1:
2: \documentstyle[twocolumn]{article}
3: \setlength{\textwidth}{7in}
4: \setlength{\textheight}{9.5in}
5: \topmargin=-1.7cm
6: \oddsidemargin=-.5cm
7: \evensidemargin=-.5cm
8: \begin{document}
9: %\draft
10: \twocolumn[\hsize\textwidth\columnwidth\hsize\csname
11: @twocolumnfalse\endcsname
12:
13: \def\hpione{{h_\pi^1}}
14: \def\hpieff{{h_\pi^\sst{EFF}}}
15: \def\gpi{{g_\pi}}
16: \def\agamma{{B_\gamma}}
17:
18:
19: \title{ Subleading corrections to parity violating pion photoproduction }
20: \author{
21: Shi-Lin Zhu$^{a,b}$, S. Puglia$^{a,b}$,
22: B.R. Holstein$^{c}$, and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf$^{a,b,d}$\\
23: $^a$ Kellogg Radiation Laboratory 106-38, California Institute
24: of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125\\
25: $^b$ Department of Physics, University of Connecticut,
26: Storrs, CT 06269 \\
27: $^c$ Department of Physics, University of Massachusetts,
28: Amherst, MA 01003 \\
29: $^d$ Theory Group, Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, Newport
30: News, VA 23606 }
31: \maketitle
32:
33: \begin{abstract}
34:
35: We compute the photon asymmetry $B_\gamma$ for near threshold parity
36: violating (PV) pion
37: photoproduction through sub-leading order. We show that sub-leading
38: contributions
39: involve a new combination of PV couplings not included in previous analyses
40: of hadronic PV.
41: We argue that existing constraints on the leading order contribution to
42: $B_\gamma$ --
43: obtained from the PV $\gamma$-decay of $^{18}$F -- suggest that the impact
44: of the subleading
45: contributions may be more significant than expected from naturalness arguments.
46:
47: \medskip
48: PACS Indices: 11.30.Er, 11.30.Rd, 13.60.Le.
49: \end{abstract}
50:
51: \vspace{0.3cm}
52: ]
53: \pagenumbering{arabic}
54:
55: \section{Introduction}
56:
57: The parity violating (PV) $\pi NN$ Yukawa coupling constant
58: $h_\pi^{\mbox{eff}}$
59: is a key ingredient to the understanding of the PV nuclear
60: interaction\cite{ddh,haxton,fcdh,kaplan,hh95} (historically, this constant
61: has been denoted as $f_\pi$ in the literature). A number of hadronic
62: PV experiments have sought to determine the value of $h_\pi^{\mbox{eff}}$
63: \cite{haxton,hh95,Oers,F18,Cs123,nist}. A particularly significant result
64: has been obtained from measurements of photon polarization $P_\gamma$ in the PV
65: $\gamma$-decay of $^{18}$F:
66: \begin{equation}
67: \label{eq:flourine}
68: h_\pi^{\mbox{eff}}=(0.73\pm 2.3)g_\pi\ \ \ ,
69: \end{equation}
70: where $g_\pi=3.8\times 10^{-8}$ gives the scale of $g_\pi$ in the absence
71: of weak neutral currents\cite{ddh}. An explicit SU(6)/quark model
72: analysis\cite{ddh},
73: as well as \lq\lq naturalness" arguments (see below), would suggest
74: that $h_\pi^{\mbox{eff}}$ should be closer to $10 g_\pi$. The results of
75: the $^{18}$F
76: measurement, which has been repeated by five different groups, is therefore
77: suprising.
78: The nature of the $h_\pi^{\mbox{eff}}$ puzzle is further complicated by two
79: additional
80: observations:
81:
82: \begin{itemize}
83:
84: \item The governing PV mixing matrix element in $^{18}$F can be related by
85: isospin
86: symmetry to two body component of
87: the experimental rate for the analog $\beta$ decay $^{18}$Ne$\to
88: ^{18}$F$+e^+ + \nu_e$ \cite{haxton2,lowry}. Since $P_\gamma(^{18}$F) is
89: dominated by its
90: sensitivity to $h_\pi^{\mbox{eff}}$, the bounds in Eq. (\ref{eq:flourine})
91: appear to be
92: robust from the standpoint of many-body nuclear theory\cite{haxton}.
93:
94: \item A measurement by the Boulder group of the nuclear spin-dependent PV
95: effects in 6S-7S
96: transitions in the $^{133}$Cs atom has been used in order to extract a value for the
97: cesium nuclear anapole moment (AM)\cite{Cs123}. Recently, a full two-body
98: calculation
99: of the cesium AM has been used to extract constraints on the long- and
100: short-range
101: components of the PV NN interaction \cite{cesiumam}. When combined with the
102: constraints
103: on the short-range PV NN interaction, the cesium results imply a central
104: value for
105: $h_\pi^{\mbox{eff}}$ of $\sim 10 g_\pi$, in agreement with the
106: ``naturalness'' estimate.
107:
108: \end{itemize}
109:
110: The status of $h_\pi^{\mbox{eff}}$ may be clarified by a slate of new
111: experiments --
112: suggested, planned, or currently underway: ${\vec n} p\rightarrow d\gamma $
113: at LANSCE \cite{lan}, $\gamma^*,\gamma d\rightarrow np$ at Jefferson Lab \cite{jlab},
114: the rotation of polarized neutrons in helium at NIST \cite{nist} as
115: well as polarized Compton scattering processes \cite{bs,cck}. Since these
116: processes
117: involve one- and few-body systems, one anticipates new constraints on the PV NN
118: interaction
119: free from many-body uncertainties related to complex nuclei such as
120: cesium or fluorine.
121:
122: If the new experiments were to confirm the present $^{18}$F constraints on
123: $h_\pi^{\mbox{eff}}$,
124: then one should attempt to understand the nucleon structure dynamics
125: responsible for the
126: reduction from its \lq\lq natural" size. At the same time, it would become
127: necessary to
128: account for the sub-leading chiral structure of the PV $\pi NN$ Yukawa
129: interaction and its
130: related observables. To that end, we recently computed the subleading
131: chiral contributions
132: to $h_\pi^{\mbox{eff}}$\cite{zhu1}. At leading order, $h_\pi^{\mbox{eff}}$
133: is identical to the
134: low-energy constant (LEC) $h_\pi^1$ appearing in the PV pion-nucleon chiral
135: Lagrangian\cite{kaplan}. The subleading contributions, which vanish in the
136: chiral limit,
137: involve a host of new LEC's whose effect on $h_\pi^{\mbox{eff}}$ is
138: fortuitously enhanced. A
139: similar set of LEC's appear in anapole moment contributions to the
140: radiative corrections to
141: backward angle PV $ep$ scattering. These corrections, which have recently
142: been determined by
143: the SAMPLE collaboration \cite{sample}, appear to be considerably
144: larger than one's
145: theoretical expectation\cite{zhu}. Thus, there appear to be several hints that the
146: chiral expansion for
147: hadronic PV may not behave as one na\" ively expects.
148:
149: With this situation in mind, we consider in this note the subleading chiral
150: contributions to another
151: PV observable: the polarization asymmetry $B_\gamma$ for the charged pion
152: photoproduction
153: process
154: \begin{equation}
155: \overrightarrow{\gamma }\left( q^{\mu };\epsilon ^{\mu }\right)
156: +p(P_{i}^{\mu })\rightarrow \pi ^{+}(k^{\mu })+n(P_{f}^{\mu })\ .
157: \end{equation}
158: which will be the focus of the proposed JLab study.
159: Here, $q^{\mu }=\left( \omega ,{\bf q}\right) $, $P_{i}^{\mu }$, $k^{\mu
160: }=\left( \omega _{\pi },{\bf k}\right) $, and $P_{f}^{\mu }$ are the
161: center-of-mass four-momenta of photon, proton, pion and neutron,
162: respectively, and $\epsilon ^{\mu }$ is the photon polarization vector.
163: The asymmetry $B_\gamma$, which arises from the interference of PV and
164: parity conserving
165: (PC) amplitudes, was
166: first studied in the context of the conventional meson-exchange framework
167: for hadronic PV in Refs. \cite{Woloshyn,LHH}.
168: Recently, Chen and Ji (CJ) proposed a measurement of $B_\gamma$
169: at the Jefferson Lab and
170: recast the earlier analyses in the context
171: of heavy baryon chiral perturbation theory (HBCPT) \cite{j1,ijmpe}.
172: The authors emphasized that PV $\pi$ photoproduction accesses the PV
173: $NN \pi$ interaction directly, whereas in nuclear observables it
174: is contained within the PV NN potential.
175: For the threshold
176: region, where all external momenta are well below the chiral symmetry
177: breaking scale
178: $\Lambda_\chi = 4 \pi F_{\pi }\sim$ 1 GeV, CJ obtain the \lq\lq low-energy
179: theorem" for the
180: asymmetry:
181: \begin{equation}\label{old}
182: B_{\gamma }\left( \omega _{{\rm th}},\theta \right) =\frac{\sqrt{2}F_{\pi
183: }(\mu _{p}-\mu _{n})}{g_{A}m_{N}}h_{\pi}^{1}\ .
184: \end{equation}
185: and the corrections from terms higher order in the chiral expansion
186: were estimated to be around $20\%$ \cite{ji1}. The expression in Eq.
187: (\ref{old})
188: is consistent with the $h_\pi^{\mbox{eff}}$ dominance of $B_\gamma$ found
189: in Ref. \cite{LHH}.
190: CJ also explored the kinematic behavior of $B_\gamma$, indicating that it could be
191: large enough to be observed in a polarized photon beam experiment at
192: Jefferson Laboratory.
193:
194: In this paper, we show that inclusion of subleading contributions to the PV
195: photoproduction amplitude leads to a chirally corrected low-energy theorem:
196: \begin{eqnarray}
197: \label{eq:newtheorem}\nonumber
198: B_{\gamma }\left( \omega _{{\rm th}},\theta \right) &=&\frac{\sqrt{2}F_{\pi
199: }}{g_{A}m_{N}}\left[\mu_p-\mu_n(1+\frac{m_\pi}{m_N})\right]h_{\pi}^{1}\\
200: &&-\frac{4\sqrt{2}m_\pi}{g_{A}
201: \Lambda_\chi}{\bar C}\ \ \ ,
202: \end{eqnarray}
203: where the $m_\pi/m_N$ represents the first recoil corrections to the
204: leading order
205: PV and PC photoproduction amplitudes and ${\bar C}$ is a new PV LEC defined
206: below.
207: In terms of chiral counting, the result
208: of CJ appears at ${\cal O}(p^0)$ while the corrections arising in Eq.
209: (\ref{eq:newtheorem}) occur at ${\cal O}(p)$. We note that the recoil
210: and ${\bar C}$ terms shown explicitly in Eq. (\ref{eq:newtheorem}) constitute
211: the complete set of subleading contributions to the PV photoproduction
212: amplitude, since the
213: effects of loops as well as pole diagrams involving decuplet intermediate
214: states arise at
215: ${\cal O}(p^2)$ and beyond.
216:
217: At face value, the expression in Eq. (\ref{eq:newtheorem}) indicates that
218: $B_\gamma$
219: is governed by two, rather than one, PV LEC's---$h_\pi^1$ and $\bar
220: C$, with associated kinematic factors of nearly equal magnitude. The
221: actual
222: situation, however, is more subtle. The naturalness arguments which imply
223: $h_\pi^1$
224: should be $\sim 10g_\pi$ also lead one to expect ${\bar C}\sim g_\pi$.
225: Thus, if these
226: two LEC's were to have their natural size, the subleading contributions to
227: $B_\gamma$
228: would generate the anticipated 10\% effect\footnote{We thank the authors of CJ as
229: well as
230: J.L. Friar for clarification of this point.}. The results of the
231: $^{18}$F experiment, on the other hand, imply that $h_\pi^1$ is strongly
232: suppressed from
233: its natural scale. In this case, one would expect $h_\pi^1$ and $\bar C$ to
234: be of comparable
235: importance. Given the present lack of a first principle QCD calculation
236: of these two
237: LEC's, it is up to experiment to settle the question. As noted in CJ, if
238: $h_\pi^1$ were
239: to have its natural size, then a 20\% determination of $B_\gamma$ may be
240: feasible
241: at Jefferson Lab. On the other hand, a null result at this precision would
242: be consistent
243: with the $^{18}$F experiment and would imply the need of additional
244: measurements to
245: separate $h_\pi^1$ and ${\bar C}$.
246:
247: In the remainder of this paper, we discuss the calculations leading to our
248: conclusions. In section 2, we summarize the formalism for treating hadronic PV
249: in HBCPT. Section 3 gives the calculation of the subleading contributions
250: to the
251: PV photoproduction amplitude. In section 4, we discuss a field
252: redefinition, first
253: suggested in Ref. \cite{ji3}, which expresses the results of section 3 in a
254: compact
255: manner. In section 5, we consider the expected magnitudes of the PV LEC's,
256: relate
257: these estimates to the earlier work of Ref. \cite{LHH}, and summarize our
258: conclusions.
259:
260:
261: \section{Hadronic parity violation in chiral perturbation theory}
262:
263: Before considering the heavy baryon expansion, it is useful to review the
264: relevant PC and PV Lagrangians in the fully relativistic theory. For
265: simplicity,
266: we consider only $\pi$, $N$, and $\gamma$ interactions. In this case, for PC
267: interactions one has
268: \begin{eqnarray}
269: \label{lpc}\nonumber
270: {\cal L}^{PC}&=&{1\over 4}F_\pi^2 Tr D^\mu \Sigma D_\mu \Sigma^\dag +
271: \bar N (i {\cal D}_\mu \gamma^\mu -m_N) N\\ \nonumber
272: && + g_A \bar N A_\mu \gamma^\mu\gamma_5 N+
273: {e\over\Lambda_\chi}{\bar N}(c_s \\
274: &&+c_v\tau_3)\sigma^{\mu\nu}
275: N F_{\mu\nu}^++\cdots
276: \ \ \ ,
277: \end{eqnarray}
278: where ${\cal D}_\mu$ is the chiral and electromagnetic (EM) covariant
279: derivative,
280: $\Sigma=\exp(i\vec\tau\cdot\vec\pi/F_\pi)$, $N$ is the nucleon isodoublet
281: field and
282: \begin{eqnarray}
283: A_\mu&=&{i\over 2}(\xi^\dagger\partial_\mu\xi-\xi\partial_\mu\xi^\dagger)\\
284: F^\pm_{\mu\nu} & = &
285: \frac{1}{2}F_{\mu\nu}(\xi\Lambda_p\xi^{\dag}\pm\xi^{\dag}\Lambda_p
286: \xi) \\
287: \Lambda_p & = & \frac{1}{2}(1+\tau_3) \ \ \ .
288: \end{eqnarray}
289: The relevant PV Lagrangians are \cite{kaplan,zhu}
290: \begin{eqnarray}\label{n1} \nonumber
291: {\cal L}^{PV} & = & h^0_V \bar N A_\mu \gamma^\mu N
292: +{h^1_V\over 2} \bar N \gamma^\mu N Tr (A_\mu X_+^3) \\ \nonumber
293: &&-{h^1_A\over 2} \bar N \gamma^\mu \gamma_5N Tr (A_\mu X_-^3)
294: -{h^1_{\pi}\over 2\sqrt{2}}F_\pi \bar N X_-^3 N\\ \nonumber
295: && +h^2_V {\cal I}^{ab} \bar N
296: [X_R^a A_\mu X_R^b +X_L^a A_\mu X_L^b]\gamma^\mu N \\
297: \nonumber
298: && -{h^2_A\over 2} {\cal I}^{ab} \bar N
299: [X_R^a A_\mu X_R^b -X_L^a A_\mu X_L^b]\gamma^\mu\gamma_5 N \\ \nonumber
300: && +{c_1\over \Lambda_{\chi}} \bar N
301: \sigma^{\mu\nu} [F^+_{\mu\nu},
302: X_-^3]_+ N +{c_2\over \Lambda_{\chi}} \bar N \sigma^{\mu\nu} F^-_{\mu\nu} N\\
303: &&
304: +{c_3\over \Lambda_{\chi}} \bar N \sigma^{\mu\nu} [F^-_{\mu\nu}, X_+^3]_+ N
305: \; ,
306: \end{eqnarray}
307: where
308: \begin{eqnarray}
309: \label{eq:xlr}
310: X_L^a & = & \xi^{\dag}\tau^a\xi \\
311: X_R^a & = & \xi\tau^a\xi^{\dag} \\
312: X_{\pm}^a & = & X_L^a\pm X_R^a\ \ \
313: \end{eqnarray}
314: and where we follow the sign convention of Ref. \cite{zhu,zhu1}.
315: The corresponding PC and PV Lagrangians involving $\Delta$ fields are given
316: in Ref.
317: \cite{zhu}.
318:
319: Of the PV LEC's appearing in Eqs. (\ref{n1}), $h_\pi^1$ is the most familiar
320: and has received the most extensive theoretical
321: scrutiny\cite{ddh,haxton,fcdh,kaplan,hh95}.
322: In the context of chiral perturbation theory, the radiative corrections
323: to $h_\pi^1$ were discussed extensively in \cite{zhu1}, where it was
324: pointed out that
325: what nuclear PV experiments measure is an effective coupling
326: $h_\pi^{\mbox{eff}}$
327: \cite{zhu1},
328: which is a linear combination of LECs $h_\pi^1, h_\Delta, h_A^{(i)}$ etc.
329: The commonly used \lq\lq best value"---$|h_\pi^1|=5\times 10^{-7}$---quoted in
330: \cite{ddh} corresponds to a large extent to a simple tree-level estimate
331: without loop corrections. Estimates for $h_V^i$ and $h_A^i$ have been
332: discussed in Refs. \cite{kaplan,zhu1}, though no analysis similar to that of
333: \cite{ddh} has been performed. To date, there have appeared no estimates
334: of the PV $NN\pi\gamma$ constants $c_i$. Nevertheless, one expects the
335: magnitude
336: of these LEC's to be roughly a few times $g_\pi$.
337:
338: For purposes of computing $B_\gamma$, it is necessary to expand the non-linear
339: Lagrangians of Eqs. (\ref{lpc},\ref{n1}) through one $\pi$ and one $\gamma$
340: order. The
341: results for the PC interactions are familiar and we do not list them here.
342: For the PV Lagrangians, we also include the leading ($2\pi$) terms
343: proportional
344: to $h_A^i$---
345: \begin{eqnarray}
346: \label{eq:lpvexpand}\nonumber
347: {\cal L}^{PV}& = & -ih_{\pi}^{1}\pi ^{+}p^{\dagger }n \\
348: \nonumber
349: &&-{h_V\over \sqrt{2}F_\pi} \bar p\gamma^\mu n D_\mu\pi^+\\
350: \nonumber
351: &&+i\frac{h_{A}^{(1)}+\overline{h}_{A}^{(2)}}{F_{\pi }^{2}}\overline{p}%
352: \gamma ^{\mu }\gamma _{5}p\pi ^{+}D_{\mu }\pi ^{-} \nonumber \\
353: &&+i\frac{h_{A}^{(1)}-\overline{h}_{A}^{(2)}}{F_{\pi }^{2}}\overline{n}%
354: \gamma ^{\mu }\gamma _{5}n\pi ^{+}D_{\mu }\pi ^{-} \nonumber \\
355: && -i e {C\over \Lambda_\chi F_\pi}\bar p
356: \sigma^{\mu \nu}F_{\mu\nu}n\pi^++{\mbox{h.c.}}\ \ \ ,
357: \end{eqnarray}
358: where
359: \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
360: &h_V = h_V^0+\frac{4}{3}h_V^2\\
361: &C = -2\sqrt{2} c_1 +{1\over \sqrt{2}}c_2\ \ \ .
