1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: \documentclass[aps,showpacs,nofootinbib,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
3:
4: \usepackage{graphicx}
5: \usepackage{dcolumn}
6: \usepackage{young}
7: \usepackage{wick}
8:
9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
10: \def\slashchar#1{\setbox0=\hbox{$#1$}
11: \dimen0=\wd0 \setbox1=\hbox{/} \dimen1=\wd1
12: \ifdim\dimen0>\dimen1 \rlap{\hbox to \dimen0{\hfil/\hfil}} #1
13: \else \rlap{\hbox to \dimen1{\hfil$#1$\hfil}} / \fi}
14: \def\tstrut{\vrule height2.5ex depth0pt width0pt} % used in tables
15: \def\jtstrut{\vrule height5ex depth0pt width0pt} % used in tables
16: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
17: \unitlength=1mm
18: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
19:
20: \begin{document}
21: \title{Large $N_c$ Weinberg-Tomozawa interaction and
22: negative parity $s$-wave baryon resonances}
23: \author{C. Garc{\'\i}a-Recio}
24: \author{J. Nieves}
25: \author{L.L. Salcedo}
26: \affiliation{
27: Departamento de F{\'\i}sica
28: At\'omica, Molecular y Nuclear, \\
29: Universidad de Granada, E-18071
30: Granada, Spain
31: }
32: %\today
33: \begin{abstract}
34: It is shown that in the 70 and 700 SU(6) irreducible spaces, the SU(6)
35: extension of the Weinberg-Tomozawa (WT) $s$-wave meson-baryon
36: interaction incorporating vector mesons ({\it hep-ph/0505233}) scales
37: as ${\cal O}(N_c^0)$, instead of the well known ${\cal O}(N_c^{-1})$
38: behavior for its SU(3) counterpart. However, the WT interaction
39: behaves as order ${\cal O}(N_c^{-1})$ within the 56 and 1134
40: meson-baryon spaces. Explicit expressions for the WT couplings
41: (eigenvalues) in the irreducible SU(2$N_F$) spaces, for arbitrary
42: $N_F$ and $N_c$, are given. This extended interaction is used as a
43: kernel of the Bethe-Salpeter equation, to study the large $N_c$
44: scaling of masses and widths of the lowest--lying negative parity
45: $s$-wave baryon resonances. Analytical expressions are found in the
46: $N_c\to \infty$ limit, from which it can be deduced that resonance
47: widths and excitation energies $(M_R-M)$ behave as order ${\cal O}
48: (N^0_c)$, in agreement with model independent arguments, and moreover
49: they fall in the 70-plet, as expected in constituent quark models for
50: an orbital excitation. For the 56 and 1134 spaces, excitation energies
51: and widths grow ${\cal O} (N_c^{1/2})$ indicating that such resonances
52: do not survive in the large $N_c$ limit. The relation of this latter
53: $N_c$ behavior with the existence of exotic components in these
54: resonances is discussed. The interaction comes out repulsive in the
55: 700.
56:
57: \end{abstract}
58:
59: \pacs{14.20.Gk;11.15.Pg;11.10.St;11.30.Rd}
60:
61:
62: \maketitle
63:
64: %=========================================
65:
66:
67: %\tableofcontents
68:
69:
70: \section{Introduction}
71:
72: Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD), the theory of the strong interactions,
73: is a non-abelian gauge theory based on the gauge group SU($N_c$), with
74: the number of colors $N_c=3$. Several authors have pointed out that
75: many features of QCD can be understood by studying the $1/N_c$
76: expansion of the theory and that, even at the Leading Order (LO) $N_c
77: \to \infty$, non-trivial and realistic features can be
78: inferred~\cite{Ho74,Wi79,Ma99}.
79:
80: The question of what is the true nature of baryon resonances has
81: attracted considerable attention in recent modern constructions of
82: effective field theories describing meson-baryon scattering. The
83: pattern of Spontaneous Chiral Symmetry Breaking (SCSB) of QCD, together
84: with an appropriate non-perturbative scheme, turns out to be a
85: crucial ingredient to better understand the main features of the
86: resonances. On the other hand, one might wonder what is the behavior
87: of these hadron states in the large $N_c$ limit of QCD.
88:
89: To incorporate SCSB, we work in a recently developed framework to
90: describe meson-baryon, both in $s$- and $d$-waves (\cite{Ga03} and
91: \cite{KL03}, respectively), scattering and resonances. It is based on
92: the solution of the Bethe Salpeter Equation (BSE) with a kernel
93: determined by the flavor SU(3) chiral counting rules and a particular
94: Renormalization Scheme (RS). The claim
95: of the authors of ~\cite{LK02} is that, in the SU(3) limit, this RS
96: restores crossing symmetry for a given total Center of Mass (CM)
97: energy ($\sqrt s$) below the unitarity threshold. At LO, in the chiral
98: expansion of the kernel, all parameters are determined, and the
99: obtained results are in a remarkable agreement with
100: data~\cite{Ga03, KL03,Lu03}. Extensions of the formalism to the
101: meson-meson sector~\cite{LK04} and the study of charm baryon
102: resonances~\cite{LK04charm} also lead to excellent results.
103:
104: One of the findings of Ref.~\cite{Ga03} is the existence of two SU(3)
105: octets plus a singlet of $J^P=\frac12^-$ $s$-wave baryon resonances
106: ($N(1535)$, $N(1650)$, $\Lambda(1405)$, $\Xi(1690)$, $\cdots$), which
107: are dynamically generated. In this work, we aim at describing the
108: large $N_c-$dependence of their masses and widths. It is well known
109: that in the $N_c \to \infty$ limit, the spin 3/2 baryon decuplet
110: ($\Delta$, $\Sigma^*$, $\Xi^*$, $\Omega$) is degenerate to the nucleon
111: octet. Therefore, for consistency~\cite{DJM94}, such degrees of
112: freedom have to be considered, which will force us to work with a
113: larger spin-flavor symmetry group (SU(6)). Spin-flavor symmetry in
114: the meson sector is not a direct consequence of large $N_c$. However,
115: vector mesons ($K^*, \rho,\omega, {\bar K}^{*}, \phi$) do exist, they
116: will couple to baryons and presumably will influence the properties of
117: the resonances. Lacking better theoretical founded models to take
118: into account vector mesons, we study here the spin-flavor symmetric
119: scenario, as reasonable first step.
120:
121: This paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we briefly
122: sketch the chiral unitary model of Ref.~\cite{Ga03}, and its LO $N_c$
123: limit is discussed in Sect.~\ref{sec:sec3}. The baryon decuplet and
124: vector meson nonet effects
125: are considered in Sect.~\ref{sec:sec4}. First in
126: Subsect.~\ref{sec:sec4a} , we use the chiral Bethe Salpeter approach
127: to SU(6) meson-baryon scattering developed in Ref.~\cite{GNS05}. In
128: Subsect.~\ref{sec:nc}, we extend the latter model for arbitrary $N_c$
129: and present the final and more robust results of this work. Finally,
130: in Sect.~\ref{sec:sec5}, we present our main conclusions. There are
131: four appendices where some useful formulae of interest for
132: Sect.~\ref{sec:sec2} and Subsect.~\ref{sec:nc} are compiled.
133:
134:
135: %
136: \section{Chiral Bethe Salpeter Approach to SU(3) Meson-Baryon
137: Scattering ($\chi-$BS(3))}
138:
139: \label{sec:sec2}
140:
141:
142: The leading term of the $s$-wave chiral meson-baryon Lagrangian is the well
143: known Weinberg-Tomozawa (WT) interaction~\cite{Wein-Tomo}. Since the
144: pioneering works of the group of Weise~\cite{weise}, and using the
145: WT Lagrangian as the input of the BSE\footnote{In some of the works,
146: the authors use the Lippmann-Schwinger equation instead of the
147: relativistic BSE.}, several approaches to $s$-wave baryon resonances in
148: different strangeness and isospin sectors have been carried
149: out~\cite{LK02,oset,OM,nrg}. From the theoretical point of view, the
150: used RS constitutes indeed the main difference among all of these
151: works (see Ref.~\cite{Lu03} for details).
152:
153: In order to find resonances in this approach, the coupled channel BSE
154: is solved, with an interaction kernel expanded in chiral perturbation
155: theory as formulated in~\cite{Pich95}. The involved hadrons are the
156: Goldstone pseudoscalar meson ($K,\pi,\eta,\bar K$) and the lowest
157: $\frac12^+$ baryon (${\rm N} ,\Sigma, \Lambda , \Xi$) octets. The
158: solution for the coupled channel $s$-wave meson-baryon scattering
159: amplitude, $T(\sqrt{s})$ in the so called {\it on-shell}
160: scheme~\cite{LK02,EJmeson} where the offshellness of the BSE is
161: ignored, can be expressed in terms of a renormalized matrix of loop
162: functions, $J(\sqrt{s})$, and an effective on-shell interaction
163: kernel, $V(\sqrt{s})$, as follows\footnote{ The $T$ matrix defined in
164: Eq.~(\protect\ref{eq:scat-eq}), coincides with the $t$ matrix defined
165: in Eq.~(33) of the first entry of Ref.~\protect\cite{nrg}.}
166: %
167: \begin{eqnarray}
168: T(\sqrt{s}) = \frac{1}{1- V(\sqrt{s})\,J(\sqrt{s})}\,V(\sqrt{s})
169: \,. \label{eq:scat-eq}
170: \end{eqnarray}
171: %
172: Thanks to the conservation of Isospin ($I$) and Strangeness ($S$), the
173: problem decouples into different $(I,S)$ sectors. In each sector,
174: there are several coupled channels, $N^{IS}$. For instance, in the
175: $(I,S)=(0,-1)$ sector $N^{IS}=4$ and the corresponding coupled channels
176: are $\pi \Sigma$ , $\eta \Lambda$, $\bar K N$ and $K \Xi$. Thus for a
177: given $(I,S)$ sector, all objects in Eq.~(\ref{eq:scat-eq}) are
178: square matrices of dimension $N^{IS}$ in the coupled channel
179: space. The effective on-shell interaction kernel $V$ is
180: expanded in chiral perturbation theory. The chiral LO
181: interaction kernel $V(\sqrt{s})$, as determined by the WT interaction reads
182: %
183: \begin{eqnarray}
184: V^{IS}_{ab}(\sqrt{s}) =
185: D^{IS}_{ab} \frac{2\,\sqrt{s}-M_a-M_b}{4\,f^2} \,,
186: \label{eq:lowest}
187: \end{eqnarray}
188: %
189: where $M_a$ ($M_b$) is the baryon mass of the initial (final)
190: channel. The $D$'s matrices can be found in the
191: literature~\cite{oset,nrg} or deduced from Eq.~(\ref{eq:su6}) of
192: Subsect.~\ref{sec:sec4a} (see \cite{GNS05} for some more details).
193: The eigenvalues ($\lambda$'s) of the $D^{IS}$ matrices are 2,0,$-3,-3$
194: for both $IS=(1/2,0)$ and $IS =(1/2,-2)$, and 2,$-3,-3,-6$ and
195: 2,0,0,$-3,-3$ for $IS=(0,-1)$ and $IS =(1,-1)$, respectively. Those
196: eigenvalues follow a pattern inferred from the SU(3) group
197: representation reduction
198: %
199: \begin{equation}
200: 8\otimes8=27\oplus 10 \oplus 10^* \oplus 8_a \oplus 8_b \oplus 1 \label{eq:su3}
201: \end{equation}
202: %
203: being
204: %
205: \begin{equation}
206: \lambda_{8_a}=\lambda_{8_b}\equiv\lambda_8=-3, \qquad \lambda_1=-6, \qquad
207: \lambda_{10}=\lambda_{10^*}=0, \qquad \lambda_{27}=2, \label{eq:lambdas}
208: \end{equation}
209: %
210: the eigenvalues associated to octets, singlet, decuplet and antidecuplet,
211: and 27--plet SU(3) representations, respectively~\cite{Ga03}.
212:
213: On the other hand, the diagonal loop functions, $J^{IS}(\sqrt{s})$,
214: can be found in the Appendix~\ref{sec:app}. The loop function
215: logarithmically diverges and one subtraction is needed to make it
216: finite. Such a freedom is fixed by the renormalization
217: condition~\cite{LK02}
218: %
219: \begin{eqnarray}
220: T^{IS}(\sqrt{s}= \mu) = V^{IS}(\mu ) \,, \qquad \mu = \mu (I,S) \label{eq:rsch}
221: \end{eqnarray}
222: %
223: with the choice
224: \begin{eqnarray}
225: \mu(1/2,-2)&=& m_\Xi, \quad \mu(0,-1)=m_\Lambda,
226: \nonumber \\
227: \mu(1,-1)& = &m_\Sigma, \quad \mu(1/2,0) = m_N
228: \label{eq:sub-choice}
229: \end{eqnarray}
230: %
231: The renormalization condition
232: of Eq.~(\ref{eq:rsch}) is implemented by imposing that the
233: renormalized loop functions $J^{IS}_a(\sqrt{s}),~\forall a=1,\cdots ,
234: N^{IS}$, vanish at the appropriate points $\sqrt{s}=\mu(I,S)$. In this
235: way, all the constants ${\cal J}^{IS}_a ( s= (m_a + M_a)^2),
236: a=1,\cdots , N^{IS}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:defj0}) turn out to be completely
237: determined in terms of the involved baryon and meson
238: masses. Furthermore, taking the LO of the chiral expansion for the
239: interaction kernel, $V(\sqrt{s})$, as determined by the WT
240: interaction, there are no free parameters besides the meson ($m$'s)
241: and baryon ($M$'s) masses and the pion weak decay constant in the
242: chiral limit ($f\simeq 90$ MeV). At this chiral LO, the framework
243: leads already to excellent results for physical $s$-wave meson-baryon
244: scattering~\cite{Ga03} (an extension of the model to $d$-wave scattering
245: works also quite nicely~\cite{KL03}). Besides, the framework allows
246: also to study the dependence of the scattering process on the quark
247: masses, which made possible to unravel the SU(3) structure of the
248: lowest lying $s$-wave baryon resonances. The findings of
249: Ref.~\cite{Ga03} indicate that two full SU(3) octets plus an
250: additional singlet of $\frac12^-$ resonances are dynamically
251: generated. Some of them are the four stars $N(1535)$, $N(1650)$,
252: $\Lambda(1405)$, $\Lambda(1670)$ or the three stars $\Xi(1690)$
253: resonances. All these resonances appear in the sectors
254: $(I,S)=(\frac12,0),(0,-1),(1,-1)$ and $(\frac12,-2)$. Similar
255: conclusions, within a different RS, can be drawn from the work of
256: Ref.~\cite{Ji03}, though there only the strangeness $-1$ sector is
257: studied in detail.
258:
259:
260: \section{Large $N_c$ Limit of the $\chi-$BS(3) }
261:
262: \label{sec:sec3}
263:
264: The $N_c \to \infty$ limit of the LO $\chi-$BS(3) model is
265: particularly simple, since as discussed above, the model has no free
266: parameters besides the hadron masses and the pion weak decay constant
267: in the chiral limit. The $N_c \to \infty $ behavior of those
268: quantities is well established (see f.i. Ref.~\cite{Ma99}), and
269: neglecting $1/N_c^\epsilon$ terms ($\epsilon > 0$), one finds
270: %
271: \begin{eqnarray}
272: f(N_c) &\sim& f_0\times \sqrt{\frac{N_c}{3}}\\
273: M_a(N_c) &\sim& M_0 \frac{N_c}{3} + b_1 \frac{\sqrt 3}{2}\left (
274: 1 - \frac{3N_s^{(a)}}{N_c}\right) \\
275: m_a (N_c) &\sim& m_a
276: \end{eqnarray}
277: %
278: with $M_0 \approx 1097$ MeV from the coefficient $a_0$ in Eq.~(7.4) of
279: Ref.~\cite{Ma99}, $b_1\approx -257$ MeV and $f_0\approx 90$ MeV. Note
280: that the number of strange quarks, $N_s$, could be a fraction of the
281: total number of quarks ($N_c$) of the colorless baryon.
282:
283: Resonances manifest as poles in the fourth quadrant of the second
284: Riemann sheet of the $T-$matrix. Positions of the poles,
285: %
286: \begin{equation}
287: s_R=M^2_R - i M_R \Gamma_R,
288: \end{equation}
289: %
290: determine masses ($M_R$) and widths ($\Gamma_R$) of the resonances
291: while the residues for the different channels define the corresponding
292: branching ratios. As mentioned above, an exhaustive study of the
293: $J^P=\frac12^-$ $s$-wave baryon resonance properties for the $S=0,-1$
294: and $-2$ channels was performed in Ref.~\cite{Ga03}. In what follows,
295: we neglect the meson masses, which become truly massless Goldstone
296: bosons, and the $b_1$ term contribution to the baryon masses, since
297: they do not affect the LO $N_c \to \infty$ properties of those
298: resonances\footnote{The $N_c$ dependence of the correction
299: induced by finite meson masses can be
300: estimated by shifting the baryon mass by an amount of order $N_c^0$.} . In
301: this way SU(3) flavor symmetry is also restored, and one has two
302: degenerate octets and one singlet of resonances. Indeed, for $N_c=3$
303: we essentially recover the ``light'' SU(3) limit introduced in
304: Ref.~\cite{Ga03}. Within this framework, our RS leads to the
305: conditions ${\cal J}^{IS}_a ( s= M^2)=0, a=1,\cdots , N^{IS}$, where
306: $M$ is the $N_c$ LO SU(3) baryon mass
307: %
308: \begin{equation}
309: M_a \sim M = M_0\times N_c/3, \qquad \forall a
310: \end{equation}
311: %
312: For each $IS$ channel, the position of the poles is determined by
313: %
314: \begin{equation}
315: \beta(s)\Big|_{s=s_R\equiv M^2_R-iM_R\Gamma_R} = \lambda_i, \quad
316: i=1,8,10,10^*, 27
317: \label{eq:beta}
318: \end{equation}
319: %
320: with $M_R>M$ and $\Gamma_R>0$. Besides, $\lambda_i$ are the
321: eigenvalues of the real and symmetric matrix $D^{IS}$
322: (Eq.~(\ref{eq:lambdas})) and the
323: dimensionless function $\beta(s)$ (see
324: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:scat-eq})--(\ref{eq:lowest})) reads
325: %
326: \begin{equation}
327: \beta(s) = \frac{2f^2}{J_{II}^{N_c \gg 1}(\sqrt s)(\sqrt s - M)}
328: \label{eq:beta_ant}
329: \end{equation}
330: with $J_{II}^{N_c \gg 1}$ the loop function of Eq.~(\ref{eq:loopf})
331: with $M_a=M, m_a=0$, but defined in the second Riemann sheet. In the
332: fourth quadrant, it reads~\cite{nrg}
333: %
334: \begin{eqnarray}
335: J_{II}^{N_c \gg 1}(\sqrt s) &=&
336: \frac{(\sqrt s +M)^2}{2\sqrt s~(4\pi)^2}\left (\frac{s-M^2}{s}\right)
337: \Big\{ \log |R(s)| + i {\rm Arg}(R(s))-3i\pi\Big\}
338: \label{eq:jota}
339: \end{eqnarray}
340: %
341: with $R(s)=(s-M^2)/M^2$ and ${\rm Arg}(R(s))$ should be taken in the
342: interval $[0,2\pi[$.
343:
344: The equation (\ref{eq:beta}) has solutions only for negative
345: eigenvalues, $\lambda_8$ and $\lambda_1$. Thus, at LO of the $N_c$
346: expansion only those $s$-wave $\frac 12^-$ resonant states ($N(1535)$,
347: $N(1650)$, $\Lambda(1405)$, $\Lambda(1670)$, $\Sigma(1620)$,
348: $\Xi(1620)$, $\Xi(1690)$, $\Lambda(1390)$\footnote{The $\Lambda(1390)$ state
349: corresponds to the SU(3) singlet
350: representation~\protect\cite{Ga03,nrg,Ji03,ORM05}. In this list of
351: resonances, there is a $\Sigma$ state missing. Perhaps, it could be
352: the $\Sigma(1750)$ resonance.}) belonging to the two octets and
353: singlet SU(3) representations are dynamically generated from Goldstone meson
354: ($K,\pi,\eta,\bar K$) and the lowest $J^P=\frac12^+$ baryon (${\rm N}
355: ,\Sigma, \Lambda , \Xi$ ) octets re-scattering. Reciprocally, LO $N_c$
356: results disfavor the existence of dynamically generated decuplet,
357: antidecuplet and 27-plet states. Though, this will change after the
358: inclusion of baryon decuplet and vector meson nonet effects in the
359: next section. For its nowadays interest, we
360: remark that LO $N_c$ $\chi-$BS(3) model strongly disfavors that the $S=+1$
361: isoscalar $\Theta^+$ resonance, which would be the
362: isospin singlet state of the antidecuplet representation,
363: could be described just in terms of dynamical $KN$ resonant
364: re-scattering\footnote{Moreover, we
365: should remind here that the WT chiral meson-baryon Lagrangian predicts a
366: vanishing on shell interaction kernel $V(\sqrt s)$, for isoscalar $KN$
367: scattering.}. Taking into account also $K^*$ and $\Delta$ degrees of
368: freedom, within a larger spin-flavor symmetry scheme, might
369: permit the existence of the {\it so called} pentaquarks~\cite{GNS05}.
370:
371: Octet and singlet resonance masses and widths from
372: Eq.~(\ref{eq:beta}) are depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1}.
373: %
374: \begin{figure}
375: \vspace{-2cm}
376: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=25cm]{fig1.ps}}
377: \vspace{-8cm}
378: \caption{ Singlet and octet resonance masses ($M_R$) and widths
379: ($\Gamma_R$) as a function of $N_c$ from the naive large $N_c$ limit of
380: the $\chi-$BS(3).}
381: \label{fig:fig1}
382: \end{figure}
383: %
384: Several comments are in order:
385: %
386: \begin{itemize}
387: \item Since $M$ increases as $N_c$, the shift $M_R-M$ and the resonance
388: width, $\Gamma_R$, increase with $N_c$
389: slower than $\sqrt{N_c}$.
390: \item The ratio $\Gamma_R/(M_R-M)$ approaches to zero as $N_c$ increases, both
391: for singlet and octet resonances.
392:
393: \item The approximate formula
394: %
395: \begin{equation}
396: \frac{\Gamma_R}{M} = - \frac{\pi \delta}{\log(2\delta)}, \quad
397: {\rm with} \quad
398: \delta \equiv \frac{M_R-M}{M} \label{eq:apprx}
399: \end{equation}
400: %
401: works notably well in the large $N_c$ limit. Indeed, in the limit
402: $N_c\to\infty$ one easily finds
403: %
404: \begin{eqnarray}
405: \delta^2 \log\delta &=& \frac{24\pi^2f_0^2}{N_c\lambda_iM_0^2}
406: \label{eq:relsu3a} \\
407: \frac{\Gamma_R}{M}&=& -\lambda_i \frac{N_c\delta^3M_0^2}{24\pi
408: f_0^2}, \quad i= 8,1 \label{eq:relsu3b}
409: \end{eqnarray}
410: %
411: which suggest a large $N_c$ behavior of the type
412: %
413: \begin{eqnarray}
414: \delta &\sim& \frac{1}{\sqrt{N_c\log N_c}} \label{eq:loga}\\
415: \frac{\Gamma_R}{M} &\sim& \frac{1}{\sqrt{N_c\log^3 N_c}} \label{eq:logb}
416: \end{eqnarray}
417: %
418: \item The presence of logarithms of $N_c$ in the mass and width of the
419: resonances is against standard large $N_c$ counting rules
420: \cite{Wi79}. In the present approach it comes out from the baryon mass
421: in the loop function. Such logarithms are almost certainly an artifact
422: of the implementation of the effective theory, and are expected to
423: dissappear using a more appropriate treatment along the lines of Heavy
424: Baryon Chiral Perturbation Theory \cite{Jenkins:1990jv}, or the
425: Infrared Regularization of Ellis and Tang \cite{Ellis:1997kc}, and
426: Becher and Leutwyler \cite{Becher:1999he}. So the BSE approach as used
427: in this work should reliably predict the power-like part of the $N_c$
428: dependence but not necessarily logarithmic corrections.
429:
430: \end{itemize}
431: The original work of Witten~\cite{Wi79} pointed out that the excited
432: baryons have both natural widths and excitation energies of order
433: ${\cal O} (N^0_c)$. More recently, some questions have been raised
434: about the general validity of that result and some arguments in favor
435: of the existence of narrow (widths of ${\cal O}(1/N_c)$) excited
436: baryons at large $N_c$ have been given~\cite{PY98}. Nevertheless, it
437: seems that a general large $N_c$ QCD analysis does not predict such
438: narrow states~\cite{Co04}, which has been also corroborated by other
439: authors~\cite{GSS05}. On the other hand, resonances are unstable
440: particles, and one may question the validity of a Hamiltonian
441: formalism\footnote{ In such scenario resonances are described as
442: single--quark orbital excitations about a closed-shell
443: core~\protect\cite{GSS02,Ope}.}, since it must be assumed that the
444: resonant states exist for a sufficiently long time in order to be
445: described as eigenstates of a Hamiltonian. Chiral soliton models,
446: such as the Skyrme model, improve on that point and in those models,
447: resonances show up as poles in meson--baryon scattering
448: amplitudes~\cite{Solitons}. Recently, it has been proved that both
449: schemes are compatible in some sense, and give rise to a set of
450: multiplets of degenerate states, for which any complete spin-flavor
451: multiplet within one picture fills the quantum numbers of complete
452: multiplets in the other picture~\cite{CL03}.
453:
454: The results of this section do not support the existence of narrow
455: states either, but lead to widths and excitation energies $(M_R-M)$
456: which do not behave as order ${\cal O} (N^0_c)$, but instead grow, in
457: the $N_c \to \infty$ limit, as $\sqrt{N_c}$ (modulo subleading
458: logarithmic corrections not under control in the present BSE
459: treatment). It might point out to a serious deficiency of the present
460: analysis. Indeed, as we will show below, the results presented in
461: this section are not reliable. At least, there are two aspects which
462: should be revised. First, as mentioned in the introduction baryon
463: decuplet degrees of freedom should be included. Second, baryons carry
464: the quantum numbers of $N_c$ quarks (in order to form an SU($N_c$)
465: color singlet from color--fundamental irreps), and therefore the
466: baryon SU(3) irreps might depend on $N_c$, which could induce an $N_c$
467: dependence of the eigenvalues ($\lambda$'s). As we will see, the
468: extension of spin-flavor symmetry to the meson sector will also be
469: essential.
470:
471: \section{Baryon Decuplet and Vector Meson Nonet Effects}
472:
473: \label{sec:sec4}
474:
475: Let us start revising the chiral Bethe Salpeter approach to SU(6)
476: meson-baryon scattering ($\chi-$BS(6)) developed in
477: Ref.\cite{GNS05}. For ground state baryons, there exists an exact
478: spin--flavor symmetry in the large $N_c$ limit~\cite{Ma99}. This is to
479: say that the light quark--light quark interaction is approximately
480: spin independent as well as SU(3) independent. This corresponds to
481: treating the six states of a light quark ($u$, $d$ or $s$ with spin
482: up, $\uparrow$, or down, $\downarrow$) as equivalent, and leads us to
483: the invariance group SU(6). Since the pure SU(3) transformations
484: commute with the pure SU(2) (spin) transformations within SU(6), it
485: follows that a SU(6) multiplet can be decomposed into SU(3) multiplets
486: each of definite total spin. With the inclusion of the spin there are
487: 216 three quark states, and the SU(6) group representation reduction
488: (denoting the SU(6) multiplets by their dimensionality and a SU(3)
489: multiplet $\mu$ of spin $J$ by $\mu_{2J+1}$) reads
490: %
491: \begin{eqnarray}
492: 6\otimes 6 \otimes 6 &=& 56 \oplus 70 \oplus 70 \oplus 20=
493: \underbrace{8_2 \oplus 10_4}_{56} \oplus \underbrace{1_4\oplus
494: 8_2\oplus}_{20} \nonumber\\
495: &\oplus& 2\times \Big\{\underbrace{10_2 \oplus 8_4\oplus
496: 8_2\oplus 1_2 }_{70} \Big\}
497: \end{eqnarray}
498: %
499: It is natural to assign the lowest--lying baryons to the 56--plet of SU(6),
500: since it can accommodate an octet of spin--$1/2$ baryons and a
501: decuplet of spin--$3/2$ baryons, which are exactly the SU(3)--spin
502: combinations of the low--lying baryon states ($(N,\Sigma,\Lambda,
503: \Xi)$ and ($\Delta$, $\Sigma^*$, $\Xi^*$, $\Omega$)). Furthermore, the
504: 56--plet of SU(6) is totally symmetric, which allows the baryon to be made
505: of three quarks in $s$-wave. Color degrees of freedom take care of the
506: Fermi's statistics.
507:
508: In the meson sector, assuming that the lowest lying states are
509: obtained from $s$-wave quark--antiquark interactions and taking into
510: account the
511: group reduction
512: \begin{equation}
513: 6\otimes 6^* = 35 \oplus 1 = \underbrace{8_1 \oplus 8_3
514: \oplus 1_3}_{35} \oplus \underbrace{1_1}_{1},
515: \end{equation}
516: %
517: the octet of pseudoscalar ($K, \pi,\eta, {\bar K}$) and the nonet of
518: vector ($K^*, \rho,\omega, {\bar K}^{*}, \phi$) mesons are commonly
519: placed in the 35 representation of SU(6). A ninth $0^-$ meson
520: ($\eta^\prime$) must go in the $1$ of SU(6). The nonet of vector
521: mesons and the octet of Goldstone bosons are clearly not
522: degenerated. As mentioned in the introduction, spin-flavor symmetry in
523: the meson sector is not a direct consequence of large $N_c$. However,
524: vector mesons do exist, they will couple to baryons and presumably
525: will influence the properties of the resonances. Since the splitting
526: between the pseudo-scalar and vector mesons is of order $N_c^0$ as the
527: meson masses themselves, and having neglected these latter ones with
528: respect to the baryon masses, it is not unreasonable to assume a
529: spin-flavor symmetry in large $N_c$ in the meson sector, as
530: well. Lacking better theoretical founded models to take into account
531: vector mesons, studying the spin-flavor symmetric scenario seems a
532: reasonable first step. Moreover an underlying static chiral $U(6)
533: \times U(6)$ symmetry has been advocated by Caldi and
534: Pagels~\cite{CP76} in which vector mesons would be ``dormant''
535: Goldstone bosons acquiring mass thorough relativistic
536: corrections. This scheme solves a number of theoretical problems in
537: the classification of mesons and also makes predictions which are in
538: remarkable agreement with the experiment.
539:
540: Thus for consistency, the spin--3/2 decuplet baryon and the vector
541: meson nonet degrees of freedom have to be added to the resonance
542: analysis carried out in the previous section. As a consequence, for a given
543: sector ($JIS$), there now appear some more coupled channels than
544: when the involved hadrons were only the Goldstone pseudoscalar meson
545: and the lowest $J^P=\frac12^+$ baryon octets. For instance, in the
546: $(JIS)=(1/2,0,-1)$ sector, besides the $\pi \Sigma$ , $\eta
547: \Lambda$, $\bar K N$ and $K \Xi$ channels, we also consider now the
548: $K^*\Xi$, $K^*\Xi^*$, $\rho\Sigma$, $\rho\Sigma^*$, $\omega \Lambda$,
549: $\bar K^* N$ and $\phi \Lambda$ ones.
550:
551: We will limit ourselves to $s$-wave meson--baryon
552: resonances\footnote{We are aware of possible $d$-wave mixings, which
553: within the framework outlined in Ref.~\protect\cite{GNS05} will be
554: examined elsewhere.} and we
555: will make use of the SU(6) extension of the Weinberg-Tomozawa (WT)
556: meson-baryon chiral Lagrangian recently carried out in
557: Ref.~\cite{GNS05}. Chiral Symmetry (CS) at leading order (WT Lagrangian) is
558: much more predictive than SU(3) symmetry\footnote{From the SU(3)
559: decomposition of Eq.~(\ref{eq:su3}), one easily
560: deduces~\protect\cite{GNS05} that SU(3) symmetry describes the
561: Goldstone pseudoscalar meson and the lowest $J^P=\frac12^+$ baryon
562: octets $s$-wave scattering in terms of seven undetermined functions
563: (Wigner--Eckart matrix elements) of the meson--baryon Mandelstam
564: variable $s$.} and determines the on-shell interaction kernel,
565: $V(\sqrt{s})$, for ($8_1$)meson--($8_2$)baryon $s$-wave scattering in
566: Eq.~(\ref{eq:scat-eq}) in terms of a unique parameter ($f$), besides
567: the hadron masses (see Eq.~(\ref{eq:lowest})). From an SU(6) point of
568: view, one should work with $s$-wave meson--baryon states, constructed
569: out of the SU(6) 35 (mesons) and 56 (baryons) multiplets. The SU(6)
570: decomposition yields
571: %
572: \begin{eqnarray}
573: \label{eq:su6-rep}
574: 35 \otimes 56 = 56 \oplus 70 \oplus 700 \oplus 1134,
575: \end{eqnarray}
576: %
577: and thus one has four (Wigner-Eckart irreducible matrix elements of
578: the SU(6) invariant Hamiltonian) free functions of the meson--baryon
579: Mandelstam variable $s$. It is clear that not all SU(3) invariant
580: interactions in the $(8_1)$meson--$(8_2)$baryon sector can be extended
581: to a SU(6) invariant interaction. Remarkably, the WT interaction turns
582: out to be consistent with SU(6) and, moreover, the extension is
583: unique. In other words, there is a choice of the four couplings for
584: the $35 \otimes 56$ interaction that, when restricted to the $8_1
585: \otimes 8_2$ sector, reproduces the WT on-shell interaction kernel
586: $V(\sqrt{s})$ of Eq.~(\ref{eq:lowest}), and such choice is
587: unique~\cite{GNS05}. Indeed, the {\it potential} of
588: Eq.~(\ref{eq:lowest}) can be recovered, in the SU(3) limit, by taking
589: %
590: \begin{eqnarray}
591: \langle {\cal M}^\prime {\cal B}^\prime ; JIY | V| {\cal M} {\cal B}
592: ; JIY \rangle & =&\sum_{\phi_{\rm SU(6)}} \bar\lambda_{\phi_{\rm SU(6)}}
593: \frac{\sqrt{s}-M}{2\,f^2} {\cal
594: P}_{{\cal M}{\cal B}, {\cal M}^\prime {\cal B}^\prime }^{\phi_{\rm
595: SU(6)},JIY} ,\nonumber \\
596: %
597: {\cal
598: P}_{{\cal M}{\cal B}, {\cal M}^\prime {\cal B}^\prime }^{\phi_{\rm
599: SU(6)},JIY} &=& \sum_{\mu_{\rm SU(3)},\alpha}
600: %
601: \left( \begin{array}{cc|c} 35& 56&
602: \phi_{\rm SU(6)} \\ \mu_M J_M & \mu_B J_B &
603: \mu_{\rm SU(3)} J \alpha \end{array}\right)
604: \left( \begin{array}{cc|c}
605: \mu_M& \mu_B& \mu_{\rm SU(3)} \\
606: I_M Y_M & I_B Y_B & I Y\end{array}\right)
607: %
608: \nonumber\\
609: &\times&
610: \left( \begin{array}{cc|c} \mu^\prime_{M^\prime}& \mu_{B^\prime}^\prime&
611: \mu_{\rm SU(3)} \\ I^\prime_{M^\prime}Y^\prime_{M^\prime} &
612: I^\prime_{B^\prime} Y^\prime_{B^\prime} &
613: IY\end{array}\right) \left( \begin{array}{cc|c} 35& 56&
614: \phi_{\rm SU(6)} \\ \mu'_{M'} J'_{M'} & \mu'_{B'} J'_{B'} &
615: \mu_{\rm SU(3)} J \alpha \end{array}\right). \label{eq:vsu6}
616: \label{eq:su6}%
617: \end{eqnarray}
618: %
619: with
620: %
621: \begin{equation}
622: \bar\lambda_{56}=-12, \qquad \bar\lambda_{70}=-18, \qquad
623: \bar\lambda_{700}=6, \qquad \bar\lambda_{1134}=-2 \label{eq:lassu6}
624: \end{equation}
625: %
626: and $M$ now being the common octet and decuplet baryon mass. Besides,
627: $Y$ stands for the hypercharge (strangeness plus baryon number), and
628: we use the notation ${\cal M}\equiv \left [(\mu_M)_{2J_M+1}, I_M,
629: Y_M\right]$ for mesons and similarly for baryons (${\cal B}$). Thus,
630: $\mu_{M}=8,1$ and $\mu_{B}=8,10$ are the meson and baryon SU(3)
631: multiplets, respectively, and $J_{M,B},I_{M,B},Y_{M,B}$ are the spin,
632: isospin and hypercharge quantum numbers of the involved
633: hadrons. Finally in Eq.~(\ref{eq:su6}), SU(3) isoscalar
634: factors~\cite{CG-su3}, and the SU(6)--multiplet coupling
635: factors~\cite{CG-su6} are also used. For more details see
636: Ref.~\cite{GNS05}.
637:
638:
639: \subsection{Naive large $N_c$ limit of the $\chi-$BS(6)}
640:
641: \label{sec:sec4a}
642:
643: In this subsection we use Eq.~(\ref{eq:vsu6}) as the interaction
644: kernel to solve the BSE in the large $N_c$ limit. Thus, we improve on
645: the analysis of Sect.~\ref{sec:sec3} by including baryon decuplet and
646: vector meson nonet effects. We assume that the ground state baryons
647: fall in the 56--plet of SU(6) (only possible if $N_c$ is odd) for
648: large $N_c$, however we still ignore the fact that the spin-flavor
649: irreps might depend on $N_c$.
650:
651: Since $V$ is a SU(6) scalar operator, one readily realizes that the
652: resonance equation reads now,
653: %
654: \begin{equation}
655: \beta(s)\Big|_{s=s_R\equiv M^2_R-iM_R\Gamma_R} = \bar
656: \lambda_{\phi_{SU(6)}}, \quad
657: \phi_{SU(6)}=56,70,700,1134
658: \label{eq:beta_SU(6)}
659: \end{equation}
660: %
661: with $M_R>M$ and $\Gamma_R>0$ and thus, the approximated relation of
662: Eq.~(\ref{eq:apprx}) is accomplished, as well. This equation has
663: solutions only for negative eigenvalues, $\bar \lambda_{70}$, $\bar
664: \lambda_{56}$ and $\bar \lambda_{1134}$. Note that the 70 of SU(6)
665: leads to the most attractive $s$-wave meson--baryon interaction. This is
666: also the scenario commonly adopted in most large $N_c$ works,
667: where the first negative parity baryon excited states are considered
668: as members of the 70 multiplet (see f.i. Ref~\cite{GSS02}). Beyond
669: the large $N_c$ LO, there appear terms in the meson--baryon
670: Hamiltonian which explicitly break down the spin--flavor symmetry and
671: thus, one expects SU(6) configuration mixings. Hence the $N(1535)$,
672: $N(1650)$, $\Lambda(1405)$, $\Lambda(1670)$, $\Sigma(1620)$,
673: $\Xi(1620)$, $\Xi(1690)$, $\Lambda(1390)$ $s$-wave $\frac 12^-$
674: resonances will be constructed out of the SU(6) 70, 56 and 1134
675: resonant states. From the spin--flavor content of the SU(6)
676: representations, we expect the SU(3) singlet resonance\footnote{The
677: resonance $\Lambda(1390)$ will have a large SU(3) singlet component.}
678: to be a linear combination of the 70 and 1134 states, while for the
679: SU(3) octet ones, the SU(6) 56 resonant states will have to be
680: considered as well\footnote{The 56-plet should be included, since
681: there is only one $8_2$ multiplet in the 70 of SU(6).}.
682:
683: Thus, the properties of these resonances ($N(1535)$, $N(1650)$,
684: $\Lambda(1405)$,...) are modified by their coupling to the baryon
685: decuplet and vector meson nonet states. Assuming that these states
686: belong to the 70~\cite{GSS02}\footnote{The available analysis of the
687: negative parity 70--plet baryon masses within the $1/N_c$ expansion
688: suffer from a serious deficiency. Those studies do not consider the
689: $\Lambda(1390)$ state, which existence has been firmly established
690: from a theoretical point of view~\protect\cite{Ga03,nrg,Ji03}, and
691: also there are some indications supporting its existence in the $K^- p
692: \to \pi^0 \pi^0 \Sigma^0$ reaction data, as it has been recently
693: pointed out in Ref.~\cite{ORM05}. Traditionally, large $N_c$ studies
694: construct the isospin singlet states of the $8_2$ and $1_2$
695: SU(3)$_{2J+1}$ representations, entering in the 70 SU(6) multiplet, as
696: linear combinations of the $\Lambda(1405)$ and $\Lambda(1670)$
697: resonances. It is clear, that the $\Lambda(1390)$ state should be
698: considered, and presumably it will have a large $1_2$ component.}, 56
699: and 1134 multiplets, we find that the relations of
700: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:relsu3a})--(\ref{eq:relsu3b}) are correct, just by
701: replacing $\lambda_{1,8}$ by $\bar \lambda_{70,56,1134}$.
702:
703: On the other hand, the relations of
704: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:loga})--(\ref{eq:logb}) still hold, with no
705: modifications. As a conclusion, considering baryon decuplet and vector
706: meson nonet effects would lead to some quantitative changes on
707: resonance masses and widths at relatively low values of $N_c$, and
708: would affect to the rate how the $N_c \to \infty$ relations of
709: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:loga})--(\ref{eq:logb}) are reached. Therefore, widths
710: and excitation energies $(M_R-M)$ would not behave as order ${\cal O}
711: (N^0_c)$, but they would still grow as $\sqrt{N_c}$. Thus, the
712: inclusion of baryon decuplet and vector meson nonet degrees of
713: freedom, treated as in this subsection, does not modify this behavior,
714: possibly incorrect.
715:
716: In the analysis presented up to here, it has been ignored the fact
717: that, since baryons for arbitrary $N_c$ contain $N_c$ valence quarks,
718: the corresponding baryon SU(6) representations also grow in size with
719: $N_c$~\cite{DJM94}. As we will see in the next subsection, this will
720: provide an explicit $N_c$ dependence for the eigenvalues
721: $\bar\lambda_{\phi_{SU(6)}}$. This further $N_c$ dependence will allow
722: us first to show that, in some SU(6) irreducible spaces, the SU(6)
723: extension of the WT $s$-wave meson-baryon interaction, sketched in this
724: subsection, scales as ${\cal O}(N_c^0)$, instead of the well known
725: ${\cal O}(N_c^{-1})$ behavior for its SU(3) counterpart, and second to
726: recover the Witten's scaling rules for both widths and excitation
727: energies of the resonant states.
728:
729: \subsection{ Extension of the $\chi-$BS(6) Model for Arbitrary $N_c$}
730: \label{sec:nc}
731:
732: \subsubsection{ SU(6) representations and WT Lagrangian for Arbitrary
733: $N_c$ }
734: \label{sec:wtnc}
735:
736: Mesons at arbitrary $N_c$ still carry the quantum numbers of a single
737: $q{\bar q}$, and hence their SU(2$N_F$) spin-flavor irreps are
738: unchanged when $N_c$ is changed. Thus, the octet of pseudoscalar ($K,
739: \pi,\eta, {\bar K}$) and the nonet of vector ($K^*, \rho,\omega, {\bar
740: K}^{*}, \phi$) mesons are placed in the 35 representation of
741: SU(6). Baryons, on the other hand, carry the quantum numbers of $N_c$
742: quarks (in order to form an SU($N_c$) color singlet from
743: color--fundamental irreps), and therefore the baryon SU(2$N_F$)
744: spin-flavor irreps grow in size with $N_c$. We wish to identify these
745: large $N_c$ representations with their $N_c=3$ counterparts. As it is
746: done in Ref.~\cite{CL04}, to keep our notation simple and aid in the
747: extrapolation to three colors case, we use quotes to denote the
748: generalized SU(2$N_F$) representations familiar from three colors. The
749: ground-state spin-flavor multiplet is taken to be completely symmetric
750: $N_c-$tableau representation, which is the analog to the SU(6) 56 for
751: three flavors,
752: %
753: \begin{equation}
754: \underbrace{\begin{Young} & & & & \cr \end{Young} \ldots \begin{Young}
755: & & & & \cr \end{Young} }_{N_c\, {\rm boxes}}
756: \end{equation}
757: %
758: Notationally, we denote such arbitrary-$N_c$ generalization as ``56''
759: and its dimension is $\left (\begin{array}{c}N_c+5\cr
760: 5\end{array}\right)$. The SU(6) decomposition of Eq.~(\ref{eq:su6-rep})
761: now, for arbitrary $N_c$, reads
762: %
763: \begin{eqnarray}
764: 35 \otimes \makebox{\rm ``56''}& \equiv &
765: \begin{Young} & \cr\cr\cr\cr\cr \end{Young}~\otimes~ \overbrace{\begin{Young} & & & & \cr
766: \end{Young}}^{N_c} \nonumber\\
767: &=&
768: \overbrace{\begin{Young} & & & & \cr
769: \end{Young}}^{N_c}~ \oplus~
770: \overbrace{\begin{Young} & & & & \cr \cr\end{Young}}^{N_c-1} ~\oplus~\overbrace{\begin{Young} & & & & \cr\cr\cr\cr\cr
771: \end{Young}}^{N_c+2} ~\oplus~ \overbrace{\begin{Young} & & & & \cr&\cr\cr\cr\cr \end{Young}}^{N_c+1} \nonumber \\&&\nonumber \\
772: &=& \makebox{\rm ``56''} \oplus \makebox{\rm ``70''} \oplus
773: \makebox{\rm ``700''} \oplus \makebox{\rm ``1134''}, \label{eq:su6_nc}
774: \end{eqnarray}
775: %
776: where the dimensions of the ``70'', ``700'' and ``1134'' irreps are
777: $\frac{5(N_c-1)}{(N_c+5)}\left (\begin{array}{c}N_c+5\cr 5\end{array}\right)$,
778: $\frac{5(N_c+7)}{(N_c+1)}\left (\begin{array}{c}N_c+5\cr 5\end{array}\right)$
779: and $\frac{24N_c(N_c+6)}{(N_c+5)(N_c+1)}\left (\begin{array}{c}N_c+5\cr
780: 5\end{array}\right)$, respectively. Thus,
781: we find a first remarkable result: assuming SU(6) spin-flavor
782: symmetry, the $s$-wave 35--meson ``56''--baryon scattering for an arbitrary
783: value of $N_c$, can still be described in terms of four (Wigner-Eckart
784: irreducible matrix elements of the SU(6) invariant Hamiltonian)
785: undetermined functions of the meson--baryon Mandelstam variable
786: $s$. This is also the case for any number of flavors $N_F\ge 2$.
787:
788: Next step is to make use of the underlying CS to
789: further constrain these four undetermined functions. For SU(3) flavor
790: symmetry and $N_c=3$, the latter functions, at LO in the
791: chiral expansion, are determined by the WT Lagrangian. It is not just
792: SU(3) symmetric but also chiral
793: ($\text{SU}_L(3)\otimes\text{SU}_R(3)$) invariant. Symbolically,
794: \begin{equation}
795: {\cal L_{\rm WT}}= {\rm Tr} ( [M^\dagger, M]B^\dagger B)
796: \end{equation}
797: This structure, dictated by CS, is more suitably analyzed in the
798: $t$-channel. The meson, $M$, and baryon, $B$, fields fall in the representation
799: SU(3) $8$ which is also the adjoint representation. The commutator
800: $[M^\dagger,M]$ indicates a $t$-channel coupling to the $8_a$
801: (antisymmetric) representation, thus
802: %
803: \begin{equation}
804: {\cal L_{\rm WT, SU(3)}}= \left((M^\dagger\otimes M)_{8_a}\otimes
805: (B^\dagger\otimes B)_{8}\right)_{1}
806: \end{equation}
807: %
808: The unique SU(6) extension is then
809: \begin{equation}
810: {\cal L_{\rm WT, SU(6)}}= \left((M^\dagger\otimes M)_{35_a}\otimes
811: (B^\dagger\otimes B)_{35}\right)_{1}
812: \label{eq:1}
813: \end{equation}
814: %
815: since the 35 is the adjoint representation of SU(6). The $t$-channel
816: decompositions $35 \otimes 35 = 1 \oplus 35_s\oplus 35_a\oplus 189
817: \oplus 280 \oplus 280^* \oplus 405$ and $56 \otimes 56^* = 1 \oplus 35
818: \oplus 405 \oplus 2695$ indicate that the coupling in Eq.~(\ref{eq:1})
819: exists and is indeed unique~\cite{GNS05}, all coupling constants being
820: reduced to a single independent one, namely, that of the WT Lagrangian
821: (pion weak decay constant, besides the hadron masses). To extend this
822: result to arbitrary $N_c$, we should first consider
823: %
824: \begin{eqnarray}
825: \makebox{\rm ``56''} \otimes ``56^*\makebox{\rm ''}& \equiv &
826: \overbrace{\begin{Young} & & & & \cr
827: \end{Young}}^{N_c} ~\otimes~
828: \overbrace{\begin{Young} & & & & \cr & & & &\cr & & & & \cr& & & &
829: \cr& & & & \cr \end{Young}}^{N_c} \nonumber\\ &&\nonumber\\
830: &=&
831: \overbrace{\begin{Young} & & & &
832: & & & \cr&&&\cr&&&\cr&&&\cr &&&\cr\end{Young}}^{2N_c} ~\oplus~~~\overbrace{\begin{Young} & & & &
833: & & & \cr&&&\cr&&&\cr&&&\cr &&&\cr\end{Young}}^{2N_c-2}~\oplus~~~\overbrace{\begin{Young} & & & &
834: & & & \cr&&&\cr&&&\cr&&&\cr &&&\cr\end{Young}}^{2N_c-4}~\oplus \ldots \oplus~~ \begin{Young} & \cr\cr\cr\cr\cr
835: \end{Young}~\oplus~ 1 \label{eq:young}\\
836: &{\phantom =}&
837: \phantom{a}^{\leftarrow N_c \rightarrow} ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\,
838: \phantom{a}^{\leftarrow N_c-1
839: \rightarrow}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \phantom{a}^{\leftarrow N_c-2
840: \rightarrow} \nonumber
841: \end{eqnarray}
842: %
843: where the dimension of the tableau with $2n$ boxes in the first row is
844: $(2n+5)\left (\begin{array}{c}n+5\cr 5\end{array}\right)\left
845: (\begin{array}{c}n+4\cr 4\end{array}\right)/(n+5)$, accomplishing
846: %
847: \begin{equation}
848: \sum_{n=0}^{N_c} \frac{2n+5}{n+5}\left (\begin{array}{c}n+5\cr
849: 5\end{array}\right)\left (\begin{array}{c}n+4\cr 4\end{array}\right)
850: = \left (\begin{array}{c}N_c+5\cr
851: 5\end{array}\right)^2
852: \end{equation}
853: %
854: to verify the equality between the dimensions of both sides of
855: Eq.~(\ref{eq:young}). We see that the SU(6) 35 (adjoint
856: representation) appears in the decomposition into irreps of
857: ``56''$\otimes ``56^*\makebox{\rm ''}$
858: (Eq.~(\ref{eq:young})), and thus we find that the SU(6) extension of
859: the WT Lagrangian (Eq.~(\ref{eq:1})) can still be done for arbitrary $N_c$.
860:
861: Let us denote the contravariant and covariant spin-flavor quark and
862: antiquark components
863:
864: %
865: \begin{equation}
866: q^i = \left (\begin{array}{c}u\uparrow \cr d\uparrow \cr s\uparrow \cr
867: u\downarrow \cr d\downarrow \cr s\downarrow \end{array}\right ),
868: \qquad {\bar q}_i = \left ({\bar u}\downarrow,-{\bar
869: d}\downarrow,-{\bar s}\downarrow, -{\bar u}\uparrow, {\bar
870: d}\uparrow, {\bar s}\uparrow \right)
871: \end{equation}
872: %
873: where $q^i$ (${\bar q}_i$) annihilates\footnote{We use a
874: convention such that $\left(\begin{array}{c}{\bar d}\cr {\bar
875: u}\end{array}\right)$ is a standard basis of SU(2), that is ${\bar d} =
876: |1/2,1/2\rangle $ and ${\bar u} = |1/2,-1/2\rangle $. Thus, ${\bar u},
877: {\bar d} , {\bar s}$ is a standard basis of the $3^*$ representation of
878: SU(3) with de Swart's convention~\cite{CG-su3}.} a quark (antiquark)
879: with the spin-flavor $i$. For instance ${\bar u}\downarrow$
880: annihilates an antiquark with flavor ${\bar u}$ and $S_z=-1/2$.
881: Mesons fall in the adjoint representation and we represent
882: the annihilation operators of mesons in the 35 of SU(6) by means of a
883: traceless tensor $M^i_j$, which under SU(6) transformations behaves
884: like
885: %
886: \begin{equation}
887: q^i{\bar q}_j - \frac{1}{2N_F} q^m{\bar q}_m \delta^i_j,\quad
888: i,j=1,\ldots 2N_F \label{eq:defm}
889: \end{equation}
890: %
891: with $N_F$ the number of flavors, three in this work. We represent the
892: annihilation operators of baryons in the ``56'' of SU(6), for arbitrary
893: $N_c$, by means of a completely symmetric tensor $B^{i_1i_2\ldots
894: i_{N_c}}$, which under SU(6) transformations behaves like
895: $q^{i_1}q^{i_2}\ldots q^{i_{N_c}}$. We treat $q^i$ as boson fields,
896: since the color wave function, not explicitly shown, is fully
897: antisymmetric. The corresponding Wick's contractions of these fields read
898: %
899: %
900: \begin{eqnarray}
901: \underwick{1}{<1M^k_l >1M^{\dagger i}_j}&=&
902: \delta^k_j\delta^i_l-\frac{1}{2N_F} \delta^i_j\delta^k_l \nonumber \\
903: \underwick{1}{<1B^{j_1j_2\ldots j_{N_c}}>1B^\dagger_{i_1i_2\ldots
904: i_{N_c}}}&=& \sum_{P\in S_{N_c}}
905: \delta_{i_1}^{P(j_1)}\delta_{i_2}^{P(j_2)} \ldots
906: \delta_{i_{N_c}}^{P(j_{N_c})} \label{eq:wick}
907: \end{eqnarray}
908: %
909: where $S_{N_c}$ is the group of permutations of $N_c$ objects and we
910: use a notation such that the $N_c-$tuple $P(i_1)P(i_2)\ldots
911: P(i_{N_c})$ is equal to $P(i_1i_2\ldots i_{N_c})$.
912:
913: From the discussion above, we find that Eq.~(\ref{eq:1}) is still the
914: unique SU(6) extension of the WT $s$-wave meson-baryon
915: interaction for arbitrary $N_c$. Thus, we find that the group
916: structure, ${\cal G_{\rm WT,SU(6)}^{\rm SU(N_c)}}$, of the SU(6)
917: extension of the WT, up to constant factors, takes the
918: form\footnote{Here and in most of the Subsect.~\ref{sec:nc}, though we give
919: explicitly expressions for the $N_F=3$ case, the formulae are
920: easily extended for an arbitrary number of flavors.}
921: %
922: \begin{equation}
923: {\cal G_{\rm WT,SU(6)}^{\rm SU(N_c)}}=
924: \frac{2}{(N_c-1)!}:\left ( M^i_j M^{\dagger j}_k- M^{\dagger
925: i}_j M^j_k\right )B^\dagger_{ii_2\ldots
926: i_{N_c}}B^{ki_2\ldots i_{N_c}}: \label{eq:gwt}
927: \end{equation}
928: %
929: where $:...:$ denotes the normal product and the factor $2/(N_c-1)!$
930: has been introduced for convenience. To obtain the full form of the
931: Hamiltonian, one should specify some constant factors
932: %
933: \begin{equation}
934: {\cal H_{\rm
935: WT,SU(6)}^{\rm SU(N_c)}} \propto {\cal G_{\rm WT,SU(6)}^{\rm SU(N_c)}},
936: \end{equation}
937: %
938: which depend on kinematics and possibly also on the number of
939: colors. These factors will be discussed in Subsect.~\ref{sec:hwt}.
940:
941:
942:
943: \subsubsection{ Explicit form of ${\cal H_{\rm WT,SU(6)}^{\rm SU(N_c)}}$}
944:
945: \label{sec:hwt}
946:
947: First and for $N_c=3$, we will write a $s$-wave meson-baryon Lagrangian
948: invariant under SU(3)$\times$ SU(2) transformations and involving only
949: the Goldstone boson and the nucleon octets. Starting from the lowest
950: order in the chiral expansion~\cite{Pich95}\footnote{We have
951: omitted the pieces proportional to the couplings ${\cal D}$ and ${\cal
952: F}$ (${\cal F}+{\cal D} = g_{A} = 1.25$) because they do not
953: lead to the WT interaction Lagrangian.}
954: %
955: \begin{eqnarray}
956: {\cal L}_1 = {\rm Tr} \left\{ \bar{\Psi}_B \left( {\rm i}
957: \slashchar{\nabla} - M \right) \Psi_B \right\}
958: \label{eq:LB1}
959: \end{eqnarray}
960: %
961: where $M$ is the common mass of the baryon octet due to SCSB for massless
962: quarks and ``Tr'' stands for the trace in SU(3). In addition,
963: %
964: \begin{eqnarray}
965: \nabla^{\mu} \Psi_B &=& \partial^{\mu} \Psi_B + [A^\mu_3,\Psi_B] \nonumber \\
966: A^\mu_3 &=& \frac{1}{2} \left ( u_3^\dagger
967: \partial^{\mu} u_3 + u_3 \partial^{\mu} u_3^\dagger \right ) =
968: \frac{1}{4f^2} [\Phi_3, \partial^\mu\Phi_3]+ {\cal O}((\Phi_3)^4) \nonumber \\
969: U_3 = u_3^2 &=& e^{ {\rm i} \sqrt{2} \Phi_3 / f }
970: \end{eqnarray}
971: %
972: The SU(3) matrices for the meson and the baryon octets are
973: written in terms of the meson and baryon Dirac fields respectively
974: and are given by\footnote{For the purpose of our work we do not
975: consider any mixing between octet and singlet SU(3) representations}
976: \begin{eqnarray}
977: \Phi_3 = \left( \matrix{ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \pi^0 +
978: \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} \eta & \pi^+ & K^+ \cr \pi^- & -
979: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \pi^0 + \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} \eta & K^0 \cr
980: K^- & \bar{K}^0 & - \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}} \eta }
981: \right) \, ,
982: \end{eqnarray}
983: %
984: and
985: \begin{eqnarray}
986: \Psi_B =
987: \left( \matrix{
988: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \Sigma^0 + \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} \Lambda &
989: \Sigma^+ & p \cr
990: \Sigma^- & - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \Sigma^0
991: + \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} \Lambda & n \cr
992: \Xi^- & \Xi^0 & - \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}} \Lambda }
993: \right) \, .
994: \end{eqnarray}
995: %
996: respectively. Performing a non-relativistic reduction\footnote{In
997: order to find an SU(6) invariant Lagrangian, it is natural to
998: perform an non-relativistic reduction, since the no-go
999: Coleman-Mandula theorem~\cite{CM67} forbids an exact hybrid symmetry
1000: mixing a compact internal flavor symmetry with the non-compact Poincare
1001: symmetry of spin angular momentum. Furthermore, in the large $N_c$
1002: limit, a non-relativistic treatment of
1003: baryons is totally justified.} of Eq.~(\ref{eq:LB1}), we
1004: find
1005: %
1006: \begin{equation}
1007: {\cal L}_{1\, \rm norel} = {\rm Tr} \left\{
1008: B^\dagger_3 \left( {\rm i} \nabla_0 - M + \frac{1}{2M}
1009: (\vec{\sigma}\cdot\vec{\nabla})^2 \right) B_3 \right\}
1010: \end{equation}
1011: %
1012: where now the $B_3-$fields (large components of the $\Psi_B$ ones) do
1013: not contain antiparticle degrees of freedom, that is they are
1014: bispinors which account for the spin degrees of freedom of the
1015: non-relativistic baryons. The above Lagrangian is not invariant under
1016: SU(3)$\times$ SU(2) transformations, yet. This is because of a
1017: spin-orbit type interaction generated by the Pauli matrices. Such a
1018: term does not contribute to $s$-wave and neglecting it, we get
1019: %
1020: \begin{equation}
1021: {\cal L}_{{\rm SU(3)}\times {\rm SU(2)} } = {\rm Tr} \left\{
1022: B^\dagger_3 \left( {\rm i} \nabla_0 - M + \frac{1}{2M}
1023: \vec{\nabla}^2 \right) B_3 \right\} \label{eq:su3su2}
1024: \end{equation}
1025: %
1026: which is now SU(3)$\times$SU(2) invariant. Neglecting non $s$-wave
1027: contributions and including explicit baryon mass breaking terms, the
1028: interaction part of the above Lagrangian leads to the chiral LO amplitude of
1029: Eq.~(\ref{eq:lowest}).
1030:
1031: The extension of the Lagrangian of Eq.~(\ref{eq:su3su2}) to describe
1032: also baryon decuplet and vector meson nonet degrees of freedom is
1033: now straightforward and it reads
1034: %
1035: \begin{equation}
1036: {\cal L}_{{\rm SU(6)}} = {\rm Tr} \left\{
1037: B^\dagger_6 \left( {\rm i} \nabla_0 - M + \frac{1}{2M}
1038: \vec{\nabla}^2 \right) B_6 \right\}
1039: \label{eq:lawt}
1040: \end{equation}
1041: where ``Tr'' stands now for the trace in SU(6). In addition,
1042: %
1043: \begin{eqnarray}
1044: \nabla^{\mu} B_6 &=& \partial^{\mu} B_6 + A^\mu_6*B_6 \nonumber \\
1045: A^\mu_6 &=& \frac{1}{2} \left ( u_6^\dagger
1046: \partial^{\mu} u_6 + u_6 \partial^{\mu} u_6^\dagger \right )=
1047: \frac{1}{4f^2_6} [\Phi_6, \partial^\mu\Phi_6]+ {\cal
1048: O}((\Phi_6)^4) \nonumber \\ U_6 = u_6^2 &=& e^{ {\rm i} \sqrt{2}
1049: \Phi_6 / f_6 }
1050: \end{eqnarray}
1051: %
1052: $M$ is now the common mass of the 56 baryon representation and $f_6=
1053: f/\sqrt{2}$, as shown in Appendix~\ref{sec:restr}. Besides, $B_6$ and
1054: $\Phi_6$ are the baryon and meson fields which now belong to the 56
1055: and 35 irreps of SU(6), respectively and the meaning of $A^\mu_6*B_6$
1056: will be specified later (see Eq.~(\ref{eq:cov1}))\footnote{For the
1057: SU(3) case $A^\mu_3*B_3$ reduces to the usual commutator. For SU(6),
1058: it will not be a commutator since while $A^\mu_6$ are dimension six
1059: traceless matrices, the $B_6$ baryon field is a fully symmetric tensor
1060: with $N_c$ indices.}. Obviously, we need to check that the
1061: restriction of the above Lagrangian to the $8_1 \otimes 8_2$ sector
1062: reproduces that given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:su3su2}). This is explicitly
1063: shown in Appendix~\ref{sec:restr}, for three flavors, though the
1064: extension to $N_F$ flavors is straightforward.
1065:
1066: In the above equations, $\Phi_6$ is a dimension six matrix made of
1067: full meson fields, which depend on the space-time coordinates. The
1068: annihilation part of the meson matrix $[\Phi_6]^i_j$ is determined by
1069: the operators $M^i_j$ (see Eq.~(\ref{eq:defm})). On the other hand,
1070: for SU(6) and arbitrary $N_c$, we will work with baryon fields ${\cal
1071: B}^{i_1i_2\ldots i_{N_c}}$ such that their Fock space structure is
1072: determined by the operators $B^{i_1i_2\ldots i_{N_c}}$ introduced in
1073: Subsect.~\ref{sec:wtnc}. Thus, we have\footnote{With this convention
1074: ${\cal B}^{123\ldots N_c}= {\cal B}^{213\ldots N_c} = \ldots $ or
1075: ${\cal B}^{111\ldots 1} / \sqrt{N_c!} $ are baryon fields with the
1076: usual normalization. This is because
1077: %
1078: \begin{eqnarray}
1079: \underwick{1}{<1B^{123\ldots N_c}>1B^\dagger_{123\ldots N_c}} &=&
1080: 1,\qquad {\rm while} \nonumber \\
1081: \underwick{1}{<1B^{111\ldots 1}>1B^\dagger_{111\ldots 1}} &=& N_c!
1082: \end{eqnarray}
1083: %
1084: Thus, for instance for $N_c=3$, ${\cal B}^{111}/\sqrt{3!} =
1085: \Delta^{++}(S_z=+3/2)$.}
1086: %
1087: \begin{equation}
1088: \frac{1}{N_c!} {\cal B}^\dagger_{i_1i_2\ldots i_{N_c}} {\cal
1089: B}^{i_1i_2\ldots i_{N_c}} = \sum_{\lambda \in \makebox{\rm ``56''}}
1090: b^\dagger_\lambda b_\lambda, \qquad i_1,i_2,\ldots, i_{N_c}\in \{1,\ldots
1091: ,2N_F\} \label{eq:su6norm}
1092: \end{equation}
1093: %
1094: %
1095: with $b_\lambda$ a ``56'' baryon field. In terms of these baryon fields the extension of the Lagrangian of
1096: Eq.~(\ref{eq:lawt}) for an arbitrary number of colors
1097: reads
1098: %
1099: \begin{equation}
1100: {\cal L}_{{\rm SU(6)}}^{\rm SU(N_c)} =
1101: \frac{1}{N_c!} {\cal B}^\dagger_{i_1i_2\ldots i_{N_c}}
1102: \left( {\rm i} \nabla_0 - M + \frac{1}{2M}
1103: \vec{\nabla}^2 \right) {\cal B}^{i_1i_2\ldots i_{N_c}}, \qquad
1104: i_1,i_2,\ldots, i_{N_c} \in \{1,\ldots ,2N_F\} \label{eq:wtnc2}
1105: \end{equation}
1106: %
1107: where the covariant derivative acts on the baryon fields ${\cal B}$ as
1108: usual
1109: %
1110: \begin{equation}
1111: \left(\nabla^\mu {\cal B} \right)^{i_1i_2\ldots i_{N_c}} =
1112: \left(\partial^\mu {\cal B} + A^\mu_6*{\cal B}\right)^{i_1i_2\ldots
1113: i_{N_c}} =
1114: \partial^\mu {\cal B}^{i_1i_2\ldots i_{N_c}} + [A_6^\mu]^{i_1}_k{\cal
1115: B}^{ki_2\ldots i_{N_c}} +\ldots + [A_6^\mu]^{i_{N_c}}_k{\cal
1116: B}^{i_1i_2\ldots i_{N_c-1}k} \label{eq:cov1} \\
1117: \end{equation}
1118: %
1119: and therefore, we find thanks to the symmetry of
1120: the baryonic tensor ${\cal B}^{i_1i_2\ldots i_{N_c}}$
1121: %
1122: \begin{equation}
1123: {\cal B}^\dagger_{i_1i_2\ldots i_{N_c}} \left(\nabla^\mu {\cal B}
1124: \right)^{i_1i_2\ldots i_{N_c}} = {\cal B}^\dagger_{i_1i_2\ldots
1125: i_{N_c}} \left( \partial^\mu {\cal B}^{i_1i_2\ldots
1126: i_{N_c}} + N_c [A_6^\mu]^{i_1}_k{\cal B}^{ki_2\ldots i_{N_c}}\right)
1127: \label{eq:cov}
1128: \end{equation}
1129: %
1130:
1131: From Eqs.~(\ref{eq:wtnc2}) and~(\ref{eq:cov}) we get\footnote{We have
1132: replaced $\vec{\nabla}^2$ by $\vec{\partial}^{\,2}$ since the
1133: difference between both operators does not contribute to $s$-wave.}
1134: %
1135: \begin{eqnarray}
1136: {\cal L}_{{\rm SU(6)}}^{\rm SU(N_c)} & = & {\cal L}_{{\rm kin,\,
1137: SU(6)}}^{\rm SU(N_c)}+ {\cal L}_{{\rm WT,\,SU(6)}}^{\rm SU(N_c)} \\ \nonumber\\
1138: {\cal L}_{{\rm kin,\,
1139: SU(6)}}^{\rm SU(N_c)} &=& \sum_{\lambda \in \makebox{\rm ``56''}}
1140: b^\dagger_\lambda \left( {\rm i} \partial_0 - M + \frac{1}{2M}
1141: \vec{\partial}^{\,2} \right) b_\lambda \\ \nonumber\\
1142: {\cal L}_{{\rm WT,\,SU(6)}}^{\rm SU(N_c)}
1143: &=& \frac{{\rm i} N_c}{2f^2} [\Phi_6, \partial_0 \Phi_6]^j_k
1144: \frac{1}{N_c!} {\cal
1145: B}^\dagger_{ji_2\ldots i_{N_c}} {\cal
1146: B}^{ki_2\ldots i_{N_c}}
1147: \end{eqnarray}
1148: %
1149: which corresponds to the decomposition of ${\cal L}_{{\rm
1150: SU(6)}}^{\rm SU(N_c)}$ into a baryon kinetic and an $s$-wave
1151: meson-baryon interaction (WT) terms. The WT Hamiltonian\footnote{This
1152: is an abuse of notation, we really mean the on-shell scattering
1153: amplitude, at LO in the chiral expansion, which is used as the
1154: kernel, $V$, for the on-shell BSE.} $\left ({\cal H_{\rm
1155: WT,SU(6)}^{\rm SU(N_c)}}= -{\cal L_{\rm WT,SU(6)}^{\rm
1156: SU(N_c)}}\right)$, acting on meson-baryon Fock states $|r\rangle$,
1157: takes the form
1158: %
1159: \begin{equation}
1160: {\cal H_{\rm WT,SU(6)}^{\rm SU(N_c)}} |r\rangle =
1161: \frac{\sqrt{s}-M}{2f^2}\times {\cal G_{\rm
1162: WT,SU(6)}^{\rm SU(N_c)}}|r\rangle
1163: \end{equation}
1164: with ${\cal G_{\rm WT,SU(6)}^{\rm SU(N_c)}}$ defined in
1165: Eq.~(\ref{eq:gwt}). From the results of Appendix~\ref{sec:gwt}, we
1166: conclude that ${\cal H_{\rm WT,SU(6)}^{\rm SU(N_c)}}$ is diagonal in
1167: the spaces associated to the ``56'', ``70'', ``700'' and ``1134''
1168: representation of SU(6) and with eigenvalues:
1169: %
1170: \begin{equation}
1171: \bar\lambda_{\makebox{\rm \footnotesize ``56''}} = -4N_F,
1172: \qquad \bar\lambda_{\makebox{\rm \footnotesize ``70''}} =
1173: -2(N_c+2N_F), \qquad \bar\lambda_{\makebox{\rm \footnotesize ``700''}}
1174: = 2N_c, \qquad \bar\lambda_{\makebox{\rm
1175: \footnotesize ``1134''}} =- 2
1176: \end{equation}
1177: %
1178: Note that for the case $N_F=3$ and $N_c=3$, we nicely recover
1179: $\bar\lambda_{56}=-12$, $\bar\lambda_{70}=-18$, $\bar\lambda_{700}=6$
1180: and $\bar\lambda_{1134}=-2$ (Eq.~(\ref{eq:lassu6})). Remarkably, we
1181: see that in the ``70'' and ``700'' irreducible spaces, the SU(6)
1182: extension of the WT $s$-wave meson-baryon interaction
1183: scales as ${\cal O}(N_c^0)$, instead of the well known ${\cal
1184: O}(N_c^{-1})$ behavior for its SU(3) counterpart.
1185:
1186: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1187:
1188: \subsubsection{Large $N_c$ SU(6) versus SU(3) WT interaction}
1189:
1190: It would seem that the additional $N_c$ factor obtained here, as
1191: compared to the standard SU(3) calculation, comes only from a proper
1192: treatment of the baryon, namely, to use the correct $N_c$-dependent
1193: ``56'' representation instead of the 56. This is only partially true:
1194: another crucial ingredient has been the introduction of vector mesons
1195: in the scheme. Note that if one only considers pseudoscalar mesons, the
1196: interaction being $s$-wave, the various baryonic spin sectors will
1197: never mix and if one starts with nucleons, the ``decuplet'' states
1198: will not be seen. In order to further analyzed this point, let us
1199: write the meson field in the form
1200: \begin{equation}
1201: \Phi_6 = \frac{1}{2}\pi_\alpha \lambda_\alpha
1202: +\frac{1}{2}\rho_{\alpha i} \lambda_\alpha \sigma_i
1203: +\frac{1}{\sqrt{2N_F}}\omega_i \sigma_i
1204: :=
1205: \sqrt{2}\phi_A t_A
1206: \,.
1207: \end{equation}
1208: Here $\sigma_i$ and $\lambda_\alpha$ are Pauli and (su($N_F$) algebra)
1209: Gell-Mann matrices with $i=1,2,3$ and $\alpha=1,\ldots,N_F^2-1$, and
1210: $\pi$, $\rho$, $\omega$ are the hermitian meson fields corresponding
1211: to the pseudoscalar octect and the vector nonet. The matrices $t_A$
1212: are the SU($2N_F$) group generators in the fundamental representation,
1213: namely, $(\lambda_\alpha\otimes 1)/\sqrt{8}$,
1214: $(1\otimes\sigma_i)/\sqrt{4N_F}$, and
1215: $(\lambda_\alpha\otimes\sigma_i)/\sqrt{8}$, and $\phi_A$ the
1216: associated meson fields with $A=1,\ldots,(2N_F)^2-1$. For the matrix
1217: element $M_A B\to M_{A^\prime} B^\prime$ one then finds
1218: \begin{eqnarray}
1219: \frac{1}{4}\langle M_{A^\prime} B^\prime|
1220: {\cal G_{\rm WT,SU(6)}^{\rm SU(N_c)}} |M_A B \rangle
1221: &=&
1222: \frac{1}{(N_c-1)!}([t_A,t_{A^\prime}])^j_{~k}\langle B^\prime|
1223: B^\dagger_{ji_2\ldots i_{N_c}}
1224: B^{ki_2\ldots i_{N_c}}
1225: |B\rangle
1226: \nonumber \\
1227: &=&
1228: ([t_A,t_{A^\prime}])^j_{~k}\langle B^\prime|q^\dagger_j q^k
1229: |B\rangle
1230: \nonumber \\
1231: &=&
1232: \langle B^\prime| [G_A,G_{A^\prime}]
1233: |B\rangle
1234: \label{eq:59}
1235: \end{eqnarray}
1236: where
1237: \begin{equation}
1238: G_A= (t_A)^j_{~k} \, q^\dagger_j q^k
1239: \end{equation}
1240: are the SU($2N_F$) generators on the baryon sector,
1241: \begin{equation}
1242: G_A= T_\alpha,\,S_i\,, G_{\alpha i} \,.
1243: \end{equation}
1244: As we have discussed above, the matrix element (\ref{eq:59}) is
1245: generically of ${\cal O}(N_c)$. However, if $A$ and $A^\prime$ are
1246: pseudoscalars, the baryonic matrix element couples to purely flavor
1247: generators. As a consequence, in the physically relevant case of $B$
1248: and $B^\prime$ being baryonic states with finite flavor (i.e., isospin
1249: and hypercharge of ${\cal O}(N_c^0)$), the matrix element turns out to
1250: be ${\cal O}(N_c^0)$ instead of ${\cal O}(N_c)$. A similar statement
1251: holds for $\omega B\to \omega^\prime B^\prime$ provided $B$ and
1252: $B^\prime$ have finite spin, since $S_i$ is the relevant operator in
1253: this case. For matrix elements of the type $\pi B\to \rho B^\prime$,
1254: the commutation relation
1255: \begin{equation}
1256: [T_{\alpha},G_{\beta i}]= i f_{\alpha\beta\gamma}G_{\gamma i}
1257: \end{equation}
1258: ($f_{\alpha\beta\gamma}$ being the flavor structure constants)
1259: indicates that the driving operator is of the type $G_{\alpha i}$,
1260: which is ${\cal O}(N_c)$ even for finite spin-flavor baryons. (Note
1261: that the Casimir operator $T_AT_A$ has a common large value ${\cal
1262: O}(N_c^2)$, to wit, $N_c(N_c+2N_F)(2N_F-1)/(4N_F)$, for all states in
1263: the same irreducible representation ``56''.) For $\rho B\to
1264: \rho^\prime B^\prime$ the driving operator is
1265: \begin{equation}
1266: [G_{\alpha i},G_{\beta j}]= \frac{i}{4}\delta_{ij}
1267: f_{\alpha\beta\gamma}T_\gamma
1268: +\frac{i}{2}\epsilon_{ijk}
1269: \left(\frac{1}{N_F}\delta_{\alpha\beta}S_k
1270: +d_{\alpha\beta\gamma}G_{\gamma k}\right)
1271: \end{equation}
1272: so generically the matrix element between finite baryons will be large
1273: for $N_F\ge 3$.
1274:
1275: As illustration, for two flavors and odd $N_c$, we can consider the
1276: ``nucleon'' state with spin and isospin $1/2$
1277: \begin{equation}
1278: |N_{a\sigma}\rangle
1279: \propto \epsilon^{a_2 a_3}\epsilon^{\sigma_2\sigma_3}\cdots
1280: B^\dagger_{a\sigma,a_2\sigma_2,\ldots} |0\rangle \,, \qquad a,\sigma\in\{1,2\}
1281: \end{equation}
1282: consisting of a single quark carrying the spin and isospin of the
1283: baryon plus $(N_c-1)/2$ pairs of quarks coupled to spin and isospin
1284: zero. An easy computation gives for the ``nucleon'' matrix elements
1285: corresponding to the generators $T_\alpha$, $S_i$ and $G_{\alpha i}$
1286: \begin{equation}
1287: \frac{1}{2}\tau_\alpha \,,
1288: \quad
1289: \frac{1}{2}\sigma_i \,,
1290: \quad
1291: \frac{1}{12}(N_c+2)\tau_\alpha \sigma_i \,,
1292: \end{equation}
1293: respectively, consistently with our previous remarks. Thus the
1294: extension to include vector mesons is indeed essential to activate the
1295: generic large $N_c$ dependences found above.
1296:
1297: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1298:
1299: \subsubsection{Crossed nucleon-pole terms}
1300:
1301: \begin{figure}[tbh]
1302: %\vspace{-3cm}
1303: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=3.cm]{nc.eps}}
1304: %\vspace{-15cm}
1305: \caption{\footnotesize Diagrammatic representation of the crossed
1306: nucleon pole-type term. }\label{fig:fig2}
1307: \end{figure}
1308:
1309: The $8_1 \otimes (8_2 \oplus 10_4)$ crossed nucleon pole-type terms,
1310: included among those depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig2}, are believed to
1311: scale as $g_A^2/(M f^2)$ and therefore behave as ${\cal O}(N_c^0)$ in
1312: the large $N_c$ limit~\cite{DJM94}. As we have just seen, the standard
1313: WT term scales as ${\cal O}(N_c^{-1})$, from its $1/f^2$ dependence,
1314: and therefore in the large $N_c$ limit, it is a sub-leading correction
1315: to the crossed nucleon pole-type term. We have shown that this picture
1316: changes when the effects induced by vector mesons and the $N_c$
1317: dependence of the ``56'' irrep are considered, being incorrect within
1318: the ``70'' and ``700'' meson-baryon spaces. Furthermore, one might
1319: wonder whether the $N_c-$behavior of the crossed nucleon pole-type
1320: Hamiltonian, ${\cal H_{\rm CN,SU(6)}^{\rm SU(N_c)}}$, depends on the
1321: SU(6) representation, as it happens in the case of the WT
1322: interaction. To answer such a question, it would be useful to have a
1323: SU(6) symmetric model, for arbitrary $N_c$, for this interaction
1324: term. Because of the $p$-wave nature and the spin dependence of the
1325: $MBB$ coupling, this might not be possible, and at least we have not
1326: been able to come up with a consistent model. Likely, the spaces that
1327: diagonalize this interaction do not form SU(6) irreps. This is because
1328: in general spin-flavor symmetry is not exact for excited baryons even
1329: in the large $N_c$ \cite{GSS02}. However, phenomenologically for
1330: $N_c=3$, the spin--flavor symmetry breaking term is small and
1331: comparable in magnitude to that of the $1/N_c$
1332: corrections~\cite{GSS02}. Even assuming that ${\cal H_{\rm
1333: CN,SU(6)}^{\rm SU(N_c)}}$ scales as ${\cal O}(N_c^0)$ in the ``70''
1334: irrep space, the WT term provides the large $N_c$ dominant
1335: contribution in this space, since both ${\cal H_{\rm CN,SU(6)}^{\rm
1336: SU(N_c)}}$ and ${\cal H_{\rm WT,SU(6)}^{\rm SU(N_c)}}$ would follow
1337: the same $N_c$ scaling law and the latter one is dominant for $N_c=3$.
1338:
1339: \subsubsection{ Resonance Masses and Widths from ${\cal H_{\rm
1340: WT,SU(6)}^{\rm SU(N_c)}}$}
1341:
1342: The resonance equation reads,
1343: %
1344: \begin{equation}
1345: \beta(s)\Big|_{s=s_R\equiv M^2_R-iM_R\Gamma_R} = \bar
1346: \lambda_{\phi_{SU(6)}}, \quad
1347: \phi_{SU(6)}=\makebox{``56'', ``70'', ``700'', ``1134''}, \qquad
1348: M_R>M, \Gamma_R>0
1349: \end{equation}
1350: %
1351: There are solutions only for negative eigenvalues, $\bar
1352: \lambda_{\makebox{\footnotesize ``70''}}$, $\bar
1353: \lambda_{\makebox{\footnotesize ``56''}}$ and $\bar
1354: \lambda_{\makebox{\footnotesize ``1134''}}$, and as before, the ``70''
1355: irrep of SU(6) leads to the most attractive $s$-wave meson--baryon
1356: interaction, and it becomes the only non-vanishing WT contribution in the
1357: strict limit $N_c \to \infty$.
1358:
1359: The approximated relations of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:relsu3a})
1360: and~(\ref{eq:relsu3b}), having in mind that $\bar
1361: \lambda_{\makebox{\footnotesize ``70''}} \sim N_c$, lead to new
1362: scaling relations
1363: %
1364: \begin{eqnarray}
1365: M_R-M, \, \Gamma_R = {\cal O}(N_c^0)
1366: \label{eq:su6loga}
1367: \end{eqnarray}
1368: %
1369: for the ``70''--plet. From the above $N_c-$behavior one deduces that
1370: widths and excitation resonance energies, behave now as order one, as
1371: predicted by Witten almost 30 years ago. For the ``56'' and
1372: ``1134''-plets, the scenario has not been modified, and we are still
1373: in the same situation as in Subsect.~\ref{sec:sec4a}, with widths and
1374: excitation energies growing as $\sqrt{N_c}$. That is, resonances
1375: would disappear, since they become wider and heavier as $N_c$
1376: increases. The different $N_c$ behaviors exhibited by resonance
1377: masses and widths, deduced from the WT Lagrangian, in each
1378: irreducible space can be appreciated in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig3}.
1379:
1380: The crossed nucleon pole-type contribution (CNPC) might change this
1381: picture. As discussed at the end of the previous Subsect., we believe
1382: that the CNPC will never be dominant in the ``70'' irrep space. However,
1383: if we focus on the ``56'' and ``1134'' resonance plets, the WT interaction
1384: could be subleading in the large $N_c$ limit, if the crossed nucleon
1385: pole force would scale as ${\cal O} (N_c^0)$ in those spaces. If this
1386: latter interaction were repulsive, the ``56'' and ``1134'' plets of resonances
1387: would dissappear at sufficiently large values of $N_c$, while if it
1388: were attractive, widths and excitation resonance energies would behave
1389: as order ${\cal O}(N_c^0)$. If the CNPC scales as ${\cal O}
1390: (N_c^{-1})$ or lower in any of those spaces, the corresponding plet of
1391: resonances will either never be formed (if the combined WT
1392: contribution plus CNPC is repulsive) or they will dissappear (become
1393: wider and heavier) at sufficiently large values of $N_c$. For
1394: illustrative purposes in the appendix~\ref{sec:cnpc} we develop a toy
1395: model for the CNPC, somehow unrealistic since it neglects the spin
1396: dependence of the couplings. However, this model shows that is
1397: feasible to have situations in which the CNPC $N_c$ behavior depends on
1398: the particular irrep space and that the WT term provides the large
1399: $N_c$ dominant contribution in the ``70'', ``700'' and ``1134''
1400: irreps spaces.
1401:
1402:
1403: Nevertheless, there will be also $d$-wave mixings or new $s$-wave
1404: meson-baryon couplings\footnote{Hamiltonians of the form
1405: (symbolically) $\left((M^\dagger\otimes M)_{35_s}\otimes
1406: (B^\dagger\otimes B)_{35}\right)_{1}$ or $\left((M^\dagger\otimes
1407: M)_{1}\otimes (B^\dagger\otimes B)_{1}\right)_{1}$.} which might also
1408: modify the whole picture.
1409:
1410:
1411: %
1412: \begin{figure}
1413: \vspace{-2cm}
1414: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=25cm]{fig3.ps}}
1415: \vspace{-5.cm}
1416: \caption{ SU(6) ``70'', ``56'' and ``1134'' resonance masses ($M_R$)
1417: and widths ($\Gamma_R$) obtained from ${\cal H_{\rm
1418: WT,SU(6)}^{\rm SU(N_c)}}$, as a function of $N_c$.}
1419: \label{fig:fig3}
1420: \end{figure}
1421:
1422: \section{Concluding Remarks}
1423:
1424: \label{sec:sec5}
1425:
1426: One of the interesting results of this paper is the Lagrangian in
1427: (\ref{eq:wtnc2}), which accounts for the SU($2N_F$) symmetric version
1428: of the WT interaction, for arbitrary $N_c$ and $N_F$, as well as its
1429: particular case (\ref{eq:lawt}) for $N_c=N_F=3$. As we have noted
1430: above, due to the action of the covariant derivative
1431: (\ref{eq:cov1}--\ref{eq:cov}), it follows that generically (that its,
1432: prior to projection to particular sectors) such extended WT amplitude
1433: scales as ${\cal O}(N_c^0)$, instead of ${\cal O}(N_c^{-1})$,
1434: characteristic of the standard WT SU($N_F$) symmetric amplitude. Two
1435: factors combine to achieve this result. First, in a large $N_c$ world,
1436: the flavor representation of the lightest baryon depends on $N_c$, and
1437: the standard commutator $[A_3,B_3]$ becomes a covariant derivative,
1438: which acts on each baryon index in turn. Less technically, and using a
1439: graphic quark model picture for the baryon, in the WT interaction, the
1440: meson-meson pair may couple to any of the $N_c$ quarks of the baryon,
1441: allowing a further $N_c$ factor in the amplitude. This mechanism is
1442: also at work in the $p$-wave pseudoscalar-baryon coupling and gives
1443: the standard large $N_c$ scaling $g_A= {\cal O}(N_c)$. However, in the
1444: standard SU($N_F$) case, the pseudoscalar-pseudoscalar amplitude
1445: depends on the flavor generator baryonic matrix element, which is
1446: ${\cal O}(N_c)$ for generic baryons but ${\cal O}(N_c^0)$ for the
1447: relevant baryons, namely, those with finite flavor and spin. The
1448: second essential factor is thus the inclusion of vector mesons. They
1449: coupled to spin-flavor generators which are ${\cal O}(N_c)$ even for
1450: baryons with finite flavor and spin. As a consequence, in the ``70''
1451: and ``700'' SU(6) irreducible spaces, the SU(6) extension of the WT
1452: $s$-wave meson-baryon interaction scales as ${\cal O}(N_c^0)$, instead
1453: of the well known ${\cal O}(N_c^{-1})$ behavior for its SU(3)
1454: counterpart. However, the WT interaction behaves as order ${\cal
1455: O}(N_c^{-1})$ within the ``56'' and ``1134'' meson-baryon spaces.
1456:
1457: From constituent quark model considerations, it is accepted that the
1458: excited baryon states that correspond to the first radial and orbital
1459: excitations fit well into respectively a positive parity $56^+$ and
1460: negative parity $70^-$ irreps~\cite{GP76}. From the study carried out
1461: in this work, we confirm the existence of a narrow $70-$plet of
1462: negative parity resonances, which masses depart from the lowest--lying
1463: 56 multiplet baryon mass by the typical amount of a meson mass. The
1464: non existence, in the large $N_c$ limit, of negative parity $56^-$
1465: resonances can be understood if the crossed nucleon pole force is
1466: repulsive or if it is attractive, it should decrease at least as
1467: ${\cal O}(N_c^{-1})$ in this irrep. Thus, one of the two
1468: $\frac{1}{2}^-$ SU(3) octets of $s$-wave baryon resonances found in
1469: Ref.~\cite{Ga03} would dissappear in the large $N_c$ limit, since
1470: there exists only one $8_2$ multiplet included into the 70
1471: representation of SU(6). However, the SU(3) singlet spin-parity
1472: $\frac12^-$ resonance will become presumably narrow, in the large
1473: $N_c$ limit, thanks to its 70 component.
1474:
1475: On the other hand, the WT interaction predicts for the 1134-plet that
1476: both excitation energies and widths grow with an approximate
1477: $\sqrt{N_c}$ rate. This presumably implies that these states do not
1478: appear in the large $N_c-$QCD spectrum, which most likely reflects the
1479: existence of exotic, f.i. $qqqq\bar q$, components\footnote{A similar
1480: analysis has been carried out in Ref.~\cite{Pe04} in the the
1481: meson--meson context. There, it was found that while the $\rho$ and
1482: $K^*$ meson widths have the $q \bar q$ expected behavior (${\cal O}
1483: (1/N_c)$), the $s$-wave $\sigma$ and $\kappa$ poles show a totally
1484: different behavior, since their widths grow with $N_c$, in conflict
1485: with a $q \bar q$ interpretation, and leaving room for sizeable
1486: tetra-quark or glue ball components.} for $N_c=3$. Note that exotic
1487: components are certainly included in the SU(3) antidecuplet belonging
1488: to the 1134 SU(6) representation.
1489:
1490: Finally, as we have noted previously, in the present approach the
1491: power-like $1/N_c$ expansion comes with subleading logarithmic
1492: corrections (see for instance Eqs.~(\ref{eq:loga}-\ref{eq:logb})),
1493: which are believed to be spurious. It remains to be studied in deep,
1494: how the logarithmic corrections depend on details of the RS
1495: prescription, the baryon wavefunction renormalization, etc. This
1496: subject is worth studying and clearly it would be highly desirable to
1497: consider this issue for future research, however, is beyond the scope
1498: of the present work.
1499:
1500: \begin{acknowledgments}
1501: We warmly thank to Dr. E. Ruiz Arriola for useful
1502: discussions. This research was supported by DGI and FEDER funds, under contract
1503: FIS2005-00810, by the Junta de Andaluc\'\i a (FQM-225) and the EU network
1504: EURIDICE, under contract HPRN-CT-2002-00311. It is also part of the EU
1505: integrated infrastructure initiative Hadron Physics Project under
1506: contract number RII3-CT-2004-506078.
1507:
1508: \end{acknowledgments}
1509:
1510: \appendix
1511: \section{Some details on $\chi-$BS(3)}
1512: \label{sec:app}
1513:
1514: For a given isospin--strangeness sector (for
1515: simplicity we will omit the $IS$ upper indices), the element in the
1516: position $aa ~~(a=1,..N^{IS})$ of the diagonal matrix loop function
1517: $J(\sqrt{s})$ reads~\cite{nrg}
1518: %
1519: \begin{eqnarray}
1520: J_a(\sqrt{s}) &=&{ (\sqrt{s}+ M_a)^2- m_a^2 \over 2 \sqrt{s}}
1521: {\cal J}_a(s)\label{eq:loopf}
1522: \end{eqnarray}
1523: %
1524: where $M_a (m_a)$ is the baryon (meson) mass in the channel $a$ and
1525: %
1526: \begin{eqnarray}
1527: {\cal J}_a(s) &=& i \int { d^4 q \over (2\pi)^4 } {1\over
1528: q^2 - m_a^2}{1\over (P-q)^2 - M_a^2 }= \bar {\cal J}_a( s)
1529: + {\cal J}_a ( s= (m_a + M_a)^2) \label{eq:defj0}
1530: \end{eqnarray}
1531: %
1532: with $P^2=s$, ${\cal J}_a (\ s= (m_a+ M_a)^2)$ a divergent quantity and the
1533: finite function $\bar {\cal J}_a( s) $ given
1534: by
1535: %
1536: \begin{eqnarray}
1537: \bar {\cal J}_a( s) &=& {1\over (4\pi)^2} \left\{ \left[ {M_a^2
1538: -m_a^2 \over s} -{M_a -m_a \over M_a + m_a } \right] {\rm ln} {M_a
1539: \over m_a } + L_a( s) \right\}
1540: \end{eqnarray}
1541: %
1542: and for real $s$ and above threshold, $s>(m_a+M_a)^2$, we have
1543: %
1544: \begin{eqnarray}
1545: L_a( s) &\equiv& L_a( s+ i \epsilon ) =
1546: {\lambda^{1/2}(s,m^2_a,M^2_a) \over s} \left\{ \log \left[{ 1+ \sqrt{s-s_+
1547: \over s-s_- } \over 1-\sqrt{s-s_+ \over s-s_- } } \right] -i\pi
1548: \right\}
1549: \end{eqnarray}
1550: %
1551: where $\lambda(x,y,z) = x^2+y^2+z^2-2xy-2xz-2yz$, the pseudothreshold
1552: and threshold variables are $s_{\mp} = (M_a \mp m_a)^2$ respectively,
1553: and the logarithm is taken to be real. Note that $L_a(s_+) =0$. The
1554: definition of the $L_a( s)$ in the whole complex plane and the
1555: definition of its different Riemann sheets can be found in
1556: Ref.~\cite{nrg}.
1557:
1558:
1559: \section{Restriction of ${\cal L}_{\rm SU(6)}$ to the $8_1 \otimes
1560: 8_2$ sector}
1561: \label{sec:restr}
1562:
1563: In this appendix we check that the restriction of the SU(6) Lagrangian
1564: of Eq.~(\ref{eq:lawt}) to the $8_1 \otimes 8_2$ sector reproduces that
1565: given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:su3su2}), which provides the standard WT
1566: amplitudes of Eq.~(\ref{eq:lowest}). We will do it for three flavors,
1567: though the extension to $N_F$ flavors is straightforward. We will
1568: start studying the meson part of the Lagrangian.
1569:
1570: The operator $M^i_j$ (see Eq.~(\ref{eq:defm})) is
1571: essentially the annihilation part of the meson matrix
1572: $[\Phi_6]^i_j$. The projection $\left( \equiv (\Phi_6)_3\right)$ of
1573: $\Phi_6$ to the $8_1$ octet is
1574: %
1575: \begin{equation}
1576: [(\Phi_6)_3]^a_b = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \sum_{\sigma=1,2}
1577: [\Phi_6]^{a\sigma}_{b\sigma} = \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}[{\rm Tr}_{\rm
1578: SU(2)}(\Phi_6)]^a_b, \quad a,b=1,2,3
1579: \end{equation}
1580: %
1581: that is, in the above equation $a,b$ account for the quark and
1582: antiquark flavors, while for quark (antiquark), $\sigma=1$ corresponds
1583: to $S_z= 1/2\, (-1/2)$ and $\sigma=2$ corresponds to $S_z=
1584: -1/2\,(1/2)$. Thus, for instance $[(\Phi_6)_3]^1_1 =
1585: \left([\Phi_6]^1_1+ [\Phi_6]^4_4\right)/\sqrt{2}= \pi^0/\sqrt{2}
1586: +\eta/\sqrt{6}$, as one can deduce from $\left (M^1_1
1587: +M^4_4\right)/\sqrt{2}$. Reciprocally, the contribution $\left( \equiv
1588: (\Phi_3)_6\right)$ of the $8_1$ octet to $\Phi_6$ is
1589: %
1590: \begin{equation}
1591: [(\Phi_3)_6]^{a\sigma}_{b\sigma^\prime} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} [\Phi_3]^a_b
1592: \times \delta^\sigma_{\sigma^\prime}
1593: \end{equation}
1594: %
1595: and thus we have $(\Phi_3)_6= \left (\Phi_3 \otimes 1_{\rm
1596: SU(2)}\right)/\sqrt{2}$. We see that the consistency relations
1597: $((\Phi_3)_6)_3 = \Phi_3$ and Tr$\left [(\Phi_3^\prime)_6\cdot
1598: (\Phi_3)_6\right ] =
1599: {\rm Tr}[\Phi^\prime_3 \cdot \Phi_3]$ are trivially satisfied. On the
1600: other hand, when $\Phi_6=(\Phi_3)_6$ we must require $U_6= U_3\otimes 1_{\rm
1601: SU(2)}$, then
1602: %
1603: \begin{equation}
1604: f_6 = \frac{f}{\sqrt{2}} \label{eq:f6}
1605: \end{equation}
1606: %
1607: Besides, it is also satisfied that
1608: %
1609: \begin{equation}
1610: (A^\mu_3)_6= A_3^\mu \otimes 1_{\rm SU(2)}
1611: \end{equation}
1612: %
1613:
1614: For SU(3) and $N_c=3$, the $B_3$ field is normalized such that
1615: %
1616: \begin{equation}
1617: {\rm Tr} (B^\dagger_3 B_3) = \sum_{\lambda} b_\lambda^\dagger
1618: b_\lambda = p^\dagger p+ n^\dagger n+ \Lambda^\dagger \Lambda+
1619: \Sigma^{0\dagger}\Sigma^0+ \Sigma^{+\dagger}\Sigma^++
1620: \Sigma^{-\dagger}\Sigma^-+ \Xi^{0\dagger}\Xi^0 + \Xi^{-\dagger}\Xi^-
1621: \end{equation}
1622: with $b_\lambda$ a $8_2$ baryon field. The normalization above
1623: is consistent with that adopted for the SU(6) fields in
1624: Eq.~(\ref{eq:su6norm}). On the other hand, we will denote the $B_3$
1625: field indices as ${[B_3]^a_.}_b^{\phantom{a}\sigma}, a,b=1,2,3$ and
1626: $\sigma = \pm $ accounts for the spin third component of the baryon
1627: ($\pm 1/2)$, while for $B_6$ we will use ${\cal B}^{ijk},
1628: i,j,k=1,\ldots 6 $. The projection $\left( \equiv (B_6)_3\right)$ of
1629: $B_6$ to the $8_2$ octet is (up to a global sign)
1630: %
1631: \begin{equation}
1632: {[(B_6)_3]^a_.}_b^{\phantom{a}\sigma} = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}} {\cal
1633: B}^{a\sigma^{\phantom{\prime}} c\sigma^\prime d\sigma^{\prime\prime}}
1634: \epsilon_{bcd}\,\epsilon_{\sigma^\prime\sigma^{\prime\prime}}, \quad
1635: a,b,c,d= 1,2,3, \quad
1636: \sigma,\sigma^\prime,\sigma^{\prime\prime}=\pm.
1637: \end{equation}
1638: %
1639: with $\epsilon_{++}=\epsilon{--}=0$ and
1640: $\epsilon_{+-}=-\epsilon_{-+}=1$. This definition satisfies
1641: ${[(B_6)_3]^a_.}_a^{\phantom{a}\sigma}=0$, as required to ensure that
1642: those states belong to the octet irrep of SU(3), and the normalization
1643: can be easily tested by checking, for instance, that
1644: %
1645: \begin{equation}
1646: \underwick{1}{[(<1B_6)_3^\dagger]^{1+}_3\,[(>1B_6)_3]^{1+}_3} = 1, \qquad
1647: \underwick{1}{[(<1B_6)_3^\dagger]^{1+}_1\,[(>1B_6)_3]^{1+}_1} = 2/3
1648: \end{equation}
1649: %
1650: which correctly accounts for the normalization of a diagonal,
1651: $p(S_z=+1/2)$, and of a non-diagonal, $\left\{\sqrt{3}\Sigma^0(S_z=+1/2)+
1652: \Lambda(S_z=+1/2)\right\}/\sqrt{6}$, elements of the $B_3$
1653: matrix. Reciprocally, the contribution $\left( \equiv
1654: (B_3)_6\right)$ of the $8_2$ octet to $B_6$ is
1655: %
1656: \begin{equation}
1657: (B_3)_6 \to ({\cal
1658: B}_3)_6^{a\sigma^{\phantom{\prime}}
1659: b\sigma^{\prime}c\sigma^{\prime\prime}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \left
1660: ( {[B_3]^a_.}_d^{\phantom{a}\sigma}
1661: \epsilon^{dbc}\epsilon^{\sigma^\prime \sigma^{\prime\prime}} +
1662: {[B_3]^b_.}_d^{\phantom{a}\sigma^\prime}
1663: \epsilon^{dac}\epsilon^{\sigma \sigma^{\prime\prime}} +
1664: {[B_3]^c_.}_d^{\phantom{a}\sigma^{\prime\prime}}
1665: \epsilon^{dab}\epsilon^{\sigma \sigma^{\prime}}
1666: \right )
1667: \end{equation}
1668: %
1669: With these definitions it is straightforward to prove the consistency
1670: relations $((B_3)_6)_3 = B_3$, and\footnote{To deduce
1671: Eq.~(\ref{eq:a3a6}) we have made use of
1672: %
1673: \begin{eqnarray}
1674: \Big[(A^\mu_3)_6 * (B_3)_6\Big]^{a\sigma^{\phantom{\prime}}
1675: b\sigma^\prime c\sigma^{\prime\prime}} &=& [(A^\mu_3)_6]^{i_1}_k
1676: [({\cal B}_3)_6]^{ki_2i_3} + [(A^\mu_3)_6]^{i_2}_k [({\cal
1677: B}_3)_6]^{i_1ki_3}+[(A^\mu_3)_6]^{i_3}_k [({\cal B}_3)_6]^{i_1i_2k}
1678: \nonumber \\ &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \left( [A^\mu_3]^a_e
1679: \,{[B_3]^e_.}_d^{\phantom{a}\sigma}\epsilon^{dbc}\epsilon^{\sigma^\prime\sigma^{\prime\prime}}
1680: + [A^\mu_3]^a_e
1681: \,{[B_3]^b_.}_d^{\phantom{a}\sigma^\prime}\epsilon^{dec}\epsilon^{\sigma\sigma^{\prime\prime}}
1682: + [A^\mu_3]^a_e
1683: \,{[B_3]^c_.}_d^{\phantom{a}\sigma^{\prime\prime}}\epsilon^{deb}\epsilon^{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}
1684: + \begin{array}{ccc}a &\leftrightarrow & b \\ \sigma
1685: &\leftrightarrow & \sigma^\prime\end{array} + \begin{array}{ccc}a &\leftrightarrow & c \\ \sigma
1686: &\leftrightarrow & \sigma^{\prime\prime}\end{array} \right)
1687: \nonumber\\
1688: &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \left( [A^\mu_3]^a_e
1689: \,{[B_3]^e_.}_d^{\phantom{a}\sigma}\epsilon^{dbc}\epsilon^{\sigma^\prime\sigma^{\prime\prime}}
1690: + 2 [A^\mu_3]^a_e
1691: \,{[B_3]^b_.}_d^{\phantom{a}\sigma^\prime}\epsilon^{dec}\epsilon^{\sigma\sigma^{\prime\prime}}
1692: + \begin{array}{ccc}a &\leftrightarrow & b \\ \sigma
1693: &\leftrightarrow & \sigma^\prime\end{array} + \begin{array}{ccc}a &\leftrightarrow & c \\ \sigma
1694: &\leftrightarrow & \sigma^{\prime\prime}\end{array} \right)\nonumber\\
1695: &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \left( [A^\mu_3]^a_e
1696: \,{[B_3]^e_.}_d^{\phantom{a}\sigma}\epsilon^{dbc}\epsilon^{\sigma^\prime\sigma^{\prime\prime}}
1697: + 2 [A^\mu_3]^b_e
1698: \,{[B_3]^a_.}_d^{\phantom{a}\sigma}\epsilon^{dec}\epsilon^{\sigma^\prime\sigma^{\prime\prime}}
1699: + \begin{array}{ccc}a &\leftrightarrow & b \\ \sigma
1700: &\leftrightarrow & \sigma^\prime\end{array} + \begin{array}{ccc}a &\leftrightarrow & c \\ \sigma
1701: &\leftrightarrow & \sigma^{\prime\prime}\end{array} \right)\label{eq:con1}
1702: \end{eqnarray}
1703: %
1704: where we associate to the SU(6) indices $i_1,i_2$ and $i_3$, the
1705: SU(3)$\times$ SU(2) $a\sigma^{\phantom{\prime}},b\sigma^{\prime}$ and
1706: $c\sigma^{\prime\prime} $ ones, respectively. Because of the
1707: antisymmetric tensor $\epsilon^{\sigma^\prime\sigma^{\prime\prime}}$,
1708: and the underlying symmetry under the
1709: interchange $(i_1 \leftrightarrow i_2$), one should only keep
1710: the antisymmetric contribution, when the
1711: SU(3) indices $b$ and $c$ are interchanged, of the second term in
1712: Eq.~(\ref{eq:con1}), thus we find
1713: %
1714: \begin{eqnarray}
1715: \Big[(A^\mu_3)_6 * (B_3)_6\Big]^{a\sigma^{\phantom{\prime}}
1716: b\sigma^\prime c\sigma^{\prime\prime}} &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \left(
1717: [A^\mu_3]^a_e
1718: \,{[B_3]^e_.}_d^{\phantom{a}\sigma}\epsilon^{dbc}\epsilon^{\sigma^\prime\sigma^{\prime\prime}}
1719: + [A^\mu_3]^b_e
1720: \,{[B_3]^a_.}_d^{\phantom{a}\sigma}\epsilon^{dec}\epsilon^{\sigma^\prime\sigma^{\prime\prime}}
1721: -[A^\mu_3]^c_e
1722: \,{[B_3]^a_.}_d^{\phantom{a}\sigma}\epsilon^{deb}\epsilon^{\sigma^\prime\sigma^{\prime\prime}}
1723: + \begin{array}{ccc}a &\leftrightarrow & b \\ \sigma
1724: &\leftrightarrow & \sigma^\prime\end{array} + \begin{array}{ccc}a
1725: &\leftrightarrow & c \\ \sigma &\leftrightarrow &
1726: \sigma^{\prime\prime}\end{array} \right) \nonumber \\ &=&
1727: \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \left ( {[A_3^\mu,B_3]^a_.}_d^{\phantom{a}\sigma}
1728: \epsilon^{dbc}\epsilon^{\sigma^\prime\sigma^{\prime\prime}} +
1729: \begin{array}{ccc}a &\leftrightarrow & b \\ \sigma &\leftrightarrow
1730: & \sigma^\prime\end{array} + \begin{array}{ccc}a &\leftrightarrow &
1731: c \\ \sigma &\leftrightarrow & \sigma^{\prime\prime}\end{array}
1732: \right)
1733: \end{eqnarray}
1734: %
1735: %
1736: thanks to the relation
1737: %
1738: \begin{equation}
1739: [A_3^\mu]^b_e~\epsilon^{dec} - [A_3^\mu]^c_e~\epsilon^{deb} =
1740: - [A_3^\mu]^d_e~\epsilon^{ebc}
1741: \end{equation}
1742: }
1743: %
1744: \begin{eqnarray}
1745: (B_3^\dagger)_6\cdot(B_3)_6 &=&
1746: {[B_3^\dagger]^a_.}_{b\sigma} {[B_3]^b_.}_a^{\phantom{a}\sigma} =
1747: {\rm Tr}(B^\dagger_3 B_3), \label{eq:tr}\\
1748: \Big[(A^\mu_3)_6 * (B_3)_6\Big]^{a\sigma^{\phantom{\prime}}
1749: b\sigma^\prime c\sigma^{\prime\prime}} &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \left
1750: ( {[A_3^\mu,B_3]^a_.}_d^{\phantom{a}\sigma}
1751: \epsilon^{dbc}\epsilon^{\sigma^\prime\sigma^{\prime\prime}} +
1752: {[A_3^\mu,B_3]^b_.}_d^{\phantom{a}\sigma^\prime}
1753: \epsilon^{dac}\epsilon^{\sigma\sigma^{\prime\prime}}+
1754: {[A_3^\mu,B_3]^c_.}_d^{\phantom{a}\sigma^{\prime\prime}}
1755: \epsilon^{dab}\epsilon^{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}} \right) \nonumber \\
1756: &=& (A_3^\mu * B_3)_6^{a\sigma^{\phantom{\prime}}
1757: b\sigma^\prime c\sigma^{\prime\prime}}, \qquad {\rm with}~~
1758: A_3^\mu * B_3 = [A_3^\mu, B_3] \label{eq:a3a6}
1759: \end{eqnarray}
1760: %
1761: where $B_6^\dagger \cdot B_6 \equiv
1762: \frac{1}{3!} {\cal B}^\dagger_{i_1i_2i_3} {\cal
1763: B}^{i_1i_2i_3}$. From the above equations, it follows
1764: %
1765: \begin{equation}
1766: (B_3^\dagger)_6\cdot\left( (A^\mu_3)_6 * (B_3)_6 \right ) =
1767: (B_3^\dagger)_6\cdot(A_3^\mu * B_3)_6 = {\rm Tr}(B^\dagger_3\cdot
1768: (A^\mu_3* B_3)) = {\rm Tr}(B^\dagger_3 [A^\mu_3, B_3])
1769: \end{equation}
1770: %
1771: This latter equation together Eq.~(\ref{eq:tr}), shows that the
1772: restriction of the Lagrangian in Eq.~(\ref{eq:lawt}) to the $8_1
1773: \otimes 8_2$ sector reproduces that given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:su3su2}).
1774:
1775: \section{Eigenvalues of ${\cal G_{\rm WT,SU(6)}^{\rm SU(N_c)}}$}
1776:
1777: \label{sec:gwt}
1778:
1779: Since the 35-meson--``56''-baryon hamiltonian ${\cal H_{\rm
1780: WT,SU(6)}^{\rm SU(N_c)}}$ (or equivalently ${\cal G_{\rm WT,SU(6)}^{\rm
1781: SU(N_c)}}$) is a SU(6) scalar, its eigenvectors follow
1782: from the SU(6) reduction given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:su6_nc}).
1783:
1784: A meson-baryon state belonging to the ``56'' representation is of
1785: the form
1786: %
1787: \begin{equation}
1788: \sum_{P\in S(N_c)}M^{\dagger m}_{P(i_1)} B^\dagger_{m P(i_2)\ldots
1789: P(i_{N_c})}|0\rangle
1790: \end{equation}
1791: %
1792: where $|0\rangle $ is the ground state in the Fock space (state
1793: containing zero hadrons). All of these states are eigenstates of
1794: ${\cal G_{\rm WT,SU(6)}^{\rm SU(N_c)}}$, with eigenvalue proportional
1795: to $\bar\lambda_{\makebox{\rm \footnotesize ``56''}}$, which might
1796: depend on $N_c$. One of these $\left (\begin{array}{c}N_c+5\cr
1797: 5\end{array}\right)$ states is
1798: %
1799: \begin{equation}
1800: |1\rangle = M^{\dagger m}_1 B^\dagger_{m 11\ldots 1} |0\rangle
1801: \end{equation}
1802: %
1803: One finds,
1804: %
1805: \begin{eqnarray}
1806: {\cal G_{\rm WT,SU(6)}^{\rm SU(N_c)}} |1\rangle &=&
1807: \frac{2}{(N_c-1)!}
1808: \left(
1809: M^{\dagger j}_k
1810: \underwick{1}{<1M^i_j >1M^{\dagger m}_1}
1811: -M^{\dagger i}_j
1812: \underwick{1}{<1M^j_k >1M^{\dagger m}_1}
1813: \right)
1814: B^\dagger_{ii_2\ldots i_{N_c}}
1815: \underwick{1}{<1B^{ki_2\ldots i_{N_c}}>1
1816: B^\dagger_{m1\ldots
1817: 1}} |0\rangle
1818: \nonumber \\
1819: &=& \left (-4N_F \right) |1\rangle
1820: \end{eqnarray}
1821: %
1822: %
1823: where we have made use of the Wick's contractions given in
1824: Eq.~(\ref{eq:wick}).
1825:
1826: Therefore $\bar\lambda_{\makebox{\rm
1827: \footnotesize ``56''}} = -4N_F$. Analogously and using the states
1828: %
1829: \begin{eqnarray}
1830: |2\rangle &=& \left (
1831: M^{\dagger i}_2 B^\dagger_{i11\ldots 1} -M^{\dagger i}_1
1832: B^\dagger_{i21\ldots 1} \right )|0\rangle \nonumber \\
1833: |3\rangle &=& M^{\dagger 2}_1
1834: B^\dagger_{111\ldots 1}|0\rangle \nonumber \\
1835: |4 \rangle &=& \left (M^{\dagger 3}_2
1836: B^\dagger_{111\ldots 1} - M^{\dagger 3}_1
1837: B^\dagger_{211\ldots 1} \right )|0\rangle
1838: \end{eqnarray}
1839: %
1840: for the ``70'', ``700'' and ``1134'' eigenspaces respectively, we
1841: find the eigenvalues of ${\cal G_{\rm WT,SU(6)}^{\rm SU(N_c)}}$ in
1842: these spaces. Thus, we finally conclude
1843: %
1844: \begin{equation}
1845: \left [\bar\lambda_{\makebox{\rm
1846: \footnotesize ``56''}},\, \bar\lambda_{\makebox{\rm \footnotesize
1847: ``70''}},\, \bar\lambda_{\makebox{\rm \footnotesize ``700''}},\, \bar\lambda_{\makebox{\rm
1848: \footnotesize ``1134''}} \right ] = \left [ -4N_F,\, -2(N_c+2N_F) ,\, 2N_c,\,
1849: - 2 \right ]
1850: \end{equation}
1851: %
1852:
1853: \section{A toy model for the $N_c$ dependence of the ${\cal H}_{CN}$
1854: SU(6) eigenvalues}
1855:
1856: \label{sec:cnpc}
1857:
1858: For illustrative purposes, in what follows we develop a simple model,
1859: where we ignore the spin dependence of the couplings. Symbolically,
1860: the crossed nucleon pole-type hamiltonian, ${\cal H}_{CN}$, might take
1861: the form (see diagram of Fig.~\ref{fig:fig2})
1862: %
1863: \begin{equation}
1864: {\cal H}_{CN}= \left((M^\dagger\otimes B)_{
1865: \makebox{\footnotesize ``56''}} \otimes
1866: (M\otimes B^\dagger)_{ \makebox{\footnotesize ``56}^*
1867: \makebox{\footnotesize ''}}\right)_1
1868: \end{equation}
1869: %
1870: Since
1871: %
1872: \begin{equation}
1873: (M^\dagger\otimes B)_{\makebox{\footnotesize ``56''}}^{i_1i_2\ldots i_{N_c}} =
1874: \frac{1}{N_c!} \sum_{P\in S_{N_c}} B^{jP(i_2)P(i_3)\ldots P(i_{N_c})}
1875: M^{\dagger P(i_1)}_j
1876: \end{equation}
1877: %
1878: the group structure, ${\cal G_{\rm CN,SU(6)}^{\rm SU(N_c)}}$, of the
1879: crossed nucleon pole-type hamiltonian, up to constant factors and
1880: within this simplified model, would take the form
1881: %
1882: \begin{eqnarray}
1883: {\cal G_{\rm CN,SU(6)}^{\rm SU(N_c)}}&=& \frac{1}{(N_c-1)!} \frac{1}{N_c!}
1884: : \sum_{P\in S_{N_c}} B^{jP(i_2)P(i_3)\ldots P(i_{N_c})}
1885: M^{\dagger P(i_1)}_j B^\dagger_{li_2i_3\ldots i_{N_c}}M^l_{i_1}:
1886: \nonumber \\
1887: &=& :\frac{1}{N_c!} B^{ji_2i_3\ldots i_{N_c}}
1888: M^{\dagger k}_j B^\dagger_{li_2i_3\ldots i_{N_c}}M^l_k +
1889: \frac{N_c-1}{N_c!} B^{jki_3\ldots i_{N_c}}
1890: M^{\dagger r}_j B^\dagger_{lri_3\ldots i_{N_c}}M^l_k: \label{eq:modelcn}
1891: \end{eqnarray}
1892: %
1893: From the eigenvalues of ${\cal G_{\rm CN,SU(6)}^{\rm SU(N_c)}}$, we
1894: obtain the following proportionality relations for those of ${\cal
1895: H_{\rm CN,SU(6)}^{\rm SU(N_c)}}$ in this model\footnote{The values
1896: quoted within brackets are the eigenvalues of ${\cal G_{\rm CN,SU(6)}^{\rm
1897: SU(N_c)}}$.}
1898: %
1899: \begin{equation}
1900: \left[\lambda^{\rm CN}_{\makebox{\rm
1901: \footnotesize ``56''}},\, \lambda^{\rm CN}_{\makebox{\rm \footnotesize
1902: ``70''}},\, \lambda^{\rm CN}_{\makebox{\rm \footnotesize ``700''}},\,
1903: \lambda^{\rm CN}_{\makebox{\rm
1904: \footnotesize ``1134''}} \right] \propto
1905: \left[
1906: N_c +2N_F -1 -\frac{N_c}{2N_F} -\frac{2N_F}{N_c}
1907: ,\,
1908: -1-\frac{2N_F}{N_c} ,\,
1909: 1 ,\,
1910: - \frac{1}{N_c}\right] \,.
1911: \end{equation}
1912: %
1913: We see that in the large $N_c$ limit both, $\lambda^{\rm
1914: CN}_{\makebox{\rm \footnotesize ``70''}}/\lambda^{\rm
1915: CN}_{\makebox{\rm \footnotesize ``56''}}$ and $\lambda^{\rm
1916: CN}_{\makebox{\rm \footnotesize ``700''}}/\lambda^{\rm
1917: CN}_{\makebox{\rm \footnotesize ``56''}}$, behave as ${\cal
1918: O}(1/N_c)$, while $\lambda^{\rm CN}_{\makebox{\rm \footnotesize
1919: ``1134''}}/\lambda^{\rm CN}_{\makebox{\rm \footnotesize ``56''}}$ is
1920: suppressed by $N_c^{-2}$. Thus in this model, we find that the crossed
1921: nucleon pole-type contribution depends on the SU(6) representation,
1922: being the ``56'' the dominant one. Assuming that $\lambda^{\rm
1923: CN}_{\makebox{\rm \footnotesize ``56''}}$ scales as ${\cal O}(N_c)$,
1924: we find that the WT term provides the large $N_c$ dominant
1925: contribution in the ``70'', ``700'' and ``1134'' irreducible
1926: representation spaces. Indeed within this toy model, the crossed
1927: nucleon pole-type contributions in those spaces are suppressed by
1928: $1/N_c$ with respect the WT ones.
1929:
1930:
1931: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1932:
1933: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1934:
1935: \bibitem{Ho74} G.'t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B72} (1974) 461; {\it
1936: ibidem} Nucl. Phys. {\bf B75} (1974) 461.
1937:
1938: \bibitem{Wi79} E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B160} (1979) 57.
1939:
1940: \bibitem{Ma99}
1941: A.V. Manohar, {\it Large $N_c$ QCD} in Probing the
1942: Standard Model of Particle Interactions, Les Houches LXVIII (1997),
1943: Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1999, Vol. II., p. 1091, hep-ph/9802419.
1944:
1945: \bibitem{Ga03} C. Garc\'\i a-Recio, M.F.M Lutz and J. Nieves,
1946: Phys. Lett. {\bf B582} (2004) 49.
1947:
1948: \bibitem{KL03} E.E. Kolomeitsev and M.F.M. Lutz, Phys. Lett. {\bf
1949: B585} (2004) 243.
1950:
1951: \bibitem{LK02} M. F. M. Lutz and E. E. Kolomeitsev, Nucl. Phys.
1952: {\bf A700} (2002) 193.
1953:
1954: \bibitem{Lu03} M.F.M Lutz, C. Garc\'\i a-Recio,
1955: E.E. Kolomeitsev and J. Nieves, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A754} (2005) 212c.
1956:
1957: \bibitem{LK04} M.F.M. Lutz and E.E. Kolomeitsev, Nucl.Phys. {\bf
1958: A730} (2004) 392.
1959:
1960: \bibitem{LK04charm}
1961: M.F.M. Lutz and E.E. Kolomeitsev, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A730} (2004) 110;
1962: J. Hofmann and M.F.M. Lutz, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A763} (2005) 90.
1963:
1964: \bibitem{DJM94} R. Dashen, E. Jenkins and A.V. Manohar,
1965: Phys. Rev. {\bf D49} (1994) 4713.
1966:
1967: \bibitem{GNS05} C. Garc\'\i a--Recio, J. Nieves and L.L. Salcedo,
1968: hep-ph/0505233.
1969:
1970: %\cite{Jenkins:1990jv}
1971: \bibitem{Jenkins:1990jv}
1972: E.~Jenkins and A.~V.~Manohar,
1973: %``Baryon Chiral Perturbation Theory Using A Heavy Fermion Lagrangian,''
1974: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 255} (1991) 558.
1975: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B255,558;%%
1976:
1977: %\cite{Ellis:1997kc}
1978: \bibitem{Ellis:1997kc}
1979: P.~J.~Ellis and H.~B.~Tang,
1980: %``Pion nucleon scattering in a new approach to chiral perturbation theory,''
1981: Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 57} (1998) 3356
1982: [arXiv:hep-ph/9709354].
1983: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9709354;%%
1984:
1985: %\cite{Becher:1999he}
1986: \bibitem{Becher:1999he}
1987: T.~Becher and H.~Leutwyler,
1988: %``Baryon chiral perturbation theory in manifestly Lorentz invariant form,''
1989: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 9} (1999) 643
1990: [arXiv:hep-ph/9901384].
1991: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9901384;%%
1992:
1993: \bibitem{Wein-Tomo} S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 17} (1966) 616;
1994: Y. Tomozawa, Nuov. Cim. {\bf A46} (1966) 707.
1995:
1996: \bibitem{weise} N. Kaiser, P.B. Siegel and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. {\bf
1997: A594} (1995) 325; {\it ibidem} Phys. Lett. {\bf B362} (1995) 23.
1998:
1999: \bibitem{oset} E. Oset and A. Ramos, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A635} (1998) 99;
2000: E. Oset, A. Ramos and C. Bennhold, Phys. Lett. {\bf B527} (2002) 99;
2001: A. Ramos, E. Oset and C. Bennhold, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89} (2002)
2002: 252001; T. Inoue, E. Oset and M.J. Vicente-Vacas, Phys. Rev. {\bf C65}
2003: (2002) 035204.
2004:
2005: \bibitem{OM} J. Oller and U. Mei\ss ner, Phys. Lett. {\bf
2006: B500} (2001) 263.
2007:
2008: \bibitem{nrg} J. Nieves and E. Ruiz Arriola, Phys. Rev. {\bf D64},
2009: (2001) 116008; C. Garc\'\i a-Recio, J. Nieves, E. Ruiz Arriola and
2010: M. J. Vicente-Vacas, Phys. Rev. {\bf D67} (2003) 076009.
2011:
2012: \bibitem{Pich95} A. Pich, Rep. Prog. Phys. {\bf 58} (1995) 563.
2013:
2014: \bibitem{EJmeson} J. Nieves and E. Ruiz Arriola, Phys. Lett.
2015: {\bf B455} 30 (1999); Nucl. Phys. {\bf A679} 57 (2000).
2016:
2017: \bibitem{Ji03}
2018: D. Jido, J.A. Oller, E. Oset, A. Ramos and U.G. Meissner,
2019: %``Chiral dynamics of the two Lambda(1405) states,''
2020: Nucl. Phys. {\bf A725} (2003) 181.
2021: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 0303062;%%
2022:
2023: \bibitem{ORM05} V.K. Magas, E. Oset and A. Ramos,
2024: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 95} (2005) 052301.
2025:
2026: \bibitem{PY98} D. Pirjol and T.-M. Yan, Phys. Rev. {\bf D57} (1998) 1449.
2027:
2028:
2029: \bibitem{Co04} T.D. Cohen, D. C. Dakin, A. Nellore and R.F. Lebed,
2030: Phys. Rev. {\bf D69} (2004) 056001.
2031:
2032: \bibitem{GSS05} J.L. Goity, C.L. Schat and N.N. Scoccola,
2033: Phys. Rev. {\bf D71} (2005) 034016; J.L. Goity,
2034: Phys. Atom. Nucl. {\bf 68} (2005) 624.
2035:
2036: \bibitem{Ope} C.E. Carlson, C.D. Carone, J.L. Goity and R.F. Lebed,
2037: Phys. Lett. {\bf B438} (1998) 327; C.E. Carlson, C.D. Carone,
2038: J.L. Goity and R.F. Lebed, Phys. Rev. {\bf D59} (1999) 114008;
2039: C.D. Carone, H. Georgi, L. Kaplan, and D. Morin, Phys. Rev. {\bf
2040: D50} (1994) 5793; J.L. Goity, Phys. Lett. {\bf B414} (1997)
2041: 140. C.E. Carlson and C.D. Carone, Phys. Lett. {\bf B484} (2000)
2042: 260; J.L. Goity, C.L. Schat and N.N. Scoccola, Phys. {\bf B564}
2043: (2003) 83.
2044:
2045: \bibitem{GSS02} C.L. Schat, J.L. Goity and N.N. Scoccola,
2046: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88} (2002) 102002; J.L. Goity, C.L. Schat and
2047: N.N. Scoccola Phys. Rev. {\bf D66} (2002) 114014.
2048:
2049:
2050: \bibitem{Solitons} A. Hayashi, G. Eckart, G. Holzwarth, H. Walliser,
2051: Phys. Lett. {\bf B147} (1984) 5.; M.P. Mattis and M. Karliner,
2052: Phys. Rev. {\bf D31} (1985) 2833; M.P. Mattis and M.E. Peskin,
2053: Phys. Rev. {\bf D32} (1985) 58; M.P. Mattis,
2054: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 56} (1986) 1103; M.P. Mattis and M. Mukerjee,
2055: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 61} (1988) 1344; M.P. Mattis,
2056: Phys. Rev. {\bf D39} (1989) R994; M.P. Mattis,
2057: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 63} (1989) 1455.
2058:
2059: \bibitem{CL03} T.D. Cohen and R.F. Lebed, Phys. Rev. {\bf D68} (2003) 056003.
2060:
2061:
2062:
2063: \bibitem{CP76} D.G. Caldi and H.Pagels, Phys. Rev. {\bf D14} (1976)
2064: 809; Phys. Rev. {\bf D15} (1977) 2668.
2065:
2066: \bibitem{CG-su3} J.J. de Swart, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 35} (1963) 916.
2067:
2068: \bibitem{CG-su6} J.C. Carter, J.J. Coyne and S. Meshkov,
2069: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 14} (1965) 523; {\it erratum}
2070: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 14} (1965) 850.
2071:
2072: \bibitem{PIN} M. Mojzis, Eur. Phys. Jour. {\bf C2} (1998) 181;
2073: N. Fettes and U.-G. Mei\ss ner, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A676} (2000) 311;
2074: A. G\'omez-Nicola, J. Nieves, J.R. Pel\'aez and E. Ruiz-Arriola,
2075: Phys. Rev. {\bf D69} (2004) 076007; Phys. Lett. {\bf B486} (2000)
2076: 77.
2077:
2078: \bibitem{CL04} T.D. Cohen and R.F. Lebed, Phys. Rev. {\bf D70} (2004) 096015.
2079:
2080: \bibitem{CM67} S. Coleman and J. Mandula, Phys. Rev. {\bf 159} (1967)
2081: 1251.
2082:
2083: \bibitem{GP76} W.M. Gibson and B.R. Pollard, {\it Symmetry Principles
2084: in Elementary Particle Physics}, Cambrigdge University Press, 1976.
2085:
2086: \bibitem{Pe04} J.R. Pelaez, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92} (2004) 102001.
2087:
2088: \end{thebibliography}
2089:
2090:
2091: \end{document}
2092:
2093: %
2094: