Axial Anomaly and Transition Form Factors

We investigate the properties of the amplitude induced by the anomaly. In a relatively high energy region those amplitudes are constructed by the vector meson poles and the anomaly terms, in which the anomaly terms can be essentially evaluated by the triangle quark graph. We pay our attention to the anomaly term and make intensive analysis of the existing experimental data, i.e., the electromagnetic $\pi^0$ and $\omega$ transition form factors. Our result shows that it is essential to use the constituent quark mass instead of the current quark mass in evaluating the anomaly term from the triangle graph.Comment: LaTeX, 14 pages + 4 figures, (figures are included as uuencoded files), KUNS-1210 HE(TH) 93/0

Form factor π0→γ∗+γ∗\pi^0\to \gamma^* +\gamma^* at different photon virtualities

The $\pi^0 \gamma\gamma$ vertex for virtual photons of squared masses $q_1^2$ and $q_2^2$ plays a vital r\^ole in several physical processes; for example for $q_1^2<0$, $q_2^2<0$, in the two-photon physics reaction $e^+ e^-\to e^+ e^- \pi^0$, and for $q_1^2>0$, $q_2^2>0$, in the annihilation process $e^+ e^-\to \pi^0 l^+ l^-$. It is also of interest because of its link to the axial anomaly. We suggest a new approach to this problem. We have obtained a closed analytic expression for the vertex in the limit in which at least one of $|q_1^2|$ and $|q_2^2|$ is large for arbitrary fixed values of the ratio $q_1^2/q_2^2$. We compare our results with those obtained previously by Brodsky and Lepage. It should be straightforward to test our predictions experimentally.Comment: harvmac tex, 30 pages, 11 figures; references are correcte

Analysis of KL→γννˉK_L \to \gamma \nu \bar{\nu}

The decay $K_L \to \gamma \nu \bar{\nu}$ is analyzed within the standard model. Short-distance contributions are found to dominate, yielding a branching ratio of $\sim 0.7 \times 10^{-11}$. We examine the possibility that non-standard model effects might be observed at higher rates. As an example, we calculate the branching ratio for the process mediated by neutral horizontal gauge bosons. Notwithstanding some model uncertainties, experimental limits for lepton number violation constrains these contributions to $\lesssim 2\times 10^{-11}$.Comment: 14 pages, 8 postscript figures, uses revtex.st

How pi0 -> gamma gamma changes with temperature

At zero temperature, in the chiral limit the amplitude for pi0 to decay into two photons is directly related to the coefficient of the axial anomaly. At any nonzero temperature, this direct relationship is lost: while the coefficient of the axial anomaly is independent of temperature, in a thermal bath the anomalous Ward identities do not uniquely constrain the amplitude for pi0 -> gamma gamma. Explicit calculation shows that to lowest order about zero temperature, this amplitude decreases.Comment: 12 pages, ReVTeX, 4 figures, to be published in Phys. Rev. D. New section 5 with proof of the Adler-Bardeen theorem at low

Autopoiesis, Biological Autonomy and the Process View of Life

In recent years, an increasing number of theoretical biologists and philosophers of biology have been opposing reductionist research agendas by appealing to the concept of biological autonomy which draws on the older concept of autopoiesis. In my paper, I shall investigate some of the ontological implications of this approach. The emphasis on autonomy and autopoiesis, together with the associated idea of organisational closure, might evoke the impression that organisms are to be categorised ontologically as substances: ontologically independent, well-individuated, discrete particulars. However, I shall argue that this is mistaken. Autopoiesis and biological autonomy, properly understood, require a rigorous commitment to a process ontological view of life

Robustness and autonomy in biological systems: how regulatory mechanisms enable functional integration, complexity and minimal cognition through the action of second-order control constraints

Living systems employ several mechanisms and behaviors to achieve robustness and maintain themselves under changing internal and external conditions. Regulation stands out from them as a specific form of higher-order control, exerted over the basic regime responsible for the production and maintenance of the organism, and provides the system with the capacity to act on its own constitutive dynamics. It consists in the capability to selectively shift between different available regimes of self-production and self-maintenance in response to specific signals and perturbations, due to the action of a dedicated subsystem which is operationally distinct from the regulated ones. The role of regulation, however, is not exhausted by its contribution to maintain a living system’s viability. While enhancing robustness, regulatory mechanisms play a fundamental role in the realization of an autonomous biological organization. Specifically, they are at the basis of the remarkable integration of biological systems, insofar as they coordinate and modulate the activity of distinct functional subsystems. Moreover, by implementing complex and hierarchically organized control architectures, they allow for an increase in structural and organizational complexity while minimizing fragility. Finally, they endow living systems, from their most basic unicellular instances, with the capability to control their own internal dynamics to adaptively respond to specific features of their interaction with the environment, thus providing the basis for the emergence of minimal forms of cognition

The many faces of biological individuality

Biological individuality is a major topic of discussion in biology and philosophy of biology. Recently, several objections have been raised against traditional accounts of biological individuality, including the objections of monism (the tendency to focus on a single individuality criterion and/or a single biological field), theory-centrism (the tendency to discuss only theory-based individuation), ahistoricity (the tendency to neglect what biologists of the past and historians of biology have said about biological individuality), disciplinary isolationism (the tendency to isolate biological individuality from other scientific and philosophical domains that have investigated individuality), and the multiplication of conceptual uncertainties (the lack of a precise definition of “biological individual” and related terms). In this introduction, I will examine the current philosophical landscape about biological individuality, and show how the contributions gathered in this special issue address these five objections. Overall, the aim of this issue is to offer a more diverse, unifying, and scientifically informed conception of what a biological individual is