362: \end{eqnarray}
363: Note that the LEC $h_V^1$ does not contribute to ${\cal L}^{PV}$ at this order.
364: As noted in Ref. \cite{ji3} and discussed in detail below, the effects of
365: the $h_V^i$ Lagrangians on processes involving up to two pions and one
366: photon can be be absorbed into effective
367: $C$- and $h_A^i$ type Lagrangians through $2\pi$ order via an
368: appropriate nucleon field
369: redefinition. The reason is that when one integrates by parts the action
370: corresponding to
371: the $h_V$-term in Eq. (\ref{eq:lpvexpand}), the integrand vanishes by the
372: nucleon
373: equations of motion. At $3\pi$ order and beyond, however, the effects
374: of the
375: $h_V^i$ terms in Eq. (\ref{n1}) cannot be absorbed into other effective
376: interactions
377: via field redefinition. Thus, in the context of the complete non-linear PV
378: Lagrangian,
379: the $h_V^i$ remain distinct LEC's. Consequently, we keep the
380: $h_V$-dependence explicit
381: in what follows.
382:
383: \section{The subleading correction to the asymmetry}
384:
385: In order to maintain proper chiral counting, we use the heavy baryon
386: expansion of
387: Eqs. (\ref{lpc},\ref{n1}).
388: The motivation behind the use of
389: heavy baryon chiral perturbation theory (HBCPT) is explained in detail in
390: \cite{ji1}, and we follow the notations of this reference.
391: Since we work in the near-threshold region, we use the so-called
392: ``small-scale'' expansion \cite{hhk}, {\it i.e.}, we
393: treat $\omega, \omega_\pi, |k|, m_\pi, \delta
394: =m_\Delta- m_N$, etc. as small quantities and characterize amplitudes
395: by the number of powers of these terms, {\it e.g.}, we count the
396: term $\omega_\pi / q\cdot k$
397: as being ${\cal O}(p^{-1})$. The
398: photon asymmetry arises from the interference of the parity conserving (PC)
399: and
400: PV amplitudes. In Ref. \cite{ji1} the asymmetry was truncated at
401: leading order, {\it i.e.}, ${\cal O} (p^{0})$. In the present work we
402: include the ${\cal O} (p)$ correction, which arises dominantly from
403: the PV vector $\pi NN$ couplings. As we show below, chiral
404: loops contribute to the asymmetry only at ${\cal O} (p^{2})$ and higher.
405: Hence, our
406: truncation of the chiral expansion of the asymmetry is consistent and
407: complete up to terms of ${\cal O} (p)$.
408:
409: The PC amplitudes which describe the charged photoproduction reaction
410: are defined via
411: \begin{eqnarray}
412: T^{PC} &=&N^{\dagger }\left[ i{\cal A}_{1}\,{\vec \sigma }\cdot {\hat \epsilon
413: }+i{\cal A}_{2}{\vec \sigma }\cdot \widehat{{\bf q}}{\bf \ }\,{\hat \epsilon }
414: \cdot\widehat{{\bf k}}\right. \nonumber \\
415: &&\left. +i{\cal A}_{3}{\vec \sigma }\cdot \widehat{{\bf k}}{\bf \ }\,
416: {\hat \epsilon }\cdot \widehat{{\bf k}}
417: +{\cal A}_{4}{\hat \epsilon }\cdot \,\widehat{{\bf q}}\times
418: \widehat{{\bf k}}\right] N\ , \label{tpc}
419: \end{eqnarray}
420: where $N$ is the proton Pauli spinor, ${\vec \sigma }$ are the Pauli
421: spin matrices, and $\widehat{{\bf q}}$ and $\widehat{{\bf k}}$
422: are the unit vectors in the photon and pion directions respectively.
423: At leading order in HBCPT, we have
424: ${\cal A}_{1}=eg_{A}/\sqrt{2}F_{\pi }$, ${\cal A}_{2}={\cal A}_{1}\omega |%
425: {\bf k}|/q\cdot k$, ${\cal A}_{3}=-{\cal A}_{1}{\bf k}^{2}/q\cdot k$, and
426: ${\cal A}_{4}=0$ \cite{bkm,fearing}. As explained in \cite{ji1}
427: one also
428: requires the non-vanishing subleading order result for ${\cal A}_4$.
429: \begin{eqnarray}
430: {\cal A}_{4} &=&\frac{eg_{A}\left| {\bf k}\right| }{2\sqrt{2}F_{\pi }m_{N}}
431: \left[ \mu _{p}-\left( \frac{\omega }{\omega _{\pi }}\right) \mu _{n}\right]
432: \nonumber \\
433: &&-\frac{2eg_{\pi N\Delta }G_{1}\left| {\bf k}\right| }{9\sqrt{2}F_{\pi
434: }m_{N}}\left( \frac{\omega }{\omega -\delta }+\frac{\omega }{\omega _{\pi
435: }+\delta }\right) \ ,
436: \end{eqnarray}
437: where the $\Delta(1232)$ contribution has been included
438: explicitly. Here $G_1$
439: is the M1 transition moment connecting the nucleon and delta, and
440: $g_{\pi N\Delta}$ is the $\pi$-$N$-$\Delta$ coupling\cite{hhk}. Note that
441: ${\cal A}_{1-3}$ is ${\cal O}(p^0)$ while ${\cal A}_4$ is ${\cal O}(p)$.
442:
443: To ${\cal O} (p)$ in the chiral expansion, the PV $\gamma
444: p\rightarrow \pi^{+}n$ T-matrix can be written as
445: \begin{equation}
446: T^{PV}=N^{\dagger }\left[ {\cal F}_{1}\,\widehat{{\bf k}}\cdot {\hat
447: \epsilon }
448: +i{\cal F}_{2}{\vec \sigma }\cdot {\hat \epsilon }\times \,\widehat{%
449: {\bf q}}+i{\cal F}_{3}{\vec \sigma }\cdot {\hat \epsilon }\times \,\widehat{%
450: {\bf k}}\right] N\ .
451: \end{equation}
452: We then have the asymmetry
453: \begin{equation}\label{asy}
454: B_\gamma \sim \{{\cal A}_1 {\cal F}_2 +{\sin^2\theta \over 2}
455: [{\cal A}_3 {\cal F}_2- {\cal }A_4 {\cal F}_1 -{\cal A}_2 {\cal F}_3]
456: +\cos \theta {\cal A}_1 {\cal F}_3 \}\ \ \ ,
457: \end{equation}
458: where $\theta =\cos^{-1}\hat{\bf q}\cdot\hat{\bf k}$.
459: (Note that the nominally leading piece from the interference term ${\cal A}_{1-3}
460: {\cal F}_1$ vanishes if the proton target is unpolarized.)
461:
462: The leading, nonvanishing
463: contributions to $B_\gamma$, which occur at ${\cal O}(p^0)$, are generated
464: by the
465: ${\cal O}(p^0)$ terms in ${\cal A}_{1-3}$ interfering with the ${\cal
466: O}(p^0)$ terms
467: in ${\cal F}_2$, and by the ${\cal O}(p)$ term in ${\cal A}_4$ interfering
468: with
469: the ${\cal O}(p^{-1})$ term in ${\cal F}_1$. The leading order PV
470: contributions
471: to ${\cal F}_{1,2}$ arise from the insertion of the PV Yukawa $\pi NN$
472: vertex of Eq. (\ref{eq:lpvexpand}) in FIG. 1 (a), (c), (d).
473: The results, given in Ref. \cite{ji1}, are
474: \begin{equation}
475: \label{eq:leadingPV}
476: {\cal F}_{1}=-\frac{eh_{\pi }^{1}\left| {\bf k}\right| }{q{\bf \cdot }k}%
477: \ ,\ {\cal F}_{2}=-\frac{eh_{\pi }^{1}}{2m_{N}}\left[ \mu _{p}-\left(
478: \frac{\omega }{\omega _{\pi }}\right) \mu _{n}\right] \ .
479: \end{equation}
480: where ${\cal F}_1, {\cal F}_2$ are ${\cal O}(p^{-1}), {\cal O}(p^0)$
481: respectively.
482:
483: Subleading contributions to $B_\gamma$ are generated by ${\cal O}(p)$ and
484: ${\cal O}(p^2)$ terms in ${\cal A}_{1-3}$ and ${\cal A}_4$, respectively,
485: intefering with the amplitudes in Eq. (\ref{eq:leadingPV}), and by
486: ${\cal O}(p)$
487: contributions in ${\cal F}_{2,3}$ interfering with the ${\cal O}(p^0)$
488: terms in
489: ${\cal A}_{1-3}$. The subleading PC contributions have been computed in
490: \cite{fearing}. We refer to the detailed expressions for these corrections in
491: that work, which we employ in our numerical analysis below. Of greater
492: interest
493: are the ${\cal O}(p)$ PV amplitudes involving new LEC's. These
494: contributions, which are generated by the $h_V$ and $C$ terms in eq.
495: (\ref{eq:lpvexpand}),
496: contribute to both the pole
497: diagrams FIG. 1 (c), (d) and the seagull diagram FIG. 1 (b).
498: We have
499: \begin{eqnarray}\label{pole}\nonumber
500: &{\cal F}_{1}={\cal F}_3=0\; , \\
501: &{\cal F}_{2}=\frac{eh_V}{2m_{N}}{\omega_\pi\over
502: \sqrt{2}F_\pi}\left[ \mu_{p}- {\omega\over \omega_\pi}
503: \mu _{n}-{\omega\over \omega_\pi}\right]
504: +\frac{2eC} {\Lambda_\chi}\frac{\omega}{F_\pi}\; .
505: \end{eqnarray}
506: The contribution from FIG. 1 (b) cancels exactly those from FIG. 1 (c), (d)
507: where the $\gamma NN$ vertex is minimum coupling \footnote{We thank J.-W. Chen
508: and X. Ji for pointing out this cancellation to us.}.
509:
510: According to the expression in Eq. (\ref{pole}), the $h_V$ and $C$
511: contributions
512: to ${\cal F}_2$ carry distinct kinematic dependences, a feature which might
513: suggest
514: using the $\omega$-dependence of $B_\gamma$ to separate the two LEC's. Such
515: a program
516: would be misguided, however. As we show below, the kinematic behavior
517: generated by
518: the $h_V$ and $C$ interactions is identical when a fully relativistic
519: framework is
520: used to compute the PV amplitudes. The result in this case is
521: \begin{equation}
522: \label{polerel}
523: {\cal F}_2 = {2e{\bar C}\over\Lambda_\chi} {\omega\over F_\pi}
524: \end{equation}
525: with
526: \begin{equation}
527: {\bar C} = C + {\Lambda_\chi\over m_N}
528: \left({\kappa_p-\kappa_n\over 4\sqrt{2}}\right) h_V \ \ \ .
529: \end{equation}
530: Here $\kappa_i$ are the anomalous nuclon magnetic moments, as
531: distinguished from the full moments $\mu_i$ used to this point.
532: The apparent difference between Eqs. (\ref{pole},\ref{polerel})
533: is a artifact of truncating the $1/m_N$ expansion at this order in
534: HBCPT---to this order of the chiral expansion the photon and pion
535: energies are equal.
536: In what
537: follows, then, we adopt the result in Eqs. (\ref{polerel}).
538:
539: In addition to the ${\cal O}(p)$ contributions from $h_V$ and $C$, ${\cal
540: F}_2$
541: receives an ${\cal O}(p)$ contribution involving $h_\pi^1$ generated by the
542: $1/m_N$
543: corrections to the nucleon propagator and $\gamma NN$ vertex in the
544: pole
545: amplitudes. We include these corrections in the asymmtry formulae
546: below. Other possible contributions to
547: the PV amplitudes include PV $\gamma N
548: \Delta$ and $\pi N \Delta$ interactions. However, both contribute at ${\cal
549: O}(p^2)$,
550: which is higher than the order at which we are truncating. Similarly
551: chiral loop contributions to ${\cal A}_{1-4}, {\cal F}_1, {\cal F}_2,
552: {\cal F}_3$ appear at ${\cal O}(p^2)$, ${\cal O}(p)$, ${\cal O}(p^2)$
553: or higher, respectively. Consequently, chiral loops do not contribute to the
554: asymmetry until at least ${\cal O}(p^2)$. All such contributions are
555: then higher order and
556: can be dropped.
557:
558: The resultant photon asymmetry at order ${\cal O}(p)$ reads then
559: \begin{eqnarray}
560: \nonumber
561: &B_\gamma(\omega, \theta) = {\sqrt{2} h_\pi^1 F_\pi\over g_A m_N {\cal G}}
562: \Biggl\{\Biggl[\left(1-{\omega\over 2m_N}\right)\mu_p \\ \nonumber
563: & \ \ \ -\left({\omega\over\omega_\pi}\right)\left(1-{|{\bf k}|^2\over 2
564: m_N\omega_\pi}
565: \right)\mu_n\Biggr]\left( 1-\sin^2\theta\frac{ {\bf k}^{2}}{q
566: {\bf \cdot }k}\right) \\ \nonumber
567: &+\frac{2}{9}g_{\pi N\Delta }G_{1}\sin ^{2}\theta \frac{{\bf k}^{2}}{
568: g_{A}q{\bf \cdot }k}\left( \frac{\omega }{\omega -\delta }+\frac{\omega }{
569: \omega _{\pi }+\delta }\right)\\ \nonumber
570: &+2\left({\omega\over\omega_\pi}\right){|{\bf k}|\over m_N}\mu_n
571: \left( \cos\theta -\sin ^{2}\theta \frac{\omega |{\bf k}|}{2q {\bf \cdot
572: }k}\right)\Biggr\}\\
573: &
574: -{4\sqrt{2}{\bar C}\over g_A\Lambda_\chi{\cal G}}\left( 1-\sin
575: ^{2}\theta \frac{{\bf
576: k}^{2}}{2q {\bf \cdot }k}\right)+\cdots\ \ \ .\label{eq:asy}
577: \end{eqnarray}
578: where the ellipses indicate the PC $1/m_N$ contributions of
579: $T^{PC}$ in Ref. \cite{fearing} and
580: \begin{equation}
581: {\cal G}=1-\sin^{2}\theta \frac{{\bf k}^{2}}{q {\bf \cdot }k}
582: [1-{({\bf q}-{\bf k})^2\over 2q\cdot k}]
583: \; .
584: \end{equation}
585: At threshold---$|{\bf k}|=0$---Eq. (\ref{eq:asy}) becomes
586: the low energy theorem for the photon
587: asymmetry given in Eq. (\ref{eq:newtheorem}).
588:
589:
590: \section{Field redefinition and physical observables}
591:
592: In response to an earlier version of this paper, CJ observed that one may
593: obtain the subleading PV contributions to $B_\gamma$ involving $\bar C$
594: entirely from the diagram (b) in Fig. 1 after a suitable redefinition of the
595: nucleon fields \cite{ji3}. This simplification arises because the $h_V$-terms
596: in Eq. (\ref{eq:lpvexpand}) vanish for on-shell nucleons after integration
597: by parts. As discussed in Ref. \cite{field}, the effects of interactions which
598: vanish by the equations of motion can always be absorbed into contact
599: interactions via field redefinition. In the present case, the redefinition
600: proposed by CJ is
601: \begin{eqnarray}\label{red}\nonumber
602: &p = {\tilde p} - {i\over \sqrt{2} F_\pi}h_V \pi^+ {\tilde n} \, ,\\
603: &n = {\tilde n} - {i\over \sqrt{2} F_\pi}h_V \pi^- {\tilde p} \, .
604: \end{eqnarray}
605: The resultant PV Lagrangian ${\tilde{\cal L}}^{PV}$ is
606: \begin{eqnarray}\label{20}\nonumber
607: {\tilde{\cal L}}^{PV} &=&-ih_{\pi }^{1}\pi ^{+}\overline{\tilde p}{\tilde
608: n} \\
609: &&+i\frac{h_{A}^{1}+\overline{h}_{A}^{2}}{F_{\pi }^{2}}\overline{\tilde
610: p}\gamma ^{\mu
611: }\gamma _{5}{\tilde p}\pi ^{+}D_{\mu }\pi ^{-} \nonumber \\
612: &&+i\frac{h_{A}^{1}-\overline{h}_{A}^{2}}{F_{\pi }^{2}}\overline{\tilde
613: n}\gamma ^{\mu
614: }\gamma _{5}{\tilde n}\pi ^{+}D_{\mu }\pi ^{-} \nonumber \\
615: &&-ie\frac{\overline{C}}{\Lambda_\chi F_{\pi }}\overline{\tilde p}\sigma
616: ^{\mu \nu
617: }F_{\mu \nu }
618: {\tilde n}\pi
619: ^{+}+{\rm h.c.}+\cdots \ .
620: \end{eqnarray}
621: where
622: \begin{equation}\label{21}
623: \overline{h}_{A}^{(2)}=h_{A}^{(2)}-\frac{g_{A}}{2}h_{V}\ ,\quad \overline{C}%
624: =C+{\Lambda_\chi\over m_N}\left(
625: \frac{\kappa _{p}-\kappa _{n}}{4\sqrt{2}}\right) h_{V}\ .
626: \end{equation}
627: Note that in ${\tilde{\cal L}}^{PV}$, the $h_V$-terms have been eliminated, and
628: their effect absorbed into the LEC ${\bar C}$ and $\overline{h}_{A}^{(2)}$
629: introduced earlier\footnote{Our
630: relative phase between $C$ and $h_V$ in $\bar C$ differs from Ref.
631: \cite{ji3}.}.
632: In terms of physical observables involving up to two $\pi$ and one $\gamma$, it
633: is not possible to determine $h_V$ from $C$. In particular, as noted in Ref.
634: \cite{zhu}, the PV NN potential contains no dependence on $h_V$.
635:
636: The question remains as to whether the $h_V^i$ constitute distinct LEC's in
637: the context of the full nonlinear Lagrangian of Eq. (\ref{n1}), or whether
638: their
639: effects can be entirely absorbed into other LEC's. In the following, we
640: address
641: this question using the simplest unitarized version of the transformation in
642: Eq. (\ref{red}). We show that at $3\pi$ order, it is not possible to
643: eliminate
644: the $h_V^i$ effects in terms of other LEC's. We give a general proof
645: of this
646: result in the Appendix. In principle, then, one could use
647: an appropriate PV $3\pi$ process ({\em e.g.}, the analyzing power for
648: $\pi^-{\vec p}\to \pi^+\pi^- n$) to separate the $h_V^i$ and $C$. In
649: practice,
650: measurements of multi-pion processes would be extremely difficult at best.
651:
652: To illustrate this result, consider the unitary transformation
653: \begin{equation}\label{unit}
654: N= V_1 {\tilde N}
655: \end{equation}
656: to eliminate the leading linear term after expansion of PV
657: vector pieces in (\ref{n1}).
658: The explicit expression of $V_1$ is
659: \begin{eqnarray}
660: \label{unit2}
661: &V_1=e^{-{i\over F_\pi} {\hat O_1}}=V e^{-{i h_V^1\over F_\pi}\pi^0} \\
662: &V=e^{-{i\over F_\pi} {\hat O}} \\
663: & {\hat O_1} ={\hat O} + h_V^1\pi^0 {\hat 1} \\
664: & {\hat O} ={h_V^0 \over 2} \pi^i \tau^i + {4\over 3} h_V^2
665: \left( \begin{array}{ll} 2\pi^0 & {\pi^+\over \sqrt{2}}\\
666: {\pi^-\over \sqrt{2}} & -2\pi^0 \end{array} \right)
667: \end{eqnarray}
668: The difference between the field redefinition Eq. (\ref{red}) and
669: Eq. (\ref{unit}) is two-fold. The latter is unitary and also takes into
670: account
671: the PV vector $\pi^0 NN$ interaction.
672:
673: It is useful to collect some relevant terms of the redefined Lagrangians
674: containing the
675: nucleon field ${\tilde N}$. For the strong and
676: electromagnetic part we have
677: \begin{eqnarray}
678: \label{lpcred}
679: \nonumber
680: & {\tilde{\cal L}}^{PC}= \bar{\tilde N} (i D_\mu \gamma^\mu -m_N) {\tilde N}
681: + \bar{\tilde N} [V_1^\dag i D_\mu V_1] \gamma^\mu {\tilde N} \\ \nonumber
682: &+ \bar{\tilde N} [V^\dag i V_\mu V] \gamma^\mu {\tilde N}
683: + g_A \bar{\tilde N} [V^\dag A_\mu V ]\gamma^\mu \gamma_5 {\tilde N} \\
684: &+{e\over \Lambda_{\chi}}\bar {\tilde N}[ V^\dag (c_s +c_v\tau_3)
685: \sigma^{\mu\nu}
686: F^+_{\mu\nu} V ]{\tilde N} +\cdots
687: \end{eqnarray}
688: where $V_\mu$ is the chiral connection.
689:
690: For the originally weak interaction we have
691: \begin{eqnarray}\label{lpvred} \nonumber
692: &{\tilde{\cal L}}^{PV}=h^0_V \bar {\tilde N} V^\dag A_\mu V \gamma^\mu
693: {\tilde N}
694: +{1\over 2} h_V^1\bar {\tilde N} \gamma^\mu {\tilde N} Tr (A_\mu X_+^3) \\
695: \nonumber
696: &-{1\over 2} h_A^1\bar {\tilde N} \gamma^\mu \gamma_5 {\tilde N} Tr (A_\mu
697: X_-^3)
698: -{1\over 2\sqrt{2}}h_\pi^1F_\pi \bar {\tilde N}[V^\dag X_-^3 V]{\tilde
699: N}\\ \nonumber
700: &+h^2_V {\cal I}^{ab} \bar {\tilde N}
701: V^\dag [X_R^a A_\mu X_R^b +X_L^a A_\mu X_L^b] V \gamma^\mu {\tilde N} \\
702: \nonumber
703: & \ \ \ -{1\over 2}h_A^2 {\cal I}^{ab} \bar {\tilde N} V^\dag
704: [X_R^a A_\mu X_R^b -X_L^a A_\mu X_L^b] V\gamma^\mu\gamma_5 {\tilde N} \\
705: \nonumber
706: & +{1\over \Lambda_{\chi}} c_1\bar {\tilde N}
707: \sigma^{\mu\nu} [F^+_{\mu\nu},
708: X_-^3]_+ {\tilde N} +{1\over \Lambda_{\chi}}c_2
709: \bar {\tilde N} \sigma^{\mu\nu} F^-_{\mu\nu} {\tilde N}\\
710: &
711: +{1\over \Lambda_{\chi}} c_3\bar {\tilde N} \sigma^{\mu\nu} [F^-_{\mu\nu},
712: X_+^3]_+
713: {\tilde N}
714: \; ,
715: \end{eqnarray}
716:
717: Now expand Eqs. (\ref{lpcred}) and (\ref{lpvred}) in ${1/F_\pi}$. The leading
718: term arising from
719: \begin{equation}
720: \bar{\tilde N} [V_1^\dag i D_\mu V_1] \gamma^\mu {\tilde N}
721: \end{equation}
722: in Eq. (\ref{lpcred}) entirely cancels the $1\pi$ $h_V^i$ terms in Eq.
723: (\ref{lpvred}),
724: recovering the results of Eqs. (\ref{20}-\ref{21}).
725: The potential sources of $3\pi$ PV interactions include the following:
726:
727: \medskip
728: \noindent (1) expansion of the term in Eq. (\ref{lpcred})
729: $\bar{\tilde N} [V_1^\dag i D_\mu V_1] \gamma^\mu {\tilde N}$
730: in Eq. (\ref{lpcred}). The result is ${\cal O}(G_F^3)$.
731:
732: \medskip
733: \noindent (2) expansion of the term in Eq. ({\ref{lpcred})
734: $\bar{\tilde N} [V^\dag i V_\mu V] \gamma^\mu {\tilde N}$, which is
735: linear in $h_V^i$, $i=0, 2$ only [${\cal O}(G_F)$];
736:
737: \medskip
738: \noindent (3) expansion of $A_\mu, X_{\pm}^3, X_{L,R}^a$ operators
739: in Eq.({\ref{lpvred}) to third order,
740: which is linear in $h_V^i$, ($i=0, 1, 2$) and $h_A^i, h_\pi^1$ ($i=1,2$)
741: [${\cal
742: O}(G_F)$];
743:
744: \medskip
745: \noindent (4) expansion of $V$ and $V^\dag$ operator in Eq.({\ref{lpvred})
746: to second order,
747: which is cubic in $h_V^i$, $i=0, 2$ only [${\cal O}(G_F^3)$].
748:
749: \medskip
750: \noindent (5) expansion of the $\bar{\tilde N} [V^\dag A_\mu V]
751: \gamma^\mu\gamma^5 {\tilde
752: N}$ and $\bar {\tilde N}[ V^\dag (c_s +c_v\tau_3) \sigma^{\mu\nu}
753: F^+_{\mu\nu} V ]{\tilde N}$ terms in to third order [${\cal O}(G_F^2)$ and
754: ${\cal O}(G_F)$, respectively].
755:
756: \medskip
757: \noindent (6) expansion of the $c_i$-terms in Eq. (\ref{lpvred}) to third order
758: [${\cal O}(G_F)$].
759:
760: Prior to the applying the transformation (\ref{unit},\ref{unit2}), the only PV
761: $NN\pi\pi\pi$ contact interactions arise from the $h_V^i$-terms in (3).
762: After field
763: redefinition, one must add up all six contributions. Note that those
764: arising from (5), (6)
765: and the $h_\pi^1, h_A^i$-terms in (3) contain a different Lorentz structure
766: than the
767: $h_V^i$
768: terms in (3) and therefore cannot cancel the latter. Similarly, since the
769: $h_V^i$ $3\pi$ terms in (3) arise at ${\cal O}(G_F)$, they cannot be
770: cancelled by the contributions from (1) and (4). Thus, at ${\cal O}(G_F)$, the
771: only $3\pi$ contributions involving $\bar{\tilde N}\gamma_\mu{\tilde N}$
772: arise from (2) and the $h_V^i$ terms in (3). Note that (2) contains no terms
773: involving $h_V^1$. Hence, the $3\pi$ term proportional to $h_V^1$
774: appearing
775: in (3) cannot be removed by the transformation Eq. (\ref{unit}).
776:
777: For the terms proportional to $h_V^0$ we obtain from (2)
778: \begin{equation}
779: -{h_V^0\over 2F_\pi^3} [\pi, [\pi, D_\mu \pi]] \; .
780: \end{equation}
781: where $\pi ={1\over 2}\pi^i \tau^i$, while (3) yields
782: \begin{equation}
783: +{h_V^0\over 6F_\pi^3} [\pi, [\pi, D_\mu \pi]] \; .
784: \end{equation}
785: Their sum is
786: \begin{equation}
787: -{h_V^0\over 3 F_\pi^3} [\pi, [\pi, D_\mu \pi]] \; .
788: \end{equation}
789: The $3\pi$ PV vector $h_V^0$ contact term does not
790: vanish after field redefinition. A similar result holds for $h_V^2$.
791:
792: As we show in the Appendix, one may remove the $1\pi$ $h_V^i$ terms
793: by a more general field redefinition than given by Eqs.
794: (\ref{unit},\ref{unit2}).
795: Nevertheless, it is still not possible to remove the $3\pi$ terms
796: proportional to the $h_V^i$ (the arguments of the proof are similar to
797: those above, but more tedious in the details). Thus, we conclude that the
798: $h_V^i$ constitute distinct and, in principle measurable LEC's in the nonlinear
799: chiral theory of Eqs. (\ref{lpc},\ref{n1}). While one could compute observables
800: in either formulation of the theory (with or without the field redefinition)
801: and obtain identical results, the structure of Lagrangian is more
802: cumbersome after
803: application of Eq. (\ref{unit}): there appear several new interaction
804: vertices, including small [${\cal O}(G_F^2)$] parity-conserving non-derivative
805: interactions; the chiral transformation properties are less transparent than
806: in the original version of the theory; and the fields ${\tilde N}$ annihilate
807: nucleon states of mixed parity. Consequently, we retain the
808: original form of ${\cal L}^{PV}$ given in Refs. \cite{kaplan,zhu}.
809:
810: \section{Scale of the LEC's}
811:
812: Given that $h_\pi^1$ and $\bar C$ appear in $B_\gamma$ with nearly equal
813: weight, it would be useful to have in hand a theoretical expectation for the
814: magnitudes of these LEC's. A simple estimate can be obtained by applying
815: the \lq\lq na\"\i ve dimensional analysis"
816: of Ref. \cite{gm}. For strong and EM interations, effective
817: interactions
818: scale with $F_\pi$ and $\Lambda_\chi$ as
819: \begin{equation}
820: \label{eq:georgi}
821: (\Lambda_\chi F_\pi)^2 \ \times\ \left({{\bar N} N\over\Lambda_\chi
822: F_\pi^2}\right)^k
823: \left({\pi\over F_\pi}\right)^l \left({D_\mu \over\Lambda_\chi}\right)^m \ \ \ ,
824: \end{equation}
825: where $k,l, m$ are integers and $ D_\mu$ is the covariant derivative.
826: For weak interactions, the same counting applies,
827: multiplied by an overall scale of
828: \begin{equation}
829: \label{eq:gpi}
830: g_\pi\sim {G_F F_\pi^2\over 2\sqrt{2}} \ \ \ .
831: \end{equation}
832: Thus, one would expect the strength of the PV $NN\pi$ Yukawa interaction to be
833: given by Eqs. (\ref{eq:georgi},\ref{eq:gpi}) with $k=1$, $l=1$, $n=0$:
834: \begin{equation}
835: \label{eq:hpiexpect}
836: {\Lambda_\chi\over F_\pi}\ g_\pi = 4\pi g_\pi\ \ \ .
837: \end{equation}
838: Since the definition of the Yukawa interaction in Eq. (\ref{n1}) contains
839: no explicit
840: factors of $\Lambda$ or $F_\pi$, one expects the natural size of this LEC
841: to be given by Eq.
842: (\ref{eq:hpiexpect}). Similarly, the ${\bar C}$ interaction, which involves
843: $k=1$, $l=1$, $m=2$, should scale as
844: \begin{equation}
845: \label{eq:cbarexpect}
846: {1\over \Lambda_\chi F_\pi} \ g_\pi \ \ \ .
847: \end{equation}
848: However, since the PV $NN\pi\gamma$ contact interaction in
849: Eq. (\ref{lpvred})
850: already contains the
851: explicit factors $1/\Lambda_\chi$ and $1/F_\pi$, the coefficient -- $\bar
852: C$ --
853: should be roughly of size $g_\pi$.
854:
855: It is useful to compare these expectations with results of model
856: calculations as
857: well as with experiment. The benchmark SU(6)/quark model calculation of
858: Ref. \cite{ddh},
859: updated in Ref. \cite{fcdh}, gives a \lq\lq best" estimate for
860: $h_\pi^{\mbox{eff}}$ of
861: $(7-12)\times g_\pi$ -- roughly commensurate with the expection of Eq.
862: (\ref{eq:hpiexpect}).
863: That analysis, however, allows for the Yukawa coupling to be as small as
864: zero and as
865: large as $(20-30)\times g_\pi$, owing to uncertainties associated with
866: various SU(6)
867: reduced matrix elements and quark model inputs. To date, no
868: estimate of $\bar
869: C$ has been performed. A simple estimate can be made, however, by assuming the
870: short-distance PV
871: physics is saturated by $t$-channel vector meson exchange. In the purely
872: mesonic sector,
873: one may understand the magnitudes of the ${\cal O}(p^4)$ LEC's $L_i$ using
874: vector meson
875: saturation. For the baryon sector, the same framework was used to estimate
876: the sub-leading
877: contributions to the nucleon anapole moment \cite{zhu}. In the present
878: instance,
879: an illustrative contribution in this context is given in Fig. 2, where the
880: $\bar
881: C$-amplitude is generated by the PV $\rho NN$ interaction.
882: For the $\rho \pi\gamma$ vertex we use the Lagrangian:
883: \begin{equation}
884: {\cal L}_{\rho \pi \gamma}^{PC}=e {g_{\rho \pi \gamma}\over 4m_\rho}
885: \epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}
886: F_{\mu\nu}G^-_{\alpha\beta} \pi^+ +\cdots
887: \end{equation}
888: where $G_{\alpha\beta}=\partial_\alpha \rho_\beta - \partial_\beta
889: \rho_\alpha$.
890: From the $\rho$ radiative decay width \cite{pdg} we have
891: $ |g_{\rho \pi \gamma}|=0.6$, and
892: for the PV $\rho NN$ interaction we follow Ref. \cite{ddh}, writing
893: \begin{equation}
894: {\cal L}_{\rho NN}^{PV}=\sqrt{2}(h_\rho^0- {h_\rho^2\over 2\sqrt{6}})
895: [\bar p \gamma_\mu\gamma_5 \rho^+ n + H.c. +\cdots]
896: \end{equation}
897: Invoking VMD we have
898: \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
899: {\bar C} & \sim & -{g_{\rho \pi \gamma}\over \sqrt{2}} {\Lambda_\chi F_\pi
900: m_\pi \over
901: m_\rho^3}(h_\rho^0- {h_\rho^2\over 2\sqrt{6}})\\
902: &\sim& -0.35 g_\pi \ \ \ ,
903: \end{eqnarray}
904: where we have used the DDH \lq\lq best values" $h_\rho^0=-30g_\pi,
905: h_\rho^2=-25g_\pi$
906: \cite{ddh}. Presumably, other heavy mesons contribute with comparable
907: strength.
908: In this simple vector meson saturation picture, then, the size of $\bar C$ is
909: consistent with the expectation in Eq. (\ref{eq:cbarexpect}). We note that the
910: authors of Ref. \cite{LHH} adopted similar picture for the short-distance PV
911: physics, treating the $\rho$ and $\omega$ as explicit dynamical degrees of
912: freedom.
913:
914: As stated at the outset of this work, the quandry for the effective field
915: theory
916: treatment of $B_\gamma$ is that the constraints on $h_\pi^1$ from the
917: $P_\gamma(^{18}$F)
918: measurements imply that this coupling is considerably suppressed from its \lq\lq natural"
919: scale\footnote{The $^{18}$F result is also consistent with the combined
920: results of PV
921: asymmetry measurements with $^{19}$F, $p+\alpha$, and $pp$ processes (see,
922: {\em e.g.},
923: Ref. \cite{cesiumam}).}. While the analysis of Refs. \cite{ddh,fcdh} can
924: accomodate the
925: $^{18}$F result, one has a more difficult task of explaining this result
926: using effective
927: field theory alone, without reference to the underlying dynamics of strong
928: and weak
929: interactions. Nevertheless, taking the $^{18}$F result at face value
930: implies that in the
931: HBCPT treatment of one- and few-body PV processes nominally sensitive to
932: the PV $\pi NN$
933: Yukawa coupling, one must also take into consideration subleading PV
934: contributions as we
935: have done for $B_\gamma$. Disentangling the short-distance physics
936: responsible for these
937: subleading effects then remains an interesting and unsolved problem for both
938: theory and
939: experiment.
940:
941:
942: \section*{Acknowledgment}
943: We thank J.-W. Chen, X. Ji, and J.L. Friar for several helpful conversations.
944: This work was supported in part under U.S. Department of Energy contracts
945: \#DE-AC05-84ER40150 and \#DE-FG02-00ER41146, the National Science Foundation,
946: and a National Science Foundation Young Investigator Award.
947:
948: \section{Appendix A}
949:
950: We present here a general proof that the PV 3$\pi$ vector
951: interaction vertex (proportional to the $h_V^i$) cannot be removed by any
952: unitary
953: transformation $U$. To simplify notation, we absorb the
954: factor $1/F_\pi$ into the pion field. From now on it is
955: understood that
956: \begin{equation}
957: \pi = {1\over F_\pi} \pi^i {\tau^i\over 2}\ \ \ .
958: \end{equation}
959: Since the transformation is unitary, we have
960: \begin{equation}
961: {\hat U} =e^{-i{\hat F}}
962: \end{equation}
963: \begin{equation}
964: {\hat F} ={\hat F}^\dag
965: \end{equation}
966: The operator ${\hat F}$ can be expanded in terms of
967: the number of pions. Since ${\hat F}$ should not carry
968: explicit Lorentz indices, any derivatives should appear in pairs.
969: Because we are discussing $3\pi$ PV vertex with only one derivative
970: in the present case, the possible derivative terms
971: are irrelevant here. Consequently, we omit them from the following
972: discussion. We
973: also consider explicitly only the $h_V^{0,1}$ contributions; the arguments
974: involving
975: $h_V^2$ are similar, but considerably more tedious.
976:
977: Expand ${\hat F}$:
978: \begin{equation}
979: {\hat F} ={\hat O}_1 + {\hat O}_2 + {\hat O}_3+ \cdots\ \ \ ,
980: \end{equation}
981: where ${\hat O}_n$ contains products of $n\pi$ fields.
982: The leading term ${\hat O}_1$ is needed to remove the $1\pi$ PV vector
983: linear term. Its structure is fixed and of ${\cal O} (G_F)$ as discussed in
984: Section 4. The remaining terms ${\hat O}_n$, $n>1$ could, in principle,
985: be of ${\cal O} (G_F^0)$. In the present case, we need to consider only
986: the terms through $n=3$.
987: The most general forms of ${\hat O}_2$, ${\hat O}_3$ read
988: \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
989: {\hat O}_2 = (a_1 \pi^+\pi^- +a_2 \pi^0\pi^0){\hat 1} & \\ \nonumber
990: +(a_3 \pi^+\pi^- +a_4 \pi^0\pi^0)\tau_3 & \\ \nonumber
991: + a_5 \pi^0 (\pi^+\tau_+ +\pi^- \tau_-) &\\
992: + i a_6 \pi^0 (\pi^+\tau_+ -\pi^- \tau_-)
993: \end{eqnarray}
994: \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
995: {\hat O}_3 = (b_1 \pi^+\pi^- +b_2 \pi^0\pi^0)\pi^0 {\hat 1} & \\ \nonumber
996: +(b_3 \pi^+\pi^- +b_4 \pi^0\pi^0)\pi^0 \tau_3 & \\ \nonumber
997: + (b_5 \pi^+\pi^- +b_6 \pi^0 \pi^0) (\pi^+\tau_+ +\pi^- \tau_-) &\\
998: + i(b_7 \pi^+\pi^- +b_8 \pi^0 \pi^0) (\pi^+\tau_+ -\pi^- \tau_-)
999: \end{eqnarray}
1000: where $a_{1-6}, b_{1-8}$ are real numbers.
1001:
1002: Now perform the unitary transformation
1003: \begin{equation}
1004: \label{eq:genunit}
1005: N = {\hat U} {\tilde N}\ \ \ .
1006: \end{equation}
1007: The possible sources of PV vector $3\pi$ vertices in the transformed
1008: Lagrangians are the same
1009: as discussed in the section 4 (items 1-6, but the order in $G_F$ is
1010: not {\em a priori} fixed here). In addition, we must also expand the
1011: $X_{\pm}^a$ along with $A_\mu$ in item (3). As was done previously, we may
1012: neglect those terms whose Lorentz structure differs from ${\bar{\tilde N}}
1013: \gamma_\mu {\tilde N}$. Thus, we consider only the vector terms arising from
1014: (1)-(4) (with $V\to{\hat U}$). From (1) we obtain the three $\pi$ contribution
1015: \begin{equation}
1016: \label{111}\nonumber
1017: {\hat U}^{\dag} iD_\mu {\hat U} = D_\mu {\hat O}_3 +
1018: i [{\hat O}_1, D_\mu {\hat O}_2]
1019: -i [D_\mu {\hat O}_1, {\hat O}_2]
1020: +{\cal O}({\hat O}_1^3)\ \ \ ,
1021: \end{equation}
1022: where the ${\hat O}_1^3$ term is ${\cal O}(G_F^3)$ and may be neglected.
1023: Since the component of ${\hat O}_1$ proportional to $h_V^1$ is independent of
1024: the $\tau^a$, it does not contribute to the commutators in Eq. (\ref{111}).
1025: Hence, we may replace ${\hat O}_1\to {\hat O}$ in the expression above. Since
1026: the ${\hat O}_{2,3}$ are may be of ${\cal O}(G_F^0)$, item (1) will generate
1027: relevant $3\pi$ terms under the general unitary transformation.
1028:
1029: From item (2) we obtain
1030: \begin{equation}
1031: \label{222}
1032: {\hat U}^\dag i V_\mu {\hat U} =-[{\hat O}_1, V_\mu^{(2)}]+\cdots=-[{\hat
1033: O}, V_\mu^{(2)}]+
1034: \cdots\ \ \ ,
1035: \end{equation}
1036: where $V_\mu^{(2)}$ denotes the $2\pi$ terms in $V_\mu$.
1037:
1038: Next, consider the contributions from item (3), including the expansion of the
1039: $X_{\pm}^3$. The term proportional to
1040: $h_V^1$ [we neglect the ${\cal O}(G_F^3)$] terms is
1041: \begin{equation}
1042: \label{333}
1043: {1\over 2} h_V^1 Tr [A_\mu X_+^3]
1044: = {2\over 3}h_V^1 [\pi^i \pi_i D_\mu \pi^0 -\pi^0 \pi_i D_\mu\pi^i]
1045: \end{equation}
1046: which does not contain $\tau_\pm, \tau_3$.
1047: In order to remove the above term we also
1048: need similar terms with ${\hat 1}$ structure from Eq. (\ref{111})-(\ref{222}).
1049: The commutators
1050: never contribute to ${\hat 1}$ structure. So the only possibility is
1051: the isoscalar piece of ${\hat C}$,
1052: \begin{equation}
1053: \label{333p}
1054: D_\mu [b_1\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0 +b_2 \pi^0\pi^0\pi^0]
1055: \end{equation}
1056: which is a total derivative of $3\pi$ fields, and each term is symmetric
1057: under field permutations.
1058: However, Eq. (\ref{333}) does not display such permutation symmetry. In
1059: other words,
1060: Eqs. (\ref{333}) and (\ref{333p}) cannot completely cancel each other.
1061: Thus, the $3\pi$ $h_V^1$
1062: piece will remain under any unitary transformation.
1063:
1064: Now consider the $h_V^0$ term in item (3).
1065: Expansion of the $A_\mu$
1066: operator in ${\hat U}^\dag A_\mu {\hat U}$ in Eq. (\ref{lpvred}) leads to
1067: \begin{eqnarray}
1068: \label{444}
1069: \nonumber
1070: \sim {1\over 6} h_V^0 [\pi, [\pi, D_\mu \pi]] & \\ \nonumber
1071: ={1\over 6}h_V^0 \{ {\tau_3\over 2} [2\pi^+\pi^-D_\mu \pi^0
1072: -\pi^0 D_\mu (\pi^+\pi^-) ] & \\ \nonumber
1073: +{\tau_+\over \sqrt{2}} [-\pi^+ (\pi^+D_\mu \pi^-
1074: -\pi^-D_\mu \pi^+) & \\ \nonumber
1075: +\pi^0 (\pi^0D_\mu \pi^+ -\pi^+D_\mu \pi^0)]& \\ \nonumber
1076: +{\tau_-\over \sqrt{2}} [-\pi^- (\pi^-D_\mu \pi^+
1077: -\pi^+D_\mu \pi^-) & \\
1078: +\pi^0 (\pi^0D_\mu \pi^- -\pi^-D_\mu \pi^0)] \}\ \ \ .
1079: \end{eqnarray}
1080:
1081: Finally, from item (4) we obtain for the $h_V^0$ contribution
1082: \begin{eqnarray}
1083: \label{555}\nonumber
1084: \sim i h_V^0 [{\hat O}_2, A_\mu] +{\cal O} ( {\hat O}_1^3)+\cdots &\\
1085: =i h_V^0 [{\hat O}_2, A_\mu] +{\cal O} ( G_F^3)+\cdots\ \ \ .
1086: \end{eqnarray}
1087:
1088: Now we require the explicit three $\pi$ expressions from Eqs. (\ref{111},
1089: \ref{222},\ref{555}) [items (1),(2), (4)] in addition to the
1090: expression in Eq. (\ref{444}) [item (3)]. These expressions are linear in
1091: the
1092: $\tau_i$ and
1093: ${\hat 1}$.
1094: For clarity, we first focus on the terms involving $\tau_3$. From Eq.
1095: (\ref{111})
1096: we have
1097: \begin{eqnarray}\label{48}\nonumber
1098: \sim D_\mu {\hat O}_3|_{\tau_3}
1099: +i h_V^0 [ \pi, D_\mu {\hat O}_2]|_{\tau_3} &\\
1100: \nonumber
1101: -i h_V^0 [D_\mu \pi, {\hat O}_2]|_{\tau_3} &\\
1102: \nonumber
1103: = D_\mu (b_3 \pi^+\pi^-\pi^0 +b_4 \pi^0\pi^0\pi^0) \tau_3 &\\ \nonumber
1104: +i\sqrt{2} a_5 (h_V^0+{4\over 3}h_V^2)
1105: [\pi^+D_\mu \pi^-
1106: -\pi^- D_\mu \pi^+]\pi^0 \tau^3 &\\
1107: +\sqrt{2}a_6 h_V^0 \pi^+\pi^-D_\mu\pi^0\tau_3
1108: \end{eqnarray}
1109: where have used the following identity:
1110: \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
1111: [\pi, D_\mu {\hat O}_2]|_{\tau_3}={a_5\over \sqrt{2}}
1112: [\pi^+D_\mu \pi^- -\pi^- D_\mu \pi^+]\pi^0 \tau^3 &\\
1113: -{ia_6\over \sqrt{2}}[2\pi^+\pi^-D_\mu\pi^0 +\pi^0 D_\mu
1114: (\pi^+\pi^-)]\tau_3
1115: \ \ .
1116: \end{eqnarray}
1117: The contribution from Eq. (\ref{222}) [item (2)] is
1118: \begin{eqnarray}
1119: \label{455}\nonumber
1120: -[{\hat O}, V_\mu]|_{\tau_3}=-{1\over 4}h_V^0
1121: [2\pi^+\pi^- D_\mu \pi^0 &\\
1122: -\pi^0 D_\mu (\pi^+\pi^-)]\tau_3
1123: \end{eqnarray}
1124: while from Eq. (\ref{444}) [item (3)] we obtain
1125: \begin{equation}\label{46}
1126: +{1\over 12} h_V^0 [2\pi^+\pi^- D_\mu \pi^0
1127: -\pi^0 D_\mu (\pi^+\pi^-)]\tau_3\ \ \ .
1128: \end{equation}
1129: Finally, Eq. (\ref{555}) [item (4)] gives
1130: \begin{eqnarray}\label{47}\nonumber
1131: i h_V^0 [D_\mu \pi, {\hat O}_2]|_{\tau_3}
1132: = -i h_V^0 {a_5\over \sqrt{2}}
1133: [\pi^+D_\mu \pi^- &\\
1134: -\pi^- D_\mu \pi^+]\pi^0 \tau^3
1135: +h_V^0 {a_6\over \sqrt{2}}\pi^0
1136: D_\mu (\pi^+\pi^-) \tau^3\ \ \ .
1137: \end{eqnarray}
1138:
1139: The sum of all four possible sources, {\it i.e.}, Eq. (\ref{48}), (\ref{455}),
1140: (\ref{46}) and (\ref{47}) yield
1141: \begin{eqnarray}
1142: \label{50}\nonumber
1143: D_\mu (b_3 \pi^+\pi^-\pi^0 +b_4 \pi^0\pi^0\pi^0) \tau_3 &\\ \nonumber
1144: -{1\over 6}h_V^0
1145: [2\pi^+\pi^- D_\mu \pi^0
1146: -\pi^0 D_\mu (\pi^+\pi^-)]\tau_3 &\\ \nonumber
1147: +\sqrt{2}a_6 h_V^0 \pi^+\pi^-D_\mu\pi^0\tau_3 &\\
1148: \nonumber
1149: +{a_6\over \sqrt{2}}h_V^0 \pi^0 D_\mu (\pi^+\pi^-)\tau_3 &\\
1150: + i h_V^0{a_5\over \sqrt{2}}
1151: [\pi^+D_\mu \pi^-
1152: -\pi^- D_\mu \pi^+]\pi^0 \tau^3
1153: \end{eqnarray}
1154: In order for the transformation (\ref{eq:genunit}) to eliminate the $3\pi$
1155: vector vertex, the sum in Eq. (\ref{50}) must vanish.
1156: Note the first four lines and the last line of Eq. (\ref{50}) are,
1157: respectively,
1158: symmetric and anti-symmetric under the exchange $\pi^+\leftrightarrow \pi^-$.
1159: The symmetric and anti-symmetric terms must vanish separately. The solution is
1160: \begin{eqnarray}
1161: \label{eq:vanish1}\nonumber
1162: &b_3 = -{2\over 3}h_V^0 \\ \nonumber
1163: &b_4 = 0 \\ \nonumber
1164: &a_5 = 0 \\
1165: &a_6 = {1\over \sqrt{2}} \ \ \ .
1166: \end{eqnarray}
1167:
1168: Before considering the remaining $h_V^0$-terms, we observe that the
1169: contributions from item (3) involves only
1170: expressions involving the pion fields and $\tau_3, \tau_\pm$ multiplied by
1171: real coefficients. The operator, ${\hat O}_2$, which contributes via items (1)
1172: and (4), only appears in commutators. As a result, the three $\pi$ terms
1173: involving
1174: $a_{1-5}$ carry factors of $i$ and, thus, cannot cancel the contributions
1175: in (3).
1176: Consequently, we set $a_{1-5}=0$ in what follows.
1177:
1178: Now we consider the terms linear in $h_V^0$ and $\tau_+$ (the argument for
1179: $\tau_-$ is identical). The sum of these contributions is
1180: \begin{eqnarray}
1181: \label{conclusion}\nonumber
1182: (b_6+ib_8) D_\mu (\pi^0\pi^0\pi^+) &\\ \nonumber
1183: -{\sqrt{2}\over 6} h_V^0
1184: \pi^0 (\pi^0 D_\mu \pi^+ -\pi^+ D_\mu \pi^0) &\\ \nonumber
1185: -a_6h_V^0[ \pi^0\pi^0 D_\mu\pi^+
1186: + \pi^0 \pi^+ D_\mu\pi^0]&\\ \nonumber
1187: +{\sqrt{2}\over 6} h_V^0
1188: \pi^+ (\pi^+D_\mu \pi^--\pi^-D_\mu \pi^+) &\\
1189: + (b_5+i b_7) D_\mu (\pi^+ \pi^+\pi^-)
1190: \end{eqnarray}
1191: Clearly the last two lines (involving only charged $\pi$ fields) can never
1192: cancel each
1193: other. The solution for the first three lines to vanish is
1194: \begin{eqnarray}
1195: \label{eq:vanish2}\nonumber
1196: &a_6 = -{1\over \sqrt{2}} \\ \nonumber
1197: &b_6 = -{\sqrt{2}\over 3} h_V^0\\
1198: &b_8 = 0 \ \ \ .
1199: \end{eqnarray}
1200: Note that the requirements on $a_6$ in Eqs.
1201: (\ref{eq:vanish1},\ref{eq:vanish2}) are
1202: not consistent. Thus, it is not possible with the transformation
1203: (\ref{eq:genunit})
1204: to remove the $h_V^0$ $3\pi$ terms from the PV Lagrangian. Moreover,
1205: as observed in Ref. \cite{kaplan}, Eq. (\ref{n1}) gives the most general
1206: PV $\pi NN$ lagrangian up to one derivative of pion field. There
1207: exist no additional PV vector $\pi NN$ contact interaction terms
1208: which start off with three pions. Consequently, the $h_V^i$ cannot
1209: not be absorbed as part of other LECs at three pion order.
1210:
1211:
1212: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1213: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1214:
1215: \bibitem{ddh}B. Desplanques, J. F. Donoghue and B. R. Holstein, Ann. Phys.
1216: 124, 449 (1980).
1217:
1218: \bibitem{haxton}E. G. Adelberger and W. C. Haxton, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part.
1219: Sci. 35, 501 (1985).
1220:
1221: \bibitem{fcdh}G. B. Feldman et al., Phys. Rev. C 43, 863 (1991).
1222:
1223: \bibitem{kaplan}D. B. Kaplan and M. J. Savage, Nucl. Phys. A 556, 653 (1993).
1224:
1225: \bibitem{hh95} W. Haeberli and B.R. Holstein in {\em Symmetries and
1226: Fundamental Interactions in Nuclei}, W.C. Haxton and E.M. Henley, Eds.,
1227: World Scientific, Singapore, 1995, p. 17.
1228:
1229: \bibitem{Oers} W.T.H. van Oers, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E {\bf 8}, 417
1230: (1999).
1231:
1232: \bibitem{F18} S.A. Page {\em et al}., Phys. Rev. C {\bf 35}, 1119
1233: (1987); M. Bini, T. F. Fazzini, G. Poggi, and N. Taccetti, Phys. Rev.
1234: C {\bf 38}, 1195 (1988).
1235:
1236: \bibitem{Cs123} C.S. Wood et al., Science {\bf 275}, 1759 (1997);
1237: W.C. Haxton, Science {\bf 275}, 1753 (1997); V.V. Flambaum and D.W.
1238: Murray, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 56}, 1641 (1997); W.S. Wilburn and J.D.
1239: Bowman, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 57}, 3425 (1998).
1240:
1241: \bibitem{nist} V.A. Knyazkov et al., Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 417},
1242: 209 (1984); J.F. Cavagnac, B. Vignon and R. Wilson, Phys. Lett. B {\bf %
1243: 67}, 148 (1997); D.M. Markoff, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Washington (1997).
1244:
1245: \bibitem{haxton2} W.C. Haxton, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 46}, 698 (1981).
1246:
1247: \bibitem{cesiumam} W.C Haxton, C.-P. Liu, and M.J. Ramsey-Musolf,
1248: [nucl-th/0101018].
1249:
1250: \bibitem{lowry} C. Bennett, M.M. Lowry, K. Krien, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc.
1251: {\bf 25}, 486 (1980).
1252:
1253: \bibitem{lan} W.M. Snow et al., Nucl. Inst. Meth. A {\bf 440}, 729
1254: (2000).
1255:
1256: \bibitem{jlab} JLab LOI 00-002, W. van Oers and B. Wojtsekhowski, spokesmen.
1257:
1258: \bibitem{bs} P.F. Bedaque and M.J. Savage, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 62},
1259: 018501 (2000).
1260:
1261: \bibitem{cck}J.W. Chen, T.D. Cohen and C.W. Kao, nucl-th/0009031.
1262:
1263: \bibitem{zhu1}Shi-Lin Zhu, S. Puglia, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and B. Holstein,
1264: Phys. Rev. D 63, 033006 (2001).
1265:
1266: \bibitem{zhu}Shi-Lin Zhu, S. Puglia, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and B. Holstein,
1267: Phys. Rev. D 62, 033008 (2000).
1268:
1269: \bibitem{sample}R. Hasty et al, Science 290, 2117 (2000).
1270:
1271: \bibitem{ji1}J.-W. Chen and X. Ji, hep-ph/0011230.
1272:
1273: \bibitem{j1}E. Jenkins and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Lett. B 255, 558 (1991);
1274: B 259, 353 (1991).
1275:
1276: \bibitem{ijmpe}Ulf-G. Meissner, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 1, 561 (1992).
1277:
1278: \bibitem{Woloshyn} R.M. Woloshyn, Can. J. Phys. {\bf 57}, 809 (1979).
1279:
1280: \bibitem{LHH} S.P. Li, E.M. Henley and W-Y. P. Hwang, Ann. Phys.
1281: {\bf 143}, 372 (1982).
1282:
1283: \bibitem{hhk}T. R. Hemmert, B. R. Holstein and J. Kambor, J. Phys. G 24,
1284: 1831 (1998).
1285:
1286: \bibitem{bkm}V. Bernard, N. Kaiser and U.-G. Meissner,
1287: Phys. Lett. B 383, 116 (1996).
1288:
1289: \bibitem{fearing} H.W. Fearing, T.R. Hemmert, R. Lewis, C. Unkmeir,
1290: hep-ph/0005213.
1291:
1292: \bibitem{pdg}E. Caso et al., Particle Data Group, Euro. Phys. J. C 3, 1
1293: (1998).
1294:
1295: \bibitem{ji3}J.-W. Chen and X. Ji, hep-ph/0101290;
1296: J.-W. Chen, private communication.
1297:
1298: \bibitem{field}H. W. Fearing and S. Scherer, Phys. Rev. C 62, 034003 (2000);\\
1299: C. Arzt, Phys. Lett. B 342, 189 (1995).
1300:
1301: \bibitem{gm}A. Manohar and H. Georgi, Nucl. Phys. B 234, 189 (1984).
1302: \end{thebibliography}
1303:
1304:
1305: {\bf Figure Captions}
1306:
1307: \begin{center}
1308: {\sf Figure 1.} {The relevant Feyman diagrams for PV $\pi^+$ photoproduction.
1309: The circle filled with a cross is the PV vertex.}
1310: \end{center}
1311:
1312: \begin{center}
1313: {\sf Figure 2.} {The t-channel $\rho$-meson exchange diagram used to estimate
1314: the PV LEC ${\bar C}$.}
1315: \end{center}
1316:
1317:
1318: \end{document}
1319:
1320:
1321: