text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Dp-branes  have played a crucial rule in the understanding of the relations between different string theories. They are stable extended objects, which preserve half of the maximal supersymmetry. They are known in terms of explicit solutions to low-energy supergravity equations, and their effective actions and its symmetries are by now well understood .

D-branes also give rise to other stable and unstable objects, such as brane-antibrane configurations, and non-BPS D-branes . These objects and their descendants could potentially play an equally important role, since they extend the relations between string theories to a different domain111For reviews, see . Non-BPS branes in the Type II theories are unstable, and can decay to the stable D-branes. Much work has already been done on the classification of these objects , and this has clarified their relation to D-branes, as well as the structure of the hierarchy of D-branes themselves.

A proposal for an effective action for non-BPS D-branes in the Type II theories was given by Sen . In this action the instability is due to the presence of a tachyon. The tachyon dependence must be such that condensation to the D-brane is possible, which puts severe restrictions on the tachyon dependence of this action. The general structure is that a non-BPS Dp-brane in the Type IIA (IIB) theory, will condense to a BPS D(p-1)-brane in the same IIA (IIB) theory. The non-BPS Dp-branes in IIA (IIB) are related to BPS D(p+1)-brane and antibrane configurations in IIA (IIB) by condensation of the complex tachyon living on this brane-antibrane pair. This interrelationship between BPS and non-BPS branes implies that the T-duality map between Dp-branes in IIA (IIB) to D(p$`\pm `$1)-branes in IIB (IIA) must also hold for the non-BPS branes. This T-duality map gives further information about the tachyon dependence of the effective action of the non-BPS brane. It is our aim to investigate the T-duality properties of non-BPS branes in the Type II theories.

In this introduction we will give a short overview of the effective action for non-BPS branes, mainly following  for the Born-Infeld contribution, and  for the Wess-Zumino term. Then we will discuss aspects of T-duality, first for the Born-Infeld term in Section 2, then for the Wess-Zumino term in Section 3. In Section 4 we speculate about the analogue of tachyon condensation in non-BPS D-branes in the context of $`D=11`$ M-branes.

The Born-Infeld term in the action for a non-BPS Dp-brane in a nontrivial background should be of the following form:

$$S_{\mathrm{BI}}^{(p)}=d^{p+1}\sigma e^\varphi \sqrt{|\mathrm{det}G_{ij}|}f(T,T,..),$$
(1.1)
where

$$G_{ij}=g_{ij}+_{ij}.$$
(1.2)
Here $`g`$ is the metric induced by the supersymmetric line-element, and $``$ involves the Born-Infeld vector $`F_{ij}=2_{[i}V_{j]}`$ and the Neveu-Schwarz $`B`$-superfield. The function $`f`$ contains the dependence on the tachyon and its derivatives, and may also depend on other worldvolume and background fields.

In this paper we discuss the conjecture that (1.1) is of the form

$$S_{\mathrm{BI}}^{(p)}=d^{p+1}\sigma \sqrt{|\mathrm{det}(G_{ij}+_iT_jT)|}g(T).$$
(1.3)
The argument which we will advance in support of this conjecture is that (1.3) agrees with T-duality and supersymmetry. Further arguments, based on a calculation of $`S`$-matrix elements, have been discussed by Garousi . The action (1.3) is a special case of (1.1), and can be rewritten in that form by expanding the root. Our result implies that all terms in the expansion of (1.3) satisfy the requirement of T-duality. Of course, this does not prove the conjecture. A proof would require an extension of  to higher order terms in $`T`$. In this respect it would be interesting to calculate the explicit form of the $`(T)^4`$ contribution to the 4-tachyon amplitude222We thank A. Tseytlin for a discussion on this point.. Our discussion of T-duality is useful independently of the validity of the conjecture. The formula (1.3) generates a series of terms that agree with T-duality and supersymmetry. Even though in the complete answer the coefficients of these terms might differ from those that follow from (1.3), our method enables us to identity the structure of the interactions that are allowed to appear in (1.1).

The Wess-Zumino term for a single non-BPS D-brane takes on the form:

$$S_{\mathrm{WZ}}^{(p)}=d^{p+1}\sigma CdTe^{}.$$
(1.4)
The superfield $`C`$ contains the Ramond-Ramond fields. This generalizes the D-brane Wess-Zumino action given by , to which we refer for the notation. The leading form in $`C`$ is a $`p`$-form. The kink solution for the tachyon is expected to give a $`\delta `$-function from the $`dT`$-contribution and thus to produce the standard Wess-Zumino term for the resulting D(p-1)-brane.

The terms (1.1) and (1.4) are separately invariant under worldvolume reparametrizations and target space (super-)reparametrizations. It is assumed that the tachyon is a scalar under worldvolume reparametrizations, and that the function $`f`$ depends only on invariant combinations of worldvolume and background fields. However, the sum of (1.1) and (1.4) is not $`\kappa `$-symmetric as it would be for D-branes . The relation between the non-BPS Dp-brane and the BPS D(p-1)-brane then arises as follows. The tachyonic kink-solution effectively reduces the dimension of the worldvolume by one. Because the tachyon is then constant almost everywhere, terms with derivatives of tachyons vanish. The remainder of the action should then be the standard effective action of a D(p-1)-brane. The fermionic $`\kappa `$-symmetry, which is absent for the non-BPS brane, is restored by the tachyon condensation. In the resulting action the full set of background fields, as well as invariance under all (super-)reparametrizations, are still present.

In a flat background this can be made more explicit (see ). Then we have333Worldvolume indices are denoted by $`i,j=0,\mathrm{},p`$, target space indices by $`\mu ,\nu =0,\mathrm{},D1`$.:

$`g_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Pi }_i^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_j^\nu ;\mathrm{\Pi }_i^\mu =_iX^\mu \overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _i\theta ,`$ (1.5)
$`_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`_iV_j_jV_i\{\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu _i\theta (_jX^\mu \frac{1}{2}\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _j\theta )(ij)\},`$ (1.6)
$`C_{i_1\mathrm{}i_p}`$ $`=`$ $`_{[i_1}X^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}_{i_{p1}}X^{\mu _{p1}}\overline{\theta }𝒫_{(p)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{p1}}_{i_p]}\theta +\mathrm{}.`$ (1.7)
In (1.5-1.7) we present the IIA case. The Majorana spinor $`\theta `$ can be expanded as $`\theta =\theta _L+\theta _R`$. To obtain the IIB case we should replace $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}`$ by $`\sigma _3`$ and write $`\theta `$ as a doublet $`(\theta _{1R}\theta _{2R})`$. In the expression for the Ramond-Ramond field $`𝒫_{(p)}`$ equals $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}`$ for $`p=4k+1`$ and   $`l`$  $`1`$  for $`p=4k+3`$. In the IIB case $`p`$ is even, and we must have $`𝒫_{(p)}`$ equal to $`i\sigma _2`$ for $`p=4k`$, and equal to $`\sigma _1`$ for $`p=4k+2`$. In (1.7) we have not written higher-order contributions in the fermions, which are required for supersymmetry.

