1: %% ****** Start of file template.aps ****** %

2: %%

3: %%

4: %%   This file is part of the APS files in the REVTeX 4 distribution.

5: %%   Version 4.0 of REVTeX, August 2001

6: %%

7: %%

8: %%   Copyright (c) 2001 The American Physical Society.

9: %%

10: %%   See the REVTeX 4 README file for restrictions and more information.

11: %%

12: %

13: % This is a template for producing manuscripts for use with REVTEX 4.0

14: % Copy this file to another name and then work on that file.

15: % That way, you always have this original template file to use.

16: %

17: % Group addresses by affiliation; use superscriptaddress for long

18: % author lists, or if there are many overlapping affiliations.

19: % For Phys. Rev. appearance, change preprint to twocolumn.

20: % Choose pra, prb, prc, prd, pre, prl, prstab, or rmp for journal

21: %     important  ===>   $$$   <===   important     %

22: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

23: %  Add 'draft' option to mark overfull boxes with black boxes

24: %  Add 'showpacs' option to make PACS codes appear

25: %  Add 'showkeys' option to make keywords appear

26: %\documentclass[aps,prd,preprint,groupedaddress]{revtex4}

27: \documentclass[aps,prd,preprint,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}

28: %\documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,groupedaddress]{revtex4}

29: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files

30: 

31: % You should use BibTeX and apsrev.bst for references

32: % Choosing a journal automatically selects the correct APS

33: % BibTeX style file (bst file), so only uncomment the line

34: % below if necessary.

35: \bibliographystyle{apsrev}

36: 

37: \begin{document}

38: \newcommand{\vecvar}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath$#1$}}

39: 

40: % Use the \preprint command to place your local institutional report

41: % number in the upper righthand corner of the title page in preprint mode.

42: % Multiple \preprint commands are allowed.

43: % Use the 'preprintnumbers' class option to override journal defaults

44: % to display numbers if necessary

45: %\preprint{}

46: 

47: %Title of paper

48: \title{Generalized form factors, generalized parton distributions\\

49: and the spin contents of the nucleon}

50: 

51: % repeat the \author .. \affiliation  etc. as needed

52: % \email, \thanks, \homepage, \altaffiliation all apply to the current

53: % author. Explanatory text should go in the []'s, actual e-mail

54: % address or url should go in the {}'s for \email and \homepage.

55: % Please use the appropriate macro foreach each type of information

56: 

57: % \affiliation command applies to all authors since the last

58: % \affiliation command. The \affiliation command should follow the

59: % other information

60: % \affiliation can be followed by \email, \homepage, \thanks as well.

61: \author{M.~Wakamatsu and Y.~Nakakoji}

62: %\email[]{wakamatu@phys.sci.osaka-u.ac.jp}

63: %\homepage[]{Your web page}

64: %\thanks{}

65: %\altaffiliation{}

66: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, \\

67: Osaka University, \\

68: Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043, JAPAN}

69: 

70: %Collaboration name if desired (requires use of superscriptaddress

71: %option in \documentclass). \noaffiliation is required (may also be

72: %used with the \author command).

73: %\collaboration can be followed by \email, \homepage, \thanks as well.

74: %\collaboration{}

75: %\noaffiliation

76: 

77: %\date{\today}

78: 

79: \begin{abstract}

80: With a special intention of clarifying the underlying spin contents

81: of the nucleon, we investigate the generalized form factors

82: of the nucleon, which are defined as the $n$-th $x$-moments of the

83: generalized parton distribution functions, within the

84: framework of the chiral quark soliton model.

85: A particular emphasis is put on the pion mass dependence

86: of final predictions, which we shall compare with the

87: predictions of lattice QCD simulations carried out in the

88: so-called heavy pion region around $m_\pi \simeq (700 \sim 900)

89: \,\mbox{MeV}$. We find that some observables are very sensitive

90: to the variation of the pion mass.

91: It will be argued that the negligible importance

92: of the quark orbital angular momentum indicated by the LHPC

93: and QCDSF lattice collaborations might be true in the unrealistic

94: heavy pion world, but it is not necessarily the case in our real

95: world close to the chiral limit.

96: \end{abstract}

97: 

98: % insert suggested PACS numbers in braces on next line

99: \pacs{12.39.Fe, 12.39.Ki, 12.38.Lg, 13.15.+g}

100: % insert suggested keywords - APS authors don't need to do this

101: %\keywords{}

102: 

103: %\maketitle must follow title, authors, abstract, \pacs, and \keywords

104: \maketitle

105: 

106: % body of paper here - Use proper section commands

107: % References should be done using the \cite, \ref, and \label commands

108: %\section{}

109: % Put \label in argument of \section for cross-referencing

110: %\section{\label{}}

111: %\subsection{}

112: %\subsubsection{}

113: 

114: \section{Introduction}

115: The so-called ``nucleon spin crisis'' raised by

116: the European Muon Collaboration (EMC) measurement in 1988 is

117: one of the most outstanding findings in the field of hadron

118: physics \cite{EMC88},\cite{EMC89}.

119: The renaissance of the physics of high energy deep inelastic

120: scatterings is greatly indebted to this epoch-making finding.

121: Probably, one of the most outstanding progresses achieved recently in

122: this field of physics is the discovery and the subsequent research

123: of completely new observables called generalized parton distribution

124: functions (GPD). It has been revealed that the GPDs, which can be

125: measured through the so-called deeply-virtual Compton scatterings

126: (DVCS) or the deeply-virtual meson productions (DVMP), contain

127: surprisingly richer information than the standard parton distribution

128: functions \cite{MRGDH94}--\cite{RP02}. 

129: 

130: Roughly speaking, the GPDs are generalization of ordinary parton

131: distributions and the elastic form factors of

132: the nucleon. The GPDs in the most general form are functions of three

133: kinematical variables : the average longitudinal momentum fraction

134: $x$ of the struck parton in the initial and final states,

135: a skewdness parameter $\xi$ which measures the difference between

136: two momentum fractions, and the four-momentum-transfer square $t$ of

137: the initial and final nucleon. In the forward limit $t \rightarrow 0$,

138: some of the GPDs reduce to the usual quark, antiquark and gluon

139: distributions. On the other hand, taking the $n$-th moment of

140: the GPDs with respect to the variable $x$, one obtains the

141: generalizations of the electromagnetic form factors of the nucleon,

142: which are called the generalized form factors of the nucleon.

143: The complex nature of the GPDs, i.e. the fact that they are functions

144: of three variable, makes it quite difficult to grasp their

145: full characteristics both experimentally and theoretically.

146: From the theoretical viewpoint, it may be practical to begin studies

147: with the two limiting cases. The one is the forward limit of

148: zero momentum transfer. We have mentioned that, in this limit, some of

149: the GPDs reduce to the ordinary parton distribution function

150: depending on one variable $x$. However, it turns out that, even

151: in this limit, there appear some completely new distribution

152: functions, which cannot be accessed by the ordinary inclusive

153: deep-inelastic scattering measurements.

154: Very interestingly, it was shown by Ji that one of such

155: distributions contains valuable information on the total angular

156: momentum carried by the quark fields in the

157: nucleon \cite{Ji97}--\cite{JTH96}. This information,

158: combined with the known knowledge on the longitudinal quark

159: polarization, makes it possible to determine the quark orbital

160: angular momentum contribution to the total nucleon spin purely

161: experimentally.

162: 

163: Another relatively-easy-to-handle quantities are the

164: generalized form factors of the nucleon \cite{DFJK05},\cite{Diehl05},

165: which are given as the

166: non-forward nucleon matrix elements of the spin-$n$, twist-two

167: quark and gluon operators. Since these latter quantities are given

168: as the nucleon matrix elements of local operators, they can be

169: objects of lattice QCD simulations.

170: (It should be compared with parton distributions. The direct

171: calculation of parton distributions is beyond the scope of lattice

172: QCD simulations, since it needs to treat the nucleon matrix elements

173: of quark bilinears, which are {\it nonlocal in time}.)

174: In fact, two groups, the LHPC collaboration and the QCDSF collaboration

175: independently investigated the generalized form factors of the nucleon,

176: and gave several interesting predictions, which can in principle be

177: tested by the measurement of GPDs in the

178: near future \cite{LHPC02}--\cite{QCDSF05}.

179: Although interesting, there is no {\it a priori} reason to believe

180: that the predictions of these lattice simulations are realistic

181: enough. The reason is mainly that the above mentioned lattice

182: simulation were carried out in the heavy pion regime around

183: $m_\pi \simeq (700 \sim 900) \,\mbox{MeV}$  with neglect

184: of the so-called disconnected diagrams. Our real world is rather

185: close to the chiral limit with vanishing pion mass, and we know that,

186: in this limit, the Goldstone pion plays very important roles in

187: some intrinsic properties of the nucleon. The lattice simulation

188: carried out in the heavy pion region is in danger of missing some

189: important role of chiral dynamics. 

190: 

191: On the other hand, the chiral quark soliton model (CQSM) is an

192: effective model of baryons, which maximally incorporates the chiral

193: symmetry of QCD and its spontaneous breakdown \cite{DPP88},\cite{WY91}.

194: (See \cite{Wakamatsu92R}--\cite{ARW96} for early reviews.) It was already

195: applied to the physics of ordinary parton distribution functions

196: with remarkable success \cite{WGR96}--\cite{Wakamatsu03b}.

197: For instance, an indispensable role of

198: pion-like quark-antiquark correlation was shown to be essential to

199: understand the famous NMC measurement, which revealed the dominance

200: of the $\bar{d}$-quark over the $\bar{u}$-quark inside the

201: proton \cite{WK98},\cite{PPGWW99},\cite{Wakamatsu92}.

202: Then, it would be interesting to see what predictions the CQSM would

203: give for the quantities mentioned above. Now, the main purpose of the

204: present study is to study the generalized form factors of the

205: nucleon within the framework of the CQSM and compare

206: its predictions with those of the lattice QCD simulations.

207: Of our particular interest  here is to see the change of

208: final theoretical predictions against the variation of the pion mass.

209: Such an analysis is expected to give some hints for judging the

210: reliability of the lattice QCD predictions at the present level

211: for the observables in question.

212: 

213: The plan of the paper is as follows. In sect.II, we shall briefly

214: explain how to introduce the nonzero pion mass into the scheme

215: of the CQSM with Pauli-Villars regularization.

216: In sect.III, we derive the theoretical expressions for the

217: generalized form factors of the nucleon.

218: Sect.IV is devoted to the discussion of the results of the numerical

219: calculations. Some concluding remarks are then given in sect.V.

220: 

221: 

222: 

223: \section{Model lagrangian with pion mass term}

224: 

225: We start with the basic effective lagrangian of the chiral quark soliton 

226: model in the chiral limit given as

227: \begin{equation}

228:  {\cal L}_0 = \bar{\psi} (x) (i \not\!\partial - M U^{\gamma_5} (x) ) 

229:  \psi (x) ,

230: \end{equation}

231: with 

232: \begin{equation}

233:  U^{\gamma_5} (x) \ = \ 

234:  e^{i \gamma_5 \vecvar{\tau} \cdot \vecvar{\pi} (x) / f_{\pi}}

235:  \ = \ \frac{1 + \gamma_5}{2} \,U (x) + 

236:  \frac{1 - \gamma_5}{2} \,U^{\dagger} (x) .

237: \end{equation}

238: which describes the effective quark fields, with a dynamically generated 

239: mass $M$, strongly interacting with pions \cite{DPP88},\cite{WY91}.

240: Since one of the main purposes of the 

241: present study is to see how the relevant observables depend on pion mass, 

242: we add to ${\cal L}_0$ an explicit chiral symmetry breaking term 

243: ${\cal L}^{\prime}$ given by \cite{KWW99}

244: \begin{equation}

245:  {\cal L}^{\prime} = \frac{1}{4} \,f_{\pi}^2 \,m_{\pi}^2 \,\mbox{tr}_f

246:  \,[ U (x) + U^{\dagger} (x) - 2] . \label{eq:LSB}

247: \end{equation}

248: Here the trace in (\ref{eq:LSB}) is to be taken with respect to

249: flavor indices. 

250: The total model lagrangian is therefore given by

251: \begin{equation}

252:  {\cal L}_{CQM} = {\cal L}_0 + {\cal L}^{\prime} .

253: \end{equation}

254: Naturally, one could have taken an alternative choice in which the

255: explicit chiral-symmetry-breaking effect is introduced in the form of

256: current quark mass term as ${\cal L}^{\prime} = -m_0 \bar{\psi} \psi$.

257: We did not do so, because we do not know any consistent regularization

258: of such effective lagrangian with finite current quark mass within the 

259: framework of the Pauli-Villars subtraction scheme, as explained in

260: Appendix of \cite{KWW99}. 

261: The effective action corresponding to the above lagrangian is given as

262: \begin{equation}

263:  S_{eff} [U] = S_F [U] + S_M [U] , \label{eq:EnergSol}

264: \end{equation}

265: with

266: \begin{equation}

267:  S_F [U] = - \,i \,N_c \,\mbox{Sp} \,

268:  \ln ( i \not\!\partial - M U^{\gamma_5} ) ,

269: \end{equation}

270: and

271: \begin{equation}

272:  S_M [U]  = \int \frac{1}{4} \,f_{\pi}^2 \,m_{\pi}^2 \,

273:  \mbox{tr}_f \,[ U (x) + U^{\dagger} (x) - 2 ] \,d^4 x .

274: \end{equation}

275: Here $\mbox{Sp} \hat{O} = \int d^4 x \,\mbox{tr}_\gamma \,\mbox{tr}_f \,

276: \langle x | \hat{O} | x \rangle$ with $\mbox{tr}_\gamma$ and

277: $\mbox{tr}_f$ representing the trace of the Dirac gamma matrices and

278: the flavors (isospins), respectively.

279: The fermion (quark) part of the above action contains ultra-violet 

280: divergences. To remove these divergences, we must introduce physical

281: cutoffs. For the purpose of regularization, here we use the

282: Pauli-Villars subtraction scheme. As explained in \cite{KWW99},

283: we must eliminate not

284: only the logarithmic divergence contained in $S_f [U]$ but also

285: the quadratic and 

286: logarithmic divergence contained in the equation of motion shown below.

287: To get rid of all these troublesome divergence, we need at least two 

288: subtraction terms. The regularized action is thus defined as 

289: \begin{equation}

290:  S_{eff}^{reg} [U] = S_F^{reg} [U] + S_M [U] ,

291: \end{equation}

292: where

293: \begin{equation}

294:  S_F^{reg} [U] = S_F [U] - \sum_{i = 1}^2 \,c_i \,S_F^{\Lambda _i} [U] .

295: \end{equation}

296: Here $S_F^{\Lambda_i}$ is obtained from $S_F [U]$ with $M$ replaced by

297: the Pauli-Villars regulator mass $\Lambda_i$. These parameters are fixed

298: as follows.

299: First, the quadratic and logarithmic divergence contained in the

300: equation of motion (or in the expression of the vacuum quark condensate) 

301: can, respectively, removed if the subtraction constants satisfy the 

302: following two conditions :

303: \begin{eqnarray}

304:  M^2 &-& \sum_{i = 1}^2 c_i \Lambda_i^2 = 0 ,\\

305:  M^4 &-& \sum_{i = 1}^2 c_i \Lambda_i^4 = 0 .

306: \end{eqnarray}

307: (We recall that the condition which removes the logarithmic divergence 

308: in $S_f [U]$ just coincides with the 1st of the above conditions.)

309: By solving the above equations for $c_1$ and $c_2$, we obtain

310: \begin{eqnarray}

311:  c_1 &=& \left(\frac{M}{\Lambda_1} \right)^2 

312:  \frac{\Lambda_2^2 - M^2}{\Lambda_2^2 - \Lambda_1^2} , \\

313:  c_2 &=& - \left(\frac{M}{\Lambda_2} \right)^2 

314:  \frac{\Lambda_1^2 - M^2}{\Lambda_2^2 - \Lambda_1^2} ,

315: \end{eqnarray}

316: which constrains the values of $c_1$ and $c_2$, once $\Lambda_1$ and 

317: $\Lambda_2$ are given. For determining $\Lambda_1$ and $\Lambda_2$, 

318: we use two conditions

319: \begin{equation}

320:  \frac{N_c M^2}{4 \pi^2} \,\sum_{i = 1}^2 \,c_i \,

321:  \left(\frac{\Lambda_i}{M} \right)^2 \,

322:  \ln \left(\frac{\Lambda_i}{M} \right)^2 = f_{\pi}^2 ,

323: \end{equation}

324: and 

325: \begin{equation}

326:  \langle \bar{\psi} \psi \rangle _{vac} = \frac{N_c M^3}{2 \pi^2} \,

327:  \sum_{i = 1}^2 \,c_i \,\left(\frac{\Lambda_i}{M} \right)^4 

328:  \ln \left(\frac{\Lambda_i}{M} \right)^4 ,

329: \end{equation}

330: which amounts to reproducing the correct normalization of the pion

331: kinetic term in the effective meson lagrangian and also the empirical

332: value of the vacuum quark condensate.

333: To derive soliton equation of motion, we must first write down a 

334: regularized expression for the static soliton energy.

335: Under the hedgehog ansatz

336: $\vecvar{\pi} (\vecvar{x}) = f_{\pi} \hat{\vecvar{r}} F (r)$

337: for the background pion fields, it is obtained in the form : 

338: \begin{equation}

339:  E_{static}^{reg} [F (r)] = E_F^{reg} [F (r)] + E_M [F (r)] ,

340: \end{equation}

341: where the meson (pion) part is given by

342: \begin{equation}

343:  E_M [F (r)] = - \,f_{\pi}^2 \,m_{\pi}^2 \int d^3 x \,[\cos F (r) - 1] ,

344: \end{equation}

345: while the fermion (quark) part is given as 

346: \begin{equation}

347:  E_F^{reg} [F (r)] = E_{val} + E_{v p}^{reg} , \label{eq:Estatic}

348: \end{equation}

349: with

350: \begin{eqnarray}

351:  E_{val} &=& N_c \,E_0 , \\

352:  E_{v p}^{reg} &=& N_c \,\sum_{n < 0} \,(E_n - E_n^{(0)})

353:  - \sum_{i = 1}^N \,c_i \,N_c \,\sum_{n < 0} \,(E_n^{\Lambda_i} 

354:  - E_n^{(0) \Lambda_i}) .\label{eq:regenerg}

355: \end{eqnarray}

356: Here $E_n$ are the quark single-particle energies, given as the 

357: eigenvalues of the static Dirac Hamiltonian in the background pion

358: fields : 

359: \begin{equation}

360:  H \,| n \rangle = E_n | n \rangle ,

361: \end{equation}

362: with 

363: \begin{equation}

364:  H = \frac{\vecvar{\alpha} \cdot \nabla}{i} + \beta M \,

365:  [ \cos F(r) + i \gamma_5 \vecvar{\tau} \cdot 

366:  \hat{\vecvar{r}} \sin F(r)] , \label{eq:DiracH}

367: \end{equation}

368: while $E_n^{(0)}$ denote energy eigenvalues of the vacuum Hamiltonian

369: given by (\ref{eq:DiracH}) with $F (r) = 0$ (or $U = 1$).

370: The particular state $| n = 0 \rangle$, which is a discrete

371: bound-state orbital coming from the upper Dirac continuum under the

372: influence of the hedgehog mean field, is called the valence level.

373: The symbol $\sum_{n < 0}$ in (\ref{eq:regenerg}) denotes the

374: summation over all the negative energy eigenstates of $H$, i.e.

375: the negative energy Dirac continuum.

376: The soliton equation of motion is 

377: obtained from the stationary condition of $E_{static}^{reg} [F (r)]$

378: with respect to the variation of the profile function $F (r)$ : 

379: \begin{eqnarray}

380:  0 &=& \frac{\delta}{\delta F (r)} \,E_{static} [F (r)] \nonumber \\

381:  &=& 4 \pi r^2 \,\left\{ - \,M \,[S (r) \sin F (r) - P (r) \cos F (r)]

382:  + f_{\pi}^2 m_{\pi}^2 \sin F (r) \right\} ,

383: \end{eqnarray}

384: which gives 

385: \begin{equation}

386:  F (r) = \arctan 

387:  \left(\frac{P (r)}{S (r) - f_{\pi}^2 m_{\pi}^2 / M} \right) .

388:  \label{eq:profile}

389: \end{equation}

390: Here $S (r)$ and $P (r)$ are regularized scalar and pseudoscalar quark 

391: densities given as 

392: \begin{eqnarray}

393:  S (r) &=& S_{val} (r) + \sum_{n < 0} S_n (r) 

394:  - \sum_{i = 1}^2 \,c_i \,\frac{\Lambda_i}{M} \,\sum_{n < 0} \,

395:  S_n^{\Lambda_i} (r) , \\

396:  P (r) &=& P_{val} (r) + \sum_{n < 0} P_n (r) 

397:  - \sum_{i = 1}^2 \,c_i \,\frac{\Lambda_i}{M} \,\sum_{n < 0} \,

398:  P_n^{\Lambda_i} (r) ,

399: \end{eqnarray}

400: with

401: \begin{eqnarray}

402:  S_n (r) &=& \frac{N_c}{4 \pi} \int d^3 x \,\,

403:  \langle n | \vecvar{x} \rangle \,

404:  \gamma^0 \,\frac{\delta (| \vecvar{x}| - r )}{r^2} \,

405:  \langle \vecvar{x} | n \rangle , \\

406:  P_n (r) &=& \frac{N_c}{4 \pi} \int d^3 x \,

407:  \langle n | \vecvar{x} \rangle \,i \,

408:  \gamma^0 \,\gamma_5 \,\vecvar{\tau} \cdot \hat{\vecvar{r}} \,

409:  \frac{\delta (| \vecvar{x}| - r )}{r^2}

410:  \langle \vecvar{x} | n \rangle ,

411: \end{eqnarray}

412: while $S_n^{\Lambda_i} (r)$ and $P_n^{\Lambda_i} (r)$ are the

413: corresponding densities evaluated with the regulator mass

414: $\Lambda_i$ instead of the dynamical quark mass $M$.

415: We also note that $S_{val} (r) \equiv S_{n=0} (r)$ and

416: $P_{val} (r) \equiv P_{n=0} (r)$.

417: As usual, a self-consistent soliton solution is obtained as follows

418: with use of Kahana and Ripka's discretized momentum

419: basis \cite{KR84},\cite{KRS84}.

420: First by assuming an appropriate (though arbitrary) soliton profile

421: $F (r)$, the eigenvalue problem of the Dirac Hamiltonian is solved.

422: Using the resultant eigenfunctions and their associated eigenenergies,

423: one can calculate the regularized scalar and pseudoscalar

424: densities $S (r)$ and $P (r)$.

425: With use of these $S(r)$ and $P(r)$, Eq.(\ref{eq:profile})

426: can then be used to obtain a new soliton profile 

427: $F (r)$. The whole procedure above is repeated with this new profile 

428: $F (r)$ until the self-consistency is attained.

429: 

430: 

431: \section{Generalized Form Factors in the CQSM}

432: 

433:  Since the generalized form factors of the nucleon are given as moments

434: of generalized parton distributions (GPDs), it is convenient to start

435: with the theoretical expressions of the unpolarized GPDs

436: $H (x, \xi, t)$ and $E (x, \xi, t)$ within the CQSM.

437: Following the notation in \cite{Ossmann05},\cite{WT05},

438: we introduce the quantities

439: \begin{equation}

440:  {\cal M}_{s^{\prime} s}^{(I = 0)} \equiv \int \frac{d \lambda}{2 \pi} \,

441:  e^{i \lambda x} \,\langle \vecvar{p}^{\prime}, s^{\prime} 

442:  | \,\bar{\psi} \left(-\frac{\lambda n}{2} \right) \not\!n 

443:  \psi \left(\frac{\lambda n}{2} \right)

444:  | \vecvar{p}, s \rangle ,

445: \end{equation}

446: and 

447: \begin{equation}

448:  {\cal M}_{s^{\prime} s}^{(I = 1)} \equiv \int \frac{d \lambda}{2 \pi} \,

449:  e^{i \lambda x} \,\langle \vecvar{p}^{\prime}, s^{\prime} 

450:  | \,\bar{\psi} \left(-\frac{\lambda n}{2} \right) \tau_3 \not\!n 

451:  \psi \left(\frac{\lambda n}{2} \right) | \vecvar{p}, s \rangle .

452: \end{equation}

453: Here, the isoscalar and isovector combinations respectively

454: correspond to the sum and the difference of the quark flavors

455: $u$ and $d$.

456: The relation between these quantities and the generalized parton

457: distribution functions $H(x, \xi, t)$ and $E(x, \xi, t)$

458: are obtained most conveniently 

459: in the so-called Breit frame. They are given by

460: \begin{eqnarray}

461:  {\cal M}_{s^{\prime} s}^{(I = 0)} 

462:  &=& 2 \,\delta_{s^{\prime} s} \,H_E^{(I = 0)} (x, \xi, t)

463:  \ - \ \frac{i \,\varepsilon^{3 k l} \,\Delta^k}{M_N} \,

464:  (\sigma^l)_{s^{\prime} s} \, E_M^{(I = 0)} (x, \xi, t) ,\\

465:  {\cal M}_{s^{\prime} s}^{(I = 1)} 

466:  &=& 2 \,\delta_{s^{\prime} s} \,H_E^{(I = 1)} (x, \xi, t)

467:  \ - \ \frac{i \,\varepsilon^{3 k l} \,\Delta^k}{M_N} \,

468:  (\sigma^l)_{s^{\prime} s} \, E_M^{(I = 1)} (x, \xi, t) .

469: \end{eqnarray}

470: where

471: \begin{eqnarray}

472:  H_E^{(I = 0/1)} (x, \xi, t) &\equiv& H^{(I = 0/1)} (x, \xi, t)

473:  + \frac{t}{4 M_N^2} E^{(I = 0/1)} (x, \xi, t) ,\\

474:  E_M^{(I = 0/1)} (x, \xi, t) &\equiv& H^{(I = 0/1)} (x, \xi, t)

475:  + E^{(I = 0/1)} (x, \xi, t) .

476: \end{eqnarray}

477: These two independent combinations of $H (x, \xi, t)$ and $E (x, \xi, t)$

478: can be extracted through the spin projection of ${\cal M}^{(I = 0/1)}$ as

479: \begin{eqnarray}

480:  H_E^{(I)} (x, \xi, t) &=& \frac{1}{4} \,

481:  \mbox{tr} \{ {\cal M}^{(I)} \} , \label{eq:HEtrace} \\

482:  E_M^{(I)} (x, \xi, t) &=& 

483:  \frac{i \,M_N \,\varepsilon^{3 b m} \,

484:  \Delta^b}{2 \vecvar{\Delta}_{\perp}^2}

485:  \,\mbox{tr} \{ \sigma^m {\cal M}^{(I)} \} , \label{eq:EMtrace}

486: \end{eqnarray}

487: where ``tr" denotes the trace over spin indices, while 

488: $\vecvar{\Delta}_{\perp}^2 = \vecvar{\Delta}^2 - (\Delta^3)^2

489:  = -t - (-2 M_N \xi)^2$. Now, within the CQSM, it is possible to evaluate

490: the right-hand side (rhs) of (\ref{eq:HEtrace}) and (\ref{eq:EMtrace}).

491: Since the answers are already given in several previous

492: papers \cite{Ossmann05}--\cite{Petrov98}, 

493: we do not repeat the derivation. Here we comment only on the following

494: general structure of the theoretical expressions for relevant

495: observables in the CQSM. The leading contribution 

496: just corresponds to the mean field prediction, which is independent of 

497: the collective rotational velocity $\Omega$ of the hedgehog soliton.  

498: The next-to-leading order term takes account of the linear response of 

499: the internal quark motion to the rotational motion as an external 

500: perturbation, and consequently it is proportional to $\Omega$.

501: It is known that the leading-order term contributes to the isoscalar 

502: combination of $H_E (x, \xi, t)$ and to the isovector combination of 

503: $E_M (x, \xi, t)$, while the isoscalar part of $H_E (x, \xi, t)$ and the

504: isovector part of $E_M (x, \xi, t)$ survived only at the next-to-leading 

505: order of $\Omega$ (or of $1/N_c$). The leading-order GPDs are then

506: given as

507: \begin{eqnarray}

508:  H_E^{(I = 0)} (x, \xi, t) &=& M_N N_c \int \frac{d z^0}{2 \pi} \,

509:  \sum_{n \leq 0} \,e^{i z^0 (x M_N - E_n)} \int d^3 \vecvar{x} \,

510:  \Phi_n^{\dagger} (\vecvar{x}) \nonumber \\

511:  &\,& \times \ (1 + \gamma^0 \gamma^3) \,e^{-i(z^0/2) \hat{p}_3} \,

512:  e^{i \vecvar{\Delta} \cdot \vecvar{x}} \,e^{-i (z^0/2) \hat{p}_3} \,

513:  \Phi_n (\vecvar{x}) , \label{eq:GPDHEis} \\

514:  E_M^{(I = 1)} (x, \xi, t) 

515:  &=& \frac{2 \,i \,M_N^2 \,N_c}{3 \,(\vecvar{\Delta}_{\perp})^2} 

516:  \int \frac{d z^0}{2 \pi} \,\sum_{n \leq 0} \,e^{i z^0 (x M_N - E_n)} \,

517:  \int d^3 \vecvar{x} \,\Phi_n^{\dagger} (\vecvar{x}) \nonumber \\

518:  &\,& \times \ (1 + \gamma^0 \gamma^3) \,

519:  (\vecvar{\tau} \times \vecvar{\Delta})^3 \,

520:  e^{-i(z^0/2) \hat{p}_3} \,e^{i \vecvar{\Delta} \cdot \vecvar{x}} 

521:  \,e^{-i (z^0/2) \hat{p}_3} \,\Phi_n (\vecvar{x}) . \label{eq:GPDEMis}

522: \end{eqnarray}

523: Here the symbol $\Sigma_{n \leq 0}$ denotes the summation over the

524: occupied (the valence plus negative-energy Dirac sea) quark

525: orbitals in the hedgehog mean field.

526: On the other hand, the theoretical expressions for the isovector 

527: part of $H_E$ and the isoscalar part of $E_M$, which

528: survive at the next-to-leading order, are a little more complicated.

529: They are given as double sums over the single quark orbitals as

530: \begin{eqnarray}

531:  &\,& H_E^{(I = 1)} (x, \xi, t) \nonumber \\

532:  &=& - \frac{M_N N_c}{12 I} \int \frac{d z^0}{2 \pi} \,

533:  \left[\, \left\{ \sum_{m = all, n \leq 0 (E_m \neq E_n)} \,

534:  e^{-i E_n z^0} \ - \ 

535:  \sum_{n = all, m \leq 0 (E_m \neq E_n)} \,e^{-i E_m z^0} \right\} 

536:  \frac{1}{E_n - E_m} \right. \nonumber \\

537:  &\,& \left. \hspace{50mm} + \  \frac{1}{M_N} \,\frac{d}{d x} \,

538:  \sum_{m = all, n \leq 0 (E_m \neq E_n)} \,e^{-i E_n z^0} \right] \,

539:  e^{i x M_N z^0} \nonumber \\

540:  &\,& \hspace{30mm} \times \ \langle n | \tau^a | m \rangle 

541:  \langle m | \,\tau^a \,(1 + \gamma^0 \gamma^3) \,

542:  e^{-i (z^0/2) \hat{p}_3} \,

543:  e^{i \vecvar{\Delta} \cdot \vecvar{x}} \,e^{-i (z^0/2) \hat{p}_3}

544:  | n \rangle . \label{eq:GPDHEiv}

545: \end{eqnarray}

546: and

547: \begin{eqnarray}

548:  &\,& E_M^{(I = 0)} (x, \xi, t) \nonumber\\

549:  &=& i \,\frac{M_N^2 N_c}{2 I} \int \frac{d z^0}{2 \pi} \,

550:  \left[\, \left\{ \sum_{m = all, n \leq 0 (E_m \neq E_n)} \,

551:  e^{-i E_n z^0} \ - \ 

552:  \sum_{n = all, m \leq 0 (E_m \neq E_n)} e^{-i E_m z^0} \right\} 

553:  \frac{1}{E_n - E_m} \right. \nonumber \\

554:  &\,& \left. \hspace{50mm} + \frac{1}{M_N} \,\frac{d}{d x} 

555:  \sum_{m = all, n \leq 0 (E_m \neq E_n)} e^{-i E_n z^0} \right]

556:  e^{i x M_N z^0} \nonumber \\

557:  &\,& \hspace{25mm} \times \ \langle n | \tau^b | m \rangle 

558:  \langle m | \,(1 + \gamma^0 \gamma^3) \,e^{-i (z^0/2) \hat{p}_3} \,

559:  \frac{\varepsilon^{3 a b} \Delta^a}{\vecvar{\Delta}_{\perp}^2} \,

560:  e^{i \vecvar{\Delta} \cdot \vecvar{x}} \,e^{-i (z^0/2) \hat{p}_3}

561:  | n \rangle  . \label{eq:GPDEMiv}

562: \end{eqnarray}

563: These four expressions for the unpolarized GPDs,

564: i.e. (\ref{eq:GPDHEis}) $\sim$ (\ref{eq:GPDEMiv}),

565: are the basic starting equations for our present study 

566: of the generalized form factors of the nucleon within the CQSM.

567: There are infinite tower of generalized form factors, which are defined

568: as the $n$-th moments of GPDs.

569: In the present study, we confine ourselves to the 

570: 1st and the 2nd moments, which respectively corresponds to the standard 

571: electromagnetic form factors of the nucleon and the so-called

572: gravitational form factors.

573: We are especially interested in the second one, since they are believed

574: to contain valuable information on the spin contents of the nucleon

575: through Ji's angular momentum sum rule \cite{Ji97},\cite{HJL99}.

576: For each isospin channel, the 1st and the 2nd moments of

577: $H_E^{(I)} (x, 0, t)$ define the Sachs-electric and gravito-electric

578: form factors as 

579: \begin{equation}

580:  G_{E, 10}^{(I = 0/1)} (t) \equiv \int_{-1}^1 \,

581:  H_E^{(I =0/1)} (x, 0, t) \,d x , \label{eq:GE10def}

582: \end{equation}

583: and 

584: \begin{equation}

585:  G_{E, 20}^{(I = 0/1)} (t) \equiv \int_{-1}^1 \,x \,

586:  H_E^{(I =0/1)} (x, 0, t) \,d x .

587: \end{equation}

588: On the other hand, the 1st and the 2nd moments of $E_M^{(I)} (x, 0, t)$

589: respectively define the Sachs-magnetic and gravito-magnetic form factors

590: as

591: \begin{equation}

592:  G_{M, 10}^{(I = 0/1)} (t) \equiv \int_{-1}^1 \,

593:  E_M^{(I = 0/1)} (x, 0, t) \,d x ,

594: \end{equation}

595: and

596: \begin{equation}

597:  G_{M, 20}^{(I = 0/1)} (t) \equiv \int_{-1}^1 \,

598:  x \,E_M^{(I = 0/1)} (x, 0, t) \,d x . \label{eq:GM2nd}

599: \end{equation}

600: In the following, we shall explain how we can calculate the generalized

601: form factors based on the theoretical expressions of corresponding GPDs,

602: by taking $G_{E, 10}^{(I = 0)} (t)$ and $G_{E, 20}^{(I = 0)} (t)$

603: as examples. Setting $\xi = 0$ and integrating over $z^0$ in

604: (\ref{eq:GPDHEis}), we obtain

605: \begin{eqnarray}

606:  H_E^{(I = 0)} (x, 0, t) &=& M_N \,N_c \, \int d^3 x \,

607:  e^{i \vecvar{\Delta}_{\perp} \cdot \vecvar{x}} \nonumber \\

608:  &\times& \sum_{n \leq 0} \,\Phi_n^{\dagger} (\vecvar{x}) \,

609:  (1 + \gamma^0 \gamma^3) \,\delta (x M_N - E_n - \hat{p}_3) \,

610:  \Phi_n (\vecvar{x}) . \label{eq:HEis}

611: \end{eqnarray}

612: Putting this expression into (\ref{eq:GE10def}), we have

613: \begin{eqnarray}

614:  G_{E, 10}^{(I = 0)} (t) &=& N_c \int d^3 x \,

615:  e^{i \vecvar{\Delta}_{\perp} \cdot \vecvar{x}} \,

616:  \sum_{n \leq 0} \Phi_n^{\dagger} (\vecvar{x})

617:  (1 + \gamma^0 \gamma^3) \Phi_n (\vecvar{x}) . 

618: \end{eqnarray}

619: It is easy to see that, using the generalized spherical symmetry of the 

620: hedgehog configuration, the term containing the factor

621: $\gamma^0 \gamma^3$ identically vanishes, so that $G_{E,10}^{(I=0)}(t)$

622: is reduced to a simple form as follows :

623: \begin{equation}

624:  G_{E, 10}^{(I = 0)} (t) = N_c \int d^3 x 

625:  \sum_{n \leq 0} \Phi_n^{\dagger} (\vecvar{x}) \,j_0 (\Delta_{\perp} x)

626:  \,\Phi_n (\vecvar{x}) .

627: \end{equation}

628: Aside from the factor $N_c \,( = 3)$, this is 

629: nothing but the known expression for the isoscalar Sachs-electric

630: form factor of the nucleon in the CQSM \cite{Christov96}.

631: 

632: A less trivial example is $G_{E, 20}^{(I = 0)} (t)$, which is defined

633: as the 2nd moment of  $H_E^{(I = 0)} (x, 0, t)$.

634: Inserting (\ref{eq:HEis}) into (\ref{eq:GE10def}) and carrying out the 

635: integration over $x$, we obtain

636: \begin{eqnarray}

637:  G_{E, 20}^{(I = 0)} (t) &=& \frac{1}{M_N} \,N_c \,\int d^3 x

638:  \,e^{i \vecvar{\Delta}_{\perp} \cdot \vecvar{x}}

639:  \, \sum_{n \leq 0} \,\Phi_n^{\dagger} (\vecvar{x}) \,

640:  (1 + \gamma^0 \gamma^3) \,(E_n + \hat{p}_3) \,\Phi_n (\vecvar{x}) .

641: \end{eqnarray}

642: Using the partial-wave expansion of 

643: $e^{i \vecvar{\Delta}_{\perp} \cdot \vecvar{x}}$, this can be written as

644: \begin{eqnarray}

645:  G_{E, 20}^{(I = 0)} (t) &=& \frac{1}{M_N} \,N_c \,\int d^3 x \,

646:  \sum_{l, m} \,4 \pi \,i^l \,

647:  Y_{l m}^* (\hat{\Delta}_{\perp}) \nonumber \\

648:  &\times& \sum_{n \leq 0} \Phi_n^{\dagger} (\vecvar{x}) \,

649:  j_l (\Delta_{\perp} x) \,Y_{l m}(\hat{x}) \,(1 + \alpha_3) \,

650:  (E_n + \hat{p}_3) \,\Phi_n (\vecvar{x}) .

651: \end{eqnarray}

652: This can further be divided into four pieces as

653: \begin{equation}

654:  G_{E, 20}^{(I = 0)} (t) = \sum_{i = 1}^4 G_i ,

655: \end{equation}

656: where

657: \begin{equation}

658:  G_i = \frac{1}{M_N} \,N_c \,\int d^3 x \,\sum_{l, m} \,4 \pi \,i^l \,

659:  Y_{l m}^* (\hat{\Delta}_{\perp}) \,M_i ,

660: \end{equation}

661: with

662: \begin{eqnarray}

663:  M_1 &=& \sum_{n \leq 0} \,\Phi_n^{\dagger} (\vecvar{x}) \,

664:  j_l (\Delta_{\perp} x) \,Y_{l m} (\hat{x}) \,E_n \,

665:  \Phi_n (\vecvar{x}) , \\

666:  M_2 &=& \sum_{n \leq 0} \,\Phi_n^{\dagger} (\vecvar{x}) \,

667:  j_l (\Delta_{\perp} x) \,Y_{l m} (\hat{x}) \,\alpha_3 E_n \,

668:  \Phi_n (\vecvar{x}) , \\

669:  M_3 &=& \sum_{n \leq 0} \,\Phi_n^{\dagger} (\vecvar{x}) \,

670:  j_l (\Delta_{\perp} x) \,Y_{l m} (\hat{x}) \,\hat{p}_3 \,

671:  \Phi_n (\vecvar{x}) , \\

672:  M_4 &=& \sum_{n \leq 0} \,\Phi_n^{\dagger} (\vecvar{x}) \,

673:  j_l (\Delta_{\perp} x) \,Y_{l m} (\hat{x}) \,\alpha_3 \,\hat{p}_3 \,

674:  \Phi_n (\vecvar{x}) . \label{eq:M4}

675: \end{eqnarray}

676: To proceed further, we first notice that, by using the generalized

677: spherical symmetry, $M_1$ survives only when $l = m = 0$, i.e. 

678: \begin{equation}

679:  M_1 \ \sim \ \sum_{n \leq 0} \,\Phi_n^{\dagger} (\vecvar{x}) \,

680:  j_0 (\Delta_{\perp} x) \,\frac{\delta_{l,0} \delta_{m,0}}{\sqrt{4 \pi}}

681:  \,E_n \Phi_n (\vecvar{x}) ,

682: \end{equation}

683: which leads to the result :

684: \begin{equation}

685:  G_1 = \frac{N_c}{M_N} \,\int \,d^3 x \,\sum_{n \leq 0} \,

686:  \Phi_n^{\dagger} (\vecvar{x}) \,

687:  j_0 (\Delta_{\perp} x) \,E_n \,\Phi_n (\vecvar{x}) .

688: \end{equation}

689: To evaluate $G_2$, we first note that 

690: \begin{equation}

691:  Y_{l m} (\hat{x})  \times \alpha_3 

692:  = \sum_{\lambda} \,\langle l m 1 0 | \lambda m \rangle \,

693:  [ Y_l (\hat{x}) \times \vecvar{\alpha} ]^{(\lambda)} .

694: \end{equation}

695: Here, the generalized spherical symmetry dictates that $\lambda$ must

696: be zero, so that the rhs of the above equation is effectively reduced to

697: \begin{equation}

698:  - \,\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \,\delta_{l,1} \, \delta_{m,0}

699:  [ Y_1 (\hat{x}) \times \vecvar{\alpha} ]^{(0)} .

700: \end{equation}

701: This then gives

702: \begin{eqnarray}

703:  G_2 &=& \frac{1}{M_N} \,N_c \,\int \,d^3 x \,4 \pi \,i \,

704:  Y_{10}^* (\hat{\Delta}_{\perp}) \,\left(-\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \right) \,

705:  \,\sum_{n \leq 0} \Phi_n^{\dagger} (\vecvar{x})

706:  j_1 (\Delta_{\perp} x) \,

707:  [ Y_1 (\hat{x}) \times \vecvar{\alpha} ]^{(0)} \,

708:  \Phi_n (\vecvar{x}) .

709: \end{eqnarray}

710: Owing to the identity

711: \begin{equation}

712:  Y_{10} (\hat{\Delta}_{\perp}) 

713:  \ = \ \sqrt{\frac{3}{4 \pi}} \,P_1 (\cos \frac{\pi}{2}) \ = \ 0 ,

714: \end{equation}

715: we therefore find that

716: \begin{equation}

717:  G_2 \ = \ 0 .

718: \end{equation}

719: Next we investigate the third term $G_3$. Using

720: \begin{eqnarray}

721:  Y_{l m } (\hat{x}) \times \hat{p}_3 &=& \sum_{\lambda} \,

722:  \langle l m 1 0 | \lambda m \rangle \,

723:  [ Y_l (\hat{x}) \times \hat{\vecvar{p}} ]^{(\lambda)}

724:  \ \sim \ - \,\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \,\delta_{l,1} \,\delta_{m,0} \,

725:  [ Y_1 (\hat{x}) \times \hat{\vecvar{p}} ]^{(0)} ,

726: \end{eqnarray}

727:  we obtain 

728: \begin{eqnarray}

729:  G_3 &=& \frac{1}{M_N} \,N_c \,\int d^3 x \,4 \pi \,i \,

730:  Y_{10}^* (\hat{\Delta}_{\perp}) \,\left(- \,\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \right)

731:  \, \sum_{n \leq 0} \,\Phi_n^{\dagger} (\vecvar{x}) \,

732:  j_1 (\Delta_{\perp} x) \,

733:  [ Y_1 (\hat{x}) \times \hat{\vecvar{p}} ]^{(0)} \,

734:  \Phi_n (\vecvar{x}) .

735: \end{eqnarray}

736: This term vanishes by the same reason as $G_2$ does. The last term $G_4$ 

737: is a little more complicated.  We first notice that 

738: \begin{eqnarray}

739:  Y_{l m} (\hat{x}) \,\alpha_3 \,\hat{p}_3

740:  &=& Y_{l m} (\hat{x}) \,\sum_{\lambda} \,

741:  \langle 10 10 | \lambda 0 \rangle \,

742:  [ \vecvar{\alpha} \times \hat{\vecvar{p}} ]^{(\lambda)}_0 \nonumber \\

743:  &\sim& \sum_{\lambda} \,

744:  \langle 1 0 1 0 | \lambda 0 \rangle \,

745:  \langle l m \lambda 0 | 00 \rangle \,

746:  [ Y_l (\hat{x}) \times 

747:  [ \vecvar{\alpha} \times \hat{\vecvar{p}} ]^{(\lambda)} ]^{(0)} 

748:  \nonumber \\

749:  &=& \delta_{m, 0} \,\langle 1 0 1 0 | l 0 \rangle \,

750:  \langle l 0 l 0 | 0 0 \rangle \,

751:  [ Y_l (\hat{x}) \times 

752:  [ \vecvar{

753:  \alpha} \times \hat{\vecvar{p}} ]^{(l)} ] ^{(0)} ,

754: \end{eqnarray}

755: which dictates that $l$ must be 0 or 2. 

756: Inserting the above expression into (\ref{eq:M4}),

757: and using the explicit values of Clebsch-Gordan coefficients, $G_4$ 

758: becomes

759: \begin{eqnarray}

760:  G_4 &=& -\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \cdot \frac{N_c}{M_N}

761:  \int d^3 x \,\sum_{n \leq 0} \,\Phi_n^{\dagger} (\vecvar{x}) \,

762:  j_0 (\Delta_{\perp} x) \,

763:  [ \vecvar{\alpha} \times \hat{\vecvar{p}} ]^{(0)} \,

764:  \Phi_n (\vecvar{x}) \nonumber \\

765:  &+& \frac{\sqrt{4 \pi}}{\sqrt{6}} \cdot \frac{N_c}{M_N} 

766:  \int d^3 x \,\sum_{n \leq 0} \,\Phi_n^{\dagger} (\vecvar{x}) \,

767:  j_2 (\Delta_{\perp} x) \,

768:  [ Y_2 (\hat{x}) \times 

769:  [ \vecvar{\alpha} \times \hat{\vecvar{p}} ]^{(2)} ]^{(0)} \,

770:  \Phi_n (\vecvar{x}) .

771: \end{eqnarray}

772: Using the identities

773: \begin{eqnarray}

774:  \,[ \vecvar{\alpha} \times \hat{\vecvar{p}} ]^{(0)}

775:  &=& -\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \vecvar{\alpha} \cdot \hat{\vecvar{p}} , \\

776:  \,[ Y_2 (\hat{x}) 

777:  \times [ \vecvar{\alpha} \times \vecvar{p} ]^{(2)} ]^{(0)}

778:  &=& [ [ Y_2 (\hat{x}) \times \hat{\vecvar{p}} ]^{(1)} 

779:  \times \vecvar{\alpha} ]^{(0)} ,

780: \end{eqnarray}

781: $G_4$ can also be written as 

782: \begin{eqnarray}

783:  G_4 &=& \frac{1}{3} \cdot \frac{N_c}{M_N} \,

784:  \int \,d^3 x \,\sum_{n \leq 0} \,\Phi_n^{\dagger} (\vecvar{x}) \,

785:  j_0 (\Delta_{\perp} x) \,

786:  \vecvar{\alpha} \cdot \hat{\vecvar{p}} \,

787:  \Phi_n (\vecvar{x}) \nonumber \\

788:  &+& \frac{\sqrt{4 \pi}}{\sqrt{6}} \cdot \frac{N_c}{M_N} 

789:  \int \,d^3 x \,\sum_{n \leq 0} \,\Phi_n^{\dagger} (\vecvar{x}) \,

790:  j_2 (\Delta_{\perp} x) \,

791:  [ Y_2 (\hat{x}) \times \hat{\vecvar{p}} ]^{(1)}

792:  \times \vecvar{\alpha} ]^{(0)} \,

793:  \Phi_n (\vecvar{x}) .

794: \end{eqnarray}

795: Collecting the answers for $G_1, G_2, G_3$ and $G_4$, we finally obtain

796: \begin{eqnarray}

797:  G_{E, 20}^{(I = 0)} (t)

798:  &=& \frac{N_c}{M_N} \int \,d^3 x \,

799:  \sum_{n \leq 0} \,\Phi_n^{\dagger} (\vecvar{x}) \,

800:  j_0 (\Delta_{\perp} x) \,E_n \,\Phi_n (\vecvar{x}) \nonumber \\

801:  &+& \frac{1}{3} \cdot \frac{N_c}{M_N} \,\int \,d^3 x \,

802:  \sum_{n \leq 0} \,\Phi_n^{\dagger} (\vecvar{x}) \,

803:  j_0 (\Delta_{\perp} x) \,\vecvar{\alpha} \cdot \hat{\vecvar{p}} \,

804:  \Phi_n (\vecvar{x}) \nonumber \\

805:  &+& \frac{\sqrt{4 \pi}}{\sqrt{6}} \cdot \frac{N_c}{M_N} \,

806:  \int \,d^3 x \,

807:  \sum_{n \leq 0} \,\Phi_n^{\dagger} (\vecvar{x}) \,

808:  j_2 (\Delta_{\perp} x) \,

809:  [ Y_2 (\hat{x}) \times \hat{\vecvar{p}} ]^{(1)} 

810:  \times \vecvar{\alpha} ]^{(0)} \,\Phi_n (\vecvar{x}) .

811: \end{eqnarray}

812: 

813: Up to now, we have obtained the theoretical expressions for the

814: isoscalar combination of the generalized form factors

815: $G_{E, 10}^{(I = 0)} (t)$ and 

816: $G_{E, 20}^{(I = 0)} (t)$. For notational convenience, we summarize

817: these results in a little more compact forms as follows :

818: \begin{eqnarray}

819:  G_{E, 10}^{(I = 0)} (t) &=& \int_{-1}^1 

820:  H_E^{(I = 0)} (x, 0, t) d x

821:  \ = \ N_c \,\sum_{n \leq 0} \,

822:  \langle n | j_0 (\Delta_{\perp} r) | n \rangle , \label{eq:IntHE10is}

823: \end{eqnarray}

824: and 

825: \begin{eqnarray}

826:  G_{E, 20}^{(I = 0)} (t) &=& \int_{-1}^1 \,x 

827:  H_E^{(I = 0)} (x, 0, t) \,d x \nonumber \\

828:  &=& \frac{1}{M_N} \,\left\{ N_c \,\sum_{n \leq 0} \,E_n \,

829:  \langle n | j_0 (\Delta_{\perp} r) | n \rangle \right. \nonumber \\

830:  &+& N_c \,\sum_{n \leq 0} \,

831:  \langle n | j_0 (\Delta_{\perp} r) \,\frac{1}{3} \,

832:  \vecvar{\alpha} \cdot \vecvar{p} \,| n \rangle \nonumber \\

833:  &+& \left. \frac{\sqrt{4 \pi}}{\sqrt{6}} \,N_c \,

834:  \sum_{n \leq 0} \,

835:  \langle n | j_2 (\Delta_{\perp} r) \,[ [Y_2 (\hat{r}) 

836:  \times \vecvar{p} ]^{(1)} \times \vecvar{\alpha} ]^{(0)} \,

837:  | n \rangle \right\} . \label{eq:IntHE20is}

838: \end{eqnarray}

839: As pointed out before, $G_{E, 10}^{(I = 0)} (t)$ is $N_c \,( = 3)$

840: times the isoscalar combination of standard Sachs-electric form factor

841: of the nucleon.

842: Analogously, we may call $G_{E, 20}^{(I = 0)} (t)$ the

843: gravitoelectric form factor of the nucleon (its quark part),

844: since it is related to the nonforward nucleon matrix elements of

845: the quark part of the QCD energy momentum tensor.

846: 

847: The other generalized form factors can be obtained in a similar way.

848: The isovector part of the generalized electric form factors survive only 

849: at the next-to-leading order of $\Omega$. They are given as 

850: \begin{eqnarray}

851:  G_{E, 10}^{(I = 1)} (t) &=& \int_{-1}^1 H_E^{(I = 1)} (x, 0, t) \,

852:  d x \nonumber \\

853:  &=& \frac{1}{3 I} \,\left(\frac{N_c}{2} \right) \,\sum_{m > 0, n \leq 0}

854:  \frac{1}{E_m - E_n} \,\langle m || \vecvar{\tau} || n \rangle

855:  \langle m || j_0 (\Delta_{\perp} r) \vecvar{\tau} || n \rangle ,

856:  \label{eq:IntHE10iv}

857: \end{eqnarray}

858: and 

859: \begin{eqnarray}

860:  G_{E, 20}^{(I = 1)} (t) &=& 

861:  \int_{-1}^1 \,x \,H_E^{(I = 1)} (x, 0, t) \,

862:  d x \nonumber \\

863:  &=& \frac{1}{M_N} \cdot \frac{1}{3 I} \,\left(\frac{N_c}{2} \right) \,

864:  \sum_{m > 0, n \leq 0} \,

865:  \frac{1}{E_m - E_n} \,\langle m || \vecvar{\tau} || n \rangle 

866:  \nonumber \\

867:  &\times& \left\{ \,\frac{E_m + E_n}{2} \,

868:  \langle m || j_0 (\Delta_{\perp} r) \vecvar{\tau} || n \rangle \right.

869:  \nonumber \\

870:  &+& \langle m || \,j_0 (\Delta_{\perp} r) \,\frac{1}{3} \,

871:  (\vecvar{\alpha} \cdot \vecvar{p}) \,\vecvar{\tau} \,|| n \rangle

872:  \nonumber \\

873:  &+& \left. \frac{\sqrt{4 \pi}}{\sqrt{6}} \,

874:  \langle m || \,j_2 (\Delta_{\perp} r) \,

875:  [ [Y_2 (\hat{r}) \times \vecvar{p} ]^{(1)} \times 

876:  \vecvar{\alpha} ]^{(0)} \,\vecvar{\tau} \,|| n \rangle \right\} .

877: \end{eqnarray}

878: The isoscalar combination of the generalized magnetic form factors also 

879: survive only at the next-to-leading order of $\Omega$, so that they are 

880: given as double sums over the single-quark orbitals in the hedgehog mean 

881: field as 

882: \begin{eqnarray}

883:  G_{M, 10}^{(I = 0)} (t) &=& \int_{-1}^1 \,

884:  E_M^{(I = 0)} (x, 0, t) \,d x \nonumber \\

885:  &=& - \,\frac{M_N}{I} \,\left(\frac{N_c}{2} \right) \,

886:  \sum_{m > 0, n \leq 0} \,

887:  \frac{1}{E_m - E_n} \,\langle m || \vecvar{\tau} || n \rangle \,

888:  \langle m || \,\frac{j_1 (\Delta_{\perp} r)}{\Delta_{\perp} r} \,

889:  (\vecvar{r} \times \vecvar{\alpha}) \,|| n \rangle ,

890: \end{eqnarray}

891: and

892: \begin{eqnarray}

893:  G_{M, 20}^{(I = 0)} (t)

894:  &=& \int_{-1}^1 \,x E_M^{(I = 0)} (x, 0, t) \,d x \nonumber \\

895:  &=& - \,\frac{1}{I} \,\left(\frac{N_c}{2} \right) \,

896:  \sum_{m > 0, n \leq 0} \,\frac{1}{E_m - E_n} \,

897:  \langle m || \vecvar{\tau} || n \rangle \nonumber \\

898:  &\times& \left\{\, \frac{E_m + E_n}{2} \,

899:  \langle m || \,\frac{j_1 (\Delta_{\perp} r)}{\Delta_{\perp} r} \,

900:  (\vecvar{r} \times \vecvar{\alpha}) \,|| n \rangle \ + \ 

901:  \langle m || \,\frac{j_1 (\Delta_{\perp} r)}{\Delta_{\perp} r} \,

902:  \vecvar{L} \,|| n \rangle \right\} .

903: \end{eqnarray}

904: We recall that $G_{M, 10}^{(I = 0)} (t)$ just coincides with the known 

905: expression of the isoscalar Sachs-magnetic form factor of the nucleon

906: in the CQSM \cite{Christov95}.

907: On the other hand, $G_{M, 20}^{(I = 0)} (t)$ is sometimes called the 

908: gravitomagnetic form factor of the nucleon (its isoscalar part), which 

909: we can evaluate within the QCSM based on the above theoretical

910: expression. Finally, the leading-order contribution to the isovector

911: part of the generalized magnetic form factors are given as 

912: \begin{eqnarray}

913:  G_{M, 10}^{(I = 1)} (t) 

914:  &=& \int_{-1}^1  E_M^{(I = 1)} (x, 0, t) \,d x

915:  \ = \ - \,\frac{M_N}{3} \cdot N_c \,\sum_{n \leq 0} \,

916:  \langle n || \,\frac{j_1 (\Delta_{\perp} r)}{\Delta_{\perp} r} \,

917:  \vecvar{\tau} \cdot (\vecvar{r} \times \vecvar{\alpha})\,|| n \rangle ,

918:  \ \ \ \label{eq:MGivform}

919: \end{eqnarray}

920: and

921: \begin{eqnarray}

922:  G_{M, 20}^{(I = 1)} (t) 

923:  &=& \int_{-1}^1 x E_M^{(I = 1)} (x, 0, t) \,d x \nonumber \\

924:  &=& - \frac{1}{3} \cdot N_c \,\sum_{n \leq 0} \,

925:  \left\{\, E_n \,\langle n || \,

926:  \frac{j_1 (\Delta_{\perp} r)}{\Delta_{\perp} r} \,

927:  \vecvar{\tau} \cdot (\vecvar{r} \times \vecvar{\alpha})\,|| n \rangle 

928:  \ + \ \langle n || \,\frac{j_1 (\Delta_{\perp} r)}{\Delta_{\perp} r} 

929:  \vecvar{\tau} \cdot \vecvar{L} \,|| n \rangle \right\}. 

930:  \label{eq:MG2ivform} \ \ \ \ \ 

931: \end{eqnarray}

932: Especially interesting to us are the values of the generalized form 

933: factors in the forward limit $t \rightarrow 0$.

934: The consideration of this 

935: limit is also useful for verifying consistency of our theoretical

936: analyses, since it leads to fundamental sum rules discussed below.

937: We first consider the forward limit of $G_{E, 10}^{(I = 0)} (t)$.

938: From (\ref{eq:IntHE10is}), we find that

939: \begin{eqnarray}

940:  G_{E, 10}^{(I = 0)} (t = 0) &=& \int_{-1}^1 

941:  H_E^{(I = 0)} (x, 0, 0) \,d x

942:  \ = \ N_c \,\sum_{n \leq 0} \,1 .

943: \end{eqnarray}

944: Subtracting the corresponding vacuum contribution, this reduces to 

945: $N_c \,(= 3)$. If we remember the relation 

946: \begin{eqnarray}

947:  \int_{-1}^1 H_E^{(I = 0)} (x, 0, 0) d x 

948:  &=& \int_{-1}^1 H^{u + d} (x, 0, 0) d x

949:  \ = \ \int_{-1}^1 f^{u+ d} (x) d x 

950:  \ = \ N^u + N^d ,

951: \end{eqnarray}

952: the forward limit of (\ref{eq:IntHE10is}) just leads to the sum rule :

953: \begin{equation}

954:  G_{E, 10}^{(I = 0)} (t = 0) = N^u + N^d = 3 , \label{eq:udpSR}

955: \end{equation}

956: which denotes that the sum of the $u$-quark and $d$-quark numbers

957: in the proton is three.

958: 

959: Next we turn to the forward limit of $G_{E, 20}^{(I = 0)} (t)$,

960: which gives 

961: \begin{eqnarray}

962:  G_{E, 20}^{(I = 0)} (t = 0) &=& \frac{1}{M_N} \,

963:  \left\{\, N_c \,

964:  \sum_{n \leq 0} \,E_n \ + \ 

965:  \frac{1}{3} \,N_c \,\sum_{n \leq 0} \,

966:  \langle n | \vecvar{\alpha} \cdot \vecvar{p} | n \rangle \right\} .

967:  \label{eq:MomSum}

968: \end{eqnarray}

969: It is easy to see that, after regularization and vacuum subtraction,

970: the first term of the rhs of the 

971: above equation reduces to the fermion (quark) part of the soliton energy,

972: i.e. $E_F^{reg}$ in (\ref{eq:Estatic}).

973: It was proved in \cite{DPPPW96} that, in the CQSM 

974: with vanishing pion mass, the following identity holds :

975: \begin{equation}

976:  \sum_{n \leq 0} \,

977:  \langle n | \vecvar{\alpha} \cdot \vecvar{p} | n \rangle

978:  = 0

979: \end{equation}

980: In the case of finite pion mass, which we are handling, this identity

981: does not hold. Instead, we can prove (see Appendix) that

982: \begin{equation}

983:  \frac{1}{3} \,N_c \,\sum_{n \leq 0} \,

984:  \langle n | \vecvar{\alpha} \cdot \vecvar{p} | n \rangle = E_M .

985:  \label{eq:alfp}

986: \end{equation}

987: That is, the second term in the parenthesis of rhs of

988: eq.(\ref{eq:MomSum}) just coincides with the pion part of the soliton

989: energy (or mass).

990: Since the sum of the quark and pion part give the total soliton mass

991: $M_N$, we then find that

992: \begin{equation}

993:  G_{E, 20}^{(I = 0)} (t = 0) 

994:  = \frac{1}{M_N} \cdot M_N = 1 .

995: \end{equation}

996: In consideration of eq.(\ref{eq:IntHE20is}), this relation can also

997: be expressed as

998: \begin{eqnarray}

999:  \int_{-1}^1 x H_E^{(I = 0)} (x, 0, 0) \,d x 

1000:  &=& \int_{-1}^1 x H^{u + d} (x, 0, 0) \,d x

1001:  \ = \ \int_{-1}^1 \,x f^{u + d} (x) \,dx \ = \ 

1002:  \langle x \rangle^{u + d} = 1 , \ \ \ \label{eq:momSR}

1003: \end{eqnarray}

1004: which means that the total momentum fraction carried by quark fields 

1005: (the $u$- and $d$-quarks) is just unity. 

1006: This is an expected result, since the CQSM contains quark fields only

1007: (note that the pion is not an independent field of quarks), so that the

1008: total nucleon momentum should be saturated by the quark fields 

1009: alone.

1010: 

1011: Taking the forward limit of $G_{E, 10}^{(I = 1)} (t)$, we are again

1012: led to a trivial sum rule, constrained by the conservation low.

1013: In fact, we have

1014: \begin{eqnarray}

1015:  G_{E, 10}^{(I = 1)} (t= 0) &=& \frac{1}{I} \,

1016:  \left(\frac{N_c}{6} \right)

1017:  \sum_{m > 0, n \leq 0} \,\frac{1}{E_m - E_n} \,

1018:  \langle m || \vecvar{\tau} || n \rangle^2

1019:  \ = \ \frac{1}{I} \cdot I = 1 ,

1020: \end{eqnarray}

1021: thereby leading to

1022: \begin{eqnarray}

1023:  \int_{-1}^1 H_E^{(I = 1)} (x, 0, 0) \,d x 

1024:  &=& \int_{-1}^1 H^{u-d} (x, 0, 0) \,d x

1025:  \ = \ \int_{-1}^1 f^{u - d} (x) \,d x 

1026:  \ = \ N^u - N^d = 1 , \ \ \ \label{eq:udmSR}

1027: \end{eqnarray}

1028: which denotes that the difference of the $u$-quark and the

1029: $d$-quark numbers in the proton is just unity.

1030: On the other hand, the forward

1031: limit of $G_{E, 20}^{(I = 1)} (t)$ leads to the first nontrivial sum

1032: rule as

1033: \begin{eqnarray}

1034:  G_{E, 20}^{(I = 1)} (t = 0) 

1035:  &=& \int_{-1}^1 \,x H_E^{(I = 1)} (x, 0, 0) \,d x

1036:  \ = \ \int_{-1}^1 \,x f^{u - d} (x) \,d x

1037:  \ = \ \langle x \rangle^{u - d} \nonumber \\

1038:  &=& \frac{1}{M_N} \,\frac{1}{I} \,

1039:  \left(\frac{N_c}{6} \right) \,\sum_{m > 0, n \leq 0} \,

1040:  \frac{1}{E_m - E_n} \,\langle m || \vecvar{\tau} || n \rangle \nonumber \\

1041:  &\times& \left\{ \frac{E_m + E_n}{2} \,

1042:  \langle m || \vecvar{\tau} || n \rangle \ + \ 

1043:  \langle m || \,\frac{1}{3} \,(\vecvar{\alpha} \cdot \vecvar{p}) \,

1044:  \vecvar{\tau} \,|| n \rangle \right\} .

1045: \end{eqnarray}

1046: Since this quantity, which represents the difference of momentum 

1047: fraction carried by the $u$-quark and the $d$-quark in the proton,

1048: is not constrained by any conservation law, its actual value can be

1049: estimated only numerically.

1050: 

1051: Next we turn to the discussion of the forward limit of the generalized 

1052: magnetic form factors. First, the forward limit of 

1053:  $G_{M, 10}^{(I = 0)} (t)$ gives

1054: \begin{eqnarray}

1055:  &\,& G_{M, 10}^{(I = 0)} (t = 0)

1056:  \ = \ - \,\frac{M_N}{I} \left(\frac{N_c}{6} \right)

1057:  \sum_{m > 0, n \leq 0} \,\frac{1}{E_m - E_n} \,

1058:  \langle m || \vecvar{\tau} || n \rangle

1059:  \langle m || \vecvar{r} \times \vecvar{\alpha} || n \rangle ,

1060: \end{eqnarray}

1061: which reproduces the known expression of the isoscalar magnetic moment of

1062: the nucleon in the CQSM \cite{Christov95}.

1063: On the other hand, the forward limit of 

1064: $G_{M, 20}^{(I = 0)} (t)$ gives 

1065: \begin{eqnarray}

1066:  G_{M, 20}^{(I = 0)} (t = 0) 

1067:  &=& - \,\frac{1}{I} \,\left(\frac{N_c}{6} \right) \,

1068:  \sum_{m > 0, n \leq 0} \,\frac{1}{E_m - E_n} \,

1069:  \langle m || \vecvar{\tau} || n \rangle \nonumber \\

1070:  &\times& \left\{ \frac{E_m + E_n}{2} \,

1071:  \langle m || \vecvar{r} \times \vecvar{\alpha} || n \rangle

1072:  \ + \ \langle m || \vecvar{L} || n \rangle \right\} .

1073:  \label{eq:GM20isFL}

1074: \end{eqnarray}

1075: It was shown in \cite{Ossmann05} that the rhs of the

1076: above equation is just unity, i.e.

1077: \begin{equation}

1078:  G_{M,20}^{(I=0)} (t=0) \ = \ 1 . \label{eq:GM20ist0}

1079: \end{equation}

1080: %The proof goes as follows. Since $| n \rangle$ and $| m \rangle$ are the

1081: %eigenstates of the static Dirac hamiltonian $H$, it holds that 

1082: %\begin{equation}

1083: % \frac{E_m + E_n}{2} \,\langle m || \vecvar{r} 

1084: % \times \vecvar{\alpha} || n \rangle 

1085: % \ = \ \frac{1}{2} \,\langle m || \{ H, \vecvar{r} 

1086: % \times \vecvar{\alpha} \} || n \rangle .

1087: %\end{equation}

1088: %Here we proceed as 

1089: %\begin{eqnarray}

1090: % &\,& \{ H, (\vecvar{r} \times \vecvar{\alpha})_i \} \nonumber \\

1091: % &=& \varepsilon_{i j k} \,\{ \alpha_l p_l + \beta M (\cos F (r) 

1092: % + i \gamma_5 \vecvar{\tau} \cdot \hat{\vecvar{r}} 

1093: % \sin F (r) ), \,x_j \alpha_k \} \nonumber \\

1094: % &=& \varepsilon_{i j k} \{ \alpha_l p_l, x_j \alpha_k \}

1095: % \ + \ M \,\varepsilon_{i j k} \,x_j \,\{ \gamma^0 (\cos F (r) 

1096: % + i \gamma_5 \vecvar{\tau} \cdot \hat{\vecvar{r}} 

1097: % \sin F (r) ), \gamma^0 \gamma^k \} . \label{eq:AntiCR}

1098: %\end{eqnarray}

1099: %Using the identities

1100: %\begin{equation}

1101: % \{ \gamma^0, \gamma^0 \gamma^k \} = 0, \ \ \ 

1102: % \{ \gamma^0 \gamma_5, \gamma^0 \gamma^k \} = 0 ,

1103: %\end{equation}

1104: %we find that the 2nd term of (\ref{eq:AntiCR}) vanishes.

1105: %Next, by utilizing the identity,

1106: %\begin{equation}

1107: % \{ \alpha_l p_l, x_j \alpha_k \} 

1108: % = - \,i \,\alpha_j \,\alpha_k + 2 x_j p_k ,

1109: %\end{equation}

1110: %the 1st term of (\ref{eq:AntiCR}) can be rewritten as 

1111: %\begin{eqnarray}

1112: % \varepsilon_{i j k} \,\{ \alpha_l p_l, x_j \alpha_k \}

1113: % &=& - \,i \,\varepsilon_{i j k} \,\alpha_j \cdot \alpha_k 

1114: % + 2 \,(\vecvar{r} \times \vecvar{p})_i \nonumber \\

1115: % &=& 2 \,

1116: % \left(

1117: % \begin{array}{cc}

1118: % \sigma_i & 0 \\

1119: % 0 & \sigma_i

1120: % \end{array}

1121: % \right)

1122: % + 2 \,L_i

1123: % \ = \ 2 \,\Sigma_i + 2 \,L_i .

1124: %\end{eqnarray}

1125: %The consequence of the above consideration is a rather nontrivial 

1126: %identity given as 

1127: %\begin{equation}

1128: % \frac{E_m + E_n}{2} \,\langle m || \vecvar{r} 

1129: % \times \vecvar{\alpha} || n \rangle

1130: % \ = \ \langle m || \vecvar{\Sigma} + \vecvar{L} || n \rangle .

1131: %\end{equation}

1132: %Now putting this relation into (\ref{eq:GM20isFL}), we get

1133: %\begin{eqnarray}

1134: % 3 \,G_{M, 20}^{(I = 0)} (t = 0)

1135: % &=& - \,\frac{1}{I} \,\left(\frac{N_c}{6} \right) \,

1136: % \sum_{m > 0, n \leq 0} \,

1137: % \frac{1}{E_m - E_n} \,

1138: % \langle m || \vecvar{\tau} || n \rangle

1139: % \langle m || \vecvar{\Sigma} + 2 \vecvar{L} || n \rangle \nonumber \\

1140: % &=& - \frac{1}{I} \,\left(\frac{N_c}{6} \right) \,

1141: % \sum_{m > 0, n \leq 0} \,

1142: % \frac{1}{E_m - E_n} \,

1143: % \langle m || \vecvar{\tau} || n \rangle

1144: % \langle m || 2 \vecvar{J} || n \rangle .

1145: %\end{eqnarray}

1146: %Here we recall the definition of the grand spin operator 

1147: %$\vecvar{K} = \vecvar{J} + \frac{1}{2} \vecvar{\tau}$ and also the fact 

1148: %that $\langle m || K || n \rangle = 0$ for $m \neq n$. We thus obtain

1149: %\begin{eqnarray}

1150: % 3 \,G_{M, 20}^{(I = 0)} (t = 0)

1151: % &=& \frac{1}{I} \,\left(\frac{N_c}{6} \right) \,\sum_{m > 0, n \leq 0} \%, \frac{1}{E_m - E_n} \,

1152: % \langle m || \vecvar{\tau} || n \rangle^2

1153: % \ = \ \frac{1}{I} \cdot I \ = \ 1 . \label{eq:GM20isSR}

1154: %\end{eqnarray}

1155: In consideration of (\ref{eq:GM2nd}), this identity can be recast

1156: into a little different form as

1157: \begin{eqnarray}

1158:  1 &=& \int_{-1}^1 x E_M^{(I = 0)} (x, 0, 0) \,d x \nonumber \\

1159:  &=& \int_{-1}^1 x E_M^{u + d} (x, 0, 0) \,d x

1160:  \ = \ \int_{-1}^1 x \,

1161:  [  H^{u + d} (x, 0, 0) + E^{u + d} (x, 0, 0) ] \,d x .

1162: \end{eqnarray}

1163: Assuming the familiar angular momentum sum rule due to Ji

1164: \begin{equation}

1165:  \frac{1}{2} \int x [ H^{u + d} (x, 0, 0) + E^{u + d} (x, 0, 0) ] \,d x

1166:  = J^{u + d} ,

1167: \end{equation}

1168: the above identity claims that

1169: \begin{equation}

1170:  J^{u + d} = \frac{1}{2} , \label{eq:TotalSpin}

1171: \end{equation}

1172: which means that the nucleon spin is saturated by the quark fields alone.

1173: This is again a reasonable result, because the CQSM is an effective

1174: quark model which contains no explicit gluon fields.

1175: The derived identity (\ref{eq:GM20ist0}) has still another

1176: interpretation. Remembering the fact that 

1177: $G_{M, 20}^{(I = 0)} (t)$ consists of two parts as

1178: \begin{equation}

1179:  G_{M, 20}^{(I = 0)} (t) = A_{20}^{u+d} (t) + B_{20}^{u+d} (t) ,

1180: \end{equation}

1181: Eq.(\ref{eq:GM20ist0}) dictates that 

1182: \begin{equation}

1183:  A_{20}^{u + d} (0) + B_{20}^{u + d} (0) = 1 .

1184: \end{equation}

1185: Since it also holds that (the momentum sum rule)

1186: \begin{equation}

1187:  G_{M,20}^{(I = 0)} (0) = A_{20}^{u + d} (0) = 1 ,

1188: \end{equation}

1189: it immediately follows that

1190: \begin{equation}

1191:  B_{20}^{u + d} (0) = 0 ,

1192: \end{equation}

1193: which is interpreted as showing the absence of the {\it net quark

1194: contribution to the anomalous gravitomagnetic moment of the nucleon}.

1195: 

1196: Finally, we investigate the forward limit of the isovector combination

1197: of the generalized magnetic form factors. From eq. (\ref{eq:MGivform}),

1198: we get

1199: \begin{equation}

1200:  G_{M, 10}^{(I = 1)} (t = 0) = 

1201:  - \,\frac{M_N}{9} \,N_c \,\sum_{n \leq 0} \,

1202:  \langle n || \vecvar{\tau} \cdot (\vecvar{r} \times \vecvar{\alpha} ) 

1203:  || n \rangle ,

1204: \end{equation}

1205: which reproduces the known expression of the isovector magnetic form

1206: factor of the nucleon in the CQSM. On the other hand, letting

1207: $t \rightarrow 0$ in (\ref{eq:MG2ivform}), we have 

1208: \begin{eqnarray}

1209:  G_{M, 20}^{(I = 1)} (t = 0) &=& - \,\frac{1}{9} \,

1210:  N_c \,\sum_{n \leq 0} \,

1211:  \{ \,E_n \,\langle n || \vecvar{\tau} \cdot 

1212:  (\vecvar{r} \times \vecvar{\alpha}) || n \rangle

1213:  \ + \ \langle n || \vecvar{\tau} \cdot \vecvar{L} || n \rangle \} 

1214:  \nonumber \\

1215:  &=& \int_{-1}^1 \,x E_M^{(I = 1)} (x, 0, 0) \,d x .

1216: \end{eqnarray}

1217: As shown in \cite{WT05}, this sum rule can be recast into the form : 

1218: \begin{equation}

1219:  \frac{1}{2} \int_{-1}^1 x E_M^{(I = 1)} (x, 0, 0) \,d x 

1220:  = J^{(I = 1)} ,

1221: \end{equation}

1222: where $J^{(I = 1)}$ consists of two parts as 

1223: \begin{equation}

1224:  J^{(I = 1)} = J_f^{(I = 1)} + \delta J^{(I = 1)} .

1225: \end{equation}

1226: Here, the first part is given as a proton matrix element of the

1227: {\it free field expression} for the isovector total angular momentum

1228: operator of quark fields as 

1229: \begin{equation}

1230:  J_f^{(I = 1)} = \langle p \uparrow | \hat{J}_f^{(I = 1)} | 

1231:  p \uparrow \rangle ,

1232: \end{equation}

1233: with

1234: \begin{eqnarray}

1235:  \hat{J}_f^{(I = 1)} &=& \int \,\psi^{\dagger} (\vecvar{x}) \,

1236:  \tau_3 \,

1237:  \left[ (\vecvar{x} \times \hat{\vecvar{p}} )_3 + 

1238:  \frac{1}{2} \Sigma_3 \right] \,

1239:  \psi (\vecvar{x}) \,d^3 x \nonumber \\

1240:  &=& \hat{L}_f^{(I = 1)} + \frac{1}{2} \,\hat{\Sigma}^{(I = 1)} .

1241: \end{eqnarray}

1242: On the other hand, the second term is given as

1243: \begin{equation}

1244:  \delta J^{(I = 1)} \ = \ - M \left(\frac{N_c}{18} \right) \,

1245:  \sum_{n \leq 0} \,

1246:  \langle n | r \sin F (r) \gamma^0 

1247:  [ \vecvar{\Sigma} \cdot \hat{\vecvar{r}} \vecvar{\tau} 

1248:  \cdot \hat{\vecvar{r}} 

1249:  - \vecvar{\Sigma} \cdot \vecvar{\tau} ] | n \rangle .

1250: \end{equation}

1251: 

1252: 

1253: \section{Numerical Results and Discussions}

1254: 

1255: The model in the chiral limit contains two parameters, the weak pion 

1256: decay constant $f_{\pi}$ and the dynamical quark mass $M$. As usual, 

1257: $f_{\pi}$ is fixed to its physical value, i.e. 

1258: $f_{\pi} = 93 \,\mbox{MeV}$.

1259: For the mass parameter $M$, there is some argument based on the

1260: instanton liquid picture of the QCD vacuum that it is not extremely

1261: far from $350 \,\mbox{MeV}$ \cite{DPP88}.

1262: The previous phenomenological analysis of various static 

1263: baryon observables based on this model prefer a slightly larger value of 

1264: $M$ between $350 \,\mbox{MeV}$ and $425 \,\mbox{MeV}$

1265: \cite{Wakamatsu92R}--\cite{ARW96}.

1266: In the present analysis, we use the value $M = 400 \,\mbox{MeV}$.

1267: With this value of $M = 400 \,\mbox{MeV}$, we prepare self-consistent

1268: soliton solutions for seven values of $m_{\pi}$, i.e. $m_{\pi} = 0, 100,

1269: 200, 300, 400, 500,$ and $600 \,\mbox{MeV}$, in order to see the pion

1270: mass dependence of the generalized form factors etc.

1271: Favorable physical predictions of the model will be obtained by using

1272: the value of $M = 400 \,\mbox{MeV}$ and

1273: $m_\pi = 100 \,\mbox{MeV}$, since this set gives a self-consistent

1274: soliton solution close to the phenomenologically successful one

1275: obtained with $M = \,375 \,\mbox{MeV}$ and $m_\pi = 0 \,\mbox{MeV}$

1276: in the single-subtraction Pauli-Villars regularization scheme

1277: \cite{WK98}--\cite{PPGWW99}.

1278: 

1279: We first show in Fig.\ref{fig:profile}

1280: the soliton profile functions $F (r)$ obtained with several values of 

1281: $m_{\pi}$, i.e. $m_{\pi} = 0, 200, 400$, and $600 \,\mbox{MeV}$.

1282: One sees that the spatial size of the soliton profile becomes more

1283: and more compact as the pion mass increases.

1284: 

1285: \begin{figure}[htb] \centering

1286: \begin{center}

1287:  \includegraphics[width=9.0cm,height=7.0cm]{profile.eps}

1288: \end{center}

1289: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

1290: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

1291: \caption{The self-consistent soliton profile functions obtained

1292: with $M = 400 \,\mbox{MeV}$ and $m_\pi = 0, 200, 400$,

1293: and $600 \,\mbox{MeV}$.}

1294: \label{fig:profile}

1295: \end{figure}%

1296: 

1297: We are now ready to show the theoretical predictions of the CQSM for the 

1298: generalized form factors. Since the corresponding lattice predictions

1299: are given for the generalized form factors $A_{n 0}^{u \pm d} (Q^2)$ and 

1300: $B_{n 0}^{u \pm d} (Q^2)$, which are the generalization of the standard 

1301: Dirac and Pauli form factors, we first write down the relations between 

1302: these form factors and the generalized Sachs-type factors, which we have 

1303: calculated in the CQSM. They are given by

1304: \begin{eqnarray}

1305:  A_{10}^{u + d} (t) &=& 

1306:  \left[\, G_{E, 10}^{(I = 0)} (t) + \tau \,

1307:  G_{M, 10}^{(I = 0)} (t) \right] \,/\, (1 + \tau) , \\

1308:  A_{20}^{u + d} (t) &=& 

1309:  \left[\, G_{E, 20}^{(I = 0)} (t) + \tau \,

1310:  G_{M, 20}^{(I = 0)} (t) \right] \,/\, (1 + \tau) , \\

1311:  A_{10}^{u - d} (t) &=& 

1312:  \left[\, G_{E, 10}^{(I = 1)} (t) + \tau \,

1313:  G_{M, 10}^{(I = 1)} (t) \right] \,/\, (1 + \tau) , \\

1314:  A_{20}^{u - d} (t) &=& 

1315:  \left[\, G_{E, 20}^{(I = 1)} (t) + \tau \,

1316:  G_{M, 20}^{(I = 1)} (t) \right] \,/\, (1 + \tau) ,

1317: \end{eqnarray}

1318: and

1319: \begin{eqnarray}

1320:  B_{10}^{u + d} (t) &=& 

1321:  \left[\, G_{M, 10}^{(I = 0)} (t) - G_{E, 10}^{(I = 0)} (t) \right] 

1322:  \,/\, (1 + \tau) , \\

1323:  B_{20}^{u + d} (t) &=& 

1324:  \left[\, G_{M, 10}^{(I = 0)} (t) - G_{E, 20}^{(I = 0)} (t) \right] 

1325:  \,/\, (1 + \tau) , \\

1326:  B_{10}^{u - d} (t) &=& 

1327:  \left[\, G_{M, 10}^{(I = 1)} (t) - G_{E, 10}^{(I = 1)} (t) \right] 

1328:  \,/\, (1 + \tau) , \\

1329:  B_{20}^{u - d} (t) &=& 

1330:  \left[\, G_{M, 20}^{(I = 1)} (t) - G_{E, 20}^{(I = 1)} (t) \right] 

1331:  \,/\, (1 + \tau) ,

1332: \end{eqnarray}

1333: where $\tau = - t / 4 M_N^2$.

1334: We recall that $A_{10} (t)$ and $B_{10}(t)$ are nothing but the

1335: standard Dirac and Pauli form factors of the nucleon :

1336: \begin{eqnarray}

1337:  A_{10}^{u+d} (t) &=& F_1^{(I = 0)} (t) 

1338:  =  F_1^p (t) + F_1^n (t) , \\

1339:  B_{10}^{u+d} (t) &=& F_2^{(I = 0)} (t) 

1340:  =  F_2^p (t) + F_2^n (t) , \\

1341:  A_{10}^{u-d} (t) &=& F_1^{(I = 1)} (t) 

1342:  =  F_1^p (t) - F_1^n (t)  , \\

1343:  B_{10}^{u-d} (t) &=& F_2^{(I = 1)} (t) 

1344:  =  F_2^p (t) - F_2^n (t) .

1345: \end{eqnarray}

1346: 

1347: Since the lattice simulations by the LHPC and QCDSF collaborations were 

1348: carried out in the heavy pion region around 

1349: $m_{\pi} \simeq (700 \sim 900) \,\mbox{MeV}$ and since the simulation

1350: in the small pion mass region is hard to perform, we think it interesting

1351: to investigate the pion mass dependence of the generalized form factors

1352: within the framework of the CQSM.

1353: For simplicity, we shall show the pion mass 

1354: dependence of the generalized form factors at the zero momentum transfer 

1355: only. We think it enough for our purpose because the generalized

1356: form factors at the zero 

1357: momentum transfer contain the most important information for clarifying

1358: the underlying spin structure of the nucleon.

1359: At zero momentum transfer, the 

1360: relations between the generalized Dirac and Pauli form factors and the 

1361: generalized Sachs-type form factors are simplified to become

1362: \begin{eqnarray}

1363:  A_{10}^{u + d} (0) &=& G_{E, 10}^{(I = 0)} (0) , \\ 

1364:  A_{20}^{u + d} (0) &=& G_{E, 20}^{(I = 0)} (0) , \\ 

1365:  A_{10}^{u - d} (0) &=& G_{E, 10}^{(I = 1)} (0) , \\ 

1366:  A_{20}^{u - d} (0) &=& G_{E, 20}^{(I = 1)} (0) ,

1367: \end{eqnarray}

1368: and

1369: \begin{eqnarray}

1370:  B_{10}^{u + d} (0) &=& G_{M, 10}^{(I = 0)} (0)

1371:  - G_{E, 10}^{(I = 0)} (0)  , \\ 

1372:  B_{20}^{u + d} (0) &=& G_{M, 20}^{(I = 0)} (0)

1373:  - G_{E, 20}^{(I = 0)} (0)  , \\ 

1374:  B_{10}^{u - d} (0) &=& G_{M, 10}^{(I = 1)} (0)

1375:  - G_{E, 10}^{(I = 1)} (0)  , \\ 

1376:  B_{20}^{u - d} (0) &=& G_{M, 20}^{(I = 1)} (0)

1377:  - G_{E, 20}^{(I = 1)} (0)  .

1378: \end{eqnarray}

1379: 

1380: \vspace{4mm}

1381: \begin{figure}[htb] \centering

1382: \begin{center}

1383:  \includegraphics[width=16.0cm,height=7.0cm]{A1020is.eps}

1384: \end{center}

1385: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

1386: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

1387: \caption{The predictions of the CQSM for 

1388: $A_{10}^{u + d} (0)$ and $A_{20}^{u + d} (0)$ as functions of

1389: $m_{\pi}$ (the filled diamonds), together with the corresponding

1390: lattice predictions. Here, the open triangles correspond to

1391: the predictions of the LHPC group \cite{LHPC04}, while the open

1392: squares to those of the QCDSF collaboration \cite{QCDSF04a}.}

1393: \label{fig:a1020is}

1394: \end{figure}%

1395: \vspace{2mm}

1396: 

1397: Fig.\ref{fig:a1020is} shows the predictions of the CQSM for 

1398: $A_{10}^{u + d} (0)$ and $A_{20}^{u + d} (0)$ as functions of

1399: $m_{\pi}$, together with the corresponding lattice predictions.

1400: As for $A_{10}^{u + d} (0)$, the CQSM predictions and the lattice QCD

1401: predictions are both independent of $m_{\pi}$ and consistent with

1402: the constraint of the quark number sum rule :

1403: \begin{equation}

1404:  A_{10}^{u + d} (0) = N^u + N^d = 3 ,

1405: \end{equation}

1406: with high numerical precision. Turning to $A_{20}^{u + d} (0)$, one finds

1407: a sizable difference between the predictions of the CQSM and of the 

1408: lattice QCD. The lattice QCD predicts that 

1409: \begin{equation}

1410:  A_{20}^{u + d} (0) = \langle x \rangle^u + \langle x \rangle^d 

1411:  \simeq (0.6 \sim 0.7) ,

1412: \end{equation}

1413: which means that only about $(60 \sim 70)\%$ of the total nucleon 

1414: momentum is carried by the quark fields, while the rest is borne by the

1415: gluon fields. On the other hand, the CQSM predictions for the same

1416: quantity is 

1417: \begin{equation}

1418:  A_{20} ^{u + d} (0) = \langle x \rangle ^u + \langle x \rangle^d = 1 ,

1419: \end{equation}

1420: which means that the quark fields saturates the total nucleon momentum. 

1421: This may certainly be a limitation of an effective quark model, which

1422: contains no explicit gluon fields. Note, however, that the total quark

1423: momentum fraction $A_{20}^{u + d} (0)$ is a scale dependent quantity.

1424: The lattice result corresponds to the energy scale of

1425: $Q^2 = (2 \,\mbox{GeV})^2$ \cite{LHPC04},

1426: while the CQSM prediction should be taken as that of the model energy

1427: scale around $Q^2 = 0.30 \,\mbox{GeV}^2 \simeq (560 \,\mbox{MeV})^2$

1428: \cite{WK99}. We shall later make more meaningful comparison by taking

1429: care of the scale dependencies of relevant observables.

1430: 

1431: \vspace{4mm}

1432: \begin{figure}[htb] \centering

1433: \begin{center}

1434:  \includegraphics[width=16.0cm,height=7.0cm]{A1020iv.eps}

1435: \end{center}

1436: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

1437: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

1438: \caption{The predictions of the CQSM for 

1439: $A_{10}^{u - d} (0)$ and $A_{20}^{u - d} (0)$ as functions of

1440: $m_{\pi}$, together with the corresponding lattice

1441: predictions \cite{LHPC04},\cite{QCDSF04a}.

1442: The meaning of the symbols are the same as in Fig.\ref{fig:a1020is}.}

1443: \label{fig:a1020iv}

1444: \end{figure}%

1445: \vspace{2mm}

1446: 

1447: Next, in Fig.\ref{fig:a1020iv}, we show the isovector combination

1448: of the generalized form 

1449: factors $A_{10}^{u - d} (0)$ and $A_{20}^{u - d} (0)$.

1450: The meaning of the 

1451: symbols are the same as in Fig.\ref{fig:a1020is}.

1452:  As for $A_{10}^{u - d} (0)$, both the 

1453: CQSM and the lattice simulation reproduce the quark number sum rule

1454: \begin{equation}

1455:  A_{10}^{u - d} (0) = N^u - N^d = 1 ,

1456: \end{equation}

1457: with good prediction.

1458: Turning to $A_{20}^{u - d} (0)$, one observes that the prediction of

1459: the CQSM shows somewhat peculiar dependence on the pion mass.

1460: Starting from a fairly small value in the chiral limit ($m_{\pi} = 0$), 

1461: it first increases as $m_{\pi}$ increases, but as $m_{\pi}$ further 

1462: increases it begins to decrease, thereby showing a tendency to match the 

1463: lattice prediction in the heavy pion region.

1464: Very interestingly, letting put aside the absolute value,

1465: a similar $m_{\pi}$ dependence is also observed in the chiral

1466: extrapolation of the lattice prediction for the momentum fraction

1467: $\langle x \rangle^u - \langle x \rangle^d$ shown in Fig.25 of 

1468: \cite{LHPC02}.

1469: Physically, the quantity $A_{20}^{u - d} (0)$ has a meaning of the 

1470: difference of the momentum fractions carried by the $u$-quark and

1471: the $d$-quark. The empirical value for it is 

1472: $A_{20}^{u - d} (0) = \langle x \rangle ^{u - d} = 0.154 \pm 0.003$

1473: \cite{LHPC02}. 

1474: One sees that the prediction of the CQSM in the chiral limit is not far 

1475: from this empirical information, although more serious comparison

1476: must take account of the scale dependence of $\langle x \rangle^{u-d}$.

1477: 

1478: \vspace{4mm}

1479: \begin{figure}[htb] \centering

1480: \begin{center}

1481:  \includegraphics[width=16.0cm,height=7.0cm]{B1020is.eps}

1482: \end{center}

1483: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

1484: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

1485: \caption{The predictions of the CQSM for 

1486: $B_{10}^{u + d} (0)$ and $B_{20}^{u + d} (0)$ as functions of

1487: $m_{\pi}$, together with the corresponding lattice

1488: predictions \cite{LHPC05},\cite{QCDSF04b}.

1489: The meaning of the symbols are the same as in Fig.\ref{fig:a1020is}.}

1490: \label{fig:b1020is}

1491: \end{figure}%

1492: 

1493: Next, shown in Fig.\ref{fig:b1020is} are the CQSM predictions for

1494: $B_{10}^{u + d} (0)$ and $B_{20}^{u + d} (0)$.

1495: The former quantity is related to the isoscalar 

1496: combination of the nucleon anomalous magnetic moment as 

1497: $B_{10}^{u + d} (0) = \kappa^u + \kappa^d = 3 \,

1498: (\kappa^p + \kappa^n) \equiv 3 \kappa^{(T = 0)}$.

1499: (We recall that its 

1500: empirical value is $B_{10}^{u + d} (0) \simeq -0.36$.) We find that this 

1501: quantity is very sensitive to the variation of the pion mass. It appears 

1502: that the CQSM prediction $B_{10}^{u + d} (0) \simeq -1.5$ corresponding

1503: to chiral limit underestimates the observation significantly.

1504: However, the difference 

1505: is exaggerated too much in this comparison. In fact, if we carry out a 

1506: comparison in the total isoscalar magnetic moment of the nucleon 

1507: $\frac{1}{3} \,G_{M, 10}^{(I = 0)} (0) = \mu^p + \mu^n \equiv 

1508: \mu^{(T = 0)}$, the CQSM in the chiral limit 

1509: gives $\mu_{CQSM}^{(T = 0)} \simeq 0.5$ in comparison with the observed 

1510: value $\mu_{exp}^{(T = 0)} \simeq 0.88$.

1511: To our knowledge, no theoretical 

1512: predictions are given for this quantity by either of the LHPC or QCDSF 

1513: collaborations. The right panel of Fig.4 shows the predictions for

1514: $B_{20}^{u + d} (0)$, 

1515: which is sometimes called the isoscalar part of the nucleon anomalous 

1516: gravitomagnetic moment, or alternatively the {\it net quark contribution

1517: to the nucleon anomalous gravitomagnetic moment}.

1518: As already pointed out, the prediction of the CQSM for this quantity

1519: is exactly zero :

1520: i.e.

1521: \begin{equation}

1522:  B_{20}^{u + d} (0) = 0 ,

1523: \end{equation}

1524: The explicit numerical calculation also confirms it.

1525: It should be recognized that the 

1526: above result $B_{20}^{u + d} (0) = 0$ obtained in the CQSM is just

1527: a necessary consequence of the {\it momentum sum rule} and the

1528: {\it total nucleon spin sum rule}, both of which are saturated

1529: by the quark field only in the CQSM as

1530: \begin{equation}

1531:  A_{20}^{u + d} (0) = \langle x \rangle^{u + d} = 1 ,

1532: \end{equation}

1533: and 

1534: \begin{equation}

1535:  \frac{1}{2} \,[ A_{20}^{u + d} (0) + B_{20}^{u + d} (0) ]

1536:  \ = \ \langle J \rangle^{u + d} \ = \ \frac{1}{2} .

1537: \end{equation}

1538: In real QCD, the gluon also contributes to

1539: these sum rules, thereby leading to more general identities :

1540: \begin{eqnarray}

1541:  &\,& A_{20}^{u + d} (0) + A_{20}^g (0) = 1 , \\

1542:  &\,& [ A_{20}^{u + d} (0) + B_{20}^{u +d} (0) ] 

1543:  + [ A_{20}^g (0) + B_{20}^g (0) ] = 1 ,

1544: \end{eqnarray}

1545: which constrains that only the sum of 

1546: $B_{20}^{u + d} (0)$ and $B_{20}^g (0)$ is forced to vanish as

1547: \begin{equation}

1548:  B_{20}^{u + d} (0) + B_{20}^g (0) = 0 .

1549: \end{equation}

1550: (While we neglect here the contributions of other quarks than the

1551: $u$- and $d$-quarks, it loses no generality in our discussion below. 

1552: In fact, to include them, we have only to replace the combination 

1553: $u + d$ by $u + d + s + \cdots$.)

1554: The above nontrivial identity claims that the net contributions of quark

1555: and gluon fields to the anomalous gravitomagnetic moment of the nucleon

1556: must be zero. An interesting question is whether the quark and gluon 

1557: contribution to the anomalous gravitomagnetic moment vanishes separately

1558: or they are both large with opposite sign.

1559: A perturbative analysis based on a very simple toy model indicates

1560: the latter possibility \cite{BHMS01}.

1561: On the other hand, a nonperturbative analysis within the framework of

1562: the lattice QCD indicates that the net quark contribution to the

1563: anomalous gravitomagnetic moment is small or nearly zero,

1564: $B_{20}^{u+d}(0) = 0$ \cite{LHPC05},\cite{QCDSF04b}.

1565: (To be more precise, we sees that the prediction of the LHPC

1566: collaboration for $B_{20}^{u + d} (0)$ is slightly

1567: negative \cite{LHPC05}, while that of the QCDSF group is slightly

1568: positive \cite{QCDSF04b}.) This strongly indicates

1569: a surprising possibility that the quark and gluon contribution to the

1570: anomalous gravitomagnetic moment of the nucleon may separately vanish.

1571: Worthy of special mention here is an interesting argument given by

1572: Teryaev some years ago, claiming that the vanishing net quark

1573: contributions to the anomalous gravitomagnetic moment of the nucleon,

1574: violated in perturbation theory, is expected to be restored in

1575: full nonperturbative QCD due to the confinement

1576: \cite{Teryaev99},\cite{Teryaev98},\cite{Teryaev03}.

1577: Very interestingly, once it

1578: actually happens, it leads to a surprisingly

1579: simple result, i.e. the proportionality of the quark momentum and

1580: angular momentum fraction

1581: \begin{equation}

1582:  J^{u + d} = \frac{1}{2} \,\langle x \rangle^{u + d} ,

1583: \end{equation}

1584: as advocated by Teryaev \cite{Teryaev99},\cite{Teryaev98},\cite{Teryaev03}.

1585: A far reaching physical consequence resulting

1586: from this observation was extensively discussed 

1587: in our recent report \cite{Wakamatsu05}.

1588: (See also the discussion at the end of this section.)

1589: 

1590: \vspace{4mm}

1591: \begin{figure}[htb] \centering

1592: \begin{center}

1593:  \includegraphics[width=16.0cm,height=7.0cm]{B1020iv.eps}

1594: \end{center}

1595: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

1596: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

1597: \caption{The predictions of the CQSM for 

1598: $B_{10}^{u - d} (0)$ and $B_{20}^{u - d} (0)$ as functions of

1599: $m_{\pi}$, together with the corresponding lattice

1600: predictions \cite{LHPC05},\cite{QCDSF04b}.

1601: The meaning of the symbols are the same as in Fig.\ref{fig:a1020is}.}

1602: \label{fig:b1020iv}

1603: \end{figure}%

1604: 

1605: Next, we show in Fig.\ref{fig:b1020iv} the predictions for the

1606: isovector case, i.e. $B_{10}^{u - d} (0)$ and $B_{20}^{u - d} (0)$.

1607: We recall first that the quantity $B_{10}^{u - d} (0)$ represents

1608: the isovector combination of the nucleon anomalous 

1609: magnetic moment $\kappa^{(T = 1)} \equiv \kappa^p - \kappa^n \,

1610: (\, = \kappa^u - \kappa^d \equiv \kappa^{(I=1)} )$,

1611: the empirical value of which is 

1612: known to be $\kappa^{(T = 1)} = 3.706$.

1613: One find that this quantity is extremely sensitive to the variation

1614: of the pion mass especially near $m_\pi = 0$.

1615: This is only natural if one remembers the important role of the pion

1616: cloud in the isovector magnetic moment of the nucleon.

1617: (One may notice that the prediction of the CQSM for $\kappa^{(T=1)}$

1618: underestimates a little its empirical value even in the chiral limit.

1619: We recall, however, that, within the framework of the CQSM, there is

1620: an important $1 / N_c$ correction or the 1st order rotational

1621: correction to some kind of isovector quantities

1622: like the isovector magnetic moment of the nucleon in question or

1623: the axial-vector coupling constant of the 

1624: nucleon \cite{WW93}--\cite{Wakamatsu96}. This next-to-leading

1625: correction in $1 / N_c$ should also be taken into account in more

1626: advanced investigations.)

1627: %Although the predictions by the LHPC and QCDSF collaborations are not

1628: %given in their papers, we conjecture that the 

1629: %lattice simulation carried out in the heavy pion region would

1630: %underestimate the magnitude of this quantity.

1631: Shown in the right panel of Fig.\ref{fig:b1020iv} is the theoretical

1632: predictions for $B_{20}^{u - d} (0)$,

1633: the half of which can be interpreted as the 

1634: difference of the total angular momentum carried by the $u$-quark and

1635: the $d$-quark fields according to Ji's angular momentum

1636: sum rule \cite{Ji97}.

1637: The CQSM predicts fairly small value for this quantity,

1638: in contrast to the lattice predictions of sizable magnitude.

1639: It seems that the pion mass dependence 

1640: rescues this discrepancy only partially.

1641: Here we argue that, the reason why the CQSM (in the chiral limit)

1642: gives rather small prediction for this quantity is intimately

1643: connected with the characteristic $x$ dependence of the quantity

1644: $E_M^{(I = 1)} (x, 0, 0)$, 

1645: the forward limit of the isovector unpolarized spin-flip GPD of the

1646: nucleon. To show it, we first recall that, within the theoretical

1647: frame work of the CQSM, $B_{10}^{u - d} (0)$ as well as

1648: $B_{20}^{u -d}(0)$ are calculated as 

1649: difference of $G_{M, 10}^{(I=1)}(0)$ and $G_{E, 10}^{(I=1)}(0)$ and of 

1650: $G_{M, 20}^{(I=1)} (0)$ and $G_{E, 20}^{(I=1)}(0)$, respectively, as 

1651: \begin{eqnarray}

1652:  B_{10}^{u - d} (0) &=& G_{M, 10}^{(I=1)} (0) - G_{E, 10}^{(I=1)} (0) ,\\

1653:  B_{20}^{u - d} (0) &=& G_{M, 20}^{(I=1)} (0) - G_{E, 20}^{(I=1)} (0) .

1654: \end{eqnarray}

1655: Although the quantities of the rhs can be calculated directly without 

1656: recourse to any distribution functions, they can also be evaluated as 

1657: $x$-weighted integrals of the corresponding GPDs as 

1658: \begin{eqnarray}

1659:  G_{M, 10}^{(I=1)} (0) &=& \int_{-1}^1 \,

1660:  E_M^{(I = 1)} (x, 0, 0) \,d x ,\\

1661:  G_{M, 20}^{(I=1)} (0) &=& \int_{-1}^1 \,

1662:  x E_M^{(I = 1)} (x, 0, 0) \,d x ,\\

1663:  G_{E, 10}^{(I=1)} (0) &=& \int_{-1}^1 \,H_E^{(I = 1)} (x, 0, 0) \,d x

1664:  \ = \ \int_{-1}^1 \,f^{u - d} (x) \,d x = N^u - N^d = 1 , \\

1665:  G_{E, 20}^{(I=1)} (0) &=& \int_{-1}^1 \,x H_E^{(I = 1)} (x, 0, 0) \,d x

1666:  \ = \ \int_{-1}^1 \,x f^{u - d} (x) \,d x 

1667:  = \langle x \rangle^u - \langle x \rangle^d .

1668: \end{eqnarray}

1669: The distribution function $E_M^{(I = 1)} (x, 0, 0)$ has already been 

1670: calculated within the CQSM in our recent paper \cite{WT05}.

1671: As shown there, the Dirac 

1672: sea contribution to this quantity has a sizably large peak

1673: around $x = 0$.

1674: Since this significant peak due to the deformed Dirac-sea quarks is

1675: approximately symmetric with respect to the reflection

1676: $x \longrightarrow -x$, it hardly contributes to the second moment 

1677: $G_{M, 20}^{(I = 1)} (0)$, whereas

1678: it gives a sizable contribution to the first moment

1679: $G_{M, 10}^{(I = 1)} (0)$.

1680: The predicted significant peak of $E_M^{(I = 1)} (x, 0, 0)$ around

1681: $x = 0$ can physically be interpreted as the effects of pion cloud.

1682: It can be convinced in several ways.

1683: First, we investigate how this behavior of $E_M^{(I = 1)} (x, 0, 0)$ 

1684: changes as the pion mass is varied.

1685: 

1686: \begin{figure}[htb] \centering

1687: \begin{center}

1688:  \includegraphics[width=9.0cm,height=7.0cm]{eiv_pi0.eps}

1689: \end{center}

1690: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

1691: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

1692: \caption{The prediction of the CQSM for $E_M^{u-d}(x,0,0) = 

1693: E_M^{(I=1)}(x,0,0)$ obtained with $M = 400 \,\mbox{MeV}$ and

1694: $m_\pi = 0$.}

1695: \label{fig:eiv_pi0}

1696: \end{figure}%

1697: 

1698: \vspace{6mm}

1699: \begin{figure}[htb] \centering

1700: \begin{center}

1701:  \includegraphics[width=16.0cm,height=7.0cm]{eiv_pi24.eps}

1702: \end{center}

1703: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

1704: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

1705: \caption{The $m_\pi$ dependence of $E_M^{u-d}(x,0,0)$.}

1706: \label{fig:eiv_pi24}

1707: \end{figure}%

1708: 

1709: Shown in Fig.\ref{fig:eiv_pi0} and in Fig.\ref{fig:eiv_pi24} are

1710: the CQSM predictions for $E_M^{(I = 1)} (x, 0, 0)$ with several values

1711: of $m_{\pi}$. i.e. $m_{\pi} = 0, 200$, and $400 \,\mbox{MeV}$.

1712: One clearly sees that the height of the peak around $x = 0$, due to the 

1713: deformed Dirac-sea quarks, decreases rapidly as $m_{\pi}$ increases.

1714: This supports our interpretation of this peak as the effects of pion

1715: clouds. On the other hand, one also observes that the magnitude of

1716: the valence quark contribution, peaked around

1717: $x \sim 1/3$, gradually increases as 

1718: $m_{\pi}$ becomes large. This behavior of $E_M^{(I = 1)} (x, 0, 0)$

1719: turns out to cause a somewhat unexpected $m_{\pi}$ dependence of 

1720: $G_{M, 10}^{(I = 1)} (0)$ and $G_{M, 20}^{(I = 1)} (0)$.

1721: As a function of $m_{\pi}$, the Dirac sea contribution to

1722: $G_{M, 10}^{(I = 1)} (0)$ decreases fast,

1723: whereas the valence quark contribution to it increases slowly, so 

1724: that the total $G_{M, 10}^{(I = 1)} (0)$ becomes a decreasing function

1725: of $m_{\pi}$.

1726: On the other hand, owing to the approximate odd-function nature of

1727: the Dirac sea contribution to $x E_M^{(I = 1)} (x, 0, 0)$ with respect

1728: to $x$, it hardly contributes to $G_{M, 20}^{(I = 0)} (0)$ independent

1729: of the pion mass, while the valence quark contribution to 

1730: $x E_M^{(I = 1)} (x, 0, 0)$ is an increasing function of $m_{\pi}$, 

1731: thereby leading to the result that the net $G_{M, 20}^{(I = 0)} (0)$ is 

1732: a increasing function of $m_{\pi}$. 

1733: 

1734: \begin{figure}[htb] \centering

1735: \begin{center}

1736:  \includegraphics[width=9.0cm,height=7.0cm]{fiv_pi0.eps}

1737: \end{center}

1738: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

1739: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

1740: \caption{The prediction of the CQSM for $f^{u-d}(x,0,0)$

1741: obtained with $M = 400 \,\mbox{MeV}$ and $m_\pi = 0$.}

1742: \label{fig:fiv_pi0}

1743: \end{figure}%

1744: 

1745: \vspace{6mm}

1746: \begin{figure}[htb] \centering

1747: \begin{center}

1748:  \includegraphics[width=16.0cm,height=7.0cm]{fiv_pi24.eps}

1749: \end{center}

1750: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

1751: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

1752: \caption{The $m_\pi$ dependence of $f^{u-d}(x,0,0)$.}

1753: \label{fig:fiv_pi24}

1754: \end{figure}%

1755: \vspace{2mm}

1756: 

1757: We can give still another support to the above-mentioned interpretation

1758: of the contribution of the Dirac-sea quarks. To see it, we first recall 

1759: that the theoretical unpolarized distribution function $f^{u - d} (x)$

1760: appearing in the decomposition

1761: \begin{equation}

1762:  E_M^{u-d} (x,0,0) = f^{u-d}(x) + E^{u-d}(x,0,0), 

1763: \end{equation}

1764: also has a sizable peak around $x = 0$ due to the deformed Dirac-sea

1765: quarks.

1766: As shown in Fig.\ref{fig:fiv_pi0} and in Fig.\ref{fig:fiv_pi24},

1767: this peak is again a rapidly decreasing function 

1768: of $m_{\pi}$, supporting our interpretation of it as the effects of pion 

1769: clouds. Here, we can say more. We point out that this small-$x$ behavior of $f^{u - d} (x)$ is just what is required by the famous

1770: NMC measurement \cite{NMC91}.

1771: To confirm it, first remember that the distribution $f^{u - d}(x)$ in the

1772: negative $x$ region should actually be interpreted as the distribution of

1773: antiquarks. To be explicit, it holds that

1774: \begin{equation}

1775:  \bar{u} (x) - \bar{d} (x) = -f^{u - d} (-x) \ \ \ (x \geq 0) .

1776: \end{equation}

1777: The large and positive value of $f^{u - d} (x)$ in the negative $x$

1778: region close to $x = 0$ means that $\bar{u}(x) - \bar{d} (x)$ is

1779: negative, i.e. the dominance of the $\bar{d}$-quark over

1780: the $\bar{u}$-quark inside the proton, which has been established

1781: by the NMC measurement \cite{NMC91}.

1782: 

1783: \vspace{4mm}

1784: \begin{figure}[htb] \centering

1785: \begin{center}

1786:  \includegraphics[width=9.0cm,height=7.5cm]{dbub.eps}

1787: \end{center}

1788: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

1789: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

1790: \caption{The prediction of the CQSM for $\bar{d}(x) - \bar{u}(x)$

1791: evolved to $Q^2 = 2.3 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$ and $Q^2 = 54 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$

1792: in comparison with the Hermes and NuTeV data at the corresponding

1793: energy scales \cite{HERMES98},\cite{E866}.}

1794: \label{fig:dbdu}

1795: \end{figure}%

1796: \vspace{3mm}

1797: 

1798: Shown in Fig.\ref{fig:dbdu} are the predictions of the CQSM

1799: for $\bar{d} (x) - \bar{u} (x)$ evolved to the high energy scales

1800: corresponding to the experimental observation \cite{Saga96}.

1801: (The theoretical predictions here were obtained with

1802: $M = 400 \,\mbox{MeV}$ and $m_{\pi} = 100 \,\mbox{MeV}$.)

1803: The model reproduces well the observed behavior of 

1804: $\bar{d} (x) - \bar{u} (x)$, although the magnitude of the flavor

1805: asymmetry in smaller $x$ region seems to be slightly overestimated.

1806: It is a widely accepted fact that this flavor 

1807: asymmetry of the sea quark distribution in the proton can physically be 

1808: understood as the effects of pion cloud at least qualitatively

1809: \cite{HM91}--\cite{Wakamatsu92}.

1810: This then supports our interpretation of the effects of the deformed

1811: Dirac-sea quarks in $E_M^{(I = 1)} (x, 0, 0)$ and $f^{u - d} (x)$

1812: as the effects of pion clouds.

1813: 

1814: \begin{table}[htbp]

1815: \begin{center}

1816: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

1817: \caption{The $m_\pi$ dependencies of $G_{M,20}^{(I=1)}(0)$,

1818: $G_{E,20}^{(I=1)}(0)$, and $B_{20}^{u-d} (0)$ in the CQSM with

1819: $M = 400 \,\mbox{MeV}$. \label{tabivb20}}

1820: \vspace{10mm}

1821: \begin{tabular}{cccc} \hline

1822:  \ \ $m_\pi \, (\mbox{MeV})$ \ \ & \ \ \ $G_{M,20}^{(I=1)}(0)$ \ \ \ & 

1823:  \ \ \ $G_{E,20}^{(I=1)}(0)$ \ \ \ & \ \ \ $B_{20}^{u-d} (0)$ \ \ \ 

1824:  \\ \hline\hline

1825:  \   0 \ & 0.361 & 0.228 & 0.133 \\ \hline

1826:  \ 100 \ & 0.392 & 0.276 & 0.116 \\ \hline

1827:  \ 200 \ & 0.452 & 0.327 & 0.125 \\ \hline

1828:  \ 300 \ & 0.519 & 0.350 & 0.169 \\ \hline

1829:  \ 400 \ & 0.579 & 0.354 & 0.225 \\ \hline

1830:  \ 500 \ & 0.640 & 0.347 & 0.293 \\ \hline

1831:  \ 600 \ & 0.716 & 0.328 & 0.388 \\ \hline

1832: \end{tabular}

1833: \end{center}

1834: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

1835: \end{table}

1836: 

1837: We show in Table \ref{tabivb20} the model predictions for 

1838: $G_{M, 20}^{(I = 1)} (0), G_{E, 20}^{(I = 1)} (0)$, and 

1839: $B_{20}^{u - d} (0) = G_{M, 20}^{(I = 1)} (0) - G_{E, 20}^{(I = 1)} (0)$ 

1840: as functions of $m_{\pi}$.

1841: One sees that the value of $G_{M, 20}^{(I = 1)} (0)$ with $m_{\pi} = 0$

1842: is an order of $0.3 \sim 0.4$.

1843: As already pointed out, it gradually increases as $m_{\pi}$ becomes

1844: large. This is also the case with $G_{E, 20}^{(I = 1)} (0)$.

1845: As a consequence, the isovector combination of the nucleon anomalous 

1846: gravitomagnetic moment $B_{20}^{u - d} (0)$, which is obtained as a 

1847: difference of the above two quantities, is also an increasing function

1848: of $m_{\pi}$, thereby having a tendency to come closer to the lattice

1849: prediction given in the heavy pion region. Still, the CQSM predictions 

1850: $B_{20}^{u - d} (0) \simeq 0.3$ around $m_{\pi} = 500 \,\mbox{MeV}$ is a factor of two smaller than the corresponding lattice prediction 

1851: $B_{20}^{u - d} (0) \simeq 0.6$.

1852: Now we summarize the reason why the CQSM gives fairly 

1853: small prediction for $B_{20}^{u -d} (0)$. It is due to two types of 

1854: cancellations. The first is the cancellation of the potentially large 

1855: contribution of Dirac-sea quarks arising from the approximately 

1856: antisymmetric behavior of the Dirac sea contribution to 

1857: $x E_M^{(I = 1)} (x, 0, 0)$ as well as $x f^{u - d} (x)$.

1858: The second is the cancellation between the total gravitomagnetic moment 

1859: $G_{M, 20}^{(I = 1)} (0)$ and its canonical part

1860: $G_{E, 20}^{(I = 1)} (0)$.

1861: We are not sure whether the lattice simulation carried out in the heavy 

1862: pion region with neglect of the so-called disconnected diagrams can 

1863: efficiently take account of such effects of chiral dynamics as discussed 

1864: above.

1865: 

1866: So far, we have investigated the pion mass dependence of the

1867: forward limit of the generalized form factors of the nucleon.

1868: Here, we investigate the momentum-transfer dependencies of some

1869: form factors of the nucleon.

1870: For the reason explained before,

1871: all the physical predictions given hereafter will be 

1872: obtained with use of the mass parameter $M = 400 \,\mbox{MeV}$

1873: and $m_{\pi} = 100 \,\mbox{MeV}$. 

1874: We show in Fig.\ref{fig:GEis1020}, Fig.\ref{fig:GEiv1020},

1875: Fig.\ref{fig:GMis1020}, Fig.\ref{fig:GMiv1020} the predicted

1876: momentum-transfer dependencies of the generalized Sachs form factors,

1877: $G_{E, 10}^{(I = 0)} (t)$, $G_{E, 20}^{(I = 0)} (t)$,

1878: $G_{E, 10}^{(I = 1)} (t)$, $G_{E, 20}^{(I = 1)} (t)$,

1879: $G_{M, 10}^{(I = 0)} (t)$, $G_{M, 20}^{(I = 0)} (t)$,

1880: $G_{M, 10}^{(I = 1)} (t)$, and $G_{M, 20}^{(I = 1)} (t)$.

1881: 

1882: %Shown in Fig.\ref{fig:GEis1020} are

1883: %the momentum-transfer dependencies of the isoscalar 

1884: %generalized electric form factors $G_{E, 10}^{(I = 0)} (t)$ and 

1885: %$G_{E, 20}^{(I = 0)} (t)$.

1886: %One sees that the isoscalar Sachs form factor $G_{E, 10}^{(I = 0)} (t)$ 

1887: %is saturated by the valence quark contribution only, and there is no 

1888: %contribution from the polarized Dirac-sea quarks. 

1889: %One also confirms that, in the forward limit $t = 0$, the quark 

1890: %number sum rule (\ref{eq:udpSR}) is satisfied.

1891: %Turning to the generalized electric form factor $G_{E, 20}^{(I = 0)} (t)$, the %Dirac-sea contribution turns out to be around $25\%$ in the forward 

1892: %limit. As the momentum transfer increases, this Dirac-sea contribution 

1893: %decreases faster that the valence quark contribution, and beyond 

1894: %$|t| \simeq 0.4 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$, it becomes to play a minor role.

1895: %One can also convince that, at 

1896: %zero momentum transfer, the sum rule (\ref{eq:momSR}) is satisfied,

1897: %which means that the total nucleon momentum is saturated by the quark

1898: %field alone in the CQSM.

1899: 

1900: \vspace{4mm}

1901: \begin{figure}[htb] \centering

1902: \begin{center}

1903:  \includegraphics[width=16.0cm,height=7.5cm]{GEis1020.eps}

1904: \end{center}

1905: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

1906: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

1907: \caption{The predictions of the CQSM for the isoscalar generalized electric

1908: form factors $G^{(I=0)}_{E,10}(t)$ and $G^{(I=0)}_{E,20}(t)$.}

1909: \label{fig:GEis1020}

1910: \end{figure}%

1911: 

1912: %Next, we discuss the isovector generalized electric form factors shown 

1913: %in Fig.\ref{fig:GEiv1020}.

1914: %First, we observe that, in the forward limit, the Dirac-sea 

1915: %contribution to the isovector Sachs electric form factor 

1916: %$G_{E, 10}^{(I = 1)} (t)$ is around $30\%$. It decreases as the momentum 

1917: %transfer increases, and beyond $|t| \simeq 0.4 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$

1918: %it becomes negligible as 

1919: %compared with the valence quark contribution. In the forward limit, the 

1920: %sum rule (\ref{eq:udmSR}) holds,

1921: %which assures that the number difference of the 

1922: %$u$-quark and the $d$-quark in the proton is just unity.

1923: %The isovector generalized electric form factor $G_{E, 20}^{(I = 1)} (t)$ 

1924: %is shown in the right panel of Fig.\ref{fig:GEiv1020}.

1925: %It is interesting to see that this 

1926: %form factors is nearly saturated by the contribution of the Dirac-sea 

1927: %quark, while the contribution of the Dirac-sea quarks vanishes almost

1928: %perfectly. In the particular case of zero-momentum transfer, we have

1929: %already explained the possible cause of this peculiar observation.

1930: %It is due to the approximate even-function nature of the 

1931: %Dirac-sea contribution to $f^{u - d} (x)$ as a function of $x$.

1932: %The result shown in Fig.\ref{fig:GEiv1020} then indicates that the

1933: %Dirac-sea contribution to $H_E^{u - d} (x, 0, t)$ remains to be an

1934: %approximate even-function of $x$ irrespective of the value

1935: %of the momentum transfer $t$. 

1936: 

1937: \vspace{4mm}

1938: \begin{figure}[htb] \centering

1939: \begin{center}

1940:  \includegraphics[width=16.0cm,height=7.5cm]{GEiv1020.eps}

1941: \end{center}

1942: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

1943: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

1944: \caption{The predictions of the CQSM for the isovector generalized electric

1945: form factors $G^{(I=1)}_{E,10}(t)$ and $G^{(I=1)}_{E,20}(t)$.}

1946: \label{fig:GEiv1020}

1947: \end{figure}%

1948: 

1949: %Next, we turn our discussion to the generalized magnetic form factors.

1950: %Shown in Fig.\ref{fig:GMis1020} are the isoscalar magnetic form factor 

1951: %$G_{M, 10}^{(I = 0)} (t)$ and the corresponding generalized magnetic

1952: %(gravitomagnetic) form factors $G_{M, 20}^{(I = 0)} (t)$.

1953: %First, one finds that $G_{M, 10}^{(I = 0)} (t)$ is nearly saturated

1954: %by the valence quark contribution and the Dirac sea quark contribution

1955: %is almost negligible.

1956: %On the other hand, the contribution of the sea quarks to 

1957: %$G_{M, 20}^{(I = 0)} (t)$ turns out to be sizable. Since the reason of 

1958: %this observation has already been explained, we do not repeat it here.

1959: 

1960: %\vspace{4mm}

1961: \begin{figure}[htb] \centering

1962: \begin{center}

1963:  \includegraphics[width=16.0cm,height=7.5cm]{GMis1020.eps}

1964: \end{center}

1965: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

1966: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

1967: \caption{The predictions of the CQSM for the isoscalar generalized

1968: magnetic form factors $G^{(I=0)}_{M,10}(t)$ and $G^{(I=0)}_{M,20}(t)$.}

1969: \label{fig:GMis1020}

1970: \end{figure}%

1971: 

1972: %Next, we show in Fig.\ref{fig:GMiv1020} the isovector magnetic form

1973: %factor $G_{M, 10}^{(I = 1)} (t)$ and the corresponding generalized

1974: %form factor $G_{M, 20}^{(I = 1)} (t)$.

1975: %We find that the sea quark contribution to 

1976: %$G_{M, 10}^{(I = 1)} (t)$ is around $42\%$ in the forward limit,

1977: %while the contributions to $G_{M, 20}^{(I = 1)} (t)$ is close to zero.

1978: %The reason of this difference can again be traced back to the behavior

1979: %of the corresponding generalized parton distribution function 

1980: %$E_M^{(I = 1)} (x, 0, t)$ as a function of $x$.

1981: 

1982: %\vspace{4mm}

1983: \begin{figure}[htb] \centering

1984: \begin{center}

1985:  \includegraphics[width=16.0cm,height=7.5cm]{GMiv1020.eps}

1986: \end{center}

1987: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

1988: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

1989: \caption{The predictions of the CQSM for the isovector generalized magnetic

1990: form factors $G^{(I=1)}_{M,10}(t)$ and $G^{(I=1)}_{M,20}(t)$.}

1991: \label{fig:GMiv1020}

1992: \end{figure}%

1993: 

1994: To get some feeling about the momentum-transfer dependencies of the 

1995: predicted form factors, we shall compare them with the existing empirical

1996: data.

1997: At present, only the lowest moment of the GPDs, i.e. the standard 

1998: electromagnetic form factors of the nucleon are experimentally known.

1999: Shown in Fig.\ref{fig:F1pn} are the predictions of the CQSM for the

2000: Dirac form factors of the proton and the neutron,

2001: in comparison with the empirical data \cite{Arnold86}

2002: together with the corresponding predictions at the LHPC lattice

2003: simulation \cite{LHPC04},\cite{LHPC05}.

2004: One observes that the $t$-dependence of the CQSM prediction

2005: for $F_1^p (t)$ is a little too stronger than the empirical one,

2006: while the t-dependence of the lattice predictions is too much weaker

2007: than the empirical one.

2008: A little too fast falloff of the CQSM predictions means that it 

2009: slightly overestimates the electromagnetic size of the proton.

2010: On the contrary, the electromagnetic proton size predicted by the LHPC 

2011: simulation is too small as compared with the empirically known size.

2012: As is well known, the Dirac form factor of the neutron is not well 

2013: determined experimentally. Both of the CQSM prediction and the lattice 

2014: QCD predictions are very small in magnitude in qualitatively consistent 

2015: with the empirical information, although the former is slightly

2016: positive, while the latter is slightly negative.

2017: 

2018: \vspace{4mm}

2019: \begin{figure}[htb] \centering

2020: \begin{center}

2021:  \includegraphics[width=16.0cm,height=7.5cm]{F1pn.eps}

2022: \end{center}

2023: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

2024: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

2025: \caption{The prediction of the CQSM for the Dirac form factors

2026: of the proton and the neutron in comparison with the empirical data

2027: \cite{Arnold86} together with the LHPC lattice predictions.

2028: The LHPC lattice predictions are based on their dipole fits

2029: \cite{LHPC04},\cite{LHPC05}.}

2030: \label{fig:F1pn}

2031: \end{figure}%

2032: 

2033: Fig.\ref{fig:F2pn} shows the predictions of the 

2034: CQSM for the Pauli form factors of the proton and the neutron, in 

2035: comparison with the empirical data together with the corresponding 

2036: predictions of the LHPC lattice simulation. (Here, both of the CQSM

2037: predictions and the lattice QCD predictions are normalized to the

2038: observed anomalous magnetic moments of the proton and the neutron

2039: at the zero momentum transfer.)

2040: The solid curves represent the predictions of the CQSM, whereas the

2041: dashed curves show the corresponding lattice predictions.

2042: One can see that the 

2043: predictions of the CQSM reproduce the empirical Pauli form factors

2044: fairly well.

2045: On the other hand, the lattice QCD predicts too slow falloff of the 

2046: Pauli form factors, which means that the magnetic sizes of the nucleon are

2047: largely underestimated by the lattice QCD simulations. The underestimate 

2048: of the nucleon electromagnetic sizes seems to be a general tendency of

2049: the lattice QCD simulations by the LHPC and QCDSF collaborations.

2050: It is not clear yet whether the origin of discrepancy can be traced

2051: back to the fact that these lattice simulations were carried out in

2052: the region with unrealistically heavy pion mass.

2053: 

2054: \vspace{4mm}

2055: \begin{figure}[htb] \centering

2056: \begin{center}

2057:  \includegraphics[width=10.0cm,height=7.5cm]{F2pn.eps}

2058: \end{center}

2059: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

2060: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

2061: \caption{The predictions of the CQSM for the Pauli form factors

2062: of the proton and the neutron in comparison with the empirical data

2063: \cite{Arnold86} together with the LHPC lattice predictions based on

2064: the dipole fits \cite{LHPC04},\cite{LHPC05}.}

2065: \label{fig:F2pn}

2066: \end{figure}%

2067: 

2068: Concerning the genuine generalized form factors with $n \geq 2$,

2069: we have no experimental information yet. Among them, of our

2070: particular interest is the generalized form factor $B_{20}^{u+d}(t)$

2071: appearing in Ji's angular momentum sum rule. We show in 

2072: Fig.\ref{fig:B20t} the prediction of the CQSM for $B_{20}^{u+d}(t)$

2073: obtained with $M = 400 \,\mbox{MeV}$ and $m_\pi = 100 \,\mbox{MeV}$,

2074: in comparison with the corresponding predictions of the LHPC group.

2075: One sees that, for arbitrary value of $t$, $B_{20}^{u+d}(t)$ does not

2076: vanish in the CQSM, which is an indication of the fact that the shapes

2077: of the quark momentum and the total angular momentum distributions

2078: are not completely the same. Still, the magnitude of $B_{20}^{u+d}(t)$

2079: turns out to be very small, which seems qualitatively compatible

2080: with the prediction of the LHPC group, although one should not

2081: forget about large uncertainties in the lattice simulation at the

2082: present level.

2083: %Especially interesting here is

2084: %the value of $B_{20}^{u+d}(t)$ at $t=0$,

2085: %since, if it holds that $B_{20}^{u+d}(0) = 0$, the proportionality of

2086: %the total momentum fraction and the total angular momentum carries

2087: %by the quark fields is maintained.

2088: 

2089: \vspace{4mm}

2090: \begin{figure}[htb] \centering

2091: \begin{center}

2092:  \includegraphics[width=10.0cm,height=7.5cm]{budp.eps}

2093: \end{center}

2094: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

2095: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

2096: \caption{The predictions of the CQSM for the generalized form factor

2097: $B_{20}^{u+d} (t)$ of the nucleon, in comparison with the

2098: corresponding prediction of the lattice QCD by LHPC

2099: collaboration \cite{LHPC05}.}

2100: \label{fig:B20t}

2101: \end{figure}%

2102: 

2103: We are now ready to discuss what we can say about the spin contents of

2104: the nucleon from our investigation on the generalized form factors of

2105: the nucleon.

2106: The quantities of our interest are all obtained from the forward limit of

2107: the generalized form factors, which are defined as the second moments

2108: of the relevant GPDs : 

2109: \begin{eqnarray}

2110:  \langle x \rangle^{u + d} &=& G_{E, 20}^{(I = 0)} (0), \ \ \ \ \ 

2111:  \langle x \rangle^{u - d} \ = \ G_{E, 20}^{(I = 1)} (0), \\

2112:  2 \,J^{u + d} &=& G_{M, 20}^{(I = 0)} (0), \ \ \ \ \ 

2113:  2 \,J^{u - d} \ = \ G_{M, 20}^{(I = 1)} (0) .

2114: \end{eqnarray}

2115: Summarized below are the predictions of the CQSM model for these quantities obtained with $M = 400 \,\mbox{MeV}$ and $m_{\pi} = 100 \,\mbox{MeV}$ :

2116: \begin{eqnarray}

2117:  \langle x \rangle^{u + d} &=& 1.00, \ \ \ \ \ 

2118:  \langle x \rangle^{u - d} = 0.276, \\

2119:  2 J^{u + d} &=& 1.00, \ \ \ \ \ 

2120:  2 J^{u - d} = 0.406 .

2121: \end{eqnarray}

2122: As pointed out before, these second moments of GPDs are generally scale 

2123: dependent. Our viewpoint is that the predictions of the CQSM correspond

2124: to those at the low energy scale where the validity of the model is

2125: ensured. (This energy may typically be characterized by the Pauli-Villars

2126: mass $\Lambda_1 \simeq 600 \,\mbox{MeV}$.) 

2127: We shall take account of the scale 

2128: dependence of the above quantities by solving the QCD evolution

2129: equation at the next-to-leading order (NLO) with the predictions of

2130: the CQSM as the initial conditions \cite{FRS77}--\cite{ABY97}. 

2131: For simplicity, let us assume that, at this low energy 

2132: scale, there is no contribution of gluon fields as well as of the

2133: strange quarks, which dictates that

2134: \begin{equation}

2135:  \langle x \rangle^s = 0.0, \ \ \ 2 \,J^s = 0.0, \ \ \ \ 

2136:  \langle x \rangle^g = 0.0, \ \ \ 2 \,J^g = 0.0 .

2137: \end{equation}

2138: The starting energy of the evolution is taken to be 

2139: $Q_{ini}^2 = 0.30 \,\mbox{GeV}^2 \simeq (550 \,\mbox{MeV})^2$,

2140: because it is favored from the previous successful application of

2141: the model to high energy deep-inelastic-scattering

2142: observables \cite{WK98}--\cite{Wakamatsu03b}.

2143: Taking $N_f = 3$ and $\Lambda_{QCD} = 0.248 \,\mbox{GeV}$,

2144: we find that, at $Q^2 = 4 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$, 

2145: \begin{eqnarray}

2146:  \langle x \rangle^{u + d + s} &=& 0.676, \ \ \ 

2147:  \langle x \rangle^{u - d} = 0.171, \ \ \ 

2148:  \langle x \rangle^g = 0.324, \\

2149:  2 J^{u + d + s} &=& 0.676, \ \ \ 

2150:  2 J^{u - d} = 0.257, \ \ \ \,

2151:  2 J^g = 0.324 .

2152: \end{eqnarray}

2153: One may notice that the values of $\langle x \rangle^{u+d+s}$ and

2154: $2 \,J^{u+d+s}$ at $Q^2 = 4 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$ precisely coincide.

2155: Actually, the equality of these two quantities holds at any energy

2156: scale. The reason is because these two quantities obey exactly the

2157: same evolution equation and because they are equal at the initial

2158: energy scale according to the CQSM \cite{JTH96}.

2159: (We emphasize that the latter is

2160: also the case for the LHPC and QCDSF lattice predictions at least

2161: approximately \cite{LHPC05},\cite{QCDSF04b}.)

2162: In table \ref{tabxandj}, we compare these predictions of the CQSM

2163: with those of the lattice QCD and also with the empirical values for 

2164: $\langle x \rangle^{u + d + s}$ and $\langle x \rangle^{u - d}$ obtained

2165: from the phenomenological PDF fits \cite{MRST2004}.

2166: As one sees, the total momentum

2167: fraction $\langle x \rangle^{u + d + s}$

2168: carried by the quarks decreases rapidly as 

2169: $Q^2$ increases. The evolved value $\langle x \rangle ^{u + d} 

2170: \simeq 0.68$ at $Q^2 = 4 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$ is not extremely far from the

2171: lattice QCD prediction at the same normalization scale,

2172: although it is a little larger than the empirical value

2173: $\langle x \rangle^{u + d + s}_{empirical} \simeq 0.57$. This difference 

2174: may be an indication of the fact that, even at the low energy scale

2175: around $Q^2 \simeq 0.30 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$,

2176: the gluons may carry some portion of the

2177: nucleon momentum. As far as the difference of the momentum fractions

2178: carried by the $u$-quark and the $d$-quark, the CQSM well reproduces

2179: the empirical value $\langle x \rangle^{u - d}_{empirical} \simeq 0.16$

2180: at $Q^2 = 4 \, \mbox{GeV}^2$, whereas the lattice QCD overestimates it

2181: a little.

2182: 

2183: \begin{table}[htbp]

2184: \begin{center}

2185: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

2186: \caption{The predictions of the CQSM for ${\langle x \rangle}^{u+d}$,

2187: ${\langle x \rangle}^{u-d}$, $2 \,J^{u+d}$, and $2 \,J^{u-d}$

2188: in comparison with the predictions of the lattice QCD

2189: simulations \cite{LHPC04},\cite{LHPC05},\cite{QCDSF04b},\cite{QCDSF05}

2190: as well as with the empirical 

2191: information \cite{MRST2004}. \label{tabxandj}}

2192: \vspace{10mm}

2193: \begin{tabular}{cccccc} \hline

2194:  \, & \ \ CQSM (model scale) \ \ & \ \ 

2195:  CQSM \,($Q^2 = 4 \,\mbox{GeV}^2)$ \ \ & 

2196:  \ \ LHPC \ \ & \ \ QCDSF \ \ & \ \ empirical \ \ 

2197:  \\ \hline\hline

2198:  \ ${\langle x \rangle}^{u+d+s}$ \ & 1.000 & 0.676 & 0.61 & 0.59 & 0.57

2199:  \\ \hline

2200:  \ ${\langle x \rangle}^{u-d}$ \ & 0.276 & 0.171 & 0.269 & 0.24 & 0.157

2201:  \\ \hline

2202:  \ $2 \,J^{u+d+s}$ \ & 1.000 & 0.676 & 0.58 & 0.66 & --- 

2203:  \\ \hline

2204:  \ $2 \,J^{u-d}$ \ & 0.406 & 0.257 & 0.93 & 0.82 & --- 

2205:  \\ \hline

2206: \end{tabular}

2207: \end{center}

2208: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

2209: \end{table}

2210: 

2211: Next we turn to the discussion of the total angular momenta

2212: $J^u$ and $J^d$ carried by the quark fields, on which we do not have

2213: any empirical information yet.

2214: One can see that, as far as the total angular momentum fraction 

2215: $J^{u + d + s}$ carried by the quark fields, is concerned, the prediction

2216: of the CQSM is qualitatively consistent with that of the lattice QCD.

2217: However, a big discrepancy is observed for the difference $J^{u - d}$

2218: of the angular momentum carried by the $u$-quark and the $d$-quark.

2219: The cause of this discrepancy can be traced back to that of the isovector

2220: gravitomagnetic moment of the nucleon $G_{M, 20}^{(I = 1)} (0)$,

2221: which we have already discussed.

2222: Fairly small prediction of the CQSM for $J^{u - d}$ also appears to be 

2223: incompatible with the semi-theoretical (or semi-phenomenological)

2224: estimate carried out in \cite{GPV01} with partial use of the predictions

2225: of the CQSM.

2226: As we shall discuss below, however, their estimate for

2227: $J^u$ and $J^d$ shown in Table 4 and Table 5 of \cite{GPV01}

2228: should be taken with care. In fact, it was

2229: obtained based on the valence-like approximation, i.e. by neglecting the

2230: sizable Dirac sea contributions to $E^u (x, 0, 0)$ and $E^d (x, 0, 0)$.

2231: To be more concrete, they start with a simple guess for these

2232: distributions functions as 

2233: \begin{eqnarray}

2234:  E^u (x, 0, 0) &=& \frac{1}{2} \,\kappa^u \,f^{u_{val}} (x), \\

2235:  E^d (x, 0, 0) &=& \ \ \kappa^d \,f^{d_{val}} (x) ,

2236: \end{eqnarray}

2237: with 

2238: \begin{eqnarray}

2239:  \kappa^u &=& 2 \,\kappa^p + \kappa^u = \ 1.673, \\

2240:  \kappa^d &=& \kappa^p + 2 \,\kappa^u = - \,2.033 .

2241: \end{eqnarray}

2242: This parameterization trivially satisfies the 1st moment sum rule

2243: \begin{equation}

2244:  \int_{-1}^1 \,E^q (x, 0, 0) \,d x = \kappa^q .

2245: \end{equation}

2246: On the other hand, by using the 2nd moment sum rule or Ji's angular 

2247: momentum sum rule, they obtain

2248: \begin{eqnarray}

2249:  J^u &=& \frac{1}{2} \,\left[\, {\langle x \rangle}^u + 

2250:  \kappa^u {\langle x \rangle}^{u_{val}} \right], \label{eq:Juval} \\

2251:  J^d &=& \frac{1}{2} \,\left[\, {\langle x \rangle}^d + 

2252:  \kappa^d {\langle x \rangle}^{d_{val}} \right] , \label{eq:Jdval}

2253: \end{eqnarray}

2254: where ${\langle x \rangle}^q$ is the momentum fraction carried by the

2255: quark of flavor $q$, while ${\langle x \rangle}^{q_{val}}$ is the

2256: corresponding contribution of the valence 

2257: quark in the sense of parton model.

2258: Using the MRST98 parameterization for the unpolarized

2259: PDFs \cite{MRST98}, they could thus obtain at $Q^2 \simeq 1 \,

2260: \mbox{GeV}^2$

2261: \begin{equation}

2262:  {\langle x \rangle}^{u_{val}} \simeq 0.34, \ \ \ 

2263:  {\langle x \rangle}^u \simeq 0.40, \ \ \ 

2264:  2 \,J^u \simeq 0.69 , \label{eq:xJu}

2265: \end{equation}

2266: and 

2267: \begin{equation}

2268:  {\langle x \rangle}^{d_{val}} \simeq 0.14, \ \ \ 

2269:  {\langle x \rangle}^d \simeq 0.22, \ \ \ 

2270:  2 \,J^d \simeq -0.07 , \label{eq:xJd}

2271: \end{equation}

2272: which appears to be qualitatively consistent with the lattice

2273: predictions.

2274: (Here, we have discarded the small contribution of the $s$-quark, for 

2275: simplicity.) However, after this simple estimate for $J^u$ and $J^d$,

2276: they next try to take account of the sizable Dirac sea contribution to

2277: the distributions $E^u (x, 0, 0)$ and $E^d (x, 0, 0)$.

2278: As already shown in our exact model calculation,

2279: and as shown in Fig.8 of \cite{GPV01},

2280: which is obtained based on the

2281: derivative-expansions-type approximation within the 

2282: CQSM, the Dirac sea contribution to $E^{u - d} (x, 0, 0)$ has a narrow

2283: and positive peak around $x \simeq 0$. To simulate this narrowly peaked 

2284: behavior of the Dirac-sea contribution, they propose to parameterize it

2285: by a $\delta$ function in $x$. The new and improved parameterization for

2286: $E^u (x, 0, 0)$ and $E^d (x, 0, 0)$ are then given as  

2287: \begin{eqnarray}

2288:  E^u (x, 0, 0) &=& A^u \,f^{u_{val}} (x) + B^u \,\delta (x) , \\

2289:  E^d (x, 0, 0) &=& A^d \,f^{d_{val}} (x) + B^d \,\delta (x) .

2290: \end{eqnarray}

2291: From the 1st and 2nd sum rules for $E^u (x, 0, 0)$ and $E^d (x, 0, 0)$, 

2292: they obtain

2293: \begin{eqnarray}

2294:  A^u &=& \frac{2 \,J^u - {\langle x \rangle}^u}

2295:  {{\langle x \rangle}^{u_{val}}}, \\ \label{eq:Au}

2296:  A^d &=& \frac{2 \,J^d - {\langle x \rangle}^d}

2297:  {{\langle x \rangle}^{d_{val}}}, \\

2298:  B^u &=& 2 \,\left[\, \frac{1}{2} \,\kappa^u \ - \ 

2299:  \frac{2 \,J^u - {\langle x \rangle}^u}

2300:  {{\langle x \rangle}^{u_{val}}} \,\right], \\

2301:  B^d &=& \kappa^d - \frac{2 J^d - {\langle x \rangle}^d}

2302:  {{\langle x \rangle}^{d_{val}}} . \label{eq:Bd}

2303: \end{eqnarray}

2304: As pointed out in \cite{GPV01}, the total angular momentum carried by

2305: $u$- and $d$-quarks, $J^u$ and $J^d$, now enter as fit parameters in the

2306: parameterization of $E^u (x, 0, 0)$ and $E^d (x, 0, 0)$.

2307: If so, there is no compelling reason to believe that they are close to 

2308: the estimate given in (\ref{eq:Juval}) and (\ref{eq:Jdval}),

2309: obtained within the valence-type 

2310: parameterization for $E^u (x, 0, 0)$ and $E^d (x, 0, 0)$.

2311: In fact, if one puts the estimate given in (\ref{eq:xJu}) and

2312: (\ref{eq:xJd}) into the above relations (\ref{eq:Au}) 

2313: $\sim$ (\ref{eq:Bd}), one obtains

2314: \begin{equation}

2315:  A^u \simeq 0.853, \ \ \ 

2316:  A^d \simeq -2.071, \ \ \ 

2317:  B^u \simeq -0.033, \ \ \ 

2318:  B^d \simeq 0.038 ,

2319: \end{equation}

2320: which dictates that the coefficients of the $\delta$ functions are small

2321: or nearly zero. This is only natural, since the used value of $J^u$ and

2322: $J^d$ are just estimated based on the  valence-type parameterization for

2323: $E^u (x, 0, 0)$ and $E^d (x, 0, 0)$.

2324: Conversely speaking, the values of $J^u$ and $J^d$ 

2325: quoted in Table 4 and table 5 of \cite{GPV01} need a revision, because

2326: they are incompatible with the existence of sharp peak of 

2327: $E^{u - d} (x, 0, 0)$ with sizable positive magnitude around

2328: $x \simeq 0$ observed in Fig.8 of the same paper. 

2329: The inseparable relation between the magnitude of $J^u - J^d$ and the 

2330: sharp of $E^{u - d} (x, 0, 0)$ can be  made more transparent by slightly 

2331: modifying their schematic analysis.

2332: Instead of $E^{u - d} (x, 0, 0)$, we chose here to parameterize

2333: $E_M^{u - d} (x, 0, 0) \equiv H^{u - d} (x, 0, 0) + E^{u - d} (x, 0, 0)$ 

2334: as 

2335: \begin{equation}

2336:  E_M^{u - d} (x, 0, 0) \ = \ c_1 \,

2337:  \left[\,f^{u_{val}} (x) - f^{d_{val}} (x) \,\right]

2338:  \ + \ c_2 \,\delta (x) .

2339: \end{equation}

2340: Here the $\delta$ function term is thought to simulate the sizable sharp 

2341: peak of $E_M^{u - d} (x, 0, 0)$ predicted by the CQSM. Actually, it need 

2342: not be a $\delta$ function. It can be  an any function $g$ of $x$, 

2343: as far as it satisfies the following two conditions :

2344: 

2345: \begin{itemize}

2346: \item $g(x)$ is an even function of $x$ at least approximately,

2347: \item the integral of $g (x)$ over $x$ gives a (positive) number $c_2$.

2348: \end{itemize}

2349: 

2350: Assuming that these conditions are satisfied (as is the case for the 

2351: predictions of the CQSM), the 1st and the 2nd moment sum rule of 

2352: $E^{u - d}_M (x, 0, 0)$ leads to the identities :

2353: \begin{eqnarray}

2354:  1 + \kappa^u - \kappa^d &=& \int_{-1}^1 E_M^{u - d} (x, 0, 0) \,d x 

2355:  \ = \ c_1 \ + \ c_2 , \\

2356:  2 \,(J^u - J^d) &=& \int_{-1}^1 \,E_M^{u - d} (x, 0, 0) \,d x

2357:  \ = \ c_1 \,\left(\, \langle x \rangle^{u_{val}} - 

2358:  \langle x \rangle^{d_{val}} \,\right) .

2359: \end{eqnarray}

2360: Combining these relations, we have

2361: \begin{equation}

2362:  2 \,(J^u - J^d) = \frac{1 + \kappa^u - \kappa^d}{1 + r} \,

2363:  \left(\,\langle x \rangle^{u_{val}} - 

2364:  \langle x \rangle^{d_{val}} \,\right) . \label{eq:Judm}

2365: \end{equation}

2366: Here we have introduced a parameter $r \equiv c_2 / c_1$.

2367: This relation shows that, except for one parameter $r$, the difference 

2368: of the total angular momenta, carried by the $u$- and $d$-quarks,

2369: $J^u - J^d$, is given by $\kappa^u, \kappa^d, \langle x 

2370: \rangle^{u_{val}}$ and $\langle x \rangle^{d_{val}}$, which are all

2371: observables. What is the physical meaning of the parameter $r$, then ?

2372: To understand it, 

2373: we first recall that the quantity $E_M^{u - d} (x, 0, 0)$ represents the 

2374: {\it distribution of the isovector magnetic moment} of the nucleon

2375: {\it in Feynman $x$-space} not in ordinary coordinate space.

2376: The contribution of its valence-like 

2377: distribution to the magnetic moment gives $c_1$, whereas that of its 

2378: sea-like distribution gives $c_2$. The CQSM indicates that they are of

2379: approximately equal magnitude, i.e. $c_1 \simeq c_2$, which means that 

2380: $r \simeq 1$. On the other hand, roughly speaking, the lattice

2381: simulations carried out in the heavy pion region with neglect of the

2382: disconnected diagrams correspond to $r \simeq 0$.

2383: 

2384: \begin{table}[htbp]

2385: \begin{center}

2386: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

2387: \caption{The value of $2 \,(J^u - J^d)$ as a functions of the ratio

2388: of the parameters $c_2$ and $c_1$ defined in (\ref{eq:Judm}).

2389: \label{tabju-jd}}

2390: \vspace{10mm}

2391: \begin{tabular}{cc} \hline

2392:  \ \ \ \ \ \ $r \equiv c_2 / c_1$ \ \ \ \ \ \ & 

2393:  \ \ \ \ \ \ $2 \,(J^u - J^d)$ \ \ \ \ \ \ 

2394:  \\ \hline\hline

2395:  0 & 0.941 \\ \hline

2396:  0.5 & 0.627 \\ \hline

2397:  1 & 0.471 \\ \hline

2398: \end{tabular}

2399: \end{center}

2400: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

2401: \end{table}

2402: 

2403: Table \ref{tabju-jd} show the values of $2 (J^u - J^d)$ obtained

2404: from (\ref{eq:Judm}) for several typical values of the ratio $r$.

2405: The quantity $\langle x \rangle^{u_{val}} - \langle x \rangle^{d_{val}}$

2406: are actually scale dependent. For simplicity, here we have used the 

2407: empirical value $\langle x \rangle^{u_{val}} - \langle x 

2408: \rangle^{d_{val}} \simeq 0.2$ corresponding to $Q^2 = 1 \,

2409: \mbox{GeV}^2$ quoted in \cite{GPV01}.

2410: One sees that the two cases, i.e. $r = 0$ case and $r = 1$ case,

2411: lead to a factor of two 

2412: difference for $J^u - J^d$. What is indicated by this observation is an 

2413: inseparable connection between the {\it angular momentum carried by the

2414: quark fields} in the nucleon and the magnetic moment of the nucleon,

2415: or more precisely the {\it distribution of magnetic moments in

2416: Feynman $x$-space}.

2417: As a matter of course, the relation between the quark angular momentum

2418: and the nucleon magnetic moment could be anticipated 

2419: from more general ground of Ji's angular momentum sum rule. 

2420: However, an advantage of our explicit model analysis is that we can get 

2421: more deep and concrete insight into the possible behavior of the

2422: relevant distribution $E^{u - d} (x, 0, 0)$,

2423: on which we have no experimental information yet.

2424: 

2425: Returning to the isoscalar (flavor-singlet) combination or the net quark 

2426: contribution to the total angular momentum of the nucleon, $J^{u+d+s}$, 

2427: we have pointed out that the prediction of the CQSM for it is not so far 

2428: from that of the lattice QCD. However, both of LHPC and QCDSF collaborations also estimated the net orbital angular momentum carried by the quark

2429: fields, thereby being led to the conclusion that the {\it total orbital

2430: angular momentum of the quarks} is very {\it small} or consistent

2431: with {\it zero}.

2432: As pointed out in our recent paper, this conclusion contradicts not only

2433: the prediction of the CQSM but also the famous EMC observation.

2434: Although the possible reason of this discrepancy 

2435: was already pointed out in that paper \cite{Wakamatsu05},

2436: here we discuss it in more detail,

2437: especially by taking care of the scale dependencies of the relevant 

2438: observables.

2439: The quark orbital angular momentum can be obtained by subtracting the 

2440: intrinsic quark spin term from the total quark angular momentum 

2441: $J^{u+d}$ as

2442: \begin{equation}

2443:  L^{u + d} = J^{u + d} - \frac{1}{2} \,\Delta \Sigma^{u + d} ,

2444: \end{equation}

2445: where $J^{u + d}$ is given by

2446: \begin{equation}

2447:  J^{u + d} = \frac{1}{2} \,\left( \,

2448:  \langle x \rangle^{u + d} + B_{20}^{u + d} (0) \right) ,

2449: \end{equation}

2450: Using the results of the dipole fits for the generalized form

2451: factors, the LHPC collaboration obtain

2452: \begin{eqnarray}

2453:  \langle x \rangle^{u+d} &=& A_{20}^{u+d} (0) \ = \ 0.666 \pm 0.009, \\

2454:  B_{20}^u (0) &=& 0.29 \pm 0.04, \ \ \ 

2455:  B_{20}^d (0) \ = \ - \,0.38 \pm 0.02, \\

2456:  \Delta \Sigma^u &=& 0.860 \pm 0.069, \ \ \ 

2457:  \Delta \Sigma^d \ = \ - \,0.171 \pm 0.043,

2458: \end{eqnarray}

2459: which in turn gives

2460: \begin{equation}

2461:  L^u \ = \ - \,0.088 \pm 0.019, \ \ \ 

2462:  L^d \ = \ 0.036 \pm 0.013 ,

2463: \end{equation}

2464: or

2465: \begin{equation}

2466:  L^{u+d} \ = \ - \,0.052 \pm 0.019 .

2467: \end{equation}

2468: On the other hand, the QCDSF collaboration obtain

2469: \begin{eqnarray}

2470:  \langle x \rangle^{u} &=& A_{20}^{u} (0) \ = \ 0.400 \pm 0.022, \ \ \

2471:  \langle x \rangle^{d} \ = \ A_{20}^{d} (0) \ = \ 0.147 \pm 0.011, \\

2472:  B_{20}^u (0) &=& 0.334 \pm 0.113, \ \ \ 

2473:  B_{20}^d (0) \ = \ - \,0.232 \pm 0.077, \\

2474:  \Delta \Sigma^u &=& 0.84 \pm 0.02, \ \ \ 

2475:  \Delta \Sigma^d \ = \ - \,0.24 \pm 0.02,

2476: \end{eqnarray}

2477: which gives

2478: \begin{equation}

2479:  L^{u+d} \ = \ 0.03 \pm 0.07 .

2480: \end{equation}

2481: As one sees, a common conclusion of the two groups is that the total 

2482: orbital angular momentum of quarks is very small or consistent

2483: with zero.

2484: 

2485: Since these lattice predictions corresponds to the energy scale of 

2486: $Q^2 = 4 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$ in the $\overline{MS}$ scheme, we try to

2487: evolve the corresponding predictions of the CQSM to the same energy.

2488: To know the scale dependence of the total quark orbital angular

2489: momentum $L^Q$ with $Q$ denoting the sum of all quark flavors,

2490: we need to know the scale dependence of the

2491: total quark angular momentum $J^Q$ and that of the total quark

2492: longitudinal polarization $\Delta \Sigma^Q$.

2493: We recall again the fact that the angular momentum fractions 

2494: carried by the quark and the gluon field, i.e. $J^Q$ and $J^g$,

2495: obey exactly the same evolution equation as the total momentum

2496: fractions carried by the quark and gluon fields

2497: $\langle x \rangle^Q$ and $\langle x \rangle^g$ \cite{JTH96}.

2498: The evolution equation of $\Delta \Sigma^Q$,

2499: which is coupled with the evolution of the gluon polarization, is

2500: also well known \cite{GRSV96}.

2501: As initial conditions of the evolution, we use the predictions of the 

2502: CQSM (the flavor SU(2) version) :

2503: \begin{eqnarray}

2504:  2 J^{u + d} = 1.0,

2505: % \mbox{at} \ \ Q^2_{ini} = 0.30 \,\mbox{GeV}^2 .

2506: \end{eqnarray}

2507: supplemented with the assumption

2508: \begin{eqnarray}

2509:  \ \ 2 \,J^s = 0.0, \ \ \ \Delta \Sigma^s = 0.0, \ \ \ \Delta g = 0.0,

2510: % \mbox{at} \ \ Q^2_{ini} = 0.30 \,\mbox{GeV}^2 .

2511: \end{eqnarray}

2512: at $Q^2_{ini} = 0.30 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$. (There also exists the

2513: flavor SU(3) version of the CQSM \cite{Wakamatsu03a},\cite{Wakamatsu03b}.

2514: It predicts that $\Delta \Sigma^s$

2515: is a negative quantity of the order of $(5 \sim 10) \,\%$.

2516: However, the flavor singlet combination or the net quark contribution

2517: to the total quark longitudinal polarization $\Delta \Sigma^Q$

2518: takes almost the same value in both version

2519: of the CQSM, so that the following discussion will receive no

2520: modification.)

2521: 

2522: \vspace{3mm}

2523: \begin{figure}[htb] \centering

2524: \begin{center}

2525:  \includegraphics[width=16.0cm,height=7.0cm]{JDelSigevol.eps}

2526: \end{center}

2527: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

2528: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

2529: \caption{The left panel shows the scale dependencies of the

2530: quark and gluon total angular momenta $J^Q$ and $J^g$ obtained by

2531: solving the evolution equation at the NLO with the predictions of

2532: the CQSM as initial conditions, while the right panel

2533: shows the scale dependence of $\Delta \Sigma^Q$ and $\Delta g$.}

2534: \label{fig:JDelSigevol}

2535: \end{figure}%

2536: 

2537: The left panel of Fig.\ref{fig:JDelSigevol}

2538: shows the scale dependence of $J^Q$ obtained by solving the

2539: evolution equation at the NLO in the $\overline{M S}$ 

2540: scheme. (Here we set $N_c = 3$ and $\Lambda_{QCD} = 0.248 \,\mbox{GeV}$.)

2541: One observers that, especially at low energy scales, $J^Q$ is a

2542: rapidly decreasing function, while $J^g$ is a rapidly increasing function

2543: of $Q^2$.

2544: The right panel of Fig.\ref{fig:JDelSigevol} shows the scale dependence

2545: of $\Delta \Sigma^Q$ and $\Delta g$ obtained by solving the NLO

2546: evolution equation in the same renormalization scheme \cite{GRSV96}.

2547: As one sees, $\Delta g$ is a rapidly-increasing function of $Q^2$.

2548: On the other hand, $\Delta \Sigma^{u+d+s}$ has a fairly weak scale

2549: dependence. Its scale dependence is restricted to the very low

2550: energy region below $Q^2 \leq 0.6\,\mbox{GeV}^2$ and beyond that scale

2551: it changes very slowly. (We recall that, at the leading order (LO),

2552: $\Delta \Sigma^Q$ in the $\overline{MS}$ is exactly scale

2553: independent.

2554: One may also remember the fact that $\Delta \Sigma^Q$ in the

2555: chiral-invariant renormalization scheme is scale independent by

2556: definition \cite{LSS2000}--\cite{ABFS97}.) 

2557: Now, combining the results for the scale dependencies

2558: of $J^Q, J^g, \Delta \Sigma^Q$, and $\Delta g$, one can

2559: predict the scale dependencies of $L^Q$ and $L^g$ at the NLO

2560: from

2561: \begin{eqnarray}

2562:  L^Q &=& J^Q - \frac{1}{2} \,\Delta \Sigma^Q, \\

2563:  L^g &=& J^g - \Delta g .

2564: \end{eqnarray}

2565: Fig \ref{fig:Lqgevol} shows the scale dependencies of quark and

2566: gluon orbital angular momenta obtained in this manner.

2567: One sees that the total quark orbital angular momentum is a rapidly

2568: decreasing functions of the energy scale, especially at the low energy

2569: scales. Since the longitudinal quark polarization is only weakly scale

2570: dependent, this feature comes from the scale dependence of

2571: the total quark angular momentum, which has the same scale

2572: dependence as the total quark momentum fraction. One also sees

2573: that the gluon orbital angular momentum is a decreasing

2574: function of the energy scale.

2575: 

2576: 

2577: \vspace{6mm}

2578: \begin{figure}[htb] \centering

2579: \begin{center}

2580:  \includegraphics[width=9.0cm,height=7.0cm]{Lqgevol.eps}

2581: \end{center}

2582: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

2583: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

2584: \caption{The scale dependencies of the quark and gluon orbital

2585: angular momenta $L^Q$ and $L^g$ at the NLO obtained with

2586: combined use of the predictions of the CQSM and the QCD evolution

2587: equations at the NLO.}

2588: \label{fig:Lqgevol}

2589: \end{figure}%

2590: 

2591: For the sake of comparison with the lattice QCD predictions

2592: corresponding the the energy scale of $Q^2 = 4 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$,

2593: we summarize in Table \ref{tabspincontents} the predictions of

2594: the CQSM for the nucleon spin contents at the same energy scale.

2595: One confirms that the total quark orbital angular momentum is a rapidly

2596: decreasing function of the energy scale and 

2597: its value at $Q^2 = 4 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$ is nearly half of that at the

2598: low energy model scale around $Q_{ini}^2 = 0.30 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$.

2599: Nonetheless, it still bears a sizable amount of the total nucleon spin

2600: even at the scale $Q^2 = 4 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$, in contrast to the

2601: lattice predictions. 

2602: We point out that, after taking account of the scale dependence, the 

2603: predictions for $J^Q$ are not so different between the CQSM and the 

2604: lattice QCD. What is remarkably different is the predictions of the two 

2605: theories for the net longitudinal quark polarization or the contribution 

2606: of intrinsic quark spin. It is clear that the lattice QCD simulations by 

2607: the LHPC and the QCDSF collaborations for $\Delta \Sigma^Q$ 

2608: considerably overestimate the empirically known value of 

2609: $\Delta \Sigma^Q$, which is known to be quite small as  

2610: \begin{equation}

2611:  \Delta \Sigma^Q_{empirical} = (0.2 \sim 0.35),

2612: \end{equation}

2613: while the prediction of the CQSM is qualitatively consistent with this 

2614: empirical information. 

2615: A plausible reason why the lattice simulations

2616: by the LHPC and the QCDSF collaboration predicts fairly large 

2617: $\Delta \Sigma^Q$ around $0.6$ was pointed out in \cite{WT05}.

2618: In that paper, we investigated the pion mass dependence of

2619: $\Delta \Sigma^Q$ within the framework of the CQSM and found that

2620: it is very sensitive to the variation of $m_{\pi}$, especially in the

2621: region close to the chiral limit $m_{\pi} = 0$.

2622: (The magnitude of $\Delta \Sigma^Q$ decreases rapidly as $m_\pi$

2623: approaches $0$.)

2624: This indicates that the lattice estimates carried out in 

2625: the heavy pion region around $m_{\pi} = (700 \sim 900) \,\mbox{MeV}$ may

2626: not give reliable prediction for the particular observable

2627: $\Delta \Sigma^Q$. As a consequence,

2628: their conclusion that the orbital angular momentum carried 

2629: by the quark fields in the nucleon is negligible, must also be taken

2630: with care. It may be justified in the heavy pion world, but whether

2631: it is also the case in our chiral world is a different question,

2632: which should be answered by the lattice QCD studies in the future.

2633: 

2634: Also noteworthy is the fact that the large values of

2635: $\Delta \Sigma^{u+d}$ obtained by the LHPC and QCDSF lattice

2636: collaborations seem to contradict the results of earlier lattice QCD

2637: studies \cite{MDLMM00}--\cite{DLL95}, which predict fairly small

2638: $\Delta \Sigma^Q$ around $(0.2 \sim 0.3)$.

2639: Among them, Mathur et. al. \cite{MDLMM00} also estimated the total

2640: quark angular momentum $J^Q$ from the quark energy-momentum tensor

2641: form factors on the lattice with the quenched approximation,

2642: and deduced that the quark orbital angular momentum carries about

2643: $34 \,\%$

2644: of the total proton spin, which is compatible or even dominant

2645: over the contribution of intrinsic quark spin around $26 \,\%$

2646: obtained by their simulation.

2647: 

2648: \begin{table}[htbp]

2649: \begin{center}

2650: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

2651: \caption{The predictions of the CQSM for the spin contents

2652: of the nucleon in comparison with the corresponding predictions of

2653: the LHPC and QCDSF lattice QCD simulations \cite{LHPC05},\cite{QCDSF04b}.

2654: \label{tabspincontents}}

2655: \vspace{10mm}

2656: \begin{tabular}{ccccc} \hline

2657:  \, & \ \ CQSM (model scale) \ \ & \ \ 

2658:  CQSM \,($Q^2 = 4 \,\mbox{GeV}^2)$ \ \ & 

2659:  \ \ LHPC \ \ & \ \ QCDSF \ \ \\ \hline\hline

2660:  \ $ 2 \,J^{u+d+s}$ \ & 1.000 & 0.676 & 0.56 & 0.66

2661:  \\ \hline

2662:  \ $\Delta \Sigma^{u+d+s}$ \ & 0.350 & 0.318 & 0.69 & 0.60

2663:  \\ \hline

2664:  \ $2 \,L^{u+d+s}$ \ & 0.650 & 0.358 & -0.11 & 0.06

2665:  \\ \hline

2666: \end{tabular}

2667: \end{center}

2668: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

2669: \end{table}

2670: 

2671: So far, we have given several interesting theoretical predictions

2672: on the basis of an effective theory of QCD, i.e. the CQSM.

2673: Although we believe that the reliability of these predictions

2674: is guaranteed by the phenomenological success of the CQSM achieved

2675: in the nucleon structure function physics, it would be nicer if

2676: one can extract some predictions, which do not depend on a specific

2677: model of the nucleon. It is in fact possible, if one accepts the

2678: following two theoretical postulates. They are

2679: \begin{itemize}

2680:  \item Ji's angular momentum sum rule \ : \ 

2681:  $J^{Q} = \frac{1}{2} \,[ \langle x \rangle^{Q} + 

2682:  B_{20}^{Q} (0) ]$ ,

2683:  \item absence of the {\it net quark contribution} to the

2684:  {\it anomalous gravitomagnetic moment} of the nucleon \ : \

2685:  $B_{20}^{Q} (0) = 0$ .

2686: \end{itemize}

2687: It is reasonable to accept the first postulate. Otherwise, we would 

2688: lose a only clue to experimentally access the quark angular momentum in

2689: the nucleon. What is crucial in the following argument is therefore

2690: the second postulate. As already mentioned, the identity

2691: $B_{20}^Q (0) = 0$, that holds within the CQSM, just follows from the

2692: total momentum and the total angular momentum sum rules, both of

2693: which are saturated by the quark fields alone in this effective quark

2694: theory. It can therefore be an artifact of the model.

2695: However, an interesting observation is that the smallness of

2696: $B_{20}^Q (0)$ is also the predictions of the LHPC and the QCDSF

2697: lattice QCD simulations, which take account of full quark-gluon dynamics.

2698: Naturally, one should not forget about large uncertainties in the

2699: lattice simulations at the present stage. One should also worry about

2700: the $m_\pi$-dependence of $B_{20}^Q (0)$, although we conjecture from

2701: our analyses in the CQSM a weak $m_\pi$-dependence of this quantity.

2702: 

2703: %It is in fact possible, if one accepts only one theoretical postulate,

2704: %i.e. the {\it absence of the net quark contribution to the

2705: %gravitomagnetic moment of the nucleon}, indicated by the LHPC and

2706: %the QCDSF collaborations.

2707: 

2708: Here, we shall proceed by assuming that $B_{20}^Q (0)$ vanishes

2709: exactly or at least very small. As already pointed out, the identity

2710: $B_{20}^Q (0)$ leads to remarkable relations, i.e. the proportionality

2711: of the total momentum and total angular momentum carried by the quark

2712: fields and also by the gluon fields as

2713: \begin{equation}

2714:  J^Q = \frac{1}{2} \,\langle x \rangle^Q, \ \ \ 

2715:  J^g = \frac{1}{2} \,\langle x \rangle^g .

2716: \end{equation}

2717: An important fact here is that the quark and gluon momentum

2718: fractions, i.e. $\langle x \rangle^Q$ and $\langle x \rangle^g$

2719: are empirically known with fairly good precision.

2720: For instance, the two popular PDF fits, i.e. MRST2004 and CTEQ5,

2721: give almost the same answer for $\langle x \rangle^Q$ and

2722: $\langle x \rangle^g$ at least within the energy range

2723: $Q^2 \leq 10 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$. 

2724: There also exist phenomenological fits for the longitudinally

2725: polarized PDFs, which contains the information on $\Delta \Sigma^Q$

2726: and $\Delta g$, although with larger uncertainties compared with

2727: the unpolarized case. These phenomenological PDFs can therefore be used

2728: for estimating the orbital angular momenta carries by the quark

2729: fields and the gluon fields through the relations :

2730: \begin{eqnarray}

2731:  L^Q &=& J^Q - \frac{1}{2} \,\Delta \Sigma^Q, \\

2732:  L^g &=& J^g - \Delta g .

2733: \end{eqnarray}

2734: The values of $L^Q$ and $L^g$ at $Q^2 = 4 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$ estimated

2735: in this way are shown in Table.\ref{fig:modelindep}. Here, we use

2736: MRST2004 PDF fit to estimate $J^Q$ and $J^g$ \cite{MRST2004}.

2737: On the other hand,

2738: $\Delta \Sigma^Q$ and $\Delta g$ are estimated by using three

2739: independent PDF fits, i.e. LSS2005, DNS2005, and GRSV2000

2740: \cite{LSS2005},\cite{DNS2005},\cite{GRSV2000}.

2741: Here, all of the three independent fits we are using correspond

2742: to the $\overline{\rm MS}$ regularization scheme.

2743: As one sees, there are sizable uncertainties for the phenomenological

2744: values of $\Delta \Sigma^Q$ and $\Delta g$.

2745: Still, a common conclusion obtained from all these PDF fits is a

2746: {\it very important role of the quark orbital angular momentum}.

2747: The table \ref{fig:modelindep} shows, at the least, that the magnitude

2748: of the quark orbital angular momentum is comparable with that of

2749: the intrinsic quark spin even at the scale of $Q^2 = 4 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$.

2750: Since the quark orbital angular momentum is a rapidly decreasing

2751: function of the energy scale, while the scale dependence of

2752: $\Delta \Sigma^Q$ is very weak, this means that the former is

2753: dominant over the latter at the scale below $Q^2 \simeq 1 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$

2754: where any low energy models are supposed to hold.

2755: Naturally, the whole argument here is crucially dependent on one

2756: theoretical postulate that $B_{20}^Q (0) \simeq 0$.

2757: Although it is supported by both of the LHPC and QCDSF lattice

2758: simulations, efforts to improve the accuracy of the lattice prediction

2759: should be continued, in consideration of its extremely important

2760: role in determining the quark-gluon contents of the nucleon spin.

2761: Also highly desirable is an analytical proof of it within the

2762: framework of (nonperturbative) QCD.

2763: 

2764: 

2765: \begin{table}[htbp]

2766: \begin{center}

2767: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.00}

2768: \caption{The model independent predictions of the spin

2769: contents of the nucleon at $Q^2 = 4 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$, based

2770: only upon one theoretical postulate $B_{20}^Q (0) = 0$.

2771: Here, all of the three independent fits for the longitudinally

2772: polarized PDFs correspond to the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme.

2773: \label{fig:modelindep}}

2774: \vspace{10mm}

2775: \begin{tabular}{cc|cc|cc} \hline

2776:  \multicolumn{2}{c|}{MRST2004} & 

2777:  \multicolumn{2}{c|}{LSS2005} & 

2778:  \multicolumn{2}{c}{MRST2004 + LSS2005} \\ \hline

2779:  \ \ \ \ \ $J^Q$ \ \ \ & \ \ \ $J^g$ \ \ \ & \ \ \ $\Delta \Sigma$ \ \ \ &

2780:  \ \ \ $\Delta g$ \ \ \ & 

2781:  \ \ \ \ \ $L^Q$ \ \ \ & \ \ \ $L^g$ \ \ \ \\ \hline

2782:  0.289 & 0.211 & 0.198 & 0.368 & 0.190 & -0.157 \\ \hline

2783:  \ \\ \hline

2784:  \multicolumn{2}{c|}{MRST2004} & 

2785:  \multicolumn{2}{c|}{DNS2005} & 

2786:  \multicolumn{2}{c}{MRST2004 + DNS2005} \\ \hline

2787:  \ \ \ \ \ $J^Q$ \ \ \ & \ \ \ $J^g$ \ \ \ & \ \ \ $\Delta \Sigma$ \ \ \ &

2788:  \ \ \ $\Delta g$ \ \ \ & 

2789:  \ \ \ \ \ $L^Q$ \ \ \ & \ \ \ $L^g$ \ \ \ \\ \hline

2790:  0.289 & 0.211 & 0.313 & 0.477 & 0.133 & -0.266 \\ \hline

2791:  \ \\ \hline

2792:  \multicolumn{2}{c|}{MRST2004} & 

2793:  \multicolumn{2}{c|}{GRSV2000} & 

2794:  \multicolumn{2}{c}{MRST2004 + GRSV2000} \\ \hline

2795:  \ \ \ \ \ $J^Q$ \ \ \ & \ \ \ $J^g$ \ \ \ & \ \ \ $\Delta \Sigma$ \ \ \ &

2796:  \ \ \ $\Delta g$ \ \ \ & 

2797:  \ \ \ \ \ $L^Q$ \ \ \ & \ \ \ $L^g$ \ \ \ \\ \hline

2798:  0.289 & 0.211 & 0.137 & 0.623 & 0.221 & -0.412 \\ \hline

2799: \end{tabular}

2800: \end{center}

2801: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.20}

2802: \end{table}

2803: 

2804: 

2805: 

2806: \section{Concluding remarks}

2807: 

2808:  In this paper, we have investigated the generalized form factors of the 

2809: nucleon, which will be extracted through near-future measurements of the 

2810: generalized parton distribution functions, within the framework of the 

2811: CQSM. A particular emphasis is put on the pion mass dependence as well

2812: as the scale dependence of the model predictions, which we

2813: compare with the corresponding predictions of the lattice QCD

2814: by the LHPC and the QCDSF collaborations carried out in the heavy

2815: pion regime around $m_{\pi} \simeq (700 \sim 900) \,\mbox{MeV}$.

2816: The generalized form factors contain the ordinary electromagnetic

2817: form factors of the nucleon such as the Dirac and Pauli form factors

2818: of the proton and the neutron.

2819: We have shown that the CQSM with good chiral symmetry reproduces well

2820: the general behaviors of the observed electromagnetic form factors,

2821: while the lattice simulations by the above two groups have a tendency

2822: to underestimate the electromagnetic sizes of the nucleon.

2823: Undoubtedly, this cannot be unrelated to the fact that the above two

2824: lattice simulations were performed with unrealistically heavy pion

2825: mass.

2826: 

2827: We have also tried to figure out the underlying spin contents of the

2828: nucleon through the analysis of the gravitoelectric and 

2829: gravitomagnetic form factors of the nucleon, by taking care of the pion

2830: mass despondencies as well as of the scale dependencies of the

2831: relevant quantities. After taking account of the scale dependencies by

2832: means of the QCD evolution equations at the NLO in the $\overline{MS}$

2833: scheme, the CQSM predicts, at $Q^2 = 4 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$, that

2834: $2 \,J^Q \simeq 0.68, \Delta \Sigma^Q \simeq 0.32$, and

2835: $2 \,L^Q \simeq 0.36$, which means that the quark

2836: orbital angular momentum carries sizable amount of total nucleon spin

2837: even at such a relatively high energy scale.

2838: It contradicts the conclusion of the LHPC and QCDSF

2839: collaborations indicating that the total orbital angular momentum of

2840: quarks is very small or consistent with zero. It should be recognized,

2841: however, that the prediction of the CQSM for the total quark angular

2842: momentum is not extremely far from the corresponding lattice prediction

2843: $2 \,J^Q \simeq 0.6$ at the same renormalization scale.

2844: The cause of discrepancy can therefore be traced back to the LHPC and

2845: QCDSF lattice QCD predictions for the quark spin fraction

2846: $\Delta \Sigma^Q$ around 0.6, which contradicts not only the

2847: prediction of the CQSM but also the

2848: EMC observation. As was shown in our recent paper \cite{Wakamatsu05},

2849: $\Delta \Sigma^Q$ is such a

2850: quantity that is extremely sensitive to the variation of the pion

2851: mass, especially in the region close to the chiral limit.

2852: More serious lattice QCD studies on the $m_\pi$-dependence of

2853: $\Delta \Sigma^Q$ is highly desirable.

2854: 

2855: Worthy of special mention is the fact that, once we accept a

2856: theoretical postulate $B_{20}^Q (0) = 0$, i.e, the

2857: absence of the net quark contribution to the anomalous gravitomagnetic

2858: moment of the nucleon, which is supported by both of the LHPC and

2859: QCDSF lattice simulations, we are necessarily led to a surprisingly

2860: simple relations, $J^Q = \frac{1}{2} \,\langle x \rangle^Q$ and

2861: $J^g = \frac{1}{2} \,\langle x \rangle^g$, i.e. the proportionality

2862: of the linear and angular momentum fractions carried by the

2863: quarks and the gluons. Using these relations,

2864: together with the existing empirical information for the unpolarized

2865: and the longitudinally polarized PDFs,

2866: we can give {\it model-independent predictions} for the

2867: quark and gluon contents of the nucleon spin.

2868: For instance, with combined use of the MRST2004 fit \cite{MRST2004}

2869: and the DNS2005 fit \cite{DNS2005}, we obtain $2 \,J^Q \simeq 0.58$,

2870: $\Delta \Sigma^Q \simeq 0.31$, and $2 \,L^Q \simeq 0.27$ at

2871: $Q^2 = 4 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$.

2872: Since $L^Q$ (as well as $J^Q$) is a rapidly decreasing function of

2873: the energy scale, while the scale dependence of $\Delta \Sigma^Q$

2874: is very weak, we must conclude that the former is even more

2875: dominant over the latter at the scale below $Q^2 \simeq 1 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$ where any low energy models are supposed to hold.

2876: 

2877: The situation is a little more complicated in the flavor-nonsinglet

2878: (or isovector) channel, because $B_{20}^{u-d}(0) \equiv 

2879: G_{M,20}^{(I=1)}(0) - G_{E,20}^{(I=1)}(0) = 2 \,J^{u-d} - 

2880: \langle x \rangle^{u-d} \neq 0$, and also because the CQSM and the

2881: lattice QCD give fairly different predictions for $G_{M,20}^{(I=1)}(0)$.

2882: As compared with the lattice prediction for $G_{M,20}^{(I=1)}(0)$

2883: around $0.8$, the predictions of the CQSM turns out to be around $0.4$.

2884: We have argued that the relatively small value of

2885: $G_{M, 20}^{(I=1)} (0)$ obtained in the CQSM is intimately connected

2886: with the small $x$ enhancement of the generalized parton distribution

2887: $E_M^{(I=1)} (x, 0, 0)$, which is dominated by the clouds of pionic

2888: $q \bar{q}$ excitation around $x \simeq 0$.

2889: (We recall that the 2nd moment of $E_M^{(I=1)} (x, 0, 0)$ gives 

2890: $G_{M, 20}^{(I=1)} (0)$.) Unfortunately, such a $x$-dependent

2891: distribution as $E_M^{(I=1)} (x, 0, 0)$ cannot be accessed within

2892: the framework of lattice QCD. Still, the predicted small $x$ behavior

2893: of $E_M^{u-d} (x,0,0) \equiv E_M^{(I=1)} (x,0,0)$ as well as of

2894: $f^{u-d}(x)$ indicates again

2895: the importance of chiral dynamics in the nucleon structure function

2896: physics, which has not been fully accounted for in the lattice QCD

2897: simulation at the present level.

2898: 

2899: \vspace{3mm}

2900: % If you have acknowledgments, this puts in the proper section head.

2901: \begin{acknowledgments}

2902: This work is supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific

2903: Research for Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science

2904: and Technology, Japan (No.~C-16540253)

2905: \end{acknowledgments}

2906: 

2907: 

2908: \vspace{10mm}

2909: \appendix

2910: 

2911: \section{proof of the momentum sum rule}

2912: 

2913: Here we closely follow the proof of the momentum sum rule given in

2914: \cite{DPPPW96}, by taking into account a necessary modification

2915: in the case of

2916: $m_{\pi} \neq 0$. The starting point is the following expression for the 

2917: soliton mass (or the static soliton energy) :

2918: \begin{equation}

2919:  M_N \ = \ N_c \,\mbox{Sp} [\, \theta(E_0 - H + i \varepsilon) \,H \,]

2920:  \ - \ (H \rightarrow H_0) \ + \ E_M ,

2921: \end{equation}

2922: with

2923: \begin{equation}

2924:  E_M [F(r)] \ = \ - \,f_\pi^2 \,m_\pi^2 \,\int \,[

2925:  \cos F(r) - 1] \,d^3 x . \label{eq:Emeson}

2926: \end{equation}

2927: The soliton mass must be stationary with respect to an arbitrary

2928: variation of the chiral field $U$ or equivalently the soliton profile

2929: $F (r)$, which lead to a saddle point equation : 

2930: \begin{equation}

2931:  \mbox{Sp} \,[ \theta ( E_0 - H + i \varepsilon ) \,\delta H ] 

2932:  \ + \ \delta E_m \ = \ 0 .

2933: \end{equation}

2934: Here we consider a particular (dilatational) variation of chiral field 

2935: \begin{equation}

2936:  U (x) \longrightarrow U ( ( 1 + \xi) x ) .

2937: \end{equation}

2938: For infinitesimal $\xi$, we have 

2939: \begin{equation}

2940:  \delta U \equiv U ( ( 1 + \xi) x ) - U (x) \ \simeq \ 

2941:  \xi \,x^k \,\partial_k U (x) ,

2942: \end{equation}

2943: so that 

2944: \begin{eqnarray}

2945:  \delta H &=& M \,\gamma^0 \,\xi \,x^k \,\partial_k U^{\gamma_5} \ = \ 

2946:  \xi \,[ x^k \partial_k, M \gamma^0 U^{\gamma_5} ]

2947:  \ = \ \xi \,( [ x^k \partial_k, H ] - i \gamma^0 \gamma^k \partial_k ) .

2948: \end{eqnarray}

2949: Noting the identity

2950: \begin{eqnarray}

2951:  &\,& \mbox{Sp} (\theta ( E_0 - H + i \varepsilon) 

2952:  [ x^k \partial_k, H ] ) \ = \ 

2953:  \mbox{Sp} ( [ H, \theta (E_0 - H + i \varepsilon) ] x^k \partial_k)

2954:  \ = \ 0 ,

2955: \end{eqnarray}

2956: we therefore obtain a key identity

2957: \begin{equation}

2958:  \xi \,\mbox{Sp} [\theta (E_0 - H + i \varepsilon) (-i) 

2959:  \gamma^0 \gamma^k \partial_k ] = - \,\delta E_M . \label{eq:keyID}

2960: \end{equation}

2961: Now, by using (\ref{eq:Emeson}) together with the relations, 

2962: \begin{eqnarray}

2963:  \delta F (r) &=& \xi \,r \,F^{\prime} (r) , \\

2964:  \delta \cos F (r) &=& - \,\sin F (r) \,\delta F

2965:  = - \,\xi \,r \,\sin F (r) \,F^{\prime} (r) ,

2966: \end{eqnarray}  

2967: we get

2968: \begin{eqnarray}

2969:  \delta E_M &=& \xi \cdot 4 \pi \,f_{\pi}^2 \,m_{\pi}^2 \,

2970:  \int_0^{\infty} \,d r \,r^3 \,\sin F (r) \,F^{\prime} (r) \\

2971:  &=& - \,\xi \cdot 4 \pi \,f_{\pi}^2 \,m_{\pi}^2 \,

2972:  \int_0^{\infty} \,d r \,r^3 \,\frac{d}{d r} \cos F (r) .

2973: \end{eqnarray}

2974: Here, taking account of the boundary condition

2975: \begin{equation}

2976:  F (0) = \pi, \ \ \ F (\infty) = 0 ,

2977: \end{equation}

2978: we can manipulate as 

2979: \begin{eqnarray}

2980:  \int_0^{\infty} \,d r \,r^3 \,\frac{d}{d r} \cos F (r) 

2981:  &=& \int_0^{\infty} \,d r \,r^3 \,\frac{d}{d r} \,(\cos F (r) - 1) \\

2982:  &=& r^3 \,(\cos F (r) - 1) |_0^{\infty}

2983:  \ - \ 3 \,\int_0^{\infty} \,d r \,r^2 \,(\cos F (r) - 1) \\

2984:  &=& - \,3 \,\int_0^{\infty} \,d r \,r^2 \,(\cos F (r) - 1) .

2985: \end{eqnarray}

2986: We thus find an important relation : 

2987: \begin{equation}

2988:  \delta E_M \ = \ - \,3 \,\xi \,E_M .

2989: \end{equation}

2990: Putting this relation into (\ref{eq:keyID}), we have

2991: \begin{equation}

2992:  \xi \,\mbox{Sp} (\theta (E_0 - H + i \varepsilon) 

2993:  \vecvar{\alpha} \cdot \vecvar{p} )

2994:  = 3 \,\xi \,E_M ,

2995: \end{equation}

2996: or 

2997: \begin{equation}

2998:  \frac{1}{3} \,\mbox{Sp} (\theta (E_0 - H + i \varepsilon) 

2999:  \vecvar{\alpha} \cdot \vecvar{p}) = E_M . \label{eq:traceAP}

3000: \end{equation}

3001: If we evaluate the trace sum above by using the eigenstates of the

3002: static Dirac Hamiltonian $H$ as a complete set of basis,

3003: (\ref{eq:traceAP}) can also be written as

3004: \begin{equation}

3005:  \sum_{n \leq 0} \,\langle n | \,\frac{1}{3} \,

3006:  \vecvar{\alpha} \cdot \vecvar{p} \,| n \rangle = E_M ,

3007: \end{equation}

3008: which is the relation quoted in (\ref{eq:alfp}).

3009: We point out that our result has a 

3010: correct chiral limit, since 

3011: $E_M \rightarrow 0$ as $m_{\pi} \rightarrow 0$

3012: and therefore

3013: \begin{equation}

3014:  \lim_{m_\pi \rightarrow 0} \,\sum_{n \leq 0} \,

3015:  \langle n | \,\frac{1}{3} \,

3016:  \vecvar{\alpha} \cdot \vecvar{p} \,| n \rangle \ = \ 0 ,

3017: \end{equation}

3018: in conformity with the proof given in ref.\cite{DPPPW96}.

3019: 

3020: % Create the reference section using BibTeX:

3021: %\bibliographystyle{unsrt}

3022: %\bibliography{GFspin}

3023: 

3024: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

3025: 

3026: \bibitem{EMC88}

3027: EMC Collaboration~: J.~Aschman~et al.

3028: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett.}, B206:364, 1988.

3029: 

3030: \bibitem{EMC89}

3031: EMC Collaboration~: J.~Aschman~et al.

3032: \newblock {\em Nucl. Phys.}, B328:1, 1989.

3033: 

3034: \bibitem{MRGDH94}

3035: D.~Mueller, D.~Robaschik, B.~Geyer, F.M.~Dittes, and J.~Horejsi,

3036: \newblock {\em Fortsch. Phys.}, 42:101, 1994.

3037: 

3038: \bibitem{DMRGH88}

3039: F.M.~Dittes, D.~Mueller, D.~Robaschik, B.~Geyer, and J.~Horejsi,

3040: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett.}, B209:325, 1988.

3041: 

3042: \bibitem{Ji98}

3043: X.~Ji.

3044: \newblock {\em J. Phys.}, G24:1181, 1998.

3045: 

3046: \bibitem{GPV01}

3047: K.~Goeke, M.V.~Polyakov, and M.~Vanderhaeghen

3048: \newblock {\em Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.}, 47:401, 2001.

3049: 

3050: \bibitem{Diehl03}

3051: M.~Diehl.

3052: \newblock {\em Phys. Rep.}, 388:41, 2003.

3053: 

3054: \bibitem{BR05}

3055: A.V.~Belitsky and A.V.~Radyushkin.

3056: \newblock {\em Phys. Rep.}, 418:1, 2005.

3057: 

3058: \bibitem{Ji97}

3059: X.~Ji.

3060: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 78:610, 1997.

3061: 

3062: \bibitem{HJL99}

3063: P.~Hoodbhoy, X.~Ji, and W.~Lu.

3064: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D59:014013, 1999.

3065: 

3066: \bibitem{JTH96}

3067: X.~Ji, J.~Tang, and P.~Hoodbhoy.

3068: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 76:740, 1996.

3069: 

3070: \bibitem{Burkardt00}

3071: M.~Burkardt.

3072: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D62:071503, 2000.

3073: 

3074: \bibitem{Burkardt03}

3075: M.~Burkardt.

3076: \newblock {\em Int. J. Mod. Phys.}, A18:173, 2003.

3077: 

3078: \bibitem{RP02}

3079: J.P.~Ralston and B.~Pire.

3080: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D66:111501, 2002.

3081: 

3082: \bibitem{DFJK05}

3083: M.~Diehl, Th.~Feldmann, R.~Jacob and P.~Kroll.

3084: \newblock {\em Eur. Phys. J.}, C39:1, 2005.

3085: 

3086: \bibitem{Diehl05}

3087: M.~Diehl.

3088: \newblock {\em hep-ph/0510221}.

3089: 

3090: \bibitem{LHPC02}

3091: D.~Dolgov et al.

3092: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D66:034506, 2002.

3093: 

3094: \bibitem{LHPC04}

3095: Ph.~H\"{a}gler, J.W~Negele, D.B.~Renner, W.~Schroers, Th.~Lippert

3096: and K.~Schilling.

3097: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 93:112001, 2004.

3098: 

3099: \bibitem{LHPC05}

3100: Ph.~H\"{a}gler, J.W~Negele, D.B.~Renner, W.~Schroers, Th.~Lippert

3101: and K.~Schilling.

3102: \newblock {\em Eur. Phys. J.}, A24:29, 2005.

3103: 

3104: \bibitem{QCDSF05}

3105: QCDSF Collaboration~: M.~G\"{o}ckeler, Ph.~H\"{a}gler, R.~Horsley,

3106: D. Pleiter, P.E.L.~Rakow, A.~Sch\"{a}fer, G.~Schierholz, and 

3107: J.M.~Zanotti.

3108: \newblock {\em Few-Body Systems}, 36:111, 2005.

3109: 

3110: \bibitem{QCDSF04a}

3111: M.~G\"{o}ckeler, R.~Horsley, D. Pleiter, P.E.L.~Rakow, A.~Sch\"{a}fer,

3112: G.~Schierholz, and W.~Schroers.

3113: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 92:042002, 2004.

3114: 

3115: \bibitem{QCDSF04b}

3116: M.~G\"{o}ckeler, T.R.~Hemmert, R.~Horsley, D. Pleiter, P.E.L.~Rakow,

3117: A.~Sch\"{a}fer, G.~Schierholz, and W.~Schroers.

3118: \newblock {\em Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.)}, 128:203, 2004.

3119: 

3120: \bibitem{DPP88}

3121: D.I.~Diakonov, V.Yu.~Petrov, and P.V.~Pobylitsa.

3122: \newblock {\em Nucl. Phys.}, B306:809, 1988.

3123: 

3124: \bibitem{WY91}

3125: M.~Wakamatsu and H.~Yoshiki.

3126: \newblock {\em Nucl. Phys.}, A524:561, 1991.

3127: 

3128: \bibitem{KR84}

3129: S.~Kahana and G.~Ripka.

3130: \newblock {\em Nucl. Phys.}, A429:462, 1984.

3131: 

3132: \bibitem{KRS84}

3133: S.~Kahana, G.~Ripka, and V.~Soni.

3134: \newblock {\em Nucl. Phys.}, A415:351, 1984.

3135: 

3136: \bibitem{KWW99}

3137: T.~Kubota, M.~Wakamatsu, and T.~Watabe.

3138: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D60:014016, 1999.

3139: 

3140: \bibitem{Ossmann05}

3141: J. Ossmann, M.V.~Polyakov, P.~Schweitzer, D.~Urbano, and K.~Goeke.

3142: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D71:034011, 2005.

3143: 

3144: \bibitem{WT05}

3145: M.~Wakamatsu and H.~Tsujimoto.

3146: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D71:074001, 2005.

3147: 

3148: \bibitem{Petrov98}

3149: V.Yu. Petrov, P.V. Pobylitsa, M.V. Polyakov, I.~B\"{o}ring, K.~Goeke

3150: and C.~Weiss.

3151: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D57:4325, 1998.

3152: 

3153: \bibitem{DPPPW96}

3154: D.I. Diakonov, V.Yu. Petrov, P.V. Pobylitsa, M.V. Polyakov,

3155: and C.~Weiss.

3156: \newblock {\em Nucl. Phys.}, B480:341, 1996.

3157: 

3158: \bibitem{BHMS01}

3159: S.J.~Brodsky, D.S.~Hwang, B.-Q.~Ma, and I. Schmidt.

3160: \newblock {\em Nucl. Phys.}, B593:311, 2001.

3161: 

3162: \bibitem{Wakamatsu92R}

3163: M.~Wakamatsu.

3164: \newblock {\em Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.}, 109:115, 1992.

3165: 

3166: \bibitem{Christov96}

3167: Chr.V.~Christov, A.~Blotz, H.-C.~Kim, P.~Pobylitsa, T.~Watabe

3168: Th.Meissner, E.Ruiz-Arriola, and K.~Goeke.

3169: \newblock {\em Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.}, 37:91, 1996.

3170: 

3171: \bibitem{ARW96}

3172: R.~Alkofer, H.~Reinhardt, and H.~Weigel.

3173: \newblock {\em Phys. Rep.}, 265:139, 1996.

3174: 

3175: \bibitem{WGR96}

3176: H.~Weigel, L.~Gamberg, and H.~Reinhardt.

3177: \newblock {\em Mod. Phys. Lett.}, A11:3021, 1996.

3178: 

3179: \bibitem{GRW98}

3180: L.~Gamberg, H.~Reinhardt, and H.~Weigel.

3181: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D58:054014, 1998.

3182: 

3183: \bibitem{DPPPW97}

3184: D.I. Diakonov, V.Yu. Petrov, P.V. Pobylitsa, M.V. Polyakov, and C.~Weiss.

3185: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D56:4069, 1997.

3186: 

3187: \bibitem{WK98}

3188: M.~Wakamatsu and T.~Kubota.

3189: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D57:5755, 1998.

3190: 

3191: \bibitem{WK99}

3192: M.~Wakamatsu and T.~Kubota.

3193: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D60:034020, 1999.

3194: 

3195: \bibitem{Wakamatsu03a}

3196: M.~Wakamatsu.

3197: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D67:034005, 2003.

3198: 

3199: \bibitem{Wakamatsu03b}

3200: M.~Wakamatsu.

3201: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D67:034006, 2003.

3202: 

3203: \bibitem{PPGWW99}

3204: P.V. Pobylitsa, M.V. Polyakov, K.~Goeke, T.~Watabe, and C.~Weiss.

3205: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D59:034024, 1999.

3206: 

3207: \bibitem{Wakamatsu92}

3208: M.~Wakamatsu.

3209: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D46:3762, 1992.

3210: 

3211: \bibitem{Christov95}

3212: Chr.V.~Christov, A.Z.~G\'{o}rski, K.~Goeke, and P.V.~Pobylitsa.

3213: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, A592:513, 1995.

3214: 

3215: \bibitem{Wakamatsu05}

3216: M.~Wakamatsu.

3217: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D72:074006, 2005.

3218: 

3219: \bibitem{Teryaev99}

3220: O.V.~Teryaev.

3221: \newblock {\em hep-ph/9904376}, 1999.

3222: 

3223: \bibitem{Teryaev98}

3224: O.V.~Teryaev.

3225: \newblock {\em hep-ph/9803403}, 1998.

3226: 

3227: \bibitem{Teryaev03}

3228: O.V.~Teryaev.

3229: \newblock {\em Czech. J. Phys.}, 53:47, 2003.

3230: 

3231: \bibitem{WW93}

3232: M.~Wakamatsu and T.~Watabe.

3233: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett.}, B312:184, 1993.

3234: 

3235: \bibitem{CBGPPWW94}

3236: Chr.V.~Christov, A.~Blotz, K.~Goeke, P.~Pobylitsa, V.Yu.~Petrov,

3237: M.~Wakamatsu, and T.~Watabe.

3238: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett.}, B325:467, 1994.

3239: 

3240: \bibitem{Wakamatsu96}

3241: M.~Wakamatsu.

3242: \newblock {\em Prog. Theor. Phys.}, 95:143, 1996.

3243: 

3244: \bibitem{NMC91}

3245: NMC Collaboration~: P.~Amaudruz et al.

3246: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 66:2712, 1991.

3247: 

3248: \bibitem{Saga96}

3249: M.~Miyama and S.~Kumano.

3250: \newblock {\em Compt. Phys. Commun.}, 94:185, 1996.

3251: 

3252: \bibitem{HM91}

3253: E.M.~Henley and G.A.~Miller.

3254: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett.}, B251:453, 1991.

3255: 

3256: \bibitem{KL91}

3257: S.~Kumano and J.T.~Londergan.

3258: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D43:59, 1991.. 

3259: AIP Conf. Proc. 223, 1991.

3260: 

3261: \bibitem{HERMES98}

3262: HEREMES Collaboration~: K.~Ackerstaff.

3263: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 81:5519, 1998.

3264: 

3265: \bibitem{E866}

3266: E866 Collaboration~: E.A.~Hawker et al.

3267: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 80:3715, 1998.

3268: 

3269: \bibitem{Arnold86}

3270: R.~Arnold et al.

3271: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 57:174, 1986.

3272: 

3273: \bibitem{FRS77}

3274: E.G.~Floratos, D.A..~Ross, and C.T.~Sachrajda.

3275: \newblock {\em Nucl. Phys.}, B129:66, 1977,

3276: and Erratum, B139:545, 1978.

3277: 

3278: \bibitem{LY81}

3279: C.~Lop\'{e}z and F.J.~Yndur\'{a}in.

3280: \newblock {\em Nucl. Phys.}, B183:157, 1981.

3281: 

3282: \bibitem{ABY97}

3283: K.~Adel, F.~Barreiro, and F.J.~Yndur\'{a}in.

3284: \newblock {\em Nucl. Phys.}, B495:221, 1997.

3285: 

3286: \bibitem{MRST98}

3287: A.D.~Martin, R.G.~Roberts, W.J.~Stirling, and R.S.~Thorne.

3288: \newblock {\em Eur. Phys. J.}, C4:463, 1998.

3289: 

3290: \bibitem{MRST2004}

3291: A.D.~Martin, W.J.~Stirling, and R.S.~Thorne.

3292: \newblock {\em hep-ph/0603143}, 2006.

3293: 

3294: \bibitem{CTEQ5}

3295: L.H.~Lai, J.~Huston, S.~Kuhlmann, J.~Morfin, F.~Olness,

3296: J.F.~Owen, J.~Pumplin, and W.K.~Tung.

3297: \newblock {\em Eur. Phys. J.}, C12:375, 2000.

3298: 

3299: \bibitem{GRSV2000}

3300: M.~Gl\"{u}ck. E.~Reya, and M.~Strattmann, and W.~Vogelsang.

3301: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D63:094005, 2001.

3302: 

3303: \bibitem{LSS2005}

3304: E.~Leader. A.V.~Sidorov, and D.B.~Stamenov.

3305: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D73:034023, 2006.

3306: 

3307: \bibitem{DNS2005}

3308: D.de~Florian, G.A.~Navarro, and R.~Sassot.

3309: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D71:094018, 2005.

3310: 

3311: \bibitem{GRSV96}

3312: M.~Gl\"{u}ck. E.~Reya, M.~Strattmann, and W.~Vogelsang.

3313: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D53:4775, 1996.

3314: 

3315: \bibitem{LSS2000}

3316: E.~Leader. A.V.~Sidorov, and D.B.~Stamenov.

3317: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett.}, B488:283, 2000.

3318: 

3319: \bibitem{Cheng98}

3320: H.-Y.~Cheng.

3321: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett.}, B427:371, 1998.

3322: 

3323: \bibitem{BFR96}

3324: R.D.~Ball. S.~Forte, and G.~Ridolfi.

3325: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett.}, B378:255, 1996.

3326: 

3327: \bibitem{ABFS97}

3328: G.~Altarelli, R.D.~Ball. S.~Forte, and G.~Ridolfi.

3329: \newblock {\em Nucl. Phys.}, B496:337, 1997.

3330: 

3331: \bibitem{MDLMM00}

3332: N.~Mathur, S.J.~Dong. K.F.~Liu, L.~Mankiewicz, and N.C.~Mukhopadhyay.

3333: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D62:114504, 2000.

3334: 

3335: \bibitem{FKOU95}

3336: M.~Fukugita. Y.~Kuramashi, M.~Okawa, and A.~Ukawa.

3337: \newblock {\em Phys. Phys. Lett.}, 75:2092, 1995.

3338: 

3339: \bibitem{DLL95}

3340: S.J.~Dong. J.-F.Laga\"{e}, and K.F.~Liu.

3341: \newblock {\em Phys. Phys. Lett.}, 75:2096, 1995.

3342: 

3343: \end{thebibliography}

3344: 

3345: \end{document}

3346: %

3347: % ****** End of file template.aps ******

3348: