text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The light-cone Fock representation of composite systems such as hadrons in QCD has a number of remarkable properties. Because the generators of certain Lorentz boosts are kinematical, knowing the wavefunction in one frame allows one to obtain it in any other frame. Furthermore, matrix elements of space-like local operators for the coupling of photons, gravitons, and the moments of deep inelastic structure functions all can be expressed as overlaps of light-cone wavefunctions with the same number of Fock constituents. This is possible since in each case one can choose the special frame $`q^+=0`$  for the space-like momentum transfer and take matrix elements of “plus” components of currents such as $`J^+`$ and $`T^{++}`$. Since the physical vacuum in light-cone quantization coincides with the perturbative vacuum, no contributions to matrix elements from vacuum fluctuations occur . Light-cone Fock state wavefunctions thus encode all of the bound state quark and gluon properties of hadrons including their spin and flavor correlations in the form of universal process- and frame- independent amplitudes.

Formally, the light-cone expansion is constructed by quantizing QCD at fixed light-cone time  $`\tau =t+z/c`$ and forming the invariant light-cone Hamiltonian: $`H_{LC}^{QCD}=P^+P^{}\stackrel{}{P}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ where $`P^\pm =P^0\pm P^z`$ . The momentum generators $`P^+`$ and $`\stackrel{}{P}_{}`$ are kinematical; $`i.e.`$, they are independent of the interactions. The generator $`P^{}=i\frac{d}{d\tau }`$ generates light-cone time translations, and the eigen-spectrum of the Lorentz scalar $`H_{LC}^{QCD}`$ gives the mass spectrum of the color-singlet hadron states in QCD together with their respective light-cone wavefunctions. For example, the proton state satisfies: $`H_{LC}^{QCD}|\psi _p=M_p^2|\psi _p`$. The expansion of the proton eigensolution $`|\psi _p`$ on the color-singlet $`B=1`$, $`Q=1`$ eigenstates $`\{|n\}`$ of the free Hamiltonian $`H_{LC}^{QCD}(g=0)`$ gives the light-cone Fock expansion:

$`|\psi _p(P^+,\stackrel{}{P}_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}x_i\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_i}{\sqrt{x_i}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}16}\pi ^3}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}16}\pi ^3\delta \left(1{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}x_i\right)\delta ^{(2)}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\stackrel{}{k}_i\right)`$
$`\text{}\times \psi _n(x_i,\stackrel{}{k}_i,\lambda _i)|n;x_iP^+,x_i\stackrel{}{P}_{}+\stackrel{}{k}_i,\lambda _i.`$
The light-cone momentum fractions $`x_i=k_i^+/P^+`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}_i`$ represent the relative momentum coordinates of the QCD constituents. The physical transverse momenta are $`\stackrel{}{p}_i=x_i\stackrel{}{P}_{}+\stackrel{}{k}_i.`$ The $`\lambda _i`$ label the light-cone spin projections $`S^z`$ of the quarks and gluons along the quantization direction $`z`$. The physical gluon polarization vectors $`ϵ^\mu (k,\lambda =\pm 1)`$ are specified in light-cone gauge by the conditions $`kϵ=0,\eta ϵ=ϵ^+=0.`$ The $`n`$-particle states are normalized as

$$n;p_i^{}{}_{}{}^{+},\stackrel{}{p}_i^{},\lambda _i^{}|n;p_i^{}{}_{}{}^{+},\stackrel{}{p}_i^{},\lambda _i=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}16\pi ^3p_i^+\delta (p_i^{}{}_{}{}^{+}p_i^{}{}_{}{}^{+})\delta ^{(2)}(\stackrel{}{p}_i^{}\stackrel{}{p}_i^{})\delta _{\lambda _i^{}\lambda _i^{}}.$$
(2)
The solutions of $`H_{LC}^{QCD}|\psi _p=M_p^2|\psi _p`$ are independent of $`P^+`$ and $`\stackrel{}{P}_{}`$; thus given the eigensolution Fock projections $`n;x_i,\stackrel{}{k}_i,\lambda _i|\psi _p=\psi _n(x_i,\stackrel{}{k}_i,\lambda _i),`$ the wavefunction of the proton is determined in any frame . In contrast, in equal-time quantization, a Lorentz boost always mixes dynamically with the interactions, so that computing a wavefunction in a new frame requires solving a nonperturbative problem as complicated as the Hamiltonian eigenvalue problem itself.

The LC wavefunctions $`\psi _{n/H}(x_i,\stackrel{}{k}_i,\lambda _i)`$ are universal, process independent, and thus control all hadronic reactions. Given the light-cone wavefunctions, one can compute the moments of the helicity and transversity distributions measurable in polarized deep inelastic experiments . For example, the polarized quark distributions at resolution $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ correspond to

$`q_{\lambda _q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_p}(x,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n,q_a}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}dx_jd^2k_j\underset{\lambda _i}{}|\psi _{n/H}^{(\mathrm{\Lambda })}(x_i,\stackrel{}{k}_i,\lambda _i)|^2}`$
$`\times \delta \left(1{\displaystyle \underset{i}{\overset{n}{}}}x_i\right)\delta ^{(2)}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i}{\overset{n}{}}}\stackrel{}{k}_i\right)\delta (xx_q)\delta _{\lambda _a,\lambda _q}\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2_n^2),`$
where the sum is over all quarks $`q_a`$ which match the quantum numbers, light-cone momentum fraction $`x,`$ and helicity of the struck quark. Similarly, moments of transversity distributions and off-diagonal helicity convolutions are defined as a density matrix of the light-cone wavefunctions. Applications of non-forward quark and gluon distributions have been discussed in Refs. . The light-cone wavefunctions also specify the multi-quark and gluon correlations of the hadron. For example, the distribution of spectator particles in the final state which could be measured in the proton fragmentation region in deep inelastic scattering at an electron-proton collider are in principle encoded in the light-cone wavefunctions.

Given the $`\psi _{n/H}^{(\mathrm{\Lambda })},`$ one can construct any spacelike electromagnetic, electroweak, or gravitational form factor or local operator product matrix element of a composite or elementary system from the diagonal overlap of the LC wavefunctions . Studying the gravitational form factors is not academic: Ji has shown that there is a remarkable connection of the $`x`$-moments of the chiral-conserving and chiral-flip form factors $`H(x,t,\zeta )`$ and $`E(x,t,\zeta )`$ which appear in deeply virtual scattering with the corresponding spin-conserving and spin-flip electromagnetic form factors $`F_1(t)`$ and $`F_2(t)`$ and gravitational form factors $`A_\mathrm{q}(t)`$ and $`B_\mathrm{q}(t)`$ for each quark and anti-quark constituent. Thus, in effect, one can use virtual Compton scattering to measure graviton couplings to the charged constituents of a hadron.

Exclusive semi-leptonic $`B`$-decay amplitudes involving timelike currents such as $`BA\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ can also be evaluated exactly in the light-cone formalism . In this case, the timelike decay matrix elements require the computation of both the diagonal matrix element $`nn`$ where parton number is conserved and the off-diagonal $`n+1n1`$ convolution such that the current operator annihilates a $`q\overline{q^{}}`$ pair in the initial $`B`$ wavefunction. This term is a consequence of the fact that the time-like decay $`q^2=(p_{\mathrm{}}+p_{\overline{\nu }})^2>0`$ requires a positive light-cone momentum fraction $`q^+>0`$. Conversely for space-like currents, one can choose $`q^+=0`$, as in the Drell-Yan-West representation of the space-like electromagnetic form factors . However, as can be seen from the explicit analysis of timelike form factors in a perturbative model, the off-diagonal convolution can yield a non-zero $`q^+/q^+`$ limiting form as $`q^+0`$ . This extra term appears specifically in the case of “bad” currents such as $`J^{}`$ in which the coupling to $`q\overline{q^{}}`$ fluctuations in the light-cone wavefunctions are favored . In effect, the $`q^+0`$ limit generates $`\delta (x)`$ contributions as residues of the $`n+1n1`$ contributions. The necessity for such “zero mode” $`\delta (x)`$ terms has been noted by Chang, Root and Yan , Burkardt , and Choi and Ji . We can avoid these contributions by restricting our attention to the plus currents $`J^+`$ and $`T^{++}`$.

It should be emphasized that the light-cone Fock representation provides an exact formulation of current matrix elements of local operators. In contrast, in equal-time Hamiltonian theory, one must evaluate connected time-ordered diagrams where the gauge particle or graviton couples to particles associated with vacuum fluctuations. Thus even if one knows the equal-time wavefunction for the initial and final hadron, one cannot determine the current matrix elements. In the case of the covariant Bethe-Salpeter formalism, the evaluation of the matrix element of the current requires the calculation of an infinite number of irreducible diagram contributions.

One of the important issues in the formulation of light-cone quantized quantum field theories is the existence of a consistent scheme for non-perturbative renormalization. A general nonperturbative renormalization procedure for QCD has recently been outlined by Paston et al. . An alternative is to the use of broken supersymmetry as an ultraviolet regulator . Some simplified model light-cone field theories have been successfully renormalized using generalized Pauli-Villars regularization .

As an illustration of the structure of the light-cone Fock state representation, we will present a simple self-consistent model of an effective composite spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ system based on the quantum fluctuations of the electron in QED. The model is patterned after the structure which occurs in the one-loop Schwinger $`\alpha /2\pi `$ correction to the electron magnetic moment . In effect, we can represent a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ system as a composite of a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ fermion and spin-one vector boson with arbitrary masses. We also give results for the case of a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ composite consisting of scalar plus spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ constituents, as would occur in a composite of a photino and slepton in supersymmetric QED and in the radiative corrections due to Higgs exchange. The light-cone wavefunctions describe off-shell particles but are computable explicitly from perturbation theory. We will explicitly compute the form factors $`F_1(q^2)`$ and $`F_2(q^2)`$ of the electromagnetic current, and the various contributions to the form factors $`A(q^2)`$ and $`B(q^2)`$ of the energy-momentum tensor. The model thus provides a check on the general formulae, particularly the structure of angular momentum on the light-cone; it provides an important illustration of $`J^z`$ conservation, Fock state by Fock state; it demonstrates helicity retention between fermions and vector bosons at $`x1`$; and it provides a template for an effective quark spin-one diquark structure of the valence light-cone wavefunction of the proton.

The one-loop models can be further generalized by applying spectral Pauli-Villars integration over the constituent masses. This representation of an effectively composite system is particularly useful because it is based simply on two constituents but yet is totally relativistic. The resulting form of light-cone wavefunctions provides a template for parameterizing the structure of relativistic composite systems and their matrix elements in hadronic physics. We thus obtain a theoretical laboratory to test the consistency of formulae which have been proposed to probe the spin structure of hadrons. This clarifies the connection of parton distributions to the constituents’ spin and orbital angular momentum and to static quantities of the composite systems such as the magnetic moment. For example, the model also provides a self-consistent form for the wavefunctions of an effective quark-diquark model of the valence Fock state of the proton wavefunction. A similar approach has recently been used to illustrate the evolution of light-cone helicity and orbital angular momentum operators . A nonperturbative calculation of the electron magnetic moment using the discretized light-cone quantization method  is given in Ref. .

Many of the features of the analysis apply to arbitrary composite systems. For example, we will explicitly prove the vanishing of the anomalous gravito-moment coupling $`B(0)`$ to gravity for any composite system. This remarkable result was first derived classically from the equivalence principle by Okun and Kobsarev , and from the conservation of the energy-momentum tensor by Kobsarev and Zakharov . See also the more recent discussions in Refs. . We will demonstrate that $`B(0)=0`$ follows directly for composite systems in quantum field theory from the Lorentz boost properties of the light-cone Fock representation, and that it is valid in every Fock sector.

## 2 Electromagnetic and Gravitational Form Factors

The light-cone Fock representation allows one to compute all matrix elements of local currents as overlap integrals of the light-cone Fock wavefunctions. In particular, we can evaluate the forward and non-forward matrix elements of the electroweak currents, moments of the deep inelastic structure functions, as well as the electromagnetic form factors and the magnetic moment. Given the local operators for the energy-momentum tensor $`T^{\mu \nu }(x)`$ and the angular momentum tensor $`M^{\mu \nu \lambda }(x)`$, one can directly compute momentum fractions, spin properties, the gravitomagnetic moment, and the form factors $`A(q^2)`$ and $`B(q^2)`$ appearing in the coupling of gravitons to composite systems.

In the case of a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ composite system, the Dirac and Pauli form factors $`F_1(q^2)`$ and $`F_2(q^2)`$ are defined by

$$P^{}|J^\mu (0)|P=\overline{u}(P^{})\left[F_1(q^2)\gamma ^\mu +F_2(q^2)\frac{i}{2M}\sigma ^{\mu \alpha }q_\alpha \right]u(P),$$
(4)
where $`q^\mu =(P^{}P)^\mu `$ and $`u(P)`$ is the bound state spinor. In the light-cone formalism it is convenient to identify the Dirac and Pauli form factors from the helicity-conserving and helicity-flip vector current matrix elements of the $`J^+`$ current :

$$P+q,\left|\frac{J^+(0)}{2P^+}\right|P,=F_1(q^2),$$
(5)
$$P+q,\left|\frac{J^+(0)}{2P^+}\right|P,=(q^1\mathrm{i}q^2)\frac{F_2(q^2)}{2M}.$$
(6)
The magnetic moment of a composite system is one of its most basic properties. The magnetic moment is defined at the $`q^20`$ limit,

$$\mu =\frac{e}{2M}\left[F_1(0)+F_2(0)\right],$$
(7)
where $`e`$ is the charge and $`M`$ is the mass of the composite system. We use the standard light-cone frame ($`q^\pm =q^0\pm q^3`$):

$`q`$ $`=`$ $`(q^+,q^{},\stackrel{}{q}_{})=(0,{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{P^+}},\stackrel{}{q}_{}),`$
$`P`$ $`=`$ $`(P^+,P^{},\stackrel{}{P}_{})=(P^+,{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{P^+}},\stackrel{}{0}_{}),`$ (8)
where $`q^2=2Pq=\stackrel{}{q}_{}^2`$ is 4-momentum square transferred by the photon.

The Pauli form factor and the anomalous magnetic moment $`\kappa =\frac{e}{2M}F_2(0)`$ can then be calculated from the expression

$$(q^1\mathrm{i}q^2)\frac{F_2(q^2)}{2M}=\underset{a}{}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{16\pi ^3}\underset{j}{}e_j\psi _a^{}(x_i,\stackrel{}{k}_i^{},\lambda _i)\psi _a^{}(x_i,\stackrel{}{k}_i,\lambda _i),$$
(9)
where the summation is over all contributing Fock states $`a`$ and struck constituent charges $`e_j`$. The arguments of the final-state light-cone wavefunction are

$$\stackrel{}{k}_i^{}=\stackrel{}{k}_i+(1x_i)\stackrel{}{q}_{}$$
(10)
for the struck constituent and

$$\stackrel{}{k}_i^{}=\stackrel{}{k}_ix_i\stackrel{}{q}_{}$$
(11)
for each spectator. Notice that the magnetic moment must be calculated from the spin-flip non-forward matrix element of the current. It is not given by a diagonal forward matrix element . In the ultra-relativistic limit where the radius of the system is small compared to its Compton scale $`1/M`$, the anomalous magnetic moment must vanish . The light-cone formalism is consistent with this theorem.

The form factors of the energy-momentum tensor for a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ composite are defined by

$`P^{}|T^{\mu \nu }(0)|P`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}(P^{})[A(q^2)\gamma ^{(\mu }\overline{P}^{\nu )}+B(q^2){\displaystyle \frac{i}{2M}}\overline{P}^{(\mu }\sigma ^{\nu )\alpha }q_\alpha `$ (12)
$`+C(q^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}(q^\mu q^\nu g^{\mu \nu }q^2)]u(P),`$
where $`q^\mu =(P^{}P)^\mu `$, $`\overline{P}^\mu =\frac{1}{2}(P^{}+P)^\mu `$, $`a^{(\mu }b^{\nu )}=\frac{1}{2}(a^\mu b^\nu +a^\nu b^\mu )`$, and $`u(P)`$ is the spinor of the system.

As in the light-cone decomposition Eqs. (5) and (6) of the Dirac and Pauli form factors for the vector current , we can obtain the light-cone representation of the $`A(q^2)`$ and $`B(q^2)`$ form factors of the energy-tensor Eq. (12). Since we work in the interaction picture, only the non-interacting parts of the energy momentum tensor $`T^{++}(0)`$ need to be computed in the light-cone formalism. By calculating the $`++`$ component of Eq. (12), we find

$$P+q,\left|\frac{T^{++}(0)}{2(P^+)^2}\right|P,=A(q^2),$$
(13)
$$P+q,\left|\frac{T^{++}(0)}{2(P^+)^2}\right|P,=(q^1\mathrm{i}q^2)\frac{B(q^2)}{2M}.$$
(14)
The $`A(q^2)`$ and $`B(q^2)`$ form factors Eqs. (13) and (14) are similar to the $`F_1(q^2)`$ and $`F_2(q^2)`$ form factors Eqs. (5) and (6) with an additional factor of the light-cone momentum fraction $`x=k^+/P^+`$ of the struck constituent in the integrand. The $`B(q^2)`$ form factor is obtained from the non-forward spin-flip amplitude. The value of $`B(0)`$ is obtained in the $`q^20`$ limit. The angular momentum projection of a state is given by

$$J^i=\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{ijk}d^3xT^{0k}x^jT^{0j}x^k=A(0)L^i+\left[A(0)+B(0)\right]\overline{u}(P)\frac{1}{2}\sigma ^iu(P).$$
(15)
This result is derived using a wave packet description of the state. The $`L^i`$ term is the orbital angular momentum of the center of mass motion with respect to an arbitrary origin and can be dropped. The coefficient of the $`L^i`$ term must be 1; $`A(0)=1`$ also follows when we evaluate the four-momentum expectation value $`P^\mu `$. Thus the total intrinsic angular momentum $`J^z`$ of a nucleon can be identified with the values of the form factors $`A(q^2)`$ and $`B(q^2)`$ at $`q^2=0:`$

$$J^z=\frac{1}{2}\sigma ^z\left[A(0)+B(0)\right].$$
(16)
One can define individual quark and gluon contributions to the total angular momentum from the matrix elements of the energy momentum tensor . However, this definition is only formal; $`A_{q,g}(0)`$ can be interpreted as the light-cone momentum fraction carried by the quarks or gluons $`x_{q,g}.`$ The contributions from $`B_{q,g}(0)`$ to $`J_z`$ cancel in the sum. In fact, we shall show that the contributions to $`B(0)`$ vanish when summed over the constituents of each individual Fock state.

We will give an explicit realization of these relations in the light-cone Fock representation for general composite systems. In the next section we will illustrate the formulae by computing the electron’s electromagnetic and energy-momentum tensor form factors to one-loop order in QED. In fact, the structure of this calculation has much more generality and can be used as a template for more general composite systems.

## 3  The Light-Cone Fock State Decomposition and Spin Structure of Leptons in QED

The Schwinger one-loop radiative correction to the electron current in quantum electrodynamics has played a historic role in the development of quantum field theory. In the language of light-cone quantization, the electron anomalous magnetic moment $`a_e=\alpha /2\pi `$ is due to the one-fermion one-gauge boson Fock state component of the physical electron. An explicit calculation of the anomalous moment in this framework using equation (7) was give in Ref. . We shall show here that the light-cone wavefunctions of the electron provides an ideal system to check explicitly the intricacies of spin and angular momentum in quantum field theory. In particular, we shall evaluate the matrix elements of the QED energy momentum tensor and show how the “spin crisis” is resolved in QED for an actual physical system. The analysis is exact in perturbation theory. The same method can be applied to the moments of structure functions and the evaluation of other local matrix elements. In fact, the QED analysis of this section is more general than perturbation theory. We will also show how the perturbative light-cone wavefunctions of leptons and photons provide a template for the wavefunctions of non-perturbative composite systems resembling hadrons in QCD.

The light-cone Fock state wavefunctions of an electron can be systematically evaluated in QED. The QED Lagrangian density is

$$=\frac{i}{2}[\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu (\stackrel{}{}{}_{\mu }{}^{}+ieA_\mu )\psi \overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu (\stackrel{}{}{}_{\mu }{}^{}ieA_\mu )\psi ]m\overline{\psi }\psi \frac{1}{4}F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu },$$
(17)
and the corresponding energy-momentum tensor is

$`T^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}([\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu (\stackrel{}{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }+ieA^\nu )\psi \overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu (\stackrel{}{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }ieA^\nu )\psi ]+[\mu \nu ])`$ (18)
$`+F^{\mu \rho }F_\rho ^\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g^{\mu \nu }F^{\rho \lambda }F_{\rho \lambda }.`$
Since $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ is the Noether current of the general coordinate transformation, it is conserved. In later calculations we will identify the two terms in Eq. (18) as the fermion and boson contributions $`T_\mathrm{f}^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`T_\mathrm{b}^{\mu \nu }`$, respectively.

The physical electron is the eigenstate of the QED Hamiltonian. As discussed in the introduction, the expansion of it is the QED eigenfunction on the complete set $`|n`$ of $`H_0`$ eigenstates produces the Fock state expansion. It is particularly advantageous to carry out this procedure using light-cone quantization since the vacuum is trivial, the Fock state representation is boost invariant, and the light-cone fractions $`x_i=k_i^+/P^+`$ are positive: $`0<x_i1`$, $`_ix_i=1`$. We also employ light-cone gauge $`A^+=0`$ so that the gauge boson polarizations are physical. Thus each Fock-state wavefunction $`n|\mathrm{physical}\mathrm{electron}`$ of the physical electron with total spin projection $`J^z=\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ is represented by the function $`\psi _n^{J^z}(x_i,\stackrel{}{k}_i,\lambda _i)`$, where

$$k_i=(k_i^+,k_i^{},\stackrel{}{k}_i)=(x_iP^+,\frac{\stackrel{}{k}_i^2+m_i^2}{x_iP^+},\stackrel{}{k}_i)$$
(19)
specifies the momentum of each constituent and $`\lambda _i`$ specifies its light-cone helicity in the $`z`$ direction. We adopt a non-zero boson mass $`\lambda `$ for the sake of generality.

The two-particle Fock state for an electron with $`J^z=+\frac{1}{2}`$ has four possible spin combinations:

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{two}\mathrm{particle}}^{}(P^+,\stackrel{}{P}_{}=\stackrel{}{0}_{})={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{\sqrt{x(1x)}16\pi ^3}}`$
$`\times `$ $`\left[\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}+1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})\right|+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+1;xP^+,\stackrel{}{k}_{}+\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})|+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}1;xP^+,\stackrel{}{k}_{}`$
$`+\psi _{\frac{1}{2}+1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+1;xP^+,\stackrel{}{k}_{}+\psi _{\frac{1}{2}1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}1;xP^+,\stackrel{}{k}_{}],`$
where the two-particle states $`|s_\mathrm{f}^z,s_\mathrm{b}^z;xP^+,\stackrel{}{k}_{}`$ are normalized as in (2). Here $`s_\mathrm{f}^z`$ and $`s_\mathrm{b}^z`$ denote the $`z`$-component of the spins of the constituent fermion and boson, respectively. The wavefunctions can be evaluated explicitly in QED perturbation theory using the rules given in Refs. :

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}+1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})=\sqrt{2}\frac{(k^1+\mathrm{i}k^2)}{x(1x)}\phi ,\hfill \\ \psi _{+\frac{1}{2}1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})=\sqrt{2}\frac{(+k^1+\mathrm{i}k^2)}{1x}\phi ,\hfill \\ \psi _{\frac{1}{2}+1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})=\sqrt{2}(M\frac{m}{x})\phi ,\hfill \\ \psi _{\frac{1}{2}1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})=0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(21)
where

$$\phi =\phi (x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})=\frac{e/\sqrt{1x}}{M^2(\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2+m^2)/x(\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2+\lambda ^2)/(1x)}.$$
(22)
Similarly,

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{two}\mathrm{particle}}^{}(P^+,\stackrel{}{P}_{}=\stackrel{}{0}_{})={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{\sqrt{x(1x)}16\pi ^3}}`$
$`\times `$ $`\left[\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}+1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})\right|+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+1;xP^+,\stackrel{}{k}_{}+\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})|+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}1;xP^+,\stackrel{}{k}_{}`$
$`+\psi _{\frac{1}{2}+1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+1;xP^+,\stackrel{}{k}_{}+\psi _{\frac{1}{2}1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}1;xP^+,\stackrel{}{k}_{}],`$
where

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}+1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})=0,\hfill \\ \psi _{+\frac{1}{2}1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})=\sqrt{2}(M\frac{m}{x})\phi ,\hfill \\ \psi _{\frac{1}{2}+1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})=\sqrt{2}\frac{(k^1+\mathrm{i}k^2)}{1x}\phi ,\hfill \\ \psi _{\frac{1}{2}1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})=\sqrt{2}\frac{(+k^1+\mathrm{i}k^2)}{x(1x)}\phi .\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
The coefficients of $`\phi `$ in Eqs. (21) and (24) are the matrix elements of $`\frac{\overline{u}(k^+,k^{},\stackrel{}{k}_{})}{\sqrt{k^+}}\gamma ϵ^{}\frac{u(P^+,P^{},\stackrel{}{P}_{})}{\sqrt{P^+}}`$ which are the numerators of the wavefunctions corresponding to each constituent spin $`s^z`$ configuration. The two boson polarization vectors in light-cone gauge are $`ϵ^\mu =(ϵ^+=0,ϵ^{}=\frac{\stackrel{}{ϵ}_{}\stackrel{}{k}_{}}{2k^+},\stackrel{}{ϵ}_{})`$ where $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}=\stackrel{}{ϵ_{}}_,=(1/\sqrt{2})(\widehat{x}\pm \mathrm{i}\widehat{y})`$. The polarizations also satisfy the Lorentz condition $`kϵ=0`$. In (21) and (24) we have generalized the framework of QED by assigning a mass $`M`$ to the external electrons, but a different mass $`m`$ to the internal electron lines and a mass $`\lambda `$ to the internal photon line . The idea behind this is to model the structure of a composite fermion state with mass $`M`$ by a fermion and a vector constituent with respective masses $`m`$ and $`\lambda `$.

The electron in QED also has a “bare” one-particle component:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{one}\mathrm{particle}}^,=\sqrt{Z}\delta (1x)\delta (\stackrel{}{k}_{}=\stackrel{}{0}_{})|s_\mathrm{f}^z=\pm \frac{1}{2},$$
(25)
where $`Z`$ is the wavefunction normalization of the one-particle state. If we regulate the theory in the ultraviolet and infrared, $`Z`$ is finite.

We first will evaluate the Dirac and Pauli form factors $`F_1(q^2)`$ and $`F_2(q^2)`$. Using Eqs. (5) and (3) we have to order $`e^2`$

$`F_1(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(P^+,\stackrel{}{P}_{}=\stackrel{}{q}_{}))|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(P^+,\stackrel{}{P}_{}=\stackrel{}{0}_{})`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`Z+{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{16\pi ^3}}[\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}+1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}+1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})+\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})`$
$`+\psi _{\frac{1}{2}+1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\psi _{\frac{1}{2}+1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})],`$
where

$$\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=\stackrel{}{k}_{}+(1x)\stackrel{}{q}_{}.$$
(27)
Ultraviolet regularization is assumed. For example, we can assume a cutoff in the invariant mass of the constituents: $`^2=_i\frac{\stackrel{}{k}_i^2+m_i^2}{x_i}<\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$, or we can use Pauli-Villars regularization by introducing a fictitious photon with a large mass $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

At zero momentum transfer

$`F_1(0)`$ $`=`$ $`Z+{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{16\pi ^3}}[\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}+1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}+1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})+\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})`$ (28)
$`+\psi _{\frac{1}{2}+1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})\psi _{\frac{1}{2}+1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})],`$
where the renormalization constant $`Z`$ is given, using Pauli-Villars regularization, by

$`Z=1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^1}dx[{\displaystyle \frac{(1+x^2)}{(1x)}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2+\frac{m^2}{x}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{1x}}{M^2+\frac{m^2}{x}+\frac{\lambda ^2}{1x}}}`$ (29)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(xM+m)^2}{x}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{M^2+\frac{m^2}{x}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{1x}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M^2+\frac{m^2}{x}+\frac{\lambda ^2}{1x}}})].`$
This ensures the Ward identity and $`F_1(0)`$ = 1. Further discussion of the Ward identity for QED in light-cone perturbation theory is given in ref.

The one-loop model can be further generalized by applying spectral Pauli-Villars integration over the constituent masses. The resulting form of light-cone wavefunctions provides a template for parameterizing the structure of relativistic composite systems and their matrix elements in hadronic physics.

The Pauli form factor is obtained from the spin-flip matrix element of the $`J^+`$ current. From Eqs. (6), (3), and (3) we have

$`F_2(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{(q^1\mathrm{i}q^2)}}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(P^+,\stackrel{}{P}_{}=\stackrel{}{q}_{}))|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(P^+,\stackrel{}{P}_{}=\stackrel{}{0}_{})`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{(q^1\mathrm{i}q^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{16\pi ^3}\left[\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})+\psi _{\frac{1}{2}+1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\psi _{\frac{1}{2}+1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})\right]}`$
$`=`$ $`4M{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{16\pi ^3}\frac{(mMx)}{x}\phi (x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{}\phi (x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})}`$
$`=`$ $`4Me^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{16\pi ^3}\frac{(mxM)}{x(1x)}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{[M^2((\stackrel{}{k}_{}+(1x)\stackrel{}{q}_{})^2+m^2)/x((\stackrel{}{k}_{}+(1x)\stackrel{}{q}_{})^2+\lambda ^2)/(1x)]}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{[M^2(\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2+m^2)/x(\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2+\lambda ^2)/(1x)]}}.`$
Using the Feynman parameterization, we can also express Eq. (30) in a form in which the $`q^2=\stackrel{}{q}_{}^2`$ dependence is more explicit as

$$F_2(q^2)=\frac{Me^2}{4\pi ^2}_0^1𝑑\alpha _0^1𝑑x\frac{mxM}{\alpha (1\alpha )\frac{1x}{x}\stackrel{}{q}_{}^2M^2+\frac{m^2}{x}+\frac{\lambda ^2}{1x}}.$$
(31)
The anomalous moment is obtained in the limit of zero momentum transfer:

$`F_2(0)`$ $`=`$ $`4Me^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{16\pi ^3}\frac{(mxM)}{x(1x)}\frac{1}{[M^2(\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2+m^2)/x(\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2+\lambda ^2)/(1x)]^2}}`$ (32)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Me^2}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{mxM}{M^2+\frac{m^2}{x}+\frac{\lambda ^2}{1x}}},`$
which is the result of Ref. . For zero photon mass and $`M=m`$, it gives the correct order $`\alpha `$ Schwinger value $`a_e=F_2(0)=\alpha /2\pi `$ for the electron anomalous magnetic moment for QED.

As seen from Eqs. (13) and (14), the matrix elements of the double plus components of the energy-momentum tensor are sufficient to derive the fermion and boson constituents’ form factors $`A_{\mathrm{f},\mathrm{g}}(q^2)`$ and $`B_{\mathrm{f},\mathrm{g}}(q^2)`$ of graviton coupling to matter. In particular, we shall verify $`A(0)=A_\mathrm{f}(0)+A_\mathrm{b}(0)=1`$ and $`B(0)=0.`$

The individual contributions of the fermion and boson fields to the energy-momentum form factors in QED are given by

$`A_\mathrm{f}(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(P^+,\stackrel{}{P}_{}=\stackrel{}{q}_{})\left|{\displaystyle \frac{T_\mathrm{f}^{++}(0)}{2(P^+)^2}}\right|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(P^+,\stackrel{}{P}_{}=\stackrel{}{0}_{})`$ (33)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{16\pi ^3}}x[\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}+1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}+1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})+\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})`$
$`+\psi _{\frac{1}{2}+1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\psi _{\frac{1}{2}+1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})],`$
where $`\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ is given in Eq. (27), and

$`A_\mathrm{b}(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(P^+,\stackrel{}{P}_{}=\stackrel{}{q}_{})\left|{\displaystyle \frac{T_\mathrm{b}^{++}(0)}{2(P^+)^2}}\right|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(P^+,\stackrel{}{P}_{}=\stackrel{}{0}_{})`$ (34)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{16\pi ^3}}(1x)[\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}+1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{})\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}+1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})+\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{})\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})`$
$`+\psi _{\frac{1}{2}+1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{})\psi _{\frac{1}{2}+1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})],`$
where

$$\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{}=\stackrel{}{k}_{}x\stackrel{}{q}_{}.$$
(35)
Note that

$$A_\mathrm{f}(0)+A_\mathrm{b}(0)=F_1(0)=1,$$
(36)
which corresponds to the momentum sum rule.

The fermion and boson contributions to the spin-flip matter form factor are

$`B_\mathrm{f}(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{(q^1\mathrm{i}q^2)}}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(P^+,\stackrel{}{P}_{}=\stackrel{}{q}_{})\left|{\displaystyle \frac{T_\mathrm{f}^{++}(0)}{2(P^+)^2}}\right|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(P^+,\stackrel{}{P}_{}=\stackrel{}{0}_{})`$ (37)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{(q^1\mathrm{i}q^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{16\pi ^3}x}`$
$`\times \left[\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})+\psi _{\frac{1}{2}+1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\psi _{\frac{1}{2}+1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})\right]`$
$`=`$ $`4M{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{16\pi ^3}(mMx)\phi (x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{}\phi (x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})}`$
$`=`$ $`4Me^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{16\pi ^3}\frac{(mxM)}{(1x)}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{[M^2((\stackrel{}{k}_{}+(1x)\stackrel{}{q}_{})^2+m^2)/x((\stackrel{}{k}_{}+(1x)\stackrel{}{q}_{})^2+\lambda ^2)/(1x)]}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{[M^2(\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2+m^2)/x(\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2+\lambda ^2)/(1x)]}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Me^2}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\alpha {\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{x(mxM)}{\alpha (1\alpha )\frac{1x}{x}\stackrel{}{q}_{}^2M^2+\frac{m^2}{x}+\frac{\lambda ^2}{1x}}},`$
and

$`B_\mathrm{b}(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{(q^1\mathrm{i}q^2)}}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(P^+,\stackrel{}{P}_{}=\stackrel{}{q}_{})\left|{\displaystyle \frac{T_\mathrm{b}^{++}(0)}{2(P^+)^2}}\right|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(P^+,\stackrel{}{P}_{}=\stackrel{}{0}_{})`$ (38)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{(q^1\mathrm{i}q^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{16\pi ^3}(1x)}`$
$`\times \left[\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})+\psi _{\frac{1}{2}+1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\psi _{\frac{1}{2}+1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})\right]`$
$`=`$ $`4M{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{16\pi ^3}(mMx)\phi (x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{}\phi (x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})}`$
$`=`$ $`4Me^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{16\pi ^3}\frac{(mxM)}{(1x)}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{[M^2((\stackrel{}{k}_{}x\stackrel{}{q}_{})^2+m^2)/x((\stackrel{}{k}_{}x\stackrel{}{q}_{})^2+\lambda ^2)/(1x)]}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{[M^2(\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2+m^2)/x(\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2+\lambda ^2)/(1x)]}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Me^2}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\alpha {\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{x(mxM)}{\alpha (1\alpha )\frac{x}{1x}\stackrel{}{q}_{}^2M^2+\frac{m^2}{x}+\frac{\lambda ^2}{1x}}}.`$
The total contribution for general momentum transfer is

$`B(q^2)=B_\mathrm{f}(q^2)+B_\mathrm{b}(q^2)`$
$`=`$ $`4Me^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{16\pi ^3}\frac{(mxM)}{(1x)}}`$
$`\times \{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{[M^2((\stackrel{}{k}_{}+(1x)\stackrel{}{q}_{})^2+m^2)/x((\stackrel{}{k}_{}+(1x)\stackrel{}{q}_{})^2+\lambda ^2)/(1x)]}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{[M^2((\stackrel{}{k}_{}x\stackrel{}{q}_{})^2+m^2)/x((\stackrel{}{k}_{}x\stackrel{}{q}_{})^2+\lambda ^2)/(1x)]}}\}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{[M^2(\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2+m^2)/x(\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2+\lambda ^2)/(1x)]}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Me^2}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\alpha {\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xx(mxM)`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha (1\alpha )\frac{1x}{x}\stackrel{}{q}_{}^2M^2+\frac{m^2}{x}+\frac{\lambda ^2}{1x}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha (1\alpha )\frac{x}{1x}\stackrel{}{q}_{}^2M^2+\frac{m^2}{x}+\frac{\lambda ^2}{1x}}}\right).`$
This is the analog of the Pauli form factor for a physical electron scattering in a gravitational field and in general is not zero. However at zero momentum transfer

$$B(0)=B_\mathrm{f}(0)+B_\mathrm{b}(0)=0,$$
(40)
in agreement with classical arguments based on the equivalence principle and conservation of the energy momentum tensor.

The helicity-flip electromagnetic and gravitational form factors for the fluctuations of the electron at one-loop are illustrated in Fig. 1. The cancellation of the sum of graviton couplings $`B(q^2)`$ to the constituents at $`q^2=0`$ is evident.

(a) Helicity-flip Pauli form factor $`F_2(q^2)`$ in QED. Notice that $`F_2(0)=1/2`$.

(b) Helicity-flip form factor $`B_b(q^2)`$ of the graviton coupling to the boson (photon) constituent of the electron at one-loop order in QED. Notice that $`B_b(0)=1/3`$.

(c) Helicity-flip fermion form factor $`B_f(q^2)`$ of the graviton coupling to the fermion constituent at one-loop order in QED. Notice that $`B_f(0)=1/3`$, and thus $`B_f(0)+B_b(0)=0.`$

(d) Helicity-flip Pauli form factor $`F_2(q^2)`$ in the Yukawa theory. Notice that in this case $`F_2(0)=3/4`$.

(e) Helicity-flip form factor $`B_b(q^2)`$ of the graviton coupling to the boson at one-loop order in the Yukawa theory. Notice that $`B_b(0)=5/12`$.

(f) Helicity-flip fermion form factor $`B_f(q^2)`$ of the graviton coupling to the fermion constituent at one-loop order in the Yukawa theory. Notice that $`B_f(0)=5/12`$, and thus $`B_f(0)+B_b(0)=0.`$

Figure 1: Helicity-flip electromagnetic and gravitational form factors for spacelike $`q^2=Q^2<0`$ from the quantum fluctuations of a fermion at one-loop order in units of $`\alpha /\pi `$ for QED and $`g^2/4\pi ^2`$ for the Yukawa theory. The fermion constituent mass is taken as $`m_f=M`$. The boson constituent is massless.

In section 5 we shall prove that the anomalous gravitomagnetic moment $`B(0)=B_\mathrm{f}(0)+B_\mathrm{b}(0)`$ is identically zero for arbitrary composite systems in quantum field theory. The proof follows from the Lorentz covariance of the light-cone wavefunction and applies to the contribution of each individual Fock component.

## 4  The Light-Cone Fock State Decomposition and Spin Structure of Composite Fermions in Yukawa Theory

As a second example, we shall consider an effectively composite system composed of a fermion and a neutral scalar based on the one-loop quantum fluctuations of this theory. The light-cone wavefunctions describe off-shell particles but are computable explicitly from perturbation theory. We consider the Yukawa Lagrangian

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu (_\mu \psi )(_\mu \overline{\psi })\gamma ^\mu \psi ]m\overline{\psi }\psi `$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(^\mu \varphi )(_\mu \varphi ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda ^2\varphi \varphi +g\varphi \overline{\psi }\psi ,`$
and the corresponding energy-momentum tensor is given by

$$T^{\mu \nu }=\frac{i}{2}[\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{}{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }\psi \overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{}{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }\psi ]+(^\mu \varphi )(^\nu \varphi )g^{\mu \nu },$$
(42)
which is conserved.

The $`J^z=+\frac{1}{2}`$ two-particle Fock state is given by

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{two}\mathrm{particle}}^{}(P^+,\stackrel{}{P}_{}=\stackrel{}{0}_{})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{\sqrt{x(1x)}16\pi ^3}\left[\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})|+\frac{1}{2};xP^+,\stackrel{}{k}_{}+\psi _{\frac{1}{2}}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})|\frac{1}{2};xP^+,\stackrel{}{k}_{}\right]},`$
where

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})=(M+\frac{m}{x})\phi ,\hfill \\ \psi _{\frac{1}{2}}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})=\frac{(+k^1+\mathrm{i}k^2)}{x}\phi .\hfill \end{array}$$
(44)
The scalar part of the wavefunction $`\phi `$ is given in Eq. (22) with $`e`$ replaced by $`g`$. The normalization of the Fock states is as in (2).

Similarly, the $`J^z=\frac{1}{2}`$ two-particle Fock state is given by

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{two}\mathrm{particle}}^{}(P^+,\stackrel{}{P}_{}=\stackrel{}{0}_{})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{\sqrt{x(1x)}16\pi ^3}\left[\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})|+\frac{1}{2};xP^+,\stackrel{}{k}_{}+\psi _{\frac{1}{2}}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})|\frac{1}{2};xP^+,\stackrel{}{k}_{}\right]},`$
where

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})=\frac{(+k^1\mathrm{i}k^2)}{x}\phi ,\hfill \\ \psi _{\frac{1}{2}}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})=(M+\frac{m}{x})\phi .\hfill \end{array}$$
(46)
In (44) and (46) we have generalized the framework of the Yukawa theory by assigning a mass $`M`$ to the external electrons, but a different mass $`m`$ to the internal electron lines and a mass $`\lambda `$ to the internal boson line . The idea behind this is to model the structure of a composite fermion state with mass $`M`$ by a fermion and a boson constituent with respective masses $`m`$ and $`\lambda `$.

Using Eqs. (5) and (4) we have

$$F_1(q^2)=Z+\frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{16\pi ^3}\left[\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})+\psi _{\frac{1}{2}}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\psi _{\frac{1}{2}}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})\right],$$
(47)
where $`\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ is given in Eq. (27). At zero momentum transfer

$$F_1(0)=Z+\frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{16\pi ^3}\left[\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})+\psi _{\frac{1}{2}}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})\psi _{\frac{1}{2}}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})\right],$$
(48)
where the renormalization constant $`Z`$ in light-cone gauge is given, using Pauli-Villars regularization, by

$`Z=1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}({\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{4\pi }}){\displaystyle _0^1}dx[(1x)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2+\frac{m^2}{x}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{1x}}{M^2+\frac{m^2}{x}+\frac{\lambda ^2}{1x}}}`$ (49)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(xM+m)^2}{x}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{M^2+\frac{m^2}{x}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{1x}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M^2+\frac{m^2}{x}+\frac{\lambda ^2}{1x}}})].`$
The Pauli form factor is obtained from the spin-flip matrix element of the $`J^+`$ current. From Eqs. (5), (4) and (4) we have

$`F_2(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{(q^1\mathrm{i}q^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{16\pi ^3}\left[\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})+\psi _{\frac{1}{2}}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\psi _{\frac{1}{2}}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})\right]}`$ (50)
$`=`$ $`2M{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{16\pi ^3}\frac{(1x)(m+Mx)}{x^2}\phi (x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{}\phi (x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})}`$
$`=`$ $`2Mg^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{16\pi ^3}\frac{(m+xM)}{x^2}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{[M^2((\stackrel{}{k}_{}+(1x)\stackrel{}{q}_{})^2+m^2)/x((\stackrel{}{k}_{}+(1x)\stackrel{}{q}_{})^2+\lambda ^2)/(1x)]}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{[M^2(\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2+m^2)/x(\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2+\lambda ^2)/(1x)]}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Mg^2}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\alpha {\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1x}{x}(m+xM)}{\alpha (1\alpha )\frac{1x}{x}\stackrel{}{q}_{}^2M^2+\frac{m^2}{x}+\frac{\lambda ^2}{1x}}}.`$
The anomalous moment is obtained in the limit of zero momentum transfer,

$`F_2(0)`$ $`=`$ $`2Mg^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{16\pi ^3}\frac{(m+xM)}{x^2}\frac{1}{[M^2(\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2+m^2)/x(\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2+\lambda ^2)/(1x)]^2}}`$ (51)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Mg^2}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1x}{x}(m+xM)}{M^2+\frac{m^2}{x}+\frac{\lambda ^2}{1x}}}.`$
The individual contributions of the fermion and boson fields to the energy-momentum form factors in the Yukawa model are given by

$`A_\mathrm{f}(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(P^+,\stackrel{}{P}_{}=\stackrel{}{q}_{})\left|x\right|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(P^+,\stackrel{}{P}_{}=\stackrel{}{0}_{})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{16\pi ^3}x\left[\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})+\psi _{\frac{1}{2}}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\psi _{\frac{1}{2}}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})\right]},`$
where $`\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=\stackrel{}{k}_{}+(1x)\stackrel{}{q}_{},`$ and

$`A_\mathrm{b}(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(P^+,\stackrel{}{P}_{}=\stackrel{}{q}_{})\left|(1x)\right|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(P^+,\stackrel{}{P}_{}=\stackrel{}{0}_{})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{16\pi ^3}(1x)\left[\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{})\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})+\psi _{\frac{1}{2}}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{})\psi _{\frac{1}{2}}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})\right]},`$
where in this case $`\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{}=\stackrel{}{k}_{}x\stackrel{}{q}_{}.`$ Note that again

$$A_\mathrm{f}(0)+A_\mathrm{b}(0)=F_1(0)=1,$$
(54)
which corresponds to the momentum sum rule.

The fermion and boson contributions to the spin-flip matter form factor are

$`B_\mathrm{f}(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{(q^1\mathrm{i}q^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{16\pi ^3}x}`$ (55)
$`\times \left[\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})+\psi _{\frac{1}{2}}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\psi _{\frac{1}{2}}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})\right]`$
$`=`$ $`2M{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{16\pi ^3}\frac{(1x)(m+Mx)}{x}\phi (x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{}\phi (x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})}`$
$`=`$ $`2Mg^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{16\pi ^3}\frac{(m+xM)}{x}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{[M^2((\stackrel{}{k}_{}+(1x)\stackrel{}{q}_{})^2+m^2)/x((\stackrel{}{k}_{}+(1x)\stackrel{}{q}_{})^2+\lambda ^2)/(1x)]}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{[M^2(\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2+m^2)/x(\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2+\lambda ^2)/(1x)]}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Mg^2}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\alpha {\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{(1x)(m+xM)}{\alpha (1\alpha )\frac{1x}{x}\stackrel{}{q}_{}^2M^2+\frac{m^2}{x}+\frac{\lambda ^2}{1x}}}.`$
and

$`B_\mathrm{b}(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{(q^1\mathrm{i}q^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{16\pi ^3}(1x)}`$ (56)
$`\times \left[\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\psi _{+\frac{1}{2}1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})+\psi _{\frac{1}{2}+1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\psi _{\frac{1}{2}+1}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})\right]`$
$`=`$ $`2M{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{16\pi ^3}\frac{(1x)(m+Mx)}{x}\phi (x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{}\phi (x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})}`$
$`=`$ $`2Mg^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{16\pi ^3}\frac{(m+xM)}{x}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{[M^2((\stackrel{}{k}_{}x\stackrel{}{q}_{})^2+m^2)/x((\stackrel{}{k}_{}x\stackrel{}{q}_{})^2+\lambda ^2)/(1x)]}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{[M^2(\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2+m^2)/x(\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2+\lambda ^2)/(1x)]}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Mg^2}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\alpha {\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{(1x)(m+xM)}{\alpha (1\alpha )\frac{x}{1x}\stackrel{}{q}_{}^2M^2+\frac{m^2}{x}+\frac{\lambda ^2}{1x}}}.`$
The total contribution from the fermion and boson constituents is

$`B(q^2)=B_\mathrm{f}(q^2)+B_\mathrm{b}(q^2)`$
$`=`$ $`2Mg^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{16\pi ^3}\frac{(m+xM)}{x}}`$
$`\times \{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{[M^2((\stackrel{}{k}_{}+(1x)\stackrel{}{q}_{})^2+m^2)/x((\stackrel{}{k}_{}+(1x)\stackrel{}{q}_{})^2+\lambda ^2)/(1x)]}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{[M^2((\stackrel{}{k}_{}x\stackrel{}{q}_{})^2+m^2)/x((\stackrel{}{k}_{}x\stackrel{}{q}_{})^2+\lambda ^2)/(1x)]}}\}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{[M^2(\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2+m^2)/x(\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2+\lambda ^2)/(1x)]}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Mg^2}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\alpha {\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x(1x)(m+xM)`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha (1\alpha )\frac{1x}{x}\stackrel{}{q}_{}^2M^2+\frac{m^2}{x}+\frac{\lambda ^2}{1x}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha (1\alpha )\frac{x}{1x}\stackrel{}{q}_{}^2M^2+\frac{m^2}{x}+\frac{\lambda ^2}{1x}}}\right).`$
At zero momentum transfer

$$B(0)=B_\mathrm{f}(0)+B_\mathrm{b}(0)=0,$$
(58)
which is another example of the vanishing of the anomalous gravitomagnetic moment. \[See also Fig. 1(e) + Fig. 1(f).\] The general proof that $`B(0)=0`$ for any system is given in the next section. Note that $`B(Q^2)`$ does not vanish for nonzero momentum transfer.

## 5 The Anomalous Gravitomagnetic Moment for Composite Systems

In this section we shall show that the anomalous gravitomagnetic moment $`B(0)`$ always vanishes for each contributing Fock state of a general composite system. In order to calculate $`B(0)`$ using Eq. (14), we need to consider a non-forward amplitude. The internal momentum variables for the final state wavefunction are given by Eqs. (10) and (11). The subscripts of $`x_i`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}_i`$ label constituent particles, the superscripts of $`q_{}^1`$, $`k_{}^1`$, and $`k_{}^2`$ label the Lorentz indices, and the subscript $`a`$ in $`\psi _a`$ indicates the contributing Fock state. The essential ingredient is the Lorentz property of the light-cone wavefunctions.

It is important to identify the $`n1`$ independent relative momenta of the $`n`$-particle Fock state.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{B(0)}{2M}}=\underset{q_{}^10}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{}{q_{}^1}}P+q,\left|{\displaystyle \frac{T^{++}(0)}{2(P^+)^2}}\right|P,`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{q_{}^10}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{}{q_{}^1}}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(P^+=1,\stackrel{}{P}_{}=\stackrel{}{q}_{}))\left|{\displaystyle \frac{T^{++}(0)}{2(P^+)^2}}\right|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(P^+=1,\stackrel{}{P}_{}=\stackrel{}{0}_{})`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{q_{}^10}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{}{q_{}^1}}{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_k\mathrm{d}x_k}{16\pi ^3}}\psi _a^{}(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_{n1},(1x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n1}),`$
$`\stackrel{}{k}_1^{},\stackrel{}{k}_2^{},\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{k}_{n1}^{},(\stackrel{}{k}_1^{}\stackrel{}{k}_2^{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{k}_{n1}^{}))`$
$`\times `$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}x_i+(1x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n1})\right]`$
$`\times `$ $`\psi _a^{}(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_{n1},(1x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n1}),`$
$`\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{k}_{n1},(\stackrel{}{k}_1\stackrel{}{k}_2\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{k}_{n1})).`$
Using integration by parts,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{B_a(0)}{2M}}=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_k\mathrm{d}x_k}{16\pi ^3}}\psi _a^{}(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_{n1},(1x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n1}),`$
$`\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{k}_{n1},(\stackrel{}{k}_1\stackrel{}{k}_2\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{k}_{n1}))`$
$`\times `$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}x_i\left((1+x_i){\displaystyle \frac{}{k_i^1}}+{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{\overset{n1}{}}}x_j{\displaystyle \frac{}{k_j^1}}\right)+(1x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n1}){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}x_j{\displaystyle \frac{}{k_j^1}}\right]`$
$`\times `$ $`\psi _a^{}(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_{n1},(1x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n1}),`$
$`\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{k}_{n1},(\stackrel{}{k}_1\stackrel{}{k}_2\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{k}_{n1}))`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_k\mathrm{d}x_k}{16\pi ^3}}\psi _a^{}(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_{n1},(1x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n1}),`$
$`\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{k}_{n1},(\stackrel{}{k}_1\stackrel{}{k}_2\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{k}_{n1}))`$
$`\times `$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}x_j+(1x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n1})\right)x_i{\displaystyle \frac{}{k_i^1}}\right]`$
$`\times `$ $`\psi _a^{}(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_{n1},(1x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n1}),`$
$`\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{k}_{n1},(\stackrel{}{k}_1\stackrel{}{k}_2\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{k}_{n1}))`$
$`=`$ $`0.`$
Thus the contribution $`B_a(0)`$ from each contributing Fock state $`a`$ to the total anomalous gravitomagnetic moment $`B(0)`$ vanishes separately.

## 6 The Perturbative Models as a Template for a Composite System

We can use the structure of the one-loop QED and Yukawa calculations with general values for $`M`$, $`m`$, and $`\lambda `$, to represent a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ system composed of a fermion and a spin-1 or spin-0 boson. Such a model describes an effectively composite system with no bare one-particle Fock state. We can also generalize the functional form of the momentum space wavefunction $`\phi (x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})`$ by introducing a spectrum of vector bosons satisfying the generalized Pauli-Villars spectral conditions

$$𝑑\lambda ^2\lambda ^{2N}\rho (\lambda ^2)=0,N=0,1,\mathrm{}.$$
(61)
For example, we can simulate a proton as a bound state of a quark and diquark , using spin-0, spin-1 diquarks, or a linear superposition of the two states. The model can be made to match the power-law fall-off of the hadron form factors predicted in perturbative QCD by the choice of sum rule conditions on the Pauli-Villars spectra.. The light-cone framework of the model resembles that of the covariant parton model of Landshoff, Polkinghorne and Short , in which the power behavior of the spectral integral at high masses corresponds to the Regge behavior of the deep inelastic structure functions. Although the model is based on just two Fock constituents, it is relativistic and satisfies self-consistency conditions such as in the point-like limit where $`R^2M^20`$, the anomalous moment vanishes. The light-cone formalism also properly incorporates Wigner boosts. Thus this model of composite systems can serve as a useful theoretical laboratory to interrelate hadronic properties and check the consistency of formulae proposed for the study of hadron substructure.

## 7  Spin and Orbital Angular Momentum Composition of Light-Cone Wavefunctions

In general the light-cone wavefunctions satisfy conservation of the $`z`$ projection of angular momentum:

$$J^z=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}s_i^z+\underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}l_j^z.$$
(62)
The sum over $`s_i^z`$ represents the contribution of the intrinsic spins of the $`n`$ Fock state constituents. The sum over orbital angular momenta $`l_j^z=\mathrm{i}(k_j^1\frac{}{k_j^2}k_j^2\frac{}{k_j^1})`$ derives from the $`n1`$ relative momenta. This excludes the contribution to the orbital angular momentum due to the motion of the center of mass, which is not an intrinsic property of the hadron.

We can see how the angular momentum sum rule Eq. (62) is satisfied for the wavefunctions Eqs. (3) and (3) of the QED model system of two-particle Fock states. In Table 1 we list the fermion constituent’s light-cone spin projection $`s_\mathrm{f}^z=\frac{1}{2}\lambda _\mathrm{f}`$, the boson constituent spin projection $`s_\mathrm{b}^z=\lambda _\mathrm{b}`$, and the relative orbital angular momentum $`l^z`$ for each contributing configuration of the QED model system wavefunction.

Table 1 is derived by calculating the matrix elements of the light-cone helicity operator $`\gamma ^+\gamma ^5`$  and the relative orbital angular momentum operator $`\mathrm{i}(k^1\frac{}{k^2}k^2\frac{}{k^1})`$  in the light-cone representation. Each configuration satisfies the spin sum rule: $`J^z=s_\mathrm{f}^z+s_\mathrm{b}^z+l^z`$.

For a better understanding of Table 1, we look at the non-relativistic and ultra-relativistic limits. At the non-relativistic limit, the transversal motions of the constituent can be neglected and we have only the $`|+\frac{1}{2}|\frac{1}{2}+1`$ configuration which is the non-relativistic quantum state for the spin-half system composed of a fermion and a spin-1 boson constituents. The fermion constituent has spin projection in the opposite direction to the spin $`J^z`$ of the whole system. However, for ultra-relativistic binding in which the transversal motions of the constituents are large compared to the fermion masses, the $`|+\frac{1}{2}|+\frac{1}{2}+1`$ and $`|+\frac{1}{2}|+\frac{1}{2}1`$ configurations dominate over the $`|+\frac{1}{2}|\frac{1}{2}+1`$ configuration. In this case the fermion constituent has spin projection parallel to $`J^z`$.

The corresponding spin content in the Yukawa theory is given in Table 2. In this case, the non-relativistic fermion’s spin projection is aligned with the total $`J^z`$, and it is anti-aligned in the ultra-relativistic limit. The distinct features of spin structure in the non-relativistic and ultra-relativistic limits reveals the importance of relativistic effects and supports the viewpoint  that the proton “spin puzzle” can be understood as due to the relativistic motion of quarks inside the nucleon. In particular, the spin projection of the relativistic constituent quark tends to be anti-aligned with the proton spin in a quark-diquark bound state if the diquark has spin 0. The state with orbital angular momentum $`l^z=\pm 1`$ in fact dominates over the states with $`l^z=0.`$ Thus the empirical fact that $`\mathrm{\Delta }q`$ is small in the proton has a natural description in the light-cone Fock representation of hadrons.

The explicit formulas for the quark spin distributions $`\mathrm{\Delta }q(x,\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)`$ in the quark-diquark models can be immediately obtained for the spin-1 diquark model from Eqs. (3) and (21):

$`\mathrm{\Delta }q(x,\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)_{\mathrm{spin}1\mathrm{diquark}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{16\pi ^3}\theta (\mathrm{\Lambda }^2^2)2\left[\frac{\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2}{x^2(1x)^2}+\frac{\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2}{(1x)^2}(M\frac{m}{x})^2\right]|\phi |^2},`$
and for the spin-0 diquark model from Eqs. (4) and (44):

$$\mathrm{\Delta }q(x,\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)_{\mathrm{spin}0\mathrm{diquark}}=\frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\mathrm{d}x}{16\pi ^3}\theta (\mathrm{\Lambda }^2^2)\left[(M+\frac{m}{x})^2\frac{\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2}{x^2}\right]|\phi |^2,$$
(64)
where we have regulated the integral by assuming a cutoff in the invariant mass: $`^2=_i\frac{\stackrel{}{k}_i^2+m_i^2}{x_i}<\mathrm{\Lambda }^2.`$ Again, one sees the transition of $`\mathrm{\Delta }q`$ from the nonrelativistic to relativistic limit. In the spin-0 diquark model $`\mathrm{\Delta }q=1`$ in the nonrelativistic limit, and decreases toward $`\mathrm{\Delta }q=1`$ as the intrinsic transverse momentum increases. The behavior is just opposite in the case of the spin-1 diquark.

## 8 Conclusions

The LC wavefunctions $`\psi _{n/H}(x_i,\stackrel{}{k}_i,\lambda _i)`$ provide a general representation of a relativistic composite system. They are universal, process independent, and control all hadronic reactions. In this paper we have constructed explicit models which are simple but yet are completely relativistic, preserve all of the Lorentz properties of a composite system of quantum field theory. Because of this explicit realization we can see how different hadronic phenomena can be interrelated. For example, the matrix elements of local operators such as the electromagnetic current, the energy momentum tensor, angular momentum, and the moments of structure functions have exact representations in terms of light-cone Fock state wavefunctions of bound states such as hadrons. We have shown that each Fock state of a composite system satisfies $`J_z`$ conservation, component by component. We have emphasized that the correct expression for the orbital angular momentum $`l^z`$ involves a sum over $`n1`$ relative momentum contributions for a Fock state with $`n`$ constituents.

We have illustrated these properties by examining the explicit form of the light-cone wavefunctions for the two-particle Fock state of the electron in QED, thus connecting the Schwinger anomalous magnetic moment to the spin and orbital momentum carried by its Fock state constituents. We have also computed the QED one-loop radiative corrections for the form factors for the graviton coupling to the electron and photon. The one-loop model provides a transparent basis for understanding the structure of relativistic composite systems and their matrix elements in hadronic physics. Although the underlying model is derived from elementary QED perturbative couplings, it in fact can be used to model much more general bound state systems by applying spectral integration over the constituent masses while preserving all of the Lorentz properties.

We thus have obtained a theoretical laboratory to test the consistency of formulae which have been proposed to probe the spin structure of hadrons. For example, we have computed the quark spin distributions $`\mathrm{\Delta }q(x,\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)`$ in quark-diquark models. In particular, the spin projection of the relativistic constituent quark tends to be anti-aligned with the proton spin in a quark-diquark bound state if the diquark has spin 0. The empirical fact that $`\mathrm{\Delta }q`$ is small in the proton thus has a natural description in the light-cone Fock representation of a relativistic bound state.

We have also given general exact expressions for the matrix elements of the electromagnetic, electroweak, and graviton couplings for operators for arbitrary composite systems, giving explicit realization of the spin sum rules and other local matrix elements in terms of the light-cone Fock state wavefunctions.

Finally, we have given a general proof demonstrating that the anomalous gravitomagnetic moment $`B(0)`$ for gravitons coupling to matter vanishes identically for any composite system. At one loop order in QED, we can see the explicit cancellation of the graviton coupling to the lepton and photon. In fact we have shown that this remarkable property holds generally for any composite or elementary system at all orders directly from the Lorentz boost properties of the light-cone Fock representation.


format: text

text:
# Magnetic dilution in the geometrically frustrated SrCr9pGa12-9pO19 and the role of local dynamics: a 𝜇SR study

## Abstract

We investigate the spin dynamics of SrCr9pGa12-9pO19 for $`p`$ below and above the percolation threshold $`p_c`$ using muon spin relaxation. Our major findings are: (I) At $`T0`$ the relaxation rate is $`T`$ independent and $`p^3`$, (II) the slowing down of spin fluctuation is activated with an energy $`U`$ which is also a linear function of $`p^3`$ and $`lim_{p0}U=8`$ K; this energy scale could stem only from a single ion anisotropy, and (III) the $`p`$ dependence of the dynamical properties is identical below and above $`p_c`$, indicating that they are controlled by local excitation.

The SrCr9pGa12-9pO19 \[SCGO($`p`$)\] compound has been intensely studied experimentally in recent years, as it is believed to be a model compound for a “super-degenerate” antiferromagnet . By “super-degenerate” we mean that the classical ground state energy is invariant under a local rotation of a small number of spins, a symmetry which leads to local zero energy excitations in addition to the more common collective ones. One of the open questions in this area of research is which type of excitations will dominate in low temperatures. To date, this question was addressed only theoretically in two of the most famous super-degenerate magnets, the kagomé  and the pyrochlore , where it was found that the dynamical properties are mostly controlled by the local excitations. Here we examine this question experimentally. We do so by measuring muon spin relaxation ($`\mu `$SR) rates as a function of temperature $`T`$, magnetic field $`H`$, and, most importantly, magnetic ion concentration $`p`$ above and below the percolation threshold $`p_c`$. Our major finding is that the dynamical properties of the system are impartial to $`p_c`$, suggesting that they could not emerge from a collective phenomenon.

Unexpectedly, our measurements also lead us to another finding regarding the spin Hamiltonian in SCGO. For long it was suspected that this Hamiltonian must contain terms other than the Heisenberg one. This is because SCGO shows spin glass like effect in susceptibility experiments, such as a cusp at a temperature $`T_f4p`$ K , and a hysteresis between the field cooled (FC) and zero field cooled (ZFC) measurements. Neither of these could be understood in terms of Heisenberg spins on kagomé or pyrochlore lattices . Our data indicate the presence of a single ion anisotropy with an energy scale of $`8`$ K which might be the origin of the susceptibility effects.

Our samples were prepared by solid state reaction at 1350C from the stoichiometric mixtures of Cr2O3, Ga2O3 and SrCO3. X-ray examination revealed the absence of foreign phase in the prepared samples and a slight smooth lattice expansion as $`p`$ is decreased. Our intention was to have $`p`$ values both above and below the $`p_c`$ of the lattice. However, there is a controversy whether SCGO represents a kagomé lattice or a pyrochlore-slab . The $`p_c`$ for the kagomé lattice is $`0.6527`$ and for a pyrochlore-slab is not known. Nevertheless, the Curie-Weiss temperature $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\text{cw}}`$ in SCGO($`p`$) is a linear function of $`p`$ with a slope which is different below and above $`p=0.61(5)`$ , in agreement with $`p_c`$ for the kagomé lattice. Therefore we assume that $`p_c=0.6527`$ and prepare samples with $`p`$ in the range $`0.39`$ to $`0.89`$. The value of $`p`$’s in our samples is determined from their Curie constant. This method was found to be in agreement with the stoichiometric ratio in the sample preparation, the Curie-Weiss temperature, and $`T_f`$ (when measurable) .

Our $`\mu `$SR experiments were done in both TRIUMF and ISIS. In these experiments one follows the time evolution of the spin polarization $`P_z(t)`$ of a muon implanted in a sample, through the asymmetry $`A(t)P_z(t)`$ in the positron emission of the muon decay. In addition, an external field $`H`$ is applied along the initial muon spin (longitudinal) direction which defines the $`𝐳`$ axis. $`A(t)`$ for three different samples at base temperature and $`H=100`$ G is shown by the symbols in Fig. 1 where time is presented on a log scale. The small field of $`100`$ G could be considered as zero field; it is applied in order to decouple the nuclear spin contribution to the muon spin relaxation. As can be seen from the figure, there is a strong variation in the time scale of relaxation between the different samples. In addition, the asymmetry for all samples has a “flat” beginning similar to Gaussian. In the inset of Fig. 1 we depict the asymmetry for the $`p=0.89`$ at high temperature ($`5.5`$ K) where $`A`$ is presented on a log scale. Clearly at high temperatures the relaxation is closer to exponential. Therefore, the asymmetry waveform is temperature dependent, as was first found in the $`p=0.89`$ sample by Uemura et al. , but depends weakly on the most important variable in this paper, namely, $`p`$.

There are two ways to obtain a relaxation rate in a situation where the waveform is changing: (I) using the $`1/e`$ criteria where we define the time $`T_1`$ by $`A(T_1)=A(0)/e`$, or (II) fitting all data sets to a stretched exponential

$$A(t)=A_0\mathrm{exp}\left((\lambda t)^\beta \right).$$
(1)
Representative fits are depicted in Fig. 1 by the solid lines. However, in our case, where the stretched exponential fits the data well for more than $`1/e`$ of the initial asymmetry, as demonstrated by the arrow in Fig. 1, one finds that $`\lambda =1/T_1`$. Therefore, both methods lead to the same relaxation rate although in (II) both $`\lambda `$ and $`\beta `$ are functions of $`T`$, $`H`$, and $`p`$ whereas in (I) these parameters impact only $`T_1`$. We therefore continue the discussion using the stretched exponential fit approach which is more informative and accurate. Finally, in the samples with large $`p`$, Eq. 1 accounts only for early times where the asymmetry drops by $``$80%. At later times a second component with low relaxation rate dominates. However, this second component is not observable in the small $`p`$ samples due to experimental limitations imposed by the muon life time (2.2 $`\mu `$sec). Therefore, we concentrate here on the early time behavior of $`A(t)`$.

In Fig. 2 we show $`\lambda `$ in $`H=100`$ G as a function of temperature for various values of $`p`$. All samples show critical slowing down starting at $`T=205`$ K, followed by a saturation of the muon relaxation rate, in agreement with earlier $`\mu `$SR work  and more recent NMR measurements  on the $`p=0.89`$ sample. In Fig. 3a we depict $`\beta `$ versus $`T`$ for the different $`p`$’s. As demonstrated before, the waveform in all our samples is exponential ($`\beta 1`$) at high $`T`$ but tends to be Gaussian ($`\beta 2`$) at low $`T`$.

There are two possible mechanisms which can be responsible for the loss of the muon polarization: static field distribution, or dynamic field fluctuations. It is possible to distinguish between these two by measuring the field dependence of the muon spin relaxation rate. In Fig. 4 we show $`\lambda (H)`$ on a semi-log scale for all our samples, and in Fig. 3b the field dependence of $`\beta `$. The field dependence of $`\lambda `$ allows us to rule out the possibility of relaxation due to static field distribution as the following argument shows. In the $`p=0.89`$ sample, when $`H=100`$ G, and $`T0`$, the value of $`\lambda `$ is $`10`$ $`\mu `$sec-1. If this relaxation would have been due to static field distribution it would have implied an internal magnetic field $`[B]`$ at the muon site in the order of $`100`$ G (using $`\lambda \gamma _\mu [B]`$ where $`\gamma _\mu =85.16`$ MHz/kG). The vector sum of this internal field and an external longitudinal field of, say, $`2`$ kG, would have been nearly parallel to the initial muon spin direction. Therefore, if the internal fields were static, we would expect a complete quenching of the relaxation rate in $`2`$ kG and above, in contrast to observation. This line of argument applies to all other samples as well. Thus, the decay of $`P_z(t)`$ is not due to static random fields, and seems to be due to dynamic field fluctuations.

On the other hand, the waveform is a Gaussian with a $`\lambda `$ that has a very weak field dependence for $`H`$ up to $`2`$ kG; a field that obeys $`\gamma _\mu H/\lambda 1`$. This stands in strong contrast to all theories known to us of relaxation from dynamical fluctuations. These theories yield exponential relaxation when there is weak field dependence for $`\gamma _\mu H/\lambda 1`$. A dynamical Gaussian waveform is also very unusual experimentally, and is one of the on going puzzles of $`\mu `$SR in SCGO . Nevertheless, we interpret our data using a dynamical model, since the argument regarding the vector sum of internal and external fields seems more fundamental than the exact waveform.

In dynamical models $`\lambda (H)`$ is proportional to the Fourier transform of the local field dynamical auto correlation function $`B_i(t)B_j(0)`$ $`(i=x,`$ $`y,`$ $`z)`$ at the frequency $`\omega =\gamma _\mu H`$. We find that for all samples $`\lambda (H)\mathrm{exp}(H/H_0)`$ where $`H_0=1.16`$ T, as demonstrated by the solid line in Fig. 4. This fact indicates that the spectral density is not modified by magnetic dilution, apart from an over all factor, and that it is impartial to percolation.

When no external field is applied the internal field fluctuation rate $`\nu `$ is related to the muon relaxation rate by

$$\nu B^2\lambda ^1$$
(2)
where $`B^2`$ is the rms of the instantaneous field distribution at the muon site. We find that $`\lambda ^1(T)`$ could be well fitted to

$$\lambda ^1(p,T)=Q(P)+C\mathrm{exp}\left[U(p)/T\right]$$
(3)
where $`C=150(10)`$ $`\mu `$sec is a global parameter. The fit results are given in Fig. 2 by the solid lines. This fit suggests that the internal field fluctuation rate is controlled by two dynamical processes: a temperature independent quantum one, and an activated one. A similar behavior was observed in the high spin molecul system CrNi6 where high $`T`$ dynamics is due to over-the-barrier motion, and low $`T`$ dynamics is due to quantum fluctuations . Surprisingly, we find that $`Q^1(p)`$ and $`U(p)`$ are linear functions of $`(p/p_c)^3`$ both below and above $`p_c`$ as demonstrated in Fig. 5. This result, together with the field dependence of $`\lambda `$, leads us to our first main conclusion, namely, that the fluctuations are impartial to whether the lattice percolates and supports collective excitations or not. Therefore, the excitations are of local nature.

It is interesting to compare this finding with other relevant experiments. Heat capacity measurements were performed by Ramirez et al. . They found that $`C(T)T^2`$ even when the percolation threshold for the kagomé lattice was crossed. They pointed out that this temperature dependence could result from collective antiferromagnetic excitations in two dimensions of the acoustic type, namely, $`\omega k`$. A similar indication was made by Broholm et al.  based on density of states $`\rho (\omega )\omega `$ found in neutron scattering. However, no dispersion relation of the acoustic type was ever found. Our finding of local excitations indicates that at low $`T`$ the important $`\omega `$’s are $`k`$ independent.

An extrapolation of $`Q^1(p)`$ in Fig. 5 to $`p=0`$ suggests that $`Q`$ diverges upon dilution. In fact for $`p0.05`$ we expect $`Q(p)C`$ and the muon relaxation rate $`\lambda `$ should be $`T`$ independent. In other words, SCGO($`p0.05`$) should behave as if its spins are isolated. A similar extrapolation of $`U(p)`$ to low $`p`$ gives $`8`$ K. This leads to our second major finding, namely, that the activated part of the dynamics does not emerge only from coupling between neighboring spins, but also from on site (single ion) interactions. The energy scale of this interaction is $`8`$ K. When comparing this result with other experiments we find that it agrees with the energy scale of the anisotropy found by Schiffer et al. in their susceptibility measurements on SCGO single crystal , but disagrees with Ohta et al. who found a single ion energy two orders of magnitude smaller using EPR .

The conclusions drawn up to now are based on gross features in the data. Now we would like to speculate on how the $`p`$ dependence of the muon relaxation rate $`\lambda (p)`$ is shared between the instantaneous field distribution $`B^2(p)`$ and the fluctuation rate $`\nu (p)`$ which determines it using Eq. 2. First we calibrate $`B^2(p)`$ from the high temperature data where $`\lambda `$ shows a weak $`p`$ dependence (See Fig. 2). We assume that $`\lambda p^ϵ`$ for large $`T`$, where $`ϵ`$ is a small number. In addition, it is natural to expect $`\nu Jp^{1/2}`$ (where $`J`$ is a coupling constant) in the high temperature range. Therefore, our calibration leads to $`B^2(p)p^{1/2+ϵ}`$, an expression which is only slightly different from the dilute limit where $`B^2(p)p`$ ($`ϵ=1/2`$). In SCGO the relation $`B^2(p)p^{1/2+ϵ}`$ should hold at all temperatures since no static moment develops. Therefore, at base temperature, where $`\lambda p^3`$ we expect $`\nu p^{ϵ2.5}`$, and since we can overrule small values of $`ϵ`$ there is a reasonable chance that $`\nu p^2`$ .

In summary the dynamical spin fluctuations in SCGO are controlled by both quantum and activated dynamical processes. The activation energy is a linear function of $`p^3`$, and indicates the presence of single ion anisotropy with an energy scale of $`8`$ K. This anisotropy might be responsible for the spin glass like behavior of SCGO. The quantum fluctuation time ($`1/\nu `$) is most likely proportional to $`p^2`$. Both of the dynamical properties are impartial to the percolation threshold and indicate the local nature of the fluctuations.

We are grateful for the technical support of J. Lord from ISIS and C. Ballard from TRIUMF. A. Keren, Y. J. Uemura, and G. Luke would like to thank the Israel - U. S. Binational Science Foundation and Y. J. Uemura and G. Luke appreciate the NSF-DMR-98-02000 (Columbia), and NEDO International Joint Research Grants for supporting their research.