## 2 T-duality and the Born-Infeld term

Before coming to non-BPS D-branes, let us briefly recall how T-duality works for D-branes . In this example we work in a flat background, but we keep the worldvolume fermions to identify later the possible couplings between fermions and tachyons. For a Dp-brane we have the following Born-Infeld term

$$_{\mathrm{BI}}=\sqrt{|\mathrm{det}G_{10ij}^{(p)}|},$$
(2.1)
with $`G=g+`$. We will reduce a IIA Dp-brane and a IIB D(p+1)-brane to a nine dimensional Dp-brane. T-duality amounts to the fact that the resulting worldvolume actions should be the same in the two cases. The reduction of the fermions in the IIA case is as follows :

$$\theta _R\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\theta _1}{0}\right),\theta _L\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{\theta _2}\right).$$
(2.2)
The $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices reduce as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \gamma ^\mu \\ \gamma ^\mu & 0\end{array}\right),(\mu =0,\mathrm{},8),\mathrm{\Gamma }^9\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \begin{array}{c}l\\ 1\end{array}\\ \begin{array}{c}l\\ 1\end{array}& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Gamma }^{11}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\begin{array}{c}l\\ 1\end{array}& 0\\ 0& \begin{array}{c}l\\ 1\end{array}\end{array}\right).$$
(2.3)
The reduction is over a transverse direction and the corresponding coordinate $`X^9`$ is written as a worldvolume scalar $`S`$. The result is

$`G_{10ij}^{(p)}`$ $``$ $`G_{9ij}^{(p)}_iS_jS+2\overline{\theta }_2_i\theta _2_jS2\overline{\theta }_1_j\theta _1_iS+2\overline{\theta }_2_i\theta _2\overline{\theta }_1_j\theta _1,`$ (2.4)
with

$`G_{9ij}^{(p)}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{ij}+F_{ij}2\overline{\theta }_2\gamma _\mu _i\theta _2_jX^\mu 2\overline{\theta }_1\gamma _\mu _j\theta _1_iX^\mu `$ (2.5)
$`+\overline{\theta }_2\gamma _\mu _i\theta _2\overline{\theta }_2\gamma ^\mu _j\theta _2+\overline{\theta }_1\gamma _\mu _i\theta _1\overline{\theta }_1\gamma ^\mu _j\theta _1+2\overline{\theta }_2\gamma _\mu _i\theta _2\overline{\theta }_1\gamma ^\mu _j\theta _1.`$
In the IIB case we reduce a D(p+1)-brane over a worldvolume direction. We gauge-fix the corresponding coordinate $`X^9`$ equal to a worldvolume coordinate $`\sigma `$, and the corresponding component of the Born-Infeld vector becomes a worldvolume scalar $`S`$. The fermions now reduce as follows:

$$\theta _{1R}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\theta _1}{0}\right),\theta _{2R}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\theta _2}{0}\right),$$
(2.6)
and we obtain the following:

$$G_{10}^{(p+1)}\left(\begin{array}{cc}G_{9ij}^{(p)}2\overline{\theta }_2_i\theta _2\overline{\theta }_1_j\theta _1& _iS2\overline{\theta }_2_i\theta _2\\ _jS2\overline{\theta }_1_j\theta _1& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(2.7)
Finally we have to prove that the determinants of the two nine-dimensional expressions are the same. This can be shown by using the identity

$$\mathrm{det}\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ C& D\end{array}\right)=\mathrm{det}\left(\begin{array}{cc}ABD^1C& B\\ 0& D\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\begin{array}{c}l\\ 1\end{array}& 0\\ D^1C& \begin{array}{c}l\\ 1\end{array}\end{array}\right)=\mathrm{det}(ABD^1C)\mathrm{det}D.$$
(2.8)
To identify possible couplings between tachyons and the other worldvolume fields in the case of the non-BPS D-brane, we consider as the starting point the Lagrangian in (1.3):

$$_{\mathrm{BI}}^{(p)}=\sqrt{|\mathrm{det}(G_{10ij}^{(p)}+_iT_jT)|}g(T).$$
(2.9)
If we assume that $`T`$ becomes independent of the compact direction in which the T-duality transformation is performed, then the result of the calculation we performed above will be the same, with the replacement

$$G_{9ij}^{(p)}G_{9ij}^{(p)}+_iT_jT.$$
(2.10)
The equality between the determinants still holds, and T-duality will be preserved. If in addition we assume that $`T`$ is inert under supersymmetry, (2.9) is also supersymmetric.

If we expand (2.9) in the tachyon field, we reobtain an action of the form (1.1), with a set of explicit couplings of the tachyon to worldvolume fields, and, in a general background, target space fields. Let us write explicitly the leading terms, including expressions quadratic in the fermions and in $`T`$, which result from this expansion for the case of a IIA flat background:

$`_{\mathrm{BI}}^{(p)}`$ $`=`$ $`g(T)\sqrt{|\mathrm{det}G_{ij}|}\times \{1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G^{ji}(2\overline{\theta }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu _i\theta _L_jX^\mu 2\overline{\theta }_R\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu _j\theta _R_iX^\mu +_iT_jT)`$ (2.11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G^{ki}(2\overline{\theta }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu _i\theta _L_lX^\mu 2\overline{\theta }_R\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu _l\theta _R_iX^\mu )G^{lm}_mT_kT`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}G^{ji}(2\overline{\theta }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu _i\theta _L_jX^\mu 2\overline{\theta }_R\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu _j\theta _R_iX^\mu )G^{kl}_lT_kT+\mathrm{}\},`$
where $`G_{ij}=\eta _{\mu \nu }_iX^\mu _jX^\nu +F_{ij}`$, and $`G^{ij}`$ is its inverse. These couplings satisfy the requirement of T-duality. They are not supersymmetric by themselves, since we have expanded the supersymmetric combinations (1.5, 1.6). However, supersymmetry can be restored by the addition of quartic fermion terms, which follow from (1.5, 1.6). The expression (2.11) was written for the IIA case, for IIB replace $`\theta _L\theta _{2R}`$, $`\theta _R\theta _{1R}`$.

In the literature there has been some effort to include couplings between worldvolume fermions and tachyons in the function $`f`$ . This work suggests a coupling of the form

$$_i\overline{\theta }_j\theta G^{ij},$$
(2.12)
multiplying a function of $`T`$. Although this form is indeed nonzero in the IIA theory, it does not have a counterpart in the IIB theory because of the different chirality structure. Therefore it does not satisfy T-duality, and should not appear in the non-BPS brane action.

From (2.9) it is clear that the $`(T)^2`$ terms couple only to the symmetric part of $`G_{10}^{(p)1}`$. Nevertheless, in the expansion (2.11) the terms mixing $`(T)^2`$ with the fermionic contributions do couple to a nonvanishing NS-NS background field.

Note that the expansion of the determinant in (2.9) gives a series of couplings between tachyons and other fields, with fixed relative coefficients. Supersymmetry and T-duality are not sufficient to fix these coefficients; any couplings of tachyons with (1.5, 1.6) would satisfy these two requirements. Also, the potential $`g(T)`$ in (2.9) is not restricted by our arguments. Recently, remarkable progress has been made in constructing $`g(T)`$ from open string field theory .

## 3 T-duality and Wess-Zumino terms

For the Wess-Zumino terms we will restrict ourselves to contributions quadratic in the fermions, and again to a flat background. Let us first consider the case of a non-BPS p-brane ($`p`$ odd) in the IIA theory. The Lagrangian in (1.4) then takes on the explicit form

$$_{\mathrm{WZ}}^{(p)}=ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_{p+1}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{(p1)/2}{}}a_{p,k}C_{i_1\mathrm{}i_{p2k}}(F^k)_{i_{p2k+1}\mathrm{}i_p}_{i_{p+1}}T,$$
(3.1)
where $`C`$ is given by (1.7). The coefficients $`a_{p,k}`$ will be fixed by T-duality (see below). Writing out the Majorana spinor $`\theta `$ in terms of chiral components, we find, after a partial integration

$$C_{i_1\mathrm{}i_{p2k}}=2_{[i_1}X^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}_{i_{p2k1}}X^{\mu _{p2k1}}\overline{\theta }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{p2k1}}_{i_{p2k}]}\theta _R.$$
(3.2)
Upon reduction to $`D=9`$ the total result becomes

$`_{\mathrm{WZ}}^{(p)}`$ $``$ $`2ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_{p+1}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{(p1)/2}{}}}a_{p,k}\{\stackrel{~}{C}_{i_1\mathrm{}i_{p2k}}(F^k)_{i_{p2k+1}\mathrm{}i_p}_{i_{p+1}}T`$ (3.3)
$`+(p2k1)\stackrel{~}{C}_{i_1\mathrm{}i_{p2k1}}_{i_{p2k}}S(F^k)_{i_{p2k+1}\mathrm{}i_p}_{i_{p+1}}T\}.`$
Here we have defined

$$\stackrel{~}{C}_{i_1\mathrm{}i_m}=_{[i_1}X^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}_{i_{m1}}X^{\mu _{m1}}\overline{\theta }_2\gamma _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{m1}}_{i_m]}\theta _1,$$
(3.4)
which are the nine-dimensional RR-fields in a flat $`D=9`$ background.

Again we should compare with the result obtained by reducing the WZ-term of a IIB non-BPS $`p+1`$-brane to nine dimensions. The starting point is of the same form as (3.1), except that we will use coefficients $`b_{p+1,k}`$. Recall that the worldvolume scalar $`S`$ now comes from the world-volume vector. The final result is

$`_{\mathrm{WZ}}^{(p+1)}`$ $``$ $`2ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_{p+1}}s_{p2k+1}b_{p+1,k}\{{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{(p1)/2}{}}}(p2k)\stackrel{~}{C}_{i_1\mathrm{}i_{p2k}}(F^k)_{i_{p2k+1}\mathrm{}i_p}_{i_{p+1}}T`$ (3.5)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{(p+1)/2}{}}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}k\stackrel{~}{C}_{i_1\mathrm{}i_{p2k+1}}(F^k)_{i_{p2k+2}\mathrm{}i_{p1}}_{i_p}S_{i_{p+1}}T\}.`$
Here $`s_m`$ ($`m`$ even) is a sign which is $`+1`$ for $`m=4l+2`$, and $`1`$ for $`m=4l`$.

T-duality determines the coefficients $`a_{p,k}`$ and $`b_{p+1,k}`$ up to an overall normalization. The result is

$`a_{p,k}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(p1)!}{2^kk!(p2k1)!}}a_{p,0},`$
$`b_{p+1,k}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^kp!}{2^kk!(p2k)!}}b_{p+1,0},`$
$`a_{p,0}`$ $`=`$ $`s_{p+1}pb_{p+1,0}.`$ (3.6)
The normalization relative to the Born-Infeld term can be fixed by requiring that the Dp-brane action which arises for the kink solution is $`\kappa `$-symmetric.

The coefficients $`a`$ and $`b`$ in this section turn out to be the same as those that are required by T-duality of Dp-branes. We conclude therefore that also the Wess-Zumino terms of non-BPS branes satisfy T-duality.

## 4 Discussion

We have shown, assuming a particular form of the tachyon coupling, that the worldvolume action for non-BPS D-branes proposed by Sen satisfies the criteria of T-duality and supersymmetry. The particular form (1.3) is interesting by itself. The same form has been suggested, from a different point of view, in . It suggests a higher-dimensional structure for the non-BPS brane, a point which was remarked also by Hor̆ava . It is therefore natural to discuss non-BPS branes within the context of the eleven-dimensional M-theory. In M-theory open M2-branes can end on M5-branes. The quantization of the open M2-brane, in a certain low-energy limit, leads to a self-dual tensor multiplet living on the worldvolume of the M5-brane. An important difference with the ten-dimensional context is that it is not known what the field theory describing a set of coinciding M5-branes or a M5-$`\overline{\mathrm{M5}}`$ system should be.

On the side of classification, which depends mainly on the structure of the Wess-Zumino terms, a lot of work in $`D=11`$ has already been done . In this context an interesting relation between K-theory and the Killing isometry direction of  has been pointed out .

As far as the dynamics is concerned the situation is more complicated. The field-theoretical approach which is suitable for a tachyon field, resulting from open strings, is replaced by a more complicated structure involving strings on the worldvolume, which represents interactions with membranes. A number of interesting points about the issue of “tachyonic string” condensation have been raised by Yi . In this scenario the M5-$`\overline{\mathrm{M5}}`$ system decays into a BPS M2-brane. To achieve this Yi proposes a Higgs-mechanism for the non-selfdual tensor that should arise from the two selfdual tensors living on the M5-$`\overline{\mathrm{M5}}`$ system. An unattractive feature of this scenario is that the source for the three transverse scalars that are needed to describe the M2-brane remain unclear. It would be desirable if a Higgs-mechanism could be constructed for a single self-dual tensor only. The other remaining selfdual tensor exactly contains the three degrees of freedom which are required to describe the three transverse scalars.

In order to see whether a Higgs mechanism for a single selfdual tensor can be constructed it is convenient to use as a starting point the following action:

$$_0=\frac{1}{24}ϵ^{ijklm}H_{0ij}H_{klm}\frac{1}{12}H_{ijk}H^{ijk},$$
(4.1)
with $`i=1,\mathrm{},5`$. This action is a gauge-fixed version of the action constructed in . Note that the Lagrangian is not Lorentz covariant but the equations of motion are. A necessary condition for the existence of a Higgs mechanism is that a massive extension of the Lagrangian $`_0`$ exists. The only local mass term one can write down is given by 444One could consider the Lagrangian for the sum of a selfdual and an anti-selfdual tensor and then try to add a mass term for the diagonal combination only. This would not change our discussion.

$$_m=m^2B^{\mu \nu }B_{\mu \nu }.$$
(4.2)
However, we have checked that, although the equations of motion corresponding to $`_0`$ and $`_m`$ are Lorentz covariant, the ones corresponding to the combination $`=_0+_m`$ violate Lorentz symmetry. Therefore, within the context of a local field theory, a Higgs mechanism for a single self-dual tensor seems not possible. It will be interesting to see how such a mechanism is realized in M-theory.

## 5 Acknowledgements

We would like to thank David Berman, Ben Craps, Jan de Boer and Robbert Dijkgraaf for useful discussions. This work is supported by the European Commission TMR program ERBFMRX-CT96-0045, in which E.B. and M.d.R. are associated to the University of Utrecht. The work of T.C.d.W. is part of the research program of the “Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie” (FOM). E.E. is supported by the European Community program “Human Potential” under contract HPMF-CT-1999-00018 and partially by a PPARC grant PPA/G/S/1998/00613. S.P. thanks the Institute for Theoretical Physics in Groningen, where this work was initiated, for its warm hospitality.


format: text

text:
# 1 Precision calculations

## 1 Precision calculations

During the last decade we witnessed an impressive progress at LEP, SLC and Tevatron achieved by collecting an enormous amount of electroweak data on the Z and W bosons and their interactions . This allows for an unprecedented precision test of the Standard Model at the level of the per mil accuracy. At this precision one and two-loop quantum fluctuations give measurable contributions and an interesting upper limit on the mass of the Higgs-boson can be obtained.

### 1.1 Input values

In the Standard Model at tree level the gauge bosons $`\gamma ,W,Z`$ and their interactions are described in terms of three parameters: the two gauge coupling constants $`g,g^{}`$ and the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs-field $`v`$. We need to know their values as precisely as possible. They have to be fitted to the three best measured physical quantities of smallest experimental error: $`G_\mu ,M_Z`$ and $`\alpha `$. The muon coupling $`G_\mu `$ is extracted from the precise measurement of the muon life-time using the theoretical expression

$$\frac{1}{\tau _\mu }=\frac{G_\mu ^2m_\mu ^5}{192\pi ^3}\left(1\frac{8m_e^2}{m_\mu ^2}\right)\left[1+1.810\left(\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\right)+(6.701\pm 0.002)\left(\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\right)^2+\mathrm{}\right]$$

It is crucial that that the electromagnetic corrections to the muon life time are finite and that they are known up to next-to-leading order accuracy. The $`𝒪(\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi })`$ term has been obtained by van Ritbergen and Stuart only very recently , it lets reduce the theoretical error with factor of two. Equation 1.1 gives a unique correspondence between the muon life-time and $`G_\mu `$ since the non-photonic corrections are all lumped into its definition. As a result $`G_\mu `$ can be considered as a physical quantity. Using the measured value  we get

$$G_\mu =(1.16637\pm 0.00001)\times 10^5\mathrm{GeV}^2.$$
(1)
The value of $`M_Z`$ is extracted from the line shape measurement at the $`Z`$-pole. There are subtleties in the theoretical definition of the mass and the width at higher order associated with the truncation of the perturbative series and gauge invariance. The latest best value is

$$M_Z=(91.1871\pm 0.0021)\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(2)
Finally, the best value of $`\alpha `$ is extracted from the precise measurement of the electron anomalous magnetic moment $`(g_\mathrm{e}2)`$

$$1/\alpha =137.03599959\pm 0.00000038.$$
(3)
I recall the leading order relations

$$G_\mu =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}v},M_Z=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}gv,\alpha =\frac{g^2}{4\pi }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W,\mathrm{tan}\theta _W=\frac{g^2}{g^2}.$$
(4)
Additional physical quantities like the mass of the W-boson $`M_W`$, the lepton asymmetries at the Z-pole, the leptonic width of the Z-boson $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{l}`$ etc.are derived quantities. At the level of the per mil accuracy the predictions obtained in Born approximations for derived quantities, however, fail significantly.

### 1.2 Quantum corrections

The precision test of the Standard Model is obtained by confronting the measured values of derived quantities with the precise prediction of the theory. Since the Standard Model is a renormalizable quantum field theory  the theoretical predictions of the theory can be improved systematically by calculating higher order corrections. In particular, the recent precision of the data requires the study of the complete next-to-leading order corrections, resummation of large logarithmic contributions and a number of two loop corrections. At higher order the derived quantities show sensitivity also to the values of the mass parameters $`m_t,M_\mathrm{H},m_b`$ and the QCD coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$. From direct measurements one obtains $`\alpha _s=0.119\pm 0.002`$, $`m_t=173.8\pm 5.0\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`m_b=4.7\pm 0.2\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`M_\mathrm{H}102\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$. The error bars give parametric uncertainties in the predictions and limit our ability to extract a precise value of the Higgs mass. The calculation of the higher orders requires a choice of the renormalization scheme. The on-shell scheme can be regarded as the extension of the well-known scheme of renormalization in QED, it uses as input $`\alpha `$, $`M_Z`$, $`M_W`$, $`M_\mathrm{H}`$ and $`m_f`$. In the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme the measured values of $`\alpha `$, $`G_\mu `$, $`M_Z`$, $`m_f`$, $`\alpha _s`$ are used to fix the input parameters of the theory with $`M_\mathrm{H}`$ as free parameter. The $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ gauge couplings evaluated at the scale of $`M_Z`$ are denoted as $`\widehat{e}`$ and $`\widehat{s}^2=\mathrm{sin}^2\widehat{\theta }_W(M_Z)`$. The on-shell definition of the mixing angle $`s^2=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ is given by the tree level relation $`s^2=1M_W^2/M_Z^2`$ and, therefore, it is a physical quantity. The renormalized parameters $`\widehat{s}^2`$, $`\widehat{e}^2`$ can be completely calculated in terms of $`G_\mu `$, $`\alpha `$ and $`M_Z`$. It is customary to define auxiliary dimensionless parameters. $`r_W`$ is defined by the relation

$$s^2c^2\frac{\pi \alpha }{\sqrt{2}G_\mu M_Z^2(1\mathrm{\Delta }r_W)}.$$
(5)
It is a physical quantity and gives the radiative corrections to the $`M_W`$. The asymmetries measured at the Z-pole are given in term of the effective mixing angle

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^{eff}=\frac{1}{4}\left(1\frac{\overline{g}_{Vl}}{\overline{g}_{Al}}\right)=s^2(1+\mathrm{\Delta }k^{^{}}),A_{\mathrm{FB}}^l\frac{3\overline{g}_{Vl}^2\overline{g}_{Al}^2}{(\overline{g}_{Vl}^2+\overline{g}_{Al}^2)^2}$$
(6)
where the dimensionless parameter $`\delta k^{^{}}`$ is again defined in terms of physical quantities. The leptonic width depends on the vector axial vector coupling and on the corrections to the $`Z`$-propagator. This requires the introduction of the so called $`\rho `$-parameter

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_l=\frac{G_\mu M_Z^3}{6\pi \sqrt{2}}\left(\overline{g}_{Vl}^2+\overline{g}_{Al}^2\right)\rho $$
(7)
These type of auxiliary functions can be calculated in different renormalization schemes. The corrections $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_W`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }k^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ (and a number of additional useful dimensionless quantities) are known in various schemes and play an important role in the analysis of electroweak physics, because they give the precise predictions of the theory for simple observables as $`M_W`$, the leptonic asymmetries etc.in terms of $`\alpha ,G_\mu `$ and $`M_Z`$. It is very useful to have the results in different schemes since it allows for cross-checking the correctness of the result and to estimate the remaining theoretical errors given by the missing higher order contributions. The electroweak radiative corrections are dominated by two leading contributions: the running of the electromagnetic coupling and large $`m_t`$ effects to $`\rho `$ $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _t3G_\mu m_t^2/(8\pi ^2\sqrt{2}))`$.

### 1.3 Running electromagnetic coupling

Because of gauge invariance the running of $`\alpha `$ is completely given by the photon self-energy contributions

$$\alpha (M_Z)=\frac{\alpha }{1\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }$$
(8)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =\mathrm{Re}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^\gamma (M_Z^2)\right)=\mathrm{Re}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }^\gamma (M_Z^2)\right)+\mathrm{Re}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }^\gamma (0)\right).$$
(9)
The self-energy contribution is large ($`6\%`$). It can be split into leptonic and hadronic contributions

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{\mathrm{lept}}+\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{\mathrm{had}}$$
(10)
The leptonic part is known up to three loop

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{\mathrm{lept}}=314.97687(16)\times 10^4$$
(11)
and the remaining theoretical error is completely negligible. The hadronic contribution is more problematic since it can not be calculated theoretically with the required precision since the light quark loop contributions have non-perturbative QCD effects. One can extract it, however, from the data using the relation

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{\mathrm{had}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{3\pi }}M_Z^2\mathrm{Re}{\displaystyle _{4m_\pi ^2}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{R_{e^+e^{}}(s^)}{s^{}(s^{}M_Z^2iϵ)}}`$
$`R_{e^+e^{}}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (e^+e^{}\gamma ^{}\mathrm{hadrons})}{\sigma (e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{})}}`$ (12)
Conservatively, one calculates the high energy $`\sqrt{s}40\mathrm{GeV}`$ contribution using perturbative QCD and the low energy contribution $`\sqrt{s}40\mathrm{GeV}`$ is estimated using data . Unfortunately, the precision of the low energy data is not good enough and the error from this source dominates the error of the theoretical predictions

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{(5)}\alpha _{\mathrm{had}}=0.02804\pm 0.00064,\alpha ^1(M_Z)=128.89\pm 0.09.$$
(13)
One can, however, achieve a factor of three reduction of the estimated error assuming that the theory can be used down to $`\sqrt{s}=m_\tau `$ when quark mass effects can be included up to three loops. Such an analysis is quite well motivated by the successful results on the tau life-time. In the hadronic vacuum polarization the non-perturbative power corrections appear to be suppressed and the unknown higher order perturbative contributions are relatively small. In this theory driven approach the error is reduced to an acceptable $`0.25\%`$ value

$$\alpha ^1(M_Z)=128.905\pm 0.036.$$
(14)
It is unlikely that the low energy hadronic total cross section will be measured in the foreseeable future with a precision leading to essential improvement.

### 1.4 Comment on the muon anomalous magnetic moment

I note that the hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment $`a_\mu (g_\mu 2)/2`$ is more problematic as a result of a different weight factor in the dispersion integral

$`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{had}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha m_\mu }{3\pi }}\right)[{\displaystyle _{4m_\pi ^2}^{E_{\mathrm{cut}}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{R_{e^+e^{}}(s)^{\mathrm{data}}(s)K(s)}{s^2}}`$ (15)
$`+{\displaystyle _{E_{\mathrm{cut}}^2}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{R_{e^+e^{}}(s)^{\mathrm{pQCD}}(s)K(s)}{s^2}}]`$
where we splitted the perturbative and low energy contributions. $`K(s)`$ is a kinematical weight factor which together with $`1/s^2`$ enhances the low energy contributions. As a result the experimental error of the measured value of the hadronic vacuum polarization contribution leads more than $`1\%`$ error in the theoretical prediction. It is expected that high statistics data collected in $`\mathrm{DA}\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{NE}`$ in the future will reduce this error with a factor of two. Such an improvement is very well motivated in view of the experimental effort of the ongoing Brookhaven experiment which will achieve a precision of $`40\times 10^{11}`$, a significant reduction in comparison with the present error of $`730\times 10^{11}`$ (see  and references therein). Note, however, that the hadronic contribution from light-to-light scattering diagrams cannot be measured and the theoretical estimates have large uncertainties leading to a theoretical error of $`40\times 10^{11}`$. Accepting this estimate with the precise measurement of $`a_\mu `$ it will be possible to test for the present of anomalous coupling (SUSY) contributions provided they are large ( $`100\times 10^{11}`$ or larger). It is unlikely that one gets improvements over the existing LEP limits.

### 1.5 Higher order corrections to $`M_W`$ and the mixing angle

As we noted above, the simplest physical observables for precise test of the Standard Model are $`M_W`$ and the $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^{eff}`$. It is convenient to consider the radiative corrections in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme where with good accuracy $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^{eff}\widehat{s}^2`$. It is given in terms of the input parameters via the relation

$$\widehat{s}^2\widehat{c}^2=\frac{\pi \alpha (M_Z)}{\sqrt{2}G_\mu M_Z(1\widehat{r}_w)}$$
(16)
where $`\widehat{r}_w=0`$ in leading order. Using the measured value of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^{eff},M_Z`$ and $`G_\mu `$ we obtain a value $`\widehat{r}_W=0.0058\pm 0.000480`$ different from zero at the $`12\sigma `$ level. If one carries out a similar analysis for $`M_W`$ the evidence for the presence of subleading corrections is even better. The radiative correction $`\widehat{r}_W`$ does not contain the large effect from the running $`\alpha `$ but it receives large custodial symmetry violating corrections because of the large top-bottom mass splitting

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}_W|_{\mathrm{top}}=c^2/s^2\mathrm{\Delta }\rho 0.0096\pm 0.00095$$
(17)
Subtracting this value we get about $`6\sigma `$ difference coming from the the loops involving the bosonic sector (W,Z,H) and subleading fermionic contributions. At this level of accuracy many other corrections start to become important and the the size of errors coming from the errors in the input parameters leads to effects of the same order. In particular, we get some sensitivity to the value of the Higgs-mass. Beyond the complete one loop corrections it was possible to evaluate all important two loop corrections: $`𝒪(\alpha ^2\mathrm{ln}(M_Z/m_f)`$ corrections with light fermions, mixed electroweak QCD corrections of $`𝒪(\alpha \alpha _s)`$, two loop electroweak corrections enhanced by top mass effects of $`𝒪(\alpha ^2(m_t^2/M_W^2)^2)`$ together with the subleading parts of $`𝒪(\alpha \alpha _s^2m_t^2/M_W^2)`$ and the very difficult subleading correction of $`𝒪(\alpha ^2m_t^2/M_W^2)`$. It is remarkable that last contribution proved to be important in several respect . Its inclusion reduced significantly the scheme dependence of the results and lead to a significant reduction of the upper limit on the Higgs mass.

### 1.6 Global fits

This summer the LEP experiments and SLD could finalize their results on the electroweak precision data. The most important development is that the final value of SLD on the leptonic polarization asymmetry was reported which implies $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^{eff}=0.23119\pm 0.00020`$. A nice summary of the results is given in Figure 1  . According to a recent analysis of the EWWW working group  the new world average is

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^{eff}=0.23151\pm 0.00017\mathrm{with}\chi ^2/\mathrm{d}.\mathrm{o}.\mathrm{f}=13.3/7.$$
(18)
This gives only rather low confidence level of $`6.4\%`$. The origin of this unsatisfactory result is the $`2.9\sigma `$ discrepancy between the values $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^{eff}`$ derived from the SLAC leptonic polarization asymmetry data and from the forward backward asymmetry in the b-b channel at LEP and SLC. The results obtained from a global fit to all data give somewhat better result but there we are hampered with the problem that the polarization asymmetry parameters disagree with each other with $`2.7\sigma `$, therefore, the $`\chi ^2`$ is relatively large.

### 1.7 The weak charge of the atomic Cesium

Recently, a new determination of the weak charge of the atomic Cesium (via studying the $`6s7s`$ parity violating tensor transition) has been presented

$$Q_W(_{55}^{133}Cs)=72.06\pm (0.28)_{exp}\pm (0.34)_{th}$$
(19)
with considerable improvement with respect to earlier results

$$Q_W(_{55}^{133}Cs)=71.04\pm (1.58)_{exp}\pm (0.88)_{th}.$$
(20)
In the theory, $`Q_W`$ measures the product of the vector and axial vector neutral current coupling of the u and the d quarks $`C_{1u},C_{1d}`$

$$Q_W=2\left[C_{1u}(2Z+N)+C_{1d}(Z+2n)\right]$$
(21)
A crucial feature of this test is that it constrains the value of the parameter $`ϵ_3`$

$$Q_W=72.87\pm 0.13102ϵ_3^{\mathrm{SM}}$$
(22)
with $`ϵ_3^{\mathrm{SM}}=0.0053\pm 0.0013`$ for $`M_\mathrm{H}=701000\mathrm{GeV}`$. According to the data

$$Q_W^{exp}Q_W^{th}=1.28\pm 0.46$$
(23)
a three standard deviation effect. One should accept this result with some care in view of the significant reduction of the experimental error. It would be important to cross-check this result with with other independent experiments. Also the estimate of the theoretical uncertainties coming from atomic physics calculation may be too optimistic. In ref.  the deviation was attributed to the existence of a non-sequential $`Z^{^{}}`$-boson. and the data have been used to constraint its properties.

## 2 Constraints on the Higgs mass

### 2.1 Upper limit from the measured value of $`M_W`$

The final results of the electroweak radiation corrections for $`M_W`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^{eff}`$ can be parameterized in terms of the input parameters including their errors in simple approximate analytic form . For example in the $`\overline{MS}`$-scheme one obtains for the W-mass

$`M_W`$ $`=`$ $`80.38270.0579\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{M_\mathrm{H}}{100}})0.008\mathrm{ln}^2({\displaystyle \frac{M_\mathrm{H}}{100}})`$ (24)
$`0.517\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta \alpha _h^{(5)}}{0.0280}}1\right)+0.543\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{175}}1\right)\right]`$
$`0.085\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(M_Z)}{0.118}}1\right)`$
where $`m_t`$, $`M_\mathrm{H}`$ and $`M_W`$ are in $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ units. This formula accurately reproduce the result obtained with numerical evaluation of all corrections in the range $`75\mathrm{GeV}M_\mathrm{H}350\mathrm{GeV}`$ with maximum deviation of less than $`1\mathrm{MeV}`$. Using the world average of the measured values of the W-boson mass $`M_W=80.394\pm 0.042\mathrm{GeV}`$  (with input parameters $`\alpha _s=0.119\pm 0.003`$, $`m_t=174.3\pm 5.1\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`\delta \alpha ^{(5)}=0.02804\pm 0.00065`$ one obtains at $`95\%`$ confidence level an allowed range for the Higgs mass of $`73\mathrm{GeV}M_\mathrm{H}294\mathrm{GeV}`$. Similar results exists also for $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^{eff}`$ extracted from the asymmetry measurements at the Z-pole with somewhat better (95% confidence ) limits of $`95\mathrm{GeV}M_\mathrm{H}260\mathrm{GeV}`$. Without global fits we got a semi-analytic insight on the sensitivity of the precision tests to the Higgs mass. We also see that the precise measurements of $`M_W`$ have already provided us with competitive values in comparison with the those obtained from the measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^{eff}`$.

### 2.2 Results from global fits

It is interesting that the values of the Higgs mass obtained in a recent global fit  are in good agreement with the simple analysis based on the value of of $`M_W`$ or $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^{eff}`$ as described above. From the global fit one obtains an expected value for the Higgs boson of $`160170\mathrm{GeV}`$ with error of $`\pm 5060\mathrm{GeV}`$. The 95% confidence level upper limit is about $`260290\mathrm{GeV}`$.

### 2.3 Can the Higgs-boson be heavy?

The precision data can not rule out yet dynamical symmetry breaking with some heavy Higgs-like scalar and vector resonances. The minimal model to describe this alternative is obtained by assuming that the new particles are heavy (more than 0.5 TeV) and the linear $`\sigma `$-model Higgs-sector of the Standard Model is replaced by the non-renormalizable non-linear $`\sigma `$-model. It can be derived also as an effective chiral vector-boson Lagrangian with non-linear realization of the gauge-symmetry . How can we reconcile this more phenomenological approach with the precision data? Removing the Higgs boson from the Standard Model while keeping the gauge invariance is a relatively mild change. Although the model becomes non-renormalizable, but at the one-loop level the radiative effects grow only logarithmically with the cut-off at which new interactions should appear. In equation (24) the Higgs-mass is replaced by this cut-off The logarithmic terms are universal, therefore, their coefficients must remain the same. The constant terms, however, can be different from those of the Standard Model. The one loop corrections of the effective theory require the introduction of new free parameters which influence the value of the constant terms. The data, unfortunately, do not have sufficient precision to significantly constrain the constant term appearing in $`M_W`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^{eff}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_l`$ (or alternatively in the parameters $`ϵ_1,ϵ_2,ϵ_3`$  or $`S,T,U`$  ). In a recent analysis  it has been found that due to the screening of the symmetry breaking sector , alternative theories with dynamical symmetry breaking and heavy scalar and vector bosons still can be in agreement with the precision data up to a cut-off scale of $`3\mathrm{T}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$.


text:
# Inelastic photon scattering and the magnetic moment of the Δ (1232) resonance

## I Introduction

The static properties of baryons are an important testing ground for QCD based calculations in the confinement region. In particular, a recent comparison of theoretical predictions for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ magnetic moments in different approaches has been given in . However, little experimental information is available for hadrons outside of the ground state SU(3) octet. In view of the short life-time of the resonances, such information has to come from a detailed analysis of intermediate states. It was therefore suggested by Kondratyuk and Ponomarev  to consider radiative $`\pi ^+p`$ scattering as a means to measure the static properties of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ isobar. As a result of many experimental and theoretical efforts , the Particle Data Group  now quotes a value of $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}}=(5.6\pm 1.9)\mu _N`$  for the magnetic dipole moment of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ resonance. The large error bar is due to large nonresonant processes, external bremsstrahlung by initial and final state particles, and a strong background due to interactions in both the initial and final states . A much cleaner experiment would be an electromagnetic excitation of the nucleon leading to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance with subsequent emission of a real photon followed by the decay into a nucleon and a pion. The process $`\gamma +p\gamma ^{}+p^{}+\pi ^0`$ would be particularly favorable, because the signal is less disturbed by the external bremsstrahlung background. Machavariani et al.  have recently investigated this reaction in the framework of an effective Lagrangian model. For an incident photon with lab energy $`E_\gamma ^{lab}=386`$ MeV (equivalent to a $`cm`$ energy $`k=286`$ MeV or a total $`cm`$ energy $`W=1267`$ MeV) they find differential cross sections of the order of 0.5 nb/sr2 MeV, with a maximum for photons emitted with lab energy $`E_\gamma ^{lab}65`$ MeV and at an angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{}90^{}`$. If we integrate these differential cross sections over all angles of the emitted pion and photon and over the final state photon energy, we obtain a total cross section of several microbarns.

Unfortunately, the A2 collaboration at MAMI working with the TAPS detector has only been able to see 3-photon events  at a rate corresponding to a cross section of tens of nanobarns, partly originating from the reaction $`\gamma +pp+\pi ^0+\pi ^0`$ . It is the aim of this contribution to point out that we only expect total cross sections for this process in the range of 5-10 $`nb`$, which is probably at the limit of the present experimental accuracy. For this purpose we have calculated both elastic (Compton) and inelastic photon scattering through the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance in the constituent quark model . Though this model is somewhat naive and has certain deficiencies, it has the advantage that the ratio of elastic and inelastic photon scattering can be expressed analytically. As a result we expect that at least the predicted order of magnitude of the cross section will be realistic. We find some further support for these results from a numerical calculation based on an effective Lagrangian.

## II Photon Scattering in the Constituent Quark Model

The interaction Hamiltonian between a real photon (momentum $`\stackrel{}{k}`$, polarization vector $`\widehat{ϵ}_\lambda `$) and the 3-quark system is

$$_\lambda ^{\text{int}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2k}}\widehat{\epsilon }_\lambda \stackrel{}{J},$$
(1)
where $`\stackrel{}{J}`$ is the current operator,

$$\stackrel{}{J}=\underset{k}{}\frac{e}{2m_k}q(k)[\stackrel{}{p}^{}(k)+\stackrel{}{p}(k)+i\stackrel{}{\sigma }(k)\times (\stackrel{}{p}^{}(k)\stackrel{}{p}(k))],$$
(2)
with $`m_k`$ the mass, $`q(k)`$ the charge in units of $`e,\stackrel{}{\sigma }(k)`$ the spin operator, $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}^{}`$ the initial and final $`cm`$ momenta of quark $`k`$, respectively, and $`e^2/4\pi 1/137`$ the fine structure constant. In the following we shall perform all calculations in the $`cm`$ frame of the initial photon-nucleon system. Furthermore we shall only be interested in static properties, i.e. magnetic moments of both ground state and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance, and of magnetic transitions between these two states. Neglecting then the convection currents, the Hamiltonian of Eq. (1) can be expressed by the magnetic moment operator $`\stackrel{}{\mu }`$,

$$_\lambda ^{\text{int}}=\lambda \sqrt{\frac{k}{2}}\mu _\lambda ,$$
(3)
with the sign corresponding to absorption and emission respectively, and

$$\mu _\lambda =\underset{k}{}\frac{e}{2m_k}q(k)\sigma _\lambda (k).$$
(4)
For simplicity we also assume that $`m_k=m_N/3`$, where $`m_N=938`$ MeV is the mass of the proton. If we use symmetrized quark wave functions, Eq. (4) can be cast into a form operating only on the 3rd quark,

$$\mu _\lambda =9q(3)\sigma _\lambda (3)\mu _N,$$
(5)
where $`\mu _N=e/2m_N`$ is the nuclear magneton.

With the usual symmetrized isospin $`(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ and spin $`(\chi )`$ wave functions of the 3-quark system,

$$N=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{MS}\chi _{MS}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{MA}\chi _{MA},\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Phi }_S\chi _S,$$
(6)
we obtain the well-known quark model predictions for the magnetic moments of nucleon $`(n,p)`$ and Delta $`(\mathrm{\Delta }^{++},\mathrm{\Delta }^+,\mathrm{\Delta }^0,\mathrm{\Delta }^{})`$,

$`\mu _p`$ $`=`$ $`p{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu _0p{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}=3\mu _N,`$ (7)
$`\mu _n`$ $`=`$ $`n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu _0n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}=2\mu _N`$ (8)
$`\mu _{\mathrm{\Delta }^c}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }^c{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mu _0\mathrm{\Delta }^c{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}=3e_c\mu _N,`$ (9)
where we have indicated the spin projection by $`\frac{1}{2}`$ or $`\frac{3}{2}`$, and $`e_c`$ is the charge of the respective $`\mathrm{\Delta }^c`$ in units of $`e`$. For further use we also evaluate the matrix elements of $`\mu _\pm `$, in particular

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mu _+p{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\sqrt{3}\mu _N,`$ (10)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu _+p,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\mu _N.`$ (11)
The familiar helicity amplitudes are given by the matrix elements of the Hamiltonian Eq. (3),

$`A_{1/2}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}}\mathrm{\Delta }^+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu _+p,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}=\sqrt{2k}\mu _N,`$ (12)
$`A_{3/2}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}}\mathrm{\Delta }^+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mu _+p{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}=\sqrt{6k}\mu _N.`$ (13)
The electromagnetic width for the decay of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (1232) is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma =\frac{k^2E}{2\pi m_\mathrm{\Delta }}\left(A_{1/2}^2+A_{3/2}^2\right)=\frac{4k^3E}{\pi m_\mathrm{\Delta }}\mu _N^2,$$
(14)
where $`k=(m_\mathrm{\Delta }^2m_N^2)/2m_\mathrm{\Delta }=259`$ MeV and $`E=\sqrt{m_N^2+k^2}=973`$MeV at resonance, $`W=k+E=m_\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

Numerically we obtain the result $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma 0.46`$ MeV and a branching ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma /\mathrm{\Gamma }0.38\%`$, while the experimental value is (0.56$`\pm `$ 0.04) %, i.e. the quark model underestimates the helicity amplitudes of Eq. (13) by about 20 %. If the quark mass (or and additional quark g-factor) is adjusted to the measured magnetic moment of the proton, the helicity amplitudes of the quark model come out even 25 % too low. The experimental value is obtained by multiplying the $`rhs`$ of Eq. (11) by $`G_{N\mathrm{\Delta }}/2\sqrt{3}`$, with $`G_{N\mathrm{\Delta }}4`$. We note that in calculations with a harmonic oscillator potential, the rhs of Eqs. (9)-(13) is usually multiplied by a factor $`\mathrm{exp}(k^2/6\alpha _0^2)`$, with $`\alpha _0`$ the oscillator parameter. This retardation factor adds some model dependence and leads to a stronger underestimation of the electromagnetic decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma `$, which would have to be corrected by choosing $`G_{N\mathrm{\Delta }}4\mathrm{exp}(k^2/6\alpha _0^2)`$.

Using the same matrix elements we can also evaluate the differential cross section for forward Compton scattering,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^{\text{el}}}{d\mathrm{\Omega }^{}dk^{}}}(\mathrm{\Theta }=0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_N^2}{16\pi ^2EW}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^{}}{k}}\delta (k^{}+E^{}W)G(W)^2`$ (16)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda M}{}}pMj_\lambda \mathrm{\Delta },M+\lambda \mathrm{\Delta },M+\lambda j_\lambda pM^2,`$
with the current operator $`j_\lambda (k)=\pm k\lambda \mu _\lambda `$ for absorption and emission respectively (see Eqs. (1) to (3)). The required matrix elements can be obtained from Eq. (11) and the symmetry relations (valid for $`\lambda =\pm 1`$)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M^{}\mu _\lambda pM=\mathrm{\Delta },M^{}\mu _\lambda p,M=()^\lambda pM\mu _\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }M^{}.$$
(17)
The propagator in the intermediate state takes the nonrelativistic form

$$G(W)=(m_\mathrm{\Delta }W\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(W))^1,$$
(18)
with an energy-dependent width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(W)`$ fixed at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(m_\mathrm{\Delta })=120`$ MeV. For the elastic process we have $`E=E^{}`$ and $`k^{}=k`$, and using Eqs. (11,16,17,18) we obtain the following prediction for forward Compton scattering,

$$\frac{d\sigma ^{\text{el}}}{d\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}(\mathrm{\Theta }=0)=\sigma _{Th}\frac{5k^4}{EW[(m_\mathrm{\Delta }W)^2+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2]},$$
(19)
where $`\sigma _{Th}=(e^2/4\pi m_N)^223.6`$ nb is the Thomson cross section. In particular the predicted cross section at resonance is

$$\frac{d\sigma ^{\text{el}}}{d\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}(\mathrm{\Theta }=0,W=m_\mathrm{\Delta })125\text{nb/sr}.$$
(20)
With an angular distribution for purely magnetic transitions, $`(7+3\mathrm{cos}^2\mathrm{\Theta })/10`$, the total Compton cross section at resonance is $`\sigma _{tot}^{el}(W=m_\mathrm{\Delta })1.2\mu `$b, which has to be compared to an experimental value of about 2.8 $`\mu `$. The quark model underestimates the data by a factor of about 2, because the cross section scales with the 4th power of the helicity amplitudes.

Along exactly the same lines we shall now estimate the inelastic cross section for the reaction of interest. This requires the following changes in Eq. (16):

1. $`_{\lambda M}_{\lambda \lambda ^{}M}`$,
2. $`pMj_\lambda \mathrm{\Delta },M+\lambda \mathrm{\Delta },M+\lambda \lambda ^{}j_\lambda ^{}\mathrm{\Delta },M+\lambda `$,
3. $`\delta (k^{}+E^{}W)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(W^{})}{2\pi [(m_\mathrm{\Delta }W^{})^2+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(W^{})]}`$,

where $`W^2=W^22Wk^{}`$ is the total $`cm`$ energy of the $`\pi N`$ system. With regard to (a) we note that there occur 6 “paths” from the initial spin projection of the nucleon to the final spin projection of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$,

$$\frac{1}{2}\frac{3}{2}\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2},$$
(21)
and 3 more that can be obtained by reversing all signs. In addition to the matrix elements of Eq. (11) we need the matrix elements

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mu _+\mathrm{\Delta }^+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{6}\mu _N,`$ (22)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu _+\mathrm{\Delta }^+,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\sqrt{2}\mu _N.`$ (23)
All other matrix elements follow from Eq. (17). With the above changes the analogon of Eq. (16) for inelastic scattering is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^{\text{inel}}}{d\mathrm{\Omega }^{}dk^{}}}(\mathrm{\Theta }=0)={\displaystyle \frac{m_N^2kk^3}{16\pi ^2EW}}{\displaystyle \frac{G(W)^2G(W^{})^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(W^{})}{2\pi }}`$ (24)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda \lambda ^{}M}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }^+,M+\lambda \lambda ^{}\mu _\lambda ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^+,M+\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }^+,M+\lambda \mu _\lambda pM^2.`$ (25)
By use of Eqs. (11,23), this expression can be cast into the form

$$\frac{d\sigma ^{\text{inel}}}{d\mathrm{\Omega }^{}dk^{}}(\mathrm{\Theta }=0)=\frac{4m_N^2kk^3}{\pi ^2EW}\mu _N^4G(W)^2\frac{G(W^{})^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(W^{})}{2\pi }.$$
(26)
We note that in the zero-width approximation

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }0}{lim}\frac{G(W^{})^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(W^{})}{2\pi }\delta (m_\mathrm{\Delta }W^{}),$$
(27)
and since $`km_\mathrm{\Delta }E_N`$ at resonance, $`k^{}`$ tends to zero in that limit. As a result the inelastic cross section is suppressed with regard to Compton scattering by a factor $`(k^{}/k)^3(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2(m_\mathrm{\Delta }m_N)})^310^2`$.

If we restrict the discussion to the $`\pi ^0`$ channel, the density of the final states will be further reduced by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta }^+p\pi ^0)/\mathrm{\Gamma }2/3`$. From a more detailed calculation we find a rather constant angular distribution of the form (11 -3 $`\mathrm{cos}^2\mathrm{\Theta })`$/8, and an integrated cross section

$$\frac{d\sigma _{\text{tot}}^{\text{inel}}}{dk^{}}=\sigma _{Th}\frac{20kk^3}{3EW}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(W^{})}{[(m_\mathrm{\Delta }W)^2+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(W)][(m_\mathrm{\Delta }W^{})^2+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(W^{})]}.$$
(28)
## III Results and Discussion

Comparing the total inelastic cross section to the total elastic one, Eq. (19), we obtain the simple relation

$$R=\frac{\sigma _{\text{tot}}^{\text{inel}}}{\sigma _{\text{tot}}^{\text{el}}}=\frac{5}{6}_0^{k_{max}}𝑑k^{}\left(\frac{k^{}}{k}\right)^3\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(W^{})}{2\pi [(m_\mathrm{\Delta }W^{})^2+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(W^{})]}.$$
(29)
The upper limit of the integral is given by the threshold of $`\pi ^0`$ production, $`W^{}=m_N+m_{\pi ^0}`$, at which point the energy-dependent width vanishes with the 3rd power of the pion momentum. The maximum inelastic cross section is expected for $`Wm_\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Gamma }/2`$, i.e. $`k306`$ MeV and $`k_{max}^{}200`$ MeV. If we increase the initial photon energy, the phase space of Eq. (26) increases, but the excitation strength decreases, because we move away from the resonance. The opposite is true if the initial photon energy is decreased, the increase in excitation strength is compensated by a shrinking of the phase space. At energies $`k300`$ MeV, the ratio of Eq. (29) has a value of about $`6.410^3`$ if one uses a typical energy-dependent width.

We recall at this point that the quark model predictions for the elastic and inelastic cross sections should be scaled by $`(G_{N\mathrm{\Delta }}/2\sqrt{3})^4`$ and $`(G_{N\mathrm{\Delta }}/2\sqrt{3})^2(\mu _{\mathrm{\Delta }^+}/\mu _p)^2`$ respectively, in order to describe the experimentally observed cross section. As a result we therefore predict a total inelastic cross section

$$\sigma _{\text{tot}}^{\text{inel}}R\frac{(\mu _{\mathrm{\Delta }^+}/\mu _p)^2}{(G_{N\mathrm{\Delta }}/2\sqrt{3})^2}\sigma _{\text{tot}}^{\text{el}}4\left(\frac{\mu _{\mathrm{\Delta }^+}}{\mu _p}\right)^2nb,$$
(30)
with $`\sigma _{\text{tot}}^{\text{el}}0.9\mu `$b the Compton cross section at $`k300`$ MeV.

As a further check we have evaluated the cross section for the reaction $`\gamma p\mathrm{\Delta }^+\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }^+\gamma \pi ^0p`$ in the framework of an effective Lagrangian (see e.g.  for details). For the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ current we take the simple form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^+(p^{},s^{})J^\mu (0)\mathrm{\Delta }^+(p,s)=+\frac{e}{2m_\mathrm{\Delta }}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\alpha (p^{},s^{})\{(p^{}+p)^\mu +i\sigma ^{\mu \nu }(p^{}p)_\nu G_{M1}^\mathrm{\Delta }\}\mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha (p,s),$$
(31)
where $`G_{M1}^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the magnetic moment of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ in units of the “$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ magneton”, $`e/2m_\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

In Figs. 1-2, the differential cross sections are shown following from the effective Lagrangian for the value $`G_{M1}^\mathrm{\Delta }=3`$.

In Fig. 1, we show the fivefold differential cross section at an incoming photon cm energy of $`k`$ = 286 MeV (as also considered in ), at a photon cm angle of 90o and for three in-plane pion angles (in the $`\pi ^0p`$ rest frame). The energy dependence of the cross section reflects the invariant mass distribution of the $`\pi ^0p`$ system and has a maximum around an outgoing photon $`cm`$ energy of 80 MeV. While this energy dependence is in good agreement with the results of Ref. , we obtain an absolute value for the cross section that is lower by about 3 orders of magnitude. At this energy, we show in Fig. 2 the photon angular dependence, which is seen to be quite flat with a slight maximum at 90o. For comparison, the angular dependence is well approximated in the quark model calculation by its form $`(226\mathrm{cos}^2\mathrm{\Theta })/16`$, which is shown on the same figure (dotted curve, with a global rescaling factor to match the lower curve in Fig. 2). Comparing with Ref. , our cross sections are again lower by nearly 3 orders of magnitude. Moreover the angular distribution given in Ref.  has a high maximum near 90 (in the lab) and approaches very small values in the forward and backward directions, quite at variance with our nearly constant angular distributions.

In Fig. 3, we compare the quark model prediction of Eq. (30) for the total $`\gamma p\gamma \pi ^0p`$ cross section (using $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Delta }^+}=\mu _p`$) with the result from the effective Lagrangian calculation as function of the total cm energy $`W`$. The effective Lagrangian calculation is shown both for a value $`G_{M1}^\mathrm{\Delta }=3`$ and $`G_{M1}^\mathrm{\Delta }=3.66`$ (which corresponds with $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Delta }^+}=\mu _p`$). One sees that both calculations are in rather good agreement and yield total cross sections of the order 5 nb in the considered energy range when using $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Delta }^+}=\mu _p`$).

## IV Conclusions

In spite of new and improved experimental techniques, the reaction $`\gamma +p\gamma ^{}+\mathrm{\Delta }^+\gamma ^{}+p+\pi ^0`$ has not yet been observed. Our expectations based on a simple constituent quark model show that the integrated cross section for this process should indeed be very small, namely of the order of 5 nb. These result are corroborated by an equally simple Lagrangian approach, which also permits us to calculate the five-fold differential cross sections with the result of typically 0.25 nb/GeV sr2. In agreement with the quark model prediction, the angular distribution for photon emission is rather constant.

In the future we plan to improve our calculations by including the backgrounds due to bremsstrahlung off the incoming and outgoing protons as well as radiation from nonresonant intermediate states. Though we do not expect qualitative changes by such terms, they are likely to influence the angular and energy distributions of the process. A better understanding of these backgrounds might also give a chance to analyze the data obtained with incident photons of higher energies, which would increase the counting rate by giving a larger phase space to the emitted particles.

We conclude that the electromagnetic moments of baryon resonances are among the most evasive properties of hadrons. The extremely weak signals for these moments are at the very limits of even the most advanced experimental techniques. However, such data would be invaluable for our understanding of QCD in the confinement region, and therefore a dedicated experiment is certainly desirable.

## Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure to acknowledge the fruitful conversations with members of the A2 Collaboration at MAMI, in particular for private communications given by M. Kotulla and V. Metag. D.D. thanks the INFN and physics department of Genova University for their hospitality. This work was supported in part by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB 443) and the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN).