`\gamma p\omega N^+(1440)`$ reaction near threshold. We estimate here the cross section in the $`\pi ^0p`$ decay channel, as the $`\omega \pi ^0p`$ final state of the $`\gamma p\omega N^+(1440)`$ process could be measured for example at ELSA (with the Crystal Barrel) by detecting five photons in the final state . Introducing the $`N^+(1440)`$ propagator and decay vertex and denoting by $`\kappa `$ the right-hand side of Eq. (18) divided by $`[(M_N^{}^0M_p)^2q^2]/4M_p^2`$, we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dq^2}}^{\gamma p\omega N^+(1440)\omega \pi ^0p}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa {\displaystyle _{m_{\pi ^0}+M_p}^{M_N^{}^{max}(E_\gamma ,q^2)}}𝑑M_N^{}{\displaystyle \frac{(M_N^{}M_p)^2q^2}{4M_p^2}}`$ (20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^1M_N^{}M_N^{}^0\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N^+(1440)\pi ^0p}(M_N^{})}{(M_N^{}^{\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}2}}M_N^{}^2)^2+M_N^{}^{\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N^+(1440)}^{2tot}(M_N^{})}},`$
in which $`M_N^{}^{max}(E_\gamma ,q^2)`$ is the maximum mass of the Roper resonance reachable for fixed incident photon energy $`E_\gamma `$ and 4-momentum transfer $`q^2`$. The energy-dependent widths of the $`N^+(1440)`$ vanish for $`M_N^{}<m_{\pi ^0}+M_p`$ and are given, for $`M_N^{}>m_{\pi ^0}+M_p`$, by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N^+(1440)\pi ^0p}(M_N^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N^+(1440)\pi ^0p}(M_N^{}^0)`$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{M_N^{}^0}{M_N^{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{E(M_N^{})M_N}{E(M_N^{}^0)M_N}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{p[E(M_N^{})]}{p[E(M_N^{}^0)]}},`$
for the partial decay width of the $`N^+(1440)`$ into the $`\pi ^0p`$ channel and

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N^+(1440)}^{tot}(M_N^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N^+(1440)}^{tot}(M_N^{}^0)`$ (22)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{M_N^{}^0}{M_N^{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{E(M_N^{})M_N}{E(M_N^{}^0)M_N}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{p[E(M_N^{})]}{p[E(M_N^{}^0)]}},`$
for the total width, whose energy dependence is taken to be the same as for the partial width into the $`\pi N`$ channel (which dominates the Roper resonance decay). $`E(M_N^{}`$) is defined by Eq. (3). We take $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N^+(1440)\pi ^0p}(M_N^{}^0)`$ = 76 MeV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N^+(1440)}^{tot}(M_N^{}^0)`$ = 350 MeV, following the discussion of Section 2.1.

### 3.2 The $`\gamma p\rho ^0N^+(1440)`$ reaction

In the case of the $`\gamma p\rho ^0N^{}(1440)`$ reaction, we calculate both the $`\pi `$\- and $`\sigma `$-exchange contributions shown in Fig. 5. In view of the uncertainty in the $`\sigma `$NN(1440) coupling, the relative strength of both processes can but be settled by experimental data. We choose as before Eγ = 2.5 GeV.

The $`\pi `$-exchange contribution is computed with the same coupling constants and form factors as those used for the $`\gamma p\omega N^+(1440)`$ reaction discussed in the previous subsection. The calculation of the $`\sigma `$-exchange contribution parallels that of Ref. . The $`\rho ^0\sigma \rho ^0`$ coupling is given by the Lagangian,

$$_{\rho ^0\sigma \rho ^0}^{int}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{g_{\sigma \rho \rho }}{m_\rho }\left[^\alpha \rho ^{0\beta }_\alpha \rho _\beta ^0^\alpha \rho ^{0\beta }_\beta \rho _\alpha ^0\right]\sigma ,$$
(23)
with a $`\sigma \rho \rho `$ form factor of the monopole form $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \rho \rho }^2m_\sigma ^{\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}2}})/(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \sigma \rho }^2q^2)`$. The values of $`g_{\sigma \rho \rho }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \rho \rho }`$ are determined from a fit to $`\gamma p\rho ^0p`$ data to be $`g_{\sigma \rho \rho }^2/4\pi `$=14.8 and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \rho \rho }`$=0.9 GeV . The $`\sigma NN^{}`$ interaction Lagrangian is given in Eq. (7) and the value of the coupling constant in Eq. (14). The associated form factor is $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\sigma ^2m_\sigma ^{\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}2}})/(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\sigma ^2q^2)`$. We choose rather arbitrarily $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\sigma `$=1 GeV, as in the case of the $`\sigma NN`$ coupling . We take $`m_\sigma ^0`$=500 MeV.

The expression for the differential cross section of the $`\gamma p\rho ^0N^+(1440)`$ reaction, analogous to Eq. (18) for the $`\omega `$ production, reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dq^2}}^{\gamma p\rho ^0N^+(1440)}=\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{g_{\pi \rho \omega }^2}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\pi NN^{}}^2}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{4g_\omega ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{}c)^2}{m_\omega ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_\gamma ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(M_N^{}^0M_p)^2q^2}{4M_p^2}}`$
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m_\rho ^2q^2}{m_\pi ^2q^2}}\right]^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi ^2m_\pi ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi ^2q^2}}\right]^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m_\rho ^2m_\pi ^2}{m_\rho ^2q^2}}\right]^2`$
$`+\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{g_{\sigma \rho \rho }^2}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\sigma NN^{}}^2}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{4g_\rho ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{}c)^2}{m_\rho ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_\gamma ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(M_N^{}^0+M_p)^2q^2}{4M_p^2}}`$
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m_\rho ^2q^2}{m_\sigma ^{\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}2}}q^2}}\right]^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\sigma ^2m_\sigma ^{\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\sigma ^2q^2}}\right]^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \rho \rho }^2m_\sigma ^{\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \rho \rho }^2q^2}}\right]^2,`$ (24)
where $`g_\omega `$ is defined by the current-field identity

$$𝒥_\mu ^{em}(I=0)=\frac{em_\omega ^2}{2g_\omega }\omega _\mu $$
(25)
and has the value $`g_\omega ^2`$ = 72.71 .

In Eq. (24), the Roper resonance has no width. We include it and calculate the cross section for the $`\gamma p\rho ^0N^+(1440)`$ reaction in the $`\rho ^0\pi ^+n`$ decay channel. The $`\rho ^0`$ will indeed decay into a $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ pair. It is therefore natural to study this process with three charged pions in the final state. Denoting by $`\kappa _1`$ and $`\kappa _2`$ the first and second terms of the right-hand side of Eq. (24) divided by $`[(M_N^{}^0M_p)^2q^2]/4M_p^2`$ and $`[(M_N^{}^0+M_p)^2q^2]/4M_p^2`$ respectively, we have, in complete analogy with Eq. (20),

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dq^2}}^{\gamma p\rho ^0N^+(1440)\rho ^0\pi ^+n}={\displaystyle _{m_{\pi ^+}+M_n}^{M_N^{}^{max}(E_\gamma ,q^2)}}dM_N^{}(\kappa _1{\displaystyle \frac{(M_N^{}M_p)^2q^2}{4M_p^2}}`$
$`+\kappa _2{\displaystyle \frac{(M_N^{}+M_p)^2q^2}{4M_p^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^1M_N^{}M_N^{}^0\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N^+(1440)\pi ^+n}(M_N^{})}{(M_N^{}^{\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}2}}M_N^{}^2)^2+M_N^{}^{\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N^+(1440)}^{2tot}(M_N^{})}}.`$ (26)
The energy dependence of the partial and total widths is the same as in Eqs. (21) and (22). We remark however that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N^+(1440)\pi ^+n}(M_N^{}^0)`$ = 152 MeV, because of the isospin factor.

## 4 Numerical results

### 4.1 The $`\gamma p\omega N^+(1440)`$ reaction

The differential cross section for the $`\gamma p\omega N^+(1440)`$ reaction at $`E_\gamma `$=2.5 GeV given by Eq. (18), i.e. neglecting the width of the Roper resonance, is shown in Fig. 6. Eventhough we have plotted the differential cross section in this figure (and in the subsequent ones) until q2=-0.7 GeV2, we do not expect our model to be valid much beyond q2=-0.5 GeV2. This limit is set by the cut-off in the $`\pi NN^{}`$ form factor, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$=0.7 GeV. In the zero-width approximation for the N(1440), the lowest value of q2 (corresponding to $`\theta `$ = 0) is -0.36 GeV2.

Taking into account the width of the Roper resonance, we show in Fig. 7 the differential cross section for the $`\gamma p\omega N^+(1440)`$ reaction assuming that the $`N^+(1440)`$ decays subsequently into the $`\pi ^0p`$ channel ($`E_\gamma `$=2.5 GeV). The curve represents the expression given in Eq. (20), completed by the energy-dependent widths (21) and (22).

Much smaller values of -q2 are reachable when the low-energy tail of the Roper resonance is explicitly included. At q2=-0.36 GeV2, the differential cross section for the $`\gamma p\omega N^+(1440)\omega \pi ^0p`$ reaction is about 20 times smaller than the differential cross section for $`\gamma p\omega N^+(1440)`$ in the zero-width approximation. This number can be easily understood. The partial decay width of the $`N^+(1440)`$ into the $`\pi ^0p`$ channel is roughly 20$`\%`$ and the interval of $`M_N^{}`$ involved in the integral of Eq. (20) reduces the strength for the excitation of the Roper resonance by a factor of about 4 compared to the situation where all the strength is concentrated at $`M_N^{}^0`$=1.44 GeV.

If our simple $`\pi `$-exchange model of the $`\gamma p\omega N^+(1440)`$ reaction near threshold makes sense, the measurement of the cross section displayed in Fig. 7 would bring strong constraints on the $`\pi NN^{}`$ vertex. It is interesting that a new measurement of the $`\omega \pi ^0e^+e^{}`$ form factor, planned in the near future by the HADES Collaboration at GSI , will provide a better understanding of the $`\omega \rho \pi `$ vertex and additional control on the left-hand graph of Fig. 4.

### 4.2 The $`\gamma p\rho ^0N^+(1440)`$ reaction

The differential cross section for the $`\gamma p\rho ^0N^+(1440)`$ reaction at $`E_\gamma `$=2.5 GeV given by Eq. (24), in the zero-width approximation for the Roper resonance, is shown in Fig. 8. We have plotted separately the contributions from the $`\pi `$\- and $`\sigma `$-exchanges.

The $`\sigma `$-exchange contribution appears largely dominant. We recall however that the $`\sigma NN^{}`$ coupling constant has a very substantial error bar. We took $`g_{\sigma NN^{}}^2/4\pi `$=0.34, according to Eq. (14). As discussed in Section 2.2, the uncertainty in this quantity is typically of a factor 5. If our ($`\pi `$+$`\sigma `$)-exchange model of the $`\gamma p\rho ^0N^+(1440)`$ reaction near threshold is a proper description of this process, the measurement of the corresponding cross section would place strong constraints on $`g_{\sigma NN^{}}`$.

Releasing the zero-width approximation for the N(1440) and looking at its $`\pi ^+n`$ decay channel \[Eq. (26)\], yield the curve displayed in Fig. 9.

At q2=-0.36 GeV2, the differential cross section for the $`\gamma p\rho ^0N^+(1440)\rho ^0\pi ^+n`$ reaction is only 10 times smaller than the differential cross section for $`\gamma p\rho ^0N^+(1440)`$ in the zero-width approximation because the $`N^{}(1440)\pi ^+n`$ decay width is twice larger than the $`N^{}(1440)\pi ^0p`$ decay width. For simplicity, we have not included explicitly the $`\rho ^0`$-meson width. Near threshold, it would reduce further the differential cross section by a factor of about 2.

A very interesting experimental possibility to disentangle $`\pi `$\- and $`\sigma `$-exchanges in the $`\gamma p\rho ^0N^+(1440)`$ reaction would be to study this process with linearly polarized photons. Such experiment would indeed offer the possibility to separate natural and unnatural parity exchanges in the t-channel .

## 5 Conclusion

We propose a simple, and probably the first, model to describe the associate photoproduction of vector mesons ($`\rho ^0(770)`$ and $`\omega (782)`$) and $`N^+(1440)`$ resonances from proton targets. The domain of applicability of this model, involving t-channel $`\pi `$\- and $`\sigma `$-exchanges, is restricted to photon energies leading to $`\rho ^0`$ and $`\omega `$ production close to threshold ($`E_\gamma <`$ 3 GeV) and to low momentum transfers ($`q^2`$ 0.5-0.6 GeV2).

At $`E_\gamma `$ = 2.5 GeV, the total cross section for these processes is predicted to be typically of the order of 50 nb, with sizeable theoretical uncertainty.

The $`\gamma p\omega N^+(1440)`$ amplitude is given entirely by pion-exchange, while the $`\gamma p\rho ^0N^+(1440)`$ amplitude appears largely dominated by $`\sigma `$-exchange. We suggest that a measurement of the latter process, particularly with linearly polarized photons, would provide very significant constraints on the $`\sigma NN^{}`$ coupling while data on the former reaction would pin down the $`\pi NN^{}`$ coupling.

Contributions other than the above processes to a given final state should however be estimated to assess the relevance of the proposed measurements.

In general, it seems that the most favourable conditions to observe the $`\gamma p\omega N^+(1440)`$ and $`\gamma p\rho ^0N^+(1440)`$ reactions would be photon incident energies and values of the momentum transfer $`q^2`$ chosen so as to excite the low-energy tail of the Roper resonance. For $`E_\gamma `$ = 2.5 GeV, this implies values of $`q^2`$ less than about 0.4 GeV2. Such kinematics would suppress overlaps with the $`N^+(1520)`$ and the $`N^+(1535)`$ resonances which decay largely into the $`\pi `$N channel. In this regime, the main competing processes in our t-channel model would be $`\gamma p\omega \mathrm{\Delta }^+(1232)`$ and the $`\gamma p\rho ^0\mathrm{\Delta }^+(1232)`$ reactions. The corresponding amplitudes can be quite reliably calculated as the coupling of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ to the $`\pi `$N channel has been very extensively studied. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ excitation is suppressed in processes where the $`\sigma `$-exchange is dominant. One should note also that in experiments where the $`N^+(1440)`$ resonance could be identified by its decay into the $`\pi \pi `$N channel, rather than in the $`\pi `$N channel as proposed in this paper, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ amplitude mentioned above would not contribute. It is important to keep in mind however that the role of s-channel resonances in the 2.5 GeV range is at present very poorly known.

## 6 Acknowledgements

The author is very much indebted to Berthold Schoch who suggested the work presented in this paper in relation with an experimental project at the Bonn ELSA Facility. She thanks Nathan Isgur for an extremely useful remark. She acknowledges very helpful discussions with Marcel Morlet and Dan-Olof Riska.