1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{epsf}
3: %\usepackage[cp1251]{inputenc}
4:
5: %\usepackage{cmcyralt}
6: \topmargin 2cm \sloppy \textwidth 15.5cm \textheight 23.5cm
7: \hoffset= -1.5cm
8: %\hoffset= -3 cm
9: \voffset= -2.5cm
10: \title{{\bf Small size pentaquark width: calculation in QCD sum rules}}
11:
12: \author{A.G.Oganesian\\
13: Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics,\\
14: B.Cheremushkinskaya 25, 117218 Moscow,Russia}
15: \date{}
16:
17: \begin{document}
18: %\pagestyle{empty}
19:
20: \maketitle
21:
22: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
23: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
24:
25: \def\la{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun <}}
26: \def\ga{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun >}}
27: \def\fun#1#2{\lower3.6pt\vbox{\baselineskip0pt\lineskip.9pt
28: \ialign{$\mathsurround=0pt#1\hfil##\hfil$\crcr#2\crcr\sim\crcr}}}
29:
30: \vspace{1cm}
31: \begin{abstract}
32:
33: The pentaquark width is calculated in QCD sum rules. The higher
34: dimension operators contribution is accounted. It is shown, that
35: $\Gamma_{\Theta}$ should be very small, less than $1Mev$.
36:
37: \end{abstract}
38:
39: PACS: 12.39 Dc, 12.39-x, 12.38
40:
41: \vspace{1cm}
42:
43: \normalsize
44:
45: The status of $\Theta^+$, predicted in 1997 by D.Diakonov,
46: V.Petrov and M.Polyakov \cite{n4} in the Chiral Soliton Model,
47: till now is doubtful. Few years ago narrow exotic baryon resonance
48: $\Theta^+$ with quark content $\Theta^+ = uudd\bar{s}$ and mass
49: 1.54 GeV had been discovered by two groups \cite{n1,n2}. But the
50: question is open until now, during last two years some groups
51: confirm the pentaquark $\Theta^+$ existence, while other see null
52: signal. Moreover, last year some groups, which have seen
53: pentaquark, in the new experiments with higher statistics reported
54: null result for pentaquark signal (CLAS experiments on hydrogen
55: and deuterium $\cite{ex1}$, BELLE $\cite{ex2}$) but at the same
56: time DIANA $\cite{dolg}$, and also LEPS, SVD-2 confirm their
57: results with higher statistic(see $\cite{buk}$ for the review).
58: (Some theoretical reviews are given in \cite{n5,n6}).
59:
60: So yet one can say only that if pentaquark exist, it should be a
61: narrow state. Experimentally, only an upper limit was found, the
62: stringer bound was presented in \cite{n2}: $\Gamma < 9 MeV$. The
63: phase analysis of $KN$ scattering results in the even stronger
64: limit on $\Gamma$ \cite{n7}, $\Gamma < 1 MeV$. A close to the
65: latter limitation was found in \cite{n8} from the analysis of $Kd
66: \to ppK$ reaction and in \cite{n9} from $K+Xe$ collisions data
67: \cite{n2}. Also $\cite{ex2}$ from the negative result of the
68: experiment give the upper limit for pentaquark width less than
69: 640$KeV$
70:
71: In the paper \cite{ja1}, \cite{ja2} it was shown, that if
72: pentaquark is genuine state it width should be strongly
73: parametrically suppressed. It is necessary to note that this is
74: general statement and does not depend of the choice of the
75: pentaquark current (without derivatives), but at the same time it
76: is significantly based on the assumption, that the size of the
77: pentaquark is not larger, than usual hadronic. The main goal of
78: this paper is to find numerical estimation of pentaquark width by
79: use the method offered in \cite{ja1},\cite{ja2}.
