1: \documentstyle[aps,epsf,epsfig,floats]{revtex} 

2: \begin{document}

3: \preprint{\vbox{\hbox{DOE/ER/40762-010}\hbox{UM PP\#02-012}}}

4: \title{The Nucleon-Nucleon Interaction and Large $N_c$ QCD}

5: \author{Manoj K.~Banerjee, Thomas D.~Cohen and Boris A.~Gelman}

6: \address{Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 

7: 20742-4111.} 

8: \maketitle

9: \begin{abstract}

10: The nature of the nonrelativistic nucleon-nucleon potential in the large 

11: $N_c$ limit is discussed. In particular, we address the consistency of the 

12: meson exchange picture of nucleon interactions. It is shown that the

13: nonrelativistic nucleon-nucleon potential extracted from the Feynmann graphs

14: up to and including two-meson exchange diagrams satisfies the spin-flavor

15: counting rules of Kaplan and Savage, and Kaplan and Manohar, provided the

16: nucleon momenta is of order $N_{c}^{0}$. The key to this is a cancelation of

17: the retardation effect of the box graphs against the contributions of the

18: crossed-box diagram. The consistency requires including $\Delta$ as an

19: intermediate state.

20: \end{abstract}

21: \pacs{}

22: %\narrowtext

23: 

24: \section{Introduction}

25: 

26: One of the most fundamental problems in nuclear physics is to

27: understand how low-energy nucleon-nucleon interactions arise from

28: the underlying quark-gluon interactions. Unfortunately, for some

29: time to come QCD is likely to remain computationally intractable in

30: this regime in the sense that one will not be able to directly

31: predict the values of low energy nuclear physics observables by

32: calculations based solely on the QCD Lagrangian. Nevertheless one

33: might hope to be able to deduce some qualitative (or perhaps

34: semi-quantitative) features of nucleon-nucleon interactions from our

35: knowledge of QCD. The known simplifications of certain aspects of

36: QCD in the large $N_c$ limit could provide such a tool 

37: \cite{LN1,LN2,SF1,SF2,SF3}. Indeed,

38: several years ago it was proposed that the spin-flavor structure of the

39: dominant terms in the nucleon-nucleon potential can be understood in

40: terms of large $N_c$ QCD \cite{NN1,NN2}. As we shall argue here large

41: $N_c$ QCD can provide additional insights into the nature of the

42: nucleon-nucleon force. In particular large $N_c$ QCD helps us to

43: understand both the nature of the meson-exchange picture of

44: nucleon-nucleon interactions and the limitations of such a picture. 

45: The large $N_c$ perspective also sheds light on the role of the

46: $\Delta$ resonance in nucleon-nucleon interactions. At a practical

47: level, knowledge of the special role played by  $\Delta$ in

48: canceling certain large contributions may prove to be useful in

49: constructing nucleon-nucleon interactions.

50: 

51: \begin{figure}[ht]

52: \begin{center}

53: \epsfig{figure=f1.eps,height=4cm,width=4cm,clip=,angle=90}

54: \bigskip

55: \caption{A typical diagram of order $N_c$ contributing to the nucleon-nucleon

56: scattering in the large $N_c$ limit.}

57: \label{fig1}

58: \end{center}

59: \end{figure}

60: 

61: 

62: 

63: The first treatment of nucleon-nucleon interactions in large $N_c$

64: QCD was done by Witten in his seminal paper on baryons in the large

65: $N_c$ limit \cite{LN2}.  He argued that the dominant interaction

66: between two baryons is generically of order $N_c$.  His argument was

67: based on consideration of diagrams such as the one in

68: Fig.~\ref{fig1}. It is clear that such a diagram is order

69: $N_c$---a factor $N_{c}^3$ from combinatorics and a factor of

70: $N_{c}^{-2}$ from the coupling constants. It is straightforward to see

71: that all quark-line-connected graphs beginning and ending with two flavor

72: singlet combinations of $N_c$ quarks will be ${\cal O}(N_c)$ or

73: less. However, this interaction strength of order

74: $N_c$ cannot represent the strength of the nucleon-nucleon

75: scattering amplitude. In the first place, unitarity implies that the 

76: scattering amplitude does not grow without a bound as $N_c$ goes to infinity. 

77: Secondly, one can consider graphs like Fig.~\ref{fig2} which

78: although disconnected at the quark level, contribute at the

79: nucleon-nucleon level to the full interaction. It is

80: straightforward to see that the graph in Fig.~\ref{fig2} is order $N_c^2$

81: so that the interaction cannot simply go as $N_c$. One natural way

82: to interpret the physics contained in the diagrams typified by

83: Figs.~\ref{fig1} and \ref{fig2} is to argue that they get translated

84: at the hadronic level to contributions from nucleon-meson diagrams as

85: in Figs.~\ref{fig3} and \ref{fig4}. In such a hadron-based picture the

86: ${\cal O}(N_{c}^{2})$ contribution then appears as the iteration of an

87: underlying ${\cal O}(N_c)$ interaction. One key issue addressed in

88: this paper concerns the nature of the translation from the

89: quark-gluon based diagrams of Figs.~\ref{fig1} and \ref{fig2} to the

90: hadronic based ones of Figs.~\ref{fig3} and \ref{fig4}.

91: 

92: Witten \cite{LN2} noted an additional difficulty of having 

93: nucleon-nucleon interaction scaling as $N_c$, there is no

94: description of the scattering process which possesses a smooth large

95: $N_c$ limit if the momenta are of order unity. The basic difficulty

96: in this case is that the kinetic energy of the nucleons is

97: generically much smaller than the potential energy and the interplay

98: of kinetic and potential energy which is at the crux of scattering cannot be

99: independent of $N_c$. Witten noted that if one works in a kinematic

100: regime with momenta of order $N_c$ ($\it i.e.$ an approach to the large $N_c$

101: limit with the nucleon velocities rather than momenta fixed), then

102: the kinetic and potential terms are of the same order so that a smooth

103: limit is possible. For this kinematic regime Witten suggested that

104: the scattering process can be described using the time-dependent

105: Hartree (TDH) approximation.  It is straightforward to see that the

106: TDH equations with fixed initial velocity have solutions which are

107: independent of $N_c$ . In practice, such TDH calculations have not

108: been done in QCD and would be very difficult for systems with light

109: quarks.

110: 

111: \begin{figure}[t]

112: \begin{center}

113: \epsfig{figure=f2.eps,height=4cm,width=4cm,clip=,angle=90}

114: \bigskip

115: \caption{A typical diagram of order $N_{c}^{2}$.}

116: \label{fig2}

117: \end{center}

118: \end{figure}

119: 

120: \begin{figure}[h]

121: \begin{center}

122: \epsfig{figure=f3.eps,height=4cm,width=3cm,clip=,angle=90}

123: \bigskip

124: \caption{A one-meson exchange diagram contributing to the nucleon-nucleon

125: potential; initial and final nucleons are on shell; 

126: $p=(|\vec{p}|^2/2 m_N,\,-\vec{p})$,

127: $p^\prime=(|\vec{p}|^2/2 m_N,\,\vec{p})$ and

128: $q=(q^0,\,\vec{q})$ are energy-momentum 4-vectors flowing through the various

129: lines.}

130: \label{fig3}

131: \end{center}

132: \end{figure}

133: 

134: Here we wish to focus on a different limit than Witten's, {\it i.e.}

135: on low momentum nuclear reactions.  Accordingly we do not wish to

136: let the nucleon momenta scale with $N_c$; rather we will restrict our

137: attention to the kinematic regime of nucleon momenta of order

138: $N_{c}^{0}$. As noted by Witten, in such a regime there is no

139: smooth expression for the scattering amplitude.  However, as argued

140: by Kaplan and Savage \cite{NN1} and Kaplan and Manohar \cite{NN2} in

141: this regime one may identify the nucleon-nucleon interaction from

142: the quark line connected pieces as a nonrelativistic  potential

143: which has a dominant contribution of order $N_c$.  Such a description can be

144: interpreted on the hadronic level as a meson exchange. The one-meson exchange

145: potential (Fig.~\ref{fig3}) can be as large as ${\cal O} (N_c)$ since a

146: generic baryon-meson coupling is of order $\sqrt{N_c}$ \cite{LN2} and hence

147: the large $N_c$ scaling at the hadronic level is consistent with the

148: quark-gluon level. The key insight of Refs.~\cite{SF1,SF2,SF3} is that large

149: $N_c$ QCD implies an approximate contracted $SU(4)$ spin-isospin symmetry on

150: the baryons and that this symmetry imposes constraints on the dominant parts

151: of the potential. Thus, the dominant part of the nucleon-nucleon

152: interaction are constrained to be contracted $SU(4)$ symmetric and

153: terms which break this symmetry are suppressed by two powers of $N_c$. For

154: example, the dominant $({\cal O}(N_c))$ contribution to the tensor

155: force is proportional to $\vec{\tau}_1 \cdot \vec{\tau}_2$, while the isospin

156: independent part only contributes at order $N_{c}^{-1}$.

157: 

158: This paper will address a number of issues connected with the nucleon-nucleon

159: interaction in large $N_c$ QCD. One central issue is the identification of the

160: connected diagrams, such as Fig.~\ref{fig3}, as a nonrelativistic potential

161: (of order $N_c$), as was done in Refs.~\cite{NN1,NN2}. The argument for doing

162: this is clearly heuristic and is based on the notion that large interactions

163: must be iterated to all orders. Of course, a potential used in a Schr\"odinger

164: equation is iterated to all orders. This interpretation seems to resolve in a

165: simple manner the order $N_c^2$ contributions of Fig.~\ref{fig4}; it is just

166: one iteration of the potential (among an infinite number of possible

167: iterations).

168: 

169: Unfortunately, this heuristic argument is not unique: an alternative argument

170: would be to identify such an interaction with a  kernel of a Bethe-Salpeter

171: equation (with a strength of order $N_c$)  which again is to be

172: iterated to all orders.  Moreover, it is by no means clear that

173: these are equivalent---a Bethe-Salpeter kernel of order $N_c$ does not

174: necessarily imply that the potential in a nonrelativistic reduction

175: of the Bethe-Salpeter equation is order $N_c$. Thus, at the fundamental level

176: it has to be established whether large $N_c$  QCD is consistent with a

177: nonrelativistic nucleon-nucleon potential of order $N_c$ or with a

178: Bethe-Salpeter kernel of order $N_c$.  

179: 

180: \begin{figure}[t]

181: \begin{center}

182: \epsfig{figure=f4.eps,height=4cm,width=3cm,clip=,angle=90}

183: \bigskip

184: \caption{A box diagram; $p=(|\vec{p}|^2/2 m_N,\,-\vec{p})$,

185: $p^\prime=(|\vec{p}|^2/2 m_N,\,\vec{p})$, $k=(k^0,\,\vec{k})$ and 

186: $q=(q^0,\,\vec{q})$  are energy-momentum 4-vectors.}

187: \label{fig4}

188: \end{center}

189: \end{figure}

190: 

191: A second fundamental issue in this paper is the extent to which large $N_c$

192: QCD justifies a meson exchange picture of nucleon-nucleon interactions. A

193: meson exchange is a natural way to understand nucleon-nucleon interactions as

194: arising from QCD: QCD leads to the existence of colorless hadronic

195: states---baryons and mesons---and the interactions between baryons

196: arise from the exchange of virtual mesons. Indeed, some

197: phenomenologically successful nucleon-nucleon potentials are based

198: directly on a meson exchange picture \cite{MNN}. On the other hand,

199: the argument for meson exchange dominating the nucleon-nucleon

200: interaction is not compelling and many equally successful

201: nucleon-nucleon potentials include only one-pion exchange treating

202: all shorter distance effects purely phenomenologically \cite{PhNN}. 

203: At first sight it might seem that large $N_c$ arguments do not

204: support the meson-exchange picture of nucleon-nucleon interactions. 

205: In the first place, as noted by Witten \cite{LN2} baryons in the

206: large $N_c$ behave as solitons, and when two solitons are brought

207: close enough to interact each one distorts in the presence of the

208: other yielding effects which cannot be easily described in

209: terms of meson exchange. Indeed Witten's prescription for

210: scattering for momenta of order $N_c$, TDH, necessarily builds in

211: these non-meson-exchange type effects; the clusters of $N_c$ quarks

212: which interact in TDH are {\it not} simply the Hartree

213: wave-functions for two nucleons.

214: 

215: \begin{figure}[h]

216: \begin{center}

217: \epsfig{figure=f6.eps,height=11cm,width=3cm,clip=,angle=90}

218: \bigskip

219: \caption{Triangle diagrams; $p=(|\vec{p}|^2/2 m_N,\,-\vec{p})$,

220: $p^\prime=(|\vec{p}|^2/2 m_N,\,\vec{p})$, $k=(k^0,\,\vec{k})$ and 

221: $q=(q^0,\,\vec{q})$ are energy-momentum 4-vectors.}

222: \label{fig6}

223: \end{center}

224: \end{figure}

225: 

226: There is a second reason why one might suspect that large $N_c$ QCD

227: does not justify a meson exchange point of view for nucleon-nucleon

228: interactions. The meson-exchange picture does not imply only single

229: meson exchanges but two or more meson exchanges as well.  Consider,

230: the large $N_c$ scaling of a generic two-meson exchange process.

231: Some typical diagrams contributing to the potential are shown in 

232: Fig.~\ref{fig6}, in which two exchange mesons are coupled to one of

233: the nucleons at a single vertex. Such diagrams are generically of

234: order $N_c$ since the coupling of the meson current to a nucleon is

235: of order $N_{c}^{0}$ \cite{LN2}; the additional power of $N_c$

236: comes from two nucleon-meson vertices (each of which contributes

237: $N_c^{1/2}$. Thus, these diagrams are consistent with the previously

238: deduced large $N_c$ scaling behavior of the potential.  However, if

239: one considers a generic crossed-box diagram as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig5} ,

240: one encounters an inconsistency. Since, the nucleon-meson coupling is

241: generically of order $\sqrt{N_c}$, the diagram in Fig.~\ref{fig5} is of order

242: $N_{c}^{2}$. This scaling, however, violates the proposed large

243: $N_c$ scaling of the nucleon-nucleon potential (which is supposed to

244: go as $N_c$).  Clearly, three and more meson exchange diagrams will

245: yield ever-larger inconsistencies.

246: 

247: \begin{figure}[h]

248: \begin{center}

249: \epsfig{figure=f5.eps,height=4cm,width=3cm,clip=,angle=90}

250: \bigskip

251: \caption{A crossed-box diagram; 

252: $p=(|\vec{p}|^2/2 m_N,\,-\vec{p})$,

253: $p^\prime=(|\vec{p}|^2/2 m_N,\,\vec{p})$, $k=(k^0,\,\vec{k})$ and

254: $q=(q^0,\,\vec{q})$ are energy-momentum 4-vectors.}

255: \label{fig5}

256: \end{center}

257: \end{figure}

258: 

259: This paper will also address another central issue in nucleon-nucleon physics;

260: namely, the role of the $\Delta$ resonance in intermediate states. As is well

261: known, the $\Delta$ resonance has a low excitation energy for large $N_c$

262: (with $m_\Delta - m_N \sim N_c^{-1}$) \cite{SF2,SK}. Moreover, the inclusion of

263: virtual $\Delta$'s is known to be essential to ensure the consistency of

264: large $N_c$ predictions for hadronic processes and its inclusion is

265: necessary for the contracted $SU(4)$ spin-flavor structure of baryons to be

266: manifest. Thus, one might expect that virtual $\Delta$'s will also play a key

267: role in nucleon-nucleon reactions in the large $N_c$ limit.

268: 

269: In this paper we will show the following picture is consistent with

270: large $N_c$ QCD:\\ 

271: i) The nucleon-nucleon interaction can be described by a potential of order

272: $N_c$ but {\it not} by a Bethe-Salpeter kernel of order $N_c$.  \\

273: ii) The meson-exchange picture can be used consistently to describe

274: nucleon-nucleon interactions for momenta of order $N_{c}^{0}$. \\

275: iii) The meson-exchange picture  of the nucleon-nucleon potential (of order

276: $N_c$) breaks down for momenta of order $N_c$.\\  

277: iv) The leading order nucleon-nucleon potential is symmetric under contracted

278: $SU(4)$ with corrections down by two powers in $N_c$ yielding the spin-flavor

279: structure of Ref.~\cite{NN1,NN2}. \\

280: v) The contracted $SU(4)$ structure implies

281: a central role for intermediate states containing $\Delta$'s.  

282: 

283: The basic strategy of this paper is to assume that the picture

284: outlined above is correct and then to  show that it does not lead to

285: any inconsistencies up to and including two-meson exchange

286: potentials.  The key difficulty which must be addressed is the

287: problem of the crossed-box graphs mentioned above: If point ii) is

288: correct then they must be included; however, they generically

289: contribute to the potential at order $N_c^2$ which exceeds the

290: potential's supposed order $N_c$ scale from point i). More generally

291: they lead to contributions that are inconsistent with the

292: spin-flavor structure of Refs.~\cite{NN1,NN2}.  However, as we will show, all

293: contributions from the crossed-box graphs which are inconsistent

294: with the spin-flavor structure of Refs.~\cite{NN1,NN2} are canceled by

295: contributions coming from the retardation effects in the box graphs.

296: While it has long been known that such a cancelation occurs for

297: scalar isoscalar mesons between retardation effects in the box graph

298: and the crossed-box graph \cite{cancel}, it has not been previously

299: shown that such cancelations are far more general and protect the

300: large $N_c$ structure of the nucleon-nucleon potential including the

301: hierarchy of large and small contributions in terms of spin and

302: isospin.  It will also be shown that such a cancelation does not

303: occur if $\Delta$ intermediate states are excluded or if the momenta

304: of the nucleons is of order $N_c$.

305: 

306: 

307: \section{Review of the $SU(4)$ contracted symmetry}

308: 

309: The baryon sector of large $N_c$ QCD exhibits an approximate $SU(4)$ 

310: contracted light quark spin-flavor symmetry \cite{SF1,SF2,SF3}.

311: The contracted $SU(4)$ algebra is:

312: \begin{eqnarray} 

313: &\left [J^i \, , J^j \right]=i \, \epsilon_{ijk} \, J^k \, ,

314: \,\,\,\, \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,

315: \left [I^a \, , I^b \right]  =  i\, \epsilon_{abc} \, I^c \, , 

316: \,\,\,\, \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,

317: \left [J^i \, , I^a \right]=0 \, , 

318: \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,&

319: \nonumber \\

320: & \left [J^i \, , X_{0}^{jb} \right]=i \, \epsilon_{ijk} \, X_{0}^{kb} \, , 

321: \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,

322: \left [I^a \, , X_{0}^{jb} \right]=i\, \epsilon_{abc} \, X_{0}^{jc} \, , 

323: \,\,\,\, \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,

324: \left [X_{0}^{ia} \, , X_{0}^{jb} \right]=0 \, , &

325: \label{SU4}

326: \end{eqnarray}	

327: where $i, a=1,2,3$ are spin and isospin indices.

328: 

329: \begin{table}[t]

330: \caption{Nonrelativistic scalar and pseudo-scalar meson-baryon couplings. 

331: The ground state baryons, B, belong to an irreducible representation

332: $I=J$.}

333: \begin{tabular}{|r|r|r|r|r|}

334: & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Scalars} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Pseudo-scalars} \\

335: & $I=0$ & $I=1$ & $I=0$ & $I=1$ \\

336: \hline

337: meson & $f_0$ & $a_0$ & $\eta$  & $\pi$ \\

338: \hline

339: meson-baryon coupling & $ B^\dag B \phi $ & $ B^\dag I^a B \phi^a $ &

340: $ B^\dag J^i B \partial^i \phi $ & 

341: $ B^\dag X^{ia} B \partial^i \phi^a $ \\

342: \hline

343: scaling of the coupling & $\sqrt{N_c}$ & $(\sqrt{N_c})^{-1}$ &

344: $(\sqrt{N_c})^{-1}$ & $\sqrt{N_c}$ \\

345: \hline

346: spin-flavor term & $ V_{0}^{0} $ & $ V_{0}^{1} $ & $ V_{T}^{0} $ & 

347: $ V_{T}^{1} $ \\

348: \hline

349: KSM scaling & $N_c$ & $N_{c}^{-1}$ & $N_{c}^{-1}$ & $N_c$

350: \end{tabular}

351: \label{tab1}

352: \end{table}

353: 

354: 

355: \begin{table}[ht]

356: \caption{Nonrelativistic vectors and pseudo-vector meson-baryon couplings.

357: The ground state baryons, B, belong to an irreducible representation

358: $I=J$.}

359: \begin{tabular}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|}

360: & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Vectors} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Pseudo-vectors} \\

361: & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$I=0$} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$I=1$}& $I=0$ & $I=1$ \\

362: \hline

363: meson & $\omega^t$ & $\vec{\omega}$ & $\rho^t$ & $\vec{\rho}$ & 

364: $\vec{f}_1$ & $\vec{a}_1$ \\

365: \hline

366: meson-baryon coupling &

367: $ B^\dag B V^t $ & $ B^\dag \epsilon_{ijk} J^k B \partial^i V^j$ &

368: $ B^\dag I^a B  V^{ta} $ & 

369: $B^\dag \epsilon_{ijk} X^{ka} B \partial^i V^{ja}$ &

370: $ B^\dag J^i B  A^i $ & $ B^\dag X^{ia} B A^{ia} $ \\ 

371: \hline

372: scaling &

373: $\sqrt{N_c}$ & $(\sqrt{N_c})^{-1}$ & $(\sqrt{N_c})^{-1}$ & $\sqrt{N_c}$ & 

374: $(\sqrt{N_c})^{-1}$ & $\sqrt{N_c}$ \\

375: \hline

376: spin-flavor term &

377: $ V_{0}^{0} $ & $ V_{T}^{0} $ & $ V_{0}^{1} $ & $ V_{T}^{1} $ & 

378: $ V_{\sigma}^{0} $ & $ V_{\sigma}^{1} $ \\

379: \hline

380: KSM scaling &

381: $N_c$ & $N_{c}^{-1}$ & $N_{c}^{-1}$ & $N_c$ & 

382: $N_{c}^{-1}$ & $N_c$ 

383: \end{tabular}

384: \label{tab2}

385: \end{table}

386: 

387: In large $N_c$ two-flavor QCD, baryons belong to the infinite dimensional

388: irreducible representation of the contracted $SU(4)$ algebra with

389: $I=J=1/2, 3/2, 5/2, ...$ \cite{SF1,SF2,SF3}. For $N_c =3$ the $I=J=1/2$ and

390: $I=J=3/2$ states are identified with nucleon and $\Delta$. Other states are

391: presumably a large $N_c$ artifact. The meson-baryon couplings connecting the

392: states with different spin and isospin are given in terms of the matrix

393: elements of $X^{ia}$ which is defined by its matrix elements between baryon

394: states ({\it e.g.} Eq.~(\ref{CG})). This operator is equal to $X_{0}^{ia}$ at

395: leading order in the $1/N_c$ expansion. As shown in Ref.~\cite{SF2}, 

396: the next-to-leading order term is proportional to $X_{0}^{ia}$

397: \begin{equation}

398: X^{ia}=(1+{\alpha \over N_c}) X_{0}^{ia}+{\cal O}(1/N_{c}^{2}) \, ,

399: \label{X}

400: \end{equation}

401: where $\alpha$ is a constant independent of the spin and isospin indices. As a

402: result, the spin-flavor operators $X^{ia}$ commute up to

403: ${\cal O}(N_{c}^{-2})$ corrections:

404: \begin{equation}

405: \left[ X^{ia} \, , \, X^{jb} \right]={\cal O}({1\over N_{c}^{2}}) \,.

406: \label{XX}

407: \end{equation}	

408: 

409: Meson-baryon couplings satisfying the contracted spin-flavor symmetry

410: are listed in the third row of  Table~\ref{tab1} and Table~\ref{tab2}.

411: These couplings are obtained from the nonrelativistic reduction of the

412: corresponding covariant Yukawa couplings with corrections suppressed by

413: $1/N_c$. The matrix elements of the $X_{0}^{ia}$ generators between the baryon

414: states are given in terms of the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients by \cite{SF2}:

415: \begin{equation}

416: \langle I^\prime \, I_{3}^\prime \, , J^\prime \, J_{3}^\prime |

417: X_{0}^{ia} | I \, I_{3} \, , J \, J_{3} \rangle =

418: \sqrt{(2J+1) \over (2 J^\prime +1)} \,

419: \langle J^\prime\,, J_{3}^{\prime} | J\, J_{3}\, ; 1\, i \rangle

420: \,

421: \langle I^\prime\,, I_{3}^{\prime} | I\, I_{3}\, ; 1\, a \rangle

422: \,,

423: \label{CG}

424: \end{equation}

425: where only spin and isospin labels of the baryon states are shown explicitly.

426: 

427: We will need to know the matrix elements of the anticommutators between the

428: nucleon states. When restricting attention to nucleon initial and final states

429: one can easily deduce:

430: \begin{equation}

431: \left\{J^{i}\,,\, X^{ja}\right\}_{N^\prime N}= 

432: {1\over 2}\,\delta^{ij}\, I^a +{\cal O}({1\over N_{c}^{2}})\, ,

433: \,\,\,\,\,\,\,

434: \left\{I^{a}\,,\, X^{ib}\right\}_{N^\prime N}= {1\over 2}\,\delta^{ab} \,

435: J^i + {\cal O}({1\over N_{c}^{2}}) \, ,

436: \label{anticom}

437: \end{equation}

438: where we have used the fact that $J^i$ and $I^a$ only take nucleons

439: into nucleons. The ${\cal O} (1/N_c)$ corrections in Eq.~(\ref{anticom})

440: vanish due to the fact that the constant $\alpha$ in Eq.(\ref{X}) is

441: independent of the spin and isospin.

442: 

443: The large $N_c$ scaling of the baryon matrix elements have been analyzed

444: in Refs.~\cite{SF2,SF3}. Since a general one-quark operator ({\it e.g.} 

445: axial vector current) can couple to any of the $N_c$ quarks in a baryon, its

446: matrix elements between ground state baryons are of order $N_c$ (providing

447: the cancelation between different quark line insertions does not occur).

448: The operators with spin-flavor structure given by ${\bf 1}$ and $X^{ia}$

449: behave in this leading fashion \cite{SF2}. On the other hand, currents

450: containing only $J^i$ and $I^a$ are of order $N_{c}^{0}$. Heuristically, the

451: reason is that for baryons with $J=I=1/2, 3/2, ...$ only one out of $N_c$

452: quarks carry the spin and isospin quantum numbers of the state. The large

453: $N_c$ scaling of a meson-baryon coupling is obtained by dividing the

454: corresponding current matrix element by the meson decay constant which is of

455: order $N_{c}^{-1/2}$. Hence, the meson-baryon couplings containing spin-flavor

456: operators ${\bf 1}$ or $X^{ia}$ are of order  $N_{c}^{1/2}$. Examples of

457: such leading couplings are the couplings of $f_0$ and $\pi$ mesons to baryons.

458: In addition, the time component of $\omega$ ($\omega^t$) and spatial

459: components of $\rho$ $(\vec{\rho})$ and $a_1$ $(\vec{a}_1)$ couple to the

460: baryons with a strength proportional $N_{c}^{1/2}$. Couplings containing

461: $J^i$ and $I^a$ are of order $N_{c}^{-1/2}$. The examples include the

462: couplings of $a_0$ and $\eta$, spatial components of $\omega$ and $f_1$

463: ($\vec{\omega}$ and $\vec{f}_1$) and the time component of $\rho$ $(\rho^t)$.

464: These counting rules are listed in the fourth row of Table~\ref{tab1} and

465: Table~\ref{tab2}. 

466: 

467: Similarly, the spin-flavor structure of the nonrelativistic nucleon-nucleon 

468: potential can be analyzed in the large $N_c$ QCD. The general form of this

469: potential is:

470: \begin{eqnarray}

471: & V_{NN}=V_{0}^{0}+V_{\sigma}^{0}\,\vec{\sigma}_{(1)} \cdot\vec{\sigma}_{(2)}

472: +V_{T}^{0} S_{12} +V_{LS}^{0} \, \vec{L}\cdot \vec{S} +V_{Q}^{0}\, Q_{12}&

473: \nonumber \\

474: & +\left(

475: V_{0}^{1}+V_{\sigma}^{1}\,\vec{\sigma}_{(1)} \cdot\vec{\sigma}_{(2)}

476: +V_{T}^{1} S_{12} +V_{LS}^{1} \, \vec{L}\cdot \vec{S} +V_{Q}^{1}\, Q_{12}

477: \right) \vec{\tau}_{(1)}\cdot\vec{\tau}_{(2)}\,,&

478: \label{VNN}

479: \end{eqnarray}

480: where

481: \begin{equation}

482: S_{12}=3 \, \vec{\sigma}_{(1)} \cdot \hat{r} \, 

483: \vec{\sigma}_{(2)} \cdot \hat{r} - \vec{\sigma}_{(1)}\cdot\vec{\sigma}_{(2)}

484: \,, \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,

485: Q_{12}={1\over2} \left\{\vec{\sigma}_{(1)}\cdot \vec{L}\,,\,

486: \vec{\sigma}_{(2)}\cdot \vec{L} \right\} \,,

487: \label{SQ}

488: \end{equation}

489: where $\vec L$ and $\vec S$ are the total orbital and spin angular momenta

490: of the system of two nucleons.  

491: The operators in Eq.~(\ref{VNN}) multiplying the position and velocity 

492: dependent functions $V_{n}^{1,2}$ ($n=0,\,\sigma,\,T,\,LS,\,Q$) are referred 

493: to as the central, spin-spin, tensor, spin-orbit and quadratic spin-orbit 

494: components of the nucleon-nucleon potential in the isosinglet and isotriplet 

495: channels. 

496: 

497: In Refs.~\cite{NN1,NN2}, the large $N_c$ scaling of functions $V_{n}^{1,2}$ was

498: analyzed using the spin-flavor counting rules of the generators of the 

499: contracted $SU(4)$. The analysis is based on two assumptions. One is that

500: the nucleon-nucleon interaction can be described by an Hartree Hamiltonian

501: which can be written as a sum of operators with particular 

502: spin-flavor structure satisfying the large $N_c$ scaling rules of the 

503: contracted $SU(4)$ symmetry. In addition, the authors implicitly assumed that

504: the Hartree picture leads to a potential of order $N_c$ for momenta of order

505: one.

506: At the hadronic level, the latter assumption is essentially equivalent to a 

507: one-meson exchange picture of the potential. Based on the above assumptions,

508: the following counting rules were obtained in Refs.~\cite{NN1,NN2}:

509: \begin{equation}

510: V_{0}^{0} \sim V_{\sigma}^{1} \sim V_{T}^{1} \sim N_c \, ,

511: \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,

512: V_{0}^{1} \sim V_{\sigma}^{0} \sim V_{T}^{0} \sim {1\over N_c} \,. 

513: \label{KSM}

514: \end{equation}

515: In addition, the spin-orbit and quadratic spin-orbit suppressed by 

516: $1/m_{B}\sim 1/N_c$ ($m_{B}$ is a baryon mass) are of order $1/N_{c}^{2}$.

517: The scaling rules in Eq.~(\ref{KSM}) will be referred to as KSM counting rules.

518: 

519: It is easy to see how the counting rules in Eq.~(\ref{KSM}) arise from the

520: large $N_c$ scaling of the meson-baryon couplings at the one-meson

521: exchange level. At this level, a given term in the potential, Eq.~(\ref{VNN}),

522: scales as the square of the corresponding coupling constant. Since, for

523: example, the isoscalar central

524: potential at leading order gets contributions from $f_0$ exchange it is of

525: order $(\sqrt{N_c})^2 = N_c$. Similarly, the one-pion exchange contributes

526: to the leading part of the isovector tensor term which, therefore, scales as

527: $(\sqrt{N_c})^2 = N_c$. On the other hand, the isoscalar tensor potential,

528: $V_{T}^{0}$, is of order  $N_{c}^{-1}$ since its leading contribution is

529: from one-$\eta$ exchange. The leading contributions at the one-meson exchange

530: level

531: are shown in the fifth row of Table~\ref{tab1} and Table~\ref{tab2}; the $N_c$ 

532: scaling of these contributions are shown in the last row of Table~\ref{tab1} 

533: and Table~\ref{tab2}. We will show that the nucleon-nucleon potential is 

534: consistent with KSM counting rules, Eq.~(\ref{KSM}), up to and including

535: two-meson exchange contributions.

536: 

537: \section{Two-meson exchange contributions}

538: 

539: The Feynmann diagrams contributing at the two-meson exchange level are shown

540: in Figs.~\ref{fig4},~\ref{fig5}, and \ref{fig6}---the box, the crossed-box and

541: the triangle graphs. In these diagrams the initial

542: and final nucleons are on-mass shell. This condition is necessary if the 

543: diagrams are used to derive the nucleon-nucleon potential. The baryon 

544: energy-momentum relation is treated nonrelativistically with the baryon 

545: propagators having the following form:

546: \begin{equation}

547: {i\over k^0-|\vec k|^2/2 m_B +i \epsilon} \left (1+{\cal O}({1\over N_c})

548: \right)\, ,

549: \label{NRprop}

550: \end{equation}

551: where $k^0$ and $\vec{k}$ are the energy and the momentum of an intermediate 

552: baryon with mass $m_B$. In practice, $m_B=m_N+{\cal O}(1/N_c)$ 

553: ($m_N$ is the nucleon mass) for the ground state baryons with $I=J=1/2, 3/2,

554: 5/2$, etc. Relativistic effects are suppressed by $1/m_B \sim N_{c}^{-1}$.

555: The mesons are treated in a fully relativistic form. The meson-baryon vertices

556: are in general momentum and energy dependent. Note, the time and spatial

557: components of $\omega$ and $\rho$ have different couplings at leading

558: nonrelativistic order (Table~\ref{tab1} and Table~\ref{tab2}). In addition,

559: the spin-flavor structure of $\omega^t$ coupling 

560: is identical to that of $f_0$ (or $\sigma$). Similarly, $\rho^t$ and $a_0$ 

561: couplings have identical spin-flavor structure.

562: 

563: A two-meson exchange diagram may contain a piece which is equal to the one 

564: iteration of the potential. These contributions will be included when solving 

565: the Shr\"odinger equation and must be excluded from the 

566: nucleon-nucleon potential to avoid double counting. This can be illustrated 

567: using the the two-scalar exchange diagrams. 

568: 

569: The contribution to the nucleon-nucleon potential from a one-scalar 

570: exchange, Fig.~\ref{fig3}, with point couplings is given by,

571: \begin{equation}

572: V_{f_0} (\vec q)= {g_{f_0}^{2} \over (q^{0})^{2}-|\vec{q}|^2-m_{f_0}^{2}}

573: ={-g_{f_0}^{2} \over |\vec{q}|^2+m_{f_0}^{2}}

574: \left(1+{\cal O}(1/N_{c}^{2})\right) \,

575: \label{Vf0}

576: \end{equation}

577: where $m_{f_0}$ (${\cal O}(N_{c}^{0})$) is the mass of the $f_0$ meson, and

578: the coupling constant $g_{f_0}$ is of order $\sqrt{N_c}$ (Table~\ref{tab1}).

579: Note that $(q^{0})^{2}$ can be neglected since $q^0$ is of order 

580: $N_{c}^{-1}$. 

581: 

582: Similarly, the contribution of the two-scalar exchange box diagram, 

583: Fig.~\ref{fig4} to the scattering amplitude, ${\cal M}$, is 

584: \begin{eqnarray}

585: & i\, {\cal M}_{\Box}= \int {d^3 k\over (2\pi)^3} \int {d k^0 \over 2 \pi} 

586: {g_{f_0}^4 \over ((k^0)^2-|\vec{k}|^2-m_{f_0}^{2}) 

587: ((k^0+q^0)^2-|\vec{k}+\vec{q}|^2-m_{f_0}^{2})} &

588: \nonumber \\ 

589: & \times {1\over (k^0 + {|\vec{p}|^2/ 2 m_B}-{|\vec{p}-\vec{k}|^2/ 2 m_B})

590: (-k^0 + {|\vec{p}|^2 / 2 m_B}-{|\vec{p}-\vec{k}|^2 / 2 m_B})} \, .&

591: \label{Mbox}

592: \end{eqnarray}

593: It is convenient to first perform the $k^0$ integral. There are two classes of

594: poles in the complex $k^0$ plane, namely from the baryon and meson 

595: propagators. It is easy to see that the baryon poles in Eq.~(\ref{Mbox}) are

596: on the opposite side of the real $k^0$ axis. By closing the integration

597: contour in the upper or lower complex plane only one of these baryon poles

598: will contribute to ${\cal M}_{\Box}$. Closing the contour in the upper plane

599: we get for the baryon pole contribution:

600: \begin{equation}

601: i\,{\cal M}_{\Box}^{B}=\int {d^3 k\over (2\pi)^3}  {i \, g_{f_0}^{4} 

602: \over (|\vec{k}|^2+m_{f_0}^{2})(|\vec{k}+\vec{q}|^2+m_{f_0}^{2}) 

603: (|\vec{p}|^2/  m_B-|\vec{p}-\vec{k}|^2 / m_B)}

604: \left(1+{\cal O}({1\over N_c})\right) \, ,

605: \label{MB}

606: \end{equation}

607: where, in addition to $q^0 \sim N_{c}^{-1}$, the position

608: of the baryon pole, $k^{0}_{B}=(|\vec{p}|^2-|\vec{p}-\vec{k}|^2)/2 m_{B}$, is

609: neglected when the meson propagators are evaluated. However, the position of 

610: the baryon pole is of leading order when the other baryon propagator is 

611: evaluated. As will become clear, this value of a baryon propagator is 

612: identical to the nonrelativistic Green function in the Lippman-Schwinger

613: equation for the scattering amplitude.

614: 

615: The baryon pole contribution, ${\cal M}_{\Box}^{B}$, should be compared with

616: one iterate of the Lippman-Schwinger equation (in the center-of-mass frame):   

617: \begin{equation}

618: T(\vec{p}, \vec{p}+\vec{q})= -\, V(\vec{q})+\int {d^3 k\over (2\pi)^3}

619: V(-\vec{k}) \, G_0 (\vec{k}) \, T(\vec{p}-\vec{k}, \vec{p}+\vec{q})\, ,

620: \label{LpSw}

621: \end{equation}

622: where the nonrelativistic baryon Green function is given by

623: \begin{equation}

624: G_0 (\vec{k}) \equiv 

625: {1\over(|\vec{p}-\vec{k}|^2-|\vec{p}|^2)/m_B + i \epsilon} \, .

626: \label{G0}

627: \end{equation}

628: The first term in Eq.~(\ref{LpSw}) corresponds to a potential at the one-meson 

629: exchange level. For the one-scalar exchange this potential is given in

630: Eq.~(\ref{Vf0}). Iterations of the Lippman-Schwinger equation lead to: 

631: \begin{eqnarray}

632: &T(\vec{p}, \vec{p}+\vec{q})=-\, V(\vec{q})+\int {d^3 k\over (2\pi)^3}

633: V(-\vec{k}) \, G_0 (\vec{k})\, V(\vec{k}+\vec{q})&

634: \nonumber \\

635: & - \int {d^3 k\over (2\pi)^3}\int {d^3 k^\prime \over (2\pi)^3}

636: V(-\vec{k}) \, G_0 (\vec{k})\, V(\vec{k}+\vec{k}^\prime) G_{0}(\vec{k}^\prime)

637: V(\vec{q}-\vec{k}^\prime) + ... \, ,&

638: \label{itt}

639: \end{eqnarray}

640: where the ellipsis indicates higher-order iterations. For the two-scalar

641: exchange, the first iteration of the potential in Eq.~(\ref{Vf0}) is:

642: \begin{equation}

643: \int {d^3 k\over (2\pi)^3} V_{f_0} (-\vec{k}) \, G_0 (\vec{k})\, 

644: V_{f_0}(\vec{k}+\vec{q})

645: =\int {d^3 k\over (2\pi)^3} \, {g_{f_0}^{4} 

646: \over (|\vec{k}|^2+m_{f_0}^{2})(|\vec{k}+\vec{q}|^2+m_{f_0}^{2}) 

647: (|\vec{p}-\vec{k}|^2 / m_B-|\vec{p}|^2/  m_B)} \, ,

648: \label{itt1}

649: \end{equation}

650: which is exactly equal to the baryon pole contribution, ${\cal M}_{\Box}^{B}$

651: (Eq.~(\ref{MB})), evaluated with the nonrelativistic baryon propagator,

652: Eq.~(\ref{NRprop}). Thus, the baryon pole contribution of the two-scalar box

653: diagram should not be included in the nucleon-nucleon potential. Note, that

654: the equality holds only if nonrelativistic baryon propagator is used to

655: evaluate ${\cal M}_{\Box}^{B}$.

656: 

657: The remaining contribution to ${\cal M}_{\Box}$ is from the meson poles. This

658: contribution is often referred to as the 

659: retardation effect since it is absent when using a static potential. The

660: retardation effect for two-scalar exchange is of order $N_{c}^{2}$

661: (see Table~\ref{tab1}), {\it i.e} it is larger than allowed by KSM

662: counting rules, Eq.~(\ref{KSM}). Hence, for the two-scalar

663: exchange diagrams to be consistent with the counting rules, the retardation

664: effect has to be cancelled by the crossed-box diagram. The key issue is whether

665: this cancelation indeed happens.

666: 

667: The baryon pole contribution in the box diagram has been discussed for the 

668: two-scalar exchange with point couplings. In fact, it can easily be

669: generalized for any two-meson exchange with general vertex functions. Indeed,

670: the above proof that the baryon pole contribution to the box diagram is one

671: iterate of the potential rests only on the nonrelativistic form of the

672: two-baryon propagators and the direction of the loop momenta and energy flow

673: through the baryon lines. Neither the spin-flavor structure nor the vertex

674: functions can change the position of the baryon poles. Thus, the baryon poles

675: from any two-meson box diagrams do not contribute to the nucleon-nucleon

676: potential. 

677: 

678: We have shown so far that the baryon pole contributions from the two-meson box

679: diagrams should not be included in the nucleon-nucleon potential. However,

680: the retardation effect and the crossed-box contribution can each be larger

681: than allowed by

682: the KSM counting rules. For example, the retardation effect and crossed-box

683: diagrams corresponding to the two-pion exchange are each of order $N_{c}^{2}$.

684: Moreover, the two-meson exchange diagrams in general can contribute to

685: different spin-flavor structures in the nucleon-nucleon potential,

686: Eq.~(\ref{VNN}). As a result, these contributions considered separately may

687: violate the KSM counting rules of the subleading $({\cal O}(N_{c}^{-1}))$ terms

688: in the potential. For example, two-pion exchange box and crossed-box diagrams

689: (each of order $N_{c}^{2}$) contribute not only to $V_{T}^{1}$ but among

690: others to isosinglet tensor force, $V_{T}^{0}$, as well. The latter, however,

691: should be of order $N_{c}^{-1}$ according to Eq.~(\ref{KSM}). Fortunately,

692: as will be shown below, the retardation effects cancel against the crossed-box

693: diagram contributions in all such cases.

694: 

695: A cancelation between the retardation effect and the crossed-box is well known

696: for the two-scalar exchange diagrams \cite{cancel}. The meson pole

697: contribution to ${\cal M}_{\Box}$, Eq.~(\ref{Mbox}), is: 

698: \begin{eqnarray}

699: &{\cal M}_{\Box}^{ret}=

700: \int {d^3 k\over (2\pi)^3} \int {d k^0 \over 2 \pi} 

701: 2\, Im \left[{g_{f_0}^{4} 

702: \over ((k^0)^2-|\vec{k}|^2-m_{f_0}^{2}) 

703: ((k^0+q^0)^2-|\vec{k}+\vec{q}|^2-m_{f_0}^{2})}\right] &

704: \nonumber \\

705: &\times 

706: P\left[{1\over (k^0 + {|\vec{p}|^2/ 2 m_B} - {|\vec{p}-\vec{k}|^2/ 2 m_B})

707: (-k^0 + {|\vec{p}|^2 / 2 m_B}-{|\vec{p}-\vec{k}|^2 / 2 m_B})}\right] \, &

708: \nonumber \\

709: & =\int {d^3 k\over (2\pi)^3} {g_{f_0}^{4} 

710: \over |\vec{k}+\vec{q}|^2-|\vec{k}|^2}

711: \left({1\over 2 (|\vec{k}|^2 +m_{f_0}^{2})^{3/2}}-

712: {1\over 2 (|\vec{k}+\vec{q}|^2 +m_{f_0}^{2})^{3/2}}\right)

713: \left(1+{\cal O}({1\over N_c})\right) \, ,&

714: \label{MBm}

715: \end{eqnarray}

716: where in the second step we have again neglected terms in the denominators

717: suppressed by $1/m_{B}\sim 1/N_{c}$ including the energy $q^0$; a symbol

718: $P$ indicates a principle value.

719: 

720: The contribution to the scattering amplitude from the two-meson crossed-box 

721: diagram, Fig.~\ref{fig5}, is   

722: \begin{eqnarray}

723: & i\,{\cal M}_{X}= \int {d^3 k\over (2\pi)^3} \int {d k^0 \over 2 \pi} 

724: {g_{f_0}^{4} \over 

725: ((k^0)^2-|\vec{k}|^2-m_{f_0}^{2}) 

726: ((k^0+q^0)^2-|\vec{k}+\vec{q}|^2-m_{f_0}^{2})} &

727: \nonumber \\

728: &\times \, {1\over 

729: (k^0 + q^0 + {|\vec{p}|^2/ 2 m_B}-{|\vec{p}+\vec{k}+\vec{q}|^2/ 2 m_B})

730: (k^0 + {|\vec{p}|^2 / 2 m_B}-{|\vec{p}-\vec{k}|^2 / 2 m_B})} \,. &

731: \label{MX}

732: \end{eqnarray}

733: Note, the baryon poles are now on the same side of the real axis in the $k^0$

734: complex plane. Hence, they do not contribute to ${\cal M}_{X}$.

735: The only non-vanishing contribution is from the meson poles:

736: \begin{eqnarray}

737: & {\cal M}_{X}=

738: \int {d^3 k\over (2\pi)^3} \int {d k^0 \over 2 \pi} 

739: 2\, Im\left[{g_{f_0}^{4} \over ((k^0)^2-|\vec{k}|^2-m_{f_0}^{2}) 

740: ((k^0+q^0)^2-|\vec{k}+\vec{q}|^2-m_{f_0}^{2})}\right] &

741: \nonumber \\ 

742: & \times P\left[{1\over (k^0 + q^0 + {|\vec{p}|^2/ 2 m_B}-

743: {|\vec{p}+\vec{k}+\vec{q}|^2/ 2 m_B})

744: (k^0 + {|\vec{p}|^2 / 2 m_B}-{|\vec{p}-\vec{k}|^2 / 2 m_B})}\right] \, &

745: \nonumber \\

746: &= -  \int {d^3 k\over (2\pi)^3}  

747: {g_{f_0}^{4}  \over |\vec{k}+\vec{q}|^2-|\vec{k}|^2}

748: \left({1\over 2 (|\vec{k}|^2 +m_{f_0}^{2})^{3/2}}-

749: {1\over 2 (|\vec{k}+\vec{q}|^2 +m_{f_0}^{2})^{3/2}}\right)

750: \left(1+{\cal O}({1\over N_c})\right) \, ,&

751: \label{MXm}

752: \end{eqnarray}

753: where the same approximations as in Eq.~(\ref{MBm}) were made. As evident from

754: Eqs.~(\ref{MBm}) and (\ref{MXm}), the retardation effect and the the

755: crossed-box diagram contribution for the two-scalar exchange cancel out up to

756: corrections of order $N_{c}^{-1}$:

757: \begin{equation}

758: {\cal M}_{\Box}^{ret}+{\cal M}_{X}={\cal O}({1\over N_c}) \, .

759: \label{cancel}

760: \end{equation}

761: 

762: It is important to stress, however, that the above cancelation does not occur

763: when the nucleon momenta are of order $N_{c}$ since for the momenta of order

764: $N_{c}$ the baryon propagators evaluated at the meson poles are different

765: (as can be seen from Eqs.~(\ref{MBm}) and (\ref{MXm})). Consequently, for the

766: momenta of order $N_{c}$, the nucleon-nucleon interaction cannot be

767: interpreted as a simple meson exchange picture consistent with the KSM

768: counting rules, Eq.~(\ref{KSM}). As will be shown below, the cancelation in

769: Eq.~(\ref{cancel}) is far more general. In fact, it occurs for all two-meson

770: exchange graphs provided the nucleon momenta are of order $N_{c}^{0}$ and the

771: meson-baryon couplings are contracted $SU(4)$ symmetric. Let us consider a

772: general box and crossed-box diagram containing any pair of intermediate mesons.

773: 

774: We will use Greek symbols to indicate an exchanged meson,

775: {\it e.g.} $\alpha=f_0,\,\rho,\,\pi$, etc. A given graph contains four vertex

776: functions, one for each meson-baryon coupling. The product of these four

777: functions will be denoted by

778: $\tilde{V}_{\alpha\beta}(k^0, \vec{k}, q^0, \vec{q})$. The function

779: $\tilde{V}_{\alpha\beta}(k^0, \vec{k}, q^0, \vec{q})$ does not contain

780: spin-flavor matrices of the corresponding meson-baryon couplings which 

781: will be written explicitly. It is clear that

782: $\tilde{V}_{\alpha\beta}=\tilde{V}_{\beta\alpha}$. To simplify formulae we

783: combine the product of $\tilde{V}_{\alpha\beta}(k^0, \vec{k}, q^0, \vec{q})$

784: and two meson propagators into a single energy-momentum dependent function

785: $V_{\alpha\beta}(k^0, \vec{k}, q^0, \vec{q})$ defined by

786: \begin{equation}

787: V_{\alpha\beta}(k^0, \vec{k}, q^0, \vec{q}) \equiv

788: {\tilde{V}_{\alpha\beta}(k^0, \vec{k}, q^0, \vec{q})

789: \over ((k^0)^2-|\vec{k}|^2-m_{\alpha}^{2}) \, 

790: ((k^0+q^0)^2-|\vec{k}+\vec{q}|^2-m_{\beta}^{2})}  \,,

791: \label{Valpha}

792: \end{equation}

793: where $m_{\alpha}$ and $m_{\beta}$ are the masses of the $\alpha$ and $\beta$

794: mesons. The above-defined function is symmetric under the interchange of the

795: exchanged mesons, $V_{\alpha\beta}=V_{\beta\alpha}$. The analytic structure of

796: $V_{\alpha\beta}(k^0, \vec{k}, q^0, \vec{q})$ as a function of a complex

797: variable $k^0$ determines the retardation effects of the box graphs and the

798: contribution of the crossed-box diagrams. 

799:  

800: The spin-flavor structure of the meson-baryon vertices will be denoted by 

801: $\Gamma^{A}_{\alpha (n)} (\vec k)$ where a superscript $A$ specifies the

802: spin-flavor indices and subscript $n=1,2$ indicates to which of the two baryon

803: lines a meson couples. The momentum dependence arises in the case of

804: derivatively coupled mesons such as pions. The product of the two

805: $\Gamma^{A}_{\alpha (n)} (\vec k)$ structures at two ends of the same meson

806: propagator are constrained by the spin and isospin of the exchanged meson. To

807: enforce these constraints in the product $\Gamma^{A}_{\alpha (1)} (\vec k) \,

808: \Gamma^{B}_{\alpha (2)} (-\vec k)$, we introduce a symbol $C^{\alpha}_{AB}$.

809: For example, in the case when the exchanged meson is a pion, the above

810: product takes the form:

811: \begin{equation}

812: C^{\pi}_{AB} \Gamma^{A}_{\pi (1)} (\vec{k})

813: \Gamma^{B}_{\pi (2)} (-\vec{k}) 

814: = - \, \delta^{ij}\,\delta^{mn}\, \delta^{ab}\, k^j \, k^n \,

815: X^{ia}_{(1)} X^{mb}_{(2)}= - \, k^i \, k^m \,X^{ia}_{(1)} X^{ma}_{(2)} \, \,

816: \label{pion}

817: \end{equation} 

818: where the contracted $SU(4)$ pion-baryon coupling is used.

819: 

820: Using the above notation a contribution from a general box graph,

821: Fig.~\ref{fig4}, has the following form:

822: \begin{equation}

823: i\,{\cal M}_{\Box}= g_{\alpha}^{2} \, g_{\beta}^{2}

824: \int {d^3 k\over (2\pi)^3} \int {d k^0 \over 2 \pi}

825: {V_{\alpha\beta}(k^0, \vec{k}, q^0, \vec{q})  

826: C^{\alpha}_{AB} C^{\beta}_{CD}

827: \Gamma^{A}_{\alpha (1)} (\vec{k})\Gamma^{C}_{\beta (1)} (-(\vec{k}+\vec{q}))

828: \Gamma^{B}_{\alpha (2)} (-\vec{k}) \Gamma^{D}_{\beta (2)} (\vec{k}+\vec{q}) 

829: \over (k^0 + {|\vec{p}|^2/ 2 m_B}-{|\vec{p}-\vec{k}|^2/ 2 m_B})

830: (-k^0 + {|\vec{p}|^2 / 2 m_B}-{|\vec{p}-\vec{k}|^2 / 2 m_B})} \, ,

831: \label{Mboxgen}

832: \end{equation}

833: where $g_{\alpha}$ and $g_{\beta}$ are the corresponding coupling constants and

834: the momenta directions are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig4}. The crossed-box,

835: Fig.~\ref{fig5}, has a similar expression with the last two $\Gamma$'s

836: interchanged:

837: \begin{equation}

838: i\,{\cal M}_{X}= g_{\alpha}^{2} \, g_{\beta}^{2}

839: \int {d^3 k\over (2\pi)^3} \int {d k^0 \over 2 \pi}

840: {V_{\alpha\beta}(k^0, \vec{k}, q^0, \vec{q})

841: C^{\alpha}_{AB} C^{\beta}_{CD}

842: \Gamma^{A}_{\alpha (1)} (\vec{k})\Gamma^{C}_{\beta (1)} (-(\vec{k}+\vec{q}))

843: \Gamma^{D}_{\beta (2)} (\vec{k}+\vec{q}) \Gamma^{B}_{\alpha (2)} (-\vec{k}) 

844: \over (k^0 + q^0 + {|\vec{p}|^2/ 2 m_B}-{|\vec{p}+\vec{k}+\vec{q}|^2/ 2 m_B})

845: (k^0 + {|\vec{p}|^2 / 2 m_B}-{|\vec{p}-\vec{k}|^2 / 2 m_B})} \,. 

846: \label{MXgen}

847: \end{equation}

848: Note the difference in the baryon propagators relative to Eq.~(\ref{Mboxgen})

849: due to the difference in the momentum flow.

850: 

851: As was previously shown, the baryon pole contribution to the 

852: box-graph is the first iterate of the Lippman-Schwinger equation while these

853: poles do not contribute to the crossed-box graph at this order.

854: As in the case of the scalar exchange, the $k^0$ integration in

855: Eqs.~(\ref{Mboxgen}) and (\ref{MXgen}) can be performed via the contour

856: integration.  Whatever the explicit form of the function

857: $V_{\alpha\beta}(k^0, \vec{k}, q^0, \vec{q})$ its contribution to the $k^0$

858: integral is given by its imaginary part. The important point is that the

859: same function appears in ${\cal M}_{\Box}$ and ${\cal M}_{X}$. Since the

860: intermediate baryons can not go on shell at the meson singularities their

861: contribution equals to the principal values of their propagators. 

862: 

863: The retardation effect of the box diagram is:

864: \begin{eqnarray}

865: & {\cal M}_{\Box}^{ret}= g_{\alpha}^{2} \, g_{\beta}^{2}

866: \int {d^3 k\over (2\pi)^3} \int {d k^0 \over 2 \pi}

867: 2\,Im\left[V_{\alpha\beta}(k^0, \vec{k}, q^0, \vec{q})\right] 

868: C^{\alpha}_{AB} C^{\beta}_{CD}

869: \Gamma^{A}_{\alpha (1)} (\vec{k})\Gamma^{C}_{\beta (1)} (-\vec{k}-\vec{q})

870: \Gamma^{B}_{\alpha (2)} (-\vec{k}) \Gamma^{D}_{\beta (2)} (\vec{k}+\vec{q}) &

871: \nonumber \\

872: & \times P\left[

873: {1\over (k^0 + {|\vec{p}|^2/ 2 m_B}-{|\vec{p}-\vec{k}|^2/ 2 m_B})}

874: {1\over (-k^0 + {|\vec{p}|^2 / 2 m_B}-{|\vec{p}-\vec{k}|^2 / 2 m_B})}\right] &

875: \nonumber \\

876: & = g_{\alpha}^{2} \, g_{\beta}^{2}

877: \int {d^3 k\over (2\pi)^3} \int {d k^0 \over 2 \pi} 2\, Im \left[

878: V_{\alpha\beta}(k^0, \vec{k}, q^0, \vec{q})  \right]  

879: P \left[-{1\over (k^0)^2} \right] &

880: \nonumber \\

881: & \times C^{\alpha}_{AB} C^{\beta}_{CD}

882: \Gamma^{A}_{\alpha (1)} (\vec{k})\Gamma^{C}_{\beta (1)} (-(\vec{k}+\vec{q}))

883: \Gamma^{B}_{\alpha (2)} (-\vec{k}) \Gamma^{D}_{\beta (2)} (\vec{k}+\vec{q}) \,

884: \left(1+{\cal O}({1\over N_c})\right) \, .&

885: \label{Mboxmgen}

886: \end{eqnarray}

887: Similarly, the crossed-box contribution coming entirely from the meson

888: singularities is:

889: \begin{eqnarray}

890: & {\cal M}_{X}= g_{\alpha}^{2} \, g_{\beta}^{2}

891: \int {d^3 k\over (2\pi)^3} \int {d k^0 \over 2 \pi}

892: 2\,Im \left[V_{\alpha\beta}(k^0, \vec{k}, q^0, \vec{q})\right] 

893: C^{\alpha}_{AB} C^{\beta}_{CD}

894: \Gamma^{A}_{\alpha (1)} (\vec{k})\Gamma^{C}_{\beta (1)} (-(\vec{k}+\vec{q}))

895: \Gamma^{D}_{\beta (2)} (\vec{k}+\vec{q}) \Gamma^{B}_{\alpha (2)} (-\vec{k}) &

896: \nonumber \\

897: & \times P \left[ {1\over (k^0 + q^0 + {|\vec{p}|^2/ 2 m_B}-

898: {|\vec{p}+\vec{k}+\vec{q}|^2/ 2 m_B})

899: (k^0 + {|\vec{p}|^2 / 2 m_B}-{|\vec{p}-\vec{k}|^2 / 2 m_B})} \right]  &

900: \nonumber \\

901: &= g_{\alpha}^{2} \, g_{\beta}^{2}

902: \int {d^3 k\over (2\pi)^3} \int {d k^0 \over 2 \pi}

903: 2\,Im \left[V_{\alpha\beta}(k^0, \vec{k}, q^0, \vec{q})\right] 

904: P \left[{1\over (k^0)^2} \right] & 

905: \nonumber \\

906: &\times C^{\alpha}_{AB} C^{\beta}_{CD}

907: \Gamma^{A}_{\alpha (1)} (\vec{k})\Gamma^{C}_{\beta (1)} (-(\vec{k}+\vec{q})) 

908: \Gamma^{D}_{\beta (2)} (\vec{k}+\vec{q}) \Gamma^{B}_{\alpha (2)} (-\vec{k}) \,

909: \left(1+{\cal O}({1\over N_c})\right)  \, &

910: \label{MXmgen}

911: \end{eqnarray}

912: Note that only in the nonrelativistic limit the principal values of the

913: baryon propagators are equal and opposite for both ${\cal M}_{\Box}^{ret}$ and

914: ${\cal M}_{X}$. As a result, the sum of these two contributions is

915: proportional to a spin-flavor commutator:

916: \begin{eqnarray}

917: & {\cal M}_{\Box}^{ret}+{\cal M}_{X}

918: = g_{\alpha}^{2} \, g_{\beta}^{2}

919: \int {d^3 k\over (2\pi)^3} \int {d k^0 \over 2 \pi}

920: 2\,Im \left[ V_{\alpha\beta}(k^0, \vec{k}, q^0, \vec{q}) \right]

921: P \left[-{1\over (k^0)^2} \right] &

922: \nonumber \\

923: &\times C^{\alpha}_{AB} C^{\beta}_{CD}

924: \Gamma^{A}_{\alpha (1)} (\vec{k})\Gamma^{C}_{\beta (1)} 

925: (-\vec{k}-\vec{q}) \left [\Gamma^{B}_{\alpha (2)} (-\vec{k}) \, ,\,

926: \Gamma^{D}_{\beta (2)} (\vec{k}+\vec{q}) \right ] 

927: \left(1+{\cal O}({1\over N_c})\right)\, .  &

928: \label{sum1}

929: \end{eqnarray}

930: In general, we have to include both orderings of the exchanged mesons. In 

931: Eq.~(\ref{sum1}) the first meson is $\alpha$. Changing the meson

932: sequence and keeping the loop momenta flow unchanged we get,

933: \begin{eqnarray}

934: & {\cal M}_{\Box}^{ret}+{\cal M}_{X}

935: = g_{\alpha}^{2} \, g_{\beta}^{2}

936: \int {d^3 k\over (2\pi)^3} \int {d k^0 \over 2 \pi}

937: 2\, Im \left[V_{\alpha\beta}(k^0, \vec{k}, q^0, \vec{q})  \right]

938: P \left[-{1\over (k^0)^2} \right] &

939: \nonumber \\

940: &\times C^{\alpha}_{AB} C^{\beta}_{CD}

941: \left[\Gamma^{C}_{\beta (1)} (\vec{k}), 

942: \Gamma^{A}_{\alpha (1)} (-\vec{k}-\vec{q}) \right]

943: \Gamma^{D}_{\beta (2)} (-\vec{k}) 

944: \Gamma^{B}_{\alpha (2)} (\vec{k}+\vec{q})

945: \left(1+{\cal O}({1\over N_c})\right) \, ,  &

946: \label{sum2}

947: \end{eqnarray}

948: where we used $V_{\beta\alpha}=V_{\alpha\beta}$. Now, the commutator involves

949: the meson couplings along a different baryon line.

950: 

951: The large $N_c$ scaling of the retardation effect and the crossed-box diagram

952: taken separately is given by the product of the coupling constants,

953: $g_{\alpha}^{2} \, g_{\beta}^{2}$. However, as seen from Eqs.~(\ref{sum1}) and

954: (\ref{sum2}), their total contribution is proportional to the commutators

955: of the spin-flavor operators evaluated between the ground state baryons.

956: The cancelation between the retardation effect and the

957: crossed-box contribution up to higher order corrections happens due to the

958: presence of the commutator. 

959: 

960: A number of mesons shown in Table~\ref{tab1} and Table~\ref{tab2} make

961: identical

962: contributions to the spin-flavor structure of the nucleon-nucleon potential,

963: Eq.~(\ref{VNN}). For example, the $f_0$ and the time component of the 

964: $\omega$ contribute to the isoscalar central potential, $V_{0}^{0}$; the $\pi$

965: and spatial components of $\rho$ contribute to isovector tensor force. Other

966: such pairs are $a_0$ and $\rho^t$, $\eta$ and $\vec{\omega}$, $\pi$ and 

967: $\vec{\rho}$. Thus, out of ten couplings in Table~\ref{tab1} and 

968: Table~\ref{tab2} there are only six independent structures. They give 

969: thirty-six different combinations for two-meson exchange graphs counting

970: combinations differing in the meson sequence. Out of this the number of

971: distinct meson pairs is twenty-one.   

972: 

973: The commutators in Eqs.~(\ref{sum1}) and (\ref{sum2}) vanish identically for

974: those graphs in which at least one of the mesons is $f_0$ (or $\omega^t$). The

975: reason is that the spin-flavor structure of $f_0$ ($\omega^t$) is given by the

976: unity operator which commutes with any other operator. This insures the large

977: $N_c$ consistency of the two-meson box and crossed-box diagrams containing the

978: following six (independent) pairs of mesons:

979: \begin{equation}

980: (f_0 \, f_0), \,\,\, (f_0 \, \vec{f}_1), \,\,\, (f_0 \, \eta), \,\,\,

981: (f_0 \, a_0), \,\,\, (f_0  \, \vec{a}_1), \,\,\, (f_0 \, \pi) \, ,

982: \label{six}

983: \end{equation}

984: Note, as discussed above the same cancelation occurs when $\omega^t$ is

985: exchanged instead of $f_0$. 

986: 

987: Similar cancelations occur for contributions of the box and 

988: crossed-box diagrams containing the following pairs of mesons:

989: \begin{equation}

990: (a_0 \, \eta),\,\,\, (a_0 \, \vec{f}_{1}) \, , 

991: \label{two}

992: \end{equation}

993: since the spin-flavor structure of $a_0$ couplings contains only $I^a$

994: generators while the couplings of $\vec{f}_1$ and $\eta$ contain only $J^i$

995: generators which commute with $I^a$, Eq.~(\ref{SU4}).

996: 

997: A number of the meson-baryon couplings in Table~\ref{tab1} and Table~\ref{tab2}

998: are of order $N_{c}^{-1/2}$. Hence, the exchange of any pair of such mesons

999: is suppressed by at least $N_{c}^{-2}$ and, therefore, cannot violate the

1000: KSM counting rules. These are the exchanges of the following meson pairs:

1001: \begin{equation}

1002: (a_0 \, a_0), \,\,\,(\eta \, \eta), \,\,\, (\vec{f}_1 \, \vec{f}_1), \,\,\,

1003: (\eta \, \vec{f}_1), \,\,\, 

1004: \left[(a_0 \, \eta), \,\,\, (a_0 \, \vec{f}_1)\right] \,,

1005: \label{four} 

1006: \end{equation}

1007: where the meson pairs in the square brackets have been previously considered,

1008: Eq.~(\ref{two}).

1009: 

1010: This leaves us with nine nontrivial meson pair exchanges whose contributions

1011: via the box and crossed-box diagrams can potentially spoil the KSM

1012: counting rules. Out of these, three pairs  couple to baryons only 

1013: via non-derivative couplings:

1014: \begin{eqnarray}

1015: & (a_0 \, \vec{a}_1), \,\,\, (\vec{f}_1 \, \vec{a}_1),

1016: \rightarrow {\cal O}(N_{c}^{0}) \, ,&

1017: \nonumber \\

1018: & (\vec{a}_1 \, \vec{a}_1),  \rightarrow {\cal O}(N_{c}^{2}) \, , &

1019: \label{nine1}

1020: \end{eqnarray}

1021: and the remaining six pairs require one or two derivative couplings:

1022: \begin{eqnarray}

1023: & (a_0 \, \pi), \,\,\, (\eta \, \pi), \,\,\, (\eta \, \vec{a}_1) , \,\,\,

1024: (\pi \, \vec{f}_1),  \rightarrow {\cal O}(N_{c}^{0}) \, ,&

1025: \nonumber \\

1026: & (\pi \, \pi), \,\,\, (\pi \, \vec{a}_1), \rightarrow {\cal O}(N_{c}^{2})\, ,&

1027: \label{nine2}

1028: \end{eqnarray}

1029: In Eqs.~(\ref{nine1}) and (\ref{nine2}) the large $N_c$ scaling of the product

1030: of corresponding coupling constants, $g_{\alpha}^{2}\,g_{\beta}^{2}$, in the

1031: box and the crossed-box diagrams has also been indicated. 

1032: 

1033: The considerations of the meson pairs in Eq.~(\ref{nine1}) are simpler than

1034: those with derivatively coupled mesons, Eq.~(\ref{nine2}), and will be

1035: considered first. The analysis of the exchanges with derivative couplings

1036: requires performing angular integration and is done in the appendix. 

1037: 

1038: The retardation effect, Eq.~(\ref{Mboxmgen}), and, the crossed-box diagram,

1039: Eq.~(\ref{MXmgen}), involving exchanges of $a_0$ and  $\vec{a}_1$  contribute

1040: to isoscalar and isovector spin-spin, $V_{\sigma}^{0}$ and $V_{\sigma}^{1}$,

1041: terms; the $(\vec{f}_1\,,\vec{a}_1)$ exchange contains a $V_{0}^{1}$ term

1042: in addition to $V_{\sigma}^{1}$. The order $N_{c}^{0}$ contributions to

1043: $V_{\sigma}^{0}$ and $V_{0}^{0}$ from $(a_0\,,\vec{a}_1)$ and

1044: $(\vec{f}_1\,,\vec{a}_1)$ exchanges violate the KSM rules, Eq.~(\ref{KSM}).

1045: Fortunately, these contributions are cancelled in the sum of the retardation

1046: effect and crossed-box diagram, Eqs.~(\ref{sum1}) and (\ref{sum2}):

1047: \begin{eqnarray}

1048: &C^{\vec{f}_1}_{AB} C^{\vec{a}_1}_{CD}

1049: \Gamma^{A}_{\vec{f}_1 (1)} (\vec{k})\Gamma^{C}_{\vec{a}_1 (1)} 

1050: (-(\vec{k}+\vec{q})) \left [\Gamma^{B}_{\vec{f}_1 (2)} (-\vec{k}) \, ,\,

1051: \Gamma^{D}_{\vec{a}_1 (2)} (\vec{k}+\vec{q}) \right ]&

1052: \nonumber \\

1053: &= J^{i}_{(1)} X^{ja}_{(1)} \left[ J^{i}_{(2)} \, , \, X^{ja}_{(2)}\right]=

1054: {1\over2} \left ( \left \{ J^{i}_{(1)} \,,\, X^{ja}_{(1)} \right\}+ 

1055: \left[J^{i}_{(1)}\,,\, X^{ja}_{(1)}\right]\right)

1056: \left[ J^{i}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{ja}_{(2)}\right]\,&

1057: \nonumber \\

1058: & = 2\, X^{ka}_{(1)}\,X^{ka}_{(2)} +{\cal O}({1\over N_{c}^{2}})\,, &

1059: \label{f1a1}

1060: \end{eqnarray} 

1061: for $(\vec{f}_1\,,\vec{a}_1)$ exchange and similarly for 

1062: $(a_0\,,\vec{a}_1)$ exchange. In the last step in Eq.~(\ref{f1a1}) we used 

1063: the commutation and anti-commutation relations of the generators of the

1064: contracted $SU(4)$ symmetry, Eqs.~(\ref{SU4}) and (\ref{anticom}). Thus, these

1065: exchanges, when both box and crossed-box diagrams are included, contribute only

1066: to the isovector spin-spin term of the nucleon-nucleon potential up to

1067: corrections of order $N_{c}^{-2}$. This is an allowable contribution

1068: by KSM counting rules. 

1069: 

1070: The box and crossed-box diagrams corresponding to $(\vec{a}_1,\,\vec{a}_1)$

1071: exchange are of order $N_{c}^{2}$. The corresponding 

1072: retardation effect and crossed-box digram separately contribute to

1073: $V_{0}^{0}$, $V_{\sigma}^{1}$ and $V_{\sigma}^{0}$. The first two terms are of

1074: order $N_{c}$ and the third term is of order $N_{c}^{-1}$, Eq.~(\ref{KSM}).

1075: However, the product of the spin-flavor structures in Eqs.~(\ref{sum1}) and

1076: (\ref{sum2}) is of order $N_{c}^{-4}$:

1077: \begin{eqnarray}

1078: &C^{\vec{a}_1}_{AB} C^{\vec{a}_1}_{CD}

1079: \Gamma^{A}_{\vec{a}_1 (1)} (\vec{k})\Gamma^{C}_{\vec{a}_1 (1)} 

1080: (-(\vec{k}+\vec{q})) \left [\Gamma^{B}_{\vec{a}_1 (2)} (-\vec{k}) \, ,\,

1081: \Gamma^{D}_{\vec{a}_1 (2)} (\vec{k}+\vec{q}) \right ]&

1082: \nonumber \\

1083: &= X^{ia}_{(1)} X^{jb}_{(1)} 

1084: \left[ X^{ia}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{jb}_{(2)}\right]= 

1085: {1\over 2}\,\left(\left\{X^{ia}_{(1)}\,,\, X^{jb}_{(1)}\right\}+

1086: \left [X^{ia}_{(1)}\,,\, X^{jb}_{(1)}\right ] \right)

1087: \left[ X^{ia}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{jb}_{(2)}\right] &

1088: \nonumber \\

1089: &={1\over 2}\, \left [X^{ia}_{(1)}\,,\, X^{jb}_{(1)}\right ]

1090: \left[ X^{ia}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{jb}_{(2)}\right] \sim {\cal O}({1\over N_{c}^4})

1091: \,,&

1092: \label{a1a1}

1093: \end{eqnarray} 

1094: where in the third step we used the fact that the anticommutator is symmetric

1095: and the commutator is antisymmetric under the simultaneous exchange of the

1096: spin-flavor indices $(ia) \rightarrow (jb)$; the large $N_c$ of the baryon

1097: matrix elements of $\left[ X^{ia} \,,\, X^{jb}\right]$ is given in 

1098: Eq.~(\ref{X}). Combining the $N_{c}^{4}$ suppression in Eq.~(\ref{a1a1}) with

1099: the $N_{c}^{2}$ scaling of the product $g_{\vec{a}_1}^{4}$ we see that the

1100: sum in Eq.~(\ref{sum1}) (and similarly in Eq.~(\ref{sum2})) is of order

1101: $N_{c}^{-2}$ which is consistent with KSM counting rules. Note that in this

1102: case full contracted $SU(4)$ algebra has to be used to insure the cancelation.

1103: Thus, the cancelation of the retardation effect against the crossed-box diagram

1104: requires an inclusion of both nucleon and $\Delta$ intermediate states. If one

1105: restricts the intermediate states to nucleons only, the cancelation would not

1106: occur.

1107: 

1108: Thus far, we have shown that the retardation effect of all two-meson

1109: exchange diagrams without derivative couplings, Eq.~(\ref{nine1}), cancel 

1110: against the corresponding crossed-box graphs. As is shown in the appendix, 

1111: similar cancelations occur for the remaining six meson pairs, 

1112: Eq.~(\ref{nine2}), which involve one or two derivatively coupled mesons.

1113:  

1114: In addition to box and crossed-box diagrams, any pair of mesons can be

1115: exchanged via triangle (or ``seagull) diagrams, Fig.~\ref{fig6},

1116: containing a 4-point meson-baryon vertex. The spin-flavor structure of this

1117: vertex is given by the product of  two $\Gamma^{A}_{\alpha (n)}(\vec{k})$

1118: operators. The 4-point meson-baryon coupling is of order $N_{c}^{0}$

1119: for any meson pair \cite{LN2}. Hence, the largest scaling of a triangle

1120: diagram is $N_c$, {\it e.g.} when two pions or $f_0$ and $\omega^t$

1121: are exchanged. Thus, the triangle graph can not violate the scaling of the

1122: leading $({\cal O}(N_c))$ spin-flavor terms, Eq.~(\ref{KSM}). However, the 

1123: subleading $({\cal O}(N_{c}^{-1}))$ terms might be sensitive to contributions

1124: from the triangle diagrams. Since these diagrams contain only one baryon 

1125: propagator its pole does not contribute to the potential (the contour of the

1126: complex $k^0$ integration can always be closed in such a way as to avoid the

1127: baryon pole). As we will show shortly, the contributions from the meson 

1128: singularities in the triangle graphs add up to cancel all terms that violate

1129: the KSM counting rules.

1130: 

1131: A given triangle graph can be associated

1132: with a corresponding box or crossed-box diagram by shrinking the appropriate

1133: baryon propagator to zero. It can then be shown that the sum of the

1134: appropriate pair of the triangle graphs, shown in Fig.~\ref{fig6}, is similar

1135: to Eq.~(\ref{sum1}) or Eq.~(\ref{sum2}). The essential point in the above

1136: discussion was the presence of the commutator in Eqs.~(\ref{sum1}) and

1137: (\ref{sum2}). The same commutator appears in the sum of the triangle graphs. 

1138: 

1139: What are the pairs of the triangle graphs that correspond to the box and 

1140: crossed-box diagrams which led to Eqs.~(\ref{sum1}) and (\ref{sum2})? These 

1141: graphs contain the same meson pairs. The two corresponding graphs differ

1142: according to which baryon line the 4-point meson-baryon vertex is attached,

1143: Fig.~\ref{fig6}. In addition, two $\Gamma$ structures at the 4-point vertex of

1144: one of the corresponding graphs are in opposite order relative to the sequence

1145: of these structures in the other graph. This leads to the appearance of a

1146: commutator in the sum of the corresponding triangle graphs. 

1147: 

1148: In the case of the box and crossed-box diagrams the direction of the energy

1149: flow assured that the retardation effect and the crossed-box contribution are

1150: equal and opposite up to $1/N_c$ corrections. The sign

1151: difference was due to the product of the principle values of the baryon

1152: propagators (after the nonrelativistic reduction), Eqs.~(\ref{Mboxmgen}) and

1153: (\ref{MXmgen}), which had different signs for the box and crossed-box

1154: diagrams. Despite the presence of only a single baryon propagator, the

1155: contributions from each of the corresponding triangle graphs come with

1156: opposite signs due to the different flow of the energy and momenta,

1157: Fig.~\ref{fig6}. The sum of these two graphs is:

1158: \begin{eqnarray}

1159: & {\cal M}_{1}+{\cal M}_{2}

1160: = g_{\alpha} \, g_{\beta}\, g_{\alpha\beta}

1161: \int {d^3 k\over (2\pi)^3} \int {d k^0 \over 2 \pi}

1162: 2\, Im \left[V_{\alpha\beta}(k^0, \vec{k}, q^0, \vec{q}) \right]

1163: P \left[-{1\over k^0} \right] &

1164: \nonumber \\

1165: &\times C^{\alpha}_{AB} C^{\beta}_{CD}

1166: \Gamma^{A}_{\alpha (1)} (\vec{k})\Gamma^{C}_{\beta (1)} 

1167: (-\vec{k}-\vec{q}) \left [\Gamma^{B}_{\alpha (2)} (-\vec{k}) \, ,\,

1168: \Gamma^{D}_{\beta (2)} (\vec{k}+\vec{q}) \right ] 

1169: \left(1+{\cal O}({1\over N_c})\right)\, ,  &

1170: \label{triangle}

1171: \end{eqnarray}   

1172: where $g_{\alpha\beta}$ (order $N_{c}^{0}$ for all $\alpha$ and $\beta$) is 

1173: the coupling constant of the 4-point vertex and the function $V_{\alpha\beta}$

1174: is given by Eq.~(\ref{Valpha}) provided $\tilde{V}_{\alpha\beta}$ contains

1175: the product of the three meson baryon vertex functions (including one

1176: corresponding to 4-point vertex). A similar expression can be written for the

1177: sum of the two triangle graphs in which the sequence of the $\alpha$ and

1178: $\beta$ mesons is changed as in Eq.~(\ref{sum2}).

1179: 

1180: It is clear that the sum in Eq.~(\ref{triangle}) contributes to the same

1181: spin-flavor terms as the sum in Eq.~(\ref{sum1}): both expressions contain

1182: identical spin-flavor structures. The differences in the integrands are 

1183: irrelevant as far as the cancelations in Eqs.~(\ref{sum1}) and (\ref{sum2})

1184: are concerned. As a result, the large $N_c$ scaling of the contribution in

1185: Eq.~(\ref{triangle}) is that of Eq.~(\ref{sum1}) times scaling of 

1186: $(g_{\alpha}\,g_{\beta})^{-1}$.

1187: 

1188: Hence, when all the contributions of the triangle graphs are included the

1189: resulting spin-flavor terms are consistent with the KSM counting rules, 

1190: Eq.~(\ref{KSM}).

1191: 

1192: \section{Conclusion}

1193: 

1194: At a technical level we have shown by explicit calculation that if

1195: meson-baryon couplings scale according to the standard large $N_c$

1196: rules, then the two-meson-exchange contributions to the nonrelativistic

1197: baryon-baryon potential is consistent with the large $N_c$ KSM scaling rules

1198: deduced in Refs.~\cite{NN1,NN2}. This is highly nontrivial since the

1199: derivation of these rules in Refs.~\cite{NN1,NN2} only included diagrams which

1200: correspond to one-meson-exchange when translated to the hadronic level. This

1201: certainly adds confidence that Refs.~\cite {NN1,NN2} correctly described the

1202: $N_c$ scaling behavior of the nucleon-nucleon potential in the large $N_c$

1203: limit of QCD. The essential issue in the calculations here was that the

1204: retardation contributions to the potential from the box graph cancel against

1205: the crossed-box contributions for all spin-isospin structures in the potential

1206: where the retardation contributions or the crossed-box contributions separately

1207: violate the counting rules. 

1208: 

1209: The derivation presented here was done in a ``brute force'' manner. Namely,

1210: we considered the various meson exchanges one at a time, identified the

1211: contributions to the various spin-isospin structures which apparently

1212: violated the KSM large $N_c$ scalings and showed that in all cases they

1213: canceled. It would be very useful to find a more general method for

1214: demonstrating the cancelation. While the methods used here were adequate

1215: for the two-meson exchange case, it would be extremely cumbersome to

1216: extend them to three-meson exchange or higher. Given the cancelations for

1217: all ``dangerous'' contributions at the two-meson-exchange level it seems

1218: reasonable to expect that such cancelations will occur for any number of

1219: meson exchanges and that the full baryon-baryon potential will be

1220: consistent with the KSM scaling rules. However, a general proof of the

1221: cancelations for all orders would be desirable.

1222: 

1223: In the Introduction it was argued that the large $N_c$ scaling behavior of

1224: the baryon-baryon interactions give some general insights into the

1225: underlying physics arising from QCD. In particular it was argued that a

1226: consistent picture emerged and five aspects of this picture were

1227: enumerated. Let us now briefly discuss how the calculations discussed

1228: above support this picture.

1229: 

1230: The first point raised was that while a nonrelativistic potential used to

1231: describe the interaction has overall strength of order $N_c$, the kernel

1232: of a Bethe-Salpeter equation does not have a simple $N_c$ dependence. As

1233: noted many times, the order $N_{c}^{2}$ contribution to the potential from

1234: the crossed-box graph is canceled by the retardation effect from the box

1235: graph. However, such a cancelation cannot happen in the context of the

1236: Bethe-Salpeter equation. The entire box graph (including meson pole

1237: contributions) is an iterate of the Bethe-Salpeter kernel and hence cannot

1238: be included as a contribution to the kernel. Thus, in the Bethe-Salpeter

1239: context there is no part of the box graph to cancel the order $N_{c}^2$

1240: contribution from the crossed-box.  Therefore, unlike the potential, the

1241: Bethe-Salpeter kernel cannot be associated with an overall strength of

1242: $N_c$. Presumably, the Bethe-Salpeter kernel has contributions scaling as

1243: $N_c$ to all powers arising from multiple meson exchanges.

1244: 

1245: The second point made was that the meson exchange

1246: picture of baryon-baryon interactions with the leading part of the

1247: potential scaling as $N_c$ is consistent with the meson exchange picture

1248: of the potential provided the momentum exchanged is of order $N_{c}^{0}$.

1249: It was shown explicitly using nonrelativistic kinematics that at the

1250: level of two-meson exchange all ``dangerous'' contributions to the

1251: potential canceled so that there is no inconsistency with a potential

1252: scaling as $N_c$. It is reasonable to expect the behavior to hold for any

1253: number of meson exchanges. If true, this strengthens the case for using

1254: meson exchange models to describe nucleon-nucleon interactions.

1255: 

1256: However, it was also argued that the idea of a potential described by the

1257: meson exchange picture is unsuitable for momenta of order $N_c$. At a

1258: technical level this is apparent in Eqs.~(\ref{MBm}), (\ref{MX}),

1259: (\ref{MXgen}) and (\ref{Mboxmgen}) where the cancelations of the box and

1260: crossed box graphs depend explicitly on the nonrelativistic form of the

1261: propagator. If momenta of order $N_c$ were used the cancelations clearly

1262: fail to occur. Thus the usefulness of the meson-exchange picture is not

1263: evident for momenta of order $N_c$. In fact, it is quite satisfying that

1264: the evidence of consistency breaks down in this regime for a number of

1265: reasons.  In the first place Witten's TDH picture of baryon-baryon

1266: interactions is more appropriate for $p \sim N_c$. This picture has no

1267: obvious meson-exchange interpretation. The internal structure of each

1268: baryon is distorted in the presence of the other.  Moreover, it is not

1269: surprising from a more traditional hadronic viewpoint that a

1270: meson-exchange potential picture breaks down in this regime. If $p \sim

1271: N_c$ and $m_N \sim N_c$ then the kinetic energy of the baryons is also of

1272: order $N_c$.  Since meson masses are of order $N_c^0$ an increasing number of

1273: mesons are produced. It is hardly surprising that the potential picture breaks

1274: down in this situation.

1275: 				

1276: A fourth point raised in the Introduction was that relative sizes of the

1277: various spin-isospin structures in the nucleon-nucleon potential are

1278: consistent at the two-meson-exchange level with those deduced from the

1279: contracted $SU(4)$ structure of KSM. Moreover, if one looks carefully at

1280: all of the cancelations, one finds that corrections to the leading

1281: behavior were all $1/N_{c}^{2}$ suppressed.  This is consistent with

1282: Refs.~\cite{NN1,NN2} where it is found that subleading spin-isospin

1283: structures are down by factors $1/N_{c}^{2}$.  Overall this strongly

1284: supports the view that the expansion is in fact in $1/N_{c}^{2}$ rather

1285: than in $1/N_c$.

1286: 

1287: The final point stressed was that the $\Delta$ plays

1288: an essential role.  As is evident from Eqs.~(\ref{a1a1}) and the appendix,

1289: the cancelations between the box and crossed-box graphs do not occur if

1290: intermediate states are restricted entirely to nucleons; $\Delta$

1291: resonances are required as intermediate states. More generally one expects

1292: that as the contracted $SU(4)$ structure is used to obtain cancelations

1293: the entire $I=J=1/2, 3/2, 5/2, ...$ tower of baryon states can contribute.

1294: Up to two-meson exchange with nucleon as initial and final states,

1295: however, only nucleons and $\Delta$'s can contribute.

1296: 

1297: The formal consistency of the large $N_c$ treatment and the meson exchange

1298: picture is quite satisfying.  However, considerable caution should be

1299: exercised in trying to draw conclusions about the real world of $N_c=3$.

1300: We have used $1/N_c$ as a counting parameter to distinguish large from

1301: small contributions.  This is clearly legitimate if all the coefficients

1302: multiplying these factors are natural, {\it i.e.} of order unity.  

1303: However, all coefficients are not natural.  One key difficulty is that the

1304: meson-exchange picture is being used here to connect hadronic phenomena

1305: with nuclear phenomena.  However, the scales in nuclear physics are

1306: generally much smaller than those in hadronic physics \cite{SF3}. It is

1307: not clear directly from QCD why these nuclear scales are so small and it

1308: is generally thought to be ``accidental''. The interplay between small

1309: nuclear scales (that may be large in a $1/N_c$ sense) with much larger

1310: hadronic scales (that may be small formally in a $1/N_c$ sense) can

1311: potentially spoil the results of a straightforward $1/N_c$ approach. To

1312: show how extreme this problem may be we can consider the deuteron binding

1313: energy, {\it B} (which is formally of order $N_c$) and the delta-nucleon

1314: mass difference, $m_{\Delta}-m_{N}$ (which is order $1/N_c$). If all

1315: coefficients were natural, one would expect $B$ to be an order of

1316: magnitude larger than $m_{\Delta}-m_{N}$, whereas, in fact, it is two orders

1317: of magnitude smaller. It would not be surprising that difficulties might

1318: arise when calculating $B$ if one neglects $m_{\Delta}-m_{N}$ as being

1319: ``small''.

1320: 

1321: The large $N_c$ structure of the nucleon-nucleon potential has been so far

1322: used phenomenologically in two contexts. The first is as an attempt to

1323: justify the observed approximate Wigner $SU(4)$ symmetry \cite{Wigner} 

1324: in light nuclei

1325: as arising from the underlying contracted $SU(4)$ structure in the large

1326: $N_c$ potential \cite{NN1}. The second is an attempt to justify the

1327: qualitative sizes of the spin-flavor structures in phenomenological

1328: potentials as being explained by contracted $SU(4)$ structure in the large

1329: $N_c$ potential \cite{NN1,NN2}. It is not immediately obvious that these

1330: two explanations are legitimate in light of qualitatively distinct nuclear

1331: scales that are not associated with the $1/N_c$ expansion. Clearly, this

1332: issue needs further investigation. However, it is also not immediately

1333: clear how to formulate a systematic expansion which both incorporates the

1334: $1/N_c$ scaling rules while allowing nuclear scales to be much smaller

1335: than hadronic scales. The comparison of the qualitative sizes of the

1336: spin-flavor structures in phenomenological potentials with what is

1337: expected from large $N_c$ raises another issue.  The potentials predicted

1338: in large $N_c$ are not nucleon-nucleon potentials; rather, they are coupled

1339: channel potentials for the full tower of $I=J$ baryon states including an

1340: explicit $\Delta$. The phenomenological potentials to which they are

1341: compared have the explicit $\Delta$'s integrated out.  It is by no means

1342: clear that the act of integrating out $\Delta$'s does not alter the

1343: spin-flavor structure.  Again, this requires further study.

1344: 

1345: Given these possible difficulties in drawing phenomenological conclusions

1346: from large $N_c$ potentials, one might ask about the relevance for the

1347: real world of our demonstration that large $N_c$ counting rules are

1348: consistent with the meson-exchange picture of potentials at the

1349: two-meson-exchange level. Of course, it remains possible that after a

1350: careful study one may find that the particular phenomenological

1351: predictions to date---the Wigner $SU(4)$ symmetry and the characteristic

1352: relative sizes of the various terms in phenomenological potentials---are

1353: robust and remain valid even after the smallness of the typical nuclear

1354: scales are included. Whether or not this turns out to be the case,

1355: however, we may still be able to learn qualitatively interesting things.

1356: For example, the cancelations seen in the two-pion exchange graphs require

1357: that $\Delta$ intermediate states be included. For $N_c=3$, one does not

1358: expect such cancelations to be perfect, but the general tendency to cancel

1359: should survive. This suggests that $\Delta$ box and crossed-box

1360: contributions should be comparable in size to the ones with nucleon

1361: intermediate states.  This issue may be relevant for potential models

1362: motivated by chiral symmetry where two-pion exchange contributions with

1363: nuclear intermediate states are included at next-to-leading order but

1364: explicit $\Delta$ contributions are not included\cite{SF3}. At a more

1365: qualitative level, the fact that at large $N_c$ a meson-exchange motivated

1366: picture of the potential is consistent gives at least some support for the

1367: view that more generally nucleon-nucleon interactions can be described in

1368: terms of meson exchanges.

1369: 

1370: 

1371: 

1372: \acknowledgements

1373: 

1374: This work is supported by the U.S.~Department of Energy grant 

1375: DE-FG02-93ER-40762. TDC wishes to acknowledge discussions with M.~Luty,

1376: D.~Phillips, J.~Friar, F.~Gross and S.~Wallace. He also acknowledges support

1377: at the INT where progress was made on this work.

1378: 

1379: \appendix

1380: \section*{}

1381: 

1382: In this appendix we discuss the box and crossed-box graphs with one or two

1383: derivative couplings, Eq.~(\ref{nine2}). As in the case of the

1384: non-derivatively coupled mesons, Eq.~(\ref{nine1}),

1385: the sum of the retardation effect and the crossed-box diagram can be written as

1386: the sum of the products of anticommutators and commutators of the spin-flavor

1387: generators. The cancelation of the terms that violated spin-flavor counting

1388: rules essentially has occurred due the symmetry properties of this products

1389: under the interchange of the spin-flavor symmetry. The remaining terms are

1390: either consistent with the counting rules or suppressed by $1/N_{c}^{2}$ as in

1391: Eq.~(\ref{a1a1}). However, when derivatively coupled mesons are included

1392: the symmetry of the products of commutators and anticommutators under

1393: the interchange of spin-flavor symmetry is broken due to the contraction of 

1394: the spin-flavor generators with momentum indices. In order to see the

1395: cancelation the angular integration in Eqs.~(\ref{sum1}) and (\ref{sum2})

1396: must be performed. In this appendix the cancelation is shown for the

1397: two-pion exchange diagrams. The exchanges involving other pairs of mesons,

1398: Eq.~(\ref{nine2}), are essentially identical to this case.

1399: 

1400: The retardation effect and the crossed-box contribution is given in 

1401: Eq.~(\ref{sum1}) which has the following form for the two-pion exchange:

1402: \begin{eqnarray}

1403: & {\cal M}_{\Box}^{ret}+{\cal M}_{X}

1404: = g_{\pi}^{4} \int {d^3 k\over (2\pi)^3} \int {d k^0 \over 2 \pi}

1405: P \left[-{1\over (k^0)^2} \right] 

1406: 2\, Im \left[V_{\pi\pi}(k^0, \vec{k}, q^0, \vec{q}) \right] &

1407: \nonumber \\

1408: &\times 

1409: X^{ia}_{(1)}\,X^{jb}_{(1)} \left[ X^{la}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{rb}_{(2)}\right] \,

1410: \vec{k}^{i} \vec{k}^{l} (\vec{k}^{j}+\vec{q}^{j}) (\vec{k}^{r}+\vec{q}^{r})

1411: \left(1+{\cal O}({1\over N_c})\right) \,.&

1412: \label{pipi1}

1413: \end{eqnarray}

1414: Performing $k^0$ integration Eq.~(\ref{pipi1}) reduces to

1415: \begin{equation}

1416: {\cal M}_{\Box}^{ret}+{\cal M}_{X}

1417: = g_{\pi}^{4} \int {k^2 \, d k\over (2\pi)^3} \int d \Omega

1418: \,\, F(|\vec{k}|, |\vec{q}|, \vec{k}\cdot\vec{q}, q^0) \,

1419: X^{ia}_{(1)}\,X^{jb}_{(1)} \left[ X^{la}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{rb}_{(2)}\right] \,

1420: \vec{k}^{i} \vec{k}^{l} (\vec{k}^{j}+\vec{q}^{j}) (\vec{k}^{r}+\vec{q}^{r})\,,

1421: \label{pipi2}

1422: \end{equation}

1423: where the explicit form of the function 

1424: $F(|\vec{k}|, |\vec{q}|, \vec{k}\cdot\vec{q}, q^0)$ is not required for the

1425: following discussion.

1426: 

1427: Let us consider the angular integration in Eq.~(\ref{pipi2}):

1428: \begin{equation}

1429: I_{\Omega} \equiv 

1430: \int d \Omega \,\, F(|\vec{k}|, |\vec{q}|, \vec{k}\cdot\vec{q}, q^0) \,\,\,

1431: \vec{k}^{i} \vec{k}^{l} (\vec{k}^{j}+\vec{q}^{j}) (\vec{k}^{r}+\vec{q}^{r})\,.

1432: \label{pipi3}

1433: \end{equation}

1434: The general form of this integral is:

1435: \begin{eqnarray}

1436: & I_{\Omega} = \left( 

1437: \delta^{ij}\,\delta^{lr}+\delta^{il}\,\delta^{jr}+\delta^{ir}\,\delta^{jl} 

1438: \right) \, f_{1}(|\vec{k}|, |\vec{q}|, q^0)+ 

1439: q^i\, q^j\, q^l\, q^r \, f_{2}(|\vec{k}|, |\vec{q}|, q^0) &

1440: \nonumber \\

1441: & + \left ( \delta^{il}\, q^j\, q^r + \delta^{jr}\, q^i\, q^l \right)

1442: f_{3}(|\vec{k}|, |\vec{q}|, q^0) 

1443: + \left (\delta^{ij}\, q^l\, q^r + \delta^{ir}\, q^j\, q^l + 

1444: \delta^{jl}\, q^i\, q^r + \delta^{lr}\, q^i\, q^j \right )

1445: f_{4}(|\vec{k}|, |\vec{q}|, q^0) \,,&

1446: \label{pipi4}

1447: \end{eqnarray} 

1448: where functions $f_1$, $f_2$, $f_3$ and $f_4$ do not depend on

1449: $\vec{k}\cdot\vec{q}$. The form of the $I_{\Omega}$ can be obtained from 

1450: general arguments based on the symmetry properties of Eq.~(\ref{pipi3})

1451: under the various exchanges of the momentum indices.

1452: 

1453: Each term in Eq.~(\ref{pipi4}) when combined with spin-flavor generators in

1454: Eq.~(\ref{pipi1}) is suppressed by $N_{c}^{-4}$. Let us see how it comes about

1455: for each term separately. 

1456: 

1457: The first product of Kronecker deltas in the $f_1$ term leads to:

1458: \begin{eqnarray}

1459: & \delta^{ij}\,\delta^{lr} X^{ia}_{(1)}\,X^{jb}_{(1)} 

1460: \left[ X^{la}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{rb}_{(2)}\right]=

1461: X^{ia}_{(1)}\,X^{ib}_{(1)} \left[ X^{la}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{lb}_{(2)}\right] 

1462: ={1\over 2} \left(\left\{X^{ia}_{(1)}\,,\, X^{ib}_{(1)}\right\}+

1463: \left [X^{ia}_{(1)}\,,\, X^{ib}_{(1)}\right ] \right)

1464: \left[ X^{la}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{lb}_{(2)}\right] &

1465: \nonumber \\

1466: &={1\over 2} \left\{X^{ia}_{(1)}\,,\, X^{ib}_{(1)}\right\}

1467: \left[ X^{la}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{lb}_{(2)}\right] 

1468: +{1\over 2}

1469: \left [X^{ia}_{(1)}\,,\, X^{ib}_{(1)}\right ] 

1470: \left[ X^{la}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{lb}_{(2)}\right] 

1471: = {\cal O}({1\over N_{c}^{4}})\,, &

1472: \label{f11}

1473: \end{eqnarray}

1474: where the product of the commutator and the anticommutator vanishes because

1475: the commutator is antisymmetric under the  $a \leftrightarrow b$ exchange

1476: while the anticommutator is symmetric. The remaining product of the two

1477: commutators is of order $N_{c}^{-4}$ from Eq.~(\ref{XX}). Thus, an overall 

1478: contribution of this term is of order $N_{c}^{-2}$ which is consistent with

1479: KSM counting rules, Eq.~(\ref{KSM}). Note how the angular averaging of 

1480: Eq.~(\ref{pipi3}) induced symmetry properties of the spin-flavor

1481: matrices in Eq.~(\ref{pipi1}).

1482: 

1483: The second product of deltas in $f_1$ leads to the expression identical to

1484: Eq.~(\ref{a1a1}); its contribution, therefore, is suppressed by $N_{c}^{-4}$

1485: as well. The suppression of the last term multiplying the $f_1$ are easily 

1486: observed:

1487: \begin{eqnarray}

1488: & \delta^{ir}\,\delta^{jl} X^{ia}_{(1)}\,X^{jb}_{(1)} 

1489: \left[ X^{la}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{rb}_{(2)}\right]=

1490: X^{ia}_{(1)}\,X^{ib}_{(1)} \left[ X^{ja}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{ib}_{(2)}\right] 

1491: ={1\over 2} \left(\left\{X^{ia}_{(1)}\,,\, X^{jb}_{(1)}\right\}+

1492: \left [X^{ia}_{(1)}\,,\, X^{jb}_{(1)}\right ] \right)

1493: \left[ X^{ja}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{ib}_{(2)}\right] &

1494: \nonumber \\

1495: &={1\over 2} \left\{X^{ia}_{(1)}\,,\, X^{jb}_{(1)}\right\}

1496: \left[ X^{ja}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{ib}_{(2)}\right] 

1497: +{\cal O}({1\over N_{c}^{4}})= {\cal O}({1\over N_{c}^{4}}) \,,&

1498: \label{f13a}

1499: \end{eqnarray}

1500: where in the last step we used antisymmetry under the simultaneous exchange of

1501: $a \leftrightarrow b$ and $i \leftrightarrow j$:

1502: \begin{equation}

1503: \left\{X^{ia}_{(1)}\,,\, X^{jb}_{(1)}\right\}

1504: \left[ X^{ja}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{ib}_{(2)}\right]=

1505: - \, \left\{X^{ia}_{(1)}\,,\, X^{jb}_{(1)}\right\}

1506: \left[ X^{ja}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{ib}_{(2)}\right] \,.

1507: \label{f13b}

1508: \end{equation}

1509: 

1510: Similarly the product of the 4 components of the external momenta multiplying 

1511: $f_2$ is of order $N_{c}^{-4}$:

1512: \begin{equation}

1513:  q^i \,q^j \,q^l \,q^r \, X^{ia}_{(1)}\,X^{jb}_{(1)} 

1514: \left[ X^{la}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{rb}_{(2)}\right] 

1515:  ={1\over 2} \, q^i \,q^j \,q^l \,q^r \,

1516: \left\{X^{ia}_{(1)}\,,\, X^{jb}_{(1)}\right\}

1517: \left[ X^{la}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{rb}_{(2)}\right] + {\cal O}({1\over N_{c}^{4}})=

1518: {\cal O}({1\over N_{c}^{4}}) \,, 

1519: \label{f21a}

1520: \end{equation}

1521: where the vanishing of the last product can be seen after the substitution

1522: $a \leftrightarrow b$, $i \leftrightarrow j$ and $l \leftrightarrow r$:

1523: \begin{equation}

1524: q^i \,q^j \,q^l \,q^r \, \left\{X^{ia}_{(1)}\,,\, X^{jb}_{(1)}\right\}

1525: \left[ X^{la}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{rb}_{(2)}\right] =

1526: -q^i \,q^j \,q^l \,q^r \, \left\{X^{ia}_{(1)}\,,\, X^{jb}_{(1)}\right\}

1527: \left[ X^{la}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{rb}_{(2)}\right] \, .

1528: \label{f21b}

1529: \end{equation}

1530: 

1531: Similar arguments can be used to show the vanishing

1532: (up to ${\cal O}(N_{c}^{-4})$) of the term containing the function $f_{3}$:

1533: \begin{eqnarray} 

1534: & \left (\delta^{il}\, q^j\, q^r + \delta^{jr}\, q^i\, q^l \right)

1535: \, X^{ia}_{(1)}\,X^{jb}_{(1)} \left[ X^{la}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{rb}_{(2)}\right] &

1536: \nonumber \\

1537: & = q^j \, q^r \,

1538: X^{ia}_{(1)}\,X^{jb}_{(1)} \left[ X^{ia}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{rb}_{(2)}\right]+

1539: q^i \, q^l \,

1540: X^{ia}_{(1)}\,X^{jb}_{(1)} \left[ X^{la}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{jb}_{(2)}\right] &

1541: \nonumber \\

1542: & = q^j \, q^l \,

1543: X^{ia}_{(1)}\,X^{jb}_{(1)} \left[ X^{ia}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{lb}_{(2)}\right]+

1544: q^j \, q^l \,

1545: X^{ja}_{(1)}\,X^{ib}_{(1)} \left[ X^{la}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{ib}_{(2)}\right] &

1546: \nonumber \\

1547: & = q^j \, q^l \,

1548: X^{ia}_{(1)}\,X^{jb}_{(1)} \left[ X^{ia}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{lb}_{(2)}\right] +

1549: q^j \, q^l \,

1550: X^{jb}_{(1)}\,X^{ia}_{(1)} \left[ X^{ia}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{lb}_{(2)}\right] &

1551: \nonumber \\

1552: & = q^j \, q^l \,\left[ X^{ia}_{(1)} \,,\, X^{jb}_{(1)}\right] \,

1553: \left[ X^{ia}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{lb}_{(2)}\right] = {\cal O}({1\over N_{c}^{4}})

1554: \, , &

1555: \label{f3}

1556: \end{eqnarray}

1557: where in the second equality we changed the index $r$ into $l$ in the first 

1558: term and exchanged $i \leftrightarrow j$ in the second term; in the next step

1559: we make the $a \leftrightarrow b$ exchange in the second term. 

1560: 

1561: The first term multiplying $f_4$ in Eq.~(\ref{pipi4}) is suppressed as follows:

1562: \begin{eqnarray}

1563: & \delta^{ij}\,q^l \, q^r \, X^{ia}_{(1)}\,X^{jb}_{(1)} 

1564: \left[ X^{la}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{rb}_{(2)}\right]=

1565: q^l \, q^r \,

1566: X^{ia}_{(1)}\,X^{ib}_{(1)} \left[ X^{la}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{rb}_{(2)}\right] &

1567: \nonumber \\

1568: & ={1\over 2}\,q^l \, q^r \,

1569: \left \{ X^{ia}_{(1)}\,,\, X^{ib}_{(1)} \right\} 

1570: \left[ X^{la}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{rb}_{(2)}\right] +

1571: {\cal O}({1\over N_{c}^{4}}) ={\cal O}({1\over N_{c}^{4}})  &

1572: \label{f4a}

1573: \end{eqnarray}

1574: where the vanishing of the last product can be seen via the substitution 

1575: $a \leftrightarrow b$ followed by $l \leftrightarrow r$. Similar arguments

1576: apply for the last term multiplying $f_{4}$.

1577: 

1578: Lastly, the sum of the remaining two terms in Eq.~(\ref{pipi4}) multiplying

1579: $f_4$ vanishes (up to ${\cal O}(N_{c}^{-4})$) as follows:

1580: \begin{eqnarray}

1581: & \left (\delta^{ir}\, q^j\, q^l + \delta^{jl}\, q^i\, q^r \right )

1582: \, X^{ia}_{(1)}\,X^{jb}_{(1)} \left[ X^{la}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{rb}_{(2)}\right] 

1583:  = q^j \, q^l \,

1584: X^{ia}_{(1)}\,X^{jb}_{(1)} \left[ X^{la}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{ib}_{(2)}\right] +

1585: q^i \, q^r \,

1586: X^{ia}_{(1)}\,X^{jb}_{(1)} \left[ X^{ja}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{rb}_{(2)}\right] &

1587: \nonumber \\

1588: & = q^i \, q^l \,

1589: X^{ja}_{(1)}\,X^{ib}_{(1)} \left[ X^{la}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{jb}_{(2)}\right]+

1590: q^i \, q^l \,

1591: X^{ia}_{(1)}\,X^{jb}_{(1)} \left[ X^{ja}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{lb}_{(2)}\right] &

1592: \nonumber \\

1593: & = q^i \, q^l \,

1594: X^{ja}_{(1)}\,X^{ib}_{(1)} \left[ X^{la}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{jb}_{(2)}\right]+

1595: q^i \, q^l \,

1596: X^{ib}_{(1)}\,X^{ja}_{(1)} \left[ X^{jb}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{la}_{(2)}\right] &

1597: \nonumber \\

1598: &= {1\over 2}\, q^i \, q^l \,

1599: \left \{ X^{ja}_{(1)}\,,\, X^{ib}_{(1)} \right \}

1600: \left[ X^{la}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{jb}_{(2)}\right]+

1601: {1\over 2}\,q^i \, q^l \,

1602: \left \{ X^{ib}_{(1)}\,,\, X^{ja}_{(1)} \right \}

1603: \left[ X^{jb}_{(2)} \,,\, X^{la}_{(2)}\right] + {\cal O}({1\over N_{c}^{4}}) =

1604: {\cal O}({1\over N_{c}^{4}}) \, , &

1605: \label{f4b}

1606: \end{eqnarray}

1607: where in the second equality we changed $i \leftrightarrow j$ $i$ and 

1608: $r \leftrightarrow l$ in the first and second term respectively; 

1609: in the next step the change is $a \leftrightarrow b$ in the second term.

1610: 

1611: This completes the discussion of two-pion exchange box and crossed-box 

1612: diagrams. Their mutual contribution has an overall scaling of $N_{c}^{-2}$ and

1613: is, therefore, consistent with the KSM counting rules, Eq.~(\ref{KSM}).

1614: 

1615: 

1616: \begin{references}

1617: 

1618: \bibitem{LN1} G.~'t~Hooft, Nucl.~Phys.~{\bf B72} 461 (1974).  

1619: \bibitem{LN2} E.~Witten, Nucl.~Phys.~{\bf B160} 57 (1979).

1620: \bibitem{SF1} J.L.~Gervais and B. Sakita, Phys.~Rev.~Lett.~{\bf 52} 87 (1984); 

1621: \\

1622: J.L.~Gervais and B. Sakita, Phys.~Rev.~{\bf D30} 1795 (1984); \\

1623: C.~Carone, H.~Georgi, S.~Osofsky, Phys.~Lett.~{\bf B322} 227 (1994); \\ 

1624: M.~Luty and J.~March-Russell, Nucl.~Phys.~{\bf B426} 71 (1994).

1625: \bibitem{SF2} R.~Dashen, E.~Jenkins and A.V.~Manohar, Phys.~Rev.~{\bf D49} 

1626: 4713 (1994).  

1627: \bibitem{SF3} R.~Dashen, E.~Jenkins and A.V.~Manohar, Phys.~Rev.~{\bf D51} 

1628: 3697 (1995).

1629: \bibitem{NN1} D.B.~Kaplan and M.J.~Savage, Phys.~Lett.~{\bf B365} 244 (1996).

1630: \bibitem{NN2} D.B.~Kaplan and A.V.~Manohar, Phys.~Rev.~{\bf C56} 76 (1997).  

1631: \bibitem{MNN} R.~Machleidt, K.~Holinde and Ch.~Elster, Phys.~Rep.~{\bf 149} 1

1632: (1987).

1633: \bibitem{PhNN} M.M.~Nagels, T.A.~Rijken and J.J.~de Swart,

1634: Phys.~Rev.~{\bf D17} 768 (1978); \\

1635: R.~Wiringa, R.~Smith and T.~Ainsworth, Phys.~Rev.~{\bf C29} 1207 (1984).

1636: \bibitem{SK} G.S.~Adkins, C.R.~Nappi and E.~Witten, Nucl.~Phys.~{\bf B228} 552

1637: (1983).

1638: \bibitem{cancel} F.~Gross, Phys.~Rev.~186 1448 (1969);

1639: F.~Gross, Phys.~Rev.~{\bf C26} 2203 (1982); \\

1640: F.~Gross, Relativistic Quantum Mechanics and Field Theory (Wiley, 1993).

1641: \bibitem{Wigner} E.~Wigner, Phys.~Rev.~{\bf 51} 106, 947 (1937); 

1642: {\it ibid.} {\bf 56} 519 (1939).

1643: \bibitem{chNN} S.~Weinberg, Phys.~Lett.~{\bf B251} 288 (1990); 

1644: S.~Weinberg, Nucl.~Phys.~{\bf B363} 3 (1991); \\

1645: C.~Ord\'o\~nez and U. van~Kolck, Phys.~Lett.~{\bf B291} 459 (1992); \\

1646: C.~Ord\'o\~nez, L.~Ray and U. van~Kolck, Phys.~Rev.~Lett.~{\bf 72} 1982

1647: (1994);\\

1648: E.~Epelbaoum, W.~Gl\"ockle and Ulf-G.~Mei\ss ner,  Nucl.~Phys.~{\bf A637} 107

1649: (1998); \\ 

1650: E.~Epelbaoum, W.~Gl\"ockle and Ulf-G.~Mei\ss ner, Nucl.~Phys.~{\bf A671} 295

1651: (2000).

1652: 

1653: 

1654: \end{references}

1655: \end{document}

1656: 

1657: 

1658: 

1659: 

1660: 

1661: 

1662: 

1663: 

1664: 

1665: 

1666: 

1667: 

1668: 

1669: 

1670: 

1671: 

1672: 

1673: 

1674: 

1675: 

1676: 

1677: 

1678: 

1679: 

1680: 

1681: 

1682: