1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \title{Tensor susceptibility calculated in the hadronization process}
3: \author{Hongting Yang \\
4: {\small\sl Department of Physical Science and Technology, College of Science}\\
5: {\small\sl Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan 430070, P.R. China}}
6: \date{}
7: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.5}
8: \usepackage{graphicx}
9: \begin{document}
10: \maketitle
11: \begin{abstract}
12: The tensor susceptibility of QCD vacuum is calculated in the global color symmetry model. The input
13: parameters for gluon propagators are determined via the simplified equation for calculating the
14: pion decay constant. The reason for the great discrepancy between our results and those from QCD
15: sum rules and from chiral constituent quark model is discussed.
16: \end{abstract}
17: {\it PACS}\/: 11.15.Tk; 12.38.Aw; 12.38.Lg; 12.40.Yx \\
18: {\it Keywords}\/: Tensor susceptibility; Global color symmetry model; Dyson-Schwinger equation;
19: Bilocal quark-quark interaction.\\
20: {\it E-mail}\/: yht@mail.whut.edu.cn
21: \newpage
22:
23: The tensor susceptibility of QCD vacuum, like the quark condensate or the gluon condensate,
24: reflects the non-perturbative aspects of the QCD vacuum directly. It is argued that, the tensor
25: susceptibility is related to a chiral-odd spin-dependent structure function that can be measured in
26: the polarized Drell-Yan process~(\cite{HX95}-\cite{JD79}). The earlier estimations for the value of
27: tensor susceptibility were obtained by QCD sum rules techniques~(\cite{HX96}-\cite{AS00}) or from
28: chiral constituent quark model~\cite{WM98}. Two decades calculations show that, the global color
29: symmetry model (GCM)~\cite{RC85} describes the nonperturbative aspects of strong interaction
30: physics and hadronic phenomena at low energies quite well~(\cite{CR88}-\cite{HJ03}), we naturally
31: expect that GCM is applicable in the estimation of the tensor susceptibility of QCD vacuum. Recent
32: investigation shows that, the value of tensor susceptibility calculated from an effective
33: quark-quark interaction is much smaller than the others~\cite{HH03}. Questions are therefore
34: arising. What is the reason for this discrepancy? Is anything wrong with GCM? This letter aims to
35: answer these questions.
36:
37: The QCD partition function for massless quarks in Euclidean space can be written as
38: \begin{equation}
39: {\cal Z}=\int{\cal D}\bar{q}{\cal D}q{\cal D}Ae^{-S[\bar{q},q,A]}
40: \end{equation}
41: with the QCD action
42: \begin{equation}
43: S[\bar{q},q,A]=\int{\rm d}x[\bar{q}(x)({\not\!\partial}-ig{\not\!\!A})q(x)+
44: {1\over 4}F^a_{\mu\nu}F^a_{\mu\nu}],
45: \end{equation}
46: where $A_{\mu}=A_{\mu}^a{\lambda^a\over 2}$,
47: $F^a_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu{A^a_\nu}-\partial_\nu{A^a_\mu}+gf^{abc}{A^b_\mu}{A^c_\nu}$. By
48: introducing the functional $W[J]$ defined as
49: \begin{equation}
50: e^{W[J]}\equiv\int{\cal D}A\,\exp\left(\int{\rm d}x(-{1\over 4}F^a_{\mu\nu}F^a_{\mu\nu}+
51: J^a_{\mu}A^a_{\mu})\right),
52: \end{equation}
53: the QCD partition function can be rewritten as
54: \begin{equation}
55: {\cal Z}=\int{\cal D}\bar{q}{\cal D}q\,e^{-\int{\rm d}x\bar{q}(x){\not\,\partial}q(x)}
56: e^{W[ig\bar{q}\gamma_\mu{\lambda^a\over2}q]}.
57: \end{equation}
58: The functional $W[J]$ has the expansion
59: \begin{equation}
60: W[J]={1\over 2}\int{\rm d}x{\rm d}yJ^a_{\mu}(x)D^{ab}_{\mu\nu}(x,y)J^b_{\nu}(y)+W_R[J],
61: \end{equation}
62: where $D^{ab}_{\mu\nu}(x,y)=D^{ab}_{\mu\nu}(x-y)$ is the gluon 2-point Green's function, and
63: $W_R[J]$ involves the higher order $n(\ge3)$-point Green's functions. The GCM is obtained through
64: the truncation of the functional $W[J]$ in which only $D^{ab}_{\mu\nu}(x,y)$ is retained. This
65: model maintains global color symmetry of QCD, but the local color SU(3) gauge invariance is lost.
66: For simplicity we use a Feynman-like gauge $D^{ab}_{\mu\nu}(x-y)=\delta_{\mu\nu}\delta^{ab}D(x-y)$.
67: The important dynamical characteristics of local color symmetry are included in $D(x)$. The exact
68: form of $D(x)$ is not well known. Instead, we use a phenomenological gluon propagator, which is
69: required to exhibit the properties of asymptotic freedom and infrared slavery. The justification of
70: such truncation relies on the successes of various calculations.
71:
72: The partition function of this truncation can be given as~\cite{RC85,T97}
73: \begin{equation} \label{pfGCM}
74: {\cal Z}_{\rm GCM}=\int{\cal D}\bar{q}{\cal D}q\exp\left(-\int{\rm d}x\bar{q}{\not\!\partial}q-
75: \frac{g^2}{2}\int{\rm d}x{\rm d}yj^a_{\mu}(x)D^{ab}_{\mu\nu}(x-y)j^b_{\nu}(y)\right ),
76: \end{equation}
77: with the quark color current $j^a_{\mu}(x)=\bar{q}(x)\gamma_{\mu}\frac{\lambda^a}{2}q(x)$, or
78: equivalently,
79: \begin{equation}
80: {\cal Z}_{\rm GCM}=\int{\cal D}\bar{q}{\cal D}q{\cal D}Ae^{-S_{\rm GCM}[\bar{q},q,A]}
81: \end{equation}
82: with the GCM action
83: \begin{equation}
84: S_{\rm GCM}[\bar{q},q,A]=\int{\rm d}x[\bar{q}(x)({\not\!\partial}-ig{\not\!\!A})q(x)+
85: \int{\rm d}x{\rm d}y{1\over 2}A_{\mu}^a(x)[D^{ab}_{\mu\nu}(x-y)]^{-1}A_{\nu}^b(y).
86: \end{equation}
87: By the standard bosonization procedure, the resulting expression for the partition function in
88: terms of the bilocal field integration is
89: \begin{equation}
90: {\cal Z}_{\rm GCM}=\int{\cal D}{\cal B}^{\theta}\exp\left(-S[{\cal B}^{\theta}]\right),
91: \end{equation}
92: where the action is given by
93: \begin{equation}
94: S[{\cal B}^{\theta}]=-{\rm Tr\,Ln}[G^{-1}]+\int{\rm d}x{\rm d}y
95: \frac{{\cal B}^{\theta}(x,y){\cal B}^{\theta}(y,x)}{2g^2D(x-y)}\,,
96: \end{equation}
97: and the quark inverse Green's function $G^{-1}$ is defined as
98: \begin{equation}
99: G^{-1}(x,y)={\not\!\partial}\delta(x-y)+\Lambda^{\theta}{\cal B}^{\theta}(x,y)\,.
100: \end{equation}
101: Here the quantity $\Lambda^{\theta}$ arises from Fierz reordering of the current-current
102: interaction term in Eq.~(\ref{pfGCM})
103: \begin{equation}
104: \Lambda^{\theta}_{ji}\Lambda^{\theta}_{lk}=(\gamma_{\mu}\frac{\lambda^a}{2})_{jk}
105: (\gamma_{\mu}\frac{\lambda^a}{2})_{li}
106: \end{equation}
107: and is the direct product of Dirac, flavor SU(2) and color matrices:
108: \begin{equation}
109: \Lambda^{\theta}={1\over 2}(I_D,i\gamma_5, \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\gamma_{\mu},
110: \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_5)\otimes({1\over\sqrt{2}}I_F,
111: {1\over\sqrt{2}}{\vec{\tau}_F})\otimes({4\over 3}I_c, \frac{i}{\sqrt{3}}\lambda^a_c)\,.
112: \end{equation}
113: Here we consider $N_F=2$ flavors as in Ref.~\cite{WM98}.
114:
115: The vacuum configurations are defined by minimizing the bilocal action: $\left. \frac{\delta
116: S[{\cal B}]}{\delta {\cal B}} \right |_{{\cal B}_0}=0,$ which gives
117: \begin{equation}
118: {\cal B}^{\theta}_0(x)=g^2D(x){\rm tr}[G_0(x)\Lambda^{\theta}]\,.
119: \end{equation}
120: These configurations provide self-energy dressing of the quarks through the definition
121: $\Sigma(p)\equiv\Lambda^{\theta}{\cal B}^{\theta}_0(p) =i{\not\!p}[A(p^2)-1]+B(p^2)$. According to
122: Ref.~\cite{RC85}, the self-energy functions $A$ and $B$ satisfy the Dyson-Schwinger equations,
123: \begin{eqnarray}
124: [A(p^2)-1]p^2 &=&{8\over 3}\int\frac{{\rm d}^4q}{(2\pi)^4}\ g^2D\left((p-q)^2\right)\
125: \frac{A(q^2)q\cdot p}{q^2A^2(q^2)+B^2(q^2)}\,, \label{DSE1} \\ \label{DSE2}
126: B(p^2) &=&{16\over 3}\int\frac{{\rm d}^4q}{(2\pi)^4}\ g^2D\left((p-q)^2\right)\
127: \frac{B(q^2)}{q^2A^2(q^2)+B^2(q^2)}\,.
128: \end{eqnarray}
129: The quark Green's function at ${\cal B}^{\theta}_0$ is given by
130: \begin{equation}
131: G_0(x,y)=G_0(x-y)=\int\frac{{\rm d}^4p}{(2\pi)^4}
132: \frac{-i{\not\!p}A(p^2)+B(p^2)}{p^2A^2(p^2)+B^2(p^2)}e^{ip\cdot(x-y)}\,.
133: \end{equation}
134:
135: The hadron properties follow from considering deviations from these vacuum configurations. If we
136: consider only the isoscalar $\sigma(x)$ and isovector $\vec{\pi}(x)$ fields, the approximate
137: local-field effective action can be taken as~\cite{RC85}
138: \begin{eqnarray}
139: S[\sigma,\vec{\pi}] &=& -{\rm Tr\,Ln}\left\{{\not\!\partial}A(x-y)+m\delta^{(4)}(x-y)+
140: V[\sigma,\vec{\pi}]B(x-y)\right\} \nonumber\\
141: & &{}+{1\over2}\int{\rm d}^4z[\sigma^2(z)+\vec{\pi}^2(z)]\int{\rm d}^4wB(w){\rm tr}[G(w)]\,,
142: \end{eqnarray}
143: where $V[\sigma,\vec{\pi}]=\sigma({x+y\over2})+ i\gamma_5\vec{\pi}({x+y\over2})\cdot\vec{\tau}$ and
144: $m$ is the quark bare mass. Expanding the spectrum of $S[\sigma,\vec{\pi}]$ to second order about
145: its minimum $S[1,0]$ with $\sigma(x)=1+\delta(x)$
146: \begin{equation}
147: S[1+\delta(x),\vec{\pi}(x)]-S[1,0]={1\over2}{f_\delta}^2\int\left[(\partial_\mu\delta)^2+
148: {m_\delta}^2\delta^2\right]{\rm d}^4z+{1\over2}{f_\pi}^2\int\left[(\partial_\mu\vec{\pi})^2+
149: {m_\pi}^2\vec{\pi}^2\right]{\rm d}^4z+\cdots\,,
150: \end{equation}
151: it is found that
152: \begin{equation}
153: {m_\delta}^2=\frac{3}{2\pi^2{f_\delta}^2}\int_0^\infty s{\rm d}s\ \frac{B^2(s)[B^2(s)-sA^2(s)]}
154: {[sA^2(s)+B^2(s)]^2}\,,
155: \end{equation}
156: \begin{equation} \label{fdelta}
157: {f_\delta}^2=\frac{3}{8\pi^2}\int_0^\infty s{\rm d}s\ \frac{A^2(s)B^2(s)}{[sA^2(s)+B^2(s)]^3}
158: \left\{2sA^2(s)+\frac{B^2(s)[sA^2(s)-B^2(s)]}{sA^2(s)+B^2(s)}\right\}\,;
159: \end{equation}
160: and
161: \begin{equation}
162: {m_\pi}^2=\frac{3m}{2\pi^2{f_\pi}^2}\int_0^\infty s{\rm d}s\ \frac{B(s)}{sA^2(s)+B^2(s)}\,,
163: \end{equation}
164: \begin{equation} \label{fpi1}
165: {f_\pi}^2=\frac{3}{8\pi^2}\int_0^\infty s{\rm d}s\ \frac{A^2(s)B^2(s)}{[sA^2(s)+B^2(s)]^2}
166: \left[2+\frac{B^2(s)}{sA^2(s)+B^2(s)}\right]\,.
167: \end{equation}
168: In Eqs.~(\ref{fdelta}) and (\ref{fpi1}), all those terms involving the derivatives of $A(s)$ and
169: $B(s)$ with respect to $s$ are neglected. Let $A(s)=1$, $B(s)=M$, with $M$ the mass of the
170: constituent quark, Eq.~(\ref{fpi1}) reduces to
171: \begin{equation} \label{fpi2}
172: {f_\pi}^2=\frac{3}{8\pi^2}\int_0^\infty s{\rm d}s\ \frac{M^2}{(s+M^2)^2}
173: \left(2+\frac{M^2}{s+M^2}\right)\,.
174: \end{equation}
175: When $s$ approaches infinity, the integrand of Eq.~(\ref{fpi2}) behaves like $2M^2/s$, which
176: reproduce the result of Ref.~\cite{WM98} strictly. While ${s\rightarrow 0}$, it behaves like
177: $3s/M^2$ rather than $2s/M^2$ of Ref.~\cite{WM98}. This difference arises from the second term in
178: the brackets of Eq.~(\ref{fpi2}). Can this difference bring some serious problems? Let put this
179: question aside at present.
180:
181: The tensor susceptibility $\chi$ is defined as~\cite{HX96}
182: \begin{equation}
183: \chi\equiv\frac{\Pi_{\chi}(0)}{6\langle\bar{q}q\rangle}\,,
184: \end{equation}
185: where
186: \begin{equation} \label{qqbar}
187: \langle\bar{q}q\rangle=-\frac{3}{4\pi^2}\int^\infty_0s{\rm d}s\ \frac{B(s)}{sA^2(s)+B^2(s)}
188: \end{equation}
189: is the quark condensate, we need only to calculate \(\Pi_{\chi}(0)\) defined as~\cite{HH03}:
190: \begin{equation} \label{chi}
191: {1\over 12}\Pi_{\chi}(0)\equiv-\frac{3}{4\pi^2}
192: \int^\infty_0s{\rm d}s\left [\frac{B(s)}{sA^2(s)+B^2(s)}\right ]^2.
193: \end{equation}
194: In this equation, if we let $A(s)=1$, $B(s)=M$, the result of Ref.~\cite{WM98} is strictly
195: reproduced.
196:
197: Before the numerical calculation of tensor susceptibility, we make an analysis of the nontrivial
198: solutions $A(s)$ and $B(s)$ to the Dyson-Schwinger equations (\ref{DSE1}) and (\ref{DSE2}). Because
199: the phenomenological gluon propagators exhibit the properties of asymptotic freedom and infrared
200: slavery, when $s=p^2$ increases from 0 to $\infty$, $B(s)$ ($\ge0$) decreases from some finite
201: non-zero value to zero, while $A(s)$ decreases from some non-zero value down to 1. Therefore,
202: $A(s)$ is universally greater than 1. The replacement of $A(s)$ by 1 in Eq.~(\ref{chi}) will lead
203: an increase in the value of $\Pi_{\chi}(0)/12$, or in other words, the value calculated from
204: Eq.~(\ref{chi}) is expected to be smaller than that obtained by the others. This is verified in the
205: recent calculation~\cite{HH03}, and will be further checked in the calculation below.
206:
207: The tactics in calculation is similar to that of Ref.~\cite{HH03}. The input parameters are
208: adjusted to reproduce the pion decay constant in the chiral limit $f_\pi=87$~MeV via
209: Eq.~(\ref{fpi1}).
210:
211: To give a convincible conclusion, we choose three different gluon propagators. The ultraviolet
212: behavior of these model gluon propagators are different from that in QCD~\cite{PC97,KH99}. They are
213: model 1:
214: \begin{equation}
215: g^2D(s)=4\pi^2d\frac{\lambda^2}{s^2+\Delta}\,,
216: \end{equation}
217: model 2:
218: \begin{equation}
219: g^2D(s)=3\pi^2\frac{\lambda^2}{\Delta^2}e^{-{s\over\Delta}} +\frac{4\pi^2d}{s\ln[s/\Lambda^2+e]}\,,
220: \end{equation}
221: and model 3:
222: \begin{equation}
223: g^2D(s)=4\pi^2d\,\frac{\lambda^2}{s^2+\Delta} +\frac{4\pi^2d}{s\ln[s/\Lambda^2+e]}\,.
224: \end{equation}
225: Here $d=12/(33-2N_f)=12/29$ and $\Lambda=200$ MeV. For model 1, the self-energy functions $A(s)$
226: and $B(s)$ varying with $s$ are showed respectively in Figs.~\ref{fig.as} and \ref{fig.bs}, with
227: the input parameters $\Delta=0.1\,{\rm GeV}^4$, $\lambda=1.780\,{\rm GeV}$. Obviously, $A(s)$ is
228: not less than 1. In Table~\ref{Tablechi} the values of $\Pi_{\chi}(0)/12$ for model 1 are
229: displayed, and the corresponding values for quark condensate $\langle\bar{q}q\rangle$ are also
230: listed. It should be noted that the values for quark condensate are roughly around those obtained
231: from QCD sum rules (see Ref.~\cite{T97} and references therein), due to the term
232: $B(s)/(sA^2(s)+B^2(s))$ in Eq.~(\ref{qqbar}) against the term $[B(s)/(sA^2(s)+B^2(s))]^2$ in
233: Eq.~(\ref{chi}) .
234: \begin{figure}[hb]
235: \begin{center}
236: \rotatebox{0}{\includegraphics[height=6.5cm]{as.eps}}\caption{\label{fig.as} The self-energy
237: function $A(s)$ as a function of $s$ for the gluon propagator
238: $g^2D(s)=\frac{48\pi^2}{29}\frac{\lambda^2}{s^2+\Delta}$, with $\Delta=0.1\,{\rm GeV}^4$,
239: $\lambda=1.780\,{\rm GeV}$}
240: \includegraphics[height=6.5cm]{bs.eps}\caption{\label{fig.bs}The self-energy
241: function $B(s)$ as a function of $s$ for the gluon propagator
242: $g^2D(s)=\frac{48\pi^2}{29}\frac{\lambda^2}{s^2+\Delta}$, with $\Delta=0.1\,{\rm GeV}^4$,
243: $\lambda=1.780\,{\rm GeV}$}
244: \end{center}
245: \end{figure}
246: \begin{table}[ht]
247: \caption{\label{Tablechi} The values of $\Pi_{\chi}(0)/12$ for model 1 with Eq.~(\ref{fpi1}) used
248: to calculate $f_\pi$. The quark condensate $\langle\bar{q}q\rangle$ is also presented.}
249: \begin{center}
250: \begin{tabular}{cccc}
251: \hline $\Delta\:[{\rm GeV}^4]$ & $\lambda\:[{\rm GeV}]$ & $-\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{1/3}\:[{\rm
252: MeV}]$ & $\Pi_{\chi}(0)/12\: [{\rm GeV}^2]$ \\ \hline
253: $10^{-1}$ &1.780 & 279 & -0.0017 \\
254: $10^{-2}$ &1.350 & 244 & -0.0015 \\
255: $10^{-4}$ &0.955 & 210 & -0.0013 \\
256: $10^{-6}$ &0.770 & 196 & -0.0013 \\ \hline
257: \end{tabular}
258: \end{center}
259: \end{table}
260: \begin{table}[ht]
261: \caption{\label{Tablechi2} The numerical results for models 2 and 3 with Eq.~(\ref{fpi1}) used to
262: calculate $f_\pi$.}
263: \begin{center}
264: \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
265: \hline\multicolumn{3}{c}{model 2}& & \multicolumn{3}{c}{model 3} \\ \cline{1-3} \cline{5-7}
266: $\Delta\:[{\rm GeV}^2]$ & $\lambda\:[{\rm GeV}]$ & $\Pi_{\chi}(0)/12\:[{\rm GeV}^2]$ & &
267: $\Delta\:[{\rm GeV}^4]$ & $\lambda\:[{\rm GeV}]$ & $\Pi_{\chi}(0)/12\:[{\rm GeV}^2]$\\ \hline
