1: \documentclass[runningheads,openany]{svmult}
2: %% Fonts
3: \usepackage{palatino}
4: \usepackage{euler}
5: \usepackage{graphicx} % standard LaTeX graphics tool
6: \usepackage{physprbb}
7: \usepackage{bg2002}
8: \usepackage{epsfig}
9:
10: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.05}
11: \parindent=20pt
12:
13: \begin{document}
14:
15: \setcounter{page}{67}
16: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
17:
18: \let\I\i
19: \def\i{\mathrm{i}}
20: \def\e{\mathrm{e}}
21: \def\d{\mathrm{d}}
22: \def\half{{\textstyle{1\over2}}}
23: \def\thalf{{\textstyle{3\over2}}}
24: \def\h{{\scriptscriptstyle{1\over2}}}
25: \def\th{{\scriptscriptstyle{3\over2}}}
26: \def\fh{{\scriptscriptstyle{5\over2}}}
27: %\let\oldvec\vec
28: %\def\pol#1{\oldvec{#1}}
29: \def\vec#1{\mbox{\boldmath$#1$}}
30: \def\svec#1{\mbox{{\scriptsize \boldmath$#1$}}}
31: \def\oN{\overline{N}}
32: \def\ttimes{{\scriptstyle \times}}
33: \def\bm#1{{\pmb{\mbox{${#1}$}}}}
34:
35: %%\def\CG#1#2#3#4#5#6{\langle#1#2\;#3#4|#5#6\rangle}
36: \def\CG#1#2#3#4#5#6{C^{#5#6}_{#1#2#3#4}}
37: %j1,j2,j3,m1,m2,m3
38: \def\threej#1#2#3#4#5#6{\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
39: #1\\#4\end{array}\right)}
40:
41:
42: \title*{%
43: %%
44: Axial currents in electro-weak pion production\\
45: at threshold and in the $\Delta$-region
46: %%
47: \thanks{Talk delivered by
48: %%
49: S. \v{S}irca.
50: %%at the workshop on \textit{Quarks and Hadrons}
51: %%at Bled, Slovenia, July 7--14, 2002.}
52: }}
53:
54: \author{%
55: %%
56: S. \v{S}irca$^{a,b}$,
57: L. Amoreira$^{c,d}$,
58: M. Fiolhais$^{d,e}$, and
59: B. Golli$^{f,b}$%%
60: }\institute{%
61: $^a${Faculty of Mathematics and Physics,
62: University of Ljubljana,
63: 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia}\\
64: $^b${Jo\v{z}ef Stefan Institute,
65: 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia}\\
66: $^c${Department of Physics,
67: University of Beira Interior,
68: 6201-001 Covilh\~a, Portugal}\\
69: $^d${Centre for Computational Physics,
70: University of Coimbra,
71: 3004-516 Coimbra, Portugal}\\
72: $^e${Department of Physics,
73: University of Coimbra,
74: 3004-516 Coimbra, Portugal}\\
75: $^f${Faculty of Education,
76: University of Ljubljana,
77: 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia}\\
78: }
79:
80: \authorrunning{S. \v{S}irca, L. Amoreira, M. Fiolhais, and B. Golli}
81: \titlerunning{Axial currents in electro-weak pion production} % optional
82:
83:
84: \maketitle
85:
86:
87: \begin{abstract}
88: We discuss electro-magnetic and weak production of pions on nucleons
89: and show how results of experiments and their interpretation in terms
90: of chiral quark models with explicit meson degrees of freedom combine
91: to reveal the ground-state axial form factors and axial N-$\Delta$
92: transition amplitudes.
93: \end{abstract}
94:
95:
96: \section{Introduction}
97:
98: The study of electro-weak N-$\Delta$ transition amplitudes,
99: together with an understanding of the corresponding pion
100: electro-production process at low energies, provides information
101: on the structure of the nucleon and its first excited state.
102: For example, the electro-magnetic transition amplitudes for the
103: processes $\gamma^\star\mathrm{p}\to\Delta^{+}\to\mathrm{p}\pi^0$
104: and $\gamma^\star\mathrm{p}\to\Delta^{+}\to\mathrm{n}\pi^+$ are
105: sensitive to the deviation of the nucleon shape from spherical
106: symmetry \cite{aron}. Below the $\Delta$ resonance
107: (and in particular close to the pion-production threshold),
108: the reaction $\gamma^\star\mathrm{p}\to\mathrm{n}\pi^+$
109: also yields information on the nucleon axial and induced
110: pseudo-scalar form-factors. While the electro-production of pions
111: at relatively high \cite{eprod_hiq} and low
112: \cite{eprod_loq,arnd} momentum transfers has been
113: intensively investigated experimentally in the past years
114: at modern electron accelerator facilities, very little data
115: exist on the corresponding weak axial processes.
116:
117: \section{Nucleon axial form-factor}
118:
119: In a phenomenological approach, the nucleon axial form-factor
120: is one of the quantities needed to extract the weak axial amplitudes
121: in the $\Delta$ region. There are basically two methods to determine
122: this form-factor. One set of experimental data comes from measurements
123: of quasi-elastic (anti)neutrino scattering on protons, deuterons,
124: heavier nuclei, and composite targets (see \cite{arnd} for
125: a comprehensive list of references). In the quasi-elastic
126: picture of (anti)neutrino-nucleus scattering, the
127: $\nu\mathrm{N}\to\mu\mathrm{N}$ weak transition amplitude can be
128: expressed in terms of the nucleon electro-magnetic form-factors
129: and the axial form factor $G_{\mathrm{A}}$. The axial form-factor
130: is extracted by fitting the $Q^2$-dependence
131: of the (anti)neutrino-nucleon cross section,
132: \begin{equation}
133: {{\d}\sigma\over{\d}Q^2}=
134: A(Q^2) \mp B(Q^2)\,(s-u) + C(Q^2)\,(s-u)^2\>{,}
135: \end{equation}
136: in which $G_{\mathrm{A}}(Q^2)$ is contained in the $A(Q^2)$, $B(Q^2)$,
137: and $C(Q^2)$ coefficients and is assumed to be the only unknown quantity.
138: It can be parameterised in terms of an `axial mass' $M_{\mathrm{A}}$ as
139: $$
140: {G_{\mathrm{A}}(Q^2) =
141: G_{\mathrm{A}}(0)}/(1 + Q^2/M_{\mathrm{A}}^2)^2\>{.}
142: $$
143:
144: Another body of data comes from charged pion electro-production
145: on protons (see \cite{arnd} and references therein) slightly above
146: the pion production threshold. As opposed to neutrino scattering,
147: which is described by the Cabibbo-mixed $V-A$ theory, the extraction
148: of the axial form factor from electro-production requires a more involved
149: theoretical picture \cite{BKM1,axial_review}.
150: The presently available most precise determination for $M_{\mathrm{A}}$
151: from pion electro-production is
152: \begin{equation}
153: M_{\mathrm{A}}=(1.077\pm 0.039)\,\mathrm{GeV}
154: \label{MA_eprod}
155: \end{equation}
156: which is $\Delta M_{\mathrm{A}}=(0.051\pm 0.044)\,\mathrm{GeV}$ larger
157: than the axial mass $M_{\mathrm{A}}=(1.026\pm 0.021)\,\mathrm{GeV}$
158: known from neutrino scattering experiments.
159: The weighted world-average estimate from electro-production data is
160: $M_{\mathrm{A}}=(1.069\pm 0.016)\,\mathrm{GeV}$, with an excess of
161: $\Delta M_{\mathrm{A}}=(0.043\pm 0.026)\,\mathrm{GeV}$ with respect
162: to the weak probe. The $\sim 5\,\%$ difference in $M_{\mathrm{A}}$
163: can apparently be attributed to pion-loop corrections
164: to the electro-production process \cite{BKM1}.
165:
166: \section{N-$\Delta$ weak axial amplitudes}
167:
168: The experiments using neutrino scattering on deuterium or hydrogen
169: in the $\Delta$ region have been performed at Argonne, CERN,
170: and Brookhaven \cite{barish79,allen80,radecky82,kitagaki86,kitagaki90}.
171: (Additional experimental results exist in the quasi-elastic regime,
172: from which $M_{\mathrm{A}}$ has been extracted.) For pure $\Delta$
173: production, the matrix element has the familiar form
174: $$
175: M = \langle\mu\Delta\,\vert\,\nu\mathrm{N}\rangle =
176: {G_\mathrm{F}\cos\theta_\mathrm{C}\over\sqrt{2}}\,j_\alpha\,
177: \langle\Delta\,\vert\,V^\alpha-A^\alpha\,\vert\,\mathrm{N}\rangle\>{,}
178: $$
179: where $G_\mathrm{F}$ is the Fermi's coupling constant, $\theta_\mathrm{C}$
180: is the $V_\mathrm{ud}$ element of the CKM matrix,
181: $j_\alpha = \overline{u}_\mu\gamma_\alpha(1-\gamma_5)u_\nu$
182: is the matrix element of the leptonic current, and the
183: matrix element of the hadronic current $J^\alpha$ has been split
184: into its vector and axial parts. Typically either the $\Delta^{++}$
185: or the $\Delta^+$ are excited in the process. The hadronic part
186: for the latter can be expanded in terms of weak vector and axial
187: form-factors \cite{llewellyn72}
188: \begin{eqnarray*}
189: M = {G\over\sqrt{2}}\,
190: \overline{u}_{\Delta\alpha}(p')\,\biggl\{&\,&\left[\,
191: {C_3^\mathrm{V}\over M}\,\gamma_\mu
192: +{C_4^\mathrm{V}\over M^2}\,p_\mu'
193: +{C_5^\mathrm{V}\over M^2}\,p_\mu\,\right]\,\gamma_5 F^{\mu\alpha}
194: +{C_6^\mathrm{V}}\,j_\alpha\gamma_5 \\
195: + &\,& \left[\,
196: {C_3^\mathrm{A}\over M}\,\gamma_\mu
197: +{C_4^\mathrm{A}\over M^2}\,p_\mu'\,\right]\,F^{\mu\alpha}
198: +{C_5^\mathrm{A}}\,j^\alpha
199: +{C_6^\mathrm{A}\over M^2}\,q^\alpha q^\mu j_\mu\,\biggr\}\,u(p) f(W) \>{,}
200: \end{eqnarray*}
201: where $F^{\mu\alpha}=q^\mu j^\alpha - q^\alpha j^\mu$,
202: $\overline{u}_{\Delta\alpha}(p')$ is the Rarita-Schwinger spinor
203: describing the $\Delta$ state with four-vector $p'$, and $u(p)$
204: is the Dirac spinor for the (target) nucleon of mass $M$ with
205: four-vector $p$. (In the case of the $\Delta^{++}$
206: excitation, the expression on the RHS acquires an additional
207: isospin factor of $\sqrt{3}$ since
208: $\langle\Delta^{++}\,\vert\,J^\alpha\,\vert\,\mathrm{p}\rangle =
209: \sqrt{3}\langle\Delta^{+}\,\vert\,J^\alpha\,\vert\,\mathrm{p}\rangle =
210: \sqrt{3}\langle\Delta^{0}\,\vert\,J^\alpha\,\vert\,\mathrm{p}\rangle$.)
211: The function $f(W)$ represents a Breit-Wigner dependence
212: on the invariant mass $W$ of the $\mathrm{N}\pi$ system.
213:
214: The matrix element is assumed to be invariant under time reversal,
215: hence all form-factors $C_i^\mathrm{V,A}(Q^2)$ are real. Usually
216: the conserved vector current hypothesis (CVC) is also assumed to hold.
217: The CVC connects the matrix elements of the strangeness-conserving
218: hadronic weak vector current to the isovector component of
219: the electro-magnetic current:
220: \begin{eqnarray*}
221: \langle\Delta^{++}\,\vert\,V^\alpha\,\vert\,\mathrm{p}\rangle &=&
222: \sqrt{3}\,
223: \langle\Delta^{+}\,\vert\,J^\alpha_\mathrm{EM}(T=1)\,\vert\,
224: \mathrm{p}\rangle\>{,}\\
225: \langle\Delta^{0}\,\vert\,V^\alpha\,\vert\,\mathrm{p}\rangle &=&
226: \phantom{\sqrt{3}\,}
227: \langle\Delta^{+}\,\vert\,J^\alpha_\mathrm{EM}(T=1)\,\vert\,
228: \mathrm{p}\rangle\>{.}
229: \end{eqnarray*}
230: The information on the weak vector transition form-factors
231: $C_i^\mathrm{V}$ is obtained from the analysis of photo-
232: and electro-production multipole amplitudes. For $\Delta$
233: electro-excitation, the allowed multipoles are the dominant
234: magnetic dipole $M_{1+}$ and the electric and coulomb quadrupole
235: amplitudes $E_{1+}$ and $S_{1+}$, which are found to be much
236: smaller than $M_{1+}$ \cite{eprod_hiq,eprod_loq}.
237: If we assume that $M_{1+}$ dominates the electro-production
238: amplitude, we have $C_5^\mathrm{V} = C_6^\mathrm{V} = 0$ and
239: end up with only one independent vector form-factor
240: $$
241: C_4^\mathrm{V} = -{M\over W}\,C_3^\mathrm{V}\>{.}
242: %%\qquad C_5^\mathrm{V} = C_6^\mathrm{V} = 0\>{.}
243: $$
244: It turns out that electro-production data can be fitted well with
245: a dipole form for $C_3^\mathrm{V}$,
246: $$
247: C_3^\mathrm{V}(Q^2) = 2.05\,\biggl[\,
248: 1 + {Q^2\over 0.54\,\mathrm{GeV}^2}\,\biggr]^{-2}\>{.}
249: $$
250: An alternative parameterisation of $C_3^\mathrm{V}$ which accounts
251: for a small observed deviation from the pure dipole form is
252: $$
253: C_3^\mathrm{V}(Q^2) = 2.05\,\Bigl[\, 1 + 9 \sqrt{Q^2} \,\Bigr]\,
254: \exp\Bigl[\,-6.3 \sqrt{Q^2}\,\Bigr]\>{.}
255: $$
256: The main interest therefore lies in the axial part of the hadronic
257: weak current which is not well known.
258:
259: \subsection*{Extraction of $C_i^\mathrm{A}(Q^2)$ from data}
260:
261: The key assumption in experimental analyses of the axial matrix
262: element is the PCAC. It implies that the divergence of the axial
263: current should vanish as $m_\pi^2\to 0$, which occurs
264: if the induced pseudo-scalar term with $C_6^\mathrm{A}$
265: (the analogue of $G_\mathrm{P}$ in the nucleon case) is dominated
266: by the pion pole. In consequence, $C_6^\mathrm{A}$ can be expressed
267: in terms of the strong $\pi\mathrm{N}\Delta$ form-factor,
268: $$
269: {C_6^\mathrm{A}(Q^2)\over M^2} = f_\pi\sqrt{2\over 3}\,
270: {G_{\pi\mathrm{N}\Delta}\over 2M}\,{1\over Q^2 + m_\pi^2}\>{,}
271: $$
272: while $C_5^\mathrm{A}$ and $C_6^\mathrm{A}$ can be approximately
273: connected through the off-diagonal Gold\-ber\-ger-Treiman relation
274: \cite{miniBled}. In a phenomenological analysis, $C_3^\mathrm{A}(Q^2)$,
275: $C_4^\mathrm{A}(Q^2)$, and $C_5^\mathrm{A}(Q^2)$ are taken as free
276: parameters and are fitted to the data. The axial form-factors are
277: also parameterised in ``corrected'' dipole forms
278: $$
279: C_i^\mathrm{A}(Q^2) = C_i^\mathrm{A}(0)\,
280: \biggl[\,1 + {a_i Q^2\over b_i + Q^2}\,\biggr]\,
281: \biggl[\,1 + {Q^2\over M_\mathrm{A}^2}\,\biggr]^{-2}\>{.}
282: $$
283: In the simplest approach one takes $a_i=b_i=0$. Historically,
284: the experimental data on weak pion production could be understood
285: well enough in terms of a theory developed by Adler \cite{adler}.
286: For lack of a better choice, Adler's values for $C_i^\mathrm{A}(0)$
287: have conventionally been adopted to fix the fit-parameters at $Q^2=0$,
288: i.~e.
289: \begin{eqnarray}
290: C_3^\mathrm{A}(0) &=& 0\>{,}\\
291: C_4^\mathrm{A}(0) &=& -0.3\>{,}\label{C4A_adler}\\
292: C_5^\mathrm{A}(0) &=& 1.2\>{.}
293: \end{eqnarray}
294: In such a situation, one ends up with $M_\mathrm{A}$ as
295: the only free fit-parameter.
296:
297: Several observables are used to fit the $Q^2$-dependence
298: of the form-factors. Most commonly used are the total cross-sections
299: $\sigma(E_\nu)$, and the angular distributions of the recoiling
300: nucleon
301: $$
302: {\mathrm{d}\sigma\over\mathrm{d}\Omega} = {\sigma\over\sqrt{4\pi}}\,\biggl[\,
303: Y_{00}
304: - {2\over\sqrt{5}}\Bigl[\,\tilde{\rho}_{33}-{1\over 2}\,\Bigr]\,Y_{20}
305: + {4\over\sqrt{10}}\,\tilde{\rho}_{31}\,\mathrm{Re}Y_{21}
306: - {4\over\sqrt{10}}\,\tilde{\rho}_{3-1}\,\mathrm{Re}Y_{22}\,\biggr]\>{,}
307: $$
308: where $\tilde{\rho}_{mn}$ are the density matrix elements and
309: $Y_{LM}$ are the spherical harmonics. Better than from the
310: $\tilde{\rho}_{mn}$ coefficients, the $Q^2$ dependence of the
311: matrix element can be determined from the differential cross-section
312: $\mathrm{d}\sigma/\mathrm{d}Q^2$. In particular, since the
313: dependence on $C_3^\mathrm{A}$ and $C_4^\mathrm{A}$ is anticipated
314: to be weak at $Q^2\sim 0$, then
315: $$
316: {\mathrm{d}\sigma\over\mathrm{d}Q^2}(Q^2=0)
317: \propto (\,C_5^\mathrm{A}(0)\,)^2\>{.}
318: $$
319:
320: The refinements of this crude approach are dictated by several
321: observations. If the target is a nucleus (for example, the
322: deuteron which is needed to access specific charge channels),
323: nuclear effects need to be estimated. Another important
324: correction arises due to the finite energy width of the $\Delta$.
325: In addition, the non-zero mass of the scattered muon may play
326: a role at low $Q^2$.
327:
328: All these effects have been addressed carefully in \cite{valencia}.
329: %%where the most recent experimental
330: %%data from the deuteron were analysed in terms of the cross-section
331: %%which is also differential in the energy of the ejected muon,
332: %%$$
333: %%{\mathrm{d}\sigma\over\mathrm{d}Q^2\mathrm{d}E_\mu} \propto
334: %%%%%{G^2\cos^2\theta_\mathrm{C}\over 128\pi^2}\,C(W)\,
335: %%L_{\alpha\beta} H^{\alpha\beta}\,C(W)\,
336: %%\int {\mathrm{d}\vec{p}''\over (2\pi)^3 E''}\,f(W)\,
337: %%\phi^2(\,|\vec{p}''|\,)\>{.}
338: %%$$
339: %%Here $L_{\alpha\beta}(k_\nu,k_\mu)=\overline{\Sigma}j_\alpha^\dagger j_\beta$
340: %%is the leptonic tensor,
341: %%$H^{\alpha\beta}(p,p',q)=\overline{\Sigma}\Sigma J^{\alpha\dagger} J^\beta$
342: %%is the hadronic tensor,
343: %%$C(W)={M_\mathrm{d}^2/M_\Delta(W^2-M_\mathrm{d}^2)^2}$ is a
344: %%kinematics factor, and $\phi^2(\,|\vec{p}''|\,)$ is
345: %%the deuteron radial wave-function in momentum space.
346: The sensitivity of the differential cross-section to different
347: nucleon-nucleon potentials was seen to be smaller than $10\,\%$
348: even at $Q^2<0.1\,\mathrm{GeV}^2$. In the range above that value,
349: this allows one to interpret inelastic data on the deuteron
350: as if they were data obtained on the free nucleon. The effect
351: of non-zero muon mass is even less pronounced: it does not
352: exceed $5\,\%$ in the region of $Q^2\sim 0.05\,\mathrm{GeV}^2$.
353: The energy dependence of the width of the $\Delta$ resonance
354: was observed to have a negligible effect on the cross-section.
355: %%was implemented as an energy-independent quantity, with an $s$-wave
356: %%dependence on the momenta, and with a $p$-wave dependence.
357: %%No significant effect on the cross-section was observed.
358: The final value based on the analysis of Argonne data
359: \cite{radecky82} is
360: \begin{equation}
361: C_5^\mathrm{A}(0) = 1.22 \pm 0.06\>{.}
362: \label{C5A0_uncert}
363: \end{equation}
364:
365: At present, this is the best estimate for $C_5^\mathrm{A}(0)$,
366: although a number of phenomenological predictions also exist
367: \cite{mukh98}. We adopt this value for the purpose of
368: comparison to our calculations. There is also some scarce,
369: but direct experimental evidence from a free fit to the data
370: that $C_3^\mathrm{A}(0)$ is indeed small and $C_4^\mathrm{A}(0)$
371: is close to the Adler's value of $-0.3$ (see Figure~\ref{barish79_fig16}).
372: We use $C_4^\mathrm{A}(0)=-0.3$ in our comparisons in the next section.
373:
374: \begin{figure}[h]
375: \begin{center}
376: \includegraphics[width=60mm]{c3ac4a.eps}
377: \end{center}
378: \caption{One- and three-standard deviation limits on $C_3^\mathrm{A}(0)$
379: and $C_4^\mathrm{A}(0)$ as extracted from measurements of
380: $\nu_\mu\mathrm{p}\to\mu^-\Delta^{++}$. The square denotes
381: the model predictions by Adler \protect\cite{adler}.
382: (Figure adapted after \protect\cite{barish79}.)}
383: \label{barish79_fig16}
384: \end{figure}
385:
386: \section{Interpretation of $C_i^\mathrm{A}(Q^2)$ in the linear
387: $\sigma$-model}
388:
389: The axial N-$\Delta$ transition amplitudes can be interpreted
390: in an illustrative way in quark models involving chiral fields
391: like the linear $\sigma$-model (LSM), which may reveal the importance
392: of non-quark degrees of freedom in baryons.
393: Due to difficulties in consistent incorporation
394: of the pion field, the model predictions for these amplitudes
395: are very scarce \cite{Mukh}. The present work \cite{FB18,letter02}
396: was partly also motivated by the experience gained in the successful
397: phenomenological description of the quadrupole
398: electro-excitation of the $\Delta$ within the LSM,
399: in which the pion cloud was shown to play a major role \cite{FGS}.
400:
401: \subsection{Two-radial mode approach}
402:
403: We have realised that by treating the nucleon and the $\Delta$
404: in the LSM in a simpler, one-radial mode ansatz, the off-diagonal
405: Goldberger-Treiman relation can not be satisfied. For the calculation
406: of the amplitudes in the LSM, we have therefore used the two-radial
407: mode ansatz for the physical baryon states which allows for
408: different pion clouds around the bare baryons. The physical
409: baryons are obtained from the superposition of bare quark cores
410: and coherent states of mesons by the Peierls-Yoccoz angular
411: projection. For the nucleon we have the ansatz
412: \begin{equation}
413: |\mathrm{N}\rangle = \mathcal{N}_\mathrm{N}
414: P^\h\left[\Phi_\mathrm{N}|\mathrm{N}_q\rangle +
415: \Phi_{\mathrm{N}\Delta}|\Delta_q\rangle\right] \>{,}
416: \label{N2mode}
417: \end{equation}
418: where $\mathcal{N}_\mathrm{N}$ is the normalisation factor.
419: Here $\Phi_\mathrm{N}$ and $\Phi_{\mathrm{N}\Delta}$ stand for hedgehog
420: coherent states describing the pion cloud around the bare nucleon
421: and bare $\Delta$, respectively, and $P^\h$ is the projection operator
422: on the subspace with isospin and angular momentum $\half$.
423: Only one profile for the $\sigma$ field is assumed.
424: For the $\Delta$ we assume a slightly different ansatz
425: to ensure the proper asymptotic behaviour. We take
426: \begin{equation}
427: |\Delta\rangle = \mathcal{N}_\Delta\left\{
428: P^\th\Phi_\Delta|\Delta_q\rangle +
429: \int\d k\, \eta(k)%%\sum_{mt}
430: [a_{mt}^\dagger(k)|\mathrm{N}\rangle%%
431: %%_{\half-t,\half-m} \CG{\half}{\half-m}{1}{m}{\thalf}{\half}
432: %% \CG{\half}{\half-t}{1}{t}{\thalf}{\half}
433: ]^{\th\th}\right\}\,,
434: \label{D2mode}
435: \end{equation}
436: where $\mathcal{N}_\Delta$ is the normalisation factor,
437: $|\mathrm{N}\rangle$ is the ground state and
438: $[\,\,\,]^{\th\th}$ denotes the pion-nucleon state with
439: isospin $\thalf$ and spin $\thalf$. We have
440: interpreted the localised model states as wave-packets
441: with definite linear momentum, as elaborated in \cite{miniBled}.
442:
443: \subsection{Calculation of helicity amplitudes}
444:
445: We use the kinematics and notation of \cite{miniBled}. For the quark
446: contribution to the two transverse ($\lambda=1$) and longitudinal
447: ($\lambda=0$) helicity amplitudes we obtain
448: \begin{eqnarray*}
449: \tilde{A}^{\mathrm{(q)}}_{s_\Delta\lambda} &=& -\langle\Delta_{s_\Delta\,\h}|
450: \int\d\vec{r}\, e^{\i kz}\psi^\dagger\alpha_\lambda\gamma_5\half\tau_0\psi
451: |\mathrm{N}_{s_\Delta-\lambda\,\h}\rangle\\
452: \tilde{A}^{(q)}_{s_\Delta\lambda}
453: &=&
454: - \half\mathcal{N}_\Delta \int\d r\,r^2\biggl\{\\
455: &\,&\biggl[j_0(kr)
456: \biggl(u_\Delta u_\mathrm{N} - {1\over3} v_\Delta v_\mathrm{N}\biggr)
457: +{2\over3}\,(3\lambda^2-2)\,j_2(kr)v_\Delta v_\mathrm{N}\biggr]
458: \langle\Delta_b||\sigma\,\tau||\mathrm{N}\rangle \\
459: - &c_\eta& \biggl[j_0(kr)
460: \biggl(u_\mathrm{N}^2 - {1\over3} v_\mathrm{N}^2\biggr)
461: +{2\over3}\,(3\lambda^2-2)\,j_2(kr)v_\mathrm{N}^2\biggr]
462: \nonumber\\
463: &&\times
464: \biggl[{4\over9} \langle \mathrm{N}||\sigma\tau||\mathrm{N}\rangle
465: + {1\over36}\langle \mathrm{N}||\sigma\tau||\mathrm{N}(J=\thalf)\rangle
466: \biggr]
467: \biggr\}
468: \CG{\half}{s_\Delta-\lambda}{1}{\lambda}{\thalf}{s_\Delta}
469: \CG{\half}{\half}{1}{0}{\thalf}{\half} \>{.}
470: \end{eqnarray*}
471: Here $u$ and $v$ are upper and lower components of Dirac spinors for
472: the nucleon and the $\Delta$, while $c_\eta$ is a coefficient
473: involving integrals of the function $\eta(k)$ appearing in
474: (\ref{D2mode}). The reduced matrix elements of $\vec{\sigma}\vec{\tau}$
475: can be expressed in terms of analytic functions with intrinsic numbers
476: of pions as arguments. In all three cases, we take $s_\Delta=\thalf$.
477: For the scalar amplitudes, we take $\lambda=0$ and $s_\Delta=\half$,
478: and obtain
479: \begin{eqnarray*}
480: \tilde{S}^{\mathrm{(q)}} &=& - \langle\Delta_{\h\h}|
481: \int\d\vec{r}\, e^{\i kz}\psi^\dagger\gamma_5\half\tau_0\psi
482: |\mathrm{N}_{\h\h}\rangle
483: \label{Sqdef}\\
484: &=& {1\over3}\, \mathcal{N}_\Delta \int\d r\,r^2\,j_1(kr)
485: \left(u_\Delta v_\mathrm{N} - v_\Delta u_\mathrm{N}\right)
486: \langle\Delta_b||\sigma\tau||\mathrm{N}\rangle\;.
487: \label{Sq}
488: \end{eqnarray*}
489:
490: For the non-pole meson contribution to the transverse and longitudinal
491: helicity amplitudes we assume the same $\sigma$ profiles
492: around the bare states, but different for the physical states.
493: Introducing an ``average'' $\sigma$ field
494: $\bar{\sigma}(r)\equiv\half(\sigma_\mathrm{N}(r) + \sigma_\Delta(r))$
495: we obtain
496: \begin{eqnarray*}
497: \tilde{A}^{\mathrm{(m)}}_{s_\Delta\lambda} &=& \langle\Delta_{s_\Delta\,\h}|
498: \int\d\vec{r}\, e^{\i kz}
499: \left((\sigma-f_\pi)\nabla_\lambda\pi_0-\pi_0\nabla_\lambda\sigma\right)
500: |\mathrm{N}_{s_\Delta-\lambda\,\h}\rangle\\
501: &=&
502: {4\pi\over3}
503: \Biggl\{\int\d r\,r^2\, j_0(kr)\Biggl[\Biggl((\bar{\sigma}-f_\pi)
504: \left({\d\varphi_{\Delta \mathrm{N}}\over\d r}
505: + {2\varphi_{\Delta \mathrm{N}}\over r}\right)
506: - {\d\bar{\sigma}\over\d r}\,\varphi_{\Delta \mathrm{N}}\Biggr)
507: \Biggr]\Biggr.
508: \nonumber\\
509: && \Biggl. \hspace{-2mm}
510: + (3\lambda^2-2)\int\d r\,r^2\, j_2(kr) \Biggl[\Biggl((\bar{\sigma}-f_\pi)
511: \left({\d\varphi_{\Delta \mathrm{N}}\over\d r} - {\varphi_{\Delta \mathrm{N}}\over r}\right)
512: - {\d\bar{\sigma}\over\d r}\,\varphi_{\Delta \mathrm{N}}\Biggr)
513: \Biggr]\Biggr\}
514: \nonumber\\
515: && \times \CG{\half}{s_\Delta-\lambda}{1}{\lambda}{\thalf}{s_\Delta}
516: \CG{\half}{\half}{1}{0}{\thalf}{\half}\>{,}
517: \label{Am}
518: \end{eqnarray*}
519: where
520: %%$\varphi_\mathrm{N}=\langle\mathrm{N}\,|\,\pi\,
521: %%|\,\mathrm{N}\rangle$ and
522: $\varphi_{\Delta\mathrm{N}}=\langle\Delta\,|\,\pi\,|\,\mathrm{N}\rangle$.
523: To compute the scalar amplitude,
524: we make use of the off-diagonal virial relation derived in
525: \cite{miniBled} and define
526: $$
527: \sigma^P(r)
528: = \int_0^\infty \d k\, k^2\sqrt{k^2+m_\sigma^2} \sqrt{2\over\pi}
529: \,j_0(kr)\, \sigma(k)\>{.}
530: $$
531: We obtain
532: \begin{eqnarray*}
533: \tilde{S}^{\mathrm{(m)}} &=&
534: - \langle\Delta_{\h\h}|
535: \int\d\vec{r}\, e^{\i kz}
536: \left((\sigma-f_\pi) P_{\pi0}-P_\sigma\pi_0\right)
537: |\mathrm{N}_{\h\h}\rangle\\
538: &=& - {8\pi\over3}\int\d r\, r^2\,j_1(kr)\left\{
539: \half\left(\sigma^P_\mathrm{N}(r) - \sigma^P_\Delta(r)\right)\varphi_{\Delta \mathrm{N}}(r)
540: - \left(\bar{\sigma}(r)-f_\pi\right)\omega_*\varphi_{\Delta \mathrm{N}}(r)
541: \right\} \>{.}
542: \end{eqnarray*}
543: By using
544: $$
545: \tilde{A}_{s_\Delta\lambda}
546: = \left(A^0 - (3\lambda^2-2)A^2\right)
547: \CG{\half}{s_\Delta-\lambda}{1}{\lambda}{\thalf}{s_\Delta}
548: \CG{\half}{\half}{1}{0}{\thalf}{\half}\>{,}
549: $$
550: the quark and non-pole meson contributions to the transverse
551: amplitudes can finally be broken into $L=0$ and $L=2$ pieces,
552: \begin{eqnarray}
553: \tilde{A}^\mathrm{A}_\th &=& \sqrt{2\over3}\left(A^0 - A^2\right)\>{,}
554: \label{A32}\\
555: \tilde{A}^\mathrm{A}_\h &=& {1\over\sqrt{3}} \tilde{A}^\mathrm{A}_\th =
556: {\sqrt{2}\over3}\left(A^0 - A^2\right)\>{,}
557: \label{A12}\\
558: \tilde{L}^\mathrm{A} &=& {2\over3}\left(A^0 + 2 A^2\right) \>{,}
559: \label{L}
560: \end{eqnarray}
561: and inserted into (76), (77), and (78) of \cite{miniBled}.
562: The pole part of the meson contribution is
563: $$
564: C^\mathrm{A}_{6\,\mathrm{(pole)}}(Q^2)
565: = f_\pi {G_{\pi\mathrm{N}\Delta}(Q^2)\over 2M_\mathrm{N}}\,
566: {M_\mathrm{N}^2\over m_\pi^2 + Q^2}\,\sqrt{{2\over3}} \>{.}
567: $$
568: The strong $\mathrm{N}\Delta$ form-factor $G_{\pi\mathrm{N}\Delta}$
569: can be computed through
570: $$
571: {G_{\pi\mathrm{N}\Delta}(Q^2)\over 2M_\mathrm{N}}
572: {M_\Delta + M_\mathrm{N}\over 2M_\Delta} =
573: {1\over\mathrm{i}\,k}\,\langle\Delta\parallel\,
574: \int\mathrm{d}\vec{r}\, \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\svec{k}\svec{r}}\,J(\vec{r})\,
575: \parallel\mathrm{N}\rangle\>{,}
576: $$
577: where the current $J$ has a component corresponding to the quark source
578: and a component originating in the meson self-interaction term
579: (see (58) of \cite{miniBled}),
580: $$
581: J_0(\vec{r}) = j_0(\vec{r}) +
582: {\partial U(\sigma,\pol{\pi})\over\partial\pi_0(\vec{r})}\>{.}
583: $$
584:
585: \subsection{Results}
586:
587: Fig.~\ref{fig:c5a} shows the $C^\mathrm{A}_5(Q^2)$ amplitude
588: with the quark-meson coupling constant of $g=4.3$ and
589: $m_\sigma=600\,\mathrm{MeV}$ compared to the experimentally
590: determined form-factors. The figure also shows the $C^\mathrm{A}_5(Q^2)$
591: calculated from the strong $\pi\mathrm{N}\Delta$ form-factor
592: using the off-diagonal Goldberger-Treiman relation.
593:
594: \begin{figure}[h]
595: \begin{center}
596: \includegraphics[height=80mm]{c5a.eps}
597: \end{center}
598: \caption{The amplitude $C_5^\mathrm{A}(Q^2)$ in the two-radial
599: mode LSM. The experimental uncertainty at $Q^2=0$ is given by
600: Eq.~(\protect\ref{C5A0_uncert}). The error ranges are given
601: by the spread in the axial-mass parameter $M_\mathrm{A}$
602: as determined from neutrino scattering experiments
603: (broader range, \cite{kitagaki90}) and from electro-production
604: of pions (narrower range, Eq.~(\protect\ref{MA_eprod})).
605: Full curves: calculation from helicity amplitudes
606: (\protect\ref{A32}), (\protect\ref{A12}), and (\protect\ref{L});
607: dashed curves: calculation from $G_{\pi\mathrm{N}\Delta}$.}
608: \label{fig:c5a}
609: \end{figure}
610:
611: The magnitude of $C_5^\mathrm{A}(Q^2)$ is overestimated
612: in the LSM, with $C_5^\mathrm{A}(0)$ about $25\,\%$ higher than
613: the experimental average. Still, the $Q^2$-dependence
614: follows the experimental one very well: the $M_\mathrm{A}$
615: from a dipole fit to our calculated values agrees to within
616: a few percent with the experimental $M_\mathrm{A}$.
617: On the other hand, with $C^\mathrm{A}_5(Q^2)$ determined
618: from the calculated strong $\pi\mathrm{N}\Delta$ form-factor,
619: the absolute normalisation improves, while the $Q^2$ fall-off
620: is steeper, with $M_\mathrm{A}\approx 0.80\,\mathrm{GeV}$.
621: Since the model states are not exact eigenstates of the LSM Hamiltonian,
622: the discrepancy between the two calculated values in some sense
623: indicates the quality of the computational scheme. At $Q^2=-m_\pi^2$
624: where the off-diagonal Goldberger-Treiman relation is expected to hold,
625: the discrepancy is $17\,\%$. The disagreement between the two
626: approaches can be attributed to an over-estimate of the meson
627: strength, a characteristic feature of LSM where only the meson
628: fields bind the quarks.
629:
630: Essentially the same trend is observed in the ``diagonal'' case:
631: for the nucleon we obtain $g_\mathrm{A}=1.41$. The discrepancy
632: with respect to the experimental value of $1.27$ is commensurate
633: with the disagreement in $C_5^\mathrm{A}(0)$.
634: The overestimate of $g_\mathrm{A}$ and $G_\mathrm{A}(Q^2)$
635: was shown to persist even if the spurious centre-of-mass motion
636: of the nucleon is removed \cite{fizika383}. An additional
637: projection onto non-zero linear momentum therefore does not
638: appear to be feasible.
639:
640: The effect of the meson self-interaction is relatively less
641: pronounced in the strong coupling constant
642: (only $\sim 20\,\%$) than in $C^\mathrm{A}_5(Q^2)$.
643: Both $G_{\pi\mathrm{N}\Delta}(0)$ and $G_{\pi\mathrm{NN}}(0)$
644: are over-estimated in the model by $\sim 10\,\%$. Still,
645: the ratio $G_{\pi\mathrm{N}\Delta}(0)/G_{\pi\mathrm{NN}}(0)=2.01$
646: is considerably higher than either the familiar SU(6)
647: prediction $\sqrt{72/25}$ or the mass-corrected value
648: of $1.65$~\cite{Hemmert}, and compares reasonably well
649: with the experimental value of $2.2$. This improvement
650: is mostly a consequence of the renormalisation of the strong
651: vertices due to pions.
652:
653: \begin{figure}[h]
654: \begin{center}
655: \includegraphics[height=80mm]{c4a.eps}
656: \end{center}
657: \vspace*{-2mm}
658: \caption{The amplitude $C_4^\mathrm{A}(Q^2)$ in the two-radial
659: mode linear $\sigma$-model, with model parameters and experimental
660: uncertainties due to the spread in $M_\mathrm{A}$ as in
661: Fig.~\protect\ref{fig:c5a}, and in the Cloudy-Bag Model
662: (see below for discussion). Experimentally,
663: $C^\mathrm{A}_4(0)=-0.3\pm 0.5$ (see \protect\cite{barish79}
664: and Fig.~\protect\ref{barish79_fig16}). For orientation,
665: the value for $C_4^\mathrm{A}(0)$ is used without error-bars.}
666: \label{fig:c4a}
667: \end{figure}
668:
669: The determination of the $C^\mathrm{A}_4(Q^2)$ is less reliable
670: because the meson contribution to the scalar component
671: of this amplitude \cite{miniBled} is very sensitive
672: to small variations of the profiles.
673: However, the experimental value is very uncertain as well.
674: Neglecting the non-pole contribution to the scalar amplitude
675: and $C_6^\mathrm{A}(Q^2)$ (with the pole contribution canceling out),
676: $C_4^\mathrm{A}(Q^2)$ is fixed to
677: $-(M_\mathrm{N}^2/2M_\Delta^2)\,C_5^\mathrm{A}(Q^2)$.
678: At $Q^2=0$, this is in excellent numerical agreement with (\ref{C4A_adler}).
679: In the LSM, the non-pole contribution to $C_6^\mathrm{A}(Q^2)$
680: happens to be non-negligible and tends to increase $C_4^\mathrm{A}(Q^2)$
681: at small $Q^2$, as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:c4a}. An almost identical
682: conclusion regarding $C^\mathrm{A}_4(Q^2)$ applies in the case
683: of the Cloudy-Bag Model, as shown below.
684:
685: The $C^\mathrm{A}_6$ amplitude is governed by the pion pole
686: for small values of $Q^2$ and hence by the value
687: of $G_{\pi\mathrm{N}\Delta}$ which is well reproduced
688: in the LSM, and underestimated by $\sim 35\,\%$ in the Cloudy-Bag
689: Model. Fig.~\ref{fig:c6a} shows that the non-pole contribution
690: becomes relatively more important at larger values of $Q^2$.
691:
692: \begin{figure}[hb]
693: \begin{center}
694: \includegraphics[height=70mm]{c6a.eps}
695: \end{center}
696: \vspace*{-2mm}
697: \caption{The non-pole part and the total amplitude
698: $C_6^\mathrm{A}(Q^2)$ in the two-radial mode linear $\sigma$-model.
699: Model parameters are as in Fig.~\protect\ref{fig:c5a}.}
700: \label{fig:c6a}
701: \end{figure}
702:
703:
704: \section{Interpretation of $C_i^\mathrm{A}(Q^2)$ in the Cloudy-Bag Model}
705:
706: For the calculation in the Cloudy-Bag Model (CBM) we have assumed
707: the usual perturbative form for the pion profiles using the experimental
708: masses for the nucleon and $\Delta$. Since the pion contribution
709: to the axial current in the CBM has the form
710: $f_\pi\partial^\alpha\vec{\pi}$, only the quarks contribute
711: to the $C^\mathrm{A}_4(Q^2)$ and $C^\mathrm{A}_5(Q^2)$,
712: while $C^\mathrm{A}_6(Q^2)$ is almost completely dominated
713: by the pion pole (see contribution by B.~Golli \cite{miniBled}).
714: With respect to the LSM, the sensitivity
715: of the axial form-factors to the non-quark degrees of freedom
716: is therefore almost reversed.
717:
718: In the CBM, only the non-pole
719: component of the axial current contributes to the amplitudes,
720: and as a result the $C^\mathrm{A}_5(0)$ amplitude is less than $2/3$
721: of the experimental value. The behaviour of $C^\mathrm{A}_5(Q^2)$
722: (see Fig.~\ref{fig:c5a_CBM}) is similar as in the pure MIT Bag Model
723: (to within $10\,\%$),
724: with fitted $M_\mathrm{A}\sim 1.2\,\mathrm{GeV\,fm}/R$.
725: The off-diagonal Goldberger-Treiman relation is satisfied
726: in the CBM, but $C^\mathrm{A}_5$ from $G_{\pi\mathrm{N}\Delta}$
727: has a steeper fall-off with fitted
728: $M_\mathrm{A}\sim 0.8\,\mathrm{GeV\,fm}/R$.
729:
730: \begin{figure}[h]
731: \begin{center}
732: \includegraphics[height=80mm]{c5a_CBM.eps}
733: \end{center}
734: \caption{The amplitude $C_5^\mathrm{A}(Q^2)$ in the Cloudy-Bag Model
735: for three values of the bag radius. Experimental uncertainties
736: are as in caption to Fig.~\protect\ref{fig:c5a}.}
737: \label{fig:c5a_CBM}
738: \end{figure}
739:
740: The large discrepancy can be partly attributed to the
741: fact that the CBM predicts a too low value for
742: $G_{\pi\mathrm{NN}}$, and consequently $G_{\pi\mathrm{N}\Delta}$.
743: We have found that the pions
744: increase the $G_{\pi\mathrm{N}\Delta}/G_{\pi\mathrm{NN}}$ ratio
745: by $\sim 15\,\%$ through vertex renormalisation.
746: The effect is further enhanced by the mass-correction factor
747: $2M_\Delta/(M_\Delta+M_\mathrm{N})$, yet suppressed in
748: the kinematical extrapolation of $G_{\pi\mathrm{N}\Delta}(Q^2)$
749: to the $\mathrm{SU}(6)$ limit. This suppression is weaker
750: at small bag radii $R$: the ratio drops from $2.05$
751: at $R=0.7\,\mathrm{fm}$ to $1.60$ (below the $\mathrm{SU}(6)$
752: value) at $R=1.3\,\mathrm{fm}$.
753:
754: The determination of the $C^\mathrm{A}_4(Q^2)$ is less reliable
755: for very much the same reason as in the LSM. The non-pole contribution
756: to $C_6^\mathrm{A}(Q^2)$ tends to add to the excessive strength of
757: $C_4^\mathrm{A}(Q^2)$ at low $Q^2$, as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:c4a}.
758: Never the less, the experimental data are too coarse to allow
759: for a meaningful comparison to the model. For technical details
760: regarding the calculation in the CBM, refer to \cite{miniBled}.
761:
762: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
763:
764: \bibitem{aron} A.~M.~Bernstein, to appear in Proceedings
765: of the VII Conference on Electron-Nucleus Scattering,
766: June 24-28, 2002, Elba, Italy.
767: \bibitem{eprod_hiq}
768: %\bibitem{joo}
769: K.~Joo et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88} (2002) 122001;\\
770: %\bibitem{volmer}
771: J.~Volmer et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86} (2001) 1713;\\
772: %\bibitem{gaskell}
773: D.~Gaskell et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87} (2001) 202301;\\
774: %\bibitem{frolov}
775: V.~Frolov et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82} (1999) 45.
776: \bibitem{eprod_loq}
777: %\bibitem{pospisch}
778: Th.~Pospischil et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86} (2001) 2959;\\
779: %\bibitem{mertz}
780: C.~Mertz et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86} (2001) 2963;\\
781: %\bibitem{choi}
782: S.~Choi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 71} (1993) 3927.
783: \bibitem{arnd}
784: A.~Liesenfeld et al., Phys. Lett. B {\bf 468} (1999) 20.
785:
786: \bibitem{BKM1} V.~Bernard, N.~Kaiser, U.--G.~Mei\ss ner,
787: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 69} (1992) 1877;\\
788: V.~Bernard, N.~Kaiser and U.--G.~Mei\ss ner,
789: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 72} (1994) 2810.
790:
791: \bibitem{axial_review}
792: V.~Bernard, L.~Elouadrhiri, U.--G.~Mei\ss ner, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part.
793: Phys. {\bf 28} (2002) R1.
794:
795: \bibitem{barish79} S.~J.~Barish et al., Phys. Rev. D {\bf 19} (1979) 2521.
796: \bibitem{allen80} P.~Allen et al., Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 176} (1980) 269.
797: \bibitem{radecky82} G.~M.~Radecky et al., Phys. Rev. D {\bf 25} (1982) 1161.
798: \bibitem{kitagaki86} T.~Kitagaki et al., Phys. Rev. D {\bf 34} (1986) 2554.
799: \bibitem{kitagaki90} T.~Kitagaki et al., Phys. Rev. D {\bf 42} (1990) 1331.
800:
801: \bibitem{llewellyn72}
802: C.~H.~Llewellyn Smith, Phys. Rep. {\bf 3C} (1972) 261.
803:
804: \bibitem{miniBled}
805: B. Golli, L. Amoreira, M. Fiolhais, S. \v{S}irca,
806: these Proceedings; hep-ph/0211293
807:
808: \bibitem{adler} S.~Adler, Ann. Phys. {\bf 50} (1968) 189.
809:
810: \bibitem{valencia} S.~K.~Singh, M.~J.~Vicente-Vacas, E.~Oset,
811: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 416} (1998) 23;\\
812: L.~Alvarez-Ruso, S.~K.~Singh, M.~J.~Vicente-Vacas,
813: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 57} (1998) 2693;\\
814: L.~Alvarez-Ruso, S.~K.~Singh, M.~J.~Vicente-Vacas,
815: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 59} (1999) 3386;\\
816: L.~Alvarez-Ruso, E.~Oset, S.~K.~Singh, M.~J.~Vicente-Vacas,
817: Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 663}/{\bf 664} (2000) 837c.
818:
819: \bibitem{mukh98}
820: N.~C.~Mukhopadhyay et al., Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 633} (1998) 481.
821:
822: \bibitem{Mukh}
823: J\`{u}n L\'{\I}u, N.~C.~Mukhopadhyay, L.~Zhang,
824: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 52} (1995) 1630.
825:
826: \bibitem{FB18}
827: S. \v{S}irca, L. Amoreira, M. Fiolhais, B. Golli,
828: to appear in R.~Krivec, B.~Golli, M.~Rosina, S.~\v{S}irca (eds.),
829: {\sl Proceedings of the XVIII European Conference on Few-Body Problems
830: in Physics}, 7--14 September 2002, Bled, Slovenia; hep-ph/0211290
831:
832: \bibitem{letter02}
833: B. Golli, S. \v Sirca, L. Amoreira, and M. Fiolhais, submitted
834: for publication in Phys. Lett. B, hep-ph/0210014.
835:
836: \bibitem{FGS}
837: M. Fiolhais, B. Golli, S.~\v Sirca, Phys.~Lett.~B {\bf 373} (1996) 229.
838:
839: \bibitem{fizika383} M. Rosina, M. Fiolhais, B. Golli, S.~\v{S}irca,
840: Proceedings of the ``Nuclear and Particle Physics with CEBAF
841: at Jefferson Lab'' Meeting, November 3--10, 1998, Dubrovnik, Croatia,
842: Fizika~B {\bf 8} (1999) 383.
843:
844: \bibitem{Hemmert}
845: T.~R.~Hemmert, B.~R.~Holstein, N.~C.~Mukhopadhyay,
846: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 51} (1995) 158.
847:
848: \end{thebibliography}
849:
850: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
851:
852:
853:
854:
855: \end{document}
856: