1: %%%%%%%%%% espcrc2.tex %%%%%%%%%%
2: %
3: % $Id: espcrc2.tex 1.2 2000/07/24 09:12:51 spepping Exp spepping $
4: %
5: \documentclass[fleqn,twoside]{article}
6: \usepackage{espcrc2}
7: \input{epsfig.sty}
8: % A useful Journal macro
9: \def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{#1} {\bf #2}, #3 (#4)}
10: % Some useful journal names
11: \def\NCA{\rm Nuovo Cimento}
12: \def\NPA{{\rm Nucl. Phys.} A}
13: \def\NPB{{\rm Nucl. Phys.} B}
14: \def\PLB{{\rm Phys. Lett.} B}
15: \def\PRL{\rm Phys. Rev. Lett.}
16: \def\PRC{{\rm Phys. Rev.} C}
17: \def\PRD{{\rm Phys. Rev.} D}
18: \def\PR{\rm Phys. Rev.}
19: \def\ZPC{{\rm Z. Phys.} C}
20: \def\RMP{\rm Rev. Mod. Phys.}
21: % Some other macros used in the sample text
22: \def\la{\langle}
23: \def\ra{\rangle}
24: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
25: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
26: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
27: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
28: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
29: \raise1pt\hbox{$<$}}} %less than or approx. symbol
30: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
31: \raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}}
32:
33: % change this to the following line for use with LaTeX2.09
34: % \documentstyle[twoside,fleqn,espcrc2]{article}
35:
36: % if you want to include PostScript figures
37: \usepackage{graphicx}
38: % if you have landscape tables
39: \usepackage[figuresright]{rotating}
40:
41: % put your own definitions here:
42: % \newcommand{\cZ}{\cal{Z}}
43: % \newtheorem{def}{Definition}[section]
44: % ...
45: \newcommand{\ttbs}{\char'134}
46: \newcommand{\AmS}{{\protect\the\textfont2
47: A\kern-.1667em\lower.5ex\hbox{M}\kern-.125emS}}
48:
49: % add words to TeX's hyphenation exception list
50: \hyphenation{author another created financial paper re-commend-ed Post-Script}
51:
52: % declarations for front matter
53: \title{Pion Form Factor and Quark Mass Evolution in a
54: Light-Front Quark Model}
55:
56: \author{Ho-Meoyng Choi\address[MCSD]{Department of Physics,
57: Carnegie Mellon University, \\
58: Pittsburgh, PA 15213, U.S.A}%
59: \thanks{homeoyng@andrew.cmu.edu},
60: L. S. Kisslinger\addressmark\thanks{
61: kissling@andrew.cmu.edu}
62: and
63: Chueng-Ryong Ji\address{Department of Physics, North Carolina State
64: University,\\
65: Raleigh, NC 27695-8202, U.S.A}
66: \thanks{crji@unity.ncsu.edu}}
67: \begin{document}
68:
69: \begin{abstract}
70: We discuss the soft contribution to the elastic pion form factor with
71: the mass evolution from current to constituent quark being taken into
72: account in a light-front quark model(LFQM).
73: \vspace{1pc}
74: \end{abstract}
75:
76: % typeset front matter (including abstract)
77: \maketitle
78:
79: %\section{Introduction}
80:
81: The pion electromagnetic (EM) form factor is of great interest for the
82: study of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD). At low momentum transfers ($Q^2$)
83: nonperturbative QCD (NPQCD) dominates, while at large $Q^2$ perturbative
84: QCD (PQCD) can be used to calculate the asymptotic form factor; and the
85: transition from NPQCD to PQCD has long been of
86: interest.
87: The light-front (LF) quantization method~\cite{BPP} may be most useful
88: in connecting the formulations of NPQCD and PQCD since the LF
89: wavefunctions provide the essential link between hadronic phenomena at
90: short distances(perturbative) and at long distances(nonperturbative).
91: Although the relevant minimum momentum scale for the PQCD exclusive
92: processes is still under a debate~\cite{BJPR}, the LF method has been
93: successfully applied to the constituent quark model and described the
94: hadron properties at low momentum transfer region quite
95: well~\cite{JK,CJ}.
96: In many previous quark models~\cite{JK,CJ},
97: a constant constituent quark mass was used in the analysis of the hadron
98: properties especially at $Q^2 < 1$ GeV$^2$.
99: As shown in the literatures~\cite{JK,CJ}, such constituent quark
100: model has been quite successful in
101: describing static properties of a hadron such as the form factor, charge
102: radius, and decay constant etc..
103: On the other hand, the approach based on the quantum field theory
104: such as the Dyson Schwinger Equations(DSEs)~\cite{DS} uses the running
105: mass instead of constant constituent mass
106: and it also gives properties of the pion that are in agreement with the
107: experimental data.
108:
109: Thus, in this talk, we present the quark mass
110: evolution effect on the pion in a light-front quark
111: model(LFQM)~\cite{KCJ}.
112: In the present work we restrict ourselves to the soft NPQCD
113: part with a LFQM, but an essential ingredient is the use of
114: a running quark mass, which is the main subject of this talk.
115:
116: The form factor of the pion is related to the matrix element
117: of the current by the following equation:
118: \be\label{Current}
119: \la J^\mu_{e.m.}\ra\equiv\la P'|{\bar q}\Gamma^\mu q|P\ra
120: = (P' + P)^\mu F_\pi(Q^2).
121: \ee
122: In usual LF frame, the form factor of a hadron can be obtained by
123: the sum of valence and nonvalence diagrams.
124: However, if we choose the Drell-Yan-West(DYW)(or $q^+=0$) frame with
125: ``$+$"-component of the current, only the valence diagram is needed. Then,
126: the matrix element of the current
127: given by Eq.~(\ref{Current}) can be expressed as a convolution integral
128: in terms of LF wave function, $\Psi(x,{\bf k}_\perp)$ as follows:
129: \bea\label{jmu}
130: \la J^\mu_{e.m}\ra &=&\sum_{\lambda_q\lambda'_q\lambda_{\bar q}}
131: \int^1_0 dx\int d^2{\bf k}_\perp
132: \Psi_{\lambda'_q\lambda{\bar q}}(x,{\bf k'}_\perp)\nonumber\\
133: &\times&\frac{{\bar u}_{\lambda'_q}(p'_q)}{\sqrt{p'^+_q}}\Gamma^\mu
134: \frac{u_{\lambda_q}(p_q)}{\sqrt{p^+_q}}
135: \Psi_{\lambda_q\lambda{\bar q}}(x,{\bf k}_\perp),
136: \eea
137: where $p^+_q$=$p'^+_q$=$(1-x)P^+$ and
138: ${\bf k'}_\perp$=${\bf k}_\perp -x{\bf q}_\perp$ in the initial pion
139: rest frame, ${\bf P}_\perp$=0. The helicity of the quark(antiquark) is
140: denoted as $\lambda_{q({\bar q})}$.
141: In our model calculation of the pion form factor,
142: we use the Gaussian radial wave function as well as the relativistic
143: spin-orbit wave function obtained by the interaction independent Melosh
144: transformation(see~\cite{KCJ} for more detail).
145:
146: In the usual light-front constituent quark model~\cite{JK,CJ},
147: the bare quark-photon vertex, $\Gamma^\mu=\gamma^\mu$, is used.
148: However, when the quark propagator has momentum-dependent dressing,
149: the bare vertex is no longer adequate because it
150: violates the Ward-Takahashi identity(WTI).
151: In general, the solution of the DSE for the renormalized dressed-quark
152: propagator takes the form $S(p)^{-1}=A(p^2){\not\! p} - B(p^2)$
153: in Minkowski space,
154: where the quark mass evolution function $m(p^2)$ is defined as
155: $m(p^2)=B(p^2)/A(p^2)$. Also, gauge invariance requires that the quark-photon
156: vertex $\Gamma^\mu$ given by Eq.~(\ref{jmu}) satisfy the WTI, i.e.
157: $-q^\mu\Gamma_\mu(p;q)= S(p')^{-1}-S(p)^{-1}$
158: ( current conservation) as well as
159: $\Gamma^\mu(p;0)=\partial S(p)^{-1}/\partial p_\mu$
160: (charge conservation),
161: where $q=p - p'$.
162:
163: As used in many DSE studies of EM interactions~\cite{DS},
164: we take the Ball-Chiu(BC) ansatz~\cite{BC} for
165: the quark-photon vertex
166: \bea\label{BC}
167: &&\hspace{-0.7cm}\Gamma^\mu_{\rm BC}=
168: \frac{ ({\not\! p}
169: + {\not\! p'})}{2}(p + p')^\mu
170: \frac{ A(p'^2)-A(p^2)}{p'^2-p^2} \nonumber\\
171: &&\hspace{-0.7cm}+ \frac{A(p'^2)+A(p^2)}{2}\gamma^\mu
172: - (p + p')^\mu\frac{B(p'^2)-B(p^2)}{p'^2-p^2}.\nonumber\\
173: \eea
174: Although the asymptotic behavior of the running mass might require
175: crossing symmetry(under $Q^2\leftrightarrow-Q^2$) at high momentum
176: transfer, there is no clue yet for the low momentum transfer region.
177: So, we introduce two algebraic parametrizations of the running mass;
178: one satisfying the crossing symmetry(CS) and the
179: other satisfying the crossing asymmetry(CA):
180: \bea\label{CSCA}
181: m^{\rm CS}(p^4)=m_0 + (m_c - m_0)\frac{ 1+e^{-\mu^4/\lambda^4}}
182: {1 +e^{(p^4 - \mu^4)/\lambda^4}},&&
183: \nonumber\\
184: m^{\rm CA}(p^2)=m_0 + (m_c - m_0)\frac{ 1+e^{-\mu^2/\lambda^2}}
185: {1 +e^{(p^2 - \mu^2)/\lambda^2}},&&
186: \end{eqnarray}
187: where $m_0$ and $m_c$ are the current and constituent quark masses,
188: respectively. The parameters $\mu$ and $\lambda$ are used to adjust
189: the shape of the mass evolution.
190:
191: For comparison, we use in Fig.~\ref{massfig} two different parameter
192: sets for each mass evolution function.
193: The current and constituent quark
194: masses used are $m_0=5$ MeV and $m_c=220$ MeV, respectively.
195: Simulating the constituent picture at the small momentum region,
196: we have chosen these particular sets of parameters, [Set 1] and [Set 2]
197: for each mass function, to keep the constituent mass up
198: to $(-p^2)\sim 1$ and 0.5 GeV$^2$, respectively, before it drops
199: exponentially.
200:
201: \begin{figure}
202: \centerline{\psfig{figure=Mass3.ps,height=60mm,width=60mm}}
203: \vspace{-1cm}
204: \caption{Quark mass evolution in spacelike momentum region,
205: $-p^2>0$.\label{massfig}}
206: \end{figure}
207:
208: In order to express the four momentum $p^2$ in terms of LF variables
209: $(x,{\bf k}_\perp)$, we use the on-mass shell condition, $p^2=m^2(p^2)$.
210: It implies zero binding energy of a mock meson, i.e.
211: $P^-=p^-_q + p^-_{\bar q}$ where $P^-(=P^0-P^3)$ and $p^-_q(p^-_{\bar q})$
212: are the LF energies of the mock meson and the quark(antiquark),
213: respectively. It leads to the following identity for the pion case
214: ($m_q=m_{\bar q}$), $p^2 = x(1-x){\tilde M}^2 - {\bf k}^2_\perp$.
215: For the mock meson mass ${\tilde M}$, we
216: take the average value(so called spin-averaged meson mass) of
217: $\pi(m_\pi)$ and $\rho(m_\rho)$ masses with appropriate weighting factors
218: from the spin degrees of freedom, i.e. ${\tilde M}$=$(m_\pi
219: + 3m_\rho)_{\rm exp}/4$=612 MeV.
220:
221: In our numerical calculations, we use the model parameters
222: $(m_c,\beta)$=(0.22,0.3659) [GeV] obtained in Ref.~\cite{CJ} for the
223: linear confining potential model.
224: % where the charge radius and decay constant
225: %of the pion were predicted as $r^2_\pi$=0.425
226: %[fm$^2$](Exp. = 0.432$\pm$0.016~\cite{Amen})
227: %and $f_\pi$=130 MeV (Exp. = 131 MeV~\cite{PDG}), respectively.
228: %The change of the charge radius and decay constant from the CQM
229: %result due to the running mass formulae are within 2$\%$ and 5$\%$,
230: %respectively.
231:
232: \begin{figure}[t]
233: \vspace{-1cm}
234: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=Q2Pi22_612a.ps,height=70mm,width=70mm}}
235: \vspace{-1.2cm}
236: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=Q2Pi22_612b.ps,height=70mm,width=70mm}}
237: \vspace{-1.2cm}
238: \caption{Pion EM form factor:(a) Crossing asymmetry(CA) and
239: (b) Crossing symmetry(CS) mass functions compared with the experimental
240: data~\protect\cite{Bebek} as well as the CQM result~\protect\cite{CJ}.
241: \label{pi1}}
242: \end{figure}
243: In Fig.~\ref{pi1}, we show our results of the form factor
244: for the intermediate $Q^2$ region for CA [Fig.~\ref{pi1}(a)]
245: and CS [Fig.~\ref{pi1}(b)] mass functions compared with
246: the experimental data~\cite{Bebek} as well as the CQM result~\cite{CJ}.
247: As one can see from Fig.~\ref{pi1},
248: (1) there are differences between the
249: bare vertex and BC ansatz indicating the breakdown of local gauge
250: invariance from the usage of the bare vertex,
251: (2) the [Set 2] for both CA and CS mass functions show larger deviation
252: from the CQM result than the [Set 1] case for
253: the region of momentum transfer
254: $Q^2\sim$2 GeV$^2$ and above,
255: (3) the results with the BC vertex fall off faster (at around $Q^2$=2 GeV$^2$)
256: than the CQM result does,
257: and (4) the CA mass evolution function is more
258: sensitive to the variation of the momentum dependence than the CS mass
259: evoluton function.
260:
261: In conclusion, we have reexamined the soft contribution to the
262: pion elastic form factor using LFQM with a running quark mass.
263: The Ball-Chiu ansatz was used for the dressed quark-photon vertex.
264: We were also able to calculate the quark condensate as
265: $-\la{\bar q}q\ra$=(0.3 GeV)$^3$~\cite{KCJ}, which is quite compariable with
266: the value employed in contemporary phenomenological studies:
267: (0.236 GeV)$^3$~\cite{qqE}.
268: This shows the PCAC relation is reasonably well satisfied in LFQM
269: with our mass evolution function.
270:
271: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
272: \bibitem{BPP} S. J. Brodsky, H.-C. Pauli, and S. S. Pinsky, Phys. Rept.
273: {\bf 301}, 299(1998).
274:
275: \bibitem{BJPR} S.J. Brodsky, C.-R. Ji, A. Pang and
276: D. Robertson,\Journal{\PRD}{57}{245}{1998};N. Isgur and C.H. Llewellyn
277: Smith, \Journal{\PRL}{52}{1080}{1984}.
278:
279: \bibitem{JK} O.C. Jacob and L.S. Kisslinger,\Journal{\PRL}{56}{225}{1986};
280: \Journal{\PLB}{243}{323}{1990};
281: P. L. Chung, F. Coester, and W. N. Polyzou,
282: \Journal{\PLB}{205}{545}{1988}; W. Jaus, \Journal{\PRD}{44}{2851}{1991};
283: %F. Cardarelli et al., \Journal{\PRD}{53}{6682}{1996};
284: H.-M. Choi and C.-R. Ji, \Journal{\PRD}{56}{6010}{1997};
285: \Journal{\NPA}{618}{291}{1997};
286: L.S. Kisslinger and S.W. Wang, \Journal{\NPB}{399}{63}{1993}.
287:
288: \bibitem{CJ} H.-M. Choi and C.-R. Ji, \Journal{\PRD}{59}{074015}{1999}.
289:
290: \bibitem{DS} C. D. Roberts and A. G. Williams, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.
291: {\bf 33}, 477 (1994);
292: %P. C. Tandy, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 39},
293: %117 (1997);
294: P. Maris and C. D. Roberts, \Journal{\PRC}{58}{3659}{1998}.
295:
296: \bibitem{KCJ} L.S. Kisslinger, H.-M. Choi and C.-R. Ji,
297: \Journal{\PRD}{63}{113005}{2001}.
298:
299: %\bibitem{WT} J. C. Ward, Phys. Rev. {\bf 78}, 182 (1950);
300: %Y. Takahashi, Nuovo Cimento {\bf 6}, 371 (1957).
301:
302: \bibitem{BC} J.S. Ball and T.-W. Chiu, \Journal{\PRD}{22}{2542}{1980}.
303:
304: \bibitem{Bebek} C. J. Bebek et al., \Journal{\PRD}{17}{1693}{1978};
305: J. Volmer et al. \Journal{\PRL}{86}{1713}{2001}.
306:
307: \bibitem{qqE} D. B. Leinweber, Ann. Phys. (N. Y.) {\bf 254}, 328 (1997).
308:
309: \end{thebibliography}
310: \end{document}
311:
312:
313: