Arxiv:1311.3245V3 [Hep-Ph] 12 Nov 2014 Cay Products Include Not Only Monochromatic Photons, Light-Front Techniques

True Muonium (µ+µ−) on the Light Front

Henry Lamm∗ and Richard F. Lebed† Department of Physics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287 (Dated: April, 2014) Applying Discretized Light Cone Quantization, we perform the ﬁrst calculation of the spectrum of true muonium, the µ+µ− atom, as modiﬁed by the inclusion of an |ee¯i Fock component. The shift in the mass eigenvalue is found to be largest for triplet states. If me is taken to be a substantial 3 fraction of mµ, the integrated probability of the electronic component of the 1 S1 state is found to be as large as O(10−2). Initial studies of the Lamb shift for the atom are performed. Directions for making the simulations fully realistic are discussed.

PACS numbers: 36.10.Ee, 11.10.Ef, 11.10.St, 12.20.Ds

I. INTRODUCTION of the atoms. Indeed, remarkable experiments can in principle be performed on these “atoms in flight”, includ- The atom consisting of a µ+µ− bound state, called true ing measurements of the Lamb shift [7]. Bound states in muonium [in distinction from conventional muonium, the quantum field theory (QFT) are notoriously complicated atom (µ+e−)] has not yet been identified, despite much objects, due not only to the fact that the vacuum con- more exotic bound states having been successfully char- sists of an arbitrarily large number of virtual particles, acterized, such as πµ atoms [1] and even the dipositro- but also because the constituents can be relativistic, and nium (e+e−)(e+e−) molecule [2]. While (µ+µ−) atoms the required boosts to relate the components of the wave have doubtless been produced many times, for example function depend in a detailed way upon the interaction. in e+e− colliders (where they can be easily lost in the In fact, a well-known method of studying bound states beam line before decaying), it is only recently that im- avoids these problems. By performing quantization not, mediately realizable experiments have been proposed to as usual, with respect to conventional time t (called in- generate sufficient numbers of true muonium atoms to stant form) but rather with respect to the light-front guarantee their unambiguous observation. Ideas include time x+ ≡ t + z (called front form) [8], one develops a e+e− collider experiments in which the beams intersect Hamiltonian formalism that is nonetheless fully covariant at an angle rather than head on [thus projecting (µ+µ−) and ideally suited to characterizing bound states com- along the beam bisector] or conventional setups in which prised of well-defined constituents [9]. The analogue to the produced (µ+µ−) recoils against a co-produced pho- a Schrödingerequation for the state then becomes an ton [3], or producing (µ+µ−) as a byproduct of experi- infinite but denumerable set of coupled integral equa- ments that scatter electron beams from high-Z fixed tar- tions. In order to obtain numerical results, one may gets in search of hidden-sector heavy photons [4]. then truncate the equations by limiting the set of com- True muonium consists of a spectrum of metastable ponent Fock states included in the calculation and dis- states (lifetimes in the ps to ns range [3]), for which the cretizing momenta with suitable periodic boundary con- 2.2 µs muon weak decay lifetime is effectively infinite. ditions, effectively turning infinite-dimensional matrices The transitions are therefore overwhelmingly electromag- into finite ones and creating a problem solvable on a com- netic, meaning that (µ+µ−) can be treated, like positro- puter, which is termed Discretized Light-Cone Quantiza- nium (e+e−), as a Bohr atom [in the (µ+µ−) case, with tion (DLCQ) [10]. a ground-state radius of only 512 fm], and its transitions Our purpose in this article is to report on the first sim- can be computed using QED. Unlike positronium, its de- ulation of the true muonium atom using DLCQ and other arXiv:1311.3245v3 [hep-ph] 12 Nov 2014 cay products include not only monochromatic photons, light-front techniques. We borrow heavily on older works but also e+e− pairs of well-characterized energies. Stud- that use this approach to simulate positronium. The first ies of (µ+µ−) are further motivated by discrepancies in such attempt [11] was impeded by slow numerical con- precision muon-related effects, such as (g − 2)µ and the vergence, which was successfully addressed by a better proton charge radius [5, 6]. treatment [12] of the singularity induced by the Coulomb As far as an isolated (µ+µ−) bound state is concerned, interaction. Further work [13] superseded the effective in- conventional QED and quantum-mechanical wave func- teraction approach of [12] to perform a direct diagonaliza- tions are generally sufficient to compute its most im- tion of the Hamiltonian matrix. The work of Trittmann portant features, just as is true for (e+e−). However, and Pauli [14] unified these improvements, and addition- these techniques provide not as much guidance for un- ally included in the Fock space the explicit single-photon derstanding the detailed structure-dependent dynamics annihilation channel |γi. They also demonstrated the numerical restoration of rotational invariance, a needed improvement since light-front coordinates treat the lon- ∗ [email protected] gitudinal and transverse directions very differently. Our † [email protected] work is a direct application of the methods introduced 2 in Ref. [14] to true muonium; our principal innovation, II. LIGHT-FRONT BOUND STATES apart from the trivial substitution of the valence electrons with muons, is the inclusion of |ee¯i Fock states, The action-functional approach has become the pre- which can mix with the |µµ¯i component via the explicit dominant method for performing QFT calculations. It is |γi component. We also apply a subtraction to the inter- based upon a Lorentz-invariant Lagrangian density, and action amplitudes in order to regularize the ultraviolet the symmetries of the theory (including gauge invariance) behavior of observables. can be incorporated very efficiently. On the other hand, The positronium simulations of Ref. [14] adopted the the Hamiltonian formalism provides a more natural lan- unphysically large value α = 0.3 in order to show the ro- guage for describing bound-state systems, just as it does bustness of the method at large values of coupling, where in non-relativistic quantum mechanics. However, Hamil- high-order QED calculations begin to become unreliable. tonians are complicated objects in relativistic QFT, espe- An additional purpose for this choice was to provide nu- cially in the√ instant form: The nonanalytic nature of the merical evidence that strong-coupling DLCQ would be operator P 2 + M 2 causes difficulties; the constituent applicable to the much more intricate QCD bound-state particles have distinct rest frames, and the boost opera- problem. In our calculations presented here, we maintain tions necessary to express them as part of a single wave this large value of α in order to study the effects of a large function depend intrinsically upon the interactions be- |ee¯i component of true muonium; of course, α is an ad- tween them; and most significantly, the vacuum structure justable parameter of the program and can be altered for is exceedingly complicated due to the creation and anni- more physical simulations in our future work. Moreover, hilation of virtual states with arbitrarily large numbers the code designed by Ref. [14] contains only one fermion of quanta. mass parameter, me in their case and mµ in ours. In the The front form addresses each of these difficulties. − 0 3 present work, me is an independent parameter; again, to First, the Hamiltonian operator P ≡ P − P conju- + study the effects of a large |ee¯i component, we allow me gate to the time coordinate x is related linearly to the to be any finite fraction of mµ. Ultimately, for physical energy-squared operator, −3 applications one sets me/mµ ' 4.8 · 10 , but we ex- − + 2 hibit results with me/mµ = O(1) for the practical reason HLC = P P − P⊥ , (1) that properly characterizing a system in QFT with two widely separated scales requires proper renormalization where P + ≡ P 0 + P 3 is the longitudinal momentum evolution between the scales (In front form, the original component conjugate to the light-front longitudinal di- diagrammatic renormalization techniques are described rection x− ≡ t − z, and the transverse momentum is 1 2 2 in Ref. [15]). Since the evolution typically depends upon P⊥ ≡ P x + P y. For an eigenvalue M of the operator the log of the ratio of scales, choosing me not excessively HLC corresponding to a state |Ψi, the light-front Hamil- small compared to mµ minimizes this effect; we plan to tonian eigenvalue equation is no longer nonanalytic: address this important issue thoroughly in a subsequent 2 2 paper [16]. − M + P⊥ P |Ψi = + |Ψi . (2) Even with a large |ee¯i component, our simulations re- P produce the Bohr spectrum of true muonium to a high Second, out of the 10 Poincarégenerators P µ and M µν , degree of precision. Nevertheless, the significance of the the front form is special in having 7 that leave the time |ee¯i component is clearly seen in the true muonium eigen- slice x+ = const invariant [8], and therefore can be ex- values, and especially in the wave functions. We also see pressed without reference to the specific interaction in the + − modifications to the (µ µ ) Lamb shift in agreement Hamiltonian. These so-called kinematic operators are the with its expected dependence upon the atom’s principal + spatial momentum components P⊥, P , the longitudinal quantum number n. While the proper numerical and 12 +− angular momentum (M = Jz) and boost (M = Kz) formal treatment of the |ee¯i sector will require future generators, and the mixed transverse-longitudinal boosts improvements (the effects of neglecting which are exhib- M +⊥. In contrast, the instant form has only 6 kinematic ited and discussed in detail below), we find these initial operators: the spatial momentum P i and angular mo- results to be very encouraging. mentum M ij components; in particular, the boost gen- This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we erators M 0i are all dynamic, in that they depend upon present essential conceptual and formal details of light- the interaction. Although the front form addresses the front bound-state techniques relevant to this work, and boost issue by providing kinematic boost generators, the describe the associated numerical details in Sec. III. We price is the loss of manifest rotational invariance (the ab- define our model in Sec. IV and discuss the effects of sence of simple J⊥ generators), which is apparent from the |ee¯i component in Sec. V. Section VI provides a dis- the fact that front form treats x3 differently from x1,2. µ 2 cussion of the effect of momentum-space cutoffs, lepton The P and total spin operators S and Sz still commute mass renormalization, and the regularization of interac- in front form, meaning that a particular state |Ψi can be tion amplitudes. We present our results in Sec. VII, with completely specified as conclusions in Sec. VIII and details of the calculation of + 2 the relevant matrix elements in the Appendix. Ψ; M,P , P⊥,S ,Sz; h , (3) 3 where h indicates any discrete or non-spacetime quantum version of the Schrödingerequation. Specifically, the ki- numbers, such as parity or lepton number. netic energy operator for the ith component in the frame Third, and most significantly, the numerical values of P⊥ = 0 reads longitudinal momenta P + for all physical particles are 0 3 2 2 nonnegative, since P = E > P . One cannot create mi + k⊥i Ti = , (8) virtual particles traveling “backwards” with respect to xi the light-front longitudinal direction, so empty space cannot produce collections of virtual particles in front form, and the bound-state equation for two equal-mass valence in stark contrast to the situation in instant form. The particles interacting via the effective potential Veff is de- ground state of the free theory is also the ground state of scribed by the integral equation the full interacting theory, and the Fock state expansion 2 2 2 m + k⊥ built upon the free vacuum provides a rigorous “parton” M − ψ(x, k⊥; λ1, λ2) component description of the full interacting state. x(1 − x) To be specific, the state |Ψi may be expressed in terms X Z = dx0d2k0 hx, k ; λ , λ |V | x, k ; λ0 , λ0 , i of its Fock components |µ i, where n in general is denu- ⊥ ⊥ 1 2 eff ⊥ 1 2 n 0 0 D λ1,λ2 merably infinite. Each particular component |µni con- th 0 0 0 0 tains a fixed number Nn of constituent quanta, the i of ×ψ(x , k⊥; λ1, λ2) . (9) µ which has rest mass mi and momentum ki (out of the total momentum P µ). The kinematics may alternatively be The appearance of reciprocal powers of momenta in described in terms of longitudinal boost-invariant quan- Eq. (2), which is the ultimate origin of the singularities + + at x = 0 or 1 in Eq. (9), requires a careful regularization tities xi ≡ k /P (0 ≤ xi ≤ 1) and k⊥i, and helicities i of numerical integrals. The domain D in Eq. (9) is de- λi, so that fined by introducing a cutoff Λ on the parton transverse

Nn Nn momentum k ; in the equal-mass case, we choose [17] X X ⊥ xi = 1, k⊥i = P⊥ , (4) m2 + k2 i=1 i=1 ⊥ ≤ Λ2 + 4m2 . (10) x(1 − x) and, working in the intrinsic frame, in which P⊥ = 0, Instituting a momentum-space cutoff has the added effect m2 + k2 µ + i ⊥i of minimizing the influence of multiparticle Fock states. ki = xiP , k⊥i, + . (5) xiP In principle, each sector of the theory (in our case, no- tably µµ¯ and ee¯) can have an independent cutoff, but Using the completeness of the states |µni, the decompo- such choices must be motivated by the physical scales sition then reads of the problem, and in any case the final results must X Z eventually be insensitive to such particular choices. We |Ψi ≡ [dµ ] |µ i hµ |Ψ; M,P +, P ,S2,S ; h n n n ⊥ z discuss these issues in greater detail in Sec. VI. n Z For a gauge theory like QED, the light-cone gauge X + ≡ [dµn] |µni Ψn|h(µ) , (6) A = 0 is the most natural choice because it eliminates n the spatial non-transverse modes. Using the equations of motion, one may then eliminate the A− component in where the measure notation indicates an integration over favor of the other fields in the theory; this inversion is values of all constituent xi, k⊥, subject to the constraints subtle due to the existence of “zero modes” of A+, but of Eq. (4). The functions Ψn|h(µ), where now h and µ such modes are not expected to affect the spectrum of are shorthand for all the intrinsic and kinematic quantum bound states in a crucial way [14]. The result is a fairly numbers, respectively, of the Fock state n, are called the complicated but closed-form exact Hamiltonian that may component wave functions of the state and are the central be used to develop front-form Feynman rules [9, 17]. objects of interest in bound-state light-front calculations. The Hamiltonian can be described by the sum of Feyn- The Hamiltonian expression Eq. (2) then becomes man rules for a kinetic operator T and various types of Z interactions: seagulls S [including their normal-ordered X − 0 0 0 [dµn0 ] hµn : xi, k⊥i, λi| P |µn0 : xi, k⊥i, λii contractions], which do not change particle number, ver- n0 tices V , which change particle number by one, and forks 0 0 0 ×Ψn0|h(xi, k⊥i, λi) F , which change particle number by two: M 2 + P 2 = ⊥ Ψ (x , k , λ ) , (7) H = T + S + V + F. (11) P + n|h i ⊥i i LC which is an exact infinite-dimensional integral equation The exact form of each operator has been worked out for the component wave functions Ψn|h(µ). Although and can be found in many places, e.g., in Ref. [9]. The this expression has been derived from a full QFT with connection of the lowest Fock states by these interactions no approximations, one may identify it as the light-front for true muonium is summarized in Table I. 4

Sector n 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 µ, θ. The new variable µ can be considered an off-shell momentum, due to the relation |γi 0 • VV · FF ··· 2 2 |ee¯i 1 V • S SV · F · F mi + k⊥ 2 2 = 4(µ + mi ) . (14) |µµ¯i 2 VS • S · V · FF x(1 − x) |γγi 3 · SS • VV ··· Since these coordinates depend upon the fermion mass |ee¯ γi 4 FV · V • SV · V mi, different sets of µ, θ values result from the same sets |µµ¯ γi 5 F · V VS •· VV of x and k⊥ values in the two-flavor system. |ee¯ ee¯i 6 · F · · V ·•· S To discretize, we utilize the Clenshaw-Curtis method |µµ¯ µµ¯i 7 ·· F ·· V ·• S (unlike Ref. [14], which used the Gauss-Legendre |µµ¯ ee¯i 8 · FF · VVSS • method) for µ, to take advantage of its rapid conver- gence and reuse of quadrature points, and the Gauss- TABLE I. The Hamiltonian matrix for two-flavor QED, where Chebyshev method for θ to carefully sample the end- n labels Fock states. The vertex, seagull and fork interactions Λi points. The µ range is 0, 2 , where Λi is the momentum are denoted by V, S, F respectively. Diagonal matrix elements cutoff for flavor i (see Sec. VI), and cos θ ∈ [−1, 1]. To are indicated by •, and vanishing matrix elements by a ·. allow for values Λi → ∞, we remap the interval to one ∈ [0, 1] via a weighting

In order to reduce Eq. (7) to a finite-dimensional equa- 1 tion that can be solved numerically [in particular, the f(µ) = , (15) 1 + µ form Eq. (9)], the space of included Fock states {|F i} must be truncated. The straightforward approach of where µ here is expressed in units of the Bohr momentum using the fundamental interactions of {|F i} alone and αm /2. With reference to Eq. (12), if one fixes the cutoff ignoring all others {|F¯i} is called the Tamm-Dancoff i Λi and increases the number of sampling points Nµ, this method [18, 19]. Unfortunately, this approach can eas- mapping f then places more grid points at low µ to better ily sacrifice Lorentz covariance or gauge invariance; in- sample the wave function around x = 1 , and high µ to ¯ 2 cluding the effect of higher Fock states {|F i} to restore better sample around x = 0, 1. From this scheme, one the necessary structures is the aim of the method of it- ¯ sees that four numbers essentially determine the quality erated resolvents [20], which treats {|F i} as giving rise of numerical calculation: the number of sampling points to effective interactions among the states {|F i} [which, Nµ and Nθ, and the momentum cutoffs Λµ and Λe. In in Eq. (9), contribute to Veff ]. Since only the complete cases where the number of sampling points Nµ, Nθ are theory (QED in our case) with arbitrarily complicated set equal, we write N = N = N. Fock states that are precisely related by the exact La- µ θ The 1/q2 singularity introduced by the Coulomb inter- grangian can uniquely specify the correct effective in- action, where q is the momentum transfer, is handled by teraction, the iterated resolvents simply act to provide the same counterterm method as described in Ref. [14] one minimal completion of the interaction, written ex- and first implemented in Ref. [12]: The sum over dis- clusively in terms of {|F i}. crete matrix elements near the Coulomb singularity is performed by subtracting from the numerator a function that reduces the overall degree of divergence of the III. NUMERICAL SIMULATION ON THE LIGHT FRONT sum, thus making it more rapidly convergent. In order to obtain an identity, one must add back the term that was subtracted; however, the corresponding expression in To solve Eq. (9), one can discretize the momentum- this case is realized as integral rather than a sum, which space Fourier modes and solve the resulting eigenvalue can be numerically evaluated rather efficiently. The only problem on a finite grid (the DLCQ method). Discretiza- necessary modification in the two-flavor case is to use tion in (x, k⊥) space results in a asymmetric matrix, separate counterterms in each flavor sector. which significantly increases the computational effort, so one may instead use a set of variables (µ, θ, φ) defined by IV. TRUE MUONIUM MODEL ! 1 µ cos θ x = 1 + , (12) 2 pm2 + µ2 Our model simply uses QED with two fermion flavors, i the electron e and the muon µ, but in which the “electron” is dramatically heavier than its physical value of −3 k⊥ = µ(sin θ cos φ, sin θ sin φ, 0) . (13) me/mµ ' 4.8 · 10 , in order to explore the effect of the extra flavor sector beyond a simple “scaled-up” version Using these variables, one may exchange φ for the dis- of positronium. Nevertheless, the condition me < mµ is crete quantum number Jz [14] and compute using only always imposed, and as mentioned above, we set α = 0.3 5 to enhance the effects of the extra sector. In this ba- counterterms to regularize singular integrals, and prop- sis, one can express the state of all possible charge-zero, erly renormalizing the photon mass terms that arise on lepton family-number zero wave functions defined by: the light front. We plan to address these issues in future work. |Ψi = ψµµ¯|µµ¯i + ψee¯|ee¯i + ψγ |γi Second, Jentschura et al. [25] showed in instant form +ψµµγ¯ |µµγ¯ i + ψeeγ¯ |eeγ¯ i + ··· . (16) that VP-e-A is the second-largest correction to the hyperfine splitting in true muonium. The only correction that The full physical problem would require not only decreas- is larger in instant form arises from vertex corrections, ing me and α, but also including hadronic polarization which are partly incorporated in front form through the function corrections to the photon propagators. inclusion of |µµγ¯ i states, but can be fully treated only In this initial model of true muonium, we extend the through proper renormalization. Furthermore, Ref. [25] Fock space considered in Refs. [14, 21–23] to include a finds the energy shifts arising from the |γγi states to second flavor of fermions: |µµ¯i, |µµγ¯ i, |ee¯i, |eeγ¯ i, and be several times smaller than those from either VP-e-A |γi. Through a proper choice of effective interactions [24], or vertex corrections. The calculations of Ref. [25] rely one can truncate the Fock space at these states and ne- upon the asymptotic behavior of the vacuum polariza- glect other Fock states such as |γγi or |µµe¯ e¯i in a self- tion, which for true muonium is the limit of me/mµ 1. consistent way. The |ee¯i states are of particular interest In our case of me/mµ = O(1), one might expect signifi- because their continuum states constitute the dominant cant corrections to the asymptotic behavior. To find the 3 decay mode of the S1 (C = −1) states of true muonium. effect of these corrections, one can compute the exact cor- Furthermore, its inclusion in the numerical simulation rection due to VP-e-A without the asymptotic approxi- (along with |eeγ¯ i) is straightforward because it requires mation. As first shown in [28], the leading-order radiative no conceptual innovation beyond that used to study the correction to the QED particle-antiparticle bound-state |µµ¯i and |µµγ¯ i states; the greatest complication is that energy spectrum due to a virtual fermion loop coupling the matrices to be diagonalized become much larger, in- to the electromagnetic field with amplitude ϕ0 (which, in creasing computation time. the nonrelativistic limit, is just the wave function) is Solving for the eigenstates of HLC with this limited Fock space nonetheless gives the bound states of positro- πα 4α ¯ R 2 2 2 6 nium (ee¯) and true muonium (µµ¯), as well as the contin- ∆EVP = 1 − Π (4m )|ϕ0| hS i + O(α ) m2 π i uum states of γ, ee¯, and µµ¯, exactly (up to the effects due i α4m 4α to the neglected higher-order Fock states). The output = i 1 − Π¯ R(4m2) + O(α6) , (17) of this calculation is the wave functions of various helic- 4n3 π i ity states for |µµ¯i and |ee¯i components ψ in the form of R 2 Eq. (9), i.e., with the |γi components folded into Veff by where mi is the mass of the bound fermion, Π¯ (q ) is the means of the method of iterated resolvents. renormalized polarization function, and S2 is the total spin Casimir operator. In the second line we have spe- 3 2 3 3 3 cialized to the n S1 state, for which |ϕ0| = mi α /8πn V. EFFECT OF THE |ee¯i SECTOR is the nonrelativistic squared wave function at the origin, and hS2i = 2. The exact form of the one-loop vacuum Proper inclusion of the front-form Fock states |ee¯i and polarization function is |eeγ¯ i should replicate the physics in instant form due to " ! # the inclusion of instant-form diagrams with an e+e− pair α 5 4m2 2m2 Π¯ R(q2) = − − f + 1 + f f(q2) , (18) and a γ, such as vacuum polarization due to electrons 3π 3 q2 q2 in the single-photon annihilation channel (called VP-e-A in Ref. [25]). The importance of including both |ee¯i and |eeγ¯ i states in our simulations is twofold. where mf is the mass of the loop fermions, and the form of f(q2) depends upon whether q2 is spacelike or timelike First, the dominant decay channel for true muonium in 2 2 2 3 + − and its size compared to 4m . In the region 4m < q , S1 states is e e production, while the dominant decay f f 1 e.g., for true muonium with electron-loop corrections, one channel for S0 (C = +1) states is γγ. Note that the 3 1 finds well-known leading-order result for the S1- S0 hyperfine 7 4 splitting, ∆E = mµα for true muonium, has been 12  q 4m2  s 2 f s 2 derived analytically in front form [26, 27], so that other 4mf 1 + 1 − q2 4mf + − f(q2) = 1 − ln −iπ 1 − , physical effects sensitive to small µ µ separation such 2  q 4m2  2 + − + − q f q as µ µ → γ → e e should also be considered. 1 − 1 − q2 While including the |ee¯i state into our calculations re- (19) quires essentially nothing but duplicating the |µµ¯i states where the imaginary term signals the possibility for de- as |ee¯i and computing one new set of matrix elements (see cay. Inserting Eqs. (18)–(19) into Eq. (17), taking the 6 Appendix), properly including a |γγi state would require me → 0 limit, and dropping the O(α ) terms, we repro- computing many new matrix elements, developing new duce Eq. (26) of [25], which we express slightly differently 6 as M2 5 " 2 ! 3 mµα 1 4mµ 5 iπ 3.91 ∆EVP(n S1) = 3 ln 2 − − 4πn 3 me 9 3 m2 3.9 +O e , α . (20) 4m2 µ 3.89

In typical cases considered here (me/mµ ∼ 0.1–0.8), this expansion predicts relative corrections to the asymptotic 3.88 form of order 10%, so the complete formulas [Eqs. (17)– (19)] are retained for our numerical results. 3.87 In order to compare our results to those of instant- form perturbation theory calculations, we compare shifts 3.86 in M 2: 1 10 100 Λµ ∆M 2 ≡ M 2 − M 2 µµ 0 FIG. 1. Mass eigenvalues of n = 1 true muonium states with 2 2 3 0 1 0 = (2mµ + B + ∆E) − (2mµ + B) , (21) Jz = 0 (1 S1 in top pair, 1 S0 in bottom pair) as a function 2 2 2 2 1 of cutoﬀ Λµ for Λe = Λµ + 4(mµ − me), α = 0.3, me = 2 mµ, 2 where Mµµ is the squared mass of our model true muo- N = 25. Λµ is given in units of the muon Bohr momentum nium including the |ee¯i component, while M 2 is the αmµ/2. The (◦) points indicate the full result precisely follow- 0 ing the methods of Ref. [14], and the ( ) points indicate the squared mass neglecting the electron Fock states, ∆E result after the implementation of a subtraction (described is the total binding energy due to the presence of the in the text) of the amplitude responsible for poor ultraviolet |ee¯i states, and B is the remaining binding energy terms 1 behavior in S0 channels. of the atom. In Sec. VII we examine how well taking ∆E = ∆EVP−e−A, where the latter refers to the original instant-form expression of Eq. (17), matches the light- front results.

significantly larger than Λµ, or else the phase space for VI. CUTOFF AND RENORMALIZATION |ee¯i continuum states contributing to true muonium is ISSUES inappropriately truncated, leading to numerical instabil- ities due to undersampling of physically significant am- In front form, the most common renormalization plitudes. This physically appropriate choice nevertheless scheme for two-body systems is the covariant cutoff ap- leads to interesting numerical issues, as discussed in the proach of Lepage and Brodsky [17]: next section. m2 + k2 ⊥ ≤ Λ2 + 4m2 . (22) To investigate the effect of this choice of cutoffs, we fix x(1 − x) Λe as described above and vary 1 ≤ Λµ ≤ 65 (in units of Unfortunately, in any but the simplest models, this muon Bohr momentum αmµ/2). Results for the n = 1, 2 1 formulation does not properly regularize the Hamilto- eigenstates with me = 2 mµ can be seen in Figs. 1 and nian as new sectors are added. More recent attempts 2, respectively, which can be compared to Figs. 2.8 and to utilize other renormalization schemes include Pauli- 2.9 of Ref. [14], where the same study was performed Villars [29, 30] and Hamiltonian flow [31, 32] tech- for positronium. For an exact analogue to the results niques, and methods with sector-dependent countert- of Ref. [14], one should compare the lines in Fig. 1 with erms [33, 34]. The first steps to study positronium us- open-circle points directly to their analogues in the ear- ing the basis light-front approach have appeared very re- lier work. Since rotational invariance is obscured in the cently [35]. front form, states studied in the numerical simulations 2S+1 Jz For the purposes of this work, we take the simplest are labeled by adding the Jz label, as in n LJ . possible renormalization scheme by defining two covariant cutoffs via Eq. (22): Λµ for the muon sector and The most striking feature of the initial (open-circle Λe for the electron sector. Since Eqs. (14), (22) iden- points) results in Fig. 1 is the strong dependence on the 1 tify Λ as a maximum off-shell momentum for the parton cutoff Λµ of the 1 S0 mass eigenvalue compared to that 3 1 of mass m, physical considerations lead one to expect of 1 S1 (A similar effect occurs for the 2 S0 mass eigen- that Λ should be larger for lighter components of a single value). One may initially wonder whether this effect is bound-state system. In the true muonium case, choices due to an inappropriate handling of lepton mass renor- 2 2 2 2 such as Λe = Λµ +4(mµ −me) are natural, and this is the malization. The full shift of the bound-state mass due scheme adopted here. In particular, Λe should be chosen to one-loop lepton mass renormalization in front form is 7

M2 from the others. This phenomenon was noted as early as Ref. [12]. Since the subsequent work of Ref. [14] im- 3.978 3 proved the numerical quality of the C = −1 S1 states

3.9775 by the inclusion of the Fock state |γi, one may expect 1 the inclusion of |γγi to improve the C = +1 S0 states.

3.977 We will present analysis of this effect in the future [16], but for the present adapt a regularization first suggested 1 3.9765 in Ref. [12]: The strong dependence of S0 states on Λ can be traced to a portion of the matrix element between 3.976 lepton antiparallel-helicity states (called G2 in App. F.3 of Ref. [14]) that approaches a constant as k⊥ ≡ |k⊥| 3.9755 0 0 or k⊥ ≡ |k⊥| → ∞ and therefore produces δ function- like behavior in configuration space. Including such de- 3.975 pendence imposes a singular ultraviolet behavior on the 1 10 100 Λ µ system, and therefore it must be regularized; Ref. [12] chose simply to delete this term from their calculations. FIG. 2. Mass eigenvalues of n = 2 true muonium states with However, we choose to subtract only its limit as k⊥ or 3 0 3 0 1 0 3 0 3 0 1 0 Jz = 0 (top to bottom: 2 S , 2 P , 2 P , 2 P , 2 P , 2 S ) 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 k⊥ → ∞, which retains part of the term (including x and as a function of cutoff Λµ. The numerical inputs and units x0 dependence). Again, this subtraction scheme is de- of Λe,µ are the same as in Fig. 1. The amplitude subtraction 1 signed only to remove strong Λ dependence in S0 states described in the text has been performed for all states here. that the explicit inclusion of the |γγi state must eventually address. The effect of this subtraction is shown as lines in Figs. 1,2 with filled square points, and demon- given by [12] strates a great improvement in the stabilization of the Λ 1 2 2 2 dependence of S0 states, with fairly minimal changes to 2 α 2 Λ + m Λ 1 that of other states. The subtraction for the 2 S0 state ∆M = m 3 ln 2 − 2 2 2π m Λ + m is not shown in Fig. 2, but it amounts to a decrease in 1 1 the Λ dependence by over a factor of 10. × + . (23) µ x 1 − x We explore the sensitivity of the results to varying Λe in Fig. 3, where the mass eigenvalues of the 11S and This expression is obtained from the sum of loop and 0 13S states are reported as functions of Λ in units of contraction diagrams; as is well known (e.g., see [9]), the 1 e the muon Bohr momentum αm /2. That is, Λ ' 11.6 individual loop diagrams that give the renormalization µ e corresponds to the value used in Figs. 1,2. The results are constants Z or Z in light-front form carry momentum 2 1 quite insensitive to larger Λ , which means that allowing dependence, but the Ward identity guarantees that their e for greater off-shell momentum in the |ee¯i sector than sum does not, allowing one to adopt an on-shell renor- in our simple prescription has very little impact on the malization scheme in which the input α and m values are true muonium spectrum. On the other hand, decreasing given by the physical ones. Since the higher-order cor- Λ2 below Λ2 + 4(m2 − m2) (not depicted here) reveals rections not given here must necessarily subtract the ln Λ e µ µ e strong fluctuations in the dependence of mass eigenvalues divergence of Eq. (23) but generally produce additional upon Λ , which we attribute to an undersampling of the corrections, one may choose to remove the divergence in e continuum |ee¯i states with invariant mass below the full a variety of ways. The work of Refs. [12, 14] advocates true muonium bound-state mass; the analogous effect in simply taking ∆M 2 = 0. To gauge the effect of other a hadronic physics calculation would be interpreted as a choices, we consider either subtracting from the brack- failure of quark-hadron duality due to insufficient phase eted term of Eq. (23) only the ln(Λ2/m2) portion, or space allowed for lighter components of the hadron bound the O[(m2)0] correction as well. In the latter case, the state. bound-state eigenvalues M 2 change by less than 1 part 4 in 10 by the time Λµ is as small as 2mµ. We therefore also opt for the simple choice ∆M 2 = 0 in this work. VII. RESULTS We also note that the derivation of Eq. (23) neglects one diagram, in which the leptons exchange an “instan- taneous” photon in the presence of a spectator photon, Using a version of the code in Ref. [14] modified as dis- because it is non-diagonal in the single-lepton spins and cussed above, we compute the entire bound-state spec- momenta, and therefore gives rise to a self-mass correc- trum of true muonium and positronium including valence tion of the atom that is not just a single-lepton mass Fock states of both |µµ¯i and |ee¯i for Jz = −3, −2,..., +3 1 renormalization. Certainly, such an effect could be in- (e.g., Fig. 4), taking α = 0.3, me = 2 mµ,Λµ = 2 2 2 2 1/2 cluded as an O(α ) perturbative correction. 10αmµ/2 ' 1.5mµ, and Λe = [Λµ + 4(mµ − me)] ' Indeed, it is hard to imagine how simple lepton mass 15.3αmµ/2 ' 2.3mµ. 1 renormalization would treat the S0 states so differently From Fig. 4, we see that the true muonium spectrum is 8

2 2 4 M 3.918 M

3.98 3.916

3.96 3.914

3.912 3.94

3.91 3.92

3.908 3.9

3.906 3.88 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 10 100 Λ J e z 2 1 FIG. 3. Mass eigenvalues of n = 1 true muonium states with M 3 0 1 0 0.995 Jz = 0 (1 S1 at top, 1 S0 at bottom) as a function of cutoﬀ Λe in units of the muon Bohr momentum αmµ/2, with Λµ = 1 0.99 1 in these units, α = 0.3, me = 2 mµ, N = 25. 0.985

0.98 nearly identical to that found in [14]. The shifts caused 0.975 by the inclusion of the ee¯ sector are smaller than can be 0.97 resolved in this plot. Likewise, the positronium spectrum indicates multiplets with the expected multiplicities and 0.965 ordering. 0.96 True muonium presents an extremely intriguing physi- 0.955 cal situation not typically encountered in light-front stud- -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Jz ies, and particularly not in light-front positronium stud- 2 2 2 ies: In the invariant mass range 4me < M < 4mµ, the |µµ¯i component is bound but the |ee¯i component forms FIG. 4. Spectrum of (top) true muonium and (bottom) positronium with Jz = −3, −2,..., +3. The spectra are a continuum. The invariant mass MS of the |ee¯i state 1 calculated using α = 0.3, me = 2 mµ,Λµ = 10αmµ/2, satisfies the constraint 2 2 2 1/2 Λe = [Λµ + 4(mµ − me)] ' 15.3αmµ/2, N = 25. The m2 + k2 mass-squared eigenvalues M 2 are expressed in units of m2 . M 2 = e ⊥ , (24) n µ S x(1 − x) but is otherwise unconstrained. Representing such states in the DLCQ formulation presents interesting numeri- dictions [14]. One finds in the |Jz| = 1 cases (not plotted cal challenges, analogous to representing band structures here) the P states are also affected, but at a much lower in solid-state systems by closely-spaced discrete energy level, and that the mass shifts for states differing only in levels. Even so, since the two flavor sectors can only Jz are not the same, reflecting that rotational invariance interact through the single-photon annihilation channel, in the light-front calculation at finite numerical accuracy the only true muonium states in this model affected by is not entirely restored. the inclusion of |ee¯i are those with |Jz| ≤ 1 [14]. De- The reason for the fluctuations in Fig. 5 is just as inter- noting the bound-state mass-squared eigenvalue before esting as the results themselves. As indicated above, the 2 2 and after including the ee¯ states as M0 and Mµµ, re- |ee¯i continuum states near the |µµ¯i bound states, (which 2 2 spectively, Fig. 5 plots the magnitudes of the mass shifts lie just below M = 4mµ) are simulated numerically in 2 2 2 ∆M ≡ Mµµ − M0 of Jz = 0 true muonium states as a DLCQ as clusters of discrete energy levels rather than 2 function of me in the n = 1, 2, 3 energy levels. a true continuum. The location in M of these clusters Although the results may seem noisy in me, one must is determined by µ [Eq. (14)], with the number of such first note that the shifts ∆M 2 are so small that they at clusters and the size of gaps between them determined no point lead to a level crossing, and moreover, a trend largely by Nµ. The density of energy levels within each is clearly visible that suggests the shifts decrease quickly cluster is determined by Nθ, but we also note that the with increasing principal quantum number n (approxi- spacing of the levels within each cluster is not entirely 3 3 0 2 mately as 1/n , see below). For the Jz = 0 case, n S1 uniform, being more dense at larger values of M . are the only states affected by the new sector in a numer- One expects that simply increasing the values of Nµ ically significant way, in agreement with front-form pre- and Nθ in the simulations must eventually suppress the 9

2 |∆M | n=1 broad trends of definite physical significance can still be -3 n=2 1.0x10 n=3 identified. For example, the addition of the |ee¯i component should lead to a modification of the Lamb shift (by which we mean the sum of all radiative corrections) proportional

1.0x10-4 to a power of the principal quantum number n. While the speciﬁc quantitative values of these shifts show some sensitivity to the inputs, one might expect their ratios for diﬀerent states for any given set of simulation parameters

1.0x10-5 me,Λe, and N to be less sensitive. To study the Lamb shift modifications, we take the ratio of the mass shifts 3 for different n for S1 states. We define the ratio rnn0 for n0 > n via

1.0x10-6 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 2 me ∆Mn rnn0 ≡ 2 . (25) ∆Mn0 2 2 2 FIG. 5. Eigenvalue shifts ∆M ≡ Mµµ − M0 (in units of 2 mµ) for the n ≤ 3, Jz = 0 triplet states of true muonium Taking the average of rnn0 over all me values used for 2 as functions of me, for α = 0.3, Λµ = αmµ/2, Λe = [Λµ + the computations, we determine the leading-order depen- 2 2 1/2 2 −β 4(mµ − me)] ' 11.6αmµ/2, and values of N are adjusted dence ∆Mn ∝ n from the relation as described in the text. From top to bottom, the states are 1 3S0, 2 3S0, and 3 3S0. n 1 1 1 ln(r 0 ) = −β ln . (26) nn n0 The results are presented in Table II. We find that β ≈ 3 3 numerical artifacts associated with the discretization. for S1 states, which agrees with instant-form perturbation theory calculations of Lamb shifts [36]. However, for the moderate values (Nµ, Nθ < 50) used here, several features make the analysis more compli- 2S+1 Jz cated: First, the larger value of the cutoff Λe compared LJ β 0 to Λµ (see Sec. VI) allows for a substantial phase space n, n 1, 2 1, 3 2, 3 to be available to the |ee¯i continuum states, only some 3 0 S1 2.97 ± 0.09 3.3 ± 0.3 3.3 ± 0.3 of which overlap with the |µµ¯i bound states, and this is- 3 −1 S1 3.2 ± 0.2 3.3 ± 0.2 3.6 ± 0.4 sue is exacerbated as Λe increases; in other words, only some of the |ee¯i clusters overlap with the |µµ¯i states, TABLE II. The exponent β defined in Eq. (26) for different and simply increasing Nµ does not directly alleviate this states over the range 0.1 ≤ me/mµ ≤ 0.9. Errors are esti- fact. Related to this point is the nonlinear nature of mated from the variation in me and N. the mapping Eq. (15), which was designed to guarantee Λe a sufficient sampling of points up to µ = 2 , but does As discussed in Sec. V, one can compare the results not necessarily suitably sample the region near the |µµ¯i of our simulations to the predictions of nonrelativistic bound states. instant-form results through Eqs.(17)–(21). Consider, for 2 3 0 The discrete sampling of these continuum states has a example, ∆M of 1 S1 . Even though the individual sim- 2 noticeable effect on the shifts ∆M . Quite generally, we ulations at particular fixed choices of Nµ,θ for a given find that a given |µµ¯i bound state prior to the inclusion me do not rapidly converge to a single fixed value at the 2 of electrons undergoes a shift in ∆M toward the energy moderate values of Nµ,θ used here, if one restricts to sim- levels of the |ee¯i states in the nearest clusters. Clearly, ulations in which the |µµ¯i state lies within a |ee¯i cluster such an effect is a numerical artifact since the true |ee¯i for the given me, the eigenvalue shifts then lie in con- spectrum is continuous, and the shift can be pronounced strained ranges and one may extract meaningful results if the numerical simulation is such as to produce no clus- by statistically averaging over the results of these simu- ter of |ee¯i states near the original |µµ¯i bound state. We lations, as exhibited in Fig. 6. These light-front numer- report only results from simulations in which the |µµ¯i ical results are seen in fact to agree fairly well with the state lies within an |ee¯i cluster; guaranteeing that this instant-form result, with a few important caveats: First, scenario occurs requires a delicate balancing of the pa- the uncertainties become much larger for the smallest rameters me,Λe, Nµ, and attention to the nature of the values of me (specifically seen in me = 0.2mµ in Fig. 6), mapping function f(µ). Even in the case that a |µµ¯i due to the increasing difficulty of properly sampling the state lies neatly within an |ee¯i cluster, one must note |ee¯i clusters for small me (on the other hand, simulations that not every |ee¯i state has the same quantum numbers using smaller values of α are not problematic, and sim- as the |µµ¯i state and can mix with it. All of these effects ply serve to decouple the true muonium and positronium must be taken into account in understanding the nature spectra). Second, the tiny uncertainties at me = 0.5mµ of results like Fig. 5; nevertheless, the fact remains that and 0.7mµ reflect the accidental tendency of |ee¯i clusters 10

2 given by Eq. (24), where M 2 is now also the invariant ∆M LF S 2.0x10-3 IF 2 3 0 mass M of the 1 S1 state; the functional sharpness of such components suggests how diﬃculties in numerical -3 1.5x10 sampling can occur, as discussed in Sec. VI and seen in Fig. 5. Additionally, one sees that the fermionic nature 1.0x10-3 of the electrons is manifested most visibly in the paral-

-4 1 5.0x10 lel helicity component, where at x = 2 the probability is heavily suppressed. One also sees that, in agreement 0.0x10+0 with the muonic components, the antiparallel component numerically dominates. -5.0x10-4 Integrating over the coordinates x, k⊥, we compile in Table III the integrated probability for each component. -1.0x10-3 From this exercise, we ﬁnd the surprising result that the

-1.5x10-3 antiparallel electronic components contribute more to the 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 me wave function than the parallel muonic component. The large uncertainties in the integrated probabilities for the 2 2 2 2 FIG. 6. Eigenvalue shifts ∆M ≡ Mµµ −M0 (in units of mµ) continuum components arise from their sensitive depen- for 1 3S0. The dashed line IF is the instant-form prediction 1 dence upon Λe and N discussed in Sec. VI. from Eq. (21), using the nonrelativistic wave function, while the light-front (LF) points are obtained by taking α = 0.3, R 2 2 2 2 2 1/2 Sector dx d k⊥P (x, k⊥) Λµ = αmµ/2, Λe = [Λµ + 4(mµ − me)] ' 11.6αmµ/2, and averaging over the results using several suitable values of N, |µµ,¯ ↑↑i (3.0 ± 0.4) × 10−6 as described in the text. |µµ,¯ ↑↓i 0.49 ± 0.01 |ee,¯ ↑↑i ≈ 10−7 − 10−6 |ee,¯ ↑↓i ≈ 10−3 − 10−2 3 0 to appear in the region of the 1 S1 |µµ¯i state. More- TABLE III. Integrated probability for each sector in the true over, from the formal point of view, the instant-form and 3 0 muonium 1 S1 state. Due to the parity invariance of QED, light-front calculations have three significant differences. sectors with both helicities flipped have identical probability First, the instant-form result here represents only the [e.g., P (|µµ,¯ ↑↑i) = P (|µµ,¯ ↓↓i)], so the explicit numbers in 1 real part of the energy shift due to vacuum polarization this table should add to 2 . The parameters used are α = 0.3, and ignores, for example, vertex corrections. In front 1 2 2 2 1/2 me = 2 mµ,Λµ = 10αmµ/2, Λe = [Λµ + 4(mµ − me)] ' form, all of these effects are combined together when one 15.3αmµ/2, N = 37. Uncertainties are estimated by varying includes explicit |ee¯i and |eeγ¯ i states. Second, vacuum N. polarization diagrams in instant form contribute to the renormalization of the coupling constant, an effect not taken into account in this simple model. Finally, a result like Eq. (20) uses only the simplest expression for the VIII. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS nonrelativistic wave function; instant-form calculations that improve upon the nonrelativistic wave function re- In this paper, we have computed the light-front wave sult appear in, e.g., Refs. [37, 38]. Nevertheless, the level functions of true muonium, using a simple model of two- of agreement in Fig. 6 is gratifying. flavor QED that includes a limited number (5) of explicit Inclusion of the |ee¯i sector also changes the wave func- Fock states. Using this model, we have seen that corrections. One expects that any true muonium bound state tions from |ee¯i have a noticeable effect on true muonium contains some component of electron-positron continuum states. The probability density for the first excited state 3 states. The interaction of these states with the true muo- of true muonium, the triplet 1 S1 with Jz = 0, was de- nium should lead to a modification of the wave functions termined and the integrated probability for each valence by means of the |ee¯i component. As noted above, the Fock-space component was computed. If me is taken 3 0 1 S1 wave function is expected to be affected the most to be a substantial fraction of mµ and the fine structure by the inclusion of the |ee¯i. In Fig. 7 we plot the proba- constant is taken large (α = 0.3), then the |ee¯i states con- 3 0 −2 bility density of the components of the 1 S1 state of true stitute as much as O(10 ) of the true muonium eigen- muonium using a particular set of parameters. Noting states. the relative scales, one sees that the antiparallel compo- For a more accurate model, three critical Fock states nents dominates the state. As expected for a bound state, must also be included: |γγi, which dominates the de- 1 the µµ¯ pair is localized near x = 2 and k⊥ ≡ |k⊥| = 0. cay of singlet states of true muonium (and in particu- 1 Again, the |ee¯i wave function components of this state lar should have a pronounced effect on S0 wave func- are expected to appear as continuum states, since the tions), and the pair of states |µµe¯ e¯i and |µµµ¯ µ¯i, which 2 2 invariant mass M > 4me. From Fig. 7, one sees that provide crucial contributions to the vacuum polarization the e+e− component is sharply peaked along the curve corrections. To integrate these states into a model, a 11

µµ ↑↑ µµ ↑↓ component of True Muonium excited state for Jz=0 component of True Muonium excited state for Jz=0

2.5x10-8 3.0x10-3

-3 2.0x10-8 2.5x10 2.0x10-3 1.5x10-8 1.5x10-3 1.0x10-8 1.0x10-3 -9 3 3 5.0x10 5.0x10-4 2.5 2.5 2 2 0.0x100 0.0x100 1.5 1.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 1 k⊥ 0.3 1 k⊥ 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 x 0.9 0 x 0.9 0

↑↑ ↑↓ ee component of True Muonium excited state for Jz=0 ee component of True Muonium excited state for Jz=0

3.5x10-8 8.0x10-5 -5 3.0x10-8 7.0x10 -5 -8 6.0x10 2.5x10 5.0x10-5 2.0x10-8 4.0x10-5 1.5x10-8 3.0x10-5 -8 1.0x10 -5 2.0x10 -9 3 3 5.0x10 2.5 1.0x10-5 2.5 2 2 0.0x100 0.0x100 1.5 1.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 1 k⊥ 0.3 1 k⊥ 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 x 0.9 0 x 0.9 0

3 0 FIG. 7. The ﬁrst triplet state (1 S1 ) probability density of the (top left) parallel-helicity muonic, (top right) antiparallel- helicity muonic, (bottom left) parallel-helicity electronic, and (bottom right) antiparallel-helicity electronic components of true 1 2 2 2 2 muonium with Jz = 0, as functions of x and k⊥, for α = 0.3, me = 2 mµ,Λµ = 10αmµ/2, Λe = Λµ + 4(mµ − me), and N = 37.

proper renormalization of the Hamiltonian is necessary. ence of nuclear matter [39] (used to explore QCD color Methods of interest that have been developed to carry transparency [40]) employs distribution functions that, in out the renormalization include using Pauli-Villars regu- the light-front form, are none other than the pion com- lators [29, 30], the Hamiltonian-flow approach [31, 32], ponent wave functions [41]. Essentially the same physics, methods with sector-dependent counterterms [33, 34], but applied to the much simpler QED case, appears in and the basis light-front approach [35]. Moreover, a tech- experiments discussed above [4] that probe the dissocia- nique to represent continuum |ee¯i states improved over tion of true muonium on high-Z targets. the discrete approach used here (for example, replacing them with an equivalent spectral function [16]) will produce numerically more stable results. In addition to the analytical work required, including Appendix: Matrix Elements between Flavor Sectors these additional Fock states will mandate a much larger numerical effort. While the new states could in princi- The relevant matrix elements for the calculation can ple just be added to the list of valence states included be obtained through a straightforward generalization of (just as |ee¯i and |eeγ¯ i are this work), the numerical ef- the results in Ref. [14], particularly Appendix F. Those fort required to accommodate them is likely too great. involving a single flavor (µ or e) are exactly the same as in For example, the sector |µµe¯ e¯i has 6 independent co- Appendices F.1–F.3, once the appropriate fermion mass ordinates and 16 spin states. This sector alone would is used (not counting the subtraction in amplitude G2 of naively require 16 × N 6 elements in each eigenvector, a App. F.3 described in Sec. VI). We also correct a typo in number that is greater than the dimension of the entire the expression for amplitude G3 in [14]: 1 − n → 1 + n. Fock space considered in our toy model. Instead, the Only the single-photon annihilation graphs (App. F.4) implementation of these Fock states will likely require that mix the flavors differ. Denoting the initial and final developing an appropriate effective interaction for their fermion masses as m0, m, respectively (and similarly for successful incorporation into the calculation. x and k⊥), the key kinematic quantity appearing in the Once the component wave functions are computed by propagators is the effective kinetic energy any suitable means, they are ready to incorporate directly into the calculation of any physical process. For 1 m2 + k2 m02 + k02 ω∗ ≡ ⊥ + ⊥ , (A.1) example, the dissociative diffraction of pions in the pres- 2 x(1 − x) x0(1 − x0) 12

∗ which is a slightly diﬀerent ω than is used for the stan- m : m0 ↑↑ ↑↓ ↓↑ ↓↓ dard annihilation graphs in the absence of ee¯. This def- inition in either case has the special signiﬁcance in the ∗ method of iterated resolvents, that it allows the trunca- ↑↑ I1(1, 2) I3(2, 1) I3 (2, 1) 0 tion of neglected Fock states in a controlled manner. The ∗ amplitudes for the process then read: ↑↓ I3(1, 2) I2 (1, 2) I4(2, 1) 0

0 ∗ α 2m m 1 1 ↓↑ I3 (1, 2) I4(1, 2) I2(1, 2) 0 I (x, k ; x0, k0 ) = δ , 1 ⊥ ⊥ π ω∗ x(1 − x) x0(1 − x0) |Jz |,1 (A.2) ↓↓ 0 0 0 0

TABLE IV. Helicity table of the annihilation graph, where α 2 k k0 m and m0 indicate the ﬁnal-state and initial-state fermions, I (x, k ; x0, k0 ) = ⊥ ⊥ δ + 4δ , (A.3) 2 ⊥ ⊥ π ω∗ xx0 |Jz |,1 Jz ,0 respectively.

α 2mλ 1 k0 I (x, k ; x0, k0 ) = 1 ⊥ δ , (A.4) 3 ⊥ ⊥ π ω∗ x(1 − x) 1 − x0 |Jz |,1

0 0 0 α 2 k⊥k⊥ I4(x, k⊥; x , k ) = − δ|J |,1 − 4δJ ,0 . ⊥ π ω∗ x0(1 − x) z z ACKNOWLEDGMENTS (A.5)

Note that the only nonvanishing matrix elements have We thank S. Brodsky for very useful conversations, |Jz| ≤ 1, a restriction due to the angular momentum of and H.L. thanks U. Trittmann for valuable insight into 0 0 the photon. Abbreviating Ii(1, 2) ≡ Ii(x, k⊥; x , k⊥), the understanding his code. This work was supported by amplitudes for all allowed combinations of helicity states the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY- are given in Table IV. 1068286.

[1] R. Coombes, R. Flexer, A. Hall, R. Kennelly, J. Kirkby, [16] H. Lamm and R.F. Lebed, in preparation. R. Piccioni, D. Porat and M. Schwartz et al., Phys. Rev. [17] G.P. Lepage and S.J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2157 Lett. 37, 249 (1976). (1980). [2] D.B. Cassidy and A.P. Mills, Nature (London) 449, 195 [18] I. Tamm, J. Phys. (USSR) 9, 449 (1945). (2007). [19] S.M. Dancoff, Phys. Rev. 78, 382 (1950). [3] S.J. Brodsky and R.F. Lebed, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, [20] H.-C. Pauli, hep-th/9608035. 213401 (2009) [arXiv:0904.2225 [hep-ph]]. [21] U. Trittmann, in Les Houches 1997, New non-perturba- [4] A. Banburski and P. Schuster, Phys. Rev. D 86, 093007 tive methods and quantization on the light cone, pp. 89-96 (2012) [arXiv:1206.3961 [hep-ph]]. [hep-th/9706055]. [5] A. Antognini, F. Nez, K. Schuhmann, F.D. Amaro, [22] U. Trittmann, hep-th/9705072. F. Biraben, J.M.R. Cardoso, D.S. Covita and A. Dax [23] U. Trittmann and H.-C. Pauli, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. et al., Science 339, 417 (2013). 90, 161 (2000). [6] D. Tucker-Smith and I. Yavin, Phys. Rev. D 83, 101702 [24] H.-C. Pauli, in Nagoya 1996, Perspectives of strong cou- (2011) [arXiv:1011.4922 [hep-ph]]. pling gauge theories, pp. 342–352 [hep-th/9706036]. [7] R.T. Robiscoe, Phys. Rev. 138, A22 (1965). [25] U.D. Jentschura, G. Soff, V.G. Ivanov and S.G. Karshen- [8] P.A.M. Dirac, Rev. Mod. Phys. 21, 392 (1949). boim, Phys. Rev. A 56, 4483 (1997) [physics/9706026]. [9] S.J. Brodsky, H.-C. Pauli and S.S. Pinsky, Phys. Rept. [26] B.D. Jones, R.J. Perry and S.D. G lazek, Phys. Rev. D 301, 299 (1998) [hep-ph/9705477]. 55, 6561 (1997) [hep-th/9605231]. [10] H.C. Pauli and S.J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. D 32, 2001 [27] B.D. Jones, hep-th/9703106. (1985). [28] R. Karplus and A. Klein, Phys. Rev. 87, 848 (1952). [11] A.C. Tang, S.J. Brodsky and H.C. Pauli, Phys. Rev. D [29] S.S. Chabysheva and J.R. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D 81, 44, 1842 (1991). 074030 (2010) [arXiv:0911.4455 [hep-ph]]. [12] M. Krautgärtner,H.C. Pauli and F. Wölz,Phys. Rev. D [30] S.S. Chabysheva and J.R. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D 82, 45, 3755 (1992). 034004 (2010) [arXiv:1006.1077 [hep-ph]]. [13] M. Kaluˇzaand H.C. Pauli, Phys. Rev. D 45, 2968 (1992). [31] E.L. Gubankova, H.-C. Pauli and F.J. Wegner, hep- [14] U. Trittmann and H.-C. Pauli, hep-th/9704215. th/9809143. [15] S.J. Brodsky, R. Roskies and R. Suaya, Phys. Rev. D 8, [32] E.L. Gubankova and G. Papp, hep-th/9904081. 4574 (1973). 13

[33] V.A. Karmanov, J.-F. Mathiot and A.V. Smirnov, Phys. [38] V.G. Ivanov, E.Y. Korzinin and S.G. Karshenboim, Phys. Rev. D 77, 085028 (2008) [arXiv:0801.4507 [hep-th]]. Rev. D 80, 027702 (2009). [34] V.A. Karmanov, J.F. Mathiot and A.V. Smirnov, Phys. [39] L. Frankfurt, G.A. Miller and M. Strikman, Phys. Lett. Rev. D 86, 085006 (2012) [arXiv:1204.3257 [hep-th]]. B 304, 1 (1993) [hep-ph/9305228]. [35] P. Wiecki, Y. Li, X. Zhao, P. Maris and J.P. Vary, [40] E.M. Aitala et al. [E791 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. arXiv:1404.6234 [nucl-th]. 86, 4773 (2001) [hep-ex/0010044]. [36] C. Itzykson and J.-B. Zuber, Quantum Field Theory, [41] D. Ashery, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 56, 279 (2006). McGraw-Hill, New York (1980). [37] D. Eiras and J. Soto, Phys. Lett. B 491, 101 (2000) [hep- ph/0005066].