1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{epsfig,axodraw}
3: \input epsf.tex
4: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
5: %\special{!userdict begin /bop-hook{gsave 175 120 translate
6: %60 rotate /Times-Roman findfont 90 scalefont setfont
7: %0 0 moveto 0.93 se}tgray (Draft 29 Jun 1999) show grestore}def end}
8: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
9: \overfullrule=20pt
10:
11: % Page dimensions
12: \newdimen\SaveWidth \SaveWidth=\textwidth
13: \newdimen\SaveHeight \SaveHeight=\textheight
14: \textwidth=6.5in
15: \textheight=8.9in
16: \advance\SaveWidth by -\textwidth
17: \advance\SaveHeight by -\textheight
18:
19: \divide\SaveWidth by 2
20: \divide\SaveHeight by 2
21: \advance\hoffset by \SaveWidth
22: \advance\voffset by \SaveHeight
23:
24: \def\ie{\it i.e.}
25: \def\eg{\it e.g.}
26: \def\edm{\it edm}
27: \def\etc{\it etc.}
28: \def\starprod{\star~\rm{product}}
29: \def\nc{\rm noncommutative}
30: \def\ncg{\rm noncommutative~geometry}
31: \def\ewviol{\rm {EW\!\!-\!breaking}}
32: \def\cpviol{CP ~\rm{violation}}
33: \def\cpviolng{CP ~\rm {violating}}
34: \def\susyviol{\slashword{SUSY}}
35: \def\lagrange{{ L}}
36: \def\etal{{\it et~al.}}
37: \def\topfraction{1.}
38: \def\bottomfraction{1.}
39: \def\textfraction{0.}
40: \def\abs#1{\left| #1\right|}
41: \def\sgn{\mathop{\rm sgn}}
42: \def\etmiss{\slashchar{E}_T}
43: \def\fb{{\rm fb}}
44: \def\ltap{\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$<$}}
45: \def\tG{{\tilde G}}
46: \def\ns{{\rm ns}}
47: \def\tell{{\tilde\ell}}
48: \def\ttau{{\tilde\tau}}
49: \def\fbi{{\rm fb}^{-1}}
50: \def\Meff{M_{\rm eff}}
51: \def\Msusy{M_{\rm SUSY}}
52: \def\lsp{{\tilde\chi_1^0}}
53: %\def\lsp{\vartheta}
54: \def\ra{\rightarrow}
55: \def\GeV{{\rm GeV}}
56: \def\mhalf{m_{1/2}}
57: \def\tchi{\tilde\chi}
58: \def\tg{\tilde g}
59: \def\tq{\tilde q}
60: \def\Cgrav{C_{\rm grav}}
61: \let\badcite=\cite
62: \def\cite{~\badcite}
63: \def\thefootnote{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
64: \def\Frac#1#2{{\displaystyle#1\over\displaystyle#2}}
65:
66: \def\slashchar#1{\setbox0=\hbox{$#1$} % set a box for #1
67: \dimen0=\wd0 % and get its size
68: \setbox1=\hbox{/} \dimen1=\wd1 % get size of /
69: \ifdim\dimen0>\dimen1 % #1 is bigger
70: \rlap{\hbox to \dimen0{\hfil/\hfil}} % so center / in box
71: #1 % and print #1
72: \else % / is bigger
73: \rlap{\hbox to \dimen1{\hfil$#1$\hfil}} % so center #1
74: / % and print /
75: \fi}
76: %
77: % \def\cpviol{
78:
79: %\begin{picture}(25,0)(0,0)
80: %\put(0,0){ \scriptsize CP}
81: %\put(0,0){\line(4,1){22}}
82: %\end{picture}}
83: % }
84:
85:
86: \def\slashword#1{\setbox0=\hbox{$#1$} % set a box for #1
87: \dimen0=\wd0 %and get its size
88: \setbox1=\hbox{/} \dimen1=\wd1 % get size of /
89: \ifdim\dimen0>\dimen1 % #1 is bigger
90: \rlap{\hbox to \dimen0{\hfil\bf---\hfil}} %
91: #1 %
92: \else % / is bigger
93: \rlap{\hbox to \dimen1{\hfil$#1$\hfil}} % so center #1
94: / % and print /
95: \fi} %
96:
97:
98: % \vbig produces very (or variably) big delimiters. The syntax is
99: % \vbigl<delim><size> or \vbigr<delim><size>, where <delim> is any
100: % delimiter and <size> is any valid dimension in pt, cm, in,.
101: % There is also a \vbigm for (middle) relations.
102:
103: \catcode`@=11
104: \newdimen\vbigd@men % for \vbig
105:
106: \def\vbigl{\mathopen\vbig}
107: \def\vbigm{\mathrel\vbig}
108: \def\vbigr{\mathclose\vbig}
109:
110: \def\vbig#1#2{{\vbigd@men=#2\divide\vbigd@men by 2%
111: \hbox{$\left#1\vbox to \vbigd@men{}\right.\n@space$}}}
112: \catcode`@=12
113:
114:
115: % LaTeX citation with no brackets/superscript.
116: \catcode`@=11
117: \def\citenum#1{\csname b@#1\endcsname}
118: \catcode`@=12
119:
120: \def\dofig#1#2{\centerline{\epsfxsize=#1\epsfbox{#2}}}
121: \begin{document}
122: \begin{titlepage}
123: \rightline{TUHEP-TH-03145}
124:
125: \bigskip\bigskip
126:
127: \begin{center}{\Large\bf\boldmath
128: Can a Nonsymmetric Metric mimic NCQFT
129: in $e^+e^- \to \gamma \gamma$ ?\footnotemark \\}
130: \end{center}
131: \footnotetext{ This work was supported by the Department of Physics at Tsinghua University and the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
132: }
133: \bigskip
134: \centerline{\bf Nick Kersting$^{a}$,
135: and Yong-Liang Ma$^{b}$}
136: \centerline{{\it$^{a}$ High Energy Physics Group, Department of Physics}}
137: \centerline{{ \it Tsinghua University, Beijing P.R.C. 100084 }}
138: \centerline{{ kest@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn }}
139:
140: \centerline{{\it$^{b}$ Institute of Theoretical Physics }}
141: \centerline{{\it Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing P.R.C. 100080}}
142: \centerline{ylma@itp.ac.cn}
143:
144: \bigskip
145:
146: \begin{abstract}
147:
148: In the nonsymmetric gravitational
149: theory (NGT) the space-time metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ departs from the
150: flat-space Minkowski form $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ such that it is no longer
151: symmetric,
152: $\ie$ $g_{\mu\nu} \ne g_{\nu\mu}$. We find that in the most
153: conservative such scenario coupled to quantum field theory, which we call
154: Minimally Nonsymmetric Quantum Field Theory (MNQFT), there are
155: experimentally measurable consequences
156: similar to those from
157: noncommutative quantum field theory (NCQFT). This can be expected
158: from the Seiberg-Witten map which has recently been interpreted as
159: equating gauge theories on noncommutative spacetimes with those
160: in a field dependent gravitational background.
161: In particular, in scattering processes such as the pair annihilation
162: $e^+e^- \to \gamma\gamma$,
163: both theories make the same striking prediction that
164: the azimuthal cross section oscillates in $\phi$. However the predicted
165: number of oscillations differs in the two theories: MNQFT predicts between
166: one and four, whereas NCQFT has no such restriction.
167:
168: \bigskip
169:
170: \end{abstract}
171:
172: \newpage
173: \pagestyle{empty}
174:
175: \end{titlepage}
176:
177: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
178: \section{Introduction}
179: \label{sec:intro}
180:
181: The search for a unification of gravity and quantum field theory over
182: the last hundred years has led to several promising candidates,
183: most notably string theories. While these
184: theories are not at the stage where they can describe physics
185: completely at all energies, they can nonetheless make some interesting
186: predictions at low energies. One such
187: prediction\cite{Witten:1986cc,Seiberg:1999vs} is that
188: the coordinates of space-time $x_\mu$ , when considered as operators
189: $\widehat{x}_\mu$, do not
190: commute:
191: \begin{equation}
192: \label{nceqn}
193: [\widehat{x}_\mu,\widehat{x}_\nu]=i \theta_{\mu \nu}
194: \end{equation}
195: Space-time is then described by this theory of noncommutative
196: geometry (NCG)\cite{Varilly:1997qg,Girotti:2003at}.
197: The real antisymmetric tensor $\theta_{\mu \nu}$ parameterizes the
198: degree of noncommutivity: ordinary commuting space-time is restored in
199: the
200: $\theta_{\mu \nu} \to 0$ limit. When $\theta_{\mu \nu} \ne 0$
201: the theory is Lorentz-violating and subject to severe experimental
202: constraints on the various components of $\theta_{\mu \nu}$, ranging from Hydrogen spectra, $e^+e^-$ scattering, and various
203: CP-violating quantities (see\cite{Hinchliffe:2002km} for a review of the
204: phenomenology). The collection of these constraints implies
205: that the dimensionful parameters
206: $\theta_{\mu\nu}$ should not exceed $1~(TeV)^{-2}$\footnotemark; upcoming
207: particle colliders with center-of-mass energies near or above the TeV
208: scale will be able to test this bound.\footnotetext{In some considerations in nuclear physics
209: this limit can be pushed many orders of magnitude stronger,
210: however this assumes that
211: $\theta_{\mu\nu}$ is constant over solar-system
212: scales\cite{Mocioiu:2001nz}}
213: The Lorentz violation in NCG may be viewed as the presence of a
214: preferred frame of reference in space parameterized by
215: $\overrightarrow{\theta}\equiv \epsilon^{ijk}\theta_{jk}$ with
216: $\epsilon$ being the Levi-Cevita symbol.
217: One consequence of this in the noncommutative quantum field
218: theory (NCQFT) framework
219: is that the differential
220: cross-section of a scattering experiment, suitably binned over
221: time to take into account the Earth's motion in this preferred frame,
222: should have an oscillatory
223: dependence on the azimuthal angle, $\ie$
224: \begin{equation}
225: \label{phi}
226: \frac{d\sigma}{d\phi} \supset A(\cos\phi, \theta_{\mu \nu})
227: \end{equation}
228: where $A$ vanishes in the $\theta_{\mu \nu} \to 0$ limit.
229: Since the Standard Model prediction for the azimuthal distribution is
230: flat, Eqn (\ref{phi}) would be a particularly striking signal of NCG. In Section
231: \ref{sec:ncg} we review the calculation of one such scattering cross
232: section, that of $e^+e ^-$ pair annihilation into photons, and demonstrate
233: the dependence on the azimuthal angle. This dependence arises from
234: the appearance of terms in the cross section proportional to
235: some in- or out-going momenta
236: contracted into $\theta_{\mu \nu}$, $\ie$ $p^\mu \theta_{\mu \nu} q^\nu$
237: where $p,q$ are respectively electron and photon momenta, for example.
238: Such terms depend explicitly on the sine or cosine of the azimuthal angle of the outgoing
239: photons.
240:
241: Since the antisymmetric contraction of momenta $p^\mu \theta_{\mu \nu} q^\nu$
242: in NCQFT is what leads to the
243: angular dependence in Eqn (\ref{phi}), we may ask whether some other theory
244: with an antisymmetric object $a_{\mu \nu}$ may also lead to terms
245: like $p^\mu a_{\mu \nu} q^\nu$ in the scattering cross section
246: from which Eqn (\ref{phi})
247: (with $\theta_{\mu \nu}\to a_{\mu \nu}$) follows.
248: One candidate which minimally departs from
249: standard field theory postulates
250: that the space-time metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ is not symmetric,
251: $\ie$ $g_{\mu\nu} \ne g_{\nu\mu}$. Then the antisymmetric object
252: $a_{\mu \nu}$ is $\frac{1}{2}(g_{\mu\nu}-g_{\nu\mu})$. Such a
253: nonsymmetric gravity theory (NGT) has appeared in the literature
254: previously\cite{Moffat:1995fc}.
255: In particular, we may write
256: \begin{equation}
257: \label{g-components}
258: g_{\mu\nu} = g_{(\mu\nu)} + g_{[\mu\nu]}
259: \end{equation}
260: decomposing $g$ into its symmetric and antisymmetric pieces.
261: The contravariant tensor $g^{\mu\nu}$ is defined as usual:
262: \begin{equation}
263: g^{\mu\nu}g_{\mu\rho} = \delta^\nu_\rho
264: \end{equation}
265: As in conventional general relativity with a symmetric metric,
266: one can define a Lagrangian density
267: ${\cal L} = \sqrt{-g} R$, where $g\equiv det(g_{\mu\nu})$ and
268: $R$ is the Ricci scalar, and derive field equations for $g_{(\mu\nu)}$
269: and $g_{[\mu\nu]}$.
270:
271: There has been extensive work
272: analyzing the effects of $g_{[\mu\nu]}$ for black hole solutions of the
273: field equations, galaxy dynamics, stellar stability, and other phenomena
274: of cosmological and astrophysical
275: relevance\cite{Moffat:1997cc,Moffat:1995pi,Moffat:1996dq} where
276: $g_{(\mu\nu)}$ and $g_{[\mu\nu]}$ may be of comparable size.
277:
278:
279: In the context of particle physics however, we may start with the
280: assumption that the curvature of
281: space in the region of interest is small:
282: \begin{equation}
283: \label{g-defn}
284: g_{\mu\nu} \approx \eta_{\mu\nu} + h_{(\mu\nu)} + a_{[\mu\nu]}
285: \end{equation}
286: where $\eta$ is the usual Minkowski metric and the symmetric
287: and antisymmetric components $h$ and $a$ both\footnotemark \footnotetext{Note that $a_{\mu\nu}$ cannot
288: be absorbed into $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ or $h$ by a redefinition of coordinates}
289: satisfy
290: $a_{\mu\nu}, h_{\mu\nu} \ll 1 ~\forall~ \mu,\nu$.
291: We further assume that these fields' dynamics are negligable in the
292: region of interest and we may treat them as background fields.
293: The effects of the symmetric tensor $h$ on particle physics in this
294: limit has been studied elsewhere
295: (see for example\cite{h-study,Gusev:1998rp,DiPiazza:2003zp}).
296: We would like to
297: focus our attention here on the effects
298: of the antisymmetric piece $a_{\mu\nu}$.
299:
300: In this work we therefore take $h_{\mu\nu}=0$.
301: The components of $a_{\mu\nu}$ are undetermined and random under
302: the sole restriction that
303: $a_{\mu\nu} = {\cal O}(\epsilon) \ll 1 ~\forall~ \mu,\nu$. This amounts
304: to a space-time metric which fluctuates on scales too small for
305: experiment to probe.
306: Hence $<a_{\mu\nu}>=0$ and ${\cal O}(\epsilon)$ effects do not
307: appear in any measurements. However $<a^2_{\mu\nu}>\ne 0$ and
308: ${\cal O}(\epsilon^2)$ effects
309: will appear and may have a significant impact. We term this the
310: Minimally Nonsymmetric Quantum Field Theory (MNQFT) and will say
311: more of it later.
312:
313:
314:
315:
316: In this paper we demonstrate that both NCQFT and MNQFT predict
317: azimuthal differential
318: scattering cross sections which oscillate in $\phi$.
319: In Section \ref{sec:ncg} we first present the NCQFT result, then
320: in Section \ref{sec:ngt} we derive the prediction from MNQFT.
321: Section \ref{sec:discuss} discusses the above results, that
322: their similarity can be expected on some level via the
323: Seiberg-Witten map\cite{Seiberg:1999vs}, and
324: considers whether other experiments may distinguish the two
325: theories.
326:
327:
328: \section{A Short Review of the NCQFT Calculation}
329: \label{sec:ncg}
330: As the lowest order contribution to pair annihilation in NCQFT has
331: already appeared in full detail in the literature (see\cite{Hewett:2000zp})
332: we only review some essential features of the calculation here.
333:
334: We first very briefly mention a few fundamental points in the NCQFT theory
335: necessary for the calculation. In particular,
336: the conventional prescription for converting an ordinary quantum field
337: theory(QFT) into NCQFT is to replace ordinary products between fields with
338: a certain ``star-product'':
339: \begin{equation}
340: \label{star}
341: (f \star g)(x) \equiv e^{i \theta_{\mu \nu} \partial_{\mu}^{y} \partial_{\nu}^{z}}
342: f(y) g(z) \mid_{y=z=x}
343: \end{equation}
344: This definition reproduces
345: $[x_\mu,x_\nu]_* \equiv x_\mu*x_\nu - x_\nu*x_\mu = i \theta_{\mu\nu}$
346: and hence serves to parameterize NCQFT on coordinate space. Other
347: features of QFT remain unchanged. In particular we can write the
348: NCQED action
349: \begin{eqnarray}
350: S_{NCQED} &=& \int d^4 x F^{\mu\nu}*F_{\mu\nu} \\
351: &=& \int d^4 x F^{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu} \nonumber\\
352: \nonumber \end {eqnarray}
353: where the second equality follows by integration by parts.
354: The NCQED field strength is defined by
355: $F_{\mu\nu} \equiv \partial_\mu A_\nu - \partial_\nu A_\mu
356: - i[A_\mu ,A_\nu]_* $. Note the cubic and quartic terms in $F$
357: will introduce 3- and 4-point couplings for the photon.
358: One can derive that the star-products in the
359: NCQED Lagrangian give new
360: Feynman rules very similar to those of QED modulo factors of
361: $\theta_{\mu\nu}$ contracted into external leg momenta. Computing
362: the cross-section for pair annihilation in NCQED is therefore straightforward
363: but more difficult than in QED since there are three distinct diagrams as
364: shown in Figure 1.
365:
366: {
367: \unitlength=1.3 pt
368: \SetScale{1.25}
369: \SetWidth{0.5} % line size control
370: \scriptsize % letter size control
371: % 1
372: \begin{picture}(90,90)(0,0)
373: \ArrowLine(0,20)(30,40)
374: %\ArrowLine(30,40)(0,60)
375: \ArrowLine(30,40)(60,40)
376: \Photon(30,40)(0,70){4}{4}
377: \Photon(60,40)(90,70){4}{4}
378: \ArrowLine(60,40)(90,20)
379: %\ArrowLine(90,60)(60,40)
380: %\Photon(45,40)(45,70){3}{5}
381: %\Photon(45,70)(45,40){-3}{5}
382: %\Text(6,15)[l]{\large $p_1$}
383: %\Text(17,60)[l]{\large $k_1$}
384: %\Text(45,25)[c]{\large $\gamma ,Z$}
385: %\Text(80,15)[r]{\large $p_2$}
386: %\Text(66,60)[r]{\large $k_2$}
387: %\Text(45,80)[c]{\large $G$}
388: \Text(45,8)[c]{\large $(a)$}
389: \end{picture} \
390: {} \qquad\allowbreak
391: % 2
392: \begin{picture}(90,90)(0,0)
393: \ArrowLine(0,20)(30,40)
394: %\ArrowLine(30,40)(0,60)
395: \ArrowLine(30,40)(60,40)
396: \Photon(30,40)(80,70){4}{5}
397: \Photon(60,40)(10,70){4}{5}
398: \ArrowLine(60,40)(90,20)
399: %\ArrowLine(90,60)(60,40)
400: %\Photon(45,40)(45,70){3}{5}
401: %\Photon(45,70)(45,40){-3}{5}
402: %\Text(6,15)[l]{\large $p_1$}
403: %\Text(0,60)[l]{\large $k_1$}
404: %\Text(45,25)[c]{\large $\gamma ,Z$}
405: %\Text(80,15)[r]{\large $p_2$}
406: %\Text(87,60)[r]{\large $k_2$}
407: %\Text(45,80)[c]{\large $G$}
408: \Text(45,8)[c]{\large $(b)$}
409: \end{picture} \
410: {} \qquad\allowbreak
411: % 2
412: \begin{picture}(90,90)(0,0)
413: \ArrowLine(0,20)(45,30)
414: %\ArrowLine(30,40)(0,60)
415: \Photon(45,30)(45,50){4}{3}
416: \Photon(45,50)(90,70){4}{4}
417: \Photon(45,50)(0,70){4}{4}
418: \ArrowLine(45,30)(90,20)
419: %\ArrowLine(90,60)(60,40)
420: %\Photon(45,40)(45,70){3}{5}
421: %\Photon(45,70)(45,40){-3}{5}
422: %\Text(6,15)[l]{\large $p_1$}
423: %\Text(0,60)[l]{\large $k_1$}
424: %\Text(45,25)[c]{\large $\gamma ,Z$}
425: %\Text(80,15)[r]{\large $p_2$}
426: %\Text(87,60)[r]{\large $k_2$}
427: %\Text(45,80)[c]{\large $G$}
428: \Text(45,8)[c]{\large $(c)$}
429: \end{picture} \
430: {} \qquad\allowbreak
431: }
432: \begin{center}
433: Figure 1.
434: {\it NCQED Feynman diagrams for $e^+ e^- \to \gamma \gamma$.}
435: \end{center}
436: From these the authors of\cite{Hewett:2000zp} found
437: \begin{eqnarray}
438: \label{ncg-result}
439: \frac{d\sigma}{dz d\phi}&=&\frac{\alpha^2}{4s}
440: \left[\frac{u}{t} + \frac{t}{u}
441: - 4 \frac{t^2+u^2}{s^2}\sin^2(\frac{1}{2}k_{1\mu} \theta^{\mu\nu} k_{2\nu})
442: \right]
443: \\
444: &=& SM -\alpha^2 \frac{t^2+u^2}{s^3}
445: \sin^2(\frac{s}{2}(\theta^{01}z+\theta^{02}(1-z^2)\cos\phi
446: + \theta^{03}(1-z^2)\sin\phi)) \nonumber \\
447: \nonumber \end{eqnarray}
448: where ``SM'' is the Standard Model result, $s,t,u$ are the usual Mandlestam variables and $z$ the cosine of the
449: polar angle in the laboratory center of mass frame. Here the oscillatory dependence on $\phi$ is clear. Note that the number
450: of full oscillations in $\frac{d\sigma}{dz d\phi}$ as $\phi$ goes
451: from $0$ to $2\pi$ does not have a strict upper bound: the
452: higher the product of $s$ and $\theta^{0i}$, the more oscillations.
453:
454:
455:
456: \section{The MNQFT Calculation}
457: \label{sec:ngt}
458:
459: We now put the NCQFT result to the side and turn to a completely
460: different theory, MNQFT. In this section we will see that MNQFT also
461: leads to an oscillatory cross section.
462: The starting point of our calculation is the substitution
463: $\eta^{\mu\nu} \to g^{\mu\nu} =\eta^{\mu\nu} + a^{\mu\nu}$ in the Lagrangian
464: for QED:\footnotemark.
465: \footnotetext{In the vierbien formalism, we would
466: take $g_{\mu\nu}=V^\alpha_\mu(x)V^b\eta_\nu(x)\eta^{\alpha\beta}$,
467: where the vierbiens $V$ relate the general coordinates to some
468: normal coordinates erected at $x$ in terms of which the metric
469: becomes Minkowski. However in the present case this is not possible
470: as $g_{\mu\nu}$ is not symmetric.}
471: \begin{equation}
472: \label{qedlag}
473: {\cal L} = \sqrt{-g} \left[\overline{\psi}(i\partial_\mu \gamma^\mu-m)\psi
474: - \frac{1}{4}F^{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu} - e\overline{\psi}\gamma^\mu \psi A_\mu
475: + \xi R \right]
476: \end{equation}
477: where all space-time index contractions are performed with the full
478: metric $g^{\mu\nu}$, and we hereafter neglect the curvature term $\xi R$.
479: This is what we take as the minimal prescription for incorporating NGT
480: effects into a QFT calculation: just replace the flat-space
481: metric $\eta^{\mu\nu}$ with the full metric $g^{\mu\nu}$.
482: Other terms could enter the Lagrangian in Eqn (\ref{qedlag}) which explicitly depend on
483: $a^{\mu\nu}$, such as $a_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}$, and
484: may of course be generated by quantum effects, but as such they
485: will be suppressed by loop factors and we hereafter neglect them as
486: they will not change the qualitative features of our calculation.
487:
488: The Feynman propagators for the electron and photon satisfy,
489: respectively,
490: \begin{equation}
491: \begin{array}{l}
492: \left[i \partial_\mu\gamma^\mu -m \right]S_F(x,x')
493: = \left[-g \right]^{-1/2}\delta^n (x-x') \\
494: \\
495: \left[g_{\mu\nu}\bigtriangledown^2 \right]D^{\rho\nu}_F(x,x')
496: = \left[-g \right]^{-1/2}\delta^\nu_\mu \delta^n (x-x')
497: \end{array}
498: \end{equation}
499: as in general curved spaces. Written in momentum space,
500: \begin{eqnarray}
501: S_F(x,x')
502: = \left[-g \right]^{-1/2}\delta^n (x-x')
503: \frac{p_\mu \gamma^\mu+m}{p^2 - m^2}
504: \nonumber\\
505: \\
506: D^{\rho\nu}_F(x,x')
507: = \left[-g \right]^{-1/2}\delta^n (x-x')\frac{g^{\rho\nu}}{p^2}
508: \nonumber \end{eqnarray}
509: The Dirac equation in curved space is
510: $(i\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu -m)\psi=0$, where in our case the gamma
511: matrices are of the usual 4-dimensional form satisfying
512: $\{\gamma^\mu,\gamma^\nu\}=2\eta^{\mu\nu}$ (see Appendix).
513:
514:
515:
516: As in ordinary QED we have two diagrams which contribute to pair annihilation
517: (see Figure 2). These have
518: combined amplitude
519: \begin{eqnarray}
520: \label{amp}
521: iM&=&-ie^2\epsilon^*_\mu(k_2)\epsilon_\nu(k_1)\bar{u}(p_2)[\frac{\gamma^\mu(p_1\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash-k_1\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash+m)\gamma^\nu}{(p_1-k_1)^2-m^2}
522: +\frac{\gamma^\nu(p_1\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash-k_2\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash+m)\gamma^\mu}{(p_1-k_2)^2-m^2}]u(p_1)\\
523: &=&-ie^2\epsilon_\mu^*(k_2)\epsilon_\nu(k_1)\bar{u}(p_2)[\frac{\gamma^\mu
524: -k_1\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash\gamma^\nu+2\gamma^\mu\eta^{\nu\alpha}p_{1\alpha}}{-2p_1\cdot
525: k_1}+\frac{-\gamma^\nu
526: k_2\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash\gamma^\mu+2\gamma^\nu\eta^{\mu\alpha}p_{1\alpha}}{-2p_1\cdot
527: k_2}]u(p_1)
528: \nonumber \end{eqnarray}
529:
530:
531: {
532: \unitlength=1.3 pt
533: \SetScale{1.25}
534: \SetWidth{0.5} % line size control
535: \scriptsize % letter size control
536: % 1
537: \begin{picture}(90,90)(-50,0)
538: \ArrowLine(0,20)(30,40)
539: %\ArrowLine(30,40)(0,60)
540: \ArrowLine(30,40)(60,40)
541: \Photon(30,40)(0,70){4}{4}
542: \Photon(60,40)(90,70){4}{4}
543: \ArrowLine(60,40)(90,20)
544: %\ArrowLine(90,60)(60,40)
545: %\Photon(45,40)(45,70){3}{5}
546: %\Photon(45,70)(45,40){-3}{5}
547: \Text(6,15)[l]{\large $p_1$}
548: \Text(17,60)[l]{\large $k_1$}
549: %\Text(45,25)[c]{\large $\gamma ,Z$}
550: \Text(80,15)[r]{\large $p_2$}
551: \Text(66,60)[r]{\large $k_2$}
552: %\Text(45,80)[c]{\large $G$}
553: \Text(45,8)[c]{\large $(a)$}
554: \end{picture} \
555: {} \qquad\allowbreak
556: % 2
557: \begin{picture}(90,90)(-70,0)
558: \ArrowLine(0,20)(30,40)
559: %\ArrowLine(30,40)(0,60)
560: \ArrowLine(30,40)(60,40)
561: \Photon(30,40)(80,70){4}{5}
562: \Photon(60,40)(10,70){4}{5}
563: \ArrowLine(60,40)(90,20)
564: %\ArrowLine(90,60)(60,40)
565: %\Photon(45,40)(45,70){3}{5}
566: %\Photon(45,70)(45,40){-3}{5}
567: \Text(6,15)[l]{\large $p_1$}
568: \Text(0,60)[l]{\large $k_1$}
569: %\Text(45,25)[c]{\large $\gamma ,Z$}
570: \Text(80,15)[r]{\large $p_2$}
571: \Text(87,60)[r]{\large $k_2$}
572: %\Text(45,80)[c]{\large $G$}
573: \Text(45,8)[c]{\large $(b)$}
574:
575: \end{picture} \
576: {} \qquad\allowbreak
577:
578: }
579: \begin{center}
580: Figure 2.
581: {\it Definitions of momenta in the MNQFT calculation.}
582: \end{center}
583:
584: Special care is required in dealing with photon polarization. In general
585: curved spaces the concept of photon polarization loses meaning,
586: but in our case the metric is only perturbed slightly from the
587: diagonal Minkowski form, so we assume we may retain
588: the implicit definition of polarization in setting $k_\mu \epsilon^\mu = 0$.
589: We can rewrite Eqn (\ref{amp}) as
590: \begin{equation}
591: iM=\epsilon^*_\mu(k_2)\epsilon_\nu(k_1)M^{\mu\nu}
592: \end{equation}
593: where $M^{\mu\nu}$ contains only momenta variables, Dirac matrices, and
594: their contractions with $\eta_{\mu\nu}$. The square of this amplitude
595: summed over photon polarizations and averaged over electron spins is
596: \begin{eqnarray}
597: \frac{1}{4}\sum_{spins}|M|^2&=&\frac{1}{4}\sum^2_{i,j=1}
598: |\epsilon^{i*}_\mu(k_2)\epsilon^j_\nu(k_1)M^{\mu\nu}|^2 \\
599: &=& \frac{1}{4}\sum^2_{i,j=1}
600: \epsilon^{i*}_\mu(k_2)\epsilon^{i}_\rho(k_2)
601: \epsilon^{j*}_\sigma(k_1)\epsilon^j_\nu(k_1)
602: M^{\mu\nu}M^{\rho\sigma}
603: \nonumber \end{eqnarray}
604: Now this squared amplitude has two parts: $M^{\mu\nu}M^{\rho\sigma}$,
605: which depends only on the
606: external momenta, and the polarization product $\epsilon^{i*}_\mu(k_2)\epsilon^{i}_\rho(k_2)
607: \epsilon^{j*}_\sigma(k_1)\epsilon^j_\nu(k_1)$, which implicitly
608: contains factors of the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ (and hence also $a_{\mu\nu}$).
609: In the final calculation only squares (or fourth powers, which we may
610: neglect in the first approximation) of the elements of
611: $a_{\mu\nu}$ such as $a^2_{01}$, $a^2_{13}$, $\etc$
612: can appear since any odd power
613: of some element of $a_{\mu\nu}$ averages to zero by construction.
614: Following this prescription, and taking
615: $<a^2_{\mu\nu}>= {\cal O}(\epsilon^2)$ for simplicity,
616: we obtain a spin-averaged squared matrix element of(see Appendix for details)
617:
618: \begin{eqnarray}
619: \label{ngt-result}
620: &&{1\over4}\sum_s|{\cal
621: M}|^2\nonumber\\
622: &&=\mbox{SM}\nonumber\\
623: &&+8\epsilon^2{{\alpha^2}\over{4s}\sin^3\theta}\bigg\{-{1\over4}(1+\cos\theta)^2(1+8\cos2\theta)(\sin\varphi+\cos\varphi)\nonumber\\
624: &&-\sin\theta\{\cos\theta\sin^2\varphi[\cos\theta(\sin\varphi+\cos\varphi)-\sin^2\theta]\}\nonumber\\
625: &&+(1-\cos\theta)^2\{2(1-\cos\varphi)\cos^2\varphi(\sin\varphi+\cos\varphi)\}\bigg\}
626: \end{eqnarray}
627: As in NCQFT, we see the appearance of terms that depend on the
628: sine or cosine of the azimuthal angle.
629: In Figure 3 we plot the resulting differential cross section
630: against $\phi$ (having integrated over the polar
631: angle for $0.1<\cos\theta<0.9$). Note that in this particular case
632: where all the $<a^2_{\mu\nu}>$ are of comparable size the differential
633: cross section undergoes one full oscillation in $\phi$. This is because
634: upon numerically integrating over $\theta$ the $(\sin\phi + \cos\phi)$ term
635: in Eqn (\ref{ngt-result}) dominates.
636: One could adjust the
637: $<a^2_{\mu\nu}>$ to allow terms with different $\phi$-dependance
638: to dominate, but since all terms are proportional to either
639: $\sin^i\phi$ or $\cos^i\phi$ (i=1..4) only one to four oscillations
640: are possible. We further observe from Figure 3 that the MNQFT oscillates
641: {\it about} the SM result.
642: This contrasts
643: from the prediction in NCQFT (see Eqn (\ref{ncg-result})) where
644: the contribution to
645: $d\sigma/d\phi$ is strictly negative and
646: may undergo any number of oscillations.
647: \begin{figure}[t]
648: \dofig{3.50in}{csplot.eps}
649: \caption{ \it Figure 3.
650: Ratio of the differential cross section in $\phi$ in MNQFT
651: to that of SM, for the case where all the elements of $a_{\mu\nu}$ are
652: of equal average magnitude. Here we have integrated over the polar
653: angle for $0.1<\cos\theta<0.9$
654: \label{ngt-plot} }
655: \end{figure}
656:
657:
658:
659: \section{Discussion}
660: \label{sec:discuss}
661: We have seen in the foregoing that both the NCQFT and MNQFT theories
662: make some similar predictions in high energy processes; we would like to
663: remark here that perhaps this is
664: not so coincidental. The reason why we believe these theories to be
665: more closely related than at first inspection derives from a well-known
666: correspondance between ordinary gauge theories on noncommutative spaces and
667: more complicated gauge theories on ordinary spaces. This is formally known as
668: the Seiberg-Witten Map\cite{Seiberg:1999vs}. Seiberg and Witten (SW), starting
669: from the action of the string worldsheet $\Sigma$ in the presence of a
670: constant ``magnetic field'' $B$,
671: \begin{equation}
672: \label{sw-action}
673: S= {1\over 4\pi\alpha'}\int_\Sigma \left( g_{ij} \partial_a x^i
674: \partial^a x^j -2\pi i\alpha' B_{ij}\epsilon^{ab} \partial_a
675: x^i\partial_b x^j\right)
676: \end{equation}
677: restricted to the case where $\Sigma$ is a disc ({\ie} describing
678: open strings dynamics) obtain two interesting results upon applying
679: the boundary conditions on Eqn (\ref{sw-action}): (1)the open strings
680: feel an ``effective metric'' given by
681: $G_{ij} =g_{ij}-(2\pi\alpha')^2 \big(B g^{-1} B\big)_{ij}$;
682: (2) space-time coordinates do not commute, in that
683: $ [ x^\mu (\tau), x^\nu (\tau) ] = i \theta^{\mu\nu}$ where
684: $\theta^{ij}= 2\pi \alpha' \left({1 \over g+ 2\pi\alpha'
685: B}\right)^{[ij]}$. Thus we already see that noncommuting coordinates
686: are related to the space-time metric. Now taking an approximation of
687: Eqn (\ref{sw-action}) on a D-brane
688: where fields are taken to be slowly varying yields the Dirac-Born-Infield (DBI) action\cite{Tseytlin:1999dj},
689: whose specific form depends on one's regularization scheme: SW showed
690: that using
691: a Pauli-Villars scheme(preserving the gauge symmetry of the
692: open string gauge fields) leads to a commutative DBI action; however in a
693: point-splitting regularization scheme one obtains a noncommutative
694: DBI action which becomes noncommutative electromagnetism in the
695: $\alpha' \to 0$ limit.
696: Since physics doesn't depend on one's choice of regularization scheme,
697: Seiberg and Witten proved that these two actions are equivalent
698: in the sense that there exists a map(via field redefinitions),
699: the Seiberg-Witten Map, between them.
700: Recent work has explicitly demonstrated
701: this\cite{Garousi:2000,Rivelles:2002ez,Yang:2004vd}:\footnotemark
702: \footnotetext{We simplify many details in the ensuing discussion;
703: the interested reader can pursue the references cited for a
704: complete treatment}
705: in a point-splitting scheme in four dimensions one obtains
706: \begin{equation}
707: \widehat{S}\sim\int d^4 x \widehat{F}_{\mu\nu}
708: \star \widehat{F}^{\mu\nu}
709: \end{equation}
710: where $\widehat{F}_{\mu\nu} = \partial_\mu \widehat{A}_\nu -
711: \partial_\nu \widehat{A}_\mu
712: - i \widehat{A}_\mu \star \widehat{A}_\nu + i \widehat{A}_\nu
713: \star \widehat{A}_\mu$ is the noncommutative field strength; {\ie} this
714: regularization scheme gives a theory described by NCQFT.
715: Applying the SW map to the above gives the action
716: \begin{equation}
717: S\sim \int d^4 x\sqrt{\det{(1+ F\theta)}}
718: \Bigl(\frac{1}{1 + F\theta} F \frac{1}{1 + F\theta} F \Bigr)
719: \end{equation}
720: {\ie} an ordinary gauge field theory on a space defined by a
721: nonsymmetric metric
722: \begin{equation}
723: \label{back-g}
724: {\rm g}_{\mu\nu} = \eta_{\mu\nu} + (F\theta)_{\mu\nu}
725: \end{equation}
726: We therefore see that the equivalence of gauge theory on a noncommutative
727: space and the ordinary theory with a field-dependent background metric
728: is a necessary consequence of the SW map.
729: It is remarkable that our simplistic treatment in the present paper,
730: using a minimal coupling ansatz and the metric
731: $g^{\mu\nu} =\eta^{\mu\nu} + a^{\mu\nu}$ rather
732: than that in Eqn (\ref{back-g}),
733: confirms the similarity of the two theories at
734: the phenomenological level; that
735: the exact predictions of NCQFT and MNQFT we have presented for
736: $e^+e^-$-scattering differ
737: somewhat may be due to taking the components of $a_{\mu\nu}$ to be
738: random space-dependent functions,
739: whereas in
740: NCQFT the specific components
741: of $\theta_{\mu\nu}$ are taken to be fixed and measurable.
742: We could perhaps therefore view MNQFT as a certain limit of NCQFT where
743: $\theta_{\mu\nu}$ is no longer a simple constant tensor, but a more
744: detailed investigation of
745: this correpsondance will have to wait for a future publication.
746:
747: From the analysis of the preceding sections we may conclude that in the pair
748: annihilation process the predicted number of oscillations in the
749: azimuthal differential cross section depends on whether space-time is
750: described by NCQFT or MNQFT. If the former, the number of oscillations
751: is unrestricted, whereas the latter predicts between one and four.
752: In particular, if less than one oscillation is observed,
753: MNQFT cannot be responsible and NCQFT would be a candidate explanation with
754: $s \theta^{0i} < 1$. Moreover, in contrast to MNQFT the
755: NCQFT cross section
756: is strictly below the SM prediction.
757: We note further that in NCQFT the number of oscillations
758: grows with center of mass
759: energy as well and in principle one could test this by running a high center
760: of mass
761: $e^+e^-$ linear collider at varying energies if statistics allow
762: for it.
763:
764: We believe the foregoing comments will apply to any scattering process,
765: $\eg$ Moller scattering, Bhahbha scattering, $\etc$
766: (see\cite{Kersting:2003ea}) though the NCQFT predictions
767: will be more robust in processes which do not involve QCD, as the
768: noncommutative version of QCD has not been as thoroughly developed as
769: NCQED (however, see\cite{Calmet:2002kf} for encouraging work in this
770: direction).
771:
772: Finally, we remark on other types of experiments
773: besides those involving high energy scattering. One might expect that low
774: energy experiments would constrain MNQFT as severely as NCQFT. But due to
775: the antisymmetry of the metric in MNQFT the definition of distance
776: $ds^2 = g_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu$ is unchanged and independent of
777: $a_{\mu\nu}$ so that it is not trivial to constrain the theory this
778: way. Nonrelativistic
779: quantum mechanics equipped with a Hamiltonian $H=p^2/2m + V(r)$ is
780: therefore independent of $a_{\mu\nu}$ in contrast to the case in NCQFT
781: where $\theta_{\mu\nu}$ may have observable effects in the Hydrogen spectrum.
782: One must go to QED corrections in atomic physics to see the effect of
783: $a_{\mu\nu}$ but here we expect the effect to be small; the correction
784: to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in MNQFT, for example, is
785: zero at the one-loop level\cite{Kersting:ngt-g-2}.
786: Moreover MNQFT is CP-conserving,
787: unlike NCQFT which is most strongly constrained by non-observation of
788: a CP-violating electron electric dipole moment. But in all of the above
789: experiments the signal of NCQFT or MNQFT will only be a small shift
790: in a measured quantity such as an energy-level splitting, not as
791: conspicuous a signal as an oscillating azimuthal cross section, which
792: we claim to be a superior signal of one theory or the other.
793: In the realm of cosmology and astrophysics there are many interesting
794: predictions from NCG and NGT; the former predicts novel features of
795: the cosmic microwave background spectrum, for example, while the
796: latter predicts a variety of effects, $\eg$ with respect to black hole solutions of the
797: Einstein field equations, galaxy dynamics, stellar stability,
798: $\etc$
799: \cite{Moffat:1997cc,Moffat:1995pi,Moffat:1996dq}. Experiments
800: in this direction may more strongly distinguish NCG from NGT as the
801: latter is a purely gravitational effect.
802:
803:
804:
805:
806: \section*{Acknowledgements}
807: This work was supported by the
808: department of Physics at Tsinghua University, the key projects of
809: Chinese Academy of Sciences and the National Science Foundation of
810: China (NSFC)
811:
812:
813:
814: \section*{Appendix}
815:
816: \subsection*{Gamma Matrices in Our Nonsymmetric Space}
817: In the most general curved space the Dirac matrices depart from
818: the usual 4-dimensional form, but in our case, where the metric
819: differs from Minkowski space by an antisymmetric piece, this is not the case:
820: acting on the Dirc equation on the left with
821: $(-i\gamma^\nu \partial_\nu -m)$ gives
822: \begin{eqnarray}
823: (-i\gamma^\nu \partial_\nu -m)(i\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu -m)\psi=0
824: \nonumber\\
825: = (\gamma^\nu\gamma^\mu\partial_\nu\partial_\mu+m^2)\psi = 0
826: \nonumber\\
827: =(\frac{1}{2}\{\gamma^\mu,\gamma^\nu\}\partial_\mu\partial_\nu+m^2)\psi = 0
828: \end{eqnarray}
829: which must be the Klein-Gordon equation $(\partial^2 + m^2)\psi$ = 0
830: in our antisymmetric space-time (note it is the same as in flat space).
831: Therefore the Dirac algebra in this antisymmetric space
832: is unchanged from the flat space case, $\ie$
833: $\{\gamma^\mu,\gamma^\nu\}=2\eta^{\mu\nu}$ still holds with
834: the usual 4-dimensional matrices.
835:
836:
837: \subsection*{Pair Annihilation}
838: Starting from the matrix element in Eqn (\ref{amp}) and making the
839: substitutions $p_1\to p,~~ p_2 \to -p^\prime,~~ k_1 \to -k,~~ k_2 \to k^\prime$
840: gives
841: \begin{eqnarray}
842: iM&=&-ie^2\epsilon^*_\mu(k^\prime)\epsilon_\nu(k)\bar{u}(p^\prime)[\frac{\gamma^\mu(p\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash+k\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash+m)\gamma^\nu}{(p+k)^2-m^2}
843: +\frac{\gamma^\nu(p\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash-k\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash^\prime+m)\gamma^\mu}{(p-k^\prime)^2-m^2}]u(p)\nonumber\\
844: &=&-ie^2\epsilon_\mu^*(k^\prime)\epsilon_\nu(k)\bar{u}(p^\prime)[\frac{\gamma^\mu
845: k\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash\gamma^\nu+2\gamma^\mu\eta^{\nu\alpha}p_\alpha}{2p\cdot
846: k}+\frac{-\gamma^\nu
847: k\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash^\prime\gamma^\mu+2\gamma^\nu\eta^{\mu\alpha}p_\alpha}{-2p\cdot
848: k^\prime}]u(p)
849: \end{eqnarray}
850: From the kinematic definitions of $k_\mu$ and $k^\prime_\mu$
851: we
852: can get $\epsilon^\mu(k)$ and $\epsilon^\mu(k^\prime)$, so that
853: \begin{eqnarray}
854: &&{1\over4}\sum_s|{\cal
855: M}|^2\nonumber\\
856: &&={e^4\over4}\sum_s\bigg\{g_{\mu\lambda}\epsilon^{*\lambda}(k^\prime)g_{\nu\varphi}\epsilon^\varphi(k)\bar{u}(p^\prime)\bigg[\frac{\gamma^\mu
857: k\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash\gamma^\nu+2\gamma^\mu\eta^{\nu\rho}p_\rho}{2p\cdot
858: k}+\frac{-\gamma^\nu
859: k\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash^\prime\gamma^\mu+2\gamma^\nu\eta^{\mu\rho}p_\rho}{-2p\cdot
860: k^\prime}\bigg]u(p)\bigg\}\nonumber\\
861: &&\times\bigg\{g_{\alpha\delta}\epsilon^{*\delta}(k^\prime)g_{\beta\theta}\epsilon^\theta(k)\bar{u}(p^\prime)\bigg[\frac{\gamma^\alpha
862: k\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash\gamma^\beta+2\gamma^\alpha\eta^{\beta\sigma}p_\sigma}{2p\cdot
863: k}+\frac{-\gamma^\beta
864: k\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash^\prime\gamma^\alpha+2\gamma^\beta\eta^{\alpha\sigma}p_\sigma}{-2p\cdot
865: k^\prime}\bigg]u(p)\bigg\}^\dag\nonumber\\
866: &&={e^4\over4}g_{\mu\lambda}g_{\nu\varphi}g_{\alpha\delta}g_{\beta\theta}\epsilon^{*\lambda}\epsilon^\delta(k^\prime)(k^\prime)\epsilon^{*\theta}(k)\epsilon^\varphi(k)\nonumber\\
867: &&\times
868: tr\bigg\{(p\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash^\prime+m)\bigg[\frac{\gamma^\mu
869: k\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash\gamma^\nu+2\gamma^\mu\eta^{\nu\rho}p_\rho}{2p\cdot
870: k}+\frac{-\gamma^\nu
871: k\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash^\prime\gamma^\mu+2\gamma^\nu\eta^{\mu\rho}p_\rho}{-2p\cdot
872: k^\prime}\bigg]\nonumber\\
873: &&\times(p\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash+m)\bigg[\frac{\gamma^\alpha
874: k\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash\gamma^\beta+2\gamma^\alpha\eta^{\beta\sigma}p_\sigma}{2p\cdot
875: k}+\frac{-\gamma^\beta
876: k\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash^\prime\gamma^\alpha+2\gamma^\beta\eta^{\alpha\sigma}p_\sigma}{-2p\cdot
877: k^\prime}\bigg]\bigg\}\nonumber\\
878: &&\equiv{e^4\over4}g_{\mu\lambda}g_{\nu\varphi}g_{\alpha\delta}g_{\beta\theta}\epsilon^{*\lambda}(k^\prime)\epsilon^\delta(k^\prime)\epsilon^{*\theta}(k)\epsilon^\varphi(k)\nonumber\\
879: &&\times\bigg[\frac{I}{(2p\cdot k)^2}+\frac{II}{(2p\cdot
880: k)(2p\cdot k^\prime)}+\frac{III}{(2p\cdot k)(2p\cdot
881: k^\prime)}+\frac{IV}{(2p\cdot k^\prime)^2}\bigg]
882: \end{eqnarray}
883: where
884: \begin{eqnarray}
885: I&=&tr\{(p\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash^\prime+m)(\gamma^\mu
886: k\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash\gamma^\nu+2\gamma^\mu\eta^{\nu\rho}p_\rho)(p\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash+m)(\gamma^\alpha
887: k\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash\gamma^\beta+2\gamma^\alpha\eta^{\beta\sigma}p_\sigma)\}\nonumber\\
888: &=&tr\{p\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash^\prime(\gamma^\mu
889: k\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash\gamma^\nu+2\gamma^\mu\eta^{\nu\rho}p_\rho)p\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash(\gamma^\alpha
890: k\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash\gamma^\beta+2\gamma^\alpha\eta^{\beta\sigma}p_\sigma)\}\nonumber\\
891: &=&tr\{p\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash^\prime\gamma^\mu
892: k\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash\gamma^\nu
893: p\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash\gamma^\alpha
894: k\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash\gamma^\beta\}\nonumber\\
895: &&+2tr\{p\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash^\prime\gamma^\mu
896: k\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash\gamma^\nu p\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash\gamma^\alpha\eta^{\beta\sigma}p_\sigma\}\nonumber\\
897: &&+2tr\{p\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash^\prime\gamma^\mu\eta^{\nu\rho}p_\rho
898: p\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash\gamma^\alpha
899: k\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash\gamma^\beta\}\nonumber\\
900: &&+4tr\{p\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash^\prime\gamma^\mu\eta^{\nu\rho}p_\rho
901: p\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash \gamma^\alpha\eta^{\beta\sigma}p_\sigma\}\\
902: IV&=&I(k\rightarrow k^\prime)\\
903: II&=&tr\{(p\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash^\prime+m)(\gamma^\mu
904: k\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash\gamma^\nu+2\gamma^\mu\eta^{\nu\rho}p_\rho)(p\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash+m)(-\gamma^\beta
905: k\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash^\prime\gamma^\alpha+2\gamma^\beta\eta^{\alpha\sigma}p_\sigma)\}\nonumber\\
906: &=&-tr\{p\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash^\prime\gamma^\mu
907: k\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash\gamma^\nu
908: p\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash\gamma^\beta
909: k\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash^\prime\gamma^\alpha\}\nonumber\\
910: &&+2tr\{p\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash^\prime\gamma^\mu
911: k\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash\gamma^\nu p\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash\gamma^\beta\eta^{\alpha\sigma}p_\sigma\}\nonumber\\
912: &&-2tr\{p\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash^\prime\gamma^\mu\eta^{\nu\rho}p_\rho
913: p\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash\gamma^\beta
914: k\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash^\prime\gamma^\alpha\}\nonumber\\
915: &&+4tr\{p\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash^\prime\gamma^\mu\eta^{\nu\rho}p_\rho
916: p\hspace{-0.2cm}\slash\gamma^\beta\eta^{\alpha\sigma}p_\sigma\}\\
917: III&=&II
918: \end{eqnarray}
919: After some calculation, we get
920: \begin{eqnarray}
921: I&=&32[(p^\prime\star\epsilon)(p\star\epsilon)(k\star\epsilon)(p\star\epsilon)-(p^\prime\star\epsilon)(p\cdot
922: k)(\epsilon\star\epsilon)(p\star\epsilon)-(p^\prime\cdot
923: k)(\epsilon\star\epsilon)(p\star\epsilon)(p\star\epsilon)\nonumber\\
924: &&+(p^\prime\cdot
925: k)(p\star\epsilon)(k\star\epsilon)(p\star\epsilon)+(p^\prime\star\epsilon)(k\star\epsilon)(p\star\epsilon)(p\star\epsilon)-(p^\prime\cdot
926: p)(k\star\epsilon)(\epsilon\star\epsilon)(p\star\epsilon)\nonumber\\
927: &&+(p^\prime\star\epsilon)(p\star\epsilon)(p\star\epsilon)(p\star\epsilon)-(p^\prime\cdot
928: p)(p\star\epsilon)(p\star\epsilon)(\epsilon\star\epsilon)+(p^\prime\star\epsilon)(k\star\epsilon)(p\star\epsilon)(k\star\epsilon)\nonumber\\
929: &&-(p^\prime\cdot
930: p)(k\star\epsilon)(k\star\epsilon)(\epsilon\star\epsilon)]\nonumber\\
931: &=&32[(p^\prime\star\epsilon)(p\star\epsilon)^2(k\star\epsilon)-(p^\prime\star\epsilon)(p\cdot
932: k)(\epsilon\star\epsilon)(p\star\epsilon)-(p^\prime\cdot
933: k)(\epsilon\star\epsilon)(p\star\epsilon)^2\nonumber\\
934: &&+(p^\prime\cdot
935: k)(p\star\epsilon)^2(k\star\epsilon)+(p^\prime\star\epsilon)(k\star\epsilon)(p\star\epsilon)^2-(p^\prime\cdot
936: p)(k\star\epsilon)(\epsilon\star\epsilon)(p\star\epsilon)\nonumber\\
937: &&+(p^\prime\star\epsilon)(p\star\epsilon)^3-(p^\prime\cdot
938: p)(p\star\epsilon)^2(\epsilon\star\epsilon)+(p^\prime\star\epsilon)(k\star\epsilon)^2(p\star\epsilon)\nonumber\\
939: &&-(p^\prime\cdot
940: p)(k\star\epsilon)^2(\epsilon\star\epsilon)]\\
941: IV&=&32[(p^\prime\star\epsilon)(p\star\epsilon)^2(k\star\epsilon)-(p^\prime\star\epsilon)(p\cdot
942: k^\prime)(\epsilon\star\epsilon)(p\star\epsilon)-(p^\prime\cdot
943: k^\prime)(\epsilon\star\epsilon)(p\star\epsilon)^2\nonumber\\
944: &&+(p^\prime\cdot
945: k^\prime)(p\star\epsilon)^2(k^\prime\star\epsilon)+(p^\prime\star\epsilon)(k^\prime\star\epsilon)(p\star\epsilon)^2-(p^\prime\cdot
946: p)(k^\prime\star\epsilon)(\epsilon\star\epsilon)(p\star\epsilon)\nonumber\\
947: &&+(p^\prime\star\epsilon)(p\star\epsilon)^3-(p^\prime\cdot
948: p)(p\star\epsilon)^2(\epsilon\star\epsilon)+(p^\prime\star\epsilon)(k^\prime\star\epsilon)^2(p\star\epsilon)\nonumber\\
949: &&-(p^\prime\cdot
950: p)(k^\prime\star\epsilon)^2(\epsilon\star\epsilon)]\\
951: II&=&16[(p^\prime\star\epsilon)(p\star\epsilon)^2(k\star\epsilon)-(p^\prime\star\epsilon)(p\cdot
952: k)(\epsilon\star\epsilon)(p\star\epsilon)-(p^\prime\cdot
953: k)(\epsilon\star\epsilon)(p\star\epsilon)^2\nonumber\\
954: &&+(p^\prime\cdot
955: k)(p\star\epsilon)^2(k\star\epsilon)+(p^\prime\star\epsilon)(k\star\epsilon)(p\star\epsilon)^2-(p^\prime\cdot
956: p)(k\star\epsilon)(\epsilon\star\epsilon)(p\star\epsilon)\nonumber\\
957: &&+(p^\prime\star\epsilon)(p\star\epsilon)^3-(p^\prime\cdot
958: p)(p\star\epsilon)^2(\epsilon\star\epsilon)+(p^\prime\star\epsilon)(k\star\epsilon)(k^\prime\star\epsilon)(p\star\epsilon)\nonumber\\
959: &&-(p^\prime\cdot
960: p)(k\star\epsilon)(k^\prime\star\epsilon)(\epsilon\star\epsilon)]\\
961: III&=&II
962: \end{eqnarray}
963: in the above, we take the polarization of the photons to be real
964: and used the definition
965: \begin{eqnarray}
966: &&k\cdot p=k_\mu\eta^{\mu\nu}p_\nu\\
967: &&p\star\epsilon=p_\mu\eta^{\mu\nu}g_{\nu\alpha}\epsilon^\alpha\\
968: &&\epsilon\star\epsilon=g_{\mu\alpha}\epsilon^\alpha\eta^{\mu\nu}g_{\nu\beta}\epsilon^\beta
969: \end{eqnarray}
970:
971: Now define
972: \begin{eqnarray}
973: &&p_\mu=(E,0,0,E)~~~~~~~~p_\mu^\prime=(E,0,0,-E)\\
974: &&k_\mu=(E,E\sin\theta\cos\varphi,E\sin\theta\sin\varphi,E\cos\theta)\\
975: &&k^\prime_\mu=(E,-E\sin\theta\cos\varphi,-E\sin\theta\sin\varphi,-E\cos\theta)
976: \end{eqnarray}
977: then, we get
978: \begin{eqnarray}
979: &&\epsilon^{1\mu}=(0,\cos\varphi\cos\theta,\sin\varphi\cos\theta,-\sin\theta)\\
980: &&\epsilon^{2\mu}=(0,-\sin\varphi,\cos\varphi,0)
981: \end{eqnarray}
982:
983: Now rewrite the metric matrix as
984: \begin{eqnarray}
985: (a_{\mu\nu})=\left(%
986: \begin{array}{cccc}
987: 1 & a & b & c \\
988: -a & -1 & d & h \\
989: -b & -d & -1 & r \\
990: -c & -h & -r & -1 \\
991: \end{array}%
992: \right)
993: \end{eqnarray}
994: where $a,b,c,d,h,r$ are all much less than unity.
995: Note that in the case $a=b=c=d=h=r$ we would have
996: \begin{eqnarray}
997: p\cdot k&=&p^\prime\cdot k^\prime=E^2(1-\cos\theta)\\
998: p\cdot k^\prime&=&p^\prime\cdot k=E^2(1+\cos\theta)\\
999: p\star\epsilon^1&=&-E(1+a)\sin\theta+2aE\cos\theta(\sin\varphi+\cos\varphi)\\
1000: p\star\epsilon^2&=&2aE(\sin\varphi+\cos\varphi)\\
1001: p^\prime\star\epsilon^1&=&E(1-a)\sin\theta\\
1002: p^\prime\star\epsilon^2&=&0\\
1003: k\star\epsilon^1&=&E[a(1+\cos\theta)(\sin\varphi+\cos\varphi)+(1-a)\sin\theta\cos\theta\sin\varphi\cos\varphi\nonumber\\
1004: &&-\sin\theta\cos\theta(1-\cos\varphi)-a\sin\theta+\sin\theta\cos\theta\sin^2\varphi]\\
1005: k\star\epsilon^2&=&E[a(1+\cos\theta)(\sin\varphi+\cos\varphi)+a\sin\theta(\sin^2\varphi-\cos^2\varphi)+\sin\theta\sin^2\varphi]\\
1006: k^\prime\star\epsilon^1&=&E[-a(1-\cos\theta)(\sin\varphi+\cos\varphi)-a\sin\theta]\\
1007: k^\prime\star\epsilon^2&=&E[a(1-\cos\theta)(\sin\varphi+\cos\varphi)+a\sin\theta\cos2\varphi-\sin\theta\sin2\varphi]\\
1008: \epsilon^1\star\epsilon^1&=&-2a^2\sin2\theta\cos\varphi-(1+a^2)[\sin^2\theta+\cos^2\theta(\sin\varphi+\cos\varphi)]\\
1009: \epsilon^2\star\epsilon^2&=&-(1+a^2)
1010: \end{eqnarray}
1011: To a first
1012: approximation we need only keep terms in the scattering cross section
1013: proportional to any {\it one} of $a^2, b^2, c^2, d^2, h^2, r^2$.
1014: This gives
1015: \subsection*{\bf $a$-dependent terms}
1016: \begin{eqnarray}
1017: I&=&32E^4\bigg\{(\cos\theta\cos\varphi+\sin\theta)(a\cos\theta\cos\varphi-\sin\theta)\bigg[(a\cos\theta\cos\varphi+a\cos\theta\cos\varphi+\sin\theta)^2\nonumber\\
1018: &&+(-\cos\theta+\cos\varphi\sin\theta+1)\bigg]+2\bigg[(a\cos\theta\cos\varphi)^2+(a\cos\theta\cos\varphi+\sin\theta)(a\cos\theta\cos\varphi)\nonumber\\
1019: &&+(a\cos\theta\cos\varphi+\sin\theta)^2\bigg]\bigg\}
1020: \end{eqnarray}
1021: \begin{eqnarray}
1022: II&=&16E^4\bigg\{(a\cos\theta\cos\varphi+\sin\theta)\bigg[(a\cos\theta\cos\varphi-\sin\theta)\{(a\cos\theta\cos\varphi)^2\nonumber\\
1023: &&+3(a\cos\theta\cos\varphi+\sin\theta)(a\cos\theta\cos\varphi)+(a\cos\theta\cos\varphi+\sin\theta)^2\nonumber\\
1024: &&+(-\cos\theta+a\cos\varphi\sin\theta+1)\}+(a\cos\theta\cos\varphi+1)(a\cos\theta\cos\varphi+\sin\theta)\nonumber\\
1025: &&\times(\cos\theta+a\cos\varphi\sin\theta+1)\bigg]+2\bigg[(a\cos\theta\cos\varphi+\sin\theta)^2\nonumber\\
1026: &&+(a\cos\theta\cos\varphi)\{a\cos\theta\cos\varphi+(a\cos\theta\cos\varphi+\sin\theta)\}\bigg]\bigg\}
1027: \end{eqnarray}
1028: \begin{eqnarray}
1029: IV&=&32E^4\bigg\{(a\cos\theta\cos\varphi+\sin\theta)(a\cos\theta\cos\varphi-\sin\theta)\{a\cos\theta\cos\varphi+(a\cos\theta\cos\varphi+\sin\theta)\}^2\nonumber\\
1030: &&+(\cos\theta-a\cos\varphi\sin\theta+1)-(a\cos\theta\cos\varphi+1)(a\cos\theta\cos\varphi+\sin\theta)\nonumber\\
1031: &&\times(\cos\theta+a\cos\varphi\sin\theta-1)+2\{(a\cos\theta\cos\varphi)^2+(a\cos\theta\cos\varphi+\sin\theta)\nonumber\\
1032: &&\times(a\cos\theta\cos\varphi)+(a\cos\theta\cos\varphi+\sin\theta)^2\}\bigg\}
1033: \end{eqnarray}
1034:
1035:
1036: \subsection*{\bf $b$-dependent terms}
1037: \begin{eqnarray}
1038: I&=&32E^4\bigg\{(\sin\theta+b\cos\theta\sin\varphi)(b\cos\theta\sin\varphi-e\sin\theta)\bigg[\{b\cos\theta\sin\varphi+(\sin\theta+b\cos\theta\sin\varphi)\}^2\nonumber\\
1039: &&+(-\cos\theta+b\sin\theta\sin\varphi+1)\bigg]+(b\cos\theta\sin\varphi+1)(\sin\theta+b\cos\theta\sin\varphi)\nonumber\\
1040: &&\times(\cos\theta+b\sin\theta\sin\varphi+1)+2\bigg[(b\cos\theta\sin\varphi)^2+(\sin\theta+b\cos\theta\sin\varphi)(b\cos\theta\sin\varphi)\bigg]\nonumber\\
1041: &&+(\sin\theta+b\cos\theta\sin\varphi)^2\bigg\}\nonumber\\
1042: II&=&16E^4\bigg\{(\sin\theta+b\cos\theta\sin\varphi)\bigg[(b\cos\theta-e\sin\theta)\{(b\cos\theta\sin\varphi)^2\nonumber\\
1043: &&+3(\sin\theta+b\cos\theta\sin\varphi)(b\cos\theta\sin\varphi)+(\sin\theta+b\cos\theta\sin\varphi)^2\nonumber\\
1044: &&+(-\cos\theta+b\sin\theta\sin\varphi+1)\}+(b\cos\theta\sin\varphi+1)(\sin\theta+b\cos\theta\sin\varphi)\nonumber\\
1045: &&\times(\cos\theta+b\sin\theta\sin\varphi+1)\bigg]+2\bigg[(\sin\theta+b\cos\theta\sin\varphi)^2\nonumber\\
1046: &&+(b\cos\theta\sin\varphi)\{b\cos\theta\sin\varphi+(\sin\theta+b\cos\theta\sin\varphi)\}\bigg]\bigg\}\nonumber\\
1047: IV&=&32E^4\bigg\{(\sin\theta+b\cos\theta\sin\varphi)\bigg[(b\cos\theta\sin\varphi-\sin\theta)\{[b\cos\theta\sin\varphi+(\sin\theta+b\cos\theta\sin\varphi)]^2\nonumber\\
1048: &&+(\cos\theta-b\sin\theta\sin\varphi+1)\}-(b\cos\theta\sin\varphi+1)(\sin\theta+b\cos\theta\sin\varphi)\nonumber\\
1049: &&\times(\cos\theta+b\sin\theta\sin\varphi-1)\bigg]+2\{(b\cos\theta\sin\varphi)^2+(\sin\theta+b\cos\theta\sin\varphi)\nonumber\\
1050: &&\times(b\cos\theta\sin\varphi)+(\sin\theta+b\cos\theta\sin\varphi)^2\}\bigg\}
1051: \end{eqnarray}
1052:
1053: \subsection*{\bf $c$-dependent terms}
1054: \begin{eqnarray}
1055: I&=&32E^4\bigg\{(c-1)\sin\theta\bigg[(c+1)(\cos\theta+1)(c-1)\sin\theta(-c\sin\theta+1)\nonumber\\
1056: &&+\{[(c-1)\sin\theta+c\sin\theta]^2-(c-1)(\cos\theta-1)\}(c+1)\sin\theta\bigg]\nonumber\\
1057: &&-2(c-1)\{[(c-1)\sin\theta]^2+c\sin\theta(c-1)\sin\theta+(c\sin\theta)^2\}\bigg\}\nonumber\\
1058: II&=&E^4\bigg\{-(c-1)\sin\theta\bigg[-(c+1)(\cos\theta+1)(c-1)\sin\theta(-c\sin\theta+1)\nonumber\\
1059: &&-\{[(c-1)\sin\theta]^2+3c\sin\theta(c-1)\sin\theta+(c\sin\theta)^2\nonumber\\
1060: &&+(c-1)(\cos\theta-1)\}(c+1)\sin\theta\bigg]-2(c-1)\{[(c-1)\sin\theta]^2\nonumber\\
1061: &&+c\sin\theta[(c-1)\sin\theta+c\sin\theta]\}\bigg\}\nonumber\\
1062: IV&=&32E^4\bigg\{-(c-1)\sin\theta\bigg[(2(c+1)\sin^2({\theta\over2}))(-(c-1)\sin\theta)(-c\sin\theta+1)\nonumber\\
1063: &&-\{[(c-1)\sin\theta+c\sin\theta]^2-2(c-1)\cos^2({\theta\over2})\}(c+1)\sin\theta\bigg]\nonumber\\
1064: &&-2(c-1)\{[(c-1)\sin\theta]^2+c\sin\theta(c-1)\sin\theta+(c\sin\theta)^2\}\bigg\}
1065: \end{eqnarray}
1066: \subsection*{\bf $d$-dependent terms}
1067:
1068: These all cancel.\\
1069:
1070: \subsection*{\bf $h$-dependent terms}
1071: \begin{eqnarray}
1072: I&=&32E^4\bigg\{(\sin\theta-h\cos\theta\cos\varphi)\bigg[(h\cos\theta\cos\varphi-\sin\theta)\{[-h\cos\varphi+(\sin\theta-h\cos\theta\cos\varphi)]^2\nonumber\\
1073: &&-(\cos\theta+h\cos\varphi\sin\theta-1)\}+(-h\cos\varphi+1)(\sin\theta-h\cos\theta\cos\varphi)\nonumber\\
1074: &&\times(\cos\theta+h\cos\varphi\sin\theta+1)\bigg]+2\{(-h\cos\varphi)^2\nonumber\\
1075: &&+(\sin\theta-h\cos\theta\cos\varphi)(-h\cos\varphi)+(\sin\theta-h\cos\theta\cos\varphi)^2\}\bigg\}\nonumber\\
1076: II&=&16E^4\bigg\{(\sin\theta-h\cos\theta\cos\varphi)\bigg[(h\cos\theta\cos\varphi-\sin\theta)\{(\sin\theta-h\cos\theta\cos\varphi)^2\nonumber\\
1077: &&+(-h\cos\varphi)[h\cos\varphi+3(\sin\theta-h\cos\theta\cos\varphi)]-(\cos\theta+h\cos\varphi\sin\theta-1)\}\nonumber\\
1078: &&+(-h\cos\varphi+1)(\sin\theta-h\cos\theta\cos\varphi)(\cos\theta+h\cos\varphi\sin\theta+1)\bigg]\nonumber\\
1079: &&+2\{(\sin\theta-h\cos\theta\cos\varphi)^2-h\cos\varphi(h\cos\varphi-h\cos\theta\cos\varphi)\}\bigg\}\nonumber\\
1080: IV&=&32E^4\bigg\{(\sin\theta-h\cos\theta\cos\varphi)\bigg[-(h\cos\varphi+1)(\sin\theta-h\cos\theta\cos\varphi)\nonumber\\
1081: &&\times(\cos\theta+h\cos\varphi\sin\theta-1)+(h\cos\theta\cos\varphi-\sin\theta)\nonumber\\
1082: &&\times\{[h\cos\varphi+(\sin\theta-h\cos\theta\cos\varphi)]^2+(\cos\theta+h\sin\theta\cos\varphi+1)\}\bigg]\nonumber\\
1083: &&+2\{(h\cos\varphi)^2+(\sin\theta-h\cos\theta\cos\varphi)(h\cos\varphi)+(\sin\theta-h\cos\theta\cos\varphi)^2\}\bigg\}
1084: \end{eqnarray}
1085:
1086: \subsection*{\bf $r$-dependent terms}
1087: \begin{eqnarray}
1088: I&=&32E^4\bigg\{(\sin\theta-r\cos\theta\sin\varphi)\bigg[(r\cos\theta\sin\varphi-\sin\theta)\{(-r\sin\varphi+(\sin\theta-r\cos\theta\sin\varphi))^2\nonumber\\
1089: &&-(\cos\theta+r\sin\theta\sin\varphi-1)\}+(-r\sin\varphi+1)(\sin\theta-r\cos\theta\sin\varphi)\nonumber\\
1090: &&\times(\cos\theta+r\sin\theta\sin\varphi+1)\bigg]+2\{(-r\sin\varphi)^2+(\sin\theta-r\cos\theta\sin\varphi)(-r\sin\varphi)\nonumber\\
1091: &&+(\sin\theta-r\cos\theta\sin\varphi)^2\}\bigg\}\nonumber\\
1092: II&=&16E^4\bigg\{(\sin\theta-r\cos\theta\sin\varphi)\bigg[(r\cos\theta\sin\varphi-\sin\theta)\{(\sin\theta-r\cos\theta\sin\varphi)^2\nonumber\\
1093: &&-r\sin\varphi[r\sin\varphi+3(\sin\theta-r\cos\theta\sin\varphi)]-(\cos\theta+r\sin\theta\sin\varphi-1)\}\nonumber\\
1094: &&+(-r\sin\varphi+1)(\sin\theta-r\cos\theta\sin\varphi)(\cos\theta+r\sin\theta\sin\varphi+1)\bigg]\nonumber\\
1095: &&+2\{(\sin\theta-r\cos\theta\sin\varphi)^2+(-r\sin\varphi)[r\sin\varphi+(\sin\theta-r\cos\theta\sin\varphi)]\}\bigg\}\nonumber\\
1096: IV&=&32E^4\bigg\{(\sin\theta-r\cos\theta\sin\varphi)\bigg[-(r\sin\varphi+1)(\sin\theta-r\cos\theta\sin\varphi)\nonumber\\
1097: &&\times(\cos\theta+r\sin\theta\sin\varphi-1)+(r\cos\theta\sin\varphi-\sin\theta)\{[r\sin\varphi+(\sin\theta-r\cos\theta\sin\varphi)]^2\nonumber\\
1098: &&+(\cos\theta+r\sin\theta\sin\varphi+1)\}\bigg]+2\{(r\sin\varphi)^2+(\sin\theta-r\cos\theta\sin\varphi)(r\sin\varphi)\nonumber\\
1099: &&+(\sin\theta-r\cos\theta\sin\varphi)^2\}\bigg\}\nonumber\\
1100: \end{eqnarray}
1101:
1102: where we have removed terms dependent on two or more of
1103: $a,b,c,d,h,r$.
1104: Now, simplifying by setting $a^2= b^2= c^2= d^2= h^2= r^2$
1105: and after some algebra,
1106: \begin{eqnarray}
1107: I&=&-32{aE^4\over8}\{\sin\theta(1+8\cos2\theta)(\sin\varphi+\cos\varphi)\}\nonumber\\
1108: &&-32{a^2E^4\over4}\{2\cos\theta+\cos(\theta-4\varphi)\}\\
1109: IV&=&32a\{\sin\theta[2(\sin\varphi+\cos\varphi)\cos^3\theta-{1\over2}(\sin\varphi+\cos\varphi)]\cos[2(\theta-\varphi)]\}\nonumber\\
1110: &&+32a^2\{2\sin\theta(1-\cos\varphi)\cos^2\varphi(\sin\varphi+\cos\varphi)\}\\
1111: II&=&16a\{\sin\theta[2(\sin\varphi+\cos\varphi-1)(\sin{3\varphi\over2}+\cos{\varphi\over2})^2\cos^3\theta+\sin^2\theta\sin\varphi]\}\nonumber\\
1112: &&-16a^2\{\cos\theta\sin^2\varphi[\cos\theta(\sin\varphi+\cos\varphi)-\sin^2\theta]\}\\
1113: III&=&II
1114: \end{eqnarray}
1115: At last, we have
1116: \begin{eqnarray}
1117: &&{1\over4}\sum_s|{\cal
1118: M}|^2\nonumber\\
1119: &&=\mbox{ordinary theory}\nonumber\\
1120: &&+8a{e^4\over4\sin^4\theta}\bigg\{-{1\over8}(1+\cos\theta)^2\{\sin\theta(1+8\cos2\theta)(\sin\varphi+\cos\varphi)\}\nonumber\\
1121: &&+\sin^3\theta[2(\sin\varphi+\cos\varphi-1)(\sin{3\varphi\over2}+\cos{\varphi\over2})^2\cos^3\theta+\sin^2\theta\sin\varphi]\nonumber\\
1122: &&+(1-\cos\theta)^2\sin\theta[2(\sin\varphi+\cos\varphi)\cos^3\theta-{1\over2}(\sin\varphi+\cos\varphi)]\cos[2(\theta-\varphi)]\bigg\}\nonumber\\
1123: &&+8a^2{e^4\over4\sin^4\theta}\bigg\{-{1\over4}(1+\cos\theta)^2\sin\theta(1+8\cos2\theta)(\sin\varphi+\cos\varphi)\nonumber\\
1124: &&-\sin^2\theta\{\cos\theta\sin^2\varphi[\cos\theta(\sin\varphi+\cos\varphi)-\sin^2\theta]\}\nonumber\\
1125: &&+(1-\cos\theta)^2\{2\sin\theta(1-\cos\varphi)\cos^2\varphi(\sin\varphi+\cos\varphi)\}\bigg\}\nonumber\\
1126: &&=\mbox{ordinary theory}\nonumber\\
1127: &&+8a{e^4\over4\sin^3\theta}\bigg\{-{1\over8}(1+\cos\theta)^2(1+8\cos2\theta)(\sin\varphi+\cos\varphi)\nonumber\\
1128: &&+\sin^2\theta[2(\sin\varphi+\cos\varphi-1)(\sin{3\varphi\over2}+\cos{\varphi\over2})^2\cos^3\theta+\sin^2\theta\sin\varphi]\nonumber\\
1129: &&+(1-\cos\theta)^2[2(\sin\varphi+\cos\varphi)\cos^3\theta-{1\over2}(\sin\varphi+\cos\varphi)]\cos[2(\theta-\varphi)]\bigg\}\nonumber\\
1130: &&+8a^2{e^4\over4\sin^3\theta}\bigg\{-{1\over4}(1+\cos\theta)^2(1+8\cos2\theta)(\sin\varphi+\cos\varphi)\nonumber\\
1131: &&-\sin\theta\{\cos\theta\sin^2\varphi[\cos\theta(\sin\varphi+\cos\varphi)-\sin^2\theta]\}\nonumber\\
1132: &&+(1-\cos\theta)^2\{2(1-\cos\varphi)\cos^2\varphi(\sin\varphi+\cos\varphi)\}\bigg\}
1133: \end{eqnarray}
1134: \begin{eqnarray}
1135: \end{eqnarray}
1136: \begin{eqnarray}
1137: \end{eqnarray}
1138:
1139:
1140:
1141:
1142:
1143:
1144:
1145:
1146: \bibliography{all.bib}
1147: \bibliographystyle{unsrt}
1148:
1149: \end{document}
1150:
1151:
1152:
1153:
1154:
1155:
1156:
1157:
1158:
1159:
1160:
1161:
1162:
1163:
1164:
1165:
1166:
1167:
1168:
1169:
1170:
1171:
1172:
1173:
1174:
1175:
1176:
1177:
1178:
1179:
1180:
1181:
1182:
1183:
1184:
1185:
1186:
1187:
1188:
1189:
1190:
1191:
1192:
1193:
1194:
1195:
1196:
1197:
1198:
1199:
1200:
1201:
1202:
1203:
1204: