1: \input{aipcheck.tex}

2: \documentclass{aipproc}

3: \layoutstyle{6x9}

4: 

5: \begin{document}

6: \def\dsl{\,\raise.15ex\hbox{/}\mkern-13.5mu D} %this one can be subscripted

7: \def\xslash#1{{\rlap{$#1$}/}}

8: \def\openone{\leavevmode\hbox{\small1\kern-4.2pt\normalsize1}}

9: \def\ssqr#1#2{{\vbox{\hrule height #2pt

10:       \hbox{\vrule width #2pt height#1pt \kern#1pt\vrule width #2pt}

11:       \hrule height #2pt}\kern- #2pt}}

12: \def\sqr{\mathchoice\ssqr8{.4}\ssqr8{.4}\ssqr{5}{.3}\ssqr{4}{.3}}

13: %

14: \def\onedot{\makebox(0,0){$\scriptstyle 1$}}

15: \def\twodot{\makebox(0,0){$\scriptstyle 2$}}

16: \def\threedot{\makebox(0,0){$\scriptstyle 3$}}

17: \def\fourdot{\makebox(0,0){$\scriptstyle 4$}}

18: %

19: \def\Tr{{\rm Tr}}

20: \def\onebox{{\vbox{\hbox{$\sqr\thinspace$}}}}

21: \def\twobox{{\vbox{\hbox{$\sqr\sqr\thinspace$}}}}

22: \def\threebox{{\vbox{\hbox{$\sqr\sqr\sqr\thinspace$}}}}

23: %

24: \def\nbox{\hbox{$\sqr\sqr\sqr\sqr\raise2.7pt\hbox{$\,\cdot\cdot\cdot

25: \cdot\cdot\,$}\sqr\sqr\sqr\thinspace$}}

26: %

27: \def\nboxE{\vbox{\hbox{$\sqr\sqr\sqr\raise2.7pt\hbox{$\,\cdot\cdot\cdot

28: \cdot\cdot\,$}\sqr\sqr\sqr\sqr$}\nointerlineskip 

29: \kern-.2pt\hbox{$\sqr\sqr\sqr\raise2.7pt\hbox{$\,\cdot\cdot\cdot

30: \cdot\cdot\,$}\sqr$}}}

31: %

32: \def\nboxF{\vbox{\hbox{$\sqr\sqr\sqr\sqr\raise2.7pt\hbox{$\,\cdot\cdot\cdot

33: \cdot\cdot\,$}\sqr\sqr$}\nointerlineskip 

34: \kern-.2pt\hbox{$\sqr\sqr\sqr\sqr\raise2.7pt\hbox{$\,\cdot\cdot\cdot

35: \cdot\cdot\,$}\sqr$}}}

36: %

37: 

38: \title

39: [QCD Baryons in the $1/N_c$ Expansion]{QCD Baryons in the $1/N_c$ Expansion}

40: 

41: \author{Elizabeth Jenkins}{

42:   address={Department of Physics, 9500 Gilman Drive, 

43:   University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0319},

44: }

45: 

46: \copyrightyear  {2001}

47: 

48: \begin{abstract}

49: The $1/N_c$ expansion provides a theoretical method for analyzing the 

50: spin-flavor symmetry properties of baryons in QCD that is quantitative, 

51: systematic and predictive.  An exact spin-flavor symmetry 

52: exists for large-$N_c$ baryons, whereas for QCD baryons, the spin-flavor 

53: symmetry is approximate and is broken by corrections proportional to the 

54: symmetry-breaking parameter $1/N_c = 1/3$.  The $1/N_c$ expansion

55: predicts a hierarchy of spin and flavor symmetry relations for QCD baryons

56: that is observed in nature.  It provides a quantitative understanding of

57: why some $SU(3)$ flavor symmetry relations in the baryon sector, such as the 

58: Gell-Mann--Okubo mass formula, are satisfied to a greater precision than

59: expected from flavor symmetry-breaking suppression factors alone. 

60: \end{abstract}

61: 

62: 

63: \date{\today}

64: 

65: \maketitle

66: 

67: \section{Introduction}

68: 

69: It has been rigorously proven that spin-flavor

70: symmetry is an approximate symmetry of baryons in QCD \cite{dm,j}.  

71: Spin-flavor symmetry for baryons is formally an exact symmetry in the 

72: t'Hooft large-$N_c$ limit~\cite{thooft}.  For finite $N_c$, the 

73: spin-flavor symmetry of baryons is only approximate and is broken

74: explicitly by corrections suppressed by powers of $1/N_c$.

75: The breaking of the large-$N_c$ baryon

76: spin-flavor symmetry for QCD baryons is order $1/N_c = 1/3$, which is 

77: comparable to the order $30\%$ breaking of Gell-Mann $SU(3)$ flavor symmetry.  

78: Thus, spin-flavor symmetry is as good an approximate symmetry for QCD baryons 

79: as $SU(3)$ flavor symmetry.  

80: 

81: Spin-flavor symmetry for QCD baryons has a long history; like $SU(3)$ flavor symmetry,

82: spin-flavor symmetry predates the formulation of QCD.  Although

83: spin-flavor symmetry was phenomenologically

84: successful early on \cite{oldsu6}, the physical basis for spin-flavor symmetry was not understood, 

85: even after the microscopic theory of the strong interactions was known.

86: What has been possible in recent years is to justify spin-flavor symmetry as a {\it bona fide}

87: symmetry of baryons in QCD, and to classify the explicit breakings of baryon spin-flavor

88: symmetry to all orders in the $1/N_c$ expansion in a systematic and quantitative

89: manner.  It has been shown that the quark-gluon dynamics of large-$N_c$ QCD gives rise to 

90: a spin-flavor symmetry for baryons.  For finite $N_c$, the symmetry is only approximate; there are 

91: subleading $1/N_c$ corrections which explicitly break the symmetry.  This new insight 

92: has led to the formulation of the baryon $1/N_c$

93: expansion as an expansion in operators with definite transformation

94: properties under baryon spin and flavor symmetry.  Each baryon operator in the $1/N_c$ expansion

95: occurs at a known order in $1/N_c$.  Each operator is multiplied by an unknown coefficient

96: which is a reduced matrix element that is not determined by baryon spin-flavor symmetry.  

97: Calculating these reduced baryon matrix elements is tantamount

98: to solving QCD in the baryon sector.

99: 

100: All of the new results obtained for baryons in the $1/N_c$

101: expansion can be characterized as symmetry relations involving spin and flavor.  The

102: spin-flavor structure of the baryon $1/N_c$ expansion yields model-independent results 

103: which are valid for QCD.  It has been known for some time that the spin-flavor group theory for

104: baryons in large-$N_c$ QCD and in the large-$N_c$ quark and Skyrme models is the 

105: same\cite{manohar84}.

106: It is now known that a stronger statement applies:   

107: the spin-flavor structure of the baryon $1/N_c$ expansion is the same in QCD

108: as in the quark model and the Skyrme model at each order in the $1/N_c$ expansion.

109: In other words, 

110: the spin-flavor structure of the baryon $1/N_c$ expansion is the same in QCD

111: as in the quark model and Skyrme models.  QCD and these models, however, will differ in their

112: predictions for the reduced matrix elements of the baryon $1/N_c$ expansion.      

113: It is well known that the quark and

114: Skyrme models are not very successful at predicting these reduced matrix 

115: elements, 

116: which

117: leads to the conclusion that most, if not all, of the successful predictions of the 

118: non-relativistic quark and Skyrme models are

119: actually model-independent group-theoretic predictions, and therefore should not be regarded

120: as evidence for the validity of these models {\it per se}.

121: 

122: The spin-flavor operator analysis of the

123: baryon $1/N_c$ expansion has resulted in significant progress in understanding of the

124: spin-flavor structure of baryons.  It explains the extraordinary accuracy of many venerable

125: spin-flavor and flavor symmetry relations for baryons 

126: as being due to the presence of $1/N_c$ suppression 

127: factors in addition to the usual flavor symmetry breaking suppression factors.  It is

128: remarkable that, after three decades, a  

129: quantitative understanding of spin-flavor symmetry for baryons has been achieved. 

130: 

131: The outline of these lectures is as follows.  First, a brief

132: summary is given of the $1/N_c$ expansion of large-$N_c$ QCD.  The $1/N_c$ power counting

133: of the quark-gluon dynamics of large-$N_c$ QCD is described for the confined quark-gluon bound states:

134: mesons and baryons.  Second, it is shown that large-$N_c$ baryons satisfy a

135: contracted spin-flavor symmetry in the $N_c \rightarrow \infty$ limit.

136: Baryon states transform as irreducible representations of the

137: spin-flavor algebra, and operators acting on a baryon spin-flavor multiplet

138: transform as irreducible tensor operators of the algebra. 

139: 

140: The formalism of the baryon $1/N_c$ expansion is presented in the next section.

141: Tensor operators acting on a baryon spin-flavor multiplet have an

142: expansion in terms of operator products of the baryon spin-flavor generators.  The order

143: in $1/N_c$ of each operator product in the $1/N_c$ expansion

144: is known.  Not all operator

145: products of the baryon spin-flavor generators are linearly independent, so it is necessary

146: to eliminate redundant operator products using operator identities.  This operator reduction

147: is possible in terms of the operator identities for $2$-body operator products.  The complete set 

148: of $2$-body operator product identities for $SU(6)$ spin-flavor symmetry is given, and then

149: used to construct operator bases for the baryon $1/N_c$ expansion.   

150: 

151: $1/N_c$ operator-product expansions are constructed for a number of baryon tensor operators

152: in the final section.

153: It is necessary to incorporate $SU(3)$ flavor symmetry breaking into the baryon $1/N_c$

154: expansion since $SU(3)$ breaking is comparable to the expansion parameter $1/N_c$. 

155: The $1/N_c$ expansions for baryon masses, axial vector couplings and magnetic moments

156: are presented in detail.  A comparison of experimental data with the predictions of the combined

157: $1/N_c$ and flavor-symmetry breaking expansion is given in these cases.  

158: The presence of $1/N_c$

159: suppression factors in the experimental data is clearly evident, and provides a quantitative

160: understanding of the accuracy of famous symmetry relations, such as the Gell-Mann--Okubo 

161: formula, Gell-Mann's Equal Spacing Rule and the Coleman-Glashow relation for baryon masses,

162: as well as many others.

163: 

164: The focus of these lectures is on the application of the $1/N_c$ expansion to QCD baryons. 

165: The discussion is

166: meant to be complementary to my review of large-$N_c$ baryons \cite{arnps}, which 

167: is more comprehensive.  The emphasis here is on

168: baryons in QCD with $N_F =3$ flavors of light quarks.     

169: I will try to keep the formalism introduced to a 

170: minimum throughout, although a fair amount is essential and cannot be avoided.

171: Of necessity, a number of important topics have not been covered, even briefly.

172: These topics include nonet symmetry of baryon amplitudes \cite{jchpt}, exact cancellations in

173: baryon chiral perturbation theory \cite{fhjm}, spin-flavor symmetry of excited baryons

174: \cite{cgkm}, and

175: spin-flavor symmetry of heavy quark baryons \cite{jhqet}.  

176: An extensive list of publications on the spin and flavor properties of baryons in

177: the $1/N_c$ expansion is given in the references.    

178: 

179: \section{Large-$N_c$ QCD}

180: 

181: A recent review of large-$N_c$ QCD can be found in Ref.~\cite{leshouches}, so the presentation

182: here will be brief.

183: 

184: Large-$N_c$ QCD is defined as the generalization of $SU(3)$ gauge theory of

185: quarks and gluons to $SU(N_c)$ gauge theory.  The naive generalization of the QCD Lagrangian

186: is given by

187: \begin{equation}\label{lag}

188: {\cal L} = -\frac 1 2 {\rm Tr}\ G^{\mu \nu} G_{\mu \nu} 

189: + \sum_{f=1}^{N_F}\bar q_f \left( i\ \xslash D - m_f \right) q_f,

190: \end{equation}

191: where the gauge field strength and the covariant derivative, 

192: $D^\mu = \partial^\mu + i g A^\mu$, are defined as

193: in QCD.  For $SU(N_c)$ gauge theory,

194: the gluons appear in the adjoint represention of $SU(N_c)$ with dimension $(N_c^2 -1)$

195: while the quarks appear in the fundamental representation $\bf N_c$.  Thus, there are

196: $O(N_c)$ more gluon degrees of freedom than quark degrees of freedom in large-$N_c$ QCD.  

197: 

198: \begin{figure}\label{doubleline}

199: \resizebox{.25\textwidth}{!}

200: {\includegraphics{fig1.eps}}

201: \caption{Double line notation for a gluon.}

202: \end{figure}

203: 

204: The $1/N_c$ power

205: counting of quark-gluon diagrams is readily obtained by introducing t'Hooft double line

206: notation for the gluon gauge field:  the adjoint index $A$ on the gauge field $\left(A^\mu

207: \right)^A$ is replaced by fundamental and anti-fundamental indices $i$ and $j$,

208: so that the gauge field is written as $\left( A^\mu \right)^i_j$, a substitution which is valid

209: up to corrections which are subleading in the $1/N_c$ expansion.  In double line notation,

210: the gluon is effectively replaced by a quark line and an antiquark line, as shown in Fig.~1.

211: When a quark-gluon Feynman diagram is rewritten in double line notation, determining the power in

212: $N_c$ of the diagram is equivalent to counting the number of closed quark loops with

213: unrestricted color summations.  Fig.~2 gives an explicit example of this $1/N_c$ counting.  The

214: diagram shown in Fig.~2 reduces to three quark

215: loops, and is therefore proportional to $N_c^3$.  In addition, the diagram is proportional to 

216: four powers of the quark-gluon coupling constant $g$, since the diagram contains four vertices,

217: each of which is proportional to $g$.  Thus, the overall diagram is proportional to $g^4 N_c^3

218: = \left(g^2 N_c \right)^2 N_c$.  A simple analysis of other diagrams leads to the

219: t'Hooft result that vacuum Feynman diagrams are proportional to

220: \begin{equation}

221: \left(g^2 N_c\right)^{\frac 1 2 V_3 + V_4} N_c^{\chi},

222: \end{equation}

223: where $V_n$ is the number of $n$-point

224: vertices in the diagram and $\chi$ is the Euler character of the diagram.  Consequently,

225: diagrams with arbitrary numbers of $3$- and $4$-point vertices grow with arbitrarily

226: large powers of $N_c$ unless the limit $N_c \rightarrow \infty$ is taken with

227: $g^2 N_c$ held fixed.  This limiting procedure, which is necessary to define $SU(N_c)$

228: gauge theory in the large-$N_c$ limit, is known as the t'Hooft limit.  The constraint $g^2 N_c$

229: held fixed can be implemented by rescaling the gauge coupling $g \rightarrow g/\sqrt{N_c}$

230: in the original Lagrangian.  After this rescaling, Feynman diagrams will be proportional to

231: $N_c^\chi$, where the Euler character $\chi= 2 -2H -L$ can be computed in terms of the number

232: of handles $H$ and quark loops $L$ of a given diagram.  The t'Hooft limit leads to the

233: following results:

234: \begin{itemize}

235: \item For finite and large $N_c$, planar diagrams with $H=0$ dominate the dynamics.  (All planar

236: diagrams with a given $L$ are of the same order.)  

237: \item Diagrams with nonplanar gluon exchange ($H\ne 0$) are suppressed relative to

238: planar diagrams by one factor of $1/N_c^2$ for each nonplanar gluon.

239: \item Diagrams with quark loops ($L\ne 0$) are suppressed by one factor of $1/N_c$ for each

240: quark loop.

241: \end{itemize}

242: 

243: \begin{figure}\label{threeloop}

244: \resizebox{.5\textwidth}{!}

245: {\includegraphics{9806_fd10.eps}}

246: \caption{}

247: \end{figure}

248: 

249: The dynamics of large-$N_c$ QCD is presumed to be confining.  The $\beta$ function of 

250: large-$N_c$ QCD implies that the rescaled coupling gets large at some scale, let us call it

251: $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$.  For $E \le O(\Lambda_{\rm QCD})$, large-$N_c$ QCD is 

252: strongly coupled and is expected to exhibit confinement.  The confined theory contains colorless bound 

253: states: mesons, baryons and glueballs.  The $1/N_c$ power counting for large-$N_c$ mesons and

254: for baryons is summarized below.

255: 

256: A meson in large-$N_c$ QCD is created with unit amplitude by the operator

257: \begin{equation} 

258: {1 \over \sqrt{N_c}} \sum_{i=1}^{N_c} \bar q_i q^i \ , 

259: \end{equation}

260: where $i$ is the color index of the quark.  The $N_c$-dependence of meson amplitudes can 

261: be obtained by studying

262: quark-gluon diagrams.  The leading diagrams are planar diagrams with a single quark loop

263: ($L=1$) with all insertions of meson operators on the quark loop.  An $3$-meson diagram

264: is shown in Fig.~3 as an example.  The leading diagrams for an $n$-meson amplitude are 

265: $O( N_c^{1-n/2})$.  For example, a meson decay constant is $O(\sqrt{N_c})$; a meson mass is $O(1)$;

266: a 3-meson coupling is $O( 1/ \sqrt{N_c} )$, and so forth.  This power counting

267: implies that large-$N_c$ mesons are narrow states which are weakly coupled to one

268: another~\cite{ven, witten}.

269: 

270: \begin{figure}\label{threemeson}

271: \resizebox{.25\textwidth}{!}

272: {\includegraphics{fig2.eps}}

273: \caption{A planar diagram contributing to a meson three-point vertex

274: at leading order.}

275: \end{figure}

276: 

277: The situation for baryons is qualitatively different.  A large-$N_c$ baryon is a bound state of

278: $N_c$ valence quarks completely antisymmetrized in the color indices of the quarks,

279: \begin{equation}

280: \epsilon_{i_1 i_2 i_3\cdots i_{N_c}}\ q^{i_1} q^{i_2} q^{i_3} 

281: \cdots q^{i_{N_c}}\ .

282: \end{equation}

283: The mass of the baryon is $O(N_c)$, whereas the size of the baryon is $O(1)$.  The

284: $N_c$-dependence of baryon-meson scattering amplitudes and couplings can be determined by

285: studying the $N_c$-counting of quark-gluon diagrams.  An antibaryon-baryon--$n$-meson vertex

286: is $O(N_c^{1 -n/2})$, as is an amplitude for the scattering baryon+meson

287: $\rightarrow$ baryon + $(n-1)$ mesons.  

288: 

289: Naively, this power counting 

290: is inconsistent. 

291: The amplitude

292: for baryon + meson $\rightarrow$ baryon + meson scattering is $O(1)$, whereas an 

293: antibaryon-baryon--meson vertex is $O(\sqrt{N_c})$, and grows with $N_c$.  

294: A tree 

295: diagram with two different single-meson--baryon vertices produces an amplitude which is 

296: $O(N_c)$, not $O(1)$.  Unless the $O(N_c)$ contributions of

297: different tree diagrams all cancel one another exactly, the total scattering amplitude is

298: $O(N_c)$ and will 

299: violate the $1/N_c$ power counting.  Imposing the constraint that the scattering ampitude be 

300: $O(1)$ results in relations amongst  

301: single-meson--baryon-antibaryon vertices which must be satisfied for consistency of the 

302: $1/N_c$ power counting for baryon-meson scattering amplitudes.  

303: Consistency of 

304: $1/N_c$ power counting for baryon-meson

305: scattering amplitudes and vertices results in non-trivial constraints on 

306: large-$N_c$ baryon matrix elements at leading and subleading orders~\cite{dm,j}.    

307: Large-$N_c$ consistency conditions also lead to the derivation of 

308: contracted spin-flavor symmetry for baryons~\cite{dm,gs}.

309: 

310: \section{Spin-Flavor Symmetry of Large-$N_c$ Baryons}

311: 

312: Large-$N_c$ contracted spin-flavor symmetry can be derived by considering pion-baryon 

313: scattering at low energies $E \sim O(1)$.  In this kinematic regime, the large-$N_c$ baryon 

314: acts as a heavy static

315: source for scattering the pion with no recoil.  There are two tree diagrams which

316: contribute to the scattering amplitude at $O(N_c)$, the direct and crossed diagrams.   

317: Using the $N_c$-independent baryon propagator of Heavy Baryon Chiral 

318: Perturbation Theory~\cite{bchpt},

319: it is easy to show that cancellation of the $O(N_c)$ scattering amplitude from these two

320: diagrams is given by the large-$N_c$ consistency condition \cite{dm}

321: \begin{equation}\label{xx}

322: N_c \left[ X^{ia}, X^{jb} \right] \le O(1)\ ,  

323: \end{equation}

324: where the baryon axial vector couplings (in the baryon rest frame) are defined by 

325: \begin{equation}

326: A^{i a} \equiv g N_c X^{ia}\ .

327: \end{equation}

328: Expanding the operator $X^{ia}$ in a power series in $1/N_c$,

329: \begin{equation}

330: X^{ia} = X_0^{ia} + {1 \over N_c} X_1^{ia} + {1 \over N_c^2} X_2^{ia} +

331: \ldots \ ,

332: \end{equation}

333: and substituting into Eq.~(\ref{xx}) yields the constraint

334: \begin{equation}\label{x0x0}

335: \left[ X_0^{ia}, X_0^{jb} \right] = 0 

336: \end{equation}

337: for the leading $O(N_c)$ matrix elements of the baryon axial vector couplings.

338: As we will see, the 

339: matrix elements of $X_0^{ia}$ between different baryon states are all

340: determined relative to one another by this constraint, so the $O(N_c)$ portion of the 

341: baryon axial vector couplings $A^{ia}$ are all related by symmetry up to an overall

342: normalization constant given by the coupling $g$, which is 

343: the reduced matrix element of the axial vector couplings.

344: 

345: The operator $X_0^{ia}$ is an

346: irreducible tensor operator transforming according to the 

347: spin-$1$, $SU(3)$ adjoint representation of spin $\otimes$ flavor, so 

348: the commutators of $X_0^{ia}$ with the baryon spin and flavor generators 

349: are given by

350: \begin{equation}\label{jxtx}

351: \left[J^i, X_0^{ja} \right] = i \epsilon^{ijk} X_0^{ka}, \qquad

352: \left[T^a, X_0^{ib} \right] = i f^{abc} X_0^{ic} \ . 

353: \end{equation}      

354: The Lie algebra of the baryon spin $\otimes$ flavor generators, together with 

355: Eqs.~(\ref{x0x0}) and~(\ref{jxtx}), yields a contracted spin-flavor algebra \cite{dm, gs}

356: \begin{eqnarray}

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

358: \quad\left[T^a, T^b \right] = i f^{abc} T^c,

359: \quad\left[J^i, I^a \right] = 0, \nonumber\\

360: &&\left[J^i, X_0^{ja} \right] = i \epsilon^{ijk} X_0^{ka}, \qquad

361: \left[T^a, X_0^{ib} \right] = i f^{abc} X_0^{ic} \ \\ 

362: &&\left[ X_0^{ia}, X_0^{jb} \right] = 0  \  \nonumber

363: \end{eqnarray}

364: in the large-$N_c$ limit.

365: 

366: It is instructive to contrast the contracted spin-flavor algebra with the $SU(6)$ spin-flavor

367: algebra

368: \begin{eqnarray}

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

370: \quad\left[T^a, T^b \right] = i f^{abc} T^c,

371: \quad\left[J^i, T^a \right] = 0,\nonumber\\ 

372: &&\left[J^i, G^{ja} \right] = i \epsilon^{ijk} G^{ka}, \qquad

373: \left[T^a, G^{ib} \right] = i f^{abc} G^{ic}, \\

374: &&\left[G^{ia}, G^{jb} \right] = 

375: {i \over 6} \delta^{ab}\epsilon^{ijk} J^k +

376: {i \over 4} \delta^{ij}f^{abc} T^c + {i \over 2} \epsilon^{ijk}d^{abc} G^{kc} \ . \nonumber

377: \end{eqnarray}

378: The contracted spin-flavor algebra can be obtained from the $SU(6)$ spin-flavor algebra 

379: with the identification

380: \begin{equation}

381: \lim_{N_c \rightarrow\infty}{ G^{ia} \over N_c} \rightarrow X_0^{ia} \ . 

382: \end{equation}

383: Thus, the $SU(6)$ spin-flavor algebra correctly reproduces the contracted spin-flavor algebra

384: in the large-$N_c$ limit.  It differs from the contracted spin-flavor algebra by the inclusion

385: of some subleading $1/N_c$ terms in the generators $G^{ia}$.  

386: 

387: The contracted spin-flavor algebra in the large-$N_c$ limit leads to

388: baryon spin-flavor representations which are infinite-dimensional.  For finite $N_c$, it is

389: convenient to work with the $SU(6)$ spin-flavor algebra which leads to finite-dimensional 

390: baryon representations.  Since the emphasis of these lectures is on QCD baryons with $N_c=3$, 

391: the spin-flavor symmetry will be implemented for finite $N_c$.  Discussion of the connection

392: between finite-dimensional and infinite-dimensional baryon representations can be found in

393: Ref.~\cite{arnps}.

394: 

395: \begin{figure}\label{baryontower}

396: \vbox{

397: \centerline{ $\nboxF$ \hskip.5in $\nboxE$ \hskip.5in $\cdots$ \hskip.5in $\nbox$ }

398: \vskip.25in

399: \centerline{ \hskip.1in ${J= \frac 1 2}$ \hskip1.1in ${J= \frac 3 2}$ \hskip2.05in ${J= \frac {N_c} 2}$}

400: }

401: \caption{Decomposition of the $SU(6)$ baryon representation $\nbox$ 

402: into $SU(2) \otimes SU(3)$ baryon representations.  Each Young

403: tableau has $N_c$ boxes.}

404: \end{figure}

405: 

406: The lowest-lying large-$N_c$ baryon representation of the spin-flavor algebra is given by

407: the completely symmetric tensor product of $N_c$ quarks in the fundamental rep of spin-flavor.

408: Under the breakdown of spin-flavor symmetry to its spin $\otimes$ flavor subgroup,

409: the completely symmetric spin-flavor representation decomposes into the spin and flavor

410: representations displayed in Fig.~4.  The baryon spin-flavor representation contains 

411: baryons with spins $J = \frac 1 2 , \frac 3 2, \frac 5 2, \cdots, \frac {N_c} 2$.  

412: The $SU(3)$ flavor representation of the baryons with a given spin

413: $J$ is given by the same Young tableau as its spin $SU(2)$ representation.  The dimensions of

414: the spin representations do not vary with $N_c$, but the dimensions of the flavor

415: representations do.  Consequently, the $SU(3)$ flavor multiplets are 

416: considerably more complicated for $N_c > 3$ than they are in QCD.  

417: The $(T^3, T^8)$ weight diagrams for the spin-1/2 and spin-3/2 flavor multiplets for 

418: large-$N_c$ baryons are given in Figs.~5 and~6.  

419: The numbers appearing in the weight diagrams denote the degeneracy of each weight.  While

420: there are many additional baryon states for $N_c > 3$, 

421: for $N_c=3$ these flavor representations reduce to the usual octet and decuplet multiplets,

422: respectively.  In the end, we will apply the $1/N_c$ expansion to QCD baryons with $N_c=3$, and

423: there will be no unphysical baryon states in the expansion.    

424: 

425: \setlength{\unitlength}{3mm}

426: \begin{figure}\label{spin12}

427: \vbox{

428: \centerline{\hbox{

429: \begin{picture}(20.79,18)(-10.395,-8)

430: \multiput(-1.155,10)(2.31,0){2}{\onedot}

431: \multiput(-2.31,8)(4.62,0){2}{\onedot}

432: \multiput(-3.465,6)(6.93,0){2}{\onedot}

433: \multiput(-4.62,4)(9.24,0){2}{\onedot}

434: \multiput(-5.775,2)(11.55,0){2}{\onedot}

435: \multiput(-6.93,0)(13.86,0){2}{\onedot}

436: \multiput(-8.085,-2)(16.17,0){2}{\onedot}

437: \multiput(-9.24,-4)(18.48,0){2}{\onedot}

438: \multiput(-10.395,-6)(20.79,0){2}{\onedot}

439: \multiput(-9.24,-8)(2.31,0){9}{\onedot}

440: \multiput(0,8)(2.31,0){1}{\twodot}

441: \multiput(-1.155,6)(2.31,0){2}{\twodot}

442: \multiput(-2.31,4)(2.31,0){3}{\twodot}

443: \multiput(-3.465,2)(2.31,0){4}{\twodot}

444: \multiput(-4.62,0)(2.31,0){5}{\twodot}

445: \multiput(-5.775,-2)(2.31,0){6}{\twodot}

446: \multiput(-6.93,-4)(2.31,0){7}{\twodot}

447: \multiput(-8.085,-6)(2.31,0){8}{\twodot}

448: \end{picture}

449: }}}

450: \caption{$SU(3)$ weight diagram of spin-$\frac 1 2$ baryons for large $N_c$.}

451: \end{figure}

452: 

453: \setlength{\unitlength}{3mm}

454: \begin{figure}\label{spin32}

455: \vbox{

456: \centerline{\hbox{

457: \begin{picture}(20.79,18)(-8.085,-8)

458: \multiput(-1.155,10)(2.31,0){4}{\onedot}

459: \multiput(-2.31,8)(9.24,0){2}{\onedot}

460: \multiput(-3.465,6)(11.55,0){2}{\onedot}

461: \multiput(-4.62,4)(13.86,0){2}{\onedot}

462: \multiput(-5.775,2)(16.17,0){2}{\onedot}

463: \multiput(-6.93,0)(18.48,0){2}{\onedot}

464: \multiput(-8.085,-2)(20.79,0){2}{\onedot}

465: \multiput(-6.93,-4)(18.48,0){2}{\onedot}

466: \multiput(-5.775,-6)(16.17,0){2}{\onedot}

467: \multiput(-4.62,-8)(2.31,0){7}{\onedot}

468: \multiput(0,8)(2.31,0){3}{\twodot}

469: \multiput(-1.155,6)(6.93,0){2}{\twodot}

470: \multiput(-2.31,4)(9.24,0){2}{\twodot}

471: \multiput(-3.465,2)(11.55,0){2}{\twodot}

472: \multiput(-4.62,0)(13.86,0){2}{\twodot}

473: \multiput(-5.775,-2)(16.17,0){2}{\twodot}

474: \multiput(-4.62,-4)(13.86,0){2}{\twodot}

475: \multiput(-3.465,-6)(2.31,0){6}{\twodot}

476: \multiput(1.155,6)(2.31,0){2}{\threedot}

477: \multiput(0,4)(4.62,0){2}{\threedot}

478: \multiput(-1.155,2)(6.93,0){2}{\threedot}

479: \multiput(-2.31,0)(9.24,0){2}{\threedot}

480: \multiput(-3.465,-2)(11.55,0){2}{\threedot}

481: \multiput(-2.31,-4)(2.31,0){5}{\threedot}

482: \multiput(2.31,4)(2.31,0){1}{\fourdot}

483: \multiput(1.155,2)(2.31,0){2}{\fourdot}

484: \multiput(0,0)(2.31,0){3}{\fourdot}

485: \multiput(-1.155,-2)(2.31,0){4}{\fourdot}

486: \end{picture}

487: }}}

488: \caption{$SU(3)$ weight diagram of the spin-$\frac 3 2$ baryons for large $N_c$.}

489: \end{figure}

490: 

491: 

492: \section{$1/N_c$ Expansion for Baryons}

493: 

494: The $1/N_c$ expansion of any baryon operator can be obtained by solving large-$N_c$

495: consistency conditions.  Each baryon operator has a $1/N_c$ expansion in terms of

496: all independent operator products which can be constructed from 

497: the baryon spin-flavor generators.  

498: 

499: The general form of the baryon

500: $1/N_c$ expansion is given by

501: \begin{equation}  

502: {\cal O}^{m}_{\rm QCD} 

503: = N_c^m \ \sum_{n=0}^{N_c} c_n \  { 1 \over {N_c^{n} }} {\cal O}^n \ ,

504: \end{equation}

505: where ${\cal O}^{m}_{\rm QCD}$ is an 

506: $m$-body quark operator in QCD which acts on baryon states.  

507: The baryon matrix elements of an $m$-body QCD quark operator can be at most $O(N_c^m)$, which

508: is reflected in the factor of $N_c^m$ in front of the $1/N_c$ operator expansion.  The $1/N_c$

509: expansion sums over all independent operators which transform according to the same

510: representation of spin $\otimes$ flavor symmetry as the QCD operator.  The independent

511: operators ${\cal O}^n$ which form a basis for the $1/N_c$ expansion are 

512: $n^{\rm th}$ degree polynomials of the baryon spin-flavor generators $J^i$, $T^a$ and $G^{ia}$.  

513: The baryon matrix elements of

514: these operator products can be computed in terms of the matrix elements of the baryon spin-flavor

515: generators.  The order in $1/N_c$ at which each independent operator product

516: appears in the $1/N_c$ expansion also is known.  $1/N_c$ power counting implies that an $n$-body

517: operator product is multiplied by an explicit factor of $1/N_c^n$, or that each spin-flavor

518: generator in an operator product is accompanied by a factor of $1/N_c$.  

519: Since the matrix elements of an $n$-body operator product are $\le

520: O(N_c^n)$, the matrix elements of each term in the $1/N_c$ operator expansion are 

521: manifestly $\le O(N_c^m)$, 

522: as required.

523: Every operator in the operator basis is accompanied by an unknown coefficient $c_n$,

524: which is a reduced matrix element of the spin-flavor $1/N_c$ expansion and is not predicted by

525: spin-flavor symmetry.  The coefficients are $O(1)$ at leading order in

526: the $1/N_c$ expansion.  Finally, the summation over spin-flavor operators $O^n$ only extends to

527: $N_c$-body quark operators, since all $n$-body quark operators with $n > N_c$ will be redundant

528: operators on baryons composed of $N_c$ valence quarks.    

529: 

530: Each operator

531: ${\cal O}^n$ in the operator basis of the $1/N_c$ expansion can be written as an 

532: $n$-body quark operator using

533: bosonic quarks which carry only spin and flavor quantum numbers.  Let $q^{\alpha}$

534: represent an annihilation operator for a bosonic quark with spin-flavor   

535: $\alpha=1,\cdots, 6$, and let $q^\dagger_\alpha$ represent the corresponding creation operator.

536: In terms of these creation/annihilation operators, all $n$-body quark operators acting on baryon

537: states can be catalogued. 

538: There is only a single $0$-body quark operator, the baryon identity operator

539: $\openone$, which does not act on any of the valence quarks in the baryon.  

540: The $1$-body quark operators are 

541: given by $q^\dagger q$ and the baryon

542: spin-flavor generators

543: \begin{eqnarray}  

544: J^i &=& q^\dagger \left({ \sigma^i \over 2} \otimes 

545: \openone \right) q \ , \nonumber\\

546: T^a &=& q^\dagger \left(\openone \otimes 

547: {\lambda^a \over 2} \right) q \ , \\

548: G^{ia} &=& q^\dagger \left({\sigma^i \over 2} 

549: \otimes {\lambda^a \over 2}\right) q \ .\nonumber

550: \end{eqnarray}

551: The notation here is compact.  Each $1$-body quark operator is understood to act on each quark

552: line in the baryon.  Thus,

553: \begin{equation}

554: G^{ia} = \sum_\ell q_\ell^\dagger \left({\sigma^i \over 2} 

555: \otimes {\lambda^a \over 2}\right) q_\ell \ .

556: \end{equation}

557: In addition, note that $q^\dagger q = N_c \openone$ is not an independent operator and 

558: can be eliminated from the list of $1$-body quark operators.

559: The $2$-body quark operators are given by products of the $1$-body quark operators, the baryon

560: spin-flavor generators.  Each $2$-body operator product can be written as the symmetric product

561: (or anticommutator) of two $1$-body operators since the 

562: commutator of any two $1$-body operators can be replaced by a linear

563: combination of $1$-body operators by the spin-flavor algebra.  This observation also applies to

564: all $n$-body operators with $n \ge 2$.

565: 

566: \begin{table}

567: \begin{tabular}{cc}

568: \hline

569: \tablehead{1}{c}{b}{Identity}

570: &\tablehead{1}{l}{b}{( J, SU(3) )} \\

571: \hline

572: %

573: \smallskip

574: $2\ \left\{J^i,J^i\right\} + 3\ \left\{T^a,T^a\right\} + 12\ 

575: \left\{G^{ia},G^{ia}\right\} = 5 N_c \left(N_c+6\right)$&$(0,0)$\\

576: \hline

577: %

578: \smallskip

579: $d^{abc}\ \left\{G^{ia}, G^{ib}\right\} + {2\over 3}\ \left\{J^i,G^{ic}

580: \right\} + {1\over4}\ d^{abc}\ \left\{T^a, T^b\right\} = {2\over 3}

581: \left(N_c+3\right)\ T^c $ & $(0,8)$ \\

582: %

583: \smallskip

584: $\left\{T^a,G^{ia}\right\} = {2\over3}\left(N_c+3\right)\ J^i$ & $(1,0)$\\

585: %

586: \smallskip

587: ${1\over 3}\ \left\{J^k,T^c\right\} +  d^{abc}\ \left\{T^a,G^{kb}\right\}

588: -\epsilon^{ijk} f^{abc} \left\{G^{ia}, G^{jb}\right\} =  {4\over3}

589: \left(N_c+3\right)\ G^{kc}$ & $(1,8)$\\

590: %

591: \hline

592: %

593: \smallskip

594: $-12\ \left\{G^{ia},G^{ia}\right\} + 27\ \left\{T^a,

595: T^a\right\} - 32\ \left\{J^i,J^i\right\}=0 $& $(0,0)$\\

596: %

597: \smallskip

598: $d^{abc}\ \left\{G^{ia}, G^{ib}\right\} + {9\over 4} \ d^{abc}\ \left\{

599: T^a, T^b\right\} - {10\over3}\ \left\{J^i,G^{ic}\right\} = 0 $& $(0,8)$\\

600: %

601: \smallskip

602: $4\ \left\{G^{ia},G^{ib}\right\} = \left\{T^a,T^b\right\}\qquad ({27})$

603: & $(0,{27})$\\

604: %

605: \smallskip

606: $\epsilon^{ijk}\ \left\{ J^i,G^{jc}\right\} = f^{abc} \ \left\{T^a,G^{kb}

607: \right\}$& $(1,8)$\\

608: %

609: \smallskip

610: $3\ d^{abc}\ \left\{T^a,G^{kb}\right\} = \left\{J^k,T^c\right\} -  

611: \epsilon^{ijk} f^{abc}\ \left\{G^{ia}, G^{jb}\right\}$& $(1,8)$\\

612: %

613: \smallskip

614: $\epsilon^{ijk}\ \left\{G^{ia},G^{jb}\right\} = f^{acg} d^{bch}\ \left\{

615: T^g,G^{kh}\right\}\qquad ({10}+{\overline {10}})$ & 

616: $(1,{10}+{\overline {10}})$\\

617: %

618: \smallskip

619: $3\ \left\{G^{ia}, G^{ja}\right\} = \left\{J^i, J^j

620: \right\}\qquad (J=2)$ & $(2,0)$\\

621: %

622: \smallskip

623: $3\ d^{abc}\ \left\{G^{ia}, G^{jb}\right\} = 

624: \left\{J^i,G^{jc}\right\}\qquad (J=2)$ & $(2,8)$\\

625: \hline

626: \end{tabular}

627: \caption{$SU(6)$ Operator Identities}

628: \label{tab:a}

629: \end{table}

630: 

631: 

632: 

633: Not all operator products of the spin-flavor generators are linearly dependent, so it is

634: necessary to eliminate redundant operators using operator identities.  The complete set of

635: $2$-body operator identities for the completely symmetric baryon representation of $SU(6)$ 

636: are given in Table~1 along with their respective spin $\otimes$ flavor representations

637: \cite{djm2}.  It is possible to

638: eliminate all redundant $n$-body operators by using the $2$-body operator identities, so

639: Table~1 gives the complete set of operator identities. 

640:   

641: The group theory behind

642: Table~1 is interesting.  Purely $n$-body quark operators are normal-ordered operators of

643: the form

644: \begin{equation}

645: q^\dagger_{\alpha_1} \ldots q^\dagger_{\alpha_n}\  

646: {T}^{\alpha_1 \cdots \alpha_n}_{\beta_1 

647: \cdots \beta_n}\  

648: q^{\beta_1} \ldots q^{\beta_n}\ .

649: \end{equation} 

650: For the completely symmetric $SU(6)$ representation of baryon states, the only nonvanishing

651: normal-ordered quarks operators have tensors $T$ which are totally symmetric in the upper and

652: the lower spin-flavor

653: indices.  We would like to reexpress these independent normal-ordered operators

654: as operator products of the spin-flavor generators, whose baryon matrix elements are known.

655: 

656: The group theory behind the operator identities is particularly elegant.  The $0$-body quark

657: operator $\openone$ is in the singlet representation of $SU(6)$, whereas  

658: the $1$-body operators transform as the tensor product of a fundamental and antifundamental of

659: $SU(6)$, which decomposes into a singlet and an adjoint of $SU(6)$.  The $2$-body operators

660: are obtained from the tensor product of the symmetric $2$-quark representation and its conjugate. 

661: Specifically,

662: \begin{eqnarray}

663: &&{\rm 0-body:}\ \ 1 \nonumber\\

664: &&{\rm 1-body:}\ \ \left( \overline{\onebox} \otimes \onebox \right) = 1 + {\rm adj} 

665: = 1 + T^\alpha_\beta \\

666: &&{\rm 2-body:}\ \left( \overline{\twobox} \otimes \twobox \right) 

667:  = 1 + T^\alpha_\beta + T^{(\alpha_1 \alpha_2)}_{(\beta_1 \beta_2)}. \nonumber

668: \end{eqnarray}

669: There are identities which relate the singlet and adjoint $2$-body operators to

670: $1$-body adjoint and $0$-body singlet operators, so the $2$-body operators which transform as

671: the singlet and the adjoint are not independent.  The relevant identities 

672: are most easily understood keeping $SU(6)$ symmetry manifest.  

673: The generators $J^i$, $T^a$ and $G^{ia}$ form a complete set of $SU(6)$ generators $\Lambda^A$, 

674: $A=1, \cdots, 35$.  The operator identities relating the singlet $2$-body operators to the

675: $0$-body operator and the adjoint $2$-body operators to the $1$-body operators

676: are given by the Casimir identities

677: \begin{eqnarray}

678: &&\Lambda^A \Lambda^A = C(R) \ \openone \nonumber\\

679: &&d^{ABC}\Lambda^B \Lambda^C = D(R)\ \Lambda^A , 

680: \end{eqnarray}

681: where $C(R)$ and $D(R)$ are the quadratic and cubic Casimirs for the $SU(6)$ baryon

682: representation $R$. 

683: These Casimir identities for the completely symmetric

684: baryon spin-flavor representation produce the operator identities in the first two blocks of

685: Table~1.  The remaining $2$-body operator identities arise because the completely symmetric

686: product of two $SU(6)$ adjoints,

687: \begin{equation} 

688: ({\rm adj} \otimes {\rm adj})_S =1 + T^\alpha_\beta + T^{[\alpha_1 \alpha_2]}_{[\beta_1 \beta_2]}

689: + T^{(\alpha_1 \alpha_2)}_{(\beta_1 \beta_2)} \ ,

690: \end{equation}

691: contains an additional tensor structure.

692: The $2$-body operator products corresponding to

693: the tensor $T^{[\alpha_1 \alpha_2]}_{[\beta_1 \beta_2]}$ will vanish identically

694: when acting on the completely symmetric baryon spin-flavor representation.  

695: These operator product combinations yield the vanishing operator identities

696: given in the third part of Table~1.

697: 

698: The above operator identities are summarized by the following operator reduction rule:

699: All operators in which 

700: two flavor indices are contracted using

701: $\delta^{ab}$, $d^{abc}$, or $f^{abc}$ or two spin indices on $G$'s are

702: contracted using $\delta^{ij}$ or $\epsilon^{ijk}$ can be eliminated.

703:   

704: 

705: \section{QCD Baryons}

706: 

707: I will now derive $1/N_c$ expansions

708: for the masses, axial vector currents and magnetic moments of baryons in QCD.  

709: $SU(3)$ flavor breaking

710: cannot be neglected relative to $1/N_c$, and 

711: is included in the analysis.  For large-$N_c$ baryons, the $1/N_c$ expansion extends up to 

712: $N_c$-body operators, so the $1/N_c$ expansion for QCD baryons goes up to 

713: third order in the generators.    

714: The $1/N_c$ expansion including flavor symmetry breaking

715: also goes up to $N_c$-body operators, so perturbative $SU(3)$ breaking 

716: extends to finite order in flavor symmetry breaking.  For a baryon operator with a $1/N_c$ expansion

717: beginning with a $n$-body operator, the flavor symmetry breaking expansion extends

718: to order $(N_c -n)$.

719: 

720: 

721:   

722: 

723: \subsection{Masses}

724: 

725: The baryon mass operator is a $J=0$ operator.  The leading operator in the $1/N_c$ expansion

726: is the flavor singlet operator $N_c \openone$ which gives the same $O(N_c)$ mass to all

727: baryons in a spin-flavor representation.  

728: Since the $1/N_c$ expansion begins with a $0$-body operator, the baryon mass operator

729: can be expanded to third order in flavor symmetry breaking.  Thus, the baryon mass operator

730: decomposes into the $SU(3)$ flavor representations

731: \begin{equation}\label{massop}

732: M = M^{\bf 1} + M^{\bf 8} + M^{\bf 27} + M^{\bf 64},

733: \end{equation}

734: where the singlet, octet, ${\bf 27}$ and ${\bf 64}$ are zeroth, first, second and third order

735: in $SU(3)$ flavor symmetry breaking, respectively.  Each of these spin-singlet flavor

736: representations has a $1/N_c$ operator expansion.  The $1/N_c$ expansions are given by

737: \begin{eqnarray}\label{mop}

738: &&M^{\bf 1} = N_c \openone + {1 \over N_c}J^2, \nonumber\\

739: &&M^{\bf 8} = T^8 + {1 \over N_c} \left\{J^i, G^{i8} \right\}

740: + {1 \over N_c^2} \left\{ J^2, T^8 \right\}, \nonumber\\

741: &&M^{\bf 27} = {1 \over N_c}\left\{ T^8, T^8 \right\} 

742: +{1 \over N_c^2}\left\{ T^8, \left\{ J^i, G^{i8} \right\}\right\}, \\

743: &&M^{\bf 64} = {1 \over N_c^2}\left\{ T^8, \left\{ T^8, T^8

744: \right\}\right\}\ , \nonumber

745: \end{eqnarray}

746: where it is to be understood that there is an unknown coefficient multiplying each operator 

747: in the above $1/N_c$ expansions.  Note that the operators in these expansions can be derived 

748: using the operator identities in Table~1.  For example, consider the octet mass expansion.

749: $SU(3)$ flavor breaking transforms as the eighth component of an octet.  There is only one

750: $1$-body operator which is $J=0$ and the eighth component of an $SU(3)$ octet, namely $T^8$.

751: From Table~1, one finds that there are three $2$-body operators which transform in this manner:

752: $d^{ab8} \left\{G^{ia}, G^{ib} \right\}$, $d^{ab8} \left\{ T^a, T^b \right\}$ and 

753: $\left\{J^i, G^{i8} \right\}$.  However, Table~1 shows that one linear combination of these

754: operators is proportional to the $1$-body operator $T^8$, and that another linear combination

755: vanishes for the completely symmetric $SU(6)$ baryon representation.  Thus, there is only

756: one independent $2$-body operator.  This $2$-body operator is taken to be 

757: $\left\{J^i, G^{i8} \right\}$ by the operator reduction rule.  Application of the $2$-body

758: identities implies that there is a single independent $3$-body operator which transforms as a

759: spin singlet and as the eighth component of a flavor octet.  Without loss of generality, this

760: operator can be taken to be $\left\{ J^2, T^8 \right\}$.  Similar analyses produce the other

761: expansions in Eq.~(\ref{mop}).

762: 

763: \begin{table}

764: \begin{tabular}{cccc}

765: \hline

766: \tablehead{1}{c}{b}{Mass Splitting}

767: &\tablehead{1}{c}{b}{$1/N_c$}

768: &\tablehead{1}{c}{b}{Flavor}

769: &\tablehead{1}{c}{b}{Expt.} \\

770: \hline

771: %

772: \smallskip

773: ${5 \over 8}(2N +3\Sigma

774: +\Lambda +2\Xi) -{1 \over {10}}(4\Delta +3\Sigma^* +2\Xi^* +\Omega)$ & $N_c$

775: & $1$ & * \\

776: %

777: \smallskip

778: ${1 \over 8}(2N+ 3\Sigma +\Lambda

779: +2\Xi) -{1 \over {10}}(4\Delta +3\Sigma^* +2\Xi^* +\Omega)$ & $1/N_c$ & $1$

780: & $18.21 \pm 0.03\%$ \\

781: %

782: \smallskip

783: ${5 \over 2}(6N -3\Sigma +\Lambda

784: -4\Xi) -(2\Delta -\Xi^* -\Omega)$ & $1$ & $\epsilon$ &

785: $20.21 \pm 0.02\%$ \\

786: %

787: \smallskip

788: ${1 \over 3}(N -3\Sigma +\Lambda

789: +\Xi)$ & $1/N_c$ & $\epsilon$ & $5.94 \pm 0.01\%$ \\

790: %

791: \smallskip

792: ${1 \over 2}(-2N -9\Sigma

793: +3\Lambda + 8\Xi) +(2\Delta -\Xi^* -\Omega)$ & $1/N_c^2$ &

794: $\epsilon$ & $1.11 \pm 0.02\%$ \\

795: %

796: \smallskip

797: ${5 \over 4}(2N -\Sigma

798: -3\Lambda +2\Xi) -{1 \over 7}(4\Delta -5\Sigma^* -2\Xi^* +3\Omega)$ &

799: $1/N_c$ & $\epsilon^2$ & $0.37 \pm 0.01\%$ \\

800: %

801: \smallskip

802: ${1 \over 2} (2N -\Sigma

803: -3\Lambda + 2\Xi) -{1 \over 7}(4\Delta -5\Sigma^* -2\Xi^* +3\Omega)$ &

804: $1/N_c^2$ & $\epsilon^2$ & $0.17 \pm 0.02\%$ \\

805: %

806: \smallskip

807: ${1 \over 4}(\Delta - 3 \Sigma^* + 3

808: \Xi^* - \Omega)$ & $1/N_c^2$ & $\epsilon^3$ & $0.09 \pm 0.03\%$ \\

809: \hline

810: \end{tabular}

811: \caption{Baryon Mass Hierarchy}

812: \label{tab:two}

813: \end{table}

814: 

815: 

816: \begin{figure}\label{masses}

817: \resizebox{1.0\textwidth}{!}

818: {\includegraphics{fig12.eps}}

819: \caption{Baryon mass hierarchy.  The mass combinations are of relative order

820: ${1 \over N_c^2}$, ${\epsilon \over N_c}$, ${\epsilon \over N_c^2}$,

821: ${\epsilon \over N_c^3}$, ${\epsilon^2 \over N_c^2}$, ${\epsilon^2 \over N_c^3}$,

822: ${\epsilon^3 \over N_c^3}$ compared to the overall $O(N_c)$ singlet mass of the baryon

823: $\bf 56$.

824: }

825: \end{figure}

826: 

827: The $1/N_c$ expansion of the baryon mass operator given by Eqs.~(\ref{massop}) and~(\ref{mop})

828: contains eight independent operators, which is equal to the number of baryon masses in the

829: $\bf 56$ of $SU(6)$:

830: the $N$, $\Lambda$, $\Sigma$, $\Xi$, $\Delta$, $\Sigma^*$, $\Xi^*$, $\Omega$.

831: Each mass operator contributes to a unique linear combination of these eight masses.  These

832: linear combinations are given in Table~2\cite{jl}.  Each mass combination occurs at specific orders in the

833: $1/N_c$ and $SU(3)$ flavor breaking expansions;  

834: these suppression factors also appear in Table~2.

835: The parameter $\epsilon \sim

836: m_s/\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ is the suppression factor for $SU(3)$ flavor symmetry breaking.  The

837: final column gives the experimental value for the accuracy of each mass combination, which is

838: defined by the dimensionless quantity 

839: \begin{equation}

840: {{\sum B_i} \over {\sum |B_i|/2}}

841: \end{equation}

842: computed for each mass combination.  

843: 

844: The $1/N_c$ and flavor symmetry breaking hierarchy

845: predicted for the baryon masses can be tested by comparing the experimental accuracies to

846: the $1/N_c$ and $\epsilon$ suppression factors.  

847: The numerical accuracies of the mass combinations are plotted in Fig.~7, except for 

848: the mass combination corresponding to the $N_c \openone$ operator.

849: The hierarchy predicted by the $1/N_c$ suppression factors is clearly evident.  For example,

850: there are three mass combinations that are first order in $SU(3)$ breaking, but of 

851: order $1/N_c$, $1/N_c^2$ and $1/N_c^3$ relative to the leading $O(N_c)$ singlet mass

852: of the baryons.  

853: This pattern can be seen in Fig.~7.  In addition,

854: the two flavor $\bf 27$ mass combinations which are second order in $SU(3)$ breaking

855: are suppressed by factors of $1/N_c^2$ and $1/N_c^3$ relative to the leading $O(N_c)$ baryon

856: mass.  The Gell-Mann--Okubo flavor-$\bf 27$ 

857: mass splitting of the spin-1/2 baryon octet,

858: \begin{equation}

859: \frac 1 4 \left( 2N - \Sigma - 3 \Lambda + 2\Xi \right) ,

860: \end{equation}

861: and the flavor-$\bf 27$ Equal Spacing Rule mass splitting of the spin-3/2 baryon decuplet,

862: \begin{equation}

863: \frac 1 7 \left( 4 \Delta - 5 \Sigma^* - 2\Xi^* + 3 \Omega \right) ,

864: \end{equation}

865: are linear combinations of the two flavor-$\bf 27$ mass splittings specified by the $1/N_c$

866: expansion, so each is predicted to be a factor of $1/N_c^2$ more accurate than expected from

867: flavor symmetry breaking factors alone.  The most suppressed mass splitting is the flavor-$\bf

868: 64$ Equal Spacing Rule mass splitting,

869: \begin{equation}

870: \frac 1 4 \left( \Delta - 3 \Sigma^* + 3 \Xi^* - \Omega \right),

871: \end{equation}   

872: which is third order in $SU(3)$ flavor breaking and of relative order $1/N_c^3$.  This mass

873: combination is clearly suppressed by a greater factor than predicted from $SU(3)$ breaking

874: alone.  The experimental accuracy of this mass combination

875: is consistent with the $1/N_c$ hierarchy, but a better measurement of

876: the splitting in needed to test the $1/N_c^3$ prediction of the $1/N_c$ expansion 

877: definitively.

878: 

879: In summary, the $1/N_c$ hierarchy is observed in the $I=0$ baryon mass splittings, and 

880: the presence of $1/N_c$

881: suppression factors explains the accuracy of baryon mass combinations quantitatively.

882: 

883: There also is clear evidence for the $1/N_c$ hierarchy in the $I=1$ baryon mass splittings.

884: For example, the Coleman-Glashow mass splitting

885: \begin{equation}

886: \left[ \left( p-n \right) - \left( \Sigma^+ - \Sigma^- \right) + \left( \Xi^0 - \Xi^- \right)

887: \right]

888: \end{equation}

889: has been measured to be non-zero for the first time quite recently.  

890: The measured mass splitting is more accurate than the 

891: prediction based on flavor suppression factors alone, and is consistent with an additional

892: $1/N_c^2$ suppression predicted by the $1/N_c$ expansion\cite{jl}.  It is particularly noteworthy that

893: this prediction of the $1/N_c$ expansion was made before the Coleman-Glashow mass splitting

894: was measured to the precision required to test the $1/N_c$ hierarchy.  A more

895: in-depth discussion of the $I=1$ baryon mass splittings can be found in 

896: Refs.~\cite{cgmass} and~\cite{lat2000}. 

897: 

898: 

899: 

900: \subsection{Axial Vector Couplings}

901: 

902: The baryon axial vector current operator

903: $A^{ia}$ is $J=1$ and an $SU(3)$ flavor adjoint.  In the

904: $SU(3)$ symmetry limit, the $1/N_c$ expansion of the baryon axial vector current

905: is given by\cite{djm2}  

906: \begin{eqnarray}\label{aia}

907: A^{ia} = &&a_1 G^{ia} + b_2 {1 \over N_c} J^i T^a 

908: + b_3 {1 \over N_c^2} \left\{ J^i, \left\{ J^j, G^{ja} \right\} \right\} \nonumber\\

909: &&+ d_3 {1 \over N_c^2} \left( \left\{ J^2, G^{ia} \right\} - \frac 1 2

910: \left\{J^i,\left\{ J^j, G^{ja} \right\} \right\} \right) \ , 

911: \end{eqnarray}

912: where the $1/N_c$ expansion for QCD baryons extends up to $3$-body operators.

913: The $1/N_c$ expansion involves four independent operators, so the baryon axial

914: vector couplings are

915: determined in terms of the four unknown coefficients $a_1$, $b_2$, $b_3$ and $d_3$.

916: The usual $SU(3)$ flavor analysis of the axial vector couplings of the spin-$1/2$

917: baryon octet and spin-$3/2$ decuplet is given in terms of the four $SU(3)$ couplings

918: $D$, $F$, $C$ and $H$,  

919: \begin{equation}

920: 2 D\ \Tr\ \bar B S^\mu \left\{ {\cal A}_\mu, B \right\}

921: +2 F\ \Tr\ \bar B S^\mu \left[ {\cal A}_\mu, B \right]

922: + C\ \left( \bar T^\mu {\cal A}_\mu B + \bar B {\cal A}_\mu T^\mu \right)

923: + 2 H\ \bar T^\mu S^\nu {\cal A}_\nu T_\mu \ ,

924: \end{equation}

925: where $B$ represents the baryon octet, $T^\mu$ denotes the baryon decuplet, $S^\mu$

926: is a spin operator, and ${\cal A}^\mu$ is the axial vector current of the pion octet.

927: The coefficients of the $1/N_c$ parametrization and the $SU(3)$ couplings are related

928: by

929: \begin{eqnarray}\label{dfch}

930: &&D = \frac 1 2 a_1 + \frac 1 6 b_3, \nonumber\\

931: &&F = \frac 1 3 a_1 + \frac 1 6 b_2 + \frac 1 9 b_3, \nonumber\\

932: &&C = -a_1 - \frac 1 2 d_3, \\

933: &&H = -\frac 3 2 a_1 - \frac 3 2 b_2 -\frac 5 2 b_3 . \nonumber

934: \end{eqnarray}

935: 

936: The $1/N_c$ expansion for the baryon axial vector current can be truncated after the

937: first two operators in Eq.~(\ref{aia}) since the two $3$-body operators are both suppressed relative to

938: the $1$-body operator by a factor of $1/N_c^2$.  The $2$-body operator $J^i T^a$ can 

939: not be neglected relative to the $1$-body operator $G^{ia}$ for all $a=1,\cdots,8$,

940: so the leading order result for $A^{ia}$ is given by

941: \begin{equation}

942: A^{ia} = a_1 G^{ia} + b_2 {1 \over N_c} J^i T^a ,

943: \end{equation}

944: in terms of two parameters $a_1$ and $b_2$.  The operator $G^{ia}$ alone produces axial

945: vector couplings with $SU(6)$ symmetry.  If only the $G^{ia}$ operator is retained, 

946: the four $SU(3)$ couplings satisfy

947: \begin{equation}

948: F/D = 2/3, \qquad C= -2D, \qquad H = -3F\ .

949: \end{equation}

950: The operator $J^i T^a$ breaks the $SU(6)$

951: symmetry.  The breaking is such that the $SU(3)$ couplings are related by  

952: \begin{equation}

953: C = -2 D , \qquad\qquad H=3D-9F \ ,

954: \end{equation}

955: which reduces to $SU(6)$ symmetry when $F/D = 2/3$.  

956: 

957: It is worthwhile to consider the

958: isospin decomposition of $A^{ia}$ into the isovector, isodoublet and

959: isosinglet axial vector currents.  The $1/N_c$ expansion for the isovector axial

960: vector current is given by

961: \begin{equation}

962: A^{ia} = a_1 G^{ia} + b_2 {1 \over N_c} J^i I^a, \qquad a=1,2,3 \ .

963: \end{equation}

964: The $2$-body operator $J^i I^a$ is suppressed relative to $G^{ia}$ for

965: $a=1,2,3$, since the matrix elements of $G^{ia}$ are $O(N_c)$ whereas the matrix elements

966: of $J^i$ and $I^a$ are both $O(1)$.  Thus, the $1/N_c$ expansion for the isovector current can

967: be truncated to the $1$-body operator $G^{i3}$ up to a correction of order $1/N_c^2$ relative

968: to the leading $O(N_c)$ term.

969: A fit to the pion couplings yields $F/D = 2/3$ up to a correction

970: of relative order $1/N_c^2$.  Similar reasoning for the isodoublet axial vector

971: current gives $F/D = 2/3$ up to a correction of relative order $1/N_c$.  The $2$-body

972: operator cannot be neglected relative to the $1$-body operator $G^{ia}$ for the

973: isosinglet axial vector current with $a=8$.

974: 

975: The $1/N_c$ operator expansion for the flavor-octet baryon axial vector current

976: can be generalized to include $SU(3)$ breaking.  The $SU(3)$-symmetric expansion

977: begins with a $1$-body operator, so the baryon axial vector currents need to be

978: expanded to second order in $SU(3)$ symmetry breaking.  However, many of the baryon

979: axial vector current observables are not measured, so it is not necessary to

980: construct the $1/N_c$ expansion to all orders in $SU(3)$ breaking.  Instead,

981: the $1/N_c$ expansion will be considered to linear order in $SU(3)$ breaking.  

982: 

983: The expansion at linear order in $SU(3)$ breaking involves

984: additional spin-1 operators in different flavor representations,

985: \begin{equation}

986: \delta A^{ia} = A^{ia}_{\bf 1} + A^{ia}_{\bf 8_S} + A^{ia}_{\bf 8_A} +A^{ia}_{\bf 27} 

987: +A^{ia}_{\bf 10 + \bar {10}}

988: \ .

989: \end{equation}

990: A valid truncation of the $1/N_c$ expansion to first order in $SU(3)$ breaking

991: was constructed in Ref.~\cite{djm2}.  The $1/N_c$ expansion is given by    

992: \begin{eqnarray}

993: A^{ia} &&= \left( a_1 \delta^{ab} + c_1 d^{ab8} \right) G^{ib} 

994: + \left( b_2 \delta^{ab} + c_2 d^{ab8} \right) {1 \over N_c} J^i T^b \nonumber\\

995: &&+c_3 {1 \over N_c} \left\{ G^{ia}, N_s \right\} + c_4 {1 \over

996: N_c} \left\{ J_s^i, T^a \right\} \\

997: &&+ \frac 1 3 c_5 {1 \over N_c} \left[ J^2,

998: \left[ N_s, G^{ia} \right] \right] + \frac 1 3 \left( c_1 + c_2 \right)

999: \delta^{a8} J^i, \nonumber

1000: \end{eqnarray}

1001: where the coefficients $a_1$ and $b_2$ are zeroth order in $SU(3)$ breaking, and

1002: the coefficients $c_1, \cdots, c_5$ are first order in the $SU(3)$ breaking.  Thus,

1003: it is to be understood that the $c_i$ are proportional to $\epsilon$.  Dropping the

1004: $c_5$ operator (since it does not contribute to any of the measured axial couplings)

1005: and adding the $d_3$ operator (to allow the $SU(3)$ parameters $D$, $F$ and $C$ to 

1006: have arbitrary values) results in the 7-parameter formula 

1007: \begin{eqnarray}\label{fitform}

1008: A^{ia} = && a_1 G^{ia} + b_2 {1 \over N_c} J^i T^a 

1009: +d_3 {1 \over N_c^2} \left( \left\{ J^2, G^{ia} \right\} 

1010: - \frac 1 2 \left\{ J^i, \left\{ J^j , G^{ja} \right\} \right\} \right)\\

1011: &&+ \Delta^a \left( c_1 G^{ia} + c_2 {1 \over N_c} J^i T^a \right)

1012: + c_3 {1 \over N_c} \left\{ G^{ia}, N_s \right\} + c_4 {1 \over N_c} \left\{ T^a, J_s^i \right\}

1013: + \frac 1 {\sqrt{3}} \delta^{a8} W^i  , \nonumber

1014: \nonumber

1015: \end{eqnarray}

1016: where $\Delta_a=1$ for $a=4,5,6,7$ and is zero otherwise, and

1017: \begin{equation}\label{w}

1018: W^i = \left( c_4 - 2 c_1 \right) J_s^i + {1 \over N_c}

1019: \left( c_3 - 2 c_2 \right) N_s J^i - 3{1 \over N_c}

1020: \left( c_3 + c_4 \right) N_s J_s^i .

1021: \end{equation}

1022: 

1023: \begin{table}

1024: \begin{tabular}{cc}

1025: \hline

1026: & Fit A \\ 

1027: \hline

1028: $a_1$   & 1.764 $\pm $ 0.042 \\

1029: $b_2$   &-1.218 $\pm $ 0.216 \\

1030: $d_3$   &0.549 $\pm $ 0.081 \\

1031: $c_1$ &-0.044 $\pm $ 0.048 \\

1032: $c_2$ & 0.792 $\pm $ 0.228 \\

1033: $c_3$ &-0.432 $\pm $ 0.036 \\

1034: $c_4$ & 0.096 $\pm $ 0.072 \\

1035: $F$   & 0.39  $\pm $ 0.02  \\

1036: $D$   & 0.88  $\pm $ 0.02  \\

1037: $3F-D$& 0.27  $\pm $ 0.09  

1038: \end{tabular}

1039: \caption{Axial couplings.}

1040: \end{table}

1041: 

1042: \begin{figure}\label{avplot}

1043: \resizebox{1.0\textwidth}{!}

1044: {\includegraphics{fig2dai.ps}}

1045: \caption{Deviation of the axial couplings from the best $SU(3)$-symmetric

1046: fit. The open circles are the experimental data, and the filled circles are the

1047: values from Fit~A discussed in Ref.~\cite{ddjm}. The points plotted are (from left to

1048: right) $\Delta\rightarrow N$, $\Sigma^* \rightarrow \Lambda$, $\Sigma^*

1049: \rightarrow \Sigma$, $\Xi^* \rightarrow \Xi$, $n\rightarrow p$, $\Sigma

1050: \rightarrow \Lambda$, $\Lambda \rightarrow p$, $\Sigma \rightarrow n$, $\Xi

1051: \rightarrow \Lambda$, and $\Xi \rightarrow \Sigma$.

1052: }

1053: \end{figure}

1054: 

1055: A comparison of the $1/N_c$ expansion given in Eqs.~(\ref{fitform}) and~(\ref{w})

1056: with the experimental data

1057: was performed in Ref.~\cite{ddjm}.  The extracted parameters from the experimental

1058: fit are tabulated in Table~3 \footnote{The parameters used in

1059: Eqs.~(\ref{fitform}) and~(\ref{w}) differ 

1060: from those in Ref.~\cite{ddjm} 

1061: because $1/N_c$ factors

1062: have not been absorbed into the coefficients and because there is an overall factor of $2$

1063: difference in the above formula for the axial vector currents compared to the

1064: definition in Ref.~\cite{ddjm}.  The parameters given correspond to Fit A of

1065: Ref.~\cite{ddjm}.}.  As discussed in Ref.~\cite{ddjm}, $c_1$ and $c_4$ are

1066: anomalously small, and the character of the fit is not affected in any essential way

1067: by neglecting these parameters altogether.  The coefficients $c_2$ and $c_3$ are

1068: suppressed relative to $a_1$ and $b_2$ by a factor consistent with a power of $SU(3)$

1069: breaking $\epsilon$.  There is evidence for the $1/N_c$ suppression factors predicted

1070: in the $1/N_c$ expansion in the relative magnitudes of coefficients: $a_1$ and $b_2$

1071: are comparable, as are $c_2$ and $c_3$, which is what is expected from the $1/N_c$

1072: analysis.  However, the fit of Ref.~\cite{ddjm} is somewhat unsatisfying in that the

1073: $\chi^2$ per d.o.f. is large, which was attributed to probable inconsistency in the

1074: experimental data.  

1075: 

1076: A plot in Fig.~\ref{avplot} of the deviations of the baryon axial vector couplings

1077: from an $SU(3)$-symmetric fit is revealing.   The

1078: $SU(3)$ breaking of the baryon octet axial vector couplings obtained from hyperon

1079: $\beta$-decay measurements is very small, as is well-known.  The $1/N_c$ expansion in

1080: Eq.~(\ref{fitform})

1081: predicts the axial vector couplings of the $\bf 56$ spin-flavor multiplet all together, 

1082: which means that the $SU(3)$ breaking of hyperon 

1083: semileptonic decay is related by spin-flavor

1084: symmetry to the $SU(3)$ breaking of nonleptonic decay decuplet $\rightarrow$ octet +

1085: pion.  Thus, the pion axial vector couplings between the decuplet and octet

1086: baryons are included with the hyperon $\beta$-decay $g_A$s in the fit to $SU(3)$ breaking

1087: of the baryon axial vector couplings.  

1088: Fig.~\ref{avplot} reveals that

1089: $SU(3)$ breaking is much larger for the decuplet-octet axial couplings than for

1090: the octet-octet couplings, and that an excellent fit is obtained with the exception of the 

1091: hyperon $\beta$ decays $\Xi \rightarrow \Lambda$, and $\Xi \rightarrow \Sigma$. 

1092: The experimental uncertainty of these two measurements is sizeable, and there are

1093: discrepancies between different experimental measurements for these couplings.  Thus,

1094: it is likely that the experimental data for these decays is not entirely trustworthy,

1095: and may account for the large $\chi^2$ per d.o.f. of the fit. Fig.~\ref{avplot} shows

1096: that the $1/N_c$ fit favors smaller $SU(3)$ breaking for these couplings.

1097: 

1098: The first six experimentally measured baryon axial vector couplings in Fig.~8

1099: are isovector couplings, which suggests an analysis using $SU(2) \times U(1)_Y$

1100: flavor symmetry rather than $SU(3)$ flavor symmetry.  The $1/N_c$ expansion for

1101: baryon isovector axial vector couplings using $SU(2)\times U(1)_Y$ flavor symmetry

1102: is given by

1103: \begin{eqnarray}

1104: A^{ia} &=&  G^{ia} + {1 \over {N_c}}\left\{ N_s,  G^{ia}\right\}\nonumber\\

1105: &&+ {1 \over {N_c}^2}\left\{ N_s, \left\{ N_s,  G^{ia}\right\}\right\}

1106: +{1 \over {N_c}^2}\left\{ J^2,  G^{ia}\right\}

1107: +{1 \over {N_c}^2}\left\{ I^2,  G^{ia}\right\} \nonumber\\

1108: &&+ {1 \over {N_c}} J^i I^a +{1 \over {N_c}} J_s^i I^a

1109: + {1 \over {N_c}^2}\left\{ J^i, \left\{ G^{ka}, J_s^k \right\} \right\} \\

1110: &&+ {1 \over {N_c}^2}\left\{ J^i_{s}, \left\{ G^{ka}, J_s^k \right\} \right\}

1111: + {1 \over {N_c}^2} \left\{ N_s, J^i I^a \right\} 

1112: +{1 \over {N_c}^2} \left\{ N_s, J_s^i I^a \right\} \nonumber

1113: \end{eqnarray}

1114: where $a=1,2,3$ is an isovector index, and it is to be understood that each operator 

1115: is multiplied by an unknown coefficient.  The matrix elements of $G^{ia}$ for baryons

1116: with strangeness of order unity are

1117: $O(N_c)$, whereas the matrix elements of $J^i$, $I^a$, and $J_s^i$ are $O(1)$, so a

1118: valid truncation of the $1/N_c$ expansion is given by

1119: \begin{equation}\label{esrdjm}

1120: A^{ia}= a_1 G^{ia}+ a_2 {1 \over {N_c}}\left\{ N_s,  G^{ia}\right\}

1121: \end{equation}

1122: up to terms which are suppressed by $1/N_c^2$ relative to the leading operator

1123: $G^{ia}$.  Eq.~(\ref{esrdjm}) yields the equal spacing rule for baryon axial

1124: couplings derived in Ref.~\cite{djm1}.  The rule implies an equal spacing of the   

1125: decuplet $\rightarrow$ octet baryon non-leptonic pion couplings which is linear

1126: in strangeness,

1127: \begin{eqnarray}

1128: g(\Sigma^* \rightarrow \Sigma \pi) - g(\Delta \rightarrow N \pi) &=&  

1129: g(\Xi^* \rightarrow \Xi \pi) - g(\Sigma^* \rightarrow \Sigma \pi) \\

1130: g(\Sigma^* \rightarrow \Sigma \pi)&=&g(\Sigma^* \rightarrow \Lambda \pi) . \nonumber

1131: \end{eqnarray}

1132: This equal spacing rule is clearly evident in the experimental data, as shown in 

1133: Fig.~\ref{avplot}.  Eq.~(\ref{esrdjm}) also implies $SU(4)$ spin-flavor symmetry

1134: for the baryon isovector axial vector couplings in each strangeness sector, so 

1135: $\beta$-decay couplings $n \rightarrow p$ and $\Sigma \rightarrow \Lambda$ are 

1136: related to the decuplet $\rightarrow$ octet pion couplings with strangeness zero and

1137: $-1$, respectively.  These relations are very well-satisfied.  

1138: 

1139: \subsection{Magnetic Moments}

1140: 

1141: The magnetic moment operator is $J=1$ and transforms as the $Q = T^3 + T^8/\sqrt{3}$

1142: component of an

1143: $SU(3)$ flavor $\bf 8$.  The $1/N_c$ expansion of the magnetic moment operator

1144: is the same as for the axial vector couplings with

1145: \begin{equation}

1146: M^i = M^{i3} + \frac 1 {\sqrt{3}} \ M^{i8} \ .

1147: \end{equation}

1148: 

1149: The isovector magnetic moments are $O(N_c)$ whereas the isoscalar magnetic moments

1150: are $O(1)$ at leading order in the $1/N_c$ expansion, so it makes sense to construct

1151: $1/N_c$ expansions for the isovector and isoscalar magnetic moments separately\cite{jm}.

1152: The $1/N_c$ expansion of the isovector magnetic moments is given by

1153: \begin{eqnarray}\label{isovector}

1154: M^{i3} = G^{i3} + {1 \over N_c} \left\{N_s, G^{i3} \right\},

1155: \end{eqnarray}

1156: up to terms  which are suppressed by $1/N_c^2$ relative to 

1157: leading $1$-body operator $G^{i3}$.  The $1/N_c$ expansion of the isoscalar magnetic moments is given by

1158: \begin{eqnarray}\label{isoscalar}

1159: M^{i8} = J^i + J_s^i + {1 \over N_c} \left\{N_s, J^i \right\}

1160: + {1 \over N_c} \left\{N_s, J^i_s \right\},

1161: \end{eqnarray}

1162: up to terms of order $1/N_c^2$ compared to the two leading order $1$-body operators

1163: $J^i$ and $J_s^i$.  It is to be understood that every operator in

1164: Eqs.~(\ref{isovector})

1165: and~(\ref{isoscalar}) is multiplied by an unknown coefficient of order unity.  

1166: 

1167: \begin{table}\label{ivis}

1168: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}

1169: \hline

1170: \tablehead{1}{c}{b}{  }

1171: &\tablehead{1}{c}{b}{Isovector}

1172: &\tablehead{1}{c}{b}{$1/N_c$}

1173: &\tablehead{1}{c}{b}{Flavor}

1174: &\tablehead{1}{c}{b}{Expt.} \\

1175: \hline

1176: %

1177: \smallskip

1178: %

1179: V1 & $(p-n)-3(\Xi^0-\Xi^-)=2(\Sigma^{+} - \Sigma^-)$ &$1/N_c$ &$\surd$ &$10\pm2\%$ \\

1180: %

1181: V2 & $\Delta^{++}-\Delta^-=\frac95(p-n)$&$1/N_c$ &$\surd$ & \\

1182: %

1183: V3 & $\Lambda\Sigma^{*0}=- \sqrt2 \Lambda \Sigma^{0}$&$1/N_c$ &$\surd$ & \\

1184: %

1185: V4 & $\Sigma^{*+}-\Sigma^{*-} = \frac32 (\Sigma^{+} - \Sigma^-)$&$1/N_c$ &$\surd$ & \\

1186: %

1187: V5 & $\Xi^{*0}-\Xi^{*-} = -3(\Xi^0-\Xi^-)$&$1/N_c$ &$\surd$ & \\

1188: %

1189: V6 & $\sqrt2(\Sigma\Sigma^{*+}-\Sigma\Sigma^{*-}) =(\Sigma^{+} - \Sigma^-)$ 

1190: &$1/N_c$ &$\surd$ & \\

1191: %

1192: V7 & $\Xi\Xi^{*0}-\Xi\Xi^{*-}=-2\sqrt2(\Xi^0-\Xi^-)$

1193: &$1/N_c$ &$\surd$ & \\

1194: %

1195: \hline

1196: %

1197: V8 & $-2\Lambda\Sigma^0=(\Sigma^+-\Sigma^-)$ &$1/N_c$ &$\surd$ & $11\pm5\%$ \\

1198: %

1199: V9 & $p\Delta^++n\Delta^0=\sqrt2(p-n)$ &$1/N_c$ &$\surd$ & $3\pm3\%$ \\

1200: %

1201: \hline

1202: %

1203: V10${}_1$ &$(\Sigma^+-\Sigma^-)=(p-n)$ &$1$ &$\surd$ & $27\pm1\%$ \\

1204: %

1205: V10${}_2$ &$(\Sigma^+-\Sigma^-)=\left(1-{1\over N_c}\right)(p-n)$

1206: &$1$ &$\epsilon$ & $13\pm2\%$ \\

1207: %

1208: \hline

1209: %

1210: \tablehead{1}{c}{b}{  }

1211: &\tablehead{1}{c}{b}{Isoscalar}

1212: &\tablehead{1}{c}{b}{}

1213: &\tablehead{1}{c}{b}{}

1214: &\tablehead{1}{c}{b}{} \\

1215: \hline

1216: %

1217: \smallskip

1218: %

1219: S1 & $(p+n)-3(\Xi^0+\Xi^-) = - 3 \Lambda + \frac32(\Sigma^{+} +

1220: \Sigma^-)-\frac43\Omega^-$ & $1/N_c^2$ &$\surd$ &$4\pm5\%$ \\

1221: %

1222: S2 & $\Delta^{++}+\Delta^-=3(p+n)$& $1/N_c^2$ &$\surd$ & \\

1223: S3 & $\frac23 (\Xi^{*0}+\Xi^{*-})=\Lambda+\frac32(\Sigma^{+} + \Sigma^-)

1224: -(p+n)+(\Xi^0+\Xi^-)$& $1/N_c^2$ &$\surd$ & \\

1225: S4 & $\Sigma^{*+}+ \Sigma^{*-} =

1226: \frac32(\Sigma^{+} + \Sigma^-)+3\Lambda$ & $1/N_c^2$ &$\surd$ & \\

1227: S5 & $\frac{3}{\sqrt2}(\Sigma\Sigma^{*+}+\Sigma\Sigma^{*-}) =

1228: 3(\Sigma^{+} +\Sigma^-)- (\Sigma^{*+} +\Sigma^{*-})$ & $1/N_c^2$ &$\surd$ & \\

1229: S6 & $\frac{3}{\sqrt2}(\Xi\Xi^{*0}+\Xi\Xi^{*-})=-3(\Xi^0+\Xi^-)

1230: +(\Xi^{*0}+\Xi^{*-})$ & $1/N_c^2$ &$\surd$ & \\

1231: S7 & $5(p+n) - (\Xi^0+\Xi^-)= 4(\Sigma^+ + \Sigma^-)$ & $1/N_c$ &$\surd$ & $22 \pm 4

1232: \%$ \\

1233: S8 & $(p+n) - 3 \Lambda = \frac 1 2(\Sigma^+ + \Sigma^-)- (\Xi^0+\Xi^-)$ & $1/N_c$

1234: &$\epsilon$ & $7 \pm 1 \%$ \\

1235: %

1236: \hline

1237: %

1238: \tablehead{1}{c}{b}{  }

1239: &\tablehead{1}{c}{b}{Isoscalar/Isovector Relations}

1240: &\tablehead{1}{c}{b}{}

1241: &\tablehead{1}{c}{b}{}

1242: &\tablehead{1}{c}{b}{} \\

1243: \hline

1244: %

1245: \smallskip

1246: %

1247: S/V${}_1$ & $(\Sigma^++\Sigma^-)-\frac12(\Xi^0+\Xi^-) = \frac12(p+n)+

1248: 3\left({1\over N_c}-{2\over N_c^2}\right)(p-n)$ &$1$ &$\epsilon$ &$10\pm3\%$\\

1249: %

1250: &$\Delta^{++}=\frac32(p+n)+\frac{9}{10}(p-n)$&$1/N_c^2$&$\surd$& $21\pm10\%$\\

1251: \hline

1252: %

1253: \end{tabular}

1254: \caption{Baryon Magnetic Moments in the $1/N_c$ expansion. 

1255: The isovector magnetic moments are 

1256: $O(N_c)$ at leading order, and the isoscalar magnetic moments are $O(1)$. 

1257: A $\surd$ implies that the relation is satisfied to that order in $1/N_c$ 

1258: {\it to all orders in $SU(3)$ breaking}. The experimental 

1259: accuracies are given for the relations whose magnetic moments 

1260: have been measured.

1261: }

1262: \end{table}

1263: 

1264: There are 21 independent magnetic moments of the baryon octet and

1265: decuplet, including transition magnetic moments.  These 21 magnetic moments consist

1266: of 11 isovector combinations and 10 isoscalar combinations.  The $1/N_c$ hierarchy

1267: of combinations of isovector and isoscalar magnetic moments is given in

1268: Table~\ref{ivis}.  

1269: 

1270: The 11 isovector magnetic moment combinations are parametrized in

1271: terms of the two operators of Eq.~(\ref{isovector}), so there are nine isovector

1272: magnetic moment relations which are satisfied to order $1/N_c$.  These relations are

1273: listed as $V1-9$ in Table~\ref{ivis}.  Only one combination is measured, and the

1274: experimental accuracy $10 \pm 2 \%$ is consistent with the $1/N_c^2$ prediction of

1275: the $1/N_c$ expansion.  The $1/N_c$ expansion of the isovector magnetic moments can

1276: be truncated to the single operator $G^{ia}$ by eliminating the subleading operator

1277: $\left\{N_s, G^{i3} \right\}$ operator.  The isovector magnetic moment combination

1278: corresponding to this subleading operator is $O(1)$ in the $1/N_c$ expansion, or of

1279: relative order $1/N_c$ compared to the leading $O(N_c)$ contribution, and is listed

1280: as ${V10}_1$ is Table~\ref{ivis}.  The experimental accuracy of this relation is

1281: $27 \pm 1 \%$, which is consistent with the prediction $1/N_c$ of the $1/N_c$

1282: hierarchy.  It is possible to derive a slightly different version of this mass

1283: combination by considering an $SU(3)$ analysis.  In this analysis, the $2$-body

1284: operator is $\left\{T^8, G^{i3} \right\}$, which is first order in $SU(3)$ breaking

1285: and order $1/N_c$ compared to the leading operator.  

1286: The magnetic moment combination corresponding to this $SU(3)$ operator is listed as

1287: ${V10}_2$.  The experimental accuracy of this relation is $13 \pm 2 \%$, which is

1288: completely consistent with the theoretic prediction of $\epsilon/N_c$ of the $1/N_c$

1289: expansion.

1290: 

1291: The 10 isoscalar magnetic moment combinations are parametrized by two $1$-body

1292: operators at leading order in the $1/N_c$ expansion, so there are eight isoscalar

1293: magnetic moment relations, which appear as $S1-8$ in Table~\ref{ivis}.  The $1/N_c$

1294: expansion of Eq.~(\ref{isoscalar}) contains four operators, so there are six

1295: isoscalar combinations $S1-6$ which are order $1/N_c^2$.  The two subleading

1296: $2$-body operators correspond to isoscalar relations $S7$ and $S8$, which are order

1297: $1/N_c$.  In addition, $S8$ is first order in $SU(3)$ breaking.  The experimental

1298: accuracies of the isoscalar magnetic moment combinations are in complete accord with

1299: the $1/N_c$ hierarchy.

1300: 

1301: Finally, there are two additional relations given in Table~\ref{ivis}.

1302: $S/V_1$ is a relation normalizing the isovector magnetic 

1303: moments to the

1304: isoscalar magnetic moments in the $SU(3)$ flavor symmetry limit, and the 

1305: last relation predicting the

1306: $\Delta^{++}$ magnetic moment is a linear combination of $V2$ and $S2$.     

1307:           

1308: 

1309: 

1310: \begin{table}

1311: \caption{Magnetic moments. \label{MagP}}

1312: \begin{tabular}{cc}

1313: \hline

1314: & Fit A \\ 

1315: \hline

1316: $a_1$          & 5.614 $\pm $ 0.122 \\

1317: $b_2$          & 0.216 $\pm $ 0.354 \\

1318: $d_3$          &3.753 $\pm $ 0.639 \\

1319: $c_1$        &-1.092 $\pm $ 0.230 \\

1320: $c_2$        & 0.612 $\pm $ 0.276 \\

1321: $\delta c_2$ & 0.066 $\pm $ 0.258 \\

1322: $c_3$        &-0.522 $\pm $ 0.222 \\

1323: $\delta c_3$ & 0.024 $\pm $ 0.312 \\

1324: $c_4$        & 0.258 $\pm $ 0.228 \\

1325: $\delta c_4$ &-0.288 $\pm $ 0.180 \\

1326: \end{tabular}

1327: \end{table}

1328: 

1329: \begin{figure}\label{magmom}

1330: \resizebox{1.0\textwidth}{!}

1331: {\includegraphics{fig3dai.ps}}

1332: \caption{Deviation of the magnetic moments from the best $SU(3)$-symmetric

1333: fit. The open circles are the experimental data, and the filled circles are the

1334: values from Fit~A discussed in the text. The order of the magnetic moments is

1335: $p$, $n$, $\Lambda$, $\Sigma^+$, $\Sigma^-$, $\Sigma^0 \Lambda$, $\Xi^0$, $\Xi^-$,

1336: $p \Delta^+$, and $\Omega$. The $\Delta^{++}$ magnetic moment

1337: has not been plotted, since the experimental value has a very large error.

1338: }

1339: \end{figure}

1340: 

1341: 

1342: An alternative approach to the magnetic moments is possible using the $1/N_c$

1343: expansion with $SU(3)$ flavor symmetry breaking.  

1344: The same formula derived for the

1345: baryon axial vector currents applies since the magnetic moments also transform as

1346: $J=1$ and as a component of an $SU(3)$ octet in the flavor symmetry limit.  The

1347: analysis of flavor symmetry breaking involves the same representations analyzed for

1348: the baryon axial vector couplings, so Eq.~(\ref{fitform}) can be applied to the

1349: magnetic moments.  

1350: A fit to the baryon magnetic moments using Eq.~(\ref{fitform}) gives 

1351: the parameters listed in Table~\ref{MagP} taken from 

1352: Ref.~\cite{ddjm}\footnote{Again, the parameters used in

1353: Eqs.~(\ref{fitform}) and~(\ref{w}) differ 

1354: from those in Ref.~\cite{ddjm} 

1355: because $1/N_c$ factors

1356: have not been absorbed into the coefficients and because there is an overall factor of $2$

1357: difference in the above formula for the axial vector currents compared to the

1358: definition in Ref.~\cite{ddjm}.  The parameters given correspond to Fit A of

1359: Ref.~\cite{ddjm}.}.

1360: For the magnetic moments, the extracted value of $b_2$ is small, which implies that

1361: $F/D$ is very close to the $SU(6)$ symmetry prediction of $2/3$.  

1362: A plot of the deviations of the baryon magnetic moments 

1363: from an $SU(3)$-symmetric fit, given in Fig.~\ref{magmom}, shows that $SU(3)$

1364: breaking is considerably larger for the magnetic moments than for the baryon axial

1365: vector couplings.  Furthermore, $SU(3)$ symmetry breaking for the magnetic moments is

1366: dominated by an $O(N_c \sqrt{{m_s}})$ chiral loop correction, as shown in 

1367: Fig~\ref{mmloop} where the deviation of the baryon magnetic moments from an 

1368: $SU(3)$-symmetric fit together with the leading chiral loop correction is plotted.  

1369: Clearly, the remaining $SU(3)$ breaking in the magnetic moments is much reduced when

1370: the leading non-analytic correction is included in the fit.  This result also can be

1371: seen in Table~~\ref{MagP} in terms of the small values of the extracted parameters

1372: $\delta c_{2-4}$ which measure the deviation of the extracted $SU(3)$ breaking

1373: parameters $c_{2-4}$ 

1374: from the flavor symmetry breaking structure given by the dominant 

1375: chiral loop graph.  There is no analogue of

1376: this chiral non-analytic correction for the baryon axial vector currents, so

1377: the $SU(3)$ breaking patterns of the baryon magnetic

1378: moments and the baryon axial vector currents are not similar.        

1379: 

1380: 

1381: \begin{figure}\label{mmloop}

1382: \resizebox{1.0\textwidth}{!}

1383: {\includegraphics{fig4dai.ps}}

1384: \caption{Deviation of the magnetic moments from the best $SU(3)$-symmetric

1385: fit plus the leading $O(\sqrt{m_s})$ chiral loop correction. The deviations

1386: should be compared with those in Fig.~\ref{magmom}.

1387: }

1388: \end{figure}

1389: 

1390:   

1391: \section{Conclusions}

1392: 

1393: The $1/N_c$ expansion for QCD baryons is both useful and predictive.  In the formal

1394: large-$N_c$ limit, there is a spin-flavor symmetry for baryons.  For finite $N_c$,

1395: the spin and flavor structure of the baryon $1/N_c$ expansion is prescribed at each

1396: order in $1/N_c$.  The $1/N_c$ expansion is given in terms of operator

1397: products of the generators of the baryon spin-flavor algebra which transform in a

1398: certain manner under spin $\otimes$ flavor symmetry.  The order in $1/N_c$ of each

1399: operator structure is determined in the $1/N_c$ expansion, so the $1/N_c$ expansion

1400: predicts a hierarchy of spin and flavor relations for baryons in $1/N_c$.  

1401: The predicted hierarchy of the $1/N_c$ expansion is evident in the

1402: baryon masses, axial vector currents and magnetic moments.  The pattern

1403: of spin-flavor symmetry breaking is quite intricate since $1/N_c$ and 

1404: $SU(3)$ flavor symmetry breaking are comparable in QCD.   The presence of $1/N_c$

1405: suppression factors explains why $SU(3)$ flavor symmetry works to a greater accuracy

1406: for baryons than predicted from an analysis of $SU(3)$ breaking alone, and gives

1407: a quantitative

1408: understanding of spin-flavor symmetry breaking for QCD baryons.

1409: 

1410: \begin{theacknowledgments}

1411: I wish to thank J\"urgen Engelfried and Mariana Kirchbach 

1412: for organizing such a wonderful workshop.  Special thanks to 

1413: Ruben Flores-Mendieta for his hospitality, and to many of the participants for

1414: interesting discussions and experiences.  This work was supported in part

1415: by the U.S. Department of Energy, under Grant No. DOE-FG03-97ER40546. 

1416: \end{theacknowledgments}

1417: 

1418: 

1419: \begin{thebibliography}{100}

1420: %

1421: \bibitem{dm} Dashen, R., and Manohar, A.V.,  {\it Phys. Lett. B} {\bf 315}, 425-30 (1993);

1422: {\bf 315}, 438-40 (1993).

1423: %

1424: \bibitem{j} Jenkins, E.,  {\it Phys. Lett. B} {\bf 315}, 431-37 (1993); {\bf 315}, 441-46 (1993);

1425: {\bf 315}, 447-51 (1993).

1426: %

1427: \bibitem{thooft} 't Hooft, G., {\it Nucl. Phys. B} {\bf 72}, 461-73 (1974).

1428: %

1429: \bibitem{oldsu6}  

1430: See

1431: Pais, A.,  {\it Rev. Mod. Phys.} {\bf 38}, 215-55 (1966), and

1432: references therein.

1433: %

1434: \bibitem{manohar84} Manohar, A.V.,  {\it Nucl. Phys. B} {\bf 248}, 19-28 (1984).

1435: %

1436: %

1437: \bibitem{arnps} Jenkins, E., {\it Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.} {\bf 48},

1438: 81-119 (1998).

1439: %

1440: \bibitem{leshouches} Manohar, A.V., ``Large N QCD,'' in {\it Les Houches Session LXVIII,

1441: Probing the Standard Model of Particle Interactions}, 

1442: edited by F. David and R. Gupta, Amsterdam, Elsevier, 1998.  

1443: %

1444: \bibitem{ven} Veneziano, G.,  {\it Nucl. Phys. B} {\bf 117}, 519-45 (1976).

1445: %

1446: \bibitem{witten} Witten, E., {\it Nucl. Phys. B} {\bf 160}, 57-115 (1979).

1447: %

1448: \bibitem{gs} Gervais, J-L., and Sakita, B.,  {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 52}, 87-9 (1984);

1449: {\it Phys. Rev. D} 30, 1795-1804 (1984).

1450: %

1451: \bibitem{bchpt} Manohar, A.V., and Jenkins, E.,  {\it Phys. Lett. B} {\bf 255}, 558-62 (1991);

1452: {\it Phys. Lett. B} {\bf 259}, 353-8 (1991).

1453: %

1454: \bibitem{djm1} Dashen, R., Jenkins, E., and Manohar, A.V.,  

1455: {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 49}, 4713-38 (1994).

1456: %

1457: \bibitem{cgo} Carone, C., Georgi, H., and Osofsky, S., 

1458: {\it Phys. Lett. B} {\bf 322}, 227-32 (1994).

1459: %

1460: \bibitem{lm} Luty, M., and March-Russell, J.,  {\it Nucl. Phys. B} {\bf 426}, 71-93 (1994).

1461: %

1462: \bibitem{cgkm} Carone, C., Georgi, H., Kaplan, L., and Morin, D., 

1463: {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 50}, 5793-5807 (1994).

1464: %

1465: \bibitem{jm} Jenkins, E., and Manohar, A.V.,  {\it Phys. Lett. B} {\bf 335}, 452-59 (1994).

1466: %

1467: \bibitem{doreyii} Dorey, N., Hughes, J., and Mattis, M.P.,

1468: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 73}, 1211-14 (1994).

1469: %

1470: \bibitem{manohar94} Manohar, A.V.,  {\it Phys. Lett. B} {\bf 336}, 502-7 (1994).

1471: %

1472: \bibitem{bron} Broniowski, W., {\it Nucl. Phys. A} {\bf 580}, 429-44 (1994).

1473: %

1474: \bibitem{wkr} Wirzba, A., Kirchbach, M., and Riska, D.O., {\it J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.}

1475: {\bf 20}, 1583-89 (1994).

1476: %

1477: \bibitem{takamura} Takamura, A., et al.  {\it Prog. Theor. Phys.} {\bf 93}, 771-80

1478: (1995); Takamura A.  {\it Mod. Phys. Lett. A}{\bf 11}, 463-70 (1996).

1479: %

1480: \bibitem{l} Luty, M.,  {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 51}, 2322-31 (1995).

1481: %

1482: \bibitem{lmw} Luty, M., March-Russell, J., and White, M.,  

1483: {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 51}, 2332-7 (1995).

1484: %

1485: \bibitem{mattissilbar} Mattis, M.P., and Silbar, R.,  {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 51}, 

1486: 3267-86 (1995).

1487: %

1488: \bibitem{djm2} Dashen, R., Jenkins, E., and Manohar, A.V.,  

1489: {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 51}, 3697-3727 (1995).

1490: % 

1491: \bibitem{jl} Jenkins, E., and Lebed, R.F.,  {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 52}, 282-94 (1995).

1492: %

1493: \bibitem{doreymattis} Dorey, N., and Mattis, M.P.,  {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 52}, 

1494: 2891-2914 (1995).

1495: %

1496: \bibitem{ddjm} Dai, J., Dashen, R., Jenkins, E., and Manohar, A.V., 

1497: {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 53}, 273-82 (1996).

1498: %

1499: \bibitem{jchpt} Jenkins, E.,  {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 53}, 2625-44 (1996).  

1500: %

1501: \bibitem{bedaque} Bedaque, P.F., and Luty, M.A.,  {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 54}, 2317-27 (1996).

1502: %

1503: \bibitem{jhqet} Jenkins, E.,  {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 54}, 4515-31 (1996); {\bf 55}, 10-12 

1504: (1997). 

1505: %

1506: \bibitem{lam} Lam, C.S., and Liu, K.F.,  {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 79}, 597-600 (1997).

1507: % 

1508: \bibitem{kaplansavage} Kaplan, D.B., and Savage, M.J.,  {\it Phys. Lett. B} {\bf 365}, 244-251

1509: (1996).

1510: %

1511: \bibitem{kaplanmanohar} Kaplan, D.B., and Manohar, A.V.,  {\it Phys. Rev. C} {\bf 56}, 76-83

1512: (1997).

1513: %

1514: \bibitem{goity} Goity, J.L., {\it Phys. Lett. B} {\bf 414}, 140 (1997).

1515: %

1516: \bibitem{py} Pirjol, D., and Yan, T-M., {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 57}, 1449-86 (1998). 

1517: %

1518: \bibitem{py2} Pirjol D., and Yan, T-M., {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 57}, 5434-43 (1998). 

1519: %

1520: \bibitem{cc1} Carlson, C.E., and Carone, C.D., {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 58}, 053005 

1521: (1998).

1522: %

1523: \bibitem{ccgl1} Carlson, C.E., Carone, C.D., Goity, J.L., and Lebed, R.F.,

1524: {\it Phys. Lett. B} {\bf 438}, 327-335 (1998).

1525: %

1526: \bibitem{cc2} Carlson, C.E., and Carone, C.D.,

1527: {\it Phys. Lett. B} {\bf 441}, 363-370 (1998).

1528: %

1529: \bibitem{ccgl2} Carlson, C.E., Carone, C.D., Goity, J.L., and Lebed, R.F.,

1530: {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 59}, 114008 (1999).

1531: %

1532: \bibitem{cc3} Carlson, C.E., and Carone, C.D.,

1533: {\it Phys. Lett. B} {\bf 484}, 260-266 (2000).

1534: %

1535: \bibitem{fhj} Flores-Mendieta, R., Hofmann, C.P., and Jenkins, E., {\it Phys.

1536: Rev. D} {\bf 61}, 116014 (2000).

1537: %

1538: \bibitem{fhjm} Flores-Mendieta, R., Hofmann, C.P., Jenkins, E., and Manohar, A.V., {\it Phys.

1539: Rev. D} {\bf 62}, 034001 (2000).

1540: %

1541: \bibitem{cgmass} Jenkins, E., and Lebed, R.F., {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 62}, 077901 (2000).

1542: %

1543: \bibitem{lat2000} Jenkins, E., {\it Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.} {\bf 94}, 246-250 (2001).

1544: %

1545: \end{thebibliography}

1546: 

1547: \end{document}

1548: