text:
# DO–TH 00/02 hep-ph/0003149 Neutrino oscillation experiments and limits on lepton–number and lepton–flavor violating processes

## 1 Introduction

In recent years overwhelming evidence for non–vanishing neutrino masses was collected in atmospheric , solar  and accelerator  experiments, opening a window into a variety of new phenomena . The results are interpreted in terms of neutrino oscillations governed by a mixing angle and a mass–squared difference. Analyzing the data of the respective experiments yields typically values of

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2(\mathrm{eV}^2),\mathrm{sin}^22\theta )& \{\begin{array}{cc}(10^3,>0.7)& \text{ atmospheric}\\ \begin{array}{cc}(10^5,10^3)& \text{ SAMSW}\\ (10^5,>0.7)& \text{ LAMSW}\\ (10^{10},>0.7)& \text{ VO}\end{array}\}& \text{ solar}\\ (1,10^3)& \text{ LSND.}\end{array}& \end{array}$$
(1)
Here SAMSW (LAMSW) denotes the small (large) angle MSW  solution and VO the vacuum oscillation solution of the solar neutrino problem. One sees that the atmospheric and solar mass scale obey the following relation:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2,$$
(2)
regardless of the solar solution chosen. In order to avoid sterile neutrinos one usually leaves out the LSND  result (which also gives time to wait until the conflict with KARMEN  is resolved). We are thus working in a three neutrino framework, which allows a simple derivation of the leptonic Maki–Nakagawa–Sakata (MNS) matrix . Only five mass schemes can accommodate the results in a three neutrino framework, three hierarchical and two degenerate schemes with the overall scale given by cosmological arguments to be of the order of a few eV. These mass schemes can be divided into two scenarios. In addition, we distinguish the cases in which one element of the mixing element is zero as indicated by CHOOZ data and the general case of all elements being non–zero. Ordering effects of some elements are also considered.
From the MNS matrix one can infer limits on the $`3\times 3`$ matrix of effective Majorana neutrino masses defined as

$$\begin{array}{c}m_{\alpha \beta }=|(U\mathrm{diag}(m_1,m_2,m_3)U^\mathrm{T})_{\alpha \beta }|\\ =\left|m_iU_{\alpha i}U_{\beta i}\right|m_i|U_{\alpha i}U_{\beta i}|\text{ with }\alpha ,\beta =e,\mu ,\tau ,\end{array}$$
(3)
where $`U`$ is the mixing matrix and the $`m_i`$ are mass eigenvalues. With this approximation, $`m_{\alpha \beta }`$ is symmetrical. The mass measured in neutrinoless double beta decay ($`0\nu \beta \beta `$) is the $`(ee)`$ element of this matrix and has been considered by several authors . However, the complete matrix is rarely analyzed in terms of phenomenological consequences, except for the elements $`m_{e\mu }`$ and $`m_{\mu \mu }`$ in Refs. , although without giving concrete numbers. We introduce processes dependent on every element of $`m_{\alpha \beta }`$, like $`\mu ^{}e^+`$ conversion, $`K^+\pi ^{}\mu ^+\mu ^+`$ or recently proposed high–energy scattering processes, finding rather discouraging results for branching ratios or life times. We compare our results (calling them indirect limits) with current experimental (direct) bounds and find that our limits are up to 14 orders of magnitude more stringent than current experimental data and therefore beyond experimental access in the near future. Special attention is paid to 0$`\nu \beta \beta `$ and its sensitivity on mass and mixing. Though it will be much easier to wait for further astrophysical data to distinguish between vacuum and MSW solutions for the solar neutrino problem, it would be a remarkable experiment to decide via terrestrial nuclear physics experiments if matter effects inside the Sun are of importance or not. Unfortunately, it turns out that the only scheme delivering values inside the range of next generation experiments is insensitive on the solar solutions.
The paper is organized as follows: In Section 2 we present the usual assumptions that lead to the derivation of the MNS matrix and $`m_{\alpha \beta }`$. Section 3 gives the results and pays special attention to the $`(ee)`$ element of $`m_{\alpha \beta }`$. In Section 4 processes are introduced which are sensitive on the respective elements of $`m_{\alpha \beta }`$ just as 0$`\nu \beta \beta `$ is on $`m_{ee}`$. Section 5 concludes the paper.

## 2 Oscillation probabilities and mass schemes

The phenomenology of neutrino oscillations is well reviewed in the literature, see e.g. . Flavor eigenstates $`\nu _\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau `$) are connected to mass eigenstates $`\nu _i`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$) via an unitary matrix, i.e. $`\nu _\alpha =U_{\alpha i}\nu _i`$. For Majorana neutrinos this matrix can be parametrized as

$$U_{\alpha i}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_1c_3& s_1c_3e^{i\lambda _1}& s_3e^{i\delta }\\ (s_1c_2c_1s_2s_3e^{i\delta })e^{i\lambda _1}& c_1c_2s_1s_2s_3e^{i\delta }& s_2c_3e^{i(\lambda _2\lambda _1)}\\ (s_1s_2c_1c_2s_3e^{i\delta })e^{i\lambda _2}& (c_1s_2s_1c_2s_3e^{i\delta })e^{i(\lambda _2\lambda _1)}& c_2c_3\end{array}\right)$$
(4)
with $`c_i=\mathrm{cos}\theta _i`$ and $`s_i=\mathrm{sin}\theta _i`$. Three CP–violating phases are present. For neutrino oscillations, only one phase ($`\delta `$) contributes . Effects of all phases are discussed e. g. in , for our estimations we shall skip them, since we are not interested in CP violation. In addition, the probabilities we use depend only on the absolute values of the mixing matrix elements. The probability of a flavor state $`\alpha `$ to oscillate into a state $`\beta `$ is given by

$$P_{\alpha \beta }=\delta _{\alpha \beta }2\text{ Re }\underset{j>i}{}U_{\alpha i}U_{\alpha j}^{}U_{\beta i}^{}U_{\beta j}(1\mathrm{exp}i\mathrm{\Delta }_{ji}).$$
(5)
Here

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{ji}=\frac{L}{2E}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ji}^2=2.54\frac{L/\mathrm{km}}{E/\mathrm{GeV}}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ji}^2/\mathrm{eV}^2\text{ with }\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ji}^2=m_j^2m_i^2.$$

Without loss of generality we assume

$$m_3>m_2>m_1>0.$$
(6)
With the above relation there are two possibilities to accommodate $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝐒𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐨}𝐀:& \mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2\\ \mathrm{𝐒𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐨}𝐁:& \mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2\end{array}$$
(7)
Three mass schemes are capable of providing scenario A, qualitatively shown in Fig. 1:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\text{Scheme A I:}& m_3m_2m_1:& m_3\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2},m_2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2}\\ \text{Scheme A II:}& m_3m_2m_1:& m_3\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2},m_2m_10\\ \text{Scheme A III:}& m_3m_2m_1m_0:& 3m_05\mathrm{eV},\end{array}$$
(8)
where $`m_0`$ comes from cosmological considerations .

For scenario B, however, there are only two possibilities as presented in Fig. 2:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\text{Scheme B I:}& m_3m_2m_1:& m_3m_2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2},m_10\\ \text{Scheme B II:}& m_3m_2m_1m_0:& 3m_05\mathrm{eV}.\end{array}$$
(9)
We stress that there are no other possibilities when Eqs. (2) and (6) are used. Scenario A I can be obtained from the see–saw mechanism ; A II and B I, i.e. two very close masses and one separated by the others can be a result of mechanisms generating neutrino masses radiatively .

Regardless of the concrete scheme, relations (2) and (4) allow to get the absolute values of the elements of the MNS matrix : In scenario A one finds for a short baseline reactor experiment such as CHOOZ:

$$P_{ee}^{\mathrm{CHOOZ}}=14|U_{e3}|^2(1|U_{e3}|^2)\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{31}/2$$
(10)
Due to the negative results CHOOZ presents , one comes to the conclusion that $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ is either very small or close to 1. Taking into account that the probability $`P_{ee}^{}`$ for solar neutrinos is significantly lower than 1, leads to a small value of $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ . In that case one has

$$P_{ee}^{}=14|U_{e1}|^2|U_{e2}|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{21}/2.$$
(11)
For oscillations of atmospheric $`\nu _\mu `$’s into $`\nu _\tau `$’s one finds

$$P_{\mu \tau }^\mathrm{A}=4|U_{\mu 3}|^2|U_{\tau 3}|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{31}/2.$$
(12)
In obtaining this equation we have assumed that the oscillation triggered by $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ washes out. This is the case for $`L(\mathrm{km})/E(\mathrm{GeV})10^5`$ so that it is advisable to use the through–going muons data set of SuperKamiokande (SK). Equations (11) and (12) together with the unitarity of the MNS matrix are now used to get the absolute values of all elements . As the mass and mixing parameters we use the best fit points from  for solar neutrinos and for the SK through–going muon sample the values from . The numbers used are the following:

$$\begin{array}{cc}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2(\mathrm{eV}^2),\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}|U_{e1}|^2|U_{e2}|^2)=& \{\begin{array}{cc}(5.410^6,6.010^3)& \text{ SAMSW}\\ (1.810^5,0.76)& \text{ LAMSW}\\ (8.010^{11},0.75)& \text{ VO}\end{array}\\ (\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2(\mathrm{eV}^2),\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}|U_{\mu 3}|^2|U_{\tau 3}|^2)=& (1.010^2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.78})\end{array}$$
(13)
Note the unusual high value for the atmospheric mass scale. We give now the resulting mixing and mass matrices, starting with scenario A and commenting on scenario B later.

### 2.1 The case $`|U_{e3}|0`$

The value $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2=1.010^2\mathrm{eV}^2`$ corresponds in CHOOZ’s exclusion plot of  to $`|U_{e3}|^2<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.04}`$. Translating this in Eq. (4) leads to $`|s_3|<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.19}`$ and $`|c_3|>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.98}1`$. This leads to the following mixing matrices:

$$|U_{\alpha i}|<\{\begin{array}{cc}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.999& 0.039& 0.189\\ 0.131& 0.860& 0.515\\ 0.182& 0.521& 0.857\end{array}\right)& \text{ SAMSW}\\ \left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.863& 0.505& 0.189\\ 0.517& 0.789& 0.515\\ 0.400& 0.527& 0.857\end{array}\right)& \text{ LAMSW}\\ \left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.866& 0.500& 0.189\\ 0.513& 0.791& 0.515\\ 0.398& 0.527& 0.857\end{array}\right)& \text{ VO.}\end{array}$$
(14)
Here we have used that $`|U_{e1}||U_{e2}|`$ as it is necessary for the MSW solutions and — inspired by the CKM matrix — $`|U_{\tau 3}||U_{\mu 3}|`$. The possibility $`|U_{e2}||U_{e1}|`$ is equivalent to an exchange of the first and second column, as $`|U_{\mu 3}||U_{\tau 3}|`$ is to an exchange of the second and third row.

### 2.2 The case $`|U_{e3}|0`$

The observed smallness of $`m_{ee}`$ as measured in 0$`\nu \beta \beta `$  and the absence of $`\nu _e`$ mixing in atmospheric oscillations has lead many authors (see e. g. ) to the assumption $`|U_{e3}|0`$. In addition, it can also be related (together with bi–maximal mixing) with the observed flatness in $`L/E`$ of SK‘s $`e`$–like events . Since also the phases $`\lambda _{1,2}`$ in Eq. (4) do not contribute to oscillations, this means that there is no observable CP violation in any oscillation experiment. The mixing matrix now reads:

$$|U_{\alpha i}|<\{\begin{array}{cc}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.999& 0.039& 0\\ 0.033& 0.856& 0.515\\ 0.020& 0.515& 0.857\end{array}\right)& \text{ SAMSW}\\ \left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.863& 0.505& 0\\ 0.433& 0.740& 0.515\\ 0.260& 0.445& 0.857\end{array}\right)& \text{ LAMSW}\\ \left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.866& 0.500& 0\\ 0.429& 0.742& 0.515\\ 0.258& 0.446& 0.857\end{array}\right)& \text{ VO.}\end{array}$$
(15)
The matrices are of course very similar to the ones derived in  where the method was first presented.

### 2.3 Scenario B

Scenario B can be easily obtained from scenario A via cyclic permutation of the columns of the mixing matrices. Hence, the cases to distinguish are $`|U_{e1}|^20`$, $`|U_{e1}|^20`$, $`|U_{e2}|^2()|U_{e3}|^2`$ (the “$``$” case only for the vacuum solution) and $`|U_{\mu 1}|^2()|U_{\tau 1}|^2`$. With the two scenarios A and B and the possibilities for ordering the mixing matrix elements we have a total of 80 different mass matrices, 48 for scenario A and 32 for scenario B. From these 80 matrices, 48 are stemming from nondegenerate mass schemes. We will show that the 80 reduces to 57.

## 3 Results for $`m_{\alpha \beta }`$

As shown, the different possibilities are equivalent to exchanges of rows or columns of the mixing matrices. The same holds for the resulting mass matrices. For example, the difference of the $`|U_{\tau 3}||U_{\mu 3}|`$ case and the $`|U_{\tau 3}||U_{\mu 3}|`$ case translates into an exchange of $`m_{\alpha \tau }`$ with $`m_{\alpha \mu }`$ with $`\alpha =e,\mu `$. Replacing $`|U_{e1}||U_{e2}|`$ with $`|U_{e1}||U_{e2}|`$ has no effect on $`m_{\alpha \beta }`$ as long as $`|U_{e3}|0`$ and generally in the degenerate schemes and in A II and B I. This, with the appropriate permutations mentioned above, holds for scenario B as well. Evidently, the degenerate schemes give the same result for $`m_{\alpha \beta }`$ in both scenarios. Therefore from all 80 possible mass matrices only 57 survive, 14 degenerate and 43 nondegenerate ones. We give now for the nondegenerate cases and for all three solar solutions the bounds of our results:

$$m_{\alpha \beta }<\{\begin{array}{cc}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}3.510^6\mathrm{}0.1& 4.610^5\mathrm{}2.010^2& 4.610^5\mathrm{}2.010^2\\ & 2.710^2\mathrm{}7.610^2& 6.610^3\mathrm{}4.710^2\\ & & 2.710^2\mathrm{}7.610^2\end{array}\right)\mathrm{eV}& \text{ SAMSW }\\ \left(\begin{array}{ccc}1.110^3\mathrm{}0.1& 9.510^4\mathrm{}8.510^2& 9.510^4\mathrm{}8.510^2\\ & 2.710^2\mathrm{}8.910^2& 4.410^2\mathrm{}6.210^2\\ & & 2.710^2\mathrm{}8.910^2\end{array}\right)\mathrm{eV}& \text{ LAMSW }\\ \left(\begin{array}{ccc}2.210^6\mathrm{}0.1& 2.010^6\mathrm{}8.410^2& 2.010^6\mathrm{}8.410^2\\ & 2.710^2\mathrm{}8.910^2& 4.410^2\mathrm{}6.210^2\\ & & 2.710^2\mathrm{}8.910^2\end{array}\right)\mathrm{eV}& \text{ VO. }\end{array}$$
(16)
In the scheme (A II, $`|U_{e3}|0`$) there are zeros as solutions for $`m_{e\alpha }`$, which means values much smaller than the atmospheric scheme, i.e. possibly in the range of $`10^3\mathrm{}10^4`$ eV, e.g.

$$m_{ee}|U_{e1}|^2m_1+|U_{e2}|^2m_2+|U_{e3}|^2m_3=m_1\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2}.$$
(17)
The same can happen in scheme A I, where always a contribution of a value much smaller than the solar scheme can be present. These cases reflect the fact that the smallest mass eigenvalue is never known. For the degenerate scheme the solutions for VO and LAMSW are almost identical:

$$m_{\alpha \beta }<\{\begin{array}{cc}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1.67\mathrm{}1.73& 0.74\mathrm{}1.57& 0.74\mathrm{}1.57\\ & 1.67\mathrm{}1.93& 1.47\mathrm{}1.77\\ & & 1.67\mathrm{}1.95\end{array}\right)\mathrm{eV}& \text{LAMSW and VO}\\ \left(\begin{array}{ccc}1.67\mathrm{}1.73& 0.07\mathrm{}0.61& 0.07\mathrm{}0.61\\ & 1.67\mathrm{}1.73& 1.47\mathrm{}1.52\\ & & 1.67\mathrm{}1.73\end{array}\right)\mathrm{eV}& \text{SAMSW.}\end{array}$$
(18)
The values $`>m_0`$ are explained by the violation of unitarity of the mixing matrices.

### 3.1 Properties of the mass matrices

We start with scenario A: In general, for the hierarchical schemes, $`m_{\mu \mu }`$ is the biggest, $`m_{ee}`$ the smallest entry in $`m_{\alpha \beta }`$. The difference can be up to 4 orders of magnitude (VO and SAMSW, scheme A I, $`|U_{e3}|^20`$). Entries in the electron row of $`m_{\alpha \beta }`$ are smaller than the other elements. The degenerate scheme has always $`m_{ee}`$ $``$ $`m_{\mu \mu }`$ $`>`$ $`m_{e\mu }`$. In addition, the $`|U_{e3}|^20`$ case delivers higher values for all elements of $`m_{\alpha \beta }`$. Scheme III gives higher numbers than scheme I which in turn gives higher values than scheme II.
In scenario B all entries are usually in the same order of magnitude yet somewhat higher than in scenario A. The element $`m_{ee}`$, which is the most natural candidate for experimental access, is the only one which is significantly higher, at least one order of magnitude. It is always bounded by $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2}`$, see the next section. As said before, the degenerate scheme gives the same numbers in both scenarios. Two typical matrices show most of the mentioned points, the first for scheme (A I, LAMSW, $`|U_{e1}||U_{e2}|`$, $`|U_{\mu 3}||U_{\tau 3}|`$ and $`|U_{e3}|=0`$) while the second is for (B II, VO, $`|U_{e2}||U_{e3}|`$, $`|U_{\mu 1}||U_{\tau 1}|`$ and $`|U_{e3}|0`$):

$$\begin{array}{cc}m_{\alpha \beta }<\left(\begin{array}{ccc}3.510^6& 4.610^5& 7.710^5\\ & 7.410^2& 4.510^2\\ & & 2.810^2\end{array}\right)\mathrm{eV}& \\ m_{\alpha \beta }<\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1.73& 1.28& 1.56\\ & 1.95& 1.77\\ & & 1.92\end{array}\right)\mathrm{eV}.& \end{array}$$
(19)
### 3.2 Electron neutrino mass

From inspection of Eq. (16) one sees that the only element accessible to present or near future experiments, $`m_{ee}`$, has the broadest spectrum, a lucky coincidence. On the other hand, due to $`|U_{e3}|^21`$, $`m_{ee}`$ is always the smallest entry for scenario A. From all 57 matrices 33 different possibilities for $`m_{ee}`$ exist (it does not matter if $`|U_{\mu 3}||U_{\tau 3}|`$ or vice versa). From these 33 values $`m_{ee}`$ takes only 10 different values, which are worth taking a closer look at since they spread 6 orders of magnitude. Leaving the ones obtained from degenerated schemes aside, since they lie already above the current experimental limit, we have 8 different values out of 25 matrices, spanning 5 orders of magnitude. It is now tempting to assume that these 8 values have potential to distinguish between the different solar solutions. This is unfortunately not the case:
As a result of relation (2) many schemes have the same value for $`m_{ee}`$, for example (A I, SAMSW, $`|U_{e1}||U_{e2}|`$ and $`|U_{e3}|0`$), (A II, all solar solutions, $`|U_{e1}||U_{e2}|`$ and $`|U_{e3}|0`$) or (A I, VO, $`|U_{e2}||U_{e1}|`$ and $`|U_{e3}|0`$), all yielding $`3.610^3`$ eV.
In addition, for scenario B a peculiarity occurs, namely the bound always takes the same value, regardless of the solar solution:

$$m_{ee}_\mathrm{B}|U_{e1}|^2m_1+|U_{e2}|^2m_2+|U_{e3}|^2m_3m_3\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2}.$$
(20)
In the nondegenerate schemes of scenario B, this value of $`m_{ee}`$ is always the largest entry in $`m_{\alpha \beta }`$. Hence a positive signal in a neutrinoless double beta decay experiment will not be able to distinguish between different solar solutions, if nature has chosen scenario B for its neutrinos and an analysis of this kind is used. In addition, when scenario A is realized it will be extremely challenging to distinguish the precise form of the mass and mixing scheme as well as to tell which solar solution is the right one. What also complicates the analysis is that, as mentioned above, the contribution of the neglected $`m_1`$ to $`m_{ee}`$ can very well be in the order of $`10^3`$ eV, making a definite statement somewhat difficult.
Nevertheless, scenario B is only a factor 2 from current experimental limits away, lying well within access in updates of the 76Ge experiment. Although we used a somewhat high value for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$ this specific situation seems to be the only realistic candidate for experimental detection. In the next section we will discuss the possibilities of detecting a process sensitive on $`m_{\alpha \beta }`$ in more detail.

## 4 Lepton–number and –flavor violating processes and Majorana neutrinos

For this section it is important to stress again the difference between direct bounds, i.e. considering processes that depend on the respective matrix element and indirect bounds obtained in the present paper, i.e. using oscillation data and unitarity of the MNS matrix.
As not surprising, neutrinoless double beta decay is the best examined process triggered by Majorana neutrinos, resulting in a limit of $`m_{ee}0.2`$ eV . The electron–muon element $`m_{e\mu }`$ can be inferred from muon–positron conversion in sulfur nuclei. Theoretical estimations from  together with the PDG  limit of the branching ratio give a limit of $`m_{e\mu }0.4(1.9)`$ GeV, when the final state proton pairs are in spin singlet (triplet) state, respectively. The very same diagram as for 0$`\nu \beta \beta `$ can be applied to other processes like $`K^+\pi ^{}\mu ^+\mu ^+`$, which has an experimental branching ratio limit of $`1.510^4`$ . Taking the calculation of , one finds a limit of $`m_{\mu \mu }1.110^5`$ GeV. Another process depending on $`m_{\mu \mu }`$ is $`\mu ^{}\mu ^+`$ conversion in Titanium, discussed in . Instead of nuclear captions or rare decays it was shown in , that in principle one can use high–energy scattering processes — in this case tri–muon production at fixed target neutrino–nucleon experiments — to get a bound on $`m_{\mu \mu }`$. Without worrying too much about experimental cuts a limit of $`m_{\mu \mu }<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^4`$ GeV was obtained. In  this procedure was applied to existing HERA data and generalized to the process

$$e^+p\overline{\nu _e}\alpha ^+\beta ^+X\text{ with }(\alpha \beta )=(e\tau ),(\mu \tau ),(\mu \mu )\text{ and }(\tau \tau ),$$
(21)
giving for the first time direct limits on the tau–sector of the mass matrix. Another direct way to obtain information about the tau sector of $`m_{\alpha \beta }`$ might be $`B^+X^{}\tau ^+\alpha ^+`$ with $`\alpha =e,\mu \text{ or }\tau `$ and $`X=\pi ,K,D,\mathrm{}`$. In total, the current situation for bounds deduced from processes directly depending on $`m_{\alpha \beta }`$ reads:

$$m_{\alpha \beta }<\left(\begin{array}{ccc}210^{10}& 0.4(1.9)& 4.210^3\\ & 4.010^3& 4.410^3\\ & & 2.010^4\end{array}\right)\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(22)
A spread over 14 orders of magnitude can be seen. An improvement of the values is surely advisable. The somewhat unusual way to use high–energy scattering as done in  is highly compatible with decay analyses: For example, assuming that a branching ratio for $`K^+\pi ^{}\mu ^+\mu ^+`$ of about $`9.210^8`$ (BR for $`K^+\pi ^+\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, ) can be achieved would result in a limit of $`m_{\mu \mu }<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3.5}10^3`$ GeV, almost the same number as from HERA data, which itself will be improved by luminosity and energy updates.
There are other Majorana induced $`\mathrm{\Delta }L0`$ processes, which are at present however not experimentally accessible: Running an $`e^+e^{}`$ collider in $`e^{}e^{}`$ mode could give rise to the “inverse neutrinoless double beta decay” $`e^{}e^{}W^{}W^{}`$ . The same could be done for a $`\mu \mu `$ collider or even a possible $`e\mu `$ machine. For the case we are interested in ($`sm_i^2`$) the cross section reads

$$\sigma (\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}W^{}W^{})\frac{G_F^2}{4\pi }m_{\alpha \beta }{}_{}{}^{2}4.3010^{17}\left(\frac{m_{\alpha \beta }}{\mathrm{eV}}\right)^2\text{ fb},$$
(23)
leaving no prospects for detection, since the cross section is in the order of $`10^{20}`$ ($`10^{16}`$) fb for hierarchical (degenerate) scheme.
For the sake of completeness one has to add a few words on cancellation of terms in $`m_{\alpha \beta }`$. From Eqs. (3) and (6) it is clear that our bounds are insensitive on the phases of the mixing elements. See  for more details on what one could learn from the different phase dependence of $`m_{ee}`$, $`m_{e\mu }`$ and $`m_{\mu \mu }`$. The Majorana nature brings additional complications via the intrinsic CP–parities $`\eta _i^{\mathrm{CP}}`$ of the mass eigenvalues. Even for CP invariance one can write

$$m_{\alpha \alpha }=\left|\left|U_{\alpha i}\right|^2m_i\eta _i^{\mathrm{CP}}\right|.$$
(24)
making destructive interference in the respective amplitudes possible. Then one can assume mass matrices in flavor space which prohibite special entries in $`m_{\alpha \beta }`$, e.g.

$$m_{\alpha \beta }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& m\\ m& 0\end{array}\right),m0.$$
(25)
with eigenvalues $`\pm m`$, first introduced to conserve $`L_eL_\mu `$. Here, the requirement $`m_i0`$ can be saved by making the mixing matrix elements complex, leading again to cancellation. However, as long as no evidence for a nonvanishing element of $`m_{\alpha \beta }`$ is found, we have no chance to decide which of the above possibilities is realized by nature. Yet, if in direct mass searches for, say, the $`\nu _e`$ a result of a few eV is found, or the degenerate scheme is somehow verified, one could give bounds on the phases and thus restrict different models.

## 5 Conclusions

Tables 1 (hierarchical scheme) and 2 (degenerate) summarize our results for the different elements of the mass matrices, together with their maximal values obtained from our estimations, the process sensitive to the respective element, a ratio with respect to the relevant standard model process (see below) and a number which indicates how far away we are from detecting the process and thus having access to the element. Also given is the ratio of our indirect bound with the previous direct limits from Eq. (22).
As the ratio we use for the $`K`$ decay the branching ratio and for the HERA processes (21) the quotient of the respective cross section with the usual standard model charged current process of $`\sigma (e^+p\overline{\nu _e}X,Q^2>200\mathrm{GeV}^2)30.3`$ pb . For $`m_{ee}`$ we give the half–life obtained with the matrix elements from  for $`{}_{}{}^{76}\mathrm{Ge}`$.
Theory/Data is a measure for how close (better: how far away) we are from detection of the respective process. We use for $`m_{ee}`$ the current experimental limit for $`T_{1/2}^{0\nu }(^{76}\mathrm{Ge})`$ divided by our bound, for the $`K`$ decay our result divided by the current measured BR limit and for the HERA processes the cross section times the mean value of the luminosity analyzed by H1  and ZEUS  in searches for isolated lepton events, $`_{e^+}=42.1`$ pb-1. Note the almost hierarchical structure from $`ee`$ to $`\tau \tau `$ processes. Theory/Data is a number which characterizes how difficult it is to investigate the respective effective mass. A value less than $`10^3`$ to $`10^4`$ for a given $`m_{\alpha \beta }`$ cannot be regarded as accessible in laboratory experiments, even with very positive upgrade assumptions. The numbers show that no element other than $`m_{ee}`$ provides a realistic chance of accession. Regarding scenario A, the highest value obtained for $`m_{ee}`$ is $`4.710^3`$ eV, about the limit achievable in the most positive assumption of the GENIUS sensitivity of $`210^3`$ eV at 68 $`\%`$ C. L. for a 10 year run with 10 tons of enriched germanium .

Note however that we used the best–fit points of typical oscillation experiment analyses, which of course do not need to be the final answer. However, our value $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$ = 0.01 eV2, the best–fit point for through–going muons at SK, is just the maximum of typical general analyses (see  for details) and therefore the values can be regarded as a realistic indication. In scenario B $`m_{ee}`$ is bounded by the atmospheric mass scale, thus lying well within the range of next generation neutrinoless double beta decay experiments. A detection of a $`m_{ee}`$ in the range of the atmospheric scale would rule out the hierarchical schemes in scenario A.
Direct/indirect shows the ratio of the indirect limits obtained here and the direct limits from Eq. (22). This number can be as high as $`10^{14}`$. The indirect bounds obtained in this paper are more stringent by this number.
The tables show that the clarification of the question whether neutrinos are Dirac or Majorana particles might have to be postponed. Present and foreseeable experimental possibilities are far beyond verifying some of the given branching ratios or cross sections. This is shown by the ratios in the Theory/Data column. In conclusion, we used a three neutrino framework and studied the range of the elements of the effective mass matrix using all possibilities for the mass and mixing schemes. It turned out that $`m_{ee}`$ has the broadest range of all elements but also is in scenario A the smallest entry and in the nondegenerate schemes of scenario B the highest entry. in general is the smallest value of $`m_{\alpha \beta }`$. We may summarize the situation in saying that if scenario A is realized little hope should one have, whereas scenario B provides a realistic chance of being probed, leaving neutrinoless double beta decay, the “gold–plated process” of lepton–number/flavor violation. The nice possibility of deciding which solution to the solar neutrino problem is realized is unfortunately not given, but this question will be clarified anyway in ongoing and forthcoming oscillation experiments. For a degenerate scheme the bounds are higher than current experimental limits so that a cancellation of terms in $`m_{ee}`$ as discussed at the end of Section 4 has to occur, provided nature has chosen this scheme. Regarding the other elements of $`m_{\alpha \beta }`$ we showed that there is no possibility to investigate processes depending on them. Nevertheless, the improvement with respect to the previous direct bounds is up to 14 orders of magnitude.
Note added: When this paper was finished, Ref.  appeared which gives new limits on two elements of $`m_{\alpha \beta }`$.

Acknowledgments

I thank S. M. Bilenky, M. Flanz, E. A. Paschos and K. Zuber for helpful discussions. This work has been supported in part by the “Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie”, Bonn under contract number 05HT9PEA5. Financial support from the Graduate College “Erzeugung und Zerf$`\ddot{\mathrm{a}}`$lle von Elementarteilchen” at Dortmund university is gratefully acknowledged.


format: text

text:
# Gluelump spectrum in the QCD string model

## 1 Introduction

Gluelumps  are not physical objects and their spectrum cannot be measured on experiment. However, as will be discussed below, they play more fundamental role than any other hadrons since gluelump masses define field correlators in the QCD vacuum and in particular string tension. The purpose of the present study is to calculate analytically the gluelamp spectrum in the framework of the so-called QCD string model (QCDSM). This model was developed in the earlier papers  for spinless quarks, and was augmented by the spin-dependent terms treated as a perturbation . The resulting Hamiltonian of the rotating string with quarks or gluons at the ends was recently systematically applied to mesons, hybrids and glueballs (see review in  and recent developments in ). Three features are characteristic for the model. First, QCDSM is directly derived from QCD with few assumptions supported by the lattice data, i.e. the minimal area law for the Wilson loop, and the dominant role of valence quarks and gluons. Second, it is fully relativistic and the Hamiltonian can be obtained in the c.m. system , or in the light–cone system  or else on any other hypersurface. Third, the model contains the minimal number of parameters: fundamental string tension $`\sigma _f=0.18`$ GeV2 defined by the meson Regge slope, the strong coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$ (taken as constant in first approximation, $`\alpha _s(\mu )`$, where $`\mu `$ is an inverse size of the system, or with the freezing behaviour $`\alpha _s(r)`$  in more accurate calculations), and finally the quark (antiquark) selfenergy $`C_0=0.25`$ GeV, which should be subtracted for each quark from the mass of a meson, hybrid, or baryon. Note, that for gluons this term is absent because of gauge invariance and therefore spectrum of glueballs and gluelumps is defined only by $`\sigma _f`$ and $`\alpha _s`$ .

It is remarkable, that with these fixed universal parameters one obtains spectrum of all hadronic systems in good agreement with lattice data and experiment . In particular, the glueball spectrum depending only on $`\sigma _f`$ (with spin splittings depending also on $`\alpha _s`$) comes out  in remarkable agreement with recent lattice data .

At the same time the heavy-light mesons have been calculated in this method in  including quark decay constants $`f_M`$, $`M=B,B_s,D,D_s`$ again in good agreement with experiment and other approaches.

This gives a hope that the QCDSM can be used also for the system containing a valence gluon connected by an adjoint string to the adjoint source (”infinitely heavy gluon”) – the so-called gluelump .

Gluelump has a resemblance both to glueballs and to heavy-light mesons. In the framework of the string model, gluelump is a glueball with the adjoint string between gluons when one gluon is made static, and one expects the same structure of the spectrum of the LS-coupling type, which is obtained in  and similar to the lattice spectrum calculated in .

On the other hand, gluelump differs (within the model) from heavy-light mesons only in that the fundamental string is replaced by the adjoint one (plus minor differences in the spin splitting terms and the role of color Coulomb forces).

Therefore the calculation of the gluelump spectrum is expected to be as successful as in the case of glueballs and heavy-light mesons. From physical point of view the gluelumps are important at least in two respects. First of all gluelumps play a fundamental role in the nonperturbative structure of the QCD vacuum, since gluelump Green’s functions are connected to the field correlators $`F_{\mu \nu }(x)F_{\lambda \sigma }(0)`$ or its invariant parts $`D(x),D_1(x)`$, introduced in , which are basic elements in the Method of Field Correlators (MFC). In particular, the gluon correlation length $`T_g`$, defining the nonperturbative dynamics of confinement  is simply the inverse mass of the lowest gluelump, and was computed in this way before in several systematic studies .

Secondly, gluelump masses define the screening length for the static potential in given representation $`D`$ of $`SU(3)`$, namely the minimal length of the string, which may decay into two gluelumps.

Recent precise measurements of static potentials $`V_D(r)`$ made in  revealed an accurate (within 1%) Casimir scaling without any signs of screening (string breaking) at all distances 0.05 fm $`r`$ 1.2 fm. To understand these results one should know screening length for all $`D`$.

The structure of the paper is as follows. In the first part of the paper the gluelump spectrum is computed, with the corresponding Hamiltonian constructed in section 2, spin splittings considered in section 3, and spectrum calculation in section 4. Comparison to the lattice data and the bag model is given in section 5. Section 6 contains conclusions and outlook, while Appendix is devoted to the details of hyperspherical formalism used for calculation of two-gluon gluelumps.

## 2 The gluelump Hamiltonian

The starting point is the gluelump Green’s function $`G^{glump}(x,y)`$ which is obtained from the initial and final gluelump operators $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(in,out)}`$, expressed in terms of the valence gluon field $`a_\mu `$ and background gluon field $`B_\mu `$ so that the total field is $`A_\mu =B_\mu +a_\mu `$, with the gauge transformation properties

$$B_\mu U^+(B_\mu +\frac{i}{g}_\mu )U,a_\mu U^+a_\mu U.$$
(1)
Similarly to the glueball case one can write

$$G^{glump}(x,y)=tr_{adj}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(out)}(x)G_{\mu \nu }(x,y)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{in}(y)\mathrm{\Phi }(y,x))_B,$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,y)`$ is the parallel transporter representating the adjoint source Green’s function:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x,y)=P\mathrm{exp}(ig_y^x\widehat{B}_\mu (z)𝑑z_\mu ),\widehat{B}_\mu =B_\mu ^aT^a$$
(3)
and $`G_{\mu \nu }(x,y)`$ is the valence gluon Green’s function

$$G_{\mu \nu }(x,y)=(D^2\delta _{\mu \nu }+2igF_{\mu \nu }(B))_{x,y}^1=$$

$$=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑sDze^KP\mathrm{exp}[ig_y^xB_\mu 𝑑z_\mu +2g_0^sF_{\mu \nu }(z(\tau ))𝑑\tau ]$$
(4)
In (2), $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(out,in)}(x)`$ are operators defining quantum numbers of final and initial gluelump states, below in Table 1 listed are examples for the lowest mass states.

The last term in the exponent in (4) describes the interaction of the gluon spin with the background $`B_\mu `$ (and with the adjoint string, which will be created out of it). Here as well as in the glueball case  we shall treat this interaction as perturbation to be discussed in section 3, and disregard it in the first approximation. Then Eq. (2) reduces to the average of the adjoint Wilson loop with the contour $`C`$ consisting of the straight line of the source and the path $`z(\tau )`$ of the valence gluon, integrated upon in (4).

Assuming the area law for the adjoint Wilson loop in agreement with lattice measurements , one can go over in a standard way  from the Green’s function $`G^{(glump)}`$ to the corresponding Hamiltonian $`H^{(glump)}`$, connected by

$$G^{glump}(x,y)=out|\mathrm{exp}(H^{(glump)}|xy|)|in.$$
(5)
The resulting Hamiltonian can be obtained from that of the $`q\overline{q}`$ system  when mass of one quark is zero and mass of another going to infinity, while the quark string tension $`\sigma _f`$ is replaced by $`\sigma _{adj}=\frac{9}{4}\sigma _f`$. One obtains

$$H^{(glump)}=\frac{\mu }{2}+\frac{p_r^2}{2\mu }+\frac{L(L+1)/r^2}{2(\mu +_0^1𝑑\beta \beta ^2\nu (\beta ))}$$

$$+\frac{\sigma _{adj}^2r^2}{2}_0^1\frac{d\beta }{\nu (\beta )}+_0^1\frac{\nu (\beta )}{2}𝑑\beta .$$
(6)
Here $`\mu `$ and $`\nu (\beta )`$ are respectively the constituent gluon mass and energy density along the string coordinate $`\beta `$, to be found from minimization of the Hamiltonian.

For the angular momentum $`L=0`$ the stationary point in $`\nu (\beta )`$ yields a simple answer

$$H^{(glump)}(L=0)=\frac{\mu }{2}+\frac{p_r^2}{2\mu }+\sigma _{adj}r.$$
(7)
For $`L>0`$ instead of solving for the complicated operator (6) we shall treat effect of $`L`$ perturbatively as in , yielding accuracy around 5% for $`L3`$, namely

$$H^{(glump)}(L>0)=\frac{\mu }{2}+\frac{𝐩_r^2}{2\mu }+\sigma _{adj}r+\mathrm{\Delta }M_L$$
(8)
where we have defined as in

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M_L=\frac{4L(L+1)\sigma _{adj}^2}{3M_0^3}$$
(9)
and $`\mu `$ in (8) is to be found from the minimum of the mass eigenvalues of $`H^{(glump)}`$, (accuracy of this procedure was found in  to be better than 5%).

## 3 Spin-dependent and color Coulomb interaction

We now take into account the term $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ in (4), which yields the gluon spin $`𝐒`$ dependence, since

$$2iF_{ik}=2𝐒𝐁,ik=1,2,3.$$
(10)
The analysis of the spin-dependent terms can be done as in the case of glueballs  and heavy quarkonia  (note however, that nowhere we use the nonrelativistic inverse mass expansion, instead the lowest (Gaussian) field correlator $`FF`$ is retained in the average of (4), this procedure was tested in  to yield accuracy around 1%).

As a result one obtains

$$\mathrm{\Delta }H_{LS}=\mathrm{\Delta }H_{LS}(Thomas)+\mathrm{\Delta }H_{LS}(pert)$$
(11)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }H_{LS}(Thomas)=\sigma _{adj}\frac{𝐋𝐒}{2\mu ^2}\frac{f(r)}{r}b^{(Thomas)}𝐋𝐒$$
(12)
and $`f(r=\mathrm{})=1`$ takes into account that confining interaction starts at small $`r<T_g`$, as $`r^2`$, which significantly decreases the matrix element $`\frac{f(r)}{r}`$, see  for details, and  for numerical results for the glueball case.

With $`\mathrm{\Delta }H(pert)`$ the situation is more subtle. Indeed the one-gluon exchange does not contribute to the potential $`V_1(r)`$ (we stick to the standard notations of Eichten-Feinberg-Gromes approach), and the latter is the only $`LS`$ piece surviving for the gluelump case. Hence one should consider the one-loop contribution, similar to the one considered in  for heavy quarkonia, in the limit of one mass infinite and another equal to $`\mu `$. In absence of actual calculations for the gluelump case, and to have an orientation, we shall translate the result of  replacing $`C_FC_A`$, and $`m_1\mu `$, $`m_2\mathrm{}`$. The result is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }H_{LS}(pert)=\frac{𝐋𝐒}{\mu ^2r^3}\frac{\alpha _s^2C_A^2}{2\pi }(2\mathrm{ln}\mu r\gamma _E)b^{(pert)}𝐋𝐒.$$
(13)
As we shall see the overall magnitude of $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_{LS}`$ and of its parts is small, and finally can be neglected. For an estimate we shall take the brackets in (13) to be equal to one, and the matrix element $`\frac{1}{r^3}`$ can be found from the equality

$$L(L+1)\frac{1}{r^3}=\mu \sigma _{adj}$$
(14)
Consider now the contribution of perturbative gluon exchanges to the interaction between the valence gluon and static source.

Here we adopt the same attitude that was suggested and discussed in detail in . Namely, the perturbative ladder for the gluelump is equivalent to the BFKL ladder of the pomeron (more exactly to one-half of that ladder cut along the valence gluon line). For the BFKL ladder it was shown  that the higher-order correction practically cancels the lowest order result. This fact was used in the glueball case in  to neglect the Coulomb ladder completely, and the resulting glueball masses agree surprisingly well with the lattice data (whereas retaining color Coulomb interaction would reduce the lowest masses by 0.5 GeV, and increase spin splittings 3 times in strong disagreement with lattice data).

Accordingly for the gluelump case we at first also disregard color Coulomb exchanges both in mass eigenvalues and in wave functions, so that relation (14) holds true and the matrix element $`\frac{f(r)}{r}`$ is to be calculated with eigenfunctions of (7) and (8). One finds that the spacial size of gluelump (in absence of color Coulomb force) is $`\sqrt{2}`$ times less than that of two-gluon glueballs, and is around 0.5 fm for lowest states. Hence the influence of (however reduced) Coulomb force in this system can be important.

Therefore also calculations have been done for two other values of effective $`\alpha _s`$, which when taking into account higher loop effects  reduce to a smaller value, denoted by $`\overline{\alpha }_s`$. Two values of $`\overline{\alpha }_s`$, $`\overline{\alpha }_s=0.15`$ and $`\overline{\alpha }_s=0.195`$ have been used and the results for the spin-overaged mass are shown in Table 2, while the values of spin-orbit matrix elements $`b^{(Thomas)}`$ and $`b^{(pert)}`$ change for $`\overline{\alpha }_s=0.15`$ at most 1.5 times and not listed in the Table.

The resulting values of spin-splitted masses are given in Table 4 for $`\overline{\alpha }_s=0`$.

## 4 The gluelump spectrum

We are now in position to calculate the spectrum of (8) and the spin splittings (11), (12).

The total mass eigenvalue is written as

$$M(J,L,n_r)=M_0(n,L)+\mathrm{\Delta }M_L+\mathrm{\Delta }M_{LS}$$
(15)
where $`M_0(n,L)`$ is the eigenvalue of the operator $`h(\mu )\mu /2+𝐩^2/2\mu +\sigma _{adj}r`$, minimized over the values of $`\mu `$.

$$h(\mu )\psi (x)=\epsilon (\mu )\psi (x).$$
(16)
Using the standard technic of the QCDSM , one finds

$$\epsilon (\mu )=\frac{\mu }{2}+\frac{\sigma _{adj}^{2/3}a(n,L)}{(2\mu )^{1/3}}$$
(17)
where $`a(n,L)`$ are the eigenvalues of the reduced equation found numerically and given in Table 1 (lower entries). Minimization of (17) over $`\mu `$ yields for $`\mu =\mu _0`$ the values given in Table 1 (upper entries). One has from (17)

$$\mu _0(n,L)=(\frac{a(n,L)}{3})^{3/4}(2\sigma _{adj})^{1/2}.$$
(18)
From $`\epsilon (\mu )`$ (17) one immediately finds that

$$M_0(n,L)=2\mu _0(n,L)$$
(19)
The values of $`M_0(n,L),\mathrm{\Delta }M_L`$ and the resulting spin-averaged masses $`\overline{M}(n,L)M_0(n,L)+\mathrm{\Delta }M_L`$ are given in Table 2.

Now we turn to the spin splittings of the obtained levels. The values of $`\frac{1}{r^3}`$ are taken from (14) and those of $`\frac{f(r)}{r}`$ from the corresponding glueball matrix elements in Table 7 of , with the proper rescaling from the two-gluon Hamiltonian to $`h(\mu )`$ . The resulting splittings $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{LS}`$ can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M_{LS}=\frac{J(J+1)L(L+1)2}{2}(b^{(Thomas)}(n,L)+b^{(pert)}(n,L))$$
(20)
The values of $`b^{(Thomas)}`$ and $`b^{(pert)}`$ are given in Table 3. Finally summing up all corrections one obtains the resulting gluelump masses listed in Table 4 for $`\overline{\alpha }_s=0`$.

Now we turn to the two-gluon gluelumps, which correspond to $`C=+1`$. This is a special case of $`3g`$ glueballs when the mass of one gluon tends to infinity. Therefore one can use the same Hamiltonian technic as was exploited for $`3g`$ glueballs in , i.e. the Hamiltonian $`h(\mu )`$ in (16) is replaced by $`h(\mu _1,\mu _2)`$ (with $`\mu _i`$ to be found again from minimization of eigenvalues).

$$h(\mu _1,\mu _2)=\frac{\mu _1}{2}+\frac{\mu _2}{2}+\frac{𝐩_1^2}{2\mu _1}+\frac{𝐩_2^2}{2\mu _2}+\sigma _f\left\{|𝐫_1|+|𝐫_2|+|𝐫_1𝐫_2|\right\}.$$
(21)
Note the appearence of $`\sigma _f`$ in (21), since the string is now fundamental and forms a triangle, passing through two gluons and the adjoin source. The Hamiltonian (21) can be treated using hyperspherical formalism, for details see Appendix. Here we only quote the result for spin-averaged masses (obtained with accuracy better than 5%)

$$M(n,K)=4\mu _0+\omega _0(n+\frac{1}{2})+\frac{K(K+4)}{15}4\mu _0$$
(22)
where $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{};K=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ and

$$\mu _0=2\sqrt{\sigma _f}\left(\frac{2}{15}\right)^{1/4}(\sqrt{2}+2)^{1/2},\omega _0=\frac{4}{\sqrt{5}}\mu _0.$$
(23)
For the lowest state, $`K=0,n=0`$ one obtains

$$M^{(2g)}(0,0)=2.61GeV(\sigma _f=0.18GeV^2).$$
(24)
The hyperfine splitting of this level into $`J^{PC}=0^{++}`$ and $`2^{++}`$ can be calculated in the same way as in  with the result that $`0^{++}`$ lies below $`2^{++}`$ with the interval proportional to $`\alpha _s`$ (see Appendix for explicit expression). We place the spin-averaged value (24) in Table 4 and hyperfine-splitted level $`0^{++}`$ in Table 5. It is interesting to note that in two-gluon gluelumps both hyperfine and tensor forces are operating in contrast to one-gluon gluelumps, and therefore the mixing of the state $`𝐁^{(1)}𝐁^{(2)}`$ (which is orbitally excited with respect to $`a_i^{(1)}a_i^{(2)}`$) with the latter is significant, which may explain the appearence of this state in lattice calculations.

## 5 Discussion of the spectrum. Comparison with lattice data

The spectrum given in Tables 2 and 4 demonstrates the following features. First of all one can see that the spin splittings of levels are small and can be neglected in first approximation. The ordering of levels has the same character as for two-gluon glueball masses and can be roughly described by the equation

$$\overline{M}(n,L)(2n+L)\omega +\overline{M}_0$$
(25)
where $`\overline{M}_0(\overline{\alpha }_s)(1.52.5\overline{\alpha }_s)`$ GeV, and $`\omega (\overline{\alpha }_s)(0.35+\overline{\alpha }_s1.2)`$ GeV. This behaviour is typical for other hadrons, see  for the discussion of glueballs and  for a review of hadronic spectra.

¿From dimensional point of view the spectrum corresponds to the increasing dimension of valence gluon operators $`a_i,_ia_k,_i_ka_l`$ etc. (and not to the dimension of operators $`E_i,B_i,D_iB_k`$ etc.).

Note that the lowest level, $`1^{}`$, is of the electric type and there is a gap of $`0.5÷0.6`$ GeV between the ground and excited level, while the distance between $`L=0`$ and $`L=2`$ levels is equal to 0.73 GeV $`(\overline{\alpha }_s=0)`$ or 1 GeV ($`\overline{\alpha }_s=0.15).`$

It is instructive to compare our spectrum to the gluelump spectrum of the MIT bag model .

For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/4}=0.315`$ GeV and $`\alpha _s=0.23`$ the masses obtained in  are

$$M(1^+)=1.43\mathrm{GeV},M(2^{})=1.97\mathrm{GeV},M(1^{})=1.98\mathrm{GeV}$$

$$M(3^+)=2.44\mathrm{GeV},M(2^+)=2.64\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(26)
One can see the inverse ordering of the first levels in (26), namely magnetic level $`1^+`$ in MIT bag model is below the electric one $`1^{}`$ and the gap between them is approximately the same as in QCD string model, but the ordering is reversed.

Here the difference between two models is most pronounced (in contrast the glueball spectrum, where the lowest two-gluon states have the same ordering in both models, see  and ). Hence the independent check of lattice calculations can in principle decide which of the models is closer to reality.

Now the recent lattice calculations  (see also  for earlier lattice studies) yield the mass levels shown in Table 5. One should note at this point, that the (divergent) mass renormalization terms are not subtracted from the data and therefore absolute scale is missing. We therefore have placed for the sake of comparison in Table 5 the lowest $`1^+`$ level at the same mass as given by our calculations, see Table 2 and 4 for $`\overline{\alpha }_s=0.15`$.

Another feature of data from  is that only spacial links have been used for gluelump operators at initial and final states, and hence the states in Table 4 containing $`E_j`$ are not directly excited in measurements in  (however these states could in principle be excited indirectly due to mixing, i.e. with smaller overlap). The states in Table 4 which are excited directly in  are marked by asterix and compared with lattice results in Table 5.

One can see in Table 5 a good correspondence between the levels, and an approximate mass degeneration of $`2^+,3^+`$ levels is present in both results.

However the $`1^{},2^{}`$ levels, almost degenerate in the QCDSM have a gap of 0.22 GeV on the lattice. This might be explained by the mixing of the $`1^{}`$ level with the ground state, having the same quantum numbers, whereas $`2^{}`$ has no low-lying counterpart.

As was mentioned above, the crucial test of the QCDSM is the search for the ground state level $`1^{}`$, which should lie $`0.5÷0.6`$ GeV below the lowest $`1^+`$ level found on the lattice. If this level is not found, it would possibly mean that gluelumps are more like bags than strings. However no derivation of the bag model from QCD was ever made and theoretical grounds for this model are of intuitive character, whereas the QCDSM follows directly (with few assumptions supported by lattice data) from the QCD lagrangian. Therefore the existence of the $`1^{}`$ ground state for the gluelump seems very plausible. In conclusion of this section we discuss shortly an important connection between gluelumps and field strength correlators $`D(x),D_1(x)`$ introduced in  and measured on the lattice in  using cooling procedure and in  using RG smoothing. It is clear from Table 4 that two lowest states, $`1^{}`$ and $`1^+`$, correspond to the electric and magnetic correlators respectively, and therefore the masses $`M(1^{})1.12`$ GeV and $`M(1^+)1.7`$ GeV $`(\overline{\alpha }_s=0.15)`$ should give the exponential slopes of those correlators (the notation $`D_{}`$ and $`D_{}`$ was also used in  coiciding with electric and magnetic respectively). The lowest mass of $`M1`$ GeV is in agreement with measurements in , however for $`D_{}`$ the same slope was found in contrast with present calculations. There are no general symmetry arguments, why masses (slopes) in both functions should be the same, (in contrast to electric and magnetic condensates at zero temperature) and this disagreement between gluelump masses and slopes in $`D_{},D_{}`$ calls for further investigation.

One should note in addition, that the independent calculation of the slope from the selfcoupled equations for correlators made in , also gives the lowest (electric) mass around 1 GeV, in agreement with the present calculations for $`(\overline{\alpha }_s=0.15)`$.An analysis for the same quantity in the framework of the QCD sum rules  gives a larger value in the quenched case, while for the magnetic mass the result was unstable. Finally,in the lattice study  of electric and magnetic field correlators made without cooling or smoothing procedures,electric and magnetic masses are obtained in good agreement with present calculations, specifically magnetic mass turned out to be around 0.5 GeV heavier.

## 6 Conclusions

Results of the present calculations in the QCDSM framework are in general agreement with recent lattice data  , using the restricted set of gluonic operators, and with previous lattice and analytic calculations of the slope of the $`D_{}`$ function. It is not clear from the gluelump spectrum point of view why the correlator $`D_{}`$ (magnetic field correlator) should have the same slope as that of $`D_{}`$, as it was found on the lattice . With the lowest gluelump mass equal to $`1.2÷1.5`$ GeV in the present calculations, the onset of the adjoint string breaking appears at the string length $`r_0=1.2÷1.5`$ fm, in agreement with recent lattice data .

The fundamental role of gluelump states in the theory of the QCD vacuum makes it important to resolve the existing problem of the spectrum and of the relation with vacuum correlators $`D_{},D_{}`$.

The author is grateful to C.Michael for a useful correspondence, and to Yu.S.Kalashnikova and V.I.Shevchenko for numerous discussions. The present work was partially supported in the framework of the RFFI projects 00-02-17836 and 96-15-96740. This work was completed while the author was visiting the Humboldt University Of Berlin in the framework of the joint DFG-RFFI project 96-02-00088G.It is a pleasure for the author to thank M.Mueller- Preussker for a kind hospitality,collaboration and discussions and G.Bali for a series of discussions which stimulated the final version of the paper.

Table 1

Valence gluon masses $`\mu _0(n,L)`$ (upper entries) and reduced eigenvalues $`a(n,l)`$ (lower entries). $`\sigma _f=0.18`$ GeV$`{}_{}{}^{2},\sigma _{adj}=\frac{9}{4}\sigma _f=0.405`$ GeV

| $`Ln`$ | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | 0.746 | 1.135 | 1.422 |
|  | 2.3381 | 4.0879 | 5.520 |
| 1 | 0.98 | 1.297 | 1.554 |
|  | 3.3613 | 4.8845 | 6.216 |
| 2 | 1.168 | 1.443 |  |
|  | 4.248 | 5.63 |  |
| 3 | 1.33 |  |  |
|  | 5.053 |  |  |

Table 2

Unperturbed masses $`M_0(n,L)`$, string correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_L`$ and spin averaged masses $`\overline{M}(n,L)`$ for $`L=0,1,2,3`$ and $`n=0`$ (upper entries and two last lines) and $`n=1`$ (lower entries).

| $`L`$ | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`M_0`$ | 1.492 | 1.96 | 2.336 | 2.66 |
| (GeV) | 2.27 | 2.6 | 2.886 |  |
| $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_L`$ | 0 | -0.0581 | -0.103 | -0.139 |
| (GeV) | 0 | -0.025 | -0.0546 |  |
| $`\overline{M}`$ | 1.492 | 1.9 | 2.233 | 2.52 |
| (GeV) | 2.27 | 2.575 | 2.83 |  |
| $`\overline{M}(\overline{\alpha }_s=0.15)`$ | 1.12 | 1.73 | 2.15 | 2.46 |
| $`\overline{M}(\overline{\alpha }_s=0.195)`$ | 0.982 | 1.67 | 2.10 |  |

Table 3

Perturbative and Thomas spin-orbit martix elements defined as in (11-13)

| $`L`$ | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`b^{(pert)}`$ | 0.033 | 0.0096 | 0.00425 |
| $`b^{(Thomas)}`$ | -0.0025 | -0.0024 | -0.0021 |

Table 4

Gluelump masses for lowest states $`J^{PC}`$ are listed together with gluonic state operators in the background field formalism and in the general notations. Asterix marks the states which are directly generated on the lattice

| State | $`L`$ | $`n`$ | operator | | Mass |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  |  | backgr. | general | (GeV) |
| $`1^{}`$ | 0 | 0 | $`a_i`$ | $`E_i`$ | 1.492 |
| $`1^+`$ | 1 | 0 | $`e_{ikl}_ka_l`$ | $`B_i`$ | 1.87\* |
| $`2^+`$ | 1 | 0 | $`(_ia_k)_{symm}`$ | $`(D_iE_k)_{symm}`$ | 1.93 |
| $`1^{}`$ | 0 | 1 | $`a_i`$ | $`E_i`$ | 2.27 |
| $`1^{}`$ | 2 | 0 | $`(_i_ka_l)_J`$ | $`D_iB_ke_{ikl}`$ | 2.21\* |
| $`2^{}`$ | 2 | 0 |  | $`(D_iB_k)_{symm}`$ | 2.226\* |
| $`3^{}`$ | 2 | 0 |  | $`D_iD_kE_l`$ | 2.24 |
| $`2^+`$ | 3 | 0 | $`(_i_k_la_m)_J`$ | $`(D_iD_kB_l)_J`$ | 2.51\* |
| $`3^+`$ | 3 | 0 |  |  | 2.52\* |
| $`4^+`$ | 3 | 0 |  | $`(D_iD_kD_lE_m)_4`$ | 2.53 |
| $`1^+`$ | 1 | 1 | ($`_ia_k)_1`$ | $`B_i`$ | 2.57\* |
| $`2^+`$ | 1 | 1 | ($`_ia_k)_2`$ | $`D_iE_k`$ | 2.57 |
| $`0^{++}2^{++}`$ | 0 | 0 | $`(a_i^{(1)}a_k^{(2)})_J`$ | $`(𝐁_i^{(1)}𝐁_k^{(2)}+𝐄_i^{(1)}𝐄_k^{(2)})_J`$ | 2.61\* |

Table 5

The gluelump states generated by spacial operators, with masses computed analytically in the present paper $`(\overline{\alpha }_s=0.15)`$ and masses computed on the lattice . For better comparison results of Table 2 corrected for larger $`\sigma _f=0.22`$ used on lattice.

| $`J^{PC}`$ | $`1^+`$ | $`1^{}`$ | $`2^{}`$ | $`2^+`$ | $`3^+`$ | $`0^{++}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`M`$ (GeV) | 1.87 | 2.23 | 2.45 | 2.84 | 2.84 | 2.96 |
| lattice |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| $`M`$ (GeV) | 1.87 | 2.34 | 2.36 | 2.70 | 2.71 | 2.78 |
| QCD string |  |  |  |  |  |  |

Appendix

Two-gluon gluelumps

Consider a static source at point $`𝐫_3=0`$ and two gluons at $`𝐫=𝐫_1`$ and $`𝐫=𝐫_2`$, connected by a fundamental string, passing through these three points. The Hamiltonian for the case, when both orbital momenta are zero (no string rotation correction) can be written in analogy to (7) as

$$h(\mu _1,\mu _2)=\frac{\mu _1+\mu _2}{2}+\frac{𝐩_1^2}{2\mu _1}+\frac{𝐩_2^2}{2\mu _2}+\sigma _f\{|𝐫_1|+|𝐫_2|+|𝐫_1𝐫_2|\}$$
(A.1)
This 3 body problem can be treated by the hyperspherical formalism . Introducing the hyperradius $`\rho `$ and denoting $`\mu _1=\mu _2=\mu `$, one has

$$\rho ^2=𝜼^2+𝝃^2,𝜼=𝐫_{12}/\sqrt{2},𝝃=(𝐫_1+𝐫_2)\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$$
(A.2)
one obtains the Hamiltonian for the given grand orbital momentum $`K=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$

$$h=+\mu \frac{1}{2\mu \rho ^5}\frac{}{\rho }(\rho ^5\frac{}{\rho })+\frac{(K+\frac{3}{2})(K+\frac{5}{2})}{2\mu \rho ^2}+U_K(\rho )$$
(A.3)
where $`U_K(\rho )`$ for $`K=0`$ is the potential term in (A.1) averaged over all hyperangles. Using standard expressions from  one obtains

$$U_0(\rho )=C_0\sigma \rho ,C_0=\frac{32\sqrt{2}(1+\sqrt{2})}{15\pi }$$
(A.4)
Eq. (A.3) can be solved numerically and results are tabulated, but it appears that the accuracy of about 1% for the eigenvalue can be obtained by the stationary point method applied to the effective potential $`W(\rho )`$

$$W(\rho )=\frac{(K+\frac{3}{2})(K+\frac{5}{2})}{2\mu \rho ^2}+U_K(\rho );W^{}(\rho =\rho _0)=0;$$
(A.5)
while the second derivative at $`\rho =\rho _0`$ defines the radial excitation energy $`\omega `$:

$$W^{\prime \prime }(\rho _0)\frac{(\rho \rho _0)^2}{2}\frac{\mu \omega ^2(\rho \rho _0)^2}{2}$$
(A.6)
In this way one obtains the mass eigenvalue $`M(\mu )`$, and finally the stationary point condition for $`\mu `$, $`\frac{dM}{d\mu }(\mu =\mu _0)=0`$ defines gluon constituent mass $`\mu _0`$ and the resulting mass eigenvalue $`M(\mu _0)`$, given in (22)-(24). One can note that radial excitations are given by $`\omega _0=0.955`$ GeV, and ”grand-orbital excitation” from $`K=0`$ to $`K=1`$ is given by the interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }M=0.712`$ GeV.

The hyperfine splitting is given by the Hamiltonian (cf the discussion in  for 3$`g`$ glueballs)

$$H_{SS}=𝐒^{(1)}𝐒^{(2)}\frac{5\pi C_2(fund)\alpha _s}{3\mu _0^2}\delta ^{(3)}(𝐫_{12})_\rho $$
(A.7)
The last factor in (A.7) is easily computed

$$\delta ^{(3)}(𝐫_{12})_\rho =\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi ^2\rho _0^3},\rho _0=1.15/\mu _0.$$
(A.8)
This yields the spin splitting of the levels

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M_{SS}=𝐒^{(1)}𝐒^{(2)}0.49\mu _0\frac{4}{3}\alpha _s.$$
(A.9)
For $`\alpha _s=\overline{\alpha }_s=0.15`$ one obtains

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M_{SS}=0.0525\mathrm{GeV}\left(\begin{array}{cc}2,\hfill & J=0\hfill \\ +1,\hfill & J=2\hfill \end{array}\right).$$
(A.10)
In this way one gets the mass $`M(0^{++})`$ in Table 5.


text:
# Reconciling 𝐺_𝐴/𝐺_𝑉, and 𝜇_{𝑝,𝑛} in 𝜒QM with One Gluon Generated Configuration Mixing.

## Abstract

The spin polarization functions $`(\mathrm{\Delta }u,\mathrm{\Delta }d,\mathrm{\Delta }s)`$ for proton are calculated in the chiral quark model ($`\chi `$QM) with SU(3) symmetry breaking as well as configuration mixing generated by one gluon exchange forces for the NMC and the most recent E866 data. Besides reproducing the spin polarization functions $`\mathrm{\Delta }u,\mathrm{\Delta }d,\mathrm{\Delta }s`$ as well as $`G_A/G_V`$, it can accomodate nucleon magnetic moments and neutron charge radius as well, thus resolving the compatibility problem of these parameters which could not be achieved in constituent quark models.

The Constituent Quark Model (CQM), despite its impressive performance in explaining low energy hadronic matrix elements, is unable to account for the EMC effect or the “proton spin crisis”  which indicated that only a small portion of the proton spin is carried by the valence quarks, as well as the presence of significant negative strange quark polarization in the proton quark sea . CQM is also unable to explain the results of the NMC  and E866  experiments which have shown that the Gottfried sum rule  is violated, indicating that the $`\overline{d}`$ density is larger than $`\overline{u}`$ density in the nucleon sea. Apart from the problems faced by CQM in explaining the spin content of nucleons, it is also saddled with another problem, $`viz.`$, it has been shown  that it is not possible to have a simultaneous reconciliation of $`G_A/G_V`$, charge form factors of nucleon and magnetic moments of nucleons ($`\mu _{p,n}`$) in the CQM. This problem becomes more acute if one considers neutron charge radius $`(<r_n^2>)`$.

The EMC effect and related issues have been successfully addressed in the chiral quark model ($`\chi `$QM) , originally conceived by Weinberg , subsequently developed by Manohar and Georgi . In particular, the $`\chi `$QM is able to explain not only the spin content of the nucleon but is also able to give a fair description of flavor content of the nucleons, violation of Gottfried sum rule, strange quark content in the nucleon, $`G_A/G_V`$ as well as the magnetic moments of the baryons etc. .

Recently it has been claimed that, within the $`\chi `$QM, neutron charge radius can also be reproduced through the Foldy term , however very recently it has been shown by Isgur  that the Foldy term gets cancelled against a contribution to the Dirac form factor $`F_1`$ to leave intact the interpretation of neutron electric charge form factor $`G_E^n`$ as arising from the neutron’s rest frame charge distribution. Therefore, in the light of the work of Isgur, it becomes essential that $`<r_n^2>`$ should be reproduced by the form factor $`F_1`$. Thus, even in the $`\chi `$QM, the question of compatibility of $`G_A/G_V`$, $`<r_n^2>`$ and $`\mu _{p,n}`$ remains.

In the context of CQM, it is well known that there are several low energy parameters which can be explained by including one gluon mediated configuration mixing . It has also been shown that one gluon mediated configuration mixing is able to generate $`<r_n^2>`$ as well as it improves the fit of magnetic moment of baryons . In view of the fact that the $`\chi `$QM incorporates the basic features of constituent quark model, therefore it becomes interesting to examine the implications of configuration mixing in $`\chi `$QM ($`\chi `$QMgcm). The purpose of the present communication on the one hand is to examine, within the $`\chi `$QM, the implications of one gluon mediated configuration mixing for spin polarizations and related issues while on the other hand it is to investigate the issue of compatibility of $`G_A/G_V`$, neutron charge radius and $`\mu _{p,n}`$.

To understand the implications of one gluon mediated configuration mixing for $`G_A/G_V`$, we first calculate the quark spin polarizations in the $`\chi `$QM. The basic process, in the $`\chi `$QM, is the emission of a Goldstone Boson which further splits into $`q\overline{q}`$ pair, for example,

$$q_\pm GB^0+q_{}^{^{}}(q\overline{q}^{^{}})+q_{}^{^{}}.$$
(1)
The above process can be expressed through the Lagrangian

$$=g_8\overline{q}\mathrm{\Phi }q,$$
(2)
where $`g_8`$ is the coupling constant,

$$q=\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ d\\ s\end{array}\right),$$
(3)
and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{\pi ^0}{\sqrt{2}}+\beta \frac{\eta }{\sqrt{6}}+\zeta \frac{\eta ^{^{}}}{\sqrt{3}}& \pi ^+& \alpha K^+\\ \pi ^{}& \frac{\pi ^0}{\sqrt{2}}+\beta \frac{\eta }{\sqrt{6}}+\zeta \frac{\eta ^{^{}}}{\sqrt{3}}& \alpha K^0\\ \alpha K^{}& \alpha \overline{K}^0& \beta \frac{2\eta }{\sqrt{6}}+\zeta \frac{\eta ^{^{}}}{\sqrt{3}}\end{array}\right).$$
(4)
SU(3) symmetry breaking is introduced by considering different quark masses $`m_s>m_{u,d}`$ as well as by considering the masses of non-degenerate Goldstone Bosons $`M_{K,\eta }>M_\pi `$  , whereas the axial U(1) breaking is introduced by $`M_\eta ^{^{}}>M_{K,\eta }`$ . The parameter a(=$`|g_8|^2`$) denotes the transition probability of chiral fluctuation or the splittings $`u(d)d(u)+\pi ^{+()}`$, whereas $`\alpha ^2a`$ denotes the probability of transition $`u(d)s+K^{(0)}`$. Similarly $`\beta ^2a`$ and $`\zeta ^2a`$ denote the probability of $`u(d,s)u(d,s)+\eta `$ and $`u(d,s)u(d,s)+\eta ^{^{}}`$ respectively.

The one gluon exchange forces  generate the mixing of the octet in $`(56,0^+)_{N=0}`$ with the corresponding octets in $`(56,0^+)_{N=2}`$, $`(70,0^+)_{N=2}`$ and $`(70,2^+)_{N=2}`$ harmonic oscillator bands . The corresponding wave function of the nucleon is given by

$$|B>=(|56,0^+>_{N=0}cos\theta +|56,0^+>_{N=2}sin\theta )cos\varphi $$

$$+(|70,0^+>_{N=2}cos\theta +|70,2^+>_{N=2}sin\theta )sin\varphi .$$
(5)
In the above equation it should be noted that $`(56,0^+)_{N=2}`$ does not affect the spin-isospin structure of $`(56,0^+)_{N=0}`$, therefore the mixed nucleon wave function can be expressed in terms of $`(56,0^+)_{N=0}`$ and $`(70,0^+)_{N=2}`$, which we term as non trivial mixing  and is given as

$$|8,\frac{1}{2}^+=cos\varphi |56,0^+>_{N=0}+sin\varphi |70,0^+>_{N=2},$$
(6)
where

$$|56,0^+>_{N=0,2}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\chi ^{^{}}\varphi ^{^{}}+\chi ^{^{\prime \prime }}\varphi ^{^{\prime \prime }})\psi ^s,$$
(7)
$$|70,0^+>_{N=2}=\frac{1}{2}[(\psi ^{^{\prime \prime }}\chi ^{^{}}+\psi ^{^{}}\chi ^{^{\prime \prime }})\varphi ^{^{}}+(\psi ^{^{}}\chi ^{^{}}\psi ^{^{\prime \prime }}\chi ^{^{\prime \prime }})\varphi ^{^{\prime \prime }}].$$
(8)
The spin and isospin wave functions, $`\chi `$ and $`\varphi `$, are given below

$$\chi ^{^{}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(),\chi ^{^{\prime \prime }}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(2),$$

$$\varphi _p^{^{}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(ududuu),\varphi _p^{^{\prime \prime }}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(2uudududuu),$$

$$\varphi _n^{^{}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(udddud),\varphi _n^{^{\prime \prime }}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(udd+dud2ddu).$$

For the definition of the spatial part of the wave function, ($`\psi ^s,\psi ^{^{}},\psi ^{^{\prime \prime }})`$ as well as the definitions of the spatial overlap integrals we refer the reader to references  and .

The contribution to the proton spin, defined through the equation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }q=q_{}q_{}+\overline{q}_{}\overline{q}_{},$$
(9)
using Equation(4) and following Linde $`etal.`$ , can be expressed as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }u=cos^2\varphi \left[\frac{4}{3}\frac{a}{3}(7+4\alpha ^2+\frac{4}{3}\beta ^2+\frac{8}{3}\zeta ^2)\right]+sin^2\varphi \left[\frac{2}{3}\frac{a}{3}(5+2\alpha ^2+\frac{2}{3}\beta ^2+\frac{4}{3}\zeta ^2)\right],$$
(10)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }d=cos^2\varphi \left[\frac{1}{3}\frac{a}{3}(2\alpha ^2\frac{1}{3}\beta ^2\frac{2}{3}\zeta ^2)\right]+sin^2\varphi \left[\frac{1}{3}\frac{a}{3}(4+\alpha ^2+\frac{1}{3}\beta ^2+\frac{2}{3}\zeta ^2)\right],$$
(11)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }s=a\alpha ^2.$$
(12)
Before one presents and discusses the results pertaining to Equations (10), (11) and (12), for a better appreciation of the role of configuration mixing and symmetry breaking we have considered the case of SU(3) symmetry as well. The SU(3) symmetric calculations can easily be obtained from the equations (10), (11) and (12) by considering $`\alpha ,\beta =1`$. The corresponding equations can be expressed as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }u=cos^2\varphi \left[\frac{4}{3}\frac{a}{9}(37+8\zeta ^2)\right]+sin^2\varphi \left[\frac{2}{3}\frac{a}{9}(23+4\zeta ^2)\right],$$
(13)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }d=cos^2\varphi \left[\frac{1}{3}\frac{2a}{9}(\zeta ^21)\right]+sin^2\varphi \left[\frac{1}{3}\frac{a}{9}(16+2\zeta ^2)\right],$$
(14)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }s=a.$$
(15)
In Table 1, we have presented the results of our calculations. First of all, for $`\chi `$QM with SU(3) symmetry breaking as well as configuration mixing, we have carried out a $`\chi ^2`$ fit to $`\mathrm{\Delta }u,\mathrm{\Delta }d,\mathrm{\Delta }s,G_A/G_V`$ and other related parameters (details of which will be published elsewhere), however, in the fit we have taken $`\varphi `$ 200, a value dictated by consideration of neutron charge radius . In the table we have also considered a few more values of the mixing parameter $`\varphi `$ in order to study the variation of spin distribution functions with $`\varphi `$. The parameter $`a`$ is taken to be 0.1, as considered by other authors . The symmetry breaking parameters obtained from $`\chi ^2`$ fit are $`\alpha =.4`$ and $`\beta =.7`$ for the data corresponding to recent E866  as well as NMC  data . The parameter $`\zeta `$ is constrained by the expressions $`\zeta =0.7\beta /2`$ and $`\zeta =\beta /2`$ for the NMC and E866 experiments respectively, which essentially represent the fitting of deviation from Gottfried sum rule . Further, while presenting the results of SU(3) symmetry breaking case without configuration mixing $`(\varphi =0^0)`$, we have used the same values of parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, primarily to understand the role of configuration mixing for this case. The SU(3) symmetry calculations based on Equations (13), (14) and (15) are obtained by taking $`\alpha =\beta =1,\varphi =20^0`$ and $`\alpha =\beta =1,\varphi =0^0`$ respectively for with and without configuration mixing. For the sake of completion, we have also presented the results of CQM with and without configuration mixing. In this case the spin polarization functions can easily be found from equations (10), (11) and (12), for example,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }u=cos^2\varphi [\frac{4}{3}]+sin^2\varphi [\frac{2}{3}],$$
(16)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }d=cos^2\varphi [\frac{1}{3}]+sin^2\varphi [\frac{1}{3}],$$
(17)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }s=0.$$
(18)
From Table 1, it is clear that $`\chi `$QM with SU(3) symmetry breaking along with configuration mixing generated by one gluon exchange forces is able to give an excellent fit to the spin polarization data for symmetry breaking parameters $`\alpha =.4`$ and $`\beta =.7`$. In order to appreciate the role of configuration mixing in affecting the fit, we first compare the results of CQM with those of CQMgcm. One observes that configuration mixing corrects the result of the quantities in the right direction but this is not to the desirable level. Further, in order to understand the role of configuration mixing and SU(3) symmetry with and without breaking in $`\chi `$QM, we can compare the results of $`\chi `$QM with SU(3) symmetry to those of $`\chi `$QMgcm with SU(3) symmetry. Curiously $`\chi `$QMgcm compares unfavourably with $`\chi `$QM in case of the calculated quantities. This indicates that configuration mixing alone is not enough to generate an appropriate fit in $`\chi `$QM. However when $`\chi `$QMgcm is used with SU(3) symmetry breaking then the results show uniform improvement over the corresponding results of $`\chi `$QM with SU(3) symmetry breaking. It is interesting to note that the values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are in agreement with other recent calculations .

After having seen that $`\chi `$QMgcm is able to accomodate $`G_A/G_V`$, one turns to the question of compatibility of $`G_A/G_V`$, $`\mu _{p,n}`$ and $`<r_n^2>`$. In this regard, we first evaluate magnetic moments in the $`\chi `$QMgcm. In this context, it has been shown recently by Cheng and Li  that $`\chi `$QM, incorporating the symmetry breaking effects, leads to formula which is similar to CQM, for example,

$$\mu (B)=(1+\kappa _{spin}+\kappa _{orbit})\mu (B)_v,$$
(19)
where $`(1+\kappa _{spin}+\kappa _{orbit})`$ is the Cheng and Li scale factor and $`\mu (B)_v`$ is the magnetic moment in the CQM. The Cheng and Li scale factor can be absorbed in the quark masses, thus magnetic moments calculated in $`\chi `$QM essentially reduce to using appropriate ‘quark mass scales’ for fitting the magnetic moments.

In Table 2, we have presented the magnetic moments with the wavefunctions expressed through equation (6), in terms of $`\mu _{56}`$ and $`\mu _{70}`$,

$$\mu (N)=cos^2\varphi <56|M|56>+sin^2\varphi <70|M|70>$$

$$=cos^2\varphi (\mu _{56})+sin^2\varphi (\mu _{70}),$$

where $`M`$ is the magnetic moment operator. It is evident from the table that for a good range of $`\varphi `$ we can fit the magnetic moments of the nucleons. As has been shown , this not only reproduces nucleon magnetic moments but is also able to give a good fit to other magnetic moments . Further, the magnetic moments are independent of the sign of mixing angle $`\varphi `$.

After having realized that the $`\chi `$QMgcm can explain $`G_A/G_V`$ and the nuclear magnetic moments, we have tried to investigate whether it is able to reproduce the neutron charge radius $`<r_n^2>`$. As it has been emphasized earlier that the Foldy term, reproducible within $`\chi `$QM, gets cancelled against a contribution to the Dirac form factor , therefore to calculate the neutron charge radius we have effectively replaced $`G_E^n(q^2)_{\chi QM}G_E^n(q^2)_{QM}.`$ In the CQM similar calculations have been done . In order to emphasize its dependence on mixing angle $`\varphi `$ we reproduce here some of the essential details .

The neutron charge radius is usually expressed in terms of the slope of the electric form factor $`G_E^n(q^2)`$, the experimental value  of which is given as

$$(\frac{dG_E^n(q^2)}{d|q^2|})_{q^2=0}=0.47\pm 0.01GeV^2.$$
(20)
If we assign the nucleon to a pure 56 (with the spin expressed in terms of Pauli spinors ), the neutron electric form factor vanishes for all $`q^2`$. Considering our complete wavefunction with the $`5670`$ mixing the neutron charge radius can be expressed as

$$<r_n^2>=6(\frac{dG_E^n(q^2)}{d|q^2|})_{q^2=0}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}R^2(tan\varphi ),$$
(21)
where $`\varphi `$ is the mixing angle which is negative and $`R^2`$ is the shape factor  for the harmonic oscillator wave function. We have given the calculated values of neutron charge radius $`<r_n^2>(=6b)`$ as function of $`\varphi `$ and $`R^2`$ in Table 2. From the table one finds that one is able to reproduce fairly well the experimental value of $`<r_n^2>`$, viz., 2.82 GeV-2 in the $`\chi `$QMgcm by considering the same values of parameter $`\varphi `$ which reproduced the values of $`G_A/G_V`$ and nuclear magnetic moments.

In conclusion, we would like to mention that we have calculated the spin polarization functions $`(\mathrm{\Delta }u,\mathrm{\Delta }d`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }s)`$ in the $`\chi `$QM with SU(3) symmetry breaking as well as one gluon generated configuration mixing for the NMC and the most recent E866 data. Besides reproducing $`G_A/G_V`$ and magnetic moments, it can also accomodate the neutron charge radius, thus resolving the compatibility problem of these parameters which could neither be achieved in the CQM with configuration mixing nor in the $`\chi `$QM with and without SU(3) symmetry breaking.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
M.G. would like to thank L.M. Sehgal for some useful discussions as well as initiating his interest in the problem. H.D. would like to thank CSIR, Govt. of India, for financial support and the Chairman, Department of Physics, for providing facilities to work in the department.