268: 2.000& 2.94& -0.0021& &$10^{-1}$& 1.71& -0.0016 \\
269: 0.200& 1.51& -0.0015& &$10^{-4}$& 0.95& -0.0012 \\
270: 0.020& 1.44& -0.0012& &$10^{-7}$& 0.71& -0.0012 \\ \hline
271: \end{tabular}
272: \end{center}
273: \end{table}
274: \begin{table}[htb]
275: \caption{\label{Tablechi3} The numerical results for models 2 and 3 with Eq.~(\ref{fpi3}) used to
276: calculate $f_\pi$.}
277: \begin{center}
278: \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
279: \hline\multicolumn{3}{c}{model 2}&& \multicolumn{3}{c}{model 3}\\ \cline{1-3}\cline{5-7}
280: $\Delta\:[{\rm GeV}^2]$ & $\lambda\:[{\rm GeV}]$ & $\Pi_{\chi}(0)/12\:[{\rm GeV}^2]$ & &
281: $\Delta\:[{\rm GeV}^4]$ & $\lambda\:[{\rm GeV}]$ & $\Pi_{\chi}(0)/12\:[{\rm GeV}^2]$\\
282: \cline{1-3}\hline
283: 2.000& 2.955& -0.0023& &$10^{-1}$& 1.755& -0.0018 \\
284: 0.200& 1.600& -0.0017& &$10^{-4}$& 1.010& -0.0014 \\
285: 0.020& 1.570& -0.0015& &$10^{-7}$& 0.765& -0.0014 \\ \hline
286: \end{tabular}
287: \end{center}
288: \end{table}
289:
290: The results for model 2 and model 3 are given in Table~\ref{Tablechi2}. It is shown that the values
291: of the quantity $\Pi_{\chi}(0)/12$ are still very small as that of Ref.~\cite{HH03}.
292:
293: To further check if the second term in the brackets of Eq.~(\ref{fpi1}) give some serious
294: modifications to our results, we drop this term intentionally and obtain:
295: \begin{equation} \label{fpi3}
296: {f_\pi}^2=\frac{3}{4\pi^2}\int_0^\infty s{\rm d}s\ \frac{A^2(s)B^2(s)}{[sA^2(s)+B^2(s)]^2}.
297: \end{equation}
298: Let $A(s)=1$, $B(s)=M$, the result of Ref.~\cite{WM98} is strictly reproduced. With
299: Eq.~(\ref{fpi3}), similar calculations can be performed for the various models as previously did.
300: For example, for models 2 and 3, the results are given in Table~\ref{Tablechi3}. One can see that,
301: these results do not make much difference to the previous ones.
302:
303: To summarize, we have calculated the QCD vacuum tensor susceptibility based on the modified version
304: of calculating pion decay constant. The various calculations in this letter and in Ref.~\cite{HH03}
305: show that, it is a fact that the value of tensor susceptibility calculated in GCM is very small. In
306: these calculations, the basic characteristic ($A(s)\ge1$) of quark propagator $G_0(p)$ or quark
307: self-energy $\Sigma(p)$ determined from the Dyson-Schwinger equations keeps unchanged. This is
308: probably the main reason to the small value of tensor susceptibility. So, for the calculation of
309: QCD vacuum tensor susceptibility, GCM formulated to date deviates seriously from the QCD sum rules
310: and constituent quark model.
311:
312: \bigskip
313: \noindent {\large \bf Acknowledgements}
314: \bigskip
315:
316: Part of this work was finished in Department of Physics, Nanjing University. The author would like
317: to thank Profs. Jia-lun Ping, Hong-shi Zong and Fan Wang for sincere help and valuable discussions.
318:
319: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
320: \bibitem{HX95} H. He and X. Ji, Phys. Rev. D52(1995)2960.
321: \bibitem{XJ97} X. Jin and J. Tang, Phys. Rev. D56(1997)5618.
322: \bibitem{RX91} R.L. Jaffe and X. Ji,
323: Phys. Rev. Lett. 67(1991)552;
324: Nucl. Phys. B375(1992)527.
325: \bibitem{JD79} J.P. Ralston and D.E. Soper,
326: Nucl. Phys. B152(1979)109.
327: \bibitem{HX96} H. He and X. Ji, Phys. Rev. D54(1996)6897.
328: \bibitem{VA97} V.M. Belyaev and A. Oganesian,
329: Phys. Lett. B395(1997)307.
330: \bibitem{L99} L.S. Kisslinger, Phys. Rev. C59(1999)3377.
331: \bibitem{AS00} A.P. Bakulev and S.V. Mikhailov,
332: Eur. Phys. J. C17(2000)129.
333: \bibitem{WM98} W. Broniowski, M. Polyakov, H.-C. Kim and K. Goeke,
334: Phys. Lett. B438(1998)242.
335: \bibitem{RC85} R.T. Cahill and C.D. Roberts, Phys. Rev. D32(1985)2419.
336: \bibitem{CR88} C.D. Roberts, R.T. Cahill and J. Praschifka,
337: Ann. Phys. (NY)188(1988)20.
338: \bibitem{MP91} M.R. Frank, P.C. Tandy and G. Fai,
339: Phys. Rev. C43(1991)2808.
340: \bibitem{R92} R.T. Cahill, Nucl. Phys. A543(1992)63c.
341: \bibitem{MP92} M.R. Frank and P.C. Tandy, Phys. Rev. C46(1992)338.
342: \bibitem{CA94} C.D. Roberts and A.G. Williams,
343: Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 33(1994)477.
344: \bibitem{CR94} C.D. Roberts, R.T. Cahill, M.E. Sevior and
345: N. Iannella, Phys. Rev. D49(1994)125.
346: \bibitem{RS95} R.T. Cahill and S. Gunner, Phys. Lett. B359(1995)281;
347: Mod. Phys. Lett. A10(1995)3051.
348: \bibitem{CG96} C.W. Johnson, G. Fai and M. R. Frank,
349: Phys. Lett. B386(1996)75.
350: \bibitem{MC96} M.R. Frank and C.D. Roberts, Phys. Rev. C53(1996)390.
351: \bibitem{MT96} M.R. Frank and T. Meissner, Phys. Rev. C53(1996)2410.
352: \bibitem{CC96} C.J. Burden, C.D. Roberts and M.J. Thomson,
353: Phys. Lett. B371(1996)163.
354: \bibitem{AD96} A. Bender, D. Blaschke, Y. Kalinovsky
355: and C. D. Roberts, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77(1996)3724.
356: \bibitem{CD97} C.J. Burden and D.-S. Liu, Phys. Rev. D55(1997)367;
357: \bibitem{P97} P. C. Tandy, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 39(1997)117.
358: \bibitem{MT98} M. R. Frank and T. Meissner, Phys. Rev. C57(1998)345.
359: \bibitem{PC98} P. Maris, C.D. Roberts and P.C. Tandy,
360: Phys. Lett. B420(1998)267.
361: \bibitem{MY98} M.A. Ivanov, Yu.L. Kalinovsky, P. Maris
362: and C.D. Roberts, Phys. Lett. B416(1998)29;
363: Phys. Rev. C57(1998)1991.
364: \bibitem{XY98} Xiao-fu L\"{u}, Yu-xin Liu, Hong-shi Zong
365: and En-guang Zhao, Phys. Rev. C58(1998)1195;
366: Hong-shi Zong, Yu-xin Liu, Xiao-fu L\"{u}, Fan Wang
367: and En-guang Zhao,
368: Commun. Theor. Phys. (Beijing, China)36(2001)187.
369: \bibitem{HJ03} H.S. Zong, J.L. Ping, H.T. Yang, X.F. L\"{u}, F. Wang, Phys. Rev. D67(2003)074004.
370: \bibitem{HH03} H.T. Yang, H.S. Zong, J.L. Ping and F. Wang, Phys. Lett. B557(2003)33.
371: \bibitem{T97} T. Meissner, Phys. Lett. B405(1997)8.
372: \bibitem{PC97} P. Maris and C.D. Roberts, Phys. Rev. C56(1997)3369.
373: \bibitem{KH99} K. Kusaka, H. Toki and S. Umisedo,
374: Phys. Rev. D59(1999)116010.
375: \end{thebibliography}
376:
377: \end{document}
378: