Nucleon to Delta electromagnetic transition in the Dyson-Schwinger approach

G. Eichmann1 and D. Nicmorus2

1Institut fur Theoretische Physik I, Justus-Liebig-Universitat Giessen, D-35392 Giessen, Germany ∗2GSI Helmholtzzentrum fur Schwerionenforschung, Planckstrasse 1, D-64291 Darmstadt, Germany†

(Dated: October 29, 2018)

We study the N∆γ transition in the Dyson-Schwinger approach. The nucleon and ∆ baryons aretreated as quark-diquark bound states, where the ingredients of the electromagnetic transition cur-rent are computed self-consistently from the underlying dynamics in QCD. Although our approachdoes not include pion-cloud effects, we find that the electric and Coulomb quadrupole form-factorratios REM and RSM show good agreement with experimental data. This implies that the deforma-tion from a spherical charge distribution inside both baryons can be traced back to the appearanceof p waves in the nucleon and ∆ bound-state amplitudes which are a consequence of Poincare co-variance. On the other hand, the dominant transition amplitude, i.e. the magnetic dipole transitionform factor, underestimates the data by ∼ 25% in the static limit whereas agreement is achieved atlarger momentum transfer, which is consistent with missing pion-cloud contributions. We further-more find that the static properties of the form factors are not very sensitive to a variation of thecurrent-quark mass.

PACS numbers: 11.80.Jy 12.38.Lg, 13.40.Gp, 14.20.Gk

I. INTRODUCTION

Investigating the structure of the nucleon representsa challenging task in contemporary hadron physics fromboth experimental and theoretical perspectives. Unam-biguous testimony of the nucleon’s complex non-pointlikestructure is given by measurements of the electromag-netic transition into its lowest-lying resonance, the ∆baryon. The properties of the electromagnetic spin-3/2–spin-1/2 transition are experimentally accessible via pionphoto- and electroproduction off nucleon targets. Preci-sion measurements of the N → ∆γ transition over a widerange ofQ2 have become available only in the past decadeat facilities such as JLab/CLAS, MAMI, and MIT-Bates.Experimental data exist now up to Q2 ∼ 8 GeV2; forcomprehensive reviews on the present experimental sta-tus we refer to Refs. [1, 2].

While it contributes less than 1% to the total de-cay width of the Delta-isobar, the N → ∆γ transitionrepresents an indubitable test of the deformation fromsphericity in both nucleon and ∆ baryons. It is char-acterized by three transition form factors: the magneticdipole form factor M1, the electric quadrupole form fac-tor E2, and the Coulomb quadrupole form factor C2,which can be equivalently expressed in terms of helicityamplitudes. Although the magnetic dipole transition isdominant, an accurate extraction of the form factor ratiosREM = E2/M1 and RSM = C2/M1 reveals small andnegative values. This constitutes a measure of the non-spherical distribution of the partons within the baryonsinvolved in the reaction.

The theoretical description of the N → ∆γ transitionhas been traditionally quite challenging. In a constituent-

∗ gernot.eichmann@theo.physik.uni-giessen.de† nicmorus@th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de

quark model where three quarks move non-relativisticallyin an s wave, the transition magnetic moment is underes-timated by 25%, and the electromagnetic ratios are onlynon-zero if d waves are included [3, 4]. More sophis-ticated approaches have been developed over the yearswith varying degrees of improvement. The N → ∆γtransition has been studied in chiral effective field the-ory [5, 6], dynamical reaction models such as the Sato-Lee model [7, 8], light-cone QCD sum-rule analyses [9],large-NC approaches [10, 11], the general parametriza-tion method [12], the cloudy bag model [13, 14], Skyrmemodels [15–17], vector-meson-dominance types of mod-els [18], relativistic quark models improved by chiral cor-rections [19], and other constituent quark models [20–23].Systematic progress in recent years has also been madeby calculations in lattice QCD [24, 25].

The nucleon and ∆ deformation is tightly connectedto the understanding of their internal structure. InPoincare-covariant approaches, the source of deformationfrom sphericity is attributed to the quark orbital angularmomentum distribution among a hadron’s constituents,predominantly arising from p waves in the hadron ampli-tudes, and to a much lesser extent from d waves [26–28].In addition, the properties of the nucleon and its first res-onance are sensitive to chiral corrections and expected tobe generated by an interplay between pure quark statesand pionic clouds.

In support of this, a QCD-motivated analysis of thequark-core contribution to the N → ∆γ transition prop-erties is desirable. We employ the framework of Dyson-Schwinger equations (DSEs) and Bethe-Salpeter equa-tions (BSEs) which provides a well-established tool ofinvestigation. In the quantum field theory of color-charged particles, dynamical chiral symmetry breaking,confinement and the formation of hadron bound statesare phenomena which require a non-perturbative treat-ment. DSEs represent a fully self-consistent infinite set

arX

iv:1

112.

2232

v2 [

hep-

ph]

10

Jan

2012

2

of coupled integral equations for QCD’s Green functions.The Dyson-Schwinger framework is particularly suitableto address these phenomena as it provides systematic ac-cess to both perturbative and non-perturbative regimesof QCD; see [29–31] for reviews.

In the present approach, hadrons are studied via co-variant bound-state equations, see [32–34] and referencestherein. Meson properties emerge from solutions of theqq Bethe-Salpeter equation, while baryon properties areobtained from its three-body equivalent, the covariantFaddeev equation. Although of far bigger complexity,the Faddeev equation was recently solved for the nucleonand ∆−baryon masses [35–37] and utilized to calculatethe nucleon’s electromagnetic, axial and pseudoscalarform factors [28, 38]. By implementing a rainbow-ladder(RL) truncation, i.e. a dressed gluon-exchange kernel be-tween any two quarks, these investigations enable a directcomparison with corresponding meson studies. Meson-cloud effects in the chiral and low-momentum structureof hadrons are presently not accounted for, hence theframework aims at a description of the hadronic quarkcore.

It is interesting that the nucleon and ∆ masses andnucleon form factors obtained from three-body Faddeevcalculations show little discrepancies to those obtained ina simplified version of the approach, the quark-diquarkmodel. The latter represents an efficacious simplificationof the Faddeev three-body problem to a Bethe-Salpetertwo-body problem, where correlations in the qq scatter-ing matrix beyond the dominant scalar and axial-vectordiquarks are neglected [26, 39]. The quark-diquark ap-proach is based on the observation that the attractivenature of quark-antiquark correlations in a color-singletmeson is also attractive for 3C quark-quark correlationswithin a color-singlet baryon. In this respect, we considera first study of the N → ∆γ transition properties withina consistent and well-established quark-diquark frame-work worthwhile and therefore adopt this simplificationin the present paper. Moreover, this study completesprevious investigations of quark-core contributions to thenucleon and ∆−baryon masses and form factors [40–44],where the backbone of the approach was entirely pro-vided by the quark-diquark model.

The manuscript is organized as follows: in Section IIwe discuss the Poincare-covariant Faddeev approach tobaryons and its quark-diquark simplified setup. In Sec-tion III we elaborate on the construction and propertiesof the electromagnetic transition current operator in thequark-diquark framework. In Section IV we present andcomment on the results for the N → ∆γ transition formfactors and compare them to experimental data. Tech-nical details of our calculations are presented in Appen-dices A–D. We work in Euclidean momentum space anduse the isospin-symmetric limit mu = md.

II. QUARK-DIQUARK FRAMEWORK

The description of the N∆γ transition properties inthe Dyson-Schwinger approach requires knowledge of thenucleon and ∆ bound-state amplitudes and their micro-scopic ingredients in terms of QCD’s Green functions.The quantities which appear explicitly in the computa-tion of hadron wave functions and form factors are thedressed quark propagator and the irreducible qq, qq andqqq kernels. They encode the interactions at the quark-gluon level and, at least in principle, can be obtainedthrough QCD’s Dyson-Schwinger equations.

In order to compute nucleon and ∆ properties, thesebuilding blocks must be combined via covariant bound-state equations. In the present study we treat baryons asbound states of quarks and diquarks which amounts toa simplification of the three-quark problem. Irreduciblethree-quark interactions are neglected, and the qq inter-action is subsumed in effective diquark correlations. As aconsequence, gluons appear only implicitly in quark anddiquark propagators and quark-diquark vertex functions.

In subsection II A we will briefly describe the basic in-put of the approach, namely, the rainbow-ladder ansatzfor the qq kernel which amounts to an iterated gluon ex-change between two quarks. The subsequent calculationof diquark and baryon properties from that input is dis-cussed in II B and II D, respectively.

A. Quarks

The basic building blocks that enter the descriptionof hadronic bound states are the dressed quark propaga-tor S(p) and the two-quark irreducible kernel K. Theseare the ingredients that appear in a meson’s Bethe-Salpeter equation and the covariant Faddeev equationfor a baryon. The quark propagator satisfies a Dyson-Schwinger equation which can be solved numericallywithin a suitable truncation. On the other hand, theabsence of a self-consistent solution for the quark four-point function necessitates an ansatz for the kernel K.

The construction of kernel ansatze is guided by vec-tor and axialvector Ward-Takahashi identities which en-sure electromagnetic current conservation as well as Gell-Mann-Oakes-Renner and Goldberger-Treiman relationsat the hadron level [38, 45, 46]. These identities imposeconstraints on the structure of the kernel K by relating itwith the kernel of the quark DSE [47, 48]. The simplestansatz to satisfy those constraints is the rainbow-ladderkernel:

Kαα′ββ′ = Z22

4πα(k2)

k2Tµνk γµαα′ γ

νββ′ , (1)

where Tµνk = δµν−kµkν/k2 is a transverse projector withrespect to the gluon momentum k, and Z2 is the quarkrenormalization constant. Eq. (1) describes a dressedgluon exchange between quark and antiquark that re-tains only the vector part ∼ γµ of the quark-gluon vertex.

3

-1 = -1 +

( )2

FIG. 1. (Color online) Quark DSE (3) in rainbow-ladder trun-cation.

Its non-perturbative dressing, together with that of thegluon propagator, is absorbed by an effective couplingα(k2) which is modeled.

The second basic ingredient is the dressed quark prop-agator. It is expressed by two scalar functions, the quarkwave-function renormalization 1/A(p2) and the quarkmass function M(p2):

S−1(p) = A(p2)(i/p+M(p2)

). (2)

The quark propagator satisfies the quark DSE which isillustrated in Fig. 1. Its interaction kernel includes thedressed gluon propagator as well as one bare and onedressed quark-gluon vertex. In rainbow-ladder trunca-tion that kernel becomes identical to Eq. (1) and thequark DSE reads:

S−1αβ (p) = Z2 (i/p+m0)αβ +

∫Kαα′β′β Sα′β′(q) . (3)

The bare current-quark mass m0 appears here as the in-put of the equation and can be varied from the chirallimit up to the heavy-quark regime.

The quark DSE exhibits dynamical chiral symmetrybreaking if the kernel K supplies sufficient interactionstrength. Its consequence is a non-perturbative enhance-ment of the quark mass function M(p2) in the low-momentum region that indicates the dynamical genera-tion of a constituent-quark mass scale. In principle, suchstrength would be generated through a self-consistentDSE solution for the gluon propagator and quark-gluonvertex that enter the quark DSE. In the rainbow-laddertruncation, that effect is provided by the effective cou-pling α(k2) which appears in the kernel (1). The ansatzwe choose is taken from Ref. [49] and plotted in Fig. 2:

α(k2) = πη7

[k2

Λ2

]2

e−η2

[k2

Λ2

]+ αUV(k2) . (4)

The second term αUV is only relevant at large gluon mo-menta where it dominates and is constrained by per-turbative QCD. The important part in view of hadronproperties is the first term. It provides the necessarystrength at small and intermediate momenta that trig-gers the transition from a current-quark to a dynami-cally generated constituent quark. It is characterized bytwo parameters: an infrared scale Λ that represents the

12

15

9

6

3

00 0.5 1 1.5 2

[ ]

( )

1.61.71.81.92.0

FIG. 2. (Color online) Effective coupling α(k2) of Eq. (4),evaluated for Λ = 0.72 GeV and in the range η ∈ [1.6, 2.0].

scale of dynamical chiral symmetry breaking, and a di-mensionless width parameter η that modifies the shapeof the interaction in the infrared, cf. Fig. 2.

In combination with the interaction of Eq. (4), therainbow-ladder truncation has been quite successful indescribing a variety of hadron properties. Upon set-ting the scale Λ via the experimental pion decay con-stant, its implementation in hadronic bound-state equa-tions describes pseudoscalar-meson, vector-meson, nu-cleon and ∆ ground-state properties reasonably well,see [28, 37, 50–53] and references therein. In addition,their features show an overall insensitivity to a variationof the infrared properties of the coupling which is con-trolled by the parameter η [49, 52].

Progress in the light meson sector has also beenmade for axial-vector and pseudoscalar isosinglet mesons.Their properties are subject to substantial corrections be-yond rainbow-ladder which mainly come from the quark-gluon vertex [54–56]. Another important type of correc-tions are pion-cloud contributions which are importantin the chiral and low-momentum structure of hadrons.They give rise to chiral singularities and non-analyticitiesassociated with the opening of decay channels. Pion-cloud effects are not implemented in the present approachwhich therefore aims at investigating the properties of thenucleon and ∆ quark core.

Eq. (4) remains the basic model input throughout thiswork. By setting the scale Λ and treating η as a parame-ter that reflects the model uncertainty, the properties ofthe effective interaction directly translate to the level ofform factors. The quantities that appear in intermediatesteps are computed self-consistently from this input sothat no further model assumptions are necessary.

4

B. Diquarks

The importance of diquark correlations in view of un-derstanding baryon structure has a longstanding his-tory [57, 58]. The strong attraction in the color anti-triplet diquark channel has motivated the interpreta-tion of baryons as bound states of quarks and scalar(’good’) diquarks. Such a picture reduces the rotationaldegrees of freedom in baryons and can explain the ab-sence of baryon resonances that are predicted by sym-metric quark models. Nevertheless, recent lattice resultsfor excited baryon masses show more similarity with tra-ditional quark model predictions [59].

In that respect, one should be cautious in order not tooversimplify the problem. Diquark correlations certainlycarry internal structure, and the inclusion of axialvectordiquarks is crucial as well [26, 60]. In our setup, diquarksapproximate the structure of the qq scattering matrix Tthat enters a baryon’s Faddeev equation. It is expressedas the separable sum of scalar and axialvector-diquarkcontributions:

Tαββ′α′ ≈∑D

ΓµD(p, P )αβ Dµν(P 2) ΓνD(p′, P )β′α′ , (5)

whose ingredients, in terms of diquark propagators Dµν

and quark-diquark vertices ΓµD, are computed dynami-cally from QCD. Here, the label ’D’ denotes the type ofdiquark. For scalar diquarks one has µ = ν = 0 and foraxialvector diquarks µ, ν = 1 . . . 4. The total qq momen-tum is called P , and p, p′ are the relative momenta be-tween the quarks. A bar on an amplitude denotes chargeconjugation, cf. App. A.

The implementation of the full T−matrix in a baryon’sbound-state equation is equivalent to solving its covari-ant Faddeev equation without irreducible three-quark in-teractions, as implemented in Refs. [35, 37]. From thatpoint of view, the quark-diquark model defined by Eq. (5)merely amounts to a truncation of the Faddeev equation.In fact, both approaches yield quite similar results fornucleon and ∆ masses and nucleon electromagnetic formfactors [28, 37, 53], which indicates that scalar and axi-alvector diquarks provide indeed the overwhelming con-tribution to the binding of these baryons. The questionof baryon excitations, on the other hand, has not yetbeen addressed in full sophistication in either of theseframeworks. A recent study of the Roper resonance ina simpler model suggests a quark-diquark structure aswell [61].

While the dominance of qq correlations in the struc-ture of baryons may be a generic feature, the presenceof explicit timelike diquark poles in the T-matrix is tiedto the properties of the rainbow-ladder kernel (1). Therainbow-ladder truncation generates qq poles in the fullT−matrix which are recovered by the ansatz (5) in terms

-

FIG. 3. (Color online) The quark-diquark BSE, Eq. (9).

of scalar and axialvector diquark propagators:

D00(P 2)P 2→−m2

sc−−−−−−→ 1

P 2 +m2sc

,

Dµν(P 2)P 2→−m2

av−−−−−−→TµνP

P 2 +m2av

,

(6)

where TµνP is again the transverse projector defined be-low Eq. (1). Colored diquarks disappear from the phys-ical spectrum beyond rainbow-ladder; hence, these polesare truncation artifacts [48]. Nevertheless, they provideaccess to a dynamical computation of onshell diquarkamplitudes and their masses msc, mav from the diquarkBSE:

ΓµD(p, P )αβ =

=

∫q

Kαα′β′β

[S(q+) ΓµD(q, P )ST (−q−)

]α′β′ ,

(7)

with q± = q±P/2. Eq. (7) has a similar structure as theBSEs for pseudoscalar and vector mesons: upon tracingout the Dirac structure, they only differ by a color fac-tor. Details about the Lorentz-Dirac structure of the di-quark amplitudes and the solution method can be foundin Refs. [34, 62].

Diquark correlations in a baryon are offshell. The off-shell structure of the qq scattering matrix in the sepa-rable approximation is primarily encoded in the diquarkpropagators. Inserting Eq. (5) in the scattering equationfor the T−matrix yields an expression that allows fora consistent determination of the propagators. It readsschematically [34]:

D−1(P 2) = Tr

∫ΓD (G0 −K−1) ΓD , (8)

where G0 is the disconnected product of two quark prop-agators and K the rainbow-ladder kernel. It involves theonshell diquark amplitudes from Eq. (7) that must beequipped with appropriate offshell ansatze. The resultingdiquark propagators reproduce Eq. (6) on the respectivemass shells but deviate from free-particle propagators atoffshell momenta.

5

C. Nucleon and ∆ bound-state equations

The simplification of the three-body problem to an ef-fective quark-diquark interpretation of baryons proceedsvia omitting genuine three-quark interactions and em-ploying the separable pole expansion (5) in the quark-quark T -matrix. The resulting interaction between quarkand diquark is an iterative quark exchange, where in ev-ery iteration step the spectator quark and one quark in-side the diquark exchange roles [26, 34, 39, 63].

The corresponding quark-diquark BSE is illustrated inFig. 3 and reads

ΓαB(p, P ) =

∫k

KαβQ-DQ S(kq)D

ββ′(kd) Γβ

′

B (k, P ) , (9)

where ΓαB are the quark-diquark amplitudes of the re-spective baryon, with B = N or ∆. The quark-diquarkexchange kernel is given by

KαβQ-DQ = ΓβD(kr, kd)S

T (q) ΓαD(pr, pd) . (10)

The scalar and axialvector diquark amplitudes and prop-agators that appear in these expressions were explainedin connection with Eq. (5). pq,d and kq,d are the externaland internal quark and diquark momenta, pr and kr arethe relative momenta that enter the diquark amplitudes,and P is here the total baryon momentum, cf. Fig. 3.The Dirac-Lorentz structure of the baryon amplitudesΓαB is analyzed in the following subsection. For detailson the solution of the quark-diquark BSE we refer toRefs. [34, 64].

The treatment of light baryons such as the nucleonand ∆ in the quark-diquark approach usually retains thelightest diquark degrees of freedom, i.e., scalar and axial-vector diquarks. The ∆ baryon then involves only axial-vector diquark correlations whereas the nucleon containsboth. As a consequence, theN∆γ transition will not onlyinvolve axial-scalar diquark transitions but also axial-axial correlations. We will return to the implications ofthis feature in Section IV A.

D. Nucleon and ∆ amplitudes

When expressed as two-body bound states of quarksand diquarks, the Dirac-Lorentz structure of the nucleonand ∆ amplitudes ΓαB is considerably simpler comparedto the full three-body approach of Refs. [35, 37]. Theirderivation and partial-wave decomposition in the quark-diquark model has been outlined in Refs. [26, 65]. Inview of exploring the impact of different quark orbital-angular momentum eigenstates on the properties of theN∆γ transition, we briefly repeat the construction herefor convenience.

A two-body system is described by two independentmomenta, the total momentum P and the relative mo-mentum p. Three Lorentz-invariant momentum variables

Γ0N

τ1 = 1

τ2 = ir/

ΓµN

τµ3 = 1√3γµT

τµ4 = 1√3γµT ir/

τµ5 = Pµ

τµ6 = Pµ ir/

τµ7 = 1√6

(γµT − 3rµr/)

τµ8 = 1√6

(γµT − 3rµr/) ir/

Γµν∆

τµν1 = δµν

τµν2 = i√5

(2 γµT rν − 3 δµνr/)

τµν3 =√

3 Pµ rνr/

τµν4 =√

3 Pµ irν

τµν5 = γµT rνr/

τµν6 = γµT irν

τµν7 = −γµT rνr/− δµν + 3 rµrν

τµν8 = i√5

(δµνr/+ γµT rν − 5 rµrνr/)

TABLE I. Orthonormal basis elements for the nucleon and ∆quark-diquark amplitudes that appear in Eqs. (11–12).

can be constructed out of those: p2, z := p · P , and P 2.The total momentum is onshell: P 2 = −M2

B, where theindex B denotes the nucleon or ∆−baryon. The quark-diquark amplitudes can be expanded in a basis whosedimension is determined by Poincare covariance and par-ity invariance, together with the restrictions that follow ifthe baryon is taken on its mass shell. The respective de-composition for the scalar and axial-vector diquark partsof the nucleon amplitude reads:

Γ0N (p, P ) =

2∑k=1

fNk (p2, z) τk(r, P ) Λ+(P ) ,

ΓµN (p, P ) =

8∑k=3

fNk (p2, z) τµk (r, P ) γ5Λ+(P ) ,

(11)

and for the ∆ amplitude:

Γµν∆ (p, P ) =

8∑k=1

f∆k (p2, z) τµρk (r, P )Pρν(P ) . (12)

The Lorentz-invariant coefficients fBk depend on the two

invariant variables p2 and z and are solutions of thequark-diquark bound-state equations. We have factoredout the nucleon and ∆ spinors and work instead with the

6

= 0

= 1

= 2

= 0

= 1

= 2

= 3

SC AX

= ¹ = ³

TABLE II. (Color online) Rest-frame partial-wave decomposi-tion of nucleon and ∆−baryon in the quark-diquark approach.The basis elements are characterized by their scalar and ax-ialvector diquark content and their eigenvalues with respectto quark-diquark spin (s) and orbital angular momentum (l).The colored boxes highlight the dominant components; forexample, the dressing functions associated with τµ4 and τµ6are much smaller than the remaining p−wave contributions.

positive-energy and Rarita-Schwinger projectors whichsatisfy

Λ+(P )u(P, s) = u(P, s) ,

Pµν(P )uν(P, s) = uµ(P, s) .(13)

They are given by

Λ+ = 12 (1+ /P ) , Pµν = Λ+

(TµνP −

13 γ

µT γ

νT

), (14)

where P = P/(iMB) is the normalized baryon momen-

tum, TµνP = δµν−PµP ν is a transverse projector with re-spect to P , and γµT = TµνP γν is the transverse γ−matrix.The projectors inherit the constraints from the spinors:

/P Λ+ = Λ+ , PµPµν = γµPµν = 0 . (15)

Instead of p and P , the basis elements in Eqs. (11–12)can be equally well expressed through orthonormal mo-menta Pµ and rµ := pT

µ, i.e., such that r2 = P 2 = 1

and r · P = 0. The dependence on the Lorentz invari-ants p2 and z is then carried by the coefficients fB

k only.This simplifies the construction of an orthogonal basisand is also convenient for practical calculations, e.g. inthe baryon’s rest frame, where P and r are Euclideanunit vectors.

The largest linearly independent set of basis elementsfor the bound-state amplitude Γ0

N , ΓµN and Γµν∆ is given inEq. (B1). On the baryon’s mass shell, which is enforced

by the properties (15) of the projectors, the followingindependent basis elements remain:

Γ0N : {1, r/},

ΓµN : {γµT , rµ, Pµ} × {1, r/},

Γµν∆ : {δµν , γµT rν , rµrν , Pµrν} × {1, r/}.

(16)

These can be further orthonormalized and arranged ac-cording to their (quark-diquark) spin and orbital angularmomentum content in the baryon’s rest frame, cf. App. B.The resulting classification in s, p, d and f waves is illus-trated in Tables I and II. We emphasize that p-wave con-tributions to the bound-state amplitudes emerge quitenaturally because of Poincare covariance. Those disap-pear in the non-relativistic limit [65] but have importantconsequences for the behavior of the form factors in Sec-tion IV.

III. ELECTROMAGNETIC TRANSITION

A. N∆γ transition current

We now turn to the general properties of the N∆γtransition current and its decomposition in terms ofLorentz-invariant form factors. The current can be gener-ically written as

Jµ,ρ(P,Q) = Pρα(Pf ) iγ5 Γαµ(P,Q) Λ+(Pi) , (17)

where Pi and Pf are the incoming nucleon and outgoing∆ momenta, with P 2

i = −M2N and P 2

f = −M2∆. They can

be expressed through the photon momentum Q = Pf−Piand the average momentum P = (Pi+Pf )/2. The onshellstructure of the current is ensured by the projectors de-fined in Eq. (14), i.e., the positive-energy projector Λ+ forthe nucleon and the Rarita-Schwinger projector Pρα forthe ∆-baryon. Eq. (17) is a matrix in spinor space; theusual current matrix element 〈Pf , sf | Jµ |Pi, si〉 is ob-tained upon contraction with the ∆ and nucleon spinorsfrom Eq. (13). The momentum dependence of the projec-tors implies that the γ−matrices contained in the Rarita-Schwinger projector Pρα(Pf ) are now transverse with re-spect to Pf . We extracted an explicit factor γ5 in Eq. (17)so that the remainder Γαµ, which will be specified below,has positive parity.

Similarly to the nucleon and ∆ bound-state ampli-tudes, the composition of the four-point function Γαµ inEq. (17) is determined by Poincare covariance. For itsexplicit construction it is again convenient to work withorthogonal momenta. This is not yet the case for P andQ because the non-vanishing N -∆ mass difference entailsP ·Q 6= 0, cf. Eq. (C3). We take instead the componentof P transverse to Q:

PµT = TµνQ P ν = Pµ − (P · Q) Qµ , (18)

and normalize it to unity: Kµ := PTµ. Here,

TµνQ = δµν − QµQν (19)

7

is the transverse projector with respect to Q. Together

with the normalized photon momentum Q, the currentis now characterized by two orthonormal four-momenta,

K and Q (instead of P and Q, or Pi and Pf ), which willsimplify its structure considerably.

Using this construction, the most general form of thevertex Γαµ that is compatible with Poincare covariance,positive parity and current conservation can be writtenas (cf. App. C 2):

Γαµ = iQα (g1γµT + g2K

µ)− g3 TαµQ , (20)

where γµT is transverse to Q. It depends on three real anddimensionless form factors gi(Q

2).For comparison with experiment, it is more convenient

to work with the Jones-Scadron form factors G?M (Q2),G?E(Q2) and G?C(Q2) which are related to the pion elec-troproduction multipole amplitudes at the ∆−resonanceposition and can be expressed in terms of helicity ampli-tudes [2, 66]. The respective decomposition of the vertexΓαµ is:

Γαµ = b

[iω

2λ+(G?M −G?E) γ5 ε

αµγδKγQδ

−G?E TαγQ T γµK −

iτ

ωG?C Q

αKµ

],

(21)

where we used the dimensionless variables

τ :=Q2

2 (M2∆ +M2

N ), λ± :=

(M∆ ±MN )2 +Q2

2 (M2∆ +M2

N )(22)

as well as ω :=√λ+λ− and b :=

√32 (1 + M∆/MN ).

We show in App. C 2 that the vertices in (20) and (21)are equivalent when contracted with the projectors in thecurrent matrix (17), and the relations between the gi andthe Jones-Scadron form factors are stated in Eq. (C18).

Eq. (21) is identical with the standard Jones-Scadronexpression [2, 66] which is given in terms of the Lorentzstructures

εαµγδP γi Pδf

M2∆ +M2

N

= iω εαµγδKγQδ ,

εαλγδP γi Pδf ε

µλρσP ρi Pσf

(M2∆ +M2

N )2= −ω2 TαγQ T γµK ,

Qα(Q2Pµ − P ·QQµ

)(M2

∆ +M2N )2

= 2iωτ QαKµ .

(23)

These relations can be verified by expressing Pi and Pfthrough P and Q and subsequently in terms of the unit

vectors K and Q via Eq. (C6).

B. Electromagnetic current in the quark-diquarkapproach

The computation of the N∆γ transition matrix ofEqs. (17) and (21) from its substructure in QCD re-quires a microscopic description of its ingredients. A

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

’

’

FIG. 4. (Color online) General expression for the N∆γ tran-sition current in the quark-diquark approach, see Eqs. (24)and App. D.

systematic construction principle to derive the couplingof a hadron to an external current is the ’gauging ofequations’ method of Refs. [67–69]. The procedure wasapplied in [70] to derive the relevant diagrams in thequark-diquark system; recent discussions and applica-tions in the three-quark framework can be found inRefs. [28, 38, 71].

Applied to our case, the basic idea is that the N∆γtransition matrix element is the N∆ pole residue of thequark-diquark Green function that is struck by an exter-nal photon. If the current systematically couples to allinternal constituents, which means that it has the formalproperties of a derivative, electromagnetic current con-servation is automatically satisfied. The photon coupling

8

at the hadron level is thereby resolved to its interactionwith quarks and diquarks. The resulting current has thegeneric form

Jµ = Γ∆G0

(Γµ −Kµ

Q-DQ

)G0 ΓN , (24)

which is detailed in App. D and illustrated in Fig. 4. ΓNand Γ∆ denote the incoming and outgoing baryon ampli-tudes, G0 is the disconnected product of a dressed quarkand diquark propagator, and Γµ represents the photon’scoupling to G0 which yields the impulse-approximationdiagrams (a–b) in Fig. 4. Those alone are however notsufficient: in order to comply with electromagnetic gaugeinvariance, one must take the coupling to the quark-diquark kernel into account as well. This leads to anexchange-quark term (c) and further diagrams that in-volve seagulls (d–e), i.e., the photon’s coupling to thequark-diquark vertices.

This decomposition has been frequently used in thecomputation of nucleon form factors by employing modelansatze for its ingredients [63, 72]. Building uponRefs. [39, 40], our goal in the present work is to computethese ingredients selfconsistently. We have outlined thecalculation of quark and diquark propagators, diquarkamplitudes, and nucleon and ∆ bound-state amplitudesin the previous sections. In addition, we also computethe quark-photon and diquark-photon vertices that ap-pear in diagrams (a–c), so that no further model input isneeded for those objects. The only quantities that requirea certain amount of modeling are the seagulls which wewill discuss below. We note that the same method wasrecently applied for studying nucleon [73] and ∆ formfactors [27] in the quark-diquark approach and, upon ne-glecting the seagull terms, also the ∆Nπ transition formfactor [44].

The central ingredient of Fig. 4 that describes themicroscopic interaction with the photon is the dressedquark-photon vertex Γµq(k,Q). Ultimately, the diquark-photon and seagull terms would be resolved to the pho-ton’s coupling with quarks as well. The properties ofthe quark-photon vertex will therefore be reflected in allform-factor contributions, either directly via diagrams(a) and (c) or implicitly in diagrams (b), (d) and (e).Here we compute the vertex self-consistently from its in-homogeneous Bethe-Salpeter equation [74]:[

Γµq(k,Q)− Z2 iγµ]αβ

=

=

∫k′

Kαα′β′β

[S(k′+) Γµq(k′, Q)S(k′−)

]α′β′ ,

(25)

see App. D3 of Ref. [28] for details of the solution method.The equation features the same rainbow-ladder kernel ofEq. (1) that also appears in the quark DSE and diquarkBSE. Electromagnetic gauge invariance is expressed bythe vector Ward-Takahashi identity,

Qµ Γµq(k,Q) = S−1(k+)− S−1(k−) , (26)

which is satisfied for the resulting vertex. In combinationwith analyticity at Q2 → 0, it allows to write the vertexas the sum of a Ball-Chiu term [75], which is fixed bygauge invariance, and a further transverse contribution:

Γµq(k,Q) = iγµ ΣA + 2kµ(i/k∆A + ∆B) + ΓµT , (27)

where A(k2) and B(k2) are the dressing functions of theinverse quark propagator S−1(k) = i/k A(k2)+B(k2), andwe abbreviated

ΣF :=F (k2

+) + F (k2−)

2, ∆F :=

F (k2+)− F (k2

−)

k2+ − k2

−,

with k± = k ± Q/2. As a consequence of the term iγµ

that appears in Eq. (25), the structure of the BSE impliesthe existence of a transverse vector-meson pole in thequark-photon vertex [74], see [38] for a recent discussion.Indeed, the inhomogeneous BSE self-consistently gener-ates a ρ−meson pole in the vertex at Q2 = −m2

ρ whichdominates the timelike structure of the N∆γ transitionform factors.

Having determined the quark-photon vertex, thediquark-photon vertices that appear in Fig. (4b) are com-puted selfconsistently as well. The diquark content ofthe nucleon and ∆ amplitudes necessitates the inclusionof axial-axial as well as axial-scalar transition vertices.Applying the gauging procedure to the inverse diquarkpropagator of Eq. (8) resolves the diquark-photon ver-tices into their quark-gluon substructure, where the pho-ton couples once again to all constituents and thereby en-sures a Ward-Takahashi identity for the vertex [69, 76].This leads to various quark-loop diagrams that involvethe quark-photon vertex, seagull terms, and also theqq kernel. The construction is detailed in App. A.7 ofRef. [34] and can be directly adopted here. The prop-erties of the quark-photon vertex and, in particular, theρ−meson pole that appears in its transverse term, arethereby recovered in the diquark-photon vertices as well.

Finally, current conservation in the quark-diquark ap-proach also requires the inclusion of seagull vertices Mµ,α

in diagrams (4d)–(4e). These terms describe the couplingof the photon to the offshell quark-diquark vertices. Asthey are another source of model uncertainty they war-rant further discussion. The seagull vertices Mµ,α satisfya Ward-Takahashi identity similar to Eq. (26) which in-volves differences of scalar and axial-vector diquark am-plitudes [39, 70, 77]. In analogy to the Ball-Chiu con-struction for the quark-photon vertex, the seagull vertexcan be written as the sum of a part that is fixed by theWTI and analyticity at Q2 → 0, augmented by a furtherunconstrained transverse piece:

Mµ,α = Mµ,αWTI +Mµ,α

T . (28)

The first term Mµ,αWTI is a rather lengthy expression, es-

pecially once the full Dirac-Lorentz substructure of thediquarks is taken into account. Its detailed form is givenin App. A.8 of Ref. [34]; here we only repeat the generic

9

structure:

MWTI = e−M1 + e+M2 − edqM3 ,

MWTI = −e+M1 − e−M2 + edqM3 .(29)

The first and second lines correspond to the expressionsthat enter Figs. (4d) and (4e), respectively. The flavor-charge traces e± and edq represent the photon coupling tothe seagulls’ quark and diquark legs and are determinedin App. D 3.

Since the properties of the quark-photon vertex in prin-ciple also dictate the structure of the seagulls, the trans-verse term in (28) must involve a ρ−meson pole as well.In absence of a selfconsistent solution for the seagulls, weuse the following ansatz for the ρ−meson part:

Mµ,αT = −g(x)TµνQ Mν,α

WTI , (30)

where x = Q2/m2ρ. Purely longitudinal terms in (28)

do not contribute to the N∆γ current because of cur-rent conservation; hence, this simple form amounts toan overall factor (1− g(x)) in the WTI-conserving part.The following phenomenological function was chosen inRef. [40]:

g(x) =1

gρ

x2

1 + xe−ρ3(1+x) , (31)

where gρ =√

2mρ/fρ is computed from the ρ−mesonBSE. The parameter ρ3 will be discussed below; it con-tributes to the overall model uncertainty that is, so far,induced by the width parameter η in the effective cou-pling (4) only.

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

We summarize the steps that we performed to obtainthe results in this section. The basic model input is theeffective quark-gluon interaction of Eq. (4) that entersthe rainbow-ladder kernel of Eqs. (1). Its infrared partdepends on the scale Λ = 0.72 GeV which we adjust toreproduce the experimental pion decay constant, whereasthe width η = 1.8 ± 0.2 remains a parameter and mod-ifies the infrared shape of the coupling α(k2). Usingthis input, we solve the Dyson-Schwinger equation (3)for the quark propagator, the diquark Bethe-Salpeterequation (7) for the scalar and axialvector diquark am-plitudes, and we compute the diquark propagators fromEq. (8). These quantities are subsequently implementedin the quark-diquark BSEs (9) from which we obtain thenucleon and ∆ masses and bound-state amplitudes.

The resulting masses for nucleon and ∆ were obtainedin Refs. [27, 40, 53] and are shown in Fig. 5 as a functionof the squared pion mass. They are in reasonable agree-ment with experiment and lattice results. The results ob-tained in the quark-diquark model are in several respectssimilar to recent three-body calculations of nucleon and∆ properties [28, 35, 37]. The nucleon mass is practically

0.8

0.6

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

0.10.0 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

PACS-CS (Aoki ‘09)BGR (Gattringer ‘09)

LHPC (Bratt ‘10)RBC/UKQCD (Yamazaki ‘09)

Lattice:Alexandrou ‘09

FIG. 5. (Color online) Current-mass evolution of nucleon and∆ masses from their quark-diquark BSEs. The band corre-sponds to a variation of the width parameter η = 1.8 ± 0.2;the star denotes the experimental value. We compare to aselection of lattice data for nucleon [78–82] and ∆ [78–80].

identical in both approaches, whereas the ∆ mass in thequark-diquark model is larger by . 5% and also shows alarger dependence on η which is illustrated by the bands.Analogous observations also hold for the nucleon’s elec-tromagnetic form factors which are quantitatively sim-ilar in both setups except that the quark-diquark ap-proach produces a larger model dependence. Note thatthe rainbow-ladder truncation does not dynamically gen-erate a ∆ → Nπ decay width, i.e., our result for the∆−baryon describes a stable bound state. Associatednon-analyticities which would appear forM∆−MN > mπ

are therefore absent.

Having established the ingredients of the electromag-netic transition current, we calculate its matrix elementsfrom the diagrams in Fig. 4 which are discussed in detailin App. D. The current implements the selfconsistent so-lution for the quark-photon vertex (25) and the diquark-photon vertex, and for the seagull vertices we use theexpression in Eq. (28). The seagulls, which are necessaryfor current conservation in the quark-diquark model, rep-resent another source of model uncertainty. Their trans-verse ρ−meson parts are modeled by Eqs. (30–31) andaffect the larger-Q2 behavior of the form factors. We take

10

[ ]0.0 0.5 1.0 2.0 2.51.5

0.0

1.0

1.5

0.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

PDGDESY (Bartel ‘68)SLAC (Stein ‘75)OOPS (Sparveris ‘05)MAMI (Stave ‘08)CLAS (Aznauryan ‘09)

( )*

FIG. 6. (Color online) Q2−evolution of the magnetic dipoleform factor G?M in comparison with experimental data fromRefs. [83–87]. The band denotes the model dependence asdiscussed in the text.

a variation of the parameter ρ3 ∈ [0, 0.15] into account;the central value of that interval was used in Ref. [40]to maximize agreement for nucleon electromagnetic formfactors at larger Q2. The combined model dependence,stemming from the the seagull variation together withthe η dependence in the effective interaction, leads tothe colored bands in Figs. (6–8).

The Jones-Scadron form factors G?M (Q2), G?E(Q2) andG?C(Q2) are finally extracted from the Dirac traces inEq. (C19). Since the approach is Poincare-covariant, theresults are independent of the choice of reference frame.In order to avoid complex continuations for the radialmomentum variables in the N and ∆ bound-state am-plitudes, we work in the frame where the photon mo-mentum is purely real: Q = (0, 0, |Q|, 0) or, expressed in

terms of the unit vectors defined in Section C, Q = e3 andK = e4. The singularities in the quark and diquark prop-agators that enter the form factor integrals restrict theaccessible domain of photon momenta to Q2 . 2.5 GeV2,see App. D 2. This value is quite small and due to thequark-diquark description; a genuine three-body calcu-lation would be able to reach Q2 values roughly twiceas large. In addition, the kinematic dependence on thenon-vanishing N -∆ mass difference also imposes a lowerlimit for Q2. In order to obtain results at Q2 = 0, we ex-trapolate the form factor results at non-zero momentumtransfer using Pade approximants. The extrapolation re-gions are indicated by the dashed margins in Figs. (6–7).

A. Q2 dependence of the form factors

The N∆γ transition current is determined by thethree Jones-Scadron form factors G?M (Q2), G?E(Q2) and

MN M∆ G?M (0) REM (0) RSM (0)

Exp. 0.94 1.23 3.02(3) −2.5(5)

Calc. 0.94(1) 1.27(3) 2.23(2) −2.3(3) −2.2(6)

TABLE III. Results at the physical u/d mass compared to ex-periment. Nucleon and ∆ masses are in units of GeV, G?M (0)is dimensionless, and the ratios REM and RSM are given inpercent. The experimental values for G?M (0) and REM (0) arethe PDG values [88]. The parentheses in our results indicatethe combined model dependence as discussed in the text.

G?C(Q2) which are experimentally extracted from themultipole amplitudes in pion electroproduction [1, 2].The process is dominated by a magnetic dipole transi-tion (M1) which, in a quark-model picture, amounts toa spinflip of a quark and is encoded in the form fac-tor G?M (Q2). Its static experimental value is G?M (0) =3.02(3) [88]; experimental data exist in the range up toQ2 ∼ 8 GeV2. The remaining electric (E2) and Coulomb(C2) quadrupole contributions are much smaller andmeasure the deformation in the transition. They are ex-pressed by the form factors G?E(Q2) and G?C(Q2) whichare usually related to the magnetic dipole form factorthrough the form factor ratios

REM = −G?E

G?M, RSM = − |Q|

2M∆

G?CG?M

, (32)

where |Q| denotes the magnitude of the photon three-momentum in the ∆ rest frame. It can be expressed interms of Lorentz-invariant variables via

|Q|2M∆

=ω

1 + 2δ, (33)

where ω was defined below Eq. (22) and δ is related tothe N–∆ mass difference, cf. Eq. (C2):

δ =M2

∆ −M2N

2 (M2∆ +M2

N ). (34)

Our result for the magnetic dipole form factor G?M (Q2)is shown in Fig. 6. We find good agreement with exper-imental data above Q2 ∼ 1 GeV2, whereas the quark-diquark result underestimates these data by ∼ 25% inthe limit Q2 = 0, cf. Table III. This is comparableto constituent-quark model predictions [19], where thelong-standing discrepancy with the data has been at-tributed to missing meson-cloud contributions. Theirimpact has been studied with dynamical reaction mod-els [7, 92], where the ’bare’ ∆ resonance extracted fromthe Nγ? → Nπ scattering amplitude corresponds to thequark-core contribution and meson-cloud effects are gen-erated via rescattering processes. In these analyses thepion cloud is sizeable and accounts for ∼ 30% of G?M (0).Similar conclusions have been found in the cloudy bagmodel [13, 14] or covariant chiral quark models [19].

11

[ ] [ ]

[%] [%]

0.0

0

-2

-3

-4

-5

-1

0

-2

-4

-6

-8

-10

-12

-140.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

MAMI (Beck ‘99)LEGS (Planpied ‘01)OOPS (Sparveris ‘05)MAMI (Stave ‘08)CLAS (Aznauryan ‘09)

OOPS (Sparveris ‘05)MAMI (Stave ‘08)

MAMI (Pospischil ‘00)

CLAS (Aznauryan ‘09)

FIG. 7. (Color online) Form-factor ratios REM (Q2) and RSM (Q2) compared to experimental data from Refs. [85–87, 89–91].The bands denote the model uncertainty as described in the text.

The same interpretation applies to our framework aswell. Pion-loop effects are not implemented in a rainbow-ladder truncation, and their inclusion would yield char-acteristic non-analytic structures in the chiral and low-momentum structure of form factors. Our result forG?M (Q2) is consistent with various nucleon form-factorcalculations in the Dyson-Schwinger/Faddeev approach,where similar discrepancies were interpreted as signalsof missing pion-cloud effects [28, 73]. Typical exam-ples are the nucleon’s charge radii which underestimatethe experimental values but converge with lattice dataat larger quark masses; or the low-Q2 behavior of elec-tromagnetic form factors that shows missing structure,whereas one finds reasonable agreement with experimentat larger Q2. A recent calculation of the nucleon’s ax-ial charge finds such a discrepancy as well [38]. On theother hand, the nucleon’s isoscalar anomalous magneticmoment κs, where leading-order chiral corrections can-cel, is accurately reproduced by the Faddeev calculation.These observations suggest to identify the rainbow-laddertruncated nucleon with the ’quark core’ in chiral effectivefield theories.

In fact, we observe analogous discrepancies in the low-Q2 region for all three form factors G?M (Q2), G?E(Q2)and G?C(Q2). Consequently, these deviations cancel inthe ratios of Eq. (32), and REM (Q2) and RSM (Q2) showa good agreement with the experimental data which canbe seen in Fig. 7. Considering the absence of pion-cloudeffects in our description, this result is quite remarkable.Non-zero values for REM (0) and RSM (0) are usually at-tributed to the presence of quark orbital angular momen-tum in theN∆γ transition, either via d-wave componentsin the nucleon and ∆ wave functions, or caused by pion-cloud contributions. A large sensitivity to pionic effectshas been found in coupled-channel analyses as well, wherethe bare ratios extracted from the electroproduction data

are close to zero, so that REM and RSM would be almostentirely dominated by the meson cloud [7, 92].

A related question concerns the asymptotic behav-ior of the form factors REM and RSM and the scalewhere a perturbative-QCD description sets in. Dimen-sional counting rules and hadron helicity conservationpredict [93]

REM → 1 , RSM → const. for Q2 →∞ , (35)

which is clearly not realized for the available experimen-tal data. REM is negative and small and remains prac-tically constant in the entire Q2 range whereas RSM isnegative but rises in magnitude at larger Q2. Taking intoaccount the orbital motion of the partons in the nucleonand ∆ wave functions leads to a double-logarithmic cor-rection in the ratio RSM of Eq. (35) [94].

While the large-Q2 region remains inaccessible to ouranalysis due to the kinematic singularity restrictions,we can investigate the impact of quark orbital angular-momentum correlations in the bound-state amplitudes.As a consequence of Poincare covariance, the nucleonand ∆ wave functions do not only include s and d−wavecomponents but also p waves and, in the case of the ∆,even f waves. The corresponding basis decompositionin the quark-diquark model, in terms of eigenvalues ofquark-diquark spin and orbital angular momentum inthe respective rest frames, is shown in Table II. Whilethe interpretation of spin and orbital angular momen-tum can change in different frames, the decompositionitself is Lorentz-covariant, and basis elements which cor-respond to p waves in the rest frame carry one power ofthe relative quark-diquark momentum unit rµ. Our fol-lowing use of the terminology ’s waves’ and ’p waves’ willtherefore refer to that basis decomposition.

The analysis of the N and ∆ dressing functions asso-ciated with the dimensionless basis elements in Table II

12

[%]

[ ]0.0 0.5 2.0 2.5

25

20

15

10

5

-5

0

1.51.0

s waves

s + p waves

Full

[ ]0.0 0.5 2.0 2.51.51.0

0.10

0.05

0.00

-0.05

( )

s waves

s + p waves

Full

*

[ ]

FIG. 8. (Color online) Decomposition of G?E(Q2) and REM (Q2) according to the orbital angular-momentum content of nucleonand ∆ amplitudes. The dashed bands are the results obtained with the s−wave basis elements in Table II and the dotted bandsfollow upon including the p−wave elements as well. The experimental data are the same as in Fig. 7.

exhibits a clear hierarchy in their magnitude: s waves aredominant, p waves are suppressed, and d waves providea tiny contribution. The same observation can be madein the three-body description of the nucleon amplitude,where s waves contribute roughly 2/3 to the nucleon’s nor-malization and p waves the remaining third, whereas thecontribution from d waves is at the order of only one per-cent [28]. Thus, one would expect the dominant orbitalangular-momentum effects in the form factors to comefrom p-wave contributions as well.

In order to test the sensitivity of the N∆γ transitionto different orbital angular-momentum correlations, wecomputed the Jones-Scadron form factors upon retainings−wave elements only. This leads to a notably differentbehavior for the electric quadrupole transition G?E(Q2),shown in Fig. 8. Except for very small Q2, its result car-ries now a negative sign. The corresponding value for theratio REM starts off close to zero and rises almost linearlywith increasing photon momentum. Although the upperQ2 limit is certainly too small to allow any statementsconcerning the perturbative behavior, a trend towardsthe perturbative prediction REM → 100% in Eq. (35) isvisible. If p waves are included, REM changes its behav-ior and becomes negative, thereby reinstating agreementwith the experimental data. The inclusion of further d−and f−wave basis elements produces only a minor changein that result. This observation implies that the negativevalue for REM is indeed an effect of quark orbital angularmomentum; however, it predominantly owes to p−waveeffects in the amplitudes which are already generatedfrom the dynamics of the quark core as a consequenceof Poincare covariance. This demonstrates the impor-tance of relativistic effects in the properties of the N∆γtransition. Such effects are missed in the non-relativisticquark model, or in a covariant description where p waves

are not taken into account.On the other hand, we find no such behavior for the

remaining form factors G?M (Q2) and G?C(Q2). The resultfor G?M (Q2) obtained with s waves only is practicallyindistinguishable from Fig. 6 throughout the Q2 range,which indicates that orbital effects do no play a role inthe magnetic transition form factor. The same is true forthe Coulomb ratio RSM which exhibits a similar shapeas the full result in Fig. 7, except for a broader modeluncertainty.

We finally comment on the importance of axialvector-diquark degrees of freedom in the nucleon amplitude.Due to its isospin-3/2 nature, the ∆-baryon consists exclu-sively of an isospin-1 axialvector diquark . If the nucleonwere made of a scalar diquark only, the N∆γ transitionwould be a pure axial-scalar transition and the quarkimpulse-approximation in Fig. (4a) would not partici-pate. Table IV shows that there are sizeable contribu-tions coming from the interaction of the ∆ with the ax-ialvector component in the nucleon. These correlationsappear in all diagrams of Fig. 4 and contribute ∼ 40%to G?M (0). An even more pronounced effect is again vis-ible in G?E(0) whose axial-scalar contribution is negativethroughout the Q2 range, whereas its axial-axial compo-nent is positive. The combination yields a positive valuefor G?E(0) and thus a negative value for REM (0).

B. Quark-mass dependence

We now turn to the current-quark mass dependence ofthe N∆γ transition form factors. It is accessible by mod-ifying the current-quark mass that enters the quark DSE,and by implementing the corresponding quark propaga-tor in all subsequent equations. The quark mass can be

13

0.00

1

2

3

4

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

[ ]0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

[ ]0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

[ ]

0

-2

-3

-4

-5

-1

0

-2

-3

-4

-5

-1

* (0) (0) [%] (0) [%]

FIG. 9. (Color online) Current-quark mass dependence of the three form factors G?M , REM and RSM at vanishing momentumtransfer. The dashed vertical lines indicate the position of the u/d and strange-quark mass, and the stars are the experimentalvalues from the PDG [88]. As there is no ss pseudoscalar meson in nature, the value mss = 0.69 GeV corresponds to ameson-BSE solution at a strange-quark mass ms = 150 MeV [46].

G?M (0) G?E(0) G?C(0)

∆(ax)−N(sc) 1.27(4) −0.05(2) 0.53(3)

∆(ax)−N(ax) 0.96(2) 0.11(1) −0.11(3)

Full 2.23(2) 0.06(1) 0.42(6)

TABLE IV. Extrapolated results for the Jones-Scadron formfactors at vanishing momentum transfer, and their decom-position according to the diquark content of the nucleon’sbound-state amplitude. The first line corresponds to thescalar-diquark components in the nucleon and the second lineto its axial-vector contributions.

further mapped onto the pion mass by simultaneouslysolving the BSE for the pion.

The results in Fig. 9 show the extrapolated values ofG?M , REM and RSM at vanishing photon momentum.The error bands combine the accumulated uncertaintiesfrom the model parameter η, the seagull variation, andthe extrapolation error. We find that, at least within themodel uncertainties, the form factors G?M (0) and RSM (0)are mostly insensitive to the pion-mass evolution. Theonly quantity that shows a more pronounced quark-massdependence is the ratio REM (0) which slowly decreases inmagnitude. This might be again due to p−wave effectsin the nucleon and ∆ amplitudes which diminish withincreasing quark masses and mainly have an impact onthe electric quadrupole form factor.

Further information on the pion-mass dependent prop-erties of the form factors G?M , REM and RSM is availablefrom chiral effective field theory [5, 6, 95], see [2] for areview. Depending on the treatment of the small scalesmπ and M∆ −MN , those results show different charac-teristics and typically exhibit a sizeable dependence onthe pion mass. A consistent observation is that RSMlogarithmically diverges in the chiral limit as a result ofincluding pion loops.

Since pion-cloud effects are missed in our approach, our

results can provide insight in the properties of the quark-core contribution. Its insensitivity to a quark-mass vari-ation, together with the overall agreement of REM andRSM with experimental data at non-zero Q2, suggeststhat the bulk contribution to these ratios is generatedby the dynamics of the quark core. Thus, the impact ofgenuine pion-cloud effects in the form-factor ratios mightbe smaller than expected and mainly appear close to thechiral limit. Naturally, this question demands furtherinvestigation.

V. CONCLUSIONS

We investigated the N → ∆γ transition properties in aPoincare-covariant quark-diquark approach. Since pion-cloud effects are not yet incorporated, our results describethe quark core contributions to the transition form fac-tors. They are obtained by employing a rainbow-laddertruncation at the level of the dressed quark propagatorwhich amounts to a dressed-gluon exchange between thequarks inside the diquark. Thereafter, all quark and di-quark ingredients are self-consistently determined fromthe corresponding Dyson-Schwinger and Bethe-Salpeterequations and thus related to the fundamental quantitiesin QCD.

We find several characteristic features with impact forfuture investigations of theN → ∆γ transition. As a con-sequence of Poincare covariance, the electric quadrupoletransition is dominated by p−wave admixtures to thenucleon and ∆ bound-state amplitudes. Upon removingp waves, the E2/M1 ratio becomes positive and growstoward the perturbative prediction REM = 1. The mag-netic dipole and Coulomb quadrupole transitions, on theother hand, are generated from s−wave contributionsalone. The contribution from d waves is almost negli-gible in all cases.

All form factors depend only weakly on the current-

14

quark mass. The dominant transition in the N → ∆γreaction, the magnetic dipole M1, could receive ∼ 25%pion-cloud corrections in proximity to the chiral limit.On the other hand, the E2/M1 and C2/M1 ratios re-produce the experimental data quite well. These resultsdisfavor arguments which promote the pion cloud and/ord−wave contributions as the prevailing missing effects fora proper description of the non-spherical character of thetransition. Instead, this feature is already encoded in thenucleon and ∆ quark core, partly via s−waves and par-tially via quark orbital angular momentum in terms of pwaves.

From a future perspective, in alignment with the lat-est state-of-the-art calculations for nucleon and ∆ massesand form factors, our approach can be improved byabandoning the diquark ansatz in favor of a Poincare-covariant solution of the three-quark Faddeev equation.Apart from eliminating the model dependence on diquarkproperties, such an investigation would also be able toreach higher photon momenta than presently feasible.Furthermore, a consistently developed truncation beyondrainbow-ladder will methodically enable the inclusion ofmissing chiral corrections. This will elucidate the under-standing of nucleon resonances and the interplay betweenpion-cloud contributions and the core of quarks.

VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

G. E. is grateful to R. Alkofer, C. S. Fischer, and A.Krassnigg for valuable discussions. D. Nicmorus thanksD. Rischke and J. Drobnak for their active support. Thiswork was supported by the Austrian Science Fund FWFunder Erwin-Schrodinger-Stipendium No. J3039, and bythe Helmholtz International Center for FAIR within theLOEWE program of the State of Hesse. G. E. acknowl-edges support from FWF Project No. P20592-N16.

Appendix A: Euclidean conventions

We work in Euclidean momentum space with the fol-lowing conventions:

p · q =

4∑k=1

pk qk, p2 = p · p, /p = p · γ . (A1)

A vector p is spacelike if p2 > 0 and timelike if p2 < 0.The hermitian γ−matrices γµ = (γµ)† satisfy the anti-commutation relations {γµ, γν} = 2 δ µν , and we define

σµν = − i2

[γµ, γν ] , γ5 = −γ1γ2γ3γ4 . (A2)

In the standard representation one has:

γk =

(0 −iσk

iσk 0

), γ4 =

(1 0

0 −1

), γ5 =

(0 1

1 0

),

where σk are the three Pauli matrices. The charge con-jugation matrix is given by

C = γ4γ2, CT = C† = C−1 = −C , (A3)

and the charge conjugates for (pseudo-) scalar, (axial-)vector and tensor amplitudes are defined as

Γ(p, P ) := C Γ(−p,−P )T CT ,

Γα(p, P ) := −C Γα(−p,−P )T CT ,

Γβα(p, P ) := C Γαβ(−p,−P )T CT ,

(A4)

where T denotes a Dirac transpose. Four-momenta areconveniently expressed through hyperspherical coordi-nates:

pµ =√p2

√

1− z2√

1− y2 sinφ√1− z2

√1− y2 cosφ√

1− z2 y

z

, (A5)

and a four-momentum integration reads:∫p

:=1

(2π)4

1

2

∞∫0

dp2 p2

1∫−1

dz√

1− z2

1∫−1

dy

2π∫0

dφ .

Appendix B: Partial-wave decomposition of nucleonand ∆ quark-diquark amplitudes

This appendix serves as a supplement to Section II D.We will highlight the general structure of the basis ele-ments τk, τµk and τµρk that enter the quark-diquark ampli-tudes in Eqs. (11) and (12) as well as their partial-wavedecomposition.

To count the number of basis elements in the nucleonand ∆ bound-state amplitudes, we observe that Γ0

N andΓµN are three-point functions with two spinor legs (forquark and nucleon) and a scalar or axial-vector diquarkleg. Γµν∆ is a four-point function with two spinor indices,an axialvector-diquark index µ and a further Rarita-Schwinger index ν. The largest linearly independent setof basis elements for each case reads:

Γ0N : {1, r/, /P , r/ /P},

ΓµN : {γµT , rµ, Pµ} × {1, r/, /P , r/ /P}, (B1)

Γµν∆ : δµν × {1, r/, /P , r/ /P},

{γµT , rµ, Pµ} × {γνT , rν , P ν} × {1, r/, /P , r/ /P}.

In case of the nucleon, the projector Λ+(P ) in (11) ab-

sorbs all occurrences of /P via Eq. (15) so that two in-dependent basis elements remain for the scalar quark-diquark amplitudes and six elements for the axial-vectorcontributions. The same applies to the ∆, where theRarita-Schwinger projector in addition eliminates all in-stances of γνT and P ν which leaves the eight basis ele-ments in Eq. (16).

15

To obtain the decomposition in Table I we needto construct quark-diquark spin and orbital angular-momentum operators. We will illustrate the procedurehere for the case where only the dominant diquark am-plitudes γ5C and γµC are retained. While the total an-gular momentum j of the baryon, corresponding to theeigenvalues of the squared Pauli-Lubanski operator, isPoincare-invariant, the classification in terms of quark-diquark spin and orbital angular momentum is not. Asexemplified in Ref. [28] in the three-body framework, onecan retain a covariant notation by introducing formallycovariant three-quark operators Sµ and Lµ which in therest frame coincide with the spin and orbital angular-momentum operators. The square of Sµ then reads

S2 = 94 1⊗ 1⊗ 1+ 1

4 (σµνT ⊗ σµνT ⊗ 1+ perm.) . (B2)

Applying (B2) to the basic scalar and axialvector di-quark structures γ5C and γµC yields

S2αα′ββ′γγ′(γ5C)β′γ′ =

[34 1]αα′(γ

5C)βγ , (B3)

S2αα′ββ′γγ′(γµC)β′γ′ =

=[

34 δ

µν + 3(TµνP −

13 γ

µT γ

νT

)]αα′

(γνC)βγ . (B4)

and thereby defines effective quark-diquark spin opera-tors, namely the square brackets in the above equation,that act on the quark index α and the axialvector diquarkindex µ. They yield eigenvalues s(s+ 1) for appropriatelinear combinations of (16). In the scalar-diquark case(B3), only s = 1/2 can appear. In the axial-vector di-quark case (B4), the spin operator is the sum of spin-1/2and spin-3/2 projectors:[

34 (δµν − Λµν) + 15

4 Λµν]αα′ , (B5)

where Λµν = TµνP − 13γ

µT γ

νT . Thus, for instance, basis

elements that exclusively depend on the quantities Pµ orγµT must carry s = 1/2 as they are orthogonal to Λµν , cf.Eq. (15).

The quark-diquark orbital angular momentum is en-coded in the operator

L2 = 2pT · ∂p +(pµT p

νT − p2

T TµνP

)∂µp ∂

νp (B6)

with eigenvalues l(l + 1). In the baryon’s rest frame, itreduces to the usual orbital angular-momentum operator

L2 = 2p ·∇p + pk(p ·∇p)∇kp − p2∆p . (B7)

Only the action of L2 on the basis elements τk(r, P ) isrelevant since the dressing functions of Eqs. (11–12) areLorentz-invariant, and L2 applied to any of the Lorentz-invariants p2 and z = p · P yields zero. Moreover, theeigenstates of L2 can be determined independently oftheir Dirac structure since L2 only acts upon the relative-momentum dependence. The basis elements in Eq. (16)

involve up to three powers in the momenta rα. The cor-responding eigenstates of L2 are given by

l = 1 : rα

l = 2 : 3 rαrβ − TαβPl = 3 : 5 rαrβrγ − S[αβγ]

(TαβP rγ

) (B8)

where S[αβγ] denotes a symmetric permutation of the in-dices α, β, γ.

Reexpressing the relative-momentum dependence ofthe basis elements in terms of (B8) allows to read off theirorbital angular momentum content. In the case of thenucleon these structures are already visible in Eq. (16):

• 1, γµT and Pµ carry no relative-momentum depen-dence and correspond to l = 0;

• r/, rµ, γµT r/ and Pµr/ are proportional to r and there-fore p waves;

• and rµr/ must be replaced by 3rµr/− γµT to obtain ad wave.

The procedure is analogous for the ∆ baryon, where δµν

is an s wave, {γµT rν , Pµrν , δµνr/} are p waves and so on.Combined with the respective spin eigenstates, one ar-rives at the decomposition of Fig. II and Table I. Thestructure dictated by Eq. (B8) is not immediately ap-parent in the ∆ covariants since we have exploited theproperties (15) of the Rarita-Schwinger projector thatappears in the full amplitudes.

Appendix C: Electromagnetic transition current

1. Kinematics

The N∆γ transition matrix of Eq. (17) involves twoindependent momenta, the incoming nucleon momentumPi and outgoing ∆ momentum Pf . They can be ex-pressed by the photon momentum Q and the averagemomentum P :

Q = Pf − Pi , P =Pi + Pf

2, (C1)

with the inversion Pi = P−Q/2 and Pf = P+Q/2. OnlyQ2 remains as an independent variable since the nucleonand ∆ are onshell: P 2

i = −M2N and P 2

f = −M2∆. For the

remaining Lorentz-invariant combinations one obtains:

P 2 = −M2∆ +M2

N

2− Q2

4, P ·Q = −M

2∆ −M2

N

2,

and Pi · Pf = P 2 − Q2/4. To simplify the notation, weabbreviate

M2 :=M2

∆ +M2N

2, δ :=

M2∆ −M2

N

4M2, τ :=

Q2

4M2(C2)

16

from which we obtain

P 2 = −M2(1 + τ) ,

P ·Q = −2M2δ ,

Pi · Pf = −M2(1 + 2τ) .

(C3)

Expressed in terms of δ and τ , the quantities defined inEq. (22) are given by

λ± =1±√

1− 4δ2

2+ τ , ω =

√δ2 + τ(1 + τ) , (C4)

and the normalized transverse average momentum K ofEq. (18) becomes

Kµ = PTµ

=

√τ

iMω

(Pµ +

δ

2τQµ). (C5)

Vice versa, P and Q depend on K and Q via

Pµ =M√τ

(iωKµ − δ Qµ

), Qµ = 2M

√τ Qµ . (C6)

These expressions are ideally suited for evaluation in the

the frame where Q = e3 and K = e4 are simply theEuclidean unit four-vectors.

2. Structure of the current

The generic structure of the matrix-valued N∆γ tran-sition current is given in Eq. (17). It involves Γµ,α(P,Q)which is a four-point function of positive parity, withtwo spinor and two vector indices (µ is the photon and αthe Rarita-Schwinger index). Its most general Poincare-covariant tensor structure involves 40 elements:

γαγµ

δαµ

γαPµ

γαQµ

Pαγµ

Qαγµ

PαPµ

PαQµ

QαPµ

QαQµ

× {1, /P, /Q, [ /P, /Q]} . (C7)

Only a few of those will survive on the N and ∆ massshell which is enforced through the projectors in Eq. (17).Using the properties

Λ+(Pf ) /Pf = iM∆ Λ+(Pf ) ,

/Pi Λ+(Pi) = iMN Λ+(Pi)(C8)

of Eq. (15) allows to systematically eliminate the struc-tures /P , /Q and [ /P, /Q], so that in the second bracket ofEq. (C7) only the unit matrix remains as an indepen-dent element. Moreover, the properties of the Rarita-Schwinger projector,

Pρα(Pf ) γα = Pρα(Pf )Pαf = 0 , (C9)

and thus

Pρα(Pf )Pα = −Pρα(Pf )Qα

2, (C10)

remove all occurrences of γα or Pα in (C7) as well. Oneremains with the following four basis elements:

Qαγµ, QαPµ, δαµ, QαQµ, (C11)

each of which carries a Lorentz-invariant form factor thatdepends on Q2. Current conservation QµJµ,ρ = 0 leadsto a linear relation between them and implies that Jµ,ρ

can only involve basis elements that are transverse to Qin the index µ. The same effect can be achieved by ap-plying a transverse projector with respect to the photonmomentum to (C11). With an additional normalizationof the momenta, this results in the expression given inEq. (20):

Γαµ = iQα (g1γµT + g2K

µ)− g3 TαµQ . (C12)

Next, we want to verify the equivalence of the twoforms for the transition current obtained from Eq. (20)with Eq. (21). To this end, we must show that the ten-sor structures that appear in (21) can be reexpressed bythose in (20) when contracted with the Rarita-Schwingerand positive-energy projectors. For notational conve-nience we abbreviate Pραf = Pρα(Pf ) and Λi = Λ+(Pi)in the following.

The structure QαKµ attached to G?C requires no fur-ther examination as it appears in both equations. Therelation

Pραf Kα = − i

ω(δ − τ)Pραf Qα (C13)

that follows from (C5) and (C10) allows to relate thetensorial structure of G?E ,

TαγQ T γµK = TαµQ −KαKµ , (C14)

to TαµQ and QαKµ as well. The remaining term includingthe Levi-Civita symbol can be written as

εαµγδKγQδ = γ5

[(TαµQ − γαT γ

µT ) /K

+KµγαT −KαγµT

]/Q ,

(C15)

cf. Eq. (A14) of Ref. [28]. The terms with γαT amount to

Pραf γ5γ

αT = −Pραf γ5 Q

α /Q , (C16)

via Eq. (C9), and those featuring Kα can be again re-

duced using (C13). By expressing K and Q through Piand Pf and using the relations (15) one further derives

Λfγ5 /K /QΛi =iλ+

ωΛfγ5 Λi ,

Λfγ5 γµT

[/K +

i

ω(δ − τ) /Q

]Λi =

= Λfγ5

[√τ√

1 + 2δ

ωγµT + 2Kµ

]Λi .

(C17)

17

Putting pieces together, one finally obtains:

Pραf εαµγδKγQδ Λi =

= Pραf γ5

[iλ+

ωTαµQ + QαKµ +

√τ√

1 + 2δ

ωQαγµT

]Λi .

This expression features the same tensor structures asEq. (20), and therefore the current constructed fromEq. (21) is indeed a reparametrization of Eq. (20).

Taking into account the full set of terms in Eq. (21)finally allows to read off the relation between the gi(Q

2)from Eq. (20) and the Jones-Scadron form factors G?M ,G?E and G?C :

g1 = b

√1 + 2δ

√τ

2λ+(G?M −G?E) ,

g2 = b

[ω

2λ+(G?M −G?E)− τ G?C + (δ − τ)G?E

ω

],

g3 = bG?M +G?E

2,

(C18)

where b =√

32 (1 +M∆/MN ).

3. Extraction of the form factors

The final issue to address is how the form factors areextracted from the N∆γ transition matrix (17) once Jµ,ρ

has been computed from its underlying dynamics. Thesimplest Lorentz scalars that involve Jµ,ρ are obtainedfrom the following Dirac traces and momentum contrac-tions:

s1 = Tr [γ5 Jµ,ρ γν ]TµνK Kρ ,

s2 = Tr [γ5 Jµ,ρ]TµρK ,

s3 = Tr [γ5 Jµ,ρ]KµKρ ,

(C19)

and their relation with the Jones-Scadron form factors is:

G?M =3√

1− 4δ2

4i b ω

[λ+

ωs2 +

√τ√

1 + 2δ

δ − τs1

],

G?E =

√1− 4δ2

4 b ω

[λ+

ωs2 −

√τ√

1 + 2δ

δ − τs1

],

G?C =3√

1− 4δ2

4i b ω2

λ+ (1 + 2δ)

δ − τs3 .

(C20)

Eqs. (C19) are most conveniently evaluated in the

frame where Qµ = eµ3 and Kµ = eµ4 . Here the µ = 3 com-ponent of Jµ,ρ is longitudinal to the photon momentumand vanishes because of current conservation (as long asthe current is conserved microscopically). Therefore, thetraces become

s1 = Tr[γ5 J

i,4 γi],

s2 = Tr[γ5 J

i,i],

s3 = Tr[γ5 J

4,4],

(C21)

where i is summed over i = 1, 2.

Appendix D: Transition current in thequark-diquark framework

1. Current diagrams

In the following we collect the ingredients of the N∆γtransition current matrix in the quark-diquark modelwhich are depicted in Fig. 4. The explicit form of thecurrent is given by a sum of impulse-approximation di-agrams (upper two panels in Fig. 4) and two-loop con-tributions which represent the photon’s coupling to thequark-diquark kernel (lower three panels):

Jµ,ρ =

∫Γρα∆ (pf , Pf ) (Xq +Xdq)µ,αβ ΓβN (pi, Pi) +

+

∫∫Γρα∆ (pf , Pf )Xµ,αβ

K ΓβN (pi, Pi) . (D1)

The quark-diquark amplitudes Γρα∆ and ΓβN are the so-lutions of the nucleon and ∆ bound-state equations (9).Pi and Pf are incoming and outgoing on-shell momentaand Q = Pf −Pi is the photon momentum, cf. Eq. (C1).The relative momenta pi and pf are independent loopmomenta in the two-loop diagrams; in the one-loop dia-grams they are related to each other: pf − pi = (1− ξ)Qfor the quark diagram and pf−pi = −ξ Q for the diquarkdiagram, where ξ ∈ [0, 1] is an arbitrary momentum-partitioning parameter which must be specified prior tosolving the quark-diquark BSEs. α, β = 1 . . . 4 are theLorentz indices of the axialvector diquark in the ∆ andnucleon amplitudes, and β = 0 corresponds to the addi-tional scalar-diquark component in the nucleon.

The ingredients of Eq. (D1) are given by

Xµ,αβQ = S(p+) Γµq(p,Q)S(p−)Dαβ(k) , (D2)

Xµ,αβDQ = S(p)Dαα′

(k+) Γµ,α′β′

Dγ (k,Q)Dβ′β(k−) ,

Xµ,αβK = Dαα′

(k+)S(p+)Kµ,α′β′S(p−)Dβ′β(k−)

and depend on the quark-photon vertex Γµq and the

diquark-photon vertex Γµ,αβDγ , where the latter includesan axial-axial contribution and an axial-scalar transitioncomponent for β = 0. The quark and diquark momentaare:

p− = pi + ξ Pi , k− = −pi + (1− ξ)Pi ,p+ = pf + ξ Pf , k+ = −pf + (1− ξ)Pf ,

and we denote the average quark and diquark momentathat appear in the vertices by p = (p+ + p−)/2 and k =(k+ + k−)/2.

The ’gauged’ kernel Kµ,αβ contains the exchange-quark diagram and the seagull vertices Mµ,α:

Kµ,αβ = (KEX +KSG +KSG)µ,αβ

, (D3)

18

with

Kµ,αβEX = Γβ(r+, k−)

[S(q+) Γµq(q,Q)S(q−)

]TΓα(r−, k+)

Kµ,αβSG = Mµ,β(r′+, k−, Q)S(q+)T Γα(r−, k+) ,

Kµ,αβ

SG= Γβ(r+, k−)S(q−)T Mµ,α(r′−, k+, Q) , (D4)

and momenta:

q± = k± − p∓ , r± =p± − q∓

2, r′± =

p± − q±2

.

The color-flavor traces of the various contributions inEqs. (D2–D4) are detailed in App. D 3.

2. Kinematic restrictions

The integrand of the N∆γ transition matrix (D1)contains dressed quark and diquark propagators whichare computed selfconsistently from Eqs. (3) and (8).In rainbow-ladder truncation, the quark propagator ex-hibits singularities in the timelike complex plane andthe diquark propagators have poles on the timelike realaxis. Without taking residues into account explicitly,that singularity structure restricts the accessible momen-tum phase space in the integrals (D1) and leads to kine-matic limitations in the Q2 range of the resulting formfactors.

The problem can be accessed by separating the realand imaginary parts of the quark and diquark momentathat enter the diagrams. As we have noted in the discus-sion of Eqs. (C6) and (C21), it is advantageous to work

in the frame where the normalized momenta Q and Kthat describe the current are the Euclidean unit vectorsQ = e3 and K = e4. For spacelike values of Q2, thephoton momentum Qµ is then purely real and the trans-verse average momentum PT is imaginary. This framealso suggests itself via the impulse-approximation rela-tions pf − pi ∼ Q from the previous subsection: if thephoton momentum is real, both relative momenta pi andpf can be chosen real as well (the loop momentum is al-ways real) and it is sufficient to determine the N and ∆amplitudes for p2

i , p2f ∈ R+.

The quark and diquark momenta depend on the mo-mentum partitioning parameter ξ ∈ [0, 1] which canbe used for maximizing the available momentum phasespace. We exemplify the procedure for the quark mo-mentum p− = pi + ξ Pi. In the frame where the photonmomentum is real: pi ∈ R4, and the only imaginary con-tribution in Pi = P − Q/2 comes from the transversecomponent PT , cf. Eq. (C6). Thus, p− can be written as

pµ− = Rµ + ξ PµT = Rµ +Mξω√τiKµ , (D5)

where Rµ is purely real and irrelevant for the furtherdiscussion. p2

− describes the interior of a parabola in the

complex plane,(t± i Mξω√

τ

)2

, t ∈ R+ , (D6)

that intersects the real axis at (p2−)max = −(Mξω)2/τ .

M is here the average N -∆ mass defined in Eq. (C2).On the other hand, the nearest singularities in the quarkpropagator (whether timelike-real or in the timelike com-plex plane) can be used to construct another parabola

(t± imq)2, t ∈ R+ , (D7)

which defines the quark ’pole mass’ mq. Hence, in orderto sample the quark propagator only in the kinematicallysafe region, one has to obey the condition

− (Mξω)2

τ> −m2

q ⇒ δ2

τ+ τ <

(mq

ξM

)2

−1 , (D8)

where we have used Eq. (C4) in the second step. Becauseof the non-vanishing N -∆ mass difference, expressed byδ 6= 0, this puts constraints on τ = Q2/(4M2) from bothabove and below.

The analysis can be repeated for any quark or diquarkmomentum that enters the integrands (D2) and yieldsthe combined relation

δ2

τ+ τ < h(ξ)2 − 1 , (D9)

where

h(ξ) = min

[mq

ξM,

mq

|1− 2ξ|M,

md

(1− ξ)M

], (D10)

with md = min(msc,max, 2mq). In view of maximizingthe kinematical region in Eq. (D9), we are interested inthe value ξ0 that maximizes h(ξ). For mq < md < 2mq,that value is given by

ξ0 = (1 +md/mq)−1 ∈ [1/3 . . . 1/2], (D11)

which leads to h0 = h(ξ0) = (mq+md)/M . Via Eq. (D9),the resulting lower and upper limits for Q2 become

τ± =h2

0 − 1

2

1±

√1−

(2δ

h20 − 1

)2 . (D12)

Inserting the numerical values for the masses mq, msc,max, MN and M∆ yields a kinematically safe region thatis centered around Q2 ∼ 1 . . . 1.3 GeV2, depending onthe model parameter η in the effective coupling.

We conclude with two remarks. First, while it would bepossible to choose two different momentum partitioningparameters ξN and ξ∆ in the calculation of the nucleonand ∆ amplitudes and form factors, doing so would notrelax the constraint in Eq. (D10): the optimal choice cor-responds to ξN = ξ∆. The second remark concerns thechoice of reference frame. The current diagrams could be

19

equally evaluated in the ∆ rest frame where Pf = e4 andwhere p2

f can be chosen as the real loop momentum. In

that case, one has access to the limit Q2 = 0 and also tothe timelike region whereas the largest accessible space-like value is smaller, Q2 ∼ 1 GeV2. On the other hand,Q and pi will become complex which necessitates a com-plex continuation of the nucleon bound-state amplitude.Such a procedure has been applied to compute the N∆πtransition in the current framework [44].

3. Color and flavor traces

In this appendix we collect the color and flavor tracesthat appear in the quark DSE, the various bound-stateequations and the N∆γ transition matrix element.

Each quark-gluon vertex in the kernel (1) is equippedwith a color factor λi/2, where the λi are the eight Gell-Mann matrices. The color factors for the diquark am-plitudes are given by εABC/

√6 and those for the N and

∆ quark-diquark amplitudes by δAC/√

3, where A,B arequark indices and C is the diquark index. Tracing thecolor structure leads to a prefactor 4/3 in front of the inte-gral that appears in the quark DSE (3), a factor −4/3 forthose in the meson BSE and the inhomogeneous BSE (25)for the quark-photon vertex, and a prefactor 2/3 in thediquark BSE (7). The color traces in the form-factor di-agrams of Fig. 4 yield +1 for the impulse-approximationdiagrams and −1 for the exchange and seagull diagrams.

Considering the flavor case, we work in the SU(2)isospin-symmetric limit with two degenerate quark fla-vors u =

(10

)and d =

(01

). Out of those one can con-

struct the following diquark flavor matrices:

s =

(iσ2√

2

∣∣∣∣ 1 + σ3

2,σ1√

2,

1− σ3

2

)(D13)

where s0 corresponds to the isoscalar (scalar) diquark andthe three si, with i = 1, 2, 3, to the isotriplet (axialvector)diquark. The σi are the Pauli matrices, and the flavor

matrices are normalized to Tr{s†i sj} = δij .The flavor factors for baryons in the quark-diquark pic-

ture are given by the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients accord-ing to the respective diquark content of the baryon. Forproton and neutron one obtains

p =

(u∣∣∣√ 2

3 d , −√

13 u , 0

),

n =

(d∣∣∣ 0 , √ 1

3 d , −√

23 u

),

(D14)

where the first entry represents the isoscalar diquark andthe remaining three the contributions from the isovec-tor channel, in the same order as Eq. (D13). For exam-ple, the two mixed-antisymmetric and mixed-symmetricflavor tensors of the proton’s three-quark amplitude ares0 ⊗ p0 and

∑i si ⊗ pi, respectively. On the other hand,

the ∆-baryons do not contain any contribution from the

scalar diquark, and the corresponding Clebsch-Gordanconstruction for the ∆+ and the ∆0 (only these two arerelevant for the N∆γ transition) yields

∆+ =

(√13 d ,

√23 u , 0

),

∆0 =

(0 ,√

23 d ,

√13 u

).

(D15)

The flavor traces in the nucleon and ∆ quark-diquarkBSEs (9) depend on the type of involved diquarks. Thisleads to combined color-flavor factors c(00) = −c(αβ) =−1/2 and c(0α) = c(α0) =

√3/2 for the nucleon, whereas

in the case of the ∆ the color-flavor trace is given byc(αβ) = −1.

The flavor factors for the form-factor diagrams of Fig. 4are obtained by combining Eqs. (D13–D15) with thequark charge matrix Q = diag(qu, qd) which is attachedto the quark-photon vertex. In the case of the pγ → ∆+

transition, the three contributions in Fig. (4a–c) yield thefollowing traces:∑

i

(∆+i )†Qpi ,

∑ij

[(∆+

i )† pj]

2 Tr{s†i sj Q†},

∑ij

(∆+i )† sj Q

† s†i pj .(D16)

Only the axial-vector diquark contributes to the ∆ (hencei = 1, 2, 3) whereas the nucleon has both scalar (j = 0)and axial-vector diquark components (j = 1, 2, 3).

The charge-flavor structure of the seagull diagrams inFig. (4d–e) appears in combination with their Dirac com-ponents via Eq. (29). The flavor factors read:

e− =∑ij

(∆+i )† sj Q

† s†i pj ,

e+ =∑ij

(∆+i )†Qsj s

†i pj ,

edq =∑ij

[(∆+

i )† sj s†i pj]

2 Tr{s†j sj Q†}

(D17)

for the seagull vertices in Fig. (4d), and

e+ =∑ij

(∆+i )† sj s

†i Qpj ,

e− =∑ij

(∆+i )† sj Q

† s†i pj ,

edq =∑ij

[(∆+

i )† sj s†i pj]

2 Tr{s†i siQ†}

(D18)

for the conjugated seagulls that appear in Fig. (4e).In combination with the color traces +1 for the

impulse-approximation diagrams and −1 for the ex-change diagrams, the final result for the pγ → ∆+ tran-sition matrix element becomes

Λ = −√

23 [JQ + JDQ + JEX + JSG + JSG] ,

20

where the individual contributions are given by

JQ = ΛAAQ ,

JDQ = −ΛAADQ +

√3 ΛAS

DQ , (D19)

JEX = 12 ΛAA

EX −√

32 ΛAS

EX ,

JSG = 12 (ΛAA

1 + ΛAA2 )− ΛAA

3 −√

32 (ΛAS

1 − ΛAS2 ) ,

JSG = ΛAA1 − 1

2 (ΛAA2 + ΛAA

3 )−√

32 (ΛAS

2 − ΛAS3 ) .

In this notation, the Λi denote the Dirac parts obtainedfrom Eqs. (D2) and (D4), and the superscripts S and Arefer to the scalar or axial-vector diquark content in theoutgoing ∆ (left) and incoming nucleon (right) ampli-tudes. The labels {1, 2, 3} for the seagull contributionscorrespond to those in Eq. (29). Identical traces followfor the process nγ → ∆0.

[1] I. G. Aznauryan and V. D. Burkert, 1109.1720 [hep-ph].[2] V. Pascalutsa, M. Vanderhaeghen, and S. N. Yang, Phys.

Rept. 437, 125 (2007).[3] C. Becchi and G. Morpurgo, Phys. Lett. 17, 352 (1965).[4] N. Isgur, G. Karl, and R. Koniuk, Phys. Rev. D25, 2394

(1982).[5] V. Pascalutsa and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Rev. D73,

034003 (2006).[6] T. A. Gail and T. R. Hemmert, Eur. Phys. J. A28, 91

(2006).[7] T. Sato and T. S. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. C63, 055201 (2001).[8] B. Julia-Diaz, T. S. H. Lee, T. Sato, and L. C. Smith,

Phys. Rev. C75, 015205 (2007).[9] A. Lenz, M. Gockeler, T. Kaltenbrunner, and

N. Warkentin, Phys. Rev. D79, 093007 (2009).[10] V. Pascalutsa and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Rev. D76,

111501 (2007).[11] H. R. Grigoryan, T. S. H. Lee, and H.-U. Yee, Phys.

Rev. D80, 055006 (2009).[12] G. Dillon and G. Morpurgo, Riv. Nuovo Cim. 33, 1

(2010).[13] K. Bermuth, D. Drechsel, L. Tiator, and J. B. Seaborn,

Phys. Rev. D37, 89 (1988).[14] D.-H. Lu, A. W. Thomas, and A. G. Williams, Phys.

Rev. C55, 3108 (1997).[15] A. Abada, H. Weigel, and H. Reinhardt, Phys. Lett.

B366, 26 (1996).[16] A. Wirzba and W. Weise, Phys. Lett. B188, 6 (1987).[17] H. Walliser and G. Holzwarth, Z. Phys. A357, 317

(1997).[18] G. Vereshkov and N. Volchanskiy, Phys. Rev. D76,

073007 (2007).[19] A. Faessler et al., Phys. Rev. D74, 074010 (2006).[20] T. R. Hemmert, B. R. Holstein, and N. C. Mukhopad-

hyay, Phys. Rev. D51, 158 (1995).[21] A. J. Buchmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 212301 (2004).[22] G. Ramalho and M. T. Pena, J. Phys. G36, 115011

(2009).[23] G. Ramalho, M. T. Pena, and F. Gross, Phys. Rev. D78,

114017 (2008).[24] C. Alexandrou et al., Phys. Rev. D77, 085012 (2008).[25] C. Alexandrou, G. Koutsou, J. W. Negele, Y. Proestos,

and A. Tsapalis, Phys. Rev. D83, 014501 (2011).[26] M. Oettel, G. Hellstern, R. Alkofer, and H. Reinhardt,

Phys. Rev. C58, 2459 (1998).[27] D. Nicmorus, G. Eichmann, and R. Alkofer, Phys. Rev.

D82, 114017 (2010).[28] G. Eichmann, Phys. Rev. D84, 014014 (2011).

[29] C. D. Roberts and A. G. Williams, Prog. Part. Nucl.Phys. 33, 477 (1994).

[30] R. Alkofer and L. von Smekal, Phys. Rept. 353, 281(2001).

[31] C. S. Fischer, J. Phys. G32, R253 (2006).[32] P. Maris and C. D. Roberts, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E12, 297

(2003).[33] C. D. Roberts, M. S. Bhagwat, A. Holl, and S. V. Wright,

Eur. Phys. J. ST 140, 53 (2007).[34] G. Eichmann, PhD thesis, University of Graz, 0909.0703

[hep-ph].[35] G. Eichmann, R. Alkofer, A. Krassnigg, and D. Nic-

morus, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 201601 (2010).[36] G. Eichmann, R. Alkofer, A. Krassnigg, and D. Nic-

morus, EPJ Web Conf. 3, 03028 (2010).[37] H. Sanchis-Alepuz, G. Eichmann, S. Villalba-Chavez,

and R. Alkofer, Phys. Rev. D84, 096003 (2011).[38] G. Eichmann and C. S. Fischer, 1111.2614 [hep-ph].[39] G. Eichmann, A. Krassnigg, M. Schwinzerl, and

R. Alkofer, Annals Phys. 323, 2505 (2008).[40] G. Eichmann, I. C. Cloet, R. Alkofer, A. Krassnigg, and

C. D. Roberts, Phys. Rev. C79, 012202 (2009).[41] G. Eichmann, R. Alkofer, A. Krassnigg, and D. Nic-

morus, PoS CONFINEMENT8, 077 (2008).[42] D. Nicmorus, G. Eichmann, A. Krassnigg, and

R. Alkofer, Phys. Rev. D80, 054028 (2009).[43] D. Nicmorus, G. Eichmann, A. Krassnigg, and

R. Alkofer, PoS CONFINEMENT8, 052 (2008).[44] V. Mader, G. Eichmann, M. Blank, and A. Krassnigg,

Phys. Rev. D84, 034012 (2011).[45] P. Maris, C. D. Roberts, and P. C. Tandy, Phys. Lett.

B420, 267 (1998).[46] A. Holl, A. Krassnigg, and C. D. Roberts, Phys. Rev.

C70, 042203 (2004).[47] H. J. Munczek, Phys. Rev. D52, 4736 (1995).[48] A. Bender, C. D. Roberts, and L. Von Smekal, Phys.

Lett. B380, 7 (1996).[49] P. Maris and P. C. Tandy, Phys. Rev. C60, 055214

(1999).[50] P. Maris and P. C. Tandy, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 161,

136 (2006).[51] P. Maris, AIP Conf. Proc. 892, 65 (2007).[52] A. Krassnigg, Phys. Rev. D80, 114010 (2009).[53] D. Nicmorus, G. Eichmann, A. Krassnigg, and

R. Alkofer, Few Body Syst. 49, 255 (2011).[54] R. Alkofer, C. S. Fischer, and R. Williams, Eur. Phys.

J. A38, 53 (2008).[55] C. S. Fischer and R. Williams, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103,

122001 (2009).

21

[56] L. Chang, C. D. Roberts, and P. C. Tandy, 1107.4003[nucl-th].

[57] M. Anselmino, E. Predazzi, S. Ekelin, S. Fredriksson,and D. B. Lichtenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 65, 1199 (1993).

[58] R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rept. 409, 1 (2005).[59] R. G. Edwards, J. J. Dudek, D. G. Richards, and S. J.

Wallace, Phys. Rev. D84, 074508 (2011).[60] N. Ishii, W. Bentz, and K. Yazaki, Nucl. Phys. A587,

617 (1995).[61] C. D. Roberts, I. C. Cloet, L. Chang, and H. L. L.

Roberts, 1108.1327 [nucl-th].[62] P. Maris, Few Body Syst. 32, 41 (2002).[63] M. Oettel, R. Alkofer, and L. von Smekal, Eur. Phys. J.

A8, 553 (2000).[64] M. Oettel, L. Von Smekal, and R. Alkofer, Comput.

Phys. Commun. 144, 63 (2002).[65] M. Oettel, PhD thesis, University of Tubingen, nucl-

th/0012067.[66] H. F. Jones and M. D. Scadron, Ann. Phys. 81, 1 (1973).[67] H. Haberzettl, Phys. Rev. C56, 2041 (1997).[68] A. N. Kvinikhidze and B. Blankleider, Phys. Rev. C60,

044003 (1999).[69] A. N. Kvinikhidze and B. Blankleider, Phys. Rev. C60,

044004 (1999).[70] M. Oettel, M. Pichowsky, and L. von Smekal, Eur. Phys.

J. A8, 251 (2000).[71] G. Eichmann and C. S. Fischer, 1111.0197 [hep-ph].[72] I. C. Cloet, G. Eichmann, B. El-Bennich, T. Klahn, and

C. D. Roberts, Few Body Syst. 46, 1 (2009).[73] G. Eichmann, R. Alkofer, C. S. Fischer, A. Krassnigg,

and D. Nicmorus, AIP Conf. Proc. 1374, 617 (2011).[74] P. Maris and P. C. Tandy, Phys. Rev. C61, 045202

(2000).

[75] J. S. Ball and T.-W. Chiu, Phys. Rev. D22, 2542 (1980).[76] M. Oettel and R. Alkofer, Eur. Phys. J. A16, 95 (2003).[77] S. Wang and M. K. Banerjee, Phys. Rev. C54, 2883

(1996).[78] C. Alexandrou et al., Nucl. Phys. A825, 115 (2009).[79] S. Aoki et al. (PACS-CS), Phys. Rev. D79, 034503

(2009).[80] C. Gattringer et al., Phys. Rev. D79, 054501 (2009).[81] T. Yamazaki et al., Phys. Rev. D79, 114505 (2009).[82] J. D. Bratt et al. (LHPC), Phys. Rev. D82, 094502

(2010).[83] W. Bartel et al., Phys. Lett. B28, 148 (1968).[84] S. Stein et al., Phys. Rev. D12, 1884 (1975).[85] N. F. Sparveris et al. (OOPS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 94,

022003 (2005).[86] S. Stave et al. (A1), Phys. Rev. C78, 025209 (2008).[87] I. G. Aznauryan et al. (CLAS), Phys. Rev. C80, 055203

(2009).[88] K. Nakamura et al. (Particle Data Group), J. Phys. G37,

075021 (2010).[89] R. Beck et al., Phys. Rev. C61, 035204 (2000).[90] T. Pospischil et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2959 (2001).[91] G. Blanpied et al., Phys. Rev. C64, 025203 (2001).[92] S. S. Kamalov, S. N. Yang, D. Drechsel, O. Hanstein,

and L. Tiator, Phys. Rev. C64, 032201 (2001).[93] C. E. Carlson, Phys. Rev. D34, 2704 (1986).[94] A. Idilbi, X.-d. Ji, and J.-P. Ma, Phys. Rev. D69, 014006

(2004).[95] M. N. Butler, M. J. Savage, and R. P. Springer, Phys.

Lett. B304, 353 (1993).