80:
81: \bigskip
82:
83: {\bf \large Part 1. } In the papers \cite{ja1}, \cite{ja2} it was
84: shown, that pentaquark width should be suppressed as
85: $\Gamma_{\Theta} \sim \alpha^2_s \langle 0 \vert \bar{q} q \vert 0
86: \rangle^2$, (for any current without derivatives). Later, in the
87: short paper \cite{ja4} the first non-vanishing operator (dimension
88: $d=3$) contribution was calculated and the sum rule was considered
89: numerically. It was shown that pentaquark width is suppressed
90: numerically also and the width of the pentaquark width was
91: estimated to be less 1 Mev. In this paper we will discuss this sum
92: rules in more detail and also the contribution of the operators of
93: the higher dimensions will be accounted. Let us shortly remind the
94: main points of the method. We start from 3-point correlator
95:
96: \be
97: \Pi_{\mu}=\int e^{i(p_1x-qy)} \langle 0\mid
98: \eta_{\theta}(x)j^5_{\mu}(y) \eta_n(0)\mid 0 \rangle \ee
99:
100: where $\eta_n(x)$ is the neutron quark current \cite{nbl1},
101: ($\eta_n =\varepsilon^{abc} (d^a C \gamma_{\mu} d^b) \gamma_5
102: \gamma_{\mu} u^c $),
103:
104: $ \langle 0\mid \eta_n\mid n\rangle =\lambda_n v_n$,
105: ($v_n$ is the nucleon spinor), $\eta_{\theta}$ is an arbitrary
106: pentaquark current
107: $ \langle 0\mid \eta_{\theta}\mid \theta^+
108: \rangle=\lambda_{\theta} v_{\theta}$ and $j_{\mu 5} = \bar{s}
109: \gamma_{\mu}\gamma_5 u$ is the strange axial current.
110:
111:
112: As an example of $\eta_{\theta}$ one can use the following one
113: (see \cite{jap}, where it was first offered, and also \cite {ja3},
114: where the sum 2-point rule analysis for this current was
115: discussed):
116:
117: \be
118: J_A =\varepsilon^{abc} \varepsilon^{def} \varepsilon^{gcf}
119: (u^{a^T} Cd^b ) (u^{d^T} C\gamma^{\mu} \gamma_5 d^e)\gamma^{\mu}
120: c\bar{s}_g\ee
121:
122: and we will use it farther to obtain numerical results. (Of course
123: there is large number of the another currents, for example see
124: \cite {koch}, where 2-point correlators was analyzed very
125: carefully, taking into account operators up to dimension 13 and
126: direct instanton contribution).
127:
128: As usual in QCD sum rule the physical representation of correlator
129: (1) can be saturated by lower resonance states plus continuum
130: (both in $\eta_{\Theta}$ and nucleon channel)
131: \be
132: \Pi^{Phys}_{\mu}=\langle 0\mid \eta_{\theta}\mid \theta^+ \rangle
133: \langle \theta^+ \mid j_{\mu}\mid n \rangle \langle n\mid \eta_n
134: \mid 0 \rangle \frac{1}{p^2_1 -m^2_{\theta}}\frac{1}{p^2_2-m^2}+
135: cont. \ee
136:
137: where $p_2=p_1-q$ is nucleon momentum, $m$ and
138: $m_{\theta}$ are nucleon and pentaquark masses.
139:
140: Obviously, in the limit of massless kaon \be \langle \theta^+ \mid
141: j_{\mu}\mid n \rangle =g^A_{\theta n} \bar{v}_n \Biggl (g^{\mu\nu}
142: -\frac{q^{\mu}q^{\nu}}{q^2}\Biggr ) \gamma^v\gamma_5 v_{\theta}
143: \ee
144:
145: where axial transition constant $g^A_{\theta n}$ is just we are
146: interesting in (the width is proportional to the square of this
147: value). Such a method for calculation the width in QCD sum rules
148: is not new, see, e.g. \cite{nblk0}. In the case of massive kaon
149: the only change is in denominator of second term in r.h.s of the
150: eq. (4), i.e. \be \langle \theta^+ \mid j_{\mu}\mid n \rangle
151: =g^A_{\theta n} \bar{v}_n \Biggl (g^{\mu\nu}
152: -\frac{q^{\mu}q^{\nu}}{q^2-m_k^2}\Biggr ) \gamma^{\nu}\gamma_5
153: v_{\theta} \ee It is clear that the second term vanishes at small
154: $q^2$.
155:
156: Substituting $ \langle 0\mid \eta_n\mid n\rangle =\lambda_n v_n$,
157: and $ \langle 0\mid \eta_{\theta}\mid \theta^+
158: \rangle=\lambda_{\theta} v_{\theta}$ in eq (3) and take the sum
159: on polarization one can easily see, that (in the limit of small
160: $q^2$) correlator (1) is proportional to $g^A_{\theta n}$.
161:
162: \be
163: \Pi^{Phys}_{\mu}=\lambda_n\lambda_{\theta}g^A_{\theta n}
164: \frac{1}{p^2_1
165: -m^2_{\theta}}\frac{1}{p^2_2-m^2}(-2\hat{p_1}p_1^{\mu}\gamma_5 +
166: ....) \ee
167:
168: where dots in r.h.s mean other kinematic structures (proportional
169: to $q$ e.t.c). From (6) one can easily obtain sum rule for axial
170: constant $g^A_{\theta n}$. For our sum rules we will use invariant
171: amplitude just at the kinematical structure $\hat{p_1}p_1^{\mu}$,
172: because, as it was discussed in $\cite{nblk}$, $\cite{nblk1}$,
173: $\cite{nblk2}$ the choice of the kinematic structures with maximal
174: number of momentum lead to better sum rules. So we obtain the
175: following sum rules
176:
177: \be \lambda_n\lambda_{\theta}g^A_{\theta n}
178: e^{-(m_n^2/M_n^2+m_{\theta}^2/M_{\theta}^2)} = (-1/2)B_{\theta}B_n
179: \Pi^{QCD}\ee
180:
181: where $B_{\theta}, B_n$ mean Borel transformation on pentaquark
182: and nucleon momenta correspondingly, and continuum extraction is
183: supposed.
184:
185:
186: By use of the equation of motions the eq.(4) close to the mass
187: shell can be rewritten \be \langle \theta^+ \mid j_{\mu}\mid n
188: \rangle =g^A_{\theta n} \bar{v}_n \Biggl (\gamma^{\mu}
189: +\frac{m_{\theta}+m_n}{q^2}q^{\mu}\Biggr )\gamma_5 v_{\theta} \ee
190:
191: At the same time, the second term in (4,8) correspond to the kaon
192: contribution to $\theta -n$ transition with lagrangian density
193: $L=ig_{\theta n k}v_{n}\gamma^5 v_{\theta} \phi_k$, so one can
194: write
195:
196: \be \langle \theta^+ \mid j_{\mu}^5\mid n \rangle =g_{\theta n k}
197: \frac{q^{\mu}f_k}{q^2-m_k^2}\bar{v_{n}}\gamma^5 v_{\theta}\ee
198:
199: Comparing (9) and (8) one can found (if we for a moment neglect
200: the kaon mass)
201:
202: \be g_{\theta n k}f_k=(m_n+m_{\theta})g_{\theta n}^A\ee
203:
204: This is the analog of the Golderberger-Trieman relation. Of course
205: the accuracy of this relation is about the scale of SU(3)
206: violation but as estimation of the value of $g_{\theta n k}$ it is
207: enough good. In \cite{ja1}, \cite{ja2} some general properties of
208: correlator (10) and correspondingly sum rules for $g^A_{\theta n}$
209: was obtained. First of all, it was shown, that correlator (1)
210: vanishes in the chiral limit for any pentaquark current without
211: derivatives. That means, that first non-vanishing contribution to
212: sum rules give the operator with dimension $d=3$ (quark
213: condensate), so axial constant $g_{\theta n}^A$ should be
214: proportional to the quark condensate. An examples of corresponding
215: diagrams are shown on the Fig.1a,b. But as was also shown in
216: these papers, diagrams like those on fig.1a (i.e. without hard
217: gluon exchange) can not contribute to the sum rule. The reason is
218: that such diagrams, as one can easily check, are expressed in
219: terms of the following integrals
220:
221: \be \int e^{i(p_1x-qy)} \frac{d^4 x d^4 y}{((x-y)^2)^n (x^2)^m}
222: \equiv \int \frac{e^{ip_1x}}{(x^2)^m} \frac{e^{-iq t}}{(t^2)^{n}}
223: d^4 xd^4t \ee
224:
225: It is clear that such integrals have imaginary part on $p_2^2$ and
226: $q^2$ - the momentum of nucleon and axial current - but there is
227: no imaginary part on $p_1^2$ - the momentum of pentaquark. So we
228: come to the conclusion that such diagrams correspond to the case,
229: when there is no $\Theta^+$ resonance in the pentaquark current
230: channel (this correspond to background of this decay). (Note, that
231: this conclusion don't depend on the fact that one ore more of the
232: quark propagators should be replaced by condensate, as we discuss
233: before). The double imaginary part on $p_1^2$, $p_2^2$ (i.e.
234: $\Theta^+$ resonance and baryon) appears only if one take into
235: account hard gluon exchange, and not arbitrary, but only those,
236: which connect the quark line, going to axial current vertex with
237: those going to an baryon vertex, (so that it provide the moment
238: exchange between these vertexes), as on Fig.1b. So we come to
239: conclusion, that if $\Theta^+$ is a genuine 5-quark state (not,
240: say, the $NK$ bound state), then the hard gluon exchange is
241: necessary, what leads to additional factor of $\alpha_s$. We see,
242: that pentaquark width $\Gamma_{\Theta} \sim \alpha^2_s \langle 0
243: \vert \bar{q} q \vert 0 \rangle^2$, i.e., $\Gamma_{\Theta}$ has
244: strong parametrical suppression.
245:
246:
247: \bigskip
248:
249: {\bf \large Part 2. }
250:
251: Let us now discuss the sum rules (7). First of all, of course, the
252: contribution of the operator of $d=3$ should be accounted. As we
253: discuss in previous section, only diagrams like those on Fig.1b
254: give the non-vanishing contribution to double dispersion relation.
255: It is necessary to note, that in the sense of discussion before
256: (see $\cite{ja2}$) it is quite necessary to keep only those part
257: of these diagrams, which have really imaginary part both on
258: $p_1^2$ and $p_2^2$ (i.e pentaquark and nucleon 4-momenta square).
259: This mean that double Borel transformation (for $p_1^2$ and
260: $p_2^2$ independently) in (7) is quite necessary.
261:
262: In what following, we will denote the result
263: of calculation (i.e. operator $d=3$ contribution to sum rules (7))
264: as $R_{d3}$
265:
266: \be R_{d3}=1/(\lambda_n\lambda_{\theta})
267: e^{(m_n^2/M_n^2+m_{\theta}^2/M_{\theta}^2)}(-1/2)B_{\theta}B_n
268: \Pi^{QCD}\ee
269:
270: It is clear, that
271:
272: \be g^A_{\theta n}=R_{d3} +R_{d5} +...\ee
273:
274: and if one confine itself only of $d=3$ operator contribution, (as
275: it was done in \cite{ja4}) then $g^A_{\theta n}=R_{d3}$. Let us
276: shortly discuss the results of \cite{ja4} (the higher order
277: operators contribution will be discussed in the next section).
278:
279: First of all the calculation of the diagrams Fig.1b is
280: technically enough complicated. One should pay special attention
281: to extract the terms, which have no imaginary part on pentaquark
282: 4-momenta correctly. We perform calculation in the
283: x-representation in Euclid space, using standard exponential
284: representation of propagators and the relation $B
285: e^{-bp^2}=\delta(b-1/M^2)$.
286:
287: We neglect in the calculations the effects of $s-quark$ mass,
288: which are very small. We also use in calculation the fact, that
289: the ratio $A1=M_n^2/M_{\theta}^2$, (where $M_n^2, M_{\theta}^2$
290: are nucleon and pentaquark Borel masses) should be of order of
291: ratio of the corresponding mass square $m_n^2/m_{\theta}^2$, so we
292: can threats $A1$ as small parameter. But even at this
293: simplification the analytical answer is enormous large and is
294: expressed in terms of a very large number of different double (and
295: ordinary) integrals and it total size is very large (about some
296: hundred terms). That's why, unfortunately, we can not write down
297: pure analytical answer, and the last last stage of calculation we
298: prefer to do only numerically . (Of course we check, that all
299: integrals converge if $Q^2 (=-q^2)$ is not equal to zero.)
300:
301: Of course, as was discussed before, the result ($R_{d3}$) is
302: proportional to quark condensate and strong coupling constant,
303: i.e. $\alpha_s a$, where $ a = -(2 \pi)^2 \langle 0 \vert \bar{q}
304: q \vert 0 \rangle$. As a characteristic virtuality we chose the
305: Borel mass of nucleon, but one should note, that because $\alpha_s
306: a^2$ do not depend on normalization point, this choice is rather
307: unessential. We use the value of
308:
309: \be \alpha_s a^2=0.23 Gev^6,~~
310: \bar{\lambda^2_n}=\lambda^2_n*32{\pi}^4=3.2Gev^6,~~
311: \bar{\lambda^2_{\theta}}=\lambda^2_{\theta}*(4{\pi})^8=12Gev^{12}\ee
312:
313: (see \cite{bl2}, \cite{ja3}). To extract the continuum
314: contribution, usually one should write down explicitly double
315: dispersion integral, but it is too difficult to do technically in
316: our case, so we estimate continuum contribution by a usual factors
317: $E_0=1-e^{s_0/M^2}$ in both pentaquark and baryon channels. The
318: continuum dependence is not strong, we use standard value
319: $s_0=1.5GeV^2$ for nucleon and $s_0=4.-4.5GeV^2$ for pentaquark
320: current \cite{ja3}. We estimate the inaccuracy of the value of
321: $R_{d3}$ due to continuum contribution about $30\%$. In the paper
322: \cite{ja4} only the contribution $R_{d3}$ to the value
323: $g^A_{\theta n}$ ( eq.(13)) was accounted and the estimation
324: $g^A_{\theta n} <1Mev$ was obtained. In this paper we
325: also account the contribution of the higher dimension operators
326: we are now going to discuss.
327:
328:
329: \bigskip
330:
331: {\bf \large Part 3. }
332:
333: There are large number of diagrams, corresponding to higher
334: dimension operators contribution (see some examples on figs.2,3,4
335: for dimension $d=5,7,9$ correspondingly). Numerically the main
336: contribution in our case give diagrams on Fig.4, (operator of the
337: dimension $d=9$), proportional to $a^3$, where $a = -(2 \pi)^2
338: \langle 0 \vert \bar{q} q \vert 0 \rangle$). It is not surprising,
339: the same situation appear in many similar cases ( see \cite{nbl1}
340: for the case of nucleon, or \cite{ja3} for the case of
341: pentaquark). The reason is clear -each cut quark line lead, from
342: one side, to small factor -the quark condensate, but, from the
343: other side, it decreases the number of loops, so lead to
344: additional factor of order of $4{\pi}^2$, and this two factors
345: more or less compensate each other. That's why one can expect,
346: that main contribution of high dimension operator come from
347: diagrams on Fig. 4a-4b. When calculating this diagrams, one should
348: also carefully exclude those, which have no double imaginary part
349: both on $p_1^2$ and $p_2^2$. Examples of such diagrams which have
350: no double imaginary part are shown on Fig.5 - one can easily check
351: this just in the same way as was discussed in the previous chapter
352: (for diagrams on Fig.1a). So to estimate dimension $d=9$ operator
353: contribution $R_{d9}$ one should account only four types of
354: diagrams on Fig.4a,b (of course each of them with all possible
355: combinations). Fortunately, in this case it is possible to write
356: down analytical answer. If we neglect the small terms,
357: proportional to $s$-quark mass, and also for simplicity suppose
358: strange and light quark condensates to be equal, we can write:
359:
360: \be
361: R_{d9} = -0.209 (\bar{\lambda_n} \bar{\lambda_{\theta}})^{-1}
362: e^{(m_n^2/M_n^2+m_{\theta}^2/M_{\theta}^2)}
363: \frac{\alpha_s a^3}{\pi}
364: \int\limits^{s_{\theta}}_{0} e^{-u/M^2_{\theta}} du
365: \int\limits^{s_n}_{0} e^{-s/M^2_n} ds (\rho_1 +\rho_2/v) \ee
366:
367: where $$\rho_1= (-3/8)u \delta(s)/Q^4$$
368:
369: $$\rho_2= \frac{-1}{Q^2} + 2\frac{s^2 -u^2 +Q^4-1.5sQ^2}{Q^2v^2} +
370: 7us\frac{u +Q^2-s}{v^4}$$
371:
372: $v^2=(u+Q^2-s)^2 +4Q^2s$, and $\bar{\lambda_n},
373: \bar{\lambda_{\theta}}$ are defined in (14).
374:
375: In the numerical analysis we suppose again $M_{\theta}^2=3M_n^2$,
376: as for $d=3$ operator case in previous section.
377:
378: On Fig.6a,b the axial constant $g_{\theta n}^A =R_{d3}+R_{d9}$,
379: (see eq. (13)), obtained from sum rules, is shown for two values
380: of $Q^2$: $Q^2=1.5Gev^2$ (Fig.6a) and $Q^2=2.5Gev^2$ (fig.6b) as a
381: function of Borel mass of nucleon. Thick (upper) line mean the
382: total result for $g_{\theta n}^A$, thin line and dashed line -
383: $R_{d3}$ and $R_{d9}$ contributions correspondingly. One can see,
384: that $R_{d9}$ is smaller than $R_{d3}$ in this region and also the
385: Borel mass behavior of $g_{\theta n}^A$ is very good, so one can
386: suppose, that sum rule are reliable at this range of $Q^2$.
387:
388: From the sense of sum rule, it is clear that we can found axial
389: constant $g_{\theta n}^A$ only at $Q^2$ not close to zero (about
390: $1 Gev^2$ or higher). And really, at $Q^2=1Gev^2$ $R_{d9}$ became
391: equal (and even more) than $R_{d3}$, so at this value sum rules
392: became very doubtful, and at lower values of $Q^2$ sum rules does
393: not exists.
394:
395: On the Fig.7 the $Q^2$
396: dependence of $g_{\theta n}^A$ is shown (at $M_n^2=1Gev^2$ and
397: $M_{\theta}^2=3M_n^2$ -thin (lower) line, and the same
398: for$M_n^2=1.2Gev^2$ - thick (upper) line ). One can see, that
399: they are practically identical.
400:
401: Really we are interest the value $g_{\theta n}^A$ in the limit
402: $Q^2 \to 0$, which can't be calculated directly from S.R.,
403: obviously. But one can see from Fig.7, that $Q^2$ behavior is
404: found to be almost linear so one can extrapolate it to zero. We
405: found averaged (on Borel mass) $g_{\theta n}^A=0.034$ at $Q^2=0$.
406: Of course the accuracy of this value is not high, and highly
407: depend on the extrapolation (about a factor 1.5-2 for different
408: more or less reasonable extrapolations). Also large inaccuracy
409: appear due to:
410:
411: a) the method itself has the accuracy of the order of the SU(3)
412: violation
413:
414: c) accuracy in the value of $\lambda_{\theta}$ (about 20-30$\%$)
415:
416: d) accuracy of sum rule approach, especially for pentaquark case
417: (see, for example, discussion in \cite{nar}).
418:
419: For all this reason, we estimate the value of axial constant
420: $g_{\theta n}^A(0)$ with inaccuracy about a factor two, so it can
421: varied from 0.017 to 0.068 with central point $g_{\theta
422: n}^A=0.034$. By use of eq (10) one can easily express the
423: pentaquark width in terms of $(g_{\theta n}^A)^2$, and we come to
424: conclusion, that our result for $\Gamma_{\Theta}$ can vary in the
425: region from 60$KeV$ to 1$MeV$. The central value $g_{\theta
426: n}^A=0.034$ correspond to width about 0.25$MeV$. Note, that our
427: result for width of the pentaquark (with positive parity) don't
428: contradict to value 0.75$MeV$, obtained in \cite{niels} also in
429: sum rules, but by quite differ method.
430:
431: Our estimation of the pentaquark width also is in the agreement
432: with the result \cite {dolg} (0.36$MeV$ with accuracy about
433: 30$\%$), obtained from the ratio between numbers of resonant and
434: non-resonant charge exchange events.
435:
436: Of course the accuracy of our result is not high, really we
437: predict only the order of magnitude of the width, but it seems,
438: that more precise prediction for pentaquark width in this
439: approach is impossible. That's why we don't discuss contribution
440: of operators $d=5,7$ e.t.c, because they are much smaller than
441: those we have accounted and their contribution is within of the
442: our accuracy.
443:
444: The main conclusion is, that if the $\theta^+$ is genuine states
445: then sum rules really predict the very narrow width of pentaquark,
446: less than $1Mev$, (most probably about $0.25-0.5Mev$) and the
447: suppression of the width is both parametrical and numerical.
448:
449: Author is thankful to B.L.Ioffe for useful discussions and
450: advises. This work was supported in part by CRDF grant
451: RUP2-2621-MO-04 and RFFI grant 06-02-16905.
452:
453: \vspace{1cm}
454:
455: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
456:
457: \bibitem{n4} D.Diakonov, V.Petrov and M.Polaykov, Z.Phys. {\bf A359}, 305
458: (1997).
459: \bibitem{n1} T.Nakano et al., Phys.Rev.Lett. {\bf 91}, 012002 (2003).
460: \bibitem{n2}V.V.Barmin, A.G.Dolgolenko et al., Yad.Fiz. {\bf 66}, 1763
461: (2003). (Phys.At.Nucl. {\bf 66}, 1715 (2003)).
462: \bibitem{ex1} M. Battaglieri et all (CLAS Coll.) hep-ex/0510061
463: \bibitem{ex2} R. Mizuk et al (BELLE Coll.) Phys Lett. B362, 173, (2006)
464: \bibitem{dolg} Barmin, V.V, A.G.Dolgolenko et al, hep-ex/0603017
465: \bibitem{buk} Volker D.Burkert, hep-ph/0510309
466: \bibitem{n5} D.Diakonov, hep-ph/0406043.
467: \bibitem{n6} V.B.Kopeliovich, Uspekhi Fiz.Nauk, {\bf 174}, 323 (2004)
468: \bibitem{n7} R.A.Arndt, I.I.Strakovsky and R.L.Workman, nucl-th/0311030.
469: \bibitem{n8} A.Sibirtsev, J.Heidenbauer , S.Krewald and lf-G.Meissner,
470: hep-ph/0405099.
471: \bibitem{n9} A.Sibirtsev, J.Heidenbauer, S.Krewald and
472: Ulf-G.Meussner, nucl-th/0407011.
473: \bibitem{ja1} B.L.Ioffe and A.G.Oganesian, JETP Lett. {\bf 80}, (2004) 386
474: \bibitem{ja2} A.G.Oganesian, hep-ph/0410335
475: \bibitem{ja4} Oganesian A.G, hep-ph/0605131
476: \bibitem{nbl1} B.L.Ioffe, Nucl.Phys. {\bf B188}, 317 (1981).
477: \bibitem{jap}Shoichi Sasaki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 152001 (2004)
478: \bibitem{ja3} Oganesian A.G, hep-ph/0510327
479: \bibitem{koch} Hee-Jung Lee, N.I.Kochelev and V.Vento, Phys.Rev. {\bf
480: D73}:014010, (2006)
481: \bibitem{nblk0} V.L.Eletsky, B.L.Ioffe and Ja.I.Kogan Phys.Lett. {\bf
482: B122}, 423 (1983)
483: \bibitem{nblk} V.M.Belyaev and B.L.Ioffe Sov.Phys.JETP {\bf 56}, (1982) 493
484: \bibitem{nblk1} V.M.Belyaev and B.L.Ioffe Nucl.Phys. {\bf B310} (1988) 548
485: \bibitem{nblk2} B.L.Ioffe and A.V.Smilga Nucl.Phys. {\bf B232} (1984), 109
486: \bibitem{bl2} B.L.Ioffe Prog.Part.Nucl.Phys. 56 (2006) 232
487: \bibitem{nar} Matheus, R.D and Narison, S, hep-ph/0412063
488: \bibitem{niels} F.S. Navarra, M.Nielsen and R. Rodrigues da Silva hep-ph/0510202
489:
490:
491: \end{thebibliography}
492:
493: \newpage
494:
495: \begin{figure}
496: \epsfxsize=5cm \epsfbox{SHR1.EPS} \caption{examples of the
497: diagrams for $d=3$ operator contribution}
498: \end{figure}
499:
500: \begin{figure}
501: \epsfxsize=5cm \epsfbox{SHR2.EPS} \caption{Examples of diagrams
502: for $d=5$ operator contribution, dashed line mean vacuum gluon
503: field, wave line -hard gluon exchange, circles mean derivatives}
504: \end{figure}
505:
506: \begin{figure}
507: \epsfxsize=5cm \epsfbox{SHR3.EPS} \caption{The same as in Fig. 2.
508: for $d=7$ operators}
509: \end{figure}
510:
511: \begin{figure}
512: \epsfxsize=5cm \epsfbox{SHR4.EPS} \caption{examples of the
513: diagrams for $d=9$ operator contribution}
514: \end{figure}
515:
516: \begin{figure}
517: \epsfxsize=5cm \epsfbox{SHR5.EPS} \caption{}
518: \end{figure}
519:
520: \begin{figure} \epsfxsize=15cm \epsfbox{SHR6.EPS}
521: \caption{$g^A_{\theta n}$ dependence on Borel mass for: a)
522: $Q^2=1.5GeV^2$, b) for $Q^2=2.5GeV^2$}
523: \end{figure}
524:
525: \begin{figure}
526: \epsfxsize=5cm \epsfbox{SHR7.EPS} \caption{ $Q^2$ dependence of
527: $g^A_{\theta n}$ for$M_n^2=1.2GeV^2$ -thick (upper)
528: line and for $M_n^2=1.GeV^2$ - thin (lower) line}
529: \end{figure}
530:
531: \end{document}
532: